[0:00] Call starting to my far left.

[0:05] >> Andrew Young present.

[0:06] >> Jessica Smean present. Sarah Blackwell

[0:09] present.

[0:10] >> Brent Rumbler present.

[0:11] >> Okay, perfect. I'm sorry. I didn't

[0:12] realize you were on that. I'm like, is

[0:14] Brent online? So, thank you, Brent.

[0:15] Appreciate you joining. And then I did

[0:18] get communication from um Councilwoman

[0:20] Henman and she is in route and we'll be

[0:23] running a few minutes late. We will have

[0:25] a prayer offered by Councilwoman

[0:27] Blackwell and then a pledge led by

[0:29] Councilman Young.

[0:31] >> Our dear father in heaven, we're

[0:32] grateful for this beautiful day and

[0:34] we're grateful for the opportunity we

[0:36] have to be gathered together as a

[0:38] community and as a governing body. We

[0:43] acknowledge thy hand and all that we do

[0:45] and we're so grateful for their freedoms

[0:47] that we enjoy and for those who have

[0:48] given their lives for those freedoms. We

[0:50] pray that we might honor them by the way

[0:53] we conduct our lives and pray that this

[0:56] evening that we might act with integrity

[0:59] and transparency and have the best

[1:02] interest of the residents of Alpine in

[1:04] mind. And we say these things in the

[1:05] name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

[1:06] >> Amen.

[1:06] >> All arise.

[1:09] Please join with us in the pledge of

[1:11] allegiance.

[1:13] I pledge algiance to the flag of the

[1:16] United States of America and to the

[1:19] republic for which it stands, one nation

[1:22] under God, indivisible, with liberty and

[1:26] justice for all.

[1:27] >> Thank you.

[1:30] Um, we will proceed with item

[1:32] two, which is the consent calendar. I'll

[1:36] ask is are there any questions regarding

[1:38] the items on the consent calendar?

[1:41] If not,

[1:42] >> just one uh and that is uh and pardon if

[1:45] it's already come up. The uh on the

[1:48] certified tax rate, did they get us the

[1:51] number on those? I think it would just

[1:52] be great to have my Have you Did you

[1:53] already send those out? I know they were

[1:55] supposed to come today.

[1:56] >> No. So, I I just going to bring this up.

[1:58] I got an email today from Bert Harvey

[2:01] with Utah County. So, all the

[2:03] information has been sent to the state

[2:05] tax commission, but they have not

[2:08] finished on their end. And I also found

[2:10] out as of May 1st there was a change in

[2:13] the law where they're supposed to have

[2:14] that done by June 8th, but as of May 1st

[2:17] it changed to the 13th,

[2:19] >> but they didn't change the back end of

[2:22] when we have to have our our certified

[2:25] tax rate adopted by. So likely what

[2:28] we're going to have to do is just have a

[2:29] quick noon city council meeting for five

[2:33] minutes or whatever to adopt the rate.

[2:35] >> So do we want to

[2:36] >> So it's everything but item C. Is that

[2:38] correct? Oh, did you already scratch

[2:40] item C?

[2:41] >> No, that's what I just said. So, we'll

[2:43] be item C.

[2:44] >> Okay. So, are y'all okay since we don't

[2:46] know the rate to move item C to another

[2:49] day?

[2:50] >> Well, we can't approve it because we

[2:52] don't know what it is.

[2:52] >> Well, okay. I'm just timid because every

[2:54] time I bring up something, I get yelled

[2:55] at.

[2:56] >> No, you just make the motion and you

[2:57] just say, you know, you approve um the

[2:59] items on the consent calendar. It might

[3:01] be the most important number in all of

[3:03] our lives.

[3:04] >> Okay. So, I'll entertain a motion. I'll

[3:08] make a motion. Uh I move to approve the

[3:11] consent calendar

[3:13] and move item C for a future meeting.

[3:18] >> I second that. Okay. It's been moved by

[3:20] Councilman Young, seconded by

[3:23] Councilwoman Blackwell.

[3:25] Any questions on the motion? If not,

[3:28] we'll proceed with a roll call vote.

[3:30] Starting with um Councilwoman Blackwell.

[3:33] >> Oh, Sarah Blackwell. Yes.

[3:35] >> Andrew Young, yes. Jessica Smeuan. Yes.

[3:37] >> Okay.

[3:38] >> Brent Brent Rmler. Yes.

[3:39] >> Okay. Thank you. Um consent calendar

[3:42] passes. We'll move on to public comment.

[3:46] And um we've got Tyler Carter who will

[3:50] be followed by Mr. Jeff Davis. If you

[3:53] can come up and state your name and just

[3:55] the street that you live on and then

[3:58] you'll have three minutes to make your

[3:59] comment. Kaden, can you put three

[4:01] minutes on the

[4:07] Tyler Carter

[4:10] Drive.

[4:13] I'm making a general comment regarding

[4:15] our water.

[4:19] » There's like a button on the bottom

[4:21] cylinder.

[4:25] » How's that? Okay. Tyler Carter. I live

[4:28] on Matterhorn Drive. Um I've lived here

[4:30] for 13 years. I'm not an old-timer, but

[4:33] I'm not a newcomer either. Um, as a

[4:35] concerned citizen with regards to water,

[4:38] um, there are very few things that sneak

[4:40] up on us or even that we care about as a

[4:42] population. We care about safety here.

[4:44] We care about traffic. We care about

[4:47] utilities. Um, it's my concern that we

[4:50] are not planning far enough in the

[4:53] future from a water perspective. Every

[4:55] summer, um, we have pauses on the water

[4:57] system. We've got, you know, growing

[5:00] populations.

[5:01] As a concerned citizen and not a rich

[5:04] citizen, I would ask that we do the

[5:07] things that are necessary for our

[5:08] future, even if they are painful. If we

[5:10] need to raise taxes, raise taxes. If we

[5:12] need to raise rates on water, raise

[5:14] rates. But by all means, please plan for

[5:18] our future. Um, this applies to every

[5:20] issue. Um, but I'm here tonight talking

[5:24] about water because I think if you

[5:26] pulled our citizens, people care about

[5:28] their yards. They care about water

[5:30] delivery. And sometimes

[5:33] um I think Alpine has a a history of

[5:36] acting like a small town because we are

[5:37] a small town. I think it's in our

[5:39] interest to act as a more mature, larger

[5:42] entity and plan further into the future.

[5:44] So that's all. Thank you.

[5:46] >> Thank you. I appreciate it. Mr. Jeff

[5:48] Davis, followed by Mr. Steve Burroughs.

[5:57] » Okay. Uh Jeff Davis,

[6:00] friends, uh Alpine, longtime Alpine

[6:04] resident, uh and I also serve on the

[6:08] water community task force. So, I just

[6:12] want to bring up a few things.

[6:16] Um, I also want to

[6:18] state that I'm also a water engineer.

[6:22] So, I say these things with experience

[6:24] because this is what I do on the daily.

[6:27] Okay. So,

[6:30] um,

[6:32] Horox has done master planning work for

[6:37] several periods, several cycles,

[6:40] including the one that was released last

[6:41] year. Okay.

[6:43] Um I want to just state you know based

[6:46] on my understanding and and knowledge of

[6:49] our system

[6:51] um that according to last year's

[6:55] uh report

[6:57] um that we were okay on supply but

[7:02] deficient on storage.

[7:06] Long-term we are definitely short on

[7:09] storage and short on supply. Okay. So, I

[7:13] recognize th those two things. Okay. I

[7:17] also recognize that they have gone

[7:19] through and prioritized the items of

[7:23] what we want done. Okay. In order of

[7:26] priority and I agree with those five

[7:30] items that they listed in the report

[7:32] last year. Okay. and that includes

[7:37] uh the storage, the pressure reducing

[7:39] valve and also the heritage hills well.

[7:42] Okay. So I concur with their uh with

[7:46] their findings.

[7:48] The

[7:50] I also recognize that the supply from

[7:54] central Utah uh is not guaranteed. In

[7:57] fact, we found out uh just recently that

[8:01] they are telling us and the other

[8:03] communities that they're supplying

[8:04] water, don't count on that. Don't count

[8:07] on your full aotment. And so, in my

[8:11] experience, in my understanding,

[8:14] uh water from central Utah is not going

[8:17] to go up and it's definitely not going

[8:20] to stay the same going into the future.

[8:23] It will only go down. Okay? And so we

[8:26] need to recogni we need to recognize

[8:28] that. So

[8:31] um

[8:33] the the the one last thing that I would

[8:35] want to say is

[8:38] on the pressurized irrigation we have

[8:40] and culinary we have a level of service

[8:44] requirement.

[8:45] Okay. That level of service requirement

[8:48] is not currently being met on the

[8:51] pressurized irrigation for several

[8:53] locations in our city. Okay. So, those

[8:56] five items really need to be

[8:59] >> prioritized put in. Okay.

[9:01] >> Thank you.

[9:03] Uh, Mr. Burroughs.

[9:12] » Hello everyone. Steve Burroughs uh

[9:15] living on Meadow Lark. Uh, I'm here as

[9:18] chair of the Alpine Water Citizens

[9:21] Advisory Group. Um, as we sent to our

[9:25] council members and the city leadership,

[9:28] we unanimously um recommend that the

[9:32] city create the financing necessary to

[9:35] fix the deficiencies that are currently

[9:37] in our PI system and to anticipate the

[9:41] supply needed in the future, namely the

[9:44] Healey well.

[9:46] Um, we I think as I think about this, is a big decision. As I think back

[9:51] 20 years, Shane was here 20 years ago.

[9:54] Our water guy Greg was here 20 years ago

[9:56] when the PI system was put in and it was

[9:59] bonded. That was that generation.

[10:02] You are this generation. It's a

[10:05] generational decision to incur what

[10:07] needs to be incurred and pass along to

[10:09] citizens advertised over time to fix

[10:12] what's needed. And as Jeff so uh well

[10:15] said, the harpinger for the future is

[10:19] not more water sources, but less water

[10:21] sources. Lastly, I'd like to read very

[10:24] quickly a letter of support from two uh

[10:27] alpine citizens.

[10:29] This is Meredith and Nathan Simpson who

[10:33] live on uh Woodlands Drive. It says,

[10:36] "Mary and I would like to express our

[10:39] support for Alpine City moving forward

[10:41] with a proposed bond to fund the

[10:43] critical improvements identified for the

[10:45] city's pressured ice irrigation system.

[10:48] We recognize that asking citizens to

[10:50] support additional so infrastructure

[10:52] investment is never an easy decision.

[10:54] However, we believe effective leadership

[10:56] requires balancing today's costs with

[10:59] tomorrow's needs. In our view, the

[11:01] projects identified through the

[11:03] collaboration of the city staff, Horox

[11:05] Consulting, and Alpine Water Citizens

[11:08] Advisory Committee represent prudent,

[11:10] forward-looking investments in Alpine's

[11:12] future. Reliable water infrastructure is

[11:14] essential to the quality of life that

[11:17] residents enjoy in our community. The

[11:19] proposed improvements will strengthen

[11:21] system eligibility and enhance fire flow

[11:24] protection, increase water storage

[11:26] capacity, improve operational

[11:28] efficiency, and support reasonable water

[11:30] conservation efforts. Just just as

[11:33] importantly, these projects position

[11:35] Alpine to meet the future demand while

[11:37] making the best use of existing water

[11:40] resources. We also recognize this

[11:42] proposal is not uh simply about

[11:44] preparing for future growth. The city is

[11:47] already experiencing capacity

[11:48] constraints within portions of the

[11:50] existing system, including periodic

[11:52] requests for residents to reduce water

[11:54] usage during peak demand times. These

[11:58] those challenges highlight the

[12:00] importance of addressing known

[12:02] deficiencies now rather than waiting.

[12:06] I'll the letter is not complete, but I

[12:08] will make sure you each have a letter.

[12:10] And I just end with be courageous. This

[12:13] is a generational decision and uh we

[12:16] support your decisions to bond. Thank

[12:18] you.

[12:19] >> Thank you, Mr. Burroughs.

[12:20] >> Okay, let's move on to reports and

[12:23] presentations. We have um

[12:27] the

[12:30] financial reports, Shane.

[12:33] >> Okay, so we're down to one month left in

[12:37] the budget year. Um

[12:39] so overall we're meeting our revenue

[12:43] marks that we have uh budgeted for this

[12:46] year and

[12:49] expenses are in line as well. Um

[12:53] sales tax uh Kaden if do you have that

[12:56] graph?

[12:59] So this would be with basically nine

[13:02] months so three months still coming. Um

[13:06] we're about 3.8 8% um over where we were

[13:10] last year. So that's that's trending

[13:12] well. And again, that kind of fluctuates

[13:14] up and down, which we learned a little

[13:16] bit more about in a finance committee

[13:18] meeting, I think last week. Might have

[13:20] been the week before. I can't remember

[13:22] now. Yeah. So, um we'll be going through

[13:27] our budget with a fine tooth comb and uh just in case we need an amendment

[13:34] somewhat. I don't anticipate anything

[13:35] major.

[13:37] Um but that would be at our meeting in

[13:39] two weeks. So we have that public

[13:41] hearing addressed um just in the event

[13:43] that we need to make an adjustment for

[13:45] this budget year. So besides that, we're

[13:49] just working on the budget um for the

[13:52] upcoming year and that will come to you

[13:54] for final budget approval in two weeks

[13:56] as well.

[13:57] >> Thank you. Oh, before we proceed, I want

[13:59] to recognize that Christy Councilwoman

[14:01] Hannaman is now also present. Um, thank

[14:04] you for um, coming. Um, any questions

[14:08] regarding the finance packet or finance

[14:11] report?

[14:13] >> I would just say Shane, the

[14:17] this meeting coming up is probably the

[14:18] most important one.

[14:19] >> Microphone.

[14:20] >> Yeah, sorry, I'm just talking like I

[14:23] swallowed something. Um, this meeting

[14:26] for the uh, for all the folks to know is

[14:28] our like our one-year meeting, our

[14:30] budget meeting. And I just like think it

[14:34] would be great to get that out there to

[14:36] everyone to let them know that this is

[14:38] their public hearing to hear what the

[14:39] next year is going to be. And I don't

[14:41] know if we have any plans to put it in

[14:42] the in an announcement in anything. I

[14:45] just think probably you'd get a lot of

[14:47] people that don't typically get involved

[14:49] to be like, "Oh, okay. This is the time

[14:50] I can get involved."

[14:51] >> So, we do for um every time you do

[14:54] budgeting, we have to have a public

[14:55] hearing and then we post it. Um, and we

[14:58] do it through the newspaper, we do it

[15:00] through our social media, we do it on

[15:01] our bulletin boards.

[15:03] >> So,

[15:03] >> all right. Well, let your friends know,

[15:04] let your neighbors know. This is the

[15:06] biggest meeting coming up next one

[15:08] >> for the whole year.

[15:09] >> On that same vein, we um as the finance

[15:11] committee, we put together the citizens

[15:13] budget, and it's more of a a user more

[15:16] user friendly than um this many pages.

[15:19] It was just a two-page document last

[15:21] year that we do insert into the news

[15:23] line.

[15:23] >> The blue one.

[15:24] >> Yes. But it's after we approve it so

[15:26] that there's they're not anyways. So I

[15:30] agree with you and it comes into the

[15:32] news line in a two-page document just

[15:35] and if they have more questions

[15:36] sometimes they um come to these meetings

[15:38] and ask them.

[15:39] >> Cool.

[15:40] >> Okay Brent, do you have any questions?

[15:44] >> I do not. Thanks.

[15:45] >> Okay. If let's um move on to item B then

[15:49] fraud risk assessment.

[15:51] >> Yeah. So this is something we have to do

[15:53] each budget year. It's a requirement of

[15:55] the state auditor's office. Um it

[15:57] doesn't require a motion from the

[15:58] council. We're just supposed to do kind

[16:01] of a self assessment

[16:03] provide this to council and and then u

[16:07] um

[16:08] Dave will report this um to the state

[16:11] auditor's office. So

[16:14] uh

[16:17] okay. So, uh, Dave and I went through

[16:20] this and,

[16:22] um, our score is 375 out of a possible

[16:25] 395. I was hesitating here. There's one

[16:29] that should be blank and for some reason

[16:31] there's a number there. I'm not sure

[16:33] why. Uh,

[16:37] anyway, our score is 375, which is in

[16:39] the uh, very low category.

[16:44] Um, so we feel like we're meeting the

[16:47] requirements and and what they're asking

[16:49] us to do, a separation of duties and and

[16:51] all those things. That's kind of what

[16:53] this is about.

[16:55] >> Anybody have questions?

[16:56] >> I just have one question. Is Dave

[16:58] considered part of the management team?

[17:00] Just looking at 3A. Okay,

[17:02] >> he is.

[17:03] >> Yep.

[17:09] » Anything else? Unless there's any

[17:11] questions, we'll get this we'll get this

[17:13] filed.

[17:14] >> Perfect.

[17:15] >> With the state.

[17:16] >> Okay. So, we'll move on to item C, which

[17:18] is the water projects bonding

[17:20] discussion. Mr. Anderson,

[17:23] Mr. Anderson's from Zans's financial.

[17:25] Thank you so much for coming tonight and

[17:27] hopefully it'll be very enlightening for

[17:28] everybody. It's a pleasure being here,

[17:31] Mayor Merrill, and uh I assisted the

[17:34] city with the refunding of the 2010

[17:36] bonds in 2020,

[17:38] but that was a co year and I never was

[17:40] able to actually attend in person. So,

[17:43] it's a pleasure to be here. It's also a

[17:45] unique experience to come to a meeting

[17:47] where people are actually wanting peop

[17:49] the community to issue bonds. So, that's

[17:52] a a really great night for me. Um but uh

[17:56] just an introduction I've been with

[17:58] Zans's public finance for eight years.

[18:00] Prior to that I was the city manager of

[18:02] Heber City for 20 years and finance

[18:04] director for eight years prior to that.

[18:08] Had the good fortune of meeting with

[18:10] some members of the finance committee a

[18:12] few months ago to talk about bonding and

[18:15] the bonding process and options. And

[18:17] we'll cover a little bit some of that

[18:19] same information that we went over with

[18:22] that committee a few months ago.

[18:24] But uh specifically and and this

[18:28] conversation will have a little bit to

[18:29] do with the sales tax bonds that we're

[18:31] talking about later this evening for the

[18:34] fire station project. But anyhow, the the city currently has the 2020 uh

[18:43] water revenue and refunding bonds. These

[18:47] are the bonds that we refinanced or

[18:49] refunded in 2020. And you can see the

[18:53] amortization amortization schedule

[18:56] there. Very favorable interest rate

[18:58] 1.33%.

[19:00] It was a 10-year term. Uh we uh

[19:05] refinanced uh some of the existing bonds

[19:08] and then borrowed some additional money

[19:09] for a project. There's four remaining

[19:12] principal payments left. It matures I

[19:15] believe in October of uh 29. and your

[19:20] annual payments are about $377,000

[19:23] a year.

[19:25] So that gives you a context of what debt

[19:27] you have currently. So Kaden, if you

[19:29] could go to the next slide and we'll

[19:32] talk about this is an exercise that I've

[19:35] been working with Shane on as it relates

[19:38] to, you know, what's been our historic

[19:41] bond coverage for the one bond that

[19:44] we've had outstanding as a city and what

[19:46] does it look like coverage-wise if we

[19:49] were to issue a second bond uh later

[19:52] this year?

[19:54] And uh

[19:57] for utilities or utility revenue bonds,

[20:02] we typically uh re see a 1.25%

[20:08] coverage requirement or or 1.25 25

[20:11] coverage requirement, which means that

[20:14] your operating revenues minus your

[20:16] operating expenses

[20:19] uh excluding depreciation

[20:21] needs to be at least 125% of any

[20:24] outstanding annual bond payment.

[20:27] Does that make sense? So, if you had a

[20:30] million dollar bond payment on an annual

[20:32] basis, you'd have to show net revenues

[20:34] available for debt service of a,250,000.

[20:41] So as you look at this historically

[20:45] uh from 2021 and estimated through 2026

[20:50] uh you know we've had coverage of 1.63

[20:53] times

[20:54] uh with and gone up as high as 2.55

[20:58] times in in uh 2025

[21:02] estimated to be lower this year. That's

[21:04] excluding

[21:06] uh using impact fees in that

[21:08] calculation. Sometimes we like to

[21:10] exclude impact fees in the calculation

[21:13] because they can be cyclical. If the

[21:16] economy turns bad and and construction

[21:18] there's a construction downturn, then

[21:21] you can't necessarily always rely on

[21:23] those as a a dependable revenue source.

[21:27] So, uh

[21:30] because you're the

[21:33] uh the managers of the water system,

[21:38] uh when you issue bonds, you make a

[21:40] covenant with the bond holders that you

[21:42] will pledge to keep rates at a level

[21:45] that will allow you to maintain the

[21:47] required coverage. And you can control

[21:50] that because uh you can uh uh modify

[21:54] rates as needed uh through resolution.

[21:59] Um so but if we look further and say

[22:03] okay if we start a water remedy bond

[22:06] series 2026

[22:08] starting the first payment in 2027.

[22:11] You can see those red highlighted

[22:13] numbers. They're hard to read, but it

[22:16] would show that with existing rates and

[22:22] projected by Shane for revenues and

[22:26] expenses, we can't meet that minimum

[22:28] 1.25 coverage requirement. So there obviously has to be an increase in

[22:34] rates to get yourself in a situation or

[22:37] a reduction in expenses, which is

[22:39] probably harder to do.

[22:40] >> Yeah. And I'll just tell you what we did

[22:41] there. We just took our our budget for

[22:44] this coming year in the 2027 column and

[22:47] just everything was increased by 3% per

[22:50] year. So, so it's and and if you look at

[22:54] 2025, you know, we had 1.3 million in in

[22:58] water uh revenue. Um we had budgeted

[23:03] lower than that in 26 and we kept it,

[23:06] you can see it's the same in 27. not

[23:09] knowing if people are going to conserve,

[23:10] we're going to get less revenue, it's a

[23:12] hard number to just pin right down at

[23:14] this point.

[23:16] >> So, they're estimates

[23:17] >> and in years like this where there's

[23:19] concerns about adequacy of water, it's

[23:22] always a a difficult situation for

[23:25] cities because if you encou encourage

[23:28] conservations, then your revenue uh

[23:30] declines and it forces you to increase

[23:33] rates to make up for the lost revenue to

[23:36] so you can pay the bills. Um, the

[23:38] numbers that I've budgeted, if you can

[23:41] see water revenue bond series 2026 under

[23:44] the debt service heading

[23:47] only represent

[23:49] interest payments only. That's the

[23:51] absolute minimum uh amount that you

[23:55] could pay on those bonds. These are

[23:56] indicative rates that we've used to

[23:58] estimate what that might be on a $9

[24:01] million bond over a 25year term. So,

[24:06] uh, after 2030, the 2020 bonds pay off

[24:11] and so that $378,000

[24:15] annual bill that you've had to pay on

[24:18] the 2020 bonds goes away. Uh so you get

[24:22] some relief but assuming we did interest

[24:25] only for the first uh four years of the

[24:29] bond and then started paying principal

[24:32] on a level amortization the same payment

[24:34] for the remaining 21 years. You're

[24:36] looking at a payment about $640,000.

[24:41] So it would actually be less than what

[24:43] would be required for the first four

[24:45] years

[24:47] uh of of the new bond.

[24:50] Does that make sense?

[24:52] >> Can you Can you say that amount one more

[24:54] time?

[24:54] >> $640,000

[24:56] >> about $640,000 annual payment if you

[24:58] have a level amortization for the last

[25:00] 21 years and interest only for the first

[25:03] four.

[25:04] >> And then what year does the current bond

[25:06] roll off? 29.

[25:08] >> Uh the final payments made in October

[25:10] 29. So fiscal year 2030.

[25:13] >> So what does 2031 look like?

[25:16] Well, it would be $640,000

[25:20] total if you did a level amortization

[25:23] from that point on approximately

[25:25] on a 25-y year bond.

[25:29] Any questions about debt service

[25:31] coverage?

[25:33] >> Have you have you done the calculation

[25:35] what that would look like for each

[25:37] >> household? Household

[25:38] >> have not.

[25:39] >> Okay.

[25:41] >> I would I think you might have a model

[25:44] that you could model you know, what kind

[25:47] of rate increases you would have to uh

[25:50] enact to generate the amount of revenue

[25:52] to provide coverage and uh determine how

[25:56] that impacts the average

[25:57] >> we have in the city is about 3,5200.

[26:00] >> I checked the last uh utility bill that

[26:02] just went out um we sent out 2941

[26:07] utility bills. So, some of those would

[26:09] be commercial with probably less

[26:11] irrigation use, but that's that's how

[26:14] many we set up.

[26:17] So, let me maybe make one other comment.

[26:20] Um, this coverage table that I prepared

[26:24] only uses revenues from the pressurized

[26:26] irrigation system. Um, because that's

[26:31] who the beneficiary is of the bonds that

[26:33] have been issued or anticipated to be

[26:36] issued. The bonds that were issued in

[26:38] 2010 and subsequently refunded in 2020

[26:42] had a pledge of both the culinary water

[26:44] and the pressurized irrigation system.

[26:46] And that revenue pledge has to remain

[26:48] intact as long as those 2020 bonds are

[26:51] outstanding. So if we were to issue a

[26:54] new bond in the next year, we would have

[26:58] to have that same water and sewer re I

[27:00] mean water and secondary water revenue

[27:03] pledge in place until the 2030 bonds uh

[27:08] mature 2020 bonds mature and then we

[27:11] could let the bond holders know that

[27:13] there would only be a pledge of

[27:14] pressurized irrigation revenues. Now,

[27:17] you probably would have better looking

[27:18] coverage if I included the the culinary

[27:20] system, but if the improvements are

[27:23] related to pressurized irrigation

[27:25] system, it probably ought to stand on

[27:26] its own.

[27:29] >> I would like to see a more accurate

[27:30] modeling of what that would look like.

[27:32] But if you just, you know, I just pulled

[27:34] up my calculator. If we're using, you

[27:36] know, 2,940 units for the $640,000 what

[27:40] we would owe after our 2020

[27:43] restructuring sunsets, then it's about

[27:48] I think it's $217.69

[27:50] per household a year. Is that correct?

[27:57] » Yeah. Okay.

[28:00] And just to clarify, the 641k,

[28:05] I'm sorry, was it Mr.

[28:07] >> Anderson? Anderson Anderson. Mr.

[28:09] Anderson, the 641K is only the interest

[28:12] or is that interest and principal?

[28:13] >> That's interesting principal for the

[28:15] last 21 years.

[28:16] >> So, it's just the first four years that

[28:18] they're not doing any principal because

[28:20] we have an existing bond that we're

[28:22] >> right. And the reality is is that the

[28:25] next four years are the most difficult

[28:27] because that

[28:30] $83 or $4,000 you see for total debt

[28:34] service for 28 29 and 30 would then go

[28:38] down to $640,000

[28:41] and 125% of $640,000

[28:45] is about $800,000. Mhm.

[28:48] >> Uh and so

[28:52] um that's the question as to how how do

[28:55] you structure it because uh you know it

[29:00] could go down $160,000 a year, but

[29:03] you've got to get to the point where you

[29:04] can cover those first three years.

[29:06] If you wanted to, you could have

[29:09] $800,000 payments over the rest of the

[29:12] life of the loan and pay it back sooner

[29:15] as and then you wouldn't have to worry

[29:17] about having excess revenues, but you

[29:19] probably always have other projects,

[29:20] too.

[29:22] >> That's where I think the PI impact fees

[29:27] could come into play as well. They could

[29:29] help kind of make up that difference

[29:30] between the 800 and something thousand

[29:33] and 640 for those

[29:36] three or four years. Um, we already make

[29:39] part of our bond payment from impact

[29:41] fees and then some from user fees. So, I

[29:44] think we can make up that difference.

[29:47] >> Can you clarify the assumption on this?

[29:49] is based on our current rate, not

[29:51] after we've done our rate.

[29:53] >> That's correct.

[29:54] >> Okay.

[29:54] >> Jane is not Well, maybe a 3% increase.

[29:57] Is that building?

[29:58] >> That's all that's building in here right

[29:59] now. But but I don't think that's all

[30:02] we're doing or I mean we're right now

[30:05] under rate review. Correct.

[30:06] >> Yes. Yeah. But what it I think what it's

[30:08] showing is a rate increase would be

[30:11] needed.

[30:12] So yes.

[30:15] >> And then a clarification question on why

[30:17] you can't attach some of this to

[30:19] culinary. as the water committee

[30:21] explained to me that um the reason that

[30:25] we are choosing some of these

[30:26] improvements is to actually move more

[30:29] culinary water back into our available

[30:32] supply. So to me that indicates a

[30:35] culinary impact or benefit that we could

[30:39] look at um

[30:42] becoming part of this.

[30:43] >> Uh I I have experience with that very

[30:46] issue.

[30:48] uh when I was city manager of Heber and we're implementing pressurized

[30:53] irrigation. All new development has it,

[30:56] but there's still a lot of historic

[30:57] Heert that does not have it. And uh some

[31:01] of the culinary impact fees were allowed

[31:03] to be used to pay for pressurized

[31:05] irrigation to generate more culinary

[31:09] capacity to take to to have more

[31:12] capacity for culinary storage

[31:14] >> if they weren't having to provide uh

[31:16] outside watering through the culinary

[31:18] system.

[31:20] But that's that's something that you'd

[31:22] have to determine through your impact

[31:23] fee analysis.

[31:25] Well, as we're looking at making these

[31:27] decisions on which improvements to um

[31:31] move forward with or not move forward

[31:33] with, you know, that's been part of the

[31:34] conversation. So, I just So, it may be

[31:37] available depending on the direction we

[31:39] go with our improvements.

[31:42] >> Yeah, I think that's just a policy

[31:44] decision in your impact reanalysis.

[31:49] Um, because this is irrigation,

[31:52] we do charge irrigation even though it's

[31:54] not on all year round. I just want to

[31:56] make sure I'm understanding our fee

[31:58] structure.

[31:59] >> It's it's like an equal pay plan on your

[32:01] gas bill or whatever.

[32:03] >> So, if if you looked at the 2900, I just

[32:06] rounded to 2900. They're currently

[32:08] paying in 2026 $10.85 towards a bond. Is

[32:12] that listed separately or is that just

[32:14] rounded like rolled into the full fee?

[32:16] it's rolled into the fee

[32:17] >> and then it would go up to the max in 20

[32:20] where would that be? Max in like 2030 to

[32:24] $23 then drop down to $1840. So we're

[32:28] talking about, you know, $13 increase

[32:32] even though, right, because they're

[32:34] already paying they've been paying $10

[32:36] now for 20 years

[32:39] >> about

[32:40] >> is the current rate study taking into

[32:43] consideration um this this bond payment

[32:47] structure or not?

[32:48] >> Yeah. So, really an LRA study, we need to know

[32:53] the amount of the bond and then that can

[32:56] be plugged into the model and the rate

[32:59] needed to provide coverage would be

[33:01] kicked out. So,

[33:06] >> what is the timing? Um, what is our

[33:08] timeline?

[33:10] I know that was in here um

[33:13] >> for for pressurized irrigation

[33:16] specifically

[33:16] >> for this bond. Yes.

[33:18] >> So, that's up to the council. It's it's

[33:20] just here for information and just

[33:23] learning, you know, it's a $9 million

[33:24] bond. It was, you know, the point was

[33:26] made. Uh, this is the largest project in

[33:29] our proposed budget. And so, we wanted

[33:32] to spend a little bit more time and ask

[33:35] Mark if he'd be gracious enough to come

[33:37] down and help us learn more about bonds

[33:39] since it's not something that we do

[33:41] often here.

[33:43] So, we're not trying to um So, if we

[33:47] let's say we don't get this done till

[33:48] September, um that's realistic. Then we

[33:52] just do like a budget adjustment because

[33:54] our rates are going going to change.

[33:56] >> Yeah.

[33:57] >> Okay.

[33:57] >> Yeah. And that's that's why if you

[34:00] remember back to my colorful project

[34:02] sheet,

[34:02] >> Yes.

[34:02] >> the project wasn't specifically put on

[34:04] there for that reason,

[34:06] >> you know, right? Something changes or

[34:08] whatever. So, we would just adjust that

[34:11] into the budget. Okay. All right.

[34:15] Is there um with our seasonal nature of

[34:18] what we do becau, you know, digging in

[34:21] water and all that, is there a best time

[34:23] to be doing water projects, not in the

[34:25] middle of December?

[34:28] >> Yeah. They say, uh, if you can bid

[34:31] between Thanksgiving and Christmas, so

[34:33] it's ready to go as soon as weather

[34:35] permits or whatever in the spring,

[34:37] that's ideal.

[34:39] >> Okay.

[34:40] >> So, if you click the year done,

[34:42] When I moved to Utah, they said there's

[34:44] really only two seasons, construction

[34:45] and winter. That's it.

[34:48] >> It's about right.

[34:51] >> But it is something that um you know, we

[34:53] have uh some fund balance. Um and Mark

[34:58] can correct me on this if I'm wrong, but

[35:00] like tonight we have a parameters

[35:02] resolution for the fire station bond. If

[35:04] we did the same thing for the PI bond,

[35:07] um, we could start and then fund with

[35:11] future bond funds. Is that correct,

[35:13] Mark? In the parameters resolution,

[35:16] there's language there that allows the

[35:18] city to be reimbursed for any expenses

[35:21] they incur

[35:24] pro that are project related

[35:26] uh for six for six days prior to the

[35:29] adoption of the parameters resolution

[35:31] and going forward from bond proceeds.

[35:36] So, what I'm saying is we we could, you

[35:38] know, if the council's committed to

[35:39] moving this pro process forward, um we

[35:43] could begin the design process soon and

[35:47] not wait till September to start that.

[35:51] And and architectural and engineering uh

[35:55] fees are automatically eligible for

[35:56] reimbursement without a reimbursement

[35:59] resolution or parameters resolution in

[36:00] place. But if you had to buy land or

[36:04] materials or things like that, you'd

[36:05] want to have that in place if you want

[36:07] to be reimbured from bond proceeds.

[36:09] >> So what I'm understanding is that we

[36:11] need to get going on this with planning

[36:13] and design

[36:16] um even before just so that we can be

[36:19] ready to break ground in the spring. Is

[36:22] that correct? And then the construction

[36:25] process itself is how long?

[36:28] >> Uh we don't really have a timeline for

[36:30] that yet. But I know like the well it's you know it could be like a year to

[36:35] drill it.

[36:36] >> Okay. So not ready by next summer.

[36:38] >> Equip.

[36:38] >> It would be a whole another year after

[36:40] that. So we're looking at even if we get

[36:42] started next month and move forward with

[36:45] if we bring it back for city council to

[36:47] vote on for the next meeting or the

[36:50] meeting after. Um even if we act on it

[36:54] that quickly, I'm hearing that this well

[36:57] will not be completed until 2028. That

[37:00] would be the most likely scenario. Yes.

[37:02] But we can we can work on a better

[37:04] schedule um

[37:07] you know going forward.

[37:08] >> Okay.

[37:12] In our earlier um budget review, I was

[37:16] looking at the fund balance of our PI

[37:18] fund, which we're projecting to end at

[37:20] 2.3 million, which is um based on what

[37:25] you're showing me, like about two a

[37:28] little over two two times our annual

[37:30] revenue because we're not counting the

[37:33] $900,000 grant. Anyways, I know we're

[37:35] going back in our in our um project. So,

[37:38] how does the fund balance um weigh into

[37:41] like our how we are rated as a the

[37:45] financial stability for financial

[37:47] stability rating? Like does it help us

[37:49] improve our interest rate or how does

[37:51] that impact the whole analysis?

[37:53] >> I think at the point in time that you

[37:55] have more than six months worth of

[37:57] operating funds on hand, I don't know

[37:59] that that adds any more impact to the bond rating. Uh,

[38:06] and it sounds like possibly some of that

[38:08] fund balance would be used to put into

[38:11] the project if the council thought that

[38:14] was a better way to to spend down fund

[38:18] balance. Sometimes there's capital needs

[38:20] and that's why things get built up.

[38:22] I don't know how much of that's

[38:24] restricted for impact fees or anything

[38:25] like that.

[38:27] >> We have a separate fund for impact fees.

[38:29] >> There is some that's restricted, but it

[38:32] would be eligible for these projects.

[38:36] Okay.

[38:38] >> Okay. Let's move to the next slide if

[38:40] we've had answered those questions.

[38:43] So, um,

[38:48] th this is somewhat in response to a a

[38:50] question that Councilman Hanaman, I

[38:52] think, propo proposed and we'll talk

[38:55] about more in more detail at the end of

[38:56] the presentation is, you know, what are

[38:59] the advantages of you using utility

[39:02] revenue bonds?

[39:04] Uh usually we always use revenue bonds

[39:08] that are associated with an enterprise

[39:10] fund to fund the project that it's

[39:12] related to. Uh you don't use general

[39:15] fund monies to pay for water activities.

[39:19] Otherwise, you're not matching the

[39:21] expenses with the people that are

[39:22] benefiting with it as as well. So the enterprise fund should be

[39:28] self-maintaining. he should charge rates

[39:31] high enough to sustain the fund on its

[39:33] own without

[39:34] subsidy or sending money to another

[39:37] fund. Uh but so utility revenue bonds

[39:42] match the revenue pledge with the fund

[39:43] that benefits. It's a reliable source of

[39:46] revenue. It it uh calls for a

[39:49] competitive interest rate and the

[39:52] council can approve the uh

[39:58] issuance of the debt by resolution

[40:00] through it. Uh it doesn't generate uh

[40:03] new money. It requires a 125 coverage

[40:06] rate and it has a higher rate than a geo

[40:09] bond. But you typically don't see geo

[40:10] bonds issued for

[40:13] general I mean for utility funds. It's

[40:16] mostly like parks and recreation centers

[40:19] and

[40:20] fire stations and things like that. I

[40:23] know American Fork passed a geo bond

[40:25] several years ago for their fire

[40:26] station. Uh next slide.

[40:29] Uh sales tax bond very similar. It's

[40:32] another revenue bond just a different

[40:35] pledge of security. Reliable revenue

[40:38] source competitive interest rate

[40:40] authorized by resolution. it requires a

[40:43] higher uh coverage ratio because it can

[40:46] be uh volatile as it relates to changes

[40:49] in economic condition. I think Shane and

[40:53] I both remember what is it 2008 or

[40:55] something like that when our we saw

[40:57] ourselves taxed it by about 30%.

[41:00] uh and so uh that's why it requires a

[41:04] higher coverage re uh ratio, no new

[41:07] revenues and a higher rate than a go,

[41:10] but it would be similar to a a water

[41:12] utility rate.

[41:15] So what where are the most likely places

[41:18] that you can obtain funding for bonds

[41:22] that you would issue? Uh, one of the

[41:25] things that I've been talking to Shane

[41:26] about is possibly BWR might be a source

[41:30] to fund secondary water projects.

[41:34] Uh,

[41:36] I was very involved in a lot of the

[41:37] funding that went into the intake tower

[41:41] at uh, Deer Creek, which was ended up

[41:44] being a hundred million dollar project.

[41:46] and you really can't see anything

[41:47] different than what was there before.

[41:49] But uh u but board of water resources

[41:52] were very supportive of that project. Uh

[41:55] they've done a lot of pressurized

[41:56] irrigation uh metering uh loans and

[42:00] grants etc. So I think Shane's checking

[42:04] with them to see what potential

[42:06] eligibility the city might have to seek

[42:09] funding from them that would typically

[42:10] be at a reduced rate. something. I saw

[42:14] the last meeting uh the city of Clinton

[42:17] received a loan at 3.09% but it was a

[42:20] 15-year rate. Uh but typically they're

[42:24] at a rate below market rates. Uh they do

[42:29] have a typically a 1% loan origination

[42:32] fee. It's a slower uh process.

[42:36] Uh more hoops to jump through. uh they

[42:40] will require debt service reserve which

[42:42] most other bonds issued uh by direct

[42:45] placement or in the market typically do

[42:47] not require

[42:49] and uh the we could help the city

[42:51] through that process as I've done with

[42:53] several different cities if if that was

[42:56] a viable route to pursue

[43:00] that's the the drinking water board only

[43:04] handles culinary projects CIB you're not

[43:07] eligible for so uh board of water

[43:09] resources is probably the best option

[43:11] that you have available to pursue.

[43:14] Uh we do a lot of bonds by private

[43:17] placement and this is the method that we

[43:18] propose to place the bonds for the fire

[43:22] station, the sales tax bond and mostly

[43:25] that's because of size uh to go to the

[43:28] public market. It's a more arduous and

[43:31] expensive process to hire an underwriter

[43:35] to get a bond rating. uh draft an

[43:39] official statement,

[43:41] uh have a trustee,

[43:44] have disclosure counsel, and and so it's

[43:48] not as cost-effective. There is a higher

[43:49] interest rate you pay, but

[43:52] it's uh more friendly and and and uh

[43:56] less costly to issue the bonds.

[44:00] Um

[44:00] >> excuse me. What is the difference in the

[44:02] interest rates between the two between

[44:03] private and public?

[44:06] you know, it it varies. Probably right

[44:08] now, you're probably looking at half a

[44:11] percent difference.

[44:12] >> Okay.

[44:14] >> Uh I've seen there's been some times

[44:16] when we've seen that the market rates

[44:18] were increasing fast and we've gone to

[44:20] private placement on purpose because we

[44:22] could issue the bonds quicker and have a

[44:24] lower interest rate than waiting another

[44:26] 60 days or something like that to go

[44:28] through the market.

[44:30] But right now, the market's the the best

[44:33] option for deals of any significant

[44:37] size. Uh unless you really think that

[44:40] you want to refinance them in a

[44:44] short-term period and you're willing to

[44:45] pay extra to have that call, those call

[44:48] features. We can talk about that.

[44:50] U

[44:52] so uh go back, uh Kaden, I'm sorry. Let

[44:56] me just see if there's So private

[44:58] placements are are deals where we send

[45:01] out financial information about the city

[45:04] to banks that are interested in

[45:06] purchasing bonds for their own

[45:07] investment portfolio.

[45:10] And we have several banks that uh we

[45:13] regularly work with uh to do that.

[45:16] Admittedly, the longer the term it is,

[45:19] there are becomes fewer borrowers

[45:22] because some are more adverse to

[45:24] long-term financial commitments based on

[45:26] some things we've seen happen in the

[45:27] last few years uh with the failure of

[45:30] some banks. Um

[45:33] but uh they typically offer what we call

[45:36] more flexible call features, which is

[45:39] the ability to refund or refinance the

[45:42] bonds at a in a in a shorter period.

[45:45] Some some uh purchases will allow you to

[45:50] uh refinance those bonds at any time uh

[45:53] without penalty and others will restrict

[45:55] it say for five years or seven years and

[45:58] you just have to take into consideration

[46:01] you know how much is value does the call

[46:03] feature have to you when you're talking

[46:06] about you know a tenth of a percent

[46:07] difference in interest rate you know

[46:09] what's the likelihood you'll be able to

[46:10] refinance this and and generate savings

[46:13] sooner I just finished a a refunding for

[46:17] Wasach County who went that route and we

[46:20] saved about $1.1 million by going uh

[46:24] privately placed for two years and then

[46:26] we went to the market combined it with

[46:28] another financing and saved you know

[46:31] $1.1 million in net present value

[46:33] savings by uh issuing a much larger bond

[46:37] together.

[46:40] Um, so usually

[46:44] I would say

[46:46] $7 million is probably a good line of

[46:48] demarcation as to where you would look

[46:51] to go to the market versus private

[46:54] placement.

[46:55] Uh, and uh,

[46:59] bonds issued in the market are typically

[47:01] call protected for 10 years, which means

[47:03] you can't refinance them or prepay them

[47:07] during that first 10 year period.

[47:10] uh they generally offer lower interest

[47:13] rates and uh but they do uh have

[47:17] additional fees that you incur to issue

[47:20] the bonds because of the bond rating

[47:22] process

[47:23] uh and the use of an underwriter to

[47:26] market the bond to multiple investors.

[47:32] So these are bonding steps on a private

[47:35] placement or direct purchase and this is

[47:39] the process that we anticipate following

[47:41] for the sales tax bonds for the fire

[47:44] station.

[47:46] Tonight we anticipate adoption of the

[47:47] parameters resolution. Uh you'll uh

[47:51] publish a notice of public hearing and

[47:54] would hold

[47:56] a public hearing to take comments from

[47:59] the public a month from now.

[48:01] on you know what impact does this have

[48:03] on the private sector it is and I don't

[48:07] think fire services are not provided by

[48:10] the by private entities so I don't see

[48:12] that anybody's going to come and and

[48:15] complain if it was a rec center you

[48:17] might have a different story

[48:20] uh there's a contest period that runs

[48:22] concurrent with the when the notices of

[48:25] the public hearing starts

[48:27] uh we send out a bid

[48:30] The bonds are we take the bids, the

[48:33] bonds are priced, you know, close the

[48:36] closing documents prepared and we close

[48:37] the bonds usually about two weeks after

[48:39] we get the bids. I think we're on

[48:42] anticipating the bonds would close

[48:45] somewhere around the 19th of August,

[48:48] 18th, 19th, something or 11th, one of

[48:50] those dates. I think it's the 19th for

[48:52] the sales tax bonds.

