Are you guys ready yet?
All right, let's go ahead and we're
going to go ahead and get started with
our council meeting. We did have a work
meeting before this. Uh just getting our
ducks all in a row here, so we're ready
to go. But welcome to our council
meeting tonight. We are going to go
ahead and get started correctly. We have
uh Pastor Greg Wright here from the
Westside Baptist Church. Also, Pastor
Wright serves our police department as a
chaplain, and I'm very appreciative of
that. And also just an all-around good
guy. Come on up.
>> Thank you, Mayor.
Psalm 145:3 says, "Great is the Lord and
greatly to be praised, and his greatness
is unsearchable." So, let's go to the
Lord in prayer. Father, we thank you
that we can approach you recognizing
that you are great in every way, in
every one of your attributes. We
acknowledge that and we're glad for the
freedom in our country and here in our
city to be able to pray and to seek you.
And tonight, we not only pray for our
mayor and council members in this
particular meeting, we're also asking
that you would bless our city, all of
the entities that are represented in
this, the streets, police, fire,
power, water, buildings, facilities,
just every part of what it takes to have
such a great city. We ask for your
blessing and your help. We pray for
wisdom for those that are making
decisions that you would lead and guide.
We pray for provision for our families
in this community. You provide for those
that are hurting, those that are weak,
that you'd protect them and care for
them. That you'd bless the righteous and
that you would give grace to each of us.
We ask again for your blessing as we
come to you tonight. And we pray this in
Jesus name. Amen.
>> Amen. Thank you. Um, I've asked
Councilwoman Natalie Larson to lead us
in the pledge.
>> Please stand and repeat after me.
>> Ice
to the United States of America.
All right, we uh we do have one
introduction we want to do. Carol, if
you want to come up and give us this
give us an introduction to Lonnie.
>> Mayor, council members, um we do have a
new employee in our planning department.
Um this is Lonnie Olsen. Um he comes to
us from Wyoming and um he's our newest
planner and we're excited to have him on
the team. You say something if you want.
Hi everyone. Uh, I just want to say I
have been here for almost three weeks
and I've really enjoyed it so far and
I'm just happy to kind of get on the
feet or under my feet and running with
this and I just appreciate you all uh
putting faith in me to work here.
>> Well, we're glad to have you here. Born
and raised in Wyoming.
>> Yep. Born and raised in Laram, Wyoming.
So, that's where the the University of
Wyoming is. And I went to school for my
masters in Salt Lake City at the
University of Utah. So
>> very cool.
>> So same weather then as Larmy here, huh?
>> Yeah, it's quite quite the adjustment.
>> Welcome.
>> Lonnie told me he was happy to get out
of the snow and he he likes to bike and
hike. So
>> very cool. We're glad to have you and we
have plenty for you to do. Carol, you
probably already figured that out.
>> Yeah. Welcome.
Uh also I do we have some members of our
youth city council here?
Did I see you? Come on up here and tell
us who you are.
» We always want to make sure you're
welcome here.
» Hi.
>> Go ahead.
>> Hi, I'm Mariah Bates and I'm just a
member of the city council.
>> Awesome.
>> My name is Lucas Pierce. Um I'm just
also a member.
>> And what schools?
>> I go to Crimson Cliffs.
>> George Academy. And you had a speech for
us, right?
» Yeah.
>> Mayor, they both just used the word.
They both just said, "I'm just a member
of the youth city council." And you are
a member of the youth city council. Not
just. You guys are really important to
us. So, don't forget that. And we're
super glad you're here.
>> Thank you.
>> Yeah. Thanks for being here.
All right. Let's see. Do we have any
other pre-aggenda items?
Then take us away.
>> Okay. There's one change this evening,
Mayor. And item number seven will be rem
be removed from the agenda this evening.
Um item number two is consent calendar.
There's 13 items on the consent calendar
this evening. Uh staff has reviewed each
of these administrative items and
recommends approval. However, if the
city council would like to remove any of
these for specific consideration, we can
accommodate that. Otherwise, staff
recommends approval.
>> Mayor, I would like to remove item G and
then I can make a motion that we approve
the calendar. with that removed if
that's okay with you.
>> Yep.
>> Okay. So, I'll make a motion that we
approve the consent calendar as um
presented, removing item G for
discussion.
>> I'll second that motion.
>> So, we have a motion by Danielle and a
second by Michelle removing item G and
then to approve the consent calendar.
All in favor say I.
>> I.
>> Any opposed? Motion carries.
And item G.
>> Okay. So Cameron, do you mind coming up?
We sent Cameron I think the entire
council has been talking to Cameron, not
just me about this and we've received
quite a few letters. So we just I asked
Cameron if he would address the
questions tonight. Thank you.
» I've got to pull it up. Sorry about
that.
Okay.
Uh so these are questions that were
brought up um by a contractor um
regarding our bid. Um and then I
provided uh some information in email.
So, first uh city code section uh 1
10B6B requires a written statement of
reasons approved uh by the city manager
and city attorney. How uh whenever an
award is not given to the lowest bidder,
does that statement exist for this
project? And can the council uh see it
before voting? So there's a section in our procurement uh ordinance that
indicates if you're not going with the
low bid uh provide the justification in
our procurement standard or our
procurement or uh ordinance. There are
11 reasons or 11 criteria that the that
staff is supposed to look at when also
looking at the price. Uh they pertain to
can the is the contractor qualified? Uh
can they perform the work? What's their
integrity? What's their character?
what's there financially? Can they do
that? And so if you don't go with a low
bid, we provide as a department head, we provide the the justification for
that. In this case, we I did send an
email to uh uh city manager and to city
attorney uh to be able to indicate,
okay, on this project, we actually
scored the the George Washington
Boulevard uh roadway. And I probably
should indicate this is for the the item
G uh George Washington Boulevard roadway
the the roadway portion of it. We
received nine bids um of which we scored
the four criteria past performance uh uh
qualifications. That's the past three
projects or similar projects the
contractor was supposed to provide us uh
their bid amount and their schedule. Um
so those four criteria were scored five
points, five points, 50 points and 40
points. the schedule being 40 points and
the bid being 50 points the other five
points. So, uh we scored this project
according to that criteria that we
provided for the information for biders.
