City Council - Regular Meeting

or 5:30. Let's go ahead and call this meeting to order and get started. I almost grabbed it. Good, buddy. How are you?

So, thanks everybody for for being here tonight. Um, I uh you can only go so I'm I I usually have a a list of of somebody that's been asked to give the the prayer and the pledge and I'm sure Natasha did that and left it on my desk and then I did something with it. And so so I've actually asked Chief Adams to pray for us and then uh and then maybe we'll have Kent lead us in a pledge.

Our Father in heaven, we humbly come before thee as a body citizens, staff, elected officials and express our gratitude for the opportunity we have to to assemble to discuss issues with the city to take action to collaborate. We're thankful for this country which we live for months. We give thanks for elected officials for their service and sacrifice. Pray tonight. Thanks for all those who serve our staff, those who are dedicated to the cause. Thankful for all that we have. We pray pray for protection, blessings. Pray for those who are

Amen. Thank you, Chief. Please stand and join me in the pledge. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Mayor, I would move that we approve the agenda order. Second. Have a motion and a second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Great. Um I am going to take a little bit of liberty tonight. Um Johnny O as many of you know is our uh um am what do we we have made a really cool title honorary ambassador

honorary ambassador for uh our sister city in in Korea and he uh threw an idea at me uh that is a little bit of a short time frame to be able to to deal with. So, um, apologize it's not on the agenda, but we don't have time to move it to another meeting and have his this idea be considered. Um, part of, um, you can come up, Johnny. Um, part of, um, you know, our our sister city, we've got a delegation coming on and have a an event on the 2nd um that I hope all everybody has on their calendars. It'll be a good event. And and part of uh part of the Korean culture is is the idea of gift giving. and and there's a real big um sign of respect associated with that. So Johnny had an idea he he threw at me to to to consider us um adding a second name to 200 East um that has some reference to the miracle of of Gapyang. Um, and we wanted to be able to talk about that tonight in order to be able to act on it next week and still be able to have that be something that's a possibility to consider as part of our event on the second. So,

just push the big button. Push the button. There you go. This on. Thank you.

Um, just I made a note that probably a little bit easier. I'd like to propose as Thank you, mayor. simple and but meaningful addition to our city. Desinating designating a a portion of that 200 east divide the the Veterans Park Memorial uh Veterans Memorial Park as Miracle of Apong Way uh while retaining that uh current street numbering. Uh this year marks the 75th anniversary of the battle of Capyang during the Korean War. a pivotal moment where the 213 field art artillery battalion known as the triple deuce captain Bennett here from Triple Deuce including many young men 600 young men from southern Utah helped turn the tide of the war.

Their courage forged a lasting bond between our community and people of Korea. So nearly 20 years, Cedar City has maintained a strong sister city relationship with the Capam County

through memorials, students exchange, and ongoing visits. That relationship continues to grow. We'll also be welcoming distinguished guests from Korea as part of this year's commemoration. Designating this street would do three things. Number one, it honors the legacy of our local veterans in a visual and lasting way. Two, second is it strengthens an international friendship built on sacrifice and gratitude. Third, it helps tell Cedar City CD's story, bringing visitors from Korea and across Utah to learn about this shared history. With upcoming documentaries and movie and growing international interest in the battle of Capyang, this is a timely opportunity to place Cedar City more prominently on the map. This is small gesture with a deep meaning. One that honors the past while building bridges for the future. This is more than a name on a sign. It is promised that what those young men did in Capyang will never be forgotten here at home. Thank you. With that, I'm happy to discuss further. Johnny, if if our engineer brings up a map of that area, would you use a laser pointer and show us what parts of the road?

Oh, the round one I think is best. Yeah, that big round one. Just don't look at Don't Don't point in your eye. Or in ours, maybe. Could you make it a little bigger, please? Oh, so here. Oh, is it here? I zoom in. Under east. Is this right? Yeah. Yes. The memorial. This is the Korean here. This is the Korean War Memorial right here. Right. Yep. And so this street 200. But from where to where? Where are you thinking?

Uh just from here to here or any right here is a ball is there's a ball park right here. We're thinking about a building a uh museum for the uh military museum right here. I don't I think that's in the works. I'm not 100% sure. So, you're just talking about the the stretch of road right in front of the of the memorial. Yes. Yes. Okay. Thank you. You bet.

I think it would I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but I mean, part of this would be the sign designation that designates the streets and because we only have them at certain locations on the streets where the signs are. Seems to me it should be there by the 200 north and 200 east by the workforce building. And then I was thinking maybe going just as far as down to uh center street just that that right here. No, going south other direction south. Oh, this center street right to there to right here. Yes. So that stretch uh because if not there's no other signpostings are there. They just be I mean there might be one on

300. You might have one where 300 connects in. Yeah. Okay. I I kind of like your idea, Scott. Taking the street from there to center. It makes it more meaningful and it doesn't break it up as a I don't want to go half. Yeah. just No, I don't think we need to go further south or further north because if you go further north then you run into over the bridge and then you're on the Pyute road there that in front of the tribe.

Mayor, I don't know. Um I mean and and what I'm going to say I don't by any means try to downplay I mean obviously the importance of all this but I do wonder I mean my mind does think what about our other veterans and the other thing I mean we're kind of picking one event in you know one uh certain conflict and we that park has other memorials on it and stuff as well and so I do wonder if we get any backlash by picking just one and now are we going to have other that say well what about World War II or what about this battle or what about I mean this one obviously has probably the biggest local significance because of all the question

and I I'm not I'm just making sure we it's a fair no it's a fair thought I just want to make sure we do take that into consideration that we do you know we represent a whole city and a whole group of people that have fought in many different wars and family members of people that have fought and I just hope that that's not an issue we have after the fact. Well, then my my other thought was this as well because we're just learning about this like everyone else is if we were to even do this, it seems like miracle of capong way is kind of a long thing to put on a street sign. So, I'm what happened there and what the battle did was a miracle,

but I'm wondering if we would be saying the same purpose if we just called it Capyong way. Yes. Because the miracle of Capy Young is the story that is told at the monument. Yes. And if people go there, they they read of the miracle. I don't know. That's just something to think about. Yes. Miracle way. Is that too close to Miracle Whip? No. Unless they want to sponsor something with hundreds of millions of dollars. I think Copong way kind of resonates with the way our veterans from local veterans went about. Yeah. You know, you know this is the obviously this is veterans memorial park right

that houses all the branches and different theaters and conflicts in one location but coping copy way it not only the road but the way out uh in u but that's also our sister city sister city and it has a double meaning right the ways our kind of mindset our our our by you to to go to war. Korean war uh the 600 young men they never knew where Korea was most

they never heard of they they went because they're called to serve. And Johnny, maybe Colonel Bennett, um you you visited with me the other day about kind of the significance of of this specific event in the history of the 22nd. Um maybe you could even address uh Councilman Wilkey's thought with how you think other veterans and particularly those that have served um locally in the 22nd would view um honoring this specific miracle or event. Yeah.

Yeah. So clearly I can't represent everybody. Um but being from the battalion, I've been in there 12 years. Penguin Utah boy. Um you know the Korean the battle of Gapong is very much a defining moment in our battalion. Um we you know we have deployments all the way back to World War II with the 204th um field artillery Ramani Baghdad all those I think really the significance that this plays in our battalion's history is really that lineage that we were in that influential battle to where it actually determined part of the momentum of the Korean War as a whole. And I think really where that lays the significance that maybe separates it a little bit different than honoring just veterans as a whole because you know someone could enlist go into the active duty army and go to Fort Riley Kansas and the first ID and they fought in how many battles where we the triple dues are the southern Utah battalion. There is no other battalion here in southern Utah besides us. So as a battalion size element um for the southern Utah we're we're kind of it. And so for that being a p like the pinnacle one of the pinnacle battles that our battalion has fought in. I think it represents us very well. Especially the location is I know it's in front of Veterans Memorial Park. However, that road pretty clearly starts at the Korean War Memorial. Um it doesn't really impede on the World War II, World War I side, Vietnam. Um but I think it just kind of shows that sister city relationship that we have that we want to maintain and that partnership. But does that answer your question a little bit vaguely? But

Captain, would you would you mind sharing the presidential the citation they received from? Yeah. Um, so Alpha Battery and HHB received the presidential unit citation for their actions in Korea, which is the highest unit award that you can receive for a unit in combat for valor. You know, it's the same equivalent of the 101st Airborne on D-Day, you know, as they jump behind enemy lines. So to put that on the equivalent there, I mean our unit is we take a lot of pride in receiving that highest honor that the president can bestow on a unit for value in combat.

