[0:09] should have done that.

[0:30] Okay.

[0:34] » All right. Welcome everybody. This is a

[0:36] regular meeting and public hearing of

[0:37] the Grantsville City Council. For the

[0:40] record, today's date is August 19th,

[0:42] 2026, and the time is 700 p.m. This

[0:45] meeting is being held at the Grantsville

[0:47] City Council Chambers located at 429

[0:50] East Main Street, Grantsville, Utah, as

[0:53] well as electronically by Zoom. I am

[0:56] Mayor Heidi Hammond and I will conduct a

[0:58] roll call of our city council. Council

[1:00] member Butler

[1:01] >> here.

[1:02] >> Dalton

[1:02] >> here.

[1:03] >> Skinner

[1:03] >> here.

[1:04] >> Thomas

[1:04] >> here.

[1:05] >> Williams

[1:06] >> here.

[1:07] >> Thank you. If you would all please rise

[1:09] and join me in the pledge of allegiance.

[1:16] » I aliance to the flag of the United

[1:20] States of America and to the republic

[1:23] for which it stands. One nation under

[1:26] God, indivisible, with liberty and

[1:29] justice for all. Amen.

[1:33] [clears throat]

[1:43] » All right. Our first item, our first

[1:46] agenda item tonight is a public comment.

[1:49] We have received several comments from

[1:51] the public by email which are included

[1:53] in the public packet. The floor is open

[1:57] to the public to bring their concerns to

[1:59] the council and we ask that you limit

[2:01] your comments to three minutes each so

[2:03] that all who would have a desire to

[2:05] participate have that opportunity. So

[2:08] the time is now available for anyone who

[2:11] is in this room. We'll start with that

[2:14] uh to present items to the uh to the

[2:17] council and then we will ask those who

[2:20] are online if they would like to raise

[2:22] their hands and they can address the

[2:24] council by Zoom as well. Uh one thing I

[2:27] want to point out to everyone here is we

[2:30] are not allowed to have a back and forth

[2:32] conversation with you during public

[2:34] comment, but please rest assured we are

[2:37] making notes. we're making taking down

[2:39] the information that we need to address

[2:41] those issues. When we get to the item um

[2:43] on the agenda to discuss that particular

[2:46] item, we will talk through the concerns

[2:48] that you have. So, just don't think that

[2:50] we're not listening. We truly are. So,

[2:52] um we will start with p public comment.

[2:54] If anyone would like to to come forward,

[2:56] you are welcome to do so. And again,

[2:58] please state your name. And uh do you

[3:01] need an address, Alicia? No,

[3:02] >> don't need an address, but um if you do

[3:04] speak, if you don't mind just coming and

[3:06] writing your name down over here after

[3:08] you speak.

[3:09] >> It has to be included in our minutes.

[3:10] So, if you could write your name, that

[3:12] would be great. Thank you.

[3:16] » So, no address.

[3:18] >> No address.

[3:19] >> Okay.

[3:20] Um my name is Kristen Estagard. Um,

[3:26] I'm here tonight to discuss my concern

[3:28] with the layout of the proposed

[3:30] Allington PUB.

[3:33] The layout of the houses and their

[3:35] alleyways put deadend streets in which

[3:38] cars pulling into their spaces point

[3:41] directly into bedroom windows and back

[3:44] doors of those on Sun Valley.

[3:47] My house specifically has an alleyway

[3:50] lined up exactly where my master bedroom

[3:54] doors are. That means 10 different cars

[3:57] and their headlights will be pointing

[3:59] toward my bedroom

[4:01] at all hours of the day and night. Not

[4:04] to mention just the noise that that

[4:07] would also bring.

[4:09] On Cook Lane, the existing residents

[4:12] will have eight twostory houses

[4:15] overlooking their backyards

[4:17] [clears throat]

[4:18] and provide no privacy.

[4:21] There's a walking path along the

[4:23] property line which would potentially

[4:25] increase the amount of crime,

[4:27] trespassing, and lack of privacy.

[4:31] The previous Allington layout provided

[4:34] halfacre lots butdding up against our

[4:36] existing properties on Sun Valley and

[4:39] previously the city council has held

[4:41] developers to a standard of progressing

[4:44] into higher density lots so there is not

[4:47] such an abrupt change such as this. A

[4:51] good example of this is the 20 Wells

[4:53] PUD.

[4:55] Um, I'm asking that the city council

[4:57] members work with the developer to have

[5:00] halfacre lots against existing residents

[5:04] and then maybe transition to higher

[5:06] density units as the development works

[5:09] inward. This would still allow the

[5:12] developer to fit more units than he had

[5:14] previously approved on that plan, but

[5:17] also um make the existing residents much

[5:21] happier in the long run.

[5:23] >> Thank you.

[5:31] Good evening, council members. My name

[5:33] is Clay Barney. I live at 3842

[5:37] Sun Valley Drive

[5:40] and I'm here also

[5:42] to [clears throat] oppose the Allington

[5:44] development.

[5:45] Um my points are my concerns.

[5:49] um

[5:51] 243 I believe that's the number of flex

[5:56] units on that much property is a lot of

[5:59] units on a small area. Okay. Um one of

[6:04] my major concerns I have animals. I have

[6:08] animal rights and I have animals. Okay.

[6:11] Um, I've done a little research and

[6:13] Grantsville,

[6:15] um, ordinance 2022-14

[6:20] states that there shall be a 100 foot

[6:25] easement for all animals. So, no

[6:30] development should be within 100 ft of

[6:32] all animals. Okay. So, that being said,

[6:38] what was presented to the um planning

[6:42] and zoning commission was 10 ft from my

[6:45] back fence.

[6:48] That is not going to work. That's going

[6:50] to cause problems not only with me, it's

[6:54] going to cause problems with residents

[6:57] that move in there because I have my

[6:59] animals. They're going to be complaining

[7:01] about smells or, you know, not liking

[7:05] the animals or the flies or whatever. We

[7:08] are We have We've lived there. I've

[7:10] lived there 29 years and it's always

[7:13] been farmland, okay? To So, I'm I'm okay

[7:18] with development. It just needs to be

[7:20] done smart. Okay. not just go from farm

[7:24] property to all of a sudden we have all

[7:27] these houses right next door to farm

[7:29] property. So I feel like there needs to

[7:32] be at least some zoning or something

[7:36] that at least

[7:38] um

[7:40] follows the ordinance that says there's

[7:42] 100 ft minimum from the animals. Okay.

[7:46] Um and it and it's going to affect the

[7:48] city as well. you know, police, the

[7:50] police department will be coming out

[7:52] because of nuisance calls, because of

[7:55] the animals, the noise, things like

[7:57] that. So, it's it's it's a major concern

[8:00] of mine is as the animals amongst other

[8:03] concerns. So, I appreciate your time and

[8:05] consideration. Thank you.

[8:06] >> Thank you,

[8:08] >> Mr. Barney. Do you mind writing?

[8:11] >> I put my name on that.

[8:13] >> Thank you.

[8:15] >> Good evening. My name's Kimberly Smith.

[8:18] who already signed in.

[8:20] [clears throat] I came here tonight to

[8:21] discuss some of the concerns over the

[8:23] potential development of the Flex Homes

[8:25] for Alington subdivision being presented

[8:28] this evening. As a homeowner that lives

[8:30] on an acre, as well as many of my

[8:32] neighbors here tonight, we have concerns

[8:33] over the home values, livestock, traffic

[8:36] issues, just to name a few. In theory,

[8:39] flex homes sound great. However, these

[8:41] homes are still very pricey from what

[8:43] I've been able to find in E from

[8:45] development. I found several for sale at

[8:47] higher prices than the mid300s as being

[8:50] presented.

[8:52] Um, but most of most of all, most of the

[8:55] people that that want the $350,000

[8:58] homes, most of them really want a

[8:59] completed home. With a completed home,

[9:02] the average I found one for $440,000.

[9:05] I I'm sorry, $444,000

[9:08] and one for $45,000.

[9:12] for a conventional home loan that's 20%

[9:14] down $80,000. This payment would be 200

[9:17] I mean $2,289

[9:19] plus an HOA. The next is a FHA loan

[9:22] which is 3.5% down at cost. That's

[9:25] $14,000

[9:27] $14,200 of a payment and their house

[9:30] payment will be at least 20 $2,881

[9:34] plus mortgage premium insurance which is

[9:37] about $500 a month. that totaling

[9:39] $3,381.

[9:41] In my opinion, this is not really

[9:43] affordable. It's maybe a little bit more

[9:45] affordable, but it's really not

[9:47] affordable. Also, Ephraim, their medium

[9:50] house prices are $100,000 cheaper than

[9:52] ours. So, if they're going for $400 and

[9:54] $450,000,

[9:56] this kind of price, I don't see how it

[9:58] won't end up being higher for closer to

[10:01] Salt Lake, things have a way of going

[10:03] up.

[10:04] Another thing that I've noticed that

[10:06] Ephraim, they did a development like

[10:07] this where there was no other

[10:08] pre-existing homes or neighborhoods.

[10:11] They did it out in the middle of an area

[10:14] like we have. We have lots of vast

[10:16] properties out here that if we if if

[10:18] Gransville decided they wanted to do

[10:20] something like that, we do have space.

[10:22] Maybe not with this developer, but we

[10:24] could do it in another area where we can

[10:27] also provide parks, recreation, we can

[10:30] provide schools, places where people can

[10:32] walk, stores, just kind of like they do

[10:34] in Daybreak. So, it would be maybe

[10:37] something more than that. Where we're at

[10:38] right now, it's just not going to work

[10:40] with the busy traffic. There's no

[10:42] sidewalks. There's nowhere for people to

[10:44] walk and you're just adding more

[10:46] traffic. And so, people are going to

[10:48] have to drive cars. they won't be able

[10:50] to just walk and communicate, you know,

[10:52] work. So, what I'm just asking is if Joe

[10:56] White, which I didn't see here tonight,

[10:58] and the council would please consider a

[11:00] development that fits the existing homes

[11:02] nearby, perhaps sticking with the

[11:04] original approved plans in 2022 or 2023

[11:08] where we had the half acre lots and then

[11:11] they worked to the quarter and just we

[11:13] could do more. And even I think some of

[11:15] us have even said we wouldn't as as

[11:17] neighbors oppose him to do it all homes

[11:20] and not part commercial if you wanted to

[11:22] reszone it. I think that's how it was

[11:24] originally. So we're we understand

[11:26] development is coming. We understand he

[11:29] owns the land. He has the right. What

[11:31] we're just asking is putting these kind

[11:33] of homes next to our nice beautiful

[11:35] little

[11:37] um places so dense with so much traffic

[11:41] is is it done? Okay. Um, thank you.

[11:44] very much.

[11:58] » I guess it's going to be my turn.

[12:04] » Okay.

[12:05] [clears throat] I have quite a spill, so

[12:07] I'm trying to get through in three

[12:08] minutes. So, if I um Good evening, uh

[12:12] Mayor Hammond and council members. My

[12:15] name is Naen Hunt and I am a resident

[12:18] and property owner directly affected by

[12:20] the proposed residential development

[12:23] consisting of approximately 256 homes on

[12:27] 33 acres. I recognize that property

[12:30] owners have development rights and that

[12:32] the reviewing authority must evaluate

[12:35] this application under the laws and

[12:37] ordinances applicable to the property.

[12:40] My objection is not based simply upon a

[12:43] dislike of development or change. My

[12:46] concern is whether a development of this

[12:48] density can be safely supported at this

[12:51] location without creating unreasonable

[12:54] impacts upon existing residents and

[12:56] public infrastructure.

[12:58] There are several concerns that deserve

[13:00] careful consideration before final

[13:03] approval. My concern is fire protection,

[13:07] fire suppression, and emergency

[13:09] response. Our town currently has roughly

[13:13] 4,100 homes with 2700 additional homes

[13:17] already approved to be built and that

[13:20] does not include this proposed

[13:22] development. That raises an important

[13:24] question. Has our emergency response

[13:27] capacity grown at the same rate as the

[13:30] developments we continue to approve? We

[13:33] rely on a volunteer fire department with

[13:36] a limited number of firefighters, fire

[13:38] trucks, and ambulances. At the same

[13:41] time, both the number of homes they are

[13:44] responsible for and their geographic

[13:46] coverage have grown substantially.

[13:50] Has an emergency services capacity

[13:52] analysis been performed that consider

[13:56] that considers not only the homes that

[13:58] exist today but the thousands of homes

[14:01] already approved. What happens when

[14:04] there are simultaneous emergencies? A

[14:06] structure fire here while an ambulance

[14:08] or fire crew is already responding

[14:11] somewhere else. And as the physical area

[14:14] our emergency services must cover

[14:17] continues to expand, our current

[14:19] response times, staffing, equipment, and

[14:22] ambulance availability still adequate?

[14:26] There are also serious questions about

[14:28] physical access within this development.

[14:31] Can our existing fire trucks safely

[14:33] navigate the proposed streets and

[14:36] alleyways? Can our largest apparatus

[14:39] make the necessary turns and safely

[14:42] access every home? If vehicles are

[14:45] parked where residents will

[14:46] realistically park them, uh, and will vehic emergency vehicles still have

[14:53] adequate clearance, including space to

[14:56] safely turn around and exit. These

[14:59] questions should be answered through

[15:01] actual analysis and review, not

[15:03] discovered during an emergency. I am not

[15:06] asking the council to assume that our

[15:09] emergency services cannot handle this

[15:11] development. I am asking the council to

[15:14] require evidence that they can. I

[15:17] respectfully ask that these questions be

[15:20] fully answered before final approval

[15:22] because once these homes are built, many

[15:25] of the decisions being made today cannot

[15:27] easily be corrected. Thank you.

[15:31] >> Thank you. Ma'am, did you see that?

[15:34] >> You sent me.

[15:36] >> Okay.

[15:48] » Good evening, Mayor. Oh, sorry. Need to

[15:51] raise it up now. Uh, my name is Jeff

[15:53] Nestard. I live on Sun Valley Drive. I'm

[15:56] [clears throat] also here to talk about

[15:58] the Allington subdivision. The issue I

[16:01] want to bring up is the wastewater. Um

[16:03] part of the PUB application is the

[16:05] developer had to have a wastewater study

[16:07] done as we all know. Um that was done by

[16:10] Enzyme Peak. Um it actually stipulates

[16:13] in there that Grantsville's current

[16:15] treatment plant cannot cover the added

[16:18] uh waste that's produced. Um it says

[16:22] only once the new plant is in that it

[16:26] can adequately service it. Um, so if you

[16:30] approve the development now, my question

[16:31] is, does

[16:33] that open the city to litigation if

[16:35] there's delays on the plant built? I

[16:37] know that's in the works and it's

[16:39] supposed to be done by early 2028.

[16:42] But if you approve it now and the

[16:45] development could take 5 to 10 years to

[16:46] be built. We understand that. But what

[16:48] happens if there's a housing rush and

[16:52] the developer says, "I want to get these

[16:53] done in a year." and the city already

[16:56] okayed it, but now they can't provide

[16:58] the services for it. Does that open the

[16:59] city up for litigation, you know, you

[17:02] can't tell the developer, sorry, you

[17:04] don't get a build now, right? I I guess

[17:06] maybe you can, and that's more questions

[17:09] for you guys to answer. Um, but that

[17:12] that's my concern that I want to bring

[17:14] up. There's a ton of variances that this

[17:17] development's asking for, and this is

[17:19] just one of the ones that I saw that

[17:21] should really be looked at before

[17:22] approving. So, thank you for your time.

[17:25] >> Thank you,

[17:25] >> Jeff. Jeff.

[17:27] >> Oh, yeah.

[17:29] >> Should have came up and did it first.

[17:30] >> That's okay. I know your name. So,

[17:33] >> is there anyone else in in the audience

[17:35] here today that would like to make a

[17:37] comment?

[17:49] » Thank you.

[17:56] All right. Good evening, Mayor, city

[17:58] council members. My name is Marty Grant

[18:01] and I'm one of the residents on Cook

[18:03] Lane uh that will be going up next to

[18:06] this proposed development. Tonight I'm

[18:08] going to speak about the number and

[18:09] significance of the deviations being

[18:12] requested for the Alington development

[18:13] and what they mean considered

[18:15] altogether.

[18:16] So first of all is density. The proposal

[18:19] is for 256 detached homes on 34 acres.

[18:24] The comparison shows a baseline of about

[18:27] 156 detached homes. This is roughly 100

[18:30] additional homes or mathematically a 64%

[18:34] increase.

[18:35] Second is lot size and frontage. The

[18:38] standard shown for detached single

[18:40] family homes is a 4,000 square foot

[18:43] minimum lot with 50 ft of frontage. Many

[18:47] of the proposed lots are actually

[18:49] smaller than 4,000 square ft with some

[18:52] as small as 680 square ft while frontage

[18:56] is reduced from 50 feet down to 30. So

[18:59] they're really cramming them in there.

[19:01] Uh third is setbacks and buffering. The

[19:04] proposal reduces multiple setbacks

[19:06] throughout the project. Front setbacks

[19:08] can be reduced from 25 ft down to 15

[19:11] feet and rear setbacks or private alleys

[19:14] can be as little as 5t.

[19:17] So the comparison also identifies a 30ft

[19:20] landscape buff for trees and privacy

[19:23] fencing along the project boundaries. So

[19:26] while the proposal shows only 7 ft. So

[19:28] that goes 30 ft down to seven. And then

[19:31] finally there is uh the commercial

[19:33] component. So 34 acre mixeduse PUD

[19:37] development um proposes only 3.05 acres

[19:40] of commercial property or roughly 9%

[19:43] altogether

[19:45] um despite substantially higher

[19:46] commercial percentages that have been

[19:49] identified in the development standards

[19:51] of the city. So the PUD standard as I

[19:54] read it is 25% and 50% under the mixed

[19:57] use standards. So 2550 down to nine.

[20:03] So overall when I look at the big

[20:04] picture my concern is not one isolated

[20:07] deviation it's a lot it's many um it is

[20:10] a commun commulative effect of

[20:13] everything altogether. So, the developer

[20:15] has asking the city to accept more

[20:17] homes, smaller lots, narrower frontage,

[20:20] reduced setbacks, dramatically reduced

[20:23] buffers,

[20:24] and a reduced commercial component in

[20:27] order to make this particular small lot

[20:29] housing product fit into this location.

[20:34] In my opinion, this is simply too many

[20:35] concessions for the city to make for one

[20:37] development. And this is only one of

[20:40] several concerns surrounding the

[20:42] Allington development that could affect

[20:43] Grantsville long after this project is

[20:45] built. For that reason, I ask city

[20:48] council to table this for tonight and

[20:51] schedule a joint working meeting with

[20:52] the planning commission to address these

[20:54] issues before final action is taken.

[20:56] Thank you for your time.

[20:58] >> Thank you.

[21:09] My name is Robert Smith. I moved here

[21:12] two and a half years ago. I live at 3928

[21:16] Sun Valley Drive. I'm a pastor in Magna

[21:20] and my main concerns is the well-being

[21:24] of children. There was a child killed on

[21:28] the corner of my house.

[21:30] Okay, everybody remember that, right?

[21:32] Okay, so here's the deal. Uh,

[21:36] that child came to Maverick and when he

[21:40] was going back, he hit a car. So, when

[21:43] you have all this stuff going on here,

[21:45] there's no sidewalks. The road is not

[21:48] prepared for that many people. There's

[21:51] no other place to go to get a drink or

[21:55] any snacks. And where are all those

[21:56] children going to go? I sit out there in

[21:59] the morning at I get up up and have

[22:01] coffee early in the morning and at 5:30

[22:05] it's stream that way coming home you

[22:09] can't even get out on that street for

[22:11] five minutes. So what's going to happen

[22:13] when all these kids that are not

[22:16] consciously paying attention to the

[22:20] traffic? We're going to have more

[22:22] incidences. Okay, that's my concern.

[22:26] What about the schools?

[22:29] Are the schools ready for this? I mean,

[22:32] we got other all these other things

[22:34] going on, these other places getting

[22:36] developed. Are the schools ready for

[22:38] this? Now, I'm not saying that to knock

[22:40] us. I'm just saying, hey, I've been in

[22:42] the construction trade all my life in

[22:45] management and I've watched and made

[22:47] sure everything was in order, anything

[22:49] we did. I just want to see everything

[22:52] done in order because Grantsfield is

[22:54] going to grow. I'm not against it

[22:55] growing. You understand what I'm saying?

[22:57] How about the first responders that's

[23:00] been brought up? The schools, um,

[23:05] the traffic, the stop signs, the lights.

[23:08] How about trails or place or sidewalks

[23:11] for kids to walk somewhere? There's the

[23:15] only thing that they can get to is that

[23:16] little mall right there and the

[23:18] Maverick. That's it. There's no

[23:21] walkways, no trails, nowhere. parks

[23:23] close.

[23:25] So, I'm asking, why are we putting all

[23:27] of this density in there with these

[23:30] small houses that is going to cause us

[23:32] more problems and more headaches down

[23:34] the road?

[23:36] How about the existing lots that are

[23:38] there? This was brought up. It's country

[23:42] living and then we're putting density

[23:45] houses right next to it.

[23:48] We're a small town. We're not a big

[23:50] city. Let it grow and develop it and

[23:53] stage it so that all those big

[23:55] apartments and all that stuff are in a

[23:57] place that grows out there how it should

[24:01] and let the ranchet people have their

[24:04] horses and their animals and put half

[24:06] inch or half acre lots next to it like

[24:09] the previous plan was. We could all

[24:11] agree to that.

[24:13] But I don't understand why all the

[24:15] density.

[24:20] You know, one last thing,

[24:24] these kids, I worry about them.

[24:28] I pray for them. I just pray something

[24:30] good comes and I pray that God would put

[24:32] his hand on this whole thing and make it

[24:35] right for everybody, even the even the

[24:38] contractor. But let's do it right and

[24:40] have mercy on grace on our kids so

[24:42] they're not killed in that street.

[24:46] >> Thank you.

[24:56] » Is there anyone else that would like to

[24:57] make a comment?

[25:03] Anybody online? If you would like to

[25:05] make a comment, please raise your hand

[25:07] and Alicia will call on you.

[25:10] >> Okay, we have

[25:14] Rick.

[25:20] Hello.

[25:21] >> There we go.

[25:23] >> Hello.

[25:24] We can hear you.

[25:25] >> Okay. Right on. Hey, um I want to point

[25:28] some things out. Uh historically,

[25:31] um what I would have called this would

[25:33] be a REUD, not a PUD. Um and they've

[25:37] historically been rejected. Why? Because

[25:39] an agreement has already been made. Um

[25:43] if we as the city changed our mind and

[25:45] wanted the developer to do something

[25:47] different, that probably wouldn't fly

[25:49] very well. Okay. Um I was in the

[25:52] meeting. Derek was in the meeting as

[25:54] well. I'm sure he can remember some of

[25:56] the discussion over the buffers. I think

[25:58] he was there at that time. Anyway, uh

[26:00] they were a huge part of the discussion.

[26:03] That's why we ended up with halfacre

[26:04] lots next to the existing housing. Um

[26:08] they're supposed to be a biff a buffer.

[26:11] Uh that's typically what we have done in

[26:13] the past was to actually require

[26:16] the same lot size adjacent to the

[26:21] existing. But in in this particular

[26:23] case, it was compromised to halfacre

[26:25] lots. Uh the other smaller lots um uh in

[26:31] the prior agreement were uh supposedly

[26:36] affordable uh housing to put affordable

[26:39] housing in and I guess that didn't work

[26:42] out. Um because I don't see anything

[26:44] being built there. That was 2022 if I

[26:47] recall. uh ask the zoning administrator

[26:51] how many town homes are already approved

[26:53] in the city of Grantsville to be built

[26:56] or flex homes, whatever you want to call

[26:58] them. They're basically town homes. The

[27:01] answer should be known to the city

[27:02] council because it's provide uh

[27:04] providing a variety of housing as

[27:07] dictated by our city's general plan.

[27:11] Last but not least, um

[27:15] there used to be a constraint at the

[27:16] time of the MU zoning in which the prior

[27:19] agreement was made, which um

[27:24] [clears throat]

[27:24] allowed only allowed the city to place

[27:27] conditions to mitigate problems caused

[27:29] by zoning code variances.

[27:32] Um they had to be out uh allowed at the

[27:36] time as outlined by state law. Uh the MU

[27:40] code in our city has changed. Currently

[27:42] code variations within the MU are purely

[27:46] legislative action. Uh there is no

[27:49] requirement to allow any variations to

[27:52] the code. Examples that of this would be

[27:55] setbacks, street widths, lot sizes,

[27:59] buffers, etc. Um they're asking for tons

[28:02] of this in the name of affordable

[28:04] housing. Um the reason for those

[28:08] setbacks, street widths, etc. um have

[28:13] been debated and debated and debated and

[28:17] why would we be changing this just for

[28:20] this developer when we already have a

[28:22] development agreement in place with him?

