[0:00] Yeah. Where? Oh, wait. Where's

[0:02] >> She was here.

[0:03] >> She'll be right back.

[0:04] >> All right. It's recording.

[0:07] >> Okay.

[0:10] Let's give her a couple minutes or a

[0:14] minute. Is she on her way?

[0:17] >> Okay. Let's

[0:20] Sorry. Let's call to order. City Council

[0:22] meeting, Alpine City Council meeting for

[0:24] April 14, 2026.

[0:28] Okay. Okay, we'll start with the roll

[0:30] call starting from Councilwoman Muan and

[0:33] then followed by a prayer by

[0:35] Councilwoman Smeuan followed by a pledge

[0:37] led by Councilwoman Blackwell.

[0:39] >> Jessica Smean present.

[0:42] >> Sarah Blackwell present. Chrissy Hanaman

[0:44] present.

[0:44] >> Andrew Young present. Brett Rumbler

[0:46] present. Our

[0:49] Father in heaven, we come before thee

[0:51] this beautiful spring day with gratitude

[0:53] for the time we have to gather together

[0:55] as city officials and as residents to

[1:00] work through our future for our

[1:03] community. We're grateful, Father, for

[1:05] this

[1:07] time that we have to set aside and to

[1:09] prioritize and ask for thy direction and

[1:11] guidance that we will be able to make

[1:14] decisions and we will be able to um be

[1:18] able to hear and to understand each

[1:21] other and that we ask for civility in

[1:24] this time. We are grateful, Father, for

[1:26] our country and for the freedoms we

[1:28] enjoy. And we ask for thy blessings upon

[1:30] all of those that are serving that will

[1:33] that are working and serving keeping us

[1:35] protected to enjoy these freedoms. And

[1:37] we say this thing in the name of Jesus

[1:39] Christ. Amen.

[1:39] >> Amen.

[1:41] >> Please rise for the pledge of

[1:42] allegiance.

[1:44] >> Ready? Begin.

[1:45] I pledge algiance to the flag of the

[1:49] United States of America and to the

[1:52] republic for which it stands, one nation

[1:55] under God, indivisible, with liberty and

[1:58] justice for all.

[2:04] » Okay.

[2:04] >> Recording in progress.

[2:08] » Okay. Okay. We will move on to item two

[2:13] which is the consent calendar. Are there

[2:16] any questions regarding any of the items

[2:18] on the consent calendar?

[2:20] >> I have some questions but would anyone

[2:22] like do are we doing it in an order

[2:24] today?

[2:27] » Yeah.

[2:28] >> Just this might eliminate some questions

[2:31] maybe. So on item D that one can be

[2:36] removed from the agenda. There's some

[2:39] developments that have happened since

[2:40] this went out and so we won't need to

[2:42] have that on there.

[2:43] >> I I appreciate all the emails back and

[2:45] forth and the work that uh everyone's

[2:47] doing to try to help with that.

[2:48] [clears throat and cough] Um you you

[2:51] okay if I just go on a couple others.

[2:52] >> Is there anybody else that has comments?

[2:54] If not, then yeah, we can skip going

[2:56] through the order and you go ahead.

[2:57] >> Okay. Just butt in if if someone has one

[2:59] on one of these. Um let me just go

[3:02] through them. There's like 12 of them.

[3:03] So I'm just getting back to uh yes on

[3:07] the minutes. Let me see.

[3:12] So, uh, on B, the municipal wastewater

[3:17] planning program.

[3:20] Um, I like it. Uh,

[3:25] let me see. Hold on one second.

[3:30] You, uh,

[3:32] you mentioned that there was just a

[3:34] replacement. Basically, we don't talk

[3:35] about this very much, so I was just

[3:37] wanting to get a just a handhold on it.

[3:39] The replacement of the sewer line with a

[3:42] sag in the line. The only reason for

[3:44] bringing this up is just if there's any

[3:45] information we can glean that we don't

[3:48] get too late on something like this. Is

[3:49] this urgent? Is this stuff that we

[3:51] should be No, but that is that the only

[3:52] thing on your radar?

[3:53] >> If if it was, we would have brought it

[3:55] before now. But it's it's a project uh

[3:58] recommended as a capital project on our

[4:01] capital improvement project or our

[4:03] capital improvement plan. And um I just

[4:07] I was talking with the public works guys

[4:09] uh last week and we feel like we

[4:12] probably should take care of this one.

[4:15] >> Okay. Okay.

[4:16] >> It it'll be something coming up.

[4:17] >> Other than that, everything checked out

[4:19] is like excellent condition with the

[4:20] sewers, but

[4:21] >> yeah,

[4:21] >> it's just our sewers in good condition,

[4:23] >> right? It's just that one thing with

[4:25] those uh with the sewer line sag. So,

[4:27] just let us know if that becomes

[4:28] apparent. Um on the uh

[4:32] item C, Sarah Blackwell, I'm got some

[4:35] worries about No, I'm kidding. No, I

[4:37] think it's really good and I guess it

[4:39] goes along with item

[4:44] E. C and E are related because she's

[4:46] going onto the committee, which we all

[4:48] love and are so appreciative. But the

[4:51] [clears throat]

[4:52] letter E on the water management plan.

[4:55] Um I'll bring this up a couple times. I

[4:57] don't know if Heidi if you can pull up

[4:58] an image that I included. I'm I'm a

[5:01] little worried on the management plan

[5:03] that it's too aggressive. When I read

[5:05] it, it's like we'll turn off their water

[5:08] and basically block them if they violate

[5:10] it. Um I I just and then we want like I feel like it's a little harsh on the

[5:16] water plan. I don't know if everyone

[5:17] agrees that uh it's fine as it is. It

[5:19] just seemed like a little bit

[5:21] aggressive.

[5:22] >> So, it's the same plan we've had for

[5:24] like 10 plus years

[5:26] >> and we just turn their water off.

[5:27] >> We can. Yes.

[5:29] >> It's not common though.

[5:30] >> If if there's multiple violations, I

[5:33] mean, on on years when water is

[5:35] plentiful, it's not as much of an issue,

[5:38] but we anticipate

[5:40] a tougher year this year.

[5:42] >> Right. Right.

[5:43] >> And so, we need to have the ability and

[5:44] that's why it's in ordinance format. So,

[5:47] we have an ordinance to back up Okay.

[5:50] >> The actions that are taken.

[5:51] >> So I [clears throat] I mean I understand

[5:53] the penalty. I guess it would be helpful

[5:54] if we offered the residents something

[5:57] besides just like a hammer

[5:59] >> like the first is a warning and then

[6:03] they get a fine and then they get a

[6:04] second fine. I think that turning it off

[6:07] is perfectly um logical after

[6:11] >> the steps that are taken and I think it

[6:14] needs to be taken. if you have issues

[6:15] with it. Um, you know, you've made your

[6:18] statement. Do is there anything else

[6:20] that you wanted to add? You could vote.

[6:22] >> Yeah, you had a question. Yeah. And I

[6:23] only have a couple more.

[6:24] >> Okay.

[6:24] >> Sorry. It's also very standard in util

[6:27] utility companies and governments and

[6:29] HOAs that warning moderate fines and

[6:32] more significant

[6:33] >> electric does it, gas does it. So the

[6:36] question is because it just feels so

[6:37] heavy-handed um if we can also just as a

[6:41] thought process be thinking of ways to

[6:43] help them through these like uh

[6:47] basically droughts that we're about to

[6:48] go through. Not just penalize them but

[6:50] help them because what they're being

[6:52] told is um basically your lawns are the

[6:56] problem. You use too much water. You got

[6:58] to cut back. Your rates are going to go

[7:01] up. And anyways, I'm I'm just trying to

[7:03] provide them some sort of benefit of how

[7:05] they fix it. So, I wrote up some stuff.

[7:06] We can show it later because this water

[7:08] comes up like four times today. So, we

[7:09] can show it later.

[7:11] >> Can I just maybe answer your question,

[7:13] Andrew?

[7:13] >> Yeah. The question is, how can we add

[7:15] some more positive stuff to our water

[7:16] plan that gives them some benefits like

[7:19] rain barrels or something like that

[7:20] where they can store water, they can

[7:22] help versus just if you go wrong, we're

[7:24] cutting you off. So,

[7:27] >> probably

[7:28] go ahead. Well, Chrissy and I and Mayor

[7:31] Oh, sorry, Councilwoman Hanniman and

[7:33] Mayor Merrill and I have all been

[7:36] working with the water committee with

[7:38] Steve and that's one of the things we've

[7:40] discussed is the education part and we

[7:42] want to try to keep all of this positive

[7:45] and not go down like a like you said

[7:47] like a heavy-handed. So, we're working

[7:50] towards that. I don't know if

[7:52] Councilwoman Henman has anything she

[7:54] wants to add to that, but um that is

[7:56] something that we've taken into

[7:58] consideration. Is it our approach?

[8:00] >> I think Okay, thanks. That that does it.

[8:03] >> And I do think um based on the work of

[8:05] the water committee who we've been

[8:07] meeting weekly and so there's a a time

[8:11] is of the essence feeling that helping

[8:14] uh prepare for what the summer lies

[8:16] ahead. So, it is a very very high

[8:18] priority of the city staff who are

[8:22] preparing water fixtures but also

[8:24] messaging to get to our residents. So,

[8:26] just so you know, it's a very high

[8:28] priority just because we're turning on

[8:30] the water tomorrow.

[8:31] >> Okay.

[8:32] >> So,

[8:33] >> okay, that's it. Uh the next one is um

[8:36] the money ones. Uh

[8:40] >> mayor, [clears throat] may I make a

[8:41] suggestion?

[8:42] >> Yes. Yes, if there's some these items

[8:44] are on the consent calendar for a reason

[8:47] and if they need to be subject to

[8:49] further discussion, I think you ought to

[8:51] entertain a motion to remove these items

[8:54] and and put them down below in the

[8:56] action items.

[8:58] >> No, that's excellent suggestion. Also,

[9:00] you know, I know that Shane took out of

[9:04] time with family time yesterday while

[9:06] dealing with funeral and

[9:09] >> asked for questions regarding item on

[9:11] the agenda and took time out of the

[9:14] family while family was doing other

[9:15] things. He went to a separate room and,

[9:18] you know, worked really hard in replying

[9:20] to your questions. Did you send any of

[9:22] these questions to Shane?

[9:23] >> I I was out of town, so I was only able

[9:25] to read them today. I only have three

[9:26] more if you just want to finish them

[9:27] quick. It's just on

[9:28] >> Oh, no. Let's move on. I mean,

[9:30] >> well, but there's there's a money

[9:31] discrepancy on the last one. So, I it'd

[9:33] be quick to ask.

[9:34] >> Okay. So,

[9:35] >> so well, first the there's cemetery and

[9:37] then there's two money ones.

[9:39] >> So, so the cemetery one is a big

[9:41] ordinance and there are just several

[9:43] questions minimum. Could we move that

[9:45] one down?

[9:46] >> You can make a motion for that. But

[9:47] let's finish your one

[9:49] >> money discrepancy and then let's move

[9:51] on.

[9:51] >> So, the money ones are on item G. We uh

[9:54] we approved this is the money

[9:56] discrepancy. We we approved the 300

[9:58] North Well, I think on the 10th.

[10:01] Uh and I think we approved 121,000 for

[10:04] that. Um they were the lowest bid. Um

[10:08] and I was asking Jason, I was like,

[10:09] "This includes everything, right? This

[10:11] includes like there's no extra work."

[10:13] And the response I got was, "Yeah, this includes everything." Um and so the

[10:18] question is with this now changing by

[10:21] $26,000,

[10:23] this would go into one of the higher

[10:24] bids. So I don't know if one of those

[10:26] other bids

[10:26] >> No, that's that's not right. So So the

[10:29] previous bid was components

[10:32] and installation of the pump,

[10:34] >> right?

[10:35] >> Um but this is installation of the

[10:38] electrical components. The electrical

[10:40] components were part of the previous bid

[10:43] but not the installation of those

[10:45] components.

[10:46] >> Oh, just the actual purchase.

[10:47] >> So this is on top of that.

[10:48] >> So would that make this bid still lower

[10:51] than the other two? Do the other two

[10:52] follow the same structure of their bid

[10:54] where they didn't include electrical?

[10:55] >> So the other bids were for the

[10:56] components,

[10:58] >> not for this.

[10:58] >> Not for the electrical.

[11:00] >> Right.

[11:00] >> Um, [snorts] okay.

[11:01] >> Andrew, can I just add something that

[11:03] might be helpful is because this is kind

[11:05] of timesensitive with the water. I

[11:07] talked to Jason about this as well.

[11:09] >> They went with this company because

[11:11] they're well known and trusted and they

[11:14] didn't really have the time the luxury

[11:16] of gathering lots of bids for the

[11:19] electrical side of it.

[11:20] >> Right. Okay. So, because it was that I

[11:22] just didn't know if when we added that

[11:23] if it would have changed the bid numbers

[11:24] on that.

[11:26] >> Um,

[11:26] >> yeah, these these electricians aren't an

[11:28] electrician you'd have come to work on

[11:30] your home.

[11:30] >> No, I know. I know.

[11:31] >> It's different.

[11:32] >> And they added a bunch of stuff too like

[11:33] the new uh control system as well. Okay.

[11:36] That that was the main question.

[11:38] I don't know if I you guys would

[11:39] entertain a motion to move cemeteries.

[11:41] >> Can you make the motion? Can you state

[11:43] it in the form of a motion?

[11:44] >> Uh, yeah. I would make a motion that we

[11:45] move item uh item F down just for some

[11:48] brief discussion because it is so

[11:50] complex.

[11:51] >> Okay. So, let's shorten that motion.

[11:53] There's a motion on the floor to move

[11:56] item F, ordinance 2026-10

[11:59] to um

[12:02] what would it be? Item six. Is there a

[12:05] second for that motion?

[12:09] » Second. It's been moved by council um

[12:13] Min Young, seconded by Councilwoman

[12:15] Smean.

[12:16] Um is there any discussion on the

[12:19] motion? If not,

[12:21] >> in this motion, should we also remove

[12:23] item D?

[12:28] » Yeah, [clears throat] for a future for a

[12:29] future.

[12:30] >> So, are you going to amend your motion?

[12:32] >> Yeah, of course.

[12:32] >> Are you okay with that at the second?

[12:34] Okay. So there's a motion to remove item

[12:36] D and then to move item F to action

[12:41] items. So if there's no discussion,

[12:44] we'll proceed with the roll call vote.

[12:46] >> Jessica Young, yes.

[12:48] >> Sarah Blackwell, yes.

[12:51] >> Chrissy Henman, no.

[12:52] >> Andrew Young, yes. Brent Rmler, yes.

[12:55] >> Okay,

[12:57] let's move on to public comments. I

[13:01] should I need a

[13:02] >> I have a motion for on the consent

[13:04] calendar

[13:06] the rest of it.

[13:07] >> Sorry,

[13:08] >> I threw off. Sorry.

[13:09] >> I move to approve the consent calendar.

[13:12] Um

[13:14] as noted with the removal of item D and

[13:19] F.

[13:20] >> Second.

[13:21] >> Okay. It's been moved by Councilman

[13:23] Smeuan, seconded by Councilman Young

[13:27] um to approve the items left on the

[13:29] consent calendar. [clears throat] Is

[13:31] there any discussion?

[13:34] If not, we'll proceed with a roll call

[13:35] vote. Jessica Sme, yes. Sarah Blackwell,

[13:38] yes.

[13:38] >> Chrissy Ammon, yes.

[13:39] >> Andrew Young, yes. Brent Rumbler, yes.

[13:43] >> Okay. Consent calendar passes as a

[13:46] motion. Um, I'm looking at these public

[13:48] comment cards and usually for public

[13:50] comment,

[13:52] um, it's for topics that are not on the

[13:54] agenda and usually if there's item on

[13:56] the agenda, um,

[13:59] there's a little bit of leeway that as

[14:01] the chair I can allow comments. So, I

[14:03] will ask I believe

[14:09] is it Mr. Hobbs?

[14:11] >> You can't read my handwriting.

[14:12] >> I cannot read your handwriting. What the

[14:14] topic is? What is the topic, Mr. Hobbs?

[14:17] >> I just wanted to come and do some

[14:18] bragging on the public works department.

[14:20] >> Okay. Will you come on up? Come on up.

[14:23] >> I'm an easy one.

[14:29] » All right. So, to help you, that is Jim

[14:31] Hobbs.

[14:32] >> Oh, yeah. I'm sorry.

[14:34] >> If you could say your name and just the

[14:35] state the street that you live in. You

[14:37] don't have to say your house number.

[14:38] >> I I live on Dry Creek Lane.

[14:40] >> Thank you.

[14:43] Anyway, recently we had the public works

[14:45] department have to come in, replace a

[14:47] hydrant, do some yardline work, work

[14:49] with Landon, Jaden. I just wanted to let

[14:52] you know they they are very

[14:54] professional.

[14:56] They they do a great job. They were

[14:58] efficient. They were communicated. They

[15:00] cleaned up behind themselves. They did a

[15:03] fabulous job. We should be proud of them

[15:05] as a city.

[15:07] >> Thank you. Thank you. No, we're very

[15:09] proud of our employees. They work very hard and are multitaskers. I don't

[15:13] know. But our very same public works

[15:16] guys who worked on your street are now

[15:18] helping to preserve the bricks on the

[15:20] Olsen house the last couple days. It's

[15:22] not something that they normally do, but

[15:23] it's a task that they've taken on to

[15:25] save the city additional dollars. So,

[15:28] no, very appreciative, but thank you for

[15:30] coming in and saying something.

[15:31] Appreciate it.

[15:33] >> Okay, we've got Mr. burrows

[15:36] and then um wait no we've got the water

[15:39] management ordinance. Is that on the

[15:41] agenda? I'm sorry.

[15:43] >> And then we've got I think the rest of

[15:46] them are all items on the agenda. So

[15:50] >> yes or no.

[15:52] >> I can't remember. I'm like sorry my mind

[15:54] is a little I've told you I've been up

[15:56] since 1:00 am. Um,

[16:02] » approval of the water management plan.

[16:04] You know, you're up here. Go ahead and

[16:05] say your comment. If you can state your

[16:07] name and your street.

[16:08] >> Steven Burroughs live on Metoark. First

[16:11] of all, thank you for your service to us

[16:13] citizens. Um I take we take as chair of

[16:16] the water committee we take very

[16:18] seriously some of the questions that

[16:20] have been asked and as we've met four

[16:22] times in the last uh 14 days. We are

[16:25] discussing those and and we want to make

[16:28] it an educational process to essentially

[16:31] get converts for the need to conserve.

[16:34] Um and uh second of all as as I see

[16:38] what's going on with in this ordinance

[16:40] in particular I'm very supportive

[16:42] personally. We haven't taken a vote by

[16:44] the committee, but this is in very much

[16:47] in keeping with what we've discussed and

[16:50] what we had hoped for. So, thank you.

[16:54] >> Thank you for your time. I appreciate um

[16:56] your involvement with the committee.

[16:58] Okay. The rest of them will wait until

[17:01] um

[17:02] if we are going to allow public comment

[17:05] as the item comes up.

[17:07] Um at least from what I am reading, that

[17:10] is my take on it. Okay. So, let's move

[17:12] on to um item four, which is reports and

[17:16] presentations.

[17:20] » Okay. Um so, we're at the end of the

[17:23] third quarter and I can if depending on

[17:27] what you want me to do, I can let you

[17:29] review it or I can go over it. You look

[17:32] at the agenda and tell me I can spend

[17:34] five minutes on it. Whatever you want me

[17:35] to do.

[17:39] You have some highlights.

[17:41] Yeah, I mean every

[17:42] >> or any like changes if you have like

[17:45] >> Yeah, we're we're in, you know,

[17:47] everything's good. If you look at the

[17:49] trend, you can see that you know, some

[17:52] things have happened like with projects

[17:54] [cough and clears throat]

[17:55] um with our uh you know the revenue from

[18:00] our property tax and different things

[18:03] is in there. The second graph has the uh

[18:07] utilities. Uh if you notice the pressure

[18:09] irrigation drop down that's uh so I'll

[18:13] just one one last thing the the second

[18:16] to last point on the graphs is the end

[18:20] of the last fiscal year

[18:23] >> the second graph I don't know what

[18:25] >> yes

[18:27] >> so this drop in the green line that's

[18:30] [clears throat] the pressurized

[18:30] irrigation fund balance this uh the

[18:34] point up there at the top the second to

[18:35] last uh data point. That's the end of

[18:38] the last fiscal year and the the last

[18:42] one is the end of the third quarter for

[18:44] this fiscal year. But the reason for the

[18:47] drop there is our project we did on

[18:48] Canyon Crest Road. Uh and then there was

[18:51] some funds that were used to help

[18:53] purchase Carlton shop

[18:56] [clears throat] and that would be the

[18:57] reason for the drop in these other funds

[19:00] as well. You can see here storm drains a

[19:02] little bit steeper because of uh couple

[19:05] of storm drain projects we did last

[19:07] fall.

[19:09] Um the next

[19:10] >> the Carlton the Carlton shop came from

[19:12] which one of those?

[19:13] >> It came from various like five different

[19:15] places.

[19:16] >> Oh, so you grabbed it from multiple

[19:17] because it holds equipment to support

[19:19] all those. Okay.

[19:20] >> That way no one funds getting hit too

[19:23] hard and it just kind of spreads

[19:25] everything out. So, um

[19:30] the the next graph, [clears throat]

[19:32] Heidi, um the one that keeps running

[19:35] uphill is the uh well, that's actually

[19:39] our water impact fees. And as we get

[19:42] into some of these projects that are

[19:44] planned and upcoming, you'll see a a

[19:46] drop in those. Um street impact fees had

[19:51] a pretty significant drop there, and

[19:53] that was because of the purchase of

[19:54] property.

[19:56] um for future street improvements. Um

[20:01] the last sheet actually has a few

[20:03] highlights kind of actually I'll go over

[20:05] the sales tax real quick. Um right now

[20:10] we're just under 5% um year

[20:14] year-over-year on our sales tax revenue.

[20:17] So it's it keeps going up and down.

[20:19] It'll go negative and then it goes over

[20:22] 6% positive. But it's a good lesson in

[20:26] you need more than a month or two for a

[20:28] trend.

[20:30] Uh so that's actually looking good and

[20:33] positive. And then some upcoming

[20:35] expenses. Uh we do have our fire station

[20:39] project. Uh

[20:42] I can update you more on this in

[20:43] communication, but construction drawings

[20:46] are due this week and so things are

[20:48] going to start moving and you'll see

[20:49] activity over here. I'm gonna say

[20:52] probably probably towards the end of

[20:55] May, mid to end of May.

[20:58] U we have some other capital projects

[21:00] that will finish up um through this

[21:02] budget year [clears throat] and then

[21:04] some of the well projects that we've

[21:06] already seen earlier in the agenda that

[21:09] we're we're working on. So,

[21:12] uh still a lot of things going on. Um,

[21:16] now that the water's coming on, we'll uh

[21:19] be able to finish some of the park

[21:20] projects up that needed water to be able

[21:22] to repair sprinklers and different

[21:24] things. But, um, I think very positive

[21:28] finance report in my mind. And we've

[21:31] been working with Science Bake on some

[21:32] things, some potential bonding and

[21:34] things, and it's it's kind of put us in

[21:36] a good place to be able to to bond for

[21:40] some larger projects. So

[21:44] any questions?

[21:48] » Just two minis. Uh

[21:52] the um the Canyon Crest project, am I

[21:56] right in understanding that's one of

[21:58] like 10 segments of that project and we

[22:00] have to continue it on going forward.

[22:03] >> Okay.

[22:04] >> Yeah. Um and then um how do we're coming

[22:07] up on the 2027 or I'm sorry 2026 2027

[22:12] budget year. How how are we looking like

[22:14] and I know we're going to get this when

[22:16] we get to the budget projects. How are

[22:18] we looking excesswise so that we can

[22:21] pursue some of these other budget

[22:23] projects we have? Are we typical? Do we

[22:26] have lots of extra?

[22:28] >> I don't I wouldn't say we have lots of

[22:30] extra. you know, our capital improvement

[22:32] fund, if you look at it, there's about

[22:33] 10 million in there, but um there's

[22:36] three of that. That's well, we've we've

[22:38] spent some money on

[22:40] >> fire

[22:41] >> uh the fire station design and things,

[22:43] but um the construction portion, which

[22:46] will really start to ramp up the

[22:48] expenses, um hasn't started yet.

[22:50] >> Okay.

[22:50] >> Um but there's uh money in there that's

[22:55] reserved for that and some different

[22:57] things. So it it's not as fleshy as it

[23:00] might look on the surface and we'll get into more of that

[23:04] >> in the budget part

[23:05] >> as we get into the budget. Okay. Yes.

[23:06] >> All right. Well, yeah. Just knowing

[23:08] those parameters and walls will help

[23:09] with the budget items. [clears throat]

[23:11] >> Thanks. Thanks for doing all that.

[23:12] >> Yeah.

[23:12] >> Um just one question. Can you again just

[23:16] um tell us what projects we've already

[23:18] bonded for and which ones you anticipate

[23:20] us needing to bond for? Just

[23:22] >> bonded.

[23:23] >> I thought we were paying off a bond.

[23:24] >> We still have one mini one. We only have

[23:26] one bond right now. It's pressure

[23:28] irrigation. I think we've got about five

[23:30] years left on that

[23:31] >> from what 199 Oh, no. 2000 something,

[23:33] right?

[23:34] >> Yeah, it was uh

[23:35] >> is it 797?

[23:36] >> See, 2020, I believe.

[23:39] >> Oh, 2020. So, we had we had the early

[23:41] one way long ago and then this was the

[23:43] second one, right?

[23:43] >> Yeah, we refinanced the original

[23:46] pressure irrigation bond and added a

[23:48] million dollars to it

[23:49] >> to help bring CUP water into the city

[23:53] >> like the Healey Well and stuff.

[23:55] Yeah, it was the filter building mainly

[23:57] and then our portion of the expenses to

[23:59] pipe.

[24:00] >> Sorry, I didn't mean to.

[24:01] >> Oh, no, that's okay.

[24:03] >> So, we're just we're still paying off

[24:04] that one and [snorts] then the fire

[24:05] station and potentially some water.

[24:08] >> Yes, those are the ones that we're

[24:09] looking at. Yes,

[24:10] >> but the fire station and the water

[24:11] haven't been started yet.

[24:13] >> No.

[24:13] >> Okay.

[24:14] >> Well, started.

[24:16] >> I mean,

[24:17] >> they haven't been voted on or approved.

[24:19] >> Yeah, the bonding has not happened.

[24:21] >> The bonding has not started. Yeah,

[24:23] >> the planning phases and all of that is

[24:26] >> well, we would love to be in the loop on

[24:27] that as much as possible

[24:29] >> for the bond.

[24:30] >> Yep. And we'll talk a little bit more

[24:31] about that

[24:32] >> we can

[24:33] >> in a future meeting.

[24:36] >> Okay.

[24:37] >> Even tonight

[24:38] >> and the fire department is sales tax

[24:39] bond. The pressurized irrigation will be

[24:41] based on the rate collection.

[24:43] >> That's that's our thought right now.

[24:46] That's our

[24:46] >> recommendation right now. Yeah.

[24:49] Um this might be what [clears throat]

[24:51] you talk about later but is um with our

[24:55] we have to do our budget by June

[24:58] something.

[24:59] >> So our tenative budget will be on the

[25:01] agenda for the first meeting in May.

[25:03] That's okay. Say code says we have to

[25:05] adopt it by by that meeting and then

[25:08] >> we have to adopt

[25:09] >> adopt the tenative budget

[25:10] >> tenative budget and then the final

[25:12] >> by the May first meeting in May. the the

[25:14] final budget's just by the end of June

[25:16] and we typically do it the last meeting,

[25:19] the second meeting in June.

[25:21] >> That's what would include all our our

[25:23] budget proposals.

[25:24] >> And so um in order to to finance such

[25:27] large projects, when do we have to uh

[25:30] sort of juggle

[25:32] >> the bonding process? Like is that part

[25:35] of the current budget that we have to

[25:37] the future budget that we're we're going

[25:39] to be talking about or is it a separate

[25:41] process? How does that

[25:42] >> it will be part of of

[25:45] this budget discussion because we

[25:47] anticipate some of those bonds um being

[25:49] done in that time frame. But we're

[25:52] actually working right now at science

[25:53] public finance on a calendar and kind of

[25:57] the first steps here at the council

[25:59] meeting um for like a parameters

[26:01] resolution so that we can start that

[26:04] process.

[26:05] >> So will we um how do I want to say this?

[26:08] [clears throat] Are they dependent on

[26:09] each other or working independent of

[26:10] each other?

[26:12] >> Uh well,

[26:13] >> the budget and the bonding.

[26:15] >> They're they're working together.

[26:16] >> Okay. So, they're interdependent.

[26:18] >> Yeah. Because we need to plan for

[26:20] expenses.

[26:21] >> So, they're they're working.

[26:23] >> Okay.

[26:23] >> Side by side.

[26:24] >> Okay. Well, we have a lot to do, don't

[26:26] we? Shane, do you have a

[26:27] >> This is going to be a big year.

[26:28] >> Yeah. Because there's

[26:29] >> competitive budget. Do you have plans to

[26:30] have individual meetings with Yes.

[26:32] >> with council members? And do you have an

[26:34] idea when that will be? I'll be shooting

[26:36] that calendar out this week. Yeah. So,

[26:41] >> okay.

[26:43] Any other questions regarding the

[26:45] third quarter financial report?

[26:47] >> Thank you for doing that with all your

[26:48] family stuff that was going on. That

[26:49] that's appreciative.

[26:50] >> Okay. Let's move on to item five, which

[26:53] is discussion items. Um,

[26:58] we have a proposal to adopt an ordinance

[27:00] regulating the use of golf carts on city

[27:03] roadways.

[27:05] Chrissy, do you want to make that

[27:06] motion?

[27:07] >> I was going um I was looking at the full agenda and

[27:12] thinking that um this maybe isn't as

[27:14] time-sensitive as the other items. And

[27:17] so I'd like to make a motion and

[27:19] hopefully there'll be a second to

[27:21] postpone this uh till the 28th, but not

[27:24] longer than that of April. Does that

[27:28] >> is that as formal as it can be?

[27:30] >> Is that your motion? My motion is to

[27:32] table this until April 28th.

[27:35] >> We have a motion to table. Is there a

[27:37] second?

[27:40] >> I can second it.

[27:41] >> Okay. [clears throat] It's been moved by

[27:42] Councilwoman Hanaman, seconded by

[27:44] Councilman Young to table item A, which

[27:49] is a proposal to um the discussion item

[27:52] to for the ordinance regulating the use

[27:54] of golf carts in the cities and

[27:56] roadways. Um let's proceed with the roll

[27:58] call vote.

[27:59] >> Jessica Smeon. Yes. Can I ask a question

[28:01] first?

[28:01] >> Yeah. A brief discussion.

[28:02] >> No, actually there's no discussion on

[28:04] tableabling. I just went over our

[28:05] >> I just want to know are we do we

[28:07] anticipate a better a less busy agenda?

[28:10] >> I can't ask. Sorry.

[28:11] >> I don't I haven't even looked at it.

[28:13] >> Depends on how many things you guys.

[28:15] >> All right. Well, can you put it at the

[28:16] top of the list?

[28:17] >> All right.

[28:18] >> So, right now the motion is at hand. Is

[28:20] there Let's proceed with the roll call

[28:22] vote.

[28:23] >> Jessica Simone, yes.

[28:25] >> Sarah Blackwell, yes.

[28:26] >> Chrissy Anaman, yes.

[28:28] >> Andrew Young, yes. Brent Rler. Yes.

[28:30] >> Okay. Um,

[28:32] >> is there post?

[28:35] » No.

[28:37] >> Just as a post discussion on that, just

[28:39] to give some background for residents

[28:41] and anyone concerned, we had a group of

[28:44] residents wanting to push this forward.

[28:46] We saw that the schedule was so busy

[28:48] today. Chrissy asked and we asked the

[28:50] residents and they said that would be

[28:51] okay and they wanted all of you to be

[28:53] comfortable with the time. So, they're

[28:54] supportive and hopeful that this can be

[28:56] at the next meeting. I wish you would

[28:58] have told me so I wouldn't have spent so

[28:59] much time researching. I'm sorry.

[29:01] >> Okay, let's move on to item B. Review of

[29:04] Main Street and Gateway Corridor will be

[29:06] useful next week. I know.

[29:08] >> So, um

[29:10] Shane, are we are you taking that or

[29:13] >> um

[29:14] >> or is Ryan on?

[29:15] >> Ryan Ryan, are you on?

[29:17] >> No, he's not yet. He said he's going to

[29:18] tell us as soon as he's on.

[29:21] >> So, he he has their planning commission

[29:23] on or on this Tuesday night.

[29:25] >> Okay, that's

[29:25] >> I think it starts at 5 though. He

[29:27] anticipated it not taking too long.

[29:29] >> Okay.

[29:30] >> So maybe we can just switch the

[29:31] >> agenda to item C then budget. So let's

[29:34] go move to FY2027

[29:37] budget projects.

[29:42] » Mayor introduce

[29:44] >> Oh, I'm sorry you guys. While we're

[29:45] waiting, um wanted to introduce our new

[29:48] assistant as city administrator, Kaden.

[29:51] Um I you know when I first came back I

[29:54] asked how he was doing and it sounds

[29:56] like he is really just diving in and um

[29:59] taking ownership of his duties and is

[30:03] really been self-sufficient and I think

[30:05] he's going to be awesome. So take please

[30:07] take the time to introduce yourself um

[30:09] and get to know him and as he'll be

[30:12] working very closely with council moving

[30:13] forward.

[30:15] >> Yep. We're excited to have you.

[30:16] >> Thank you. Thank you every

[30:21] Okay. So, uh, leading up to, you know,

[30:24] Chrissy mentioned the tenative budget.

[30:25] Leading up to this, um,

[30:28] you guys haven't haven't seen kind of

[30:30] the project list, uh, with, I mean, we

[30:33] had a retreat and projects that were

[30:36] requested to be potentially part of this

[30:38] budget, but you had not seen that list

[30:40] with our other kind of maintenance

[30:42] activities and different projects like

[30:44] that that we typically have within our

[30:46] budget. So, we put these in here. This

[30:49] isn't by any means finalized. There's

[30:52] some estimates in here. There's one one

[30:55] that's um

[30:57] uh the one roundabout in here. I put the

[31:00] wrong cost in, but it will likely be

[31:04] over two budget years. Um so, it'll

[31:06] probably end up reducing from this

[31:08] number.

[31:10] But I [clears throat] wanted to make

[31:12] sure

[31:13] uh so just to back up, the projects in

[31:16] yellow are the projects that were

[31:17] discussed in the retreat. Um the other

[31:20] projects are are things that we've had

[31:24] in our budget pretty much year after

[31:26] year. Some are general in nature. Um for

[31:28] example, crosswalk improvements or

[31:31] miscellaneous trail improvements,

[31:34] tree uh removal and trimming. There's

[31:37] not like a target spot usually at this

[31:39] point in the budget, but they're funds

[31:41] that, you know, we usually

[31:43] uh update a crosswalk or have some kind

[31:46] of trail improvements that come up as,

[31:48] you know, some expenses as part of trail

[31:50] day or something like that.

[31:52] Um so those projects are there. Uh the

[31:57] uh fire station project

[32:00] is here. Um

[32:04] so on this

[32:09] In the current budget year, we have we

[32:11] budgeted $3 million to go towards this

[32:14] project.

[32:15] Um,

[32:18] we've expanded

[32:20] it's like 400 I I estimate we'll be

[32:22] around 500,000 by the end of the budget

[32:25] year. So that leaves two and a half

[32:27] million that was budgeted here that

[32:30] would roll over into the next year.

[32:33] Um and then uh what I'm suggesting is

[32:37] that we budget 500,000

[32:40] from the general fund um for this

[32:44] project and then there will be some

[32:47] depending on the bids and everything

[32:49] that uh we get. We'll have that number

[32:52] later

[32:53] um that we budget some in the next

[32:55] budget year and then we'll bond for that

[32:58] difference of $2 million.

[33:02] So, we're hopeful uh the prices will

[33:05] come in really well and that some of the

[33:08] contingencies that are already built

[33:09] into the project won't be needed. Um but

[33:13] we don't we're not comfortable enough at

[33:15] this point to pull those back.

[33:18] Um we're getting close on the design

[33:20] contingency because construction

[33:22] drawings are almost done and I think

[33:24] there will be money left in there. Um,

[33:27] so it's possible that this 500,000

[33:30] number could be reduced and kind of

[33:32] split

[33:34] uh the difference between the two the money we've already budgeted the 2

[33:38] million bond and the difference to make

[33:42] up that roughly I think it was 5 eight

[33:46] >> 8 million right around there. Um, so

[33:50] that's that that's what we're suggesting

[33:52] at this point for [clears throat] that

[33:54] project

[33:55] >> Shane on that project. Uh so if we do if

[33:57] we do we've got three

[34:00] already budgeted for it from 2025 2026

[34:02] 2.5 is going to be used

[34:05] >> and then you're ask you're saying for

[34:06] this coming 2026 2027 another 500 that

[34:10] puts us at 3.5

[34:12] >> are you just assuming that are you

[34:14] thinking that 2027 2028 will be the the

[34:16] remaining of the 5.8 eight.

[34:20] >> Yeah. So,

[34:21] >> or or is the rest all coming from bond?

[34:23] Is that

[34:23] >> So, it's kind of confusing. We budgeted

[34:25] 3 million in FY26.

[34:28] >> By the end of June, I estimate we'll

[34:31] have expanded about 500,000 of that in

[34:33] design,

[34:34] >> right?

[34:35] >> So, that will leave 2.5 million that

[34:37] we'll just earmark for this project.

[34:41] >> The additional 500,000 is proposed to

[34:44] come from the general fund

[34:45] >> for 226. That would make the 3 million

[34:48] in this total column.

[34:49] >> Okay.

[34:50] >> And then we'd have $2 million bond. That

[34:52] puts us, I think, at 5.5. And then

[34:55] 500,000 from FY28

[34:58] is what I would suggest.

[35:00] >> The 20.

[35:00] >> Okay.

[35:01] >> And hopefully that number will come down

[35:03] with these contingencies and stuff that

[35:04] we have. And hopefully we get good

[35:06] pricing, which our our contractor says

[35:08] they're really seeing a competitive

[35:10] market right now with their bids. So

[35:15] >> and we'll have that number before we

[35:17] adopt our final budget. We'll have our

[35:20] guaranteed maximum price and so we can

[35:23] make some adjustments once we get that

[35:26] um and make a plan for these next two

[35:29] budget years.

[35:31] >> Thanks.

[35:31] >> So okay,

[35:33] >> I did skip over one the very first one

[35:35] on here uh street projects. We've been budgeting uh a million

[35:42] dollars. Um and our I think our streets

[35:45] are really coming along and we're

[35:48] getting I think closer than we've ever

[35:50] been to being caught up

[35:54] um and being more of a silo maintenance

[35:58] um and spending less on overlays, but we

[36:00] still have some work to do. Um

[36:04] but

[36:06] uh most of that money is coming from our

[36:09] class E road funds

[36:12] and in that fund

[36:15] sheet here

[36:17] right now we have

[36:20] uh like 986,000

[36:22] in there. We try to stay about a year

[36:25] ahead so we have a year's worth of class

[36:30] C road money. um basically in the bank

[36:34] in case we have a bad winter and roads

[36:36] blow up, which we have had happen

[36:38] before. Um

[36:41] so

[36:42] we're we're essentially spending what we

[36:45] get for that year plus a little bit from

[36:48] the general fund. I've plugged in

[36:51] 162,000.

[36:53] So the adjustments of valves and

[36:55] manholes and those things, we take a

[36:57] little bit of money from our utility

[36:59] funds. um since those are related to

[37:02] those utilities and let them help pay

[37:04] for those adjustments.

[37:06] >> Is there any update on the three falls

[37:08] landslide mitigation?

[37:11] >> Yeah. Um

[37:14] actually that's the next project we're

[37:15] going to talk about anyway. So

[37:17] >> perfect.

[37:18] >> It's just one that frankly we haven't

[37:20] been able to get to and we've had dry

[37:22] years. It hasn't been too much of a

[37:24] concern. It's the wet years where they

[37:26] typically move. But um we it is one that

[37:31] we need to get something done on. So

[37:35] >> Shane, do you want the sidewalk budget

[37:37] that we propose to be part of that or do

[37:40] you want them to stay separate?

[37:43] >> Part of the first item here.

[37:44] >> Yeah. Part of the street maintenance.

[37:46] >> Um it depends on the level,

[37:50] >> you know, that you want to fund that at.

[37:53] I I just picked a number uh that's down

[37:59] Okay.

[38:00] >> The intention of the budget item was

[38:02] like when personal residents would ask

[38:05] for

[38:06] >> Yeah.

[38:06] >> Uh like specific areas to have sidewalk.

[38:10] Does that fit into that or should it be

[38:11] combined or

[38:12] >> So that's the fourth item down in

[38:14] yellow,

[38:14] >> right? Yeah.

[38:15] >> And I just I plugged a number in there.

[38:17] >> No, I like Hey, I'll take I'll take

[38:19] anything.

[38:20] >> So,

[38:21] >> yeah.

[38:21] >> Okay. Well, if you need them separate,

[38:22] we can have them separate. If you want

[38:23] them together, just let me know. I can

[38:25] throw it into that. Could you just

[38:26] briefly explain the three falls

[38:28] mitigation project? I looked in our

[38:30] binder from our budget retreat. I didn't

[38:32] see it in there. So,

[38:33] >> yeah, it it wasn't in there. So,

[38:36] what year was it? We had the really wet

[38:38] winter.

[38:39] >> It was 24 cuz I think that was my first

[38:41] year.

[38:42] >> 24 city.

[38:43] >> Okay. So, in 2024,

[38:46] um there's an area up in Three Falls.

[38:48] that's in public open space that uh got

[38:51] very wet and we had a some land move up

[38:54] there.

[38:56] And so uh it all happened within like a

[39:00] week because I know because I was up

[39:02] there looking at a project and

[39:04] everything was fine. And a week later we

[39:06] get a call from somebody that was up

[39:09] there walking. It's either

[39:12] late winter, early spring and like the

[39:15] road would buckle. I'm like, I was just

[39:18] up there like a week ago. There's no way

[39:19] this happened. We drive up there and

[39:21] sure enough, one side of the road's down

[39:22] here and the other's like this. So, the

[39:24] land had slipped down and bulged the toe

[39:28] of the landslide

[39:31] had had bulged uh the road. Um,

[39:36] and so we we got a consultant to kind of

[39:40] review things, uh, look at it. Um, we

[39:43] put some markers in the ground for over

[39:46] a year. Uh, we surveyed and there was no

[39:50] more movement. It had just kind of

[39:53] stopped. Um, but there is a house below

[39:56] it and it's something that we need to

[39:59] look at mitigation measures. Um, and it

[40:04] there's different ways to do it. Um, it

[40:07] will be expensive. Um, we don't have

[40:11] expertise in it. we've got to get a

[40:14] consultant on board to make some

[40:16] recommendations and look at different

[40:17] options and see what's most cost

[40:19] effective to address it.

[40:21] So, and during all that, we didn't have

[40:24] an engineer besides me for like 15

[40:29] months. And it's it's just a time to get

[40:32] a project put together um get a bid out,

[40:35] get somebody on board to get some

[40:37] drawings done and then we can bid it out

[40:39] for the construction side of it. So, um,

[40:43] but we'll we'll get that we'll get that

[40:46] moving.

[40:47] [clears throat]

[40:49] >> Um,

[40:50] >> Sarah, did that make sense?

[40:51] >> Last year, did we have a a placeholder

[40:53] in the budget for that with certain

[40:54] amount, but we didn't know the cost?

[40:56] >> We did. And it's it's from it's from the

[40:59] capital improvement fund. It was our

[41:01] estimate of 500,000. So this is

[41:04] I think one of the only

[41:08] rollover

[41:09] projects that hasn't been started.

[41:12] [clears throat] Um so the money is still

[41:14] in the capital improvement fund. Um but

[41:18] it's it's one of those things that we

[41:19] need to consider as we talk about you

[41:21] know what's left for other projects. So

[41:25] and we'll get into that in more detail

[41:27] in the next next phase of the budget.

[41:29] And Shane is for the MAG project on

[41:32] Canyon Crest the 5.4 million is that

[41:35] just our portion or the cost of the

[41:37] entire project for Island and Alpine?

[41:39] >> That's actually the cost of the entire

[41:41] project. So that's not going to be the

[41:43] cost to us,

[41:44] >> right?

[41:45] >> Um

[41:47] uh yeah, it was kind of a weird one

[41:49] where it's split between us and

[41:51] Highland. It's it's kind of a weird one

[41:53] to address in the budget, but that's why

[41:56] we put most of that in the grant column

[42:00] in blue.

[42:02] [clears throat] And on that project, um

[42:04] it's looking very much like that will be

[42:06] a project done next summer, not this

[42:09] summer, unfortunately. There are some

[42:12] benefits to it. uh with the roundabout

[42:14] that's under consideration.

[42:16] Uh the MAG

[42:19] uh projects will be decided on in

[42:22] August. And so if you remember our

[42:24] discussion, if we were awarded and and

[42:27] we made the first cut, if we were

[42:29] awarded that project, we could build it

[42:32] and then get reimbursed in four years.

[42:35] And so the timing of next year versus

[42:37] this summer is in a way better for that.

[42:41] At least in my mind it is. Yeah.

[42:46] [clears throat] Um,

[42:48] so that project I put a million in here.

[42:50] It's actually a million and a half was

[42:52] the last kind of I would call bet. It's

[42:55] a pretty good estimate I would say. Um

[43:00] but what what we submitted to MAG

[43:03] because of the requirements they have

[43:05] and doing things to UD standards was

[43:08] actually more like 2 million. So

[43:14] um let's see.

[43:17] So some of these other projects uh

[43:22] like the weatherbased sprinkler

[43:24] controllers, we've done all of our big

[43:26] parks now. So now it's just some small

[43:28] ones. So I cut that back from like 40 to

[43:30] 20,000, but I increased uh things like

[43:35] tree trimming. I doubled it because we actually ended up having a company

[43:40] come into Creekide Park this year and do

[43:44] a bunch of tree trimming and it was well

[43:46] needed and it's something that we're

[43:48] going to

[43:49] >> focus on a little bit more.

[43:50] >> They did on a lot of the streets too,

[43:51] right?

[43:52] >> By Creek Side up and down. Uh, no. This

[43:55] is all within the park, but the power

[43:57] company has a contractor come out and do

[43:59] tree trimming. You may have seen them.

[44:01] I've heard they're in town.

[44:03] >> They are. They've been doing Main

[44:04] Street.

[44:05] >> Yeah. Um,

[44:08] and so, basically, I wanted to see if

[44:12] Oh, there's one more. I want to talk in

[44:14] detail about the water projects. I

[44:16] included a

[44:18] >> letter from John.

[44:19] >> The Horox letter was helpful. And you

[44:22] know, he's saying, "Yeah, you could go

[44:24] do the pipeline, but it's it's estimated

[44:27] at $18 million versus 9 million for

[44:30] these other projects."

[44:31] >> Yeah, I saw that number.

[44:32] >> And so,

[44:34] >> uh,

[44:34] >> but thank you for asking him in that to

[44:37] give us the best bang for our buck, what

[44:39] our like immediate need is. I I thought

[44:41] that was really helpful

[44:42] >> and that's exactly what I asked him for.

[44:44] And

[44:44] >> awesome. Thank you. So, I've been

[44:46] working with Zans's on this one as well,

[44:49] and I asked them to give us some numbers

[44:51] for a $9 million bond

[44:54] over 25 years. And the bond payment on

[44:58] that would be about 600,000

[45:00] >> over the life, right?

[45:02] >> Annually?

[45:02] >> No, not annually.

[45:04] >> Annually? Annually?

[45:05] >> Oh, that's I thought it was 150.

[45:07] >> Annually, no, that was for the fire

[45:09] station fire station.

[45:10] >> Station.

[45:11] >> Oh, 150.

[45:12] >> Yeah.

[45:14] So,

[45:14] >> and then and then that and you're

[45:16] thinking that bond since we're on water

[45:17] project is for the uh the uh well up at

[45:22] >> it would be the well,

[45:23] >> the Heritage Hills well.

[45:25] >> Um the 400 West Booster Station and a

[45:29] bunch of piping that goes with it.

[45:32] And so what it's doing is freeing up

[45:35] water in one zone

[45:38] by taking it's it's shuffling water

[45:41] basically giving us the ability to

[45:42] shuffle water.

[45:44] >> Yeah. I saw he said it would it would

[45:45] help everywhere basically but the west

[45:47] side, right?

[45:48] >> Yep.

[45:48] >> Okay.

[45:49] >> And that so that those $600,000 annual

[45:53] payments would come out of the

[45:55] enterprise fund, the collection of of

[45:57] fees, not a tax draw. That's that's the

[46:01] way we're looking at it right now. A

[46:02] revenue bond. Um

[46:05] >> so

[46:07] they look at both of our they

[46:10] in looking at this they look at both

[46:13] revenues from our PI and culinary water

[46:16] systems.

[46:18] Even though the improvements really

[46:19] should be funded from the PI system,

[46:23] that's the way our bond is right now.

[46:25] And I don't understand all the details,

[46:28] but they said that's they call it parody

[46:30] and that's how it has to stay so that

[46:33] everything's on the same playing field.

[46:35] And Mark will come and and give us more

[46:37] explanation on that.

[46:40] Um,

[46:42] but we would probably have to raise PI

[46:45] rates really to have that utility pay

[46:48] for it. Even though to qualify for the

[46:51] bond and have the coverage, they're

[46:52] looking at revenue streams from both

[46:55] water systems.

[46:57] Um, and I think that's only fair because

[46:59] there will be improvements needed in the

[47:01] culinary system as well.

[47:04] Um, we're very hopeful that we'll get a

[47:06] grant um for the culinary water tank.

[47:10] Uh,

[47:12] the mayor put a ton of work into this

[47:14] and we got a call the other day just

[47:17] asking a couple of questions. Uh, one,

[47:20] is it finished water? And two, what our

[47:22] water system number is. There weren't any details they were looking

[47:26] for. So, I think the bases were covered.

[47:29] I'm not sure what the timeline is on

[47:31] that, but but it would be very helpful

[47:33] and awesome if we got that.

[47:34] >> Yeah, I think we're supposed to find out

[47:36] within the next month and a half. It was

[47:38] a quick It was a pretty quick

[47:39] turnaround.

[47:40] >> Yeah.

[47:42] Um, [clears throat]

[47:44] so I guess what I'd like to know from

[47:47] the council is are are there any

[47:51] concerns with these projects that aren't

[47:53] in white.

[47:55] They're pretty standard from year to

[47:57] year things that that we plug in here.

[48:02] Um,

[48:03] >> sorry. Did you ask if there are concerns

[48:04] on the ones in white or the ones not in

[48:06] white?

[48:07] >> Well, the ones in white and then we can

[48:10] integrate,

[48:11] you know, as we pair things down. Um,

[48:14] the ones in yellow. I did make some

[48:16] suggestions on these ones in yellow.