Um this is maybe a question for Chief Phillips or anybody else. Does uh it'll still retain 200 East. So it won't affect any kind of first responders or anything like that in terms of trying to address emergencies. Correct. just be a separate sign below 200 east that has a an array like much like the factory way or whatever. Yeah. All on the same Well, you could do them separate signs. Yeah. What we've done in the past, too, is you've made the made them on one sign and put the letters on it dominant and then the numbers on the bottom. On the bottom a little bit smaller. That that Yeah, you don't I don't think you want two separate signs. That that'd be if we're going to do it. Yeah, it's one sign. But

yeah, the white a thicker sign. mayor with with the um I mean, you know, if if we had come to this and said, "Hey, we just want to name a street anywhere in Cedar, you know, in on behalf of our sister city, then um you know, that would actually be a place where it would make sense right in front of that Korean War Memorial." So now that I look at it with the I mean the double the double effect. I think it does I agree with Councilman Phillips that I think we just shorten it to Gapong way instead of because then that way it's you know we're we're not only paying homage to this actual incident or this battle but we're also paying you know to our sister city paying our respects to our sister city. And so I think the double meaning makes it much I think it makes it even more appropriate in the situation. And I think the point um that Captain Bennett made Captain Yeah. Um

is when people left for other wars here um somewhat the Marines, some of the Navy, some of the Air Force, there was not one unit that originated from here except for the Triple Deuce and of course the 213 and what it's evolved from and two, right? And so that is a local unit that left here as a unit, not as individuals going to other units. And so I think there's some some uh value in looking at it from that perspective as well. Yeah. Well said. Ken, I saw you turn your microphone on. Do you have any So just in talking about the extents of what you would rename,

one thing to consider is a a good place for us to make that kind of signing distinction is at an intersection. At the intersection of Paute Drive, you have one leg that is actually 275 north. The other leg is 200 east. Right now, we don't have a 200 east sign there. That would be a good place to add one. Oh, and having that be the wrong way and 200 east from that point might make sense from just from a signing standpoint. Uh just throw that out for your consideration. Maybe we go from Pyute Drive to Center Street. Okay. So, what happens beyond Pyute Drive? What What is that? 75. 275. That's 275.

That's 275 north. And there's already a sign there that says 275 north on that side of the intersection on that side of the intersection. So on the other side by the stop sign we could or maybe even on the same post we could go ahead and add the Gaffyong way 200 east there is my thought. I'm I'm fine with that. I mean if that's So my recommendation if you if council is okay with it is just to let us maybe fine-tune those details during the week and then just put this on an action item for next week. Can I make one quick comment? Yeah. Do you even need Tom Jet? We're not going to do a Tom Jet way. Sorry.

Well, we won't be called Tom Jet way. But right here, why don't we if we're going to do that, why don't we just name this here veteran way if we're going to be doing that because it's running right along the proposed museum and the which would be a veteran and it's running right along the veterans park. Just just a thought. Well, that might be an idea maybe when we get that veterans monument done, a memorial done or the But yeah, I there's some value in that. There's some value in that.

Uh I had a just a question is if this is done, Johnny, and if it's approved by the council, uh is this something that you're going to hope to unveil or or somehow um unveil the new sign on that day at some point if possible? If not, we could uh punt it to another day. At least we'd be able to announce it that day. Even if we don't have the sign, even if you had a rendering of the sign or something and unveil a rendering of one of the signs. Oh, the sign department can get it done. Just kick them. Yes. If you Yeah. If you're going to make this choice, if you uh you let Utah barricade know, they can probably have it done, but you're going to need to tell them pretty quick. Takes a little while to get Do we make our own sides or do we No, we get them through the county road. They come from the county.

Oh. Oh, hey. So, they can do it. It's even better. The prisoners make them. Awesome. So, uh, mayor, do we need to just put this on action item? Just need a motion to Yeah, I move that we put this item on action for next week's meeting. Have a motion. Second. And a second. All in favor? Any opposed? Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Johnny, don't forget Monday. Mayor, could I take one quick moment of personal privilege?

Yeah. Um, and I'm just doing this now because I don't want to forget because if I if you if I try to remember to send it in an email, I'll forget. Can we have on our agenda next week, just as mayor B or as council business, um, Kent, I would like us to have a discussion about road closures again and how long contractors are allowed to keep our roads closed because we're having an issue again. And I've had some constituents reach out about a road closure that feels like it's going on way too long and I want us to discuss those. So, can I just put that on council business for next week? So, mayor, personal privilege. You bet.

Uh, first of all, I want to thank my colleagues for um making sure that business carried on and you did a great job. I I watched you at wee hours of the morning. Yeah. One time when I was in Portugal, but thank you. Appreciate it.

And then I just wanted to make sure and make a couple of announcements because they're important relative to our America 250th celebration. There is an event happening. Well, it's tonight at the university. There's a lecture on um the u down at the Bristol Cone Hall on um oh my gosh, it went out of my mind. It starts at 7 o'clock at Bristol Con Bristol Con Hall and they have a guest lecturer coming in and he's discussing something really important to America 250. The other one was uh this coming Saturday. Um we're doing we're teaming up with the Lions Club to do the Ben Franklin u kite flight and it's going to be held at the Cedar Middle School and we're going to have Declaration of Independence will be given out to all the kids there and we've got prizes for kite flying and we're going to have Ben Franklin there himself and facts about Ben Franklin and uh it'll be a great event. We're hoping to get 500 to 800 kids there. And then um next Wednesday, the 22nd of April, I believe that's correct, uh the Cedar State Community Band is doing an America 250 concert, a salute to the great music and musicals of the 20th century in American music. So that's at 7 o'clock at the Cedar High School, and it's free.

So let's put a lot on consent tonight so that next Wednesday we can all be out of here by seven. So, since we're on a roll, may I as well? Absolutely. I'm sorry. Cedar Middle School. Oh, it starts at 10:00. 10 o'clock, excuse me. Goes 10 to 3. They use they use that spot because the wind always blows up there. Always windier up there. I just wanted to make mention of and give thanks publicly to all the people who contributed to the the addition on the Crossell Event Center and the ribbon cutting was fantastic and there's a lot of private uh individuals that have contributed out there

to make that happen and and it's a great facility if you haven't been out there go and and look at the addition and I went to my grandkids are were at a rodeo this weekend and I ran back and forth from work to watch them but it made the facility and that rodeo a lot better. Oh wow. To have that warm up arena. So anyway, it's it's a great facility and I'm glad that we're finally done. Yeah, I agree. Thank you.

Okay. Um with that, we'll start with our next item. Um park update. Ken. Uh good evening, Mayor Council, and staff. Mark Nelson with Leisure Services. I wanted to give an update on uh West Canyon and Park Discovery. We have the material uh delivered Monday to do those pouring places, but mother nature had a a different idea. So, uh the big tea company is just waiting for a window weatherwise and then those parks will be closed for a period while they do that pour in place. So, I wanted to update you in case you get a call and saying, "Why is park discovery barricaded up?" That's the reason. So, all they're looking they need a 7-day window uh to complete. They work Saturdays and Sundays. So, whenever that window uh they need above 40 degrees for a time to do that pour in place. So, they'll just keep watching the weather and the materials on site. So, then they'll just show up and uh take care of that. The one at West Canyon is a two-day pour, so that one will be a lot quicker. But I wanted to update you in case you guys all feel questions from Facebook or social media or something.

So, is Park Discovery closed until they can pour it? No. Okay. So, we're back open. It is back open. It will just close when It'll just close all of a sudden one day and we'll know that's Yep. We kind of We have this window of no reservations. We don't have to cancel anybody out. So they think within the next seven, eight days they'll have a window to take care of it. So once they pour that, how long does it take before you can actually use it? Is it a day? Is it 24 hours? 48 hours to use it again. Okay.

They have some sight prep work. They've got to move the wood chips out on Park Discovery so they can put that in place. The one at West Canyon is much easier. It's just the cement. So the site prep is already there. They just need this uh weather window to work out so they can and we're on their timeline and so it works out fine. Uh but I I didn't want anybody calling and saying why is Park Discovery closed or why is West Canyon have a fence around and the West Canyon is nice because we can just fence around the cement pad. It's not like the park is completely closed. So

Ken, while you're up here, I do have a question on two other quick things. And if you don't, if you're not prepared to answer them because I know this is kind of catching you off guard, then next week would be fine. But I I would like to hear an update about Iron West at some point and what our plans if any for this entire year. And then um at West Canyon or which one has the the water west, do we have any plans or what are our plans with the slippage and the the algae and where are we at with things on that? So that's it's actually an agenda item tonight. It's an agenda item tonight. the very last one. Oh, you're welcome. Beautiful.

So, so we will get that. I I can get you some info on Iron West um timeline from Anthony and I can address that too. So, okay. If there is anything, we're even going to do it this year. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. Then, uh update on impact fee. So, originally you tabled the impact fee discussion till tonight. Um, we've bumped it. We've had good conversations with each of the elected officials. We've engaged our consultant back to maybe remove some projects, see if those overall dollar amounts will be impacted, uh, and then bring that back to you as soon as we can. So, would you like us to officially bump it or are you okay just It's not on your agenda. Okay.

We we could have left it on the agenda and the report would have been the same. We don't have anything for you yet and we'll we're working and as quick as we can get it back, we'll get it back. Okay. I guess my only question will be when we have that discussion, will the projects be identified and associated costs with that? I mean, because I think we were all individually of a similar mind moving forward, but what if that project we go, "Oh my gosh, that is so key. We've got to think about putting that one back in."

So, the So, the general direction was uh water sourcing. We're moving in a direction that we're not going to be sourcing water. We're going to work with the water conservancy district on source. We're going to deal more with capacity. Uh so for water, that made a large uh financial difference because there were four or five wells on there at $3 million each. So that that's a nice savings that would come off. Uh the the other part of the discussion was if we don't reasonably anticipate that those projects will be ripe within the next 7 to 10 years, we were going to move them off. Um this isn't the last impact fee study we're ever going to do. N

we'll be right back here in the next seven or so years doing another one. um and we'll have the same or similar types of discussions with the council at that time as far as where they want to set the impact fee. So the idea with the projects was if they're not ripe, let's make sure they're not on there, let's clean it up a little bit and if there's some dollars that fall off, great. So I have one thing in regard to water and I've been going to send it but I just been busy. So

taxes. So, if you look at the study, it uses 16,000 gallons average use per household. If you look at the actual data, a quarter acre that's been here forever uses 20 plus. And if you're on the conservation tier, they're down in the in a town home or the like. They're down to in the 8,000 gallons. And so, to me, we need to give a discount uh because it costs more. I know we say the hookup's the same, but it costs more to pump 20,000 gallons than it does 8,000 gallons. And so I think we need to to somehow look at that as well. Um, just from a from a logical perspective. I'm sorry.

