[9:34] Are you guys ready yet?

[9:37] All right, let's go ahead and we're

[9:38] going to go ahead and get started with

[9:39] our council meeting. We did have a work

[9:40] meeting before this. Uh just getting our

[9:43] ducks all in a row here, so we're ready

[9:44] to go. But welcome to our council

[9:47] meeting tonight. We are going to go

[9:49] ahead and get started correctly. We have

[9:52] uh Pastor Greg Wright here from the

[9:55] Westside Baptist Church. Also, Pastor

[9:59] Wright serves our police department as a

[10:01] chaplain, and I'm very appreciative of

[10:02] that. And also just an all-around good

[10:05] guy. Come on up.

[10:09] >> Thank you, Mayor.

[10:11] Psalm 145:3 says, "Great is the Lord and

[10:15] greatly to be praised, and his greatness

[10:18] is unsearchable." So, let's go to the

[10:20] Lord in prayer. Father, we thank you

[10:23] that we can approach you recognizing

[10:25] that you are great in every way, in

[10:28] every one of your attributes. We

[10:31] acknowledge that and we're glad for the

[10:33] freedom in our country and here in our

[10:35] city to be able to pray and to seek you.

[10:38] And tonight, we not only pray for our

[10:40] mayor and council members in this

[10:42] particular meeting, we're also asking

[10:45] that you would bless our city, all of

[10:48] the entities that are represented in

[10:50] this, the streets, police, fire,

[10:54] power, water, buildings, facilities,

[10:57] just every part of what it takes to have

[11:00] such a great city. We ask for your

[11:02] blessing and your help. We pray for

[11:05] wisdom for those that are making

[11:07] decisions that you would lead and guide.

[11:10] We pray for provision for our families

[11:12] in this community. You provide for those

[11:15] that are hurting, those that are weak,

[11:17] that you'd protect them and care for

[11:19] them. That you'd bless the righteous and

[11:22] that you would give grace to each of us.

[11:25] We ask again for your blessing as we

[11:28] come to you tonight. And we pray this in

[11:30] Jesus name. Amen.

[11:33] >> Amen. Thank you. Um, I've asked

[11:35] Councilwoman Natalie Larson to lead us

[11:37] in the pledge.

[11:39] >> Please stand and repeat after me.

[11:42] >> Ice

[11:44] to the United States of America.

[12:01] All right, we uh we do have one

[12:04] introduction we want to do. Carol, if

[12:06] you want to come up and give us this

[12:08] give us an introduction to Lonnie.

[12:11] >> Mayor, council members, um we do have a

[12:14] new employee in our planning department.

[12:17] Um this is Lonnie Olsen. Um he comes to

[12:20] us from Wyoming and um he's our newest

[12:22] planner and we're excited to have him on

[12:24] the team. You say something if you want.

[12:28] Hi everyone. Uh, I just want to say I

[12:31] have been here for almost three weeks

[12:33] and I've really enjoyed it so far and

[12:34] I'm just happy to kind of get on the

[12:36] feet or under my feet and running with

[12:38] this and I just appreciate you all uh

[12:41] putting faith in me to work here.

[12:43] >> Well, we're glad to have you here. Born

[12:45] and raised in Wyoming.

[12:46] >> Yep. Born and raised in Laram, Wyoming.

[12:48] So, that's where the the University of

[12:50] Wyoming is. And I went to school for my

[12:53] masters in Salt Lake City at the

[12:54] University of Utah. So

[12:56] >> very cool.

[12:57] >> So same weather then as Larmy here, huh?

[13:00] >> Yeah, it's quite quite the adjustment.

[13:04] >> Welcome.

[13:04] >> Lonnie told me he was happy to get out

[13:06] of the snow and he he likes to bike and

[13:08] hike. So

[13:09] >> very cool. We're glad to have you and we

[13:11] have plenty for you to do. Carol, you

[13:13] probably already figured that out.

[13:15] >> Yeah. Welcome.

[13:18] Uh also I do we have some members of our

[13:20] youth city council here?

[13:23] Did I see you? Come on up here and tell

[13:24] us who you are.

[13:28] » We always want to make sure you're

[13:30] welcome here.

[13:40] » Hi.

[13:40] >> Go ahead.

[13:41] >> Hi, I'm Mariah Bates and I'm just a

[13:43] member of the city council.

[13:45] >> Awesome.

[13:46] >> My name is Lucas Pierce. Um I'm just

[13:48] also a member.

[13:49] >> And what schools?

[13:50] >> I go to Crimson Cliffs.

[13:52] >> George Academy. And you had a speech for

[13:54] us, right?

[13:58] » Yeah.

[13:58] >> Mayor, they both just used the word.

[14:00] They both just said, "I'm just a member

[14:02] of the youth city council." And you are

[14:04] a member of the youth city council. Not

[14:06] just. You guys are really important to

[14:08] us. So, don't forget that. And we're

[14:09] super glad you're here.

[14:11] >> Thank you.

[14:12] >> Yeah. Thanks for being here.

[14:14] All right. Let's see. Do we have any

[14:16] other pre-aggenda items?

[14:18] Then take us away.

[14:20] >> Okay. There's one change this evening,

[14:21] Mayor. And item number seven will be rem

[14:24] be removed from the agenda this evening.

[14:26] Um item number two is consent calendar.

[14:28] There's 13 items on the consent calendar

[14:30] this evening. Uh staff has reviewed each

[14:33] of these administrative items and

[14:34] recommends approval. However, if the

[14:36] city council would like to remove any of

[14:38] these for specific consideration, we can

[14:40] accommodate that. Otherwise, staff

[14:42] recommends approval.

[14:44] >> Mayor, I would like to remove item G and

[14:48] then I can make a motion that we approve

[14:50] the calendar. with that removed if

[14:52] that's okay with you.

[14:53] >> Yep.

[14:53] >> Okay. So, I'll make a motion that we

[14:55] approve the consent calendar as um

[14:58] presented, removing item G for

[15:00] discussion.

[15:02] >> I'll second that motion.

[15:04] >> So, we have a motion by Danielle and a

[15:06] second by Michelle removing item G and

[15:08] then to approve the consent calendar.

[15:10] All in favor say I.

[15:12] >> I.

[15:13] >> Any opposed? Motion carries.

[15:18] And item G.

[15:20] >> Okay. So Cameron, do you mind coming up?

[15:22] We sent Cameron I think the entire

[15:24] council has been talking to Cameron, not

[15:26] just me about this and we've received

[15:28] quite a few letters. So we just I asked

[15:31] Cameron if he would address the

[15:32] questions tonight. Thank you.

[15:41] » I've got to pull it up. Sorry about

[15:42] that.

[16:08] Okay.

[16:10] Uh so these are questions that were

[16:12] brought up um by a contractor um

[16:16] regarding our bid. Um and then I

[16:18] provided uh some information in email.

[16:22] So, first uh city code section uh 1

[16:25] 10B6B requires a written statement of

[16:28] reasons approved uh by the city manager

[16:30] and city attorney. How uh whenever an

[16:32] award is not given to the lowest bidder,

[16:35] does that statement exist for this

[16:36] project? And can the council uh see it

[16:39] before voting? So there's a section in our procurement uh ordinance that

[16:44] indicates if you're not going with the

[16:46] low bid uh provide the justification in

[16:49] our procurement standard or our

[16:51] procurement or uh ordinance. There are

[16:54] 11 reasons or 11 criteria that the that

[16:57] staff is supposed to look at when also

[17:00] looking at the price. Uh they pertain to

[17:02] can the is the contractor qualified? Uh

[17:05] can they perform the work? What's their

[17:07] integrity? What's their character?

[17:08] what's there financially? Can they do

[17:10] that? And so if you don't go with a low

[17:12] bid, we provide as a department head, we provide the the justification for

[17:17] that. In this case, we I did send an

[17:19] email to uh uh city manager and to city

[17:24] attorney uh to be able to indicate,

[17:26] okay, on this project, we actually

[17:28] scored the the George Washington

[17:30] Boulevard uh roadway. And I probably

[17:32] should indicate this is for the the item

[17:35] G uh George Washington Boulevard roadway

[17:37] the the roadway portion of it. We

[17:39] received nine bids um of which we scored

[17:43] the four criteria past performance uh uh

[17:48] qualifications. That's the past three

[17:49] projects or similar projects the

[17:51] contractor was supposed to provide us uh

[17:53] their bid amount and their schedule. Um

[17:56] so those four criteria were scored five

[17:58] points, five points, 50 points and 40

[18:00] points. the schedule being 40 points and

[18:02] the bid being 50 points the other five

[18:04] points. So, uh we scored this project

[18:07] according to that criteria that we

[18:09] provided for the information for biders.