[28:25] Um that we have lots of plenty

[28:28] affordable housing lots quote unquote

[28:31] approved. Um, so either we'll get

[28:34] affordable housing or not, that's really

[28:36] up to the developer, not up to us as a a

[28:41] city to provide that for a developer to

[28:45] build, right? Um, kind of like uh

[28:48] affordable healthc care that kind of

[28:50] didn't work out. Why? Because the

[28:52] government infor in interfered, you

[28:55] know, right? So, uh, the the fact that

[28:58] you think you can legislate affordable

[29:01] housing,

[29:03] well, I guess that's the end of it. No,

[29:06] if you can legislate affordable housing,

[29:08] then um, you feel you're you're pretty

[29:12] arrogant if you think you can. I don't

[29:14] think it's possible. The best thing to

[29:16] do would be to stick with the setbacks,

[29:18] to force developers to build smaller

[29:20] homes, and um, let it eat. Uh,

[29:26] I would encourage the city council to

[29:28] make it a priority to re-examine the MU

[29:33] zoning. Uh, I have my number. You have

[29:36] my number if you want suggestions for

[29:38] this. The first would be the typo, which

[29:40] allows someone

[29:42] uh who spent too much time around paint

[29:44] fumes to believe that 50% of the

[29:46] property on the main existing street was

[29:49] to be commercial and not 50% of the

[29:51] entire land mass. Please consult the

[29:53] minutes from the meetings at which this

[29:57] went through the planning commission and

[30:00] um it should have been an and or a

[30:03] comma, right? And that was omitted. So,

[30:06] uh by state law technically you can go

[30:09] in and correct a typo without a um

[30:14] without a uh announced meeting to do so.

[30:17] And that's what I would suggest the city

[30:19] council do. Thank you.

[30:21] >> Thanks, Rick. is can I just ask uh you

[30:25] say your last name so I can get it for

[30:26] the record please?

[30:29] >> Yes, it's Rick Bchers.

[30:31] >> Okay. Just wanted to make sure. Thanks.

[30:33] >> No worries.

[30:36] >> Anyone else online? Alicia.

[30:48] » Okay. Any additional public comment?

[30:54] All right, we will close we will close

[30:56] that agenda item.

[31:02] Moving on to agenda item number two,

[31:04] summary action items. We have the

[31:06] approval of minutes from the July 15,

[31:09] 2026 city council regular meetings.

[31:13] There any comments from the council

[31:14] regarding that?

[31:20] Mayor, I make a motion we approve

[31:22] minutes from the July 15, 2026 city

[31:25] council regular meeting.

[31:26] >> Thank you. We have a motion by Council

[31:28] Member Thomas. Is there a second?

[31:30] >> I'll second.

[31:31] >> Second by Council Member Dalton. All in

[31:33] favor?

[31:35] >> Next is the approval of minutes from the

[31:38] August 5th, 2026 Truth and Taxation

[31:40] public hearing.

[31:45] Any concerns from the council regarding

[31:47] those minutes?

[31:48] >> I make a motion we approve the uh

[31:50] minutes for the August 5th meeting.

[31:52] >> You have a motion by council member

[31:53] Butler. Is there a second?

[31:54] >> I second.

[31:55] >> Second by council member Williams. All

[31:57] in favor?

[31:58] >> I.

[32:01] >> The next item is the approval of the

[32:03] bills.

[32:12] Any questions on the bills?

[32:19] Mayor, I make a motion we approve the

[32:21] bills.

[32:22] >> A motion by Council Member Butler to

[32:24] approve the bills. Is there a second?

[32:26] >> I'll second the motion.

[32:26] >> Second by Council Member Skinner. All in

[32:28] favor?

[32:29] >> I.

[32:32] >> Thank you. Moving on to agenda item

[32:35] number three, which is a consideration

[32:36] of resolution 2026-65,

[32:40] appointing Shannon Nelson to the

[32:41] Historic Preservation Committee.

[32:44] Mayor actually make a motion that we

[32:46] table this resolution to our next

[32:49] meeting. She is not here and I'd like

[32:52] her to be invited to this um for her

[32:55] nomination and a potential approval.

[32:58] >> Thank you. We have a motion to table

[33:00] that item and I apologize to Shana that

[33:02] I did not um make her aware that this

[33:05] was on the agenda, but she's probably

[33:07] going to appreciate it being the first

[33:09] day of school and she does teach in our

[33:11] school system. So, we're grateful to all

[33:13] the teachers today that made it through

[33:14] the first day and the parents.

[33:17] >> I'll second that motion.

[33:18] >> So, we have a a motion by Council Member

[33:20] Butler, a second by Council Member

[33:22] Thomas. All in favor to table this item?

[33:25] >> I

[33:26] >> thank you.

[33:28] We have a consideration item number four

[33:30] of resolution 2026-61

[33:33] approving a memorandum of understanding

[33:35] with the Tilla County School District

[33:37] for the school resource officer services

[33:40] for the 2026 2027 school year. And thank

[33:44] you Chief Sager.

[33:46] >> Yeah, Mayor Council, this is an annual

[33:49] contract that we presented before. I

[33:50] think most of you have seen it. There's

[33:52] a couple changes. Uh the price went up a

[33:55] little bit about $1,000 and then just a

[33:57] couple small changes in the the

[33:59] verbiage, but if you have any questions,

[34:01] I'll try to answer them.

[34:07] I [clears throat]

[34:09] we've been meeting with the school

[34:10] district regularly. Um I I had probably

[34:13] just one question chief just maybe um

[34:17] along the lines of you feel that is

[34:19] working is what we are doing there

[34:22] currently working within

[34:24] >> it's hard

[34:25] >> um

[34:26] >> and or is it impacting yeah that was

[34:27] kind of where I wanted to go with

[34:29] >> I had this discussion today with our

[34:30] investigations division because it pulls

[34:32] one investigator out and it's in the

[34:35] school they are in the school for nine

[34:37] months and they have to spend most of

[34:38] their time there. So then our case load

[34:40] goes up on our investigators at the

[34:42] office and so it's the uh they pay for

[34:47] the officer but we actually kind of lose

[34:49] an officer as well. So

[34:51] >> that was the question I had. I know you

[34:52] know we did from a budgetary standpoint

[34:54] we didn't authorize another officer to

[34:57] come into play. So I just wanted to

[35:00] I wanted your feel on how that taxes us

[35:03] and you know are we

[35:07] >> can we do this? Yes, we can. Um the

[35:10] numbers will show and that was my

[35:11] direction today is just make sure that

[35:13] you keep up on your monthly stats and we

[35:16] can show at the end of the year if any

[35:18] case load goes up how it goes up and

[35:20] then as we move forward it will show the

[35:22] level of service needed and not only

[35:24] that division and if it's worth having a

[35:28] school resource officer if our budget is

[35:31] um kind of like it was this year. So

[35:34] yeah, but at this point I think it we

[35:38] move we can move forward with this and

[35:40] uh one more year

[35:43] I'll just ask a a question of

[35:44] clarification. So um Aspen uh this this

[35:49] money that comes into the city, this is

[35:51] included in our budget, right? You have

[35:54] this as an incoming

[35:56] um that is going to the police

[35:57] department, correct? The revenue.

[35:59] >> Yes, that's correct. I can get you an

[36:00] exact. Um, it's 103314

[36:04] is the line. It's slightly

[36:06] >> underbudgeted because it was budgeted

[36:08] for the same amount that was last year's

[36:10] contract. So,

[36:11] >> a little bit more.

[36:12] >> Yeah. So, this year it's a little bit

[36:14] more, but it's small. It's in there at

[36:16] 103314 at $13,594.

[36:19] So,

[36:20] >> there'll be a slight increase, but it is

[36:21] in the budget currently.

[36:23] >> Thank you.

[36:23] >> Yeah.

[36:24] >> A lot of the schools in have more than

[36:25] one school resource officer, right? I've

[36:27] attempted to get another school resource

[36:30] officer for the junior high for multiple

[36:32] years and been uh rejected. Um every

[36:35] secondary school in Twilla County

[36:37] besides Grantsville has a secondary SRO

[36:39] >> and our SRO spends time so I have to go

[36:41] to the junior highlights.

[36:42] >> That's some of the verbiage that changed

[36:44] a little bit in here. I mean it says

[36:45] yeah this SRO can't should respond at

[36:47] the request of the district to secondary

[36:49] schools. I think it's section 10 in

[36:52] here. But yeah, we if something happens

[36:54] at the school, they're responsible and

[36:55] they go to every single school and we we

[36:58] do want the officers there. So

[37:01] >> clarification, that's the school

[37:03] district denying the offer. Correct.

[37:06] >> Ask for that second officer.

[37:07] >> Yeah. Uh over multiple years. There was

[37:10] actually a year where they had two

[37:12] resource officers at uh Stanbury High

[37:15] School.

[37:17] >> Yeah.

[37:19] And then now they're at they're split

[37:21] the junior high and the high school.

[37:24] >> I've got a question. Sorry. Um

[37:27] [clears throat] does what the school

[37:28] district pay us does that cover us 100%

[37:31] or be subsidizing any

[37:32] >> if you do I did this analysis um and it

[37:35] was approximately if you do fringe and

[37:39] salary I believe it's around 90%.

[37:42] which is which covers

[37:45] >> offsets the other months he's not in

[37:47] school

[37:48] >> but you also have that's just salary and

[37:51] fringe you have vehicle [laughter] fuel

[37:54] uh the vehicle

[37:55] >> you have their equipment their you know

[37:57] their technology their body cameras

[37:59] evidence storage um there's a whole

[38:02] myriad things that cost not only our SRO

[38:06] but our evidence staff storing it it's

[38:09] just yeah we you [clears throat] could

[38:11] dive into that really deep

[38:15] >> and do we know is are they paying us the

[38:17] same as the Twilla SRO officers?

[38:20] >> Yes, there's one difference um with

[38:22] Tilla City. They Tilla City sergeant is

[38:27] uh paid um but he also is over a school

[38:31] as well but they pay a portion for the

[38:32] supervisor. That's one thing I also

[38:34] wanted is u want to bring up. Well, we

[38:38] have to supervise these people and it

[38:39] takes our supervision u from our

[38:42] investigation division to do that. So

[38:44] there there's a there's a large cost. So

[38:47] but you look at the other I I want an

[38:50] officer in that school if something

[38:51] happens. So yes, there's all this, but

[38:56] the bottom line is if we can be there to

[38:58] protect the kids and staff,

[39:00] >> you know,

[39:02] >> but how do we make it more fair and

[39:04] equitable as the county and the city?

[39:08] That would be

[39:08] >> Would you say that the officer 100% of

[39:11] their time during the school year is

[39:12] dedicated to the school or as any of

[39:14] their ancillary time? Is there any time?

[39:16] We try to we try to divvy up them case

[39:19] loads um so they can help and they will

[39:21] take anything that has to do with the

[39:23] student case load.

[39:24] >> Okay.

[39:25] >> But if

[39:27] >> there's a little bit of overlap there is

[39:28] a little bit

[39:29] >> and we try we try to we try to work it

[39:31] to the most efficient way we can on but

[39:34] if they work eight hours eight hours um

[39:36] for 5 days a week that's their 40 hours.

[39:38] if they have to go to a interview after

[39:40] school or anything, then I'm paying

[39:42] overtime, you know, because they have to

[39:44] be there or I'm sending a patrol guy

[39:45] over there to cover the school or

[39:47] another investigator. So, it's just it's

[39:50] just a continual process.

[39:53] >> With more staff, it would help, but we

[39:54] are where we are right now and we'll work through it and go further.

[39:57] You guys know where we're at, so

[40:02] » we here.

[40:03] >> Yeah, you guys know.

[40:08] Mayor, I make a motion that we approve

[40:10] resolution 2026-661

[40:12] approving theou with Tula County School

[40:14] District for the school resource officer

[40:17] services for the 2026 2027 school year.

[40:22] >> Thank you. We have a motion by Council

[40:24] Member Butler. Is there a second?

[40:26] >> Second.

[40:27] by Council Member Williams. All

[40:29] in favor?

[40:30] >> I.

[40:30] >> Thank you.

[40:34] The next item um agenda item number five

[40:36] is the public hearing item. So the way

[40:39] this will work is we will have a um a

[40:41] presentation I'm assuming by Aspen. Is

[40:43] that correct?

[40:44] >> Sure.

[40:45] >> Um Aspen will give us just a brief

[40:47] update on this. Then we will open it up

[40:50] for comments if anybody would like to

[40:51] make a comment regarding just this item.

[40:54] And then we will close it for a

[40:56] discussion for the council to make a

[40:58] decision on agenda item number five.

[41:03] And we've looked at the budget a

[41:06] thousand times, but

[41:08] >> yeah. So,

[41:08] >> just the one minute rendition.

[41:10] >> Yeah. So, um this is just to approve the

[41:14] final budget for our fiscal year 2027

[41:19] um following our truth and taxation

[41:20] hearing that we had on August 5th. So,

[41:24] this just shows in the highlighted

[41:25] section. Previously, we had had the

[41:27] additional property tax revenue that was

[41:30] proposed should we move forward with the

[41:32] increase budgeted in that 10311

[41:35] line um because we had to show that it

[41:38] was budgeted separately in our interim

[41:40] budget as to not be confused with

[41:42] available budget. So this final budget

[41:46] just shows that that what was in line

[41:48] 10311 is now going to be budgeted for in

[41:51] 103110

[41:52] as it will be

[41:55] um assumed that we will receive it

[41:56] during

[41:58] uh when we receive property taxes. And

[42:00] then this is the revenue side and then

[42:02] Alicia if you scroll down to the parks

[42:04] and rec side um it's the only line

[42:08] that's impacted in the expenses. Um,

[42:12] yeah, it's a little ways down. Sorry.

[42:15] >> That's okay.

[42:17] >> It's also highlighted in yellow.

[42:19] >> Oh, thanks. That will help.

[42:20] >> Yeah,

[42:22] >> right there. Um, this shows that we did

[42:25] have previously in our interim budget,

[42:27] it was budgeted in 106410. Again, that

[42:29] TNT holding account just to show that

[42:31] the additional revenue was held

[42:33] separately. Um but it is now been it

[42:37] will be budgeted for in the salaries and

[42:39] wages, employee benefits and health

[42:40] insurance lines accordingly. So those

[42:43] are the three lines that are increasing

[42:45] just in our final budget. Those are the

[42:47] only changes from the already approved

[42:48] interim budget

[42:50] >> for this final budget. So

[42:52] >> okay, thank you.

[42:54] >> Yeah.

[42:54] >> All right. We will open it up to public

[42:56] hearing. If anyone would like to make a

[42:58] comment regarding this item, uh now is

[43:00] your opportunity.

[43:02] Anyone

[43:07] online? Alicia,

[43:10] >> you just want to remind them if you are

[43:12] online and you'd like to make a comment,

[43:13] if you will, please raise your hand.

[43:23] » No.

[43:24] >> All right, we will close the public

[43:26] hearing and move on to a discussion with

[43:28] the council or a motion to approve or

[43:30] deny.

[43:36] I think we've talked about it enough.

[43:38] >> You want to talk numbers? Mayor, I'd

[43:40] like to show that we approve resolution

[43:42] 2026-60 adopting the final fiscal um

[43:46] year 2027 budget for Gransville City.

[43:48] >> We have a motion by council member

[43:50] Skinner. Is there a second?

[43:51] >> Second.

[43:52] by council member Butler. All in

[43:54] favor?

[43:54] >> I.

[43:56] >> All right.

[43:59] Moving to agenda item number six,

[44:02] consideration of resolution 2026-64

[44:05] accepting the Rocky Mountain Power Blue

[44:07] Sky funding award for the city's solar

[44:09] and battery project and authorizing the

[44:12] city manager and appropriate city staff

[44:14] to execute the award accept acceptance

[44:17] agreement and related documents.

[44:21] >> Is are you speaking on this Michael? I

[44:23] want to inter we had Bill Cuomo and the

[44:25] Rock Mountain Power Team and Blue Sky

[44:27] Grant people. I want them to come up

[44:29] here and have a say, but I wanted to say

[44:31] that when the last time Bill was here,

[44:33] he

[44:35] council authorized him to apply for the

[44:37] Blue Sky Grant and he he did that and

[44:40] the it came back as an award and so

[44:42] they're going to present that tonight

[44:44] and then the council will decide whether

[44:45] they want to accept that award and

[44:47] proceed with that the next phases and

[44:49] steps and Bill will kind of touch on

[44:50] that as well. So, if you guys want to

[44:52] come up.

[44:53] >> All right. Thank you and welcome.

[45:02] » So, this one's kind of fun. I mean, it's

[45:04] kind of been a heavy day and it's kind

[45:05] of fun to come up and say hello. Um,

[45:09] everybody knows me. I'm Nick Jenkins,

[45:11] wrestling coach, soccer coach, proud

[45:12] Gville city member. Um, this is a cool

[45:16] thing. Uh as I don't know everybody

[45:18] knows Blue Sky is an opportunity that

[45:20] everybody that Rocky Mountain Power Rate

[45:23] base has the opportunity to contribute

[45:25] to a fund which is the Blue Sky fund and

[45:27] this is an addition to their bill. And

[45:30] where this money comes from is if people

[45:31] pay it in to develop opportunities to

[45:34] develop renewable energy. It's an

[45:37] opportunity to better communities um

[45:42] make the world a better place. It's a

[45:44] pretty cool project. I don't know

[45:45] everybody has the opportunity to

[45:46] contribute to that. You can sign into

[45:48] that. Um with me today is my friend Bill

[45:50] Ko. Um Bill spent a lot of time working

[45:53] with this program. Um when we looked at

[45:56] the program working with Jessica Dalton

[45:58] who's hiding in the back because she's

[46:00] bashful. She is our blue sky project

[46:02] manager. We looked at it and we needed

[46:04] to move quickly. There was a tax

[46:06] incentives that we were able to take

[46:08] play take advantage of two months ago

[46:10] with Bill's help. Um, like I said, you

[46:12] authorized Bill to write the grant and

[46:15] I'm familiar with the numbers of what

[46:17] we've done in the past and I think you

[46:19] guys should probably agree these numbers

[46:20] are spectacular.

[46:21] >> Um, there was a lot of things the bill

[46:23] was able to do to help city. Um, I hate

[46:27] to say he's every penny you can get out

[46:29] of us, but I kind of think he did.

[46:30] [laughter]

[46:32] But the nice part about it is so today

[46:34] as far as the award notified, but the

[46:37] check is for $1.25 million.

[46:41] So

[46:47] what this project is for, we all know

[46:49] that we've got an incoming water

[46:50] treatment facility coming in. We've

[46:52] mandated by the state. We're required to

[46:54] have it. The beautiful part about this

[46:56] is we're going to help offset the cost

[46:58] of putting in a solar field and a

[47:00] battery to offset the operational costs

[47:03] of that plant. So we can't stop the

[47:07] plant, but we can support it. We're here

[47:09] to help you. We're excited to team up

[47:10] with Grantsville City. Um, I think this

[47:13] has been beyond a win-win and it's fun

[47:15] to be a part of. Um, is there anything

[47:17] you wanted to mention?

[47:20] >> Uh, I will say about the grant itself,

[47:23] um, they did do something that they

[47:25] haven't ever done in the past. $250,000

[47:27] of that 1.25 million is an upfront

[47:30] payment to help you get to the next

[47:32] phase. So, if you guys accept the award,

[47:35] you'll get $250,000 to move forward with

[47:37] project development. and engineering

[47:40] which takes you to that phase three

[47:42] period where you'll have actual

[47:44] contracts, more refined numbers, what

[47:47] the project would actually look like and

[47:49] then that would be your go no-go

[47:50] decision to actually perform on the

[47:52] project. So you still have one more

[47:53] opportunity to take it to the next level

[47:56] and then based upon that information

[47:58] choose yes or no.

[48:02] >> Thank you. Thank you very much.

[48:03] >> Yes. So any other questions we can

[48:06] answer to the council? We're happy to be

[48:08] here and y

[48:09] >> I appreciate Bill and Jessica driving

[48:10] out to stand with me today.

[48:14] >> Do any council members have questions

[48:15] for Bill or Nick?

[48:18] >> Um, a lot of times we see grants where

[48:22] we have matching funds.

[48:24] >> Um, I'm assuming that this isn't one of

[48:25] those. Obviously, if a project and once

[48:29] it's decided, once it comes before us,

[48:31] it may exceed that amount, but

[48:32] [clears throat] that'll be on the city

[48:33] to be able to to to pay for that to

[48:35] >> cover the to uh to pay for the overage

[48:39] on that, but that's a that's an awfully

[48:41] big check, right? So, yeah, thank you.

[48:45] >> Yeah, thanks for the opportunity. Well,

[48:47] and just to address council uh council

[48:49] member uh red but

[48:54] councilman red. Um [clears throat] so

[48:56] the cool part about this is these awards

[48:58] are awarded on merit an opportunity to

[49:01] complete and impact a community. So I

[49:05] mean this is huge for our little small

[49:07] community. I mean are we officially to

[49:09] 17,000 yet? You [laughter] know, I know

[49:11] we doubled since I moved out here 10 11

[49:13] years ago, but at the same time, this is

[49:16] based on merit. This is based on impact

[49:18] community, and you know, the Rocky

[49:20] Mountain slogan is powering your

[49:21] greatness, and that's what this is.

[49:23] >> It's great. So,

[49:25] >> no, thank you. Um, and I know we went we

[49:28] went through the initiation portion of

[49:30] this, but I I Bill, if you wouldn't mind

[49:33] maybe kind of walking through the

[49:35] process

[49:36] >> from a high level if if that's okay.

[49:38] Really quickly, just so just so that I

[49:41] think the more we allow the residents to get an understanding what Yeah, this

[49:46] is fantastic. and and I don't need you

[49:48] to spend a ton of time, but I think if

[49:49] you could just walk through a quick

[49:50] >> overview kind of how that process goes,

[49:53] you know, as you mentioned, there's

[49:54] still a go no-go

[49:55] >> uh as we look at that and evaluate it,

[49:57] but this is a great this is a great step

[49:59] in the right direction. Thank you.

[50:00] >> Yes, when this opportunity came up and

[50:03] we looked at it, we realized that we had

[50:04] to run really fast. within a four to six

[50:07] week period, we pulled together an a lot

[50:09] of analysis to look at what the

[50:10] opportunity would be for you and your

[50:13] actions before July 4th of this year

[50:16] gave you the opportunity also for a 30

[50:18] to 40% tax credit on top of this

[50:21] project. So that was the first phase is

[50:23] do we even put in for a grant

[50:25] opportunity and then also allow make a

[50:28] decision that qualifies for tax credits

[50:31] um if this project moves forward which

[50:33] had to be done by July 4th by you guys

[50:35] putting with the project that was phase

[50:37] one you you said yes then we moved

[50:40] forward with the grant mountain power

[50:42] came through with that grant uh this is

[50:45] phase phase two where you evaluate the

[50:47] grant decide to move forward um then if

[50:50] you choose yes phase Three is where

[50:52] advanced engineering and I'll call it

[50:55] project development occurs is where it's

[50:58] vetting everything where the engineer

[51:00] come out here you look at the property

[51:02] you look at the runs and then you start

[51:05] doing pricing uh you do RFPs um you look

[51:08] at a contract for a contractor to be

[51:11] able to what those costs would be um and

[51:14] then a package would come to you and say

[51:15] this is what it would look like here's

[51:17] what the cost would be and here's some

[51:19] contracts from the RFP P, which gets you

[51:22] to the end of phase three. And then

[51:24] phase four, the end of phase three is

[51:25] the decision to move forward to um

[51:27] construction. And that timing for phase

[51:30] three from um from now would actually be

[51:33] about up to eight months and then the

[51:35] construction project could be up to a

[51:37] year. But the idea is to have it in uh

[51:39] have it target by the end of next year

[51:42] and align as closely as possible to the

[51:45] wastewater block treatment plant.

[51:48] >> Thank you. Thanks for doing that.

[51:50] >> Oh yes. Sound welcome.

[51:52] >> If it in phase three it became too

[51:54] expensive and we didn't we said no. Do

[51:57] we have to pay the 250,000 back?

[52:01] >> That's a Rock Mountain Power question.

[52:04] >> The answer is no. I just want to make

[52:06] sure. The answer is no.

[52:08] >> Didn't want to give my ski tips on that.

[52:10] [laughter]

[52:11] >> It's a it's a it's a grant for

[52:13] development.

[52:14] >> Great.

[52:16] out of fairness though that if if it's all about in good faith because

[52:22] those funds do go towards good projects.

[52:25] So I would encou I mean

[52:28] approve the project if you intend if you

[52:30] feel like the economics that you saw

[52:32] made sense and it's something you move

[52:34] forward with. If not that's okay because

[52:36] we'll those those funds will get

[52:38] reallocated somewhere else. So I I do

[52:39] appreciate you asking that

[52:43] as we walk through that design process.

[52:45] We could probably look at options to VE

[52:49] or get it within a range that would not

[52:52] impact the citizens as well. So,

[52:54] >> or also to scale it.

[52:56] >> Yeah.

[52:56] >> So, make it smaller or bigger and

[52:59] >> Exactly.

[53:00] >> provide provisions down the road to be

[53:02] able to add to it if needs be. So, there

[53:04] I think I think we've got I think we got

[53:06] a bunch of different options.

[53:09] [clears throat]

[53:10] >> Only we had an electrician on the

[53:11] council. [laughter]

[53:13] >> No.

[53:17] » [clears throat]

[53:17] >> What was the on?

[53:18] >> That's not a good one. [laughter]

[53:24] » And just the one thing to kind of keep

[53:26] in perspective, the return on

[53:29] investment.

[53:30] >> So the equipment's, you know, 25 30 year

[53:32] equipment.

[53:33] >> I believe the ROI is five years.

