[0:00] meeting at Alpine City Hall. Let's
[0:02] proceed. Let's start with the roll call
[0:05] vote starting from
[0:08] um Councilman Rummler.
[0:10] >> Brent Rmler present.
[0:11] >> Jessica Simone present.
[0:13] >> Sarah Blackwell present. Chrissy Henman
[0:15] present.
[0:15] >> Andrew Young present.
[0:17] >> Okay. We will um have a prayer offer by
[0:19] Councilman Rmler um followed by a pledge
[0:22] led by Councilwoman Smean.
[0:25] Our heavenly father, we're grateful for
[0:27] the blessings in our lives for this
[0:29] beautiful place where we live and for
[0:31] the residents who enjoy Alpine. We are
[0:34] grateful for a free country and those
[0:36] who defend our country. Please bless
[0:38] them um throughout the world. We're
[0:41] grateful for our first responders and we
[0:43] pray for their protection as well and
[0:45] that we'll have good civil discourse
[0:47] this evening and do our best to serve
[0:49] the city of Alpine in the name of Jesus
[0:51] Christ. Amen. Amen.
[0:57] To the flag of the United States of
[1:00] America and to the republic for which it
[1:03] stands, one nation under God,
[1:07] indivisible, with liberty and justice
[1:09] for all.
[1:13] » Okay. Um
[1:16] I believe there is a Okay. So let's
[1:20] proceed to the consent calendar. Is
[1:23] there any questions regarding the
[1:24] consent calendar?
[1:26] >> Just a few here, but if anyone wants to
[1:27] go first, they can.
[1:28] >> Um Brent, do you have any questions?
[1:30] >> No questions.
[1:30] >> Jessica,
[1:33] >> um just to clarify, is this committee
[1:35] just replacing the existing one and it's
[1:37] just becoming bigger?
[1:38] >> It's um it's the existing one minus
[1:41] couple because a lot of them will be
[1:43] leaving next year.
[1:45] >> You mean the parents of those children?
[1:48] >> Those aren't children. These are the
[1:49] adults.
[1:50] >> Okay. It's the parent advisory committee
[1:52] for
[1:52] >> the new one coming in.
[1:55] >> No, this is most of them are already on
[1:57] it and then there's some new ones for
[1:59] the people that are be leaving. So,
[2:00] they're going to be on boarding this
[2:01] year.
[2:02] >> Okay. Okay. That was it.
[2:04] >> No questions
[2:07] >> on the firework restrictions. Um there's
[2:10] no change and it said that the dates are
[2:12] the same and we just stick to the state
[2:14] code as far as dates allowed.
[2:16] >> Yeah. So the only
[2:18] >> the only real change from last year is
[2:21] we added um open fires that they're
[2:25] can't have those on city property. Like
[2:27] we have a fire ring at the Bowery and I
[2:30] think there's one at Moy Park and
[2:32] they're both in situations where on a
[2:34] dry year it's not a good idea to have a
[2:37] fire there. So we wanted that in
[2:39] ordinance as well. Everything else on
[2:41] the fireworks restrictions is exactly
[2:44] the same as last year.
[2:45] >> Okay. Thank you.
[2:47] Andrew,
[2:47] >> mine are quick. I wrote them down. Uh,
[2:50] and Shane, this is the first I'm hearing
[2:53] of the uh letter E. So, if you could
[2:56] explain that just here in a second while
[2:57] I'm just getting the other questions.
[3:00] The first is uh on the parent. It's more
[3:02] of a comment on the I think it's a great
[3:03] idea. The parent citizen. I just uh
[3:06] looked at all the families. Great great
[3:07] ladies here. You we if we could just
[3:10] reach out to some of the southern folks.
[3:11] These are all mostly northern. There's
[3:13] maybe one or two that is center or or northern, but if we can reach out to
[3:18] some of the southern folks.
[3:20] >> So, this isn't somebody that, you know,
[3:22] we as a city have done. These are a
[3:24] group of ladies that have been running
[3:25] Alpine Youth Council and they're
[3:27] recruiting.
[3:28] >> I know, right? I know. I just just uh if
[3:29] we uh reach out to some of the southern
[3:31] folks, I just think they'd love to be a
[3:32] part of it. They might not know about
[3:33] it.
[3:34] >> The other one is um let me grab the
[3:36] other one on the uh fireworks.
[3:41] um when we message for this because
[3:44] we've done this a lot in the past if we
[3:46] can message also for the places that
[3:48] they can do it. I don't know how we
[3:50] message this. We've put up signs in the
[3:52] past. Um and so I know there are areas
[3:55] where they can do it and uh anyways
[3:57] that's just that I I know the chief.
[3:59] It's a perfect timing. We're going to go
[4:00] over a lot of fire stuff in a little
[4:01] while so I can save it for that.
[4:03] >> So it's on the map so if it's not
[4:05] hatched they're allowed.
[4:07] >> Right. I saw that. which just sometimes
[4:08] people don't know and so we tell them
[4:09] where they can't but if we tell them
[4:10] where we can maybe that'll be a little
[4:12] bit more Fourth of July you know
[4:13] positive. Um
[4:15] >> so we we publish the map so all the
[4:17] information is on the same document
[4:20] >> right with Okay. Okay. Cool.
[4:21] >> So I don't I don't know. I mean we'll
[4:24] post it on social media you know leading
[4:26] up to the times when fireworks are
[4:28] allowed.
[4:29] >> Chief where is the most ideal spot you
[4:31] would want people to do if they're going
[4:33] to do fireworks? Where is the most ideal
[4:35] spot you would like them to be so we can
[4:38] disseminate?
[4:39] >> Be completely honest.
[4:40] >> Like if there's
[4:41] >> you feel as the fire chief.
[4:42] >> If it's nowhere, it's nowhere. But if is
[4:44] there a spot we
[4:45] >> smack dab right in the middle of Utah
[4:46] Lake?
[4:49] >> That would be the best place for me to
[4:51] have you do your fireworks.
[4:52] >> Okay. The the C++ place in Alpine. Is
[4:54] there any place for kids and families
[4:56] where we could tell them like, look, if
[4:57] you're going to do it, this is the
[4:58] safest spot.
[5:00] I'm pretty hesitant to I mean with city
[5:03] property being not a thing. Um and and
[5:08] this kind of goes along with maybe more
[5:09] of your question as far as telling
[5:10] people, hey, here's a great place to do
[5:12] fireworks because then we're inviting
[5:13] all these people to like people's
[5:15] streets and
[5:17] >> you know what I'm saying or something.
[5:19] My house doesn't allow it back and
[5:22] that's how it is. So
[5:23] >> we follow the maps. I just thought there
[5:25] might be some.
[5:25] >> Yeah. I don't I mean I don't warm and
[5:27] fuzzy. Great big parking lot.
[5:29] >> Great big park. Okay.
[5:31] >> Thanks. All right.
[5:32] >> That's not private property. That isn't
[5:34] yours.
[5:34] >> Right. Okay. Okay. Just the explanation
[5:37] of the new item which was just added.
[5:38] That that's that's the only because I
[5:40] have no explanation uh for it.
[5:43] >> Well, pardon. I I didn't I we've been
[5:45] doing the budget and I was with him in
[5:46] meetings all day. Uh J, do you mind just describing letter D or
[5:51] I'm sorry, letter E because we're just
[5:53] hearing about it.
[5:53] >> This is for cracks. So we crack seal
[5:57] streets be preferably before we do seal
[6:00] coats. Sometimes timing works out that
[6:02] it ends up after a sill coat
[6:04] >> um to um kind of seal up the cracks in
[6:07] the road, keep the water from going in
[6:09] the pavement, which is probably the
[6:11] number one uh
[6:14] thing that damages pavement. So, we have
[6:18] our own crack seal machine and we do
[6:20] some of our own, which our guys have
[6:21] done a lot, but we can't get around to
[6:24] everything. And so, um, usually once a
[6:28] year we'll contract with someone to go
[6:29] out and kind of help us catch up. And
[6:32] so, this this is that contract. U, we
[6:36] did have another bid and it was
[6:37] substantially more than that. I can
[6:39] email it to you if you want to see it,
[6:40] but it's substantially more. And these
[6:42] guys have done work for us uh multiple
[6:45] years in the past and have done a good
[6:46] job. They they know now how we want it.
[6:49] >> So is there I I know this is probably
[6:50] needed. Pardon that it was just today.
[6:52] This is uh the only reason I'm asking is there like a place in Alpine that
[6:56] this will go where it's really needed
[6:57] that we're doing this so we can tell
[6:59] people like look we're going to do this
[7:00] because I'm sure they would appreciate
[7:01] it. This is just brand new.
[7:03] >> Yeah, there's I thought
[7:05] >> there's a list of every street that's
[7:07] going to be affected.
[7:08] >> What's the streets that are on there?
[7:09] Like
[7:09] >> this is too long to state. I'm trying to
[7:12] vote. I'm trying to vote on it. And the
[7:14] only reason I'm asking is not to delay.
[7:16] No one wants to delay. It's just because
[7:18] we were doing budget all day. And so I
[7:20] just didn't see this until now.
[7:21] >> And the reason I came on here today,
[7:24] we're trying to get it done in this
[7:26] budget year. And if we waited till two
[7:28] weeks, then it leaves us four weeks
[7:29] instead of six weeks in the budget year.
[7:32] So
[7:32] >> we need to approve it now so we can get
[7:34] the job done.
[7:35] >> Prior discussion doesn't cut off some of
[7:37] the budget things we're trying to do.
[7:38] >> No.
[7:39] >> Okay. All right. Oh, this is
[7:41] >> it's still within the approved street
[7:43] budget for this year.
[7:44] >> Class C funds.
[7:45] >> It's class C and then some other streets
[7:47] money.
[7:48] >> Okay. Thank you. Appreciate your time.
[7:50] >> There's no further question. I'll
[7:51] entertain a motion.
[7:52] >> I have a motion. I move to approve the
[7:56] consent calendar with the amendments to
[7:59] the minutes that Chrissy had emailed.
[8:03] >> Is there a second?
[8:04] >> I'll second.
[8:04] >> It's moved by Councilman Smeu and
[8:06] seconded by Councilman Rumler. Um,
[8:08] there's no further discussion. We'll
[8:09] proceed with the roll call vote.
[8:13] >> Brent Ramler, yes.
[8:14] >> Jessica, yes.
[8:15] >> Sarah Blackwell, yes.
[8:16] >> Chrissy, yes.
[8:18] >> Andrew Young, yes.
[8:19] >> Okay, calendar passes.
[8:21] >> Andrew Young, yes.
[8:21] >> Okay, we've got um public comment. We um
[8:26] each person has three minutes. If you
[8:29] can step up um we'll start with David
[8:31] Spencer followed by Rick Black. Um, if
[8:33] you can come up, state your name, and
[8:35] then um the street that you live on.
[8:38] Don't need to do um your actual house
[8:40] address. And then if you can um
[8:45] Did I say and then what city you're
[8:47] from? I'm sorry. Because I've noticed
[8:48] that there's people outside the city
[8:49] that are here. So, let's start with
[8:51] David Spencer and then Rick Black
[8:54] and then Heidi, can we have three
[8:56] minutes?
[8:57] >> Okay. So, I'm David Spencer. I'm running
[8:59] for county commissioner CB. I am from
[9:01] Oram and I served on the city council
[9:04] for 12 years the past 12 years and one
[9:08] thing I realized is as a county
[9:10] commissioner never came to ORM and ask
[9:12] what our needs were and I think that
[9:14] needs to change. So I want to propose
[9:16] that I will come to every city meet with
[9:18] every mayor and council and citizens to
[9:20] see exactly what your needs are and how
[9:22] the county can help. I think that would
[9:24] be beneficial. So I feel our county is
[9:26] fractured or fragmented. we're not all
[9:28] on the same page. And then once we're on
[9:30] the same page, we can go to the state
[9:31] legislature and get money for Utah
[9:33] County because I believe all the money
[9:35] is going pretty much to Davis County
[9:36] because that's what the legislature uh
[9:39] the leadership in the legislature is in
[9:40] Davis County. So I want to fight for
[9:42] Utah County, make sure we can get the
[9:44] money. But uh I want to let you know I
[9:46] do support the first responders, police
[9:48] and fire. Awesome. They put their life
[9:50] on the line every day. But I'm David
[9:51] Spencer and nice to meet you. and I'll
[9:53] hand out my little thing to the recorder
[9:55] here.
[9:57] >> Thank you very much, sir. Appreciate
[9:58] your willingness to serve. Um, can we
[10:01] have Rick Black come up followed by
[10:02] Linda Black?
[10:04] >> Oh, together. Okay,
[10:06] >> that's all right.
[10:08] >> We get six minutes.
[10:09] >> I think it's five if you could.
[10:10] >> Okay, five is perfect.
[10:13] Uh, thank you, city council members and
[10:17] auxiliaries.
[10:19] I'm writing or I'm standing today to
[10:22] offer a s sincere apology for my
[10:25] comments during last city council
[10:28] meeting two weeks ago regarding Alpine
[10:31] City's fence ordinance. Uh at the time I
[10:34] chose to reference a situation in my
[10:38] neighborhood and I understand now that
[10:40] in doing so in a public forum that was
[10:43] inappropriate and unfair. I also
[10:47] recognize that I came to the meeting
[10:49] without a full understanding of the
[10:52] ordinance or the city's processes
[10:55] and I'm sorry for the confusion and the
[10:58] disruption that caused since that
[11:00] meeting I spoke with the mayor and with
[11:03] Doug Quigley Donwigley in the code
[11:06] compliance department and I appreciate
[11:08] the time they took uh to help me
[11:11] understand the ordinance and the steps
[11:12] to require to consider changes. I
[11:15] respect that the city council is already
[11:18] working to review and update the
[11:21] ordinance and that this work must be
[11:23] balanced with budgeting and staffing.
[11:26] Going forward, I will share any ideas or
[11:28] concerns through the appropriate
[11:30] channels and at the appropriate time.
[11:33] But most importantly, I want to
[11:36] apologize directly to my neighbor two
[11:40] doors down. In my remarks, I made
[11:42] assumptions and spoken a way that came
[11:45] across as personal and accusatory.
[11:49] That was wrong, and I am truly sorry for
[11:53] the hurt and stress my words may have
[11:56] caused and for putting a private
[11:58] neighborhood matter into a public
[12:00] setting.
[12:01] It was not my intent to damage our
[12:03] relationship and I value being a
[12:06] respectful and supportive neighbor more
[12:09] than any disagreement about offense.
[12:12] I am committed to speaking with my
[12:15] neighbors privately and in doing my part
[12:17] to restore trust and peace between our
[12:20] homes. Thank you.
[12:21] >> So Rick Black, Alpine, I'm married to
[12:24] Linda.
[12:25] >> I'm sorry. Alpine East Mountain Drive.
[12:28] So also two weeks ago in this forum I
[12:30] spoke to this community or to this
[12:32] council about community values the draws
[12:35] to Alpine the rural field the beauty of
[12:37] the mountains and the open space that
[12:39] give this town a sense of peace and
[12:41] well-being. However, in my
[12:43] shortsightedness I failed to recognize
[12:46] the most important reason we choose to
[12:47] live here and that's the people. And so
[12:50] without that the other values lose much
[12:52] of their meaning. So, the last time I
[12:55] stood here, I stared I shared a story
[12:57] and I pitted a neighbor against neighbor
[12:59] and portrayed my neighbor and I'm going
[13:01] to name him by name, Marty White, as
[13:03] something he is not. And in doing so, I
[13:07] caused unnecessary hurt and
[13:08] embarrassment to Marty and his family.
[13:10] So, for that, I would publicly like to
[13:13] apologize to Marty, his family, and this
[13:15] council for my unfair portrayal of his
[13:20] character. So, we all have different
[13:22] opinions, likes, and and tastes. For
[13:25] example, Linda loves asparagus. I think
[13:28] it's disgusting.
[13:30] It's okay to disagree, but when I make
[13:33] it personal and bring her mother into
[13:34] the conversation, I'm sleeping on the
[13:36] couch. So, that's essentially what I did
[13:39] a couple of weeks ago. I made Marty's
[13:42] fence personal. And Marty and I, we've
[13:45] had kind of a difficult week. I've lost
[13:46] a lot of sleep over it. to but Marty's
[13:48] credit, he reached out the way a good
[13:50] neighbor would and we were able to
[13:52] resolve our differences.
[13:54] So, who is Marty White? I can sum up his
[13:57] character with this. He's my good friend
[14:00] and neighbor. And if I ever found myself
[14:02] in a real jam, Marty would without
[14:05] hesitation leap over a beautiful 8- foot
[14:09] concrete fence and come to my aid. Thank
[14:11] you.
[14:12] >> Thank you very much.
[14:14] Okay, so we've got Tom Watkins followed
[14:17] by Isaac Paxman.
[14:25] » Hi, Tom Watkins on Summit Way. Um, I've
[14:30] had some dialogue with most of you over
[14:32] the last couple of weeks regarding some
[14:35] discussion regarding the four lot plat
[14:39] up above us um off on Lake View and um a
[14:44] lot of weird discussions and things that
[14:47] we had no idea were going on. The reason
[14:49] I'm here tonight is that I understand on
[14:52] the agenda is uh some discussion
[14:54] regarding a boundary between Draper and
[14:57] Alpine.
[14:59] I'm sorry. I guess it's kind of a point
[15:01] of order. Since this is a public hearing
[15:03] that's scheduled, that's probably where
[15:05] you should be making your comment is
[15:06] during the public hearing. Sorry about
[15:07] that. I didn't realize that's what Okay.
[15:09] >> Sorry about that
[15:10] >> because there was nothing on the topic,
[15:12] so I didn't know.
[15:13] >> Sorry about that, Isaac, if you wanted.
[15:15] But you're welcome to come and talk on
[15:17] it during the public hearing.
[15:23] » Does this one work too? Great. Good
[15:24] evening, everyone. My name is Isaac
[15:26] Paxman. fun to see someone who I've
[15:28] known for decades, Heidi, uh, who I
[15:31] didn't realize would be here. And I
[15:33] certainly have had the chance to work
[15:34] with Mayor Marilyn. A few of the others
[15:36] of you look familiar from chances to
[15:38] talk here and there. For the last eight
[15:40] years, I was on I was the provo deputy
[15:42] mayor and I am running for the same seat
[15:44] as Mr. Spencer. This is the first where
[15:46] we both have been in the same one. Been
[15:48] doing these uh since I filed for for
[15:51] candidacy. And just a little bit about
[15:54] me, I yeah, do have roots here going
[15:56] back seven generations, people living
[15:58] here in this in this valley. And I'm an
[16:01] attorney by profession. Was at the US
[16:04] Department of Justice after a clerkship
[16:05] with a federal judge and then started my
[16:07] own firm here in the valley and uh was
[16:10] doing that until an opportunity came
[16:12] along to serve as deputy mayor. That was
[16:14] a big decision for my family, a major
[16:16] pay cut and yet the opportunity to serve
[16:19] was something we were excited about. My
[16:21] grandmother served in the you my great
[16:23] uh grandmother served in the Utah state
[16:26] legislature and other family members
[16:27] have served in local government here and
[16:30] there and who who who turns that down.
[16:32] Um this is the first time I've run for
[16:34] office though and I do have to give you
[16:35] all respect for for doing something I've
[16:38] this is the first time for me to do
[16:39] this. The themes that we heard from Mr.
[16:42] Spencer were really great. And those are
[16:44] things I've I think I've embraced and done, worked up at the legislature
[16:47] and had to rally the members of the Utah
[16:51] County, um the mayors and others when
[16:54] there's been something we needed to push
[16:55] back on or when there's been a funding
[16:57] need and certainly agree that we need to
[17:00] unite and so that we can do more for
[17:02] this county. And I believe I have the
[17:04] credentials and the connections to hit
[17:06] the ground running on that. um went up
[17:08] to the legislature year after year and
[17:10] even in no budget years was able to
[17:13] secure funding for something that's been
[17:15] a real regional asset, the Provo
[17:16] airport. That was something I was
[17:18] assigned to take on. We had no idea how
[17:20] to get funding for an airport, but we
[17:22] went ahead and we started doing it. I've
[17:24] had to manage departments. I've been
[17:26] over the airport department, the
[17:29] department of the parks and recreation,
[17:31] library department. I've had to work
[17:32] through budgets. I've had to take a
[17:33] full-time job and and do essentially
[17:35] what a county commissioner would do. Run
[17:37] a run an organization, help run it and
[17:39] then go look for visionary projects and
[17:42] see if we can get them going. So anyway,
[17:45] with that, I would just end by saying
[17:46] thank you to Mayor Merrill for your
[17:48] support and uh I'll I'll maybe just end
[17:51] with with words from her. Over the last
[17:53] eight years, Isaac Paxman has become a
[17:55] trusted public servant and an asset to
[17:57] our entire region. I joined the chorus
[17:59] of local elected officials officials who
[18:01] are supporting him for Utah County
[18:03] Commissioner CB because we have seen him
[18:05] in action and feel strongly that he is
[18:07] just the type of person we need in
[18:08] county leadership. Thank you very much
[18:10] for that and I would ask for your
[18:12] support and letting people know there's
[18:14] a short time this is in June. So please
[18:16] any support you can help with I
[18:18] appreciate.
[18:19] >> Thank you. Okay, let's move on to item
[18:23] five on the agenda which is reports and
[18:26] presentations or financial report.
[18:34] So, the the finance report for this
[18:36] month is in the packet,
[18:39] both the red red and green report, which
[18:42] mine is sitting on my desk. I forgot it.
[18:45] Um,
[18:46] but there are I mean, there's a few
[18:49] little things that at the end of the
[18:50] budget year we'll we'll need to address.
[18:52] Um,
[18:54] nothing really major. um projects are
[18:57] still moving forward. One of which is on
[19:00] the agenda tonight
[19:03] and
[19:05] I think everything is is good.
[19:09] Yeah, I don't unless you have questions
[19:12] I can use this. Um
[19:15] >> does anybody have any specific questions
[19:17] regarding the finance report for this
[19:18] month?
[19:19] >> Are we having things pull up on our
[19:21] screen?
[19:25] Um,
[19:27] >> I was gonna say mine.
[19:30] >> Sorry, I forgot the public comment
[19:32] screen was on.
[19:33] >> Is this the page, Shane, you're looking
[19:35] for?
[19:35] >> Yeah.
[19:36] >> Okay.
[19:36] >> Yeah. So,
[19:37] >> thank you.
[19:38] >> So, that's just the front page of the
[19:39] finance report. Um, you know, the all
[19:45] is there 54 pages, I think, are in
[19:47] there. Maybe 58.
[19:51] Um
[19:53] but our revenues are where um they're
[19:56] anticipated to be. We're almost at 100%
[20:00] on property tax uh collections,
[20:04] including redemption taxes. We're we're
[20:06] over.
[20:08] So,
[20:09] um our main focus has been on this next
[20:12] year's budget. Um while this one kind of
[20:15] finishes up, but unless there's any
[20:17] questions, I don't really have anything
[20:19] else
[20:20] for you on that.
[20:25] » Any questions?
[20:27] >> Um since we did um talk about this in
[20:30] the budget work session, I just thought
[20:32] we'd point out Kaden has fund 46 right
[20:35] there. If you could just describe, so we
[20:37] have it in the minutes what the new C
[20:39] account is for and briefly. Yeah, I can
[20:43] do that. So, um, our capital improvement
[20:46] fund in the past has included, uh, bonds
[20:49] from developers and and people building
[20:52] homes and different things like that.
[20:54] Um, so we were always having to explain
[20:56] to the council that some of that is not
[20:58] money that can be used for projects. Um,
[21:01] so just in the last month, we've
[21:02] separated that out so that it's more
[21:05] clear what is in the capital the 45
[21:07] fund, which is our capital improvement
[21:09] fund. So it gives a more clear picture
[21:12] of funds that are available for projects
[21:15] and even within that fund um we'll make
[21:19] more of an effort to earmark funds like
[21:22] for the fire station if there's like a
[21:24] large chunk of money that has been
[21:26] committed to that project. So it will be
[21:28] listed specifically on that sheet.
[21:33] >> Thank you.
[21:37] Okay, with no further questions, we'll
[21:39] move on to discussion items. Item six,
[21:43] um item A is request for approval of
[21:46] funds to determine property ownership
[21:48] near Alpine Highway. So, that's a
[21:50] discussion item.
[21:53] >> So, I I can give a really brief
[21:55] introduction on this and then you guys
[21:57] can take do whatever you want to. So,
[22:01] uh, council members, uh, Andrew Young
[22:04] and Jessica Schmuan have, uh, submitted
[22:08] an item for discussion for tonight. So,
[22:10] it's not on for action, just discussion
[22:12] and then we'll look for direction from
[22:14] the council. Um, this is concerning a
[22:17] there's kind of a a lane that goes
[22:20] between some properties. um ownership is
[22:23] uncertain and
[22:26] um the request is if this the council
[22:30] would be willing to spend money to do
[22:32] some research to try to determine who
[22:35] actually owns this property
[22:39] with that if you want to.
[22:41] >> Yeah, sure. Thanks, Shane. And we have
[22:43] some uh residents here who live around
[22:45] there. Um just a couple things. Uh this
[22:48] came up uh during our budget process. We
[22:52] were uh we were at the beginning of
[22:55] right after an election. We or help me
[22:58] out with the dates. When does the budget
[23:00] begin? January. That's when we start
[23:02] talking about it. We get it ready. Not
[23:03] the actual date. We start talking about
[23:05] what we're going to put into the budget.
[23:07] >> And uh a lot of these decisions came
[23:09] from residents and this was one of them.
[23:11] So this is how this came up. This was an
[23:13] area that was asked by residents to
[23:16] improve uh take some time on and it
[23:20] basically it's the entrance of Alpine.
[23:21] So I said this is great and I went down
[23:24] there. I I really admire the residents
[23:26] who live down there. You have a you have
[23:28] a really seasoned like group of
[23:30] residents who have lived down there at
[23:31] the entrance of Alpine forever and I see
[23:33] this area as
[23:36] just prime for improvement. I feel like
[23:38] it's one of the areas that doesn't get
[23:40] much attention. So that's why I was
[23:42] drawn to it, drawn to the area. And then
[23:44] when we brought it up for the budget
[23:46] discussion, it quickly became apparent
[23:47] that, hey, Andrew, we don't own this
[23:49] land. My mistake. Uh it is on surveys
[23:53] that have been included that it says
[23:54] Alpine uh does own it. So some of those
[23:58] surveys are there dating back quite a
[24:01] distance where it says Alpine does own
[24:03] it. So that's where I got and I guess we
[24:05] have utilities underneath it. So that's
[24:07] where I was confused. But not only me,
[24:10] some of the residents there also just
[24:12] assumed it was an Alpine uh owned
[24:16] easement that goes from Alpine Highway
[24:18] towards Rachel uh McTar Park. Now, there
[24:23] are residents that live on the south of
[24:24] it here here today, the Williams family.
[24:27] There are residents that own property to
[24:29] the north of it, the Coopers. There are
[24:31] residents that are involved with it that
[24:33] also own by it. And the goal here is to
[24:35] try to find a win-win that they're happy
[24:37] with and that the city can
[24:42] take action to improve that area. The point of pain here, if you uh might
[24:48] I don't Kaden, are you running the
[24:50] thing? Would you mind scrolling down to
[24:52] show some of the vehicles? Well, why
[24:54] don't you just scroll scroll through
[24:55] some of the images just so you can see?
[24:57] Go up a little bit. Well, okay. Well,
[24:59] yeah. So, this is the point of pain.
[25:01] Alpine Highway is very dangerous and
[25:03] this is a very residential. It almost
[25:04] feels like you're in people's yards and
[25:07] cars are using this. Sometimes a lot,
[25:09] sometimes a little. Um, anyways, if you
[25:11] go up top, Kaden, to some of those
[25:12] surveys. Uh, that one will work. This is
[25:15] the survey right here that was done. And
[25:18] this is why I assumed that this was
[25:21] something that Alpine City could do
[25:24] improvements to where it's not just a
[25:27] free-for-all. And again, we want to
[25:29] respect the land owners who live near
[25:31] there, the Williams, the Coopers, the uh
[25:33] Sykes. Is it Willard Sykes? Is that it?
[25:36] Spikes. We want to respect them and try
[25:38] to find something everyone's happy with.
