[0:00] We're live.
[0:02] Okay, let's call to order Alpine City
[0:04] Council meeting for June 23rd, 2026.
[0:08] We will start with the roll call
[0:10] starting from Councilman Young
[0:12] and followed by a pledge led by
[0:14] Councilman Rummler.
[0:16] >> Andrew Young, present.
[0:18] Brent Rummler, present.
[0:19] >> Jessica Smyrl, present.
[0:20] >> Tara Blackwell, present.
[0:21] >> Chrissy Hannaman, present.
[0:30] » [clears throat]
[0:33] » Our Father in heaven, we're so grateful
[0:34] to be here. We're grateful for
[0:36] beautiful town.
[0:38] Grateful for the blessing to be able to
[0:39] live here.
[0:40] Grateful for all the residents.
[0:42] Those that are here, pray that they
[0:43] might speak from the heart.
[0:45] Pray that the spirit would be with us
[0:48] to represent them well and uh
[0:51] be good stewards over the funds and
[0:53] taxes that they pay.
[0:55] We pray for our town. We pray for the
[0:57] fires.
[0:58] We pray for our water.
[1:00] We pray to protect us temporally and
[1:02] spiritually
[1:04] and to help all of us in our decisions.
[1:07] Uh be guided and do things as thou
[1:09] wouldst have us. We pray for the staff
[1:11] and their families
[1:13] and all of the different issues that
[1:15] we're striving to improve.
[1:17] And we say this in the name of Jesus
[1:18] Christ. Amen.
[1:19] >> Amen.
[1:20] >> Please rise for the Pledge of
[1:21] Allegiance.
[1:26] » I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
[1:28] United States of America
[1:30] >> and to the republic for which it stands,
[1:33] one nation under God, indivisible, with
[1:37] liberty and justice for all.
[1:42] » Okay, we will move on to item number
[1:45] two, which is the consent calendar.
[1:48] Um
[1:51] Do we have any questions regarding the
[1:53] minutes from the previous 1 2 3
[1:58] from the previous three meetings.
[2:01] If not, I'll entertain a motion.
[2:03] >> No question.
[2:05] >> We did have one edit that we didn't
[2:06] neither Sarah I thought she was doing it
[2:08] and now I thought she thought I was
[2:10] doing it.
[2:11] It's on page six. We just need to change
[2:15] a typo to might be my name.
[2:18] Um other than that, that was the only
[2:20] thing I noticed.
[2:24] I can email her the exact. Yes.
[2:29] » Oh, there we go.
[2:30] Okay, um so did you want to go ahead and
[2:32] make that motion then?
[2:35] Which
[2:36] >> Sure, I can make the motion. I move that
[2:37] we approve the consent calendar.
[2:42] >> And then add the item.
[2:43] >> With an edit on page six of the minutes
[2:47] from um
[2:49] our 5 26 meeting replacing my first name
[2:53] Chrissy with Sarah on line
[2:57] three.
[2:58] >> Okay.
[3:00] There's a motion. Is there a second?
[3:02] >> Second.
[3:02] >> It's moved by Councilwoman Hanneman,
[3:05] seconded by Councilwoman Smewing.
[3:08] Let's proceed with the roll call vote.
[3:10] >> Andrew Young, yes.
[3:11] >> Brent Romley, yes.
[3:12] >> Jessica Smewing, yes.
[3:14] >> Sarah Bloquel, yes.
[3:15] >> Chrissy Hanneman, yes.
[3:18] >> Okay.
[3:19] It's approved.
[3:20] Item three, we have um
[3:23] public comment, but I don't see any
[3:25] items here
[3:27] um that is not on the agenda. So, couple
[3:30] of things I want to clear up. We have
[3:32] three public hearings scheduled for
[3:33] today. One is for increasing
[3:35] compensation for municipal executive
[3:37] officers,
[3:38] two, the approval of the final budget,
[3:41] and three, for the approval of the
[3:43] budget amendment. I know a lot of you
[3:45] guys are here for the 200 North. This is
[3:48] not a public hearing for 200 North, so
[3:51] we will not be taking public comment.
[3:53] I had um I spoke with um
[3:57] Mr. Payne, and I know that
[4:01] I would say probably most of you guys
[4:02] have been sending in emails. I know I've
[4:04] been reading them, you know, the last
[4:06] couple days, and then especially this
[4:08] morning and yesterday afternoon, and I'm
[4:10] sure the rest of council have, too. And
[4:12] we'll take all of that information into
[4:14] consideration. But in um in the effort
[4:17] to expedite um and work on things in a
[4:19] timely manner, we have a lot to get
[4:21] through today, so we will not be taking
[4:23] public comment, and it is not a public
[4:25] hearing.
[4:27] Um so, I just wanted to make sure that was understood. Is there anyone
[4:31] here that is making here to make a
[4:32] public comment on an item that is not on
[4:35] the agenda? Cuz I don't see anything on
[4:37] the sheets that I've gotten so far.
[4:42] Okay, so we're
[4:42] >> Mayor, just to clarify, you don't want
[4:45] anyone to speak on the 200 North issue
[4:47] today because
[4:48] >> it's not a public hearing.
[4:49] >> Right. The planning commission was the
[4:51] public hearing.
[4:52] >> They did not They are not required to
[4:54] have a public hearing on this item.
[4:56] >> Okay.
[4:57] And you don't you don't want to hear
[4:58] anything from them?
[4:59] >> Well, I think
[5:01] I don't know I've read
[5:04] probably I would say close to 30-ish
[5:06] emails, if you know, right about that
[5:08] many.
[5:09] I understand, and I'm assuming that you
[5:11] guys have all addressed and read it and
[5:12] understand um while I um understand that
[5:16] they want to
[5:17] um voice it, I you know, I think you guys I mean, [clears throat]
[5:22] if you feel like you can get anything
[5:23] more, but no, I'd rather move on. I feel
[5:26] like this is going to take all night as
[5:27] it is, and I would really like to get
[5:29] home before midnight tonight.
[5:30] >> Is there anyone who wasn't able to email
[5:33] that wasn't able to send on a comment
[5:35] about that issue that wants to speak on
[5:37] it?
[5:38] >> Okay, Andrew, we are not taking public
[5:40] comment
[5:41] >> if there was, cuz that would give us
[5:42] more information. Okay.
[5:44] >> Mayor, can I ask one question just on
[5:46] order of the action items. If everyone's
[5:49] here for that, could we move that to the
[5:51] beginning?
[5:53] Should we do that? Yeah.
[5:54] >> I can just tell you the reason.
[5:55] Normally, we would put
[5:57] like a development at the front. But
[6:00] when the public hearing was set for the
[6:02] budget a few weeks ago, it was 6:30.
[6:06] And so, in all fairness to everyone, we
[6:09] ordered the agenda this way.
[6:11] But it's your call if if everyone's here
[6:14] for that.
[6:15] That's fine.
[6:17] >> so, I have received comments for these
[6:20] public hearings.
[6:21] So, no, that makes sense.
[6:23] >> Okay.
[6:23] >> Well, I understand that they're here. I
[6:24] would My first response was, "Yeah,
[6:26] let's move it." But where we did notice
[6:28] and it is a formal public hearing, I
[6:30] think maybe we need to stay with that.
[6:32] But I do appreciate um
[6:34] I appreciate the suggestion. It's very
[6:36] good.
[6:37] Um so, let's move on to reports and
[6:40] presentations. Do we have anything for
[6:41] that, Shane?
[6:42] >> No.
[6:43] >> Okay.
[6:44] So, with that, we will move on to action
[6:47] items. The first one is a public
[6:50] hearing for ordinance 2026-13,
[6:55] increase in compensation for municipal
[6:58] executive officers.
[7:02] » Okay, so
[7:03] >> [clears throat]
[7:04] >> the reason this item is on the agenda um
[7:07] in 2024,
[7:08] the legislature passed uh Senate Bill
[7:11] 91. And I apologize, the cover sheet
[7:15] when I compiled the PDF did not make it
[7:17] in the packet. It was there and I found
[7:19] out
[7:20] by
[7:21] chance this afternoon when I printed my
[7:23] packet.
[7:24] And it wasn't there. I'm like, "Did I
[7:25] print the wrong document?" Anyway, I
[7:27] sent that out.
[7:28] Um
[7:29] so, this amended Utah Code Section
[7:32] 10-3-18
[7:35] um regarding compensation increases for
[7:37] municipal executive officers.
[7:40] Um
[7:43] this section of code requires
[7:46] that prior to a municipal executive
[7:49] officer receiving a compensation
[7:51] increase,
[7:52] um the city is required to hold a public
[7:54] hearing.
[7:55] Um this public hearing has to be
[7:57] separate from a public hearing
[7:59] um on the budget.
[8:02] And it has to be noticed for at least 7
[8:04] days prior to this day, which that was
[8:06] noticed properly.
[8:08] Um
[8:10] so
[8:12] ordinance 2026-13
[8:14] outlines compensation increases for the
[8:17] city administrator, who's also the
[8:19] public works director, and the assistant
[8:21] city administrator, who is a city
[8:23] planner.
[8:25] Uh the budget increases include
[8:28] uh cola and merit components, as well as
[8:31] uh one-time
[8:33] 1.3%
[8:35] uh
[8:36] bonus pay
[8:38] that's paid in quarterly installments uh
[8:40] for URS Tier 2 employees.
[8:44] So with Tier 2 employees, there's Tier 1
[8:48] and Tier 2, Tier 2 or employees that haven't been in
[8:52] the system as long. It kind of changed,
[8:55] and now they have to contribute a
[8:57] portion.
[8:59] And each year it it gets adjusted on how
[9:02] much that portion is. And so for the
[9:05] last couple of years, the city has
[9:07] reimbursed the employees for that
[9:09] amount.
[9:11] Um
[9:14] let's see.
[9:15] So there's there's an exhibit to the
[9:18] ordinance that outlines
[9:20] um
[9:21] the increases for these municipal
[9:24] executive officers. I know there's uh
[9:26] been some changes since this packet went
[9:28] out uh with our recommendation.
[9:32] Um and just I wanted to note that for
[9:34] the second year in a row, the URS
[9:37] contribution for tier one and tier two
[9:40] employees to decrease by 1% for the
[9:43] fiscal year. So,
[9:45] I think that's telling us that the
[9:46] fund's getting healthier with what
[9:48] they've done.
[9:49] >> So, I thought that it increased to 11.3
[9:52] from 10.7.
[9:54] >> Percentages they gave us that are
[9:56] figured in when down
[9:59] on the table. I can show you that table.
[10:02] >> But, you're asking for 11.3
[10:06] to make up the difference for the tier
[10:07] two employees.
[10:08] Or 1.3
[10:09] >> Are you in talking to your mic, Brent?
[10:12] >> Yes, sorry.
[10:13] >> Yeah, that's that's the employee
[10:15] contribution amount that's on the table
[10:17] that URS provided us.
[10:19] >> Right, so that means it's at 11.3
[10:22] um pension contribution amount. So, that
[10:25] means it went up from last year. I'm
[10:26] pretty sure. You know what? I looked at
[10:28] it today online, but
[10:30] >> I know what the tables
[10:31] shows that they provided [clears throat]
[10:33] us.
[10:34] >> Okay.
[10:34] We can get clarification on that.
[10:36] >> Yeah.
[10:37] >> Yep.
[10:40] » So, like I said, the that's an
[10:42] introduction to this. The
[10:48] It does require the public hearing. And
[10:51] so, I think we need to
[10:53] adjust what
[10:55] is going to go in here
[10:57] in this exhibit.
[11:02] Cuz that's where you're holding the
[11:02] public hearing on.
[11:06] » I'm sorry. You're saying you wanted to
[11:07] adjust this exhibit?
[11:09] >> So, so as it went out in the packet, it
[11:12] had 5% and 3%.
[11:14] >> Oh, that's right. Right. Total, and then
[11:16] we broke it out into a pool and um
[11:19] >> Yes.
[11:20] >> So, the one one that we have in front of
[11:21] us, I'm assuming is
[11:24] Yeah, so it's
[11:26] what was adjusted.
[11:29] Um do we I table um that I sent out to
[11:33] council last night.
[11:35] >> Uh
[11:37] was Kaden copied on that? I can send it
[11:39] over to him if not.
[11:43] » I believe it was. Let me
[11:45] find it.
[11:49] » I just wanted them to kind of
[11:51] understand.
[11:58] And did you have anything else that you
[11:59] wanted to
[12:00] >> No.
[12:00] >> include? Okay, so
[12:03] the proposal is um
[12:06] as the consumer price index has gone up
[12:09] as of
[12:11] as the end of May of this year 2026,
[12:15] it's showing that the 12-month average,
[12:18] so from last May to this May,
[12:21] um the CPI was at 4.2%.
[12:25] So the proposal is for a cola 4.2%
[12:30] which is the cost of living adjustment,
[12:32] and then to have a 0.8% based on merit
[12:37] as a bonus at Christmas time.
[12:40] Instead of we have been just doing a
[12:42] small Christmas bonus every year, but to
[12:45] tie it to performance on their
[12:47] end-of-year um
[12:49] So we'll have to move up and get
[12:51] everything completed before our December
[12:54] 1st
[12:55] um
[12:56] you know,
[12:58] when [clears throat] when they normally
[13:00] hand out the Christmas bonuses, but that
[13:02] is the proposal.
[13:04] So with that, we can open the public
[13:07] hearing.
[13:09] So I'm going to open the public hearing,
[13:12] but with the
[13:14] So yeah, this exhibit's a little bit
[13:15] different.
[13:16] With that that as you make a comment,
[13:18] especially for this section,
[13:21] this is really just for the proposed
[13:24] increases for our two employees, which
[13:27] are Shane, our city administrator and
[13:30] public works director, and Caden, who is
[13:33] the assistant city administrator in the
[13:34] proposal.
[13:36] So, the proposal for their raises are
[13:38] exactly the same as the proposed raises
[13:41] for the rest of the staff. It is not any
[13:44] different, but the state has mandated
[13:46] that they have a separate public hearing
[13:48] so that the public can input and have
[13:51] input on it. So, with that, I'd like to
[13:53] open the public hearing.
[13:55] So far, I only have one person. If If
[13:57] there's anybody else that would like to
[13:59] make a comment, please fill out a
[14:00] comment card regarding this item if you
[14:03] want to make a comment. So, with that,
[14:05] we have Garrett Seeley. Um if you can
[14:07] come up, state your name,
[14:09] and um whether you're an Alpine resident
[14:12] or not, and then you'll have 3 minutes
[14:14] to make a statement.
[14:16] >> Fantastic.
[14:17] >> [clears throat]
[14:17] >> My name is Garrett Seeley. I am an
[14:19] Alpine resident. I live at 367 East
[14:22] 280 South
[14:24] uh in Alpine, and I just wanted to let
[14:27] you know how much I support
[14:29] Shane especially, and but this
[14:32] resolution.
[14:33] I think that the city gets a bargain
[14:35] with Shane and his tech- his knowledge
[14:38] with
[14:39] um
[14:40] the engineering,
[14:42] with public works, and being a city
[14:44] manager.
[14:45] Um I deal with cities in and out, and I
[14:48] think that what we get out of Shane and
[14:52] other employees in the in the city
[14:55] are impeccable. And so, I fully support
[14:57] this, and I think that you should uh
[15:00] adopt this ordinance.
[15:03] >> Okay, thank you.
[15:06] Okay, is there anybody else that would
[15:08] like to make a comment on the proposal?
[15:13] If not,
[15:15] I will close the public hearing.
[15:19] And then with that, we'll have
[15:20] discussion with um city council.
[15:23] Um Um,
[15:26] Andrew, did you want to make a comment?
[15:28] >> Um, just some light comments. Uh, it's
[15:31] the same thing with the fire department
[15:32] for me and police department.
[15:35] Um, obviously the service you all do is
[15:37] really good.
[15:38] Um, I see too big of a disconnect
[15:41] though.
[15:42] I see too big of a disconnect. Um,
[15:45] uh,
[15:47] in everything from
[15:50] Well, residents ask us for things,
[15:52] right? They're on top. Let me Let me
[15:53] grab I can grab that image. I I many of
[15:55] you don't know. Uh,
[15:57] the city's run by residents. They're on
[15:58] top.
[15:59] And then we are in between
[16:02] the staff and the residents. And the
[16:04] residents ask us to do things. They ask
[16:06] us for road fixes or raccoon fixes or to
[16:10] change an ordinance on the height of a
[16:11] fence.
[16:13] And we're blocked on everything.
[16:16] Uh, we're not helped. We're fought
[16:17] against.
[16:19] Um, these aren't things that Andrew
[16:21] wants when I come to you guys. These are
[16:23] things that people are asking for.
[16:25] People that live here. People that pay
[16:26] the
[16:28] uh, price tag that he brought up that's
[16:30] such a good bargain.
[16:31] These are high salaries. I'm looking at
[16:33] these salaries. These are These are
[16:34] pretty high.
[16:36] Um,
[16:37] I would love to support uh, big raises,
[16:40] constant raises.
[16:42] But I'm not hearing I need to hear it
[16:43] from them on a day-to-day basis. I've
[16:46] had a lot of people call me
[16:48] and I've asked them
[16:49] uh,
[16:50] staff has a way of making things not
[16:52] happen that they don't want to have
[16:53] happen.
[16:55] Um,
[16:57] Andrew Andrew, please heck no
[17:00] on a raise.
[17:01] Do you think they're too comfortable?
[17:03] Uh, do you think they've been in their
[17:04] role too long? We are a small city
[17:06] paying the fees of a large city. Am I on
[17:09] a time limit?
[17:11] Um,
[17:12] we are a small city uh, paying the fees
[17:15] of a large city.
[17:17] Now, I want to farm with you guys. I
[17:18] want to be friends with you guys,
[17:20] but we have not yet crossed the uh
[17:23] threshold of connecting the resident
[17:26] concern. That's the only reason I got
[17:27] elected
[17:28] was because of their frustrations.
[17:30] We have not yet connected their
[17:31] frustrations with the output of the
[17:33] staff. And so, we had a meeting, and I
[17:35] would love to tie that behavior to
[17:38] raises. And I haven't seen that yet.
[17:40] And if I move forward with this, it's
[17:42] not against you personally, just like it
[17:43] wasn't against the fire, the police,
[17:45] but it's because I'm after a behavior
[17:47] that they are yelling at me daily for. I
[17:50] wake up and get calls at 6:00 and 7:00
[17:51] a.m. all the way to 11:00 p.m. Why
[17:54] aren't you doing this?
[17:55] And uh I can't get it done. And it's not
[17:58] that it's something I want. I have no
[17:59] traffic. I have no blocked views. I have
[18:01] no fences. I have no money problems.
[18:03] But the residents are having those.
[18:05] And so, I hit a wall, and so I need to
[18:07] tie that to behavior where we get
[18:09] outcomes,
[18:10] where the staff isn't writing the
[18:12] ordinances that we plead for you to
[18:13] write, where you don't change them. Or
[18:16] when we come to you for an easement
[18:17] help, or a fence help, or for a raccoon
[18:19] help, or for fire mitigation help, or
[18:22] for a street sign fix, or for a fountain
[18:25] 6 months ago, that we have some sort of
[18:28] teamwork. That was the first thing you
[18:29] guys told me was, "Andrew, when you're
[18:31] running, don't be adversarial." And I
[18:33] said, "Okay, I will never be
[18:34] adversarial. Let's be a team." And we
[18:36] worked as a team, but it's only been one
[18:38] way.
[18:39] So, I would love to do these raises
[18:41] based on full performance, and I would
[18:44] be very happy to do them, and I think
[18:45] you guys have every qualification and
[18:47] ability to rise to that performance, and
[18:49] we'll know it based on them being
[18:51] satisfied. Their quality of life will go
[18:53] better, and I won't be getting so many
[18:55] calls about things that they're asking
[18:57] me to do. And then even worse,
[18:59] I won't be having to fight
[19:02] against you guys when they're asking for
[19:04] things to be carried out.
[19:06] Okay. So, so that I'm I'm not supportive
[19:08] of this.
[19:09] >> Frank.
[19:11] >> So, just
[19:12] by way of a little bit of background for
[19:14] those here and for my fellow council
[19:16] members,
[19:16] um I I'm a retired public servant, so I
[19:19] fully understand the roles and
[19:21] responsibilities and the hope that
[19:22] Congress would pass pay raises for me
[19:24] every year. I always hoped was hopeful.
[19:27] Um the same time I have a very strong
[19:29] duty to myself as a taxpayer and to all
[19:31] my fellow residents as a taxpayer.
[19:33] And
[19:35] um
[19:37] earlier this year this is my third year
[19:38] going through the budget process
[19:40] and earlier this year
[19:42] Chrissy Hennemeyer and I who serve on
[19:43] the Lompoc Public Safety District Board,
[19:45] she's an alternate and myself as a
[19:47] permanent and then the mayor is a
[19:49] permanent member of the board.
[19:51] We had cons- consistently been comparing
[19:54] just base salaries for firefighters and police officers. So, we thought we
[20:01] need to make sure that we're comparing
[20:02] apples to apples, so we asked for a
[20:04] comparison of
[20:06] other benefits, so total compensation,
[20:08] so we could make a more informed
[20:09] decision. I'm all for paying our
[20:11] employees
[20:13] a very fair wage and very much respect
[20:16] what they do and I appreciate what they
[20:17] do.
[20:18] I just feel like I have a duty to make a
[20:20] an informed decision on behalf of all of
[20:23] our residents.
[20:24] So, we put that same message forward
[20:28] Chrissy and I did with the support of
[20:30] the other council members earlier this
[20:32] year that we would like to see a full
[20:36] benefits comparison, which is hard to accomplish. It's hard to figure
[20:40] out what other municipalities are how
[20:42] they're compensating their employees,
[20:44] but there are ways to do it.
[20:46] Um
[20:47] I was a little disheartened that
[20:49] um we didn't find out the mayor's
[20:51] proposal until late last night at the
[20:54] recommendation of our city attorney to
[20:56] streamline meetings, we were told to
[20:59] discuss individually with other members
[21:01] and try and come up with some some
[21:03] thoughts and then make sure we have a a
[21:05] full discussion in the meeting not
[21:07] hiding anything.
[21:08] So, we did have some of those
[21:09] discussions before the mayor sent out
[21:11] that
[21:12] email late last night. And I um
[21:16] Council member Smoot has an actual
[21:17] motion for this.
[21:19] But, I think I would prefer to have a
[21:21] little bit more time to digest the
[21:23] information that was provided by staff
[21:25] on Wednesday. Um I had to be out of town
[21:27] all weekend for a family wedding.
[21:30] And just didn't feel like I had enough
[21:31] time or
[21:33] um explanation of those
[21:36] documents that were prepared to try and
[21:38] compare those
[21:39] benefits.
[21:40] So, my request in talking with our
[21:42] council members is to
[21:44] table just this portion of the budget
[21:46] and the raise for the general staff.
[21:49] So, we can have time to uh
[21:51] find out more about the comparisons,
[21:53] find out more about the rationale from
[21:55] the mayor.
[21:56] And then move forward from there. And
[21:58] the the raises could be retroactive, but
[21:59] we can't do that before July 1st, but it
[22:01] sounds like the motion will be to do
[22:03] that before the end of this month, so
[22:05] within the next week.
[22:06] That's all.
[22:08] >> Um so, just going back to your comments
[22:11] about the safety district, remind me the
[22:13] goal at that time was to bring the
[22:16] employees to the midpoint, or what was
[22:19] the the goal?
[22:20] >> So, that's kind of been the request from
[22:24] police and fire
[22:26] to the board. The board it just so you
[22:27] know, we share police and fire resources
[22:30] with Highland. So, Highland has two
[22:32] board permanent board members
[22:34] and Alpine has two permanent board
[22:35] members, and then we have an alternate.
[22:37] That would be the every other year we
[22:39] have the tie breaking vote, every other
[22:41] year Highland has a tie breaking vote.
[22:43] So, yes, that's been the request from
[22:44] police and fire is to get kind of to
[22:45] toward the medium.
[22:47] So, we stay competitive with nearby
[22:49] departments, so we're not losing
[22:51] good employees to let's say a Lehi who
[22:54] decides they're going to pay their
[22:55] paramedics $10,000 more a year.
[22:58] And
[23:00] that's kind of been that goal at least
[23:02] for our public safety.
[23:03] >> Okay. And so, we still are looking for
[23:06] that information because um
[23:09] I don't know if our goal, as stated with
[23:11] the public safety district, if we're
[23:13] trying to keep our employees at the
[23:14] medium, or are we trying to keep them at
[23:16] the top quartile? Maybe we can talk
[23:18] about that.
[23:19] >> Right. So, yeah.
[23:20] >> also from an all-in number, which was
[23:22] what we asked for, not just the salary,
[23:24] but what it costs to employ their full
[23:28] benefits package. It's kind of here and
[23:31] there throughout the tabs on all of the
[23:32] information that we recently received,
[23:35] but it isn't crystallized in a
[23:37] consumable fashion, where we can make
[23:40] those kinds of determinations. So, um
[23:43] as far as um
[23:46] so that everyone present understands, we
[23:49] did commission a um wage study that
[23:52] compared salaries um throughout the
[23:54] state for similar um functions and
[23:57] duties.
[23:58] And because that information is so
[24:01] important,
[24:02] and because we got it so late, as soon
[24:05] as we got it, we put it out there that
[24:08] we were willing to meet with council. We
[24:10] met with Brent, and Chrissy, and Sarah.
[24:12] And um we did not get a request from
[24:15] yourselves, um Jessica or Andrew, to
[24:18] meet before this meeting. But, soon as
[24:20] we got the information from the wage
[24:22] study, we wanted to have those meetings
[24:24] to kind of help you consume the data,
[24:27] cuz it is a lot to consume. Because we
[24:30] did not have that opportunity, that
[24:34] the information of the wage study, that
[24:36] is going to be in a future work work
[24:39] session.
[24:40] All we're suggesting today,
[24:42] with the email that I sent out, is to
[24:45] present a cola
[24:47] straight across for all of staff,
[24:50] and then um with the 0.8%
[24:53] as a one-time Christmas bonus, because
[24:57] the feedback that I got from council is
[24:59] we shouldn't just do a straight
[25:00] Christmas bonus. It should be tied to
[25:02] something. And so
[25:03] I figured this is a way that we could
[25:05] tie both of it in, right? We can do the
[25:07] bonuses, but it could be based on um
[25:09] performance. So, it tied both of that
[25:12] in. And so, for me
[25:14] um if you look at the table that I had
[25:16] sent to you guys last night. And the
[25:18] main reason that is because other city
[25:20] councils
[25:21] I had a hard time getting that
[25:22] information because other city councils
[25:25] were also
[25:26] working on their numbers. But this is
[25:28] pretty much what they've decided.
[25:30] American Fork said it's still up in the
[25:32] air and
[25:34] when I talked to both their mayor and
[25:36] their city administrator, they said each
[25:38] one of them are at a different number.
[25:40] And so, they could not give me a number.
[25:42] But this is where everybody kind of
[25:44] decided on.
[25:45] And so, when I asked them why is your
[25:47] COLA so low? And it was The answer that
[25:49] I got back from them is when they did
[25:51] their um preliminary or um
[25:54] the preliminary budget
[25:56] um
[25:57] that's what the COLA was.
[26:00] But as you know, things have happened in
[26:02] the world economy that drastically
[26:05] increased the price of fuel, which is a
[26:08] big portion of our consumer price index.
[26:11] And so, um when I looked up what um the
[26:16] CPI was
[26:17] I was even shocked. I only looked it up
[26:19] because I couldn't remember
[26:21] from when I looked it up last whether it
[26:22] was 2.6%
[26:24] or 2.4%. That's where I thought it
[26:26] really was.
[26:28] And it was until about February. And
[26:30] then it And you have to realize all the
[26:32] numbers are like a month behind, right?
[26:36] And so, when I saw that it was 4.2%.
[26:39] A COLA, like I said, is a cost of living
[26:41] adjustment. It's not um merit-based. And
[26:45] the other cities here, this is all
[26:47] mostly um
[26:49] Northern Utah County. And then I've been
[26:51] working with the mayor of Heber quite a
[26:52] bit lately. So I happen to reach out and
[26:55] asked her she was able to give me her
[26:56] numbers.
[26:57] And then Bluffdale is also I had
[27:02] an opportunity to speak with her about
[27:04] something else and asked her really
[27:05] quick about what they decided to do. So
[27:07] I threw that in because that was the
[27:08] numbers that I was able to get.
[27:10] Um
[27:11] So the proposal I gave was based on the
[27:15] most recent numbers that were published
[27:17] by the US government.
[27:19] The COLA of 2.
[27:21] >> Is it 6 or 8% that was published by
[27:23] Social Security?
[27:25] >> 2.8 was accurate as of
[27:27] >> January 1st.
[27:28] >> January of 2026. So it's already
[27:30] outdated. And because this budget starts
[27:33] July 1st, I felt like we need to use the
[27:36] most current and most accurate data. And
[27:38] that's what I sent to you guys last
[27:39] night with the link of where I got that
[27:41] data.
[27:42] >> So I I appreciate that explanation. This
[27:44] part of the
[27:47] thought process here for me is
[27:50] we've this is my third time doing this
[27:51] now.
[27:52] And I went back to my notes and went
[27:54] back to the budget from 2024 which was
[27:57] for the 2025 fiscal year.
[27:59] And the proposal that you did was for a
[28:01] 6% merit increase. It said nothing about
[28:04] COLA.
[28:05] And it didn't include anything about
[28:06] benefits and comparing
[28:08] what we found when we asked the
[28:11] staff that help run the Lone Peak Public
[28:13] Safety District Board
[28:15] or public district was that
[28:17] when they looked at
[28:19] benefits comparisons, eight of the 10
[28:21] departments or cities that they asked
[28:24] for comparisons, only two of those paid
[28:26] for 100% of medical and dental coverage.
[28:29] So 20% and Alpine pays and the and the
[28:32] Lone Peak Public Safety District pays
[28:34] the full 100% for medical and dental.
[28:36] That's why we're asking for enough data
[28:38] to be able to make educated decisions,
[28:40] informed decisions.
[28:42] And when the first year was 6% merit
[28:44] because that's what police and fire got,
[28:46] last year was 4%.
[28:48] >> That was also Okay, so with the 6%
[28:50] merit, that was also from the previous
[28:51] year and I don't know I you could
[28:53] probably back me up cuz you were there.
[28:54] No, the reason that it was all 6% merit
[28:56] was the previous council wanted it all
[28:59] merit. Does that make sense? If I were
[29:02] to break it up, I would have broken it
[29:03] up into a cola and then a merit and
[29:05] that's what most cities do, but as you
[29:07] see, each city kind of does their own
[29:09] thing.
[29:10] But that's why it was presented that
[29:11] way. I was trying to
[29:14] um listen to council and still try to
[29:17] figure out, you know,
[29:19] how to move forward with things, but
[29:21] again, this is a public hearing and this
[29:23] is what you're voting on and because of
[29:26] state law, it is breaking out their
[29:28] compensation.
[29:29] I think um you know, you have situations
[29:32] in other cities, you know, even in Cedar
[29:34] Hills, I think they did a 4.6% total
[29:38] increase in the salaries for all their
[29:41] staff except for
[29:42] their city administrator who got a 6%
[29:44] increase. So, there's always going to be
[29:46] differences, but all we're um
[29:49] all I'm suggesting that we do is we just
[29:51] do a straight cola 4.2.
[29:54] >> Uh
[29:55] Mr. Doxey, can you
[29:57] provide us the options we have as far as
[30:01] tabling just the portion of the budget
[30:03] that relates to wages and making it
[30:05] retroactive to July 1st if once we do
[30:09] make a decision on wages if we're not
[30:10] going to do that tonight.
[30:11] >> to be clear, you can't table the budget
[30:14] right. You have to adopt a final budget
[30:16] tonight. If you don't want to include an
[30:19] increase in compensation in the budget,
[30:22] then you adopt the budget without that
[30:25] and then
[30:26] you'd have to go and do a budget
[30:28] amendment
[30:29] later. So, there's also a budget
[30:32] amendment on the agenda for tonight.
[30:34] That's what would have to happen. So,
[30:36] you have to you have to adopt the final
[30:39] budget tonight.
[30:40] >> Understood. Thanks.
[30:41] >> Well, and can I just can
[30:44] in response to yes, we got the
[30:47] information and then we were able to set
[30:49] up meetings one-on-one, but we haven't
[30:52] been able to counsel
[30:54] you know, together and really that's how
[30:55] I understand a lot of this is is working
[30:58] with my co-council members and coming up
[31:01] with consensus in that way. And so I
[31:04] appreciate you know, the the time that
[31:07] was available. It didn't work for me cuz
[31:09] it was Monday and Tuesday. I just didn't
[31:12] have any time during that time period to
[31:14] meet, but um
[31:15] so that's part of that is just meeting
[31:18] with council, us being able to get into
[31:21] the details of these things that we are
[31:23] just now seeing.
[31:25] And again, I mean all of us are paying
[31:27] more in gas and I bet a lot of us would
[31:31] I'd like to Council member Rumler's
[31:33] point just be able to build right into
[31:35] our lives those pay increases. I think
[31:38] it's prudent upon us as it's one of the
[31:40] largest budget items here to make sure
[31:43] that we're responsibly spending the
[31:46] taxpayer dollars.
[31:48] >> So
[31:51] » I guess I know I we will get to you. I
[31:53] promise.
[31:54] If you could you know, we'll come back.
[31:56] Go ahead, Sarah. Okay.
[31:58] Um
[31:59] I see the value in counseling as a
[32:02] council. So I if that's an option to do
[32:06] a work session to you know, have
[32:08] consensus among the council members I'm
[32:10] open to that. Um
[32:12] I will say that we have really great
[32:13] employees. I've been able to observe
[32:15] them and
[32:17] um
[32:19] and almost I'm I've almost got all of
[32:21] their names. Anyway,
[32:22] um
[32:23] and I do know that when you trust your
[32:25] employees, typically they do better
[32:27] work. So it's not a lot it's not a the
[32:30] compensation is not like a
[32:32] we don't trust you. It's
[32:35] but it does help build morale. So I
[32:36] understand why this has to be a
[32:38] discussion and and why we do this. Um
[32:42] one other thing that I thought was
[32:43] interesting that I we talked to Mayor
[32:45] Merrill about is that when we were
[32:46] discussing the
[32:48] Lone Peak Safety District and we were
[32:50] talking about compensation there, we
[32:52] used the COLA.
[32:54] And we didn't talk about the CPI, um
[32:57] consumer consumer price index, which I
[32:59] thought was interesting. So, I know that
[33:01] the COLA is measured January 1st and
[33:03] it's 2.8. CPI is more accurate, but the
[33:07] COLA adjust for inflation and the CPI
[33:10] deals with more consumer products.
[33:12] And so, I just found it interesting that
[33:14] when we were discussing comparisons for
[33:18] um public safety district staff, we were
[33:20] talking about COLA and when we're
[33:23] talking about
[33:24] um employees, we're talking about CPI.
[33:26] So, if anyone has any more insight as to
[33:29] why we're we've switched from one to the
[33:31] other. I know you use the CPI to
[33:33] calculate the COLA. And I understand
[33:35] that the CPI is more up-to-date, but
[33:38] there's a big difference. One is to The
[33:40] COLA is 2.8 and the CPI is 4.2. And when
[33:43] I look at the other cities, it looks
[33:45] like a lot of them followed somewhere on
[33:48] an average of like
[33:50] 2.5 for a COLA and then they had merit.
[33:54] And a lot of them still have 5%, but the
[33:57] COLA adjustment is less and the
[33:59] merit-based is a little bit higher.