[53:35] >> Yeah.

[53:35] >> So after the five years, you're

[53:38] >> depending on where you go with it.

[53:39] >> Yeah. And that's including the tax

[53:40] credits as well. You got that built into

[53:42] the Yep.

[53:43] >> Yeah. just just kind of makes sense.

[53:45] >> Yeah.

[53:46] >> Especially when you're getting tax

[53:47] credits and you're starting out with a

[53:49] big shot in the arm of $1.25 million.

[53:52] >> Is that friendship douche?

[53:53] >> Yes, I consider that friendship now.

[53:55] >> All right. [laughter]

[54:03] » Thank you.

[54:03] >> Any other questions?

[54:04] >> No, thank you.

[54:06] >> Anyone want to make a motion?

[54:09] >> Was Mike?

[54:11] No, I reiterate all of that and it's

[54:13] been great working with uh Bill and Roat

[54:16] Power. We are working on a contract with

[54:19] Mr. Ko to because we do want him to lead

[54:22] us in this adventure of getting and

[54:24] securing all the funds and because he

[54:26] has all that experience. So, we're

[54:27] trying to uh finalize that. We weren't

[54:30] able to get that on this agenda, but we

[54:31] are trying to get that on the next one.

[54:33] Great.

[54:35] I make a motion we approve resolution

[54:37] 2026-64

[54:39] accepting the Rocky Mountain Power Blue

[54:41] Sky funding award for the city's solar

[54:44] and battery project and authorizing the

[54:46] city manager and appropriate city staff

[54:48] to execute the award acceptance

[54:51] agreement and related documents.

[54:53] >> Thank you. We have a motion by council

[54:55] member Butler. Is there a second?

[54:57] >> I'll second.

[54:57] >> Second by council member Dalton. All in

[55:00] favor?

[55:01] >> Hi I.

[55:02] >> And we'd love a picture. Come on up.

[55:06] No, they're

[55:06] >> great.

[55:20] [laughter]

[55:25] is part of the fun. Come on up.

[55:27] >> Do it instead.

[55:36] [clears throat]

[55:44] » All right. One, two, three. Say solar.

[55:48] » Perfect.

[55:50] Thank you.

[56:02] Good to see you.

[56:03] >> St. Charles,

[56:17] » we've had some pretty good sized ones

[56:18] over the years, but that'll

[56:20] >> That's a good one. That's a

[56:22] >> that that one breaks the bank.

[56:24] That's good. It's a

[56:29] » All right, moving on to agenda item

[56:31] number seven.

[56:33] Consideration of ordinance 2026-27

[56:36] approving the Allington planned unit

[56:38] development located at approximately 948

[56:41] East Main Street, uh, SR138 within the

[56:45] mixeduse zoning district.

[56:49] Oh. Oh, hi Joe.

[56:52] >> Sorry. I wasn't sure if he was online or

[56:53] not.

[56:56] Um, you want to scroll down and show the

[57:00] layout?

[57:01] >> Well, hold on.

[57:07] » The layout.

[57:20] So, this um development did have a

[57:23] previous approval um back in 2022, I

[57:27] believe, and it did go through a few

[57:29] reiterations, which I've included in the

[57:31] staff reports of both the meeting

[57:33] minutes, resolutions, and prior layouts

[57:36] of this um development. In the planning

[57:39] commission meeting, there were

[57:40] discussions um about the property that

[57:43] is still in Twilla County. So, it's not

[57:46] um Sun Valley Drive is not within

[57:48] Grantsville City boundaries. So, our um

[57:52] animal setbacks and and things like that

[57:55] do not apply to Sun Valley. Um so, we

[57:58] wouldn't be restricting how far they

[58:00] need to set back. That would be up to

[58:02] Twilla County. um in the planning

[58:05] commission meeting that was addressed in

[58:06] our MDA. Um I believe it was um G3 in

[58:11] the MDA, but that is something that

[58:12] we'll address um on the next agenda

[58:15] item. We address the fence height. We

[58:18] put added language in there that um you

[58:21] know restricts the um owners of the

[58:24] Ellington subdivision from complaining

[58:27] about the animals or animal smells or

[58:29] any nuisances um of the individuals who

[58:31] live on Sun Valley Drive. We also

[58:33] required a 7T um fence along the western

[58:37] side and the southern side of this

[58:40] development. Uh we left the eastern side

[58:44] open because it is an open field and

[58:46] connectivity for a potential future

[58:49] development if that next property ever

[58:51] develops out. This is um composed of I

[58:55] believe 256

[58:59] or 255 units

[59:02] um and

[59:04] which is an increase of the prior

[59:07] approval. It does have the commercial

[59:09] area which is required in our MU. Um and

[59:12] they are asking for the deviations.

[59:13] That's no secret. Um on the next page,

[59:16] if you'll scroll down one, I have

[59:18] included the deviation table as well as

[59:21] highlighted um specific areas that are

[59:25] not meeting the code. And I have

[59:26] provided um what our code says on the

[59:30] left and there it goes um have

[59:33] highlighted the areas that are not

[59:34] meeting the code on the right

[59:37] in blue and and other colors. Did you

[59:40] guys have any questions?

[59:53] And I did want to point out that this is

[59:56] zoned in the MU. So they do they are

[59:58] allowed um for smaller lots. So you know

[1:00:02] single family lots are 4,000 square ft

[1:00:04] and multifamily

[1:00:06] um lots are 2400 ft². They do have

[1:00:09] smaller bufferings, lot sizes, setbacks

[1:00:11] and things like that. But the MU can be

[1:00:14] more restrictive as far as requiring

[1:00:15] commercial um open space and other

[1:00:18] items.

[1:00:22] » Do you feel like that this um proposal

[1:00:24] that we have in front of us today is

[1:00:26] hitting the mark in regards to the

[1:00:28] commercial aspect?

[1:00:32] >> I mean I feel like it's a little light.

[1:00:33] It could, you know, we could provide

[1:00:35] more commercial like where the RV

[1:00:36] contractor parking is or even over where

[1:00:39] the storage units are. Um or we could

[1:00:41] leave that. I mean, the storage units

[1:00:43] and the RV contractor parking could be

[1:00:46] considered a commercial um use in that

[1:00:49] aspect. It also doesn't make sense to

[1:00:52] line all of what you can see is

[1:00:55] Allington Way with commercial when

[1:00:57] that's not the main corridor. The main

[1:00:59] corridor is SR 138. Um, and that's where

[1:01:03] you want your commercial. That's where

[1:01:04] commercial wants to come. And you're not

[1:01:06] going to want to put it down by Dery

[1:01:08] Street on Allington uh way. So, I I feel

[1:01:12] like we're there. It might be a little

[1:01:14] on the short side, but that's ultimately

[1:01:16] up to city council on that discretion.

[1:01:19] Um, these flex homes are very neat. So,

[1:01:24] um, these homes come in different, uh,

[1:01:27] designs and layouts, and I don't know if

[1:01:30] you want to look that up on, um, Google,

[1:01:32] you can just type in flex homes in Utah.

[1:01:36] Um, but

[1:01:39] the homeowner can either have just the

[1:01:41] home built and then the footings and all

[1:01:44] the electrical and plumbing is already

[1:01:46] stubbed in. So, if they want to um

[1:01:49] refinance and add an addition, whether

[1:01:51] it's a garage, a patio, or maybe a

[1:01:53] garage with an ADU or an office or they

[1:01:55] need to expand their house, all of the

[1:01:58] footings and everything is there. So,

[1:02:00] it's an easy addition for that

[1:02:03] individual or that homeowner to be able

[1:02:05] to add on. And so, it really does make

[1:02:07] these homes very affordable in that

[1:02:10] sense.

[1:02:12] Um, we just go to all

[1:02:16] and go to keep going. Um, sorry, scroll

[1:02:20] just a little bit and click on flex

[1:02:21] ready homes

[1:02:26] and then scroll to the bottom.

[1:02:30] Scroll up just Oh, no. Keep going.

[1:02:34] Go.

[1:02:34] >> Okay. Sorry. Scroll up just a little

[1:02:36] bit.

[1:02:36] >> Presentation deck.

[1:02:37] >> Yeah.

[1:02:40] >> Before you move on, this is a website

[1:02:42] representing the actual

[1:02:44] developer/contractor.

[1:02:46] >> No. Um, this is representing the home

[1:02:49] style that is being placed on this. We

[1:02:52] just want to press.

[1:02:53] >> So, okay.

[1:02:57] This illustrates a flex design. I guess

[1:03:01] >> I have my mute on because of Yeah. No,

[1:03:03] you're fine. Me, too. Can actually still

[1:03:26] maybe loading.

[1:03:32] » So, this is just an example of

[1:03:36] the layout. Um, not not this specific

[1:03:40] layout, but they just drew um a layout

[1:03:43] for Twilla County when we were speaking

[1:03:44] with uh the Flex Home

[1:03:48] Group.

[1:03:57] No. All right.

[1:04:00] I don't know. I can't see the password

[1:04:02] on it. I don't know if you can. Oh,

[1:04:06] >> maybe drag it a little bit.

[1:04:08] >> I was I had

[1:04:09] >> Will you pause it? Actually,

[1:04:13] >> so before she paused it, you could see

[1:04:15] that um the home had a gap in between it

[1:04:18] and then the crotch. So that was the

[1:04:19] home. Then you had a patio and then they

[1:04:21] were able to add the garage on. So all

[1:04:23] the footings you can play again. All the

[1:04:25] footings um were on there.

[1:04:29] And so this home here has the house and

[1:04:31] then the extension of the garage on the

[1:04:33] back. You can just keep going.

[1:04:36] And then this home here has the patio

[1:04:38] and the garage behind. Um but they can

[1:04:40] also extend that further. Yes, these are

[1:04:43] um slab on grade twotory homes up

[1:04:47] um which does make it affordable in that

[1:04:51] sense that they're not digging a

[1:04:53] basement and um going that route.

[1:04:57] And then once this camera will actually

[1:04:59] flip around, you'll see the backside of

[1:05:01] how they're entering like where they can

[1:05:02] park the homes, what the other additions

[1:05:05] look like, um and the design and layout

[1:05:08] of these houses. They are fronted by um

[1:05:12] two streets. So you'll have your main

[1:05:13] road and then you'll have an alleyway um

[1:05:16] that they will use to park. So like that

[1:05:19] greenhouse was just the house, but you

[1:05:21] seen the footings to where they could

[1:05:23] add maybe expand the house or add the

[1:05:25] garages to it.

[1:05:32] So if ADUs are allowed, are we doubling?

[1:05:35] Instead of 255 families, we're cramming

[1:05:38] 500. And

[1:05:40] um sorry, I did the math. An additional

[1:05:43] 255 families in here.

[1:05:46] >> Well, it's not a separate house. So, I

[1:05:48] mean, yeah, you could have your, you

[1:05:50] know, your mom live with you, but what's

[1:05:52] the difference between you having an ADU

[1:05:54] in your basement versus them having it

[1:05:58] on their house? Uh, we also do have

[1:06:01] requirements for ADUs as far as

[1:06:02] restricting lot sizes. And so these

[1:06:06] wouldn't comply with the ADU

[1:06:07] requirements.

[1:06:10] >> I believe the minimum

[1:06:11] >> mute issue.

[1:06:12] >> Yes.

[1:06:13] >> Okay. And stop saying ADUs. Right.

[1:06:15] [laughter]

[1:06:20] » You can pause it.

[1:06:25] » I had a question regarding like I know

[1:06:27] they're like modular. So, if you back up

[1:06:30] a little bit, you can obviously see

[1:06:31] where the foundations

[1:06:33] come out and they've finished them with

[1:06:36] something to make them look presentable.

[1:06:39] Is that is that how that would look or

[1:06:42] would it look just like a gray

[1:06:44] foundation there with bolts sticking out

[1:06:46] of it type of

[1:06:48] >> No, it would be finished that way.

[1:06:50] Obviously, you don't want the bolts

[1:06:51] >> and I really apologize for that, but my

[1:06:54] first thought when I looked at this was the kids. Um

[1:06:59] and and the safety of each family at I'm

[1:07:03] going to be really conservative. If each

[1:07:05] house has two kids, there's 500 kids

[1:07:09] coming into this development.

[1:07:12] Can

[1:07:14] I'm just worried. Will you point out

[1:07:17] where they're going to play catch

[1:07:19] outside, where the where the open space

[1:07:22] is, where they're going to play,

[1:07:24] >> where the walking trails is, and I'd

[1:07:26] just love to hear what HOA manies there

[1:07:29] are.

[1:07:31] >> Let me zoom out. So,

[1:07:33] >> need that pointer.

[1:07:35] >> Um, right here is the main open space

[1:07:38] area. Has a total

[1:07:42] layout. So until we get to the the

[1:07:44] nitty-gritty of the preliminary and the

[1:07:46] final,

[1:07:48] it's hard to say how wide that is and

[1:07:50] where that's at. Yeah, we're able to

[1:07:51] measure some, but that's always going to

[1:07:53] adjust once you get into the survey.

[1:07:56] And then on this side, this strip

[1:07:58] extends further.

[1:08:03] This opens up. You have to, you know,

[1:08:05] pick a ball court or something along

[1:08:06] this way. And we can fill this space in

[1:08:09] as well. But I mean, those are decisions

[1:08:12] ultimately up to council as far as what

[1:08:14] amenities they want. Do they feel like

[1:08:15] it's enough open space? Do you guys want

[1:08:18] more?

[1:08:18] >> Is that a retention basin right there

[1:08:20] that you just pointed to?

[1:08:21] >> This is a retention basin. And then down

[1:08:23] further,

[1:08:24] >> there's one on the other side.

[1:08:26] >> Yeah, I believe there's two on the other

[1:08:27] side.

[1:08:30] » So, do how big is that where the trees

[1:08:33] are? How big? I tried to find that.

[1:08:37] What's the How big is that? If you give

[1:08:40] me a second,

[1:08:42] >> that would be the measure.

[1:08:46] >> The the street width is 27 feet. Looks

[1:08:49] about the same.

[1:08:50] >> Yeah, that's what I was thinking.

[1:08:56] » 20 ft. Not a lot.

[1:09:05] It says [clears throat] there's 6.8 8

[1:09:07] acres of open space area.

[1:09:10] >> Looks like the majority of which would

[1:09:12] be retention basins.

[1:09:15] >> There's four of them, right?

[1:09:16] >> Yeah,

[1:09:16] >> that's what she pointed out.

[1:09:18] >> Mhm. Correct.

[1:09:29] » Are there any concept design? Are all

[1:09:32] the homes within this flex?

[1:09:34] >> Yes.

[1:09:35] >> Okay. So, it's about 36 feet from the

[1:09:38] sidewalk to the sidewalk.

[1:09:41] >> So, no real mixed use of of of home

[1:09:44] styles in this. I mean,

[1:09:48] >> I mean, there's a mix of lot sizes. So,

[1:09:50] like if you want to zoom out, ask Aspen,

[1:09:52] so we can or Alicia, sorry. So, that we

[1:09:54] can see the whole I mean, you're going

[1:09:57] to have your full layout, which is um

[1:09:59] you have your like your red, your green,

[1:10:01] and your yellow um which is a larger

[1:10:03] lot. And then you have your smaller um

[1:10:06] single lots that are down on the west

[1:10:09] side. And then you have your, you know,

[1:10:11] I mean, they do vary in style and type

[1:10:14] throughout, but it's not um, you know, a

[1:10:17] half acre and a quarter acre and town

[1:10:19] homes.

[1:10:30] you hit on the deviations and I think

[1:10:32] we've looked at them, but I just would

[1:10:33] like to talk a little more about the

[1:10:34] sideyard deviations and what we have

[1:10:37] there and just kind of what the

[1:10:40] differences are.

[1:10:43] >> Yeah.

[1:10:47] » Um, so

[1:10:48] >> because I see some that are super close.

[1:10:50] Yes. Yes.

[1:10:51] >> And then I see others that are a little

[1:10:52] further away. And even in your YouTube

[1:10:54] video, it looked like it looked like it

[1:10:57] had more more space in between the homes

[1:11:00] than what I'm seeing on here.

[1:11:03] >> So the interior sideyards, they are

[1:11:05] requesting a 5ft sideyard setback. Um,

[1:11:10] typically it would be 7 and 1/2 ft. on

[1:11:13] the corner sideyard, which is a 25- ft

[1:11:17] um front yard sideyard. They are asking

[1:11:20] 15 ft to the living space or 20 ft to

[1:11:22] the garage with side triangle

[1:11:24] verification.

[1:11:26] And the side set back to property

[1:11:27] boundary, they're asking for 10 ft.

[1:11:31] Um and then the front yard, they're

[1:11:33] asking for 15 feet to the living space

[1:11:35] and 20 feet to the garage. Alley parking

[1:11:37] access, 10 feet to the living space.

[1:11:44] So I just want to read one thing from

[1:11:46] our mixeduse ordinance. Um under the

[1:11:49] purpose and intent it says developments

[1:11:51] in the mixeduse zone shall be designed

[1:11:53] so as to integrate the residential and

[1:11:56] commercial components into a harmonous

[1:11:59] develop development and be to be

[1:12:01] compatible with the existing or

[1:12:04] anticipated uses of the surrounding

[1:12:06] properties.

[1:12:07] And I don't see that with this concept.

[1:12:13] Um,

[1:12:19] shall we maybe walk us back? So, this

[1:12:21] went through a process in 2022.

[1:12:24] Um,

[1:12:26] >> do we have that concept plan that we

[1:12:28] could pull up, Alicia?

[1:12:30] >> Can you see this one, right?

[1:12:32] >> And you weren't involved with this in

[1:12:34] 2022.

[1:12:35] >> Okay. just to make sure that you know

[1:12:37] you're

[1:12:38] >> she can go back to the notes and the

[1:12:40] meeting minutes, but she was not

[1:12:42] >> in the position she's in.

[1:12:43] >> Okay.

[1:12:49] » Did you upload the staff report?

[1:12:52] >> Um,

[1:12:54] >> was there report?

[1:12:56] >> I believe so. Yeah. No, it's not enough.

[1:13:01] >> I know. I was in attendance at that

[1:13:02] meeting, just attending and yeah, it's

[1:13:05] very different from what this is.

[1:13:12] It was uploaded into your Google form.

[1:13:37] I'll just say this. I you you'll get it

[1:13:38] eventually. Um so why is it vastly

[1:13:41] different? Why why did we what made us

[1:13:44] shift gears? What's the what's the

[1:13:46] reasoning for it? I

[1:13:47] >> think that's a question Joe can answer.

[1:13:50] >> Welcome. Thank you. Yeah, I'd like to

[1:13:53] address that. Um, in 2022,

[1:13:58] Gransville City uh came to me and uh we

[1:14:01] were working on this plan and and did

[1:14:03] some Gransville City wanted to put a

[1:14:05] sewer line through that property and uh

[1:14:09] of course

[1:14:11] the Romney group, you know, threatened

[1:14:13] condemnation, all that stuff and I knew

[1:14:14] they couldn't do that. But so I got an

[1:14:16] agreement with the city to serve this

[1:14:18] property for 254 lots

[1:14:22] um [clears throat] knowing that I would

[1:14:25] pay that I would pay a proportionate

[1:14:27] back to the city uh uh when we got

[1:14:31] approval. But the agreement with or with

[1:14:34] Grantsville City said that we just

[1:14:36] wanted they if I granted them the

[1:14:38] easement they would give me the

[1:14:40] connections. there would be no fee on my

[1:14:42] end for

[1:14:44] uh [clears throat]

[1:14:45] the sewer capacity there. Well, all of a

[1:14:48] sudden, I get a bill from Romney's for

[1:14:50] half a million dollars. I'm like, wait a

[1:14:52] minute, that's not our agreement, and

[1:14:54] there's no signed agreement. Uh they

[1:14:56] keep telling me that there's an

[1:14:57] agreement, but I told them, you know,

[1:15:00] paperwork speaks for itself. So, I met

[1:15:01] with Grantsville City, uh met multiple

[1:15:04] times, we went through it. We we will be

[1:15:07] paying back the sewer with with this

[1:15:10] design. Um and it's in the MDA to to pay

[1:15:15] it back. Uh but to pay to pay that just

[1:15:18] because

[1:15:20] um I I believe that the second part of

[1:15:23] this is the I know it's a lot of units.

[1:15:27] There's no you know doubt about that.

[1:15:30] And the variances come with some give

[1:15:33] and take. So the the property's

[1:15:36] permitted like I can build right now

[1:15:38] permitted without a PUD 255

[1:15:43] town homes 10 packs. Awful.

[1:15:47] Um they're they're town homes are not

[1:15:51] they're not really good resellers. Uh

[1:15:53] they're they're not good long-term uh

[1:15:55] economic they don't hold their value.

[1:15:58] So we [clears throat] met with

[1:15:59] Gransville City, what's it a year and a

[1:16:01] half ago? absolutely

[1:16:02] >> a year and a half ago and started

[1:16:04] talking about what this property could

[1:16:05] be used for and uh instead of just

[1:16:08] putting that on there, we came up with

[1:16:10] this and I I know the word modular was

[1:16:12] used. It's not a modular they're not

[1:16:14] modularly built. They're they're stick

[1:16:16] frame

[1:16:18] uh construction. They have the same

[1:16:20] components as a regular house. We we

[1:16:23] believe that the single family

[1:16:26] uh component to this is much better than

[1:16:28] a town home or apartments or condos.

[1:16:32] Uh so there is some deviation but it's

[1:16:34] not it's it's not going above and beyond

[1:16:37] what is already permitted on the

[1:16:39] property.

[1:16:41] So uh with that being said we've tried

[1:16:43] to leave trails. We've tried to leave

[1:16:45] commercial. I I don't know very many I'm surprised that Soulbergs went on

[1:16:50] Dery. I hope it I hope it really works

[1:16:51] and I think the growth if it goes that

[1:16:53] way I don't know many places if you look

[1:16:55] at Tilla or even other places where

[1:16:58] anything back 1,000 ft or 500 ft from

[1:17:01] the main main road becomes very viable

[1:17:04] commercial most of it is right there on

[1:17:06] the frontage. Um so we've tried to be

[1:17:09] aware of that. We've tried to uh be

[1:17:12] cognizant of providing a really good

[1:17:14] project and you know you talk about kids

[1:17:17] where are the kids going to go? Let's

[1:17:19] look. Where are they now?

[1:17:22] Where are these kids now?

[1:17:25] >> They're living in basements. Their

[1:17:27] parents ba or you know grandparents'

[1:17:28] basements. They're living in apartments

[1:17:30] where the same the same dynamic exists.

[1:17:32] It's not like um you're taking kids on 5

[1:17:35] acre lots and putting them here. This

[1:17:38] gives them an area to call their own to

[1:17:41] be a home where maybe they don't ever

[1:17:44] get that. So, I know there's concerns

[1:17:46] about

[1:17:48] um

[1:17:50] uh the things that are there, but we've

[1:17:52] worked really hard uh to make this

[1:17:54] amanable with a lot of collaboration

[1:17:57] with the city, with the city engineers.

[1:18:00] Um we've looked at all the sewer, all

[1:18:02] the things that uh has been talked about

[1:18:05] tonight

[1:18:07] has been addressed by them. And so, it's

[1:18:11] not I mean, we just didn't throw this

[1:18:12] together thinking, "Oh, this will be

[1:18:13] good." We really have spent a lot of

[1:18:15] time seeing what will keep what can meet

[1:18:18] our our needs, what will help us pay

[1:18:20] back the sewer for the city at a half a

[1:18:22] million dollars, and what's a good

[1:18:24] long-term project for people to to have

[1:18:28] a place to live. And we we found that

[1:18:30] detached housing

[1:18:32] with a sideyard, even if it's 5t or 6

[1:18:35] feet, is better than attached housing in

[1:18:37] a town home project. It their resale

[1:18:40] values are better. They build equity

[1:18:41] faster. And so this is what we what we

[1:18:44] kind of settled on.

[1:18:53] Alicia, how many units are I'm probably

[1:18:56] just missing it, but how many are in

[1:18:58] this approved layout from 2022?

[1:19:02] » Anyone know?

[1:19:03] >> 72, I think.

[1:19:23] Do you know that?

[1:19:26] [clears throat]

[1:19:28] » I can tell.

[1:19:32] Yes.

[1:19:36] Was

[1:19:41] it 126 + 235?

[1:19:52] I think it was 72 units.

[1:20:00] » Certainly not 2006, right?

[1:20:02] >> No, but I I'm not sure what this is. I

[1:20:05] mean, I'm sure this is important

[1:20:07] dialogue, but I'm not sure it's relevant

[1:20:09] dialogue. Each each application's

[1:20:11] handled on its own,

[1:20:13] right? So, it's not like um

[1:20:18] I don't know. I don't other than that, I

[1:20:20] don't I know it's it's out there, so

[1:20:22] it's can be addressed, but

[1:20:24] >> we'll just take it off there. We don't

[1:20:25] need to look at it. That's where you

[1:20:28] >> Well, I'm just saying that that's

[1:20:29] >> it's not relevant. Let's go away.

[1:20:31] >> Thanks.

[1:20:34] So, you brought it up in the city or

[1:20:36] planning commission meeting and I know

[1:20:38] not everyone was there. Could you just

[1:20:39] tell us what your pricing your starting

[1:20:41] pricing point is going to be on these?