[25:39] And what they've said is they I think
[25:42] all of them have agreed that they do not
[25:43] want it to be just constant cars going
[25:46] through. And then what some of them have
[25:49] suggested suggested which is really nice
[25:51] is to turn it into something where
[25:52] people can walk through it where it's a
[25:54] little bit more beautiful, there's some
[25:55] trash around it and where it's um
[25:59] basically it's a blank canvas. So I went
[26:02] on the road of finding out if we do own
[26:05] it and uh what ended up happening is I
[26:08] talked to the county. I called the
[26:11] county um that is over this. They have a
[26:13] mapper. I believe that's what their name
[26:15] is, a mapper. They have a surveyor and
[26:18] everyone seems to be hitting a brick
[26:19] road or a brick wall. Brick road. We did
[26:22] see the Wizard of Oz recently. Um and so
[26:26] uh if you go down a little bit, Kaden,
[26:28] we had a really great resident who's
[26:30] even more determined and tenacious than
[26:32] I am. Uh Katherine Johnson, and she
[26:34] actually was able to get through at US
[26:36] Title. We were we came in for a meeting
[26:38] at the DRC and uh it was recommended by
[26:40] some of the folks here in Alpine to
[26:43] reach out to US Title. And so we uh
[26:45] Katherine was able to get a hold of him
[26:47] and he sent me back an email letting me
[26:48] know what I assumed would be a couple
[26:50] hundred dollars to do a title search on
[26:52] this and to get to the bottom of this.
[26:53] He let me know that this was deeper. It
[26:55] was harder to find down. It would
[26:56] probably take at least a thousand bucks.
[26:58] And so I said, "Okay, well, uh Shane, do
[27:01] we want to do this?" Shane, uh in full
[27:03] respect has uh um
[27:07] I don't know, questions on if we own
[27:09] this. I I it looks to me like there's a
[27:14] probable chance given that it connects
[27:15] to McTar Park and so I don't think we
[27:18] should spend a lot of money on this.
[27:19] Clearly this is the residents money. Um
[27:22] I deeply respect it and try as hard as I
[27:25] can not to spend it ever. Uh and so I
[27:28] would say what I'm looking for and you
[27:30] can give all of your input is some sort
[27:33] of cap. I would say 2500 maybe 5,000 or
[27:36] a thousand just to get this going. a
[27:39] cap, not an endless amount of money
[27:41] where we could begin this search, this process of searching for the title
[27:45] ownership. Um, working with the
[27:48] residents who live down there to make
[27:49] sure uh that we are respectful and um
[27:54] get to the bottom of it for about that
[27:55] much money. I I Sarah also reached out
[27:57] asking to get multiple bids. I'm
[27:59] definitely open up for multiple bids as
[28:01] well. Anyways, that's the background um
[28:03] in in there. the caden. I think the only
[28:05] one you didn't show was the actual
[28:07] letter from US title. And it doesn't
[28:09] have to be them. It can be any of them.
[28:11] But if you click on that, that kind of
[28:12] shows the response we got that we would
[28:15] have to do a search of all the
[28:16] surrounding four poss four four parcels.
[28:18] So $1,000, four parcels at 250 each,
[28:22] which will be the cost for the first 10
[28:23] hours, and then 150 for every hour after
[28:25] that. I've never done this process. Um,
[28:28] and so it's up to us if you think that
[28:30] spot of land is worth uh expensing some.
[28:34] In my opinion, I think it is worth a
[28:37] small amount to find out the ownership.
[28:39] I do not think it is worth endless funds
[28:41] to look it up. But for a small amount,
[28:44] if that land was to be able to be
[28:46] decided and then protected and
[28:47] beautified, I think it would be a
[28:49] treasure on the uh uh entry corridor of
[28:53] Alpine in a place that would really
[28:55] improve. Uh there's one final image,
[28:57] Kaden. Uh and this is just one rendering
[28:59] of what it could look like and what I
[29:01] think would make most residents happy,
[29:03] but I'm still open to all suggestions.
[29:06] Um because I do know there are horses,
[29:08] there are walkers. Um, and so this is
[29:11] the type of idea that would not only
[29:14] improve that area, but slow it down,
[29:16] make it more residential friendly, make
[29:18] it a place that people want to go, and
[29:19] it probably overlap with some of the uh
[29:22] traffic calming measures on Alpine
[29:24] Highway that hopefully would come later
[29:26] on. And so that's pretty much it.
[29:29] Was that too long? I apologize if so.
[29:32] Okay,
[29:33] >> Brett, do you have any comments?
[29:35] >> Uh, yes. Thanks. Um,
[29:38] first of all, thanks Andrew and Jessica
[29:40] for bringing this to our attention and
[29:42] the the owners, the the neighbors who
[29:44] have looked into this as well. I've
[29:47] noticed I've lived in Alpine for 12
[29:49] years and I live over by Southeast
[29:52] Canyon Crest and over the years on both
[29:55] Southeast Canyon Crust and Alpine
[29:57] Highway, some private property owners
[29:59] have done some really nice improvements
[30:00] to those areas that really made our
[30:02] gateway entrances look quite nice, much
[30:05] nicer than they were when I moved here
[30:06] 12 years ago. So, I think in following
[30:09] their example, I I think it's a good
[30:11] idea to do our part to beautify this
[30:14] part of the area if we can, if we have
[30:15] that if we end up having the ownership.
[30:17] So, I'm in I I'm in support of doing
[30:20] this to see if we do have that
[30:21] ownership. I think it would be a nice
[30:23] improvement for that area. During our
[30:25] work session, we just had I noticed an
[30:27] email came in from our attorney that had
[30:29] a little bit of information about this.
[30:31] I would just I didn't have time to look
[30:32] at it because of our meeting. Um,
[30:35] granted, if we if it's determined that
[30:36] the city has ownership, that's awesome.
[30:38] Then we can do with it what we want. If
[30:40] we have an easement, generally there are
[30:42] limited uses of what we can use that
[30:44] easement for. So if if there is an
[30:46] easement that exists through the
[30:48] property records, then we're limited to
[30:50] just what that easement entails, and
[30:52] that that means the property is owned by
[30:53] somebody else. So, anything you'd like
[30:56] to share, Mr. Doxy, on considerations we
[30:59] should think about?
[31:01] >> No, I think you summed that up. It's uh
[31:05] the question is I guess does the city
[31:08] own the property outright and that's
[31:10] what you're asking to expend funds to
[31:13] determine. I can't tell you that. Right.
[31:15] >> If the city has merely a prescriptive
[31:18] easement, an easement that they've
[31:20] required acquired by use over more than
[31:24] 20 years, then that easement would be if
[31:28] you want to if you want to have a
[31:29] definitive answer as to whether the city
[31:31] acquired that easement, you'd have to go
[31:33] to court. And if you went to court, it
[31:36] would be based on the use that's been
[31:38] made by the city of that property. So
[31:41] you wouldn't be able to get a walking
[31:43] trail as opposed to a sewer maintenance
[31:46] easement or an access easement. So
[31:50] >> does that make sense?
[31:52] >> The title search
[31:53] >> hopefully the title search would provide
[31:54] some clarity. If there's a if there's a
[31:56] recorded easement that just hasn't been
[31:57] located so far, then we would be limited
[31:59] to what that easement is and someone
[32:01] else would own that property. I assume
[32:03] it would be
[32:04] >> the property owners who
[32:06] >> were on both sides of that and then they
[32:08] could choose if they wanted to to to
[32:11] do a different easement that would allow
[32:12] for a park path. So I think it's
[32:14] worthwhile to find out who the owner is
[32:17] and see if there are some options there.
[32:19] >> I did have a clarifying question though.
[32:21] Did you say that the county doesn't they
[32:23] couldn't determine
[32:24] >> Well, the the exact conversation were
[32:27] was and if and I know they they have
[32:29] done some research as well. So
[32:31] >> did you talk to them? I wonder what they
[32:32] said to you.
[32:33] >> I uh um I called them. I told them the
[32:36] whole situation. Basically what I
[32:37] explained to you, they said, "Typically,
[32:39] Andrew, uh when this happens, the
[32:42] property goes to the ownership of the uh
[32:45] two neighbors and they split it in the
[32:46] middle." That's what they said when they
[32:47] can't find it out. So, they would be
[32:49] here and they get to decide what to do
[32:51] with it, which which is great. Um and
[32:53] they said, "But we will look into this."
[32:55] Because I showed them the uh sorry,
[32:57] they're on here. I showed them all the
[32:58] surveys I had. They said, "Oh, well,
[32:59] you've done already a lot of research
[33:00] for us. Thank you." I showed them the
[33:01] surveys and they said, "Okay, we're
[33:02] going to look into this and in fact, I'm
[33:04] going to need to talk to my manager
[33:06] about this or whoever the head." Uh, and
[33:08] so that's where it was left off and
[33:10] they're still looking into it.
[33:11] >> Okay,
[33:13] >> Jess, did you have any comments?
[33:15] >> Just that when Andrew presented this as
[33:17] a budget item to improve this trail, it,
[33:20] you know, perfectly aligns with who
[33:21] Alpine is. And so I would support
[33:24] putting a little bit of funding in there
[33:26] to to find out if we own it and what we
[33:28] can do to improve it.
[33:31] Um just a few questions and then a
[33:33] comment. Um so you've already gone to
[33:36] the county. Do you think that the city
[33:37] because I know it's been mentioned that
[33:39] perhaps Shane would go down there and
[33:42] talk to them as well. Do you think he
[33:43] would have more traction at the city to
[33:45] kind of get some more information or do
[33:46] you feel like you got all of that that
[33:49] you
[33:49] >> No one says no to Shane? I'm sure I'm
[33:51] sure he would have I would take help
[33:54] from anyone, residents, Shane or anyone
[33:56] >> and I and I would be happy to end up at
[33:58] whatever result.
[33:59] >> Um, so
[34:01] >> the end goal was not to own this ever.
[34:03] The end goal was to
[34:06] make it better than what it currently
[34:07] is. Like if that ends up in the
[34:09] resident's hands doing that, great. If
[34:11] it's our hands, great.
[34:12] >> Right now, it's up in the air. My
[34:15] suggestion would be to try to figure out
[34:17] where the county is only because of our
[34:20] previous experience with the trail. So
[34:22] relief that we did pay for a title
[34:24] search and the title search came up that
[34:26] yes, we can own the, you know, that
[34:27] property and have that trail only to
[34:30] have the county say no, you can't do
[34:32] that. Do you know what I mean? So I'm
[34:33] happy to follow up.
[34:33] >> For me, I would love to hear what the
[34:36] county says. Um what and if they say,
[34:39] you know what, we're not sure. Go ahead
[34:40] and do the title search. Then I'd say
[34:42] yes, let's go ahead and spend the money.
[34:44] But if they've what they've looked into
[34:46] and they're like, "No, it looks like it
[34:48] belongs to the two neighbors." I don't
[34:50] know if that would be the best use of
[34:52] money. But that's up to you. But
[34:54] >> I'm happy to follow up and let you know
[34:55] what I let everyone know what they say.
[34:57] >> Yeah. So maybe before we vote on it if
[34:59] we can have that. I don't know. For me
[35:00] personally, I would like to have that
[35:02] answer.
[35:03] >> Chissy, did you Sorry, I'm not done.
[35:05] >> Sorry about that.
[35:06] >> No, I agree. I think I would I would
[35:08] like to have that answer as well, but I
[35:10] do support this. I feel like it aligns
[35:12] with Alpine's um master plan. It it
[35:16] aligns with just just our like goals as
[35:18] a city. So, I'm in favor of allocating
[35:21] funds to do a title search. I did have
[35:24] one other question in that letter from
[35:27] the title search gentleman. He did say,
[35:29] you know, after that perhaps uh a survey
[35:33] would need to be done. And I'm just
[35:34] curious if anyone knows about
[35:35] approximately how much that would cost.
[35:40] I'm I'm sure Shane
[35:41] >> He's not here for this item, but we
[35:43] could maybe ask for
[35:44] >> US survey.
[35:46] >> Get up here. Oh, actually, it's up to
[35:47] the mayor. Sorry.
[35:50] >> Would you feel comfortable to be able to
[35:52] come up and so we can get a rough idea?
[35:54] >> Sure.
[35:55] >> Thanks.
[35:56] >> If you could state your name. Sorry.
[35:58] >> Sure.
[36:00] >> I'm David Mortonson. I work with civil
[36:02] science. We're just based in Lehi. Um I
[36:06] do these things all the time. That
[36:08] happens all the time that boundaries are
[36:10] not exactly what they think they are. I
[36:13] don't know if this was a road at one
[36:14] point or was intended to be a road. If
[36:18] it's in the middle of the section, the
[36:20] deeds could be coming from different
[36:22] section corners and this happens all the
[36:24] time. So by deed it might be a gap on
[36:28] the ground. There's no gap
[36:32] as that's just a boundary survey 101.
[36:37] There's no gap. There was not intended
[36:40] to be. You might have to research way
[36:42] back. So that could cost a lot of money,
[36:46] but title companies do that all the
[36:48] time. So a survey would cost about 3500
[36:52] to 3,800 bucks.
[36:54] give or take. That's good to know. Thank
[36:57] you.
[36:57] >> Yeah. Thank you. No, in general though,
[36:59] I am I am in favor of of having this be
[37:04] public if it's possible for the use of
[37:06] our residents.
[37:07] >> Proceed.
[37:08] >> Mayor, could I just interrupt and say as
[37:11] much as we trust and love our county
[37:13] leaders, if you could get something in
[37:15] writing from them rather than just
[37:19] pass on.
[37:19] >> Yeah, for sure. Okay. Thank you. I will
[37:21] ask. No, I appreciate that.
[37:24] I did have um I I'm also in favor if
[37:27] it's looking more likely than not that
[37:30] it would go in our favor. Um because I
[37:33] do feel like just getting the title is
[37:35] or doing a title search would open the
[37:38] door to an easement which which Steve
[37:41] said we would need a judicial ruling to
[37:43] actually gain access. If we find out,
[37:46] you know, that we're not the owners,
[37:47] which I doubt we are, but we want an
[37:49] easement there. it's going to require
[37:51] like the like it's the beginning of a
[37:55] more costly process to even get the end
[37:57] result that we're all hoping for. So, I
[38:00] would like to know that it's more
[38:01] favorable than not that it's we could
[38:04] use the property as we intend. But, um I
[38:06] did have a question on um like you guys
[38:09] were saying about the entrance to the
[38:10] city. Where is our uh city boundary
[38:14] relative to
[38:15] >> it's just south of that
[38:16] >> two two properties south. So
[38:19] >> right
[38:21] >> is it right
[38:21] >> Winterbus?
[38:22] >> Is it right on the road west?
[38:24] >> It's it's north. Keep going north who?
[38:26] Okay down
[38:28] >> right there.
[38:28] Yep.
[38:29] >> Okay. So the the um circular driveway is
[38:32] Highland.
[38:33] >> Yes.
[38:34] >> And then that Okay. So that's okay. So
[38:36] that was one clarification I was curious
[38:38] about. The other thing was um I I think
[38:41] people are accessing that because
[38:43] looking at the way the land is divided
[38:45] up, some are landlocked.
[38:47] Is that right?
[38:50] >> So again to make it only pedestrian we
[38:53] would landlock somebody. So again that is is am I
[38:58] >> so
[38:58] >> or clarify
[38:59] >> the situation's kind of changed over the
[39:02] years. Um so the area where it says
[39:05] Bradic Lane and Ra McTar Park that was
[39:08] developed as one subdivision. Mhm.
[39:11] >> And so one survey that's on record with
[39:14] the county shows that property
[39:18] pre-development plus a cherry stem
[39:21] access out to Al Alpine Highway.
[39:24] A later survey
[39:27] um is where the thought that maybe this
[39:29] is city right away came into play which
[39:32] honestly and I said this when they
[39:34] brought it in a few probably four, five
[39:38] might have been six years ago. Um, I
[39:41] didn't necessarily agree with that. If Alagany Way had been there for a
[39:46] long, long time. Um, and that's what
[39:49] David kind of said, you know, it lead
[39:51] you to believe that could be could have
[39:54] been uh for a future road, but it was
[39:58] all like a hayfield. And so that's where
[40:02] I've been hesitant on this. Um,
[40:06] I believe this area in red was there as
[40:10] an access well before Alageney Way was
[40:13] ever there
[40:15] >> because the Hayfield was landlocked.
[40:17] >> Yeah. And it had it went clear to Canyon
[40:19] Crest Road.
[40:20] >> Oh.
[40:21] >> And so they had access the big part of
[40:23] the Hayfield which is now the South
[40:24] Point subdivision which was developed in
[40:26] like the mid probably around 95. It had
[40:30] access from Canyon Crest Road. But the
[40:33] Rachel McTar Park and Bradock Lane area
[40:36] did not. And I believe they access
[40:39] through this lane.
[40:41] And so I think that's why it's there.
[40:44] Not that it was planned for a future
[40:46] city right away.
[40:47] >> But but if if if we if it turns out in
[40:50] our favor and we can use use this how we
[40:53] would intend, does it leave any parcels
[40:56] landlocked?
[40:57] Um,
[40:59] so
[41:00] >> I think some of
[41:01] >> one of the properties I think Spikes has
[41:03] a little cherry stem that goes out to
[41:05] Alpine High Highway,
[41:07] >> but the Coopers does not. Right.
[41:10] >> Did you want to separate?
[41:13] >> Yeah. Why don't you come up? Why don't
[41:16] you come up and Hey, Andrew, can you
[41:18] just
[41:18] >> Oh, sorry. I thought you wanted
[41:20] >> Can you come up and state your name and
[41:22] the address and then if you wanted to
[41:24] make a statement as the property owner
[41:26] that we're discussing?
[41:27] >> Yes. I'm going to try to talk really
[41:28] fast because I don't know you only give
[41:30] three minutes.
[41:31] >> Um okay, quickly Metro which used to be
[41:33] the Oh, April Cooper 1136 Birch Circle,
[41:36] Alpine, Utah. I know that um a long time
[41:38] ago a piece of land was sold to the USA.
[41:41] Then it went to Metro. So it's likely
[41:43] that even if the city had a piece of
[41:45] land that it stops at Metro and then
[41:47] starts again at at Alagany. So it's
[41:50] unlikely that the city has continuous.
[41:52] Just north of the 1993 survey that's on
[41:56] page 111. If you can show that it was
[41:58] marked as an access lane. I have a piece
[42:01] of property right next to Willard Cypes
[42:04] that has used this access for decades.
[42:08] The KE has used it previously. I've used
[42:10] it now. So, it would landlock that piece
[42:13] of property. I know there's people in
[42:14] the room that are like, "Oh, April has
[42:16] another piece of property on Alpine
[42:18] Highway, but that's Desert Livestock
[42:20] LLC. That's a a company that owns rental
[42:23] properties that I have part ownership."
[42:25] But I own just the piece at the north of
[42:29] Metro. And so, that is the only access
[42:32] to get to it. Now, if you closed it off
[42:35] and did a walking trail, remember that
[42:36] Willard Cypes has 17 feet that goes to
[42:39] Alpine Highway. So he and if he gives me
[42:42] access, we can still buzz by. So you're
[42:44] not going to stop the the access. Also,
[42:47] Lehi Irrigation has a ditch there. So
[42:49] they're going to need to get involved.
[42:50] So I think you're going to have Metro,
[42:52] Lehi,
[42:54] um me being landlocked, Willard Cypes
[42:56] being landlocked because Metro's told
[42:57] him he can't access his property from
[43:00] Alagany and his property is a flagship
[43:02] lot. So I think there's a lot more
[43:04] issues than just the city potentially
[43:06] picking up 33 feet. Um, if it's divided
[43:09] between property owners, then that would
[43:10] be Phil Williams and Willard Cypes. My
[43:13] property is not contiguous to that
[43:15] access lane. But it is important to me
[43:18] to not have a demunition of value and to
[43:21] not be able to get to that back back
[43:23] property unless the city or residents
[43:26] could help me get access from Alagany.
[43:29] Like if Metro would give us a driveway
[43:31] or something, then we could potential
[43:33] potentially consider cutting it off.
[43:36] Okay. I think if you if you advance it a
[43:38] couple more slides, you can see all the
[43:39] names you just mentioned.
[43:41] >> And I do have about a 200page survey
[43:44] that goes goes back like a hundred years
[43:46] from when the USA went through and
[43:48] bought all those pieces of land. And I
[43:50] did a lot of work with the title company
[43:52] on this about six years ago in 2020. But
[43:57] the reason page 111's important to me is
[43:59] because it was marked as access lane
[44:03] >> right here. See all these pieces she's
[44:05] talking about? So, those are all been
[44:06] chopped up. 10, 06, 36, 37, 12. Are
[44:10] those all the ones you were just
[44:11] mentioning, April?
[44:13] >> I'm mentioning. Do you see where the
[44:14] property that says Leland?
[44:16] >> Yeah, that's what you're
[44:17] >> talking about. Just
[44:19] west of that, Willard has a flagship
[44:22] lot. It's not drawn correctly on here.
[44:24] He's got 17 ft that goes out to the
[44:26] Alpine Highway, which is north of this
[44:28] access lane. So, his is a flagship lot.
[44:31] Then west of his that property there
[44:34] that you can see metro cutting through
[44:36] that is April Cooper. So I have a little
[44:38] triangle at the bottom and then I have
[44:40] kind of a weird shaped triangle at the
[44:43] top.
[44:44] >> Yep. Okay.
[44:46] >> And Metro has claimed we cannot have
[44:48] formal entry into our lots through
[44:52] Alagany Way. So Alpine Highway is the
[44:54] only way to get to those two lots.
[44:56] That's what I've heard.
[44:58] >> Okay. Okay. So I just wanted to say Lehi
[45:00] irrigation, Lehi water, Lehi irrigation
[45:03] company would need to be involved. Metro
[45:04] would need to be involved
[45:07] >> and worried about
[45:09] >> an access and I don't I don't know if I
[45:12] would have a prescriptive easement or
[45:14] not, but KE has used it for 50 years and
[45:17] we've used it for six years.
[45:19] >> Okay. Thank you.
[45:20] >> And Alpine City has a sewer line there.
[45:23] But one thing I wanted to point out
[45:25] also, uh, Kaden, if you take your
[45:26] cursor, see the 37 and 12 clo Yeah,
[45:30] right there. And then that little mark
[45:31] just below the 110. So typically that
[45:34] would show, and David could comment on
[45:36] this too, that that what's shown as
[45:40] rideway and the Ley Johnson uh property
[45:44] would be together. If you see this the
[45:46] same mark over here on Williams's
[45:49] property that shows separate parcels but
[45:53] they're like under the same
[45:56] >> like a square S.
[45:58] >> But then also if you look it says R-W
[46:01] which for right away
[46:04] >> so
[46:05] these are thing and and this plat's not
[46:07] current. This is probably from
[46:10] >> I think it has a date
[46:11] >> 15 years ago or more.
[46:12] >> No, this one's really old. This one's
[46:14] like really old. Yeah, could be could be
[46:16] even further back. Definitely
[46:17] pre-development of the Bradock Lane
[46:19] subdivision.
[46:20] Um, and so these are all things that to
[46:24] me point that it's someone other than
[46:27] the city. And that's why
[46:31] if we're going to spend money on it, I
[46:33] wanted it to come from the council
[46:35] decision and not mine because there's
[46:36] too many things to me that point that
[46:38] different direction.
[46:40] So you would say it's in my criteria I'm
[46:42] looking for something that says it's
[46:44] more likely than not. You're saying it's
[46:45] unlikely it it would fall in.
[46:48] >> That's always been my opinion. Even when
[46:50] the second surveyor which was Ed Gford
[46:52] came in and had the survey, he thought
[46:54] it was city. I couldn't follow the logic
[46:57] why it would be.
[46:59] >> Okay. Thank you.
[47:00] >> So you know there's Mr. Williams would
[47:01] like to make a comment. So if you like
[47:03] to come up state your name and your
[47:05] address and you have you will also have
[47:07] three minutes.
[47:10] Uh, Phil Williams, um, 927 South Alpine
[47:15] Highway. I got the property south of
[47:19] this easement. I've seen that property
[47:23] sold many, many times. And Shane, you do
[47:28] have an easement going through there.
[47:31] The sewer easement goes through right up
[47:34] against my fence line. So, and then the
[47:37] Lehi Irrigation has a ditch. So, there's
[47:42] two easements and two rideaways.
[47:47] And uh Leland Johnson sent me that flat
[47:51] to u see if I wanted to uh dispute uh
[47:56] that subdivision. And I said, "No, go
[47:59] ahead and and do that." And he told me
[48:02] that he was going to leave that as a
[48:04] walking path. and that's was that way
[48:08] for for many years. Thank you.
[48:12] >> And I don't dispute the city has an
[48:13] easement for the sewer, but
[48:15] unfortunately I have not been able to
[48:16] find a recorded easement. It's been
[48:18] there for since probably 1995.
[48:22] And it could have been there was a a bad
[48:25] description, so it didn't get recorded
[48:27] where it was supposed to or something
[48:28] like that. I've seen it happen in other
[48:30] places in the city, but there's not an
[48:33] easement that I've been able to find
[48:34] showing up here for that sewer.
[48:37] >> But but there is a sewer going through
[48:41] that.
[48:41] >> We have a sewer there, right?
[48:42] >> We have a sewer there. It's been there
[48:44] for over 20 years. So
[48:46] >> So yes, we have a prescription.
[48:48] >> We have a prescription easement for the
[48:50] sewer, but not for anything else,
[48:51] >> but a recorded document.
[48:53] >> We just don't have the recorded
[48:54] document.
[48:56] >> I just have a follow-up question. I
[48:58] mean, council member Hanaman said that
[49:00] it may not be, you know, what we hope at
[49:02] the end if if the property goes to
[49:06] either neighbor, but there's also
[49:08] another option. Maybe one of those
[49:10] neighbors would grant the city an
[49:12] easement and we wouldn't have to go to
[49:13] trial or get a judgment. It's just
[49:16] something that the neighbor might want
[49:18] to do what the original intent was from
[49:20] the original developer. I believe you
[49:23] said it was Leland Johnson, which is
[49:24] just uphold
[49:27] that goal for the city.
[49:29] >> Is Mr. Johnson still the property owner
[49:31] of that?
[49:31] >> No.
[49:32] This was just at the time he brought
[49:34] the development in. He went to this
[49:36] gentleman and said, "Here's my plan, and
[49:38] I'd like that to be a walking trail."
[49:40] So, I mean, it seems like there are a
[49:42] lot of stories, and that's why we need
[49:44] to look deeper.
[49:45] >> One comment is that the uh
[49:48] >> mayor, the uh residents who live by
[49:50] there have been working together. We we
[49:52] do not want to create a problem for any
[49:54] resident living on the south, the north.
[49:56] We want this to be a win-win. We don't
[49:57] want to overserve power, but we want to
[50:00] improve it. So, I'm willing to do it at
[50:03] any at a as a collaborative effort
[50:05] between them if they own it as a
[50:07] supportive effort or if it is a city
[50:09] thing, as a city effort with their
[50:11] input, not overruling them. So, is
[50:15] everyone okay that um we work with the
[50:18] county to see what their um what their
[50:22] opinion is and then go from there? We
[50:24] can once we get their opinion, we can
[50:25] bring it back and we can vote on the
[50:28] maximum amount.
[50:29] >> Sure.
[50:29] >> Is that agreeable?
[50:31] >> Yeah.
[50:32] >> Okay, let's move on then. Um I
[50:38] » sure if you could state your name and
[50:40] your address and give them three
[50:42] minutes. David,
[50:44] >> are you going to say something different
[50:45] than what's already been said?
[50:47] >> So, um, Gary Cooper, 1136 Birch, I I
[50:51] think Metro is going to have to protest
[50:53] participate because it cuts through so
[50:55] much and the I think like the Williams
[50:59] that they don't want to see traffic on
[51:00] that road and and the city wants to see
[51:02] a walking path and I think
[51:06] but I just want to say this about the
[51:08] walking path. To me, it makes more sense
[51:11] if that walking path went from the
[51:12] Alagany Park in that circle and it went
[51:15] right toward the Alpine City sign. So,
[51:18] in other words, we got to get Metro to
[51:20] allow it and and if we went that way
[51:22] because I don't know that we want to
[51:24] encourage kids after soccer games to
[51:26] walk out to a highway with no sidewalk
[51:29] and just be to it. But if we're going to
[51:31] get Metro on board, if we did the
[51:33] walking path that led to the north and
[51:35] came out right by the Alpine City,
[51:36] welcome to Alpine City. I think it'd be
[51:38] a lot safer and I think everybody would
[51:41] be happy. Then we could close that road
[51:43] off to driving through traffic stuff and
[51:46] we'd have the walking path and
[51:50] >> no the highway is extremely dangerous.