[18:11] Um so I I did provide an email um to our

[18:15] city manager and city attorney

[18:17] indicating this is how we scored uh

[18:19] these projects. That was to answer that question. Uh another question, the

[18:24] second question, can the category level

[18:26] scores for all nine biders, uh work

[18:28] qualification, past performance, bid

[18:30] schedule, construction schedule be made

[18:32] part of the record before the vote? The

[18:34] packet contains only scores. We put in

[18:36] the packet the total score of uh for the bids that we rank these uh

[18:43] these bids. We did not put out to the

[18:45] public all of those categories because

[18:47] there was some subjectivity in them. um

[18:49] the past performance of a contractor. We

[18:52] didn't want to hurt um reputation of a

[18:55] contractor. We didn't want to put that

[18:56] out to the public. Um we recognized that could um be detrimental to a a

[19:02] contractor. So, we provided the full

[19:04] score of those contract of those biders

[19:06] uh in the in the public packet so that

[19:09] the the public could see that. Um, we

[19:12] intend to provide that score that that

[19:15] score sheet to the contractors so that

[19:17] if they wanted to get feedback from uh

[19:19] staff that we could talk about that with

[19:21] them. Okay, you didn't score very well

[19:23] here. You did score here. Here's the

[19:25] reason why. And and talk that through

[19:27] with them if they decided to want to

[19:28] come and talk to us. um for the awarding

[19:32] contract section of the bid documents

[19:33] paragraph 4. This is in the information

[19:35] for biders states that award will be

[19:38] made to the lowest responsible bidder as

[19:40] determined by the city using the

[19:41] criteria contained in city ordinances

[19:44] governing the award of contracts. How

[19:45] was that provision applied to this

[19:46] recommendation? it. That paragraph in

[19:49] the information for biders was actually

[19:51] corrected by an addendum and it

[19:53] identified that the the the award of the

[19:56] bid will actually be to the highest

[19:58] ranking contractor or highest ranking

[20:00] bid as determined by the four uh

[20:03] categories listed in the information for

[20:05] bid. When the question came up, I don't

[20:07] think the contractor actually realized

[20:09] that um didn't go back and read the the addendum where it was corrected. uh

[20:15] that acknowledgement of the amendment,

[20:17] the receipt and reading of it, they have

[20:19] to click a yes on the on the uh digital

[20:22] bonfire, the program where they submit

[20:24] the bids before they can submit a bid.

[20:26] And so whether or not they

[20:29] well in the questions, they didn't

[20:31] acknowledge that it was changed in the addendum. Uh let's see for

[20:35] context on question two.

[20:37] >> Hang on a second, Cameron. I need to be

[20:39] clear on that.

[20:41] So,

[20:42] in order to submit a bid in Bonfire,

[20:45] they would have needed to click that

[20:46] they had received the addendum. Correct.

[20:50] >> And read it. Yes.

[20:51] >> And read it. That's what they're

[20:52] acknowledging. So, they can't submit a

[20:55] bid unless they click that.

[20:56] >> Correct.

[20:57] >> So, whether they actually read it or

[20:59] not, they all we know is that they click

[21:02] the button.

[21:03] >> Correct.

[21:03] >> Okay. Thank you.

[21:04] >> Yep. And then uh question

[21:07] this other question for context on

[21:09] question two. I asked staff for these

[21:11] records in writing and I was told they

[21:13] uh will be provided through a grammar

[21:15] records process whose process or

[21:17] response deadline falls after Thursday's

[21:19] meeting. My understanding is because of

[21:21] grammar laws and um and our city

[21:25] recorder provided a good response to

[21:27] this in in an email that we uh could not

[21:30] give those those scorings out to the

[21:32] contractor until after the bid is

[21:34] awarded. Um and there's there's reasons

[21:37] for that, but yeah, basically it falls

[21:40] under grandma laws. Um

[21:43] let's see. One item to note is I know

[21:47] that we took this bid. This was the

[21:49] first time that we did it in public

[21:50] works and scored the bids with these

[21:53] four criteria past performance uh work

[21:56] qualifications bid and schedule. Um the

[22:00] schedule was the question hey how why

[22:03] can uh you score this thing based on uh

[22:06] time. Please note that that this has

[22:09] been going on uses this um in their uh

[22:13] contracting and awarding of contracts

[22:16] all the time. Bluff Street was actually

[22:18] awarded price plus time. The the lowest

[22:20] bid on the Bluff Street project or the awarded contractor was not the

[22:26] lowest bid.

[22:27] >> Cameron, was that part made clear in the

[22:29] con in the bid um request in the bid

[22:32] documents that you were going to be

[22:34] doing

[22:36] >> that that procedure. What's it called?

[22:38] Plus time.

[22:39] >> Price plus time.

[22:40] Is that obvious?

[22:41] >> That's the title that UD do uses. It's

[22:43] price plus time contracting.

[22:45] >> In our bid, we put it as four uh four

[22:49] criteria that they were going to be

[22:50] scored on and they were going to be

[22:51] ranked based on those four criteria. And

[22:54] so the idea of hey, you can't can you

[22:56] award a bid with award and a bid uh a

[23:00] bid with time and cost. U does it all

[23:03] the time. They did it on Bluff Street.

[23:05] The the awarded contractor was not the

[23:08] lowest bid. They were the faster uh

[23:10] bidder. Um, and so that that price

[23:13] element and time element was awarded

[23:16] together to be able to award that to the

[23:17] lower or to the lowest responsible

[23:20] bidder. Um, I recognize that that uh

[23:24] there's been questions. Hey, we didn't

[23:26] understand this. We didn't understand

[23:27] that you were going to score it this

[23:28] way. We actually had a mandatory pre-bid

[23:30] meeting in this project where all of the

[23:33] contractors that bid, the nine contracts

[23:35] that we bids that we received, they were

[23:37] all present. um they had a

[23:38] representative there um where we

[23:40] actually talked about this very thing

[23:42] and how we were going to score it. And

[23:44] then during the the bid period after

[23:46] that pre-bid pre-mandatory bid meeting

[23:49] um all the contractors had uh time to

[23:52] send questions to the city uh

[23:54] engineering staff and we answered their

[23:56] questions. It wasn't until after the bid

[23:58] was received then they started asking,

[24:00] "Hey, wait a minute. Um can you do this?

[24:03] I I I don't understand this." Cameron,

[24:05] with those four categories, was it clear

[24:09] the weight that would be given to each

[24:11] category? How many points for each one?

[24:14] >> No. And that's a good question because

[24:16] it was brought up, well, hey, what if

[24:17] you wait the time? Um,

[24:21] uh, I'll give you an example. So, we

[24:23] never spelled out the bid amount that

[24:26] one contractor versus another based on

[24:28] their bid amount was going to score

[24:30] different than 50 50 points. We we never

[24:32] spelled that out in the contract. uh

[24:34] because we we figured well that's

[24:36] inferred because we're ranking you based

[24:38] on these four category up to 50 points,

[24:40] 40 points, five points and five points.

[24:42] So we never spelled that out in the

[24:44] contract time, the schedule. We did not

[24:46] spell it out. We didn't spell it out

[24:47] with the the performance five points and

[24:49] the the work qualification five points

[24:52] either. Um and and maybe that's

[24:54] something that our staff needs to put a

[24:56] little bit more clarification in to say,

[24:58] hey, the time the faster you bid it, the

[25:01] more score points you're going to get or

[25:02] the slower you bid it. um it's it's not

[25:05] you're not going to score as well. But

[25:06] we didn't do that for the bid either. We

[25:08] didn't uh call out that, hey, if you

[25:10] give us a a a

[25:13] less bid, you're going to score higher.

[25:15] We didn't do that any of that.

[25:16] >> But Cameron, did you have I'm confused

[25:19] by your answer. So, did you have that

[25:20] time was 40% or 40 points?

[25:24] >> 40 possible points.

[25:25] >> So, you did have you did have the point

[25:29] allocated to each one of those items.

[25:31] >> Yes. I apologize if I'm not uh clear on that. But so 40 points possible

[25:37] for the schedule, 50 points possible for

[25:40] the bid, five points possible, and five

[25:42] points possible for both the past work

[25:44] experience and uh quality of work.

[25:47] >> I think that's where the disconnect

[25:49] happened was

[25:51] that time that time change that that was

[25:55] going to be such a significant thing

[25:57] when we've when I've communicated with

[25:59] these contractors.

[26:02] And so I guess that's the question is do

[26:06] you feel that was clear to those

[26:07] contractors that that that was I mean

[26:10] time yes it was going to be completed on

[26:12] time but that it was going to score so

[26:14] heavily in their favor if they got the

[26:17] job done early.

