[0:00] Thank you.

[0:01] >> We're calling to order Alpine City

[0:02] Council meeting for May 26, 2026, 6 p.m.

[0:07] >> Um, we will start with a roll call

[0:10] starting with council person,

[0:13] Councilwoman Sarah Blackwell.

[0:15] >> Sarah Blackwell present.

[0:17] >> Chrissy Hanaman present.

[0:19] >> Andrew Young present. Bren Remler

[0:21] present.

[0:25] » Okay.

[0:28] >> Yes. And then we will start with a

[0:30] prayer offered by Councilwoman Blackwell

[0:32] followed by a pledge led by Councilman

[0:35] Young.

[0:38] Our dear father in heaven, we are

[0:40] grateful for the opportunity we have to

[0:41] gather together as um residents and as a

[0:44] community to discuss um various

[0:47] [clears throat] topics and needs. We are

[0:49] grateful for this beautiful city that we

[0:51] have the opportunity to live in. And

[0:53] we're grateful for our country and for

[0:54] the freedoms that we enjoy.

[0:57] We're so grateful for those who have

[1:00] sacrificed for our behalf on our behalf

[1:02] to be able to enjoy these freedoms and

[1:04] pray that we might always remember them

[1:07] and pray that as we move forward this

[1:08] with this meeting that we may be

[1:11] efficient and kind and we say these

[1:14] things in the name of Jesus Christ.

[1:15] Amen.

[1:15] >> Amen.

[1:17] >> All rise.

[1:20] Repeat after me. I pledge algiance to

[1:23] the flag of the United States of America

[1:27] and to the republic for which it stands.

[1:30] One nation under God, indivisible, with

[1:34] liberty and justice for all.

[1:36] >> Thank you.

[1:42] » Okay, let's move on to the

[1:45] [clears throat] consent calendar.

[1:48] Shane, did you have anything that you

[1:50] want to say or should I just ask for

[1:52] questions?

[1:54] >> I don't unless there's questions.

[1:57] >> Are there questions regarding any of the

[1:58] items on the consent calendar?

[2:00] >> Uh, two two minor ones. Uh, Chief,

[2:05] could I I'll ask the council, but it's

[2:07] just I read through the whole agreement,

[2:10] the item uh letter D, and I don't bring

[2:14] this because I'm questioning it. I love

[2:16] it and I It's really hard to understand.

[2:19] It's like uh um

[2:23] firefighters and lawyers got together

[2:24] and used where every term that I don't

[2:26] understand in it. So, I was just

[2:27] wondering if you could explain what our

[2:30] compliance is in this. I I tried to go

[2:33] through every page. I think I love it,

[2:35] but I don't fully understand what we're

[2:37] committing to. Do Do you understand in

[2:40] this agreement? I hope it's appropriate

[2:42] to ask the chief during this. Uh it's uh

[2:46] if you have any uh insight into what

[2:48] we're agreeing to. Uh I I know there's a

[2:50] lot of money changing from the initial

[2:54] um I think you pressed the button from

[2:56] the initial attack. I believe that's

[2:58] what it's called to the um second stage

[3:02] attack which is the

[3:04] uh what is it called? It's it's when

[3:07] basically the state takes over.

[3:09] >> Yes. when it gets delegated

[3:10] >> and we start what are basically what are

[3:12] we committing to just so I know and

[3:14] >> essentially what we're committing to

[3:16] with the agreement is that we will

[3:18] either pay the state or do work in kind

[3:25] to cover the the cost. Um and basically

[3:30] each city is assessed

[3:33] um a cost based on threat level and so

[3:39] >> hi there.

[3:40] >> Okay, there you go. Thank you.

[3:42] >> Thank you.

[3:44] >> Anyways, so really and I mean this isn't

[3:46] new. We've we've had a CWS agreement

[3:49] with the state forever. Um they've

[3:53] changed the way they do it. They

[3:54] actually separated it for the past few

[3:56] years. We've done this at the Lone Peak

[3:58] board meetings and it was signed by the

[4:00] Lone Peak board chair. Um this year they

[4:04] separated it into the cities.

[4:05] Essentially what this does, it does two

[4:07] things really. This is our cooperative

[4:11] agreement with the state. So this is how

[4:13] we deploy outside of the state or within

[4:16] the state. The other thing that this

[4:18] agreement says is that the state will

[4:21] pick up the bill for any fire that

[4:24] happens that gets delegated.

[4:28] >> So essentially, if somebody lights a

[4:31] fire in Alpine and that fire goes to

[4:35] Mountain, the state's going to pick up

[4:37] the bill. [clears throat] Without the

[4:39] CWS,

[4:42] » you all be on the hook for that bill.

[4:43] >> Okay. And then there's a couple places

[4:45] where it leaves blanks in this. I'm

[4:47] sorry if you already know this. And uh

[4:49] it says we can't do anything with this

[4:51] agreement unless we bring it back up. I

[4:54] don't know if you're aware or anyone. Do

[4:56] we not need to fill in the blanks first?

[4:58] For example, one of them is uh we are

[5:01] supposed to choose who the enforcement

[5:04] officer is of the

[5:07] >> So so we put that in the um

[5:09] >> is it in the new one? Just not the

[5:10] packet. It's in the uh staff report kind

[5:12] of the cover sheet but we'll fill that

[5:15] in. So we

[5:16] >> it's just not filled into the actual

[5:17] report.

[5:18] >> Right. It it's Deian has it taken care

[5:20] of for the signature copy but uh it's

[5:23] our planner and our code compliance

[5:25] officer is who we've proposed right now

[5:28] with the thought that that could change

[5:30] as changing state requirements and when

[5:33] we see what all that looks like. And

[5:35] then the part that I did understand is

[5:36] it does mandate us to do the

[5:39] >> SWPP plan. Is that what it's called? The

[5:42] >> CWP.

[5:43] plan, which I love.

[5:45] >> Do you have any sort of timeline for us

[5:47] so we can help with that or what when

[5:49] that comes? So we can uh

[5:50] >> So we actually we have a functional CWP.

[5:54] >> Okay.

[5:55] >> We have to have we have to have a CWPP

[5:57] so that we're in compliance for the CWS.

[6:00] Lots of acronyms,

[6:01] >> right? But so we have one currently

[6:05] uh the new CWPP we are in like final

[6:10] >> okay

[6:10] >> final revision hopefully before July 1

[6:13] if not shortly after.

[6:15] >> So

[6:16] >> right all right that was all the

[6:17] questions I had. Thank you.

[6:18] >> So just just so you're all aware so like

[6:20] the inind that we do so we bought a new

[6:24] fire engine that qualifies as

[6:28] a wildland type of engine. So the state

[6:31] gives us credit every year for the next

[6:33] five years towards that inind. When you

[6:36] guys do a mitigation project and we're

[6:38] involved, we don't just count our time.

[6:40] We counted every one of those people

[6:42] that were out there.

[6:43] >> We had like a wager how many we could

[6:45] get.

[6:45] >> Yeah. So if we ever got to the point

[6:48] where we were looking for money. Also

[6:51] included in that is the water system. So

[6:53] we could look at like your well

[6:55] maintenance, any kind of pro, anything

[6:56] that gets bought that's gonna

[6:59] um bolster or facilitate or be a part of

[7:02] the water system. We can also count that

[7:05] money as part of the system. So we're

[7:08] never going to fall short on it's never

[7:10] we're never going to have to pay cash

[7:11] out of our pocket. So

[7:13] >> thank you. I appreciate that.

[7:15] >> I one follow-up question of that. Um,

[7:17] you mentioned that we used to do this

[7:18] for the Lone Peak special no safety

[7:22] special safety you know the Lone Peak

[7:25] >> public safety district

[7:26] >> public there we go public lone peak

[7:28] public safety district. So are we in

[7:31] moving in parallel then with Highland

[7:33] bec because you're facilitating both

[7:36] plans.

[7:36] >> Yes. So this is the first year that the

[7:39] state has broken it into the individual

[7:41] cities. Before it was just a lone peak

[7:43] [clears throat] CWS.

[7:45] Um, so this year I don't I don't know

[7:48] for whatever reason they broke it out.

[7:49] Highland approved theirs last Tuesday

[7:51] and so yours is on the docket tonight.

[7:54] >> Okay.

[7:54] >> Thank you. The only final one, Kaden,

[7:56] thank you. I appreciate it and I know

[7:58] we're short on time. Uh, Kaden, I just

[8:00] had a question for Jason. I tried to

[8:02] track the roads only because it's, you

[8:04] know, 300k. This is the only reason I'm

[8:06] bringing it up and I tried to call

[8:08] earlier, so sorry I couldn't reach you.

[8:09] [clears throat] Um, on the roads that

[8:11] we're doing for the uh, chip seal, the

[8:13] seal coat and the emulsion. I tried to go Kad and

[8:18] I sent a folder that has all the roads.

[8:20] I tried to map them out and I just hoped

[8:22] you could give us some clarification.

[8:24] Not because I'm questioning this. I

[8:26] think it's a great idea, but more so

[8:28] that we can help with it in the future.

[8:29] If we find roads that need it, the ones

[8:31] that don't, and how you go about

[8:32] deciding them, and this is only because

[8:34] it's 300k that I'm bringing it up.

[8:41] » Silk coat roads JPEG.

[8:46] It's It's actually on the Z drive.

[8:59] » So, why he's bringing it up? Um, so

[9:01] we've got a a map of the roads that

[9:03] we're doing. Um, in the future these

[9:08] Shane and Landing, well, Landon goes out

[9:11] and looks at all the roads and figures

[9:12] out what he needs. Um, so if you see a

[9:15] road that you feel needs it, get with

[9:17] Landon and we can go that way with him.

[9:20] >> Is that where the residents could like

[9:21] reach out to the right person for the

[9:22] specific road? Okay. Oh, good. Yeah,

[9:25] this is kind of how the map I got.

[9:26] >> Good.

[9:27] >> Okay. Thank you. This is helpful to see.

[9:29] Are there any roads in the future that

[9:31] we should pay attention to to a lot

[9:33] money for? Um, we have, so this is for

[9:36] this budget year. Next budget year,

[9:38] we've got some more roads we're doing

[9:40] and we've got a list of those currently.

[9:42] So, if you want to see those,

[9:44] >> feel free to reach out and I can go over

[9:46] them with you.

[9:47] >> Okay. Thank you.

[9:49] >> Anyone else?

[9:50] >> Any other questions?

[9:51] >> Okay. If not, I will entertain a motion.

[9:54] I'll move to approve the consent

[9:56] calendar with the understanding that the

[9:59] meeting [clears throat] minutes from the

[10:00] budget work session have been revised as

[10:02] requested via email today and notice to

[10:04] other council members.

[10:06] >> Okay. Is there a second?

[10:08] >> I'll second [clears throat] the motion.

[10:10] >> It's been moved by Councilman Rmler,

[10:11] seconded by Councilwoman Haniman. Um

[10:14] let's proceed with the roll call vote.

[10:17] >> Sarah Blackwell, yes.

[10:18] >> Chrissy Henman, yes.

[10:19] >> Andrew Young, yes. Bren Remler, yes.

[10:22] >> Jessica Suan, yes. Okay,

[10:25] [clears throat] consent calendar passes.

[10:27] We've got public comment that's coming

[10:29] up. We have Okay, so we've got Jenny

[10:34] Love Lady first, followed by Mike

[10:37] Marian. Um if you guys can if Jenny if

[10:41] you can come up state your name and then

[10:44] just the um

[10:46] sorry [clears throat]

[10:47] and that whether you're an Alpine

[10:48] resident or not and then if you can um

[10:52] keep your comments to three minutes

[10:55] can you put the

[10:59] >> timer on?

[11:00] >> I probably won't need three minutes but

[11:02] I'm Jenny Love Lady lived in Alpine for

[11:04] 21 years. I'm here about the roundabout

[11:07] situation. that I found about out about

[11:09] I've been here before with this

[11:12] situation on Canyon Crest with them

[11:14] trying to change the speed limit and now

[11:16] I hearing there's a roundabout

[11:18] possibility. Um I don't think that's a

[11:21] great idea. I think it's going to cause

[11:23] more problems in the end of more traffic

[11:26] in a way. I think it's crosswalks that

[11:29] they're concerned about. So, I think

[11:30] moving the crosswalks

[11:32] to a a different location would be a

[11:35] better option than doing roundabouts.

[11:38] That's my comment.

[11:40] >> Thank you.

[11:41] >> We can have Mike Marian followed by

[11:44] Brian Irving.

[11:47] >> Yeah, Mike Marian. Uh we are Alpine

[11:49] residents about 14 years. Uh so my my

[11:53] comment may mirrors uh what Jenny just

[11:56] mentioned. Uh first of all, just thank

[11:57] you for your efforts, for your time,

[11:59] efforts, energy. Um you're doing things

[12:02] that, you know, we all can't do and but

[12:04] we appreciate your representation. Uh I

[12:06] guess with that, my my hope is that as

[12:08] issues come up as issues, as things that

[12:11] we should put our time, energy, and

[12:13] resources to uh that it will be issues

[12:15] that affect the entire city of Alpine.

[12:18] Uh my concern is that you know we're not

[12:21] coming every week to say hey this should

[12:22] be happening on Fifer Horn and this

[12:24] should be happening on Matterhorn and

[12:25] this should be happening on Timberline

[12:26] because that's where I live but this

[12:28] should be what's most important what's

[12:29] highest priority for the city of Alpine

[12:31] as representatives that's what we're

[12:32] hoping for. Uh and so my concern is the

[12:36] same that the issues coming up in this

[12:38] area where for sure there is an issue.

[12:40] It's a concern and nobody's saying that

[12:41] it's not. The concern is maybe there are higher priorities both for our

[12:47] time, our energy, our resources and so

[12:50] concerned about that. Thank you.

[12:54] >> Okay, if we can have Brian Irving and

[12:57] followed by Lisa Marian.

[13:01] >> So, thank you mayor and and council

[13:04] members. Uh my hope in the budget

[13:08] process is that we can make decisions

[13:10] that are uh number driven uh in that

[13:14] maybe we do look at some kind of studies

[13:16] and things that will help us understand

[13:20] needs uh better and we've hired

[13:23] specialists in the past that have

[13:24] suggested things that we do with the

[13:26] money that we have and I'm hoping that

[13:31] in the question of the roundabout you

[13:33] know do we spend you know, over $2

[13:35] million on a roundabout

[13:38] or do we have other priorities that are

[13:40] going to be uh maybe better use for that

[13:41] money now? And I just hope that uh we

[13:44] have good data to back up the decisions

[13:47] that are made when it comes to

[13:48] budgeting.

[13:50] >> Thanks.

[13:50] >> Thank you.

[13:51] >> Okay, we can have Lisa Marian come

[13:53] forward followed by Brooke Newaner.

[13:57] >> I'd like to thank you also for your

[13:58] service. It's fun to see our local

[14:00] government at work and it's a lot of

[14:02] your time. So I appreciate it and I am

[14:04] grateful for the opportunity to come and

[14:06] express my concerns at a citizen.

[14:10] So um I feel like you know hearing the

[14:14] rumblings of a roundabout happening and

[14:16] that we keep talking about this Canyon

[14:18] Crest corridor feels very myopic. I'm

[14:21] more on the northwest side of Alpine and

[14:23] things have been changing a lot over

[14:25] there and um we know there's a as new

[14:28] roads are developed and neighborhoods

[14:30] are happening there's more traffic

[14:32] problems over there and I feel like

[14:33] you've been asking citizens like what do

[14:35] we think about this and what are our

[14:36] main priorities and people have been

[14:39] vocal I've come to a lot of city council

[14:40] meetings and said hey you know I know

[14:42] you've heard main street

[14:43] beautifification there's a lot of things

[14:45] but this same issue is just getting

[14:46] dressed up and with is like a different

[14:49] problem and so if it's like road grade

[14:50] or speeding or roundabout and it feels

[14:52] frustrating because it feels like our

[14:54] voices aren't being heard when we see

[14:56] other problems. So, I'm just

[14:59] like coming kind of like, hey, we feel a

[15:01] little frustrated that some other things

[15:03] aren't being addressed. So, anyway,

[15:05] thank you.

[15:05] >> Thank you. [clears throat and cough]

[15:08] Excuse me. We can have Brooke

[15:10] Newinwander followed by Sid Reeve.

[15:14] [clears throat] Excuse me.

[15:15] >> Hi, Brook Newenwander. um just a

[15:18] resident here for the past 13 years and

[15:22] um my concern is just simply the use of

[15:25] money for a future roundabout on Canyon

[15:28] Crust. I don't feel like that's the best

[15:30] use of the city's money and budgeting at

[15:33] this point. Um and so I did owe

[15:35] everything else that has been said

[15:37] regards to budget. So I don't need to

[15:39] take any more time on that. Thank you.

[15:43] >> Thank you. May we have Sidri, please?

[15:48] My name is Sydney Reev. Um, thank you

[15:49] for your service. I um I've been

[15:51] following the the um Main Street

[15:54] beautifification and that project and

[15:55] I've been to quite a few meetings on

[15:56] that. Proud of myself, but I even went

[15:58] to a planning commission meeting and sat

[15:59] through that for a while um this last

[16:01] little round. I'm hoping to get some

[16:02] more information on that. And so I'm

[16:04] invested in this in this idea. And I

[16:06] feel like um at that time when this

[16:08] started, maybe even like a year ago when

[16:10] I first started going to those meetings,

[16:11] we kind of as a community voiced a very

[16:13] strong voice that we wanted the

[16:15] beautifification and the concentration

[16:17] to be on Main Street. And it feels like

[16:18] this issue with this roundabout is

[16:20] outside of that. And that we have this

[16:22] money that we're being given and all

[16:23] that to work on Main Street. And we just

[16:25] I feel like we just keep getting

[16:26] sidetracked from what the most important

[16:28] part of this is. And this was was Main

[16:30] Street. And so I'd rather put the focus

[16:32] there. I know there's issues with

[16:34] traffic and all that, but if we're going

[16:35] to open that can of worms up, we can

[16:36] talk about the craziness at

[16:38] Mountainville and, you know, the the

[16:39] roads there. I mean, there's there's problem spots all over.

[16:42] And I don't know that it's the city

[16:43] council's job and it's going to be able

[16:46] to fix every little problem like that.

[16:47] But to benefit the most citizens, it

[16:49] will be focusing on Main Street and

[16:50] keeping that the focus and not using

[16:52] money to go to these other side jobs.

[16:56] >> Thank you for your comments. We

[16:57] appreciate you taking the time to come

[16:59] out. We will um proceed with item four,

[17:03] which is reports and presentations.

[17:06] We have Rebecca Dudson um from the

[17:09] Children's Center of Utah.

[17:12] >> Thank you so much, mayor and council

[17:14] members for the opportunity to be here

[17:15] this evening. As noted, my name is

[17:18] Rebecca Dudson, and I have the privilege

[17:21] of serving as president and CEO. And I'd

[17:24] also like to introduce my colleague

[17:26] Stephanie Warner, who is our government

[17:28] relations manager.

[17:29] Um,

[17:31] we are excited to be moving some and

[17:35] bringing some services to Utah County

[17:38] that have existed in the Salt Lake

[17:40] County area, excuse me, for more than 60

[17:43] years. Um, the Children's Center Utah

[17:45] was established in 1962

[17:48] and our primary mission is to provide

[17:50] mental health treatment to enhance the

[17:52] emotional well-being of infants,

[17:55] toddlers, preschoolers, and their

[17:57] families and caregivers.

[17:59] We are the only organization in Utah

[18:02] providing the type of treatment that we

[18:05] offer. We do have families who come from

[18:08] adjacent counties to receive services.

[18:11] And so by expanding and growing um we're

[18:14] bringing uh world-class mental health

[18:17] treatment uh to Utah County. And so I'm

[18:19] going to quickly go through some slides.

[18:21] You received the deck. I won't touch on

[18:23] everything that's in there because I'd

[18:25] like to leave a few minutes for

[18:26] questions if we have um if you have any.

[18:30] Um our primary services are outpatient

[18:34] mental health treatment and day

[18:35] treatment. Outpatient serves children

[18:38] and their families. The day treatment is

[18:40] for children ages two through five who

[18:43] need more intensive treatment than just

[18:46] outpatient therapy. Um they're referred

[18:48] in by our clinical team. And you can see

[18:52] that presently we serve about 1,000

[18:55] children and their families every year.

[19:00] We also provide a lot of consultation,

[19:04] training and coaching to mental health

[19:08] providers, to pediatricians,

[19:11] um licensed psychologists and

[19:13] psychiatrists, also to preschool and

[19:17] child care providers throughout the

[19:19] state. So many of our services are

[19:21] statewide and you can see that we have a

[19:24] teleconultation and training program

[19:26] which provides 100 hours of training

[19:30] every month free of charge to any

[19:34] provider who works with young children

[19:36] ages birth to six. And then we also

[19:40] provide coaching and consultation um

[19:44] again free of charge but to any provider

[19:46] who is working with a young child. We

[19:49] receive a lot of calls from

[19:50] pediatricians and from licensed mental

[19:52] health professionals who can consult

[19:54] with our team.

[19:58] We do have two programs that are also

[20:01] statewide. The infant toddler court

[20:03] program and the trauma program for young

[20:05] children which have helped us reach into

[20:07] counties outside of Salt Lake. Um up to

[20:10] this point they will still be available.

[20:13] uh these programs are focused on putting

[20:16] the child at the center of the treatment

[20:20] that that child needs. And so our infant

[20:23] toddler court program, interestingly

[20:25] enough, has a large presence in Utah

[20:27] County. We're working with judges in

[20:29] both the fourth and fifth districts. And

[20:32] so just to make you aware that these

[20:34] things are already happening in your

[20:36] community. Um we also are keen as

[20:40] mentioned on providing training for

[20:43] providers as well as raising public

[20:45] awareness and working at the local and

[20:48] state level on policy and program

[20:51] development.

[20:52] We do offer a training conference that's

[20:55] been in place uh this will be our

[20:58] seventh year coming um up this November.

[21:02] Um several hundred people join in

[21:04] person. It's a hybrid conference so

[21:07] people join from all over the state

[21:09] online. Uh and again we want you to be

[21:12] aware of what services are available to

[21:15] your provider team in Utah County.

[21:19] Moreover, working with the state and at

[21:22] the local level to formulate policies

[21:26] that provide greater access for families

[21:28] to receive treatment um and treatment

[21:31] that is uh if it's Medicaid that is

[21:35] being provided that it's accessible and

[21:38] that it's covering the services that

[21:40] families need. So, we do spend time on

[21:43] those types of things and activities

[21:44] each year which you can see. I wanted

[21:48] you to see who serves on our board of

[21:50] directors. We have a wonderful uh group

[21:52] of volunteers. You can see Senator Baldy

[21:56] um serves on our board who also is

[21:58] representing um the uh you know Utah

[22:02] County. Not all of it of course, but a

[22:04] good portion of it up at the state and

[22:07] keeping an eye on things. So, um she

[22:09] personally is very excited about our

[22:11] move into Utah County. [clears throat]

[22:13] I want to just um step back a minute and

[22:16] talk about the need in our state. Um we

[22:19] have about 460,000 children in our state

[22:23] ages birth to six. It's estimated that

[22:26] as many as 20% of those children will

[22:29] experience a mental, emotional,

[22:31] behavioral or developmental challenge.

[22:34] that is about 90,000 children um who

[22:38] will need help at some point during that

[22:41] very early year um years in their life.

[22:44] And we often hear I mean I think one of

[22:47] the things I talk often about

[22:50] is the question do young children really

[22:52] have mental health? They do. We all do.

[22:56] And children experience mental health

[22:58] challenges and concerns just like we do

[23:00] as youth and adults. The sooner we

[23:03] intervene and give that child and their

[23:06] family the tools they need, the sooner

[23:08] we can change the trajectory that

[23:10] they're on and reduce

[23:13] the mental health challenges that our

[23:15] state experiences. Um, you are probably

[23:19] aware, I'm probably not telling you

[23:21] anything new, but suicide among children

[23:23] ages 10 to 17 is the leading cause of

[23:27] death of children in Utah. That is true

[23:30] for children and youth ages 18 to 24 and

[23:34] also for adults um aged 25 to 44. So

[23:39] it's really important that we go

[23:41] upstream and so we're excited about

[23:43] being able to bring these services to

[23:45] Utah. Um, just a quick statistic again,

[23:49] it's startling, but I think awareness

[23:51] matters. Of children in Utah, ages 3 to

[23:55] 17 who do have a diagnosed mental or

[23:58] behavioral health condition, almost 67

[24:02] or excuse me, almost 60% of them are not

[24:05] receiving treatment.

[24:08] And in Utah, we have onethird fewer

[24:10] behavioral health providers per 100,000

[24:13] residents than the average across the

[24:16] rest of the nation. So

[24:19] with those data points underscoring our

[24:22] expansion coming into Utah County, we're

[24:24] just very excited to be bringing

[24:28] tested, evidence-based, traumainformed

[24:31] services to families in Utah County. We

[24:35] do have a strong partnership with the

[24:37] state. We've received state investment

[24:39] both from a capital and a program

[24:42] infrastructure. All of those funding um

[24:45] sources that we've received from the

[24:47] state have been matched at a minimum 2

[24:49] one 3 one and 4 one. So the private

[24:53] sector is very involved um in our

[24:56] efforts. I wanted to just quickly give

[24:58] you a snapshot so that you could see um

[25:01] the beauty of the facility, what we're

[25:03] bringing, a space that is filled with

[25:07] compassion

[25:08] um and meets families where they are.

[25:11] Also, a team of experts who understand

[25:14] the mental health of our youngest

[25:16] citizens.

[25:17] And our last invitation to you is to

[25:21] join us for the formal public ribbon

[25:24] cutting um for our building which will

[25:28] be located on the Inter Mountain Primary

[25:31] Children's Hospital, Larry H. and Gal

[25:34] Miller Family Campus in Lehi. Now

[25:36] mentioning this, our day treatment

[25:39] program for children ages 2 to five, we

[25:42] do provide transportation to children

[25:45] for that. And so we have a

[25:48] transportation team that goes out to

[25:50] child care centers or famil family's

[25:51] homes, brings the child into our center,

[25:54] and then takes them back to wherever

[25:56] they need to go, whether that's home or

[25:58] their child care. So we're trying to do

[26:00] everything we can to take down barriers

[26:03] to make mental health treatment as

[26:06] accessible as possible for kids and

[26:08] families. So I would love to answer any

[26:11] questions. I've left out many details,

[26:13] but again, just want to express

[26:15] appreciation for having the opportunity

[26:17] to let you know we're coming. Um, we'll

[26:20] open um in July, but the formal ribbon

[26:24] cutting will be October 1.

[26:27] >> Perfect. Thank you so much. Does anybody

[26:30] um on council have questions for

[26:33] the children's center?

[26:35] >> Um, first of all, I think it's amazing

[26:36] what you're doing. It does make me a

[26:39] little sad that children this young

[26:41] experience trauma.

[26:43] >> Yeah.

[26:43] >> Um but I I recognize that that is an

[26:45] issue. Um just

[26:48] >> I won't speak about Well, and then I

[26:51] guess when you're coming to the city,

[26:52] how can we help just as advocates as

[26:55] spreading the word? Is that what

[26:58] >> both of those things? Um we do have um

[27:02] and I will say in Salt Lake County

[27:03] partnerships with different

[27:04] municipalities where we have applied for

[27:07] funding and you know bringing that in

[27:09] but that's not our purpose today but

[27:11] long term there might be interest

[27:13] because it's helping support um

[27:16] residents who may not be able to afford

[27:18] the treatment. Um I'll mention that we

[27:20] do accept Medicaid and all commercial

[27:22] payers. Um, some people self-pay, but

[27:25] for those who cannot afford the

[27:28] treatment, we private fund raise. And if

[27:30] we're the right place for treatment, we

[27:32] do not turn anyone away. So helping

[27:35] raise awareness. If you have websites,

[27:38] if you have events, newsletters, those

[27:41] are places where we would love to be

[27:42] visible because as long as we have been

[27:46] around more than 60 years, we're

[27:48] bringing something entirely new to Utah

[27:51] County and awareness of what we do is

[27:54] not as prevalent obviously as it is in

[27:56] Salt Lake County.

[27:58] >> Thank you.

[27:59] >> No, thank you.

[28:01] >> Thank you for the presentation. Um, I

[28:03] had two questions. She asked one, so I I

[28:06] added one. So now I have two still.

[28:09] Okay. [laughter] How what if I were to

[28:10] explain someone how do they access your

[28:12] services? Like what's the primary route?

[28:14] Is it through referral? And the second

[28:16] question is how are you partnering with

[28:18] kids on the move, which is something I'm

[28:19] familiar with from personal experience.

[28:22] >> I love it. Okay. Well, families access

[28:25] this many different ways. often when a

[28:27] family is experiencing

[28:29] uh all of the you know commotion that

[28:33] might come into a family when a child's

[28:35] very disregulated and experiencing

[28:37] mental health challenges they are

[28:40] reaching out to their pediatrician. So

[28:42] our largest source of referrals is from

[28:45] pediatricians but families do not have

[28:48] to have a referral. We receive them

[28:50] directly. We receive them from child

[28:53] serving organizations like Head Start

[28:56] and child care centers. Um and then to

[28:59] your point, Kids on the Move. We are in

[29:01] the process of meeting um one of our

[29:03] team members actually used to work at

[29:04] Kids on the Move and so we are

[29:07] connecting with all of the child serving

[29:09] organizations that we're aware of um to

[29:12] ensure that we have good referral

[29:14] pathways and conversations going back

[29:16] and forth. So thank you. We love that.

[29:19] >> Any other questions?

[29:21] >> [clears throat]

[29:23] » Thank you. Looking forward to the

[29:24] October 1st. Congratulations.

[29:27] What uh so your main goal is awareness,

[29:30] right? Kind of right now getting

[29:31] everyone aware about your organization.

[29:34] >> Now, I'm so sorry. Can you repeat that?

[29:36] >> Is your main goal right now? Awareness.

[29:38] >> Our main goal is awareness so that

[29:40] families know we're available and that

[29:44] they can, you know, access the services

[29:46] that we have if they're experiencing

[29:48] challenges in their home. What would you

[29:51] say given all the people you've seen,

[29:52] what is the biggest contributor to the

[29:54] mental health problem? What what do you

[29:56] what would you say is the

[29:58] >> biggest or [clears throat] top three?

[30:00] >> Yeah, that's an interesting question. U

[30:03] my clinical team probably would be

[30:05] better at answering that specifically,

[30:07] but I will tell you we see children for

[30:09] all kinds of reasons. We're often the

[30:11] place where families are learning that

[30:13] their child may um be on the spectrum.

[30:17] uh they're experiencing anxiety,

[30:20] depression. We're seeing children who've

[30:24] experienced something traumatic, and

[30:26] that might be a death of a close family

[30:29] member. It might be somebody who's been

[30:31] bitten by a dog. They might have

[30:33] witnessed an accident. They might have

[30:36] been in a car accident. They also might

[30:38] have experienced um abuse, neglect, or

[30:41] dysfunction in their home. So, it really

[30:44] runs the gamut. Um, I mentioned all the

[30:46] treatments that we use are

[30:48] evidence-based. And so a child comes in

[30:50] with their family. That might be a

[30:53] foster family, might be their birth

[30:55] family, might be, you know, some

[30:57] combination, but they receive an

[31:00] assessment, and then they're paired with

[31:02] a clinician that has the right training

[31:05] to help address what they've seen. So

[31:07] those are just a handful of the kinds of

[31:09] things.

[31:09] >> That's helpful. Thank you. That's all I

[31:11] had. Thanks for doing this work.

[31:13] >> Yeah. No questions for me, just a thanks

[31:15] for what you're doing. And if you

[31:17] haven't already spoken with Heidi Smith,

[31:19] she publishes the Alpine monthly newsine

[31:22] newsletter that goes out with our

[31:23] utility bills.

[31:24] >> Okay.

[31:24] >> And maybe you can provide a summary of what you'd like Alpine residents to

[31:29] know.

[31:29] >> Okay, that's amazing. Well, thank you

[31:31] all very much and and thank you for your

[31:33] service.

[31:34] >> We have Jessica online if she has

[31:35] anything.

[31:36] >> Jessica Jessica, [clears throat] do you

[31:38] have anything?

[31:41] >> I do not.

[31:42] >> Okay, Mrs. That's Miss Stson, thank you

[31:44] so much for your really appreciate the

[31:46] work that you're doing.

[31:47] >> Thank you.

[31:48] >> Okay, let's move on to item five, action

[31:52] items. The site plan approval for the

[31:53] Alpine Fire Station addition

[31:55] [clears throat]

[31:56] and community center site plan.

[32:12] All right. Thank you, council.

[32:15] So, we are all very well aware of of

[32:18] this project. We're very excited about

[32:19] it. Um, last just last week, we had a a

[32:23] successful and celebratory

[32:24] groundbreaking event um for the for the

[32:27] Alpine Fire Station Edition.

[32:30] Um, and so just as a reminder, this uh

[32:34] new design for the fire station

[32:35] modernizes and expands the operational

[32:38] capacity and converts the existing

[32:40] structure into a functioning community

[32:42] center that supports civic gatherings

[32:44] and public activities. So, we're looking

[32:48] at this item today um because the city

[32:51] council requested revised building

[32:53] design options that more closely align

[32:55] with the architectural character and

[32:57] aesthetic vision desired for the

[32:59] station's location within the city

[33:01] block.

[33:03] So, um, the intent for this item is to

[33:05] compare these alternative designs

[33:07] against the original concept and

[33:10] determine the preferred architectural

[33:11] direction for the building and approve

[33:14] the site plan and everything else that

[33:17] goes along with it today. So, we have

[33:19] three resi three revised design options

[33:23] that you can see here in the packet. Um,

[33:26] I won't read through those right now.

[33:28] Um, but we can read through them as we

[33:30] look at the actual design.

[33:33] And then, uh, there's information here

[33:36] that was provided at the previous

[33:38] council meeting about again what the

[33:40] building will do, the addition and the

[33:42] remodel. Uh, the main point I want to

[33:45] focus on here just to emphasize again

[33:47] that the landscaping plan will be

[33:49] completed through a separate city-led

[33:51] effort. And so today the recommendation

[33:56] would be to include that as part of a an

[33:59] approval um for uh moving forward with

[34:03] the building. Um, and then we also have

[34:06] again the the recommendations made by

[34:09] the planning commission here. Um, that

[34:12] it has no faux wood, use as much brick

[34:14] as possible, to have the landscaping

[34:17] plan be provided before installed, and

[34:20] that the exception to the setbacks be

[34:22] given based on uh 324 of the ordinance,

[34:27] which I didn't show that in there.

[34:30] So, the staff recommends that the city

[34:33] council approve the construction of the

[34:34] Alpine Fire Station uh addition and

[34:37] remodel per the site plan and according

[34:38] to the design desired that a landscape

[34:40] plan be provided and that an exception

[34:43] to the setbacks be provided uh as in

[34:45] 324. Any design change to the original

[34:48] design that we'll be looking at today

[34:50] will be handled through a change order.

[34:53] So, I'll go ahead and pull up the

[34:55] different design options here that have

[34:58] been revised.

[35:02] [clears throat]

[35:04] So, revised design option one.

[35:08] This option has minimal changes from the

[35:10] current design.

[35:12] Um, and I'll also pull up the current

[35:14] design uh again after we look at these

[35:16] revised designs. So, this has minimal

[35:19] change from the current design. It has

[35:20] an updated gabled roof for the main

[35:22] entrance to the community center. It has

[35:25] a more accurate depiction of existing

[35:27] ICE stucco coloring,

[35:29] revised roofed, sophet, fascia, door,

[35:32] and brick colors for uh according to the

[35:34] council meeting that we had last time.

[35:36] So, the intent would be to compromise on

[35:39] some of the comments while still

[35:40] exploring some cohesion and similarities

[35:42] to the historic Alpine City Hall.

[35:47] I don't know if we want to talk about

[35:48] each option or I'll just go through all

[35:50] of them and then we can talk about all

[35:51] of them at the same time.

[35:56] [clears throat]

[35:57] Revised design option two. So, this one

[36:00] would be removing all of the faux wood

[36:02] material, an updated gabled roof for the

[36:05] main entrance to the community center, a

[36:08] more accurate depiction of existing

[36:10] stuckle coloring, and then revised roof,

[36:13] sophet, fascia, door, and brick colors

[36:15] as per the council meeting last time.

[36:19] And then the last option

[36:25] is very similar to the second option,

[36:27] removing all the faux wood material,

[36:29] gabled roof to the entrance of the

[36:31] community center. Um, more more accurate

[36:34] depiction of the stucco, the revised

[36:37] roof, fascia door, and brick colors, and

[36:39] then adding eyebrows and a two-toned

[36:42] accent band where where it occurs here.

[36:45] As you can see, compared to the option

[36:48] we just looked at,

[36:52] I'll just show one more time. This is

[36:54] the original concept.

[36:57] Let me zoom in on this.

[37:09] So, this is the current original concept

[37:12] that the council has already reviewed

[37:14] once before.

[37:16] And that is all I have. I'll leave it up

[37:17] to the council for discussion.

[37:22] » Mayor, just one other thing on

[37:24] [clears throat] the landscape plan uh

[37:27] navigate

[37:28] uh

[37:30] see out and and receive proposals for a

[37:34] landscape plan and they have a

[37:36] recommendation for the city. We have a a

[37:38] contract that's ready to be signed for

[37:40] that if that makes any difference on

[37:42] that end of it. [cough]

[37:45] Thank you. Thank you.

[37:49] >> Is that speaking of landscape, is that

[37:51] the same one as doing the sculpture

[37:53] garden or a different one?

[37:54] >> It's it's actually a different one, but

[37:56] we would make sure there's continuity.

[37:59] Um,

[38:00] >> who who makes sure?

[38:03] >> Well, we we can or we can involve you or

[38:08] whatever we need to do.

[38:11] >> Okay. The good there isn't a ton of

[38:13] landscaping um on the fire station side.

[38:16] There's more landscaping on the

[38:17] sculpture garden side. When you guys saw

[38:19] the site plan and the renderings, a lot

[38:21] of it is just

[38:24] um mostly parking spaces and grass. It's

[38:26] not a ton more than that, but um Nade,

[38:31] from what I understand, went out for bid

[38:33] and um they went with a moderately

[38:36] priced

[38:38] um subcontractor.

[38:47] So starting with me.

[38:49] >> Yes. Go ahead.

[38:49] >> Okay. First of all, thank you for the

[38:52] options. Appreciate that. Um I know that

[38:56] the timing maybe wasn't ideal, but I

[38:58] really appreciate the effort that was

[38:59] made to give us three options. Um my

[39:03] personal preference is option three. Um,

[39:06] I love how you have added a gabled

[39:10] entrance on the west side.

[39:12] I I like the removal of the faux wood. I

[39:17] think that was something that planning

[39:18] commission also recommended and I agree

[39:20] with their recommendation. I do think

[39:22] there is quite a bit of stucco now. So,

[39:25] I can see why you added the faux wood.

[39:27] And I guess if I were to add one thing,

[39:31] it would be to um maybe add brick on

[39:35] that entire north face where the bay

[39:38] doors are and perhaps even

[39:42] some of the brick veneer on where

[39:45] there's those three tall windows

[39:47] [clears throat] in that part just to

[39:48] break up some of the stucco. Um, and I

[39:52] can't tell in these three options. Is

[39:55] the roof color the same or has it been

[39:57] changed?

[39:59] >> Sure.

[40:00] >> Yes, Chad, if you can come up.

[40:01] >> Thank you, Chad.

[40:18] » I think it's the back. Yeah.

[40:20] >> Yeah.

[40:22] >> To answer your question, the roof colors

[40:24] have been updated.

[40:25] >> Thank you.

[40:25] >> So for any option, uh whether it's

[40:27] existing two or three, uh we have more

[40:31] accurate depiction of the colors both in

[40:32] the stucco, the roof, etc. So there's

[40:35] more uniformity in that way as well.

[40:37] >> Okay. Thank you. Um

[40:40] correct me if I'm wrong. I I guess I see

[40:42] us moving forward in two different ways,

[40:45] but this is my perspective is um

[40:48] planning commission has worked really

[40:50] hard on the small area plan and I think

[40:54] either we

[40:56] wait until we have that approved so that

[40:58] we have this brand new remodeled fire

[41:02] station to be an example to the rest of

[41:05] the city of what we want our historic

[41:07] area to be. And so we get that all

[41:10] buttoned up and then we follow those

[41:12] guidelines and revise some of the

[41:15] exterior. Um I think option three

[41:18] actually falls in line pretty well with

[41:20] some of those recommendations in our new

[41:22] small area plan. I understand that like

[41:25] I think Councilwoman Henman had

[41:27] mentioned that we're giving you a moving

[41:29] target which I I recognize is you know

[41:32] challenging but that's one option is

[41:35] that we wait until that's taken care of

[41:38] or we go through every little change

[41:41] until we can come to consensus here and

[41:44] the categories I see us maybe discussing

[41:48] this evening or in the near future are

[41:50] you know the vestibule do we want that

[41:52] to be gabled

[41:53] Do we want that to mirror what we have

[41:54] at at the city building? Um, brick,

[41:58] where does the brick go? Um, the roof

[42:00] color, window embellishments. Those are

[42:02] kind of like the four categories of

[42:04] things that I see would be altered or

[42:06] changed. So, I guess I don't know what

[42:09] the best way to proceed forward is, but

[42:11] those are just in my mind the two ways

[42:13] we can move forward.

[42:18] So, just so that everyone understands

[42:20] moving forward,

[42:22] six weeks ago, we approved the original

[42:26] um exterior look and feel and we went

[42:29] forward with the bids. So, no matter

[42:32] what we do and no matter what you guys

[42:34] select, because you did change it at the

[42:35] last minute in the last city council

[42:37] meeting,

[42:39] >> um that it is going to be a change order

[42:42] no matter what. And so keep that in mind

[42:44] so that if we change anything, whether

[42:46] it's gabled or straight, if you change

[42:48] it from the original plans that they

[42:50] went for bid on, it needs to go through

[42:52] engineering again also. It's not just

[42:54] material change. It's not Chad's

[42:57] brilliant and he can make things look

[42:59] like this, but then it needs to go

[43:01] through engineering. So if you're

[43:02] putting brick up above the bay windows,

[43:05] they mentioned last time that we would

[43:07] have to go through engineering also for

[43:08] that. It would have to be engineered to

[43:11] be able to hold bricks on top. So it is

[43:14] I know the minor changes that you guys

[43:16] were suggesting before was thinking oh

[43:18] it's not going to be that much of a cost

[43:20] difference but I think anyone that has

[43:23] um gone through this kind of a

[43:26] construction process realize that it is

[43:28] going to be a significant change in the

[43:30] amounts. So we will we will be outside

[43:33] of the guaranteed maximum price. So

[43:36] Chad, with that in mind, how like how

[43:40] much more extensive is the engineering

[43:41] to add brick veneer above that? Can you

[43:43] maybe help me understand that process or

[43:47] what that entails?

[43:48] >> Sure. So uh again, I believe

[43:50] transparency. Uh I wonder where I'm

[43:53] going with this, but bear with me.

[43:54] There's the Wayne's code around the

[43:56] community center that's actually a thin

[43:57] brick, so it doesn't require as much

[44:00] structural support. It's applied on like

[44:01] a tile in a sense. The reason we had to

[44:04] choose that for the community center

[44:05] specifically is there's some existing

[44:06] door jambs that enter into the apparatus

[44:08] bay that if we were to put the full

[44:09] brick those doors would not operate. So

[44:12] that's an option to go over the doors if

[44:14] over the bay doors if needed. I don't

[44:16] prefer that route because it can fall

[44:17] off and chip and there's not not as good

[44:19] maintenance, but we were forced to do

[44:20] that on the community center. So that's

[44:21] an option. If we did go with the full

[44:24] brick veneer, which would be a typical 3

[44:26] and 58 brick, you would typically have a

[44:28] ledger of some type that would span

[44:29] those openings. So that's something we

[44:31] coordinate with the strual engineer to

[44:32] determine and upgrade our details

[44:33] accordingly. The gable of the roof is

[44:36] probably the most significant

[44:37] engineering change as of now just

[44:39] because it's existing building. There's

[44:41] existing things we have to do to to

[44:42] change it. Um not the end of the world

[44:44] but something to consider. Um you

[44:48] mentioned adding a break around those

[44:49] three tall window areas. That's the day

[44:50] room and dining kitchen area. I think

[44:52] that could pretty minimal. Um but

[44:53] there's still a small ledger needed over

[44:55] those three openings. So something to

[44:58] consider.

[44:59] Thank you. I think just in conclusion

[45:01] for me, if it takes a little bit longer,

[45:04] but we

[45:06] the end product is something that we all

[45:10] like then and it fits in within our

[45:12] plans, I'm I'm in favor of that. But

[45:14] >> and just to be transparent again,

[45:16] everything you see here in terms of

[45:17] options one, two, and three, that was

[45:19] done as a as a quick schematic. This

[45:21] hasn't been documented and drawn to the

[45:23] level it would need to. So any decision

[45:25] or variance from what would be would be

[45:26] some type of a design duration change.

[45:32] [cough]

[45:33] >> Excuse [clears throat] me.

[45:34] >> Um let's see.

[45:37] I think u my primary concern um is not

[45:41] necessarily

[45:43] uh with the detail but like I feel like

[45:47] we need to um have a process so that at

[45:52] the end result we can point to this

[45:55] building since we don't build very many

[45:57] buildings in the city of Alpine as an

[46:00] example leading the way for what we else

[46:02] we'd like to see in the commercial

[46:03] district and so um That's a huge um

[46:09] motivation for me to to evaluate what

[46:12] has been presented based on um what our

[46:15] planning commission is thinking. Um and

[46:18] so I don't know how to reconcile those

[46:20] without approving um

[46:24] something and going through the whole

[46:25] change order process. So my my um

[46:29] question for you then is given the

[46:31] timeline like you have to dig foundation

[46:33] and do all these things and to change

[46:35] anything on the outside like what would

[46:37] be the timeline to like to get onto the

[46:40] same page with our planning commission

[46:42] so that we're like all on the same page

[46:44] so that this this building will stand as

[46:46] a an example to the future development

[46:48] over the next decade. Like are you

[46:51] saying like a week or like do we have a

[46:52] 30 days or what would be your ideal

[46:54] timeline to like wrap it up with a bow

[46:57] back to where you you have there's no

[46:59] questions

[47:01] >> with respect if you don't mind I'm going

[47:02] to rephrase your question the way I

[47:04] think you're asking it.

[47:05] >> Go ahead.

[47:05] >> What would be needed in order to

[47:06] continue the current schedule of

[47:09] construction without any delay and still

[47:10] make any necessary changes?

[47:12] >> Yes,

[47:14] >> I would say three to four weeks is a

[47:16] guess. And the reason that's concerning

[47:18] mostly is if something changes like you

[47:20] mentioned to the footing and foundations

[47:21] that would require around this around

[47:23] the gable area with any type of

[47:24] structure added columns that would be in

[47:26] addition to what we have now.

[47:27] >> Okay.

[47:28] >> Things like veneers and things that

[47:30] don't require ledgers and weights, we

[47:32] have much more considerable time if

[47:34] construction were to continue. And but

[47:36] again, anything like mayor said um in

[47:39] order to facilitate the dates of bidding

[47:40] that we put out there, we're going to a

[47:42] change order process. I understand the

[47:43] change order process opens us up to a

[47:46] change in price.

[47:48] Hopefully downward in price, but that

[47:51] probably won't happen.

[47:53] It could though if we choose a a less

[47:55] expensive material, but maybe not. I

[47:58] know that's not realistic, so I won't

[47:59] even go there. So, um given that um I

[48:04] personally, if you want to know my uh

[48:06] preference would be I don't um I don't

[48:10] Okay, I'm going to say one more thing

[48:12] and then I'll [music] say my personal

[48:13] preference. I um was on the school board

[48:15] before and I shared some photos out of

[48:17] outside of this meeting, but it was a

[48:19] school that was built in this community

[48:21] and when we saw the finished product, we

[48:23] were like, "Yeah, based on the drawing,

[48:25] we didn't really understand that we were

[48:27] going to have certain elements there

[48:29] that were undesirable." So, luckily in a

[48:32] school, we we just take the same plan

[48:33] and we revise it and revise it till, you

[48:36] know, we get, I guess, a better version.

[48:39] And um unfortunately like the the

[48:41] building was under construction so no

[48:43] changes could be made but as your

[48:45] partner said last time like we're still

[48:47] in the drafting part so if changes are

[48:50] to be made is now and not six months

[48:52] from now like making any changes to the

[48:56] exterior. So um through that process

[49:00] what we did was in the in the school

[49:02] district is we removed that um the the

[49:05] thing that we didn't the I don't even

[49:06] know what to call it. it was just like

[49:08] paneling on the exterior and we just uh

[49:10] built it the next version of the same

[49:12] school with brick and then everybody

[49:15] seemed happier. So I'm glad that we're

[49:16] having this discussion in the paper

[49:18] phase and not when we're watching it

[49:21] rise up from the ground. So um I I

[49:24] really liked the original design and I

[49:26] have no real issues with it. The primary

[49:29] concern was that um going forward the

[49:32] planning commission feels pretty

[49:33] strongly that we don't have faux wood

[49:36] and I I don't I didn't I'm not sure if

[49:39] we're all in agreement with that or

[49:40] where we're going to end up. So, um I

[49:43] prefer that we go forward and then go

[49:46] take the next three weeks with a buffer

[49:50] of an extra week if we need it to give

[49:52] you an act exact change order working in

[49:54] combination with our planning

[49:56] commission. And we'd also have time at

[49:59] maybe I know you sat through a lot of

[50:00] meetings to do the small area plan if we

[50:02] went through the actual guidelines that

[50:04] are going to determine what our

[50:05] commercial buildings look like. It would be in al in alignment with the

[50:10] new guidelines. We gave you the old

[50:11] guidelines.

[50:13] >> Just to confirm the small area plan

[50:14] you're referring to, that's what the

[50:16] commission is basing the review on

[50:20] currently.

[50:22] >> The planning commission.

[50:23] >> Yes.

[50:23] >> These were the same these were they gave

[50:25] us. So, the small area plan, they gave

[50:27] us some specific um edits that they

[50:30] would like to see and they mirror what

[50:32] was given to us for this building.

[50:34] >> I see.

[50:35] >> They're not exact because they need to

[50:37] be more flexible because

[50:38] >> that was new

[50:39] >> of a short timeline

[50:41] >> based on the planning commissioner view,

[50:42] not based on the historic downtown

[50:44] guidelines.

[50:44] >> We do have the chairman of the planning

[50:47] commission here. We Alan, do you want to

[50:49] come up and kind of address that?

[50:54] [laughter]

[50:54] >> Doesn't seem to want to. While it's

[50:56] coming up, it's also both both both the

[50:59] current version of the small area plan,

[51:00] the draft and the prior allow brick

[51:05] >> and wood and

[51:07] >> others other materials

[51:09] >> a few others masonry or something.

[51:11] >> So the brick was allowed under both

[51:12] there was no faux wood mentioned in

[51:14] either.

[51:15] >> Okay.

[51:19] » In the

[51:20] >> I'm sorry.

