[0:02] Conference. Well, now be recorded. All right. Welcome, everyone. Today is September 16, 2025, and this is a meeting of the Heber City Council. This is the work meeting. It is now 4.03 p.m. The board, the council members, sorry, that are in attendance. Are Mike Johnson, sitos to guard and myself, Heidi Franco. We have Yvonne Barney excused. We also have Scott Phillips excused till later today. We hope that Aaron Sheetwood will join us soon.

[0:31] But we're going to get started because the first item on the work meeting is the 100 west design field trip.

[0:39] So we're going to be pausing the recording until we're done with the field trip and any of you that are out there that want to join us.

[0:48] We're going to 100 west, 100 south, down to 300 south to discuss the 100 west road design.

[0:57] We will join you back in a little bit what we are going now on the filter.

[1:01] Thank you.

[1:05] Is this conference?

[1:06] Well, now be recorded.

[1:12] We're good.

[1:14] Oh, no.

[1:15] I still got to wait for what?

[1:16] Wait, Scott is here.

[1:17] Right.

[1:18] Can you show the participants online, please?

[1:21] Can you know?

[1:23] Test one, two.

[1:27] Okay.

[1:28] All right.

[1:29] Welcome again, everyone.

[1:30] This is still a meeting of the Heber City Council on September 16th, 2020.

[1:36] 25. Welcome to all of you here in the chambers as well as online. We are coming back from a field trip where we walked blocks along 100 west to look at some future designs.

[1:57] Okay, so I need to announce the council members that are here in attendance. In the chamber, we have Sid Ostergard, Aaron Sheetwood, myself Heidi Franco and Mike Jostin.

[2:05] And online we have Council Member Scott Phillips and Council Member Yvonne Barney is excused.

[2:13] All right, so we're going to work on our second agenda item for the work meeting which

[2:18] is the Heberlite and Power Utility Box discussion, Matt or Council, do you want to ask questions

[2:23] first to Jason or do you want Jason to go first?

[2:31] I'm good to have the presentation first or whatever you're going to represent.

[2:39] on the filter so they hear just as a resource to us.

[2:43] Okay, if that's the case, let me restate some stuff for the public that wasn't available

[2:46] to come, realizing they could have come.

[2:49] We just walked over on 100 West between 100 South and we call it 250 South.

[2:57] One of the things we talked to Jason and Riley about was the necessity for the switch box,

[3:02] which is the box that currently has the Hebrew creeper train wrap around it on the south side

[3:10] of the park engineering building. Gentlemen, if you could explain again for the people that

[3:16] weren't here on the walk, why those switch boxes are needed, why they're as tall as they are,

[3:21] and what other options there might be mentioned devolved and what that would look like.

[3:25] That would be great, I think.

[3:31] Yeah, you know, those switch boxes are large.

[3:37] I get that.

[3:39] You know, that's why we opened one so you guys can see exactly what's entailed there.

[3:47] And, you know, they are a requirement on the system once we go underground.

[3:53] You know, even up in North Village area, we get a lot of pushback for the switches to get installed.

[4:02] You know, it's just, you know, it's just one of those pick your poison type things.

[4:08] You know, and on those main feeders, you know, those have to be that big wire that I showed you out there.

[4:17] You know, that's 1100 aluminum and that's our standard main feeder conductor.

[4:27] You know, there's once you kind of spin off, you can go to some smaller equipment.

[4:37] But based on the rate we're growing and everything we've just pulled out way too much,

[4:42] that's like four-ot conductor and replaced it with 1100

[4:45] because the feeder circuits just keep growing.

[4:50] So that's kind of been our default three-phase feeder conductor.

[4:56] And can you correct my understanding here

[5:00] on a restate of where those are needed?

[5:03] In that those are needed when we transitioned from a above ground,

[5:06] so a pole structure to a below ground in addition to

[5:10] would be needed wherever there is a major three phase in the future, a major three phase development

[5:16] or so a three phase transformer development or something like that where they might be needed

[5:20] mid block or something like that. So that if we were to think about bearing an entire block or

[5:26] another block it's only where the above ground to below ground transition is necessary that

[5:32] But that size switch box is necessary.

[5:35] Yes, you know, we've got to continue to serve the, we've got to continue to serve whoever we're serving on that line.

[5:46] And wherever there's a transformer on the pole, that transformer has to come and get installed in that relative same location.

[5:58] And at that point, we also need to, you know, fuse and protect that transformer.

[6:06] So like I say, the equipment might go down in size, depending.

[6:13] But it just take like a typical URD underground installation, like out north of town.

[6:21] any time that we feed a single-phase circuit out to go like, you know, run a loop

[6:29] around a block and set transformers, we got to come out of one of those

[6:34] switches to do that. That's just, that's how we have to design that way on the

[6:40] underground system. So as you like, look at taking sections underground, you know,

[6:49] We're here to help and we can, you know, really pinpoint exactly what type of equipment needs to go in, you know, throughout the process.

[7:02] But there's just our hands are tied in some locations to happen to add that equipment.

[7:07] So one quick follow up question I had from our walk, if we didn't and I'm not making a decision right now, but if we didn't decide to bury the lines on 100 west and instead waited for development pressures to dictate that whether it's commercial development or redevelopment of residences in the future.

[7:28] is there's something that we could work with Hebrew power to put into either our codes or

[7:34] Russ might even know that it's already in a code. Is there some way to pre-ready those units

[7:41] for an underground service, meaning could they have an aerial service for now but get ready with a

[7:51] box on their own, get ready with a line on their own that goes out to the road or to where the

[7:55] the underground connection might be in the future,

[7:57] and just not energize that line.

[7:59] Leave that there in case in the future.

[8:01] We came back and varied that line,

[8:02] so we wouldn't be digging up all those properties

[8:04] as things develop.

[8:06] Once again, very hard to really know

[8:09] where that next developer,

[8:12] you know, say a developer goes in there,

[8:15] tears a house down, puts in a business,

[8:18] what their voltage and service requirements

[8:23] going to be where they would actually like their transformer located on their property.

[8:30] You know, that's all stuff that we work with that developer on, especially when you

[8:38] start talking about, you know, going from what was a typical 120208 voltage house to a

[8:48] three phase, one, twenty-two, away. Sometimes they want that transformer located in a particular area

[8:57] to where we'd have to come out of a switch and go to where they want their transformer located

[9:04] on their property. So once again, I don't want to like go and put a bunch of basements in and bury

[9:15] them and maybe hit it.

[9:22] So I just think anticipation and that type of stuff is really hard.

[9:27] I think the onus goes on that developer at that point and with directional boring technologies

[9:34] and things like that today, I don't see where you're digging up your assets necessarily.

[9:40] You know, um,

[9:43] it's sometimes just better to do a directional board where they want it.

[9:56] Scott, do you have anything you'd like to add our, our ask online since you missed the filter up?

[10:03] No, I'm, I'm just listening trying to get caught up there.

[10:06] Okay.

[10:07] So thanks again for coming out, you know, um, again, we want to work with all our utility providers and make sure because this is a big undertaking what we're trying to do.

[10:19] and what we're planning down here.

[10:21] So we want to make everybody a somewhat

[10:23] happy or happy and still provide what

[10:27] the vision of this vision central

[10:29] Heber will be.

[10:30] So again, thank you for coming out.

[10:34] It was very helpful for all of us

[10:36] to see, especially open up in the big

[10:38] box and seeing, holy moly, that's

[10:41] a lot of wires going in there.

[10:43] And then understanding how much it

[10:46] It does take to put it underground and the cost of that is it's not cheap and so again

[10:56] thank you.

[10:57] Mayor, a quick question.

[10:59] Jason, what's your standards now about sharing an electric trench with fiber?

[11:10] Our conduits are deeper and then we'll allow you know, put it to a separation that on the

[11:15] other side of the fence.

[11:16] Nobody else?

[11:17] Cool.

[11:19] I just thought of another question.

[11:20] So Jason, you had mentioned another option, which nobody's really talked about yet, but we mentioned it since we were walking around looking at it in the plans that we'd seen for the first west transition, which may not be where we land, but there was a plan where the the block between 100, sorry, between 200 south and 300 south, the road and the sidewalk both moved further to the west, which would necessitate either moving poles or burying.

[11:48] You had mentioned there was an option to maybe not move poles and to either go higher or to move poles.

[11:55] Can you tell us a little bit about what the going higher option would do?

[12:00] And then if it's possible, what a cost would look like to keep the pole in the same relative space, but move it 10 feet further in, for instance.

[12:08] Yeah, staying overhead is definitely going to be a lot cheaper than taking it underground.

[12:15] And by moving in at the current height, we run into the tree problem, the current tree

[12:24] problem.

[12:28] And that's why, you know, I said, you know, that could be an option that is cheaper, but

[12:36] that gets that utility, you know, closer to the city's, you know, public utility easement

[12:42] where you want it to be.

[12:46] And like I say, you know, it also, I've seen this in a few different areas where, you

[12:55] know, the power companies just went and, and we're not talking, we're not talking like

[13:02] a transmission structure like you see out on 40.

[13:06] We're talking distribution structures, you know,

[13:10] typically wood poles, but we could also go with

[13:13] like gailos steel options,

[13:15] which gives rid of a lot of down-guy wiring.

[13:19] But going a little bit higher and getting above

[13:22] that tree line with just the energized conductor,

[13:28] it lifts all those utilities.

[13:30] you know the telecom and everything up out of sight lines and it does clean it up it can

[13:38] also get it can also get rid of some poles you know because you can span further because you're

[13:45] you're a little bit taller so how tall Jason we'd have to like I say we we'd really have to take

[13:52] a look at that I I hadn't seen you know that plan but if Sid was going through it I just thought

[14:00] you know that could be an option that we could get you a number on as to what

[14:05] that would look like by just moving that overhead line and getting those

[14:11] conductors above the tree line. So it's currently what a 35 foot pole? Yeah

[14:17] they're 35 and 40. Five to 40 you said. Okay. And you had a gas are we talking? Are

[14:22] we talking 50? Yeah. I mean, if you'd said a gas how high, but what is it going? We'd

[14:28] trying to avoid the height of to be above. If I had to guess, I'd say that right now, if we

[14:35] rebuilt that line at 65 to 70 feet, we'd be in pretty good shape and, like I say, it's not

[14:44] really not that much higher and we're not talking great big structures either. We're talking,

[14:51] you know, wood poles like are there now and just rebuilt. I think it

[14:58] to clean it up a lot, quite honestly.

[15:00] So he just from, you know, electric utility, guys, perspective. So if you did that, realizing you haven't done the engineering, but would it be likely? Do you think on that block? We were just looking at Tony. Yeah, I just hold it for a second. So that next block down where there's three polls in the, there's one right at the edge of the block. There's one right down the middle of the block. There's one at the other edge of the block. If we moved up that high, would we likely go to two polls in that kind of a scenario? Or is it over time we might end up with less polls?

[15:29] because that one's got three, so to go fewer, it's only two, right?

[15:33] Yeah, it would be over the entire line, so like, I mean, if my opinion, like you'd look at your whole project,

[15:44] you know, the full length of it, and what would it take to move that overhead line,

[15:51] that entire project, I think we'd get rid of a few structures. That block, right, you know,

[16:00] maybe not. So what is the cost of the taller poles and the, you know, the redoing of all of that line

[16:08] compared to the undergrounding that we discussed before? Or what's the cost to of just keeping the

[16:13] same height and moving? Estimation, you don't have to. We're saying an idea of apples. Well, I think

[16:19] Riley gave you kind of the number to go underground on that section. And, you know, usually when we're

[16:26] doing overhead to underground analysis. It's 4 to 1. There you go. Perfect. What was the number?

[16:34] Just because Scott wasn't there and we roughly rightly, what was the number?

[16:50] And so triple that as what Russ says, which I agree.

[17:00] Sorry, double it for the trenching and the conduit, and then when you throw on top of it,

[17:05] all the individual services and things that have to be done to each home, it might be

[17:10] trip.

[17:10] I don't know, it might be.

[17:12] Is there a, that's where the overhead comes into that four to five to one, it's just so

[17:17] labor intensive.

[17:18] Where overhead is there right now, is it, I mean, hypothetical guess at a cost to take

[17:24] the existing pull and make it, you know, per pull, maybe take one pull out, make it significantly

[17:28] higher is that a couple hundred thousand dollars? What does it cost to make a

[17:32] significantly higher poll?

[17:37] Let's say we left it in the same spot. We're not moving it. Just make it. We're

[17:40] raising everything up.

[17:45] These are the rewiring. The wiring.

[17:50] If we left the wire the same. Even if you lifted it higher.

[17:57] Can I ask if the polls here in front of St. Lawrence or

[18:00] taller than the ones that are further down the block. They seem to look taller, St. Lawrence,

[18:06] Tony.

[18:09] Well, we're doing that. So if we, what we're saying, we're going to move it 10 feet to

[18:14] the west. Okay, we have trees that we're trying to preserve. Guess what we'll do to those trees,

[18:20] they're going to have to come and trim them and, you know, take them out because they can't be

[18:25] underneath. That's why I'd say we, we want to go above tree line, so we say if we, if we want to survey

[18:30] those trees and go above tree lines. So we're just topping them when we trim and not

[18:36] and not side cutting them and doing the stuff that we'd have to do right estimation.

[18:42] No, probably anywhere from 40 to potential of 60 feet. So we just have to get that survey out.

[18:49] Just looking at those trees, I'm guessing that somewhere in that 65 to 70 foot range would be

[18:54] able to clear them. Would you be okay with that with a tree under? I know other

[18:58] our, uh, power companies, that's pretty healthy for the tree.

[19:03] You know, if all we're doing is just, is just topping them and keeping them underneath.

[19:08] It's when we start side-cutting them and be cutting them and stuff like that, but really make the tree kind of ugly.

[19:14] Knowing you're not an arborist, theoretically, if we did move in the 10 feet and went up above the tree line,

[19:22] are we talking a lot? How much ground disturbance is that to move a pole?

[19:25] Is it is it basically a borehole for the pole a borehole? That's relatively minimal. Yeah, we'd probably we'd probably just

[19:33] Go through and bore the bore all that. I think that's all boreable or at least back truckable, so um, okay

[19:40] Is that pull it on center that you can see sticking up past the truck?

[19:46] To the north. Is that pull any taller than the rest of them? It's hard to get the angle

[19:56] it seems to be above tree line is what I'm saying okay do we know if those

[20:05] trees that we're trying to preserve are at their their top height or they

[20:10] go anything they are yeah you look very mature yes yeah in fact the one in

[20:16] front of the Bennett's the Juniper

[20:22] The father brought it down or grandfather brought it down and planted it years, years ago.

[20:27] Yeah.

[20:30] Yeah, like I said, to do that, I think that you would want to, I think that you would want to,

[20:36] want to do the entire project and move that overhead line in the whole way.

[20:44] let us determine where we can I mean a lot of the ugly is the down guys so by

[20:51] going with like you know a gila steel pole kind of really cleans up that area

[20:58] from the overhead perspective as well but we can we can put an estimate together

[21:05] and come back and and discuss that further if the council wants to I think we

[21:12] have a plan right now if we everybody agrees upon what we discussed today and leaving them right

[21:17] now until it's needed and development comes in and you know it might make sense to go higher

[21:25] or underground. So me personally I think we have a plan. Yeah the reason I'm asking I mean obviously

[21:30] Scott hasn't seen this if I haven't seen it but if we look at the the new plans you had today

[21:36] said, you know, every, I don't know, it looks like three, three potential parking spots

[21:43] are impacted by those poles. And if they were to move inward to the property line and

[21:48] go higher, I'm just thinking through, that's a relatively low impact on a consumer. And

[21:54] we get the poles further away from a car. So we have, we're less likely to crash into a

[21:59] pole, we're less likely to have that, you know, I mean, even if we did nothing else, if

[22:04] if we didn't change anything else,

[22:05] we could move the poles in a little bit,

[22:07] go higher over the tree line without any real major impact,

[22:10] and give us a lot more either parking space

[22:13] or maybe space to shrink up that planner strip a little bit

[22:19] where we're trying to preserve where the pole is right now.

[22:21] The other question I had and I know the question was for Russ,

[22:24] and Russ, I appreciate your answer,

[22:26] but just asking the question in here is you know,

[22:29] we're talking a lot about not having

[22:31] the same kind of parking on that block because of how far the easement goes into those established yards,

[22:40] not in every case, but in some cases.

[22:45] One of the questions I've got is if we didn't need

[22:48] that side, so the west side sidewalk, and moved those poles, do we get back to an angled parking

[22:58] option, which it kind of seems like we might, but we'd have to know that. We'd have to leave

[23:03] parallel on that side. Well, I mean, the difference in asphalt between angled parking and parallel

[23:11] parking is 10 feet. The sidewalk that we had planned on one side was 6 feet. SIDS kind of

[23:21] proposal here is 5, but you can see 6 feet different than 10 feet. So I don't know if you get

[23:26] all the way there. We'd have to look at it and evaluate it. There would be some areas you

[23:30] probably would and some areas where you wouldn't. I do think that you're talking about an area that's

[23:36] going to be developed commercial and mixed use on the west side and I think that that sidewalk

[23:41] is important. Yeah, so it's important to preserve it. You know, for right now, I think a five-foot

[23:48] in my opinion is doable for a residential. If it becomes a commercial, yeah. Then we can expand

[23:55] and into the park strip with the existing poles next to the parallel parking.

[24:03] You're about five feet from top back of curb, so that is good enough for a car to swing a door without hitting it, so I feel comfortable with that.

[24:15] I need to be able to move around where they park, especially on a parallel.

[24:18] I'm good with that, so I've done this enough that I feel comfortable with that.

[24:23] you think about in a parking structure, your parking stalls are only at the most 10 feet.

[24:31] So you have over, you have 8 plus 5, so whatever that makes. So I feel comfortable with that.

[24:45] The other questions any other comments you two want to make? So do you want, council, do you

[24:49] even just want to look at the higher poll price just to be able to compare it and just see if you

[24:56] think it's feasible or reasonable for this design? Do you want to look at that?

[25:00] Yeah, maybe the reason I asked about that is just I'm thinking if we if we moved the poles

[25:06] and and said I appreciate you saying you know preserving that sidewalk but the sidewalk doesn't

[25:11] exist right now, right? If we if we thought about not needing a sidewalk and moved the poles a

[25:18] little bit we get back 10 feet really quickly, right? Without actually moving the road itself,

[25:24] without moving the asphalt very far.

[25:27] And that was the thought process there.

[25:29] If we move the poles a little bit,

[25:30] we don't need as big of a park strip

[25:33] as big as a landscape area

[25:35] to be able to hold those poles anymore.

[25:37] We would have a landscape area.

[25:39] If you notice here, Aaron,

[25:43] that I'm pointing just off of first,

[25:46] kind of in the middle block,

[25:48] by the way, we have angled parking.

[25:51] And I don't mean on both sides.

[25:52] I just mean on the,

[25:53] if we kept the one side, right?

[25:54] So if we went to parallel on still on the west side

[25:58] that kept the angled plan on the east side against the park,

[26:02] we wouldn't need the full change.

[26:04] We would go back to Russ presented with Horrox's plan.

[26:09] And Russ, I appreciate you listening.

[26:11] That was the one block I actually liked.

[26:14] So it's good to just think about the options here.

[26:16] It sounds like we could potentially achieve

[26:18] the same thing without having to bury the entire block,

[26:21] Which is not something I understood last time. So it's super helpful to have done the walk and to hear from your power because going higher wasn't even on my radar.

[26:29] No, not my neither. I know people love that view.

[26:34] What's that?

[26:35] Well, no, it's actually, it's a good, it's a good thing. I mean, as I look through the heights of those antennas,

[26:40] I realize that the higher they are, the less people see them actually, right? And to your point, if they, if the pole itself is higher and there's fewer poles,

[26:47] like the conduit or the lines are less visible at that point because they they're actually smaller and they're way higher.

[26:55] Like I was in Salt Lake today and there's a lockable district going up to the LDS Church is mall through an older part of Salt Lake there and you know that's what that's what they did.

[27:11] they just, it's not underground. It's, you know, they, they went in with some taller poles. Now,

[27:17] granted, the buildings are a lot taller there. So they're not even noticeable, but because it's in

[27:22] an alley, but, um, but yeah, it gets all that utility equipment out of the site line, for sure.

[27:30] Jason, what would it, I don't want to put a lot of work on you, but what would it take to do with

[27:34] just a preliminary gas? I mean, it's not a design. It's just, okay, this is a half million, or this is

[27:41] You know, for four blocks, I don't want to do one block. I'm going to move them. We're going to move four blocks. Yeah, we would do the we'll do it.

[27:47] We can do a down and dirty estimate of four blocks without engineering, you know, okay, just.

[27:53] That would be interesting to me. Yeah.

[27:56] Being by moving the poles back and up so that the trees stay.

[28:01] Yeah, it's just it's not something I was on my radar at all that we could potentially just, you know, change the road a lot without having to underground everything.

[28:08] because undergrounding's seeming more and more out of spec.

[28:11] It just seems to be, I wish we had CRA money to throw at it, but we don't, right?

[28:18] And I know that's one of the plans is making it easier for the commercial redevelopment.

[28:23] I think it might still make good sense for commercial redevelopment,

[28:25] but I just don't see that today with a 100 West design, which again, super grateful we had the

[28:33] field trip because it wasn't even on my radar at all. So I'm glad we talked through that.

[28:37] So, yeah, and just another comment, you know, if we expand it, we expand the asphalt.

[28:43] We expand hard-skate versus soft-skate, you know, if we keep this saying, again, we're

[28:51] providing for soft-skate places to store snow and stuff like that.

[28:56] If we expand it, then it's a little bit more tricky to, you know, maintain.

[29:02] I don't have any other questions.

[29:05] Anything else?

[29:06] Scott, do you have any other questions?

[29:08] That sounds good to me.

[29:12] I appreciate the work you guys did today.

[29:17] Thank you very much Jason and Riley.

[29:19] We appreciate your time and expertise.

[29:22] All right.

[29:22] We're going to go to our third agenda item, Russ for the work meeting,

[29:26] which is the Mill Road and 980 South intersection improvement options.

[29:31] Russ Funk has a presentation for us.

[29:45] Give me a minute here to pull up the agenda.

[29:48] Yeah, we have that here, Tony, and we both try to control or just

[30:00] Let's see. I don't know where you're at. Is it here? No, it's the end of the first row. There you go. I thought you were saying you already have the minutes.

[30:15] That's fine. I got it.

[30:23] Okay. Mayor and council, we've had several discussions about doing some improvements to the school crossing on Milrose.

[30:34] in 980 South. As you know, we've got two schools east of this intersection. This is a major road in the city, Mill Road. It's a major collector, a major transportation corridor. Yet we've got two schools east about a block and a half, two blocks from this area.

[30:52] One is in elementary school. One is a junior high school.

[30:59] The request has been given to look at options for safety improvements.

[31:06] I have kind of six options or combinations of options to go over with you here.

[31:13] I want to just talk through each of those for a minute with you.

[31:16] This first option, then we'll look at prices and then we'll kind of have a little bit more discussion, but this first picture here shows a couple things.

[31:26] One, it shows constructing bullbouts out into the right way to reduce the distance that pedestrians have to cross.

[31:36] That's one benefit.

[31:38] it. The other thing is you're creating for the traffic flow side friction when they

[31:45] see a visual reduction of the width there, it causes them to feel less comfortable with

[31:52] the speed that they're making and they naturally slow down. So the bullbouts there are a big

[32:00] part of what is included here. The other thing that you're seeing here is an overhead

[32:05] Hawk signal system. A Hawk system, there's a picture here for those that aren't

[32:10] familiar with that but basically it's a yellow flashing light system overhead

[32:16] system. It's the same thing that we just you not just installed down it. What

[32:22] is that? Eight fifty south or whatever it is on the south end of town. This is at an

[32:28] intersection and when it's at an intersection you can't do the red flashing lights

[32:32] And the reason for that is because it's confusing to traffic in both directions when it's a red stoplight.

[32:42] When it's red here, these people think they can go, it's confusing.

[32:46] And so, the guidance is you can do that mid-block when there's one direction of traffic.

[32:52] But when you're at an intersection, you just have flashing yellow lights.

[32:55] So, we've got one right here also at 200 north on Main Street.

[32:59] That's what that looks like.

[33:01] Would the crossing guard activate those flashing yellow lights on the hawk system or would they just stay on the whole time during the school crossing?

[33:10] That is the recommendation and that's one of the things that I was researching.

[33:14] You can actually, when there's two options, my preference is that the reduced speed zone flashing lights would come on.

[33:24] They would be flashing and then the crossing guard or whoever would activate the flashing lights for the crossing the other option is that you can actually only rely on the reduced speed zone

[33:41] Flashers and you would actually wire it so that the other crossing thing is

[33:46] Inactive when you go through. I think it would be better if the crossing guards activate it. You utilize both systems there

[33:53] So you're taking out the crosswalk on the north side of the intersection, but then allowing the one on the east side of the intersection which I really like and think is needed.

[34:03] And then is that accurate in this proposal?

[34:06] Yeah, that is. And by the way, I mean, that's something that we, let me back up a little bit right now.

[34:14] so the requirement is to provide a safe school route. It's not a requirement to provide the most

[34:21] convenient or the most easiest to take school route because the elementary school is on the north

[34:28] side of 980 south and the elementary is on the south side. The request was made a couple years ago

[34:35] to put crosswalks on both sides and we can continue to do that with a recommendation from any traffic

[34:43] engineer is that you keep one crossing across that busy road. So that is the

[34:48] recommendation but you need to recognize that what that will do is force junior

[34:54] high students to cross both directions and then back they could either cross back

[35:00] here or down there. So it's the recommendation it's not a hundred percent

[35:06] mandated but it is the recommendation from every traffic expert out there to

[35:11] I'm fine with that, but the safety is more important than them trying to go any way they

[35:17] want to here.

[35:18] Yeah, there are some efficiency issues.

[35:19] I mean, obviously, if you cross them south and then bring them back and cross them north,

[35:26] you've got traffic backed up while you're holding them off.

[35:28] So there is some efficiency issues on the minor roadway, but it's the recommendation for the safest way to do it.

[35:35] So just kind of walk me through it one more time because this you don't have to do this again for the ends, okay?

[35:41] Would we need a crossing guard to take them on the east side south and

[35:47] then another one to take them across and then another one to take them back to the north?

[35:51] The way that they're operating the way they're operating it right now is with two crossing guards.

[35:58] The crossing guard, can you guys see my hand up there?

[36:00] how are you? Okay. So the way they're operating it right now is kids kind of pile up at this corner.

[36:08] This crossing guard comes out into the middle to stop traffic while those kids cross this way. At

[36:14] that same time, this crossing guard often comes out and stops traffic here. So you're doing these two

[36:22] locations and then after they're to that point, you're doing these two locations. So it wouldn't take

[36:27] three, it would continue to take two. This option, by the way, is the Cadillac option.

[36:34] This is the most expensive option of the three. So that's option one. I'm going to go to

[36:42] option two. By the way, this again, this is overhead flashing signals. The next option is the same

[36:52] with everything with the exception of instead of overhead signals, we have what's called an overhead

[36:58] RRFB. RRFB is a, just because you're asking right now, I'm going to forget the

[37:07] acumen, but something rapid flashing beacons, RRFB, and what they are, we have RRFBs at Colt

[37:18] east, no road, on center street, there are the buttons you put, or rectangular, sorry,

[37:23] rectangular rapid flashing beacons is what that acronym stands for. And instead of the yellow

[37:29] dome lights at the top that flash, it's kind of LED rectangular, smaller lights.

[37:38] So, it basically operates the same, you have an overhead bar, but it doesn't require

[37:47] the same controller that a Hawk does and so it's less expensive than a Hawk

[37:55] system. Would the lights stay on the whole time that the crossing guards are

[37:59] there? No. So you'd have the reduced speed zone flashing lights before and

[38:04] after the speed zone that would flash the whole time during that 45 minutes

[38:08] before 15 minutes after school time and then the flashing rectangular lights

[38:13] would activate only when the button is pushed and the crossing guard but so

[38:19] that it can work two ways. One, while there's a crossing guard there, they can

[38:23] push it and they can guide kids across and also when the school zone isn't

[38:27] active and we don't have crossing guards there, obviously you can push the

[38:31] button that you can get the flashing lights. So that's that option. Everything's the

[38:37] same you've got the bulb outs it's just a different system less I guess

[38:43] complicated you don't need the the whole control box that you do for a regular

[38:47] signal. The next one is bulb outs with a standard RRFB. This is a picture of

[38:55] that basically this is what that RRFB looks like this is what we have at

[38:59] Mill Road it's just instead of overhead it's on each side of the road at the

[39:05] crosswalk. So it points down at the crosswalk. It has the rectangular rapid flashing beacons

[39:11] right here. It's just not overhead. Everything else is the same. Yes. We went to this. Could they

[39:19] move out into the bulb out? So they're more closer to the lane of traffic? That is a great question, Mike.

[39:31] I don't know that that's not allowed, but the idea is to point right there at the crosswalk

[39:40] to let people know, hey, there's a crosswalk right here. So we could check that.

[39:43] White flashing, but with the light flashing.

[39:46] I think I just realized on the other ones that the polls were out into the bullbouts.

[39:49] And so if this was in the bullbout, it's closer, it's more visible than the current situation.

[39:55] situation. Would there be any site concern, you know, turning stuff like that?