Oh, go ahead. Go ahead. I just saying that uh the conservation tier is proving that we're using less water and they used an average of 16,000 per household and they didn't specify the conservation tier or break any of that out. And I think that needs to be done to have to know what the true impact is by housing type. Otherwise, we're we're we're somewhat rewarding the overusers and not giving credit to those that jumped on the conservation tier and are conserving water.

Um we be happy to bring that up with the consultant. I suspect that the response we'll get is those are your user rates where those uh financial impacts are taken into more of a consideration uh than impact fees. But I'll happily bring it up with it. And and and that's true to a point, but if a new home's coming on and it's only going to pump 8,000 and we've used an impact fee of 16, it costs us less to pump 8,000 gallons, which is the true impact of that house coming online, right? And so and so marginally I'd agree. I mean the pipes still got to be in the ground the same that that is correct right but there is a marginal difference whether that's easy to calculate or or we just get to play the averages is

well and then and we also need to give the incentive to conserve water. I mean that's the the idea as well I think because we've headed in a great direction but we're we're not really given benefit across the board on that. The only one thing on that and again I'm just thinking about it as you say it. The one thing that might go against that is a person can choose to be in the conser in the conservation tier. They can still use more water than that. We they're they're going to pay for it. And that's where the the rate use comes in.

Correct. But I guess what I'm saying is so when it comes to the impact, we don't know what their impact is going to be. We think it's going to be less because they're planning on being in conservation, but they could technically still use as much as they want. They're just going to pay through the teeth for it. So, I don't know. I'm saying I don't disagree with your thought and I do agree, but there is there is there is a relation. Yeah, there is a relation. If they're on the conservation tier, they're not going to have the grass to be able to use it because that's part of the conservation tier concept. Um, and so to me, it it the impact downstream is is different on a quarter acre that's going to use 20,000 gallons and one that's on the conservation tier that's going to use eight. So,

yeah, the thought's definitely valid to me. It's just analyzing where those those uh additional costs really do come in. is if we're taking out the water development piece, that's really where the biggest cost of that conservation savings is. Is that And so if we're if we as a city are are kind of planning to push that to the conservancy district, then it's really more what what other part of the infrastructure is a direct um it takes more energy to pump 20,000 gallons than it does, so a little bit of power. Y

and the wear and tear. I mean there's there's but the the the fact remains is they've averaged all them together and and u come to a 16,000galon average and I think there needs to be some uh differentiation in in the conservation tier than or we could argue that the average will actually be lower because of our conservation tier and that could be another part of the study cost down well or you could argue that that it's skewed one way by those who are conserving and it's favoring the other side. I mean that argument is valid on both sides.

The the part of just struggling in general with these is is to break those down become the you have to place some degree of averages in this discussion overall right subdivision. If we get into that, then we're saying, okay, frontages of a road, um, you should pay less on the on everything because your frontage is smaller, right? No, that's probably true. Maybe that and it is it's valid. It's valid rationale, but how to calculate that and manage that as a city versus just doing our best to come up with an average is the the debate in my head of of of where those No, I I get it, but I but I also think that um we need to incentivize people to be on the conservation tier and and that would be one way to do it.

Way to do it. Yep. Valid. Cool. Good thought. All right. Um, first item in our uh business agenda is to consider a third amendment uh to the water right contribution agreement between Cedar City and development team. Mr.

Mayor, city council staff uh as you recall the development team has brought through several amendments in the past. When we collect uh water that meets city ordinance, we come in to bank that water with the city. It then sits on our account. When we bring through a new land use development and that gets approved, we then use that banked water uh to be able to meet city ordinance at the time and be able to get that recorded. So, this third amendment would allow us to bank 33 additional acre feet of water. So the only thing that's uh a little unique about these rights as opposed to the original rights that went in these rights are still going through the determination process to determine their sole source capacity. Levit Group has told us sorry development team get those mixed up has has included in this amendment um language that I won't get exactly right but basically says if the final determination comes out something different than than what we think it is

plus or minus yeah we'll hold the city harmless and we'll adjust the bank account at that time and I'm assuming I I don't remember from the original one but is Are you guys kind of using a first in first out? So like if you were to go to a development, you would use the ones that you banked first or does that it doesn't matter. Yeah. Well, I guess I guess for this situation, for example, if these haven't been determined yet, it'd be nice to know that if they brought in development next week, they can't use these until all their other ones are used first. So that correct. The way this is written is this water cannot be used until the declaration until they're just going to deed it to us. do the change app and put it in our name and deed it to us as well. Okay.

Well, yeah, it was pretty straightforward, I think, in reading through it. I mean, I understood it pretty clearly. Okay. Is this something that can go on consent or does that have to go on action? No, you can. I I have one question. I don't know if if it's in this one. U one of them it talked about a $3,000 year. That's the next one. That's the next one. Okay. Well, mayor, with that, I would move that we put this one on consent for next week. I have a motion. I'll second and a second. All in favor? I.

Any opposed? Great. Then on to the next one. This one's the one considering an an amend addendum to the water contribution agreement between Cedar and the development team dealing with surface rights. So, uh the reason why we call this an addendum is because the proposal is to add additional terms to what the original agreement states. The original agreement allows us to bring in underground water. This addendum would allow us to bring in shares from South and Westfield Irrigation Company. As you're aware, your city ordinance allows water to be brought in one of three ways. You either pay the fee, you bring in pre July 24th, 1934 water,

or you can supplement that with onethird of South and Westfield irrigation shares. Based on that and doing the math, it was of interest to us to go out and purchase these shares. Um, we've gone out and over the last year we've done over well, we've done 156 transactions and purchased those shares. My my limit was 100. We got to 99. Yeah. 7355. that there was a your packet says uh 101.5669.

Uh as of Friday uh development team had a figure that was 100 and some change. Uh Monday we got the figure from the irrigation company that said they think it's the 99 and some change. We'll we'll have a final figure for you in your um action packet, but it's going to be between the 99 and 101. Uh just so you know, when I talked to the Tyler Brown, he said, "This is what I got. I don't know what Levit's got. I I want to make sure that we have the same thing." Yeah. And we do. Okay. And so I was texting Tyler. We had in one of those transactions, there was a typo made.

So we found it. We agree that it's 99.7355 shares. Randall, in this situation, I was one of the 0.25 of that 100 shares was purchased for me and I was financially compensated. So, I don't know at this point if I need to. I mean, that was a whole separate thing. They're now transferring them to the city, but I'm just putting it out there. I happened to have own a quarter acre share in this, and so I sold mine to I did, too. I did, too. And they're not contingent, right? They've just been sold. No, they've already been sold. That was almost a year ago. So did South and West. We sold them a bunch, too. So it was over a year ago. I just want to find out. As long as it's not contingent upon your That's the question. Nope. I'm just making sure. I didn't think it was a problem, but

you have to disclose.

So the the proposal is that these shares would go would be conveyed to the city and they'd be banked just like our underground water rights are banked. when we brought through a land use development application. However, uh the you know the ordinance reads at the time that's how these water this water would be applied to the current development. The state engineers currently made a determination that per one share of south and west field irrigation rights equates to 3.282 acre feet. So that's in the agreement, but also in the agreement, it states if the state engineer ever came back and said that number is either going up or down, then when we applied for that land use application at that time, we would get the credit at the rate that the state engineer says it currently sits

at at the time or as it currently sits now. at the time. So it's the same as the because like on the other ones we we bank the water but they have to it'll apply whatever it is whatever our ordinance says at that point that's how we apply them. So roughly you've got about 32 acre feet of water here. No we have 3. Yeah cuz if it's one oh it's the other way. I thought it was 99 times. 2882. It's uh I have it written down here. 327.95 acre feet of water. Okay. Yeah. So, one share of theirs is a third of an acre foot. So, it's times three, not dividing.

So, the big difference for us, there's a couple differences. Um, first difference between the underground water and the shares. Um, the shares don't actually own water. You got to start with the proposition that Utah uses that all water is owned by the state. Period. If you have a water right, that entitles you to use so much water. So that's what people commonly say, I own some water, right? They'll have a water right that says I have 5 acre feet of water. A share is not a water right. It's an interest in a company that holds a water right.

Correct. So can you repeat that? A share is an interest in a company that holds the underground water right, the underlying water right. So we accept those shares as part of our water acquisition program because we think there's value to them. Uh when you get a water right, we don't have to pay dues or fees on them. With these shares, we have to pay. It's $30 a share or portion thereof every year to maintain those shares. So that's what the 3,000 is. That's what the $3,000 is. So this is going to

South and Westfield Irrigation Company. So this is going to cost when we took surface or underground rights from Leb, it didn't cost us anything. We said we'll bank them for you, but it doesn't cost us anything to bank them for them. The advantage to development team is they don't have to worry about putting them to use or losing them. The advantage the city has, we don't have that six-year limitation on use it or lose it. We can bank them for much longer. As long as we have this plan that says this is how we're going to use them, the state will let us hold them. So, it worked out fairly well for both of us. This is a little bit different. We know what we're going to do with the subsurface rights.