[48:55] Okay, next one, Kaden, please.

[48:58] So this just gives you an idea as to how

[49:01] long that process usually takes from

[49:03] start to finish. Kind of uh if

[49:06] everything goes uh is on a fairly

[49:10] expedited basis. 60 days for private

[49:12] placement and 90 days for a market, 6 to

[49:16] 12 months for a state revolving fund

[49:18] just because of the applications have to

[49:20] be made and the materials that have to

[49:22] be reviewed that has to be bid out

[49:24] before you can issue the bonds etc. Will

[49:27] you explain the on the last one what a

[49:29] Utah state revolving fund is?

[49:32] >> That would be borrowing money from the

[49:35] board of water resources say for

[49:36] pressurized irrigation systems.

[49:38] >> That's that B that's that acronym you

[49:40] had before.

[49:40] >> Yeah.

[49:43] >> PWR.

[49:44] >> Okay. So you're just comparing

[49:45] >> water resources.

[49:46] >> So on this slide you're just comparing

[49:47] that those are a six to 12 month

[49:49] process.

[49:51] >> Yeah. Right now the next meeting that

[49:53] you could even get on would be October.

[49:55] Uh I think the application period for

[49:58] the October meetings in July.

[50:02] >> Thanks.

[50:04] >> So uh Shane forwarded some questions to

[50:07] me that were posed by Councilman

[50:09] Hannimman and Councilman Young. And if

[50:11] you don't mind, I'll just address these

[50:13] here if that's okay.

[50:14] >> Yeah.

[50:15] >> So can we have a locked in agreement or

[50:19] ability to charge our interest rate on a

[50:21] bond if they go lower? And I guess my my

[50:23] initial reaction is no. But in in second

[50:26] thought, you can issue variable rate

[50:28] bonds, but you understand that if rates

[50:31] go up, they would reset too. It wouldn't

[50:33] be uh uh something that we would

[50:37] recommend for the city to be in a more

[50:40] vol potentially volatile situation. But

[50:44] uh

[50:46] when as I told you before, the uh bonds

[50:49] privately placed give you more call

[50:52] flexibility. Uh but typically you're

[50:55] going to have to

[50:57] refund or uh refinance those bonds with

[51:00] another purchaser rather than

[51:02] renegotiate a new interest rate with the

[51:05] lender.

[51:07] Uh if if I I've seen it done before. If you were saying we're inclined to

[51:12] refund this bond, would you offer us a

[51:14] lower interest rate? It may happen, but

[51:16] it probably wouldn't be at a rate

[51:18] commensurate with what you would get if

[51:20] you went through a competitive process

[51:22] again.

[51:25] Um,

[51:26] so like I say, bonds placed privately

[51:29] have more flexible call features than

[51:31] bonds placed in the public market.

[51:32] You're prohibited for the first 10 years

[51:34] from from calling.

[51:37] Uh,

[51:39] just to clarify, and I'll ask a lot of

[51:41] questions after, when you're saying bond

[51:43] placed in the private market, you're

[51:45] talking about us going to other banks.

[51:47] Well, when you're saying they're placed

[51:48] in the public market, you're talking

[51:49] about like folks like you, like Zans. Is

[51:51] that correct? or is the public market

[51:53] what you're saying has less flexibility?

[51:56] Uh is that like the

[51:57] >> the public market has less flexibility?

[52:00] That's when you hire Bank of America to

[52:03] sell to their institutional buyers or

[52:07] other stock brokers that market it to

[52:09] individuals. But

[52:10] >> so is Zans's Bank part of the public

[52:13] market or the private market?

[52:15] >> We are the financial advisor that takes

[52:17] you through the bonding process.

[52:19] >> Oh. when you forward it to one of those

[52:21] markets deciding

[52:22] >> yeah we work with you to determine

[52:24] what's the best option that for the city

[52:27] as to based on the the details of the

[52:31] deal what seems to make the most sense

[52:34] >> and uh we give you the options and you

[52:37] give us direction and we make it happen

[52:44] um can we buy it down I mean the

[52:46] interest rate from 4.0 4.8 or whatever

[52:49] the rate is. Uh I'm not mindful of a way

[52:52] to buy it down. Uh one of the reasons

[52:55] you get better interest rates from the

[52:57] market is they're because the rates are

[52:59] call protected for 10 years. They know

[53:02] that nobody's going to refinance that

[53:04] bond in the first 10 years. If you

[53:07] extended that to 12 or 15 years, they

[53:10] would probably offer lower interest

[53:12] rates for those years 12 to 15. uh but

[53:17] it takes away your flexibility to

[53:18] refinance them if you lock yourself in

[53:21] for a longer period of time.

[53:23] >> So what you're saying is most bonds are

[53:25] locked for 10 years on whatever you get

[53:27] >> most large bonds.

[53:28] >> Okay.

[53:30] >> And if you the bonds that uh we refunded

[53:33] for you in 2020 20 were refunded after

[53:39] 10 years.

[53:44] Um,

[53:46] and the cost of per resident is

[53:49] something that staff has to determine.

[53:51] It sounds like you've done some rough

[53:52] calculations on what that might look

[53:54] like. Now,

[53:57] uh, what dictates the term of a bond?

[54:01] Um,

[54:02] and I guess my initial input is it's

[54:06] really dependent on what resources the

[54:10] city has available to make payments

[54:13] and and uh so once they the city

[54:17] determines what they can afford that

[54:20] will provide coverage then you you

[54:22] structure the bond accordingly. But

[54:24] there's things that influence you know

[54:26] what you can afford. uh you know, the

[54:29] shorter the bond term the better because

[54:30] you end up paying less interest over the

[54:32] life of the loan and the interest rates

[54:34] that you get are are shorter or are

[54:36] lower for smaller uh shorter terms.

[54:40] But uh it still has to make financial

[54:44] sense to the city to uh you know finance

[54:47] it for that term. Uh and we think there

[54:51] ought to be relationship with who

[54:53] benefits from the project and who pays

[54:55] for the project. Um and uh there

[54:59] shouldn't we shouldn't bond for items

[55:02] that for a longer period in time than

[55:05] the asset life is.

[55:07] Uh and things that could also in

[55:10] influence the term of the bond is what

[55:12] other plans do you have to issue debt

[55:14] future years? I know Sullivan Love sits

[55:17] on the TSSD board and we're the

[55:19] financial advisor there and I know

[55:22] you're mindful of all the rate increases

[55:24] that have been passed and are still yet

[55:25] to come because of the multitude of

[55:28] bonds that they're issuing in the in a

[55:30] five-year period for their 1.4 billion

[55:33] or something like that project. So uh

[55:40] when you have more bonds down the road

[55:41] that may influence the term that you can

[55:45] would structure as well. And and then

[55:48] lastly

[55:49] uh if you have to increase rates what

[55:53] rate increase is do you think is

[55:55] tolerable to the citizens? Uh that may

[55:58] influence what term of bond you would

[56:02] select.

[56:04] And that came into play at the last

[56:07] Tempenogus uh special service district

[56:09] board meeting. And I don't recall the

[56:11] numbers, but it was it was a lot of

[56:15] million dollars worth of extra interest,

[56:17] I think, to go from a 20 to a 30 year,

[56:20] >> but the they felt that that would be the

[56:23] appropriate way to go with the longer

[56:25] term because of all the increases and

[56:27] everything that's been going on.

[56:33] um layer bonds, add new bonds uh when

[56:36] the current they're paid in full. And I think the structure we've worked on

[56:41] for the the PI is really trying to layer

[56:45] it in that we put the minimum in place

[56:49] while there's the 2020 bonds are still

[56:52] outstanding

[56:54] uh and then increase the payment on that

[56:56] new bond once the 2020 bonds are

[56:59] retired.

[57:01] Um so we can have interest only or lower

[57:06] payments. So we can have ascending or

[57:10] descending structures. There's it

[57:12] doesn't all have to be leveled,

[57:14] but you have to at least be able to pay

[57:16] the interest

[57:18] uh expense.

[57:20] Uh sales tax versus utility bonds, how

[57:23] repayment terms are different. I don't

[57:25] think there really is a difference.

[57:26] They're both revenue bonds, just a

[57:28] different revenue pledge. as to what

[57:31] guarantees the repayment of the bonds.

[57:34] Uh as mentioned before, they have

[57:36] different coverage ratios

[57:38] uh with the sales tax bond having a

[57:40] higher coverage ratio. But sales tax

[57:43] bonds are usually pay to pay for parks

[57:46] and you know general fund type projects

[57:51] uh that parks, fire stations, road

[57:56] projects, those kind of things,

[57:58] recreation centers, the like. Uh where

[58:02] water funds, water bonds are going to be

[58:04] related to water system improvements.

[58:09] Uh

[58:11] and then the financial metric health

[58:13] metrics for the city. Uh a colleague of

[58:16] mine, Japth McGee, uh who's I don't

[58:19] think there's anybody that understands

[58:20] bond ratings better than him in the

[58:22] state of Utah from a financial advisor

[58:24] standpoint. We've recreated all the

[58:26] rating agencies models and can can put

[58:29] your data into that and give you an

[58:31] indicative bond rating. And uh I think

[58:34] from a general fund standpoint, uh it

[58:36] came out as a AAA rated

[58:39] uh from a water fund, pressurized

[58:42] irrigation fund that came out as a

[58:43] double A or double A minus rated. If you

[58:46] were to go to to a rating agency to get

[58:49] a bond, that's what we would anticipate

[58:50] would be done there. Um

[58:54] uh for the sales tax bond, we we

[58:57] wouldn't anticipate getting a rating

[58:59] because we don't anticipate going to the

[59:01] public market.

[59:03] Uh, but would anticipate that if we did

[59:07] $9 million for the water fund.

[59:13] » Did I cover those questions adequately?

[59:16] >> Yes.

[59:20] » Maybe some clarifications after.

[59:22] >> Oh, no. After we're done, if that's okay

[59:24] because aren't we going to do the one by

[59:25] one?

[59:25] >> No. But I think we're just going to go

[59:27] as is. So, if you have a question

[59:29] regarding what Mr. Anderson just

[59:31] covered. Why don't you go ahead and ask?

[59:33] >> Oh, is it over? Are you done?

[59:35] >> No, just for this already. He said, "Are

[59:36] there any questions?"

[59:37] >> No, no, not for this. Not for those

[59:39] specific, but just questions I wrote

[59:40] down as you were talking the whole

[59:41] presentation. But do you want Jessica to

[59:43] go first or

[59:44] >> No, I just

[59:45] >> just spitfire.

[59:46] >> You didn't say anything. If she has

[59:47] questions, she can. You're the first

[59:49] one.

[59:49] >> I'm the first one. We're going

[59:51] >> You said you were the first one that

[59:52] said I've got questions. I'm addressing

[59:54] your

[59:54] >> I'll just say them. I'll just say them

[59:56] and then we can move on fast as

[59:57] possible. Okay. So, I I think I'm

[1:00:00] getting all questions and thoughts and

[1:00:02] then you'll see where my head is and

[1:00:04] you'll be able to clarify, help, and

[1:00:05] >> I'll do my best.

[1:00:06] >> Right. I don't do bonding very often. In

[1:00:08] fact, I never have. So, we're looking at

[1:00:10] 9 million and the residence committee is

[1:00:13] asking for about 14 million for for the

[1:00:16] even a bigger one. It's 641k a year.

[1:00:19] That's principal and interest, right?

[1:00:22] >> After year after year four,

[1:00:25] >> just interest for the first four years.

[1:00:28] So I added it up. That's like 13.4

[1:00:31] million on a 9 million bond. So we're

[1:00:34] paying interest of 4.46 million. So

[1:00:37] we're we're spending an extra four to

[1:00:39] borrow nine. That's just why I'm doing

[1:00:41] the math. It's a lot of So I'm thinking

[1:00:45] big numbers for our grass.

[1:00:48] Um we're in a culture where that's why

[1:00:50] I'm writing about my thoughts. We're in

[1:00:52] a culture where debt is now a tool. Uh

[1:00:54] it doesn't seem to be going away. Uh

[1:00:56] governments have used it and it hasn't

[1:00:59] gone well, especially long term. They're

[1:01:02] never able to get out of it. The more

[1:01:04] they do it, the bigger it gets, the

[1:01:06] harder it is to get out of. I I I look

[1:01:08] at this at DC every day. There's this

[1:01:11] bizarre feeling where you're surrounded

[1:01:13] by marble

[1:01:14] and steps that hurt your feet because

[1:01:16] they're so nice

[1:01:18] and the wood is so nice

[1:01:21] and everyone's in debt. It's It's a

[1:01:23] weird feeling when I'm working there.

[1:01:25] Okay. Anyways, if we were to ask our

[1:01:28] residents if they were willing to raise

[1:01:31] $9 million, if we were to ask them if if

[1:01:34] they're willing to raise $9 million to

[1:01:36] fix our PI system, I'm trying to think

[1:01:38] if they would do it.

[1:01:40] >> Okay. So, some so so Okay,

[1:01:42] >> thank you for that. That's good

[1:01:44] feedback. We And some of the people who

[1:01:47] have said yes um have been working in

[1:01:50] our government for a while um and

[1:01:52] they've known these needs. And so I'm

[1:01:54] like where what have we been saving to

[1:01:56] pay for these types of things? That was

[1:01:57] another thought I have. If if we have

[1:01:59] been doing this for 10 years, what have

[1:02:01] we been saving? So anyways, the we have

[1:02:03] a lot of metering. We have a lot of rate

[1:02:05] increases. We have a lot of talk of

[1:02:07] bonds. Um there are things I'd like to

[1:02:10] add to this of individual storage, more

[1:02:13] disseminated storage, rain barrels,

[1:02:15] people able to store on their own

[1:02:16] property. It's much cheaper. These these

[1:02:18] are just thoughts. I'm getting to it.

[1:02:19] >> Right. No, but do you have a question

[1:02:21] for Mr. Anderson?

[1:02:22] >> Yeah. Yeah. Sorry, I'm getting to them.

[1:02:24] So,

[1:02:26] we're going to talk first first

[1:02:27] question. You're going to be here for

[1:02:28] the next section about the specific fire

[1:02:32] uh bond, right? Yes.

[1:02:33] >> Okay, good. So, I'll save those

[1:02:34] questions for then.

[1:02:36] >> So, so what is the rate of the isish of

[1:02:39] the 9 million bond? What What are we

[1:02:41] looking at? I said 4.8. Am I off on

[1:02:43] that? Um

[1:02:44] >> is it more in the

[1:02:45] >> I think the last indicative numbers we

[1:02:46] ran for Shane were around 4.4 something.

[1:02:50] So that's kind of what

[1:02:51] >> a 25-y year bond.

[1:02:52] >> So we're look ours is 21 year, right?

[1:02:55] Well,

[1:02:55] >> it's 25. It's interest only the first

[1:02:57] four years is the way we currently

[1:02:59] structure.

[1:03:00] >> Okay. So it's like 21 and then four only

[1:03:02] interest. So and you're looking we're at

[1:03:03] about a 4.4. That's that ballpark of

[1:03:06] where we're talking about when we can

[1:03:07] explain to

[1:03:09] >> based on current rates,

[1:03:11] >> right? Which could change in in the next

[1:03:13] >> Iran war uh impacted the bond.

[1:03:17] >> You kind of answered this. they cannot

[1:03:20] be bought down because there's that

[1:03:22] 10-year lock. Um, if we reach a point in

[1:03:26] our next several years and rates go down

[1:03:31] back into the threes,

[1:03:33] uh, what is our availability to

[1:03:36] refinance? Do we just wait for that uh,

[1:03:38] 10 years or are we still locked for the

[1:03:41] 21 to 25 years? How how easy can we

[1:03:44] refinance? I believe he said for 10

[1:03:46] years we're locked into this bond at

[1:03:47] that interest rate.

[1:03:49] >> At 10 years then we can do the buyback

[1:03:51] that we did with our previous water bond

[1:03:54] that we refinanced back in 2020 or was

[1:03:57] it 2021?

[1:03:58] >> It's 20.

[1:03:59] >> So yes

[1:04:01] 10 years we'll be locked into that rate.

[1:04:03] >> It's bad if the rates go down but if the

[1:04:05] rates go up it's good that we're locked

[1:04:07] in.

[1:04:08] any you know

[1:04:09] >> okay I'm understanding this is new I not

[1:04:11] heard the 10-year lock thing and the so

[1:04:13] this is good to uh to understand now now

[1:04:16] does that lock apply to both of those

[1:04:18] different servicing uh sectors you said

[1:04:22] there was public that was more uh

[1:04:24] restrictive and private which was less

[1:04:26] restrictive is that 10-year lock on both

[1:04:27] of them

[1:04:28] >> uh typically not a 10-year lock on the

[1:04:31] private placement

[1:04:32] >> okay because that gives you more freedom

[1:04:33] it's generally a little bit of a higher

[1:04:34] rate

[1:04:35] >> okay Um,

[1:04:38] okay. For the for the residents in this,

[1:04:40] one thing that would help is combine

[1:04:41] this um ask for bonding and this plan

[1:04:44] for bonding with um plans for um uh

[1:04:49] helping those who are retired or not

[1:04:51] well off and adding other options that

[1:04:54] aren't as expensive. That would really

[1:04:55] push me into the pot. And we've talked

[1:04:57] about that, Steve. Um

[1:04:59] >> I did want to correct one thing. You

[1:05:01] mentioned that the water advisory

[1:05:03] committee wanted more than the 9

[1:05:05] million. I believe from when I spoke

[1:05:08] with them that they were support of

[1:05:10] there's two phases, right? There's phase

[1:05:12] one and phase two that they're in favor

[1:05:14] of the 9 million which are all the

[1:05:16] projects in phase one. They are not

[1:05:19] asking to do phase two right now. That

[1:05:22] will be a little bit further down the

[1:05:24] line.

[1:05:26] >> Molton, can I ask a question on that?

[1:05:27] That's their recommendation, but we

[1:05:29] haven't had a council conversation about

[1:05:31] that,

[1:05:32] >> right? No, that's totally fine. But

[1:05:34] that's and that's also the

[1:05:36] recommendation of Horox who did our

[1:05:38] water study,

[1:05:39] >> but also in learning more about this

[1:05:42] process. You know, we're planning as Ben

[1:05:45] mentioned for generational changes. Of

[1:05:47] course, we're looking at water

[1:05:48] depleting. And so, I think as a council,

[1:05:52] we need to talk about is phase one

[1:05:54] enough? I mean it wasn't enough in 2021

[1:05:58] and so we need to consider um do we at

[1:06:02] this bonding moment

[1:06:02] >> if it wasn't enough in 2021 why did you

[1:06:05] fight some of these projects so much

[1:06:07] >> so there was just one project that

[1:06:10] actually could have been solved by

[1:06:12] allocating fund to a bigger solution

[1:06:14] which is the cup upsize. So those are

[1:06:17] again council conversations that we can

[1:06:19] look at in planning for the future long

[1:06:22] term.

[1:06:23] >> In planning for the future long term

[1:06:25] from what I understand is that cup is

[1:06:28] not the end all. It's not our savior in

[1:06:31] water. It's absolutely

[1:06:32] >> we getting less and less. We need to

[1:06:34] find our own resources.

[1:06:36] >> Yeah. It's one. So that was it. I just

[1:06:37] thought as a council we should also take

[1:06:39] the recommendation of the committee and

[1:06:42] discuss the phase one. All I was saying

[1:06:45] was that I believe that um Andrew

[1:06:49] misunderstood and I'm not sure if you

[1:06:51] got that information from speaking with

[1:06:53] the committee members or whatnot that

[1:06:55] all that the committee was recommending

[1:06:57] was phase one and I believe this is the

[1:06:59] total amount that we're having

[1:07:00] discussions on tonight which is the 9

[1:07:02] million

[1:07:03] >> to clarify this is good good

[1:07:05] conversation we all love that um to

[1:07:08] clarify what I'm hearing is three things

[1:07:10] so correct everyone uh a bond proposal that I've heard from staff

[1:07:16] which has two elements the well and

[1:07:21] booster pumps for about 9 million that's

[1:07:23] what I've heard not all five of the

[1:07:26] first phase like you're saying what I'm

[1:07:28] hearing from uh the uh gentleman from

[1:07:32] Zans is 9 million for actually he didn't

[1:07:35] specify for what so and then what I've

[1:07:37] heard from meeting with the committee is

[1:07:41] around 14 million for the first 10

[1:07:44] items. So that that's what I've been

[1:07:46] told. Feel free to clarify as you

[1:07:49] solidify.

[1:07:49] >> I believe they're clarified that they

[1:07:51] were in support of phase one for this

[1:07:53] phase of bonding.

[1:07:54] >> Okay.

[1:07:55] >> Sarah can clarify it. She's on the

[1:07:56] committee.

[1:07:57] >> Okay. Well, just just even saying that.

[1:07:59] >> Yeah.

[1:07:59] >> The first five items it that would be

[1:08:02] different 9 million than what staff is

[1:08:04] proposing with just two items. No.

[1:08:06] >> Am I incorrect?

[1:08:07] >> No. So the 9 million came from

[1:08:11] >> we asked Horox to tell us which projects

[1:08:13] would be the most impactful,

[1:08:15] >> right?

[1:08:15] >> So they came back with two projects, the new well and the booster pumps on

[1:08:20] 400 West upsizing those and the piping

[1:08:24] that's kind of associated with that

[1:08:25] those uh projects.

[1:08:28] Um and they came with a price tag

[1:08:31] estimated at 9 million

[1:08:33] >> for those two. Yes.

[1:08:34] >> Oh, for those two.

[1:08:36] Well, see, this is where I'm having a

[1:08:37] little bit of confusion. This is good

[1:08:38] we're talking about it so we can get

[1:08:39] clarification.

[1:08:41] >> So, um,

[1:08:43] >> whatever it is, if it's the first five

[1:08:45] items, that will be helpful to know

[1:08:47] because we will be able to express to

[1:08:49] the residents

[1:08:50] >> the different because they they they

[1:08:52] solve very different problems. Uh, the I

[1:08:56] have the five items here.

[1:08:57] >> The first five would be 14 million.

[1:09:00] Those two would be nine. So the Heritage

[1:09:03] Hills well and the 400 West booster pump

[1:09:05] and pipe up sizing would be nine. But

[1:09:08] the first five

[1:09:10] >> the that also includes the Grove Drive

[1:09:13] and mid zone repairs, Healey booster

[1:09:15] upsize and the low zone take expansion.

[1:09:17] >> And to clarify and to clarify 9 million

[1:09:20] is the base cost that is not with the

[1:09:22] interest that would put it around 13.4

[1:09:25] million on a 9 million bond and on a 14

[1:09:28] million bond we'd be nearing 18 to 20

[1:09:30] million. So I think that

[1:09:32] >> with interest that's like the total cost

[1:09:33] of it

[1:09:34] >> right. No that's how amorization works

[1:09:35] but

[1:09:36] >> I know there is hard it helps.

[1:09:37] >> If we move on to this table my

[1:09:40] understanding the low zone tank

[1:09:42] expansion that's what you're in

[1:09:43] discussion with to try to get a grant

[1:09:45] right that's the holding tank.

[1:09:47] >> Yeah we're we're working with Horox uh

[1:09:49] engineers to try to find some

[1:09:54] help with some of those projects. So

[1:09:55] that's number four that we are currently

[1:09:57] working on and working with the federal

[1:09:59] government to get funding for that

[1:10:01] project.

[1:10:01] >> Yeah, thank you for doing that.

[1:10:02] >> And then um the Healey booster size and

[1:10:06] the Grove PRV because of the smaller

[1:10:08] amounts I think we were hoping that we

[1:10:10] would be able to knock those off in a

[1:10:12] year and not have to do it all in the

[1:10:14] bonding process. So that's why you're

[1:10:15] seeing So they're recommending doing all

[1:10:17] five and the plan is to do these five,

[1:10:21] but we're only bonding for $9 million.

[1:10:24] >> For the two for the two

[1:10:25] >> Yes. $9 million of it and then going for

[1:10:27] a grant that who has had experience

[1:10:30] doing this kind of stuff who um will be

[1:10:33] helping us out for the $5 million

[1:10:35] project and that we would be able to do

[1:10:38] the smaller projects

[1:10:40] without the bonding.

[1:10:41] >> Yeah. Thank you. So that's how

[1:10:43] >> just a couple last ones. Is there is

[1:10:45] there a penalty?

[1:10:46] >> Oh, so I was going to say so it's a mix

[1:10:47] of debt and cash which I know you are

[1:10:50] complaining about um or you know you

[1:10:52] feel debt is a a negative um factor in

[1:10:56] this decision. So some of the we could

[1:10:59] tell our residents that some of the um

[1:11:01] projects would be paid for with cash and

[1:11:04] as I pointed out we do have some fund

[1:11:06] balance. We're going to address that in

[1:11:09] a different meeting. how much is

[1:11:11] expendable on these projects and how

[1:11:13] much could be generated just with

[1:11:15] revenues like you know our mayor is

[1:11:18] talking about. So I do feel like we're

[1:11:20] um we're kind of meeting in the middle

[1:11:22] of not going into debt for 100% of the

[1:11:25] five projects but for the projects that

[1:11:27] are beyond our capacity to really get

[1:11:30] money in the short run there's not

[1:11:32] really another option. So, um, that's

[1:11:35] how I'm looking at it, but I think your

[1:11:36] questions are good to to see like there

[1:11:39] are five projects. They are, you know, a

[1:11:41] bigger amount than 9 million, but we

[1:11:43] only are going to finance to

[1:11:47] what's the mayor has explained.

[1:11:49] >> Well, and to your point, as a council,

[1:11:51] we haven't discussed as we're making

[1:11:52] this generational decision, do we want

[1:11:55] to look at some of those buildout

[1:11:57] improvements that come from the second

[1:11:59] table? I mean, to really long-term plan,

[1:12:03] you know, my understanding is right now

[1:12:05] we're going in and um repairing or

[1:12:08] upsizing some of the 9-in pipes to 14

[1:12:11] because at the time they just didn't

[1:12:14] build to the level that they should

[1:12:17] have. So we have this moment to really

[1:12:20] look at it and I appreciate the water

[1:12:22] committee's input because it's given us

[1:12:24] a starting point but as a council we

[1:12:26] haven't discussed these five things

[1:12:29] table two like really maybe we want to

[1:12:33] bond for more to the gentleman's point

[1:12:35] in the audience hey we want you guys to

[1:12:38] put resources into water. So my

[1:12:41] question, I think this is a good

[1:12:43] conversation to go back to um this

[1:12:45] presentation about layering. When you

[1:12:47] have a multi-phaseed project that would

[1:12:50] cost, let's just say we're going to

[1:12:52] shoot the moon and shoot for the moon

[1:12:54] and go all the way up to like 15 million

[1:12:56] that we need to get everything done. Is

[1:12:58] there a way to do like frontload the 9

[1:13:00] million then five years later do the ne

[1:13:02] or is that going to just re we have to

[1:13:04] redo this whole process over again?

[1:13:07] >> Um

[1:13:08] >> that's what I meant by layering. Can we

[1:13:10] like finance it as as the projects are

[1:13:12] coming online?

[1:13:14] >> Sure. You just have to have your rates

[1:13:17] at a place to where you can meet your

[1:13:18] debt service coverage whenever you're

[1:13:20] adding new layers. And we can we can

[1:13:24] wrap around existing debt and kind of

[1:13:26] like what I'm proposing with the 2020 20

[1:13:29] bonds to just pay interest only until

[1:13:32] 2030 and then start repaying principal.

[1:13:35] I I guess I uh one of the problems

[1:13:37] >> is that only possible if in a private

[1:13:39] placement or even public debt they would

[1:13:41] do that.

[1:13:42] >> They would do that if the financial

[1:13:44] stability looks solid and Utah is very

[1:13:48] well favored in the bond world. This is

[1:13:52] even though uh that we have issued a lot

[1:13:55] of debt as a state, we still looked at

[1:13:57] as very conservative and are very good

[1:14:00] at paying our bills. I would probably

[1:14:02] say there's really three ways to to do a

[1:14:05] project. One is you set up and you you

[1:14:08] save you

[1:14:11] set aside money and do it all at one

[1:14:14] time. You do it incrementally or you do

[1:14:16] it with bonding or a combination of all

[1:14:18] three. And one of the factors you want

[1:14:21] to look at is how fast do we need this?

[1:14:25] >> How critical is it? What's the cost of

[1:14:27] inflation versus the cost of bonding?

[1:14:31] uh is inflation at a rate that's higher

[1:14:34] or lower than what your borrowing rate

[1:14:36] is? If it's at a higher rate than your

[1:14:38] borrowing rate, it's probably good to

[1:14:39] fix the cost of the the project now,

[1:14:44] uh rather than have it cost 20% more,

[1:14:47] you know, a year or two from now. And

[1:14:50] admittedly when I started working with

[1:14:52] TSSD in 2023

[1:14:55] uh you know we were probably 900 million

[1:14:58] dollar project that's now probably a a

[1:15:01] billion4 project just because of

[1:15:03] inflationary costs.

[1:15:06] So uh I think those are it financing is

[1:15:10] a tool

[1:15:12] >> uh and it it uh it has its place.

[1:15:16] You said there was you could set it

[1:15:18] aside, you could do some other option or

[1:15:20] you could bond. What was that middle

[1:15:22] option?

[1:15:22] >> Um do it uh phase it, do it in small

[1:15:26] increments.

[1:15:28] >> Uh one of the last questions was

[1:15:30] >> a lot of projects are really hard to

[1:15:31] phase and have something meaningful to

[1:15:33] show for it.

[1:15:34] >> Uh is there a fee for paying them off

[1:15:36] early?

[1:15:38] >> No, not typically. uh you just have

[1:15:41] unless

[1:15:42] some privately placed bonds may have a

[1:15:49] uh a penalty feature that if you wanted

[1:15:51] to call it in year two or something like

[1:15:53] that, they may charge you 1% of the

[1:15:55] outstanding par if you wanted to pay it

[1:15:57] off early, but most of them are either

[1:16:00] you can or you can't.

[1:16:02] >> Andrew, if you wanted to donate $9

[1:16:04] million, you should just do it now so we

[1:16:05] don't have to process.

[1:16:07] >> It really help. Well, yeah. I like I

[1:16:10] like you. You You gave us a lot of

[1:16:12] options. I think he's a good guy. He's

[1:16:14] saying we can set it He's given us a lot

[1:16:16] of options. He's saying you can set

[1:16:18] aside money. I feel like you should come

[1:16:19] to our family home evening.

[1:16:21] You can set aside money. You can phase

[1:16:24] it. Do it over time. I think we've

[1:16:25] talked about that. We can bond um I

[1:16:30] think I think a combination of that.

[1:16:32] bond for emergencies, phase it for good

[1:16:35] planning, and set aside like we should

[1:16:37] be doing the last decade, and I think

[1:16:39] we'll have a good generational plan

[1:16:41] ahead. Right now, we're just saying bond

[1:16:44] it all.

[1:16:44] >> Um,

[1:16:45] >> no, we're not.

[1:16:46] We're bonding two out of

[1:16:48] the what, nine? Well, no, out of if

[1:16:51] you're looking at the entire table. So,

[1:16:53] yes, in phase one, two out of five bond

[1:16:56] those items. Phase two is $20 million

[1:16:59] worth of projects and that's another

[1:17:01] five different items.

[1:17:02] >> So, we're suggesting that we only bond

[1:17:05] for two out of the top priority objects.

[1:17:08] >> Can I ask you something, Mayor?

[1:17:09] >> Sure. Can

[1:17:10] >> I

[1:17:11] >> Oh, Brent, go ahead. Yeah, just one one

[1:17:14] thought on that, Andrew and others is um

[1:17:16] these are uh enterprise funds and part

[1:17:18] of the part of the rate process is has

[1:17:21] developed a surplus and that's because

[1:17:24] we have infrastructure needs that are

[1:17:25] foreseeable in the future. So like the

[1:17:28] mayor said, part of that is being used

[1:17:30] to fund some of those, but we just don't

[1:17:32] have enough to meet the current needs

[1:17:34] for these priority projects. So that's

[1:17:38] where the bonding comes in. And you

[1:17:40] know, we always want to have that extra

[1:17:42] amount that we're that were built into

[1:17:44] our rates. So, we are anticipating

[1:17:46] future needs, but we've kept rates down

[1:17:50] for so long and it's a certain amount.

[1:17:52] We just don't have the amount necessary

[1:17:53] to to make up that difference. So,

[1:17:56] that's why seems to me that bonding

[1:17:58] makes a lot of sense for that additional

[1:18:00] amount to spread the cost out and then

[1:18:03] would build that up again for future

[1:18:05] projects.

[1:18:07] >> Mayor, if I might.

[1:18:08] >> Yes. My suspicion is you probably have

[1:18:11] an impact fee study as well as a rate

[1:18:13] study that talks about when these

[1:18:15] capital projects would be done, what

[1:18:17] kind of bonding would be required and what your rates would need to be to

[1:18:22] sustain I mean to meet the coverage

[1:18:24] requirements. And if you follow that,

[1:18:26] you should be in pretty good shape

[1:18:28] assuming they're up to date and the

[1:18:30] costs are accurate, etc.

[1:18:32] >> Yeah. I I just want to point out um in

[1:18:34] our own experience here as a city, we

[1:18:37] have um been slow to get started on our

[1:18:40] fire station and the costs have gone up

[1:18:43] um faster than interest rates in in my

[1:18:46] estimation. Um and so it doesn't always

[1:18:49] favor us. Like you said, the first thing

[1:18:51] is to save. Sometimes you end up costing

[1:18:54] the taxpayers more if you sit around and

[1:18:56] wait to save the money because

[1:18:59] inflationary pressures have just been

[1:19:01] unprecedented. Probably the past three

[1:19:03] years, what would you say, five years?

[1:19:06] It's just been crazy. This well back in

[1:19:08] 2020 would have been $2 million instead

[1:19:11] of almost $6 million. So that's what

[1:19:13] we're saying is the time to act is, you

[1:19:17] know, like I just I've been on the

[1:19:19] internet looking at the history of rates

[1:19:21] and we're we're below right now the the

[1:19:24] 50 no wait 70 where we are the 50-year

[1:19:28] average. So interest rates go up,

[1:19:30] inflation can go up. There's so many

[1:19:31] things that can change that in the end

[1:19:34] would hurt us by delaying. So that is a

[1:19:37] that to me is something a lesson learned

[1:19:39] that if we delay to save the money

[1:19:42] sometimes we're actually hurting our

[1:19:44] taxpayers and specifically with this

[1:19:47] well Christie can

[1:19:48] >> in addition in addition to that is if

[1:19:51] you're going to raise the money to save

[1:19:52] for the future you're going to have to

[1:19:54] raise rates anyway. You're either

[1:19:56] raising the money now and and waiting to

[1:19:58] expend it. You're going to have to raise

[1:20:00] the rates in either scenario. Yeah,

[1:20:02] there will be an interest cost, but that

[1:20:04] may be offset by the reduction in the

[1:20:08] inflationary cost for the the

[1:20:10] improvements later on.

[1:20:12] So when it comes to timing and phase one

[1:20:15] and phase two, to Jessica's point, then

[1:20:17] if if costs are going up,

[1:20:19] >> is it still better to phase and do phase

[1:20:21] one and then phase two to get provide us

[1:20:23] time to maybe save some more money to do

[1:20:26] phase two or because we know that some

[1:20:28] of those costs will go up. Is it more

[1:20:31] prudent to

[1:20:33] >> That's why we only need the crystal

[1:20:35] ball.

[1:20:36] >> Okay, we all need a crystal ball

[1:20:37] >> or just have a council conversation. We

[1:20:39] haven't. Now that we're all educated and

[1:20:41] we've met with the water committee and

[1:20:43] we have all the information, now we can

[1:20:46] talk.

[1:20:48] >> Has there ever been a city that you've

[1:20:50] worked with? Uh because this this hits

[1:20:53] people different, this type of a thing,

[1:20:55] and I love your ideas. Uh, has there

[1:20:57] been a city that you've worked with that

[1:20:59] has been able to do something like this

[1:21:01] but penalize

[1:21:03] uh to a lesser degree those who are

[1:21:06] retired, those who are uh lower income,

[1:21:10] those who don't weather this so well.

[1:21:17] I don't know to give you to give you

[1:21:19] some background about I mean while you

[1:21:20] can think of while you're thinking about

[1:21:21] that I feel like you know Jessica is

[1:21:24] saying let's bond for the full 29 plus

[1:21:26] million

[1:21:27] >> I'm saying let's talk about it so don't

[1:21:28] take one thing and then make it

[1:21:30] something else

[1:21:31] >> you just said let's do all of these also

[1:21:33] I said let's talk about it

[1:21:34] >> that's because of my concern with

[1:21:37] >> how that would affect our residents and

[1:21:39] because of the ones that are um

[1:21:42] >> retired on social security

[1:21:44] >> yes

[1:21:45] >> um that I feel like if we take these

[1:21:47] steps that we can face it and let's

[1:21:51] start on these projects. They're needed

[1:21:52] now.

[1:21:54] >> Proceed with that

[1:21:55] >> and then yes, look to the future.

[1:21:58] >> But what we're doing now is something

[1:22:00] that will affect generations to come.

[1:22:03] >> You know, it's going to be a long-term

[1:22:06] project and it will benefit everybody in

[1:22:08] the city that is pie.

[1:22:10] >> And so I feel like let's start with this

[1:22:12] because this is a huge bond for our

[1:22:14] city. this is the largest one we've had.

[1:22:17] >> And so instead of saying, "Hey, let's go

[1:22:19] for the full 30 million, let's start

[1:22:21] with nine million, see how that goes,

[1:22:24] and then see how we're going to how

[1:22:26] we're going to go about doing the future

[1:22:29] projects." You know, for me, when we're

[1:22:32] looking at projects and how we finance

[1:22:34] it, for me, it's always how do we find

[1:22:36] the funding? And my preference is

[1:22:38] grants. I would much rather go for a

[1:22:41] federal or a state grant if it's

[1:22:42] available. just right now there's

[1:22:45] nothing available. The closest thing

[1:22:47] that we have to a grant is the um from

[1:22:50] DWR which is a lower interest rate but

[1:22:52] from what I'm understanding from what

[1:22:54] Mr. Anderson is saying is that the

[1:22:56] process is a lot longer and that could

[1:22:58] actually be a hindrance to us and

[1:23:01] actually end up costing us more in the

[1:23:03] long run.

[1:23:04] >> Um so the savings there to me is

[1:23:06] negligible.

[1:23:08] >> Um and it might not be a savings at all.

[1:23:11] Um but yeah, I feel like we've had this

[1:23:14] conversation and yes, we will come back

[1:23:16] and talk about it

[1:23:18] >> and vote on it, but this is just an

[1:23:20] educational discussion on how bounds

[1:23:23] work.

[1:23:23] >> It's great.

[1:23:24] >> And while I appreciate your adversity to

[1:23:26] being in debt, I think you really do

[1:23:28] need to take into consideration what um

[1:23:31] their council has said regarding, you

[1:23:34] know, you look at this. Well, in 2020,

[1:23:36] it was estimated to cost $2 million.

[1:23:38] >> Yeah. And now in 2026 it's $6 million.

[1:23:41] And that's only in six years. That's at

[1:23:44] a rate of what? 200%.

[1:23:46] >> That's too much.

[1:23:47] >> And so if we would have done it then and

[1:23:50] even if we had to bond then it still

[1:23:52] would have saved us more than the four

[1:23:54] million for the cost of doing the

[1:23:56] project now. So we have to think of it

[1:23:58] that way. And costs from what I have

[1:24:02] heard, especially with my experience

[1:24:04] with the fire station, they're not going

[1:24:05] down anytime soon. I haven't heard a

[1:24:08] contractor go, "Oh, wow. Wood prices has

[1:24:11] really gone down and labor prices."

[1:24:13] Yeah, nobody wants to make money

[1:24:14] anymore. You know, it's it's just going

[1:24:16] to keep going up.

[1:24:18] >> I'm sorry for interrupting. Go ahead.

[1:24:20] >> I just last comment I would make is the

[1:24:22] first time I met Mayor Mel was at the

[1:24:24] League of Cities and Towns and she

[1:24:26] wanted to get this fire station

[1:24:27] financed. So, that's been two and a half

[1:24:30] years, maybe,

[1:24:32] >> three and a half actually. So anyhow,

[1:24:35] thank you for the opportunity and we'll

[1:24:36] talk some more about the sales tax bark.

[1:24:39] Mayor, just one quick thing. We just had

[1:24:41] a monthly finance report. If you stand

[1:24:43] back and look at say a 25-year finance

[1:24:46] report for the city, I think the city's

[1:24:48] done a phenomenal job. We've had a PI

[1:24:51] bond in around 2002.

[1:24:54] It was refunded in 2020 adding a million

[1:24:57] dollars to construct a filter station

[1:25:00] and the pipeline to get CUP water to the

[1:25:03] city. Those are the only bonds we've had

[1:25:06] in 25 years. That's probably Mark works

[1:25:11] with a lot of different entities and

[1:25:12] cities. That's probably somewhat unheard

[1:25:15] of um to be able to do that. So, we have

[1:25:19] worked on cash. We built tons of

[1:25:20] projects. I have a list of them from the

[1:25:23] past 25 years. Um,

[1:25:27] >> trying to keep your record going strong.

[1:25:29] >> We just can't do it. If we could, we if

[1:25:32] we thought there was a way we could do

[1:25:33] it, we would. We wouldn't be coming.

[1:25:35] >> I I only see one way to do it different

[1:25:37] and that is we got to stop saying yes to

[1:25:39] every other expense. So, that that's the

[1:25:42] only way I see we can do it is and we

[1:25:44] say yes to almost everything. That's the

[1:25:46] only way is we've got to I mean park

[1:25:48] plans and fire stations and everything

[1:25:51] else under the sun. Then when we have an

[1:25:53] emergency or something that's like a

[1:25:54] dire need of course we're going to have

[1:25:56] to open up the door for this type of

[1:25:58] stuff

[1:25:59] >> which the emergencies are why we have a

[1:26:01] fund balance and why we've try we've

[1:26:03] worked really hard to maintain a fund

[1:26:04] balance in each one of our funds. So

[1:26:06] >> if we've done that so well why are we

[1:26:08] bonding?

[1:26:09] >> Because inflation we can't keep up with

[1:26:11] inflation.

[1:26:12] >> Okay. I'm I'm just saying I know. Look,

[1:26:14] I'm on your team. I'm on your team. I

[1:26:16] I'm trying to I want I want this to be

[1:26:18] solved, too.

[1:26:18] >> But Andrew, there also I think council

[1:26:21] member was gonna say this. Go ahead.

[1:26:24] >> Well, I say and the other thing is is an

[1:26:26] enterprise fund is different. This is um

[1:26:29] this is specifically

[1:26:32] servicing just the PI system. And so

[1:26:35] it's not

[1:26:38] it's just a different animal. I think

[1:26:40] >> remember when we talked about restricted

[1:26:42] funds as opposed to the general

[1:26:43] enterprise,

[1:26:44] >> right? Yes. Yes.

[1:26:45] >> So,

[1:26:45] >> well, and he didn't say what I thought

[1:26:47] he was going to say. This is a way to

[1:26:48] have the cost shared by the people that

[1:26:51] are going to be benefiting from this,

[1:26:53] >> right?

[1:26:53] >> Like, I'm not paying everything today

[1:26:56] for that person that's going to be here

[1:26:57] in 10 years.

[1:26:58] >> Right. The last question was for mayor

[1:27:00] and council. Um, there's been several

[1:27:02] residents uh some on the west side or

[1:27:04] some on the south kind of by where Brent

[1:27:06] lives that live up on a hill and then

[1:27:08] some on the north end of the mid zone

[1:27:10] that uh live near Alpine Elementary.

[1:27:14] none of this kind of addresses some of

[1:27:16] the residents who are asking for water

[1:27:17] fixes. When would be the appropriate

[1:27:19] time to bring up some of those?

[1:27:20] >> I actually believe that the the Heritage

[1:27:23] Hills well will alleviate some of those

[1:27:25] issues by for the residents by

[1:27:27] >> taking the pressure off those loans and

[1:27:29] yes so

[1:27:30] >> so within the master plan um the first

[1:27:34] thing that's developed is a minimum

[1:27:35] level of service that could be the

[1:27:37] minimum pressure we want to see anywhere

[1:27:39] in our system is X. So all the

[1:27:42] improvements are planned to make sure

[1:27:44] that X pressure is available everywhere

[1:27:47] in the city. And so all of these should

[1:27:50] help in all the areas that are

[1:27:52] deficient. You know, one might be more

[1:27:55] pinpointed to a certain area, but

[1:27:57] overall the plan is to address that

[1:28:00] minimum level of service.

[1:28:01] >> Okay. I I understand how the well takes

[1:28:04] the pressure off the lower zones and

[1:28:06] then that helps them by not taxing them

[1:28:08] so much. the I didn't know that the

[1:28:10] Heritage Hills well was for uh the

[1:28:13] Boxelder neighborhood, Box Elder South,

[1:28:15] Three Falls subdivision, any future Pine

[1:28:17] Valley one.

[1:28:18] >> It's not Box Elder.

[1:28:20] >> Those areas are all served by culinary,

[1:28:22] not PI, and this is a PI well.