[34:02] Um so, that's one question I just have
[34:04] one thought I have. And then um I know
[34:07] we do performance evaluations
[34:09] and um so, I'm assuming that we would
[34:13] use those and key performance indicators
[34:16] when we decide whether they're
[34:17] merit-based.
[34:19] And just to clarify, they do um receive
[34:23] merit-based um compensation based off of
[34:26] those, not just it's not just a
[34:30] Christmas bonus, it's Okay.
[34:32] >> And that's what I'm suggesting we do.
[34:34] >> Yeah. Um does anyone have any insight on
[34:36] COLA versus CPI? That was
[34:39] one question.
[34:40] >> My understanding is historically they've
[34:43] been pretty much the same. It's just
[34:46] that they update the CPI monthly
[34:49] as opposed to annually which the Social
[34:51] Security does. I thought they did it
[34:53] every 6 months, but when I was talking
[34:55] to you earlier you said once a year.
[34:57] >> Well, I just had it from the first of
[34:59] the year, so I assume they do it once a
[35:01] year. Um anyway, I just I just
[35:03] would love a little bit more
[35:04] understanding on that and I know we
[35:07] discussed this earlier. I just wanted to
[35:08] make it public, so
[35:09] >> So and then back in um if you look at
[35:12] when they did the preliminary budget and
[35:13] you look at the COLA and the CPI, they
[35:16] were like
[35:17] within 0.1, 0.2 depending on when you
[35:20] looked it up. They were in line except when you had
[35:24] this.
[35:25] >> Yeah.
[35:26] >> If I could just answer a little bit
[35:28] about the COLA. COLA is a broader
[35:31] measure, so it would include things like
[35:33] housing or um
[35:35] you know, like insurance, things like
[35:37] that. Where C- CPI stands specifically
[35:41] for consumer products and so those
[35:43] highly fluctuate based on the price of
[35:45] gas.
[35:46] So what Carla has talked our mayor has
[35:49] talked about um spiking recently is
[35:52] because of the um
[35:54] the constraints we have on gas through
[35:55] the war.
[35:56] And so it's very fluctuates a lot like has been said um it it would be
[36:02] measured monthly rather than
[36:04] So it's looking at different aspects of
[36:07] the economy. One is more long-term and
[36:10] one is more sh- short-term and more uh
[36:15] fluctuates it fluctuates more. So I
[36:17] don't know why we switched, but I know
[36:18] that that's the difference between the
[36:20] two measures.
[36:21] >> Thank you, Councilwoman Hanneman. I if CPI is short-term and we're talking
[36:26] about long-term
[36:28] um
[36:29] >> Well, the CPI Yes, it's a short-term
[36:31] increase, but it is a 12-month average.
[36:33] So, the 12-month average is it's gone
[36:35] it's increased by 4.6%, not just the 1
[36:38] month.
[36:38] >> But again, on on a different measure, it
[36:40] has consumer products, not necessarily
[36:42] the full cost.
[36:43] >> Yes.
[36:44] >> Right.
[36:45] >> Yeah.
[36:45] >> I guess that I really didn't have a full
[36:48] understanding. I just know that
[36:50] historically they've been pretty neck
[36:51] and neck.
[36:52] And so, um I've always just looked up
[36:54] CPI just because it's been easy cuz half
[36:57] the time you look up COLA, apparently I
[36:59] really like soda because
[37:01] all of that comes up. And so, for me,
[37:03] it's always been easier to do a search
[37:05] on the CPI. So, that's why I went to
[37:07] that. And when I realized the how it
[37:10] different it was, then I was like, "Oh,
[37:11] but this information is more recent."
[37:14] >> I guess what I'm trying to say then is
[37:15] that the CPI fluctuates that much,
[37:18] then maybe a COLA is a better way to um
[37:23] account for inflation and rising costs.
[37:25] That's That's just a thought I have.
[37:28] >> Well, this this year this war is one
[37:30] example where the prices went up, and
[37:32] now they've gone significantly down when
[37:34] there appears to be a resolution. That
[37:36] could all change tomorrow. Let's say
[37:38] Iran nukes, and it could go right back
[37:39] up. So, I go through this every year
[37:42] with my pension. Mine is tied to the
[37:44] same
[37:45] um index as Social Security increases.
[37:48] So, I got an email today or yesterday
[37:50] from one of my
[37:52] federal retiree um subscription saying
[37:54] looks like the cost of living increase
[37:57] for Social Security and my pension will
[37:59] be about 3.8%.
[38:01] But again, they've they've never been
[38:03] right. Those estimates have never been
[38:04] right because they fluctuate so much
[38:06] over throughout the throughout the year.
[38:09] >> So, again, like this is not
[38:12] um
[38:14] as much as particular Yes, this is for
[38:16] just Shane and um Caden. But my
[38:19] preference is
[38:21] Yes, I use the CPI cuz in my mind I was
[38:24] using the latest and because it's a
[38:26] 12-month rolling average. So, in the
[38:28] last 12 months, this is what the average
[38:30] is, not just for the month of May,
[38:33] that's what the number is. Because
[38:35] you're taking 12 months into account,
[38:37] that should
[38:39] kind of equalize that and my guess is
[38:42] that if you look at it in next January
[38:45] and you look at the cola and the CPI,
[38:47] they'll be very close.
[38:49] Yes, sometimes they're exactly, but
[38:51] they're usually pretty close to each
[38:53] other.
[38:54] Um
[38:55] but my preference is that
[38:58] you know, if you don't agree with the
[38:59] 4.2, I would rather instead tabling this
[39:02] cuz I feel like it will cause um
[39:07] while I appreciate that you want to do a
[39:09] thorough job,
[39:10] all we're doing at this point is
[39:13] basically agree Even though this hearing
[39:15] is just for Shane and Kayden
[39:18] or this process, it is also going to the
[39:20] rest of staff and affects everybody that
[39:22] works for Alpine City
[39:24] that we come up with a percentage now
[39:28] based on whatever it may be, whether
[39:30] it's a straight cola,
[39:32] whether it's a straight merit, or
[39:33] combination of the two
[39:35] and not put it off that, you know, if
[39:38] there's something that
[39:40] um
[39:41] and I'm saying
[39:43] don't take into consideration the wage
[39:46] study. That I feel like is very valuable
[39:49] information and because not everybody
[39:51] has had a chance to digest all of that, we take that into the work session
[39:57] and that's a whole separate thing. This
[39:59] is just raises for staff across the
[40:03] board.
[40:04] I gave you my recommendation. I would
[40:06] really like to hear what yours is and
[40:09] then like I said, I was still texting
[40:11] David Bunker late last night. Have you
[40:14] gotten any, you you a better idea of
[40:15] what the number is. No, I don't.
[40:19] So, the reason you got the text late
[40:21] last night, I was
[40:23] >> [clears throat]
[40:23] >> I was probably on the phone. If I look
[40:25] on my phone, I bet you I probably got
[40:27] off about 11:23 last night. And that was
[40:29] probably about the time that I sent out
[40:31] this email to you guys.
[40:33] >> So, you're basing your recommendation on
[40:35] the consumer price index or on the
[40:37] comparison
[40:38] >> it on I No, no, no. I did both.
[40:41] So, what I looked at is what how other
[40:43] cities did it and I As you can see by
[40:45] looking at this chart,
[40:47] they're all over the board. Some people
[40:48] did straight COLAs, some people did
[40:50] straight merits, some people did a
[40:52] combination of the two.
[40:54] And when I talked to the mayors or city
[40:56] administrators,
[40:58] they based their COLAs on the numbers
[41:00] based on their tentative budget and when
[41:02] that what that number looked like at the
[41:04] time or what they thought it was based
[41:05] on whatever indexes they used, right?
[41:09] Obviously, not everyone used um
[41:13] the Social Security COLA because the
[41:15] COLA was 2.8% and I don't see, you know,
[41:18] you've got anything from three down to
[41:20] 2.3%,
[41:21] right? And then merit, you you're going
[41:24] all over the board.
[41:25] And so for me, um I like I said,
[41:29] I did it based on
[41:31] the CPI
[41:33] for the 12-month rolling average
[41:36] and then the remaining um I thought
[41:39] five was kind of
[41:43] you know, middle of the road
[41:45] compared to what was here
[41:47] and where I think
[41:49] American Fork is going to end up, but
[41:51] they did not give me a definite number,
[41:53] but I kind of had an idea.
[41:55] And then gave um
[41:58] you know,
[41:59] based on that. So, like the point eight,
[42:01] because that's a merit bonus,
[42:03] um my understanding it's not an all or
[42:05] nothing cuz it's based on their
[42:07] performances. So, it's not a straight
[42:09] 0.8%. It'll depend. It might just end up
[42:12] being that we only use
[42:15] .65% of it of the total amount or
[42:17] whatever it may be.
[42:18] >> Well, and I think that, you know, brings
[42:21] back the point that I'm saying. I'm not
[42:23] sure if we're trying to the target is
[42:27] keeping everyone around the mid-range as
[42:29] far as our surrounding communities, not
[42:31] the whole state, but I know that that's
[42:33] been a very
[42:35] >> We're not
[42:36] >> Wait, a very strong part of the
[42:37] conversation around public safety. Is
[42:40] what do we do? How do we keep them
[42:41] within a certain range? And so as we're
[42:44] considering those things, I understand
[42:46] that this is what all the other cities
[42:47] are doing.
[42:49] But, you know, this is just one data
[42:51] point. It's not necessarily what
[42:52] Alpine's going to do cuz I don't know
[42:54] where our staff is um
[42:58] in that. Are they in the lower quartile?
[43:00] Are they in the middle quartile? If we
[43:02] give them these raises, does it move
[43:04] everyone into the upper quartile? Do we
[43:07] have a problem with retention? Part of
[43:09] why we give the public safety district
[43:12] higher raises is because we are looking
[43:15] at retaining
[43:17] our skilled um officers and
[43:19] firefighters. So, we haven't had those
[43:23] layered conversations.
[43:25] >> So, yes, we did the wage study. Um this
[43:29] does not take into consideration
[43:32] the wage study, but the quick um
[43:34] 2-second version of the wage study is
[43:37] no, everyone but one, we have an
[43:39] outlier,
[43:41] but everyone else on Alpine City staff
[43:44] is below the low point average, below
[43:47] the midpoint average, and below the high
[43:49] point average. Meaning, and the way that
[43:51] they um
[43:53] the way that this gentleman did it was
[43:54] based on the number of years of work
[43:57] experience and where they should be
[44:00] on the low point, the midpoint, or the
[44:03] high point. And every single job, except
[44:06] for our city engineer, because as you
[44:08] guys all know, we went a year without a
[44:11] city engineer cuz we could not recruit a
[44:13] city engineer. So, yes, we had to pay
[44:16] more, and so he is
[44:18] between midpoint and high for his number
[44:21] of experience as a city engineer. Other
[44:24] than that, yes, they're all lower, but
[44:25] that has nothing to do with it yet.
[44:27] We're not even trying to We're just
[44:29] trying to
[44:30] >> But that had everything to do with the
[44:32] safety district. So, how come that had
[44:34] everything to do with the safety
[44:36] district, but we're not using the same
[44:39] um premise when we're talking about our
[44:41] >> No, we were going to, but because of the
[44:43] timing of when we got that report and in
[44:46] trying to meet with everybody because it
[44:48] didn't happen, it's too much to consume,
[44:52] and because the new budget or the new
[44:54] budget year starts July 1st,
[44:57] we're mandated by state law that we pass
[45:00] the final budget. So, all this is my
[45:02] proposal. I feel like what it will do is
[45:06] it kind of will bring every, you know,
[45:08] even though Alpine resi- or Alpine, not
[45:10] residents, Alpine
[45:12] um and employees may be here and this is
[45:14] the average for whatever whether it it
[45:16] may be. If you looked at the charts that
[45:18] um was in your packet, we're
[45:20] consistently step below. All this will
[45:23] do is bring it up and it's not even
[45:25] taking people up. That's the discussion
[45:27] that we'll have during the work session
[45:29] if that's where
[45:31] um cuz you do, you bring up a lot of
[45:33] good points.
[45:34] >> Well, and I think
[45:35] >> think that one to recruitment is a good
[45:36] point. There's all of that, but all this
[45:38] is doing is making sure that we're not
[45:40] following below what we already are.
[45:43] >> But actually, we're not below when you
[45:45] look at total benefit package. We
[45:48] actually may be in the upper quartile.
[45:50] Again, I couldn't extrapolate that from the data that we just got. So, are
[45:55] we in the mid to lower on salary, but
[45:59] that's not their dollars.
[46:02] are salary, their dollars
[46:04] are health benefits, their dollars are
[46:06] retirement plans, their dollars are take
[46:09] home vehicles.
[46:11] So, I wasn't able to look at it and say
[46:16] they're being paid again in the
[46:18] mid-quartile or the upper or the lower.
[46:21] And that was such a driving indicator as
[46:24] we discussed our safety district.
[46:28] » So,
[46:30] the thing that was um I think the reason
[46:32] that our um wage study took so long to
[46:35] get to us was that Alpine is unique. We
[46:38] have a very
[46:39] small number of full-time employees.
[46:42] And if you ask anyone One of the first
[46:44] things I did when I became mayor was I
[46:46] met with every single employee in the
[46:48] city
[46:49] and asked them what they did and whether
[46:51] they're happy there, what they thought
[46:52] they were going to do.
[46:54] And really learned what their jobs were.
[46:56] And you know what I found out? Each one
[46:58] of them is doing the job of two or three
[47:00] people in other cities. I get it, we're
[47:03] a smaller city, but even a city like
[47:05] Cedar Hills,
[47:06] they have like what? 40% more employees
[47:10] than we do in Alpine.
[47:12] They're a smaller city geographically,
[47:15] they're smaller in population.
[47:18] And you look at that and um it was hard
[47:21] to say, "Yes, we have a recorder, but
[47:23] she's also our sexton. She also
[47:26] was writing our newsline until, you
[47:28] know, a year ago." But there's you know,
[47:30] there's so many different things that
[47:32] each one of them are doing.
[47:34] They're literally doing the jobs of two
[47:35] or three different people. And so, yes,
[47:37] our traffic our wage study came back
[47:39] later than we
[47:41] what normally. I don't think he
[47:42] understood how we were formed. I think
[47:44] number one, he was surprised how little
[47:46] our staff was. And number two, how much
[47:48] they did. And so, yes, it took a lot
[47:50] longer. I'm sorry it didn't get here in
[47:52] time, but as I stated, as As as we got
[47:55] the results, we made the effort to reach
[47:57] out to everybody.
[47:59] But for me right now, this the proposal
[48:02] that I gave is
[48:04] to shift it up. Yes, are we paying more
[48:06] in The only thing that we're paying more
[48:08] for and is a big chunk, it's the health
[48:10] care.
[48:11] Um we are doing 100% of the traditional
[48:14] health care.
[48:15] And I believe Carolyn, um who
[48:19] also wears many hats um for our city
[48:23] compiled this list and it was not easy
[48:24] and we didn't get data on some of them
[48:26] and it wasn't because we didn't like
[48:27] their answers, it's because
[48:29] we were never able to get that data. Um
[48:32] and then, you know, kudos to her that
[48:35] she on some of the things that she
[48:36] didn't get responses from, she actually
[48:38] went and searched on their websites and
[48:40] did a lot spent a lot of time getting
[48:42] that for us to get a more comprehensive
[48:43] list.
[48:44] But you also have to look at, you know,
[48:46] you look at um
[48:49] our
[48:50] efforts to recruit our city engineer.
[48:54] And even if you talk to some of our
[48:58] >> Hey mayor.
[48:58] >> employees, hold on.
[49:00] That the health care is very, very
[49:02] important to them and if it weren't
[49:03] here, they're not sure if they would
[49:05] stay. That's a comment that several have
[49:08] made to me.
[49:09] And you have to look at it is that it's
[49:11] a recruitment tool. You look at what the
[49:14] fire department does. We service
[49:16] American Fork Canyon.
[49:18] It's not really a money maker for us. In
[49:20] fact, when we
[49:22] take a call in American Fork Canyon,
[49:24] we're out an entire
[49:26] battalion or
[49:27] Is it a battalion?
[49:29] Or basically a full staff, a
[49:31] contingency. But we do that because it's
[49:34] a big recruitment tool.
[49:36] They like that we service American Fork
[49:39] Canyon. It's something additional to
[49:41] doing their everyday work.
[49:43] And so you have to kind of look at it
[49:45] that way. But if that's something that
[49:47] you guys want to look at and change,
[49:48] that can be up for discussion also. But
[49:51] right now, we're just talking about
[49:54] their raises for next year. Do you want
[49:56] to do a basic cola?
[49:58] Do you want to do a hybrid, or do a full
[50:01] merit?
[50:03] That's what the discussion is.
[50:04] >> And now and the percentage.
[50:06] >> Yeah, obviously, yes.
[50:07] >> My question was quick interruption a
[50:09] point of information. I was under the
[50:10] impression we were just discussing
[50:13] Shane and Kayden right now, not the
[50:15] entire
[50:16] workforce.
[50:17] >> You are correct, and this specific
[50:20] >> very wide.
[50:21] >> But it is for the it's the same
[50:24] >> I'm just clarifying. I'm just I know
[50:25] it's the same proposal, but I was under
[50:27] the impression we were just cuz the my comments were just specifically on
[50:31] what you told us we were talking about,
[50:32] not the entire staff.
[50:34] >> Okay. It's the same for
[50:35] >> Or the fire department or anything else.
[50:38] >> No, it's just for Alpine City staff. The
[50:41] proposal is to cross the board.
[50:43] >> I know the proposals, but you said we
[50:44] were doing a public discussion just
[50:45] about the city administrator and the
[50:47] city planner. Is that the case?
[50:49] >> Just to be clear,
[50:51] we had a public hearing on the
[50:53] compensation, a public hearing that's
[50:55] required by law on the compensation for
[50:58] municipal executive officers. There are
[51:01] two of them.
[51:02] >> Right.
[51:02] >> There are also staff members, but their
[51:06] compensation would be incorporated in
[51:08] the final budget would be my guess.
[51:10] >> But this discussion can encompass all of
[51:12] it.
[51:13] >> Well, you can talk about all of it in
[51:15] terms of comparison or whatever, but
[51:17] >> To me, it's I think it makes sense.
[51:19] >> What you vote on if you if you have a
[51:21] motion to approve or to deny or to
[51:24] table, it's going to be with respect to
[51:26] these [clears throat] two employees.
[51:28] And then if you're dissatisfied with
[51:30] cola increases or other increases for
[51:33] other staff members, that would be in
[51:35] the final budget discussion.
[51:37] >> Okay. Thank you for the clarification.
[51:38] >> So, I I'm in favor of doing a cola and
[51:41] merit, and I um
[51:44] I personally feel like the cola should
[51:46] be based off of the COLA and not the
[51:48] CPI, but that with a merit could to kind
[51:52] and it also kind of mirrors what other
[51:53] cities have done.
[51:55] Um I did have one question though when
[51:57] it because when I'm looking at the
[51:59] budget and I'm looking at say planning
[52:00] and zoning and I'm looking at our city
[52:02] expenditures and it says salary and
[52:04] wages and it gives me a number and and
[52:07] underneath it says employee benefits.
[52:09] When I look at that and it and that's
[52:11] just for this area
[52:13] the benefits are half the cost of the
[52:15] salary and wages. Do we periodically
[52:18] look at other health care policies and
[52:21] shop around for
[52:23] I mean we want good benefits, but do we
[52:26] I'm assuming that's something that we
[52:27] do.
[52:27] >> part of my understanding is we're part
[52:29] of a bigger group. Like we don't just do
[52:31] it for
[52:33] ourselves, right? Don't we do our health
[52:35] benefits as kind of a group of small
[52:36] cities?
[52:37] >> It it's a pool with P- PHP and
[52:40] historically our increases have been
[52:42] less than public safety and Highland
[52:45] City who have a different plan.
[52:48] >> Thank you. And just so everyone's aware our health care increased 7.7% and
[52:55] our dental 3.9.
[52:57] >> And and theirs were higher.
[52:59] >> Yeah. Okay, wow.
[53:01] >> Yeah. Okay, are you done? Chrissy?
[53:05] >> Okay.
[53:05] >> Oh wait, I'm sorry. I had one question.
[53:07] Did you have a suggestion for a merit?
[53:08] You said 2.8 for a COLA and a merit was
[53:12] >> Um
[53:16] I guess it either to get to the 4.2 it
[53:19] would probably
[53:20] or to get to the five it would be 2.2 or
[53:22] to get to the 4.2 what would that be?
[53:25] Hold on.
[53:26] >> 1.4 or a 2.
[53:29] >> Yeah, 1.4 or 2.2.
[53:32] >> I don't know. Just a thought.
[53:34] >> Okay.
[53:34] >> Sorry, what were your numbers?
[53:36] >> So
[53:38] my thought was if if we feel good about
[53:41] the five, we could do 2.8 for the Cola
[53:44] and 2.2 for the merit and that would
[53:46] give them the option to get five. Or if
[53:49] we want to do 2.8 for the Cola
[53:52] and 1.4 so that they they can get to the
[53:55] CPI number of 4.2.
[53:58] >> So, I do have a question. Are you
[54:00] talking about a merit
[54:01] >> Can I make some comments before we go
[54:03] too far down the road?
[54:04] >> Yes, but I just wanted to finish that
[54:06] and then we'll go and then we'll move
[54:07] forward. Are you thinking um the merit
[54:10] as part of a raise or as a one-time
[54:12] bonus?
[54:14] >> Um
[54:15] >> These are all bonus. This is none of
[54:17] this is bonus. This is all raises.
[54:20] >> Well
[54:21] >> that we're looking at here.
[54:22] >> Some
[54:23] >> Does this count towards salary and
[54:24] affect the pension contributions?
[54:26] >> Um not to pension contributions or
[54:29] salaries. I know um just based on what
[54:32] I've seen in other cities and I will
[54:33] point one out for
[54:33] >> it's taxable, but it's not considered
[54:37] salary for pension contribution.
[54:39] >> So, probably bonus.
[54:42] >> Okay.
[54:43] Um okay. Sorry. Chrissy, you've waited
[54:45] long enough.
[54:46] Please.
[54:47] Sorry.
[54:49] >> I took so many notes. I hope this
[54:50] doesn't come out jumbled. Um
[54:53] I do want to first comment about the
[54:55] public hearing part of this.
[54:58] Um
[54:59] I have served 10 years in public office,
[55:01] not necessarily just in Alpine
[55:04] city, and we've had these public
[55:06] hearings for um
[55:10] city manager or in my the superintendent
[55:12] and business administrator.
[55:14] And so, um it's it's really uh an
[55:17] important part of serving the public is
[55:20] understanding um and being transparent.
[55:23] And um I know that base I just didn't
[55:27] mean to say this, but I just will say in
[55:29] reflection of your comments having
[55:31] served this long I mean, we have to
[55:33] understand that um individuals are not
[55:37] um who we answer to. We answer to the
[55:39] law and the ordinances of our city.
[55:42] And if you can't change the law and
[55:43] ordinance of the city, then you really
[55:45] don't have another rule cuz we're the
[55:47] legislative body.
[55:48] >> Right.
[55:49] >> And so it's really important that if
[55:51] something does need to be changed, that
[55:53] we find a way to make it happen and make
[55:55] it an ordinance or change an ordinance.
[55:58] But we personally, any one of us cannot
[56:00] direct our staff.
[56:02] We only act as a body of five and if we
[56:04] have majority vote. So, if there's a
[56:07] disconnect between what one individual
[56:09] wants, whether they're a resident or a
[56:11] council member, and what the city is
[56:13] responding to, it's because you don't
[56:15] have majority, there is no change in
[56:17] ordinance. We can't just arbitrarily,
[56:20] willy-nilly just use the resources of
[56:21] our city based on personal preferences.
[56:25] So, we have to learn to change the laws
[56:26] and the ordinances, which is a long
[56:28] process, but when you sit around long
[56:30] enough and you make those changes, they
[56:33] also will last longer than any one
[56:35] person who holds office, which is the
[56:38] point of government is it's not
[56:40] dependent on who's sitting in this chair
[56:42] or any of these chairs or even in
[56:44] Shane's chair. Everything needs to
[56:47] um outlast us and that's why we have
[56:49] government is that it's going to be
[56:51] operate through um
[56:54] a legal process. So, I do want to say
[56:57] that
[56:58] um and as a legislative body, we have
[57:01] >> No.
[57:02] >> [laughter]
[57:02] >> Okay.
[57:03] >> Um as a legislative body, this is a
[57:05] unique opportunity to only talk about
[57:07] two people. We don't have a job to
[57:10] review everybody and so that's why it's
[57:13] we're limited to two people in this
[57:14] public hearing.
[57:16] And so um
[57:19] Uh let's see. I appreciate having served
[57:22] for 10 years the open and collaborative
[57:24] environment where all voices are
[57:26] considered, but at the end of the day,
[57:28] we have to follow the laws.
[57:30] And that's why we're having the public
[57:32] hearing, because it's legally required
[57:34] of us.
[57:35] Um and it's a good idea. But it was
[57:37] anyways. Okay. When also I'll just
[57:39] remind all of us that when we are when
[57:42] we took this office, we swore to uphold
[57:44] the Constitution. It's not It's about
[57:47] any one person or any one resident.
[57:49] We're here to support the Constitution.
[57:51] Okay. Now that I got off I'm getting off
[57:53] my soapbox. Did not plan to say all
[57:55] that, but I do feel like it's important
[57:58] to understand, especially with all of my
[58:00] public here, how much I appreciate that
[58:03] we are a a city
[58:07] a state
[58:08] federal government that is governed by
[58:11] law. Okay. I appreciate all the extra
[58:14] effort to gather information. I love
[58:16] numbers and spreadsheets and um
[58:19] they have gone I think our staff has
[58:21] gone over the top in presenting a lot of
[58:24] the information. Unfortunately, as the
[58:26] comments have been said, we've gotten in
[58:28] a very short window of time to really
[58:30] process it and understand it.
[58:33] Um
[58:34] we are talking about two people here in
[58:37] during the hearing, and judging by the
[58:39] information they provided, the total
[58:41] amount of COLA for two people is about
[58:45] $10,000.
[58:46] That's what we're discussing tonight is
[58:48] $10,000.
[58:50] So if we're not comfortable with a $10,000
[58:55] motion at this point, I we can defer it.
[58:58] I just want to make sure that we
[58:59] understand we're only talking about
[59:01] $10,000, which is this column right
[59:04] here, the COLA
[59:06] for two people.
[59:07] >> So can I just make a comment about that?
[59:08] Yeah, you're right. We're talking about
[59:10] >> you can't. I'm I'm not done. Thank you.
[59:13] I won't finish if I if if you don't if
[59:15] you interrupt me. Okay. Overall, the
[59:18] full COLA for the entire city is 64,000.
[59:22] It's that bottom line. And so of that
[59:25] 10,000 would go to our administration.
[59:27] So when we get to the big budget hearing
[59:30] about the full budget, just keep those
[59:31] two numbers in mind. Um the 4.2% as
[59:35] proposed is 64,000. So, if we would like to
[59:39] adjust that amount,
[59:41] somebody please check my math. Um it's
[59:43] about $15,000 for 1%. So, if we want to
[59:47] split it up in different ways, that's
[59:49] the cost to the city, and that's what we
[59:51] should be talking about. Um in in in
[59:54] context, so what does 1% raise or a
[59:58] merit increase look like? What would it
[1:00:00] cost our taxpayers? It would be $15,000
[1:00:03] um in total.
[1:00:05] Okay. Um we There were several comments
[1:00:09] about how we wanted to
[1:00:11] uh a full look at total compensation,
[1:00:13] not just salary. That is not required by
[1:00:16] law that we discuss that during the
[1:00:18] public hearing, but it is a topic we've
[1:00:20] talked about before. So, if you look at
[1:00:22] the two columns over here at the
[1:00:23] medical, and you total them, it's about
[1:00:26] $500,000 we pay for medical and dental.
[1:00:29] And then the estimated salary is 1.5
[1:00:32] million. So, to Sarah's point, we pay a
[1:00:35] lot for benefits, um
[1:00:38] and that is one of the bonuses of
[1:00:40] working in Alpine City is is maybe their
[1:00:43] salaries are lower than the mid-range
[1:00:45] based on this what I
[1:00:47] briefly could look at last night, but um
[1:00:50] their benefits are good. And then over
[1:00:52] here, um
[1:00:54] there's another column, and this is why
[1:00:56] we just haven't had time to process all
[1:00:57] the information. There's another
[1:00:59] 300,000.
[1:01:01] So, we just need to a little bit of
[1:01:03] clarification. In total though, the
[1:01:05] total increase um for the full
[1:01:08] compared to last year
[1:01:10] is totaled right here on the far right,
[1:01:12] the 291.
[1:01:13] >> [snorts]
[1:01:14] >> And
[1:01:15] overall, the increase is 12.85%.
[1:01:17] So, most of the increase is really um
[1:01:20] only $50,000 is what's for the Cola, but
[1:01:24] there's
[1:01:25] a big increase apparently for our
[1:01:27] medical. Um and so
[1:01:30] that's just I just want to put some
[1:01:31] numbers to the uh topics we've discussed. All
[1:01:35] right. In short, um I wanted to also not
[1:01:40] overlook a person could not come to the
[1:01:42] meeting and um I just wanted to reflect
[1:01:46] he's been Oh, wait. I have his name up,
[1:01:48] but my computer logged out on me.
[1:01:52] And I don't know him personally.
[1:01:57] Okay, here we go. Michael R. Robertson.
[1:02:01] Um you can record this for his address
[1:02:03] is 4338 Stony Brook Circle.
[1:02:06] And he did mention that he's um lived
[1:02:09] outside of the boundary of Alpine for 27 years, but then they
[1:02:14] were annexed and he lives in the Cove.
[1:02:16] And since then um as a city we've had uh
[1:02:19] we can help them with with roads, snow
[1:02:22] plow, and water. And those are essential
[1:02:25] services of the city and he specifically
[1:02:27] mentioned how his quality of life has
[1:02:30] improved now that they're under the
[1:02:33] umbrella of city care. And I thought
[1:02:35] that that was really important to
[1:02:36] understand that the most fundamental
[1:02:39] services that happen in our city are
[1:02:42] um that we provide are those fundamental
[1:02:45] things like water and safe street
[1:02:48] streets that are in good repair. Um
[1:02:50] that's that's the city's obligation. So
[1:02:52] I thought he was speaking directly to
[1:02:55] the quality of life for uh someone who's
[1:02:57] joined the city and seen what is it like
[1:02:59] to live outside the city and what is it
[1:03:01] like to live inside the city even though
[1:03:03] he never moved, right? It's because he's
[1:03:05] under the umbrella of care um of
[1:03:07] responsibility of our city employees.
[1:03:10] And he was very complimentary and I
[1:03:11] thought that was a valuable um
[1:03:13] information or perspective to share. So
[1:03:15] based on that um sorry I cut all of you
[1:03:18] off.
[1:03:19] Um, but I wanted to get to the end and
[1:03:21] if we would like to uh,
[1:03:24] table just these two people's salary and
[1:03:28] discuss that we can.
[1:03:30] I feel like the amount of dollars that
[1:03:32] we're talking about is relatively small
[1:03:36] considering we have an $8 million
[1:03:37] budget. So, I think what we're really,
[1:03:40] um, frustrated with is more the process
[1:03:42] than what are the dollars that are being
[1:03:44] expended. And that's my final comment.
[1:03:47] Oh, and I I didn't say personally I I
[1:03:49] appreciate working with the city.
[1:03:51] Everybody has always very open to new
[1:03:54] ideas and then sort of, um, filtering
[1:03:57] them through the reality check of what's
[1:03:59] legal, what do they have the resources
[1:04:02] to do, both financial and staff, and
[1:04:04] dealing with that reality is, uh, is in
[1:04:08] a kind and generous way.
[1:04:10] It just to me as someone who doesn't
[1:04:12] always know that much about, you know,
[1:04:14] pipes in the street or like I don't
[1:04:17] know, you know, what is what is the
[1:04:18] parking regulation for a building. I'm
[1:04:21] sure many of you are here tonight for,
[1:04:23] but we rely on our laws and we follow
[1:04:26] our laws and we rely on our staff to
[1:04:29] help us understand and interpret the
[1:04:31] laws. And without that we really
[1:04:33] couldn't do our job [clears throat] and
[1:04:34] so I do appreciate the staff.
[1:04:36] Do you have including Shannon Kaden?
[1:04:37] >> Do you have a percentage or amount that
[1:04:39] you are comfortable with or are you okay
[1:04:42] with the proposal as
[1:04:43] >> I think everything's close everything's
[1:04:45] we're all in the same ballpark to me.
[1:04:46] We're talking about $10,000.
[1:04:48] >> I know that's right. Okay. Um, so with
[1:04:51] that I will, um,
[1:04:55] any further comment?
[1:04:57] Yes, Shane.
[1:04:58] >> Can I point out one thing, Mayor? Um, of
[1:05:01] that total compensation increase that,
[1:05:04] uh, Chrissy mentioned, about a third of
[1:05:07] that, actually I think a little over a
[1:05:08] third of that is due to an additional
[1:05:10] employee.
[1:05:12] So,
[1:05:13] I just wanted to make that distinction.
[1:05:15] >> Oh, thank you.
[1:05:16] >> Well, actually though
[1:05:19] Oh, okay.
[1:05:22] I'm sorry.
[1:05:23] >> I have a motion.
[1:05:26] >> Please move to table.
[1:05:27] >> Yeah, so uh before the motion, I just
[1:05:30] want to say that I'm not opposed to
[1:05:32] staff raises. I'm just not ready
[1:05:35] at this time to approve the raises on
[1:05:37] the short notice with all of the
[1:05:39] information that's come forward. So, I'd
[1:05:41] like to move to table the ordinance
[1:05:44] 2026-13
[1:05:46] to a future City Council meeting
[1:05:48] following a publicly noticed work
[1:05:50] session on the city's compensation
[1:05:52] study, compensation philosophy, market
[1:05:55] comparisons, and long-term fiscal
[1:05:57] impacts.
[1:05:58] The work session will be held no later
[1:06:01] than June 30, 2026.
[1:06:04] >> I'll second that.
[1:06:06] >> Okay, it's been moved and seconded to
[1:06:09] table. It's been by Councilwoman Smeuen
[1:06:11] and seconded by Councilman um Young.
[1:06:14] Let's proceed with the roll call vote.
[1:06:16] >> Andrew Young, yes.
[1:06:17] >> Brent Romney, yes.
[1:06:18] >> Jessica Smeuen, yes.
[1:06:20] >> Sarah Blackwood, yes.
[1:06:23] >> Kristiana Man, no.
[1:06:25] >> Okay. It's tabled. Okay, we will move on
[1:06:28] to public hearing for ordinance
[1:06:32] 2026-14.
[1:06:38] » Mayor, I think first it would be
[1:06:40] appropriate to just kind of give an overview of the
[1:06:44] budget here.
[1:06:45] Um so,
[1:06:47] » [clears throat]
[1:06:48] >> for our fiscal year 2027 budget,
[1:06:51] uh from the revenue side of things, um
[1:06:55] uh the city recently, just last week,
[1:06:57] adopted the certified tax rate, which
[1:06:59] means that we will collect the same
[1:07:02] amount of property tax that we have
[1:07:05] Andrew,
[1:07:05] >> we listen? Thanks.
[1:07:07] >> last year
[1:07:08] um plus a little bit for new growth.
[1:07:12] That little bit being about 38,000.
[1:07:15] Um
[1:07:17] for our sales tax revenue, we projected
[1:07:20] uh 50,000 over what we had pr-
[1:07:24] uh we anticipate in this current fiscal
[1:07:26] year.