[26:19] >> I feel like it was clear we received

[26:21] nine bids and all of those nine bids had

[26:24] different time periods on them a

[26:26] different schedule. I can start this

[26:29] time and end this time. They all had

[26:30] different days that they were going to

[26:32] be working. They were not all the same.

[26:34] They didn't go to just the minimum time

[26:37] period that we indicated in the bid.

[26:38] They all gave me different time periods.

[26:40] Um I feel like it was was understood. Um

[26:44] we talked about it in the pre-bid

[26:45] meeting. We talked about it in the

[26:46] addendum um to clarify how it was going

[26:48] to be awarded. I felt like it was. I

[26:50] know that's could be subjective. Um but

[26:53] I I think me and my staff I think we

[26:55] communicated that with them. So, we had

[26:57] a minimum time period placed in there.

[27:00] And was that minimum time period, if

[27:02] they put that date on their application,

[27:05] was that awarded a zero or how many

[27:08] points?

[27:09] >> How did we track that?

[27:10] >> We took uh the the quickest time was

[27:12] March and the slowest time was back into

[27:15] September. And we

[27:16] >> So, we based what they submitted to us,

[27:18] not based off of our minimum time,

[27:21] >> based on what they submitted to us. And

[27:23] so the fastest uh time received a

[27:26] 40point score. The slowest time received

[27:28] a like a fivepoint score and four people

[27:30] scored it and and then it averaged those

[27:32] numbers together.

[27:35] >> Okay. Yeah, I can see where the

[27:37] confusion would be there with that wide

[27:41] discrepancy of, you know, I can see the

[27:44] frustration if I'm putting in the bid

[27:46] not realizing that wide discrepancy

[27:48] there.

[27:50] >> Yeah.

[27:51] Other

[27:53] questions? I can clarify some more. Um

[27:58] I tried to calculate it differently if

[28:00] uh so the bonfire actually provided the

[28:03] scoring for the bid. Uh staff did not

[28:06] provide that. That was just set based on

[28:07] a formula. I I actually took that same

[28:10] formula and applied it to the days that

[28:11] the contractors provided this used that

[28:14] formula and the top four biders didn't

[28:16] change even using so where where the

[28:20] bonfire program squished scores together

[28:24] so that out of 50 points the lowest

[28:26] score was like uh 32 points point

[28:28] something and so it pushed those scores

[28:30] together as as staff scored those the timetable of that the schedule um

[28:36] and it stretched it out because 40

[28:38] points versus five points. Um, I redid

[28:41] that calculation just to see if it

[28:42] changed it and it didn't change the top

[28:44] four scores based on the same formula

[28:46] that was used in Bonfire for the

[28:48] schedule. I used that and it again, it

[28:51] didn't change it.

[28:53] So, based on what the contractor

[28:54] submitted to us for their their

[28:56] schedules,

[28:58] the the top four bids didn't change.

[29:01] >> And this is the first time we've done a

[29:03] bid this way. Is that correct?

[29:05] >> Correct. I I should explain that uh in

[29:08] over the years as we bid using our

[29:10] procurement standard where we look at

[29:12] the lowest bid but we're also supposed

[29:14] to look at some of these other criteria

[29:17] um a lot of bids not all of them but

[29:20] just some of them here and there if they

[29:21] didn't provide us the the information we

[29:23] wanted a clear uh concise information

[29:26] they would be rejected um in this case

[29:29] we didn't we didn't reject any of them

[29:31] because we knew we were scoring them um

[29:33] if I looked at those criteria and they

[29:35] didn't provide all of the information

[29:36] that we were looking for. Some of them

[29:38] may have been rejected, but we scored

[29:40] them because we identified that we were

[29:42] going to score them.

[29:43] >> Would any of the top uh contractors be

[29:47] uh thrown out?

[29:49] >> Could be.

[29:53] But again, we just scored them.

[29:55] >> I have another question regarding

[29:57] timing.

[29:59] This road does not exist. It's not

[30:01] replacing a road. It's going to help

[30:03] alleviate traffic.

[30:05] when you're looking at that bid process,

[30:07] where does money come into play with

[30:09] that $1.4 million difference in bid

[30:12] price because it's not in front of a

[30:15] school, a hospital, not the boulevard

[30:19] getting replaced. So why the sense of

[30:21] urgency? The timing was so critical on

[30:24] this bid.

[30:25] >> So I'll explain two things on that. So

[30:28] um we have the bridge that's under

[30:30] construction right now. The contract

[30:31] time for that bridge goes until July,

[30:33] middle of July, around July 15th. Um,

[30:36] the current contractor working on that

[30:38] bridge is going to finish well before

[30:39] that timetable. So, um, as staff had

[30:42] looked at, um, when can we finish this roadway, we knew that the bridge

[30:47] was going to be done and the

[30:48] intersection over by the Dixie Center

[30:50] where it's just Crosby Way right now and

[30:51] just a through roadway, it's going to

[30:53] change to a T intersection. And we knew

[30:55] that that was going to be a delay. that

[30:57] was going to be an issue with drivers

[30:58] driving that going through a traffic

[31:00] signal without the bridge open. So, we

[31:02] tried to look at ways to accelerate the

[31:04] construction of this roadway. One of

[31:06] them was we we bid out the pedestrian

[31:08] bridge that's on the roadway section. We

[31:10] bid it out earlier because that was

[31:12] going to be a critical path delay for

[31:14] the roadway. Um, and so when we looked

[31:17] at the roadway portion, the reason why

[31:19] we tried to accelerate the schedule and

[31:21] score it according to a schedule is

[31:23] because the bridge was going to be done

[31:24] a lot sooner. Um, and we didn't want

[31:26] that bridge just being out there

[31:28] finished, completed and Crosby Way into

[31:30] a T intersection without the roadway

[31:32] connected. Um, that was the reason why

[31:34] we actually pushed it to get that done.

[31:37] Um, to your question about the $1.4

[31:39] million, the the difference between the

[31:41] low bid and the high bid, even talking

[31:43] with the the contractor for the low the

[31:45] lower bid amount, um, asking him about

[31:48] the time schedule, he responded to me

[31:49] that, oh, if I wanted to accelerate this

[31:52] schedule, I could do it also. I would

[31:54] just have to add more people, which

[31:55] means that the bid cost would go up. So,

[31:58] to your question, I couldn't just throw

[32:00] out the the schedule the the scoring of

[32:02] this uh schedule and not even account

[32:05] for it and use those bids because those

[32:07] bids are accounting for the time that

[32:09] the contractors are actually uh building

[32:11] it. And so, even though um that $ 1.4

[32:15] million difference between them, if it

[32:18] wouldn't be that much savings if we

[32:20] tried to make them all go with the same

[32:22] schedule. And so you can't really throw

[32:24] out the time period and and get those

[32:28] bids. You can't do that. So the 1.5 uh

[32:31] 1.4 million reflects that you're getting

[32:33] a faster schedule on the construction of

[32:35] the roadway.

[32:39] » We're also going to have some disruption

[32:41] on I-15

[32:43] coming very shortly. So this road will

[32:45] be crucial.

[32:47] >> True.

[32:51] Cameron, do we know when they're going

[32:53] to start the I-15 expansion and raise

[32:57] project?

[32:57] >> Let's see. They just told me and I I

[32:59] don't have that in my head, but it's

[33:00] within the next month or so they're

[33:02] going to get those bids received. U is

[33:06] so they stopped the advertisement of bid

[33:08] first part of the summer. They started

[33:10] that, stopped it, and they wanted to

[33:11] wait for the grant that they had put

[33:13] into the federal government, a $25

[33:15] million grant that they got like 23 and

[33:16] something million.

[33:17] >> Midepptember is what they said in that

[33:19] meeting.

[33:19] >> Midseptember

[33:20] >> for bids. Yeah.

[33:21] >> So, they will receive those bids and

[33:23] then uh award that and it's going to

[33:25] start could be this year, could be this

[33:27] calendar year.

[33:32] » Just a little clarification just so I I

[33:36] want to be very clear that there's a

[33:39] several all these contractors in fact

[33:41] have been very good community partners.

[33:43] Um that's what makes this a little tough

[33:45] because you're sitting there, man, I

[33:46] wish we could give it to all of them. Uh

[33:48] they've been good community partners.

[33:50] they've done a lot of good work in the

[33:52] community. Um, some of them I know

[33:54] personally, most of them I know at least

[33:56] someone there that works for them

[33:58] personally. And so you there's a whole

[34:00] ramification of getting a job and not

[34:03] getting a job. And I I feel that. So I

[34:05] just want that to be very clear that

[34:07] this these are I still want all these

[34:10] contractors to know that they're are

[34:11] very good community parters partners and

[34:13] at the end of the day regardless of what

[34:15] happens here

[34:17] only one of them is going to get it. And

[34:19] so, um,

[34:22] I I just keep that in mind. I just

[34:24] wanted to make sure those contractors

[34:25] knew no, there's no there nothing

[34:26] nefarious going on here. This is just

[34:28] simply what we're trying to get a road

[34:30] done at the best possible price.