[1:28:24] >> No, I know. Won't this allow for those

[1:28:27] neighborhoods to That's what I have here

[1:28:29] in front of me. Won't Won't Won't Won't Won't Won't this Well, the Heritage Hills

[1:28:32] wells primarily uh service PI to the

[1:28:35] northern zone? So what happens in a year

[1:28:37] like we're having now and in drought

[1:28:39] years um we rely early in the year

[1:28:43] especially

[1:28:45] uh on water on surface water. If it's

[1:28:48] not there then we have to take some

[1:28:49] spring water from Grove spring which

[1:28:53] right now is taking care of 100% of the

[1:28:56] indoor needs of the city and the

[1:28:58] irrigation for those that don't have PI.

[1:29:01] Um, so it could free up some of that to

[1:29:05] help with growth and providing culinary

[1:29:08] water because we wouldn't need the water

[1:29:10] from the spring to supplement the

[1:29:12] irrigation system.

[1:29:14] >> Okay. Thanks. Okay. Yeah. Any other

[1:29:16] future questions? We're going to have

[1:29:17] another meeting, right, on the details.

[1:29:19] Thanks. This has been really helpful.

[1:29:20] Thank you. Okay.

[1:29:21] >> Thank you. Okay. Let's move on to action

[1:29:24] items. A, approval of the exterior

[1:29:25] changes Alpine Fire Station addition

[1:29:28] remodel.

[1:29:32] Thank you, mayor. Um, so I think we're

[1:29:33] all really excited for this moment. Uh,

[1:29:37] I know that we had some a first round of

[1:29:39] re revised design options presented at

[1:29:42] the last meeting on May 26th. Um, and

[1:29:45] then the site plan for the fire station

[1:29:48] edition remodel was approved that day

[1:29:49] with the condition that the exterior

[1:29:52] design be reconfigured through a joint

[1:29:53] work session. So, a lot of the council

[1:29:56] members and and planning commission

[1:29:58] members were able to attend that joint

[1:29:59] work session on June 3rd, last week to

[1:30:02] determine what the exterior exterior

[1:30:04] materials would be. And the decision was

[1:30:07] made to bring another round of revised

[1:30:09] design options to council today to

[1:30:12] determine that exterior design. So, that

[1:30:14] is the purpose of this action item. Um

[1:30:17] the staff just recommends that the

[1:30:18] council consider and determine the

[1:30:22] exterior design of the fire distation

[1:30:25] addition and remodel based on either the

[1:30:28] original design or one of the design

[1:30:29] options presented and any change to the

[1:30:32] original design would be handled through

[1:30:34] a change order.

[1:30:39] With that, I'll pull up the designs that

[1:30:41] were uh put together by our architect. I

[1:30:44] don't know if he's here today.

[1:30:47] >> So, Chad Littlewood is not, but we have

[1:30:50] Sierra with us tonight from Babcock

[1:30:52] Design.

[1:30:55] >> Awesome.

[1:30:57] So, this is the first revised design.

[1:30:59] Um, this has minimal changes from from

[1:31:02] the current design. There's an updated

[1:31:04] gabled roof for the main entrance to the

[1:31:07] community center. Uh, there's more

[1:31:09] accurate depiction of the existing ephys

[1:31:12] coloring. revised roof, sophet, fascia,

[1:31:15] door, and brick colors per the council

[1:31:19] meeting.

[1:31:24] Design option two removes all of the

[1:31:26] faux wood, has an updated gable roof for

[1:31:29] the main entrance to the community

[1:31:30] center, more accur accurate depiction of

[1:31:33] the existing ephus coloring, and then

[1:31:36] the revised roofs off at fascia door and

[1:31:38] brick colors as well.

[1:31:40] >> Is this one correct?

[1:31:41] No, I think it's further down the

[1:31:43] packet.

[1:31:44] >> It's not the revised ones. It's just

[1:31:46] optional.

[1:31:47] >> Further down on the packet because I'm

[1:31:48] looking at mine and it's it's those.

[1:31:51] Yeah,

[1:31:52] >> thank you. Sorry, those were the design

[1:31:53] options on May 26. Okay, these are the

[1:31:55] current ones. Thank you, mayor, for

[1:31:56] that. So, option one is currently

[1:31:59] designed. Uh, this would be the least

[1:32:01] impactful to schedule and cost. Utilizes

[1:32:04] faux wood, brick, and ephus as primary

[1:32:07] exterior exterior material. Sorry, I

[1:32:10] have a bit of a cold today so I can't

[1:32:12] talk very well. Uh gabled roofs at

[1:32:14] primary structures with shed roofs at

[1:32:16] small structures

[1:32:21] and there are four option options in

[1:32:22] total. So that was option one. Option

[1:32:24] two is increased brick no faux wood shed

[1:32:28] roof at the community center.

[1:32:31] So this would be the second least

[1:32:32] impactful to scheduling cost. It

[1:32:35] utilizes increased brick and ephus as

[1:32:38] primary exterior materials. Pre-cast

[1:32:40] concrete lentils as accent materials

[1:32:44] above the windows as you can see there.

[1:32:46] And then gabled roofs at primary

[1:32:48] structures, shed roofs at small

[1:32:50] structures.

[1:32:56] Option three uh is increased brick, no

[1:32:58] faux wood and a gable roof at the

[1:33:00] community center. So this would be the

[1:33:03] third least impactful to scheduling

[1:33:05] cost. Utilizes increased brick ephus

[1:33:09] uh pre-cast concrete lint holes as

[1:33:11] accents gabled roofs and then the shed

[1:33:14] roof at the day room dining and kitchen

[1:33:16] structure.

[1:33:18] And then the final one is the most

[1:33:21] impactful. The scheduling cost in uh

[1:33:25] utilizes increased real wood, brick and

[1:33:28] ephus and then gabled roofs as primary

[1:33:31] structures with shed roofs at the small

[1:33:33] structures.

[1:33:44] And so yeah, I believe that is it. I

[1:33:46] don't know if there's a revised option

[1:33:48] that the council members want to see

[1:33:49] again or if the architect would like to

[1:33:52] talk about any of the options provided.

[1:34:03] I do have one question between option

[1:34:05] one and option two. The bay doors, why

[1:34:08] is there a difference?

[1:34:12] Wouldn't they be the same? I don't know.

[1:34:21] You're talking about the windows. The

[1:34:22] kind of b the windows.

[1:34:24] >> Yeah. On the on the bay doors. They're

[1:34:26] just Yeah. One has lots of windows and

[1:34:28] one looks like

[1:34:29] >> the longer one.

[1:34:30] >> You scroll up to option one.

[1:34:32] >> Caden.

[1:34:35] >> Yeah, that's true.

[1:34:46] Sorry.

[1:34:47] >> Which one are they going to be? I was

[1:34:49] just curious.

[1:34:51] >> They're going to be not this one. The

[1:34:53] ones on option two. So that's what

[1:34:55] they'll

[1:34:55] >> Okay. Thank you.

[1:34:59] » Okay. Are there any other questions?

[1:35:03] Okay.

[1:35:05] Jessica, do you have a comment?

[1:35:12] » Um, just to give a little bit more

[1:35:14] background, option two, um, is

[1:35:19] incorporating the feedback from planning

[1:35:21] commission

[1:35:22] that as we work through our gateway

[1:35:25] historic guidelines and criteria that we

[1:35:28] want to use um, natural materials. And

[1:35:32] so in an effort to do that, as this

[1:35:35] building will be here for many, many

[1:35:37] years and it's going to be the first

[1:35:39] building to come in under our new

[1:35:42] commercial guidelines, we wanted to make

[1:35:44] sure that we led by example. So that's

[1:35:47] really the reason that it captures more

[1:35:50] of a historical

[1:35:52] um presence and a historical

[1:35:54] architecture vibe using the brick.

[1:35:58] That's all I have to add. Sarah, did you

[1:36:00] have anything to

[1:36:01] >> Oh, no. I would just I would just kind

[1:36:04] of reiterate what Jessica said. Like I

[1:36:06] did a lot of research on Utah historical

[1:36:09] architecture and that confirms that

[1:36:12] yeah, a lot of brick and natural natural

[1:36:17] surfaces. So,

[1:36:19] >> um I just had a clarification. Um, in

[1:36:23] our original meeting we talked about

[1:36:27] dictating to some degree the level of

[1:36:29] detail like the trim and this doesn't

[1:36:31] list that. So if it's not in the motion,

[1:36:33] are we going to let the design team

[1:36:36] because uh Chad in our we had a meeting

[1:36:38] with the planning commission combined

[1:36:40] and architects. He said that often they

[1:36:42] get samples as they go along and so

[1:36:44] those decisions are made in real time.

[1:36:47] Um, is that still our going to be our

[1:36:50] process council? We're going to let the

[1:36:53] design team make those decisions like

[1:36:55] normal and not be overly

[1:36:58] prescriptive in my mind.

[1:36:59] >> Yeah. No, I think the design I think you

[1:37:01] know we've hired the design team and

[1:37:03] they're going to be moving.

[1:37:04] >> Yeah. I just noticed they didn't list

[1:37:05] that in the details. So, we're going to

[1:37:06] just do that the normal way. Okay.

[1:37:09] >> We I wasn't because I wasn't there. We

[1:37:11] explained that a little bit more.

[1:37:12] >> Can you explain that process for us,

[1:37:14] please? because I'm just regurgitating

[1:37:16] my interpretation.

[1:37:17] >> I wasn't there for that particular

[1:37:19] meeting to discuss but

[1:37:20] >> is Chad Were you there Chad?

[1:37:22] >> You there? Okay.

[1:37:26] » Good evening. So um there is a submitt

[1:37:30] process where so well first of all it is

[1:37:34] in the design. The details of all the

[1:37:35] trim, the colors and everything is in

[1:37:37] the design. And then in submittal

[1:37:40] process, what the other Chad was talking

[1:37:41] about is that they'll give an actual

[1:37:43] sample and say, "Does this match the

[1:37:46] design? Do you approve this?"

[1:37:48] >> Okay. So that's

[1:37:49] >> So there won't be any changes to other

[1:37:51] than what we talked about here. No other

[1:37:53] changes to what's in the design

[1:37:55] currently. So if there are

[1:37:58] >> Can you go back to the one Kaden?

[1:38:01] That's

[1:38:04] >> option one. Is that what you're talking?

[1:38:05] >> Okay. Okay. Thank you.

[1:38:08] All right. That makes sense. That's what

[1:38:10] he meant. Just like he can put gray, but

[1:38:14] gray could be variable depending on

[1:38:17] who's the vendor.

[1:38:19] >> That's right.

[1:38:19] >> Or he could put black. That's pretty

[1:38:21] standard.

[1:38:22] >> They'll even put in the plans. They have

[1:38:23] the manufacturer.

[1:38:25] >> Oh, okay.

[1:38:26] >> And the color. So, all of that is

[1:38:28] detailed in the plans.

[1:38:30] >> Okay.

[1:38:30] >> And then the contractor could propose

[1:38:33] substitutions.

[1:38:35] >> Okay. And then the architect can say

[1:38:36] yes, we accept that or no, we do not.

[1:38:38] >> I think that's what he was talking about

[1:38:40] is we can't he because

[1:38:43] he you just described it perfectly.

[1:38:45] Yeah, there's still a tiny variation but

[1:38:47] not substantial from what we're seeing.

[1:38:49] And

[1:38:50] >> yeah,

[1:38:51] >> the pictures are reflective of what will

[1:38:54] be in the design guide. Correct. So what

[1:38:57] we're looking at and deciding on today

[1:38:59] is going to be in that. Okay.

[1:39:01] >> Yes.

[1:39:02] >> Okay. Andrew, did you have any

[1:39:04] questions?

[1:39:05] >> Uh, are we kind of going through and

[1:39:06] sharing thoughts about questions?

[1:39:08] >> It's your turn.

[1:39:09] >> No, I know. I just Is this the end? And

[1:39:10] then people are going to start making

[1:39:12] motions.

[1:39:12] >> Yep.

[1:39:13] >> Well, and then we'll have a comment.

[1:39:14] There's um there was a resident that

[1:39:17] reached out and said he wanted to make a

[1:39:18] comment.

[1:39:18] >> Oh, great. That's wonderful. Um, couple

[1:39:22] things. Um, has there Oh, I see some

[1:39:25] fantastic folks in the audience tonight.

[1:39:27] Uh, has there been any

[1:39:31] compromise or union on one of these

[1:39:34] between the donor, the council, those

[1:39:38] who have basically to back it up,

[1:39:40] there's been some but this is a terrible

[1:39:43] issue. This has been this has ripped me

[1:39:45] apart the last week. People are so

[1:39:46] passionate about it. Um, I'm wondering,

[1:39:49] has the planning commission, has some of

[1:39:51] the city council, has the donor come to

[1:39:53] any uh one of these options that they

[1:39:57] all feel comfortable with? And

[1:39:59] >> I guess that's why we're going to vote.

[1:40:00] >> Well, I know, but I would really like to

[1:40:02] vote. My dream my dream is that there is

[1:40:07] a coming together between those who have

[1:40:09] the strong opinions, and I didn't know

[1:40:11] at what stage we're at. Has there been

[1:40:12] an option? So Andrew, my understanding

[1:40:15] is there have been discussions, but I

[1:40:17] think it's gonna all we're playing it

[1:40:18] out right now.

[1:40:19] >> No one has consolidated on one.

[1:40:20] >> No. So do you have

[1:40:22] >> that makes my life terrible.

[1:40:23] >> Okay. Do you have any other questions

[1:40:25] other than that?

[1:40:26] >> Uh yeah.

[1:40:28] Um

[1:40:30] every single one of the designs has

[1:40:32] white trim.

[1:40:34] Is that by design or is that left still

[1:40:37] to interpretation?

[1:40:38] >> No, that's intentional. It kind of plays

[1:40:40] off the existing that's there already

[1:40:42] with the fire station.

[1:40:44] >> Okay. Um

[1:40:46] >> actually design one has black trim over

[1:40:48] the shed roofs.

[1:40:50] >> If you look a little closer, you'll see

[1:40:52] the the edges and the um

[1:40:54] >> Okay. I know that was one

[1:40:56] >> I did notice. Thank you.

[1:40:57] >> Well, and I think original the original

[1:41:00] plans had everything be black and I

[1:41:02] believe Sarah and Jessica asked for

[1:41:04] white because they thought that was more

[1:41:05] historical. That's what I

[1:41:07] >> It's not a thought. It's just an actual

[1:41:09] the characteristics of Utah historic are

[1:41:11] that. So,

[1:41:13] >> but our planning commission specifically

[1:41:14] did say black. That's why I was sort of

[1:41:16] wondering, have we left it out? And

[1:41:19] you're telling me what we're seeing is

[1:41:21] what is.

[1:41:22] >> Yeah,

[1:41:23] >> correct. And those black trim areas,

[1:41:25] that is actually where we have standing

[1:41:26] seam roof. So, it's a different roofing

[1:41:28] material. The rest is going to be the

[1:41:30] asphalt. And it does have a different

[1:41:32] trim with it.

[1:41:33] >> Okay. I mean, I like white personally,

[1:41:35] but yeah. Um, couple questions. I I and

[1:41:38] comments uh and I've been really

[1:41:40] searching the other uh architectures

[1:41:43] around this does have brick. We have a

[1:41:46] lot of bricks or or the the top one they

[1:41:48] all have brick. They all have some uh

[1:41:52] stucco which this building is completely

[1:41:53] stucco. So it does marry uh marry the um

[1:41:59] uh different neighboring uh uh

[1:42:02] structures. Uh my question is which one

[1:42:04] is the one that adds the least amount of

[1:42:07] cost?

[1:42:08] >> That's option one. The one with the the

[1:42:11] faux wood. That one. Yes.

[1:42:15] >> How much more of cost is option two? And is that known? Maybe it's an

[1:42:19] unknown.

[1:42:20] >> So um as I think there's even one sheet

[1:42:24] in there that's been discussed before

[1:42:26] that the break is actually a much

[1:42:27] cheaper material than that faux wood.

[1:42:30] What is unknown and following up from

[1:42:33] the planning commission council joint

[1:42:35] meeting uh was to get structural input

[1:42:40] in the original design. We left the

[1:42:43] apparatus bays as is. We didn't we're

[1:42:45] not going to touch them change anything

[1:42:46] structurally. So they have not assessed

[1:42:49] any of the structure of the bays

[1:42:51] themselves

[1:42:53] with the added brick on there. they do

[1:42:56] need to go rerun their or run lateral

[1:42:59] loads. Uh the concern is with putting

[1:43:02] that much weight on there when it comes

[1:43:04] to seismic, when it comes to wind, how

[1:43:06] the building will react laterally with

[1:43:08] that additional weight. Um

[1:43:13] they have not yet run that calculation.

[1:43:15] They're waiting for direction from

[1:43:16] tonight, but it

[1:43:19] we're still hopeful that it would be the

[1:43:22] cost of any additional structure

[1:43:25] could be offset from the savings in the

[1:43:27] faux wood, but at this point, honestly,

[1:43:30] it's unknown. Um, they did recommend, we

[1:43:33] talked about the full brick, the 3 and

[1:43:35] 58 brick versus the thin 916.

[1:43:38] He said definitely uh would recommend

[1:43:41] the 9/116 the thin brick to lessen the

[1:43:43] weight on that building. Um

[1:43:47] but with being existing building and us

[1:43:49] not doing anything to the foundation of

[1:43:51] the bays themselves,

[1:43:53] it could become more of an issue if we

[1:43:56] do need to structurally upgrade that

[1:43:58] itself. Um

[1:44:02] he said up to five feet in height, which

[1:44:04] was in the design. We had that break

[1:44:07] that went up to 5T. said that's not an

[1:44:08] issue when it gets higher than that. So

[1:44:11] there may have to be a conversation of

[1:44:13] okay, how high can we go with it without

[1:44:15] it being an additional structural cost.

[1:44:18] So that's to be determined over the next

[1:44:20] couple weeks.

[1:44:23] >> Okay. Did you have any other questions

[1:44:25] or

[1:44:26] >> uh just a last comment? Um

[1:44:30] have you there's two things. Have you

[1:44:33] found something you feel comfortable

[1:44:35] with that uh the Watkins family also

[1:44:38] feels comfortable with that you can

[1:44:40] verbalize or articulate before emotions

[1:44:43] are made?

[1:44:43] >> Um I have been in contact with Dawn and

[1:44:48] we've shared our thoughts and feelings

[1:44:51] on this and I don't know that we have

[1:44:53] come to a a consensus. I know how he

[1:44:56] feels and his desire and um but no we

[1:45:01] haven't really

[1:45:03] reached consensus.

[1:45:05] >> Okay. The last comment here

[1:45:06] >> the last comment is uh um I did really

[1:45:11] struggle with this um given your great

[1:45:14] reasoning behind everything you're doing

[1:45:15] and also the great reasoning of other

[1:45:17] folks. I I went to the um I went to uh

[1:45:21] the neighbor today who's going to look

[1:45:23] at this every day of their lives. They

[1:45:25] live right across the street from it.

[1:45:27] And uh I wanted to survey what they

[1:45:29] would say.

[1:45:31] This will not be very favorable

[1:45:33] information, but um yes, he's lived

[1:45:36] there for a while. Yes, he wants to keep

[1:45:38] his home for his kids. Yes, he'll be

[1:45:39] looking at what we're looking at every

[1:45:40] day. I asked him that I need help on

[1:45:44] what he wants to look at every day.

[1:45:48] And uh he said he didn't care. And I

[1:45:51] said, "I need you to care because there

[1:45:54] are people on opposite tracks of this."

[1:45:56] He looked at every single one of them.

[1:45:59] And he said he wanted number one. And he

[1:46:02] wanted faux wood.

[1:46:05] I said, "Why?"

[1:46:07] He said, "Because it's easy to take care

[1:46:10] of and it will last long." I said, "What

[1:46:13] about the brick?" He says, "It's fine,

[1:46:15] but I like number one." I know that is

[1:46:18] not what you want to hear.

[1:46:19] >> Oh, no. I I respect whatever you decide.

[1:46:23] You have your reasoning. So,

[1:46:24] >> but none of us live next to this. And

[1:46:26] this guy, his name's uh Mr. Peterson. He

[1:46:29] lives next to it. He's going to live by

[1:46:31] it his whole life. He's going to look at

[1:46:33] it every time he leaves. I did not push

[1:46:36] one way or another.

[1:46:38] >> Anyways, I just wanted to pass that on

[1:46:40] that what you said.

[1:46:41] >> I appreciate that. I think in the long

[1:46:43] run, it's just each of us are trying to

[1:46:45] do what we feel like is best

[1:46:47] >> for this for the city, for the res.

[1:46:49] >> Thank you. But Brent, do you have any

[1:46:50] comments?

[1:46:54] » No, nothing more than what I shared last

[1:46:55] time. I will say that the donor did

[1:46:58] express concerns with a change to just a

[1:47:00] plain old stucco. And I I agree with

[1:47:03] those comments because that was really

[1:47:06] blah. and and talking to some people who

[1:47:08] are more

[1:47:10] um professional at this than I um I

[1:47:13] think the brick looks really nice and I like that option two is kind of a

[1:47:18] compromise. It's the least impactful to

[1:47:21] the schedule and cost which is I think

[1:47:23] is very important. I think we need to

[1:47:24] move forward with this. It's been going

[1:47:26] on for a long long time

[1:47:29] and I really respect and appreciate the

[1:47:31] work of the planning commission and

[1:47:33] providing their input not only on this

[1:47:35] project but on the future of what our

[1:47:37] main street business commercial zone is

[1:47:40] going to be and I think this is setting

[1:47:42] an example for what we want the future

[1:47:44] to look like. Um so that's it.

[1:47:47] >> I'd like to make a motion. Are you

[1:47:49] ready?

[1:47:50] >> I was going to wait. I was going to have

[1:47:51] some comments. There was a

[1:47:53] >> Oh, I forgot. Yes.

[1:47:54] >> Okay.

[1:47:55] >> Thank you so much. If you guys want to

[1:47:56] take a seat, um Mr. Watkins, if you

[1:47:59] wanted to make your comment, if you

[1:48:00] could state your name and the street

[1:48:02] that you live on.

[1:48:04] >> Uh Don Watkins. I live on 105

[1:48:07] >> microphone.

[1:48:09] >> Just one m one of not or both.

[1:48:12] >> Both.

[1:48:13] >> And I want to start out by just thanking

[1:48:15] you for your service.

[1:48:17] >> Generally, including

[1:48:18] >> Can you turn on that mic

[1:48:20] >> on the back of it?

[1:48:21] >> How about this one?

[1:48:22] >> Yes.

[1:48:22] >> Does that one work? Yeah.

[1:48:24] >> And I am also um love our city

[1:48:27] administrator. I appreciate again each

[1:48:30] of you. I appreciate our chief uh police

[1:48:34] chief tonight. I actually have a

[1:48:37] wonderful thing with the policeman out

[1:48:39] on Grove Drive. I really think the work

[1:48:42] that's been done on Main Street has had

[1:48:44] an effect. And I think the uh effect of

[1:48:49] Grove Drive just a few times with a few

[1:48:51] tickets will go a long way. So I

[1:48:54] appreciate that. If if you'll bear with

[1:48:56] me, I I already feel like I've lost the

[1:48:58] battle. And you know what? That's okay.

[1:49:00] There's a few battles I've won and a lot

[1:49:03] of it's because of you guys. So I'm

[1:49:05] grateful for that. I I think there's a

[1:49:08] couple things I hope you'll ponder

[1:49:10] about. And by the way, I haven't met

[1:49:12] Chrissy. Nice to meet you and appreciate

[1:49:15] your service. And of course, I met

[1:49:16] Brent. A couple things. I think I do

[1:49:19] have a reason to give a little

[1:49:22] background. I was on the council when we

[1:49:25] decided to to save this building and

[1:49:28] keep it historical to some degree and I

[1:49:31] oversaw it with Shane the construction

[1:49:34] and it was a big deal to me. Uh it was

[1:49:38] important and uh when I go into most

[1:49:40] communities including Park City, I'll

[1:49:42] find a few uh original buildings. I see

[1:49:45] a lot of fire stations that are very

[1:49:47] contemporary now. And uh but uh I I have

[1:49:52] a major investment and interest in

[1:49:54] preservation. I think I have a history

[1:49:57] of that in the environment and uh I

[1:50:01] think that goes quite a ways. I think

[1:50:03] it's also supported by my own life, 40

[1:50:06] years in a farm home. And uh we do go

[1:50:09] south to teach a little bit, but we come

[1:50:11] back and this is where we hope to die. I

[1:50:13] have a horse buried somewhere and uh you

[1:50:16] can bury me there by him. Shane had

[1:50:19] something to do with it.

[1:50:23] Uh we have old barns that we've tried to

[1:50:26] make look old that are looking old. So

[1:50:29] I'm all about preservation.

[1:50:32] I have absolutely

[1:50:34] no problem with our

[1:50:38] well-designed commercial and uh office

[1:50:42] buildings that have been built. We

[1:50:44] couldn't control them. I'll be straight

[1:50:47] I'll be straightforward because I'm

[1:50:48] going to leave and I'm Peggy and I said

[1:50:50] we're not going to get upset. We're

[1:50:52] going to be very disappointed with what

[1:50:54] happens because we don't think it's what

[1:50:56] the community wants. We think they want

[1:50:58] what I'll tell about. But all these

[1:51:01] buildings that are built, I think

[1:51:02] they're great. I think they're terrific.

[1:51:04] I think all the new homes and the old

[1:51:07] homes are all terrific. I love the

[1:51:09] variety. I think they're great. Yeah. Do

[1:51:12] I sometimes complain about a few things

[1:51:14] up on the hill? Yeah. But then I look at

[1:51:15] the mountains and I look at the people

[1:51:17] and I go, "Wow, what a place. What a

[1:51:19] blessing." And that's why my wife says,

[1:51:21] "Hey, at the end of the day,

[1:51:23] we feel very disappointed and pretty

[1:51:25] hurt."

[1:51:27] But that's part of politics. That's part

[1:51:30] of life. So, a about six months ago, we were fortunate. We've been poor and

[1:51:36] we've been okay and we do a lot of good

[1:51:38] projects in Africa. And about six months

[1:51:41] ago, the mayor came to me and said,

[1:51:42] "Hey, we'd like a a senior center." And

[1:51:45] I said to Peg, I said, "You know what?

[1:51:47] We're we're blessed with other people to

[1:51:49] build hospitals and to do other things.

[1:51:53] I need to do something for the seniors

[1:51:54] of this town. Now, what's funny is I

[1:51:57] went to Sher Borne and I would hope that

[1:52:00] you would share I really hope you would

[1:52:02] as integrity share what Sher Borne told

[1:52:05] you today. I went over to Sher Borne's

[1:52:07] house. She was born here. Do you all you

[1:52:10] know Sherry Borne? Very successful

[1:52:12] realtor. She had some strong words for

[1:52:16] opinions for Sarah.

[1:52:19] Six months ago, I was shown what the

[1:52:21] building would look like. My number one

[1:52:23] priority was senior center and now a

[1:52:26] community center, which is fine. At the

[1:52:29] end of the day, that's what we decided

[1:52:31] to take money away from some of our

[1:52:33] others and put here. I was shown what

[1:52:35] the building would look like. Thought it

[1:52:37] was terrific. I thought your people did

[1:52:40] the job they were supposed to do. made

[1:52:42] it transitional what my community

[1:52:45] absolutely would absolutely want and

[1:52:48] love if you put it out go ahead and put

[1:52:50] it out for a vote and and I'm confident

[1:52:54] of what what it'll be faux wood. So

[1:52:57] that's what in three or four days before

[1:52:59] we go to the digging I hear there's

[1:53:02] going to be another potential change.

[1:53:06] So, I talked to Sarah. She said, "Yeah,

[1:53:09] I'm we're feeling this way."

[1:53:11] And it's the process for me. It's the

[1:53:14] process. If you didn't like what you

[1:53:17] want, let another architect, this is a

[1:53:19] $5 million deal, let them provide it.

[1:53:22] But for me, I think it's naive of for me

[1:53:25] to design it or for you to play with it.

[1:53:28] In my opinion, I'm just being outspoken.

[1:53:30] Forgive me. It it was quite so then I

[1:53:33] went on my way to ask

[1:53:37] not that many maybe 50. They go I love

[1:53:40] that. I love that. Did I buy a s? Sure I

[1:53:44] did. I said doesn't that look beautiful?

[1:53:46] I love that.

[1:53:48] I don't like Sarah goes. How about this?

[1:53:51] How about that? Go. No, you don't you

[1:53:53] don't do that to an art piece. You don't

[1:53:56] peacemail it. and especially who are we to peacemail it in my

[1:54:01] opinion. So we went on a little trip.

[1:54:04] All my family was there and they were

[1:54:06] upset about something and I said, "What

[1:54:09] are you upset about?" She goes, "They

[1:54:10] go, you've never put your name on

[1:54:12] anything yet in this town. What are you

[1:54:14] doing?" I go, "My name's not going to be

[1:54:16] on this building." I said, "And then I

[1:54:20] said, but I think they're going to maybe

[1:54:22] change it." And one of them who's very

[1:54:25] kind and very good said take your money

[1:54:27] back. You got baited and switched.

[1:54:31] I'm not going to do that. Peggy aren't

[1:54:33] going to do that because we want the

[1:54:34] senior center.

[1:54:36] But at the end of the day, I'm going to

[1:54:38] go past that building and I'm going to

[1:54:40] go with the brick. I'm going to go it's

[1:54:43] fine and everybody's going to say it's

[1:54:45] fine. whoever sees it.

[1:54:49] And not very many people in my opinion

[1:54:52] are going to go, "Wow." In my opinion,

[1:54:55] number one is, "Wow." Now, last thing,

[1:54:59] don't get me offended by this. I've been

[1:55:01] through what you've been through, but

[1:55:03] I'm hearing about the planning

[1:55:05] commission has a design plan and that

[1:55:08] they've approved. Do any of you know how

[1:55:11] many people were at that those those uh

[1:55:13] public hearings?

[1:55:18] I can tell you just because I'm a been a

[1:55:21] mayor and a city councilman, very few.

[1:55:25] I believe Fauxwood

[1:55:28] is something that is not going to it's

[1:55:30] not it'll be changed soon.

[1:55:33] as the community

[1:55:34] knows you're you're saying downtown's

[1:55:36] got to look a certain way. It's history.

[1:55:39] We're past that. You're not going to

[1:55:41] dictate to the few lots that are left

[1:55:43] exactly what you're going to do. We

[1:55:45] tried. Didn't work.

[1:55:48] So, my final comment, and I'm going to

[1:55:51] be rude and leave and say, "I love you

[1:55:54] guys. I do. I love this town. If I don't

[1:55:59] get what I want, that's life. And I'll

[1:56:02] go forward." I think it's a little bit

[1:56:04] disappointing, very disappointing to

[1:56:07] provide something for us to invest in.

[1:56:10] that I think the community wants and

[1:56:12] then the last minute go back into more

[1:56:14] discussions and really in my opinion

[1:56:17] disrespect the artist the architecture

[1:56:20] when I do something I've got a lot of

[1:56:22] buildings different things when I want

[1:56:24] it changed and I don't like it I don't

[1:56:26] change it I go back and get another

[1:56:28] opinion Lord bless you thank you for

[1:56:31] your service appreciate it I'll probably

[1:56:34] stay a few minutes and then I'll be on

[1:56:35] my way

[1:56:35] >> okay thank you can I just address um his

[1:56:39] comment. Um, oh,

[1:56:41] >> I'm sorry.

[1:56:42] >> Um, as many of you know, and Jessica

[1:56:45] helped me tremendously. State your name.

[1:56:46] >> Oh, sorry. Tom Watkins, 734 Summit Way.

[1:56:51] >> We're very involved in a road issue.

[1:56:54] And and as part of that, I had to go out

[1:56:56] and raise a lot of money to help the

[1:56:58] citizens put together an attorney.

[1:57:02] And uh what would have happened if I'd

[1:57:06] have gone to those citizens that put

[1:57:08] forth tens of thousands of dollars,

[1:57:10] still some in account right now, and

[1:57:13] said, "Never mind. I'm going to do it

[1:57:14] differently.

[1:57:16] I'm going to take your money, but I'm

[1:57:19] going to do it my way." I appreciate

[1:57:21] Andrew's comments a couple weeks ago

[1:57:23] when he commented about he'd canvased

[1:57:25] around and got some input and design and

[1:57:28] all of that. And I think we've all heard

[1:57:31] the same thing. Number one is by far the

[1:57:33] best option, what was originally done.

[1:57:34] But my point to you is how are you a

[1:57:37] council members going to go to other

[1:57:41] members of the community? We have a lot

[1:57:43] of money here in the city and ask for

[1:57:45] money

[1:57:47] when they're not sure you're going to do

[1:57:48] what you said you're going to do.

[1:57:51] Okay? you went to a citizen as I did,

[1:57:55] went to many citizens, gained money to

[1:57:57] stop a road to coming into Alpine,

[1:58:02] and if I went back to them and said,

[1:58:03] "I'm going to do something different

[1:58:04] with your money." That's my only

[1:58:06] comment.

[1:58:07] >> Thank you. Did you say you wanted to

[1:58:09] address?

[1:58:09] >> Um, just to Don's point, I um Sher

[1:58:12] Bourne did call me and she expressed um

[1:58:15] her preference for option one and she is

[1:58:17] a realtor, you know, she sells homes.

[1:58:19] So, I did take into consideration what

[1:58:21] she had said. I also, to be fair,

[1:58:24] reached out to multiple residents to

[1:58:28] also kind of gauge their interest as

[1:58:30] well. Um,

[1:58:32] I I still feel like the function of the

[1:58:35] building is is is intact.

[1:58:39] And so even though maybe for me the

[1:58:43] design my preference moving forward for

[1:58:47] the Alpine City just in full

[1:58:48] transparency might be different. Um, I

[1:58:52] feel like I'm doing what is I feel like

[1:58:55] is best for the city moving forward. And

[1:58:59] so I I I love the Watkins. I respect

[1:59:01] them. We've known them for a lot of

[1:59:03] years. And I don't mean any disrespect

[1:59:06] if I if I see differently on this on

[1:59:10] this particular item. It's it's not it

[1:59:14] please don't take it as a sign of my

[1:59:16] disrespect or or love for them and their

[1:59:19] or ungrat

[1:59:22] that is not my intent at all.

[1:59:24] >> So

[1:59:25] >> okay I'd like to make a motion

[1:59:26] >> actually no I do have a comment. Um

[1:59:30] so as Mr. Watkins was stating when I

[1:59:32] talked to him after I believe it was two

[1:59:34] or three months ago when we approved the

[1:59:37] final exteriors that's when I presented

[1:59:40] it to him and said hey this is you know

[1:59:42] this is what it's going to look like and

[1:59:44] then um

[1:59:46] a case ran an article on it and he saw

[1:59:50] the rendering and he's like man that's

[1:59:52] looks really good you know and and I did

[1:59:54] tell him I said it might not look like

[1:59:56] that because I felt like I needed to

[1:59:57] tell him right and um so that's how all

[2:00:00] that happened and then when

[2:00:03] they came in for the final site plan

[2:00:05] approval

[2:00:07] because everything had already been

[2:00:09] approved by this same council and was

[2:00:12] told at the time that's the final

[2:00:14] decision any changes

[2:00:17] is going to cost money whether you know

[2:00:19] and yes maybe because changing of

[2:00:21] material might might be net zero but for

[2:00:25] us it was just a matter of moving

[2:00:27] forward and part of that process Um but

[2:00:33] with respect to planning commission, I

[2:00:36] like their idea that they wanted it to

[2:00:38] be more historical. Um, I like the look

[2:00:41] of more classical historical buildings

[2:00:44] and so agreed to um

[2:00:50] to, you know, um, put the meeting

[2:00:53] together for planning commission and

[2:00:55] city council members to come together

[2:00:58] and try to come up with the consensus.

[2:01:00] And for me, I guess what I envision is

[2:01:04] if you're going to change, at least what

[2:01:06] I heard at the time, and tell correct me

[2:01:08] if I'm wrong, was the reasons for

[2:01:10] changing it was that you wanted it to be

[2:01:13] a more historical building.

[2:01:16] >> And um and if we're going to I'm sorry,

[2:01:19] >> and cohesion

[2:01:20] >> and cohes. But if we're going to do

[2:01:22] that, make it look like a historical

[2:01:24] building. Number one, I wish you guys

[2:01:25] would have said something months ago

[2:01:28] when they first came with the renderings

[2:01:31] because that was the time for the change

[2:01:33] and that's unfortunate. Number two, I

[2:01:35] realize, you know, this is all a new

[2:01:37] process for us. We've never really built

[2:01:39] a building. I I don't believe Shane has

[2:01:41] because this building was built before

[2:01:43] he was here and then I know none of us

[2:01:44] have ret, you know, um, in reference to

[2:01:47] the city.

[2:01:49] But my hope was is that you would come

[2:01:53] up with something that if you're going

[2:01:54] to delay things to come up with

[2:01:57] something that truly was historical and

[2:01:59] beautiful.

[2:02:01] If you go to number two, Kaden,

[2:02:05] to me, I look at that and I don't see a

[2:02:07] historical building. I believe

[2:02:09] Councilwoman Haniman said, "Hey, this

[2:02:12] should be a building that when future

[2:02:15] developers want to come in or future

[2:02:16] property owners want to come in and

[2:02:18] build something on Main Street that we

[2:02:20] should be able to say we want it to look

[2:02:21] like this." I'm not sure I want our Main

[2:02:25] Street to look like this.

[2:02:27] To me,

[2:02:29] I guess I'm really disappointed with the

[2:02:31] design elements that we've paid a

[2:02:34] designer

[2:02:36] to work with the existing structure and

[2:02:39] in addition with complicated

[2:02:42] um structures and try to still make it

[2:02:44] look and I feel like he did a very good

[2:02:46] job and I think a lot of people have

[2:02:47] agreed that it did.

[2:02:50] While I appreciate planning commission's

[2:02:52] idea that they want more brick, if they

[2:02:54] want more brick, put more brick and do

[2:02:56] it right. That's my opinion. Or go with

[2:03:00] the original which we which is the

[2:03:03] original plan which will not cause any

[2:03:07] increase to the cost of the project that

[2:03:09] we will be able to meet the maximum

[2:03:12] price for the project. But if you're

[2:03:15] going to change it, change it to

[2:03:17] something more, something better.

[2:03:20] and really make it a showpiece if that's

[2:03:23] what the intent was because that's what

[2:03:24] I understood and agreed to when that

[2:03:28] planning commission and city council

[2:03:30] were going to come together and we were

[2:03:31] going to create a historical building

[2:03:34] that would be

[2:03:37] the centerpiece for Main Street that

[2:03:39] that's what we wanted future buildings

[2:03:41] to look like. So that when they come in

[2:03:43] it's like we want your building to look

[2:03:44] like this or something like this. And

[2:03:48] honestly, I don't know if that's is that

[2:03:51] what you're really thinking. You want

[2:03:54] Main Street to look like this? Because I

[2:03:56] don't think that's it. I've seen

[2:03:58] pictures. I've talked to Alan McDonald.

[2:04:00] I've seen the pictures that he sent me.

[2:04:03] And it doesn't look like this.

[2:04:06] Um, if you're going to change it, make

[2:04:09] it right. If not, leave the original

[2:04:12] design done by the professionals and

[2:04:14] let's move on with the project. Well, a

[2:04:16] couple of challenges with the original

[2:04:18] design is that the faux wood is trending

[2:04:21] and so it I think Mr. Watkins said it'll

[2:04:25] be out in a few years anyway. We're

[2:04:27] looking at anchoring our main street in

[2:04:30] sound Utah historic um principles. And

[2:04:34] so to do that, are we going to get it

[2:04:36] exactly right on the fire station? We

[2:04:39] were given parameters of a structure

[2:04:42] that already exists that we don't have

[2:04:43] the ability to change. And so what we

[2:04:45] have to do is take what we have and then

[2:04:48] anchor sound principles in it so that we

[2:04:51] can then move forward and it's not just

[2:04:54] going to be one person that's by this

[2:04:56] building. We're talking about an entire

[2:04:58] main street. And so I mean what what I

[2:05:02] would love go to number four. I mean if

[2:05:04] we really want to build a wow building

[2:05:08] um let's let's go all out with the wood.

[2:05:11] Let's really do something that um

[2:05:15] anchors in Utah history. Real wood does

[2:05:19] that.

[2:05:23] » Okay. Are we ready for a motion? Is

[2:05:25] there more to say?

[2:05:26] >> No. Go ahead.

[2:05:27] >> Anyone else? Brent? Okay. Shane,

[2:05:30] anything more you want to say?

[2:05:32] I think I'm

[2:05:33] >> I just need to say that because uh the

[2:05:36] reason the GMP the the guaranteed

[2:05:39] maximum price is not on tonight

[2:05:42] um the project came back like a couple

[2:05:44] hundred thousand but just over 200,000

[2:05:47] over budget and so there's some work to

[2:05:49] be done to try to narrow that down. I

[2:05:52] point that out just because of four

[2:05:54] would be the most expensive

[2:05:56] which would add add cost okay to the

[2:05:59] overall

[2:05:59] >> thank you for that reality check we love

[2:06:02] it reality check okay um I am going to

[2:06:05] make a motion um this I'm going to

[2:06:09] propose I'm going to make just this is

[2:06:13] all I'm going to say is I do believe

[2:06:14] that we had to compromise because we

[2:06:16] have an existing building I happen to

[2:06:18] drive by a brand new fire station in

[2:06:20] another city and thought now That's what

[2:06:21] we really wanted, but it was a brand new

[2:06:23] build. So, we don't have that option to

[2:06:25] do what we really want because this

[2:06:27] building is existing and we have um

[2:06:30] limitations as was described by Chad

[2:06:33] number one or two, I don't know who you

[2:06:35] are, but the Chad that's here tonight. I

[2:06:37] want to thank our architect. He's been

[2:06:39] over backwards. He's not here with us

[2:06:41] tonight, but obviously we he's done

[2:06:43] everything he can to interpret what

[2:06:45] we've had to say, and I I just really

[2:06:48] feel like he's gone above and beyond

[2:06:51] um what we should ask of our people and

[2:06:55] that also includes our staff who's been

[2:06:57] so patient including our fire chief

[2:06:59] who's actually going to live in that

[2:07:01] building so part-time. So he's been so

[2:07:04] patient with us. Um our planning

[2:07:07] commission has been vocal on this issue

[2:07:10] because they are our gatekeeper of the

[2:07:12] main street. I won't reiterate that. Our

[2:07:14] donors, we don't just have one donor. We

[2:07:16] have more than one donor. and we

[2:07:18] overlook that sometimes that there's

[2:07:19] another donor. So, this is important to

[2:07:22] our s our whole city um that um that

[2:07:26] they're willing to actually put their

[2:07:28] own personal dollars into this project,

[2:07:30] which is remarkable. Um and Zans Bank as

[2:07:34] well for helping us figure out how to

[2:07:36] pay for it, which is of course a reality

[2:07:39] check. So, I'm going to propose um that

[2:07:42] Oh, my last comment is my favorite

[2:07:44] saying is if we go go fast to go alone,

[2:07:47] go far. You need to go together. So,

[2:07:49] we've taken an extra two weeks to try

[2:07:51] and get everyone together. You can see

[2:07:53] we're still not 100% but I think we're

[2:07:56] closer to where we were. And if having

[2:07:58] been elected official for 10 years, you

[2:08:00] always vote your conscience because

[2:08:02] you're the only one that can live with

[2:08:04] yourself. So, um, as as much as you want

[2:08:09] to be influenced by the people around

[2:08:10] you, you're going to live with your

[2:08:12] vote. And I I can attest to that. Go

[2:08:16] vote your conscience. My proposal is

[2:08:18] that, okay, I had this written out and

[2:08:20] then I had to go flip things around.

[2:08:23] Okay. I move to approve the exterior

[2:08:26] design of the Alpine Fire Station

[2:08:27] addition remodel according to the

[2:08:29] original design in option two of the

[2:08:33] design options provided tonight. And I

[2:08:36] think he's had that one up the most.

[2:08:39] That's I'll limit it to that.

[2:08:41] >> Is there a second?

[2:08:43] >> I'll second.

[2:08:44] >> Thank you, Sarah.

[2:08:45] >> It's been moved by Councilwoman

[2:08:47] Hanniman, seconded by Councilwoman

[2:08:49] Blackwell. Any discussions or questions

[2:08:52] regarding the motion?

[2:08:56] Not let's proceed with a roll call vote.

[2:08:59] >> I start.

[2:09:00] >> I said I didn't say the prayer.

[2:09:04] >> I don't know. I think we started the

[2:09:05] vote with Andrew.

[2:09:07] >> Go Andrew.

[2:09:09] >> Andrew Young. No.

[2:09:11] >> Jessica Simuan. Yes. Sarah Blackwell.

[2:09:14] Yes.

[2:09:15] >> Chrissy Anaman. Yes.

[2:09:16] >> Ren Rler. Yes.

[2:09:19] Okay.

[2:09:22] Item B, resolution,

[2:09:25] >> but still thank you for your service.

[2:09:28] >> Resolution R 2026-26A.

[2:09:34] Oh, no. A resolution. Sorry.

[2:09:38] >> Yes. Let me get to the right page here.