[1:20:44] >> 359 to 365 is the start and then it'll

[1:20:48] go up, you know, from there.

[1:20:53] That's assuming from the planning

[1:20:54] commission from that date, you know what

[1:20:57] we have interest rates, different

[1:20:59] things.

[1:21:01] There's all kinds of factors, but that's

[1:21:03] our that's our target starting spot.

[1:21:06] >> Have you or the city have anyone talked

[1:21:09] to you do

[1:21:10] >> Yeah.

[1:21:11] >> about that road? So, I know it doesn't

[1:21:13] meet the distance from Sun Valley to

[1:21:15] where your entrance is. Are they giving

[1:21:17] They're giving you a

[1:21:18] >> They already have a recorded access from

[1:21:20] Utah on that. So, you can look up Twilla

[1:21:22] County GIS on the public record and see

[1:21:25] that Utah already owns an access

[1:21:27] >> where Allington Way is. Del lane, turn

[1:21:30] lane.

[1:21:30] >> Yeah, [clears throat] they'll have to

[1:21:31] install that.

[1:21:32] >> Yeah, they've given us the they've given

[1:21:33] us the parameters and the design.

[1:21:35] >> Turn lane coming west or is it just

[1:21:38] going to be two lanes and so everyone

[1:21:39] trying to get in?

[1:21:40] >> I'm not sure. I can't remember. It's

[1:21:42] been been a little while, but I know

[1:21:43] that there's a third lane in the middle,

[1:21:46] a middle XL diesel lane, and then a turn

[1:21:48] lane on the right going east.

[1:21:51] So, there's probably a merge, there's

[1:21:53] probably a lefthand merge lane that goes

[1:21:56] into traffic. I I'll be honest, I have

[1:22:00] not seen that for a long time. But we do

[1:22:02] have our encroachment permit and we have

[1:22:04] our design and the design came from

[1:22:06] them. They they mandated what we did.

[1:22:08] >> Yeah. And UD do you know when as we're

[1:22:11] reviewing preliminary and final plans,

[1:22:12] UD dot's always involved in those

[1:22:14] reviews. So things are always change.

[1:22:18] I mean currently our signal location

[1:22:21] study that we received in the fall of

[1:22:23] last year does not show any sort of

[1:22:26] stoplight or anything. any any sort of

[1:22:30] control of traffic there, which I mean

[1:22:34] as someone who drives home that way

[1:22:35] every day, I don't want another

[1:22:37] stoplight there. But I mean, it it is

[1:22:39] what it is. And we we uh obviously would

[1:22:43] need something there, I think, down the

[1:22:44] road. But it does not show that.

[1:22:46] >> Yeah. In our in our study that UDOT did,

[1:22:48] they came back and I guess is it called

[1:22:50] warrant? It doesn't warrant. They don't

[1:22:52] have a warrant. Well,

[1:22:54] >> warrant at five o'clock. [laughter]

[1:22:57] Oh.

[1:22:58] I'll honk when I when I tell you it

[1:23:00] warrants. [laughter] So will 500 other

[1:23:03] people.

[1:23:04] >> Plus

[1:23:05] >> I don't I don't make the rules. I just

[1:23:07] abide by

[1:23:07] >> we don't control the kind of semantics

[1:23:10] but

[1:23:11] >> um it'll come when it comes.

[1:23:14] >> So a lot of the concerns were buffer.

[1:23:18] Are you set on this plan or are you

[1:23:21] willing like so that your west end that

[1:23:25] there's half they're but up against

[1:23:26] halfacre lots in the old plan there was

[1:23:28] halfacre or yeah

[1:23:30] >> oneacre lotacre lots.

[1:23:32] >> Is there any way to get bigger lots to

[1:23:35] match up with the existing homes that

[1:23:37] are there and then ease into your

[1:23:40] density or are you this is your plan

[1:23:42] because of the sewer money that you have

[1:23:44] to pay back?

[1:23:46] Well, I mean, I I think it's a we can we

[1:23:50] can look at at something. I I think it's

[1:23:52] a good plan. I really do. Compared to

[1:23:54] what could be put there, we agree to

[1:23:57] fence the entire west side

[1:24:00] um per phase as it comes up, but you

[1:24:02] have

[1:24:04] I mean,

[1:24:06] I think you go up to almost 20 feet to

[1:24:08] the to the house

[1:24:11] and

[1:24:14] you know, I don't know. That's a pretty

[1:24:15] good buffer. I don't

[1:24:18] how many do we know how many how many

[1:24:20] people on that particular street that's

[1:24:22] on the east side of some valley have

[1:24:24] animals? I I've been down there a couple

[1:24:26] times. It's hard for me to tell because

[1:24:27] I think there's maybe four four families

[1:24:30] that have horses

[1:24:32] back there. Um

[1:24:35] >> so no, I I get it. Yeah, you're right.

[1:24:37] You're zone for animals and I'm not ever

[1:24:38] trying to take away the the right to

[1:24:40] have animals. I love it. I'm just um

[1:24:45] you know it brings up a good point. You

[1:24:47] know, we wouldn't want to take their

[1:24:48] zoning away either.

[1:24:52] » So,

[1:24:56] I would be I mean, I'd be willing to if

[1:24:57] we if we took away

[1:25:01] I mean, if we took away these bottom

[1:25:03] ones

[1:25:08] and expanded that into

[1:25:12] more um

[1:25:17] buffer zone I guess you would call it

[1:25:19] >> right um I would I would consider that

[1:25:23] it it does give you an additional you

[1:25:25] know 25 ft there and I don't give up the

[1:25:27] world

[1:25:29] in in trying to to do this but

[1:25:36] » it would add to that six acres of open

[1:25:37] space probably

[1:25:40] >> we'll measure Maybe an acre, maybe by an

[1:25:42] acre. And

[1:25:46] » so in our present code, they animals

[1:25:50] have to be there has to be 100 ft.

[1:25:53] >> Explain that to me.

[1:25:54] >> From an existing dwelling unit. If you

[1:25:56] were in Grantsville city limits, um you

[1:25:59] would measure 100 ft from the corner of

[1:26:01] an existing dwelling unit. 100 ft. And

[1:26:05] then that's where they keep it. um if

[1:26:07] they already have animals and new

[1:26:09] construction begins, they're already

[1:26:10] vested with that. So then it doesn't

[1:26:13] affect them. We've also in the MDA added

[1:26:17] language that the CCNRs need to re um

[1:26:20] notify the owners that their animals

[1:26:22] next door that they can't complain and a

[1:26:26] few other things which is um in G3 of

[1:26:29] the development agreement.

[1:26:34] » So they can't they can't complain. I

[1:26:36] mean like

[1:26:36] >> now now we're starting to go on, you

[1:26:38] know, on freedom of speech and I mean

[1:26:42] come on crying out loud.

[1:26:45] >> I think they put legal standing.

[1:26:48] >> Yeah, I think I think that was more of

[1:26:50] the gist.

[1:26:50] >> Anybody can complain. I can buy anything

[1:26:52] I want. But

[1:26:53] >> I think it's more you have no legal

[1:26:54] standing, but there's already

[1:26:56] >> Is that what it really says?

[1:26:57] >> No, it doesn't say you can't complain.

[1:26:59] [laughter]

[1:27:00] >> I'm sure there's legal ease.

[1:27:01] >> Don't be rude.

[1:27:02] >> Yes. Um but to remove those single that

[1:27:06] single layer of units would provide from

[1:27:09] the property line approximately 52 feet.

[1:27:14] So if this was if if Sun Valley

[1:27:16] Ranchettes were in Grsville City,

[1:27:20] which

[1:27:22] there is a hearing again next week, it makes no sense to me if it would

[1:27:26] change something that we would make a

[1:27:27] decision on this. If next week it is

[1:27:31] ruled that the annexation comes into

[1:27:33] Gransville, this area would be in

[1:27:34] Grantsville city limits. So then it just

[1:27:38] seems like we shouldn't make a decision

[1:27:40] on something like this if it makes any

[1:27:42] difference. What difference would it

[1:27:44] make if the if Sun Valley Ranchettes

[1:27:46] were in technical Grantsville City and

[1:27:48] not T will county? What difference would

[1:27:50] that make in this?

[1:27:51] >> None because their houses are already

[1:27:52] existing with animals.

[1:27:54] >> Okay.

[1:27:54] >> And this is new construction. So they're

[1:27:57] already so it wouldn't make any

[1:27:58] difference.

[1:27:58] >> They're already vested with their animal

[1:28:00] rights.

[1:28:01] >> Okay. Thank you. I thought you said

[1:28:03] something was different in the code or

[1:28:04] the county and that would that would be

[1:28:05] their code and not ours and that's why

[1:28:07] they could get away with the difference

[1:28:09] of something. Maybe I'm

[1:28:10] misunderstanding.

[1:28:11] >> Well, they're in the county. So, our

[1:28:13] code doesn't regulate how many animals

[1:28:15] they can have their setbacks or buffers.

[1:28:16] That would be the county.

[1:28:17] >> So, you're saying if they were in our

[1:28:19] fine?

[1:28:20] >> Yes.

[1:28:24] » The amount of animals may be different.

[1:28:26] >> Yeah, that Yeah, I mean that would be

[1:28:27] different. But as far as the buffer, as

[1:28:29] long as they are vested with their

[1:28:31] animals first, then new construction

[1:28:34] can't um conflict or affect and cause to

[1:28:38] remove animals.

[1:28:43] » If you just built using your MU zoning,

[1:28:47] how many how many homes do you think you

[1:28:49] could get in there?

[1:28:50] >> I think I can get 254 town homes and I

[1:28:53] think I could get over that in

[1:28:54] apartments. So in the mixed use so the

[1:28:58] district so it allows single family and

[1:29:00] town home residents. That's it.

[1:29:03] >> No, there's a multif family component.

[1:29:07] >> Okay. I'm not seeing that.

[1:29:10] I know we've changed this.

[1:29:12] >> Yeah, there there's a multif family

[1:29:13] component. That's I'm

[1:29:14] >> there's also a 50% commercial component.

[1:29:16] So 50% of your acreage would have to be

[1:29:19] commercial

[1:29:21] area. I don't I don't know that I read

[1:29:24] it that way or that when we met with the

[1:29:26] city that they read it that way.

[1:29:27] >> Yeah. I mean, it's 50% of the land

[1:29:30] fronting a major street

[1:29:31] >> of the land of the land area as

[1:29:35] commercial.

[1:29:36] >> Correct.

[1:29:36] >> We want it fronting a major street. But

[1:29:39] that Allington, wouldn't that be a major

[1:29:41] street?

[1:29:41] >> No, that's a residential street.

[1:29:44] >> It's only 66 ft wide.

[1:29:45] >> We We need to fix this gray area because

[1:29:48] it says land area. And then I think it

[1:29:52] was Rick that said it. We went over this

[1:29:53] a lot when we were on planning

[1:29:54] commission. We never got that part

[1:29:56] fixed.

[1:29:58] >> I will say if there's ambiguity in a

[1:30:00] code, it's

[1:30:02] >> interpreted in behalf of the

[1:30:04] >> the property owner and their desires. So

[1:30:13] » the other thing we did um the city this

[1:30:17] as a as a condition not not a not a give

[1:30:19] to the city but

[1:30:21] >> um we had we didn't have Allington. No

[1:30:25] we didn't have we have Allington way but

[1:30:27] it's supposed to be Cook, right?

[1:30:28] >> Yeah.

[1:30:28] We got to readress that. But Cook

[1:30:30] wasn't, we didn't want a raceway through

[1:30:32] our project, but the city in their

[1:30:36] interconnectivity agreement wanted it to

[1:30:40] be a straightrough shot just so they can

[1:30:43] have connectivity and and

[1:30:44] transportation. So, we adjusted we

[1:30:46] instead of having a a raceway through

[1:30:48] there, we kind of did the the bend to

[1:30:50] try to slow, you know, slow people down

[1:30:53] uh that come from the the cook side. Uh

[1:30:56] but in our in our original one, we had

[1:30:59] uh well, this is the second or third

[1:31:01] iteration of flex homes that we've had.

[1:31:04] Um but the we've actually moved

[1:31:08] uh Allen the entrance off SR uh 38 down

[1:31:13] a little bit to accommodate the city and

[1:31:16] their their requests. So I I my point in

[1:31:19] saying that is is just we tried really

[1:31:21] hard to

[1:31:23] uh to make and give you know things to

[1:31:26] the city that will make this work and

[1:31:29] that they they get out of it.

[1:31:32] >> Uh one of my biggest concerns is when we

[1:31:34] have approved PUDS in the past, it's

[1:31:36] because it's been a benefit to the city.

[1:31:38] It's it's been something that you know

[1:31:41] like we're we're going to ask for this

[1:31:43] higher

[1:31:45] amount or the setbacks or whatever

[1:31:47] because we're going to give you

[1:31:48] something in return. And to me, I'm

[1:31:51] looking at this plan going, we have one

[1:31:53] tot lot and one pickle ball court for

[1:31:56] 250 units. I'm not seeing any benefit to

[1:31:59] the city other than additional traffic,

[1:32:02] areas to patrol,

[1:32:04] um all the concerns that have been

[1:32:07] addressed. And so like where is the

[1:32:09] benefit to Grantsville City?

[1:32:10] >> You're getting a half a million dollars

[1:32:13] for to pay back sewer to prevent

[1:32:15] suicide. And if we take off that

[1:32:17] >> that half a million dollars seems to me

[1:32:19] like it's a problem between you and Joe

[1:32:22] or and the Romney's like

[1:32:25] >> sure I don't a problem to me

[1:32:28] >> like this the people in this room it

[1:32:30] shouldn't be their problem.

[1:32:32] >> Um

[1:32:33] >> well essentially it's not my problem

[1:32:35] either.

[1:32:35] >> I I get that. I I can understand that,

[1:32:38] but I just am not seeing anything

[1:32:40] besides a whole lot of houses. I'm not

[1:32:44] one tot lot, one pickle ball court. I

[1:32:46] just seems completely insufficient. If

[1:32:49] you even brought in an apartment

[1:32:50] building or town homes and multiple town

[1:32:53] homes that have been brought before us,

[1:32:55] we have required that they meet or that

[1:32:57] they bring in additional um space like

[1:33:00] pavilions and

[1:33:02] um

[1:33:03] >> for for the city.

[1:33:04] >> No, for for the area. I just am seeing

[1:33:07] like this a lot of people address the

[1:33:09] issue of the kids and where are they

[1:33:11] going to even go to play because the

[1:33:15] yards are so small and if you've got a

[1:33:17] five foot setback you're that's real

[1:33:20] tough to play to do a lot in a five foot

[1:33:22] piece of brass which may be a zerocaped

[1:33:25] I don't know what the

[1:33:26] >> well as Shelby I mean as Shelby

[1:33:28] mentioned this we we had to do a concept

[1:33:30] to get to this point but those things

[1:33:32] are not defined and not

[1:33:33] >> right but I don't see I don't see

[1:33:35] anywhere else to put them. That's

[1:33:36] >> Well, if we take I mean, there's lots of

[1:33:38] places to put them, but and you can do

[1:33:40] more. Here's here's the problem. If you took this out, you

[1:33:44] [clears throat] could put all kinds of

[1:33:45] things on that back side. You could put

[1:33:48] outdoor exercise stuff. You could put

[1:33:50] people don't really love pickle ball

[1:33:51] courts

[1:33:53] uh because they live by them. They then

[1:33:55] they can't complain. They go to um you

[1:33:58] know, they don't want to hear the

[1:34:00] bouncing at night, right? Right. So,

[1:34:02] we're more than more than welcome to put

[1:34:04] whatever the city

[1:34:06] um would like. Uh

[1:34:10] you know, it does

[1:34:12] I don't know what's the what if you look

[1:34:14] at the resale value of town homes versus

[1:34:16] single family homes. It's it's a huge

[1:34:19] difference.

[1:34:21] >> I think you're right on the definitely

[1:34:23] right on the single family. I mean I

[1:34:27] and it's a different product than maybe

[1:34:29] we have in a lot of other areas but just

[1:34:33] you look at this we're more concerned

[1:34:35] about the 20ear storm than we are about

[1:34:38] the kids and the safety and somewhere to

[1:34:41] go. I get that they don't leave the

[1:34:45] house,

[1:34:46] but that's just the impression of

[1:34:49] looking at this is four drainage lots.

[1:34:55] » Well, and no park,

[1:34:57] >> but keep in mind those can be we and

[1:34:58] I've done a ton of developments where

[1:35:00] those become play areas. They're all

[1:35:03] over that. It's just identified because

[1:35:05] we had to do it for city engineering.

[1:35:08] You know, it's not it's not like there's

[1:35:10] going to be nothing in there and there's

[1:35:12] just weeds. We would definitely use

[1:35:14] them.

[1:35:15] >> And this is open to you guys to suggest

[1:35:17] these are things that I want. A, B, C,

[1:35:18] and D. So, we're looking at you guys.

[1:35:22] What is it that you want in there?

[1:35:25] >> I just need to clarify question answer,

[1:35:27] please.

[1:35:29] >> So, you said we could take out the the

[1:35:32] lower. Are you talking this row?

[1:35:34] >> No, just the just the west side of

[1:35:36] homes. This last house on the end.

[1:35:38] >> Yes.

[1:35:39] >> Well, it would be Yeah, it would be

[1:35:40] right there

[1:35:42] >> and all the way up.

[1:35:48] » Because to me, I'm thinking, well, if

[1:35:50] this if this whole area was taken out

[1:35:52] and this was a whole play area, you have

[1:35:54] you solve your buffering issue with the

[1:35:55] existing neighbors and you create the place where

[1:36:00] >> how much buffering does does it need?

[1:36:02] >> 50 ft.

[1:36:04] I mean, you got you got 50 feet.

[1:36:08] >> If you if you went from here to here,

[1:36:10] I'll bet you it might be 48 and a half,

[1:36:12] but it's pretty dang close. I don't have

[1:36:14] the exact measurement.

[1:36:16] >> It was 50T conceptual anyways. So,

[1:36:19] required 50 feet.

[1:36:20] >> Yeah, if you require 50 feet, you

[1:36:22] require 50 feet. I I can I can live with

[1:36:24] that.

[1:36:27] >> Where's the sewer? We were talking about

[1:36:28] sewer line and and I remember when they

[1:36:30] dug it, but where is it in relationship

[1:36:33] to everything? Do you have a a good

[1:36:35] idea?

[1:36:36] >> Yeah, it's it's identified on here. So,

[1:36:38] it's this dotted line here.

[1:36:40] >> Yeah.

[1:36:40] >> This is where the old road was supposed

[1:36:42] to go.

[1:36:42] >> Yeah.

[1:36:43] >> Then it goes up to there.

[1:36:46] >> Then it follow that top rug.

[1:36:47] >> I'm not very tall. That's why I didn't

[1:36:48] make a good basketball player. But

[1:36:50] >> here, how's that?

[1:36:51] >> Anyway, it comes here and then back out

[1:36:53] to cook.

[1:36:54] >> It actually goes up.

[1:36:55] >> It goes right here straight. both of

[1:36:57] this area.

[1:36:58] >> Is that the blue line then?

[1:36:59] >> It goes here.

[1:37:00] >> No,

[1:37:01] >> the blue line are contours.

[1:37:03] >> I think they're contour lines.

[1:37:05] >> So, it doesn't go any

[1:37:07] >> the blue lines are your ashtto side

[1:37:09] triangle lines.

[1:37:12] >> Oh, the side for traffic.

[1:37:16] » It follows somewhat the roadway.

[1:37:18] >> Uh we've tried to put it as much as we

[1:37:19] can because

[1:37:20] >> Well, it's not usable, but

[1:37:22] >> it it's not usable. you

[1:37:24] >> well, we can build over the top of it,

[1:37:25] but we can't put a structure on it.

[1:37:27] >> Yes, absolutely. But you can utilize it.

[1:37:29] >> Yeah, we can. Yeah, that's what we've

[1:37:30] done here.

[1:37:31] >> Yeah, you're you're benefiting from the

[1:37:33] installation of that sewer line,

[1:37:35] correct?

[1:37:36] >> I would have I would have paid for I

[1:37:38] mean, it's a wash to me by the time I

[1:37:40] pay it back and I put it in. It's a wash

[1:37:42] to me.

[1:37:42] >> Okay. So, you're saying that Romney's

[1:37:45] the payback is is half a million

[1:37:47] dollars.

[1:37:48] >> Yeah.

[1:37:50] See, I wouldn't

[1:37:50] >> How big How big is that line? They put

[1:37:52] in a 20 in

[1:37:53] >> 20 inch.

[1:37:53] >> Yeah, I think it's a 20 inch line. I

[1:37:55] only need 8 in there,

[1:37:59] >> but

[1:38:01] still benefit.

[1:38:03] >> Um, it benefited by getting me an

[1:38:04] agreement with the city. Yeah.

[1:38:06] >> Yeah, I see that.

[1:38:14] Derek, can we go back to your original

[1:38:17] comment from this discussion about what

[1:38:20] it says about the buffering

[1:38:22] as far as harmonious with the existing

[1:38:26] >> on the

[1:38:28] definition of an

[1:38:30] >> Yes.

[1:38:31] >> Yeah. Um,

[1:38:37] sure they can pull that up. Um

[1:38:44] it's just it's 19A it's under one. I

[1:38:46] don't know if you want to pull that up.

[1:38:47] It just says it's the purpose of the mix

[1:38:50] zone use district.

[1:38:52] >> This is what we want. Allow for the

[1:38:54] establishment of commercial properties

[1:38:55] integrated with subordinate residential

[1:38:57] uses. Planes planned unit developments

[1:39:00] are encouraged in this zone.

[1:39:02] Developments in the mixeduse zone shall

[1:39:04] be designed so integrating residential

[1:39:07] commercial components into the

[1:39:08] harmonious development and to be

[1:39:10] compatible with the existing or

[1:39:12] anticipated uses of surrounding area.

[1:39:15] I mean that's right in the mixed use. So

[1:39:18] that this doesn't match. So if you went

[1:39:19] mu and did it your own I mean that's our

[1:39:22] intend purpose and that's what we want

[1:39:24] is to be harmonious and match. That's

[1:39:26] why we want a buffer that first plan.

[1:39:28] great bigger lots up against that west

[1:39:30] end to match and then you go into the um

[1:39:33] your density. We've done that with a lot

[1:39:35] of other developments. Um

[1:39:38] >> but with the mixed use, I mean the

[1:39:40] planned unit, the mixed use, if it if

[1:39:42] you go back to permitted uses, you still

[1:39:44] have the same problem. So if

[1:39:48] um

[1:39:51] because there there's I mean and I I

[1:39:54] know it's illogical to be honest with

[1:39:57] you, but what we're doing is taking a

[1:40:00] bad permit plan,

[1:40:03] giving it some

[1:40:06] better components and better features

[1:40:09] versus trying to to go back and what

[1:40:11] what's actually permitted

[1:40:13] like I in the MU zone. I could I could

[1:40:16] put it in and I wouldn't even have to

[1:40:18] come

[1:40:19] and ask for forgiveness from anything. I

[1:40:21] could just do it. And I don't like that.

[1:40:24] I don't like the way that that that

[1:40:26] permit.

[1:40:27] >> But but you'd be meeting all of our

[1:40:29] requirements. There'd be no variances.

[1:40:30] All the setbacks would be the buffer

[1:40:32] would be right.

[1:40:33] >> No, the buffer is not there. The buffer

[1:40:35] is there.

[1:40:35] >> No,

[1:40:36] >> it's 50 feet.

[1:40:37] >> It's 30 feet actually.

[1:40:38] >> Yeah. Okay. It's more than the 10 that

[1:40:40] we have here. 50.

[1:40:41] >> Well, I'm giving you 50

[1:40:44] >> potential. Yeah.

[1:40:45] >> Well, yeah. I haven't I mean, I haven't

[1:40:47] signed the dotted line, but I'm just

[1:40:49] saying I I know I

[1:40:51] >> Go ahead.

[1:40:51] >> I was say I think that's kind of where I

[1:40:53] have like we where we've got so many

[1:40:56] variants to this and I'm I'm not a fan

[1:40:59] of varants. So if there's a reason we

[1:41:02] have rule obviously we have in place and when we have a number of them and we

[1:41:09] see a number of them I think that's

[1:41:10] where I have the concern with the with

[1:41:12] the layout is

[1:41:13] >> I I think we've missed the mark uh

[1:41:17] >> uh entirely um but and I think some of

[1:41:21] the other councilmen have have mentioned

[1:41:23] this um specifically for the youth I

[1:41:26] have a I have a concern with

[1:41:29] that much in in that area based on

[1:41:33] what's there from a safety standpoint. I

[1:41:36] drive that road. I'm

[1:41:38] there every night. Probably you are when

[1:41:41] someone's trying to turn left out of Sun

[1:41:42] Valley and they're stuck there. So,

[1:41:45] entirely. Um,

[1:41:48] yeah. So I safety uh is one of my

[1:41:52] primary concerns, but I think the other

[1:41:54] one is just the the amount of variance

[1:41:57] in in in each of the items specifically.

[1:42:01] >> Let's go let's go to the variance table

[1:42:02] and talk about that

[1:42:04] >> because it I know the variance seems

[1:42:07] like you're giving something up, but if

[1:42:09] it's making something better, I'm not

[1:42:10] sure why it's it's a huge concern. If if

[1:42:14] 30 is the minimum in the thing and we

[1:42:16] give 50

[1:42:17] >> the v even though you're giving some

[1:42:19] variance it's a better buffer.