[40:00] Those are those are things we'd have to have to verify. But so that's instead of

[40:07] overhead, basically it's at the side, pulling down at the crosswalk ground

[40:10] level instead. The other three options are no bullbouts and then basically the

[40:16] same options. So, hawk overhead signal, overhead RRFB without doing the

[40:26] bullbouts and the standard RRFB without the bullbouts. You'll notice right here,

[40:33] I mean, so this, this is an option. We can do it on both sides. They've got it in

[40:38] this option. They've got one shown on both sides and keeping the crosswalk on the

[40:42] one side. If that was something we were going to do and we can do it really with any

[40:45] option. It's just not recommended. I would recommend and talk to our crossing guards about

[40:54] making sure that they cone off the route that's not being used. So when the elementary school is

[41:02] using the the south route that they literally cone this off to not allow it so that they're only

[41:08] working with this one and then when the middle school is going they would cone off this one and force

[41:14] them up the ham so. So that's an idea. I do the crossing guards now use all four crossings

[41:23] or just three. Yes. They use all four. They do. It is very confusing. Oh, it depends on which

[41:29] school. I'm dropping off the TMS in the morning. It's it's the one that's on our right hand side,

[41:34] so it's the north side because they're different times. That's right. One that's on the side of the

[41:39] road of that school. The challenge, of course, is getting the middle schoolers to be willing

[41:45] to cross, cross south, cross no road, and then cross north again. And so that's why they've

[41:52] just said when the elementary school, we're going to use the south one when it's the middle

[41:57] school, we're going to do the north one.

[42:00] The issue comes when you try to put in those overhead

[42:05] signals and that is that those overhead signals are supposed to go at the crosswalk and when you have

[42:12] two, you're not necessarily at the crosswalk. That's really the recommendation. Those are if

[42:17] bees I think you could do bolts and you would put one in at each one. Cost estimate, I'm just

[42:21] I'm going to run over this real quick and then I'm going to talk more about kind of recommendation

[42:25] here. But option one, this is the the first one I started with the Cadillac system. It is the overhead

[42:33] Hock system and bullbouts, the estimate is $346,000.

[42:39] Option two, you can see the significant drop.

[42:43] This has the bullbout and the overhead RRFB.

[42:47] You can look and see the significant difference in costs between a Hock system,

[42:51] which is overhead and an overhead RRFB.

[42:54] There's a significant difference there.

[42:58] Option three would be the bullbout

[43:00] and the ground level RRFBs and then you jump up to options 4, 5, and 6 and those are just no

[43:09] bulb out those same options. So that kind of gives you hierarchy of the cost and the range.

[43:17] Now, do we have any, since you just got to the cost, do we have any kind of school zone improvement,

[43:24] state school, any kind of grant or anything to help with any of the costs specifically to target

[43:29] school or are we already meeting the standard and therefore no. Well they're

[43:33] grant there are grant opportunities there for example we have just been

[43:40] awarded a safe school route grant on 300 west to put a sidewalk in that's been

[43:45] five years in the making to get that money by the way the city was awarded a

[43:50] significant amount we were given a grant of the total project cost is about 1.6 to

[43:55] $1.7 million and the city's obligation that is 6.77% and so there are significant grants available to us.

[44:06] That's really a topic for a long time.

[44:08] A topic for another time but there are those but we would be several years out on doing that.

[44:15] Okay, what what I wanted to talk about now for a minute is

[44:25] pull up Google Earth here and look at that intersection on Google Earth.

[44:34] Mill roads at 35 mile an hour, right?

[44:36] Mill road is currently 35 miles an hour.

[44:38] Our standard in the city is that collector roads design speed is 35 miles per hour.

[44:45] One of the challenges that we face is that on a new road where we don't allow properties

[44:52] to front on a collector road, you allow multi-family entrances, you can allow commercial

[44:58] flintrances, things like that.

[45:00] In some instances, well, you're really their multi-family, but you don't allow residential access

[45:06] on a collector road. But the way that Heber City was laid out, we're turning old roads

[45:13] into collector roads. That's just how it works with an old city. And so we ultimately

[45:18] end up having lots of properties front these collector roads. And so I can see that because

[45:26] As of those fronting properties, we may want to look at reducing the speed on collector

[45:31] roads where there's a lot of residential fronting properties, but in general, 35 is good.

[45:37] That being said, I would support a 30 mile per hour speed on that.

[45:43] I don't think we should drop it down to 25, but I also think that we should increase the

[45:48] speed limit on center street to 30 miles an hour.

[45:51] politically, is that going to go over well? Never. But one of the reasons, one of the

[45:59] reasons I would, I want to bring that up is just so you understand, you know, you make

[46:03] decisions. People ask for things like, oh, that's put a four-way stop and well, you know

[46:07] how I feel about that, I think it's less safe. But it is very hard to change back from a

[46:12] wrong decision on any of these kind of traffic. It's, it's a very, very difficult, sorry,

[46:17] I'm losing my, can you put in heaver there, Tony?

[46:23] If, with any of those things you gave us, though, you're not concerned about the flow

[46:30] of that constriction long-term in non-school hours.

[46:34] Like, it's not an appreciable difference to the flow in the intent of those streets.

[46:40] No, I think it's good.

[46:42] I think it's good for people, but what we're trying to accomplish here is,

[46:46] we're trying to make it so that when people are approaching that intersection they are recognizing

[46:51] that oh there's something here I need to pay attention to. And so that is why

[46:56] right in discussion we had on first class. It is. Exactly same discussion. So I want to tell you

[47:03] what I'm seeing out here. And the reason I want to tell you this is because my opinion is that of all

[47:12] of those things, of all of those options that we talked about, the most important thing we can do

[47:17] is those bullbouts. I strongly feel like the most important thing we do there is those bullbouts.

[47:23] And this is why what I have seen happen out there on several occasions is that kids are piling up

[47:30] at this intersection, right? They're coming down here, they're coming down here. This crossing guard

[47:36] comes out stops traffic so that they can cross here. A car at this location isn't clear

[47:46] whether they're supposed to stop because she's on this side road or whether they can go.

[47:53] Right now they're doing a better job. I think they've corrected this. This guy is coming

[47:56] out better to make it clear that they're supposed to stop. But what I've seen in the past is

[48:01] those kids start coming. This car is not sure if they can stop or go and all the sudden

[48:06] these kids, I'll cut that corner and that's where those say that's where those close calls have come

[48:13] and so I think they're doing a better job now just so you know of making sure the kids stop here

[48:18] and then cross them the other way but because of that I think those bullbouts are really important.

[48:25] The other thing I've got a lot sorry and we can we can pause and come back to this if we need to

[48:30] But the other thing, we've got bike lanes on both sides of Mill Road.

[48:38] These bullbouts, they will cause problems with those bike lanes.

[48:42] My recommendation is that we dash that bike lane and we cause those bikers to merge with

[48:48] traffic to come across there.

[48:50] There was ideas about, well, do we cut like through lanes for those bike lanes closer through

[48:56] these bullbouts or something. And my worry with that is that kids are going to take those shortcuts

[49:01] and skip the corner. And I don't think it's worth it. I think that the bullbouts are important

[49:06] and I think that we need to, even though it may be political or people,

[49:10] bikers may be upset. I think the safest thing for the crossing is to put those bullbouts in

[49:15] and have those bike lanes merge with the traffic until they get through the intersection and then

[49:20] and then go back there. But the reason I'm as a cyclist, they're going to merge into a slower zone

[49:25] anyway because we're causing it to be slower anyway. Yeah, and again, I can't always control

[49:29] people in the decisions they make, but what you're trying to do is control the parameters, make it

[49:33] feel or constrained. But my recommendation, top recommendation is that we do the bull outs. I think

[49:41] that is the most important thing. From there, if you look at costs, and I've kind of, I've kind of

[49:48] wavered a little bit back and forth. But I think where I've settled here is that we do need

[49:54] flashers. We need flashers for a couple reasons. We need flashers just to kind of help with the

[50:00] with the feeling of pay attention, something's going on here, but we also need flashers

[50:05] available outside of school hours. And so if you look at the cost difference between RRFBs

[50:12] and the overhead, it's not that much. And so I think it's worth spending that extra money

[50:18] to go overhead. Do you think about when you're approaching this intersection, if you've got a

[50:22] Horizontal pull-out and something overhead you're gonna start thinking wait a minute

[50:26] I got to pay attention to what's going on here the only the only added benefit I see I'm doing the

[50:32] The full signal is that those signal poles also have

[50:37] Lights directed at the cross traffic, but I don't think that that's as critical as it is on Milrode

[50:44] And I think the cost difference there is too significant to get any advantage out of that

[50:48] So the cross traffic can see the yellow flashing lights going east and west as well as north and south correct

[50:55] So that's that's really to me the the one benefit of going that route. I mean it is it is the most robust system

[51:02] But is that one benefit where it stopped controlled anyway? Is that one benefit?

[51:07] Worth that extra $200,000. I don't know that it is

[51:11] So if I was going to give you a recommendation that's what it would be would be option two

[51:16] but from there, I just want to answer questions and get your thoughts.

[51:22] So, if we do option two, could you in the future, let's say if it's needed upgrade?

[51:28] Could you already have the overhead polls, right? Could you upgrade it to the option one?

[51:33] I think you potentially could. The polls may be a little different. I don't really think I was significantly different.

[51:39] I see.

[51:40] I really think the extra cost is in the materials both for the cabinet, the controller,

[51:46] and the standard signal heads and stuff cost more than just those RRFEs, too.

[51:53] And you think about the neighborhood that it's serving.

[51:55] It's pretty dense.

[51:56] There's a lot of, you know, kids, younger kids, and in there.

[52:00] So again, it could be, I'm kind of with you, Russ, maybe option two seems like it's definitely

[52:09] boldouts, 100% I agree with that, but the covert head whatever you want to call it could work

[52:16] from a safety standpoint. If they can press it, you know, off hours, that kind of

[52:23] spoke to me. So, the construction timeline on the boldouts, such that we'd want to be off school

[52:30] year, you know, ended back into summer again, or is that something that could be done?

[52:34] So we would we would have figured out I think that we could do one side and then the other, you know, keep the north side open and force all the kids that way, do the construction work on the south and then switch or something. We could we could figure it out.

[52:47] That's always it's always easier to do things off season, but I think that's what you do.

[52:56] All right. If we do it that's soon break can we design it? We need to get a design. No spring break winter break

[53:03] What I what I can tell you is that if the council gives direction we will expedite a

[53:09] Design and get it ready to bid out as soon as we can and get it implemented as soon as we can

[53:16] I

[53:16] Have no idea as far as availability of polls and supplies generally you dot has a

[53:22] They all have their standard polls and things.

[53:25] They have a supply of that you can get access to.

[53:28] It may just be contractor availability

[53:30] and time of year.

[53:32] UDOT has most of the contractors that do this kind of stuff

[53:38] on contract and they have a backlog of work already,

[53:42] but I think we would just do our best,

[53:44] if that's the direction of the council.

[53:46] We would get it designed and bid it out as quick as we can

[53:50] and get it implemented.

[53:51] and I don't think we would try to hold off or put it off.

[53:53] None of the grants that you know of

[53:56] are such that we could spend upfront

[53:58] and get some kind of recouping the funds, right?

[54:01] They're all pre-construction.

[54:03] Yeah.

[54:04] Is it possible to ask our police department

[54:08] what they think of any of these designs

[54:10] or did you already check with them?

[54:12] You're of course welcome to talk to them.

[54:15] I, there are certain police officers

[54:17] that are involved with this

[54:18] and there are certain police officers that aren't.

[54:20] I wouldn't like to put the tenant Rigby on the spot.

[54:25] I think the person to put on the spot would be Josh Weissher, but you're certainly welcome

[54:32] to reach out or invite him back or whatever it is that you want to do.

[54:36] Or if the tenant Rigby wants to open his mouth, he's welcome to, but I'd like to.

[54:46] Would you use the microphone please?

[54:48] But for the most part what I've noticed that that crosswalk on the east side that he's already got blocked out my recommendation would be to definitely not include that one.

[55:03] A lot of that traffic that comes from the school because of the fence line there on that north end everybody seeps out into the intersection that crosswalk gets covered with cars.

[55:15] And so if you're going to try and have kids trying to cross through there, you're going to be out in front of vehicles out in the intersection.

[55:24] So I'm with Russ on that one, not doing that crosswalk on the east side.

[55:29] So it's a north side.

[55:32] North.

[55:34] Yeah, that's the north.

[55:35] So this is this is the west side south side.

[55:39] Um, yeah, so I'm saying on the, did you mean, did you mean the east side on the actual east side, though, um, because again, yeah, there's that fence line right there at that house, and those trees and people continue to go out in the intersection because they can't see beyond that to get around the corner, so they're always crossing or covering that crosswalk to begin with, it would need to be, it would need to be during school hours manned by a crossing guard to try to stop the

[56:09] can keep them back while the kids cross, and then it's okay if they creep up, right?

[56:13] Russ, you're proposing to move that crosswalk on the east side to make it further back from that fence viewpoint, right?

[56:21] Yeah, but that, well, that's how this is drawn, but we can, we can correct that in the design.

[56:24] Well, I didn't know. I'm just trying to ask.

[56:26] Yeah, the idea, the idea is instead of having corner ramps, the new direction from ProWag and the, and the ADA people is

[56:35] The important ramps aren't good.

[56:37] You want them to be directional.

[56:39] And so that's all we're trying to do.

[56:40] But I still think we can be directional

[56:41] and shift that further to where we could have

[56:43] more site visibility there.

[56:45] Will you get the benefit of the full narrowing too

[56:48] with the bulb?

[56:49] Yeah, I'm not, and if you look,

[56:51] I'm not narrowing old mill drive or 980 south

[56:55] because we do need all three lanes there,

[56:59] only narrowing mill road to keep the ability for three lanes.

[57:02] but so we wouldn't be bolting out further into Old Mill Drive.

[57:07] That's why I think it makes sense to have Russ talk to Officer Weissher and come back and

[57:14] tell us what thoughts are there. He's just got a lot of experience with seeing that

[57:17] or even the school or officers, you know, the folks that have been at the schools.

[57:22] Many days I see them out helping even then they're not assigned to that.

[57:27] Yeah, they try to have somebody here because of the complaints and just so you know

[57:32] we have spoken a lot. We've spoken about the concerns that I've seen out there and that's why

[57:38] they've tried to address some of those concerns. So I don't think this is new. If you want us to talk

[57:43] to them, we can. I think basically the input that would be important from them is, is it important

[57:53] to keep that north one? We're not going to be able to get rid of any of the other ones.

[57:58] But is it important to keep the north one and how do we work that out with the ultimate solution?

[58:02] I really do think we should get rid of one but I don't think it's going to change.

[58:05] I think certainly welcome to do that it's just going to slow down the process a little bit.

[58:11] So I would like to know what the crossing guards think about the north since they use it now

[58:15] and maybe they would give us something to change, you know, our mind.

[58:20] I would agree. Let's let the crossing guards check it out if you don't mind.

[58:26] We're going to get some practical insight there.

[58:30] The question is, is that going to change the overall design and direction, or is that

[58:36] just going to add in that one?

[58:41] You may be, I mean, if the recommendation was an overhead RRFB and the recommendation

[58:47] was bullbouts, whether or not we paint that other crosswalk and keep it is a very minor detail

[58:54] of the design.

[58:55] Can you clarify one question for me?

[58:57] I think it's the answer to what you just asked.

[59:00] As someone that takes this twice a day sometimes,

[59:05] I realize that people speed through it.

[59:07] I think that's the part of the intersection that's broken.

[59:10] Largely, I think at least my experience has been that when it's TMS time and they're blocking

[59:13] the north one, it seems to work pretty well.

[59:16] And the reason I think that that is nice is because then the traffic can still turn left and

[59:20] go down to 1200 and get out of the road, right?

[59:23] We don't back up as much.

[59:24] When it's elementary school time and they're using the south one, that seems to work pretty well because the traffic can turn right out of there

[59:30] Yeah, is there a reason you wouldn't do the north and the south and the west and get rid of the east?

[59:36] Yeah, because I never thought it crossing on the east side makes any sense. Yeah, the reason the reason the reason again is

[59:44] I'm sorry. I misunderstood. It's okay

[59:46] The recommendation that I'm giving is the overhead RRFB

[59:50] Whenever you have an overhead crossing signal, you want that overhead crossing signal or whatever it is to be at the crosswalk.

[1:00:00] So the only reason, the only concern about not or about keeping that crosswalk on the north side is that now you're operating a crosswalk where the flashers are 75 feet away on the other side. Why not, though, and I appreciate that. Thank you. I didn't understand that. Why not put it on the north side and an overhead crosswalk. So just get rid of the east ones and move that east one to the north.

[1:00:26] end up with West, South, and North, and they do what they do now, which is split either

[1:00:31] on the North side or the South side depending on which school is going.

[1:00:34] Oh yeah.

[1:00:35] The only reason is because you do have students that are already on this side and they come

[1:00:43] down, they're going to elementary, where you have students that are coming up this side

[1:00:48] of the road and they're not going to deal with these two crossings on Mill Road, but this

[1:00:53] is a junior high student and he needs to get to the north side. So you need to provide a crosswalk

[1:00:57] there for the. I think it would be valuable to interview the cross crossing guards there.

[1:01:03] And how can they live it and breathe it every day? I am so happy to do it. I just don't think it's

[1:01:08] going to change the overall direction that the council wants to go because if I change and put a

[1:01:17] ramp and striping right here, fine, that's an easy design change to make in the

[1:01:24] middle of design. So if you give us direction, this is the general direction we

[1:01:28] want to go and we include those in the design meetings with our engineer, that's

[1:01:31] great. If you want to get that feedback before we move forward, that's also fine.

[1:01:35] Recognize that's going to be just another two-week delay to get it done and

[1:01:39] start it. So if we on the north side, if we provide striping, we're gonna have to

[1:01:44] provide handicap access no matter what yeah but which which isn't a big it's not a big cost it's a

[1:01:50] $1,500 ramp cost you're already doing a bull about it's not a big it's not a big deal.

[1:01:56] Okay so we'll bring this back council in the action items and we'll give rest direction on that good

[1:02:02] discussion okay we're going to end our work meeting and council we can continue right now into the

[1:02:09] regular meetings since we had our filter up or do you want to take a break?

[1:02:14] Let's keep on going.

[1:02:15] Let's keep on going.

[1:02:16] All right.

[1:02:17] Excellent.

[1:02:17] Everyone, welcome to our regular meeting of the Heber City Council.

[1:02:21] Today is September 16th, 2025.

[1:02:25] It is now 6.11 p.m. and welcome to all of you.

[1:02:29] I want to welcome the council members that are here in attendance.

[1:02:32] We have Sid Ostergard, Aaron Sheetwood, myself Heidi Franco, and Mike Johnston.

[1:02:37] We also have Scott Phillips remote online.

[1:02:41] Yvonne Barney is excused.

[1:02:43] Okay, we're going to start with a pledge of allegiance.

[1:02:46] Yvonne is not here, so I will do it for her.

[1:02:49] And then after the pledge, Citadel Stregard is assigned to give a prayer.

[1:02:53] But if or a thought, but if any of you want to come forward to give a prayer,

[1:02:57] a thought you're welcome to and we'll take it from there.

[1:03:00] Would you please rise?

[1:03:21] So if there's anybody that wants to come up and do a prayer or a thought, please do.

[1:03:32] All right.

[1:03:33] If not, there's some tragic things that happened to our country this past week.

[1:03:40] and I won't go on and talk about a lot of it, but hopefully what has happened will bring

[1:03:50] us a little bit closer together. It kind of affected us here in the Heber Valley. It was just

[1:03:57] down at UVU, which was very surprising and very touching, or not touching, but very concerning

[1:04:09] that things like that can happen. So hopefully we can use that to, you know,

[1:04:16] rally the troops and come together as a community. There's other things that

[1:04:20] are happening. It is the season for the elections. So I want to reach out to

[1:04:27] every Heber citizen and do your homework, especially on the candidates. We have

[1:04:32] really solid candidates that are running for great positions. And it's very

[1:04:38] important that you do your homework and understand where they stand and where they would

[1:04:42] be if they become mayor or a council member, where they stand when it comes to Heber City.

[1:04:51] So I would recommend do your homework, make sure you understand where they stand and if

[1:04:56] that's what you believe in, oh for them.

[1:04:59] Okay.

[1:04:59] That's all I have, Mayor.

[1:05:00] Thank you, Sid.

[1:05:01] All right, our next part of the meeting are the awards and we have several tonight which

[1:05:06] which is very, it's wonderful to honor our excellent employees.

[1:05:11] So our first award, Alicia Therborn, would you like to come forward?

[1:05:16] She is going to recognize Trina Cook, our city recorder for

[1:05:20] achievement of the Master Municipal Clerk designation.

[1:05:30] Council Mayor, for those of you that don't know, my name is Alicia Therborn,

[1:05:36] and I am the city recorder for hideout.

[1:05:38] I also represent the UMCA Board on the Secretary on the UMCA Board.

[1:05:45] The Cinda Thomas is online.

[1:05:47] She wanted to be here really badly, but she unfortunately didn't make it in time.

[1:05:52] And she is the Education Director.

[1:05:56] We do want to thank you for this opportunity to recognize Trina.

[1:06:01] As the UMCA Membership, sorry, it stands for Utah Municipal Clerks Association.

[1:06:06] We have a partnership with the International Institute of Municipal Clerks and we have these wonderful programs that provide our members with educational and networking support and we promote positive, professional interaction with elected officials, the staff and the general public and the program enhances the awareness and the value of the municipal clerk and recorders position.

[1:06:35] The International Organization offers two certification programs.

[1:06:40] These programs are administered locally here in Utah by the Municipal Clerks Association.

[1:06:45] And we've developed an amazing partnership with Southern Utah University to provide the educational opportunities for these programs.

[1:06:52] Trina has completed the Certified Municipal Clerk Designation, and to obtain this, and I'm going to do this too, because she can let me do this one for her, so I'm doing both of them tonight, to obtain the Certified Municipal Clerk Designation.

[1:07:09] She has to actively be working in a municipality, performing the duties of a clerk or recorder.

[1:07:14] She has to complete university level coursework, earning a minimum of 60 educational points and 50 points related to work experience.

[1:07:25] One point is received for every two hours of class time, so 60 points reflects 120 hours of class time, obviously.

[1:07:32] Now, Trina has fulfilled the requirements to obtain the master municipal clerk designation, which is an advanced continuing education program that prepares clerks and recorders

[1:07:43] to perform more complex municipal duties.

[1:07:46] This program has an extensive and rigorous educational component

[1:07:50] of 60 advanced educational points

[1:07:52] of university level training,

[1:07:55] which require 120 hours of class time.

[1:07:58] Additionally, a social contribution of 40 points

[1:08:01] is required for that one.

[1:08:03] So as you can imagine, it does take many years

[1:08:06] to attain these certifications.

[1:08:08] We are very fortunate that Matt, city manager

[1:08:12] and the City Council, Mayor, we recognize you helping to recognize the improvement of the employee skills and knowledge through continuing education and professional development opportunities.

[1:08:28] We do salute you and he were city for your forward thinking and just on a personal note, I would not be where I am today at the work.

[1:08:43] She's been such a mentor to me, I have reached out to her more times than I can count.

[1:08:49] And she has always made time for me, never, ever lost patience with me or anything.

[1:08:55] She's just an amazing recorder and a friend.

[1:08:58] And he is very lucky to have her.

[1:09:00] It is our privilege to honor Trina with this award tonight, recognizing her

[1:09:07] professional developments. Sorry, I'm a crybaby.

[1:09:24] We get a couple of pictures. Yes, and I'd like to call on Lucinda. I'd like to call

[1:09:31] on Lucinda Thomas, who's online. Lucinda, you're off mute. Would you like to say

[1:09:35] anything to? I would love to, if I can. Yes.

[1:09:40] Yes, Trina is so amazing, she really is, she has answers for everything and she's a great

[1:09:47] asset to our UMCA association and always willing to help and do whatever is needed.

[1:09:58] We just love her and love to have her part of our association too.

[1:10:06] That's great.

[1:10:07] Thank you very much.

[1:10:08] Thank you.

[1:10:09] All right. Would you like to come up here to get pictures everyone? Why don't we join

[1:10:14] Trina?

[1:10:20] You can click the speech afterwards.

[1:10:30] Congratulations, Trina.

[1:11:16] Now we're ready for our next awards. I would like to make the Mayors award to three people.

[1:11:23] Arborist Parker Sweat, Building Official Kurt Davis, and Planning Manager Jamie Baren.

[1:11:28] If you three would come forward, I would so appreciate it. Let me talk about you when you come

[1:11:32] up here. Come on.

[1:11:33] Come on up. Go ahead and stand right here in front. All right. So for our new

[1:11:40] arborist, Parker Sweat, we want to recognize him for his outstanding work on

[1:11:48] the landscaping roundabout of 550 East and Heritage Farms Parkway. Tony, can you

[1:11:52] pull that up so people can see this if you haven't seen it already. He did the

[1:11:56] design. He did all of the installation and it looks great. So we're so thankful

[1:12:02] that you fixed. We patch and made it look this good. Thank you. All right. And then I'm going to

[1:12:10] read the nomination from Tony Coler to Kurt Davis and Jamie Barron. He said, Mayor, I want to

[1:12:17] nominate Jamie Barron and Kurt Davis for a mayor's award for their work and dedication in getting

[1:12:23] the Main Street Park ban shell completed. Without their hard work, this project could have not been

[1:12:29] completed. They found a way through extreme budgetary constraints, contractor constraints,

[1:12:35] design constraints, grant constraints, time constraints, and many diverse opinions from

[1:12:41] the council, the staff and the public to get the ban shell completed. They had to take time from

[1:12:47] their already full schedules to find a way to meet more often with the stakeholders, the property

[1:12:52] owners and the contractor. And each of them also worked after hours before hours and over weekends

[1:12:58] to help get this project done. This project also required Jamie to learn new skills as he had never been a project manager before Tony. Is there anything else you'd like to say about Curtin Jamie?

[1:13:11] All right. Well, here's your mayor's coins. Parker's already received his at another meeting, and then you probably already received your bonus. Is that right?

[1:13:20] I think so. Okay.

[1:14:36] We're ready to move on to our next agenda item. And thank you for enjoying that time with us because we do like to reward our employees that do

[1:14:44] excellent jobs. The next agenda item is the conflict of interest disclosure and as mayor,

[1:14:49] I need to make sure that those things are disclosed according to state code. I've received a conflict

[1:14:55] of interest disclosure from Mike Johnston regarding this busian example.

[1:15:00] Nation, public hearing, that is coming up next. He is representing the Bush annexation. Is this client? Mike, is there anything else you want to say? Just that that's it. Yeah, I'm refusing myself for sure. Are there any other conflict of interest disclosures? Anyone online? Yes. So I also submitted one months ago on the Hebrew Food Truck Court with Matt Hansen. Yes. He actually texted me. It's on the agenda for an action item. He asked. He says he's got a family emergency and he cannot come. So if we could continue

[1:15:29] you that till I'll have him get with Jacob about when he'd want to come back.

[1:15:36] And that's the agenda item everyone that's later the Heber Food Truck Court Development

[1:15:40] Agreement.

[1:15:41] Okay.

[1:15:42] Thank you very much.

[1:15:43] No other.

[1:15:44] Is there anyone online that wants to disclose a conflict of interest?

[1:15:53] Okay.

[1:15:53] It doesn't seem like it.

[1:15:55] One of our council members is online.

[1:15:57] All right.

[1:15:57] We're going to open up the public hearing now for proposed ordinance 2025-25.

[1:16:03] If the Bush annexation, it is located at approximately 3450 north highway 40 is Jamie presenting

[1:16:12] on this or you Tony?

[1:16:17] Okay.

[1:16:17] Yes.

[1:16:18] We'll get this going.

[1:16:19] And everyone, you will have your chance after the presentation to come up and give any

[1:16:23] comments that you would like during the public hearing.

[1:16:27] But this is a discussion only item.

[1:16:30] This is not meant to take action tonight on the annexation.

[1:16:35] Thank you, Mayor and Council.

[1:16:43] So yes, this is public hearing for the Bush annexation.

[1:16:46] And so Gary Bush is the petitioner for the property.

[1:16:50] The annexation is a total of 1.8 acres.

[1:16:54] Mr Bush owns approximately 1.3 acres of that.

[1:16:58] And the other portion is owned by the Finch Creek development.

[1:17:03] As it's part of that public or sorry, private right away.

[1:17:07] Just to clarify there. So just looking at this is on the north and the town, just south

[1:17:12] of Molten Lane, right where the concrete retaining wall starts where that private

[1:17:18] lane also connects up to Molten Lane. So it's right here, between UVU or the future

[1:17:28] university, parkway and Molten Lane. So we received the application and just going through

[1:17:36] the process, the council received the application, goes through the acceptance process, council

[1:17:43] chooses to accept it for further study, the council, it went through that process and

[1:17:49] it was completed and accepted, it went through 30-day process for certification by our

[1:17:54] city recorder or attorney, that was complete, we had a protest period, we did receive some

[1:18:11] We went through the planning commission and had a recommendation from the planning commission, which I'll share with you in a minute, and as we complete, here we are with the public hearing state code and it requires public hearings at city council not at planning commission.

[1:18:26] I mean, quick question on the protest, do the people that did the protest know that it wasn't accepted at this point?

[1:18:34] Yes.

[1:18:34] Okay, great.

[1:18:35] Yes.

[1:18:36] So public hearing is always a city council for annexation and then the next step is for a decision by the council.

[1:18:45] Usually in this time we have multiple discussions with you and as mentioned or our recommendation tonight is to have the public hearing.

[1:18:53] I think there are a few issues that we're going to talk about.

[1:18:55] We're probably going to hear from some of the public.

[1:18:57] And then we would come back in a future meeting with a draft development agreement

[1:19:01] for the Council to consider for action.

[1:19:07] So that's that's a staff recommendation at this time at least.

[1:19:11] In looking at this, the Planning Commission did make a recommendation August 12th

[1:19:16] of forward or positive recommendation with the conditions of being the zoning

[1:19:21] is University Village. All conditions of the city engineer there's a summary in your

[1:19:25] packet that has those comments and then affordable housing be de-districted and conditions

[1:19:30] of the fire district we met. So those are their recommendations. In looking at our annexation

[1:19:35] policy plan this is within the annexation policy plan it's also within the general plan.