[2:09:43] » Okay. Um so with the site plan approval

[2:09:46] and now approval number two um to

[2:09:49] finalize things uh

[2:09:52] our Alpine Fire Station and community

[2:09:54] center project it's on its way. Um we've

[2:09:56] been working with Mark Anderson at Zans

[2:09:59] Public Finance uh to finalize the

[2:10:02] remaining uh funding for the project. Um

[2:10:06] as you you all know we uh we have saved

[2:10:10] some cash to put towards this project.

[2:10:12] Uh there will be some coming out of

[2:10:15] FY27

[2:10:17] and then some out of FY28.

[2:10:21] Um

[2:10:22] uh Brana Johnson from the firm

[2:10:24] Farnsworth Johnson uh has been engaged

[2:10:27] as a bond attorney and has prepared the

[2:10:29] documents that we need to start the

[2:10:31] bonding process. Um he's prepared

[2:10:34] resolution 2026-20

[2:10:37] uh 26

[2:10:39] authorizing the issuance of the sales

[2:10:42] tax revenue bonds for the project. Um

[2:10:45] we've included that resolution in the

[2:10:47] packet as well as uh a calendar of

[2:10:51] events uh if this is approved uh for the

[2:10:54] rest of the bond going forward. And Mark

[2:10:57] touched on some of those things earlier.

[2:10:59] Um there was a a minor error. The middle

[2:11:04] of the three potential motions did

[2:11:07] originally refer to resolution 25 that

[2:11:10] was corrected. And then in that amended

[2:11:13] packet the exhibits. I hope everyone

[2:11:16] read everyund and something pages.

[2:11:22] I'm sure it did. Um

[2:11:25] >> we read a lot of it.

[2:11:26] >> They they were added in Monday as well.

[2:11:29] Um,

[2:11:30] so if there are any questions for Mark

[2:11:33] or Brandon's here as well, I'm sure

[2:11:35] they'd be happy to answer those.

[2:11:42] » Jessica,

[2:11:45] » Sarah,

[2:11:48] » can you come back to me?

[2:11:50] >> Sure. Chrissy,

[2:11:52] >> no questions. I I have several, but I

[2:11:55] rec recognize we have some residents

[2:11:57] trying to get on to the next issue. Are

[2:11:59] we voting on this to approve this $2

[2:12:01] million bond for correct for like the

[2:12:03] full thing? This is not to approve the

[2:12:06] process to look at it and approve it.

[2:12:08] This is to approve it. Correct.

[2:12:10] >> This Mark can this is the starting of

[2:12:13] the process. Just a quick summary.

[2:12:15] >> Yes, please. Because we might be able to

[2:12:16] forward our questions after. Is this

[2:12:18] just to approve the process of looking

[2:12:20] into the bond or is this to approve the

[2:12:21] actual $2 million bond?

[2:12:23] >> This starts the legal process as

[2:12:26] required by state law to issue bonds

[2:12:30] by a municipal entity.

[2:12:33] >> Basically, it establishes what we call

[2:12:35] parameters that the council will allow

[2:12:38] the process to move forward in. Uh, in

[2:12:42] that right now, we've said the maximum

[2:12:44] borrowing would be $2 million. Shane and

[2:12:46] I have discussed that maybe that ought

[2:12:48] to be increased

[2:12:50] uh because of the GMP came in higher

[2:12:53] than anticipated.

[2:12:56] uh it doesn't obligate you to borrow

[2:12:58] money but it starts the process as

[2:13:01] though you are going to uh it identifies

[2:13:05] the maximum length of ter that the bonds

[2:13:08] would be outstanding for which is 21

[2:13:10] years

[2:13:11] uh and the maximum interest rate which

[2:13:13] we have at 6% but we really expect a

[2:13:16] rate somewhere in the mid4s right now

[2:13:21] uh privately placed it also schedules a

[2:13:24] public hearing to allow the public to

[2:13:26] come in and express support for or

[2:13:28] opposition to the issuance of the bonds

[2:13:30] which would take place on your July 14th

[2:13:33] meeting. Uh it does not obligate you to

[2:13:36] complete the process,

[2:13:38] but it does designate certain officials

[2:13:41] with certain authority to approve the

[2:13:45] bond purchase

[2:13:47] within the parameters that the council

[2:13:49] would approve tonight.

[2:13:52] But I assume there's going to be ongoing

[2:13:54] communication with the group that

[2:13:57] if you decide to, you know, if you want

[2:13:59] to stop the process that there would be

[2:14:01] discussions about

[2:14:02] >> that.

[2:14:03] >> Is there a penalty for stopping the

[2:14:04] process? Say we have the public.

[2:14:06] >> There's no obligation to complete the

[2:14:08] borrowing

[2:14:08] >> and there's no uh money exchange

[2:14:10] beforehand.

[2:14:11] >> That's right. We don't even get paid

[2:14:12] unless bonds get issued. And uh just as

[2:14:15] like a very quick on the actual because

[2:14:17] I did read it this there are statements

[2:14:21] that say it there's a range of so I have

[2:14:24] several questions but I'll keep them to

[2:14:26] little knowing that we're going to have

[2:14:27] more time to ask more questions that

[2:14:29] there is a range a variable rate that it

[2:14:32] will not exceed six and that it will be

[2:14:35] above two I think

[2:14:38] >> well there's a 2% discount and where you

[2:14:41] privately place bonds we don't

[2:14:42] anticipate that the bonds would be

[2:14:44] bought at a discount. That sometimes

[2:14:46] happens in the public market to where a

[2:14:50] purchaser will pay less than the face

[2:14:53] value of the bonds.

[2:14:54] >> Okay.

[2:14:54] >> Uh but that's not something we would

[2:14:56] anticipate in a price.

[2:14:57] >> This isn't a variable rate. Uh

[2:14:59] >> no, it would be a fixed rate, but it

[2:15:01] could be uh a serialized coupon in that

[2:15:06] each maturity may have its own separate

[2:15:08] rate. C

[2:15:09] >> and that's what I was reading where I

[2:15:10] didn't understand. Bank of Utah, for

[2:15:12] example, is a regular purchaser in the

[2:15:15] state of Utah, but they may start out

[2:15:17] with an interest rate of 3% in year 1,

[2:15:20] and by year 20, they may be at 5.2%.

[2:15:24] But the average or the true interest

[2:15:26] cost would probably be somewhere in the

[2:15:27] mid 4%. But each coupon has its own.

[2:15:30] >> The only guarantee is it doesn't excel

[2:15:32] above six, but it can fluctuate in that

[2:15:35] range. Correct.

[2:15:36] >> Correct.

[2:15:37] >> Okay.

[2:15:38] >> But most of them are fixed rate for the

[2:15:39] entire term.

[2:15:41] as was the bond we showed earlier that

[2:15:44] was outstanding for the 2020 bonds at

[2:15:47] 1.33% over the last 10 years.

[2:15:50] >> Okay, thank you. The only comment is

[2:15:52] that the addition, if I'm wrong, is

[2:15:54] 3.569

[2:15:56] million. So, $2 million bond cost of

[2:15:58] 3.569.

[2:15:59] >> Yes,

[2:16:00] >> that's estimated.

[2:16:01] >> So, correct me if I'm wrong.

[2:16:04] >> Yeah, depending on the interest rate.

[2:16:05] Brent, did you have any questions for

[2:16:07] Mr. Anderson or anything regarding

[2:16:10] um this agenda item?

[2:16:12] >> No, I I was able to attend the the

[2:16:15] meeting a couple months ago and he

[2:16:16] answered my questions then. So, thanks.

[2:16:18] >> Thank you very much. Okay.

[2:16:21] If there are no questions, I will

[2:16:22] entertain.

[2:16:23] >> Can I just follow one thing up? So the

[2:16:24] discussion Mark and I had today with

[2:16:27] where we're at with the guaranteed

[2:16:28] maximum price is maybe instead of having

[2:16:30] the upper end at 2 million just to give

[2:16:33] our so we don't have to start over maybe

[2:16:36] we put it at two and a half.

[2:16:39] It will be less than that but that would

[2:16:41] be give us a little bit of buffer for

[2:16:45] you know any changes that could come in

[2:16:47] the next couple weeks.

[2:16:48] >> Does that need to be in the motion?

[2:16:50] Yeah, because it's it's the two million

[2:16:52] is stated in the resolution and it's a

[2:16:54] simple change a zero to a

[2:16:58] » I have a motion.

[2:17:00] >> Okay. Okay. I move to approve resolution

[2:17:03] R 2026-26,

[2:17:05] a resolution authorizing the issuance of

[2:17:08] the sales tax revenue bond with the um

[2:17:12] ceiling

[2:17:14] >> change to 2.5 million.

[2:17:18] Second the motion.

[2:17:19] >> Okay. It's moved by Councilwoman Smeuan,

[2:17:21] seconded by Councilwoman Henman. Um, are

[2:17:24] there any questions regarding the

[2:17:26] motion?

[2:17:27] >> Could you just again clarify why 2.5

[2:17:30] versus two again, Shane? Sorry.

[2:17:32] >> Uh, just let's say it, uh, the project

[2:17:34] comes back and we can't shave any of

[2:17:36] that 200,000 overage off. Um, let's say

[2:17:41] we end up borrowing 2.2 million. Two and

[2:17:44] a half. Just it we could say 2.2 two

[2:17:46] tonight. The motion could say that, but

[2:17:49] it just gives us a range of up to 2 and

[2:17:52] a half billion.

[2:17:53] >> Did they give any like likelihood of

[2:17:55] being able to cut the cost or is that

[2:17:57] looking pretty slim?

[2:17:58] >> Structural element.

[2:17:59] >> There's there's a lot of work being done

[2:18:01] right now and there'll be a a meeting

[2:18:03] tomorrow and um the plan is to come

[2:18:06] back.

[2:18:07] >> It didn't look like it was um something

[2:18:10] that was flexible. I mean, it is the

[2:18:12] core.

[2:18:12] >> It's structural.

[2:18:13] >> Okay. Like it's not like okay are they

[2:18:16] going to get you know granite or are

[2:18:17] they going to get

[2:18:18] >> for Micah or what are the gonna be like

[2:18:21] >> is the ceiling going to cave in or is it

[2:18:23] going to

[2:18:24] >> Yeah.

[2:18:26] >> Are we in discussion mode right now on

[2:18:28] the motion?

[2:18:28] >> It is.

[2:18:29] >> So just it's the motion itself. So the

[2:18:32] motion was for 2.5 million. She was

[2:18:34] asking about the amount. Go ahead.

[2:18:36] >> Sorry just one last question. Sorry

[2:18:38] Andrew. But um is that also partially

[2:18:41] because like expenses have gone up too

[2:18:44] since we first start started this

[2:18:46] discussion of like what is our maximum

[2:18:49] price that

[2:18:51] or

[2:18:51] >> I can relay what and if I say anything

[2:18:53] wrong Chad can correct me Chad Jones

[2:18:56] with Navigate but um like some of the

[2:18:59] things in putting together the initial

[2:19:01] estimate was estimating what structural

[2:19:05] >> the cost of the structure uh some metal

[2:19:08] some wood would would be. So they

[2:19:10] estimated sizing on that. When the

[2:19:12] actual structural came back from the

[2:19:14] engineer, it was larger, which means

[2:19:16] more expense and that was probably a big

[2:19:20] chunk of that 200,000. So

[2:19:25] >> they're doing the

[2:19:25] >> that one is tough to change, but there's

[2:19:28] other things that are being looked at to

[2:19:30] try to

[2:19:31] >> shave some money off and and get it

[2:19:33] closer to that 5.8. Jessica, do you

[2:19:37] still have more? Sarah, Jessica, on the

[2:19:39] motion, it raises it from 2 million to

[2:19:41] 2.5. The first um conversation was this

[2:19:45] was around five. That was our total and

[2:19:47] then it then they came in and let us

[2:19:49] know that it was going to go up to 5.8

[2:19:51] and now we're finding out at bid it's

[2:19:54] going to be more like six to 6.1.

[2:19:58] In your motion, we're and you're seeing

[2:20:00] what happens when we have a change.

[2:20:02] There's a change and then we're locked.

[2:20:03] like you change one thing, we're told,

[2:20:05] well, now the price just went up more.

[2:20:07] So, we're locking ourselves in debt and

[2:20:09] locking ourselves out of an ability to

[2:20:12] have flexibility. Uh, so I think maybe

[2:20:15] one thing that might help the motion is

[2:20:17] capping any future additions because if

[2:20:21] we continue to go on this rate, we can

[2:20:23] expect to see more additions is what I

[2:20:25] would think. Now, I could be happily

[2:20:28] surprised, but it keeps happening. I

[2:20:31] think that's outside of right now what

[2:20:33] we're voting on which is the bond

[2:20:37] >> that so we don't adding the addendum

[2:20:40] about

[2:20:40] >> Okay, you guys hold up. Hold up. What

[2:20:42] I'm understanding you're saying is that

[2:20:44] you want her to amend the motion. Yes.

[2:20:45] Do you accept that amendment?

[2:20:47] >> Okay, that dies.

[2:20:49] >> So Brent, do you have any questions

[2:20:50] regarding this motion?

[2:20:53] >> No.

[2:20:54] >> If not, let's proceed with the roll call

[2:20:55] vote.

[2:20:56] >> Andrew Young, no.

[2:20:57] >> Jessica Suan, yes. Sarah Blackwell, no.

[2:21:00] >> Chrissy Henman, yes.

[2:21:02] >> Bren Rumbler, yes.

[2:21:04] >> Okay. Resolution R2026-26

[2:21:08] passes.

[2:21:10] Okay. Item C,

[2:21:12] um, request for approval of funds to

[2:21:15] determine property owner near Alpine

[2:21:17] Highway.

[2:21:19] Thank you everybody for coming.

[2:21:20] Appreciate your attendance. I know it's

[2:21:22] been a long night.

[2:21:28] Did you get some?

[2:21:31] >> Okay.

[2:21:33] >> No. You want

[2:21:38] » You don't need it.

[2:21:43] » I'm good.

[2:21:45] >> Okay. Um, so this item uh was requested

[2:21:48] to be on the agenda. Um there's uh some

[2:21:51] property down east of Alpine Highway and

[2:21:55] kind of between the west end of

[2:21:58] Alaganyway and Alpine Highway. Um that

[2:22:03] uh the ownership of that area has been

[2:22:06] questioned. Um so this item was included

[2:22:10] on the May 12th council meeting agenda.

[2:22:13] We had a discussion there. um

[2:22:16] uh staff was instructed to kind of do

[2:22:19] some work on this and see what we could

[2:22:21] find out. Um so since then we have

[2:22:25] done

[2:22:27] part of the work that a title company

[2:22:29] would do. We're not a title company, but

[2:22:31] we do know how to research deeds. Um so

[2:22:35] we did some of that back to about 1979.

[2:22:38] Looked at a uh some deeds from 1979 to

[2:22:41] about 2004.

[2:22:44] Um, this strip of land shows up on the

[2:22:46] warranty deeds and there was there was

[2:22:48] one quick claim deed in there

[2:22:51] um from 1979 up to 2003.

[2:22:55] In 2003, there's a corrective warranty

[2:22:57] deed that

[2:22:59] um kind of narrowed the property that

[2:23:02] was u on the 2003 deed, same ownership.

[2:23:08] And then that property changed hands a

[2:23:10] couple times and was developed to what

[2:23:12] is now um what's the subdivision called?

[2:23:16] I forgot. It's the Bradock Bradic Lane

[2:23:19] area there

[2:23:21] and the Rachel McTar Park. Um so

[2:23:26] we believe that

[2:23:28] the lane

[2:23:30] is under private ownership. We can't

[2:23:32] really say who owns it, but we can say

[2:23:35] that it does carry through on

[2:23:38] a lot of deeds from 1979 going forward

[2:23:42] to 2003.

[2:23:44] Um so the question is

[2:23:47] um is the city

[2:23:50] willing to spend money to determine who

[2:23:54] owns that property? Um the one thing I

[2:23:56] did leave out, we do have a sewer line

[2:23:58] that goes through this area down this

[2:24:00] lane. It was put in in right around 95

[2:24:06] uh 1995.

[2:24:08] Um

[2:24:11] that's about when I started a Horox. So

[2:24:13] I can't really say what happened, but we

[2:24:15] can't find an easement for it. Um but it

[2:24:17] has been in use since then. So for

[2:24:20] approximately 30 years.

[2:24:22] Um

[2:24:24] so if push came to shove, we believe

[2:24:26] there would be a prescriptive use there,

[2:24:28] but it's for that utility. It's for a

[2:24:31] sewer line. So, you wouldn't be able to

[2:24:33] go build something else on top of it and

[2:24:36] claim that, right? That's what uh our

[2:24:39] city attorney has told us in previous

[2:24:41] meetings. So, um so the question comes

[2:24:44] down to what do you want to do with this

[2:24:46] information and how do you want to move

[2:24:48] forward?

[2:24:49] >> I just have a question just for clarity.

[2:24:52] >> Were there any deeds that stated that

[2:24:54] the city was the owner of the lane?

[2:24:57] >> No. The only thing that I've seen

[2:24:59] there's two there's two private surveys.

[2:25:01] So when a survey surveyor goes out and

[2:25:03] surveys property um this doesn't always

[2:25:07] happen but they're supposed to by state

[2:25:09] law record their survey with the county.

[2:25:12] So there's two surveys on file. Uh one

[2:25:15] from 1996 by Dudley and Associates. Um

[2:25:20] it shows this strip of land um being uh

[2:25:24] the owner at the time was Cutler. It

[2:25:26] shows it going out to Alpine Highway. A

[2:25:29] survey that was done later. Um,

[2:25:32] >> and Kayen, I have a I file in the staff

[2:25:36] report.

[2:25:36] >> You can pull it up.

[2:25:38] >> If you can scroll down just a little

[2:25:39] bit.

[2:25:41] Oh, no. Go back up to the second page of

[2:25:43] the staff report.

[2:25:45] Anyway, it's in there somewhere that it

[2:25:47] was a later survey probably about 10

[2:25:49] years ago that uh Ed Gford did. and he

[2:25:53] shows on his survey

[2:25:56] uh I think it's a 33 ft uh foot ride

[2:25:59] ofway that he believed was in the name

[2:26:02] of the city. He actually came in at that

[2:26:04] time and met with us and explained why

[2:26:06] he thought it was um under city

[2:26:09] ownership and it honestly in all the

[2:26:12] years I've dealt with all this stuff it

[2:26:14] didn't make any sense at all to me. Um

[2:26:16] so I don't

[2:26:17] >> and that one was recorded with the

[2:26:18] county also.

[2:26:19] it it's it's on file with the county,

[2:26:22] but that doesn't

[2:26:24] >> like trans ownership or anything like

[2:26:26] that.

[2:26:26] >> That doesn't establish ownership.

[2:26:28] >> Yeah. So, typically, and you know, the

[2:26:30] surveyor that was here a couple weeks

[2:26:32] ago on a different subject, I asked him

[2:26:34] a couple questions. Usually, if there's

[2:26:35] a gap, it typically would end up going

[2:26:40] um you know, there's property owner on

[2:26:42] either side, you know, it would usually

[2:26:46] go to those two.

[2:26:47] >> Yeah, that's what they told me. That's

[2:26:49] very typical in my experience. Um, so I

[2:26:52] haven't been able to find anything here

[2:26:55] that would say it's a cities. You know,

[2:26:58] if Alagany Way had been there since

[2:27:01] >> way back when

[2:27:01] >> 1970 or whatever and this rideway was

[2:27:04] there, maybe it was a continuation of

[2:27:06] that, but that's not the case here.

[2:27:09] >> Um, you know,

[2:27:10] >> what year did Alagany Way come through?

[2:27:12] So that subdivision was started in

[2:27:15] around 95 and it was built in phases.

[2:27:18] Okay.

[2:27:18] >> Um

[2:27:19] >> and when that was built it still said

[2:27:20] that that belong to these individuals.

[2:27:23] >> So there's no deed that has recorded

[2:27:30] that this land belongs to the city.

[2:27:34] Why are we paying to find out who owns

[2:27:38] this if it belongs to a private owner?

[2:27:41] >> And that's why

[2:27:43] I said, "This item really needs to come

[2:27:45] to council because I don't feel

[2:27:46] comfortable as a city administrator

[2:27:48] spending money on private property. If

[2:27:51] the council chooses to do that, that's

[2:27:53] their prerogative, but I I didn't feel

[2:27:56] comfortable doing that from my seat."

[2:27:58] >> Okay.

[2:28:00] >> Jessica, did you have a comment? So,

[2:28:03] when we were looking at the another

[2:28:06] trail in a different area, and this is

[2:28:08] more for Steve, was there a track record

[2:28:11] of deeds?

[2:28:13] >> I'm asking Steve on that one, like

[2:28:16] >> I think you're you're referring to a

[2:28:18] situation where there was a common area

[2:28:22] designated on a plat. And so, we were we

[2:28:26] were trying to get to that. And we

[2:28:28] actually

[2:28:30] Yes. That was helpful to have

[2:28:33] that additional evidence from the title

[2:28:36] company, but because it was designated

[2:28:39] on a plat's common area, but there was

[2:28:41] no HOA to govern the common area,

[2:28:44] >> right?

[2:28:45] >> That that's a that's a different issue.

[2:28:47] It wasn't it wasn't private property

[2:28:50] going to the middle and you know, we

[2:28:53] don't have anything here that says this

[2:28:55] is common area or this belongs to

[2:28:57] >> I'm not saying it's the same. I'm just

[2:28:59] saying there are times when we don't

[2:29:01] know who owns land and there are times

[2:29:03] when we have to look a little deeper and

[2:29:06] understand who property owners are.

[2:29:08] >> I think what um

[2:29:11] >> so we did have the deed

[2:29:13] >> I just want to talk but I know but you

[2:29:16] were referring to that Mr. Taylor did

[2:29:18] deed over that property to us and the

[2:29:20] county refused it because of the way it

[2:29:22] was recorded

[2:29:22] >> but it was important to to look further.

[2:29:25] That's my point. Oh, you know, as a as

[2:29:28] public spaces and you know, our identity

[2:29:31] as a trail community, one of the reasons

[2:29:34] we have high property values is because

[2:29:36] we prioritize trails and open space,

[2:29:38] public access. So, the question was why

[2:29:42] would we spend um city money and so

[2:29:45] question, right? Well, we don't know

[2:29:47] that it's private property. There is

[2:29:49] potential because we've have information

[2:29:52] that it may be private property. I think

[2:29:54] there's a couple of people here that

[2:29:56] have a lot of information to point to

[2:29:58] very clear probability that the city

[2:30:01] owns it. So if we I mean I think

[2:30:04] >> we have two people with comments, but I

[2:30:05] wanted to hear what you had to say, what

[2:30:07] count um what council had to say and

[2:30:09] then we'll let public comment come up.

[2:30:11] >> Right. So that's the why. I think the

[2:30:13] why is it's super important. I bet if we

[2:30:15] look at our park survey, it's going to

[2:30:17] talk about the priority that residents

[2:30:19] have for trails and open space. I don't

[2:30:21] know how many residents would really

[2:30:23] want a trail that goes to Alpine Highway

[2:30:25] where there is no sidewalk.

[2:30:27] >> Well, we're trying to make Alpine

[2:30:29] Highway better. Give us some time.

[2:30:31] >> No, no, no.

[2:30:32] >> It's part of the plan.

[2:30:34] >> Do you have anything else?

[2:30:35] >> Nope. That's it.

[2:30:35] >> Okay.

[2:30:37] >> Um I don't really have any questions.

[2:30:39] Just my I I guess maybe I do. Just the

[2:30:42] one thing that I think this hinges on is

[2:30:44] if there's a chance that Alpine City

[2:30:45] owns this, then I'm okay with spending

[2:30:47] the funds to research that and figure

[2:30:49] that out. So

[2:30:54] when this came through originally, my

[2:30:57] terminology was if the if it's likely

[2:31:01] that there's something to benefit from,

[2:31:04] we could proceed. But it seems like with

[2:31:05] the research we've had, it's unlikely.

[2:31:08] And so, um, I'm not sure, not no I'm I'm

[2:31:14] pretty no I talked to somebody in the

[2:31:17] again my my reference in the title and

[2:31:20] they just are very clear that if that

[2:31:24] the easement on this land is not

[2:31:27] ownership. And so it's highly likely,

[2:31:30] more than likely, whether we have a

[2:31:32] recorded easement or not, we we have the

[2:31:35] sewer line through there, that all we

[2:31:37] would gain is a defined easement, which

[2:31:40] a sewer line easement does not allow

[2:31:42] people to walk on private property

[2:31:45] because there hasn't been a histo.

[2:31:48] So I I'm to the point where I don't feel

[2:31:51] where it's likely to end up in our in

[2:31:54] the way we were thinking based on and I

[2:31:57] do think it was worth investigating like

[2:31:59] as Jessica pointed out and we've we've

[2:32:01] done some investigation. is looking less

[2:32:03] likely even than when it was first

[2:32:05] brought to us um based on what's

[2:32:07] recorded at the county.

[2:32:09] >> Like if any final comment

[2:32:10] >> if any of those deeds had said you know

[2:32:13] it was deed to Alpine City totally but

[2:32:17] with all the conveyances that happened

[2:32:19] not once as far as I understand did it

[2:32:22] ever say that it you know it belonged to

[2:32:24] Alpine City. Andrew,

[2:32:27] >> uh, I have,

[2:32:28] >> that's why I'm going.

[2:32:29] >> I have several things. I'm the sponsor

[2:32:30] of this one. Uh, but could I, uh, give

[2:32:34] up my time and let some of the residents

[2:32:36] speak to give them more time?

[2:32:38] >> You can ask your question. I've got two

[2:32:39] cards. I have two people that want to

[2:32:42] speak on this. And so,

[2:32:43] >> uh, could I just see a raise of hand of

[2:32:45] who is wanting to speak? Some people

[2:32:46] don't know the process. Is everyone who

[2:32:49] wants to speak, have you filled out a

[2:32:51] card?

[2:32:52] >> Does the N does

[2:32:56] I was the only reason is because I don't

[2:32:58] even know all the information. We do

[2:32:59] have for the first time is it Willard

[2:33:00] Spikes. Spike Spikes.

[2:33:05] >> You're talking in behalf. Okay. Okay.

[2:33:07] Are you okay with that, Mayor? I I with

[2:33:09] a couple of them speaking versus me.

[2:33:11] >> Yes. But I'm sorry. I don't have a card

[2:33:12] for you and it's not time yet.

[2:33:14] >> Can I fill out a card?

[2:33:16] >> Yes. Can you

[2:33:17] >> ma'am if you could sit down until we

[2:33:19] call you up?

[2:33:20] >> No. No.

[2:33:21] >> Can she give you a card?

[2:33:22] >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. No, that's totally

[2:33:24] fine. Can you finish your question?

[2:33:25] Nothing.

[2:33:26] >> For time sake, I'll

[2:33:27] >> Thank you. Brent, do you have anything

[2:33:29] that you want to add to this?

[2:33:31] >> No, I just said I'm in line with

[2:33:32] Chrissy. Um, if there is some compelling

[2:33:36] information that we haven't seen yet, I

[2:33:37] kind of wish we would have had it before

[2:33:39] tonight so we could look at that and

[2:33:41] consider it.

[2:33:42] >> Um, so I'm I'm glad to I'm glad to

[2:33:45] listen and and and and consider any new

[2:33:48] information. I think that's great. So

[2:33:50] far, I haven't seen anything compelling

[2:33:52] that would indicate there's ever been

[2:33:54] any ownership by the city that would

[2:33:56] stand up to, you know, a title search or a lawsuit.

[2:34:02] >> I was just going to say,

[2:34:03] >> wait, before we open this to the public

[2:34:05] though, why are we changing our policy?

[2:34:07] We used to not allow public comment on

[2:34:09] things on the agenda.

[2:34:10] >> It's mostly informational. It's not It's

[2:34:12] not

[2:34:12] >> public comment is public comment.

[2:34:15] I I don't understand that. We can

[2:34:17] discuss that at a later time. I think

[2:34:19] the honest answer is it's in the

[2:34:21] >> I have a question though, Chrissy. You

[2:34:22] said you talked to somebody who um is in

[2:34:25] the profession of titles and what

[2:34:29] >> um did they give an example of in what

[2:34:32] situation where we would have rights to

[2:34:34] that land and that it would belong to us

[2:34:36] with the deed saying that it literally

[2:34:39] named everybody else but us?

[2:34:42] >> Do you know?

[2:34:43] >> No. Exactly. because there is no like

[2:34:46] just because we I I was confused and I

[2:34:48] was clarified that just because we have

[2:34:50] a sewer line there there's there's

[2:34:53] utility easements on every piece of

[2:34:54] property even my own property and so a

[2:34:57] utility easement even if it was never

[2:34:59] recorded would not convey ownership and

[2:35:02] I I I wasn't clear on that and so it's

[2:35:06] very routine to convey an easement for

[2:35:09] utilities such as a sewer line that

[2:35:11] without conveying ownership so if we

[2:35:13] don't convey ownership, then that's what

[2:35:15] the was the objective of a title search

[2:35:17] because title would dictate ownership.

[2:35:20] So, it's unlikely, very unlikely that

[2:35:23] there is any ownership at all of the

[2:35:24] city based on what Shane's presented and

[2:35:28] now my clearer understanding of

[2:35:30] easements.

[2:35:31] >> Okay. Okay. Let's um

[2:35:36] Is it Katherine?

[2:35:38] >> Yes.

[2:35:39] Katherine, will you come up and please

[2:35:40] state your full name and the street that

[2:35:44] you live on and um she will be followed

[2:35:48] by

[2:35:50] Lovado or Laredo. Okay, sorry. Loredo

[2:35:53] Warby.

[2:35:56] >> Okay,

[2:35:56] >> give you three minutes if you could put

[2:35:58] three minutes on.

[2:35:59] >> I will do it.

[2:36:00] >> Thank you. And I'm grateful for all the

[2:36:04] partial work that has been done on this.

[2:36:06] But the uh title search did not go back

[2:36:08] to the original owners. It only went

[2:36:10] from 79 from Cutler's on. And I think if

[2:36:14] we go back to Baitman, I have

[2:36:15] appointments tomorrow down at the tax

[2:36:18] commission and down at the recording

[2:36:21] office Utah County. I spoke with the tax

[2:36:25] commission because I I spoke with the

[2:36:27] Sykes

[2:36:28] today. They are the ones that are paying

[2:36:32] taxes on the easement and have for 41

[2:36:35] years.

[2:36:37] So they have ownership on the easement.

[2:36:41] And when I asked for any other

[2:36:43] ownership, they said, "Well, there's

[2:36:45] nothing."

[2:36:46] And I said, "Is nobody paying taxes?"

[2:36:48] And they said, "Well, there's an

[2:36:50] exemption on it."

[2:36:52] And what does that point a finger

[2:36:55] toward?

[2:36:57] Who's exempt? So, we're going to get to

[2:37:00] the bottom of that. And it very well may

[2:37:03] be the city who is exempt on that. We're

[2:37:07] going to get to the bottom of this. And

[2:37:09] that's all I have to say. So, you have

[2:37:11] any questions, let me know.

[2:37:13] >> Well, and I think to bring new council

[2:37:14] members up to speed, um, the city is

[2:37:17] exempt from paying taxes on property

[2:37:19] they own.

[2:37:23] » Thank you. That's very helpful. I

[2:37:24] appreciate the research everyone's

[2:37:25] doing.

[2:37:26] >> How's it going? I'm Larredo Warby. I

[2:37:28] actually don't live in Alpine. We just

[2:37:30] have the piece of property to the north

[2:37:32] that owns the easement. My family here,

[2:37:35] uh, we've done title search recently

[2:37:37] shows, our title shows me on the 16 and

[2:37:39] a half, well, 16.539 ft north to the

[2:37:43] south from that fence. So, the exemption

[2:37:46] I think she's talking about is if you

[2:37:48] look at our corner, southeast corner of

[2:37:50] the lot, supposedly we're in a dispute

[2:37:53] now with Metropolitan Water and they are

[2:37:55] taxexempt on that specific parcel.

[2:37:58] but not the outgoing part to the road.

[2:38:01] And I can show you all the information

[2:38:03] on my phone if need be.

[2:38:05] >> So you guys are paying taxes on it then?

[2:38:07] >> The whole portion. Correct. Even the

[2:38:08] part Metropolitan owns.

[2:38:10] >> So then what was she referring? I'm

[2:38:12] sorry. Do you know what she was

[2:38:13] referring to?

[2:38:14] >> I'm not sure. We're paying taxes on one

[2:38:15] point like 126 of an acre.

[2:38:18] >> Okay. So

[2:38:18] >> the whole piece.

[2:38:20] >> Yeah. We own 16.539.

[2:38:25] » Right away is 33 feet wide. So there's a

[2:38:28] portion half of it's exempt.

[2:38:30] >> So yeah, we own the north half of that

[2:38:32] road from Alpine Highway to Alageney

[2:38:33] Way.

[2:38:34] >> Okay. And you're And so do you So that's

[2:38:36] your access. You're driving

[2:38:38] >> uh we don't use it as an access

[2:38:39] currently. We uh you usually take the

[2:38:42] culdeac from Alageney Way in. But we do

[2:38:45] have that road also.

[2:38:47] >> Do you have permission for Metropolitan

[2:38:48] to access it through that way?

[2:38:50] >> Well, that's the dispute. Our title

[2:38:52] shows we own that land. They've showed

[2:38:54] us a title from 46 that shows it was

[2:38:56] sold to the US government and allocated

[2:38:58] back to them. A little bit separate, but

[2:39:02] they don't own the land from Alageney

[2:39:04] Way out to the road. They own the

[2:39:05] entrance of the driveway. And I can show

[2:39:07] you the highlighted.

[2:39:08] >> Yeah. If you click on the park,

[2:39:10] actually,

[2:39:11] >> click on the park

[2:39:12] >> with that angle.

[2:39:15] >> No, a little bit. Sorry.

[2:39:18] >> To the right. You see that part where

[2:39:20] it's cut across our property?

[2:39:22] >> Mhm. That's the part that doesn't show

[2:39:25] taxes,

[2:39:27] but it it shows both ways us ownership.

[2:39:30] But if you click on Metropolitan Waters

[2:39:32] ownership, it doesn't show they own that

[2:39:34] piece of land.

[2:39:37] >> It's messy.

[2:39:38] >> It's super messy. I've been dealing with

[2:39:39] this for a month.

[2:39:41] >> And uh what they're bringing up is one

[2:39:43] of the reasons why we can help a lot of

[2:39:45] residents, whether this falls into

[2:39:47] private ownership, which we keep calling

[2:39:49] it private, but no one knows who the

[2:39:51] private owner is. So we don't even know

[2:39:53] that. But I think the end result, no

[2:39:55] matter what we arrive at, is

[2:40:00] stability in the area, our entrance,

[2:40:02] clarity, and a path forward to actually

[2:40:06] do something with it because right now

[2:40:07] it's kind of the wild west. And uh and

[2:40:10] one thing was brought up was money,

[2:40:13] being worried about uh paying money for

[2:40:16] this. We're talk we have a bid. Uh

[2:40:18] Kaden, if you can bring it up. We we

[2:40:20] have a bid. It's it's a we're talking

[2:40:21] about a thousand dollars. We just in a

[2:40:24] fail swoop added 500k onto a potential

[2:40:27] bond need. We're talking about a

[2:40:29] thousand bucks uh to hopefully clarify

[2:40:33] a very pivotal place in our uh entrance.

[2:40:36] That's that's why I felt like we get a

[2:40:38] win-win out of this either way.

[2:40:40] >> Can I ask I guess what's the confusion?

[2:40:42] >> The confusion is um

[2:40:45] who owns it and then what can be done

[2:40:48] with it? I can provide the original deed

[2:40:50] that shows I own that part.

[2:40:52] >> I don't think they're discussing I think

[2:40:55] that's not disputed. Yeah. Um I think

[2:40:57] what they're talking about is the part

[2:41:00] that's below it. The what is a

[2:41:01] >> which you might also own. You might also

[2:41:04] own. We're not sure. I'm not sure.

[2:41:06] >> Well, I I'm positive we don't own any

[2:41:08] past 16 1/2 ft.

[2:41:10] >> Okay. So, what has happened is there's a

[2:41:11] gap between your 16 and 1/2 ft and the

[2:41:13] Williams family.

[2:41:15] >> There's also a bunch of survey mistakes

[2:41:16] right there if you guys aren't aware.

[2:41:19] And uh so I don't think we're doing a

[2:41:21] disservice to the community even if this

[2:41:23] doesn't fall into our ownership. And

[2:41:25] that the goal was never to own it.

[2:41:27] Mayor, you remember the first goal was

[2:41:30] the residents down there were asking for

[2:41:32] some beautifification and some focus on

[2:41:34] this. This this to me this what you're

[2:41:36] looking at what the whole people are

[2:41:37] looking at right now is the prime open

[2:41:39] canvas of a future area of alpine which

[2:41:43] can like rise like a dove. That that was

[2:41:46] way too poetic.

[2:41:48] This is an area that we can beautify.

[2:41:50] This is an area that has potential. And

[2:41:52] I think it has not had the focus that it

[2:41:54] can have. And this is, I think, just one

[2:41:56] step of getting there. Um, where we can

[2:41:59] begin making this like one of the

[2:42:02] treasures of Alpine like so many other

[2:42:03] areas are like Lambert Park or, you

[2:42:06] know, where I live or um, uh, you know,

[2:42:09] many other areas. And this is one of our

[2:42:12] corridors. Uh, and I it's just a lot. I

[2:42:14] would not be doing this if it was a

[2:42:16] hundred grand. If it was 50 grand, if it

[2:42:18] was 20 grand, I'd be like, "Wow, that's

[2:42:20] kind of a lot to roll the dice." But

[2:42:23] because it's $1,000 and and and and just

[2:42:26] so you guys know, I'm not thinking much

[2:42:27] more than that. Maybe a cap of three

[2:42:29] grand, maybe a cap of five grand, we

[2:42:31] might be able to find out what

[2:42:33] >> Well, three and five isn't $1,000.

[2:42:35] >> No, I know. I But but but you know how

[2:42:38] these things go. They go like fire

[2:42:39] department things. They just keep going

[2:42:40] up and up and up and up. So, I like to

[2:42:42] put caps on stuff. So, yes, we got a bid

[2:42:45] for $1,000 for a title company to get to

[2:42:47] the bottom of this, go past the 70s, uh,

[2:42:50] the 1970s, and and like I mean, I talked

[2:42:53] with Shane, I appreciate his research,

[2:42:55] but I don't think even Shane knows the

[2:42:57] answer to this.

[2:42:58] >> Shane, so the parcel that is to the

[2:43:00] south of Mr. Warby's property.

[2:43:03] >> Yeah.

[2:43:04] >> The deed was for that 16 ft, correct?

[2:43:09] That's what I mapped out

[2:43:11] >> that it it showed that the deed belonged

[2:43:13] to private owners until 2003 and it kind

[2:43:17] of dropped off.

[2:43:18] >> Yeah.

[2:43:18] >> Do we know has there been a precedent

[2:43:20] legally, Steve? What are we looking at

[2:43:24] legally? What's our legal claim to that?

[2:43:30] Because the way I look at honestly, if I

[2:43:32] felt like there was anything any deeds

[2:43:35] in the past that said that belonged to

[2:43:37] Alpine City, recorded deed.

[2:43:39] >> The one we have wasn't included. Kaden,

[2:43:41] if you can bring it up. I emailed it to

[2:43:42] you in the share. We have one.

[2:43:44] >> You have a deed.

[2:43:45] >> Well, no, no, not a deed. I'm sorry. A

[2:43:46] survey,

[2:43:47] >> right? November.

[2:43:50] There were a deed that said that parcel

[2:43:52] belonged to Alpine City.

[2:43:54] >> Oh, no

[2:43:56] >> Yeah, a survey is a survey, but a deed

[2:43:58] will say you own that property. We did

[2:44:01] the survey, but we also Hold on just a

[2:44:03] second. If we had anything like that,

[2:44:06] then I would say, yeah, there's a

[2:44:09] possibility that it could be ours. But

[2:44:11] when we have several deeds that said it

[2:44:13] was anyone but Alpine City, I don't see

[2:44:17] why we would move forward with this

[2:44:18] process.

[2:44:19] >> Again, the goal is not necessarily just

[2:44:20] to own it. The goal is to improve the

[2:44:23] area. And whether it falls into someone

[2:44:25] else's hands, the area ends up getting

[2:44:26] improved like one way or another. Right

[2:44:28] now, it's causing conflict. It's causing

[2:44:30] confusion.

[2:44:31] >> What's the conflict? So what happens is

[2:44:33] people will go on the whole thing that

[2:44:35] started this to go back to the genesis

[2:44:38] is the folks from Rachel McTar Park

[2:44:40] driving through it onto Alpine Highway

[2:44:42] who might be from Highland might be from

[2:44:43] anywhere else and using it as a through

[2:44:46] road and neighbors saying this is not a

[2:44:48] through road that that's what started

[2:44:51] this and I said okay let's go check it

[2:44:52] out. It looks like they're going through

[2:44:54] someone's uh private property and so but

[2:44:57] the people driving through it don't know

[2:44:59] if it's a through road. They don't know

[2:45:00] if it's a city road. The people living

[2:45:02] by there don't have any leverage.

[2:45:03] >> If you just put jersey barriers there,

[2:45:05] that wouldn't

[2:45:06] >> it was blocked off at one point.

[2:45:08] Somebody moved the barriers. It had

[2:45:10] barriers.

[2:45:10] >> There were barriers.

[2:45:11] >> Yeah, it was blocked off probably six.

[2:45:14] >> And so like who has the authority to put

[2:45:15] a barrier? No one knows. We don't know

[2:45:17] if the city can. We don't know if a

[2:45:18] private owner and who has the authority.

[2:45:19] >> Do you know who did we put barriers

[2:45:20] there or or was it Metropolitan or

[2:45:24] >> Metropolitan doesn't own that quite

[2:45:25] >> I think there were rocks there rather

[2:45:27] than like a Jersey barrier, but I don't

[2:45:29] know who moved them. I'm not even sure

[2:45:31] who put them there to be honest.

[2:45:33] >> Okay. How long ago were they? We don't

[2:45:36] know when they were put there and when

[2:45:37] they were removed.

[2:45:38] >> Could have been when the development was

[2:45:40] done. I'm not sure.

[2:45:41] >> Okay.

[2:45:41] >> They were there roughly four or five

[2:45:43] years ago. And then they were there my

[2:45:46] whole life before that.

[2:45:47] >> Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate

[2:45:49] your time.

[2:45:50] >> Can I ask Steve a clarifying question?

[2:45:52] >> Yes.

[2:45:52] >> So, regarding deed versus who's been

[2:45:55] paying the taxes,

[2:45:57] what what does that look like? we have

[2:45:59] deeds, but then we also have potentially

[2:46:02] um either a tax abatement or maybe

[2:46:05] someone else paying the taxes. So, how

[2:46:07] does that determine ownership?

[2:46:11] >> I'm not sure I know exactly what you're

[2:46:13] asking. I would say that there's a

[2:46:17] difference between

[2:46:19] an interest in land like an easement,

[2:46:22] either recorded or unrecorded,

[2:46:24] prescriptive, and fee ownership. Fee

[2:46:27] ownership entitles the owner to do what

[2:46:30] they want with legally with that

[2:46:33] property. And so if it's owned by

[2:46:36] private owners, they could block that

[2:46:38] off. For example, if people are

[2:46:39] trespassing over their property.

[2:46:42] >> Um

[2:46:44] we haven't seen at least I haven't seen

[2:46:46] to this point anything that indicates

[2:46:48] that the city has fee ownership. There

[2:46:51] may be a survey that makes an assumption

[2:46:54] about ownership, but that doesn't

[2:46:55] establish ownership.

[2:46:58] >> And so,

[2:46:58] >> Steve, could it be I mean, we have a

[2:47:01] like we all agree we have a sewer there,

[2:47:04] but we have no recorded easement. Am I

[2:47:06] correct?

[2:47:09] >> Is that correct?

[2:47:10] >> That's what I understand. So, so could

[2:47:12] this just be that cities inadvertently

[2:47:15] have just failed to address this and

[2:47:18] we're finally arriving when it can be

[2:47:20] addressed?

[2:47:22] Like this is what it looks like. It

[2:47:23] doesn't look like it's been owned and

[2:47:24] passed back and forth and that people

[2:47:26] had it under I mean from what we can see

[2:47:28] it looks like it's just been kind of

[2:47:31] lost or it's kind of been not ever

[2:47:32] addressed and it's been kind of a part

[2:47:34] that hasn't been um otherwise why

[2:47:36] wouldn't we have an easement on it

[2:47:37] that's recorded? I've seen this happen

[2:47:39] multiple times where maybe there was a

[2:47:43] typo on the tide of the section corner

[2:47:45] in the legal description. So, it could

[2:47:48] be a mile or a half mile away to the

[2:47:51] next section corner and so it puts the

[2:47:53] legal description in the wrong place.

[2:47:56] So, when you do a search of title on

[2:47:58] this property, it doesn't show up. Um I know the one of the main sewer lines

[2:48:04] of the city that goes through Montela,

[2:48:06] there's no easement and I believe that's

[2:48:11] what would have happened there because I saw an I still remember this years ago

[2:48:16] I saw a deed or an easement description

[2:48:19] that was recorded that was like that

[2:48:22] and it was just to the wrong section

[2:48:24] corner. Um, typically when that happens,

[2:48:28] the county will send a notice of

[2:48:30] discrepancy back to the city if they

[2:48:32] catch it so that they can correct it,

[2:48:34] but that that can get missed as well.