What are we going to do with these? That was my next question. We We don't know what we're going to do with any of the surface rights we own. We own surface rights in South and Westfield Irrigation Company, Cole Creek Irrigation Company, um, Unionfield, Westfield, Union, Westfield, Northfield, Eastfield. Oh, we own surface rights in virtually every irrigation company around. And as an entity to date, we have no idea what we're going to do with them. We know they're valuable. We know we have future ideas of what we can do with them. We just don't have anything coalesed around what we're actually going to do with them. And we also know we can't sell them.

You know, once you get a water, right, you can't sell it. Once you get an interest in water as a municipality, you cannot sell it. You cannot give it away. You have to keep it. But there's a lot of recharge things that can be done possibly. And the fee goes to keep the water running in the ditch, right? That's how they they maintain it and get the water in the ditch and get it throughout town.

Yeah. I guess I mean the only concern I have with this is let's say the Levit, you know, as they continue or development team as they continue to do their big projects, you know, they they use up all the underground stuff and we get to a point where it's like, okay, we we're now supplying water based off of let's say they dip into these shares, they use their conversion, you know, it's like it's kind of what Mr. Bitman was saying. We now have so these will come through with each land application. 2/3 will be subsurface. So we'll start So you'll start dipping into these immediately.

They already they already do. They already own they when when they come in with a land application currently they own surface shares and they'll bring in some certificates every once in a while and say here you go. So we'll match 2/3 to one/3. Gotcha. I mean I guess that's my concern but not that that's and that's not on development team. that's on the city where we need to start figuring out what we're going to start doing with all these cuz it's we're now supplying water that is held up in a ditch essentially and we need to find a way to either convert them or I mean how do we turn it into actual usable water?

So the ditch water's got a lot of different applications and over the years we've talked about using all of our ditch water shares uh for surface irrigation purposes. I mean, we literally built a pond out at Iron West that we were supposed to put Coal Creek shares into, and we were going to put Coal Creek shares into that pond out at Iron West and fill it up and water the the soccer field,

water the soccer field with it. Uh, we've talked about um cleaning some of those surface shares before they even leave the creek and putting them into the culinary system. Um, that has some significant costs to it. Uh, there's there's been other ideas. There's recharge ideas for years, we would recharge them in the airport pit. So, I guess my question would be, and maybe this is where Councilman Schmidt was going, I'm not sure, but it would be an additional approximately $3,000 a year cost to us beyond what we're currently paying at current rates for Southfield. Yes. Yeah. And it could fluctuate, but more or less. How how long?

So, we're holding that for 10 years, let's say, and so we've paid $30,000 or more. I mean, what are we getting out of it as a city? That's what I'm trying to figure out. So, you have a more commanding ownership of the irrigation company. You have the ability to put that water to whatever use you want, which could be recharge. I I did the math on what that is for per gallon. You're paying about three cents per thousand gallons of water. And that's these are shares. So that's assuming that water's coming down that creek. Okay. Sure. So how long would we be paying this? Long. For as long as we own them. Long as we own them.

So do we pay for other shares? Is this Oh yeah. Oh yeah. We currently pay about uh 5,000 a year in Southwest Field irrigation uh duties. And so we're going to use these waters. They're given to us. But they can still use them back, right? Nope. Once they give them to us, they're ours. They're there. And frankly, you're already using them. Yeah. And we we can't use them. It's going down the ditch. Someone's using them, right? Well, so they don't have they don't the levit don't grow that many tomatoes. So, it's not so it's not something like the water shared water rights where they can come they bank and then they come in and they use them. No, this they give it to the city. They're done. They're done. Why are you giving them to us? Well,

it converts to a the ability to use the city and they get banked and then we use them when we bring through the next phase when we have water. They use them to pay off their water acquisition per phase of development. I'm just trying to figure out why we need to pay the $3,000 because we own the share now. Because once they give them to us, we own the share and then they have to pay to get the water in the ditch and take it down to wherever because we got to pay the company that technically owns the water rights and is managing them. and based on you know so that was my question councilman I was just trying to figure out what the advantages are and I'm not saying that there's not some but I wanted to really analyze it to say we're paying this fee so what do we get in return so we have a bigger share of the

southwestern field irrigation there's some indirect benefit when we were doing when when when we were doing the um aquafer depth studies it was much more healthy along the coal creek corridor than it was outside of that and so there is um some recharge that's happening that we can actually quantify. I mean, we we we did a bunch of well logs and and found out that it was working. And please don't get me wrong when I say the city hasn't determined what we're going to do with them yet. I I don't mean that in a derogatory. I think that I mean that in a sense that there's a lot of different positive aspects that we could use that water for. We just haven't picked one, right,

and focused on it. So currently that most of that water ends up passing through the system and going into one of the recharge ponds. Yeah. Which is not a negative thing. It's a it's a positive thing to flow them into the recharge ponds. But there's other positive things Cedar City could choose to do with its its surface waters. Right. And one of one of the ones I've thought of in general with not just this irrigation company but others as we try to accumulate them. One of the challenges we can run into is for example storm water fill that we've been working on. If we control the the company then we control the ditch. Yeah.

Right. So there's multiple ways in which the there's value in having a majority ownership in the in the in the companies that the city can benefit from and just being able to change things and and and do things differently if we control the the right of ways as well as just the water. Are we already majority owner in South and West or will this put us into that or even close? I don't know. We're the largest single shareholder. We do not own a majority of the shares. We don't own half the shares, but we're the largest single shareholder between 30% or between us, SU Iron County School District. I think that's the majority. And with this one, doesn't it put us just under 50% if we did take these? Um I think when I

we'd be in the 40s somewhere in the 40%. Could you before next week before our decision um I'd just be curious could you maybe get us the number of what we spend annually across all the irrigation come I mean is 3,000 you know is that doubling what I mean I know you said we sp about 5,000 to them now I can tell you that south and west fields uh theirs is probably the largest one fees are higher than everybody else's I think it's in this report yeah I think it's in your memory I think it's in the report scroll down it seemed like it was $8,100 or something I think it was just over 8,000 So, we're adding about a third. I mean, okay, cuz this would take us to about 11,000 repairs.

Okay. Well, mayor, with that, I would put I would recommend we put this one on action for next week. I think there's still some more discussions to be had and Okay, we have a motion to move this to action. Do I have a second? Second. And a second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Okay. Thank you. Thanks, Tyler. All right. Item number three to consider the approval of employee insurance. I can't say development teams are very exciting for development team.

Natasha Hershey, human resources. So we recently went out to or had our broker go out and get proposals for our benefits. Um they have come back with those renewals and the medical is looking at a 0% increase. The dental is an 8% which sounds high but the dental cost is a little bit lower but it is an increase of um about $15,000. And then we're seeing an a 12% increase in the vision which is about $1,000 uh increase. So those numbers that look higher are not as impactful as if you would see that in our medical insurance. The life and long-term disability are remaining the same. These numbers all go into the budget, but because we have to go into open enrollment before, we have to sign contracts before the budget will be approved. So, I have to bring this and get you guys to obey it before we can move forward.

On the dental and the vision, I don't know all the ins and outs, you know, um, with the city's plan. Are those does the city cover the entire premium or are those participant and the employees pay part of it also or do we I mean, the premium's going up. Is some of that going to get passed on? I don't know. The employees pay part of it or do we just pay it all? So, currently the city or the employees do not pay anything for medical, dental, or vision. Okay. But they do if they add a family plan, right? They don't either. It's all covered. Everything is covered 100% by the city currently. And then they can choose to add the life or the and the

So, the life insurance is uh that we do offer voluntary life. the employees pick up some voluntary life insurance that is picked up by the employee. There's some different accident plans. Those things are optional and the employees pay for those if they want them. Um there is a life insurance policy that's covered by the city. It's just a basic life insurance. It's $50,000 on the employee and um 5,000 on their spouse and 2500 on dependent children. It's a minimal. Is that what the 22,000 pretty much covers? That's the one that

Yeah. That's that's just the a benefit. Uh the long-term disability is also covered by the city and it's a percentage of uh the salary. Um and that is something that the city picks up for long-term disability as well. So in total we're looking at a 0.57 increase. Yeah, it's a the change from our current is 16,000 roughly. 16,335 in the world of insurance that's I think that's pretty pretty good. I don't think we can be too upset about that. So, I've come with much worse news years before as far as the medical like they're able to keep the deductibles roughly the same. Our our employees aren't going to feel much of a difference there.

They will see a change just because we're on a high deductible health savings account plan and the IRS kind of dictates what that looks like and they keep bumping it up. So, our deductible will change a little bit. Um, but that the IRS mandates that we don't have much control over what they say if we want to continue with the health savings account, we'll increase the deductible. So, but it's minimal. Beyond the beyond the cost that we see, are we fairly happy with the carriers? I mean, if they respond to our employees and our employees needs, I don't know that we'll ever be 100% happy with any carrier, but I think we are generally in a pretty good place.

Yeah. Um it depends on which employee you ask and when whether they're happy about the insurance but overall I think we're happy and our rates have been we have seen several 0% hold holds on the increase for medical which if you remember there were some years where those were we were looking at 16% increases on the medical so this PHP pools um so some years when we have a bad year somebody else helps with that and when we have a good year we help somebody belts a little bit. So that helps those increases stay uh fairly low and that's been good.