[34:33] Well, and just to clarify, Cameron,

[34:35] because transparency obviously is very

[34:38] important with this, and you did mention

[34:40] with grandma request laws that we were

[34:43] not able to release the information

[34:46] until after um a bid is awarded

[34:49] essentially. So, is this does the city

[34:53] intend to go ahead and release this

[34:55] information so that the contractors can

[34:57] have all of the information that was

[35:00] requested?

[35:01] >> That that I believe is what our intent

[35:04] is. Yes.

[35:05] >> Okay.

[35:06] But the reason why it wasn't put into

[35:08] the packet is for protection essentially

[35:11] of the companies and because of that

[35:14] scoring system partially being based off

[35:17] of past experience. We didn't want to

[35:20] have anything put out there potentially

[35:23] negative for a company. Is that am I

[35:25] understanding that correctly?

[35:27] >> Correct. We would we're intending to

[35:29] meet with the contractors to to give

[35:30] them some feedback if they wish it.

[35:33] >> Okay. Yeah. because I think that's this

[35:35] is a tough one for me because the

[35:37] transparency aspect is so important and

[35:39] when we're going out to bid we want to

[35:42] make sure everything is transparent and

[35:44] well understood and obviously we as

[35:46] wanting to be good stewards of tax

[35:48] dollars want to assure that we're

[35:50] getting the best price we can but also

[35:52] time is money as well so I understand

[35:54] factoring in those other aspects but

[35:57] having it be as clear as possible when

[36:00] we are going out to bid and it sounds

[36:02] like with this being the first time

[36:04] doing it this way, I I can see where

[36:06] there was some confusion. So, that's why

[36:08] this one is is tough for me.

[36:12] >> Thanks, Cameron, for answering all those

[36:14] questions. And it sounds like you're

[36:15] already planning to meet with all the

[36:16] contractors afterwards. I think that'll

[36:18] be great, especially with us doing this

[36:20] new process so they can give us some

[36:22] feedback and we can make sure that

[36:24] there's clarity because like the mayor

[36:26] said, these are all good companies. We

[36:28] want to continue working with all of

[36:29] them. We want them to be successful in

[36:32] their bidding processes and we want to

[36:33] make sure that we're not hanging them up

[36:35] in any way on that. So, um, with that,

[36:38] mayor, I'll make a motion if you're

[36:40] ready, unless anybody else

[36:41] >> just give one to give legal a second

[36:43] here before you do that.

[36:44] >> Okay. Sure.

[36:45] >> Thanks.

[36:46] >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor and members of the

[36:47] city council. I do want to make you

[36:49] aware and I think you are aware that the

[36:51] city did receive a formal protest today

[36:54] under the procurement code which is 10-

[36:57] or sorry 1-10B-6

[37:00] of our city code. Unfortunately, that protest was required to be

[37:05] submitted within 72 hours of the bid

[37:08] tabulation when it was when it was uh

[37:13] given, which depending on the date you

[37:16] use, at the latest it would have been

[37:18] Saturday morning at 9:00. So, this

[37:20] protest didn't come in in time. However,

[37:24] I do want to let those in the audience

[37:26] that are interested um know that um

[37:30] certainly if the if the bid is awarded

[37:33] tonight and a contract sign, once the

[37:36] contract is signed, we can release the

[37:38] here24 protected grammar documents and

[37:41] we can get those out. But it also allows

[37:43] for an appeal process under title one

[37:46] chapter 15 of our city code as well. Um,

[37:49] so it's not the end. If there are those

[37:52] that want to appeal the decision, um,

[37:54] that decision can go to the

[37:56] administrative law judge. So,

[37:59] sorry to be clear then, just sorry,

[38:01] Danielle, before you make your motion,

[38:03] can you one of you two give us the

[38:06] ramifications of one way or the other of this decision denied or approved?

[38:12] >> Right. So again, if if the decision is

[38:15] denied tonight, um then the process has

[38:18] to start over and we have to redo the

[38:21] entire bid process. If the uh if the

[38:25] award is granted as as recommended or

[38:28] approved as recommended, then the city

[38:31] proceeds with um the contract. Um there

[38:34] is an appeal process available. Um, if

[38:38] it does get appealed and goes to the

[38:40] administrative law judge, again, if the

[38:42] administrative law judge upholds the

[38:44] city's action, then the the project

[38:47] proceeds, continues to proceed. If the

[38:49] administrative law judge disagrees and

[38:51] says, "No, we did it wrong," then again,

[38:54] it goes it's a doover basically, then we start again.

[38:58] >> Okay, that clear? Any questions on that

[39:00] for

[39:02] Jamie? All right. Any other discussion?

[39:07] >> I have one question for Jamie. Based on

[39:09] my research, that decision by the

[39:11] administrative law judge would need to

[39:13] be within two weeks. Sec.

[39:15] >> So, under the procurement code, there

[39:17] was a time limit under under the appeal

[39:20] provisions that I'm talking about.

[39:22] There's a time limit on when to file

[39:24] that appeal and it's a fairly quick one,

[39:26] but then it goes uh then there's a

[39:28] process through the through the

[39:30] administrative code.

[39:31] >> Thank you.

[39:34] Okay. Any other questions?

[39:38] Not then.

[39:40] Danielle.

[39:41] >> Yeah. Mayor, I'll make a motion that we

[39:43] approve item G from the consent calendar

[39:47] um the contract of JP Excavating, Inc.

[39:50] to construct the George Washington

[39:51] Boulevard from Virgin River Bridge to

[39:54] River Road Product.

[39:57] >> I'll second.

[40:00] >> Is that you, Steve? Sorry. Oh, Austin.

[40:03] Okay, we have a motion uh by Danielle, a

[40:06] second by Austin

[40:09] to approve item G. All in favor say I.

[40:13] >> I. I.

[40:14] >> I.

[40:15] >> Any opposed?

[40:17] Motion carries unanimously.

[40:22] This this meeting's kind of got some

[40:24] oddities to it, so I'm going to be uh

[40:26] stepping out and turning the meeting

[40:27] over for this next item to Danielle.

[40:34] So item number three is a public hearing

[40:36] consideration of ordinance number

[40:37] 2026-063

[40:39] annexing property and in the city of St.

[40:42] George and adjusting the corporate

[40:44] boundary lines to include 2.277

[40:47] acres located at the intersection of

[40:49] 3430 east in St. George and 39

[40:54] 30 south in Washington city.

[40:57] >> Okay. So, at the city council meeting on

[41:00] May 28th, 2026, the city approved a

[41:05] resolution a resolution to hear the

[41:08] annexation. So, that put in time that

[41:11] put in place a time frame now that they

[41:13] had to go through a process to look at

[41:15] the annexation. So, tonight is just now

[41:18] the now to come forward and approve the

[41:22] annexation, approve an ordinance uh for

[41:24] the annexation.

[41:30] That's it. [laughter]

[41:32] >> Okay.

[41:34] Um, since since this is um a property

[41:38] belonging to our mayor, I just want to

[41:40] make sure that we um go through the

[41:44] process exactly as we should so that we

[41:46] don't have any questions. Um, so I will

[41:50] read to you what it says from our um

[41:53] annexation policy plan. The city council

[41:56] in their role as a municipal governing

[41:58] body not only has to weigh the

[42:00] recommendations of the planning

[42:01] commission but also determine the terms

[42:03] and conditions upon which property is to

[42:06] be annexed should that be the ultimate

[42:08] decision that reduce or eliminate the

[42:10] burden on the city's existing

[42:12] infrastructure and services. These are

[42:14] not simple decisions to ma to be made by

[42:17] either body and should not be rushed. It

[42:19] is anticipated and highly appropriate

[42:21] that these decisions could be debated,

[42:24] discussed at length, vetted thoroughly,

[42:27] differing opinions expressed, and

[42:29] decided without unanimous consent. Aside

[42:32] from and in addition to the concerns for

[42:34] infrastructure and services involved

[42:36] with annexation, there are other

[42:38] political, social, and financial

[42:40] considerations that should be

[42:41] considered. So I read that to the

[42:44] council from our annexation policy so

[42:47] that we are certain that we have

[42:49] whatever the discussion is amongst the

[42:50] council that we're certain that we have

[42:52] gone through our annexation policy and

[42:54] whatever the decision is that's made

[42:56] tonight that it is made according to

[42:58] that policy.

[43:01] >> Is there any discussion amongst the

[43:03] council?