[48:20] For example, the roundabout, you know,

[48:22] we applied for this grant. Um,

[48:26] we can, this project would start

[48:29] probably next spring

[48:32] is what I'd anticipate the Cany Crest

[48:34] project and if we did a roundabout, uh,

[48:37] I would anticipate it being part of the

[48:38] same same project.

[48:41] Um,

[48:45] then

[48:47] let's see, the ranch drive extension. I

[48:50] think this is just a planning effort at

[48:52] this point

[48:54] because realistically there's there's a

[48:56] lot of things that would have to fall in

[48:58] place for that to happen besides it

[49:00] would be very expensive. But I think a

[49:03] planning effort for sure is warranted

[49:05] and we could include you know the funds

[49:07] for that planning in this budget year.

[49:11] >> Can we utilize MAG's TA grants for that

[49:14] for the planning portion?

[49:17] >> It's a good question.

[49:19] We can ask.

[49:20] >> I'll ask

[49:24] » um the Beex Hill Park Restoration. This

[49:27] will be jumping just just a little bit

[49:30] ahead to a communication item, but um

[49:32] our parks master plan is underway. Um

[49:37] we'll talk uh in communication about uh

[49:41] steering committee. Um, we've planned a

[49:43] public meeting that will be noticed for

[49:47] May 13th. I believe that's a Wednesday.

[49:52] Um, where they'll, you know, we'll

[49:54] advertise it, get the public to come in.

[49:57] Um, they can tell us what they think we

[49:59] should do in these parks, where they,

[50:02] you know, think we have needs, what

[50:04] their ideas are for, uh, Beexill Park

[50:07] and that property the city owns there.

[50:10] uh Peterson Park and just really start

[50:14] into that process. Um but my

[50:18] recommendation, and you don't have to

[50:19] take it, if you want to go a different

[50:21] direction, that's totally fine. We'll do

[50:22] whatever you want, is for that one and

[50:26] for the Peterson Parking lot with those

[50:30] two projects, maybe see what comes out

[50:32] of this parks plan and then move forward

[50:36] from there.

[50:38] Otherwise, it kind of feels like we're

[50:40] injecting something in before the parks

[50:42] plan is created. And they might you

[50:46] might find that the public wants

[50:47] something different. I don't I don't

[50:48] know. It's just an idea.

[50:50] >> As part of the public [clears throat]

[50:52] meeting for the parks plan, are they

[50:54] going to be given some preliminary

[50:56] thoughts and ideas or are you just

[50:57] asking for cold ideas?

[50:59] >> Not on this one. This one I believe is

[51:01] collecting ideas and then like um I

[51:06] remember back on Creekide Park they had

[51:08] a sharet and they just had like maps

[51:11] where people could draw on them. We

[51:13] think there should be this back then

[51:16] somebody wanted outdoor raetball courts

[51:18] and so they could write that on that

[51:20] plan and all those things would be

[51:22] considered and then this won't be the

[51:24] only public meeting. [clears throat] So

[51:26] then we'll start getting into other

[51:29] ideas and and start kind of narrowing it

[51:32] down.

[51:33] >> Perfect.

[51:34] >> And the second question or thought is we

[51:36] talked in our previous budget meeting

[51:37] about Peterson Park being a priority

[51:40] because of the Canyon Crest project, but

[51:42] now that that's going to be pushed back

[51:43] to 2027, it should still meet with the

[51:46] time frame of of the park's master plan

[51:51] establishing priorities. But I still

[51:52] think that should be a priority because

[51:53] we're already tearing up that little

[51:55] corner and

[51:56] >> be a good time to work on Peterson Park.

[51:59] >> Yeah. And I think we can share the

[52:01] information um as it's work for

[52:05] roundabout or whatever. I've already

[52:07] told our consultant that we own that

[52:09] house and uh we're looking at a

[52:12] roundabout there and so they're aware of

[52:14] that and they can kind of plan around

[52:18] it. So yeah. So I think all those things

[52:23] >> come together at a really good time.

[52:25] Yes.

[52:25] >> Just just so everybody's aware, the

[52:27] meeting is in May. So we're not talking

[52:29] about the first public meeting.

[52:31] >> Yeah. Is in May.

[52:32] >> Is it May 13th?

[52:33] >> May 13th.

[52:34] >> I think I think the residents and I'm

[52:36] good with taking the guidance from that

[52:39] uh those plans that you're that's that

[52:42] are coming together before uh pushing

[52:45] things towards I think that's I think it

[52:47] will form that whole budget item. Yeah,

[52:49] I I think it's good planning and it

[52:51] might be we're talking more about the

[52:53] details of those projects in next year's

[52:55] budget instead of this, you know what I

[52:56] mean? Instead of

[52:57] >> maybe if there's some money available,

[52:59] we could just allot it to that but not

[53:01] specify it to what goes in those parks

[53:04] and tell the plan.

[53:04] >> That's a way to approach it.

[53:05] >> Even just 20 grand or something just so

[53:07] they can get started.

[53:09] >> Okay. And with that, uh, our consultant,

[53:14] uh, already has a website established.

[53:16] We haven't pushed it out there yet

[53:17] because we didn't want to get it too far

[53:19] ahead of their survey. And oh, I forgot

[53:22] to mention that they're they're

[53:23] preparing this survey as well.

[53:26] And so all those things will kind of

[53:28] come together leading up to that uh May

[53:30] 13th meeting.

[53:32] >> So what is the plan for getting notice

[53:34] out

[53:35] uh well in advance so people don't wait

[53:38] have to see it on the sign a couple days

[53:40] before? So, uh, social media news line,

[53:45] uh, we talked about a banner at the sign

[53:47] in the roundabout. Um, we even talked

[53:50] about, uh, using our Everbridge system,

[53:55] just a short, hey, you know, city's

[53:57] working on parks master plan, public

[53:59] meeting, May 13, 7 p.m. or 6 p.m., what,

[54:02] whatever time it is. Um, we talked about

[54:06] all those different ways to do that.

[54:08] >> Brad, do you like the banners? So, I

[54:09] thought the banners have been working

[54:11] pretty well for the meetings.

[54:12] >> I think the banners are great just as

[54:13] long as they go out well in advance and

[54:15] not just a couple days before,

[54:16] >> like a week or two.

[54:18] >> The banner signs been great. We haven't

[54:19] lost We haven't had the wind take

[54:21] anything out and it's always looks neat

[54:23] and tidy.

[54:23] >> I just mean like for getting the word

[54:25] out. People call me and they're like,

[54:26] "Are you going to this meeting?" So,

[54:28] it's people are seeing it.

[54:30] >> Yeah.

[54:30] >> Isn't there also a way to sign up from

[54:33] to receive notifications on the website

[54:35] as well? Yes. Right. Okay. So,

[54:37] >> Yep.

[54:39] Yeah, those come out just like a

[54:40] [laughter] day or two before.

[54:41] >> We can reach out to those neighbors

[54:43] around those areas as well because those

[54:45] are the ones who I mean everyone will

[54:46] have input, but the ones who live around

[54:47] there are really interested in it. I'm

[54:49] sure they'd want to come.

[54:50] >> Well, it's not just those two parks.

[54:52] It's throughout the whole city. So, it's

[54:54] really everything.

[54:56] >> Yeah.

[54:56] >> All right. Everyone then.

[54:58] >> Mhm. Yep. So, we'll do everything we can

[55:01] to get the word out on those.

[55:04] Um, but if if we this will help us

[55:07] narrow down as we work on this budget.

[55:10] Is that approach good on those two

[55:12] parks?

[55:13] >> Is that is that okay?

[55:16] >> All right. Um,

[55:17] >> wait, which two parks are you referring

[55:19] to specifically?

[55:20] >> Peterson Park and Becktail Park.

[55:23] >> The two parks that are in the

[55:25] >> yellow park.

[55:28] >> Um, why am I not finding Peterson?

[55:32] >> Peterson.

[55:32] >> It's I see.

[55:34] >> It says parking lot at Peterson Park.

[55:36] >> Yeah,

[55:37] >> it's the

[55:38] >> It's just right under

[55:38] >> Beck under the Beex Hill.

[55:40] >> Right above the best one. Raccoon Plan.

[55:43] >> Oh, you're saying that we're propo Okay.

[55:46] You're saying that we're proposing We're

[55:48] proposing to wait till to move those

[55:51] after the master plan.

[55:52] >> Yeah. To be honest to what I'm saying.

[55:54] >> I thought you were saying everything was

[55:56] going to the after the master plan, but

[55:58] these two, but no.

[56:02] >> Okay.

[56:03] Um

[56:05] >> Shane, since you're about there, I don't

[56:07] know if you're going to go to the other

[56:08] ones, but the traffic calming one, is

[56:10] that the whole the big traffic calming

[56:13] one with like entrance signs and

[56:15] everything? Is that that

[56:16] >> that's that's the project. I didn't I

[56:18] didn't put a number in there because

[56:20] >> Do you want me to try to find some

[56:21] numbers and research? I I think it's going to be the council

[56:26] saying

[56:28] we want to do this project. We're

[56:30] willing to budget X dollars for this

[56:33] budget year.

[56:34] >> Okay.

[56:34] >> And then

[56:36] if we get 50 things in for X dollars,

[56:39] great. If we get five things in for X

[56:42] dollars, that's what it will be for that

[56:43] budget year. That's what I would suggest

[56:45] starting out.

[56:46] >> Okay.

[56:48] Um,

[56:50] and as I pair this down, I can I can put

[56:53] a number in there that fits or if you

[56:55] have a suggestion, I'm happy to take

[56:57] that.

[56:57] >> Okay.

[56:58] >> As well.

[56:58] >> So, for me, what would be really helpful

[57:00] is um as we look at these numbers, how

[57:03] much we have left in the accounts for

[57:06] each of these allocations.

[57:07] >> Yeah.

[57:08] >> To see whether we actually have the

[57:10] money. I mean, these are all um notable

[57:12] projects. Um, but it's a good way to,

[57:16] you know, help us prioritize to see what

[57:19] pool of money we have to draw from. I

[57:21] mean, if we don't have the money, then

[57:22] we shouldn't even be considering, but if

[57:24] we do, great. Then let's start

[57:25] prioritizing what we have,

[57:26] >> right? And you'll see more detail on

[57:28] that in this next step.

[57:30] >> On Carla's thought there, that's what I

[57:32] was um I'll you can go through the list,

[57:35] but is the $12 million the total of this

[57:38] entire column?

[57:41] >> Yeah, but 5.4 before that's

[57:44] >> the candy crest project.

[57:46] >> Right. Right. So, um I guess I'll let

[57:50] you finish, but like I was just

[57:52] wondering

[57:54] um [clears throat] yeah, some some more

[57:56] how's this spreadsheet going to come

[57:59] together like in as far as a budget?

[58:02] Well, if you look at the bottom,

[58:05] not not the total, but over in the the

[58:07] colored portion to the right. Um, those

[58:10] will be the numbers that we'll focus on

[58:12] from one fund to another.

[58:15] >> Well, if I'm understanding, and I have

[58:17] looked at this so many times and still

[58:19] am interpreting, um, the general fund is

[58:22] the light peach, and that's annual

[58:24] revenues coming in fresh like in the in

[58:28] the next calendar in the next fiscal

[58:30] year. Whereas the orange is more of our

[58:32] things we've earmarked for the future

[58:35] >> that will be pulled from the 10 million

[58:37] there at the bottom.

[58:39] >> Um so the first two columns of the the

[58:41] darker orange they're

[58:44] >> I would call them more restricted like

[58:46] park funds. Oh yeah go spend those on

[58:48] streets. The next column class C we

[58:51] can't go spend those on parks.

[58:53] >> So those would stay in in those two.

[58:55] >> Oh I see what you're saying. The third

[58:57] one, capital improvements, is the more

[58:59] flexible one.

[59:00] >> But you're saying if we if we go with

[59:02] everything in white, doing the cross

[59:05] here, everything in white, we're going

[59:07] to pull uh 3.1

[59:10] million from the fund balance. And most

[59:14] of that is our fire station

[59:16] >> and the three falls mitigation. That's

[59:18] $3 million together, [snorts] right? Is

[59:21] that what you're saying?

[59:22] >> Yeah. And this this isn't built out.

[59:25] These yellow projects aren't built out

[59:27] yet,

[59:27] >> right? I can see that they're blank

[59:29] going across the whole thing. So, in

[59:31] general, how that's I think what Carla's

[59:33] getting to is um we're already

[59:36] allocating close to

[59:40] 700,000

[59:41] of the 2027 budget in the light peach.

[59:45] So, if there's if we have 2 million,

[59:48] then we have 1.3 left or if there's um 1

[59:52] million, we have, you know, something

[59:53] different. So, do we know what's what we

[59:57] could allocate in the peach column for

[1:00:00] projects yet?

[1:00:01] >> That will be in the next step of the

[1:00:03] budget. We'll have a lot of detail on

[1:00:05] that projected revenues and things. So,

[1:00:09] we'll know those numbers. I think at one

[1:00:12] point I did make a suggestion and it was

[1:00:14] sort of uh we got to the end of our

[1:00:16] retreat, but if um we do have projects

[1:00:18] and we know how much money we have to

[1:00:20] spend that we go through a a matrix

[1:00:23] rating where we all would just rank it

[1:00:26] >> and we can only if we rank everything

[1:00:28] and we all think the most important

[1:00:30] thing is to do sidewalk improvements for

[1:00:33] 25,000 and then all we have is you know

[1:00:37] what we have. We could just say these

[1:00:38] are our top projects and now we're out

[1:00:40] of money. we're done.

[1:00:41] >> Mhm.

[1:00:42] >> So, um that's that's kind of because I

[1:00:45] it is hard to weigh our resources that

[1:00:49] we have available against our needs

[1:00:51] unless we know what we have available,

[1:00:53] which I know is coming. But then like to

[1:00:56] have a systematic way to rank it and say

[1:00:58] like everybody agrees that the 25,000 is

[1:01:01] going to be like the a priority or maybe

[1:01:04] we don't, but it's hard to do that in a

[1:01:05] discussion format. I'm, you know, I'm a

[1:01:08] numbers person, so I brought this up

[1:01:10] before. I don't know how the council

[1:01:12] feels about that, but that might help

[1:01:13] give you more direction as well, rather

[1:01:16] than trying to read our body language or

[1:01:18] langu, you know, what do we how do we

[1:01:20] feel about these things, right?

[1:01:22] >> So, that was I don't know, that's just

[1:01:24] kind of where I'm thinking is if we have

[1:01:26] more needs than resources and you said

[1:01:28] in the past we had very few requests

[1:01:30] from council and now our our requests

[1:01:33] from council far exceed our resources.

[1:01:36] maybe we can come up with a way to

[1:01:37] narrow down the projects and say what is the consensus of all of us

[1:01:42] without discussing this you know at

[1:01:45] length. So would I'm just suggesting

[1:01:48] even before you you get to the next

[1:01:50] presentation that we rank these in some

[1:01:53] way and give you some direction that

[1:01:54] way. Would anybody else feel

[1:01:57] uncomfortable or think that's a good

[1:01:59] move forward?

[1:02:00] >> Well I also think ranking relates to the

[1:02:02] funding source. So, for example, if you

[1:02:04] go back to that um chart and in the

[1:02:08] yellow, it shows the relic hall as a

[1:02:12] grant waiting on a grant, but we

[1:02:14] discussed adding not a true ADA ramp,

[1:02:17] but a ramp so that it makes more

[1:02:19] accessible for um you know, people that

[1:02:22] can't do the stairs. And so, there's

[1:02:24] funds available through our park tax.

[1:02:27] And so it's not just really specifically

[1:02:31] what's the most important, it's what's

[1:02:33] the most important based on the funding

[1:02:35] pathway because

[1:02:36] >> it's a two-way discussion. Yes.

[1:02:38] >> And I think did I misunderstand that in

[1:02:41] our general fund we typically have about

[1:02:44] nine or$10 million? I don't know if he

[1:02:46] said new revenue that comes in every

[1:02:48] year that we're looking at allocating or

[1:02:51] is it more like three million that we're

[1:02:53] looking at allocating

[1:02:54] >> between those two numbers.

[1:02:56] >> Not as low as 3 million. It's not as

[1:02:58] much as 10 or 12.

[1:03:00] >> No, I I think um we we we're making

[1:03:04] commitments to bonding. We're making

[1:03:06] commitments to fire and police, you

[1:03:09] know, increasing those um to the Lone

[1:03:12] Peak special. So, like it's a it's a

[1:03:14] sort of a moving target, but I do think

[1:03:17] to your point to keep it really simple,

[1:03:19] we get a h 100,000. We do know we get

[1:03:21] about $100,000 in park tax, which is

[1:03:23] that first dark orange. And if we assign

[1:03:27] 30,000 from his white items, that gives

[1:03:30] us to what you're saying, we still have

[1:03:32] 70,000 left to say, what should we spend

[1:03:35] those items on? Because like you like

[1:03:37] you're pointing out, they're very

[1:03:38] restricted,

[1:03:39] >> you know, because we have to spend them

[1:03:40] on specific things

[1:03:42] >> and we can't spend them on the roads,

[1:03:43] right? So, we could I I don't know like

[1:03:46] come up with a list of what could we

[1:03:48] spend the park tax and then anything

[1:03:49] that we can't spend park tax on, it has

[1:03:51] to come out of general fund. Like

[1:03:53] there's no other source.

[1:03:54] >> We just allocate that park tax fund now

[1:03:57] to whatever the priority projects come

[1:03:59] out of the parks master plan, right? But

[1:04:02] I'm saying I would like to see some of

[1:04:04] that go to Relic Hall because we're

[1:04:06] going to be improving our whole town

[1:04:08] square and then we haven't improved, you

[1:04:11] know, the window sills and we haven't

[1:04:13] added a more accessible space. So, it's

[1:04:16] also a timing piece just like doing

[1:04:17] Peterson Park is a timing piece. So,

[1:04:19] there's more information and part of a

[1:04:22] discussion for prioritizing those

[1:04:24] things.

[1:04:25] >> I also did suggest during the retreat

[1:04:26] that we took the park tax which is

[1:04:29] generally a 100,000. It looks like Yeah,

[1:04:31] that's what he's projecting again,

[1:04:33] Shane.

[1:04:34] >> So, if we always allocated 30,000 to

[1:04:37] culture, the other A RC, arts,

[1:04:41] recreation, and culture, and then 70,000

[1:04:43] to parks, we'd kind of like have a an

[1:04:45] ongoing resource for other sources. And

[1:04:49] so, this first $30,000 would eat up the

[1:04:52] 70. And now we've got 40 left to spend

[1:04:54] on parks and 30 to do the ARC part of

[1:04:57] the tax. I'm just saying if we come up

[1:04:59] with some kind of system that gives

[1:05:01] Shane more direction as well.

[1:05:04] >> I think that's a great idea. Also, we

[1:05:05] have to consider or we can consider the

[1:05:08] general fund balance. Um we can only

[1:05:10] maintain a certain percentage of savings

[1:05:13] in that in those fund balances. And so

[1:05:15] those that's

[1:05:16] >> some resources that are available

[1:05:18] potentially for use.

[1:05:20] >> Yes.

[1:05:21] >> And then also impact fees. Um, for some

[1:05:25] of those projects, we could use impact

[1:05:26] fees to help offset the cost from the

[1:05:28] general fund.

[1:05:29] >> Yeah.

[1:05:31] >> So, I I think we're getting close, but

[1:05:33] um I guess to sort of give you better

[1:05:36] direction, would you would we would we

[1:05:38] be okay with like everyone ranking these

[1:05:42] based on like four criteria like what's

[1:05:45] the public need? What's the you know

[1:05:46] infrastructure? I don't know. We I came

[1:05:49] up with a suggestion. It's at the back

[1:05:50] of her trusty binder. I at one point I

[1:05:53] thought about it a long time and I I

[1:05:55] came up with something but we could come

[1:05:56] improve that

[1:05:57] >> along with that. Um do you think we

[1:06:00] could also include like how much money

[1:06:02] we have available kind of like what has

[1:06:04] already been said as part of that matrix

[1:06:05] we kind of have a guideline as we're

[1:06:07] prioritizing project

[1:06:08] >> are we enough in along in the budgeting

[1:06:11] process where you could come up with

[1:06:12] that number Shane?

[1:06:13] >> Yeah I mean we it'll obviously rough

[1:06:16] estimate some rough estimates

[1:06:17] >> right but and you're going to be

[1:06:18] conservative. Yeah,

[1:06:19] >> because that's your nature

[1:06:21] >> and and we appreciate that.

[1:06:24] >> We'll suggest that the entire fund

[1:06:26] balance doesn't get spent in one budget

[1:06:27] year.

[1:06:28] >> Yes. Thank you. [laughter]

[1:06:29] >> Yeah, exactly.

[1:06:30] >> Okay.

[1:06:31] >> And then maybe explaining how some

[1:06:32] projects might carry over into a second

[1:06:34] fiscal year so it's we can make a more

[1:06:36] informed decision.

[1:06:37] >> Yeah.

[1:06:38] >> Shane, does any of this come from the

[1:06:39] capital projects fund or not?

[1:06:41] >> The orange.

[1:06:42] >> Yes.

[1:06:43] >> Okay.

[1:06:44] >> The bulk of it will be coming from

[1:06:45] capital

[1:06:45] >> dark orange. The third column in the

[1:06:47] dark orange is capital.

[1:06:49] >> That's what I was saying. Right now at

[1:06:51] the bottom it says it has a $10 million

[1:06:53] balance, but by the time we're done with

[1:06:54] these projects, we're have spent four of

[1:06:57] that 10, which is nearly half. We've

[1:06:59] been saving up.

[1:07:01] >> But won't those be noted? Like those

[1:07:03] these are earmarked. So even though we

[1:07:05] see 10, it's really, you know, to your

[1:07:07] point six because we've already

[1:07:09] earmarked four.

[1:07:10] >> Yes.

[1:07:10] >> Okay. Yeah.

[1:07:12] But if if you know if there's any of

[1:07:16] these projects that aren't in yellow

[1:07:18] that are a concern, you know, we don't

[1:07:20] think that's priority and should be on

[1:07:22] here. I would like to know that.

[1:07:24] >> I just have one question about the

[1:07:25] surveillance cameras. Yes.

[1:07:27] >> How I don't I just don't have much of a

[1:07:29] context for that. Is there a great need

[1:07:31] for that?

[1:07:32] >> There has been. Um, we haven't went all

[1:07:36] in because our internet service isn't

[1:07:39] fantastic and so the parks that we have

[1:07:42] them at, it's fairly cumbersome to try

[1:07:45] to go back and find an issue when it

[1:07:47] happened or potentially who did it. Um,

[1:07:50] I was actually at a training today on

[1:07:53] that and and I talked to a guy from

[1:07:56] Hooper Water, Hooper, I think that's how

[1:07:58] they say it. Anyway, uh,

[1:08:01] he he actually they had the same issue.

[1:08:04] We're we're using Verizon cradle points

[1:08:07] at these locations and they had the same

[1:08:10] issue.

[1:08:11] He said they talked to their Verizon rep

[1:08:14] and they got better service and the cost

[1:08:16] came down. He said it makes no sense

[1:08:18] whatsoever, but he says ever since we

[1:08:20] did that, um things have worked better

[1:08:23] for them. So, we've actually been

[1:08:25] working also with Centricom to try to

[1:08:28] get a cost to get fiber into some of

[1:08:30] these uh larger parks. Um, but they

[1:08:33] haven't came up with that number yet.

[1:08:36] So, we'll continue to work on that. So,

[1:08:38] I didn't want to like totally expand

[1:08:41] that system and have these ongoing costs

[1:08:45] that

[1:08:46] >> aren't working.

[1:08:48] >> The reason that we went with that is

[1:08:50] every year we have issues with vandalism

[1:08:52] and um they're just not traceable unless

[1:08:55] there are. And as I've talked to the

[1:08:58] cities in Utah, most of them have cameas

[1:09:02] and um very high definition cameras in

[1:09:05] their parks just because they're running

[1:09:07] into the same thing. Cedar Hills last

[1:09:09] year they had a huge case where they set

[1:09:10] off fireworks and um caused like

[1:09:13] $300,000 worth of damage to their park

[1:09:16] >> and um but they had the cameras and they

[1:09:18] were able to track the kids down.

[1:09:20] >> But for example, we had I think $40,000

[1:09:22] in the budget this year. We haven't

[1:09:24] spent any of that yet because like these

[1:09:27] cradle points, they're

[1:09:29] >> they definitely add to our our constant

[1:09:32] monthly expenses

[1:09:34] >> and I didn't want to pile that on until

[1:09:36] we're really getting the benefit from

[1:09:37] it.

[1:09:38] >> What about Starlink?

[1:09:39] >> Yeah, I was going to say maybe Starlink,

[1:09:41] >> but then I've heard when it's

[1:09:44] >> a bad storm, they don't work out,

[1:09:45] >> you guys. But usually we have issues in

[1:09:47] the summertime and so

[1:09:48] >> vandalism during a big storm. [laughter]

[1:09:51] >> Yeah, because

[1:09:51] >> that's true. I know with our Starlink

[1:09:53] when we had it, it was more issues with

[1:09:55] snow.

[1:09:56] >> Yeah.

[1:09:57] >> Um or trees, you know, physical

[1:09:59] obstructions. Um I'm Yeah, when you were

[1:10:02] saying that I was like I I didn't

[1:10:03] realize that we're using Verizon CD

[1:10:05] points, but I'm wondering if we switched

[1:10:07] to Starlink

[1:10:09] if um

[1:10:11] >> if it would be better.

[1:10:12] >> Is there anything else you need though

[1:10:13] from us?

[1:10:14] >> No, I think I have enough information to

[1:10:16] take this to the next step. um as long

[1:10:19] as you're okay with these regular

[1:10:23] projects and maintenance items we have

[1:10:25] in there. And you know, if we need to

[1:10:26] down the road, we can adjust the the

[1:10:29] funding level to those to make things

[1:10:32] work. But

[1:10:32] >> I I obviously we love the yellow ones

[1:10:35] and no one has brought up the raccoon

[1:10:36] pine for 200 for $2,835.

[1:10:39] I just want to make sure that gets some

[1:10:40] notice.

[1:10:41] >> Well, we can rank it. You'll know how we

[1:10:44] all really feel.

[1:10:44] >> But well, hold on. I was a joke. The

[1:10:46] real thing is u I have had a lot of

[1:10:48] residents bring up concerns about

[1:10:50] surveillance cameras. So if they're in

[1:10:51] the parks, I think that's one thing.

[1:10:53] They don't like them tracking their

[1:10:54] cars. They brought that up several

[1:10:56] times. I was like, "We have cameras. I

[1:10:58] didn't even know we had them." And so

[1:11:00] that was brought up several times

[1:11:02] saying, "Do you know about the cameras?

[1:11:04] How can we get rid of them?" And I said,

[1:11:06] "I didn't even know we had cameras." Uh

[1:11:08] and so they're not fans of them tracing

[1:11:12] them.

[1:11:12] >> We do have a long agenda. Can we just

[1:11:14] move on? Wait, that that was like one

[1:11:16] concern of a resident. He asked if there

[1:11:17] were any issues.

[1:11:18] >> It's not on the agenda right now. So,

[1:11:20] let's move on and agenda.

[1:11:22] >> The cameras are the surveillance cameras

[1:11:24] for city properties are on the agenda.

[1:11:26] >> This is for the parks. The surveillance

[1:11:29] cameras that you're talking about are

[1:11:30] something totally different.

[1:11:31] >> Well, no one has clarified that, so I'm

[1:11:32] bringing it up right now in the same

[1:11:35] issue of surveillance cameras and the

[1:11:38] residents who pay for these surveillance

[1:11:39] cameras have the right to have their

[1:11:41] voice heard. Andrew, if this is

[1:11:43] something that you want to discuss, you

[1:11:44] know what the policy is and what the

[1:11:46] >> It was a two sentence discussion. There

[1:11:48] was no more to discuss. So, I let him

[1:11:49] something that you want to do, this is

[1:11:50] something that a previous city council

[1:11:52] has voted for. I did not want to do it.

[1:11:54] >> If you want to change it, you know what

[1:11:55] you need to do. Let's move on.

[1:11:57] >> I do have one suggestion, Andrew, that

[1:11:59] you talk with Chief William about how

[1:12:01] that how it's used. So, it's not

[1:12:03] something that they're going to be

[1:12:04] looking at and monitoring people's

[1:12:06] access like people were worried the FBI

[1:12:08] was looking at everyone's library cards

[1:12:09] after 911,

[1:12:11] >> right?

[1:12:12] >> It's it's used specifically to identify

[1:12:15] >> it criminal activity,

[1:12:18] >> right? So, there was no

[1:12:19] >> I would talk to him about it and if you

[1:12:20] still have a concern then we can

[1:12:22] potentially discuss it.

[1:12:23] >> Just last thing, it was not my concern.

[1:12:24] I would just bring it up. That's what

[1:12:25] the residents thought. So, thank you. So

[1:12:27] just to conclude like the plan is is to

[1:12:29] come up with a matrix what the estimated

[1:12:32] budget for each of them where they would

[1:12:33] come from what revenue source or um fund

[1:12:37] balance it would come from and then we

[1:12:40] can prioritize and then weigh in and

[1:12:42] eliminate the ones that we

[1:12:44] >> Yes.

[1:12:44] >> Okay. I just want to make sure I

[1:12:45] understood that was the plan.

[1:12:47] >> Yep. That's it. Okay. I think I have

[1:12:50] what I need here.

[1:12:52] >> Did you talk about the PIA bonding

[1:12:54] process or bonding projects? Was that

[1:12:56] the 9 million

[1:12:58] >> the sorry

[1:12:59] >> the PI bonding?

[1:13:01] >> Yes.

[1:13:01] >> Do Okay. So there's nothing more on that

[1:13:03] one. Okay.

[1:13:04] >> No, we'll be bringing more details back

[1:13:07] on that.

[1:13:08] >> Okay. Perfect.

[1:13:08] >> That one will obviously take more

[1:13:10] discussion here. [clears throat]

[1:13:12] >> Okay. Let um is Ryan online? Okay. Hey

[1:13:16] Ryan.

[1:13:19] » Yep. I'm here. Can you guys hear me?

[1:13:20] Okay.

[1:13:21] >> Yep.

[1:13:24] » No, it's fine.

[1:13:26] Ryan, if you want to go over um

[1:13:30] the agenda item to review the main

[1:13:31] street and gateway corridor master plan

[1:13:33] a little bit. I think what the feeling

[1:13:35] from council is that we probably want to

[1:13:37] break it up, but let's if you can

[1:13:39] introduce it and then um we can have a

[1:13:42] discussion on it.

[1:13:44] >> Yep. Yep. No, I'm happy to. And if if I

[1:13:46] lose you for a minute, I'm in a I'm in a

[1:13:48] truck leaving a meeting, so sorry about

[1:13:50] that, but bear with me. Yeah. So, and my

[1:13:53] understanding is uh we're not

[1:13:55] necessarily looking for any action item

[1:13:57] tonight. Maybe some some feedback, but

[1:14:00] um so when we most of you I won't go

[1:14:03] into the history of the main street

[1:14:04] master plan because I think we've all

[1:14:05] had you know we're all we're all up to

[1:14:06] speed on that. We were awarded a grant

[1:14:08] to help with our main street master

[1:14:10] plan. Give it some guidelines, some

[1:14:13] vision on on what uh you all wanted it

[1:14:16] to be. And then um the the main street

[1:14:20] and gateway corridors is the the area

[1:14:22] that we that we focused on. Um the

[1:14:26] planning commission, we held multiple

[1:14:28] public hearings on this with the

[1:14:29] planning commission. We held uh we held

[1:14:31] two of those. What they decided to do

[1:14:33] was break it up into sections that were

[1:14:35] relevant to the planning commission and

[1:14:37] then they so we held one at the

[1:14:39] beginning of of the when they first

[1:14:40] reviewed the main street master plan. uh

[1:14:43] and then we broke it down into sections

[1:14:45] and then before they made a final

[1:14:46] recommendation they held another another

[1:14:49] public hearing. So their motions that

[1:14:52] they made throughout these meetings

[1:14:54] process um they uh they're included in

[1:14:58] the in the staff report part of this. Um

[1:15:01] but they they had some changes and some

[1:15:03] edits they wanted to make. The reason

[1:15:05] that the the draft before you does not

[1:15:08] entail all those changes

[1:15:10] um is we get in the contract with the

[1:15:13] consultants that were that were awarded

[1:15:15] this project. We get three rounds of

[1:15:17] edits with them. So we had a a steering

[1:15:21] committee which which uh was the mayor

[1:15:24] uh Chrissy Jessica were also a part of

[1:15:27] that and then we had some residents uh

[1:15:29] feedback on there. they went through a

[1:15:31] round of edits and and uh uh Brent was

[1:15:34] also instrumental in that. He helped a

[1:15:36] lot with with a lot of the the uh

[1:15:38] feedback on that. So, we had one round

[1:15:40] of edits with that group. Uh we gathered

[1:15:43] all the planning commission edits uh and

[1:15:46] sent it to the consultants. So, that'll

[1:15:47] be round two. Uh once they get us that

[1:15:50] final or the the draft with the consult

[1:15:53] or with the planning commission edits in

[1:15:55] them, um it'll come to you guys. you

[1:15:58] guys can suggest edits and and make a motion to do the do the same

[1:16:02] thing. Once we get all those changes,

[1:16:05] we'll send it back to the consultants

[1:16:06] and they'll give us the third round of edits as part of that. So, um the

[1:16:12] process-wise, that's where we at. I just

[1:16:14] want to really emphasize this plan is

[1:16:16] not written in stone. It's not

[1:16:18] suggesting new code that you'll if you

[1:16:21] know if you go through it and it breaks

[1:16:23] it up into into I think we call them

[1:16:25] planning districts. So, it'll break up

[1:16:29] elements of the, you know, the Alpine

[1:16:31] Highway, Canyon Crest, Main Street. Uh,

[1:16:34] it'll it'll break those up uh into into

[1:16:37] these kind of planning districts. It's

[1:16:40] not proposing new code. It's not doing

[1:16:42] any of that. This is a planning document

[1:16:45] of where does, and I I use this term too

[1:16:48] much, so I apologize, but where does

[1:16:50] Alpine want to see the Main Street and

[1:16:52] Gateway Corridor plans when it grows up,

[1:16:54] right? Who who do we want to be when we

[1:16:55] grow up? It's funny, a town that's 175

[1:16:58] year old as we say growing up, but

[1:16:59] that's that's the best phrase I've come

[1:17:01] up with. So, um, so yeah, this is just a

[1:17:04] visioning document. It's kind of to help

[1:17:07] us if if new proposals come in or or

[1:17:09] identify, hey, you know what, this is

[1:17:10] where we want to see this kind of

[1:17:11] commercial. This is where we want to see

[1:17:13] this kind of housing along these uh

[1:17:15] major transportation corridors within

[1:17:18] the city. That's all it's meant to be.

[1:17:21] uh just to give you guys and the

[1:17:23] planning commission when when projects

[1:17:24] come in some some feedback and some

[1:17:27] visioning of saying hey we as a

[1:17:29] community we spoke with residents we

[1:17:31] gave everyone ample opportunities to to

[1:17:34] have their voices heard and this is the

[1:17:36] vision that we have for the community.

[1:17:38] If something comes in that doesn't fall

[1:17:39] within that that vision or that you know

[1:17:42] we've identified

[1:17:44] you guys or future councils are well

[1:17:46] within your right to say yes this wasn't

[1:17:49] identified but we we think it's a good a

[1:17:52] good thing that maybe just didn't didn't

[1:17:54] get included in that. So that's all it

[1:17:56] is. We're so close. I think this it's my

[1:17:59] fault that it's dragged out so long, but

[1:18:01] I think we're pretty close to to

[1:18:03] finishing it up. Uh we're just we're

[1:18:06] just at the process where you guys now

[1:18:08] uh get your say in the final final uh

[1:18:11] review of it. So happy to take any

[1:18:13] questions or anything, but I think we're

[1:18:15] still waiting for that uh second edit to

[1:18:18] come back from the consultants before we

[1:18:20] officially have it on the agenda. Uh

[1:18:22] happy to take any questions or if I I

[1:18:24] missed anything, happy to happy to go

[1:18:26] over that as well.

[1:18:30] » I have a question about the process. So,

[1:18:34] you said we're using our second edit to

[1:18:36] take back the planning commission

[1:18:39] >> um feedback for them to change it.

[1:18:42] >> My understanding is we should

[1:18:44] >> as a city council review the

[1:18:47] recommendations from planning commission

[1:18:49] before they become a permanent change to

[1:18:52] the document.

[1:18:55] >> Yeah. And that's that's something you

[1:18:56] can you can do that as well if you'd

[1:18:58] like. Um, I don't think the consultants

[1:19:00] I sent the review to the consultants.

[1:19:03] Uh, I don't know if they've gotten too

[1:19:04] far on it yet, but if that's something

[1:19:06] you guys want to do, that's that's

[1:19:08] totally fine as well.

[1:19:10] >> Yeah, there weren't that many, so maybe

[1:19:12] we can just look at their changes

[1:19:15] rather than trying to stop the process.

[1:19:17] I don't I mean, didn't sound like there

[1:19:19] that many changes they recommended.

[1:19:21] Yeah, I think um

[1:19:24] because [clears throat]

[1:19:25] as I understand it, Ryan, you can help

[1:19:27] me remember because this has been a long

[1:19:29] process. Yep.

[1:19:30] >> That um I have notes from this exact

[1:19:32] same document that we gave feedback to

[1:19:36] the consultants um and I'm looking at

[1:19:39] the exact same document um that the

[1:19:43] planning commission saw as a steering

[1:19:45] committee. We gave them feedback and

[1:19:47] then it went to planning commission and

[1:19:49] so like where there's actually two sets

[1:19:51] of feedback that need to be incorporated

[1:19:53] into this and council feedback and then

[1:19:57] that that will be the final version,

[1:19:59] right?

[1:20:01] >> Yeah. Yep. Yep.

[1:20:03] >> So like everything that the steering

[1:20:05] committee talked about did not is not

[1:20:07] yet even seen in this document yet. It's

[1:20:09] they're minor. They're minor, but and I

[1:20:12] feel like the planning commission is

[1:20:13] minor as well, but I agree with Jessica

[1:20:16] that we we sort of we're at this stage

[1:20:19] where we they need a kind of like Shane

[1:20:21] forced us to like freeze, you know, say

[1:20:24] we need to go out of jello stage and

[1:20:25] like make it hard, right? So, we're sort

[1:20:28] of in the jello stage still where we can

[1:20:30] change things. They're minor, you know,

[1:20:32] but they're there. And then then the

[1:20:35] last draft is their final. Is that am I

[1:20:38] understanding that?

[1:20:40] >> Yeah. And my my understanding as well is

[1:20:42] those those changes from the steering

[1:20:44] committee should have already been made.

[1:20:46] I mean should have should have already

[1:20:48] been shown in that draft like the the

[1:20:49] draft that went to the planning

[1:20:51] commission should have shown those

[1:20:54] recommendation those changes from the steering committee if that

[1:20:58] makes sense. Um like if you'll if you

[1:21:01] look one of the one of the areas is one

[1:21:03] of the things we looked at is a steering

[1:21:04] committee is the area kind of between

[1:21:08] uh the the I guess the church owns it

[1:21:11] now that that field there on the on the

[1:21:14] side of of Alpine Highway on the north

[1:21:16] side going to the art center. One of the

[1:21:20] things that the steering committee

[1:21:21] recommended is having that be a

[1:21:23] transitional zone going from residential

[1:21:26] going into the commercial along Main

[1:21:27] Street that we see there. There's a

[1:21:29] similar zone on the north end of Main

[1:21:32] Street that's meant to be a transitional

[1:21:34] from um going from commercial back to

[1:21:37] residential. So like that's what

[1:21:38] changes.

[1:21:39] >> But Ryan, no. What I'm saying is like

[1:21:42] that we took that recommendation

[1:21:44] to the public and that's why they have

[1:21:46] the jars there because we already took

[1:21:48] that to the public

[1:21:49] >> and then they came back and like nothing

[1:21:51] had been really written up and then we

[1:21:53] got this document dated November 2025

[1:21:57] >> and after we gave us this to the

[1:22:00] steering committee and I have notes in

[1:22:01] here of things I'd like to you know just

[1:22:04] it wasn't significant but this is the

[1:22:07] exact same document I already gave them

[1:22:09] feedback on.

[1:22:11] >> Yeah, it shouldn't it shouldn't have

[1:22:13] been. It should have been the ones that

[1:22:14] had the steering committees changes in

[1:22:17] there,

[1:22:17] >> but I'm not I'm not talking about this stuff here because

[1:22:23] we brought that all to the public and so

[1:22:25] that wasn't even in the final like

[1:22:27] nothing had even been written up at that

[1:22:29] point when we brought this all to the

[1:22:30] public.

[1:22:31] >> Right. Right. Yep. You're right on that.

[1:22:33] Yep. Yep.

[1:22:36] >> Okay. And Ryan, if it's possible, maybe

[1:22:38] they could do just a red line edit copy

[1:22:40] for us so we can see the changes that

[1:22:42] were made.

[1:22:43] >> Yeah, that's a great idea.

[1:22:44] >> Yep, that's a great idea. That's a great

[1:22:46] idea. Yep, that's what we do on all all,

[1:22:48] you know, code changes. So, I think I

[1:22:49] think that's a great idea. Yep. I can we

[1:22:51] can run that by him as well.

[1:22:54] >> Okay. So, um as just as the um planning

[1:22:57] commission broke it up, having like I

[1:22:59] said, this has been a long process. So I

[1:23:01] don't feel like we could give it justice

[1:23:04] because it really has been resident

[1:23:05] driven. Um the hiring of the committee

[1:23:08] or the hiring of the professionals was

[1:23:11] um something that was supported by our

[1:23:13] residents and we applied for a grant and

[1:23:16] got that and we the residents have been

[1:23:19] very involved with this whole process.

[1:23:21] So I I don't feel like we can fully

[1:23:24] absorb all the information and feedback

[1:23:26] that um has gone on through all the

[1:23:29] sharets and many you know committee

[1:23:32] meetings and stuff in one meeting

[1:23:34] otherwise we're not going to go to bed

[1:23:36] tonight. So I was thinking of dividing

[1:23:38] it up into three parts and I was

[1:23:41] thinking um just looking at the uh if

[1:23:43] you could go to the um table of contents

[1:23:53] Okay, thank you. Right there. So, the

[1:23:56] first part, the first two bold items are

[1:23:58] a vision for Alpine City's gateway

[1:24:00] corridors and Alpine City Gateway

[1:24:03] Corridors today. So, we'd understand

[1:24:05] sort of what was driving this project

[1:24:08] was understanding where we are today.

[1:24:10] And then um we could look at also

[1:24:13] appendix um one and uh I'm sorry

[1:24:16] appendix A and appendix C which helps

[1:24:20] like say this is where we are and then

[1:24:24] uh that feedback is what kind of

[1:24:26] develops some three three different

[1:24:28] tools. Um one of the most important

[1:24:31] [clears throat] tools is land use

[1:24:33] because as Andrew likes to tell us it

[1:24:35] will outlive us all. And then the second

[1:24:37] tool um was uh see there was land use.

[1:24:42] Yes. And then traffic management was

[1:24:44] another tool. And then another tool was

[1:24:47] these uh design guidelines. And I don't

[1:24:50] know um based on the quantity of

[1:24:52] information being presented if we could

[1:24:54] take one meeting to just do that what

[1:24:56] how do we get here like why did we even

[1:24:59] want this project in the first place?

[1:25:01] And then the second is what are the um

[1:25:03] and understand the issues we are trying

[1:25:05] to address. And then number the second

[1:25:07] thing would break these um tools that

[1:25:09] we've been given into two meetings. And

[1:25:12] then the um just because traffic itself

[1:25:16] is a big big part of this plan. And then

[1:25:21] um at the final meeting, we could take

[1:25:25] all the feedback we got from planning

[1:25:27] commission and from the city council and

[1:25:29] give them specific things to change.

[1:25:32] But that's kind of what I was thinking.

[1:25:36] >> So how many

[1:25:36] >> is that is that too long? Is does that

[1:25:38] take too long?

[1:25:39] >> Four.

[1:25:40] meetings,

[1:25:41] >> including Well,

[1:25:44] no, I was including today.

[1:25:45] >> Oh, so today is just kind of an overview

[1:25:47] and making a decision on how to review

[1:25:48] it going forward. Well, and also we

[1:25:51] could understand what like the existing

[1:25:53] conditions are not new to any of us, but

[1:25:55] just understand like um 1 through 14,

[1:25:58] page 1 through 14.

[1:26:00] >> You want to go through one through 14

[1:26:01] today?

[1:26:02] >> Yeah.

[1:26:03] >> Okay.

[1:26:03] >> Why not?

[1:26:04] >> All right.

[1:26:05] >> And appendix A and C.

[1:26:07] >> Well, and Chrissy, as part of just an

[1:26:10] operation, we did this with our general

[1:26:12] plan and we also did this with the

[1:26:14] conservation easement. We actually had a

[1:26:16] work session before our council meeting.

[1:26:18] >> Oh. So I do think that that was really

[1:26:21] effective.

[1:26:22] >> Okay. Rather than in a meeting.

[1:26:24] >> Yeah,

[1:26:24] >> that would work too.

[1:26:26] >> Anyone interested in those topics, you

[1:26:28] know, it was noticed and can could come

[1:26:29] and listen.

[1:26:30] >> Okay. So having

[1:26:33] doing like all the things I just said in

[1:26:35] a work session rather than breaking it

[1:26:37] up.

[1:26:37] >> Okay. I'm open to that, too.

[1:26:39] >> But in the same order, like chunking it

[1:26:40] like you did. Yeah. So we know be

[1:26:42] prepared. We're going to be talking

[1:26:44] about this section.

[1:26:45] >> Yeah.

[1:26:47] I'm happy to do that, too. I

[1:26:50] thought we were trying to spread it out,

[1:26:51] but I'm I'm flexible.

[1:26:53] >> It's still spread out.

[1:26:55] >> No, I think it's just exactly it would

[1:26:56] be under discussion items, right?

[1:27:01] » Sorry. No,

[1:27:02] >> Jessica said doing a

[1:27:03] >> work session prior to work session or

[1:27:06] discussion item. It's kind of the same

[1:27:08] thing as presentation, right? We're

[1:27:09] going to be learning about it, what it

[1:27:11] is. This is pretty new to both Sarah and

[1:27:14] Andrew, I'm assuming. I'm sure you guys

[1:27:15] have read it, but you know, we wor with

[1:27:17] it last year, so I feel like the four of

[1:27:20] us are pretty familiar with everything.

[1:27:22] We either sat on the committee and

[1:27:24] >> we have Kaden, too. He's

[1:27:26] >> I know Kaden's brand new

[1:27:27] >> and you're going to be like our

[1:27:28] cheerleader for this whole thing.

[1:27:30] >> Whether we call it a work session or

[1:27:31] whether we call it a presentation or a

[1:27:33] discussion item, it's the same thing.

[1:27:35] We'll be discussing that portion of it.

[1:27:38] So, we can um start right now. Um

[1:27:42] >> Wait, is that what Jessica you were

[1:27:43] saying? The way we did it with the

[1:27:46] general plan and the conservation

[1:27:47] easement is we actually held it prior to

[1:27:50] the city council meeting. So do you

[1:27:53] remember when we went through those?

[1:27:54] >> Yeah, because we have all these people

[1:27:55] waiting sitting here waiting for their

[1:27:57] agenda items.

[1:27:59] >> So I was thinking if we did a work

[1:28:01] session like Jessica is saying that

[1:28:02] might be more efficient for everyone

[1:28:04] else,

[1:28:05] >> right? But what I'm saying is whether

[1:28:06] it's called a work session or not,

[1:28:08] >> it's the same thing. we're going to be

[1:28:10] here. Whether we call it a work session

[1:28:11] and then don't start the meeting and I

[1:28:13] don't see us starting before.

[1:28:15] >> Oh, you don't mean doing a work session

[1:28:16] prior to the official meeting.

[1:28:18] >> She's saying do a work call it a work

[1:28:21] session before, but we could just say

[1:28:23] let's do it under reports and

[1:28:25] presentations or actually not report and

[1:28:27] presentations, but probably discussion

[1:28:28] items every meeting and just chunk it

[1:28:32] out

[1:28:33] >> and it'll still be noticed. Um, we could

[1:28:36] just have it at the very beginning of

[1:28:38] the discussion items and have it always

[1:28:40] be item A and say we're going to be

[1:28:43] talking about the Main Street Gateway

[1:28:45] Corridor master plan and for this item

[1:28:48] it will be the, you know, you could say

[1:28:52] when you want to go, we'll talk about

[1:28:53] the Alpine um, we'll do the Alpine Main

[1:28:56] Street and Gateway Corridor, small area

[1:28:58] plan and the land acquisition policy and

[1:29:00] go over that, you know, and that's what

[1:29:02] we'll notice and then we'll go on with

[1:29:04] the rest of our

[1:29:07] Are you opposed to

[1:29:09] >> I'm just I'm looking back at how we

[1:29:10] >> It's just logistics whether you

[1:29:13] logistics I think is the public you know

[1:29:14] the public comes to talk about their

[1:29:16] action items and so it's putting things

[1:29:19] in a way that the public can come and

[1:29:21] participate in in their action items and

[1:29:24] then we can do our work session.

[1:29:27] >> So we could do the work session at the

[1:29:28] end of the meeting.

[1:29:30] >> Yeah, you can do that.

[1:29:30] >> It's the I mean it's semantics. It

[1:29:32] doesn't matter action items and

[1:29:34] discussion items. It's easy to do on the

[1:29:36] >> Let's do that. I think maybe that's a

[1:29:38] better course.

[1:29:39] >> So people are here for particular

[1:29:40] issues.

[1:29:43] >> So um

[1:29:46] >> so I I'd like a motion as far actually

[1:29:50] no this is still a discussion item. So,

[1:29:52] I would like to know

[1:29:54] um as far as council, do you want to

[1:29:57] start off with the first subject today,

[1:29:59] maybe at the end of the meeting

[1:30:02] um so we can proceed with action items

[1:30:04] or do we want to forego that and start

[1:30:09] um at our next meeting? That's really

[1:30:11] what we just need to know. The semantic

[1:30:13] >> is someone prepared to present and talk

[1:30:15] about it?

[1:30:17] this first section

[1:30:18] >> about the first section. I' I'm assuming

[1:30:20] that you guys went over it and I'm sure

[1:30:23] Ryan is here to I mean that's why he's

[1:30:25] online, right? To um

[1:30:27] >> Yep.

[1:30:28] >> So maybe we

[1:30:29] >> lead the discussion. So

[1:30:30] >> maybe we decide to do that, but if we

[1:30:32] run out of time and it's getting too

[1:30:33] late, we can just push it to the next

[1:30:35] meeting.

[1:30:36] >> So we're not here till midnight.

[1:30:37] >> I would be good with that.

[1:30:41] >> So do we need to make a motion to move

[1:30:44] discussion item C?

[1:30:47] um to occur right before staff

[1:30:52] >> B oh right before staff reports

[1:30:55] >> following action items. Is that a motion

[1:30:58] we need to make or can we just make that

[1:31:00] >> agenda new agenda item for the next

[1:31:03] week?

[1:31:05] >> Steve saying yes. What do we do?