[1:42:21] >> Um

[1:42:26] » I don't have

[1:42:28] I can find the plan that we did.

[1:42:30] >> I sent it to Alicia the straight view.

[1:42:33] >> Yeah the just with the town home packs.

[1:42:36] >> Did you get that email? This is that's

[1:42:37] what started this whole conversation is

[1:42:39] I started looking at all right here's

[1:42:40] what we can do under their permitted use

[1:42:42] without a lot of heartache.

[1:42:44] Um

[1:42:46] but I can't read that.

[1:42:54] » You zoom in a little bit more. So if you

[1:42:56] look at the the code category

[1:42:59] [clears throat and cough]

[1:43:02] right

[1:43:04] when we get maximum density under the

[1:43:06] permitted area we get 260

[1:43:09] 256 90 minus you're down below 250

[1:43:14] 30 [clears throat]

[1:43:15] foot lot frontage um

[1:43:19] and 30 ft accommodates accommodates that

[1:43:22] 50 ft for a single housing. So that's

[1:43:24] where you give a little bit, right? You

[1:43:26] got 50 for a single family house on tone

[1:43:28] town homes. There there isn't any.

[1:43:31] There's only between between units,

[1:43:34] buildings, I should say,

[1:43:35] >> right? So you don't have any. So it's

[1:43:37] really not um you're giving up some some

[1:43:44] yardage for variance, but you're getting

[1:43:46] a single family detached house versus a

[1:43:48] pack. Um, the next one is,

[1:43:52] >> and you mentioned 10 in a row just a

[1:43:54] little bit ago. That's what you said.

[1:43:56] >> Keep keep going. You don't need to

[1:43:58] leave.

[1:43:59] >> Um,

[1:44:04] » the really tiny writing under the 256 is

[1:44:06] just outlining the lot sizes.

[1:44:09] >> Oh, for each each different.

[1:44:10] >> Yeah. So, like the flex base, flex gen,

[1:44:13] flex garage, flex premium, flex. tried

[1:44:16] to put every home in each base so that

[1:44:18] they could have a choice. You know,

[1:44:19] that's the mixed use component. They can

[1:44:21] have a bigger one with four bedroom or

[1:44:24] six bedroom. They can have one three

[1:44:27] bedroom, two bath, no garage. We tried

[1:44:29] to give them multiple things within each uh phase.

[1:44:36] [clears throat] Um 15 ft to living space

[1:44:39] or 20 ft to garage. the single site

[1:44:41] verification

[1:44:45] on corner side. So that's I don't know

[1:44:48] we don't have that many sharp hard

[1:44:49] corners.

[1:44:52] Um and then the last one is side setback

[1:44:55] property boundary is 10 ft instead of

[1:44:58] 15. But that would only apply on

[1:45:01] subdivision interior. If we take away

[1:45:03] that west the west side

[1:45:07] then you know it doesn't affect any

[1:45:09] other resident. So, the the

[1:45:12] deviations we're asking for um are minor

[1:45:16] compared comparatively speaking to what

[1:45:17] the permit allows

[1:45:19] >> and you get a much better product.

[1:45:23] [clears throat]

[1:45:25] » You want me to switch over to that?

[1:45:27] >> Yeah.

[1:45:43] So you can see,

[1:45:47] >> so this was the town home plan.

[1:45:48] >> This was the town home plan. And you can

[1:45:50] see Cook Drive didn't come through all

[1:45:52] the way to Allington. We did have this

[1:45:55] buffer here, which you get back anyway.

[1:46:00] » [clears throat]

[1:46:01] >> And I mean if you put the if you put the

[1:46:04] two plants side by side visually you

[1:46:07] would be like

[1:46:12] you know and the commercial didn't

[1:46:14] change from

[1:46:16] the 22 plan to this plan to what we

[1:46:19] concept we have in front of you. So this

[1:46:22] is this is by permit. You can do this

[1:46:26] and I don't like it.

[1:46:47] I know I know we've thrown out the old

[1:46:49] plan, but what's wrong with the old

[1:46:52] plan?

[1:46:53] >> Um, it's a different absorption rate and

[1:46:57] different uh price point.

[1:47:00] >> Yeah. Even though really if we're going

[1:47:03] with the statement that Derek read about

[1:47:06] the purpose of mixed use and the

[1:47:08] harmonious integrated developments,

[1:47:12] plan A looks far more like that

[1:47:16] definition.

[1:47:18] >> So this to me ju I'm just just my

[1:47:21] opinion. This just does not match that.

[1:47:25] Now neither would with would with this

[1:47:27] plan. This plan also doesn't match the

[1:47:30] definition of a mixeduse area.

[1:47:34] So I guess

[1:47:36] >> I mean what I'm asking is what what

[1:47:38] would you rather have this or

[1:47:41] >> Well, I would say I would say this also

[1:47:44] doesn't match mixed use. It just doesn't

[1:47:47] match the definition that

[1:47:49] >> it's all the same.

[1:47:50] >> Yeah, because it's all the same. There's

[1:47:51] no mix of uses. But your per the permit

[1:47:55] process when it's there's a difference

[1:47:56] between permitted and a and a PUD. The

[1:47:59] permit process says that if I meet every

[1:48:03] single one of your codes

[1:48:06] that I can build this,

[1:48:07] >> right? But if you read the mixeduse

[1:48:09] definition,

[1:48:10] >> even permitted, it just simply doesn't.

[1:48:13] >> But that mixeduse comes with the

[1:48:15] commercial and the residential. That

[1:48:17] that's the component of the mixed use,

[1:48:19] >> right? And that's what we're that's what

[1:48:20] [clears throat] we have here in all

[1:48:22] three plans. sure

[1:48:23] >> is that exact thing. And so to me, plan

[1:48:27] A, we'll call the plan from 2022,

[1:48:30] matches the exact definition of mixed

[1:48:33] use. It's mixing commercial use and then

[1:48:36] integrating into residential with a

[1:48:38] harmonious development that meets the

[1:48:41] present or the existing land or proposed

[1:48:44] land in the other areas. So, plan A, if

[1:48:47] I'm going to call it that, this one

[1:48:50] matches that

[1:48:53] town home plan, flex home plan. Now, I

[1:48:55] don't have an issue if if uh let's say

[1:48:58] if we're looking at previously approved

[1:49:01] layout and lots 102 to 117 along that

[1:49:05] area are town homes or flex homes or the

[1:49:09] interior of this plan becomes the flex

[1:49:12] homes or something like that. Now, that

[1:49:14] to me matches the definition of what our

[1:49:16] mixed use definition is. Whereas it it's

[1:49:20] a mix of uses, a mix of lot sizes

[1:49:23] integrating well with the commercial and

[1:49:25] the existing homeowners. This plan or

[1:49:28] the other two plans that are presented

[1:49:30] show no mix of uses. It's simply one use

[1:49:32] besides the commercial from what I can

[1:49:35] see and it doesn't match the definition

[1:49:38] of what we have in our code. I'm not

[1:49:40] understanding the the term use that

[1:49:42] these are all the single family. There's

[1:49:43] no mixed use in there.

[1:49:45] >> Well, it's a mix [clears throat] single

[1:49:46] family.

[1:49:46] >> You're right, Joe. You're right about

[1:49:48] that. But it's a mix of um

[1:49:50] >> lot sizes.

[1:49:51] which means you're going to

[1:49:53] have a variety of

[1:49:56] you're not going to put the same house

[1:49:58] on the halfacre lot that you're going to

[1:50:00] put on the interior lot. It's going to

[1:50:02] have a mix of of uses in that sense.

[1:50:06] >> Maybe you might have. I mean, the same

[1:50:07] thing. It's it's no different when the facades or fronts of the of the flex

[1:50:12] homes. You could have different you

[1:50:13] could have 20 different styles, right?

[1:50:17] A spec builder buys these and he has

[1:50:20] seven plans he builds. You can get seven

[1:50:21] plans throughout this whole thing. I

[1:50:23] don't I don't know that I don't know

[1:50:26] that the lot size is a definition of of

[1:50:30] use if that makes sense. According to

[1:50:32] the

[1:50:33] >> you can you could argue that. Yes. But I

[1:50:35] think you could argue my side as well

[1:50:37] that if you have a halfacre lot,

[1:50:39] >> you're going to have a different

[1:50:41] >> I'm not I'm not arguing that this plan

[1:50:43] would be better,

[1:50:44] >> right? It would be better. It's not the

[1:50:46] plan that that we've chosen.

[1:50:50] >> We we we went in and uh redid

[1:50:55] um a plan that we we thought was very

[1:50:58] thoughtful that would give us a good

[1:51:00] return on our investment. It doesn't uh

[1:51:06] you know handcuff the city on things

[1:51:08] that that they're going to have uh to do

[1:51:11] it. It provide it provides a really good

[1:51:14] resell. It provides a a price point also

[1:51:17] uh

[1:51:19] for people versus you know I I know

[1:51:22] everyone in this room would love it.

[1:51:23] I'll be honest with you halfacre lot put

[1:51:25] a house on it. It's going to be a

[1:51:26] million bucks.

[1:51:29] And then the complaint would be, "Well,

[1:51:30] you're raising my value, so I've got to

[1:51:32] paid more taxes." But I I understand the

[1:51:37] emotional attachment to the first plan.

[1:51:40] I I really do.

[1:51:41] Um

[1:51:44] but I but I think if if you took the

[1:51:47] emotion out of it and looked at what's

[1:51:49] permitted

[1:51:52] and and you can do without any

[1:51:55] consultation so to speak and and what we

[1:51:58] presented

[1:52:00] we believe it it it's a very good

[1:52:03] product

[1:52:05] and we beneficial for a lot of I mean

[1:52:08] you have I don't know you have a police

[1:52:10] officer he's not living in the first

[1:52:11] one. He he could live here,

[1:52:15] school teacher. You know, we all talk

[1:52:17] about we all talk about wanting to help

[1:52:19] the solve the problem, but we don't want

[1:52:22] it next to us, right? And and that's

[1:52:26] just heard everywhere in the state,

[1:52:29] everywhere I go. I did an assisted

[1:52:30] living in Park City and one of the

[1:52:34] questions from the councilman was, "What

[1:52:35] if my son sees a dead body getting

[1:52:37] rolled out of that assisted living?" So,

[1:52:40] he didn't like it.

[1:52:42] And I'm like, well, that's welcome to

[1:52:44] life, right? And there's are there are

[1:52:48] things that we we don't love,

[1:52:51] but that we can tolerate so that we can

[1:52:55] provide provide housing.

[1:52:58] >> Joe, a school teacher and a police

[1:53:00] officer could afford one of the 4,000

[1:53:03] town homes that have already been

[1:53:04] approved here in Grantsville. So, I

[1:53:07] don't buy the affordable housing that's

[1:53:09] going to be any less than a town home

[1:53:10] that's already been approved here,

[1:53:12] invested. I I believe it's in that

[1:53:14] number. Okay. Um, two, I I've been on

[1:53:17] planning commission for three years,

[1:53:19] then I came to city council. I haven't

[1:53:21] dealt with you, but every developer that

[1:53:23] I've dealt with has always wanted to be

[1:53:25] a good neighbor and work with the

[1:53:28] neighbors next to them. That's been my

[1:53:31] experience. and and it even I won't say

[1:53:34] the name some that I don't don't like

[1:53:35] but they've all always worked with us

[1:53:37] because they wanted to be good neighbors

[1:53:39] with the existing current homes. So what

[1:53:41] I'm asking is

[1:53:44] that buffer of bigger lots on that west

[1:53:47] end and then you can do whatever you

[1:53:49] want with your density as it as it moves

[1:53:52] east. Is that completely

[1:53:55] >> tell me what you tell me what you mean

[1:53:56] by that like let's be

[1:53:58] >> so like negotiate

[1:53:59] >> the first the first plan

[1:54:02] >> halfacre lots

[1:54:03] >> no I I won't do halfacre lots

[1:54:06] >> but I I would I'd rather leave open

[1:54:07] space than halfacre lots

[1:54:08] >> and then the density as you as you go

[1:54:10] east

[1:54:13] >> and that could be multifamily that could

[1:54:16] be

[1:54:16] >> let's look at let's look at what it is

[1:54:18] this isund what

[1:54:21] 54t Yeah,

[1:54:23] >> house is going to be set back here. So,

[1:54:26] you really have

[1:54:30] » 75 ft of buffer between the back of the

[1:54:33] house and the neighbor's fence.

[1:54:35] >> Yeah.

[1:54:36] >> Is Is that what you're wanting? Is that

[1:54:37] what you're asking?

[1:54:39] >> I I would like bigger lots on on the

[1:54:42] west.

[1:54:42] >> What if we do no lots there? If there's

[1:54:44] no lots, then that would be even do no

[1:54:46] lots for 75 ft and then let me do what

[1:54:50] our plan going east.

[1:54:54] » How many units that

[1:54:55] >> can I don't know that

[1:54:57] >> how many units is that?

[1:54:58] >> How many is he's got?

[1:55:00] >> Yeah, 254 is what?

[1:55:03] >> What would you put there?

[1:55:05] >> What would you want me to put there?

[1:55:06] Sounds like mayor would like some

[1:55:08] facility

[1:55:10] of some sort or

[1:55:14] I don't know. Why don't I split it with

[1:55:16] the neighbors?

[1:55:17] >> About 60 units approximately.

[1:55:19] >> Like

[1:55:21] >> give them if you're if you're if you're

[1:55:23] looking for

[1:55:25] what 70 something feet,

[1:55:28] give the neighbor their own 30 foot

[1:55:30] here, all these houses and keep the

[1:55:33] difference and they can buffer whatever

[1:55:35] they want.

[1:55:37] Now, there isn't a person talk about

[1:55:39] good neighbors that's going to deed land

[1:55:40] to a to a neighbor just so they can keep

[1:55:42] their buffer from you.

[1:55:45] If if that's truly what we're looking

[1:55:47] for here to be good neighbors, I have no

[1:55:49] problem with that because if it's going

[1:55:50] to be open, they might as well use it.

[1:55:52] We can still put in our trail. We could

[1:55:54] still put in some extra parks.

[1:55:56] We could still do that. And they get 30

[1:55:58] feet of extra ground on the back side of

[1:56:00] their property to do put their trees in.

[1:56:01] They could put a whole forest in.

[1:56:06] Well, that's an interesting concept. I

[1:56:09] mean, I don't know if

[1:56:11] >> Yeah,

[1:56:14] » you asked for it.

[1:56:16] >> Well, you said it. [laughter]

[1:56:21] Is that Is there anybody that would be

[1:56:23] opposed to that?

[1:56:25] >> We got your first idea. So,

[1:56:27] >> I know. I get it. I love my first

[1:56:29] girlfriend, too, but she punked me.

[1:56:32] >> Maybe that's why. [laughter]

[1:56:34] >> I don't know. Can I take questions? Is

[1:56:36] that all right?

[1:56:36] >> No.

[1:56:40] » Well, I shouldn't have. Sorry.

[1:56:43] >> If you want to give us 30 ft

[1:56:46] >> plus there's another 10 ft required by

[1:56:48] granular irrigation

[1:56:50] 40.

[1:56:51] >> Correct.

[1:56:52] >> No, the irrigation's actually already

[1:56:54] there.

[1:56:55] >> Yeah. Behind us.

[1:56:56] >> Yeah. So, there's not 40 feet. It's just

[1:56:58] 30 included.

[1:57:00] >> Anyway, I didn't I didn't mean to open

[1:57:01] up a can of worms. I'm just

[1:57:03] >> very simple question. But you're saying

[1:57:05] we can start at 365. I'm a builder and a

[1:57:09] developer.

[1:57:11] >> That's That's without garages.

[1:57:13] >> Sure. Yeah.

[1:57:14] >> The garage, you're up nearly $400,000.

[1:57:18] Council member,

[1:57:19] >> sorry, I didn't mean to engage the public, but I do think I do

[1:57:24] think we can meet somewhere on that that

[1:57:27] end versus the permitted where I think

[1:57:30] the permitted was strictly 30 feet. That

[1:57:32] was the exact measurement that has to be

[1:57:35] allowed in the MU.

[1:57:41] » Those are the two issues. West boundary

[1:57:43] at the parks.

[1:57:45] >> Say say it out. Say it louder.

[1:57:48] >> I don't want to speak for everybody.

[1:57:49] >> Well, [laughter] two major issues.

[1:57:51] >> You're going to say the same thing I'm

[1:57:52] going to say. I'm sure I I we've we've

[1:57:56] done across the board any any subdiv any

[1:57:59] new developments specifically new

[1:58:02] developments with higher density in

[1:58:04] lower density we've protected the

[1:58:07] citizens around them and so um and or

[1:58:12] we've asked that that they at least be

[1:58:14] considered in the process because they are already there and I get that

[1:58:19] we're talking about what has to happen

[1:58:20] to make it work. Um I do like

[1:58:25] an opportunity of different product

[1:58:27] type. Um

[1:58:29] and and specifically this product type I think um could work for

[1:58:35] some of our younger families um where we

[1:58:38] have a disparity of you know not that

[1:58:40] product type but protecting those around

[1:58:44] them. First and foremost, I I do have a

[1:58:47] you know you know when we talk about how

[1:58:49] many people we put into this space this

[1:58:56] permitted um creates a concern that I

[1:58:59] have from a safety standpoint. Um and I

[1:59:01] and I've and I vocalize that. And then

[1:59:03] the other component is is yeah just just

[1:59:06] where where they go specifically. Um I

[1:59:10] don't know his citizen mentioned one you

[1:59:12] know one issue that we had along this

[1:59:14] area these these kids will probably go

[1:59:17] down that road which will create a whole

[1:59:20] another thing that as a city we'll have

[1:59:22] to address with you do to ensure that

[1:59:24] they can travel safely

[1:59:26] along along those roadways to get into

[1:59:29] or you know side

[1:59:32] highway along this the highway to get

[1:59:34] into town. So, um, those are the

[1:59:37] concerns that I've

[1:59:39] >> Right. Well, we just need to, and I

[1:59:42] don't this, you probably won't like

[1:59:43] this, Joe, but I think

[1:59:45] >> we just need to table this decision till

[1:59:48] we can work out the West Foundry and the

[1:59:50] parks

[1:59:51] and come up with a solution. The

[1:59:53] citizens could talk to us as council

[1:59:55] members. We can try and come up with a

[1:59:57] solution. But that's just my opinion.

[2:00:02] And one thing back to what Jake was

[2:00:04] saying is that the city would then be

[2:00:06] feel responsible for creating safe

[2:00:08] travel there along Main Street and that

[2:00:10] is UD do's property. So there would be

[2:00:12] nothing we could do about it. It would

[2:00:14] be completely up to you DOT when they

[2:00:16] added sidewalks or um added an

[2:00:20] additional lane going each direction.

[2:00:22] It's something obviously we are wishing

[2:00:24] they would do immediately, but they

[2:00:26] aren't and it's not anything we have any

[2:00:28] control over. So that is a concern

[2:00:32] >> because that's outside, right? So was

[2:00:34] that was that discussed in in

[2:00:37] >> P&Z? Like did they cover that at all or

[2:00:41] >> I mean they talked about like the

[2:00:42] traffic study and and what that you know

[2:00:44] would look like, but again it's outside

[2:00:46] of our scope. We don't control what UD

[2:00:49] do's going to do

[2:00:50] >> and I I don't know that it's even in the

[2:00:52] MU code

[2:00:54] to be honest with you.

[2:00:56] like

[2:00:59] um I think what you're asking is to

[2:01:02] solve

[2:01:04] a a problem that

[2:01:07] is a city problem and stuff but not

[2:01:09] necessarily it's not a development

[2:01:10] question.

[2:01:12] Right.

[2:01:13] >> Right. and and so so to

[2:01:16] >> so the the decision to make it part of an MU is

[2:01:22] easier now than if we have to go to a

[2:01:26] permitted thing or if we go to you know

[2:01:28] those things

[2:01:30] um

[2:01:32] you know I don't know what the

[2:01:33] properties between do you have that is

[2:01:37] it the Hunts law what's what's on the

[2:01:39] very

[2:01:41] >> east side Oh,

[2:01:43] >> right here.

[2:01:49] » Yeah, it's

[2:01:50] >> Yeah.

[2:01:50] >> Who's that?

[2:01:52] >> So, you you take 20 ft from his

[2:01:55] property, right? And make a make a

[2:01:57] walkway down to the Maverick

[2:01:58] intersection. I don't know. But it seems

[2:02:01] like some give and take. But the two

[2:02:04] biggest concerns I think are are the

[2:02:07] west boundary and parks. And those are

[2:02:10] the two things I think we've solved.

[2:02:12] Like we've talked about the the maximum

[2:02:14] distance.

[2:02:16] We've talked about that that you can

[2:02:19] dictate. I mean I know that parks the

[2:02:22] yellow doesn't look like parks but they

[2:02:24] are in every community.

[2:02:26] There's things that are built there.

[2:02:28] >> Um we just did one that had a slide in

[2:02:31] it,

[2:02:32] >> you know, down the hillside for the

[2:02:33] storm detention. Yeah. Things like that.

[2:02:35] I mean there there are parks.

[2:02:37] uh they're just not we haven't gone that

[2:02:40] far into this plan and I don't know

[2:02:44] there's no I don't know of any study

[2:02:46] that says for every

[2:02:49] 200 homes you got to have x amount of

[2:02:51] acres of park cuz you do have an open

[2:02:54] space requirement that we've met so

[2:02:57] we've you know we've really worked hard

[2:02:59] to meet your requirements there's some

[2:03:02] that I can't solve that are above and

[2:03:04] beyond what the development the land use

[2:03:07] ordinance was meant to do.

[2:03:11] So, and and if you want to table it, I

[2:03:13] would rather have very specific

[2:03:15] guidelines, meaning if we hold if we

[2:03:18] hold one meeting with the neighbors

[2:03:22] and and what three of you can't be

[2:03:24] there, but two councilmen are there and they can and they can

[2:03:28] >> I believe we can even notice that as an

[2:03:29] as a um work session,

[2:03:31] >> I would be fine.

[2:03:32] >> And then the all council members can be

[2:03:33] present. Correct.

[2:03:35] >> Yes.

[2:03:36] you know, but I what I don't want is to

[2:03:38] think we're just going to table this for

[2:03:39] six months and and wait,

[2:03:42] you know, as things

[2:03:45] I mean, I've already waited three or

[2:03:47] four years for this and it it's not I

[2:03:50] mean, they think it's easy. It's an

[2:03:52] arduous, very hard process that you go

[2:03:55] through with all the reviews and the

[2:03:57] time and the engineering. I've done a

[2:03:59] full scale engineering on this and I

[2:04:00] don't even know if I'm going to get

[2:04:01] approval,

[2:04:03] you know, because of the the way that

[2:04:04] the code is read. So, we we read the

[2:04:08] code to benefit the city in exactness,

[2:04:12] right? So, that's that's what I'm

[2:04:13] saying. Let's let's make it urgent.

[2:04:15] >> Well, I guess my question is in 2022

[2:04:17] though, you could have completed it,

[2:04:18] right? you were approved for that.

[2:04:19] >> Um, well, there was debate then and none

[2:04:22] of you maybe I don't think any of you

[2:04:24] were there at the time, but there was a

[2:04:25] big debate between Romney's and the

[2:04:27] Grantsville City Improvement District,

[2:04:31] >> the PID that the Romney have that really

[2:04:34] it it really is Gransville City, right?

[2:04:35] It's not Romney's I don't know the

[2:04:39] mechanism, but that came

[2:04:40] >> RDA

[2:04:40] >> the RDA. So yeah, the redevelopment

[2:04:42] agency became a big uh sticking point

[2:04:46] and um

[2:04:47] >> so the one in 2022 was not approved.

[2:04:50] >> Uh it was approved but then then after

[2:04:54] the it was never recorded but after the

[2:04:56] approval so so that plan was never

[2:04:57] recorded and according to Grantsville

[2:04:59] code

[2:05:01] >> after one year it just gone.

[2:05:04] >> It expires. Yeah. You don't start the

[2:05:06] >> Yeah. if you don't if after if you don't

[2:05:08] record the plat but at the time Romney's

[2:05:10] were coming saying hey we want you know

[2:05:12] half a million dollars

[2:05:14] to repay this stuff and I said well show

[2:05:16] me the agreement and there was a big

[2:05:18] fight and we waited and even to this day

[2:05:23] you know Shelby got an email from them

[2:05:25] saying well Joe reneged on his agreement

[2:05:27] and that's not the case but so there's a

[2:05:30] lot of political

[2:05:32] stuff that got us to here so and and you

[2:05:36] guys weren't privy to that. But this is something that, like I said, we

[2:05:40] put hours and hours and hours and

[2:05:42] hundreds of thousands of dollars into to make it much better than your

[2:05:46] permitted process.

[2:05:51] And I'm acquiescing like I'm trying to

[2:05:53] do what you're asking me.

[2:05:57] I mean, I guess

[2:05:59] yeah, I don't know what else to do.

[2:06:01] >> So So this Sorry, go ahead. This hasn't

[2:06:05] gone through reszone. It was MU in 2022,

[2:06:07] right?

[2:06:08] >> So when it annexed in, it was zoned MU.

[2:06:12] >> Okay.