Um so I I did provide an email um to our
city manager and city attorney
indicating this is how we scored uh
these projects. That was to answer that question. Uh another question, the
second question, can the category level
scores for all nine biders, uh work
qualification, past performance, bid
schedule, construction schedule be made
part of the record before the vote? The
packet contains only scores. We put in
the packet the total score of uh for the bids that we rank these uh
these bids. We did not put out to the
public all of those categories because
there was some subjectivity in them. um
the past performance of a contractor. We
didn't want to hurt um reputation of a
contractor. We didn't want to put that
out to the public. Um we recognized that could um be detrimental to a a
contractor. So, we provided the full
score of those contract of those biders
uh in the in the public packet so that
the the public could see that. Um, we
intend to provide that score that that
score sheet to the contractors so that
if they wanted to get feedback from uh
staff that we could talk about that with
them. Okay, you didn't score very well
here. You did score here. Here's the
reason why. And and talk that through
with them if they decided to want to
come and talk to us. um for the awarding
contract section of the bid documents
paragraph 4. This is in the information
for biders states that award will be
made to the lowest responsible bidder as
determined by the city using the
criteria contained in city ordinances
governing the award of contracts. How
was that provision applied to this
recommendation? it. That paragraph in
the information for biders was actually
corrected by an addendum and it
identified that the the the award of the
bid will actually be to the highest
ranking contractor or highest ranking
bid as determined by the four uh
categories listed in the information for
bid. When the question came up, I don't
think the contractor actually realized
that um didn't go back and read the the addendum where it was corrected. uh
that acknowledgement of the amendment,
the receipt and reading of it, they have
to click a yes on the on the uh digital
bonfire, the program where they submit
the bids before they can submit a bid.
And so whether or not they
well in the questions, they didn't
acknowledge that it was changed in the addendum. Uh let's see for
context on question two.
>> Hang on a second, Cameron. I need to be
clear on that.
So,
in order to submit a bid in Bonfire,
they would have needed to click that
they had received the addendum. Correct.
>> And read it. Yes.
>> And read it. That's what they're
acknowledging. So, they can't submit a
bid unless they click that.
>> Correct.
>> So, whether they actually read it or
not, they all we know is that they click
the button.
>> Correct.
>> Okay. Thank you.
>> Yep. And then uh question
this other question for context on
question two. I asked staff for these
records in writing and I was told they
uh will be provided through a grammar
records process whose process or
response deadline falls after Thursday's
meeting. My understanding is because of
grammar laws and um and our city
recorder provided a good response to
this in in an email that we uh could not
give those those scorings out to the
contractor until after the bid is
awarded. Um and there's there's reasons
for that, but yeah, basically it falls
under grandma laws. Um
let's see. One item to note is I know
that we took this bid. This was the
first time that we did it in public
works and scored the bids with these
four criteria past performance uh work
qualifications bid and schedule. Um the
schedule was the question hey how why
can uh you score this thing based on uh
time. Please note that that this has
been going on uses this um in their uh
contracting and awarding of contracts
all the time. Bluff Street was actually
awarded price plus time. The the lowest
bid on the Bluff Street project or the awarded contractor was not the
lowest bid.
>> Cameron, was that part made clear in the
con in the bid um request in the bid
documents that you were going to be
doing
>> that that procedure. What's it called?
Plus time.
>> Price plus time.
Is that obvious?
>> That's the title that UD do uses. It's
price plus time contracting.
>> In our bid, we put it as four uh four
criteria that they were going to be
scored on and they were going to be
ranked based on those four criteria. And
so the idea of hey, you can't can you
award a bid with award and a bid uh a
bid with time and cost. U does it all
the time. They did it on Bluff Street.
The the awarded contractor was not the
lowest bid. They were the faster uh
bidder. Um, and so that that price
element and time element was awarded
together to be able to award that to the
lower or to the lowest responsible
bidder. Um, I recognize that that uh
there's been questions. Hey, we didn't
understand this. We didn't understand
that you were going to score it this
way. We actually had a mandatory pre-bid
meeting in this project where all of the
contractors that bid, the nine contracts
that we bids that we received, they were
all present. um they had a
representative there um where we
actually talked about this very thing
and how we were going to score it. And
then during the the bid period after
that pre-bid pre-mandatory bid meeting
um all the contractors had uh time to
send questions to the city uh
engineering staff and we answered their
questions. It wasn't until after the bid
was received then they started asking,
"Hey, wait a minute. Um can you do this?
I I I don't understand this." Cameron,
with those four categories, was it clear
the weight that would be given to each
category? How many points for each one?
>> No. And that's a good question because
it was brought up, well, hey, what if
you wait the time? Um,
uh, I'll give you an example. So, we
never spelled out the bid amount that
one contractor versus another based on
their bid amount was going to score
different than 50 50 points. We we never
spelled that out in the contract. uh
because we we figured well that's
inferred because we're ranking you based
on these four category up to 50 points,
40 points, five points and five points.
So we never spelled that out in the
contract time, the schedule. We did not
spell it out. We didn't spell it out
with the the performance five points and
the the work qualification five points
either. Um and and maybe that's
something that our staff needs to put a
little bit more clarification in to say,
hey, the time the faster you bid it, the
more score points you're going to get or
the slower you bid it. um it's it's not
you're not going to score as well. But
we didn't do that for the bid either. We
didn't uh call out that, hey, if you
give us a a a
less bid, you're going to score higher.
We didn't do that any of that.
>> But Cameron, did you have I'm confused
by your answer. So, did you have that
time was 40% or 40 points?
>> 40 possible points.
>> So, you did have you did have the point
allocated to each one of those items.