[1:07:28] Um
[1:07:30] for staffing uh the
[1:07:32] included in the proposed budget is
[1:07:34] hiring an entry-level planner.
[1:07:37] Um
[1:07:39] that would
[1:07:41] uh
[1:07:42] take care of some workload issues and
[1:07:44] then provide our assistant city
[1:07:46] administrator more opportunities to
[1:07:48] learn um the role
[1:07:51] uh in administering the city, kind of
[1:07:53] planning for the future.
[1:07:55] Uh for Lone Peak Public Safety District,
[1:07:58] uh we'll see a 13.94%
[1:08:01] increase.
[1:08:03] Um but
[1:08:05] offsetting that
[1:08:07] uh
[1:08:08] it due to a a 50% step-in that was
[1:08:11] agreed to by both cities.
[1:08:14] Um the city will receive back $140,390
[1:08:19] for this just this year.
[1:08:22] >> [clears throat]
[1:08:23] >> Um
[1:08:25] So so the actual increase is 304,000
[1:08:30] and some change.
[1:08:33] Uh
[1:08:34] We received
[1:08:35] uh an increase in our solid waste, um
[1:08:38] but uh we did an analysis on this and
[1:08:41] don't
[1:08:42] propose an increase in rates at this
[1:08:45] time.
[1:08:47] >> [clears throat]
[1:08:48] >> Also, with our capital projects, there's
[1:08:50] a lot of them included in this budget.
[1:08:53] Um and just a note on this, so by our
[1:08:56] procurement policy, any expense over
[1:08:59] 15,000 will come back to the city
[1:09:01] council. So,
[1:09:03] the majority of these projects would
[1:09:05] come back to city council for a vote to
[1:09:08] approve them, which would need a a
[1:09:10] majority vote of the city council.
[1:09:14] >> [clears throat]
[1:09:14] >> Um so, our budget includes street
[1:09:17] maintenance projects, which we've tried
[1:09:20] to have a very aggressive program on
[1:09:22] this, and I think our our streets
[1:09:24] overall show. There might be someone
[1:09:26] here there that can make an argument,
[1:09:28] and there are a few streets out there um
[1:09:31] that are that are we're trying to get to
[1:09:33] them.
[1:09:34] Um
[1:09:36] Also, uh we have 50,000 in there for
[1:09:39] traffic calming projects, 25,000 for
[1:09:42] sidewalk projects.
[1:09:44] Uh we have our fire station project that
[1:09:46] is uh we've held a groundbreaking, and
[1:09:51] um I provided a funding scenario here
[1:09:54] based on the latest numbers, and this
[1:09:55] will be an agenda item
[1:09:57] uh
[1:09:58] later in this agenda.
[1:10:01] Uh to approve the guaranteed maximum
[1:10:03] price uh for that project.
[1:10:07] Um
[1:10:09] few other highlights uh
[1:10:12] the Canyon Crest Road Improvement
[1:10:13] Project was put off a year. Uh we have
[1:10:16] MAG funding for that. Uh it's a
[1:10:18] significant amount of funding. We're
[1:10:21] only responsible for
[1:10:24] uh 6.77%
[1:10:26] of that.
[1:10:28] Um we There's been proposed a roundabout
[1:10:32] in the budget. Um
[1:10:34] I provided an exhibit B here with
[1:10:38] multiple different funding scenarios. Um
[1:10:40] the most expensive one in the budget is
[1:10:43] included in the budget. Um
[1:10:45] if some of these others come through, it
[1:10:47] would be very helpful from a financial
[1:10:50] standpoint.
[1:10:52] Uh 50,000 for traffic calming projects.
[1:10:56] Um
[1:10:58] We have some water projects uh that
[1:11:01] we've applied for some funding.
[1:11:03] We won't know until later this year, so
[1:11:05] that would be handled in a budget
[1:11:07] amendment if we do get that for our
[1:11:09] match component and and for the revenue
[1:11:11] side.
[1:11:12] Um the largest project of all in the
[1:11:16] budget uh
[1:11:18] and it's not included, but it's
[1:11:19] mentioned for a good reason
[1:11:22] uh
[1:11:23] is there's a proposed
[1:11:25] uh
[1:11:27] multiple projects of $9 million to help
[1:11:31] uh
[1:11:32] improve our pressurized irrigation
[1:11:34] system.
[1:11:36] Uh we plan to have a work session on
[1:11:38] that uh go through through that in more
[1:11:40] detail
[1:11:41] um determine the final scope and then
[1:11:44] we'll we would propose that and and
[1:11:47] include that as a budget amendment.
[1:11:51] » [clears throat]
[1:11:51] >> Um
[1:11:52] As far as equipment replacement goes uh
[1:11:55] this budget anticipates the purchase of
[1:11:57] two new pickup trucks, uh one of them
[1:11:59] being a carryover for this year.
[1:12:02] Um by the time we got to that um
[1:12:05] it
[1:12:08] we'll have to order them. They're
[1:12:09] There's not anything on the lot. So,
[1:12:12] it's it's a rollover one of those.
[1:12:15] A large mower which we discussed
[1:12:17] previously and then our annual lease
[1:12:19] payments on our backhoe
[1:12:21] and mini X.
[1:12:23] Um for the park tax allocation we've
[1:12:27] done some projects with these funds that
[1:12:29] we started collecting a couple years
[1:12:30] ago.
[1:12:32] Um there's a suggestion that
[1:12:36] uh
[1:12:37] we maybe allocate 80% of these funds for
[1:12:39] parks and 20% for historic preservation.
[1:12:43] That's something that we don't have a
[1:12:45] motion yet, but it's something that
[1:12:48] could be included as part of the budget
[1:12:50] to determine how that those funds are
[1:12:52] allocated.
[1:12:55] Um and then also um
[1:12:57] there's been
[1:12:59] a request to create a cash reserve
[1:13:02] policy.
[1:13:04] Um
[1:13:05] and that this be put in place before
[1:13:07] some of these projects move forward
[1:13:09] because
[1:13:11] you know, it's a significant amount of
[1:13:12] money.
[1:13:14] Um and so that's something that uh
[1:13:18] we can move forward if if that's what the
[1:13:21] council would like us to do.
[1:13:24] Um
[1:13:26] so everything's here. It's a balanced
[1:13:28] budget. There's details of projects on
[1:13:31] the project sheet
[1:13:33] uh with all the expenses and where some
[1:13:36] are some projects are funded from
[1:13:38] multiple different funds. It's all
[1:13:40] broken out on here.
[1:13:42] Uh
[1:13:44] what is included today
[1:13:48] in this is uh
[1:13:50] a 5%
[1:13:52] uh
[1:13:53] wage increase.
[1:13:54] And so if it's different than that, that could
[1:13:58] be you know, that would have to be
[1:13:59] changed and it would just filter through
[1:14:02] the the budget. Um
[1:14:05] so it
[1:14:06] you know, it could end up being
[1:14:07] different than what's shown in the
[1:14:09] packet tonight.
[1:14:11] Um so we would just have to make that
[1:14:12] adjustment after.
[1:14:15] Um
[1:14:16] so
[1:14:18] that's kind of an overview of the
[1:14:20] budget. It's pretty aggressive on
[1:14:23] projects. Um
[1:14:25] it
[1:14:27] you know,
[1:14:28] makes me a little nervous on the capital
[1:14:30] improvement fund to spend half of it in
[1:14:32] one year. Um
[1:14:34] our our fund balances have allowed the
[1:14:37] city to
[1:14:39] uh
[1:14:40] do some different things. When some key
[1:14:42] properties came up, we were able to
[1:14:44] purchase them. Um
[1:14:46] part of that came from the capital
[1:14:47] improvement fund.
[1:14:49] And it's not a a revenue generating
[1:14:52] fund. It's kind of what we end up in
[1:14:54] surplus in different situations. And so
[1:14:57] that's that's how we've been able to
[1:14:59] survive without um, bonding
[1:15:03] much at all the last, you know, 25 or 30
[1:15:05] years.
[1:15:06] So.
[1:15:09] » [clears throat]
[1:15:10] >> I think that's the overview unless you
[1:15:12] want me to touch on something else.
[1:15:18] » No.
[1:15:19] Anybody have any questions for Shane
[1:15:20] before we go to public hearing?
[1:15:24] With that
[1:15:24] >> Just a quick question that will probably
[1:15:26] be helpful for everyone.
[1:15:28] And this might be for Mr. Casey as well.
[1:15:31] So, just to get some clarification,
[1:15:34] you're saying some things we might have
[1:15:35] to adjust, massage, or change. Uh,
[1:15:38] for example, the uh the 5% increase or
[1:15:42] clarification on the park tax with uh
[1:15:45] historical stuff.
[1:15:47] I understand we're approving this
[1:15:48] tonight.
[1:15:50] What is the latitude we have to change
[1:15:52] this after today? Can you just explain a
[1:15:55] little bit of that? This is the first
[1:15:56] go-around for the full budget. How how
[1:15:59] locked in stone are we tonight? And
[1:16:03] then, where does it go from there with
[1:16:05] uh minor tweaks or major removals or
[1:16:08] additions?
[1:16:10] Thanks.
[1:16:10] >> Well, I'll let Shane answer that.
[1:16:12] >> From the wage standpoint, say if it went
[1:16:14] from
[1:16:16] five to four and a half or 4.2 or
[1:16:18] whatever your number is, okay? Um, I go
[1:16:21] back and plug that into our wage
[1:16:23] spreadsheet.
[1:16:25] It goes [clears throat] to a different
[1:16:26] sheet within the same spreadsheet and
[1:16:27] tells me how much gets allocated to each
[1:16:30] fund. So then I go through this budget
[1:16:33] document and and make all those edits.
[1:16:37] So, um
[1:16:39] >> Sorry, maybe I should clarify. When do
[1:16:40] we make those changes and how do we do
[1:16:43] it?
[1:16:43] >> Well, it would
[1:16:44] >> next
[1:16:44] >> council meeting.
[1:16:45] >> So, we would just vote again on any
[1:16:46] changes to the final budget or does it
[1:16:48] all have to be tonight?
[1:16:50] >> right now
[1:16:51] if you
[1:16:53] Yeah, if you made that change
[1:16:55] it would be part of the motion.
[1:16:57] >> So, maybe it'd be be helpful to point to
[1:16:58] our actually our next agenda item
[1:17:00] because that's what an amendment we're
[1:17:02] amending our current budget. So, there's
[1:17:04] journal entries that say where
[1:17:06] >> that's for I know that's for our current
[1:17:07] I just want to
[1:17:07] >> No, it's the same process.
[1:17:09] >> It's the same process.
[1:17:10] >> Okay.
[1:17:10] >> again.
[1:17:11] >> So, just I'm what I'm trying to gather
[1:17:12] is how specific do you want us to be in
[1:17:14] this motion? Like, do you want us to
[1:17:15] nitpick and everything so we get it like
[1:17:17] pretty locked in? Would that be helpful
[1:17:19] or are we going to be doing this more
[1:17:21] afterwards?
[1:17:22] >> that's up to council. I mean, typically
[1:17:23] we do a mid-year budget adjustment like
[1:17:25] the first part of the year and then one
[1:17:27] like at this meeting.
[1:17:29] >> Okay, thanks. That helps.
[1:17:31] >> Typically
[1:17:31] >> could be special circumstances that
[1:17:33] would require I mean, let's say we've
[1:17:36] already made a decision
[1:17:37] to
[1:17:38] wait and make a determination. Maybe 5%
[1:17:41] is the right number. I just don't know.
[1:17:42] I would like to discuss it and and have
[1:17:45] more of a discussion so we don't keep
[1:17:47] people all night.
[1:17:48] Um
[1:17:50] So, if that's the case, we could have a
[1:17:52] budget amendment next meeting.
[1:17:55] Right?
[1:17:56] To make and and I assume that pay raise
[1:17:58] could be made retroactive
[1:18:00] >> Well, an amendment requires a public
[1:18:02] hearing.
[1:18:03] >> So, you have to have 7 days notice.
[1:18:06] >> Yes. So, there's different ways to
[1:18:07] handle it. It It could be approved like
[1:18:10] it is right now
[1:18:12] but that
[1:18:14] like the increases aren't implemented.
[1:18:18] And then
[1:18:19] um the numbers would be plugged in
[1:18:22] and that's what would go through payroll
[1:18:23] and everything that are approved.
[1:18:26] And then at the the next budget
[1:18:28] adjustment it you know, whatever
[1:18:30] difference could be adjusted out.
[1:18:32] There's different ways to do it.
[1:18:34] >> I I think Andrew's um normally we don't
[1:18:37] do it this way and so a budget
[1:18:40] adjustment comes when there's something
[1:18:41] that's
[1:18:42] unexpected that's happened or an
[1:18:44] opportunity came like Shane has
[1:18:46] mentioned when like we we have the
[1:18:48] opportunity to buy the 100 South
[1:18:50] property.
[1:18:51] That wasn't in the budget.
[1:18:53] >> there's several gray areas. A $9 million
[1:18:55] bond that's like not certified but wage
[1:18:58] increase for the entire staff.
[1:19:00] >> Right.
[1:19:00] >> And
[1:19:01] park tax money and there's just several
[1:19:04] gray ones. I'm just trying to
[1:19:05] I get prepared for how detailed to go
[1:19:07] with them. That's all.
[1:19:08] >> I think we should air on the on the side
[1:19:10] of what if we know it now, we approve it
[1:19:12] so we don't have to go through
[1:19:14] make all the changes.
[1:19:16] Um
[1:19:17] >> Just like Shane said, any expenditure
[1:19:19] over $15,000 has to come back and be
[1:19:21] approved individually.
[1:19:22] >> Right.
[1:19:23] >> So we're not locked in to any of these
[1:19:25] projects.
[1:19:28] » You know that
[1:19:28] >> I don't mean to belabor this but we kind
[1:19:30] of are if we put in the $9 million.
[1:19:32] I mean that will come back and
[1:19:33] >> million's not in the budget.
[1:19:35] >> It's not in the budget.
[1:19:36] >> Well, why are we putting it in the
[1:19:37] packet in the budget
[1:19:38] >> It's not there.
[1:19:41] >> But it's not in it's not part of this
[1:19:43] budget that you'll be approving.
[1:19:44] >> It's just in the ex- okay.
[1:19:46] >> a budget amendment in the in the future.
[1:19:48] >> Yeah, the way it's explained it would
[1:19:50] it's not included in the budget
[1:19:52] because things haven't been finalized
[1:19:54] but it would be
[1:19:56] brought into the budget through the
[1:19:58] budget amendment process in the future.
[1:20:00] >> Okay, that makes sense. Thanks.
[1:20:04] >> Okay.
[1:20:05] >> Questions now or waiting till after the
[1:20:06] public hearing?
[1:20:06] >> No, we're going to um do the public
[1:20:07] hearing and then um we'll have council
[1:20:10] discussion if that's okay.
[1:20:13] I'm going to open the public
[1:20:14] hearing. I have um
[1:20:17] So we will be discussing anything that
[1:20:20] is on our
[1:20:21] um general budget.
[1:20:23] Um I have three public com- comment
[1:20:26] cards so we will start with Jeff
[1:20:28] Gookstool followed by Barry Butler. If
[1:20:32] you can come up and state your name and
[1:20:35] just the street name and then um
[1:20:38] you'll have 3 minutes
[1:20:40] on the clock to make a statement.
[1:20:44] >> Uh sure. Um I don't see that Oh, there
[1:20:46] it goes, right there. Okay, I was
[1:20:48] looking for my my timer. Okay. So, um
[1:20:52] what I'm
[1:20:53] coming up and I'm I was thrilled to see
[1:20:55] the things that were in I'm getting
[1:20:56] ready to mention here on the budget is
[1:20:59] in regards to Canyon Crest and the Ridge
[1:21:02] um Ridge Drive. Um and I and I've really
[1:21:06] kind of come to the point now after
[1:21:08] sitting in this meeting that I have a
[1:21:09] question, okay? Now, I did a survey,
[1:21:13] okay, and I have 39 homes that are on
[1:21:16] the south side of Ridge Drive, okay?
[1:21:20] And I need to know if you guys need a
[1:21:23] survey done cuz this is 40 homes and
[1:21:27] I'll go do the other side of Ridge Drive
[1:21:30] if you want me to so that we can get a
[1:21:32] clear perspective of who's really
[1:21:35] wanting to do this. I got some positive
[1:21:38] stuff here. I'm going to hand that to
[1:21:40] Andrew, but you guys need to tell me
[1:21:41] what you want me to do cuz I'm willing
[1:21:43] to go out there and hustle people's
[1:21:45] homes and do this. I'm retired and I
[1:21:49] have a lot of passion about this
[1:21:50] project.
[1:21:51] >> Well, Mr. Gupta, why don't you tell them
[1:21:52] your actual views? Some of them might
[1:21:54] not know you or where you stand on
[1:21:55] things.
[1:21:56] >> Oh, yeah.
[1:21:57] >> But thank you for doing all that
[1:21:58] research.
[1:21:59] >> Uh
[1:22:00] I have a lot of passion about that
[1:22:02] street out there on Canyon Crest and
[1:22:04] Ridge and the importance of doing an
[1:22:08] actual uh
[1:22:10] roundabout.
[1:22:12] It is extremely effective. The city here
[1:22:15] has done an excellent job getting
[1:22:17] information back as far as from
[1:22:20] engineers, their recommendations. I
[1:22:23] mean, you guys have We spent some money.
[1:22:26] And I think it would be of our best
[1:22:28] interest to do that. I have Many of you
[1:22:31] know Bethany Sorenson, her little girl
[1:22:34] was almost hit by a car out there. And
[1:22:36] the speed limit is so frustrating
[1:22:39] because they're suddenly right on top
[1:22:44] of the kids while they're trying or the
[1:22:45] adults while they're trying to cross
[1:22:47] that intersection.
[1:22:49] And it's tragic. We're going to have a
[1:22:50] death.
[1:22:51] And I hate to say this, but it probably
[1:22:53] will be a child because they're
[1:22:56] they don't think like us adults do. And
[1:22:59] we'll lose them.
[1:23:00] Uh it is so dangerous.
[1:23:02] And I love our police. They've done a
[1:23:05] great job trying to slow the traffic
[1:23:07] down,
[1:23:08] but it's not working.
[1:23:10] Okay, we just really know it's not
[1:23:12] working.
[1:23:13] So, it's a freeway out there.
[1:23:16] And um
[1:23:18] we've got a lot [clears throat] of
[1:23:18] people who feel
[1:23:20] that a roundabout would be one of the
[1:23:22] better ways. I know there's a couple
[1:23:23] people here on the council who aren't
[1:23:25] too thrilled about doing roundabouts,
[1:23:27] but something has to be done.
[1:23:29] And you're the people to push this thing
[1:23:32] through, but remember
[1:23:34] we got all these people out here who
[1:23:36] want it.
[1:23:38] >> Thank you, Mr. Guptill. We've got
[1:23:40] Barry Butler followed by Christian
[1:23:42] Evertine.
[1:23:45] >> Uh just a thought. I sitting here trying
[1:23:47] to read the fine print.
[1:23:49] >> Oh, I'm sorry. Can we have you state
[1:23:51] your name and
[1:23:53] >> Avenue.
[1:23:53] >> It's because our recorder is in here.
[1:23:55] >> No, she's listening, so
[1:23:56] >> Thank you.
[1:23:57] Can these screens be flipped from
[1:23:59] landscape to portrait so we can see in
[1:24:01] the gallery?
[1:24:02] It It We could blow it up two or three
[1:24:05] times as much, we could actually see
[1:24:06] what we're talking about. Just a
[1:24:07] thought.
[1:24:09] Um I'm also here about the roundabout on
[1:24:11] Ridge and Canyon Crest.
[1:24:14] Um my wife and I are educators. I was
[1:24:17] also a financial planner before that.
[1:24:20] And
[1:24:21] we love to walk our dogs. We'd like to
[1:24:24] go across Canyon Crest on the zebra,
[1:24:27] which is supposed to be kind of
[1:24:29] bulletproof. When you're entering that,
[1:24:31] it is sacred. No cars should enter when
[1:24:34] anybody's on that crossing one side all
[1:24:37] the way to the curb on the other.
[1:24:39] And yet
[1:24:40] it's the wild, wild west.
[1:24:43] Uh we like to walk our dogs. Last year,
[1:24:46] repeatedly across the zebra crosswalk up
[1:24:49] into the foothills of the mountains,
[1:24:51] explore along the foothill pathways, and
[1:24:53] come back.
[1:24:54] One time, and I've sent this email to
[1:24:57] all the council members here.
[1:24:59] Now you can put a face
[1:25:01] to those emails.
[1:25:03] My wife and I, there's that flashing
[1:25:05] light on the zebra.
[1:25:08] When you hit that light button, we're
[1:25:11] looking one way, the other. No cars. All
[1:25:13] right. With the two dogs, we walk
[1:25:15] across, my wife and I.
[1:25:18] We get halfway across, all of a sudden
[1:25:20] they come screaming around the bend out
[1:25:22] of the roundabout. And this one time,
[1:25:25] this car came right up to us. I froze. I
[1:25:28] paralyzed. I had a dog in hand, my wife
[1:25:31] had the other. I held my hand up
[1:25:34] visually to get their attention, and
[1:25:36] screaming at the top of my lungs,
[1:25:38] "Stop!"
[1:25:40] Thankfully, they did. What would happen
[1:25:42] if that driver was distracted?
[1:25:45] We would have been a statistic.
[1:25:48] Kind of the one that's coming up. I'm
[1:25:50] for sure of that.
[1:25:52] Uh increased traffic with Mountain View
[1:25:55] Academy. If you just do a right only as
[1:25:58] you exit that with parents, that's going
[1:26:00] to bring people onto Ridge to come back
[1:26:02] on. It makes that problem even more
[1:26:05] uh
[1:26:06] worse.
[1:26:08] Uh
[1:26:09] I know there's funding in place to
[1:26:11] improve Ridge Drive.
[1:26:13] It's happening this next fiscal year.
[1:26:17] The money's there to do that.
[1:26:19] There is no better place than right now
[1:26:23] at this time to get this roundabout in
[1:26:26] to save a life.
[1:26:28] Just one more note.
[1:26:30] After school, the last day of school, my
[1:26:32] wife and I decided to go out there and
[1:26:34] just watch the kids on their last day of
[1:26:35] school cross. Ah.
[1:26:40] We got there late cuz they were done
[1:26:41] half day. We set up our lawn chairs,
[1:26:45] pushed the button,
[1:26:47] cross, and invariably more than half, I
[1:26:50] would say 75% of the cars going through
[1:26:52] that zebra with us in the crosswalk,
[1:26:55] didn't even know we were there or care.
[1:26:57] And we're old and we're adults and we don't want to have any statistics in
[1:27:04] our city. Thank you.
[1:27:05] >> Thank you, Mr. Butler. Um we've got
[1:27:08] Kristen Eberting followed by Michelle
[1:27:10] Williams. Again, please state your name
[1:27:12] and your street name.
[1:27:14] >> Kristen Eberting, Cascade Avenue.
[1:27:17] I'm here tonight to ask the city to move
[1:27:19] forward with installing a roundabout at
[1:27:21] the intersection of Canyon Crest and
[1:27:23] Ridge Drive.
[1:27:25] This is not a new concern. Back in 2016
[1:27:28] or 17, I came to the city looking for
[1:27:30] solutions
[1:27:31] because traffic on Canyon Crest was
[1:27:33] moving so fast making left-hand turn
[1:27:35] onto the road felt dangerous.
[1:27:37] At that time, the only suggestions
[1:27:40] um was to make it a right turn only and
[1:27:43] I said, "No, thank you." because I
[1:27:45] didn't want my neighbors mad at me.
[1:27:48] In August of 2022, I personally invited
[1:27:50] the mayor to spend 10 minutes at the
[1:27:53] intersection so she could see firsthand
[1:27:55] how dangerous the conditions had become.
[1:27:58] I never received a response. My goal is
[1:28:01] not to criticize anyone, but simply to
[1:28:03] ensure that city leadership could
[1:28:05] witness what residents experience every
[1:28:07] day.
[1:28:08] Nearly a decade has passed since my
[1:28:10] first concerns and nothing mean
[1:28:12] meaningful has been done to slow
[1:28:14] vehicles down or to improve the safety
[1:28:16] at this intersection besides a flashing
[1:28:19] crosswalk, which most vehicles do not
[1:28:22] stop for.
[1:28:24] City officials have noticed noted that
[1:28:26] enforcing the speed limit is challenging
[1:28:28] because of the road's topography,
[1:28:31] curves, hills, and the limited
[1:28:34] availability of safe locations for
[1:28:36] officers to pull people over.
[1:28:39] A roundabout would naturally reduce
[1:28:41] vehicle speeds, improve traffic flow,
[1:28:43] and make turning movements safer for
[1:28:45] residents, cyclists, and pedestrians. It
[1:28:49] is a proven calming traffic measure.
[1:28:53] Just yesterday while I was turning left
[1:28:55] out of Sierra Avenue, a vehicle came
[1:28:57] toward me at such a high speed that for
[1:28:59] one moment I thought I was going to get
[1:29:01] hit.
[1:29:02] This is just a stark reminder that
[1:29:04] safety issues residents
[1:29:07] are having are very real.
[1:29:10] For 10 years, we have been living with
[1:29:12] the same safety concerns. We have
[1:29:14] identified the problem. We have received
[1:29:17] professional recommendations, yet we are
[1:29:19] still fighting the plan for action.
[1:29:22] To- Tonight, I am asking the council to
[1:29:24] do more than acknowledge the issue. I'm
[1:29:27] asking for a commitment to prioritize
[1:29:30] the roundabout at this location and to
[1:29:32] provide the public with a clear path
[1:29:34] forward.
[1:29:35] If four engineers have already concluded
[1:29:37] that a roundabout is the right solution,
[1:29:40] then the ques- question should no longer
[1:29:42] be whether something needs to be done,
[1:29:44] but when.
[1:29:45] I appreciate your time and
[1:29:47] consideration, and I hope we can finally
[1:29:48] make meaningful progress on improving
[1:29:51] safety at this intersection.
[1:29:53] Thank you.
[1:29:54] >> Thank you. We've got Michael Williams
[1:29:57] followed by Lisa Marion. Again, please
[1:30:00] state your name and the name of the
[1:30:02] street that you live on.
[1:30:08] Oh, yeah.
[1:30:14] So
[1:30:17] » Okay, I was here last month. I'm Lisa
[1:30:18] Marie and I think I've been here a
[1:30:19] bunch.
[1:30:20] >> What's your street name?
[1:30:21] >> Oh, Fifer Horn Drive. So um
[1:30:25] I I'm also
[1:30:27] going to talk about the roundabout. So,
[1:30:29] thanks again. I'm glad to see all of you
[1:30:31] here. um
[1:30:32] I care a lot about safety. I have five
[1:30:34] children, so that's really important um
[1:30:37] to me as well. I live on the northwest
[1:30:40] side of Alpine and we have a lot of
[1:30:42] traffic issues over there. I There's
[1:30:45] like at least an annual accident coming
[1:30:47] out. There's a little T over there um
[1:30:49] that it that is
[1:30:51] I don't know if it's reported police or
[1:30:52] whatever, but it always takes down the
[1:30:53] Nelsons fence.
[1:30:55] Anyway,
[1:30:56] I um we have also submitted a petition
[1:31:00] against the roundabout that I think you
[1:31:01] guys have probably all received your
[1:31:03] email.
[1:31:04] um
[1:31:05] I
[1:31:06] We feel that it would actually cause
[1:31:08] more problems than be a benefit to the
[1:31:10] city. It's I think a minimum of 1.5
[1:31:12] million dollars and we're quabbling over
[1:31:14] a raise for Shane over a few percent,
[1:31:17] which um seems really silly when we're
[1:31:20] trying to put in a really expensive
[1:31:21] thing. I I think didn't you hire
[1:31:23] somebody to come and do a survey and the
[1:31:26] roundabout might have been number four
[1:31:27] on that list and the most expensive. So,
[1:31:29] I think um we all care about safety and
[1:31:31] we want people to feel safe and that
[1:31:33] their
[1:31:34] voices are being heard and that we're
[1:31:36] um you know, fixing the problems in our
[1:31:38] community, but feels like
[1:31:41] a roundabout is a really expensive way
[1:31:44] to do it and in a lot of ways it's
[1:31:47] unsafe. I used to live in Carmel,
[1:31:48] Indiana and I think it's the city with
[1:31:50] the most roundabouts in the whole
[1:31:52] country. So, I saw that they do have a
[1:31:55] benefit in some ways that are fantastic,
[1:31:57] but there also are problems with it and
[1:31:59] if an issue is trying to cross the
[1:32:01] street, um roundabouts are actually
[1:32:03] really complicated for young kids to
[1:32:04] figure out how to figure out the traffic
[1:32:06] pattern. Anyway, that's it. Thank you.
[1:32:08] >> Thank you. And then
[1:32:10] um
[1:32:11] we'll have Lindy Williams and Michael
[1:32:13] Williams.
[1:32:17] So again, if you could just state your
[1:32:18] name and your street name.
[1:32:21] >> My name is Lindy Williams and I live on
[1:32:23] Pine View. So I drive on
[1:32:26] I go to High Bench and then Ridge Drive
[1:32:28] every day, all day. Um, I take kids to
[1:32:31] the schools and I don't see a need for
[1:32:34] the roundabout. Um
[1:32:37] I don't have enough traffic that I wait
[1:32:40] for. So that's all. Thanks.
[1:32:44] » And then Michael Williams.
[1:32:50] » I'm Mike Williams. I live on Pine View
[1:32:52] Drive.
[1:32:53] And I just heard about this today, so I
[1:32:55] don't know a whole lot about it, but I'm
[1:32:57] opposed to a roundabout on a three-way
[1:33:00] that's not even really stop.
[1:33:02] And I think there'd be cheaper solutions
[1:33:05] to this uh whatever the problem is. Kids
[1:33:08] crossing the road.
[1:33:10] Um, yeah, that's it.
[1:33:12] >> Thank you.
[1:33:13] Okay. Um, are there any other comments
[1:33:15] regarding the um
[1:33:18] final budget?
[1:33:23] Can you come up and state your name and
[1:33:25] your address? And then afterwards, if
[1:33:27] you can fill out a form, I'd appreciate
[1:33:29] it.
[1:33:29] >> Actually, I put one in, but I said the
[1:33:31] master plan. But anyway, it is related
[1:33:33] to the budget.
[1:33:34] >> Oh, I didn't see it. I'm sorry.
[1:33:35] >> It might
[1:33:38] may not have gotten in.
[1:33:39] >> I didn't see it. Sorry about that.
[1:33:41] >> is Carl Negley. I live on Cascade
[1:33:43] Avenue. Uh I have two comments. One is
[1:33:46] about
[1:33:47] the budget for the compensation. If you
[1:33:51] guys are putting together a compensation
[1:33:53] and you're not taking into account the
[1:33:55] fact that Alpine pays 100%
[1:33:58] of the medical and then you're comparing
[1:34:01] us to other cities, you guys are flying
[1:34:02] blind. You need to have the total
[1:34:04] compensation
[1:34:06] because everybody else that's in that
[1:34:08] study on the other cities,
[1:34:10] they're paying for part of their medical
[1:34:12] and you guys aren't accounting for that,
[1:34:14] which is a direct
[1:34:16] benefit for the employees. So, you need
[1:34:19] to figure out what that looks like
[1:34:21] because it's a big piece of the budget.
[1:34:23] On the roundabout, I'm in favor of the
[1:34:25] roundabout.
[1:34:27] The only other comment than what's
[1:34:29] already been said is if there's a
[1:34:31] fatality on that crosswalk
[1:34:33] and if that fatality is a child,
[1:34:36] nobody on this council will survive the
[1:34:38] next election. I can guarantee that.
[1:34:42] So, that's my comment for tonight.
[1:34:44] >> Thank you, sir.
[1:34:47] Okay, if there are no further comments
[1:34:49] regarding our general budget, we'll
[1:34:50] proceed with comments from our
[1:34:54] councilman.
[1:34:57] » Okay, this is a big topic.
[1:35:00] I'll just go through them and uh feel
[1:35:03] free to
[1:35:04] ask any questions or uh
[1:35:07] I just if you could just let me get
[1:35:08] through them, I think it will be
[1:35:09] beneficial for us all.
[1:35:11] Uh
[1:35:12] I will start on the roundabout since
[1:35:13] it's one of the uh
[1:35:16] biggest items on the budget and I agree
[1:35:20] with what both groups have said here and
[1:35:23] I've had a lot of calls about it today.
[1:35:26] We want a fix so this and I've talked to
[1:35:29] Brent and a little bit of Jessica's. We
[1:35:32] want a fix for that area.
[1:35:35] I am not against it
[1:35:36] cuz traffic is my number one thing.
[1:35:39] It is expensive as you know. You know my
[1:35:41] desire to have it paid for through the
[1:35:43] sale of land.
[1:35:45] I think it's a golden solution if we can
[1:35:47] get that.
[1:35:49] Um
[1:35:50] the things I just want to bring for
[1:35:52] everyone including the great research
[1:35:54] that Mr. Guptill has done and and his
[1:35:56] neighbors and knowing that we need
[1:35:59] something there as a couple residents
[1:36:01] have come
[1:36:02] and said, "What about stop signs?"
[1:36:05] Now, I'm not saying not to the
[1:36:06] roundabout, but I have a question that
[1:36:08] everyone should probably know. If we
[1:36:10] were to approve the roundabout,
[1:36:12] how long would it take given the best
[1:36:15] situation with MAG that it starts
[1:36:18] construction? So, cuz what I'm
[1:36:20] understanding is 10 months minimum,
[1:36:22] maybe a year and a half to 2 years.
[1:36:25] Let's say we approve it in the budget,
[1:36:28] 1.5-ish,
[1:36:30] and it goes forward, how long until are
[1:36:33] we looking at it actually being
[1:36:34] implemented? Cuz I think it'll help us
[1:36:37] in a couple decisions.
[1:36:38] >> We We really can't answer that question
[1:36:40] right now. The one challenge with this,
[1:36:42] it's it's a joint project with Highland
[1:36:44] City. They have to acquire a bunch of
[1:36:47] right-of-way.
[1:36:48] And it depends on how that goes for
[1:36:51] them. So,
[1:36:51] >> about the
[1:36:52] >> The Alpine portion won't start without
[1:36:54] the Highland portion.
[1:36:56] >> Okay, so so that's a little bit unknown.
[1:36:58] >> But I think the original thought was it
[1:36:59] was going to start this year, but
[1:37:00] because of the delays, the soonest would
[1:37:02] be probably next spring, right?
[1:37:04] >> Yeah, as far as the soonest it would
[1:37:06] start, yes, next spring, but that's even
[1:37:08] dependent on right-of-way acquisition.
[1:37:11] >> Councilman Rommel, I call you Brent, but
[1:37:12] I'll do my best to remember.
[1:37:14] What If we approve this, are you
[1:37:16] intending
[1:37:18] with the residents who want this to only
[1:37:21] install this when
[1:37:24] the MAG grant happens or before?
[1:37:28] >> No, it's it would be at the same time.
[1:37:30] That's talking to the staff, for Shane
[1:37:32] in particular and and Jason, our city
[1:37:34] engineer.
[1:37:35] It doesn't make This is And that's part
[1:37:38] of the reason is the timing.
[1:37:39] >> Okay. I I agree. We're going to tear up
[1:37:40] Canyon Crest.
[1:37:42] >> We are absolutely absolutely going to
[1:37:43] tear up Canyon Crest
[1:37:44] >> And some people those who know that. The
[1:37:46] Canyon Crest has a project and so it
[1:37:48] works to rip them up together.