[51:53] >> We're trying to fix that too.
[51:55] >> Thank you. Okay, let's u move on to item
[51:58] B which is the boundary adjustment with
[52:00] Draper. Um, did you want to say anything
[52:03] before I open the public hearing or?
[52:06] >> Uh, Kate, you want to just introduce
[52:08] this and then
[52:09] >> Yeah, sure. And I'll just introduce it
[52:11] briefly. Um,
[52:14] so
[52:15] in March at the March 10th city council
[52:17] meeting, there was a resolution proposed
[52:18] to hold a public hearing for the
[52:20] consideration of a proposed boundary
[52:22] adjustment with Draper City that would
[52:24] amend the outline plan and Draper
[52:25] boundaries. Um, so that was adopted and
[52:29] there was a 60-day waiting period that
[52:31] was required per state statute and so
[52:34] that 60-day period is up and it can now
[52:37] be considered for public hearing. Um,
[52:40] and I know I think David Mortonson is
[52:42] here and so I have here on our uh
[52:45] background information an email that he
[52:47] sent to the city to as part of the
[52:50] application to describe what would be
[52:51] happening here. Um there would be three
[52:53] parcels in Alpine that would gain a
[52:55] little bit of acreage. Uh that would
[52:57] total out to be about 045
[53:00] acres
[53:02] and there's the rationale as well. Um if
[53:04] the council members I'm sure they've had
[53:06] the chance to look at that and to
[53:08] consider it. So yeah, Draper City has
[53:12] already approved a resolution uh at
[53:15] their city council meeting in February
[53:17] acknowledging its intent to adjust the
[53:19] boundary with Alpine and then also they
[53:23] have already adopted an ordinance to do
[53:25] the same. So if the city council uh
[53:28] intends to pursue this uh proposed
[53:30] boundary adjustment between Alpine and
[53:32] Draper, the ordinance can be created and
[53:33] taken under consideration for adoption.
[53:38] Okay, I'm going to go ahead and open the
[53:41] public hearing and then once we have the
[53:43] public hearing, we'll proceed with
[53:45] questions and discussion within council.
[53:47] Okay, I declared the public hearing
[53:49] open. Is there anyone from the public
[53:51] that would like to address this issue?
[53:53] You can come up to the microphone, state
[53:55] your name and um street name and the
[53:58] city, and then you'll have three minutes
[54:00] to make your remark.
[54:09] Sorry,
[54:11] >> I didn't know what it was called, so I
[54:13] left it blank. My apologies. Tom Watkins
[54:16] on H Summit Way.
[54:19] Um, as each of you are aware, the
[54:22] development in that whole area has been
[54:24] a hot button for probably about 15
[54:27] years.
[54:28] and uh it came across my well from a
[54:31] neighbor of mine that there was some
[54:33] discussion about amending that plat
[54:37] and and things of that nature. Well,
[54:40] that got the neighborhood real hot and
[54:42] heavy. And so I reached out to them and
[54:45] found out what their thoughts were on an
[54:47] amended plat for those four lots. And of
[54:52] course there was a very strong opinion,
[54:54] no way that we've gone to court. We've
[54:58] been all we spent the city has spent a
[55:00] lot of money. The uh members of Alpine
[55:04] have spent a lot of money. Our
[55:05] neighborhood has spent a lot of money.
[55:07] And it's been about 15 plus years to
[55:10] come to that agreement. Those four lots
[55:14] are it. We're done. And so,
[55:18] um I've gotten couple questions from
[55:20] several of you about what's our feeling
[55:22] about this adjustment. We don't have any
[55:24] opinion. If whatever works out great, as
[55:28] long as there's no adjustment to the
[55:31] existing plat of four lots, if the
[55:34] boundary with Draper and Ap and uh
[55:36] Alpine needs to be done, so be it. No
[55:39] opinion. Uh but again, we do not want to
[55:43] do anything that opens up to a possible
[55:46] amendment to the plat if that's the
[55:49] proper term.
[55:51] And so now I got about three emails
[55:53] today from council members wanting to
[55:55] know if I had any questions about it. If
[55:58] you have any questions other than that,
[56:00] feel free to ask me. But again, as long
[56:03] as it doesn't amend the plat that's up
[56:05] there, the four lots stay the way they
[56:06] are, we're as happy as can be.
[56:11] Okay. Thank you. Anybody else?
[56:21] Hello, I'm David Whitbeck. Um, I live in
[56:25] Providence
[56:26] and back in I guess it was 2023, my wife
[56:30] and I found our dream lot in Alpine. Um,
[56:34] it's one of these lots and our dream lot
[56:38] happened to border Draper City. So,
[56:40] after months of due diligence, we
[56:43] finally closed on it in August of 2024.
[56:46] Um there are some metal surveyor stakes
[56:49] that showed um our lot boundaries and
[56:52] where Draper city is and we walked the boundaries with the with the
[56:57] surveyor. We wanted to know what we were
[56:58] getting. Anyway, bottom line is after we
[57:00] closed on it, we learned that the Draper
[57:02] city limits and the Alpine city limits
[57:05] uh weren't well according to the the the
[57:08] county, the boundary was about 20 ft to
[57:10] the east. And so David Mortonson dug
[57:14] into it, found an error that was made
[57:15] with the county and the county told him
[57:18] that in order to resolve this, what he
[57:20] needed to do is basically have Draper
[57:22] City remove that point4 acres from the
[57:27] point4 acres isn't all our property.
[57:28] There's there's several lots involved.
[57:30] Anyway, remove that from from Draper
[57:32] City boundaries and then Alpine City
[57:34] just annexes it and moves it back to
[57:37] where the stakes are. And so I'm here
[57:40] just because we'd really like the
[57:41] property that we bought. Thank you.
[57:44] >> Thank you.
[57:48] » Okay. Anybody else here for public
[57:51] comment? If not, I'll go ahead and
[57:53] close.
[57:54] >> Okay. Close the public hearing.
[57:57] Um
[57:59] we'll start with Councilman Rmler.
[58:01] >> Yes. Um Mr. Doxy, I was able to roughly
[58:05] review your your response to this. In
[58:08] summary, it sounds like your your
[58:10] position is the approval of this
[58:12] petition will not require
[58:17] or have any any bearing on um any kind
[58:22] of uh amendment of plat in the future.
[58:25] Is that right?
[58:26] >> That's correct. Okay. If that's the
[58:29] case, I am in support of this.
[58:33] That's all I have. Although with the
[58:35] caveat that there is some indication in
[58:38] the correspondence that that's one of
[58:41] the desired results.
[58:42] >> Correct. And they were citing some of
[58:44] the benefits that they saw of that. But
[58:46] I don't I don't think it's a condition
[58:48] of what you're looking for. Okay.
[58:57] » Uh no further questions. Thanks.
[58:59] >> All right.
[59:02] >> A plat amendment. Right.
[59:08] » Very good. I support your petition.
[59:11] >> Okay. And my question would be for um
[59:13] the surveyor.
[59:16] >> So if you could come up. Yeah,
[59:17] >> that'd be great.
[59:23] » So just restating that that this
[59:27] boundary adjustment is unrelated to a
[59:30] plat amendment. Doesn't trigger a plat
[59:31] amendment. doesn't impact a tra plat
[59:34] amendment, doesn't infer next steps for
[59:37] a plat amendment.
[59:39] >> This has nothing to do with a plat
[59:40] amendment. This is purely just to move
[59:42] the boundary back where it was intended
[59:44] to be.
[59:46] >> And then right now, who owns that
[59:48] property that's sitting in that space?
[59:51] >> So, there's lots of answers to that. Um,
[59:54] it it varies. As a surveyor, like I said
[59:57] earlier, there's no boundary. There's no
[59:59] gaps or or b or on the ground. This one
[1:00:04] doesn't have a gap on the ground because
[1:00:06] those monuments were there. Those
[1:00:08] monuments were created by the person
[1:00:10] that created the plat, the surveyor who
[1:00:13] created the plat
[1:00:16] that was owned by the person who
[1:00:19] dedicated the plat or created the plat,
[1:00:22] the owner of the property at the time.
[1:00:24] The intent was is that the whole gap
[1:00:27] that's there currently plus that entire
[1:00:30] subdivision was a part of that. So
[1:00:33] there's no boundary in my opinion. Lot
[1:00:36] four and lot three own that gap area.
[1:00:40] >> Okay. Thank you.
[1:00:43] >> Um I am in favor of a boundary
[1:00:45] adjustment. I guess my only question is
[1:00:48] if we adjust the boundary, does that
[1:00:50] adjust also their parcel line?
[1:00:55] >> As I said, they they own to those
[1:00:59] property pins. So, I've talked to
[1:01:02] several surveyors, including one of the main surveyors who teaches boundary
[1:01:06] law in the state. His name's John Stall.
[1:01:09] Um he he says because those bound those
[1:01:11] pins are there, that was the intent of
[1:01:13] the plat. That was the intent of the
[1:01:15] owner that was subdividing it. It just
[1:01:18] had this weird city boundary from 1855
[1:01:22] that caused the county
[1:01:25] mapper, not not any surveyor, not
[1:01:28] anybody, cause some mapper to say you
[1:01:32] can't do that.
[1:01:34] But and that was at the last second. So
[1:01:37] it even went through Alpine City at that
[1:01:39] time with the boundary being over to the
[1:01:42] west of the gap. it got to the county.
[1:01:45] made them erase numbers and
[1:01:48] write it in. We don't like doing that
[1:01:50] because it makes our pretty plats ugly.
[1:01:53] So,
[1:01:54] >> okay. And not to just be continue to
[1:01:56] beat a dead horse, but so we could do
[1:01:59] this boundary adjustment, but then
[1:02:01] that's it. We don't need to do a plot
[1:02:02] amendment.
[1:02:03] >> In my opinion, no. Um there is laws that
[1:02:06] the owners of the properties can do a
[1:02:08] boundary establishment. Now just to show
[1:02:12] that um my intent is is to record a
[1:02:15] survey that shows record and measured as
[1:02:19] that being the boundary of those lots.
[1:02:21] >> Okay. Thank you.
[1:02:22] >> That just gets recorded at the county
[1:02:24] surveyor. It's not title. Title is a
[1:02:27] different thing. So
[1:02:28] >> So just to be clear, just so you don't
[1:02:31] it's a little bit confusing. I think
[1:02:33] that the terminology when we talk about
[1:02:36] a boundary adjustment, we're typically
[1:02:38] talking about an adjustment between lots
[1:02:42] or parcels.
[1:02:43] But this is a municipal boundary
[1:02:45] adjustment. It doesn't affect ownership
[1:02:48] of a lot or a parcel. It's just you
[1:02:51] would move the boundary to the municipal
[1:02:54] boundary, the city boundaries to the
[1:02:56] west, as I understand at about 20 ft.
[1:02:59] >> Yeah. Plus or minus. It's a little
[1:03:02] triangle.
[1:03:03] The bottom is a little bit bigger, top
[1:03:05] is a little bit less.
[1:03:06] >> Alpine does a little more property tax
[1:03:08] and Draper gets a little less.
[1:03:10] >> Right. And Draper is all fine with it.
[1:03:12] They've said yes to this. So,
[1:03:18] » thank you. I appreciate all the diligent
[1:03:21] questions, so I won't repeat them. Just
[1:03:23] to add um that I I like to always get an
[1:03:26] outside opinion, and so I know someone
[1:03:28] in this industry who explained it
[1:03:29] exactly is what they're saying. So, I
[1:03:31] love when I hear someone without a horse
[1:03:33] in the race to just say exactly what the
[1:03:35] people who care about it. So, we're in we're um everything is
[1:03:40] consistent from all all mess all sides.
[1:03:43] So, thank you for taking the time to do
[1:03:44] that.
[1:03:45] >> And I'm in favor.
[1:03:47] >> Andrew.
[1:03:49] >> Um Kaden, I have a picture of it just
[1:03:51] that might help people uh see what we're
[1:03:54] talking about. It's very different on
[1:03:55] foot than by view. And thank you, Tom,
[1:03:58] for all the comments. I do apologize for
[1:04:01] uh causing commotion when I asked about
[1:04:03] this. Um I I have a couple questions
[1:04:06] while he's bringing that up. It's Oh, I
[1:04:08] didn't share my folder with you. Sorry.
[1:04:10] Never mind. Uh I'll share it after and
[1:04:12] if it's helpful, we can bring it up. I
[1:04:14] should have shared I should just keep
[1:04:15] one folder. Um
[1:04:18] so, uh am I right in looking at this
[1:04:21] that it's angled?
[1:04:24] >> Angled? What do you mean by angle?
[1:04:26] >> The boundary line appears angled. Is it
[1:04:29] perfectly square or angle? Does it go
[1:04:30] from zero to like 20 feet like a pipe?
[1:04:33] >> Yeah,
[1:04:34] >> a really long.
[1:04:34] >> Yeah, it's it's a whole bunch of things
[1:04:38] like the the world is the US is split up
[1:04:41] into public land system from Ohio all
[1:04:44] the way this way.
[1:04:45] >> It's just like a long
[1:04:48] >> six mile squares, you know, and those
[1:04:50] aren't exact. They surveyed these back
[1:04:52] in the 1800s with five people. They're
[1:04:55] walking with chains and everything. they
[1:04:58] don't exactly match that, which is why
[1:05:00] you see gaps and overlaps on deeds and
[1:05:04] things like that from counties. And that
[1:05:06] assessor map that you guys were showing
[1:05:08] is just that. It's just a a
[1:05:10] representation of what's on the ground.
[1:05:13] It's not exactly what it is, but yeah,
[1:05:15] the the area where the city boundaries
[1:05:20] have that little gap is a triangle. It
[1:05:22] kind of cuts into the hard fits in
[1:05:26] property there. It's a little wider at
[1:05:28] the south end where lot four is.
[1:05:32] >> So, uh, this is a question for Mr. Doxy,
[1:05:34] but stay up here if that's okay. Uh if
[1:05:36] we were to approve this in a later
[1:05:38] meeting and our desire was not to let
[1:05:41] this like was spoken ever turn into
[1:05:44] something like a plat amendment or
[1:05:46] anything other than what we are talking
[1:05:48] about right now, would we have to
[1:05:50] specify that in our motion so that it
[1:05:54] was crystal clear or would it just be a
[1:05:57] different issue that would have to come
[1:05:58] up separately and be voted on?
[1:06:01] >> It's a different issue and I'm not sure
[1:06:03] a motion could be binding. Okay.
[1:06:05] >> In that in that fashion you're
[1:06:08] describing.
[1:06:08] >> Thank you, Mr. Doy. Can can someone sell
[1:06:10] any of these lots to Draper where Draper
[1:06:13] would because I understand Draper owns
[1:06:15] several lots around there. Can we can
[1:06:17] someone sell a lot like this to Draper
[1:06:20] or anywhere else?
[1:06:21] >> So, you're talking about to the
[1:06:22] developer that exists on in the city of
[1:06:25] Draper, correct? The city doesn't
[1:06:27] >> No, no. Or say uh a private resident
[1:06:29] that owns one of these lots that we're
[1:06:30] changing the boundaries of. It will be
[1:06:32] alpine boundary. But my question, I'm
[1:06:35] sorry if it's completely out of left
[1:06:37] field. I don't know the rules. Uh can
[1:06:39] someone sell one of these bordering lots
[1:06:41] to Draper because Draper owns lots where
[1:06:44] then it would uh allow
[1:06:46] >> to the city of Draper or to the
[1:06:48] developer that owns the land in Draper?
[1:06:50] >> The city of Draper buy a buy a parcel of
[1:06:53] land in someone else's city and and
[1:06:54] annex it into their own.
[1:06:55] >> Something like that. Or or I like what
[1:06:57] she's saying as well. Can a developer
[1:06:58] buy one of these lots and connect
[1:07:00] development across the borderline or
[1:07:03] what what Brent just said, could the
[1:07:05] city of Draper do something like that?
[1:07:07] Because I do know they they and Lehi own
[1:07:09] lands right around this area. Well,
[1:07:10] Lehi's a little further, but
[1:07:12] >> they they on the north. Sorry.
[1:07:14] >> Maybe that's not out of left field.
[1:07:15] Maybe that's outer
[1:07:17] >> harsh. Well, I I'm trying
[1:07:20] >> Let's let our attorney. trying to check
[1:07:21] any sort of thing I might be missing
[1:07:23] where we end up in a situation that
[1:07:26] becomes problematic later on. Some of
[1:07:28] you might not know, but this land even
[1:07:30] before most any of you lived here was
[1:07:34] put up for acquisition by Alpine and
[1:07:39] 90s and uh the development that is
[1:07:42] happening there and the lawsuits he's
[1:07:44] talking about only happened because of
[1:07:45] decision made. It would have never been
[1:07:47] possible if Alpine owned all this land.
[1:07:49] So, I'm just trying to check my bases.
[1:07:50] So, there are some pretty big outer
[1:07:52] space stuff that has happened on this. I
[1:07:53] love the west side. I see what's
[1:07:55] happening over there. I'm very concerned
[1:07:56] about it. So, that's why. Anyways,
[1:07:58] sounds like my questions have been
[1:08:00] answered. Or or that that last one is is
[1:08:01] there is there any concern we might have
[1:08:03] with a developer or a city owning one of
[1:08:07] these bordering lots and creating some
[1:08:08] sort of uh development that would be
[1:08:12] counterproductive or something we
[1:08:13] wouldn't want in that residential
[1:08:14] neighborhood.
[1:08:16] >> There isn't a road. There isn't a public
[1:08:18] That's a
[1:08:19] >> I don't know how you could prevent
[1:08:22] somebody from buying from another
[1:08:24] property owner
[1:08:25] >> right now. A disputed border with open
[1:08:27] space might prevent that.
[1:08:32] » Yeah, maybe.
[1:08:32] >> No, that I mean that's fair.
[1:08:34] >> But but you're talking
[1:08:35] >> not outer space,
[1:08:36] >> but but you're not talking about
[1:08:37] property ownership. You're talking about
[1:08:39] city boundaries.
[1:08:40] >> Right. And right now there's a big
[1:08:42] deterrent right now in between our two
[1:08:43] cities. So I'm just It's all right.
[1:08:45] Okay. Well, it sounds like we have some
[1:08:46] pretty big protection. and we have some
[1:08:48] resident support. So, I I've loved the
[1:08:49] discussion. Um, let me see if I have any
[1:08:51] other questions.
[1:08:54] Uh,
[1:08:54] >> I did have a question. I remember at
[1:08:56] some point we were talking to the
[1:08:57] property owners. if you don't mind
[1:08:58] coming back up again.
[1:09:00] >> And Kate and I did
[1:09:01] >> talking about maybe having some kind of
[1:09:03] um
[1:09:06] a buffer that you know if we did the
[1:09:09] boundary adjustment, do you need all the
[1:09:10] land that goes directly to the
[1:09:12] boundaries or is there
[1:09:14] >> So our lot we have lot number four and
[1:09:17] there's a hammerhead that goes into our
[1:09:20] lot
[1:09:21] >> and so our lot we own most of that road.
[1:09:24] Anyway, bottom line is it pushes our our house way to the west and so that's
[1:09:30] what we're kind of struggling with.
[1:09:31] We're trying to build a a good size,
[1:09:34] >> right? But your lot goes all the way up
[1:09:36] to the
[1:09:36] >> Har. So the our architect has just been
[1:09:40] struggling with the the easements and
[1:09:42] setbacks and whatever. Um, as far as to
[1:09:47] answer your question, is there
[1:09:49] I I I think what you're getting at is um
[1:09:53] the developer at one time proposed to do
[1:09:56] some trading with Alpine City and put
[1:09:58] some some buffer in there for Alpine
[1:10:00] City, but that's the issue that you guys
[1:10:02] are saying that you don't want. And I
[1:10:04] don't care. Well, I'd rather actually
[1:10:06] have it the way it is personally and
[1:10:08] just be able to keep my my property,
[1:10:11] but um
[1:10:13] >> Okay. Yeah.
[1:10:14] >> So to your to your question, if if
[1:10:16] somebody if Draper City could buy it, I
[1:10:17] would I would think if Draper City
[1:10:19] wanted it, they wouldn't have just um
[1:10:21] passed this thing to to eliminate point4
[1:10:23] acres because as far as Draper City was
[1:10:27] concerned, they already owned that
[1:10:29] property or I mean it's you know so they
[1:10:31] had to basically um remove that from
[1:10:35] their from their boundaries and so if if
[1:10:37] they were wanting you know the Draper
[1:10:39] and Alpine are already bordering each
[1:10:41] other that gap doesn't really exist. It
[1:10:43] existed on the website, but it's not a
[1:10:46] real gap as Mr. Mortonson was saying.
[1:10:50] And according to the records, it Draper
[1:10:52] City was moved over by 20 ft and Draper
[1:10:54] said, "Well, we don't want it, so Alpine
[1:10:56] or so you guys can have your property
[1:10:57] back." So, I would think if they wanted
[1:10:59] it, if they had an interest in building
[1:11:00] a road, they probably wouldn't have done
[1:11:02] what they just did.
[1:11:04] >> Thank you.
[1:11:06] >> Does that answer your question? I'm I'm
[1:11:09] like I say, I'm not interested in, you
[1:11:12] know,
[1:11:13] I I just want the property. Um Okay.
[1:11:16] >> If if there's something that you can
[1:11:18] work out, you know,
[1:11:20] to
[1:11:22] there's not going to be any issue with
[1:11:24] me doing anything with diversity because
[1:11:26] I want I want ownership of the property.
[1:11:28] I'm not going to
[1:11:30] but anyway.
[1:11:31] >> Okay. Thank you.
[1:11:33] >> Okay. Let's
[1:11:34] >> just can I one comment on this? So, just
[1:11:36] thinking out loud without a plat
[1:11:37] amendment, there's a 10-ft pee on the
[1:11:40] west side of this development.
[1:11:43] So that's recorded in that place. And
[1:11:46] I'm I'm not seeing how that easement
[1:11:50] gets relocated without a plat amendment
[1:11:54] or some kind of a vacancy of that
[1:11:56] easement or something.
[1:11:59] And and which leads to the next
[1:12:01] question. You know, the webex come in
[1:12:04] and submit for a building permit. We
[1:12:06] need to know where we measure our
[1:12:08] setbacks from over there. Um, so just
[1:12:14] thinking out loud a couple things.
[1:12:15] >> So is there setbacks from the pee and
[1:12:18] then the setbacks?
[1:12:19] >> Not from the pee, but that would mean
[1:12:22] the pee would extend like the east edge
[1:12:25] of the pee in my mind anyway would be 30
[1:12:28] feet from the new property line, the new
[1:12:30] city boundary. Instead of the first 10
[1:12:34] feet, it's there's 20 feet and then a PU
[1:12:36] recorded.
[1:12:39] I'm happy to hear response if you are
[1:12:41] mayor.
[1:12:42] >> Yeah,
[1:12:45] » the question that comes into my mind is there any utilities in it right now?
[1:12:50] >> There's not. I'm sure not.
[1:12:52] >> That 10- foot pee could be pushed over
[1:12:55] to the other thing basically through a
[1:12:57] boundary adjustment
[1:12:59] through the it's a law. It's a state
[1:13:02] law. You can do that. Move those. you
[1:13:04] guys would have to approve that if
[1:13:06] that's the case. But there there's
[1:13:09] different things that can be done.
[1:13:11] Usually easements, he doesn't care where
[1:13:14] you guys have an easement. He would
[1:13:16] prefer it to be at the very west end of
[1:13:19] your property. And that's that's okay.
[1:13:22] If you want to vacate it and write an
[1:13:23] easement over there, totally fine.
[1:13:27] Easily done when there's nothing there.
[1:13:30] >> Okay. It just felt like some kind of
[1:13:32] recordable instrument would be
[1:13:34] necessary, right, to take care of that.
[1:13:36] >> So on my survey, I would show it as
[1:13:38] being that west 10 ft because that was
[1:13:40] the intent of the original plat
[1:13:43] >> that it was over there where the
[1:13:45] monuments are.
[1:13:46] >> Well, he's up there. Can I do my last
[1:13:48] two questions? Is that okay?
[1:13:49] >> Sure.
[1:13:50] >> Kaden, the image is there. And the
[1:13:51] reason this is important, you can but
[1:13:53] before you Well, okay, there it is. This
[1:13:55] is what we're looking at right here. But
[1:13:58] you can see it in both views. Do you see
[1:14:00] that trail, that walking trail? I'd love
[1:14:02] to hear if if if if this is important.
[1:14:05] Currently, the neighborhoods are using
[1:14:08] that trail walking around the line and
[1:14:11] then through this area. If you go back
[1:14:12] to the last view, Kaden, you can see it
[1:14:16] or or the last um not my picture, the
[1:14:19] one from the uh the that you can you see
[1:14:23] that trail on the bottom of what we're
[1:14:25] talking about that red line, that little
[1:14:27] kind of trail that goes up and around
[1:14:28] and then through that area uh that
[1:14:32] currently is uh used. So I I don't know
[1:14:34] if people care about it. I don't know
[1:14:36] because I don't live over there. But
[1:14:37] just if there was anyone that wanted to
[1:14:39] speak to that or whatever, that is uh
[1:14:42] currently like a bridgeway. Um but this was helpful for me to see what
[1:14:46] we're talking about. That difference
[1:14:48] right there. I guess the real border is
[1:14:51] where that fence is. I I believe I'm
[1:14:53] correct. If I'm not, correct me.
[1:14:54] >> That fence is south of the property
[1:14:57] corner. You see that Lath there? There's
[1:15:00] a little yellow dot right next to the L
[1:15:03] at the on the ground.
[1:15:04] >> Yes. Yes.
[1:15:05] >> That's the property quarter. I'm
[1:15:07] referring to which is the southwest
[1:15:10] corner of the whole property.
[1:15:12] >> The fence is just a fence of
[1:15:14] convenience.
[1:15:15] >> So that's the correct place it should be
[1:15:16] where that stake is.
[1:15:17] >> That's where it should be. Yep.
[1:15:19] >> Okay.
[1:15:19] >> That's where the intent of the original
[1:15:22] land owner when he
[1:15:23] >> and Right now it's 20 ft further up from
[1:15:25] that.
[1:15:25] >> It's not exactly 20 ft. It's about 16
[1:15:28] ftish.
[1:15:29] >> Okay.
[1:15:29] >> Plus or minus. So
[1:15:31] >> thank you.
[1:15:33] >> Do you have any other question?
[1:15:33] >> No, that was all. Thank you.
[1:15:34] >> Okay. Thank you, sir. Appreciate it.
[1:15:37] Okay, let's um can ask staff to bring it
[1:15:41] back as an action item.
[1:15:44] Um that's what we're required to do
[1:15:46] next. Let's move on to item seven. Um
[1:15:48] action items, site plan approval for the
[1:15:52] Alpine Fire Station addition community
[1:15:54] center site plan.
[1:15:59] » Okay. Well, I guess I have the pleasure
[1:16:00] of introducing this. Um
[1:16:03] yeah, so the fire station remodel and
[1:16:05] addition, this went to the planning
[1:16:07] commission last week as all of you know.
[1:16:10] Um just the fire station right here on
[1:16:13] the same city block as as city hall
[1:16:15] where we are now. Um so the design for
[1:16:18] this update and remodel uh is to expand
[1:16:23] operational capacity and convert the
[1:16:26] existing structure into a functioning
[1:16:27] community center that supports civic
[1:16:29] gatherings.
[1:16:30] Um the existing apparatus bay will be
[1:16:33] preserved. The fire station will have
[1:16:35] the addition and we'll have the
[1:16:37] community center as well.
[1:16:40] Um the use of materials is primarily
[1:16:43] stucco on this building as proposed.
[1:16:46] And then there will also be faux wood
[1:16:49] panel accents and a brick veneer Wayne
[1:16:52] Scott.
[1:16:54] And we'll see some some elevations of
[1:16:56] that coming up shortly.