[1:19:40] The general plan identifies this area as kind of that scenic buffer. However, it's based

[1:19:48] on how close it is to the highway. It's adjacent to that is the University of

[1:19:53] Village in Green and the neighborhoods with open space and it's kind of on

[1:19:56] that kind of on the extent there of where those two zones meet or

[1:20:02] designations meet. The zoning in here in this area is two things. One is let's start

[1:20:09] with the county zoning where it is now. It's classified as town core under

[1:20:13] or Wasatch County's north village overlay zone,

[1:20:17] which allows for six ERU's per net acre.

[1:20:23] We look at the city's zoning map,

[1:20:25] the purple is the university village,

[1:20:27] and the brown is the neighborhoods with open space.

[1:20:30] So it is surrounded on two sides by the university village,

[1:20:33] but again it's kind of in that area.

[1:20:36] Mr. Bush has requested that we give him density

[1:20:42] similar to what the county has.

[1:20:45] Again, town core, six units, six ear use per nut acre.

[1:20:50] The university village allows for six ear use per gross acre

[1:20:54] on base density.

[1:20:56] And then the neighborhood's open space is 3.5 year use per gross

[1:21:00] acre.

[1:21:01] Clustering is required in the neighborhood's open space.

[1:21:06] He's requesting the UV is it's closer to that density

[1:21:09] and it's surrounded by that.

[1:21:10] that. That's what the Finch Creek is part of. There's a proposed plan, and I think we can

[1:21:17] let Mr. Bush talk about some of this. There's a plan of how the ERU could work on the property

[1:21:22] right now that contains eight market rate and two affordable live work kind of town home

[1:21:30] units that are somewhat commercial and some residential. There's two additional units.

[1:21:39] Make

[1:21:39] would want Council to weigh in on what those deed restrictions might be. As far as percentage, AMI, those types of ratios, the two would be based on, as we look at how much to, how much we've been negotiating, if we're doing 10% then that would be one, if we're doing 20% that'd be two units is what's being proposed.

[1:22:00] close. There are some staff has become aware of this week of there are some county issues

[1:22:09] and Mr. Bush and some of their codes and code enforcement where we are aware that there

[1:22:15] are some of those issues that he's working through and on the property there's some buildings

[1:22:21] and then there's some materials there. My understanding and I know that Mr. Bush talked

[1:22:27] this is one of the first things he'd like to do is to build an outbuilding and we can have those

[1:22:33] conversations and I think we I've talked to our city attorney and I think he could like to

[1:22:39] probably speak to some of this but we would probably want it as the council we would want to get

[1:22:43] some direction on you as to how you'd want to approach some of those issues. As the as with the

[1:22:49] jurisdiction changes if it's a code enforcement issue then the county would no longer be essentially

[1:22:57] the entity that would be over that. So therefore that issue would resolve and now that would be a

[1:23:02] city issue. I mean, look at our codes. Are there any code violations or anything of that nature?

[1:23:09] I think those are things that can be discussed with the council as well as I think potentially

[1:23:13] some middle ground there to see what could be done. So I think that's part of the discussion we'll

[1:23:17] see tonight. So in conclusion, there's a, I'm going to show you actually real quick a couple of

[1:23:23] map here. I'm so real quick.

[1:23:31] Show you the,

[1:23:35] here we go. So this is the

[1:23:37] plat area. This is Mr. Bush's property and then this is that other portion

[1:23:42] that was picked up by Finch Creek as there were some unknowns and on the actual

[1:23:51] who announced that that title and ownership has been resolved.

[1:23:55] So Jamie on that is that at access easement that we're seeing in the dash yeah

[1:24:00] This is a private road that is used by all those property owners yeah

[1:24:04] access it's more I think at this point I don't know if anything it's formally

[1:24:09] recorded on that is probably some prescriptive but it's it's maintained and owned

[1:24:15] by all those property owners and it's a private road it's not public so I know

[1:24:20] know that there's some concern by some of the neighbors in that they would have to with

[1:24:25] development, they would have to address access to their property.

[1:24:30] And then this is the site point that we are referencing.

[1:24:34] Flash out that concern you just said.

[1:24:35] Yes.

[1:24:36] There's concern they would have to address access to their property.

[1:24:38] Are you saying because the proposed development would negate or would interfere with that

[1:24:42] private road that exists right now?

[1:24:43] So, this private road is fairly narrow and in order to get enough access to develop the land to meet fire standards, access murder and sell it, we'd have to have improvements on that road.

[1:24:55] So, this where there at least the portion that Mr. Bush either owns or the neighboring property of Finch Creek owns, you could potentially see improvements through that section.

[1:25:06] But then any other improvements going farther north, they could either do a couple things.

[1:25:10] one would be either like a gate or something that would allow for the private access to be still

[1:25:15] used by those individuals. You could also see but in order to do that if this was to become

[1:25:22] public road there's a lot of conflict with individual property owners some of their utilities

[1:25:27] or septic systems that are close to the road but it's very narrow if you've been up there.

[1:25:31] So what we're saying is in order to develop this you're going to have to improve it and widen it

[1:25:35] Just for sake of access and fire and everything so just another wrinkle, you know

[1:25:41] You know we're dealing with that and yep, and you know, is there gonna be a frontage road there and all that yeah

[1:25:47] So you got yes to your point

[1:25:52] Said is that you dot is looking at both alternatives and both alternatives do

[1:25:57] Come very close to this road based on what we've seen and so we we recognize

[1:26:02] there's a lot of things up in the air right now in terms of this and I think

[1:26:05] the property owners understand that some of this I think is twofold one is to look

[1:26:11] at getting some sort of a call at a shop or a building there that the city

[1:26:14] would have fruit would allow them to use maybe for certain number of years

[1:26:19] whereas and then in the future this property could maybe be developed at that

[1:26:24] time they'd have to go through U. and go through all those and get all that

[1:26:27] that sorted out, just like we're seeing in the North Village.

[1:26:30] So, while we're here, yes.

[1:26:33] I know there's plenty of details here we could talk about

[1:26:36] and that's why we're here.

[1:26:37] Thank you, Mr. Bush, for being here.

[1:26:40] We really didn't decide about what would happen

[1:26:42] to the scenic buffer trail because we thought it would be a while

[1:26:46] before we got this far north and try to continue that.

[1:26:50] So to me it was never decided,

[1:26:52] even though we've required that 50-foot buffer for storm waters,

[1:26:58] swales and this winding scenic trail going north on Highway 40.

[1:27:03] Do you have any ideas or has the Planning Commission discussed

[1:27:06] what happens to our scenic buffer trail once it hits this private road?

[1:27:13] I don't think they've discussed what happens during that.

[1:27:17] I think right now the biggest question is what happens based on

[1:27:20] where U.Goes with the Hebrew Valley Corridor, I think that probably has some impact as far

[1:27:28] as this individual know, I think that's something we can discuss.

[1:27:33] Well, I had always thought, even though it was never decided, because we knew that was a pinch point

[1:27:37] right there with that tall retaining wall and this road that goes up and over, you know,

[1:27:42] that is private, I always thought that the senior buffer would go up and over, right?

[1:27:47] it would not be down at the bottom of that retaining wall, especially given the topography

[1:27:53] that's to the north, right? So has anything been discussed here as far as that scenic buffer trail

[1:28:01] with what's in the MD8? I didn't see it. The development agreement.

[1:28:07] Only that. Only that UDOT really

[1:28:11] is going to dictate this frontage road and all those things. This is a 14-foot private shared road.

[1:28:18] I think six properties use it and I don't think we are going to read. I mean, none of them

[1:28:25] really have the ability to dedicate a scenic buffer because of the small loss size.

[1:28:31] Yeah. Okay, so that's where the city will open around coming from around.

[1:28:36] Yeah, the city's got to be deciding this and Russ, maybe you want to weigh in on this, the city's

[1:28:41] got to be deciding what to do with that scenic buffer trail, right? And we just we didn't think five

[1:28:46] for so years ago, you know, when this was all going down that we figured out when we got here.

[1:28:51] It seems like we're here now, right, we're here. And we need to start thinking about where's that

[1:28:56] scenic buffer trail going to go for connectivity north to south, you know, for the pedestrians.

[1:29:02] Do you have any ideas? Well, let me share a few thoughts. As you know, as a lot of these properties

[1:29:09] have annexed into the city, we've had that requirement put on them of maintaining that buffer area

[1:29:14] where the trail was supposed to go.

[1:29:16] In those areas where the annexations have already taken place,

[1:29:22] it's still anticipated that those developers

[1:29:24] are going to build that trail even

[1:29:26] with the potential widening of the road by UDOT.

[1:29:31] In areas like this, UDOT's alternative analysis

[1:29:35] includes building that trail.

[1:29:38] Now it's going to be, I don't believe it's

[1:29:40] going to have a big giant buffer area in this area,

[1:29:44] But I believe that that and Craig you're maybe you guys know this, but I don't believe that that trail is going to be

[1:29:52] Up on the upper side of that wall

[1:29:54] I think that it's potentially going to be on the lower side

[1:29:57] But I believe this was going to be built by you dot

[1:30:02] I guess we're glad they're here and I guess we'll maybe they can clarify, but my understanding there is that in the areas we've already talked about having the buffer area and those developers are going to build those trails per annexation agreements. These areas that weren't on the radar, this was going to be built with the U dot bypass by their project and I don't I don't think that the anticipation here is that we're going to have that big buffer area because of the process.

[1:30:29] No, no, we never thought there'd be the big buffer area.

[1:30:32] We just needed to decide where is that trail going to go.

[1:30:35] You know, if it was above the wall or below the any of it.

[1:30:38] Yeah, I'm just curious.

[1:30:40] The whole wall is heard of the same in this area.

[1:30:42] Did you say it looked like a bug?

[1:30:44] It does look above.

[1:30:45] OK, so yeah.

[1:30:49] OK, that's good to know.

[1:30:51] Just wanted to make sure that everybody was aware, you know,

[1:30:54] that this was a pinch point, and this was a discussion

[1:30:56] that was going to come up when this happened.

[1:30:59] OK.

[1:31:00] Okay, my other concern and maybe you'll get to this.

[1:31:03] Why don't you finish your presentation?

[1:31:05] Yeah, I think I'm about there.

[1:31:07] I'm looking at the site plan and all of you,

[1:31:10] I'm not sure why it's skewed on your screen,

[1:31:12] but you're looking at the 10 units and then the accessory barn.

[1:31:15] I believe that that's kind of the idea of having

[1:31:18] that barn built for some of the activities

[1:31:22] Mr. Bush is looking to do or to use that property now.

[1:31:27] And this is a potential development

[1:31:29] to the future. There's also, but again, right now we're talking about more of the zoning and what

[1:31:36] that could look like. All that Mr. Bush talked to more of what his plans are. There's also

[1:31:43] possibility, depending on what happens with the heat rally EIS and the corridor to those others

[1:31:49] that maybe it becomes part of other developments as well. So it's hard to say right now, but this is

[1:31:55] this is a site plan based on what he's visioning based on the density and the zoning that he's

[1:32:01] requesting right now. So some to point in the future and then these are just some elevations

[1:32:07] as well kind of showing what that vision would look like. So with that though it is public hearing

[1:32:14] and so we're just recommending again for tonight that we have the public hearing, have the dialogue

[1:32:19] with Mr. Bush and with the council and get some weird seeking direction to prepare a development

[1:32:26] agreement for you to consider action on at a future meeting. So with that I think it'd be we

[1:32:31] should allow Mr. Bush to have some dialogue with the council to answer some questions and share some

[1:32:36] his thoughts and then recommend you opening it to a public hearing. Excellent. All right. We'll turn

[1:32:42] it over to you, Mr. Bush. What would you like to present or discuss? I'd like to suppose first

[1:32:48] just introduce myself Gary Bush and I'm not really a developer I'm here today

[1:32:56] with annexation application as you know like development agreement is part

[1:33:03] of that application right now my goal is to build the storage barn and that will

[1:33:11] allow me to store inside some construction material I have on site and have

[1:33:17] for the last 20 years. And there's no chance I can do that in the county. And

[1:33:30] unless I build a primary home first. So they've really preferred that I go

[1:33:37] through the annexation process. And again, really not able to develop this until

[1:33:47] that private road becomes either improved or the access road or the frontage road is built by UDOT.

[1:33:57] I've really been held up for that for a number of years. In this annexation application,

[1:34:03] really without knowing what UDOT was going to do, now it looks like it's pretty certain

[1:34:09] And there's an access road or a furniture going along that private road.

[1:34:17] So I just really want to be in extent to Heber primarily to build this storage barn at this time.

[1:34:29] Also want to plan for the future and we know that Heber is really planning that corridor in the state 40 and I want to be part of that.

[1:34:43] And again,

[1:34:49] this is really preferred route for West Hedge County.

[1:34:55] And they have suggested I do so, so here I am.

[1:35:06] I'm happy with building the barn at this point,

[1:35:11] and then waiting for you to take 5 or 10 years to build their frontage road.

[1:35:17] And then at that point, I think we'll have a clearer vision of how this area will be redeveloped.

[1:35:27] And so again, in the meantime, I'm just hoping that I can be annexed and build a storage barn for personal use and a workshop area.

[1:35:39] If you don't mind, Mr. Purshola, Aaron, ask a question.

[1:35:42] Yeah.

[1:35:43] Thanks so much for stating that.

[1:35:45] So, would you be, you know, they're asking for guidance for development agreement.

[1:35:49] Would you be amenable then to some kind of an agreement where we allow a barn and an annexation

[1:35:54] and don't allow anything else?

[1:35:56] And we wait to see, whether it's you come back in, we reapply, we wait to see for you dot track.

[1:36:03] I mean, this is way more than a barn.

[1:36:04] And so I'm trying to piece together.

[1:36:06] No, no, you're your comments with what we're seeing.

[1:36:08] Yeah, I mean, it's a tricky one because I really can't

[1:36:13] without you not committing to a plan.

[1:36:17] And so, in the meantime, I'd like to do something.

[1:36:20] It's under currently undervalued and so I want to do something and I need to do something

[1:36:26] to take care of some zone violations, storing outdoor material in Wasatch County.

[1:36:32] So, yes, to answer your question, yes, I'm okay with that, and that I'm okay with that annexation agreement or the development agreement part of that annexation application.

[1:36:46] You know, identifying the zone and, you know, also the standard affordable housing requirements and, you know, north field preservation fees.

[1:36:57] And I'm okay with all that without really a firm commitment or plan that I can stick to because I just don't know.

[1:37:11] Mr. Bush, if you wouldn't mind just explaining a little bit more about the county code and those nuisance issues that you've had.

[1:37:18] It would help us before perhaps the public comment.

[1:37:21] Yeah, I'm a general contractor and I bought the property. It was used as construction staging and I continued to do so.

[1:37:37] So it's primarily material. I specialize in historic rehabilitation. So there's a lot of historic material and that I temporarily will take off of the building and put her back on.

[1:37:49] And I have done that without really contest for a number of years, but recently that's

[1:37:57] come to light.

[1:37:58] And I was really led on, you know, taken out for a long walk on a short pair from a planner

[1:38:04] in Wasad County.

[1:38:06] He indicated we had numerous common, you know, site visits and he indicated that if I did

[1:38:12] some things, it would be okay.

[1:38:14] Well, subsequently he's been fired and then I've been in a more rigid situation that I'm trying to become compliant and this seems to be the best route for me.

[1:38:36] I can I ask how much materials is it I brought it actually a zip drive so I can show some

[1:38:42] pitchers. It will just help us understand what when I think public comments talk about

[1:38:46] it.

[1:38:47] Okay.

[1:38:47] While they're bringing that up, Mr. Bush, is your plan for the barn that you're talking

[1:38:51] about?

[1:38:52] Yes.

[1:38:52] That's the your materials could then be inside the barn.

[1:38:54] Yes.

[1:38:55] That's the whole idea is.

[1:38:56] Yes.

[1:38:56] Instead of storing in the open we could enclose the stuff.

[1:38:59] Absolutely.

[1:39:00] Exactly right.

[1:39:01] Is the barn something that you would be able to construct within the next building season?

[1:39:06] Yes, yes, it's not a, it would not have utilities, I did not have utilities in the area, so I do have a look to a power, but I do not have.

[1:39:18] Or water, and I wouldn't get those until.

[1:39:22] The development.

[1:39:24] It's a fish creek happened, so that's just to the south.

[1:39:28] And that's where utilities will be brought to this lot from.

[1:39:31] Would you like to tell us which file perhaps to open?

[1:39:36] I hope that there's the name that you see them there.

[1:39:45] Yes, in the record file.

[1:39:47] It's just three photos.

[1:39:49] Now I have one of the corner a lot as you come up molten lane.

[1:39:55] There's one look.

[1:39:58] There's the shed that really is the subject.

[1:40:05] it's clad in tin and there's some material in front, lumber in front. So that's primarily

[1:40:11] the material. The building to the left is the Jason property to the east, it's across

[1:40:17] the canal.

[1:40:21] But that I was, I went to Asad's town to get a permit and I was told I could build

[1:40:28] the permit I didn't need a building because it was less than 200 square feet and they gave me a

[1:40:35] setback of three feet and then they came back to me after it was built and said no it needs to be

[1:40:40] 10 feet so they put a stop work on it that that's why it just sits as it is this is the corner

[1:40:47] lot as you come up mountain lane and turn on to that private access road and you can see this just

[1:40:55] You know, it's the property to the south it is to the north to the north. It's not your property. This is not my property, but I just wanted to give you some context of that those six homes. This is the one that's immediate.

[1:41:07] It's the first one so the furthest north just south of molten lane. So if you pull up molten lane and you go south along that private road, that's the first thing you see.

[1:41:18] And it's really a truck yard, there's old abandoned cars of school bus, lumber material.

[1:41:26] This is my lot here, and it's, again, undeveloped.

[1:41:30] There's kind of a olive green shed on the left.

[1:41:35] Jamie, if you can highlight that, a little bit further to your left, yeah, that right there.

[1:41:41] That's a mobile office that I take to a job site.

[1:41:46] it has, it lifts onto a trailer. The barn in the back is the neighbors, the silver one.

[1:41:55] And those are your materials that are laying on the ground there?

[1:41:58] Yeah, no, that's some historic lumber there.

[1:42:01] And then where's that chain plaid shed that you would like to?

[1:42:04] The right, if you rotate to the right, Jamie, it's actually behind that bush right there.

[1:42:09] Okay, so there's more materials back there than two.

[1:42:12] Yeah.

[1:42:12] Okay. Appreciate you showing that to us, sir.

[1:42:16] Council, do you have any questions on these pictures?

[1:42:19] Okay.

[1:42:20] Thanks for bringing them.

[1:42:22] It helps.

[1:42:22] I visit the site very infrequently, maybe once a month during the building season, maybe

[1:42:30] twice in one month and then nothing for a month.

[1:42:32] So very infrequently, it's, it's, uh, so just for me to understand, you're saying that the

[1:42:40] Wasatch County won't let you build a barn unless you also build a house.

[1:42:43] Yes.

[1:42:44] And I don't understand that.

[1:42:45] I don't understand it either.

[1:42:47] And I asked, can I have, can I do an application?

[1:42:52] Because with UDOT was holding up the annexation application

[1:42:55] because of the circulation plan, basically, because of UDOT.

[1:43:00] So I said, this is really holding me up, Doug Smith.

[1:43:04] Can I do an application for a single family home just as an escape route

[1:43:10] so that if I have a backup plan

[1:43:12] and then build at the barn, you know, the primary house in the accessory building, and he said, no, and he said, I'd need to withdraw my annexation application to pursue that route.

[1:43:23] The Doug that doesn't seem right, and he goes, we really just want you to go through the annexation application.

[1:43:28] So I don't really understand what the motives are there, but I was part of the MOU that we made with the county when we started this whole annexation process,

[1:43:37] that they would recommend that property owners like yourself first try to come to the city and they're honoring that.

[1:43:44] That makes sense, but I was not aware of that until this moment.

[1:43:48] I understand. Okay, anything else you'd like to say or anything else you'd like to ask?

[1:43:53] I have a question for Jamie. You might know you're not a county person, but if you know, could the county provide whatever kind of zone variance or whatever is needed to allow them to build a barn without a house?

[1:44:03] Like is that possible for them to provide?

[1:44:06] So there's a couple of things that I'm just going to answer your question, but I want to explain something and that is

[1:44:14] Variance versus say development agreement or something else or zoning

[1:44:20] There's very strict regulations under the state

[1:44:23] Statue when you can actually give a variance because that is part of the judicial arm of government saying

[1:44:29] We see that our rules are too strict for you. You're losing a fundamental property right

[1:44:35] And there's a very narrow window of saying,

[1:44:38] hey, it's not self-created, it's not economic,

[1:44:41] and it's unique to your property.

[1:44:44] So a lot of times we see setbacks

[1:44:47] with topography or other types of things.

[1:44:50] So very narrow window is to when they say,

[1:44:52] because again, we're talking about judicial now, right?

[1:44:56] And so the answer to that is, I don't know,

[1:44:59] that's a very...

[1:45:00] I would be very surprised if that's the ability. Now, what they could do is could they go through

[1:45:06] the legislative process and create a development agreement, which they say, hey, we're going

[1:45:11] to make some of these exceptions through a legislative process. Absolutely. That's the

[1:45:14] same authority that you use when you create a development agreement, or you do his own

[1:45:18] change, or you do an annexation. That's all part of that legislative branch. So, could they

[1:45:23] do something like that? That goes back to their elected officials as to whether they're willing

[1:45:28] to do that. I think Mayor that they're saying go to the city because they at one time agreed to

[1:45:34] recommend people come to this. Correct. If you have the MOU and part of this conversation is

[1:45:39] if you look at the county right now they're in town core with the overlay. If they choose to use

[1:45:44] the overlay and can meet the parameters of the overlay we're talking about I think county was six

[1:45:50] units six net units per net acre sorry and so that's why some of that request is to say

[1:45:57] Let's establish a zone as well as I think what he's requesting is let me build a barn or a shop or whatever so I can store material at the same time just can I get a zone so that something can happen here in the future.

[1:46:22] Okay.

[1:46:22] I don't understand the Finch Creek easement that's at, I guess, the east side of your property for their private road is that correct?

[1:46:31] Well, yes, sir.

[1:46:35] Sorry, until Gary submitted his annexation map for many, many years, that portion that's now owned by Finch Creek had no tax parcel number, no value and no owner.

[1:46:48] It was unknown. I don't know why, but for decades. So we submitted the map, and Ross Hansen,

[1:46:56] our city assistant engineer said, hey, you got to address this. And so I went back through

[1:47:01] the records and determined that it used to be owned by the people that sold to Finch Creek, sold

[1:47:07] everything but that portion of that shared driveway, because it was a shared driveway, and I guess

[1:47:13] there's nobody wanted to own it.

[1:47:15] Let's just make sure I know what you're talking about here.

[1:47:18] So there's an arrow, Jesus parcel.

[1:47:20] Yeah, but the purple line owner of Finch Creek.

[1:47:23] So that right there is all now owned by Finch Creek.

[1:47:25] They went through a quiet title action with the courts

[1:47:28] and they actually got the previous owner's errors.

[1:47:31] That's not what I'm talking about though.

[1:47:33] I thought the easement for Finch Creek

[1:47:35] was on the other side, the back side.

[1:47:37] It's not is this front side.

[1:47:38] Yeah, it's not an easement.

[1:47:39] And so that's a shared driveway that you dot built when they put the wall in and widen the road many, many years ago.

[1:47:47] Okay.

[1:47:48] And those people lost their access directly to the highway because it's too steep.

[1:47:54] So that driveway, shared driveway, private road, whatever got put in, the county doesn't own it and they don't plow it.

[1:48:01] And it starts right there and goes on property that Finch Creek now owns.

[1:48:06] I'm going to say Finch Creek is still allowing access.

[1:48:09] It sounds like.

[1:48:10] Well, they have to because it's prescriptively an easement.

[1:48:13] It's not a written easement, but it's prescriptive.

[1:48:15] It's been used for decades.

[1:48:17] It was Finch Creek maintaining the road.

[1:48:20] I don't think so.

[1:48:21] I don't know.

[1:48:22] Well, I wonder who I think maybe someone's here in the audience, but the property owners,

[1:48:27] I understand they pull out it.

[1:48:29] It's like a shared driveway, basically.

[1:48:30] Injury took ownership of that just within the last few months.

[1:48:37] When we were working with Finch Creek and you may remember the conversation of some of

[1:48:41] the collector roads and major collector roads that need to come down to Highway 40 and

[1:48:45] trying to meet those.

[1:48:47] This area was one of the areas we engineering was working with and diligently to find a way

[1:48:51] to make that work and this was an area that was being explored.

[1:48:55] That's also when this issue came up and so it got resolved because of that now obviously

[1:49:00] with UDOT, we're looking at some other alternatives because that's not going to work, but they just

[1:49:06] barely, because within the last couple of months have actually gained ownership of that, so they

[1:49:11] probably would not have had any maintenance involved. Okay, so now, Mr. Bush's parcel is just to the

[1:49:17] north of this, right? Correct. Okay, let's, can you go there a little bit? And there's five, I think,

[1:49:22] a five or six other properties, and then you get to molten lane. This connects molten lane down,

[1:49:27] on the north. Is this touch any Heber City parcels? Yes, so it touches all along the east and south.

[1:49:36] The purple is the Heber City's boundary. Correct.

[1:49:39] And then as far as the canal, what kind of setbacks are there? And then I don't know what the

[1:49:46] topography or slope is to make sure that there's not digging underneath that canal area, like in our

[1:49:52] sensitive. You can see the canal. Yeah, it looks like an older ship. Right. They maintain that.

[1:49:58] That's that's owned fee title by the CUP. Okay, the typography doesn't look too steep there. So

[1:50:05] it looks like there wouldn't be an issue with any redevelopment to affect the canal and I always thought

[1:50:11] that's where the bike trail would be or the pedestrian access would loop up and onto that canal. Okay.

[1:50:17] Okay, so my final question is, you're looking at, well, some of the documents said seven

[1:50:24] work units.

[1:50:25] Some said, you know, the 10 with the two additional affordable ones.

[1:50:29] So is it?

[1:50:30] It's going to be eight that you're proposing with the two more that are affordable, okay?

[1:50:36] And we'll have to discuss that.

[1:50:38] I hope Council, we can discuss that more when we've got both of our missing Council members

[1:50:43] here.

[1:50:44] I just agree with that, too, for Gary.

[1:50:46] That's a site plan that his architect grew because it was requested by the application.

[1:50:51] It's not an intended development.

[1:50:54] You can't do it because the road, there's no road to do it with.

[1:50:56] There's no utilities to do it with.

[1:50:58] And it's something that could happen.

[1:51:00] But that's not what I think.

[1:51:03] By the time you get the highly rerouted and the fronted roads in,

[1:51:06] this whole corridor will be open to some other idea by a new city council.

[1:51:12] It's going to be, it's hard to imagine single-family homes between the canal and the highway right there, they're there now, but I think that's, I just, that's a discussion for those property owners and, and the new city council in years to come that this site plan is not really what he's asking for.

[1:51:29] Just annexation. You're right. He's asking for an annexation and a barn and a barn. Okay. Well, what I'm concerned about is

[1:51:36] and you dot standards on frontage roads and even though this is kind of a unique frontage road situation given the existing

[1:51:44] homes that are there or the existing properties, I'm thinking that given the narrowness of this particular area

[1:51:50] of the highway that having that much density coming into the frontage road, does that make sense?

[1:51:58] You know, can create other issues.

[1:52:01] So that's where I'm coming from.

[1:52:02] Obviously, who knows what development could happen there

[1:52:06] in the future.

[1:52:07] But I'm just wondering if there's any concerns

[1:52:10] that UDOT has as far as the sizing of the frontage road,

[1:52:14] especially if more density were agreed to

[1:52:16] and given in any of these locations,

[1:52:20] not to mention the existing residential that's there.

[1:52:23] I'm just concerned about that high density

[1:52:26] on a frontage road that we need standards from perhaps U. Before we decide,

[1:52:32] go ahead, Russ. Yeah. Thank you, Mayor. I just, I wanted to just point out a couple things. So

[1:52:38] the conversation at this point is that this private access road, when Finch Creek develops,

[1:52:47] the conversation with them is that they will be required to allow that private drive to connect

[1:52:53] into their road system. Then it would go through their road system up to the collector road.

[1:52:58] So it goes through Finge Creek's local road system or private road system, whatever they do.

[1:53:07] So the reason I say that is because although you don't is talking about frontage roads,

[1:53:14] I think that there are a lot of roads that are going to be planned in our master plan that are

[1:53:19] are going to be used as frontage roads.

[1:53:21] So I see that access going away.

[1:53:23] Those roads tying into Finch Creek's local road system

[1:53:27] and then there is a requirement or a condition put on this

[1:53:31] that they will have to widen that

[1:53:33] to meet fire access requirement,

[1:53:35] which means they're going to have to be likely 26 feet.

[1:53:38] They're gonna have to work that out, that's in there.

[1:53:40] So just some additional information

[1:53:42] that I thought might be helpful for everyone to understand.

[1:53:44] If I add to Russ's comment

[1:53:46] And that would allow the properties to the north who utilize this to access roads to the south through Finch Creek.

[1:53:56] That's not to say that Finch Creek having these having their roads are allowing their residents to go through their private.

[1:54:03] So Jamie, I have a question.

[1:54:04] We would have proud.

[1:54:05] Good Finch Creek town homes.

[1:54:08] Have they presented any plans to us?

[1:54:11] They came in from what's the density on that?