[1:37:49] >> Right. The Basically, it's going to redo
[1:37:51] Canyon Crest all the way from the
[1:37:52] roundabout to SR 92. So, it's the all
[1:37:55] street. That's why there hasn't been
[1:37:56] maintenance on that street for so many
[1:37:57] years. It is because as my understanding
[1:38:00] is because we we knew that this project
[1:38:02] was coming and you don't want to
[1:38:03] inconvenience residents twice.
[1:38:05] There's a cost savings by doing it at
[1:38:07] the same time as the other project
[1:38:09] because you don't have to do as much. Um
[1:38:12] >> Okay.
[1:38:12] >> And then and then the in the budget
[1:38:13] proposal, the first I'd seen this
[1:38:15] it was on Fri- Fri- Well, I saw it
[1:38:17] Monday morning when I first looked at
[1:38:18] the budget. The staff has come up with
[1:38:20] another proposal that could be a cost
[1:38:21] saver
[1:38:22] that would alter the plan a little bit
[1:38:24] for that path.
[1:38:26] Um and be able to use some of that money
[1:38:28] toward
[1:38:29] a potential potential roundabout.
[1:38:31] >> Okay.
[1:38:31] >> And then the other aspect that our Shane
[1:38:34] has discussed
[1:38:35] is that if the roundabout is proposed or
[1:38:38] is the proposed is approved that um
[1:38:41] that because it's going to be won't be
[1:38:43] done in this fiscal
[1:38:45] the majority it won't be completed in
[1:38:46] this fiscal year that it could be
[1:38:49] the any cost out of the out of the
[1:38:51] capital improvement funds or these other
[1:38:53] funds could be split over two fiscal
[1:38:55] years. So, it's not just a single
[1:38:57] budgetary hit on one year. Kind of like
[1:38:59] we're doing with the fire station. We're
[1:39:00] spreading that out over over two fiscal
[1:39:02] years.
[1:39:03] >> Thank you. So, and just a clarification,
[1:39:05] this whole project we're talking about
[1:39:07] roundabout and the MAG does not increase
[1:39:08] the width of Canyon Crest. A lot of
[1:39:11] people ask about that. It does not. As
[1:39:13] far as I understand, am I wrong?
[1:39:15] >> No, it's all it has It's adding a
[1:39:17] multi-purpose trail.
[1:39:19] >> right, but not increase.
[1:39:19] >> Within the same right-of-way.
[1:39:21] >> Right. So, say this takes a year or till
[1:39:23] next spring.
[1:39:24] Are you guys at all opposed to putting
[1:39:25] stop signs there so we can mitigate the
[1:39:27] problem in the meantime in a cheap way
[1:39:29] and then
[1:39:30] whether it's approved or not, continue
[1:39:32] with a roundabout in the interim or do
[1:39:34] you want it to be left bare until we get
[1:39:37] uh a full-fledged roundabout there?
[1:39:40] >> So, with the engineers' recommendations,
[1:39:43] um we've we've already had four separate
[1:39:45] engineers recommend a roundabout for
[1:39:47] this intersection. The most recent was
[1:39:49] Fair & Peers, which did
[1:39:51] um
[1:39:52] a study related solely to the Mountain
[1:39:54] View Academy, solely related to
[1:39:56] >> I'm not discounting
[1:39:58] >> I'm just getting to I'm getting to
[1:39:59] answer your question.
[1:40:00] And they found that
[1:40:03] as we divert traffic, Mountain View
[1:40:05] traffic off of Main, which is a
[1:40:06] significant goal of the council,
[1:40:08] >> goes to there.
[1:40:09] >> that it will major A lot of that traffic
[1:40:10] will go to Ridge and Canyon Crest. And
[1:40:13] they opined, independent of any
[1:40:14] knowledge of the history of this, and
[1:40:16] the other three engineers have
[1:40:18] recommended a roundabout, they opined
[1:40:20] that that would likely cause the
[1:40:21] intersection to completely fail.
[1:40:23] And but our engineer
[1:40:26] >> let them know that there's a proposed
[1:40:28] roundabout, and they put in their
[1:40:30] traffic report that
[1:40:33] um
[1:40:34] the proposed roundabout would alleviate
[1:40:35] the concern about that intersection
[1:40:37] failing, just from an operational
[1:40:39] standpoint. It had nothing to do with
[1:40:40] the safety concerns that are also raised
[1:40:42] by citizens.
[1:40:44] >> I I'm with you on all the studies.
[1:40:45] >> to get the results of that really, you
[1:40:47] know,
[1:40:47] >> No, I'm [clears throat] not discounting
[1:40:48] anything of the roundabout or anything.
[1:40:50] >> as the stop signs go,
[1:40:52] >> what we do in the year, so that some of
[1:40:54] the concerns that everyone raised.
[1:40:56] Everyone has raised safety concerns.
[1:40:58] The only objection any residents have,
[1:41:00] like the Pfeiffer-Horn folks,
[1:41:02] is not that it's not a good idea Well, I
[1:41:04] guess some of them said
[1:41:06] it's that there might be a cheaper
[1:41:07] option. So, say we do go with this, I
[1:41:09] just would like to
[1:41:12] propose the option that we do something
[1:41:14] quickly and cheaply to fix it in the
[1:41:16] meantime. That's That's all I'm saying.
[1:41:17] >> I'll give you my recollection of what
[1:41:19] other engineers have said about stop
[1:41:20] signs, and what some residents have
[1:41:23] expressed their opinion, is that would reduce efficiency overall. A
[1:41:28] roundabout The purpose of the roundabout
[1:41:30] needs We've had four engineers say it
[1:41:32] would not only improve safety because of
[1:41:33] the the topography, you blind curve, and
[1:41:35] the and the hillcrest, but it would
[1:41:37] improve operational efficiency. And the
[1:41:39] stop signs, you can correct me if I'm
[1:41:41] wrong, would detract from that
[1:41:43] operational efficiency that is currently
[1:41:45] in place.
[1:41:46] >> I I was just saying
[1:41:47] >> a temporary refuge?
[1:41:49] You know how there's like temporary
[1:41:50] speed humps? Is there a temporary
[1:41:52] pedestrian so that
[1:41:54] um
[1:41:55] refuge that we can implement? Cuz
[1:41:57] really, if we're you know,
[1:42:00] for me, the primary concern is safety of
[1:42:02] pedestrians, especially our younger
[1:42:04] pedestrians.
[1:42:05] I think I talked to you before about the
[1:42:07] lights and how, you know, there's even
[1:42:08] talk of more advanced warning and maybe
[1:42:11] even yellow lights instead of white
[1:42:13] lights, cuz sometimes in really bright
[1:42:14] light, it's visibility is hard on just
[1:42:18] the white lights.
[1:42:19] But um I know Shane's mentioned many
[1:42:21] times to have a pedestrian refuge, um
[1:42:24] that that could be a possible solution
[1:42:26] to make it safer for the pedestrians.
[1:42:29] But is there a way to Is there such a
[1:42:30] thing as a temporary or something that
[1:42:33] wouldn't be as um
[1:42:36] evasive,
[1:42:37] you know, and something that could be
[1:42:39] more cost-effective, but still have the
[1:42:41] same effect?
[1:42:43] >> We haven't looked into it, but there's
[1:42:45] likely something like that out there. I
[1:42:47] mean, there's the
[1:42:49] speed hump or whatever the Highland use
[1:42:52] There's probably some composite product
[1:42:55] out there like that.
[1:42:57] We can check it
[1:42:57] >> Cuz I think that's something that we can
[1:42:59] look at until the project starts, cuz
[1:43:01] we're, you know, this project was the
[1:43:03] project that we're talking about is the
[1:43:05] project that was funded by uh
[1:43:07] Mountainland Association of Governments,
[1:43:09] and it's a multi-use trails that is
[1:43:11] going to span from
[1:43:13] the Murdock Canal Trail, and it's
[1:43:14] already started down um Highland, and it
[1:43:17] stops at SR-92. It will continue from
[1:43:20] SR-92
[1:43:22] along Canyon Crest all the way to our
[1:43:24] roundabout.
[1:43:25] And MAG is going to be paying for the
[1:43:28] lion's share of it. It's like 97. No,
[1:43:30] 93.7%
[1:43:33] of the of the total cost of the project
[1:43:35] and the city is responsible for the
[1:43:37] portion that's in our city and the
[1:43:39] remainder to make up for that. So like
[1:43:41] 6.3%.
[1:43:43] Um
[1:43:44] So that's the project that we're talking
[1:43:47] about. Um there are a lot of things that
[1:43:50] I know Shane has um suggested. This is a
[1:43:52] project that should have
[1:43:54] been started and working on but with the
[1:43:55] way that MAG works is it approves a
[1:43:58] project but it doesn't actually fund yet
[1:44:00] until 4 years later.
[1:44:02] And so um you know some of the things
[1:44:05] that we have done to get ready for it,
[1:44:07] you know you know uh Brent was talking
[1:44:09] about how it could be cost effective to
[1:44:10] do it at the same time. We did the um
[1:44:14] pressurized irrigation upside pipe
[1:44:15] up-sizing cuz we knew that road is going
[1:44:17] to be torn up. We didn't want to start
[1:44:20] on that project even though it can't be
[1:44:22] fully completed
[1:44:25] in preparation for the roads being torn
[1:44:26] up this spring which didn't happen but
[1:44:29] it'll still happen, right? Um I think
[1:44:31] the concern originally was when the
[1:44:33] project was supposed to come that if we
[1:44:36] put in hardscapes meaning concrete and
[1:44:39] things that can really help that they're
[1:44:41] really just going to be torn up within
[1:44:43] months. And so to me that was not you
[1:44:46] know Shane I feel like was right. I
[1:44:48] really appreciate him being fiscally
[1:44:51] conservative and um fiscally conscious
[1:44:53] that it doesn't make sense for us to
[1:44:57] expend all this capital or money on
[1:44:59] things that it's just going to be torn
[1:45:01] up in 6 months or less. So I and I
[1:45:04] [clears throat] you know I appreciate
[1:45:05] that and yet I understand what you're
[1:45:07] saying that something needs to be done.
[1:45:09] I don't think a stop sign was any of the
[1:45:12] suggestions that was suggested for that
[1:45:14] intersection.
[1:45:15] >> No, it doesn't.
[1:45:15] >> But oh there is one. There is one.
[1:45:18] >> Something like this.
[1:45:20] >> It's in our Main Street plan, a stop
[1:45:23] sign.
[1:45:25] » On that intersection? Cuz I know there
[1:45:27] was
[1:45:28] I know there were four things, but I
[1:45:29] don't remember some of them.
[1:45:30] >> engineer? And he did that put put that
[1:45:32] as an option. The spirit of this is not
[1:45:36] >> So, I think we can you know, we can look
[1:45:38] at that. But
[1:45:39] >> We can move on. The only other
[1:45:41] question that I think would be helpful
[1:45:43] is that this and that was brought up to
[1:45:45] me and I didn't have an answer. I
[1:45:46] brought it up to you so for others to
[1:45:47] think about it cuz as more people think
[1:45:48] about it, we get better solutions. And
[1:45:50] that is that this is a three-way um
[1:45:53] a three-way roundabout which is
[1:45:55] different than a four-way. I didn't know
[1:45:56] this.
[1:45:58] And whether or not the north and south
[1:46:00] will dominate those coming from the east
[1:46:02] and not allow them to get in very well.
[1:46:04] So, just as we plan it to to figure that
[1:46:07] out. And I don't know how well you don't
[1:46:08] need to address it.
[1:46:09] >> Well, yeah. Unless you want to the
[1:46:11] police chief can can can comment, but
[1:46:13] the same laws apply.
[1:46:14] >> Okay. It's first one in, you have to
[1:46:15] yield to the person coming from the
[1:46:16] left.
[1:46:17] >> Okay. I've gone through plenty of
[1:46:18] three-way roundabouts.
[1:46:20] >> So, um the next thing Kate and I sent
[1:46:22] you an image or a thing in the uh folder
[1:46:25] of things to share and this will be the
[1:46:27] main thing I'll share on the budget. And
[1:46:29] that is uh I love the budget. I was just
[1:46:32] hoping to make some clarifications.
[1:46:35] So, and pardon if there's spelling. I
[1:46:37] wrote this quick.
[1:46:38] Where we have So, our number one budget
[1:46:40] item is traffic calming measures.
[1:46:43] Um and so, I wanted to
[1:46:45] counsel with the council and the
[1:46:47] residents and the staff
[1:46:49] to how we can define these and and and
[1:46:51] specify what traffic calming measures we
[1:46:53] would like to have in the budget.
[1:46:55] And so, I wrote down a lot of the ones
[1:46:57] people had asked for.
[1:46:59] I put them in an order and I wanted you
[1:47:02] to look and see if any of these you feel
[1:47:04] like should go to the top. And I would
[1:47:05] ask that we could include something like
[1:47:07] this in our motion or in our budget. So,
[1:47:10] when we are paying for traffic calming
[1:47:12] measures throughout the city
[1:47:14] we're doing the actual ones that are
[1:47:15] being asked for.
[1:47:17] So, you okay if I go through a couple of
[1:47:18] them? As number one is the mount
[1:47:20] >> Can I Can I just make a comment on this?
[1:47:22] Please.
[1:47:22] >> So we've been talking about this since
[1:47:24] January, right?
[1:47:25] >> Right, yeah.
[1:47:26] >> And and at the last meeting in May, we
[1:47:29] had the discussion about the different
[1:47:30] priorities. And correct me if I'm wrong,
[1:47:33] Mayor, but I'm I'm pretty sure that we
[1:47:35] decided that the initial traffic calming
[1:47:37] measures with this $50,000 budget would
[1:47:40] focus on West Canyon Crest, where we
[1:47:42] have
[1:47:43] the Burgess Park,
[1:47:44] the elementary school, Timberline, and
[1:47:47] residences whose driveway space the street.
[1:47:52] So and it doesn't exclude being able to
[1:47:54] improve the crosswalk at Allegheny, for
[1:47:56] example. I know that's one example. And
[1:47:58] that's going to be done. We could
[1:48:00] potentially put the advanced warning
[1:48:02] lights or the warning lights
[1:48:04] um at that crosswalk now because I'm
[1:48:06] sure those are fairly easy to move once
[1:48:08] we do the major project probably next
[1:48:10] spring.
[1:48:12] Um so there's I don't think that
[1:48:14] eliminates having other options, but we
[1:48:17] made the priority
[1:48:19] Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but I
[1:48:20] thought it was in the
[1:48:21] >> To do it by the school.
[1:48:22] >> So I know that was your suggestion. It
[1:48:24] wasn't what I put in in my traffic
[1:48:26] calming measure budget. If you recall, I
[1:48:28] had Main Street by Mountain View
[1:48:30] Academy.
[1:48:31] >> Right, but it wasn't your traffic
[1:48:33] calming budget item. It was the
[1:48:35] council's traffic calming budget item.
[1:48:37] >> but but we never voted. I know we never
[1:48:39] voted. I know you voiced that and it was
[1:48:41] just a hearsay, but then it became kind
[1:48:43] of the concrete thing. I think we lost
[1:48:44] sight
[1:48:45] >> I thought we voted on it. I thought it
[1:48:46] was in the motion.
[1:48:47] >> There was a motion. So So the council
[1:48:49] prioritized projects.
[1:48:52] >> Right, no, I know we I know we
[1:48:53] >> But it was specifically traffic calming
[1:48:55] on West Canyon.
[1:48:56] >> Brent, are you wanting that to be what
[1:48:58] the traffic calming 50K is for or are
[1:49:00] you wanting
[1:49:01] >> That's I think that's what was voted on.
[1:49:02] >> I think that's what we decided.
[1:49:03] >> It's in the minutes.
[1:49:04] >> In the month of May.
[1:49:05] >> That we just approved tonight.
[1:49:06] >> mean that we can't consider other other
[1:49:08] things, but that's what we're
[1:49:09] >> So okay, so then I guess I would ask if
[1:49:11] we could define a couple other areas
[1:49:14] that we could add some of the traffic
[1:49:15] calming budget and even increase it for
[1:49:18] force to include some of these areas.
[1:49:20] You can say no.
[1:49:21] >> So, Mayor, can I just comment? So,
[1:49:23] typically, I know this is the first year
[1:49:26] of the budget for you, but on something
[1:49:28] like this, like on our street
[1:49:30] maintenance projects,
[1:49:32] um we have the funds that are proposed
[1:49:34] in the budget, but we don't have the
[1:49:36] specific streets. That's like the next
[1:49:39] step.
[1:49:39] >> Okay.
[1:49:40] >> So, it would happen later.
[1:49:42] >> So, this is something you guys are open
[1:49:43] to to to find in the next step.
[1:49:45] Is that okay?
[1:49:46] >> There is the specific case that as the
[1:49:49] council prioritized certain projects
[1:49:51] because we it didn't look like we were
[1:49:53] going to be able to do all of them.
[1:49:56] That one they specifically voted on, and
[1:49:59] I don't remember the vote,
[1:50:01] >> It was 5 to
[1:50:01] >> it was passed. Um concentrate on West
[1:50:03] Canyon Crest Road.
[1:50:07] >> So, Andrew, my understanding is that
[1:50:09] $50,000 is allocated towards that, so
[1:50:12] they will work on the
[1:50:13] >> Canyon Crest?
[1:50:14] >> That for traffic calming, but to focus
[1:50:17] and to start with West Canyon Crest
[1:50:20] because of the reasons that Brent
[1:50:21] mentioned. Two schools,
[1:50:23] >> Okay.
[1:50:24] >> a park,
[1:50:25] a heavy pedestrian neighborhood, and
[1:50:27] then lot of sporting events where
[1:50:29] there's a lot of pedestrians going down
[1:50:30] there.
[1:50:31] >> on this list.
[1:50:32] >> So, we're go So, I believe the way that
[1:50:35] Shane was explaining that we will work
[1:50:37] on that first and see how much is
[1:50:38] remaining, and then if there is anything
[1:50:41] remaining, then you can look onto that.
[1:50:43] >> Okay. Tonight, our
[1:50:45] >> If you look at page eight of our
[1:50:46] minutes, that's all been recorded.
[1:50:48] >> Okay, thank you.
[1:50:49] >> Okay, thanks.
[1:50:50] >> Okay, I was under the impression I was
[1:50:51] supposed to make a list of the different
[1:50:53] specifics. Okay.
[1:50:56] Um well, then what you might Are we able
[1:50:58] to modify in our motion tonight to
[1:51:01] include one or two other priorities in
[1:51:03] the class in the traffic calming
[1:51:04] measures, such as
[1:51:06] uh I would say the top one is the
[1:51:07] Mountain View Academy uh a congestion
[1:51:11] area to add with that Westfield Road as
[1:51:13] one of the priorities. And then the East
[1:51:16] Canyon Crest
[1:51:17] >> So, did you want to address that?
[1:51:19] >> Yeah, so what I would recommend that
[1:51:21] this
[1:51:22] So, this is like a priority
[1:51:24] >> on. I was asking the council if they
[1:51:26] would be open to it because cuz we're
[1:51:27] modifying other things in the in the
[1:51:30] motion. Would you guys be open to adding
[1:51:32] uh a couple other priorities?
[1:51:34] >> Fields are already going to be in the
[1:51:36] works for this budget year.
[1:51:39] >> In the current year, we have budget for
[1:51:40] it?
[1:51:41] >> Yes. It's Well, I guess
[1:51:44] >> We have a plan.
[1:51:45] >> I was thinking it's July, but July is
[1:51:47] the next year, but that's when it's
[1:51:48] going to get done, but
[1:51:49] >> Well, if you think it's a benefit in the
[1:51:51] motion, I'd love to uh add to it and
[1:51:54] make an amendment to other priorities
[1:51:57] besides Westfield um Road so that we're
[1:52:00] um
[1:52:01] addressing, which is the number one
[1:52:03] issue that residents have brought up,
[1:52:04] traffic, so that we're addressing a
[1:52:06] couple other areas. It's also the number
[1:52:07] one budget item we're putting on.
[1:52:10] Uh so, I just feel like we would benefit
[1:52:12] greatly
[1:52:13] uh this coming year by having a couple
[1:52:15] spelled out.
[1:52:16] >> you want feedback, I'll give you mine is
[1:52:18] that I don't.
[1:52:19] >> So, uh if you can uh yeah, that was
[1:52:22] right back at you. So, if you can just
[1:52:24] consider that, I think it would be a
[1:52:25] benefit for our traffic calming measure.
[1:52:27] >> No, I think that's great. I I think
[1:52:29] there are plenty of places where we can
[1:52:30] make good improvements.
[1:52:32] >> Cool.
[1:52:32] >> Totally.
[1:52:33] >> But if we spell them out, they'll
[1:52:34] happen. So, anyways, the next item is
[1:52:37] um
[1:52:38] it's just a question, and I only have a
[1:52:40] couple more items. And this is important
[1:52:42] because this is a budget. This lasts a
[1:52:43] whole year, so it's worth taking a
[1:52:44] little bit of time. This is why we
[1:52:46] quickly went through all the other
[1:52:47] items.
[1:52:48] So, the other question is
[1:52:51] >> It's 8:00.
[1:52:52] >> in this budget, we've removed several
[1:52:55] that I thought, I could be wrong in the
[1:52:56] minutes, that I thought we included in
[1:52:58] our last motion,
[1:53:00] the easement beautification down by uh
[1:53:04] Alpine Highway. When he made his motion,
[1:53:06] I asked if he could include it and he
[1:53:07] said, "Yes." So, it made a bit might
[1:53:09] have been admitted. And then I also
[1:53:11] asked for the rec- raccoon
[1:53:14] uh mitigation plan of only $3,000 to be
[1:53:18] included as well and he agreed to put it
[1:53:19] in the motion, but it but it's not in
[1:53:20] the budget.
[1:53:22] So,
[1:53:23] just just if we can include those
[1:53:25] >> those were prioritized if funds were
[1:53:27] available.
[1:53:29] >> Well, but that wasn't in the motion. So,
[1:53:31] if we can include them, I think it would
[1:53:32] be really beneficial.
[1:53:33] >> was the intent of the motion was these
[1:53:36] are the priorities.
[1:53:38] Take the money as far That's how I
[1:53:39] understood it.
[1:53:40] >> It's right here on page seven of the
[1:53:42] minutes, the raccoon plan.
[1:53:45] >> Well, yes, and that would correlate with
[1:53:46] what I'm saying that but it's but it's
[1:53:47] not in the budget.
[1:53:49] >> So, so anyways, it's just an item. I mean, even
[1:53:52] yesterday, resident
[1:53:55] who just donated 250 grand pleading for
[1:53:57] what? For me to come pick up a raccoon.
[1:54:00] And so, yeah, you think disposing of
[1:54:01] those are fun? Cuz it's not a thing I
[1:54:03] want to sign up for. If we can include
[1:54:05] three grand, I think we're going to help
[1:54:06] a lot of residents. Um okay, the the
[1:54:09] last ones are
[1:54:10] if we could just add in
[1:54:12] Oh, thank you for including the fire
[1:54:14] mitigation. I've been smelling the smoke
[1:54:17] all day yesterday and the day before. I
[1:54:19] think it's very wise we include it at
[1:54:21] the discretion of the fire department or
[1:54:22] the council on how we use it, but thank
[1:54:25] you for including it.
[1:54:26] Um the last two are just if we could
[1:54:29] specify
[1:54:31] in the sidewalk locations and the legacy
[1:54:33] projects
[1:54:35] to um bring it back.
[1:54:38] The legacy projects, I spoke with
[1:54:39] Jessica about this. I know we've pushed
[1:54:41] it towards the park tax funding,
[1:54:44] but I would like to include in the
[1:54:46] motion that we actually make sure to
[1:54:47] spell that out so it actually happens.
[1:54:50] So, we do these monument fixes, the the
[1:54:52] pioneer women that we're trying to
[1:54:54] restore their names on and some of the
[1:54:56] other funding so that we actually
[1:54:57] include it in the motion so it uh
[1:54:59] because the budget is supposed to
[1:55:00] reflect our values. We're not just
[1:55:02] pushing money, we're reflecting our
[1:55:03] values.
[1:55:05] Um and so I would like to put that back
[1:55:06] in the motion or back in the budget.
[1:55:10] And then um when we decide
[1:55:13] um
[1:55:14] what legacy projects, if we can actually
[1:55:17] spell out which ones, the monument
[1:55:18] renewal and the Alpine Yesterdays or
[1:55:21] yesteryear's volume two.
[1:55:24] And then uh when we specify what
[1:55:25] sidewalks to do,
[1:55:27] if we could actually specify the
[1:55:29] streets. I know everyone loved that
[1:55:31] budget item. That didn't come from me,
[1:55:33] it came from residents pleading for
[1:55:34] them.
[1:55:35] I have a worry
[1:55:36] >> think that's the case. It's just that in
[1:55:38] our last meeting, we prioritized the
[1:55:40] projects and you're bringing them back.
[1:55:43] I'm not exactly sure why we're having
[1:55:44] this discussion. I think we all agreed
[1:55:47] that everything is important, but we
[1:55:50] only have a finite amount of money. And
[1:55:53] right now, you are running into that
[1:55:56] finite amount of money by bringing up
[1:55:58] all the stuff.
[1:55:58] >> Right, right.
[1:55:59] >> Not that they're not valid, but I feel
[1:56:00] like there's a more efficient way to do
[1:56:02] this.
[1:56:02] >> Okay, okay. So let me just finish and
[1:56:03] I'll finish.
[1:56:04] >> the same list that we saw last time. Is
[1:56:06] there anything new or different?
[1:56:08] >> Yes, the specification. So just and just
[1:56:09] so you know, the finite amount of money,
[1:56:11] everything I have pitched, everything I
[1:56:13] have proposed, put in the budget, is
[1:56:15] less than the one proposal of staff
[1:56:17] equipment for trucks.
[1:56:19] Okay, so all these things, raccoons,
[1:56:22] um the uh fire mitigation, the easement,
[1:56:25] the and and by the way, I haven't
[1:56:26] proposed these the the the sidewalks.
[1:56:28] These are things residents are asking
[1:56:30] for. All of them combined are less than
[1:56:32] the trucks. And so I'm just asking for
[1:56:34] some specific
[1:56:35] >> on the on the sidewalks, I think we also
[1:56:37] came to the conclusion a month ago that
[1:56:39] we're going to prioritize
[1:56:41] the locations that deal with safety.
[1:56:42] >> Right, right.
[1:56:43] >> And where children are present. So
[1:56:44] that's going to be the main focus. We're
[1:56:45] going to rely on
[1:56:47] that. So we've already decided that. Do
[1:56:49] you want to make a dis- I don't think
[1:56:50] today is the day to list what which ones
[1:56:53] >> Well, I wanted to just put it in our in
[1:56:54] our eyes and our vision for the coming
[1:56:56] year that when we have this money
[1:56:59] allotted for sidewalks, the reason it
[1:57:01] brought it came up for the first place
[1:57:03] is because there were specific residents
[1:57:05] asking for specific streets. And I think
[1:57:07] what we're going to do if we do it the
[1:57:09] way we're doing it, is we're going to
[1:57:10] allot money for sidewalks and they're
[1:57:12] going to go to different streets where
[1:57:13] residents aren't even asking for it that
[1:57:16] we might interpret or staff might
[1:57:17] interpret as safety, but they're not
[1:57:20] even asking for it there when there are
[1:57:22] residents and streets that are asking
[1:57:23] for it.
[1:57:24] >> So we need to consider all those factors
[1:57:26] when we
[1:57:26] >> But I don't think it's anything that we
[1:57:28] need to worry about now.
[1:57:29] >> Anything over 15,000 is going to have to
[1:57:30] come back to the
[1:57:31] >> is
[1:57:32] anything that we have in the budget now,
[1:57:35] I think it's going to be eaten up by the
[1:57:36] first three projects. If there's
[1:57:38] anything left over, that's when we can
[1:57:40] have this discussion. But for now, let's
[1:57:42] move on the general budget as
[1:57:45] proposed.
[1:57:46] >> Right, that's what I'm talking about.
[1:57:48] >> that you I know I understand that you
[1:57:49] want to do things differently and
[1:57:50] there's other projects that you want
[1:57:51] prioritized.
[1:57:53] >> No, no, this is more specified. They're
[1:57:54] all in there. This is more specified to
[1:57:56] how they are working. So that's just so
[1:57:57] I'm clarifying. Um I think that's
[1:58:00] actually it besides the Bixby Park which
[1:58:03] was pushed as soon as we get the um
[1:58:07] >> The study back.
[1:58:07] >> the park study. Does that need to be
[1:58:10] defined right now or do we come back and
[1:58:11] define that later?
[1:58:14] >> I would come back and define it later
[1:58:15] once we have the plan.
[1:58:17] >> Okay. Okay.
[1:58:19] All right. So that's all I had. Thank
[1:58:20] you.
[1:58:20] >> Okay. Can I ask just a clarifying
[1:58:22] question
[1:58:23] >> Yes.
[1:58:24] >> That's we will only get through the
[1:58:25] first three projects, but if we're
[1:58:28] spreading the cost out over two fiscal
[1:58:30] years, that's actually not accurate. We
[1:58:32] should have
[1:58:33] a substantial amount
[1:58:35] um because we're going to we're going to
[1:58:37] spread that cost out. So it is relevant
[1:58:39] and important as we look at
[1:58:41] >> It depends on spending our our budget
[1:58:43] on.
[1:58:44] >> It well it depends on exactly when the
[1:58:46] project gets started. It could be that
[1:58:48] might not be this next fiscal year at
[1:58:50] all depending on where Highland is at.
[1:58:52] So, you're right with that.
[1:58:54] But, as far as um
[1:58:57] >> Can we get spring on
[1:58:57] >> We do have more than enough money to
[1:58:59] work down our budget list. I just don't
[1:59:01] want the public thinking that we're
[1:59:02] going to eat up all of our money in the
[1:59:04] first three projects when that's
[1:59:05] actually an inaccurate statement.
[1:59:07] >> Mayor, I'm also
[1:59:08] >> I think what I would like to do I like
[1:59:10] the suggestion from
[1:59:12] a CPA who has experience with finances
[1:59:15] is suggesting that the city come up with
[1:59:18] a policy of what how we want to spend
[1:59:22] our fund balances.
[1:59:24] I'm more conservative. I like to have a
[1:59:26] buffer and I appreciate that. Um but,
[1:59:30] you also have to take into consideration
[1:59:32] that we did do a sales tax revenue.
[1:59:36] >> [laughter]
[1:59:37] >> Sales [clears throat] tax revenue bond?
[1:59:39] So, in order to pay for that bond, we're
[1:59:41] taking a portion of our sales tax
[1:59:42] revenue to pay for that bond. And so,
[1:59:44] that part is no longer going to be in
[1:59:46] the budget for projects. So, there's a
[1:59:48] lot of floating things and depending on
[1:59:52] um how we decide to structure our
[1:59:54] upcoming bonds, there's a lot to think
[1:59:56] about. But, you know, I feel like
[2:00:01] Council has decided on the top three
[2:00:02] projects. Let's focus on those and work
[2:00:05] on those to get those shovel ready and
[2:00:08] move forward with those.
[2:00:11] That's going to be a lot for the city to
[2:00:12] do above and beyond their existing
[2:00:16] um what was it What did Mr.
[2:00:20] The guy from the code What did he say
[2:00:21] about just the the noticeable difference
[2:00:24] in our infrastructure and how I
[2:00:26] appreciated it more?
[2:00:28] Staff is going to be focusing that on
[2:00:30] the core things, but they're also going
[2:00:31] to be working on these new projects that
[2:00:33] are priorities for our Council. And I
[2:00:35] say, let's approve this, move forward
[2:00:38] with it, and then as we go through, then
[2:00:41] we can bring in and
[2:00:43] We don't know, but I really would like a
[2:00:45] policy on what our fund balance should
[2:00:48] be. Then we have something to work with.
[2:00:50] For me, it's
[2:00:53] To me, that's a no-brainer. That's how
[2:00:54] it should be. We should have a policy
[2:00:55] instead of Heck, we have this, let's
[2:00:57] spend it all.
[2:00:59] I've never worked that way, and I feel
[2:01:01] very uncomfortable doing that with city
[2:01:03] funds.
[2:01:05] >> Mayor, just to clarify,
[2:01:06] as a first budget year, some of these
[2:01:09] items that are brought up seem to be
[2:01:10] categorized like something that staff's
[2:01:12] going to have to do, and they won't have
[2:01:14] time cuz it'll be on the bottom of the
[2:01:15] list.
[2:01:16] Many of these things I proposed wouldn't
[2:01:18] be done by staff. In the proposals I
[2:01:20] brought, there's already a contractor
[2:01:22] ready to do them. We just have to allot
[2:01:23] the funds to it, like the raccoons or
[2:01:26] the the signs that would be part of the
[2:01:28] uh
[2:01:29] traffic calming measures, things like
[2:01:31] that. So, it wouldn't take away time
[2:01:33] from that.
[2:01:33] >> Any kind of projects that have to do
[2:01:34] with signs around the city, other than
[2:01:36] the trail signs, from my understanding,
[2:01:38] that is conducted by staff.
[2:01:41] >> I meant the construction of the actual entrance signs.
[2:01:45] >> Oh, that. Yeah. No, that is something
[2:01:48] that will be outsourced.
[2:01:49] >> Right. So, I'm I'm just saying the lot
[2:01:51] of things I proposed are not things that
[2:01:53] would burden the staff. They're just
[2:01:54] >> Right. Right. But what I'm saying is we
[2:01:56] have three significant projects. Let's
[2:01:59] work on those, and then we can always
[2:02:01] come back. As we learned before, I know
[2:02:03] this is your first time going through
[2:02:04] the budget.
[2:02:07] >> And there's some benefit to that cuz I
[2:02:09] come with fresh eyes.
[2:02:10] >> Right. But you can always make an
[2:02:12] amendment to the budget. Things always
[2:02:14] change. Ever since I've been on council,
[2:02:18] there has always been an amendment to
[2:02:20] the original budget that you approved.
[2:02:22] So, right now, all we're asking is we
[2:02:24] had a tentative budget. Now we have the
[2:02:27] final budget.
[2:02:28] Let's approve it. This is what is
[2:02:30] recommended by staff so far, based on
[2:02:32] recommendations from council from
[2:02:35] Which meeting was that?
[2:02:37] >> May 26th.
[2:02:39] >> Based [clears throat] on that meeting
[2:02:40] and council's direction, that's how this
[2:02:43] budget was proposed.
[2:02:46] My recommendation is we pass this budget
[2:02:49] and then as we go through, as we see
[2:02:51] need for adjustment with the
[2:02:53] recommendation of um staff and then, you
[2:02:56] know, if
[2:02:57] council has um input,
[2:03:00] then we can work on an amendment to the
[2:03:03] budget and move forward that way, but I
[2:03:05] don't feel the need to bog down this
[2:03:07] meeting with
[2:03:09] um each an individual project that you
[2:03:11] want now.
[2:03:13] Let's see where we are
[2:03:14] >> I'm not now. I'm just hoping to clarify
[2:03:16] them so that they happen in a way that
[2:03:18] we, the residents, have asked for them
[2:03:20] to be carried out. It's
[2:03:22] >> But you also have to understand too that
[2:03:25] not every single project that residents
[2:03:27] have asked for are necessarily going to
[2:03:30] make it in this budget.
[2:03:31] >> I've sadly realized that.
[2:03:34] >> to read our priorities from the May
[2:03:35] 20th. This those seven things we agreed
[2:03:38] to cuz when you have a vote of the
[2:03:40] majority, that sets the that sets the
[2:03:43] agenda. We don't just
[2:03:45] willy-nilly add things. We You have to
[2:03:46] get the majority on board. Yes. You just I think it's helpful just to remind
[2:03:51] ourselves.