[1:16:58] Um the main one of the main items that
[1:17:00] will have to be determined is the
[1:17:03] landscaping plan is in coordination
[1:17:06] right now uh through a separate city-led
[1:17:09] effort and uh so the city council can
[1:17:12] see where where we're at on that. Um and
[1:17:16] then there were some
[1:17:19] recommendations from the planning
[1:17:20] commission as they reviewed this that
[1:17:22] you can see on your screen now. So they
[1:17:25] recommended that the the plan be
[1:17:28] consistent with the small area plan in
[1:17:30] regard to exteriors. The small area plan
[1:17:32] being a document that's currently being
[1:17:33] reviewed right now by the city council
[1:17:36] for our main street and gateway
[1:17:37] corridors.
[1:17:38] Uh the planning commission also
[1:17:40] recommended there be no faux wood as one
[1:17:43] of the materials. They recommended to
[1:17:45] use more brick as much as possible is
[1:17:48] how they worded it.
[1:17:50] They recommended the planning the
[1:17:51] landscape plan be provided before
[1:17:53] landscaping is installed and that was
[1:17:54] based on staff recommendation as well.
[1:17:57] And they also made a motion to accept
[1:18:01] made make an exception to the setbacks
[1:18:02] for the parking based on the four
[1:18:04] criteria in the in the ordinance for the
[1:18:07] parking lot exception. And then the
[1:18:09] final one was dark aluminum siding on
[1:18:11] the windows on the door frames on the
[1:18:13] big garage doors with the same color and
[1:18:14] material to ensure consistency
[1:18:16] throughout the building.
[1:18:20] And so staff recommends that the city
[1:18:21] council consider the approving of the
[1:18:23] construction of the Alpine Fire Station
[1:18:25] addition and remodel subject to the
[1:18:26] condition of a landscape plan being
[1:18:28] provided before being installed. And
[1:18:31] with these considerations I just read of
[1:18:33] the planning commission.
[1:18:39] And so now I'll just pull up some of the
[1:18:41] elevation renderings and
[1:18:45] um allow the city council to discuss any
[1:18:48] pertinent items that are on their mind
[1:18:50] uh with regard to this approval.
[1:18:53] >> Brent, do you have any comment?
[1:18:54] >> Yeah, this has been a long time coming.
[1:18:56] This has been talked about since before
[1:18:57] I was elected two plus two and a half
[1:18:59] years ago and I'm glad to see we're at
[1:19:01] this stage. I'm excited for this imp
[1:19:05] this uh improvement to the leaving
[1:19:08] living living quarters and the station
[1:19:10] for the fire department. Um after
[1:19:13] listening to the planning commission
[1:19:15] meeting last week, it's probably pretty
[1:19:17] clear that they should have been or
[1:19:19] could have been involved earlier so they
[1:19:21] could have had more of an input on the
[1:19:25] actual design of the building. We all
[1:19:27] got the opportunity to look at different
[1:19:29] options and to give our preferences. And
[1:19:32] I've been fairly clear in the past, I
[1:19:34] while I like things to be cohesive and
[1:19:36] look nice, I'm less concerned about
[1:19:40] specifics than some people might be. So,
[1:19:43] I um
[1:19:46] I am I'm concerned that if we make some
[1:19:48] of the changes that the planning
[1:19:49] commission recommended based on a
[1:19:51] document that we haven't even discussed
[1:19:52] yet and approved, they basically have
[1:19:54] decided to change the design guidelines
[1:19:58] to eliminate some of the materials that
[1:20:01] would be allowed to only allow red
[1:20:03] brick. And I think we needed to make
[1:20:06] have that discussion and make those
[1:20:07] decisions. So, I don't want to discount
[1:20:09] the planning commission at all, but it is unfortunate that they weren't
[1:20:13] privy to this earlier and could have
[1:20:15] made some of their comments before that.
[1:20:17] And I really don't want to delay this
[1:20:19] any longer. So, um then Jessica,
[1:20:24] Council Member Smooan, talked to me this
[1:20:27] morning right after our budget meeting
[1:20:29] and I know she has some ideas for a few
[1:20:31] changes. Again, I'm I'm willing to
[1:20:34] listen to those and I just hope that
[1:20:36] they don't delay things too much or
[1:20:38] cause any significant cost increases.
[1:20:41] So, I'll just defer to her on her ideas.
[1:20:44] >> Yes. Well, and I liked the first thing
[1:20:47] Council Member Rumbler said is, "Why are
[1:20:50] you bringing this up now?" I said,
[1:20:52] 'Well, it's this beautiful process that
[1:20:54] we're involved in where we all talk
[1:20:56] about stuff and see stuff and think
[1:20:58] about stuff and and so with that, I
[1:21:01] think really actually what I want to do
[1:21:03] is Kate and I sent you a couple of
[1:21:04] photos and these lean into the guidance
[1:21:08] that planning commission came back with
[1:21:12] um those I think it was or their
[1:21:15] recommendation which is the consistency
[1:21:18] I'm going to say our gateway historic.
[1:21:20] say small area plan, but our small area
[1:21:22] plan um
[1:21:26] points to our gateway historic the faux
[1:21:28] wood component and then use as much
[1:21:30] brick as possible. So I actually sent
[1:21:33] you I think two an email before that.
[1:21:37] Yes.
[1:21:39] Um this is our city hall. Now there's
[1:21:44] one more photo and one more um I guess
[1:21:47] email. So, we're we're pairing basically
[1:21:50] these two buildings on the same square.
[1:21:53] It's this one. And as I look at it and I
[1:21:55] considered
[1:21:57] um how can we relate these two buildings
[1:22:00] better by small adjustments to
[1:22:06] the exterior, not changing any of the
[1:22:09] structural, any of the MEPs, any of
[1:22:12] those things, but really how can we tie
[1:22:14] these two projects together? That's what
[1:22:17] I wanted to talk to council about this
[1:22:19] evening and and how we can do it by not
[1:22:21] slowing down the project by merely just
[1:22:24] actually it will we would get a credit
[1:22:27] back. I think maybe Babcock can give us
[1:22:30] more information on this as far as I you
[1:22:32] know if you remove cladding and you add
[1:22:34] brick that might just be an equal
[1:22:36] expense. you know, there's some things
[1:22:38] that I look at and and don't see
[1:22:40] anywhere that that these suggestions are
[1:22:42] increasing cost and wouldn't delay the
[1:22:45] project. And so, those are the things I
[1:22:47] want to talk about as a council more
[1:22:49] than just um you know, let's just go
[1:22:51] ahead and move this forward if we could
[1:22:55] make a couple of design adjustments and get really the historical element of
[1:22:59] this building locked in.
[1:23:02] So,
[1:23:04] we worked on the outside design of this
[1:23:08] building months ago and had council
[1:23:11] input
[1:23:13] and um you know when we went through
[1:23:16] this process and correct me if I'm
[1:23:20] wrong, but each one of you guys agreed
[1:23:22] with moving forward and gave input on
[1:23:25] which elevations you liked and you're
[1:23:27] saying at this point where we are ready
[1:23:29] to move forward. We've already
[1:23:30] demolished the building that is getting
[1:23:32] ready. We're getting ready for a
[1:23:34] groundbreaking in what, a couple of
[1:23:36] weeks.
[1:23:37] And now you want to change.
[1:23:39] >> I just think about it like adding
[1:23:41] jewelry. I just want to change the
[1:23:43] jewelry. I don't want to slow the
[1:23:44] project down. And actually, when we were
[1:23:46] asked for our input, we were given two
[1:23:49] choices. We were given a choice of a
[1:23:52] very modern building and then we were
[1:23:54] given a choice of a building
[1:23:56] >> three different elevations that I
[1:23:57] remember. Right.
[1:23:58] >> At that point, that's where you give
[1:24:00] input on what you wanted.
[1:24:02] >> I think originally this looked a little
[1:24:04] different. We went to the material
[1:24:05] choices. A lot of it is based on cost,
[1:24:07] right? I think um
[1:24:09] >> you know, ideally with longevity and all
[1:24:11] of that, the aluminum cladding on the
[1:24:13] roof would have been ideal, but the cost
[1:24:15] was prohibitive. Um, so I my
[1:24:19] understanding was with direction from
[1:24:21] council and with the design team that
[1:24:24] this is what we had all agreed on and we
[1:24:27] move forward with it and then after that
[1:24:29] it was really just kind of you know
[1:24:32] they're they've already gone out for bid
[1:24:34] with this design with the approval
[1:24:36] >> and I understand the construction
[1:24:38] process in the construction process you
[1:24:40] can actually come in for a revisionary
[1:24:43] bid and especially if you're just
[1:24:45] talking about an exterior year change
[1:24:47] from a cladding to a brick. So yes, and I said it's unfortunate. It's what
[1:24:52] council member Ler said, why are you
[1:24:54] bringing this up now? But it's the
[1:24:56] beauty of our process. Our planning
[1:24:58] commission said, hey, this isn't really
[1:25:01] like aligned with our gateway historic.
[1:25:03] So I kind of started thinking about
[1:25:04] that. Hey,
[1:25:06] >> let's have more brick because that feels
[1:25:08] more historic. So I thought about that
[1:25:11] as I look at our square. We don't have
[1:25:13] black roofs and we don't have black
[1:25:15] windows.
[1:25:17] That doesn't feel historic at all. That
[1:25:19] feels modern. And so again, with these
[1:25:21] small design adjustments, we align it I
[1:25:25] with our full town square. And that's
[1:25:28] what I want to talk to as council. So
[1:25:30] maybe we can just go down the line and
[1:25:32] discuss it as council members. Um before
[1:25:34] we before we continue though, I am like
[1:25:37] Brent and Jessica
[1:25:40] not understanding
[1:25:42] what was the scope of what the planning
[1:25:44] commission was asked to opinion on or
[1:25:47] approve or recommend. Was it are they in
[1:25:50] align are they in alignment with our
[1:25:52] current main street guidelines? What was
[1:25:54] the purpose of bringing it to planning
[1:25:56] commission in the first place? And then
[1:25:59] their recommendations are based on that.
[1:26:03] Yeah, I can speak to that. Council
[1:26:05] member Hanamman. Yeah, the planning
[1:26:06] commission reviewed it or it was
[1:26:08] required to review it based on the
[1:26:10] current historic historic downtown
[1:26:13] design standards
[1:26:14] >> and and normally if we like we haven't
[1:26:16] built a lot of buildings like not even
[1:26:18] commercial buildings. Is this normally
[1:26:20] the pro the stage or was there like a
[1:26:23] step missed?
[1:26:25] So,
[1:26:26] >> why is it so late in the process that we
[1:26:28] they go through the main street gate
[1:26:30] guidelines?
[1:26:30] >> Because everything just got finalized to
[1:26:33] the point that it could be submitted.
[1:26:34] But like with commercial site plans,
[1:26:37] which currently we have two that are
[1:26:39] under review,
[1:26:40] >> okay,
[1:26:40] >> that you guys haven't seen because it's
[1:26:42] not not to that point. But
[1:26:44] >> the 512 building, um they're planning on
[1:26:46] an addition there. And uh there's a
[1:26:49] small commercial building just west of
[1:26:52] the at about 50 west 200 north. Um so
[1:26:56] they're going through the same process
[1:26:59] and we'll be going to planning
[1:27:00] commission. And so to follow our own
[1:27:03] process, we sent this site plan through
[1:27:06] planning commission and now it's to city
[1:27:08] council. And to Jessica's point and what
[1:27:11] the planning commission said was we are
[1:27:14] in the middle of revising them but we
[1:27:17] can't give our contractor a moving
[1:27:19] target. So we were told we told them
[1:27:22] from the beginning it's the it's the
[1:27:24] main street guidelines as
[1:27:26] currently on our books what you know as
[1:27:29] and then that's what they were asked to
[1:27:31] follow. So, did the planning commission
[1:27:34] then say, "We're not going to use our
[1:27:37] current guidelines. We're going to
[1:27:39] assume that the council is going to be
[1:27:40] on board with everything we want to do."
[1:27:43] Like, how did how is there this
[1:27:45] disconnect between our current
[1:27:46] guidelines, which this was designed to
[1:27:49] meet, and the planning commission having
[1:27:52] other desires to change those guidelines
[1:27:54] and asking for the changes to be
[1:27:56] implemented in this building? Can you
[1:27:58] help us with the sequence of that?
[1:28:00] >> Some of it is subjective though. It's
[1:28:01] not per our guidelines. Oh, they're
[1:28:03] don't mean it. They need more brick.
[1:28:04] It's it's planning. It's individual
[1:28:07] members saying, "Hey, I think it would
[1:28:08] look better with more brick. I think it
[1:28:10] would look better with less whatever."
[1:28:13] >> Yeah. And just just to clarify, they
[1:28:16] were looking at their proposed
[1:28:18] amendments to the draft.
[1:28:19] >> That's what I think.
[1:28:20] >> So, the current draft that we've all
[1:28:22] looking at that we're going to discuss
[1:28:23] in the future would allow these
[1:28:26] materials. The planning commission last
[1:28:28] week said previously they had discussed
[1:28:32] changing that and they're using those
[1:28:34] propos their proposed changes
[1:28:36] to apply to this current project
[1:28:38] >> right but we haven't even discussed it
[1:28:40] as a council
[1:28:42] >> their input.
[1:28:42] >> So in my opinion the fire station is now
[1:28:46] designed currently designed meets what
[1:28:48] our draft document says right now our
[1:28:51] >> not our draft our current
[1:28:52] >> current
[1:28:52] >> and both the
[1:28:54] >> Oh the draft okay I see what you're
[1:28:56] saying. Yes,
[1:28:56] >> the draft materials are wood, masonry,
[1:28:59] brick, and stone, although no stucco,
[1:29:01] but we already have it's already stuck,
[1:29:03] right?
[1:29:05] >> Yeah. Sorry, since since Kaden wasn't
[1:29:07] actually here for part of those
[1:29:08] discussions with um the planning
[1:29:11] commission when they went through the
[1:29:13] main street breakdown, right, they did
[1:29:16] four weeks of it. During that time, they
[1:29:19] were ve they felt very strongly about
[1:29:21] specific guidelines and they were passed
[1:29:24] on to this group. Unfortunately, this
[1:29:26] group hasn't gotten there yet. So, they
[1:29:29] felt uncomfortable
[1:29:31] condoning some or or voting in favor of
[1:29:34] something that didn't match what they
[1:29:36] had talked about in their recommendation
[1:29:38] to you. Now, that said, doesn't keep
[1:29:41] you, you know, that's why they didn't
[1:29:43] stick to the ones that are on the book.
[1:29:45] Now, right or wrong, but that's what
[1:29:47] their conversation based on. But their
[1:29:49] justification or their their one of
[1:29:51] their rationale was if we allow the city
[1:29:55] or we if the city builds this in this
[1:29:58] way and then we change the guidelines,
[1:30:00] you're going to have these neighbors
[1:30:00] across the street saying, "Well, why did
[1:30:02] the city get a used stuckco and why
[1:30:03] didn't why why can't we?" But there are
[1:30:05] different
[1:30:06] >> under different guidelines. under
[1:30:07] different guidelines timing
[1:30:08] >> and we haven't decided yet as a city
[1:30:10] council who was a final decision maker
[1:30:12] on our master plan and the design
[1:30:15] standards whether we agree with the
[1:30:17] planning commission to only allow red
[1:30:19] brick on main street.
[1:30:20] >> Well, and then this is also our historic
[1:30:23] square. So, we also need to use, you
[1:30:25] know, as city council members looking at
[1:30:27] our history and um applying that to this
[1:30:31] unique square and making sure that these
[1:30:34] buildings have a relationship to each
[1:30:36] other since you're seeing both of them
[1:30:39] at the same time almost the entire time
[1:30:42] you're here.
[1:30:43] >> Okay. So, um can I have some
[1:30:46] clarification then that what I
[1:30:48] understand what happened now at the
[1:30:50] planning commission? Um, that's how I
[1:30:52] was interpreting that reading between
[1:30:54] the lines kind of why their
[1:30:56] recommendations follow something that we
[1:30:58] haven't even discussed yet as a council.
[1:31:00] But under it would be good practice for
[1:31:03] us to use what we've already what's
[1:31:05] sitting there as our current guidelines
[1:31:08] unmended un unadapted for all the work
[1:31:11] we're doing with the small area plan.
[1:31:13] That would be the wisest thing to do.
[1:31:16] That's why I brought up the other two
[1:31:18] site plans that are under review. Like
[1:31:21] we have to review those based on what's
[1:31:23] on the books right now.
[1:31:25] >> Right. Okay. So, that's the guidance
[1:31:27] we're getting from staff because I agree
[1:31:29] with both of you and yet we can't move
[1:31:32] like I don't feel like it's fair to
[1:31:34] we're the client, right? We're moving
[1:31:35] the target to say oh match these
[1:31:37] guidelines but really no no we we might
[1:31:39] go this direction so let's consider
[1:31:41] those two. Like to me that's we need to
[1:31:43] do be very clear like these are the
[1:31:45] guidelines that we meet and if we meet
[1:31:47] these guidelines this is what we can
[1:31:49] move forward on and until we've sort of
[1:31:51] cleaned everything up voted and put it
[1:31:53] in the books we we can't really make
[1:31:55] decisions based on that yet even though
[1:31:57] I agree with you Jessica I do I do that
[1:31:59] I just don't think the timing is
[1:32:02] >> make decisions based upon the fact that
[1:32:04] we have guiding documents today so we
[1:32:07] can make those decisions
[1:32:10] >> wait we these we do the the original
[1:32:12] main street guidelines that are like 15
[1:32:14] years old.
[1:32:14] >> We could make decisions based upon the process for that is it goes to
[1:32:19] planning commission. Planning commission
[1:32:22] is the review committee for the gateway
[1:32:25] historic. They make recommendations. The
[1:32:27] recommendations come to city council and
[1:32:30] then city council moves those pro
[1:32:33] processes forward. So we're not stuck at
[1:32:36] all. We actually have a process in place
[1:32:38] that we just
[1:32:39] >> but those decisions and suggestions were
[1:32:41] made erroneously based on a set of
[1:32:44] guidelines that are not yet implemented.
[1:32:47] So by state law if something comes in
[1:32:50] unless there's a moratorum we have to go
[1:32:52] by our current and existing ordinances.
[1:32:56] You can't go hey this came in this is
[1:32:59] designed for our current ordinances but
[1:33:01] because we're going to change it in a
[1:33:02] couple of months we'd like for you to do
[1:33:04] that.
[1:33:05] >> Right? That's why I'm saying we have a
[1:33:06] process in place. Planning commission
[1:33:08] has made the recommendations. They've
[1:33:10] moved it to city council. So now we're
[1:33:12] moving forward.
[1:33:13] >> Right. So that's our process. That's not
[1:33:15] erroneous. It's very clear. It's what we
[1:33:18] followed for 15 years.
[1:33:19] >> Well, erroneous in that their
[1:33:20] suggestions are based off of not our
[1:33:23] current existing guidelines, which is
[1:33:25] what their job is to do. I understand
[1:33:28] where I think everyone's in agreement
[1:33:30] with where they're at, but by law, I
[1:33:35] don't think they were instructed
[1:33:36] correctly that you have to go by these
[1:33:39] guidelines now when it comes in this
[1:33:41] place in time. Now, if it were two or
[1:33:43] three months down the line, you're
[1:33:44] talking about a whole different set of
[1:33:46] guidelines that they would have to go
[1:33:47] by. But they are making suggestions
[1:33:52] based and again I don't think anyone's
[1:33:54] against the suggestions but
[1:33:57] you cannot make your decisions and
[1:33:59] recommendations based on something that
[1:34:01] does not yet exist.
[1:34:02] >> Well actually we have the legislative
[1:34:05] ability in this situation to make those
[1:34:07] decisions with our legislative power.
[1:34:10] >> They're not you can but not based on
[1:34:13] recommendations from planning.
[1:34:14] >> I think we're talking about two separate
[1:34:15] things. Well, I just said it made me
[1:34:17] start thinking. It made me look at the
[1:34:19] whole project from a design element as a
[1:34:22] whole.
[1:34:22] >> Can I ask a question regarding costs? If
[1:34:25] there is a change, any kind of material
[1:34:27] change at this point, my understanding
[1:34:29] was that
[1:34:31] the plans are final that they are going
[1:34:34] through um the bidding process to get
[1:34:36] the final um absolute top price. you
[1:34:40] know that can't go over the CMC CMGC
[1:34:43] project um guidelines if we are making
[1:34:46] these kind of material changes to the
[1:34:48] outside
[1:34:50] is there an impact on the cost and if so
[1:34:52] what and I'm not sure whether it's which
[1:34:55] Chad whether it's little or well and a
[1:34:59] little clarity on that a lot of this
[1:35:01] cost is actually now touching none of it
[1:35:05] on two of the fronts on the full bays of
[1:35:08] the south
[1:35:09] >> right but the guarante sheet price that
[1:35:10] we have is based on our current plans.
[1:35:13] So if you're changing that then you're
[1:35:15] talking about another process going back
[1:35:17] getting re everything is set and you
[1:35:19] have we get a set price and say okay we
[1:35:22] guarantee that you're going to have this
[1:35:23] project for this anything you change
[1:35:25] whether it costs more or not it is going
[1:35:27] to adjust the cost of it that's by
[1:35:29] purely by the product of it.
[1:35:30] >> So so you're saying it's not going to
[1:35:32] affect it but it could and so I'm just
[1:35:34] curious. So yes, the plans are complete.
[1:35:38] Um,
[1:35:40] Babcock has finished the plans 100%.
[1:35:43] They are out to bid right now. We are
[1:35:44] planning to come back to uh get approval
[1:35:47] of the guaranteed maximum price, the
[1:35:49] total cost on June 9th currently is what
[1:35:52] we're planning to do. Um,
[1:35:56] I don't like making changes, but at this
[1:35:59] point, still before construction starts,
[1:36:02] before that GMP is locked in. Yeah,
[1:36:05] >> it is going to be cheaper now than later
[1:36:07] and I would want everybody to get what
[1:36:11] the city wants and what the city all
[1:36:13] agrees this should be. Uh yes, we it
[1:36:17] will take depend on the extent of the
[1:36:20] changes. It will cost a little more
[1:36:22] money. Uh we'll have to pay for design
[1:36:25] changes. Um
[1:36:28] now depend on the materials. There's a
[1:36:31] range in price of materials as well. the
[1:36:33] stucco or on this it's an ephus which
[1:36:36] has a stucco appearance is probably the
[1:36:39] cheaper of the three the brick the wood
[1:36:43] or the or or the eus it's the cheaper of
[1:36:46] the three so the more that you use the
[1:36:48] cheaper would be which could offset the
[1:36:50] cost of the additional design changes
[1:36:52] but
[1:36:54] um
[1:36:56] it depends on which material you want
[1:36:59] how much of that material you want and
[1:37:02] um Yes, now while bids are still out
[1:37:05] before we lock in that GMP is the right
[1:37:08] time to make those changes if there's
[1:37:10] going to be changes.
[1:37:13] » Okay, Chrissy, did you have any other
[1:37:15] questions?
[1:37:15] >> Wait, we skipped me.
[1:37:16] >> Oh, did we? How did we get to Chrissy?
[1:37:18] >> No, I didn't have any comments about the
[1:37:19] project. I wanted to understand where
[1:37:21] the planning commission recommendations
[1:37:23] were coming from. I haven't yet talked
[1:37:25] about the project.
[1:37:26] >> Okay, go ahead, Sarah. Okay, not to
[1:37:28] throw a wrench in the system. I kind of
[1:37:30] feel like my third grader who asked for
[1:37:32] a red popsicle. I open it and then
[1:37:34] they're like, "Wait, I wanted purple."
[1:37:36] So I apologize but to Councilwoman
[1:37:39] Smeuan's point I was looking today and
[1:37:42] after listening to planning commission
[1:37:44] looking at the cohesiveness between the
[1:37:46] two buildings and you have like more of
[1:37:48] like a rustic mountain more contemporary
[1:37:51] and then right next to our old, you
[1:37:54] know, city building and then in between
[1:37:57] we're going to have our sculpture garden
[1:37:59] that's going to have a gazebo with
[1:38:01] arched windows kind of like the ones in
[1:38:03] this building.
[1:38:04] I just thought, is there a way that we
[1:38:07] can make that more co cohesive because
[1:38:10] this is like our historic block. And
[1:38:12] actually, I think it would looking at
[1:38:15] the cost per square foot on the various
[1:38:19] um
[1:38:20] >> materials.
[1:38:21] Thank you. Um, I I think it
[1:38:24] would actually be less because it would
[1:38:26] mean more stucco, none of the the faux
[1:38:30] wood, and maybe a little bit more brick,
[1:38:32] which by the way, I love the color of
[1:38:34] the brick that you chose. I think that's
[1:38:36] awesome. I would love to keep some of
[1:38:38] the same details that we have here at
[1:38:39] the city building, like the I don't know
[1:38:41] if they're called cornerstones or some
[1:38:43] of the details
[1:38:44] >> above the windows. And I was curious, is
[1:38:47] there a possibility to keep some of the
[1:38:49] current stucco on the portion of the
[1:38:52] building that we are keeping or do you
[1:38:54] have to restuckco the entire thing?
[1:38:59] » So,
[1:39:00] I don't want to go backwards, but I want
[1:39:02] to be helpful.
[1:39:02] >> Sorry, that was a lot.
[1:39:03] >> No, no, you're good. Um,
[1:39:06] I don't have an agenda. I don't have
[1:39:07] anything in the game other than I want
[1:39:09] to serve the client, which is ultimately
[1:39:10] the city.
[1:39:12] So, I'm getting to your question, your
[1:39:14] point, but I guess what I want to start
[1:39:15] with is we've spent numerous um amounts
[1:39:19] of effort both with this group uh with
[1:39:22] the fire chief, Shane, our off-site
[1:39:24] project meeting group, design team, etc.
[1:39:26] cultivating and coming to an agreement
[1:39:28] on where we are today based on a lot of
[1:39:30] impacts and decisions. So, it's not done
[1:39:33] based on trying to get a design opinion
[1:39:35] or um
[1:39:38] a personal agenda by any means. Uh that
[1:39:41] said, you guys hired a professional
[1:39:43] architect to give professional opinion.
[1:39:45] And when we met based on historic
[1:39:47] downtown guidelines, both internally and
[1:39:50] as this group, we aligned ourselves and
[1:39:52] okay, what we want to do as an as a
[1:39:54] priority is to design a new building
[1:39:58] using the existing facility that ties in
[1:40:01] as well as possible to the existing
[1:40:02] facility, but also brings new life and
[1:40:04] brings new character to this to the
[1:40:06] downtown district while meeting the
[1:40:07] historic downtown guidelines, which we
[1:40:09] felt we have done. Those historic
[1:40:11] guidelines that are in place now talk
[1:40:13] about brick, they talk about wood, they
[1:40:14] talk about ephus.
[1:40:17] So in terms of shapes, like Councilman
[1:40:19] Moon was mentioning, we did talk about
[1:40:21] different forms and different elevations
[1:40:22] that you saw. I think those had a couple
[1:40:24] different variations of of materials on
[1:40:26] them, but it was a lot of form work to
[1:40:28] be fair.
[1:40:30] Um, so to your question, we are keeping
[1:40:32] a lot of the existing ephus and stucco.
[1:40:34] It there's currently no stucco on the
[1:40:36] building. It's currently all ephus over
[1:40:37] there. It's same finish of look. It's
[1:40:39] just a different property material with
[1:40:41] more insulation which is required for
[1:40:43] energy codes and things of that nature.
[1:40:46] So, um, we're keeping most of it where
[1:40:48] it occurs. We're adding a couple
[1:40:50] different things to add. We're adding
[1:40:51] the Wayne scope, but it doesn't remove
[1:40:52] the insulation. It just enhances what's
[1:40:55] there in my mind. So, yes, the coins and
[1:40:59] like the overheads in the windows, like
[1:41:00] the headers of the windows, that's
[1:41:02] something that we intentionally met with
[1:41:04] and decided this is a quite frankly a
[1:41:06] dated look. And while I understand the
[1:41:08] cohesiveness between city hall, uh it
[1:41:11] was never my intention or understanding
[1:41:13] to say we need to match city hall. It
[1:41:15] was my intention to try and match the
[1:41:16] district guidelines and make it cohesive
[1:41:19] building as it wasn't going to be
[1:41:20] clearly an addition and a new
[1:41:22] construction. It was going to be
[1:41:23] cohesive one building on its own that
[1:41:24] blended together. who didn't look old
[1:41:26] versus new.