[1:31:08] >> We need to have a motion to do

[1:31:09] >> you need a motion if you want to change

[1:31:10] the agenda.

[1:31:11] >> Okay.

[1:31:12] >> And the order.

[1:31:13] >> So I'll entertain a motion. Oh, wait.

[1:31:16] Before you entertain the motion, this is

[1:31:19] pardon being done very unorthodox. We

[1:31:22] brought up a discussion item. Chrissy

[1:31:24] began and no one else really talked. It

[1:31:27] was more just the format. We were all

[1:31:30] told to go through this whole report.

[1:31:32] So, I wrote down notes. I went through

[1:31:34] the whole thing. I went through it as if

[1:31:35] we were going to talk about the whole

[1:31:36] thing. What we've done is we've talked

[1:31:38] about talking about it, which is fine if

[1:31:42] that's what you all want to do. But

[1:31:43] we're just it's it's just it's a little

[1:31:46] hard. Like I'll bring up a thing and

[1:31:47] I'll get like

[1:31:49] plowed over like I'm doing something not

[1:31:52] in legal order and then we just freeilly

[1:31:56] this into whatever we can come up with

[1:31:59] in a moment's notice and we're just

[1:32:01] like, let's make a motion. By the way,

[1:32:02] no one has spoken on it

[1:32:05] >> and that's okay. that I mean you can't

[1:32:07] do that. No, in the meeting if somebody

[1:32:09] wants to make a motion or if I call for

[1:32:10] a motion, we can do that.

[1:32:12] >> I know, but it's also chaos, but no one

[1:32:13] else has spoken.

[1:32:14] >> And I Yeah, I apologize. You were out of

[1:32:16] town yesterday, but when I I didn't have

[1:32:17] time to start looking at the agenda

[1:32:19] until Monday and when I saw this agenda

[1:32:21] item and the writeup, which was minimal,

[1:32:24] and it talked about we haven't even seen

[1:32:26] the changes yet. My recommendation or my

[1:32:29] thought was, hey, can I get some

[1:32:30] clarification? I don't I want to know

[1:32:32] what to prepare for. And that's when we

[1:32:34] had some email exchanges just

[1:32:35] administratively

[1:32:37] on hey this is we're going to probably

[1:32:39] just talk about how we can do this going

[1:32:41] forward, how we can split up the

[1:32:42] discussion. Um so I'm all for having the

[1:32:46] work sessions. It's it's good. I just if

[1:32:48] we're going to talk about it, we could

[1:32:49] do a lot now, but why don't we do what

[1:32:51] the plan what you'd like to do and we

[1:32:53] can come prepared for those pieces you

[1:32:56] want to kind of piece out kind of like

[1:32:57] the planning commission did.

[1:32:59] >> Um and I'm for that. But we did prepare

[1:33:01] and come with a lot of things to bring

[1:33:02] up about it today.

[1:33:03] >> No, for sure. And I'm sure everybody

[1:33:04] has. But I just assume, was everybody

[1:33:06] not included in the email discussion? I

[1:33:08] just assume we were all included.

[1:33:10] >> Yeah, I think everyone was. So, I

[1:33:11] apologize.

[1:33:11] >> I don't This has been in the uh packet

[1:33:13] for weeks. This

[1:33:14] >> No, no, no. I know. But um the I my

[1:33:18] understanding was from the email threads

[1:33:20] because there was no one that said, "No,

[1:33:22] we want to move forward with the entire

[1:33:23] packet or the entire thing." So my

[1:33:26] understanding was from the email threads

[1:33:28] that I read and again I have major jet

[1:33:31] lag but my understanding was that we

[1:33:34] were going to discuss how we were going

[1:33:35] to break it up today and how we would

[1:33:36] move forward that for um in

[1:33:40] consideration of the time and um doing

[1:33:43] other business at hand that we would be

[1:33:45] breaking it up.

[1:33:46] >> Okay. And so that is so um right now I

[1:33:51] feel that or at least my understanding

[1:33:53] is if I'm wrong let me know but I would

[1:33:56] um entertain a motion to move item B to

[1:34:01] um

[1:34:02] >> the end right before staff reports so

[1:34:05] that we can move on to the action items.

[1:34:08] I can make a motion to move discussion

[1:34:11] item B to be after the action items and

[1:34:15] before staff reports

[1:34:18] contingent on whether we have time to do

[1:34:20] so tonight.

[1:34:22] >> Okay. Did you want to put a time on it

[1:34:24] or no? Just

[1:34:26] >> I think we can evaluate it at the time.

[1:34:28] >> Okay, we'll evaluate the time. That

[1:34:29] sounds good.

[1:34:30] >> Okay. Got a motion by Councilman Rmler.

[1:34:32] Is there a second?

[1:34:34] >> I'll second.

[1:34:35] >> It's been seconded by Councilwoman

[1:34:36] Haniman. Is there any discussion on the

[1:34:39] motion?

[1:34:39] >> Now we get to discuss.

[1:34:41] >> I never know. No, I'm okay with it. I'm

[1:34:43] okay. I I I'm I'm I love

[1:34:46] >> Chrissy. I'm I'm sorry, Jessica. Did you

[1:34:48] have anything you want?

[1:34:49] >> I don't have anything to discuss about

[1:34:50] this.

[1:34:51] >> Do you have any um discussion regarding

[1:34:53] >> I was just asking Chrissy how she had

[1:34:55] chunked it just out of curiosity.

[1:34:57] >> We can um get this in writing. Uh and

[1:35:00] Brian would appreciate that too. I'm

[1:35:01] sure Kaden too. But just for tonight

[1:35:04] talking about what's our existing

[1:35:06] situation which is the first two items

[1:35:09] and then if we have time appendex A and

[1:35:12] C but other than that um we don't have

[1:35:17] >> we can see how far we get.

[1:35:18] >> Did you have discussion on the item?

[1:35:20] >> My only word I'll just bring up

[1:35:22] >> the motion. I'm sorry not the item.

[1:35:24] >> Yeah. When we discuss it tonight I'll

[1:35:26] bring up the the good things that

[1:35:28] weren't so great in it.

[1:35:29] >> Want to say anything regarding the

[1:35:30] motion now? Okay. I just have one other

[1:35:32] comment. We'll we'll when we chunk it,

[1:35:35] we would like to be able to see the

[1:35:37] edits or the contribution that planning

[1:35:40] commission made.

[1:35:41] >> Yeah. And a lot of those were from

[1:35:43] coming from planning commission had to

[1:35:44] do with recommendations. So what we're

[1:35:46] covering today has nothing to do with

[1:35:48] recommendations. It's just like where

[1:35:49] are we and like why did we even start

[1:35:52] this project?

[1:35:53] >> But for the future sessions to have

[1:35:54] those red lines.

[1:35:55] >> Yes. No. I thought that was a great

[1:35:57] idea.

[1:35:58] >> Okay. Great.

[1:35:58] >> Okay. Let's proceed with a roll call

[1:35:59] vote. Jessica Kosan. Yes.

[1:36:01] >> Sarah Blackwell. Yes.

[1:36:02] >> Gracie Henman. Yes.

[1:36:04] >> Andrew Young. Yes. Brandon Rama. Yes.

[1:36:06] >> Okay.

[1:36:09] » I I love the plan. I love it.

[1:36:11] >> Let's move on to item C. I'm sorry.

[1:36:14] >> That's good.

[1:36:15] >> Item six, which is action items. Um we

[1:36:19] will be the item A is um the

[1:36:22] reconstruction of a non-conforming

[1:36:25] building on 480 East and 100 South.

[1:36:29] >> Is that you, Shane? Yeah, I'll take this

[1:36:31] one. So, uh, the applicant, uh, Corey

[1:36:35] Fabian purchased this property of 480

[1:36:37] East 100 South.

[1:36:40] [clears throat] Um, it is a property

[1:36:42] that's about 8,150 square feet in area

[1:36:46] and has 80 ft of frontage. So, the

[1:36:48] minimums for that zone are 10,000 square

[1:36:50] feet uh, with 90 ft of frontage. Um

[1:36:54] because of this it's it's considered a

[1:36:57] non-conforming

[1:36:59] building and to reconstruct or enlarge a

[1:37:03] non-conforming

[1:37:05] uh building on this non-conforming lot

[1:37:08] uh section 322070

[1:37:10] of our uh development code comes into

[1:37:13] play.

[1:37:14] Um so that means that they have to take

[1:37:18] this request to the planning commission

[1:37:21] and planning commission makes a

[1:37:22] recommendation to the city council and

[1:37:24] then the city council

[1:37:26] um being the land use authority in this

[1:37:29] case would make the decision and apply

[1:37:32] any conditions uh as per this ordinance

[1:37:36] that they see fit. So, the applicant has

[1:37:40] uh prepared a site plan and a set of

[1:37:44] plans um that are included in the packet

[1:37:47] uh with a proposal to reconstruct a

[1:37:51] house uh on this property. Um as

[1:37:56] presented, it does meet the setbacks for

[1:37:59] the zone

[1:38:01] and the height requirements. Um the

[1:38:04] applicant is here tonight.

[1:38:07] um in our audience. So

[1:38:10] if you have any specific questions for

[1:38:12] her, she I'm sure would be happy to

[1:38:14] answer those as well.

[1:38:16] >> So do you guys have any questions or I

[1:38:21] was going over our rules of order. So

[1:38:22] we're supposed the format is that we're

[1:38:24] supposed to once it's been presented if

[1:38:25] there's any technical questions that you

[1:38:27] need answered and then after that is

[1:38:29] followed by a motion and then discussion

[1:38:32] on the motion and then the vote. Um, we

[1:38:34] do have I had a council person reach out

[1:38:37] to me earlier regarding there are a

[1:38:39] couple of residents that would like to

[1:38:40] make a comment which we will do before

[1:38:43] um we come to a motion so that they can

[1:38:46] um I believe they're neighboring

[1:38:48] residents is my understanding. Um so I

[1:38:51] think that will be the format that we'll

[1:38:52] go with. So we'll start with Jessica or

[1:38:54] Councilwoman Smean. Do you have any

[1:38:56] questions regarding that?

[1:38:58] >> Just as a prelude to that, may I just

[1:39:00] suggest that if there is a motion to

[1:39:02] approve, it has to be based on the

[1:39:04] findings that are in the staff report on

[1:39:07] pages 245 and 246.

[1:39:10] So, somebody needs to either refer to

[1:39:13] those or or say them out loud. That's a

[1:39:16] requirement of our ordinance if you're

[1:39:18] approving the reconstruction of a

[1:39:20] non-conforming

[1:39:22] building. So yeah, my understanding is

[1:39:24] legal non-conforming is that if they

[1:39:26] take down a structure, they're supposed

[1:39:28] to build it back in the original

[1:39:30] footprint. If it's anything else, it

[1:39:31] needs to come to planning commission and

[1:39:33] city council. And that's why it's here,

[1:39:35] right?

[1:39:35] >> Not not the original footprint is it any addition to a non-conforming

[1:39:41] structure or if it's a rebuild needs to

[1:39:44] meet the current setbacks.

[1:39:46] So, so not necessarily within the

[1:39:49] footprint of the previous home,

[1:39:51] >> but but also has to meet the findings

[1:39:53] that are stated in the code.

[1:39:56] >> Yeah.

[1:39:59] » Numbers one, two, three, and four.

[1:40:02] Uhhuh.

[1:40:04] >> On those two pages. Yeah. And to clarify

[1:40:07] what they were asking, this is for

[1:40:10] anything built in a nonconforming

[1:40:13] situation, whether it's on the footprint

[1:40:15] like she's bringing up or not, right? We

[1:40:17] have to do all of this, right?

[1:40:19] >> Yeah. Let me just go over these three

[1:40:21] things that are up on the screen right

[1:40:22] now. Uh, a non-conforming building or

[1:40:25] structure or a building housing a

[1:40:27] non-conforming use may be extended or

[1:40:29] enlarged or reconstructed subject to the

[1:40:32] prior approval by the city council after

[1:40:36] recommendation of the planning

[1:40:37] commission and such compliance with the

[1:40:39] following. Uh, number one, the proposed

[1:40:41] extension or replacement shall be

[1:40:43] located entirely on the same lot or

[1:40:46] parcel as the present non-conforming

[1:40:48] structure and will conform with all

[1:40:50] current setback and location

[1:40:51] requirements.

[1:40:53] Uh

[1:40:54] number two, the applicant shall submit a

[1:40:56] detailed site plan showing the location

[1:40:58] of the existing and proposed structures

[1:41:00] on the site and then in the vicinity,

[1:41:03] existing lot boundaries, roads,

[1:41:05] driveways, parking areas, utilities, and

[1:41:07] other significant features on the site

[1:41:10] in the immediate vicinity. And then a

[1:41:12] finding be made or a finding made by the

[1:41:14] majority of the council that and then

[1:41:17] there's these three things that Steve

[1:41:18] mentioned.

[1:41:20] Um, number one, the proposed enlargement

[1:41:23] four actually, sorry. Uh, the proposed

[1:41:26] enlargement or extension will not

[1:41:27] significantly alter the character of the

[1:41:29] building or use or its impact upon the

[1:41:32] area. Number two, building or use if

[1:41:34] extended will not have the effect of

[1:41:36] diminishing the value of property or the

[1:41:38] quality of living environment of

[1:41:40] adjacent properties.

[1:41:42] Three, the proposed enlargement will not

[1:41:44] significantly increase the number of

[1:41:46] vehicles or pedestrians or result in the

[1:41:49] establishment or increase a safety

[1:41:51] hazard to the area. And four, the

[1:41:54] proposed enlargement will not result in

[1:41:56] the establishment of a condition

[1:41:58] incompatible with the neighborhood area

[1:42:00] and the stated objective of the zone in

[1:42:03] which it was located.

[1:42:05] I did not mention that the planning

[1:42:08] commission recommended approval on this

[1:42:11] site plan.

[1:42:18] » Okay. Um,

[1:42:20] yeah, I have a couple of questions on

[1:42:22] the site plan. What is the

[1:42:26] certain like a calculation? And I don't

[1:42:28] know if your architect is here, but how

[1:42:31] much square footage of the lot is left

[1:42:34] over once all the improvements have been

[1:42:36] made?

[1:42:44] » Oh, [laughter]

[1:42:46] I'm not sure if

[1:42:48] >> So, I I know one one thing that we did

[1:42:50] check and uh the applicant came in and met with us. uh in this particular

[1:42:57] zone you can't have over 50% imperous

[1:42:59] area and so I know that they went

[1:43:02] through that exercise with their

[1:43:03] architect

[1:43:05] uh and this was found to meet that.

[1:43:08] >> So what's the hash marking?

[1:43:11] >> You can see yeah um you can see the the

[1:43:14] hashes to the bottom left there. That's

[1:43:16] all pvious surface area and to the to

[1:43:20] the right of the structure as well. And

[1:43:22] so that's how they're meeting that

[1:43:23] requirement.

[1:43:25] >> What do you mean the zone? Is it because

[1:43:27] they're TR10,000 or

[1:43:29] >> Yeah.

[1:43:29] >> Okay.

[1:43:30] >> Yes.

[1:43:37] » I think that was my main question. Did

[1:43:40] that calculation on impervious include

[1:43:42] it looks like there's a shed,

[1:43:44] a little out building in the back, and

[1:43:46] then I'm not sure what the darker area

[1:43:48] is to the right.

[1:43:51] a decking.

[1:43:52] >> Yeah, [clears throat]

[1:43:55] >> we might have to double check that to

[1:43:56] make sure.

[1:43:56] >> Yeah, just I mean visually

[1:43:58] >> during the building permit. Yeah.

[1:43:59] >> Yeah. I don't know if this is scaled

[1:44:00] right, but even with the hash mark that

[1:44:03] is impervious material, it it doesn't

[1:44:05] look like it's meeting that minimum 50%

[1:44:08] requirement.

[1:44:09] >> So, so the the box hatched area, it's

[1:44:14] actually pvious

[1:44:16] uh paper. So, it's a product we had to

[1:44:20] do. Uh, they provided us some

[1:44:23] information and and I trying to remember

[1:44:26] I think the calculations might be on

[1:44:28] here.

[1:44:30] >> Um, let me just look.

[1:44:36] » Yeah. Yeah, it's actually right there.

[1:44:38] The site plan calculations on that page.

[1:44:45] So it's 44 just under 45%

[1:44:49] coverage.

[1:44:53] » Sorry

[1:45:03] they're 5.1%

[1:45:06] below the threshold. Did you include the

[1:45:09] calculation on the future accessory

[1:45:11] structure of 97 square feet? How was

[1:45:14] that taken into account

[1:45:17] for TR 10,000?

[1:45:20] >> See, let's do the math.

[1:45:28] » Isn't it the second line item? 149

[1:45:30] square feet.

[1:45:33] » Oh, no. It's 97. I see.

[1:45:41] I'm just trying to see on here.

[1:45:52] » So, if that is not included in here, um

[1:45:56] that would require a separate permit

[1:45:59] from the house itself.

[1:46:02] >> [clears throat]

[1:46:02] >> Is that because it's less than 100

[1:46:03] square feet and we don't if the height

[1:46:05] is less they don't require a separate

[1:46:07] permit.

[1:46:09] >> So um but it it would take them over.

[1:46:22] » No, they still wouldn't be 50%.

[1:46:25] >> They're still under it.

[1:46:26] >> Well under it.

[1:46:28] >> That was it. That was the question I

[1:46:30] had. Thank you.

[1:46:31] >> Sarah, do you have a question?

[1:46:33] >> Yes. Um, if this is denied, what are the

[1:46:36] resources for the landowner?

[1:46:42] » I'll let Steve answer that.

[1:46:45] >> They can appeal it to the hearing

[1:46:46] officer.

[1:46:47] >> I was going to say,

[1:46:49] >> well, can they not also try to meet

[1:46:51] those criterias that we just read

[1:46:55] by modifying the design?

[1:46:59] If if we have the view that this does

[1:47:01] not meet that criteria, couldn't they

[1:47:03] fall in line with the criteria?

[1:47:05] >> They could or they can appeal to the

[1:47:07] hearing.

[1:47:08] >> So they can appeal how it is or refine

[1:47:10] and meet the criteria.

[1:47:12] >> Correct. Okay.

[1:47:12] >> It's up to the property owner.

[1:47:14] >> And forgive me because I'm still

[1:47:16] learning that if they appeal, what's

[1:47:18] that process like?

[1:47:20] >> So we have a hearing officer. Okay.

[1:47:23] >> Our staff will go and present and then

[1:47:26] the hearing officer um decides.

[1:47:28] Sometimes it goes the way we think it

[1:47:30] will and sometimes it goes completely

[1:47:31] opposite.

[1:47:32] >> It's totally up to the hearing officer.

[1:47:36] >> Um, okay. I

[1:47:37] >> authority

[1:47:38] >> I just have a few thoughts and comments.

[1:47:40] Um, just looking at this 3.22.07

[1:47:45] looking under number three says the

[1:47:47] proposed enlargement or extension will

[1:47:49] not significantly alter the character of

[1:47:51] the building or use or its impact upon

[1:47:53] the area. I noticed this building is

[1:47:56] technically a three-story h house

[1:48:00] next to

[1:48:02] two one-story homes and in this

[1:48:04] neighborhood to me it doesn't fit the

[1:48:09] neighborhood and or the character it

[1:48:11] says the building or use if extended

[1:48:13] will not have the effect of diminishing

[1:48:14] the value of property or the quality of

[1:48:16] living environment of adjacent

[1:48:18] properties. This again going back to the

[1:48:21] height and to views I just think that

[1:48:24] this will diminish some of the quality

[1:48:26] of living of the adjacent properties. Um I was looking I was revisiting kind

[1:48:35] of land use in the

[1:48:38] um Utah League of Cities and Towns and

[1:48:41] they talked a lot about property rights,

[1:48:42] but they also talk a lot about community

[1:48:44] rights and um how both need to be

[1:48:48] respected. And so when I look at our

[1:48:51] overall vision and our our master plan,

[1:48:56] it says under land use, preserve and

[1:48:58] protect specific comm community characteristics such as

[1:49:01] hillsides, scenic views, and critical

[1:49:05] lands in a historic small town. I love I

[1:49:08] love the style of this home. I fit feel

[1:49:10] like it fits. I just think the the

[1:49:12] height of the house does not fit. And I

[1:49:17] know that there's a little history. My

[1:49:20] understanding with this is that someone

[1:49:22] had approached the city to purchase this

[1:49:25] and they were told if you tear down the

[1:49:28] house, you have to rebuild on the same

[1:49:30] foundation, the same footing. And so

[1:49:32] they ended up not purchasing the home.

[1:49:35] And so [snorts] I feel like granting an

[1:49:38] exception when we've already told

[1:49:39] someone that they can't is is a little

[1:49:43] bit contradictory to what we've already

[1:49:44] told another resident that has tried to

[1:49:47] purchase the same home. So those are

[1:49:49] some of my concerns. Um yeah and my

[1:49:52] questions.

[1:49:54] >> Chrissy, did you have any questions?

[1:49:56] >> Shane, do you have a comment?

[1:49:57] >> If I can just

[1:49:58] >> Sure. I don't typically those

[1:50:01] conversations take place in our Monday

[1:50:03] morning meetings and I don't I know

[1:50:06] people came in and asked about this

[1:50:08] property over the last I don't know how

[1:50:11] many years few years I don't remember

[1:50:13] that conversation taking place like that

[1:50:16] um I mean the requirement is really

[1:50:20] what's in the ordinance um that's what

[1:50:23] we have to fall back on

[1:50:27] and which is why this is here right now.

[1:50:33] » So, um the my question just to clarify

[1:50:36] is the reason that it's non-conforming

[1:50:37] is because of the width of the frontage

[1:50:41] >> and the square footage

[1:50:45] >> 10,000

[1:50:46] >> but every and every like the setbacks

[1:50:48] the height all of that was within our

[1:50:50] own guidelines.

[1:50:52] >> Okay. And then because this um

[1:50:57] how do I want to say this? Seems

[1:50:58] somewhat subjective

[1:51:01] um about diminished value of property.

[1:51:05] Um

[1:51:07] let's see. Okay. Vehicle or pedestrians.

[1:51:10] It's still a single family home. Um

[1:51:14] character like character of the building

[1:51:16] like in a legal sense. What is the

[1:51:19] character of the building? Is it still a

[1:51:20] single family residence? So it conforms

[1:51:23] to number one and then um diminished

[1:51:28] value I think is somewhat well it's

[1:51:30] still a single family home and adjacent

[1:51:33] properties and then proposed enlargement

[1:51:36] um okay we talked about number three uh

[1:51:39] establishment of a condition in the

[1:51:41] neighborhood incompatible with the

[1:51:42] neighborhood and zone so we talked about

[1:51:46] impervious impervious and anything else

[1:51:48] in TR 10 that makes it unique

[1:51:52] that we're we haven't talked about. Is

[1:51:54] it compatible with the zone? Yes. Okay.

[1:51:58] So, [clears throat] I in reading the

[1:52:00] what what are the conditions to Steve's

[1:52:02] point like I can't really find anything

[1:52:05] that it doesn't conform to like the the

[1:52:08] four things um that we have to use as a

[1:52:11] tool to sort of guide you know anything

[1:52:15] that's not conforming. Um I do

[1:52:18] [clears throat] think

[1:52:20] like it's still a single family home.

[1:52:22] The the only concern I had and I need

[1:52:25] guidance here from um maybe from Steve

[1:52:27] and and uh from staff is that there

[1:52:30] during the construction period there was

[1:52:32] a fence that was removed and that has

[1:52:34] been brought to the attention of staff

[1:52:36] and um there's been interactions and so

[1:52:40] that can't play into this decision or is

[1:52:42] it outside of this decision?

[1:52:44] >> Yeah. Or can we like hook them together

[1:52:46] and say the fence needs to be re

[1:52:49] rebuilt?

[1:52:50] >> I I can address that. [clears throat]

[1:52:52] Let's say that you and I are next door

[1:52:54] neighbors and I decide to tear your

[1:52:57] fence down. I shouldn't my opinion I

[1:53:00] shouldn't do it but it's not something

[1:53:02] that we issued a permit a demolition

[1:53:05] permit for a fence and then they did it

[1:53:08] wrong. Um the city issued a demolition

[1:53:10] permit for the home because the

[1:53:12] requirements for that permit were met.

[1:53:15] Um fairly basic asbestous

[1:53:18] disconnect utilities and then they can get a permit

[1:53:23] um to demo a home. But uh we we view the

[1:53:28] fence issue as really a dispute between

[1:53:30] neighbors. Really a a civil dispute

[1:53:33] between neighbors. Um, you know, we

[1:53:36] might say, "Yeah,

[1:53:40] we think that fence shouldn't have came

[1:53:41] down." But we really don't have any way

[1:53:43] of going in and injecting oursel into

[1:53:45] that process and saying, "You, property

[1:53:47] owner one, need to uh replace property

[1:53:50] owner two's fence."

[1:53:53] Um, so that's they are unrelated, but I

[1:53:57] don't think the city's even a player in

[1:53:59] the fence discussion.

[1:54:02] So,

[1:54:05] What?

[1:54:07] >> Okay, you guys.

[1:54:09] >> I'll give you guys a chance, but let's

[1:54:10] >> He said the fence wasn't on the

[1:54:12] property. The issue is the fence was not

[1:54:14] on the city's property.

[1:54:16] >> And so the old saying, the city really

[1:54:18] didn't have a dog in that fight. Um

[1:54:21] would apply here. Um

[1:54:23] >> well, we try to protect our residents,

[1:54:25] you know,

[1:54:25] >> but but we

[1:54:26] >> from with ordinances that protect them

[1:54:29] from having things demolished. We get

[1:54:32] issues all the time. You know, my

[1:54:33] neighbor's water is raining onto my

[1:54:35] property or this or that or the other.

[1:54:38] And some things, you know, there's a

[1:54:40] city ordinance that we can say, "Hey,

[1:54:43] you're breaking this." And others

[1:54:45] there's not. And we don't have anything

[1:54:48] that addresses this fence issue

[1:54:51] >> that that we can back up.

[1:54:53] >> We're trying to bring a fence ordinance

[1:54:55] to the table.

[1:54:57] We've got one on the list,

[1:54:59] >> but it probably doesn't say you can't

[1:55:00] tear your neighbor's fence down at the

[1:55:01] same time.

[1:55:01] >> It actually does. It talks about what to

[1:55:03] do with fence disputes. It's been

[1:55:05] sitting there for two months.

[1:55:06] >> Oh,

[1:55:07] >> yeah.

[1:55:07] >> Let's move that up.

[1:55:08] >> Well, this is not a single problem. It's

[1:55:11] happened a couple times. So, the hope is

[1:55:12] that we can help with it, but sorry,

[1:55:14] it's not my turn.

[1:55:14] >> Okay. No. All right. So, that is not a

[1:55:16] re We can't um All right. We can't tie

[1:55:19] that.

[1:55:19] >> If you said anything wrong, Steve can

[1:55:21] correct me.

[1:55:22] Well, I just might point the council to

[1:55:25] the remainder

[1:55:26] but the following portion after those

[1:55:30] four findings that if the council

[1:55:33] decides to approve this, you have to

[1:55:36] make those findings expressly. Uh but

[1:55:39] then it says the council may attach such

[1:55:41] conditions to its approval as are

[1:55:43] necessary to adequately protect the

[1:55:45] property and uses in the surrounding

[1:55:47] territory and the intent of the zone

[1:55:50] including but not limited to the

[1:55:52] providing of off- streetet parking

[1:55:54] accessways, landscaping features and

[1:55:56] additional setback of structures.

[1:55:59] So if they're reasonable and if they're

[1:56:02] reasonably related to potential

[1:56:04] detrimental impacts,

[1:56:07] I that's when a conditions would be

[1:56:09] appropriate. The planning commission did

[1:56:11] not attach any conditions to its

[1:56:13] recommendation.

[1:56:15] Okay, that's what I was thinking. Um,

[1:56:17] was that it meets all the one through

[1:56:20] four, but that this the fence issue

[1:56:22] could have been a condition, but

[1:56:24] according to Shane, um, we don't

[1:56:27] necessarily have standing on the fence

[1:56:29] issue. Would you give me some direction

[1:56:32] with that, Steve?

[1:56:34] Well, Shane is right in that if there's

[1:56:37] a dispute between neighbors about a

[1:56:39] fence, that's typically not what we get

[1:56:42] involved with as a city.

[1:56:44] >> Okay?

[1:56:45] >> Often either neighbor, the disgruntled

[1:56:47] neighbor will come to the city and say,

[1:56:49] "Why don't you help me with this?" And

[1:56:51] it's not really our issue. It's a civil

[1:56:54] issue between neighbors. But again,

[1:56:57] landscaping features and those things,

[1:57:00] any reasonable conditions called out in

[1:57:03] the ordinance, if they can be reasonably

[1:57:05] tied to protecting, as it says, you

[1:57:10] know, the surrounding territory and the

[1:57:12] intent of the zone, then the council

[1:57:15] could attach conditions.

[1:57:16] >> So, my understanding is that you can

[1:57:18] attach what you questioned about

[1:57:21] regarding the fence to as a condition of

[1:57:24] the approval. That's how I'm

[1:57:26] interpreting what Steve so eloquently

[1:57:29] what Mr. Dy eloquently said.

[1:57:32] >> If she has to improve, if she has to

[1:57:33] interpret it, then it's not so eloquent.

[1:57:36] >> I have a question. Council member

[1:57:38] Haniman, I know you've been working on

[1:57:40] bulk and massing and then, you know, we kind of put that aside for a little

[1:57:45] while. um with this being just an 8,000

[1:57:48] square foot lot and then considering the

[1:57:51] bulk and massing impact, do you see that

[1:57:56] um

[1:57:58] would relate to item number one, the

[1:58:00] proposed enlargement or extension will

[1:58:02] not significantly alter the character of

[1:58:04] the building,

[1:58:06] which I'm assuming means the current

[1:58:09] building before it was torn down or its

[1:58:12] impact on the area. So when you look at

[1:58:14] that row of homes on that street, that

[1:58:18] was a small home and that was the

[1:58:21] character of that bulk and mass.

[1:58:24] >> So as you say, number one is arbitrary.

[1:58:28] It's actually

[1:58:30] not arbitrary at all because you can

[1:58:32] take a measurement. I think the other

[1:58:33] home that was torn down was about

[1:58:36] >> I don't know 800 square feet. I don't it

[1:58:38] was little. And so that one of all four

[1:58:43] is very concrete and more than triple

[1:58:47] >> impacting the character you know of the

[1:58:49] area.

[1:58:51] >> Well I think the character of the

[1:58:52] building like we have talked so much

[1:58:54] about um and listening to planning

[1:58:57] commission on main street like flexible

[1:58:59] housing like a character of the building

[1:59:01] may be like a multif family or something

[1:59:03] but it's still a single family home. So

[1:59:06] that's what I'm trying to I don't think

[1:59:08] the character of the building is really

[1:59:09] altered. I do believe that we do have a

[1:59:12] massing. Um and this is going to this

[1:59:15] just brings up something we will see

[1:59:16] more and more often because we see it in

[1:59:20] the new builds like people are filling

[1:59:22] up their entire lot with a building. And

[1:59:25] so I would really like to address

[1:59:27] massing. I don't feel like this is that

[1:59:29] extreme. Um although it's relative to

[1:59:33] what's maybe the next door neighbors if

[1:59:35] you look across the street um the homes

[1:59:39] you know to the what would that be east

[1:59:41] and west of creek side are are that

[1:59:43] similar size so

[1:59:45] >> but they are in different subdivisions

[1:59:47] all the homes across the street are to the west are about the same they're

[1:59:52] all about the same height about the same

[1:59:54] size.

[1:59:55] >> Yeah. But that that is not like um that

[2:00:00] is not within our ordinances to to force

[2:00:02] everyone to stay that way because people

[2:00:05] are putting on large expansions of their

[2:00:08] homes right now and they are taking an

[2:00:10] empty lot and filling it up with a house

[2:00:13] four times the size um of maybe what

[2:00:16] would have built 20 years ago because

[2:00:17] the lot sat vacant. So, I don't think we

[2:00:20] can really limit landholders to

[2:00:23] something that's unreasonable,

[2:00:25] like restrict them that in that way,

[2:00:27] even though it doesn't maybe we're not

[2:00:28] happy about it or maybe it doesn't feel

[2:00:30] right. I just don't think that we have

[2:00:32] that um authority. But so I see your

[2:00:36] points but I I'm just trying to you know

[2:00:38] stay within what do we have legal

[2:00:40] authority to do and legal um so when I

[2:00:44] saw the conditions I was wondering about

[2:00:45] the fence but I don't want to put the

[2:00:47] city in the middle of something that

[2:00:49] they don't really have a right to be in

[2:00:52] the middle of um based on what Shane has

[2:00:55] described. So I will think on that and

[2:00:58] that's the end of my comments.

[2:00:59] >> Okay Andrew so many I'll try to remember

[2:01:02] them and I'll try to get through them

[2:01:03] fast. So, uh, I want to just put the

[2:01:06] plug for our fence ordinance because

[2:01:08] that would solve this. By us not having

[2:01:11] an ordinance, we are creating problems

[2:01:13] for residents both on the height and how

[2:01:16] to demolish or how to build them. And

[2:01:18] so, we saw this earlier. So, Kaden, we

[2:01:20] love that you're here. If you could

[2:01:22] check it out and tell us everything

[2:01:23] that's wrong with it and help us improve

[2:01:24] it, we are at your mercy to try to make

[2:01:27] a great fence ordinance because we have

[2:01:28] just some things that haven't been

[2:01:30] finished. So, anyways, that would help.

[2:01:32] Um, thanks for all your comments. Uh, I

[2:01:35] think so. I I [clears throat] land

[2:01:37] totally opposite, but let me explain one

[2:01:40] thing that might help, and I love that

[2:01:41] you're working on bulk and masking. I'll

[2:01:42] be the first one to support you if you

[2:01:44] want. Uh, I think all of us will be

[2:01:46] behind you on that. Um, [clears throat]

[2:01:50] we are not in ordinance bill on this

[2:01:52] because from the beginning it is out of

[2:01:55] ordinance. Okay? It is a special

[2:01:58] situation. So it's not like we're in

[2:02:00] normal setback land and 10,000 square

[2:02:03] foot land. We're in a totally different

[2:02:05] realm because someone made an exception

[2:02:07] a long time ago. So the subjectiveness

[2:02:09] does kick in and that's what we have

[2:02:12] here. These these conditions I read

[2:02:14] through these conditions and I think it

[2:02:16] fails on one two and four. The proposed

[2:02:19] enlargement or extension will not

[2:02:20] significantly alter the character of the

[2:02:22] building or use uh or its impact upon

[2:02:25] the area. Remember most everyone built

[2:02:28] when that was a 600 foot uh 600 square

[2:02:32] foot house and that was the style and

[2:02:34] they got permission a special permission

[2:02:37] for that. This is be this will be very

[2:02:39] different. This will be very different

[2:02:41] on that. Number one so it doesn't mean

[2:02:42] that for me for number one the building

[2:02:44] or use is extended if extended will not

[2:02:48] have the effect of diminishing the value

[2:02:49] of property or the quality of living uh

[2:02:52] environment of the adjacent properties.

[2:02:54] very much will modify the adjacent

[2:02:56] properties based on

[2:02:59] nearly quadrupling its size but not

[2:03:03] quadrupling

[2:03:04] the land size or the lot size. So that

[2:03:07] will be very different. Um uh I mean you

[2:03:11] can do two things. You can build a lot

[2:03:12] of bulk or you can shrink a lot of land

[2:03:15] and it creates the same effect to live

[2:03:17] around which is lower quality of life.

[2:03:20] Um and but what as you increase the

[2:03:22] density number number three it doesn't

[2:03:24] really work with I'm sorry it it it

[2:03:26] passes number three in my mind. Number

[2:03:28] four though it does not pass the

[2:03:29] proposed enlargement will not result in

[2:03:32] the establishment of a condition

[2:03:34] incompatible with the neighborhood area

[2:03:36] and the stated objective of the zone in

[2:03:38] which it is located. Now remember we are

[2:03:41] in subjective bill because it has

[2:03:43] already broken the laws of the zone.

[2:03:45] Okay? It's not doing normal zone stuff.

[2:03:48] So, it is subjective and when we go and

[2:03:50] we look at that neighborhood and we look

[2:03:51] at what this would be with the

[2:03:53] surrounding neighborhood, it is not

[2:03:55] compatible at all with the adjacent

[2:03:57] homes. I'm not just talking to you. I'm

[2:03:58] talking to everyone.

[2:03:59] >> Mayor, may I just

[2:04:01] >> Yes.

[2:04:02] >> I don't know the whole history of this,

[2:04:03] but there's a difference between an

[2:04:06] illegal use and a legal non-conforming

[2:04:08] use.

[2:04:09] >> Legal non-conforming use is legal.

[2:04:11] >> It was approved.

[2:04:12] >> It just doesn't

[2:04:13] >> it doesn't comply now with the current

[2:04:16] ordinance. It's a more recent ordinance

[2:04:19] is overlaid on a legal use, what was

[2:04:21] illegal use. So now it's legal

[2:04:23] non-conforming. It doesn't mean it was

[2:04:25] illegal when it was when it was built.

[2:04:27] >> Thank you. I don't believe I said it was

[2:04:30] illegal ever. But thank you for that

[2:04:32] clarification.

[2:04:35] Uh, no, I didn't say it broke the rules.

[2:04:37] I said we were not adhering to the zone

[2:04:40] code or that's what I meant if I can

[2:04:42] clarify it. And you got the writing. So

[2:04:44] I'll I'll I'll trust you. But we don't

[2:04:46] know if when that home was built if the

[2:04:48] code was different and allowed us.

[2:04:51] >> That is true. I bet we could find that

[2:04:53] out. Um so anyways, under the current

[2:04:55] condition that it is, I don't I don't

[2:04:57] see it meeting those criteria. Uh

[2:05:00] however, is is it is it proper to ask

[2:05:02] questions to the uh um person

[2:05:06] petitioning for this? Is that okay to

[2:05:07] ask some questions for

[2:05:09] >> Is it a technical It's usually like

[2:05:11] technical questions.

[2:05:12] >> Well, I can just ask if they want to

[2:05:13] answer, they can answer. Do we have the

[2:05:14] property owners here?

[2:05:16] >> Yeah.

[2:05:16] >> If you can come up and state your name.

[2:05:23] » Is the microphones turned on?

[2:05:25] >> Yeah.

[2:05:25] >> Okay. Thank you. Hello.

[2:05:27] >> Hi.

[2:05:27] My name is Corey Fabian and I am the

[2:05:30] owner of the property and this is my

[2:05:32] general contractor uh Jared Bishop who

[2:05:35] has built numerous homes um for the

[2:05:37] Alpine community. So I've asked him to

[2:05:39] come and stand beside me. I hope that's

[2:05:41] okay.

[2:05:42] >> Thanks for coming. Uh, do you mind if I

[2:05:43] ask you a couple questions?

[2:05:45] >> Please do.

[2:05:45] >> Okay. Thanks. And I hope you do live in

[2:05:47] Alpine. Are you guys open to any

[2:05:49] modifications that the adjacent

[2:05:51] neighbors would uh maybe because we've

[2:05:53] received some uh feedback that they are

[2:05:56] uh worried of negative impact from the

[2:06:00] designs that they're looking at. Would

[2:06:01] you guys be open to uh meeting them in

[2:06:04] the middle trying to create something

[2:06:05] that maybe fits a little better? Would

[2:06:07] that still fit your goals? I'm curious

[2:06:09] to know what what the negative impacts,

[2:06:13] okay, are.

[2:06:14] >> So, there's a couple. Um, one would be

[2:06:17] [clears throat] bringing down the height

[2:06:18] a little to to be more in line with some

[2:06:20] of the similar ones that have been there

[2:06:22] for a long time. Um, another one would

[2:06:24] be uh just the square foot of the home

[2:06:27] if that is uh at all. And I'm asking not

[2:06:30] for you to do it. I'm asking if you're

[2:06:32] open to it.

[2:06:34] >> Um,

[2:06:35] >> thank you. Yeah.

[2:06:37] All the highlighted ones are ones that

[2:06:40] are as large or as tall.

[2:06:42] >> Okay. Well, look, you're doing your

[2:06:44] research. Good.

[2:06:44] >> That is neat.

[2:06:45] >> Um Okay. So, so that's the uh

[2:06:53] [laughter]

[2:06:55] >> So, first,

[2:06:56] >> and uh and this is good that he's

[2:06:58] passing this out. Just one thing because

[2:07:00] I know this neighborhood well. The ones

[2:07:03] in yellow are mostly new builds. The

[2:07:05] ones in yellow are mostly new builds. Um

[2:07:07] the homes that are directly behind the

[2:07:09] property, um they sit up a little bit

[2:07:11] higher.

[2:07:13] >> There are four homes that are directly

[2:07:15] adjacent to the backside of the

[2:07:17] property. Three out of those four are

[2:07:20] twostory homes,

[2:07:21] >> right?

[2:07:22] >> And one of them might be arguably a

[2:07:25] three-story home because it has a full

[2:07:26] walkout basement that is fully visible

[2:07:29] from my property. Um, I'd also like to

[2:07:33] note that the property that I'm building

[2:07:36] is a two-story house. Um, it's not a

[2:07:39] three-story house. And if you look at if

[2:07:43] you if you look at this map, you'll see

[2:07:45] that yes, the homes on either side of my

[2:07:49] home um were built um in the Yeah. in in

[2:07:54] the in the recent past. Um, and they are

[2:07:57] singlestory homes. When we talk about

[2:08:00] the neighborhood and how the

[2:08:02] neighborhood may be impacted,

[2:08:06] to me, the most defining feature of this

[2:08:08] neighborhood is the park. If you go

[2:08:11] around the entire perimeter of the park,

[2:08:13] you have 12 twostory homes and eight

[2:08:15] singlestory homes. Most of those homes

[2:08:18] are new builds. And I'd also like to

[2:08:21] note that I haven't taken the the design

[2:08:25] of this house lightly.

[2:08:28] this house. I purchased this property

[2:08:31] three years ago and I've been in a

[2:08:33] design process for three years and I

[2:08:37] started the process by approaching the

[2:08:38] city and asking questions about the

[2:08:42] existing property to make sure that the

[2:08:44] home that I wanted to build was

[2:08:47] buildable on this piece of property.

[2:08:49] Somebody noted that somebody else had

[2:08:52] questioned whether or not they could

[2:08:54] build and if they could build it have to

[2:08:56] be on the exact same on the exact same

[2:09:00] um

[2:09:01] >> footprint

[2:09:02] >> on the exact same footprint on the exact

[2:09:04] same foundation.

[2:09:05] >> I would like to note that I had the

[2:09:06] foundation professionally inspected and

[2:09:09] the foundation was failing. The house

[2:09:11] was actually tipping. You could roll a

[2:09:14] marble across the across [clears throat]

[2:09:16] the floor. So, under any circumstances,

[2:09:19] that house could not have been rebuilt

[2:09:22] in place.

[2:09:23] >> I think they don't mean like built on

[2:09:25] the same foundation because Park City

[2:09:26] runs into this problem a lot.

[2:09:28] >> They have to like basically put a new

[2:09:30] foundation in the same spot. But just

[2:09:32] going back, I appreciate this. No, I

[2:09:34] know the neighborhood really well.

[2:09:35] You're lucky to, if you move there, live

[2:09:38] by some of the finest Alpine residents

[2:09:40] who have lived there for a really long

[2:09:41] time. Um, the ones in yellow are new

[2:09:44] builds. And this is kind of what we're

[2:09:45] running into in Alpine is that uh the

[2:09:48] new builds are uh drastically different

[2:09:50] from some of the more uh historic homes

[2:09:53] that have been here. And we're trying to

[2:09:54] preserve or I am trying to preserve

[2:09:56] that. I can't speak for everyone. Um,

[2:09:58] but back to the question uh and I

[2:10:01] appreciate you given the case. I I would

[2:10:03] do the same thing. Are you guys open to

[2:10:05] uh some modification to maybe um meet

[2:10:08] some of the hopes of some of the

[2:10:10] residents around you?

[2:10:11] >> I'm I'm still curious to understand what

[2:10:13] those would be.

[2:10:14] >> Well, I was trying to list some there.

[2:10:16] The uh the height, uh the square

[2:10:18] footage, um

[2:10:22] and then there's a couple specific

[2:10:24] things I was going to ask you guys about

[2:10:25] if you know about that would um be

[2:10:29] fixable. Um can I ask about those as

[2:10:31] well?

[2:10:32] >> Of course. One was uh removed large pine

[2:10:34] tree on the south side and then a um the

[2:10:38] chain link fence that was removed. Are

[2:10:41] those things that you're planning on are

[2:10:44] in your in your view are those things

[2:10:45] that need to be fixed? Is that is that

[2:10:47] something you were planning on replacing

[2:10:49] or fixing?

[2:10:50] >> I don't know what large pine tree you're

[2:10:52] talking about. The large pine tree that

[2:10:53] I know of is actually on Kelly's

[2:10:55] property on the other side of the fence.

[2:10:57] So I'm a little unclear as to what

[2:10:59] >> So you don't know what that is? How

[2:11:00] about the fence? Is that something that

[2:11:02] is uh you guys are thinking of putting

[2:11:04] back?

[2:11:05] >> The fence is something that I directly

[2:11:08] uh went to Kelly with at the time that

[2:11:10] there was a dispute and I offered

[2:11:12] several suggestions for remedying the

[2:11:15] problem. Um I know that this is a

[2:11:19] completely separate and it's civil and

[2:11:20] not and should not be weighted in the

[2:11:24] decision as to whether or not I can

[2:11:26] build a house, but but I'm happy to

[2:11:27] speak to it.

[2:11:28] >> Hope to bring peace and harmony. There's homes, but there's people,

[2:11:32] >> right?

[2:11:32] >> And we want to the people to love each

[2:11:34] other. Now,

[2:11:35] >> I fully understand that. I actually

[2:11:37] approached Kelly the day before the um

[2:11:39] the the uh fencing came down. I was

[2:11:42] under the impression that all of the

[2:11:44] fencing all the way around the property

[2:11:45] belonged to me, which I was wrong.

[2:11:48] >> Okay. And I approached Kelly, um,

[2:11:51] actually my fiance and I went over and

[2:11:52] brought cookies and let her know that,

[2:11:54] you know, demolition was going to be

[2:11:56] starting and if she had any problems,

[2:11:57] here was a list of of phone numbers that

[2:12:00] she could contact and the like. And um,

[2:12:03] she promptly told me that the block wall

[2:12:05] was hers, which was I didn't know that.

[2:12:08] Okay.

[2:12:09] >> And I I told her that I had a mason have

[2:12:12] the had the block wall professionally

[2:12:14] evaluated. and the interior of the block

[2:12:17] wall is rotted out. And I offered to,

[2:12:22] you know, I told her, "I've already paid

[2:12:23] for the excavation. If we wanted to take

[2:12:25] it down, I would rebuild it." And she

[2:12:27] wasn't open to that. And I figured that

[2:12:30] that's not worth a a

[2:12:33] >> okay,

[2:12:33] >> that's not worth a relationship. And so

[2:12:35] I said, "Okay, so maybe when it's all

[2:12:37] said and done, we can at least cap it

[2:12:40] off so that it stops the rotting or

[2:12:42] whatever." Um, and I asked her about the

[2:12:44] chain link fence. There was a three-foot

[2:12:46] chainlink fence across the sidey yard in

[2:12:49] the front of the house. That was a tree

[2:12:52] or something must have fallen on it at

[2:12:53] some point. It was crushed in one area

[2:12:56] and in disrepair. And

[2:12:58] >> I asked her, "Well, what do you think

[2:13:00] about the chain link fence?" And her

[2:13:02] quote reply was, "I don't care anything

[2:13:04] about the chain link fence."

[2:13:05] >> Okay. Okay. Well, just

[2:13:07] >> the chain link fence is what came down

[2:13:09] the next day.

[2:13:10] >> I'm trying. I I I only had one question.

[2:13:12] I haven't got it. Uh e either way the

[2:13:14] question is um would you be willing to

[2:13:16] make some adjustments? Absolutely. You

[2:13:17] would? Okay. That's all I'm wondering.

[2:13:19] You would be willing to work with the

[2:13:20] adjacent neighbors to make some

[2:13:22] adjustments that would create a harmony

[2:13:24] in that neighborhood?

[2:13:25] >> Of course.

[2:13:26] >> I would I would I would be happy to

[2:13:27] table this. I'm not making a motion. I'm

[2:13:29] just suggesting I'd be happy to table

[2:13:31] this until they come to a happy medium

[2:13:33] and then I would be more than

[2:13:34] supportive. That was the only question I

[2:13:36] had. May I ask one question to to the

[2:13:38] Workman family?

[2:13:38] >> So I just want to make sure like you

[2:13:40] know what? Let's wait. I they're going

[2:13:42] to come up for comment. So, you're

[2:13:44] agreeing to change the height and the

[2:13:46] square foot of your home. Is that what

[2:13:48] that's what he's asking? I just

[2:13:50] >> I'm hearing are you willing to work with

[2:13:52] the neighbor to remedy the fence that

[2:13:54] came down? And just to be clear, as soon

[2:13:57] as

[2:13:57] >> that's not his question, the three

[2:13:59] things. Uh I don't need to answer the

[2:14:01] question. And I understand because

[2:14:02] >> you don't have to. I just want to make

[2:14:03] sure that

[2:14:04] >> you understand what you're going to

[2:14:06] because

[2:14:07] >> I believe what you're asking is you want

[2:14:09] her to agree to change the square

[2:14:11] footage and the height of her home.

[2:14:12] >> I'm asking if she would be open to these

[2:14:15] >> and you said yes. That's what he's

[2:14:16] hearing. So, I just want to make sure

[2:14:18] that you guys are on the same page that

[2:14:20] you understand what you're

[2:14:21] >> So, you're not in agreement or you're

[2:14:23] not okay with making adjustments.

[2:14:24] >> She's in agreement with working on with

[2:14:26] the fence situation.

[2:14:27] >> Fence, yes. Home, no.

[2:14:28] >> Well, is that correct?

[2:14:29] >> So, here's the thing with the house. I

[2:14:31] mean, I hear what you're saying where

[2:14:32] your interpretation of those four rules

[2:14:34] aren't met, but I I disagree with that.

[2:14:37] And I've checked with the city one, two,

[2:14:40] three, four, five, six, seven, seven

[2:14:43] times. I've either spoken directly with

[2:14:46] planning and zoning or sat in front of

[2:14:47] the DRC to make sure that everything

[2:14:50] that I was doing was within compliance

[2:14:52] of all of the codes and the ordinances.

[2:14:54] And I have been told over and over again

[2:14:56] that it is. And I am hundreds of

[2:14:59] thousands of dollars into the this

[2:15:00] project at this point. And the only

[2:15:02] thing that's keeping me from breaking

[2:15:04] ground is the is the building permit.

[2:15:07] And this is supposed to be a

[2:15:10] technicality because it's legal

[2:15:12] non-conforming. But I've conformed to

[2:15:14] everything that is legal.

[2:15:15] >> She meets all of the ordinances.

[2:15:17] >> I meet all of the ordinances and all of

[2:15:19] the codes.

[2:15:19] >> I know that I work a different way

[2:15:21] though.