[2:03:52] >> you're approving in the consent
[2:03:53] calendar. You know that, right?
[2:03:54] >> So it was just to add clarification.
[2:03:57] That's all it was.
[2:03:57] >> here, let me read this. The top seven
[2:04:00] voted 5-0 as the priority. Traffic
[2:04:03] calming measures up to $50,000. Priority
[2:04:06] with Canyon Crest and school park with the priority on Canyon Crest with
[2:04:12] school park proximity areas.
[2:04:15] Roundabout at Ridge Drive and Canyon
[2:04:17] Crest. Sidewalk improvements focused on
[2:04:20] pedestrian safety. That's what was
[2:04:22] approved unanimously by council.
[2:04:24] >> Right. Right.
[2:04:25] >> Next, Carlton shop improvements.
[2:04:27] >> [clears throat]
[2:04:28] >> Um fire prevention projects on public
[2:04:31] property.
[2:04:33] Alpine Highway easement title search.
[2:04:36] Raccoon abatement. Those were the top
[2:04:40] >> Right, right, and I and you're saying
[2:04:41] this crystal clear and yet so much of
[2:04:42] that has changed in our budget right
[2:04:44] now. Even though you just read that
[2:04:46] crystal clear, there have been things
[2:04:47] completely omitted.
[2:04:49] >> all right here in the light orange.
[2:04:50] >> No, no, they're the raccoons are not
[2:04:52] there. The easement is not there. There
[2:04:54] are several other things not there. And
[2:04:56] then the specificities of the uh all I'm
[2:04:59] trying to do is help the budget. I'm not
[2:05:01] trying to take away or change it. I'm
[2:05:03] trying to clarify it cuz we have this
[2:05:05] chance now to make it as good as
[2:05:07] possible for the next full year because
[2:05:09] honestly, a lot of this has come from
[2:05:10] residents telling me when they come to
[2:05:12] ask for things that staff tells them
[2:05:15] come back during budget year. And so
[2:05:17] here we are. They are through me and I
[2:05:19] am vocalizing what they're asking for.
[2:05:21] Sidewalks, raccoons, all these other
[2:05:23] weird things that we don't do, but now
[2:05:26] I'm hoping we'll do them and they're
[2:05:27] getting removed. And so I'm trying to
[2:05:29] clarify them, put them back, and then
[2:05:31] trying to clarify that. Traffic calming.
[2:05:33] But anyways,
[2:05:34] >> Shane has some comments.
[2:05:35] >> That's all the that's all the intent
[2:05:36] was.
[2:05:36] >> The reason for that priority list
[2:05:39] was to give us direction in finalizing
[2:05:42] the budget with what money we had.
[2:05:45] Keep going down through the list until
[2:05:48] we felt like we ran out of money.
[2:05:50] And so that's where the line got drawn.
[2:05:53] >> They're right here.
[2:05:54] >> That's why some of those projects are
[2:05:55] not in there.
[2:05:58] >> Those are the exact same projects that
[2:06:00] we approved in May. They're in the
[2:06:02] budget. This is in your packet that you
[2:06:04] got last Friday.
[2:06:06] I know it's your first There's a lot of
[2:06:08] information going on. I'm saying in
[2:06:09] black and white, these are the projects
[2:06:11] that we approved in May. Staff took that
[2:06:14] information and incorporated them
[2:06:15] directly into our budget. This is our
[2:06:18] budget.
[2:06:19] >> Right, and the ones I'm bringing up are
[2:06:20] the ones that are missing.
[2:06:21] >> They they didn't make the list. Well,
[2:06:24] they made the list because we said we
[2:06:26] want all of these
[2:06:27] >> then they were removed by staff.
[2:06:28] >> We actually said as a the in consensus,
[2:06:32] we want to include all of these
[2:06:34] projects or all of these in the budget.
[2:06:36] So, they did make the list. Now, where
[2:06:39] we're getting in the weeds is did we run
[2:06:41] out of money or not? And that's the part
[2:06:43] I'm trying to understand because if
[2:06:44] we're spreading out the roundabout over
[2:06:46] a 2-year time period, we haven't run out
[2:06:49] of money. So, we can't use the language
[2:06:52] that we ran out of money.
[2:06:53] >> Well, no, that's assuming depending on
[2:06:55] what we decide our policy is for
[2:06:58] our fund balance.
[2:07:00] >> I I realize it.
[2:07:01] >> Do you see the 1.45 million?
[2:07:04] What do you like what do you I'm not
[2:07:06] sure I'm following what are you saying?
[2:07:08] >> I I believe that we're getting real-time
[2:07:10] data on some construction costs that
[2:07:13] that's already come down to maybe under
[2:07:15] a million. So, so we're looking at
[2:07:18] things
[2:07:19] in this snapshot,
[2:07:21] but as we move
[2:07:23] forward
[2:07:23] >> from where?
[2:07:25] >> I
[2:07:25] >> Highland.
[2:07:26] >> Yeah, Highland's doing a four-way
[2:07:28] >> million, wasn't
[2:07:29] >> Well, there was one that four-way and it
[2:07:31] was bigger.
[2:07:32] So, you I mean, you just factor
[2:07:34] three-way smaller.
[2:07:35] >> Their roundabout was smaller or was
[2:07:37] bigger than our roundabout.
[2:07:39] >> the current roundabout. We just got this
[2:07:41] information today. Shane's had it, but that's
[2:07:44] I think we're getting
[2:07:45] >> I mean, yeah, it doesn't matter, you
[2:07:46] guys.
[2:07:47] >> We've we've already discussed this since
[2:07:48] in for the last 5 months. We've
[2:07:49] discussed potential funding options.
[2:07:51] Let's see where it ends up.
[2:07:52] >> Right. So, thank you for the time. Uh
[2:07:54] that was meant to just try to clarify.
[2:07:57] >> No, I just appreciate
[2:07:58] >> Thank you.
[2:07:58] >> the last 5 months and being available
[2:08:00] for questions and and and um all the
[2:08:03] hard work that goes into this every
[2:08:04] year. I'm I appreciate it more and more
[2:08:05] every year.
[2:08:07] One thing I'll note is we've been
[2:08:09] wondering
[2:08:10] you're only allowed to keep 35%
[2:08:13] of your annual operating annual
[2:08:15] What? Annual what?
[2:08:17] >> Of your general fund.
[2:08:18] >> General fund.
[2:08:19] >> You're only allowed to keep 35% at the
[2:08:21] end of the fiscal year. So, we're
[2:08:22] transferring 1.25 million
[2:08:25] from the general fund to the capital
[2:08:27] project fund
[2:08:28] um to stay
[2:08:30] at or below that 35% barrier.
[2:08:32] >> Yeah, and just uh just a reminder on
[2:08:35] that, I
[2:08:36] a good chunk of that money
[2:08:38] >> It's for the fire station.
[2:08:38] >> was allocated for the fire station, so
[2:08:40] it's just
[2:08:41] >> It's It's It's earmarked, right?
[2:08:43] >> Another thing to keep in mind also is if
[2:08:46] we get one of these grants from the
[2:08:48] government for the upsizing of the water
[2:08:49] tank, it's a $3 million grant, not a $6
[2:08:53] million grant, which is the cost of the
[2:08:55] total project.
[2:08:58] So.
[2:08:59] >> Those were enterprise funds, right?
[2:09:03] » Which we don't have that much in the
[2:09:05] enterprise fund.
[2:09:06] >> Well, yeah, we'd have to
[2:09:08] >> Okay. Did you have any other comments?
[2:09:10] >> it.
[2:09:11] >> Jessica?
[2:09:12] >> I think, you know, you bring up a good
[2:09:14] point where
[2:09:16] we don't have clear line of sight on the
[2:09:18] cost of the water improvements.
[2:09:21] And I do believe that there are portions
[2:09:24] of that project that we are approving
[2:09:27] tonight.
[2:09:28] Um
[2:09:31] And so, I just want to spend a little
[2:09:34] bit of time on
[2:09:36] the water plan.
[2:09:37] >> Yeah, so if you look at our PI projects,
[2:09:40] go across that row, there's no dollars
[2:09:42] in there.
[2:09:46] There's a note down below that explains
[2:09:49] the detail of why.
[2:09:51] It's because we'll bring that back in a
[2:09:53] budget amendment.
[2:09:56] >> And so, we'll have a more robust
[2:09:57] discussion about that.
[2:09:58] >> Yes, it'll be a work session.
[2:10:00] >> We didn't feel like it was ready. Just
[2:10:02] thought that was the appropriate
[2:10:04] um
[2:10:05] way to go.
[2:10:08] » Okay.
[2:10:09] >> And just trying to clarify one other
[2:10:10] thing, talking about the roundabout and
[2:10:12] splitting it in two budget years.
[2:10:15] So, that's really applicable if the
[2:10:17] funds are coming from the general fund,
[2:10:20] but if they're the capital improvement
[2:10:21] fund, it's not other than interest, it's
[2:10:23] not generating new revenue every year
[2:10:26] unless there's a transfer for some
[2:10:27] reason. Just wanted to clarify that.
[2:10:31] >> Jessica, did you have
[2:10:32] >> be more It could be beneficial, but I
[2:10:36] don't want to paint the wrong picture,
[2:10:38] you know.
[2:10:38] >> Okay. And I And just a comment on the
[2:10:41] roundabout, when I was evaluating it as
[2:10:43] being at the top of the list
[2:10:45] to be completed, it's you know, we have
[2:10:48] multiple
[2:10:49] um professionals saying that even as
[2:10:52] your city is today, you need to improve
[2:10:55] the safety, but also the future growth.
[2:10:57] I think we have over 200 entitled lots
[2:11:00] that aren't even built on yet. And so if
[2:11:04] nothing else changed, we didn't annex in
[2:11:06] anything, which, you know, again, those
[2:11:09] are all possibilities.
[2:11:11] They're already saying from a city
[2:11:12] planning standpoint that these are These
[2:11:14] are hard decisions to make because they
[2:11:16] deal with the best plan for the city 5
[2:11:19] and 10 years from now.
[2:11:21] In 5 and 10 years from now, someone will
[2:11:24] say, "I wonder why they didn't do that
[2:11:26] when they tore that whole road up and
[2:11:28] put that path in and made that
[2:11:30] million-dollar multi-million-dollar
[2:11:31] improvement. How come they didn't have
[2:11:33] the forward-thinking
[2:11:35] ability to improve the safety and the
[2:11:38] traffic flow?" Well, we actually do
[2:11:40] because we have four engineers that have
[2:11:42] all said this needs to happen. So
[2:11:45] it may feel like a lot of money, but
[2:11:48] we're all really glad we have our Main
[2:11:49] Street roundabout.
[2:11:51] It's intercool. It's kept us from having
[2:11:53] a street light.
[2:11:55] It's defined us, and it's just a good
[2:11:58] again, good public planning, and I'm
[2:11:59] very confident in putting these
[2:12:02] resources towards that.
[2:12:04] >> Sarah.
[2:12:05] Um first thing, Shane, for putting
[2:12:07] together the budget. Um
[2:12:09] I'm sure that takes a long time.
[2:12:11] Um for me, I guess highest priority, and
[2:12:14] I'm glad we're going to do a work
[2:12:15] session on the water projects because
[2:12:17] that's a high priority for me.
[2:12:19] Um
[2:12:21] I guess I like what was said about the
[2:12:23] roundabout. If in the meantime we can
[2:12:26] find some way to mitigate some of the
[2:12:28] safety concerns, I think we should
[2:12:31] actively pursue options and I shared
[2:12:34] with Carla, but there are temporary
[2:12:36] pedestrian refuges that you can
[2:12:38] implement. So, um I would love to be
[2:12:41] able to look at some of those options to
[2:12:43] mitigate in the meantime.
[2:12:45] Um one other thought I had was
[2:12:49] um the park tax. In here it suggested a
[2:12:51] 20/80 split, 20% going to um Alpine
[2:12:55] historical. I don't remember how it was
[2:12:57] phrased, but projects.
[2:12:59] And I I don't know, does that need to be
[2:13:01] defined in the motion, the exact
[2:13:04] percentage? But I think a 20/80% split
[2:13:06] of the park tax with 20% going to more
[2:13:09] historical
[2:13:11] things. I like that. I think that's a
[2:13:13] great split. And then um with the the
[2:13:15] flex the reserve policy. I I like the
[2:13:18] idea of having a reserve policy.
[2:13:21] Um
[2:13:22] Shane educated me a little bit more on
[2:13:24] this that maybe perhaps having a
[2:13:26] flexible policy because sometimes you
[2:13:28] don't know when
[2:13:30] you're going to need funds and if we if
[2:13:32] our policy is so stringent um that we
[2:13:35] need funds and we can't get funds
[2:13:37] because of our own policy, we just need
[2:13:39] to be very thoughtful about that.
[2:13:41] Um and the last
[2:13:42] uh thing with the roundabout,
[2:13:45] I
[2:13:46] did like option three. I feel like if we
[2:13:48] can get funding,
[2:13:50] um that's probably the most prudent way
[2:13:54] to go about that and um
[2:13:56] I like Shane's idea of moving the
[2:13:59] um
[2:14:00] the the sidewalk to the other side.
[2:14:02] Anyways, it's all in the packet. You
[2:14:03] guys have read it that part, but I just thought that that was a great
[2:14:06] idea and that would that those are my
[2:14:08] thoughts. So.
[2:14:09] >> No, and to address that, I do appreciate
[2:14:11] that. I don't know if you guys were
[2:14:12] aware we're talking about the same
[2:14:13] project that um Shane came up with a way
[2:14:16] that would um improve pedestrian safety
[2:14:19] um south further south along Canyon
[2:14:22] Crest and save um a lot of money on the
[2:14:26] project. So, he um what he was
[2:14:28] projecting is not only having a
[2:14:31] pedestrian um safety um island, but
[2:14:36] moving um the trail to the other side
[2:14:39] that would save so much because of the
[2:14:41] infrastructure with the power poles and
[2:14:44] things like that. That if we move it to
[2:14:45] the other side, it would greatly change
[2:14:47] the cost of the project. Therefore, um
[2:14:50] we might be able to apply the savings to
[2:14:53] something else. I just don't know if
[2:14:56] that's going to fly with
[2:14:58] the new mayors
[2:15:00] on the MAG Executive Council.
[2:15:02] There's a lot of crazy things going on.
[2:15:04] >> a shot.
[2:15:05] >> No, no, totally. And that's why I
[2:15:06] appreciate him doing that. That That was
[2:15:08] a lot of I mean, you know, that's That's
[2:15:10] what I appreciate about Shane that he
[2:15:11] has that knowledge of an engineer. He
[2:15:14] knows our city cuz he's been here for so
[2:15:16] long that he understands it so well that
[2:15:18] he's always looking for ways to save
[2:15:20] money. So.
[2:15:22] Chrissy.
[2:15:23] >> Okay. Um I think we approached this
[2:15:25] budget year um with a lot of money in
[2:15:28] the bank and that we can personally
[2:15:31] thank Shane for. He's been here the
[2:15:32] longest and has carefully um
[2:15:36] considered projects and other things to
[2:15:39] preserve um capital so we have options
[2:15:41] for the future. So, I do appreciate
[2:15:44] that. Um I I want to talk about our fund
[2:15:47] balance policy that we have talked about
[2:15:50] finishing. I In the motion, I would like
[2:15:53] us to put a timeline on it and have it
[2:15:56] done in the next 90 days, even by
[2:15:59] October 1st or first meeting in October,
[2:16:02] which is October 13th. I don't know
[2:16:04] who's going to make the motion, team,
[2:16:06] but I hope that um we can include a
[2:16:09] timeline so that as we consider the
[2:16:13] projects that the mayor has read for us,
[2:16:16] we are following the policy as we as we
[2:16:19] are allocate funds towards them, which
[2:16:22] is another step in the process.
[2:16:25] If you need the wording of that motion,
[2:16:27] I can provide that.
[2:16:29] >> Just just clarification. That seems more
[2:16:31] like an agenda discussion item that we
[2:16:34] would put
[2:16:35] forward with the proposal from two council
[2:16:38] members of the mayor's staff rather than
[2:16:40] making it part of this year's budget
[2:16:42] motion.
[2:16:43] >> Well, I think it's important because
[2:16:44] >> to what we're
[2:16:45] >> Okay. If you Caden, can you pull up Are
[2:16:48] you here, Caden?
[2:16:49] >> No, he just left.
[2:16:50] >> Sorry. Can the fund balance analysis
[2:16:53] chart
[2:16:54] >> No, I understand that the overall
[2:16:57] fiscal res- fiscal policy of the city is
[2:16:59] really important and it will apply to
[2:17:01] every
[2:17:03] budget decision moving forward, but it
[2:17:05] seems like this would be a proposed
[2:17:07] agenda item
[2:17:08] to me to have it as a discussion item.
[2:17:11] >> No, I see Brent's point that having a fund
[2:17:16] balance policy was not an agenda item
[2:17:19] and so for us to vote on it specifically
[2:17:22] since it wasn't noticed that that's
[2:17:24] probably something that we need to bring
[2:17:25] on the agenda in the future. So maybe
[2:17:27] the next meeting we can put that on the
[2:17:28] agenda so that we can actually have a
[2:17:30] policy and then be able to follow that
[2:17:33] policy and then be able to
[2:17:36] um with you know, a more comprehensive
[2:17:39] awareness of our budget and be able to
[2:17:41] move forward.
[2:17:43] >> Um Well, the the fund balance analysis
[2:17:45] was a part of our budget right here.
[2:17:48] So, the point the re- the reason is
[2:17:51] in every single nearly every single
[2:17:52] category, we're spending beyond what
[2:17:54] we're bringing in.
[2:17:56] So, to me that that speaks to the need
[2:17:58] to address this issue because it's it's
[2:18:00] not a one-time thing. it's a reoccurring
[2:18:03] it's reoccurring in every single fund.
[2:18:05] And so that's part of my willingness to
[2:18:08] approve this budget is that we address
[2:18:11] that specific issue.
[2:18:14] >> But would
[2:18:15] understanding what we're going to do
[2:18:17] with bonding apply to this because
[2:18:19] that's again we don't have that
[2:18:21] information and so when you say spending
[2:18:23] beyond we're spending beyond because we
[2:18:25] have not implemented all of our funding
[2:18:29] opportunities?
[2:18:30] >> No, the bond
[2:18:32] if you want to turn to the the water
[2:18:34] page of the water budget, there is zero
[2:18:37] dollars allocated to the nine million
[2:18:39] dollars of projects we need to do. So
[2:18:42] there we're spending beyond our intake,
[2:18:45] our revenue, we're in every single
[2:18:47] category we're spending beyond our
[2:18:49] revenues, every single category because
[2:18:52] and we're dipping into fund balance to
[2:18:53] spread out all our projects
[2:18:55] without ever bonding for anything.
[2:19:00] And so it's not like we're going to pay
[2:19:02] for these projects that are in this
[2:19:04] budget with a bond. No, they're they're
[2:19:07] not even those
[2:19:08] >> But again the other piece of information
[2:19:10] is we don't know what we're doing with
[2:19:11] staff. We don't know what we're doing
[2:19:13] with wages.
[2:19:14] >> With all respect that was $65,000.
[2:19:17] >> It's not a huge amount. I'm just saying
[2:19:19] there's we don't
[2:19:20] >> Can you go back to the fund balances
[2:19:21] page?
[2:19:22] >> It's not going to make up for the amount
[2:19:23] of money I agree.
[2:19:24] >> We already decided it has to come later.
[2:19:27] We can't we yeah there was analysis done
[2:19:30] but
[2:19:30] there's having a
[2:19:32] >> I think for us to have a policy we do
[2:19:33] need to bring it up.
[2:19:34] >> That's great. Let's let's do it. Just
[2:19:36] like we had the same discussion with Tia
[2:19:38] with Lone Peak Public Safety District.
[2:19:40] We had an unusually high fund balance
[2:19:43] and we made a decision as a board to
[2:19:45] utilize some of that fund balance to buy
[2:19:47] equipment and
[2:19:49] meet other expenses
[2:19:51] to come to some kind of happy medium.
[2:19:55] And that's a great idea. It's great to
[2:19:56] have a policy. It sounds like Alpine's
[2:19:58] never had one.
[2:19:59] >> So, can we have it's because we've had
[2:20:01] Shane who's been the gatekeeper of our
[2:20:04] money and he's done a great job. So, can
[2:20:06] I I will entertain a motion for our
[2:20:09] >> Wait, I I wasn't That was just one
[2:20:11] thing.
[2:20:12] >> Sorry, I thought you were done.
[2:20:13] >> So, if we're Okay, if we if we're not
[2:20:15] going to have a motion if our motion
[2:20:16] doesn't include anything about the fund
[2:20:17] balance, I'll go through the two council
[2:20:19] process if that's necessary. If we're
[2:20:21] moving forward without that we can find Anyways, we'll we'll
[2:20:26] take care of that in another, but I did
[2:20:27] think it was relevant because the budget
[2:20:29] is spending fund balance in every single
[2:20:31] category, which is concerning. So,
[2:20:35] um which it brings me to um the park
[2:20:38] tax. So, can some Who's making the
[2:20:40] motion? Can we please allocate the park
[2:20:42] tax 80% and 20% as proposed by staff? We
[2:20:46] are finishing our master plan on parks,
[2:20:49] and I would like the bulk, if not 80%
[2:20:51] exactly, to go to the park projects that
[2:20:54] will be outlined when we finish the
[2:20:55] master plan. So, I I hope that we I
[2:20:59] would like to include that in the If you
[2:21:01] don't include it in the motion, I will
[2:21:02] ask to amend it for that. Um
[2:21:05] the second thing is I think there was a
[2:21:07] lot of public input about the
[2:21:09] roundabout, so I wasn't planning to say
[2:21:11] anything about it um because it's
[2:21:13] already in the budget, guys. It's
[2:21:15] already there. If you're against it, you
[2:21:17] can it's um
[2:21:19] we're not taking it out
[2:21:22] so far from what I've heard. But, we
[2:21:24] have not yet looked over the traffic
[2:21:26] part of our Main Street Gateway plan,
[2:21:28] which had a traffic engineer not just
[2:21:30] look at one isolated um intersection,
[2:21:33] but looked at our entire city at lots of
[2:21:35] opportunities to help with
[2:21:37] intersections, like we've talked about
[2:21:38] maybe Canyon Crest or
[2:21:40] they they they highlighted a lot of
[2:21:42] things even going down Alpine Highway.
[2:21:44] There's not a crosswalk on Alpine
[2:21:45] Highway. Things like little things like
[2:21:47] that, and that's why the traffic calming
[2:21:49] measures of $50,000 could do a lot of
[2:21:51] little projects to help a lot of areas.
[2:21:54] um I don't I hope it I hope it can. But,
[2:21:58] based on your comments, I was really
[2:21:59] listening to you, Andrew. They said, in
[2:22:02] the meantime, because they knew that the
[2:22:04] potential roundabout would be delayed
[2:22:06] because of the MAG funding and building
[2:22:08] the whole road and all of that, our
[2:22:10] traffic engineer came up with two
[2:22:12] alternatives to what we could do in the
[2:22:14] interim that would just require
[2:22:16] re-striping the road. And now is not the
[2:22:19] time to go into that detail.
[2:22:21] I I hope that we can get to the traffic
[2:22:23] part of our Main Street in our next
[2:22:25] meeting or the at least the second
[2:22:26] meeting after that, because it has a
[2:22:29] solution to the things you've all talked
[2:22:31] about by a a traffic engineer, which I I
[2:22:34] really do rely on our experts.
[2:22:37] They already said like this is a problem
[2:22:39] as has been noted. Here are some
[2:22:41] solutions you could do in the meantime
[2:22:44] until you can build a roundabout if you
[2:22:47] have the funds, right? And so,
[2:22:50] I just think that that is to come and
[2:22:52] that is something we could consider as
[2:22:54] well as part of our traffic calming is
[2:22:57] to do this re-striping that he has here.
[2:23:00] And when we get to the Main Street
[2:23:01] guidelines, you can see all that. Okay,
[2:23:03] thank you, Caden, for bringing up the
[2:23:05] fund balance analysis. And just for the
[2:23:09] because this the public is here, the
[2:23:11] revenue line is right there in the
[2:23:13] middle proposed revenue of 2027. And if
[2:23:16] you look, every the line below that is
[2:23:19] how much are we going to spend above if
[2:23:22] it's above
[2:23:23] So, let's just look at Classy Road
[2:23:25] funds. If it's 845, that's the amount of
[2:23:27] money you bring in, but we're spending
[2:23:29] 1,100.
[2:23:31] So, that's what I'm saying in every
[2:23:32] single one of these rows, we're spending
[2:23:34] more than we're bringing in. And that's
[2:23:36] because of the we had a long list of
[2:23:38] projects we wanted to do. We didn't
[2:23:41] eliminate any. They're all on the list
[2:23:43] and therefore we have to use fund
[2:23:44] balance to accomplish them.
[2:23:47] Um
[2:23:47] from my 10 years in public office, there
[2:23:49] was a saying, you can do anything you
[2:23:52] want, but you can't do everything we
[2:23:54] want. And we just need to to the mayor's
[2:23:56] comments, if we get to the top three and
[2:23:59] we're done with our money, at least we
[2:24:01] prioritize that we all agree these are
[2:24:02] our top three things. And the number one
[2:24:04] thing is traffic calming. Okay. So, I
[2:24:07] can support the things we've all talked
[2:24:09] about. I appreciate the dialogue. I
[2:24:10] agree with Jessica. I learn from all of
[2:24:13] you. Um you talk people. We live in
[2:24:16] different areas around the city. You
[2:24:18] have different bi- backgrounds, and it
[2:24:20] just helps us make better decisions when
[2:24:22] we all get a chance to have a voice. And
[2:24:24] so, I appreciate um our mayor each
[2:24:26] giving us an opportunity. And I will uh
[2:24:29] support a motion. Whoever wants to make
[2:24:31] it.
[2:24:32] When you're
[2:24:35] >> I will entertain a motion.
[2:24:36] >> Uh I can make a motion. I think
[2:24:39] Jessica's ready.
[2:24:40] >> I'm ready. Um and just this motion is I
[2:24:44] first want to say I I I support the
[2:24:47] overwhelming majority of this budget,
[2:24:49] and I appreciate all the work that staff
[2:24:51] and council we've spent countless hours
[2:24:54] um pouring over a lot of these details.
[2:24:57] So, the motion isn't intended to delay
[2:24:59] any kind of city operations at all.
[2:25:01] Rather,
[2:25:02] it is just to be able to take some time
[2:25:05] on a couple of these items and look a
[2:25:07] little bit deeper on them. So, with
[2:25:09] that, I move to approve ordinance
[2:25:11] 2026-14
[2:25:13] adopting the fiscal year 2027 final
[2:25:16] budget with the following modifications
[2:25:18] and conditions. The proposed executive
[2:25:21] and staff compensation increases, new
[2:25:24] employee hire request are excluded from
[2:25:27] the fiscal year 2027 final budget, and
[2:25:30] shall be brought back to the city
[2:25:31] council following a publicly noticed
[2:25:33] work session to revu- to review the
[2:25:36] completed compensation study, market
[2:25:39] comparisons, compensation philosophy,
[2:25:42] internal equity, and long-term fiscal
[2:25:44] impacts no later than June 30th of 2026.
[2:25:49] Number two, funds appropriated for the
[2:25:51] Ridge Drive and Canyon Crest roundabout
[2:25:53] shall remain restricted for that project
[2:25:56] as proposed
[2:25:58] and shall not be reallocated to another
[2:26:00] purpose except by subsequent action of
[2:26:02] the City Council. The City Council
[2:26:04] further affirms that the Ridge Drive and
[2:26:07] Canyon Crest roundabout as an adopted
[2:26:10] fiscal year 2027 capital improvement
[2:26:13] priority and direct staff to continue
[2:26:15] engineering, grant administration,
[2:26:18] permitting, and other project
[2:26:19] development activities necessary to
[2:26:22] advance the project. And then number
[2:26:24] three, park tax funds will be allocated
[2:26:27] as follows: 80% parks
[2:26:31] and open space and 20% to historical
[2:26:34] arts and culture.
[2:26:38] » To amend it, do we second it first?
[2:26:40] >> Yes, is that the end of your
[2:26:42] >> Is there a second?
[2:26:43] >> modifications, I approve the ordinance.
[2:26:45] >> Is there a second?
[2:26:46] >> second it, but do we need to ask ask for
[2:26:48] amendments first in this case?
[2:26:50] >> need a second.
[2:26:51] >> it.
[2:26:51] >> Okay, so we have a motion by
[2:26:53] Councilwoman Smewing
[2:26:55] seconded by Councilman Young.
[2:26:57] Did you have a proposed amendment to
[2:26:59] >> I have a few if you'll consider and feel
[2:27:01] free to give me a suggestion.
[2:27:04] When you
[2:27:05] uh
[2:27:06] when you
[2:27:08] define the discussion we'll have about
[2:27:10] staff um
[2:27:13] raises
[2:27:14] that you add into your list of things we
[2:27:17] will discuss
[2:27:19] an exploration and definition of merit.
[2:27:22] Meaning we will decide in that discuss
[2:27:25] That's what I would say in it, but
[2:27:27] meaning we would explore and define what
[2:27:29] merit is.
[2:27:31] In my mind, I'm thinking benchmarks and
[2:27:33] performance and then then we would be
[2:27:34] able to give them raises that they
[2:27:36] deserve.
[2:27:39] So, that's one. Uh do you want me to go
[2:27:40] through all of them the amendments or
[2:27:42] just one at a time? Do you want to
[2:27:43] approve them one at a time or do you
[2:27:44] want me to go through all
[2:27:44] >> to just shoot this down and start a new
[2:27:46] amendment or
[2:27:47] >> no. I think her amend- I think I think
[2:27:48] hers is great. It's just
[2:27:49] >> But let's just talk about that. To me,
[2:27:51] that's a work session and that's
[2:27:53] understood that we will
[2:27:56] define a merit because we're looking at
[2:27:59] >> Do you think in your list
[2:28:01] you wouldn't just add the word and
[2:28:03] define merit in that?
[2:28:05] >> Do you accept his amendment?
[2:28:07] To define merit in
[2:28:08] >> I accept define merit. I don't want to
[2:28:10] say exploration.
[2:28:11] >> Okay. Define merit. That's my The next
[2:28:13] one is
[2:28:15] and feel free to nix all these. In the
[2:28:17] funding for the roundabout can you add
[2:28:19] in the clarification that we first
[2:28:21] prioritize MAG funding, then prioritize
[2:28:24] the sale of Alpine City land and then
[2:28:27] use other funds?
[2:28:30] >> Do you accept the amendment?
[2:28:35] That's an understood. Of course, we're
[2:28:37] going to look at all under other funding
[2:28:39] sources.
[2:28:40] >> So, I think he asked for a very specific
[2:28:44] order that you first considered grants.
[2:28:47] >> Do you need an explanation of it or not?
[2:28:48] >> Yeah. No, he had So, do you accept that
[2:28:51] amendment yes or no?
[2:28:52] >> do you understand the amendment or do
[2:28:53] you want me to explain it?
[2:28:54] >> I think she understands. Do you accept
[2:28:56] >> her to say that because
[2:28:57] >> It's not going to be conditioned. I
[2:28:59] would say we Okay. Say that use the
[2:29:02] language again.
[2:29:03] >> that we would
[2:29:04] prioritize
[2:29:06] in the funding of the roundabout first
[2:29:08] funds from MAG. Doesn't mean we're not
[2:29:10] going to do it. It just means we would
[2:29:11] prioritize first funds from MAG, second
[2:29:14] from the sale
[2:29:15] of Alpine City land and third from other
[2:29:18] funds.
[2:29:19] >> Do you accept that amendment?
[2:29:20] >> Would you accept now using the word
[2:29:22] explore?
[2:29:23] >> Yes. Yes.
[2:29:24] >> Okay. I would substitute explore for
[2:29:26] prioritize.
[2:29:27] >> Okay. The other amendment is
[2:29:31] that the traffic calming
[2:29:33] uh
[2:29:35] budget
[2:29:36] um
[2:29:37] What do we call these? The traffic
[2:29:38] calming budget item
[2:29:40] uh include a list of the specific street
[2:29:44] improvements and in that list Main
[2:29:46] Street and East Canyon Crest are
[2:29:48] included with West Canyon Crest
[2:29:51] with others that will follow.
[2:29:53] >> Do you accept the amendment? So, would
[2:29:56] that be number four?
[2:29:58] Yes.
[2:29:59] >> Yes.
[2:30:01] >> Do you accept the amendment? Yes or no?
[2:30:03] >> repeat it?
[2:30:04] >> The goal Okay, and just to explain it,
[2:30:05] the goal is that we clarify the traffic
[2:30:07] calming measures and make a list and add
[2:30:09] two additional streets to West Canyon
[2:30:11] Crest being Main Street
[2:30:14] and uh East Canyon Crest. So, it would
[2:30:17] be um
[2:30:19] that on the budget item for traffic
[2:30:21] calming measures that we also include a
[2:30:23] list of various street of various street
[2:30:25] improvements that include Main Street
[2:30:28] and Canyon Crest East and others.
[2:30:32] >> Do you accept it?
[2:30:33] >> Yes.
[2:30:33] >> Okay. Thank you. This is I hope the
[2:30:36] public is
[2:30:36] >> Okay, anything else?
[2:30:37] >> Yes, yes, last two. Um
[2:30:41] would you accept an amendment that in
[2:30:43] the budget that we add back in the
[2:30:46] easement beautification on as the first
[2:30:49] minute So, I'll just read it. Add back
[2:30:51] in from our original motion
[2:30:53] easement beautification and the raccoon
[2:30:56] plan.
[2:30:58] >> For
[2:31:00] >> So, they're they're missing in this
[2:31:01] budget.
[2:31:01] >> the amendment?
[2:31:02] >> They're missing in this budget.
[2:31:03] >> think they've been removed.
[2:31:05] They They were part of our approved
[2:31:08] budget list.
[2:31:09] >> No, I know, but they're not in what
[2:31:10] we're uh agreeing to right now. That's
[2:31:12] why I'm asking to add them back in.
[2:31:14] >> If Yes, if they're not listed as we
[2:31:17] agreed on the council to include them,
[2:31:19] then yes, I would add them back in.
[2:31:21] >> Yes, the last one
[2:31:23] um
[2:31:24] you already included, which was the 80%
[2:31:26] for parks and 20% for Lexi. That's all I
[2:31:28] have. Thank you. Appreciate it.
[2:31:29] >> Okay. Um
[2:31:33] Deanne, I'm just going to apologize
[2:31:35] right now cuz this is one heck of a
[2:31:37] motion you're going to have to type up
[2:31:39] for us. Probably have to play repeat
[2:31:41] many times. Um
[2:31:43] we have a motion by Councilwoman
[2:31:44] Smeaton, seconded by Councilman Young
[2:31:48] with the four
[2:31:49] Is there four amendments? Is that
[2:31:50] correct?
[2:31:51] >> Uh definition of merit, there's
[2:31:54] prioritizing of the funds for the
[2:31:55] roundabout, the list for the traffic
[2:31:57] calming measures on various streets
[2:31:59] including Canyon Crest East and Main
[2:32:01] Street. Um adding back in the easement
[2:32:04] beautification on Alpine Highway and the
[2:32:07] raccoon plan.
[2:32:08] And that's all. So, there's five. Am I right? 1 2
[2:32:13] >> Did you say five? I thought that was
[2:32:15] four.
[2:32:15] >> 1
[2:32:17] 2
[2:32:18] >> Four conditions. Let
[2:32:19] >> You're right, four.