[51:20] >> Can you clarify what you mean? In the

[51:22] gateway historic there is a section that

[51:24] talks about and other like materials

[51:27] >> like materials. Okay.

[51:29] >> And that's what that's how it fits. So

[51:32] just so that everyone's on the same page

[51:35] when we originally met with Babcock

[51:37] Design

[51:40] because the small area plan was still a

[51:42] moving target. We asked them to do it

[51:45] for our current historic guidelines that

[51:48] we had. So they went through it gave you

[51:51] know this was back in what January

[51:53] February gave you know three different

[51:55] choices or elevations to um planning

[51:58] commission you guys went through it

[52:00] approved um can you go back to the one

[52:04] the original and um approve that one

[52:08] based on our current historic guidelines

[52:12] and then um so I'd kind of like to know

[52:15] um I know some some of them have

[52:17] listened to planning planning commission

[52:19] and what happened in there. Ellen, if

[52:21] you can kind of give us a summary of

[52:24] um

[52:26] you [clears throat] know what planning

[52:28] commission would like to see in this

[52:30] fire station building and what um the

[52:34] recommendations

[52:35] were based out of.

[52:46] This is a new experience standing right

[52:48] here.

[52:49] >> A little more intimidating than sitting

[52:51] up there. Carlin, keep in my chair.

[52:53] >> Actually, I think you loan it to me

[52:55] sometime. So, okay, let's jump in the

[52:56] wayback machine here just for a second.

[52:58] Not going to take too long of a period

[52:59] of time, right? Um but, uh I've been on

[53:02] the planning commission for about 10

[53:04] years now and I think the chair for two

[53:07] or three or whenever, you know, Jane had enough. Um, a consistent complaint

[53:13] that we have heard is that our

[53:16] development up and down the Gateway

[53:18] Historic District, the Gateway Historic

[53:20] Corridor, right, which we all know is

[53:21] Main Street basically, is uh, a

[53:24] hodgepodge. I mean, all you really need

[53:26] to do is take a look at our town square

[53:29] and um, you know, predated I think any

[53:32] of us there either on commission or on

[53:35] council. So, let's throw a lot of

[53:37] stones. But based on the guidelines that

[53:40] we have currently in the Gateway

[53:42] Historic District, uh, every single one

[53:45] of those very mismatched buildings, now

[53:47] that's just my opinion, um, in, for

[53:50] example, the town square fit within

[53:52] those guidelines. Even though it looks

[53:55] like a mishmash, um I understand also

[53:57] that you're not going to please all the

[53:59] people all the time, but uh a goal that

[54:01] we have had in planning commission is to

[54:03] streamline those

[54:06] exterior material guidelines that we

[54:10] have to just make it a little more

[54:13] simple, right? So we looked at various

[54:14] things like mountain modern, you know,

[54:17] like what maybe Park City does. Um and there were others, right? Ultimately

[54:21] what we have settled on and this is

[54:24] somewhat of an unofficial uh term but

[54:26] more or less Utah historic right a

[54:30] little more simple um red brick tall

[54:35] rectangular windows you know preferably

[54:38] black framed um usage of timber for

[54:42] example to perhaps brace um porch

[54:46] coverings or or other architectural

[54:48] guidelines like that right

[54:50] The issue is then that implementing

[54:53] that. So about the time that that that

[54:57] we'd been thinking about revising the

[55:00] gateway historic district architectural

[55:03] guidelines um the city received the

[55:06] grant for the small area plan. Now the

[55:08] small area plan is will help you know

[55:10] it's not a binding document but it will

[55:12] help us as a planning commission to uh

[55:16] take whatever those recommendations are

[55:20] that end up in the final version of that

[55:23] small area plan to take those and then

[55:27] amend and ultimately recommend to the

[55:29] city council amendments or revisions to

[55:33] that gateway historic plan. Okay. So

[55:35] that's where we find ourselves in a

[55:37] little bit of limbo because while that's

[55:39] going on,

[55:41] we fortunately or unfortunately are

[55:44] sitting here trying to debate the

[55:47] exterior building materials of probably

[55:49] a 50y old building, right? What's what's

[55:53] basically we're going to like Chrissy

[55:54] said, Council Member, sorry, you're my

[55:57] back door neighbor. Council member

[55:58] Hanaman, want to give you due respect.

[56:01] um is that um

[56:07] we don't build that many buildings in

[56:09] Alpine. So yeah, as a planning

[56:11] commission, we definitely wanted to get

[56:13] that one right. And the recommendation

[56:14] that we've made after a lot of back and

[56:16] forth on planning commission was to

[56:18] simplify the materials and there's

[56:20] somewhere in that email back and forth,

[56:21] but it's to the extent of to take the

[56:24] current architectural guidelines,

[56:25] material guidelines, streamline them

[56:27] down to what we talked about, right? red

[56:30] brick, um types of windows we talked

[56:33] about, perhaps some timber, but just

[56:35] something looks a little more Utah

[56:36] traditional. So, we've made that

[56:38] recommendation to the city council, uh

[56:41] visa v the small area plan, and I'm just

[56:44] not sure of town. So, I'm not sure where

[56:47] the council is on taking up that

[56:49] particular part of the small area plan.

[56:52] It we ate it, you know, it was a big

[56:54] elephant, right? But we ate it in about

[56:56] four or five bites, I think, over a

[56:58] couple of months. and then have and then

[57:00] each time tabled it and then vomited out

[57:02] a big long document onto the council.

[57:05] So, not quite sure how you're going to

[57:07] ultimately tackle that.

[57:09] >> You know, we're trying to take it in

[57:10] bites as we have time during the meeting

[57:12] like here we have it, you know, um after

[57:15] planned after the action items going

[57:17] over a section of it. So, we're trying

[57:19] to kind of do it the same way. But I

[57:21] guess um the hard thing for me is we

[57:24] gave a directive to our designers and

[57:26] architect base it on our current

[57:28] standards because that's what we would

[57:30] have anybody else do that is coming up

[57:33] and has um a site plan coming in. And

[57:36] then in the current his gateway historic

[57:40] design standards it says you know the

[57:42] use of stone, brick, wood, stucco is

[57:45] encouraged as primary exterior material.

[57:47] And then it says innovative use of other

[57:49] materials that mimic the primary

[57:51] exterior exterior materials listed may

[57:54] be considered which I feel like Babcock

[57:58] Design did right. They're using all the

[58:00] materials that are outlined in our

[58:02] gateway historic. Um they're not using

[58:04] real wood. they chose to do an

[58:06] industrial um faux wood that it would be

[58:10] less um maintenance and it would be

[58:13] easier to maintain so that you wouldn't

[58:15] have to stain the wood every year to

[58:16] make it look nice and um whatnot. So, I feel like it's I understand um

[58:26] where

[58:28] I could see where um planning

[58:31] commissioner wants this building to kind

[58:33] of be like, "Oh, we want our buildings

[58:35] to look like that."

[58:37] But when we were first meeting with them

[58:39] and coming up with the design, because

[58:41] it was a moving target, we had no idea

[58:43] where it was going to land. And so, we

[58:46] couldn't move forward with the design of

[58:48] the building. And the only thing that we

[58:50] did have was what was already approved

[58:52] and canon already. Right? This is what

[58:55] has been. And so we said go over this

[58:57] and make sure that you're in with our

[58:59] current historic guidelines. And so um

[59:04] so that's I feel like that's where that

[59:06] is. And then for me I do I appreciate

[59:09] what planning commission does. I feel

[59:11] the same way that Chrissy does that you

[59:12] guys are the gatekeepers of what our

[59:14] main street should look like.

[59:16] Um, but I feel like the timing of it has

[59:20] just kind of imploded. Everything that

[59:22] we've been working on is the only thing

[59:24] that is difficult for me that is trying

[59:27] to um have a project move forward.

[59:31] >> Well, that since I was the one who Oh,

[59:34] you finished. Did you have something to

[59:35] Yeah, just just one last thing and and

[59:37] mayor, what I would say is and I don't

[59:38] know if if y'all had a chance to listen

[59:41] to planning commission, it was probably

[59:43] not as fun as the latest Netflix series

[59:45] or anything. I totally get that.

[59:47] >> But what's that?

[59:49] >> We love it.

[59:50] >> I bet you do. Um but uh we specifically

[59:55] discussed mayor the fact that we did not

[59:58] necessarily know the timeline nor did we

[1:00:01] know the budgetary constraints or where

[1:00:04] the city was in the bid process. So we

[1:00:08] specifically indicated although it is

[1:00:10] not in the motion that uh while these

[1:00:12] are the recommendations that we will

[1:00:14] make to city council we understand that

[1:00:17] the cake may already be somewhat baked.

[1:00:19] Right. Again, understanding we don't

[1:00:21] know the timeline, we don't know the

[1:00:23] budget. These were merely

[1:00:24] recommendations. But as a planning

[1:00:26] commission, we were very sensitive and

[1:00:29] sympathetic to the fact that the

[1:00:33] architectural plans were based on the

[1:00:35] existing guidelines that are in the

[1:00:38] gateway historic uh um architectural or

[1:00:42] whatever. So many different names, I

[1:00:43] forget them all. But but we were very

[1:00:45] sensitive to the fact that there may

[1:00:47] already have been budgeting decisions

[1:00:49] and timeline decisions that would not

[1:00:52] necessarily permit the recommendations

[1:00:55] of the planning commission to uh be

[1:00:58] completely adopted. So we did understand

[1:01:00] that.

[1:01:00] >> Thank you. I appreciate that. So my

[1:01:02] proposal was to uh to um move forward as

[1:01:07] is and give ourselves a hard stop, not a

[1:01:10] moving target, but a hard stop to say

[1:01:12] within 21 days we will have a change

[1:01:15] order or we won't have a change order if

[1:01:16] we can't agree. But I would like to open

[1:01:19] the window. So I don't want to slow them

[1:01:21] down, but approve the site plan that we

[1:01:23] all looked at and all approved, you

[1:01:25] know, a little a ways back. And then if

[1:01:28] we could meet with you guys and not not

[1:01:31] just this is not this is not the only

[1:01:33] but come together on what the small area

[1:01:36] plan guidelines will be run them through

[1:01:38] run our new project through it in a very

[1:01:41] compressed timeline so that we don't

[1:01:43] hold anything up but I know that that

[1:01:45] opens the door to like Alan says that

[1:01:47] opens the door to that we may be in a

[1:01:49] different budget but maybe the the

[1:01:51] timeline would be the same. So, are we

[1:01:53] all so both Chad are we okay with the 21

[1:01:58] days? Do we have that?

[1:02:00] >> Thank you, Alan. I really appreciate you

[1:02:02] coming. Um, [clears throat]

[1:02:06] » yes, please.

[1:02:07] >> Yes, because it's really exciting.

[1:02:09] >> It's better than Netflix.

[1:02:10] >> I had one question to if I can ask

[1:02:13] after. It doesn't have to be now. It's

[1:02:14] not my turn.

[1:02:15] >> She asked a question.

[1:02:15] >> Is it regarding this?

[1:02:16] >> Yeah.

[1:02:17] >> Oh, yeah. Then go ahead.

[1:02:17] >> I just Allan, do you can you speak to I

[1:02:19] I'm not clear. I watched it. I did love

[1:02:21] it. I appreciate all the care you take.

[1:02:23] I really do. All of you guys. They do it

[1:02:26] for as a service. It's amazing. We need

[1:02:28] more people like you guys.

[1:02:29] >> No, we do it for the big paycheck.

[1:02:33] >> That was his joke.

[1:02:34] >> That was a joke.

[1:02:35] >> I know. I know. When you say no faux

[1:02:37] wood, is it was your impression from the

[1:02:39] planning commission that you meant no

[1:02:42] wood altogether or just fake wood? I

[1:02:44] never I couldn't determine that from

[1:02:46] your guys' conversation. No faux wood in

[1:02:48] the sense that there are ceramic

[1:02:50] materials out there that mimic wood,

[1:02:51] hardy board, those types of things.

[1:02:53] We're trying to get away from

[1:02:55] >> any synthetic woods, faux woods,

[1:02:57] >> but was real woody in your mind?

[1:02:59] >> For sure. Yes, I think we I I think we

[1:03:01] did mention I think we did mention

[1:03:02] timber.

[1:03:03] >> Thank you. Okay, that helps a lot.

[1:03:05] >> Yes.

[1:03:06] >> Thank you.

[1:03:07] >> And mayor, I have an input on the 21day

[1:03:10] suggestion if you're if you're

[1:03:13] addressing now.

[1:03:15] >> Um I

[1:03:17] to ex um just correct me if I'm wrong.

[1:03:19] What I understood is as long as it's not

[1:03:22] dealing with the foundation that it

[1:03:24] wouldn't slow down or the structure of

[1:03:27] it that it doesn't slow down any of the

[1:03:29] timeline that it's you know a veneer can

[1:03:32] be decided on and then changed out

[1:03:35] without slowing down the process. Is

[1:03:37] that accurate?

[1:03:41] » Uh you're 100% accurate. as long as that

[1:03:43] veneer or material we're changing it to

[1:03:46] doesn't require a structural support

[1:03:48] like a standard brick. Um, and like I

[1:03:50] mentioned, the one thing that gives me

[1:03:52] pause is that gabled roof with any type

[1:03:54] of associated structure that would

[1:03:56] transfer down to the foundations. But

[1:03:57] beyond that, no. So, I don't think the

[1:03:59] 21 days is a compromise outside of those

[1:04:01] considerations.

[1:04:02] >> Yeah. I I guess the other thing I would

[1:04:04] Oh, sorry. The other thing I would say

[1:04:06] would be the the procurement of the

[1:04:08] material. So depending on what we change

[1:04:10] it to, some of those can get really long. So it could take 12, 18, 24

[1:04:15] weeks to get that stuff. So then that's

[1:04:16] just something that we need to keep in

[1:04:18] mind that if we're going to change it to

[1:04:19] something else, we we need to make sure

[1:04:20] that that that time frame falls within

[1:04:22] our schedule. Otherwise, it would extend

[1:04:24] the schedule out.

[1:04:25] >> So you have to keep in mind that their

[1:04:27] time timeline shows that the addition

[1:04:30] will be done in December and then that

[1:04:33] the um community center portion will be

[1:04:35] done in May. So, it's a very very tight

[1:04:38] timeline that they're working on.

[1:04:40] >> Um, and that's why we're working with

[1:04:42] them. They've done this over, you know,

[1:04:43] many times over and they have it down to

[1:04:45] a science and it's very very tight. So,

[1:04:48] we just need to make sure that we're

[1:04:49] working

[1:04:50] >> with that information. Haven't we

[1:04:51] already selected or didn't you all

[1:04:53] already select the brick? And I'm

[1:04:54] assuming that the brick you chose would

[1:04:57] meet the deliverable deliverable with

[1:04:59] the timeline. So, I believe in the last

[1:05:02] council meeting, one of the asks as part

[1:05:04] of the motion was just changing the wood

[1:05:07] cladding to a brick on the kitchen/day

[1:05:11] room. And then if we can't because of

[1:05:13] engineering do the gable over the three

[1:05:16] doors because of an engineering issue,

[1:05:19] there's other design elements. You can

[1:05:21] paint the gable a similar color of the

[1:05:24] brick so it actually looks like it's all

[1:05:27] one continuous brick piece. So, I think

[1:05:30] there's ways to move forward without any

[1:05:33] holdup and you just select items I'm

[1:05:36] sure that you're already working with

[1:05:38] that can be delivered on time. you just

[1:05:41] would need to order more brick because

[1:05:43] it seems like consistently what planning

[1:05:45] commission is asking and what we

[1:05:47] discussed last meeting was was just

[1:05:51] replacing the cladding for brick, adding

[1:05:53] some more brick and and slightly

[1:05:57] adjusting some of the colors.

[1:06:00] So,

[1:06:02] I guess I'm I'm kind of stuck on what

[1:06:05] you said, like if they can't get it to

[1:06:06] paint it red to match the red brick.

[1:06:09] >> That's why we need 21 days to all get on

[1:06:11] the same page because we have lots of

[1:06:13] details to iron out that we can't

[1:06:15] >> paint it red. I don't think they chose

[1:06:17] red. If I remember the color of brick

[1:06:19] that was in the council room, it's

[1:06:21] actually um kind of a modeled brick

[1:06:23] color. It is a metal. But you know,

[1:06:26] Allan was just talking about like a

[1:06:28] historic red brick building. Am I

[1:06:30] correct in assuming that that you guys

[1:06:32] were looking at red brick buildings as

[1:06:33] opposed to a brown?

[1:06:36] >> Yes.

[1:06:37] >> So yeah, they're looking at what they

[1:06:39] were suggesting is the red brick. Um

[1:06:42] >> yeah. Well, if you look across um the

[1:06:45] park and you look at some of those older

[1:06:47] historic homes where they've captured

[1:06:49] that brick, it looks like the design

[1:06:52] team brought in almost

[1:06:55] um the exact same brick. So I think if

[1:06:58] planning commission, you know, to um

[1:07:00] Allen's point, they didn't have all the

[1:07:02] information, maybe if they could see

[1:07:04] where those historical bricks were

[1:07:06] brought in to capture, you know,

[1:07:08] continuity in our town, you know, in our

[1:07:10] town park area, that that would give

[1:07:12] them more understanding of of the goal.

[1:07:15] >> Did you have anything else that you

[1:07:17] wanted to say?

[1:07:18] >> No, that was it.

[1:07:19] >> Okay. Brent,

[1:07:19] >> have you uh ordered any materials yet?

[1:07:23] >> No,

[1:07:23] >> I don't know. Uh, no. Because there's no

[1:07:25] GMP been established. Uh, cir

[1:07:27] construction would be

[1:07:28] >> so the delay would be minimal because we

[1:07:29] haven't even started to order. Um, I was

[1:07:31] just one one thought I had.

[1:07:33] >> Can I make a quick clarification just to

[1:07:35] make sure we're talking the same time

[1:07:37] frame? I'm so sorry.

[1:07:41] >> Couple weeks ago and I can't seem to

[1:07:42] kick it. Um,

[1:07:44] Council Hman, you you mentioned like the

[1:07:46] 21day period and then decide. Um,

[1:07:49] >> we'll be done deciding.

[1:07:50] >> Be done deciding. Okay. So what I'm

[1:07:52] hearing and I just want to make sure

[1:07:52] we're all on the same page is that if we

[1:07:54] said 21 days as a metaphorical what if

[1:07:58] that would be the time frame we decide

[1:08:00] okay this is what we're doing and then

[1:08:01] the time frame for redesign engineering

[1:08:03] would ensue and then the procurement

[1:08:05] timelines would be evaluated and then

[1:08:08] the budgeting or the rebidding or the re

[1:08:11] um distribution of those im materials

[1:08:13] would go out to bids to get the change

[1:08:14] order put together. So, it's a it's not

[1:08:16] a 21 days and we have everything we

[1:08:18] need.

[1:08:19] >> Yeah.

[1:08:20] >> Or we just continue to move forward

[1:08:22] because foundationally and structurally

[1:08:24] we're not changing anything. And then we

[1:08:27] make those selections as a council and

[1:08:31] give you those adjusted changes.

[1:08:35] » Like I don't think slowing the project

[1:08:37] down is

[1:08:39] >> is necessary. So, approve the site plan

[1:08:42] today subject to details being finalized

[1:08:46] within 21 days.

[1:08:50] » Um, just for personal knowledge, because

[1:08:52] I know that this goes back to our

[1:08:55] guidelines, brick veneer is like

[1:08:58] something that mimics real brick, right?

[1:09:00] So, it's within the guidelines. Are you

[1:09:02] doing brick veneer through the whole

[1:09:04] building to be consistent or are you

[1:09:06] putting real brick in the new build

[1:09:08] because it's stronger? I don't know. I'm

[1:09:10] just curious.

[1:09:12] >> The brick veneer and the thin brick um

[1:09:14] thin set would be the same brick finish.

[1:09:17] >> The whole building would be the same

[1:09:19] finish. The reason we did it was purely

[1:09:21] functionary for the functional, excuse

[1:09:23] me, for the community center because

[1:09:24] those adjacent door jambs wouldn't open.

[1:09:26] >> Okay. All right. Thank you.

[1:09:27] >> Ideally, it would been full brick veneer

[1:09:30] at a full 3 and 58 air gap

[1:09:32] meshification.

[1:09:37] » Okay. I'll just express my appreciation

[1:09:40] for the planning commission, not just on

[1:09:41] this issue, but on all the issues. I I

[1:09:43] do listen usually at 1.5 speed after the

[1:09:45] meeting's over, sometimes at 1.75. And

[1:09:48] I'm often frustrated that a couple

[1:09:50] people don't use their mics or sit way

[1:09:51] too far away from them and I can't hear.

[1:09:53] So, it's a reminder, keep them talking

[1:09:55] to their mics. Um,

[1:09:58] I'm more concerned about what's inside.

[1:10:00] Having seen what it currently is, it's

[1:10:02] not adequate for our firefighters. So,

[1:10:04] I'm really glad we're doing this. I know

[1:10:05] it's a big expense. Um, and it's been a

[1:10:08] long time coming. I'm just glad for

[1:10:09] that. I am, as I said before, I'm not as

[1:10:13] in as vested in the appearance. I do

[1:10:16] like things to look nice. I think this

[1:10:19] building is kind of blah, right? So, I

[1:10:22] do appreciate that the architect's

[1:10:24] efforts to make that look a little bit

[1:10:25] nicer. And I do appreciate some

[1:10:28] residents input about their they like

[1:10:31] the faux wood or they like that

[1:10:32] appearance and I I appreciate that. I

[1:10:35] talked to someone who I trust who has a

[1:10:38] much better eye for these things than I

[1:10:40] have. And just a couple of of thoughts

[1:10:42] that he shared was natural materials are

[1:10:45] preferable. They look nicer and they're

[1:10:47] more likely to stand the test of time,

[1:10:48] not become outdated. Talking about

[1:10:50] brick, stone, and wood specifically. He

[1:10:53] said stucco is both cheap and it looks

[1:10:55] cheap, but he understands budgetary

[1:10:56] concerns. So that flat stucco look on

[1:10:59] the back is not very appealing to me or

[1:11:02] to him. Um, he would prefer all brick.

[1:11:05] but he

[1:11:07] understands that that's expensive and

[1:11:10] more expensive than Stuckco.

[1:11:12] I a house was recently remodeled in my

[1:11:15] neighborhood and they put faux wood on

[1:11:17] it and it looks more modern and it looks

[1:11:19] like a nice home. It just doesn't fit

[1:11:21] in. And what this what this person said

[1:11:24] was faux wood is very popular right now.

[1:11:27] It's being used by architects in a lot

[1:11:29] of different buildings, but it's more

[1:11:31] likely to not stand the test of time

[1:11:33] that it'll probably be just as dated as

[1:11:35] this building was is in 20 or 30 years.

[1:11:38] I I learned that this is really isn't a

[1:11:40] historic building. It's it was modeled

[1:11:42] or remodeled in the 1970s.

[1:11:45] >> So, that's probably why it looks like it

[1:11:47] does and not very favorable. I really

[1:11:49] like the idea of just what the what the

[1:11:51] planning commission said and what

[1:11:53] Sarah's recommended just using more

[1:11:54] brick look on that on that north facing

[1:11:57] side.

[1:12:00] >> That's it.

[1:12:02] >> Anybody else?

[1:12:03] >> I haven't gone yet.

[1:12:04] >> Oh, I'm sorry. It's

[1:12:05] >> okay. No, I understand.

[1:12:06] >> I thought you had and then I thought

[1:12:07] Jessica spoke after.

[1:12:08] >> Oh, it's okay. Jessica, would you like

[1:12:10] question for Would you like to go first,

[1:12:11] Jessica?

[1:12:12] >> No, she already went.

[1:12:13] >> Oh, you already went. Okay, I'll

[1:12:14] finalize. I was just addressing the 21

[1:12:16] days because you were asking about the

[1:12:18] 21 days and I actually haven't gone but

[1:12:21] I did want to talk about the 21 days

[1:12:23] delay.

[1:12:26] >> Go ahead Andrew.

[1:12:27] >> It wouldn't be a delay. Just from what

[1:12:28] I'm understanding Chad's ex explanation,

[1:12:31] it would not delay the end product

[1:12:35] like move in date.

[1:12:36] >> Okay. Well, there's nothing like Alpine

[1:12:38] first world problems to be have everyone

[1:12:40] involved. I'm waiting for the police

[1:12:42] chief to get involved in this on what

[1:12:43] brick he wants. Um, and uh, this is like

[1:12:46] having your wife and you try to choose a

[1:12:48] home color or something. And even that's

[1:12:50] hard. This is like having 10 husbands

[1:12:52] and 10 wives trying to choose the uh,

[1:12:54] isn't it? That's where we've arrived. My

[1:12:57] concern is my Sorry, that's a bad joke.

[1:12:58] Um, thanks for the wood statement. That

[1:13:01] was really helpful. I did not know wood

[1:13:03] was available and I really do like uh,

[1:13:06] real things. Um, however, my whole

[1:13:08] concern with this is a couple things. Um

[1:13:11] it's it's mostly money. Um right now we

[1:13:15] have a a budget that we approved for

[1:13:17] 5.8. Right.

[1:13:19] >> Correct.

[1:13:19] >> I didn't but they did. Um and will any

[1:13:22] of this increase that like I'm talking

[1:13:24] about even what we're talking about

[1:13:25] right now.

[1:13:26] >> There's potential. Absolutely.

[1:13:27] >> But not right now. Right. Let's say that

[1:13:30] >> if we do nothing.

[1:13:31] >> Yes.

[1:13:33] >> There's been a budget established that

[1:13:35] we're going to maintain. The GMP is yet

[1:13:37] to be finalized because it's currently

[1:13:38] bidding as we speak,

[1:13:39] >> but it's very close to 5.8, right?

[1:13:41] >> The GMP is targeted to be at 5.8 or

[1:13:43] less.

[1:13:43] >> And then Shane, uh, and pardon, I am

[1:13:45] leading to these things. And then Shane,

[1:13:48] uh, on this whole thing is involved a

[1:13:51] bond, and I know we're not talk, we're

[1:13:53] talking about the design, but I just

[1:13:54] need to be clear when we're voting on

[1:13:56] this design, are we also voting on that

[1:13:58] bond that is a $2 million bond for this?

[1:14:02] >> No, that will be coming up. Uh so we

[1:14:05] plan on the 9th on June 9th as city

[1:14:08] council

[1:14:09] >> to present the guaranteed maximum price

[1:14:12] for approval

[1:14:13] >> and have Z's public finance here

[1:14:15] >> that's separate say we denied that we'd

[1:14:17] pay for it a different way is that

[1:14:19] correct the 5.8

[1:14:21] >> uh

[1:14:22] >> wait what do you say

[1:14:23] >> are is the bond linked to everything

[1:14:24] we're doing right now or is it still

[1:14:27] debatable in the future? Well, I mean,

[1:14:30] in an ideal world, they'll come back

[1:14:32] with a cheaper price, you know.

[1:14:34] >> Oh, yeah. We like that. You know,

[1:14:35] there's been a lot of work put into

[1:14:37] where we're at right now with the

[1:14:38] estimates and everything and so we've

[1:14:40] been kind of planning for that number in

[1:14:42] our our funding.

[1:14:43] >> No, I know that. I know that. I know their number set. I'm

[1:14:46] wondering if our financing is set or if

[1:14:49] that is still to be determined after the

[1:14:51] today's uh after what we're discussing

[1:14:54] right now. Well, we've made

[1:14:56] recommendations and through the budget

[1:14:59] um you know, we plan to take this much

[1:15:00] out of this uh coming budget year, so

[1:15:03] much out of the next and then

[1:15:05] >> but that's still but that's still to be

[1:15:06] discussed and voted on, right?

[1:15:07] >> It will be voted on by the council. Yes.

[1:15:09] >> Okay. We could still carry this out even

[1:15:11] if we don't bond. Correct. Meaning say

[1:15:14] we decide to forego on some other

[1:15:16] things, we could still carry this out

[1:15:18] without bonding. Like say we voted

[1:15:20] bonding down, we could still carry out

[1:15:22] this project, right? or is it

[1:15:24] impossible?

[1:15:25] >> Well, it depends on if you cut $2

[1:15:27] million worth of projects somewhere.

[1:15:30] >> Yeah, I think that's a discussion for

[1:15:31] another setting, though.

[1:15:33] >> I know. I I don't want to talk about it.

[1:15:34] It's like like my wife, why are you

[1:15:36] bringing this up? I'm only talking about

[1:15:38] it because it's connected, you know, the

[1:15:42] um the money is connected to the uh

[1:15:45] approval of what we're doing. And so, I

[1:15:47] was just trying to be clear because

[1:15:48] >> I don't think there's an automatic

[1:15:50] funding by approving plans. I don't

[1:15:52] think funding is automatic,

[1:15:53] >> but even assumption

[1:15:54] >> that's the secondary discussion we will

[1:15:56] have at a later date that Shane's

[1:15:57] talking

[1:15:58] >> now. Okay, last last two questions.

[1:15:59] Thank you for the time. Jessica and uh

[1:16:02] since we're discussing Jessica and

[1:16:03] Sarah, I I understand you're very

[1:16:04] passionate about this and I I applaud

[1:16:06] you and the planning commission and the

[1:16:09] mayor and Chrissy, you've all you all

[1:16:11] you've all really gotten into this. I

[1:16:12] love it. Um we I'm just the money. I'm

[1:16:15] just thinking money. Um, have you

[1:16:18] reached some Jessica, if you're still

[1:16:21] here, have you reached some sort of

[1:16:23] compromise with folks who are also

[1:16:25] residents who are very passionate about

[1:16:27] this like donors like Don, have you have

[1:16:29] you guys come to a a hearty compromise

[1:16:31] or something that you both feel

[1:16:32] comfortable about moving forward with or

[1:16:33] is it still in limbo?

[1:16:36] >> Jessica or Sarah? Well, when I look at

[1:16:38] the community center, I don't see where

[1:16:41] the donor funding is occurring that the

[1:16:44] community center has actually been

[1:16:45] impacted

[1:16:47] that much. And maybe adding brick to the

[1:16:50] vestibule will have a big impact, but

[1:16:53] you know, that that hasn't been

[1:16:54] determined yet.

[1:16:56] >> Okay. I was hopeful. That was my dream.

[1:16:58] Um Okay. Uh I I so I spoke to residents

[1:17:01] about this because I really wanted to I

[1:17:03] know it's important to you and so I

[1:17:05] wanted to see what the residents

[1:17:07] thought. The residents surrounding here

[1:17:10] um who that's where I start uh were they

[1:17:14] did not care. They did not care if it

[1:17:17] was option one, two, or three. They

[1:17:19] liked all of them and they really liked

[1:17:20] the original. I was surprised. Uh what

[1:17:23] they were most concerned about is how

[1:17:25] much grass it would destroy.

[1:17:28] That was their concern, the park. And so

[1:17:31] I was very surprised and very respectful

[1:17:34] of them. There are also residents

[1:17:36] involved in this who do not live in

[1:17:38] proximity but are financially close to

[1:17:40] it. And I met with Dawn. I hope to use

[1:17:44] his name and I don't mean to uh uh bring

[1:17:47] that up in any sort of way that is bad.

[1:17:50] And he was very passionate about this

[1:17:52] and his family. Former mayor lived here

[1:17:54] forever. very respected, very important

[1:17:57] in our community, his whole family and

[1:18:00] the last family you'd ever want mad at

[1:18:01] you. And so um or at us or at anyone. So

[1:18:05] very respected and uh he was very

[1:18:07] passionate that we maintain the first um

[1:18:11] iteration. He likes it and he's not just

[1:18:14] a resident, but he's also

[1:18:17] uh someone who's been willing to donate

[1:18:19] a lot of money to this. And we want to

[1:18:20] incentivize people to donate to their

[1:18:22] city and uh basically give themselves to

[1:18:27] their city because then they have

[1:18:28] ownership. They love it. They sacrifice

[1:18:30] for it. They've got stake in it. Um so

[1:18:33] that really changed my mindset listening

[1:18:36] to him and his wife and his kids. Um, it

[1:18:41] really did. And so that was my hope that

[1:18:43] you could come to a compromise. If you

[1:18:45] can't, we've got to figure this out

[1:18:46] quick because we don't want more money

[1:18:48] uh going there. I uh echoed the

[1:18:52] sentiment, Jessica, and everyone, and

[1:18:54] the desire, which I also have, to

[1:18:56] maintain the identity and cohesion, and

[1:19:00] I did not get from residents that

[1:19:01] cohesion was so important to them. Now,

[1:19:04] I don't know if they really thought that

[1:19:06] through, but they and also um the donor

[1:19:08] did not. Uh so anyways um I hope you can

[1:19:12] come together on it. I would choose any

[1:19:14] of these options at this point. I have

[1:19:16] been going around Alpine and looking

[1:19:18] very closely trying to preserve the

[1:19:20] identity and one of the thing I really

[1:19:21] noticed is barns.

[1:19:23] It's also one of the most uh common

[1:19:26] things that we have had in Alpine is

[1:19:29] barns. And so I do think wood is not um

[1:19:32] foreign to our identity. Um it's also

[1:19:35] symbolic of I'm not I'm not vying for

[1:19:37] it. I'm trying to represent the

[1:19:38] residents who have spoken for it. I also

[1:19:41] think wood is um very uh deep and uh

[1:19:48] what's the word? Tying in to the fire

[1:19:50] department. And I know that's deep, but

[1:19:52] that's what we do in my world. I do

[1:19:54] story and world building. And I have to

[1:19:57] cut down a lot of trees. I fill for

[1:19:59] them. This is weird, I know, but a fire

[1:20:02] department spends its time basically

[1:20:03] thinking about water and wood and fire.

[1:20:06] but they think a lot about it. Anyways,

[1:20:08] point is I I think we should uh take in

[1:20:11] account the residents that are um also

[1:20:14] involved. I hope you can find a

[1:20:16] compromise. I am for any of these

[1:20:18] options and also uh many of the

[1:20:21] residents are for the original as I went

[1:20:24] down and surveyed them. So that's all I

[1:20:25] have. Thank you.

[1:20:26] >> Just one quick comment on that. I don't

[1:20:29] think Don Watkins was he was looking at

[1:20:32] the blah the stuckco. So, I wonder I

[1:20:35] would like to get know his opinion since

[1:20:37] he is well respected and has donated

[1:20:39] some money on the potential for adding

[1:20:41] more brick.

[1:20:43] Looking at the fire station over by

[1:20:45] Walmart by Lone Peak High School, it's

[1:20:47] all brick. It looks beautiful. I think

[1:20:49] the one in Lyndon that I drove by last

[1:20:51] week,

[1:20:52] >> I love that.

[1:20:53] >> Also brick and looked very nice and kind

[1:20:55] of goes with what a couple of experts

[1:20:57] have told Sarah and me about how brick

[1:20:59] and stone just kind of stand the test of

[1:21:02] time. Yeah, I like that what you did and

[1:21:04] as we're discussing this, my dream would

[1:21:05] be if Sarah and Jessica and the mayor

[1:21:09] and whoever else is very passionate

[1:21:11] about this in the planning commission,

[1:21:12] if you can meet with this wonderful

[1:21:14] donor and find that uh compromise or

[1:21:18] answer that you're all okay with as soon

[1:21:20] as possible to save money, I would I

[1:21:23] would be very much in support and vote

[1:21:24] for that. I think you'd have the

[1:21:25] residents with you.

[1:21:26] >> Yeah, I'm I'm happy to do that. I am

[1:21:28] grateful for the donation and this has

[1:21:30] nothing to do with my gratitude for

[1:21:33] that. I just I would just feel like if

[1:21:36] we're going to set a precedent for a

[1:21:37] design that we want the historic

[1:21:40] downtown to look, this is our chance to

[1:21:43] do it so that we have an example and a

[1:21:45] model when other buildings come to say,

[1:21:47] "Hey, this is this is kind of what we're

[1:21:49] thinking is what we'd like to be." not

[1:21:51] to say, well, you know, we had different

[1:21:54] design guidelines then and now we want

[1:21:57] to look different and so don't look at that. Look look at this. I

[1:22:01] just I feel like now we have an

[1:22:03] opportunity to capitalize on that and so

[1:22:05] we should move forward with that. But I

[1:22:07] will I will meet with

[1:22:08] >> and Sarah one thing that the residents

[1:22:10] brought up because I'm with you.

[1:22:11] >> If this was like

[1:22:13] so foreign to our design, I would be

[1:22:16] sure

[1:22:16] >> right there. I don't think it's a zero

[1:22:19] 100 where we're like in left field and

[1:22:22] Alpine's identity of uh design and

[1:22:24] architecture is over here and we're over

[1:22:25] here. I think we're probably 8020 on one

[1:22:28] side or the other. Maybe 9010. We we

[1:22:31] might be 955. So I think you're really

[1:22:33] close. Anyways, I I I think you're

[1:22:36] really close.

[1:22:37] >> Is it okay if I propose a motion to see

[1:22:39] where else?

[1:22:39] >> Jessica hasn't spoken.

[1:22:40] >> Oh, are you still there?

[1:22:43] >> She's gone.

[1:22:46] >> She's not. Okay,

[1:22:47] >> I'm absolutely here. You just Heidi told

[1:22:50] me I needed to not always be on video,

[1:22:53] so I turned my video off unless I'm

[1:22:55] talking.

[1:22:55] >> No, no, she just said she asked you. I

[1:22:58] assumed you weren't there because your

[1:23:00] video was turned off.

[1:23:02] >> Okay. Did you want to make your comment?

[1:23:04] >> Yeah. I mean, I I think it's mostly been

[1:23:07] made adding more brick. I don't think we

[1:23:10] need to slow anything down. I actually

[1:23:12] think they could go ahead and move

[1:23:14] forward with pouring the foundation on

[1:23:16] this or doing what needed to be done as

[1:23:19] far as forming it out and then work

[1:23:22] through those few areas that we're

[1:23:26] looking at potentially material changes.

[1:23:29] And that would be the day room kitchen

[1:23:32] area

[1:23:34] to brick that instead of wood. and then

[1:23:36] adding brick on the um gables going into

[1:23:41] the community center. I believe that

[1:23:43] would warm it up right now because I

[1:23:45] believe the current version, the the one

[1:23:48] that Chrissy's wanting to approve

[1:23:49] tonight has a modern flat roof and I

[1:23:52] think the whole thing is stucco along

[1:23:55] that side except for the um brick

[1:23:58] [clears throat] band along the bottom.

[1:24:00] Is that correct?

[1:24:01] >> Yep.

[1:24:01] >> Yeah, we're looking at it. So, from a,

[1:24:04] you know, a a visual impact going into

[1:24:07] our community center, I do think um

[1:24:10] adding a little more depth with some

[1:24:11] brickwood and and making that gabled

[1:24:14] would really benefit and add to um that

[1:24:17] side of the building. That's it.

[1:24:20] >> Thank you.

[1:24:21] >> Okay, I'm going to go ahead and make a

[1:24:23] motion. We'll see where we stand. I move

[1:24:25] to recommend approval of the

[1:24:27] construction of the Alpine Fire Station

[1:24:29] addition remodel as submitted in the

[1:24:31] site plan according to the original

[1:24:33] option. Um,

[1:24:36] a landscape plan will be provided before

[1:24:39] installation and that the exception to

[1:24:41] the setbacks for parking be allowed

[1:24:43] based on the criteria in 3.24.030

[1:24:47] 030 in the development code along with

[1:24:50] one condition that alternative

[1:24:54] um exterior

[1:24:57] facads, what do you call it? Exterior

[1:24:59] >> materials. materials be uh reconfigured

[1:25:05] and with um in congruence with the planning

[1:25:13] commission and Main Street guidelines in

[1:25:16] the next 21 days. Um that would give us

[1:25:20] oh I had my calendar open till um

[1:25:23] >> June 16th. So ideally till June 16th.

[1:25:28] I'm going to leave it at that so we can

[1:25:30] vote on it.

[1:25:31] >> Okay. Is there a second?

[1:25:37] » Can I ask questions?

[1:25:40] >> Can we ask questions to

[1:25:41] >> I don't know ahead in the middle of a

[1:25:42] >> or must we make a second?

[1:25:44] >> Is it going to be a is going to be a

[1:25:46] three person a normal vote on any

[1:25:49] changes at the 21day point?

[1:25:52] >> I think so. So it's the the current site

[1:25:54] plan and any approved changes on a three

[1:25:57] majority

[1:25:58] >> current super majority. The thing that

[1:26:00] the the reason I forgot to say the f to

[1:26:02] speak to your financial if we move

[1:26:04] forward with the current plan as is we

[1:26:06] are at this point still at the

[1:26:08] guaranteed maximum price. If we if we

[1:26:11] start to adjust things in this motion we

[1:26:14] can't really say that we're going to we

[1:26:16] can't we don't have a good starting

[1:26:18] point. So by leaving this guarantee max

[1:26:20] maximum price with the current plan, we

[1:26:23] have a starting point to say are we

[1:26:24] going to go up or down with whatever

[1:26:26] proposed changes we're having. Is that

[1:26:28] right? Because at this point if we

[1:26:29] approve as is a guaranteed maximum

[1:26:31] price, right?

[1:26:33] >> They're currently working on that

[1:26:34] guaranteed maximum price. So yeah, on

[1:26:36] the 9th we're hopefully we'll have that

[1:26:38] number from all the subcontractors.

[1:26:39] We'll be able to compile that and then

[1:26:41] we will see exactly where the number

[1:26:42] comes in to set that price.

[1:26:44] >> So as of right now that's that's what

[1:26:46] we're working towards. So any changes at

[1:26:48] this point would ultimately be a change

[1:26:50] order that would come after that that

[1:26:52] GMP is set and then it would be you know

[1:26:54] hopefully a reduction but whatever that

[1:26:56] cost ends up being

[1:26:57] >> but we are to expect something around

[1:26:59] 5.8 right?

[1:27:00] >> Yes. Yeah.

[1:27:00] >> Or lower.

[1:27:02] >> It should be noted that there is no GMP

[1:27:05] currently.

[1:27:06] >> Okay. That was a misunderstanding I had.

[1:27:08] >> There's a targeted budget of 5.8.

[1:27:10] >> Yes.

[1:27:10] >> The tracking of said budget based on all

[1:27:12] the current documents has led us to

[1:27:14] believe that we will see 5.8 eight or

[1:27:16] hopefully less or right around there.

[1:27:18] Whatever the number comes in at for the

[1:27:20] final bidding which is currently

[1:27:21] happening, that's the number that will

[1:27:22] be presented to the council as approval

[1:27:25] for the GMP.

[1:27:27] Now, once the GMP is approved and

[1:27:28] established, barring any changes, that's

[1:27:31] what the building will cost. Any changes

[1:27:34] whatsoever that are of of

[1:27:36] >> obviously

[1:27:37] >> an owner directed change

[1:27:38] >> or outside the care control is subject

[1:27:41] to a change,

[1:27:42] >> right? We understand. I understand that.

[1:27:44] >> But So, can I get a second to the

[1:27:47] motion?

[1:27:49] >> Let's get a second to the motion first

[1:27:51] and then let's have a discussion.

[1:27:56] » I can second it for discussion.

[1:27:59] >> Okay. So, it's been moved by

[1:28:01] Councilwoman Hanamman, second by

[1:28:02] Councilman Yarm. Okay. Did you have an

[1:28:05] additional question?

[1:28:05] >> Yeah. Yeah, I had questions. Um, the way

[1:28:08] you formulated your motion, are you you

[1:28:11] included the planning commission changes

[1:28:14] Well, we come to an I don't I don't

[1:28:16] think we're all on the same page yet.

[1:28:17] So, they'd be involved in the pro final

[1:28:20] >> My two questions are because the

[1:28:22] planning commission has a list of

[1:28:23] changes. It was no faux wood. It was

[1:28:26] black uh

[1:28:28] such and such.

[1:28:29] >> Yes.

[1:28:29] >> Does your motion include all of their

[1:28:31] changes?

[1:28:31] >> No, because we're way apart. We're so

[1:28:33] far apart.

[1:28:34] >> I apologize. I didn't understand.

[1:28:35] >> I think what she's saying is that she

[1:28:36] wants

[1:28:37] >> city council to work with planning

[1:28:39] commission.

[1:28:40] >> Okay.

[1:28:40] >> On this plan.

[1:28:42] >> Okay. My next question is, does your

[1:28:43] motion uh give any um ability for some

[1:28:48] of the things that Jessica and Sarah

[1:28:50] have been brought up to still be

[1:28:51] >> absolutely

[1:28:52] >> entertained by folks who have donated

[1:28:54] and to talk about whether they might not

[1:28:57] do it or they might it it allows them

[1:28:59] the ability to still pursue

[1:29:02] >> uh with Okay.

[1:29:03] >> Yes. I just think we're very farart.

[1:29:06] >> All that we're doing now is allowing the

[1:29:08] process to move forward. He's giving 21

[1:29:10] days for us to get our act together and

[1:29:12] decide on.

[1:29:13] >> Okay. So why 21? Because that's

[1:29:15] [clears throat] on a day that we don't

[1:29:16] meet on the

[1:29:17] >> Oh, because that's what he told me. Oh,

[1:29:19] we we can go if we can amend it to 14.

[1:29:21] You think we can do it?

[1:29:22] >> We just have we're going to have an

[1:29:23] extra meeting for this. Is that the

[1:29:24] plan?

[1:29:25] >> No. I mean, ideally it'll be on the

[1:29:26] meeting on the 9th and then we'll

[1:29:28] discuss it. But I think

[1:29:30] >> we've had emergency meetings. I mean,

[1:29:32] ideally we can approve it on the 9th and

[1:29:34] be done and not meet on the

[1:29:35] >> 16th. She's I think she's just giving a

[1:29:37] little leeway because the time was a lot

[1:29:39] >> because we can amend it.

[1:29:40] >> I'm afraid if we get to 14 days and

[1:29:42] we're still where we are right now,

[1:29:44] we're going to hold up the whole

[1:29:45] project.

[1:29:46] >> Yeah. So, let's just

[1:29:47] >> We have met before like at noon and just

[1:29:49] voted on one item.

[1:29:51] >> Can I have a question? Why we're

[1:29:53] >> Hold on just a second. Jessica, you're

[1:29:55] I'm sorry because you're online. You're

[1:29:56] going to be last. No, Sarah.

[1:29:58] >> We're discussing, right?

[1:29:59] >> I know. But Sarah had a comment. I just

[1:30:01] because you're online and we can't see

[1:30:03] you. It's kind of hard. Let's have her

[1:30:05] go and then you can speak up. Okay.

[1:30:07] We're just going to take turns.

[1:30:09] >> Sorry, Jessica. Just one question on

[1:30:10] your motion. You mentioned the exterior

[1:30:13] materials. Do we need to put in there if

[1:30:16] we're going to change the gable or keep

[1:30:17] it a flat roof? No. Okay.

[1:30:20] >> No, I think

[1:30:20] >> in that motion.

[1:30:22] >> Oh, exterior.

[1:30:23] >> It may be appropriate to say exterior

[1:30:25] design.

[1:30:25] >> Exterior design. Okay.

[1:30:27] >> Okay. I would I would entertain an

[1:30:29] amendment to the motion.

[1:30:30] >> You would entertain.

[1:30:31] >> So, Deian, if you can amend the motion.

[1:30:33] Are you Who seconded? Andrew, are you

[1:30:35] okay with that amendment?

[1:30:37] >> Yes. And then Jessica amend the motion

[1:30:39] to not to say just the exterior material

[1:30:42] but also the exterior just to say

[1:30:44] exterior design.

[1:30:46] >> I think it [clears throat] needs to be

[1:30:46] >> Thank you. Okay. Hold on.

[1:30:48] >> It's Jessica's turn. Sorry.

[1:30:50] >> No, it's my turn.

[1:30:50] >> And then Chrissy, would you be um amable

[1:30:53] to amend the motion to just work with

[1:30:56] council? The council works together

[1:30:58] because we've already had planning

[1:31:00] commission recommendations. As council,

[1:31:01] we can take those recommendations and

[1:31:03] apply them. We just need to work as a

[1:31:06] council to come up with a consensus.

[1:31:09] >> I think that Chrissy's idea of working

[1:31:12] with planning commission so that we're

[1:31:13] all on the same page is a good idea and

[1:31:15] I don't think it's a detriment.

[1:31:18] >> I'm not saying the detriment. I'm just

[1:31:19] saying

[1:31:22] they've already made their

[1:31:23] recommendation. We've already gone

[1:31:25] through that legislative process.

[1:31:28] I as part of the recommendation and the

[1:31:30] rationale was because as other people

[1:31:33] have stated and I feel strongly about

[1:31:35] that this building will stand as a

[1:31:38] example of what we'd like to see in the

[1:31:39] future and frankly from the discussion

[1:31:42] even though I've listened to planning

[1:31:43] commission and I have their

[1:31:44] recommendations I'm a visual person and

[1:31:47] so I need more to know that we're kind

[1:31:49] of all on the same page because I would

[1:31:51] hate for them to say well don't look

[1:31:53] over at the fire station because what we

[1:31:55] ended up with is this something

[1:31:57] different. And so I'd like to have them

[1:31:59] uh be on the same page. And this this is very specific to one building,

[1:32:06] but I think it it's a catalyst to the

[1:32:09] final discussion about what should our

[1:32:10] main street guidelines be

[1:32:13] >> because we've talked about different

[1:32:14] materials. We've talked about

[1:32:16] architectural details, all types of

[1:32:18] things that we should be implementing.

[1:32:21] Um but that's not the goal to have

[1:32:23] within 21 days to have the main street

[1:32:25] guidelines there. But I feel like we'll

[1:32:26] be like 90% there to rewrite our gu our

[1:32:29] main street guidelines because they will

[1:32:32] go the main street guidelines will go

[1:32:33] through planning commission and us.

[1:32:35] >> Okay, let's go. Um Brent,

[1:32:37] >> yeah, I we might need to reward the

[1:32:41] motion. It's I think this is written for

[1:32:43] the planning commission. It says I move

[1:32:44] to recommend approval. I think as the

[1:32:46] city council we move to approve the

[1:32:48] construction.

[1:32:51] >> Is that right?

[1:32:51] >> Did you say I moved or did you say

[1:32:53] >> I read it as what? I read it as printed.

[1:32:55] So,

[1:32:55] >> so are you amendable to

[1:33:00] modify to say I move to approve as

[1:33:04] opposed to I move to recommend approval?

[1:33:06] >> Absolutely. Yes. To make it official

[1:33:08] >> the amended motion.

[1:33:09] >> Yes. And I'm just sorry just to last

[1:33:12] thing Sarah and Jessica do you have any

[1:33:14] other amendments or does this feel okay

[1:33:16] for the very important things that you

[1:33:19] have thought about that you have this

[1:33:22] time to continue working on them and

[1:33:24] potentially work with donors and council

[1:33:27] and planning commission to find a great

[1:33:30] that you can land on something you're

[1:33:31] happy with. Jessica and Sarah.

[1:33:34] >> Yes. I'm fine with this. I also think

[1:33:36] Chad had a comment. Chad did have a

[1:33:38] comment. comment comment. Chad, did you

[1:33:40] want to make a comment?

[1:33:42] >> Did Councilman Moon want to reply?