So if we if we move on action on this and we make a decision next week then that is locked in and that has to be part of the formula for the budget regardless of the other items in the budget. Correct. Okay. Yeah. And I'm sorry you I think you asked this but I I might have missed it but none of the car all the carriers are the same. We're not switching. Yeah. know we're going to we're our propo this proposal is that we keep all of the same carriers. That's just good for the employees to have to switches. So that's good too. I I we'll we will sign the contracts to move forward so we can start open enrollment because we h our renewal year starts with the fiscal year July 1st. So we have to go into open enrollment in May and we will

so it becomes a contract that we have to honor going into the next budget year. So, do we need to put this on consent or does it have to go to Well, I make a motion then that we put this on the consent agenda for next week. I have a motion and a second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Carter. Thank you, Natasha. Okay, next one. Consider changing uh the restriction water vault on Lend Highway. Who wants to start? Matt, you want to or you want Phil, too?

We You should make Phil just just lead on this one. This is his brainchild. Just look at him. Make him nervous and he'll do whatever. Matt and I talk all the time, man. I'll bet you do. He sees your number come up and he says, "Oh, I'm in a meeting." You can't see. Thank you. Well, your vision's more expensive. You might not be able to afford glasses now. That's not surprising. Echo has the lowest. They're the first one down. Yeah. No, Chelsea is Chelsea's past echo. Why is Echo so low?

I'm not sure why that is. Bill. Okay.

All right. In looking at all this, uh, my concern has been on the existing vault there on Lond. We have a 16inch line comes into an 8 inch PRV and goes back up to a 16 and it currently has a 3in bypass that goes around it. Uh, we've done some uh, Jonathan has done some work on this. I had quite a long visit with Curtis today from the uh from Enzyme Engineering and kind of telling him what was going on and that we were going to have this meeting tonight. But I want to try to help to obviously there's lots of things that will need to be done to help this fully be completed and and one of the big ones will be to loop the line in as many places as possible. Uh and that is being worked on. I think it's in some of the going down 1,600 is in the budget for next year I believe. John proposed it's proposed and that would have to be a 12in line coming off and right now it's currently an 8 in line going through an 8 inch vault. But we have uh I'm just afraid with this the the information that I gathered that 8 in pipe is causing uh a 75% reduction. And so we're only getting 25% flow through the 16inch pipe with the 8 in reduction. The 3-in bypass. Uh talking with Curtis today, he said that is definitely helping you. Matt and I have talked about maybe doing a 12-in bypass around. We we talked about doing a 16inch straight through uh a lot of different things. He's got the budgets for that. On a normal flow, the it the volume is really not a problem. But when you open a hydrant or anything like that, then that is where it has a lot of pressure

right in the beginning, but then it loses the pressure rather quickly because it just doesn't have the volume of water. And that's our problem is the volume. Uh, in talking with Curtis today, he said, you know, he said, I he said, I think if it was me, I would do a 12 inch straight through and run a six inch bypass. What's happening right now with the current system we have is it's it's uh hammering quite a few. If you get going on a a I don't know whether you got to run in a water truck or water tank or whatever if it goes on comes off. It's got a three-inch bypass and then between that and the eight, they're fighting and it's popping uh uh PRVs down the road. Uh those two that we have put in there, there's water in those every day from coming out the top because uh then the blowoffs are popping. And so there's there's quite a hammering effect. And it it it's just a wonder actually that vault hasn't blown up yet. So I would propose uh based just to help get the volumes more. WE STILL NEED TO DO the loop that we're talking about. And we do have a 12-in line that's running down 800 going to the west that will eventually tie in right there at the end of the 12 coming down 3900. That would be a great bypass. and then up on 1600 if we can tie the 12 and then bring the 12 in down around where the church has proposed those help and then Chelsea's going to need to do some type of loop as soon as possible. But I just really feel strongly to help with the flows that we need to change upgrade this vault.

Hey Matt, I have a quick question. Um the loop off 1600, do you know the timing approximately? I know we're still looking for proposals. So, is that going to be this summer or are we looking a year out? One Matt Baker Water Department, the one that loops to Port 15. Yeah, that I have no idea cuz I mean that for a grant. Okay. Because if it were shortterm, it would make a difference on probably 18 to 24 months out. Okay. And port 15 also has a PRV with a restriction in its vault, just so you know. Right. I mean, if that was short-term and and we loop it, then it kind of resolves. But if it's 18 months out that we need a

this is this is something that I think been really strong. In fact, I ran my campaign on this. I think this would b this has a lot more benefit. We saw how that turned out. SORRY. YOU open the door. You open the door. Oh, you know, can I just tell you I just love Scott so much when he was gone. Anyway, but I just think it's something that would really help the residents and uh I I think the benefit I know we're going to do things later down the road, but there are a couple years down the road and I think the cost benefit of this doing now is I think it's really worth doing or looking at.

Do we know what this is going to cost then? Yeah. somebody. It tend to depend a little bit. If we decide to go 16 through or if we decide to do a 12 and a six, uh prices will probably be fairly close. Is the volume the same on the two? No, but uh this the 3-in bypass is is too small for what we're doing, and that's hurting us bad. The 6 in would help. The uh 12in PRV is a little cheaper than the 16. parts are a little different, but I'm saying if the cost is about the same, we go with whatever the most I don't think we're pretty pretty close.

Even if we do a 16, we we still got to Matt and I we're originally going to use a 3-in bypass, but I I think we need to bump that up to at least a six. Please understand that whatever you do here, you're designing a project right now to uh decrease the pressure along Highway 56. And all these PRVs are going to come out in two to three years. So, whatever you replace it with or if you leave it the same, they're all scheduled to be removed once that project goes in to interconnect with the water conservancy district's tank and reduce the pressure on on 56. I I I remember having a conversation, Paul, I don't know if it was with you or maybe it was you and I. And the question in my mind is, what's the risk versus the benefit of doing this now or waiting the three years? I mean, what could potentially happen if we don't do this now?

If we have one fire, we're in a lot of trouble. Well, and we also just we just uh granted a conditional use agreement which will you know within three years Suncor will be there. Yeah. And we know they're going to be Well, but that's in the window, right? I mean,

it would I think it would help. Well, now Carter and Rob Robert are both on this line, but uh it's just the the added flow. And right now, if you have a water tank on one end, water tank coming off the other, your water flow is really bad. It's just I just really feel that we need to increase the water. We're adding more line all the time, but we're not adding any more water to the line. And I don't think it's uh beneficial to wait for two or three years when we have the ability to fix or help this problem considerably and just make this upgrade.

So what about our line that we're looking at adding on 3900 West? Where are we at? Do we have any idea how much we've collected in those additional talking about trying to do this fees that we've I mean I'm sure some building permits have been pulled since we passed that. Do we have any idea how much has been collected and how close we are to be able to do our line on 3900? So that you the council passed that special assessment area less than a year ago. That line's going to cost $3 million to run. You're nowhere near I I don't know the exact amount of money we've collected because of building permits in that area, but I it's not

you're not you're not anywhere close. But is that still I I guess my question maybe to you then Councilman Schmidt. Do we do this in addition to the line on 3900? Or if we had the line on 3900, would we not need to do this? The What part of 3900 are you talking? We're adding a new line from Highway 56 up 3900 West that was going to tie in at 1600 North. We were going to loop I don't No, we're not. My understanding we w we're not going to do that. Well, we're charging every single house in there. Whether you loop it through 3900 West or you loop it further west out to Port 15, it doesn't matter. But it's a loop. Yeah. My understanding we weren't doing this because of the railroad and everything else cost a fortune.

But the loop the loop would be coming in from 15 or the water conservy district. Yeah. Is not is not we have we have two options. Yeah, they're already there. They're good. And then we have another loop that would help. They're going to do one on the What's that subdivision, Jonathan? What's that subdivision that's bringing the line across? Point West if you go a little bit. It goes 8 in 12 in Point. They're doing dirt work which will tie that 1600 or Lond highway to 3900 West. That's a project that's currently being by developers.

Yeah. And so we're adding a lot of pipe. We're just not adding any more water to the line. And that's my concern. I I would readily hope that we put some more water in the line. So Matt, what's your recommendation? Scroll back up. Can you Sorry, council. I'd like No, I would just like to know really what we're talking about. The 12-in line that's going in right now, they estimate once that 12in line ties in, you'll be pumping 1,788 gallons of fire flow right over here where we only have 1,100 with no cost to the city. That's all development right there. We'll put that in. Okay. And you're talking about the 39 to Lond loop further north though. What's that? You're talking about the 39 to London. Yeah. Yes. One through Point West.

But that will only do Equestrian Point and Hunter Glenn. It won't go to Eco View or Right. Chelsea or Sky View. Right. It'll just help that little area right there. Now, did Chelsea not do a loop over? didn't wasn't part of their thing they had to go the other way and go east and north up towards like yeah they have to connect in at 3000 over by general when they develop they have as they develop back that way I think is it's not with their first couple phases but okay um I think there was a unit count or something built in that said after you hit so much mass then you have to go the other way because that's part of their P that's part of their development why they yeah

okay so I'm still on the same question uh if we don't do this now, what are the risks? If we do this now, what is the incremental cost when we come back 3 years or whenever it is for us to make all the changes that are already planned? So, I want to see a risk and opportunity uh

you want to see conversation on this because I mean everybody there's little pipes here and more pipes over there and 3 in and 5 in but at the end of the day we still are not covering the liability which is if we have a big fire we don't have enough water to put it out. So with this what they modeled putting in a 16inch line or PRV right there in that bolt, it may increase only 250 gallons a minute. Okay. But that that uh I talking with Curtis about that. That's not actually right.