[2:48:37] >> Was I do we have other residents we can

[2:48:40] hear from or can we make a motion? I'd

[2:48:42] be happy to make

[2:48:43] >> Could I ask a follow-up question to

[2:48:45] Shane and Steve, please?

[2:48:46] >> Yes. So, Sha Shane, if that if that were

[2:48:48] the the case in this instance,

[2:48:51] um Shane and Steve, what would you think

[2:48:54] would be the like who would you think

[2:48:56] would be the likely owners of this strip

[2:49:01] and how would it be resolved?

[2:49:05] >> I mean, I'll let Shane answer that

[2:49:07] because he's done the research.

[2:49:08] >> I've looked at the deeds more than I

[2:49:11] want to admit. Um,

[2:49:13] >> and we appreciate the research.

[2:49:14] >> And I'm trying to remember who the owner

[2:49:17] was in the 2003 to 2004. Let me just

[2:49:20] grab my phone.

[2:49:22] >> But it's got to be one of those parcels

[2:49:23] that abuted, I would imagine. Right.

[2:49:24] >> I would think so. I mean, I even noticed

[2:49:26] on on the stamps that are put on some of

[2:49:29] these deeds that they went through title

[2:49:31] companies and so

[2:49:36] I don't know. So let's assume it's one

[2:49:38] of the two abuing properties or one of

[2:49:40] the I guess would be two or maybe even

[2:49:42] >> it would just be the two

[2:49:44] >> if it's a gap it would be the two

[2:49:46] properties the one to the north and the

[2:49:48] one to the south would be

[2:49:49] >> yeah so if let's

[2:49:50] >> halfway halfway to the pick up to the

[2:49:54] middle of the lane

[2:49:55] >> right so that's just that's the most

[2:49:57] likely scenario it seems like so if if

[2:50:00] that's the solution or if that's the

[2:50:02] resolution then how likely it is that

[2:50:05] those owners ers would grant the city

[2:50:08] the ability to to make this trail or to

[2:50:11] make this improvement.

[2:50:12] >> They are both here. We can ask them,

[2:50:14] >> right? Yeah.

[2:50:14] >> So, I'm looking at this road, this dirt

[2:50:17] road, at least according to Utah County

[2:50:19] parcel maps. And so, it looks like on

[2:50:22] the east end, it belongs to Desireette

[2:50:25] Livestock LLC. So, you've got the Sykes

[2:50:29] that own the first 16 feet, 16 plus

[2:50:32] feet,

[2:50:33] >> and then just south of it

[2:50:36] And then south of it, yeah, you got

[2:50:38] desert livestock that overlaps that and

[2:50:40] then goes beyond the Sykes cherry stem.

[2:50:44] It looks like another 16ish feet which

[2:50:46] covers that dirt road. And then if you

[2:50:49] go east,

[2:50:51] can you go east, Kaden? So that's April

[2:50:54] Cooper who also goes and owns that dirt

[2:50:57] road. And then the psyches still have

[2:51:00] that cherry stem.

[2:51:03] And then you've got

[2:51:04] >> I'm sorry.

[2:51:05] >> There's a if you look at the top of the

[2:51:07] map, all four of those lots are skewed

[2:51:09] down like 30 feet. So there's a road

[2:51:11] across the top. All four of those lots

[2:51:14] to the west of ours

[2:51:16] >> are all slid down by accident by survey.

[2:51:18] >> And one thing, Mayor, I

[2:51:19] >> talked to Nicole, the mapper, the county

[2:51:21] mapper about it. It's

[2:51:23] >> the mapper told me the same thing that

[2:51:24] this isn't actually accurate

[2:51:26] >> for the image below.

[2:51:28] >> They're all supposed to be slid up to

[2:51:30] that fence line. Yeah, it's it's it's

[2:51:32] slid from the satellite image,

[2:51:37] >> but pretty close. Pretty close.

[2:51:39] >> Yeah. I just wanted to make sure that made sense.

[2:51:42] >> So So this I'll give you my educated

[2:51:46] reasons why I think Cutlers probably own

[2:51:49] it. So there was the Cutler survey in

[2:51:51] 1996

[2:51:53] that was done by Dudley Associates that

[2:51:55] shows this property.

[2:51:57] Um there's on the Cutler deed uh in 2003

[2:52:02] from Cutler to Johnson.

[2:52:04] Uh

[2:52:07] that strip shows up on there two rods

[2:52:09] wide, so 33 feet.

[2:52:12] In 2004, there's a corrective warranty

[2:52:14] deed from Cutler to Johnson that cut

[2:52:18] that cherry stem out.

[2:52:20] >> Do we know why? There's no there's no

[2:52:23] narrative of why that's there, but

[2:52:26] >> it carries through the deeds, all

[2:52:28] warranty deeds, but one

[2:52:31] >> um up to that point.

[2:52:33] >> So,

[2:52:34] >> and where the Johnson's now? So, it went

[2:52:36] from the Johnson's to the No, it went

[2:52:38] from Cutler to the Johnson's.

[2:52:39] >> Yes.

[2:52:41] >> Chance couple more times and then the

[2:52:43] property was developed.

[2:52:44] >> Okay.

[2:52:46] >> Yeah.

[2:52:46] >> Okie do. So, we've got Okay, we've had

[2:52:48] two comments. We've got April Cooper who

[2:52:51] is still

[2:52:54] >> um

[2:52:55] >> Can I make a comment?

[2:52:57] >> This is the Williams who live on the

[2:52:59] property bel uh to the south of it.

[2:53:01] >> This is I'm Philip Williams. I'm the one

[2:53:03] that owns a property south of this

[2:53:06] rideway.

[2:53:08] I was born and raised there. I know how

[2:53:13] the ownership went

[2:53:15] and it where McTar Park is all the way

[2:53:20] up to Bradock Lane and back to Willard's

[2:53:25] place and then back and then down that

[2:53:28] rideway all went to that same property

[2:53:33] and Sam Baitman

[2:53:36] went had it before us and Um, he sold

[2:53:41] our three acres to my dad.

[2:53:46] And so I know Sam Baitman was the

[2:53:48] original owner. Well, this uh was what

[2:53:52] it Desert Livestock or whatever it was

[2:53:55] uh was uh Wayne Miller, Dell Jinx, and D

[2:53:59] Jinx owned that. They owned that whole

[2:54:02] thing. Same with Allan Cutler when he

[2:54:05] bought it. So if you look at Alagany,

[2:54:09] they um

[2:54:11] developed that property from the east to

[2:54:15] the west. Well, when Leland Johnson

[2:54:18] purchased that ground,

[2:54:21] um he knew that he couldn't do nothing

[2:54:23] with the where McTar Park is because of

[2:54:26] the metropolitan going through there. So

[2:54:29] he donated that to Alpine City. Well,

[2:54:33] that Mcder park goes with that uh right

[2:54:38] away and so that

[2:54:42] should say that uh it goes to the city.

[2:54:46] >> You're saying

[2:54:47] >> what year was that?

[2:54:48] >> So

[2:54:48] >> he's saying when the donation happened.

[2:54:50] >> So no disrespect for Mr. Williams, but

[2:54:52] that's not actually how the city got the

[2:54:53] park property. The park property came

[2:54:56] through the recording of the subdivision

[2:54:57] plat

[2:54:59] that was um

[2:55:02] What was the name of that plat? Will you

[2:55:03] click on that? Uh

[2:55:05] >> was it a PRD or

[2:55:07] >> Yes, it was.

[2:55:08] >> Okay. That's how we got the park.

[2:55:09] >> Yes. And and the strip of property that

[2:55:12] goes through the middle of the park. So,

[2:55:14] we own either corner northeast and

[2:55:18] southwest, but the strip going on the

[2:55:20] angle up through the middle.

[2:55:23] >> We have an agreement with Metro Water.

[2:55:27] There was a fee. The developer had to

[2:55:29] pay the fee. The agreement's good for

[2:55:32] it's like 25 years and then after that

[2:55:35] we have to as the city renegotiate and

[2:55:37] pay a fee to use that for the park. But

[2:55:40] we can't plant a tree in it. We can't

[2:55:42] put a fence across it. It's very

[2:55:45] limited. We can basically have grass on

[2:55:47] it and our trail.

[2:55:50] >> But that's that's how the city acquired

[2:55:52] that property and that that will show up

[2:55:54] on the subdivision plan the dedication

[2:55:57] of it. and say with Metropolitan,

[2:56:00] it was always a gentleman's agreement

[2:56:04] back in the day where you could farm it

[2:56:06] or you could graze it, but you could not

[2:56:08] build on it or plant trees on it.

[2:56:12] >> Okay. Thank you, sir.

[2:56:14] >> And and they're past the gentleman's

[2:56:15] agreement now. They're very they're very

[2:56:17] picky.

[2:56:18] >> Yeah.

[2:56:18] >> I don't want to muddy the waters, but um

[2:56:20] I've been looking. So the the part that

[2:56:22] we're talking about is down here south.

[2:56:25] >> But if you go right and if you click on

[2:56:28] it like nothing comes up, right? But

[2:56:29] keep going up and No, I'm sorry. Go up.

[2:56:32] There's a little corner where where

[2:56:34] there's a strip that goes at the angle.

[2:56:36] That's actually the US government. Look

[2:56:38] at that. The strip that goes through

[2:56:39] that. Sorry. Right there. That actually

[2:56:42] says United States of America. And

[2:56:44] that's what my title friend was telling

[2:56:46] me that everything eventually goes back

[2:56:48] to if it doesn't isn't owned by one of

[2:56:52] us or a municipality or some it'll

[2:56:55] always go back to the United States

[2:56:56] government. But then keep going just

[2:56:58] north of that. There's that other strip.

[2:57:00] Look, you click on that. There's nothing

[2:57:01] there either. No. No. Right below. Right. Sorry. There's a strip

[2:57:05] that's parallel to the one we're talking

[2:57:07] about.

[2:57:09] >> Sorry. Go. A strip that goes east to

[2:57:11] west. Yeah. Right there. the horizontal.

[2:57:13] >> Yeah,

[2:57:14] >> that's just everything skewed south.

[2:57:19] » The map if you look over our property.

[2:57:23] >> Okay. Sorry. Okay, guys.

[2:57:24] >> Okay. So, clicking on the map is not

[2:57:26] that informationational is what you're

[2:57:28] telling me.

[2:57:28] >> Yes.

[2:57:28] >> Just to help you that US government

[2:57:30] part, they allocated all that land in

[2:57:33] 2006 to Metropolitan Water Company. I

[2:57:35] have the document if needed.

[2:57:37] >> That's correct.

[2:57:37] >> Okay.

[2:57:38] >> Thank you. Thank you.

[2:57:39] >> Their surveyor came in and met with us.

[2:57:41] >> Okay. You guys have one more comment.

[2:57:43] April Cooper, last person to comment and

[2:57:46] that is going to be it.

[2:57:47] >> But

[2:57:48] >> not sorry to interrupt, but it is 9:00.

[2:57:50] >> Okay, hold on just a sec. Can I have a

[2:57:52] motion to extend?

[2:57:54] >> Um, I make a motion

[2:57:56] >> to extend

[2:57:58] the meeting. Do I have to say a time?

[2:58:01] >> Please do.

[2:58:02] >> Or until the business is done.

[2:58:04] >> Till the business of the city has been

[2:58:06] completed.

[2:58:07] >> I'll second that.

[2:58:10] >> Okay. It's been moved and seconded. Do

[2:58:12] we have to do a roll call for this? We

[2:58:13] don't. Do we? All in favor?

[2:58:16] >> I.

[2:58:17] >> Any opposed?

[2:58:18] >> Nay.

[2:58:19] >> Okay.

[2:58:20] >> Come on.

[2:58:22] It's fine.

[2:58:23] >> Okay. If you could state your name.

[2:58:24] >> April Cooper 1136 B Circle. I do own

[2:58:28] Desert Livestock LLC,

[2:58:30] which is a piece of land that runs right

[2:58:32] there. Thank you. From um east to west.

[2:58:35] And then behind it, I have a piece of

[2:58:37] land that runs north south. um that

[2:58:41] lane, that little dirt road on a 1990

[2:58:44] maybe three survey was um access lane.

[2:58:48] So I use it to get from the alpine

[2:58:50] highway to that piece that runs north

[2:58:52] south and um

[2:58:57] the

[2:58:58] Cypes land runs there also. And then

[2:59:01] there's potentially a couple crossing

[2:59:04] with the way it lands on the map and

[2:59:07] then Phil Williams is below it. I think

[2:59:09] public funds should be used for public

[2:59:12] good. Um, I'm disappointed and I would

[2:59:16] request as a citizen that you vote yes

[2:59:19] to get us water so that we can drink and

[2:59:22] be healthy over trying to figure out how

[2:59:25] to put a trail on private property on

[2:59:28] people's lands. Or I think the bigger

[2:59:30] issue that you're really trying to do is

[2:59:32] block people from driving down it and

[2:59:34] from accessing their property. I think

[2:59:36] that's really the secret agenda that's

[2:59:38] not really out here. So, I'm not going

[2:59:40] to stop driving on it. have owned it for

[2:59:42] six years and the Kiche has had it for

[2:59:44] 50 years before that. So there is a

[2:59:47] precedence in those two combined. Also

[2:59:51] just because Willard or just because

[2:59:54] sometimes we come in from Alagany does

[2:59:56] not mean we have permission to and there

[2:59:58] are sometimes some battles with metro.

[3:00:00] So, if the city tries to cut off the

[3:00:02] sites or cut off us from coming off the

[3:00:04] Alpine Highway, which we do have drive

[3:00:06] approaches coming off the Alpine

[3:00:08] Highway, um you'd first have to get

[3:00:10] permission from from Metro if you would

[3:00:13] if you're going to try to do that. So,

[3:00:14] there's a different axis. Can someone

[3:00:17] highlight the piece that Metro owns?

[3:00:19] That big piece

[3:00:20] >> diagonal.

[3:00:21] >> The big diagonal piece. Thank you. So

[3:00:23] basically in the little where Alagany

[3:00:26] the culde-sac ends there's still a

[3:00:29] triangle there that Metro owns. Are you

[3:00:32] saying that you're trying to put a trail

[3:00:34] on Metro's land too?

[3:00:36] >> Are you asking me?

[3:00:37] >> Yes.

[3:00:37] >> Uh

[3:00:38] >> because otherwise you're going to have

[3:00:39] asphalt and then you're going to jump

[3:00:41] over to the land that you think possibly

[3:00:44] the city might own, but you've got a

[3:00:46] chunk in there that Metro owns. So it

[3:00:48] sounds like you're pushing your trail

[3:00:50] onto Metro too. So

[3:00:52] >> without their permission.

[3:00:53] >> I love your everything you said that. So

[3:00:55] the the goal is not secret. It's it is

[3:00:58] to quiet it down. It is

[3:00:59] >> to stop cars. Quiet or to stop drive

[3:01:02] cars driving?

[3:01:03] >> I would equate those. Yes. To stop cars.

[3:01:05] >> No. Quiet's like if I run down there and

[3:01:07] I play a boom box on my shoulder and I'm

[3:01:09] really loud. That's different than

[3:01:10] driving a car. Is it to stop the

[3:01:12] vehicles from accessing and landlock

[3:01:14] them?

[3:01:14] >> Yes. But but but it is not to try to

[3:01:17] block your land. We are trying I would I

[3:01:19] told you I want to find another access

[3:01:21] or make a way for you to be able to

[3:01:23] still get to your property.

[3:01:23] >> Okay. So I would request that your

[3:01:25] motion tonight be to figure out another

[3:01:27] access and get permission from Metro

[3:01:29] before you start spending city funds on

[3:01:30] a title search because you could do your

[3:01:32] title search and you're probably going

[3:01:34] to end up finding that private property

[3:01:35] owners own it. And even if Alpine City

[3:01:38] owns it, you can't landlock me anyway.

[3:01:41] >> We don't I don't want to. You might as

[3:01:42] well go to Metro for free first before

[3:01:44] you spend city funds, our tax dollars on

[3:01:47] a title search,

[3:01:47] >> right? No, I respect the tax dollars. I don't want to spend a lot of money.

[3:01:51] It's a,000 to $3,000 to do this.

[3:01:54] >> But I'm requesting that you get

[3:01:56] permission from Metro first before you

[3:01:59] spend money on the title search. I would

[3:02:01] be happy to add that into the motion and I don't want to block you from your

[3:02:06] land that you can I just say the people

[3:02:09] in here have been wonderful working

[3:02:11] together already. Y'all put put up signs

[3:02:13] and I think you've solved 50% of the

[3:02:15] problem just by doing that and I thank

[3:02:17] you for it and I think it has improved

[3:02:19] the Williams who live there. The reason

[3:02:22] I even brought this up is yes, I don't

[3:02:26] know if it will end up in city hands. I

[3:02:28] don't really care if it does. The goal

[3:02:29] is what you say. It's not secret. It's

[3:02:31] to quiet it down or less traffic because

[3:02:34] the family that lives to the south lives

[3:02:36] there 247. They live they've lived there

[3:02:38] for, you know, like you said, his dad

[3:02:39] and he's lived there for his entire

[3:02:41] life. And I'm trying to get him what we

[3:02:43] have. I'm trying to get everyone in

[3:02:45] Alpine what we have. Your beautiful

[3:02:46] place where you

[3:02:47] >> right. And I think it's fair that the

[3:02:48] Williams don't have people that are

[3:02:50] going to soccer games cruising through

[3:02:52] there because they don't have a reason

[3:02:53] to go there. They don't have a land

[3:02:54] behind.

[3:02:55] >> But in that never was the goal to block

[3:02:57] April or the Cooper family. I just

[3:02:59] wanted to know if the goal was to block

[3:03:01] any cars from going like to get to zero

[3:03:03] and build a trail and nobody can drive

[3:03:04] down.

[3:03:05] >> That's why I'm very happy where we're at

[3:03:06] now. I appreciate the agreement.

[3:03:08] >> And I'm not quite sure having cars go

[3:03:10] down there with dirt and dust flying is

[3:03:13] right where you want to put a trail next

[3:03:14] to anyway. Plus, you'd have to get

[3:03:16] permission from Metro to cross from

[3:03:18] Alagany to the trail. You should be

[3:03:20] building the trail on Metro's land.

[3:03:21] >> And the good news is uh you I didn't

[3:03:24] talk to you before the original proposal

[3:03:27] was made. Okay. It was I didn't know I

[3:03:30] didn't even know you owned land there.

[3:03:31] Um and then I didn't know uh Willard and

[3:03:34] his family. So in one way we are

[3:03:36] arriving Shane has never done so much

[3:03:38] research on this area in his life. Now

[3:03:40] in one way we are arriving at an answer

[3:03:42] that I think will help everyone. Um

[3:03:45] whether it falls in private land or city

[3:03:48] and what happens no matter what that

[3:03:51] does say it lands in our in in Alpine

[3:03:53] City. My whole goal is to work with the

[3:03:55] residents so that they're happy, so they

[3:03:57] find and you're already doing it. Um

[3:03:59] >> maybe to make some residents happy and

[3:04:01] some not. Either way, I would request

[3:04:03] that all the city council, if you guys

[3:04:05] could find out prior to spending money

[3:04:08] on a title search, if the end goal is to

[3:04:10] block off that access lane for you guys

[3:04:13] to for free fill out Metro's form and

[3:04:16] get permission for Willard or for me or

[3:04:19] anyone who would need to cross across

[3:04:20] Metro to get permanent ability to cross

[3:04:23] across there and that you guys get

[3:04:25] permission from Metro to do this trail

[3:04:28] that's on their land before you spend a

[3:04:30] bunch of our tax dollars. You're trying

[3:04:32] to figure out the rest of the title.

[3:04:34] >> Totally.

[3:04:34] >> Thank you. I'm sure three minutes is up.

[3:04:36] >> Okay. I'm going to make a motion.

[3:04:39] >> Motion.

[3:04:42] Metro called me this morning.

[3:04:43] >> I'm sorry.

[3:04:44] >> Metro called me this morning. And we

[3:04:47] were talking about this whole issue that

[3:04:50] we wanted a trail

[3:04:52] >> for the people in Alpine.

[3:04:54] >> Go ahead.

[3:04:54] >> And they said, "We've done the similar

[3:04:56] thing in Draper and it has walked out.

[3:04:59] It has worked out beautifully. The

[3:05:01] people can come across our land. We

[3:05:03] don't mind it at all and they are all

[3:05:05] for it and the inspectors

[3:05:09] have let us know. Let me me know that

[3:05:11] this morning, ma'am. Thank you.

[3:05:13] >> In in reference to

[3:05:16] >> Okay. I would like to make a motion if

[3:05:18] it's entertained.

[3:05:20] >> Is this the time to do it? Go ahead.

[3:05:22] >> Okay. Uh I would make a motion

[3:05:24] that we all lot $2,500

[3:05:29] towards procuring who the rightful owner

[3:05:32] of this land is through a title search

[3:05:35] while simultaneously

[3:05:38] working and looking into the options

[3:05:40] that Metro has, Metropolitan Water

[3:05:43] District

[3:05:44] for access in a secondary

[3:05:49] ingress.

[3:05:52] That's all.

[3:05:54] >> So, okay. Is there a second to the

[3:05:57] motion?

[3:05:58] I'll second. Okay. It's been moved by

[3:06:00] councilman Young C and seconded by

[3:06:02] Councilwoman Spuan. I do have

[3:06:04] clarification a question on the motion.

[3:06:08] So you want to go for the title search

[3:06:10] maximum of 2500. If it ends up being p

[3:06:13] private property then what is there?

[3:06:15] >> Then we will have helped everyone know

[3:06:18] that it is private property.

[3:06:19] >> Right. So then are they putting a trail

[3:06:21] through it or

[3:06:22] >> well they get to do whatever they want

[3:06:23] with it but I would encourage them to

[3:06:26] try to beautify it. So would you

[3:06:28] >> or make it something that they and their

[3:06:30] neighbors

[3:06:30] >> would you be willing to amend your

[3:06:31] motion that if it belongs to private

[3:06:33] property whoever votes for it pays for

[3:06:35] >> Yes.

[3:06:36] >> the title search mainly?

[3:06:37] >> Well, hold on hold on hold on. Well, I I would say yes.

[3:06:41] >> Put your money where it is. You're

[3:06:42] paying tax. You're spending taxpayer

[3:06:44] dollars.

[3:06:44] >> Yes. But I I can't speak for them. I

[3:06:46] said yes for me, but I can't speak for

[3:06:48] them.

[3:06:48] >> But your portion of it you will pay for

[3:06:50] of the title.

[3:06:51] >> Hold on. That's a little ridiculous.

[3:06:52] >> What are you talking about?

[3:06:54] >> That if it ends up being that it's

[3:06:56] >> No, Carla. No, no, that's not fair. It's

[3:06:58] a little ridiculous. And the reason I

[3:06:59] stopped,

[3:07:00] >> I mean, it's fricious, right? I can't

[3:07:01] make an emote, but I mean, really,

[3:07:03] that's how you should think about it.

[3:07:04] >> I do. And I was about to pay for it and

[3:07:07] just on my own, but I want to address

[3:07:09] her question.

[3:07:10] >> Can we vote? Well, I have questions. Go

[3:07:12] ahead. We vote.

[3:07:13] >> Yes. This is questions related to the

[3:07:15] conversation that's occurring. Um, one

[3:07:18] of um, the members said that as a city

[3:07:21] we can't um, I think block or block

[3:07:25] access to their property, but if they

[3:07:27] don't have title, then we're not

[3:07:29] blocking access, right? If they bought a

[3:07:31] landlock parcel, they bought a landlock

[3:07:34] parcel. That's not really anything to do

[3:07:36] within our jurisdiction or control

[3:07:42] » before

[3:07:45] it wasn't landlocked.

[3:07:53] Okay. Hey, I'm sorry. There was

[3:07:55] >> not a question for the audience.

[3:07:57] >> Yeah, it's just a question. Is own

[3:08:00] finding out who the ownership is. Is

[3:08:02] that landlocking anyone's parcel? Just

[3:08:06] clarifying ownership. That's my

[3:08:08] question. Um,

[3:08:11] you know, I'm to be totally honest, I'm

[3:08:14] completely confused because the map that

[3:08:16] I usually go to for information, I'm

[3:08:19] being told is not accurate. So, it's

[3:08:21] really hard for me to make an informed

[3:08:24] decision because what I'm looking at

[3:08:25] now, it doesn't make sense. As I, you

[3:08:28] know, I made that statement, I said, it

[3:08:30] looks like that portion of the property

[3:08:32] belongs to Desireette LLC and April

[3:08:35] Cooper. But then, you know, the

[3:08:37] clarification was, well, it could be

[3:08:39] shifted up and there's wrong. So, for

[3:08:40] me, it's hard. I don't know what's

[3:08:43] right. So, that was just my only

[3:08:44] question.

[3:08:45] >> Are we discussing

[3:08:46] >> Can I Can I Can I Can I add something?

[3:08:48] >> Yes, please do.

[3:08:49] >> Thanks. Um, so I It sounds like there's

[3:08:52] still a little bit of work to be done. I

[3:08:53] My preference would be to table this

[3:08:56] >> um and let Katherine I don't sorry I

[3:08:58] missed your last name. Um, talk to the

[3:09:01] tax commission figure that out. I think

[3:09:03] April Cooper has a very valid point that

[3:09:06] Metro owns part of this property and we

[3:09:09] would need to have uh some kind of

[3:09:11] agreement with them about access for

[3:09:14] those landlock properties and to put the

[3:09:17] path on. I know someone I can I don't

[3:09:19] know who spoke cuz I didn't see them

[3:09:21] about speaking with Metro today. Um

[3:09:24] again they might not know the full

[3:09:26] story. So, I think this is a good idea

[3:09:28] if we can make it work,

[3:09:31] >> but I I think there's still some steps

[3:09:33] to take before we expend taxpayer money

[3:09:36] to resolve a private landowner property

[3:09:40] issue.

[3:09:41] >> Brent, so we have a motion.

[3:09:42] >> I just haven't seen I haven't seen

[3:09:43] anything that indicates that the city

[3:09:45] owns it.

[3:09:46] >> The only way we have a motion and a

[3:09:48] second. If you want to table it, you

[3:09:50] could make that motion.

[3:09:51] >> It's called a substitute motion and it

[3:09:53] ends discussion as well. up.

[3:09:55] >> Okay.

[3:09:56] >> So, Brent, is that something that you're

[3:09:57] entertaining or no?

[3:09:59] >> Yes. I would like to I would like to

[3:10:01] make a substitute motion to table it to

[3:10:03] have those steps I just discussed done

[3:10:06] before we commit taxpayer funds to do a

[3:10:09] title search that is likely going to be

[3:10:11] resolved

[3:10:12] >> for private property.

[3:10:13] >> I'll second motion to table and then we

[3:10:15] need a second. So, it's been moved by

[3:10:17] Councilman Remler to table and seconded

[3:10:19] by Councilwoman Hanaman.

[3:10:22] Um, and then we'll need to proceed with

[3:10:25] a roll call vote.

[3:10:26] >> Can Can we I haven't been able to ask

[3:10:27] any questions.

[3:10:28] >> Not a table.

[3:10:29] >> Sorry. Not on.

[3:10:30] >> Do I start with the vote? Yes.

[3:10:31] >> So, Andrew Young, no.

[3:10:34] >> Jessica Sme, no.

[3:10:39] » Um, Sarah Blackwell, yes. Chrissyan,

[3:10:43] yes.

[3:10:44] >> Brent Roma, yes.

[3:10:45] >> Okay,

[3:10:45] >> we'll just get more information.

[3:10:47] >> So, the motion to table has been

[3:10:49] approved. So, um, Brent, I might have

[3:10:54] Deian reach out to you to clarify the

[3:10:56] steps. I'm sure she'll be listening to

[3:10:58] the meeting. Um, but she might need some

[3:11:01] clarification

[3:11:03] on your table.

[3:11:04] >> That's great. Yeah, for the next four

[3:11:05] days, I will not have cell phone access,

[3:11:07] but I'll be available next Monday.

[3:11:09] >> Okay, perfect. Thank you very much.

[3:11:10] >> Can you explain what now the steps are

[3:11:12] on this of a tableling? Do does the

[3:11:14] staff go on to get that more information

[3:11:16] or how does it work?

[3:11:18] >> And then they'll come back. Can I ask

[3:11:19] another question now? Have have the

[3:11:22] property owners that surround this area

[3:11:24] considered

[3:11:26] >> getting together and going in on a title

[3:11:28] search? You know, if everyone paid a

[3:11:30] portion, is is that a possibility to

[3:11:33] figure this out?

[3:11:39] » I know.

[3:11:40] >> Sorry. Will you say that once more? We

[3:11:41] appreciate your comments. for a title

[3:11:43] search on our piece of property in like

[3:11:44] the last month. And I know I what we do

[3:11:47] own that 16 and 12 ft and across and up.

[3:11:50] >> So you're

[3:11:50] >> we're just talking about the part below.

[3:11:52] >> Sorry, I didn't mean to wor that would

[3:11:54] be a surveyor. I think you'd have to

[3:11:56] have go out more than a title search

[3:11:58] >> because I think it's just lines are

[3:12:00] skewed. We

[3:12:01] >> So you're not talking about just a title

[3:12:03] search. It sounds like

[3:12:04] >> Yeah, it's more than that.

[3:12:05] >> I mean, when you're talking about the

[3:12:06] maps being off, you're talking about

[3:12:08] survey of all of that property. Yeah, it

[3:12:11] would have to be the Spikes, the

[3:12:12] Coopers, and the Williams. All three

[3:12:14] would have to be.

[3:12:14] >> And even to the north of that, too.

[3:12:16] >> Right. The idea was if you do just the

[3:12:18] title search for a cheap amount, you get

[3:12:20] you take two steps further, you can see

[3:12:22] a little bit further ahead, you realize

[3:12:24] if it's a good idea to keep going or

[3:12:25] not.

[3:12:26] >> When we table something, the discussion

[3:12:27] ends.

[3:12:28] >> Okay, let's move on.

[3:12:29] >> That's Robert's rules.

[3:12:30] >> Don't be so grumpy.

[3:12:32] >> Look what time it is.

[3:12:34] >> Yeah.

[3:12:34] >> Thank you. Thank you very much.

[3:12:35] >> I move Thank you. to move to go into

[3:12:38] close session to discuss acquisition of

[3:12:40] property.

[3:12:42] >> Okay, there's a motion on the table. Is

[3:12:43] there a second?

[3:12:46] >> Second.

[3:12:47] >> Okay, it's been moved and seconded that

[3:12:49] we go into close session.

[3:12:51] >> Um, let's proceed with the roll call

[3:12:54] vote.

[3:12:54] >> We're going out of order.

[3:12:55] >> Did you guys stop the agenda and the

[3:12:56] gateway quarters done?

[3:12:58] >> We'll come back to that.

[3:12:59] >> No.

[3:13:00] >> Oh, good.

[3:13:02] >> Uh, so so we're voting on to go into

[3:13:04] close session. Uh, Andrew Young. Yes.

[3:13:07] >> Jessica Custom. Yes. Sarah Blackwell.

[3:13:09] Yes.

[3:13:09] >> Christian. Yes.

[3:13:11] >> Ron Rumble. Yes.

[3:13:12] >> And you said the closed session close

[3:13:14] session will be in council.

[3:13:16] >> If we can add to the motion

[3:13:18] >> conference room, whatever it's called.

[3:13:19] >> Yes. Do I need to amend that?

[3:13:21] >> Yes.

[3:13:21] >> I'd like to amend the motion to include

[3:13:23] moving into council chambers to discuss

[3:13:26] >> the conference room. I guess

[3:13:27] >> to the conference room. Sorry.

[3:13:29] >> And Chrissy, are you amendable to the

[3:13:31] amendment?

[3:13:32] >> Yes.

[3:13:33] >> I second it.

[3:13:34] >> Sure. Yes. I thought I am.

[3:13:36] >> Oh, I'm sorry. Are you amendable? Okay.

[3:13:37] So, for those who want to stay for the

[3:13:39] main street, you guys, we have to go

[3:13:40] into close session. And the whole reason

[3:13:42] we're doing that is we want our lawyer

[3:13:44] here, but for him to be able to go home

[3:13:46] so we don't have to pay him while we're

[3:13:47] doing the main street. So, that's why

[3:13:48] we're going out of order. So, sorry

[3:13:50] about that.

[3:13:51] >> It's all about the money

[3:13:52] >> and how to save it.

[3:13:57] » I don't know. How do you guys feel? Are

[3:13:58] we going to go over it or table?

[3:14:02] >> Some of the folks want to stay for it.

[3:14:03] Do you think we're actually gonna do it

[3:14:04] or not?

[3:14:05] >> Okay.

[3:14:09] » What's the cons? Hey, Brent.

[3:14:14] » Yes.

[3:14:15] >> You're Are you

[3:14:16] >> What are your thoughts on staying to do

[3:14:18] the main street today?

[3:14:20] >> Yes.

[3:14:20] >> Um

[3:14:22] >> you're staying to do the main street.

[3:14:23] Okay. Looks like we'll be staying April.

[3:14:25] Yes.

[3:14:25] >> All right. Fine.

[3:14:26] >> Okay. We'll see you in I'm sure somebody

[3:14:29] will be calling you, Brent.

[3:14:31] >> Okay. Sounds good.

[3:14:34] No, that's a great tip. Thanks. That's a

[3:14:37] one of those little council hacks.

[3:14:39] >> I just

[3:14:41] thought of it.

[3:14:43] >> Take care.

[3:15:00] » Thank you for your had like a timeline

[3:15:03] we had

[3:15:07] to live there.

[3:15:13] » You guys

[3:15:26] called me because I'm running late. I

[3:15:27] was like,

[3:15:29] "So, this will show up again.

[3:15:31] Okay.

[3:15:34] >> Are we coming back here?

[3:15:36] >> Yes.

[3:15:56] » Hey, Sullivan. Thanks for being here,

[3:15:57] man.

[3:15:59] See

[3:16:14] you guys. Take care.

[3:16:27] » I don't want to watch

[3:18:56] And then

[3:19:12] I don't

[3:19:26] Hallelujah.

[3:38:27] real

[3:38:31] estate

[3:38:34] broker

[3:38:37] for all of

[3:48:22] I don't know.

[3:56:44] We're on a roll. We're on a roll.

[3:56:52] » What?

[3:56:55] No, I said we're still going.

[3:57:01] » April, I don't know where

[3:57:04] >> she called me.

[3:57:06] >> Oh, yeah.

[3:57:11] » She called me late last night.

[3:57:13] >> I'm happy to push this to the next

[3:57:14] meeting. I think it's important.

[3:57:17] >> I don't want to keep delaying because I

[3:57:19] want to wrap it up.

[3:57:29] No, no. As soon as the budget's over,

[3:57:31] we're going to start writing or now that

[3:57:33] the budget's over though, we could

[3:57:37] >> if we can get through this, we can start

[3:57:38] doing the ordinances to make this into

[3:57:40] reality.

[3:57:41] agenda. What's our next

[3:57:45] » Okay, she's here.

[3:57:47] >> She's here.

[3:57:48] >> Let's do it.

[3:57:50] >> Okay, let me know when we're live. Okay,

[3:57:53] Kayen,

[3:57:56] >> I swear.

[3:58:00] » Oh, are we okay?

[3:58:12] I know.

[3:58:39] Thank you, Steve.

[3:58:44] » Kayen's like, "Take me with you."

[3:58:58] » In the middle of

[3:59:09] So basically

[3:59:14] clear

[3:59:26] I'll show you

[3:59:45] That's my favorite thing.

[3:59:48] >> Anyone's motion. We can table

[3:59:50] everything. We can say no. I want to

[3:59:53] >> discuss

[3:59:53] >> and then if you have a second

[3:59:57] >> What is that? That's called substitute

[3:59:59] motion to table. That is cool.

[4:00:04] » Bren, you're still hearing us.

[4:00:06] >> Yeah, I am.

[4:00:08] >> That's the first time I've ever done it,

[4:00:10] Andrew. I feel so cruel.

[4:00:12] >> Well, you did. You did well. I'm

[4:00:14] >> Well done, Brent.

[4:00:16] >> Hey,

[4:00:19] I I I hope honestly the hope is that

[4:00:21] something good comes from it. We still

[4:00:23] have April here. So,

[4:00:26] >> where are you anyways? I envision you in

[4:00:28] like Ireland.

[4:00:31] >> No, I just finished me.

[4:00:33] >> Yeah.

[4:00:34] >> I just finished seven days river rafting

[4:00:36] in the in the Grand Canyon, 188 miles

[4:00:40] >> with no cell service for a week. It was

[4:00:42] awesome.

[4:00:43] >> Wow.

[4:00:43] >> And then and then tomorrow I start a

[4:00:45] 4-day vacation on a house boat in Lake

[4:00:48] Powell.

[4:00:49] >> Oh wow. Have fun. That sounds amazing.

[4:00:52] >> Are you sore? Are your shoulders sore?

[4:00:55] >> No.

[4:00:56] >> Okay. No, it was a from the river

[4:00:58] rafting.

[4:01:00] >> Yes. And from sleeping on the ground.

[4:01:03] >> Oh, yeah. Just it was it was rough to

[4:01:05] sleep on the cuts and in the wind and

[4:01:06] then in the heat. So, I I'm very tired,

[4:01:11] but uh it was worth it.

[4:01:21] Yes,

[4:01:34] » Katie, you want to just get started?

[4:01:36] Yeah, you're right.

[4:01:37] >> Yeah, we good to start.

[4:01:38] >> Yes, go ahead.

[4:01:38] >> Okay,

[4:01:41] >> thank you.

[4:01:42] >> Again, I apologize for my voice with the

[4:01:44] cold, but all right. Yeah, let's let's

[4:01:46] dive in. So, uh, super excited about the

[4:01:50] plan and continuing to go with our

[4:01:51] review on it. So, um, last time we

[4:01:55] reviewed, we jumped to part three and

[4:01:59] reviewed most of it. I don't think we

[4:02:00] got to the appendix. I correct me if I'm

[4:02:03] wrong on that, but for my recollection,

[4:02:05] we did not get to that. So, I scheduled

[4:02:07] that for today's review just to finish

[4:02:08] that up with the design guidelines and

[4:02:11] then go to part two. Um, and so that's

[4:02:14] what that image is right there.

[4:02:17] Uh I highlighted in red in the packet

[4:02:20] the motions that the planning commission

[4:02:22] made with regards to this section that

[4:02:24] we're reviewing today. Um as we know

[4:02:27] they are very gung-ho about the Utah

[4:02:30] historic traditional

[4:02:32] uh type of uh design that uh they think

[4:02:37] we should be looking for in Alpine. Um

[4:02:40] so

[4:02:41] uh just to just to say that um but let's

[4:02:45] go ahead and jump to appendix B

[4:02:49] just to finish up the design guidelines.

[4:02:51] And I don't I don't think there should

[4:02:52] be much comment new on this. It was

[4:02:54] pretty much reviewed

[4:02:56] uh at our last meeting and this one was

[4:02:59] just kind of the baseline of how we got

[4:03:01] to those design guidelines that we

[4:03:03] already talked about. Um,

[4:03:06] I mean the the whole purpose of these

[4:03:08] updated design guidelines is uh just

[4:03:11] because our our gateway historically

[4:03:13] needed an update. They haven't been

[4:03:14] updated since 2015.

[4:03:16] Um,

[4:03:19] so

[4:03:20] let me see here.

[4:03:27] » Okay. Now, are we starting on like page

[4:03:29] around 40 44?

[4:03:34] Sorry. Page 40.

[4:03:36] >> Uh, are this includes the traffic

[4:03:38] management plan, correct?

[4:03:39] >> No, that will be our last review which

[4:03:42] will be at the next meeting.

[4:03:43] >> Oh, wow.

[4:03:44] >> So, are we going to go into detail? I

[4:03:46] saw the red um input from planning

[4:03:50] commission in their reference to Gateway

[4:03:52] Historic, but then they actually put in

[4:03:54] a little bit deeper of prescribed um

[4:03:58] design. I wondered, are we going to

[4:04:00] cover that or will that be included

[4:04:03] because specifically around, you know,

[4:04:04] we're going back and forth on the black.

[4:04:06] Does the black really

[4:04:08] >> represent traditional Utah historic?

[4:04:12] >> Yeah, I mean, maybe right now would be

[4:04:14] the time to discuss that since we're

[4:04:15] kind of finishing up the design

[4:04:16] guidelines right now with this appendix

[4:04:18] B.

[4:04:19] >> Um, if you want to add any more input

[4:04:21] that we want to consider to integrate

[4:04:23] into that section, that would be great.

[4:04:26] So, I was talking with um council member

[4:04:28] Hanniman and you know we started down

[4:04:30] the pathway of there's very clear um

[4:04:34] descriptions of if you're going with

[4:04:36] craftsmen like we all know what that is

[4:04:39] from a architectural standpoint there's

[4:04:41] design templates in place and what I

[4:04:44] wanted to ask Sarah Blackwell is do you

[4:04:47] have anything that we could insert that

[4:04:49] would move it away from personal

[4:04:52] preference but actually anchor it in um

[4:04:56] architectural standards when we say Utah

[4:04:59] historic. You know, I think that's why

[4:05:01] we are where we are today with Main

[4:05:03] Street is because we didn't give it

[4:05:05] enough of a parameter to be able to um

[4:05:09] point to this is what we want. And I

[4:05:11] remember at the very beginning of this,

[4:05:12] the mayor said, "What I would like to

[4:05:14] see come out of, now we're working on

[4:05:17] it, this document, is five examples of

[4:05:21] this is what Main Street needs to look

[4:05:23] like without arbitrary decisions to be

[4:05:27] made on it."

[4:05:28] >> And so to do that, we have to be pretty

[4:05:31] prescribed in what we're adding in this

[4:05:33] document. Well, in doing some of the

[4:05:35] research for the fire station, I did

[4:05:37] find some documents that were that I

[4:05:39] cited in the presentation that do go

[4:05:41] through what was historic at the time

[4:05:43] for Utah and what materials they used.

[4:05:46] So, I can go back through and get a copy

[4:05:49] of that and we could maybe cite that in

[4:05:52] here just to add some, you know,

[4:05:54] validation to

[4:05:55] >> Yeah. specificity,

[4:05:57] um, validity to what we want it to look

[4:06:00] like. And I'm more than happy to also

[4:06:03] they did have pictures in there as well.

[4:06:05] So we could use those as well as I think

[4:06:08] Alpine Yesterday's is a great reference

[4:06:10] for some of that too.

[4:06:11] >> Well, and the challenge we had with

[4:06:12] pictures before is what we end started

[4:06:15] ending up with was almost a Frankenstein

[4:06:17] experience is they take one thing off of

[4:06:20] one photo and then another element off

[4:06:22] of another photo and put them all

[4:06:23] together and that necessarily wasn't the

[4:06:25] intent behind the picture. And so we

[4:06:28] need to make sure that what we codify,

[4:06:30] what we agree to actually is what we

[4:06:34] want to see built. And you know, you had

[4:06:37] some ideas along that too. There would

[4:06:38] almost be like this is if you come to

[4:06:41] DRC and you fit into this um category,

[4:06:45] go right on and get your project

[4:06:47] started. Now, if you're wanting to come

[4:06:48] back and look at maybe black windows,

[4:06:51] then you're going to go down this path

[4:06:53] and it's going to look different.

[4:06:55] I think um on that same note like to be

[4:06:59] uh have a a narrow road for them to

[4:07:02] proceed forward because we've learned

[4:07:04] now that every time we send them back to

[4:07:06] make a change it costs them money

[4:07:08] >> and so we need to be clearer so that

[4:07:11] they come in the first time and so I did

[4:07:14] my own research on the Utah historic

[4:07:16] architecture and I ended up in the

[4:07:18] actual um the Utah historic

[4:07:23] society,

[4:07:26] something like that, history society,

[4:07:29] and they had some Oh, here it is. It's

[4:07:31] called

[4:07:32] Anyways, they had some very specific

[4:07:34] things and what what makes it Utah

[4:07:36] historic has to do with um here's just

[4:07:40] their summary is light stone and brick

[4:07:43] from nearby canyon. So, our planning

[4:07:46] commission is being very narrow and only

[4:07:48] saying brick, but I feel like they're

[4:07:50] following some cities that are going for

[4:07:52] American colonial, which is what not

[4:07:54] what we want. We want more Utah

[4:07:57] historic. So, they're saying two

[4:07:59] different things. And so, we really need

[4:08:00] to clarify that and have them clarify

[4:08:02] it. It also said they have simple

[4:08:04] symmetrical pioneer forms. Cross-wing

[4:08:08] houses are everywhere. Um, I now know

[4:08:10] what a cross-wing house is. We could

[4:08:12] talk about that some other time. Um,

[4:08:14] they also have Craftsman bungalow

[4:08:15] because there was like building in the

[4:08:17] 1900s and then very little Victorian

[4:08:21] which was somewhat like the Carile House

[4:08:23] got taken down but it was Victorian but

[4:08:25] it was actually rare in Utah that

[4:08:27] Victorian was part of us because frankly

[4:08:30] we just didn't have the resources to do

[4:08:32] it. They did say back to the natural

[4:08:34] wood that agricultural buildings are

[4:08:36] integrated into neighborhoods and that's

[4:08:39] you know every everything like even the

[4:08:42] foundry across the street from the red

[4:08:44] brick chapel was meant to look like an

[4:08:46] old barn because barns are very much a

[4:08:48] part of our heritage. So like we have to

[4:08:50] allow some more flexibility than I feel

[4:08:52] like where the planning commission

[4:08:54] landed because they were kept going

[4:08:56] after the red brick black trim but

[4:08:58] that's really narrow. It's probably more

[4:09:01] narrow than what is actually Utah

[4:09:03] traditional historic

[4:09:05] >> England like inspired or something like

[4:09:08] almost like there was a crossover.