[1:33:44] >> Oh, I was just going to say, you know,

[1:33:46] you keep referring to, you know, some

[1:33:48] kind of like what I'm wanting. This

[1:33:51] really is consensus of our gateway

[1:33:53] historic and, you know, the mission and so this isn't about me and I don't

[1:33:58] think it's e also about Sarah. I think

[1:34:01] it's about representing our historic um

[1:34:04] heritage and making sure we get that

[1:34:06] right. Thanks for that clarification,

[1:34:08] Jessica.

[1:34:08] >> Great clarification. Do you feel like it

[1:34:10] meets that this current uh motion that

[1:34:13] it meets this historical guidance

[1:34:17] or that we will be able to do that in

[1:34:19] the next 20?

[1:34:19] >> My understanding of the motion is we're

[1:34:21] now going to collaborate with planning

[1:34:24] commission. I'm not sure how that

[1:34:26] process is going to work together, if

[1:34:27] it's going to be in public meetings. I

[1:34:29] know that there's been a lot of meetings

[1:34:32] um with this building that haven't

[1:34:34] included, you know, very many eyes and

[1:34:37] so is this going to be I think the

[1:34:39] motion maybe should spell out what that

[1:34:42] process is going to look like.

[1:34:44] >> I think we'll try to figure out but

[1:34:46] Chad, did you want to go ahead and make

[1:34:48] a comment?

[1:34:48] >> Yeah, if I can make just a few closing

[1:34:50] comments and I want to preface it by

[1:34:52] saying this is with respect. Um, I

[1:34:56] actually serve on the Sandy City

[1:34:58] Architecture Planning Review Committee,

[1:34:59] so I understand and I get where you guys

[1:35:01] are coming from and I respect it.

[1:35:04] Um, you guys entered into a contract

[1:35:06] with me as the architect. You hired me

[1:35:08] as an architect and designer to help

[1:35:10] with this process. So, I'm not going to

[1:35:13] negate this, but I encourage you to

[1:35:14] involve me in this process because

[1:35:16] that's the whole reason you hired me.

[1:35:17] Otherwise, you could have designed in

[1:35:19] this room and saved yourself a ton of

[1:35:21] hassle.

[1:35:22] >> But I think I'm providing value. I

[1:35:24] firmly believe that. That said, and I'm

[1:35:26] not trying to this again, it's with

[1:35:28] respect. Contractually, when we go into

[1:35:30] construction administration, which is

[1:35:32] what happens when drawings get submitted

[1:35:33] for permit and bidding, the design phase

[1:35:36] is considered complete and we go into

[1:35:38] construction administration where we

[1:35:39] oversee and facilitate the construction

[1:35:42] via the contractor. What we're talking

[1:35:44] about in this 21 days and everything

[1:35:46] else beyond that is continued design.

[1:35:49] And I don't have the scope or fee for

[1:35:51] that. So respectfully,

[1:35:54] regardless of changes are made,

[1:35:55] regardless of decisions are made, the

[1:35:57] timing that's spent and then whatever

[1:35:58] changes come after it, there's cost

[1:36:00] associated with it. I bring that up

[1:36:02] purely for the fact of everyone being

[1:36:03] budget conscious of what comments have

[1:36:04] been made. Um, couple last things, faux

[1:36:09] wood versus realwood, I 100% agree with

[1:36:11] planning commission. Real wood is

[1:36:13] timeless. The comments you had are

[1:36:15] absolutely appropriate. The reality of

[1:36:18] the reason why we wouldn't choose real

[1:36:19] wood in this scenario is the maintenance

[1:36:20] and the upkeep. But we get the

[1:36:22] trade-offs. There are samples here. If

[1:36:23] you're interested, I'm welcome to leave

[1:36:25] them here. You can look at what this

[1:36:26] material is intended to be like. This

[1:36:29] isn't the finish. The finish is with

[1:36:30] Shane. Um, and then last thing, just to

[1:36:33] kind of reiterate, I don't get a vote on

[1:36:35] this, and that's fine. But I also want

[1:36:36] to make sure you guys understand, I'm

[1:36:37] not trying to press any agenda. Um, but

[1:36:40] that said, I I do feel like I have a

[1:36:41] valued opinion based on my career, my

[1:36:44] professional opinion. So, I don't need

[1:36:47] to advocate for anything. I I'll let you

[1:36:48] guys do your thing. I'm here. But

[1:36:51] respectfully, I'm going to

[1:36:52] [clears throat] let you decide what you

[1:36:53] want to do.

[1:36:54] >> Thank you.

[1:36:56] >> Before I vote, I would like to know what

[1:36:58] the plan is. When are we going to meet

[1:36:59] and how any idea what the logistics

[1:37:02] would look like?

[1:37:04] >> I would like that to be part of the

[1:37:05] motion actually so it doesn't get

[1:37:07] overlooked.

[1:37:12] » Sorry, I missed that.

[1:37:13] >> Anyone have a proposal of when this is

[1:37:15] going to happen so we don't run up to

[1:37:17] the deadline and we're all scrambling

[1:37:18] again? That's a great question. Maybe

[1:37:21] Jessica, do you have what we can do is

[1:37:23] do a work session on the 9th, maybe

[1:37:26] starting at maybe 4.

[1:37:28] >> So, right before we voting or

[1:37:30] >> Yeah, I don't think we should wait

[1:37:32] because we want renderings.

[1:37:34] >> I don't think that was going to work.

[1:37:36] >> How about a work session before the city

[1:37:38] planning commission meet?

[1:37:39] >> Yeah. Can we meet with the planning

[1:37:40] commission on their day?

[1:37:42] >> Can we meet with the planning

[1:37:43] commission? That was my question for

[1:37:45] Steve. I don't know if that's legal as

[1:37:48] far as

[1:37:49] >> can we do like a joint

[1:37:51] >> you can have a joint work session.

[1:37:52] >> Yeah. Can we do that? Yeah. Very common.

[1:37:55] >> Um you just have to notice it as a

[1:37:57] meeting of both the city council and the

[1:37:59] planning commission

[1:38:00] >> on Tuesday the 2nd.

[1:38:01] >> Yeah.

[1:38:02] >> Tuesday the second.

[1:38:03] >> And to Chad's point, could we keep him

[1:38:06] involved? Is that something he could

[1:38:07] attend?

[1:38:08] >> He can, but it's he's it's all billable

[1:38:11] at this point. He's already done his

[1:38:12] design work he's done. And so, yes, he

[1:38:15] would love to help and continue to help

[1:38:17] and will have the help of his

[1:38:19] engineering firm, but no matter what, at

[1:38:22] this point, the cost is um what we like

[1:38:25] contracted him for, he's done with his

[1:38:28] job.

[1:38:28] >> So, amending the motion to specifically

[1:38:30] state a work work session on June 2nd at

[1:38:34] six o'clock. Are they meeting?

[1:38:36] >> Yeah, I was going to say Kaden, do you

[1:38:38] know their schedule?

[1:38:39] >> Planning Commission?

[1:38:41] I guess

[1:38:42] >> I guess I can't guarantee it, but I do

[1:38:45] believe that we are meeting. Yes.

[1:38:47] >> Can we look on the website?

[1:38:48] >> Can we do five?

[1:38:51] >> It will depend on if the items are

[1:38:54] complete that we're reviewing currently.

[1:38:57] >> And you might you're probably not going

[1:38:59] to have everyone available. I won't be

[1:39:00] here for this.

[1:39:01] >> Is there a reason to have it um a week

[1:39:05] before? Can we we can't do it the

[1:39:07] morning of or

[1:39:09] >> even the day before? I think we want

[1:39:10] renderings

[1:39:12] of what we're going to approve.

[1:39:14] >> So, you want them.

[1:39:16] >> We want to give them input and we're all

[1:39:18] on the same page and then Chad has his

[1:39:20] time to do again what he's just done.

[1:39:22] Sorry, Chad. And then that's what we're

[1:39:25] voting on. If if we do it in the

[1:39:27] morning, that's like such a quick

[1:39:28] turnaround.

[1:39:30] >> I didn't realize that's what the impetus

[1:39:31] was. Um,

[1:39:34] >> but part of the work session would be to

[1:39:37] determine what would go on the

[1:39:39] renderings. Right.

[1:39:40] >> Right. For sure.

[1:39:42] >> And then the renderings would be

[1:39:43] available prior to our final our meeting

[1:39:46] where we vote in on June 9th.

[1:39:48] >> So, are you saying that you want Chad

[1:39:49] present at our work session

[1:39:52] to facilitate that or

[1:39:55] >> can I make a suggestion on that?

[1:39:57] >> Yeah, somebody help us.

[1:39:59] >> Can disagree with me. I have not been in

[1:40:01] all these construction meetings, so I

[1:40:02] don't know how it works.

[1:40:03] >> I think it's continued design, as he

[1:40:05] mentioned. I think it'll be cheaper to

[1:40:07] have him there from the get-go as

[1:40:09] opposed to presenting something to him

[1:40:12] later and maybe there's an issue with it

[1:40:14] or whatever that he could have addressed

[1:40:15] if he's there from the start.

[1:40:18] So, I think it'll be cheaper.

[1:40:20] >> Does that conflict with your Sandy um

[1:40:22] commitment

[1:40:24] >> January 2nd? I mean June 2nd.

[1:40:29] Um, is it 6

[1:40:31] >> next Tuesday?

[1:40:32] >> Yeah, it's a week from tonight at 6.

[1:40:34] >> Do it at 6:00 and then do

[1:40:36] >> Well, no, planning commission starts at

[1:40:37] six.

[1:40:37] >> Planning commission. It would have to be

[1:40:38] at like five because planning commission

[1:40:40] starts at six.

[1:40:41] >> It could be their first item on their

[1:40:43] agenda.

[1:40:44] >> A work session. We've done that before.

[1:40:46] Or we can do it at 5. I don't care.

[1:40:48] >> No, I'm just wondering how full their Do

[1:40:50] you know how full their agenda is,

[1:40:51] Kaden?

[1:40:52] >> It won't be that full. Okay. Maybe an

[1:40:54] item or two.

[1:40:55] >> So, maybe six o'clock.

[1:40:58] All right. Six o'clock June 2nd. Should

[1:40:59] we amend the motion?

[1:41:02] >> Are you

[1:41:02] >> We can put it in the minutes, can't we?

[1:41:04] >> What

[1:41:05] >> do we have to amend it?

[1:41:06] >> Yeah, that's They want it in the motion.

[1:41:09] >> But you don't have to. You don't have to

[1:41:10] agree to it.

[1:41:12] >> I don't think it would hurt. As long as

[1:41:13] I have Chad's looking like there's a

[1:41:15] conflict.

[1:41:21] » He's out of town.

[1:41:23] >> I still think you could meet and figure

[1:41:25] this What is your availability like,

[1:41:27] Chad?

[1:41:30] » Can you be on a Zoom call at 5:00 or 6

[1:41:33] o'clock?

[1:41:33] >> Yeah, just to make sure we're not

[1:41:34] steered the wrong direction.

[1:41:36] >> I'll be driving home at that time.

[1:41:37] Unfortunately, um

[1:41:41] within a week, mayor,

[1:41:44] >> um yes, I mean like next week sometime

[1:41:46] or later on

[1:41:51] » uh the evening of

[1:41:54] June 1st, I could be available if we

[1:41:55] went to six o'clock then.

[1:41:58] >> That works.

[1:41:58] >> Yeah.

[1:42:00] >> Monday, June 1st.

[1:42:01] >> That works. We have no one here from

[1:42:04] Where's Allen when we need him? He could

[1:42:05] not bear to stay a minute longer.

[1:42:07] >> If it's simply meeting to to continue a

[1:42:09] conversation where we are right now, I'm

[1:42:11] available tomorrow afternoon as well.

[1:42:15] >> I don't know if that's helpful for too

[1:42:17] soon.

[1:42:17] >> That's I think that's really short

[1:42:18] notice for our planning commission.

[1:42:20] >> Uh so they do have a scheduled meeting

[1:42:22] on June 2nd. I can see their 2026

[1:42:25] calendar.

[1:42:27] >> How many days do you need to turn around

[1:42:29] to bring renderings with whatever comes

[1:42:32] out of this next meeting? At the same at

[1:42:35] the same if you pan up the screen Katon

[1:42:39] basically a rendition of what you see

[1:42:41] here.

[1:42:41] >> Yes.

[1:42:42] >> With something different

[1:42:43] >> just graphics.

[1:42:44] >> It depends on the level of of changes

[1:42:45] but if it's

[1:42:47] >> hair or two

[1:42:49] >> it's it's hard to say. I need to look at

[1:42:51] I I have other you know I have other

[1:42:52] commitments and then just this this

[1:42:53] obviously I want I want to facilitate

[1:42:55] but not long considering I can put time

[1:42:58] towards it and get after it.

[1:43:00] >> I'm not trying to hold hostage. Are you

[1:43:02] thinking

[1:43:03] >> commit anything without knowing

[1:43:04] specifics?

[1:43:05] >> I feel like we're really close with what

[1:43:06] he's already done, it'll be relatively

[1:43:11] » click.

[1:43:12] >> I'm like, do you think you'll need like

[1:43:14] two days, three days? Is overnight okay?

[1:43:17] Is

[1:43:17] >> if we were to meet on say the first?

[1:43:20] >> Yes.

[1:43:21] >> I could have something to you likely on

[1:43:23] the third or fourth.

[1:43:25] >> Okay.

[1:43:28] And then um I'm wondering besides the

[1:43:31] first, do you have another date later on

[1:43:32] in the week just in case I guess my

[1:43:35] concern is trying to get everyone

[1:43:37] together. It's an unplanned meeting and

[1:43:39] I would like to try to get as many there

[1:43:41] as possible.

[1:43:43] >> Um I can do a lot of times later in the

[1:43:46] week the third fairly open outside of

[1:43:48] the morning and

[1:43:52] open [clears throat] on Thursday

[1:43:53] afternoon as well,

[1:43:55] but it would have to be I would have to

[1:43:56] be calling in for that.

[1:43:58] >> That's fine.

[1:43:59] >> Or later this week, mayor. I'm just

[1:44:02] thinking if [clears throat] we have a

[1:44:03] quorum, we need at least 24 hours to

[1:44:05] notice,

[1:44:06] >> right?

[1:44:07] >> So like tomorrow afternoon wouldn't work

[1:44:09] anyway.

[1:44:10] >> So Thursday.

[1:44:13] >> So are you saying this Thursday or are

[1:44:15] you saying fourth? On the 4th.

[1:44:17] >> On the fourth. This Thursday I'm also

[1:44:20] >> Yeah. available um

[1:44:23] either if we did 6 PM or

[1:44:26] late afternoon.

[1:44:28] >> I have a meeting on the 4th with um for

[1:44:32] MAG. So that would not work.

[1:44:35] >> Do you want me to go as your alternate

[1:44:36] and you sit in on the fire station?

[1:44:38] >> No, I need you I need you guys all to be

[1:44:41] here every all voices present that we

[1:44:43] can get. So let's do this. Let's we'll

[1:44:46] reach out to um the other members and

[1:44:48] see if we can do 1/3 or the 4th and see

[1:44:52] what day we can get the most um to

[1:44:55] attend and then move forward from there.

[1:44:57] >> Sorry, you said the June 1st or the June

[1:44:59] 4th?

[1:45:00] >> Yeah, you said June 3rd or 4th, correct?

[1:45:02] Were those the three dates that you said

[1:45:03] were possible?

[1:45:05] >> Um I could do June 1st as well. June

[1:45:07] 1st.

[1:45:08] >> Yeah, you said June 1st, 3rd, and 4th.

[1:45:10] >> Or 28th, you said.

[1:45:13] or or the 28. I can do tomorrow or 28th.

[1:45:19] >> Tomorrow the 28th [clears throat] is an

[1:45:21] option if if feasible.

[1:45:22] >> 28th is my meeting that I have. Oh, so

[1:45:26] I've

[1:45:27] >> starting from four on. So, um Okay.

[1:45:35] So, I'm we're going to amend the

[1:45:37] motion. Who does somebody else have to

[1:45:39] do that besides me or I do it?

[1:45:42] So are I think you just have to

[1:45:45] acknowledge the amendment that you

[1:45:47] accept it to amend the motion and then

[1:45:50] um Andrew needs to approve

[1:45:53] >> for the meeting.

[1:45:54] >> I do you know what the amendment is?

[1:45:56] >> Would you state it please?

[1:45:58] >> That's why I was looking to you. Okay.

[1:46:00] Um

[1:46:02] >> I can state it for [clears throat]

[1:46:03] >> Okay.

[1:46:04] >> Rent make a suggestion. Amend the motion

[1:46:07] to set another meeting date with as many

[1:46:12] of the city council and members and

[1:46:13] planning commission members as possible

[1:46:16] on either the 1st, 3rd, or 4th of June

[1:46:18] when the architect is available.

[1:46:22] >> I accept the amendment. And you?

[1:46:24] >> Yes. Thank you.

[1:46:26] >> Okay, let's proceed with a roll call

[1:46:28] vote. Sarah Bwell, yes.

[1:46:30] >> Chrissy Hanamman, yes.

[1:46:31] >> Andrew Young, yes.

[1:46:32] >> Bren, yes.

[1:46:34] >> Jessica Simone, yes. Okay, let's move on

[1:46:36] to item B. Ordinance 2026-12

[1:46:40] boundary adjustment with Draper City.

[1:46:43] Thank you.

[1:46:44] >> Thank you, gentlemen.

[1:46:46] >> See, we can do homemaking together.

[1:46:49] We can make it happen.

[1:46:50] >> We're going to be happy family.

[1:46:52] >> Yeah. And everyone, that's good. I think

[1:46:55] we made some progress.

[1:46:57] >> All right. Right. So, there was already

[1:46:58] discussion of we had a a discussion item

[1:47:03] at the last city council meeting for

[1:47:05] this

[1:47:07] uh now action item. This is uh

[1:47:11] discussion to amend the municipal

[1:47:14] boundary with Draper City. Um and the

[1:47:18] original application was submitted by

[1:47:20] Dave Mortonson, surveyor with civil

[1:47:22] science and that was given here in the

[1:47:26] packet of the comments he made about

[1:47:29] this application.

[1:47:31] Hopefully you're able to review all

[1:47:32] those and remember exactly what's going

[1:47:34] on here.

[1:47:36] Um but it's just about a half acre.45 45

[1:47:40] acre uh piece of land that was is

[1:47:43] currently in Draper City and is seeking

[1:47:46] to be annexed into Alpine City. Um so

[1:47:50] we've included the vicinity map and uh

[1:47:53] the adjustment form and everything and

[1:47:55] the proposed ordinance to adjust the

[1:47:57] common boundaries between Alpine and

[1:47:59] Draper. And so the staff recommends that

[1:48:01] the city council approve the action item

[1:48:04] and adjust its common municipal boundary

[1:48:06] with Draper City and adopt the ordinance

[1:48:09] pertaining there too.

[1:48:12] And I will show the boundary

[1:48:16] adjustment here on the map. So Kayen, I

[1:48:18] did want to get um clarification on if

[1:48:21] we accept this boundary adjustment, is

[1:48:23] that an amendment to the plat or does

[1:48:25] the plat need to be amended or is it

[1:48:28] just a simple boundary adjustment?

[1:48:32] >> I think that's a discussion we're

[1:48:34] having. I don't know if Steve wants to

[1:48:36] jump in here.

[1:48:38] >> So it's what it is. It's it's a

[1:48:41] municipal boundary adjustment. So it's

[1:48:44] an adjustment of the municipal boundary,

[1:48:46] the common boundary we have with Draper.

[1:48:48] It doesn't say anything about the

[1:48:50] property line adjustments or about a

[1:48:52] plat. So u that's those are separate

[1:48:56] issues and that's something that uh you

[1:49:00] want we can look into further but at

[1:49:02] this point it's not

[1:49:04] >> it's not part of what we're considering

[1:49:06] tonight. Just a municipal boundary

[1:49:08] adjustment with the city of Draper.

[1:49:11] >> Okay. Thank you.

[1:49:13] Um, Steve answered my question, so I

[1:49:15] don't have any further questions.

[1:49:18] >> Okay.

[1:49:18] >> Since we've already discussed it, should

[1:49:19] we just have a motion?

[1:49:20] >> Yep.

[1:49:21] >> Can you go back up to the motions,

[1:49:22] please?

[1:49:25] >> I move to recommend approval of the

[1:49:26] municipal boundary line.

[1:49:28] >> Sorry, Brent. I I realize I keep saying

[1:49:30] recommend in my motions. I need to

[1:49:32] correct that. So, I apologize.

[1:49:33] >> Did I say recommend?

[1:49:34] >> You did.

[1:49:36] >> All right. I move to approve the

[1:49:39] municipal boundary. Whoa. moving

[1:49:40] boundary line adjustment

[1:49:43] screen is adjusting

[1:49:44] >> between Alpine City and Draper City

[1:49:46] according to the submitted application.

[1:49:48] >> I second

[1:49:51] um Sarah Blackwell.

[1:49:52] >> Um

[1:49:55] >> what is the ordinance number?

[1:49:56] >> Uh it's 2026-12

[1:49:59] I believe.

[1:50:00] >> Is that right?

[1:50:01] >> Yes, that's correct. Sorry, I should

[1:50:03] have had that as well.

[1:50:03] >> Ordinance

[1:50:05] >> 2026-12.

[1:50:10] by

[1:50:13] >> your microphone mayor.

[1:50:15] >> Repeat that.

[1:50:17] >> It's been moved by Councilman Rumler,

[1:50:19] seconded by Councilwoman Blackwell.

[1:50:22] If there's no further

[1:50:23] >> discussion, but I Mr. Doxy, you answered

[1:50:27] a great question. I just help me

[1:50:29] understand and I'm coming from a

[1:50:31] protective,

[1:50:33] you know, lens here. If we move the

[1:50:35] boundary over, does that not require the

[1:50:39] lots to move over as well?

[1:50:42] And if they do that, do they not

[1:50:46] do they just do is there an automatic

[1:50:47] they just go completely sideways? Does

[1:50:49] it happen on a diagonal? Do we even

[1:50:51] care? I'm talking because this this uh

[1:50:55] this municipal boundary line crosses

[1:50:57] three lots. And I just want to make sure

[1:51:00] we understand what we're doing and that

[1:51:02] the residents understand because it's

[1:51:04] very important to a lot of people and

[1:51:06] this might not be a valid question. I

[1:51:08] just do understand what I'm talking

[1:51:09] about how it crosses three lots and

[1:51:12] >> as it's currently drawn.

[1:51:14] >> Yes. So as it's currently drawn but do

[1:51:16] their lots not they don't cross the into

[1:51:20] the no man's land. Is that not correct?

[1:51:24] >> That's a separate determination.

[1:51:26] I think the surveyor had some viewpoints

[1:51:28] on that. But

[1:51:29] >> okay, so does that

[1:51:31] >> this ordinance itself would simply be to

[1:51:33] move the municipal boundary to the west.

[1:51:36] >> It does not touch the lots.

[1:51:40] >> I don't know whether it touches the lots

[1:51:41] or it doesn't. I don't think I haven't

[1:51:44] looked at that made that determination.

[1:51:46] I think the surveyor had some opinions

[1:51:49] about that and the plat

[1:51:51] >> I I could

[1:51:52] >> say something about that. I thought I

[1:51:54] read in this that it does move the lots.

[1:51:57] So I and I don't know if that's

[1:51:58] important to the residents or not, but

[1:52:00] either way, I think none of us have a

[1:52:02] problem in discussing this with the

[1:52:04] moving of the boundary line, but I have

[1:52:06] a deep concern in making sure that's all

[1:52:09] we're doing. So that's why

[1:52:11] >> will they need to come back for a plat

[1:52:12] amendment then in order to align their

[1:52:15] property with that new boundary?

[1:52:19] >> I don't think I know the answer to that.

[1:52:21] It may be a simple boundary adjustment.

[1:52:24] Um, that's something that the that the

[1:52:27] lot owners would have to figure out. And

[1:52:30] u, but it's a in my mind it's a it's a

[1:52:34] separate issue. Okay.

[1:52:35] >> I don't think that they're I'm not sure

[1:52:38] that any legal description of theirs

[1:52:40] goes to a particular municipal boundary

[1:52:43] line.

[1:52:44] >> Okay.

[1:52:44] >> And so if you move the municipal

[1:52:46] boundary line, I'm not sure that changes

[1:52:48] their legal description.

[1:52:49] >> Okay. And so

[1:52:50] >> unless it has reference to a municipal

[1:52:52] boundary line.

[1:52:52] >> And just for my personal clarification

[1:52:54] as we're doing this motion,

[1:52:57] once this happens and say the lots do

[1:52:59] move, um there is no way to put any

[1:53:03] other construction than residences on

[1:53:06] those lots unless it goes through a

[1:53:08] council with a separate vote for

[1:53:10] changing zoning and changing everything.

[1:53:11] Is that correct for any sort of roads,

[1:53:12] paths, anything?

[1:53:16] » Does does my question make sense?

[1:53:17] >> If you're asking about

[1:53:19] an additional road or additional lot or

[1:53:22] something like that would require a plat

[1:53:24] amendment.

[1:53:25] >> Okay. Okay. So, thank you. Thank you for

[1:53:27] your time.

[1:53:28] >> So, sorry, one last question. So, they

[1:53:31] wanted this boundary adjustment so that

[1:53:32] they could have the correct setbacks.

[1:53:34] So, will they again have to come to the

[1:53:36] city in order to get that adjusted so

[1:53:38] that they can have the correct setbacks

[1:53:40] or automatically they're

[1:53:43] >> Yeah, we'll have to see. Okay. They'll

[1:53:45] have to come to the city no matter what

[1:53:47] for a building permit

[1:53:48] >> and then there will have to be a

[1:53:49] determination of the setback at that

[1:53:51] point.

[1:53:52] >> Okay.

[1:53:53] >> So whether that ultimately requires a

[1:53:55] plat amendment or a simple boundary

[1:53:58] adjustment, I don't know the answer to

[1:53:59] that.

[1:54:00] >> Thank you.

[1:54:02] >> Okay. Let's proceed with a roll call

[1:54:04] vote. Sarah Blackwell, yes.

[1:54:06] >> Chris Anaman, yes.

[1:54:07] >> Andrew Young, yes.

[1:54:08] >> Brent Ramber, yes.

[1:54:09] >> Jessica Sme, yes.

[1:54:11] >> Okay, let's move on to um

[1:54:15] Item C, the budget project priorities.

[1:54:23] » Okay.

[1:54:25] So,

[1:54:27] we provided this project prior priority

[1:54:29] matrix um for the council to rank uh

[1:54:33] these last several projects for the

[1:54:35] budget, the upcoming budget. Um there

[1:54:39] were a few issues that kind of

[1:54:40] complicated this. I've listed them here

[1:54:43] in this cover sheet. Um, not all the

[1:54:46] projects or planning efforts came from

[1:54:48] the same funding pool. So, it's a it's a

[1:54:51] little bit challenging to for a project

[1:54:54] that maybe has four different sources of

[1:54:56] funding or even two to rank it against

[1:54:58] one that maybe has one one source of

[1:55:01] funding.

[1:55:03] Uh,

[1:55:05] more direction is needed on what the

[1:55:08] ranking uh numbers mean. Um, you know, I

[1:55:13] think there might have been a little bit

[1:55:15] of confusion like in some cases one is

[1:55:19] higher than 10, but in this case 10 was

[1:55:21] higher than one if it's a project that

[1:55:23] you favored.

[1:55:25] Um, some projects were not given

[1:55:27] rankings or we didn't get a response at

[1:55:31] all. So, it makes it hard to make a

[1:55:34] composite um project uh ranking matrix.

[1:55:40] Um and then um you know maybe we need

[1:55:44] more discussion on prioritization

[1:55:46] categories and how the um each category

[1:55:50] is weighted

[1:55:52] um you know in the future for using

[1:55:55] this. Um so at this point in the budget

[1:55:59] I just suggested that we

[1:56:02] try to have a discussion decide which

[1:56:05] projects are the priorities and then

[1:56:08] kind of start earlier with this. We'll

[1:56:10] have a discussion earlier on the matrix

[1:56:13] leading up to even projects being put on

[1:56:15] it. um determine the waiting um

[1:56:18] determine what the categories are um and

[1:56:22] then just make a determination of how

[1:56:26] you know if this is something we're

[1:56:27] going to use, how it will actually work

[1:56:29] and make sure everybody has an

[1:56:31] understanding of it.

[1:56:33] Um

[1:56:33] >> I also think it would be really helpful

[1:56:35] for council to know which um bucket of

[1:56:39] monies that would be funding the project

[1:56:43] and what the fund balance is for that um

[1:56:46] bucket of money whether you know if it's

[1:56:48] for roads you know what is what do we

[1:56:52] have in our budget for roads

[1:56:54] >> and um how much do we have available

[1:56:57] from that

[1:56:58] >> and I did provide those fund balances um

[1:57:02] with the budget,

[1:57:03] >> but did it have like with minus all the

[1:57:07] um projects that the city was putting

[1:57:10] forth for maintenance and all of that

[1:57:12] and then showed us what we

[1:57:15] >> but in our prior

[1:57:17] >> uh work sessions we talked about

[1:57:20] different funding options for the

[1:57:21] different proposals already. Mayor,

[1:57:28] » did you hear that?

[1:57:29] >> No, sorry.

[1:57:30] >> Yeah. In our prior work sessions, we've

[1:57:31] and we we went over these, we talked

[1:57:34] about the budgets they would come out

[1:57:35] of. So, I think we've already had that

[1:57:37] discussion.

[1:57:38] >> Yeah. So, there's there's this

[1:57:39] spreadsheet, another colored one, um

[1:57:42] that kind of shows projects that are

[1:57:44] left in this current year's budget, like

[1:57:46] a a balance as of

[1:57:50] 43026.

[1:57:53] and then the projects remaining in this

[1:57:55] budget where they'd be funded from and

[1:57:58] then a a balance that would be kind of

[1:58:01] the beginning of the next fiscal year.

[1:58:03] And then I plugged in as the budget was

[1:58:05] presented uh for the tenative budget

[1:58:08] plugged those numbers in and what the

[1:58:10] remaining balance would be if all of

[1:58:13] those projects were funded.

[1:58:16] >> Okay. I guess guess for me it's just my

[1:58:20] concern is that we keep

[1:58:23] um a healthy fund balance that we're not

[1:58:27] draining everything. Um

[1:58:30] but yeah

[1:58:33] um how do you want to handle comments?

[1:58:35] Do you would you like us to address our

[1:58:37] top three or um just go through the list

[1:58:41] and tell give our feedback on each of

[1:58:43] these

[1:58:43] >> and the one you like the least?

[1:58:44] >> Already done that.

[1:58:47] when and raccoons is not even a

[1:58:49] possibility as a bottom dweller.

[1:58:53] >> I'm just kidding.

[1:58:55] >> Um

[1:58:55] >> I say that because it's mine.

[1:58:57] >> Well, and I have a just an operational

[1:58:59] question. Are we going to talk about the

[1:59:01] larger budget item of the water? We got

[1:59:04] an email from our water committee and

[1:59:06] we've already spent quite a considerable

[1:59:08] amount of time on this matrix, but as a

[1:59:11] council, we haven't really dove into,

[1:59:13] you know, the $9 million water expense

[1:59:16] that we're considering right now.

[1:59:20] >> Personally,

[1:59:20] >> and we have brought it up before um but

[1:59:24] it definitely needs more discussion.

[1:59:26] And my originally my original plan was

[1:59:31] on June 9th when Zans's public finance

[1:59:34] uh Mark and I don't know if Japth will

[1:59:36] be here or not will present on the fire

[1:59:39] station bond. Um I'd plan to have them

[1:59:41] present on the PI bond as well, but I

[1:59:46] feel like maybe where we're at maybe

[1:59:48] have more of a discussion on that um and

[1:59:52] move forward at a future meeting. Um but

[1:59:56] maybe have Mark be able to answer

[1:59:58] questions

[1:59:59] of the council kind of share the perform

[2:00:03] that uh um he shared with me. Um

[2:00:07] interest rates are creeping up a little

[2:00:10] bit. Um just something to keep in mind.

[2:00:14] Um another thing to keep in mind, we're

[2:00:16] actively looking for uh grants to help

[2:00:19] with some of these projects. Uh we had a

[2:00:22] meeting today with Horex Engineers with

[2:00:25] three of their guys. Um one of them's

[2:00:29] very knowledgeable about federal

[2:00:30] programs and and he worked for a f

[2:00:33] federal agency for over 25 years

[2:00:37] [clears throat] and um knows all the ins

[2:00:39] and outs of you know what could be a

[2:00:42] good project. And so they're going to

[2:00:43] help us try to you know dig into that

[2:00:47] and and see where it could help for our

[2:00:49] situation. So, um, if we did that and we

[2:00:53] still bought it for the 9 million, I see

[2:00:55] just doing more projects like to try to

[2:01:00] get ahead of of things

[2:01:04] >> and those are enterprise fund revenue

[2:01:07] generators and expenses.

[2:01:09] >> Yeah, that's still part of the overall

[2:01:11] budget, but it's

[2:01:12] >> it's based on those fees.

[2:01:14] >> Yes. Yep. and and we actively have uh

[2:01:17] work being done on our rate study for

[2:01:21] the PI rates and other rates so that we

[2:01:23] can look at that and you know consider

[2:01:27] um raising the rates some which I've

[2:01:31] actually had a lot of residents advocate

[2:01:34] for said we need these improvements even

[2:01:37] if you need to raise our rates

[2:01:38] >> when is that coming to council

[2:01:42] >> I don't have a date yet

[2:01:44] >> for PI or culinary.

[2:01:46] >> Yeah. Yep. I was actually emailing on

[2:01:49] some things with it today. We need to

[2:01:51] provide some more information.

[2:01:52] >> And then I do want clarification with

[2:01:54] our current water master plan

[2:01:58] is the one that we're going off of. Has

[2:02:00] that been approved?

[2:02:01] >> It's not been approved. It's came

[2:02:04] through the council. Um we had comments.

[2:02:08] The We talked about this today as well.

[2:02:11] The only thing that really changed for

[2:02:13] the most part was updating costs to

[2:02:16] current

[2:02:17] our our current costs. And so

[2:02:20] >> it wasn't like a major overhaul. It was

[2:02:23] an update of of costs.

[2:02:26] So, um it was a little bit unclear what

[2:02:29] process we have to go through. I know

[2:02:31] what process you have to do for a

[2:02:32] full-blown master plan overhaul. Um, but

[2:02:36] just updating costs. Um, we're getting

[2:02:39] to the bottom of that so we can get

[2:02:40] those officially approved.

[2:02:43] >> Okay.

[2:02:46] >> So, how did you want us to move forward

[2:02:48] with this agenda item then?

[2:02:51] >> So, um,

[2:02:55] well, besides the water projects, um,

[2:03:00] the biggest project on here, the most

[2:03:02] costly project is a roundabout. And I

[2:03:04] don't know, mayor, do you want to give

[2:03:05] an update of of from MAG?

[2:03:08] >> Yeah. No, I um I got super excited

[2:03:11] because I thought we were on the list

[2:03:13] because they were showing us they they

[2:03:14] came up with a new matrix. So it's what

[2:03:17] they call new weighted matrix and um

[2:03:19] they were kind of given the example of

[2:03:21] the projects in the cities and then um

[2:03:24] there's a score given and then the

[2:03:26] engineers score it and then you have

[2:03:29] like a combined weighted score and they

[2:03:31] put a list together but it was kind of

[2:03:33] it wasn't real numbers

[2:03:35] >> and I saw the list and we were on it. I

[2:03:37] was like oh my gosh we made it. We got

[2:03:39] the project and I, you know, I thought I

[2:03:42] told you, but I told Brent because I was

[2:03:43] so embarrassed because I was talking to

[2:03:46] um Michelle Carroll, the um executive

[2:03:48] director of MAG, and I just said, "I'm

[2:03:51] so excited that our project made the

[2:03:53] list." And she's like, "What list?" And

[2:03:55] I'm like, "Well, the MAG project list."

[2:03:57] She's like, "No, that's not that was

[2:03:59] just an example and you've beenounding

[2:04:01] us so much that we put you up there."

[2:04:03] She's like, "If you noticed, your score

[2:04:04] was lower than the other scores below

[2:04:07] you. it's not the actual list and I'm

[2:04:09] like okay thanks. So that was my

[2:04:12] mistake. I was really excited about much

[2:04:16] but there's still chance. So um

[2:04:18] >> was it like an alphabetical order and we

[2:04:20] were at the top?

[2:04:20] >> No, that that was on the first the

[2:04:22] firstandom was alphabetical.

[2:04:25] >> Okay.

[2:04:25] >> The um the final weighted but it was

[2:04:28] just they just kind of did it. Um, but

[2:04:31] >> historically speaking, we had two

[2:04:33] >> two engineers, two traffic and safety

[2:04:35] engineers suggest that we could try for

[2:04:37] the MAG uh grants. I know. And then Andy

[2:04:39] Spencer followed up with that. He said

[2:04:41] we should try.

[2:04:42] >> Yeah.

[2:04:42] >> It's it is unlike most traditional

[2:04:45] grants that they approve.

[2:04:46] >> They're more looking at

[2:04:49] >> bigger impact and impacts multiple

[2:04:51] cities and things like that.

[2:04:52] >> But what we have going for us though, we

[2:04:54] really haven't gone after many grants

[2:04:56] through MAG. Um but we are um we are up

[2:05:00] against some big projects. There's a lot

[2:05:02] of east west connectors that they're

[2:05:03] widening. Um and then there's a lot of

[2:05:06] infrastructure going on down south

[2:05:08] because of their explosive growth and

[2:05:10] they are putting priority on um growth

[2:05:15] what they call explosive growth.

[2:05:16] >> Yeah.

[2:05:17] >> Um so that but like I said, I've been

[2:05:20] working hard. So, we'll see if if we're

[2:05:22] going to do it. I'd rather have it be

[2:05:25] >> paid for as opposed to us funding it

[2:05:27] because to me, us funding it is just

[2:05:30] doesn't make sense to me.

[2:05:31] >> So, you're saying there still is an

[2:05:32] opportunity or a chance that it

[2:05:34] >> we won't find out until August.

[2:05:37] >> Okay.

[2:05:37] >> Yeah. It's the same as it's always been.

[2:05:39] Okay. But the outlook according to Jason

[2:05:42] is less

[2:05:43] >> less likely

[2:05:44] >> optimistic than what some of the

[2:05:45] engineers said might be an option for

[2:05:47] us.

[2:05:48] >> Okay.

[2:05:49] and sorry for my exuberance.

[2:05:51] >> So there's there's 16 projects on here.

[2:05:54] I would suggest uh one that we just

[2:05:56] scratched. It was one that we brought

[2:05:58] forward as just a potential project.

[2:06:00] It's the resurface of the Burgess Park

[2:06:03] tennis courts.

[2:06:04] >> Uh they didn't get done, so they're a

[2:06:06] different color than the others. It

[2:06:07] looks very odd, but I they can go

[2:06:09] another year. So I I'm suggesting we

[2:06:12] just scratch that one for this year. Um,

[2:06:16] and I think we could narrow this down if

[2:06:18] there's any other projects like that somebody's willing to say, "Hey,

[2:06:22] this project of mine is a higher

[2:06:24] priority than another one."

[2:06:26] >> Um,

[2:06:27] >> and we've talked about that before,

[2:06:28] Shane, and I've mentioned it to some

[2:06:30] council members, is we with the

[2:06:33] roundabout proposal, it's clearly the

[2:06:34] most expensive proposal. And then while

[2:06:37] the installation of raised crosswalks or

[2:06:40] curb extensions, that estimate was not

[2:06:43] based on any true information, just some

[2:06:46] number that was put out there.

[2:06:48] >> I noticed a brand new curb extension at

[2:06:51] the crosswalk on 11,800

[2:06:54] North in Highland that looks like it's

[2:06:56] brand new. I think with the cement work

[2:06:58] looks like it just been done. So, I

[2:07:00] asked Highland City on Saturday when I

[2:07:03] saw it to give us information about the

[2:07:06] cost of that. They also did one recently

[2:07:08] on Canal Boulevard, not on the busy side

[2:07:11] that connects the two highways, but on

[2:07:13] the other side that Chrissy found

[2:07:15] >> and that's right at a trail crossing.

[2:07:17] And then I found out since our prior

[2:07:19] discussions that they also have two

[2:07:22] raised crosswalks in Highland with curb

[2:07:24] extensions. So, I'm trying to figure out

[2:07:27] how much those would cost. So maybe one

[2:07:29] thought I had was, and I talked to

[2:07:31] Andrew about this today, is we have the traffic calming budget line item and

[2:07:36] the raised crosswalk with an an

[2:07:38] uncertain number. Maybe we just combine

[2:07:40] those and as we look at potential costs

[2:07:44] and try and maybe the one the one place

[2:07:47] I would I think would be a good place to

[2:07:49] start would be at the crosswalk at River

[2:07:54] and West Canyon Crest. that's over by

[2:07:57] Burgess Park right by Timberline to

[2:07:59] maybe do the curb extensions and a

[2:08:01] temporary

[2:08:03] raised crosswalk that's not as intrusive

[2:08:05] as the temporary ones that Highland used

[2:08:08] but pending a look at what those

[2:08:10] potential costs would be when we get

[2:08:11] more information from Highland. So maybe

[2:08:13] combining those two budget categories

[2:08:15] with a lesser number of dollar

[2:08:18] commitment and then doing more research.

[2:08:20] And you also the other thing Shane

[2:08:22] recommended which I think is a great

[2:08:24] idea is before we do any of these we

[2:08:28] come up with a policy on where they

[2:08:31] would be appropriate. So we don't have

[2:08:33] residents I mean clearly every residence

[2:08:36] wants better traffic [snorts] calming in

[2:08:38] their area but we can't feasibly put

[2:08:41] curb extensions or these other physical

[2:08:43] features everywhere. But based on our

[2:08:47] prior discussion with the two schools

[2:08:49] the b very busy Burgess Park the

[2:08:51] baseball and um residential area we've

[2:08:56] talked before about that's probably the

[2:08:58] best place to start just to see how one

[2:09:00] works.

[2:09:01] So maybe we combine those two, have a

[2:09:05] lower amount as a cap, and then kind of

[2:09:08] see where we are and make sure we do

[2:09:11] that.

[2:09:12] >> I know we're going to take turns.

[2:09:13] >> So are you thinking just as like a pilot

[2:09:14] to do that over on Canyon Crest and then

[2:09:17] see how it works instead of going

[2:09:18] through and doing a black blanket? Meow.

[2:09:21] >> Exactly.

[2:09:21] >> So I do have a question though on the

[2:09:23] Carlton shop improvements. I'm just

[2:09:25] wondering if that's something that we

[2:09:27] should even be voting on that that's

[2:09:29] something that to me that just seems

[2:09:31] like you guys need that, don't you? Is

[2:09:34] that is this the restrooms? And then

[2:09:36] >> so so this is actually more like a

[2:09:39] facelift. It's more exterior, but it I

[2:09:42] mean we didn't go out and get a bid or

[2:09:43] anything. It's just a estimate.

[2:09:46] >> Um and a lot of the work like installing

[2:09:49] the restroom um we could do in house.

[2:09:53] So like running the sewer and water into

[2:09:56] it and things like that.

[2:09:59] >> I don't want to speak out of term, but

[2:10:00] are you going to get feedback from each

[2:10:01] of us or how are you doing this? Okay.

[2:10:04] >> I was just talking about categories.

[2:10:06] Sorry.

[2:10:07] >> One one interesting thing I I haven't

[2:10:10] had a chance to talk to Highland yet or even to talk to Jason um about this.

[2:10:16] Um I received your email in the picture

[2:10:19] and I wasn't aware they were doing those

[2:10:21] out there. One thing that was

[2:10:22] interesting to me, they've narrowed

[2:10:25] their road through those curb extensions

[2:10:27] to about the width of our road already.

[2:10:30] So that that's a very wide road. And

[2:10:33] just

[2:10:35] um I think I measured on the aerial

[2:10:38] photo of the asphalt, it's like 50 feet

[2:10:40] or something like that. Um depending on

[2:10:43] which road, if it's Canyon Crest, kind

[2:10:45] of the west end, we'd have 36 feet of

[2:10:49] pavement there. So, I don't know what

[2:10:51] the range.

[2:10:51] >> The other one in North Highland by the

[2:10:53] park is the [snorts] curb extensions are

[2:10:56] much shorter. So, I'm sure there's a

[2:10:58] variety of lengths of curb extensions.

[2:11:00] >> I know there is. I was just curious of

[2:11:02] their reasoning for not going narrower,

[2:11:04] I guess.

[2:11:05] >> Oh, they're on that wider.

[2:11:07] >> Yeah, good to know.

[2:11:08] >> But that's where I think it would be

[2:11:11] beneficial to have um engineering and

[2:11:14] somebody that kind of specializes in

[2:11:16] this kind of stuff. And there's there be

[2:11:19] more going out there. But um

[2:11:22] >> yeah, we talked about having fair and

[2:11:23] peers do that in conjunction with the

[2:11:26] moving of the crosswalk because we

[2:11:27] talked about maybe doing a curb

[2:11:28] extension

[2:11:29] >> at the new school crosswalk, but that I

[2:11:31] don't think that ever happened.

[2:11:34] >> That makes sense to me.

[2:11:36] >> So maybe just for the consideration is

[2:11:38] lump those two together with a smaller

[2:11:40] amount as a as a cap and then it could

[2:11:43] be much less than that if we just do one

[2:11:45] experiment to one. And then also I

[2:11:47] wanted to ask about what about the cost

[2:11:49] of addressing

[2:11:51] Mountainville traffic this summer before

[2:11:53] school starts as far as moving the

[2:11:55] crosswalk and putting in the um

[2:11:58] temporary island?

[2:12:00] >> Um is that a separate budget item or how

[2:12:04] do we address that? That's just mayor

[2:12:06] that's actually included in the traffic

[2:12:09] calming the like in our when we pitched

[2:12:13] them that's actually the main street

[2:12:15] isn't supposed to be included in the

[2:12:17] traffic calming. I was going to talk

[2:12:19] about it

[2:12:19] >> but it's like what we're doing there

[2:12:21] isn't really calming traffic.

[2:12:24] Well, it goes street by if you when we

[2:12:27] pitched them when we created each budget

[2:12:29] item. The and I'll I'll wait till my

[2:12:31] turn to really talk about this, but the

[2:12:33] traffic combing basically went through

[2:12:35] Main Street, Westfield, Canyon Crest, um

[2:12:39] Grove, uh Alpine, uh Boulevard, and Fort

[2:12:44] Canyon. And it tried to include minor

[2:12:47] improvements on all of them.

[2:12:49] >> Right. I don't see 50,000 covering all

[2:12:51] of that. But I think what I would like

[2:12:53] to see is I do like

[2:12:55] >> the what the number there may was uh it

[2:12:59] wasn't supposed to be 50 grand. It was

[2:13:00] supposed to be we were just I didn't

[2:13:01] know what the number is so I just put

[2:13:03] that as it and then ideally I was

[2:13:04] looking at the date. This might be

[2:13:06] something we'll get to. Uh it looks like

[2:13:08] the date is June 23rd where we really want to have

[2:13:14] everything put together. Is that it? Is

[2:13:16] that the date? I I was hoping maybe we

[2:13:19] could have some time over these next

[2:13:20] weeks where for certain ones of these

[2:13:23] that we really want to do, we could

[2:13:24] really research and get bids and find

[2:13:26] out the numbers.

[2:13:27] >> But I know that you know that addressing

[2:13:30] Main Street traffic has been

[2:13:32] >> a primary concern for everybody. So I

[2:13:35] just want to make sure that specifically

[2:13:37] >> is a priority and that is timesensitive

[2:13:40] that we have we you know we only have a

[2:13:42] handful of months

[2:13:43] >> to be able to get that done. I just

[2:13:45] wanted I didn't see it and to me I guess

[2:13:48] I was looking at traffic calming kind of

[2:13:50] what um Brent was referring to.

[2:13:53] >> No, I

[2:13:53] >> Andrew lumped it together with some

[2:13:55] crosswalk improvements.

[2:13:56] >> I lumped it together. Would it be okay

[2:13:58] uh Shane to take one like traffic

[2:14:02] calming or whatever and we could bullet

[2:14:04] them out for like main street this this for the specifics?

[2:14:08] >> Yeah.

[2:14:09] >> Okay.

[2:14:10] Um Sarah.

[2:14:12] >> Okay. In general, I I feel like things

[2:14:14] that support life and safety are

[2:14:17] probably my priorities. So, I know that

[2:14:19] the water is not on here, but I would be

[2:14:22] in favor of making sure that we are

[2:14:25] taking care of our um improvements for

[2:14:28] PI and culinary. Um, aside from that,

[2:14:32] when it comes to safety concerns, um, I

[2:14:34] do like the idea of the roundabout

[2:14:37] because I think it not only helps with

[2:14:39] kind of like some traffic flow, but also

[2:14:43] provides some um, more visibility,

[2:14:47] safety, slows traffic down. Um, I I

[2:14:50] personally have seen two people almost

[2:14:53] get hit there. So, maybe that's where my personal experience is coming in. Um,

[2:14:59] and then another one with safety is

[2:15:01] actually sidewalk improvements. I did go

[2:15:04] walk that part of Grove Drive where

[2:15:07] Alpine Boulevard kind of is. And I know

[2:15:09] that school children walk that to meet

[2:15:12] the bus and it's very unsafe. So, that

[2:15:15] would be another one that I would be a

[2:15:18] huge proponent of. Um, I do love the

[2:15:21] idea of Ranch Drive. However, I I I feel

[2:15:26] like maybe waiting till we get a a

[2:15:28] developer, but I know that's going to be

[2:15:30] a few years out, but I feel like that

[2:15:31] would really help with some traffic. Um,

[2:15:34] as far as the park improvements go, I

[2:15:37] love parks and I would love to see

[2:15:39] improvements. However, I wonder if

[2:15:41] waiting till we see get our parks master

[2:15:44] plan. Not that we can't tell what

[2:15:46] improvements need to be made at those,

[2:15:48] but um it would be nice before we start

[2:15:51] putting money into those if we had that

[2:15:53] as kind of like confirmation or data so

[2:15:56] to speak to justify what sort of changes

[2:15:59] we're doing in those parks. Um and I

[2:16:04] personally did don't have a a project

[2:16:06] that I submitted on this entire list.

[2:16:09] So, I I'm not I hope I don't offend with

[2:16:12] my opinion for those of you who have

[2:16:14] submitted project ideas. Um, I did reach

[2:16:18] out to a resident that has issues with

[2:16:20] raccoons and it's it is a little bit

[2:16:23] more than just

[2:16:24] >> Wait, hold on. Issues with the budget to

[2:16:26] put it in there or issues actually

[2:16:28] >> with the raccoons themselves?

[2:16:29] >> Okay. I didn't know.

[2:16:30] >> And so, I I do recognize that it's more

[2:16:33] than just a nuisance. It is a little bit

[2:16:35] of a almost like a danger. I mean, she's

[2:16:39] almost attacked. Her grandkids can't go

[2:16:40] out and play. But I I I do kind of feel

[2:16:43] like maybe that and fire mitigation are

[2:16:47] things that individual property owners

[2:16:49] can take care of as if I'm prioritizing

[2:16:52] them. Um

[2:16:54] and then history projects.

[2:16:57] Um, I would love to meet with the

[2:16:59] history committee first, but um, if we

[2:17:03] can get a grant, if then those are ones

[2:17:05] that I would prefer to wait on. And so

[2:17:08] those are those are in the Carlton shop.