[2:32:20] >> Four conditions. Let's proceed with the
[2:32:22] roll call vote.
[2:32:23] >> Do we have questions on them?
[2:32:24] >> Yes, do you have questions on the motion
[2:32:26] cuz I'm sure you do because it was very
[2:32:27] extensive.
[2:32:28] >> I'm sorry to interrupt
[2:32:30] because it lasted so long. So, if if
[2:32:31] something's getting added back in, has
[2:32:34] to be determined where the money's
[2:32:35] coming from.
[2:32:36] >> Okay.
[2:32:37] >> If we don't have revenue, we can't pay
[2:32:39] for it.
[2:32:40] >> [clears throat]
[2:32:40] >> So, correct me if I'm wrong, the
[2:32:42] raccoons and Alpine Highway were removed
[2:32:45] because those were on the bottom of the
[2:32:47] list and we ran out of money.
[2:32:49] >> Well, hold on.
[2:32:49] >> And that's that's the instruction we
[2:32:51] were given from that motion. That's the
[2:32:53] whole reason for the motion.
[2:32:57] That was the reason they were
[2:32:58] prioritized so we could make the funds
[2:33:00] actually pulled 50,000 from the
[2:33:02] roundabout bringing it from 1.5 million
[2:33:05] to 1.45
[2:33:07] to accommodate
[2:33:09] even some of those items on that list.
[2:33:12] >> So,
[2:33:13] can I can I clarify since you're talking
[2:33:14] about the amendment? The The two
[2:33:16] amendments that I added are not because
[2:33:18] we ran out of money. I know you can uh
[2:33:20] like verbalize it that way or think
[2:33:22] about it that way. This is $3,000.
[2:33:25] You know you're approving about 6
[2:33:27] million for the fire station at $3
[2:33:29] million bond. These are very tiny. And
[2:33:33] to go to your point that we're
[2:33:34] overspending, it's because the council
[2:33:37] has basically said yes to everything in
[2:33:39] the last 6 months, almost approving $8
[2:33:41] million. I have not done that. That's
[2:33:43] why I've said no to almost everything
[2:33:45] cuz I didn't want us to get locked into
[2:33:46] a budget that we had no money for. And
[2:33:48] so we've approved way too many things.
[2:33:50] That's why we're spending more. So, the
[2:33:52] raccoon plan is not because we're
[2:33:53] running out of money at $3,000. The
[2:33:55] highway easement plan is not because
[2:33:57] we're running out of money. That's
[2:33:58] asking for $10,000.
[2:33:59] And so, no, it's because there are just
[2:34:01] things that staff doesn't want to do.
[2:34:03] >> So, I don't think that's fair to say.
[2:34:07] >> So, yeah.
[2:34:10] >> So, if let's say we don't do a project,
[2:34:12] like let's say for some reason, I mean,
[2:34:15] we don't do one of these projects, is it
[2:34:17] advantageous to have those still on the
[2:34:19] list as backups? I don't know.
[2:34:21] >> I would love that. Well, I just you know
[2:34:22] what
[2:34:22] >> that a
[2:34:23] >> Neither of these are Andrew's budget
[2:34:25] proposals. These are neighborhood budget
[2:34:27] proposals from people that I had no
[2:34:29] inclination of doing. It's ones they're
[2:34:31] asking for.
[2:34:33] >> from what I understand what you just
[2:34:34] said is the things that are added back
[2:34:36] in. So, can we have the fund balance
[2:34:38] back up?
[2:34:40] So, right now we have to allocate which
[2:34:43] fund balance
[2:34:45] these projects are going back are being
[2:34:47] Okay. So, can we have that back up,
[2:34:48] please, Cayden?
[2:34:50] And let's say we don't do a project. Can
[2:34:52] do they have to be like these other two
[2:34:54] projects? And this is maybe a question
[2:34:56] for staff. Do they have to be listed or
[2:34:59] can we just know that if one of the
[2:35:01] projects doesn't happen and we have
[2:35:03] extra funds
[2:35:04] >> That could happen later.
[2:35:05] >> We can And that has happened in the
[2:35:08] past. So,
[2:35:09] >> So, it could be later.
[2:35:10] >> to know projects. Just because it's not
[2:35:11] in there doesn't mean it's not going to
[2:35:13] happen.
[2:35:14] It's just that
[2:35:16] >> This is why I would include that.
[2:35:17] >> Don't solo. has
[2:35:19] voted to prioritize
[2:35:21] and prioritize voted to prioritize
[2:35:23] projects that are important to them and
[2:35:25] you've given direction to staff to do it
[2:35:28] in that order.
[2:35:30] >> Right, but we were never told that staff
[2:35:32] would make an arbitrary line and nix
[2:35:35] some of them.
[2:35:36] >> Well, okay. The arbitrary line is
[2:35:38] if you look at the fund balance, just
[2:35:40] what Chrissy was saying, we get
[2:35:43] X amount of dollars in
[2:35:44] >> No, I know you get X amount
[2:35:46] >> about mayor. This are
[2:35:47] >> So
[2:35:48] >> the $3,000
[2:35:50] for a entire city wide problem.
[2:35:52] >> looking at us going into the red. Yes,
[2:35:55] if you want to choose that, let's work
[2:35:57] with Shane who is our finance director
[2:35:59] to see which
[2:36:00] fund balance it
[2:36:02] >> plan, which seems ridiculous, I know, is
[2:36:05] not putting us in the red. Other things
[2:36:07] are putting us in the red.
[2:36:08] >> All we I said all we have to do is we
[2:36:09] need to figure out which fund balance
[2:36:11] that comes out of.
[2:36:12] >> Well, they cannot be in the general fund
[2:36:15] for now if funds allow it. I mean, do I
[2:36:17] need to make another amendment to just
[2:36:19] that one amendment?
[2:36:22] >> So what were the items that were being
[2:36:23] added back? It's the
[2:36:25] >> And I I know this must
[2:36:26] >> Pine Highway beautification and what was
[2:36:28] the other one? The raccoons. Okay. So
[2:36:31] what would you suggest which fund
[2:36:32] balance it comes from?
[2:36:34] >> Um probably capital improvement fund.
[2:36:38] All right. I don't know what the
[2:36:39] beautification is dependent on us
[2:36:41] getting some kind of access right to
[2:36:43] that. So
[2:36:44] >> Which is kind of like the roundabout
[2:36:45] that didn't happen.
[2:36:46] >> Right, it's uncertain. It's like the
[2:36:48] roundabout that didn't happen in um
[2:36:51] Lambert. These can be nixed if say it
[2:36:53] doesn't work out. And I just like to say
[2:36:55] I know this is probably so painful for
[2:36:57] the residents and the staff and the
[2:36:58] mayor.
[2:36:59] But
[2:37:00] if you work in a family or you work in a
[2:37:02] business and you're not a numbers person
[2:37:04] and you don't really detail this and
[2:37:06] scrutinize it and have pushback and back
[2:37:08] and forth and discussion, you will make
[2:37:11] bad decisions. So I hope you see the
[2:37:12] value in how much we're caring, how much
[2:37:14] we're trying to listen to residents, and
[2:37:16] how much we're trying to nitpick at
[2:37:17] these numbers. So, I I just hope that
[2:37:19] comes through besides the
[2:37:22] potential chaos that you're looking at.
[2:37:24] >> Andrew, how is it that we're um I I'm not following
[2:37:31] your
[2:37:32] process
[2:37:33] in that the statement, you can't do
[2:37:36] everything you want. You're relentless.
[2:37:38] >> I agree. You can't do everything you
[2:37:40] want. Okay, let me explain. Two big
[2:37:41] things. These are not things I want.
[2:37:49] These are things that the residents of
[2:37:51] Aliso Viejo are pleading for.
[2:37:53] Okay.
[2:37:56] I am representing them. These are things
[2:37:57] that they are asking for. We are doing
[2:38:00] things, staff is doing things with money
[2:38:02] that they have never asked for, and that
[2:38:05] is why we have depleted funds to do the
[2:38:07] things that they are asking for. Okay.
[2:38:10] So, I am trying to pivot it very small,
[2:38:13] very very minor
[2:38:15] to put the funds towards things they are
[2:38:17] asking for. Right now, we're in
[2:38:19] >> But you're telling the the residents
[2:38:20] they can have everything they want.
[2:38:22] >> No, I'm not saying that.
[2:38:23] >> Yeah, you're you're the dad who who
[2:38:24] doesn't know how to say no to his
[2:38:25] children.
[2:38:26] >> want. This is people
[2:38:27] >> This is everything on your list.
[2:38:29] >> This is not my list. This is a list that
[2:38:31] residents have pleaded for.
[2:38:33] >> Yeah, I always I'm
[2:38:34] >> Okay, let's stop. We have a motion, we
[2:38:37] have a second amended motion with four
[2:38:39] contingencies.
[2:38:42] I
[2:38:43] I'm sorry, amendment to the motion with
[2:38:45] four um different
[2:38:46] >> Four four amendments.
[2:38:47] >> I I don't understand the number two. Can
[2:38:50] somebody explain that?
[2:38:51] >> What What was number two? The adding the
[2:38:53] funding for the roundabout?
[2:38:53] >> Could you read your part again, and then
[2:38:55] somebody explain what that means in a
[2:38:56] legal sense?
[2:39:00] » Do you want me to say Okay, funds
[2:39:02] appropriated for the Ridge Drive and
[2:39:04] Canyon Crest roundabout shall remain
[2:39:06] restricted for that project as proposed.
[2:39:10] So again, as a council we've made
[2:39:12] decisions.
[2:39:13] It's just another layer so that we're
[2:39:16] that
[2:39:17] staff or an outside entity isn't
[2:39:20] reallocating those monies to another
[2:39:22] project based upon
[2:39:25] >> So do you realize though you've said
[2:39:26] tonight that like right now the budget
[2:39:28] has been moved down from 1.5 to 1450?
[2:39:33] Um that if the cost comes down lower,
[2:39:36] right? And then maybe it's only a
[2:39:37] million.
[2:39:40] You still want to allocate So you're not
[2:39:42] giving any flexibility is what I'm
[2:39:43] saying.
[2:39:44] >> think she did cuz she said that with
[2:39:46] Read your last part. The last part kind
[2:39:48] of addresses I do understand what you
[2:39:51] the restricted kind of is um
[2:39:53] uncomfortable for me, but she did put in
[2:39:55] a
[2:39:56] >> Will you read it again?
[2:39:57] >> Read the last part of your
[2:39:59] >> And the part about the city council,
[2:40:00] right?
[2:40:01] >> For that the pro Okay.
[2:40:02] >> It's your first sentence.
[2:40:03] >> Shall remain restricted for that project
[2:40:06] as proposed and shall not be reallocated
[2:40:09] to another purpose except by subsequent
[2:40:12] action by the city council.
[2:40:14] So it's just putting us in
[2:40:16] keeping us in those decisions.
[2:40:18] >> So in
[2:40:19] >> council further affirms the Ridge Drive
[2:40:22] and Canyon Crest roundabout as an
[2:40:24] adopted fiscal year 2027 capital
[2:40:27] improvement priority, which we've said
[2:40:29] it's number two.
[2:40:30] It's and directs staff to continue
[2:40:33] engineering, grant administration,
[2:40:36] permitting, and other project
[2:40:37] development activities necessary to
[2:40:40] advance the project.
[2:40:43] >> So let's say that because of this MAG
[2:40:45] delay that we we really can't utilize
[2:40:48] the funds till the next year. So
[2:40:51] everything because of our 35% limit has
[2:40:53] to get put over to capital improvements.
[2:40:55] So you're saying we're just going to
[2:40:56] track that and then are they going to
[2:40:58] track every time they like they get an
[2:41:00] engineering study or anything related to
[2:41:02] it, subtract it.
[2:41:03] >> Just like we did for the fire station,
[2:41:05] no different.
[2:41:07] We earmarked funds, we moved the project
[2:41:09] forward, and we kept, you know, track of
[2:41:12] those expenses that were
[2:41:14] coming out of the fire station remodel.
[2:41:16] >> Um when when there was the part that um Andrew added about paying for it
[2:41:23] through the sale of property, like we we
[2:41:26] really can't plan on that. Can we remove
[2:41:28] that and leave everything else you said
[2:41:30] though?
[2:41:30] >> explore.
[2:41:31] >> Yeah.
[2:41:32] >> It was not It does not block us
[2:41:34] >> this since
[2:41:36] in for the last 5 months as as a
[2:41:37] possibility. It's just a possibility.
[2:41:39] >> No, I was trying to lock it in
[2:41:40] >> mandatory we have those as the options
[2:41:41] we explore first before using our
[2:41:44] capital.
[2:41:44] >> Well, and I think it's good clarity
[2:41:45] again. It's awesome to have a lot of
[2:41:47] public here. I've sat in these budget
[2:41:49] meetings as a resident before. I think
[2:41:52] there was me and one other
[2:41:53] >> You guys, let's move on. Do you have
[2:41:55] another question? Clarity
[2:41:56] >> Yeah, so how how does that So my I
[2:41:58] wanted you to read it again and then how
[2:41:59] does that work on our side?
[2:42:02] On the staff side of tracking that and
[2:42:05] like since it's unusual.
[2:42:08] >> We We can make it work, I mean.
[2:42:11] We're working with the the consultant
[2:42:13] right now on the Canyon Crest design. Um
[2:42:16] they've just finished up their survey
[2:42:17] and we're just really getting started,
[2:42:20] so.
[2:42:21] >> So it's like we have the MAG money is as
[2:42:23] one bucket of money and then this
[2:42:25] roundabout money is a separate bucket
[2:42:27] and you allocate like if you have
[2:42:29] engineering and it works on both
[2:42:30] projects, you allocate it between the
[2:42:32] two.
[2:42:32] >> There's a lot of moving parts on that.
[2:42:34] Like the inclusion of the roundabout,
[2:42:36] there's a lot of different
[2:42:37] possibilities. It kind of depends on
[2:42:38] what falls into place.
[2:42:41] But in the end, the council will be the
[2:42:43] ones that will approve a project moving
[2:42:46] forward.
[2:42:47] >> Okay.
[2:42:47] >> So I mean it's totally protected in that
[2:42:50] way. I'm
[2:42:51] >> Yeah, I don't know.
[2:42:53] >> If it's not in the If it's not in the
[2:42:55] motion,
[2:42:57] staff whatever said here, staff is not
[2:42:59] going to go reallocating a million
[2:43:01] dollars. It's not going to happen. I can
[2:43:02] tell you that for sure.
[2:43:04] >> Okay.
[2:43:06] >> So, it it all comes back to the council
[2:43:10] making
[2:43:11] a decision of how a project moves
[2:43:13] forward.
[2:43:16] >> I have a question regarding the motion.
[2:43:18] >> [clears throat]
[2:43:18] >> Yeah, if we add two more projects, right
[2:43:20] now we have these sheets that are all
[2:43:22] balanced. Does that just mean you go
[2:43:24] back and you rework and
[2:43:27] you just have to rebalance?
[2:43:28] >> Have to move funds around.
[2:43:29] >> Okay.
[2:43:33] so we have a motion and a second.
[2:43:35] Are there any other questions regarding
[2:43:37] the motion itself? If not, I'll proceed
[2:43:40] with a roll call vote.
[2:43:42] >> Andrew Young, yes.
[2:43:43] >> Brent Romley, yes.
[2:43:44] >> Jessica Smeaton, yes.
[2:43:46] >> Sarah Blackwell, yes.
[2:43:53] » Am I allowed to abstain?
[2:43:54] >> Yeah, you can.
[2:43:57] >> I abstain.
[2:44:00] » Okay. [clears throat]
[2:44:01] Ordinance passes. We'll move on to item
[2:44:03] C.
[2:44:05] Ordinance 2026-15,
[2:44:08] the budget amendment for FY 2026.
[2:44:12] >> Okay, there's uh as I mentioned before,
[2:44:15] there's typically two budget amendments
[2:44:18] we do during the budget year. Typically
[2:44:21] one about halfway through and one at the
[2:44:23] end.
[2:44:24] So, this particular uh budget amendment
[2:44:27] is coming at the end of fiscal year 26.
[2:44:30] Uh there's three items in here that
[2:44:32] we're making adjustments for.
[2:44:34] Um in in parks, these are all general
[2:44:37] fund items. In parks,
[2:44:40] uh there's an amendment for increased
[2:44:42] expenses in the amount of 25,000.
[2:44:46] Uh
[2:44:47] in the streets, there's an amendment of
[2:44:49] 30,000
[2:44:51] for an increased
[2:44:54] cost to finish our this last street
[2:44:56] maintenance project.
[2:44:57] And then there's a general fund
[2:44:59] uh balance transferred to the capital
[2:45:01] improvement fund of 1.25 million.
[2:45:05] Um
[2:45:06] so those are the three items that are
[2:45:08] proposed in this budget amendment. Um
[2:45:11] this item does require a public hearing
[2:45:13] as been noticed.
[2:45:15] And so
[2:45:17] unless there's questions before I'd
[2:45:18] recommend
[2:45:20] opening the public hearing.
[2:45:28] » The public hearing is now open um
[2:45:31] for the proposed amendment amended
[2:45:33] budget for fiscal year 2025-26.
[2:45:40] Closed.
[2:45:44] So we'll start. Andrew, do you have
[2:45:45] anything?
[2:45:49] » Just just a quick thing on the on the
[2:45:51] next item. We might want to shift around
[2:45:52] the agenda for the folks here. I think
[2:45:54] they're here for the last item and I
[2:45:55] think we're losing a lot of them. So on
[2:45:58] the next
[2:45:59] Oh, okay.
[2:45:59] >> should be quick. I think that's
[2:46:00] >> we're going to Yeah, do you have any
[2:46:01] comments on the general fund?
[2:46:03] >> No, I don't have any comments. Uh
[2:46:06] there I I understand the third one um
[2:46:08] Shane where you're moving into the
[2:46:11] capital projects fund. Is that correct?
[2:46:13] >> Yes.
[2:46:14] >> And then the other two
[2:46:16] I read through it briefly. I did not see
[2:46:19] specifics on what that 25k and what that
[2:46:22] 30k
[2:46:23] was specifically used for. Did I miss
[2:46:25] that? What it was
[2:46:26] >> The streets was for I just mentioned it.
[2:46:29] Uh
[2:46:30] >> I I know it said streets but
[2:46:31] >> To finish up the project that we just
[2:46:33] got approved. The chip seal project.
[2:46:36] >> Oh, so it's not
[2:46:36] >> It came in just a little bit over
[2:46:38] >> over the 220?
[2:46:39] >> what we had left in the budget.
[2:46:42] You approved an amount
[2:46:44] >> It was like 220.
[2:46:45] >> 220 I think.
[2:46:46] >> didn't have quite that much left in the
[2:46:48] budget, so we're amending it
[2:46:51] >> to have enough there to finish that
[2:46:52] project.
[2:46:54] The other one is just there's been a ton
[2:46:56] of expenses with uh parks and sprinklers
[2:47:00] more than anticipated.
[2:47:02] So, it's just
[2:47:04] general
[2:47:05] uh
[2:47:06] increase in costs over what was
[2:47:08] anticipated in the parks.
[2:47:10] >> Okay, thank you.
[2:47:15] » Do you [clears throat] have any?
[2:47:17] >> Uh nothing for me.
[2:47:18] >> No comment.
[2:47:20] No questions.
[2:47:21] >> No questions.
[2:47:23] >> Okay, with that we'll open a public
[2:47:25] hearing. Oh, sorry.
[2:47:28] I had a bio bio break. Sorry about that.
[2:47:30] Um okay.
[2:47:32] What's next? You want to finish this
[2:47:33] off?
[2:47:33] >> I'll make a motion.
[2:47:34] >> Yeah, okay.
[2:47:35] >> I move to approve ordinance 2026-15
[2:47:37] amending the fiscal year 2025-2026
[2:47:40] budget as proposed.
[2:47:41] >> I'll second.
[2:47:42] >> It's been moved by Councilman Rumler,
[2:47:44] seconded by Councilwoman Blackwell.
[2:47:47] Um if there's no further questions,
[2:47:48] we'll proceed with the roll call vote.
[2:47:50] >> Andrew Young, no. Brett Rumler, yes.
[2:47:52] >> Jessica Smoot, yes.
[2:47:53] >> Sarah Blackwell, yes.
[2:47:55] >> Gracie Haneman, yes.
[2:47:56] >> Okay, with that we'll move on to item D,
[2:47:59] resolution R 2026-25.
[2:48:03] The fire station community center um
[2:48:06] project, the approval of the amendment
[2:48:07] to number one to the agreement between
[2:48:10] Circ
[2:48:11] You know what?
[2:48:12] And the rest.
[2:48:13] >> Sorry.
[2:48:14] >> It's a long one.
[2:48:15] >> It is.
[2:48:16] >> Yeah, so
[2:48:18] uh
[2:48:19] we'd hoped to have this
[2:48:20] um
[2:48:23] guaranteed maximum price at the last
[2:48:24] council meeting, but it needed just a
[2:48:26] little bit more time.
[2:48:27] Um in the end uh what happened is the when the bids were gathered, um
[2:48:33] things came back just a
[2:48:35] little over what the budget was that was
[2:48:37] created um at an earlier
[2:48:41] stage of the plans. And so,
[2:48:44] it amounted to about 220,000.
[2:48:47] Um so, the team put together a list of
[2:48:50] items that could be considered that,
[2:48:52] you know, a few thousand here, a few
[2:48:53] thousand there.
[2:48:55] Um when the mayor and I looked at these
[2:48:57] items, um you know, some of the things
[2:48:59] were like
[2:49:01] leaving the old garage doors on one side
[2:49:03] of the building. Um they're 30 years
[2:49:06] old. They're going to need to be
[2:49:08] replaced soon. It didn't to not do it
[2:49:11] now with everything else that's going
[2:49:14] on.
[2:49:15] And so, there were things like that and
[2:49:16] other small items. Uh some of it was
[2:49:20] really not a savings because it was
[2:49:22] taking it out of the general contract
[2:49:25] and putting it as an owner uh
[2:49:28] paid item,
[2:49:30] which the cost to us really isn't any
[2:49:31] different.
[2:49:33] >> [cough]
[2:49:33] >> So,
[2:49:35] um in the end,
[2:49:37] uh what we're recommending is that we
[2:49:39] accept this guaranteed maximum price
[2:49:43] of 5.12
[2:49:45] million 327 dollars.
[2:49:48] Um
[2:49:51] Excuse me, I got a frog in my throat. Um
[2:49:54] that puts the overall project cost at uh
[2:49:57] 6 million
[2:49:59] 50,000.
[2:50:01] Um because not knowing where we'd be
[2:50:04] in the [clears throat] end with this
[2:50:05] guaranteed maximum price,
[2:50:08] we didn't incorporate the donations that
[2:50:10] we have either received or will receive
[2:50:15] um
[2:50:16] >> [clears throat]
[2:50:17] >> into the funding scenario,
[2:50:20] leaving that right till the end.
[2:50:22] >> [clears throat]
[2:50:22] >> So, in doing that,
[2:50:25] uh
[2:50:26] the way we've got this planned out, we
[2:50:28] won't have to bond for any more than we
[2:50:30] planned for, the 2 million.
[2:50:33] Um
[2:50:35] the [clears throat]
[2:50:36] fiscal year 28 general fund went from
[2:50:38] 500,000 to 200,000.
[2:50:42] And [snorts] we're getting the project
[2:50:44] um
[2:50:45] I think that the council wants. So,
[2:50:48] um
[2:50:50] these guys are ready to turn dirt out
[2:50:53] here. I don't know if you saw the
[2:50:54] construction trailer, but um
[2:50:56] so, we need to approve this contract
[2:50:58] amendment uh with SIR Construction. I've
[2:51:01] also included um to detail out the 6.05
[2:51:06] million um the sheet that's in the
[2:51:09] packet that shows the soft costs as well
[2:51:11] as the
[2:51:13] um the part that's within uh SIR's
[2:51:16] contract.
[2:51:18] So, this is up uh to approve this
[2:51:21] resolution so this project can finally
[2:51:23] move forward.
[2:51:28] » I move to approve resolution Can you go
[2:51:31] back up?
[2:51:32] >> I know.
[2:51:32] >> It's okay, but she We've got a motion,
[2:51:34] so we've got to
[2:51:34] >> Move forward.
[2:51:35] >> I move to approve resolution R2026-25
[2:51:39] approving amendments
[2:51:41] number one to the agreement between SIR
[2:51:43] Construction and Alpine City
[2:51:45] including the maximum and price.
[2:51:48] >> Okay.
[2:51:49] >> Just
[2:51:49] >> I'm sorry, including the guaranteed
[2:51:51] maximum price.
[2:51:52] >> a motion. Is there a second?
[2:51:54] >> I'll second.
[2:51:54] >> It's been moved by Councilwoman
[2:51:56] Hanneman, seconded by Councilwoman
[2:51:57] Smuin. Are there any questions regarding
[2:52:00] the motion itself?
[2:52:01] >> Just discuss discussion on the motion.
[2:52:04] And that is this [snorts] is what we are
[2:52:05] doing. Uh we are
[2:52:08] this Like I ache for Alpine.
[2:52:11] Uh 20 This is you're approving I just
[2:52:13] hope you know what you're approving. A
[2:52:14] 20-year bond that will not be 2 million,
[2:52:17] it'll be over three 3.5.
[2:52:19] Uh it's this this project keeps getting
[2:52:22] more and more expensive. We already
[2:52:24] raised property taxes before I was here
[2:52:26] 40% to fund this. Still wasn't enough.
[2:52:29] Uh
[2:52:30] these uh in in 2023
[2:52:32] >> property tax was not to fund this. The
[2:52:34] property tax
[2:52:35] >> was pitched as.
[2:52:36] For the fire wing.
[2:52:37] >> Wage increase.
[2:52:39] >> you go back and look at the minutes, you
[2:52:41] will find it is to also renovate and
[2:52:44] this If you read the minutes, it is also
[2:52:46] to renovate the fire station.
[2:52:47] >> bulk of it was for the salaries cuz it
[2:52:49] came up so much higher.
[2:52:51] >> also for the fire station.
[2:52:52] >> have done the project back then, it
[2:52:54] would have been half the cost.
[2:52:56] >> I'm just saying.
[2:52:57] >> We talked about the rate of inflation
[2:52:59] this year. Same thing with our water
[2:53:01] system. If we would have done the
[2:53:02] projects that were suggested 4 years ago
[2:53:06] when it was originally suggested that we
[2:53:07] do it, it would have been more than half
[2:53:09] less than half the cost that it's going
[2:53:11] to cost us in today's dollars
[2:53:13] because of the rate of inflation on
[2:53:15] construction.
[2:53:16] >> The last motion we made on this, I tried
[2:53:18] to add a an amendment to lock in the
[2:53:21] price at around, I think, 4.8 and then
[2:53:24] it went up higher or it was at 5.8. I
[2:53:26] can't remember. I tried to lock it in
[2:53:28] and it was for this reason so that it
[2:53:30] didn't keep jacking up. So, I would
[2:53:32] offer amendment to lock this in so that
[2:53:36] it doesn't keep going up. We right now
[2:53:38] we are locked in with these guys. If we
[2:53:40] make a change, this has been a lesson to
[2:53:42] me watching how this has gone. We made a
[2:53:45] small change and then they came back
[2:53:46] with any amount of money that they
[2:53:48] wanted to charge for that change. I
[2:53:50] don't know anyone that sets up a
[2:53:51] contract and doesn't put room for
[2:53:54] changes in there where they come back
[2:53:55] for a
[2:53:56] little minor change and charge 22 grand.
[2:54:00] We're now locked into this where they
[2:54:01] can just up the amount at any point. We
[2:54:03] have to say yes.
[2:54:05] It's This is a big lesson. Uh our kids' will be paying for this. Um yeah, I
[2:54:11] just
[2:54:12] I This is why I've said no to this from
[2:54:13] the beginning and also residents have
[2:54:15] never asked for this.
[2:54:18] » Okay, if not, let's proceed with the
[2:54:20] roll call vote.
[2:54:22] >> Andrew Young, no.
[2:54:24] Brent Rumler, yes.
[2:54:25] >> Jessica Smeaton, yes.
[2:54:26] >> Sarah Blackwelder, yes.
[2:54:28] >> Christiana Minyan yes.
[2:54:29] >> Okay, resolution passes. Now for the
[2:54:31] item that everybody is here for, the
[2:54:33] site plan approval for long range
[2:54:35] shooters site plan.
[2:54:37] So, as this is not a public hearing,
[2:54:41] um
[2:54:42] we are not going to allow public
[2:54:44] comment.
[2:54:45] But, I appreciate everyone writing in
[2:54:49] with their emails as I stated before
[2:54:52] that um I think a lot of um the concerns
[2:54:55] were pretty similar, but very well um
[2:54:58] spoken and I appreciate everyone's
[2:55:00] efforts. They did not fall on deaf ears.
[2:55:03] I'm
[2:55:04] I know I spoke with several of you about
[2:55:06] it and seems like most of you have read
[2:55:08] and um are taking all of that into
[2:55:10] consideration. So, I'm going to go ahead
[2:55:13] and let staff do their report on this um
[2:55:17] site plan and then we'll move forward.
[2:55:19] >> You want a motion to extend past 9:00
[2:55:21] before staff begins.
[2:55:23] >> Um sure.
[2:55:26] >> Um I move to extend the city council
[2:55:28] meeting
[2:55:29] to um
[2:55:31] complete the business of the city.
[2:55:34] >> Second.
[2:55:35] >> Okay, it's moved by Councilwoman Smewin,
[2:55:37] seconded by um Councilman Young to
[2:55:39] extend
[2:55:40] our normal meeting time beyond 9:00 p.m.
[2:55:43] >> I was studying Robert's Rules, we can do
[2:55:45] this by consent. We have to do roll call
[2:55:46] though.
[2:55:47] >> All in favor?
[2:55:48] >> I.
[2:55:48] >> Okay. So, for those of you guys that are
[2:55:50] unaware, um before this year most of our
[2:55:53] meetings ended at 9:00 or before, but
[2:55:56] since this year they've been going very, long and so by our um
[2:56:02] own rules to kind of limit discussion
[2:56:04] and um being more effective and
[2:56:07] efficient and also as a cost of um
[2:56:10] saving tool is to limit the time of our
[2:56:12] meetings and the only way you can extend
[2:56:14] it is if you have a super majority vote
[2:56:17] of city council. So, is there Actually,
[2:56:19] I didn't I thought everyone said yes,
[2:56:21] but I didn't ask. Anyone opposed?
[2:56:23] >> I was going to ask a question. Is there
[2:56:25] a way to amend the motion to say till
[2:56:27] 10:00 so we just have a definitive cut
[2:56:29] off?
[2:56:30] >> Well, I think we've already voted.
[2:56:32] >> Too late. So So, I voted nay.
[2:56:34] >> [laughter]
[2:56:35] >> Okay, motion passes cuz that was a super
[2:56:38] majority. Um
[2:56:40] So, that's what's going on. Um
[2:56:42] So, I'm sorry. Go ahead with um Caden,
[2:56:45] are you doing this or is Shane doing
[2:56:46] this?
[2:56:46] >> I'm doing this, yeah.
[2:56:47] >> Okay, thank you.
[2:56:49] >> All right. Uh so,
[2:56:53] uh happy to present this item today. Um
[2:56:56] this did go to the planning commission
[2:56:57] last week and received a recommendation
[2:56:59] for approval to come to before the the
[2:57:01] council today.
[2:57:03] So, this is a commercial site plan for a
[2:57:06] business called the Long Range Shooters
[2:57:07] of Utah. It's proposed for the parcel
[2:57:09] number
[2:57:10] uh 020110045, which
[2:57:13] is off of 200 North and Main Street.
[2:57:16] Uh it consists of a space for a small
[2:57:19] retail gun shop, a warehouse, space for
[2:57:22] an office, and space uh to film content
[2:57:25] in for the shop. And it will also
[2:57:27] include a one-bedroom apartment above
[2:57:28] the office area.
[2:57:30] >> [snorts]
[2:57:31] >> So, the applicant has provided a site
[2:57:32] plan that meets the requirements of the
[2:57:34] business commercial zone, which this
[2:57:36] project is in, and the Gateway Historic
[2:57:38] Zone.
[2:57:39] Uh last week in the planning commission
[2:57:41] meeting, there was discussion about the
[2:57:42] exterior materials, in particular the ACM panels, which are proposed for
[2:57:47] this project, and
[2:57:50] whether they meet the Historic Gateway
[2:57:52] Design Guidelines.
[2:57:54] >> [clears throat]
[2:57:54] >> In the end, there was a motion by the
[2:57:57] planning commission that the ACM panels
[2:57:59] could mimic the primary exterior
[2:58:01] materials and therefore meet the
[2:58:02] guidelines.
[2:58:03] And so, they were approved.
[2:58:05] And that's just an image of that
[2:58:07] requirement.
[2:58:09] Um I know there's been a lot of
[2:58:10] discussion about parking issues for this
[2:58:12] project.
[2:58:14] Um it was determined that the parking
[2:58:16] requirements
[2:58:17] would be 3.5 stalls per 1,000 square
[2:58:20] feet
[2:58:21] uh of the retail area
[2:58:23] including the office and space for uh
[2:58:26] content creation.
[2:58:28] And with the project being about 1,600
[2:58:30] square feet in that those areas,
[2:58:32] it was calculated out to be a little
[2:58:35] under six stalls.
[2:58:37] And so the applicant has provided six
[2:58:39] stalls for the project.
[2:58:41] Uh in fact, seven uh
[2:58:44] to accommodate also the employee that
[2:58:46] will be working on site.
[2:58:49] Um there was Again, regarding the
[2:58:51] parking, there's been a lot of
[2:58:53] discussion about uh backing onto 200
[2:58:58] south or north? I can't North, thank
[2:59:00] you, everybody. I've only been here 3
[2:59:01] months. Um so backing onto the road
[2:59:06] and you know, this was something that we
[2:59:08] definitely thought a lot about and I
[2:59:10] brought up to our city engineer.
[2:59:12] Um our specific code says that a two-way
[2:59:16] aisle requires 24 feet of room.
[2:59:20] Uh this is not a two-way aisle, it's a
[2:59:21] one-way aisle.
[2:59:23] And so there is no code reference for
[2:59:25] that in our city code no nor in the Utah
[2:59:27] state code for how much that distance
[2:59:29] needs to be
[2:59:31] for a one-way aisle.
[2:59:32] And so with the applicant providing over
[2:59:35] 16 feet uh and even over 18 feet before
[2:59:39] the sidewalk, it was determined by staff
[2:59:41] that the space was sufficient.
[2:59:45] That's all I'll say on that right now.
[2:59:48] Um there was also concern from the
[2:59:49] planning commission that because there
[2:59:51] are
[2:59:52] from what I understand the school nearby
[2:59:55] um
[2:59:55] or just residences in general, if
[2:59:58] there's any state or federal law that
[2:59:59] impedes firearm sales from being in that
[3:00:01] location.
[3:00:03] There was investigation from staff and
[3:00:06] uh looking into both state and federal
[3:00:08] laws, there would be nothing that would
[3:00:10] prohibit the location of the site.
[3:00:12] Um
[3:00:14] a municipal ordinance or the local
[3:00:18] municipality is able to adopt ordinances
[3:00:21] for where retail
[3:00:23] uses are allowed in the city, but they
[3:00:26] cannot discriminate against gun stores
[3:00:28] themselves.
[3:00:30] If so, it would be illegal. And so, they
[3:00:33] would have to apply it to the entire
[3:00:34] ordinance to be able to determine
[3:00:37] distances from schools, churches, things
[3:00:40] like that for retail uses in general. Is
[3:00:43] from what I understand, and maybe Mr.