It's with the 8 in it's a 25% use of the 16. If you go to a 12 inch, it increases that by it goes up to 50%. And if you increase your bypass, but to to answer your question, Councilman Golan, if I'm understanding, somebody correct me if I'm wrong, switching the PRV so that we gain this. It's going to gain it's going to cost us about the 60,000 that it says at the bottom. And then going off of off what Mr. Bitman said, just know that we're going to lose that 60,000 in three years. Not No. See, that's where you're right. If you do a 12 in, then you can just transfer the PRV and use it somewhere else if you need to. So, not all if you stay the 12, not all parts would be lost. Okay. So, we might be able to

Well, unless it is $50,000 deal. Let's say it's $60,000. And if we're looking at three years, that's about $20,000 a year. I guess the question is an investment or the insurance, if you will, worth that in case there is a big fire or a big problem? I don't I don't know. So, why is the 12 in 70,000 and the 8 to 16 is the 60? I don't understand the So, the first add the 12in PRV when they're at 70,000. That was we were just going to top tap off and go around the 16 to keep everybody have a loop. Okay. Oh, so you'd have two correct keep everybody in water. Then we came up with dropping the 16 inch in there and then the 12 in place of the 8 in.

Yeah. And we couldn't and we could possibly just drop a 12 in, not go to 16. And and the 12 is going to be more usable in the future if we place it somewhere else. Is that correct? Right now, we only have two 12in PRVs in the system. One he just put in on the ridge and the other one was just put in on South Mountain Drive. Do we have any 16s anywhere? I got a 12 in on 800, too. Want it down to ridge and 800 and then your

So really, it's 60 to 70,000 to buy three years of insurance. So you mitigate currently not only in this area of town, but there's fire flow issues in our water system primarily in the older sections of town, but they exist outside of this bubble around London Highway. So you have fireflow issues around town. We mitigate against those currently by buying the fire department tenders. So when those fires occur in those areas, the tenders are the the way we fill the tenders from the pipes and then we flood the fire engines off the tenders. Um that's how we mitigate that risk currently. Uh not only in this area but all over the place.

And from this it looks like Matt the biggest gain we're going to have is actually already being done. And that's Point West doing their 12-in line, right? that that gets us or or as I go down this chart to get to the 1788, do we also have to upsize to the 16? Are those incremental or just if we do nothing, will we get to the 1788 just by them doing theirs? Correct. Then adding the PRV, we'll add 2500 gallons. Adds another 800 gallons per minute, which helps further north. So just doing the math in my head, that's about 800 gallons, not the 250, right? Yeah, that's I don't know how they figure that out. Yeah. Why is it that we only gain 250 if we do the PRV, but then if we do the PRV

pulling your looping get looped from the top and from I wanted the same thing. I'm like end point was Paul I have a question for you. So um considering the bubble and all of this versus what's happening in many parts of the city for lack of specificity I guess is that how you say that? um and using the tenders and so on and so forth. When we do the work in three years, how much of that other areas of the city going to be improved or we're still going to have to do the tenders? Um we're still going to have tenders.

We're still going to have a need for tenders. They're still going to serve uh a valuable mitigation tool for us uh mostly east of I-15. on the older sections of town. So, this doesn't impact it. The three-year improvement doesn't impact it either east of I-15. No. Okay.

There is a program that we have in place where we go uh budget money every year to do incremental improvements on the water system. When we first started doing that, we identified the worst uh components of our water system and uh when Mayor Burgess was in office, he took out a a small bond and we went and we hit a bunch of those uh worst of the worst list. The list we're working on now is undersized piping. Um there's still a couple areas in town where there's some 4-in water lines. Uh, our standard is 8 inch water lines. There's still a couple of 2-in water lines. I think if we looked hard enough, we'd find a couple of those, wouldn't we, Matt?

Those are the areas where you still need the tenders. With that program to keep funding some incremental improvements on these, we slowly get rid of them and upgrade our water system. So, we fix all of this other stuff, too. So, in the timing and the plan that we have to make those improvements along with the other what two or three things that you do in a day. Yeah. You I'm being sarcastic. You know that, right, Matt? Um uh do we have a an end um vision of when we're caught up or are we

the end vision depends totally on how much revenue we have in our water department budget to divert towards replacement of old pipes please which is also dependent on how much if and when we ever borrow money again to buy more water because that's I mean there's a lot that plays into But my other thing, mayor, as I think about all this, I mean, we sit here and talk about, well, three years, three years, three years, but it's not like development in that area is going to sit on hold for three years. I mean, things are still happening out there like crazy, whether it be the industrial, the housing. So, this problem's only getting worse every day. And 70,000, if we go to the highest, is is a small price to pay in my opinion. I'm sorry, I didn't

I say 70,000 is a small price to pay. That's that's the the the highest quote that we have.

Yeah. the the more we we go around in this the I mean this is to me it's becoming almost a no-brainer with you know to to mitigate and to improve and to sustain what's happening in this whole area. Um now I'm more concerned about what's going on east of 15. So I'm going to skip a few of these meetings in the future just so I can sleep at night. And I guess I'll add maybe just in some of the discussions with with the staff side, um it really is still a question if if if the fire protection is the main motivation that we're doing it, then we have a way to still mitigate that risk for the homes. So if if this stops development, right, then we can't keep adding and allowing people to develop their land and provide the service. That's an escalated reason to do it. Um but but if it's just fire, then it's $70,000 that that we arguably don't need to spend. That's still taxpayer dollars, right? So that's the other perspective of it.

Those are those are good points. But from what I've been seeing and my understanding of what's going on and what have we called this the bubble, uh there's more development coming. There's people trying to, you know, to Carter's point. So it is a combination of the two. The safety thing is a big one for me, but Paul made me feel a little better because we have a a mitigation plan in in place. Uh but, you know, we're we're zoning and reszoning and, you know, putting in stuff and more people are coming in to to build out this area. We

And I agree there's not much development on the east side of 15. No. And so, and so there's multiple reason there's multiple reasons to to do it, not just the fire. Is is the $70,000 um potentially better spent to get the connection for the loops in the other areas, right? So, you get additional flow and redundancy. It won't be enough though if you It's not enough to do those other tieins. No. So, if you go and tie into the conservancy district tiein or you It's going to cost a lot more than that. But but if is it still better to put the 70 grand towards that if it fixes the same issues and it's not money

I think it becomes a time thing it uh it's when it would be available because not only we talking fire but we're also talking insurance rates for homeowners uh whether how long uh insurance I wish Mike was here he talked about this too a little bit because this could be raising up their some of their things and so there's there's quite a bit to be mindful of here because if all of a sudden insurance rates go really high or all of a sudden insurance companies say, "Hey, you know what? We're not going to cover you anymore." And that's going to stop a lot of things. So, I I think that the time frame if we were going to do a back service coming in within the next five or six months, then I'd say great, then that's what we do. But I just see that as being a couple years off. So, that's what I'm concerned about. What what this does also is I'm sitting here thinking about it. It um you know when we first talked about a 3900 loop or a port 15 loop or whatever it was, we had had the discussion of could we afford to put it in now and then with that special assessment, you know, pay ourselves back. Essentially, what this does is it allows us to push that project off a little bit and keep collecting so that hopefully we can collect to the point where we just pay for it and we're not having to reimburse, you know, let that account and let that I mean, this is the equivalent the 70,000 is the equivalent of 46 houses worth because we charge $1,500 per home, I believe, is where we landed on that special assessment. And so I mean am I wrong in thinking that way that this does help it helps stage off that loop a little bit? Not that we can let forget about it but it does help bide some more time.

The numbers I see the Point West connection buys you more GPM than this does. And I don't disagree with that. I mean yeah that's at no cost. At no cost to Cedar City. It doesn't help though further north because you're not adding any water to the line. No, but the LDS church is going to tie those two lines together on 39 and 16 when they build on that corner. And they've started I mean they're they're already substantially through the process to get their building permit issued if they can get the fire flow. And right now it's not sure they can. How hard is it to do a fireflow test? About 10 minutes. They do them all the time. It's easy.

I have a have a couple of questions. Go to another one and open it up and they do their calculations. I'm just wondering if we wait and let the 12-in line through Point West happen and then pull some actual tests and we go from there and see if that does make the difference that the model says it's going to. Another thing is if you want a 12-in PRV to drop in there, you're two weeks out. If you want a 16, you're 14 to 16 weeks out. So, see, I don't know. Sorry. I have a couple of questions I'd like

14 weeks out. Uh my first question is what would be the for someone that doesn't understand this very well. What what would be the um desired fireflow if in my home because we've got 110 and 90 and 45 and 25 and 26 and 90. What do we want? So those numbers that you see there are um PSI PSI. Fire flow is in gallons per minute. Okay. And what's what is it 15? Is it 15, Jonathan? 15. So 20 PSI, 1500 gallons a minute is fireflow. And that would be okay.

All right. Okay. And then my second question is, does engineering have any thoughts on this relative to future projects and this being proposed? Is this is this something that you would think we should be looking at or is this going to interfere with future projects in engineering? I don't know who wants to answer.

Come on, get up and tell us what to pay. So, so my my thought on this is in order to not just be spending money that ends up being essentially thrown away um in a relatively short period of time, I would I would like to get the benefit we can out of changing out the PRV and the existing vault to a larger PRV, but probably nothing larger than 12 in because that's what we're going to reasonably be able to reuse somewhere else. So, we're not losing it. That would certainly help us if we had that. It would also remove the problem we have out there right now of an aging valve that has been getting beat up pretty good.

Mhm. And so it would take it would help us with that uh reliability of the system because we would be getting rid of a valve that's problematic for us and it would be increasing our capacity some without really costing us money that we're not going to be able to take advantage of of in some way in the future. So that's that's so we kill two birds with one stone. Yeah, that that's kind of my thoughts on it. When we go beyond that, we start getting into um improvements that that really are a loss that you know that that's a loss for us. We're spending the money. We're not going to be able to reuse it. So, is the upsides from the 8 to the 12 the 50,000 we're talking about? Yes.