[1:54:13] I don't remember the density. I've taught my head. They came in for preliminary flat and they're

[1:54:17] very consistent with their agreement in terms of what we saw. The reason that they haven't moved

[1:54:25] forward is goes back to the issue of we have a major collector road, Krigman-Hermann-Ross,

[1:54:30] major collector road that between them and the North Village Views and Jordan Elridge and

[1:54:37] college downs to make the angle work had to be relocated. That is really what's holding

[1:54:45] them up from coming forward or coming back. So again, they're hoping to move forward.

[1:54:51] We've already had some of this conversation with them, but that's the issue that's holding

[1:54:55] them up. And I can't remember the overall density, but it's town homes, it's university

[1:54:59] It's, it's that close to that six year use that the University of

[1:55:05] Illegiate allows for.

[1:55:08] Okay. All right.

[1:55:10] I think I've got my questions answered.

[1:55:11] Any other questions, Matt, Russ, Scott, are you on line still?

[1:55:16] Okay. Jeremy, Scott, yes.

[1:55:18] You're welcome to come off me.

[1:55:19] Scott, but Jeremy, I'm here.

[1:55:21] Did you, is there anything you need to ask or say?

[1:55:25] Well, I, I mean, I think we should annex the property and allow and

[1:55:28] build a barn and whatever we need to do to allow for the density of the county had previously allowed there to do it.

[1:55:39] Jeremy, do you want to discuss this nuisance issue or any concerns you have on that?

[1:55:46] Although I'll say is, I mean obviously as a city we don't want to inherit a nuisance violation so I would recommend that if we're going to move forward that we resolve the nuisance as part of this.

[1:56:02] that the nuisance being kind of the existing buildings that, you know, may need to come down or be moved in some of the junk, but I think those issues can be resolved as part of this.

[1:56:16] And we can have some requirements in the development agreement that those issues are resolved those buildings are removed or relocated to the location that we're comfortable with.

[1:56:26] all as part of the development agreement prior to getting a permit to build the barn structure.

[1:56:32] That's perfect. That's what I was going to ask would it be a part of the DA?

[1:56:36] One question on that, Chairman.

[1:56:38] Mr. Bush, whoever wants to take a stab at it, but just the way you described the materials

[1:56:43] and that you don't move them that often and that they sit until you're ready to move them or use them.

[1:56:50] Rather than moving them, would we, and is it enforceable to instead say

[1:56:55] You need to move them during construction, we understand there's going to be construction materials during construction, but we expect them to be housed in said building by nine months from now or whatever, you know, X, X day, and is that an enforceable thing? Is that a way that we could quote, quote, inherit an issue but have a resolution at which point we have some teeth to do something about it?

[1:57:16] Yeah, and and not only is it enforceable, but if it's through a development agreement, then it's contractually enforceable, which also allows us to provide for attorney fees as part of the enforcement action, it becomes a much easier enforcement than just a code violation.

[1:57:32] So I think we'd have a lot of teeth in there.

[1:57:36] I think it, me, it just comes down to a matter of just trying to figure out exactly which

[1:57:43] of those structures that are on there.

[1:57:44] We want moved or relocated or removed, you know, resolving the issues with any of the

[1:57:50] other material on there making sure it's inside or in a location that's that we're comfortable

[1:57:55] with, you know, maybe further away from the property lines for the neighboring property owners

[1:57:59] or something like that, and then once we've resolved those issues, I think it's pretty

[1:58:07] straightforward. Again, this isn't a development that's like we go and develop in the near

[1:58:13] future. I think we can include our normal provisions that we include in these agreements

[1:58:21] about open space funding and other requirements that we typically include, but otherwise

[1:58:28] it should be pretty simple. Thank you. Has anybody on staff, Jeremy, maybe officer price? Has anyone

[1:58:36] done an on-site inspection to look at those nuisance issues? So I did go out to site to look at it

[1:58:44] myself. So what I did not do is I did not go out there with our code enforcement officer or

[1:58:49] any have not dug a lot into our nuisance code on this issue. I went out there as I was informed about

[1:58:57] it by by a neighbor. So I wanted to make sure I understood what the extent is. And the the images are

[1:59:05] are very accurate as to what I observed. So as well as I took a couple photos. So

[1:59:10] so you did did you have any dramatic concerns or or what do you think when you're with your cursory

[1:59:17] examination? So I do think if this were in the city today, there I think the the keeping in the

[1:59:24] materials based on the zoning that we're talking about, or even the zoning that would be in place,

[1:59:33] there would be some issues and violations pertaining to the keeping of the materials.

[1:59:39] Typically, something like this is done more in the industrial where you would have a contractor

[1:59:44] to keep materials in the industrial yard. They have a yard for those types of things.

[1:59:50] Looking into the shed itself, I can't say at this point whether or not we would have a

[1:59:58] clear violation there but I definitely think

[2:00:00] We are new since ordinance talks about keeping of materials and so I do think there would be a concern there from our city code as well. Again, I think to Jeremy's point, I think Aaron's, is that could we do something to say here's a time frame in which you get this cleaned up based on occupancy or the barn being built. I think that's a middle ground that we could look to.

[2:00:28] All righty. Anything else? Okay.

[2:00:31] Okay, we're going to open it up for the public comment now.

[2:00:34] And if you don't mind, Ken, you'll probably have to scoot out of the way because people

[2:00:38] can come up now to the microphone and be able to state their public comment.

[2:00:43] All right, we ask you when this is opened, that you come up, state your name, you'll have

[2:00:49] three minutes, sometimes that time or work and sometimes it doesn't, okay?

[2:00:53] Well, we'll see, but tell us your name.

[2:00:55] On the property next to Gary, if you could pull those pictures up again of the one corner

[2:01:00] lot that had all the heavy equipment on it and stuff.

[2:01:04] That lot, Gary, I must not have been on to his property in a while because that lot

[2:01:07] has all been cleaned up.

[2:01:08] The county went to him, he came in compliance.

[2:01:11] Gary has not, I've been his neighbor for over 20 some years, that has all been cleaned up.

[2:01:18] Could you go to his property, please now?

[2:01:24] That building right there in the back corner there, he was red flagged twice, maybe three

[2:01:28] times on it because in the county code in Wasatch County, you can't have auxiliary buildings

[2:01:34] without a primary residence.

[2:01:36] You go over to the left side of here.

[2:01:38] There's another building that he built without codes.

[2:01:40] You got to the next slide.

[2:01:42] Back in the corner, very far back corner there.

[2:01:45] There's another building he built.

[2:01:47] You can't, right there.

[2:01:48] You can see it behind the telephone pole.

[2:01:50] He never got a permit for that.

[2:01:51] Is it the, it's not the dumpster?

[2:01:54] Or is it the sloped roof?

[2:01:55] Is this sloped building?

[2:01:56] That's another one.

[2:01:57] That's right on the property.

[2:01:58] You could be on my property.

[2:01:58] It's on the property line.

[2:01:59] These property lines are all messed up up there.

[2:02:02] There's always construction waste that's been over there for 20 years.

[2:02:05] I had to build a fence to hide this stuff.

[2:02:07] It's not usable stuff.

[2:02:09] If you come down further from there, there's more steel, i-beams, old doors behind this shed here that he put in.

[2:02:16] I had to build that fence to hide it.

[2:02:19] Also, I don't have enough time here, he's been read flag multiple times.

[2:02:26] Mr. County right now has a criminal case against him, for code violations, illegal buildings.

[2:02:32] He's supposed to go to court in two months over this.

[2:02:36] The planning commission gave him, planning department gave him multiple times to come into compliance.

[2:02:40] He never did anything.

[2:02:41] He kept putting them off and now I got to go down to this really quick.

[2:02:45] I'm not going to cut you off.

[2:02:46] You go ahead, I asked you some questions.

[2:02:48] You feel free to go on for another couple of months.

[2:02:50] Sorry, he's set to go to trial couple months.

[2:02:52] My neighbors and I aren't anti-heat or however both applicants and involve neighbors parcels and up destroying my land and that of my neighbors now the existing private road is only 14 feet wide it can't be wide because my drainfields are Mike Johnson is quoting a U dot study that's not even a draft form and therefore it's inappropriate and indigenous to state U dot will.

[2:03:15] Well, this indigenous to state U dot will, to state U dot will eminent domain.

[2:03:22] Our parcel is in territory on our family homes.

[2:03:24] Mr. Bush has no intention of giving the city additional housing affordable otherwise as

[2:03:30] stated by Mr. Bush's energy engineer Mike Johnson, who is the city councilman.

[2:03:35] And this was in the paper and it's what Mr. Johnson said.

[2:03:39] So now he's saying he wants to build just this barn.

[2:03:42] I mean, I don't, this is the road's not wide enough that I say he has no access, so I have 19 seconds.

[2:03:51] What else I'd leave out?

[2:03:54] So the city going to go after him with all these little buildings and stuff, this is a bunch

[2:04:00] of junk.

[2:04:01] There's nothing usable wood there.

[2:04:03] It's been sitting there for 20 years.

[2:04:05] Thank you.

[2:04:09] Thank you, sir.

[2:04:12] Can we just re-examine those pictures again really quick?

[2:04:14] So, Mr. Dixon is saying that the sloped roof building with a porch, the dumpster that's

[2:04:23] in front of it to the side, are those on your property?

[2:04:29] That is on my property, yes.

[2:04:31] Okay.

[2:04:31] That building back there was grandfathered, that was built prior to my purchase.

[2:04:37] That's been there for over 20 years.

[2:04:40] And then what about this white box type structure?

[2:04:44] That's Mr. Dixon's property.

[2:04:46] That's his property.

[2:04:46] He's got a bunch of.

[2:04:48] Okay.

[2:04:48] And then the gray building is Mr. Dixon's also?

[2:04:52] That's correct.

[2:04:53] Okay.

[2:04:53] And then this is yours, the brown one.

[2:04:55] Yes.

[2:04:56] Okay.

[2:04:56] And then the fence that's there, assuming Mr. Dixon put in, is that right?

[2:05:01] So that's your fence.

[2:05:02] And then when we come over even farther to the left, please.

[2:05:07] Whose house is that?

[2:05:08] That's Mr. Whitehouse.

[2:05:09] That's your house.

[2:05:10] Okay.

[2:05:10] Okay, so where Mr. Bush, where's the location of the steel that's on this property?

[2:05:18] There's some steel to the left, Jamie, right there, now a little bit to the left of the

[2:05:23] wood pile, right there, right there.

[2:05:27] And then there's, well, let's just kind of pan slowly to the right, please.

[2:05:40] And is that home livable?

[2:05:42] which home?

[2:05:44] This one with a sloped roof and the seaming porch on front.

[2:05:47] No, no, no, no, that's 180 square feet.

[2:05:53] It just sits on center blocks.

[2:05:56] So there's no one in the property?

[2:05:58] No, no, no, no, no utilities.

[2:06:00] No electricity, no water, no sewer, nothing.

[2:06:03] It looks like an Australian outback home, okay?

[2:06:07] No, there's a shed roof on the side there

[2:06:11] that makes it look that way. But it's just okay. And then what is in the dumpster?

[2:06:16] The dumpster just recently put there and I am slowly, which is breaking my heart,

[2:06:27] putting that material that would into the dumpster. And there seems to be a pile of wood

[2:06:33] by the dumpster, too, right there?

[2:06:37] It's a, it's a, there's a, there's a, a palette of brick there and there's a, there's

[2:06:46] a palette leaning against the dumpster.

[2:06:48] Again, that's only been there for a couple of weeks.

[2:06:50] Okay, so just, just asking, that's where I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I, again, well, you're welcome

[2:06:58] to submit those pictures, too, because, you know, obviously, we need to deal with

[2:07:02] and did you submit it to the Planning Commission?

[2:07:11] Did we see that?

[2:07:12] I'm so sorry that we have not been able to remember that.

[2:07:17] Sure, but I think it's important for your pictures to be sent to our city attorney.

[2:07:22] And Jeremy, if you can give them a card, then we can make sure to verify what you're showing.

[2:07:29] Okay?

[2:07:30] I appreciate that.

[2:07:31] Now Jeremy, if you've got a card to help him get that to you, and then we can work with

[2:07:36] our code officer just to really assess, you know, and compare what your concerns are.

[2:07:43] We appreciate you coming because we would need to deal with this in a future development

[2:07:48] agreement if this annexation goes forward.

[2:07:54] Hang on one second.

[2:07:56] Is there anyone else that wants to come forward and give a public comment?

[2:08:00] Please, let's let the others come forward and then you can take another turn.

[2:08:04] Go ahead, please.

[2:08:05] I'm Theresa Wardell and I live two houses down from you and the road, I think, me and Mike,

[2:08:14] is the only one that keeps it plowed.

[2:08:17] You can't widen it.

[2:08:19] Otherwise, you're going to be taken out our homes.

[2:08:23] Well, we're not planning to do that, but U.D. might have plans and you're welcome to stay

[2:08:29] to the U.D. presentation, which is coming up in just shortly after this public hearing.

[2:08:34] And you're right because all of our like if we do culinary water it's all under that road

[2:08:40] So I'm not sure how that would go

[2:08:41] But as far as his property I lived there for 17 years and it's never been touched

[2:08:48] Uh, the roads never been touched as far as like any cleanup on his property

[2:08:52] Okay, like

[2:08:56] Stuff stored everywhere it causes the animals to come and dig in our property because that's where they're living under your junk

[2:09:06] So, anyway, I just wonder to say that.

[2:09:09] Thank you very much, Tristan.

[2:09:10] Is there anyone else who would like to come forward?

[2:09:20] Homework, if you wouldn't mind giving it to our police officer, please, he's the one

[2:09:24] that's supposed to vet all that stuff, and then you're welcome to go to the podium.

[2:09:33] Are you,

[2:09:37] Mr. Meryl?

[2:09:39] I am.

[2:09:40] All right, please go ahead.

[2:09:41] Well, my concern is just the dog park, and first of all, I want to thank the council for

[2:09:45] the throwing money to support the dog park, but there's a couple of issues that have kind of come up that have tried to address.

[2:09:54] Sir, just so you know, if you want to talk about this public hearing, we want to hear what you have to say.

[2:10:01] If you have a different issue on the dog park, we will get to you in about probably 10 or 15 minutes.

[2:10:13] Yeah, the regular public comments, not the public hearing, public comments, I'm so sorry

[2:10:17] to make you wait.

[2:10:18] Oh, no worries.

[2:10:19] Thank you very much.

[2:10:20] Okay.

[2:10:20] And we do have your information.

[2:10:22] Okay.

[2:10:23] I was wondering if you had a dog park on your property there.

[2:10:26] Okay.

[2:10:27] Is there anyone else who wants to come up for the public hearing on this annexation?

[2:10:33] Okay.

[2:10:33] Let me go online.

[2:10:34] Is there anyone online that would either like to come off mute?

[2:10:38] Raise your hand and give a comment for the annexation public carrying.

[2:10:44] Robin, can you see if anyone's raising their hand?

[2:10:47] Okay.

[2:10:50] Mr. Dixon, if you would like to give another comment, you're welcome to before we wrap this up.

[2:10:55] I'm not seeing anyone online.

[2:10:57] It's your choice.

[2:10:59] I'm concerned, too, as Mr. Bush is showing, but he doesn't care about the codes or rules or laws or anything.

[2:11:04] So he annex and him what's going to stop him from building more buildings without permits and

[2:11:09] These it's it's this ridiculous that you have a city councilman that's his engineer. I mean

[2:11:15] Sure, that's not a conflict of interest. Is it or not? He disclosed the conflict of interest

[2:11:20] Thank you. All right any other

[2:11:22] Comments I did find your email Mr. Dixon and there were no pictures attached to it

[2:11:27] From June 3rd, 2024

[2:11:29] So if you want to just that address worked. It's just a paragraph. There's no pictures on it

[2:11:33] And if you want to resend it or attach the pictures, that'd be helpful.

[2:11:38] Okay, I've still not seen anybody come off mute online.

[2:11:41] So I will close the public hearing for the proposed ordinance 2025-25 Bush annexation and turn it back over to council, Jamie, Mr. Bush.

[2:11:53] Like does anybody want to say anything else?

[2:11:55] Because it sounds like we've got a few issues to work out before this is brought back.

[2:12:00] Jamie, do you have anything else?

[2:12:01] I was going to say Mr Dixon he can I think he has my contact but if he gets me this stuff

[2:12:06] I'm happy to forward that to our attorney and to the council but no, I think that these are the issues we

[2:12:12] We want to discuss with you council. Yes, if there are future code violations

[2:12:16] We will have to address them just like any other property in the city

[2:12:19] But I think what's before us we're looking for direction and to see how you'd like to proceed

[2:12:24] Council my thoughts would be

[2:12:27] I'd like to see application come back or a changed plan come back that better reflects what Mr. Bush said he wants to do, which is to build a barn.

[2:12:37] I think we received a little bit of comment, or I received some comment from some some residents.

[2:12:43] And then we also as a council received comment from one of our county counselors about thinking about the ERUs and what we would allow versus not allow and zoning changes.

[2:12:53] and it doesn't appear that Mr. Bush wants all of that.

[2:12:56] I could understand why he potentially want to go through this process now before any

[2:13:01] kind of a UDOT decision that might, in the future, include imminent domain and valuation

[2:13:07] of land.

[2:13:07] That all makes sense to me, and I'm not actually saying that's what it is, but it makes sense

[2:13:10] why he might want to think that way.

[2:13:12] But for what it's worth, Councillor, if he came back with a changed layout that includes

[2:13:19] a barn and a timeline that's realistic for cleaning up materials and housing materials

[2:13:24] and removing or remedying anything that would be out of compliance, and specifically a development agreement that states or that agrees to not doing anything else without coming back again and asking for something else, I'd approve that.

[2:13:37] So that's where I'm at on it. It makes good sense what he's asking for. I just don't see what he's asking for and what we looked at tonight.

[2:13:44] So I kind of agree with you Aaron, the timeline is huge, you know, we heard from

[2:13:50] concerned citizens that, you know, the property is set like this for a while

[2:13:54] and it just needs to be cleaned up. In my opinion, if it comes in and we set

[2:14:01] timelines, definitely we have stuff to go after and and go after him and make

[2:14:07] sure it happens. And with that, hopefully that would appease the neighbors and make them happy,

[2:14:14] you know. From the infrastructure and stuff like that, yeah, that's going to come. UDOT's going

[2:14:19] to tell hopefully here soon what's going to happen on 40 and what the impacts of these

[2:14:27] neighbors are going to be. But from annexation, as long as we stay true to what the county has,

[2:14:35] You know, the density or what's around it and that's why the development to the South, I wanted to understand what was there.

[2:14:43] As long as the density is appropriate, I'm fine with it.

[2:14:48] So again, what it will do is incentivize or push Mr. Bush and getting that done sooner and later.

[2:14:57] So, in timeline it's

[2:15:00] Is huge, and I agree with you, Aaron. We need that in the, if we annex and in the development agreement, we need a timeline to make sure that happens. So that's what I have. Scott Phillips online. Is there anything you'd like to say? Nothing to add at this time. Okay. I'm concerned that any development agreement shows a good faith effort on your part, Mr. Bush, to get the property cleaned up.

[2:15:29] up and come into compliance before your annexed, okay?

[2:15:34] If we do not ask that, Councillor, I'd like for you to consider then we're kicking

[2:15:38] that can down the road.

[2:15:40] I know there's a lot of materials there, but you can certainly hear the neighbor's concerns

[2:15:44] and the county's concerns also.

[2:15:48] So here we go, right?

[2:15:50] It's time to take care of things up there.

[2:15:53] I would really like Jamie and Jeremy for you to check with the county to see if that

[2:15:59] lean to outback building, I'm calling, is grandfathered.

[2:16:03] Yeah, we can verify.

[2:16:04] I need you to verify if that's, and as well as the other outbuildings, are they grandfathered?

[2:16:11] Are they not? I'm sure that's part of the nuisance complaint that is happening here.

[2:16:18] Has the Board of Health ever gotten involved in this nuisance complaint?

[2:16:22] We wouldn't, we are not aware of any, we're not aware of all the details of that, so I couldn't speak

[2:16:27] to that? Well, again, now that the animals have been mentioned here by Tristan, they might,

[2:16:33] who knows, I don't know, but I'm just saying there's not only got to be a plan, there has to be

[2:16:38] good faith movement before me, myself, and I would be interested in pursuing the development agreement.

[2:16:46] That's me. I don't get to vote on this. The other council members will get to vote on this.

[2:16:50] I'm also lary about, again, the density in this area given the uncertainty with what

[2:16:59] UDOT could be designing at this point and trying to not allow high-density accesses

[2:17:06] off of frontage roads, collector roads and such, you know, given our previous discussion

[2:17:12] earlier this time.

[2:17:14] Okay, anything else that anyone wants to give direction to staff on?

[2:17:18] Do

[2:17:22] you feel clear about what the council is saying, Mr. Bush and Mike?

[2:17:29] I sounds like you wanted to come back with a modified development agreement.

[2:17:37] Well, this is my voice there.

[2:17:39] I'm just trying to bounce it back, but I just want you to know that I want to be compliant.

[2:17:46] And a lot of this material could go into the building of the barn.

[2:17:50] and the sooner I'm able to do that, the sooner I feel I can be compliant and I don't have

[2:18:04] an option with the county, they're really forcing me this route.

[2:18:08] So in order for me to be compliant, I really kind of need to be annexed with some kind

[2:18:14] of a development agreement, and I'm very comfortable with the time frame and very rigid time

[2:18:24] and conditions with penalty or whatever, because I, again, want to be compliant, I don't

[2:18:36] want to be rogue, I don't want to upset neighbors, I don't want to be, I just don't, I want

[2:18:44] to be compliant, I can't say that enough.

[2:18:47] I think we have direction and I think the modification

[2:18:50] of the development agreement and some,

[2:18:53] and if you want to send pictures and all that,

[2:18:57] I think research, what Mayor said about grandfathering

[2:19:02] in that, that gives us a good context of reality

[2:19:06] and what actually has happened on this property.

[2:19:08] We can get some clarity on some of those questions.

[2:19:10] I think we as staff understand what direction you're going.

[2:19:15] Well, I think it's important for the City Council to know what the county nuisance report is and what their codes are and how that all works, too.

[2:19:24] We do not want to circumvent the standards at this point, right?

[2:19:29] We need to understand them, make sure they're addressed.

[2:19:32] And just for clarity, again, my voice is only one voice up here.

[2:19:37] What I was saying was, if you came back with a plan and an agreement to receive significantly

[2:19:45] lower density than what you currently have through the county, and what we've seen

[2:19:49] asked for tonight, in exchange for building a barn while not in exchange for, along with

[2:19:55] building a barn and a rapid timeframe of clean up and compliance, I'd be a yes.

[2:20:02] I tend to be a no when people ask for right at the maximum density they can ask for.

[2:20:07] Like, you know, that tends to give a no for me.

[2:20:09] I'm only one voice, but I'm saying I love the idea of building a barn, leaving it mostly open,

[2:20:15] cleaning the stuff up and being in compliance. That's fantastic in my mind.

[2:20:19] Again, I'm only one voice, but that's what I would like to see.

[2:20:23] Okay, thank you very much, Council.

[2:20:25] Thank you very much for coming and we will proceed, right?

[2:20:29] Staff has direction.

[2:20:31] Everyone, we're moving on to our next agenda items and then we'll get to those public comments.

[2:20:36] Pretty quick, Mr. Merrill, you'll see.

[2:20:37] So the next agenda item is the consent agenda.

[2:20:40] There are three things on the consent agenda, everyone.

[2:20:44] We're skipping number three, all right?

[2:20:46] That's, we'll continue that.

[2:20:48] So, the first item is the August 26, 2025, special meeting primary election canvas minutes.

[2:20:56] And then there's also resolution 2025-14, which is the shift differential for the hourly

[2:21:03] administrative staff sherry is here.

[2:21:05] And then the last one with Mindy being here is ordinance 2025-24, updating the utility applications

[2:21:13] to remove rental accounts. And we discussed that last time. Thank you, Mindy, for getting

[2:21:18] that done so quickly. So, Council, any questions, comments or motions on the consent agenda?

[2:21:24] I move to approve the consent agenda.

[2:21:27] Okay. And you'll second. Okay. We're ready for a vote. Any further discussion?

[2:21:33] One thing though. He did not say we're moving number three. Does he need to?

[2:21:36] You'll likely need to do that, Scott. Could you remove it in the item number three?

[2:21:41] I move to approve the consent agenda. Minus number three.

[2:21:46] Second. All right. Thank you very much. Okay. We'll start on this end with you.

[2:21:50] Sid and then Scott, you'll be last. Yes. Yes. Yes.

[2:21:54] Scott, thank you. That passes four to zero with one because it's used to ask for a quick

[2:22:01] council break. Maybe like a three minute something like that. Yes. Just would like to have a

[2:22:05] restroom break without doing that during public comments because I want to hear from the public.

[2:22:10] I will allow that motion, but I need a second.

[2:22:14] Second.

[2:22:15] Thank you, Skid, Sid.

[2:22:17] And then, Sid, will you start the vote?

[2:22:20] Yes, yes.

[2:22:21] Yes.

[2:22:22] Yes.

[2:22:23] Okay, so I'm sorry everyone, we're just going to take a five-minute break.

[2:22:26] Thank you for your patience.

[2:22:28] We've been here working since about four, so it's about time.

[2:25:13] Thank you very much, everyone. We're back from our break. We are in our regular meeting of the Heber City Council today being September 16th, 2025.

[2:25:25] It is now finally time for our regular public comments and so anyone's welcome to come forward to give a three minute public comment and tell us your name and then anyone in the chamber is done then I'll go to those of you online.

[2:25:43] Yes, you're welcome to sit there to just make sure you eat the microphone.

[2:25:50] I'm here to ask for your name again.

[2:25:53] I am Russ Walsh.

[2:25:54] Yes.

[2:25:56] Russ is Mike.

[2:25:57] Is it turned on?

[2:25:59] I'm here tonight.

[2:26:00] We spent the last couple of years.

[2:26:03] Oh.

[2:26:04] Okay.

[2:26:05] Very good.

[2:26:06] Thank you.

[2:26:07] Okay.

[2:26:07] I'll start over.

[2:26:08] Russ Walsh.

[2:26:09] I'm here tonight to talk about the celebration community been working on the last couple of years.

[2:26:14] I'm really here tonight not to really make a presentation, but just a brainstorm.

[2:26:19] We've spent the last two years, two and a half years collaborating with mountain lands,

[2:26:25] was such housing authority and all the various entities like IHC and all the workforce people

[2:26:29] that we have been meeting with on the need for housing in the county.

[2:26:35] We also have an agreement with the was at school district on parking and how to arrange everything

[2:26:41] at that point over there.

[2:26:42] I'm here tonight just to say look, we are still in the game, want to see if we can collaborate with you on some way and portion in creating a great community over there next to the high school and that's I'm here tonight to just bring that up.

[2:26:57] I notice that you're one of your goals for 2025.26 is to move the needle. I like move the needle on affordable housing.

[2:27:06] We know that's a tough thing to do, but that's why I'm here just to run, I just buy you

[2:27:12] or say, hey, let's get together to work session and talk to details.

[2:27:16] We do have the plans, we do have a rust funk, it's done a nice job recalibrating water,

[2:27:21] so it's really appropriate for apartments.

[2:27:24] So we are slowly moving the needle up to maybe an ability to create affordable housing.

[2:27:30] That's my purpose tonight, so I know you have questions or if you say, hey, we like to

[2:27:34] schedule time to meet with Tony and your whoever you assign to start working on

[2:27:41] next items and details who are trying to put together an agreement.

[2:27:47] Tony can I

[2:27:47] just ask what kind of is it a development agreement he's asking for I thought

[2:27:52] that we were waiting on perhaps financing not the agreement. Well so Russ is you know

[2:28:01] really wants to make this development affordable and as he's getting down the

[2:28:07] wire to final eyes agreements with property owner and cost estimates he's

[2:28:13] having some challenges and so he is actually approaching the city about the

[2:28:18] potential for the city to be a financial partner in this project. Do we know

[2:28:22] that we should have him come back and get it on the agenda so that people that are

[2:28:27] concern can be here. Right. Right. So you're about my

[2:28:29] bluntness. Exactly what we're looking for is that's what you're

[2:28:34] saying. Yeah. Okay. So yes, you're more than welcome to come

[2:28:37] back to a work meeting and Matt, I'm sure you can arrange that

[2:28:40] with them. We'll take care of it. Place them on the next

[2:28:42] available meeting. Okay. Is there anything else you want,

[2:28:45] Mr. Watts? No, that's that's a mouthful. No. So again, yeah,

[2:28:50] I'm for this and we need to figure this out and Jason's here

[2:28:53] hopefully in support and hopefully there is potential out there from financial grants or anything

[2:29:00] like that and Jason's probably the most knowledgeable about that. So yes and we have been working

[2:29:07] with the Olin Walker Fund and the State Housing Authority on financing. Financing is part of the

[2:29:12] really a collaboration and partnership with the cities going to pull this thing together to make it work.

[2:29:17] So the question is far as you have a agreement with the school district was a county school district what's their financial or are they able to or are they willing or is there so our

[2:29:30] agreement with the school district is to for them to give us property to build additional parking that we can share with both the high school and our community. That's for the

[2:29:40] plan. Yeah. And that's their kind of contribution to helping get housing for teachers there. Yes.

[2:29:46] I see. Okay. I'm glad you're still on the game. Look forward to talking to you. Thank you. No,

[2:29:51] I appreciate you taking. Listen, this is more exciting than trying to build the barn or whatever we've

[2:29:56] been working on the last little while. So thank you.

[2:30:00] Thank you very much. We'd like to try to move it forward. Matt, if you'll help me get on the agenda, then we can maybe be a little more specific and see if we work on. Given numbers and stuff like that. Tonight's not a time because I'm past my three minutes. Thank you very much. Thank you. All right. We're going to keep going with our public comment. Anyone else is ready? We'd like to come forward. State your name. Give your public comment and then I'll go online.