[1:41:28] >> Okay. Res respectfully, I I I guess I
[1:41:31] just don't see the cohesiveness and
[1:41:33] maybe just like a few
[1:41:35] >> between city hall and this or
[1:41:37] >> Yes,
[1:41:37] >> correct. And that was never an agenda
[1:41:39] point to make is what I'm saying.
[1:41:40] >> The cohesiveness was meant to say I
[1:41:42] didn't want to send back and have it be
[1:41:43] an existing building with an addition. I
[1:41:45] wanted it to be
[1:41:46] >> Oh, I see the whole building to be
[1:41:48] cohesive.
[1:41:49] >> Yes, I see what you're saying.
[1:41:50] >> It still fall within the guidelines of
[1:41:51] the historic district which we talked
[1:41:53] about. I just I mean I I don't want to
[1:41:56] like make you upset, but I just think
[1:41:59] there's like a few a few small things
[1:42:02] that we could change that would make it
[1:42:04] a little bit more cohesive with the city
[1:42:06] building, like maybe the roof color to
[1:42:09] be match this. And I I mean,
[1:42:11] >> we can't Are you saying put shingle
[1:42:13] roofs?
[1:42:13] >> No, I'm not saying change what type of
[1:42:15] roof. I'm just saying colors. I'm saying
[1:42:17] maybe the $65 per square foot installed
[1:42:20] wood. Instead, we just do the stucco.
[1:42:22] That's the E F E F E F E F E F E F E F E how do what do you call it?
[1:42:25] >> EUS that's $14 per square foot. And I
[1:42:29] think that would actually look better
[1:42:30] personally, but I guess this is where we
[1:42:32] have a discussion and we share our
[1:42:34] opinions. I know some people are upset
[1:42:36] about that, but I just think that it
[1:42:38] would look better personally.
[1:42:40] >> It's like I said, I'm here to be
[1:42:41] transparent. We we got to where we are
[1:42:43] today by a clear lineage of steps one
[1:42:46] through.
[1:42:48] >> And so I I know how we got here and why
[1:42:49] we got here. Uh if we need to go back
[1:42:51] and look at something different, that's
[1:42:52] fine. We can do that.
[1:42:54] >> Um to Chad's point, feels weird calling
[1:42:56] you Chad.
[1:42:58] >> Uh to this guy's point, um there's time
[1:43:01] involvement with that. And so we are out
[1:43:03] for bidding.
[1:43:04] >> At the same time we issue drawings for
[1:43:06] bidding, we also issue them for
[1:43:07] permitting.
[1:43:08] >> So that's why we're in this site plan
[1:43:10] approval process. And if I can be frank,
[1:43:13] I think a lot of this process, we knew
[1:43:15] that the council specifically wanted to
[1:43:16] have an inherent um window into this
[1:43:19] process. And so we made sure that that
[1:43:21] was a for not a force, but a necessary
[1:43:24] thing that we included everyone on as
[1:43:25] part of Shane's agenda, which I thought
[1:43:27] was great. I think some of those
[1:43:28] decisions pushed us beyond when we would
[1:43:31] have normally liked to submit for
[1:43:32] planning commission approval. to see
[1:43:34] your point that would have happened
[1:43:35] prior to but these things that we wanted
[1:43:38] input on that started off as design and
[1:43:40] then started out as VE if you recall
[1:43:41] from another council me council session
[1:43:44] pushed us to the point to where now
[1:43:45] we're submitting for documents for
[1:43:46] timing and for budget purposes
[1:43:49] >> and here we are.
[1:43:50] >> Yeah. I just think some of the changes
[1:43:51] that I'm suggesting actually wouldn't be
[1:43:53] that big of a deal. But I'm also not a
[1:43:55] contractor. I'm not an engineer. I'm not
[1:43:57] an architect. But I also
[1:43:58] >> I don't know I don't know the extent of
[1:43:59] them yet either and I'm happy to go into
[1:44:02] those once we have a better
[1:44:03] understanding.
[1:44:04] >> Yeah. So,
[1:44:05] >> and I did do some drawings. They look
[1:44:07] like a third grader did them. But I did
[1:44:08] do some mockups with some changes that I
[1:44:10] gave to Shane. Um I don't know if it's
[1:44:14] worth taking a look at them or if you'd
[1:44:15] be willing to do that, but
[1:44:17] >> I'm willing to do whatever is best for
[1:44:18] the
[1:44:19] >> project. I mean, whatever at this point
[1:44:20] because they're completed. It's just
[1:44:22] it'll be additional cost. But really,
[1:44:26] you guys, the time for these this kind
[1:44:28] of input was months ago when they first
[1:44:30] brought in the renderings. I don't
[1:44:32] understand
[1:44:35] >> now seeing the whole thing. And when you
[1:44:37] see the whole thing, then you can
[1:44:38] actually
[1:44:39] >> see the changes.
[1:44:40] >> These are the almost the same stuff that
[1:44:42] we've been seeing over and over and over
[1:44:44] again.
[1:44:44] >> You know,
[1:44:45] >> I totally understand what you're saying,
[1:44:46] mayor. changes the look of the entire
[1:44:49] >> but this building is going to be around
[1:44:50] for years and years and years and I just
[1:44:52] feel like we got to get it right.
[1:44:55] >> That's my opinion.
[1:44:58] >> Well, and I think it'll be I think the
[1:45:01] little bit of design cost and and that
[1:45:03] having them click click click and change
[1:45:05] the cladding to brick and adding more
[1:45:07] stucco is going to be pennies compared
[1:45:11] to the dollars we'll save in materials.
[1:45:14] I mean, if you look at the faux wood
[1:45:16] panel at $65 a linear foot or a square
[1:45:19] foot, that's, you know, our the most
[1:45:22] expensive accent piece. So, just by
[1:45:25] removing that alone, we've captured a
[1:45:29] little bit of money to change some just
[1:45:32] design elements on it.
[1:45:34] >> May I speak to that?
[1:45:36] >> Yeah. Uh, and again, I'm not advocating
[1:45:38] for cost because we brought up the wood
[1:45:40] as part of the historic downtown
[1:45:41] guidelines and obviously working with
[1:45:42] more than just the council and the fire
[1:45:44] chief. We came to an agreement that we
[1:45:46] wanted wood. If you recall during VE,
[1:45:48] which was a month or two ago, as we were
[1:45:50] trying to get past our DD, which is the
[1:45:52] set before bidding documents, we had a
[1:45:55] DD budget that we found out we were over
[1:45:56] budget on. One of the line items that we
[1:45:58] sat and discussed in this room was
[1:45:59] whether to remove all of the wood. We
[1:46:01] reduced it significantly and kept it
[1:46:03] where it is now. So, I I'm fine to to do
[1:46:06] whatever, but it just seems like we're
[1:46:08] making different iterations of past
[1:46:09] decisions a little bit. So, I just want
[1:46:12] to warn like are we are we making the
[1:46:14] right path and is what's best for
[1:46:16] everyone?
[1:46:20] » Can you can do I have Do you have more
[1:46:22] questions?
[1:46:23] >> No.
[1:46:24] >> Can you go back to Jessica's picture
[1:46:26] where she showed the view of both? I
[1:46:28] think one significant thing that we
[1:46:30] looked at um how to be consistent and
[1:46:33] what I learned from the architects who
[1:46:35] came to visit um us for our main street
[1:46:39] guidelines or you know the whole small
[1:46:41] area plan was roof lines and so I do
[1:46:44] feel like these because of the roof
[1:46:46] lines are are uh
[1:46:49] cohesive. You can see the roof line here
[1:46:51] of the the um the city hall on the left
[1:46:54] with the roof line of the um bay for the
[1:46:59] big trucks. Um I think that that makes
[1:47:02] it cohesive. I understand like that this
[1:47:05] is a tan roof and so it feels more like
[1:47:09] um uh shingles. So maybe that I I don't
[1:47:13] know how that would help it. Also, this
[1:47:16] arched window here above the bays is
[1:47:19] very much like uh cohesive with like
[1:47:22] these arches. I know that these are half
[1:47:24] circles and that's like a like an
[1:47:26] eyebrow arch, I think they call it.
[1:47:28] Well,
[1:47:28] >> a what?
[1:47:29] >> Well played.
[1:47:30] >> Thank you.
[1:47:31] >> I don't know what you just said, but
[1:47:32] it's the right thing.
[1:47:33] >> You're correct is what I'm saying.
[1:47:34] >> Oh, okay. Okay. An eyebrow arch. Also,
[1:47:37] you can see that this has um divided
[1:47:40] light. You know like we like if you open
[1:47:42] these blinds you can see that we have
[1:47:44] delighted divided light and so there are
[1:47:47] divine design elements that are very
[1:47:49] complimentary without um this building
[1:47:53] this specifically this part of the
[1:47:54] building was built in 1930s under um oh
[1:47:58] what was the name of it was like
[1:48:00] renaissance or art deco I can't remember
[1:48:03] it was very specific to the federal look
[1:48:05] because this is built by federal funds
[1:48:07] that doesn't really match the rest of
[1:48:09] our city um because it was a federal
[1:48:12] project actually in our city. And so I I
[1:48:15] specifically as a early on said, would
[1:48:18] you just look at the houses around us
[1:48:20] because these are pioneer era houses.
[1:48:23] And so I feel like they they took that
[1:48:25] feedback and so that the the actual
[1:48:28] rendering um is a building that still
[1:48:32] has the historic elements in it. See the
[1:48:34] arches still left above the bays. We
[1:48:37] have hipped roofs. We have um what's the
[1:48:39] name of that roof line? That's just like
[1:48:41] there's a gable. An open gable. Oh yeah,
[1:48:43] I learned that too from the main street
[1:48:45] people. They said when you have an open
[1:48:47] gable that faces the street, that's a
[1:48:49] historic way to build a building. That's
[1:48:51] not how we always build buildings now.
[1:48:54] Like a lot of roofs will be like uh
[1:48:58] like straight just uh straight to the
[1:49:00] floor.
[1:49:01] >> Single slope roof.
[1:49:02] >> Yeah, single slope roof. Specifically
[1:49:03] like our Alpine um fitness center. it
[1:49:07] doesn't have any gables on the whole
[1:49:08] building. So, that's another reason it
[1:49:10] feels more modern and less historic. So,
[1:49:13] I do feel like um aside from the brick
[1:49:15] or the wood paneling debate, which I
[1:49:18] think Chad is accurate, like I wanted
[1:49:20] more wood paddling on the back, which is
[1:49:22] the top of that, and you guys chose to
[1:49:24] take it off, and I'm going to support
[1:49:27] you in your decision, but please don't
[1:49:29] take any more off. Um, that's that's how
[1:49:32] I feel about it. And also I learned from
[1:49:35] the Main Street historic people that
[1:49:37] when you have windows that are tall
[1:49:39] taller than they are wide that that's a
[1:49:41] historic window. Um if you do big
[1:49:44] viewscape windows that's more modern
[1:49:46] especially without the divided light.
[1:49:48] And so they've retained those longer
[1:49:50] windows across the living quarters.
[1:49:53] Those are each living quarters for each
[1:49:54] of our firemen. So, I feel like they've
[1:49:57] done a great job um as summarized here
[1:50:00] of a s sensitivity to historic downtown
[1:50:03] character, blending existing and new
[1:50:06] architectural forms, material cohesion
[1:50:09] and respect for context, unified civic
[1:50:11] presence. I feel like we nailed it the
[1:50:14] first time and I understand I did talk
[1:50:17] to a member of the planning commission
[1:50:18] about what were you guys thinking like
[1:50:20] brick like at this point like this ship
[1:50:23] has sailed like we're ready to pull into
[1:50:25] port you know like what are we doing
[1:50:27] talking about brick and their their
[1:50:29] discussion was largely on what they'd
[1:50:31] like to see in the guidelines going
[1:50:33] forward which we have not adopted so I
[1:50:36] don't feel like it's fair to uh
[1:50:41] sort of speculate where we're going to
[1:50:42] end up even as a council with our
[1:50:44] guidelines. So, I'm I'm very comfortable
[1:50:47] with what they've done. I feel like they
[1:50:49] nailed these three items. I have them
[1:50:51] circled here in bright green
[1:50:52] highlighter. Um, and so I'm supporting
[1:50:55] this, not just for the process reasons
[1:50:58] that Brent, because Brent is very
[1:50:59] practical. Aesthetics don't always mean
[1:51:01] that much to Brent. So, I totally agree
[1:51:03] with Brent, but I also agree that we've
[1:51:06] met the aesthetic um purpose that we we
[1:51:10] spent a lot of time on the aesthetics
[1:51:11] early out and I feel like they haven't
[1:51:14] compromised the things. Um I I was very
[1:51:17] puzzled by what the planning commission
[1:51:19] came up with. But understanding their um where they were coming from, it
[1:51:24] fits, but I don't think that that's um
[1:51:28] fair to to everybody in the process to
[1:51:30] sort of have a moving target. Also to
[1:51:33] speculate where we're going to end up in
[1:51:34] those guidelines. I will just say so I'm
[1:51:36] going to leave it as it is.
[1:51:37] >> My suggestions had would follow the same
[1:51:40] the guidelines as they are currently
[1:51:41] written. I wasn't it wasn't it was just
[1:51:43] more about cohesion.
[1:51:45] >> Yes. not necessarily about the
[1:51:47] guidelines.
[1:51:48] >> Yes, thank you for that clarification.
[1:51:49] >> Do you have any comments?
[1:51:52] >> Uh thank you. Um
[1:51:56] so uh the uh I've always been concerned
[1:51:59] about the cost on this as you know. I haven't been the nice guy. Isn't
[1:52:04] that funny? Sarah is now the mean girl
[1:52:07] and I'm the nice guy. Um this will be
[1:52:10] around. So I work in a very similar
[1:52:12] industry. I do movies. I do stained
[1:52:14] glass windows. We had to take a stained
[1:52:16] glass window out of a temple once it was
[1:52:18] already there because one of the squares
[1:52:20] were off or like movies up until you'll
[1:52:24] have previews for movies going out that
[1:52:26] you've all watched and it's still not
[1:52:28] finished and we're making changes three
[1:52:30] weeks before it's in theaters. So, like
[1:52:33] point of me saying this, this is a big
[1:52:35] 50-year decision. You no one will
[1:52:38] remember this, but 50 years they're
[1:52:40] going to be stuck with a building. So,
[1:52:41] you're going to want to get it right.
[1:52:43] you're going to want to be happy with
[1:52:44] it. It will be worth it for your guys's
[1:52:46] future. Um, I think what Jessica and
[1:52:49] Sarah after our cohesion, they they
[1:52:51] walked me out and I looked at it and I
[1:52:53] was like, "Wow, they are right.
[1:52:55] This this is a pretty area and we take
[1:52:57] it for granted, but it really is a
[1:52:59] pretty area. You you can see the picture
[1:53:02] right behind you from outside. If you
[1:53:03] look right there, you can see the bell
[1:53:05] tower, the ceiling, the interesting
[1:53:08] corners, and uh I I don't really know
[1:53:11] why they would bring this up if we were
[1:53:13] just supposed to approve it like without
[1:53:15] any change. I mean, this is seems like
[1:53:17] the point we're doing is they're
[1:53:18] bringing it up for a last final review
[1:53:20] to dot ice, uh cross tees, and make any
[1:53:24] changes. And this is the time to do it.
[1:53:26] There's no shovels in the ground.
[1:53:27] There's no excavators out there when
[1:53:28] people do make changes. And that's when
[1:53:30] it's very hard. Very hard and very
[1:53:32] expensive, right? Your guys in your hard
[1:53:34] hats are pissed. They're walking off the
[1:53:36] job. There's none. Well, I don't know.
[1:53:39] Yeah, this is the time to do it. You are
[1:53:41] still in very very early stages. They
[1:53:43] haven't done. So, I would say uh if you
[1:53:46] guys want changes, I would make the
[1:53:47] small changes. And I don't know if
[1:53:49] you're most of what they're asking for
[1:53:50] is cosmetic. These are not like these
[1:53:52] are not heavy duty. These are I mean,
[1:53:54] these are changes you can make after the
[1:53:55] fact. Building's built. Let's change it.
[1:53:57] Change the I know. I know. I know. It's
[1:53:59] not that easy, but it's it's mostly uh
[1:54:01] cosmetic, so it's not structural. Um,
[1:54:05] and I also don't know how we move
[1:54:07] forward with this given that the
[1:54:08] planning commission has also already
[1:54:09] recommended several changes. It's like
[1:54:12] one way or another, they've got changes.
[1:54:14] Um, but they're not big ones. These are
[1:54:16] cosmetic. And I think you'll hit a home
[1:54:17] run if you can.
[1:54:18] >> Well, there's been plenty of cases where
[1:54:19] you guys have totally ignored planning
[1:54:21] commission
[1:54:22] >> recommendations. Those are just
[1:54:24] recommendations.
[1:54:24] >> No. Okay. And I'm the first to And I'm I
[1:54:27] know. I know. I'm just saying there's
[1:54:28] already changes being provided. So, I'm
[1:54:30] just saying they're asking for changes.
[1:54:31] These guys and just so you know, hey,
[1:54:33] I'm the only solo no vote on all of
[1:54:36] this. So, you're saying like everyone
[1:54:37] agrees. Everyone's been for it. No, no,
[1:54:39] I'm the only one who's been no on
[1:54:40] everything on this one, but not because
[1:54:42] I don't love it or firemen, but because
[1:54:44] of the cost. It's it's 5.8 right now.
[1:54:48] the the the fire went up, the police
[1:54:50] went up, our ILA agreement went up, and
[1:54:53] we're like looking at a massive like
[1:54:55] expense now with this and everything
[1:54:57] else, and then we've got water problems
[1:54:59] and streets to fix, and we've this has
[1:55:03] taken all the money. Anyways, um so
[1:55:06] let's see. This see this seems a little
[1:55:08] rushed for given that this is going to
[1:55:09] be a 50 to 100year decision uh for how
[1:55:12] long that building is there. I mean, the
[1:55:13] one on the corner is probably over a
[1:55:14] hundred. Um
[1:55:18] the planning commission made their
[1:55:20] decisions because they're in two sets of
[1:55:21] guidelines and we're literally a month
[1:55:23] away from a guideline that would
[1:55:25] basically satisfy everyone and give the
[1:55:28] residents an equal footing on what
[1:55:31] they're going to build their stuff with
[1:55:32] on the uh on the um main street.
[1:55:38] Uh I know my mind's in a different spot,
[1:55:40] but you were talking about style
[1:55:42] changes, bricks and stuff. I got torched
[1:55:44] for bringing up houses on the mountain
[1:55:46] to protect views that we couldn't touch
[1:55:48] style. I was told like the states
[1:55:51] against me, the federal government's so
[1:55:52] I don't I don't know how we're uh
[1:55:54] dictating style here, but we can't do it
[1:55:57] on a house that everyone sees on a
[1:55:59] mountain side, but
[1:56:00] >> it's your building.
[1:56:03] >> It's res and it's res.
[1:56:05] >> But aren't we dictating the style in all
[1:56:07] of our agreements for even the people on
[1:56:09] Main Street?
[1:56:10] >> No. Well, what what is the whole plan
[1:56:12] we're about to go over that says what
[1:56:13] they can use and how how the style looks
[1:56:15] in the corridor plan.
[1:56:16] >> So, for uh
[1:56:18] >> No, for residential, we have no say at
[1:56:21] all.
[1:56:22] >> A res a personal private property. If
[1:56:24] you are a homeowner on Main Street and
[1:56:26] you build a home, you don't go through
[1:56:27] the historic design guidelines.
[1:56:29] >> Only only commercial.
[1:56:30] >> It's only commercial.
[1:56:31] >> They can paint it purple with pink polka
[1:56:32] dots that we have no
[1:56:33] >> Only commercial on a mountain. Okay,
[1:56:35] I'll remember that. Okay, thank you.
[1:56:36] That's good. I didn't know that. Um
[1:56:39] let's see. So, I appreciate the
[1:56:40] councilwoman SMO's attention to detail
[1:56:43] on unifying and cohesion. I think you're
[1:56:45] going to get a better result. I think
[1:56:47] you you'll get a better result as an
[1:56:49] architect and as a creator of this
[1:56:52] timeless piece. There's only a few
[1:56:53] things that people create that are
[1:56:55] timeless. One is art, one is
[1:56:57] architecture. Those last forever and
[1:56:59] they never lose their value. Like a
[1:57:01] Disney movie made in the 1920s, someone
[1:57:03] still consumes it like Bambi tomorrow.
[1:57:05] Same will be your architecture. not the
[1:57:07] case with a lot of other things that
[1:57:09] people make as products. They time out.
[1:57:11] So, this big time, this is big timeless
[1:57:13] uh what you're doing here. So, I point
[1:57:15] of saying that is I know it's
[1:57:17] frustrating and I feel like we're time
[1:57:19] rushed, but I I think you're going to be
[1:57:21] happy if you make some decisions. You
[1:57:23] make sure you get it right.
[1:57:24] >> We paid an architect where this is his
[1:57:27] core competency to come up with
[1:57:29] something that was tasteful. In my mind,
[1:57:32] >> the fire station was very, very dated.
[1:57:35] very very reflective of the early 1990s
[1:57:38] and what it's doing and yes it's kind of
[1:57:41] we try to carry this scheme over but I
[1:57:44] feel like he's done a very good job of
[1:57:47] integrating what was existing working
[1:57:50] with the budget that we had and try to
[1:57:52] come up with something that's tasteful
[1:57:54] >> no matter what we make I mean you know
[1:57:56] the addition is what 30 years old it's
[1:57:59] not 50 um how long has the how long has
[1:58:03] the b how long have the bay has been
[1:58:05] there.
[1:58:06] >> It was all built at the same time
[1:58:07] >> was it? So all in the '9s so 96. So
[1:58:11] nothing.
[1:58:12] >> It was still here though. Before that.
[1:58:14] >> No, before that there was nothing.
[1:58:15] >> Well, yeah, there was. It was here. I
[1:58:16] used to see Otter Pops in it all the
[1:58:18] time. So before that it was right here
[1:58:20] and there was big doors right here. This
[1:58:21] building was changed. It moved a little
[1:58:23] bit.
[1:58:24] >> Okay. Yeah.
[1:58:25] >> We would catch the bus here.
[1:58:26] >> Yes. So it's not I I mean no matter how
[1:58:29] well we feel like we're going to be
[1:58:31] planning, I don't I'm not planning for
[1:58:33] 100 years ahead. I would hope that you
[1:58:35] know yeah I can't imagine you know we
[1:58:39] look at our fire station living quarters
[1:58:41] now and in the 30 years there's been so
[1:58:43] many changes to
[1:58:46] um OSHA rules and whatnot that what a
[1:58:49] fire station requires who knows what's
[1:58:50] going to happen in 100 years. Are we
[1:58:53] building something sound? Yes. And I
[1:58:55] feel like why did we hire an architect
[1:58:57] to do this if you wanted to just draw something
[1:59:01] out? I feel like he had a very
[1:59:04] unattainable I think, you know, he could
[1:59:06] have given us a hundred different
[1:59:08] um schematics of things that he thought
[1:59:10] would work great within our things if he
[1:59:12] didn't have the existing buildings to
[1:59:14] work with.
[1:59:15] >> And because that's there, that
[1:59:16] continuity is there. I mean, does this
[1:59:18] building have wood? No.
[1:59:20] >> There's, you know, bits and pieces of
[1:59:22] it.
[1:59:23] >> But what Christy pointed out is he's
[1:59:25] taken the pieces that were here and he
[1:59:28] still has incorporated historical
[1:59:29] elements into it. He's incorporated
[1:59:32] natural materials into it which are
[1:59:34] still in our new guidelines.
[1:59:38] >> And again to change the look so
[1:59:40] drastically, that was the first thing
[1:59:42] that we went over that we brought the
[1:59:44] renderings was the outside shell before
[1:59:47] we went into the inside at all. Why is
[1:59:50] it being brought up now?
[1:59:51] >> Well, I think when you see everything
[1:59:54] when you see every Well, we didn't
[1:59:56] approve approve approve and we never saw
[1:59:58] the final. And there's something about
[2:00:00] when you see the final.
[2:00:02] >> You did see the final.
[2:00:04] >> And you see
[2:00:07] >> he showed everything and you guys said,
[2:00:08] "Yeah, we want to take off the wood to
[2:00:10] save the money."
[2:00:12] >> Then again, to to what I said to council
[2:00:15] member Rumbler this morning, just it's
[2:00:18] part of the the process of looking at
[2:00:21] and considering
[2:00:23] um designing this historic town square.
[2:00:26] I mean, at the time we made these
[2:00:27] decisions too, we didn't have the full
[2:00:30] depth and breadth of Tom Holdman coming
[2:00:32] in and in creating this beautiful
[2:00:35] masterpiece that is going to be sitting
[2:00:37] in the heart of this square. And so when
[2:00:40] you consider that's a change and so our
[2:00:43] job as council members is to make sure
[2:00:45] that we understand the full scope of
[2:00:48] everything that's going on
[2:00:50] >> with these decisions that we make. So
[2:00:52] now that we know that and then we look
[2:00:55] at this and then we consider that we
[2:00:57] we're just saying today in this moment
[2:00:59] there's some adjustments from the design
[2:01:01] side that are going to help the co
[2:01:04] cohesiveness of this whole project fit
[2:01:07] better together and it doesn't take
[2:01:08] anything away from that's why you hire
[2:01:10] professionals. You hire professionals to
[2:01:12] get you to this point so that you can
[2:01:14] look at the whole scope and say oh we're
[2:01:17] so close let's just do these few things.
[2:01:20] A black roof doesn't work. We didn't
[2:01:22] know a black roof didn't work, but now
[2:01:24] we know it doesn't.
[2:01:27] >> Can I ask a question? What was the
[2:01:28] masterpiece you referenced? Is that the
[2:01:30] sculpture garden?
[2:01:31] >> It's this really incredible stained
[2:01:33] glass um
[2:01:35] >> gazebo.
[2:01:35] that will be featuring a
[2:01:38] worldrenowned artist stained glass.
[2:01:41] >> So,
[2:01:41] >> which has not yet been approved by
[2:01:43] planning commission, which needs to be
[2:01:45] because it's a material change in public
[2:01:47] property. just another reference. Yeah.
[2:01:50] >> Can I can I offer one word of caution or
[2:01:52] one thought comment?
[2:01:55] The
[2:01:56] I think from the points that Chrissy
[2:01:59] referenced and talked about, I think the
[2:02:02] guidelines has been met.
[2:02:05] One job that I have, another job I'm on
[2:02:08] an architectural review committee for
[2:02:10] plans to compare to guidelines.
[2:02:13] And if these guidelines are being used
[2:02:15] for other people, other commercial
[2:02:17] buildings, if the guidelines say you can
[2:02:20] have wood, brick or stucco, and then
[2:02:23] they come with review comments and say
[2:02:26] no wood, more brick, I would absolutely
[2:02:28] protest. So, I don't know if it's a
[2:02:31] discussion of whether it meets the
[2:02:32] guidelines. I think everyone would agree
[2:02:35] that it does meet the guidelines, but I
[2:02:38] think the the opinion of the planning
[2:02:40] commission respectfully is more of a
[2:02:43] personal opinion than a guideline
[2:02:48] uh requirement. But at this point, I go
[2:02:50] back to what I said how what I started
[2:02:52] with at the very beginning. This is your
[2:02:54] building. This is going to be a 50-year
[2:02:55] building. If you do want to make
[2:02:57] changes, now is the best time to do it.
[2:02:59] Can you can you give us just an estimate
[2:03:01] of how much longer it will take to
[2:03:03] implement
[2:03:04] >> depends on what it is.
[2:03:05] >> It will cost.
[2:03:07] >> Um changing the roof color very simple
[2:03:11] quick. Uh changing from the wood to a
[2:03:15] brick means that you have to change
[2:03:17] what's behind it to support it as well.
[2:03:19] That could also get into structural
[2:03:21] because the weight of it. So it all
[2:03:23] depends on the extent of it and what the
[2:03:25] material is. Can you
[2:03:27] >> have to don't you have to build a like
[2:03:29] to put brick? If we remove the the
[2:03:31] paneling above on the front of the
[2:03:32] building, put brick above the doors. You
[2:03:34] have to like have a ledge that comes out
[2:03:36] to put
[2:03:38] >> versus you can just wrap the building
[2:03:39] with wood. So it changes like he's
[2:03:42] saying the structure.