[43:06] I would just ask uh John and Jamie if

[43:10] all of the the last time we voted on

[43:12] this that was to vote to consider moving forward with the

[43:18] annexation and there were several steps

[43:20] that needed to be that needed to take

[43:22] place and

[43:25] Wes have all of those steps been

[43:28] completed?

[43:29] >> Yes.

[43:33] » That's all I want.

[43:37] So this is a public hearing. Does anyone

[43:41] have any more questions for Wes or any

[43:42] discussion before we open the public

[43:44] hearing?

[43:48] Okay. Thank you, Wes. We will open the

[43:52] public hearing for this request for

[43:55] annexation.

[44:01] No one. All right. Seeing no one coming

[44:06] up for the public hearing, we will close

[44:08] the public hearing and I will look to

[44:11] the council for a motion.

[44:15] I'll make a motion to approve

[44:18] ordinance 2026-063

[44:20] annexing property into the city of St.

[44:23] George and adjusting the corporate

[44:25] boundary lines to include 2.277 acres

[44:29] located at the intersection of 3430 east

[44:32] in St. George and 3930 South in

[44:35] Washington City.

[44:36] >> I'll second.

[44:40] » All in favor? Oh, sorry. I I mess this

[44:43] up every time because I only do it about

[44:44] once a year. Um, okay. Motion by

[44:47] Natalie. Uh, seconded by Steve. All in

[44:50] favor. Starting with Austin.

[44:52] >> I.

[44:54] >> Steve Kemp. I.

[44:55] >> Natalie Larson. I

[44:56] >> Danielle Lurkin. I. Michelle Tanner. I.

[45:00] >> All right. Who's going to invite the

[45:02] mayor back in

[45:20] item number four is a public hearing in

[45:21] consideration of ordinance number

[45:23] 2026-064

[45:25] to vacate a portion of the Sage Haven

[45:28] phase 15 subdivision plat identified

[45:31] ified as a temporary turnaround easement

[45:33] located at the west end of Samaria

[45:36] Drive.

[45:38] >> Okay. Right here before you, this is um

[45:41] Sage Haven phase 15. What they did is

[45:45] you can see right here, this length is

[45:48] longer than 150 ft where that roadway

[45:50] terminated. And so then what they're

[45:52] required to do is provide a temporary

[45:54] turnaround until such time as the road

[45:56] extends. So they provided this temporary

[45:59] turnaround right here. It was included

[46:01] as part of the subdivision. So it's just

[46:04] basically vacating that easement, the

[46:07] temporary easement for the temporary

[46:09] turnaround.

[46:10] It's a lot of temporary

[46:12] >> questions.

[46:18] None. If no questions, come back to you.

[46:22] This is a public hearing, so we'll go

[46:24] ahead. There's no questions for Wes.

[46:26] will go ahead and open the public

[46:28] hearing for those who've come to speak

[46:29] to this item.

[46:35] » Seeing none, I'll close the public

[46:37] hearing and come back to you, council.

[46:38] Mayor, I'll make a motion that we

[46:40] approve [snorts]

[46:42] ordinance number 2026-6064

[46:46] to vacate a portion of the Sage Haven

[46:48] phase 15 subdivision plat identified as

[46:52] a temporary turnaround easement located

[46:54] at the west end of Samara Drive.

[46:56] >> Second.

[46:57] >> We have a motion by Austin, a second by

[46:59] Danielle. This is an ordinance requiring

[47:01] a roll call vote. Uh starting with uh

[47:04] Shell

[47:05] >> Michelle Tanner I. Danielle Larkin, I

[47:08] >> Natalie Larson, I

[47:10] >> Steve Kemp, I

[47:11] >> Austin Anderson, I

[47:12] >> Motion carries unanimously.

[47:14] >> Item five, public hearing and

[47:16] consideration of ordinance number

[47:17] 2026-065

[47:19] vacating a portion of a municipal

[47:22] utility easement located between lot 122

[47:25] Cedar Crest at Devario phase 3 and lot

[47:29] 123 Ceda Crest at Dvario phase 3 partial

[47:33] amendment A.

[47:34] >> Okay. The owner of lots 122 and 123 of

[47:39] Cita Crest phase three are proposing to

[47:42] merge their lots. And as you all know,

[47:45] there's a utility easement on both sides

[47:46] of that side uh side property line. The

[47:49] request is to vacate it so that they can

[47:51] merge the two lots.

[47:55] Questions for Wes?

[47:59] Okay, this

[48:04] Yep. This is also a public hearing. So I

[48:06] will go ahead and open the public

[48:08] hearing for those who have come to speak

[48:10] to this item.

[48:17] All right. Seeing no one, we'll close

[48:19] the public hearing and come back to you,

[48:20] council.

[48:24] I will move to approve ordinance number

[48:26] 2026-065

[48:28] vacating a portion of a municipal

[48:30] utility easement located between lot 122

[48:35] cea crest at Dvario phase 3 and lot 123

[48:40] cece at Dvario phase 3 partial amendment

[48:43] A.

[48:45] >> I'll second.

[48:46] >> So a motion by Michelle second by

[48:49] Austin. This is an ordinance requiring a

[48:51] roll call vote starting with Austin.

[48:54] >> Austin Anderson I.

[48:55] >> Steve Kemp I.

[48:56] >> Natalie Larson. I

[48:57] >> Danielle Larkin. I Michelle Tanner. I

[49:01] >> Hold on one second. Bren

[49:04] Wes. Was that your last item?

[49:06] You're not going to try to take off on

[49:08] us, are you?

[49:10] Well, because I think today Well, what they were trying to do

[49:17] is get me to bring a casket here to the

[49:19] city hall.

[49:22] >> Is Is the rumor true that you've turned

[49:24] 60 today?

[49:26] >> It is. I'm very I'm very very sad right

[49:30] now.

[49:30] >> And you came to work?

[49:32] >> I did because then I would just sit home

[49:34] and drink or your face match

[49:35] >> and I don't even drink.

[49:36] >> Yeah. And if you know Wes, I'm sure

[49:38] that's going to happen. Let let us

[49:40] brighten up your day a little. Can you

[49:42] guys all join me in singing happy

[49:44] birthday to Wes and make it the best

[49:46] happy birthday you've ever sang?

[49:48] >> Like his face matches his shirt.

[49:50] >> Yes. Here we go.

[49:51] >> Sure it does.

[49:52] >> Happy

[49:56] [laughter]

[50:02] dear Wes. [singing]

[50:09] Thank you.

[50:13] » I do have a little birthday gift for

[50:15] you. I want to come. Is David still

[50:17] here? Is David here? Take a picture.

[50:19] >> Chad Chad, you can take a picture. We

[50:21] got to take a picture with Wes up here

[50:23] with the city council in the background

[50:25] on his 60th birthday.

[50:28] >> Yes, because my funeral's coming soon.

[50:30] I've decided.

[50:33] » So red. You're so bright.

[50:41] » We get to do our purchase.

[50:52] [laughter]

[51:07] I remember when you turned 50, Wes.

[51:10] [laughter]

[51:15] » Well, congratulations, Wes. Thank you.

[51:17] >> All right, Brenda. Sorry.

[51:21] Item number six, consider approval of a

[51:23] conditional use permit for a private

[51:25] school serving students through grade 8

[51:28] located in a designated landmark site in

[51:30] a residential zone on approximately 0.21

[51:34] acres located at 135 South 100 East.

[51:40] » Okay, this is the location. The general

[51:44] plan is downtown connected neighborhood

[51:47] and the zoning is RCC residential

[51:50] central city.

[51:54] The Frederick Blake home was built in

[51:56] the 1870s and was designated a local

[51:59] landmark on August 19th in 2021.

[52:05] So here's their proposal. They'll have

[52:08] 30 students with one teaching station.

[52:12] The operating hours are Monday through

[52:14] Thursday 9:00 am to 300 pm. Friday 12 am

[52:19] 9:00 am to 12 pm and the student drop

[52:22] off times will be a half hour long time

[52:25] each 8:45 a.m. to 9:15 a.m. and 2:45

[52:31] p.m. to 3:15 p.m. That way they can

[52:34] space out the time drop off and pickup

[52:36] times for kids so there won't be traffic

[52:39] jams in front of the home. And all the

[52:41] outdoor activities will occur in the

[52:43] rear yard fenced in area. So, their

[52:47] proposal meets all the requirements that

[52:50] are in the code. You may remember we

[52:52] brought through the zoning regulation

[52:54] amendment, and you all passed that on

[52:57] May 7th of this year for this kind of

[52:59] conditional use permit. This is the

[53:01] first application for this kind of

[53:03] conditional use permit.

[53:06] Here's the site plan. And so the parking

[53:10] requirement is 1.5 spaces per teaching

[53:15] station and one space per 15 students.