[2:30:25] You are more than welcome.

[2:30:33] I have a lot of issues with the dog park, and I gave you all my background there, but right now it's a muddy mess, and I've talked to Justin Pruitt, I mean, not Justin, just a random Pruitt, about fixing it up, and so he's working on that issue, and he's come back to you guys for funding and so on and so forth, but the other part of it is because one side of the park is muddy and a mess,

[2:31:01] that we all tend to go to the small site and all of our dogs are various

[2:31:07] sizes a couple of dozen people are down there if we go down every morning and

[2:31:11] all of our dogs play with each other and they all get along fine but the dog

[2:31:16] officer is bound to determine to kick everybody that's more than 35 pounds out

[2:31:22] of the dog park and it's quite anxious to write tickets. There's no ordinance

[2:31:30] It's city arsist, so I said anything about 35 pounds.

[2:31:33] The only thing in your city ordinance is that you can,

[2:31:36] you can put up a sign with the ordinance on it,

[2:31:39] and it's from the city council,

[2:31:42] that you can then limit the dogs, the size.

[2:31:47] But 35 pounds is kind of arbitrary,

[2:31:50] and he's going by the fact that there is a sign that says 35 pounds,

[2:31:53] but doesn't have the ordinance, doesn't have city council on it.

[2:31:56] And actually it's kind of silly because all the dogs are from puppies to great days.

[2:32:04] They all play together.

[2:32:06] All of us like to sit together, which is there's hardly any place to sit on the big

[2:32:11] dark side.

[2:32:12] There's mud or a bench on the small dark side.

[2:32:17] There's more places to sit.

[2:32:19] Everyone meets, we're all friends, dogs are friends.

[2:32:22] And so my solution, take the sign down and let the dog owners police, the dog park.

[2:32:31] If any dog comes in as aggressive, we ask them to leave or go to the other side or whatever.

[2:32:38] We've never had an issue with no dogs who have ever been hurt, you know, nobody's gotten

[2:32:43] knocked down.

[2:32:44] So that's my concern or issue, and I'll talk to Brandon about what suggestions are to do to improve the dog park and some of the people who are down there would be happy to contribute to.

[2:33:01] Thank you, Mr. Merrill, can I ask you to perhaps tell us the amount of seating that you think is needed on both sides?

[2:33:12] I'm out of seating.

[2:33:14] Benches and seating.

[2:33:16] Well, there's often more than a dozen people, so like two picnic tables on each side.

[2:33:23] And I've talked to their respective tables that are there that have never been used that are up by the park, the kids park part of it.

[2:33:33] If they just get moved down and solve it.

[2:33:36] Okay.

[2:33:37] They did bring in a culvert which is great because a doctor played through the culvert and it's and it's easy to sell a few more of those.

[2:33:46] So stuff that you know like that line and then the repair he just wanted to bring in gravel. It needs to be concrete because around the seating areas.

[2:33:57] It's not muddy.

[2:33:58] If anyone wanted to go check something park and park city near the hospital is what a dog park should look like. So so that's my concern and I'm going to take my oversized dog to the park in the morning.

[2:34:13] and I hope I don't get a ticket.

[2:34:18] All right.

[2:34:19] We appreciate that very much.

[2:34:21] Thank you very much for this input.

[2:34:25] Is there anyone else in the chamber

[2:34:27] or anyone online that would like to come off me

[2:34:29] to raise your hand for a public comment

[2:34:31] on any subject you would like?

[2:34:38] Okay, I'm not seeing anyone online.

[2:34:41] Robin, you're not seeing anyone raise their hand, right?

[2:34:44] Okay.

[2:34:44] I'm going to close the public comments now.

[2:34:46] Thank you very much.

[2:34:47] We are going to move on now to our general business items. That is an update from UDOT on the environmental impact statement for the Hebrew Valley corridor.

[2:34:58] You're welcome to come forward UDOT. You know how to eat those microphones. Thank you for being here.

[2:35:04] Good evening.

[2:35:05] Okay, I'll come back, give me back, months went by fast, seems like it comes around every month, time flies, we're having fun.

[2:35:17] Before I jump into the update, I just wanted to make sure the council was aware that we do have a public meeting next week on our US 40 widening project.

[2:35:35] This is the widening project that goes from the US-4189, sorry, the 189, yeah, US-420 intersection, the hub intersection, down to Mill Road.

[2:35:47] And I believe it's on your Facebook pages, but that meeting is next week, September 25th from 5 to 9 p.m.

[2:36:00] It'll be at the Sheriff's Office there at 1361 South Highway 40 in the upstairs training room upstairs training room.

[2:36:12] Yes, it's a that's our that was the venue we were able to define.

[2:36:19] Will you discuss the light that's going in at Mill Road 2?

[2:36:25] Yes, it will be part of the materials we will be presenting the light at Miller.

[2:36:30] And then just really quick, I don't want to blabber the point.

[2:36:35] When that light goes in, will the speed limit be dropped from that Mill Road light on South

[2:36:41] Highway 40 into town?

[2:36:44] Yes, we are looking at lower speed limits through that area.

[2:36:46] Okay, great.

[2:36:47] Thank you.

[2:36:48] Welcome.

[2:36:51] Okay.

[2:36:51] On to the Hebrew Valley Corridor update.

[2:36:58] Since we last met last month, we've continued to field questions from the public.

[2:37:08] We have met on-site with a couple of property owners and we continue to answer questions

[2:37:15] from the public about the project.

[2:37:17] effect. And then we've also met last week with less edge counting than a couple weeks ago.

[2:37:27] We also met with the town of Daniel. They requested a meeting with us. And we met at their council meeting.

[2:37:34] Next slide.

[2:37:38] In terms of public outreach, we're, like I mentioned, we're continuing to meet with with

[2:37:44] that on request, we're happy to meet with anybody as the directed impacted properties, we're happy to meet with them and discuss the project and potential impacts that they may have on their property.

[2:38:01] We are also have been in the process of doing field surveys on areas that were new.

[2:38:13] areas. I guess we've just we've just completed all those field surveys but

[2:38:19] environmental these are environmental surveys correct yeah we we looked at

[2:38:24] some habitat one of those is the you ladies dresses and additional

[2:38:36] Aquatic Resource Service for the area.

[2:38:39] Okay, you ladies, you ladies dress surveys and the aquatic resource surveys for the areas

[2:38:44] that the updated design would impact or designs would impact.

[2:38:50] You've done all that assessment then.

[2:38:52] That all assessment is now complete.

[2:38:55] And

[2:38:57] then of course, we're continuing to meet with your staff on a monthly basis, both with

[2:39:04] the Hebrew city and Los Edge County.

[2:39:10] Let's see, then just one more point there.

[2:39:15] In terms of developing the document,

[2:39:17] we've completed our design and we've completed our surveys

[2:39:20] and we're in our final stages of completing the draft document,

[2:39:26] going through some internal reviews

[2:39:28] and of course, our course on schedule

[2:39:32] to get that document released later this year.

[2:39:37] Um,

[2:39:40] anyway, that's probably all I needed to finish there.

[2:39:43] Um, order the course of the last few months, you know, in conversations that we've had here at your council and, and other councils and questions that we've, that have, we've been fielding.

[2:39:54] I wanted to take a few minutes and, and kind of talk about a few of these questions that we've had and, and, um, and just spend a few minutes talking about those, if I may.

[2:40:05] The first conversation or the first topic I want to bring up is the 13th South segment.

[2:40:12] I know that's been a topic of discussion here and just wanted to go back and just discuss

[2:40:21] why it's important and how we why it's part of our study.

[2:40:29] The 13th South Corridor has been part of the many of the plans over the last several

[2:40:37] years, at least going back to 2006.

[2:40:42] There have been a couple of studies that have been done before our study came along and

[2:40:48] And all of them have recognized the need for a 13 South connection as part of the Western

[2:40:55] corridor, as part of the Western corridor project.

[2:41:02] Heber City back in 2007 passed a resolution to include 13 South as part of those plans

[2:41:08] and as well as Wasatch County also in 2006,

[2:41:14] if you might go to the next slide, Tony.

[2:41:17] And Craig, I'm not going to dispute any of that.

[2:41:20] And you'll continue to talk about it here.

[2:41:22] It's just that resolution.

[2:41:24] Those resolutions were always based

[2:41:26] in an at-grade road that would be one lane

[2:41:29] in each direction, and that's completely different

[2:41:32] than what is being proposed here.

[2:41:34] It is, and the reason for that

[2:41:37] That is just because, I think, in 2006, nobody envisioned the kind of traffic that we're

[2:41:42] seeing now, and so it's driven by need.

[2:41:48] As we look, as we took a fresh look at it, of course, and with current traffic volumes

[2:41:54] and current traffic projections, we do see a need for 13 South.

[2:42:01] It continues to be a necessary connection for this to work.

[2:42:08] You know, we've mentioned this before, about 50% of the traffic that will be along the western quarter will be local traffic.

[2:42:18] Without that connection, we see about a 35% reduction in the amount of traffic that will be using the corridor.

[2:42:30] So, you know, that's a significant number.

[2:42:35] That versus, I'm sorry, Craig.

[2:42:38] Is that versus no 13th or is that versus like the proposed thing we talked about last time coming partway through that sewer field and connecting back in around industrial parkway.

[2:42:49] I would guess it has to be versus nothing because you didn't talk about or you weren't considering the other alternative at that point.

[2:42:55] Yes, that's correct. It's 35% if that connection were not made and so that's more traffic

[2:43:06] that would of course be utilizing, finding other routes, utilizing Main Street and adding

[2:43:12] to the congestion that we're trying to avoid on Main Street.

[2:43:16] Just to further clarify, the optional or the potential option of going a little further south

[2:43:21] and kind of coming through what is now the gravel pit and using that airport road as a flyover

[2:43:29] over at grade highway. That wasn't even something that was studied yet. That would be all of that

[2:43:35] conversation we've had. That would be appropriate for the public to raise up as ideas when it becomes

[2:43:39] public comment period. This was not something you studied yet. We've always stayed to the corridor

[2:43:46] or the 13th South corridor, as has been discussed

[2:43:49] in many of the studies and resolutions.

[2:43:52] And so that's where we have put that in

[2:43:59] where it's historically been discussed.

[2:44:01] I think kind of going back in time a little bit

[2:44:04] it might be helpful to if anyone recalls

[2:44:07] initial versions of these alignments

[2:44:10] did not have connections, local connections at 1300 South, right?

[2:44:15] So, there was no connection to the kind of hub business area.

[2:44:20] And what we saw when traffic values went up is that our alternatives were not performing

[2:44:26] well.

[2:44:27] They were not meeting the purpose and need of the project.

[2:44:30] And so, when those connections were added, even though we recognized that it increases

[2:44:35] the footprint, then that's when we started to get the performance that we need to get out

[2:44:41] of the corridor.

[2:44:43] That's great, Larry. The reason I asked the question and the only comment I've gotten

[2:44:48] back since maybe two or three meetings ago, when we started the CS, the only comment I've

[2:44:52] gotten back is that alignment, sure, fine. The more southern alignment idea, which I realize

[2:44:58] is not part of this frame.

[2:45:00] Either one of them at grade at ground level, people have no problem with. But if 30 foot highway in the sky, everybody seems to have a problem with. So, so the reason I'm asking for the clarity isn't because of connection to the hub. It's, it's, it's. It's, it's, it's. You know, because because of meeting to keep those connections, but also keep things free flow. That is why you get that elevation, right? So I'm going to talk about that. Sound goes up doesn't go down. So by elevating,

[2:45:29] you have to think it won't be as loud so I'm just think it's the only concern

[2:45:36] yeah fair enough to understand it just a couple other just other comments on

[2:45:42] this will move on in terms of in terms of impacts there's there's the direct

[2:45:48] impacts to to to right away so to homes rep businesses and so forth the the

[2:45:56] The alternative that we were currently working with has since we've been involved with this project has actually gone down in this southern area.

[2:46:05] You know, we had before we had the 15 South and we were impacting the number of businesses in that with this latest iteration.

[2:46:14] You know, we are we have reduced the number of those business impacts because we're having eliminated all of them of course, but we have reduced that number.

[2:46:22] and we are trying very hard to keep it within that 13th South Court or you know

[2:46:29] we acknowledge that there will be visual impacts, noise impacts and we're

[2:46:34] evaluating those as part of as part of the study and we'll be able to you know

[2:46:39] come with a little bit more when the study is released. I still can't quite

[2:46:46] remember or understand what's happening on industrial parkway or 300 West

[2:46:52] in this design. So is industrial parkway cut off where you either come in on the bottom

[2:46:59] and then go somehow merge on to this elevated road to go east, but there's no underpass.

[2:47:08] Is there an underpass for industrial parkway? Is there an underpass for 300 west? That's

[2:47:13] what I'm trying to understand.

[2:47:15] And there is an underpass for 300 West, there is not an underpass for industrial drive.

[2:47:26] In that situation there, that's where we incorporated in the one-way frontage roads.

[2:47:31] So you will be able to, with the frontage roads, go up to 300 West and if you want to come

[2:47:41] back, you would basically go through that underpass and then turn and go the other direction.

[2:47:46] North on industrial, you would take a right, take the front of droid to 300, go under the highway.

[2:47:51] Yes. Take a left on the front of droid, back on industrial droid. Back on industrial droid.

[2:47:56] This is Scott. Go ahead. Aaron, I was looking at the same thing with the

[2:48:02] that 1,300 South and I was talking to a constituent about it for quite some time and I also noticed

[2:48:10] doing that keeps it out of the airport, out of the airport safety zone, so it's hard to go any further south than that because of the airport as well.

[2:48:23] Thanks, thanks for the additional.

[2:48:25] One other reason why we wanted to keep bringing the road, we didn't want to elevate over industrial drive was.

[2:48:36] That would just increase the amount of, you know, vertical and that vertical distance.

[2:48:41] And so, you know, we did want to try to bring it down as quickly as we could back down

[2:48:46] to existing grade at that location.

[2:48:49] That was part of our design.

[2:48:54] One question I have, Craig, is does you not compensate at all people who are near the road?

[2:49:02] You know, not just the people where they have to emanate and domain their homes.

[2:49:04] but that whole row of homes that backs up to 1300 south that's going to have an elevated highway

[2:49:11] in their backyard instead of the nice view they now enjoy. Is there any way to compensate those folks

[2:49:18] for that? We do not compensate for indirect impacts.

[2:49:25] We can mitigate for noise, maybe there's some

[2:49:29] things visually, you know, aesthetic wise that we can look at. But we do not, we do

[2:49:36] not compensate for those indirect impacts. Okay. Thank you. Craig back to industrial

[2:49:43] park. We now on the north side. What will the north side do when it hits your proposed

[2:49:50] corridor? If you wanted to go right or left, what do you do? Let's see. I make sure I understand

[2:49:56] you're coming from the north to go south and on industrial parkway and you hit this

[2:50:02] Hebrew Valley corridor, can you go east? You would go east because the front road,

[2:50:11] the front road on the south side there is an eastbound fronted road one way. You would come up to,

[2:50:19] if you wanted to get into the neighborhood, access the neighborhood, you would come through the

[2:50:24] 300 west underpass and go back westbound on the front door on the other side to access those

[2:50:31] need. Okay I'm so sorry I really need a mouse pointer don't I. No I do too. Tony is there any way

[2:50:37] he can try to help me understand that better. Tony yeah I don't know what oh is that what it was.

[2:50:46] Yeah, I'm trying to be able to explain to people in this area where they have to go to get either direction and there's business owners there, right?

[2:50:58] A lot of new businesses right on the south side that you are Tony.

[2:51:03] There's a confirmation you want to close this window and you keep clicking off.

[2:51:09] Hold on one second.

[2:51:10] Yeah.

[2:51:16] We could, I don't know, we know.

[2:51:21] Thank you. I

[2:51:33] have to hold that mic, too, so people

[2:51:35] online can hear you. They are there. I can hook

[2:51:48] it up. Let's just go back to where you

[2:51:50] were at. And if you can just try to draw with your mouse.

[2:51:53] I mean, you could try to work on one of those little arrow type drawings for the next time.

[2:51:58] Okay. Oh, yes, because it's just not making sense. You're saying there's no underpass.

[2:52:02] I was really sure. Okay. If you're trying to go this way, how would you do it? Right.

[2:52:05] So it's a right off, right on, only. Is there a frontage road on the north side and the south side?

[2:52:13] Yes. There's a frontage. Okay. That makes more sense. Yes. There's a friend road on both sides.

[2:52:17] One goes westbound and the other goes eastbound. And those are single lane frontage

[2:52:23] roads, single lane, fronted roads, yes.

[2:52:28] Then what kind of traffic signage would you have there,

[2:52:33] not just stop signs, I assume, but I'm trying to figure out if I was coming south on industrial

[2:52:40] parkway and I wanted to, you know, go down the canyon, would there be an on-ramp there that I would

[2:52:46] be able to get on from coming southbound on industrial. You come down southbound on industrial,

[2:52:53] You would, you would come, you would, this is, this is our eastbound friend road.

[2:52:58] You would come over here to 300 West, go under, under, under the underpass here, and beyond the,

[2:53:05] the westbound, and that would tie you directly onto the, the corridor at that point, and then you

[2:53:11] could, you would come along, you know, the, the freeway at that point. So these, these are on ramps,

[2:53:17] These these front roads come become the on ramps on to the on to the freeway. So there's no way on industrial parkway to merge on to the by-pass road in either direction.

[2:53:29] Not from.

[2:53:30] No, not from industrial.

[2:53:32] Not from industrial.

[2:53:33] Not from industrial.

[2:53:34] Okay, so from industrial you have to get over to 300 west to be able to go in either direction.

[2:53:39] Is that what you're saying on the corridor?

[2:53:43] Yeah, yes. That's what I'm saying. Okay, but it's not just industrial parkway. You're also saying that for the whole Southfield road area that then they will have to either go.

[2:53:54] They will have to go east to 300 west to then be able to go back west. No, well from from industrial. Let's see.

[2:54:02] Let me go back to the back to the, yeah, I'm going to go back, sorry, okay.

[2:54:06] So if somebody's on Southfield road, if somebody's on Southfield road or in between Southfield

[2:54:12] and industrial, it sounds like I'm not, I'm just trying to figure this out, they all have

[2:54:18] to go to 300 West to then be able to get onto the bypass because you're not allowing left

[2:54:24] turn lanes at the top of Southfield.

[2:54:26] That's correct. You would, to get to the, to get to the, to get to the, the bypass here, you would have to come over to the, to 300 west.

[2:54:36] If you wanted to, if you wanted to get, you know, either north or south on the, on the bypass or east or west, I just think that is such the, the flaw in the design.

[2:54:50] I'm sorry. People in that whole quadrant are just not going to want to travel for blocks.

[2:54:57] Well, it's not a 300.

[2:54:59] Yeah.

[2:55:00] To catch on to that, because why would they go north to try to, you know, get up to 100 South

[2:55:07] because they can't use Southfield to take a left. You see what I mean?

[2:55:11] They can't use Southfield Road to take a left onto the bypass so they have to go east to 300

[2:55:17] or to 600 west on the north side but on the south side it can only go to 300 west then to get onto the

[2:55:27] bypass. May I ask a question that might alleviate that? We do have 1200 south as a master plan

[2:55:34] collector street. It's built from industrial parkway westward to probably 1000 west or so. When we

[2:55:45] make that when that connection is made right there? Will that rectify that issue?

[2:55:50] No, still have to go. I guess I'm wondering. So presumably people would be taking the corridor if

[2:55:57] they wanted to leave the area. If they want to go to Salt Lake, if they want to go to Provo.

[2:56:04] Right. And so the frontage road is a pretty direct and quick way to get there. It would be quicker than

[2:56:12] traveling local surface roads if they didn't want to take the corridor then the

[2:56:17] local road network if they wanted to go to you know 100 South would be a

[2:56:22] better. And they'll still have you'll still have 189 as well I think you could

[2:56:25] still come out you'll still just like to do your day. I see that but it's just so

[2:56:30] strange to have to go east to then go back around West or North that's all I'm

[2:56:37] saying there it there is a little there is a little bit of that that backtracking

[2:56:42] that's necessary for this to seems like that 300 west underpass is going to be

[2:56:47] such a pinch point because that whole southwest quadrant is going to be funneled

[2:56:52] into it that they don't probably want to go it's mainly going to be serving the

[2:56:56] local traffic it's not going to be you know the the I think it's going to be a

[2:57:01] pinch point with local traffic because they'll be funneled to that 300 west

[2:57:06] underpass to go either way. You see what I mean? That would only be if they

[2:57:10] wanted to take the corridor. If they don't want to take the corridor, there's the

[2:57:15] local road network which is, you know, your purview that they can. They would just

[2:57:20] stand on the corridor. Wherever they need to go, you know, logically it would make

[2:57:25] sense to get on the corridor for a regional trip or if you wanted to go, you know,

[2:57:29] to the northern part of Cuba. I think I think I used to live over there in that

[2:57:34] area and one good thing is that folks in that area will hop on the bypass road to get to the new

[2:57:42] high school, for example, instead of driving through the neighborhoods where traffic and speed has

[2:57:47] always been a problem. So, or past the schools, the middle school and elementary school, they'll go

[2:57:53] around that instead just because the access will actually be so easy right there.

[2:58:02] I wish you continue, please. Thank you.

[2:58:05] All right. Let me get moved to the next topic then.

[2:58:09] Oh, I'm so sorry. I'm so sorry.

[2:58:11] Where are you going to did and Southfield Road?

[2:58:15] It will, it will dead in just north of the, of the sewer fields.

[2:58:21] North of where I'm saying the sewer fields.

[2:58:23] Just before it re, yeah.

[2:58:26] So that the road can cross over.

[2:58:28] Yeah, it was it was does that mean then that the road that goes into Charleston will continue?

[2:58:34] Yes, that will still continue and that will still continue on.

[2:58:39] Okay, we've had a lot of we've had a lot of comments and questions about about our right-of-way process

[2:58:44] and and how that's going to work and so I wanted to spend a minute and just maybe just clarify some things.

[2:58:51] Of course, in terms of timeline, we're, you know, we're working on releasing the draft

[2:59:06] alternative or the draft report and then we'll have the record of decision, which

[2:59:10] It's just estimating, you know, spring of 2026.

[2:59:14] And then, at some point after that, we would get funding.

[2:59:20] But for now, there is no funding for a project.

[2:59:23] And with that, what that means is there really is no funding

[2:59:26] to purchase right away with the project.

[2:59:32] Typically, when we start purchasing right away,

[2:59:35] it's when we have a funded project

[2:59:37] and we're actively designing and moving forward with the project.

[2:59:42] Craig, what's the process to get it funded?

[2:59:47] Timing of that process.

[2:59:49] Yeah, so our typical process is through our step process

[2:59:54] that's where you, you know, go through, um...

[3:00:00] UDOT does its, does its, prioritization, I was looking for things, you know, me, our prioritization process, where we prioritize our projects, and it goes on to, under the, under the step is a funded project. Right now, you know, our, you know, our, you know, our step is planned out to 2031. And so, you know, so this, you know, various, and this obviously would be, you know, 2032 or beyond.

[3:00:29] And so that's that's that's our usual process and then from there to actually start the design or before that would you be doing the design we would not be designing anything until the fund until it's funded.

[3:00:42] The design with with our normal process.

[3:00:48] Things happen outside the normal process as well.

[3:00:50] How long does the design take?

[3:00:52] Well, that'll depend on maybe to the slide here in a minute,

[3:00:58] but how we phase the project and what it's all not going to be built at once.

[3:01:06] Usually it takes on a sizeable project, it usually takes a year to 18 months to design a project.

[3:01:14] We have to go through and go through the right way acquisition process and that takes time as well.

[3:01:21] So, you know, we could take a couple of years.

[3:01:26] I have one more question, because I'm just trying to figure this out.

[3:01:29] Sure.

[3:01:29] Going back to industrial parkway.

[3:01:31] Okay.

[3:01:32] Okay, so industrial parkway like this.

[3:01:34] And here comes the corridor.

[3:01:36] If you're coming from the north, you can only go east.

[3:01:38] If you're coming from the south, you can only go east along the front two trails.

[3:01:42] There's no west after that.

[3:01:45] It's just the corridor.

[3:01:46] The west at that point would put you onto the corridor.

[3:01:49] Yeah, but you can't get on to the corridor that way. Can you can if you're going west. So if somebody is on

[3:01:55] Highway 189

[3:01:57] They take industrial parkway because somehow they want to do a u-turn maybe, right?

[3:02:02] And then they can merge to go west on the bypass and then swing back down again

[3:02:07] They can with the frontage road merge or you know the west the

[3:02:13] So the Westbound Friends Road will merge on to the bypass.

[3:02:19] After an industrial parkway to the west.

[3:02:25] But then the north industrial parkway can't go west.

[3:02:28] It can only go east to 300 west.

[3:02:32] They could go west if they wanted to turn.

[3:02:38] If you're coming from the north.

[3:02:42] and that's a that's a west that's a westbound move so they could turn left and and get on to but you

[3:02:50] just said that they had to go back to 300 west to be able to go east or south again I'm trying

[3:02:58] So, yeah, so one way frontage road, you,

[3:03:09] you got, I got, I got my, or if I go to the other side,

[3:03:17] keep our footprint smaller. That is the solution that seems appropriate given the traffic

[3:03:26] volume and also trying to keep the footprint smaller than it would be otherwise. I don't know the

[3:03:33] exact distance between industrial and 300 West, but the, we could get that, but the out of direction

[3:03:39] and travel travel is it's pretty minor.

[3:03:43] Okay, so is this another place like Aaron said

[3:03:47] that the public could say we on industrial parkway,

[3:03:51] we do want the off ramp to be able to go west.

[3:03:53] They could give those public comments.

[3:03:56] Sure, okay, right, thank you.

[3:04:06] Once we're actively acquired right away,

[3:04:12] you know, you don't follow is a well-defined process,

[3:04:15] us. It's defined in Utah State code. It's very transparent. And we try to be very fair

[3:04:21] with obviously with with property owners. It goes through a prezel process and then and then an

[3:04:27] acquisition process. Land owners are, you know, can can get second appraisals. They can reject or accept

[3:04:41] and then our public meeting we will have right away, we will have a right away agent there who can answer their questions specifically about the right away process there.

[3:04:52] Typically, when we look at right away acquisition, we're looking at, as you see in the graphic there, a lot of times they're just, we're just needing a portion of the property.

[3:05:01] These are we call those strip takes and we'll just acquire the portion of the project portion of the property that we need for the project.

[3:05:12] If the property is, if we get to a point where the acquisition line gets gets within a certain distance of a structure or it goes, obviously goes through the structure impacts the structure.

[3:05:28] or those are what we would consider to be total acquisitions

[3:05:32] or total takes at that point.

[3:05:34] And those are the assumptions that we are making

[3:05:37] in the document.

[3:05:41] How about bisecting sections

[3:05:43] that just cut properties in half?

[3:05:46] Yeah, I think in those situations,

[3:05:48] it's almost we have to look at those on a case by case.

[3:05:51] One of the big concerns that happens

[3:05:52] when we're bisecting properties is property owners

[3:05:54] want to get from one side of the property to the other,

[3:05:57] you know that's that's always a concern we can't obviously can't make

[3:06:01] property landlocked without restoring access to that property somehow. If we

[3:06:07] can't restore that access then that would be a property that we would do

[3:06:11] it purchase in total.

[3:06:21] Hopefully maybe that answers some questions there let's

[3:06:25] move on.

[3:06:31] I've talked about Northfields and wetland mitigation. We know that either

[3:06:36] whether we're on alternative A or alternative B we're going to need to

[3:06:41] be mitigating for wetlands. One of the commitments that we're planning to make in the document is that you

[3:06:49] don't will prioritize wetland mitigation in the north fields. That will be our first place to look to

[3:06:57] mitigate those wetlands.

[3:07:01] You know, we won't know what that is until we obviously get further down the

[3:07:06] road but we will look to to mitigate their first and hopefully that and our hope there is that we

[3:07:12] will better align ourselves with with the community and you know your values there what you're trying

[3:07:18] to preserve there.

[3:07:22] Just in terms of wetland mitigation sites they are protected in in perpetuity they

[3:07:29] don't allow for any development on those views wetlands habitat are all protected

[3:07:36] And we don't allow for any, you know, recreational features on those on those protected wetlands, we do have a local example in this area. You may or may not be aware of that.

[3:07:47] Back when the previous US 40 widening project came in just ahead of the previous Olympics, there was a wetland mitigation site created.

[3:07:55] there along Cream Creek right next to the the back 40 girl just south of the

[3:08:00] back where the grilling is see on the graphic there and that's been and that's

[3:08:05] been a wetland that you've not been maintaining for for all those years any

[3:08:12] ideas of the different amounts of wetland acreage you're going to need for

[3:08:17] the different alternatives I mean you've shown it before but you've refined your

[3:08:20] your route quite a bit yeah we're I mean we're still you know using the numbers

[3:08:26] that we've shared in the past, I think alternative A was, I believe, was somewhere around 30,

[3:08:32] you want to say 30-ish acres and you have 50-ish.

[3:08:57] Looks like we just lost signal.

[3:11:01] Can anyone else online hear me?

[3:11:05] I can hear you, Scott.

[3:11:08] Okay, so it's just us now. Yeah.

[3:11:14] Let's make some big decisions. I vote yes.

[3:11:19] Hey, I'm still in the building, if nobody else is texting, I'll run up and I texted there and so that you did I texted Matt

[3:11:31] We go, now we got a video.

[3:11:35] I'm guessing the computer died.

[3:11:45] The chat, I don't know if the chat's available action. Robin's not available. Scott, can you tell if you can hear us?

[3:11:52] We can hear you now, yep.