[2:17:10] Like I definitely feel like they need a

[2:17:12] restroom there at the very least.

[2:17:15] So, um, that's more of quality of life,

[2:17:19] I think.

[2:17:21] So, maybe that doesn't fall into the

[2:17:22] life and safety, but quality of life for

[2:17:25] sure. Um, so I don't know if that's

[2:17:27] helpful what I've said. If I had to pick

[2:17:29] top three, I mean, obviously if water

[2:17:32] was on here, that' probably be on my top

[2:17:34] list, but since it's not, it would

[2:17:35] probably be roundabout, sidewalk

[2:17:38] improvements,

[2:17:40] and I don't know, those are. And then I

[2:17:44] would love Ranch Drive, but I would

[2:17:46] prefer to wait if someone else can.

[2:17:48] >> Ranch Drive. Jason, I was wondering um

[2:17:50] because I've talked to Mag about the

[2:17:52] Ranch Drive extension. They said it

[2:17:55] needs to get on the trans 50 and um I

[2:17:58] haven't been able to get that done. I'm

[2:18:00] wondering if you can work with the TAT

[2:18:02] committee and figure out how I haven't

[2:18:05] been able because it's such a

[2:18:09] expensive proposition to have it come to

[2:18:11] fruition. I don't see us having it

[2:18:13] happen any other way other than one

[2:18:16] either MAG steps in and picks it as a

[2:18:19] project or [clears throat] two a

[2:18:21] developer comes in and does it. um if

[2:18:24] you can figure out if there's any way

[2:18:26] for us to get that to be a project that

[2:18:31] would because I know they're talking

[2:18:32] about it has to be inter um

[2:18:34] jurisdictional which I feel like we can

[2:18:37] kind of um qualify because it is very

[2:18:39] close to Highland the Highland city

[2:18:41] border and then also we have residents

[2:18:44] coming from Cedar Hills, Highland and um

[2:18:49] Cedar Hills, Highland I think those and

[2:18:51] Lehi coming through to go go to those

[2:18:53] schools that we have. And so there is it

[2:18:56] is I know that there's projects that are

[2:18:58] entirely within the city that um

[2:19:02] benefits other jurisdictions. And I was

[2:19:04] wondering if we can somehow put it that

[2:19:05] way. If you can figure out through the

[2:19:06] TAC committee to do that and then I'll

[2:19:09] work with um Lenise of the director of

[2:19:12] the MO to see how we can get that to

[2:19:15] happen. Okay. [clears throat]

[2:19:17] >> And then just on that same topic of the

[2:19:19] ranch extension, I I I think it would be

[2:19:21] great. I'm I think it would be helpful

[2:19:23] in so many ways. Um Shane has mentioned

[2:19:26] in our prior work sessions that

[2:19:29] the we would more do this start the

[2:19:32] planning and maybe and and that's part

[2:19:34] [clears throat] of that part of Carla's

[2:19:35] direction to Jason was part of that

[2:19:37] planning. So being more forward thinking

[2:19:39] preparing for that so we have a plan

[2:19:42] when either MAG comes through or a

[2:19:44] developer comes in we're ready to go and

[2:19:47] do what we need to. And and on that one,

[2:19:49] I think at this point we're probably

[2:19:52] more at the 10,000 foot level and the

[2:19:55] planning efforts at that level. I think

[2:19:57] we can take care of inhouse with

[2:19:59] essentially no budget. Um we can work

[2:20:02] through, you know, a a conceptual

[2:20:05] alignment. We can work take that, show

[2:20:08] it to Metro Water. um they can say no

[2:20:12] that absolutely won't work for us or you

[2:20:14] need to change this or whatever just to

[2:20:17] get to that point. I don't I don't

[2:20:20] really see we need any budget to do

[2:20:22] that. If if it comes to the point that

[2:20:25] we do um we have a little bit of

[2:20:28] built-in u budget for professional

[2:20:30] services in the planning part of our

[2:20:33] general um fund and we could draw off of

[2:20:37] that without having a specific project

[2:20:40] in here.

[2:20:41] >> And Chrissy, I really appreciate you

[2:20:42] bringing this forward because I think it

[2:20:44] would be a huge improvement especially

[2:20:46] for that west side.

[2:20:48] >> Matt does have budgeting for planning

[2:20:50] too.

[2:20:51] >> Um

[2:20:53] planning projects.

[2:20:54] >> We could have Jason talk to them about

[2:20:55] that as well.

[2:20:57] >> I think um that's a great idea because

[2:20:59] from experience working with the the the

[2:21:02] water easement and the power easement

[2:21:05] slow.

[2:21:07] So if we start it now, we might get an

[2:21:09] answer in a year and then maybe you know

[2:21:12] the other one will come around in two

[2:21:14] years. Who knows? Slow. So I don't see

[2:21:17] like how it would hurt to get at least

[2:21:21] like you said get have a proposal to

[2:21:23] know that this would be acceptable to

[2:21:25] those land owners because their

[2:21:27] easements are pretty restrictive.

[2:21:30] >> Could I just add one more thing to my

[2:21:32] comments and that is that if I know we

[2:21:34] have park tax and we have that might be

[2:21:37] a separate bucket bucket than any of the

[2:21:39] other things that I've mentioned that I

[2:21:40] feel like are priorities. So, if that is

[2:21:43] the case, then I, you know, um, Backill

[2:21:47] Park and Peterson Park, I feel like when

[2:21:50] we start looking at what projects to

[2:21:52] tackle first, like I think we should

[2:21:54] prioritize those. And same when it comes

[2:21:56] to history, if we if we set aside some

[2:21:59] money for history preservation or relic

[2:22:01] hall or DUP, like those should be the top three that we start with. So

[2:22:07] >> yeah, if they can do something that will

[2:22:09] kind of help preserve relic hall because

[2:22:11] it's kind of deteriorating. So if you

[2:22:13] know that would be important for sure.

[2:22:16] >> Okay. Anything else? Sarah,

[2:22:18] >> mayor, if I can just make comment on the

[2:22:19] parks plan. Um our consultant has told

[2:22:22] us that they're getting very good

[2:22:23] response on the um survey. I think they

[2:22:27] have it like 200 three about 300 um

[2:22:32] responses which they feel is fantastic

[2:22:34] for a project this size and so I think

[2:22:38] we're going to get some really good

[2:22:40] information out of this that will help

[2:22:43] us uh plan these projects.

[2:22:45] >> Thank you Chrissy.

[2:22:47] >> I actually did a little PowerPoint

[2:22:49] because my thoughts were all over the

[2:22:50] map. Can you pull that up? Thank you. So

[2:22:54] these are my priorities. I try to

[2:22:56] simplify just next.

[2:23:00] So I really felt the Carlton shop um

[2:23:02] deserved

[2:23:04] uh the first in line. First of all, we

[2:23:07] made a big investment in it and it's not

[2:23:10] um maybe it's not attractive, but I

[2:23:11] didn't I thought this was to make it

[2:23:12] more useful as well. So there's no

[2:23:15] reason to have a a building that doesn't

[2:23:17] really function because we've already

[2:23:18] bought it. So I felt like that moved to

[2:23:21] the top for me. It also benefits

[2:23:23] multiple departments and so um that was

[2:23:26] shown in the funding allocation. Um the

[2:23:29] next thing is the park funding and the

[2:23:31] general fund which I have other slides

[2:23:33] for so go down. Um the Carlton shop I

[2:23:37] think I jumped the gun. Keep going. Next

[2:23:39] slide. I already talked about that. So

[2:23:42] let's go to the park tax funds. I just

[2:23:44] really would like a more long-term

[2:23:46] strategy so that we're sort of putting a

[2:23:48] bucket of money into the parks, which is

[2:23:51] our biggest um capital needs, and then

[2:23:54] but without neglecting arts, recreation,

[2:23:56] and culture. And if we could even have

[2:23:58] like a a policy or some recommendation

[2:24:01] from year to year, that would help us, I

[2:24:03] feel like, prioritize things. And if

[2:24:06] things come up that need more than one

[2:24:09] year of funding, just like we did the

[2:24:10] fire station, we could just set it aside

[2:24:12] and know that that's what it's for. Um,

[2:24:14] go to the next slide. So, just a

[2:24:17] reminder, the pictures we have parks,

[2:24:19] art, culture, and recreation. So, if the

[2:24:22] biggest lump was 75% in of 120, which is

[2:24:26] estimated, we'd have 90,000. And I feel

[2:24:29] like we're waiting for the master plan.

[2:24:31] So we just earmark it and say what is

[2:24:33] our top priority based on the master

[2:24:35] plan and what would 90,000 buy us will

[2:24:37] that get us one project two projects you

[2:24:40] know five projects what whatever that we

[2:24:43] can at least determine that based on the

[2:24:45] professional recommendation and then the

[2:24:47] arts and recreation those are just round

[2:24:50] rounding numbers um again like I'm not

[2:24:53] sure what we can do but we have a new

[2:24:55] civic building that will be done and

[2:24:57] that would be nice to utilize it in some

[2:24:59] way and Again, if it doesn't all get

[2:25:01] spent in one year, that's okay because

[2:25:04] um we we like we know things can roll

[2:25:06] from year to year. So, I would like some

[2:25:08] to to establish some type of parameters

[2:25:11] to say that we're going to uh spend a

[2:25:14] bulk here and the remainder in another

[2:25:17] set and that could be open to future

[2:25:18] discussion. Then lastly, I took all the

[2:25:21] rest of the projects and I kind of

[2:25:22] realized everything else deals with

[2:25:24] streets or open space. And so again,

[2:25:28] like I know that the matrix was not

[2:25:30] designed well. And so if we looked at

[2:25:33] just the streets, what would be our

[2:25:35] priority projects? Just the open space,

[2:25:37] what would those be? Um, and based on

[2:25:40] these comments, I think like we're all

[2:25:43] in line. We just don't know how much

[2:25:45] money to spend. So kind of like with the

[2:25:46] parks where we say we're going to spend

[2:25:48] X dollars this year and see how far down

[2:25:51] the list we go. I feel like that would

[2:25:53] be um a good way to do it. or we have

[2:25:56] staff go through our projects and say

[2:25:58] this is what's you know the highest need

[2:26:00] like they call it a heat map where like

[2:26:02] we're seeing the most traffic incidents

[2:26:05] or something like you were said some

[2:26:07] type of criteria for all of our traffic

[2:26:09] calming to say that it's necessary or

[2:26:12] necessary but that it meets the criteria

[2:26:15] for what we're looking for for um

[2:26:17] installing something because we will

[2:26:19] hear a lot of um people want requesting

[2:26:22] things and so we'd need some kind of

[2:26:23] criteria to say Why why is it justified?

[2:26:27] Um other than that people made a mention

[2:26:30] of it. Um I did agree with with your

[2:26:34] comments about sidewalk improvements. I

[2:26:36] don't know how else that would be funded

[2:26:38] other um than I a developer coming

[2:26:42] along. But if the developer doesn't come

[2:26:45] along, does that fall back to us? That

[2:26:46] was just a question I had. Again, this

[2:26:48] is all in the bucket of streets and then

[2:26:50] over here in open space. Um I you know

[2:26:54] based on the comments from our chief on

[2:26:57] the fire prevention I don't know how

[2:26:59] much falls to us if it's all p um

[2:27:02] private space I would just need more

[2:27:03] information and um the highway easement

[2:27:07] beautifification we already kind of got

[2:27:09] started on that by saying we're going to

[2:27:11] find out who owns it and then sort of

[2:27:13] decide. So my way of doing it would be

[2:27:15] kind of like the park funding where we

[2:27:17] say we have this much. Okay then the

[2:27:19] next slide. So, I kind of bucketed those

[2:27:22] and they're they're all um sort of

[2:27:24] lumping on streets. We could do a

[2:27:27] survey. We could have them like a heat

[2:27:29] map. I've already said the rest. Let's

[2:27:31] skip the that whole slide was just my

[2:27:33] thoughts. Um

[2:27:35] keep going. I've already talked about

[2:27:37] that. All right. So, the fund balance

[2:27:39] policy, I feel like um when I started

[2:27:42] investigating fund balance, there was

[2:27:45] all it was hard to find the numbers.

[2:27:46] Shane's done a great job of like making

[2:27:48] it really clear and so it really helped.

[2:27:51] But I do think we do need some type of

[2:27:52] policy to say what is the purpose of our

[2:27:55] fund balance if is it for a rainy day?

[2:27:57] Is it for a cushion for unexpected in

[2:28:00] the current year? Is it just considered

[2:28:02] surplus funds? Is it for projects that

[2:28:04] span multiple years? And once we

[2:28:06] identify what is the purpose of the fund

[2:28:08] balance, I think we'd have an easier

[2:28:10] time using it for appropriate projects.

[2:28:13] So if you go down one I I would like to

[2:28:17] Oh, go back up. Sorry, I skipped that. I

[2:28:19] would like to have this discussion with

[2:28:21] our finance committee and come to you

[2:28:23] with a recommendation, which of course

[2:28:25] you guys would tweet because we have no

[2:28:26] authority at the committee level to do

[2:28:28] anything, but at least talk through

[2:28:30] these ideas and come to you with a

[2:28:33] recommendation um and include Shane and

[2:28:36] Kaden if he's going to help us with our

[2:28:38] money stuff. Um just so that we have a

[2:28:41] point of reference when we're talking

[2:28:42] about um using fund balance. So go down

[2:28:46] one more. This is the chart that Shane

[2:28:50] put together on the top all the colors

[2:28:52] and I just did some general Excel uh

[2:28:55] calculations to say um what is our fund

[2:28:58] balance relative this is what the policy

[2:29:01] would address. What is our fund balance

[2:29:03] relative to the revenue we have coming

[2:29:04] into each fund. Um one the highest one

[2:29:08] is our water and the lowest one is PI

[2:29:11] just for an example. Um then what is the

[2:29:14] projected revenue? Um is it uh let's see

[2:29:20] I don't ending balance re any oh well

[2:29:24] how much of the fund balance would be

[2:29:26] used in our project or all the 2027

[2:29:29] projects are they exceeding the current

[2:29:31] revenue that was it. So it's comparing

[2:29:33] line um

[2:29:36] the projected revenue against our

[2:29:39] project. So, we're only using the So,

[2:29:42] let's just do park tax. So, that's

[2:29:43] really easy. The park projected revenue

[2:29:46] for parks is 150 and then our projects

[2:29:50] are So, we're only using 33% of our

[2:29:52] current revenue. So, anything over a

[2:29:55] 100red, we're dipping into fund balance.

[2:29:58] Okay. Is that a problem? I don't know.

[2:30:01] Um, but if you look at line C, this is

[2:30:03] saying year-over-year change. So, one,

[2:30:06] the park is increasing our in fund

[2:30:08] balance, but the one that's taking the

[2:30:10] biggest hit is capital improvements.

[2:30:12] Well, that's mainly the fire station,

[2:30:13] not a concern. Um, we're dipping in for

[2:30:16] class C road. Everything else is below

[2:30:18] 10%. Not a huge concern. If we dip into

[2:30:21] fund balance, we're still in all of

[2:30:24] these above 100% of annual revenue. So,

[2:30:27] this is just like a measure. It's just

[2:30:29] like a it's a a way to say are we using

[2:30:32] a lot of our fund balance? And if so, is

[2:30:34] it justified like in the fire station or

[2:30:37] we're not really using much of our fund

[2:30:38] balance for the sewer and the storm

[2:30:40] drain and the PI and the water. So, not a big discussion item because we're

[2:30:45] staying still above way above our 100%

[2:30:49] um of revenue. That's the kind of

[2:30:51] discussion and and to formalize it and

[2:30:53] write it all down and just say these are

[2:30:55] I don't think like the a policy would

[2:30:58] say and never dip below this or never do

[2:31:00] that. It's just like these are the

[2:31:01] questions you ask as a point of

[2:31:04] reference for the whole council to use

[2:31:06] and then um I don't know if at some

[2:31:08] point if we use like 50% of the fund

[2:31:11] balance all in one year that would take

[2:31:13] a vote of council. We could have some

[2:31:14] type of like guard rail and Shane would

[2:31:17] help us develop that because he's had

[2:31:19] the most experience. Anyways, that's

[2:31:21] what I'm proposing um for all of the

[2:31:24] budget is to uh consider fund balance

[2:31:28] like Carlo stated, but also come up with

[2:31:31] like all the all of traffic calming.

[2:31:34] Let's prioritize those and see what we

[2:31:36] need to do. Let's look at all the open

[2:31:37] space. Is there something we need to do

[2:31:39] there? And and go away from the whole

[2:31:43] matrix as designed. And by the way, this

[2:31:45] was my design, so we can just throw it

[2:31:47] out and it's not going to hurt my

[2:31:48] feelings. It's not that bad. I I think

[2:31:51] it's fine.

[2:31:51] >> It was confusing.

[2:31:52] >> It got the conversation started.

[2:31:54] >> Any any other questions you have from my

[2:31:57] comments?

[2:32:00] >> Okay.

[2:32:00] >> Is there anything you are against on

[2:32:03] these budgets? You you you like Okay. I

[2:32:06] like that your last side said thank you.

[2:32:08] Like this was a legit presentation. Good

[2:32:10] job.

[2:32:12] >> Okay. Is it my turn?

[2:32:14] >> Yes.

[2:32:14] >> Are you going, Brent? Okay. So, uh, the, big one, okay, I I'll go through

[2:32:20] a couple and then, um, uh, it sounds

[2:32:23] like a good idea, but I'll get to that

[2:32:24] in a minute. Um, so the 9 million we're

[2:32:27] going to talk a lot about, right, coming

[2:32:29] up with all the different water projects

[2:32:31] in that and what they entail. Um,

[2:32:35] >> and if I can just say on that, we didn't

[2:32:37] really see that competing with all these

[2:32:40] other projects because it really should

[2:32:42] be funded from the water fund. And so

[2:32:45] that's why

[2:32:47] >> with this project discussion it hasn't

[2:32:49] been a major focus.

[2:32:50] >> Okay. The the reason on that is because

[2:32:53] it can solve so many problems and but it

[2:32:56] will cause so many consequences um both

[2:32:59] on people's rates and um how much debt

[2:33:04] it is. It uh I I think I got the number

[2:33:08] just to just to

[2:33:09] >> but I think that's for a later meeting.

[2:33:11] >> Yes. Okay. Yes. I I think it's uh well

[2:33:14] hold on it just money is money and what

[2:33:18] will happen is these will this money

[2:33:22] will impact other things we can do you

[2:33:25] know so just that's what I think it will

[2:33:27] be uh I I can't be wrong but but was

[2:33:30] there a plan to get the impact of what

[2:33:32] that will do um for the rates or is that

[2:33:36] going to happen after

[2:33:36] >> that's part of the rate study yes

[2:33:38] >> yeah so it really won't impact what we

[2:33:40] can do with the general budget Right.

[2:33:42] >> But it we one consideration a good

[2:33:45] consideration that you bring up Andrew

[2:33:46] is as we raise rates that's an

[2:33:48] additional burden financial burden on

[2:33:50] our residents. So if we ever come to the

[2:33:52] point of needing to raise property taxes

[2:33:56] then that's

[2:33:58] >> and then my my real what I'm really

[2:33:59] after is what other op I would love to

[2:34:01] see it in comparison with what other

[2:34:03] options because I'm looking at it at

[2:34:05] 4.8% and you say rates might go up they

[2:34:07] might go down. We got we're in a really

[2:34:09] pivotal time right now. Um, I I cannot

[2:34:12] be right that this is six million in

[2:34:14] interest on that 9 million bond. It

[2:34:16] can't be three million. You'll have to

[2:34:18] get me the right. I've got 1 million on

[2:34:19] the 2 million in interest and then 6

[2:34:23] million on the 9 million of interest.

[2:34:25] Anyways, we can go about it, but I I

[2:34:27] think before we get into that, we just I

[2:34:29] would love to see other options as well

[2:34:31] um that we can uh explore for funding

[2:34:34] those big uh because one of the budget

[2:34:36] items was I think you brought up a water

[2:34:39] project.

[2:34:40] um for culinary and I brought up one for

[2:34:43] pressurized irrigation we both

[2:34:45] submitted.

[2:34:46] >> Oh. Oh yes.

[2:34:46] >> Yes. And so but but my water budget uh

[2:34:50] item didn't just include the well um it

[2:34:55] included several more things. So I think

[2:34:59] uh there's a couple things there. One

[2:35:01] well three things. starting at the

[2:35:04] biggest number, if we can see what the

[2:35:07] impact will be, the the rate increase,

[2:35:10] uh how much debt it will be so that the

[2:35:12] residents and us all know what we're

[2:35:14] getting into for 25 years. Um and then

[2:35:17] the second one is

[2:35:19] if we can be very aware of what that 9

[2:35:22] million will include all the budget

[2:35:24] projects. I know it just says the well,

[2:35:27] the Heritage Hills well and the uh um

[2:35:30] booster pumps, but I think there's a

[2:35:33] couple extra things that would really be

[2:35:34] great to add in there, especially if we

[2:35:36] can find ways to do it more economical.

[2:35:39] Um yeah, those are the two things uh

[2:35:42] that I guess I said there were three.

[2:35:44] Those are the two things. Well, I guess

[2:35:46] the last one is the other water

[2:35:48] projects. I know you kind of pull them

[2:35:50] all into that bond. Is it okay, and this

[2:35:53] is kind of asking you all, if we include

[2:35:56] some of those other water projects that

[2:35:58] were much smaller from the uh that we

[2:36:01] had on the original budget thing, would

[2:36:03] you like to see those or they kind of

[2:36:05] got drowned out with a well um but

[2:36:07] they're smaller. Anyways, you can think

[2:36:09] it over. I can line up.

[2:36:10] >> Those come out of the enterprise funds

[2:36:12] as well, right?

[2:36:13] >> Yeah, they can. Yeah. And you know, a

[2:36:16] little bit of this could come from fund

[2:36:18] balance in the enterprise fund. Um

[2:36:21] >> I mean it doesn't have to be all

[2:36:22] bonding. It's just

[2:36:24] >> well because like some of them are

[2:36:26] >> you can do the general fund, you can do

[2:36:28] um certain things. It's and that's

[2:36:30] something that you guys can decide.

[2:36:31] Okay.

[2:36:32] >> But I think it's important for you to

[2:36:33] probably maybe understand the entire

[2:36:35] bonding process. And I think we'll get a

[2:36:37] little bit of that.

[2:36:38] >> And he said fund balance from the

[2:36:40] enterprise fund. And maybe I can what I should do or if you guys are okay

[2:36:44] with it, what I'd like to do is go into

[2:36:45] some of these and line itemum because I

[2:36:48] clumped things together and then it just

[2:36:50] became like sign or or the uh cop

[2:36:54] traffic calming when it was actually

[2:36:56] signs that were supposed to be at the

[2:36:58] corridors. um in the water one it there

[2:37:01] was like you know I think we got one of

[2:37:03] these guys here today uh storage some

[2:37:05] storage capacity as well trying to hit a

[2:37:08] lot of those things that were in the

[2:37:09] report anyways

[2:37:10] >> and and that's one specifically that we

[2:37:12] discussed today um

[2:37:14] >> this gentleman we met with

[2:37:15] >> oh with the grants

[2:37:16] >> thinks that there could be a grant

[2:37:18] >> that that could work with so we're

[2:37:21] >> you're doing everything

[2:37:22] >> yeah looking at every angle I mean

[2:37:25] >> I I hear the residents saying hey we've

[2:37:28] got to fix this problem.

[2:37:29] >> I know. I know.

[2:37:30] >> And it we know it's going to cost if you

[2:37:31] have to raise our rates. We We know it

[2:37:34] can be done for free. If someone has a

[2:37:36] better way to fund it, I'm 100% all

[2:37:39] layers.

[2:37:40] >> Okay. Yeah. Yeah. No. Okay. And I'd love

[2:37:41] to help with that. And uh Yeah. And I

[2:37:43] think a great secondary comment to that

[2:37:46] conversation is, yeah, we'll raise your

[2:37:48] rates and this is how much. And then

[2:37:50] people can really make an informed um

[2:37:53] they can really give you informed

[2:37:55] feedback. Anyways, that's the big one.

[2:37:56] And that's really the big problem. We we

[2:37:59] jumped down to um I'll jump through

[2:38:01] these really quick. We've talked about

[2:38:02] the 2 million for the fire department,

[2:38:05] the 1.5 for the roundabout. Um and then

[2:38:09] if we go down, I'll just go through them

[2:38:11] really quick. The ones so because I

[2:38:14] think there's some clarification on each

[2:38:15] of them. I I'm glad you guys like the

[2:38:17] sidewalk improvements

[2:38:19] that came from people coming after us.

[2:38:22] They uh it came from a home on Fort

[2:38:26] Canyon. So, if we do the uh sidewalk

[2:38:29] improvements, would you like us to

[2:38:32] gather more data on how much it would

[2:38:34] actually be and how much square feet

[2:38:36] we're looking for?

[2:38:37] >> No.

[2:38:38] >> I think

[2:38:38] >> not at this point. No,

[2:38:39] >> not at this point. I think this is where

[2:38:40] you and I have a very different

[2:38:42] philosophy because I feel like we're a

[2:38:44] legislative role which we say what we

[2:38:46] need sidewalks and then they go figure

[2:38:48] out how how to do it where to get the

[2:38:51] engineering where's the most risky area

[2:38:53] or whatever. So we just we stand back

[2:38:56] and let the experts sort of take the

[2:38:58] biggest lead in that

[2:39:00] >> and and we spoke in our in our work

[2:39:02] sessions that the priority would be on

[2:39:04] safety. Um, and Sarah mentioned one in

[2:39:08] particular. So, that's kind of what we

[2:39:10] decided in a previous work session is

[2:39:13] we're all in favor of funding sidewalk

[2:39:16] additions um focused on safety and we've

[2:39:20] gotten some input from Sarah. If you

[2:39:21] have any other input on locations, pass

[2:39:23] that to them and then

[2:39:24] >> Yeah. No, the the only input I get is

[2:39:27] people telling me that. And so, um, it's

[2:39:30] funny we we we arrive at the same place

[2:39:32] though, [laughter]

[2:39:33] >> right? So we we pass that on to them and

[2:39:35] then they look at all the input that

[2:39:37] they have.

[2:39:38] >> Okay.

[2:39:38] >> You know all the all the you know from

[2:39:40] all sources from them from us

[2:39:45] they come up with a recommendation.

[2:39:46] >> Just a little background that might help

[2:39:47] that that I I think it would be a miss

[2:39:50] if we have people like really wanting

[2:39:52] one in a certain area and we do it and

[2:39:54] we put it somewhere else where the

[2:39:55] people aren't even asking for it. So

[2:39:57] maybe you could take both into

[2:39:58] consideration, look at both and then

[2:40:00] evaluate if you think it's valid. Um, I

[2:40:03] mean, we wouldn't even have this if a

[2:40:04] lady wouldn't have come, asked for it,

[2:40:06] and then was told, "Come back when

[2:40:08] there's time for the budget." Then when

[2:40:10] we were running, she said, "Here I am.

[2:40:12] It's time for the budget." So,

[2:40:14] >> isn't that how we work? I wouldn't be

[2:40:15] sitting here if somebody didn't bring it

[2:40:16] up. So,

[2:40:17] >> yes. Yes. Okay. So, I'm glad you support

[2:40:19] it. I support it. If we can help with

[2:40:21] data, length, cost, whatever, or if we

[2:40:23] can show you where residents are asking

[2:40:25] for them.

[2:40:26] >> I I know the ones you've told.

[2:40:28] >> Okay, great. You know, okay, thanks. Um,

[2:40:29] some of them they're not really regional

[2:40:32] improve what I would call regional

[2:40:33] improvements within our city. Um, like

[2:40:36] the one that was mentioned on Alpine

[2:40:38] Boulevard, I would call that more

[2:40:40] regional.

[2:40:41] >> Okay. All right.

[2:40:42] >> What does regional mean?

[2:40:43] >> Like affecting more people more than

[2:40:45] just maybe a family or two or a house or

[2:40:48] two or something like that.

[2:40:50] >> Okay.

[2:40:50] >> I mean, the other thing to consider,

[2:40:52] >> and you guys don't know a lot about

[2:40:54] this, but

[2:40:56] [clears throat] I guess our insurance

[2:40:57] company's had a ton of claims on uh trip

[2:41:00] hazards and different issues with

[2:41:02] sidewalks. And they're putting a

[2:41:05] tremendous amount of pressure on us to

[2:41:07] have a more robust and thorough um

[2:41:12] sidewalk uh replacement slashtrip hazard

[2:41:16] removal program. And so we're having to

[2:41:19] formalize that. We're working on it now.

[2:41:22] Um, but that means all the sidewalks

[2:41:26] that we already have, we have to

[2:41:27] dedicate money to maintain those. Plus,

[2:41:31] then if we're adding more, we have to

[2:41:33] maintain those as well. So, we're going

[2:41:35] to have to balance.

[2:41:36] >> Yeah, but isn't it like a super bad trip

[2:41:39] hazard when there isn't even a sidewalk?

[2:41:41] I mean, you got holes, you got dirt. I

[2:41:43] mean, that is dangerous stuff. That's a

[2:41:45] joke. But, okay, let me just go through

[2:41:48] the last ones because there's some

[2:41:50] additions that I think would help. the

[2:41:51] raccoon plan, just so you know, it's not

[2:41:54] let's go to a home that needs raccoon

[2:41:56] help and give them money. It is for our

[2:42:00] uh where they're it's the city it's a

[2:42:02] cityowned thing. So, what it what that

[2:42:05] $3,000 for, if people have forgotten, it

[2:42:08] is to try to help we're already doing

[2:42:09] the home by home stuff just as a

[2:42:11] residents. it is to try to help what many people think is a city um

[2:42:19] habitation

[2:42:20] uh

[2:42:22] breeding ground that that is um by

[2:42:25] mistake happened. And so that that's

[2:42:28] what it is. And it's just to do a test

[2:42:30] on one to two streets uh on Alpine uh

[2:42:36] Alpine Boulevard. No, uh Alpine Drive.

[2:42:40] >> Okay. No, thanks for that clarification.

[2:42:43] Yeah, it's supposed

[2:42:46] that's where they live, right?

[2:42:50] >> Right. No, and and they are actually are

[2:42:52] surprisingly all over. But we assume

[2:42:55] that if we can, but we're getting rid of

[2:42:57] them. We are seeing less. I mean, one a

[2:42:59] week. I mean, this is people's homes.

[2:43:01] This is awful. But, um, it is to try to

[2:43:05] get them out of one area and say, "Okay,

[2:43:06] we can do it now. we can get them out of

[2:43:08] other areas and ideally out of alpine.

[2:43:11] So anyways,

[2:43:11] >> I I admire what you're doing there.

[2:43:13] >> Well, no, it's the city. I can't do it

[2:43:15] all. Um but anyways, um the the last

[2:43:17] one, Shane, every time I see this, I I

[2:43:20] rem try to remember to tell you, but on

[2:43:21] the Alpine Highway easement

[2:43:23] beautifification, it always looks like

[2:43:25] $10 million. So, it's the only one. It

[2:43:27] only is the only one that has a decimal.

[2:43:30] So, if we could just do the 10 grand.

[2:43:32] Um,

[2:43:35] >> every time I see it, I I my heart jumps,

[2:43:38] my my I race, and I'm like, what are we

[2:43:40] doing, and then I find out it's the only

[2:43:42] one where we put the sense on there. I

[2:43:44] do have an update on it. You guys asked

[2:43:46] for a written update. Mr. Doxy did. I

[2:43:48] have the email if you want to pull it

[2:43:49] up, Kaden. But essentially, it's in that

[2:43:51] folder. Uh, the email from Utah County.

[2:43:54] Essentially, it is you have reached your

[2:43:58] point as far as you can go. You must at

[2:44:00] this point um uh I'm sorry if you look

[2:44:04] at it like images you'll be able to see

[2:44:06] which one it is. I apologize. Oh,

[2:44:08] easement. Yes, it's called easement.

[2:44:10] They said at this point researching the

[2:44:12] ownership right ofway and chain of title

[2:44:14] for a specific property is fundamentally

[2:44:16] a legal title search which folks outside

[2:44:17] of your scope of services. She meant

[2:44:20] which falls outside of our scope of

[2:44:22] services. She I I had to email and did

[2:44:24] you not mean your scope of services? So

[2:44:26] she said, "No, you cannot get any other

[2:44:29] information or helpful from us. You do

[2:44:31] need to go do a title search." Um, so

[2:44:34] maybe some of this funding could go to

[2:44:36] that or if we want to do a separate

[2:44:37] thing, but I just want to update you

[2:44:39] with that. And they have a whole like

[2:44:40] library of documents. I asked if we

[2:44:42] could find out what they did have, they

[2:44:44] said no, but um there's we're trying to

[2:44:47] work on that.

[2:44:49] The last ones on here just because

[2:44:51] people have asked questions about them.

[2:44:54] the alpine history preservation

[2:44:56] projects. I don't know if you recall and

[2:44:58] I think this will help for us to get

[2:44:59] actual numbers and go through them is

[2:45:03] several things and some of them are not

[2:45:06] expensive in that some of them are just

[2:45:08] a start. It's the um Alpine Yesterday's

[2:45:12] volume two. It is um the fix of the

[2:45:17] monument in the cemetery which sounds

[2:45:20] like a big thing but it's not. It's just

[2:45:21] including the pioneer women's names on

[2:45:24] the uh on the thing. Do you all know

[2:45:26] this? I'm sorry if I'm repeating myself.

[2:45:28] You know you know this. I apologize.

[2:45:29] Anyways, I'll I'll go in there and and

[2:45:31] include those again. It's in the it's in

[2:45:34] the book, but just

[2:45:34] >> it's just a question. I think we talked

[2:45:36] in the prior work session, correct me if

[2:45:38] I'm wrong, that we're the decision was

[2:45:40] let's put an amount in there as a

[2:45:43] placeholder. Yes. Yes.

[2:45:44] >> And then we'll evaluate projects as they

[2:45:46] come up and prioritize them. Right.

[2:45:49] Brent, do you mean so are we assuming

[2:45:51] that over like the next years we'll

[2:45:53] adjust it or do you want it by like June

[2:45:55] 23rd when we actually vote on all this?

[2:45:58] >> Oh, I don't know. I have no preference.

[2:46:01] >> The fund amount would be

[2:46:06] fun or not.

[2:46:07] >> That's fine. We can do that.

[2:46:08] >> So, I think today we're giving direction

[2:46:11] to staff to what the priorities are.

[2:46:14] Okay. Okay. And they're going to look at

[2:46:15] funding options and then we're just

[2:46:17] going to have a final budget approval in

[2:46:19] June. So this is kind of the decision

[2:46:21] making date

[2:46:22] >> just about the money, not exactly each

[2:46:24] project.

[2:46:24] >> And then when the projects come up, then

[2:46:26] they'll come back to city council and

[2:46:29] >> we'll vote on Okay.

[2:46:31] >> Sorry.

[2:46:32] >> Then as the project comes up, then

[2:46:34] they'll come to city council. Kind of

[2:46:35] like what they do with, you know, the

[2:46:37] road projects. It comes up and, you

[2:46:39] know, we see it again and you vote on

[2:46:41] that particular thing. Sounds good. So

[2:46:43] in the budget they say, "Hey, we want to

[2:46:44] spend a million dollars on roads." And

[2:46:46] then as the road projects come up, we

[2:46:48] come up and look at it. Hey, they want

[2:46:50] to do the chip and seal. Oh, they want

[2:46:51] to do the seal coat. This is what So

[2:46:54] that's how it is. It's not like we're

[2:46:56] doing it and you're allocating this and

[2:46:57] it's going to get done. This is you're

[2:47:00] telling staff this is a priority of city

[2:47:02] council. They will approach it that way,

[2:47:05] move forward and then as that project

[2:47:07] gets ready, designed, whatever, then it

[2:47:10] will come back to city council and you

[2:47:11] will vote on that specific project.

[2:47:13] >> Okay, good. Sounds good. Uh just thank

[2:47:16] you. Last three clarifications just that

[2:47:18] will help is uh folks have reached out

[2:47:21] about the uh fire prevention projects

[2:47:24] not wanting it to be on private

[2:47:27] property. And so I thought maybe we

[2:47:31] could a lot that money if people are

[2:47:33] still for them. I've tried to explain

[2:47:34] why we need money for that based on the

[2:47:38] uh council of wherever the fire

[2:47:40] department thinks is dangerous, private,

[2:47:43] wherever, anything they think that that

[2:47:45] where we could put that money to give to

[2:47:47] them. or if they tell us we need to fix

[2:47:49] something, it could go to the city staff

[2:47:52] if it's on city land or if they see a uh

[2:47:55] um really dangerous area, we would be at

[2:47:58] the discretion of either doing it

[2:48:00] ourselves or if it's a private owner

[2:48:01] using the money to educate them, using

[2:48:04] the money to help them if they can't, if

[2:48:06] they're like elderly on a case- by case

[2:48:08] basis. But I guess I I heard everyone

[2:48:11] say they don't want to do it on private

[2:48:12] property. So, I thought maybe under the

[2:48:14] chief's discretion of where he thinks is

[2:48:16] dangerous would might be something of a

[2:48:18] happy medium. And feel free to nyx that

[2:48:21] if you are not in agreement, um the

[2:48:23] signs, uh I will send you the list of

[2:48:27] the signs. I put them all together. Um

[2:48:29] or I can bring them up in

[2:48:30] communications.

[2:48:31] Uh Shane, um I don't think the shines

[2:48:34] would take $500, but they were meant to

[2:48:37] be like four or five different signs.

[2:48:40] And sorry, lose my voice. The last one I

[2:48:43] think is the the most important one on

[2:48:45] my end. So this everyone kind of gave

[2:48:46] their number one. This is my number one.

[2:48:48] It's the traffic calming

[2:48:51] um Kaden I put in the um I put in the

[2:48:55] thing the actual traffic calming budget

[2:48:57] proposal

[2:48:59] um document.

[2:49:03] Uh you might have to refresh.

[2:49:07] Sorry. And I can explain it. There it

[2:49:09] is. a copy of the if you look at this,

[2:49:12] the original intent of this traffic

[2:49:14] calming was to um it includes what mayor

[2:49:19] brought up Main Street and it tries to a

[2:49:22] lot money towards the no left turn, the

[2:49:25] medium if we need it, the the sign um it then it also includes if you click on

[2:49:32] sort of the top one caden, this was the

[2:49:34] main thing it included. So when it say

[2:49:36] traffic calming measures, if you go to

[2:49:38] the uh that it basically starts at each

[2:49:42] corridor where it has a sign whether it

[2:49:45] says drive slowly or not, you might not

[2:49:47] want it. But then it has crosswalks,

[2:49:49] raised crosswalks, and the things that

[2:49:51] the residents have asked for on each of

[2:49:53] those corridors, whether it is Canyon

[2:49:56] Crest, um Main Street, or uh Westfield.

[2:50:02] And to be honest, it falls right. It's almost identical as the uh corridor

[2:50:06] plan we're about to go over. Not by

[2:50:08] mistake, not by design. It just happened

[2:50:11] to be the same stuff.

[2:50:12] >> Again, I'll just reiterate like I feel

[2:50:14] like um there's lots of traffic calming

[2:50:17] measures that we can be can be done. And

[2:50:20] I would prefer that we take all these

[2:50:23] suggestions and like they prioritize for

[2:50:25] us and when we're done with our money,

[2:50:27] we're done. Like that's all we can do.

[2:50:30] >> Is that is that how it works? So, should

[2:50:31] we just say we want traffic calming,

[2:50:32] then you kind of find out which ones you

[2:50:33] like, or is it helpful for us to list

[2:50:35] ones that we think are great?

[2:50:37] >> What I would suggest is that we get a

[2:50:40] consultant to help us uh create

[2:50:43] criteria.

[2:50:44] >> Thank you.

[2:50:45] >> And then use their expertise to say,

[2:50:48] hey, we we're considering this here. Is

[2:50:52] it a good good application or should we

[2:50:55] be looking at something else based on

[2:50:57] your experience? bring that plan back,

[2:51:01] let the council approve it and then we

[2:51:03] implement it and take the money as far

[2:51:05] as we can implement it for that year and

[2:51:07] then maybe, you know, we'll have a plan.

[2:51:10] Um, we'll have kind of a toolbox and

[2:51:12] then we can budget money in future years

[2:51:15] and just keep chipping away at.

[2:51:17] >> Okay,

[2:51:17] >> let's not delay that. Let's get that

[2:51:19] going, I think. Um

[2:51:20] >> well um

[2:51:20] >> and this but there are some things like

[2:51:23] some crosswalk improvements that would probably coincide with the Canyon

[2:51:28] Crest plan that we've talked about on

[2:51:31] Alageney or it's on Healey wherever it

[2:51:33] is or both.

[2:51:34] >> Um I think those would be independent of

[2:51:36] that process or

[2:51:37] >> we've already like planned for those in

[2:51:40] the um when we put the RFP out with

[2:51:43] Highland um for that stretch of road.

[2:51:46] So,

[2:51:46] >> and then there are also going to be

[2:51:47] unique times where the timing is just

[2:51:49] right to do something and we've talked

[2:51:52] about the roundabout, but the timing of

[2:51:54] all the the other improvements. Um, it

[2:51:57] makes sense to do it all at once if the

[2:51:59] council decides they want to do it. And

[2:52:01] the different funding mechanisms would

[2:52:03] be outside of the set amount because

[2:52:06] we've talked about different options of

[2:52:08] splitting it over two fiscal years

[2:52:10] because the project wouldn't start until

[2:52:12] spring of 2027 when the the uh path plan

[2:52:16] the path improvements and the street

[2:52:17] improvements are happen. But we've also

[2:52:20] talked about the city purchasing 100

[2:52:22] South a few years ago to address

[2:52:24] Mountainville Academy traffic mitigation

[2:52:27] and safety. And we're probably moving

[2:52:30] forward to that with on that hopefully

[2:52:32] with Mountainville Academyy's

[2:52:34] >> um participation, but even if not, we're

[2:52:37] probably going to move forward with some

[2:52:38] of those plans. And regardless of what

[2:52:40] we do, it's going to divert traffic off

[2:52:42] of Main Street, which is what we want.

[2:52:44] And fair peers, the engineers who did

[2:52:46] this traffic study for us, emphasized

[2:52:49] that that would cause a problem at Ridge

[2:52:51] and Canyonrest that would be remedied,

[2:52:53] but remediated with the proposed

[2:52:56] roundabout. So that's why that I think

[2:52:58] would be separate. I mean I just not

[2:53:03] it's multiple buck buckets spread out

[2:53:05] over years using funds from a sale that

[2:53:07] was done with the intent to address

[2:53:10] traffic and safety as a way to not have

[2:53:13] to dip into the capital improvement fund

[2:53:16] as much. Well, Greg,

[2:53:18] >> Shane, correct me if I'm wrong, but if

[2:53:20] um the Canyon Crest is ready and like

[2:53:23] it's a part of that plan at that point,

[2:53:26] we look at all the factors, you know,

[2:53:29] and we could we do [clears throat] a

[2:53:31] budget amendment if it's going to um go

[2:53:34] above what we've approved. That's the

[2:53:36] only one that it feels like it's outside

[2:53:39] of of our current funding. We're dipping

[2:53:41] into like fun balance like I showed you

[2:53:43] like here and there, but that one was a

[2:53:47] significant one and I think it's worthy

[2:53:48] of the discussion with all of Canyon

[2:53:51] Crest and everything else going on. But

[2:53:53] it's hard to to just sit here in

[2:53:55] isolation and say that that that's um

[2:53:59] we're going to do that at this moment

[2:54:01] without looking at all the other traffic

[2:54:03] calming options that we have or do you

[2:54:06] know what I'm saying? like I I'm I know

[2:54:07] it's um been a high topic of

[2:54:10] conversation, but we we don't really

[2:54:12] have the criteria of what are our

[2:54:16] >> Well, we have we have talked extensively

[2:54:18] about options for funding it and we'll

[2:54:20] get to this when it's my turn more, but

[2:54:22] um we have talked about options for

[2:54:24] funding it. We already have three

[2:54:26] council members that have listed as

[2:54:28] their top priority and then Andrew is a

[2:54:30] supportive. He's told me um so I think

[2:54:32] we're already past that point. Well, I

[2:54:35] think it was also depending on if we

[2:54:36] sell the land. Um, and that's still a

[2:54:39] question mark.

[2:54:39] >> That's that's that was a preference

[2:54:42] stated, but that's not a condition for

[2:54:44] council members that have supported it.

[2:54:47] Mayor, it's 9:00. I would like to make a

[2:54:49] motion to

[2:54:51] >> Okay. Yes. to extend the meeting just to

[2:54:54] the point where we can finish the budget

[2:54:56] discussion and

[2:54:58] to address only the design standards of

[2:55:01] the gateway small area plan because

[2:55:04] that's what's most important for the

[2:55:06] fire department decision and postpone

[2:55:09] the rest of any discussion on that till

[2:55:10] a later date.

[2:55:11] >> I have a motion to extend. Is there a

[2:55:13] second?

[2:55:14] >> I second that.

[2:55:15] >> Moved by Councilman Rumbler, seconded by

[2:55:17] Councilwoman

[2:55:18] Blackwell. Let's start with the roll

[2:55:20] call vote.

[2:55:23] Sarah Blackwell, yes. Chris Anaman, yes.

[2:55:25] >> Andrew Young, yes.

[2:55:26] >> Grena, yes.

[2:55:28] >> Jessica Sme, yes.

[2:55:30] >> Okay.

[2:55:32] >> The the last the last question was,

[2:55:34] would you would it be helpful to take

[2:55:37] out some of these specific things and

[2:55:40] separate them? Like in the traffic

[2:55:42] calming, take out the entrance signs and

[2:55:45] make them their own thing. or in the

[2:55:48] water thing, take out some of those

[2:55:49] individual things and make it their own

[2:55:51] thing. Just would that help to be more

[2:55:53] specific?

[2:55:54] >> So, the way I'm seeing it right now,

[2:55:55] we're just like allocating funds and

[2:55:57] then we're working through the details

[2:56:00] on

[2:56:01] >> traffic calming

[2:56:02] >> through through the budget year. So,

[2:56:04] >> for the council, do you think that

[2:56:07] entrance signs are because that was the

[2:56:09] main thing. Are those should those be a

[2:56:12] separate thing or should those be lumped

[2:56:13] in with the traffic calming things? Like

[2:56:18] anything

[2:56:19] >> I see it more as beautifification, not

[2:56:21] traffic.

[2:56:21] >> I agree. I only put it because it was

[2:56:23] >> I would have lumped it with like the

[2:56:25] Eastman or

[2:56:26] >> maybe I can just pull those out just so

[2:56:28] people can vote on them individually if

[2:56:29] that's okay.

[2:56:30] >> Well, and a lot of these are well below

[2:56:34] the the budget approval threshold,

[2:56:36] right?

[2:56:37] So some of them were we've identified as

[2:56:39] future projects. Some we've identified

[2:56:40] as waiting for grants. The parks we've

[2:56:43] identified as waiting for the master

[2:56:44] plan.

[2:56:45] >> Right. Right.

[2:56:46] >> With a emphasis on Peterson even if it

[2:56:49] might not be the priority from the

[2:56:52] residents, but to do it in conjunction

[2:56:55] with the installation of the path and

[2:56:57] the improvements on Crest.

[2:56:59] >> It just makes sense to me to do that at

[2:57:01] the same time. Whereas it might not be

[2:57:04] the number one on the priority. It just

[2:57:05] the timing makes sense which is similar

[2:57:07] to the roundabout. Um

[2:57:10] so a lot of these even the raccoon plan

[2:57:13] doesn't

[2:57:14] >> I guess

[2:57:17] it's well below the threshold of but

[2:57:22] we'll make you feel better. Why don't

[2:57:23] you um create a list and you can submit

[2:57:26] that. Why don't you email it to

[2:57:27] everybody so we all understand and so

[2:57:29] that we're all on the same page. Okay.

[2:57:31] Sounds good. Thanks.

[2:57:31] >> Meanwhile, hey Jessica, do you want to

[2:57:33] go next? Oh,

[2:57:33] >> it's my turn.

[2:57:36] Well, after council member,

[2:57:38] >> I can go first if you want. I don't

[2:57:40] mind.

[2:57:42] >> Jess, why don't you go ahead and then

[2:57:43] we'll have um Brent go last this time.

[2:57:48] >> I'm going to switch it up.

[2:57:53] So,

[2:57:55] as far as budgeting goes, couldn't we do

[2:57:57] the same thing the mayor mentioned um at

[2:57:59] the beginning of the discussion

[2:58:01] prioritizing

[2:58:02] Main Street and make and asking if it

[2:58:05] should be a line item? And Chrissy, you

[2:58:07] said we could just do a budget amendment

[2:58:09] on some of these things. So, I agree.

[2:58:12] >> Oh, I meant um to be clear, I I meant

[2:58:14] something as large as a $ 1.5 million

[2:58:17] roundabout. That's what I meant.

[2:58:20] >> Okay. So, but as far as priorities go

[2:58:23] and considering Main Street, you know,

[2:58:25] that really is a this year problem. So,

[2:58:29] um before I move into next year's

[2:58:31] budget, could we look at allocating some

[2:58:35] money and getting

[2:58:38] a solution moved forward for Main Street

[2:58:41] traffic problems? because a lot of these

[2:58:43] trafficcoming things are an extension or

[2:58:47] impacted by what's going on on Main

[2:58:50] Street. So, I'm I need some clarity or

[2:58:53] understanding of what the holdup is for

[2:58:56] us to start to move forward now that

[2:58:58] we've gotten a couple of different

[2:59:00] reports from traffic engineers on

[2:59:02] solutions and what's, you know, can we

[2:59:05] start to budget funds for that? That's

[2:59:07] question number one.

[2:59:09] >> Yeah. And to address that, the mayor um

[2:59:12] has talked to us about making sure we

[2:59:14] have um kind of a list of projects for

[2:59:16] Main Street that could be installed

[2:59:18] before school starts this fall. And so

[2:59:21] that's what we're working on uh to bring

[2:59:23] back uh kind of a proposal to the

[2:59:26] council.

[2:59:26] >> That's wonderful.

[2:59:27] >> Um so those could be done. And um uh we

[2:59:31] had you approve, you know, a pretty

[2:59:33] significant uh street maintenance

[2:59:35] project tonight, but we still held funds

[2:59:38] back from what

[2:59:40] that's not taking care of or not using

[2:59:43] all the funds we have in this year's

[2:59:44] budget. Um, we've left a pretty good

[2:59:47] chunk back that can help with those

[2:59:50] things. So,

[2:59:52] >> so does that need to be put in this

[2:59:53] matrix because aren't we deciding on

[2:59:55] budget right now and do we need to have

[2:59:57] line of sight into budget items? We are,

[3:00:00] but this is we're talking about next

[3:00:02] year's budget. And you your first

[3:00:03] question was on something that you want

[3:00:06] started this year. And so we have funds

[3:00:09] there. And then from the same pocket of

[3:00:12] money, the million-doll street

[3:00:14] maintenance, um, we can, you know, take

[3:00:17] part of that and do some of these more

[3:00:19] minor improvements without having a

[3:00:22] significant impact on our street

[3:00:24] maintenance.