[53:20] So that would require four spaces. So

[53:22] they're showing four spaces on this

[53:25] plan. Here's the ADA space here and then

[53:28] a space here and two spaces here. They

[53:31] are allowed to

[53:33] >> I'm sorry. Go ahead.

[53:34] >> Okay.

[53:36] They are allowed to count on street

[53:37] parking for 50% of their parking

[53:40] requirements.

[53:42] And here's where they're going to hold

[53:44] the outdoor activities back here in the

[53:46] rear yard which is fenced.

[53:50] This is the traffic plan that they are

[53:53] required to provide. They indicated that

[53:55] this will also be given to the parents

[53:58] so that they will know what the plan is

[54:01] for pickup and drop off. And here is

[54:04] where they'll drop off the children in

[54:06] front of the house. And then the parents

[54:08] are supposed to turn and take 100 south

[54:11] there. So there won't be a backup here.

[54:16] The planning commission did recommend

[54:18] approval

[54:19] with these conditions and I can answer

[54:23] any questions you might have. The

[54:24] applicants are also here and they can

[54:26] answer any questions you might have for

[54:28] them.

[54:31] Is the applicant good with the three

[54:34] conditions that were given by the

[54:36] planning commission?

[54:38] >> They are.

[54:42] » Okay. Any other questions for Brenda or

[54:44] the applicant?

[54:46] >> I'll make a motion.

[54:48] >> Ready for it?

[54:48] >> Okay. Yeah. I think this is exciting.

[54:50] It's always nice to have alternative

[54:52] school options and especially one right

[54:54] in the neighborhood there. So, I will

[54:57] move to approve a conditional use permit

[55:00] for private school serving students

[55:03] through grade 8 located in a designated

[55:05] landmark site in a residential zone on

[55:08] approximately 21 acres located at 135

[55:12] South 100 East. I'll second that motion.

[55:16] >> We have a motion by Michelle and a

[55:18] second by Danielle.

[55:21] Uh, this is a conditional use permit.

[55:24] Roll call. Okay. So, all in, just to be

[55:29] clear again, motion by Michelle, second

[55:31] by Danielle to approve. All in favor say

[55:34] I.

[55:35] >> And I'll clarify that the motion does

[55:37] include the uh three conditions from the

[55:40] planning commission.

[55:42] >> With the conditions from planning

[55:43] commission. All in favor say I.

[55:45] >> I.

[55:45] >> Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously.

[55:48] Thank you. Item number eight, consider

[55:50] approval of ordinance number 2026-067

[55:54] amending the Akenville interchange zone

[55:56] plant development commercial zone on

[55:58] approximately 3.4 acres generally

[56:00] located east of Arrowhead Canyon Drive

[56:03] and south of Havsu Drive.

[56:05] >> Okay, this is for the Bucks Ace down in

[56:08] the Center Commons area. Plan

[56:10] development amendment located in between

[56:12] Smith's and the Hampton Inn on Arrowhead

[56:15] Canyon Drive

[56:17] and current land use is plan development

[56:19] as well as the zone plan being plan

[56:21] development commercial. All part of the Atkinville interchange

[56:25] zone plan

[56:27] um con uh conceptual site plan um

[56:30] appears to let me start over. The

[56:33] building uh is approximately 45,600

[56:36] square ft. uh it appears to meet all

[56:39] setbacks. This is also the conceptual

[56:41] landscape plan. Just know as well that

[56:43] there is a 27 foot trail and utility

[56:46] easement along that west side. And there

[56:48] is also, as you probably saw on the

[56:50] zoning map, that there is a residential

[56:52] area just to the west. So, they will be

[56:54] required to do the landscape buffer and

[56:57] the sixoot masonry wall along that west

[57:00] side. Um providing street trees along

[57:02] Arrowhead Canyon Drive and street trees

[57:04] along that private drive, Havsu Drive.

[57:07] You'll also see that they show a little

[57:08] monument sign there. Just as a reminder

[57:10] for any of the signage is that it will

[57:12] have to meet the Sun River Commons

[57:13] master sign plan. So, just keep that in

[57:15] mind as well.

[57:17] Uh conceptual photometric plan appears

[57:20] to meet uh meet code. We'll make sure

[57:21] that we go through it thoroughly at the

[57:23] site planner view. And here's the uh

[57:26] rendering or the elevations. So,

[57:27] elevations kind of depending on where

[57:29] you look for height. Some of those

[57:30] shorter sections are 26 feet. You've got

[57:33] 37 feet 2 in over here on that far east

[57:35] side. And then that middle section which

[57:37] is a little bit bigger though that

[57:38] architectural feature is just over 39

[57:40] ft. Um just also a note as well that the

[57:42] majority of this building is single

[57:44] level. There are just two little spaces

[57:46] that have a have a second story. There's

[57:49] a little office space right above the

[57:51] main entrance and then there will also

[57:53] be a a second level over here on the

[57:55] west side close to that residential area

[57:57] where it is a break room for the

[57:59] employees. And I think there's also just

[58:00] a little bit of office space as well. Uh

[58:02] but the majority of this building

[58:04] singlestory. Uh the windows that are

[58:06] look like they could be a third third

[58:08] story, they're just architectural

[58:09] features. Just a pretty epic building.

[58:12] Uh this is the view from the north. This

[58:14] is your view from the east side if you

[58:16] were on the Pioneer Road side. And you

[58:19] can see some of the building materials

[58:21] as well. So stuckle, woodlook, metal.

[58:23] And you'll be able to see these better

[58:24] on the on the renderings. Um but

[58:26] composite panels and painted steel. And

[58:29] then this is the side uh on the west

[58:31] side along Arrowhead Canyon Drive. So

[58:33] this is the side that would be facing

[58:34] the residential zone and then also the rear portion of the building that

[58:37] would be facing the Hampton Inn. Um we

[58:40] will get to the very end where you'll

[58:41] see the condition from the planning

[58:42] commission, but one of the things that

[58:43] we noted on there for the condition was

[58:45] that any signage along the south side of

[58:48] the building or on the west side that uh

[58:51] that it not be lit just so that it

[58:52] doesn't impact that residential zone to

[58:54] the west.

[58:56] uh some of your renderings, some of the

[58:58] renderings from the north.

[59:00] This is that main entrance and you can

[59:01] kind of see a little bit of that office

[59:03] area that will be on that second story.

[59:04] It's really not very big at all.

[59:07] Um from the northeast and the northwest.

[59:10] Just a couple notes here. Again, just

[59:12] that second story just where there'll be

[59:14] a little bit of of an employee break

[59:15] room. And then also just the the

[59:18] renderings don't show the the masonry

[59:19] wall continuing to the north. But it

[59:21] will continue to the north too, probably

[59:23] the sight triangle just to provide that

[59:25] residential buffer.

[59:27] And then this is the southeast side and

[59:30] southwest side.

[59:32] And the materials board. I did put the

[59:34] materials board. It's a little bit

[59:35] smaller so I put it behind council

[59:36] member Kemp and council member Anderson

[59:38] if you guys did want to take a look at

[59:39] it.

[59:41] Uh but again the composite metal, the

[59:43] stucco, some of the painted steel for

[59:45] the accents really.

[59:47] And then let's just briefly talk about

[59:49] the parking. So the parking with the

[59:50] uses and the square footages, it's

[59:52] required that they have 163 parking

[59:54] spaces. This property by itself only has

[59:57] 112. And so what they have done is that

[59:59] they have gone and done a shared parking

[1:00:02] agreement with the Hampton into the

[1:00:04] south. Um remember as part of our code

[1:00:06] that they can do a shared parking

[1:00:08] agreement with the property that's

[1:00:09] adjacent to it um as long as they're um

[1:00:12] hours are different and their peak uses

[1:00:15] are different hours as well. Obviously

[1:00:17] with a hotel and a retail hardware store

[1:00:19] that you would think that the the uh

[1:00:22] peak uses will be will be different.

[1:00:25] Uh this just shows kind of in that

[1:00:27] parking agreement where they've

[1:00:28] determined where those 50 51 parking

[1:00:30] spaces are going to be and they are

[1:00:31] going to share them back and forth. Both

[1:00:33] Hampton will be able to use some of

[1:00:34] ACE's and the ACE will be able to use

[1:00:36] the the 51 stalls on that uh west side

[1:00:38] of the Hampton in as well. There are a

[1:00:41] few few requests on this building

[1:00:42] depending on where you measure the

[1:00:43] height. We just wanted to make sure that

[1:00:45] it was covered. Um, building height, you

[1:00:47] could potentially measure it at 37 feet

[1:00:49] 2 in. Remember that the Atkinville

[1:00:51] interchange zone plan allows building

[1:00:52] heights up to 35 feet and architectural

[1:00:55] height up to 45 ft. So, this one may be

[1:00:58] just a touchover depending on how you

[1:00:59] measure it. Uh, just remember that

[1:01:01] there's also been other buildings

[1:01:02] approved in this area. The Hampton in

[1:01:04] right behind it is almost 68 feet. The

[1:01:06] office building over by In and Out and

[1:01:09] Del Taco is about 50 feet. And then

[1:01:11] we've also seen the home to suites which

[1:01:12] is a little bit further uh north on the

[1:01:14] property or on the development but

[1:01:16] they're just over 53 feet. So still well

[1:01:18] below some of the buildings around it.