[3:11:54] Excellent. All right. That wasn't the computer going on the screen

[3:12:03] look good, Tony.

[3:12:06] Not

[3:12:16] quite our

[3:12:24] action normal.

[3:12:33] There we go. Please proceed, Craig.

[3:12:36] It just, you know, just, you know, it's just high levels. We've thought about how

[3:12:39] phase it could possibly happen. You know, it could be done by by segments. It could

[3:12:46] But also, you know, we're, you know, we have, you know, we have, it's all great separated

[3:12:53] right now, but it could be, you know, segments could be going in as, as, at grade, and then

[3:12:58] in the future when there's needs arise, those, those could be changed to, to grade separations.

[3:13:04] So those are just a few high level ideas of how this could be possibly phased down the road.

[3:13:11] If things were built at grade Craig would sound walls go in at grade or would they would you wait on those sound walls get get re evaluated when when projects come in you know that whole process will get re looked at it.

[3:13:32] that you're correct if I'm wrong, no,

[3:13:34] but if it's needed during a project,

[3:13:37] we would, even if it was at grade,

[3:13:39] I think we would still be good though.

[3:13:40] Yeah, prior to construction,

[3:13:41] we do not updated noise analysis based

[3:13:43] on the construction design

[3:13:46] and let's present at that time.

[3:13:48] But they're all in, I don't wanna,

[3:13:50] I'm not the engineer, but I don't wanna speculate,

[3:13:52] but there are segments of the design

[3:13:54] that would be hard to convert from at grade

[3:13:57] to grade separation

[3:13:58] in that 1300s out there is probably one of those

[3:14:00] because of the amount of elevation that you would need to kind of build into the facility,

[3:14:05] just right off the bat to avoid having to completely rebuild it.

[3:14:09] So those are also considerations that will come into play when there's funding for the

[3:14:15] project in terms of how it could be phased.

[3:14:18] Yeah, that's good.

[3:14:18] That's a good one.

[3:14:19] I'm sure you're going to get those kind of public questions, especially in that Southwest

[3:14:22] quadrant.

[3:14:23] No doubt.

[3:14:23] On 1300 South, they'll want the sound wall, whether it's at grade or not.

[3:14:29] No doubt.

[3:14:31] Okay, let's go to the next slide.

[3:14:34] I wonder if we as a council can start looking at planting trees along there or something to help with the buffering.

[3:14:46] Well, we have to make sure that we replace the land for the affluent disposal on the sewer farm.

[3:14:53] And if that can be moved up, then maybe that's a possibility.

[3:14:56] but otherwise the affluent will need to be disposed in.

[3:15:00] Unless the property. Yeah.

[3:15:05] We've had some discussions about the SR 113 intersection. We, you know, we just wanted to reiterate that, you know, that Southfield road will will be there. It can be people will be able to use it. There will be cut. There will come a point where the left terms will not be a lot.

[3:15:31] not be able to work on that, we don't believe that putting a signal there as it's configured

[3:15:42] will not work, just the spacing is just not, it would congest to cause problems.

[3:15:52] As we presented this with Wasatch County, we know that they're looking at possibly realigning

[3:16:00] Southfield Road in the future and certainly that would be one really good solution there

[3:16:05] to help with that and tie that into the high school. Our goal here of course is to maintain

[3:16:11] mobility both on you know the corridor as well as on 113 and everywhere else and so adding

[3:16:24] a signal there would defeat that purpose.

[3:16:26] any

[3:16:31] way that you could do a design so that if traffic went south on south field

[3:16:37] road that they could swing back around and get on to the corridor. I think

[3:16:42] that would be so useful for the Olympic festival parking where they could

[3:16:47] come in at Midway Lane, you know, into the festival parking. Where's the festival

[3:16:52] parking coming in at? That's going to be at the County Fairgrounds and the New

[3:16:56] high school and the new administration building. That's the plan for the Olympic parking.

[3:17:02] And instead of them traveling back east to 600 west and then being able to get back to go north

[3:17:09] or go south on this bypass. If it's possible, again, I'm just saying, if they could just travel

[3:17:16] south on Southfield Road and somehow be able to merge in any of these directions, I think that would

[3:17:22] be useful and it would also allow the county to feel that they're not cut off in their

[3:17:28] access.

[3:17:34] Okay, those are just a few high-level things we wanted to cover.

[3:17:40] What to expect next, we'll continue to meet with your councils or next meeting is planning

[3:17:47] to meet here with the city council again on the 21st of October and we'll be meeting

[3:17:55] with Losage County on the on the 8th and then if there's any other local local government

[3:18:02] who wish to meet with us they can they can reach out to us. And then and once again

[3:18:08] we'll continue to meet with with property owners as as they reach out to us in schedule

[3:18:13] meetings.

[3:18:16] Still on track to release the draft this fall it's looking it's looking like

[3:18:21] It'll be November, late November, early December timeframe is what we're looking at right now for that, for that release of that document.

[3:18:30] You're still going to wait on the public comment though till January.

[3:18:33] We are still going to wait for the public comment period in January.

[3:18:36] We would start the comment period when the document is released and you'll go, you'll extend it to how long?

[3:18:45] So the minimum is his 45 days and the maximum is 60 by regulation.

[3:18:52] We won't hold the public meeting until January.

[3:18:58] But we'll start the public comment period as soon as we release the draft.

[3:19:03] The comments shoot.

[3:19:05] I think that's exactly what we asked to avoid which is waiting so long that the public comments

[3:19:10] had to happen during the holidays.

[3:19:12] Well, it will still extend beyond those public comments will extend beyond into January as well, but we'll start accepting comments.

[3:19:23] Comments we have to come before the public meeting.

[3:19:25] No, no, no.

[3:19:27] The meeting will be in January, but we'll still be accepting comments all through December and through January after the public meeting as well.

[3:19:40] So people have a chance to, I said it in a way that makes it hard for you to, or easy for you to fight it.

[3:19:49] The vast majority of the public comment would be before the public meeting.

[3:19:53] No.

[3:19:55] It's hypothetically safe.

[3:19:56] We usually, we usually, we usually try to,

[3:20:00] January 15th would be the end of the 60-day one now.

[3:20:03] So we don't have the public hearing at the end of the comment period, we typically aim

[3:20:11] to have it towards the middle since we don't have the public meeting would be in January.

[3:20:17] That's the part I'm trying to true up real fast.

[3:20:20] The public being will be in January, will be released in the document, we're looking at the

[3:20:27] first or second week of December.

[3:20:29] So we don't have exact dates right now.

[3:20:32] but in the example of say when the document was released in late November or early December,

[3:20:40] we would probably look because of the holidays, we would probably look to have the public meeting

[3:20:45] in early January, which would still provide for several weeks in a 45-day scenario afterwards for comment.

[3:20:53] That's possible when you release your route selection that you could produce a 5 or 10 minute video that people could watch that would probably give a lot of the same information that you would give it a public hearing.

[3:21:09] So at least there's some kind of official talking it through instead of just read this big report.

[3:21:17] We did that during the alternative screen report if you recall and and we talked about that we can we can we can discuss that Craig and I are not

[3:21:27] Super fond of

[3:21:28] All right, we're all trying we'll discuss that the point. I think I think it's part of the plan

[3:21:33] I think you'll get more productive public comments if you can explain because you can see my questions

[3:21:40] It's like what's happening?

[3:21:41] right this rotor this rotor what do you mean this or what do you mean that that's going to be more

[3:21:47] questions than actual productive we did get we did get very positive feedback even though

[3:21:52] uncomfortable for us we did get positive feedback from that so the lights are really bright I'm

[3:21:56] sure you know so well I think I think it's part of the plan yeah I'm just mayor and council I think

[3:22:03] we spent an hour on this 20-minute item and maybe we should move forward okay I'm sorry and have

[3:22:08] them come back and it sounds like it's October 21st. We're not making a

[3:22:15] most of the same. We've got a lot of on our agenda. Yeah. We're we're we're

[3:22:20] done. I mean we can definitely come back. We'll have plenty of time to cover

[3:22:24] whatever else we talk about. Well this is probably next to the airport one of the

[3:22:29] biggest decisions is going to affect this valley and now that you're getting

[3:22:33] close to the end it's kind of like you're rushing it you know what I mean and

[3:22:36] yet there's so many little details here.

[3:22:38] Well, we're hoping we're not, we're not, we're not, we don't want to shortcut the public

[3:22:42] process. And certainly, you know, a lot of the things that we're, a lot of things that

[3:22:47] we've been covering for the last several months will be there in the document. Hopefully

[3:22:51] it'll give you a good, you know, give that you and the community a good, you know, step

[3:22:57] forward, you know, we're, you know, we're, it's, there's a lot of information here. I totally

[3:23:04] get it and but hopefully over the last several months we've been able to you

[3:23:09] share a lot of that information so we have a lot of that background of

[3:23:11] context so when you do get the document it's not like hitting a cold yeah and

[3:23:15] in terms of schedule really we're just trying to honor the commitment that we've

[3:23:18] made to to the city and to the county and to the citizens in terms of when we'll

[3:23:22] have the document out we do have some restrictions in terms of regulation and

[3:23:27] how long we can make the comment period so it's a little bit of a balance like

[3:23:30] we do understand what you're saying we're aware of it and we're gonna

[3:23:33] to try to, we're going to try to make the comment period in the public meeting as, as we're

[3:23:42] trying to support those goals, we just have to work with the timeframe and the regulatory

[3:23:45] limits. So, to go soon.

[3:23:48] I think you're doing a great job. I wanted to reiterate to the public comment, the other

[3:23:53] comments that we make is City Council aware the same as anyone in the public. We don't

[3:23:59] have any greater authority on this than anyone else?

[3:24:05] Yeah, it's a good reminder Scott.

[3:24:07] That is, and it's a good reminder for the public generally

[3:24:11] that, you know, when they reach out to us

[3:24:12] to complain about all these things,

[3:24:13] we need them to still reach out to you.

[3:24:16] During the comment period because we don't have,

[3:24:19] one, we don't have any extra authority and two,

[3:24:21] we also are easy to ignore unless there's a bunch of us.

[3:24:26] Is there anything else you'd like to say?

[3:24:27] All right, have a good trip safely home.

[3:24:31] Thank you very much.

[3:24:32] Right, we're going to move on to our next general business item, the update regarding the Council 2025 budget and policy priorities with Matt Brower.

[3:24:41] Mayor, thank you.

[3:24:43] Mayor and Council in your packet is an updated report on your 10 policy and budget priorities for fiscal year 26.

[3:24:52] I am pleased to let you know that staff has worked hard on these.

[3:24:56] We have made significant momentum on many of those.

[3:24:59] My intent is not to dive into each one of these, but simply to answer any questions that you may have,

[3:25:06] regarding the status of the 10 policy and federal priorities and or, of course, the 15 parking lot items that are also attached to the report.

[3:25:14] Any questions or comments on those items?

[3:25:41] No one's talking right now, we're waiting to see if Tony can pull something up on the screen.

[3:25:49] It looks like it's just about there, Tony.

[3:25:52] I will give you a prelude on one of your parking lot items regarding water loss.

[3:25:57] I'm going to keep you suspense until my comment a little bit later.

[3:26:01] The which one again? Water loss. Water loss.

[3:26:05] I'm going to keep you suspense.

[3:26:06] Yes, later.

[3:26:06] It took commas later.

[3:26:08] Are you trying to keep us awake?

[3:26:10] I know that there's some work attached to this,

[3:26:12] and I'm sorry for the question to the staff,

[3:26:16] but everything that says ongoing,

[3:26:19] could say ongoing forever.

[3:26:21] I'd love to understand what ongoing means.

[3:26:23] There's a lot of ongoing here,

[3:26:25] and then it's not a knock.

[3:26:27] There's a lot of work being done,

[3:26:28] but I don't know if it's ongoing,

[3:26:30] like waiting on something,

[3:26:31] ongoing like we're making progress,

[3:26:32] or ongoing like it's on somebody's back burner,

[3:26:35] And we might just have to get it on next year's list, does that make sense?

[3:26:39] Yeah, so for example, your very first priority that's listed is the leadership role in the 2034 Olympic Games planning.

[3:26:47] One of those sub-priorities is to develop relationships with the committees that's an ongoing.

[3:26:54] That's going to be something that we continue to do for an awful long time.

[3:26:58] So then you are that way naturally on the other items in which there's actually been a moving of the needle.

[3:27:04] I try to planify that, what's been done and when it was done.

[3:27:08] So if you have specific questions on that, let me know.

[3:27:10] I'd be happy to answer them.

[3:27:12] We're going to be, I wasn't ready for that right now.

[3:27:15] I did not realize you were going to be asking for a general so much as getting

[3:27:17] getting updates on that.

[3:27:19] Sure, and I'll throw some through email.

[3:27:21] And to that point, please don't need to wait for me to bring this up at a council meeting.

[3:27:28] Ask questions at any time.

[3:27:29] I'm happy to get back to what I'll probably do is if you do email me questions on this.

[3:27:33] I'll respond to everyone, so everyone has the benefit of those answers.

[3:27:37] Okay.

[3:27:37] Thank you.

[3:27:40] Okay.

[3:27:40] Are we ready to move on?

[3:27:42] Yes.

[3:27:42] Thank you.

[3:27:43] We're ready now to go into our action items.

[3:27:46] Everyone, the first action item agenda is the, well, we've already talked about this.

[3:27:51] This is a city thing.

[3:27:53] I'm not seeing Miss Avery on line.

[3:27:57] So let's just rearrange some order here.

[3:28:00] Let's do the short-term rental code clarification and the Jordanal Ridge opens face easement

[3:28:05] and then we'll come back to those other city items, please.

[3:28:08] So who's going to present on the short-term rental code

[3:28:11] clarification?

[3:28:12] Please go ahead, Tony.

[3:28:13] So Mike was part of these conversations.

[3:28:16] We've got Jeff here as you recall.

[3:28:18] He is a manager of many of these facilities

[3:28:21] and he instigated this discussion.

[3:28:25] The question really is, when we have an out building

[3:28:31] such as an accessory dwelling unit

[3:28:33] that's 160 square feet. His question is, does the 200 square foot limit in the code preclude

[3:28:41] you from doing that? As we talked amongst the three of us, we felt that it shouldn't,

[3:28:47] that we had intended that the code would take the total square footage on the property

[3:28:53] for a short term dwelling and divide that by 200 to determine how many can be in the house.

[3:29:03] And that's how we read it, but we do understand that somebody might read it differently.

[3:29:09] So what we are proposing is that we come back to you with an ordinance language to clarify

[3:29:18] that issue.

[3:29:19] I've provided an idea of what that language might look like in my staff report.

[3:29:26] I think that language makes really good sense, Tony.

[3:29:29] the first section of the red language had some questions still in my mind and you resolved

[3:29:35] it with the additionally part.

[3:29:37] Oh, okay.

[3:29:38] Okay.

[3:29:39] So, generally, if you're okay with the idea and generally support the language, I'd work

[3:29:43] with Jeremy to make sure he is absolutely comfortable that it's rock solid and we'd come

[3:29:50] back in two weeks with an ordinance.

[3:29:53] If it doesn't seem like it's that big of a deal, we could even put it on the consent agenda

[3:29:59] I'm going to put it for next time.

[3:30:00] So go ahead. Just going to say if it's appropriate, I'd love to hear it since Jeff was the one that kind of brought up. I'd love to hear a few things that it and I guess just a nod or thumbs up if he thinks that that language does make sense. Let the record show double double. So what I'm trying to figure out is saying you're going to divide the 200 square feet of total livable building space on the whole property, which would include the main dwelling as well as the separate ADU. Okay. But then when it says the

[3:30:30] accessory billing containing the ADU shall not escape the exact occupancy limits.

[3:30:35] So does this mean if somebody had a, like I said, a tough shed, you know,

[3:30:41] that they seemed to think was an AD, a detached ADU, and it was, you know,

[3:30:46] 50 square feet, that that would also then be covered for renting.

[3:30:51] Correct.

[3:30:52] And then the building code and or our accessory dwelling unit regulations would

[3:30:56] say how many people could occupy that.

[3:30:58] So a half a person.

[3:31:01] Well, it wouldn't be a half a person. It would be at least one person, but it would not like me be

[3:31:08] I'm just concerned about any abuse of second part would prevent and maybe Jeremy

[3:31:13] But I think that would prevent a very large home and a small tough shed assigning a ton of occupancy to the tough shed

[3:31:21] Because that still doesn't fit with the occupancy limits. I just don't want to say

[3:31:26] I had that question until I got to that one.

[3:31:29] There's the way out of it, that makes sense.

[3:31:31] Yeah, I agree.

[3:31:32] And frankly, I got an ADU.

[3:31:36] I mean, it's an ADU, so someone's not

[3:31:38] going to want 30 people back in the ADU

[3:31:40] and their backyard, and you know, they're not

[3:31:41] big enough to have 30 people back there anyway.

[3:31:44] So probably not going to be a huge issue.

[3:31:48] But I do think that language would clarify it

[3:31:53] and limit those number of people.

[3:31:56] Any other questions, comments, motions on the clear motions?

[3:32:03] Just wanted to gauge the temperature and support.

[3:32:06] If you're okay with it, we'll put it on the next agenda for adoption of an ordinance and it sounds like we will shoot for the consent agenda.

[3:32:16] If you have concerns, you can always take it off the consent agenda and discuss it separately.

[3:32:20] Okay.

[3:32:21] It's not an accident.

[3:32:22] Do we have to move that it comes back next time?

[3:32:24] Or can it just do what?

[3:32:25] I think direction is fine, I think direction is fine, unless you really want to do that.

[3:32:31] Okay.

[3:32:32] I'm going to skip the public comment on that, but if you were welcome to say something if you'd

[3:32:36] like.

[3:32:39] Finally.

[3:32:39] Right.

[3:32:40] Thank you.

[3:32:41] Okay.

[3:32:41] We're going to move on to the next agenda item.

[3:32:44] The Jordanal Ridge open space easement and Jeremy will turn this over to you.

[3:32:48] Mike, I don't know if you want to come forward or not, but, you know, thank you for your patience.

[3:32:55] All right. Thanks, Mayor.

[3:32:58] And Mike Bradshaw is here as well to represent the developer on this project.

[3:33:02] So you can, you can weigh in as well.

[3:33:05] So just a little background back in 2007.

[3:33:12] The, the property owner when they're back still in the county entered into an easement agreement with the county as part of their development agreement.

[3:33:21] which covered essentially this same area that easement agreement and their agreement required them to kind of dedicate pieces of this as they went along in their development and they previously dedicated 217 acres, which is still just owned in fee by the county.

[3:33:46] And then eventually they annexed out the county into the city.

[3:33:51] We entered into a new development agreement with them that required them to dedicate this

[3:33:56] open space to the city or to provide for conservation easement over this open space area.

[3:34:05] And we've been working with them for probably almost two years, I'd bet, and working with the county. We wanted to try to get an agreement that the county could be a part of and that would satisfy their concerns.

[3:34:23] We've kind of discussed a lot of things. One was to do kind of a traditional conservation easement.

[3:34:29] through a number of discussions we decided that it was better to do a conservation easement

[3:34:38] that would be in favor of the city with the county backstopping that.

[3:34:42] So having authority to enforce that so that we have this kind of double layer of enforcement

[3:34:48] so that if we have a future city council that maybe wanted to develop this all, they wouldn't

[3:34:53] be able to without the county also agreeing so we figured, you know, between the two of

[3:34:58] It's very unlikely that, you know, we'll have changes unless, of course, those are something that, you know, just, you know, you never know what's going to happen 50 years from now.

[3:35:09] Maybe there is a change that everybody really wants and agrees to and thinks is great, which is, frankly, one of the problems with conservation easements sometimes is you're very locked into what's in the conservation easement and there's really no room for change.

[3:35:23] This is obviously huge areas, 1967 acres, which is, you know, significant area.

[3:35:35] Under the terms of their development agreement with the city, they're required to kind of

[3:35:41] do what they were with the county, which is kind of piecemeal this in, as they develop

[3:35:44] they're supposed to dedicate a certain amount of this to us.

[3:35:48] That's Matt as the developer when we started this process to agree to dedicate all this so we can get all this into the city and finish this and get it all kind of knocked out in one fell swoop.

[3:36:02] So that's what we're bringing back today.

[3:36:05] The easement agreement contains a number of permitted uses within this area mostly trails.

[3:36:13] there's there's some exceptions for water tanks, other public facilities, but

[3:36:17] essentially it's going to remain in the condition that it is in today which is

[3:36:22] public-athletes trails that are available that everybody in the community

[3:36:27] throughout this entire area. The property will be owned and fee by the

[3:36:32] homeowners association for Jordan L. Ridge which will be responsible for

[3:36:36] maintaining all the property and all the trails, so the city is not taking on

[3:36:41] maintenance of this property, but the easement provides access to all the public to utilize these

[3:36:50] trails and perpetuity. I think that's it. That's there's any questions.

[3:36:56] I just had a clarification, please, in clause three, I think it is about the, sorry,

[3:37:05] The communication infrastructure, it's saying that that could be a use on the easement property.

[3:37:13] But then it was saying later down below, and maybe I'll try to read it.

[3:37:18] Sorry, this is pulling up weird on this tablet.

[3:37:23] So it's saying cost three specifically allowed uses.

[3:37:28] Okay. Communications, infrastructure and facilities. You utilize solely for public facilities

[3:37:35] and then it talks about fencing and so forth, but then it says buried or non-visible communications

[3:37:41] infrastructure and facilities. Is that the same thing that you've got to mention twice? I'm just trying

[3:37:47] to make sure. Those are slightly different. So the first one was intended to be for communication

[3:37:56] location facilities on public infrastructure so if you have a water tank and you have telemetry on your water tank or you have a well that has telemetry on it that you know you're trying to get readings.

[3:38:07] So you have a something that's specific to that well where you're you're getting those you know some sort of communications facility set up on on those facilities and then the second one would be.

[3:38:19] if you just had buried or non-visible communication

[3:38:24] and the structure of facilities,

[3:38:25] so those would be maybe like buried telecommunications lines

[3:38:30] or something that were non-visible.

[3:38:32] So just to follow up, please, and Mike or Jeremy,

[3:38:35] I'm not sure who could answer this.

[3:38:36] It seems that given the map that's here,

[3:38:39] it goes up not to the top of the ridge line, right?

[3:38:43] This agreement is for the lower half of the ridge.

[3:38:46] Is that correct all the way across?

[3:38:47] I think we have a map it goes I mean it goes pretty close to the top of the ridge.

[3:38:54] It's exactly on the top but it goes up above where our current trail system goes.

[3:38:59] So we kind of have a we kind of have a trail that that goes across the top I mean pretty close

[3:39:05] to the top of the ridge but it's just set down off the windy ridge corridor. I know no

[3:39:09] move you've been on it on your mountain bikes and then so that it basically goes up to at least that

[3:39:16] that area. It goes to the, so this green line is the top of the

[3:39:21] ridge line. It's not necessarily the top of the ridge. It goes pretty close to

[3:39:25] the top of the ridge. Okay. Well, then here's my final question. I'm just

[3:39:29] concerned that there's no cell phone towers showing above the ridge line. Well,

[3:39:34] that would fall underneath our ridge line ordinance and wouldn't comply with

[3:39:38] the ridge line ordinance. So we don't have any content or plan to do that, but

[3:39:41] that would be covered by your ridge line ordinance. I just know your water tank is

[3:39:45] I think pretty close to that ridge. Well, we do have a water tank that's kind of, it is on that

[3:39:51] ridge line. That ridge line is pretty deep. That water tank is set back. It's completely buried

[3:39:56] and there's telemetry already there on that water tank. And you can't see that from highway 32.

[3:40:03] I mean, that telemetry stuff is pretty small, right? You can't see it. So it is there existing

[3:40:08] today. You can understand my concern. So I get it. I totally get it. People not wanting to see,

[3:40:13] You know, we sell phone towers up there on. We totally get that. We totally get that. I mean, we would comply. Anything up there would have to comply with the current

[3:40:22] Ridge line ordinance that we have. So anything proposed up there, whether it's a water tank or anything else, it complies with the

[3:40:29] Ridge line ordinance. Thank you. Thank you. I just wanted to verify that. Jeremy, are you good with that? Yeah, that's absolutely

[3:40:36] as we discussed, when we discussed the red line,

[3:40:40] we're very protective of that red line looking up from the valley.

[3:40:44] So certainly any at cell tower,

[3:40:47] daylighting above that red line would not be co-compliant.

[3:40:52] Is there a reason, Jeremy?

[3:40:54] And it may just be because of the actual acreage count

[3:40:57] or because of what the county put in place long time ago.

[3:40:59] Is there a reason that the green line on the bottom of what we're looking at

[3:41:03] doesn't hug to the to the ridge line and the reason I say that is some of not all the trails,

[3:41:09] some of the trails are inside the green, but we do have the old trails that go outside of it.

[3:41:15] We do and there there is still quite a bit of open space up there that will ultimately this

[3:41:21] this understand that what we're trying to take care of today it attacks a an easement agreement

[3:41:28] an ancient easement agreement and we had carried that over into our development agreement which is

[3:41:33] what we're addressing. We have additional open space that will be added into the HOA over time.

[3:41:40] So there's pieces beyond that current line that will get added and be brought into the HOA

[3:41:45] as we go further east. But this covers at least to take care of this one line item in our development

[3:41:53] agreement. So, and it takes care of essentially the face that faces Hebert today. Everything else

[3:42:00] goes pretty much beyond and goes east at that point. Yeah, Jeremy, would that explanation,

[3:42:08] which makes sense to me, would that explanation be something that you would also agree to in the

[3:42:14] face of a resident saying, this signals to me an intent to develop above the green line but before

[3:42:21] other edge line.

[3:42:24] Go ahead, Jeremy, if you want to answer that.

[3:42:26] I can answer that, but I don't think they have any intent.

[3:42:31] I don't think they have room to develop in there.

[3:42:32] Again, the RIDGE line area, per se, that RIDGE line, it comes through there.

[3:42:38] We will continue to put trails and golf and other outdoor type activities

[3:42:45] that are allowed within our open space agreement along that corridor.

[3:42:48] All the development is set back and goes further east from that.

[3:42:54] In fact, we've already come in and got our development plan approved

[3:42:58] through at this point for the stuff that's going to be developed

[3:43:02] just to the east of that corridor.

[3:43:06] Yeah, we have.

[3:43:07] And all of it is pushed further east beyond the water tank.

[3:43:12] Does that make sense?

[3:43:13] So if you look at where the water tank is,

[3:43:15] All of the lots in development are pushed kind of east of that of that water tank, okay?

[3:43:21] And they go a little bit north below the water tank as you go down the highway 32, right?

[3:43:27] Does this mean if the city and the county agrees to this easement that this land will be dedicated to the city?

[3:43:35] City forthwith?

[3:43:36] It gets it gets dedicated into the homeowners association as Jeremy outlined to the HOA. Yes, yep.

[3:43:43] It will have an easement, this easement that runs in favor of both the city and the county.

[3:43:49] The easement structure, the easement's in favor of the city, but the county has kind

[3:43:54] of backup enforcement authority.

[3:43:57] So the city fails to enforce the terms of the easement agreement that the county can step

[3:44:01] in and give us notice.

[3:44:02] It's a you fell to enforce it.

[3:44:05] We still fell to enforce it and the county can take legal action to enforce the agreement.

[3:44:09] And again, the intent of this is to kind of provide this backstop to say just in case the city council changes and we happen to have three people that also want to, you know, allow development on this.

[3:44:21] We have this kind of check and balance, but we have this check and balance, so there if there is something that, you know, both the county and the city agree, yes, you know, maybe this is something because of changes that everything that's happened.

[3:44:37] And I mean, one of the things like, you know,

[3:44:40] we went through a lot of thought that went into this

[3:44:43] and the permitted uses and, you know, like we have mountain

[3:44:47] biking, but we also have, you know, kind of mountain

[3:44:51] biking-related facilities.

[3:44:52] So, you know, when I was a kid in your mountain bike,

[3:44:55] you didn't have like features that came down,

[3:44:57] you know, bank turns that were made out of wood.

[3:45:00] Stuff like that. Nowadays, those are really popular. So, so this would allow features like that, even, you know, their trail features. If we're locked into kind of a very rigid agreement where there's no possibility to amend it in the future, those probably would never be allowed or are both the county and the city would have to basically overlook enforcement of those. So, so that's again, I think I really like the structure of this because I think.

[3:45:28] It creates that, it makes it really hard to change this, but it makes it possible if

[3:45:37] everybody agrees.

[3:45:38] If everybody agrees.

[3:45:40] You'd have to have essentially three entities would have to agree.

[3:45:43] The homeowners association, the county and the city.

[3:45:46] So we had a timeline in the MDA that you would do, the one trailhead, every 1,400 units and

[3:45:54] And then we've got 2,405 acres still that you need to follow the same format.

[3:46:01] Well, I mean, again, Mayor, the format and the development agreement is that we would dedicate open space at a ratio.

[3:46:09] It's at a ratio, right?

[3:46:10] And we've been prepared to do this.

[3:46:12] This goes beyond that, right?

[3:46:15] I mean, we would probably have about 300 acres that would be dedicated to the city today.

[3:46:21] This is putting all of this acreage in right now.

[3:46:25] So that kind of banks are acreage for a little while.

[3:46:28] Right, according to the agreement at some point,

[3:46:31] we will continue to dedicate open space, okay?

[3:46:35] But I can tell you to be honest with you,

[3:46:37] we're kind of getting a little more forward thinking in this

[3:46:39] and we're getting trails done.

[3:46:41] And like, I mean, we've added probably six to seven more miles

[3:46:47] of trail this year.

[3:46:48] And we'll do that again next year.