>> Yes. I apologize if I'm not uh clear on that. But so 40 points possible
for the schedule, 50 points possible for
the bid, five points possible, and five
points possible for both the past work
experience and uh quality of work.
>> I think that's where the disconnect
happened was
that time that time change that that was
going to be such a significant thing
when we've when I've communicated with
these contractors.
And so I guess that's the question is do
you feel that was clear to those
contractors that that that was I mean
time yes it was going to be completed on
time but that it was going to score so
heavily in their favor if they got the
job done early.
>> I feel like it was clear we received
nine bids and all of those nine bids had
different time periods on them a
different schedule. I can start this
time and end this time. They all had
different days that they were going to
be working. They were not all the same.
They didn't go to just the minimum time
period that we indicated in the bid.
They all gave me different time periods.
Um I feel like it was was understood. Um
we talked about it in the pre-bid
meeting. We talked about it in the
addendum um to clarify how it was going
to be awarded. I felt like it was. I
know that's could be subjective. Um but
I I think me and my staff I think we
communicated that with them. So, we had
a minimum time period placed in there.
And was that minimum time period, if
they put that date on their application,
was that awarded a zero or how many
points?
>> How did we track that?
>> We took uh the the quickest time was
March and the slowest time was back into
September. And we
>> So, we based what they submitted to us,
not based off of our minimum time,
>> based on what they submitted to us. And
so the fastest uh time received a
40point score. The slowest time received
a like a fivepoint score and four people
scored it and and then it averaged those
numbers together.
>> Okay. Yeah, I can see where the
confusion would be there with that wide
discrepancy of, you know, I can see the
frustration if I'm putting in the bid
not realizing that wide discrepancy
there.
>> Yeah.
Other
questions? I can clarify some more. Um
I tried to calculate it differently if
uh so the bonfire actually provided the
scoring for the bid. Uh staff did not
provide that. That was just set based on
a formula. I I actually took that same
formula and applied it to the days that
the contractors provided this used that
formula and the top four biders didn't
change even using so where where the
bonfire program squished scores together
so that out of 50 points the lowest
score was like uh 32 points point
something and so it pushed those scores
together as as staff scored those the timetable of that the schedule um
and it stretched it out because 40
points versus five points. Um, I redid
that calculation just to see if it
changed it and it didn't change the top
four scores based on the same formula
that was used in Bonfire for the
schedule. I used that and it again, it
didn't change it.
So, based on what the contractor
submitted to us for their their
schedules,
the the top four bids didn't change.
>> And this is the first time we've done a
bid this way. Is that correct?
>> Correct. I I should explain that uh in
over the years as we bid using our
procurement standard where we look at
the lowest bid but we're also supposed
to look at some of these other criteria
um a lot of bids not all of them but
just some of them here and there if they
didn't provide us the the information we
wanted a clear uh concise information
they would be rejected um in this case
we didn't we didn't reject any of them
because we knew we were scoring them um
if I looked at those criteria and they
didn't provide all of the information
that we were looking for. Some of them
may have been rejected, but we scored
them because we identified that we were
going to score them.
>> Would any of the top uh contractors be
uh thrown out?
>> Could be.
But again, we just scored them.
>> I have another question regarding
timing.
This road does not exist. It's not
replacing a road. It's going to help
alleviate traffic.
when you're looking at that bid process,
where does money come into play with
that $1.4 million difference in bid
price because it's not in front of a
school, a hospital, not the boulevard
getting replaced. So why the sense of
urgency? The timing was so critical on
this bid.
>> So I'll explain two things on that. So
um we have the bridge that's under
construction right now. The contract
time for that bridge goes until July,
middle of July, around July 15th. Um,
the current contractor working on that
bridge is going to finish well before
that timetable. So, um, as staff had
looked at, um, when can we finish this roadway, we knew that the bridge
was going to be done and the
intersection over by the Dixie Center
where it's just Crosby Way right now and
just a through roadway, it's going to
change to a T intersection. And we knew
that that was going to be a delay. that
was going to be an issue with drivers
driving that going through a traffic
signal without the bridge open. So, we
tried to look at ways to accelerate the
construction of this roadway. One of
them was we we bid out the pedestrian
bridge that's on the roadway section. We
bid it out earlier because that was
going to be a critical path delay for
the roadway. Um, and so when we looked
at the roadway portion, the reason why
we tried to accelerate the schedule and
score it according to a schedule is
because the bridge was going to be done
a lot sooner. Um, and we didn't want
that bridge just being out there
finished, completed and Crosby Way into
a T intersection without the roadway
connected. Um, that was the reason why
we actually pushed it to get that done.
Um, to your question about the $1.4
million, the the difference between the
low bid and the high bid, even talking
with the the contractor for the low the
lower bid amount, um, asking him about
the time schedule, he responded to me
that, oh, if I wanted to accelerate this
schedule, I could do it also. I would
just have to add more people, which
means that the bid cost would go up. So,
to your question, I couldn't just throw
out the the schedule the the scoring of
this uh schedule and not even account
for it and use those bids because those
bids are accounting for the time that
the contractors are actually uh building
it. And so, even though um that $ 1.4
million difference between them, if it
wouldn't be that much savings if we
tried to make them all go with the same
schedule. And so you can't really throw
out the time period and and get those
bids. You can't do that. So the 1.5 uh
1.4 million reflects that you're getting
a faster schedule on the construction of
the roadway.
» We're also going to have some disruption
on I-15
coming very shortly. So this road will
be crucial.
>> True.
Cameron, do we know when they're going
to start the I-15 expansion and raise
project?
>> Let's see. They just told me and I I
don't have that in my head, but it's
within the next month or so they're
going to get those bids received. U is
so they stopped the advertisement of bid
first part of the summer. They started
that, stopped it, and they wanted to
wait for the grant that they had put
into the federal government, a $25
million grant that they got like 23 and
something million.
>> Midepptember is what they said in that
meeting.
>> Midseptember
>> for bids. Yeah.
>> So, they will receive those bids and
then uh award that and it's going to
start could be this year, could be this
calendar year.