[4:09:10] >> Yeah, somewhere they got there somewhere

[4:09:12] and then also the steep roof lines um

[4:09:15] because of our mountain settings. So,

[4:09:18] >> where was I when I was looking at all

[4:09:19] the I went on a trip? Was it to

[4:09:21] California? And you can Oh, I know.

[4:09:23] That's I think I've told this story

[4:09:25] before. You can look at a a city built

[4:09:27] in in the um Northern California the

[4:09:30] exact same year is like Alpine because

[4:09:32] they had the um the gold rush in 1849.

[4:09:36] Our city was founded in 1850. Their

[4:09:38] cities look very different and that's

[4:09:41] because they were surrounded by timber.

[4:09:43] >> Okay. Like all of they have like like

[4:09:45] those false fronts that goes in front of

[4:09:47] like the grocery stores or the saloons

[4:09:48] or whatever. So we do have a Utah look.

[4:09:51] we just need to sort of um and then I

[4:09:53] want not I don't want to be stuck in a

[4:09:56] certain era like to say it's Victorian

[4:09:59] or colonial or anything. It's just the

[4:10:01] materials that make it traditional,

[4:10:03] >> right?

[4:10:04] >> And the roof lines, but it doesn't have

[4:10:06] to be, you know what I'm saying? So,

[4:10:08] that's that's where I'm at. Um and I and

[4:10:11] I feel like they came up with a black

[4:10:13] because of all these pictures that um

[4:10:15] Allan sent me. I I don't want to be

[4:10:18] prescriptive enough to say it has to be

[4:10:21] black, per se, but that dark, you know,

[4:10:23] dark is I feel like dark is okay. Like

[4:10:26] dark accents like window trim, door door

[4:10:28] trim, that's fine. It can be dark or

[4:10:31] light. I don't think we have to be that

[4:10:33] prescriptive as long as we're consistent

[4:10:35] with saying the primary materials are

[4:10:37] stone and brick. with traditional roof

[4:10:40] lines, like we're going to look have a

[4:10:42] similar look and feel without looking

[4:10:44] like copy little cookie cutter buildings

[4:10:47] because that's not where we want either.

[4:10:49] >> That's kind of where I'm at. But I I

[4:10:51] would like to make sure that um uh the

[4:10:54] planning commission is even mentally on

[4:10:57] the same page and then have somebody

[4:10:58] that's been outside our process run a

[4:11:00] building through and say, would this

[4:11:02] pass

[4:11:03] >> their standards? because sometimes what

[4:11:06] you have in your head is not what you've

[4:11:07] written on the paper.

[4:11:09] >> And to validate your point, I did find a

[4:11:11] historical document that did talk about

[4:11:14] um you know people getting stone from

[4:11:16] our dry canyon or American fort canyon

[4:11:19] using it in their homes. So I I agree

[4:11:21] with the stone and the brick and just

[4:11:23] adds a little bit more options for a

[4:11:25] builder and more variety and yeah. So oh

[4:11:30] they also we talked about overhangs too.

[4:11:32] They said they had big overhangs because

[4:11:34] we have such hot summers and then our

[4:11:36] winters the snow would melt and like

[4:11:38] drip like so you wouldn't have big piles

[4:11:40] of snow at your foundation where some of

[4:11:42] our newer things are lo we're losing all

[4:11:45] that overhang and that's coming from a

[4:11:47] European look.

[4:11:48] >> You can see that in the residential. So

[4:11:50] just like specific characteristics like

[4:11:52] a steep roof, bigger overhangs. Um

[4:11:56] anyways, I feel like we can do

[4:11:57] architectural elements without being so

[4:11:59] narrow that it's going to look like a

[4:12:01] cookie cutter down.

[4:12:02] And to our old mayor's point, like we've

[4:12:06] developed nine, you know, like nine out

[4:12:08] of maybe nine out of 15 lots already.

[4:12:11] So, we've got 40% left or 30% left. So,

[4:12:16] it's not going to ever look uniform. Not

[4:12:18] at this point.

[4:12:21] >> That was good. Um,

[4:12:25] where are we like on the document?

[4:12:27] >> Appendix B.

[4:12:29] What page is that? it like

[4:12:31] page on the actual document, not page in

[4:12:34] the draft.

[4:12:35] >> Um,

[4:12:38] >> because I have it from a former meeting

[4:12:40] uh where I did all my highlights

[4:12:45] while he's looking that up. Andrew, is

[4:12:47] it okay if I make a few more comments?

[4:12:50] Okay, thanks. Um, I just I also thought

[4:12:53] this was interesting under high priority

[4:12:55] topics. The first one talks about

[4:12:58] incorporate dimensional requirements to

[4:12:59] build form and massing standards. And I

[4:13:02] think that that's some way a way we can

[4:13:05] kind of codify that idea is like through

[4:13:08] coming up with some sort of ordinance.

[4:13:11] Do you guys feel I don't know. I feel

[4:13:13] like that's needed.

[4:13:16] >> What's needed? I didn't understand.

[4:13:18] >> Some sort of form and massing massing

[4:13:20] standards forming.

[4:13:23] Yeah. And then also section two talks

[4:13:26] about height and it says refers to

[4:13:27] maximum heights established by zoning

[4:13:29] regulations and recommends compat

[4:13:32] compatibility of new buildings with

[4:13:34] historic structures. So to me that means

[4:13:36] like and maybe I'm interpreting this

[4:13:39] incorrectly but you know that having

[4:13:42] some sort of height

[4:13:44] uh ordinance in relation to the zoning

[4:13:47] that is compatible to those homes in

[4:13:50] that area would be also a way to

[4:13:54] >> kind of have a measure.

[4:13:55] >> You've switched gears because the main

[4:13:56] street guideline only applies to

[4:13:57] commercial.

[4:13:59] >> Oh right.

[4:14:00] >> Well that's still helpful for that area,

[4:14:02] don't you think? Yeah, I mean we've got

[4:14:04] pretty big commercial

[4:14:06] >> and and those old homes are going to be

[4:14:07] gone. That's the whole intent.

[4:14:10] >> That was going on what you were saying.

[4:14:11] I think we have a couple streets where

[4:14:13] there are a lot of residents who own

[4:14:14] them, but they have full intention to

[4:14:17] turn them commercial right around here.

[4:14:19] >> That's what I'm saying. We can't control

[4:14:22] >> like everything we've talked about

[4:14:23] brick, black, blah, we can't control

[4:14:26] residential. We can only control um

[4:14:28] commercial.

[4:14:29] >> So,

[4:14:29] >> I don't want to say control, but have

[4:14:31] restrictions. So will you appendix B is

[4:14:34] about what? Because I'm looking through

[4:14:36] it right now. I just want to make sure

[4:14:37] I'm giving the right comments about the

[4:14:38] right topic because I see the roofing

[4:14:41] the materials.

[4:14:42] >> Appendix B

[4:14:44] >> secondary dwelling units. Are you

[4:14:46] >> we went over and we critiqued the

[4:14:48] original guidelines and this is their

[4:14:49] feed. This is their summary of our

[4:14:51] feedback.

[4:14:52] >> Okay.

[4:14:52] >> The steering committee critiqued the

[4:14:54] original guidelines.

[4:14:56] >> Then they wrote the new guidelines which

[4:14:58] we've already gone over. So it's more of

[4:14:59] a it's more of back to front like

[4:15:02] >> you keep preparing traffic but it's okay

[4:15:04] I guess if so is this about the style

[4:15:06] and the

[4:15:07] >> Yeah. So we talked about that last time

[4:15:08] if you recall

[4:15:09] >> and so we're just continuing that

[4:15:11] >> and so I just wanted us to so we

[4:15:14] in order that we complete the entire

[4:15:16] document since we didn't get to appendix

[4:15:17] B. I just wanted to open up one more

[4:15:19] chance for you guys to talk about

[4:15:21] >> I think this was probably understood

[4:15:22] mine are pretty simple. I think the draw

[4:15:25] from our h our design comes less from

[4:15:29] what I think I like or someone else

[4:15:32] thinks they like and more from what

[4:15:37] translates well to our mountains which

[4:15:39] are granite evergreen trees to the east

[4:15:42] it's more of a warm color and then our

[4:15:45] pioneer heritage those will guide that

[4:15:48] is our identity those will guide what

[4:15:50] kind of rock what kind of wood what kind

[4:15:53] of metal

[4:15:54] Um, right now every city is moving

[4:15:57] towards sort of a rustic

[4:16:03] kind of like a uh

[4:16:06] Springville type uh Lehi type look. Uh,

[4:16:11] I think Alpine is I don't want to say

[4:16:13] elevated because it puts them down, but

[4:16:15] Alpine is a little different. Uh, it has

[4:16:17] that European Alpine mountain which does

[4:16:20] separate. It's a little less I don't

[4:16:22] know how to say this. is a little less

[4:16:23] cowboy, a little bit more idealistic.

[4:16:26] Um, and so when we make these decisions

[4:16:29] about, if you don't like that, that's

[4:16:31] just my opinion. But, uh, we didn't name

[4:16:34] it Mountainville. Like, that was going

[4:16:36] to be the name. It was going to be

[4:16:37] Mountainville. And Mountainville is

[4:16:39] Lehi. That's that's like the kind of the

[4:16:41] culture and the and the look and the

[4:16:43] feel. They named it Alpine because it

[4:16:45] it's a little bit different. And so if

[4:16:48] you're going to choose colors, uh if

[4:16:50] you're going to choose materials, if you

[4:16:53] can harmonize those, harmonize them with

[4:16:55] the granite, mountain, and evergreen

[4:16:58] trees, it will complement each other

[4:17:00] very well. And if you can, if you can

[4:17:02] harmonize them culturally with the

[4:17:05] pioneer heritage, you will create a

[4:17:06] unique design language, unique and

[4:17:09] identifiable and valuable to Alpine.

[4:17:12] >> So do you have anything specific? So,

[4:17:14] we're going over like height, primary

[4:17:17] materials. So, if you're talking about

[4:17:18] primary materials, so far we have wood,

[4:17:21] masonry, brick, and stone.

[4:17:22] >> Do you have anything other than that to

[4:17:24] add?

[4:17:26] >> Um,

[4:17:28] not not specific. I could probably try

[4:17:30] to get more specifics. I when but what

[4:17:33] I'm thinking of is when we're asking

[4:17:35] masonry and when we're talking about

[4:17:37] that we we put it up against the test of

[4:17:40] does that fit that Utah historic which

[4:17:42] is a little different than other

[4:17:43] historic but but it would also give

[4:17:46] basis for why to include something. So right now exactly what you're talking

[4:17:51] about is very much where I where I go

[4:17:54] all the time DC this brick and black

[4:17:56] window is very east coast very east

[4:18:00] coast. I see it. I think it's cute in

[4:18:02] Boston. I think it's cool on the streets

[4:18:03] of DC, but I never think of Rocky

[4:18:06] Mountain Alpine as, and this is no

[4:18:09] disrespect to the planning commission. I

[4:18:10] love that they're researching it, but it

[4:18:12] is very much not west coast um or or uh

[4:18:17] mountain west uh bricks, all brick. I I

[4:18:20] think there's a place for it, but it is

[4:18:22] not all brick. It is more using the

[4:18:24] materials that we are around, which is

[4:18:26] timber, uh granite. Uh I mean when you

[4:18:29] go to the Salt Lake Temple they have

[4:18:31] taken granite as far as you can take it

[4:18:34] not just at the temple but in the whole

[4:18:36] surrounding area every sign every uh

[4:18:39] building has some sort of hearkening

[4:18:42] back to granite even though it doesn't

[4:18:43] come from there it comes from another

[4:18:44] canyon closer to us. Um so anyways that

[4:18:47] that's kind of the that's kind of the

[4:18:49] overarching theme because I'm hearing

[4:18:50] people say no wood and I think it's an

[4:18:53] opinion. I don't think it's based on

[4:18:55] history or our geography and the colors

[4:18:58] and the textures and the materials that

[4:19:01] reflect well. So when you go to

[4:19:02] Switzerland,

[4:19:03] >> they have done this well. They have

[4:19:05] decided how far to place the houses

[4:19:07] apart, how close to put them to the

[4:19:09] mountains, how high to make them, and

[4:19:10] what materials and what colors go well

[4:19:12] with that green and granite mountain.

[4:19:14] And they've done a great job. So much

[4:19:16] that people just want to go to visit to

[4:19:17] look at it. We have the same elements,

[4:19:20] >> right? Um, but we have uh not honed it

[4:19:23] as close because we probably don't have

[4:19:24] the resources.

[4:19:26] >> I'm just gonna say though that there is

[4:19:28] the Alpine name, but having spent a

[4:19:31] couple days now in Hebrew and you were

[4:19:33] in the Wasuch Valley for a while, they

[4:19:36] have a distinct European feel that

[4:19:37] they're trying to get in the midway

[4:19:39] Hebrew look that is not

[4:19:41] >> that is not Alpine Utah. So even though

[4:19:44] we have the name, I don't think we're going to that European.

[4:19:47] >> No, no, I wasn't saying European.

[4:19:49] >> Okay. I'm just wanting to clarify that.

[4:19:50] >> But but I do think there is 10% of that.

[4:19:52] I do think there is 10%.

[4:19:53] >> Right. But it's not the predominant.

[4:19:55] >> No, I think it's more historic and

[4:19:56] religious that cultural thing that came

[4:19:59] in and it's not um hyper uh I'm trying

[4:20:04] to find it's not ritzy like but it says

[4:20:07] plain and simple.

[4:20:08] >> Yes, we are moving that way. And so um

[4:20:11] so anyways to go to specifics, if we're

[4:20:14] going to talk about brick, I would not

[4:20:15] mandate everyone use only brick

[4:20:17] everywhere. I would not m that just

[4:20:19] because I think there's a place for it.

[4:20:20] I don't think it should be all that. I

[4:20:22] think we're missing our geography and

[4:20:24] our history on that.

[4:20:26] >> So, Andrew,

[4:20:28] >> let's let's do this. Let's just get

[4:20:30] primary materials out of the way since

[4:20:31] we're talking about this.

[4:20:32] >> Right. So, I was

[4:20:33] >> we have wood, masonry, brick, stone. Is

[4:20:35] there something you want to add to that

[4:20:36] list or take out from that list?

[4:20:39] >> Um, no, there's nothing.

[4:20:40] >> Okay. And then if you go to Yeah, just

[4:20:42] after this. Um, just want to get Andrews

[4:20:45] and then we can move on. Town center.

[4:20:47] They're saying wood, masonry,

[4:20:49] brickstone, glass for storefronts.

[4:20:52] Is there anything you want to add or

[4:20:54] take away from their suggestions for

[4:20:57] primary materials?

[4:20:59] >> Um, no. Like we people are using more

[4:21:02] metals. We don't address metals, uh,

[4:21:05] like metallics and people are using them

[4:21:07] a lot more. And also,

[4:21:08] >> it doesn't sound like that's allowed as

[4:21:11] a primary material. So, do you want to

[4:21:12] add metal to it?

[4:21:14] >> No. No. I'm just since we're addressing

[4:21:15] it, I'm just bringing them up to talk

[4:21:16] about it.

[4:21:17] >> Right. So, right now

[4:21:19] >> I don't have when I'm looking at this.

[4:21:22] Metal is not allowed as a primary

[4:21:23] material. Correct. Correct.

[4:21:25] >> Okay. So, you don't want to add it. I'm

[4:21:27] just trying to move this along.

[4:21:28] >> Feel free to move it along. I appreciate

[4:21:30] your comments. I'll try to get more

[4:21:31] specific. Go ahead.

[4:21:32] >> If you have specifics for us, please let

[4:21:34] us know.

[4:21:35] >> Jessica, do you have anything for the

[4:21:37] primary material you would like to add

[4:21:38] or remove?

[4:21:39] >> Nope. for either zone, whether it's the

[4:21:42] civic and mixed use or town center, you

[4:21:45] want to keep it the way it is.

[4:21:46] >> Uh Sarah,

[4:21:48] >> um don't hate me, but I actually found

[4:21:50] out that stucco is historic. They used

[4:21:52] it to cover adobe brick. So, I would be

[4:21:54] okay with putting stuckco,

[4:21:55] >> but it wouldn't be a primary material.

[4:21:57] Would it?

[4:21:58] >> Maybe a secondary material. I I mean I

[4:22:00] think that's like when you say primary

[4:22:02] material and I don't know if we need to

[4:22:03] get into like percentage of primary or

[4:22:06] if it's just 49% and 51%.

[4:22:09] >> Or I'm wondering is it okay if I'm

[4:22:12] looking at if we want businesses to come

[4:22:15] into Alpine we have to also have it

[4:22:17] pencil in

[4:22:18] >> so to require everyone to do granite. I

[4:22:21] don't know if that's going to pencil in

[4:22:22] for everybody. I know it was just a

[4:22:24] suggestion but I love the idea. I love

[4:22:26] the look of it and I get what you're

[4:22:27] coming from. But we also have to look at

[4:22:29] it as we want to invite businesses to

[4:22:32] come if that's what we really want. I

[4:22:34] don't want a ton of businesses to come,

[4:22:35] but I do want some small town unique

[4:22:40] hopefully thriving businesses. Not too

[4:22:42] thriving though. Anyways, but I like the

[4:22:46] idea of the wood masonry brick and

[4:22:49] stone. But I'm wondering if you guys are

[4:22:51] meable to have stucco maybe like on the

[4:22:53] back where it's not facing the street or

[4:22:56] do you know what I mean? and that would

[4:22:58] fall under secondary material, right?

[4:23:01] So, yes, I am I understand that it needs

[4:23:04] to be feasible for business owners and

[4:23:07] to be able to allow some kind of

[4:23:10] flexibility in a secondary material as

[4:23:13] Stuckco. The challenge is if we don't

[4:23:16] again put it in that description, then

[4:23:19] we'll end up with certain buildings that

[4:23:20] are

[4:23:21] >> totally primary. I'm wondering if we

[4:23:22] want to say like if we want to allow

[4:23:24] stucco so that it is more affordable and

[4:23:27] can pencil in easier that we not even

[4:23:30] secondary but kind of say maybe in the

[4:23:33] rear where it's not street facing where

[4:23:35] you can't see it from Main Street. Like

[4:23:37] I'm okay if we can't see it from Main

[4:23:38] Street. I like the idea of having these

[4:23:40] natural materials facing Main Street. On

[4:23:43] the other side where the parking lot is,

[4:23:44] it can be stuckco in my mind.

[4:23:47] >> But I don't know. What do you guys

[4:23:49] think?

[4:23:49] >> Is there any historic usage? Well, you

[4:23:52] guys have been looking at the historical

[4:23:53] houses where they used a stucco type

[4:23:55] look.

[4:23:56] >> Yes, they did. The adobe bricks were

[4:23:58] made out of mud. So to make them

[4:23:59] weatherproof, they used a stucco

[4:24:00] material to cover them so that they

[4:24:02] didn't erode.

[4:24:04] >> Okay. And then

[4:24:05] >> it is Can I follow up with that? Think

[4:24:08] about what she's saying. They didn't

[4:24:09] have access to better materials. That

[4:24:11] was the best they could do. So I'm okay

[4:24:13] if we upgrade it and say the front needs

[4:24:15] to be nicer, but the back is still stuck

[4:24:17] as

[4:24:18] >> Yeah, I'm okay with that, too. Like you

[4:24:19] know what I mean? They what your whole

[4:24:21] story is they didn't have anything

[4:24:22] better. So that's the best thing they

[4:24:23] could do. We have access to better

[4:24:25] materials than the modern day.

[4:24:26] >> Hey, can I get a word? Can I get a word

[4:24:28] in edgewise? Of course.

[4:24:29] >> No.

[4:24:30] >> You know what? We're coming to you. I'm

[4:24:31] sorry. It's just that you're

[4:24:33] >> This is so important. No. No. I'm just

[4:24:34] going to say I really like the direction

[4:24:36] you're going. I agree. Thanks.

[4:24:39] >> Oh my god.

[4:24:40] >> He said,

[4:24:40] >> uh, on the Was that really it, Brent?

[4:24:43] >> Yep.

[4:24:44] >> Okay.

[4:24:44] >> Yeah. I I I don't think we should just

[4:24:46] be brick. I when I first heard that from

[4:24:48] the planning commission, bless their

[4:24:49] hearts, I really appreciate all they do,

[4:24:51] but for the remaining property we have,

[4:24:53] I just don't don't see it all being

[4:24:55] brick. I just don't think that's going

[4:24:56] to be very nice.

[4:24:57] >> Are you okay with the primary materials

[4:24:59] that they listed and then allowing

[4:25:01] Stuckco to the side that is not facing

[4:25:03] Main Street?

[4:25:04] >> Yeah.

[4:25:04] >> Yes.

[4:25:05] >> Would that be amendable?

[4:25:07] >> Okay. So,

[4:25:08] >> two things, mayor. On the primary

[4:25:11] materials where it said Sorry, was

[4:25:13] something someone wanted to say

[4:25:14] something?

[4:25:14] >> Oh, I'll jump in after you. Yeah. on the

[4:25:16] primary materials. Something has come up

[4:25:18] recently where there is a difference

[4:25:19] between wood, faux wood, and then also

[4:25:22] wood um like surfacing. I don't know

[4:25:25] what they call it uh and then just like

[4:25:28] wood beams. Do we specify that or is it

[4:25:31] just blanket wood?

[4:25:32] >> No, we probably I agree.

[4:25:34] >> I don't know if we need to Well, they

[4:25:36] they've had problems with it. I I don't

[4:25:37] have a problem with it. I think it's

[4:25:38] fine. But the the stucco um I I don't

[4:25:42] know if we should make that prohibited

[4:25:44] or mandated as just to be behind things

[4:25:48] for two reasons.

[4:25:50] One, our entire city building is stuckco

[4:25:54] and I think to help have some sort of

[4:25:56] cohesion. That's why I thought the fire

[4:25:58] station did some cohesion because it had

[4:26:00] some stucco. Um I just it will just make

[4:26:04] us look out of it will make this area

[4:26:06] look foreign and not part of the

[4:26:09] community and we don't want government

[4:26:11] to be not part of the community. Um

[4:26:14] anyways I'm just I just I just don't

[4:26:16] know how we banish it and that we have

[4:26:19] so many buildings that are stucco or

[4:26:21] older that look that way. I would be

[4:26:24] happy to make it a secondary material or

[4:26:26] something smaller. Um, but if it is

[4:26:28] being used historic and we have it in so

[4:26:30] many places already. Uh, I mean that's

[4:26:33] just my two cents on that that the metal

[4:26:35] panels on the secondary material. I'm

[4:26:38] more trying to find out why.

[4:26:41] >> Yeah.

[4:26:41] >> Why why historically and even art and I

[4:26:43] I'm not putting down our signs, okay?

[4:26:46] They're not what I would have ever

[4:26:47] imagined and they're not what original

[4:26:49] signs looked like. original signs in

[4:26:51] Alpine were stone or stucco like our

[4:26:54] alpine sign when you come in or mud

[4:26:56] however that was made you know on Alpine

[4:26:58] Highway. Um I don't know what

[4:27:01] justification we have for metal or glass

[4:27:05] a little bit but metal I don't know

[4:27:07] where that's coming from.

[4:27:09] >> Well I think it's beyond histo like I

[4:27:11] don't think we want to feel like we have

[4:27:13] to be stuck back in a different century.

[4:27:15] It's just a modern material. Like if you

[4:27:17] look

[4:27:17] >> Well, I know. But if we diffuse it to

[4:27:19] anything, then we lose.

[4:27:21] >> It's a secondary material. Two examples

[4:27:23] on our our own main street are the old

[4:27:26] um the Mountainville Academy is meant to

[4:27:31] look like our original schoolhouse

[4:27:33] >> and the whole roof is metal roof. Okay.

[4:27:37] Montadela, the senior living that is

[4:27:40] slowly coming out of the ground. It has

[4:27:43] metal roofs, but it has the the

[4:27:45] architectural lines are give it a

[4:27:47] different feel that is not modern at

[4:27:49] all. Both buildings you would never say

[4:27:50] are contemporary or modern. So, it's

[4:27:52] just a secondary material as

[4:27:54] >> I I'm just looking for a justification.

[4:27:56] And even what you just said, there was

[4:27:58] no justification. It's just preference,

[4:28:00] which is fine. No, I'm saying it's just

[4:28:02] a secondary material, but it doesn't

[4:28:04] ruin the historic feel of the building,

[4:28:06] >> but it has no reason that I see.

[4:28:08] >> Well, I actually think historically, if

[4:28:10] we're going to lean into that, that the

[4:28:12] old Lambert homestead did have a metal

[4:28:14] roof. That's why it met its demise

[4:28:17] because during the depression, they came

[4:28:19] and took the metal roof. And that's so

[4:28:22] metal as a roofing material. I then

[4:28:25] maybe specify

[4:28:26] >> Can we say not on the side of a

[4:28:28] building? Because once you take metal

[4:28:30] and you put it on the outside of a

[4:28:32] building,

[4:28:32] >> you've moved it into a different

[4:28:35] >> a Silicon Valley. I live in these metal

[4:28:36] >> building as a metal roof. Again, you

[4:28:39] have to think about

[4:28:41] >> um the history component. It isn't

[4:28:43] excluded as a roofing option.

[4:28:46] >> Okay, which I stand corrected and you've

[4:28:47] shown me why it's historically

[4:28:48] justified. I live in buildings where I

[4:28:50] work that are all concrete floors,

[4:28:53] chiseled hard lines, and metal

[4:28:55] everywhere.

[4:28:56] >> Well, I think we could put prohibited

[4:28:58] materials,

[4:29:00] you know, metal. I don't know where it

[4:29:02] would actually fit in.

[4:29:03] >> Metal on walls.

[4:29:04] >> Yeah, metal as a I don't know. I'm sure

[4:29:06] there's an architectural way to say, you

[4:29:09] know, on the outside. Maybe only roofs.

[4:29:12] >> Yeah,

[4:29:13] >> that's probably a better way to say

[4:29:15] >> uh of an alpine history. and uh um

[4:29:20] geographic tie-in than metal. But I I'm

[4:29:23] not I think they're in a good place

[4:29:25] where they're not in the primary

[4:29:26] materials, both of them. So

[4:29:27] >> yeah, I think

[4:29:28] >> What about roof only? Like would you

[4:29:29] >> I think roof only is fine.

[4:29:31] >> Would they use metal roof? Is that what

[4:29:32] they they would use?

[4:29:34] >> Yeah, it was probably tin. I don't know.

[4:29:36] I just know that the reason that that

[4:29:37] house, it's not much older than a lot of

[4:29:40] homes, you know, that are still

[4:29:41] standing, but it had a tin or

[4:29:43] >> It's a good thing you bring up because

[4:29:44] when you

[4:29:45] >> during the depression, they used

[4:29:46] everything that they could

[4:29:48] >> and so it didn't.

[4:29:49] >> Hey, just just for the record, I I voted

[4:29:51] for a metal roof for city hall.

[4:29:53] >> Me, too.

[4:29:54] >> Well, when I you are bringing up a

[4:29:56] point, when you go to Wimbledon and you

[4:29:58] see the thatch roofs, it is such an

[4:30:00] identifying feature that iconicizes that

[4:30:02] area and enders it. I have not spent the

[4:30:05] time to realize, yeah, the detail of

[4:30:08] choosing our roofs would really make a

[4:30:10] big impact. Or if you go where there's

[4:30:12] the uh the um the wood uh slated roof

[4:30:15] where in Southern California where you

[4:30:17] go and it's the the more clay orange um

[4:30:20] what do they call them?

[4:30:21] >> Spanish tile roof.

[4:30:22] >> Spanish tiles. They're so identifiable.

[4:30:24] So, I think there should be some time in

[4:30:26] at least looking into what do we want

[4:30:28] the roofs to look like.

[4:30:29] >> You have to remember in the commercial

[4:30:31] area, they're allowed to have flat

[4:30:32] roofs. So, it's really not a big deal.

[4:30:34] >> Well, I'm just saying whatever we

[4:30:35] decide, I think it will be very uh

[4:30:38] impactful and consequential.

[4:30:40] >> So, it sounds like we're in agreement

[4:30:41] for the primary materials. The secondary

[4:30:43] materials, maybe we remove metal panels

[4:30:45] and just reserve that for roofing. And

[4:30:48] then maybe we could also add stucco as

[4:30:50] secondary materials, but then also

[4:30:52] include stucco for non street facing um

[4:30:57] aspects of a building.

[4:30:59] >> That was a nice sum up.

[4:31:00] >> Yes, I guess. So, if I understand this

[4:31:02] correctly, and I still am pretty new

[4:31:05] here, but I think that those

[4:31:07] specificities would be codified. And as

[4:31:10] far as this document goes, you would

[4:31:11] want to be as general as possible.

[4:31:14] >> Um, so like metal on sighting only,

[4:31:18] unless you really want to add that into

[4:31:20] this document, I think you could wait

[4:31:21] until the codification process comes up

[4:31:24] and then and then add that in. I think

[4:31:26] the challenge we have if it's if it's in

[4:31:28] a visioning document then you get people

[4:31:29] that point to it and then we get into

[4:31:31] this

[4:31:32] >> well it exists in the visioning

[4:31:34] document. So but are you saying that

[4:31:36] we're going to

[4:31:38] >> clean all that up and it will end up

[4:31:40] being codified and that will be the

[4:31:41] directing document.

[4:31:42] >> That's what I understand. I don't know

[4:31:44] if there's

[4:31:45] >> Didn't we apply for a grant to put this

[4:31:47] all into ordinances?

[4:31:48] >> Yes. And we got the grant.

[4:31:50] >> Oh sweet don't we need the language? I

[4:31:53] feel like the language needs to be

[4:31:55] aligned. If we know we're moving from

[4:31:57] words to code, we can't have well, we

[4:32:00] have metal, but we didn't really specify

[4:32:03] it was for roofs only in our visioning

[4:32:06] document. It's now we have to

[4:32:08] >> I think I think we need to give like

[4:32:11] overall feedback to our planning

[4:32:13] commission and let them mince out each

[4:32:16] line of our new ordinances, whatever

[4:32:18] they may be. Well, they are

[4:32:19] >> Kaden Kaden's understanding our vision

[4:32:22] and some of these things like there's

[4:32:24] other things we want to edit in this in

[4:32:25] the vision document but to get it into

[4:32:28] ordinance. That's when like we're

[4:32:30] counting on

[4:32:32] planning commission. I'm talking to you,

[4:32:34] listen to this discussion so you can

[4:32:36] kind of wrap your mind around where

[4:32:38] we're going and then they write the

[4:32:41] ordinances.

[4:32:41] >> But Chrissy, if we don't really spell it

[4:32:44] out, it starts to go a different

[4:32:47] direction. And so because we're going to

[4:32:50] loop them back in, we need to make sure

[4:32:52] that when they're looped back in, they

[4:32:55] see this is those directions or else

[4:32:58] they're going to spend now 15 minutes on

[4:33:00] metal, which we already know where we're

[4:33:02] >> I also think we need to get architecture

[4:33:04] people with a background in architecture

[4:33:06] involved because what we say does maybe

[4:33:09] doesn't mean to them what it means. Like

[4:33:12] you know what I'm saying? Like they have

[4:33:13] words for like when I was talking to

[4:33:15] them, they use like fenstration. Like

[4:33:17] they have these words. So if they can

[4:33:19] put it in the architecture language,

[4:33:21] then every other architect on the planet

[4:33:23] will know what they're saying where

[4:33:24] we're just trying to use common language

[4:33:26] at this point. Do you know what I'm

[4:33:27] saying?

[4:33:27] >> That's fair. Do you need uh do you need

[4:33:29] us to give you more vision statements

[4:33:32] that we all agree on? Like when we say

[4:33:35] Utah historic, can that be added in as

[4:33:37] like a thesis for why we're making these

[4:33:39] decisions? We are trying to um

[4:33:44] uh illustrate uh Utah historic and we

[4:33:48] define it or I'm saying what I do they

[4:33:50] might change it. I define it as uh

[4:33:53] geographic mountainous

[4:33:56] granite timber and rock with a large uh

[4:34:00] influence from pioneer heritage. Uh

[4:34:04] could could we put that in there so they

[4:34:05] know why the why and then if new

[4:34:07] materials are invented or come and go.

[4:34:09] Yeah. So I would say all that would go

[4:34:11] into this part about the design

[4:34:13] guidelines update if you want to include

[4:34:15] any language like that

[4:34:16] >> and the council's in agreement. Anything

[4:34:19] can be added this point. That's where

[4:34:20] we're going to

[4:34:21] >> we have a thesis we all agree on as to

[4:34:23] what guides our design principles.

[4:34:28] » Um I just have another thought off topic

[4:34:30] off of that topic but

[4:34:32] >> well just kind of sorry I don't want to

[4:34:35] I I agree. I think Utah historic is kind

[4:34:38] of like our thesis. That's I mean that's

[4:34:42] kind of what's guided us. But I I like

[4:34:44] that. Not just keeping it to one, you

[4:34:47] know, 10 years of Utah history, but also

[4:34:50] kind of having a little flexibility that

[4:34:52] way

[4:34:53] >> too. Some creativity. I like what you

[4:34:56] said about mountains. I mean, we live in

[4:34:58] a very beautiful place and the mountains

[4:35:00] are like,

[4:35:01] >> well, most cities are guided in their

[4:35:03] design by their geographic visual design

[4:35:07] language. If they're by an ocean, you

[4:35:09] notice the colors they choose. Someone

[4:35:11] figures it out and it complements

[4:35:12] literally the wavelength of a blue or an

[4:35:15] orange behaves differently when set next

[4:35:18] to its compliment or its tertiary color,

[4:35:20] which is right next to it. And they

[4:35:22] realize that and it is gratifying. Just

[4:35:24] like you taste something, you're like,

[4:35:25] "Oh, that goes good with that." versus

[4:35:27] that does not go good with that. It's

[4:35:28] the same thing that happens in your

[4:35:29] eyes. And so most things are geography

[4:35:31] based. We just have this rare additional

[4:35:34] thing where we also have a historical

[4:35:35] thing that can add um texture and

[4:35:39] importance overlapping that to make it

[4:35:41] truly unique. And so that's why I'm just

[4:35:42] saying if we can articulate that unique

[4:35:45] thing, we will not become a half version

[4:35:48] of Boston

[4:35:50] >> that that is never really that great.

[4:35:52] And so

[4:35:52] >> no matter what we do, it's not going to

[4:35:55] be unique. Utah Historic is not a unique

[4:35:58] thing to Alpine. What all we're doing is

[4:36:01] we're going for a look and feel that is

[4:36:04] similar and something that we want.

[4:36:06] Keeping in mind that most of our main

[4:36:09] street is built built out already.

[4:36:11] There's limited number of lots where

[4:36:13] there are older homes that I'm assuming

[4:36:15] that that will change.

[4:36:18] now to I guess what I don't like about

[4:36:21] what you're suggesting is I like having

[4:36:23] the vision but it has to be broad enough

[4:36:27] kind of like what Sarah was saying is I

[4:36:28] don't want to limit it to just a 10year

[4:36:32] period in our history where they did

[4:36:34] this this this and this. Um

[4:36:38] >> okay well if you have a better thesis we

[4:36:40] can I I'll support it. I just don't know

[4:36:41] what else our identity is designwise.

[4:36:45] I think what we do is let's first just

[4:36:48] go through this, okay? And then we can

[4:36:50] talk about this later. I would like to

[4:36:52] get this table

[4:36:56] to a point where we all agree.

[4:36:58] >> So we've gone to the secondary

[4:37:01] materials. So um Kaden looks like metal

[4:37:04] panels are out. Now prohibited materials

[4:37:08] looks like you know for the main um for

[4:37:11] the civic and mixed juice it doesn't

[4:37:13] apply but they are saying for town

[4:37:15] center stucco

[4:37:17] sighting and EFS are prohibited. My

[4:37:21] understanding was in talking to y'all

[4:37:24] that you were okay with stucco on

[4:37:27] non-main street facing build

[4:37:29] >> yes

[4:37:30] >> side of the building.

[4:37:31] >> So should we move stucco and EFS up to

[4:37:33] secondary only? I think stucco I I'm not

[4:37:37] fully against stucco because I think it

[4:37:39] does have some bases only being in the

[4:37:41] back. I think something like minor

[4:37:43] stucco or tertiary stucco or secondary.

[4:37:46] >> Well, that's why she said secondary,

[4:37:48] >> right? Secondary. But but we're

[4:37:49] clarifying that secondary with not in

[4:37:52] view. Not in

[4:37:52] >> to me secondary is less than what are we

[4:37:54] going to say? 51% 49 less than 50%.

[4:37:57] >> No, no. The only thing I'm bringing up

[4:37:59] is you want it uh not visible. So So I

[4:38:02] just visible.

[4:38:04] So, I'll just give you an example. I had

[4:38:07] met with somebody recently who g showed

[4:38:09] me a plan of their possible development

[4:38:12] on Main Street

[4:38:15] and I guess I'm trying to word things so

[4:38:18] that it doesn't end up looking like that

[4:38:21] >> which

[4:38:21] >> Okay. Well,

[4:38:22] >> was working backwards.

[4:38:24] >> Okay. I Yeah, if if you want to make it

[4:38:26] to the back, I just think there's place.

[4:38:28] >> It doesn't have to be in the back, but I

[4:38:30] think you can put secondary material.

[4:38:31] >> That's I'm I'm with you on that. I'm

[4:38:33] with you on that.

[4:38:34] >> And I like Chrissy's suggestion that you

[4:38:36] move stucco and EFS to secondary

[4:38:39] material. Sarah, did you have something

[4:38:41] else?

[4:38:41] >> Yeah, I think on prohibited materials,

[4:38:43] we don't want like vinyl, right? We

[4:38:45] don't want vinyl sighting. Am I

[4:38:46] correcting for the main street civic and

[4:38:49] mixed use as well as town center? One

[4:38:51] thought though that I had with sighting,

[4:38:53] if we're talking about wood is, you

[4:38:55] know, we look at the knot and pine and

[4:38:57] some of the other buildings that have

[4:38:59] wood, I think wood sighting looks nice.

[4:39:01] But that's my opinion. So maybe

[4:39:04] >> you could say noiding.

[4:39:07] I mean that would be a way to

[4:39:12] clarify that

[4:39:15] >> um I was talking to a member of the

[4:39:17] planning commission and they mentioned

[4:39:18] the city in California again pass

[4:39:22] and they actually define secondary

[4:39:23] materials to be less than a certain

[4:39:26] percentage of the facade. So I don't

[4:39:29] know where we're going to land on that

[4:39:30] but something to define what is a

[4:39:33] secondary material is less than 30%. I

[4:39:36] don't know like come up with something

[4:39:37] but that's their charge is to come up

[4:39:39] with something is what does

[4:39:40] >> I like the 1/3 23. So yeah

[4:39:44] >> 30% or less.

[4:39:46] >> Okay let's move on.

[4:39:47] >> Hey how about how about you talked about

[4:39:49] main street facing. What about the side

[4:39:51] facing that also that are also street

[4:39:53] facing? So corner lots. I mean, that's

[4:39:56] part of our look, too. As you come at a

[4:39:58] at an intersection, you're going to see

[4:40:00] both sides of the building, not just the

[4:40:02] front.

[4:40:05] >> I think it just says street facing. So,

[4:40:07] street facing would capture.

[4:40:09] >> Okay. So, she said main street. So,

[4:40:11] Carlos said main street. So, street

[4:40:12] facing is fine.

[4:40:14] >> Okay.

[4:40:14] So, let's move on to glazing.

[4:40:17] >> Mayor, did we do the top one, the height

[4:40:19] one? Are we going over there? No,

[4:40:20] because you started talking about

[4:40:21] materials and I just wanted to start

[4:40:23] ticking this off so that we can get out

[4:40:25] of here before midnight.

[4:40:26] >> Do you want to talk about height later?

[4:40:27] >> We will once we finish this section and

[4:40:29] then we can go back up to the height and

[4:40:31] then we can go on to the windows and

[4:40:33] doors. How's that?

[4:40:34] >> I just didn't know.

[4:40:35] >> Kayen, did you have a comment?

[4:40:37] >> Oh, I was just going to say um so if I'm

[4:40:40] understanding this table right, the NA

[4:40:42] means that there are no prohibited

[4:40:44] materials in that section. So that could

[4:40:46] be an option as well if you just put NA

[4:40:48] on this side.

[4:40:50] >> I don't know if you have to necessarily

[4:40:53] >> say stucco it will just be prohibited by

[4:40:55] def or it will be allowed by default. Um

[4:40:57] and that can be hashed out in the code

[4:40:59] once it's codified.

[4:41:01] >> I think there was just it was just a

[4:41:03] suggestion but

[4:41:04] >> no I think we don't want any guessing.

[4:41:06] So if it's allowed it's listed.

[4:41:08] >> When you refer to sighting are you

[4:41:10] referring to aluminum sighting?

[4:41:12] >> I think all siding.

[4:41:14] >> Okay. Well,

[4:41:16] >> so no wood sighting.

[4:41:17] >> I like wood sighting

[4:41:17] >> because there are some sightings.

[4:41:19] >> Natural sighting.

[4:41:20] >> There's very different. I mean, aluminum

[4:41:21] sighting is very different.

[4:41:22] >> So prohibitive. Why don't you just put

[4:41:24] um faux

[4:41:26] >> synthetic sighting? Oh, no. That metal

[4:41:28] is not synthetic.

[4:41:29] >> Aluminum isn't synthetic.

[4:41:30] >> We don't want faux wood. We don't want

[4:41:33] vinyl. We don't want

[4:41:34] >> Well, how about prohibitive materials is

[4:41:36] faux wood.

[4:41:37] >> Well,

[4:41:38] >> and then the sight it can be sighting,

[4:41:39] but it's that will leave it as real.

[4:41:41] >> Real wood. Yeah. Well, one thing that's

[4:41:43] happening though, and I this is

[4:41:45] interesting, is that

[4:41:45] >> it was Hardy Back or Fauxwood?

[4:41:47] >> Yes.

[4:41:48] >> Right. Well, Chrissy, one thing on this

[4:41:49] that I think could be problematic is

[4:41:52] there will be a lot of people who want

[4:41:54] to meet our guidelines like and make get

[4:41:57] that Utah historic feel, but it will be

[4:41:59] more expensive to do, but they can still

[4:42:02] get it in a uh synthetic way like faux

[4:42:05] wood, like for example, they can get

[4:42:07] it's like like for example stone, like

[4:42:09] she was saying, granite. Who's going to

[4:42:10] afford granite? And so you can afford

[4:42:13] granite if it looks like granite, but

[4:42:14] it's actually fake.

[4:42:16] >> I think I going back to Brent's comments

[4:42:18] when the person said if you do real

[4:42:19] wood, it's timeless. It's just never

[4:42:21] it's not dated at all.

[4:42:22] >> Oh, I agree. I I I prefer wood.

[4:42:24] >> So if we if we leave faux wood as a

[4:42:26] prohibited, it allows

[4:42:28] >> is faux wood prohibited.

[4:42:28] >> Real wood as sighting.

[4:42:30] >> Where is faux wood? Is it prohibited?

[4:42:32] >> No, I added it.

[4:42:33] >> Oh, I I just don't know. you might limit

[4:42:36] some people that could do it more

[4:42:37] affordably and be able to pull off a

[4:42:40] Utah historic look with

[4:42:41] >> That's true.

[4:42:42] >> That's a true statement. That's a

[4:42:44] reality.

[4:42:44] >> Well, so I just I don't know if we limit

[4:42:46] it.

[4:42:47] >> Yeah, that was my concern as well. Just

[4:42:49] with this being a guiding document, I

[4:42:51] don't know how much limit we want to

[4:42:52] really put on on the guiding document

[4:42:54] itself. I think we could wait till the

[4:42:56] code for that. Well, that is in

[4:42:59] inconsistent and the primary materials

[4:43:01] say wood, but then the prohibited

[4:43:04] materials say sighting. So, I just think

[4:43:06] we need to clarify faux sighting, which

[4:43:10] then captures everything that isn't

[4:43:12] natural wood.

[4:43:13] >> Oh, I see what you're saying. Yeah.

[4:43:14] >> Right. Like we allow woods, but then how

[4:43:17] do we allow wood? Because some people

[4:43:18] would define siding as

[4:43:23] >> wood. And we have a bit we have a

[4:43:25] commercial building basically all wood

[4:43:26] on the outside.

[4:43:27] >> Well, we have several.

[4:43:29] >> Yeah. Yeah.