[2:06:12] >> So yeah, we haven't done a reszone

[2:06:15] to go to this project.

[2:06:20] » Feel like we're being punished because

[2:06:22] of what the Romney are doing.

[2:06:23] >> Yeah. Because there's like

[2:06:26] >> not as good as a plan as the original.

[2:06:28] >> Yeah. So now it's worse.

[2:06:29] >> But what I think he's asking is give us

[2:06:31] direction. What what do you guys want to

[2:06:33] see on this west side? Um do you guys

[2:06:36] want a work meeting?

[2:06:37] >> I think we should address the west side

[2:06:38] and I think a work meeting would would

[2:06:41] uh would be beneficial and and um keep

[2:06:44] that open but but obviously you know

[2:06:47] under control so to speak,

[2:06:49] >> right?

[2:06:49] >> And um

[2:06:52] yeah, I think we can come to some sort

[2:06:54] of compromise. I think the buffer is

[2:06:57] probably the main thing. we understand

[2:06:59] that you have your land rights and I

[2:07:00] think there was multiple citizens that

[2:07:02] mentioned that you know and what they

[2:07:04] said and and you were able to develop

[2:07:07] this

[2:07:09] they'll understand that so but if we

[2:07:12] could come to some sort of compromise I

[2:07:14] think that would be helpful

[2:07:16] >> what what is normal for a work meeting

[2:07:18] like days notice you have to give them

[2:07:21] >> oh okay can we have so what's everyone

[2:07:23] doing on Thursday [laughter]

[2:07:26] here depending on if there's a public

[2:07:28] hearing component.

[2:07:29] >> No, this shouldn't have it where we've

[2:07:30] done our public hearings.

[2:07:33] >> Never mind. Friday.

[2:07:37] >> Go ahead.

[2:07:37] >> Like, is it tomorrow? [laughter]

[2:07:40] >> That's what he said.

[2:07:41] >> They said there's

[2:07:43] >> Well, I guess that would be tomorrow,

[2:07:44] huh? It feels like Thursday already.

[2:07:47] >> It's almost Thursday and it might be

[2:07:48] Thursday if we're not careful.

[2:07:50] >> Yeah.

[2:07:51] >> I just for my I don't like this as it

[2:07:53] is. I don't like it that he could do the

[2:07:54] town homestead and be permitted use. I I

[2:07:57] just I think there's somewhere that's

[2:07:58] like that

[2:08:00] >> just I live like so when we were on

[2:08:02] Eagle Mountain this is exactly what ours

[2:08:03] the rear alley garages but we were in

[2:08:06] the middle of nowhere with and I'll tell

[2:08:08] you where the kids played. It was in the

[2:08:09] alleyway. That's exactly where they

[2:08:10] played because we had small Yeah. In the

[2:08:14] roadway. I mean we had but we were very

[2:08:16] far from a highway. This is right next

[2:08:17] to a highway. We've got traffic. It's I

[2:08:19] don't like this as it is. I'm again I

[2:08:22] know he has rights and could do the

[2:08:23] permitted use. I don't like the

[2:08:24] permitted use either to be honest. I

[2:08:26] think that this is a lot in a very small

[2:08:28] area. And I'm not saying he can't do

[2:08:30] what he can do, but I think there needs

[2:08:31] to be some

[2:08:33] >> well changes.

[2:08:33] >> So, one thing too I want to bring up,

[2:08:35] we're focused on Main Street 112 a lot.

[2:08:38] What's this going to do to Dery? That

[2:08:40] intersection is already messed up. It,

[2:08:43] you know, that is going to have a big

[2:08:45] toll on this, too, because people are

[2:08:46] going to go out on Dery. Can't turn

[2:08:48] left, only turn right. It's going to

[2:08:51] cause a headache right there as well. go

[2:08:54] down and try to make a U-turn there.

[2:08:56] Exactly. Which some people

[2:08:58] >> try to do.

[2:08:59] >> Yeah.

[2:08:59] >> Well, and one thing what some of the

[2:09:01] citizens brought up was just a safety

[2:09:02] concern. Fire getting in there.

[2:09:03] >> I know that's not your issue. That's a U

[2:09:05] dot issue, but it

[2:09:07] >> I just I want to be clear to keep it to

[2:09:09] devel like like keep development issues.

[2:09:11] >> I'm with it. But it does it does bring

[2:09:14] up I mean they they they do come it is

[2:09:17] that issue, but they do come together

[2:09:19] when we compound it by

[2:09:21] >> put by Yeah. by 200.

[2:09:23] >> Well, it may not be a developer issue,

[2:09:25] but it's could become a city issue. So,

[2:09:26] I mean, whether it's you do or whoever

[2:09:28] it's the citizens that are going to be,

[2:09:30] we have to be

[2:09:31] >> right.

[2:09:32] >> Whoever we address that is, you know,

[2:09:35] >> potentially. So,

[2:09:36] >> do we have I mean, our traffic study

[2:09:39] addressed that

[2:09:40] >> cook one too.

[2:09:43] >> Correct. But I mean,

[2:09:44] >> so I don't I don't know I don't know

[2:09:46] what to do other than give you here's

[2:09:48] what an independent engineer for traffic

[2:09:49] says. So,

[2:09:51] >> when was that traffic study done?

[2:09:53] >> Uh, before when we we were going to turn

[2:09:55] in the permitted town homes, we updated

[2:09:57] the we updated the traffic plan then.

[2:10:02] So, it it was it accommodated all of

[2:10:04] these and and when we turned in our

[2:10:06] encroachment permit to UD do they

[2:10:07] reviewed it, too.

[2:10:10] >> Yeah. I mean, you got high density going

[2:10:12] on the north side of this.

[2:10:16] >> Yes.

[2:10:17] >> No.

[2:10:18] Behind Maverick. That's strict.

[2:10:20] >> But that's not north of this.

[2:10:22] >> That was west of this project.

[2:10:24] >> Northwest of this area.

[2:10:26] >> But still,

[2:10:28] >> are they are they there? Have they come

[2:10:30] through the process?

[2:10:31] >> No.

[2:10:32] >> Partially.

[2:10:32] >> Yeah,

[2:10:34] >> because they're asking for a reason.

[2:10:37] >> They came in and gave a conceptual and

[2:10:39] asked for opinion was on the conceptual.

[2:10:43] >> It's back in their hands.

[2:10:48] But there is additional high density to

[2:10:51] the south of this in the Romney's

[2:10:53] residential development

[2:10:56] >> directly.

[2:10:57] >> But see this this is why it's really

[2:10:59] important that we keep focused.

[2:11:00] >> I I this this could this could swallow

[2:11:03] up and we get we get off on tangents,

[2:11:05] >> right?

[2:11:05] >> What does the code what does the code

[2:11:07] [clears throat] say? because you know I guarantee you if I don't know who owns

[2:11:13] that property on the north of there uh

[2:11:16] but

[2:11:16] >> that's not a part of this so that's what

[2:11:18] we're talking about

[2:11:18] >> well I know but it is it is becoming

[2:11:20] part of it because it's it's taking us

[2:11:21] out of the parameters so I would just

[2:11:23] say stick to what the land use code is

[2:11:27] >> you know and the things that can be uh

[2:11:30] [snorts] done within it and the things

[2:11:32] that we've done to make it better

[2:11:34] >> but that's been the problem with grand

[2:11:36] for so long is we're thinking in this

[2:11:37] box. This is a public safety issue. Even

[2:11:40] if it is you do or not, we've got to

[2:11:42] think I've got to look at that, too.

[2:11:44] >> And and it we'll look at your land use

[2:11:47] thing. We we'll prove whatever comes to

[2:11:49] us, but we got to keep it in the back of

[2:11:51] our minds, too, that it it will

[2:11:53] eventually. And maybe it's not dealt

[2:11:54] with you, but we need to be aware that

[2:11:56] this will become a public safety issue.

[2:11:58] >> And I I want you to I really do. I I

[2:12:02] know that that seems disingenuous, but I

[2:12:04] appreciate that. Well, and we can't

[2:12:06] really look at things in a vacuum of

[2:12:07] just like just we have to look at

[2:12:09] everything because that's I mean yeah as

[2:12:12] to this developer. Yes. But I mean we

[2:12:14] can't just go oh yeah look here here. I mean

[2:12:16] >> but here's here's here's what happens.

[2:12:19] This this project goes in Ramy's have to

[2:12:21] come with now their traffic study and

[2:12:23] they have to account right so it's not

[2:12:24] like you can just build just because

[2:12:27] they they still have traffic counts that

[2:12:29] they'll have to prove to you. but theirs

[2:12:31] is already approved. So, they won't have

[2:12:34] to have new traffic study even though

[2:12:35] you're going to add 250 something units

[2:12:38] in here.

[2:12:39] >> They've been here and got plat approval.

[2:12:41] >> Right. Right.

[2:12:42] >> They have PUB approval. They don't have

[2:12:44] plat approval. But I mean, the fact is their numbers ain't counting for

[2:12:49] Joe's and Joe's.

[2:12:50] >> Neither one are accounting for the

[2:12:51] other.

[2:12:52] >> But if they have,

[2:12:53] >> but we need to account.

[2:12:54] >> I would love to see their PUD approval

[2:12:56] >> and when they got it because I'll bet

[2:12:58] you it's similar then.

[2:13:00] And

[2:13:04] I'm just saying don't

[2:13:07] let's just stick to what the code is and

[2:13:10] the things I'm willing to do

[2:13:13] versus

[2:13:15] you know the whatifs the whatifs of the

[2:13:18] world.

[2:13:20] I think one positive is is that it is it

[2:13:23] is a different product type

[2:13:25] that we've seen and that's

[2:13:29] >> yeah if we have a disparity in age group

[2:13:31] inside this city it's between the ages

[2:13:33] of 18 and probably 25

[2:13:38] none of those young families have a

[2:13:39] place to live

[2:13:40] >> right

[2:13:41] >> so um

[2:13:44] that's why most of them live outside the

[2:13:46] city so anyway I yeah I think I I think

[2:13:50] if we can get if we can have a work

[2:13:52] session and we can address those two

[2:13:55] items that I feel are of concern

[2:14:00] um

[2:14:04] that addresses the two concerns I have.

[2:14:06] I if we're looking to do something

[2:14:08] outside of that. Yeah, that's that's

[2:14:12] where I sit. And I don't know what to

[2:14:14] tell the citizens about schools because

[2:14:16] we we we keep getting

[2:14:20] pressure that that's we keep getting

[2:14:22] told that's not our responsibility,

[2:14:24] which is the school districts. But we're

[2:14:26] doing Jake sits on Jake's

[2:14:30] going to the school district meetings,

[2:14:32] which is the first councilman to do

[2:14:34] that. We are waving every freaking flag

[2:14:38] we can wave that all this group grow

[2:14:40] group is coming

[2:14:42] and I don't know that we're anywhere

[2:14:44] other than where we were 10 years ago.

[2:14:47] So we are trying but that's their job

[2:14:50] and we are involved but I just wanted to

[2:14:54] address the school issue the dot issue.

[2:14:57] We try. We keep getting told that that's

[2:15:00] their problem,

[2:15:03] >> but it becomes our problem

[2:15:04] >> and the schools and we're trying, but

[2:15:08] we are just not a blip on the radar at

[2:15:12] times. So,

[2:15:14] >> I do want to point out that the um

[2:15:16] school district has met with Bill and I

[2:15:18] to go over what projects have invested

[2:15:19] and and they do understand that the city

[2:15:23] is growing very fast and that they do

[2:15:25] understand that they need to start

[2:15:27] planning new schools and larger schools

[2:15:29] and where they're going to place those.

[2:15:33] » Hallelujah.

[2:15:35] still everyone whether it's the city

[2:15:37] council, school district do or developer

[2:15:40] it's the function of the money you can say that or not but it is and so

[2:15:48] anyway [clears throat]

[2:15:49] with that being said I can accommodate

[2:15:52] the west side they may not like it but I

[2:15:54] can we can come to a a happy

[2:15:57] [clears throat] medium where they don't

[2:15:58] like it and I don't like them not them

[2:16:00] but I don't like what they're asking but

[2:16:02] there's some something that we can work

[2:16:03] out

[2:16:07] Do we want to move towards that then

[2:16:08] having a work meeting?

[2:16:11] >> We already have a work meeting scheduled

[2:16:12] in two weeks

[2:16:14] >> or not.

[2:16:15] >> Not yet. We could schedule one for the

[2:16:17] next council meeting night at 6.

[2:16:19] >> Yeah. Can we do it before? I'd like to

[2:16:20] be on the next council meeting if we can

[2:16:22] do it. I mean,

[2:16:23] >> do the work session and then

[2:16:25] >> I don't know. There won't be enough time

[2:16:27] for me

[2:16:28] >> to to address with my engineer unless we

[2:16:30] just draw on paper.

[2:16:33] But it will be

[2:16:35] >> or we do it a super work session between

[2:16:38] the in the next two weeks. Do it next

[2:16:41] Wednesday.

[2:16:41] >> It sounded like that was amanable if

[2:16:43] people can accommodate it.

[2:16:46] >> We also need to get staff

[2:16:48] >> I won't be here but concept and make

[2:16:50] sure it meets our conditions.

[2:16:51] >> Would they work better or no?

[2:16:56] I'll be

[2:16:58] >> if we did it on September 2nd at 6 PM,

[2:17:02] would that work for you?

[2:17:03] >> That's a Thursday.

[2:17:04] >> No, it's a Wednesday.

[2:17:05] >> Wednesday. Yep. I'll I'll meet whatever

[2:17:07] you guys need me to.

[2:17:08] >> Then if it's not on that council

[2:17:09] meeting, it'll be on this. We could put

[2:17:11] it on the the second one. It would be

[2:17:13] the 16th.

[2:17:14] >> See, that's a whole another month.

[2:17:16] >> No. Yeah, it would be a month.

[2:17:18] >> See, that's I mean, here's here's the

[2:17:21] problem I have. Everyone knows the time

[2:17:23] cost of money, right? But

[2:17:26] if if for some reason in that work

[2:17:28] meeting it's just it's too hard and I go

[2:17:30] back to the permit now I've got another

[2:17:33] three months

[2:17:35] to get approvals on the permitted one

[2:17:38] and then you know you're not building

[2:17:40] until you're not putting homes up till

[2:17:42] the fall of the following by the time

[2:17:43] you do construction

[2:17:45] if this can get approved I can construct

[2:17:47] during the winter and have homes in

[2:17:48] spring

[2:17:50] and and so that's my timeline that's

[2:17:51] kind of it's very difficult to manage

[2:17:54] this on on my end, not you know, it's

[2:17:57] nobody else's issue, but these are my my

[2:17:59] problems to manage. So, if we could do

[2:18:01] it, if we can come to an agreement on

[2:18:04] that work meeting,

[2:18:06] >> right?

[2:18:07] >> Or you want to have like a a meeting

[2:18:08] with the residents and then bring that

[2:18:10] to a work meeting

[2:18:11] >> to the council on that Wednesday and

[2:18:14] then have

[2:18:14] >> I don't know how I do that other than

[2:18:16] rent out a room here and just say they

[2:18:19] can come.

[2:18:20] >> My house,

[2:18:21] >> we could do an open house here.

[2:18:22] [laughter]

[2:18:24] We could do [clears throat] an open

[2:18:25] house here. You would you would host it

[2:18:27] basically and then I could just notice

[2:18:28] as a possible forum and that way

[2:18:31] residents can give you input, but we

[2:18:35] don't typically take public input at

[2:18:38] work meetings.

[2:18:40] >> But if we schedule for a specific work

[2:18:42] type meeting, so there is

[2:18:44] >> like an at Tyson,

[2:18:46] >> I think the open house is probably the what what you're sort of trying to

[2:18:51] accomplish here. I mean it would be

[2:18:52] >> to to get the input from the public

[2:18:54] while having council present and just

[2:18:57] notice it as an open house. Council can

[2:18:59] all be here as a quorum if they like and

[2:19:02] uh then then it can have some back and

[2:19:05] forth with with the community view.

[2:19:07] >> Okay.

[2:19:09] >> And that's only a 24-hour notice. So

[2:19:14] » your next coun your next council meeting

[2:19:16] is two week

[2:19:17] >> September.

[2:19:18] >> It's the first September 2nd.

[2:19:21] So, does anytime the 23rd through the

[2:19:24] 29th work

[2:19:26] >> the point?

[2:19:28] >> Oh, yeah. I was just thinking the whole

[2:19:30] week.

[2:19:31] >> Yeah, you're right.

[2:19:32] >> You also need to make sure you're

[2:19:34] accounting to give your engineer enough

[2:19:36] time to make changes as well as staff

[2:19:38] enough time to

[2:19:39] >> So, if we do it on the 25th or 26th,

[2:19:46] what what day is better for staff?

[2:19:49] >> Two weeks.

[2:19:50] I know.

[2:19:53] >> But if if we went two weeks, if we went

[2:19:55] the second and we made

[2:19:57] >> Joe, what about this suggestion? What if

[2:19:59] we do an open house on September 2nd at

[2:20:03] 6:00 prior to the meeting? We could

[2:20:06] perhaps put

[2:20:08] go through this. We could have things

[2:20:10] just in writing because that's basically

[2:20:12] what we're looking for.

[2:20:13] >> That's what we're doing anyway,

[2:20:14] >> right? So, we could put this on the

[2:20:16] agenda for September 2nd just as it is

[2:20:18] now. Um, but all those things that come

[2:20:21] we if we can come to a agreement between

[2:20:25] everybody, a consensus, something that

[2:20:27] everyone feels comfortable with, we can

[2:20:29] continue on with that meeting um or with

[2:20:32] the agenda on September 2nd. If you feel

[2:20:36] like it's going to be better to go back

[2:20:37] to your engineers after that September

[2:20:39] 2nd meeting, we can table it and move

[2:20:42] you to the September 16th.

[2:20:44] >> Okay? depending on how things play out

[2:20:46] on the second.

[2:20:48] >> I can live with a good solution.

[2:20:50] >> So, what I'm hearing just so we can

[2:20:52] >> is

[2:20:54] uh Jake, I didn't I didn't get your

[2:20:56] second. The first one was the west side

[2:20:59] >> parks.

[2:20:59] >> The parks and the parks I we can take

[2:21:01] care of. I I'm pretty sure that we can

[2:21:04] >> if you'll come with ideas what you want

[2:21:06] >> and I know it's not fully designed so

[2:21:08] maybe

[2:21:08] >> Yeah, there's

[2:21:09] >> come come in with what you anticipate

[2:21:11] for those that would help.

[2:21:12] >> Okay. I mean, we see a hole there right

[2:21:15] now.

[2:21:16] >> Yeah, I can I can surely have them put

[2:21:18] some things in there and

[2:21:20] >> trying to get an idea of what and how.

[2:21:21] >> Let me let me ask you this. Is on the

[2:21:24] west side buffer,

[2:21:26] are you against things being there? Like

[2:21:29] if there's a trail and

[2:21:31] >> No, I'm not personally.

[2:21:32] >> It's just not housing.

[2:21:34] >> Yes. So, if we put some of our parks

[2:21:36] and, you know, we wouldn't put huge

[2:21:38] soccer fields, but maybe we'd put a

[2:21:40] couple of mini ones in where people

[2:21:41] could play soccer. And they're not

[2:21:43] having full-fledged games anyway. You

[2:21:45] know, even even you put

[2:21:47] >> Would it be better for you to put a

[2:21:49] larger lot on there from a stamp from a

[2:21:53] >> Well, but it doesn't Yes, but it doesn't

[2:21:55] accomplish what you're asking. We could put some bigger lots

[2:21:59] >> because it creates a buffer, right? It

[2:22:01] creates a buffer similar to what's on

[2:22:03] the other side. So that's why I was just

[2:22:05] wondering like rather than than go the

[2:22:08] route of no space, nothing there at all,

[2:22:11] a home there with the backyard that's

[2:22:14] going to be

[2:22:16] Yeah. I'm just I was just wondering why

[2:22:19] I was just that was a question. I just

[2:22:21] >> um

[2:22:21] >> when you mention

[2:22:22] >> the answer the answer maybe maybe

[2:22:24] because maybe the maybe the um

[2:22:28] the consensus what what is the street

[2:22:30] frontage

[2:22:32] on a lot that's the minimum

[2:22:34] >> for MU or

[2:22:35] >> no just say like a typical third acre

[2:22:37] lot

[2:22:38] >> you're 60 ft per third acre and 70 ft

[2:22:41] for a halfacre

[2:22:42] >> so we can I can have that drawn up and

[2:22:44] just take that into account and see what

[2:22:47] 60 and 70

[2:22:49] >> and and just see Maybe that goes all the

[2:22:50] way back to that line.

[2:22:53] Maybe would would the council rather see

[2:22:55] that versus

[2:22:58] a 70 foot buffer with some stuff in it?

[2:23:01] >> I think that's a question that I'd

[2:23:03] rather have the residents that live

[2:23:04] there that will be directly impacted by

[2:23:06] that answer.

[2:23:07] >> Okay. I'll I'll see. I think my engineer

[2:23:11] should be able to do some drawings and

[2:23:12] some schematics for that.

[2:23:14] >> I think that'd be great if you brought

[2:23:15] that to that meeting.

[2:23:17] >> Okay. cost me 10 grand to do it, but

[2:23:19] every time I It's like working with

[2:23:21] Rocky Mountain Power. 10 grand to talk

[2:23:22] to him. But

[2:23:24] >> asking for a grant for good. [laughter]

[2:23:28] » Oh jeez.

[2:23:28] >> He's already taking

[2:23:30] >> We would love any ideas on like or not

[2:23:33] most retention ponds in Grantsville are

[2:23:35] weed patches. So any ideas you got

[2:23:38] there?

[2:23:38] >> We've de all the other developments I've

[2:23:40] done, we've we've developed them and

[2:23:42] made them put some artificial turf and

[2:23:46] >> things in. Yeah, we have I can bring you

[2:23:47] some examples. Real real life examples.

[2:23:49] >> That's what I was just going to suggest.

[2:23:51] Please don't just draw it in on, you

[2:23:53] know, a little top park on here. Give me

[2:23:55] a real life picture.

[2:23:57] >> We're we're installing one right now or

[2:23:59] project we have in us. So,

[2:24:01] >> perfect.

[2:24:02] >> So, just so my my clarification I want

[2:24:05] to put So, anywhere where there's homes.

[2:24:07] So, there's someone on I guess the

[2:24:09] southside too. Is that Cook Street?

[2:24:11] That's right there.

[2:24:12] >> Yeah.

[2:24:13] >> Yes. That's where I'd like a a buffer,

[2:24:16] whether it's bigger lots or your 30 foot

[2:24:18] buffer because those are existing homes

[2:24:20] as well. It's not just those West homes,

[2:24:23] oneacre homes.

[2:24:24] >> Man, I shouldn't have given the property

[2:24:25] for it.

[2:24:27] >> I literally, just so you know, it's not

[2:24:30] doesn't matter to you guys, but I gave

[2:24:32] property so they could build these lots

[2:24:33] right there and sewer easement through

[2:24:36] there to do it. But

[2:24:37] >> didn't I develop own?

[2:24:39] >> Uh, no, I did. So,

[2:24:41] >> so Sean Berkens and Perry didn't know

[2:24:43] about that.

[2:24:44] >> No, they bought Well, they bought they

[2:24:45] own the cook side and then they needed

[2:24:47] an easement property for me to do it.

[2:24:50] But I just heard a couple things. Sorry,

[2:24:51] I don't

[2:24:51] >> No, it's all right. Bring it to the open

[2:24:53] house. Who's bringing sandwiches?

[2:24:56] >> Pizza.

[2:24:57] >> All right, fine. [laughter]

[2:24:59] I only do the Little Caesar's $10 deep

[2:25:02] dish.

[2:25:03] >> Just another brand. [laughter]

[2:25:06] >> So anyway, all right. I appreciate it. I

[2:25:10] think that we can work something out and

[2:25:12] make it, like I said, not everybody's

[2:25:14] going to win, but not everyone's going

[2:25:15] to feel like they got bruised,

[2:25:17] >> right?

[2:25:18] >> Thank you, Joe.

[2:25:21] >> Mayor, I make a motion that we table

[2:25:24] items number seven and eight

[2:25:28] um for a future

[2:25:31] um city council meeting.

[2:25:33] >> We have a motion by council member

[2:25:35] Butler to table items seven and eight.

[2:25:37] Is there a second?

[2:25:39] We doing this on

[2:25:41] >> Well, we already worked it out

[2:25:43] >> based on that.

[2:25:44] >> Yeah. Okay.

[2:25:44] >> And a second by council member Williams.

[2:25:46] All in favor?

[2:25:50] >> Thank you, Joe, for being willing to

[2:25:52] work through this. And thank you to all

[2:25:54] the residents that came and we encourage

[2:25:56] you to come back on September 2nd. I

[2:25:58] think Joe, would it be okay to say that

[2:26:02] if they have specific ideas, they could

[2:26:05] email some way? Yeah, they I can give

[2:26:08] them my email right now.

[2:26:09] >> Yeah. Or they could reach out to me and

[2:26:10] I

[2:26:11] >> It's a different email than you have,

[2:26:12] Shelby.

[2:26:13] >> Yeah, but I'm happy to pass it on to

[2:26:17] >> Okay, so Joe, if you'd like to share

[2:26:19] your

[2:26:19] >> Can we post to it after and I I want to

[2:26:22] go to

[2:26:23] >> Perfect. Thank you everyone. All right.