» Just a little clarification just so I I
want to be very clear that there's a
several all these contractors in fact
have been very good community partners.
Um that's what makes this a little tough
because you're sitting there, man, I
wish we could give it to all of them. Uh
they've been good community partners.
they've done a lot of good work in the
community. Um, some of them I know
personally, most of them I know at least
someone there that works for them
personally. And so you there's a whole
ramification of getting a job and not
getting a job. And I I feel that. So I
just want that to be very clear that
this these are I still want all these
contractors to know that they're are
very good community parters partners and
at the end of the day regardless of what
happens here
only one of them is going to get it. And
so, um,
I I just keep that in mind. I just
wanted to make sure those contractors
knew no, there's no there nothing
nefarious going on here. This is just
simply what we're trying to get a road
done at the best possible price.
Well, and just to clarify, Cameron,
because transparency obviously is very
important with this, and you did mention
with grandma request laws that we were
not able to release the information
until after um a bid is awarded
essentially. So, is this does the city
intend to go ahead and release this
information so that the contractors can
have all of the information that was
requested?
>> That that I believe is what our intent
is. Yes.
>> Okay.
But the reason why it wasn't put into
the packet is for protection essentially
of the companies and because of that
scoring system partially being based off
of past experience. We didn't want to
have anything put out there potentially
negative for a company. Is that am I
understanding that correctly?
>> Correct. We would we're intending to
meet with the contractors to to give
them some feedback if they wish it.
>> Okay. Yeah. because I think that's this
is a tough one for me because the
transparency aspect is so important and
when we're going out to bid we want to
make sure everything is transparent and
well understood and obviously we as
wanting to be good stewards of tax
dollars want to assure that we're
getting the best price we can but also
time is money as well so I understand
factoring in those other aspects but
having it be as clear as possible when
we are going out to bid and it sounds
like with this being the first time
doing it this way, I I can see where
there was some confusion. So, that's why
this one is is tough for me.
>> Thanks, Cameron, for answering all those
questions. And it sounds like you're
already planning to meet with all the
contractors afterwards. I think that'll
be great, especially with us doing this
new process so they can give us some
feedback and we can make sure that
there's clarity because like the mayor
said, these are all good companies. We
want to continue working with all of
them. We want them to be successful in
their bidding processes and we want to
make sure that we're not hanging them up
in any way on that. So, um, with that,
mayor, I'll make a motion if you're
ready, unless anybody else
>> just give one to give legal a second
here before you do that.
>> Okay. Sure.
>> Thanks.
>> Thank you, Mr. Mayor and members of the
city council. I do want to make you
aware and I think you are aware that the
city did receive a formal protest today
under the procurement code which is 10-
or sorry 1-10B-6
of our city code. Unfortunately, that protest was required to be
submitted within 72 hours of the bid
tabulation when it was when it was uh
given, which depending on the date you
use, at the latest it would have been
Saturday morning at 9:00. So, this
protest didn't come in in time. However,
I do want to let those in the audience
that are interested um know that um
certainly if the if the bid is awarded
tonight and a contract sign, once the
contract is signed, we can release the
here24 protected grammar documents and
we can get those out. But it also allows
for an appeal process under title one
chapter 15 of our city code as well. Um,
so it's not the end. If there are those
that want to appeal the decision, um,
that decision can go to the
administrative law judge. So,
sorry to be clear then, just sorry,
Danielle, before you make your motion,
can you one of you two give us the
ramifications of one way or the other of this decision denied or approved?
>> Right. So again, if if the decision is
denied tonight, um then the process has
to start over and we have to redo the
entire bid process. If the uh if the
award is granted as as recommended or
approved as recommended, then the city
proceeds with um the contract. Um there
is an appeal process available. Um, if
it does get appealed and goes to the
administrative law judge, again, if the
administrative law judge upholds the
city's action, then the the project
proceeds, continues to proceed. If the
administrative law judge disagrees and
says, "No, we did it wrong," then again,
it goes it's a doover basically, then we start again.
>> Okay, that clear? Any questions on that
for
Jamie? All right. Any other discussion?
>> I have one question for Jamie. Based on
my research, that decision by the
administrative law judge would need to
be within two weeks. Sec.
>> So, under the procurement code, there
was a time limit under under the appeal
provisions that I'm talking about.
There's a time limit on when to file
that appeal and it's a fairly quick one,
but then it goes uh then there's a
process through the through the
administrative code.
>> Thank you.
Okay. Any other questions?
Not then.
Danielle.
>> Yeah. Mayor, I'll make a motion that we
approve item G from the consent calendar
um the contract of JP Excavating, Inc.
to construct the George Washington
Boulevard from Virgin River Bridge to
River Road Product.
>> I'll second.
>> Is that you, Steve? Sorry. Oh, Austin.
Okay, we have a motion uh by Danielle, a
second by Austin
to approve item G. All in favor say I.
>> I. I.
>> I.
>> Any opposed?
Motion carries unanimously.
This this meeting's kind of got some
oddities to it, so I'm going to be uh
stepping out and turning the meeting
over for this next item to Danielle.
So item number three is a public hearing
consideration of ordinance number
2026-063
annexing property and in the city of St.
George and adjusting the corporate
boundary lines to include 2.277
acres located at the intersection of
3430 east in St. George and 39
30 south in Washington city.
>> Okay. So, at the city council meeting on
May 28th, 2026, the city approved a
resolution a resolution to hear the
annexation. So, that put in time that
put in place a time frame now that they
had to go through a process to look at
the annexation. So, tonight is just now
the now to come forward and approve the
annexation, approve an ordinance uh for
the annexation.
That's it. [laughter]
>> Okay.