[2:15:22] >> Okay. Did you have any other questions?

[2:15:24] >> Just for the workman, but thank you so

[2:15:25] much. Can I can I finish commenting? I

[2:15:28] would like to say that this does not

[2:15:30] bring down the value of the properties

[2:15:32] or the adjacent neighborhood. It

[2:15:34] actually improves the adjacent

[2:15:35] neighborhood. And the house that came

[2:15:37] down was questionably a drug house and

[2:15:41] had multiple people that that came

[2:15:43] through. You can look it up next door.

[2:15:46] >> Well, okay, you guys make a comment, but

[2:15:50] then we need to move on.

[2:15:51] >> My comment is that

[2:15:55] the home that I'm going to build.

[2:15:59] I've even designed it so that it has the

[2:16:03] same character as the adjacent

[2:16:07] neighborhoods.

[2:16:08] It's literally in the corridor between

[2:16:12] what I would consider Alpine proper and

[2:16:15] all of the new development. And the

[2:16:18] homes that are directly behind my home

[2:16:21] are not brand new homes and they are all

[2:16:24] two-story homes. Almost all of them.

[2:16:25] There's only one exception.

[2:16:28] >> They're very

[2:16:29] >> And I don't block the view for anybody

[2:16:31] in any area.

[2:16:32] >> Okay. Well, we heard you. Thank you. I

[2:16:33] appreciate it. I I hope you're a

[2:16:35] wonderful resident of Alpine. I I'll ask

[2:16:37] the last question to the workman when

[2:16:38] they come up with this.

[2:16:39] >> Okay. Great. Thank you, Corey, for your

[2:16:40] time.

[2:16:40] >> Thank you for your time. Thank you.

[2:16:42] >> Brent, did you have any questions

[2:16:44] regarding this?

[2:16:45] >> Well, it wasn't just questions because

[2:16:46] everyone gave their opinions. So, I'm

[2:16:47] gonna go ahead and do the same.

[2:16:48] >> Yes, please. Brent, sorry.

[2:16:51] >> What?

[2:16:52] >> No.

[2:16:55] » I mean, yeah, everyone gave their

[2:16:57] opinion, so

[2:16:58] >> I know. No, I thought I laid it out.

[2:16:59] >> I'm gonna I'm gonna revert back to my

[2:17:02] law school days when I studied real

[2:17:04] property and my time uh practicing land

[2:17:06] use law and also my own practical

[2:17:09] experience of living all over the

[2:17:10] country. Um, first of all, I was going

[2:17:14] to save this until the next item, but I

[2:17:17] will talk about the constitutional

[2:17:19] rights to own and use property as you'd

[2:17:22] like to use it. Um, I think that's very

[2:17:26] important to understand that people have

[2:17:27] the right to use their property as they

[2:17:29] would like to use it.

[2:17:31] I would also like to note that um, I

[2:17:34] made a lot of different notes from the

[2:17:36] different the different uh, discussions.

[2:17:39] Um,

[2:17:40] I'll just go through the the list here.

[2:17:42] The proposed enlargement or extension

[2:17:44] will not significantly alter the

[2:17:45] character of the building or the use of

[2:17:46] the property. In this case, we're not

[2:17:48] expanding on the building. It's uh it's

[2:17:51] a reconstruction. This is very common,

[2:17:53] especially in older neighborhoods all

[2:17:55] over the country, that eventually houses

[2:17:58] break down and it's time to rebuild. And

[2:18:00] it's very common in Alpine and other

[2:18:03] places to see new homes in old

[2:18:05] neighborhoods. That's just a matter of

[2:18:06] fact. So I don't think I I believe it

[2:18:09] meets number one. Um the second one is

[2:18:12] the building or use of extended will not

[2:18:14] have the effect of diminishing the value

[2:18:16] of property or the quality of living

[2:18:17] environment of adjacent properties. I

[2:18:20] agree with the owner um based on my own

[2:18:22] experience and understanding land use

[2:18:25] law is you never want to be the biggest

[2:18:27] house in the neighborhood because the

[2:18:28] smaller homes increase in value as home

[2:18:31] bigger homes are built. So I think the

[2:18:32] opposite is in fact true that the area

[2:18:36] the homes in the area will imp their

[2:18:38] property value will increase by having a

[2:18:41] nicer home next to them.

[2:18:43] Uh the proposed enlargement will not

[2:18:45] significantly increase the number of

[2:18:46] vehicles or pedestrians. I think that's

[2:18:48] been met or no additional hazards. The

[2:18:51] proposed enlargement will not result in

[2:18:52] the establishment of a condition

[2:18:54] incompatible with the neighborhood. I'll

[2:18:55] agree with Chrissy that that

[2:18:58] compatibility is single family homes.

[2:19:00] You look at this diagram and thanks for

[2:19:02] providing that. It looks exactly like my

[2:19:04] neighborhood in South Alpine where we

[2:19:07] have a mix of Ramblers singlestory and

[2:19:10] we have

[2:19:12] uh two-story buildings with basements

[2:19:13] like my home and like you were talking

[2:19:15] about. Um there's a home being built in

[2:19:17] my in my neighborhood that looks nothing

[2:19:19] like the others. It everyone else has

[2:19:22] the standard look of the homes that were

[2:19:24] built basically 20 years ago. This new

[2:19:26] home is a modern home with a flat roof.

[2:19:28] It's a It's a rectangle. It looks very

[2:19:31] odd to me, but that's their property,

[2:19:34] right? They meet the condition. They

[2:19:36] meet the ordinances of setbacks of

[2:19:39] what's the other term?

[2:19:42] >> Yeah. Height, but also uh lots lot

[2:19:45] coverage ratio, which we're talking

[2:19:47] about bulkan massing, but I think it's

[2:19:48] actually called um lot coverage ratio.

[2:19:53] Um, you just people have the right to

[2:19:55] build the properties they want as long

[2:19:57] as it's within the or within the

[2:19:58] ordinance. And um, you can't just like

[2:20:01] we can't dictate the color of someone's

[2:20:03] home, we also can't dictate the size of

[2:20:05] their home. If someone there's still a

[2:20:07] couple of vacant lots in my

[2:20:08] neighborhood, if someone would want to

[2:20:09] build a a a much larger home than mine

[2:20:14] is, um, as long as it meets the

[2:20:16] criteria, I don't think I'd have any

[2:20:18] justice in or basis in opposing that.

[2:20:22] Uh it's a it's an irregular lot and we

[2:20:25] just dealt with one of those just a

[2:20:27] couple of meetings ago.

[2:20:29] Unfortunately, having practice law in

[2:20:32] Oregon where land use is very very

[2:20:34] controlled. It's one of the most liberal

[2:20:36] cities in America and they significantly

[2:20:37] control land use. Utah was not like

[2:20:39] that. Utah is more of a conservative uh

[2:20:42] state and until fairly recently

[2:20:46] planned communities and thought out

[2:20:49] zoning and processes uh weren't really

[2:20:52] prevalent and when this home was built I assume that was the case and that at

[2:20:56] the time obviously it conformed to

[2:20:57] whatever requirements were there if any

[2:21:09] Again, all homes do not need to be

[2:21:10] uniform.

[2:21:12] And I'll just end with this. This is an

[2:21:14] example of why land use laws, including

[2:21:16] Alpine's ordinances, allow exceptions to

[2:21:18] a standard zoning and other land use

[2:21:20] ordinances. When a prior building was

[2:21:22] built in compliance with the then

[2:21:24] existing ordinances, or there was no

[2:21:26] applicable ordinance, the zoning or

[2:21:28] ordinance was later changed. And now,

[2:21:30] when it's time to replace an older

[2:21:31] building, a similar use of that property

[2:21:34] can be accommodated under an exception

[2:21:35] or ordinance modification. in this case

[2:21:38] approval of a non-conforming building.

[2:21:40] So for me, I think it meets all the

[2:21:42] criteria.

[2:21:43] >> Thanks.

[2:21:44] >> Okay. So Jessica, I know I asked you for

[2:21:47] a question and you asked your question.

[2:21:49] Did you want to make a comment since

[2:21:50] everybody else did before we move on to

[2:21:52] comments from the adjacent property

[2:21:54] owners?

[2:21:58] » Just my my comment would be regarding

[2:22:02] land use. Um,

[2:22:05] we do have the legislative authority in

[2:22:08] this situation and so it isn't just a

[2:22:12] cut and dry land use issue and we're not

[2:22:15] prohibiting

[2:22:16] the property owner from using the land

[2:22:19] as written by our ordinances. So, it's

[2:22:22] just that that comment. I don't see this

[2:22:25] as prohibiting. I see this there's a

[2:22:28] reason that we have a legislative

[2:22:29] oversight for these exact reasons. I'm

[2:22:32] concerned that we're in the middle of

[2:22:34] evaluating bulk and massing. These are

[2:22:36] things that we've talked about for quite

[2:22:38] a while now of this is just the

[2:22:41] direction that Alpine is going. And so

[2:22:45] right now at each of these crossroads

[2:22:47] we're making decisions for the future

[2:22:50] for 100 years. And so what are those

[2:22:53] decisions we want to make?

[2:22:55] >> And that's my comment.

[2:22:57] >> So was the bulk and massing you were

[2:22:58] looking at was that in commercial

[2:22:59] property or residential?

[2:23:02] um both.

[2:23:05] But because it's not a current

[2:23:06] ordinance, it's not relevant.

[2:23:10] >> But because this is a legislative

[2:23:12] decision, all information is relevant.

[2:23:16] >> I did, and Shane mentioned it, but I did

[2:23:18] fail to note that it was unanimous

[2:23:20] recommendation for approval by the

[2:23:22] planning commission after reviewing the

[2:23:24] same ordinances that we've looked at.

[2:23:27] >> Okay. I'm going to ask um the adjacent

[2:23:29] property owners. We'll go in this order.

[2:23:31] Susan Pacer, then Kelly Workman, and

[2:23:33] then Mike Pacer. If you guys can come up

[2:23:36] with your comments.

[2:23:46] Um, I'm just going to say that I am

[2:23:48] opposed to this and my husband and I

[2:23:52] have discussed this a lot and he has a

[2:23:53] lot more to say about it, but I just

[2:23:56] wanted you to know that I'm opposed.

[2:23:58] I'll let him talk. Okay. Oh, I'm sorry.

[2:24:02] Miss Pacer. Is there any way

[2:24:04] you can come up and state your name and

[2:24:06] the street that you live on? I'm so

[2:24:07] sorry.

[2:24:08] >> Just for the record.

[2:24:09] Yeah. So, sorry if

[2:24:11] And then

[2:24:12] >> most people go too long. You did great.

[2:24:15] >> Susan Pacer is my name and I live at 500

[2:24:18] East 100 South.

[2:24:19] >> Thank you.

[2:24:23] » Yeah. I'm sorry. Yes. three minute

[2:24:25] comment

[2:24:26] but obviously she didn't take so

[2:24:28] >> but yes if you can put three minutes on

[2:24:30] the clock for Miss Workman

[2:24:32] [clears throat]

[2:24:34] » I just wanted you guys this is just

[2:24:36] showing the size

[2:24:46] » my name is Kelly Workman and I live on

[2:24:48] 100 um south uh I'm 480 right next to

[2:24:52] this empty lot that's

[2:24:54] And um

[2:24:56] I'd love if you guys put yourself in my

[2:24:58] situation where I you know if you live

[2:25:00] next to this and I um I live in the

[2:25:06] house next to it. I don't know if you

[2:25:08] guys know it was the Beck home. It was

[2:25:10] built in 1895 and it's, you know, an old

[2:25:12] historical home and I worked with the

[2:25:14] Becks for a few years and they sold it

[2:25:16] to me because they didn't want someone

[2:25:18] coming in tearing it down, putting a

[2:25:19] big, you know, big new home on it and so

[2:25:21] they wanted to keep it the way that it

[2:25:23] was and so I was able to get it. Um,

[2:25:26] I I moved here, our family moved here in

[2:25:30] 1967, so it's been a lot of years, but I

[2:25:32] bought this home. I bought this home and

[2:25:35] then the lot next door went up for sale

[2:25:37] and it's been for sale two or three

[2:25:39] times and you know Shane says he doesn't

[2:25:41] remember me calling and I'm not sure

[2:25:42] that I talked to him but I called the

[2:25:45] city more than one time asking telling

[2:25:47] them the lot and where it was and if I

[2:25:49] bought it because you can see that my

[2:25:52] property goes back behind that lot. So

[2:25:56] if I added to it, it would be I'm the

[2:25:58] only one that could really do anything

[2:26:00] with it because it's so small.

[2:26:02] And I was told both times that it could

[2:26:05] only be on the same footprint because

[2:26:07] the lot was not the right size that it

[2:26:10] was too it was a non-conforming lot. You

[2:26:12] could not build any bigger than the

[2:26:13] footprint on it. And then my neighbor

[2:26:15] where I lived um up on Peach Tree,

[2:26:18] Sherry Borne, who's been real estate for

[2:26:20] years and years and born and raised

[2:26:22] here. I asked I talked to her about it.

[2:26:24] She says, "Nope, it has to be on the

[2:26:25] same footprint. The lot is too small."

[2:26:28] >> So I just didn't I mean I didn't

[2:26:30] purchase it. you know, because of that.

[2:26:33] Um,

[2:26:35] and then it gets sold to Corey and then

[2:26:39] I just hear, "Oh, they meet the

[2:26:40] setbacks. She can build a house whatever

[2:26:42] size as long as she meets the setbacks."

[2:26:44] That is not at all what I was told. And

[2:26:46] that lot is so small. Um, I know she

[2:26:50] talked about, "Oh, the house is behind

[2:26:51] me." I mean, I'm behind her. The homes

[2:26:54] behind it are River Meadows that you go

[2:26:56] up the road and way behind. That's a

[2:26:58] subdivision newer and all behind there.

[2:27:01] If you just look at 100 South all along

[2:27:04] there, they're only one-story homes.

[2:27:06] Mine has a little dormer, you know, one

[2:27:09] and a half, I guess. And

[2:27:13] you know, we have the park across, but

[2:27:15] there's a couple homes that you guys

[2:27:17] have approved. There's one up on Main

[2:27:18] Street about I think it's about 700

[2:27:20] North that just looks like this huge

[2:27:23] salt box, you know, among the older

[2:27:25] homes, old, you know, the old Terry home

[2:27:29] and this one that just sticks clear up

[2:27:31] in the air. Looks terrible for the

[2:27:33] neighborhood, I think. And that's what,

[2:27:36] you know, this is going to look like. I

[2:27:38] mean, if you look how my lot and the

[2:27:40] home Oh, sorry. And it's only 32. My

[2:27:44] house is 3200 square feet on that big

[2:27:47] lot.

[2:27:48] >> 3700 square feet on that teeny little

[2:27:52] lot.

[2:27:52] >> I'm sorry. That is your time. Um,

[2:27:57] so, you know, there's issues. What she

[2:28:00] told you about the fence, you know,

[2:28:01] isn't correct. And I, you know, would

[2:28:04] like to go over that if there's a before

[2:28:08] she can get a a permit.

[2:28:09] >> Can we ask her one question?

[2:28:12] Do you have any questions?

[2:28:13] >> Do do does she available to do question?

[2:28:16] >> One question. Yes.

[2:28:17] >> Do you see any path to work with the

[2:28:19] homeowner where you guys could find a

[2:28:21] some sort of mutual solution that you

[2:28:24] would both be happy with

[2:28:26] >> regarding the house or the fence?

[2:28:28] >> Both.

[2:28:30] >> I I feel like that I know they say it's

[2:28:33] a civil matter, but you know, it was

[2:28:36] torn down and I and was told that it was

[2:28:38] my fence. So, I feel like I think

[2:28:41] they're open to that one. How about the

[2:28:42] house?

[2:28:43] >> I think that you know how tall that is.

[2:28:46] The chimneys are 44 feet tall.

[2:28:48] >> Does 44 fit into our height ordinance?

[2:28:51] >> That is horrible.

[2:28:53] >> I'm sorry.

[2:28:54] >> This is not going to look This is going

[2:28:55] to look horrible in this neighborhood.

[2:28:57] >> She's not alone on her street of

[2:28:58] bringing these things up with other

[2:28:59] house. But anyways, yeah. Okay, that was

[2:29:00] my question. Thank you for all that you

[2:29:02] >> Thank you. If we can have Mike Pacer

[2:29:04] come up, if you could state your name

[2:29:05] and state your street.

[2:29:09] So, just to be clear on the height, the

[2:29:10] height limit is for 34 feet to the

[2:29:13] midpoint of the roof, but a chimneys and

[2:29:16] other, they call them ancillary

[2:29:17] structures in the ordinance can be

[2:29:20] higher than that. And there's a height.

[2:29:22] I can't remember what it is, but we did

[2:29:23] check it and it's in compliance.

[2:29:28] Mike Pacer,

[2:29:30] [clears throat] 100 South. Uh,

[2:29:33] our property is to the east of where

[2:29:36] this house is going to be built. It'll

[2:29:38] be the same setback is what our house

[2:29:41] is. I have a tree at the back of my

[2:29:45] house that's about 35

[2:29:49] feet tall. When I left this our home at

[2:29:54] 20 minutes to 6 this afternoon, the

[2:29:57] shade from that tree covered my whole

[2:30:00] house. My my concern is the height of

[2:30:04] this house. Uh I know it meets all your

[2:30:09] ordinances and regulations, but I'm

[2:30:12] going to be in shade all afternoon or

[2:30:15] evening from this house because of its

[2:30:18] height.

[2:30:19] I I have a a question on the building

[2:30:23] department.

[2:30:25] Is there someone here from the building

[2:30:27] department?

[2:30:28] >> No, we'll we'll do our best to represent

[2:30:30] them.

[2:30:31] >> Okay. [clears throat]

[2:30:33] >> Number one, when when was the permit

[2:30:36] submitted

[2:30:38] or not the permit, the plan submitted

[2:30:41] >> for this home?

[2:30:42] >> Yes.

[2:30:44] It was

[2:30:46] the official submittal I think was like

[2:30:49] two or three weeks ago.

[2:30:51] >> Okay.

[2:30:52] >> Would have been may maybe a month ago.

[2:30:53] We got them on the the first planning

[2:30:55] commission that they could be on.

[2:30:58] >> All right. We met with the building

[2:31:00] department and they said they said that

[2:31:03] it was approved on their last meeting.

[2:31:05] Is that correct?

[2:31:06] >> On March 31st.

[2:31:08] >> March 31st.

[2:31:09] >> Okay.

[2:31:11] Uh, is there any way that this the

[2:31:14] building department could notify

[2:31:17] the adjacent property owners that, you

[2:31:20] know, they're they're going to be

[2:31:22] reviewing the plans that were submitted.

[2:31:26] I' I've worked in construction for 40

[2:31:28] years. I've submitted permits, you know,

[2:31:32] for buildings. Most most of the cities

[2:31:36] around will

[2:31:38] >> notify the adjacent property owners or

[2:31:41] people on the street. Why why does not

[2:31:44] Alpine do that?

[2:31:46] >> We don't do that for home permits if

[2:31:49] it's a commercial building coming in or

[2:31:51] something like that and there's a site

[2:31:53] plan review. We just follow our

[2:31:54] ordinance on on notification.

[2:31:58] >> So the only way only way we'd know would

[2:32:01] be to look at their agenda every every

[2:32:04] twice a month or however they have

[2:32:07] >> a typical home building permit does not

[2:32:09] go on an agenda. It's just reviewed as

[2:32:11] through an administrative process

[2:32:13] through the building department. This

[2:32:15] one only went there because of the

[2:32:17] nonconforming

[2:32:18] issue.

[2:32:20] Well, I I would like, you know, as an as

[2:32:24] a neighbor to this lot, I would and

[2:32:28] other people in Alpine,

[2:32:30] all they have to do is just notify the

[2:32:33] people so they know when they're going

[2:32:34] to be discussing, you know, a home

[2:32:38] that's going to affect the the adjacent

[2:32:40] property owners.

[2:32:44] >> And that's where we just try to follow

[2:32:45] our ordinance because everybody's

[2:32:47] definition of effect is different. And

[2:32:50] so if we follow our ordinance, if our

[2:32:53] council makes a an amendment to our

[2:32:55] ordinance that says for a non-conforming

[2:32:57] use, we need to notify people within X

[2:33:00] feet or

[2:33:02] adjacent or whatever, then we would

[2:33:04] follow that process, but it currently

[2:33:07] does not say that.

[2:33:08] >> Okay.

[2:33:09] >> One thing, uh, Shane, we're we're in

[2:33:11] full respect, we're trying to do things

[2:33:12] like this, but we can't get anything

[2:33:15] through. So, um, any help on these types

[2:33:18] of things that I think would solve this

[2:33:20] situation in both cases will be helpful.

[2:33:24] So, I mean, because we are trying to

[2:33:26] change the ordinances to address these

[2:33:28] types of problems, but we can't get them

[2:33:31] even for a meeting.

[2:33:32] >> We just barely got on board last week.

[2:33:35] So, that's why I say I have a list of

[2:33:36] items that he'll be working on and and

[2:33:39] >> I know, but somehow everyone else gets

[2:33:40] their homes and their fences and every

[2:33:42] other permit through like lickety split.

[2:33:44] And so we're just we just we just want

[2:33:45] the same type of

[2:33:47] >> Well, I mean that's a little bit

[2:33:48] different, right? If you're talking

[2:33:50] about permits, that's a whole different

[2:33:51] department where we're not short

[2:33:53] staffed. But if you're talking about

[2:33:54] changing in ordinances, we were short

[2:33:56] staffed, but even short staffed, we have

[2:34:00] two big ordinance changes today to look

[2:34:02] at cemeteries and uh zoning for business

[2:34:05] commercial. So just say it's just just

[2:34:07] mutual. That's a I'm not asking for

[2:34:09] anything extra.

[2:34:11] >> Thank you.

[2:34:12] sir. So Shane, just as a

[2:34:14] quick followup, if this if this lot were

[2:34:15] 1,800 feet bigger and had 10 more feet

[2:34:18] of frontage, it would never have come to

[2:34:19] us, right? They could build this house

[2:34:21] >> if that were the case. That's correct.

[2:34:23] It just happens to be that

[2:34:25] >> back many, many, many years ago, they

[2:34:28] were able to subdivide this lot and have

[2:34:30] a much smaller lot

[2:34:31] >> than is typical in the neighborhood or a

[2:34:33] little bit smaller lot than typical.

[2:34:34] >> It probably happened before we had

[2:34:36] ordinances.

[2:34:36] >> It's basically 18% smaller. If it was a

[2:34:39] little bit bigger, it would never even

[2:34:41] we would never. There were other lots

[2:34:43] for sale that were conforming at the

[2:34:45] same time. So, the owners did buy it

[2:34:47] knowing and yeah, you don't know that. I

[2:34:50] mean,

[2:34:50] >> well, no, there are other lots that are

[2:34:51] 10,000 square feet for sale as well.

[2:34:53] >> No, but when this subdivided was what

[2:34:56] I'm saying the this is a

[2:34:58] >> This is an odd This is an odd lot,

[2:35:00] right?

[2:35:00] >> Right. It's an odd

[2:35:01] >> kind of like the last one.

[2:35:02] >> By the way, I loved all of your wise

[2:35:04] Brent comments.

[2:35:06] >> So, thank you. Okay. So, um with that,

[2:35:09] we've heard from the property owners,

[2:35:11] the adjacent prop um and the adjacent

[2:35:14] property owners. Um we have

[2:35:18] um consideration in front of you. Do I

[2:35:23] have a recommended motion?

[2:35:26] >> I'll move to approve the proposed site

[2:35:27] plan, including the reconstruction of

[2:35:28] the home at 480 East 100 South, finding

[2:35:32] that it meets the

[2:35:35] uh

[2:35:36] four conditions noted in 3.22.070.

[2:35:46] » Is that the entirety of your motion?

[2:35:49] >> Uh, yes.

[2:35:50] >> Okay. There is a motion that was

[2:35:53] proposed by Councilman Rumler. Is there

[2:35:55] a second or amendment to the motion?

[2:36:02] » Okay, I'll second it. I was going to say

[2:36:04] it fails, but it doesn't. We have a

[2:36:07] second by Councilwoman Hanaman.

[2:36:11] Um, we've had discussion, so I would

[2:36:14] like to move to a vote.

[2:36:17] >> I'm sorry. Did you say we have

[2:36:18] discussion or no discussion?

[2:36:19] >> No, we already had the discussion.

[2:36:21] >> Okay. I didn't know if you asked for

[2:36:22] more discussion.

[2:36:22] >> No, I was I would have had discussion at

[2:36:25] this time, but I feel like we've had all

[2:36:27] the discussion. Everyone has expressed

[2:36:29] their concerns. I I think there is one

[2:36:31] more point of discussion and looking at

[2:36:34] the zoning actually this house is in a

[2:36:38] different zoning than all the homes that

[2:36:40] are highlighted in most of the homes

[2:36:43] that are highlighted in yellow. So it it

[2:36:45] is [clears throat] a differentiator in

[2:36:47] that the homes highlighted in yellow

[2:36:49] most of those are on a halfacre lot

[2:36:52] and this is again

[2:36:54] >> those are the ones to the north

[2:36:56] >> but not the highlighted ones just south

[2:36:57] of it.

[2:36:59] Well, here's our zoning map.

[2:37:04] » That's it.

[2:37:05] >> Okay. So, with that comment, let's

[2:37:07] proceed with the roll call, though.

[2:37:09] >> Jessica Simuan, no.

[2:37:10] >> Sarah Blackwell, no. Chrissy Haniman,

[2:37:13] yes.

[2:37:13] >> Andrew Young, no. Brent Remler, yes.

[2:37:16] >> Okay, the motion fails.

[2:37:18] >> I can make a follow-up motion.

[2:37:22] >> Do we not make a follow-up motion?

[2:37:23] >> I can do it.

[2:37:24] >> Go ahead.

[2:37:25] >> Don't we have to make a follow-up

[2:37:26] motion?

[2:37:26] >> No. Why?

[2:37:27] >> Oh, never mind then. I apologize. I will

[2:37:29] leave it at that.

[2:37:31] >> Okay, let's move on to

[2:37:33] >> I'm sorry. Do Can I Do should we make a

[2:37:35] follow-up motion to help this situation?

[2:37:38] Does anyone

[2:37:38] >> No, I think it's up to the property

[2:37:40] owners at this point. They

[2:37:42] >> You've expressed what you would like. I

[2:37:44] think the property owners have

[2:37:45] expressed,

[2:37:45] >> why don't you say what you're thinking

[2:37:47] because I do

[2:37:47] >> I mean I have been in many city council

[2:37:49] meetings where a motion hasn't passed

[2:37:51] and then a follow-up motion is made.

[2:37:53] >> We can have totally fine. I didn't say

[2:37:55] you can't have it.

[2:37:56] >> All we did is All we did is say no to

[2:37:59] approving it. Where does this land

[2:38:01] parliamentarian if that's okay?

[2:38:03] >> So they can go to the appeal authority

[2:38:05] or they could submit another they can go

[2:38:07] through the process again with a new

[2:38:09] floor plan. Those are their two options.

[2:38:11] >> My new when we don't approve, does that

[2:38:14] just go forward as a denial or does it

[2:38:16] go forward as just not approved?

[2:38:17] >> It's a denial.

[2:38:18] >> Okay. I didn't know. I apologize. I

[2:38:20] didn't know.

[2:38:22] >> Thank you.

[2:38:23] >> Did you have an alternate motion to

[2:38:24] make? Uh, no. I don't have an alternate

[2:38:26] motion.

[2:38:28] >> Jessica's right. That's That's

[2:38:29] >> No, if he had one, I would have

[2:38:30] entertained it, but

[2:38:31] >> Well, I I do have one.

[2:38:34] >> So, I I move to deny the

[2:38:37] um Can you move? I can't see the motion.

[2:38:40] >> I didn't know we had to deny.

[2:38:42] >> Pardon? Sorry. Sorry, Mayor.

[2:38:48] » To the sample motion. Yeah, I got

[2:38:51] >> Sorry. My apologies.

[2:38:54] Is that what you wanted?

[2:38:57] >> And you would insert

[2:38:58] >> that's the bottom. I I move to recommend

[2:39:00] denial of the proposed based on the

[2:39:02] following findings.

[2:39:04] I'll move back to those four conditions.

[2:39:11] » The

[2:39:13] proposed petition does not meet um item

[2:39:17] number one. The enlargement or extension

[2:39:19] will not significantly alter the

[2:39:21] character of the building or use or its

[2:39:25] impact upon the area.

[2:39:30] Okay. Is there a second?

[2:39:32] >> I second.

[2:39:33] >> It's been moved by Councilwoman Smeu and

[2:39:35] seconded by Councilman Young.

[2:39:38] Any discussion on the motion?

[2:39:41] >> Jessica?

[2:39:42] >> No. Sarah,

[2:39:44] >> did you want to add any of the other

[2:39:46] points on there as well or just point

[2:39:48] one?

[2:39:49] >> Well, it says a finding made by the

[2:39:50] majority vote of the council that and

[2:39:52] there's four items. And so to me, number

[2:39:55] one is the one it's in a different zone

[2:39:58] as the surrounding

[2:40:00] homes. It also

[2:40:02] >> clearly

[2:40:04] um doesn't fit the character of the home

[2:40:06] that it's replacing. And so those things

[2:40:09] are the most definable and measurable.

[2:40:12] >> Okay. Thanks.

[2:40:14] >> Um I think I think you could add four

[2:40:16] just because the incompatibility with

[2:40:18] the neighborhood area that stated the

[2:40:19] objective.

[2:40:20] >> So are you suggesting a substitute to

[2:40:22] the motion or

[2:40:22] >> would you consider adding?

[2:40:23] >> Yeah, I I would amend the motion to

[2:40:25] include item four.

[2:40:27] >> Okay. So there is a

[2:40:29] >> just to be clear. So

[2:40:32] you said that it didn't meet that

[2:40:34] finding number one, but then you added

[2:40:37] stuff after the motion was seconded. Do

[2:40:39] you want that to be part of the motion?

[2:40:42] where you had the specific

[2:40:45] finding about different zone and those

[2:40:48] kinds of things.

[2:40:49] >> Do I need to add that language in this

[2:40:51] motion or is saying number one is

[2:40:54] >> finding I would detail it out.

[2:40:56] >> Okay.

[2:40:56] >> So yes, I would like to include the

[2:40:59] differences in zones

[2:41:01] >> what you said.

[2:41:02] >> Yeah. Yeah.

[2:41:03] >> And then the amendment that I would ask

[2:41:05] for is

[2:41:05] >> and then also include number four

[2:41:08] >> with the with the language incompatible

[2:41:11] with the neighborhood area and the

[2:41:12] stated objective of the zone.

[2:41:16] >> That's number four.

[2:41:18] >> Yes.

[2:41:20] >> Okay. And so and Okay. So we have a

[2:41:23] substitute motion and yes

[2:41:25] >> needs needs to be seconded.

[2:41:26] >> Okay. There is a substitute motion. Is

[2:41:29] there a second to No. Is it substitute

[2:41:32] motion or amended motion?

[2:41:33] >> It's an amended motion.

[2:41:34] >> The amended motion is there. So then I

[2:41:38] need to go to you seconded it, right?

[2:41:40] Someone he suggested. So I just assume

[2:41:42] but yes, formally you're seconding the

[2:41:45] amendment, correct?

[2:41:47] >> Okay. Any you had your discussion. Did

[2:41:50] you have anything you wanted to say

[2:41:51] about this, Chrissy?

[2:41:53] >> I'm done.

[2:41:54] >> Andrew,

[2:41:56] >> okay, then let's proceed with the roll

[2:41:57] call vote. Just to be 100% clear on the

[2:41:59] zoning, there are about seven or eight

[2:42:01] homes south of this lot that are in the

[2:42:04] TR10,000 zone.

[2:42:08] » Just to be 100% clear,

[2:42:10] >> right? And and it was more it was the

[2:42:12] majority of the homes surrounding it,

[2:42:14] not every

[2:42:14] >> the the ones to the north are

[2:42:16] [clears throat] in a different zone, but

[2:42:17] seven or eight homes kind of south and

[2:42:19] behind that lot that are in the

[2:42:21] TR10,000.

[2:42:22] >> Can we pull that up?

[2:42:23] >> Yeah. The document that was given to us

[2:42:25] showed a lot of homes in the west. Yeah.

[2:42:28] >> And a lot of homes in the

[2:42:30] on the culde-sac of

[2:42:32] >> Can you bring up Google maps?

[2:42:33] >> Yes.

[2:42:34] >> Of the three areas, one had

[2:42:39] some had the same zoning.

[2:42:42] >> Heidi, if you go to departments,

[2:42:44] planning and zoning over to the right

[2:42:46] >> and then maps down to the bottom, city

[2:42:49] maps, and then the bottom one is zoning.

[2:42:58] the the lines are the lot lines are

[2:43:00] faint enough on here that it's

[2:43:02] >> not see this. I just want to make sure

[2:43:04] everybody's clear.

[2:43:05] >> You can have conditions.

[2:43:09] » If you zoom in on right in the middle of

[2:43:11] the map there,

[2:43:14] >> it's by Creekite, right?

[2:43:15] >> Yeah,

[2:43:15] >> it's where that says 400 East. It's just

[2:43:17] to the east of there. So, if you maybe

[2:43:19] zoom in a little bit more.

[2:43:23] Don't know.

[2:43:25] >> It does it backwards.

[2:43:29] » Yeah. So, I believe right there under

[2:43:33] the 100 and the 100 South street name is

[2:43:36] the lot that's in question. So, there

[2:43:39] are lots south of there that are in the

[2:43:41] TR10,000 zone, that blue zone.

[2:43:44] >> Okay. If you'd like to remove the number

[2:43:45] four, you can. I don't know if that's

[2:43:48] possible at this point. [laughter]

[2:43:51] >> Wait, you wanted I'm sorry. So, if I'm

[2:43:53] understanding, she's surrounded by the

[2:43:56] new property is surrounded by this

[2:43:57] L-shaped property, which we have full

[2:43:59] visibility of.

[2:44:01] >> Ju just to be clear, I think mayor, it

[2:44:03] might help if Jessica restated her

[2:44:06] motion

[2:44:07] >> with the specific findings that she

[2:44:10] wants to include.

[2:44:11] >> Okay, let's do that.

[2:44:12] >> And there is in number four a and. So,

[2:44:15] it is two separate things. It says the

[2:44:18] proposed enlargement will not result in

[2:44:20] the establishment of a condition

[2:44:22] incompatible with the neighborhood area

[2:44:25] and the stated objective of the zone in

[2:44:28] which it is located.

[2:44:30] >> So it's and well I guess that would be

[2:44:32] >> but we're we're moving.

[2:44:33] >> Okay. Counciloman Smewing, will you

[2:44:35] please restate your motion?

[2:44:38] >> I'm just asking

[2:44:40] council member Young where is the and

[2:44:43] when I read number one I see the

[2:44:45] >> Oh no, I read number four. talking.

[2:44:46] >> So, you don't have to include number

[2:44:47] four since there's two pieces to number

[2:44:50] four if you'd like. The zoning and then

[2:44:51] the neighborhood. I was considering just

[2:44:53] the neighborhood. Uh but when you get to

[2:44:55] zone lines, that changes it. So, you can

[2:44:57] just include number one.

[2:45:02] » I think your original motion,

[2:45:03] >> right? I'm just I'm just looking at for

[2:45:06] um and considering it. Okay. So,

[2:45:12] the language in my motion would be I

[2:45:14] move to deny

[2:45:17] the approval of the non-conforming

[2:45:20] building permit

[2:45:24] based upon the finding that

[2:45:31] the building

[2:45:34] how does the should the language read

[2:45:36] does not meet the finding that the proposed

[2:45:42] enlargement or extension will not

[2:45:45] significantly alter the character of the

[2:45:47] building or

[2:45:49] use or its impact upon the area.

[2:45:54] >> Yeah.

[2:45:55] >> Because the the

[2:45:58] permit the permitted building or the the

[2:46:01] building permit will the proposed just

[2:46:04] take out knock

[2:46:10] Okay.

[2:46:10] >> Did you get that D or do you need her to

[2:46:12] restate it? Can

[2:46:13] >> can we can we discuss?

[2:46:14] >> I think she included the word not in

[2:46:18] Right. She's saying it it that the

[2:46:19] proposed enlargement will significantly

[2:46:21] alter etc. Is that right?

[2:46:23] >> Yes.

[2:46:24] >> Right. But the word significantly isn't

[2:46:27] >> in our ordinance.

[2:46:29] >> It is will not significantly

[2:46:32] >> significant. It is significant.

[2:46:35] >> Right. it will significantly.

[2:46:37] >> Okay. So basically number one

[2:46:39] >> based on the zoning

[2:46:43] » as based upon the zoning in that area.

[2:46:47] >> Okay, that is the motion. Is there a

[2:46:50] second? I believe there's a second.

[2:46:52] >> I second it.

[2:46:53] >> Okay, it's been second by Councilman

[2:46:54] Young.

[2:46:55] >> Zoning.

[2:46:56] >> I It's been seconded. Now, do we discuss

[2:46:59] or amend?

[2:47:00] >> Do we need to remove zoning just because

[2:47:02] it's

[2:47:03] >> makes it ambiguous. confused the part

[2:47:05] even though I believe four is still part

[2:47:07] of it. She's mixed four and one. The

[2:47:10] original motion she made was just on one

[2:47:13] where she said that and I apologize. Is

[2:47:15] there any way you can read back number

[2:47:17] one to her so that she can

[2:47:18] >> No, she has it in front of her.

[2:47:20] >> Oh, okay. Then that would be fine. I

[2:47:22] would just think you should remove

[2:47:23] >> just leave number one as is.

[2:47:24] and use

[2:47:26] number one. Uh that's what I would do.

[2:47:28] But

[2:47:28] >> and remove the mention of zoning.

[2:47:31] >> Correct. and remove not.

[2:47:33] >> So Steve was saying that you should keep

[2:47:37] the zoning in that that what that's why

[2:47:40] it would significantly change it. That

[2:47:42] the finding was that because it's in the

[2:47:44] TR10,000 as opposed to TR 20,000

[2:47:48] >> that what it was being compared against

[2:47:49] that it wasn't correct that if you

[2:47:51] compare it to other TR10,000 that it

[2:47:52] would significantly alter. So I believe

[2:47:55] that was a suggestion from our lawyer.

[2:47:58] So did you want to I mean it's up to

[2:48:00] you. with your motion.

[2:48:01] >> Yeah, but I just want the language to be

[2:48:03] clear and not muddied.

[2:48:05] >> Right.

[2:48:06] >> And so that's why the proposed

[2:48:07] enlargement or extension will

[2:48:10] significantly alter the character of the

[2:48:12] building or use or its impact upon the

[2:48:15] area as found in TR 10,000.

[2:48:19] >> Perfect.

[2:48:20] >> That's good.

[2:48:20] >> Okay.

[2:48:22] >> Did you sec Okay.

[2:48:23] >> There we go.

[2:48:25] >> I have a comment.

[2:48:27] >> Yes, sir.

[2:48:27] >> Because I'm I'm not a legal person. I

[2:48:30] had to look up the definition of

[2:48:32] character.

[2:48:33] >> I do too.

[2:48:35] >> Do you have Do you want to go?

[2:48:36] >> Go ahead. Sorry.

[2:48:37] >> You want So, let's see how reliable this

[2:48:40] is. Steve, you can check me on my um

[2:48:42] skills here, but it says the character

[2:48:45] of the building is defined as the

[2:48:46] combined effect of all visual aspects

[2:48:49] that constitute its appearance, style,

[2:48:51] and identity. And some of the defining

[2:48:54] features could be um the quality of the

[2:48:57] material, craftsmanship and like the um

[2:49:01] building materials, roof form,

[2:49:04] um the building setting including

[2:49:06] landscaping relationship to the street.

[2:49:08] So those are things that I don't

[2:49:10] understand how this does not conform to

[2:49:12] the character to to my in my opinion

[2:49:15] looking at the style of the home. It's

[2:49:18] an uh a style that was popular in over a

[2:49:21] hundred years ago with the roof lines

[2:49:23] and the the little arch that comes over

[2:49:26] the front door. I've been in homes in

[2:49:29] neighborhoods of over a hundred years

[2:49:31] old and that's exactly what those homes

[2:49:33] look like. So, I don't understand how

[2:49:35] the character doesn't fit because we're

[2:49:38] talking about architecture now. If you

[2:49:40] want to talk that this doesn't fit the

[2:49:41] character like that, I I don't agree

[2:49:44] with that. So, I do want you to

[2:49:45] understand why doesn't this house that

[2:49:48] could have been built a hundred years

[2:49:49] ago not fit the character of a home that

[2:49:52] was built a hundred years ago.

[2:49:53] >> And I think that's a really good point.

[2:49:55] And the way I read it is impact upon the

[2:49:58] area. We're looking at an area that is

[2:50:01] existing right now, not a whatif or

[2:50:04] could have been or those architectural

[2:50:07] features. We're looking at neighbors.

[2:50:08] We're looking at a community that's been

[2:50:11] developed.

[2:50:13] >> So, Alpine today. So that's what I'm

[2:50:15] measuring it against, not

[2:50:18] >> not the legal definition of character.

[2:50:20] >> Well, it says character or use or its

[2:50:24] impact upon the area. So it could be

[2:50:26] either or.

[2:50:27] >> And that's why I like,

[2:50:28] >> right? So the impact on the area is it

[2:50:29] is still a single family home.

[2:50:31] >> Yeah. But we have 50,000 square foot

[2:50:33] single family homes. Like we we a single

[2:50:36] family home is very broad. Like where

[2:50:38] this says condition incompatible with

[2:50:41] the neighborhood, that's what's coming.

[2:50:43] That's the number one thing I think it

[2:50:44] faults at is it is not compatible with

[2:50:47] the neighborhood

[2:50:48] >> because it looks like it's 100 years

[2:50:50] old.

[2:50:50] >> No, the the the the size the 3,000 ft

[2:50:53] from 600 square ft the the everything

[2:50:56] you just brought up in character.

[2:50:57] >> But that's not that's not the size is

[2:51:00] not in our ordinances.

[2:51:02] >> Well, it just goes back to bulk and

[2:51:03] massing that you and I drove around.

[2:51:05] >> We don't have we don't have anything to

[2:51:07] rely on that for that yet. It's a high

[2:51:08] priority, but we don't have here yet.

[2:51:10] So, we've had the discussion. We're

[2:51:12] still in the middle of a vote.

[2:51:15] >> Do

[2:51:16] >> true.

[2:51:16] >> Can we still arbitrate a disc like the

[2:51:19] vote while it's happening? It's you're

[2:51:22] >> we're discussing the motion is to not we moved away from zone

[2:51:27] and now no I'm

[2:51:28] >> she's just making a statement that

[2:51:30] >> the character of the building

[2:51:32] >> her opinion is that it's not she's

[2:51:34] saying that

[2:51:35] >> okay and so do we just come in and say

[2:51:37] our opinion is that it does

[2:51:39] >> it's not my opinion it's

[2:51:41] >> clarified by by saying or

[2:51:45] >> its impact upon the area.

[2:51:46] >> Okay. So, so legally when you look at

[2:51:49] the language again, we're legislative.

[2:51:51] We're the land use authority and we're

[2:51:53] making decisions for the city of Alpine,

[2:51:56] >> right? and and what we have is an

[2:51:58] ordinance to rely on and we have

[2:52:00] language in this ordinance that as a

[2:52:03] legislative body we view it

[2:52:06] >> meeting

[2:52:09] that criteria

[2:52:10] >> not character or its impact upon the

[2:52:14] area and again the impact upon the area

[2:52:17] some people may not believe that living

[2:52:18] in a shadow all day long impacts the

[2:52:20] area some people may not believe that

[2:52:23] but other people may believe that not

[2:52:25] seeing the sun all day may impact the

[2:52:27] area. So that's why we're a legislative

[2:52:29] body. That's why we have the ability to

[2:52:31] take all the information in and then

[2:52:34] evaluate it for our city.

[2:52:36] >> But if that if this lot was subdivided

[2:52:41] long long ago at today's standards, we

[2:52:43] would even we wouldn't even be having

[2:52:44] this discussion. They could build this

[2:52:45] house regardless of your feelings of

[2:52:49] what you like.

[2:52:50] >> I don't think feelings is the right

[2:52:52] word. Again, leaning into

[2:52:53] characterization of what's for me, I

[2:52:56] guess.

[2:52:56] >> Well, what we're reading into this

[2:52:57] ordinance, someone will look at it and

[2:52:59] feel like they see that it meets the

[2:53:01] criteria or it doesn't. I think it felt

[2:53:03] on three of them.

[2:53:04] >> So, that's just where I land.

[2:53:06] >> Okay, let's proceed with the

[2:53:08] >> Jessica Smean, yes. Sarah Blackwell,

[2:53:10] yes.

[2:53:12] Chieman, no.

[2:53:13] >> Andrew Young, yes. Brent Rumler, no.

[2:53:16] >> Okay, motion passes. Let's move on. Um,

[2:53:19] item

[2:53:21] >> Where are we at, people?

[2:53:25] Okay. Ordinance 2026-09,

[2:53:29] item B.

[2:53:40] » Okay, Ryan, are you back

[2:53:43] >> or are you still with us?

[2:53:45] >> Yep. Yep, I'm still here.

[2:53:47] >> Wait, so hold on. Um Ryan, thank you for

[2:53:51] being here. just we've got five more

[2:53:53] minutes before 9 and we've got um the

[2:53:57] Lone Peak Public Safety District budget

[2:53:59] which I know we need to go over tonight.

[2:54:02] We um have the American Fork Chamber

[2:54:06] still on and then we also were talking

[2:54:08] about maybe possibly bringing back the

[2:54:10] gateway the Main Street gateway. Um,

[2:54:13] keeping in mind that we do have an

[2:54:15] ordinance that we're supposed to be done

[2:54:16] by 9 supposedly unless there is an

[2:54:19] motion by the council. Um, at this point

[2:54:22] I would like you to number one make a

[2:54:26] motion to extend the meeting and then if

[2:54:28] there's a possibility of postponing some

[2:54:30] of these or tableabling some of these

[2:54:32] items for the next meeting so that we're

[2:54:34] not here forever. I'll make a motion to

[2:54:36] extend the meeting to the extent

[2:54:38] necessary to discuss action item B,

[2:54:44] C, and D, but to skip the additional

[2:54:48] discussion of the Main Street Gateway

[2:54:50] Quarter Master Plan portion and unless

[2:54:54] it's timesensitive,

[2:54:56] the ordinance 202610

[2:54:59] amendments to municipal code 8.04

[2:55:02] cemeteries. Is that is that time of the

[2:55:05] essence to discuss that?

[2:55:06] >> The reason we wanted this and had this

[2:55:08] on the agenda, [clears throat] um we

[2:55:11] wanted to get new signs up before

[2:55:13] Memorial Day and so it was very clear

[2:55:16] the requirements and what's actually

[2:55:18] listed on the sign right now doesn't

[2:55:21] match what's in the ordinance.

[2:55:23] >> Andrew, how long do you think your

[2:55:26] issues will take to discuss that?

[2:55:27] >> It's not just issues. It's just such an

[2:55:29] important thing. thing. I mean, these

[2:55:30] people, this is their deceased family

[2:55:33] members. So, I just wanted to take the

[2:55:35] time to get it right. There there had

[2:55:36] been rare occasions

[2:55:39] where I would ask people what their main

[2:55:41] issue was and it was something in

[2:55:43] regards to the cemetery because their

[2:55:44] daughter or like a family member. So, I

[2:55:47] just I saw a lot of things in there that

[2:55:49] I thought should be discussed more. Not

[2:55:51] that I uh don't like you wanting to put

[2:55:53] up the sign up there, but I actually do

[2:55:55] think it would take 30 minutes to go

[2:55:57] through. There

[2:55:59] there's a lot of verbiage. There's a lot

[2:56:00] of changes, a lot of verbage.

[2:56:02] >> It's It's a lot of And I And I don't

[2:56:04] want you When When is When is Memorial

[2:56:06] Day or How far are we away?

[2:56:08] >> It's May 25th. So, if we talked about it

[2:56:10] next council meeting, would that give

[2:56:11] you enough time to get the signs made

[2:56:14] and installed?

[2:56:18] » Perfect.

[2:56:19] >> Turn around. Maybe I could go through

[2:56:21] any things and give them to you before

[2:56:22] the meeting and try to just have a yes

[2:56:25] no vote because everyone's approved on

[2:56:26] it or any little changes.

[2:56:30] >> I don't mind staying. What's your

[2:56:32] preference?

[2:56:33] >> I

[2:56:34] >> I'm here [clears throat] to tell or

[2:56:35] Fanny.

[2:56:35] >> I'd rather not stay, but also I I know

[2:56:39] the chambers are here, but I don't know

[2:56:41] if either of those are that time

[2:56:42] sensitive either. If we can put off to

[2:56:44] the next meeting. Well, I was going to

[2:56:47] ask, could we just move the chamber to

[2:56:49] the to the next agenda item? Could you

[2:56:52] include that in your motion?

[2:56:53] >> Well, I think the ordinance You don't

[2:56:55] think we should go in order?

[2:56:56] >> I think we should just get it all done.

[2:56:58] >> Yeah, let's just move forward and try

[2:57:00] and limit our comments.

[2:57:01] >> We'll keep the cemetery one on there as

[2:57:02] well.

[2:57:04] >> Okay.

[2:57:07] » Are you withdrawing your motion?

[2:57:09] >> No.

[2:57:09] >> Where's the motion?

[2:57:10] >> I'll restate it if you'd like.

[2:57:12] I move to extend the meeting past the

[2:57:13] nine o'clock legislative deadline um

[2:57:18] to be able to discuss action items B C D

[2:57:24] and also ordinance 202610

[2:57:27] amendments to municip code 8.04

[2:57:30] cemeteries

[2:57:31] and tableabling the proposed discussion

[2:57:35] of the first part of the main street and

[2:57:36] gateway quarter master plan.

[2:57:38] >> I'll second that. Would

[2:57:43] you said tableabling the main street,

[2:57:47] right? Okay. Is that the only thing you

[2:57:49] tabled?

[2:57:50] >> Yes, we can do it. We're going to be

[2:57:52] very disciplined.

[2:57:53] >> I've been up since 1:00 a.m. Just want

[2:57:55] to reiterate that. Okay.

[2:57:57] >> I'm We're happy to put the cemetery on

[2:57:59] the next meeting if Shane's okay with

[2:58:01] that.

[2:58:02] >> No, he's not.

[2:58:03] >> We're going to get through it.

[2:58:04] >> Okay. So, there's been a motion. Is

[2:58:05] there a second?

[2:58:07] >> I'll second. Oh, I'm sorry. Sarah, do

[2:58:09] it. There's been a motion by Councilman

[2:58:11] Rmler, seconded by Councilwoman

[2:58:12] Blackwell to extend the meeting. Um, was

[2:58:15] all in favor?

[2:58:17] >> I Any opposed? Okay,

[2:58:24] there.

[2:58:26] Okay, let's move on to item B.

[2:58:33] Ryan, are you still on?

[2:58:37] >> Yep, I'm still here.

[2:58:39] You're doing this item, right?

[2:58:42] >> The Main Street one. Is that what you

[2:58:44] said?