[2:03:43] >> Well, I don't think we put brick in the
[2:03:44] gable typically because of structural.
[2:03:46] You don't. You would just match the
[2:03:48] gable that's on the other side and you
[2:03:50] would just
[2:03:50] >> You're removing more of like this is the
[2:03:53] paneling is an upgrade from Stuckco and
[2:03:55] you just want to downgrade.
[2:03:56] >> We just want it to look like our
[2:03:58] historic town square.
[2:04:00] >> They're after cohesion. But wait, hold
[2:04:02] on. It's still my turn. I think to to
[2:04:04] your point though
[2:04:06] >> if we remove the paneling from the back
[2:04:08] that's where the the the more historic
[2:04:11] places meet because that's where the gu
[2:04:13] sculpt garden is is also where you see
[2:04:16] the back of our city. So, we've already
[2:04:18] removed that most modern element of the
[2:04:20] back, the wood paneling.
[2:04:22] >> Okay. Mayor, you retorted on the middle
[2:04:25] of questioning. I I I wasn't finished.
[2:04:27] You you But you gave great comments, but
[2:04:29] it was in the middle of questioning and
[2:04:30] then it swirled.
[2:04:32] >> So, I wasn't finished.
[2:04:33] >> I thought you just said that you weren't
[2:04:34] in favor of it because of the cost. Did
[2:04:37] you have more on top of that?
[2:04:38] >> Yeah, I was going to finalize.
[2:04:39] >> Okay, let's wrap it up.
[2:04:40] >> That would help. Thanks. Um would you
[2:04:44] let them know what changes you are
[2:04:48] asking for so we could get a timetable
[2:04:50] and a cost to see what that would be
[2:04:53] like that that because they were just
[2:04:55] giving examples that they weren't sure
[2:04:59] and then you you brought up a lot of
[2:05:00] things in uh basically I don't think
[2:05:03] their architect did a bad job that that
[2:05:06] was kind of what you were bringing up I
[2:05:07] think they made a very cool uh fire
[2:05:10] department building thing like it's
[2:05:13] beautiful but it's not alpine and it
[2:05:16] doesn't fit cohesively with the other
[2:05:18] buildings here. So it's not a criticism
[2:05:19] of them or their quality. It's just a
[2:05:22] direction and this happens all the time.
[2:05:24] Salt Lake Temple spires were wood.
[2:05:26] People came, his name was Don Carlos. He
[2:05:28] said let's make them granite. They
[2:05:29] changed it mid building. That's why we
[2:05:31] have granite today. So these things
[2:05:34] happen and they usually are at the
[2:05:36] difficulty of the person hearing it but
[2:05:38] at the betterment of the final result
[2:05:40] because we all have a vision. and we've
[2:05:41] imprinted in our mind this how it's
[2:05:42] supposed to be. Someone with a a a more
[2:05:45] wide openen lens comes and says, "I see
[2:05:47] a flaw that we've we've missed." We
[2:05:49] incorporate it. We realize, "Oh my gosh,
[2:05:51] it's a better result."
[2:05:54] >> Jessica was mentioning the gazebo that
[2:05:56] is going to be just right outside of
[2:05:58] here. If you look at the rear elevation
[2:06:00] of the fire station, it's already taken
[2:06:02] off. It's all stucco. What's the wording
[2:06:05] of it? It's not stucco. It's
[2:06:08] >> You can call stucco.
[2:06:09] >> Okay. It's already mostly stucco with
[2:06:11] some brick. How are you suggesting
[2:06:13] changing that?
[2:06:14] >> I think not black roof and not paper
[2:06:17] white. I think we need to have some
[2:06:19] warmth to the color of the building.
[2:06:21] >> Councilwoman Smith, that's the same
[2:06:22] color. Easy.
[2:06:25] >> Okay. So, it you matched that color. So,
[2:06:27] it's just this rendering. Okay. So,
[2:06:29] it'll stay that same.
[2:06:31] >> The intent is that all the existing
[2:06:32] elements that are remaining are going to
[2:06:34] stay the color tones that they currently
[2:06:35] are. We have removed the corner coins
[2:06:37] and the eyebrow features over the
[2:06:40] windows because it's a data look that we
[2:06:42] weren't trying to carry on. But you see
[2:06:44] that's
[2:06:44] >> but again like that's an opinion of
[2:06:47] again you're in the business of
[2:06:49] >> of architecting right and so a dated
[2:06:52] look to some may be a classical look to
[2:06:55] others right
[2:06:56] >> so
[2:06:57] >> may yeah absolutely so something I
[2:06:58] wanted to say which I think would sum it
[2:07:00] up in a great deal I keep saying we we
[2:07:03] reached where we are based off a series
[2:07:05] of discussions and conversations that we
[2:07:07] had both as this group as well as an
[2:07:10] offline project team as well as the
[2:07:11] group that sharets and looks through
[2:07:14] design in my own office. So, I know how
[2:07:16] we got here and I'm comfortable with how
[2:07:18] we got here. Now, that's fine because
[2:07:19] that's my opinion and the opinion of
[2:07:20] those that helped get here. If it's
[2:07:22] different, that's fine. It's a process
[2:07:24] that we can go through. That's part of
[2:07:26] design and we can do it. I don't know
[2:07:27] that we solve it in a conversation in
[2:07:29] this setting of this that or the other.
[2:07:33] So, in my opinion, and I could be wrong,
[2:07:35] it's simply a situation of do we proceed
[2:07:36] as is or do we need to go back and look
[2:07:39] at something different? And if it's the
[2:07:40] latter, it's probably something we do
[2:07:42] offline that's outside of this council
[2:07:44] meeting. So that decision I think is not
[2:07:47] on this side of the podium and that's
[2:07:48] respectfully just fine.
[2:07:50] >> Council member Haniman made a point that
[2:07:52] the shed roof on the community center
[2:07:54] side is, you know, there's a tradition
[2:07:58] or history to gabling. So is something
[2:08:00] like changing that flat roof and to a
[2:08:04] welcoming gable is that something that's
[2:08:06] possible without creating again any kind
[2:08:09] of setback when I'm looking at this from
[2:08:11] a timeline perspective. This shouldn't
[2:08:13] add weeks to the project. We should be
[2:08:15] able to stay on project. You said you're
[2:08:18] in for permitting and are we the
[2:08:20] perimeter?
[2:08:21] >> Yes.
[2:08:21] >> Okay. Well, so
[2:08:22] >> you're the perimeter but the reviewer,
[2:08:24] >> but I mean it's not the county or
[2:08:26] anything like that. We're the perimeter.
[2:08:27] Correct. Correct. And so these aren't
[2:08:30] things that are going to set us back.
[2:08:35] >> So are you
[2:08:36] >> it's not it's not a net sum zero. It's
[2:08:38] an it's an additive time.
[2:08:39] >> To what extent I can't say at this
[2:08:41] point.
[2:08:41] >> So if you came back and said we would
[2:08:43] have to engineer for brick where the
[2:08:46] wood cladding is, we just say then just
[2:08:49] stuckco it because engineering for where
[2:08:51] the cladding is, we would just not add
[2:08:54] that time. So those are things that you
[2:08:56] can
[2:08:57] >> that's a path. Yes.
[2:08:58] >> Yeah. Yeah.
[2:08:59] >> And then as far as the roof that is on
[2:09:01] the community center side, that's the
[2:09:03] existing roof.
[2:09:04] >> That's existing.
[2:09:05] >> So if you look at the new vestibule,
[2:09:08] >> I think she's talking about the
[2:09:08] vestibule. Is it possible to do a gable
[2:09:10] instead of a flat roof? And is that a
[2:09:13] huge change?
[2:09:14] >> I think they talked about that to make
[2:09:16] itive
[2:09:18] >> the newer elements sort of see how it it
[2:09:22] mirrors what's on the front of the
[2:09:23] building.
[2:09:25] >> I don't You're correct, Councilman. Uh,
[2:09:27] I remember them talking.
[2:09:28] >> As of right now, there's only two shed
[2:09:30] roofs locations on the entire building.
[2:09:32] One is over the day room kitchen area
[2:09:33] which is on the detail 4 just center of
[2:09:36] the page on the far left.
[2:09:38] >> Exact right a little further right
[2:09:40] there.
[2:09:42] >> And then the other one and then the one
[2:09:43] on the vestibule. So that was intended
[2:09:45] to create cohesion between existing and
[2:09:47] new. So it didn't look like a
[2:09:48] adaptation.
[2:09:50] But when you look from the bath from the city hall side, we don't see
[2:09:55] that shed roof. So from that
[2:09:57] perspective, which will be the most
[2:09:59] public used space, that shed roof looks
[2:10:03] um out of place because it doesn't
[2:10:05] relate to anything else in the space.
[2:10:08] What does relate are gables. And so
[2:10:10] maybe considering that um you know, the fire station shed roof kind of
[2:10:16] stands alone. It's over the kitchen. it
[2:10:19] serves as a gathering place for them.
[2:10:21] Um, but I think that was a one big
[2:10:24] feature.
[2:10:25] >> The front of the building, you can see
[2:10:26] both though.
[2:10:27] >> But again, mostly public spends time in
[2:10:30] the park, spends time, you know, out
[2:10:34] here and that's what they're seeing.
[2:10:36] >> Just a trade-off, I guess.
[2:10:38] >> Jessica, would you be willing to say the
[2:10:39] list that you said to me about them? I
[2:10:42] remember the windows, the roof color,
[2:10:44] the stucco. Was there any the brick? Was
[2:10:46] there anything else? because this will
[2:10:48] give them a better idea at what they're
[2:10:50] looking at, how big of a thing this is.
[2:10:52] I mean, they already solved one of them
[2:10:53] just with the paint color. Would you
[2:10:55] just be willing to put it out there so
[2:10:57] we know what it is?
[2:10:57] >> Well, and I think I would lean to um
[2:11:00] Council Member Blackwell's input.
[2:11:03] >> She would like to see
[2:11:04] >> the keystones and the eyebrow um
[2:11:08] accents.
[2:11:09] >> I personally like those. I know that for
[2:11:11] some that's dated, but to me it's
[2:11:13] historic and it ties it to this
[2:11:14] building. So, I loved keeping those. I
[2:11:17] would love the stucco instead of the
[2:11:18] wood. I'd love the roof color changed to
[2:11:20] a brown that matches this one. Um I'd
[2:11:23] love a gable. I think a gable over the
[2:11:26] vestibule would look better. Um I think
[2:11:30] the windows, correct me if I'm wrong,
[2:11:32] were they going to be the black? I think
[2:11:35] white
[2:11:37] >> that has remained are going to remain
[2:11:38] and they're they're currently vinyl. The
[2:11:40] new windows just for energy efficiency
[2:11:42] are storefront system. So, it's clear
[2:11:43] anodized silver at the new at the new
[2:11:46] edition.
[2:11:48] >> Those can come in a variety of different
[2:11:49] finishes.
[2:11:50] >> Yeah. So, she's seeing the white on this
[2:11:52] building and all the ones around as
[2:11:53] white. And that's what they told me. And
[2:11:54] I was like, you're right. They are all
[2:11:56] white.
[2:11:56] >> Yes.
[2:11:57] >> Uh, so planning commission is saying
[2:11:59] black. You're saying white.
[2:12:00] >> Well, he's saying it actually is
[2:12:02] commercial grade.
[2:12:04] >> And it's the metals. So, they almost
[2:12:05] become invisible.
[2:12:07] >> Your eye isn't going to go to that
[2:12:09] feature. It's not.
[2:12:10] >> But it's also the doors and the roof. So
[2:12:12] they kind of go together. Just
[2:12:14] >> I'm writing these down so we can send
[2:12:15] them.
[2:12:16] >> I think it's four things. It's four or
[2:12:17] five things.
[2:12:18] >> And then I think just some of the
[2:12:19] features above the windows like we have
[2:12:21] here, the keystone designs
[2:12:24] just to tie it together. Those are my
[2:12:26] thoughts.
[2:12:27] >> But you want to match a building built a
[2:12:30] hundred years ago even though it's
[2:12:32] >> that's in our historic area. That's where I'm coming
[2:12:35] >> rather than blend like this. The
[2:12:36] description here is it's a blend of
[2:12:38] existing and new architectural forms. So
[2:12:41] that we're we're move
[2:12:42] >> we're forward looking.
[2:12:46] » I don't Yeah. You know, I just when we
[2:12:49] were down at
[2:12:51] the side of the building is forward
[2:12:52] looking and this is very historic.
[2:12:54] >> When I went down to ULCT, I went on the
[2:12:56] tour of um their new city hall in St.
[2:13:00] George and they said, you know, um,
[2:13:04] and it was built in their historic town
[2:13:07] center and they said, but we wanted it
[2:13:10] to be, they went a completely different
[2:13:12] way. We wanted it to be representative
[2:13:15] of when it was built. And so it's a very
[2:13:17] modern building
[2:13:19] >> and I know that because we have such
[2:13:22] strong ties to our history that we have
[2:13:25] kept a lot of those elements and then
[2:13:28] incorporated some of the newer things
[2:13:30] that are modern to the time that we're
[2:13:32] building it. And I feel like that what
[2:13:36] we're seeing now is a good um
[2:13:40] combination amalgamation of both of it.
[2:13:42] both an homage to the history and the
[2:13:44] historic building that was here that was
[2:13:46] built 30 years ago and then also looking
[2:13:49] forward to the modern designs. But I
[2:13:52] mean, you know, there were and you guys
[2:13:54] saw the elevations. There were a couple
[2:13:55] that he did that were very very modern
[2:13:58] and we did we reigned it in. He redid it
[2:14:01] and kind of um with the restraints that
[2:14:04] he had did both. And again, it's they
[2:14:08] did what they were asked to do, which is
[2:14:10] to combine those elements. And I feel
[2:14:12] like they did a very good job of it.
[2:14:14] >> They did do a very good job. They were
[2:14:16] just looking for something else.
[2:14:18] >> They did.
[2:14:18] >> It's a nice architectural thing, right?
[2:14:21] >> Yeah. You didn't do a bad job. No one
[2:14:24] thinks you did a bad job.
[2:14:25] >> Yeah. I think to point out that this
[2:14:27] building, this is the historic part, but
[2:14:30] the entrance doesn't feel this. It's But
[2:14:33] it's a good cohesive feeling. like I
[2:14:35] don't feel like there is an add-on back
[2:14:37] there. So, it's to me we're following
[2:14:40] the same whoever designed the the
[2:14:43] addition to this building was following
[2:14:45] the same principles as I see being
[2:14:46] applied to this building.
[2:14:48] >> So, are we making a motion tonight on
[2:14:50] this?
[2:14:50] >> Yes, this is an action item.
[2:14:52] >> Kaden, can you put it can you put it
[2:14:55] forward you think
[2:14:56] >> Jessica suggested group? I am just
[2:14:59] discussing potentials. Are you okay?
[2:15:01] >> So, I can make a motion.
[2:15:03] >> Okay. I move to recommend approval of
[2:15:05] the construction of the Alpine Fire
[2:15:07] Station addition remodel
[2:15:13] based on the following conditions.
[2:15:19] The
[2:15:20] vestibule
[2:15:22] into the community center becomes
[2:15:24] gabled.
[2:15:27] the
[2:15:30] um wood cladding
[2:15:34] is removed.
[2:15:36] >> And
[2:15:38] we can discuss my motion.
[2:15:40] >> I know, but I just want you to clarify
[2:15:42] in the motion.
[2:15:43] >> All of it
[2:15:44] >> is removed.
[2:15:46] The brick replaces
[2:15:49] the cladding on the bumpout for the fire
[2:15:52] station
[2:15:53] and brick and then continues and extends
[2:15:57] to the patio along the kitchen.
[2:16:01] And then um
[2:16:04] the roof stays as close to the color as
[2:16:07] it currently is.
[2:16:10] and
[2:16:13] further discussion and
[2:16:18] a design or a a a design plan is shown
[2:16:22] adding the keystones and the accents
[2:16:26] over the windows to be determined to be
[2:16:29] included or not.
[2:16:32] >> Can I make an amendment to your motion
[2:16:34] by adding
[2:16:35] >> We need a second and then we'll
[2:16:38] >> I'll second that.
[2:16:41] What's the amendment?
[2:16:42] >> Would you be willing to add white on the
[2:16:45] doors or the trim because you didn't
[2:16:47] specify that? And somewhere in there the
[2:16:49] word cohesion because I think that's
[2:16:51] what
[2:16:52] >> Are you saying white doors or what are
[2:16:53] you saying adding white?
[2:16:54] >> The doors are going to be that
[2:16:56] stainless, but I would say white fascia
[2:16:59] >> because I do remember that they said
[2:17:01] black fascia.
[2:17:02] >> What you all told me was matching and
[2:17:04] cohesion. I didn't hear the word
[2:17:05] cohesion there. So, would you be willing
[2:17:06] to add the phrase somewhere in there
[2:17:09] cohesive to the surrounding city
[2:17:11] buildings and then uh if you want adding
[2:17:16] the windows to be
[2:17:16] >> so I would amend that motion to include
[2:17:18] the fascia to become white and not to
[2:17:22] exceed
[2:17:24] um
[2:17:26] any of the line item budgets that have
[2:17:29] been shown like it won't go higher than
[2:17:33] >> okay. So, is that possible? So, we were
[2:17:36] shown
[2:17:38] >> an allowance basically. So, $65 a foot
[2:17:41] for cladding is $22. So, these these
[2:17:46] design changes won't exceed the numbers
[2:17:52] we were shown today.
[2:17:53] >> Okay.
[2:17:54] >> Is that possible?
[2:17:56] >> Wouldn't it be better if we table it?
[2:17:57] They brought back a design to slow it
[2:18:00] down. Then when are we going to see it
[2:18:02] again to see if your vision is what
[2:18:04] comes out? Because I'm not willing to
[2:18:05] vote on something I can't see.
[2:18:08] >> Two other council members that are
[2:18:10] interested in it being more cohesive
[2:18:12] with our historic town square. So it's
[2:18:14] not
[2:18:15] >> But you don't want to see it again.
[2:18:17] >> We'll see it again because it's
[2:18:18] conditioned on those things, but I don't
[2:18:20] want to slow down the process or stop
[2:18:22] what they're doing from a permitting
[2:18:24] standpoint. you can make um those kinds
[2:18:28] of exterior changes all the time during
[2:18:31] construction. Just like Andrew said,
[2:18:33] part of the process is sometimes this
[2:18:36] and it's a little messy, but at the end
[2:18:39] you get the product that works for our
[2:18:41] campus,
[2:18:42] >> but we'll be out of compliance because
[2:18:44] the exterior needs to be approved by the
[2:18:45] planning commission and us. And if you
[2:18:47] change the exterior materially, we start
[2:18:50] the process over.
[2:18:51] >> We're actually true. No, we're changing
[2:18:53] this to meet their um recommendations.
[2:18:58] They said add more brick and take away
[2:18:59] the wood.
[2:19:00] >> Mr. Doxy, if we add these changes into
[2:19:02] this motion, does this have to start the
[2:19:04] process all over again and return to the
[2:19:07] planning commission?
[2:19:09] >> Um, that's a good question. I don't know
[2:19:12] if it's a material change. You certainly
[2:19:14] have the op you have the authority to
[2:19:18] either accept their recommendation in
[2:19:20] full to reject it, send it back or you
[2:19:25] can make some modifications to it
[2:19:27] >> in that
[2:19:30] if it's not changing compliance with I
[2:19:34] mean their their task was to verify
[2:19:37] compliance with the design guidelines
[2:19:39] that currently exist.
[2:19:41] Uh Jessica, in discussing your motion,
[2:19:43] is it that bad for a week or two more to
[2:19:48] send this back, let them look at it,
[2:19:49] relook at it, to what Chrissy is saying,
[2:19:51] make sure your vision, what you're
[2:19:52] putting forward is okay. Are we are we
[2:19:54] going to miss out on anything?
[2:19:56] >> Because that's how simple these changes
[2:19:58] are.
[2:19:58] >> Oh, okay. All right.
[2:20:00] >> It's changing a wooden spire to a
[2:20:02] granite spire.
[2:20:03] >> Did you want to say anything? I I'm not
[2:20:05] trying to
[2:20:06] >> just in the sense of if we want to
[2:20:08] proceed with any changes regardless of
[2:20:10] what they do or don't affect and the
[2:20:12] extent of them the only way to do so
[2:20:14] without not impacting any change to
[2:20:16] permitting bidding groundbreaking etc
[2:20:19] would be to proceed as is knowing that
[2:20:21] we' making these change post bid and
[2:20:24] then we'd be subject to change orders of
[2:20:26] the GMP which is completely in the realm
[2:20:29] of normaly
[2:20:30] >> the disadvantage I would caution is that
[2:20:33] you are now exiting ing a competitive
[2:20:35] market, meaning you're you're soliciting
[2:20:38] bids for multiple subcontractors to get
[2:20:40] the best competitive bid. Once someone
[2:20:42] has won that job and they're submitting
[2:20:43] a change, whether deductive or additive,
[2:20:46] they no more have a competitive edge to
[2:20:48] give you a good price so they can
[2:20:50] >> Can you just step me through that
[2:20:51] process? Because I often do this and and
[2:20:54] when I'm in permitting, I actually go
[2:20:56] back out to bid for my changes so
[2:20:58] they're not considered change orders. Is
[2:21:01] that a different process in this county?
[2:21:03] And why if I have a masonry that's
[2:21:06] bidding this many square feet to to lay
[2:21:09] the brick if I'm just adding a little
[2:21:11] bit more and we're taking away the
[2:21:13] cladding um vendor. So how is that again
[2:21:17] something that's out of normal?
[2:21:20] >> So like say it's not out of normal.
[2:21:22] Okay.
[2:21:22] >> I'm just making sure you understand the
[2:21:23] consequences of of timing and and make
[2:21:26] no mistake there's a difference between
[2:21:27] the permitting process and the bidding
[2:21:30] process. They're two separate. If if you
[2:21:33] if you'll if you'll grant me one more
[2:21:35] second.
[2:21:35] >> Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt.
[2:21:37] >> Um the permitting is simply just to get
[2:21:39] a permit of construction so we can start
[2:21:41] building.
[2:21:43] The bidding, however, is a there's a a
[2:21:45] date defined by the contractor
[2:21:47] currently. It's May 28th of when the
[2:21:49] bidding will be closed.
[2:21:51] >> At that point, the GMP, which is the
[2:21:52] guarantee maximum price, will be
[2:21:53] established and presented for approval.
[2:21:55] Now under a scenario of nothing changes
[2:22:00] and we proceed and we get said GMP and
[2:22:03] the subcontractor who is awarded say the
[2:22:04] masonry contractor
[2:22:06] >> comes and said these are my total
[2:22:08] dollars. Okay, now we'd like to have a
[2:22:10] change which reduces the square footage
[2:22:12] of masonry. So therefore we're expecting
[2:22:14] a credit that contractor will not have
[2:22:17] any motivation to give as much as he bid
[2:22:20] for it. He could get back significantly
[2:22:21] less because he's already been awarded
[2:22:23] the contract. It's not a fact, but it's
[2:22:25] an instance we see continually. So, the
[2:22:28] biggest
[2:22:29] gain of your dollar is to make changes
[2:22:33] pre- bid. And to what? And to add to
[2:22:36] that,
[2:22:39] May 12th, bids are due May 28th. If they
[2:22:42] take a week to make these changes, comes
[2:22:45] back to the city council for review.
[2:22:48] I don't know if that needs to be in the
[2:22:50] next public meeting or u the timing of
[2:22:53] that making the changes come back for
[2:22:55] review going back to make changes again
[2:22:57] without pushing that May 28th day the
[2:23:00] only way to do it is to do it as change
[2:23:03] order number one
[2:23:05] >> my comment was uh and this is not just
[2:23:08] you guys it's several developers are
[2:23:10] doing this where they are I mean we're
[2:23:13] looking at approving something but we're
[2:23:15] being told you're already getting bids
[2:23:16] and the the time is already done. Seems
[2:23:18] like that should happen after the
[2:23:20] approval. But this is not just you guys.
[2:23:22] We have other developers selling lots
[2:23:24] that aren't even legal uh for other
[2:23:26] structures and they haven't even gotten
[2:23:28] approval first and they're already
[2:23:30] selling them. And uh I just I just think
[2:23:33] we were putting for the cart before the
[2:23:34] horse and then we we are stuck in this
[2:23:36] trap of we don't want to slow down the
[2:23:39] process or we don't want to hurt your
[2:23:40] bids, but it's out of order. It's
[2:23:43] literally out of order,
[2:23:44] >> you know, and that's where I started
[2:23:45] with at the very beginning. Now is the
[2:23:48] time to make changes if you're still
[2:23:49] going to make changes.
[2:23:50] >> But I know but we are but you're telling
[2:23:52] us that now we're on the current and
[2:23:54] these weird constraints. They are
[2:23:56] backwards
[2:23:57] >> on the current schedule.
[2:23:58] >> I would appreciate if developers and
[2:24:00] people would wait for approval because
[2:24:02] that's what we're doing. We're looking
[2:24:03] at the design and being asked if we
[2:24:04] approve this design. We're saying we
[2:24:05] want changes and we're being told by
[2:24:07] everyone we can't ask for changes
[2:24:09] >> like what said no we're just saying
[2:24:12] there's consequences to why is there
[2:24:14] consequences?
[2:24:15] So, so I think in this scenario, all
[2:24:17] we're talking about is there's going to
[2:24:19] be a change order from a mason.
[2:24:22] >> That's what we're talking about. So, are
[2:24:23] we willing to move
[2:24:25] >> a mason before we've approved how much
[2:24:27] stucco? That is backwards.
[2:24:29] >> If you think about the process, we it
[2:24:32] felt like we've already been through
[2:24:34] that process because we we had three or
[2:24:37] four or five different architectural
[2:24:38] reviews that came back. Council said,
[2:24:41] "We want it to look different. We want
[2:24:43] more historic. They came back with
[2:24:45] gables. That felt like it was accepted.
[2:24:48] >> Same with building materials and all
[2:24:50] those things.
[2:24:51] So,
[2:24:52] >> understand
[2:24:53] >> I don't feel like we've gotten the cart
[2:24:55] before the horse. We felt like we
[2:24:57] already had approval.
[2:24:59] >> We brought it to city council for votes
[2:25:01] specifically for that reason when in
[2:25:05] many cities they wouldn't take that
[2:25:07] step. We did that because we wanted to
[2:25:10] make sure you were fully involved and on
[2:25:13] board with what was happening.
[2:25:14] >> And Andrew, that's what I don't want to
[2:25:16] slow down. And so we can move forward.
[2:25:20] They can move forward. We'll have a
[2:25:22] change order on brick if council decides
[2:25:24] to go that direction, but it won't cost
[2:25:27] more than taking off the cladding at $65
[2:25:30] a square foot. So, we're still going to
[2:25:33] come in under those numbers.
[2:25:39] So, okay. I think we're still in your
[2:25:41] motion.
[2:25:42] >> Yeah. The other thing I forgot to add on
[2:25:44] the motion was what um planning
[2:25:47] commission said which was
[2:25:49] >> um the final Yeah. four and five. It was
[2:25:54] >> so another amendment
[2:25:56] >> just yeah an amendment to include the
[2:25:58] recommendation from planning commission
[2:26:00] which was
[2:26:02] um landscape landscape plan to be
[2:26:05] provided before landscape is installed
[2:26:08] exception to the setbacks for parking
[2:26:10] based on the four criteria
[2:26:14] >> in the ordinance.
[2:26:19] Okay, we have a motion and a second.
[2:26:22] >> Did he
[2:26:24] s okay with that second amendment
[2:26:26] >> amendment?
[2:26:28] >> Yes.
[2:26:30] So, um Dan, can you read back the motion
[2:26:33] for us, please?
[2:26:37] » Not really. Um
[2:26:40] because it went all over, but I'll give
[2:26:42] you what I have. Jessica moved to
[2:26:44] recommend approval of the fire station
[2:26:46] addition remodel based on the following
[2:26:47] conditions. The vestibial into the
[2:26:50] community center is gabled. All wood
[2:26:53] cladding is removed. Brick replaces the
[2:26:56] cladding on the bumpout for the fire
[2:26:57] station and then something about it
[2:27:00] continues and extends to the patio along
[2:27:02] the kitchen. The roof stays as close to
[2:27:05] the current at the color current color
[2:27:07] as possible. Um, further discussion and
[2:27:11] design plan is shown adding keystones
[2:27:13] and accents over the windows. So, I
[2:27:16] think she meant the council can
[2:27:17] determine whether to include it or not.