Um, since since this is um a property
belonging to our mayor, I just want to
make sure that we um go through the
process exactly as we should so that we
don't have any questions. Um, so I will
read to you what it says from our um
annexation policy plan. The city council
in their role as a municipal governing
body not only has to weigh the
recommendations of the planning
commission but also determine the terms
and conditions upon which property is to
be annexed should that be the ultimate
decision that reduce or eliminate the
burden on the city's existing
infrastructure and services. These are
not simple decisions to ma to be made by
either body and should not be rushed. It
is anticipated and highly appropriate
that these decisions could be debated,
discussed at length, vetted thoroughly,
differing opinions expressed, and
decided without unanimous consent. Aside
from and in addition to the concerns for
infrastructure and services involved
with annexation, there are other
political, social, and financial
considerations that should be
considered. So I read that to the
council from our annexation policy so
that we are certain that we have
whatever the discussion is amongst the
council that we're certain that we have
gone through our annexation policy and
whatever the decision is that's made
tonight that it is made according to
that policy.
>> Is there any discussion amongst the
council?
I would just ask uh John and Jamie if
all of the the last time we voted on
this that was to vote to consider moving forward with the
annexation and there were several steps
that needed to be that needed to take
place and
Wes have all of those steps been
completed?
>> Yes.
» That's all I want.
So this is a public hearing. Does anyone
have any more questions for Wes or any
discussion before we open the public
hearing?
Okay. Thank you, Wes. We will open the
public hearing for this request for
annexation.
No one. All right. Seeing no one coming
up for the public hearing, we will close
the public hearing and I will look to
the council for a motion.
I'll make a motion to approve
ordinance 2026-063
annexing property into the city of St.
George and adjusting the corporate
boundary lines to include 2.277 acres
located at the intersection of 3430 east
in St. George and 3930 South in
Washington City.
>> I'll second.
» All in favor? Oh, sorry. I I mess this
up every time because I only do it about
once a year. Um, okay. Motion by
Natalie. Uh, seconded by Steve. All in
favor. Starting with Austin.
>> I.
>> Steve Kemp. I.
>> Natalie Larson. I
>> Danielle Lurkin. I. Michelle Tanner. I.
>> All right. Who's going to invite the
mayor back in
item number four is a public hearing in
consideration of ordinance number
2026-064
to vacate a portion of the Sage Haven
phase 15 subdivision plat identified
ified as a temporary turnaround easement
located at the west end of Samaria
Drive.
>> Okay. Right here before you, this is um
Sage Haven phase 15. What they did is
you can see right here, this length is
longer than 150 ft where that roadway
terminated. And so then what they're
required to do is provide a temporary
turnaround until such time as the road
extends. So they provided this temporary
turnaround right here. It was included
as part of the subdivision. So it's just
basically vacating that easement, the
temporary easement for the temporary
turnaround.
It's a lot of temporary
>> questions.
None. If no questions, come back to you.
This is a public hearing, so we'll go
ahead. There's no questions for Wes.
will go ahead and open the public
hearing for those who've come to speak
to this item.
» Seeing none, I'll close the public
hearing and come back to you, council.
Mayor, I'll make a motion that we
approve [snorts]
ordinance number 2026-6064
to vacate a portion of the Sage Haven
phase 15 subdivision plat identified as
a temporary turnaround easement located
at the west end of Samara Drive.
>> Second.
>> We have a motion by Austin, a second by
Danielle. This is an ordinance requiring
a roll call vote. Uh starting with uh
Shell
>> Michelle Tanner I. Danielle Larkin, I
>> Natalie Larson, I
>> Steve Kemp, I
>> Austin Anderson, I
>> Motion carries unanimously.
>> Item five, public hearing and
consideration of ordinance number
2026-065
vacating a portion of a municipal
utility easement located between lot 122
Cedar Crest at Devario phase 3 and lot
123 Ceda Crest at Dvario phase 3 partial
amendment A.
>> Okay. The owner of lots 122 and 123 of
Cita Crest phase three are proposing to
merge their lots. And as you all know,
there's a utility easement on both sides
of that side uh side property line. The
request is to vacate it so that they can
merge the two lots.
Questions for Wes?
Okay, this
Yep. This is also a public hearing. So I
will go ahead and open the public
hearing for those who have come to speak
to this item.
All right. Seeing no one, we'll close
the public hearing and come back to you,
council.
I will move to approve ordinance number
2026-065
vacating a portion of a municipal
utility easement located between lot 122
cea crest at Dvario phase 3 and lot 123
cece at Dvario phase 3 partial amendment
A.
>> I'll second.
>> So a motion by Michelle second by
Austin. This is an ordinance requiring a
roll call vote starting with Austin.
>> Austin Anderson I.
>> Steve Kemp I.
>> Natalie Larson. I
>> Danielle Larkin. I Michelle Tanner. I
>> Hold on one second. Bren
Wes. Was that your last item?
You're not going to try to take off on
us, are you?
Well, because I think today Well, what they were trying to do
is get me to bring a casket here to the
city hall.
>> Is Is the rumor true that you've turned
60 today?
>> It is. I'm very I'm very very sad right
now.
>> And you came to work?
>> I did because then I would just sit home
and drink or your face match
>> and I don't even drink.
>> Yeah. And if you know Wes, I'm sure
that's going to happen. Let let us
brighten up your day a little. Can you
guys all join me in singing happy
birthday to Wes and make it the best
happy birthday you've ever sang?
>> Like his face matches his shirt.
>> Yes. Here we go.
>> Sure it does.
>> Happy
[laughter]
dear Wes. [singing]
Thank you.
» I do have a little birthday gift for
you. I want to come. Is David still
here? Is David here? Take a picture.
>> Chad Chad, you can take a picture. We
got to take a picture with Wes up here
with the city council in the background
on his 60th birthday.
>> Yes, because my funeral's coming soon.
I've decided.
» So red. You're so bright.
» We get to do our purchase.
[laughter]
I remember when you turned 50, Wes.
[laughter]
» Well, congratulations, Wes. Thank you.
>> All right, Brenda. Sorry.
Item number six, consider approval of a
conditional use permit for a private
school serving students through grade 8
located in a designated landmark site in
a residential zone on approximately 0.21
acres located at 135 South 100 East.