[2:58:45] >> No, the um

[2:58:48] indoor self storage unit be on action

[2:58:50] items. Yeah, I can I can

[2:58:53] >> um I didn't do the

[2:58:56] we can we can do it.

[2:58:58] >> Okay.

[2:58:58] >> We can take care of

[2:58:59] >> Oh, no. No worries. Whatever you guys

[2:59:01] want, I can. Whatever Whatever is best

[2:59:04] for you guys.

[2:59:05] >> You know what? Shane says he can handle

[2:59:06] it. Thank you.

[2:59:07] >> Yeah. Thanks, Ryan. No worries. Thanks,

[2:59:09] guys. Have a good one.

[2:59:10] >> Thanks, Ryan.

[2:59:12] >> So, we had this item on the agenda two

[2:59:15] weeks ago for discussion. The council,

[2:59:19] you know, spent quite a bit of time

[2:59:21] talking about this. I think some

[2:59:22] residents spoke and [clears throat]

[2:59:24] different things. Um, so now we have it

[2:59:27] back on the agenda at the request of the

[2:59:29] applicant

[2:59:31] um for action. Um,

[2:59:35] uh, let's see. There were, you know, at

[2:59:37] the last meeting there were a few

[2:59:39] concerns uh expressed about this being

[2:59:43] the proper use for the site. Um there

[2:59:45] were both positive and negative uh

[2:59:48] sentiment from council members.

[2:59:52] There also was some discussion about

[2:59:54] this potentially being uh considered as

[2:59:58] an overlay zone as opposed to a

[3:00:00] conditional use permit.

[3:00:02] Um [clears throat] but it was brought

[3:00:05] back. Uh the applicant would like to

[3:00:08] pursue this conditional use permit. And

[3:00:10] again, this is for

[3:00:13] uh

[3:00:14] a code change that would allow these

[3:00:17] luxury uh uh condo luxury garages and

[3:00:21] indoor self- storage units. Um, this is

[3:00:24] a project that's being looked at uh at

[3:00:27] the Purple Mattress, the former Purple

[3:00:29] Mattress building property

[3:00:33] and the applicant is here tonight. Um,

[3:00:37] we can go through more of the staff

[3:00:39] report in more detail if you want to,

[3:00:41] but it was I think it was explained

[3:00:44] quite a bit of detail at the last

[3:00:46] meeting

[3:00:47] >> and discussed. So,

[3:00:49] >> okay, let's go through. Jessica, do you

[3:00:51] have any comments?

[3:00:55] >> Question.

[3:00:56] >> No, if you have I would prefer

[3:00:58] questions, motion, and then comment, but

[3:01:01] >> sure. Yes, we'll ask a question.

[3:01:03] >> Okay, I have no questions at this time.

[3:01:05] >> No questions.

[3:01:10] I have no questions.

[3:01:11] >> Okay, I'll entertain a motion.

[3:01:13] >> Oh, I thought we were going to comment.

[3:01:16] >> Motion and comment.

[3:01:17] >> Motion and then you comment.

[3:01:18] >> I'll make a motion. I move to approve

[3:01:19] the proposed code amendment to allow

[3:01:21] indoor self- storage units and condo

[3:01:24] luxury garages in the business

[3:01:25] commercial zone as presented in the

[3:01:26] staff packet finding that the amendment

[3:01:29] is consistent with the city's general

[3:01:30] plan policies and development code

[3:01:33] standards

[3:01:35] with the use and construction subject to

[3:01:37] future approval of a site plan

[3:01:40] development agreement and CCNRs with

[3:01:42] covenants conditions and restrictions

[3:01:45] that are satisfactory to the city and

[3:01:46] which include the city as a

[3:01:48] or include the city as an expressly

[3:01:50] intended third party beneficiary that

[3:01:52] can enforce the CCNRs.

[3:01:55] Sorry, I just

[3:01:56] >> Is there a second to the motion?

[3:01:58] >> I'll second the motion.

[3:02:00] >> Okay, it's been moved by Councilman

[3:02:01] Remler, seconded by Councilwoman

[3:02:03] Haniman. I'll entertain discussion.

[3:02:05] Let's start with um Councilwoman Smeuan.

[3:02:07] >> Okay. In your motion, you said you found

[3:02:09] it consistent with um Alpine City's

[3:02:12] general plan and can you go into a

[3:02:14] little more detail on that? Yeah, the planning commission looked into that

[3:02:18] as well and unanimous unanimous

[3:02:21] unanimously decided that um that I did

[3:02:25] meet that and recommended approval.

[3:02:29] >> I was at that meeting and I found their

[3:02:32] recommendation was highly subjective and

[3:02:34] on their opinion. They didn't reference

[3:02:36] any verbiage that I found. Correct me if

[3:02:39] I'm wrong. They didn't reference any

[3:02:42] point in the Alpine plan that it

[3:02:44] fulfilled or checked off.

[3:02:47] >> Part of the plan is the zoning. And

[3:02:48] >> the only thing I heard them say was,

[3:02:50] "I'd like one of those."

[3:02:52] >> That's one thing they said.

[3:02:53] >> I I did not find anything that they

[3:02:55] actually referenced in verbiage that met

[3:02:57] it.

[3:02:57] >> Oh, yeah. One member did say that.

[3:02:58] That's correct. But they did have

[3:03:00] several um things that they that they

[3:03:03] found that were

[3:03:04] >> and just to back up.

[3:03:05] >> So Jessica, did you let me let me go

[3:03:07] ahead with that was

[3:03:10] do that when you'll be the last one to

[3:03:12] talk. So let's go ahead.

[3:03:13] >> Okay. And and so just looking at you

[3:03:15] know the purpose of a conditional use

[3:03:17] permit which is what we have in front of

[3:03:18] us right now. and and you know our job

[3:03:22] is to make sure that this conditional

[3:03:24] use permit is compatible with um the

[3:03:28] vision and the community. And so as in

[3:03:31] doing that and looking at compatibility,

[3:03:34] I um looked at our gateway number one, I

[3:03:37] looked at our general plan and in our

[3:03:39] general plan it it pointed to policies

[3:03:42] in our gateway historic zone. And so as

[3:03:45] I went into our gateway historic zone

[3:03:47] and I wanted to again make sure that

[3:03:50] there was compatibility, there were a

[3:03:52] couple of items that stood out and it's

[3:03:55] um number one in relation to the

[3:03:57] surrounding areas and our gateway

[3:03:58] historic is an adopted plan that is part

[3:04:02] of our um city ordinances and in that it

[3:04:06] reads new construction should not be

[3:04:08] dramatically greater in scale than

[3:04:10] surrounding structures in the district.

[3:04:12] So in that scenario, this clearly having

[3:04:16] 700 total storage units, 50 of those

[3:04:20] being um condos with an active clubhouse

[3:04:25] clearly did not meet the standard of um

[3:04:30] it should be compatible with the

[3:04:31] surrounding scale and structure. There

[3:04:33] was also an item listed that the

[3:04:36] building form of new construction should

[3:04:38] be similar to surrounding structures but

[3:04:42] should not necessarily be indirect

[3:04:45] imitation. And again, I see that there's

[3:04:48] not a compatibility with this project

[3:04:50] where it is um compatible with what's

[3:04:55] going with I think we have on one side

[3:04:58] we have a historic

[3:05:01] um reconstructed

[3:05:03] event center that looks very much rustic

[3:05:06] and then on the other side we have a

[3:05:07] small dance studio. And so neither one

[3:05:10] of those elements are matched. But I

[3:05:13] wanted to look and see in our

[3:05:15] surrounding communities, is there a

[3:05:17] precedent or are other cities doing

[3:05:18] this? Is this something, you know, maybe

[3:05:21] this is where it's trending? So I looked

[3:05:23] at West Valley and actually West Valley

[3:05:26] has higher restrictive covenants for um

[3:05:30] storage units than what this what we're

[3:05:33] being um con what we're considering

[3:05:34] tonight. I also looked at Haramman. they

[3:05:37] have higher restrictions than what we're

[3:05:40] considering this evening. And I thought,

[3:05:42] okay, we're this project is not moving

[3:05:45] in the right direction. And so lastly, I

[3:05:48] looked at

[3:05:50] cities that

[3:05:52] are similar to Alpine because again,

[3:05:55] maybe this is a way to have low traffic

[3:06:00] because that, you know, is something

[3:06:02] that's important is we don't want a lot

[3:06:04] of traffic. We don't know how much

[3:06:06] traffic it has because we don't have a

[3:06:07] study regarding 50 condo units and we

[3:06:10] don't have a study regarding an active

[3:06:12] clubhouse and what that traffic

[3:06:14] implication is with 650 storage units.

[3:06:18] Agreed. There's probably not a ton of

[3:06:20] traffic. However, Highland doesn't allow

[3:06:22] storage units. Woodland Hills, which is

[3:06:25] also a similar town to Alpine, does not

[3:06:27] allow storage units. Fruit Heights does

[3:06:30] not allow storage units. Mapleton does,

[3:06:32] but only in their industrial and

[3:06:34] manufacturing zones. We're looking at a

[3:06:38] business commercial that will

[3:06:39] potentially become a transition zone per

[3:06:42] our our um small area plan. And so for

[3:06:46] me, um while I while I appreciate the

[3:06:51] motion, I don't see any touch where it

[3:06:55] meets our general plan, where it meets

[3:06:57] our gateway historic. And as a reminder

[3:06:59] to

[3:07:01] council, planning commission is a

[3:07:03] recommending body. They are appointed.

[3:07:06] They're not elected officials. We're

[3:07:07] here to represent the voice of our

[3:07:09] community.

[3:07:11] >> Okay.

[3:07:11] >> Wow.

[3:07:12] >> Sarah.

[3:07:13] >> Um I have probably spent the most amount

[3:07:15] of time studying out this topic because

[3:07:19] when I look at our overall vision and

[3:07:20] land use, there's lots of things that I

[3:07:22] feel like are subjective and you could

[3:07:25] argue one way or the other. um as far as

[3:07:28] like economic development when I look at

[3:07:30] that in our master plan correct me if

[3:07:33] I'm wrong but we do not receive a lot of

[3:07:35] tax revenue from storage units and in

[3:07:38] our business commercial zone that's been

[3:07:40] a concern for me this is zone business

[3:07:41] commercial how does it benefit the city

[3:07:44] financially

[3:07:45] um from a community standpoint

[3:07:48] um aesthetically

[3:07:50] um community engagement and so that's

[3:07:53] kind of where I've been kind of

[3:07:56] struggling going back and forth as to,

[3:07:59] you know, how it falls into those

[3:08:00] categories. Um, so those are some of

[3:08:03] just my thoughts and concerns. That's

[3:08:05] it.

[3:08:06] >> So, a couple of things. You said

[3:08:07] Highland doesn't um allow storage units.

[3:08:10] So, I don't Sounds like it's something

[3:08:12] that's new because they do have the

[3:08:13] Highland hide away, which is a storage

[3:08:15] unit. And then as far as tax revenue,

[3:08:18] um,

[3:08:19] >> you know, if you have storage units,

[3:08:21] it's going to be a business commercial

[3:08:23] building, which is taxed. Excuse me.

[3:08:25] >> I'm sorry. Is that not on the Cedar Hill

[3:08:27] side?

[3:08:27] >> I could.

[3:08:28] >> No,

[3:08:29] >> I must be thinking about the orange one.

[3:08:30] Sorry.

[3:08:31] >> Okay.

[3:08:33] >> So, um, and then as far as, you know,

[3:08:36] revenue for the city, it because it's at

[3:08:39] least the storage units is going to be

[3:08:41] considered a commercial property, wool

[3:08:44] receives um, property tax revenue at

[3:08:47] 100% of the value as opposed to when you

[3:08:51] have your primary residence and we

[3:08:53] collect property tax on that. there's a

[3:08:55] 45% discount for, you know, for your

[3:08:58] primary um residence. And then my

[3:09:00] understanding with the storage condos,

[3:09:03] those will not be their primary

[3:09:06] residence. So, they'll also be taxed.

[3:09:07] The property tax will be at 100% of the

[3:09:10] value of the unit.

[3:09:11] >> That's a one when they buy that unit. Is

[3:09:14] that a

[3:09:15] >> No, property tax is annual.

[3:09:17] >> Yeah. Right. Okay. But there isn't like

[3:09:19] a Okay. Yeah.

[3:09:20] >> Yeah. So, it's You're right. no sales

[3:09:22] tax revenue, but as far as property tax

[3:09:24] as opposed to whether it's going to be

[3:09:26] residential or nothing, you know,

[3:09:29] there's no income from that at all. If

[3:09:32] it were homes, we would get 55% of the

[3:09:35] value of the home. For property taxes,

[3:09:38] but for business, it's different. You

[3:09:39] get 100%.

[3:09:41] >> Do you feel like that would be

[3:09:44] is that less than what you would get?

[3:09:46] >> Oh, no. That you know, I don't feel one

[3:09:48] way or the other. is just I just wanted

[3:09:49] to clarify as far as you know um as far

[3:09:53] as monetary um benefit to the city that is something to consider but

[3:09:58] whether it outweighs everything that has

[3:10:01] been said that's something you know they

[3:10:02] need to consider right

[3:10:03] >> aren't we already getting that

[3:10:05] >> appreciate that

[3:10:05] >> aren't we already getting that

[3:10:07] >> tax revenue on the business zoning

[3:10:11] >> not because it's not I'm not sure how

[3:10:13] that works when if it's not because

[3:10:15] they've noticed a vacate I think it's

[3:10:17] like a different

[3:10:20] >> they still pay pro

[3:10:21] >> they still have to pay their commercial

[3:10:22] taxes.

[3:10:23] >> They pay property taxes but I think it's

[3:10:25] different if it's because I was

[3:10:28] questioned when um Purple was noticing

[3:10:31] the city because I was getting the

[3:10:32] notices the city was getting the notices

[3:10:34] that they were going to vacate and the

[3:10:35] whole purpose of doing that is to

[3:10:36] protect themselves from their taxes.

[3:10:38] there's some kind of it's a different

[3:10:39] level of taxes

[3:10:41] >> with I I assume with additional

[3:10:43] improvements and those individual condo

[3:10:45] units that the valuation would go up

[3:10:47] significantly

[3:10:48] >> so the tax revenue would go up

[3:10:50] proportionally

[3:10:51] >> right okay did you have anything else

[3:10:53] okay Chrissy

[3:10:55] >> um thank you for your insights I think

[3:10:58] um one of the things that we're bumping

[3:11:01] up against both with the previous uh

[3:11:04] item and this item is the value of our

[3:11:07] land has gone up um to such a point that

[3:11:11] um to make projects pencil even a home

[3:11:16] the cost of the land is driving up what

[3:11:19] is necessary to build [clears throat] um

[3:11:21] there's a formula roughly right that a

[3:11:25] project you'd spend x number of dollars

[3:11:26] on the land and then um the project has

[3:11:30] to earn money in in a commercial zone.

[3:11:33] So every project that has come before us

[3:11:36] that didn't fit any of our uses, you

[3:11:38] know, they're trying to see what could

[3:11:40] work. What are we open to? It just

[3:11:44] didn't pencil [clears throat] because

[3:11:45] the cost of the land is so high. And

[3:11:47] that's not just unique to this property,

[3:11:49] but we're seeing it in our residential

[3:11:51] areas as well, which is why we see like

[3:11:55] things being filled like every square

[3:11:57] inch of the property, which is this is

[3:11:59] happening to this property, too. So I do

[3:12:02] think um when we get to mass and zoning

[3:12:04] ordinances we will address this but at

[3:12:06] this point we we don't have something

[3:12:08] very specific but the history of um this

[3:12:12] specific piece of land um different

[3:12:16] things have been suggested and again

[3:12:18] they don't pencil because of the amount

[3:12:21] the cost of the land. Other things have

[3:12:24] been suggested like um residential units

[3:12:26] but in order to get it to pencil they

[3:12:28] have to go really high which would not

[3:12:30] meet the character of our city. I agree.

[3:12:33] Um and then maybe it would be great to

[3:12:35] expand the cemetery but we don't have $8

[3:12:38] million. So the city coffers I mean our um our fund balance for the cemetery

[3:12:44] is only1 million. So we can't even begin

[3:12:46] to comprehend

[3:12:48] buying this property to you know for the

[3:12:50] city. So looking at all the options, I

[3:12:53] don't think letting it stay vacant um is

[3:12:57] the best best use of our city uh

[3:13:00] resources to sort of have a pie in the

[3:13:04] sky idea that it could be something. I

[3:13:08] don't know what people think it could. I

[3:13:09] mean there's there are things it could

[3:13:11] be, but they're they're not economically

[3:13:14] viable even for public use. Even like

[3:13:16] people have said, "Well, we could

[3:13:17] convert it to a rec center, you know,

[3:13:19] for the city." Well, you you you know,

[3:13:21] we just went over budget. Like, we don't

[3:13:23] have the resources for that. So, I'm not

[3:13:26] trying to like put a square peg in a

[3:13:28] round hole, but I do think in trying to

[3:13:30] use the high find the highest and best

[3:13:32] use for this particular piece of

[3:13:35] property, we need to think out of the

[3:13:36] box, just plain and simple.

[3:13:38] >> Okay.

[3:13:39] >> Yes. Sorry, I have a question. I just I just have a comment. You know,

[3:13:44] the property owner has priced this

[3:13:46] rather high. So my question is why is it

[3:13:48] then our obligation to accommodate based

[3:13:51] off of a choice that he's made to market

[3:13:53] it that high? I don't know. That's

[3:13:55] >> No, I don't I agree with you. No, I

[3:13:57] agree. It's not our job to make sure

[3:13:59] that every piece of property owner um

[3:14:02] like what Brent talks about, they are

[3:14:04] they have owner they have land use

[3:14:07] rights and our job is to not inhibit

[3:14:10] them from the land owners developing the

[3:14:13] property according to our ordinances.

[3:14:15] Well, we don't really have an ordinance

[3:14:16] that can really use this land in a in in

[3:14:19] a way that um in a commercial way,

[3:14:22] right? And we don't have the resources

[3:14:24] to use it in a public way. So, we're

[3:14:26] trying to uh be creative maybe is a good

[3:14:29] word for it and think out of the box and

[3:14:31] try and figure out what can this land be

[3:14:33] used for, not with a goal of enriching

[3:14:35] um the land owners, but this is such a

[3:14:38] big part of our city. If you drive up

[3:14:41] Main Street, you know, all the way, you

[3:14:43] don't stop till you look you're looking

[3:14:45] pretty much it's right there and it's a

[3:14:48] huge piece of property relative to

[3:14:50] everything around it.

[3:14:52] >> So, whatever goes in there is going to

[3:14:54] have a lasting impact on our city. So, I

[3:14:57] think um we're very careful about that.

[3:14:59] So, I do appreciate all of the comments

[3:15:01] that have come through about not wanting

[3:15:04] certain things to happen in our city. We

[3:15:07] are voting tonight on an ordinance, not

[3:15:09] a particular project. So, we have more

[3:15:12] opportunities besides tonight to put

[3:15:15] additional restrictions on what the

[3:15:17] final product looks like. But I do think

[3:15:19] we have to open up the door to something

[3:15:22] different because of um sitting down

[3:15:24] with land people who would like to

[3:15:26] purchase the land and they talk about

[3:15:28] all the constraints they're dealing

[3:15:30] with. There just isn't really a viable

[3:15:32] option and it's already sent sat vacant

[3:15:35] for so long. I am willing to go into a

[3:15:38] different arena and say maybe we need to

[3:15:40] think out of the box about what's

[3:15:42] another way we could use the land. Um

[3:15:45] and that's this to me meets some really

[3:15:48] important factors that um as you know

[3:15:51] we've been involved in the main street

[3:15:52] guidelines. People don't want a lot of

[3:15:54] traffic in our city. This provides that.

[3:15:57] They um don't want people um like with

[3:16:01] really high buildings. I think we just

[3:16:03] heard that we don't want really really

[3:16:05] tall houses. So the buildings are

[3:16:07] actually relatively low compared to what

[3:16:10] um it you know they're not maxing out on

[3:16:12] height in any way. So I thought that was

[3:16:15] important. And then um they seem very

[3:16:18] willing to adjust their site plan which

[3:16:21] again we will see at a later meeting

[3:16:23] that's not under discussion today. Um

[3:16:25] but so we can like you know meet have

[3:16:28] some high expectations about the site

[3:16:31] plan and the CCNR is to keep things you

[3:16:33] know as they promised. So I do believe

[3:16:37] specifically I'm I'm speaking to the

[3:16:39] ordinance here that this is a different

[3:16:41] use. It's a different we don't have an

[3:16:44] allowed storage units in Alpine before

[3:16:46] and because of the it's in the it's in

[3:16:49] the um ordinance that there can be no

[3:16:52] other unit there could be no other

[3:16:55] storage units within a mile and then

[3:16:57] they drill they they did the circle

[3:16:59] around the whole property if if you know

[3:17:02] if this moves forward like we won't end

[3:17:05] up with a city full I think it was um we

[3:17:08] were we were adjusting the the by the

[3:17:11] survey the lines of Alpine City and they

[3:17:14] said we're like two square miles, right?

[3:17:16] Do you remember when we were talking

[3:17:18] about that one? And so if you put this

[3:17:20] particular piece of land, the purple

[3:17:22] property in the middle, it's like the

[3:17:24] whole city is because we're only two

[3:17:26] miles across. So if you do the onem

[3:17:28] radius, we we're we're pretty much not

[3:17:30] going to become a city of storage units

[3:17:33] because of that one restriction, which

[3:17:35] makes me much more comfortable about the

[3:17:37] ordinance. Um, so those that's my

[3:17:41] reasoning or is that I am willing to

[3:17:43] think out of the box because of the

[3:17:45] prominence of this this specific piece

[3:17:48] of land and that I do understand the

[3:17:51] need for it to be economically viable.

[3:17:53] If you don't have economically viable

[3:17:55] projects, I can't. We end up with what

[3:17:58] we have now. There is an empty building

[3:18:01] that's

[3:18:03] not in good shape and nobody's willing

[3:18:05] to invest any money to make it look

[3:18:06] nicer if it's not economically viable.

[3:18:09] >> Well, that's a question I have and maybe

[3:18:11] it's for Steve because it kind of feels

[3:18:12] like it's a fence thing. Is it a is it a

[3:18:16] city council's responsibility to make

[3:18:18] personal property economically viable?

[3:18:20] because I'd like to put a lot of little

[3:18:23] houses on my 1.6 acres and divide it up

[3:18:27] and sell it. So, so are we here to pick

[3:18:30] and choose whose projects pencil?

[3:18:33] >> No.

[3:18:33] >> Are we here to apply? And then secondly,

[3:18:36] >> wait, I have

[3:18:37] >> as far as I like the circle. Well,

[3:18:40] really quick,

[3:18:41] >> will you let her finish her?

[3:18:42] >> Well, this relates to storage units and

[3:18:44] property rights. Let's let Chrissy

[3:18:46] >> Can I ask you about storage units and

[3:18:48] property rights because there is a lot

[3:18:51] of

[3:18:51] >> Can you wait till after her comments and

[3:18:53] then we can proceed.

[3:18:54] >> Yeah,

[3:18:55] >> you take my time.

[3:18:56] >> Yes. I I I think I was wrapping up just

[3:18:59] to say that um this is a unique piece of

[3:19:04] property in our city. It's a in a very

[3:19:06] prominent place of our city. And I've

[3:19:08] sat with different people who thought of

[3:19:11] their best brought forth their best

[3:19:13] ideas about how to use the property and

[3:19:17] it just wasn't economically viable. So I

[3:19:19] I'm not saying it's my job to make sure

[3:19:22] it's econom economically viable, but I

[3:19:25] do think if we're too strict, we will

[3:19:28] end up with a piece of property sitting

[3:19:29] there for, you know, another hundred

[3:19:32] years. So because it's that's that's

[3:19:36] what we're that's that's where I that's

[3:19:37] my personal opinion because the cost of

[3:19:40] the land in Alpine is changing the very

[3:19:42] dynamics of residential and commercial

[3:19:45] use and we have to give some boundaries

[3:19:48] to it but that doesn't mean we can't we

[3:19:50] have to constantly just say what's

[3:19:53] already there is the only thing that's

[3:19:55] acceptable like I'm not that kind of

[3:19:57] person I think we have to look at what

[3:19:59] there was there was is no longer

[3:20:03] acceptable. What does the future look

[3:20:05] like? Okay.

[3:20:06] >> And that's my final comment.

[3:20:07] >> So, Chrissy, are you willing are you um

[3:20:10] willing to entertain a question from

[3:20:12] Jessica?

[3:20:13] >> Sure.

[3:20:13] >> Yes.

[3:20:14] >> Okay. So, you mentioned the circles and

[3:20:16] the storage unit restriction. So, people

[3:20:19] use their property. I think there's a

[3:20:21] couple of different platforms. One's

[3:20:23] called Neighborly and you can store

[3:20:26] boats or other things. So, are we now

[3:20:28] inhibiting other people's personal

[3:20:30] property rights by restricting storage

[3:20:32] units if we create, you know, that zone

[3:20:35] that nobody else can have storage units?

[3:20:37] That's just one thought I had. And then,

[3:20:41] um, this is just a comment. I sat with

[3:20:44] the same people that you sat with and

[3:20:46] they did come up with economically

[3:20:48] viable options for that um property and

[3:20:53] so

[3:20:55] >> that also were non-conforming to our

[3:20:56] uses

[3:20:57] >> and that's why we have the small area

[3:21:00] plan and that's why we met for months

[3:21:04] with the public and asked them what you

[3:21:06] would like to see and of all the hours

[3:21:09] we spent meeting with the public and

[3:21:12] getting their input ood and putting

[3:21:14] post-it notes. Not one of them asked for

[3:21:17] storage units. That that 700 storage

[3:21:20] units, 50 really they're accessory

[3:21:24] units. 50 accessory units in the heart

[3:21:29] of our gateway historic. So that's just

[3:21:31] I also sat in those meetings.

[3:21:33] >> I I I I hear you.

[3:21:35] >> Okay. And did did I hear you correctly

[3:21:37] that you wanted to forgo your comment

[3:21:38] and give it to

[3:21:39] >> you? I want to say something. I said I'd

[3:21:42] give her some of my time.

[3:21:44] I have [clears throat] loved what you

[3:21:46] have all said and to learn your

[3:21:47] perspectives. Um, this is awesome and I

[3:21:50] know they're different. Um, Brent and I

[3:21:53] overlap because this this is discussion

[3:21:54] about his motion. Right.

[3:21:56] >> Brent and I align on a lot of things,

[3:21:59] but this is where we are different. But

[3:22:02] I super appreciate his perspective and I

[3:22:05] hope I can add something to it. Do you

[3:22:06] mind pulling up Heidi the the this is

[3:22:10] from the Utah League of Cities and Towns

[3:22:11] and this shaped my view of property

[3:22:14] rights and it's also why we even have a

[3:22:16] city council.

[3:22:18] >> Sorry. If you go to the uh oh it's just

[3:22:21] property rights right there. If you

[3:22:23] double that. So there's literally no

[3:22:25] purpose for us to exist as a council if

[3:22:28] we just go on property rights. If we

[3:22:30] just go onto a law

[3:22:33] >> why are we even here? like if everyone

[3:22:35] can just buy property and do whatever

[3:22:37] they want with it like and that's

[3:22:39] usually a conservative Republican

[3:22:41] platform where I land politically but

[3:22:43] conservatives also try to conserve land

[3:22:45] conserve identity conserve the nature of

[3:22:49] an community. Okay.

[3:22:52] >> So we're hitting something different

[3:22:53] here. Property rights is yes the owner

[3:22:56] rights to use the land but I have a

[3:22:58] home. I can't divide it the two acres

[3:23:00] and the other one I I can't put a

[3:23:02] pornography store on it. I can't put a

[3:23:05] uh I can't put six horses on it. Why

[3:23:08] can't I do that? I have I own the

[3:23:09] property.

[3:23:10] >> Did I just hear you that you want to

[3:23:11] have a pornography store on your lot? Is

[3:23:13] that

[3:23:14] >> I would never do that. In fact, I work

[3:23:16] day and night to try to help those

[3:23:17] folks.

[3:23:18] >> That's what I heard.

[3:23:19] >> And so what what are we doing about

[3:23:22] property rights? Because we have them.

[3:23:24] Why can't I put a motorcycle park on my

[3:23:27] land? And this this solves it for me.

[3:23:30] And this came from the Utah League of

[3:23:32] Cities and Towns is the whole that we're

[3:23:34] here. We're here to balance the property

[3:23:36] owners rights with the health and

[3:23:39] wellbeing of the community, their peace,

[3:23:40] safety, and happiness, the public

[3:23:42] interest. That's what we're supposed to

[3:23:44] balance. And often it's a legislative

[3:23:45] choice. Often it is something that

[3:23:47] requires

[3:23:50] more art than science, more it doesn't

[3:23:53] just require uh brickandmortar words on

[3:23:56] a paper-like ordinance. And that's why

[3:23:58] they voted for us to do it. We're trying

[3:23:59] to represent the people. When we make a

[3:24:01] decision up here, we're not making a

[3:24:03] decision of what Andrew thinks or what

[3:24:05] we think. We're making the decision of

[3:24:07] what the people think that they we

[3:24:09] represent them in this situation. We've

[3:24:12] heard loud and clear um what they uh

[3:24:15] what they feel about this. So, anyways,

[3:24:18] we're supposed to represent the

[3:24:19] community and the only reason we don't

[3:24:21] just go off the law of property rights

[3:24:24] is we're supposed to decide what the

[3:24:26] look and feel of the city is. When you

[3:24:28] go to Venice, they created it the way

[3:24:30] they did. When you go to Park City, they

[3:24:31] created it the way we did. When we do it

[3:24:33] in Alpine, we're a little bit chaotic.

[3:24:36] We have aired on the side of free reign.

[3:24:39] And we can see that in the bizarre

[3:24:41] one-offs and then the bizarre um

[3:24:45] inongruencies.

[3:24:46] And uh I think we have let it go too far

[3:24:49] where now we have people's negative

[3:24:51] impact growing too large. And we're

[3:24:52] hearing we heard it today. We're hearing

[3:24:54] it every single day. Um I heard it all

[3:24:56] through the campaign. Um, and so is this

[3:24:59] even a property rights issue that we're

[3:25:01] talking about? Because that's where I

[3:25:02] believe Brent is coming from. Am I

[3:25:03] wrong? I I believe that's where you're

[3:25:05] coming from.

[3:25:07] Do you want me to address that now or

[3:25:08] later? Uh, maybe

[3:25:09] >> you know what? Let's wait. You still

[3:25:11] have your comments. So,

[3:25:12] >> I believe this is a property issue.

[3:25:14] >> I'd like to hear your comments and then

[3:25:15] let's move on.

[3:25:16] >> Okay. I believe this is you're coming

[3:25:18] from this as a property rights issue.

[3:25:20] Where I see this completely leaving the

[3:25:22] realm of property rights completely

[3:25:24] after everything I just said is this has

[3:25:26] nothing to do even though I know it's a

[3:25:28] need and a want they have this has

[3:25:30] nothing to do with their storage units.

[3:25:33] We this has everything to do with the

[3:25:34] entire business commercial zone. So we

[3:25:37] are now deciding the property rights of

[3:25:41] every single business every single home

[3:25:43] every single lot in the entire business

[3:25:47] commercial zone. And that's why I think

[3:25:48] this fails completely. It fails because

[3:25:51] we are deciding a blanket decision on a

[3:25:54] zoning decision, not for I wish this was

[3:25:57] a one-off. This would be so much easier

[3:25:59] as a one-off. I wish they would be

[3:26:01] flexible and work with the residents and

[3:26:03] find a happy medium. I drove by it

[3:26:05] today. I cannot imagine that big wall

[3:26:07] living by that. I wish they would work

[3:26:09] with the res. I have received no

[3:26:10] flexibility from anyone. And I love the

[3:26:13] owner and his family. I respect them. I

[3:26:14] love I want to work with these guys. I

[3:26:16] want I want them to do it. There are

[3:26:19] hundreds of way that you can make this

[3:26:20] pencil. Maybe thousands, maybe infinite

[3:26:23] ways you can make this pencil. And we

[3:26:25] have 20 approved ways in the current

[3:26:28] code that you can make this pencil and

[3:26:30] that are already approved. About 10 of

[3:26:32] them are conditional use permits and the

[3:26:35] other ones are blanket permission. I

[3:26:36] could be wrong on that, but it's about

[3:26:37] seven and 10 conditional permit. They

[3:26:40] have multiple multiple options from

[3:26:43] funeral care centers to residential

[3:26:45] houses to um animal things to uh old

[3:26:48] home places to uh um professional

[3:26:51] commercial usage like we have in the

[3:26:52] rest of Alpine. There are dozens and dozens of options about 20

[3:26:57] that are already approved and then we

[3:27:00] are veering out of that in just a way

[3:27:02] that we are setting ourselves up for a

[3:27:04] code that within one mile and 729 and I mean this code is

[3:27:10] so destructive. The minimum lot shall be

[3:27:12] three acres maximum lot area of five

[3:27:14] acres. I mean so that's anywhere within

[3:27:16] three acres. You might as well just say

[3:27:17] that an indoor uh luxury condo garage

[3:27:20] shall not be located within one mile.

[3:27:22] And then it says unless a reduced

[3:27:25] separation distance is recommended. So

[3:27:28] it doesn't even hold up your your circle

[3:27:30] thing. We could just say we we recommend

[3:27:32] a quarter or quarter mile. So it opens

[3:27:34] it up for this is not a decision. The

[3:27:36] more and more I look at this, the more

[3:27:38] and more I read this, this is not a

[3:27:39] decision on this storage unit. It's a

[3:27:42] decision on the zoning of the business

[3:27:43] commercial. And it it does it doesn't

[3:27:46] work. Um the the the the writing of the

[3:27:49] code to change our zone is not uh up to

[3:27:53] snuff. It is uh I see it creating

[3:27:56] massive problems in our future. And I

[3:27:59] would love nothing more than to work

[3:28:00] with them in the future and their

[3:28:02] residents who live near them and the

[3:28:04] current code we have and find an overlap

[3:28:06] that would harmonize. So that's why it

[3:28:08] would be against your motion with

[3:28:10] respect to how you've uh gotten to your

[3:28:12] site as well.

[3:28:15] >> Grant.

[3:28:16] >> Yeah. just just to just to clarify the

[3:28:18] um constitutional right is the high

[3:28:21] level aspect of land use. I completely

[3:28:24] agree with you that the one of the major

[3:28:27] roles of the legislative branch is to

[3:28:31] utilize land use to make a harmonious

[3:28:34] community and to protect rights. And

[3:28:36] that's why I vigorously defended the

[3:28:39] residential zoning for the orchard and

[3:28:42] the parking lot because it was in

[3:28:44] congruent with the established zoning,

[3:28:46] the established legislation in our

[3:28:49] community.

[3:28:50] Some of these irregular lots were

[3:28:52] probably done before we even had a reg a

[3:28:55] normal city council, before we had land

[3:28:56] use, before we had established

[3:28:59] ordinances that regulated land use.

[3:29:01] That's why I think there's a little bit

[3:29:02] of a difference between a little a

[3:29:04] regular lot that's a little bit smaller

[3:29:06] than the surrounding lots that normally

[3:29:08] could have a house but now it can't

[3:29:09] because of a illegal non-conforming use.

[3:29:13] So I've said this before in prior with

[3:29:15] prior city council and I've said it

[3:29:16] before with you present is that we have

[3:29:20] that constitutional right. That's that

[3:29:22] basic right to use to own and use

[3:29:25] property the way you want to and to

[3:29:27] exclude other people from infringing on

[3:29:29] that right.

[3:29:31] 120 years ago, New York decided to do

[3:29:33] something called zoning. And the

[3:29:37] legislative branch, like us, made made

[3:29:39] the decision that we're going to

[3:29:41] separate industrial use from residential

[3:29:44] use because we think that's for the

[3:29:45] public good. The judicial branch, as

[3:29:48] everyone knows, is the arbiter of the

[3:29:50] executive branch and the and the

[3:29:52] legislative branch. and the legis and

[3:29:54] the judicial branch has come out and

[3:29:55] said, "Yes, sometimes the city council

[3:29:59] goes too far and we're going to void

[3:30:01] that law." And in other times I say,

[3:30:02] "Yeah, that is for the public good and

[3:30:04] we'll allow that law to stand." So

[3:30:07] that's where we are with our ordinance

[3:30:09] and it's always a work in progress. Our

[3:30:11] ordinances are not perfect. Our land use

[3:30:14] ordinances are not perfect.

[3:30:16] the conditional use lists for our

[3:30:20] business zone, our business use zone

[3:30:21] uses are not complete because we just

[3:30:25] the people who originally enacted those

[3:30:27] ordinances, they couldn't anticipate all

[3:30:29] the potential future uses. So, this is

[3:30:31] what they started with. My understanding

[3:30:34] is we have that list and it has been

[3:30:36] expanded in the past to allow

[3:30:40] um it's the vehicle maintenance

[3:30:43] >> mechanical automotive shops. So I'm not

[3:30:47] saying that I want to approve this just

[3:30:49] because the land use owner wants to do

[3:30:50] it. That's couldn't be further from the

[3:30:53] truth. But that is the overarching

[3:30:55] standard with understanding the rights

[3:30:58] of the legislative branch are limited by

[3:31:01] the constitutionality of their of their

[3:31:03] actions of their statutes.

[3:31:05] So what I so I hope that's clear enough

[3:31:08] that that's where I'm coming from. I I

[3:31:10] don't think we should do it just because

[3:31:12] they want to. That's couldn't be further

[3:31:14] from the truth.

[3:31:17] So this property is owned business

[3:31:19] commercial and it's intended for

[3:31:20] business and commercial use. Several

[3:31:23] years ago, I don't know how long ago, a

[3:31:25] prior legislative

[3:31:27] branch of Alpine government allowed

[3:31:28] manufacturing on this property.

[3:31:32] Um,

[3:31:34] thus the large building was erected and

[3:31:36] used for manufacturing for many, many

[3:31:38] years. Manufacturing, as you know, is

[3:31:40] now a prohibited use in Alpine Code. But

[3:31:43] the manufacturing use on this lot was

[3:31:46] able to continue as a legal

[3:31:47] non-conforming use. I think we've had

[3:31:48] enough discussion about legal

[3:31:50] non-conforming uses today.

[3:31:54] So I'll just note that mandating that

[3:31:56] illegal non-conforming use can continue

[3:31:58] despite land use regulation changes is

[3:32:01] just one example of a limitation on land

[3:32:03] use restrictions governments can impose.

[3:32:06] So legis the judicial branch has said

[3:32:08] you can't force someone to change their

[3:32:10] property use just because you want to

[3:32:12] change the zoning for that property. You

[3:32:14] have to allow legal non-conforming uses

[3:32:16] as long as they continually maintain

[3:32:17] that use. So this is one example of a

[3:32:20] legislative branch saying you can't you

[3:32:23] can't do that governments. The current

[3:32:26] owner lost the legal non-conforming use

[3:32:29] after purple left and sufficient time

[3:32:32] passed so that the legal non-conforming

[3:32:34] use was no longer legal. So that's good

[3:32:36] for us. That's good for residents

[3:32:37] because I know the residents didn't like

[3:32:39] having purple there. It smelled. It was

[3:32:41] noisy. Lots of employees. Lots of people

[3:32:44] parking on the street. People parking in

[3:32:45] my church parking lot. I didn't like

[3:32:47] having purple there. So,

[3:32:50] what for whatever reason, the owner let

[3:32:52] that lapse. That's good for Alpine in my

[3:32:54] opinion because we can't have

[3:32:56] manufacturing there. And I will note

[3:32:58] that last year the owner came and asked

[3:33:01] the legislature asked us to approve

[3:33:04] manufacturing in the business commercial

[3:33:05] zone and we voted it down five to zero

[3:33:08] because we didn't want traffic, noise,

[3:33:10] large trucks coming into Alpine. all the

[3:33:12] things that the reasons we don't want

[3:33:14] manufacturing, why we don't want

[3:33:16] industrial uses in our business

[3:33:17] commercial zone. And I'll clarify the

[3:33:20] industrial use here in a second.

[3:33:24] Um,

[3:33:27] okay, I said that one.

[3:33:30] As Chrissy said, there are very limited

[3:33:32] uses for this property in a perfectly

[3:33:34] good 40,000 square foot building used

[3:33:36] historically for manufacturing. Now, if

[3:33:38] that building wasn't there, there would

[3:33:41] be a different situation with the

[3:33:42] penciling in of of potential uses for

[3:33:44] that property. Um, yeah, they could tear

[3:33:47] it down, but that seems very wasteful to

[3:33:49] tear down a perfectly good large

[3:33:51] building that can have some viable um

[3:33:54] other uses.

[3:33:56] It's quite clear that Alpine residents

[3:33:58] do not want a return of manufacturing

[3:34:01] and the same reason for the same reasons

[3:34:03] residents don't want manufacturing to

[3:34:04] apply to typical industrial uses. And I

[3:34:06] mentioned those increased traffic, large

[3:34:09] vehicles, employee parking, noises, and

[3:34:11] odors. Those are typically associated

[3:34:13] with with what you traditionally called

[3:34:15] industrial uses, things like the storage

[3:34:17] units you see next to the freeway. Maybe

[3:34:20] um it's also not uncommon to expand

[3:34:23] conditional uses in a business

[3:34:24] commercial zone. As a city attorney

[3:34:26] stated in our last meeting,

[3:34:29] decisions had to be made initially on

[3:34:31] what to allow in the business commercial

[3:34:32] zone. I already said this, but I'll

[3:34:34] state it again. based on what that was

[3:34:35] envisioned at the time. Even as you

[3:34:37] mentioned, even adult businesses are

[3:34:39] allowed in certain circumstances as

[3:34:41] required by the US Constitution. And

[3:34:43] then I mentioned that mechanical

[3:34:46] automotive shops were added by a prior

[3:34:47] city council um at some point to bring

[3:34:50] the option for Alpine residents to have

[3:34:52] their vehicles serviced locally in

[3:34:53] Alpine. And I think

[3:34:57] part of the presentation by Stack was

[3:34:59] they think that that this is a viable um

[3:35:03] business for them because they think

[3:35:04] it'll benefit Alpine residents. I've

[3:35:06] heard from several Alpine residents, not

[3:35:08] just people that have emailed all the

[3:35:10] council members, but several other

[3:35:11] Alpine residents who like the idea of

[3:35:14] having indoor controlled storage close

[3:35:16] by and several who are already talking

[3:35:18] about partnering up to buy one of these

[3:35:20] luxury condo units. So, I think it does

[3:35:23] serve the public good in that way. Um,

[3:35:26] [clears throat]

[3:35:27] I know there's different positions on on

[3:35:30] the the planning commission, but they do

[3:35:33] have a lot of experience in and training

[3:35:35] in land use law and understanding the

[3:35:37] city's master plan. And I I sometimes we

[3:35:41] make mistakes and we talk about things

[3:35:42] that we shouldn't and say, "Hey, I might

[3:35:44] even be interested in one of those

[3:35:45] units." I'm not because I can't afford

[3:35:47] it. But so yes, one of the council one

[3:35:50] of the planning commission members said

[3:35:51] that um and that was unfortunate but I

[3:35:55] mean it was I think it was said in

[3:35:57] jester. I I forgive him for that.

[3:36:00] [clears throat]

[3:36:02] And you know they voted unanimously to

[3:36:03] recommend approval. I'll just list some

[3:36:05] of the some of the um things that they

[3:36:07] stated. One is traffic and park parking

[3:36:10] would be very low impact. And they did

[3:36:13] talk about studies for storage units and

[3:36:15] how limited the impact would be on

[3:36:18] traffic and parking. And when you think

[3:36:21] about all the other proposed uses that

[3:36:23] are in our code, I mean, maybe dog

[3:36:25] grooming would be less, but I don't know

[3:36:26] how you're going to do dog grooming in a

[3:36:28] 40,000 square foot property. And what I

[3:36:31] will mention too, I forgot to note from

[3:36:34] uh Jessica's statement about it being

[3:36:38] um

[3:36:41] about it being not congruent with um the

[3:36:46] other nearby properties, not in Pine and

[3:36:49] the and the B and the dance studio or

[3:36:50] whatever it is. This is a much larger

[3:36:52] lot and it has that 43,000 foot foot

[3:36:55] property already there. And yes, they

[3:36:58] will be expanding by putting some

[3:36:59] additional buildings. All right. Um they

[3:37:03] also and several nearby residents, even

[3:37:06] the ones closest by when they've learned

[3:37:09] about the proposal as Stack has reached

[3:37:11] out to them and and and explained what

[3:37:14] they're doing and knowing what the

[3:37:17] manufacturing use was in the past, they

[3:37:19] do not want the traffic that the prior

[3:37:22] proposals would have brought. and those

[3:37:24] were high density mixeduse residential,

[3:37:26] commercial, and manufacturing uses.

[3:37:28] Those are the only ones that I know of

[3:37:29] that have been officially proposed to

[3:37:31] the city council.

[3:37:33] Um, they also mentioned that the city

[3:37:35] must approve the CCNRs that will further

[3:37:37] control use of the property.

[3:37:39] There's an anticipated community benefit

[3:37:42] not being currently met, similar to what

[3:37:44] the automotive repair place did whenever

[3:37:47] that was approved. It's solving a

[3:37:49] problem that is that this property of

[3:37:52] this property being an eyesore. I'm like

[3:37:54] Chrissy. I see that I because of my

[3:37:58] church responsibilities. I see that

[3:37:59] building probably three times a week and

[3:38:02] it's very ugly.

[3:38:06] Um the last thing they mentioned was a

[3:38:08] developer must follow the Gateway

[3:38:10] historic design guidelines. Their

[3:38:11] architectural rendering I think looks

[3:38:13] beautiful. Um but that's all to be

[3:38:16] decided by us in the future when we talk

[3:38:19] about um the development agreement and such. Uh the city can this is what

[3:38:26] they said the city can impose

[3:38:27] requirements to for an attractive

[3:38:28] facade, landscaping, buffering,

[3:38:30] screening for adjacent residential

[3:38:32] neighbors, hours of operation, etc. And

[3:38:34] the developer must comply with height

[3:38:36] restrictions and setback requirements.

[3:38:37] And Chris already noted that it's going

[3:38:39] to be shorter. It's going to be lower

[3:38:42] than Mountain Pine. It's going to be 13

[3:38:45] in feet lower than what is required. At

[3:38:47] least that's the proposal.

[3:38:49] I'm almost done. Three more pages.

[3:38:51] >> Any more? No,

[3:38:52] >> no, it's not. That's not

[3:38:53] >> No. Come on. Let's wrap it up.

[3:38:54] >> All right. I'll be quick.

[3:38:55] >> Um I mentioned this in my motion, but

[3:38:57] our city attorney last meeting clarified

[3:39:00] that um the city will require approval

[3:39:02] of a site plan development agreement and

[3:39:04] CCNRs to impose conditions to mitigate

[3:39:06] reasonably anticipated detrimental

[3:39:08] effects of the use. and that the city

[3:39:11] can be a party to the CCR, CCNRs or an

[3:39:14] expressly intended thirdparty

[3:39:15] beneficiary to be able to enforce those

[3:39:17] covenants, conditions, and restrictions

[3:39:19] moving forward.

[3:39:22] Um, the proposal results in a much lower

[3:39:24] impact to the residents over many

[3:39:25] options that are currently authorized in

[3:39:26] the zone and proposals. As I mentioned,

[3:39:29] some of those potential options include

[3:39:32] planned commercial developments,

[3:39:33] commercial condominium projects, nursing

[3:39:35] homes, um restaurants, even mechanic

[3:39:38] mechanical automotive shops. Most of

[3:39:40] those things wouldn't fit on such a

[3:39:42] large lot, and especially if you um

[3:39:44] don't anticipate them needing to tear

[3:39:47] down that large usable building.

[3:39:50] I really like the developer has a

[3:39:52] screening and buffering plan to protect

[3:39:53] adjacent residential neighbors. They've

[3:39:55] gone above and beyond what others have

[3:39:57] done in in that in that effort. There's

[3:40:00] going to be sufficient off- streetet

[3:40:02] parking required. So there's no need for

[3:40:04] off off on street parking

[3:40:07] and

[3:40:08] having the entrance to the self storage

[3:40:12] on the east side with only one entrance.

[3:40:13] There would I can't imagine any reason

[3:40:15] why anyone would be parking on the

[3:40:17] street for any significant use. They

[3:40:20] they're going to use low impact

[3:40:21] lighting.

[3:40:22] Um there's no storage outside and no

[3:40:24] garage doors will face outward.

[3:40:27] Another thought that I had today and

[3:40:30] it's it's come up in our discussion

[3:40:31] today is the higher lot coverage ratio

[3:40:35] or or what was termed um massing and

[3:40:38] what was it? Bulan

[3:40:40] >> Bulan Massing is that several residents

[3:40:43] have commented that they've been

[3:40:46] anticipating building uh accessory

[3:40:49] structures on their property to store

[3:40:50] their toys, their things. and how having

[3:40:54] this option to be able to purchase these

[3:40:57] luxury condos may limit the number of an

[3:41:01] uh auxil accessory structures that that

[3:41:04] are requested to build on property that

[3:41:08] would create issues related to views and

[3:41:09] that higher lot coverage ratio. Finally,

[3:41:14] that's the word Cara was waiting for.

[3:41:16] [laughter]

[3:41:17] I really understand and appreciate the

[3:41:18] concerns that some re residents have

[3:41:20] expressed when reaching out to the city

[3:41:22] council members about this proposal.

[3:41:23] Most of those comments came as a result

[3:41:25] of a Facebook post early on after the

[3:41:27] planning commission met and the Facebook

[3:41:29] post talked about storage sheds and we

[3:41:31] do not want storage sheds in Alpine and

[3:41:33] I agree. We don't want storage sheds in

[3:41:34] Alpine. We don't want the traditional

[3:41:37] flat building with orange doors and

[3:41:40] barbed wire fence. I would absolutely

[3:41:43] nix that no matter my constitutional

[3:41:45] conservatism.

[3:41:47] >> How would you have n that

[3:41:50] >> because it doesn't meet the it doesn't

[3:41:52] meet the guidelines of our historic

[3:41:54] gateway.

[3:41:55] >> I just destroyed your argument.

[3:41:56] >> No, you didn't.

[3:41:57] >> No, I'm ahead. All right.

[3:41:59] >> Can you Okay.

[3:42:02] >> Um, Chris, you already mentioned this,

[3:42:04] too. A lot of people have expressed a

[3:42:05] desire to have the city buy the buy the

[3:42:07] lot and use it for various public

[3:42:09] purposes. I responded to everyone who

[3:42:11] wrote to me except for one person who

[3:42:13] wrote to me late today. I just didn't

[3:42:14] have time. Kind of explaining the land

[3:42:16] use stuff that I just talked about and um

[3:42:22] the limitation on on our budget that we

[3:42:24] really just don't have the budget. We

[3:42:26] would basically be sacrificing our

[3:42:29] discretionary

[3:42:30] budget

[3:42:32] for years and years to come if we wanted

[3:42:34] to buy this property and we could only

[3:42:36] do afford it through bonding. Um, many

[3:42:39] pe many of those people didn't reply to

[3:42:41] me, but those who did basically said,

[3:42:42] "Thank you." Some of them said, "Now

[3:42:44] that I understand the different options,

[3:42:46] even one that lives really close, said,

[3:42:48] "I'd much rather have this than what

[3:42:50] some of the other options are." And then

[3:42:52] some people did express continue to

[3:42:54] express opposition and even said they

[3:42:56] would rather see it remain vacant than

[3:42:57] to have um storage condos.