[2:26:25] >> And it's not a spam one, so I will get

[2:26:27] it. [laughter]

[2:26:29] >> All right. Moving on to agenda item

[2:26:31] number nine. Consideration of ordinance

[2:26:33] 2026-05

[2:26:35] approving a reszone from RM15, A10,

[2:26:39] R112, and CS to RM15 for the Apple

[2:26:43] Street town home subdivision excluding

[2:26:46] 1.19 acres for commercial use.

[2:26:50] >> So, I was not here when the general plan

[2:26:52] and the reszone went through. My

[2:26:54] understanding was it was requested that

[2:26:57] a um record of survey or some sort of

[2:27:00] survey was shown for the commercial area

[2:27:02] of of how much that was or where that

[2:27:05] location was. Um

[2:27:08] and so I'm my understanding is the

[2:27:10] general plan amendment was approved. Um

[2:27:13] and we are here to request the reszone

[2:27:15] again um for the Apple town homes or

[2:27:19] gate apartments or

[2:27:22] has had a few names. [laughter]

[2:27:28] So, we've already approved this.

[2:27:30] >> Didn't we do this?

[2:27:31] >> Sounds like this seemed like I've

[2:27:32] already

[2:27:34] >> So, we you would approved the general

[2:27:36] town amendment, but then tabled

[2:27:39] >> Oh, the

[2:27:40] >> this one.

[2:27:43] >> So, I apologize if I don't have the full

[2:27:45] context of why it was or anything like

[2:27:47] that. Um,

[2:27:49] you know, I think this is a great

[2:27:50] project just for the fact that we are

[2:27:52] getting rid of something.

[2:27:54] >> That's an eyesore.

[2:27:55] >> Yeah, that's an isore. Thank you, Red.

[2:27:56] Yeah. Stole the words out of my mouth.

[2:27:58] >> Um, and and putting something in there

[2:28:01] that that's going to bring this property

[2:28:03] to life.

[2:28:05] >> Um, and fix an issue to where we have,

[2:28:08] you know, non-conforming [clears throat]

[2:28:10] zonings with lots and different zonings

[2:28:13] in one area.

[2:28:17] All right.

[2:28:24] » Anyone have any questions on this?

[2:28:34] » We beat this one to death, too. I think

[2:28:36] >> I feel like we got over this one last

[2:28:37] year.

[2:28:38] >> If anyone would like to make a motion,

[2:28:40] >> mayor, I'll make a motion. We approve

[2:28:41] ordinance 2026-05

[2:28:44] approving agree zone from RM15

[2:28:47] A10 R1

[2:28:49] R1-1-12

[2:28:52] and CS to RM15 for the Apple Street Town

[2:28:55] subdivision excluding the 1.19 acres for

[2:28:58] commercial use.

[2:29:00] >> We have a motion by council member uh

[2:29:02] Dalton and a second by council member

[2:29:04] Butler. All in favor? Hi.

[2:29:08] >> All right.

[2:29:11] >> Item number 10, consideration of

[2:29:12] resolution 2026-58

[2:29:15] accepting federal transportation funding

[2:29:18] awards authorizing staff to execute

[2:29:20] related agreements and providing for an

[2:29:23] effective date.

[2:29:29] » Is somebody

[2:29:30] >> Alexis is gonna do this one.

[2:29:32] >> Okay. Hi, Alexis.

[2:29:33] >> We're [laughter] gonna team tag this

[2:29:35] one. Okay,

[2:29:36] >> it's the Diva.

[2:29:37] >> She's looks like she's coming straight

[2:29:39] from softball. Sweet.

[2:29:42] >> Okay.

[2:29:43] >> Yeah. [laughter]

[2:29:43] >> Can I plug this in? Yes.

[2:29:47] >> Guess it's a good thing we stalled out.

[2:29:54] » Thank you.

[2:29:58] [clears throat]

[2:30:03] I'm so

[2:30:16] » Okay. Um, hi council. Um, Alexis

[2:30:19] Stewart. So, this um item

[2:30:23] is just to accept two grants from U DOT.

[2:30:28] um the acceptance will combine them into

[2:30:30] one project. Um and then we just need

[2:30:33] the mayor's approval to sign a letter

[2:30:35] for U DOT and then also just to approve

[2:30:37] funding to fund the projects.

[2:30:40] Um

[2:30:44] » so the first one is safe routes to

[2:30:46] school. So this one we've actually um

[2:30:48] it's been awarded for a while. This one

[2:30:49] got awarded about a year ago. Um but

[2:30:52] this specific one is to finish the

[2:30:54] sidewalk on Dery Street between Kulie

[2:30:56] and West Street. So here's um a map. So

[2:31:00] we can see here's the junior high.

[2:31:03] Here's the current sidewalk. And then

[2:31:05] the funding for this grant is this

[2:31:06] little portion here between Kulie Street

[2:31:08] and West Street. Um so for this one, UD

[2:31:13] do came out and they estimated the price

[2:31:15] of this project to be 356,000.

[2:31:18] Um they said that they're willing to

[2:31:20] fund that full amount, but we do have to

[2:31:22] bake the federal the required federal

[2:31:25] grant match which is 6.77%.

[2:31:28] Um so they should fund the whole project

[2:31:30] except for that spa match.

[2:31:33] >> Which comes out to about like 24,000 I

[2:31:35] think.

[2:31:36] >> Yeah. Pretty good deal.

[2:31:38] >> Be nice to have more sidewalks.

[2:31:40] >> Yeah. Well, and just to be clear, when

[2:31:43] you cross over West Street, there is

[2:31:45] sidewalk then again on Dery, right? as

[2:31:48] you move up the

[2:31:50] just that one little section that

[2:31:52] doesn't have

[2:31:54] finishes it

[2:31:54] >> finishes it off.

[2:31:55] >> Yep.

[2:31:57] >> Um All right. And then the next one,

[2:32:02] so this is the transportation

[2:32:04] alternatives program grant. This is also

[2:32:06] for a sidewalk. Um this sidewalk is

[2:32:09] going to be on Quirk Street. Um, so we

[2:32:12] did try to get the east side of Quirk

[2:32:15] Street, but unfortunately, um, UD do

[2:32:17] won't fund that side. Um, they just

[2:32:20] advise that when that property on the

[2:32:23] east side is eventually developed, then

[2:32:25] the developer could put in the sidewalk.

[2:32:27] Um, but they did agree to fund the west

[2:32:31] side from Mountain Meadow Drive all the

[2:32:34] way up to Pear Street. And that will

[2:32:36] help the neighborhood over here with

[2:32:38] those um students to be able to safely

[2:32:41] get from there is a sidewalk, this blue

[2:32:43] sidewalk. It there is one there. So, for

[2:32:45] them to get here down, they'll cross

[2:32:48] that pair and then continue on over to

[2:32:50] Willow. Um, we don't necessarily have to

[2:32:53] put a a crosswalk in here. That was just

[2:32:55] for a visual for my grant application.

[2:32:57] Um, but a a cross walk up here at Paris

[2:33:02] Street.

[2:33:03] >> Well,

[2:33:05] yeah, there needs to be one there. I

[2:33:08] think we'd all like

[2:33:09] >> like to finish off the sidewalk that

[2:33:11] just all of a sudden ends, but

[2:33:14] [clears throat]

[2:33:14] >> know we've heard that from numerous

[2:33:17] >> I feel like that's all over the city

[2:33:18] every time I watch.

[2:33:19] >> Well, but this one in particular has

[2:33:21] quite the drop off, right? Yeah, but

[2:33:24] this at least gives some sort of

[2:33:26] connectivity from like you said that

[2:33:28] subdivision to Willow Elementary. So,

[2:33:31] >> well, yeah, connectivity and also

[2:33:33] safety. Um, if you drive down Cork

[2:33:35] Street,

[2:33:37] you see kids walking, it's

[2:33:40] >> Yeah.

[2:33:41] >> There's nowhere for them to go.

[2:33:42] >> They walk to the path, then they walk

[2:33:44] into the road.

[2:33:44] >> Into the road. Yes. And if it's win if

[2:33:47] it's winter and if it ever snows here

[2:33:48] again

[2:33:49] >> and it's there's Yeah. There's no

[2:33:53] there's literally nowhere for the the

[2:33:55] people walking there to walk. So

[2:33:58] >> So is this kind of the same deal? We

[2:33:59] have a certain amount that we need to

[2:34:01] match.

[2:34:02] >> Yes. So this one's a lot more um because

[2:34:04] there is a power pole that will need to

[2:34:07] get moved. Um and then so this one

[2:34:12] >> likes to throw things in. So I think we

[2:34:14] should probably [laughter] get a little

[2:34:15] [clears throat]

[2:34:18] » I think he's good for it. Um, I can get

[2:34:20] I can pull that up actually. So, this

[2:34:22] one.

[2:34:26] Uh, let's see.

[2:34:30] Well, I'll tell you what it was. Barry

[2:34:32] estimated it at 701,000 and they're

[2:34:35] giving us 250,000.

[2:34:38] So, it's quite a bit of money. Um, I

[2:34:40] don't know. Aspen, were we able to see

[2:34:43] if that we have funding for it? Yeah,

[2:34:45] that's kind of that's kind of the

[2:34:46] problem right now is that with the

[2:34:48] budget the way it is, we cut out all the

[2:34:50] extra costs. So it this is not factored

[2:34:53] in the budget either matches for either

[2:34:55] of these grants. That's why we really

[2:34:57] want to come to you. It's like if we do

[2:34:59] proceed with these grants and don't turn

[2:35:01] them down, we'll probably have to use

[2:35:02] the water credit money to pay for the

[2:35:05] matching dollars for these.

[2:35:06] >> What about the uh sidewalk fund as far

[2:35:09] as like the match program that the city

[2:35:11] has? So there is $50,000 budgeted in

[2:35:14] that line, but it is intended for a

[2:35:15] different use. It is intended for the

[2:35:17] sidewalk program to match residents. So

[2:35:19] that money is already in the approved,

[2:35:21] >> but it's only 50,000 anyway.

[2:35:23] >> Correct. You could reallocate it to

[2:35:26] >> we could do a like a budget adjustment

[2:35:28] and move it to a different line without

[2:35:30] increasing the budget for like the

[2:35:31] 24,000.

[2:35:32] >> Sounds like last year there were very

[2:35:33] few people who used that program.

[2:35:36] >> Yeah, it was very minimally used um

[2:35:39] program last year. So, we could

[2:35:41] definitely reallocate some of those

[2:35:42] funds to a different, but we would have

[2:35:44] to of course like just reallocate them.

[2:35:46] But again, it's only 50,000. So, we're

[2:35:48] still

[2:35:49] >> So, if we're awarded a grant for 350,000

[2:35:52] and we get numbers and the numbers are

[2:35:54] 250,000, can you use that or do we only

[2:35:58] get 250,000 in the grant? That make

[2:36:01] sense? Like when we if we price out I'm

[2:36:04] talking about the I'm talking about the

[2:36:05] first one. I going back to the first. If

[2:36:08] on that one we we put it out for an RFP

[2:36:12] and we get it obviously if we get it

[2:36:15] less than what they

[2:36:18] allocated like do those funds come to us

[2:36:21] or does is it based is it like a match

[2:36:24] based on whatever that RFP comes in at

[2:36:26] is that

[2:36:27] >> yeah whether like does it reduce it down

[2:36:29] do we still have to pay the 6% even

[2:36:31] though they're allocated 300 if we come

[2:36:32] at 250 do we still have to pay the 6% on

[2:36:35] the 250 is that what you're Now, do they give us the 350 and we can use

[2:36:40] 100 on some another project or it's

[2:36:43] based on whatever it is.

[2:36:44] >> It's basically reimburse reimbursement

[2:36:46] for whatever. So, whatever you use for

[2:36:48] the project, you submit for that

[2:36:50] reimbursement and then they give that to

[2:36:52] you.

[2:36:52] >> But the scenario, you still have to pay

[2:36:55] the 6% regardless of what the cost.

[2:36:58] >> Yes. Yeah.

[2:36:59] >> Yeah. I don't think you could take the

[2:37:01] extra from the one project to the other

[2:37:03] project if that's what you're asking

[2:37:05] because it's two different programs. you

[2:37:07] have safe routes to school and then tap

[2:37:09] >> but UDI is trying to merge them so they

[2:37:10] go out to bid for both project at the

[2:37:12] same time to to so you they don't have

[2:37:15] to it makes it so that you can get a

[2:37:18] better bid

[2:37:18] >> a better bid out of

[2:37:22] » at least that's what their

[2:37:23] recommendation is

[2:37:24] >> okay

[2:37:25] >> so Barry's estimate was say again

[2:37:28] >> 70171

[2:37:32] » the law on that second one

[2:37:33] >> and so like $400,000 for the second one

[2:37:36] Yeah, let me try to pull it up.

[2:37:38] >> That's obviously right now the estimate.

[2:37:40] We we going to try and get that number

[2:37:42] knocked down.

[2:37:44] >> Do you want to see it or

[2:37:47] I can pull it up?

[2:37:53] » Thank you for your efforts going after

[2:37:55] these. I I

[2:37:58] finding safe paths for our kids to walk

[2:38:01] on.

[2:38:04] That's one area that we really need

[2:38:06] we're kind of behind on.

[2:38:10] >> Yeah, I agree. I think listening to like

[2:38:12] citizen feedback, I think this is one

[2:38:14] that um I've heard a lot on just because

[2:38:17] Yeah. kids walking and then in the dirt

[2:38:19] road,

[2:38:21] >> right? This I would have to say of all

[2:38:23] the sidewalk areas in town that I've had

[2:38:26] citizens reach out to me about,

[2:38:29] this is the very highest

[2:38:32] number of calls I've had.

[2:38:33] >> The one on quirk to pair.

[2:38:34] Yes.

[2:38:36] >> Yeah.

[2:38:37] Because that whole subdivision has

[2:38:39] no safe way to get to the school.

[2:38:46] » Uh so this is Barry's estimate. It's

[2:38:49] kind of long, but

[2:38:56] » it's utility. is the utility the

[2:38:58] >> I think it's just the pole as well as

[2:39:00] there's a um a communication line that

[2:39:02] needs to be moved boxes and things like

[2:39:03] that. So we're going to have to work

[2:39:04] with the different providers there to

[2:39:07] move those as well. And I think he was

[2:39:08] unsure on the cost.

[2:39:10] >> So he just kind of threw $210,000 there.

[2:39:13] >> I think that's a little high.

[2:39:17] » Yeah, it's quite a bit more than even

[2:39:20] what we moved on Dury Street to

[2:39:21] accommodate the intersection there for

[2:39:24] Matthews Lane.

[2:39:27] I mean that pole is not as big as as

[2:39:29] those running down there.

[2:39:30] >> Different.

[2:39:31] >> What's that?

[2:39:32] >> Different pole.

[2:39:33] >> Yeah.

[2:39:33] >> Different utility.

[2:39:34] >> Oh yeah.

[2:39:35] >> More.

[2:39:36] >> Well, you say it's more on quirk.

[2:39:38] >> Yeah.

[2:39:39] >> Why Christie?

[2:39:41] >> Cuz that was just a single home. Single

[2:39:43] line there. Isn't Dery at Oh, look at it

[2:39:46] again.

[2:39:48] >> That's a Dery was the single line single

[2:39:51] home.

[2:39:52] >> Does this one have transformer banks on

[2:39:54] it and stuff?

[2:39:57] That might difference

[2:40:00] was just a single

[2:40:02] >> we can

[2:40:05] » the hard part is if we say yes to it to

[2:40:08] you do then we commit to it and then we

[2:40:10] can still pull out but the optics are

[2:40:12] not great as we go along. It's better to

[2:40:15] not do this one if we don't want to

[2:40:17] commit to something like that. Yeah.

[2:40:20] >> Well, when we said we wanted to use that

[2:40:22] water credit money for grants, d try to

[2:40:24] double double in money.

[2:40:27] >> Good use of it.

[2:40:30] >> It's that powerful that one.

[2:40:32] >> Yeah, there's a bunch.

[2:40:34] >> Yeah,

[2:40:35] >> I'm surprised someone hasn't just hit it

[2:40:36] yet.

[2:40:37] >> That's the powerful [laughter]

[2:40:39] >> right there on the

[2:40:41] >> Why was there to be good?

[2:40:42] >> I'll get it tomorrow.

[2:40:45] >> Won't say that out loud. [laughter]

[2:40:46] [snorts]

[2:40:48] We got to move this poll.

[2:40:50] >> Just that one poll, that's it.

[2:40:52] >> Yes. And then there's obviously the

[2:40:53] telecommunication lines that are there.

[2:40:56] >> That's a lot more than a single home.

[2:41:01] >> Can we just design the sidewalk to go

[2:41:03] around?

[2:41:04] [laughter]

[2:41:04] >> Yeah, we've done that before.

[2:41:06] >> Like the sidewalks an overlay. They're

[2:41:10] just all [laughter] wavy up and down. So

[2:41:14] we're only talking though just on Cork

[2:41:17] Street. We're not talking about turning

[2:41:18] the corner and heading towards are we?

[2:41:22] >> That's done.

[2:41:23] >> That's what I thought. That's done.

[2:41:25] >> So this is just

[2:41:26] >> it's just this here.

[2:41:28] >> Yeah, it was.

[2:41:29] >> So from out in meadow up to

[2:41:31] >> we'll have to secure some of the right

[2:41:32] way for the pair. That's the that is one

[2:41:35] other additional cost

[2:41:37] >> property there

[2:41:38] >> because we do have to obtain a rightaway

[2:41:40] from the marshalss

[2:41:42] >> that is I think he put that in further

[2:41:45] into

[2:41:46] >> I think he did the rightway.

[2:41:48] >> Oh is it in there? Sorry I missed that.

[2:41:51] >> Yeah.

[2:41:52] >> Oh

[2:41:53] >> yeah 58,000.

[2:41:55] >> Yeah.

[2:41:58] » It's about an acre correct that needs to

[2:42:01] be obtained.

[2:42:02] >> I'm not sure.

[2:42:10] because we've got to have the right away

[2:42:12] for the road. If we widen the road,

[2:42:14] >> go and go to RFP.

[2:42:16] >> If we're going to extend um Paris Street

[2:42:19] through then it would be approximately

[2:42:21] that we take just what we need for the

[2:42:23] ride

[2:42:26] or just

[2:42:27] >> down the road spent some money on the

[2:42:30] whole project and then try to pull back.

[2:42:32] Then it's I mean you could it's just

[2:42:35] less. They don't love that.

[2:42:39] >> It's it's a little more than 1600 feet

[2:42:41] of

[2:42:46] » four foot wide. Is that what it's it's

[2:42:48] by five?

[2:42:49] >> Yeah. U standards.

[2:42:51] >> I know they you had to make it I don't

[2:42:54] know if you remember but I know they

[2:42:55] suggested making it wider so you don't

[2:42:57] have to have a

[2:42:59] >> pork shrimp.

[2:43:00] >> Yeah.

[2:43:01] So they suggested just putting the

[2:43:04] um curb up against the sidewalk but

[2:43:06] making the sidewalk larger so that you

[2:43:09] still have that pedestrian buffer zone

[2:43:11] without park strip.

[2:43:20] » Okay. So that's that. Um [laughter]

[2:43:25] um

[2:43:27] sorry I don't know. Um

[2:43:30] going over that. Um so this so what

[2:43:32] they're looking for initially right now

[2:43:34] um you do is just that the mayor just

[2:43:37] signs a letter saying that they can um

[2:43:39] combine the two projects into one and

[2:43:41] that we're willing to do the federal

[2:43:43] match of the 6.77 and then willing to

[2:43:46] pay anything additional that the grant

[2:43:49] funding doesn't pay for. Um, and then

[2:43:51] once they get that letter, they'll take

[2:43:52] that to their transportation committee

[2:43:54] and then they'll present it to them and

[2:43:56] then they'll do their thing and then

[2:43:58] we'll start working with them to find

[2:44:00] like a designer and all like all that

[2:44:04] sort of stuff. So,

[2:44:08] um, and then this is just an example of

[2:44:10] kind of what the letter we would have

[2:44:13] the letter B that the mayor signs.

[2:44:20] So the the total cost of both projects

[2:44:23] or the total cost of both grants was

[2:44:28] what or the total award for both

[2:44:32] >> 606

[2:44:33] >> around 600,000

[2:44:35] and our cost is going to be

[2:44:38] >> probably 400

[2:44:39] >> 400,000

[2:44:41] >> essentially we've more than doubled that

[2:44:44] we spend 400 we're going to get more

[2:44:47] than double that in grants given to the

[2:44:50] city to put in sidewalks which we all

[2:44:52] know we're we're in deficit

[2:44:56] >> step in the right direction but I think

[2:44:57] it's it's worth worth pursuing certainly

[2:45:00] >> I do too I think we need more safe I

[2:45:03] mean I see kids on bike scooters all the

[2:45:05] time in the middle of the street

[2:45:06] especially by my house it's

[2:45:07] >> walkability

[2:45:08] >> no sidewalks so I mean and it is really

[2:45:11] nice like you know now down Willow

[2:45:13] Street there's no I mean not by red

[2:45:15] house now [laughter]

[2:45:17] that's coming along

[2:45:19] But I think it's important. There's a

[2:45:21] lot of kids that walk. So I anticipated

[2:45:23] the use of the word to make sure they're

[2:45:25] safe. My question is why is the safe

[2:45:28] route to school the the one on on

[2:45:31] doesn't apply for that or we couldn't

[2:45:33] use that same program or we only get one

[2:45:35] or

[2:45:36] >> um it was

[2:45:37] >> we got more for that one it seems like

[2:45:39] than we're getting for the tap.

[2:45:41] >> Yeah. Um

[2:45:44] I think because we already have safe

[2:45:46] routes to school open. Um, but

[2:45:51] >> it's just a different grant type. And

[2:45:52] again, if we don't feel like that's

[2:45:54] >> worth the the cost, the big benefit out

[2:45:56] of that, then we just turn it down and

[2:45:58] just go with that

[2:46:01] >> and try for a different one.

[2:46:02] >> Somebody's willing to give us some money

[2:46:03] to help us out. I hope

[2:46:04] >> it does help a lot because right there,

[2:46:06] sorry to interrupt. It's the that's

[2:46:08] already developed. So, the city's going

[2:46:10] to pay that cost at some point if that

[2:46:11] ever puts in the sidewalk. So,

[2:46:14] >> right,

[2:46:14] >> either we're going to have to go out

[2:46:16] later to get a grant when we have other

[2:46:18] means to pay for it besides the

[2:46:20] watercraft. It would be either taxes as

[2:46:23] we get bigger things like that pay for

[2:46:25] that because and we can push that off if

[2:46:28] we want to because that's the

[2:46:29] consideration.

[2:46:30] >> I think it looks good. I just wondered

[2:46:31] because like the safer route to school

[2:46:32] seems like it was a lot it was more

[2:46:33] money than we were getting for the tap

[2:46:35] one. I wanted different reviews.

[2:46:37] >> They actually, I believe, if I remember

[2:46:38] right, they gave us more than what um

[2:46:42] what they were allowing because our

[2:46:45] initial one was like 313,000 and we were

[2:46:49] only asking for a portion of that and

[2:46:51] then they were like, we had our own

[2:46:53] estimators come out and we estimated it

[2:46:55] to be at 356 and that's what we're going

[2:46:57] to give you. So, I don't know, maybe

[2:46:58] they just didn't have a lot of

[2:46:59] applications. Um, but they did end up

[2:47:01] coming back and they're like, "We're

[2:47:03] actually giving you more money than what

[2:47:04] you asked for."

[2:47:05] >> I think it's Alexis doing a great job.

[2:47:07] [laughter]

[2:47:07] >> Yeah, she's really convincing.

[2:47:11] >> I think these are both good options.

[2:47:14] >> Um, yeah, that's all.

[2:47:16] >> All right. Thanks, Alexis.

[2:47:17] >> You're welcome.

[2:47:20] >> We'll make a motion. How's that?

[2:47:21] >> Let's do it.

[2:47:23] Make a motion we approve resolution

[2:47:24] 2026-58

[2:47:26] accepting the federal transportation

[2:47:28] funding awards authorizing staff to

[2:47:30] execute related agreements and providing

[2:47:33] for a an effective date.

[2:47:36] >> We have a motion by council member

[2:47:38] Butler. Is there a second?

[2:47:39] >> Second motion.

[2:47:40] >> Second by council member Skinner. All in

[2:47:42] favor?

[2:47:42] >> I.

[2:47:45] >> Okay.

[2:47:47] Agenda item number 11, council reports.

[2:47:51] Start with Rhett.

[2:47:53] >> All right. Well, I'll uh start off with

[2:47:56] historic preservation. So, coming up on

[2:48:00] October

[2:48:02] from the hours of 3 to 6:00 p.m., which

[2:48:04] is the night of honey harvest, we are

[2:48:06] having our um annual historian

[2:48:10] >> um home tour. We've got uh 10 homes that

[2:48:14] have volunteered and we we have some new fresh homes that we haven't had on the tour before. So, I

[2:48:21] think it'll be great. Um so, that's

[2:48:23] something that we've been working on

[2:48:24] there.

[2:48:24] >> Oh, it's a date.