» Okay, this is the location. The general
plan is downtown connected neighborhood
and the zoning is RCC residential
central city.
The Frederick Blake home was built in
the 1870s and was designated a local
landmark on August 19th in 2021.
So here's their proposal. They'll have
30 students with one teaching station.
The operating hours are Monday through
Thursday 9:00 am to 300 pm. Friday 12 am
9:00 am to 12 pm and the student drop
off times will be a half hour long time
each 8:45 a.m. to 9:15 a.m. and 2:45
p.m. to 3:15 p.m. That way they can
space out the time drop off and pickup
times for kids so there won't be traffic
jams in front of the home. And all the
outdoor activities will occur in the
rear yard fenced in area. So, their
proposal meets all the requirements that
are in the code. You may remember we
brought through the zoning regulation
amendment, and you all passed that on
May 7th of this year for this kind of
conditional use permit. This is the
first application for this kind of
conditional use permit.
Here's the site plan. And so the parking
requirement is 1.5 spaces per teaching
station and one space per 15 students.
So that would require four spaces. So
they're showing four spaces on this
plan. Here's the ADA space here and then
a space here and two spaces here. They
are allowed to
>> I'm sorry. Go ahead.
>> Okay.
They are allowed to count on street
parking for 50% of their parking
requirements.
And here's where they're going to hold
the outdoor activities back here in the
rear yard which is fenced.
This is the traffic plan that they are
required to provide. They indicated that
this will also be given to the parents
so that they will know what the plan is
for pickup and drop off. And here is
where they'll drop off the children in
front of the house. And then the parents
are supposed to turn and take 100 south
there. So there won't be a backup here.
The planning commission did recommend
approval
with these conditions and I can answer
any questions you might have. The
applicants are also here and they can
answer any questions you might have for
them.
Is the applicant good with the three
conditions that were given by the
planning commission?
>> They are.
» Okay. Any other questions for Brenda or
the applicant?
>> I'll make a motion.
>> Ready for it?
>> Okay. Yeah. I think this is exciting.
It's always nice to have alternative
school options and especially one right
in the neighborhood there. So, I will
move to approve a conditional use permit
for private school serving students
through grade 8 located in a designated
landmark site in a residential zone on
approximately 21 acres located at 135
South 100 East. I'll second that motion.
>> We have a motion by Michelle and a
second by Danielle.
Uh, this is a conditional use permit.
Roll call. Okay. So, all in, just to be
clear again, motion by Michelle, second
by Danielle to approve. All in favor say
I.
>> And I'll clarify that the motion does
include the uh three conditions from the
planning commission.
>> With the conditions from planning
commission. All in favor say I.
>> I.
>> Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously.
Thank you. Item number eight, consider
approval of ordinance number 2026-067
amending the Akenville interchange zone
plant development commercial zone on
approximately 3.4 acres generally
located east of Arrowhead Canyon Drive
and south of Havsu Drive.
>> Okay, this is for the Bucks Ace down in
the Center Commons area. Plan
development amendment located in between
Smith's and the Hampton Inn on Arrowhead
Canyon Drive
and current land use is plan development
as well as the zone plan being plan
development commercial. All part of the Atkinville interchange
zone plan
um con uh conceptual site plan um
appears to let me start over. The
building uh is approximately 45,600
square ft. uh it appears to meet all
setbacks. This is also the conceptual
landscape plan. Just know as well that
there is a 27 foot trail and utility
easement along that west side. And there
is also, as you probably saw on the
zoning map, that there is a residential
area just to the west. So, they will be
required to do the landscape buffer and
the sixoot masonry wall along that west
side. Um providing street trees along
Arrowhead Canyon Drive and street trees
along that private drive, Havsu Drive.
You'll also see that they show a little
monument sign there. Just as a reminder
for any of the signage is that it will
have to meet the Sun River Commons
master sign plan. So, just keep that in
mind as well.
Uh conceptual photometric plan appears
to meet uh meet code. We'll make sure
that we go through it thoroughly at the
site planner view. And here's the uh
rendering or the elevations. So,
elevations kind of depending on where
you look for height. Some of those
shorter sections are 26 feet. You've got
37 feet 2 in over here on that far east
side. And then that middle section which
is a little bit bigger though that
architectural feature is just over 39
ft. Um just also a note as well that the
majority of this building is single
level. There are just two little spaces
that have a have a second story. There's
a little office space right above the
main entrance and then there will also
be a a second level over here on the
west side close to that residential area
where it is a break room for the
employees. And I think there's also just
a little bit of office space as well. Uh
but the majority of this building
singlestory. Uh the windows that are
look like they could be a third third
story, they're just architectural
features. Just a pretty epic building.
Uh this is the view from the north. This
is your view from the east side if you
were on the Pioneer Road side. And you
can see some of the building materials
as well. So stuckle, woodlook, metal.
And you'll be able to see these better
on the on the renderings. Um but
composite panels and painted steel. And
then this is the side uh on the west
side along Arrowhead Canyon Drive. So
this is the side that would be facing
the residential zone and then also the rear portion of the building that
would be facing the Hampton Inn. Um we
will get to the very end where you'll
see the condition from the planning
commission, but one of the things that
we noted on there for the condition was
that any signage along the south side of
the building or on the west side that uh
that it not be lit just so that it
doesn't impact that residential zone to
the west.
uh some of your renderings, some of the
renderings from the north.
This is that main entrance and you can
kind of see a little bit of that office
area that will be on that second story.
It's really not very big at all.
Um from the northeast and the northwest.
Just a couple notes here. Again, just
that second story just where there'll be
a little bit of of an employee break
room. And then also just the the
renderings don't show the the masonry
wall continuing to the north. But it
will continue to the north too, probably
the sight triangle just to provide that
residential buffer.
And then this is the southeast side and
southwest side.
And the materials board. I did put the
materials board. It's a little bit
smaller so I put it behind council
member Kemp and council member Anderson
if you guys did want to take a look at
it.
Uh but again the composite metal, the
stucco, some of the painted steel for
the accents really.