[3:46:50] Well, as we start to finish some of those other future areas off with trails and they're ready to go

[3:46:55] We'll probably start dedicating some larger chunks into this open space. You follow what I'm saying

[3:47:02] So my guess is is from now on we're always going to stay ahead of you and and we'll be able to coordinate that with the planning department to make sure that we do

[3:47:10] Okay, and I'd love to see your trail map updated to you know, we'll continue to update it every year

[3:47:17] Yeah

[3:47:17] I really appreciate the work to try and my go, you just said that, but you know, everybody

[3:47:25] has to agree.

[3:47:27] The problem in my mind is, actually, it's not that hard to get three people in this

[3:47:34] council that want to do something up there and to get five people in the county.

[3:47:38] I can see that happening pretty easily.

[3:47:42] But again, you'd also have to have the homeowners association to agree, right?

[3:47:45] All three parties would have to agree if you were to take something out of the conservation easement.

[3:47:51] We don't think that is likely to happen.

[3:47:53] I appreciate that.

[3:47:54] So my comment is if we think that's the case, should we, if we think that the intent is to

[3:48:02] make it harder to, harder to get out of, but possible to get out of, do we need to put some

[3:48:08] kind of negative incentive to the homeowner's association where they would want to not do

[3:48:13] that the city or somebody else could let them out of in the future.

[3:48:17] So, for instance, if everybody actually really, really does agree, we let them out of the catch.

[3:48:23] But if there's three council members, there's five county council members,

[3:48:27] and the homeless issues is like, cool, tons more revenue, I don't know.

[3:48:33] Can I give you a little more likely scenario?

[3:48:36] Okay, because the problem with it is, is I think what we can't deal with today

[3:48:41] is what that might be, but let me give you a scenario that if we had done this

[3:48:47] 20 years ago, or let's say we did this 40 years ago before mountain bikes even

[3:48:53] existed, and the only thing we had was people using the trail the hike and

[3:48:58] horses, and we put in this agreement that that's all you could have, and then

[3:49:03] magically 20 years later, mountain bikes got invented, and we all wanted, we had

[3:49:09] And all these people come into mountain bikes and we had this, we had this easement agreement

[3:49:13] that said, only horses and hiking can happen on this.

[3:49:18] What would we all do?

[3:49:19] And if we were stuck in a typical conservation easement, you wouldn't be able to add the mountain

[3:49:24] bikers.

[3:49:25] You wouldn't be able to do it.

[3:49:27] But with the three parties of green like this, I think that's a more realistic example.

[3:49:33] Does that make sense?

[3:49:34] I don't know what's going to happen in 50 years.

[3:49:36] I don't know what is going to be why the homeowners association, the council and the county want to change it, but mountain bikes didn't exist for, well, it's probably more than 40 years ago, you know what I mean, but it's about that, right?

[3:49:50] I was probably in my 20s when mountain bikes were invented and that's been at least 30 years ago, right?

[3:49:57] Sorry, but at least, but do you see what I'm saying?

[3:49:59] So I would use that as more an example.

[3:50:02] I don't think the county and us in the city

[3:50:06] is going to agree ever to see housing up there.

[3:50:09] Largely, it's 30% slopes are greater in most of that area.

[3:50:14] Let me add to that.

[3:50:16] It's not just getting the three parties to approve this,

[3:50:19] but this would require an amendment to the development agreement

[3:50:23] and be considered a major amendment,

[3:50:24] which means you gotta go to the planning commission.

[3:50:25] You have to have a public hearing,

[3:50:26] have to come back to the city council.

[3:50:28] It's going to be a significant process.

[3:50:31] It would be.

[3:50:31] Got it.

[3:50:32] Okay.

[3:50:33] Thank you.

[3:50:34] That helps.

[3:50:34] Yeah, Aaron.

[3:50:35] I mean, also this is one of the reasons we want the HOA to have this.

[3:50:39] And not the developer.

[3:50:40] Is to make sure that because the HOA the developer might have incentive to try to

[3:50:44] develop it.

[3:50:45] The HOA is never going to have incentive to develop it because.

[3:50:49] You know what?

[3:50:51] Yeah, what they want to keep this open.

[3:50:54] I mean, even if the council and the county council didn't have representatives.

[3:50:57] that lived in that HOA, and so they all agreed who cares what happens to those guys.

[3:51:02] The homeowners are still going to speak for themselves, right?

[3:51:05] I mean, we-

[3:51:06] Makes sense.

[3:51:06] Sounds great.

[3:51:07] Is that good?

[3:51:07] Thanks for hearing my questions.

[3:51:09] Hey Mike, this is Scott.

[3:51:12] I just want to let you know I do ride my bike up there and I love the trails.

[3:51:16] Thank you so much.

[3:51:17] There's no one you're putting in or awesome.

[3:51:20] You're welcome.

[3:51:21] You're certainly welcome.

[3:51:22] Great spot.

[3:51:23] Is anyone ready for further questions, discussion, or motions?

[3:51:32] Aaron, it was a good question.

[3:51:34] It was a reasonable question.

[3:51:35] Aaron?

[3:51:36] No, I just said Aaron, it was a reasonable question.

[3:51:38] If you don't mind, I am going to open this up for the public comment on the action items.

[3:51:42] We've got 10 minutes potential of public comment on this action item.

[3:51:46] And again, this item is the Jordan O'Ridge, open space easement, anybody in the chamber or

[3:51:52] or anyone online, you're welcome to come off mute

[3:51:55] and give a public comment on this, the times now open.

[3:52:09] I'm not seeing anyone raise their hand robbing.

[3:52:14] All right, well, it looks like we will close

[3:52:16] the public comment period then and turn it back

[3:52:19] to the council for any questions, comments, or motions.

[3:52:23] I move to accept the conservation easement proposed.

[3:52:27] I'll second, Mayor.

[3:52:28] Thank you.

[3:52:30] All right, we'll start with the voting in Scotty.

[3:52:32] The problem that he said conservation easements that have open space easement.

[3:52:36] Sorry, open space easement has proposed.

[3:52:39] You accept that again, Sid.

[3:52:41] Yes, thank you.

[3:52:42] Okay, Eric, I just make one.

[3:52:44] Yes, so as part of this, there's a separate agreement that's in the packet, which is the agreement.

[3:52:55] It's really an agreement between the developer and the county to terminate their existing

[3:53:01] easement.

[3:53:01] But we are a signature to that agreement, so just, you know, approval of this easement also implies that we're going to also

[3:53:10] on that. I just want to make that clear.

[3:53:12] Sure.

[3:53:13] We probably do.

[3:53:14] We need to say that accepting the agreement to terminate and replace the open space with your original ridge and then the open space easement.

[3:53:24] I think it's probably best to clarify that we're approving both of them.

[3:53:29] Okay. Scott, do you want to do that?

[3:53:30] I would clarify that we are approving both of them.

[3:53:38] I'll second.

[3:53:40] Is that clear, not Jeremy?

[3:53:42] All right, let's start with you, Sid, on the phone.

[3:53:45] Yes.

[3:53:45] Scott.

[3:53:46] Yes.

[3:53:47] That passes four to zero.

[3:53:49] Thank you.

[3:53:49] This is valuable.

[3:53:50] This is huge.

[3:53:52] All right.

[3:53:54] Let's go forward now.

[3:53:55] I should say backward to the Mill Road,

[3:54:00] 980 South intersection improvements and Russ presented all of them in the work

[3:54:07] meeting held previously if you can just give a quick summary Russ in case anybody

[3:54:11] missed that online and then the council can give direction or action.

[3:54:24] I mean I

[3:54:25] can give a summary without pulling up drawings where I can quickly pull up the

[3:54:28] drawings. Just probably that final cost summary.

[3:54:31] Went

[3:54:38] through several alternatives to improve safety at the Mill Road 980 South

[3:54:43] intersection. I gave you my input on my recommendation. I mean, really, you could do numerous things even

[3:54:50] even as I was kind of sitting between now and then I had the thought that if we if we put the overhead

[3:54:59] arms on the south side, the RRFB overhead signal, you could still potentially keep that north

[3:55:07] crosswalk and have at-grade RFBs there. That might be an idea, but we could research that further

[3:55:15] in design.

[3:55:18] Another thing I wanted to point out to the council is we have in the budget,

[3:55:22] I believe $200,000 for traffic calming approved. That's where the money I would propose would come

[3:55:30] from, we have money to, again, start a design. These are estimates, of course, and depending

[3:55:38] on how we design it and what we do is going to determine the final number and what kind

[3:55:42] of bits we get, but I think that we have enough to move forward with any of the alternatives

[3:55:47] that don't involve a hawk. And so, I want to answer questions and get directions.

[3:55:54] There is not from what I could understand, and I did some Googling a way to do RRFB at

[3:55:59] an angle in the middle of the intersection, is there, so that it's closer to both sides?

[3:56:05] No.

[3:56:06] You don't want to do that.

[3:56:07] Overhead, you want to be at the crosswalk, and we could look at some of these.

[3:56:11] If you had to guess, and I realize it's hard based on, especially it's hard based on what's

[3:56:16] here, but I bet you do know this answer or close to it.

[3:56:18] What would that that you just described to be, so it would be option two with the additional

[3:56:24] at grade, RRFB?

[3:56:26] What would that cost to be?

[3:56:27] I would just estimate that the $200,000 that we have in the budget right now would would cover it.

[3:56:35] I don't know for sure, but I would estimate that would be the case.

[3:56:38] So it wouldn't be doubling option two, for instance.

[3:56:41] It'd be somewhere between option two and option six is where you just have it.

[3:56:47] Yeah, that's a good point.

[3:56:48] Actually, where do you want a thousand?

[3:56:52] So it's staying close to two.

[3:56:54] That's the answer right there.

[3:56:58] We could get into those details during the design.

[3:57:03] I do think it's really important that we do something.

[3:57:05] These schools are permanent and they serve a lot of Hebrew city.

[3:57:10] Kids and all of those have to cross Mill Road.

[3:57:15] I am interested in doing what's most effective at the best value.

[3:57:21] And I basically had chosen two and three.

[3:57:24] I'm good with either one of those two is the option two is what our engineer is recommending and I can support that.

[3:57:34] I think the bullbouts really will help. One, it just cuts the time to cross the road, which is a big saving zero.

[3:57:43] Two, it gives the more space for kids to gather and wait so they're not bumping out and falling in the street.

[3:57:49] because so I think the bulb outs really work. And then I think combining that with the overhead

[3:57:58] RRBFB red robe, I don't know what that means, fur ball, something.

[3:58:01] A rectangular rapid flashing beacons.

[3:58:03] Okay, rapid flashing beacons. I think that's that is going to be the most significant

[3:58:09] visual impact where it's right in front of them above, you know, as they're looking forward,

[3:58:14] rather than off to the side. So it's an extra 50 grand. I think it's well worth it to save one accident

[3:58:22] would be well worth it. So I would support too if everyone else does.

[3:58:27] Is that a motion?

[3:58:28] Yes, sure.

[3:58:30] I'll make a motion that we accept our engineers recommendation for option two.

[3:58:34] I second it.

[3:58:36] With addition to adding the signs on the north, right?

[3:58:42] I'm just going to say, I would like to still pursue seeing if we add the crosswalk or not.

[3:58:48] I'd like to input from the crossing guards and then the police and then we can make that decision.

[3:58:52] But let's move forward and if we have to add that in, that's easy.

[3:58:58] And I was second.

[3:59:00] Cool.

[3:59:01] And I was just going to say option two, while we're doing option two and we're already doing buildouts and moving concrete.

[3:59:06] Should we pull some power in case we want to throw those at grade RFBs in there in the future?

[3:59:16] I don't know if I can ask a clarifying question or if you want to take a load or what you want to do, but my thought would be, I've got that direction, I meet with the police and then we take those that input and make the decision or does the council want us to come back after I meet with.

[3:59:35] I'm fine with you guys.

[3:59:36] If there's no major changes, I think we'd be good.

[3:59:40] Unless you're finding some major changes that you need to let us know and we need to decide

[3:59:44] in a different auction.

[3:59:45] That's great, I appreciate that.

[3:59:47] I think you guys have, you know, what do you think about Aaron's idea?

[3:59:51] This costly come back.

[3:59:52] That's not, then do what you think is best.

[3:59:54] So you're not against him researching doing the at grade on the north side.

[4:00:00] Our FBs? Well, I can see right now that's $41,000. We'd have to come back. I think it would sit within the budget that we have available for traffic calming. And so if I have that authorization, I want to verify one that there's no big concerns with the MUTCD requirements. And then, of course, I want to get input from the police and the crossing guards on the need to absolutely keep that north crossing.

[4:00:28] or not. I just wanted to throw that out there. That was another thing I was thinking about.

[4:00:33] I think that we could fit it within the budget penalty. Well, give us an update, right? Give us

[4:00:37] an update once you get some more solid figures. I'm really glad you've got the 200,000, right? Hopefully

[4:00:44] that's going to stretch far enough, and we'll see how that proceeds, right? I think that is our chance.

[4:00:50] Your question. I'm good with you going as long as that's what I asked for, and unless it was, I'll

[4:00:55] verify that as well. If that's not there, I will be coming back to talk to you. That's my that's my memory. Okay, so he's clear. Are we clear? Is everybody clear? Yeah, perfect. Okay, so yes, you really came up with that fast. Really pretty really good.

[4:01:10] To the citizens there. I think they'll be really pleased with the design. And they'll want it yesterday. Yes. Okay, so let's start with a vote with you said. Yes, yes, yes.

[4:01:23] Yes, all right, that passes 4 to 0 with the one excused.

[4:01:27] Okay, now we are to our last agenda item map.

[4:01:30] You're going to give us a consolidated fee schedule amendment

[4:01:35] to update the Cemetery fee schedule, Collarbarium, niche pricing.

[4:01:40] You're just giving one moment to transition.

[4:01:42] I'm

[4:01:59] going to pose upon you.

[4:02:00] I'm not able to share screen.

[4:02:02] So if you would have mine going to the last agenda item and

[4:02:08] and pulling up the

[4:02:13] project amendments,

[4:02:15] the very, very, very bottom.

[4:02:18] Thank you.

[4:02:19] Mayor and Council, let me begin by providing you

[4:02:22] some context.

[4:02:23] Actually, maybe let me start by giving you

[4:02:25] some great news and an update on the Conbarium.

[4:02:30] The project's intended to be COD in a matter of a couple weeks

[4:02:33] in time for the ribbon cutting, which is planned

[4:02:36] for Friday, October 3rd at noon.

[4:02:40] pretty exciting stuff. If you go out there now, you can see that we're down to the minor details.

[4:02:46] Staff has been working feverishly on getting the irrigation, getting the lawn planted, trying to

[4:02:53] do all we can to save money if I do most of it in-house. So a lot of activity, but it's winding down,

[4:02:58] and it's on schedule, and that's pretty exciting to report to you. A year ago, actually it's probably

[4:03:04] year ago June, when we kicked this project off, I came to you and requested that we established

[4:03:11] niche fees for the Combarium with the belief that we could sell a number of the niches during

[4:03:17] the construction period. We've done that. It hasn't been as many as we'd hoped, but we

[4:03:22] have sold a few. The fees that I presented to you were based up on the cost of the construction

[4:03:28] back then it was the bid cost that Jardines gave us which was $4.05 million. Fast forward and of

[4:03:36] course we have approved numerous change orders and you can see those listed here on the screen.

[4:03:42] There's been a total of nine of them. The first one was adding the second

[4:03:46] Combarium. This was obviously the 100lb gorilla. This was about $300,000. Change orders two through five

[4:03:53] We're minor ones, a bunch of minor ones, adding low voltage for video and security, expanding

[4:03:59] a waterline from two inches to four inches, a number of just needed items.

[4:04:04] Number six was surface improvements, recalled this is an amendment you approved for paving

[4:04:09] the ingress and egress of Harry Schwarz Parkway.

[4:04:13] Seven is the pump house, moving the pump house from where it was, over to where it is now.

[4:04:18] The fountains, which is the one you approved as well, and stone veneer, which is being added

[4:04:23] to the bottom of the Combarium's to help increase the attractiveness.

[4:04:27] So the construction project budget went from 4.041 to 4.9.

[4:04:32] The all-in project cost is $5.48 million.

[4:04:40] So we are now at the end.

[4:04:41] We have an updated cost for the project, and I am coming before you to wanting to discuss

[4:04:47] the need to increase the cost of the niches to cover the total cost of the project,

[4:04:53] not the total cost of the project, but the cost of the increased cost from the project.

[4:04:58] Tony, can I have you go to, let's go,

[4:05:08] cemetery fee schedule. I'm sorry, niche pricing evaluation.

[4:05:18] If you go down to the very bottom,

[4:05:26] if you can actually go up a little bit, Tony, so you can see the second, all right there.

[4:05:29] Okay. So we had the expert run a number of scenarios that looked at raising additional revenue

[4:05:37] through the cells and niches to cover the increase in the construction cost. What I've done is

[4:05:42] taken scenario A, which would increase the revenues from the sell of the $1296 niches by $700,000.

[4:05:51] So what we've done is 22 go to the next one entitled niche pricing evaluation.

[4:06:02] I'm sorry, uh, sedatory fee schedule.

[4:06:19] Robin, is there any way that I can get to share my screen?

[4:06:27] Mm-hmm.

[4:06:30] Right now, it's not highlighted.

[4:06:32] It bears me for just a moment.

[4:06:35] What part's not highlighted?

[4:06:37] I beg your pardon?

[4:06:38] What part's not highlighted?

[4:06:40] It's where it says share.

[4:06:41] Oh, there it is.

[4:06:41] Now it's highlighted.

[4:06:42] Thank you.

[4:06:43] He's trying to do his.

[4:06:45] He's trying to do his machine.

[4:06:47] Share his screen.

[4:07:00] Robin, how do we show that on that TV screen right there?

[4:07:08] I've got it on my screen. I've got some rubber screen, but it's not on that screen there.

[4:07:15] Annitement.

[4:07:16] Annitement. It's a new vocabulary word.

[4:07:18] And if you can increase the size of that Tony,

[4:07:27] a little bit larger, please.

[4:07:37] I can see it. Not my app to do it down on that.

[4:07:41] There you go. Okay.

[4:07:44] Okay. Let me provide some more context.

[4:07:46] So, in the Comberiums, we identified the niches as value niches, standard niches, or premium niches, and that's based upon whether located on that niche wall.

[4:07:59] For example, the ones at the very, very top, or at the very bottom would be value.

[4:08:03] The ones that are a little lower would be standard, and the premiums of course are about your high height. For example, they're the highest value ones.

[4:08:10] The column there that says current, that is your current niche price, okay?

[4:08:16] That's what's listed in your fee schedule.

[4:08:21] That's price today.

[4:08:23] Proposal one and proposal two is based upon the numbers I just showed you that was done by our consultant.

[4:08:31] That would generate an additional $700,000 of revenue based upon the niche sales.

[4:08:36] The difference between proposal one and proposal two is this, under proposal one, what

[4:08:42] I did is I took the numbers that the consultant gave me, and what he was looking at only was

[4:08:48] the resident price.

[4:08:49] He wasn't looking at it to non-resident, and it's really important that we distinctly should

[4:08:53] price from resident to non-resident.

[4:08:55] Why?

[4:08:56] Because the residents of Hebrew have already put $2.75 million into this project.

[4:09:00] That was approved in the budget, when you could kick this off a year ago.

[4:09:04] So it's very important that the resident price not be the same as the non-resident price.

[4:09:08] So a proposal one, what I did is I took the recommended price per niche and I increased

[4:09:14] the non-resident by 10%.

[4:09:17] So in essence, the resident would be par and then the non-resident would be 10% above that.

[4:09:22] In proposal two, what I did is I took the par number that the consultant gave me, decreased

[4:09:29] increase the resident by 5% from that and then increase the non-resident by 5%.

[4:09:35] So you essentially net out the same amount of revenue.

[4:09:38] The reason I did that is when I looked at Proposal 1, the reason I did that is because

[4:09:43] Proposal 1, if you notice on the far right hand side, I've got a private sector from

[4:09:48] Marion there.

[4:09:49] I'm not going to tell you who it is.

[4:09:50] I'm telling you I wouldn't.

[4:09:51] But that is a market price there for niches in Salt Lake.

[4:09:53] If you look at Proposal 1, it's a question for non-resident, we're out of the money,

[4:10:00] rather than market there.

[4:10:01] But if you look at Proposal 2, if you look at overall, at the value, we're there, at the

[4:10:08] standard, we're there, at the premiums, we're a little higher than normal, but we have a facility

[4:10:13] that is next to none.

[4:10:15] There is not a facility of this equal, whether in the Wasatch back or the Wasatch front.

[4:10:19] So I propose that we go with proposal two.

[4:10:22] It still keeps our niche cost, sorry,

[4:10:24] and niche revenues on market with the one you see

[4:10:28] then the far right.

[4:10:29] And then I'm also suggesting this,

[4:10:32] the fees, sorry, I keep saying fees,

[4:10:34] the niche cost on the current column.

[4:10:37] In my investigation, what I realize is that those numbers

[4:10:40] include basic engraving.

[4:10:43] It's in there, it says that.

[4:10:45] Basic engraving on the niche wall.

[4:10:48] But what it did include was the enrichment, which is essentially the opening and closing of the niche,

[4:10:54] taking the wall down to have it engraved or rot back, and the perpetual care.

[4:11:00] And so what I've done, I'll show you here in just a moment, is I'm advocating,

[4:11:02] we go with proposal two, and then Tony actually, I can go to it one moment,

[4:11:07] so my proposing is, it is common now.

[4:11:26] So what I'm showing you now, actually, can we show this on my screen,

[4:11:29] but it's not. Tony, I've switched to a different file. It's on my screen. It's not on your zone.

[4:11:35] If we actually went back to yours, you could pull it up. Can we do that?

[4:11:41] There it is right there.

[4:11:42] Thank you.

[4:11:43] I have to share with you about a minute.

[4:11:49] Very well, say I'm almost to the end. Almost to the punch line.

[4:11:56] I need to go to towards the bottom. You'll see a row that says,

[4:12:01] Combariums, Niche 1 and 2, up, go up please, keep going, keep going, right there.

[4:12:12] So what you're looking at now is a copy of your consolidated fee schedule, specifically

[4:12:17] the chapter that deals with cemetery fees and services.

[4:12:21] And what we're establishing here is updated Niche fees, which I just showed you as proposal

[4:12:26] So you can see that there for the value,

[4:12:30] 20 to go down some more.

[4:12:31] You got the value, you can see there,

[4:12:33] you got the standard, and then you got the premium.

[4:12:36] What's highlighted in yellow corresponds specifically

[4:12:38] with the proposal two, I just showed you on the Excel spreadsheet.

[4:12:42] Okay. Go down a little bit more, Tony.

[4:12:44] And then what I'm proposing is that we add an initchment fee,

[4:12:47] which is the opening closing, $300 for a resident,

[4:12:50] $404 non-resident.

[4:12:52] That is for weekdays.

[4:12:53] I'm also adding one for week ends 500 and 600 and then the special engraving meaning engraving that goes above beyond the basic engraving

[4:13:02] They better pay that freight and they would do that going on a little bit more toning

[4:13:07] Are we doing the engraving?

[4:13:09] No, we would do that through Larkin. They would be the ones that did that for us.

[4:13:14] I

[4:13:17] don't know how long our contract is with Larkin, but it's obviously likely to change.

[4:13:22] I'm wondering if we want to just put maybe not the price there so we don't have this.

[4:13:29] That is that, and more.

[4:13:31] Well, I'm just saying I don't know how frequently they'll change it, yeah.

[4:13:36] That's another recommendation I'm going to recommend.

[4:13:37] Larkin actually changes a lot of their enrichment, their grading fees on an annual basis like

[4:13:45] we do with our impact fees, I suggest we do that the same as well and we'll come back during the

[4:13:50] budget process and include that recommendation. So what I propose in Council for your consideration

[4:13:55] is that we establish updated niche fees, we establish the in itchment cost, the perpetual care cost,

[4:14:03] which I've actually included in due proposal two. So proposal two includes not only what I showed

[4:14:08] you, but a opening closing fee to color staff's time, the nichement, I'm sorry, the

[4:14:14] nichement, and then the special engraving.

[4:14:17] Now, having said that, I'm not looking for approval tonight.

[4:14:21] My staff's telling me we have to do this by an ordinance, because we're mending the consolidated

[4:14:24] fee schedule.

[4:14:25] I'm in need of having this done before the open houses, which commence on October 1st.

[4:14:31] And so I'm hoping that you will be able to set a date for a special meeting.

[4:14:34] It shouldn't take very long to have the public hearing, which will advertise and post and then take action on these cost proposals

[4:14:41] So that we can get them in place before the open house as well as the ribbon cutting

[4:14:48] You do can you go back to the Excel sheet?

[4:14:56] Well, sorry the other one the list

[4:15:00] Yellows, yellows, sales. That's on mine that you give that back to me. Matt, while you're pulling that up, the one thing that I don't know if this does, and you may have done the work of just not told us just now. If we're trying to get back to the changes, I think we have to wait the sales between resident and non-resident in order to make sure that's happening here. Does that make sense? Meaning that if most are resident,

[4:15:29] Then perhaps I'm not raising that one enough if most or non-resident perhaps we're raising that too much to get there

[4:15:35] I don't have any idea how they're selling or how they're weighted yet. Yeah, I don't have any idea what the ratios look like

[4:15:40] We've only sold about a half a dozen. It's not very many most are resident

[4:15:44] We are in conversations right now with a Jewish synagogue out of Park City that wants to buy a large number. That would be all non-resident

[4:15:53] And so my crystal ball is taking price at the current price

[4:15:57] No, we've not been there to a deal yet. So if you're able to adopt this it would probably come in at the updated rates

[4:16:04] But my trustable is not that accurate. I don't know what the future is going to hold

[4:16:08] But obviously the the updated proposal does assume a few things right 50 50 resident non-resident. I don't know what's going to happen

[4:16:18] But we can do best we can we keep monitoring that if we get adjusted we come back to you and make some adjustment sales rates in the future

[4:16:24] Okay, and then the only other question which has nothing to do with him pulling that up or whoever's pulling it up

[4:16:30] Do we

[4:16:32] Do we charge a fee for an ownership change?

[4:16:35] Yes, $200. Sorry. Yes, $200. I would think that that's when we want to up as well if you didn't already

[4:16:45] Maybe that's for next time, but the thought process there is

[4:16:49] This is a public meeting so anybody that gets word of it right now and goes and buys them and wants to sell them later

[4:16:56] I was going to ask that if somebody buys a niche, a niche, a niche and then just dies in

[4:17:09] California and gets very in California, how do they give that back to the city, they

[4:17:16] can sell it back to us at the price in which they bought it and then we can turn on a resell

[4:17:19] it.

[4:17:20] Okay, and that's a contractual obligation is correct when you buy a plot when you buy a niche

[4:17:27] we're going to give you a certificate of ownership of that plot of that niche. In fact,

[4:17:32] the mayor signs these when we sell those and so that is a document that we have that you can then

[4:17:37] sell back to us and then we will of course sell it again to someone. That's the rate that you paid not

[4:17:42] correct. Yeah, we're not going to get into this secondary market and have to pay some

[4:17:47] exorbitant cost. That's very well written to our policies.

[4:17:51] Okay. If Mark's medley wanted to buy one tomorrow, does he get the current price?

[4:17:59] He would get the price that is included in your current consolidated fee schedule,

[4:18:03] which is the current price.

[4:18:05] It has to be the next meeting.

[4:18:07] I was using Mark instead of someone else.

[4:18:13] Well, so the public knows they can still buy it.

[4:18:15] I mean, this is a public meeting.

[4:18:16] So help with that's good.

[4:18:18] Now, also, okay, go ahead, I'm sorry, go ahead.

[4:18:23] I forgot, but it'll come, let me go.

[4:18:25] So there's a couple of policy changes too

[4:18:28] that you'll see when it comes back.

[4:18:29] One is that we are negotiating right now

[4:18:33] with this group, this religious group.

[4:18:35] And in that case, we may offer a little bit different pricing

[4:18:39] than what's here, but that'll be based upon an agreement.

[4:18:42] It's gonna come before you for approval, okay?

[4:18:44] number one number two we also put in there that we will run sales from time to time what we want to do is get these rates updated and still offer a 10% decrease for residents and non residents as a if you will grant opening sale that will run through December 31st and so that also for just the ability to do that.

[4:19:04] I like that.

[4:19:05] Matt can we also look at the other fees on that schedule to make sure that they're in line with market.

[4:19:13] We use such as grain sites, we will, now my focus has been niche is obviously because of the urgency,

[4:19:21] making sure that the price we're going to charge covers the cost, and this not only does that,

[4:19:25] this could generate an additional 200 to $500,000 that could go back to perpetual care,

[4:19:30] or to offset some of the costs of the general fund towards this project.

[4:19:34] Yeah, okay,

[4:19:41] I can't hear that it's being said.

[4:19:42] And

[4:19:46] Mark Smether with a question, with regard to the sales, when I talked to Larkin, would the policy also include being able to have sales throughout the year?

[4:19:56] I'm a Memorial Day sale or yes, sales could be happened more than the grant opening and the policy affords that yes.

[4:20:03] Then I had one other question and it says, if I buy one, I'm a resident and then I want Lynette to be next to me.

[4:20:09] Is then that has the companion the then the resident companion and there has a

[4:20:15] Two that's for two that's for two. Okay. Yeah, good questions. I thought it was two people in one box

[4:20:24] It's one ditch that you could put two earns in you can put two earns in the companion

[4:20:29] Mm-hmm, but not a single correct doesn't fit out correct

[4:20:32] So I didn't have a recommendation you just said there's a few people that have already bought these and now we're gonna be removing the

[4:20:38] in itchment fee. So they would they're coming under the current crisis. Yeah, I would recommend we

[4:20:44] just refund them. So how are we going to remember six people over it? It's is a contract.