[3:43:02] All right, that's it.

[3:43:03] >> Okay, thank you. Okay, with all the

[3:43:05] comments completed, I will let's proceed

[3:43:08] with the roll call vote.

[3:43:12] » Yeah, I thought no, Brent made a motion

[3:43:14] and Chrissy seconded. Our discussion was

[3:43:17] on the motion. So,

[3:43:18] >> okay.

[3:43:19] >> Councilwoman Smean.

[3:43:20] >> Jessica Custom, no.

[3:43:23] >> Sarah Blackwell, no.

[3:43:25] >> Chrissy Hanaman, yes.

[3:43:26] >> Andrew Young, no. Brent Rmler, yes.

[3:43:29] >> Okay, motion fails.

[3:43:32] Okay, I have a motion. I move to deny

[3:43:34] the proposed code amendment to allow

[3:43:36] indoor self- storage units and condo

[3:43:39] luxury garages in the business

[3:43:40] commercial zone, finding that the

[3:43:43] amendment is not consistent with the

[3:43:45] city's general plan policies,

[3:43:48] development code, and gateway historic

[3:43:50] guidelines.

[3:43:52] >> Is there a second?

[3:43:54] >> I'll second.

[3:43:55] >> There's been a motion by Councilwoman

[3:43:57] SMU, seconded by Councilman V. Any

[3:44:02] discussion?

[3:44:04] >> We discuss. Again,

[3:44:07] >> it's a motion. So, yes, I will call for

[3:44:09] discussion on the motion. If there

[3:44:10] isn't, let's proceed with the roll.

[3:44:12] >> My only discussion, which I fully

[3:44:13] support the motion, is a plea to work

[3:44:17] with the owner and stack to find a

[3:44:19] balance between I think you are so close

[3:44:23] to making this happen. It's not there.

[3:44:26] To not give up, to try to be some flex

[3:44:28] flexible. You heard Brent say what he

[3:44:31] would and wouldn't do. He talked

[3:44:32] constitutional, but then as soon as it

[3:44:35] got ugly, he said, "No, I would deny

[3:44:37] that." His line is just a different

[3:44:41] 50ard line than mine. You can make it

[3:44:44] work with the residents. This can be

[3:44:46] done. It can work. You can pencil it.

[3:44:48] Let's do it. This is just not the right

[3:44:50] way. That's my discussion, but I support

[3:44:52] the motion.

[3:44:53] >> Are you seconding it or would you

[3:44:55] >> I seconded it. already said he already

[3:44:57] did.

[3:44:57] >> He's making a comment discussion item.

[3:44:59] Let's just proceed with the roll call

[3:45:01] vote.

[3:45:01] >> Um Jessica, yes.

[3:45:03] >> Sir Bachwell, yes. Chrissy Hanaman, no.

[3:45:06] >> Andrew Young, yes. Brent Relmer, no.

[3:45:09] >> Okay, let's move on to item C.

[3:45:11] >> Can I Can I pro? Can I do what? Oh, deny

[3:45:15] [clears throat] is an action. Okay,

[3:45:16] never mind. It's not a failure. Okay.

[3:45:28] Um, so two weeks ago,

[3:45:32] sorry, I think it was three weeks ago if

[3:45:34] we had a fifth Tuesday in there, right?

[3:45:36] Mhm.

[3:45:37] >> Uh [clears throat]

[3:45:38] representatives of both American Fork

[3:45:41] and the uh out the Highland Alpine

[3:45:44] Chamber of Commerce attended the city

[3:45:46] council meeting made a presentation and

[3:45:48] kind of uh show what their organization

[3:45:51] was about and what the benefits were. Um

[3:45:54] it's been requested that we bring this

[3:45:57] back for an action item to determine um

[3:46:01] you know if there's a certain direction

[3:46:02] that the city wants to go uh with one

[3:46:04] organ organization or the other or I

[3:46:07] guess there is the alternative of being

[3:46:10] part of both or worst case for those

[3:46:13] guys uh none of them. So um that's what

[3:46:17] the council has before you tonight um to

[3:46:20] consider that.

[3:46:23] Okay, Jessica, do you have any questions

[3:46:26] regarding

[3:46:27] >> or just comment? I went um a couple

[3:46:29] weeks ago to the lunchon at the Pizza

[3:46:30] Pie Cafe. It was really well attended.

[3:46:33] Um business owners here in Alpine and in

[3:46:36] Highland are excited about having a

[3:46:38] chamber that is closer to home and

[3:46:40] represents, you know, some of the things

[3:46:42] that they need, which is um you know,

[3:46:45] maybe the small business owner that that

[3:46:47] is working out of the house and and

[3:46:49] wanting to get more um exposure. I do

[3:46:52] recognize that Josh is here and they've

[3:46:54] been awesome um to work with as a

[3:46:57] chamber over the years, but you know, as

[3:46:59] we're growing and businesses growing in

[3:47:02] Alpine and Highland, there's just a need

[3:47:04] to bring that networking and proximity

[3:47:08] closer to Alpine and Highland.

[3:47:13] » Um comments, right? Sure. Or questions.

[3:47:17] >> Okay. So, um

[3:47:20] I I'm trying to evaluate like the value

[3:47:23] out of being the city being part of the

[3:47:25] chamber and I know that they could help

[3:47:27] with, you know, some of our in the past

[3:47:29] the American Fork Chambers helped with

[3:47:31] our trick-or- treat um street. I I fully

[3:47:35] encourage any business to join a chamber

[3:47:38] and I do think that like a local chamber

[3:47:41] in my opinion makes more sense. So, the

[3:47:43] Highland Alpine Chamber to me makes more

[3:47:45] sense. Um, however, I still kind of am

[3:47:49] on the fence as to whether as a city we

[3:47:51] really need to be part of a chamber. Um,

[3:47:54] I feel like a lot of the things I'm on

[3:47:57] the the the chamber committee and in

[3:48:00] talking to Heidi who does a lot of

[3:48:02] events, we've discussed that maybe we

[3:48:05] could use that money that we would use

[3:48:07] to be part of a chamber to do it on our

[3:48:10] own and work together. So, that is just

[3:48:13] another idea that I'd like to just throw

[3:48:15] out there. Um, but whatever the council

[3:48:18] decides, if it's to be part of a

[3:48:20] chamber, I will jump in

[3:48:23] full full throttle and

[3:48:26] >> I just have a comment to that.

[3:48:27] Oftentimes, it's not funding that keeps

[3:48:30] us from being able to do things. It's

[3:48:32] actually manpower. And so the chamber

[3:48:35] for that price is an extension and an

[3:48:39] ability to expand the work that we can't

[3:48:42] get done with our limited staff. So,

[3:48:46] >> what do you feel like they could do for

[3:48:48] us that

[3:48:49] >> So, a couple of things they can they'll

[3:48:51] work closely with businesses. I know

[3:48:53] that we collect a licensing fee every

[3:48:56] year and it is administratively

[3:48:59] um takes time to stay on top of have we

[3:49:02] collected the $50, what businesses are

[3:49:06] currently active, what aren't, you know,

[3:49:08] so they could help us keep an active

[3:49:10] business file or um so that we can work

[3:49:13] with them and collect fees. But I also

[3:49:15] think there's um

[3:49:18] the Halloween Main Street

[3:49:21] trick-or-treating. Again, Heidi has a

[3:49:24] lot on her plate and all those smaller

[3:49:27] things that we can have support is going

[3:49:31] to make a big difference in staffing and

[3:49:32] we'll be able to start to do probably

[3:49:35] even more chamber events. Like I've been

[3:49:37] to chamber meetings in other cities

[3:49:40] where they host state of the city and so

[3:49:44] state of the city hosted by our chamber

[3:49:46] in partnership with Alpine and Highland

[3:49:48] really again brings that communication

[3:49:51] piece back to what's relevant and

[3:49:53] happening in our communities.

[3:49:55] >> And thank you Jessica. I appreciate that

[3:49:57] insight. Um Deianne correct me if I'm

[3:50:00] wrong but do we already keep track of

[3:50:03] all the businesses in Alpine? like is

[3:50:05] that a possibility for us to still have

[3:50:07] that on record?

[3:50:09] >> We have a record of all the registered

[3:50:11] businesses. So commercial and home

[3:50:14] occupation, everybody who complies with

[3:50:16] the rules and registers their business.

[3:50:19] Yeah, I have all of that.

[3:50:20] >> Thank you. And then Heidi, do you mind

[3:50:23] just can I ask Heidi to share her

[3:50:25] opinion and thoughts?

[3:50:27] >> Is that not to put you on the spot,

[3:50:29] Heidi?

[3:50:31] >> Well, I was say I don't know that I've

[3:50:32] cooked this. I we had a discussion um

[3:50:36] the only real benefit that I've seen

[3:50:38] historically has been the trick or treat

[3:50:42] help in that. Could we put that on on

[3:50:45] ourselves? Absolutely. I mean we do have

[3:50:48] the bandwidth to do that. Um in the past

[3:50:52] I feel like our city has been under

[3:50:54] reppresented in this in this world.

[3:50:58] um if there was a proactive help. I mean

[3:51:01] there was some lines about um Alpine

[3:51:05] days and things and I felt like my my

[3:51:08] support from the group has been less

[3:51:10] than

[3:51:11] um than I asked for. Um that said, I

[3:51:16] mean I don't again it's it's kind of one

[3:51:18] of those things in my realm. I have not

[3:51:20] received

[3:51:22] a ton of of life-changing help. Um, that

[3:51:26] said, any help is is welcome. So, I

[3:51:29] don't I don't turn down when I get

[3:51:31] assistance in any in any form. Um, but

[3:51:34] at the same time, up to this point, I

[3:51:37] have not received um anything that has

[3:51:40] really changed the the the look and feel

[3:51:43] of the city. So, thank you.

[3:51:46] >> Yes, that is helpful. Thanks for

[3:51:47] weighing in. I guess those are kind of

[3:51:48] my only thoughts and comments.

[3:51:51] >> Okay. Sorry, I wasn't expecting to make

[3:51:53] a comment, but I do want to share um

[3:51:56] because of my career, I have had to

[3:51:59] spend many time, many hours in in

[3:52:02] [clears throat] different chamber of

[3:52:03] commerce. Salt Lake City, um Utah

[3:52:06] County, Point of the Mountain, um

[3:52:09] there's another one,

[3:52:11] I can't remember what that one was. It

[3:52:13] was up in Salt Lake because I worked in

[3:52:15] the downtown for a while.

[3:52:16] >> [snorts]

[3:52:16] >> And the purpose of uh chamber of

[3:52:18] commerce are not directed specifically

[3:52:21] to us. So they are there to benefit the

[3:52:24] members who are primarily businesses.

[3:52:27] And I think as a city council we need to

[3:52:29] recognize that businesses are our

[3:52:30] partners that they carry um a role in

[3:52:34] our city. And um despite the fact we

[3:52:37] don't maybe vote for their project that

[3:52:40] just happened, we do want viable

[3:52:43] business in our city.

[3:52:45] um that whether it it's not just their

[3:52:49] property tax that they bring but

[3:52:51] employment for our families and um just

[3:52:55] partnering maybe like in the parade or

[3:52:59] other ways they partner. So we have to

[3:53:02] think about not in this case what's best for us as council members

[3:53:07] per se but like what's the best for our

[3:53:10] residents who want to participate in a

[3:53:13] chamber of count the chamber of commerce

[3:53:15] and who who um how will that

[3:53:19] organization that we want to support

[3:53:21] we're supporting them in their bigger

[3:53:24] purpose which is to support the

[3:53:25] businesses. So um like you said we are

[3:53:28] short staffed so they they other larger

[3:53:32] cities even have economic development

[3:53:35] departments like just to bring in new

[3:53:37] business into their city like that's a real responsibility that we

[3:53:41] have is to not underestimate the value

[3:53:44] of businesses in our city and that

[3:53:47] doesn't just mean retail. So um I think

[3:53:51] that uh what I what would with that

[3:53:54] perspective knowing where I'm coming

[3:53:56] from um a lot of what the chamber events

[3:53:59] are is to help again the business people

[3:54:02] to network with each other to um to

[3:54:06] understand like the uh who each other

[3:54:09] are and like uh help serve each other.

[3:54:12] Um like lean on each other like if you

[3:54:14] need a new bank banker or you need your

[3:54:16] car fixed things like that. somewhat

[3:54:18] local um or if you need an expertise in

[3:54:21] something um and so it's to help you

[3:54:24] know build

[3:54:26] our businesses owners. It's not

[3:54:29] necessarily they don't ex the chamber of

[3:54:31] commerce does not exist to benefit the

[3:54:33] city officials and elected officials. So

[3:54:37] to me we're we're just supporting a very

[3:54:39] good um a very

[3:54:43] uh what do I want to say? We're

[3:54:44] promoting, we're being businessfriendly

[3:54:47] in our city. So whether each either one

[3:54:50] I don't really have a strong opinion,

[3:54:52] but I did I did take interest in how

[3:54:55] well Alpine was represented in the new

[3:54:58] one compared to American Fork that there

[3:55:00] was a lot more interest per se. So I

[3:55:03] measure my interest by the people uh the

[3:55:05] Alpine residents who chose to go that a

[3:55:08] new direction that maybe that is for

[3:55:10] whatever they think that is going to

[3:55:12] serve them better. I would favor that

[3:55:15] one, but again, I don't um I have just

[3:55:17] that's my perspective is what's best for

[3:55:19] the Alpine uh business owners. They're

[3:55:23] telling me what they value and that it

[3:55:25] helps make my decision.

[3:55:27] >> Thanks for that education.

[3:55:29] >> That was really nice. Uh I found that

[3:55:32] there is one thing more valuable than

[3:55:34] money and commerce and business. And you

[3:55:38] know this because people with a lot of

[3:55:39] money, this is where they go. peace and

[3:55:43] quiet,

[3:55:45] right?

[3:55:46] You go, you want business, you want

[3:55:48] commercial, you want all this stuff, you

[3:55:50] get it. Where do people go that have it?

[3:55:53] They go for peace and quiet. And they go

[3:55:55] as far away from the industrial areas as

[3:55:57] they can because they realize how

[3:55:58] valuable it is. We have it. Okay? So,

[3:56:01] that's an important thing. We have it.

[3:56:03] And once it's gone, it's gone. And you

[3:56:06] don't get it back. And people go from

[3:56:08] one place to one place to try to find

[3:56:09] it. When they lose it there, they go to

[3:56:11] the next place. Wyomi's almost gone and

[3:56:12] Heber's almost gone and Aahu's almost

[3:56:15] gone and so they're trying to figure out

[3:56:16] other places but Alpine still has it so

[3:56:18] that's what we're trying to protect. Um

[3:56:20] no that was you don't have to take any

[3:56:22] of that if you don't want but um in in

[3:56:25] regards to this commerce

[3:56:28] um I'm I'm for the Highland uh Chamber

[3:56:32] of Commerce

[3:56:34] >> Highland Alpine Chamber of Commerce

[3:56:36] under and I have I love American Fork as

[3:56:39] well. I have a stained glass window of

[3:56:42] Jesus in American Fork. I don't know if

[3:56:44] you've seen it when you go Yeah. I built

[3:56:46] a stained glass window of Jesus in

[3:56:47] American Fork. So I I feel a great

[3:56:49] connection to American Fork in the uh

[3:56:51] Presbyterian church right by the Yeah.

[3:56:53] You know the one of Jesus? Yeah. Yeah.

[3:56:56] So I I really love American Fork. So

[3:56:58] this has nothing to do with me not

[3:57:00] thinking American Fork is a wonderful

[3:57:01] place and it's like a brother. But

[3:57:04] Highland is cheaper and it's closer. And

[3:57:08] if they will guarantee a three-year lock

[3:57:11] in the price and an evaluation on a per

[3:57:14] year basis, they have my full support in

[3:57:17] um being part of the uh Highland Chamber

[3:57:19] of Commerce. But I would also like a

[3:57:20] linewritten document that says they will

[3:57:23] also help Alpine preserve its plan, its

[3:57:26] Alpine plan in building peace and quiet,

[3:57:28] preserving views as well as protecting

[3:57:30] businesses. So if you can give me that,

[3:57:33] I am your number one supporter.

[3:57:36] That's all I got.

[3:57:39] » So the purp Okay. So I'm a little bit

[3:57:41] confused.

[3:57:42] >> Were we just discussing?

[3:57:43] >> No, no, no, no. I am. I just want

[3:57:45] clarification. So you're saying that um

[3:57:47] you support the Highland Chamber

[3:57:49] >> because um because the whole purpose, my

[3:57:52] understanding is to help our businesses

[3:57:54] to grow their businesses. So you have

[3:57:56] more

[3:57:56] >> Yes.

[3:57:57] >> business and commerce going on. But

[3:57:59] you're saying at the same time you want

[3:58:00] them to commit to keeping Alpine small

[3:58:02] and quiet. I want them to balance and

[3:58:04] not [clears throat] encourage commerce.

[3:58:05] >> No. No. You Okay, I'll say it again.

[3:58:07] >> I'm just confused.

[3:58:08] >> I want them to have a line item that if

[3:58:10] we're going to be part of this, they

[3:58:12] will also help Alpine preserve its plan

[3:58:14] in building peace, quiet, and protecting

[3:58:16] views and supporting business. There is

[3:58:18] a way to do it together. And the best

[3:58:20] communities balance that. They don't

[3:58:22] overrun one or the other. They don't

[3:58:24] push out businesses, but they also don't

[3:58:26] destroy their peace and quiet. And

[3:58:27] that's what we have right now. We've

[3:58:28] been You've done a great job in your

[3:58:30] history doing this. So, it's just to

[3:58:31] continue that.

[3:58:33] >> Okay. Did you have anything else you

[3:58:34] wanted?

[3:58:35] >> No, I Hey, you brought it back up.

[3:58:36] >> Right.

[3:58:37] >> I really appreciate the comments. That

[3:58:39] was very helpful. I didn't have a one

[3:58:40] way the other as far as whether we

[3:58:43] continued a business alliance or

[3:58:45] business partnership at all.

[3:58:47] >> But, um, I think it would be worth and

[3:58:49] go going to uh Sarah's point, what is

[3:58:52] the value? I think it's I think it's

[3:58:54] worth it to try and see. Um, I like the

[3:58:58] energy of the Alpine Highland folks. I

[3:59:01] like that more of our businesses are

[3:59:02] already participating than what seems to

[3:59:04] be seem to have been participating

[3:59:07] in the other one. Um,

[3:59:11] I know we have a list, but I like their idea of publicizing that list to

[3:59:16] our and letting the Alpine residents

[3:59:19] know what our businesses are so we can

[3:59:21] try and patronize them more. Um, so if I

[3:59:25] would I would support

[3:59:28] trying this to see how it goes and I

[3:59:30] think it's a very low investment and

[3:59:32] potential good return on our money.

[3:59:35] So, um,

[3:59:39] for me with my personal experience and

[3:59:41] going to various meetings with, um,

[3:59:43] various chambers in the county, um,

[3:59:48] I can see the value of going to a

[3:59:50] smaller, more local, um, chamber, but I

[3:59:53] also see the value of going with a

[3:59:55] chamber that has been around for more

[3:59:57] than 80 years, that they have a strong

[4:00:01] um, heritage

[4:00:03] that um you know they understand

[4:00:06] business in this area and that they

[4:00:08] offer a larger network and a bigger

[4:00:11] community and so even though the numbers

[4:00:15] have been few that have participated in

[4:00:17] American Fork Chamber I feel like the

[4:00:19] ones that have started have gone and it

[4:00:22] had they have helped them you know you

[4:00:24] look at the all the workshops that they

[4:00:26] provide um and granted hopefully you

[4:00:29] know the Highland Alpine Chamber will

[4:00:31] get there at some point um and than you

[4:00:34] know even going to and working with

[4:00:37] other chambers and having joint events

[4:00:39] and you know they have chamber has gone

[4:00:41] to the point where they're offering you

[4:00:43] know even specific classes and specific

[4:00:46] sessions just for women in business you

[4:00:48] know it's not just for plain businesses

[4:00:50] and they've segmented it so much more um

[4:00:54] I mean ultimately it's up to both but I

[4:00:56] mean maybe what you do is

[4:01:00] from my understanding is that our

[4:01:03] businesses can still join the Highland

[4:01:05] Alpine Chamber whether the city supports

[4:01:07] it or not.

[4:01:09] Maybe just let our businesses

[4:01:13] choose for themselves where they go and

[4:01:15] then maybe after a year recess or you

[4:01:18] know you can go ahead and move forward.

[4:01:21] But to me the value in the chamber is to

[4:01:23] get the support and increase your

[4:01:25] network where I feel like the AF chamber

[4:01:30] that's what they have already. They have

[4:01:32] a vast network to be able to um provide

[4:01:36] an audience for our businesses that want

[4:01:38] it.

[4:01:39] >> Mayor, can I ask you a question?

[4:01:41] >> If we were to exit the American Fort

[4:01:42] Chamber and go with the Highland

[4:01:44] Chamber,

[4:01:44] >> could we earn uh the business back of

[4:01:48] the American for Chamber and switch back

[4:01:49] at any point?

[4:01:50] >> That I don't know. Is that is that an

[4:01:52] option?

[4:01:56] » Put you in a very

[4:01:58] >> Okay. Okay. There you go.

[4:02:07] There are some people that signed up for

[4:02:09] public comment on in relation to this

[4:02:10] subject. When does that happen? Just a

[4:02:13] question.

[4:02:13] >> Oh, you don't want I don't think we're

[4:02:15] going to take public comment on this. I

[4:02:16] think we were just going to talk about

[4:02:17] it, but there was I got one, but it's

[4:02:23] >> it was

[4:02:23] >> someone's waited like three hours. It's

[4:02:25] probably worth it.

[4:02:26] >> What was a Highland resident?

[4:02:27] >> Oh, it was a Highland res.

[4:02:28] >> Yeah, it wasn't an Alpine.

[4:02:29] >> I'm sorry. I would know who it is. Is it

[4:02:32] pertinent information that would be

[4:02:34] helpful?

[4:02:41] » I think it's up to the mayor.

[4:02:44] >> I think, you know, it sounds like people

[4:02:46] are made up. If if you guys, you know, I

[4:02:49] think, you know, your question was

[4:02:50] valid. You know, if you choose to leave,

[4:02:52] can we come back? I think we had that

[4:02:54] answered. Does anybody have questions

[4:02:57] specifically on what each chamber can

[4:03:00] provide the city and its um business

[4:03:02] owners um and what kind of programs? But

[4:03:05] if not, it sounds like,

[4:03:08] you know, we can move forward. I think

[4:03:11] they both gave pretty thorough

[4:03:13] presentations the last time they were

[4:03:15] here. So, I have a motion.

[4:03:17] >> Okay. I move to approve membership in

[4:03:21] the Highland Alpine Chamber of Commerce

[4:03:23] and instruct staff to budget funds to

[4:03:26] cover the expense

[4:03:28] with

[4:03:30] um the renewal or actually with

[4:03:33] evaluation

[4:03:35] in the following year to determine the

[4:03:39] continuation of our chamber membership.

[4:03:43] >> We have a motion by Councilwoman Smeuan.

[4:03:45] Is there a second? Uh well, can I amend

[4:03:48] the motion to add two things?

[4:03:50] >> A second.

[4:03:51] >> We need a second to the motion.

[4:03:52] >> I second it.

[4:03:53] >> Okay.

[4:03:54] May I add a potential amendment to the

[4:03:58] uh motion to add a three-year lock in

[4:04:01] the price

[4:04:02] uh and a written document that uh the

[4:04:07] that showcases the vision of the

[4:04:10] Highland Alpine

[4:04:12] Chamber of Commerce to also preserve or to also

[4:04:19] uphold the Alpine plan in preserving

[4:04:22] peace, quiet and views.

[4:04:24] while supporting businesses.

[4:04:25] >> Did you want to entertain that

[4:04:28] amendment?

[4:04:29] >> Well, I want to include the three-year

[4:04:31] price, but would that be a memorandum

[4:04:35] of understanding?

[4:04:36] >> No, just a lock that it couldn't raise.

[4:04:38] >> No, no, no. I'm talking about the other

[4:04:41] part.

[4:04:41] >> The other part.

[4:04:42] >> Oh,

[4:04:44] >> so did So, he proposed an amendment to

[4:04:47] your motion. Do you accept that?

[4:04:50] I'm just asking for clarification

[4:04:52] because I do know that they are working

[4:04:55] with the city of Highland to create I'm

[4:04:57] not sure is it a memorandum of

[4:04:59] understanding. Yeah. So if there is a

[4:05:01] memorandum of understanding we'd like to

[4:05:03] include with our membership I think that

[4:05:06] would be important

[4:05:07] >> but you don't want but do you want to

[4:05:10] put that in your amendment to the motion

[4:05:13] >> or are you saying that you would rather

[4:05:15] include

[4:05:15] >> I would rather have that as a separate

[4:05:17] >> Okay. So, you're accepting you're

[4:05:18] accepting me the amendment for a

[4:05:20] three-year lock on the price if we

[4:05:23] choose to stay in.

[4:05:24] >> Um,

[4:05:26] are you okay with that?

[4:05:28] >> Yeah.

[4:05:28] >> Or do you want to make a substitute

[4:05:30] motion?

[4:05:30] >> No, that's Do we need to include the

[4:05:32] memorandum part or No,

[4:05:33] >> not in the motion.

[4:05:35] >> Then I'm happy with it. Thank you.

[4:05:37] >> Okay.

[4:05:37] >> Still support it. I still

[4:05:38] >> there. Any discussion on the motion,

[4:05:42] >> Chrissy?

[4:05:45] I was g maybe I was misinformed. But I

[4:05:47] was looking at the website and maybe we

[4:05:50] can ask a question cuz I thought this

[4:05:52] was listing everyone who is members but

[4:05:54] when I looked at it again I think it's

[4:05:55] every business in Alpine or everyone on

[4:05:58] your website is a member.

[4:06:01] >> There's two different sections.

[4:06:02] >> Sorry

[4:06:06] there on the website there is oh sorry

[4:06:10] my name is Rob Cwley. I am the chair of

[4:06:12] the Highland Alpine Chamber of Commerce.

[4:06:15] So on the website there is the the most

[4:06:18] prominent place it says member companies

[4:06:20] and if you click on that it shows all

[4:06:22] the member companies but below that

[4:06:24] there's all Alpine businesses and all

[4:06:27] Highland businesses because we feel like

[4:06:29] it's very beneficial to this residents

[4:06:31] of Highland and Alpine to be able to see

[4:06:34] all the businesses. Of course if they're

[4:06:36] chamber members then you know that

[4:06:37] they're supporting the community.

[4:06:39] They're more active in the community.

[4:06:40] I'd be more inclined to go with the

[4:06:42] chamber member, but I also want to see

[4:06:44] all the businesses and be able to find

[4:06:46] all the businesses there on the website.

[4:06:48] So

[4:06:49] >> So when you when you go to um the

[4:06:52] [clears throat] al what what

[4:06:53] >> highlandalpine chamber.com,

[4:06:56] >> right, that's where I am. The view all

[4:06:57] Highland businesses, view all alpine

[4:06:59] businesses. They've already done what

[4:07:01] Sarah asked, which is to find every

[4:07:03] business that's registered in the city.

[4:07:05] Where did you get your list? Um, we've gone throughout the city and any

[4:07:10] that we can find that are visible, we've

[4:07:13] included those. I don't think we've got

[4:07:14] a list yet from the city. So, we're

[4:07:16] going to add those also.

[4:07:18] >> Okay.

[4:07:19] >> Um, but also just keeping our eyes open

[4:07:21] to find any other.

[4:07:23] >> So, when it says like you have 56, you

[4:07:26] have 66 member companies in Highland

[4:07:29] >> and Alpine

[4:07:30] >> and then Highland and Alpine.

[4:07:32] >> Those are all combined all the member

[4:07:34] companies.

[4:07:34] >> Okay. So 66 and then the remaining 56

[4:07:38] other are not members. Is that what this

[4:07:40] your your lists are?

[4:07:42] >> Well, it depends. So if you go if go

[4:07:45] back to the main site and you click on

[4:07:47] chamber members and that is less than 66

[4:07:51] because we don't have that many members

[4:07:52] yet. I wish we did. We're closer to 30

[4:07:54] to 35 right now.

[4:07:55] >> Okay. The member directory.

[4:07:57] >> Yeah. So that lists all the members and

[4:08:00] then um then if you want to see all the

[4:08:02] other businesses then we have list of

[4:08:05] all businesses on the other page.

[4:08:06] >> So how many Alpine businesses do you

[4:08:09] have that are currently members? So I

[4:08:11] assume they've signed up and they've

[4:08:12] paid their dues.

[4:08:13] >> Right. Right. There's four that have

[4:08:15] signed up and paid their dues. There's

[4:08:16] three that have committed that we

[4:08:17] haven't quite got the signature on the

[4:08:19] documents yet. So we're up to four

[4:08:22] committed or three committed, four

[4:08:23] signed up. There were several waiting on

[4:08:26] if we were going to join, right?

[4:08:27] >> Um I I have the impression that several

[4:08:30] are waiting to see if Alpine City

[4:08:33] supports it. Yeah.

[4:08:34] >> And then can I ask the AF chamber? How

[4:08:37] many businesses? If you if one of you

[4:08:40] guys can come, how many Alpine

[4:08:41] businesses do we have um that's part of

[4:08:44] the chamber? And then how many total

[4:08:45] businesses do you guys have that are

[4:08:47] member of the AF chamber?

[4:08:50] >> Brad Frost with the American For

[4:08:52] Chamber.

[4:08:53] We have at last count about 287

[4:08:58] businesses in our chamber.

[4:09:00] >> And then how many of those are from

[4:09:01] Alpine?

[4:09:01] >> I'm going to

[4:09:05] » probably less than number.

[4:09:07] >> Yes.

[4:09:09] >> Okay. And Jessica, your motion doesn't

[4:09:11] remove us from the American Fork

[4:09:12] Chamber. Correct. Actually, it is to um

[4:09:16] just to approve the membership because

[4:09:19] right now we haven't approved the

[4:09:21] membership in the AF chamber. Correct.

[4:09:23] >> Okay.

[4:09:25] >> Well, I think

[4:09:26] >> I thought we were already part of the

[4:09:27] >> They did were already part of it and

[4:09:29] it's

[4:09:29] >> I believe we're already part of it,

[4:09:30] >> but Oh, I thought we were up for renewal

[4:09:32] and we were looking at our budget.

[4:09:33] >> No, that comes later, right? Doesn't

[4:09:35] that come

[4:09:36] >> Yeah.

[4:09:37] >> So, it won't come till months away.

[4:09:38] >> It'll come in like July 1st is the

[4:09:40] renewal. Is that an automatic renewal?

[4:09:43] >> It has been. Yeah. Since we joined like

[4:09:45] what?

[4:09:47] >> Yeah, it's been a while.

[4:09:48] >> Okay. So, I would amend my motion to

[4:09:51] include then to not renew the AF chamber

[4:09:56] membership.

[4:09:58] >> Do you second that because you're it's

[4:10:00] part of the original motion.

[4:10:01] >> Would you mind saying to re-evaluate it

[4:10:05] in the coming months?

[4:10:07] >> Absolutely. Yeah, I would reevaluate. I

[4:10:09] just don't want an autorenew. I didn't

[4:10:11] know we auto renewed.

[4:10:12] >> Yeah, I turn auto evaluated every year.

[4:10:15] >> It's never No, because we've never voted

[4:10:17] on it since

[4:10:18] >> about Jessica to reeal

[4:10:20] until we have to make the decision,

[4:10:21] >> right? Because I still think there is

[4:10:23] one time.

[4:10:24] >> Pardon? I apologize. Go ahead.

[4:10:26] >> Okay. What was that?

[4:10:27] >> To reevaluate upon renewal.

[4:10:30] >> I would be in second of that

[4:10:31] >> before renewal.

[4:10:33] >> At renewal. To re-evaluate at renewal.

[4:10:36] >> Right.

[4:10:38] >> Okay. So is she saying

[4:10:39] >> will you restate your motion? Does the

[4:10:41] complete motion including the amendment

[4:10:44] >> membership in the Highland Alpine

[4:10:46] Chamber of Commerce and instruct staff

[4:10:48] to budget funds to cover the expense

[4:10:55] and to evaluate.

[4:10:59] talk about the threeyear lock on

[4:11:02] >> and to lock the three-year pricing and

[4:11:04] to lock the membership rate for the next

[4:11:07] three years and to evaluate

[4:11:13] the American Fork Chamber membership at

[4:11:15] the time of renewal.

[4:11:17] >> I second that.

[4:11:18] >> Okay.

[4:11:18] Got a motion by Councilwoman

[4:11:21] Smeuan, seconded by Councilman

[4:11:24] Young.

[4:11:26] Let's I'm gonna assume I'm going to call

[4:11:28] for a vote. Sorry. Go ahead. Jessica

[4:11:31] Simone, yes. Sarah Blackwell, no.

[4:11:33] >> Chrissy Hammond, no.

[4:11:35] >> Andrew Young, yes.

[4:11:37] >> Brent Rmler, yes.

[4:11:39] >> Okay, motion passes.

[4:11:42] Um, let's see. Public safety district

[4:11:45] budget. We're moving on.

[4:11:52] » Thank you for staying through a long

[4:11:53] meeting.

[4:12:01] No, we got to get through this.

[4:12:05] >> Okay, Shane.

[4:12:08] >> She can.

[4:12:15] » Yeah. Lone peak budget.

[4:12:18] [clears throat]

[4:12:21] is the

[4:12:24] MVP of this meeting.

[4:12:26] >> Okay, you ready, Mayor?

[4:12:27] >> Yes. Let's move on.

[4:12:29] >> Okay. Uh at the April 1st uh board

[4:12:32] meeting, Lone Peak Public Safety

[4:12:33] District uh heard a proposal for the

[4:12:37] FY27 tenative budget. Um, this included

[4:12:41] the board approved a motion

[4:12:44] uh which included a 5% wage increase,

[4:12:47] funding for a sergeant position,

[4:12:49] and an additional 20,000 for

[4:12:52] implementing AI technology into police

[4:12:55] reports.

[4:12:57] Um, we've included the staff report uh

[4:13:00] from the Lone Peak uh meeting in this

[4:13:04] packet.

[4:13:06] Um this budget will be the first one

[4:13:09] where the new fire funding formula takes

[4:13:11] place. And if you remember um it was

[4:13:14] agreed to

[4:13:16] do a a 50% step in uh to this so that

[4:13:21] there'll be a little less impact to us

[4:13:24] uh the first year because it will be an

[4:13:26] increase for us.

[4:13:29] Um, and the way that is proposed to be

[4:13:31] handled is that uh each city would

[4:13:34] receive a check for uh we we'd receive a

[4:13:38] check for 50% of our increase for this

[4:13:41] year if we're comparing the previous

[4:13:43] funding formula to to the newly adopted

[4:13:46] one. And then Highland would receive a

[4:13:49] check from the Lone Peak fund balance

[4:13:51] for uh kind of a prorated share of that

[4:13:55] compared to what they have put in uh

[4:13:58] previously

[4:14:00] uh through their funding.

[4:14:03] Um

[4:14:05] compared to the the current year's

[4:14:06] budget, the assessment for

[4:14:08] administration for Alpine will increase

[4:14:11] by uh 18,659

[4:14:15] or for a 15.4% 4% increase. Police will

[4:14:19] increase by 74,787

[4:14:22] for a 4.9% increase. And fire would

[4:14:26] increase by 361,962.

[4:14:31] That does not include the 50% check that

[4:14:35] will be cut back. Um

[4:14:38] so the total combined increase 45548

[4:14:42] which again is we'll we'll get about

[4:14:46] Uh

[4:14:49] I think it's about 180,000

[4:14:51] back 143. Yeah.

[4:14:55] Okay. Um

[4:14:58] so the reason this is here in the

[4:15:00] interlocal agreement there's a a

[4:15:02] provision that uh states the annual

[4:15:04] budget increase or decrease for the

[4:15:06] district shall not exceed the average

[4:15:08] property tax revenue increase or

[4:15:10] decrease for both cities budgets of the

[4:15:13] previous fiscal year excluding any new

[4:15:15] revenue increases without the majority

[4:15:18] vote of each city council. said vote of

[4:15:22] each city council shall occur prior to

[4:15:24] the adoption of the final budget. Um so

[4:15:26] we're a month in ad with lone peak we're

[4:15:29] a month in advance of our city budgets

[4:15:31] and that's so that we can have those

[4:15:33] numbers um for our tenative and final

[4:15:37] budget.

[4:15:40] Um

[4:15:42] so this is before our council tonight.

[4:15:44] It will be before the Highland City

[4:15:47] Council on the 21st. Is that still

[4:15:48] correct, Aaron? And Aaron is here. Um,

[4:15:52] she she knows the most about the very

[4:15:55] intricate details of this. Um, so the

[4:16:00] budget is in the in the packet

[4:16:05] um that was edited just a little bit uh

[4:16:08] after the meeting after it was approved

[4:16:11] to include a couple of changes. So, um,

[4:16:14] you're seeing what was approved that day

[4:16:17] and the numbers related to it.

[4:16:22] Erin,

[4:16:23] she just came out of a long meeting,

[4:16:25] too. So,

[4:16:28] >> yeah. [laughter]

[4:16:29] >> Not as long as ours.

[4:16:32] >> Who knows? Maybe they started at four.

[4:16:34] Who knows?

[4:16:37] >> We could move ours to four.

[4:16:39] >> I'd be for it.

[4:16:45] Is there any questions related to this

[4:16:47] budget or Erin, do you have anything to

[4:16:48] add? Chief,

[4:16:55] » hey, Jessica's not here, so we'll start

[4:16:57] with Sarah.

[4:16:58] >> Okay. First of all, I just have to

[4:16:59] commend the council members serving on

[4:17:01] the Lone Peak Safety District. I

[4:17:02] attended the meeting where this was

[4:17:04] discussed and I understand that um we

[4:17:07] are all on the same team like the city,

[4:17:10] the elected officials, the police, the

[4:17:12] fire, any city employee, we're all just

[4:17:15] trying to do our best and make sure that

[4:17:16] the cities are safe and that things are

[4:17:19] working. And so when we get to these

[4:17:21] types of discussions, it can be a little

[4:17:23] emotional, maybe sensitive. And so I

[4:17:26] just really appreciate the due diligence

[4:17:28] of um Councilman Rumbler and

[4:17:31] Councilwoman

[4:17:33] um Haniman. Um they did a great job

[4:17:36] representing our city at that meeting.

[4:17:38] Um I know that an 8% was what was

[4:17:41] proposed and they were able to um

[4:17:45] discuss a 5%.

[4:17:48] I I really admire and respect all of the

[4:17:52] city officials and workers. I just when

[4:17:55] I look at what the cola is, 5% still

[4:17:58] seems a little high. And so I um I don't

[4:18:04] want to discount what they do and I

[4:18:07] don't want to discount the work that

[4:18:09] these two council members put in in in

[4:18:11] their educating themselves and then

[4:18:13] negotiations.

[4:18:15] I just still feel like and there's

[4:18:18] pieces of information that we don't

[4:18:21] have. We were comparing starting

[4:18:23] salaries. we weren't looking at the

[4:18:25] whole step in grade. The timing of the

[4:18:29] proposal for a budget increase didn't

[4:18:32] allow for a lot of um a lot of that

[4:18:35] research to be done. So I mean one

[4:18:37] thought I would have and I don't know if

[4:18:39] this is even feasible is to have these

[4:18:43] budget propo increases

[4:18:46] um proposed a lot earlier so that there

[4:18:50] can be enough due diligence and making

[4:18:52] sure that we are comparing apples to

[4:18:53] apples when we're comparing um to other

[4:18:56] cities and other departments.

[4:18:59] And

[4:19:01] yeah so those are those are my comments.

[4:19:03] I I I

[4:19:06] feel like I lack enough information to

[4:19:08] really make a a well- educated decision

[4:19:12] on this because I haven't had enough

[4:19:15] time to do as much due diligence as I

[4:19:17] would have liked. So, I mean 5% still

[4:19:20] seems pretty high. So, those are my

[4:19:24] thoughts, but maybe Councilwoman Haniman

[4:19:27] and Councilman Rumbler could, you know,

[4:19:30] provide some insight and education for

[4:19:32] me.

[4:19:33] I see.

[4:19:35] >> Okay. Um I appreciated all the work that

[4:19:38] went into um coming up with what how we

[4:19:41] handled it was there was an option one

[4:19:43] which Sarah has referred to which was um

[4:19:45] the original proposal by our staff and

[4:19:48] then we just asked for what would it

[4:19:50] look like if we took down just the cola

[4:19:52] and did everything else um that was that

[4:19:55] was requested. And so that was really

[4:19:57] the only main difference um with a

[4:20:00] couple of minor things in presentation

[4:20:04] um at the meeting for those of you that

[4:20:07] weren't there and I know Carla missed it

[4:20:09] and you are a integral part of that

[4:20:11] board um was that um I asked for

[4:20:16] everyone to talk about how we were doing

[4:20:18] the the repayment back because there

[4:20:20] when I made the motion to approve the

[4:20:23] change in the interlocal agreement we

[4:20:24] said we'd uh take one year to step into

[4:20:27] that by using fund balance. And so um

[4:20:30] that was how that was fulfilled. Um and

[4:20:33] it was so everyone agreed to that. And

[4:20:36] then another thing was they talked about

[4:20:38] was staffing. And so the police had um

[4:20:41] looked originally their proposal was to

[4:20:44] add two staff members but in the end

[4:20:47] they went back and looked at some data

[4:20:48] and came back with one would be good and

[4:20:51] so everyone supported the additional

[4:20:53] staff person. So part of the increase in

[4:20:56] our funding um oh and then um what was

[4:20:59] the other thing? So the those were the

[4:21:01] three things um the change in the

[4:21:03] interlocal agreement the the across the

[4:21:07] board percentage increase and then the

[4:21:09] staffing change and so all of those

[4:21:12] things were uh supported um by the full

[4:21:15] board. We were unanimous. So, one of the

[4:21:18] thing that came out through the

[4:21:19] discussion was um to look to the future

[4:21:23] a little bit. And um the four things we

[4:21:27] were going to look at was um our police

[4:21:30] our our fire department has like a step

[4:21:32] and grade chart so we can know what to

[4:21:34] expect from year to year if everybody

[4:21:37] stays in their current roles. And then

[4:21:40] we asked the police to mirror that so

[4:21:42] that we're sort of dealing with the same

[4:21:44] discussion. Um and they're not just sort

[4:21:46] of uh we're just in parallel. I guess we

[4:21:50] also looked at we wanted to look at

[4:21:52] benefits. Um I did notice in the

[4:21:55] Highland city that they were actually um

[4:21:57] looking I don't know what their final

[4:21:59] vote was looking even at the 401k making

[4:22:02] an opt out. Um, so that might be

[4:22:06] something we were going to specifically

[4:22:08] look at health benefits, but we might

[4:22:10] look beyond that. I don't know. We'll

[4:22:12] see. Um, another thing was just like we

[4:22:15] went over our budget where we have

[4:22:16] capital projects in a separate fund. We don't have that structure in our

[4:22:20] budgeting at the Lone Peak um safety

[4:22:23] district. So, we're going to go in that

[4:22:25] direction too in the next year. And then

[4:22:27] um quite a bit of discussion has been at

[4:22:30] the end of the year talking about fund

[4:22:32] balance and and ways to best

[4:22:34] [clears throat] utilize that. So we're

[4:22:36] going to look at that as well. So I do

[4:22:38] think we accomplished a lot given our

[4:22:40] short time frame and um that we're going

[4:22:44] to try and set set ourselves up for a

[4:22:46] better um expectation so to speak um and smooth out the process a little bit

[4:22:53] better. I did want to point out I did

[4:22:55] ask Aaron for this information and she

[4:22:58] gave me the dollar value but the way

[4:22:59] that this has been written up here in

[4:23:01] our city I'll just use this because it's

[4:23:04] handy. Um so this third paragraph if you

[4:23:08] can you already showing that. So um

[4:23:11] compared to the current year's budget

[4:23:12] the assessment for administration will

[4:23:14] be increased by a small amount which is

[4:23:17] just a 15% increase. Um there's that

[4:23:21] includes the 5% for wages and some other

[4:23:23] services that went up. Then the police

[4:23:26] will in be increased by that 74,000.

[4:23:30] Um and that is for both um

[4:23:33] [clears throat] that is for both the the

[4:23:36] um staffing and the percentage increase.

[4:23:39] And then fire is this huge whopping

[4:23:41] number. But I want you guys to realize

[4:23:43] that what Shane pointed out is that some

[4:23:46] of that is because of the formula

[4:23:48] change. Okay. So, and we're not eating

[4:23:50] or or we're not absorbing all that in

[4:23:52] this first year. We're getting this

[4:23:53] refund that he mentioned. So, in

[4:23:55] actuality, the the fire department is

[4:23:59] only increasing 14.4%.

[4:24:02] If you pull out um our refund, like

[4:24:05] comparing more apples to apples without

[4:24:08] the funding change, I should say without

[4:24:10] the formula change, we would have only

[4:24:12] it would have been mirrored to what the

[4:24:13] police are getting is what I was trying

[4:24:15] to say. Or closer, not not mirrored.

[4:24:17] Okay. Um, and that was it. I think, uh,

[4:24:22] I've learned a lot about police and

[4:24:24] fire. Like I said in the meeting, I

[4:24:25] don't have a lot of experience in this

[4:24:26] at all. And I appreciate I went and

[4:24:29] visited each of the stations and saw,

[4:24:31] you know, just the day-to-day

[4:24:32] operations, and they're very efficient,

[4:24:34] and there's a lot of good camaraderie,

[4:24:36] which is something that money can't buy.

[4:24:38] And I appreciate the leadership of these

[4:24:40] two men here. They sit here quietly,

[4:24:43] patiently through our meetings

[4:24:46] and they do a lot of good work. Um, like

[4:24:49] I've said before, the most important

[4:24:51] part of um, you know, whether I was

[4:24:53] talking about businesses that it's uh,

[4:24:55] that creating employment is most

[4:24:57] important part of a business, but

[4:24:59] creating a place that a place that

[4:25:02] people want to work is really important

[4:25:04] in public service. And that is a a good

[4:25:07] big part of what they do. and I didn't

[4:25:09] want to them to feel like that we were

[4:25:11] diminishing their um success by the

[4:25:14] percentage and I feel like it's been

[4:25:15] accept it's been acceptable that way.

[4:25:17] So, thank you guys. And that's it.

[4:25:21] [clears throat] And thank Aaron for all

[4:25:22] her work. She's she like Shane is

[4:25:25] understaffed and so she's filling

[4:25:27] wearing lots of hats. So, I I appreciate

[4:25:30] our city employees for being so

[4:25:32] talented, such talented people.

[4:25:33] >> I agree. I agree. That's really nice.

[4:25:35] [clears throat]

[4:25:36] Um just a couple things. I know this. I

[4:25:39] know why they want the money increase

[4:25:41] because they have to sit through these

[4:25:43] meetings every week as a joke. They're

[4:25:46] not laughing. No, I'm kidding. Um yeah,

[4:25:49] I really appreciate you guys uh um

[4:25:52] everything you've done. Uh I have a

[4:25:54] couple questions for him. Is that okay

[4:25:55] to ask you guys? Is that okay? They're

[4:25:59] looking at me like

[4:26:00] >> uh you don't have to. If you It's up to

[4:26:02] you.

[4:26:03] >> Um

[4:26:05] >> if you don't want to, you don't have to.

[4:26:07] It's not recorded in our like

[4:26:09] >> I'm born and raised to respect police

[4:26:11] officers and fire chiefs. So, if you'd

[4:26:14] be willing, I'd just love to ask a

[4:26:16] couple things that will help me

[4:26:17] understand this. Um, feel free to come

[4:26:19] up if you want to answer them. Um, like

[4:26:22] at the end of everything uh like maybe you could tell us why what

[4:26:28] you want why you need this why why we

[4:26:31] need this uh increase. Uh because we had

[4:26:35] a meeting before

[4:26:37] you know, our first meeting, which I

[4:26:39] think is aging really well, um, and

[4:26:41] everything that was said when the when

[4:26:43] the ILA

[4:26:45] came up, I I I recommend watching that

[4:26:48] because here we are again. Um, and it

[4:26:51] keeps happening and I think it's

[4:26:52] happening over and over. Anyways, tell

[4:26:54] us what tell us what the increase helps.

[4:26:58] So, uh, the the two big things that

[4:26:59] we're asking for in the police budget is

[4:27:02] an increase in staffing, and that one

[4:27:03] person is a a first-line supervisor

[4:27:06] position

[4:27:08] or a sergeant position in our case that

[4:27:10] would be in uniform and would be out

[4:27:12] supervising or be available to offer um

[4:27:15] supervision and um recommendations and

[4:27:19] be able to um keep us out of some

[4:27:21] lawsuits. Hopefully uh they come with

[4:27:24] experience, but this is a supervisory

[4:27:25] position that would be in uniform uh

[4:27:27] that would be supervising the the

[4:27:29] officers on the road.

[4:27:31] >> We currently have three patrol sergeants

[4:27:33] and we are lacking about 54 hours in the week where we have no supervision

[4:27:39] on the road. And so this is allowing us

[4:27:42] to cover at least 40 of those 54 hours.

[4:27:45] And so um we will revamp our schedule to

[4:27:48] be able to close that gap. That's the

[4:27:51] increase in that position there. The 5%

[4:27:54] increase. Again, we came with an eight.

[4:27:57] I think it was 8.7 is what we asked for.

[4:28:00] 8.4.

[4:28:02] Again, it's late. You guys are keeping

[4:28:03] us up late. It's past 10 o'clock. Um

[4:28:06] when initially we asked for 8.4 uh%

[4:28:09] which would get us to average

[4:28:12] compared to our neighbors, meaning wage

[4:28:14] wise. So, currently we find ourselves

[4:28:17] 8.4% behind our neighbors. And uh we've

[4:28:21] been fortunate. There was a time during

[4:28:24] um 2021 2022 where we were down 30% of

[4:28:28] our staffing in the police department.

[4:28:31] And so we've been able over that time

[4:28:34] with the help of both city councils and

[4:28:35] the and the board to be able to increase

[4:28:38] our wages to to become competitive and

[4:28:40] stay competitive where we aren't become

[4:28:41] we are not a training ground where we're

[4:28:43] losing officers to um other agencies.

[4:28:47] And so what we're trying to do with this

[4:28:48] increase of the 8.4% is stay competitive

[4:28:51] so we're not losing people. Now we're at 5%. I think that's something

[4:28:55] that we can deal with. I think as was

[4:28:58] mentioned before, culture is a big part

[4:29:00] of it. And I'm not saying we're the best

[4:29:02] at everything, but I think we do an okay

[4:29:05] job. Uh we have a great relationship

[4:29:07] with the fire department. Uh we like to

[4:29:09] poke and jab at each other and you know,

[4:29:12] but we do have a wonderful working

[4:29:14] relationship and that's important. Um

[4:29:17] but those are the those are the asks

[4:29:19] that we have and increasing a staff

[4:29:21] member by one. Also there are onetime

[4:29:23] costs with un uh with that are equipment

[4:29:27] costs that come along with that that

[4:29:28] will be included in this and that

[4:29:30] includes one vehicle.