And then let's just briefly talk about
the parking. So the parking with the
uses and the square footages, it's
required that they have 163 parking
spaces. This property by itself only has
112. And so what they have done is that
they have gone and done a shared parking
agreement with the Hampton into the
south. Um remember as part of our code
that they can do a shared parking
agreement with the property that's
adjacent to it um as long as they're um
hours are different and their peak uses
are different hours as well. Obviously
with a hotel and a retail hardware store
that you would think that the the uh
peak uses will be will be different.
Uh this just shows kind of in that
parking agreement where they've
determined where those 50 51 parking
spaces are going to be and they are
going to share them back and forth. Both
Hampton will be able to use some of
ACE's and the ACE will be able to use
the the 51 stalls on that uh west side
of the Hampton in as well. There are a
few few requests on this building
depending on where you measure the
height. We just wanted to make sure that
it was covered. Um, building height, you
could potentially measure it at 37 feet
2 in. Remember that the Atkinville
interchange zone plan allows building
heights up to 35 feet and architectural
height up to 45 ft. So, this one may be
just a touchover depending on how you
measure it. Uh, just remember that
there's also been other buildings
approved in this area. The Hampton in
right behind it is almost 68 feet. The
office building over by In and Out and
Del Taco is about 50 feet. And then
we've also seen the home to suites which
is a little bit further uh north on the
property or on the development but
they're just over 53 feet. So still well
below some of the buildings around it.
Another request is in the Atinville
interchange zone plan. It does say that
hardware stores are allowed but they're
only allowed if they're smaller than
40,000 square feet. Um with this
building, if you've been to the one in
Hurricane, you know that really the
hardware uses is not not everything that
they do, right? It's also a retail store
where they sell clothing and toys and
they have a little ice cream place. Um
some of the sporting goods. So really
this building by itself is uh only about
60% hardware and more about 40% uh
retail. So uh just over the the 40,000
square foot limit, but really only about
60% of it being that hardware use.
The final request is in regards to that
uh privacy wall that's for the
residential buffer. um the way that the
building has is sitting on the lot, they
really tried to maximize the width of
the lot. Um with that and where the the
masonry wall would have to go, it would
eventually run into the building,
terminate terminate into the building.
And what they are requesting is that um privacy wall instead of
continuing to the south property line
that it ends where it terminates with
the building. And really with that, you
can see anywhere where the block wall
would not be, it's just landscaping.
There are no windows, no doors on that
portion of the building. So really, this
would have no effect on the residential
um area to the west.
With that, planning commission had the
public hearing on July 28th. Recommended
approval with a 5 to zero vote just with
that one condition, just the no lit
signage along the south or the west
property lines just to protect those
residential zones and protect the hotel.
Um Jared Madson from Sky Engineering is
here if you have any questions and I can
answer that. You may have any that you
may have as well.
Thank you, Brian. Any questions for
Brian?
>> I don't have any questions, but it's
nice to have a non-controversial
item for this community that seems to be
highly favorable, actually. So,
>> you you probably saw in your packet, we
did receive one positive uh letter, too.
So, they're pretty excited, I think, to
have this down there.
Mayor, I'll make a motion that we
approve ordinance number 2026-067
amending the Akenville interchange zone
planned development commercial zone on
approximately 3.8 acres generally
located at Arrowhead Canyon Drive and
south of Hav Havsu Drive along with
planning commission's one
recommendation.
>> A second. So we have a motion by Austin,
a second by Steve. This is an ordinance
requiring roll call vote starting with
Danielle.
>> Uh, do we need to include the do we need
to say verbally that we're including the
Palani Commission's recommendations?
>> He he did.
>> Oh, you said it.
>> Yeah.
>> I just need to listen better.
>> I Michelle Tanner. I
>> Austin Anderson. I
>> Steve Kemp. I
>> Natalie Larson I.
>> Motion carries.
Item number nine is consider approval of
ordinance number 2026-068
amending title 10-17A
of the city code amending ADU
regulations on lots exceeding 31 11,000
square ft and clarifications on existing
detached structures and health and
safety codes.
» All right.
Thank you. Um earlier this year the
state passed um SB284
which um made some requirements of
cities to allow detached accessory
dwelling units on uh on lots that are
over 11,000 square feet. Um to be honest
we the city has uh St. York City has
been pretty progressive and um aware of
the need for ADUs and and have allowed
them for quite some time. So, this is
really just a a a tweak to allow uh
accessory dwelling units on um on lots
that are that exceed that uh 11,000
square foot threshold and um to bring it
in compliance with with the state code.
So, uh with that, this is the proposed
language. Um we are proposing that uh
1017A3D
uh be uh rewritten. Um that struck out
language is then reinserted in uh number two. So number one would be
one accessory dwelling unit shall be
permitted on any lot containing a single
family dwelling subject to the standards
of the section. And then number two, a
second accessory dwelling unit may be
permitted on and then uh lots or parcels
located within downtown boundaries.
That's that's consistent with what we
allow now. And then lots or parcels
containing at least 11,000 square feet
provided one ADU is attached to the
primary dwelling and one ADU is
detached. Um so again consistent with
the requirement from state code and then
a lot containing uh a lot shall contain
no more than uh two accessory dwelling
units. Um, the other thing that SB284
did was required that um
that existing structures that people
want to convert to an ADU uh be have
some sort of a path forward to allow
that. So, this section J uh states that
an ex an existing legally constructed
accessory structure may be converted to
a detached accessory dwelling unit
subject to meeting the requirements of
this section. So as long as they can
meet the other provisions of the ADU
that would be allowed. And then finally
um again another section uh from SB284.
Uh this is just compliance. Um again
health and safety codes. All accessory
dwelling units must comply with all
applicable building building health and
fire codes. Um so again that just came
straight from SB284.
So um so planning commission held a
public hearing. There was no comment
received on it, but they forwarded a
positive recommendation. Um,
unanimously,
uh, if you have any questions, I can try
to answer those for you.