[3:00:26] >> Okay. So that will be addressed this

[3:00:29] year. So that's great. That's great

[3:00:30] news. Um so going down the list, I I

[3:00:35] also remember when we met and had our

[3:00:37] budget meeting, I think the consensus

[3:00:40] was that all of these projects were a

[3:00:44] priority and then what staff would do

[3:00:47] would take it back and then look at how

[3:00:49] it would be funded. So, for example,

[3:00:52] looking at our park tax, how much of

[3:00:54] these projects we would then um fund

[3:00:58] through the park tax allocation? So, are

[3:01:01] you asking for something different from

[3:01:04] our budget meeting where we where we

[3:01:06] walked away with consensus that all of

[3:01:09] these council submitts had priority and

[3:01:12] staff would then come up with ways to

[3:01:16] fund them? No, I think they're looking

[3:01:18] more for direction that we're not sure

[3:01:20] if we're going to be able to get

[3:01:21] everything done with the limited staff

[3:01:22] that we have. Um, and that moving

[3:01:26] forward that they would like to know

[3:01:28] what the priorities are and how to go

[3:01:30] about work start working on these

[3:01:32] projects along with everything else.

[3:01:35] >> Is that your understanding? and funding

[3:01:38] um all of these in this budget year.

[3:01:42] Like you can see if you look at that uh

[3:01:45] fund analysis sheet, it the capital

[3:01:48] improvement fund takes a significant

[3:01:50] hit. Some of these projects, the smaller

[3:01:53] ones that are in yellow on on my sheet

[3:01:56] >> or on your matrix aren't even in there.

[3:01:59] >> We put the larger one like the

[3:02:01] roundabouts in there. We had money in

[3:02:03] there for traffic calming.

[3:02:05] uh

[3:02:07] three or four of these other projects.

[3:02:09] Um but as as I had explained before, not

[3:02:12] all of them were put in there. It it's

[3:02:15] taken a more of a major hit on the

[3:02:17] capital improvement fund than what I'm

[3:02:21] comfortable with in one year. Um again,

[3:02:25] with the roundabout,

[3:02:28] uh I have 980,000

[3:02:32] coming from the capital improvement

[3:02:34] fund.

[3:02:35] Um the other two there's 100,000 in one

[3:02:39] area. Let's see 250

[3:02:43] in class C and 170 in street impact

[3:02:46] fees.

[3:02:47] The 980 and capital improvement fund

[3:02:50] unless we have a significant transfer

[3:02:52] this year. That's not really going to

[3:02:54] change. The others we could split budget

[3:02:57] years and help some. And then what about

[3:03:01] >> couple

[3:03:02] >> the sale of the property at 100 South

[3:03:04] >> and that's the other thing that's not

[3:03:05] con um considered in this because it's

[3:03:09] not done yet

[3:03:11] >> but it's it's consideration kind of to

[3:03:14] think about off to the side. Yes.

[3:03:16] >> Okay. So that helps me just prioritizing

[3:03:19] this with you're just looking for again

[3:03:21] a one two and three then as far as

[3:03:24] what's the most important

[3:03:26] >> that would be helpful. Well, and if I

[3:03:27] can just say our fund balance,

[3:03:30] especially in the capital improvement

[3:03:31] fund, is what really has allowed us to

[3:03:34] purchase some of these properties that

[3:03:37] came up at key times that really weren't

[3:03:40] anticipated.

[3:03:41] Um, so if we

[3:03:44] knock that down too much and something

[3:03:46] comes up, we may not have that option.

[3:03:50] Um, so that's just something to keep in

[3:03:52] mind.

[3:03:53] >> Yeah, I agree with Shane's concerns.

[3:03:55] That's what my numbers were showing is

[3:03:56] that we're using a significant um

[3:04:01] we're using like I think 55 I could pull

[3:04:03] it up.

[3:04:04] >> We're using a huge chunk of it just um

[3:04:07] in one year and yet it takes multiple

[3:04:10] years to build the fund balance. So um

[3:04:13] we're using 55% of it in one year. If I

[3:04:16] were to come up with a policy all all

[3:04:18] and I had my magic wand of Chrissy

[3:04:20] Hanaman like you could never use 50%

[3:04:22] without like a super majority vote of

[3:04:26] council because you're putting us at

[3:04:28] financial that that's just a huge um hit

[3:04:32] to our financial stability which is also

[3:04:35] something they look at when they bond

[3:04:36] and things that we have these fund

[3:04:38] balances and if they disappear over one

[3:04:40] year that what it reflects is that we

[3:04:43] are not fiscally responsible. And so I

[3:04:45] that is a big deterrent to funding a

[3:04:48] large project at this point. I'm not

[3:04:51] against the idea that um we need some

[3:04:53] traffic calming and maybe it could help

[3:04:55] instead of the roundabout which would be

[3:04:56] more affordable. I do see that there's a

[3:04:59] an issue with a crosswalk, but I

[3:05:01] personally am not comfortable with 1.5

[3:05:03] million and that is a 55% hit which we

[3:05:06] it took years to get to build that up

[3:05:08] and to just say o you know away it goes

[3:05:12] in one point um spread that out over two

[3:05:15] years or was that just assuming that was absorbed in one year?

[3:05:18] >> That's just this year.

[3:05:20] >> No, that's

[3:05:20] >> okay. So So it would be different. So,

[3:05:22] I'll just um No, it's not. She's taking

[3:05:25] out She's not taking out the full I can

[3:05:27] tie it out for you cost in one year.

[3:05:29] >> That's Shane's numbers. 4175 is Shane's

[3:05:32] number.

[3:05:33] >> No, I understand that. But the

[3:05:35] conversation again we've had multiple

[3:05:37] times is with this MAG project coming in

[3:05:40] and when it's actually going to get

[3:05:41] started and the improvements are going

[3:05:43] to be done because they haven't started

[3:05:45] all the acquisition and the easements

[3:05:47] and all of those things on the Highland

[3:05:50] side. It's highly likely that that won't

[3:05:52] come in until the following year. So

[3:05:54] that we could actually take half of the

[3:05:57] cost of the roundabout this fiscal year

[3:06:00] and then do the same that we've done

[3:06:02] with the fire station. take the other

[3:06:04] half the following fiscal year. So I

[3:06:08] think that would reduce your 55% down by

[3:06:12] half. So then it would fall into an

[3:06:14] acceptable matrix.

[3:06:16] >> So I I I tried to make this clear, but I

[3:06:18] don't think I made it clear enough. So

[3:06:20] of the 1.5 million,

[3:06:23] um there's about 350,000 of that that's

[3:06:27] reoccurring money. So it's new money

[3:06:30] that gets replenished every year. The

[3:06:32] other portion is coming from capital the

[3:06:34] capital improvement fund which doesn't

[3:06:38] really unless we have a transfer at the

[3:06:40] end of the year doesn't really receive

[3:06:42] new money. Um the fourth fund would be

[3:06:46] from street impact fees which you know

[3:06:49] there will be some generated um through

[3:06:52] new growth but um about 350,000 of that

[3:06:57] is reoccurring like general fund type

[3:06:59] money

[3:07:00] >> and then the sale of the property if we

[3:07:02] end up selling that yes

[3:07:04] >> with a deed restriction or to the to

[3:07:07] the school then that would nearly wipe

[3:07:11] out the capital improvement fund

[3:07:14] cost.

[3:07:16] >> Yes, you added cost. It would replace.

[3:07:17] You said the word cost, not

[3:07:18] >> it would wipe it out or replace.

[3:07:20] >> Replace. Yeah.

[3:07:21] >> Yeah.

[3:07:23] >> Remember the purpose of that purchase

[3:07:24] was to address

[3:07:26] traffic and safety. And by diverting

[3:07:28] traffic, the engineers have said it's

[3:07:30] going to cause that intersection to fail

[3:07:33] or likely to cause it.

[3:07:38] » Sorry, Jessica. Did you have anything

[3:07:40] else you wanted to say, Jessica? Or do

[3:07:42] you want to keep your

[3:07:43] >> I would prioritize the roundabout for

[3:07:45] the timing purposes. We're doing the

[3:07:47] improvement

[3:07:49] along um Canyon Crest Road all the way,

[3:07:53] you know, connecting into trails in

[3:07:54] Highland. The I feel like multimodal

[3:07:59] demand is only going to increase as um

[3:08:02] that walking trail comes in all the way

[3:08:04] to our roundabout. because we're doing

[3:08:06] the improvements and we've also had

[3:08:08] multiple traffic studies and engineers

[3:08:11] and professionals weigh in on this and

[3:08:13] the recommendation is that a roundabout

[3:08:16] would be a great solution. um not just

[3:08:20] for our current need and the current

[3:08:22] demand, but also like I mentioned

[3:08:24] before, we have I can't I think 200

[3:08:28] entitled lots and we have other lots

[3:08:31] coming in that we're looking um at

[3:08:34] possibly um bringing in more property

[3:08:36] into Alpine. And so as we grow as a

[3:08:39] city, you know, we need to be really

[3:08:41] considering the future growth and the

[3:08:43] future traffic patterns. So, it solves a

[3:08:46] problem we have today as pointed out by

[3:08:48] the professionals, but it also addresses

[3:08:50] future city planning for safety and um

[3:08:55] it's just to me the timing works and we

[3:08:57] can spread it out over a couple years

[3:08:59] and I don't think it would be burdensome

[3:09:01] to our budget. I think every year we

[3:09:04] actually do replenish

[3:09:07] don't we do replenish um the fund

[3:09:10] balance Shane? I think I remember every

[3:09:11] year we have a little bit of money that

[3:09:13] we move over. At least we have up until

[3:09:15] now.

[3:09:16] >> Yeah. So, so like the last couple years

[3:09:20] a lot of the money that's been

[3:09:21] transferred um was allocated for the

[3:09:24] fire station. And so now we went and

[3:09:27] actually earmarked that in our financial

[3:09:30] report for that purpose so it doesn't

[3:09:32] get kind of lost in the shuffle. It's

[3:09:35] helps us remember why it's there. But we

[3:09:38] also absorbed a $400,000 increase to our

[3:09:40] Lone Peak safety. So, um, that was

[3:09:45] >> Chrissy, you had your turn.

[3:09:47] >> Oh,

[3:09:48] >> so that anyway, that is I would

[3:09:50] prioritize that. And then whatever funds

[3:09:53] are left over, I would do anything for

[3:09:55] safety and, um, pedestrian safety. I

[3:09:59] would do race crosswalks if you know the

[3:10:02] allocations of of funds remain. [snorts]

[3:10:05] And then as far as prioritizing our

[3:10:07] parks and our history, we have our park

[3:10:10] tax. So I I really like the idea of

[3:10:14] having a plan and just allocating

[3:10:16] percentages every year so we know what

[3:10:18] projects we can work on. So that

[3:10:20] wouldn't impact our general fund. Is

[3:10:24] that correct? The park tax would um be

[3:10:27] able to absorb those costs.

[3:10:29] >> Yes.

[3:10:30] >> Okay. So those those are what's

[3:10:32] important to me.

[3:10:34] Thank you, Brent.

[3:10:36] >> All right. Uh

[3:10:38] Sarah, I appreciate your

[3:10:40] um expressing your budget priorities.

[3:10:42] They're very they're the same as mine.

[3:10:44] Um I think government has some primary

[3:10:48] responsibilities. One being

[3:10:50] infrastructure and that's water and

[3:10:52] obvious obviously other infrastructure

[3:10:54] efficient and well-maintained roads

[3:10:57] basic services such as snow removal

[3:11:00] permitting ordinance enforcement and

[3:11:02] then the other big role of government is

[3:11:05] safety and I appreciate our fire and

[3:11:08] police departments in that regard and

[3:11:10] traffic safety I think is one of those

[3:11:12] highest priorities.

[3:11:14] Um,

[3:11:17] just going back a little bit, we've

[3:11:18] already talked about this in the past two meetings. Clearly, not

[3:11:21] everyone's going to agree on everything.

[3:11:22] We had a few residents come and talk

[3:11:24] about their opposition to a roundabout.

[3:11:27] We've all received several emails from

[3:11:29] residents expressing support. I've

[3:11:32] gotten lots of verbal um expressions of

[3:11:34] support. I know there are others who

[3:11:36] don't, even those that live by there.

[3:11:38] Some don't want a roundabout either. Um

[3:11:41] we had

[3:11:43] um a resident who met with Andrew who

[3:11:46] went around and

[3:11:47] >> Jeff Guptell Guptell who uh also spoke

[3:11:52] at the planning commission meeting in

[3:11:53] support of the roundabout and he went

[3:11:55] around and petitioned neighbors and got

[3:11:57] 40 a little over 40 people that he

[3:12:00] petitioned and 40 agreed that it was uh

[3:12:05] appropriate and that's what something

[3:12:06] they would like to see. Two said no. One

[3:12:08] guy was from England and he said, "I

[3:12:10] don't want any more roundabouts unless

[3:12:12] the Americans learn how to drive in

[3:12:13] them." Which I thought was pretty funny.

[3:12:16] All right, so we've had pro several

[3:12:19] professional recommendations from

[3:12:21] traffic and safety engineers, and we've

[3:12:23] been told over and over again how

[3:12:24] important it is to get the backing of

[3:12:25] professionals. The first was in 2024.

[3:12:29] Traffic engineer and general manager

[3:12:31] Josh Gibbons from Hails Engineering was

[3:12:33] the first one to suggest that a

[3:12:36] roundabout would be the best option to

[3:12:38] address both operations efficiency and

[3:12:41] safety at that um intersection.

[3:12:45] And in 2025,

[3:12:48] the traffic and safety engineer hired as

[3:12:49] part of the consulting team for the

[3:12:51] small area plan, Michael Malay, he um

[3:12:54] also recommends a roundabout to address

[3:12:57] both operations and safety at that

[3:13:01] problem intersection and short stretch

[3:13:03] of road.

[3:13:05] In January of 2026, I had reached out to

[3:13:08] the Lynen City um public works director

[3:13:13] and their engineer about the new

[3:13:16] roundabout I saw on their main street in

[3:13:18] Lynden near the temple, the new temple.

[3:13:21] And they highly recommended Kellerin

[3:13:23] Associates. They're the ones who helped

[3:13:25] them design their roundabout. And it was

[3:13:28] about $500,000. So, there are cheaper

[3:13:30] options and we can discuss ways to save

[3:13:33] money. I would really like to save money

[3:13:35] and I'd really like that grant to come

[3:13:36] through. Um, Keller Associates looked at

[3:13:40] traffic data. They looked at the

[3:13:42] intersection, actually came out and

[3:13:43] spent quite a bit of time at the

[3:13:45] intersection. They met with Jason and

[3:13:49] Andrew Young and myself and um, also

[3:13:53] expressed how they thought a roundabout

[3:13:55] would be a very good option for

[3:13:58] addressing both operations and safety.

[3:14:00] And then finally, as we've already

[3:14:02] talked about tonight, we Alpine hired um

[3:14:05] Farah and Piers to look at the

[3:14:07] Mountainville Academy, get an

[3:14:08] independent assessment. And without me

[3:14:12] saying anything to them, they said if

[3:14:15] you divert traffic off of Main Street, a

[3:14:17] lot of it's going to go east toward that

[3:14:20] Ridge and Canyon Crest intersection, and

[3:14:22] it would likely cause that intersection

[3:14:24] to fail. So, it's all four in all four

[3:14:27] engineers firms. um have all said had

[3:14:31] the same recommendation. And then Andy

[3:14:33] Spencer, also a U DOT employee, former

[3:14:37] city engineer and Alpine resident, has

[3:14:40] expressed that it would be a good option

[3:14:41] for that intersection.

[3:14:44] All right. Another thing that was

[3:14:45] brought up to me by some residents on

[3:14:47] that east side of Canest, people I don't

[3:14:50] know, was that this intersection was

[3:14:53] constructed when Alpine had a much

[3:14:54] smaller population. And over the years,

[3:14:58] Sierra Avenue or Sierra was developed

[3:15:01] when my comm when my subdivision was

[3:15:04] created and Feeasant Ridge was

[3:15:06] developed. And so now we have four

[3:15:09] three-way intersections from the curve

[3:15:11] to the clust of the hill within 0.15

[3:15:14] mile of each other. So that's just not a

[3:15:16] good design. That's especially when you

[3:15:18] have the line of sight challenges with

[3:15:20] the curve and the hill crest with those

[3:15:23] intersection in close proximity. Maybe

[3:15:26] it wasn't intended to be that way, but

[3:15:27] with the growth, um, it has led to that

[3:15:30] being a challenging intersection. And

[3:15:32] that's why these 40 residents that live

[3:15:34] on the other side, that's was their main

[3:15:36] concern.

[3:15:38] Then I will also note that the master

[3:15:40] plan has a connector road from High

[3:15:43] Bench to SR92

[3:15:47] that was planned to be another way to

[3:15:50] get in and out of Alpine that would have

[3:15:51] relieved the congestion the the traffic

[3:15:54] on Ridge and would have relieved the

[3:15:56] some of the congestion on Ridge Healey

[3:15:58] and Canyon Crest. But a prior city

[3:16:01] council made a decision um based on the

[3:16:05] neighbors. They don't want traffic to go

[3:16:07] through their neighborhood. I understand

[3:16:08] that. I'm sure we're going to get the

[3:16:10] same.

[3:16:10] >> No, city council didn't ever decide on

[3:16:12] that.

[3:16:13] >> No, they didn't.

[3:16:13] >> No, it was the developer pulled out.

[3:16:15] >> Okay.

[3:16:15] >> Well, Highland denied it.

[3:16:17] >> Oh, Highland City Council denied it

[3:16:19] >> with a lot of

[3:16:20] >> with input from Well, anyway,

[3:16:22] >> all of us.

[3:16:22] >> It hasn't gone through. Yes. And what

[3:16:24] the residents are saying is it puts it

[3:16:27] keeps the burden on Ridge and Canyon

[3:16:30] Crest. And there's been more

[3:16:32] development. We just we know there's

[3:16:35] another development. It's a Fitz Fitz

[3:16:37] Fitzgerald

[3:16:39] um subdivision that's going in that

[3:16:41] they're starting to work on that. That's

[3:16:42] going to be another 20 homes. The

[3:16:44] Patterson one just north of that.

[3:16:45] Another 20 homes. So just as I don't

[3:16:47] remember who said it that it's just

[3:16:49] going to keep getting more and more

[3:16:51] traffic at Ridge. So, um, anyway, that connector road never went through.

[3:16:58] I don't know who decided. So, thanks for

[3:17:00] letting me know. It was not the city

[3:17:01] council. So, this never get to us. Is

[3:17:03] that why? Because Highland denied it.

[3:17:05] >> Well, do you want me to tell them or do

[3:17:07] you want to tell them?

[3:17:08] >> No, it's okay. I mean, we can move on,

[3:17:10] but no, Alpine City Council did not deny

[3:17:13] it or close that off. That was not

[3:17:15] [clears throat] us.

[3:17:16] >> It was mainly when the discussion was

[3:17:18] going on, the developer pulled out.

[3:17:21] So Chrissy has emphasized ranch road

[3:17:24] connection which I I totally support for

[3:17:27] the same reasons why I would support

[3:17:31] another road out on the on the east side

[3:17:33] because it reduces the congestion. So

[3:17:36] Chrissy, you mentioned that connector

[3:17:38] would reduce the impact on the

[3:17:40] roundabout, Main Street and West Canyon

[3:17:42] Crust. Well, we never got that secondary

[3:17:45] road on the east side. So all that is

[3:17:47] still coming. So that's just a

[3:17:48] consideration for you to think about.

[3:17:50] >> That's true.

[3:17:51] >> The same rationale for the ranch I think

[3:17:54] applies to Ridge. Um and then all

[3:17:57] there's all that new development coming

[3:17:58] up. All right. Um this as I mentioned a

[3:18:02] couple things. This the safety issues

[3:18:04] are that that are unique to this

[3:18:06] intersection that don't apply to most

[3:18:07] places. We had one resident talk about

[3:18:10] the west side. Well, this has

[3:18:12] significant sight distance issues that

[3:18:14] all these engineers have recognized with

[3:18:16] the curb and the hillrest. I talked

[3:18:18] about the addition of Sierra and

[3:18:19] Feeasant Ridge in the close proximity of

[3:18:21] those intersections. Uh the police have

[3:18:24] informed us that they really can't

[3:18:26] enforce speeding laws along this stretch

[3:18:28] because of the topography and because

[3:18:30] there's no safe place to park. There's

[3:18:33] uh we have the new path and the park

[3:18:35] improvements coming that will almost

[3:18:37] certainly bring more pedestrians, multim

[3:18:40] modal uh users to this area. And um

[3:18:46] the MAG criteria that Chrissy cited two

[3:18:48] weeks ago that is more for different

[3:18:50] types of projects includes nothing about

[3:18:53] safety. So again, I hope the MAG

[3:18:56] grant comes through. Um, if it doesn't

[3:18:59] come through this time, I don't think

[3:19:00] it's going to come through in the future

[3:19:01] because the the other factors of we're

[3:19:05] already doing the other project and the

[3:19:07] path will already be there are not

[3:19:09] additional factors that they would

[3:19:11] consider. So, if it's if they don't

[3:19:12] approve it this time, I highly doubt

[3:19:14] they would approve it in the future. And

[3:19:15] it's a residential zone with a 35 mile

[3:19:17] speed limit, one of the few areas in

[3:19:19] Alpine that has a speed limit over 25.

[3:19:23] Um the planning commission uh reviewed

[3:19:26] this as part of the small area plan and

[3:19:28] they voted unanimously to prioritize the

[3:19:30] roundabout at Ridge Drive and Kennyrest.

[3:19:33] They held two public public hearings and

[3:19:35] residents came in and voiced support for

[3:19:38] the roundabout. I don't know if anyone

[3:19:39] voted or expressed uh concerns. I don't

[3:19:43] remember any.

[3:19:46] And there was all kinds of public

[3:19:47] discussion during the small area plan

[3:19:49] public meetings.

[3:19:52] I we already talked about the timing. It

[3:19:54] makes sense to do it now so we're not

[3:19:55] tearing up the road twice. Shane has

[3:19:57] said that repeatedly that we don't want

[3:20:00] to do this twice. If we are going to do

[3:20:01] the roundabout, 2027 is the time to do

[3:20:04] it. And we've talked a lot about the

[3:20:05] funding already. Um the difference

[3:20:09] split between two fiscal years, the

[3:20:12] likely um disposition of the 100 South

[3:20:15] property impact fees and split between

[3:20:18] other funds. All right, that's it on the

[3:20:20] roundabout. Um, as far as my priorities,

[3:20:23] I echo what Jessica said and Sarah that

[3:20:28] the first priority is safety and my

[3:20:30] first priority is the roundabout. My

[3:20:32] second would be installation of

[3:20:35] additional sidewalks in the locations

[3:20:37] where safety is the primary factor. Um,

[3:20:41] and then after that, any additional

[3:20:44] traffic calming, traffic safety measures

[3:20:46] like better mark crosswalks and some

[3:20:49] strategic locations um that we've talked

[3:20:51] about in the past.

[3:20:54] And then I'll I mentioned this before,

[3:20:56] but as far as the parks go, um I think

[3:20:59] Peterson Park should be a priority based

[3:21:01] on the timing after we get this parks

[3:21:04] plan.

[3:21:07] » All right, that's all.

[3:21:10] Okay. Is that it?

[3:21:10] >> I do have a question. Um, if we had to

[3:21:14] bond for the roundabout, would it

[3:21:17] important enough to you to bond?

[3:21:20] >> Both.

[3:21:20] >> So, I understand

[3:21:21] >> both.

[3:21:22] >> Who you asking?

[3:21:23] >> Because I know you have an issue with

[3:21:24] bonds and I know you really want the

[3:21:25] roundabout, but is it important enough

[3:21:26] for you to go into debt? Just curious.

[3:21:29] >> Yeah. So, I I I don't know if we need to

[3:21:31] because of the likely disposition of

[3:21:34] that South property. I've always been

[3:21:36] opposed to debt in my personal life, but

[3:21:38] it wasn't until I started serving on

[3:21:40] city council and I was educated by our

[3:21:42] who's our finance guy?

[3:21:44] >> Uh Dave Sanderson.

[3:21:45] >> Dave Sanderson. Um about why sometimes

[3:21:48] bonding is appropriate and that's to

[3:21:49] spread out the costs over

[3:21:52] multiple residents, not just the that

[3:21:54] the immediate residents who are here now

[3:21:55] are bearing that burden. So I my

[3:21:58] preference would be to split it between

[3:22:01] two fiscal years. um use some of those

[3:22:04] other funds Shane talked about and use

[3:22:07] the disposition of the Wonder South

[3:22:09] property toward it,

[3:22:11] >> I guess. Okay, go ahead.

[3:22:12] >> So, it's very similar. It's it's coming

[3:22:14] out of one

[3:22:16] fund or another. See, Brent learned from

[3:22:18] government, but he didn't learn the

[3:22:20] number one lesson. Do not follow the

[3:22:22] government debt practices. [laughter]

[3:22:26] So, no, I'm not I'm against debt, not

[3:22:31] bonding, but bonding brings debt. And

[3:22:33] so, if someone were to say, "We got to

[3:22:35] bond for this," I would be like,

[3:22:37] "There's a lot cheaper ways to do this."

[3:22:39] So, I would recommend we do smaller

[3:22:42] things first that still alleviate

[3:22:45] traffic if it meant we had to go into

[3:22:47] debt because I don't want to cause

[3:22:48] residents, including you and myself,

[3:22:52] pain and debt for 25 years for this when

[3:22:55] we can do a lot of other there's a lot

[3:22:58] of levers for for um for traffic

[3:23:02] calming, raised crosswalks, speed humps,

[3:23:04] speed uh reduction of signs, uh uh

[3:23:08] police enforcement, we can give them

[3:23:10] more money and more people to do

[3:23:11] enforcement. So, so I would I would try

[3:23:14] for those cheaper options, get as much

[3:23:15] bang as we can. And I I would search for

[3:23:18] other ways to fund it without a bond.

[3:23:19] >> I'm just saying if we could preserve

[3:23:21] what we've accumulated in here because

[3:23:23] it is for a rainy day or for unexpected

[3:23:26] things. This is a planned spend. So

[3:23:29] would we consider funding some at least

[3:23:31] half of it with some instead of just

[3:23:34] bonding the fire station, would we bond

[3:23:36] another million dollars for the

[3:23:37] roundabout and leave our fund balance

[3:23:39] intact because that is really flexible

[3:23:42] like and for un unforeseen things that

[3:23:45] are coming down the road like purchase

[3:23:46] of property. I'm just asking because I I

[3:23:49] don't have a problem with a roundabout

[3:23:50] if it were paid for by MAG. All of us

[3:23:52] would be like this is easy, right? But

[3:23:54] would we would we consider I would just

[3:23:56] want to preserve our fund balance

[3:23:57] because it took so long to accumulate

[3:24:00] it.

[3:24:00] >> I do have to say that as a city we've

[3:24:03] had a lot of freedom with purchasing

[3:24:04] property. Um, you know, one is on First

[3:24:07] South, another, you know, we debated

[3:24:09] something for furthering. Um, you know,

[3:24:12] we were able to get the public works or

[3:24:14] an additional public works building and

[3:24:16] we're also debating maybe, you know,

[3:24:18] future cemetery. But I do feel like

[3:24:21] there are a couple of other properties

[3:24:24] that um

[3:24:27] we I believe as a council would be

[3:24:30] interested in, but

[3:24:33] the reality might not be as um I'm with

[3:24:38] Chrissy. I'd rather be in a position

[3:24:40] where we can act on opportunities.

[3:24:43] >> I'm just we could both have our way. You

[3:24:45] could have your your roundabout and we

[3:24:47] could preserve fund balance, which to me

[3:24:49] is important to our financial stability.

[3:24:51] We could and we could use Dave

[3:24:53] Sanderson's method of the people that

[3:24:55] will be using the roundabout over the

[3:24:56] next 20 years are helping pay for it.

[3:24:59] I'm just we're going to go through a

[3:25:00] bond for the fire station. What if we

[3:25:02] tacked on another million as an option

[3:25:05] for the roundabout? I would I would I

[3:25:07] would support that if all the priorities

[3:25:10] this is our top priority and we found a

[3:25:12] way to fund it in a different way. I

[3:25:14] would be on board. I'm just stating

[3:25:16] that.

[3:25:17] >> Yeah, those are good points. The fund

[3:25:18] balance fluctuates. We saw that with the

[3:25:20] Lone Peak Public Safety District. It

[3:25:22] just kind of was higher than they

[3:25:24] thought they needed. So, they we made

[3:25:26] the choice as a board to utilize some of

[3:25:30] that fund balance to fund currenty year

[3:25:31] projects. So again, it's just how much

[3:25:34] of a fund balance is ideal. That's up for discussion.

[3:25:39] >> That's something we haven't determined

[3:25:40] yet.

[3:25:42] >> It will be something that we discuss.

[3:25:44] Again, I'm just throwing it out there

[3:25:45] because timing of bonding is also we're

[3:25:47] also going down that road at the same

[3:25:49] time.

[3:25:49] >> And Chris, you had some good ideas about

[3:25:52] um about getting some input from the

[3:25:54] finance committee and doing those

[3:25:56] things. I think that's I don't we're too

[3:25:58] late in the process I think for that

[3:26:00] now. But just kind of like the matrix.

[3:26:02] It didn't really work. We're kind of

[3:26:04] late in the process.

[3:26:05] >> Maybe we talk about trying to figure out

[3:26:07] a better system for the next fiscal

[3:26:09] year. But I just don't think we're I

[3:26:11] think we're too far in the process to

[3:26:13] change the system. Now that's kind of

[3:26:14] why this was put on the agenda.

[3:26:16] >> Still got since you know a little more

[3:26:18] about bonding, if this ideal property

[3:26:21] does come up, can we bond to purchase

[3:26:24] the property at that time?

[3:26:26] I don't the the b the bonding process in

[3:26:29] chain unless you understand it takes a

[3:26:31] little bit longer. There's some due

[3:26:32] diligence. You can't act quickly. Like

[3:26:35] the timeline to buy property is

[3:26:37] [clears throat] usually have a 30-day

[3:26:38] window to get your financing in order.

[3:26:40] That's not the window to bond to bond.

[3:26:42] >> But you could use the bond fund balance

[3:26:44] and then replenish with a bond by

[3:26:46] funding a different project like

[3:26:48] different roads later. So, it's not like

[3:26:50] it's you can't make a decision to bond

[3:26:52] later

[3:26:53] >> to not expend general funds on

[3:26:57] different projects that come up.

[3:27:01] » I think that we have a direction. Let's

[3:27:05] move forward. Um,

[3:27:09] >> let's go um on to

[3:27:12] >> We need to make a motion.

[3:27:14] >> Is there a motion required?

[3:27:15] >> Yep. I'll move to include the following

[3:27:17] projects as priorities in the fiscal

[3:27:19] year 2027 budget and instruct staff to

[3:27:21] determine how to fund them based on

[3:27:24] council input. The roundabout at Rich

[3:27:26] and Canyon Crust, sidewalks, sidewalk

[3:27:29] improvements that relate to safety and

[3:27:33] some kind of combination of traffic

[3:27:36] calming that um various council members

[3:27:39] have proposed

[3:27:41] up to a certain amount maybe to be

[3:27:43] decided. We want to decide that now.

[3:27:46] >> So, are you talking about with the um

[3:27:48] traffic calming? I I guess I'm

[3:27:50] envisioning um like the um bumpouts and

[3:27:54] whatnot along West Canyon

[3:27:56] >> and some and some and some uh potential

[3:27:59] crosswalk improvements that Andrew has

[3:28:02] >> spoken with residents.

[3:28:03] >> Okay. Right. But to for me, as far as

[3:28:05] the traffic calming, I would really love

[3:28:07] to see it starting on West Canyon Crest

[3:28:09] because that's what's going to be

[3:28:10] affecting most of our

[3:28:12] >> vulnerable population. Now, if there's

[3:28:14] another project suggested, you know,

[3:28:16] near Alpine Elementary, I think that can

[3:28:18] be considered, too. But because these um

[3:28:21] efforts are a

[3:28:24] um safety concern and it's um in an

[3:28:28] effort to help with safety or make it

[3:28:30] more safe that I feel like that priority

[3:28:33] needs to come to near schools where it's

[3:28:36] going to impact the most number of

[3:28:38] people.

[3:28:38] >> Absolutely. So, how about we cap that at

[3:28:41] 50,000 for now and it can always be

[3:28:42] adjusted later, but cap it at 50,000

[3:28:44] with the priority on those locations

[3:28:46] that that we've discussed previously

[3:28:49] that the mayor um re-emphasized.

[3:28:52] >> Okay. Is there a second to the motion?

[3:28:54] >> I have the motion repeated.

[3:28:58] >> You're actually Brent, do you want to re

[3:29:00] Why? Why don't you do it?

[3:29:02] >> I move to include the following projects

[3:29:04] as priorities in the fiscal year 2027

[3:29:06] budget. instruct staff to determine how

[3:29:08] to fund them based on tonight's council

[3:29:11] contributions. One, the roundabout at

[3:29:13] Ridge and Canyon Crest. Two, sidewalks

[3:29:16] improvements that relate to safety. And

[3:29:19] three,

[3:29:21] traffic calming measures with a fund of

[3:29:24] $50,000 up to $50,000 focusing on West

[3:29:28] Canyon Crest where we have the majority

[3:29:30] of our vulnerable population.

[3:29:33] >> Is there a second?

[3:29:40] I'll second.

[3:29:42] >> It's been moved by Councilman um Rumler,

[3:29:44] seconded by Councilwoman Smeuan.

[3:29:46] >> There's no mention of park tax.

[3:29:48] >> Yeah, I was wondering.

[3:29:49] >> So, how do we Okay, I can go through

[3:29:51] more of the list. I have

[3:29:52] >> Would that be a separate motion?

[3:29:54] >> Well, okay.

[3:29:55] >> Can't we amend the current motion to

[3:29:57] include something about the park tax?

[3:29:59] >> Okay, I'll amend. Yeah. Does anyone want

[3:30:02] to You can You have an amendment that

[3:30:05] you would like the wording for?

[3:30:06] >> You could even do a second.

[3:30:07] >> I think she's asking, right?

[3:30:11] >> Okay.

[3:30:12] >> So, Shane said we could do a second

[3:30:14] motion to keep those two issues

[3:30:15] separate.

[3:30:16] >> Well, I mean, how about Oh, well,

[3:30:20] because there's also the Alpine Historic

[3:30:21] Preservation Project. We talked about

[3:30:23] allocating $20,000 initially.

[3:30:25] >> Yeah, Brent, just so are we discussing

[3:30:28] or are we not in discussion?

[3:30:30] >> We need a second. I I believe Jessica

[3:30:33] Oh, sorry. You're right.

[3:30:34] >> But then the mayor recommended us a

[3:30:36] >> So now So we're in discussion right now

[3:30:38] on this motion. Is that correct?

[3:30:40] >> Well, the mayor recommended an

[3:30:41] amendment.

[3:30:42] >> Okay.

[3:30:42] >> So I'll amend it to include um

[3:30:48] how do you want to word it, Chrissy,

[3:30:50] with uh

[3:30:52] >> So you want to include park tax in this

[3:30:54] motion or separate motion?

[3:30:55] >> Sorry. Would you like to include the

[3:30:57] park tax? I think we

[3:30:58] >> we can do a separate motion for park tax

[3:31:00] and the historic old preservation

[3:31:02] project

[3:31:02] >> because they are their own fund and they

[3:31:04] have their own fund balance and

[3:31:05] everything.

[3:31:05] >> Okay. All right.

[3:31:07] >> Does that mean any um items that are not

[3:31:10] in your motion are not funded? Like the

[3:31:12] Carlton shop?

[3:31:14] >> Okay. I will include I will amend my

[3:31:16] motion. Sorry, I had more on this. I I

[3:31:19] will amend my motion to include the

[3:31:21] Carlton shop improvements requested by

[3:31:23] staff.

[3:31:25] The uh Alpine historic preservation

[3:31:28] project funding of an initial amount of

[3:31:32] $20,000

[3:31:34] that will be decided later as far as the

[3:31:37] discretion on which projects are of the

[3:31:40] highest priority.

[3:31:43] Then we'll do the park separate or you

[3:31:45] want to include that in this one.

[3:31:48] >> Uh do you do you accept that amendment?

[3:31:51] >> It was second it

[3:31:52] >> I'm sorry Jessica. Sorry you're not

[3:31:54] here. I keep forgetting Jessica. Yeah, I

[3:31:56] can accept that.

[3:31:57] >> Okay, now it's time for discussion. We

[3:32:00] have a motion and a second.

[3:32:02] I have a question. If if per say like

[3:32:06] the roundabout, you know, we get some

[3:32:08] more information and we realize that

[3:32:10] maybe a different option is better,

[3:32:13] we're not locked into that until that

[3:32:15] project comes up for a vote and then we

[3:32:17] can kind of say, okay, yes, we're going

[3:32:20] to def definitively move forward with

[3:32:22] this. So, if we wanted to start with

[3:32:24] like I don't know just I don't know

[3:32:28] lower hanging fruit per se like maybe we

[3:32:31] start with reducing speed and I'm sorry

[3:32:33] I'm bringing this up right now but um or

[3:32:36] you know some other type of enforcement

[3:32:38] or something like that and then when it

[3:32:41] comes time if we realize okay actually

[3:32:43] we yeah definitely need that then

[3:32:47] >> yeah really any project over 15,000

[3:32:49] comes back to the council for a vote of

[3:32:52] approval to move forward. Um, you know,

[3:32:55] we uh budgeted like a million dollars

[3:32:57] for street improvements. We brought

[3:33:01] $325,000

[3:33:03] uh project of that magnitude back here

[3:33:05] tonight that you voted on previously.

[3:33:08] So, each one will come back and and need

[3:33:12] at least three votes to move forward.

[3:33:14] >> Okay. Not saying I'm opposed. I'm just

[3:33:17] thinking through like

[3:33:18] >> Yeah, there was one last year that that

[3:33:19] was in the budget but ended up being

[3:33:21] declined. It was a fairly costly one.

[3:33:25] >> So, if I understand correctly, we're

[3:33:27] just right now the motion is allocating

[3:33:29] prioritizing and allocating certain

[3:33:31] amounts to different buckets, so to

[3:33:34] speak,

[3:33:34] >> staff to do more research on into the

[3:33:37] funding.

[3:33:37] >> Okay. Okay.

[3:33:39] >> That also include um modeling it to

[3:33:42] where it would cover two fiscal years.

[3:33:45] >> Yes, that's the way it's been proposed

[3:33:47] by Shane in the details.

[3:33:50] >> Okay. questions here if you're not

[3:33:51] finished.

[3:33:52] >> Oh, no. Go ahead.

[3:33:53] >> So, does this remove all of the does his

[3:33:56] does Brent's motion or is your intention

[3:33:58] to remove all of the ones you didn't

[3:33:59] mention?

[3:34:00] >> Um, so I think the other ones are all

[3:34:02] under there. The they either were let's

[3:34:06] postpone it like the tennis courts or

[3:34:08] let's see if we can get grants or the

[3:34:10] parks were based on the park and then

[3:34:11] the lower priced ones were

[3:34:13] >> a few other ones.

[3:34:13] >> Yeah, the other ones were below the

[3:34:15] threshold. So that's I mean I can

[3:34:17] include them, but they were below the

[3:34:18] 15,000 threshold.

[3:34:19] >> Well, I don't know if your intent is to

[3:34:20] not include them. I would I'm just

[3:34:22] telling you now if you would accept an

[3:34:23] amendment. I'm not making one, but I

[3:34:25] would love to include the highway

[3:34:27] easement, the fire prevention. I just as a heads up since we're

[3:34:34] discussing, I just looked through the

[3:34:35] actual fire um prevention budget

[3:34:38] proposal and it does not go over private

[3:34:42] property.

[3:34:43] It it's all about education. It's using

[3:34:47] uh the fire department. It's using um

[3:34:51] the city staff Landon. It even uses the

[3:34:54] education about like how we train

[3:34:57] people. Um the two examples that were

[3:35:01] done. Yes. One is on private property,

[3:35:03] but the other is on city property. I

[3:35:06] don't I just I think you should

[3:35:07] >> I think it's I think that the way um

[3:35:10] Brent has stated it I'm interpreting it

[3:35:13] to be that these are the our priorities.

[3:35:15] We can't we have enough money to do

[3:35:18] anything we want but we can't do

[3:35:20] everything. So some things are going to

[3:35:22] be left off,

[3:35:23] >> but they're so small. They're not like

[3:35:25] >> Well, we time is also a resource, not

[3:35:27] just money.

[3:35:28] >> And we do have next year, too. But I

[3:35:30] mean, you are, you know, you're looking

[3:35:31] at resources. Um, but I mean, that's

[3:35:34] something that, you know, conversations

[3:35:35] can be had,

[3:35:37] >> but let's work on these big things

[3:35:38] first. That's the purpose of this

[3:35:40] meeting is to work on the big projects,

[3:35:43] what you want staff to move forward with

[3:35:45] now. And so I think we go with this with

[3:35:49] your motion.

[3:35:51] >> Well, wait, hold on. Where

[3:35:52] >> I'm sorry. I was out. Where exactly were

[3:35:54] we with your motion? Did

[3:35:55] >> we have it moved and seconded and he's

[3:35:57] listed four specific things?

[3:35:59] >> Okay. So, is there anything else other

[3:36:01] than that? Is there the the discussion

[3:36:03] now is

[3:36:04] >> on the motion.

[3:36:05] >> Does anybody Yes. On the motion whether

[3:36:07] you want it amended

[3:36:09] >> or if you need clarification. Other than

[3:36:11] that, if there's no questions um

[3:36:14] directed to that, we will move forward.

[3:36:16] >> That's what we're doing.

[3:36:17] >> So, are you accepting his amendment?

[3:36:19] >> I didn't make an amendment. I just asked

[3:36:20] for clarification and he explained it.

[3:36:22] So, I guess I would propose

[3:36:23] >> about whether the the things that were

[3:36:25] in the four items are now removed and I

[3:36:28] think we're in consensus.

[3:36:29] >> I would just propose an amendment. You

[3:36:31] don't have to accept it, but you can to

[3:36:33] also include the

[3:36:34] >> five. Yeah.

[3:36:35] >> Alpine highway easement.

[3:36:37] >> Oh, five. Sorry.

[3:36:39] >> Raccoon plan.

[3:36:42] um and the fire prevention projects as

[3:36:47] well as the deer crest circle prevention

[3:36:49] signs.

[3:36:51] >> So, don't worry about the sign that that

[3:36:53] can be absorbed.

[3:36:54] >> So, Brent,

[3:36:56] >> do you accept that amendment?

[3:36:59] >> Yes. I I still emphasize that the fire

[3:37:02] prevention should focus on public

[3:37:03] property though

[3:37:04] >> and I'm willing to make sure it does.

[3:37:08] >> Okay. Yes.

[3:37:10] Thank you.

[3:37:13] >> Okay.

[3:37:14] >> Say fire prevention

[3:37:18] focused on public property. Just include

[3:37:20] that in the line item for fire

[3:37:23] prevention.

[3:37:24] >> Do you wanted to say that or at the

[3:37:26] discretion of the fire chief?

[3:37:28] >> Chief, are we not getting any more funds

[3:37:30] from the county this year

[3:37:32] >> for fire prevention?

[3:37:35] >> We've never got funds from the county.

[3:37:37] Well, from the state because it was the

[3:37:38] county two years ago. It was the county

[3:37:41] that came in, right? From the state when

[3:37:43] we were working with Mike.

[3:37:47] » Yeah.

[3:37:49] >> Oh, is that state? Okay.

[3:37:54] » Okay.

[3:37:56] >> Would you would would Brent, you be

[3:37:58] willing to add the fire prevention in if

[3:38:01] it was at the discretion and choice of

[3:38:03] the fire chief as to where it went?

[3:38:06] and how it was used.

[3:38:08] >> I don't know if the city should be in

[3:38:11] the business of

[3:38:13] um doing what private land owners should

[3:38:15] be doing themselves.

[3:38:16] >> Okay, I'll take

[3:38:17] >> We've had that discussion.

[3:38:18] >> Just just for public just for public

[3:38:20] lands. Are you okay with that?

[3:38:22] >> I then I'll take it

[3:38:23] >> up to that amount. Yeah.

[3:38:24] >> All right, then you can include that in

[3:38:26] the motion if you're willing.

[3:38:27] >> Okay. And Jessica, are you okay with

[3:38:29] that? Are you willing to accept that

[3:38:32] amendment?

[3:38:33] >> Yes.

[3:38:34] >> Thank you. Would you accept an amendment

[3:38:38] to move the Alpine Historic Preservation

[3:38:41] on the good faith that we will approve

[3:38:43] it as a park allocation and remove it

[3:38:47] from the general fund spending?

[3:38:50] >> So, it just come out of park funds.

[3:38:52] >> Yeah.

[3:38:53] >> Good faith that we will approve it in

[3:38:54] the next motion.

[3:38:55] >> Yes. Wait,

[3:38:56] >> but Jessica needs to agree.

[3:38:58] >> Yes, I agree. I I Yeah, because it puts

[3:39:01] it in the same category.

[3:39:02] >> Okay. So, can you um sorry, but just to

[3:39:07] know where we ended up, we have the

[3:39:09] roundabout, we have sidewalk

[3:39:11] improvements, we now have fire

[3:39:13] prevention going in order here at

[3:39:15] traffic calming and Carlton shop. Is

[3:39:18] that what we have?

[3:39:18] >> And the easement and raccoons.

[3:39:22] >> That's not on our list.

[3:39:23] >> Yeah, he said I I asked him for both of

[3:39:25] those.

[3:39:26] >> No, they asked He asked for the

[3:39:27] amendment and he accepted the amendment.

[3:39:29] >> Oh, I thought it was just prior

[3:39:30] prevention. That's why I'm That's why

[3:39:32] I'm trying to repeat it.

[3:39:33] >> The only one we discussed.

[3:39:35] >> So, you're accepting all of them,

[3:39:36] correct?

[3:39:37] >> Yep.

[3:39:38] >> And Jessica?

[3:39:40] >> Yes. So, that is with the understanding

[3:39:43] that we might be out of money before we

[3:39:45] get to those. Is this in order or are

[3:39:47] you are you I would like it listed in

[3:39:49] order so that staff has clear direction.

[3:39:53] >> Yes, they're in order.

[3:39:54] >> Okay. So, you're putting fire prevention

[3:39:57] below

[3:39:58] >> below. So, Carlton shop and then so we

[3:40:02] have roundabout sidewalk improvements

[3:40:04] that relate to safety combined traffic

[3:40:07] calming

[3:40:10] Carlton shop improvements

[3:40:12] alpine historic preservation projects

[3:40:14] with that understanding.

[3:40:16] >> No, no, it's coming out of the park

[3:40:17] funds, not the general fund. So, we can

[3:40:19] remove it.

[3:40:19] >> That's why I said understand park funds.

[3:40:21] >> Oh, that'll be in our second motion.

[3:40:24] >> Oh, the amendment to the motion. We you

[3:40:27] amended my motion, right?

[3:40:30] >> So it was to remove it from this

[3:40:32] >> to remove to remove it from be a

[3:40:34] separate separate motion.

[3:40:36] >> A separate motion after Carlton then

[3:40:38] what?

[3:40:39] >> Then um

[3:40:41] >> fire prevention

[3:40:43] >> public property first.

[3:40:46] >> No, he's going through the list now in

[3:40:48] the order. So after

[3:40:51] fire prevention

[3:40:52] >> well they're all so low any that's

[3:40:54] easement first. Sure. I think well I

[3:40:56] would say fire prevention because it's

[3:40:57] more related to our main priority of

[3:41:00] safety but and then the easement. Are

[3:41:03] you want the ement? Okay. The easement

[3:41:04] then fire prevention and raccoons.

[3:41:09] [snorts]

[3:41:10] I ask clarity

[3:41:12] on why we're removing the historical

[3:41:16] uh the I want to say the alpine

[3:41:20] historical preservation project.

[3:41:22] >> It's going to come from a different

[3:41:23] bucket of money. This is all general

[3:41:24] funded through general fund.

[3:41:27] >> All these are general fund.

[3:41:28] >> All of them.

[3:41:29] >> I thought they were just a list of

[3:41:30] priorities and we're pulling them from a

[3:41:32] lot of different buckets. Am I wrong on

[3:41:33] that?

[3:41:34] >> Oh,

[3:41:35] >> there's a few of these like the

[3:41:36] roundabouts proposed from different

[3:41:38] funds, but a lot of the money with these

[3:41:41] project is general fund money.

[3:41:44] >> This is the order that he is putting

[3:41:46] forth the motion.

[3:41:47] >> So, I'm just wondering does it dep

[3:41:48] prioritize the historical projects or

[3:41:49] No.

[3:41:50] >> No. No. Because the money's there.

[3:41:52] >> All right.

[3:41:53] Okay. So, Deian, are you clear on what

[3:41:57] the order is?

[3:42:00] >> Okay. So, Jessica, are you okay with

[3:42:05] >> um

[3:42:05] >> I'm okay with the order, but wasn't the

[3:42:07] first motion didn't that include a not

[3:42:09] to exceed 50,000 for the traffic

[3:42:11] calming?

[3:42:12] >> Yes,

[3:42:14] Brian, I have one.

[3:42:15] >> Did you skip it?

[3:42:17] >> No.

[3:42:17] What number is it?

[3:42:18] >> That was third. After sidewalks. Where's

[3:42:22] Carlton shop then?

[3:42:23] >> It was fourth.

[3:42:24] >> Fourth.

[3:42:26] >> My number.

[3:42:26] >> I have a question. Is now appropriate

[3:42:28] time to ask?

[3:42:30] >> So, I just wanted to make sure that we

[3:42:32] understand what the motion is, then we

[3:42:34] can ask. Okay. So, we have Brent's

[3:42:37] motion. Jessica seconded it. Brent put

[3:42:40] it in order.

[3:42:43] >> So, as I I just want to make sure I

[3:42:45] understand this. So, we're essentially

[3:42:47] approving almost all of these. We're

[3:42:50] putting them in order of priority and

[3:42:52] then we're going to do them as long as

[3:42:55] we have funds to do them. But are we

[3:42:58] putting a cap on how much we leave in

[3:43:00] each fund balance? Like

[3:43:02] >> no.

[3:43:02] >> So I think we're waiting to see. I I

[3:43:05] think we kind of maybe need to go out

[3:43:07] and do some due diligence and see what

[3:43:08] the suggested um what the best practices

[3:43:11] are and what other cities are doing with

[3:43:13] each of their fund balances. And um and

[3:43:16] I'm gonna guess that some of it is going

[3:43:18] to vary by what projects are happening

[3:43:20] and you know there is some variations in

[3:43:23] that but it does worry me that um

[3:43:29] these optional projects are coming. It's

[3:43:31] a large amount.

[3:43:32] >> I don't know if we're going to be able

[3:43:34] to get beyond the first one except for

[3:43:36] the ones that are in the park tax and

[3:43:38] some of the others that are allocated in

[3:43:39] anything other than the general fund.

[3:43:42] >> But those come up as individual

[3:43:44] decisions later. Yeah, they all do. Yep.