[2:27:20] The fascia will be white. Um, it won't
[2:27:23] exceed any of the line item budgets that
[2:27:25] have been previously
[2:27:27] shown. Is that on this short list
[2:27:30] tonight with the materials?
[2:27:32] >> Not to exceed the materials.
[2:27:35] >> Brick will go up, won't it? because
[2:27:37] you're increasing
[2:27:37] >> but the total cost
[2:27:38] >> and then including the recommendations
[2:27:40] from the planning commission that the
[2:27:42] landscape plan be provided before
[2:27:45] something something which I will fill in
[2:27:47] later. That's right.
[2:27:49] Um and the exceptions to the setbacks
[2:27:52] for the parking based on the criteria in
[2:27:55] the ordinance
[2:27:56] and anyway that's what I have. I will
[2:27:59] listen to it repeatedly but
[2:28:01] >> Jan and Jessica did the cohesive to the
[2:28:03] other building. You didn't say anything
[2:28:05] about cohesive.
[2:28:06] >> Want that or no? I I was
[2:28:08] >> Well, Dave Babcock has confirmed that
[2:28:11] the color is to stay the color.
[2:28:14] >> So, that was part of the cohesiveness
[2:28:16] was just coloring.
[2:28:18] >> So,
[2:28:18] >> can I ask one clarifying? When you say
[2:28:20] fascia, are you intending the window and
[2:28:23] the door trim frame?
[2:28:25] >> I was thinking of what goes underneath
[2:28:26] the eaves of the
[2:28:28] >> Okay. The sophet.
[2:28:28] >> The sophet. Okay. And then so the sophet
[2:28:30] and the fascia. The planning commission
[2:28:33] had mentioned something about the fascia
[2:28:34] being black and we weren't sure like
[2:28:37] what that was. So I guess just an easier
[2:28:40] way to say it is remove all black.
[2:28:43] >> The planning commission referenced the
[2:28:46] door and window frames, not the sophet.
[2:28:51] » So what are those? What colors are those
[2:28:54] going to be?
[2:28:56] >> They wanted dark aluminum, but but
[2:28:58] that's not what's existing.
[2:29:02] White is existing.
[2:29:06] » So, they were going to be
[2:29:08] >> Yeah.
[2:29:08] >> And white is more of a historical,
[2:29:11] >> right? That's why I asked if you wanted
[2:29:12] to put cohesion and windows in there
[2:29:14] from what you were explaining. It's up
[2:29:17] to you. I I don't really have a strong
[2:29:19] >> I think those design elements create the
[2:29:21] cohesion and the windows have to be
[2:29:23] commercial grade aluminum framed and so
[2:29:26] we're not choosing window colors.
[2:29:29] Correct. If I understand that right, the
[2:29:31] window colors come as the aluminum
[2:29:34] commercial grade.
[2:29:35] >> I'm not talking about the actual windows
[2:29:37] >> made in many different colors. That's
[2:29:38] the most
[2:29:39] >> I'm talking about the frame around the
[2:29:40] windows. That's where it's black
[2:29:43] >> grayish
[2:29:46] >> and windows. Okay. So, amend the motion
[2:29:49] window framing to be white to have
[2:29:52] cohesiveness to Alpine City Hall.
[2:29:58] And then does this the fascia still
[2:30:01] apply the soften the fascia since that
[2:30:03] wasn't a recommendation of the planning
[2:30:04] commission. Does that still stay in it
[2:30:07] >> to be black?
[2:30:08] >> No.
[2:30:10] >> Recommended that.
[2:30:11] >> They never recommended anything to this
[2:30:13] fascia.
[2:30:13] >> Okay.
[2:30:14] >> I think maybe we saw a sample in the
[2:30:16] back of a black metal.
[2:30:17] >> He's just asking if you want windows and
[2:30:19] fascia to be white.
[2:30:21] >> Yeah. All of that to be white.
[2:30:25] >> Jessica, I'll send you the motion
[2:30:26] tomorrow for you to look over. I think
[2:30:28] there's a lot here that's actually
[2:30:31] fascia.
[2:30:32] >> Many people watching this might feel
[2:30:33] like
[2:30:34] >> we're gonna end up with a very vanilla
[2:30:35] building in the guys
[2:30:38] to how this has morphed into
[2:30:42] you.
[2:30:42] >> I just feel like we have taken all the
[2:30:44] character out of this building and it's
[2:30:47] going to be very vanilla and it's really
[2:30:49] disappointing after going through all
[2:30:50] this process that you want something
[2:30:53] that is just gonna
[2:30:57] We're spending a lot of money on this
[2:30:59] building. I would like for it to
[2:31:02] stand out in a way that the people in
[2:31:05] our city would take pride in it. I feel
[2:31:08] like we're spending a lot of money on
[2:31:10] just a bl from what you guys have done.
[2:31:13] I don't can't even come up with a better
[2:31:14] word. I'm really frustrated.
[2:31:16] >> Well, cohesive.
[2:31:17] >> It's not going to be cohesive.
[2:31:19] >> It is following what I'm not trying to
[2:31:21] argue
[2:31:21] >> what we have now is cohesive.
[2:31:23] I agree. You're saying that it's more
[2:31:25] cohesive, but I'm saying in the process
[2:31:27] of doing that, we are spending a lot of
[2:31:30] money on a building that is just going
[2:31:31] to look mediocre.
[2:31:32] >> But the great thing about this process
[2:31:34] is we're all going to get to sit here
[2:31:36] again in two weeks and look at it. And
[2:31:38] if we all go blleh,
[2:31:40] >> we're going to say, "Guess what? We're
[2:31:42] choosing a red sucker now and we're
[2:31:43] going to just go back." I mean, so
[2:31:45] >> I thought we were not going back and
[2:31:46] talking,
[2:31:48] Jessica. I actually don't believe you
[2:31:50] can have that happen if you don't. the
[2:31:52] way we're structuring this. Correct me
[2:31:53] if I'm wrong. I don't think
[2:31:54] >> they're going to move forward.
[2:31:55] >> I think they're moving forward.
[2:31:56] >> I can't approve that. I can't approve
[2:31:57] something I can't see.
[2:31:59] >> That's I don't think a twoe thing is the
[2:32:01] end of the world to to
[2:32:02] >> It's going to stand for 50 years. I'd
[2:32:04] like to see it again.
[2:32:05] >> It would be all but I don't agree with
[2:32:07] anything you've done.
[2:32:08] >> Can we do one at a time, please?
[2:32:09] >> Sorry. Sorry. I'm trying to think about
[2:32:12] how you can create a motion to continue
[2:32:14] the project moving forward just like
[2:32:16] we're doing it with the landscaping to
[2:32:18] say we're going to approve the final
[2:32:21] planting plan so we actually can do that
[2:32:23] and to say that we can't is is not
[2:32:26] inaccurate. We can bring it forward. We
[2:32:28] can continue to move the project
[2:32:30] forward. We may have to do a change
[2:32:31] order on the brick. That's going to be
[2:32:33] okay. We're all going to be okay. And
[2:32:36] then we give final approval. And if we
[2:32:38] see it all here and it's vanilla and we
[2:32:40] all go blah, you're going to push a
[2:32:43] button and it's going to revert back to
[2:32:45] this plan and we're going to be right
[2:32:46] where we were. We have a cost estimate.
[2:32:49] What? Because your
[2:32:51] >> I know your job pretty much is done and
[2:32:54] you've submitted the finals. Is this
[2:32:56] going to be an additional cost for the
[2:32:59] design mockup?
[2:33:00] >> That
[2:33:03] I'm with the a little bit. uh the the
[2:33:05] exact direction and list of things is a
[2:33:08] little bit chaotic right now. No, I'm I'm with you. Um so depending on the
[2:33:13] severity potentially there's a change.
[2:33:16] Um
[2:33:18] your point Jessica about the landscape
[2:33:21] being a similar you're 100% correct and
[2:33:23] that's a great example. The difference
[2:33:24] being is that the landscape is not being
[2:33:26] bid right now because there's not a
[2:33:27] design or a plan to bid from.
[2:33:30] So in my mind it's very simple. you we
[2:33:33] proceed the way to go forward with
[2:33:35] making changes and not affect
[2:33:37] construction schedule or permitting
[2:33:38] schedule is to do it as a change order
[2:33:40] and you're exposing yourself to the
[2:33:42] risks I explained earlier or we table it
[2:33:46] however you want to call it as a motion
[2:33:47] what have you and we revisit this to get
[2:33:50] approval and delay the bid date which is
[2:33:53] also an option.
[2:33:55] I appreciate that. But just knowing our
[2:33:57] process and how our city runs, the best
[2:34:00] thing to do is move forward on motions
[2:34:02] with goals in mind and then bring it
[2:34:04] back for final review and final approval
[2:34:07] in two weeks.
[2:34:08] >> I would entertain a substitute motion to
[2:34:10] table this until we get a rendering of
[2:34:12] the proposed changes
[2:34:15] on the motion that's on the table.
[2:34:17] >> No, you can make a substitute motion.
[2:34:18] >> Make a substitute. You can have up to
[2:34:20] two motions at a time. You can't have a
[2:34:22] third before you have to vote on.
[2:34:24] >> I'd like to make a substitute motion to
[2:34:26] table this. And when you make a motion
[2:34:28] to table, there's no discussion for two
[2:34:31] weeks so that we can see with the list
[2:34:34] that's been discussed but not visible
[2:34:36] and uh at that point make a final
[2:34:40] decision so you can move forward.
[2:34:42] >> Is there a second on the substitute
[2:34:43] motion?
[2:34:44] >> The table.
[2:34:44] >> I'll second.
[2:34:46] >> Okay, we have a motion to table so we
[2:34:48] have to proceed and vote on that. No
[2:34:50] discussion.
[2:34:51] >> No discussion on tableabling.
[2:34:53] >> Rumble. Yes.
[2:34:54] >> Jessica, no.
[2:34:57] >> Sarah Blackwell. Yes. Chrissy Hanaman.
[2:35:00] Yes.
[2:35:01] >> Can I discuss this before I vote or
[2:35:03] >> No discussion?
[2:35:04] >> Nope.
[2:35:06] >> Can I have it repeated so I understand
[2:35:08] it fully? Is it just a two week
[2:35:11] >> motion is to table for two weeks till
[2:35:13] our next meeting with hopefully we will
[2:35:15] be able to get a rendering of the
[2:35:17] suggested changes back. So, at that
[2:35:19] point, we will vote on it.
[2:35:21] >> So, we can actually see what we're
[2:35:22] voting on. I I agree with
[2:35:23] >> Andrew Young. Yes.
[2:35:25] >> Okay.
[2:35:25] >> May I discuss?
[2:35:27] >> Motion passes. Nope. It's done. We're
[2:35:29] moving on.
[2:35:29] >> Okay.
[2:35:30] Thank you very much, gentlemen.
[2:35:35] » Okay. Resolution R 20
[2:35:39] 26-20,
[2:35:41] our tenative budget.
[2:35:45] » Okay. So
[2:35:49] this is our first regular meeting in
[2:35:51] May, which means that tonight is the
[2:35:54] night uh at least by this time. This one
[2:35:58] can't be table things. I'm not sure what
[2:36:00] the implications are. Um that the
[2:36:03] tenative budget needs to be accepted by
[2:36:06] the council. That doesn't mean that it's
[2:36:07] the final budget. It's the tenative
[2:36:09] budget. Um we have several weeks between
[2:36:12] now and our second meeting in June which
[2:36:15] is when the final budget will be on the
[2:36:17] agenda um for adoption.
[2:36:21] Um so
[2:36:24] you have the
[2:36:26] I can't type my password and talk at the
[2:36:29] same time and I knew my computer open.
[2:36:30] Sorry. Um you have the tenative budget
[2:36:34] in front of you. Um a public hearing is
[2:36:37] not required on the tenative budget.
[2:36:40] Some cities do it. Traditionally we have
[2:36:42] not. Um final budget does require a
[2:36:46] public hearing. That would be on that um
[2:36:49] typically that second meeting in June.
[2:36:52] So um just going through a few of the things in this budget.
[2:37:00] Um,
[2:37:02] you know, we show some modest increases
[2:37:05] in revenue for property tax, uh, even
[2:37:09] for sales tax based on the last couple
[2:37:11] years. We've held that flat, but
[2:37:13] increase it just a little bit in this
[2:37:14] budget. Uh, park tax would follow that.
[2:37:19] Um we do have included in this budget um
[2:37:24] as a number kind of a placeholder at
[2:37:26] this point a 5% increase um for
[2:37:29] salaries. Uh we are doing having an
[2:37:32] outside wage study done that should be
[2:37:35] done later this month um where we'll
[2:37:37] provide additional information to the
[2:37:39] council.
[2:37:41] um increase in uh insurance uh medical
[2:37:46] is 7.7%
[2:37:48] dental at 3.9.
[2:37:51] Uh this budget does propose an
[2:37:53] additional staff member uh which I
[2:37:56] discussed a little bit two weeks ago. Um
[2:37:59] the proposal is for hiring an entrylevel
[2:38:03] uh planner that could take care of some
[2:38:05] of the more uh menial um planning and
[2:38:08] zoning tasks. um that would free up our
[2:38:12] uh assistant city administrator to help
[2:38:15] with other things and and learn roles
[2:38:18] and and different things.
[2:38:19] >> Also, the policy writing too is that
[2:38:20] >> Yes. Yep. That would be
[2:38:22] >> that's writing new ordinances.
[2:38:24] >> Yes.
[2:38:25] >> Which we need.
[2:38:25] >> Thank you.
[2:38:27] >> Um
[2:38:29] also in here uh we have
[2:38:33] a 14.4% 4% increase uh in public safety
[2:38:37] which has a little asterisk by it
[2:38:39] because this year we that's the expense
[2:38:43] but there's a credit back of just over
[2:38:46] 140,000 that we'll get back from the
[2:38:48] district from fund balance. So that
[2:38:51] increase will be offset this year. Next
[2:38:54] year the full amount would kick in plus
[2:38:56] any additional increases experienced in
[2:38:59] that budget year.
[2:39:02] uh solid waste. Uh we're seeing a 2.7%
[2:39:05] increase.
[2:39:07] As far as projects to highlight some of
[2:39:09] the more major projects, um we take
[2:39:13] maybe the next 30 minutes and talk about
[2:39:15] the fire station.
[2:39:17] No, it's one of the major projects, but
[2:39:19] we won't we'll take 30 seconds. Um
[2:39:23] uh we propose
[2:39:25] we we have currently in this budget year
[2:39:28] uh $3 million budgeted.
[2:39:31] um because we'll just hopefully just
[2:39:34] barely start construction in this budget
[2:39:36] year, that money would carry over plus
[2:39:38] an additional um 500,000 proposed from
[2:39:42] the general fund.
[2:39:44] Um so the the funds that are budgeted
[2:39:47] this year but not spent this year would
[2:39:49] be rolled over and earmarked for the
[2:39:51] next budget year.
[2:39:54] Um and then um depending on where our
[2:39:57] guaranteed maximum price comes in, we
[2:40:00] anticipate another 500,000 coming from
[2:40:04] the fiscal year 28 budget with the
[2:40:07] remaining approximately 2 million. Um we
[2:40:11] would do a a bond for that.
[2:40:15] Um
[2:40:15] >> and what are the payments for the $2
[2:40:17] million bond annually? Can't remember.
[2:40:19] >> It's about roughly 150,000.
[2:40:24] So, so that would tie up some of our
[2:40:26] sales tax revenue for that that time.
[2:40:31] Um, again, if anybody wants to take an
[2:40:34] Amazon sign out and encourage people to
[2:40:36] buy online,
[2:40:37] >> that's a great source of revenue uh for
[2:40:40] our city in our
[2:40:42] u situation being a bedroom community.
[2:40:46] Um other major projects
[2:40:50] um
[2:40:52] there there's some proposed here. We're
[2:40:54] still kind of fleshing out details um as
[2:40:56] you know from our work session with the
[2:40:58] council. Um so what I would propose as
[2:41:03] an option in this budget is to include
[2:41:06] all these projects in the tenative
[2:41:08] budget and then in the next
[2:41:11] >> uh five or six weeks we kind of narrow
[2:41:14] down where we need to um we'll know if
[2:41:18] we have excess funds that will be
[2:41:20] transferred to the capital improvement
[2:41:21] fund from this budget year uh and
[2:41:25] different things like that. So within
[2:41:27] this budget, there's a a comprehensive
[2:41:29] list of projects where where they would
[2:41:32] be funded from.
[2:41:34] And then also with equipment
[2:41:36] replacement,
[2:41:37] um we're proposing
[2:41:40] one new pickup which would uh be used in
[2:41:45] the parks department. It's not replacing
[2:41:48] the oldest pickup, but it's replacing
[2:41:50] the one that's most need of replacement.
[2:41:53] in that department. They all their
[2:41:55] trucks are definitely showing some age.
[2:41:59] Um, also a new lawn mower and then a
[2:42:04] couple of leases for a backhoe and
[2:42:08] uh our Miniac X which we've leased for
[2:42:11] many years. Um,
[2:42:14] those are kind of the the highlights of
[2:42:17] the budget. Um, with this budget, it
[2:42:19] does not propose a tax increase.
[2:42:23] Um, and with that, I would open it up
[2:42:26] for any questions you might have.
[2:42:30] >> Frank, do you want to start off?
[2:42:31] >> Sure. Um, so we we all I think all of us
[2:42:35] had four of us had the opportunity to
[2:42:37] meet with you individually this week and
[2:42:39] this was a little bit later in the
[2:42:40] process because how busy things have
[2:42:41] been. Um but thanks for answering our
[2:42:44] questions during those individual
[2:42:46] meetings and then we just spent as you
[2:42:48] mentioned a two-hour work session
[2:42:51] um to discuss these most of these things
[2:42:53] in detail and understanding that we have
[2:42:56] the opportunity to have additional
[2:42:59] questions and more discussion in the
[2:43:01] public forum. I will defer any more
[2:43:04] questions until that process. I do have
[2:43:06] a recommendation. I'm going to be out of
[2:43:08] town June 1st through the 13th. So any
[2:43:12] budget discussions,
[2:43:14] more additional work sessions if we
[2:43:17] could do that before the before the end
[2:43:18] of the month. So I'm not missing any of
[2:43:20] those.
[2:43:20] >> And if you remember from the
[2:43:24] uh kind of budget schedule from two
[2:43:26] weeks ago, um one last year, we had the
[2:43:30] required public hearing for compensation
[2:43:34] for municipal executive officers on the
[2:43:37] same night that the final budget was
[2:43:38] approved.
[2:43:40] and and there's a request that we do
[2:43:42] that earlier, which is what we proposed
[2:43:45] in that calendar. So,
[2:43:48] I'm just bringing that up.
[2:43:49] >> Yeah, I'll be able to participate in the
[2:43:51] meeting on the 9th, but just
[2:43:53] >> I'll be remote.
[2:43:54] >> But for the the rest of that time, the
[2:43:56] only time I'm going to have cell access
[2:43:58] during those two weeks, it's just that
[2:44:01] >> that day,
[2:44:01] >> that Monday afternoon, yeah, basically
[2:44:04] Tuesday,
[2:44:05] >> 1 through 13th. Didn't you just come
[2:44:07] back from Ireland
[2:44:08] >> and a cruise before that?
[2:44:10] >> Hey man, it's getting good.
[2:44:13] >> Making us feel bad.
[2:44:14] >> It's nice to be retired.
[2:44:17] >> So, I hope that's okay.
[2:44:23] » But thanks for all your work on this. I
[2:44:24] know it's a big big part of the first
[2:44:27] part of the year.
[2:44:28] >> Thank Thanks for your patience and
[2:44:29] thanks for everybody that was able to
[2:44:31] meet with me today. And like I said, it
[2:44:34] won't be the last opportunity to meet
[2:44:36] one-on-one or twoon-one. Um, I would
[2:44:39] have had Kaden in there today, but he
[2:44:41] had some things he had to get done
[2:44:42] today. So, it might be two on one or two
[2:44:46] on two next time hopefully. So,
[2:44:55] » um, just a suggestion that we didn't get
[2:44:58] to go into detail on staffing today,
[2:45:01] which I was hoping we'd be able to do
[2:45:03] that, but
[2:45:05] is is this is my understanding correct
[2:45:07] that the goal of bringing on a full-time
[2:45:11] planner is to um open up some time for
[2:45:14] you and Kaden to be able to work closer
[2:45:16] together as there's
[2:45:18] some handoffs and some training that can
[2:45:20] occur.
[2:45:20] >> Yes.
[2:45:21] >> Once that happens. So, with that in
[2:45:23] mind, I'd like for council to consider
[2:45:25] also adding in a part-time finance
[2:45:28] person because I feel like a city
[2:45:30] administrator spends a lot of time and
[2:45:32] if the goal is to remove some of that
[2:45:35] workload off his plate so that he can
[2:45:38] work with Kaden and take on those um
[2:45:41] basically mentorship more. We also
[2:45:44] consider bringing on either through
[2:45:47] someone I don't know if volunteering is
[2:45:49] actually an option but but I don't think
[2:45:52] there's um fractional finance people
[2:45:54] that Chrissy has talked to me about.
[2:45:56] There's options that we could probably
[2:45:58] offload hours and hours and hours and
[2:46:01] hours of Shane's work onto that.
[2:46:02] >> I think part of it though is um correct
[2:46:05] me if I'm wrong Kaden. Um my
[2:46:07] understanding is that you have expressed
[2:46:08] an interest in wanting to learn about
[2:46:11] the finances and how that works in the
[2:46:12] city. That's something that um Kaden has
[2:46:15] expressed an interest that we did not
[2:46:17] have before and seems like he has an
[2:46:19] aptitude for it. So we could try let's
[2:46:22] start with this planner.
[2:46:25] I appreciate um the suggestion and I
[2:46:28] think if it were you know four months
[2:46:30] ago I'd say definitely but I think where
[2:46:32] we have Kaden now and he seems like
[2:46:35] sorry if I'm I'm going to be glazing you
[2:46:37] as my daughter always says why you got
[2:46:39] to be glazing me mom
[2:46:40] >> my kids are
[2:46:40] >> that you can that you know we have a lot
[2:46:44] of faith in your abilities and I love
[2:46:46] that you want to learn this and so that
[2:46:48] if we can take the city planning side of
[2:46:51] his job out so that they can spend more
[2:46:54] time and that he can learn the financial
[2:46:56] side and the finances of it. And if it
[2:46:59] becomes too much, then yeah, let's come
[2:47:01] back. If we have to do a mid-year
[2:47:02] adjustment, say, "Hey, you know what?
[2:47:04] Even with a new city planner and dealing
[2:47:08] with the finances and breaking that up,
[2:47:09] there's still so much that needs to be
[2:47:11] done. We need a part-time or a
[2:47:13] fractional um finance director. Totally
[2:47:16] open to that. But I would like to start
[2:47:18] with this and then see how it goes in
[2:47:21] working with Kaden and see what those
[2:47:24] new responsibilities look like for him
[2:47:26] and you know kind of leave it up to them
[2:47:29] to see how that works. I feel like
[2:47:31] that's an org chart discussion because
[2:47:33] as a city moving forward, I don't know
[2:47:36] if our city manager should be our
[2:47:38] finance director. If we're looking at
[2:47:40] succession plans and how we want to
[2:47:42] structure our org chart moving forward
[2:47:45] to the best use of the taxpayer dollars,
[2:47:48] um if we're training Kaden anyway in
[2:47:50] finance, why not also include someone
[2:47:52] else so that they can also learn the
[2:47:54] process because we need like a
[2:47:56] redundancy and to expect a city manager
[2:47:58] to be a CFO and a CEO and a COO is I
[2:48:02] feel like not an ideal situation.
[2:48:05] >> No, totally agreed. So yeah, no, I mean
[2:48:08] I would be amendable to that. I mean I
[2:48:10] agree that if you're going to train one
[2:48:11] person, I guess you could train two and
[2:48:13] I do like the idea of redundancy. I
[2:48:15] guess I'm just looking at the hit to our
[2:48:18] budget.
[2:48:23] » Um just want to kind of echo also
[2:48:26] Councilwoman Smu and I I think a
[2:48:28] part-time finance person is a good idea,
[2:48:30] but I just I do appreciate Kaden's
[2:48:33] eagerness to learn. Um, yeah. And then I
[2:48:38] don't really have any other questions
[2:48:39] besides just a little small one. When
[2:48:41] you talked about the the vehicles, do we
[2:48:44] lease the backhoe and things like that?
[2:48:46] That's standard like cities don't
[2:48:48] usually own those like outright or or
[2:48:50] does it just depend on what we can do
[2:48:52] financially and what works for us?
[2:48:54] >> We've done it both ways, but the backho
[2:48:56] we have right now, it costs us on our
[2:48:58] lease uh 6,500 a year. We're still on a
[2:49:02] very old program that's not even
[2:49:03] available anymore because we've been
[2:49:05] willing to keep the backhoe. I think
[2:49:07] we've had it about 10 years now. Um,
[2:49:11] usually they turn over every two or
[2:49:13] three years, but now it's like I think
[2:49:16] it's 17,500
[2:49:18] for the lease program. Um, so we've
[2:49:21] stayed as long as it's been workable and
[2:49:25] it's not in the shop all the time, we've
[2:49:28] opted to keep it. it is something we're
[2:49:31] talking more about. Um, but if we
[2:49:35] decided to go the other direction or if
[2:49:37] the lease program changed, we've been
[2:49:40] budgeting a little higher number in for
[2:49:42] that backhoe. The min is different. It's
[2:49:46] we've only had it for probably,
[2:49:49] you know, we've had a backhoe for 30
[2:49:51] plus years. We've had a min many many
[2:49:53] extra probably 10 and that lease
[2:49:56] program's more
[2:49:58] staying the same. Hasn't changed like
[2:50:00] the backho has but we need both of them
[2:50:03] for everything that we do.
[2:50:05] So,
[2:50:06] >> thank you. I was just curious.
[2:50:07] >> Yeah.
[2:50:09] >> Okay. Thank you. I I do echo um
[2:50:12] councilwoman um Smeuan's comments about
[2:50:15] I would love to see a new org chart
[2:50:17] because I know you also wear the public
[2:50:19] works hat and so um if we're going to
[2:50:22] offload
[2:50:24] more to Kaden does he need to learn
[2:50:27] public works too because you're doing it
[2:50:29] all. So like how is that all going to
[2:50:31] work out? And maybe I remember when we
[2:50:34] saw the org chart the first time I was
[2:50:37] like well who are these other people?
[2:50:38] Well, you're like, "Well, that's me,
[2:50:40] too." So, I would like to um put, you
[2:50:42] know, an understanding of where where
[2:50:44] we're going, even if we're not there
[2:50:46] today with the ORC chart and what the
[2:50:48] staffing maybe we don't have, like um
[2:50:51] our mayor has said, we don't have the
[2:50:53] funds to do everything today, but we
[2:50:55] like what we're shooting for in the long
[2:50:57] run. Um how to get all our bases
[2:50:59] covered, produce some redundancies that
[2:51:01] councilwoman Sme has talked about. I do
[2:51:05] want to throw out um a side comment.
[2:51:07] Prior to Ryan's departure, we had um we
[2:51:10] have a proposal from a specialist in
[2:51:12] finance from the Utah League of City of
[2:51:14] Towns that has a different approach to
[2:51:17] budgeting maybe than what we've seen.
[2:51:19] She works very closely with Dave
[2:51:21] Sanderson. It's Carrie Nala.
[2:51:24] >> McNamera something like that. Very
[2:51:28] close.