[4:20:50] Is that in the contract? Oh, okay. Then I'm good. I thought we'd have to keep track of it for

[4:20:54] four years. Well, we do. And understand there's all sorts of uniqueness in the cemetery. You got

[4:21:00] plots with headstones, plots without his stones. You have premium plots, non-premium plots. You

[4:21:05] You have niche value, you know, standard, and there's a lot of diversity in terms of the value of the plots and niches.

[4:21:11] Okay, those are all different contracts.

[4:21:14] And no, when I say this, this facility is unique.

[4:21:18] There's not one that I'm aware of. The lock is even said that's even aware like this.

[4:21:22] Not only is it just a beautiful, beautiful building, but we have the system under the courtyard and the concrete to keep the snow off, keep it dry year round.

[4:21:30] the view is next to the second and none, it is, there's nothing you'll notice, there's nothing like it.

[4:21:38] It's gorgeous up there.

[4:21:40] Yeah, it is gorgeous.

[4:21:43] So, I guess I'm looking for is, I know you're busy, me or not, I talked about her schedule.

[4:21:46] Sorry.

[4:21:47] I'm sorry, we're late.

[4:21:49] What you said, I totally understand, but I'm not seeing it in the numbers.

[4:21:52] So, if you just start at the top, 1600, and then we bumped it up to 1990, and then you reduced it to,

[4:21:59] 1890, but look at the non-residents gone down too, and from 2000 went up to 2180, and then it went down, you said it's supposed to be going up 5%.

[4:22:09] So, one was the raise, two was the group that gave them the recommendation, and they went up 5 and down 5.

[4:22:16] So, they're not actually scenario one or proposal one?

[4:22:19] Yes, his residence price at 95% of Proposal 1, that's lower and non-resident price at 105% of Proposal 1, so that should be higher, but it's not higher, it's lower by 5%.

[4:22:32] I think that proposal tooth line is all miscalculated for the residents.

[4:22:37] See, he went from $2,189 down, not up 5%.

[4:22:40] I shouldn't say Proposal 1, I should say the group's recommendation.

[4:22:49] I just think it's a I'll look at it, but the point was proposal one was the resident was at par 1990 the non resident went 10% above 2189 to we took par and took residents down five and non resident up five.

[4:23:06] See the non residents gone down five also.

[4:23:08] So let me take a look at that.

[4:23:10] I just think it's a calculation it could be, it could be, it should,

[4:23:19] it will go down, it would go down because it would go down 5%.

[4:23:25] No, it goes up 5%.

[4:23:28] Non-resident goes up 5%. It says in proposal 2, it should go down 5%.

[4:23:34] Okay, so you're not at the bottom is wrong.

[4:23:36] Resident price at 95 percent that's going down and non-resident price 105 that's going up

[4:23:42] But it's not going up is going down

[4:23:43] So be 90 I'm saying up from it's what's relative to so it's from the par so it's from the it's the numbers that we had

[4:23:51] Oh, it's the 1890

[4:23:53] No, no, so proposal one is the updated study where we generate an additional $700,000 okay?

[4:24:00] Then based up on that proposal, one is I took that par for a resident and increased it 10% to get non-resident and then on proposal two, I took that par, took residents 5% down and non-residents 5% up.

[4:24:14] So there's still a 10% difference between those two, but it's based up on the par coming from the side.

[4:24:19] between the 18 in the 2000 correct 89. So that's the 10% between them with that.

[4:24:30] So everybody's going down from proposal two to proposal one.

[4:24:33] Proposal one. But everybody's dropping. Okay.

[4:24:37] Yes. Yes.

[4:24:39] Well, I like proposal one then. So proposal one is simply taking part in.

[4:24:44] I'd rather charge non-residents more.

[4:24:47] 2180, 2189, then 2,089.

[4:24:50] Are you going to charge residents higher?

[4:24:53] Because what my-

[4:24:54] I thought we would, as I read that, we would take proposal one and drop residents to 1890, but we would bump up non-residents 5% to 2389.

[4:25:12] Going up 100, 2289, going up 100 bucks, not down 100 bucks.

[4:25:17] The difference between resident and non-resident will increase to 15 percent rather than 10 percent just the gap. Yeah, the gap between

[4:25:29] All proposal did to is drop everybody's price every line of proposals to is less than proposal one. Yeah

[4:25:36] That's what I'm saying proposal to it makes less revenue. It makes what we would project it. Yes proposal to would generate the par

[4:25:43] proposal one would generate

[4:25:46] a little bit more because we're taking residents as part non-resistent 10% above.

[4:25:51] Do we want to sell them? That's the idea. Yeah, or do you want to make totally?

[4:25:57] Yeah, I don't know. I'm just pointing it out. I see I'm reading it differently than

[4:26:01] I understand it. And then the other thing I say is I would just round these all up to an even dollar.

[4:26:05] I don't like 1890.50 cents. Can we just? I did that in the actual. Okay. I did that in the actual

[4:26:12] So what you need is special meeting, let's say on Tuesday, the 30th, because we should

[4:26:25] have that open, right?

[4:26:26] Not everybody does.

[4:26:29] Oh, you want a special meeting.

[4:26:31] So we can have it before the Reverend County.

[4:26:34] He needs to make a policy.

[4:26:36] Who's the 30th?

[4:26:37] Didn't Trina try to advertise this for the 25th next week?

[4:26:41] I don't think she's, Robin, do you know whether she started it?

[4:26:45] I don't think so.

[4:26:46] She wouldn't know that.

[4:26:50] That's next week on Thursday.

[4:26:52] I'm Thursday.

[4:26:53] I think so.

[4:26:54] I think she's waiting to hear what you guys decide tonight.

[4:26:56] 23rd, then.

[4:26:57] I'm not available next week.

[4:26:58] He's 10 days notice.

[4:27:01] And that's business days and weekends.

[4:27:04] I believe so.

[4:27:05] Okay.

[4:27:12] 26th.

[4:27:13] 23rds.

[4:27:14] Planning commission.

[4:27:15] Yeah.

[4:27:16] That's a week.

[4:27:16] That's not 10 days.

[4:27:18] That would be 10 days.

[4:27:19] Well, from the third.

[4:27:20] You want it from October 30th?

[4:27:22] I would like to have it done before the first.

[4:27:24] So he can make it.

[4:27:25] Oh, I see.

[4:27:26] Yeah.

[4:27:27] We have to get it before the ribbon.

[4:27:29] So.

[4:27:30] And then what day do you want to do it?

[4:27:32] Schedules.

[4:27:33] And you know what your schedules are.

[4:27:35] There's a candidate debate on the 29th.

[4:27:40] And there's other engagements I have for those other days, but hey, Erin's here.

[4:27:45] Okay, if she needs 10 days and she starts it tomorrow, that puts us to the 27th.

[4:27:50] This earliest we can do is the 27th.

[4:27:52] That's a Saturday.

[4:27:53] So if we go back to Monday the 29th, that's open.

[4:27:57] I can do that, or Tuesday the 30th or Wednesday the 1st.

[4:28:01] So we only have three days, the 29th the 30th the 1st.

[4:28:06] I'd be up for the 30th. Yeah, just to keep it simple. I'm keep the 30th. I'm in Salt Lake. I'm going down to

[4:28:15] ULCT. Start the next morning. That's right.

[4:28:20] I mean, we could do it. We could do it. What about on the 27th in the morning? I'll call in if you want. We could do a remote.

[4:28:26] This is just that. Can we all call in? Yeah. What about the 20th? Yeah. I can be here. About the 30th at noon. Huh?

[4:28:37] Yeah, when COVID it was all not just are y'all going to be it the league this year?

[4:28:43] I'm not.

[4:28:45] Okay.

[4:28:46] Well, then May or not maybe.

[4:28:50] I'll be down there.

[4:28:52] I'm up for the 30th.

[4:28:54] Does the public here need to be held at 6?

[4:28:58] No.

[4:28:59] No.

[4:29:01] 4 could be at 5.

[4:29:03] I make this as simple as we can for your schedules.

[4:29:05] We need to have one physically here in this room so that we have somewhere that I can get here here. I'd recommend you come in here.

[4:29:13] Yeah, I can do that.

[4:29:15] So what's your choice?

[4:29:16] I'm okay with four o'clock, five o'clock, even six o'clock.

[4:29:20] Five or six, not four?

[4:29:21] Yeah, five or six for me. Five would be all right for me.

[4:29:25] Okay, so you want Aaron, you want a six?

[4:29:28] Five or six?

[4:29:29] Five or six?

[4:29:29] Or seven?

[4:29:30] Mayor, let's do five.

[4:29:32] I may not be able to come.

[4:29:33] 5-something. But do you guys want to go for 5-30 then? Do you want to go for 5-30 or 6?

[4:29:42] I'm fine. 5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5-5. What is it? 6 o'clock.

[4:29:50] 6 o'clock. Tuesday, September 30, 6 o'clock. All right. We got it. 6-30.

[4:29:57] I'll stand in.

[4:29:58] Hey Matt, when you win...

[4:30:00] Go, and I appreciate the idea of non-residents paying more. I got curious about our other fees. I don't know if we want to do this, but some of our other fees are really all wack to do. So opening closing on weekdays on normal gravesites, non-resident pays 31% more, opening closing on weekends, the only pay 17% more. It's the same issue up all over the place.

[4:30:28] So I think by default, I think we ought to go to non-residents paying more by a percentage

[4:30:35] maybe the next time we think about it, because that makes it really easy to explain.

[4:30:39] And then one other question I had, where we're breaking off those fees for the things that

[4:30:44] are different, right?

[4:30:45] So the enrichment or whatever it means.

[4:30:47] The niche opening and closing, does staff have the ability to not charge that fee?

[4:30:52] So for instance, a police officer, something like that, would they have the ability to say we're going to waive that this time?

[4:31:02] So I've had to do with an employee killed in line of duty and what we did in that situation is the city stepped up and paid for all burial costs.

[4:31:12] I imagine if something happened, God forbid, that we would come before you and request that to take place.

[4:31:24] That's what I was asking is do they have the ability to say you know what we're not going to we're not going to do that yeah yeah no

[4:31:37] no I

[4:31:38] added column K with column L to get the total column M. What staff talked about is is consolidating those instead of having a

[4:31:46] a bunch of independent fees that are confusing,

[4:31:49] just to consolidate the care fee with the niche fee

[4:31:53] and make it just one fee.

[4:31:55] Maybe add, I'm just gonna say maybe add,

[4:31:59] if that's the case, I'd love to add the language

[4:32:01] that there's a part of this that's going

[4:32:03] to a care endowment or something like that.

[4:32:04] Just so people understand.

[4:32:05] Do you have any needs to put that in the contract?

[4:32:07] That's the same thing, there's a plot.

[4:32:09] If you buy a plot, there's some percentage

[4:32:10] of generally call that's going to perpetual care.

[4:32:13] Just to remind people that that's part of what they're

[4:32:15] I'm paying for here is that I'm going to let it.

[4:32:19] Okay, are you clear Matt?

[4:32:21] We're coming back and we'll get this advertised.

[4:32:23] Okay, are you ready for communication items?

[4:32:26] Yeah, let me bring it up.

[4:32:27] Thank you.

[4:32:32] I also have a communication item before we're done mayor.

[4:32:35] So that's okay.

[4:32:38] Might still be a presenter.

[4:32:42] That's good.

[4:32:52] So I've got on my screen a PowerPoint now.

[4:32:59] You shared Excel.

[4:33:00] You just have to change your share.

[4:33:01] I'm sharing and then we share Matt.

[4:33:15] Yeah, there we go.

[4:33:16] All right. Council, I've got a number of things. I want to share with you. First is the

[4:33:24] Combarium Ribbon Cutting and Program. If you would mind taking one of these, and this

[4:33:29] is the act of program for the Ribbon Cutting. Just to refresh your memory, we've got three

[4:33:36] days of open houses. They go from Wednesday, October 1st, Tuesday, October 2nd, and Friday,

[4:33:43] October 3rd, and then the ribbon cutting, of course, is also on the 3rd of October.

[4:33:50] Those are being planned and set in motion, but what I'm in need of tonight is if you'll

[4:33:55] notice on the program for the ribbon cutting down there, you will see approximately two-thirds

[4:34:03] of the way down on the front table.

[4:34:06] Council member comments. I wanted to invite council members the opportunity to make a remark.

[4:34:14] And if so, let me capture that so I can pick your name here. I'm also looking for someone

[4:34:18] to do a dedicated prayer. I didn't know if council was interested in doing that, or whether

[4:34:23] maybe you think I'm asking Mark, or maybe someone else. So I wanted to give the first right

[4:34:27] refusal to summon the council if that you feel so inclined. But anyway, the main thing

[4:34:32] Here is if there is a member of the council that would like to make a minute remark I need to know that site

[4:34:37] Put this on the agenda

[4:34:38] We

[4:34:46] ask about a dedicatory prayer

[4:34:52] What if we ask Shane Finley to give that

[4:34:57] James James smelly. He dedicated shame shame family

[4:35:04] and maybe the Mountain Machine, the church or whatever, the pastor over there.

[4:35:09] Yes.

[4:35:10] Can do that or you can do with those.

[4:35:16] I'm wondering if Catherine Berg or the Jewish leader of the Jewish church in the park.

[4:35:22] Give me some names and I'll all love.

[4:35:26] Maybe Ron Carmel has an idea.

[4:35:30] There

[4:35:33] are plenty of people to ask.

[4:35:36] Okay.

[4:35:37] Council members, are you interested in making any remarks?

[4:35:42] I'm not doing it.

[4:35:44] Okay.

[4:35:45] All right.

[4:35:46] Let me move on then.

[4:35:47] I will look with Catherine Bergsee if her husband wants to.

[4:35:50] I'll go with Ron as if he's got some recommendations.

[4:35:53] Okay.

[4:35:54] Probably somebody that would be part of that historical recognition.

[4:36:00] I love it.

[4:36:01] All right. Let me move on. Then really quick. Next is Roundabout Art.

[4:36:05] Oh, yeah. Yes. This is a program. I know Catherine's

[4:36:09] is spelled with a case. I saw that email. Okay. Yeah. Yep.

[4:36:15] All right. Roundabout Art. Just let you know we have got,

[4:36:19] we have commissioned the artist to do the eagle on the Daniel Road Roundabout.

[4:36:24] That's expected to be done sometime in late November. So that is underway.

[4:36:28] way. In terms of a 550 roundabout update, the sheep dog on the right side is nearing

[4:36:35] completion. It should be installed next week. I've been told they wanted adjacent to the

[4:36:41] guy on the horse and it's closer to him than the sheep, so I've communicated that to Jonathan

[4:36:46] Levine and he's going to make that happen. He's also going to, once he comes and installs

[4:36:52] a sheep dog, he's going to go up to this roundabout. He's going to meet with a couple people

[4:36:56] who are interested in donating $15,000 to art on this roundabout if it's

[4:37:02] chief tabby or something related to chief tabby. Wow. So what they've talked

[4:37:08] about is is the picture on the right. Now I recognize that's a female but the

[4:37:13] notion is you would have chief tabby in his dress pulling a horse that is in

[4:37:19] its dress. And so I show you that just to kind of give you a sense of what they

[4:37:23] want to do. Johnson is going to look at it to see if he can do it and then of course

[4:37:27] he does enough room in that roundabout to pull it off. Once he can make sure that's

[4:37:33] the case, we're going to get some concepts from Jonathan and then we're going to go to

[4:37:37] the Tipinogus tribe and make sure we get their blessings. I need your blessings first.

[4:37:42] I see Mike that's going to be enough space for a horse.

[4:37:45] It's 27 feet ironically, that roundabout.

[4:37:54] I need your consensus. Are you okay with that type of art in that roundabout?

[4:38:00] Yes, please. Do they want him to not be leading the horse but to be on the horse or eating the horse?

[4:38:10] I don't know. I don't know.

[4:38:13] That's a story.

[4:38:16] Remember, it's she's happy and buried in the sun that was killed and

[4:38:25] brought in sun on a horse

[4:38:29] to a neighborhood patch and ask for a priesthood blessing or for a normal type thing

[4:38:38] with the priesthood there and did that, that they burned his or they buried his pony

[4:38:58] I mean, I have no idea what full dress would be. I don't know if that would honor him or not, but I think it could and I would want that to be as elegant or, you know, as fitting as possible to honor his position.

[4:39:13] in the tribe.

[4:39:14] It's relatively easy to reach out to the tribe.

[4:39:16] They have a kind of contact on their site.

[4:39:19] I'm sorry.

[4:39:20] Are we going to reach out and make a purchase and make sure we're on the way?

[4:39:22] We have to.

[4:39:23] Yes, we have to.

[4:39:24] We have to.

[4:39:25] We have to.

[4:39:26] Okay.

[4:39:27] Yeah.

[4:39:30] So, Council, we'll still have a lot of refining to do, but before I spend any time going

[4:39:34] down this path, do I have your blessings to do that?

[4:39:36] I think 50% is correct.

[4:39:38] Or do you think you're going to need to come back for funds?

[4:39:40] I think we, I don't know what's going to cost, I know that the heart on the Daniel Road

[4:39:46] Roundabout is not as expensive as I thought it was going to be, and there's probably

[4:39:49] 10,000 left over from there, we could push over, that makes 25,000, so that probably put

[4:39:54] us close based on what the horseman on 550 cost us, so I think we might be close to getting

[4:39:59] it done, but won't know until Levine gets in there and does his estimate.

[4:40:03] But I like it.

[4:40:07] Me too.

[4:40:08] It's a very Hebrew Valley historic story.

[4:40:11] Yeah, it's true.

[4:40:12] Mark, I made them all up.

[4:40:14] Okay.

[4:40:15] Next item is I was asked by Eric Rollin to request from this body the selection of two

[4:40:26] council members to join with a Wasatch County subcommittee to vision viable future uses for

[4:40:34] the county administration parcel. I thought we already had that committee of Scott and I.

[4:40:40] I don't know if you want to go for those two or some of new. This is actually a new endeavor.

[4:40:45] This is looking at the parcel and seeing what ultimate uses could go there and work as a

[4:40:52] partnership to perhaps realize that vision in the future. And so, Council, it's up to you.

[4:40:57] You can go with Scott and Heidi. If those two already, I think that makes sense.

[4:41:00] But it depends how fast it gets off the ground if you guys want to you know volunteer, you know

[4:41:06] I'm sure Scott and I are still open. Why is this different from the purchase? They want to know the uses before the purchase is that it?

[4:41:15] I think they they lost that county council. I'm that I get it when I speak for them. I can speak for what I've actually heard if you'd rather

[4:41:23] So I've been contacted by two of the county member or council members who have expressed concerns of

[4:41:30] maximizing a profitable something there and looking for a more and looking for

[4:41:36] more civic use if they were to contemplate sale and there I think their

[4:41:41] feedback to us was come along with us on this and let's talk about it rather

[4:41:45] than the the thing that we've said publicly which is hey we're interested we'd

[4:41:51] like to do a RFP's the wrong word but a study to figure out what you know

[4:41:55] what's possible they didn't like that idea I don't it's just two that I've

[4:41:59] to talk to you, but those two did not like that idea, and both of them asked us to think

[4:42:03] of civic uses, and then the feedback was, my feedback to them was, hey, that's good

[4:42:08] insight, which we've never heard. And I think they came back with it in our subgroup.

[4:42:13] Sure. I think they're coming back and saying, great, come along with us. Let's talk about

[4:42:17] it. Let's think about it. Let's consider.

[4:42:19] Okay.

[4:42:20] There's a thought to partner with us rather than sell it to us.

[4:42:24] Okay.

[4:42:25] Yeah.

[4:42:26] What was that?

[4:42:26] The actual idea.

[4:42:28] As an anecdote there.

[4:42:30] One of us on a really great downtown civic project that would show.

[4:42:36] Do a lot of things.

[4:42:37] One of the two people I talked to you.

[4:42:40] I mentioned an idea I had.

[4:42:43] And kind of off the cuff said, well, that, but that would never work because I can't,

[4:42:47] I can't go to taxpayers and pay full, full, full market value for something that would be no return.

[4:42:54] right? And the individual said, well, actually, if that's the way you were looking at, we'd probably come down a lot in price.

[4:43:00] You know, so they have this mentality of thinking through, well, if they like it, and it's something that's more civic minded, perhaps we can negotiate a lot more than we thought possible.

[4:43:08] So that's where they're coming from.

[4:43:10] So, Council, I would love to be a part of that, 100% if you'd want me to be a part of the subcommittee.

[4:43:22] I would love to do that too, but I think I'm not going to, just because of my own property across the street.

[4:43:29] And I think that's too close.

[4:43:31] This block is very, very important to Heber City and the Heber Valley for the historic preservation of it.

[4:43:38] I'd be happy to, but I just got on that arts one, and that seemed like it's going to take a bit of time, so.

[4:43:50] I think so. I think so. I think so. Sooner or later, I think. Well, I'm happy to keep going this year, right? And I'm just pretty sure it's going to go into next year too and so. I agree with that.

[4:44:01] Okay, so Sid and Heidi, moving on, I have spoken with Dustin and Eric when he spoke with

[4:44:15] me and the county is still very interested in executing a purchase sell agreement with

[4:44:19] us for the firehouse and so you could probably see action on this hopefully within the next

[4:44:24] month or two perhaps.

[4:44:25] So they're not concerned about using it for transportation any longer, or storage.

[4:44:31] They've indicated to me they're willing to enter into a deal with us.

[4:44:35] This is about the appraisal price?

[4:44:38] I think they're willing to go with the appraisal price.

[4:44:40] I've not heard anything different.

[4:44:41] I'm not led to believe it'd be anything different.

[4:44:47] Yes.

[4:44:49] So, drumroll.

[4:44:50] Water losses.

[4:44:50] Let me give you some context.

[4:44:52] For the last three or four years, we have been confused, flummoxed by...

[4:45:00] An increasing water loss report. Typically, in local government, assistance, water, water systems

[4:45:08] management, water loss percentage is less than 10% is deemed essentially a standard, industry

[4:45:14] standard. Our losses were above 20%. And Russ and Matthew were working feverishly to

[4:45:23] figure something out. We weren't getting anywhere fast. What made it more frustrating is we've

[4:45:29] Replace almost every water line on the on the central district on the east side and we weren't see numbers come down

[4:45:35] And my staff had a billion of idea of putting locks literally locks on the hydrants

[4:45:41] We completed that in May, you'll notice that since May what has happened to our water loss report

[4:45:48] work. What?

[4:45:54] Fantastic. And no complaints, right? Because no one dares to admit. Right.

[4:45:59] That's construction. This is. Do you have the other line that goes up with paid construction

[4:46:04] tasks? You know what? I've got you to look at that. There really would be. You know, we

[4:46:10] were kind of wondering at the sewer district, why are raccoons in the storage areas were

[4:46:16] being drawn down so much. And it makes, I don't know, I'm going to try to figure that connection out.

[4:46:22] But wow, that is so drastic. Yes.

[4:46:25] That means that our revenue should be increasing too.

[4:46:32] For meter sales, yes. Yes, it's very useful.

[4:46:37] It is. We are working out a theft issue with the contractor for the new high school

[4:46:45] working through that, so we do know there has been theft, we do know that locks have curtailed it significantly, and we'll continue to monitor it.

[4:46:56] That's great.

[4:46:57] If we go back to April March, February, January, those are all above 20%.

[4:47:03] Yes, even through the winter.

[4:47:05] Can I make a comment on Mike's question?

[4:47:10] Yeah.

[4:47:12] This is Matthew Ginnard.

[4:47:14] So during the winter months, Mindy does averaging.

[4:47:21] So those months, we did pull the data, but it wasn't necessarily useful because we didn't

[4:47:27] have accurate need to read just because during the winter months, we were averaging.

[4:47:33] So that's why we did not include those.

[4:47:35] And May is actually when we begin installing the locks we finished up right around June.

[4:47:46] So that's the the curved downward begins in May and and obviously it keeps going down

[4:47:54] after that.

[4:47:57] We did have a few contractors come up to us while we were installing the while we were installing

[4:48:06] the locks and say where are we going to get our water now. So that's awesome.

[4:48:14] Down to City Hall to pick up our, to pick up hydrant meters which we've purchased.

[4:48:21] I believe 12 more hydrant meters, all of which have been rented out. We have, we have none on

[4:48:28] in stock currently because they're all rented out.

[4:48:31] Wow, we met you way to go.

[4:48:35] That was a phenomenal response so quick

[4:48:38] and it has actually nailed the issue.

[4:48:41] Wow.

[4:48:42] That's a great question.

[4:48:43] Absolutely.

[4:48:44] It just does it for a minute at 10 every week.

[4:48:47] And then lastly, just an update.

[4:48:50] Recall, you proved an amendment to the Jordan O'Rige

[4:48:53] master development agreement that modified

[4:48:55] the affordable housing requirements.

[4:48:56] It really essentially fast-forward to the timeline to bring 15 homes online for affordable housing use.

[4:49:05] The first two are going to go out to, what's toward the use?

[4:49:10] We are going to lock. What's that?

[4:49:15] Well, yeah, it's going to central employees, but there's a...

[4:49:17] It's going to be available for applicants.

[4:49:19] Lottery, it's a lot rewarded.

[4:49:20] So they are going to be doing a lottery for central employees per the agreement in about four weeks.

[4:49:25] We're going to spend the four weeks advertising, promoting to make sure that all the central

[4:49:29] employees of the hospital, the city, the county, the school district, the other districts

[4:49:32] are aware, they can put their name in the hat and make sure they're qualified to do that.

[4:49:37] So, council, I applaud you. You approved that agreement. We now have formal housing's coming up for

[4:49:43] placement. Well done. That's fantastic. I'm so glad you went with the lottery idea because if it can

[4:49:49] be done openly and fairly like that and everybody has a fair chance, you know, to obtain it,

[4:49:55] And you're going to help.

[4:49:56] I noticed Tony sent out that pre-qualification seminar.

[4:50:00] At least I thought I thought that was fantastic.

[4:50:03] Do we know if the county's doing anything like that?

[4:50:06] Or will they, if they win the lottery,

[4:50:09] will they still have time to get pre-qualified?

[4:50:11] Yeah, so there's a lot of work they've got to do

[4:50:13] to qualify for the lottery.

[4:50:15] And only to qualify, will they be the name you

[4:50:17] put in the hat, sort of speak.

[4:50:18] OK.

[4:50:19] I can really walk a golden ticket.

[4:50:21] it.

[4:50:24] I got a golden key, right? Let's get more units. I don't want matter as much. Well,

[4:50:30] it still needs to be done fairly like that, right? That's it.

[4:50:35] Sorry, I have the communication

[4:50:38] item if I may. Okay, all in favor? Yeah. Wait, Russ has a communication.

[4:50:46] The Central Heber

[4:50:57] We'll have one more block to pay that will be, I think it's going to be September 26th, but it will be sometime that week. That will be the last paving. And then there's basically going to be cleanup and restoration that's going to take us mid to end of October. But it's wrapping up quickly to a couple of things I want to make you aware of our last.

[4:51:18] water service is expected to be connected this Friday. It depends on the results of the

[4:51:24] bacteria testing that we're supposed to have those results back today. I need to check. I haven't

[4:51:29] been able to follow up on that. But potentially Friday, if not Friday, it's going to be next week.

[4:51:34] We're trying to put together a picture or something to kind of celebrate this last connection of this

[4:51:39] huge project. So that's one thing I want to be make you aware of trying to coordinate with Ryan

[4:51:43] and then we may reach out and try to invite you

[4:51:45] to come for a picture or something.

[4:51:47] That should go in the time capsule.

[4:51:52] Second thing, I'm trying to be quick here

[4:51:54] is the contractor wants to do a thank you barbecue

[4:51:58] to the community for working with them patiently

[4:52:01] for four years.

[4:52:03] And so there's a barbecue scheduled for the 25th,

[4:52:07] September 25th, it's going to be at Main Street Park,

[4:52:10] it's going to be from four to seven.

[4:52:12] We will put some information out on social media and there's been some other stuff that will go out on the on the project web page, but just FYI September 25th.

[4:52:23] They're going to have some raffle drawings that the subcontractors and contractor and engineer are donating some prizes, there'll be some other swag and things like that.

[4:52:34] But anyway, that's I want to make you wear that in September the 25th main street park. It'll be from four to seven

[4:52:42] They're inviting the east side is that the idea?

[4:52:47] The idea is to invite those that were impacted most by the project. I to be honest

[4:52:52] They're they're really having a hard time trying to figure out how many people the plan for they're kind of thinking well

[4:52:56] Well, I think it'll be around 300. I have no idea. I said you I

[4:53:00] I don't know

[4:53:05] target text. I think we just let them be in charge of it and see how it goes and if they have

[4:53:09] to run and pick up more hot dogs they have to run and pick up more hot dogs. But anyway,

[4:53:13] it sounds good. Please come in and just let us know about the Friday picture time if possible.

[4:53:21] Yeah, I just need a good luck. Russ, this is going to be such a relief for you and your team.

[4:53:27] Wow. Public works. Can you believe it was four years?

[4:53:30] team, they have put countless hours in on flushing, bacteria testing, water shut off,

[4:53:37] noticing.

[4:53:38] So it's been a huge team effort.

[4:53:41] That's amazing.

[4:53:43] We didn't quite know what we were getting ourselves into, but to get this far and get

[4:53:47] it done, absolutely astounding.

[4:53:51] People will not realize the amount of work that staff has done to get this project over

[4:53:59] the finish line.

[4:53:59] Absolutely amazing. That was a full court press for four years. Wow. Back to maybe the day job, right, Russ? Not all the extra.

[4:54:12] We have a motion to adjourn.

[4:54:15] Let's pay the bond first, right, or those bonds. Okay, let's take the vote all in favor of adjourning.

[4:54:21] Yes. Yes. Hi. Yes. Thank you. That passed.

City Council Meeting

Agenda

Transcript