[4:29:31] >> So does the 455 am I reading this right?

[4:29:34] The 455k

[4:29:36] increase the 14.4 increase that gets one

[4:29:39] additional police officer and then a

[4:29:41] raise of 5%.

[4:29:43] >> Correct.

[4:29:45] administration and a lot of other folks.

[4:29:47] >> Yeah, let me be clear. So, the 5% is

[4:29:50] average across the board. I think it

[4:29:52] will be 5% on average. Some will get a

[4:29:55] little more, some will get a bit a

[4:29:56] little bit less depending on what their

[4:29:58] positions are.

[4:29:59] >> I've seen that

[4:30:00] >> uh we did a wage study and we're going

[4:30:01] to try and keep those

[4:30:04] >> um comparative to where we were the

[4:30:06] 8.4%. Not everybody was going to get an

[4:30:09] 8.4% increase, but that was the average

[4:30:11] of what we were looking for. So, we'll

[4:30:13] be doing the same thing with the 5%.

[4:30:15] >> Uh, the last questions are, um,

[4:30:18] does this increase our ability to slow

[4:30:20] traffic and ticket it? Like, do we get

[4:30:23] our designated police officer that's up

[4:30:25] here in Alpine just managing traffic?

[4:30:28] >> So, again, this is a supervisory

[4:30:30] position that when we had these

[4:30:33] discussions before, his availability to

[4:30:35] be on the road and take calls and

[4:30:37] enforce traffic will be about 40%. The

[4:30:40] rest of it will be in a supervisory

[4:30:42] capacity approving reports, offering um

[4:30:46] you know being on scene and with the

[4:30:48] other officers and giving direction and making sure that things are working

[4:30:52] the way they should be.

[4:30:53] >> I know a lot of the residents were

[4:30:55] asking for just one police officer even

[4:30:57] we could hire them part-time to just

[4:30:59] patrol traffic, try to help it slow down

[4:31:01] like basically enforce it.

[4:31:02] >> And we Yeah, we talked about this a

[4:31:04] couple of months ago and again

[4:31:05] >> and I appreciate everything you've done.

[4:31:07] You

[4:31:07] >> talk with that on a one-off. We we can

[4:31:09] certainly have that discussion. So,

[4:31:10] >> uh I was hoping this would do it, but uh

[4:31:12] um does this increase our ability to do

[4:31:14] fire mitigation at scale or is this just

[4:31:17] on the police side?

[4:31:18] >> So, uh I'm going to ask Chief Patton to

[4:31:21] talk about fire. If I could just take

[4:31:23] two seconds and just correct something.

[4:31:26] >> Yeah, correct.

[4:31:26] >> Councilwoman Hanman mentioned about uh

[4:31:29] the 401k. So,

[4:31:33] Loone Peak does not pay into social

[4:31:35] security and there's not there's nothing

[4:31:37] there for social security for us and our

[4:31:40] employees. So, uh we do have a 401k

[4:31:43] match that was offered several years ago

[4:31:46] to kind of help bridge that gap. The

[4:31:50] idea I think we're crossing paths here a

[4:31:53] little bit. We're not asking I don't

[4:31:55] think Highland City is asking to get rid

[4:31:56] of the 401k and I think Erin might be

[4:31:58] able to speak to this better, but having

[4:32:00] been in part of those discussions. We

[4:32:02] have employees that not that are not

[4:32:04] taking advantage of that those funds.

[4:32:06] And so we were going to ask we were

[4:32:09] going to opt them in automatically and

[4:32:11] they would have to request to opt out of

[4:32:13] it, but I think that that option was

[4:32:16] removed. Is that correct, Erin? Okay.

[4:32:19] Yeah. So just

[4:32:19] >> Yeah, I understood that. I didn't say it

[4:32:21] very well. Thank you for explaining.

[4:32:23] Yeah, I understood what was the

[4:32:24] objective, but I don't know if it

[4:32:26] passed.

[4:32:26] >> Any other questions?

[4:32:27] >> Oh, it did not pass. Okay, thank you.

[4:32:29] >> The only one that was the only one I had

[4:32:30] really like I mean I really respect you

[4:32:33] and uh Chief Patton and uh um I I don't

[4:32:38] see 5% raises in my industry just

[4:32:41] automatically across the board. It's

[4:32:42] always merit-based.

[4:32:44] >> Like I come to them, oh, you want that?

[4:32:46] Get us this. Um so that's the world I

[4:32:49] live in. So I don't know much else. It's

[4:32:50] actually worse than that. There usually

[4:32:52] some curse words in the middle of it. Uh

[4:32:54] but um at the end of it, what I am

[4:32:58] getting an earful from every day is why

[4:33:02] are these people speeding? So if this

[4:33:05] doesn't help that tremendously, I don't

[4:33:07] know how I can support it. If it does,

[4:33:09] that's a easy it's an easy yes. Uh the

[4:33:13] next one is the fear of fire uh coming

[4:33:17] and the danger that we're arriving at.

[4:33:21] Um does this give us like more resources

[4:33:24] to do fire prevention because right now

[4:33:28] we're like a tinder box um waiting to

[4:33:31] strike um and we are getting rain which

[4:33:34] makes this summer even more dangerous

[4:33:36] but helpful for water. But, uh, so those

[4:33:39] are like my two things that we're

[4:33:40] looking well that I'm getting an earful

[4:33:42] from. And so that would be the thing I

[4:33:44] would have to tell the residents, hey,

[4:33:46] look, the reason the police deserve, not

[4:33:50] because you are amazing, just that and I

[4:33:53] appreciate all the time you spent, but

[4:33:54] not because of that, but because they

[4:33:56] are solving the problem that you are

[4:33:58] asking for, which is the speeding on

[4:34:00] Alpine Highway or the Canyon Crest. And

[4:34:03] they've done it so well that they not

[4:34:04] only deserve this raise, but a bonus.

[4:34:07] So, I I I will let Chief Patton address

[4:34:09] the fire mitigation. Let me let me just

[4:34:11] address the one other thing that's in

[4:34:12] the budget, and that was um some money

[4:34:14] that's been set aside for

[4:34:16] >> some uh AI uh software that would allow

[4:34:20] officers to be able to write the reports

[4:34:22] in a much more efficient

[4:34:24] >> fashion. I AI's obviously we're all

[4:34:27] moving toward AI and that's hitting our

[4:34:28] industry as well. Now, that's something

[4:34:30] that's going to free up officers time

[4:34:33] and in in so doing, they'll be able to

[4:34:35] spend more time enforcing traffic. Um,

[4:34:39] >> well, if that happens, so if that

[4:34:41] happens, I'm your biggest advocate for

[4:34:43] raises.

[4:34:43] >> So, that's a that is a that will help us

[4:34:46] do that. It's a force multiplier and

[4:34:47] that's another thing that's been added

[4:34:49] into this budget. So,

[4:34:50] >> thank you, Chief. And thank you for find

[4:34:52] helping find that boy who got lost this

[4:34:54] week. Thank you for your team.

[4:34:56] >> I did that myself. Yeah, you're welcome.

[4:34:58] No, I had nothing to do with my folks.

[4:34:59] >> I'm serious. We had an Alpine resident.

[4:35:01] >> I still Brent. Okay.

[4:35:02] >> On the wage study. Can that be converted

[4:35:05] into a step and grade plan?

[4:35:07] >> I I just feel like step and grade it

[4:35:09] again. It gives us the ability to plan.

[4:35:12] We don't have to get into

[4:35:15] is it is it worth it? It's just a known.

[4:35:18] >> So many many uh let me just quickly

[4:35:20] address the step and grade plan. I have

[4:35:22] put together not as comprehensive as

[4:35:25] what the fire is having, but I put

[4:35:26] together pay scales and stepping grade

[4:35:28] twice since I've been the chief and

[4:35:31] they've lasted for about two years and

[4:35:33] then they've gotten rid of them. So, I

[4:35:35] just quit doing them because we were

[4:35:37] putting a lot of effort and time into

[4:35:38] them and then they wasn't affordable and

[4:35:41] it was something that they didn't want

[4:35:42] to pay attention to anymore and so I

[4:35:45] just got away from doing it. That's that

[4:35:47] is something that we are working on.

[4:35:48] Well, we'll be working on for next year.

[4:35:51] we will come back with a step and grade.

[4:35:53] >> Okay. And then when you talk about the

[4:35:54] 8.7 average, does that include the full

[4:35:59] package? You know, you're saying to be

[4:36:01] competitive, but we offer

[4:36:04] >> that's just wages. That's not total

[4:36:05] compensation. That's just wages.

[4:36:07] >> Yeah. And I think just moving forward in

[4:36:09] the future, it would be easier to

[4:36:11] understand the full package.

[4:36:13] >> I I agree with you. And that's that's a

[4:36:15] part of the discussion that we had and I have it on my computer when we when I

[4:36:21] left that meeting a couple of weeks ago.

[4:36:23] Uh we started putting together a total

[4:36:25] compensation package and I've got about

[4:36:28] 15 agencies that we've already gotten

[4:36:31] information back from. But that's

[4:36:32] >> just the cost of insurance just what

[4:36:35] that's looking like and then balancing

[4:36:37] it out. But my only comment is you you

[4:36:40] know I appreciate both council members.

[4:36:42] They spend a tremendous amount of time

[4:36:44] and the mayor does too. And if I'm

[4:36:47] understanding right, you all approve the

[4:36:49] 5% and you're just bringing it to us.

[4:36:51] Yeah. So, I support um them in this

[4:36:55] number if that's what they have

[4:36:57] evaluated and said it's where we need to

[4:36:59] be. So,

[4:37:03] » yes, go ahead. After

[4:37:04] >> Sorry.

[4:37:05] >> And I wasn't planning I was going to

[4:37:07] talk to you about this separately, but I

[4:37:08] thought I'd just do it here. What's your

[4:37:10] policy as far as where your officers

[4:37:12] write reports? And the reason I ask is

[4:37:15] I've seen them just a few times in the

[4:37:17] last couple weeks where they're kind of

[4:37:18] off the beaten path sitting. I'm I

[4:37:21] assume that's where they're doing their

[4:37:22] reports. Is it feasible for them to do

[4:37:24] it in a place where they're visible as a

[4:37:26] traffic speeding deterrent?

[4:37:29] >> Yeah. And and some of them do do that.

[4:37:31] When I was on patrol, I would sit uh on,

[4:37:34] for example, I'd sit on Main Street and

[4:37:36] try and catch up on reports. Um,

[4:37:38] depending on what needs to be put into

[4:37:42] the report, sometimes you can type type

[4:37:43] a quick report while you're sitting, you

[4:37:46] know, a little bit twisted like a

[4:37:48] pretzel to type that out. But if you've

[4:37:49] got something lengthy that we usually

[4:37:51] have them come back to the the station

[4:37:53] and do that, there's a few more

[4:37:54] resources to be able to do that. But

[4:37:55] there are there are ways to have them do

[4:37:58] that while they're sitting where they're

[4:38:00] visible and slowing slowing traffic

[4:38:02] down. Yeah, I just happened to notice

[4:38:03] the last two weeks one Highland as I was

[4:38:05] driving home up on Alpine Highway, he he

[4:38:07] the officer was quite a ways in and just

[4:38:10] sitting. So clearly wasn't doing any

[4:38:13] enforcement on Alpine Highway. And then

[4:38:15] just last week there was one on Baitman

[4:38:17] Lane up at the top by Cascade

[4:38:20] >> where there's no enforcement to be done.

[4:38:22] I assume there was a writing report. I

[4:38:23] was wondering why they couldn't do it in

[4:38:25] a place where there'd be at least a

[4:38:27] traffic deter.

[4:38:27] >> Yeah, you know that's cops are weird.

[4:38:30] They don't like people sneaking up on

[4:38:31] them and and so they they'll find a

[4:38:33] place to back in

[4:38:34] >> and it wasn't backed in. They don't want

[4:38:36] to be it's just you have those and you

[4:38:38] know as well as I do you play those

[4:38:39] games you have the what if what ifs

[4:38:41] whatifs

[4:38:42] >> and the ambushing that goes on. Not that

[4:38:43] it would ever happen here but that's

[4:38:45] those are some games that they play but

[4:38:46] there are certain

[4:38:46] >> might be less likely on a busy street

[4:38:48] than than true. Well

[4:38:50] >> on a side street. I don't I'm trying not

[4:38:52] trying to tell you how to do your job. I

[4:38:53] just

[4:38:54] >> I know that's a good that's a good

[4:38:55] question though. We do and we do um ask

[4:38:57] them to stay out as often as they can.

[4:39:00] You know, having the doors visible,

[4:39:02] especially on a street, certainly slows

[4:39:04] traffic down

[4:39:05] >> whether they're doing enforcement there

[4:39:06] or not.

[4:39:07] >> Exactly. All right. Thanks.

[4:39:09] >> Okay. Any other Oh,

[4:39:11] >> sorry. Sorry. Since you have one more

[4:39:12] question.

[4:39:12] >> Sorry, just one more question. Um with

[4:39:15] this 5% increase, do you anticipate the

[4:39:18] same increase year after year or just

[4:39:20] till you get to like comparable?

[4:39:22] >> We would like to get to average. So it

[4:39:25] depends on what other now we were we

[4:39:28] found ourselves 8.4% behind this year

[4:39:31] >> fully expect every other every all of

[4:39:34] our neighbors are going to move in July

[4:39:36] like we are but what that number is I

[4:39:38] guess we'll find out after July. So it certainly beats the 12 and 13% that

[4:39:44] we were looking at back in 21 and 22. So

[4:39:47] >> yeah, thank you. Appreciate that. Is

[4:39:49] that the same for fire?

[4:39:51] >> Thank you for your support while I'm up

[4:39:53] here. Thank you for your support. It's

[4:39:54] good to be in your council meetings

[4:39:57] before 9:00 after that. And yeah,

[4:40:01] >> thank you, Chief. Okay. Any questions

[4:40:03] for the fire chief? Let's start with

[4:40:05] Jessica.

[4:40:06] >> Nope.

[4:40:08] >> I guess the same thing. Is this a total

[4:40:11] benefits package so that we're actually

[4:40:12] comparing

[4:40:14] averages including health insurance,

[4:40:17] including retirement when we're looking

[4:40:18] at bringing our departments up to

[4:40:22] >> No, but Um, we haven't done that to that

[4:40:24] to this point, but I'm looking forward

[4:40:28] to it.

[4:40:28] >> Okay.

[4:40:29] >> So, um, can I just say something?

[4:40:33] >> I know this is question time, but in six

[4:40:36] days I will have been here for five

[4:40:38] years as the chief kind of. That's when

[4:40:42] I took over.

[4:40:44] >> For five years, we have been chasing

[4:40:46] wages. We had we were losing people in

[4:40:49] droves. We have done so much work over

[4:40:53] the past five years to get in the realm

[4:40:57] of average. I have 2% five years never

[4:41:01] wants a cola. We have been trying to

[4:41:03] market adjust

[4:41:06] on top of our wage scale to get to

[4:41:09] average.

[4:41:12] We will be I mean at 5% we're 5% behind.

[4:41:16] So depending on how things move, we'll

[4:41:19] be that far behind. I'll get those

[4:41:21] numbers to you as as early as I mean

[4:41:24] probably August, right? We'll know

[4:41:26] exactly where we're at wage-wise in

[4:41:27] August.

[4:41:31] Having officers on the street, meaning

[4:41:33] not being down 30%, having firefighters

[4:41:36] in your fire station to fight your

[4:41:37] fires,

[4:41:39] that's the wage. That's the wage thing,

[4:41:41] right? We're not creating what's

[4:41:44] happening here. We're just trying to

[4:41:45] deal with it. We're trying to keep

[4:41:46] staffing at average. That's that's the

[4:41:50] whole thing. I don't want to come with

[4:41:51] 5%. I don't want to come with 8% or 10%

[4:41:54] or 12% like we were.

[4:41:57] If we want to have firefighters,

[4:42:00] we got to compete in the market. When

[4:42:01] you can go next door and get a $15,000 a

[4:42:04] year raise, it's irresponsible

[4:42:07] for my firefighters to not do that. So,

[4:42:11] just that's where we're coming from.

[4:42:14] whatever whatever we want to call it,

[4:42:16] whether it's a total compensation,

[4:42:18] whether it's we're just looking at

[4:42:19] wages, whatever it is, we need to be

[4:42:22] able to be competitive if we want to

[4:42:24] have these services [snorts] to offer

[4:42:26] the residents.

[4:42:27] >> You because that they they leave if you

[4:42:29] don't pay them.

[4:42:30] >> Absolutely. How can they not? It's the

[4:42:32] same job. Lehi is the same job. More

[4:42:35] manpower, safer environment, more calls.

[4:42:39] like everything's I mean when you start

[4:42:42] looking at your positives

[4:42:44] plus you know10 to 15,000 more a year I

[4:42:47] don't know why they're here right this

[4:42:50] is not a safe operating environment in

[4:42:53] the fire world

[4:42:55] >> right we're going at it wildly

[4:42:57] understaffed

[4:43:00] I mean 40 50,000 square foot homes in

[4:43:04] the urban interface

[4:43:05] >> yeah I know

[4:43:06] >> there's not another city around us

[4:43:08] that's dealing with the issues isues

[4:43:09] that we're dealing with it and we're

[4:43:11] dealing with it understaffed way way

[4:43:15] more dangerous. I mean, I fought I

[4:43:17] fought fire in Pleasant Grove for 21

[4:43:19] years.

[4:43:21] Maybe a five or six thousand square foot

[4:43:23] home is the biggest thing I've ever been

[4:43:25] in as far as a as a firefight. And it's

[4:43:29] five or six thousand square feet is a

[4:43:31] big firefight.

[4:43:32] >> Yeah.

[4:43:33] >> Right. And our staffing was seven at the

[4:43:36] station.

[4:43:37] >> Would you guys Oh, sorry. It's not my

[4:43:40] question time. Go ahead.

[4:43:40] >> I don't know if he's done.

[4:43:42] >> Anyways, we have 3% in merit, 2% or the original 5% that we were asking for.

[4:43:49] We knew it was going to land us below

[4:43:51] average right after [clears throat] on

[4:43:54] July 2nd if you will, but 2% is going

[4:43:58] towards

[4:43:59] trying to I mean we'll put it where we

[4:44:01] can as far as market to try to stay you

[4:44:05] know we've got some some that are lower

[4:44:07] than others and we'll put the put a

[4:44:08] little bit more money in the low ones

[4:44:10] and you know so

[4:44:14] >> if I can just explain a little bit of

[4:44:16] the difference between a step in grade

[4:44:18] and cost of living allowance increases

[4:44:20] as coming from the federal government

[4:44:22] where there was a step in grade process

[4:44:24] and you had in our case there were

[4:44:26] automatic grazes that were built into

[4:44:28] the budget for these departments. So for

[4:44:29] example the FBI if I increase from a

[4:44:32] grade 12 to 13 step one and then the

[4:44:36] next year to step two that's automatic

[4:44:38] their grade step and grade system is not

[4:44:40] automatic. It's dependent on these

[4:44:41] raises. So, I also, as a federal

[4:44:44] employee, got cost of living raises, and

[4:44:46] that's determined by Congress and the

[4:44:48] president. This year, the president is

[4:44:50] uh proposing 0% is probably what it's

[4:44:53] going to be. Um, but there's still that

[4:44:56] step in grade increase. Now, the step-in

[4:44:59] grade increase is only applicable every

[4:45:01] year for steps one through three, and

[4:45:04] then it's every two years for four

[4:45:06] through seven or six, four, five, six or

[4:45:09] seven. And then it's every three years

[4:45:12] for up to step 10 in the grade you're

[4:45:14] in. So, as I explained in the meeting

[4:45:17] last a couple weeks ago, for my last

[4:45:20] eight years, I was maxed out because I

[4:45:22] took the transfer to Salt Lake City out

[4:45:24] of Denver that required me to step down

[4:45:26] out of my management position and I was

[4:45:28] at a 13 grade step 10. So, I didn't get

[4:45:31] any step increases for eight years, but

[4:45:33] I got the cost of living raises and they

[4:45:35] were very, very meager for those 10

[4:45:37] years. or eight years from now in the

[4:45:38] last couple years by me except during co

[4:45:40] when inflation increased and congress

[4:45:42] gave them higher so just understanding

[4:45:45] the difference yes 5% seems like a lot

[4:45:48] as a cola based

[4:45:51] and you do we do I think we also should

[4:45:53] compare it to the the public sector be

[4:45:56] the private sector because they also

[4:45:58] have to look at experience levels and increases in wages and benefits for experience increases and that's what

[4:46:06] that stepping grade is it's you're compensating more for increases

[4:46:10] in experience. So, it's not just cola,

[4:46:13] it's it's a firefighter who has taken

[4:46:16] the requisite steps, additional

[4:46:18] training, um additional collateral or

[4:46:20] extra duties um to get to that next step

[4:46:24] in in their step in grade process. So,

[4:46:27] it's important to understand the

[4:46:28] difference between the private sector um

[4:46:32] where you're just looking at average

[4:46:33] wages and looking at compensating for

[4:46:37] increases in in value to the community

[4:46:40] as well as the cost of living increases.

[4:46:42] Does that make sense? Okay. I just

[4:46:44] wanted to clarify that. And so asking

[4:46:47] the police to come up with that step in

[4:46:48] grade system which was my idea or what

[4:46:51] combined with some others is that it

[4:46:53] gives some more clarity for for planning

[4:46:57] for wage increases that relates to

[4:47:00] experience levels and added value to our

[4:47:03] communities. But it's also dependent on

[4:47:06] the board and the and the and the

[4:47:09] councils to approve those increases.

[4:47:11] It's not automatic like the federal

[4:47:13] government is.

[4:47:16] could be automatic.

[4:47:18] >> It could be if we chose to, right? The

[4:47:20] two questions. Uh, you keep going.

[4:47:22] >> Okay. I think we're No, she has

[4:47:24] >> I still have my comment time. So, yeah.

[4:47:26] >> Can I just say one thing real quick? Me

[4:47:29] personally, I would never go to

[4:47:30] automatic because I mean, if I've got

[4:47:32] people that don't want to do the things,

[4:47:35] >> that's that's their choice.

[4:47:38] >> A caveat caveat is you at least had to

[4:47:40] perform at a satisfactory level.

[4:47:42] >> Yeah. If you performance improvement

[4:47:43] plan, you didn't get

[4:47:44] >> and we do. We have we have that where

[4:47:46] they but if they want to level up and I

[4:47:48] mean there's a whole load of

[4:47:49] certifications and when we went to this

[4:47:51] one of the one of the reasons just

[4:47:53] history um we went to it is we were we

[4:47:56] were basically and most of the fire

[4:47:58] service still functions this way where I

[4:48:00] would go to my employees and say I need

[4:48:02] you to get this certification I need you

[4:48:04] to go to a you know eightweek class at

[4:48:07] you know twice twice a week at night and

[4:48:09] maybe a Saturday here and there and

[4:48:12] because I'm

[4:48:14] mandating it. I need them to get that

[4:48:16] certification. Now I'm into overtime,

[4:48:19] right? I'm going to have to pay them

[4:48:20] when they're off duty to go to this

[4:48:22] class because I'm the one that, you

[4:48:23] know, as the fire department wants them

[4:48:25] to do it. When we came up with this

[4:48:27] system, essentially

[4:48:30] we we that we we still have some

[4:48:32] mandatory certifications that are very,

[4:48:34] you know, in like that first year of

[4:48:36] their career, but beyond that, when they

[4:48:40] go to a class, they choose to go to, we

[4:48:42] don't mandate anything. They choose to

[4:48:44] go. We don't pay them to go, but that's

[4:48:47] how they're going to get their raises.

[4:48:48] So, they I mean, they're going to get

[4:48:49] paid on the backside.

[4:48:51] And it's it's actually been a really

[4:48:53] amazing program because now rather than,

[4:48:58] you know, this happened to me right

[4:49:00] before I became the chief, getting told

[4:49:02] I was going to a class, getting told to

[4:49:04] cancel trips, getting told and me being

[4:49:08] pissed off. Now we got people standing

[4:49:10] in line because they're trying to get

[4:49:11] their classes done so that they can get

[4:49:13] their raises when they It's worked out

[4:49:15] really well. So, but there was a a money

[4:49:18] savings, you know, on the not paying

[4:49:20] overtime for man for mandating classes

[4:49:23] that it it worked out really well. Plus,

[4:49:26] you know, we've got some high performers

[4:49:28] and they're going to ascend faster and

[4:49:30] we've got some that are they're great

[4:49:31] employees, but they're maybe they don't

[4:49:33] want to read the books or do I mean, we

[4:49:35] got some maybe weird things in our

[4:49:38] >> That's what I really like about your

[4:49:39] system is it it incentivize incentivizes

[4:49:43] initiative and prog progress. And then

[4:49:45] when I part of the reason I suggested

[4:49:47] that for the police department is Chief

[4:49:49] William let me know that uh they pay

[4:49:51] extra for extra duties. We call them

[4:49:53] collateral duties in the FBI serving on

[4:49:54] the evidence response team or SWAT or

[4:49:56] something else. But I like the idea of

[4:49:58] and to promote to a supervisor I had to

[4:50:00] have done those things to be competitive

[4:50:02] for those positions. So I like the idea

[4:50:05] of incentivizing that through the paying

[4:50:08] grade system or the stepping grade

[4:50:10] system. Well, and it was kind of a rude

[4:50:11] awakening when we had the engineer test

[4:50:13] because there were people who had

[4:50:15] drugged their feet and didn't and they

[4:50:17] weren't qualified all of a sudden. They

[4:50:18] had plenty of time, but they just they

[4:50:21] didn't they didn't get their stuff done.

[4:50:23] And so all of a sudden, we go to, you

[4:50:25] know, we do a test and we got people who

[4:50:27] they should be there. They, you know,

[4:50:30] they're they're more than qualified, but

[4:50:32] they didn't have the certifications and it was on them. So,

[4:50:38] >> Sarah,

[4:50:38] >> my turn. Oh, okay. First of all, I just

[4:50:40] want to say for Chief Patton and Chief

[4:50:42] Williams, any of the questions,

[4:50:43] comments, thoughts I have are not

[4:50:45] intended to be insulting. It's just

[4:50:47] probably a lack of my understanding. So,

[4:50:49] I appreciate you being here to answer

[4:50:50] questions. Um, you said in five years

[4:50:54] something about never had a cola. Can

[4:50:56] you elaborate on what you meant by that?

[4:50:58] >> So, we've been trying to adjust the what

[4:51:01] I would call a market adjustment,

[4:51:03] meaning to get in the range. Right. A

[4:51:05] cola in my mind is

[4:51:08] we've got our merit increase, we're in

[4:51:10] range, and then we're we're looking at

[4:51:13] adjusting for the cost of living or

[4:51:14] inflation or something like that. We've

[4:51:16] never actually got to that point because

[4:51:18] we've never got to that average mark

[4:51:21] where we can say, so it's probably as

[4:51:24] much verbiage as anything, but when I'm

[4:51:26] looking at it, I don't look at what I

[4:51:28] think the cost of living is going to be.

[4:51:29] I look at where we're at comparative to

[4:51:31] other departments. And I and so that 5%

[4:51:35] proposed was to adjust wage ranges to

[4:51:40] get us in market. Okay.

[4:51:42] >> Rather than a cost of living.

[4:51:43] >> And it's kind of just a how it's named.

[4:51:45] >> Yeah. And that's

[4:51:46] >> merit versus cola. It's all based

[4:51:48] relatively on infla wage inflation and overall inflation.

[4:51:52] >> I mean we're I'm looking at the the

[4:51:54] surrounding departments have increased

[4:51:56] their wages. So yeah, call it cola call

[4:51:59] it

[4:51:59] >> merit. On the back side, I I look at it

[4:52:02] as a as wage adjustment

[4:52:04] >> market

[4:52:05] >> or market adjustment

[4:52:06] >> adjustment

[4:52:06] >> to try to get in to keep us in range

[4:52:09] rather than looking at a cost of living

[4:52:12] >> and and you're just strictly compar

[4:52:14] comparing salaries, not like salaries

[4:52:16] plus benefits. Is that No,

[4:52:18] >> no, you're comparing the whole thing.

[4:52:20] >> No, no, no. We're we've never done that

[4:52:22] before. We're doing salaries in the

[4:52:24] future. We want to start comparing it

[4:52:26] all, I guess. Okay.

[4:52:27] >> That was the request that I made in

[4:52:28] January at our meeting. that we need to

[4:52:31] like you said compare apples to apples

[4:52:32] overall compensation and we had some

[4:52:34] issues with uh an a situation a family

[4:52:37] situation with their highlands finance

[4:52:40] manager but we got the 10 or so

[4:52:42] comparisons of salaries and it was just

[4:52:44] based on entry level salaries so one ask

[4:52:47] for next year is to compare all the

[4:52:50] steps and grades and that might come out

[4:52:51] better for them the comparison might

[4:52:53] come out but I we we just need to make

[4:52:55] informed decisions

[4:52:56] >> sure

[4:52:57] >> and the other thing was we need to

[4:52:59] compare the complete compensation

[4:53:01] overall compensation that would include

[4:53:04] the benefits and that's what I asked

[4:53:05] for. So we got a list of 10 comparisons

[4:53:07] but only two were were from the other

[4:53:10] list. So it's you just couldn't compare

[4:53:12] them.

[4:53:12] >> Yeah.

[4:53:13] >> And of those 10 only two others provided

[4:53:16] 100% of the health insurance benefits.

[4:53:19] Most of them were 70 to 80% in in that

[4:53:22] range. So going forward again we were

[4:53:26] that was January and then we had the the

[4:53:28] situation with the with the and then

[4:53:31] just the timing it's it was hard to get

[4:53:32] but that's what we've requested going

[4:53:34] forward is having an overall

[4:53:37] compensation and for our staff if we're

[4:53:39] going to use comparable salaries from

[4:53:42] other cities we should have the same

[4:53:44] expect the same thing

[4:53:46] >> an overall comparison because in Alpine

[4:53:48] we we contribute 100% of their health

[4:53:51] insurance benefits So when we compare

[4:53:53] salaries, we also have to compare

[4:53:54] overall benefits is my my thought.

[4:53:56] >> Appreciate that. I agree.

[4:53:57] >> Can I add something?

[4:53:59] >> Yes.

[4:53:59] >> Aaron Wells, um, executive director for

[4:54:01] Loone Peak. So um, and and to Council

[4:54:04] Member Remler's point, we absolutely

[4:54:06] wanted to try to provide that and we

[4:54:08] just, um, salaries are very easy for us

[4:54:10] to pull because there's a database out

[4:54:12] there. I can go log in, download it,

[4:54:14] right, and I can run the reports for

[4:54:15] you. Benefits is a very timeintensive. I

[4:54:18] have to somebody has to make a lot of

[4:54:20] phone calls. uh do a lot of data and do

[4:54:23] a lot of digging to make sure that we

[4:54:25] are truly comparing apples to apples

[4:54:26] because um you've got all the different

[4:54:30] positions and then within that you've

[4:54:32] got tier one and tier two and are you

[4:54:34] talking about a match or are you doing

[4:54:36] social security and all of those things

[4:54:37] and so we tried to do it in an easy way

[4:54:40] and that we created a spreadsheet sent

[4:54:42] it out to our HR folks and unfortunately

[4:54:44] did not get the response we were hoping

[4:54:45] for so it wasn't I we heard the request

[4:54:49] from the board and unfortunately just

[4:54:50] weren't able to fulfill it um because of

[4:54:52] all the things that council member

[4:54:54] Rumbler talked about. Um one other thing

[4:54:56] I think to add to what Chief Patton was

[4:54:58] saying about um cola versus market, I

[4:55:01] think it's important to remember that

[4:55:03] and when this has been true for all of

[4:55:05] the market adjustments that the chiefs

[4:55:07] have um requested over the years is that

[4:55:09] they've been position specific, right?

[4:55:12] It's not like every um employee would

[4:55:14] have gotten a 5%. um some of the

[4:55:17] employees in a certain category were

[4:55:18] going to get no market adjustment

[4:55:20] because they were within market range

[4:55:22] whereas other employees needed more

[4:55:25] right so that's how it ended up at the

[4:55:27] 5% um there was a third thing but my

[4:55:30] brain has turned to mush so mine's about

[4:55:33] there

[4:55:33] >> we'll stay up there I think they're

[4:55:34] going to do more

[4:55:35] >> and when you do comparables you're

[4:55:36] comparing within Utah county within Utah

[4:55:39] I mean nationwide

[4:55:41] >> we've gone back and forth as to what the

[4:55:43] best way is to compare to right and so

[4:55:45] what we've landed on at this point is

[4:55:47] Utah County,

[4:55:48] >> LA County,

[4:55:49] >> no [gasps]

[4:55:50] is Utah County,

[4:55:51] >> Northern California,

[4:55:52] >> and our um uh South Salt Lake County.

[4:55:56] So, we include like Draper and um

[4:55:58] Bluffdale. I can't remember exactly, but

[4:56:00] it's it's Utah County and then the our

[4:56:02] bordering Salt Lake County ones.

[4:56:04] >> Thank you. Thanks for all your effort,

[4:56:06] too.

[4:56:06] >> Oh, absolutely. And I'd say one thing

[4:56:08] that the board did request that we do

[4:56:09] this year is usually it's the chiefs who

[4:56:11] are pulling the salary numbers and

[4:56:13] actually HR and admin did it this time

[4:56:15] just so that you could understand. I

[4:56:18] mean not that I think that the chiefs

[4:56:19] were giving you bad data by any means

[4:56:21] but you know it's coming from a place of

[4:56:23] neutrality.

[4:56:24] >> For reals their data was better.

[4:56:25] >> That's true. Mine was higher.

[4:56:27] >> Not not for you but better [laughter]

[4:56:29] for me. You guys like that.

[4:56:31] >> Yes. It was coming from a place of

[4:56:32] neutrality for that.

[4:56:33] >> Thank you.

[4:56:34] >> Um sorry I just have a few more

[4:56:36] questions. I promise I'll be quick. So,

[4:56:38] Chief Patton, how many firefighters have

[4:56:40] you lost in this last year due to um

[4:56:44] other fire departments with higher

[4:56:46] wages? I know you lost, didn't you lose

[4:56:48] a captain out to Saratoga Springs?

[4:56:51] >> Um, that's the only one.

[4:56:53] >> Okay. And then how many positions have

[4:56:56] you hired for?

[4:56:58] >> Two. [clears throat]

[4:56:59] >> And how many applicants did you have for

[4:57:01] each of those?

[4:57:02] >> You want qualified applicants or

[4:57:03] justified

[4:57:05] applicants? qualified applicants.

[4:57:07] >> I think we had 17.

[4:57:09] >> Okay.

[4:57:10] And um

[4:57:12] >> and for the first time, I will say this,

[4:57:14] for the first time in my five years, we

[4:57:15] had two paramedics that applied.

[4:57:22] » Okay. And then just kind of the same

[4:57:25] question, but this is my last question I

[4:57:27] asked Chief Williams is, you know, once

[4:57:30] we get to that market where we have a

[4:57:33] comparable, you know, compensation

[4:57:35] I mean, do you anticipate

[4:57:39] asking for like

[4:57:42] >> five to eight% every year or are we just

[4:57:45] trying to get to comparable market so

[4:57:47] we're competitive

[4:57:49] >> or

[4:57:49] >> so I I would love to get us into a place

[4:57:52] I mean if you're looking at probably on

[4:57:53] the average somewhere around 3% on your

[4:57:55] merit right you're you're in scale

[4:57:58] you're going to see see now I feel like

[4:58:01] we're talking colas right now you're

[4:58:03] going to see a two to 5% % around us

[4:58:07] that we would want to stay right with.

[4:58:10] >> Okay.

[4:58:10] >> So, yeah, maybe 5% based on but that and

[4:58:14] that's the hard part is we've got to get

[4:58:15] there, right? So, the market has slowed

[4:58:17] down and it's it's not fun to talk about

[4:58:20] us still kind of keeping the pedal down,

[4:58:22] but this is our chance to catch up

[4:58:24] because,

[4:58:25] >> you know, when inflation was going

[4:58:27] crazy,

[4:58:28] >> you know.

[4:58:29] >> Yeah. I'm just looking at from like a

[4:58:31] finance position as as a council member

[4:58:34] just how sustainable is 5% every year. I

[4:58:37] don't know like I don't I don't know.

[4:58:39] That's why I was just curious and that's

[4:58:41] why I'm asking. I I'm not saying that I

[4:58:43] don't feel like you don't deserve it or

[4:58:45] anything like that. I'm just

[4:58:47] >> just trying to get the data. So yeah,

[4:58:50] >> those are my only questions.

[4:58:52] >> Chrissy, did you have any questions?

[4:58:55] >> Um

[4:58:57] I did. I don't have a question for you,

[4:59:00] but thank you. I did miss this point and

[4:59:04] I know um Shane covered it, but um

[4:59:09] I think it's important to understand the

[4:59:10] needs. Like I was saying, I don't know

[4:59:12] where we talked about this. It's a long

[4:59:14] night. if I've already said this, but

[4:59:16] it's important to understand the needs

[4:59:17] and then um

[4:59:21] if we're not keeping up and we're not um

[4:59:24] able to keep a full staff and all the

[4:59:27] things that make our fire pe our fire

[4:59:31] department and police department

[4:59:32] function well, then that falls to us to

[4:59:35] find the the resources to help them meet

[4:59:38] their needs. And so that was more my

[4:59:41] perspective is like what are our revenue

[4:59:44] sources? And so um in the packet that we

[4:59:47] were given and Shane has repeated it in

[4:59:50] our um is that there's a in our

[4:59:53] interlocal agreement it says the annual

[4:59:54] budget increase or decrease for the

[4:59:56] district shall not exceed the average

[4:59:59] property tax revenue increase or

[5:00:01] decrease for both cities budgets of the

[5:00:04] previous fiscal year. So that um

[5:00:06] somebody and then you could keep reading

[5:00:08] but excluding any new revenue increases

[5:00:10] without majority vote of city council.

[5:00:13] So that's what's happening is this um

[5:00:16] and it goes on and explains that this

[5:00:18] year we're there the increase is above

[5:00:20] our property tax increase. Well property

[5:00:23] tax isn't our only source of revenue. We

[5:00:25] you know Shane presented tonight that

[5:00:27] our sales tax is increasing. We have

[5:00:29] other revenues we can use. But somebody

[5:00:32] in creating the interlocal agreement

[5:00:34] realized that we can't really force one

[5:00:36] city or another to raise property taxes

[5:00:38] because that is an act of the city. Like

[5:00:41] we can't really control our sales tax

[5:00:43] increase, but we can control property

[5:00:44] tax through the truth and taxation

[5:00:46] program. So, I think it's really

[5:00:48] important to hear from these men to

[5:00:50] understand when the when they're we

[5:00:52] can't meet their needs. Like now it's

[5:00:55] our responsibility to get the resources

[5:00:57] to meet their needs. And so I'm really

[5:00:59] grateful for the extra time you spent. I

[5:01:01] think this is the most you you two have

[5:01:03] ever said at any city council meeting in

[5:01:05] the two years I've ever been here. So I

[5:01:07] really appreciate your input and um

[5:01:10] that's our role is they tell us what

[5:01:12] they need and we figure out how to get

[5:01:15] those needs met. Um, and that may mean

[5:01:18] that we have to look at a property tax

[5:01:21] change. And Carla said that at one

[5:01:23] point, maybe it maybe it was one either

[5:01:25] one of you were still here when we

[5:01:27] weren't meeting those needs. We couldn't

[5:01:29] keep staff and we had to change we had

[5:01:32] to increase our property taxes

[5:01:33] specifically for Lone Peak Safety. So,

[5:01:35] this is a year maybe we're if we fall

[5:01:38] behind like it's something to we're

[5:01:40] kicking the can down the road. That I

[5:01:42] think that's the message I'm getting

[5:01:43] from them is we're kicking the can down

[5:01:44] the road. So, that may be something

[5:01:46] we're talking about next year. I just

[5:01:47] want to bring that to your attention

[5:01:49] that it's our job to provide the

[5:01:51] resources if when they have needs. And

[5:01:54] it's a two-way thing, right? And so, um,

[5:01:57] I understand that and thank you.

[5:01:59] >> We were both here. I know for me

[5:02:01] personally, it was pretty traumatizing.

[5:02:02] That's why I'm pretty protective of us

[5:02:04] like just like let's just

[5:02:05] >> falling behind. Let's just keep, you

[5:02:08] know,

[5:02:10] taking off small bites rather the

[5:02:11] because when we took the big bite, it

[5:02:13] was a big pain in the

[5:02:15] >> right.

[5:02:18] >> Can some of the funding come from the

[5:02:19] general fund, too. Again, it's just less

[5:02:21] projects, right? Well, everything that

[5:02:23] goes into the general fund is fungeible.

[5:02:25] Like this is somebody tied it to before

[5:02:28] my day and era, somebody tied it to that

[5:02:31] property tax. But we once the money hits

[5:02:34] the general fund, we use it on parks. We

[5:02:36] can use it on public safety. We can use

[5:02:37] it on water.

[5:02:39] >> It all comes from the general fund.

[5:02:40] So

[5:02:42] somebody tied it to property tax, but

[5:02:44] that doesn't mean we have that

[5:02:45] limitation.

[5:02:49] » Okay. Did you have any questions for

[5:02:51] >> No, I I I love you guys. I respect you

[5:02:54] guys, but I you're not going to like me

[5:02:57] [laughter]

[5:02:58] and I Sorry. Uh, so I'm I'm a little

[5:03:01] different in the view than what you

[5:03:02] heard. I I don't feel like I'm and don't

[5:03:05] take this the wrong way. I'm not

[5:03:06] supposed to meet your guys' needs. I'm

[5:03:08] supposed to meet the needs of the

[5:03:09] residents. Um, and it's not happening

[5:03:13] with the traffic and the fire

[5:03:14] mitigation.

[5:03:16] Um, and when we compare our salary,

[5:03:18] sorry, this is just one I'm taking. Take

[5:03:20] it or leave it. Um, and I know you have

[5:03:21] an axe and a gun, so I'm trying to be

[5:03:23] gentle.

[5:03:25] That's a joke. We I get goofier as it

[5:03:27] gets late. I don't know how you guys

[5:03:29] get, but anyways. Um it's it's hard to

[5:03:33] compare us with fire departments in like

[5:03:35] Bluffell or Highland or um

[5:03:40] uh we are not the same entity in

[5:03:43] population, in demographic,

[5:03:47] in amount of crime,

[5:03:50] um in we have like a really unique thing

[5:03:54] and the current situation I'm just

[5:03:57] realizing more and I realize this

[5:03:59] usually I'm pretty right on the onset

[5:04:01] and I questioned myself, but right away

[5:04:03] when this first came up, the ILA, I

[5:04:06] researched it and realized

[5:04:08] this system is not sustainable,

[5:04:11] and it's not a right fit. I'm not saying

[5:04:14] you guys aren't amazing, but it's not

[5:04:16] the right fit. like the the current

[5:04:19] system we have for fighting fires,

[5:04:22] taking people in an ambulance,

[5:04:24] addressing crime, and addressing traffic

[5:04:27] is a model that works in like South Salt

[5:04:30] Lake or parts of Utah County. That's the

[5:04:33] only reason I would not vote for this.

[5:04:35] 5% is too much. No other industry is

[5:04:38] getting that. Um

[5:04:40] uh I don't think this fits the identity

[5:04:42] and the needs of Alpine. I think the

[5:04:44] needs of Alpine are fire prevention. we

[5:04:46] don't get any or we have to get it. I'm

[5:04:48] trying to get it and traffic calming and

[5:04:51] I know we have a lot of older population

[5:04:53] for ambulance service uh and their

[5:04:57] property tax is already too high. So

[5:05:00] they like die one way or the other or

[5:05:01] they have a pain one way or the other. I just feel like the reason I can't

[5:05:05] support this like I did at the beginning

[5:05:07] is because just this model isn't there

[5:05:09] needs to be a change. Ever since I was

[5:05:11] young coming here, the fire department's

[5:05:13] been coming here asking for more money.

[5:05:15] It's never enough. It's never enough.

[5:05:17] Just like the

[5:05:18] schools, it's never enough. It's never enough. But we don't

[5:05:22] see a quality change or we don't see a

[5:05:24] substantial change in the results. Uh I think there just needs to be changes.

[5:05:29] That's all. And I hope it's with you

[5:05:31] guys.

[5:05:32] >> I'm sorry if you're mad.

[5:05:33] >> Do you hope it's with us? Yes. Like you

[5:05:35] want me to leave?

[5:05:36] >> No, I want you to I want I don't want

[5:05:38] you to leave, but the model isn't

[5:05:40] working just currently.

[5:05:42] >> When's the last time you had a big fire?

[5:05:45] 201

[5:05:46] >> 12 Yes, 2012.

[5:05:48] >> You're welcome.

[5:05:49] >> No, I I'm not dis I am not discounting

[5:05:53] that. But just so you know,

[5:05:55] >> well, when you say that you're not

[5:05:56] seeing the change, how would you see the

[5:05:59] change?

[5:05:59] >> I would see the change by getting in

[5:06:01] front of that fire before it happened

[5:06:03] and doing the correct fire mitigation

[5:06:05] that we're pleading for already. That we

[5:06:08] made it.

[5:06:08] >> We need to have that conversation like

[5:06:10] three months ago. I had it three months

[5:06:11] ago. I'm a fire.

[5:06:12] >> I'm doing it three and six and seven

[5:06:14] months ago.

[5:06:14] >> We I know you're out there doing it. If

[5:06:16] you want me to do it,

[5:06:18] >> then I need a whole another arm of my

[5:06:21] fire department. I employ firefighters,

[5:06:23] >> right? And

[5:06:24] >> not fire mitigators.

[5:06:26] >> But I I I agree. And if we're

[5:06:29] >> We can talk about that.

[5:06:30] >> I

[5:06:30] >> But that's not going to bring your cost

[5:06:32] down.

[5:06:33] >> Well, it can if we prioritize that.

[5:06:36] Right now, we don't prioritize that. But

[5:06:39] you're right. We will have another fire.

[5:06:41] It's only a matter of time just like

[5:06:43] that if we don't do fire mitigation.

[5:06:45] Now, after that fire happened, the fire

[5:06:47] he's talking about, the 2012, what they

[5:06:49] did is they went on the irrigation ditch

[5:06:51] and they made a fire break, maybe the

[5:06:54] month after, and they made it during the

[5:06:56] fire. It's all overgrown now. It's all

[5:06:59] overgrown. I'm the one digging it out

[5:07:01] right now. Me and a couple friends, and

[5:07:02] we go up and we're digging it out, but

[5:07:05] no one does it until there's a fire. And

[5:07:07] so, the model's not working. Um, the

[5:07:09] funds aren't going to the right space.

[5:07:10] If I could somehow get us to convert to

[5:07:12] traffic safety and to fire mitigation, I

[5:07:15] think we would avoid that fire where you

[5:07:18] guys wouldn't have to be risking your

[5:07:19] lives and everyone else's. I'm sorry.

[5:07:22] You're not risking them. The fire is

[5:07:24] risking your life and everyone else's.

[5:07:26] It's not your fault. But uh I think the

[5:07:29] model could just change. That's the only

[5:07:30] reason I'm not with you. I That's the

[5:07:32] only reason is um

[5:07:33] >> Well, no. What I'm hearing is you want

[5:07:34] to pour more money into the fire

[5:07:36] department. But let me ask you this

[5:07:37] question. You practice safe driving,

[5:07:40] >> right?

[5:07:41] >> You don't speed, obviously.

[5:07:43] >> I I am a little bit amazed that the all

[5:07:45] of Alpine complains about speeding.

[5:07:48] >> Who are they complaining about?

[5:07:49] >> Their neighbors and trucks.

[5:07:51] >> Yeah, them.

[5:07:51] >> Well, hold on.

[5:07:52] >> Themselves, right? This is a dead end.

[5:07:54] >> We've been doing [clears throat] it now.

[5:07:54] >> I'm just I'm just saying with a safe

[5:07:57] driver. You practice safe driving. You

[5:07:58] do all the things. You got car

[5:07:59] insurance.

[5:08:00] >> Yes.

[5:08:01] >> Why?

[5:08:02] >> For disasters.

[5:08:04] >> No, I know you are insurance. You

[5:08:06] >> So you can mitigate. we can go out and

[5:08:08] mitigate and I'm happy to help you,

[5:08:09] right? It's going to cost money,

[5:08:11] >> but it doesn't negate the fact that

[5:08:13] you're still going to have a disaster.

[5:08:14] You're still going to have some other

[5:08:16] force is going to

[5:08:18] >> I agree. So, basically what I'm asking

[5:08:20] is a slight insurance cost reduction

[5:08:25] and then a rep prioritizing from crisis

[5:08:28] control to prevention.

[5:08:30] >> That'd be great.

[5:08:31] >> Andrew, when's the last time you called

[5:08:33] your insurance company and asked them to

[5:08:34] reduce your rates?

[5:08:35] >> Every year. And what they do is they

[5:08:37] say, "Oh, I'm sorry. I can't do anything

[5:08:38] about I'm switching." And I switch every

[5:08:41] year.

[5:08:41] >> And you also have to remember that.

[5:08:42] >> And I get them, by the way, and I get

[5:08:44] them reduced every year.

[5:08:46] >> And so can you by switching.

[5:08:48] >> I mean, firefighters,

[5:08:50] the vast majority of what they do is

[5:08:52] emergency response accidents and medical

[5:08:54] emergencies. Yes, they're there to fight

[5:08:56] fires. In Pleasant Grove, it's going to

[5:08:58] be structure fires, right? So those you

[5:09:01] have no control over. There's no

[5:09:02] mitigation. It's just structure fires

[5:09:04] happen because electrical things or a

[5:09:05] kid lights a match or whatever else.

[5:09:07] That's just going to happen. Yes, we

[5:09:09] have the wildland interface. That's a

[5:09:11] different thing. And there is room for

[5:09:13] mitigation. And there are lots of

[5:09:15] programs we've determined of of doing

[5:09:17] that volunteer work, grants, and things

[5:09:20] like that. That's not [clears throat]

[5:09:21] the firefighters primary role. And yes,

[5:09:23] they can consult and they can

[5:09:25] participate and and and give ideas and

[5:09:27] things. Well, I know it's not their

[5:09:28] primary role, but it's our primary.

[5:09:29] >> But they have to be available when

[5:09:31] they're on duty need,

[5:09:32] >> but when when they're on duty, they have

[5:09:34] to be available for those.

[5:09:36] >> What is what would you say the

[5:09:37] percentages of your calls are medical

[5:09:39] emergencies and vehicle accidents?

[5:09:41] >> Well, most of them, right?

[5:09:42] >> 80 80 85.

[5:09:43] >> Yeah.

[5:09:44] >> I know up here, but that's the model.

[5:09:45] >> They have you have to be ready for that.

[5:09:47] And if you're out doing mitigation

[5:09:48] during your work shift, you just can't

[5:09:50] be available for that room.

[5:09:50] >> I know that's the model for South Salt

[5:09:52] Lake Utah.