>> I have a question. [clears throat] In
the first, uh, redline edit on page 231
where we struck only one accessory
dwelling unit or guest house should be
allowed on a lot or parcel. Then within
the downtown boundary, two ADUs are
allowed per lot.
If we had left that language the way it
is, would two detached units be allowed?
I'm asking staff or legal or somebody
because it seems like at one point we
had discussed this that having that
second ADU on on lots where it was
possible and I know one of the ones we
looked at they were actually two
detached units. This will restrict it
now to have to have one attached to and
then the second one could be detached.
>> Correct.
If you look at the way it's worded,
number 2A, a second accessory dwelling
unit may be permitted on then it says a
lots or parcels located within the
downtown boundary. So I don't I the
intent was to take that language and
allow it and apply it this the way that
we're applying it now. I I don't think
that and Jamie you might want to jump in
but
>> yeah the discussion um council member
Kim was you know in the downtown area
within that downtown boundary that was a
discussion and this this sort of
acknowledges that um
>> this specific
>> the code right now that we have right
now adopted you can have two attached
two detach one attached one detached
downtown. This one is just changing it
in that now if you have 11,000 square
foot lot anywhere in the city, you can
have one attached, one detached.
Correct.
>> It does. It does not limit the ability
because we we looked at a specific
example of a very long narrow lot where
the home builder had built a home and
then had one detached and then had a
bunch of dead space behind his home and
was was looking at possibility of a
second detached unit where he had
parking, he had all the other things we
needed. Would this pre would this
preclude him from doing that?
>> Was it downtown?
>> Yes.
>> No.
So then that's say that was the
downtown discussion and that that still
applies. What Carol is saying is that
this now allows one of each anywhere in
the city, not just downtown. If you have
an 11,000 foot lot.
>> But by striking that last sentence, does
it have we told people they cannot have
two detached? Are we inferring that they
can't have two detached units downtown?
>> No.
we're not. The downtown
>> scratched out, but then it's added back
in.
>> It was added back in lower.
>> It's just combined with the 11,000
square foot lot.
>> But that sentence specifically says you
have to have one attached and one
detached.
» The next
>> There's two parts.
>> The first part talks about town
downtown.
And then the second part talks about
right 11,000 square foot lots.
» No, we intentionally preserved what we
did in the downtown area. We
intentionally preserved that, but this
broadens it.
>> It does not It does not say downtown can
have two.
>> Okay. So, you're talking about uh
>> D
2A that sentence.
>> Yeah. It doesn't say
>> preserves that ability for two detached
in the downtown area. Okay. Thank you.
>> Any way you want to do it.
» I'm ready to make a motion. Mayor,
>> I'm ready. Mayor, I'd like to make a
motion that we approve item number nine
cons uh ordinance number 2026-068
amending title 10-17A
of the city code amending ADU accessory
dwelling unit regulations on lots
exceeding 11,000 square ft uh and adding
clarifications on existing detached
structures and health and safety codes.
>> Second.
>> We have a motion by Steve uh second by
Michelle. This is an ordinance requiring
roll call vote starting with Natalie
>> Natalie Larson I.
>> Steve Kemp I.
>> Austin Anderson I.
>> Michelle Tanner. I Danielle Larkin I.
>> Motion carries.
That it. Okay. So now we need a motion
to
Yes. Let's do that. Do we have any
appointments? Nope.
Then we need uh uh reports from council
members.
Uh starting with you, Michelle.
>> No reports.
» Uh mayor, Friday, August 28th is the art
summit. So every year our art commission
holds what's called the art summit. So
if there are any arts organizations that
have received wrap tax, they're required
to come to the art summit. And if there
are arts organizations that would like
to receive the wrap tax, um, they should
come to the art summit. So, it's
something you can register for on our
website and it is happening on the 28th.
>> Very cool. Natalie, anything?
>> Dixie Days is coming your way. Social
media has a lot of posts on it. There's
a lot of great activities, a little bit
for everybody. We had our last meeting
today on it. and I just think it will be
a fantastic event for our community. But
we also have the September 11th by our
fire department memorial coming up. And
if you haven't been to the field of
flags before, you should bring your
children and your grandparents
and get there early in the morning and
sit there and look at those flags and
remember that there's an individual who
lost their life. And if you haven't done
that, come in the evening or come
whenever you can. I've been there when
the fire department has worked with the
Legacy Elementary School and other
elementary schools and brought those
kids to that event and
mo some of their parents weren't
probably even born at that point. But
it's very, very thoughtful, memorable
moment. And then they're having the
stair climb also at Tech Ridge and
people should sign up to take that
challenge. So look on the website and
get get signed up for that.
I have no reports.
>> Mayor, I serve on the Southwest Mosquito
Abayment Board, one of my favorite
boards. Uh, but at the last meeting, we
did talk about there was there's been
several positive cases of West Nile in
the mosquitoes here with all the rain
we've had, we've had the mosquitoes that
came out. Uh, they're working to get
that down. But one thing also I want to
mention they if you a resident's
probably I didn't know this but if you
do see mosquitoes around your area have
a problem you can call mosquito
abatement and they'll send people right
out and they're very passionate do a
great job so encourage them to take
advantage of that
>> standing water's the enemy right
>> yeah and keep you know inoculate your
horses you don't want less now on the
horses but
>> I didn't know either I was like how did
we get it and I guess we get it from
birds
mosquitoes bite the birds and the birds
fly from here to Salt Lake or wherever
and that's how the West Nile gets
spread. So,
>> it's interesting.
>> Very, very cool. All right. Anything
else? Okay. Now, we need a motion. We do
need to reconvene in our work meeting.
So, I need a motion to adjourn city
council and reconvene in work meeting.
Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we
adjourn the city council meeting and
reconvene in our work meeting in the
city council boardroom.
>> Second.
>> We have a motion by Steve, second by
Michelle. All in favor say I.
>> I.
>> It's non-debatable.
Lonnie, do planners wear ties in
Wyoming?
They do.