[3:00:45] Doxey can correct me on that.
[3:00:47] >> [clears throat]
[3:00:48] >> Um so, overall, it was determined that
[3:00:51] the location was was not impeded by any
[3:00:54] ordinance for distance of a gun store to
[3:00:58] uses like that. Um there are laws in
[3:01:01] state and federal law about, you know,
[3:01:03] wielding a a firearm on premises of like
[3:01:07] a school, for example, but nothing about
[3:01:09] distance uh to the actual retail store.
[3:01:14] Um so, the one-bedroom apartment, the
[3:01:17] applicant is aware and knows that that
[3:01:19] is supposed to be owner-occupied only,
[3:01:21] and they agreed to that.
[3:01:26] This is the motion from Planning
[3:01:27] Commission that I'm sure you were able
[3:01:28] to look at. As you can see in there,
[3:01:30] they decided that the ACM panels mimic
[3:01:33] could mimic the treatment of a wood
[3:01:35] cladding and therefore meet the
[3:01:36] guidelines.
[3:01:39] So, just I'll read the staff
[3:01:41] recommendation. We would recommend that
[3:01:43] the City Council
[3:01:45] approve the proposed Long Range Shooters
[3:01:47] of Utah commercial site plan
[3:01:49] subject to the following conditions.
[3:01:52] Um again, probably one of the biggest
[3:01:55] issues or concerns that was brought up
[3:01:57] is the the parking and the space to get
[3:01:59] out without backing onto 200
[3:02:02] North. And so,
[3:02:04] um
[3:02:04] we would recommend an installation of an
[3:02:06] elevated curb along the front property
[3:02:08] line in front of the parking area.
[3:02:11] Um except for where the 24-ft
[3:02:14] ingress and egress opening would be, and
[3:02:16] that would prevent people from backing
[3:02:18] out onto the street.
[3:02:20] And we would also recommend that the
[3:02:22] landscape plan be
[3:02:24] uh revised to exclude any trees or any
[3:02:27] plant that would be over 3 ft in height
[3:02:29] within the sight triangle.
[3:02:31] And I also sent an email to the council
[3:02:34] earlier today about other another
[3:02:36] potential recommendation of including
[3:02:38] some landscaping in the park strip area
[3:02:40] just to provide an additional buffer
[3:02:42] uh for that parking area.
[3:02:45] >> [snorts]
[3:02:45] >> And to ensure that they meet the the 20%
[3:02:47] requirement for for landscaping, which I
[3:02:49] believe they would.
[3:02:52] So that would be the staff
[3:02:53] recommendation.
[3:02:55] >> [cough and clears throat]
[3:02:56] >> Um you know, we've received as the mayor
[3:02:59] uh pointed out, there's been several
[3:03:01] emails both for and
[3:03:03] against this proposal.
[3:03:06] Um so I think there's there's valid
[3:03:07] points made in each of them. Um but I
[3:03:10] think a lot There's a lot of discussion
[3:03:12] in comments we received from residents
[3:03:13] that this doesn't fit with the
[3:03:16] residential character of the area around
[3:03:19] it.
[3:03:20] Um while that might be true to some
[3:03:22] degree, I would I would say that there
[3:03:24] it's clear for the city and the staff
[3:03:27] that this is a business commercial zone,
[3:03:29] and the properties immediately adjacent
[3:03:31] to this property are also in the
[3:03:32] business commercial zone.
[3:03:34] And so this project meets the
[3:03:36] requirements of the business commercial
[3:03:37] zone for height setbacks and all those
[3:03:39] requirements.
[3:03:41] So [snorts]
[3:03:42] um
[3:03:44] and Mr. Doxey again can correct me if
[3:03:46] I'm wrong on this. Um council member
[3:03:48] Rumbler sent me a an email as well
[3:03:50] earlier about if this is an
[3:03:52] administrative or legislative decision.
[3:03:55] Um and I would say that yes, this is
[3:03:57] definitely an administrative decision.
[3:03:59] It's based on current ordinances and if
[3:04:02] the project meets those ordinances.
[3:04:09] All right, and so just to wrap up my
[3:04:10] part and then I'll throw it back to
[3:04:12] the actual decision-makers on this.
[3:04:15] Uh this was a rendering of the project
[3:04:18] that the Planning Commission saw and
[3:04:20] ultimately approved.
[3:04:23] >> [clears throat]
[3:04:24] >> So I'll show that.
[3:04:27] And then let me go to the site plan
[3:04:29] here.
[3:04:37] Here's the site plan. You can see here
[3:04:39] the required ADA stall is is there.
[3:04:43] Um the other parking stalls, there's
[3:04:46] room adequate room for landscaping,
[3:04:48] which they've also submitted a landscape
[3:04:50] plan to show their landscaping.
[3:04:53] 10-ft PUE, which the staff required
[3:04:55] uh
[3:04:56] as as a condition of approval as well,
[3:04:59] uh and they added that in there for the
[3:05:01] front property line.
[3:05:03] And you can see the distances, as I
[3:05:04] mentioned earlier, of 16 over 16 ft for
[3:05:08] the uh space to back up
[3:05:11] before leaving the property and going
[3:05:13] into the city right-of-way.
[3:05:16] Um and with the curb and the landscaping
[3:05:20] that staff has recommended, we believe
[3:05:22] that is sufficient space to back up and
[3:05:23] then and go onto 200 North.
[3:05:32] And the last thing I'll just show is the
[3:05:34] elevation drawings, um just to confirm
[3:05:36] those materials.
[3:05:44] So you can see here this is a this is a
[3:05:45] brick uh a brick
[3:05:48] uh material here.
[3:05:50] The panels,
[3:05:51] uh wood soffit, metal fascia,
[3:05:56] then stucco on this elevation here.
[3:06:03] Again, a repeat of those other two,
[3:06:05] brick and ACM.
[3:06:11] And I believe this to be stucco as well.
[3:06:15] Yes, it matches this one. So, yes,
[3:06:16] stucco as well.
[3:06:18] Uh but one last comment I'll make, too.
[3:06:19] There was some concern about the the
[3:06:21] stairway being too close to the property
[3:06:24] line and not being set back. From what
[3:06:25] I've been told by the applicant,
[3:06:27] that is a cantilevered stairway
[3:06:30] and therefore meets our city ordinance
[3:06:32] of the 10 ft required.
[3:06:35] >> Is the balcony also cantilevered?
[3:06:37] >> From what I understand, yes. Yeah.
[3:06:41] All right. And I think that will be it
[3:06:42] for me. I'm definitely ready to answer
[3:06:44] any questions if you have any.
[3:06:46] >> Okay.
[3:06:48] Andrew, do you have any questions for
[3:06:49] Cayden?
[3:06:50] >> Uh are we doing like questions or you
[3:06:51] want us to do our turn, each one?
[3:06:53] Or both?
[3:06:54] >> Yeah, this is it.
[3:06:55] >> Okay. Cayden, I just so I understand, is
[3:06:57] this coming to us cuz you're saying it's
[3:06:59] administrative and
[3:07:01] Mr. Doxey, this is administrative.
[3:07:03] Typically, we don't get administrative
[3:07:04] things. Is this coming to us because
[3:07:07] there is gray area on the one
[3:07:10] Like why is this coming to us? Cuz
[3:07:11] typically, these don't come to us.
[3:07:13] They're just checked off a box by
[3:07:15] planning commission on if they meet code
[3:07:18] and then we have no say. I love that we
[3:07:19] have say. But is that is it is it just
[3:07:22] because of that one reason or there are
[3:07:23] other factors that that are bringing
[3:07:25] this to us?
[3:07:26] >> Yeah, it's actually just it's in the
[3:07:27] city ordinance that this has to
[3:07:28] commercial site plan has to be
[3:07:30] recommended by the planning commission
[3:07:32] and approved by the city council. You
[3:07:33] guys are the land use authority.
[3:07:35] >> Okay. Cool. Thank you.
[3:07:37] Okay. Um
[3:07:39] a question for some folks here. I know
[3:07:41] they've been working on it together and
[3:07:43] I've been really impressed and the owner
[3:07:47] just do we know has there been a
[3:07:49] compromise between between
[3:07:50] and the uh owner of this building on
[3:07:53] something that both parties feel
[3:07:54] comfortable with
[3:07:56] in the last couple hours today, or no?
[3:07:59] okay, I'm sorry.
[3:08:01] Um I'd hoped.
[3:08:03] Okay, um
[3:08:06] They Okay, so a couple things. This does
[3:08:08] not feel like the business commercial
[3:08:11] zone where this is. I actually think
[3:08:12] this is an error on our
[3:08:15] council or the previous years for us to
[3:08:18] have drawn the
[3:08:21] business commercial zoning how we did.
[3:08:23] If you walk these blocks, if you know
[3:08:25] these families, if you are in their
[3:08:27] homes,
[3:08:28] it is not business commercial. I think
[3:08:30] this is why we're having such a surprise
[3:08:33] from residents asking what is going on
[3:08:36] in the middle of our neighborhood. This
[3:08:37] has been a wake-up call to me to look at
[3:08:40] redrawing our business commercial
[3:08:41] zoning.
[3:08:42] Uh so that's the first. It does not feel
[3:08:44] I know the I know the law says that it's
[3:08:47] business commercial. I know it's been
[3:08:48] zoned that way.
[3:08:50] But in
[3:08:52] it's the letter of the law, in the
[3:08:54] spirit of the law, it is not commercial
[3:08:55] over there, in my opinion. And I grew up
[3:08:57] here, from 5 years old to 2 years old to
[3:09:00] 1 year old to 10 years old walking that
[3:09:02] 200 north. And it was as dangerous then
[3:09:04] as it is now, and we've got to fix it.
[3:09:07] Um so that is why I think we're having a
[3:09:10] big
[3:09:12] uh surprise by residents there. I also
[3:09:15] think, Mayor, our meeting structure has
[3:09:17] a big hole in it where we have all these
[3:09:19] people here and they can't speak on the
[3:09:21] day of. So I just would
[3:09:23] pose that we allow them to speak in the
[3:09:25] future when the issues there. They don't
[3:09:27] know that they have to come 2 weeks
[3:09:28] early and give a comment to a planning
[3:09:31] commission, then show up to a new group
[3:09:33] of people who they don't even know, or
[3:09:35] it's a different people making a
[3:09:36] decision. I just think it's weird,
[3:09:37] whoever structured it that way. They
[3:09:39] should just talk, we should hear them,
[3:09:40] we should like solve it. Anyways, that's
[3:09:42] just my opinion on the meeting
[3:09:43] structure. Hopefully that I get fixed in
[3:09:45] the future.
[3:09:46] >> what you're saying, but I do feel like
[3:09:48] it's just as effective reading all of um
[3:09:52] the emails and it's done much more
[3:09:54] efficiently and timely.
[3:09:56] Um you know, if we had every single
[3:09:58] comment here, you multiply everybody by
[3:10:00] 3 minutes
[3:10:01] and it will extend it longer, but I felt
[3:10:03] like, you know, I was able to read
[3:10:05] through all those emails.
[3:10:06] >> No, I read them.
[3:10:06] >> I understand all of those.
[3:10:08] >> Right.
[3:10:08] >> I don't feel like and it's no
[3:10:10] disrespect. I appreciate you guys being
[3:10:12] >> a jab either. It was just maybe we can
[3:10:13] improve the meetings.
[3:10:15] >> Um you know, it's
[3:10:17] I'm
[3:10:18] >> I know it's the way it's done. Other
[3:10:19] cities do it.
[3:10:20] >> the way it's done, but it's just the way
[3:10:21] that it's done efficiently. I feel like
[3:10:23] people personally reached out to
[3:10:25] everyone here aside um
[3:10:28] in addition to the emails. So, I feel
[3:10:30] like the discussions that need to be had
[3:10:33] have been had.
[3:10:34] >> Well, one of the core principles of
[3:10:35] Alpine is we are not a city of
[3:10:36] efficiency. We are a city of peace and
[3:10:38] quiet. And that will always work against
[3:10:40] each other.
[3:10:42] So, we're going to have to take a lot
[3:10:43] more time in meetings if we want to
[3:10:44] preserve our peace and quiet unlike
[3:10:46] Lehi, AF, Cedar Hills, Salt Lake,
[3:10:49] Draper. They've lost it. So, efficiency
[3:10:52] will always work against our peace and
[3:10:53] quiet and the gem we have of our city.
[3:10:56] Um okay.
[3:10:58] We've learned that the most dangerous
[3:11:00] thing in Alpine is to live near a vacant
[3:11:01] lot and it's why I usually take the side
[3:11:04] of the people who live near vacant lots,
[3:11:06] not who want to build on vacant lots
[3:11:08] because what we see happening in AF, our
[3:11:10] surrounding cities, is that the things
[3:11:12] going up in vacant lots
[3:11:15] are atrocious. They are destroying
[3:11:18] beautiful cities like Lehi and I love
[3:11:20] Lehi, but what are going up in vacant
[3:11:22] lots is transforming these cities in an
[3:11:25] irreparable way.
[3:11:27] And that is why I take the side of the
[3:11:28] people who live near it. I don't know
[3:11:31] why we have arrived here. I I have
[3:11:32] ideas, but it is uh
[3:11:34] it is a fight to preserve Alpine and I
[3:11:37] hope we're all willing to do it.
[3:11:39] Um these are some of the things that
[3:11:40] they've brought up that are primary
[3:11:42] things. From the Payne family, several
[3:11:45] others, the Monazories,
[3:11:47] uh the Jenkins, the Shaman, all the ones
[3:11:49] you've read, Andrew Larson, um and
[3:11:52] several others that have been really
[3:11:54] good.
[3:11:55] I am hearing that they would like
[3:11:58] parking to be managed better. That
[3:12:01] intersection is probably one of the
[3:12:02] worst in Alpine. If we could fix it, we
[3:12:04] could pattern that and sell it to the
[3:12:06] rest of the world. That would be a huge
[3:12:09] triumph if we could fix that. This would
[3:12:11] only add to more problems on that
[3:12:14] intersection. So, I agree with the
[3:12:16] residents who have said we need to fix
[3:12:17] the parking.
[3:12:19] On the design, I know the owner is
[3:12:21] actually working on alterations. So,
[3:12:22] this is very
[3:12:24] um
[3:12:24] uh promising. Uh and he was actually in
[3:12:27] discussion with me today, and I really
[3:12:28] appreciated that and his family.
[3:12:31] And I truly think that they could work
[3:12:33] out, like some other residents in
[3:12:35] communities have done, a compromise
[3:12:37] between the landowner, which has
[3:12:39] happened two times that I've seen, was
[3:12:41] marvelous. Didn't need lawyers, didn't
[3:12:43] need judges,
[3:12:44] uh didn't need counsel. The community
[3:12:46] worked it out, and they found something
[3:12:47] where the residents were happy and the
[3:12:49] homeowners I'm or the owner of the
[3:12:51] building. So, I'm hoping they will still
[3:12:52] do that. That's why I'd be in favor of
[3:12:54] tabling this or denying it until they
[3:12:57] can come to a uh something that is
[3:12:59] cohesive with the neighborhood
[3:13:01] or what you would consider the spirit of
[3:13:03] the law that we're looking at right
[3:13:04] here. Something that is cohesive with
[3:13:06] the neighborhood both in height, design
[3:13:09] that meets the historic character uh
[3:13:13] that we are trying so hard for. I think
[3:13:14] he's I think the owner is very close to
[3:13:16] it. He's working on options. I think
[3:13:18] they can find something that the
[3:13:20] neighborhood and them can arrive at a
[3:13:22] good result with. Um so, that's why I'm
[3:13:24] for tabling this or denying it until
[3:13:27] that um
[3:13:29] until that compromise between them,
[3:13:31] until that solution can become a win-win
[3:13:33] for both of them.
[3:13:35] >> Okay, Brent.
[3:13:36] Do you have any comments?
[3:13:37] >> Yes. Um thanks, Andrew. I you covered
[3:13:41] very well the the concerns of the
[3:13:42] residents. I'm
[3:13:43] I really appreciate all the out
[3:13:46] outreach and letting us know your
[3:13:47] concerns.
[3:13:48] Um
[3:13:50] confirmed with staff that this zone this
[3:13:52] business commercial zone has existed for
[3:13:54] at least 30 years.
[3:13:56] Um
[3:13:58] And it's kind of unfortunate as a former
[3:13:59] land use attorney, it's kind of
[3:14:01] unfortunate that sometimes when zoning
[3:14:03] be is enacted that there are
[3:14:06] pre-existing uses and there's a
[3:14:07] grandfathered
[3:14:09] ability to keep using that property in
[3:14:11] the way it was intended to be used or
[3:14:12] what the way it was is being used when
[3:14:14] the zoning changed. So, that's why
[3:14:16] it's still residential for the most
[3:14:18] part, but it looks like that that is
[3:14:20] kind of changing with the small area
[3:14:23] plan. We have some indication that some
[3:14:24] other owners on Main Street who own
[3:14:26] these properties plan to develop for
[3:14:28] develop them as um mixed-use commercial
[3:14:30] residential similar to what this owner
[3:14:33] is proposing.
[3:14:34] Um
[3:14:35] I clarified with staff as well
[3:14:38] reading through the legislative intent
[3:14:40] section of the land use law for this
[3:14:43] is basically
[3:14:45] because it's in the business commercial
[3:14:47] use the the stat the statute states the
[3:14:48] following uses of land shall be
[3:14:51] permitted upon compliance with the
[3:14:53] applicable standards and conditions set
[3:14:55] forth below.
[3:14:56] And it does. So, there are 15 permitted
[3:14:58] uses in the business business commercial
[3:15:00] use zone. And then 11 additional
[3:15:04] conditional uses that can be used
[3:15:06] pending approval from a city council.
[3:15:08] So,
[3:15:09] when you think about
[3:15:11] I don't I hope you hopefully you listen
[3:15:12] to the planning commission. Um the owner
[3:15:16] expressed his opinion that they have a
[3:15:17] small retail establishment and that
[3:15:20] only I I think he said 12
[3:15:23] uh by appointment only residents a month
[3:15:26] or customers a month will frequent the
[3:15:28] business. And when I go through that
[3:15:30] list of 15
[3:15:31] businesses that can be in this
[3:15:34] business commercial zone
[3:15:35] and the 11
[3:15:37] that potentially could be as conditional
[3:15:39] uses,
[3:15:40] well, that sure seems like it's a pretty
[3:15:42] good option um based on what could be.
[3:15:45] Let's say dog dog grooming is one or pet
[3:15:47] grooming.
[3:15:48] I If I was the I I was a resident next
[3:15:51] to a pet grooming store where you have
[3:15:52] people coming and going all day long
[3:15:54] dropping off their pets, that would be
[3:15:55] much more intrusive. So, again, I'm very
[3:15:57] sympathetic, but
[3:16:00] I I will say that of the potential uses,
[3:16:02] this is probably one of the best
[3:16:04] potential uses. Um
[3:16:07] given the fact that we really don't have
[3:16:09] a whole lot of We really don't have a
[3:16:10] choice.
[3:16:11] It it shall be permitted if it meets the
[3:16:13] requirements.
[3:16:14] As far as the
[3:16:16] very great points about the backing out
[3:16:18] of of parking stalls, and I'm really
[3:16:20] appreciative of staff for
[3:16:22] quickly thinking when they got that
[3:16:24] feedback from the residents about what
[3:16:26] can we do to make it more
[3:16:30] inherent that someone will not back out.
[3:16:32] Because looking at that site plan,
[3:16:34] clearly people coming to that place
[3:16:36] would back out. That's just the That's
[3:16:38] just the intuitive thing.
[3:16:42] Our Our ordinance requires that for any
[3:16:44] business commercial use, they have to be
[3:16:46] able to come out front facing.
[3:16:49] Someone could back out of the automotive
[3:16:51] shop across the street, for example.
[3:16:52] There's nothing illegal about that. So,
[3:16:54] we really we can't stop that unless they
[3:16:56] do unless they do it unsafely. But, I
[3:16:58] really like the curb idea in that it's
[3:17:00] going to be intuitive now for visitors
[3:17:03] to that site that you'll back out and
[3:17:06] come out front facing, which does
[3:17:07] alleviate a lot of the concerns. I
[3:17:09] talked to some residents, uh at least
[3:17:11] one resident, who also lives on that on
[3:17:13] that side, and he admitted to backing
[3:17:15] out every day. So, granted that same
[3:17:18] ordinance doesn't apply to residences,
[3:17:20] but
[3:17:21] for the most part we back out of our
[3:17:22] residences, and
[3:17:24] um
[3:17:25] 12 visits a month is not doesn't seem
[3:17:27] overly concerning. I mean and I really
[3:17:30] I'm glad that we found a solution to
[3:17:32] that.
[3:17:35] Um, let's see.
[3:17:43] Yeah, I think that's pretty much what I
[3:17:44] had. I I really appreciate the concerns
[3:17:46] and I I I understand them.
[3:17:49] Um
[3:17:50] but I think this is because it is
[3:17:52] basically an administrative thing, at
[3:17:54] least this part of it the the use, it
[3:17:56] seemed like we it it has to be approved.
[3:18:00] That's all.
[3:18:00] >> Thank you. Jessica.
[3:18:03] >> Um, just
[3:18:05] a question for for Shane.
[3:18:08] So, the parking meets a low-impact use
[3:18:11] today, but as we all know businesses
[3:18:14] change.
[3:18:15] And what's the remedy or the future if it
[3:18:20] does become a highly used retail space?
[3:18:23] Because they haven't left any options on
[3:18:26] the lot to be able to grow the parking.
[3:18:29] And so, that's a concern for me
[3:18:32] as far as we look at this and we're
[3:18:33] making, you know, these long-term
[3:18:35] decisions.
[3:18:36] >> So,
[3:18:37] because I don't review these anymore,
[3:18:39] I'm not as familiar with the code as I
[3:18:41] used to be, but there was a provision in
[3:18:43] the code for a change of use. If there
[3:18:45] was a change of use,
[3:18:47] um, they would have to meet the parking
[3:18:50] requirement for the new use.
[3:18:53] Now, if it stayed the same type of
[3:18:55] retail that it is,
[3:18:56] >> Okay.
[3:18:57] >> advice from two city attorneys ago, I
[3:19:00] remember a situation was
[3:19:03] you know, you can't go back and look at
[3:19:04] the parking requirement, but if it was
[3:19:07] less intensive commercial or whatever we
[3:19:09] have categories for high high intensive
[3:19:12] retail,
[3:19:14] then [clears throat] you could go
[3:19:16] re-look at that. And I don't I don't
[3:19:18] know if that's I think it's still in
[3:19:20] there.
[3:19:20] >> So, it couldn't become a new use with
[3:19:23] insufficient parking.
[3:19:25] Okay.
[3:19:25] >> But, they would have to meet the parking
[3:19:27] requirement for the new use if it
[3:19:28] changes categories.
[3:19:30] >> Okay. And then, um
[3:19:31] >> Question.
[3:19:33] >> This is to the administrative point. I
[3:19:35] see this application as missing on a
[3:19:38] couple of the administrative checklist.
[3:19:40] So, if you go back to the parking
[3:19:43] and the way our code reads regarding
[3:19:46] parking is it's
[3:19:48] it says, "Off-street parking area which
[3:19:51] requires backing from the off-street
[3:19:54] parking space onto the street
[3:19:55] right-of-way in order to exit
[3:19:58] shall not be permitted."
[3:20:00] And I think the way you presented it was
[3:20:04] that the engineer thinks that that's
[3:20:07] enough space. So, I've been looking at
[3:20:08] space all day long. And if you'll go to
[3:20:11] Google Maps and you'll look at the um
[3:20:14] where this No-Ace Ice building is, they
[3:20:16] have a really similar parking lot and a
[3:20:18] really similar um need to have
[3:20:22] um forward-facing egress. And so, I
[3:20:24] measured that out and it's
[3:20:27] quite different than what this proposal
[3:20:29] is. So, I'm still from an administrative
[3:20:32] position not sure that this meets our
[3:20:35] parking code.
[3:20:37] Oh, sorry. It's on the corner of 200 and
[3:20:39] Grove.
[3:20:42] » Oh, okay.
[3:20:44] >> No, no. Down there where it says No-Ace
[3:20:45] Ice is here.
[3:20:46] >> Right here. Oh, there we go. Thank you.
[3:20:48] >> And then, can you point
[3:20:49] >> Learned a lot.
[3:20:50] >> this guy's thanks.
[3:20:51] >> Yeah.
[3:20:52] >> You got to move here, Cayden.
[3:20:53] Come be a part of it.
[3:20:56] >> So, really similar
[3:21:01] because our code requires forward
[3:21:03] facing and egre- or
[3:21:06] How does it How does the language read?
[3:21:10] >> Forward exit by forward motion.
[3:21:12] >> Yeah. All points of ingress and egress
[3:21:14] to a commercial to a commercial use or
[3:21:17] off-street parking area shall be as
[3:21:19] shown on the site plan. So,
[3:21:21] I I
[3:21:23] would like another review
[3:21:26] on if 16 ft, I think you said it was
[3:21:30] um
[3:21:31] >> Yeah.
[3:21:32] >> So, what you're seeing here is the
[3:21:34] parking stalls are 19.
[3:21:36] And actually the distance from the
[3:21:37] parking stall to the drive aisle to the
[3:21:40] sidewalk, because I don't think we can
[3:21:41] include the sidewalk as part of the
[3:21:43] distance
[3:21:44] um that meets the requirement for
[3:21:46] backing out cuz it's not a drive aisle,
[3:21:48] it's a sidewalk. That's 30 ft.
[3:21:52] So, that gives you perspective of the
[3:21:54] distance required. You know, and I'm not
[3:21:57] saying it needs to be 30, but right now
[3:21:59] you have it at 18.
[3:22:01] Was it 18 and 18 or 18 and 16?
[3:22:04] >> Yes.
[3:22:05] >> Yeah, so
[3:22:06] um administratively that does not meet
[3:22:10] our code.
[3:22:12] >> So, just because you found an example in
[3:22:14] Alpine, you're saying it's automatically
[3:22:16] doesn't meet the code?
[3:22:18] >> I just think physically like are you
[3:22:20] drop are you driving
[3:22:22] is that enough for a truck or a larger
[3:22:25] vehicle to back out
[3:22:28] without encroaching upon the sidewalk so
[3:22:31] that they can have a forward motion
[3:22:34] as they're leaving.
[3:22:35] >> Isn't that why we they proposed the curb
[3:22:38] to
[3:22:39] so they can't back out?
[3:22:40] >> I'm just I don't know if the curb is a
[3:22:42] solution.
[3:22:43] >> Using
[3:22:44] >> it's an option and it was a proposed
[3:22:47] um
[3:22:48] let's do that, but I still don't need to
[3:22:50] know if it meets actual um engineered
[3:22:53] parking radius standards.
[3:22:56] >> Mhm.
[3:22:57] And and I'll say to that Council Member
[3:22:59] Smeuin Smeuin that I
[3:23:01] yeah, I am also not an engineer and so
[3:23:04] I would I looked at the code and the
[3:23:06] state code.
[3:23:08] Um and
[3:23:10] I talked to our city engineer.
[3:23:12] And I think he was also unaware of the
[3:23:14] exact standard that a one-way aisle
[3:23:16] would require.
[3:23:18] So,
[3:23:19] that could be maybe it's in the actual
[3:23:21] standards for for city engineers, I'm
[3:23:23] not sure, but um
[3:23:25] I just haven't found anything.
[3:23:26] >> Okay, so that was administrative and
[3:23:28] then another administrative
[3:23:30] um requirement that hasn't been met is
[3:23:33] our gateway historic standards. There's
[3:23:36] quite a few um items
[3:23:39] within the gateway standards that
[3:23:42] and I can go over a few of them like
[3:23:44] mimicking details of older buildings,
[3:23:46] use similar materials, include design
[3:23:49] features on blank walls.
[3:23:51] Um respect and build upon the historical
[3:23:54] legacy of downtown Alpine and borrow
[3:23:56] historic features from the area.
[3:23:58] New structures should relate to the
[3:24:00] fundamental characteristics of the
[3:24:02] district.
[3:24:04] Creative historic design elements
[3:24:06] fitting for the area can be considered.
[3:24:08] The building form of new construction
[3:24:10] should be similar to surrounding
[3:24:12] structures.
[3:24:13] They don't have to imitate it's saying
[3:24:15] but they don't have to imitate exactly.
[3:24:17] The type of materials used for new
[3:24:19] construction can greatly enhance the
[3:24:21] relationship
[3:24:22] to the surrounding historical structure.
[3:24:25] Maybe go to um actually the building
[3:24:29] that they're proposing because I think
[3:24:31] it's easier as we look at this list to
[3:24:34] look at the building they're proposing
[3:24:36] which is a modern building. If you look
[3:24:38] at modern architecture um
[3:24:41] streamlined walls, um the angles, all of
[3:24:45] the elements of this
[3:24:46] is falls under the form of a modern
[3:24:49] building. And so that also is an
[3:24:51] administrative
[3:24:53] requirement that hasn't been met by this
[3:24:55] application.
[3:24:57] Um
[3:24:58] and then I talked to you about this
[3:25:00] earlier, the streetscape. We have a
[3:25:02] streetscape requirement where every 30
[3:25:04] ft they have to put some kind of
[3:25:05] element.
[3:25:08] » That was also why the landscaping was
[3:25:11] recommended by staff for the park strip
[3:25:13] area cuz that would fill that
[3:25:14] streetscape requirement.
[3:25:16] >> Streetscaping I think was outside of the
[3:25:19] required landscaping. There were
[3:25:21] elements like benches, lights,
[3:25:23] um planters. I think those stand
[3:25:26] separately from my understanding of our
[3:25:29] Gateway Historic reading.
[3:25:31] >> Yeah, so the trees, planters are
[3:25:33] included as options for street
[3:25:35] streetscape elements.
[3:25:38] So,
[3:25:39] I think benches, other things like lamp
[3:25:41] posts are also included in there, but
[3:25:44] just basic landscaping is also included
[3:25:46] as a streetscape element
[3:25:47] >> Okay.
[3:25:47] >> option. Yeah.
[3:25:50] >> And it's every Are they going to present
[3:25:51] something that shows that every 30 ft?
[3:25:55] >> We can that could be part of the motion
[3:25:57] >> Okay.
[3:25:58] >> today that at least every
[3:26:00] I [clears throat] think actually our
[3:26:01] landscape code says there should be a
[3:26:02] tree every 20 ft in the park strip if
[3:26:05] they have trees.
[3:26:06] So, it could be even more restrictive.
[3:26:09] >> Okay, that was it. Those were the
[3:26:10] administrative areas that I felt like
[3:26:11] this application was not meeting.
[3:26:15] >> Okay, Sarah. Um would it be possible to
[3:26:17] pull pull up the zoning map, Caden? Is
[3:26:20] that Sorry to put you on the spot.
[3:26:22] But I just
[3:26:24] um wanted to recommend just make one
[3:26:27] comment and recommend one thing for the
[3:26:29] future.
[3:26:30] And I [clears throat] already talked
[3:26:31] about this with Caden and Shane and
[3:26:34] actually it was
[3:26:36] um
[3:26:38] >> I think it's I think it's in city maps.
[3:26:40] >> It's at the very bottom, so click
[3:26:42] It's at the very bottom.
[3:26:44] Right there.
[3:26:45] >> Um on the
[3:26:48] zoning map as it currently stands,
[3:26:51] um if you go over into that
[3:26:53] neighborhood, you have 200 North
[3:26:56] and then you have 100 West and it looks
[3:26:58] like the commercial zone goes all the
[3:27:01] way to 100 West. I think it might be
[3:27:04] wise to re-examine
[3:27:07] um changing that slightly so that in the
[3:27:09] future
[3:27:11] maybe it's just the houses on Main Street that face
[3:27:16] east, those properties are commercial,
[3:27:18] but the ones on 100 West
[3:27:21] that face west remain residential. To me
[3:27:24] that makes more sense. Um I don't know
[3:27:27] if that's something we could look at in
[3:27:28] the future. Just maybe so we don't have
[3:27:30] another situation where
[3:27:32] I don't know. There's
[3:27:34] um
[3:27:36] you know, uh a
[3:27:38] uncohesive kind of combination.
[3:27:41] But um okay, so
[3:27:45] that was one of the things that I
[3:27:46] thought that forward-facing we could
[3:27:48] consider. And then I just had a few
[3:27:49] questions.
[3:27:50] Um
[3:27:51] Kaden, just to confirm there is
[3:27:53] landscaping on at least 20% of the lot.
[3:27:56] >> Yes.
[3:27:57] >> Okay. And
[3:27:59] um
[3:28:00] you already addressed the stairs and the
[3:28:02] balcony. How large is the balcony? Do
[3:28:04] you know how many feet?
[3:28:05] >> I actually am not sure on that.
[3:28:08] >> Because with the setback of 10 ft in the
[3:28:10] back and then you put a balcony, I just
[3:28:12] feel like that's really intrusive for
[3:28:13] the neighbors that live back there.
[3:28:16] And so I don't know if that's something
[3:28:17] that looking in the future we can
[3:28:20] address. I don't know if we can
[3:28:23] Oh, okay.
[3:28:26] Yes, if you can come up and state your
[3:28:27] name.
[3:28:32] And what street you live on.
[3:28:36] >> Uh Rick Christensen, owner of the Benton
[3:28:38] L Construction. Actually actually live
[3:28:40] in Cedar Hills.
[3:28:41] >> Okay.
[3:28:42] >> So
[3:28:43] the balcony you're asking about, it does
[3:28:45] not stick out. It's flush to the back.
[3:28:48] So it it comes back into the retail
[3:28:51] space
[3:28:52] >> Okay.
[3:28:52] >> about that section. So the only thing
[3:28:54] that's cantilevered is the steps.
[3:28:56] >> Okay, that's why we didn't see it on the
[3:28:57] rendering sticking out. Okay.
[3:28:58] >> So, um I don't know if you have the
[3:29:01] Do you still have the floor plan?
[3:29:06] So,
[3:29:07] well, you can see it right there. So,
[3:29:09] you see in the retail space on the
[3:29:12] right-hand side there's that wall inside
[3:29:14] that's like a little closet.
[3:29:15] >> Oh, uh-huh.
[3:29:16] >> So, that balcony sets over that area
[3:29:19] right there.
[3:29:20] >> Okay.
[3:29:20] >> So, it's flush to the back of the
[3:29:22] building. So, it doesn't encroach, just
[3:29:25] that stairway coming up the east side is
[3:29:27] cantilevered to get up to that balcony.
[3:29:30] >> Thank you for that clarification. Is
[3:29:31] that how you get into the upstairs
[3:29:33] apartment? Is through those stairs?
[3:29:34] >> how you'd walk down a path down the east
[3:29:36] side
[3:29:37] and then go up those stairs and across
[3:29:39] the balcony and into the apartment.
[3:29:42] >> Thank you.
[3:29:42] >> Does that work?
[3:29:43] >> So, clarify cantilevered so there's no
[3:29:45] footings.
[3:29:46] >> There's no footings. So, all all the
[3:29:48] structure comes from the interior of the
[3:29:49] house and cantilevers out to to carry
[3:29:52] that load of that stairway.
[3:29:54] >> And Katon, just to clarify, if there
[3:29:56] were footings, they would have to those
[3:29:58] would include in the setbacks.
[3:29:59] >> That's correct.
[3:30:01] >> Okay.
[3:30:02] Um I do have a question on the garage on
[3:30:06] the west side.
[3:30:08] I mean, I guess people could back in,
[3:30:10] but to me it seems intuitive to Is that
[3:30:12] for delivery trucks?