[1:01:21] Another request is in the Atinville

[1:01:23] interchange zone plan. It does say that

[1:01:24] hardware stores are allowed but they're

[1:01:26] only allowed if they're smaller than

[1:01:27] 40,000 square feet. Um with this

[1:01:30] building, if you've been to the one in

[1:01:31] Hurricane, you know that really the

[1:01:33] hardware uses is not not everything that

[1:01:35] they do, right? It's also a retail store

[1:01:37] where they sell clothing and toys and

[1:01:39] they have a little ice cream place. Um

[1:01:41] some of the sporting goods. So really

[1:01:43] this building by itself is uh only about

[1:01:45] 60% hardware and more about 40% uh

[1:01:48] retail. So uh just over the the 40,000

[1:01:51] square foot limit, but really only about

[1:01:54] 60% of it being that hardware use.

[1:01:57] The final request is in regards to that

[1:01:59] uh privacy wall that's for the

[1:02:01] residential buffer. um the way that the

[1:02:03] building has is sitting on the lot, they

[1:02:05] really tried to maximize the width of

[1:02:06] the lot. Um with that and where the the

[1:02:10] masonry wall would have to go, it would

[1:02:12] eventually run into the building,

[1:02:13] terminate terminate into the building.

[1:02:15] And what they are requesting is that um privacy wall instead of

[1:02:19] continuing to the south property line

[1:02:21] that it ends where it terminates with

[1:02:23] the building. And really with that, you

[1:02:25] can see anywhere where the block wall

[1:02:27] would not be, it's just landscaping.

[1:02:29] There are no windows, no doors on that

[1:02:31] portion of the building. So really, this

[1:02:32] would have no effect on the residential

[1:02:34] um area to the west.

[1:02:38] With that, planning commission had the

[1:02:39] public hearing on July 28th. Recommended

[1:02:42] approval with a 5 to zero vote just with

[1:02:43] that one condition, just the no lit

[1:02:46] signage along the south or the west

[1:02:48] property lines just to protect those

[1:02:50] residential zones and protect the hotel.

[1:02:52] Um Jared Madson from Sky Engineering is

[1:02:54] here if you have any questions and I can

[1:02:55] answer that. You may have any that you

[1:02:57] may have as well.

[1:03:00] Thank you, Brian. Any questions for

[1:03:01] Brian?

[1:03:02] >> I don't have any questions, but it's

[1:03:04] nice to have a non-controversial

[1:03:07] item for this community that seems to be

[1:03:10] highly favorable, actually. So,

[1:03:12] >> you you probably saw in your packet, we

[1:03:13] did receive one positive uh letter, too.

[1:03:15] So, they're pretty excited, I think, to

[1:03:17] have this down there.

[1:03:21] Mayor, I'll make a motion that we

[1:03:23] approve ordinance number 2026-067

[1:03:27] amending the Akenville interchange zone

[1:03:30] planned development commercial zone on

[1:03:32] approximately 3.8 acres generally

[1:03:34] located at Arrowhead Canyon Drive and

[1:03:36] south of Hav Havsu Drive along with

[1:03:39] planning commission's one

[1:03:41] recommendation.

[1:03:41] >> A second. So we have a motion by Austin,

[1:03:44] a second by Steve. This is an ordinance

[1:03:46] requiring roll call vote starting with

[1:03:48] Danielle.

[1:03:49] >> Uh, do we need to include the do we need

[1:03:52] to say verbally that we're including the

[1:03:53] Palani Commission's recommendations?

[1:03:55] >> He he did.

[1:03:56] >> Oh, you said it.

[1:03:57] >> Yeah.

[1:03:57] >> I just need to listen better.

[1:03:59] >> I Michelle Tanner. I

[1:04:03] >> Austin Anderson. I

[1:04:04] >> Steve Kemp. I

[1:04:05] >> Natalie Larson I.

[1:04:07] >> Motion carries.

[1:04:10] Item number nine is consider approval of

[1:04:11] ordinance number 2026-068

[1:04:14] amending title 10-17A

[1:04:17] of the city code amending ADU

[1:04:19] regulations on lots exceeding 31 11,000

[1:04:22] square ft and clarifications on existing

[1:04:25] detached structures and health and

[1:04:26] safety codes.

[1:04:30] » All right.

[1:04:32] Thank you. Um earlier this year the

[1:04:35] state passed um SB284

[1:04:39] which um made some requirements of

[1:04:42] cities to allow detached accessory

[1:04:46] dwelling units on uh on lots that are

[1:04:51] over 11,000 square feet. Um to be honest

[1:04:53] we the city has uh St. York City has

[1:04:56] been pretty progressive and um aware of

[1:05:00] the need for ADUs and and have allowed

[1:05:02] them for quite some time. So, this is

[1:05:04] really just a a a tweak to allow uh

[1:05:09] accessory dwelling units on um on lots

[1:05:12] that are that exceed that uh 11,000

[1:05:14] square foot threshold and um to bring it

[1:05:17] in compliance with with the state code.

[1:05:20] So, uh with that, this is the proposed

[1:05:23] language. Um we are proposing that uh

[1:05:27] 1017A3D

[1:05:29] uh be uh rewritten. Um that struck out

[1:05:33] language is then reinserted in uh number two. So number one would be

[1:05:39] one accessory dwelling unit shall be

[1:05:40] permitted on any lot containing a single

[1:05:43] family dwelling subject to the standards

[1:05:44] of the section. And then number two, a

[1:05:46] second accessory dwelling unit may be

[1:05:48] permitted on and then uh lots or parcels

[1:05:51] located within downtown boundaries.

[1:05:53] That's that's consistent with what we

[1:05:55] allow now. And then lots or parcels

[1:05:58] containing at least 11,000 square feet

[1:06:00] provided one ADU is attached to the

[1:06:03] primary dwelling and one ADU is

[1:06:05] detached. Um so again consistent with

[1:06:08] the requirement from state code and then

[1:06:10] a lot containing uh a lot shall contain

[1:06:14] no more than uh two accessory dwelling

[1:06:16] units. Um, the other thing that SB284

[1:06:20] did was required that um

[1:06:24] that existing structures that people

[1:06:27] want to convert to an ADU uh be have

[1:06:30] some sort of a path forward to allow

[1:06:32] that. So, this section J uh states that

[1:06:36] an ex an existing legally constructed

[1:06:38] accessory structure may be converted to

[1:06:40] a detached accessory dwelling unit

[1:06:42] subject to meeting the requirements of

[1:06:44] this section. So as long as they can

[1:06:46] meet the other provisions of the ADU

[1:06:49] that would be allowed. And then finally

[1:06:52] um again another section uh from SB284.

[1:06:56] Uh this is just compliance. Um again

[1:06:58] health and safety codes. All accessory

[1:07:01] dwelling units must comply with all

[1:07:02] applicable building building health and

[1:07:04] fire codes. Um so again that just came

[1:07:07] straight from SB284.

[1:07:09] So um so planning commission held a

[1:07:11] public hearing. There was no comment

[1:07:13] received on it, but they forwarded a

[1:07:15] positive recommendation. Um,

[1:07:17] unanimously,

[1:07:19] uh, if you have any questions, I can try

[1:07:22] to answer those for you.

[1:07:25] >> I have a question. [clears throat] In

[1:07:27] the first, uh, redline edit on page 231

[1:07:32] where we struck only one accessory

[1:07:34] dwelling unit or guest house should be

[1:07:36] allowed on a lot or parcel. Then within

[1:07:39] the downtown boundary, two ADUs are

[1:07:41] allowed per lot.

[1:07:43] If we had left that language the way it

[1:07:46] is, would two detached units be allowed?

[1:07:52] I'm asking staff or legal or somebody

[1:07:59] because it seems like at one point we

[1:08:02] had discussed this that having that

[1:08:04] second ADU on on lots where it was

[1:08:07] possible and I know one of the ones we

[1:08:09] looked at they were actually two

[1:08:10] detached units. This will restrict it

[1:08:13] now to have to have one attached to and

[1:08:16] then the second one could be detached.

[1:08:19] >> Correct.