[3:43:46] So

[3:43:47] >> So essentially we're just approving to allocate funds to these these items,

[3:43:53] >> right? And then as they come up as as

[3:43:56] staff works on them, you know, they'll

[3:43:59] come up and say, "Okay, here's the

[3:44:00] roundabout. This is what it's going to

[3:44:02] be looking like." And then they'll come

[3:44:05] to approval. They'll come for approval

[3:44:07] from city council for each individual

[3:44:09] project as they come up. So essentially

[3:44:11] by approving all these really we're allocating staff's time to do

[3:44:16] this. That's that's kind of the cost

[3:44:18] right now

[3:44:19] >> and yes and putting a placeholder on um

[3:44:22] >> other ones for money.

[3:44:24] >> A lot of these were just estimate

[3:44:26] estimated costs. So it might come in

[3:44:28] over it might come in below and that

[3:44:29] could influence our decisions later on.

[3:44:32] >> Multiple effects. Well, and couldn't

[3:44:33] staff come back on some of these and

[3:44:35] say, "We have funds [snorts] here that

[3:44:37] we're going to use instead of the

[3:44:39] general fund like our class C road." I

[3:44:41] mean, that's part of this due diligence

[3:44:43] process.

[3:44:44] >> You know, they'll be doing all of that.

[3:44:45] They understand that. Um, is is there

[3:44:48] any benefit to whittling this down

[3:44:50] instead of keeping all of these on here?

[3:44:53] or is is there really no

[3:44:55] >> I mean I guess not because we'll just go

[3:44:57] in order and then you know they'll get

[3:45:01] as much or as little as they can get

[3:45:03] accomplished in this next year. I mean

[3:45:05] this um you know the round you know I

[3:45:10] don't think the roundabout will take a

[3:45:11] ton of time because um it's not going to

[3:45:15] I my guess is I know they're projecting

[3:45:18] spring of next year but I'm going to

[3:45:19] guess it's going to be pushed back. I

[3:45:21] can't imagine them being able to get

[3:45:23] through everything with their present

[3:45:25] council. That's just going to be my

[3:45:27] guess.

[3:45:27] >> And they're they're still surveying it

[3:45:30] right now. I saw them out there Sunday.

[3:45:31] >> I think what we'll do is kind of move

[3:45:33] forward with it and then I'm not sure

[3:45:35] how far we'll be able to get with it

[3:45:36] because we are working with another um

[3:45:39] municipality and then maybe what we can

[3:45:41] do is we can go to the next projects and

[3:45:43] start planning on those and move forward

[3:45:45] with that. And just as an example, the

[3:45:47] 1.5 million amount was based on the

[3:45:49] Keller Associates estimate of what they

[3:45:52] proposed we submit to MAG. Um there were

[3:45:55] ways to reduce the cost and Shane

[3:45:59] um has worked with individual who's been

[3:46:02] doing consulting on roundabouts in in

[3:46:05] Utah for years that did this roundabout

[3:46:06] at Main Street and he'd already you've

[3:46:09] already asked him and spent the money to

[3:46:11] have him look at it as well. So we'll

[3:46:13] have a couple of different options.

[3:46:14] That's just just as an example that 1.5

[3:46:17] million is not set in stone.

[3:46:19] >> Lynen did theirs for 500,000

[3:46:21] >> and it's smaller but staff has

[3:46:24] recommended a larger one because of

[3:46:26] truck traffic in Alpine

[3:46:29] >> because they're still building and you

[3:46:31] just kind of do that. But I think um no

[3:46:34] you're right like Keller the reason that

[3:46:36] the number and I actually think it's

[3:46:38] more than 1.5 million. The reason the

[3:46:40] number is so high is that in order to

[3:46:42] qualify for MAG grant, you have to work

[3:46:45] with certain um there's more

[3:46:49] restrictions or um limitations on um who

[3:46:52] you can work with and how you um build a

[3:46:55] project. It's very strict federal

[3:46:57] guidelines that you have to follow. Um

[3:47:00] so by August, if we find out that we

[3:47:02] don't have the grant, then we could do a

[3:47:04] cheaper option as

[3:47:06] >> Brment. And the other thing about the

[3:47:08] more the cheaper options, so Lynden did

[3:47:11] the more expensive option of doing

[3:47:12] cement to make it last longer. They had

[3:47:14] a community member who was in the cement

[3:47:16] business, they said we could talk to see

[3:47:18] if we can get a similar deal.

[3:47:20] >> Um, so it could even be less expensive

[3:47:22] with with using asphalt. And then um the

[3:47:25] other thing that wasn't mentioned before

[3:47:26] is since we're redoing Canyon Crest

[3:47:29] anyway, a lot of that pavement will

[3:47:32] already be is going to be replaced

[3:47:33] anyway. So the the tear out and the

[3:47:36] replacement of part of that at least

[3:47:38] will already be covered in the in the

[3:47:40] current grant funded project.

[3:47:42] >> So that's why it'd be cheaper to do it

[3:47:43] now as well potentially.

[3:47:45] >> And and will we come back and have more

[3:47:46] discussion on what is our minimum we

[3:47:49] want to keep in some of these in our

[3:47:51] fund balance?

[3:47:52] >> Yes. Okay. Yes. That'll be at a later

[3:47:54] time.

[3:47:55] >> I would love to get recommendations from

[3:47:57] subject matter experts on that. Like I

[3:47:59] said, I think we um and then you guys

[3:48:00] are welcome to reach out too, but you

[3:48:03] know, just because you guys deal with

[3:48:05] that and then just kind of see what the

[3:48:07] best practices are and um I would like

[3:48:09] to follow that.

[3:48:10] >> So, a concern on the motion unless you

[3:48:12] have a question. Oh, just to follow up

[3:48:15] the um the way the fire station was

[3:48:17] approved, but ne nothing moved forward

[3:48:20] because of timing and and so it'll be a

[3:48:23] similar thing even if the roundabout is

[3:48:24] if we're sitting here on one year from

[3:48:26] today and the roundabout hasn't started.

[3:48:28] What we're effectively saying is we're

[3:48:30] going to earmark the capital

[3:48:31] improvements fund for a future build

[3:48:35] just like we did with fire station.

[3:48:37] That's what I think we're approving at

[3:48:38] this point is earmarking

[3:48:41] 9 what 930 or 80,000 whatever he's

[3:48:45] proposed in our capital improvements for

[3:48:47] this project. Whether it happens in the

[3:48:50] fiscal year 2027 is up to all the

[3:48:52] factors you've just discussed. But we're

[3:48:54] earmarking this balance and if other

[3:48:57] options funding comes up or we can build

[3:48:59] it for cheap or whatever that the fund

[3:49:01] balance I mean I'm sorry the capital

[3:49:03] improvement fund is still allocated for

[3:49:05] this. Okay, thank you. Appreciate that

[3:49:08] question.

[3:49:08] >> Yeah, Brent, a concern on the motion.

[3:49:10] This is asking for clarity, but also

[3:49:12] maybe a step back, and I don't know if

[3:49:15] you'll be open to this, but by placing

[3:49:16] the roundabout on the top, we're putting

[3:49:19] a massive thing in front of all of these

[3:49:22] other issues,

[3:49:25] I mean, it's going to take so much money

[3:49:27] and it's and we we do have some

[3:49:29] residents. This is not like a, you know,

[3:49:34] a 100% everyone's on board with this.

[3:49:38] It's very heavy. We're basically putting

[3:49:40] it on top of everything,

[3:49:43] which is going to prioritize their time

[3:49:44] and all the money.

[3:49:46] >> Well, a lot has already been done. We've

[3:49:48] already got

[3:49:48] >> I know. I'm just I'm just saying

[3:49:49] >> we've already gotten engineers opinions.

[3:49:51] We've gotten

[3:49:52] >> This is hard because basically what it

[3:49:53] does is it takes the bottom seven and

[3:49:55] they're not going to happen.

[3:49:56] >> Well, no. Not necessarily.

[3:49:57] >> Well, I hope so. I'm going to Your

[3:49:58] choice, right? I'm gonna push for him.

[3:50:01] Well, not not my choice.

[3:50:02] >> It's our choice.

[3:50:03] >> Our choice. Yeah. I'm gonna push for him

[3:50:05] to try to get them done, but I I don't

[3:50:08] know if this should be number one. I

[3:50:11] think it should be a little lower.

[3:50:12] >> Based I based it on the comments today.

[3:50:15] Sarah, Jessica, and I both listed as

[3:50:16] number one. All listed as number one.

[3:50:19] So, that's why I put it there. You guys

[3:50:22] feel that way?

[3:50:23] >> Well, and Andrew, let me also

[3:50:26] >> I for

[3:50:28] Yeah, go ahead. Sorry, Jessica.

[3:50:29] >> Well, this is one of our gateways. You

[3:50:31] know, it's not just traffic calming, you

[3:50:34] know, changing some speed limit. This is

[3:50:36] one of our three gateways and and so

[3:50:38] it's important just for long-term city

[3:50:40] planning.

[3:50:43] >> It's not just agree.

[3:50:44] >> It's not just traffic calming. It's

[3:50:45] >> No, I agree. I agree.

[3:50:47] >> It's so expensive. I I agree. I mean, if

[3:50:49] this was

[3:50:50] >> We're not making a decision on whether

[3:50:51] we're going to do it tonight. It's just

[3:50:54] >> Well, I think we are. We're we're we're

[3:50:55] giving them the priorities. This is

[3:50:56] basically what's going to happen. We

[3:50:58] have a motion.

[3:50:59] >> No, I know. I know. And I'm asking,

[3:51:01] would you be open to moving traffic

[3:51:04] calming measures above that because it

[3:51:06] is so broad

[3:51:07] >> and it is

[3:51:07] >> I just don't think it makes a difference

[3:51:09] because we already we're already way

[3:51:11] down the road on

[3:51:12] >> Well, just just just hear me out.

[3:51:13] >> So, here, let's just let's expedite

[3:51:16] this. He has a request to amend the

[3:51:18] motion. Do you accept that request?

[3:51:20] >> Well, I haven't even given him what it

[3:51:21] was. I can tell you what it is.

[3:51:22] >> I thought it was to move traffic calming

[3:51:25] above the roundabout. Yes. Is that not

[3:51:28] it?

[3:51:28] >> Yes. Yes. Traffic calming in general.

[3:51:30] That way we it's much more

[3:51:32] >> doable. Would you be open to moving? You

[3:51:34] accept that amendment

[3:51:35] >> and potentially water projects.

[3:51:37] >> Water is not under discussion.

[3:51:38] >> This is not even on one of the options.

[3:51:40] We don't put that as a budget item.

[3:51:42] >> Different. Totally different funding.

[3:51:43] >> That's so I really don't think it

[3:51:45] matters. Um

[3:51:46] >> if it doesn't matter, would you accept

[3:51:48] it? I I kind of agree that

[3:51:49] >> would you accept it just because

[3:51:51] >> Sarah said that too. We could try some

[3:51:52] other traffic calming.

[3:51:54] >> It's just so many

[3:51:55] >> just so it doesn't eat up the whole

[3:51:56] budget. We got

[3:51:57] >> You know what? Hold on just a second.

[3:51:59] Let's stop the conversations. We have a

[3:52:01] proposed amendment. Do you accept that

[3:52:03] proposed amendment?

[3:52:04] >> I'll say no.

[3:52:05] >> Okay. Let me give just some quick input

[3:52:08] to And is that the traffic calming that

[3:52:11] is capped at 50,000?

[3:52:13] >> Yes.

[3:52:15] >> And so those those changes could happen

[3:52:17] again immediately. We already know that

[3:52:20] the roundabout is going to take a while.

[3:52:23] >> Okay. That's do it

[3:52:24] >> from timing standpoint. you are accept.

[3:52:27] >> Okay. So, he is accepting the amendment.

[3:52:30] Jessica

[3:52:32] the

[3:52:33] >> So, Brent is willing to amend the motion

[3:52:36] to place traffic calming above the

[3:52:40] roundabout. Do you accept that

[3:52:42] amendment?

[3:52:43] >> Yes, I accept.

[3:52:44] >> Okay.

[3:52:45] >> Perfect.

[3:52:46] >> Are we good to move on or Okay, let's

[3:52:49] proceed with a roll call vote. Sarah

[3:52:51] Blackwell, yes. Chris Anaman, yes.

[3:52:53] >> Andrew Young, yes. Brent Rmler, yes.

[3:52:56] Jessica Smeuan. Yes.

[3:52:58] >> Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Let's um so

[3:53:02] I believe at this point we will let Mr.

[3:53:05] Doxy leave. Thank you for staying the

[3:53:09] evening.

[3:53:09] >> I I apologize, Mayor. Uh Mayor, I

[3:53:12] apologize and I I don't mean to speak

[3:53:14] out of turn and feel free to pound me on

[3:53:16] right now. Are we not having a close

[3:53:19] session to get an update on certain land

[3:53:21] acquisition that we might need him

[3:53:23] tonight because of the time sensitivity?

[3:53:26] If we are not, I will step back. But if

[3:53:28] we are,

[3:53:29] >> do I have an update?

[3:53:31] >> I felt like that was important to go

[3:53:33] over.

[3:53:34] >> No, we do not.

[3:53:36] >> Can we have close session? Are you open

[3:53:39] to it because of the timing of the

[3:53:41] summer?

[3:53:42] >> Sure.

[3:53:43] >> Of the summer?

[3:53:44] >> We really

[3:53:48] I I'm not I don't want to hold

[3:53:50] >> property acquisition.

[3:53:51] >> Yeah. I don't want to hold you guys here

[3:53:53] later than you want to be and I'm not

[3:53:54] trying to be that guy because I know

[3:53:56] I've been that guy.

[3:53:57] >> But I just wonder

[3:54:00] >> if we wait another two weeks if we lose

[3:54:02] even more of our tiny window that we

[3:54:04] have.

[3:54:05] >> My understanding is that

[3:54:06] >> we can also amend the agenda and go into

[3:54:09] executive session right now. then Steve

[3:54:11] can leave and then we

[3:54:13] >> I think what we decided is that there's

[3:54:15] going to be a letter sent out. Did we

[3:54:17] already

[3:54:18] >> We have it.

[3:54:20] >> So, we have a letter and he's going to

[3:54:21] be sending it out and then we I already

[3:54:23] told Dan to expect a letter from the

[3:54:25] city. Okay. Regarding that and then

[3:54:27] they're going to look it over and

[3:54:28] they're going to have their board

[3:54:30] meeting

[3:54:31] >> next Thursday and decide on that and

[3:54:33] then they'll get back to us.

[3:54:34] >> That's sufficient.

[3:54:36] >> So, you're talking about the disposition

[3:54:37] of property, not acquisition, correct?

[3:54:40] >> Yes. Apologies. Yes, you are correct.

[3:54:41] >> I was just like [clears throat]

[3:54:44] >> Okay.

[3:54:45] >> Thank you, Mr. Doxy. Sorry about that.

[3:54:50] >> Um,

[3:54:50] >> so we're just going to talk about design

[3:54:53] stuff, right?

[3:54:56] >> Kayen, do you want to

[3:54:59] >> So, we're just talking about the design

[3:55:00] standard today. Is that correct?

[3:55:01] >> Yes.

[3:55:02] >> Can we identify the page number so we're

[3:55:04] all in the same

[3:55:05] >> appendix B? I do feel like maybe what we

[3:55:07] should do because our meetings are going

[3:55:09] so long, maybe we need to h plan for

[3:55:11] this to be in a work session maybe

[3:55:13] before city council meeting and we just

[3:55:15] plan for how long do you think we need?

[3:55:17] >> No, but we're we're meeting with

[3:55:18] planning commission before our next city

[3:55:20] council meeting.

[3:55:21] >> I know, but not to go over the rest of

[3:55:22] this, not for all of this.

[3:55:25] >> I'm talking about for the rest of the

[3:55:28] plan because I feel like we keep putting

[3:55:30] the small area plan review of it and we

[3:55:32] never have time for it. So, I'm thinking

[3:55:34] maybe what we need to do is do we need

[3:55:37] an hour? Do we need 45 minutes? Do we

[3:55:39] need half? Like, how long should we make

[3:55:41] the work session before our city council

[3:55:43] meeting? Then we have a hard stop on it

[3:55:45] and then we can proceed with our city

[3:55:47] council meetings because I don't think

[3:55:49] we're ever going to get to it and we

[3:55:50] need to get through this. It's been a

[3:55:52] long time coming.

[3:55:53] >> I think an hour would do it.

[3:55:54] >> The reason it's been put at the end is

[3:55:56] so Steve can leave.

[3:55:57] >> No, I know. And so we could tell Steve

[3:55:59] like you don't need to come until 6.

[3:56:02] >> Yeah. And so maybe we just do that so we

[3:56:04] can get to it because I don't know.

[3:56:07] >> I would say all

[3:56:08] >> I should have more faith in you guys

[3:56:09] that we go faster, but I I feel like

[3:56:12] it's important that we need to do it. So

[3:56:13] let's

[3:56:14] >> The budget is the most complicated and

[3:56:16] it has a plan [clears throat] for an

[3:56:17] entire year. So it is

[3:56:19] >> and it was messy this year. So

[3:56:22] >> our meetings are going to get shorter. I

[3:56:24] know it.

[3:56:25] >> Maybe we can cancel a meeting like last

[3:56:27] year.

[3:56:27] >> Almost six months.

[3:56:28] >> I doubt it.

[3:56:30] >> Okay, they haven't gotten shorter.

[3:56:31] Really quick, we're not doing part two

[3:56:33] like we were planning. We're doing part

[3:56:35] three.

[3:56:36] >> We're only doing the design guide.

[3:56:38] >> That's correct. That's part three.

[3:56:39] >> That's correct.

[3:56:40] >> Can you tell us?

[3:56:42] >> Yeah.

[3:56:42] Um, so let's just jump to it. So,

[3:56:46] yeah, as Sarah was just saying, we're

[3:56:48] looking at part three, which is the

[3:56:49] yellow here. So, the street design

[3:56:50] guidelines

[3:56:52] and appendix B if we want to do that as

[3:56:54] well, which I'm guessing we we will.

[3:56:57] So, that will take us down to

[3:57:11] Right.

[3:57:11] >> Page 66 in the

[3:57:14] >> This is page 66.

[3:57:16] >> Yep.

[3:57:17] >> Page 66. Thanks.

[3:57:20] And I'll admit I'm less prepared to talk

[3:57:22] about this as the other one today

[3:57:23] because that was what I was spending

[3:57:24] most of my time doing as the other part.

[3:57:26] But that's all right. This is pretty

[3:57:28] easy as well for because it's just about

[3:57:30] great urban design principles

[3:57:32] which I love. So

[3:57:35] um so

[3:57:39] just understand as we've was talked

[3:57:41] about earlier in the meeting these will

[3:57:42] replace the historic gateway design

[3:57:44] guidelines that currently exist. That is

[3:57:47] the intended outcome of this. Um and

[3:57:50] they are intended to enhance those

[3:57:52] current historic gateway design

[3:57:54] guidelines. um not take away from them

[3:57:57] but enhance them and make them maybe

[3:57:59] more strict or uh more conducive to a a

[3:58:03] great public realm and urban

[3:58:05] environment.

[3:58:08] And I think it's important to note too

[3:58:11] that our goal with this small area plan

[3:58:14] is to not only just preserve buildings,

[3:58:16] have good-looking architecture, but as

[3:58:19] you all know, we want to uh move towards

[3:58:23] a broader multimodal mixeduse urban

[3:58:26] design structure in our in our gateway

[3:58:28] quarters and our on our main street. So,

[3:58:32] um I I guess I'll just go through this

[3:58:34] whole part of the design guidelines. um

[3:58:37] with uh the parts I noticed and then

[3:58:40] I'll give it back to the council and the

[3:58:42] mayor to to talk about it and any

[3:58:44] changes you want to see here.

[3:58:46] [clears throat] So this first part is

[3:58:48] just the design guidelines sections.

[3:58:51] So build form and massing. We're looking

[3:58:53] at um the types of structures we really

[3:58:56] want to see in in this area on our main

[3:59:00] street and in the town core. um good

[3:59:03] building articulation, building entries,

[3:59:05] how they should be laid out, um the

[3:59:08] setbacks, um and you know, I I would

[3:59:12] even say setbacks could be smaller than

[3:59:14] this, but this is of course just a

[3:59:15] guiding document. So, that will be

[3:59:17] something you can consider later um as

[3:59:20] it goes to be codified. But

[3:59:22] >> well, I have talked to a couple of

[3:59:24] property property owners along Main

[3:59:26] Street and um they would like some

[3:59:30] flexibility on the setbacks. They're

[3:59:32] concerned that um if you have that large

[3:59:36] of a front setpack that they wouldn't

[3:59:38] have enough room in the back of the

[3:59:40] building for parking and for um you know

[3:59:44] if you are doing a food service having

[3:59:47] delivery trucks go around the back and

[3:59:49] be able to turn around and come back

[3:59:50] that they're just kind of looking at the

[3:59:52] logistics of it. Um because I know that

[3:59:55] when we were working with the

[3:59:56] consultants and even talking with the

[3:59:58] public, everybody liked the larger

[4:00:00] setbacks, but I think in dealing with

[4:00:03] the logistics of running a business that

[4:00:07] um they were finding it that it was a

[4:00:09] little bit too restrictive.

[4:00:13] >> I would agree 100% with that. Um

[4:00:15] >> and that was brought up in the planning

[4:00:17] commission too from all from several of

[4:00:18] those residents. And it's different for

[4:00:21] the town center and main street civic

[4:00:23] and mixed use, right? Correct. Recommend

[4:00:26] setbacks.

[4:00:27] >> So I would just yeah I would defer to to

[4:00:29] staff to figure out what the what the

[4:00:31] best alternative is for setbacks that

[4:00:34] would accommodate

[4:00:36] >> those de those land owners from be able

[4:00:38] to pencil their their proposed future

[4:00:41] projects.

[4:00:43] >> Appreciate that. Yeah, I I agree

[4:00:44] wholeheartedly with both those comments

[4:00:46] and um the good thing is yeah, with this

[4:00:48] being a guiding document um those can be

[4:00:51] adjusted as as time goes on and as we

[4:00:54] see fit, but I agree that um setbacks

[4:00:56] should be flexible in this space. So,

[4:01:00] just to finish off this page here. So,

[4:01:02] what remains the same as the historic

[4:01:04] gateway down here at the bottom. Um,

[4:01:06] there's respect for adjacent building

[4:01:08] scale, masking orientation, great

[4:01:10] orientation towards the street, which is

[4:01:12] key, and then avoiding large interrupted

[4:01:16] uninterrupted building widths. And so

[4:01:19] what's what's new with these guidelines

[4:01:21] is precise front and side setbacks which

[4:01:24] we just discussed can be adjusted

[4:01:26] building length and articulation

[4:01:28] requirements and then maximum distance

[4:01:30] between building entries. So I'll just

[4:01:32] go to the renderings that they have

[4:01:34] describing

[4:01:36] those.

[4:01:37] >> Can we just back up one half a second

[4:01:39] and remind me town center where does

[4:01:42] that begin versus um main street mixed

[4:01:45] use? Like these are two different See

[4:01:47] how there's two different columns? So,

[4:01:49] can you can you remind me where the

[4:01:50] character areas are?

[4:01:52] >> Right here is the the map for that.

[4:01:54] >> Is that center street?

[4:01:56] >> So, everything north of us here at city

[4:01:58] hall up to

[4:02:01] >> mattress. Purple mattress. Mhm. Yeah.

[4:02:03] >> Is on is is on the left or in the middle

[4:02:06] column in the far right.

[4:02:08] >> They would have shown setbacks, right?

[4:02:10] >> Yes. Civic.

[4:02:12] >> No, they would be the larger. That's a

[4:02:14] 20 ft and then Town Center is 15, I

[4:02:17] believe. Yes.

[4:02:18] >> But we're saying you want to make the middle column our [clears throat]

[4:02:22] main street um

[4:02:25] mimicked town center then bring down the

[4:02:27] setbacks

[4:02:28] >> 15 20. [clears throat] Yeah,

[4:02:30] >> I think potentially again this is just a

[4:02:32] guiding document. So we could recommend

[4:02:33] that change to the consultant to put

[4:02:35] that in there. um or even just verbiage

[4:02:39] that says keep this flexible as um as we

[4:02:45] just we see fit to to implement. Um

[4:02:48] >> I mean whatever we set it at, I'm sure

[4:02:50] that's what they're going to go to. No

[4:02:52] one's going to go more. I don't think

[4:02:54] imagine.

[4:02:55] >> Yeah, people will match the lowest

[4:02:56] setback. Yeah, we do need to keep that

[4:02:58] in mind so that when you're saying that

[4:03:00] it's flexible, it's really once it's

[4:03:02] said, I can't imagine someone

[4:03:05] >> arbitrarily choosing um to give that

[4:03:07] space up.

[4:03:08] >> Are we just trying to chime in just

[4:03:10] whenever? Are we doing the whole thing

[4:03:11] one by one? I I mean, it's fine either

[4:03:13] way. We just want to chime in.

[4:03:14] >> We hit topics. I'm not sure. Go ahead.

[4:03:16] >> Yeah, I think that's fine. That's fine

[4:03:17] with me.

[4:03:18] >> Go ahead. I'll go.

[4:03:19] >> Actually, you know what? I'm going to

[4:03:19] interrupt you guys. You know what? I'm

[4:03:21] gonna also excuse the Chiefs. Um Chiefs,

[4:03:24] thank you so much for being here. We

[4:03:25] appreciate your time.

[4:03:27] and um and enduring with us tonight. But

[4:03:30] I'm going to let you guys go and um

[4:03:33] >> unless they want to go back to your

[4:03:34] families,

[4:03:34] >> you can stay for communications if you

[4:03:36] >> I mean, if you have any updates for us,

[4:03:38] we would love to hear it. Otherwise,

[4:03:39] you're free to go.

[4:03:45] » I'll just be really quick. I visited the

[4:03:46] poppies this afternoon. We do have the

[4:03:50] camera trailer that will be delivered on

[4:03:52] the 1st and will be up there for the

[4:03:54] majority of the month. We do lose it for

[4:03:57] a couple of days in the second week of

[4:03:59] June. It will be in norm for their

[4:04:00] festivities and then we'll get it back.

[4:04:02] So, but our officers will be up in in

[4:04:05] and out of there throughout the month.

[4:04:06] So,

[4:04:07] >> thank you, Chief. Appreciate it.

[4:04:09] >> Thank you.

[4:04:13] » Chief and I were just barely discussing

[4:04:15] our fee schedule for after 10:00 council

[4:04:18] meetings. So, that was well timed.

[4:04:22] Also, I would just like to point out

[4:04:24] there is no raised crosswalks in

[4:04:27] Highland.

[4:04:28] >> They're not raised. They're just painted

[4:04:31] over there.

[4:04:31] >> I drove over it.

[4:04:34] >> Well, unless it's brand new.

[4:04:36] >> Well, uh, what's the guy's name? Doug.

[4:04:38] He told me there were two and the one

[4:04:39] that's closest to us, I went and drove

[4:04:41] it. I went over.

[4:04:42] >> Where is it?

[4:04:42] >> They're right over.

[4:04:44] >> Is it temporary?

[4:04:45] >> No.

[4:04:48] It's right by that park right over here

[4:04:50] due west of us on the north end of

[4:04:54] >> Beacon Hills. Does that sound familiar?

[4:04:56] >> If it's in Beacon Hills, the one on I

[4:04:59] drove

[4:04:59] >> over the one on Canal is was the one I

[4:05:02] thought you were talking about.

[4:05:03] >> No, no, no. That's That's one of their

[4:05:04] new curb extensions.

[4:05:05] >> Just Yeah,

[4:05:06] >> that's a curb extension. The one on

[4:05:07] 11800 North by the elementary school is

[4:05:10] just a curb extension.

[4:05:11] >> The one by the park in the residential

[4:05:13] neighborhood is definitely a

[4:05:15] >> I haven't been up there. Can you give us

[4:05:17] an address?

[4:05:18] >> I did before, but

[4:05:19] >> one of the things in the email that we

[4:05:21] had a extensive conversation about with

[4:05:23] Highland is

[4:05:25] >> you guys come on

[4:05:27] >> how slow it is for us in an 80,000lb

[4:05:31] truck to come to almost a stop and get

[4:05:33] going again. So, we're slowing our

[4:05:35] response times, not to mention working

[4:05:36] in the back of an ambulance and going

[4:05:38] over speed bumps. We spent well for

[4:05:41] however many years we had Cedar Hills

[4:05:43] and Cedar Hills is full of them. It does

[4:05:45] impact that. So, just a thought.

[4:05:49] >> I've noticed Cedar Hill has a lot less

[4:05:51] than they used to.

[4:05:52] >> Yeah, they took them out.

[4:05:53] >> Yeah, I went through I was like, "Oh,

[4:05:54] they're gone."

[4:05:55] >> But they kept their cement crosswalk.

[4:05:58] >> You should go to Ireland where I just

[4:05:59] was. They're everywhere.

[4:06:00] >> Chief, have you

[4:06:01] >> There must be a lot of danger.

[4:06:02] >> I can ask after more. I'd love to talk

[4:06:04] more about this because I've seen

[4:06:05] different

[4:06:06] >> I'm not going to wait till this

[4:06:06] meeting's over.

[4:06:07] >> Not this one. Another day. Uh, have you

[4:06:10] seen the square ones that don't straddle

[4:06:11] the whole road? Have you ever driven

[4:06:12] over one of those where

[4:06:14] >> you can straddle them, you don't have to

[4:06:16] slow down. Does that help?

[4:06:17] >> I mean, it definitely helps. I think

[4:06:20] you're you're going to slow down

[4:06:22] >> just a little bit though.

[4:06:23] >> A little bit. But yeah, definitely. And

[4:06:24] the other thing those there's a lot of

[4:06:27] those in Northern California.

[4:06:29] >> I was in Cincinnati. They were

[4:06:30] everywhere. And I was like, what are

[4:06:31] people doing squares in the road? And I

[4:06:32] was like, oh, so you can fly through

[4:06:34] them if you are

[4:06:37] okay to do that.

[4:06:38] >> Right. The other thing that we worry

[4:06:39] about with speed bumps is it's really

[4:06:42] hard on our apparatus,

[4:06:43] >> right? These ones, I don't know if you

[4:06:44] know, they go in between, but you can

[4:06:45] straddle them. You can straddle them.

[4:06:47] So, they're only for peak cars, but not

[4:06:49] for uh bigger vehicles.

[4:06:51] >> But you have to call them speed lumps.

[4:06:54] >> Yeah, sure. Lumps. I don't lump. I hate both words.

[4:06:56] >> Thank you, Chief.

[4:06:57] Okay, great. Great to

[4:06:58] see you. Good luck with all your work.

[4:07:02] >> Okay, are we ready to continue?

[4:07:03] >> Yes. Okay. So, yeah, we discussed this

[4:07:07] um and yeah, feel free to jump in, I

[4:07:10] guess, whenever uh or at the end

[4:07:12] whenever. Um

[4:07:13] >> I I just want to give just a a tiny bit.

[4:07:16] It was one of our uh committee members

[4:07:19] who wanted that. I think the original

[4:07:21] was closer to what you're saying, but

[4:07:24] they felt like this is a transition

[4:07:25] period or space from commercial to

[4:07:28] residential. So, it was like halfway

[4:07:30] between. But what is our residential

[4:07:32] setback? Isn't it

[4:07:35] >> 30 feet? Um,

[4:07:37] >> so this goes even

[4:07:38] >> is the general one.

[4:07:39] >> So it's half it's like it's so it's

[4:07:41] graduated. I just want to explain. I'm

[4:07:43] not saying that I agree but um I don't

[4:07:46] one way or the other but it it goes like

[4:07:48] from 15t is town center then it goes to

[4:07:51] 20 feet in this mixed use and then it

[4:07:53] goes all the way to 30 in the

[4:07:55] residential. That was the discussion

[4:07:57] whether or not we keep it or not is up

[4:07:58] to us.

[4:07:58] >> Is it 30 for quarter acre lots also?

[4:08:02] That is a little bit smaller. Um

[4:08:04] >> it was like 24 quarter acre lots. Is it

[4:08:07] >> on residential 10,000 I think is 20

[4:08:09] >> foot front 20 foot rear.

[4:08:11] >> Oh 20 foot rear.

[4:08:12] >> Okay. Okay. For for 10,000 ft also.

[4:08:15] >> Yes. And then the sides are uh minimum

[4:08:18] 10 aggregate of 22.

[4:08:20] >> Okay.

[4:08:20] >> Again this is our business commercial

[4:08:22] and I think it's really important to get

[4:08:24] keep parking off of Main Street. I just

[4:08:27] think it creates too much danger and it

[4:08:31] doesn't allow them to have the space

[4:08:32] they need to be able to pencil their

[4:08:33] projects is what they've their feedback.

[4:08:36] >> Oh yeah, I'm not opposed. I was just

[4:08:37] giving you context so I was there. Yeah.

[4:08:40] >> Okay.

[4:08:40] >> Um on this section I had something I so

[4:08:42] to be honest I I prepared for the middle

[4:08:45] section before this. I thought that's

[4:08:47] >> I did as well. Don't worry.

[4:08:48] >> I think we all did. Yeah. This

[4:08:50] >> a broader question that will get this

[4:08:52] done quicker for Andrew's all of his

[4:08:54] thoughts. uh when we look at these, can

[4:08:57] we send uh comments and suggestions

[4:08:59] after the fact? We're not motioning

[4:09:02] anything tonight on this section.

[4:09:03] >> Make sure that you do it so that

[4:09:05] >> quickly.

[4:09:05] >> Yeah.

[4:09:06] >> Okay. Because all my questions,

[4:09:08] thoughts, and things to pass on were for

[4:09:10] the section that it was noted down to go

[4:09:12] over, which is section two, the

[4:09:14] corridors and the roads. Um but since

[4:09:17] we're going over this, I do have one

[4:09:18] question. Um, and it's more of a because

[4:09:22] I've only read this once, but I now

[4:09:23] we're coming back to this. So, this this

[4:09:25] image we have on all these pages, this

[4:09:29] basically looks like an apartment

[4:09:30] complex. Am I Am I missing something?

[4:09:33] >> These are just renderings. I think it

[4:09:35] actually says as much right here as a

[4:09:38] disclaimer. Building forms shown in the

[4:09:40] following pages are not characteristic

[4:09:41] of allowed building forms. They're used

[4:09:44] simply to illustrate the features being

[4:09:45] specified.

[4:09:46] >> Okay. So, are we should we tell them

[4:09:48] that we actually want things that

[4:09:50] drawings and things that are going to

[4:09:52] look like what we would actually want as

[4:09:54] examples and not the bad examples?

[4:09:56] >> Cuz I mean, uh, this is the type of

[4:09:59] thing that people would not want that building right there. Um, and so

[4:10:05] I'm just wondering if we put this in

[4:10:06] this that's going to feel like that's

[4:10:08] what we're aiming for. So, should we

[4:10:11] give them feedback of what kind of

[4:10:13] drawings and uh, architecture they do

[4:10:15] want?

[4:10:17] I think that'd be fine if you want to

[4:10:18] send me

[4:10:20] >> pictures and stuff

[4:10:20] >> examples. Sure. And I can ask the

[4:10:22] consultant if we can include that.

[4:10:24] >> Does that look like apartment building?

[4:10:25] >> Yeah. So, I don't know about the design,

[4:10:27] but the intent is to have mixed use

[4:10:29] where you have retail such as a

[4:10:31] restaurant, a bakery on the bottom floor

[4:10:33] with a residential unit on the top. And

[4:10:37] the

[4:10:38] >> So, maybe we could hearken to more of

[4:10:40] that than the classic apartment

[4:10:41] building.

[4:10:42] >> Yeah, there's a few renderings right

[4:10:43] here. Jason just pointed out to me that

[4:10:46] show kind of what they're they're

[4:10:47] thinking about.

[4:10:48] >> Okay. Well, the only note to pass on

[4:10:49] then is uh because that's what we're

[4:10:51] doing right now, right? Passing on

[4:10:52] suggestions that will ultimately get

[4:10:54] back to the the review.

[4:10:55] >> Yeah. And if you could send those to me

[4:10:56] over email, all of that that

[4:10:59] >> just inest it's to make the

[4:11:02] >> Yeah, we can send all the just inest

[4:11:04] right now if it's passed on is just to

[4:11:06] make the uh drawings actually emulate

[4:11:09] what we're looking for. Not like you

[4:11:11] know apartment buildings on the side of

[4:11:12] the highway.

[4:11:14] So

[4:11:16] awesome. Thanks. All right. So moving on

[4:11:19] from this, um yeah, let's just look at

[4:11:20] these few examples. Um I I think this is

[4:11:24] a great uh added point here. Minimize

[4:11:27] blank walls. So there's a maximum place

[4:11:30] there. Um

[4:11:32] I think there is here as well. Yeah,

[4:11:34] maximum 30 feet for the town center

[4:11:38] uh character area and then 40T between

[4:11:41] building entries. It's really trying to

[4:11:42] maximize that public realm, making it a

[4:11:45] really attractive and friendly built

[4:11:46] environment for pedestrians. So, just um

[4:11:50] kind of creating these guidelines to to

[4:11:53] enhance that and not create these open

[4:11:55] spaces where you feel like you're

[4:11:57] wandering in the middle of nowhere when

[4:11:58] you're out in the m out on Main Street,

[4:12:00] right? So, you want to feel like you're

[4:12:02] in a outdoor living room is how they say

[4:12:04] it sometimes.

[4:12:06] Um so, moving on to this next one. This

[4:12:08] is talking about height.

[4:12:11] um exterior walls and surfaces and

[4:12:13] windows and doors.

[4:12:15] So, what remains the same with the

[4:12:17] current historic gateway guidelines, new

[4:12:20] construction should respect historic

[4:12:22] building heights and the same primary

[4:12:24] materials are still encouraged in this

[4:12:26] plan. Uh the differences height tied to

[4:12:30] character areas is part of build form

[4:12:32] expectations. So, the different

[4:12:33] character areas have different height

[4:12:34] requirements uh potentially or no, I

[4:12:38] actually don't think that's on there.

[4:12:39] Um, so I actually don't know what that

[4:12:41] is. But then primary and secondary

[4:12:43] materials introduced and fenistration

[4:12:44] requirements.

[4:12:46] Um, one thing I think that is good to

[4:12:48] point out about the height, the six foot

[4:12:50] step back after second story is a great

[4:12:52] urban design principle. Um, and I know

[4:12:56] Sarah and I have talked a little bit

[4:12:58] about potential um, uh, height changes

[4:13:03] in in certain areas of our city that

[4:13:05] might make a more uh, better

[4:13:08] transitionary areas or um, more uh,

[4:13:12] friendly to current character attributes

[4:13:16] of those areas. And I think one thing

[4:13:18] besides just height alone is is what

[4:13:20] they have there is stepbacks after

[4:13:21] second stories, different things with

[4:13:23] bulking and massing that we can look at

[4:13:25] as we continue um evaluating those

[4:13:28] opportunities.

[4:13:29] >> So there was um a concern about the

[4:13:31] setback um you know with the sixoot step

[4:13:34] back like if we had a bad snowy air you

[4:13:37] know if they're trying to clear their

[4:13:38] front area do they just throw the snow

[4:13:41] over onto Main Street?

[4:13:44] Do you know what I mean? Um, they were

[4:13:48] saying I forget what one of them was.

[4:13:49] >> It's on the third floor.

[4:13:50] >> It's on the second floor.

[4:13:51] >> Third floor.

[4:13:53] >> It's on the third floor.

[4:13:55] >> Where what do they do with the snow?

[4:13:56] >> Um,

[4:13:57] >> this specifically was pointed out to us

[4:13:59] by the designers of what the Ezra Lee

[4:14:01] office buildings already have.

[4:14:03] >> I totally think it's a great idea, but

[4:14:04] >> but we could ask them what they do with

[4:14:06] the snow.

[4:14:07] >> Snow.

[4:14:07] >> Well, because they're throwing it into

[4:14:08] the parking lot. These people will be

[4:14:11] throwing it onto Main Street.

[4:14:14] So that's how that came about was

[4:14:16] they're like, "Do you want people?" And

[4:14:17] I'm like, "Well, we like the idea that

[4:14:19] you don't have, you know, just a

[4:14:22] straight three story that if it's going

[4:14:24] to be more than two stories, you can

[4:14:26] still have up to 34 feet and have it be

[4:14:27] two stories,

[4:14:28] >> but if you're going to have three

[4:14:29] stories that it should be set back." No,

[4:14:32] I totally think it's a good design

[4:14:33] guideline, but they did bring up a

[4:14:35] practicality of it. It's like, well, the

[4:14:37] people at Ezra Lee, they throw it over

[4:14:38] and it goes in the parking lot. if we I

[4:14:41] mean this year obviously not an issue

[4:14:43] because we hardly had any snow, but

[4:14:45] they're like if we have a bad snowy year

[4:14:47] like we have in the past and hopefully

[4:14:49] we will

[4:14:52] are you okay with these people throwing

[4:14:54] the snow onto Main Street to get

[4:14:58] >> I think they're under the same

[4:15:00] guidelines as what you do do you do with

[4:15:02] your snow like you don't throw it on a

[4:15:05] sidewalk so they can't do that

[4:15:07] >> but like on our homes we have we can

[4:15:09] throw it onto our yard. They don't have

[4:15:12] that, do they?

[4:15:13] >> Well, where would they put their

[4:15:14] sidewalk snow?

[4:15:15] >> Well, it's 15 ft back, though. So, they

[4:15:16] have 10 feet. They can put it directly

[4:15:18] onto their

[4:15:19] >> Yeah.

[4:15:20] >> Okay.

[4:15:20] >> I don't think it's a I hate to say it

[4:15:23] because I wish we got more snow. I don't

[4:15:24] think it's going to be a huge issue. Is

[4:15:26] 34 feet standard? Is that what we have

[4:15:28] right now?

[4:15:28] >> For height.

[4:15:29] Okay.

[4:15:30] >> Correct. Yeah.

[4:15:31] >> Okay. But it is kind of subjective based off of what other buildings are

[4:15:36] around, right? I mean, I feel like I

[4:15:38] read that in there somewhere that the

[4:15:39] height should also take into

[4:15:41] consideration the height of the other

[4:15:43] buildings surrounding it. Is that

[4:15:45] >> ours is it's just the maximum allowable

[4:15:47] in our ordinance for

[4:15:48] >> Okay.

[4:15:49] >> is 34 ft. That's why they have

[4:15:50] >> I remember reading something like that

[4:15:52] about the setback if a if a certain

[4:15:54] building is set back farther than the

[4:15:55] requirements

[4:15:56] >> match.

[4:15:57] >> They should match things like that. But

[4:15:59] um

[4:15:59] >> yeah.

[4:16:01] >> And did Yuri go over the materials?

[4:16:03] >> No, we can though. Um,

[4:16:05] >> I think that's the important part for

[4:16:06] the fire station, right?

[4:16:07] >> Yeah, that's what I was looking in.

[4:16:09] >> So, as as it says at the bottom, what

[4:16:11] remains the same, the same primary

[4:16:12] materials are encouraged as the current

[4:16:15] historic gateway materials. Um, but

[4:16:19] >> so this is where

[4:16:22] so you know, this is where the planning

[4:16:23] commission recommended only red brick

[4:16:26] and black framed windows, right? So,

[4:16:28] they're proposing getting rid of wood,

[4:16:31] masonry, and stone.

[4:16:33] Well, isn't masonry brick?

[4:16:35] >> Oh, well,

[4:16:37] >> no,

[4:16:37] >> says wood.

[4:16:38] >> Yeah, actually, sorry. I was I was in

[4:16:41] that meeting. I don't think it was

[4:16:42] before Kaden. And what they basically

[4:16:44] said is when they saw this list, they

[4:16:45] said, "Well, that basically doesn't

[4:16:47] eliminate anything

[4:16:48] >> because everything's listed there." So,

[4:16:50] they did narrow it down consciously down

[4:16:52] to the the the handful that they

[4:16:54] recommended in that thing. So, that was

[4:16:56] the recommendation from them. But, it

[4:16:58] doesn't mean that you guys need

[4:16:59] >> Did they give restrictions on color for

[4:17:01] >> brick? They said

[4:17:03] >> they recommended red. Yeah.

[4:17:04] >> Okay.

[4:17:05] >> So that's where my

[4:17:08] >> Okay.

[4:17:09] Speaking with my friend who's much more

[4:17:12] adept at this than I

[4:17:13] >> he said natural materials,

[4:17:16] brick, stone, and wood. I would be good

[4:17:19] with keeping stone. I think these some

[4:17:21] of these new stone buildings, these

[4:17:22] buildings that have stone look

[4:17:24] amazingly, really nice. But again, how

[4:17:26] do you create uniformity when you allow

[4:17:29] both? because we have a hodge podge.

[4:17:32] >> Um, you have some stucco on some of the

[4:17:35] buildings here on the east side. You

[4:17:37] have the red brick on the other side of

[4:17:39] the street.

[4:17:40] >> Yeah, but I don't know if we necessarily

[4:17:42] want like all red brick.

[4:17:44] >> That's what I think buildings, you know.

[4:17:46] I think like, you know, I like having

[4:17:47] the options.

[4:17:48] >> If you go down I mean there is time and

[4:17:50] a place for that. If you go to um what

[4:17:52] is it in Oregon along the sea coast

[4:17:55] where Haystack is, what is that town?

[4:17:57] >> Canon Beach.

[4:17:58] >> Cannon Beach. Every single building

[4:18:00] looks exactly the same. It's all wood

[4:18:02] shake shingles, you know, on the walls

[4:18:06] and it's they all look the same and they

[4:18:08] have to look exactly the same.

[4:18:11] >> And um which is fine, but we are kind of

[4:18:14] going through this transition phase,

[4:18:15] right? And we still have residential in

[4:18:19] that zone and so we can't impose my

[4:18:23] understanding is we can we impose this

[4:18:24] on residential. It's only for

[4:18:26] commercial. Correct.

[4:18:27] >> Yeah. these design guidelines because if

[4:18:30] it's a residential, they can still build

[4:18:31] whatever.

[4:18:32] >> Um,

[4:18:33] >> what if it's mixed use?

[4:18:35] >> That's it follows these same guidelines,

[4:18:36] right? Okay.

[4:18:37] >> A part of it is commercial.

[4:18:39] >> So, I'm not exactly sure what the

[4:18:41] difference is between masonry and brick

[4:18:44] and stone. Like I know what stone is.

[4:18:46] >> I Googled it up and like masonry would

[4:18:48] include um concrete block

[4:18:51] >> and we it's it's um

[4:18:53] >> it's not a stone. It's just like a

[4:18:54] >> it's you know concrete block. I've never

[4:18:57] seen it on a structure. So, basically

[4:18:59] what

[4:18:59] >> cinder blocks are the very cheapest

[4:19:01] version, but like concrete block is what

[4:19:03] they build like Westfield Elementary out

[4:19:05] of. They don't use

[4:19:06] >> like brick.

[4:19:08] >> Oh, yeah. You've seen it. I'm also

[4:19:10] envisioning like

[4:19:13] red brick buildings. That's masonry,

[4:19:14] right? Because that's concrete.

[4:19:16] >> It's a like masonry is broad and brick

[4:19:18] is just a category under masonry

[4:19:20] according to Google. And I think we have

[4:19:21] some buildings that are masonry. They're

[4:19:23] just c they're blocks of that material.

[4:19:27] >> So would masonry be something we'd want

[4:19:28] to eliminate?

[4:19:30] >> I think this this would be good. This

[4:19:33] specific section would be good to when

[4:19:35] our combined meeting

[4:19:37] >> to express and then coaliss on what is

[4:19:40] if we are I agree that limiting us to

[4:19:43] red brick is way too uniform and it'll

[4:19:47] everything will look like old new like

[4:19:50] well no form you know new guidelines are

[4:19:53] all here and it it it'll

[4:19:55] >> and then honestly eventually if

[4:19:56] everything did go to red brick I don't

[4:19:58] know if I would really like that

[4:20:01] >> very east coast DC, Boston, they do

[4:20:03] that. But I'm not I'm not saying I'm for

[4:20:05] it. I

[4:20:06] >> Well, the planning commission said limit

[4:20:07] it to material to red brick, specific

[4:20:09] types of wood, and black framed windows.

[4:20:12] >> Yeah, I think we need to discuss this

[4:20:14] specific element with them because it is

[4:20:16] very um important as you can see.

[4:20:19] >> Well, I won't be there. So, just share

[4:20:21] my opinion that I like including stone,

[4:20:24] >> right,

[4:20:25] >> and wood.

[4:20:26] >> Where would you back that up? What you

[4:20:27] just said? And black windows.

[4:20:29] >> What?

[4:20:30] >> Black frames. You said black framed

[4:20:32] windows. Can you explain where you you

[4:20:33] were adding

[4:20:34] >> No, no, that was the the planning

[4:20:35] commission's recommendation.

[4:20:37] >> That was our recommendation.

[4:20:38] >> Oh, okay. Um, with design things like

[4:20:42] this, they're all so subjective. So,

[4:20:44] I've been pondering how even with this

[4:20:46] fire station. Um, and Sarah, you

[4:20:49] probably want to give your input on

[4:20:50] this. I can wait till you guys are done.

[4:20:53] It sounded like someone good. Um, I was

[4:20:55] going to say when we're we're deciding

[4:20:56] these design things both for the fire

[4:20:58] station and this and other things, I

[4:21:00] I've been pondering like well obviously

[4:21:02] I have my own opinion, you guys have

[4:21:04] your own opinion, but if you kind of

[4:21:05] look back to what Alpine is, we might be

[4:21:08] able to glean it from that. Uh, the

[4:21:10] towns like what mayor is talking about,

[4:21:12] they usually take it from the

[4:21:13] countryside or the geography and they um

[4:21:19] what what is the word? They complement

[4:21:20] what they live around and that's why it

[4:21:22] works. That's like on the islands.

[4:21:24] >> In Greece, everything is white with blue

[4:21:26] roofs. It compliments the ocean. Here we

[4:21:29] now, but we I think we have two things

[4:21:30] we can compliment. Our history,

[4:21:33] >> which is pioneers, barns, you know, um,

[4:21:37] and granite. Oh, I'm sorry. We have like

[4:21:39] our history, which is what he called it,

[4:21:41] Utah. What did he call it?

[4:21:43] >> Utah historic.

[4:21:44] >> Yes, Utah historic. I

[4:21:45] >> traditional.

[4:21:46] >> I like But I like what he said. He he

[4:21:48] called that's the first time I've ever

[4:21:49] heard anyone term our style as something

[4:21:51] our design language. He called it Utah

[4:21:54] historic.

[4:21:54] >> Traditional three words.

[4:21:56] >> He didn't say traditional because he

[4:21:58] even texted me

[4:21:58] >> in the motion from the

[4:22:00] >> I'm not Yeah. Okay. All I heard was Utah

[4:22:03] historic. I like that because I do think

[4:22:05] it um is how we would be described and

[4:22:08] we can get away from it if we go to

[4:22:09] Silicon Valley modern which is what

[4:22:12] we're going anyways. So, uh, that that's

[4:22:15] how I've been looking at why would you?