[5:09:53] >> It's the model for everywhere. I know,

[5:09:54] but we have a slightly different need

[5:09:56] just by geographic location and uh

[5:09:58] demographic and uh like you said, the

[5:10:01] 50,000 foot house right into the uh

[5:10:04] forestry. [clears throat]

[5:10:05] It it just it's just slightly different.

[5:10:07] If we pivot a little bit, I hate to use

[5:10:09] this example, but Disneyland had to do

[5:10:10] this. When Disneyland opened, they used

[5:10:12] a normal structure of police and fire,

[5:10:14] and they realized right away it didn't

[5:10:16] work. And so, they had to pivot it to be

[5:10:18] a Disneylandesque

[5:10:20] fire and police, and it worked. It It

[5:10:22] was a different scenario. was a

[5:10:23] different uh need and and they were able

[5:10:27] to make it work. I think we have just a

[5:10:28] little bit of that going on.

[5:10:30] >> That's I I've said

[5:10:31] >> the interesting thing is we have we have

[5:10:33] a greater need I think here for that

[5:10:35] insurance and that protection. That's

[5:10:36] why the chief when they've been

[5:10:39] understaffed under OSHA standards he's

[5:10:41] made the decision to have four

[5:10:42] firefighters in Alpine versus three in

[5:10:44] Highland even though Highland was

[5:10:46] getting paid the majority of their of

[5:10:48] the cost. I'm with you on that

[5:10:50] >> because we have an elderly population

[5:10:53] and there are more calls, emergency

[5:10:54] calls with the elderly population and

[5:10:56] the fire risk is what he's trying to

[5:10:58] mitigate against.

[5:11:00] >> No, I'm with you on that. I'm just

[5:11:01] looking for the prevention side. That's

[5:11:03] >> Mayor, can I say something on the

[5:11:04] prevention? Please do.

[5:11:06] >> So, one thing to remember also, the

[5:11:08] firefighters didn't ask for all these

[5:11:09] open space subdivisions that we have in

[5:11:11] Alpine. That's something that actually

[5:11:13] was required for many years. It's

[5:11:16] changed now by our ordinance. If you had

[5:11:19] property proposed for development that

[5:11:22] contained any of the geologic hazards,

[5:11:25] it had to be a PRD, which means

[5:11:27] automatically 25% open space right off

[5:11:30] the top and sometimes more. So, Willow

[5:11:33] Canyon, Healey Heights, a lot of these

[5:11:35] subdivisions like that, Silver Leaf,

[5:11:38] they have open space because the

[5:11:41] developer is forced by city ordinance

[5:11:44] that was passed by the city council.

[5:11:47] And so they didn't ask for any of these

[5:11:50] open spaces. We took on 500 acres of

[5:11:53] public open space in Three Falls. Um,

[5:11:56] you know, we have Lambert Park. We and

[5:11:58] all these open spaces have mountain bike

[5:12:00] trails through them, which

[5:12:04] a lot of the residents enjoy and they

[5:12:06] like them. Um, but these guys didn't ask

[5:12:09] for any of that. And so those are the

[5:12:11] open spaces that you're talking about

[5:12:13] cleaning up. They didn't create the need

[5:12:16] for any of it. It was created by a lot

[5:12:19] of it by city ordinance.

[5:12:22] >> And what we talked about before is sorry

[5:12:24] just real quick. No,

[5:12:24] >> thank you Shane.

[5:12:25] >> What we talked about before is that's

[5:12:27] private land. that's a part of an HOA

[5:12:29] and that's their responsibility to take

[5:12:31] the fire mitigation steps and we talked

[5:12:35] about yeah we can set the example and do

[5:12:37] that in our in our public property and

[5:12:39] we should making be making sure we do

[5:12:41] that in consultation with the fire

[5:12:43] department making sure we're doing it

[5:12:44] correctly and then ed maybe trying to

[5:12:46] educate those HOAs that it's their

[5:12:48] responsibility to do that.

[5:12:50] >> Yeah, that was my question is like whose

[5:12:52] responsibility is it to do the fire

[5:12:54] mitigation? I know that was on our

[5:12:55] project budget like fire mitigation. Is

[5:12:57] that something the city does or does

[5:13:00] that is that the fire department or

[5:13:02] >> No, it's the private it's the pro the

[5:13:04] property owners, right? I mean, we can't

[5:13:06] go in and force people. We can't just go

[5:13:08] into people's houses and start cutting

[5:13:12] down their trees and mucking out their

[5:13:14] brush.

[5:13:15] >> See, but here's the hard part. We we

[5:13:16] can't do that, but we can force to take

[5:13:20] private property money from them. So,

[5:13:22] this is where I see the wall not

[5:13:23] working. We can't help them out with

[5:13:25] mitigation because it's private. We

[5:13:28] can't help them with what they need, but

[5:13:30] we can fund it all by taking from their

[5:13:33] property taxes. So, it's like a one-way

[5:13:35] direction. We break that wall into the

[5:13:38] private sector and do property taxes

[5:13:40] every day, but we don't break it to help

[5:13:42] them. That that doesn't

[5:13:44] >> help them. If we have a fire, they're

[5:13:45] there. If they have a medical emergency,

[5:13:47] >> I'm talking about the mit mitigation.

[5:13:49] And the prevention again is a hundred

[5:13:52] times cheaper and better than the crisis

[5:13:54] control.

[5:13:55] >> So is there

[5:13:56] >> we can we can help them. We just can't

[5:13:59] force them. There is state law coming

[5:14:01] that's going to take effect January of

[5:14:04] 27, House Bill 41. that they can't

[5:14:07] >> essentially is going to designate the

[5:14:10] urban interface and it is going to

[5:14:13] somewhat and I don't know I mean again I

[5:14:16] don't know how the state's going to

[5:14:16] force this but it's going to be in

[5:14:18] conjunction with insurance as far as

[5:14:20] what people need to do on their private

[5:14:23] properties

[5:14:24] >> to make them

[5:14:25] >> I think they've already done that in St.

[5:14:27] George

[5:14:27] >> better.

[5:14:28] >> So chief, would you would you guys chief

[5:14:30] and police chief would you guys meet in

[5:14:32] the middle at around 3% which is the

[5:14:34] kind of the standard around everywhere?

[5:14:37] >> Eight.

[5:14:37] >> No, three

[5:14:38] >> 3% increase.

[5:14:39] >> Yeah,

[5:14:40] >> I'd go to eight.

[5:14:42] [clears throat]

[5:14:42] >> Okay.

[5:14:44] >> We've already met in the middle. We're

[5:14:45] already falling behind. If you if you

[5:14:47] don't want

[5:14:47] >> that was a genuine question.

[5:14:48] >> I'm going to call for a vote.

[5:14:50] >> The answer is no.

[5:14:51] >> Can I not a vote? I'm sorry. I'll

[5:14:52] entertain a motion. and I feel like

[5:14:54] we've had enough discussion on it and

[5:14:55] we're going around in circles. Thank

[5:14:56] you. My comment is thank you so much for

[5:14:59] all you do.

[5:14:59] >> Yes, thank you.

[5:15:00] >> I will add that there's wage and general

[5:15:04] inflation in all industries. Everyone

[5:15:06] gets raises, not all the time, not as

[5:15:08] big and there are factors to consider as

[5:15:11] far as competitive being competitive um

[5:15:15] just like a private company has to do.

[5:15:18] They they have to worry about losing

[5:15:19] their engineers and their software

[5:15:21] people and their IT people if they're

[5:15:24] not competitive

[5:15:24] >> and their accountants and their lawyers

[5:15:29] >> and this was part of the going to be

[5:15:31] part of the budget discussion. Just one

[5:15:33] last really quick thing is the primary

[5:15:36] responsibility of government is public

[5:15:38] safety and infrastructure utilities.

[5:15:41] Everything else is fluff. All right.

[5:15:42] Everything else can be set aside. And

[5:15:47] we talk about a PD staffing increase of

[5:15:50] one full-time employee that hasn't

[5:15:51] happened in 10 to 12 years. We've had an

[5:15:53] increase in population.

[5:15:55] Fire department staffing to meet minimum

[5:15:57] OSHA standards I think is critical for

[5:15:59] Alpine and having professional

[5:16:01] firefighters here and fire and police

[5:16:05] department staff reasonable wage

[5:16:06] increases to stay competitive based on

[5:16:10] the all the data that we want for next

[5:16:11] year and a safe and appropriate fire

[5:16:16] station in this budget. That's it.

[5:16:18] >> Do you need a motion?

[5:16:20] >> Yes. I move to approve the Lone Peak

[5:16:22] Public Safety District

[5:16:24] budget as proposed for fiscal year

[5:16:26] tenative budget as proposed for fiscal

[5:16:28] year 2026 2027.

[5:16:30] >> Is there a second?

[5:16:38] » Go for it.

[5:16:38] >> I will second the motion. It's

[5:16:40] >> been moved by Councilman Rmler, seconded

[5:16:41] by Councilwoman Haniman to approve um

[5:16:44] the Lone Peak Public Safety District

[5:16:46] budgets proposed for fiscal year

[5:16:48] 2026-2027.

[5:16:51] Um, I feel like we've already hashed

[5:16:53] this out, so let's proceed with a roll

[5:16:55] call vote.

[5:16:56] >> Jessica, yes.

[5:16:58] >> Sarah Blackwell, yes.

[5:16:59] >> Chrissy Henman, yes.

[5:17:00] >> Andrew Young, no. Brad Wler, yes.

[5:17:02] >> Okay, motion passes. Okay, what do we

[5:17:05] have? We've got the cemetery and we also

[5:17:07] have

[5:17:09] >> That's it.

[5:17:13] » Oh, we're That's right. We've Okay,

[5:17:14] sorry.

[5:17:16] >> Okay,

[5:17:17] >> thanks for coming.

[5:17:17] >> Thank you, Erin. Um, let's

[5:17:21] talk about the consent item item B. No,

[5:17:25] not B, F, which is ordinance 2026-10,

[5:17:30] municipal code for cemeteries. Shane.

[5:17:33] >> Yeah. So, um, just so you know, this was

[5:17:36] not put together by the planner. This

[5:17:38] was not put together by me. It was, uh,

[5:17:41] looked at by our cemetery, Sexton, and

[5:17:44] those that take care of the cemetery.

[5:17:46] So, that's how it was able to get done

[5:17:49] this quick. They don't deal with some of

[5:17:51] these other ordinances and things that

[5:17:52] are are proposed. Um, but basically what

[5:17:56] we have here [clears throat]

[5:17:58] are some amendments u to our municipal

[5:18:01] code, the cemetery section in 8.04.

[5:18:06] Um, clarifying a few things and then

[5:18:10] kind of bringing others into line uh in

[5:18:13] line with current operations. Um, so the highlights of the changes clarify

[5:18:19] requirements for grave markers. I mean,

[5:18:22] it says in there that if somebody

[5:18:24] doesn't have one one within a certain

[5:18:25] time that we go get one for them and

[5:18:27] charge them for it. We've never done

[5:18:29] that

[5:18:31] and don't really want to. Okay. Uh,

[5:18:35] clarify requirements for flat headstones

[5:18:37] in certain sections and other items

[5:18:40] related to that. Clarify requirements

[5:18:42] for raised headstones. clarify the

[5:18:44] number of individuals and types of

[5:18:46] interments uh allowed in an individual

[5:18:49] grave.

[5:18:51] Um and then clarify rules for

[5:18:54] decorations.

[5:18:55] Um and as I mentioned here, we're just

[5:18:58] trying to get ahead of Memorial Day and

[5:19:00] um we'd like to get new signage up there

[5:19:03] and and clarify some some of that. So

[5:19:08] um I I don't see it as major changes in

[5:19:12] here. So, I'm interested to see what you

[5:19:14] see as major chang.

[5:19:17] >> You know what? Let's just go with our Go

[5:19:18] ahead.

[5:19:18] >> And then

[5:19:21] I think my input is just making sure

[5:19:24] that after Memorial Day's

[5:19:29] » Sorry, I don't have it. Can you pull up

[5:19:31] the Memorial Day part? Just that after

[5:19:34] Memorial Day, what was the timeline on

[5:19:36] that? I just want to make sure that they

[5:19:38] that people can have

[5:19:51] Yeah, starting Wednesday before

[5:19:54] for one week. Um, you know, I would like

[5:19:57] to see that extended if possible.

[5:20:01] » So, I'll tell you, can I just take one

[5:20:03] second and just tell you what we have on

[5:20:05] the books and what the sign says. So, I

[5:20:08] think there was a misunderstanding

[5:20:09] whenever the sign was made, and it's

[5:20:11] been up for a long time. If you look at

[5:20:13] it, you can tell. Um, so in the

[5:20:16] ordinance, it actually says,

[5:20:19] uh, let's see. Gosh, I just looked at it

[5:20:22] and I lost it.

[5:20:25] >> Um, okay.

[5:20:28] You can put it there starting the

[5:20:30] Wednesday before Memorial Day and may be

[5:20:33] left for up to one week after Memorial

[5:20:35] Day. So that's the Monday, it's a week.

[5:20:39] Okay. The signs say the second Monday

[5:20:42] after Memorial Day, right?

[5:20:44] >> Yeah. Which ends up being two and a half

[5:20:46] weeks of no

[5:20:47] >> more flowers.

[5:20:49] >> So it ends up looking terrible by that

[5:20:52] time. And and even when we clear stuff

[5:20:56] then people

[5:20:58] >> get

[5:21:00] >> they they leave stuff up there and

[5:21:02] aren't happy when we take it away. But

[5:21:05] they can't maintain the cemetery with

[5:21:07] all of that there and it ends up looking

[5:21:10] really bad.

[5:21:11] >> I guess I don't understand why they

[5:21:13] can't maintain the cemetery. They can't

[5:21:15] perfectly manicure it around the

[5:21:17] headstones, but they can still mow the

[5:21:21] space in between everything.

[5:21:24] >> Not necessarily. Have you been there

[5:21:26] after Memorial Day?

[5:21:28] Look, I

[5:21:30] >> Yeah, it says that you have to put

[5:21:31] >> You're talking about something that's

[5:21:32] very close to my heart and very near.

[5:21:34] Yes, that's true.

[5:21:35] >> And I get it. Um I've been there after

[5:21:38] Memorial Day. Um you know, sometimes I

[5:21:41] look at I go, "This is really amazing

[5:21:43] that there's all this outpouring of love

[5:21:45] and everything, but it's not necessarily

[5:21:48] just on the marker. It's all over." So

[5:21:51] realistically, if you look at it and

[5:21:53] it's like, oh, they should be able to

[5:21:54] mow it if everyone just lays their

[5:21:55] flowers right over the headstone,

[5:21:58] >> but that's not what happens. Um, I was

[5:22:01] looking up really quick other cities

[5:22:02] what they do. We're within, you know,

[5:22:04] I've just looked up American Fork and

[5:22:06] it's the Monday following Memorial Day.

[5:22:09] Highland, I think, um, gives them an

[5:22:10] extra week. Um, but I think that's kind

[5:22:14] of within the standard. Um, clearing it

[5:22:16] after one week is not out of the norm.

[5:22:20] um

[5:22:20] >> as far as

[5:22:22] >> and I know like a lot of people will go

[5:22:24] and like steal flowers from the cemetery

[5:22:27] >> which I don't like. I think I would

[5:22:29] almost [laughter] rather have them just

[5:22:31] remove it. But

[5:22:32] >> anyways, it's

[5:22:34] and the language is and may be left up

[5:22:36] for one week.

[5:22:38] So it's mowing.

[5:22:41] They have the Thursday before.

[5:22:43] >> What's wrong with the Wednesday before?

[5:22:46] So, Wednesday is the day that they

[5:22:49] cemetery.

[5:22:50] >> Okay.

[5:22:51] >> Um, just since you're on this topic,

[5:22:53] this is one of the ones I was going to

[5:22:55] bring up.

[5:22:56] >> I felt that one week was just too short

[5:22:58] and I was going to I was this was what

[5:23:00] this is I have all my notes here. One of

[5:23:02] the recommendations was just to put two

[5:23:04] weeks rather than one week.

[5:23:06] >> That's my only comment. I'll wait and

[5:23:08] see what you say, but everything else.

[5:23:10] >> So, on that, we're actually not asking

[5:23:11] for a change because it's already set.

[5:23:13] >> Is it already set for two weeks? The

[5:23:15] sign just says different. No, it says

[5:23:17] one week,

[5:23:18] >> but the sign reads different at the

[5:23:20] cemetery. So, it's not in line with what

[5:23:22] our order is.

[5:23:22] >> Okay. Yeah, I think two weeks would be a

[5:23:24] proper amount.

[5:23:25] >> So,

[5:23:26] >> we want to update it because it's like

[5:23:28] >> guys, if you think about it, at least

[5:23:29] the flowers that I take to the cemetery

[5:23:32] here and up in Salt Lake on Memorial Day

[5:23:35] and the week of or whatnot, um,

[5:23:40] nothing that I've taken lasts more than

[5:23:42] a week. You're really looking just at

[5:23:45] dead

[5:23:47] flowers at that point.

[5:23:49] >> Well, it's Yeah, it's little things

[5:23:53] butterf I don't know. They

[5:23:54] >> Yeah, there's little wind things. Yes,

[5:23:57] >> people leave things

[5:23:58] >> money

[5:23:59] >> that are meaningful to them and you know

[5:24:02] we don't Alpine is different and I think

[5:24:06] you know if our residents this is really

[5:24:09] important to them one more week is

[5:24:13] really nothing to us. Like I guess I

[5:24:16] don't understand the why.

[5:24:18] >> No, I think for me, we'll probably get

[5:24:19] more complaints about why we're not

[5:24:21] maintaining the cemetery, honestly.

[5:24:23] >> But those will probably be Well, you I

[5:24:25] yield to your in totally respect, mayor,

[5:24:28] uh given you what you've talked about.

[5:24:30] >> Um sorry, it's not my turn.

[5:24:33] >> I don't think it's good or bad.

[5:24:34] >> Just on the same topic. I just don't

[5:24:35] want to be I don't want to sound

[5:24:36] insensitive or be insensitive, but if

[5:24:39] you're coming from a another state or

[5:24:41] something and you're putting on a

[5:24:42] graveyard, you're not going to be there

[5:24:44] to know if it's removed anyway. If you

[5:24:46] live close enough that it's important to

[5:24:48] you, then you can come pick it up and

[5:24:50] then put it back down, right?

[5:24:52] >> Wait, what?

[5:24:53] >> You you can pick it up and then put it

[5:24:55] back.

[5:24:55] >> Yeah.

[5:24:56] So, this is common and a lot of

[5:24:58] the families that live close,

[5:25:00] >> they know that they can they can move

[5:25:02] their things. They take them home,

[5:25:04] especially like the wood things or the

[5:25:05] metal ornaments, things like that

[5:25:06] >> on like a Wednesday,

[5:25:07] >> they take them home and then they the

[5:25:09] cemetery gets clean. This is what I do

[5:25:10] in American Fork. They have the same

[5:25:12] exact rules from my parents.

[5:25:14] >> They they do the entire cemetery.

[5:25:16] Everything gets thrown away that hasn't

[5:25:17] been picked up and then you you can go

[5:25:19] back and put it. So if you want to keep

[5:25:20] it, you go get it. That's why we want it

[5:25:22] on the sign. Very clear. And then they

[5:25:24] can they then they're out for months

[5:25:26] until that next quarterly cleanup that's

[5:25:28] proposed.

[5:25:29] >> I didn't if they're visiting from afar,

[5:25:31] then they really don't even know. So

[5:25:33] right,

[5:25:34] >> but that's very helpful. Thank you,

[5:25:36] Deian.

[5:25:39] This is just to make it clear so that

[5:25:41] our ordinances and what the signs say

[5:25:44] that it there's no confusion. And I

[5:25:47] think to your point once people are

[5:25:49] educated the signs and our ordinances

[5:25:51] are aligned then people will do you know you know what the rules are if

[5:25:56] you really are visiting it and you're

[5:25:58] really paying attention or talking to

[5:26:00] the city staff and whatnot. everybody's

[5:26:02] aware of what the schedule is that um

[5:26:06] you know

[5:26:07] >> Yeah.

[5:26:07] >> And if it's important to you, you can

[5:26:09] take it the especially the people that

[5:26:11] live in Alpine and they do it. Not

[5:26:13] everybody, but there are people if you

[5:26:15] go up there, you'll see it.

[5:26:16] >> Yeah. No, I didn't know.

[5:26:17] >> And if it's important to them to have it

[5:26:19] there longer, then they would come pick

[5:26:20] it up, I would imagine. Otherwise,

[5:26:22] they're not coming back to the grave,

[5:26:23] and so they don't even know that it's

[5:26:25] not there.

[5:26:27] >> Okay. I think it's Sarah. I I think um

[5:26:30] it's 11:25

[5:26:32] and as a council we spend so much time

[5:26:35] getting into other people's business. We

[5:26:37] need to understand our role as a

[5:26:39] governing board, a governing body that

[5:26:41] we don't get to control everything. And

[5:26:44] this is getting very tedious. So I hope

[5:26:48] that we'll start learning our role to

[5:26:51] govern and not to micromanage.

[5:26:55] Um, I met with Deian yesterday and she

[5:26:58] answered all my questions. So, I don't

[5:26:59] have any questions or comments. I'm

[5:27:01] ready for a motion, but I'll let

[5:27:03] >> Well, wait. We haven't gone down.

[5:27:04] >> I know. I'm just saying I'm ready, but

[5:27:06] >> pass. Okay, Andrew, go ahead. I'm going

[5:27:09] to give you three minutes.

[5:27:11] >> The cemetery.

[5:27:12] >> It's 11:30.

[5:27:13] >> Is there any way So, I read through it

[5:27:15] all. Is there any way or any reason why

[5:27:18] we have to have uh flat monuments? I

[5:27:21] don't understand why on the north it's

[5:27:24] put in code that we only have flat

[5:27:26] monuments. Do I am I missing something?

[5:27:30] >> Yeah. Um

[5:27:32] >> why can't people have upright?

[5:27:34] >> I'll answer that question. It was when

[5:27:37] we did the expansion. The reason you

[5:27:38] have just flat monuments is it's much

[5:27:40] [clears throat] quicker and easier to

[5:27:41] mow.

[5:27:43] >> Um people still have Yes.

[5:27:45] >> So you still have the option. There are

[5:27:48] still plots in the old section and if

[5:27:50] you want a monument then you can still

[5:27:52] purchase a lot. I'm sorry. Plot not a

[5:27:54] lot.

[5:27:57] [clears throat and cough]

[5:27:57] >> Oh, are they? Oh, I thought they were

[5:27:59] >> I will gladly buy those tomorrow when I

[5:28:01] call you. I did not know there were any

[5:28:02] available.

[5:28:02] >> It's also the grade.

[5:28:04] >> What did you say?

[5:28:05] >> The and there No, they did. I mean, is

[5:28:07] it partially the grade? But part

[5:28:09] >> issue too because

[5:28:10] >> because there's more of a slope in that

[5:28:12] section.

[5:28:12] >> Okay. To quicken do your three minutes.

[5:28:14] That was my first question. Thank you. I

[5:28:16] had hoped we could change it to include

[5:28:18] uprights. It sounds like that's not an

[5:28:20] option. The the other question was in

[5:28:22] our code we include it to be uh double

[5:28:27] deep cast double deep casket/vault

[5:28:31] burials are not allowed in the alpine

[5:28:33] cemetery and every cemetery I've been to

[5:28:36] this is the case but I haven't been to a

[5:28:38] lot where double is the norm where

[5:28:41] usually a husband and wife are in the

[5:28:43] same place. Is there a reason why we

[5:28:45] don't do that? Now, I understand we

[5:28:47] allow in the code to have one adult and

[5:28:50] two children. Is that correct?

[5:28:52] >> Infants are

[5:28:52] >> no infants.

[5:28:53] >> Infants are created.

[5:28:55] >> Is there no way to allow folks to have

[5:28:57] two people? Would that not help uh

[5:29:00] increase capacity into the cemetery?

[5:29:02] >> I think there was something to do with

[5:29:03] >> it would, but it's a safety issue with

[5:29:05] the type of soils that are up there.

[5:29:07] >> Okay. I didn't know.

[5:29:08] >> You know, you have to to put two, you

[5:29:10] have to dig deeper.

[5:29:11] >> Oh, okay. So it doesn't work up here. We

[5:29:15] don't know how we can do it safely and

[5:29:16] meet OSHA requirements.

[5:29:18] >> Okay. Uh that that those were let me see

[5:29:21] the 18 inches in height for the flowers.

[5:29:25] Do you think people will actually

[5:29:26] measure and like we'll be able to

[5:29:28] enforce that?

[5:29:29] >> I don't think you'll see any of us out

[5:29:31] there at the table. But

[5:29:33] >> is there a reason why we include it?

[5:29:34] Should we include it or get rid of it?

[5:29:37] >> I think it's pretty standard. When I was

[5:29:39] reading through, I felt like it would be

[5:29:41] so restrictive to folks.

[5:29:43] >> I think it's just a standard. I don't

[5:29:44] think I've never seen them, you know,

[5:29:47] especially on days like Memorial Day and

[5:29:49] whatnot.

[5:29:49] >> Well, do you want to keep it or just get

[5:29:51] rid of it or just

[5:29:52] >> does it just bar?

[5:29:53] >> I mean, I think it's just so that people

[5:29:55] won't go I mean I

[5:29:57] >> Okay. And I understand, you know, people

[5:29:59] that are grieving, um, they deal with

[5:30:01] things differently and sometimes that is

[5:30:03] the way that they are grieving is to

[5:30:06] pour everything onto where their loved

[5:30:09] one is. Um but I think also you know

[5:30:13] part of administratively you have to

[5:30:15] look at it that way as to we can still

[5:30:18] allow them to show that but within

[5:30:20] reason without infringing on

[5:30:23] >> neighboring grave sites without I think

[5:30:25] that's part of as it falls over it's

[5:30:26] going to go onto somebody else's plot.

[5:30:28] It's

[5:30:29] >> okay. So yeah I it feels the whole thing

[5:30:31] >> I don't see them changing it but I think

[5:30:33] it's just to keep it from getting out of

[5:30:35] hand.

[5:30:35] >> Okay. I I mean I had like three or four

[5:30:37] corrections. When the motion happens I

[5:30:38] can add them. you guys can deny or or

[5:30:40] keep them. The whole thing feels really

[5:30:42] restrictive and aggressive. That's just

[5:30:44] that was just the general takeaway. Like

[5:30:46] the first Monday in March, the first

[5:30:48] Monday in June, 18 in April 1st to

[5:30:50] October 31st, one week. So, I was trying

[5:30:53] to mellow it out a little bit. So, I had

[5:30:55] two additions that I thought would

[5:30:57] mellow it out given that those other

[5:30:59] things are not allowed, the the double

[5:31:01] burial or the upright. Um, and that was

[5:31:03] change it from one week to two weeks

[5:31:05] just so people had a little bit more

[5:31:06] leeway. If you don't want that, we don't

[5:31:08] have to, but I think it would I think it

[5:31:09] would be easier for people two weeks.

[5:31:11] They've got a little bit more span of

[5:31:13] time before things get cleaned up. Um,

[5:31:15] and then where it says 18 inches in

[5:31:17] height, any items left on the grass or

[5:31:20] items that obstruct maintenance will be

[5:31:22] removed and disposed of without prior

[5:31:24] notice. Meaning, if they don't put them

[5:31:26] close enough to the gravestone head,

[5:31:29] they'll just be removed. I felt like

[5:31:32] language could be better if not able to

[5:31:34] be reasonably placed on the monument's

[5:31:36] headstone or cement border. Meaning if

[5:31:38] it is on the grass and it's not

[5:31:40] reasonable just to scoot it up to the

[5:31:43] headstone that it could be removed. So

[5:31:45] just something where I understand a

[5:31:48] mower has got a mow but something where

[5:31:50] if the mower can just reasonably scooch

[5:31:52] it just just scooch it that that the

[5:31:55] language is if not able to be reasonably

[5:31:56] placed on the monument's headstone or

[5:31:59] cement border. So, those are I'd be

[5:32:01] happy with two weeks and a reasonable

[5:32:04] clause of putting things in the right

[5:32:06] spot. If no one likes that, I'm alone.

[5:32:08] >> Okay.

[5:32:08] >> Brent, did you have any comments? Okay.

[5:32:12] Um, with no further comment, I'll

[5:32:13] entertain a motion.

[5:32:15] >> Oh, I move to approve ordinance number

[5:32:18] 2026-10, including amendments to

[5:32:21] sections 8.04.06

[5:32:24] and 8.04090

[5:32:26] of the Alpine Municipal Code. Is there a

[5:32:29] second?

[5:32:30] >> I'll second.

[5:32:31] >> So moved by Councilwoman Blackwell,

[5:32:33] seconded by Councilman Rumler.

[5:32:35] >> Would you accept an amendment to it?

[5:32:38] >> I can I propose an amendment and feel

[5:32:40] free to deny or accept. The amendment

[5:32:42] would move it up to one week to up to

[5:32:44] two weeks after internment. That's one

[5:32:47] amendment that you can deny or accept.

[5:32:49] And the other amendment is in number one

[5:32:52] on the decor decoration policy to

[5:32:54] include the verbiage after disposed or

[5:32:58] without prior notice if not able to be

[5:33:00] reasonably placed on the monument's

[5:33:02] headstone or cement border.

[5:33:04] >> Where where's the other one located that

[5:33:06] you just read?

[5:33:07] >> Um I believe it's

[5:33:08] >> so it said that

[5:33:10] >> the way that it's stated it's saying

[5:33:11] that if it's not on the headstone it

[5:33:14] will be disposed of and he's saying that

[5:33:16] it needs to be placed on the headstone.

[5:33:18] So the question for you is are you do

[5:33:20] you accept the amendment? Yes or no? If

[5:33:23] you accept it then we'll ask the second

[5:33:25] if he you know if he accepts the second

[5:33:28] otherwise we could do a substitute

[5:33:30] motion but it's up to you as the

[5:33:32] original um

[5:33:33] >> motion provider

[5:33:34] >> motion person owner of the motion.

[5:33:37] [laughter]

[5:33:38] >> Oh my gosh you guys I've been up for

[5:33:40] almost 24 hours.

[5:33:41] >> The one week to two week I'm I I don't

[5:33:46] know. I I feel like

[5:33:49] I Sorry, Andrew. I think I

[5:33:51] >> I feel like the people who who deal with

[5:33:54] or not deal with care for our cemetery

[5:33:57] know best. And I I don't know why we're

[5:33:59] inserting that ourselves into what they

[5:34:02] think is best.

[5:34:03] >> Well, I just since you're questioning

[5:34:05] it, the reasoning behind it, it's just

[5:34:07] because

[5:34:08] >> No, I understand you're trying to be

[5:34:10] considerate. I I really do. I No, that

[5:34:12] wasn't what I was going to say that

[5:34:13] you're trying to be considerate of. I

[5:34:14] think our staff is trying to be

[5:34:15] considerate too.

[5:34:17] >> No, no, I totally get it. So I the

[5:34:19] question at hand though is do you accept

[5:34:21] this um the amendments?

[5:34:24] >> Um

[5:34:24] >> I'm sorry I'm [laughter] like literally

[5:34:27] >> Well, is there since there was a defense

[5:34:29] of it that the verbal I know I respect

[5:34:32] your

[5:34:32] >> Hold on just a second.

[5:34:33] >> I I feel pretty confident what with what

[5:34:36] I've read here and and so sorry Andrew

[5:34:40] >> on neither.

[5:34:41] >> Yeah. So I have I have one. Would you

[5:34:44] accept removing the 18 inches? That

[5:34:46] feels micromanagy

[5:34:48] >> like to tell people that are grieving

[5:34:51] like you can't exceed something more

[5:34:54] than 18 in like that feels.

[5:34:57] >> Was there what's the reasoning behind

[5:34:58] that? Is it just

[5:35:00] >> so there's not massive like flowers or

[5:35:02] something?

[5:35:02] >> Oh

[5:35:03] >> yeah. I'd be open to that.

[5:35:05] >> I haven't heard a response to your

[5:35:07] question.

[5:35:07] >> I know. Deion was there.

[5:35:09] So, for me personally, when I read it

[5:35:12] and I went to other cities, it's almost

[5:35:15] exactly the same. That's the thing.

[5:35:17] Like, if it was something that I felt

[5:35:19] like no other city did only, I'd be

[5:35:21] like, "Hey, um, we're being a little too

[5:35:24] specific."

[5:35:26] But I but I really don't know. I My

[5:35:28] guess is that they didn't want to get

[5:35:31] But I'm

[5:35:32] >> just for consistency. And like I

[5:35:34] appreciate what Chrissy said because

[5:35:36] Troy and I are the ones with the most

[5:35:39] numbers of phone calls and and questions

[5:35:42] and issues and people who decorate the

[5:35:43] entire grass space and then you're

[5:35:45] trying to prepare a grave and you don't

[5:35:47] want to drive over their decoration. You

[5:35:49] know what I mean? There's just a

[5:35:50] thousand issues. And so before we went

[5:35:53] over this every single word, I

[5:35:55] researched all the cemeteries around us.

[5:35:57] It is like the mayor said, very standard

[5:35:59] language. And we're trying to just

[5:36:01] confine the decorations to allow them to

[5:36:04] memorialize their loved ones but on the

[5:36:06] headstone and the border because then

[5:36:08] the mowers can h you know move the next

[5:36:11] burials can happen other visitors can

[5:36:13] come through and it's not encroaching

[5:36:15] and then we're not judging oh these are

[5:36:18] really cute so we'll leave those in the

[5:36:20] grass but your annoying windmills are

[5:36:23] going or your shepherd's hooks that got

[5:36:25] flung into the mower. Do you know what I

[5:36:27] mean? There's just all these other

[5:36:28] issues

[5:36:30] >> that we're dealing with with maintenance

[5:36:32] and other burials and delays because

[5:36:35] there's things in the way. So, it isn't

[5:36:37] an arbitrary decision. It's based on how

[5:36:40] everybody's kind of handling their

[5:36:41] cemeteries

[5:36:43] >> and trying to let people know ahead of

[5:36:45] time so they're not

[5:36:46] >> surprised and upset. We're not trying to

[5:36:48] take their their decorations. We just

[5:36:50] want them on the headstone. And then for

[5:36:53] cleanup,

[5:36:53] >> all of that made sense. It was just the

[5:36:55] 18 in like standard leaving and then it

[5:36:58] was and I'm a rules follower and I'm

[5:37:00] like wait the flowers we've got to cut

[5:37:02] them

[5:37:04] adds like this extra layer of anxiety

[5:37:08] >> if I'm a person that reads things and

[5:37:10] says

[5:37:11] >> oh wait um everybody brought their

[5:37:14] flowers

[5:37:15] >> but there's no enforcement I mean it's just a courtesy

[5:37:18] >> why would we include it if there's no

[5:37:19] enforcement why it's a courtesy

[5:37:22] >> I was just at a graveside and if they

[5:37:25] had

[5:37:26] >> had to have that extra pressure of

[5:37:29] making sure everything was 18 in that

[5:37:31] just

[5:37:32] >> I think they're doing it.

[5:37:32] [clears throat] So Andrew, I think the

[5:37:34] reason that they have it though,

[5:37:35] honestly, is to prevent, you know, you

[5:37:37] talked about these ordinances and trying

[5:37:39] to look and kind of mitigate

[5:37:41] [clears throat]

[5:37:42] possible future issues and whatnot.

[5:37:44] >> Right.

[5:37:44] >> I think long as with it like it's within

[5:37:47] reason. But, you know, if you do have

[5:37:48] somebody that is excessive all the time

[5:37:50] and is infringing on others people's on

[5:37:53] other people's

[5:37:55] grieving time or other um

[5:37:59] >> if you know if they're digging another

[5:38:01] grave site and impinging on somebody

[5:38:03] else being able to celebrate and mourn

[5:38:06] for their loved ones at the cost and

[5:38:08] delay. I I'm not saying that it happens

[5:38:12] all the time, but I think it's something

[5:38:13] that they can say and say, and I don't

[5:38:15] think, like I said, they're not going to

[5:38:17] go, "Oh, this is 19 inches.

[5:38:19] >> We're throwing it out."

[5:38:20] >> I think it's if they see an excess and

[5:38:22] it's infringing on other people and it's

[5:38:25] infringing on our staff's ability to do

[5:38:26] their job. I think then we could say,

[5:38:29] "Hey, our ordinance says this, is there

[5:38:31] any way do you know what I'm saying? I

[5:38:33] totally get only if it's abused. I don't

[5:38:36] see we don't have the bandwidth to go

[5:38:38] and measure every single It's just it's

[5:38:41] just really restrictive and strict.

[5:38:43] That's where I'm not.

[5:38:44] >> I think it's just really to mitigate and

[5:38:46] to your point like what you said about

[5:38:47] the ordinances, it's like, hey, why

[5:38:49] can't we think of future situations and

[5:38:51] try to do it and knowing that this could

[5:38:54] be restrictive? But in the case that if if it does get excessive, we have

[5:38:58] something otherwise we have to let him

[5:39:00] do it because we don't have anything

[5:39:01] that limits.

[5:39:02] >> Sarah, would you accept it? Well, at

[5:39:04] first you think you have to either deny

[5:39:06] or accept hers.

[5:39:07] >> Did you? I think as of now I this is

[5:39:09] I'll just keep the motion to what I

[5:39:12] >> You're denying Jessica's.

[5:39:15] >> Okay, let's proceed with the roll call

[5:39:17] vote.

[5:39:18] >> Jessica, yes.

[5:39:20] >> Sarah Blackwell, yes.

[5:39:21] >> Chrissy, yes.

[5:39:22] >> Andrew Young, no. Brent Remler, yes.

[5:39:24] >> Okay, motion passes. Is that it? Okay.

[5:39:26] Oh, we still have staff communications.

[5:39:28] Okay, staff communications. Um, I just

[5:39:31] wanted to say, um,

[5:39:34] let's proceed with I'm sorry, I am a

[5:39:37] little bit delirious right now. Chiefs,

[5:39:39] did you have anything to report?

[5:39:41] >> So many things.

[5:39:43] [laughter]

[5:39:44] >> I appreciate you guys coming and

[5:39:46] representing your departments. Um, let's

[5:39:49] see.

[5:39:50] Again, Kaden, welcome, but I'm going to

[5:39:52] skip you if you don't mind. Shane, do

[5:39:54] you have anything for us?

[5:39:55] >> I'll send you an email tomorrow.

[5:39:57] >> Okay, Brent.

[5:39:58] >> Yeah, attend the drill.

[5:39:59] >> Oh, I'm sorry. I was going to say before

[5:40:01] we go to council communications, you

[5:40:02] guys, this is the time like Brent was

[5:40:05] starting. I'm sorry to, but council

[5:40:07] communications is really a time for you

[5:40:09] guys to update us on your council

[5:40:11] assignments. The, you know, the

[5:40:14] committees that you meet with and moving

[5:40:15] forward with that. If you have ideas for

[5:40:18] projects or anything else like that,

[5:40:20] that's something that we have a process

[5:40:22] for that. you get another council person

[5:40:24] and you get it put on the agenda and

[5:40:26] we'll move forward with discussions and

[5:40:28] then forward after that. So, just wanted

[5:40:31] to kind of clarify that. Okay. Go ahead,

[5:40:33] Brent. Sorry.

[5:40:34] >> I only have 23 words.

[5:40:36] >> Oh, I attended that. [laughter]

[5:40:38] >> Uh the trails committee, just a

[5:40:40] reminder, this this coming Saturday, 8

[5:40:43] a.m. is the first trail service day. You

[5:40:45] can sign up on the spreadsheet for a

[5:40:47] specific assignment or just show up at

[5:40:49] the Lambert Park Bowery at 8 am and

[5:40:52] there'll be donuts afterwards.

[5:40:53] >> Thank you.

[5:40:54] >> So, we'll see you out there on the

[5:40:55] trails.

[5:40:56] >> I don't have anything.

[5:40:57] >> Oh, did they see where you said bow?

[5:40:59] >> All right. Okay. I'm sorry. Go ahead,

[5:41:01] Sarah.

[5:41:02] >> Um, uh, with regards to the Chamber of

[5:41:04] Commerce, I guess I will start doing

[5:41:06] more with that now that we know which

[5:41:08] direction we are headed with that

[5:41:10] history committee. Um,

[5:41:13] >> I was over spring break I was at the

[5:41:17] >> Olsen home almost every day cleaning it

[5:41:19] out looking for um artifacts and things

[5:41:22] that maybe we could put in our senior

[5:41:25] center. I found some really interesting

[5:41:27] things and some really cool letters and

[5:41:29] things like that. So I um just been

[5:41:32] helping with that. We're hoping Jessica

[5:41:34] and I or Councilwoman Muan and I are

[5:41:36] hoping to

[5:41:37] >> you know get going I think on the

[5:41:39] committee. I I I'm I think Jessica's the

[5:41:42] head and I'm the the assistant. I'm

[5:41:45] [laughter]

[5:41:46] >> And then with water committee work.

[5:41:48] >> Um

[5:41:49] >> yeah, we've been meeting every week like

[5:41:50] Chrissy or Councilwoman Hannimman said.

[5:41:53] Um I think that's going really well.

[5:41:55] We're right now working on some positive

[5:41:57] messaging and education for the

[5:41:58] residents. Um Chrissy's been great. Um,

[5:42:02] in fact, she should probably stay on

[5:42:04] there, [laughter] but she's been really

[5:42:06] great with um some marketing ideas and

[5:42:09] things like that. So, we're hoping

[5:42:10] that's moving in a good direction. Um,

[5:42:13] AYC

[5:42:14] um we meet tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. We

[5:42:18] we're kind of doing a little bit of a

[5:42:20] shift as far as like our goals and

[5:42:23] things like that. So, I'm excited to

[5:42:24] talk to AYC about some of the changes

[5:42:26] that were going to be made.

[5:42:30] » Okay. Thank you. Um, as far as the water

[5:42:34] committee, we um are having a public

[5:42:36] night

[5:42:39] and we'll Heidi knows the date.

[5:42:42] >> May 6th.

[5:42:42] >> I think it's May 6th.

[5:42:43] >> Thank you. May 6th. So, um I know that

[5:42:46] we're using all the messaging options we

[5:42:49] have, but sometimes just a text from

[5:42:51] your neighbor works best. So, send out

[5:42:53] your text um to if anyone has questions

[5:42:56] about water and wants to know more. Um,

[5:42:59] the other thing is, uh, we have our I

[5:43:02] was looking up the dates and but you

[5:43:04] guys probably are better at this than

[5:43:06] me. Um,

[5:43:09] April 23rd and 24th is the Utah League

[5:43:12] of City and Towns um, training in St.

[5:43:15] George

[5:43:17] >> and then uh, the 23rd and 24th. So

[5:43:21] anyways, I those are the things I'm

[5:43:24] reporting on and that's it.

[5:43:25] >> Andrew,

[5:43:26] >> yes. Uh

[5:43:28] um the water will you pull up one things

[5:43:31] for the water PI uh committee group what

[5:43:35] do we call it the pressurized irrigation

[5:43:38] >> the committee

[5:43:40] >> it would be in water um

[5:43:43] >> is he talking about the alpine water

[5:43:44] district

[5:43:45] >> grass water yeah alpine water if you

[5:43:47] look up the uh uh the green grass

[5:43:50] drought

[5:43:51] >> um

[5:43:58] Oh yes, thank you. Westfield

[5:44:00] >> the public meeting

[5:44:01] >> just we we had a vote to um start the

[5:44:04] pressurized irrigation on this tomorrow

[5:44:07] >> and we're really I was really it's a

[5:44:09] really great group. Um and so that's

[5:44:11] happening tomorrow and this is some of

[5:44:13] the uh plans that I've been working on

[5:44:15] with some residents to try to help them

[5:44:18] through this year with water. Some of

[5:44:20] the ideas come from Brent cleaning out

[5:44:22] the uh um secondary water filter. And

[5:44:25] then we have a video that's coming out

[5:44:26] to help folks. I'll send it to you guys

[5:44:28] if you have any problems with it. Let me

[5:44:30] know what you think would be better. Um

[5:44:32] >> so I think that's something the water

[5:44:35] committee is working on.

[5:44:36] >> Yeah, I can send it to you. Feel free to

[5:44:39] all the resources. Y take it.

[5:44:41] >> No, I know similar to a lot of the stuff

[5:44:44] that

[5:44:44] >> I'll give you. And then all the files

[5:44:46] are included if she

[5:44:48] >> This looks really, like I said, this

[5:44:49] looks really similar to what I was

[5:44:50] reading that um Mr. Burroughs and

[5:44:52] Christy sent.

[5:44:53] >> You can X out of that.

[5:44:54] >> Instead of doubling on efforts, it'll

[5:44:56] probably be better. It has all the His

[5:44:58] is much more artistic. I didn't make No,

[5:45:01] what I'm saying is work together.

[5:45:04] >> We We really are on two committees that

[5:45:06] are like married. Um we're on the I'm on

[5:45:08] the one with a lot

[5:45:09] >> We're separated.

[5:45:10] >> I'm like on the one with a lot of old

[5:45:11] guys and you're the on the one with like

[5:45:12] a young girls. So, um, anyways, I'll

[5:45:15] send those. And then on that is that you

[5:45:16] can store water barrels up to 2500.

[5:45:18] That's all on that.

[5:45:19] >> Greg,

[5:45:20] >> do we allow that?

[5:45:22] No, because I know like in there was

[5:45:24] that lawsuit in the state of Washington.

[5:45:25] Remember that guy who collected the

[5:45:27] rainwaters and then he created No, no, He did.

[5:45:30] >> Remember that we governed Can we save

[5:45:32] this discussion for offline?

[5:45:34] >> We can save it offline. I'm sorry. Yeah,

[5:45:35] let's skip this. So, okay. You

[5:45:37] >> I'll for you reported on the meeting.

[5:45:39] They did it. That's great.

[5:45:41] >> Okay. So, anything else?

[5:45:42] >> Yes. Yes. Very quick. What other

[5:45:43] committee?

[5:45:43] >> Greg Kamich, the water people are asking

[5:45:45] for decals on their trucks like American

[5:45:47] Fork and Highland Half. I would love to

[5:45:49] help. If you want me to put the logos

[5:45:50] and get a sticker, I'll do it. If you

[5:45:52] just want to do it, let me know.

[5:45:53] >> Are you talking about a larger logo? Cuz

[5:45:55] right now they

[5:45:56] >> right now on their water trucks, it's

[5:45:58] too small. We used to have the larger

[5:46:00] logos. Who Why did we go to the smaller

[5:46:02] logos? Wasn't there a reason?

[5:46:03] >> Like basically the logo on our screen.

[5:46:04] They like

[5:46:05] >> Can we focus on governance issues? This

[5:46:07] is can be put in an email.

[5:46:08] >> This is the water stuff I'm talking

[5:46:09] about. I'm I'm trying to go.

[5:46:11] >> Let's Yeah. No, let's take that offline.

[5:46:12] Is there any other committee updates?

[5:46:15] >> Yes.

[5:46:15] >> What was that?

[5:46:16] >> There are

[5:46:16] >> Yeah, I think we all do.

[5:46:18] >> Well, this is sort of a committee, but

[5:46:21] it's it involves money. So, I need to

[5:46:22] ask you guys the the the people who and

[5:46:25] I don't know if this is supposed to be

[5:46:26] in closed doors, so I'll ask it gently.

[5:46:29] The people who the easement off of

[5:46:31] Alpine Highway has been looked into by a

[5:46:35] uh title company.

[5:46:37] >> Right. So, I saw that email. So, that's

[5:46:39] something if you want permission to

[5:46:40] spend money that you need to bring it

[5:46:42] before council.

[5:46:43] >> Well, I just want to see if you wanted

[5:46:44] me to even bring it before council or if

[5:46:45] you

[5:46:46] >> Well, and I had a question. Don't we

[5:46:47] have um our own discretionary budget as

[5:46:51] city council members? Like, do we really

[5:46:53] have to bring I think it's $2,000?

[5:46:56] Well, it was initially, but there's I

[5:46:59] think this is going to take a lot more

[5:47:00] than what they initially think it is

[5:47:02] because there's layers and layers and

[5:47:04] there's like a

[5:47:05] >> Well, just

[5:47:06] >> but if we have discretionary money that

[5:47:07] we can choose to spend, we could say, I

[5:47:10] want to put this much toward it and see

[5:47:13] how far we can get,

[5:47:14] >> right? But it's still something that you

[5:47:15] need to talk about in an open public

[5:47:17] meeting that needs to be noticed.

[5:47:18] >> Maybe just message me if you want me to

[5:47:20] bring it up. Last two things very

[5:47:22] briefly. They're together. Uh Shane,

[5:47:24] would you be willing to send me the

[5:47:27] contact of the uh developer who's

[5:47:30] working on the um Highbench Healey

[5:47:34] Corner development just because some

[5:47:35] residents just want to reach out and

[5:47:36] have a connection meeting and I don't

[5:47:38] know who it is. I think I think his name

[5:47:39] is Greg or something. I don't know if he

[5:47:41] works with Ross. If you have the

[5:47:44] contact, he was the one that proposed in

[5:47:45] the planning commission. If you have it,

[5:47:47] that's fine. I can follow up. I

[5:47:48] >> think Bobby Patter was there. I heard.

[5:47:50] >> Okay, I'll I'll ask him. Um, and the

[5:47:52] last one is that there uh the uh there's

[5:47:56] several residents asking for information

[5:47:58] on the Healey development and so if you

[5:48:00] could just send me any information you

[5:48:02] have on that so I can forward it to

[5:48:03] them. That's it.

[5:48:03] >> Okay.

[5:48:04] >> Just in the future for that kind of

[5:48:05] stuff, you can email him directly

[5:48:07] instead.

[5:48:08] >> I'll email you.

[5:48:09] >> Okay. I do have one

[5:48:11] >> ask. My husband was going to install the

[5:48:14] um game cam or what are they called? My

[5:48:17] mind is not working. Trail cams. um he

[5:48:20] is having major issues with his back and

[5:48:22] I he is no longer able to do that. We

[5:48:25] have the trail camera. So if you know

[5:48:26] anyone who would like to be or who would

[5:48:30] be willing and able to install

[5:48:33] um I can put you know I can put them all

[5:48:35] together. We have all the batteries. We

[5:48:37] have the you know the SD cards for it.

[5:48:40] They just need to be installed.

[5:48:42] >> Cool.

[5:48:42] >> So if you have suggestion for anybody

[5:48:44] please let me know. Brent,

[5:48:46] >> Jeff,

[5:48:48] >> he was the first one that I thought of,

[5:48:49] but I know he's doing other stuff

[5:48:50] already, but I'll ask him. But if

[5:48:52] there's anybody else you can think of,

[5:48:53] please let me know. I Well, um Okay,

[5:48:56] I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn.

[5:48:59] [clears throat]

[5:48:59] >> I want to talk about the gateway plan.

[5:49:02] [laughter]

[5:49:03] >> Motion to adjurnn.

[5:49:04] >> I'll make the motion to adjurnn.

[5:49:05] >> Second. I'll second that.

[5:49:07] >> Okay. All in favor?

[5:49:09] >> I

[5:49:10] >> adjourn.

[5:49:14] water. I was

4.14.2026 City Council Meeting

Transcript