[1:08:21] If you look at the way it's worded,

[1:08:23] number 2A, a second accessory dwelling

[1:08:25] unit may be permitted on then it says a

[1:08:27] lots or parcels located within the

[1:08:29] downtown boundary. So I don't I the

[1:08:31] intent was to take that language and

[1:08:34] allow it and apply it this the way that

[1:08:37] we're applying it now. I I don't think

[1:08:39] that and Jamie you might want to jump in

[1:08:42] but

[1:08:42] >> yeah the discussion um council member

[1:08:45] Kim was you know in the downtown area

[1:08:48] within that downtown boundary that was a

[1:08:49] discussion and this this sort of

[1:08:52] acknowledges that um

[1:08:54] >> this specific

[1:08:55] >> the code right now that we have right

[1:08:57] now adopted you can have two attached

[1:08:59] two detach one attached one detached

[1:09:02] downtown. This one is just changing it

[1:09:04] in that now if you have 11,000 square

[1:09:07] foot lot anywhere in the city, you can

[1:09:10] have one attached, one detached.

[1:09:11] Correct.

[1:09:12] >> It does. It does not limit the ability

[1:09:14] because we we looked at a specific

[1:09:16] example of a very long narrow lot where

[1:09:19] the home builder had built a home and

[1:09:21] then had one detached and then had a

[1:09:22] bunch of dead space behind his home and

[1:09:25] was was looking at possibility of a

[1:09:27] second detached unit where he had

[1:09:29] parking, he had all the other things we

[1:09:31] needed. Would this pre would this

[1:09:33] preclude him from doing that?

[1:09:35] >> Was it downtown?

[1:09:36] >> Yes.

[1:09:38] >> No.

[1:09:38] So then that's say that was the

[1:09:40] downtown discussion and that that still

[1:09:42] applies. What Carol is saying is that

[1:09:45] this now allows one of each anywhere in

[1:09:49] the city, not just downtown. If you have

[1:09:51] an 11,000 foot lot.

[1:09:53] >> But by striking that last sentence, does

[1:09:56] it have we told people they cannot have

[1:09:59] two detached? Are we inferring that they

[1:10:01] can't have two detached units downtown?

[1:10:04] >> No.

[1:10:04] we're not. The downtown

[1:10:07] >> scratched out, but then it's added back

[1:10:08] in.

[1:10:09] >> It was added back in lower.

[1:10:11] >> It's just combined with the 11,000

[1:10:14] square foot lot.

[1:10:16] >> But that sentence specifically says you

[1:10:18] have to have one attached and one

[1:10:20] detached.

[1:10:23] » The next

[1:10:24] >> There's two parts.

[1:10:26] >> The first part talks about town

[1:10:28] downtown.

[1:10:30] And then the second part talks about

[1:10:32] right 11,000 square foot lots.

[1:10:38] » No, we intentionally preserved what we

[1:10:40] did in the downtown area. We

[1:10:41] intentionally preserved that, but this

[1:10:43] broadens it.

[1:10:44] >> It does not It does not say downtown can

[1:10:46] have two.

[1:10:47] >> Okay. So, you're talking about uh

[1:10:49] >> D

[1:10:51] 2A that sentence.

[1:10:54] >> Yeah. It doesn't say

[1:10:55] >> preserves that ability for two detached

[1:10:57] in the downtown area. Okay. Thank you.

[1:10:59] >> Any way you want to do it.

[1:11:11] » I'm ready to make a motion. Mayor,

[1:11:12] >> I'm ready. Mayor, I'd like to make a

[1:11:15] motion that we approve item number nine

[1:11:16] cons uh ordinance number 2026-068

[1:11:22] amending title 10-17A

[1:11:24] of the city code amending ADU accessory

[1:11:27] dwelling unit regulations on lots

[1:11:29] exceeding 11,000 square ft uh and adding

[1:11:32] clarifications on existing detached

[1:11:35] structures and health and safety codes.

[1:11:38] >> Second.

[1:11:39] >> We have a motion by Steve uh second by

[1:11:42] Michelle. This is an ordinance requiring

[1:11:44] roll call vote starting with Natalie

[1:11:47] >> Natalie Larson I.

[1:11:50] >> Steve Kemp I.

[1:11:51] >> Austin Anderson I.

[1:11:52] >> Michelle Tanner. I Danielle Larkin I.

[1:11:55] >> Motion carries.

[1:11:58] That it. Okay. So now we need a motion

[1:12:01] to

[1:12:05] Yes. Let's do that. Do we have any

[1:12:07] appointments? Nope.

[1:12:10] Then we need uh uh reports from council

[1:12:13] members.

[1:12:14] Uh starting with you, Michelle.

[1:12:17] >> No reports.

[1:12:21] » Uh mayor, Friday, August 28th is the art

[1:12:25] summit. So every year our art commission

[1:12:28] holds what's called the art summit. So

[1:12:29] if there are any arts organizations that

[1:12:32] have received wrap tax, they're required

[1:12:34] to come to the art summit. And if there

[1:12:37] are arts organizations that would like

[1:12:38] to receive the wrap tax, um, they should

[1:12:42] come to the art summit. So, it's

[1:12:43] something you can register for on our

[1:12:44] website and it is happening on the 28th.

[1:12:49] >> Very cool. Natalie, anything?

[1:12:53] >> Dixie Days is coming your way. Social

[1:12:56] media has a lot of posts on it. There's

[1:12:58] a lot of great activities, a little bit

[1:13:00] for everybody. We had our last meeting

[1:13:04] today on it. and I just think it will be

[1:13:06] a fantastic event for our community. But

[1:13:11] we also have the September 11th by our

[1:13:13] fire department memorial coming up. And

[1:13:17] if you haven't been to the field of

[1:13:18] flags before, you should bring your

[1:13:21] children and your grandparents

[1:13:24] and get there early in the morning and

[1:13:26] sit there and look at those flags and

[1:13:29] remember that there's an individual who

[1:13:31] lost their life. And if you haven't done

[1:13:34] that, come in the evening or come

[1:13:36] whenever you can. I've been there when

[1:13:38] the fire department has worked with the

[1:13:40] Legacy Elementary School and other

[1:13:41] elementary schools and brought those

[1:13:43] kids to that event and

[1:13:47] mo some of their parents weren't

[1:13:48] probably even born at that point. But

[1:13:49] it's very, very thoughtful, memorable

[1:13:52] moment. And then they're having the

[1:13:53] stair climb also at Tech Ridge and

[1:13:57] people should sign up to take that

[1:13:59] challenge. So look on the website and

[1:14:01] get get signed up for that.

[1:14:04] I have no reports.

[1:14:06] >> Mayor, I serve on the Southwest Mosquito

[1:14:08] Abayment Board, one of my favorite

[1:14:10] boards. Uh, but at the last meeting, we

[1:14:14] did talk about there was there's been

[1:14:16] several positive cases of West Nile in

[1:14:19] the mosquitoes here with all the rain

[1:14:21] we've had, we've had the mosquitoes that

[1:14:23] came out. Uh, they're working to get

[1:14:25] that down. But one thing also I want to

[1:14:27] mention they if you a resident's

[1:14:29] probably I didn't know this but if you

[1:14:31] do see mosquitoes around your area have

[1:14:33] a problem you can call mosquito

[1:14:35] abatement and they'll send people right

[1:14:36] out and they're very passionate do a

[1:14:38] great job so encourage them to take

[1:14:41] advantage of that

[1:14:43] >> standing water's the enemy right

[1:14:45] >> yeah and keep you know inoculate your

[1:14:47] horses you don't want less now on the

[1:14:49] horses but

[1:14:51] >> I didn't know either I was like how did

[1:14:52] we get it and I guess we get it from

[1:14:54] birds

[1:14:56] mosquitoes bite the birds and the birds

[1:14:57] fly from here to Salt Lake or wherever

[1:14:59] and that's how the West Nile gets

[1:15:01] spread. So,

[1:15:03] >> it's interesting.

[1:15:04] >> Very, very cool. All right. Anything

[1:15:06] else? Okay. Now, we need a motion. We do

[1:15:10] need to reconvene in our work meeting.

[1:15:12] So, I need a motion to adjourn city

[1:15:14] council and reconvene in work meeting.

[1:15:17] Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we

[1:15:19] adjourn the city council meeting and

[1:15:21] reconvene in our work meeting in the

[1:15:23] city council boardroom.

[1:15:25] >> Second.

[1:15:25] >> We have a motion by Steve, second by

[1:15:27] Michelle. All in favor say I.

[1:15:29] >> I.

[1:15:31] >> It's non-debatable.

[1:15:45] Lonnie, do planners wear ties in

[1:15:47] Wyoming?

[1:15:49] They do.

St. George City Council August 20, 2026

Transcript