[2:51:29] >> It's it's it's not a name that I have
[2:51:31] memorized her. I know her first name is
[2:51:33] Carrie. So anyways, maybe um not this
[2:51:37] first go around because we don't have
[2:51:38] time given our short time frame, but
[2:51:41] maybe uh to to you like lean on her to
[2:51:44] some degree. Maybe we don't hire someone
[2:51:46] per se, but just use like a contract
[2:51:49] services so that um there's more uh
[2:51:53] maybe a well a different approach. And
[2:51:57] in fact, I was thinking we've got kind
[2:51:59] of stalled on this whole project
[2:52:00] analysis that maybe she has some good
[2:52:02] ideas about how to like get feedback
[2:52:04] when we're talking about projects. I'm
[2:52:06] not sure, but somebody who has
[2:52:08] experience maybe who's done it a
[2:52:09] different way um would be helpful. Um I
[2:52:13] really did appreciate the fund balance
[2:52:15] analysis. That's something I've been
[2:52:17] trying to wrap my head around for a
[2:52:19] number of years. And the discussion
[2:52:21] today we had was exactly what I was
[2:52:23] looking for and I really um appreciate
[2:52:26] the time and effort and the simple
[2:52:28] presentation. It was easy to follow. Um,
[2:52:31] I just really appreciated that and it
[2:52:33] gives me, you know, comfort, um, that we
[2:52:36] have fund balances that make us look
[2:52:40] financially strong, but I also know it
[2:52:42] takes a priority of a council to keep
[2:52:45] them there because it's really easy to
[2:52:47] dig into the piggy bank or, you know,
[2:52:50] uh, when we feel like, um, we have wants
[2:52:53] that exceed our our fund, like we're
[2:52:55] trying to balance wants and needs. This
[2:52:57] is an easy place to go to. The reason we
[2:53:00] have these balances is because we have
[2:53:02] not habitually turned to fund balances.
[2:53:04] Um we've just sta lived within our
[2:53:06] means. So um it's just good to have
[2:53:08] that. Not that they're not useful. I I
[2:53:11] know being on the um public service. I
[2:53:13] mean the Lone Peak publica safety
[2:53:16] district. We've talked a lot about fan
[2:53:18] balance. They bought equipment with it.
[2:53:20] They've helped us with our change in the
[2:53:22] I in the interlocal agreement. So they
[2:53:24] do have a purpose. The fund balances
[2:53:26] have a purpose. they're not untouchable.
[2:53:29] And I I'm just grateful that we've
[2:53:30] opened that discussion. That has been a
[2:53:32] huge step forward in my mind to
[2:53:34] understand the financial our all of our
[2:53:37] resources. Um with that said, I feel
[2:53:40] like um just so you're you guys are
[2:53:42] ready, um our last comment in our uh
[2:53:46] work session was since we haven't
[2:53:48] identified or prioritized the projects
[2:53:50] that are highlighted in yellow, if you
[2:53:52] go to the next page, Kaden, that's
[2:53:54] colored. It's like
[2:53:56] >> it's way down there. I think
[2:53:58] >> I believe it's 290 page 290.
[2:54:01] >> I propose Shane mentioned that we don't
[2:54:03] have to have a balanced budget as
[2:54:05] tenative, but we do when we approve the
[2:54:08] final. So, we we work through the
[2:54:10] process um in the interim time to
[2:54:13] identify the projects, whether we get
[2:54:14] another process ideas from um Kerry or a
[2:54:17] different city to sort of identify the
[2:54:20] best way to narrow these down. Um,
[2:54:23] that's where I'm open to discussion and
[2:54:25] maybe you might not be there, Brent. But
[2:54:29] we do need to move forward and have a
[2:54:31] final budget by the end of the month in
[2:54:33] June. But I would like to propose that
[2:54:35] we include all of these in our motion
[2:54:37] today. And we that means that we may not
[2:54:40] have be in in balance or we may not what
[2:54:44] is that word
[2:54:45] >> called?
[2:54:46] >> And it it could still be balanced. We
[2:54:47] could just take the those other few
[2:54:50] projects that aren't currently included.
[2:54:52] We can just allocate funds from the
[2:54:54] capital improvement fund temporary.
[2:54:56] >> See how easy that is you guys? In one
[2:54:57] little one sentence, we could just spend
[2:54:59] the fund balance. So
[2:55:02] >> anyways, um I don't propose that we we
[2:55:05] just because we haven't had time that we
[2:55:07] just do it all anyways, but we take the
[2:55:09] time to figure out which ones are really
[2:55:11] the priority of the council and then
[2:55:13] revisit this sometime between now and
[2:55:15] the final. I don't want to be talking
[2:55:16] about this at the final.
[2:55:18] >> So, we have we have
[2:55:20] almost three weeks.
[2:55:22] I don't know if we can wait to get some
[2:55:25] kind of new procedure from somebody else
[2:55:27] to make her decisions to delay it until
[2:55:30] June when I'm gone. Why can't we
[2:55:32] >> She's talking about doing it right away.
[2:55:33] >> Oh, she said I might not be here because
[2:55:35] she has to look at some new techniques
[2:55:37] that or some new
[2:55:38] >> No, I think she's You were saying moving
[2:55:39] forward, right?
[2:55:40] >> Ideally, we could talk about it in two
[2:55:42] weeks, right? And you will be here in
[2:55:43] two weeks.
[2:55:44] >> Yeah. I'm just saying we need to I'm
[2:55:47] saying let's put it all in the tentative
[2:55:48] knowing it's not going to be all there
[2:55:50] in the final. That's
[2:55:51] >> I just I was just concerned that you
[2:55:52] said you might not be here because we
[2:55:54] want to consult with someone else and
[2:55:55] maybe come up with a new
[2:55:56] >> Our goal is to always have your hair
[2:55:58] brushed because you're
[2:55:59] >> a new way to prioritize. Maybe for next
[2:56:01] year we can find a new way to prior I
[2:56:02] think we're too far into the system.
[2:56:04] >> Okay, that's the end of my comments.
[2:56:05] >> Okay,
[2:56:06] >> does that make sense? Do you
[2:56:07] >> have anything you wanted to add? And
[2:56:08] let's move on to a motion.
[2:56:11] >> Mhm. Uh yeah, thanks. This is just
[2:56:13] tentative. So, we're okay. This is
[2:56:15] tentative. Um, no, I love Alpine so
[2:56:17] much. I'm becoming very protective of
[2:56:19] it. I always have been. I just didn't
[2:56:20] realize it.
[2:56:21] >> So, um, when I go through these, these
[2:56:23] are really, uh, these are really
[2:56:25] important. This is like the biggest
[2:56:26] decision we're going to make. Um, a
[2:56:28] couple I thank you for all the time for
[2:56:30] all the questions you answered. Just a
[2:56:32] couple things that we weren't able to go
[2:56:33] over that I think will be helpful. The
[2:56:35] biggest item on here is the $9 million
[2:56:36] bond. I think we start big, we go down.
[2:56:39] Just so we're discussing already because
[2:56:40] we have this time now. This the $9
[2:56:42] million bond is 25 years. Uh it's a 600k
[2:56:46] a year. This is for water. We we need
[2:56:49] water support. And I'm going to offer
[2:56:51] some recommendations, but it's 600k a
[2:56:54] year for 25 years on Alpine folks. Um
[2:56:58] that that's it's about 4.8%. So if
[2:57:01] you're comparing it to like when you get
[2:57:02] mortgages or car loans, that means we'll
[2:57:04] be paying $6 million on this bond. So,
[2:57:07] this is a cost because this is what I
[2:57:10] look at when I'm buying cars or houses
[2:57:11] or whatever. I'm like, what what am I
[2:57:13] actually paying for this? And you
[2:57:14] actually add up the interest and the the
[2:57:17] principal. And we're paying the 9
[2:57:20] million plus 6 million. So, that's what that's what it costs to rent this
[2:57:25] well from Zion's Bank for 25 years until
[2:57:28] we own it. Just just to keep the
[2:57:30] numbers, okay, because this is what
[2:57:32] we're signing up for. My family always
[2:57:34] looks at me and they say, "Andrew or
[2:57:36] dad, you're not a slave." And I say,
[2:57:38] "Every time we get a mortgage, we become
[2:57:40] a slave." So that's why we don't do
[2:57:42] them. Okay? And so, uh, anyways, it
[2:57:45] really we we trade freedom for ease. So,
[2:57:48] I just want you to know that. That's the
[2:57:49] $9 million bond. That is the biggest
[2:57:51] item on this entire budget for a well
[2:57:54] and booster pumps, which we all are
[2:57:56] trying to do to save our pressurized
[2:57:58] irrigation system from the stresses that
[2:58:01] it's in. And so, just just weigh that
[2:58:04] out when you're going to bed at night
[2:58:05] what we're thinking about. My only hope
[2:58:08] uh well wait till Shane my only
[2:58:11] recommendation um Shane as you're
[2:58:13] putting this together with staff my only
[2:58:15] recommendation is if you can balance
[2:58:17] that where we take some money so we're
[2:58:20] not um so we're not indebting so much.
[2:58:24] if we can take some money, maybe do a
[2:58:26] half where we're only doing 4.5. If we
[2:58:28] can spread it over a years, and then as
[2:58:30] you know that we went over some of the
[2:58:31] ideas of doing a program potentially
[2:58:34] where some of the money could go to
[2:58:35] residents where they could have their
[2:58:36] own water storage to reduce their rates.
[2:58:38] That's just an idea. But I also loved
[2:58:41] what what this will result in. So, this
[2:58:43] is what we're doing, but what it will
[2:58:44] result in, just so we know, is raised
[2:58:46] pressurized irrigation rates. That's what it or property taxes. We're
[2:58:50] not going to do property taxes. So, I'm
[2:58:52] not uh So, it's going to raise
[2:58:54] everyone's water rate. So, so the ask I
[2:58:57] have is and I think Shane's totally on
[2:58:59] board. I I think is to let us know what
[2:59:02] that will do to our water rate. So,
[2:59:04] taking out that nine so so we can
[2:59:06] explain to the residents. Look, we're
[2:59:07] doing a $9 million bond for this year.
[2:59:09] >> That's the study that we'll be getting
[2:59:11] in a month. Is that what you said?
[2:59:13] >> Hopefully within that time.
[2:59:14] >> So, we can express on them. Let's make
[2:59:16] sure I just
[2:59:19] pause for a second. It's 9:00. So, we do
[2:59:22] need to make a motion to extend the
[2:59:23] meeting.
[2:59:24] >> I was watching that and that's they're
[2:59:26] not synced.
[2:59:26] >> Well, my my
[2:59:27] >> Okay. GPS.
[2:59:29] >> Did you want to make a motion, Brett?
[2:59:30] >> Well, yes. I would like to make a
[2:59:32] motion. Not Not on this not on the
[2:59:33] budget. Oh, for the Okay. Sorry.
[2:59:35] >> Extend the meeting. I would like to make
[2:59:37] a motion to extend the meeting past our
[2:59:40] 900 p.m. deadline
[2:59:43] to the extent that we finish this
[2:59:45] discussion about the tenative budget and
[2:59:47] approve it under state law and postpone
[2:59:50] the review of the main street and
[2:59:51] gateway quarter master plan part two to
[2:59:54] another meeting and following staff
[2:59:56] reports and council communication that
[2:59:58] we
[2:59:59] um move into close meeting.
[3:00:06] Oh,
[3:00:12] » I was going to make it up, but I'll read
[3:00:14] it verbatim.
[3:00:16] >> Oh,
[3:00:20] » all right.
[3:00:21] >> That that we move into closed meeting
[3:00:23] that will take place in the conference
[3:00:24] room behind the city council room to
[3:00:27] discuss property acquisition
[3:00:30] >> or dispos.
[3:00:31] >> I would say
[3:00:32] >> or what? I think we need to go into that
[3:00:35] before um staff reports and council
[3:00:38] communications to allow Mr. Doxy to go.
[3:00:40] >> Oh, okay. So, we'll go into close
[3:00:42] meeting to discuss property acquisition
[3:00:45] or disposition and then following that
[3:00:48] we'll uh come back and finish with staff
[3:00:51] reports, council communications. Do I
[3:00:53] adjourn the meeting after that or do we
[3:00:55] have to do it December?
[3:00:55] >> Well, you'll because after council
[3:00:57] communications, you guys move to
[3:00:58] adjourn.
[3:00:59] >> That's it.
[3:00:59] >> Okay. Is there a second?
[3:01:00] >> I second.
[3:01:01] >> It's been moved by Councilman Remler.
[3:01:03] Second by Councilman
[3:01:05] >> Young.
[3:01:06] I was going to say Councilman
[3:01:07] Andrew.
[3:01:09] >> That works too.
[3:01:10] >> Okay. Um roll call vote.
[3:01:12] >> Brenley. Yes.
[3:01:13] >> Jessica Simone. Yes. Sarah Blackwell.
[3:01:15] Yes.
[3:01:15] >> Chrisman, yes.
[3:01:16] >> Andrew Young, yes.
[3:01:18] >> Okay.
[3:01:19] >> Go ahead. Andrew.
[3:01:20] >> Very quickly. Very quickly. The other
[3:01:22] big item is a $2 million bond. It's 20
[3:01:25] years. It would be a 150k. Thank you.
[3:01:28] all.
[3:01:28] >> Thank you guys.
[3:01:34] Uh the 2 million bond for the fire
[3:01:36] department would be a 20-year 150k a
[3:01:40] year. So we're essentially debing 750k a
[3:01:43] year. That's about a 4.2 interest and
[3:01:47] that would be $1 million of interest. So
[3:01:49] we're borrowing two, paying back three.
[3:01:53] Um and so look, I I know we need this
[3:01:57] stuff. These are big numbers. I would
[3:02:00] love to have time with Zans to see if we
[3:02:02] can get that rate down. I was thinking
[3:02:05] today after we talked about
[3:02:07] conversations potentially of when we do
[3:02:10] a contract, if we go forward with this,
[3:02:12] could we put in stipulations like over
[3:02:15] the next couple years, we are able to do
[3:02:18] a refinance for free if rates drop or
[3:02:21] just just something where we're we we
[3:02:24] have as much uh ability to um make this
[3:02:26] blow as as tolerable as possible. So
[3:02:30] maybe buy down the rate a little. Um
[3:02:32] maybe uh piece this out over a couple
[3:02:35] years. I know it gets more expensive
[3:02:36] over years. Anyways, those are just the
[3:02:38] ideas. The only other thing besides that
[3:02:40] um because I'm fully in agreement with
[3:02:42] how you want this motion to go. Just
[3:02:44] include it and then we're going to sort
[3:02:45] it out over this next three weeks and
[3:02:47] finalize it. I think that's a great way
[3:02:48] to go about it is just two things. I
[3:02:50] love the idea of the pri priority list.
[3:02:53] I think if we create a priority list,
[3:02:55] however we do it, and Chrissy, we all
[3:02:57] come to terms on which ones we like, it
[3:02:59] it'll be a little messy, but I think we
[3:03:01] can get there. Then we'll all know, oh,
[3:03:03] well, this is top priority. Let's do it.
[3:03:05] Versus, you might you might really want
[3:03:07] something. You might really have a deep
[3:03:08] priority. And what happens is it just
[3:03:11] kind of gets, you know, uh,
[3:03:14] deprioritized over time and it's not a
[3:03:16] big deal. So, I think if we can
[3:03:17] prioritize this list, we'll get even
[3:03:19] better results over the next year um
[3:03:21] versus trying to do them all at once.
[3:03:23] So, I like the priority list. The only
[3:03:25] item I'll bring up, and I would not
[3:03:27] bring this up because I think most
[3:03:28] people are sleeping anyways, and that is
[3:03:30] the fire budget. And the only reason I
[3:03:32] bring that up, I maybe chief can listen.
[3:03:35] It's 50K for fire mitigation. And the
[3:03:38] only reason I'm bringing this up is
[3:03:39] because after June, this essentially
[3:03:42] becomes useless. not not useless over
[3:03:45] the years, but useless for our fire
[3:03:47] season coming up in July and August when
[3:03:49] they don't want us to do fire
[3:03:50] mitigation. So, my hope I can forward
[3:03:53] emails and talk offline. But my hope is
[3:03:56] that if we could get access to some of
[3:03:58] this money as soon as possible, we
[3:04:00] really only have a month before
[3:04:02] potentially one of the worst fire
[3:04:03] seasons we might ever have, and that is
[3:04:06] July and August, uh, given our water
[3:04:08] year. And they don't like us to do fire
[3:04:10] mitigation. Is this correct? They don't
[3:04:12] like us to do fire mitigation in the hot
[3:04:13] months because if we do it in the hot
[3:04:16] months, we pose as much of a risk of
[3:04:17] starting a fire. So, our window is
[3:04:20] closing very quickly and if we end up in
[3:04:22] a hot August with winds and the low
[3:04:25] rains, we we and and the and the tinder
[3:04:28] bush that has grown over the last really
[3:04:30] wet years, we've got ourselves in a
[3:04:33] potentially a very difficult predicament
[3:04:35] where when now we go into crisis control
[3:04:38] if we if we hit one of these fires. Uh,
[3:04:40] sorry. Do you want a question? Am I
[3:04:43] correct in thinking though that that
[3:04:44] fire mitigation budget would be for the
[3:04:46] next budget year? So, are you asking
[3:04:49] maybe if there's a little
[3:04:50] >> I'm bringing it up for two reason. I'm
[3:04:51] bringing up for two reason. If there's
[3:04:52] any way we can
[3:04:54] >> I don't know if there's e bring some of
[3:04:55] it a little bit earlier uh or prioritize
[3:04:59] it pretty quick as a separate item just
[3:05:01] because our window closes in Julyish.
[3:05:05] And I don't I know that's not in this
[3:05:07] main budget, but the only reason I bring
[3:05:09] it up because residents started calling
[3:05:11] me and saying, "Look, I need this done."
[3:05:13] And I was like, "Oh my gosh, you're
[3:05:14] right. We our window closes in July for
[3:05:18] >> Would that be an action item just to
[3:05:20] bring that forward?" Is that something?
[3:05:21] >> We don't need to move it to discussion
[3:05:23] to then move it to action. Let's just
[3:05:25] move it to action and determine if we
[3:05:27] need to make a
[3:05:28] >> I would say need to be an action item
[3:05:30] and you need specifics because what I
[3:05:32] heard two weeks ago was we don't want to
[3:05:34] go on private property and do this type
[3:05:37] of
[3:05:37] >> right and so so I would okay maybe I can
[3:05:40] come up with something that works on
[3:05:41] public or some sort of plan you guys can
[3:05:43] see how you like it that is one last
[3:05:45] question on that I understand we have a
[3:05:47] limit of 15 grand that is at the
[3:05:50] discretion of staff can we petition for
[3:05:53] that for potentially if we got some fire
[3:05:56] mitigation projects, could we petition
[3:05:58] for that? Would that be through staff or
[3:05:59] city council as well?
[3:06:00] >> Well, if we can find some place I I
[3:06:03] would prefer to have the council's
[3:06:05] blessing, we'll go,
[3:06:06] >> you know, for in support for that
[3:06:07] because it's it's new,
[3:06:09] >> right?
[3:06:09] >> You know, it's something not something
[3:06:10] we've done.
[3:06:12] >> Um
[3:06:14] >> the only reason I bring it up is because
[3:06:15] of the window. That's all. Um so that
[3:06:18] that's all I had on those. Thanks. and
[3:06:19] uh
[3:06:20] >> when we figure out a way of doing the
[3:06:22] priority list, let's get on it so that
[3:06:24] over these three weeks we can uh not
[3:06:27] only push which
[3:06:28] >> I think we all gave our ranking to
[3:06:30] Shane. Maybe only you did not.
[3:06:32] >> So you just want us to keep with this
[3:06:33] Shane?
[3:06:34] >> I think we've at least started with a
[3:06:35] baseline that we can start to decode and
[3:06:38] then great
[3:06:39] >> attach meaning and so that would
[3:06:41] probably be the best way to move
[3:06:42] forward.
[3:06:43] >> All right, I'll forward that. When um
[3:06:45] Andrew brought up the point about the
[3:06:47] bonding, what page are the details or
[3:06:50] are we going
[3:06:51] >> the same page? Just scroll up just a
[3:06:52] hair. Kayen,
[3:06:53] >> are we going to go into that in a
[3:06:55] separate
[3:06:56] >> She's asking about the the No, no, no,
[3:06:58] sorry. Uh scroll down the the fine print
[3:07:01] below this. You'll see it right there.
[3:07:03] >> Right. Where do we see exactly what the
[3:07:06] bond is for? And it wouldn't just be for
[3:07:08] one well, right? It would be for
[3:07:10] remedies for multiple deficiencies. I'm
[3:07:12] assuming
[3:07:13] >> some more detail was in the kind of
[3:07:16] discussion that was included in the
[3:07:18] packet two weeks ago.
[3:07:20] >> Um but more information will be coming
[3:07:23] like we've planned tenatively I think
[3:07:25] the first meeting in June uh Bren will
[3:07:28] be remote I guess um to have science
[3:07:31] public finance come and answer some of
[3:07:33] your questions. There's different things
[3:07:35] you can do with structuring a bond. I
[3:07:37] don't see any possibility of a a free
[3:07:42] >> refinance, but they're not going to be
[3:07:43] telling us what projects we're doing.
[3:07:45] They're just going to be talking about
[3:07:46] the financing. I mean, and we've been
[3:07:48] sitting, you know, for hours discussing
[3:07:51] $50,000, you know, $25,000 and this is
[3:07:54] >> millions of dollars and that's why I
[3:07:57] started with
[3:07:57] >> I want to understand what
[3:08:01] improvements, what capital or water
[3:08:03] structure improvements are coming with
[3:08:05] that. So, let us do this. We'll we'll
[3:08:08] take the the appropriate pages out of
[3:08:11] the master plan and put those together,
[3:08:14] highlight the projects that would be
[3:08:16] included, and we'll we'll email those
[3:08:19] out.
[3:08:20] >> But in short, Jessica, it's the it's the
[3:08:23] well, the what is it called? The
[3:08:25] Hillside Well,
[3:08:27] >> Heritage Hills,
[3:08:28] >> sorry, I'm sorry. It's the Heritage
[3:08:29] Hills well and a booster pump
[3:08:31] >> on 400 West. I think there's three other
[3:08:34] items that we're recommending to improve
[3:08:37] >> our pressure. So, are we not doing the
[3:08:39] three other items? There were five.
[3:08:41] >> So, I chatted with Shane today and I
[3:08:42] believe you can ask to include those and
[3:08:45] it is massageable at this point. Is that
[3:08:47] right?
[3:08:47] >> Yeah. So, that's
[3:08:48] >> I mean those items are meant to help
[3:08:50] improve pressure.
[3:08:51] >> Um and uh I think even two weeks ago I
[3:08:55] included the two weeks ago or four I
[3:08:58] included the email from John She with
[3:09:00] kind of
[3:09:00] >> So, go back to that email. Yes, there's
[3:09:02] more information in there
[3:09:05] >> that will say the why behind the
[3:09:07] priorities of those things because I'm
[3:09:09] looking at it and going, "Don't we need
[3:09:11] all of it?"
[3:09:12] >> Yeah.
[3:09:12] >> I mean, that's what they recommended or
[3:09:14] that's what as
[3:09:15] >> Yeah, he explains it in his email. I'll include that with this other
[3:09:20] information I'll send out.
[3:09:22] >> Okay.
[3:09:22] >> So, yeah.
[3:09:24] But to be clear, um this this rainbow
[3:09:27] sheet,
[3:09:28] >> um we've approved water or what we would
[3:09:32] be approving in the tenative budget
[3:09:34] tonight is $535,000
[3:09:37] of current funding and the other
[3:09:40] projects are a somewhat of a separate
[3:09:42] discussion item.
[3:09:43] >> Bring those in, right,
[3:09:45] >> when we finalize everything. And
[3:09:48] >> tonight in the tenative budget, we do
[3:09:49] have a $535,000 line item for water. But
[3:09:52] aren't the are we not also approving
[3:09:54] these bonds tentatively?
[3:09:56] >> No, it's a whole separate process.
[3:09:58] >> Those will be separately voted on each.
[3:10:00] >> That's why in these
[3:10:01] >> will be are they only included because
[3:10:04] it is the intent of how we would
[3:10:05] actually budget these projects.
[3:10:08] >> Meaning
[3:10:08] >> it's to give you like kind of a forecast
[3:10:10] of what's coming.
[3:10:12] >> It's like a placeholder. It's like this
[3:10:14] is allocated but then as these big
[3:10:15] projects come up on it individually as
[3:10:18] they come up
[3:10:19] >> even the bonds individually.
[3:10:21] >> Yes. Yeah, we have to have public
[3:10:23] hearing. There's a lot of different
[3:10:24] steps, okay, to
[3:10:26] >> okay, get it
[3:10:27] >> was just it was very central in the
[3:10:29] whole budget. That's
[3:10:30] >> to me it was like we can we can take a
[3:10:32] small piece of what needs to be
[3:10:34] accomplished here with the current
[3:10:36] revenue but to meet the full need we're
[3:10:38] going to have bonding and all these
[3:10:40] discussions and this long process
[3:10:43] to let us know like we're not meeting
[3:10:45] all our needs with the current funding
[3:10:47] but in the future we will be meet you
[3:10:49] know talking about how to meet all these
[3:10:50] needs that have been discussed. That's
[3:10:52] how I read it.
[3:10:56] » Okay. Is it typical when doing these
[3:10:59] bonds just because we're bringing it up
[3:11:01] to get a couple bids for financing?
[3:11:05] >> I know we're working with Zans, but are
[3:11:07] do we do we have a good relationship
[3:11:09] with
[3:11:09] >> I've never been through a bonding
[3:11:10] process before.
[3:11:12] >> Okay.
[3:11:12] >> Doesn't happen very often in Alpine
[3:11:13] >> and I appreciate that. I think
[3:11:15] >> when you have these infrastructure
[3:11:16] needs, there's really not much choice.
[3:11:18] >> And I told Shane I appreciate that how
[3:11:20] little bonding we've done over the last
[3:11:21] decade. So, thank you.
[3:11:24] >> That was all I had. Thank you. Okay,
[3:11:25] I'll entertain a motion.
[3:11:26] >> Right. I move to approve resolution
[3:11:28] R2026-20
[3:11:29] adopting the fiscal year 2027 tenative
[3:11:32] budget.
[3:11:34] >> Is there a second?
[3:11:35] >> Can can we add with um a prioritization
[3:11:39] of projects um at the in two weeks?
[3:11:44] >> Is that necessary? Are we
[3:11:46] >> Wait, hold on. I think we have to second
[3:11:47] it first.
[3:11:47] >> Second first and then it hasn't been
[3:11:49] approved.
[3:11:50] >> Oh, I'm sorry. Is there a second?
[3:11:54] I'll second.
[3:11:55] >> Okay. It's moved by Councilman Rland,
[3:11:56] seconded by Councilwoman Blackwell.
[3:12:00] >> Chrissy, did you asking for an
[3:12:02] amendment?
[3:12:02] >> Yes, I'm asking for amendment to include
[3:12:05] um the I counted these before. One, two,
[3:12:10] three, four, five, six. The eight
[3:12:12] projects in yellow incl
[3:12:16] >> that are not allotted.
[3:12:18] >> Shane says it's just part of the
[3:12:19] process. We don't need a motion.
[3:12:20] >> Oh, it's not included in the motion to
[3:12:22] include all these. You don't you don't
[3:12:24] I'll just bring them back in two weeks.
[3:12:25] You don't know that.
[3:12:26] >> Then
[3:12:27] >> never mind.
[3:12:28] >> I re retract the amendment.
[3:12:30] >> Let's proceed with a roll call vote.
[3:12:32] >> Brent Rley. Yes.
[3:12:33] >> Jessica Simon. Yes. Sarah Blackwell.
[3:12:35] Yes.
[3:12:35] >> Grace Anaman. Yes.
[3:12:37] >> Andrew Young. Yes.
[3:12:39] >> Okay.
[3:12:39] >> Just to discuss this just so all of them
[3:12:41] are included even though we didn't put
[3:12:42] it in the motion and we'll talk about
[3:12:44] them and how that will be finalized.
[3:12:45] >> It's just part of the overall process
[3:12:47] and then we'll do a final.
[3:12:49] >> Although I would like to do one a
[3:12:50] minute. Chiefs, do you guys have
[3:12:51] anything to report before we go into
[3:12:53] close session?
[3:12:55] >> We can let you go. Thank you so much.
[3:12:57] Appreciate it.
[3:12:58] >> I think Chief Patton has something.
[3:13:00] >> Only 9:15.
[3:13:03] >> Public safety district meeting tomorrow
[3:13:04] morning, 7:30.
[3:13:12] » I got an email. I'm so committed to
[3:13:16] reading your email. I don't see it.
[3:13:20] Um, so no, it was in the packet.