[4:43:30] >> So, I don't know. We'll limit people's

[4:43:33] ability to to to do it. And I I haven't

[4:43:35] seen faux wood where I'm like really

[4:43:36] happy with it, but I haven't seen a bad

[4:43:38] example.

[4:43:39] >> Some great wood in town.

[4:43:41] >> Oh yeah, that's beautiful. Oh my gosh.

[4:43:43] What are we doing?

[4:43:47] » Amazing.

[4:43:48] >> Well, today it looks amazing. It's brand

[4:43:50] new.

[4:43:50] >> Yeah. Would you show this is

[4:43:54] But still,

[4:43:54] >> look at how even not kept up that wood.

[4:43:58] >> That's That's the artist Kerpatrick,

[4:44:00] right?

[4:44:00] >> It's not newly stained, but it looks

[4:44:03] >> Okay, guys. It does look awesome. Can we

[4:44:05] move?

[4:44:05] >> Sorry. We're geeking out over

[4:44:06] >> I know. Let's just move on.

[4:44:07] >> We're geeking out over wood.

[4:44:08] >> Okay, we're going on to glazing.

[4:44:11] >> Okay.

[4:44:12] Are you okay with the wording? Oh,

[4:44:14] no, no, no, no, no, no. Um, ground

[4:44:16] floor, none allowed. upper floors, none

[4:44:19] allowed on.

[4:44:21] And then um for the town

[4:44:27] um zone, it's none allowed. Refle

[4:44:29] non-reflective glass storefronts

[4:44:31] encouraged upper floor only 25% max. Are

[4:44:35] you guys okay with those parameters?

[4:44:39] >> Yes.

[4:44:39] >> I I don't know what glazing is. I'm

[4:44:41] sorry.

[4:44:42] >> It says reflective glass right there.

[4:44:44] Like I I don't understand where how it's

[4:44:46] used um in a building

[4:44:48] >> mirrored like it's reflective

[4:44:49] >> like on the exterior of a building.

[4:44:51] >> Yes.

[4:44:52] >> On glass. I'm going to go with that. The

[4:44:54] architects knew that what they were

[4:44:55] doing and I appreciated their

[4:44:58] descriptions.

[4:44:59] >> Okay.

[4:44:59] >> Do we do we want to continue with this

[4:45:01] because technically we reviewed this

[4:45:02] already. Um

[4:45:04] >> yes we did.

[4:45:05] >> So should we jump over to now what we

[4:45:07] were going to review today?

[4:45:08] >> I would say the only piece that we

[4:45:09] >> didn't I thought this Okay. Sorry it's

[4:45:11] late. Yes, please jump over.

[4:45:14] >> We talked about height later.

[4:45:15] >> I think we talked about height.

[4:45:17] >> Height was already discussed.

[4:45:18] >> All right. Sorry, that's what

[4:45:19] >> Yeah, but feel free to send me anything

[4:45:21] that you want updated if the council's

[4:45:24] in consent. I mean, that's what we need

[4:45:27] to talk about height and making it go

[4:45:29] shorter.

[4:45:29] >> Okay, Kayen, let's go ahead and proceed.

[4:45:31] >> Yeah, because we're not getting to the

[4:45:32] character areas. That's what we really

[4:45:34] need to talk about.

[4:45:35] >> Okay, so let's jump here. This is the

[4:45:38] part two small that's called the the

[4:45:41] name of the document essentially the

[4:45:43] small area plan.

[4:45:45] Um

[4:45:46] >> what page is this on the actual

[4:45:48] document? Not

[4:45:50] >> it's 24 on the actual document.

[4:45:52] >> Yeah. 24 and 25. Yeah is where we're at.

[4:45:55] >> I have it on a different one.

[4:45:56] >> So I'll just I mean I can make a few

[4:45:58] comments of what I read. Um and then

[4:46:00] I'll leave it up to the council to to

[4:46:02] discuss. Um, so the recommendations page

[4:46:07] here,

[4:46:08] um, talks about having a mixeduse

[4:46:10] character in in the field. I I know this

[4:46:13] was one part I think the PC was against

[4:46:16] that. Um, and I think I have their

[4:46:18] comments spread through this document if

[4:46:20] it's the latest one, but I hope they're

[4:46:22] there. Um so um strength so support

[4:46:28] balance growth in new mixed area use

[4:46:30] area of the field and then strengthen

[4:46:31] the role of the town center area enhance

[4:46:33] main street civic and mixed use area. So

[4:46:36] a mixed range of housing options is

[4:46:37] basically what that's talking about for

[4:46:39] those. Um

[4:46:42] so preserving the agriculture and open

[4:46:44] space. Um

[4:46:47] the the goal here is to maintain open

[4:46:50] space and potentially create a linear

[4:46:53] park was what was discussed a lot with

[4:46:54] the planning commission. Um and I think

[4:46:57] that was also discussed especially in

[4:46:59] this area um the area that's going into

[4:47:03] the new city core.

[4:47:06] And then

[4:47:08] there should be a unified branding

[4:47:10] approach to promote wayfinding and and

[4:47:13] the gateway system. Um,

[4:47:17] so those are the recommendations. I

[4:47:19] don't know if anyone has anything on

[4:47:20] this page or we'll move on.

[4:47:23] >> Yeah. Yeah, we can pull them up.

[4:47:26] >> I had one Oh, go ahead.

[4:47:29] >> I'll just say that I I agree with the

[4:47:31] planning commission's recommendations on

[4:47:34] this section. I think they were spot on.

[4:47:37] >> Was there some specific ones you wanted

[4:47:39] to bring up, Brent? Because I remember

[4:47:41] there were several on this one.

[4:47:42] >> Yeah, they they the one was extend the

[4:47:44] residential area to the southeast area

[4:47:46] south of the roundabout.

[4:47:48] Remove any language that identifies

[4:47:50] mixeduse residential commercial in the

[4:47:52] field. That area should be used as a

[4:47:55] flex housing area for mixeduse housing

[4:47:57] like senior housing, smaller homes, and

[4:48:01] extend the area further to the north up

[4:48:02] to the art center. preserve agricultural

[4:48:05] and open space as identified as linear

[4:48:08] park

[4:48:09] and the language not consistent with

[4:48:11] residential should be deleted from the

[4:48:13] character areas of the field.

[4:48:17] >> I I agree. Um Brent, if you turn to page

[4:48:20] 29, Kaden, it's easier to visualize

[4:48:23] because I'm a visual person. So um the dark orange just north of the blue

[4:48:29] is where they're trying to say

[4:48:31] >> right there. You just passed

[4:48:32] >> right there. Thank you. So, um, north of

[4:48:35] Alpine Highway, that's where the art

[4:48:37] center is. And they want that to remain

[4:48:38] business commercial. And then, um, south

[4:48:42] of Alpine Highway, so south of the green

[4:48:44] line, that's where a stake center is.

[4:48:46] There's like a field, um, that is just

[4:48:49] being farmed that rather than be mixed

[4:48:52] use that that goes to like flex housing.

[4:48:55] That's how I understood it. Correct.

[4:48:58] >> Brent, is that where you are too?

[4:49:00] >> Yes, correct. That's correct. And they

[4:49:02] said reduce it like right now it's zoned

[4:49:04] residential like I think to be

[4:49:07] 20,000 or something but they they would

[4:49:09] even take it down to like um TR 10,000

[4:49:12] in that which would also match kind of

[4:49:15] how we have 10,000 lot sizes like on the

[4:49:18] north side of town center. So to me it's

[4:49:21] a good transition into our bigger lots

[4:49:24] um that are already there like along

[4:49:26] Cascade and stuff. So I agreed with

[4:49:29] that. I agree with Brent, but that's how

[4:49:31] I can see it easier is by looking at

[4:49:33] this map.

[4:49:34] >> And they they didn't want any they said

[4:49:37] the consultant said mixed use in the

[4:49:39] field, but the planning commission says

[4:49:41] let's leave that residential as well,

[4:49:43] but be open to what's called flexed

[4:49:45] housing. So, there's two I don't know if

[4:49:48] you have your cursor that the two spots

[4:49:50] that go to flex housing are right there

[4:49:52] where you are. Yep. The south side of

[4:49:54] Main Street and then the field go to

[4:49:57] flex housing. everything else zoning

[4:50:00] stays the same. Is that right, Brent?

[4:50:02] >> Yeah. Yes. And they also mentioned on

[4:50:04] page 28 and 29 and in other areas that

[4:50:08] to remove mixed use in the area south of

[4:50:11] the roundabout and instead extend

[4:50:12] residential to that area.

[4:50:14] >> Yeah.

[4:50:15] >> And they said perhaps perhaps with a

[4:50:16] higher density residential buffer with

[4:50:18] lower density residential behind.

[4:50:20] >> Yeah.

[4:50:22] >> Um those are good. Thanks.

[4:50:24] >> Are you guys following that? Is that

[4:50:26] what you got out of their comments?

[4:50:27] Yeah,

[4:50:28] >> that's what I got out other comments.

[4:50:29] But, you know, when I sat in on that

[4:50:31] meeting

[4:50:33] >> that Dan

[4:50:35] coordinated with the folks that actually

[4:50:38] live there

[4:50:40] along Main Street, they did express an

[4:50:43] interest in looking at um you know,

[4:50:47] potentially some commercial zoning for

[4:50:49] their properties. You know, they weren't

[4:50:51] opposed to it.

[4:50:54] And so, and there was also conversation

[4:50:57] on the field that if we were going to

[4:50:59] allow more commercial

[4:51:02] >> that having that occur before you get to

[4:51:05] the roundabout

[4:51:07] might be advantageous.

[4:51:09] And so I know that planning commission

[4:51:12] is recommending that heavy residential

[4:51:15] usage, but again the residents that live

[4:51:18] along and I actually think Cooper's even

[4:51:21] there that he expressed the people that

[4:51:23] live there expressed

[4:51:25] >> a willingness to consider a commercial

[4:51:28] zoning for their properties that sit on

[4:51:30] SR92.

[4:51:33] >> Not SR92, Alpine Highway. Yeah.

[4:51:35] >> Yeah. That that didn't include all of

[4:51:37] them. It was um a representative sample

[4:51:41] and it doesn't it didn't include anybody

[4:51:44] north of basically the Olsson's um which

[4:51:47] is the property next to the library. The

[4:51:50] Olsson's changed their mind about

[4:51:52] commercial and then

[4:51:54] the next resident is a is a is a is a

[4:51:57] commercial owner. The next resident is

[4:52:00] >> an older man that was not was not

[4:52:03] included in the conversation. And then

[4:52:05] you just have the fields. So, it's not a

[4:52:08] big representative sample. The feel that

[4:52:11] the planning commission talked about is

[4:52:14] that the majority of the alpine doesn't

[4:52:17] want a big increase in our commercial

[4:52:19] zone.

[4:52:20] >> Yeah.

[4:52:21] >> No, it wasn't big. It was just maybe a

[4:52:23] presence along

[4:52:25] >> um the highway like if it was going to

[4:52:27] happen somewhere and then it would be

[4:52:29] residential like you're talking about

[4:52:32] higher you know a higher um maybe a

[4:52:36] senior you know density or something

[4:52:39] cottage zero lot line some some

[4:52:42] different kind of housing product to

[4:52:44] allow people to age in place if they

[4:52:47] want to downsize from their large home

[4:52:49] they have a place to go

[4:52:51] Um,

[4:52:52] >> yes, that's I think that was what it was

[4:52:54] in envisioned is like a mixeduse

[4:52:56] housing,

[4:52:58] senior housing, smaller homes.

[4:53:01] >> Yeah. So, if I understood the planning

[4:53:03] commission's recommendations correctly,

[4:53:04] I think the entire orange area on here

[4:53:07] would just be housing, no commercial as

[4:53:10] well as the field. That's what I

[4:53:11] understood.

[4:53:12] >> No, the the business commercial is north

[4:53:14] of the green line. That's already um

[4:53:17] Alpine

[4:53:18] >> Northeast

[4:53:19] >> Art Center

[4:53:20] >> or Yeah. northwest of the line.

[4:53:23] >> Okay. So up here would be commercial.

[4:53:25] >> Yeah, that's already commercial.

[4:53:27] >> So it's the field and then the that area

[4:53:29] south of the green line, south and and

[4:53:31] east of the green line.

[4:53:32] >> I recall.

[4:53:33] >> Does it make sense to only make one side

[4:53:36] along a major highway into our city

[4:53:39] before the roundabout that only part of

[4:53:42] that part is commercial and the other

[4:53:43] side is all residential? To me, if

[4:53:45] you're going to do commercial, that's

[4:53:47] the prime space.

[4:53:49] >> Well, it does buffer against all those

[4:53:51] residences.

[4:53:52] >> I know. No, but I'm just talking

[4:53:53] >> Canyon Crest is all residential,

[4:53:55] >> right?

[4:53:56] >> Alpine,

[4:53:57] >> but there's no Okay, so if you look at

[4:53:59] Canyon Crest,

[4:54:01] >> if you look at you live there, but so

[4:54:03] look, just think of it this way. Canyon

[4:54:05] Crest has no businesses whatsoever.

[4:54:08] >> Alpine Highway already has businesses.

[4:54:10] If you're gonna have businesses, why

[4:54:13] would you not want it along a main

[4:54:15] highway?

[4:54:16] >> Well, why wouldn't you want it on north

[4:54:18] of Main Street? Main Street also has

[4:54:19] businesses. Why don't we extend it

[4:54:21] further north?

[4:54:22] >> I mean, it's the same argument. It's the

[4:54:24] main thoroughare.

[4:54:25] >> I'm not making an argument. I'm just

[4:54:26] giving feedback from the people that

[4:54:28] live there. when we talked about

[4:54:30] commercial and what was the future,

[4:54:34] >> I read that the residents that live

[4:54:36] there would said, "Yeah, we would like

[4:54:38] to at least learn more about what that

[4:54:41] would mean if our properties were zoned

[4:54:43] commercial."

[4:54:44] >> They they did not.

[4:54:45] >> I explained which ones did say that and

[4:54:47] which ones did not.

[4:54:49] >> Well, no, that was only four. There's

[4:54:51] way more than four houses.

[4:54:53] >> Jessica, are you talking about the

[4:54:55] houses in this like kind of sandy blue?

[4:54:58] There aren't more than four houses on

[4:54:59] that south side.

[4:55:01] >> I think she's talking No, she's talking

[4:55:03] about closer to what is the street that

[4:55:05] >> I think I would need a Google closer to

[4:55:07] that lane we were talking.

[4:55:08] >> I mean,

[4:55:08] >> no, it is closer to that lane is people

[4:55:11] there, but I've talked to Mr. Walker who

[4:55:13] owns the property next to the church and

[4:55:16] he would be in favor of having it be

[4:55:19] zone business commercial.

[4:55:21] >> Um,

[4:55:23] >> yeah, I see that. I see that logic just

[4:55:25] because then you're not traveling all

[4:55:27] the way into

[4:55:28] >> Alpine.

[4:55:29] >> Um but

[4:55:30] >> yeah, the streets are wider. I I do

[4:55:32] think it's more amenable to business

[4:55:34] commercial than north.

[4:55:37] >> It's way more residential up there.

[4:55:38] >> You're talking in the blue section,

[4:55:40] right?

[4:55:40] >> I'm talking about the dark red at the

[4:55:42] top.

[4:55:43] >> Yeah.

[4:55:44] >> He's Brent is saying we could put

[4:55:46] business commercial there, which is like

[4:55:47] the purple space up there.

[4:55:49] >> But

[4:55:49] >> no, I'm not I'm not advocating we put

[4:55:51] more business commercial anywhere. I

[4:55:53] think it's it's adequate the way it is

[4:55:55] and that's what I think most people that

[4:55:57] have talked to me feel the same way.

[4:55:58] >> Yeah, I'm with brand I'm with

[4:56:00] >> that they don't they don't want more

[4:56:01] commercial. They want to keep Alpine even

[4:56:03] >> they don't want to bring in all the

[4:56:05] traffic and more commercial that

[4:56:07] >> and they don't even they don't even

[4:56:09] prosper here.

[4:56:10] >> No, I think it's a community that's

[4:56:13] specifically addresses the $90 million

[4:56:16] leakage community

[4:56:17] >> and so it really is to support the

[4:56:19] residents that live here. It's not to

[4:56:21] attract. We're not going to attract

[4:56:23] people coming into Alpine to do

[4:56:25] commerce. We're looking at what is it

[4:56:27] that our residents are asking for.

[4:56:29] They're asking for a breakfast place.

[4:56:31] They're asking, you know, for a place

[4:56:33] for bread. There are some requests when

[4:56:36] you consider a $90 million leakage study

[4:56:39] that's significant. I got an email from

[4:56:40] a mayor this week and the positioning in

[4:56:43] the email was, "We just got our leakage

[4:56:45] study back and we are losing $15

[4:56:48] million.

[4:56:49] um we'd love to talk to you about

[4:56:51] bringing a small business to our

[4:56:53] community. And that was just for a $15

[4:56:55] million gap. So there is, you know, we

[4:56:59] do have a need. Our residents are asking

[4:57:01] us for a place to go to dinner, for a

[4:57:03] place to have I mean trucks and tunes,

[4:57:07] you know, has shown that that people

[4:57:09] want to gather, people want to get

[4:57:11] together. Snowasis is, you know, off the

[4:57:14] charts. So they're they're showing that

[4:57:16] we're looking for those commerce

[4:57:18] opportunities.

[4:57:20] >> Yeah. And there's there's there is some

[4:57:22] undeveloped property on Main Street that

[4:57:24] can still be used for that. I agree that

[4:57:26] those would be some good small

[4:57:28] businesses for those areas. I have only

[4:57:30] been in Alpine 12 years and there hasn't

[4:57:31] been a restaurant here in 12 years, but

[4:57:34] I've been told that there people have

[4:57:36] tried before and they've all failed. So,

[4:57:39] I mean, that'd be great if we could get

[4:57:41] some and we have 30 35% of available

[4:57:44] space on Main Street that we haven't

[4:57:46] even utilized.

[4:57:48] >> Sure. I agree with you, Brent. I I don't

[4:57:50] know that we need the space, but if we

[4:57:52] did, I feel like where that blue section

[4:57:54] is would be a great place, but

[4:57:56] >> I don't section.

[4:57:57] >> Not the field. It's like the

[4:58:00] >> kind of south.

[4:58:02] >> Well, that's the orchard.

[4:58:03] >> Um,

[4:58:04] >> the whole blue section is the orchard

[4:58:06] and homes. There's no more land to be

[4:58:08] developed there.

[4:58:09] >> Well, and I think um someone had

[4:58:11] mentioned maybe those homeowners were

[4:58:13] interested in at some point, I don't

[4:58:15] know, down the road.

[4:58:16] >> No, those those are the people I think

[4:58:18] those people they talk to are the ones

[4:58:20] that are in the orange section next to

[4:58:23] between the field or the B or the

[4:58:26] Banganger farm and the art center. And

[4:58:29] then on the south side of that, you have

[4:58:32] the library, the Olsson's, a property

[4:58:35] that's owned by a commercial development

[4:58:37] or commercial owner, and Mr. whatever

[4:58:42] what his name is. He's really nice. I

[4:58:44] talked to him at the senior lounge

[4:58:46] >> lunch. And he owns a fairly big parcel.

[4:58:49] >> And I think they're interested in

[4:58:51] looking at some commercial usage in that

[4:58:54] large parcel.

[4:58:56] Well, I can imagine why they would be

[4:58:58] because if they want to sell, it's worth

[4:58:59] more money potentially.

[4:59:01] >> But what about the residents who abut

[4:59:03] that? That's the that's the question.

[4:59:06] >> And what does Alpine really want? I

[4:59:08] mean, if you guys are hearing residents

[4:59:10] clamoring for more commercial business,

[4:59:12] then let's talk about it. But that's not

[4:59:14] what I'm hearing.

[4:59:14] >> No, no, I'm not either.

[4:59:16] >> I took pictures that night of the dots,

[4:59:18] which I have here on my phone. I finally

[4:59:20] found it. Uh, pretty much tons of red

[4:59:24] for a roundabout. Tons of red for a

[4:59:26] three-way stop back at Ridge. When it

[4:59:28] comes to this field, tons of red for any

[4:59:31] commercial. That's why they adapted it

[4:59:33] to the stripes because nobody wanted

[4:59:35] commercial there. And then as far as

[4:59:37] commercial in this area we're talking

[4:59:39] about, it's two dots to three dots. So

[4:59:42] there is mixed feedback coming to us,

[4:59:45] which is normal. So anyways, I I I don't

[4:59:48] think we can collectively say

[4:59:51] um what our city wants because we have

[4:59:54] random like non

[4:59:57] very personal interests involved. If we

[5:00:00] really want to know, we may need to do a

[5:00:03] survey to say like because we did get

[5:00:06] feedback. there was um what Dan said is

[5:00:09] when like in the sharet mode Dan um from

[5:00:12] MAG is when you stop hearing new ideas

[5:00:14] that's kind of the consensus. So, um,

[5:00:18] without taking an official survey, but

[5:00:21] tons of red, more way more red than

[5:00:24] green, and that's I came into this

[5:00:26] thinking we needed more commercial

[5:00:28] because I'm thinking moneywise, it

[5:00:29] brings more money to the city. We can

[5:00:31] tax it higher. We get sales, tax,

[5:00:33] revenue, all that kind of stuff. But the

[5:00:35] feedback that night was all no way like

[5:00:37] we don't want we don't want commercial

[5:00:39] in these areas. And I will text I will

[5:00:41] email these to you to Kaden. Um, but I

[5:00:44] don't feel like that that we have really

[5:00:46] a consensus from the community one way

[5:00:49] or the other. And then sometimes we have

[5:00:51] to just decide and some people are going

[5:00:53] to be unhappy like we did tonight.

[5:00:56] >> Yeah. No, for sure. And to address the

[5:00:58] $90 million leakage study, we're always

[5:01:01] going to have a huge number in our

[5:01:02] leakage studies no matter what because

[5:01:04] we're never ever going to have a Costco,

[5:01:07] Walmart, Lowe's, Home Depot, a car

[5:01:11] dealership. Those are the highest

[5:01:14] revenue generating far as sales tax and

[5:01:16] property taxes, right? So, um, we're

[5:01:20] never ever ever gonna have that. So, to

[5:01:22] capture, you know, 90 million I

[5:01:25] >> I'm just saying 10%, 5%

[5:01:28] not even close.

[5:01:29] >> But you're talking about that's how much

[5:01:32] they spend as a whole. And what we would

[5:01:35] be capturing is a small percent, which

[5:01:37] is the sales tax revenue. if the

[5:01:40] business that comes in happens to be

[5:01:43] you know um

[5:01:45] that is something that is taxable what

[5:01:47] we found though is most of Alpine

[5:01:50] it's offices or services which are not

[5:01:53] taxable

[5:01:54] um so yeah I agree with Chrissy where

[5:01:58] when I first looked at it and looked at

[5:02:00] the original leakage study that was done

[5:02:03] what is it 10 years ago now and looked

[5:02:06] at all um the revenue going out or all

[5:02:09] of our residents spending money outside

[5:02:11] of the city. And if you really look at

[5:02:13] the big ticket items, that kind of stuff

[5:02:15] we'll never ever see here. So that's

[5:02:17] just wiped away. You're talking about

[5:02:19] 10%. So you're talking about not

[5:02:21] >> I'm five.

[5:02:22] >> Okay, fine. Let's say four and a half

[5:02:24] million in um revenue, right? So four

[5:02:27] and a half million that they're spending

[5:02:28] on goods and then um the percent of

[5:02:32] sales tax revenue from that, you know,

[5:02:34] you give some to the city, it's a point

[5:02:36] of origination. You know, if you look at

[5:02:39] um

[5:02:41] what am I thinking? Burgess Orchards, I

[5:02:43] think we get, didn't we get it's about

[5:02:45] five six thousand in sales tax revenue

[5:02:47] from them. Correct, Shane?

[5:02:50] >> That's what we were told before was

[5:02:52] about five five and a half.

[5:02:54] >> It's five. It's about five or $6,000.

[5:02:56] That's what we make on sales tax revenue

[5:02:59] for what they're selling at that spot.

[5:03:02] Um so for me it was no longer um the

[5:03:06] revenue generator. Um

[5:03:09] although there is the upside that they

[5:03:11] are taxed at 100% value of the real

[5:03:13] estate property because it's not their

[5:03:14] primary residence. So there is as far as

[5:03:17] property tax we do get a larger chunk.

[5:03:20] Um

[5:03:21] but I you know even when I talk to a lot

[5:03:25] of people who want these restaurants and

[5:03:26] whatnot

[5:03:28] um because they're always like well

[5:03:30] can't we get a restaurant here? And I'm

[5:03:32] like, you know, we're not preventing

[5:03:34] anyone from create a restaurant here. We

[5:03:36] just haven't had people come in that

[5:03:39] have wanted to do it. And yes,

[5:03:41] restaurants have failed, but there's

[5:03:43] different reasons why they've failed.

[5:03:45] And it's not necessarily because they

[5:03:47] weren't generating revenue. Um, there's

[5:03:50] other reasons and I don't want to go

[5:03:52] into it in a public meeting.

[5:03:53] >> That's not actually how it works. How it

[5:03:54] works, because I've talked to Midway, is

[5:03:57] they don't sit and wait. Midways decided

[5:04:00] this is who we want

[5:04:02] >> and this is who we want and they go out

[5:04:04] and they

[5:04:05] >> it's it's economic development and

[5:04:07] that's what it looks like. And so we

[5:04:09] don't attract anything because we don't

[5:04:11] have zoning. We don't have retail space.

[5:04:14] We make it too difficult for a small

[5:04:16] business owner that's maybe got a little

[5:04:17] bookstore or maybe a little repair shop.

[5:04:20] There's too much barrier to entry and so

[5:04:23] they don't come here. Now we can be more

[5:04:26] business friendly. We can think what do

[5:04:27] our residents want? We can zone and then

[5:04:31] they will come because we've removed all

[5:04:34] the layers of barriers because they have

[5:04:36] to now come to the city and we don't

[5:04:38] even have retail zoning. And so we say

[5:04:43] we're the visionaries for our city. What

[5:04:44] we want and I'm not saying because we

[5:04:46] want retail right here. I'm just saying

[5:04:48] the reason they don't come to the city

[5:04:51] isn't because they won't thrive here. We

[5:04:53] have a $90 million leakage study that

[5:04:56] shows that they will. It's that we

[5:04:58] haven't built the community

[5:05:02] >> so that they'll come to us.

[5:05:03] >> Do you think that we need more than what

[5:05:05] we have on Main Street?

[5:05:08] >> I'm not sure what all we have on Main

[5:05:10] Street that fits retail. I know that we

[5:05:12] have a nail spa that went in and they

[5:05:14] have a parking problem. So again, you're

[5:05:16] talking about a small business owner.

[5:05:18] everything you have to go through to

[5:05:20] make a profit and you can't even provide

[5:05:22] them reasonable parking. So, do I think

[5:05:25] we need something that's feasible? Yeah.

[5:05:28] I tell me where we can run retail on our

[5:05:31] main street.

[5:05:32] >> Well, I I think that just based off of

[5:05:34] listening to planning commission,

[5:05:36] there's some property owners along Main

[5:05:38] Street that are waiting to to work with

[5:05:41] the city. correct me if I'm wrong,

[5:05:43] April, about some of that so that they

[5:05:47] could potentially, but I don't know the

[5:05:49] timeline. I don't know what's all

[5:05:51] entailed there, but I don't know.

[5:05:52] >> I think they're saying that we can't

[5:05:53] support retail alone, and so the only

[5:05:55] way they could support business was to

[5:05:58] get a residential unit above to

[5:06:00] supplement to o the overhead of owning a

[5:06:02] building in Alpine. Um, I talked to

[5:06:04] somebody who's a national placement for

[5:06:06] one of the fastest growing franchises in

[5:06:09] the US and he's like there's you can't

[5:06:12] we there's like we don't have any of the

[5:06:15] right characteristics to put even um a

[5:06:18] small retail shop like and he could list

[5:06:22] out all the things we lack and he lives

[5:06:23] here in Alpine. If we'd like to get I

[5:06:26] asked him would you formally come and

[5:06:28] write down your opinion. and he said he

[5:06:30] would, but I think it

[5:06:32] >> well, we don't want a franchise. We want

[5:06:34] uh people, you know, who are retired and

[5:06:37] they've wanted to have X or they're

[5:06:39] looking to build a small family business

[5:06:41] and have their kids work there. We're

[5:06:43] not talking about clearly a franchise

[5:06:45] would never come here. And we don't want

[5:06:47] a franchise. That's again conflicted to

[5:06:50] our identity. But we do want to build

[5:06:52] business, be entrepreneurial.

[5:06:54] >> What is the sort of place? It's driving

[5:06:55] me crazy. Um,

[5:06:58] >> no.

[5:07:00] >> Swig. He's the CEO of

[5:07:01] >> Swig.

[5:07:02] >> Yeah, I know. We work together all the

[5:07:04] time.

[5:07:04] >> And he already he already told me that

[5:07:06] Alpine won't support retail.

[5:07:09] >> I know.

[5:07:10] >> So I clearly there's a difference

[5:07:12] between

[5:07:12] >> but they won't support. But Midway does

[5:07:14] and Midway is smaller than Alpine.

[5:07:16] >> They don't. But Midway I since I drive

[5:07:18] there now every day, you don't you we're

[5:07:20] not competing with somebody that's 10

[5:07:22] minutes away. The next closest uh swig

[5:07:25] would be down one canyon or over

[5:07:27] >> franchises. We're talking boutiques.

[5:07:29] >> I'm just talking about something small.

[5:07:31] >> Would y'all mind if I went through the

[5:07:33] ones that I wrote down just really quick

[5:07:35] on this?

[5:07:36] >> Knock yourself out, Andrew.

[5:07:37] >> What's that?

[5:07:38] >> Said knock yourself out.

[5:07:39] >> Okay, so page um page 24 and 25. These

[5:07:43] valu So these were my recommendations.

[5:07:46] Take them or leave them. See how you

[5:07:47] feel. These values emphasized protecting

[5:07:49] Alpine's historic and agriculture

[5:07:52] character, maintaining a small town

[5:07:54] feel, promoting an active and outdoor

[5:07:56] oriented lifestyle, supporting family

[5:07:59] traditions, and encouraging distinctive

[5:08:02] thoughtful growth. I would just add

[5:08:04] after supporting family traditions and

[5:08:06] faith and encouraging uh distinctive

[5:08:10] thoughtful growth just so we have that

[5:08:11] hearkening back to the pioneer and

[5:08:13] religious um influence that's so

[5:08:16] prominent here. And then on the bottom

[5:08:19] uh still on

[5:08:20] >> I think we can say faith.

[5:08:22] >> Yes. Well, you can actually say whatever

[5:08:24] you want. You could say Catholic Church.

[5:08:26] You could say whatever you want. It's up

[5:08:27] to us. There's no barring of that. It

[5:08:29] doesn't mean we are choosing one faith.

[5:08:32] It means to be honest, we wouldn't be

[5:08:35] here without faith. There would be no

[5:08:37] Alpine. There would be no Utah. Okay.

[5:08:39] So, so I'm looking at more of a as a

[5:08:42] >> n to our right.

[5:08:43] >> Well, yeah. But it also influences

[5:08:46] why people come here. Uh whether you

[5:08:49] want to be politically correct or not

[5:08:50] about it, it influences many of the

[5:08:52] community values that people have. And I

[5:08:55] am finding when people omit that from

[5:08:58] their cities and they rely on things

[5:09:00] like leisure or um outdoor activities,

[5:09:04] even those begin to suffer. In other

[5:09:06] words, they are a floor to another floor

[5:09:09] that's actually holding them up. And

[5:09:11] that when they lose those other

[5:09:13] community values, San Francisco's one of

[5:09:15] the best one, the mission district and

[5:09:16] several others. when they lose those

[5:09:18] other things that started them and it

[5:09:21] can be faith of any type but there is a

[5:09:23] faith uh thing. So if we if we don't put

[5:09:26] that in there, people will believe that

[5:09:28] we are maintaining a small town film,

[5:09:30] that we're family tradition. Well, that

[5:09:32] family tradition goes away once you lose

[5:09:34] faith. Um that walkability goes away

[5:09:36] once you lose faith. The to a certain

[5:09:38] degree outdoor oriented lifestyle goes

[5:09:41] away once you learn faith. Um and you'll

[5:09:43] see that as you visit some of these.

[5:09:45] Anyways, I think we should add it in

[5:09:46] there to to draw back to that.

[5:09:49] >> Um on 24 and 25, it says what our

[5:09:52] gateway identity should be. page 24 and

[5:09:55] 25 it says each entrance corridor to the

[5:09:58] city will offer a unique experience

[5:10:01] focusing on identity and placemaking to

[5:10:04] create recognizable gateways. So I just

[5:10:07] think that's spot on and don't take that

[5:10:09] out and I think we should do that. We

[5:10:11] should make each um gateway a uh oh, I

[5:10:15] just lost. We should make each gateway a

[5:10:18] unique entrance corridor and we haven't.

[5:10:20] Right now, our alpine sign is flanked

[5:10:22] behind it by three massive power lines

[5:10:25] on Alpine Highway. It's it just hurts

[5:10:27] every time I see it. So, we want to make

[5:10:28] that exper that's what this is why we're

[5:10:30] talking about the easement. That's the

[5:10:32] corridor entrance. Um, anyways, on page

[5:10:34] 26, I think we would do really well on

[5:10:37] page 26 by having a target piece. Right

[5:10:40] now, we have six uh images by having a

[5:10:44] target piece. We can get artists to do

[5:10:45] it. AI can help us. Um, so I'd love to

[5:10:48] help develop one of those. Page 27. It

[5:10:51] says,

[5:10:51] >> can you define target piece for me?

[5:10:53] >> Target piece is like when when so when

[5:10:55] they it's it's something I'm used to it.

[5:10:57] It's clearly uh something I brought up

[5:10:59] before. Target piece is when you're

[5:11:01] going to make a movie. Okay. Or when

[5:11:03] you're going to make a village or when

[5:11:04] you're going to build a world or a city

[5:11:06] where there's a

[5:11:07] >> Can you give me an example of this? When

[5:11:09] you're saying a target piece, give me

[5:11:10] something specific.

[5:11:11] >> What it would be, it would be a painting

[5:11:12] of Main Street. It's an architectural

[5:11:14] rendering. Like when someone comes in in

[5:11:16] your house and they say, "Okay, where do

[5:11:18] you want your fireplace?" And they say,

[5:11:19] "Okay, we're going to go do an

[5:11:20] architectural rendering of the

[5:11:21] fireplace."

[5:11:22] >> And they paint it for you and they draw

[5:11:23] it for you. You look at it and you see

[5:11:25] exactly how it will look in its

[5:11:27] ambiance. And that's the best way, kind

[5:11:28] of like we just had with the fire

[5:11:29] department uh building. That's the best

[5:11:31] time when you see it, you react. You

[5:11:33] have a visceral reaction to it and then

[5:11:34] you actually emote and you decide, yes,

[5:11:37] this is it. You don't do it through your

[5:11:39] mind. You don't do it through your

[5:11:40] mouth. You do it through your eyes. And

[5:11:42] >> so you're saying that you want to

[5:11:44] target. So you just want a rendering of

[5:11:46] main street of what

[5:11:47] >> Yeah. Yeah. our our vision, everything

[5:11:49] we're saying put into words. is it's more than a million words is an

[5:11:53] image that shows the type of roof, the

[5:11:55] type of height that Chrissy's bringing

[5:11:57] up, the type of stucco, where it is and

[5:11:59] where it isn't, the type of wood

[5:12:01] cladding, where it is and where it

[5:12:03] isn't. You have a couple of those and as

[5:12:04] you visually show that that target piece

[5:12:07] will be really easy for future councils,

[5:12:09] future anyone to look at and say, "This

[5:12:11] was a vision they had. Are we meeting

[5:12:14] this?" Or, "Oh, that was so great. I

[5:12:16] want to look at that again." Anyways, it

[5:12:17] would be great to have a picture there

[5:12:19] of what that is and we can look into

[5:12:21] artists doing it or AI up there.

[5:12:22] >> Would you do it like maybe from multiple

[5:12:24] vantages like one from Legacy Park, one

[5:12:27] from coming in?

[5:12:28] >> Yeah. And the easy the easy thing to do

[5:12:29] is to look at them and say that's not

[5:12:31] it. You almost do 10 of them and you

[5:12:33] realize that is not it

[5:12:35] >> and and they're just so helpful to be

[5:12:37] like you don't have to give someone a

[5:12:38] 30-page report. You show them one image

[5:12:39] and they say that's it. That's Alpine.

[5:12:42] That's our that's our future gateway. It

[5:12:44] says it's a focal point designed to

[5:12:46] immediately capture and hold the

[5:12:47] viewer's attention. Acts as a visual

[5:12:49] anchor. So, I noticed that when I was

[5:12:52] looking at Cedar Hills, they have the

[5:12:54] they want to be American colonial and

[5:12:56] they have that thing you're talking

[5:12:57] about. There's this building and they're

[5:13:00] like, "This is what we want." And it's

[5:13:02] right in their ordinances. So, I'm just

[5:13:04] saying I I I've seen that work and as

[5:13:06] soon as I saw the picture, I'm like,

[5:13:08] "Oh, that's what they're going for

[5:13:10] here." like with their all their

[5:13:12] ordinances were sort of supported were

[5:13:14] like like spokes on a wheel and this

[5:13:17] vision this one building and their

[5:13:19] ordinances like oh okay that's American

[5:13:22] colonial now I know what they're talking

[5:13:23] about so I can I can see how it's

[5:13:25] helpful

[5:13:26] >> so okay so you're talk are you talking

[5:13:28] about this page that we're looking at

[5:13:30] now

[5:13:30] >> yeah right about that page because we

[5:13:31] have all these recommendations 1 2 3 4 5

[5:13:33] six well if we had one image that um

[5:13:36] exemplify

[5:13:36] >> each are you talking about

[5:13:37] >> no no just one it will exemplify all

[5:13:40] those uh for those recommendations.

[5:13:42] >> Okay, Mr. Artist, I'd like to see it

[5:13:44] next time.

[5:13:45] >> Every time I I sign up for things and I

[5:13:46] have full intention and like literally I

[5:13:48] fly to Chicago at 400 a.m. tomorrow or

[5:13:52] today. I guess it's the same day. What

[5:13:54] is it? 11. Not yet. Tomorrow.

[5:13:56] >> Well, you have plenty of time on the

[5:13:56] plane.

[5:13:57] >> I get overwhelmed. So, I need some help

[5:13:59] from other people to um help do them.

[5:14:02] But anyways, that will really help. Uh

[5:14:04] sorry, page 27 or um page 27 it says

[5:14:08] implement a unified wayfinding and

[5:14:10] gateway identity identity system. So

[5:14:13] good. These are all positives.

[5:14:15] >> Um across all gateway areas, signage,

[5:14:19] branding, and wayfinding elements should

[5:14:21] be developed that reinforces Alpine's

[5:14:23] identity and enhanced navigation.

[5:14:25] Gateway features like monuments,

[5:14:28] landscaping, and public art should be

[5:14:30] prioritized at the key entry points and

[5:14:32] the roundabout. And I think we're on our

[5:14:33] way to doing that one in the roundabout.

[5:14:36] But think of entering on Alpine Highway

[5:14:38] or entering on Canyon Crrest or entering

[5:14:40] on Westfield and having a monument or a

[5:14:43] key signage. I think that will really

[5:14:45] just be a just a huge opportunity to

[5:14:50] uplift Alpine and when people enter they

[5:14:52] know they're here. Um so I really

[5:14:54] >> that's that site at the roundabout is

[5:14:55] really nice. If we could

[5:14:57] >> I would be happy using that for all of

[5:14:59] our gateway entrances.

[5:15:01] >> Well, okay. Yeah, I would love to see

[5:15:03] some granite, but that's just me. Okay,

[5:15:05] so anyways, uh page 28. Um I'd like to

[5:15:09] People wanted to take this out, so I'd

[5:15:10] really hope you won't take this out. It

[5:15:12] says, "Residents voiced strong." This is

[5:15:15] a quote from our this thing. That's why

[5:15:16] I love it so much. Residents voiced

[5:15:18] strong support for protecting historic

[5:15:20] buildings, maintaining Main Street's

[5:15:22] traditional scale, and preserving

[5:15:25] mountain views, which directly

[5:15:27] influenced the Main Street civic and

[5:15:28] mixeduse recommendation. So they wanted

[5:15:31] to take out the preserving mountain

[5:15:32] views. I'd love to keep that. I can't

[5:15:35] tell you how many times people talk to

[5:15:36] me and then they pivot from whatever

[5:15:37] their issue are and like oh and by the

[5:15:39] way the reason I live moved here was

[5:15:40] because of the views. They they always

[5:15:42] followed up with that and they'll be

[5:15:43] from like somewhere like Silicon Valley.

[5:15:45] This most recent one Asian family from

[5:15:46] Silicon Valley came here because of the

[5:15:48] views. We we've got something more

[5:15:50] valuable than almost any city. I think

[5:15:52] we should preserve them. Anyways, page

[5:15:54] 32. There's a bunch of X's and so

[5:15:56] >> yeah let's jump in. Um, so each

[5:16:00] character area is defined and yeah, the

[5:16:01] X's are here for the mixed use

[5:16:03] commercial.

[5:16:05] >> I I since I wasn't here, I actually

[5:16:07] don't know why that wasn't filled. I'm

[5:16:09] guessing it's because the planning

[5:16:10] commission was saying eliminate this

[5:16:12] area. Essentially, it's not going to be

[5:16:14] mixed use.

[5:16:15] >> Carla, correct me, but we have

[5:16:17] commercial and we have residential, but

[5:16:20] we actually don't have a mixeduse

[5:16:21] ordinance. We just allow both in the

[5:16:24] mix. You What?

[5:16:26] >> Yeah, that's

[5:16:27] >> Shane. Am I saying that right?

[5:16:28] >> That's correct.

[5:16:28] >> So since we don't have one, they

[5:16:30] couldn't make any recommendations for

[5:16:33] it. It doesn't exist.

[5:16:34] >> Okay, that makes sense.

[5:16:35] >> So that's what the X's are on page 32.

[5:16:37] >> It doesn't exist in our code. We don't

[5:16:38] allow mixed use.

[5:16:40] >> I see things I I didn't know.

[5:16:41] >> But maybe we maybe we could.

[5:16:43] >> Okay, thank you.

[5:16:43] >> Yeah.

[5:16:44] >> Okay. Well, so I don't know if we want

[5:16:46] to talk about each character area. That

[5:16:48] was the goal to get through this part.

[5:16:51] Um I just made a few notes on each one.

[5:16:54] Um but

[5:16:56] so I guess I I'll just looking at this

[5:16:59] page for the main street and civic and

[5:17:01] mixed use. Um

[5:17:03] >> so this talks about having a mix of

[5:17:05] housing types, low density retail

[5:17:08] transition area from traditional

[5:17:11] neighborhoods to the mixeduse core in

[5:17:13] the town center. Uh the key feature is

[5:17:16] obviously the purple mattress uh site

[5:17:20] and then the town center. Um the bulk of

[5:17:23] commercial was supposed to be here.

[5:17:24] Commercial and social heart of the

[5:17:26] alpine. Um it talks about being walkable

[5:17:29] not just in sidewalks but in design. I

[5:17:32] think maybe I put that in but um

[5:17:35] activated streetscapes

[5:17:38] and all the good design principles

[5:17:41] should be here. Does anyone have any

[5:17:43] comments on these two? I

[5:17:46] >> Oh, just one thought just after

[5:17:48] listening to planning commission on this

[5:17:50] just under um Main Street Civic and mix

[5:17:53] when it talks about built form. Um one

[5:17:56] of the things that was mentioned by some

[5:17:57] of the residents is potentially and this

[5:18:00] kind of confirms this having smaller

[5:18:02] setbacks so that they can allow for

[5:18:05] parking in the back which sounds like it

[5:18:06] would alleviate some of the problems

[5:18:08] that we're having with the nail studio.

[5:18:11] Um, so I I guess I'm just mentioning

[5:18:14] this because also on town center under

[5:18:16] public realm, it talks about that as

[5:18:18] well. Um, so just something to keep in

[5:18:22] mind, I guess, when we're

[5:18:24] fine-tuning things later on. That's all.

[5:18:28] That's a great comment. And I'm trying

[5:18:30] to remember if the setbacks and the

[5:18:32] design I think they were smaller.

[5:18:37] Um, let's see.

[5:18:41] I think we talked two weeks ago or

[5:18:42] whenever we discussed this

[5:18:45] >> that we would look at other ordinances

[5:18:48] and kind of see what would be

[5:18:51] something that allow these potential

[5:18:53] developments to pencil and what the

[5:18:55] setback should be in these two different

[5:18:57] areas of Main Street. So getting staff

[5:19:00] recommendations for that maybe.

[5:19:03] >> Yeah, definitely. Yeah, right now Town

[5:19:06] Center is six to eight foot. So that's

[5:19:08] pretty small.

[5:19:09] >> That was pretty small.

[5:19:10] >> Yeah.

[5:19:11] >> No, that's the side. The front is 15

[5:19:13] feet and 20 feet.

[5:19:15] >> Thank you. Sorry it's late.

[5:19:18] >> Okay.

