[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