[4:22:17] It's not do we like it or do we not or

[4:22:19] does an architect. It's does this hit

[4:22:22] the identity of Alpine. And that's how

[4:22:24] I've been looking back at it kind of

[4:22:26] like other towns do. I think we are a

[4:22:27] hair too hodge podge um in what I think

[4:22:31] we have not structured it down. That's

[4:22:33] fine. people have freedom. But I think

[4:22:35] with just 10 to 20% uh reigning it in

[4:22:39] and defining what this Utah historic is,

[4:22:42] which I I envision it as Utah heritage

[4:22:45] like legacy, barns, pioneers, that type

[4:22:47] of stuff. And then Utah, the word Utah

[4:22:50] is granite mountain, green evergreens.

[4:22:53] Um it looks like what our landscape

[4:22:55] looks like. And if we can come up with

[4:22:56] something that complements the geography

[4:22:58] and the history, I think we'll have a

[4:23:00] very unique design language that I mean

[4:23:03] we might yeah it would be so like

[4:23:07] enjoyable and so desirable. We might

[4:23:09] start getting tourists. We don't want

[4:23:10] that. That's what you get in these towns

[4:23:12] like what mayor said um when they unify

[4:23:14] them so much they become a tourist spot.

[4:23:16] We don't want that but we can make

[4:23:18] something that is just so beautiful and

[4:23:19] charming to be in. Um, anyways, that

[4:23:22] that's where that's where my model my

[4:23:23] mind is going as to why to say yes or no

[4:23:26] to brick, why to say yes or no to metal,

[4:23:28] why to say yes or no at barn. What is

[4:23:30] the basis behind it? And I think uh uh

[4:23:33] they they've got they're on to something

[4:23:34] that the planning commission

[4:23:36] >> Kaden, can I Oh, go ahead.

[4:23:38] >> I was just going to say just this goes

[4:23:40] back to the original gateway story

[4:23:42] guidelines.

[4:23:44] um the architect that they involved

[4:23:47] actually kind of looked at uh

[4:23:49] architecture throughout the city and

[4:23:52] came back and said it's hodge podge.

[4:23:54] >> Yeah, it is.

[4:23:55] >> It is.

[4:23:56] >> So that was a thing back then. I mean

[4:23:58] not saying it has to be that going

[4:24:00] forward, but that's what he found. He's

[4:24:01] like there's not really

[4:24:04] >> well we started as frugal poor people

[4:24:06] and so no one was saying like let's put

[4:24:09] a style on this. We were surviving like

[4:24:11] even my family was surviving and then we

[4:24:13] all became rich and now we're like into

[4:24:16] wood on a fire station or not.

[4:24:18] >> Kaden, can I ask you a question?

[4:24:20] >> We have the guidelines of standards that

[4:24:22] let's say they allow stone, brick, and

[4:24:26] wood. When a project comes in for this

[4:24:29] lot across the street, they're going to

[4:24:30] turn on the house and put in a a

[4:24:31] mixeduse. Mhm.

[4:24:33] >> Does one does either the planning

[4:24:34] commission andor the city council have a say in what materials they end up

[4:24:38] using or can they use any of those and

[4:24:41] we're kind of stuck with it?

[4:24:42] >> I think if it's here on the design

[4:24:44] guidelines they're allowed to use it. Um

[4:24:47] if we as we adopt this this plan um but

[4:24:51] I think you will have discretion to

[4:24:53] recommend how you want that to be seen.

[4:24:56] Um,

[4:24:57] >> Kaden, can we limit can we uh put

[4:25:00] restraints on the color palette or the

[4:25:02] textures or that for this or is that not

[4:25:05] a possible

[4:25:06] >> I think potentially once you go towards

[4:25:08] adopting an ordinance and codifying

[4:25:10] these requirements if you would like to

[4:25:12] do that then you could pursue something

[4:25:14] like that.

[4:25:15] >> Okay.

[4:25:15] >> But that wouldn't be part of this step

[4:25:17] right now.

[4:25:18] >> Okay.

[4:25:18] >> Yeah.

[4:25:19] >> I did ask Highland about just to

[4:25:22] reference your question. They said what

[4:25:24] do your design guidelines do? what does

[4:25:25] historic mean to you? And they said,

[4:25:26] well, our city's only 50 years old, so

[4:25:28] we have nothing historic to refer back

[4:25:30] to. And our colors say they need to be

[4:25:33] earth tones. And they have debated back

[4:25:36] and forth whether black and white are

[4:25:37] earth tones.

[4:25:39] >> Um

[4:25:41] >> Aaron told me this, their um city

[4:25:44] manager. And so one thing I do want to

[4:25:46] point out, historic um is relative

[4:25:50] because other cities had like a

[4:25:52] commercial area that maybe went into

[4:25:54] disrepair and so they're or and so

[4:25:56] they're fixing it up or wanting to be

[4:25:58] uniform, but we really have nothing to

[4:26:00] start with because we had no commercial

[4:26:02] like 50 years ago. We had the Burgess um

[4:26:05] store, not orchards, but the store, the

[4:26:08] Burgess family owned it. They called it

[4:26:09] the Alpine Market, I think.

[4:26:12] >> So we didn't have a commercial zone. So

[4:26:14] we're sort of reinventing what our

[4:26:16] history was because we're kind of like

[4:26:18] Highland actually. We had no commercial

[4:26:21] history.

[4:26:21] >> We're really not historical. I think

[4:26:24] they I think that's why they brought it

[4:26:26] to Utah.

[4:26:26] >> I think that's why they did Utah because

[4:26:27] if you think about it,

[4:26:29] >> Alpine, nobody wanted to live here, you

[4:26:31] know? People couldn't even get loans on

[4:26:33] land here because they was worthless.

[4:26:36] You know, we I know a couple of people

[4:26:38] that that happened when they went to the

[4:26:39] bank to get a 20 acre lot in Alpine back

[4:26:42] in the day and they're like, "Oh, no,

[4:26:43] that, you know, land in Alpine is

[4:26:46] worthless. We we don't do loans."

[4:26:47] >> That didn't make sense.

[4:26:48] >> You know, and so because of that, we

[4:26:50] don't So, if you look at there's a

[4:26:51] handful of older buildings, it's adobe

[4:26:54] and whatnot. Um, but you're right. I

[4:26:57] think though I think what everybody's in

[4:26:59] agreement with those I think they like

[4:27:01] the more um you know if you kind of look

[4:27:04] into

[4:27:06] it seems like it's kind of a combination

[4:27:09] between colonial and neocclassical

[4:27:11] styles that's just a little bit older

[4:27:14] like if you look

[4:27:15] >> neocclassical I don't think so

[4:27:19] [laughter]

[4:27:20] >> I'm not talking about pillars and

[4:27:21] columns

[4:27:22] >> that's what I'm talking about that's

[4:27:23] neocclassical

[4:27:24] >> but no but if you look at neocclassical

[4:27:25] though you look at the materials that

[4:27:26] they're using. They're using natural

[4:27:28] stone, right? Natural stone to make it

[4:27:31] look beautiful. So, if you do like um if

[4:27:34] you where's a visual,

[4:27:37] can you

[4:27:37] >> I think it would be helpful if we if we

[4:27:39] um had this is what was my request is

[4:27:42] that we had visuals like

[4:27:46] >> we we asked I asked put we put that in

[4:27:48] so that they can have

[4:27:49] >> those are for setbacks. I'm talking

[4:27:50] about for what

[4:27:52] >> vision piece target pieces.

[4:27:55] >> They do have some. They just don't have

[4:27:56] a ton. Right.

[4:27:57] >> Right. We I think we can add those.

[4:27:59] >> A few sparsed out throughout the

[4:28:01] document, but

[4:28:01] >> I mean get that.

[4:28:03] >> They just want more. I guess that to be

[4:28:05] specific.

[4:28:06] >> Maybe that could be a a take-home

[4:28:07] project for all of us is to bring five

[4:28:10] pictures and we can vote on them.

[4:28:11] >> Jessica actually has a ton. Jessica,

[4:28:14] don't you have a page, a Google page?

[4:28:17] >> Would you guys be

[4:28:17] >> Wait, hold on just a sec.

[4:28:18] >> Yep. Sorry. Yeah, Shane McGee actually

[4:28:20] put a beautiful PowerPoint together and

[4:28:23] she brought in all these elements that

[4:28:25] you all are discussing right now.

[4:28:27] >> So, do you h will you send those images

[4:28:30] over to Kaden

[4:28:33] >> and then maybe you can ask them to

[4:28:35] incorporate those images into our design

[4:28:37] guidelines.

[4:28:38] >> Yeah.

[4:28:38] >> So that everyone can kind of have a

[4:28:40] visual of what we're looking at as

[4:28:42] opposed to the sketches.

[4:28:46] >> The question was just if

[4:28:47] >> Well, he's showing these pictures here.

[4:28:48] Are you saying but this this

[4:28:50] specifically on the top one has

[4:28:52] sighting. Well, we don't allow sighting.

[4:28:54] The second one has sighting. We don't

[4:28:56] allow sight. Do you know what I mean?

[4:28:57] So, we need things that like

[4:28:59] >> that would reflect the materials. Do you

[4:29:01] know what I'm saying?

[4:29:02] >> Yeah. And I think the console would be

[4:29:03] more than willing to update those

[4:29:04] pictures.

[4:29:06] >> It looks like

[4:29:06] >> No, it No, look at prohibited materials.

[4:29:09] Stuckco, E, Eiff, and sighting.

[4:29:12] >> Prohibited.

[4:29:13] >> The question.

[4:29:13] >> No, I'm saying that I don't think the

[4:29:16] second picture is necessarily sighting.

[4:29:17] It could be wood.

[4:29:19] >> No, that is sighting. Let's

[4:29:21] >> talk about the top one.

[4:29:22] >> Do you think this design guidelines or

[4:29:23] matrix is the thing we should talk save

[4:29:26] and talk about at when we meet with

[4:29:28] planning commission?

[4:29:29] >> Yes. Can we go back to that page, Kaden?

[4:29:31] The design matrix. There we go.

[4:29:32] >> Yeah. But just to back it up, I had a

[4:29:34] question and it got kind of pulled out.

[4:29:36] Would you guys be open to having some

[4:29:38] artists do some design concept work of

[4:29:43] what Main Street would look like? what

[4:29:46] the business commercial would look like.

[4:29:48] I mean, this is how cities, cruise

[4:29:51] ships, Disneyland, this is how they're

[4:29:52] done. Uh, and if you give a little bit

[4:29:55] of guidance, this is how every movie,

[4:29:57] video game, they create a design. It's

[4:29:59] called a design bible. Even in the most

[4:30:01] secular areas and uh that everyone looks

[4:30:05] at it and says, "Yes, that." Because

[4:30:07] it's worth millions of words. We can

[4:30:09] read all these words. Everyone has their

[4:30:10] own visual, but all everyone looks at it

[4:30:12] and says, "Yes, that." or they know

[4:30:14] immediately not that because they look

[4:30:16] at it and they say that's not it. Um

[4:30:18] anyways, I don't know if you'd be open

[4:30:19] to having some artists do some

[4:30:20] renderings.

[4:30:22] Is that something you would want? No,

[4:30:24] >> I think that would be interesting

[4:30:25] personally, but what is the cost?

[4:30:27] >> Yeah, that's the question.

[4:30:28] >> I'll try to get them donated.

[4:30:30] >> Oh, I love it. Free.

[4:30:31] >> Well, but I was mostly asking

[4:30:35] >> I guess we were losing everyone.

[4:30:38] Okay, I I'll look into it. Mayor, is

[4:30:39] that something you would entertain as

[4:30:41] something as possible or do you are you

[4:30:43] against that

[4:30:44] >> if it's free? Yes.

[4:30:45] >> So, it's just a cost thing. Well, you

[4:30:47] all sound like me. I love this. Good

[4:30:49] job. Okay.

[4:30:49] >> I mean, for me, I I do feel like we can

[4:30:52] source enough pictures. I would love for

[4:30:53] everyone to see um

[4:30:55] >> I mean, we get some fantastic artists.

[4:30:57] >> So, Jessica, if you can go ahead and

[4:30:59] send those so that everyone can kind of

[4:31:00] get an idea and see if we need anything

[4:31:02] more than that. But I do I remember

[4:31:05] seeing those images before and I think

[4:31:06] that's what everyone's talking about. So

[4:31:10] I think it would be good if maybe we

[4:31:11] could do that. But I mean some of this

[4:31:13] though like right here where it say you

[4:31:16] know where it has the sketch that's just

[4:31:18] to show

[4:31:20] what you know

[4:31:22] >> that's just to show like the 30 ft

[4:31:24] maximum between building entries.

[4:31:26] >> I don't feel like we have to have an

[4:31:28] actual picture there. That's just to

[4:31:30] >> kind of show a concept, you know. That's

[4:31:32] correct. And I think that's totally

[4:31:33] fine.

[4:31:34] >> I know you have an issue with the

[4:31:36] apartment one. We can throw a different

[4:31:37] picture in there, but it's still like

[4:31:39] when they're

[4:31:40] >> um it's just to prove a concept or show

[4:31:43] the concept of what the maximum or the

[4:31:45] minimum allowable space is between doors

[4:31:49] or entryways or how large a blank wall

[4:31:52] can be.

[4:31:53] >> I understand. I think like I I know you

[4:31:56] don't like but it's just to kind of show

[4:31:57] like if you have a single property owner

[4:32:00] that has maybe several parcels and they

[4:32:03] want to do a series of businesses you

[4:32:05] know which we've seen in lot of old

[4:32:07] cities you know you have a dog store

[4:32:10] you've got a little you know whatever

[4:32:12] maybe you might have four of them so it

[4:32:14] might not necessarily look like this

[4:32:16] apartment but the concept is that

[4:32:19] they're trying to get across is just hey

[4:32:22] >> between your entries you have to have

[4:32:24] this many feet. You can't have this. And

[4:32:26] so I think that's okay. But I do like

[4:32:28] the idea of having more pictures of what

[4:32:31] is acceptable in the zone.

[4:32:34] >> Well, it sounds like we're all unified

[4:32:35] on that.

[4:32:36] >> Lot of what? [laughter]

[4:32:39] >> Pictures that

[4:32:40] >> we're all going to Hawaii except you.

[4:32:41] >> You're going to have to listen to 1.75

[4:32:43] speed of what you miss.

[4:32:44] >> Pictures that represent pictures that

[4:32:46] represent the the the design goals we're

[4:32:48] after.

[4:32:49] >> Oh, great. Great. So, does anybody have

[4:32:51] any suggestions or anything regarding

[4:32:54] the guideline matrix, the design

[4:32:57] guideline matrix as far as what

[4:32:59] materials are acceptable, what aren't,

[4:33:02] what you guys, what the preferences, I

[4:33:04] would like to hear those now. If not,

[4:33:07] >> I have some that only have come up

[4:33:08] recently, and that is we're we're now in

[4:33:11] the world of everything is faux or

[4:33:14] synthetic from decks to wood to brick.

[4:33:17] And we might want to specify that

[4:33:20] because uh wood that is natural is very

[4:33:24] different than wood that is um so

[4:33:27] anyways we might want to specify that if

[4:33:30] we want to allow synthetic materials or

[4:33:34] as the time changes. I recognize they

[4:33:38] sometimes are better for weather or but

[4:33:40] even with fencing and all types of

[4:33:42] things, bricks

[4:33:44] reflect and look different than oh I

[4:33:48] forget what they're called. Synthetic

[4:33:49] bricks they're not they're not synthetic

[4:33:51] bricks. What are they called? Like like

[4:33:53] yes plastic plastic everything is

[4:33:57] plastic. Do we want to allow that? Do we

[4:33:59] not? that that's just that on these on

[4:34:01] these matrixes when we say wood we might

[4:34:04] need to specify

[4:34:06] the non

[4:34:06] >> like real wood

[4:34:08] >> real wood or and then there's even

[4:34:10] different types of wood but I don't know

[4:34:11] if you want to go that detailed but uh

[4:34:13] but I think we will be coming into the

[4:34:15] world I mean even grass all the all

[4:34:18] everything is now

[4:34:20] synthetic grass or whatever is the new

[4:34:22] whatever grass and so these are things

[4:34:24] that are how much natural versus

[4:34:27] synthetic sorry to repeat So

[4:34:29] >> Brent, since you're not going to be

[4:34:30] there, I will be your spokesperson if

[4:34:32] you can the verbiage from your reference

[4:34:36] because I I appreciate what he had to

[4:34:38] say and I will be sure it is stated and

[4:34:41] keep pointing it out as often as needed.

[4:34:43] >> Sounds good. Thanks, Chrissy.

[4:34:47] >> Also on the height,

[4:34:49] uh, this has a height. So So you got the

[4:34:52] last one. the the height here were Ryan

[4:34:56] gave us a really fantastic height thing

[4:34:59] which was dependent on what the setback

[4:35:03] was. Um and so it was not just a number

[4:35:08] it was and so if you're interested in

[4:35:10] this I love it. It was based on the

[4:35:12] setback. So for example it was uh very

[4:35:15] low at our minimum. So let's say it was

[4:35:19] 20 feet, but as you increase the

[4:35:21] setback, the height increased to what we

[4:35:24] actually wanted. So in every foot, the

[4:35:28] height increased by one foot.

[4:35:30] >> Is it the rear setback you're talking

[4:35:31] about?

[4:35:31] >> Any any of them?

[4:35:32] >> All of them.

[4:35:33] >> Any

[4:35:34] >> Was that residential or commercial?

[4:35:35] >> That's a residential for accessory

[4:35:38] structures.

[4:35:39] >> Well, we that's what I wanted it for and

[4:35:42] that's what I hope I hope we can make it

[4:35:43] for. But I just said there there's this

[4:35:46] other way of doing heights.

[4:35:48] >> But I think in in this specific document

[4:35:50] and Kaden mentioned it, we want to have

[4:35:53] the street activated. So we don't want

[4:35:56] to keep pulling everything back. And so

[4:35:57] no, I agree. They still have

[4:35:59] >> so it's going to be high right at the right at the uh setback.

[4:36:03] >> I won't use the actual example we have

[4:36:05] right now, but you all know it where a

[4:36:08] very very tall structure could be very close to the road. And if you want

[4:36:13] that to continue, we will have it. But

[4:36:16] if you want to have some sort of design

[4:36:18] that doesn't allow for that, this would

[4:36:21] be one method of doing that.

[4:36:23] >> That's

[4:36:24] >> I don't think we should have our maximum

[4:36:26] height only 5t off the road. I think it

[4:36:30] should step back. If we're going to be,

[4:36:33] you know, a 10ft set back, then it can

[4:36:35] only be 20t tall,

[4:36:37] >> something like that. And then if you go

[4:36:39] >> 15 to 30 feet back you can raise it

[4:36:41] higher. And what you've effectively done

[4:36:43] is allowed a developer to build large

[4:36:46] but not

[4:36:46] >> okay

[4:36:47] >> cramp everyone their their

[4:36:49] >> I like that idea. And their way of doing

[4:36:51] that was saying if it goes to the third

[4:36:52] story it has to be set back six feet.

[4:36:54] >> Sure. Something like that. Something

[4:36:55] like that.

[4:36:56] >> Like it's right there.

[4:36:57] >> After after second story it actually

[4:36:59] says yeah.

[4:37:00] >> Yeah. After second story.

[4:37:00] >> So you've already got something like

[4:37:01] that. I apologize. So it would we would

[4:37:03] just

[4:37:03] >> It was that exact It was for that exact

[4:37:05] reason that you're saying.

[4:37:06] >> Well, it's not like a just a big wall

[4:37:08] straight up.

[4:37:08] >> It's not three stories tall. If if you

[4:37:10] go

[4:37:11] >> right it's it's back a little bit and we

[4:37:13] can just make sure that if you like that it's appropriate because uh things

[4:37:18] can get really tall.

[4:37:20] >> Yeah. And if if we need to be restrictor

[4:37:22] on that, we can look at doing it

[4:37:23] stricter. I do agree with what he's

[4:37:25] saying. We don't want

[4:37:26] >> Yeah. This came from

[4:37:27] >> 34 flat building right on a five foot

[4:37:30] off the street. I agree.

[4:37:32] >> So I don't know how to write it. If this

[4:37:34] is if that's allowed based on these

[4:37:36] standards, we need to adjust.

[4:37:39] >> It does not because they have it set for

[4:37:41] 15 and 20 ft and then if you go above a

[4:37:44] second story, then you have

[4:37:45] >> But what if each story is 20 is 17 feet?

[4:37:49] Then it's still only two stories and

[4:37:50] they could get around it like what we

[4:37:52] have now. Now I guess the people that

[4:37:54] I'm talking to now are trying

[4:37:58] >> I'd imagine them putting

[4:38:00] >> I understand but we we're trying to make

[4:38:02] it future

[4:38:04] >> future proof. I don't know how, Kaden,

[4:38:06] but I agree with everything they're

[4:38:08] saying. And if it's allowed under these

[4:38:10] standards, we need to write another

[4:38:11] little line item there to say,

[4:38:14] >> you know, just like you won't allow 20

[4:38:16] flat feet, 20 feet of flat horizontally,

[4:38:20] we don't want more than 20 feet

[4:38:22] vertically, right? So to me, it's like

[4:38:24] the same dimension

[4:38:26] >> unless it's way back.

[4:38:27] >> And well, that's what I mean. If it's

[4:38:28] going to it's going to go higher than 20

[4:38:30] feet and just be one flat thing, what do we need to change above the 20

[4:38:35] feet? It's very height. We're very

[4:38:37] sensitive height because we have a

[4:38:38] beautiful mountain.

[4:38:39] >> Yeah.

[4:38:39] >> Everyone wants to look at.

[4:38:41] >> Well, it's just it's it it feels like it

[4:38:44] looms over you because it's the height

[4:38:46] and the flatness of it where that's what

[4:38:49] and that's what the architects we we did

[4:38:50] talk about that. I don't think this is

[4:38:52] maybe strict enough to what to prevent

[4:38:55] seeing what we're talking about. It's an

[4:38:57] opportunity to really improve something

[4:38:59] that we're finding and and now we're

[4:39:01] here. So, it's just an opportunity to

[4:39:02] really set it in so that we basically

[4:39:05] preserve everything she just said that

[4:39:07] the you know, you never see a sunset in

[4:39:09] the middle of Manhattan. You just can't

[4:39:11] see it.

[4:39:12] >> You got to leave and then you get to see

[4:39:13] it. And we don't that we have a sign

[4:39:15] kind of same thing. We want to be able

[4:39:16] to see that.

[4:39:17] >> Yeah.

[4:39:18] >> Because the buildings block it. Yeah.

[4:39:19] >> I don't know if you caught that analogy.

[4:39:21] Sorry.

[4:39:21] >> Yeah. So,

[4:39:23] >> this does also, are you on? Oh, I'm I'm jumping ahead. Sorry, I got to

[4:39:27] watch.

[4:39:27] >> Yeah, let's continue. These suggestions

[4:39:29] you're making are great. If you want to

[4:39:30] include them in the email you sent me of

[4:39:32] suggestions to send to the consultant to

[4:39:34] update the document.

[4:39:36] >> I will [clears throat] say that I I

[4:39:37] think that sometimes um height can feel

[4:39:41] overwhelming, but really in a good main

[4:39:43] street public realm, it can be

[4:39:45] beneficial. Like as a pedestrian,

[4:39:48] creating an outdoor living room

[4:39:49] sometimes does require taller buildings

[4:39:52] and it can feel comfortable to walk in

[4:39:54] those spaces. If you've ever been to any

[4:39:56] place in Europe, you would know what

[4:39:58] that feels like. You don't feel

[4:40:00] overwhelmed by the height. I mean, I

[4:40:01] don't think they're massive buildings

[4:40:02] either. We're not talking about

[4:40:03] Manhattan, but we're talking about a

[4:40:06] nice boxy type structure that the street

[4:40:08] creates that makes you feel comfortable

[4:40:10] in that space. Um, so feel free to send

[4:40:13] me those recommendations and we can talk

[4:40:15] to our consultant or even research that

[4:40:17] further. Um, but uh I don't think it has

[4:40:19] to be feared as much as we might think

[4:40:21] in those spaces. Just my two cents on

[4:40:24] that.

[4:40:25] >> Thank you.

[4:40:26] >> Yeah,

[4:40:27] [clears throat]

[4:40:31] » Sarah and I found it interesting that

[4:40:33] this points out the gabled roofs on the

[4:40:35] P. I know you just wanted to slide right

[4:40:36] past it, Kaden. Yeah, right there.

[4:40:38] >> No, let's look at it. It says um where

[4:40:41] does that say that?

[4:40:50] » I think the picture illustrates the

[4:40:52] gabled roofs, but on the next page down

[4:40:54] under the design guideline matrix where

[4:40:56] it talks about roof types. It's

[4:40:58] interesting that it says under our main

[4:41:00] street civic and m mixed use that

[4:41:02] there's gabled roof forms which to me

[4:41:06] kind of reiterates that maybe the

[4:41:10] vestibule on the fire station might look

[4:41:12] nice gable.

[4:41:13] >> No, it says flat roofs allowed for

[4:41:15] commercial. The fire station is a

[4:41:17] commercial building. Can you go up? What

[4:41:19] is the what is the point of those two

[4:41:21] pictures of a

[4:41:25] » So this is Yeah. just showing the high

[4:41:26] the step back after the second story

[4:41:28] what that could look like and then just

[4:41:31] the the blank wall.

[4:41:34] >> I do think it's showing that the

[4:41:35] residential or the mixed use has a gable

[4:41:38] but the commercial has a flat roof

[4:41:40] >> that Oh yeah, that's correct as well.

[4:41:44] >> Okay.

[4:41:44] >> Yeah. Like I think they've copied and

[4:41:45] pasted these images from other city

[4:41:47] things.

[4:41:48] >> I don't think there's anything wrong

[4:41:50] with it.

[4:41:50] >> Oh, but there could be so much right

[4:41:52] with it. [laughter]

[4:41:53] >> Well, okay. Sorry. Sorry to distract.

[4:42:01] » All good.

[4:42:02] >> Yeah, this is good. And this will be one

[4:42:04] we'll want to really dive into because

[4:42:06] we're going to have to do it by October.

[4:42:08] Uh all of the ADUs and I'm sure we're

[4:42:11] going to want to put in a section for

[4:42:13] the detached ADUs. And at the latest

[4:42:15] training, we got a whole list of every

[4:42:20] uh

[4:42:22] um every piece of what we would want to

[4:42:25] consider from parking to height to set

[4:42:26] back to the size of the primary dwelling

[4:42:30] or not to the 11,000 square feet or mess

[4:42:32] that move that around.

[4:42:34] >> Correct.

[4:42:35] >> When do you think we'll see that Kaden?

[4:42:37] >> Yeah, I'm currently working on it. We've

[4:42:39] been researching it. Um, so hopefully

[4:42:42] probably within the next two months

[4:42:44] rendering of a while.

[4:42:46] >> We talked to a consultant called

[4:42:47] Libertas. I think that was great.

[4:42:48] >> Are you familiar with them?

[4:42:50] >> I'm not.

[4:42:51] >> Okay. Cuz

[4:42:51] >> well, we can pass you their notes. They

[4:42:53] passed them all to us

[4:42:54] >> just because they they've worked with um

[4:42:56] ADUs across the country about what not

[4:42:58] to do. So we don't

[4:42:59] >> Okay.

[4:43:00] >> So it's more about restricting than

[4:43:03] anything else.

[4:43:04] >> Yeah. So,

[4:43:05] >> do you think that this would go in

[4:43:06] there, the detach adu stuff, or do you

[4:43:08] want that not in this part since it's

[4:43:10] going to be part of our future, which I

[4:43:12] I'm regretting, but it looks like it has

[4:43:14] to be.

[4:43:15] >> Yeah, I mean, this is I think what they

[4:43:17] did was they kind of took what is um

[4:43:22] because we, you know, they know about

[4:43:23] our ADUs, but we knew that this was

[4:43:25] coming down the line. And what we asked

[4:43:27] them to do was what would make sense for

[4:43:31] a community our size? and they because

[4:43:33] they did come out here several times,

[4:43:35] they understand what our community wants

[4:43:37] and needs are that what would make

[4:43:40] sense. And so yeah, we could look at

[4:43:41] these if it's objectionable, we can

[4:43:44] always change it, but these are just

[4:43:47] basic guidelines that they put in there.

[4:43:50] >> Cool. Yeah. To contribute to that, um,

[4:43:53] ADUs will be required on any lot 11,000

[4:43:56] square feet or larger, as I'm sure you

[4:43:59] know. And then but as far as the how um

[4:44:02] everything else regarding those is all

[4:44:04] up to council discretion of how we want

[4:44:06] to codify that.

[4:44:07] >> And I also think like you know if we are

[4:44:10] to I think you know I like this where it

[4:44:12] has like a maximum size or you know it

[4:44:14] has a certain square footage or does it

[4:44:17] or also has it as a percentage of the

[4:44:20] main structure or whichever is less. I

[4:44:23] like doing that

[4:44:24] >> and if we can kind of, you know, and I

[4:44:26] like the maximum height um that maybe

[4:44:29] [clears throat] on the ADUs maybe we

[4:44:31] don't allow 34 ft. Not maybe, I don't

[4:44:34] think we should allow 34 feet on an ADU.

[4:44:37] >> That we definitely have a maximum height

[4:44:39] for those.

[4:44:40] >> Um so I I feel like maybe when we draft

[4:44:43] ours, we should kind of look at this and

[4:44:45] see if we how we want to tweak it. um

[4:44:49] considering that it's going to be in a

[4:44:50] residential as opposed to a business

[4:44:52] commercial.

[4:44:53] >> Was there any direction from the state

[4:44:55] with um setbacks from the primary

[4:44:58] structure or can we dictate that?

[4:44:59] >> That is up to the city's discretion.

[4:45:00] >> That's up to us.

[4:45:01] >> Yes.

[4:45:03] >> So yeah, that's it's it's very open as

[4:45:05] far as

[4:45:06] >> 50 ft. I'm just kidding.

[4:45:08] >> Do we have a lot of regulations? Do we

[4:45:10] have a lot of lots in the business

[4:45:12] commercial residential larger than or

[4:45:15] that would meet the requirement of

[4:45:16] 11,000 square feet?

[4:45:18] >> You know, as I was just looking at this,

[4:45:19] that was my question as well. I'm not

[4:45:21] sure. I would have to look into that.

[4:45:22] >> Okay. Yeah.

[4:45:23] >> And then I've heard rumblings that the

[4:45:25] state also I I didn't read it when I

[4:45:27] read the law, but that they also uh

[4:45:30] included that we did have to require

[4:45:32] that the size be no bigger than the

[4:45:35] primary dwelling. I thought that was too

[4:45:37] far, but am I wrong in that? That is I'm

[4:45:41] trying to remember if that's a a

[4:45:42] decision that the municipality can make

[4:45:44] or if it's required.

[4:45:46] >> I sure hope it's municipality.

[4:45:48] >> I would assume that the municip that we

[4:45:50] would want to have that as a rule anyway

[4:45:52] that it can't be larger than the main

[4:45:54] dwelling.

[4:45:54] >> I think that's what they require. I'm

[4:45:56] not sure though. You maybe

[4:45:57] >> Yeah,

[4:45:58] >> like that we can't we can't make it

[4:46:00] smaller than that.

[4:46:02] >> Like that's what I was told and I was

[4:46:03] like well yeah that's

[4:46:05] >> let's look into it more and try do what

[4:46:08] we can. Yeah.

[4:46:09] >> Limited.

[4:46:10] >> My understanding was that we could put

[4:46:11] those kind of limitations on it that it

[4:46:13] does not have to be the exact size of

[4:46:15] >> the primary structure.

[4:46:16] >> No, not at all. That's that is correct.

[4:46:19] >> Thank you.

[4:46:22] >> And Andrew, I would say most of the lots

[4:46:25] in the business commercial are Yes. At

[4:46:27] least 11,000.

[4:46:30] >> Okay. So, this would probably have quite

[4:46:31] a bit of application there as well as

[4:46:33] everywhere else. But keep in mind that,

[4:46:36] you know, if you do the right offsets

[4:46:38] and if you're really [clears throat]

[4:46:39] going to have it's either going to be

[4:46:41] someone's going to have a primary home

[4:46:42] and a small ADU or they're going to do a

[4:46:46] mixeduse. I don't think they'll have

[4:46:48] room for an ADU to be able to do the

[4:46:50] parking that would work within the

[4:46:52] ordinance.

[4:46:54] >> Yeah. Very good.

[4:46:56] >> Um

[4:46:56] >> I think you can do both.

[4:46:58] >> Yeah. While we're on this ADU, I'm going

[4:47:00] to send you a list that you and I I

[4:47:02] think we talked we both got feedback

[4:47:04] from different roles, but um another

[4:47:07] thing was whether or not we want it to

[4:47:08] be owner occupied.

[4:47:10] >> That's right. That was a big

[4:47:11] >> I don't know if this is the right place

[4:47:12] to put this or it belongs in the

[4:47:14] ordinance.

[4:47:15] >> It definitely will belong in the

[4:47:17] ordinance. Okay. Um we could potentially

[4:47:19] include it here as well, but that would

[4:47:21] be part of the ordinance that we can

[4:47:22] make a decision on.

[4:47:23] >> Okay.

[4:47:24] >> Yeah, that's allowed to the to determine

[4:47:26] by the city. Thank you.

[4:47:28] >> Great point.

[4:47:30] >> So on that, are you talking about like a

[4:47:34] commercial with living space above being

[4:47:37] owner occupied?

[4:47:40] >> Yes.

[4:47:41] >> Talking about residential ADA.

[4:47:43] [clears throat]

[4:47:43] >> I I don't That's what needs to be

[4:47:46] refined. I I don't have an answer, but

[4:47:49] um that you couldn't I think it was more

[4:47:51] residential. Now that you're making me

[4:47:53] think about it,

[4:47:54] >> I'm just thinking of, you know, if there

[4:47:56] was a commercial building on the main

[4:47:58] floor here on Main Street,

[4:48:00] >> but living space up above. I think in

[4:48:03] this community, having that owner

[4:48:06] occupied is

[4:48:07] >> not going to happen. [snorts]

[4:48:07] >> Not going to happen. That's what I think

[4:48:08] too. I mean, I think maybe that was

[4:48:10] >> you can do that now, right? That's what

[4:48:12] that's allowable within our ordinance

[4:48:14] that you can have a you can have a

[4:48:18] residential structure attached to. Okay,

[4:48:21] >> a commercial site that's allowable, but

[4:48:24] the concept of having a nonowner

[4:48:28] residential,

[4:48:30] that's new.

[4:48:31] >> So maybe what we would need is a set of

[4:48:33] an ordinances for if you're in

[4:48:35] commercial and you have an ADU versus

[4:48:37] when you're in residential, you'd have a

[4:48:40] completely different set and that's when

[4:48:41] the owner occupied would come into play

[4:48:43] or you have to have an owner either in

[4:48:45] either building.

[4:48:45] >> Definitely. Correct. You know what I'm

[4:48:46] saying? I was just saying for kind of

[4:48:49] these primary um you know guidelines

[4:48:51] that they have that maybe we go off of

[4:48:53] that and then we work from that.

[4:48:55] >> So with the ADU on the residential

[4:48:57] property you would require it to be

[4:48:59] owner occupied. So a separate owner.

[4:49:02] >> No no no no primary residence or either

[4:49:05] in the

[4:49:06] >> ADU but the owner owner needs to reside

[4:49:09] in one of those.

[4:49:10] >> Oh one of the two not both. Okay.

[4:49:12] >> I I was going the same

[4:49:13] >> Yeah. That's what I that's what it

[4:49:14] sounded like to me. Like that's that's

[4:49:15] not going to work either.

[4:49:17] >> So it's like an attached ADU, right?

[4:49:19] What we have currently that if you have

[4:49:21] an attached ADU, you it needs to be

[4:49:23] owner occupied. Whether it's the primary

[4:49:25] unit or the secondary, you need to be

[4:49:27] residing. You need to be

[4:49:28] >> you can't rent both of them.

[4:49:29] >> Correct.

[4:49:31] >> Okay, let's move on.

[4:49:33] >> Okay.

[4:49:36] » Any questions on these? So, public realm

[4:49:38] standards are new from the current

[4:49:40] historic gateway and the large lot

[4:49:42] standards are also new.

[4:49:45] Um,

[4:49:47] I thought the large lot standards were a good ad here.

[4:49:57] All right, let's go to these. So, here's

[4:49:59] the ADU represented. Um, so currently

[4:50:02] main street mixed use for ADUs, they

[4:50:05] have to be at least 15 feet away from

[4:50:06] the primary dwelling and then town

[4:50:08] center is 30. Again, that's something

[4:50:10] that we can determine in the ordinance

[4:50:12] if that's going to hold up. Uh, for sure

[4:50:14] is codified.

[4:50:16] This could just be a suggestion.

[4:50:18] >> This maybe it's just the diagram, but it

[4:50:19] looks like there's a zero lot line

[4:50:21] there. Is that

[4:50:22] >> I mean,

[4:50:22] >> yeah. How does anyone do you have a

[4:50:23] setback

[4:50:24] >> setbacks for? We're not talking about

[4:50:25] the

[4:50:26] >> Yeah, it's just the diagram here.

[4:50:27] Correct. Yeah. This is not supposed to

[4:50:29] represent

[4:50:30] I think one of the goals should be li

[4:50:33] limiting main street parking. So making

[4:50:36] a requirement that they have

[4:50:38] >> parking for the ADU in the back.

[4:50:40] >> Yes.

[4:50:40] >> Dedicated parking for the ADU aside from

[4:50:43] their

[4:50:44] >> and same for residential too, right? Off

[4:50:46] streetet parking.

[4:50:47] >> Yes.

[4:50:47] >> So that's what we want for Main Street

[4:50:49] and also for residential is that they

[4:50:52] show proof of off streetet parking.

[4:50:55] Katie, does that

[4:50:56] >> just looking at that diagram

[4:50:59] like the example that I just gave, does

[4:51:02] that preclude that

[4:51:04] >> like

[4:51:06] having a twostory building with living

[4:51:09] space on top?

[4:51:10] >> No, was separate. You know what I mean,

[4:51:13] >> right? Yeah. No, it shouldn't preclude

[4:51:15] that. No.

[4:51:15] >> Okay.

[4:51:16] >> Um

[4:51:18] [clears throat] Yeah.

[4:51:23] Okay. Okay. And then speaking of

[4:51:24] parking, that's what this next section

[4:51:25] is about.

[4:51:27] Uh, one of the best sections for sure

[4:51:29] for our for our urban realm, what we

[4:51:31] want for the parking there. So, the

[4:51:33] location should be behind this on the

[4:51:35] side or behind the buildings. Uh, no

[4:51:38] service parking allowed at front lot

[4:51:39] line. Um, and then similar in the town

[4:51:43] center.

[4:51:44] >> Mayor, are these folks wanting park? I

[4:51:46] I've heard them before like Cooper,

[4:51:47] several other families, good families,

[4:51:49] uh, that own uh, property on Main

[4:51:51] Street. When they're coming and asking

[4:51:53] about parking, wanting change setbacks

[4:51:57] so that they can adequately have

[4:51:59] parking, what are they wanting? Are they

[4:52:02] wanting to put the parking behind the

[4:52:03] structures?

[4:52:04] >> Behind. Yeah.

[4:52:04] >> So, they don't want it in front, they

[4:52:06] want it behind.

[4:52:06] >> No, everyone's talking about in the

[4:52:08] back. And I think the main concern was

[4:52:09] taking deliveries like refrigerated

[4:52:12] trucks. They were talking more like food

[4:52:14] stuff, you know, large deliveries and

[4:52:16] they need to They were worried about

[4:52:18] having enough room to do

[4:52:21] being able to get their turnaround, do

[4:52:23] the deliveries without

[4:52:24] >> Does anyone know of an example of a city

[4:52:26] where you've got the structures pushed

[4:52:29] back and the parking's in the front in a

[4:52:31] commercial area or you've got the

[4:52:33] structures way up to the closer to the

[4:52:36] road and the parking in the back? That's

[4:52:38] typically how it's done in the cities I

[4:52:40] travel to. Strip malls are like that. I

[4:52:43] think

[4:52:43] >> strip malls have it in the front which

[4:52:44] aren't pretty. What we have now though

[4:52:46] is we already have precedents along Main

[4:52:49] Street that they have pushed it to the

[4:52:51] front to push parking in the back.

[4:52:53] >> Right. Right. Okay.

[4:52:54] >> And so I feel like that's probably, you

[4:52:56] know, that's how we should go. And I I I

[4:52:58] don't I personally don't love to see

[4:53:00] parking lots in front of

[4:53:01] >> It's more walkable, isn't it? If it's

[4:53:03] pushed to the back.

[4:53:04] >> Part of this is to create a walkable

[4:53:05] main street. So it's more inviting for

[4:53:07] people to walk in.

[4:53:09] >> I agree. Community. So if you have all

[4:53:10] this parking right in front, it just

[4:53:11] kind of detracts from that, I think.

[4:53:13] >> Okay.

[4:53:16] >> So we want to encourage that then and

[4:53:18] help that. Okay.

[4:53:20] >> Go ahead, Kayen.

[4:53:20] >> And if you have parking on Sorry, just

[4:53:22] if you have parking on the front, more

[4:53:24] people are going to park on them on on

[4:53:25] the street, too. I think we'll put that.

[4:53:27] Maybe not.

[4:53:28] >> No, I think you're right.

[4:53:30] >> Yeah. No, that's a great point. Thanks

[4:53:32] for those Thanks for those points.

[4:53:36] So yeah um what remains the same with

[4:53:39] the current guidelines new construction

[4:53:41] should respect his surrounding historic

[4:53:43] building heights and then the same

[4:53:45] primary materials as we already talked

[4:53:46] about and then the new stuff is height

[4:53:49] tied to character areas and then the

[4:53:51] primary and secondary materials are

[4:53:53] introduced and there's now fenistration

[4:53:56] requirements

[4:53:58] >> fenistration

[4:54:00] >> that's a cool

[4:54:01] >> window window style requirements

[4:54:04] Yeah.

[4:54:05] >> Where is that at? I didn't see that. Was

[4:54:07] that

[4:54:08] >> So, I think that's Is there one more?

[4:54:10] Oh, no. This is the end.

[4:54:11] >> Oh, I see. So, there's the parking.

[4:54:12] That's

[4:54:13] >> So, this is a good example of the

[4:54:14] parking that I think is ideal for the type of main street we're going for.

[4:54:19] You can see it's on the side and the

[4:54:21] back there. Uh, buildings push up to the

[4:54:23] front. Very inviting for pedestrians to

[4:54:25] walk and and meet the front of the

[4:54:28] facades of the buildings.

[4:54:31] And then fistration. Let's see if we can

[4:54:33] find any examples. I think there was one

[4:54:35] up here. I saw

[4:54:37] >> Well, he's looking for that. When you

[4:54:38] guys meet with planning commission, we

[4:54:40] ask them about the

[4:54:41] >> Yeah, right here.

[4:54:41] >> Frame window thing.

[4:54:43] >> Yeah, that that that is something that I

[4:54:45] they they've asked for it in several

[4:54:46] places. The the fire department and then

[4:54:48] this. I don't know where it's coming

[4:54:50] from because I can't really find a good

[4:54:52] reference

[4:54:53] >> in Alpine history of black frame

[4:54:55] windows. In fact, I find the opposite.

[4:54:56] If you look at the older houses, they're

[4:54:57] all white framed.

[4:54:59] >> But I don't know if I'm curious about I

[4:55:01] didn't really get that. Me, too.

[4:55:02] >> We'll look into that. I don't think I

[4:55:04] think we're all speculating at this

[4:55:05] point,

[4:55:06] >> right?

[4:55:06] >> Well, kind of.

[4:55:07] >> Well, in the planning commission

[4:55:09] meeting, it was mostly Allen and he was

[4:55:10] describing the the country

[4:55:13] road that had like uniform houses and he

[4:55:17] described it as that was one of the

[4:55:19] elements that he liked in that style.

[4:55:21] >> So, it's somewhere that you could even

[4:55:23] ask Allan or look in the planning

[4:55:24] commission and find out what road. I

[4:55:26] think it was North County Road, but I'm

[4:55:27] not sure where he's talking about. He's

[4:55:30] talking about that Pleasant Grove area

[4:55:31] that's new. So, um, anyway, that's where

[4:55:34] that came from, but again, I wasn't

[4:55:37] familiar with the area, so I wasn't

[4:55:39] really sure what he was talking about,

[4:55:40] but it was specific to that architecture

[4:55:43] that he was describing in that area.

[4:55:45] Cool.

[4:55:46] >> I know like at Cedar Hills their their

[4:55:49] fire station that they just redid, they

[4:55:51] had all white windows and they swapped

[4:55:52] it out to black and they changed all

[4:55:54] their um fascia faucet

[4:55:58] >> and they changed it all to black and um

[4:56:01] and but their buildings are red brick

[4:56:03] and it does look really good.

[4:56:06] >> It has like that deep rich tone.

[4:56:08] >> Yeah. In fairness, he tied that into

[4:56:10] that specific description of what he was

[4:56:12] just that area. So, um I guess where you

[4:56:15] said it's in Pleasant Grove, right?

[4:56:17] >> No, this is in Cedar Hills.

[4:56:19] >> Cedar Hills. Okay. That's what he was

[4:56:20] talking about.

[4:56:21] >> I was meeting with their mayor and then

[4:56:22] when I left I'm like, "Did you guys swap

[4:56:24] out your windows? Didn't they used to be

[4:56:25] white?" They're like, "Yes, but the

[4:56:27] black looks so much better."

[4:56:28] >> Okay. Yeah, that must like I I thought

[4:56:30] he said Cedar Hills, but and that North

[4:56:32] County Road. But

[4:56:34] >> sorry, I must have been at two speed

[4:56:36] double speed. [laughter]

[4:56:38] Well, the good news is we have

[4:56:39] photographs of almost every old house

[4:56:41] back to the 1800s in Alpine. So, that's

[4:56:44] good news.

[4:56:45] >> But remember, we don't have commercial

[4:56:46] buildings.

[4:56:47] >> No, some

[4:56:48] >> we don't have to like model our

[4:56:49] commercial buildings after our

[4:56:51] residential homes.

[4:56:51] >> Some some of them are commercial, but

[4:56:53] yeah, that's right.

[4:56:53] >> Okay.

[4:56:54] >> So, yeah, just right here, um,

[4:56:56] fenistration example. I just wanted to

[4:56:58] show this to you. Um, and I think it's

[4:57:00] important this plan also talks about the

[4:57:03] amount of transparency that these

[4:57:04] windows need. just again creating that

[4:57:06] inviting pedestrian realm as they uh

[4:57:09] with storefronts and different elements

[4:57:11] like that. But I think that's it for me.

[4:57:14] >> I'm sorry. I I literally can't see where

[4:57:15] you where you're reading.

[4:57:16] >> Oh, just right here.

[4:57:17] >> Oh, there. Okay.

[4:57:18] >> Yeah, just right here. Yeah.

[4:57:19] >> And currently it does say black or it

[4:57:22] doesn't.

[4:57:23] >> I don't think there's a

[4:57:24] >> That was an addition. Okay. I got

[4:57:26] >> Yeah, let's see. I don't think there's

[4:57:29] anything about

[4:57:30] >> Okay. Okay, that's fine. I think

[4:57:31] historically they were white framed, but

[4:57:33] I think a more modern is black framed in

[4:57:37] my I don't know if anyone else has any

[4:57:39] thoughts on that, but

[4:57:41] >> well, I like white, but that's me and I

[4:57:43] think it's the more historical uh

[4:57:45] version. And I'll try to look up some

[4:57:47] photos to see if it inspires anyone.

[4:57:49] >> I like the original white when it's like

[4:57:52] real wood, but I do not like the vinyl

[4:57:55] white windows. I don't

[4:57:57] >> I'd rather have like not allowed. So

[4:58:00] that kind of helps.

[4:58:01] >> Windows.

[4:58:02] >> Window. Vinyl. Well,

[4:58:04] >> well, it says vinyl. No vinyl.

[4:58:06] >> But you know what I'm like what we I

[4:58:08] like um what I kind of like what they

[4:58:10] said that was metal and whatnot, but

[4:58:12] let's move on. Um Jessica, do you have

[4:58:15] anything?

[4:58:19] » Nope.

[4:58:20] >> Okay.

[4:58:20] >> I don't believe that.

[4:58:22] >> Let's move on to council communication.

[4:58:25] Or actually, let's do staff reports

[4:58:27] first.

[4:58:28] Jason, do you have anything for us?

[4:58:31] >> Kayen.

[4:58:32] >> Um, [clears throat] I'll just say that,

[4:58:34] um, I know Andrew's talked to me about

[4:58:36] fence and looking at that and things

[4:58:38] like that and height requirements,

[4:58:40] viewshed things we've I've talked about

[4:58:41] with you guys. Um, I'm actively

[4:58:43] researching that. Um, I've looked at

[4:58:46] different cities, tried to see what

[4:58:47] they're doing with those different um,

[4:58:49] things you guys want to want to look

[4:58:51] into. And, um, so just want to let you

[4:58:53] guys know that that's being actively

[4:58:55] pursued.

[4:58:55] >> That means so much,

[4:58:57] >> Heidi.

[4:58:57] >> Thank you. Okay, very very quickly. Uh,

[4:59:00] trucks and tunes starts next week, runs

[4:59:02] through June and July. So, normally

[4:59:04] that's a meal, but when you guys are

[4:59:06] figuring out your your work workshop or

[4:59:09] whatever, figure out that meal. Um,

[4:59:13] trucks and tunes. What? So, and then the

[4:59:15] t-shirt design. I got your votes. I got

[4:59:18] 22. Out of the 22 people, 17 voted for

[4:59:21] one of them. So, I'm just going to go

[4:59:23] call it that round.

[4:59:24] >> Which one? Um, it has the flag and the

[4:59:27] poppies and it says celebrate too. Yeah,

[4:59:30] I'm like pretty much everybody picked

[4:59:32] that one. So,

[4:59:32] >> I'm the five who.

[4:59:34] >> So, I'm happy with whatever the majority

[4:59:36] >> and then the grand marshall. Thank you

[4:59:38] for your votes. Um, one was a clear

[4:59:41] um headliner or whatever like and I'm

[4:59:44] going to go ahead and approach them

[4:59:46] first.

[4:59:47] >> Is that over? There's no more time for

[4:59:48] that. The voting on that.

[4:59:50] >> I mean, you can still vote. I mean,

[4:59:52] >> yeah, but it has been a week and a half

[4:59:54] since I sent it out there. So, please do

[4:59:56] it ASAP. I can I can vote you because

[5:00:00] >> um they could decline or can't or are

[5:00:03] not available. So, I'll go to the next

[5:00:04] one at that point. Then I'll I'll go

[5:00:06] down the list. That's why I had you vote

[5:00:07] for ranks. Um just let you know there

[5:00:10] was a clear um head runner. I don't

[5:00:13] know. It's late. I can't think of the

[5:00:14] words. Anyway, [clears throat] one or

[5:00:16] two.

[5:00:16] >> Front runner. Thank you. Heidi, do you

[5:00:19] choose one or two or three? Sometimes

[5:00:21] some in some years

[5:00:22] >> we normally do one unless there's a

[5:00:25] compelling reason to do others. Like one

[5:00:27] year we had like 25 because there was a

[5:00:30] whole generation that we felt would pass

[5:00:33] before they would have the chance.