[5:19:19] >> I hate to go all the way backwards, but

[5:19:21] I had this thought the other day about

[5:19:24] our materials is that we have bridges

[5:19:27] that I don't know what they cost, but

[5:19:29] they are stone and timber. So, let's

[5:19:32] sort of lean into that a little. Sorry,

[5:19:35] it's totally out of context.

[5:19:38] But I was thinking about this way

[5:19:39] finding thing that he's talking about

[5:19:41] like we could lean into the stone and

[5:19:43] the timber like because that's we've

[5:19:45] already invested in that and I think

[5:19:47] everybody loved the bridges when they

[5:19:48] went in. Everybody loved them.

[5:19:50] >> I love it and I love it.

[5:19:50] >> And there's metal.

[5:19:53] >> Well, yeah. Okay.

[5:19:55] >> Anyways, put that as a footnote.

[5:19:57] >> Are you talking about materials? Primary

[5:19:58] materials.

[5:19:59] >> I'm talking about our bridges, you know,

[5:20:01] >> and like they had stone and timber and

[5:20:04] metal and everybody loved those bridges.

[5:20:06] So maybe we could lean into that as a

[5:20:08] unifying theme to our way finding

[5:20:10] >> that he's talking about

[5:20:12] >> to go on that um in the character areas.

[5:20:14] I think we have the term here in this if

[5:20:17] you look on page uh uh 33 where it says

[5:20:21] character areas the field. It uses the

[5:20:24] word rustic signage on the bottom.

[5:20:27] Wayfinding and identity rustic signage

[5:20:29] native landscaping rural fencing to

[5:20:32] create a distinct entry into Alpine.

[5:20:34] Now, right now, we do have rustic

[5:20:35] signage. I don't not like it, but I

[5:20:38] think we should define it. What does

[5:20:39] rustic signage look like? Because rustic

[5:20:41] signage can look like

[5:20:43] >> a um like a cowboy town, like an old

[5:20:47] cowboy town, or it can look like a European town. There's different

[5:20:52] kinds. So, I think there should be some

[5:20:54] defining as to what rusted signage is.

[5:20:56] >> Yeah. If you go to the top uh paragraph

[5:20:59] on that way, this area uh the bottom

[5:21:01] line this on page 33, this area uh

[5:21:04] talking about the field is in going back

[5:21:06] to what uh you guys are bringing up is

[5:21:07] envisioned talking about the field as a

[5:21:10] rural inspired entrance to the city that

[5:21:12] protects open views and farming

[5:21:14] heritage. Um that's not mixed use or

[5:21:18] commercial. That's protecting open views

[5:21:21] and um agriculture. So we probably want

[5:21:24] to define that a little bit more. uh for

[5:21:27] the field because in this document it's

[5:21:29] saying uh protecting open views and

[5:21:32] farming heritage. Um it's very

[5:21:35] different. That's that's uh Wheeler Farm

[5:21:38] style. That's that's that's uh and that

[5:21:40] will really define when people enter if

[5:21:42] they're entering shopping or if they're

[5:21:45] entering entering uh an open farm type

[5:21:49] of type of feel like a Wheeler Farm or a

[5:21:52] place where you have events or things

[5:21:53] like that. I I have some on the other

[5:21:55] characters, but I'll let other people go

[5:21:56] before I talk about them.

[5:21:59] >> Jesse, do

[5:22:00] >> you have anything else you want to add?

[5:22:02] >> Brent.

[5:22:05] » Uh, nothing else.

[5:22:07] >> Okay,

[5:22:08] >> Chrissy.

[5:22:08] >> Oh, sorry.

[5:22:09] >> I'm good.

[5:22:10] >> Okay. So, on the character egg gateway,

[5:22:12] if you go to page 34.

[5:22:14] So just before we jump past this, um I

[5:22:18] think this part on the field does say as

[5:22:20] of right now low to medium density with

[5:22:23] retail is proposed here.

[5:22:26] >> So I guess

[5:22:27] >> this goes back to what Chrissy and I

[5:22:31] said um following the recommendations of

[5:22:34] the planning commission to delete that.

[5:22:37] >> Okay. So are we all in on deleting that

[5:22:39] from this language here?

[5:22:40] >> I I think the residents there would like

[5:22:42] that. And then you're hearing from me at at most I think we could say a

[5:22:47] balanced approach, but I do think yes,

[5:22:49] they do not want that to be retail. When

[5:22:52] I talked to the residents down there,

[5:22:54] they want it to be what I believe these

[5:22:56] people who made this report took it from

[5:22:58] a city that protects open views and

[5:23:00] farming heritage there in the uh um the

[5:23:03] field area in that area. Now, that could

[5:23:06] change, but that's what I'm hearing from

[5:23:07] him and that's what it says in this, but

[5:23:08] that does not go along with what you

[5:23:10] just brought up where it is a mixeduse.

[5:23:13] I don't know how we have farming

[5:23:14] heritage, open views, and mixeduse

[5:23:16] commercial. I guess that could be a

[5:23:18] beautiful

[5:23:19] >> um

[5:23:19] >> it could be a nursery.

[5:23:20] >> It could be an opera like a really cool

[5:23:23] combination, but it would have to be

[5:23:24] very carefully done

[5:23:25] >> because that's agricultural. Like, it

[5:23:27] could be a variety of things, but I

[5:23:29] think it wholeheartedly I think it'd be

[5:23:31] awesome. I just think it was rejected.

[5:23:33] But I could be wrong. I would love to

[5:23:35] have a survey, but that would cost

[5:23:36] money. So, I don't know.

[5:23:38] >> Uh, it definitely wouldn't be open

[5:23:39] season on the commercial down there from

[5:23:41] what I

[5:23:42] >> I guess Kaden, my my thought is I

[5:23:44] disagree with what the planning

[5:23:46] commission said in this section.

[5:23:48] >> I don't I don't have any other suggested

[5:23:50] edits.

[5:23:52] >> Got it. Thank you.

[5:23:53] >> Okay. On page 34, I think you'll all

[5:23:55] really love this. I'm not sure if you

[5:23:56] saw it. the bottom on the left where it

[5:23:58] says key me elements for the southwest

[5:24:00] gateway. We're talking about the same

[5:24:01] area kind of by the field but a little

[5:24:03] bit south on the very last it says a

[5:24:06] gateway monument at the future

[5:24:07] intersection of Rance Tribe and Alpine

[5:24:09] Highway. A future monument right there I

[5:24:12] think would be Chrissy. I don't know if

[5:24:13] you're listening but that's

[5:24:14] >> I'm totally listening.

[5:24:15] >> That's your world. Um so they're talking

[5:24:17] about a monument there uh down by Alpine

[5:24:20] Highway Ranch Drive entrance. That's

[5:24:22] where that's where people come around

[5:24:24] the circle. They see the mountain. I

[5:24:26] mean, I'm thinking something like Eagle

[5:24:27] Gate. That's like you could put

[5:24:29] something like that there or or you

[5:24:31] could put some sort of monument because

[5:24:33] that's when you really that's your exit

[5:24:35] and that's your entrance and it would

[5:24:37] just be a prime location. So, I like to

[5:24:39] keep that there.

[5:24:40] >> I think um what we what ideally what I

[5:24:43] would like to see is the same monument

[5:24:46] everywhere.

[5:24:47] >> You said unique, but I feel like we need

[5:24:49] to a way finding is like you've arrived.

[5:24:52] I think

[5:24:54] >> ORM went and put up some signs. I think

[5:24:56] Highland has some signs and whether

[5:24:58] you're entering from the north,

[5:24:59] souththeast, or west, you see the same

[5:25:01] signage.

[5:25:02] >> And I asked the consultants, can you do

[5:25:04] that for us? And they said, of course,

[5:25:05] for a price. So anyways, it's something

[5:25:08] that we should put some thought into.

[5:25:10] And I believe it could be at these these

[5:25:13] if you go back to that page with the

[5:25:14] orange on it. See the little um arch

[5:25:17] thing, the black and white, and then it

[5:25:19] has a like a bridge. Looks like that is

[5:25:22] where they want the same

[5:25:24] >> oh

[5:25:24] >> element to say you've arrived. You're an

[5:25:27] alpine now. And uh

[5:25:28] >> they said they said un they said

[5:25:30] consistent uniform monuments and

[5:25:32] landscaping which I think is

[5:25:34] >> I think is the preference for me.

[5:25:37] >> Yep. Consistent uniform. Love it.

[5:25:39] >> Okay. Well, at least monuments on the

[5:25:41] entrance I think is a good thing. You

[5:25:43] guys want them consistent. I don't mind

[5:25:44] if they're different if they meet the

[5:25:46] same goal of welcoming and reminding

[5:25:48] people where they're at and what it's

[5:25:50] all about. If you look on the Southwest

[5:25:52] Gateway character area, um uh the the

[5:25:56] middle column on the bottom line, it

[5:25:58] says a pedestrian and bike friendly

[5:26:00] infrastructure down there kind of by the

[5:26:02] field down there by Burgess Orchards. I

[5:26:05] would just add to that, this is one of

[5:26:06] the few additions I have. Whenever you

[5:26:08] see it say bike friendly and cyclist to

[5:26:11] also add walker or retired folks or

[5:26:14] something to that because

[5:26:17] >> pedestrian and bike is this get you

[5:26:19] there.

[5:26:20] >> Okay, that's that's good. That's good

[5:26:21] enough. I just don't want

[5:26:22] >> and and and just as an update, we

[5:26:25] remember we learned from you DOT that

[5:26:28] a similar pedestrian or multi-use path

[5:26:31] is on the books for that road as well.

[5:26:34] >> Yeah.

[5:26:35] >> For a future MAG funded grant.

[5:26:37] >> Yeah. Okay. On the bottom of that

[5:26:39] paragraph, it says the development goal

[5:26:42] down in that south entrance alpine

[5:26:44] highway area. what it says the

[5:26:46] development goal is an emphasis on low

[5:26:48] density single family development and

[5:26:50] limited infill development. I think

[5:26:53] that's what I've caught from them and so

[5:26:54] I think that's a positive the wayfinding

[5:26:56] and identity as a gateway element at the

[5:26:58] south end of the quarter. We already

[5:27:00] went over that on the right on the right

[5:27:02] column

[5:27:04] uh the area the top of the right column

[5:27:07] the area will maintain its residential

[5:27:09] identity focused on improve walkability.

[5:27:12] It continues on walkability, trail

[5:27:14] linkages. So, we really have an open

[5:27:17] canvas down there to make this

[5:27:18] walkability. Um, if you if you go down

[5:27:21] on the third bullet of the key elements,

[5:27:25] it says the overall character of the

[5:27:27] southwest gateway is low density. So,

[5:27:31] and then on the bottom it brings it up

[5:27:33] again, a gateway element at the west end

[5:27:35] of the quarter. Why why do the people

[5:27:37] keep putting put a monument or a gateway

[5:27:41] like element at each entrance? Why do

[5:27:43] they why are they doing that? I mean, I

[5:27:45] want it, but why why are they doing it?

[5:27:47] Because I I want to support it.

[5:27:48] >> A gateway element.

[5:27:49] >> Yeah. They're they're saying a monument

[5:27:51] or a gateway element at each entrance.

[5:27:53] >> Yeah. So, that would be like a welcome

[5:27:55] sign into Alpine essentially. Basically,

[5:27:57] what we have at the roundabout that

[5:27:58] could be considered a gateway element.

[5:28:00] >> Okay. It doesn't have to be anything

[5:28:02] grandiose or anything like that, but

[5:28:03] something that signifies you're entering

[5:28:05] alpine is is kind of what they're

[5:28:07] >> they have one right in the roundabout in

[5:28:09] their little mapping. There's four,

[5:28:11] >> right? No, I just I just don't know how

[5:28:12] they arrive. I mean, these are the

[5:28:13] experts making this report.

[5:28:15] >> They're just saying like we want to know

[5:28:17] we've we're here. We've arrived. Okay.

[5:28:19] >> So, Andrew, this is a little bit

[5:28:20] different where it says low density, but

[5:28:23] in the on the other page we read, it

[5:28:26] said a mixed housing model.

[5:28:28] >> So, those two,

[5:28:29] >> right? We need to we need to figure that

[5:28:31] out.

[5:28:32] >> Yeah, I don't I don't recall that low

[5:28:35] density. We we wanted to continue to see

[5:28:39] um what we're already seeing. We would

[5:28:41] like to see a different housing product.

[5:28:44] >> Oh, I'm sorry. Is that Southeast

[5:28:45] Gateway? I apologize.

[5:28:48] >> That's the Southeast Gateway. If you

[5:28:49] look at the middle column, the bottom

[5:28:52] second to bottom point, it says

[5:28:54] development goal. I apologize. That is

[5:28:57] southeast gateway. Is that talking about

[5:29:00] uh Canyon Crest?

[5:29:01] >> It is.

[5:29:02] >> I apologize. I thought we were still on

[5:29:03] the No, that is I apologize. That is

[5:29:06] saying the development goal on the

[5:29:07] southeast gateway is emphasized on low

[5:29:09] density single family development and

[5:29:11] limited infill but also adding asking

[5:29:13] for a the point after that a gateway

[5:29:15] element at the south end of the

[5:29:17] corridor.

[5:29:17] >> Again, that's on the map. Yep.

[5:29:19] >> Right. So, so, um, and then I guess it's

[5:29:21] the northwest gateway, which would be,

[5:29:23] um, uh, asking for the same kind of

[5:29:26] thing as the east, low density and a

[5:29:28] gateway element at the west end.

[5:29:29] >> So, how does this align? It says new

[5:29:31] residential development. This is under

[5:29:33] southwest gateway.

[5:29:36] Um, could include single family or

[5:29:38] divided entry twin homes. So, we are

[5:29:41] now, you know, bringing in a different

[5:29:43] model. But then under key elements it

[5:29:46] says emphasis on single family

[5:29:48] development and large lot development.

[5:29:50] So that to be, you know, and I know

[5:29:53] we've heard from the public like, could

[5:29:54] we get some zero lot line? Could we get

[5:29:57] a different housing product for some of our residents so that

[5:30:03] >> Yeah, I see those asongent. Yeah, I see

[5:30:05] those as not inongruent, but congruent

[5:30:07] because if you put a duplex on a larger

[5:30:11] lot, it feels more residential than

[5:30:14] cramming them stacked together like a

[5:30:16] row of blocks.

[5:30:17] >> So that's I thought that that's what

[5:30:19] they were trying to say. If we if we

[5:30:20] did, I could show you some pictures cuz

[5:30:23] they're in Hebrew.

[5:30:24] >> Like they literally have three houses

[5:30:26] and it looks like like one of our nice,

[5:30:29] >> you know, like like if you go back to

[5:30:31] where's that picture that you

[5:30:33] >> Oh, I understand that. But then how does

[5:30:34] that

[5:30:35] >> But if it's on a larger lot, then it

[5:30:36] gives people

[5:30:38] >> the feeling of being in a residential

[5:30:39] area and not in an urban area

[5:30:43] >> like this lot. This page on page 35. If

[5:30:46] you put one more peak like and then

[5:30:48] three doors on this house and took off

[5:30:49] the garage like that's literally what

[5:30:51] they build. They build three a triplex

[5:30:54] and it has like three doors, three

[5:30:56] dormer windows and it looks like a large

[5:30:58] house.

[5:30:59] >> Mhm.

[5:31:00] >> But it's on a larger lot and so it

[5:31:02] doesn't feel like you're in an urban

[5:31:04] area where it's really tight

[5:31:07] to me. I thought those were compatible.

[5:31:09] >> I just don't remember public feedback

[5:31:12] being we want to see duplexes or

[5:31:14] triplexes.

[5:31:14] >> No. more that we would like from a

[5:31:18] housing product. Smaller lots, smaller

[5:31:21] size homes for aging demographic,

[5:31:24] younger demographic, not specifically

[5:31:27] um again twins or tripod.

[5:31:30] >> Well, especially in the southwest

[5:31:32] gateway where most of those lots are

[5:31:35] acre lots. Um so I don't see a divided

[5:31:40] entry twin home being there. I would

[5:31:42] probably say strike that out. Um, but

[5:31:45] what we are facing is that you can have

[5:31:47] detached accessory dwellings. Now,

[5:31:50] >> I know that people were against it, but

[5:31:52] I think because of the cost of our land,

[5:31:54] like it's not really feasible to do flex

[5:31:57] housing unless we allow some type of

[5:31:59] shared wall. like, okay, think of the

[5:32:01] there's duplexes right across from um

[5:32:04] Highland City Hall and by their library,

[5:32:06] but they have like separate entrances

[5:32:08] and it just looks like a larger home and

[5:32:10] there are garages on like totally not

[5:32:12] even visible from the same side of the

[5:32:14] street. I that's what I was envisioning

[5:32:16] is like larger lots so they're not like

[5:32:19] stacked together like an urban space but

[5:32:22] they're if we don't do something like we

[5:32:25] can't you're going to end up I would

[5:32:27] rather have like multif family housing

[5:32:29] on a larger lot than smaller lots all

[5:32:33] stacked in a row like kind of what is

[5:32:35] south of Lone Peak because I think

[5:32:36] that's ugly. I understand like what your

[5:32:38] preference is, but again, there's ways

[5:32:40] to build bungalows on zero lot line

[5:32:43] properties. And what I did learn, you

[5:32:45] know, during the League of Cities is

[5:32:48] those cities that did try to do these

[5:32:51] town homes or three homes together that

[5:32:53] they there wasn't a market for it. So, I

[5:32:56] think we have to be really careful when

[5:32:58] we're looking at duplexes or triplexes

[5:33:02] because we could actually create a

[5:33:04] product on a zero lot line, cute little

[5:33:06] bungalow like we have on Grove Drive and

[5:33:09] you can get the housing number you need

[5:33:12] and you can have and it's feasible

[5:33:14] without sharing. There's something about

[5:33:16] sharing a commonwall. I don't know if

[5:33:19] our market's ready for that. That's all.

[5:33:21] >> Well, I I think didn't you go to the

[5:33:23] Utah League of City of Towns? Wasn't a

[5:33:25] like a more rural area like Enoch.

[5:33:28] >> No, it was our exact demographic. It was

[5:33:30] our It wasn't Enoch. It was um Yeah,

[5:33:33] pretty much the same population base as

[5:33:35] Alpine.

[5:33:35] >> No, no, but what I'm saying is like

[5:33:37] their land is probably not as expensive.

[5:33:39] So, people can actually still afford

[5:33:41] single family homes.

[5:33:43] I think I think where we've arrived just

[5:33:46] from hearing it all is that we we need

[5:33:49] to define better what Alpine Highway

[5:33:52] Southwest Gateway is going to be and

[5:33:55] it's really open what we want to allow,

[5:33:59] what we don't, and how we want it to

[5:34:01] look. The other ones don't seem to have

[5:34:03] any problems because no one's going to

[5:34:05] disagree with that. I think the level to

[5:34:07] which we allow density and commercial in

[5:34:10] the Southwest Gateway is what we're

[5:34:12] trying to figure out. Am I wrong?

[5:34:13] >> Yeah. Yeah.

[5:34:14] >> That may be a whole separate discussion.

[5:34:16] >> You might you might you might arrive or

[5:34:18] if you find a city I'll

[5:34:19] >> take some pictures.

[5:34:20] >> If any of you find a city who has done

[5:34:22] it well, preserving agriculture, not

[5:34:25] overstepping residential, and creating

[5:34:27] something that brings that delicate

[5:34:29] balance of a

[5:34:30] >> breakfast place or something and brings

[5:34:33] in those trails and that monument. If

[5:34:35] there's some city that's done it well

[5:34:36] like Heber or something, maybe bring it

[5:34:38] to us because

[5:34:39] >> I'll bring you some pictures.

[5:34:40] >> Oh, okay. I would love to see a good

[5:34:41] example. I'm trying to think of one. The

[5:34:44] only one I can think of is Woodside,

[5:34:45] California, where um it's in it's in the

[5:34:48] Bay Area and they and also Burbank. They

[5:34:52] designated a certain amount of land for

[5:34:54] horses and they put up horse statues

[5:34:57] when you enter. It's it's one of the

[5:34:59] highest zip codes in the in the nation.

[5:35:01] >> I've got a question. Do we have

[5:35:02] occupancy in Montadella already? Do you

[5:35:05] know?

[5:35:05] >> Yes.

[5:35:06] >> Okay. So, they're

[5:35:08] >> Yeah.

[5:35:08] >> So, that's shared walls.

[5:35:11] >> Those are expensive.

[5:35:13] >> Yeah. They've

[5:35:14] >> no matter what we do, things are going

[5:35:16] to be expensive here because of the

[5:35:17] price of the dirt.

[5:35:19] >> Yeah.

[5:35:19] >> So, we do have occupancy already then.

[5:35:22] >> Yeah. They're I don't I'm not sure how

[5:35:24] many units are occupied, but

[5:35:27] I know they ran into a few issues as

[5:35:29] well. The only reason I brought that up,

[5:35:31] mayor, is

[5:35:32] >> most people want something

[5:35:34] they I I don't I'm not really for zero

[5:35:38] lot lines, per se, because it seems like

[5:35:40] what everybody wants is maybe a smaller

[5:35:43] bungalow with a tiny yard. They want

[5:35:46] their own space

[5:35:47] >> and even young gives you space. So, the

[5:35:50] way a zero lot line works is you just

[5:35:52] put the lot only on one side and then

[5:35:54] they do have a setback on the other

[5:35:56] side. It just allows you to get a little

[5:35:59] more um in the same space. So you get

[5:36:02] still a yard. You could have a little

[5:36:04] dog, but that's top zero. I'm not

[5:36:07] talking zero.

[5:36:07] >> But I don't want zero

[5:36:08] >> all the way around.

[5:36:10] >> I know, but I don't want zero anywhere.

[5:36:12] You might as well just have I mean, how

[5:36:14] is that different than sharing a wall

[5:36:16] >> because you're no one's you're you're

[5:36:18] spaced. There's space in between because

[5:36:20] then the next house I I can also show

[5:36:22] you pictures that sets on the property,

[5:36:24] but then the next house is 5 to 8 10 ft

[5:36:28] off depending on whatever you decide.

[5:36:30] >> So it's only on one side is zero lot.

[5:36:32] >> It's just one side and so it just allows

[5:36:34] you to maximize lot space.

[5:36:37] >> Mayor and Jessica, the reason I said

[5:36:38] expensive, I should clarify is that

[5:36:40] generally what you're talking about the

[5:36:42] one wall or the smaller lot size is

[5:36:44] generally done to not solve anything

[5:36:47] other than affordability.

[5:36:49] Uh it's just not working though that

[5:36:51] we're we're finding that even when you

[5:36:53] shrink it, even when you wall share it,

[5:36:55] there's still just as much as any other

[5:36:56] house. So you're not really allowing a

[5:36:59] lot of new families, young families, if

[5:37:02] that's what you're trying to solve, it

[5:37:03] hasn't been shown to do it. And you're

[5:37:05] seeing an example here

[5:37:06] >> for existing residents that are looking

[5:37:08] for a place to

[5:37:09] >> downsize. Yeah. Yeah. Sure. Sure. Yeah.

[5:37:12] Sure.

[5:37:12] >> Could we on the southwest gateway just

[5:37:14] leave it as single family flex housing

[5:37:17] and then We could define it a little bit

[5:37:20] more later on

[5:37:22] >> like that.

[5:37:23] >> I don't know. Just

[5:37:24] >> what's flex housing mean?

[5:37:25] >> Yeah. So, that's a term that the

[5:37:26] planning commission used quite a bit.

[5:37:28] So, I looked it up. It says adaptable

[5:37:29] living models designed to evolve with

[5:37:31] your needs.

[5:37:32] >> Oh, that's too open.

[5:37:34] >> You're going to bring

[5:37:37] >> I feel like that's the purpose is to be

[5:37:40] a community that's adapting and evolving

[5:37:42] with our res.

[5:37:42] >> Well, then I would just have us define

[5:37:44] it as what we want that to be. If it is

[5:37:45] twin homes, 25% twin homes. If it's not,

[5:37:49] then what you're talking about, but

[5:37:50] let's define it because if we depend it

[5:37:52] to our needs, people's needs changed

[5:37:54] really fast. And

[5:37:56] >> considering that this is a visioning

[5:37:57] document, maybe we can let the future

[5:38:00] >> discussions define it. But I'm I'm very

[5:38:03] open to flex housing. Whether Jessica

[5:38:05] and I's vision ever meshes, like we'll

[5:38:08] see.

[5:38:08] >> So, you want to define it later,

[5:38:09] >> but let's just leave it as flex housing

[5:38:11] and leave it open because it's a

[5:38:12] visioning document. meaning we can't

[5:38:14] only consider single family homes from

[5:38:16] here to the next hundred years. We've

[5:38:18] got to be opened as something else and

[5:38:20] we haven't figured out what that is yet.

[5:38:22] >> Okay. Anything else?

[5:38:25] >> The other things we really like Kaden

[5:38:27] that

[5:38:28] >> Okay. Aside from what you like, what

[5:38:30] would you like changed? Let's expedite

[5:38:32] this.

[5:38:32] >> Uh

[5:38:33] >> we know what's there. If there's

[5:38:34] something that you want changed, let's

[5:38:36] hear that. The only change is just what

[5:38:38] they said at the bot on the southwest

[5:38:39] gateway is that I don't know what the

[5:38:41] change is but it is that we define what

[5:38:44] that last line new residential

[5:38:45] development could include single family

[5:38:47] or divided entry twin home

[5:38:49] >> single family flex how is that what you

[5:38:51] said flex housing

[5:38:53] >> gives us that that ability

[5:38:55] >> okay and we define it later

[5:38:57] >> and looking at the examples that Chrissy

[5:38:59] has like

[5:39:00] >> I I'll send you some anything else

[5:39:03] >> no no thanks

[5:39:04] >> no I've seen them yet

[5:39:06] >> I want to get on to make those mod.

[5:39:08] >> Okay.

[5:39:11] >> So, we have the land acquisition policy

[5:39:12] and the implementation matrix. Do we

[5:39:14] want to talk about those two?

[5:39:16] >> I think we did that the first time. That

[5:39:18] was our first.

[5:39:18] >> Yeah. Let's um I think we can wrap up,

[5:39:21] right?

[5:39:22] >> Well, we did land acquisition. That was

[5:39:23] our first meeting when we were talking

[5:39:25] about how we acquire land.

[5:39:26] >> No, I don't think we did.

[5:39:27] >> Now, we haven't done land acquisition or

[5:39:29] >> Well, that was our first meeting

[5:39:31] >> implementation matrix. No, we haven't

[5:39:33] done either of those two, but it's love

[5:39:34] and

[5:39:35] >> or the traffic management plan.

[5:39:36] >> Let's keep their meeting.

[5:39:37] >> Mayor, can I make a motion? Can I make a

[5:39:39] motion that we move land acquisition and

[5:39:42] what was the other section?

[5:39:43] >> Um implementation matrix

[5:39:45] >> implementation to

[5:39:47] >> and traffic management plan to the next

[5:39:51] city council meeting.

[5:39:52] >> Yes,

[5:39:53] >> I second. I'll second that.

[5:39:54] >> It's been moved by Councilwoman Smeu and

[5:39:56] second by Councilman Rumler. Any

[5:39:58] questions on the motion?

[5:40:01] If not, let's proceed with a roll call

[5:40:02] vote.

[5:40:03] >> Jessica Simeone, yes.

[5:40:04] >> Sarah Blackwell, yes.

[5:40:06] >> Chrissy, yes.

[5:40:06] >> Andrew Young, yes. Red R, yes.

[5:40:09] >> Okay, with that,

[5:40:11] >> if if that agenda ends up being packed,

[5:40:13] which it could.

[5:40:14] >> Yeah.

[5:40:15] >> Do you want to move to the next one? Is

[5:40:17] anybody

[5:40:18] >> Or I wonder what we do is can we do a

[5:40:20] work session before and like say, hey,

[5:40:23] we do at 4:00, 4 to 5, 1 hour, that's

[5:40:27] it. And while I really appreciate your

[5:40:31] input,

[5:40:32] >> she can

[5:40:33] >> I would really like the comments to be

[5:40:35] on what you would like change. I love

[5:40:37] that you love so many things about it,

[5:40:40] >> but to kind of expedite things so that

[5:40:42] we can, you know, be more effective. Um,

[5:40:45] if you guys could limit your comments to

[5:40:48] what you would like changed on this

[5:40:49] document, I think that would be much

[5:40:51] more productive and more efficient.

[5:40:53] >> Can we agree to do that?

[5:40:55] >> Okay.

[5:40:57] I'll second that, mayor.

[5:40:59] >> Thank you. Okay. Um let's um go to staff

[5:41:02] reports. Kaden,

[5:41:04] >> none for me.

[5:41:07] >> Just

[5:41:09] make the council aware that uh we'll be

[5:41:11] doing Chips Hill projects next Tuesday

[5:41:14] and Wednesday, I believe. Um one of the

[5:41:17] roads is for Canyon Road.

[5:41:20] We have a traffic control plan in place.

[5:41:23] Uh we'll have message boards up for

[5:41:26] several days before notifying people. Um

[5:41:30] we'll work with the HOA in Three Falls

[5:41:33] so they know and and the other residents

[5:41:35] in the canyon just there will be a

[5:41:37] little bit of an inconvenience.

[5:41:39] >> And so are they is it one lane or are we

[5:41:42] going to open up the

[5:41:43] >> It'll be one lane.

[5:41:44] when when the when the

[5:41:47] seal code is put on. We might have to

[5:41:50] open the fire road, but we talked about

[5:41:52] it for this first part, but decided we

[5:41:56] could do one lane.

[5:41:58] >> Okay. And then um are we advertising on

[5:42:01] social media so people are aware?

[5:42:03] >> It will be. Yes.

[5:42:04] >> Okay.

[5:42:04] >> Could I ask one question about that,

[5:42:05] Shane? Yeah. How do you determine or

[5:42:07] prioritize what roads in different parts

[5:42:09] of the city? Do you have like a schedule

[5:42:11] or is it more needs based?

[5:42:13] >> It's not really a schedule. It goes out

[5:42:15] years in advance. Um,

[5:42:17] >> I had a long call with Landon about it.

[5:42:19] He goes around and he surveys them.

[5:42:21] >> There's there's a lot of different

[5:42:23] factors. Like a lot of if you look at

[5:42:25] studies and stuff, what you're trying to

[5:42:28] do is preserve pavement. So people are

[5:42:31] like, "Well, why are you doing that to

[5:42:32] that road when it looks good?" Well,

[5:42:34] it's preserving pavement because it

[5:42:36] oxidizes just like the paint on your car

[5:42:38] or anything else. the oil leaves it and

[5:42:41] then the road starts to deteriorate and

[5:42:43] then it ends up costing more to replace

[5:42:46] than to preserve. So, we do a little bit

[5:42:50] of everything.

[5:42:52] Um, so it it just depends.

[5:42:54] >> Okay.

[5:42:55] >> There's a lot of factors that go into

[5:42:57] it.

[5:42:57] >> Thank you. That's helpful. Just because

[5:42:59] I've had some residents ask,

[5:43:00] >> yeah, Sarah, one of the big ones is one

[5:43:03] of the roads we're doing is the

[5:43:05] secondary access in Three Falls that no

[5:43:07] one drives on. It's very expensive. So,

[5:43:11] I was concerned about I didn't want to

[5:43:12] bring it up to make the meeting go long,

[5:43:13] but um I was told by Landon that um when

[5:43:18] cars don't drive on roads, they have

[5:43:21] problems like the plants grow through

[5:43:25] them, crack them, they make them. So,

[5:43:27] that's one of the reasons I still would

[5:43:29] love to. And if anybody ever drove

[5:43:31] through Iligania Estates prior to two

[5:43:35] three falls, part of that was paved.

[5:43:38] >> Um, never really open much to the

[5:43:42] public. Never he traveled. The asphalt

[5:43:45] was terrible.

[5:43:47] >> When you don't drive on a road, I didn't

[5:43:49] know this. It gets bad.

[5:43:50] >> Yeah. It It kind of doesn't make sense.

[5:43:52] It's like

[5:43:53] >> having a house that's vacant and nobody

[5:43:54] lives in it.

[5:43:55] >> Oh, yeah. Makes sense.

[5:43:56] >> Kind of deteriorates from the inside

[5:43:58] out. it seems like. So,

[5:44:01] >> it's so expensive though.

[5:44:02] >> Anything else?

[5:44:04] >> Um, I think that's it.

[5:44:05] >> Okay. Okay. Two quick things. The um

[5:44:08] Chamber of Commerce has had five new

[5:44:11] memberships within the last week. So,

[5:44:12] they're they're doing great. They have

[5:44:14] momentum and had a great lunchon. And

[5:44:17] then the History and Arts Committee is

[5:44:20] moving forward with I sent you two

[5:44:22] emails. show the first the last one

[5:44:25] first because I thought it would be best

[5:44:27] to just give it context.

[5:44:30] Um

[5:44:35] anyway, they met to we sent out an email

[5:44:39] for Chrissy's recommendation. Thanks for

[5:44:42] kind of helping with like how to get to

[5:44:44] next steps. I think they came in and met

[5:44:47] with Shane. like it just was oh this is

[5:44:51] we were a little stalled I appreciate

[5:44:53] >> oh no the other picture I I emailed you

[5:44:56] so so where we were if you all remember

[5:44:59] I think they had like three or four of

[5:45:01] the dormers um kind of dialed in and so

[5:45:04] we reached out to the history committee

[5:45:06] to give us feedback and input and now

[5:45:09] you can show the other one. So some of

[5:45:11] the members went and met at Holdman

[5:45:14] Studios. It was, as you can imagine,

[5:45:16] just a really um impactful experience.

[5:45:20] And they're working through the other

[5:45:22] four dormers and including, you know, um

[5:45:26] references to quilting and making sure

[5:45:28] we have the old rock church represented

[5:45:31] and and really some great things. So,

[5:45:32] I'm excited for y'all to get to see what they get pulled together. That's

[5:45:37] it.

[5:45:38] >> Thank you, Jess. I'm sorry, Sarah.

[5:45:41] >> That's all right. Um, I attended a water

[5:45:44] workshop earlier or last earlier last

[5:45:47] week and that was really amazing because

[5:45:50] um, Councilwoman Henman was there and

[5:45:52] Steve Burroughs and some staff members

[5:45:53] and it was really positive. I think

[5:45:55] we're planning on reporting to the

[5:45:57] council at some point.

[5:46:02] » There was two things.

[5:46:04] >> Okay, I'm going to skip you while you

[5:46:05] think about it.

[5:46:06] >> Thank you.

[5:46:06] >> Can you briefly as possible? Let's try

[5:46:09] to get done by midnight. Pretty please.

[5:46:11] Suzanne Peterson has reached out quite a

[5:46:14] few times. Is Is that it? Is that the

[5:46:16] right name? Yep. Suzanne Peterson.

[5:46:19] >> Yeah. The monument in um

[5:46:23] uh the

[5:46:25] >> cemetery.

[5:46:25] adding the names of the women

[5:46:29] pioneers

[5:46:31] to the men. And I told her to get a bid.

[5:46:35] And so she's got a bid. Um it's I can't

[5:46:38] believe it around $3,000.

[5:46:40] but that's to redo the bronze uh plaque

[5:46:44] and she's wanting to know what to do

[5:46:47] next if we want to bring that up as an

[5:46:49] item. Now, now just so you know, the

[5:46:51] budget item I put for historic stuff

[5:46:53] that was 20 grand, this was one of the

[5:46:56] things to do with that. So, I don't know

[5:46:57] if we want to take that from I believe

[5:46:59] you bumped it to the art fees or the art

[5:47:03] money. The like it got pulled out of the

[5:47:06] budget or something. I wanted in there

[5:47:07] so we prioritize that type of stuff, but

[5:47:09] it got bumped. So, I don't know what the

[5:47:11] next steps are to tell her on what to

[5:47:14] It's not just her. It's several. She's

[5:47:15] just kind of spearheading it.

[5:47:17] >> Um would we what would we do with that?

[5:47:20] >> Well, to start with, is this the

[5:47:23] monument on the north end?

[5:47:26] >> So, the monument needs to be rebuilt.

[5:47:28] >> Okay. So, that sits in a hole. So, I I

[5:47:31] wouldn't suggest replacing it black

[5:47:33] right now.

[5:47:35] I think everyone would support fixing it

[5:47:38] with that. So to do it together kind of

[5:47:40] like this the Canyon Crest Road fix

[5:47:42] things while it's being broken up.

[5:47:44] >> Um it could be it potentially could be a

[5:47:47] grant. I don't know. I bet we could find

[5:47:49] something for it. Might take

[5:47:51] >> There are cemetery grants I think up to

[5:47:52] 8,000.

[5:47:54] >> Yeah. And I don't know if that's like a

[5:47:56] cemetery. I don't know.

[5:47:59] either, but I know that was

[5:48:02] around a while back when I was looking

[5:48:03] at Paris Grants.

[5:48:05] >> Yeah. Okay.

[5:48:07] Is there anything else? Let's

[5:48:08] >> Yeah, it's on your radar.

[5:48:09] >> Would it be okay to move it though? Cuz

[5:48:11] like in your cuz our scripture garden

[5:48:13] has like the stone that says this was

[5:48:15] the original.

[5:48:16] >> I'm pretty sure she would be okay with

[5:48:18] I'll ask her uh and the other residents

[5:48:19] train. That's just keep it on your

[5:48:21] radar. Let me know what I should do to

[5:48:23] help with that. We're going to put

[5:48:23] money. Next thing is uh I don't know if

[5:48:25] you got the email or or this this

[5:48:27] Saturday is the trail day. Am I correct,

[5:48:29] Brent? We're building

[5:48:30] >> Yes, that's all.

[5:48:31] >> Okay.

[5:48:32] >> Yep.

[5:48:32] >> Big big trail day. This Saturday, we're

[5:48:34] building a bridge. There's an Eagle

[5:48:36] project that might coordinate with it.

[5:48:38] Um and then

[5:48:40] >> I think it's all day Saturday or

[5:48:42] starting at 8 a.m. I think I fly in

[5:48:44] right before so I'm going to try to head

[5:48:45] over and help build the bridge. Um

[5:48:49] uh and then um there was a resident that

[5:48:52] emailed I don't know if y'all got it

[5:48:54] about the fireworks and wanting to bring

[5:48:56] up a full ban on fireworks. I hadn't

[5:48:59] even considered it. So I said I would

[5:49:01] bring it up with you folks if you think

[5:49:02] that when we get into July if you think

[5:49:04] it's too dangerous to even have any

[5:49:07] fireworks.

[5:49:07] >> So Shane responded to him and the

[5:49:10] reality is the state does not allow us

[5:49:13] to do a citywide ban. Okay. Unless we've

[5:49:16] had a fire recently, they're very um

[5:49:19] there's a very heavy fireworks lobby and

[5:49:22] they only there's only certain things we

[5:49:24] can like ban

[5:49:26] >> areas that are dangerous and properties

[5:49:28] that we own. And so that's why the map

[5:49:30] looks like the way it is. We have

[5:49:33] >> made it illegal to do fireworks

[5:49:36] >> on all the areas that we're legally

[5:49:38] allowed to do.

[5:49:39] >> Oh, interesting.

[5:49:40] >> Thank you. That's all I have. Thank you.

[5:49:41] >> Say the fire in Peterson Park was a fire

[5:49:44] and just and just not have

[5:49:46] >> Peterson Park. They can't do fireworks

[5:49:48] there.

[5:49:49] >> That's that's an area that they can't

[5:49:50] do. It's already banned.

[5:49:53] >> So, because people are idiot, we can't

[5:49:55] legislate idiocy.

[5:49:56] >> I think what Jessica is saying is we've

[5:49:57] had a fire in our city. It happened to

[5:49:59] be on public property. That would not

[5:50:01] justify a banning the whole city.

[5:50:02] >> Yeah. I just feel like for the our our

[5:50:05] firefighters like that would

[5:50:07] >> to not to have that open as a

[5:50:10] possibility

[5:50:12] >> seems irresponsible actually.

[5:50:15] >> I agree. So I would talk to

[5:50:18] >> I know I would I know but we can have

[5:50:21] people come after us if we ban the

[5:50:23] entire Don't get me wrong I'm totally

[5:50:25] for a citywide ban. If you remember

[5:50:27] several years ago when this happened I'm

[5:50:28] like why are we even allowing fireworks?

[5:50:31] I was right there with Mr. Derby. But

[5:50:34] what I don't want to do is put us in a

[5:50:36] situation that um a lobby that obviously

[5:50:39] has a lot of money and resources to

[5:50:41] change state law to number one allow

[5:50:43] launchables

[5:50:45] and then legislate enough that we can't

[5:50:47] do a city-wide ban on a city that has

[5:50:49] had what three fires in the last 20

[5:50:52] years that were significant.

[5:50:54] >> I understand. Um, but I would love it if

[5:50:58] everyone, you know, what I encouraged

[5:50:59] him to do is to write to his state

[5:51:01] legislators to encourage and allow

[5:51:04] municipalities to do this um to have

[5:51:07] that power. But right now, we don't have

[5:51:09] that power.

[5:51:10] >> Um, it's not because I don't support it

[5:51:12] or because, you know, I think it's a

[5:51:14] stupid idea. I totally, if I could, I

[5:51:17] would be pushing that wholeheartedly,

[5:51:19] especially in a year like this year.

[5:51:23] remember my three things. Did you Brent,

[5:51:25] did you want to go?

[5:51:28] >> Oh, yeah. I'm sorry. You're limited to

[5:51:29] Brent.

[5:51:30] >> Oh, I just had the trail date and Andrew

[5:51:32] already mentioned it and I I forwarded

[5:51:35] that email to Shane and Shane responded

[5:51:36] to that resident.

[5:51:39] >> Okay. Thank you. Okay.

[5:51:40] >> Okay. Um, she already reported on the

[5:51:42] water. I did think that was very

[5:51:44] helpful. Um,

[5:51:46] everyone the mo the big takeaway is

[5:51:49] everybody wanted to know what we meant

[5:51:50] by being self-sufficient. And it goes

[5:51:52] back to my my belief that us being here

[5:51:55] at the headgates of so many of the

[5:51:58] mountains puts us in a very unique

[5:52:00] position compared to other cities who

[5:52:02] don't have our same opportunities. Um,

[5:52:05] anyways, so it was it was a reminder to

[5:52:08] me of how blessed we are to live in

[5:52:09] Alpine among many things. Second was we

[5:52:12] did have our finance committee meeting

[5:52:13] on the 28th. It primarily focused on

[5:52:16] revenue. It was very um uh educational

[5:52:20] and we would like to report to you in a

[5:52:22] less busy meeting some of the things we

[5:52:25] learned and so that it becomes common

[5:52:27] knowledge among our council. So Shane,

[5:52:30] if you could let me know what that looks

[5:52:34] like then um

[5:52:35] >> July.

[5:52:36] >> Yeah, July that that's fine.

[5:52:38] >> Sales tax meeting.

[5:52:39] >> Yeah. And then we're also going to once

[5:52:41] we approve the budget, we're going to

[5:52:42] have the citizen. So, there's a few more

[5:52:44] things coming. Um, and thank you for

[5:52:46] those that

[5:52:47] >> were able to attend um the 28th. And

[5:52:49] then the third thing was I came I woke

[5:52:53] up in the morning and I said, "We never

[5:52:55] talked about the park tax allocation."

[5:52:58] >> So, he reminded me of number three.

[5:53:01] >> What are we doing in our budget for

[5:53:03] that? It's like, is that something we

[5:53:04] need a motion on? I I wanted it to be

[5:53:07] two motions and it took so long to get

[5:53:08] the first one finished. We skipped it.

[5:53:11] Yeah.

[5:53:11] >> Shane, what do you recommend at this

[5:53:12] point about park tax?

[5:53:13] >> I thought I thought we sent an email on

[5:53:15] that and Steve even replied to it that

[5:53:18] it can just be taken care of as part of

[5:53:19] the final budget.

[5:53:21] >> It does.

[5:53:23] >> Okay. As a separate item.

[5:53:26] >> It can just I think it can be wrapped

[5:53:29] into the budget.

[5:53:30] >> Wait, so does that mean we put things

[5:53:32] that we allocated for the park tax? No,

[5:53:35] it was allocating funds and then what we

[5:53:37] actually spend the funds on will come

[5:53:39] after the master parks master plan is

[5:53:41] produced like your heritage thing could

[5:53:44] also be doing other heritage things.

[5:53:46] Okay.

[5:53:46] >> I just think it's allocating the funds

[5:53:48] saying 70 my idea was 7030 but whatever

[5:53:51] we decide is that going to you want a

[5:53:53] percentage or what do you need next in a two weeks? I think percentage

[5:53:57] >> a percentage of the tax

[5:53:59] >> but the 30 if when approved

[5:54:02] wait for the park master plan and I move

[5:54:05] to adjourn the meeting.

[5:54:06] >> Okay. Is there a second?

[5:54:08] >> I second.

[5:54:09] >> Okay. It's been moved by Councilwoman

[5:54:10] SMU and seconded by Councilwoman

[5:54:12] Blackwell. All in favor?

[5:54:14] >> I

[5:54:16] >> have a good one, Brent.

[5:54:17] >> Thanks. Good night.

[5:54:28] So, did you get that

6.9.26 City Council Meeting

Transcript