Yeah, looks like. Okay. Do we have that in the budget somewhere? Are we okay? I love how everybody just looks at everybody. This is not a this is not a budgeted capital project, right? I know. So, unless you have it in your operational budget, we don't have it in We have some from uh Martin Slat or somewhere we can get some. Martin's flat is impact fee money and this is not an impact fee project. This is an existing piece of infrastructure. Impact fees can't be spent to upgrade or well to maintain existing infrastructure. But this is something that with a budget amendment, we could take out of the rainy day fund, move into the water, and then have it done that way. Correct.

I kind I agree with what Kent said. I think I'm not sure what the rainy day fund is. They haven't told you, Paul. Yeah. Nobody's told me about that. Well, no, but we were we were recently discussing. I mean, we know there's money that I mean, and when you see the budget, there's going to be lots of ways to spend it. So, I'm not saying there's not. It's really just a discussion. Believe me, I know there's a place to spend it. So, Ken, if before we give Jonathan's some time here at the mic, so you your proposal, which sounds pretty logical to me as well, is uh the one at the bottom there from 8 to 1250 grand. That's my thought. Yeah, I'm going to want to give Jonathan a chance to issue a rebuttal if he feels like he needs to. But

come on, John. Let's hear it. Let's hear it. Roll up your sleeves there, Jonathan. So on the I'll just So on the 12 if the valves go bad most of the time it's just the guts inside. We buy a repair kit. We replace the guts inside. We don't replace the whole valve case. We've never done that. So we So a 12-in PRV $50,000. Really will just sit on the shelf. If we need it, we'll pull the guts out of it. So how much is how much is is the guts to repair the one that we're saying is getting worn and problematic? I don't know. Probably $2,000. It all depends what it is. It could be the plunger, could be the seat, it could I mean a complete rebuild, but this will slow it down so it doesn't happen all the time, right?

Yeah, that's the idea. With the larger valve, you cut down the velocity that's going through it so it would be less likely to just develop the problem again. It's a V8 instead of a V6. Mr. Status, anything you'd like to share?

Whether he'd like to or not, he's going to. Jonathan Stath is city engineering department. Um yeah, just a couple of things. Can could you pull up there's another exhibit in there that's I think it says PRV information probably to the right. Yeah, right there. So just one thing to consider we are this is a table that shows the uh the range of flow through a through each size of PRV. So if you look down at the 8 inch let's see sorry. So, an 8 inch PRV ranges from 200 gallons per minute to 3,100 gallons per minute.

When H when Henson on Loose did the uh the modeling, they were showing a uh a flow rate of 3,50 gallons per minute. So, we're getting close to the upper r upper end of the range on an 8 in uh PRV in that area just simply because of the growth plus when you have the fire flow to it. Um, so the question would be, can we can we go another couple of years within that range? It's going to be tight. Um, and the 12 in takes you all the way up to 7,000 gallons per minute. Yeah, 12 inch goes up to 7,000. So, we'd be comfortably within that range. So, to me, with the growth out there, that's a no-brainer. We need the water.

Um, the other thing is to pay for it. It looks like we we're probably going to have some savings in the 100 East project. this the road that we're currently constructing. So, there was some money budgeted specifically for water and I think we're about $60,000 under budget currently in that in that project. Look at you being the bearer of good news. Problem solver, but so that's just one option if we wanted to look at to find some funding to pay for it. And that it's minor saying that was just water fund money that's being used in that project.

Um but on the other hand, you know, could we make it another couple of years? So until we finish that other project, I think you know. So don't start your non-answer answer. Both sides of the coin there. So for those of us that live out there, how long will I mean what's a repair like this or the switching this out? How long is stuff where there is no loop? There is right now. Well, there is around the current valve, but it's only a three inch large. Speak into the microphone, sir. So, we're gonna feel I mean, what will that look like? What kind of how what's the timeline on something like this? We got a valve and they wanted it in two weeks. Everybody Everybody out there will be out of water for hours. Oh, okay. It'll be a night job.

Gotcha. Okay. We waited until the loop came through on Point West. We would They're going to battle. Some people will be in water. or we can loop it figured out how to get it around there. And the 3-in would let some water through, so it'll toilets will still flush, but that's about it. How about Hey, Mike. Uh, could you come up here, Chief? Chief. Okay. You probably heard this discussion and a little bit aware of it. uh talking about increasing the flow from 3100 gallons up to about 7,000 uh fire capacity and so forth. What are your thoughts and this

Mike Phillips from the fire department? We just care about the fireflow meeting the code. So that 1500 gpm for 2hour duration at less than not less than 20 PSI. So what do you think about what we're trying to talk about here? I was gone on a fire. You want to start back and tell me More water. Talking about more water. More water. We're talking about We're talking about 1500 PSI compared to potentially 7,000 by dropping a 12in PRV in 7,000 PSI. Well, you'll never no no no no. We're not talking 7,000 PSI. Gallons GPM. 7,000 GPM. No, no, no. And we're not talking 7,000. That's just what the PRV. We're talking volume. Yes.

Wow. But we could have an increase of 4,000 gallons going in. More water is always better as far as fire is concerned. Do we uh have any other questions that we need to because this definitely needs to go in action. What? You're fine. But I don't know if there's any other further discussion. I'm good to go ahead and Okay, then we'll entertain a motion. Uh I would move that we put this on action for next week. Motion. Well, a question on the motion. Are you giving them direction on which size or are we going to continue? I mean, do you want to No, because we can make a motion on what we want to put on a Yeah, I mean that's fine. I'll second. We can just put on a My motion would be that we uh go with the recommendation of our engineering department on that one piece

on the 12 upgrade to the 12. So that would be really as long as the motion is there then you can change your mind during the week and decide what you want. Really doesn't matter. We have a motion in a second. I'll all in favor. Any oppos? Thank you, Matt. Okay. Um public hearing to consider. Oh, wait. Ra study first. Yep. Rate study first. Consider proposals for rate study.

Jonathan St. Engineering Department. Uh recently we recently we went out for proposals for the rate study. This is a project that's budgeted in in the current fiscal year to look at the uh monthly billing rates for all the city enterprise funds. So we as part of the rate study, we're going to be looking at culinary water and secondary water, sewer collections, wastewater treatment plant, storm drain and solid waste. And so those are all the utility or all the enterprise funds that are build monthly to customers. And part of the reason we're doing that, it's been quite a long time since we did a comprehensive rate study for the city's enterprise funds. And uh

so we received four proposals. Um and we reviewed those proposals. The uh consultant that received the highest score was LRB, public finance advisors. This is the group that's also working on the impact fees study currently for the city. Um do they have an edge uh having already how the data is that why it's so much lower? Are you concerned about that?

They typically so that we typically we bid some of these studies impact fees or whatever. Uh this is kind of the group of guys that does them. Uh LRB is typically uh has a sharper pencil than than the others. I don't know if they have an edge because they know our systems but And they usually have a sharper pen. Performed well. They they perform the the data they give us is well thought out and and well presented to us. They are a little slow. Yeah. That last study took a year and a half, didn't it? Some of the components I think uh if I was to argue on their behalf, some of that time is waiting for us to perform as well.

Okay. They only have data if we give it to them. they only have numbers to crunch that we provide to them. So with with this bid, how what kind of time frame have we put them on? So uh in the prop in the RFP or in the request for proposals, it it gives them a timeline until about September. Um, so we're obviously we're not going to have the information for this upcoming budget cycle, but we've given them enough time to be able to get this get the study done to have the information to us. Um, that that that'll help us obviously as we go into the budget cycle for next and what's our commitment to get data to them if that's part of the bottleneck? I mean that's

that's the other side of the contract, right? Yeah. So that yeah we have to perform on our end to get down the data and the biggest thing is going to be water use information which we should be able to pull out from our building information fairly quickly. Okay. It is um if they give us um a proposal on the study before the next budget. Is there a mechanism for us to implement changes be in between budgets? We can change fees anytime. Adjust. Yeah, you can do a budget adjustment. Um, we have another quarterly budget adjustment coming up in June. Um, Jonathan's aware of that. Okay. Yeah. Thank you.

He's been vulturing around downstairs looking for budget adjustments. I think there might be some waiting period for rate increase was like 30 days or something. I don't think we'll be ready by mechanism. I don't think we'll have enough information to even know what it should be by June. Probably not. But whenever it does happen, we we can modify any time. We don't have to wait until June the following year. We can just modify. Well, and you don't do you necessarily modify your budget or do you modify your your fee schedule or fee schedule? But it'll I would think the first thing you would do is implement the the modified fees. I would be hesitant to Yeah, you would sit on the

to jump out and modify the budget right away. I would let that I would let this current year budget play out and then recalculate the revenues for the next budget year. Yeah. Fee schedule is what you would change. That's what you and just this is I think good if there are people listening on record. These are this is one of those where we have to always do a study because if if it's challenged then we have to have a third party verify that it's fair and reasonable. Right. And what did we have budgeted for this? So that's one issue. It's coming down $36,000. the next point. So, we had $36,000 budgeted. So, it is it is over budget. Um I've proposed

some ways that we could make up that difference um by pulling from some other projects that are under budget. Now, that would need to be done with the next budget revision, which would be in in June, but yeah, we could probably at least get started and and start working on it and then So, you're fairly confident that we you can find the rest of the money is what you're saying? Yes. Yeah, we're we're about 14,000 short, so we take a little bit from each one of the funds. The rainy day fund. Yeah, the magic tree. I I think this is reasonable. I think we need this rate study done because we need to find out,

are we right on here, but we're way below here? And uh I think it's necessary. And if we can hold up our end of the bargain so we can get this in a timely manner, I would I would say we should accept the low bid and so is that a motion? Well, I'll second any other questions. I don't I don't have anything, but I think we I make a motion we move it to consent. I don't see where we need to talk about this. Have a motion. I would second that. All in favor? I Any opposed? Fantastic. Thank you, Jonathan.