[5:00:34] >> Oh wow.

[5:00:35] >> And that was a number of years ago, but

[5:00:37] they did one

[5:00:39] >> really big scoop. So I mean it's not

[5:00:42] unheard of, but right now we've just

[5:00:43] been doing the one.

[5:00:45] >> Thanks.

[5:00:46] And we don't want to run out of people.

[5:00:49] >> Okay. Um, Shane,

[5:00:53] >> you don't have anything.

[5:00:59] » Uh, I was up here Sunday with my family

[5:01:01] at the cemetery, and I thought it looked

[5:01:04] awesome. And I think we traded maybe one

[5:01:07] or two complaints for watering the

[5:01:09] cemetery for many people that were very

[5:01:11] happy that it looked good and honored

[5:01:14] their loved ones. So, um,

[5:01:19] let's see. Um, fire station

[5:01:22] groundbreaking was mentioned before. It,

[5:01:24] you know, we had probably, I don't know,

[5:01:26] I estimated 40 to 50 people there and I

[5:01:29] thought it turned out great. Um, there's

[5:01:33] been a lot of talk, um, seen on the news

[5:01:36] in different places,

[5:01:38] uh, about splash pads.

[5:01:41] Um, is there any concern from this

[5:01:44] council? Do we want to they just barely

[5:01:47] open? Do we want to limit hours? Some

[5:01:49] have shut some down totally. Some have

[5:01:51] limited hours.

[5:01:53] Um different approaches just because of

[5:01:56] all the water issues. Um I hadn't heard

[5:01:59] anything here, so I thought I'd bring it

[5:02:01] up and see if there's any kind of

[5:02:04] thoughts that you wanted us to

[5:02:05] >> I have one thought, but go ahead.

[5:02:09] >> I believe our splash pad has the

[5:02:11] capability of certain hours. It's It's

[5:02:14] kind of like a glorified sprinkler

[5:02:16] timer. Um, so I I think we could set

[5:02:19] ours if that's something we wanted to

[5:02:21] look at.

[5:02:22] >> What time is it running now?

[5:02:24] >> It's whenever.

[5:02:26] >> I'm not 100% sure. I should have asked

[5:02:28] to make sure if there's a early and late

[5:02:31] cut off currently.

[5:02:32] >> Should we turn off that water fountain,

[5:02:34] too?

[5:02:37] » I think Carolyn I think just told me

[5:02:40] this. I think it's 8 till 10:00 cuz it's

[5:02:42] the or 8 to 8. It's It's one of those

[5:02:45] cuz it's the hours to 10:00 p.m.

[5:02:47] >> Yeah, maybe we can in favor of limiting

[5:02:49] >> 10 to Yeah, maybe we limit for now. Um

[5:02:54] but yeah, I think 8 starting at 8 a.m.

[5:02:56] is a little bit early for a splash pad

[5:02:57] anyway.

[5:02:58] >> Noon to 7 or something.

[5:02:59] >> Maybe even 11 just because I know people

[5:03:02] that have young kids for nap times and

[5:03:04] stuff sometimes you have to juggle

[5:03:05] around. But like yeah, maybe 11 to 7 or

[5:03:08] something for now and then um as water

[5:03:11] gets more scarce, we might need to shut

[5:03:14] it off because I know we have

[5:03:15] >> Saturday only or something.

[5:03:16] >> Yeah.

[5:03:17] >> Well, and doesn't our splash pad, it

[5:03:19] doesn't run continually, right? So, I

[5:03:21] think that's one of the nice things

[5:03:22] about it. It's only running when the

[5:03:24] kids

[5:03:24] >> push the button

[5:03:25] >> are there.

[5:03:26] >> Oh, yeah. I was just there. That's true.

[5:03:28] It doesn't just run.

[5:03:29] >> So, it's not like you're just running

[5:03:31] water down the drain. If no one's there,

[5:03:34] no one's like on Sunday if nobody uses

[5:03:36] it, it doesn't

[5:03:38] >> go even for one minute.

[5:03:40] >> Right.

[5:03:41] >> But I have seen kids push the button and

[5:03:43] there's nobody in the splash pad

[5:03:45] >> just to push the button. Do you want

[5:03:47] that to be advertised on social media?

[5:03:49] >> Yes.

[5:03:49] >> As far as the hours. Yeah. Is everyone

[5:03:52] okay with 11 to 7?

[5:03:54] >> Well, hold on. I just had I'm with you

[5:03:57] on everything. Didn't we vote for no

[5:04:00] water restrictions until we have to do

[5:04:02] them? Wasn't that the vote? I know that

[5:04:05] was for PI. Does it use PI? It doesn't

[5:04:07] use it use culinary.

[5:04:09] >> That has nothing to do with that. Um,

[5:04:11] no. I'm with the if we have the water to

[5:04:15] use them, but um it doesn't cycle,

[5:04:17] right? It's

[5:04:18] >> it's not recirculating.

[5:04:20] >> No. Like Highlands, it's constantly

[5:04:21] going, but it's rec their water is

[5:04:24] recirculating.

[5:04:25] >> I like that idea. I don't know if 11 I

[5:04:26] know moms like to go there earlier 9 10

[5:04:29] a.m. sometimes

[5:04:31] >> but uh um I would say start with an my opinion take it or leave it start

[5:04:36] with an hourly if we get into bad into

[5:04:38] August uh July go to weekends only type

[5:04:42] of a thing that would be my suggestion

[5:04:45] but

[5:04:45] >> I think we'll address that when we get

[5:04:47] there

[5:04:47] >> right

[5:04:49] >> but aren't we addressing it now

[5:04:51] >> I don't know maybe maybe 10 but my I

[5:04:54] don't I don't see It's when it gets hot.

[5:04:57] People take them as late as seven. Like

[5:04:59] most of those little kids that play in

[5:05:01] the splash pad, I feel like are eating

[5:05:03] dinner and hopefully in bed.

[5:05:05] >> Yeah. 10 to six is good.

[5:05:07] >> Five.

[5:05:08] >> Yeah. Yeah.

[5:05:09] >> 10 to six. 10 to

[5:05:11] >> if if they're not if they're not there,

[5:05:12] they won't be pushing the button.

[5:05:14] [clears throat]

[5:05:14] >> That's true. Either way. So maybe we

[5:05:15] don't need a restriction because there's

[5:05:17] >> no I do think it's good to because

[5:05:21] >> I think

[5:05:22] >> we need to follow our we need to follow

[5:05:23] what we're advising our residents and do

[5:05:25] some water restriction period

[5:05:28] >> conservation in an effort to conserve we

[5:05:31] could limit the hours

[5:05:32] >> planning to do it social media and put

[5:05:34] up a sign at the

[5:05:36] >> and on the website. Okay those plastic

[5:05:39] ones.

[5:05:39] >> So what's the reason?

[5:05:40] >> So you said 10 to 7 is that right? 10 to

[5:05:44] 7

[5:05:44] >> sounds good for

[5:05:46] >> Yeah, that sounds good. And how do you

[5:05:47] position it as as again water

[5:05:49] conservation?

[5:05:50] >> Yes. An effort to conserve water.

[5:05:52] >> Shane, is there any indication that we

[5:05:54] are lacking right now? Like are there

[5:05:56] things showing us that we are lacking?

[5:05:58] We've had a pretty wet spring so far.

[5:05:59] Are we okay?

[5:06:00] >> Yeah, but we've had to start Healey well

[5:06:02] already and it's the

[5:06:04] >> Are we already starting to do things

[5:06:05] that are showing concern?

[5:06:07] >> Yeah.

[5:06:08] we've we've started a well. I

[5:06:09] mean, a lot of times we'll we'll go into

[5:06:12] to July before we have to start

[5:06:14] >> before starting a well,

[5:06:16] >> and we haven't even hit June and we

[5:06:18] >> started. Okay. I I think everyone's with

[5:06:20] you.

[5:06:21] >> And we anticipate that we'll have to run

[5:06:24] a culinary well at some point this

[5:06:26] summer, unless

[5:06:29] >> the rain gods are totally in our favor.

[5:06:31] >> So far so good.

[5:06:33] >> For culinary.

[5:06:34] >> Yeah.

[5:06:35] >> Oh,

[5:06:36] >> which I like. We haven't had to do that

[5:06:38] for a long time. had to for just a few

[5:06:41] days. It was it was the year that we I

[5:06:44] think it was the year we shut the splash

[5:06:46] pad off

[5:06:47] >> two days early.

[5:06:48] >> So

[5:06:50] >> that

[5:06:51] so people season

[5:06:53] >> even on culinary should follow the same.

[5:06:56] >> Oh for sure.

[5:06:56] >> Yeah. We try to make that very clear.

[5:06:58] It's in the ordinance.

[5:07:00] everything that we put in the newsines

[5:07:02] >> and especially them because if they

[5:07:04] misuse it, it is it affects everybody

[5:07:07] and obviously we're going to prioritize

[5:07:09] indoor drinking water.

[5:07:12] >> At least in my mind, that's the

[5:07:14] priority.

[5:07:15] >> Y

[5:07:16] Okay. Um and then just to make you

[5:07:19] aware, uh the Fitzgerald property has

[5:07:22] changed hands. It's officially closed

[5:07:24] and the the group that bought it have

[5:07:28] been in talking with us the last two

[5:07:31] well Monday and Tuesday this week.

[5:07:33] Monday last week, Tuesday this week. Um

[5:07:37] they're

[5:07:39] a little bit out from

[5:07:42] meeting the three requirements to get

[5:07:44] the annexation plan recorded, which kind

[5:07:47] of leaves it in a little bit of a funny

[5:07:48] state. is currently in the county, but

[5:07:51] they are trying to get work done like

[5:07:54] leading up to development.

[5:07:57] So,

[5:07:59] it's really not under our jurisdiction

[5:08:01] right now, but they have a track up

[5:08:04] there uh to do the geologic work. They

[5:08:08] have to dig a big trench. That's you

[5:08:11] remember how many feet?

[5:08:14] >> Basically from the steep part of the

[5:08:16] mountain to almost down to the ditch to

[5:08:19] look for faults and whatever.

[5:08:22] So

[5:08:24] what they're looking at doing is kind of

[5:08:26] grubbing out the area where the road was

[5:08:29] proposed on the concept plan that uh

[5:08:32] came through with the annexation.

[5:08:35] um so that they're not like tearing out

[5:08:37] brush that they don't absolutely have

[5:08:39] to. It'll it will come out at some point

[5:08:41] anyway. And then um kind of digging this

[5:08:45] trench, doing the exploration. We've

[5:08:47] talked to them about even though there's

[5:08:50] not easements there right now for the

[5:08:52] trails that it will go a long way in the

[5:08:55] way of public opinion to minimize

[5:08:59] disruption to the trails that go through

[5:09:00] there. And so their plan was to kind of

[5:09:03] dig a section, do their exploration, you

[5:09:06] know, their logging and whatever, and

[5:09:08] then kind of fill that back in and do

[5:09:11] another section. So, uh, they seem real

[5:09:15] meaningable to do something like that.

[5:09:17] Um, and then the other thing we warn

[5:09:20] them about is, you know, we're getting

[5:09:22] into summer and dry vegetation and

[5:09:26] >> we encourage them to talk to the fire

[5:09:28] chief um to take precautions that way.

[5:09:31] >> Do they have a water truck up there?

[5:09:32] Because aren't they required to have a

[5:09:34] water truck?

[5:09:35] >> Well, again, it's in the county

[5:09:38] >> and because it's not annexed yet,

[5:09:40] >> right? And so that's where it's in this

[5:09:42] awkward stage where it's, you know,

[5:09:45] they're saying, "What do we have to do this work and it's like, well,

[5:09:49] it's not in Alpine City."

[5:09:51] >> Could you, sorry to prolong, but could

[5:09:53] you just just briefly explain? So they

[5:09:56] when the Fitzgerald property came up for

[5:09:59] annexation, it was approved. It was

[5:10:00] approved based off of like, you know,

[5:10:03] what they brought forth and and so they

[5:10:06] still have to follow that same Yeah.

[5:10:07] Okay.

[5:10:08] >> Yeah. And they they know that. Okay. I

[5:10:10] was just curious.

[5:10:11] >> They know that it's just they have to

[5:10:12] pay some money and get some water before

[5:10:15] they the annexation be can be recorded

[5:10:17] and it's officially in the boundaries of

[5:10:20] Alpine City. And so they want to develop

[5:10:24] it. They want to move this forward.

[5:10:26] They're working towards that. Um

[5:10:29] but they want to get going on the other

[5:10:32] requirements as well. So, uh, we're just

[5:10:36] trying to work with him even though it's

[5:10:38] kind of not in our jurisdiction right

[5:10:40] now and we definitely don't want a fire,

[5:10:43] anything like that. So,

[5:10:46] >> when does

[5:10:46] >> I just wanted to make you guys aware

[5:10:47] there is a track sitting up there right

[5:10:49] now.

[5:10:51] Um,

[5:10:52] >> oh, Facebook already knows.

[5:10:53] >> Yeah.

[5:10:55] He said that they've had several

[5:10:57] people stop and talk to him and

[5:10:59] whatever. So

[5:11:01] >> when does it become

[5:11:02] >> is there a requirement for water in the

[5:11:05] we may like to have water spray down?

[5:11:09] >> I don't think the county does like when

[5:11:11] we've had real hot dry summers. We

[5:11:13] worked with our fire chief and and just

[5:11:17] made it a requirement if you're doing

[5:11:19] excavation in areas like that that you

[5:11:21] have to have water there.

[5:11:22] >> The county has no requirement. Huh.

[5:11:25] >> It is a lot easier.

[5:11:26] >> Not that not that I'm aware of.

[5:11:28] >> Anything else?

[5:11:30] No.

[5:11:31] >> Okay. I do have a handful of stuff. We

[5:11:33] had the Memorial Day ceremony yesterday.

[5:11:36] Um appreciate Brent, Chrissy, and Sarah

[5:11:38] coming and um I thought it went really

[5:11:41] great. I thought it was one of the best

[5:11:42] and one of the best turnouts that we

[5:11:44] had. Um I you know I feel like Haydens

[5:11:49] did an amazing job organizing and of

[5:11:51] course with the help of AYC and um Sarah

[5:11:54] and then again with the ground breaking

[5:11:57] want to um just acknowledge and

[5:12:00] appreciate Brent, Chrissy and Sarah for

[5:12:01] coming for the fire station

[5:12:03] groundbreaking and um I know our donors

[5:12:05] really appreciated it. Um, and then that

[5:12:09] American Fort Canyon, the road is open

[5:12:12] all the way through, so you can do the

[5:12:13] alpine loop now completely. Um, and then

[5:12:17] we met with the Aspen Peak School

[5:12:19] District new superintendent, Joel

[5:12:21] Perkins. Um, you know, one of the

[5:12:24] concerns that I expressed was that, you

[5:12:26] know, that Alpine Elementary stay open.

[5:12:28] And he said there's no plans to close

[5:12:30] Alpine Elementary anytime in the short

[5:12:32] future. So, I was glad to hear that. Um

[5:12:36] but that was the main thing. He seems

[5:12:38] very amenable to work with um our city

[5:12:41] and all the cities within the district.

[5:12:44] And then um I wanted to make where I

[5:12:46] went to a meeting at AF hospital that

[5:12:48] there is a new family a free family

[5:12:50] clinic for health care needs for people

[5:12:53] that um don't qualify for Medicaid. Is

[5:12:57] that what it is? But don't have

[5:12:59] insurance. So you you know it's you can

[5:13:02] still you make them you make money but

[5:13:04] not enough and so they offer a variety

[5:13:07] of um services that's available to you

[5:13:10] county. They are located down at the UVU

[5:13:14] Annex Center. And then um

[5:13:17] >> sorry did you say that's for children or

[5:13:18] children and adults?

[5:13:19] >> It's for family. It's for families. Um

[5:13:22] which is awesome. And then

[5:13:26] >> let's can we put that in the news line

[5:13:29] about that? Yeah. And then I wanted to

[5:13:31] do an update on the Poppy Garden. Um I

[5:13:35] did a shift uh on Poppy Patrol and um

[5:13:38] there I feel like there weren't as many

[5:13:40] people this year. So I don't know if

[5:13:41] it's gotten out that there aren't as

[5:13:44] many. So, um but um

[5:13:49] because it was last Saturday, so it

[5:13:50] should have been a big weekend in in the

[5:13:53] evening and I was expecting a lot of

[5:13:55] people coming in, but we noticed that um

[5:13:58] there might be some vandalism going on,

[5:14:01] people um plucking off the pods before

[5:14:03] they even bloom. ABC4 came today um and

[5:14:08] they're going to run a new story about

[5:14:11] that and with um to help find the

[5:14:14] culprits. Jessica has offered a um

[5:14:18] reward leading to the culprit. Um and so

[5:14:22] we're hoping that getting this story out

[5:14:24] there will help us maybe find whoever is

[5:14:27] doing this. And then I do want to say I

[5:14:29] really appreciate the chief for um

[5:14:32] because I think I just barely asked him,

[5:14:34] was it two weeks ago to arrange for the

[5:14:37] camera trailer to be up there at the

[5:14:39] poppy garden and um he you know he was

[5:14:42] telling me I can probably only get it

[5:14:44] for a couple weeks but to get it for the

[5:14:45] whole month other than the um ORM days

[5:14:48] I'm really really happy about that you

[5:14:51] know and I'm thinking next year we might

[5:14:53] I do have to say though one caveat once

[5:14:56] the um trail cameras went up. I do feel

[5:14:59] like the vandalism has um reduced

[5:15:03] drastically, at least from what I

[5:15:06] noticed in the garden. Heidi, have you

[5:15:09] do you think that too? Because I feel

[5:15:10] like there's a lot of um blooms that are

[5:15:13] ready to bud or um that and they haven't

[5:15:19] been snapped off. And so I think the

[5:15:21] trail cameras have been a really good

[5:15:23] deterrent. I I agree. The the the the

[5:15:27] ones that were clipped were clearly in

[5:15:29] the first bloom set and the the blooms

[5:15:33] that have the buds that have come since

[5:15:35] then are the ones that are actually

[5:15:37] blooming. So the it is nice to see that

[5:15:40] some flowers have actually matured all

[5:15:42] the way to bloom because it was very

[5:15:45] disheartening to see the opposite

[5:15:47] happening. So, I don't know what the

[5:15:49] trigger was, if it was the cameras or if

[5:15:51] it's more people or the combination of

[5:15:53] all of those things. I think we need to

[5:15:56] keep it up though. All of those things.

[5:15:58] >> No, for sure. So, and then we're just

[5:16:02] going to start here and go through. Is

[5:16:03] that okay?

[5:16:04] >> Brent, do you have

[5:16:05] >> The only thing is Al the next Alpine

[5:16:07] Trail Service Day is June 13th.

[5:16:10] >> So, mark your calendars.

[5:16:12] >> June 13th, Saturday morning. More info

[5:16:15] hopefully will be coming out through

[5:16:17] Heidi.

[5:16:17] >> Brian, I try to follow up with them.

[5:16:19] Would you just tell us when the meetings

[5:16:20] are? I'm supposed I'm on the committee

[5:16:22] and I've hit one, but then they canled

[5:16:23] one and then I missed one. So, just let

[5:16:25] me know if you're at one and I'm not

[5:16:26] there.

[5:16:27] >> Any new meetings

[5:16:28] >> there? There um there was one right

[5:16:30] before the other trail day, but

[5:16:31] >> right I went to that one. Um, this one

[5:16:34] is the areas that were too wet in the

[5:16:36] earlier one and they're going to be

[5:16:38] doing a bridge or two, but I think they

[5:16:41] need to have specialty things and then a

[5:16:43] lot of cleanup, but it's all in the

[5:16:44] three falls. So, instead of at the bay,

[5:16:47] just in case anybody asks you, it's not

[5:16:48] at the bay. They're meeting at three.

[5:16:50] >> And both of you are still waiting for

[5:16:52] the ordinance, right? The trails

[5:16:53] ordinance.

[5:16:54] >> Yeah, we haven't Have they got given

[5:16:57] >> you as and I'm not interjecting. This is

[5:16:59] exactly what they're uh I just letting

[5:17:01] them know. Uh, I asked you if you wanted

[5:17:04] me to do it. You said talk to Will. I

[5:17:06] reached out to Will. I haven't heard

[5:17:08] anything back from him. So, whatever you

[5:17:11] guys want to do, I'm happy to help.

[5:17:12] However you want to go about that

[5:17:13] ordinance.

[5:17:13] >> Yeah. So, Kaden and Heidi, they they

[5:17:16] would like to update our trail

[5:17:18] restrictions on motorized vehicles. So,

[5:17:20] we have signs that go with every the

[5:17:23] other things we want to put on the

[5:17:24] signs. So, it's very clear. And then we

[5:17:26] have an ordinance that has some teeth to

[5:17:28] it that we can enforce criminal

[5:17:30] penalties or I feel like I'm over

[5:17:32] speaking right now, talking way too

[5:17:34] much, but um

[5:17:35] >> Kayen and I are actually working on it.

[5:17:37] We've gotten the hold of the the draper

[5:17:40] >> rules and all of that stuff. And so it's

[5:17:42] just in process because it's not just

[5:17:44] the trails. We also have to kind of make

[5:17:46] the park rules at the same time.

[5:17:48] >> At that point, we'll just that way we

[5:17:50] can have an ordinance on the signs.

[5:17:52] >> But it has been a wild week. So I will

[5:17:55] just take the fault on that.

[5:17:56] >> I'm glad you're working on that.

[5:17:58] >> Oh no, we're working on it.

[5:17:59] And we talked about this internally. It will probably be an ordinance that

[5:18:04] doesn't go in the municipal code, but it

[5:18:06] will be an ordinance adopted as an

[5:18:09] ordinance so an ordinance number can be

[5:18:10] referred to. But some ordinances just

[5:18:13] don't go in the municipal code.

[5:18:15] >> Oh, really? I didn't

[5:18:16] >> That's what Steve suggested.

[5:18:18] >> Okay.

[5:18:20] >> Anything else?

[5:18:21] >> Nope.

[5:18:22] >> Sarah, Jessica, I'll do our last.

[5:18:25] >> Oh, okay. Um, we had the swearing in for

[5:18:29] AYC last Thursday. That was really

[5:18:32] great. Um, water committee. Um, we're

[5:18:36] learning that we're losing some water

[5:18:38] due to leakage. So, we're trying to

[5:18:40] encourage everyone to get eye on water

[5:18:42] app. And then also there's some

[5:18:45] wonderful volunteers from the water

[5:18:47] committee that are volunteering to call

[5:18:49] some of the people that are have larger

[5:18:52] leagues and try to help them get eye on

[5:18:56] water and educate them in a kind way.

[5:19:00] >> Um

[5:19:01] and

[5:19:03] I don't know that I have anything else

[5:19:05] other than that. Um yeah, Chrissy.

[5:19:09] >> Okay, I'll go from

[5:19:13] Okay, let's see. I attended the parks

[5:19:15] open house. Did you say that?

[5:19:18] >> Oh, I forgot about that.

[5:19:19] >> That was that was um it was it was a

[5:19:22] good turnout, but I'm glad that we're

[5:19:23] getting a lot of survey responses.

[5:19:26] >> It was.

[5:19:26] >> Yeah, they actually said it was a good

[5:19:28] turnout for what they've done. They said

[5:19:30] that they got and then just for the

[5:19:32] emails, we've sent out personal emails

[5:19:35] to all the the emails we have in the

[5:19:37] utilities plus the the social media push

[5:19:40] and all of that stuff. So, I feel like

[5:19:41] we've gotten some good feedback.

[5:19:43] >> When I talked to the consultants, they

[5:19:45] said this was a really that it was a

[5:19:46] really good turnout for our city our

[5:19:48] size.

[5:19:49] >> Way to shine parks and wreck and

[5:19:51] communication. Two hats at once. Thank

[5:19:54] you, Heidi. Um I've noticed since I live

[5:19:56] by Burgess Park, we're in full swing

[5:19:58] there. Still needing um the nets to be

[5:20:01] replaced. The hole is growing every day.

[5:20:05] So, it's it's no longer a hole. It's a

[5:20:06] gaping chasm. Catch it. You can get a

[5:20:09] car right through that. Not Not just a

[5:20:12] ball.

[5:20:12] >> Heidi actually got a quote for us. I

[5:20:14] think we're just going to go ahead and

[5:20:15] unless anybody has objection.

[5:20:17] >> Nope. No objections. My friend saw a a

[5:20:21] ball hit a Tesla as it was driving by.

[5:20:23] So, we don't want to add that to our

[5:20:25] insurance claims. So, let's get the net

[5:20:27] fixed. Um I also attended um the Lone

[5:20:31] Peak uh public safety district meeting.

[5:20:33] It was the day after our um council

[5:20:36] meeting. Yes. We had we were literally

[5:20:38] in our beds for less than eight hours.

[5:20:41] Shane less than that because of his

[5:20:43] commute before we had to show up at 7:30

[5:20:45] the next morning. Um we it was an

[5:20:48] interesting discussion mostly focused on

[5:20:50] tier one, tier 2 Utah retirement system

[5:20:53] and the way benefits are compensated. Um

[5:20:56] I don't know how that would be reflected

[5:20:59] here in the city but something um that

[5:21:02] we've discussed at the Lone Peak and

[5:21:04] that we will um go into a deeper dive

[5:21:07] prior to a budget season next year so

[5:21:10] that we're not um rate like rushing the

[5:21:13] process. Um

[5:21:16] I mentioned literacy. I again

[5:21:18] brainstormed with our lovely

[5:21:20] communication head here and um because

[5:21:23] summer is it's summer time and there is

[5:21:27] a literacy crisis with our um young

[5:21:30] elementary school kids, we're going to

[5:21:32] encourage summer reading and share some

[5:21:35] other information in the news line.

[5:21:38] Lastly, um, at the Utah League of City

[5:21:40] of Towns, they were promoting the 250.

[5:21:44] And I went to two presidential libraries

[5:21:46] since then, and they have huge displays.

[5:21:48] And, um, I know it's our theme for

[5:21:50] Alpine Days, but I did notice, um, July

[5:21:53] 5th is a Sunday, and I was wondering if

[5:21:55] we would consider sponsoring a potluck

[5:21:58] like in our in our, uh, Creekide Park

[5:22:00] and just having like popsicles. I talked

[5:22:03] to the youth council people, but how do

[5:22:05] you feel? I feel like um that would be a

[5:22:08] good unifying event with low

[5:22:12] what do I want to say low commitment

[5:22:14] level from the city but at least like to

[5:22:16] gather people in the park and have just

[5:22:18] a potluck. People were wondering about

[5:22:21] the heat at that time. So, um, we were

[5:22:24] thinking maybe just do desserts and

[5:22:25] popsicles for the kids, you know. So,

[5:22:29] um, considering we're at a very short

[5:22:31] timeline,

[5:22:32] I kind of need feedback now and if

[5:22:35] that's possible or we're already focused

[5:22:37] on it for Alpine Days and that's our

[5:22:39] focus.

[5:22:39] >> Um, we're actually officially partners

[5:22:41] with the state movement and that is

[5:22:43] actually a statewide initiative. It

[5:22:45] >> It's country wide.

[5:22:46] >> So, we can is it country?

[5:22:48] >> It's all over the country. The entire

[5:22:49] country. We have a pot. It is a an

[5:22:52] initiative where I mean I'm welcome to

[5:22:54] we h sorry I'm happy to facilitate it.

[5:22:58] They also talked about it trying to be

[5:23:00] more on a neighborhood basis too. So we

[5:23:03] can also take it as a encouraging people

[5:23:06] to do it kind of in their in their own

[5:23:08] little areas. So it's kind of up to you

[5:23:10] guys how you want to do it if you want

[5:23:11] to do it at all.

[5:23:12] >> So I'm just thinking one issue with a

[5:23:15] citywide might be a mass gathering with

[5:23:18] county health department.

[5:23:21] We have restrooms and water

[5:23:23] >> and all of that stuff. Yeah, I I do know

[5:23:25] that it's also, for lack of a a secular

[5:23:28] term, it's a fast Sunday. And so there

[5:23:30] has been a Oh, Jessica, I think we want

[5:23:33] in. She's texting. Um, but as I

[5:23:36] understand it, the powers that be have

[5:23:39] said that they will not discourage that

[5:23:41] activity. So, um, um,

[5:23:44] >> good research there.

[5:23:46] >> Oh, it's on a Sunday.

[5:23:46] >> I'm going to all the meetings. So, um,

[5:23:48] >> the last week is a Sunday in case you're

[5:23:50] wondering. So, dessert would be another

[5:23:52] option to accommodate those that have

[5:23:54] religious, um, restrictions on eating

[5:23:56] that day, but as far as I know, we eat

[5:23:59] dinner on fast Sunday. So,

[5:24:01] >> you wouldn't be from Monday or Tuesday.

[5:24:04] >> Anyways, so I I think it's a good thing.

[5:24:06] I feel like often um, we we love to

[5:24:10] gather and like I said, it's low

[5:24:12] commitment from the city. What? I don't

[5:24:14] know if we need to open up restrooms

[5:24:16] or are they closed? Aren't they closed

[5:24:18] on Sunday?

[5:24:19] >> They're open. Okay. So, again, like I

[5:24:22] don't know what it would be required. If

[5:24:23] that's something we could support, I

[5:24:26] would want it in the newsletter in June.

[5:24:28] Um, if we want to reach out to the

[5:24:30] powers that be of the three

[5:24:32] ecclesiastical units just to include it

[5:24:34] in their

[5:24:36] >> Does it have to be I don't know this

[5:24:37] about this. I love the idea. Does it

[5:24:38] have to be on the fifth? Can it be on

[5:24:39] the 6th or

[5:24:40] >> that's that is the that is the official

[5:24:43] >> for the 250 celebration. It's it's an

[5:24:46] official date that they're doing. Now

[5:24:49] that said, there's also the trucks and

[5:24:51] tunes on Tuesday. We could also do

[5:24:53] something that you know and not do it

[5:24:55] that day. It's kind of

[5:24:56] >> I'm not saying we want to because it's

[5:24:58] more work for me, but that's another

[5:24:59] option.

[5:25:02] I I want it to be less I want it to be

[5:25:04] less work for the city and more

[5:25:06] neighbors just gathering and whatever

[5:25:08] that mean whatever that looks like. And

[5:25:10] a lot of comments because I talked to

[5:25:12] them at Memorial Day from um you know

[5:25:15] the people the youth council leaders

[5:25:17] just asking them would you guys even be

[5:25:19] around? They just say a lot of their

[5:25:21] families travel. So it's not like we're

[5:25:22] going to be a mass gathering because

[5:25:24] like half the town is out of town. But

[5:25:27] those of us that aren't going out of

[5:25:28] town, we could gather and just get to

[5:25:31] know her and and it could be in

[5:25:32] neighborhood parks. I don't know. I'm

[5:25:34] throwing the idea out for feedback and

[5:25:36] wanting to get with a short time

[5:25:40] horizon. Um wanting your feedback.

[5:25:42] >> I love the idea. Is that going to make

[5:25:44] the whole staff have to work on a

[5:25:45] Sunday?

[5:25:47] >> No, I I think it's communitydriven.

[5:25:51] >> It's supposed to be community driven.

[5:25:52] It's supposed to even be no

[5:25:54] neighborhoods up. I mean, basically

[5:25:56] they're encouraging people. One part of

[5:25:58] the thing they wanted the city to do is

[5:26:01] allow people to close their roads off

[5:26:04] without having to go through hoops and

[5:26:07] things like that that they're able to do

[5:26:08] a culde-sac and do a neighborhood thing.

[5:26:10] So, they were encouraging the city side

[5:26:12] of it to loosen the restrictions so that

[5:26:15] they are able to do these little

[5:26:17] neighborhood um kind of ground floor

[5:26:20] stuff.

[5:26:21] Of course, that was really hard for me

[5:26:23] to agree to, but you know, I'm since we

[5:26:25] don't even blink if somebody does that

[5:26:27] in our neighborhoods. But

[5:26:28] >> maybe close the road, have some food,

[5:26:30] and light off $10,000 with fireworks.

[5:26:32] >> Fireworks. Yeah, that's

[5:26:34] >> No, that happened on on on Saturday.

[5:26:37] [laughter] We'll gather and clean up all

[5:26:38] the mess.

[5:26:41] >> Um there's also a a website that has all

[5:26:43] of the surrounding areas, all of their

[5:26:45] reg and so I will try and and

[5:26:47] communicate that to the community. what

[5:26:49] other um celebrations are happening that

[5:26:52] weekend. There's a lot of stuff up in

[5:26:53] Salt Lake going on. Um some really neat

[5:26:56] stuff that we can't really compete with

[5:26:58] honestly. And so I'm kind of trying to

[5:27:01] encourage and communicate with the

[5:27:03] people what else is going on in the

[5:27:05] state. They can really participate.

[5:27:07] There's some really neat things

[5:27:08] >> beyond the fifth or just on theth

[5:27:10] >> on the fourth. On the fourth on the

[5:27:12] whole time. Yeah. There's some

[5:27:13] [clears throat] really neat things at

[5:27:14] the cap. That kind of thing that are

[5:27:16] going to go on. So

[5:27:17] >> this thing there's some of the

[5:27:19] logistical challenges. If you do one big

[5:27:21] event either at Burgess or Creekide

[5:27:24] >> and you want bring people to bring

[5:27:26] dessert potlucks, you have to have a

[5:27:27] whole bunch of tables. There's just you

[5:27:29] have the pavilion, but there's just

[5:27:31] where would you put all those desserts?

[5:27:34] You could do the I guess you have two

[5:27:36] pavilions, but there is that right?

[5:27:38] >> People can bring their eight foot

[5:27:39] tables, too. You bring your own tables,

[5:27:41] >> but

[5:27:42] >> or we just

[5:27:42] >> if they're not reserved, maybe block out

[5:27:45] those days on the pavilions.

[5:27:47] >> Okay,

[5:27:48] >> that's easy. That I can do.

[5:27:50] >> I love the idea.

[5:27:51] >> If you do if you go through the the LDS

[5:27:55] church, you can ask them to do it by

[5:27:57] stakes and do like three or you could

[5:28:00] >> Yeah, maybe you do that. Maybe you work

[5:28:01] with the churches versus

[5:28:03] >> because I know

[5:28:04] >> that's what I was saying. If we could

[5:28:05] communicate because it is on a Sunday

[5:28:08] anyways. I don't I want to communicate

[5:28:09] through the city, but just

[5:28:11] >> designate the park maybe to go to. I

[5:28:14] don't know.

[5:28:14] >> I know the ward I go to, we make a

[5:28:16] concerted effort whenever we do

[5:28:18] something like this to invite everyone

[5:28:20] regardless of affiliation. Make it a

[5:28:23] neighborhood event.

[5:28:24] >> Oh, yeah.

[5:28:25] >> And this is a national event, so it's

[5:28:27] even more neighborhood than

[5:28:30] >> what you're talking about.

[5:28:30] >> Maybe ask the church to help coordinate

[5:28:34] it. So, we're in a couple different

[5:28:36] locations, but make sure it's

[5:28:38] communicated as a as a neighborhood

[5:28:40] thing or as a community thing.

[5:28:41] >> This kind of supposed to be a

[5:28:42] grassroots. It's supposed to be, you

[5:28:44] know, the people that you're around by,

[5:28:46] you know, that's the theme of it. That's

[5:28:47] why they're not doing something on a

[5:28:49] state level or on a county level.

[5:28:52] >> Or even quite honestly a city level in

[5:28:54] many cases depending on some of the

[5:28:56] smaller cities.

[5:28:57] >> What if we did it this way? We made if

[5:29:00] they want to host something and like

[5:29:02] then they contact the city to so that

[5:29:05] the reserve pazilian they like they

[5:29:07] could be said which ones have been

[5:29:08] reserved that are accessible for that

[5:29:10] event but that's it. If they if they

[5:29:13] don't make the effort to talk to get

[5:29:15] their neighbors together and they never

[5:29:17] I guess they'll just show up at the

[5:29:18] billion anyways I guess that's not going

[5:29:19] to work.

[5:29:20] >> So the other option is just put it out

[5:29:22] there as a nationwide event that we

[5:29:24] would encourage you to participate in.

[5:29:26] Yeah,

[5:29:26] >> someone step up in your neighborhood and

[5:29:28] start and just organize it.

[5:29:30] >> I like that.

[5:29:32] >> Keep it really simple.

[5:29:33] >> All right, I'll try and include it in

[5:29:34] the newsine too because it's going out

[5:29:36] next.

[5:29:37] >> I think that's good timing.

[5:29:38] >> Yeah, I think we just do that. I think

[5:29:40] >> I think yeah, if we just facilitate that

[5:29:42] it is a nationwide event that is really

[5:29:44] like I said low commitment

[5:29:46] >> even from people like we we we have to

[5:29:48] eat.

[5:29:48] >> Do you want to do you want her to know

[5:29:50] to tell people to bring food or water

[5:29:53] pops or something? I think it would be

[5:29:54] entirely up to the person, the

[5:29:56] neighborhood themselves, what they want

[5:29:57] to do.

[5:29:58] >> You could just give a few ideas for

[5:30:00] potluck or

[5:30:02] >> Yeah. Or everyone bring a popsicle or

[5:30:04] >> Yeah. So, we encourage you to celebrate

[5:30:07] America's 250, but you know,

[5:30:09] >> within your neighborhoods and in your

[5:30:10] Okay, that sounds great.

[5:30:11] >> So, you're not Creekide.

[5:30:13] >> Anything else?

[5:30:14] >> Nothing. We reserve the pavilion for

[5:30:15] these events. So,

[5:30:17] >> yeah. And I'll just say that, you know,

[5:30:18] we have pavilions available in the city

[5:30:20] throughout the city if you want to

[5:30:21] reserve and we'll wave the fee. Are we

[5:30:24] comfortable with that?

[5:30:25] >> Yeah, I think so. Yeah.

[5:30:26] >> But I would think if it's a neighborhood

[5:30:28] thing though that they would stay within

[5:30:29] the neighborhood at least like the ones

[5:30:30] that I've purchased. We

[5:30:32] >> My pavilion is in my neighborhood. And

[5:30:34] it's Burgess Park.

[5:30:35] >> Nice. And it's brand new. Do you have

[5:30:38] anything else?

[5:30:39] >> Anything else, Chrissy?

[5:30:41] >> Um, that was the last thing.

[5:30:42] >> Okay, Andrew,

[5:30:43] >> can you will you just bring out the

[5:30:44] folder? I'll run through these quick. Uh

[5:30:46] the um and you start at the bottom ones.

[5:30:49] Uh and I'll run through them quick. Not

[5:30:52] that. But isn't that nice? It could be a

[5:30:54] way better sign, but not that. Uh you close. You just start refresh it.

[5:30:59] You're going to want to refresh or this

[5:31:01] is up. This is how great of a job. Oh,

[5:31:03] you go go down. Uh well, no. If you

[5:31:07] start on the bottom because these are

[5:31:08] not with Okay, those are that's

[5:31:10] >> Come on. Hey, next time I do have a

[5:31:13] suggestion. Can you rename these?

[5:31:15] >> Yeah, I hope you're right. Okay, this is

[5:31:17] it. This is Okay, so resident reached

[5:31:19] out. Um, neighborhood reached out and

[5:31:22] wanted to bring Just scroll through

[5:31:23] these really quick.

[5:31:24] >> They'd like some Stop there. No, they'd

[5:31:26] like some help. If you go one more,

[5:31:28] Caden, they're petitioning for some

[5:31:31] help. Uh, Shane said, this was

[5:31:32] administrative thing, so I want to bring

[5:31:34] it up to you folks where um, you know

[5:31:36] about this. I guess every red sign is

[5:31:39] where there are signs already. They're

[5:31:42] let they're telling me that uh and I'm

[5:31:44] sure you as well that the people are not

[5:31:46] parking for the Timberline school in the

[5:31:49] Timberline parking lots. They're parking

[5:31:51] all the way up to the very end of that

[5:31:53] street where all those black dots are.

[5:31:54] So, they're asking for some more signs

[5:31:56] there. Okay, you can go to the next one.

[5:31:57] So, feel free to think about that. Uh

[5:31:59] this was already brought up, but this is

[5:32:00] a really great letter about the uh fire

[5:32:03] department building and history that I

[5:32:05] had no idea from the Watkins family.

[5:32:07] didn't know he had built this building

[5:32:09] or or did the addition in the 90s to

[5:32:11] this building. Great great insight if

[5:32:12] you want to read that. This is really

[5:32:14] good. I think you will actually love

[5:32:15] this. I had no idea about this. This is

[5:32:18] we had a meeting this week. Uh Jessica

[5:32:21] set it up. Um I went to it uh and

[5:32:25] learned all about our Bonavville trail.

[5:32:27] So I can explain this because this

[5:32:28] doesn't make sense. This is our

[5:32:29] Bonavville Shoreline Trail in Alpine.

[5:32:33] And where it is read, and I'm sorry, I

[5:32:35] was drawing over it while he was

[5:32:37] talking. Where it is read is where we

[5:32:39] have easements.

[5:32:40] And there are lots of places, I'm sorry,

[5:32:43] it's hard to uh understand. I can show

[5:32:45] you oneonone, but there are lots of gaps

[5:32:48] where it is not finished, our trail. And

[5:32:51] so his ask was that we work on things to

[5:32:55] try to complete it. So it goes through p

[5:32:59] Oh, well, no, you stay there. Sorry,

[5:33:01] Ken. It goes through private land, uh,

[5:33:03] federal forest land, and, um, county

[5:33:07] land. And so, it's something we can

[5:33:09] always be working on. And so, he put it

[5:33:10] on my radar. This is on the east side.

[5:33:13] So, you're looking at this on the east

[5:33:14] side. That's from American Fort on the

[5:33:15] bottom. Just key point when it hits

[5:33:18] Lambert Park. Whether to go up and

[5:33:21] around um the Lambert Estates

[5:33:24] neighborhood is difficult, but ideal

[5:33:26] because it acts as a twofold thing. a

[5:33:29] really nice trail, a fire break, but

[5:33:32] also that's a very hard direction to go.

[5:33:34] So, they have it going right through

[5:33:35] Lambert Park to bring it up. It goes

[5:33:37] right through the Fitzgerald

[5:33:38] neighborhood, and I don't know if we

[5:33:41] have done anything to preserve that

[5:33:43] through the Fitzgerald.

[5:33:44] >> We did. It's part of the annexation

[5:33:46] agreement.

[5:33:46] >> Great. Okay, great. So, yeah, I assumed

[5:33:48] we did. I I know we did on the lower

[5:33:49] one. I don't know if we did on the

[5:33:50] Bonavville Short Trail Line one, but you

[5:33:52] would know better. He did say how

[5:33:53] wonderful you've been, mayor, in this

[5:33:55] whole process and how much you know

[5:33:56] about it. Anyways, it goes up. So we're

[5:33:58] trying to connect it around the north

[5:34:00] end. There's geographic things. If you

[5:34:01] go to the previous one, Caden, this is

[5:34:04] the west side. So this is how it kind of

[5:34:05] wraps around and goes to the west side.

[5:34:07] This goes it would connect ideally

[5:34:10] through to Draper. Um this is the this

[5:34:13] is what he said. This is the the yellow

[5:34:15] dotted line is where we they would like

[5:34:17] to do it but can't do it because of

[5:34:20] various things. Sometimes it's private

[5:34:22] land, sometimes it is um draper land,

[5:34:26] and they're trying to connect it up by

[5:34:27] Fort Canyon. So, just to have it on your

[5:34:29] radar is a long-term thing that we're

[5:34:31] always looking at. Beautiful trail um

[5:34:33] and something that they're trying to

[5:34:34] get.

[5:34:35] >> There is connection there, but Draper

[5:34:37] has rerouted the Bonavville Shoreline

[5:34:39] Trail. It doesn't go there.

[5:34:41] >> Oh, okay. Okay. So, so these are updates

[5:34:43] that you you should we should have maybe

[5:34:45] a future meeting where you can come and

[5:34:47] tell me what any of us can do to help

[5:34:50] with this, whether it's talk to people

[5:34:51] who have private land or I believe

[5:34:54] you've done a great job with the city

[5:34:55] land and anything else we can update it.

[5:34:57] Okay, you can go through those cadence.

[5:34:59] We can get through this quick.

[5:34:59] >> Is this a meeting? I'm sorry. Was this a

[5:35:01] meeting with a resident or so on?

[5:35:03] >> Amazing. I did not know it's it's a

[5:35:05] nonprofit. He's a guy. I guess they have

[5:35:08] representatives in every county. It is

[5:35:09] not a state or a government thing. It is

[5:35:11] a nonprofit called the Bonavville

[5:35:13] Shoreline Trail nonprofit and they go in

[5:35:16] and they instruct um cities on how to do

[5:35:19] this. And so uh Jessica set it up and I

[5:35:22] said I'd love to go. I thought

[5:35:24] >> so we've been working four years to try

[5:35:26] to get a mini NEPA done by the Forest

[5:35:28] Service.

[5:35:28] >> You can go back Kaden. Sorry.

[5:35:29] >> So it's the Forest Service has to

[5:35:32] recognize that trail and we need that in

[5:35:35] order to designate it as part of the

[5:35:37] Bonavville Shoreline Trail. We started

[5:35:39] with Ryan years ago and um he was

[5:35:43] working with the Forest Service. I was

[5:35:45] pushing from the administrative side of

[5:35:48] the Forest Service. But it was when I

[5:35:51] finally understood right before Brian

[5:35:54] left was he did not understand that

[5:35:56] parts of the trail and where the Forest

[5:36:01] Service and where the Alpine City

[5:36:05] um boundaries aligned with the trail. he

[5:36:07] wasn't as familiar with it. And what the

[5:36:10] Forest Service was asking was for us to

[5:36:13] move the trail so that it was within the

[5:36:16] city instead of in the Forest Service on

[5:36:19] the bottom because

[5:36:20] >> the green is forest.

[5:36:21] >> So, um, Senator Curtis passed a law in

[5:36:27] Congress that allowed us to have bikes

[5:36:30] just on the top portion. The bottom

[5:36:33] portion was not included in his bill.

[5:36:36] And so he was asking move it and Ryan

[5:36:39] did not understand that that's what the

[5:36:41] Forest Service was asking for. And so my

[5:36:44] understanding is we're still waiting for

[5:36:46] the mini NEPA. The mini NEPa takes

[5:36:48] anywhere from 6 months to a year and

[5:36:52] hopefully we'll be able to get that but

[5:36:54] we just need to make sure that the

[5:36:55] correct alignment and the designation is

[5:36:58] there.

[5:36:58] >> Yeah. The red is what we don't own or

[5:37:01] what is not established. The black is

[5:37:03] what we have already created easements

[5:37:06] for with exception on the top where I

[5:37:08] was scribbling.

[5:37:09] >> Yeah. And the red on the east side that

[5:37:12] is up to the forest service to

[5:37:13] recognize. And before the forest service

[5:37:15] will recognize it, they have to do a

[5:37:17] NEPA or a mini NEPA and that's why it

[5:37:19] stops where it does as opposed to going

[5:37:21] up more north.

[5:37:22] >> Right. So I'll just I'll try to help and

[5:37:24] anything you want to do or any

[5:37:25] suggestion you have. I'm sorry on the

[5:37:26] previous one. If you want us to do

[5:37:27] anything on those signs, let us know.

[5:37:29] Kaden, if you just go through really

[5:37:30] quick. I think only a couple minutes.

[5:37:31] Oh, this is just a fire break we made.

[5:37:33] If you keep going around, um, so we did

[5:37:35] a fire break this last weekend. That I was so proud of it. If you go

[5:37:39] >> Is that on private property?

[5:37:40] >> Yes, this is private property and it

[5:37:43] gets a So, uh, yeah. Isn't that nice

[5:37:45] though? Trucks can go. I almost killed

[5:37:47] myself doing it. So, anyways, probably

[5:37:48] wouldn't have been here if it would do

[5:37:49] that.

[5:37:50] >> Yeah, if you would have saw it.

[5:37:52] >> It is mine, but um, you can keep going.

[5:37:55] >> Sure.

[5:37:56] >> Yeah, but it but it goes into other

[5:37:57] people's too. We're we're kind of just

[5:37:59] working on the east side. I didn't photo

[5:38:00] there. Th this was just uh something

[5:38:02] that people drive by and I I thought if

[5:38:04] there's anything any eagle scout or

[5:38:05] anything I I say we redo it, paint it.

[5:38:08] >> This is uh the the Dry Creek um uh fence

[5:38:12] area and I think it's just needing some

[5:38:14] love.

[5:38:14] >> Uh this is on 100 South. Is that right?

[5:38:18] The Alto Bank Street.

[5:38:20] >> And it just needs some love that uh that

[5:38:22] um uh fence there. Um and I think it'

[5:38:26] look nice painted alpine blue. Um sorry

[5:38:28] I had to bring it up. Keep going. Um,

[5:38:31] this is how wonderful y'all did at the

[5:38:33] main street. You did such a great job

[5:38:35] making it look so lovely. You put up

[5:38:37] flags. Everyone was so impressed. If you

[5:38:39] keep going to the next one, Kaden,

[5:38:41] you'll see the Memorial Day that they

[5:38:42] did, which was just phenomenal. I was so

[5:38:45] impressed with uh how y'all handled the

[5:38:48] cemetery. No, you'll go to the next um

[5:38:52] the one through

[5:38:54] uh like the

[5:38:57] >> Okay, cool.

[5:38:59] Yeah, it can be done if you want. Oh.

[5:39:02] Uh, yeah. Any there's videos of um the

[5:39:06] this you guys really you you I wish we

[5:39:11] did this at the beginning of me. You did

[5:39:13] phenomenal and everyone appreciated it

[5:39:15] and it looked phenomenal and the work

[5:39:18] paid off and we are so grateful.

[5:39:20] >> Really quick, who puts those flags

[5:39:21] there? Is that

[5:39:23] >> okay? That's what I thought. the whole

[5:39:24] thing.

[5:39:26] >> Deianne coordinates.

[5:39:27] >> Brit Jenkins,

[5:39:28] >> the veterans and

[5:39:31] >> Britt does this every year and she's

[5:39:33] amazing. Do we have Jessica online or

[5:39:36] did she drop?

[5:39:37] >> I She called me um and I texted her back

[5:39:40] and she hasn't answered. So, I think she

[5:39:42] dropped and was letting me know.

[5:39:44] >> She's done. [laughter]

[5:39:46] >> Yeah,

[5:39:47] >> I don't think.

[5:39:48] >> Okay. Um with that done, I will

[5:39:50] entertain a motion to adjurnn. Before we

[5:39:54] make the motion, I forgot I looked back

[5:39:56] in my life, but I forgot to look

[5:39:58] forward. We have our finance committee

[5:39:59] meeting 8 am on Thursday in the

[5:40:01] conference room. We have a guest from uh

[5:40:04] the tax commission coming talking about

[5:40:07] sales tax and she will be joining us via

[5:40:09] Zoom and um so it'll be intriguing.

[5:40:15] >> Yay. Okay. Motion.

[5:40:19] >> I move to adjurnn.

[5:40:20] >> Is there a second? I'll second. All in

[5:40:23] favor?

[5:40:23] >> I I

[5:40:29] Those are good. I like going to those. I tried to come. I haven't been able to

[5:40:32] go to them anymore. The light.

5.26.26 City Council Meeting

Transcript