[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.

6.23.26 City Council Meeting

Transcript