[3:30:14] >> Um
[3:30:15] >> Or?
[3:30:16] >> So, we have a dumpster on the west side
[3:30:19] there, so we need to access that right
[3:30:21] there, you know, on that west side of
[3:30:23] the property.
[3:30:25] Uh
[3:30:25] there there is two spots considered
[3:30:28] inside the garage for parking.
[3:30:31] So, you know, they That's the other two
[3:30:33] spots that we needed.
[3:30:35] Um
[3:30:36] >> Are those also need to be forward in
[3:30:39] forward back or forward out
[3:30:42] to meet the requirements?
[3:30:44] Is that Okay, I just wanted to clarify
[3:30:46] that.
[3:30:47] Um
[3:30:50] And um the last thing I just want to
[3:30:53] address is the aesthetics. And sorry,
[3:30:55] Kaden, again, I sent you an email of a
[3:30:58] picture that actually Jessica sent me.
[3:31:00] Um I I tend to agree with Jessica that
[3:31:03] this doesn't necessarily meet our
[3:31:06] Gateway Historic guidelines. I I love
[3:31:09] the second rendering. To me, that's more
[3:31:11] historic. That fits more in with our
[3:31:12] guidelines. I might um
[3:31:15] I would assume that the in the second,
[3:31:18] the bottom picture, that the um material
[3:31:20] used is probably a natural material like
[3:31:23] wood. Um I don't think that ACM
[3:31:27] mimics uh natural material for me. It
[3:31:30] clearly is like sheet metal.
[3:31:33] Um so
[3:31:35] I understand that during Planning
[3:31:36] Commission, I don't know if it was you, offered to grab a piece of wood out
[3:31:39] of your car to show
[3:31:41] the audience.
[3:31:42] >> we we contemplated uh wood siding
[3:31:45] >> Yeah.
[3:31:46] >> kind of stained black.
[3:31:47] >> Right.
[3:31:48] >> And their opinion was that if by
[3:31:50] standing in the road, you would never be
[3:31:52] able to tell the difference between the
[3:31:54] ACM and the wood.
[3:31:56] >> Sure.
[3:31:57] >> And the wood the ACM is an aluminum and
[3:31:59] it's it's always going to be clean and
[3:32:01] straight. It's not going to fade. It's a
[3:32:04] very expensive material.
[3:32:07] And that was their They that was their
[3:32:08] consideration. It was that, "You know
[3:32:10] what? We're really not going to tell and
[3:32:12] then we don't have to worry about
[3:32:13] someone changing hands and not taking
[3:32:15] care of the siding and having it looking
[3:32:17] >> Sure.
[3:32:18] >> you know.
[3:32:19] >> Yeah.
[3:32:19] >> dry.
[3:32:20] >> I mean, it's a beautiful building what
[3:32:21] you have already, but I just don't know
[3:32:24] that the design fits in our Gateway
[3:32:27] Historic District. Um if there was a way
[3:32:29] for the ACM to mimic wood more instead
[3:32:32] of just be solid.
[3:32:35] >> So, that it's plank style.
[3:32:37] >> Yeah.
[3:32:37] >> So, it'll be a vertical, you know, plank
[3:32:40] coming down. It just won't have the
[3:32:41] grain on it. It'll be a flat metal
[3:32:44] surface.
[3:32:44] >> Okay. Yeah. Um
[3:32:47] I guess there are some elements of this
[3:32:49] that I just don't feel like me our
[3:32:50] Gateway Historic District District
[3:32:52] design guidelines and I can go into more
[3:32:54] detail if you want, but that's just
[3:32:56] >> No, and and I think the owners we we've
[3:32:58] played around with AI
[3:33:00] over the past couple days trying to come
[3:33:02] up with some other options that might
[3:33:04] help and I think
[3:33:06] I I think we're open
[3:33:08] >> Okay.
[3:33:08] >> to some suggestions if we can do that. I
[3:33:11] mean if wood siding is what
[3:33:13] gets us over the hump, if we put some
[3:33:15] wood corbels
[3:33:17] you know and make it more like that. I
[3:33:19] think we're open to that.
[3:33:21] >> Katy, if you go up.
[3:33:22] >> Okay.
[3:33:23] >> That's really great cuz it shows that
[3:33:24] house next to it.
[3:33:26] >> Yeah, I pulled these up. These were sent
[3:33:28] to me by the owner of potential
[3:33:30] renderings of what they would be willing
[3:33:32] to do
[3:33:33] >> Yeah.
[3:33:34] >> satisfy the council.
[3:33:36] >> Yeah. Do you have any questions? No, I
[3:33:38] guess Jessica already addressed the more
[3:33:40] specific design guidelines from the
[3:33:42] Gateway Historic guidelines, so.
[3:33:45] >> Chrissy, did you have any
[3:33:47] questions or thoughts?
[3:33:48] >> Um I appreciate all that's been covered
[3:33:50] because I feel like we've made a lot of
[3:33:52] progress in our 30 minutes. Um we've uh
[3:33:56] two thing or three things that came up
[3:33:58] on um my radar that maybe were not
[3:34:02] necessarily brought up by residents was
[3:34:04] the signage. Um
[3:34:06] we have specific guidelines for signage
[3:34:10] and is that addressed at this stage of
[3:34:12] the plan?
[3:34:13] >> No, they will have to return to the
[3:34:14] planning commission to get their sign
[3:34:15] approved.
[3:34:16] >> Okay.
[3:34:17] How about fencing?
[3:34:19] is also in our Main Street
[3:34:21] guidelines.
[3:34:23] >> I I guess that could be talked about
[3:34:25] today um because it's in the guidelines.
[3:34:27] I don't think the specific project
[3:34:29] requires fencing other than the barrier
[3:34:32] that's already there for the parking.
[3:34:34] >> Okay.
[3:34:35] >> But there's no other requirement than
[3:34:36] that.
[3:34:36] >> There's no requirement that there is
[3:34:38] fencing.
[3:34:39] >> Correct.
[3:34:39] >> Okay.
[3:34:39] >> It must of these are to
[3:34:41] be a barrier for the parking.
[3:34:43] >> Okay.
[3:34:43] >> Which is already there.
[3:34:44] >> Um
[3:34:46] just for your information that we have
[3:34:48] guidelines on our fencing if you decide
[3:34:50] to put up a fence, owner, builder,
[3:34:52] whoever. About the materials.
[3:34:54] >> permit and a different
[3:34:55] >> Yes, right, right.
[3:34:57] Okay, I just wondered if it was brought
[3:34:59] up and I it wasn't included in the plan
[3:35:01] in the hearing. And then lastly,
[3:35:02] screening. Was there any screening
[3:35:05] discussed or is that also another part
[3:35:07] of the plan process?
[3:35:09] >> Again, yeah, that was that was fulfilled
[3:35:11] that requirement by the fence on the
[3:35:13] east side of the property.
[3:35:15] That's the only requirement to have a
[3:35:17] screening for the parking.
[3:35:19] >> Fence on the Oh, cuz we're screening
[3:35:20] parking.
[3:35:21] >> Correct.
[3:35:22] >> Okay.
[3:35:22] >> Yes.
[3:35:23] >> Okay. So, there is Okay, so there was
[3:35:25] some fencing.
[3:35:26] Just not the whole lot doesn't have to
[3:35:28] be fenced. Is that what you're telling
[3:35:29] me? Okay.
[3:35:31] I agree. Um I I I I appreciate all the
[3:35:34] research. [snorts]
[3:35:35] I agree that getting emails allows us
[3:35:38] time to do some research and figure out
[3:35:40] where the we stand legally. We don't
[3:35:42] ever want to be contrary to the law.
[3:35:44] I've already so
[3:35:46] sit on my soapbox on that issue. So, I
[3:35:48] appreciate us the
[3:35:52] responsiveness of our staff to make sure
[3:35:53] we're in compliance with the law. As far
[3:35:56] as the design, I myself have been wondering what could
[3:36:00] we do and I'm not an architect to help
[3:36:02] it feel more historic. And a few tips
[3:36:06] that I got from a different architect
[3:36:08] was that historical windows are taller
[3:36:11] than they are wide. And so
[3:36:14] and also they have divided light, which
[3:36:16] you do have divided light. Um and then
[3:36:19] um there's also Jessica read something
[3:36:22] about a blank wall. And so that the the
[3:36:25] part over the garage is very blank. So,
[3:36:28] whoever did the rendering where we put
[3:36:29] the signage over there with lights, that
[3:36:31] would help fulfill that. Another new
[3:36:33] word I learned from um
[3:36:35] just trying to understand what is
[3:36:37] historic is some coping
[3:36:39] across the top of the brick where is
[3:36:41] like where you add who had that other
[3:36:43] picture?
[3:36:46] Where is that that on the left? That's
[3:36:48] an that's a lot of coping, but some type
[3:36:50] of cap there.
[3:36:52] Um, it's put there to uh
[3:36:55] or you know, there is a purpose to it to
[3:36:57] shield the brick from um, rain, but it
[3:37:00] is more historic to put some type of
[3:37:03] coping around the top it doesn't
[3:37:04] necessarily have to look like it was a
[3:37:06] hundred years old, but that is a pretty
[3:37:09] blank wall. Um, and I prefer I guess
[3:37:14] that we stick to the real wood. That was
[3:37:16] a huge discussion when we did the fire
[3:37:18] station, but um, I don't think that it would prohibit me from approving it
[3:37:24] without it because like you said it's
[3:37:26] hard to see the difference, but once we
[3:37:28] go down that road
[3:37:30] it's hard to bring it back. So,
[3:37:32] um, that's just a personal comment. I
[3:37:35] don't know what we'd include in the
[3:37:36] motion and how many of us feel strongly
[3:37:38] one way or the other about wood versus
[3:37:40] metal.
[3:37:40] >> I think that can go in. I think um,
[3:37:43] for me from reading the comments, there
[3:37:45] were you know, safety was a huge issue
[3:37:47] on that intersection.
[3:37:49] Um, and when I think about it, if there
[3:37:52] were a home going in, you think about it
[3:37:54] most homes have um
[3:37:57] two cars if not more.
[3:38:00] And then um, an average person makes
[3:38:02] like what 5.6 trips a day.
[3:38:05] So, you're talking about people going in
[3:38:06] and out of that home that many times.
[3:38:09] My understanding from this business and
[3:38:11] it could change, but I feel like this is
[3:38:13] a very niche market that they are
[3:38:15] catering to.
[3:38:17] And that if you have 12 customers a
[3:38:19] month, so that's 12 trips a month, not
[3:38:22] hundreds a month
[3:38:23] um
[3:38:25] of cars coming in and out. That is so
[3:38:28] much less.
[3:38:30] I understand um
[3:38:32] the misunderstanding about the
[3:38:34] residential and commercial.
[3:38:36] But, Marvin, I believe his home used to
[3:38:39] be a store in Alpine. So, it would
[3:38:41] There's historical that it was
[3:38:44] commercial back then, so it's nothing
[3:38:46] new. And I think when they did the
[3:38:48] zoning, you know, as Brett mentioned
[3:38:50] that it has existed a long time, and I think
[3:38:53] maybe
[3:38:55] the hope was that we could encourage
[3:38:57] small businesses like this, boutique
[3:39:00] businesses that aren't going to draw a
[3:39:02] ton of traffic into our city and cause a
[3:39:06] safety hazard or a traffic hazard or be
[3:39:09] a nuisance to the surrounding neighbors
[3:39:12] that, um, and at the same time
[3:39:15] allows the city to, um, gain as far as
[3:39:20] being able to collect on 100% of the
[3:39:22] property tax value.
[3:39:24] And, um, because it's not a primary
[3:39:27] residence except for a portion of it.
[3:39:29] And
[3:39:30] it's a business that it's a point of
[3:39:32] sales that will be in Alpine that will
[3:39:34] also allow us to collect sales tax
[3:39:36] revenue.
[3:39:37] But, not impact our city where it's not
[3:39:40] a Mountain View. It's not bringing
[3:39:42] hundreds of cars. So, for me
[3:39:46] looking at this
[3:39:48] and we already have the owners that are
[3:39:49] willing to work and, you know, I feel
[3:39:52] like they're being very respectful and
[3:39:54] responsive as far as the design and
[3:39:56] willing to work with us, um, you know,
[3:40:00] I actually like, um, both of the AI
[3:40:03] renderings that both the owner and I
[3:40:05] forget the lady's name that did the
[3:40:07] other one.
[3:40:09] Who Is she here?
[3:40:11] Oh, I'm sorry. I thought it was female
[3:40:12] name.
[3:40:15] >> Thanks for that.
[3:40:16] >> But, yes. Um, so, you know, I appreciate
[3:40:20] it's going to be up to council. I don't
[3:40:21] know if you guys know, as a mayor, I do
[3:40:23] not get to vote. That's why I haven't
[3:40:24] voted all night, um, unless it's a tie.
[3:40:27] So, someone has to not be here. So, I
[3:40:30] would strongly urge council to take all
[3:40:33] of that into consideration and, um, like
[3:40:36] I said, the willingness. I think if you
[3:40:38] make your motion and make it very
[3:40:39] specific,
[3:40:41] you get all the elements that you want,
[3:40:43] but also keep in mind that, you know,
[3:40:46] it has to be within reason, too. Um,
[3:40:50] but make sure
[3:40:51] I can do that. Are there any further
[3:40:53] questions? If not, I
[3:40:54] >> Well, I have one more comment. I forgot.
[3:40:56] I sent Kaden, can you pull that image
[3:40:57] up? This goes to Chrissy's comment about
[3:41:01] kind of once we open that door to
[3:41:05] materials outside of natural, it kind of
[3:41:07] takes on a life of its own. So, I did an
[3:41:09] audit
[3:41:11] of all of our commercial businesses.
[3:41:14] And what you're seeing is all the blue
[3:41:16] dots
[3:41:18] meet our current standards of natural
[3:41:20] wood, brick,
[3:41:22] um,
[3:41:23] those features, stone, but we have two.
[3:41:26] So, if you kind of zoom back out, that
[3:41:28] have metal. And now metal all of a
[3:41:30] sudden is kind of taking on a life of
[3:41:32] its own. So, we really the standards
[3:41:36] were put in place so that when all these
[3:41:38] new materials come up that may be bigger
[3:41:41] or better,
[3:41:42] but don't represent our identity, we
[3:41:44] have a way to say that's maybe great on
[3:41:47] other commercial buildings, but for
[3:41:49] Alpine,
[3:41:50] this is our identity. This is who we
[3:41:52] are. This is how we build here. And I
[3:41:55] excited to have a business that wants to
[3:41:57] build something here, and, you know,
[3:41:59] they live here, too. So, I'm sure they
[3:42:01] want to stay within,
[3:42:03] um, the years and years and years of
[3:42:05] effort that's gone into creating a
[3:42:08] historic downtown
[3:42:10] that brings people from all over,
[3:42:12] you know, actually the world to move
[3:42:13] here.
[3:42:14] >> I understand what you're saying as far
[3:42:16] as the materials, but let's be very
[3:42:18] clear.
[3:42:20] The materials that mimic natural
[3:42:21] materials are currently allowed in our
[3:42:24] guidelines.
[3:42:25] >> No, it's the language exactly. The legal
[3:42:27] language says may be considered. So,
[3:42:30] again, it's us as a council
[3:42:33] to evaluate and to determine are we
[3:42:35] wanting to move away from our basic
[3:42:37] identity of a historical
[3:42:41] city. So.
[3:42:42] >> And that's it. But, like I said, he said
[3:42:44] he was willing to work with it. So, if
[3:42:46] you have a motion
[3:42:48] >> I have a motion.
[3:42:49] >> Yes, please.
[3:42:49] >> Okay.
[3:42:50] >> Oh.
[3:42:50] >> Go for it.
[3:42:51] >> I move to table the proposed Long Range
[3:42:53] Shooters of Utah commercial site plan to
[3:42:55] a future meeting in order to allow
[3:42:56] additional time to address parking
[3:42:58] requirements and to redesign the
[3:43:00] elevation and exterior materials to
[3:43:02] comply with the Gateway Historic
[3:43:04] District design guidelines and standards
[3:43:06] adhering to the following. Mimics
[3:43:08] details of older buildings.
[3:43:10] Uses similar materials. Include design
[3:43:13] features on blank walls.
[3:43:15] Decorative treatment for flat roofs.
[3:43:18] Um use of wood instead of metal. And I
[3:43:20] think the last one was a tree every 20
[3:43:22] ft in the park strip.
[3:43:25] >> And I think that was our That last one
[3:43:27] was already in our ordinance.
[3:43:28] >> Okay. Perfect.
[3:43:30] >> stated.
[3:43:31] >> Okay, there's a motion on the table. Is
[3:43:33] there a second?
[3:43:39] Motion fails.
[3:43:41] Okay.
[3:43:42] >> I'll second that.
[3:43:46] » Okay, moved by Councilwoman Blackwell,
[3:43:48] seconded by
[3:43:50] Councilwoman Hanneman. Is there any
[3:43:52] questions
[3:43:53] >> Would you be willing to add a couple
[3:43:55] amendments to it?
[3:43:56] >> What are they?
[3:43:59] >> Um
[3:44:02] because it is on the border, this is the
[3:44:04] reason. Because it is on the border of
[3:44:05] commercial and residential
[3:44:08] that
[3:44:10] the character of that neighborhood be
[3:44:13] considered in its design.
[3:44:16] I know that you gave specifics about
[3:44:18] height and parking.
[3:44:21] But the character isn't always defined
[3:44:23] [clears throat] so easily just with
[3:44:25] a number.
[3:44:26] >> But there is a home just down the street
[3:44:29] from there that kind of looks like this
[3:44:30] building. There's a brick with dark
[3:44:32] windows.
[3:44:34] It's You know that, right?
[3:44:36] >> Uh
[3:44:37] Well, either way
[3:44:40] One thing that happens is no one elected
[3:44:42] us to be like expert ordinance
[3:44:45] followers.
[3:44:47] We aren't Otherwise, we would have a
[3:44:49] requirement to be a lawyer.
[3:44:51] >> Wait, that's why I got elected.
[3:44:52] >> Right.
[3:44:53] >> It was the only reason.
[3:44:54] >> So, Chrissy likes to bring up the
[3:44:56] Constitution. Well, the first part of it
[3:44:58] is the people.
[3:45:00] >> Can we
[3:45:01] I know. No, we don't need Let's
[3:45:03] Questions on the motion.
[3:45:05] >> So, you said hold on.
[3:45:07] You said, "Are you willing to amend the
[3:45:09] motion to consider the
[3:45:11] >> I will I will say it specifically. Are
[3:45:13] you willing to amend
[3:45:13] >> characteristics of the neighborhood? Do
[3:45:14] you
[3:45:14] >> characteristics of the neighborhood and
[3:45:16] a compromise with the residents that
[3:45:18] live close by.
[3:45:20] >> Okay, first question. Do you feel like
[3:45:22] the historic guidelines and the things
[3:45:24] that we outlined are enough to fit
[3:45:27] within the character of the
[3:45:28] neighborhood?
[3:45:29] >> Yes, with exception of the concerns
[3:45:32] they've brought up are not all addressed
[3:45:34] in that.
[3:45:35] >> Design concerns?
[3:45:36] >> There's more than those concerns.
[3:45:39] And so, many residents, including the
[3:45:42] school nearby and several others, have
[3:45:45] brought up other concerns as well.
[3:45:47] >> For design, I just feel like if if we're
[3:45:49] asking them to change, we have to be
[3:45:51] able to cite and reference where in our
[3:45:53] city documents those are required. I
[3:45:57] don't But if there's something specific
[3:45:59] >> No, I think you know all the specifics.
[3:46:00] I would just say the nature of that
[3:46:01] neighborhood because it is a unique
[3:46:03] area. You're not in the middle of
[3:46:04] commercial.
[3:46:05] >> Yeah.
[3:46:06] >> You're on the edge of commercial into
[3:46:08] residential.
[3:46:10] >> Sarah, there is a standard, I think,
[3:46:12] that you're asking about and I think
[3:46:14] what he's saying, if you haven't already
[3:46:15] included it, it says new structures
[3:46:18] should relate to the fundamental
[3:46:20] characteristics of the district.
[3:46:23] >> Yeah, that would help.
[3:46:25] >> actually specific under the standards in
[3:46:28] our
[3:46:29] >> But but we know our standards are kind
[3:46:31] of vague, so that's why
[3:46:32] >> That's why it says district, so it
[3:46:33] narrows it.
[3:46:34] >> I'm saying it like
[3:46:36] how do we define that?
[3:46:37] >> We define it by its narrow of what's
[3:46:40] around it.
[3:46:41] >> For me it would be defined.
[3:46:42] as a lot of
[3:46:44] emails in support. So okay, the people.
[3:46:47] Remember the Constitution? The
[3:46:48] >> Okay, I'm going to trust that they want
[3:46:50] to do business here.
[3:46:51] >> owner who wants to bring a business
[3:46:53] >> I know. I know.
[3:46:54] >> They're Alpine residents.
[3:46:56] >> I know.
[3:46:56] >> Do you accept the amendment? Let's move
[3:46:58] forward.
[3:46:58] >> you be open to the language that's
[3:47:00] already in our guideline to add that as
[3:47:03] the amendment part? That new structures
[3:47:05] should relate to the fundamental
[3:47:06] characteristics of the district. It
[3:47:07] doesn't cover is that just so it's
[3:47:10] cited.
[3:47:11] >> So do you accept this?
[3:47:12] >> Yeah, yes, I do.
[3:47:13] >> Thanks.
[3:47:13] >> Okay, anything else?
[3:47:14] >> And I don't.
[3:47:15] >> What? Oh.
[3:47:16] >> Okay, okay.
[3:47:17] >> I I'm going to second. I'll second.
[3:47:18] >> Can I Can I ask a question?
[3:47:20] >> Actually
[3:47:21] >> Too late.
[3:47:21] >> say yes, question.
[3:47:23] >> How would you How would you define the
[3:47:25] district?
[3:47:26] It could only It could only be the
[3:47:28] commercial zone. And there's buildings
[3:47:30] just like this.
[3:47:31] >> So if you look at our right now we're
[3:47:33] doing a
[3:47:34] >> Okay, you can't
[3:47:35] >> small area plan and it has
[3:47:37] >> do that. This is a building that's come
[3:47:39] in with our current
[3:47:41] >> Absolutely. The question was how would
[3:47:43] you define a district?
[3:47:45] >> Right. No, no, character.
[3:47:46] >> No, the word's district.
[3:47:48] >> Yes, district.
[3:47:49] >> In our ordinance it says district. Yeah,
[3:47:51] it should and and so it would be defined
[3:47:54] by
[3:47:55] this district is transitional.
[3:47:57] >> What that means?
[3:47:58] >> Yeah.
[3:47:58] >> We have a
[3:48:00] >> area.
[3:48:00] >> district that is heavily commercial
[3:48:04] where we We
[3:48:05] >> Is that in our zoning? I think it's
[3:48:07] just commercial.
[3:48:08] >> There's no
[3:48:09] >> It's just business commercial. We have
[3:48:11] only business commercial zoning. We
[3:48:12] don't have anything. We don't have
[3:48:14] transitional. We don't have anything.
[3:48:16] >> I understand that you know what you guys
[3:48:18] are saying, but right now we have a
[3:48:19] motion.
[3:48:20] >> What's commercial?
[3:48:21] >> We have a proposed amendment. The second
[3:48:23] does not accept that proposed amendment.
[3:48:27] So, that amendment fails, correct?
[3:48:30] >> Correct. It was not seconded.
[3:48:31] >> Now, we need to vote on the original
[3:48:32] motion.
[3:48:32] >> Now, we need to vote on the original
[3:48:34] motion.
[3:48:36] >> Uh Andrew Young.
[3:48:39] No.
[3:48:42] Uh Brett Rumbold, yes.
[3:48:45] » Can you reread
[3:48:47] >> Mhm.
[3:48:47] >> those items?
[3:48:49] >> Um mimics details of older buildings,
[3:48:52] uses similar materials,
[3:48:55] includes design features on blank walls,
[3:48:58] um
[3:48:59] a decorative treatment for flat roofs,
[3:49:02] use of wood instead of metal.
[3:49:08] » Jessica Smeaton, yes.
[3:49:11] >> Sarah Blackwell, yes.
[3:49:12] >> Chrissy Annaman, yes.
[3:49:15] >> Okay, motion passes.
[3:49:23] Thank you everybody for enduring a long
[3:49:25] meeting, but believe it or not
[3:49:28] this is literally one of our shortest
[3:49:30] meetings we've had this year.
[3:49:34] But, I really do appreciate um all of
[3:49:37] your inputs and your participation. Um
[3:49:40] I hope you felt like your voices were
[3:49:42] heard even though it wasn't physically
[3:49:44] heard in this room, but I feel like
[3:49:46] everybody applied that.
[3:49:49] Um I have come to the realization that
[3:49:51] not everyone is going to be happy cuz
[3:49:53] I'm seeing a lot not a lot, but I'm
[3:49:55] seeing a handful of unhappy faces.
[3:49:56] Hopefully, you'll kind of understand
[3:49:58] what the thought process was um
[3:50:00] with council on all the agenda items and
[3:50:03] if you have issues with that make your
[3:50:05] voice heard. Send your emails in. Um, I
[3:50:08] do read them all and I know
[3:50:11] most everybody else does also.
[3:50:14] So, thank you. Um, with that we'll go on
[3:50:17] to
[3:50:18] staff reports. Chief?
[3:50:23] Patton?
[3:50:27] Actually, I did have a question.
[3:50:29] Are we at stage one
[3:50:32] for fire restrictions?
[3:50:39] No fireworks.
[3:50:40] Yes.
[3:50:43] » The state is at state one stage one. And
[3:50:46] I'm when I say the state, so the like
[3:50:49] the federal lands, forest, and those
[3:50:51] types of things are not in stage one.
[3:50:54] >> Right.
[3:50:56] But the state is and from what my
[3:50:57] >> is.
[3:50:58] >> But my understanding of this
[3:51:03] um, state stage one is that or my
[3:51:06] understanding of the state's definition
[3:51:07] of stage one it said no fireworks. But
[3:51:10] then it also it seems like there's a
[3:51:12] caveat. Yeah, cuz it says no
[3:51:13] combustibles, no launching.
[3:51:16] >> In on state lands.
[3:51:18] >> But and then that it does not spill over
[3:51:21] onto municipalities or privately held
[3:51:25] lands
[3:51:26] in state or unincorporated various
[3:51:28] counties that are off of the stage one.
[3:51:30] Is that correct?
[3:51:31] >> Yes.
[3:51:31] >> Okay.
[3:51:32] >> So, a municipality can't
[3:51:35] all like flat out ban fireworks.
[3:51:39] So, we have our fireworks map which
[3:51:42] shows our places where we've either had
[3:51:44] historical problems or drainages, places
[3:51:48] that influence the water,
[3:51:50] um,
[3:51:51] run off or any of those types of things.
[3:51:54] But as a municipality we cannot just
[3:51:56] come out and say banned.
[3:51:59] >> Okay, I just wanted that clarification.
[3:52:01] I've had a lot of people reach out to me
[3:52:03] and my understanding was always that the
[3:52:05] state law prohibits us from banning
[3:52:08] citywide.
[3:52:09] >> Yes.
[3:52:09] >> They have very strict regulations on
[3:52:11] what we can ban and our city has taken
[3:52:15] upon itself to ban as much as is allowed
[3:52:18] by the state law.
[3:52:19] >> Yes.
[3:52:20] >> And then if you have any other
[3:52:21] suggestions to our map to increase it,
[3:52:24] we would have we'd appreciate it.
[3:52:25] >> Yeah.
[3:52:26] I don't
[3:52:27] >> But I don't know
[3:52:27] >> look at it, but uh quite honestly, I
[3:52:30] think it's it comes down to
[3:52:33] self-policing and potentially policing
[3:52:36] your neighborhoods, your neighbors, and
[3:52:39] I would love to not see any fireworks go
[3:52:40] off in Alpine.
[3:52:41] >> Yeah, I know.
[3:52:42] >> But
[3:52:43] >> I don't know that that's an option.
[3:52:44] >> So, does that mean we're not doing
[3:52:45] fireworks at Alpine Days? Is that just
[3:52:48] to confirm that?
[3:52:49] >> No, we're doing fireworks at Alpine
[3:52:51] Days, but the fire But the fire department
[3:52:56] will be there.
[3:52:57] >> Okay.
[3:52:58] >> They've They've been there every year.
[3:53:01] Mhm.
[3:53:01] >> I heard the governor the other day in an
[3:53:03] interview just couple days ago and
[3:53:06] he said, "I can't I don't have the
[3:53:08] ability to ban fireworks in the state,
[3:53:10] >> [clears throat]
[3:53:11] >> but he says I'm suggesting it's a bad idea this year
[3:53:15] and to leave it to the professionals."
[3:53:17] Is the way he put it.
[3:53:18] >> Leave it to the professionals.
[3:53:19] >> Yeah.
[3:53:19] >> Chief, while you're up, since we have
[3:53:21] some budget coming up for some fire
[3:53:23] mitigation, if you have any areas you'd
[3:53:26] like done,
[3:53:27] if you could let us know, that'd be
[3:53:28] really helpful. If you notice any areas
[3:53:30] that you're like, "This needs" I know of
[3:53:31] one that needs to be done
[3:53:33] on state or or city land, but if you
[3:53:36] know of any others, let us know.
[3:53:38] >> I'd start with that one.
[3:53:39] >> Okay. That's the first one I'm going to
[3:53:40] do.
[3:53:41] >> Um
[3:53:42] Okay.
[3:53:43] I can
[3:53:44] >> Wait, is this the pile of wood that you
[3:53:46] left? Like
[3:53:47] >> Well, hold on. A neighborhood
[3:53:50] put Yes, I was part of it.
[3:53:52] >> the city provided dumpsters for you to
[3:53:54] put all that wood in and then
[3:53:56] >> I I
[3:53:57] this is I'm so glad you're bringing this
[3:53:58] up. I'm so glad you're bringing this up.
[3:54:00] We filled the dumpsters times eight. The
[3:54:03] rest is left over. All of that, or I
[3:54:06] would say half of it, was on city land,
[3:54:08] so we cleared it to a place where we
[3:54:09] could move it. It would have been in a
[3:54:11] ravine all like locked up and very
[3:54:13] dangerous. So, it's in a safer spot than
[3:54:15] it was now. It was there still for the
[3:54:18] last 20 years. Just in a terrible ravine
[3:54:21] with a kids fort that they go down there
[3:54:23] and they play, and we cleared it out of
[3:54:25] there
[3:54:26] and off of the city land, and yes, it is
[3:54:28] still a pile.
[3:54:29] >> I will remind us we have 5 minutes.
[3:54:31] >> Yes, okay.
[3:54:32] >> Okay, I
[3:54:33] >> I had to explain.
[3:54:34] >> No, okay. Thank you, Chief. I appreciate
[3:54:36] your comments. Um, hopefully we'll be
[3:54:38] able to get that messaging out.
[3:54:40] You can
[3:54:41] Caden, do you have anything?
[3:54:43] >> Um, I'll just say that
[3:54:45] uh, the two council members that
[3:54:47] sponsored, or at least put forward the
[3:54:48] desire for a fence amendment,
[3:54:51] uh, we've been working on that, and I
[3:54:52] sent it to both of them, waiting for
[3:54:54] comment back
[3:54:55] uh, to see what we want to do with that.
[3:54:57] And then
[3:54:58] the survey for the golf carts is going
[3:55:01] to go out with the next news line.
[3:55:02] >> Thank you for doing that.
[3:55:03] >> Um, as well as social media. Heidi and I
[3:55:06] have been working on that. I think it
[3:55:07] was sent to you, Mayor, to review if you
[3:55:09] approved of the questions on that.
[3:55:11] I think Heidi
[3:55:14] Okay, Heidi's going to send that.
[3:55:16] But that will go out with the next news
[3:55:17] line.
[3:55:20] » Shane.
[3:55:21] >> Uh,
[3:55:22] so our chip seal the chip seal part of
[3:55:24] our project is done and the sealcoat
[3:55:26] part has started. So, another
[3:55:30] I don't know, a week or 10 days, that
[3:55:32] should be complete.
[3:55:35] It'll round out our projects for this
[3:55:37] year.
[3:55:38] And then we'll be starting
[3:55:40] >> all over again
[3:55:41] >> in about a week.
[3:55:43] >> For 2000 or 2027 projects.
[3:55:46] >> Yep.
[3:55:46] >> Thank you.
[3:55:48] All right.
[3:55:49] >> No updates.
[3:55:53] » I have one. The Chamber of Commerce is
[3:55:55] bringing back online the welcome wagon,
[3:55:57] which is going to be so amazing, and
[3:55:59] they asked if the city would like to
[3:56:00] provide the bags, and so I got someone
[3:56:03] that's willing to sponsor it, and I just
[3:56:05] want to do the big reveal.
[3:56:07] >> Oh.
[3:56:08] >> And look how cute it is. So, they're
[3:56:10] going to go to every new move-in, and
[3:56:13] that good old-fashioned
[3:56:14] >> Oh.
[3:56:15] >> welcome wagon, all include a letter from
[3:56:17] the city saying
[3:56:19] all about Alpine history, and
[3:56:22] welcome, and if you want to serve, we
[3:56:23] have all these great committees, and so
[3:56:25] that will be our contribution.
[3:56:27] So, it's it's exciting. It'll come
[3:56:29] online July 1st.
[3:56:30] >> Perfect. Thank you.
[3:56:31] >> Congrats.
[3:56:32] >> Um water committee, we've we've working
[3:56:35] on distribution of flyers, so if anyone
[3:56:36] wants to volunteer to go door to door
[3:56:38] and pass those out, let me know.
[3:56:41] >> Thank you. Chrissy.
[3:56:42] >> I have nothing.
[3:56:44] >> Andrew.
[3:56:44] >> Uh
[3:56:45] you know, I'll just say nothing other
[3:56:46] than
[3:56:48] uh we've got about a week to 2 weeks the
[3:56:51] chief can let us know where even trying
[3:56:54] to do fire mitigation is more dangerous
[3:56:57] than um not doing it, cuz you stand to
[3:57:00] cause fires. So,
[3:57:03] I guess these are the next couple weeks
[3:57:05] to do it. Once we get too hot, I've been
[3:57:07] doing it all these last weeks um in
[3:57:10] various locations. The grass we had the
[3:57:13] perfect storm of a wet spring and a dry
[3:57:15] winter, so now the grass is tall. So,
[3:57:18] our goal is to make it through these
[3:57:20] next 2 to 3 months.
[3:57:22] Good. Um so, these are the last 2 weeks,
[3:57:25] so if there's any we can do, I don't
[3:57:26] know when does our budget money become
[3:57:28] available to start doing a couple uh
[3:57:31] city
[3:57:32] um
[3:57:33] fire mitigation projects? Is that not
[3:57:35] available even though we voted on it
[3:57:36] today?
[3:57:38] >> Takes effect July 1st.
[3:57:40] >> But it is down the list.
[3:57:41] >> Okay. all right. So, thank you.
[3:57:43] >> Okay.
[3:57:44] With that, I
[3:57:46] we're working on the budget. I
[3:57:47] appreciate everyone's input.
[3:57:49] I am a little disappointed how
[3:57:51] everything went, but I guess I will see
[3:57:53] you guys next week in another meeting.
[3:57:56] So, with that, I'll entertain a motion
[3:57:57] to adjourn.
[3:57:59] >> I'll make that motion.
[3:58:01] >> Is there a second?
[3:58:03] >> It's been moved by Councilwoman
[3:58:04] Hanneman, seconded by Councilman Rumler.
[3:58:07] All in favor? I. Adjourned.