[2:48:26] >> October 10th, which is the same weekend

[2:48:28] as the Honey Harvest Festival. And we

[2:48:30] always couple it with

[2:48:32] >> Also the same weekend as the rodeo.

[2:48:35] >> Yeah.

[2:48:35] >> Which is great.

[2:48:36] >> Yeah. We'll have a full day of

[2:48:38] activities. Lots of people in town.

[2:48:40] >> Yep.

[2:48:41] >> So, we have that um planning and zoning

[2:48:46] um was yesterday. Uh we had um quite the

[2:48:50] discussion on the um the tire facility,

[2:48:53] the tire recycling facility and um I

[2:48:57] think we came to a good or they came to

[2:48:59] a good resolution. um wasn't perfect,

[2:49:03] but I think it it gets us where we need

[2:49:05] to be and in six months we need to um

[2:49:08] I'm in planning and zoning and can can

[2:49:10] really look at that conditional use

[2:49:12] permit again. So

[2:49:14] >> just a question on that because I had to

[2:49:15] leave just before we finished that

[2:49:17] discussion. So they've given them six

[2:49:19] months, but what happens in I I believe

[2:49:23] it was going to be like every month they

[2:49:25] had to have like a review. Yeah, it

[2:49:27] needed.

[2:49:28] >> And so what happens if in one month they

[2:49:30] haven't met their parameters of then

[2:49:32] it's just over. The the deal's over.

[2:49:34] >> Well,

[2:49:37] here here's the I think from my

[2:49:39] perspective and that really wasn't

[2:49:41] necessarily discussed. They have six

[2:49:42] months to do it.

[2:49:43] >> Okay.

[2:49:44] >> So, the most important thing for us to direct them to do and that planning

[2:49:49] and zoning did was to clean it up. the goal is to get to have no tires on

[2:49:57] the ground because that's what the

[2:49:58] conditional use permit said

[2:50:00] >> was initially given to them. Yeah.

[2:50:02] >> Yes. And so we we have 50,000 plus tires

[2:50:07] sitting there. It is a fire hazard. It's

[2:50:09] a concern. Yes,

[2:50:11] >> I drive by it quite regularly as I go

[2:50:13] out to visit my parents and I've been

[2:50:16] shocked at how that thing's just grown

[2:50:18] over the last year since since since PNC

[2:50:22] approved them.

[2:50:23] >> Yeah.

[2:50:23] >> And I just scratched my head as to how

[2:50:25] we let that balloon over the course of

[2:50:28] time. I mean, so

[2:50:32] let's let's see how how they improve in

[2:50:35] the next six months.

[2:50:36] >> Okay. So

[2:50:39] obviously disappointing um in those

[2:50:41] regards but that that did get some

[2:50:44] movement. Um in regards to the library,

[2:50:47] I think you know everything there is is

[2:50:49] going well. I attended our library board

[2:50:51] meeting for this this quarter and really

[2:50:54] nothing necessarily to to update other

[2:50:57] than there was some talk and some

[2:50:59] discussion with the board on the budget

[2:51:00] and

[2:51:02] library did tighten their belts and I

[2:51:05] think that they were you know I think

[2:51:07] all organizations in the city did but

[2:51:08] they they did as well and there was a

[2:51:10] little bit of talk amongst the board

[2:51:12] members on that but John's great with

[2:51:15] what he does and he does he does more

[2:51:17] with less So

[2:51:20] >> I agree. Thank you.

[2:51:21] >> So anyways, that's my report.

[2:51:25] >> Um I had a time conflict uh with the

[2:51:29] last um

[2:51:31] Veterans Memorial Park uh meeting, but

[2:51:34] they have completed we have completed

[2:51:36] phase one um of that and so which was

[2:51:41] what we had allowed and budgeted and so

[2:51:44] we're to that point. um they continue to

[2:51:47] fund raise and look at other options and

[2:51:49] so um is to try to get you know the next

[2:51:53] phase I think the goal is to try to have

[2:51:56] that park and have irrigation in and you

[2:52:00] know get it to the point where it has

[2:52:01] grass and and then kick it into the next

[2:52:04] year and so um I know there's there's a

[2:52:08] lot of moving components as you know

[2:52:10] people they're starting to get more um

[2:52:14] momentum as far as donations and those

[2:52:16] kinds of things.

[2:52:17] >> Right. My question was going to be do

[2:52:18] you know how much they did raise on the

[2:52:20] 4th of July because it seemed like there

[2:52:22] were a lot of donations coming forward

[2:52:25] that day. I don't know.

[2:52:26] >> Yeah, we went we went through um I you

[2:52:30] know I think from we went through all of

[2:52:33] that. Um I was a little surprised. I

[2:52:35] felt they could have charged more for the cornhole specifically. I kind of

[2:52:40] that was one of the comments that I

[2:52:41] made. I think uh I know they tried to

[2:52:43] keep it, you know, within a range that

[2:52:46] kids could play and and do that, but um

[2:52:49] I know they've had uh a number of

[2:52:52] corporate vendors that have pledged

[2:52:55] money and so they've got so so yeah, and

[2:52:59] more momentum I think now is the park

[2:53:01] and you see the the monument, you know,

[2:53:04] plant and everything, the foundations

[2:53:06] for that. Obviously, it's going to look

[2:53:08] a lot better when it's when it's

[2:53:09] finished, but all of those components as

[2:53:12] they're going in. I think it's, you

[2:53:14] know, get getting more momentum. So, that's where where we're at with

[2:53:19] that. Um,

[2:53:22] uh, as far as the, uh, school district,

[2:53:24] we've had several meetings with the

[2:53:26] school district and we're draft uh,

[2:53:28] we've drafted anou and we're in the

[2:53:31] process of of going through that. Uh I

[2:53:34] think we've gained a lot of ground as

[2:53:36] far as a good agreement in place for the

[2:53:40] Cherry Street Park and um so there will

[2:53:44] be more to come on that and then that

[2:53:46] will come before the council. Um I mean

[2:53:49] to maybe generalize kind of where we sit

[2:53:52] um the they will take care of uh the

[2:53:56] park for for the entire year um and

[2:54:00] ensure that those playing surfaces are kept in a manner that we can we can

[2:54:07] put kids on them. Um and then on top of

[2:54:10] that there will be a fee that will be

[2:54:13] associated with uh with that. So, um,

[2:54:17] >> not not for us, for them.

[2:54:19] >> Not for us, for them to to utilize the the

[2:54:24] park. And so, um, I think that's a a

[2:54:27] good step in the right direction.

[2:54:29] There's a lot of challenges with the

[2:54:31] park. Um, mainly as it's kind of been a

[2:54:33] shared re

[2:54:36] it's been a shared resource and it's going to

[2:54:40] continue to be. Um, and we're going to

[2:54:43] do that in a yearly agreement. uh for so

[2:54:46] the council can can see can establish

[2:54:49] that year by year as that gets more

[2:54:52] challenging um you know as we continue

[2:54:57] to grow. So hopefully some of these

[2:54:59] other parks will alleviate some of that

[2:55:00] pressure scenic slopes u but uh they would like to continue to

[2:55:06] utilize that part for the school

[2:55:09] purposes at least next year

[2:55:11] >> at least for one more year. Y

[2:55:15] >> thank you, Derek.

[2:55:17] >> Um I have much on my I'm locked out of

[2:55:19] my city email and that's where my notes

[2:55:21] were.

[2:55:21] >> Well, I was too. I had a call.

[2:55:24] >> We'll get up tomorrow. Um

[2:55:26] >> I had a recording today. One thing I I

[2:55:29] talked to a guy that and I was going to

[2:55:31] talk to I need to talk to Alexis too,

[2:55:33] but they reached out I don't know if

[2:55:34] they reached out to anybody else about

[2:55:36] they help um do grants for like lighting

[2:55:40] on the fields for like so scenic slopes

[2:55:42] the baseball field.

[2:55:43] >> Great.

[2:55:44] >> Um I spoke with I emailed him and just

[2:55:47] he sent over some information. So, I

[2:55:48] don't know if that's something I wanted

[2:55:50] to look at and see what it it's all

[2:55:52] about or but I think lights would be

[2:55:55] great up there because

[2:55:56] >> I think it's definitely something we

[2:55:58] want to Yeah.

[2:55:58] >> Me and Rhett know very well that you can

[2:56:00] only get about one game in when it's

[2:56:02] before daylight um savings time. So, we

[2:56:06] want to do that. I can send you guys the

[2:56:07] information that he sends me and get

[2:56:09] with Alexis and see.

[2:56:10] >> Yeah, if you'll get with Alexis, that'd

[2:56:11] be great.

[2:56:13] >> Sorry. Go ahead. No, I just it's one

[2:56:15] thing I I wanted to bring up is maybe

[2:56:18] just if we can have a planning and

[2:56:21] zoning and you guys look at that

[2:56:22] mixeduse chapter. It's it goes from, you

[2:56:26] know, 19A and then it actually reverts

[2:56:28] here at chapter 4.3, which I know we've

[2:56:31] talked about it clear back from when I

[2:56:32] was on, but I don't know. I know you

[2:56:34] guys have worked a lot on it, but it's

[2:56:36] just it's ugly. The mu word is like a

[2:56:40] swear word in my vocabulary.

[2:56:44] it just

[2:56:45] >> there's a lot to it and you got to cross

[2:56:46] reference and I don't know if that's

[2:56:48] something that's I know you guys are

[2:56:50] taking on a lot but

[2:56:52] >> maybe in the near future I don't know

[2:56:54] maybe a Christmas present for us

[2:56:57] [laughter] think it it's my opinion like

[2:56:59] I think it fits better in larger in in a

[2:57:03] more metropolitan city type areas like

[2:57:07] it it almost doesn't really fit in

[2:57:09] Granville in my opinion at all

[2:57:11] >> the intentions were good what We wanted

[2:57:13] to try to, but it just just like

[2:57:15] everything ordinance, we start doing it,

[2:57:17] then we see maybe we need to make some

[2:57:19] tweaks. But

[2:57:20] >> would you rather would you ra I'm sorry

[2:57:21] to interrupt, but would you rather have

[2:57:23] us look at

[2:57:25] massaging it and trying to get it right

[2:57:27] or would you rather just repeal?

[2:57:29] >> No. So, I mean, so it's hard because

[2:57:30] we've got 19A, which says mixed use, and

[2:57:33] it has all the different

[2:57:35] square footage of lots and different

[2:57:37] things, but then you have to revert to

[2:57:39] 4.34 for the multi-units or and stuff

[2:57:43] like that. I mean, if we just had I

[2:57:45] don't know.

[2:57:46] I just I feel like it's it's gray and

[2:57:49] it's hard to to navigate it and to kind

[2:57:52] of truly understand it because I was

[2:57:54] like you can't have, you know,

[2:57:56] multi-family homes, but then I forgot,

[2:57:59] well, I've got to look at 4.34 and

[2:58:01] that's where all that information is,

[2:58:03] >> right?

[2:58:03] >> So, it kind of just muddies things up a

[2:58:06] little bit. One of my least favorite

[2:58:07] parts of a code is where it references

[2:58:09] something by reference and then you got

[2:58:11] to change both sections and it's this

[2:58:13] big mess. Um, we'll look we'll look into

[2:58:15] it.

[2:58:16] >> I mean, we we just [clears throat]

[2:58:18] finished a multifamily project in Park

[2:58:20] City. It's got like the first floor is

[2:58:22] all retail. So, you've got like your

[2:58:24] Starbucks and

[2:58:25] >> Yeah. the true vertical mixed use.

[2:58:27] >> Yeah. And then everything above it is

[2:58:28] apartments so or you know it's got a

[2:58:32] town home section that goes around it.

[2:58:34] Um, but it also has a enormous

[2:58:38] like central area uh

[2:58:41] >> of open space which which has a

[2:58:45] fireplace.

[2:58:47] >> One of the things I can think of right

[2:58:48] off the top is that mixeduse

[2:58:50] developments really want to be large

[2:58:52] acreage type developments, not these

[2:58:55] infill 20 to 30 acre type things. I I

[2:58:58] know that's a lot of acres, but when

[2:59:00] you're squeezing that kind of thing in,

[2:59:02] you're already dealing with a fabric of

[2:59:03] a neighborhood that's already existing.

[2:59:05] And then you run into problems like

[2:59:07] we're seeing tonight where the neighbors

[2:59:08] are like, "Oh, I didn't want this. You

[2:59:10] know, I have my acre lot and I want

[2:59:13] animals and I don't want, you know, a

[2:59:15] bunch of people right in my backyard."

[2:59:17] Which is totally fair. Um, so if if it

[2:59:20] is something like a 100 acres or more,

[2:59:23] then you can bake in the uh open spaces

[2:59:27] and the buffering and all of those

[2:59:28] things so that the neighbors aren't as

[2:59:30] impacted and that those impacts are

[2:59:32] easier to mitigate.

[2:59:33] >> So that was just one thing that came to

[2:59:35] my mind as we're talking tonight.

[2:59:39] >> That's all I had.

[2:59:41] >> Britney.

[2:59:42] >> Um, so we the board of health met last

[2:59:44] month. Not much to report. Well, it's

[2:59:46] pretty quick meeting. Um the only thing

[2:59:47] is they said so I think I mentioned this

[2:59:49] last time they do have a dentist office

[2:59:51] in the board of health office like in so

[2:59:53] what you can do low cost they're looking

[2:59:55] for a dental hygienist they're having a

[2:59:56] really hard time getting it because it's

[2:59:58] government so they don't pay as much

[2:59:59] anybody knows a dental hygienist they

[3:00:01] sent me the um I can afford it it's just

[3:00:03] their um hosting

[3:00:06] so they did get some assistance but they

[3:00:08] can't find a hygienist to help out

[3:00:10] because it's so they're looking for

[3:00:11] somebody who like wants a flex schedule

[3:00:14] um and then I they're going to have me

[3:00:15] join like the tell board of health or

[3:00:18] something and help with the symposium.

[3:00:19] So,

[3:00:20] >> we'll

[3:00:22] Yeah, not much.

[3:00:24] >> Okay, great.

[3:00:25] >> I went out of town and missed a lot of

[3:00:27] life last week. Um,

[3:00:28] >> good for you.

[3:00:29] >> Yeah, about the only I did is I did meet

[3:00:31] with Stephen Baba on the Clark farm. Do

[3:00:34] you guys know we we just put in that

[3:00:36] drainage

[3:00:38] what through the Clark Farm. It comes

[3:00:41] right out in that first field. There's

[3:00:42] that big culvert.

[3:00:44] >> Yeah. So the purpose of that is to would

[3:00:47] flood down through the fields, right?

[3:00:49] >> Okay.

[3:00:51] >> So we kind of went over all the

[3:00:52] concerns. I asked him to kind of I just

[3:00:54] said, "We need the pretty picture phase.

[3:00:57] We just need to see what you're

[3:00:59] thinking." But since then, I've walked

[3:01:02] the property. I've been over there two

[3:01:03] nights. I I actually have ideas to

[3:01:07] present back to him that I think are

[3:01:09] different. I know that are different. So

[3:01:12] I I'm going to do that this week.

[3:01:14] Um, I think his stuff needs to be a

[3:01:17] little further down.

[3:01:19] >> Um, allowing because of that drainage,

[3:01:22] allowing any type of fields to remain

[3:01:24] there. Lari can have her dirt road line

[3:01:27] by trees. I' So, I think I've got a

[3:01:29] better idea to present him, but just

[3:01:32] know that I I'm kind of I did that.

[3:01:35] >> Perfect. Thank you.

[3:01:39] >> Can I add something? I just the thought

[3:01:41] crossed my last night at PNZ. There's a like a farm. She she presented a farm

[3:01:47] >> a business kind of

[3:01:49] >> way. The comment that she made, one of

[3:01:51] the comments she made was regarding like

[3:01:55] a a need like there's a lot of there's a

[3:01:57] lot of individuals that would like, you

[3:02:00] know, like a place you could go where

[3:02:02] you have animals or have animals. I I we

[3:02:05] envision that area down there. I I I

[3:02:08] hope it becomes so I paint a picture

[3:02:11] that's in my head.

[3:02:12] » [clears throat]

[3:02:12] >> So, and this does involve extending

[3:02:15] good night the name of the road just

[3:02:17] >> raol

[3:02:19] over to Dave Reach property. But I mean

[3:02:22] that's where we want the traffic anyway.

[3:02:24] But you could go in that road and on the

[3:02:26] right side you could have a youth a

[3:02:28] center

[3:02:30] just right to the that would be the

[3:02:32] north side of that road and then around

[3:02:35] that you could put pens for cows, sheep

[3:02:38] and pigs

[3:02:39] in a really easy concept and it really

[3:02:41] works right there because that's the

[3:02:43] backside of all those lots where they

[3:02:45] have animals anyway. So I think the

[3:02:47] further you push that I mean you

[3:02:49] typically don't want people It's not a

[3:02:51] petting zoo. Right. Right. It's not a [clears throat]

[3:02:56] >> You don't want walking trails through

[3:02:58] this. It's for the youth

[3:03:00] >> for them to raise livestock. And he's

[3:03:02] got a pretty good vision on on what he

[3:03:04] would want there. But you can kind of

[3:03:06] vision in your head a youth a center

[3:03:08] with pens around it. And I I think I

[3:03:12] think it kind of fits right there um in

[3:03:14] my opinion. So, and just just think

[3:03:17] about it, but that's kind of what's in

[3:03:19] my head. So, All

[3:03:23] right.

[3:03:23] >> Dancing around. There's I think there's

[3:03:25] a few

[3:03:29] washes or ditches down through there

[3:03:30] that you have to make dance around, but

[3:03:32] I think it fits right there. So, maybe

[3:03:35] not as much acreage as they want. I

[3:03:37] don't I do a lot on five acres. I think

[3:03:41] they could do a lot on 10.

[3:03:44] But another real issue and and I Tyson

[3:03:47] I'm just getting another real issue is

[3:03:51] what type of entity are we leasing the

[3:03:53] property to because it has nothing to do

[3:03:56] with the school district.

[3:03:58] So

[3:04:00] I mean is this a nonprofit deal

[3:04:03] or is this a instead of a lease is this

[3:04:06] time some type of a shared land

[3:04:08] agreement? I'm not an attorney. I just

[3:04:10] made that up. I don't know.

[3:04:13] >> Good. Sound amazing, right?

[3:04:15] >> 501c3. They're friends of the FFA.

[3:04:19] >> Yeah. So, is that that's probably what

[3:04:21] we'd hit is some type of nonprofit, but

[3:04:24] I don't I don't see us leasing this

[3:04:27] land. I see us retaining I don't know.

[3:04:32] We got ownership. I just don't know what

[3:04:34] type of entity we'd be leasing to. Some

[3:04:37] type of LLC. Maybe Grantsville City's a

[3:04:39] 50% owner in it. I don't know. But it's

[3:04:43] think about

[3:04:45] impressed that I made that up.

[3:04:47] [laughter]

[3:04:51] » I'm done.

[3:04:52] >> All right.

[3:04:53] >> Mentally and physically.

[3:04:54] >> Least amount of mosquito bites I've ever

[3:04:56] had.

[3:04:57] >> Yeah.

[3:04:57] >> So, I'm sure that was the mosquito

[3:04:59] abatement and not the weather.

[3:05:00] >> I'm sure that's the water. [laughter]

[3:05:02] Really? Both. Yeah.

[3:05:05] >> The ground. [clears throat]

[3:05:05] >> No, you That's Yeah. Anyway, um the 18th

[3:05:10] and 19th of September, I think we

[3:05:12] mentioned this before, but that is the

[3:05:14] grand opening of the new um race

[3:05:18] racetrack. That's like their big event.

[3:05:20] So, if you're available on those dates,

[3:05:23] they would love to have us be involved

[3:05:25] with that. Um

[3:05:27] >> the 18th Avenue is starting at two. Do

[3:05:29] you know how

[3:05:30] >> No, I don't know because we still don't

[3:05:32] know.

[3:05:32] >> Okay. So, I don't have

[3:05:35] >> I don't have anything as far as

[3:05:38] >> I think they're still putting that

[3:05:39] together how that's all going to go.

[3:05:40] >> The 18th and the 19th.

[3:05:42] >> Yes. I think the 18th is going to be

[3:05:44] more like by invitation.

[3:05:45] >> Okay.

[3:05:46] >> And the 19th will be more for the

[3:05:48] public. Yeah. Um I know it's not July so

[3:05:52] I can't say Christmas in July, but

[3:05:55] Christmas in August. I'm just wondering

[3:05:57] if anyone has any ideas for our city

[3:06:01] Christmas party. the last couple years

[3:06:03] they've been to the um

[3:06:08] old church on Clark Street and had a

[3:06:11] dinner during the day. Is that that's

[3:06:13] correct? Right.

[3:06:14] >> Right.

[3:06:15] >> As far as the city employees who are

[3:06:17] here, how do you feel? Like is that the

[3:06:18] best time? Would you prefer it was an

[3:06:20] evening? Do you prefer it in the day? Uh

[3:06:25] >> please say what you want to say.

[3:06:27] >> I love it during the day. It's

[3:06:29] Christmas. You're busy. And another

[3:06:30] thing at night that takes you away from

[3:06:32] family.

[3:06:32] >> Okay.

[3:06:33] >> I prefer it just during the day with our

[3:06:36] employees. They're more comfortable. Our

[3:06:38] family members are not feeling like they

[3:06:40] have to be that third wheel out.

[3:06:43] >> Right.

[3:06:43] >> It's also really hard for those that

[3:06:45] commute. Like if you have it in the

[3:06:48] evening, like do they just especially

[3:06:49] for public works like they're typically

[3:06:51] done at like 3:30. So it's like

[3:06:54] >> do they just drive around until 7? Do

[3:06:56] they go home, turn around, come back? Do

[3:06:58] they come potentially dirty?

[3:07:01] >> Like, you know, it's just it's kind of

[3:07:03] like a logistical nightmare for those

[3:07:05] that commute, I think.

[3:07:06] >> Okay. So, staff would prefer to leave it

[3:07:08] as is.

[3:07:10] >> My team would

[3:07:11] >> Okay. Any anybody else's

[3:07:14] have comments on that? You're good with

[3:07:17] it, Bill? Is that what that was?

[3:07:18] >> I love it. I thought it was great.

[3:07:19] >> Okay.

[3:07:20] >> Yeah, I think it's great. I mean, we did

[3:07:22] just open up the the pavilion, so it is

[3:07:25] a warmer year again that we have. I

[3:07:27] think that would allow us to play like

[3:07:29] games and not be so crowded and cramped

[3:07:33] um as we grow as a city.

[3:07:35] >> Unless the racetrack can house us

[3:07:37] instead,

[3:07:38] >> there

[3:07:40] we are out growing the church.

[3:07:41] >> Yes.

[3:07:43] >> Maybe they could let us drive a

[3:07:44] Lamborghini a couple laps around.

[3:07:47] >> You know what? On the 18th, I'll talk to

[3:07:49] about that.

[3:07:50] >> [clears throat]

[3:07:51] >> I'll be with you. I'll I'll support you.

[3:07:53] >> Yeah.

[3:07:54] >> The first year that we were on the

[3:07:55] council, that's where we had it

[3:07:57] >> was at the Yes.

[3:07:58] >> was at the racetrack and it was

[3:08:00] >> And it was in the evening.

[3:08:01] >> It was in the evening and it was it was

[3:08:03] nice and and I mean I'm fine if you do

[3:08:06] it during the day and accommodate the

[3:08:08] employees, but maybe having it there

[3:08:10] might be the best

[3:08:12] >> Yeah. Yeah.

[3:08:12] >> Best location

[3:08:14] somewhere

[3:08:16] away from all the hustle and bustle on

[3:08:19] the far end of the city, far east end.

[3:08:22] >> Okay. Any other comments on that or

[3:08:24] opinions or suggestions?

[3:08:27] Anyone? All right.

[3:08:28] >> That way we get to use sheep lane.

[3:08:30] >> That's right. [laughter]

[3:08:32] >> Once this year

[3:08:36] >> I did see

[3:08:37] >> residents on sheep lane.

[3:08:38] >> Yeah. [laughter]

[3:08:40] I did see them working on sheep lane

[3:08:42] today when I drove through coming back

[3:08:45] from a meeting in Tilla. So that was

[3:08:47] encouraging that the light was actually

[3:08:50] getting a little bit of attention there.

[3:08:52] So

[3:08:53] >> yes, we did.

[3:08:54] >> I don't know when it will be completed.

[3:08:56] >> Um I think that is everything and I just

[3:09:00] need a motion to adjurnn.

[3:09:01] >> No, close session. Close session.

[3:09:05] >> A short close session. Oh,

[3:09:08] >> mayor. I make a motion we move to a

[3:09:10] close session.

[3:09:11] >> Is there a second?

[3:09:12] >> I'll second.

[3:09:14] >> Motion by Jake, a second by Britney.

[3:09:18] >> All in favor?

[3:09:23] » Yes. Go right ahead. Let's take two

[3:09:26] minutes.

[3:09:30] » Look how cute.

[3:09:32] >> Thank you for attending.

[3:09:33] >> See you later.

[3:09:35] >> Have a good evening. Thank you guys.

[3:09:38] >> Good luck.

[3:09:39] >> We're going to need it.

[3:09:47] » Hold on. Don't say nothing.

[3:09:50] It's not they

08/19/2026 Grantsville City Council Meeting

Transcript