Thank you. Now we'll move to a public hearing to consider modifications to Cedar City Ordinance 264-5 pertaining to improvement bonds.

Okay. So this here this item we have uh I I'm trying to think if we've talked about this at all with city council yet. I don't think we have just with planning commission. But what we have looked at on this is currently under in our subdivision ordinance um we have uh language in there that um sets up a program whereby we can have developers bond for improvements that are not yet public improvements that are not yet complete if they want to go ahead and get the plat recorded so they can start to sell lots and and do what they need to do there. what we you know and then we also have our our with our road break permits the public works administers you know there is you know someone comes along there's something they need to do where they need to to do some kind of excavation in our rightway um they can they can get that permit there is a cash bonding provision um available to be able to do that where we're where we have a gap in our in our system is when we have something like let's say that we've got a parcel that's not fully developed, someone wants to come in and build a some kind of commercial building on it or something like that. And with that building permit, there are also a number of public improvements that need to go in, right? Maybe there's a, you know, curb gutter and sidewalk. Maybe the water line needs to be extended. Whatever it might be, there are public improvements that are needed. It's not part of a subdivision. So, our subdivision ordinance, chapter 32, doesn't really cover us for that type of an application. And yet, that's also not really a uh a reasonable fit, sorry, for our um road break permit. Um so, we

we've kind of got this gap that we're trying to fill in. So what we have proposed on this is in uh chapter 26 which is you know uh where all of our zoning provisions are you know just when we when we are in the the talking about public improvements in general wherever those might be. If there are public improvements required, you know, then we're saying that that we would want to be able to address through a similar bonding program as we use for our subdivisions. So, what we did is we went through we we pulled out the subdivision ordinance, the uh the bonding provisions that were there, and we started redlining that to to um get that to to be something that um you know takes out subdivision specific wording, those kinds of things to where it would be more generally applicable to where we have public improvements that need to be constructed, you so that we can then, you know, have a means whereby the the developer of that property can can bond so they can, you know, have their project moving along and then they need to have those improvements completed before they can get the certificate of occupancy. So that that's what we're proposing with this. don't know if you had a much chance to look at it, but the wording a as you go through it is is eerily similar to um chapter 32 in the subdivision ordinance. We just we just made the changes where we needed to to have it not be subdivision specific.

So, Kent, how will this be different or what's the biggest impact to the developer or the builders on this?

Yeah, so this would be a new bonding requirement. um that that's where there is an impact um for them. But right now when they when they're out there building something, we don't have anything that we can go, you know, turn to to force improvements to get done. um other than just holding up their certificate of occupancy. Where we've run into a lot of problems is um let's just say that there are buildings that don't have certificates of occupancy that are occupied and businesses are operating in them.

So unfortunately this is a a bad actors that force us to create rules that affect everybody because we got a few people that I was I was wondering how did we manage the gap all these years?

We really haven't. That's the I mean, so we're just, you know, we're just relying on people to get those done um before they can get their certificate of occupancy and we have withheld certificate of occupancy. We've even withheld business licenses for a building who wants to go in and operate and it hasn't stopped them from still moving into the building, operating, and the developer not putting in the improvements. So this would be something where we would have a bond. They do that. We can take that. If they won't do the improvements under the bonding provisions, we can uh claim that money and go do them do them ourselves.

Perfect. And I'm assuming Randall, you went through the language and and it gets us to where we need to be without any uh loopholes that can be applied. Uh correct. Um and and part of our goal is exactly that is to go after the encourage the builder to get it done because that's who's getting the bonding. Um because I'm thinking the same one we have right now where we're we can't license three businesses in one location. Is that four now up on the north side of town across the road from the bowling alley. Um Oh yeah.

None of those we can't license any of them because none there's no occupancy permit. Um and so the the the direct threat is against businesses that have no responsibility for it. And that is a struggle for us because we want to give him time. We want to bring him into compliance, but we also don't want to have him just keep violating. Is there a way to and to force the bad actors as opposed to making everyone suffer? I mean, that's the military way. Everyone does push-ups till the slow guy catches up, you know, and I'm not sure that that's the the best way to do it.

But Robert, I would ask you a question. if we've had this gap and puts the city in a pickle uh in terms of being able to get to where a permit can be issued, why don't we just formalize it like we do it with the subdivisions and that way it takes all the guesswork and all the administrative work out of I'm I'm thinking no and I I get that. I my my point is is why don't we go after the bad actors instead of penalizing because I don't know what the cost of the operation I don't think it'll be a lot because you're most of these are probably like little sections right that it's not a subdivision it's just a piece of dirt they're developing and so you're just talking if you go get a letter you know

because if it's a full subdivision and you're talking about a full street and all that it's it's hundreds of thousands of dollars I mean yeah and most of the time they're done with letters of credit now that are very cheap rather than having to actually put up cash is how most people to do it. My understanding on this, it's really it's it's a little bit that you need can this be a bond bond or does it have to be a cash bond? We would give the same three options we do in the subdivision ordinance where they can do a shy bond, cash bond or letter credit and you get it back within you get 90% back as you go along and then at the end of the oneear acceptance you get the rest of it back. Right? It's a a little bit different than that. Now, we do have the retainage, but when we accept the improvements, we have to release that entire bond into a new bond for the

So, it's not for the warranty for the whole they're just putting money. I think this is a great thing and I think that credits like probably a few hundred dollars like it's not going to Right. Right. I just wanted to make sure it wasn't a burden to the many because of of the few, right? And if that's the case, we need to go out to the few.

So, and go out for them, beat them up. So when they go the letter of credit route, that that route is certainly um less expensive than a shurity bond. Um it does tie up funds that they have with the financial institution, right? But it's uh but that works fairly well. Now with with subdivisions and and PUDs where we have the same bonding requirements, you know, there they can they can mitigate that impact to them by by getting a lot of those improvements done before they record the plat. And then then they're just bonding for what is not yet completed. With the something like a commercial site that we're talking about that would is mostly what would fit into this category with the proposal here. you know, they they could, you know, there may be some of those public improvements that they could uh go ahead and construct prior to pulling pulling a building permit. If they did, that would reduce their bonding uh uh that would be needed. That's something we could consider.

The thing about this too, you pay interest on it anyway. Yeah. So, I think it Well, the letter of credit, you pay a fee, but the money stays in your bank account. Yeah. Um, are aren't the letters of credit uh limited in time in terms of having to exercise them as well? Yeah, we we are routinely um requesting the extensions. The extensions. Yeah, it's a bit of an administrative headache, I think. We send out a number of letters every month on that. Yes. So, Councilman Scott, you want anything? Well, we got to have a public hearing. Yep.

Any other questions? If not, we'll open the public hearing. Good evening, Tom Jet. I I'm just I realize we give a a water meter before occupancy because sometimes I need water to finish up the project, but for those bad actors, why can't we just yank their water meter or just not if if they don't if they have a business that's opening, why are we granting them the water? Aren't we in essence saying, "Hey, it's okay, you know, we'll work." That could be the enforcement piece is you just

if you take their water away, then I guarantee you there's not a lot of businesses are going to be in there, but you give them a temporary water meter. It's the same water meter of course, but in thement you just we just lock it. Um just a a thought and I we discussed what this I we the board the planning commission thought this was a good idea also but that that's just one more mechanism say hey we're not going to play we'll give you 30 days or whatever we're going to lock it and then you can deal with your tenants that you have allowed to move in without

allowed to move in without occupancy because without occupancy that means it hasn't been a final inspection. Well, it's always the dirty few that hurt the honest majority, right? And that's why I was saying we need to have more teeth in this somehow to make it so it's better for Yeah. Can we do that? Well, the water meter one I'm really hesitant. Um, residential has a lot of protections. Commercial has some under state statute. Removing water meters takes a process. It's the reason why we take our time before we ever do that when they're not even paying their water bill. Can Can you lock it though for because they don't have the right to be using it yet because they don't have occupancy. We haven't given them authority to occupy the building yet.

There was a time when we used to shut the water off to user B when user B bought the property from user A and user A had a delinquent bill. We would say, "Oh, it's on the property. We'll just shut the water off until that bill's paid in full." Uh the state doesn't the state does not allow us to do that. I I I mostly residential though, right? Well, no, that was switching. Switching owners. I I I hesitate to advise you to go down that road to encourage the state to uh restrict us from doing something else.

I I um I think that you know it's a punitive measure that um may or may not work. Um but the what is being proposed here it's actually pretty clean. It's very doable. It's get is lowmaintenance and it sets the president from from here on to eternity and bad uh what do we call them actors bad actors bad players are going to be bad accountants and bad lawyers bad actors see bad position bad players

the bad apples will change over time and we'll always have them but if we if we put this into the code it makes it standard and doable going forward. Yes, exactly. Are there any other public comment in our our uh it's going to see none, we will close the public hearing and I'll enter and and I'll entertain a motion to move this. I would move that we place this item on the action agenda for next week. Second. I can we change that? You don't know it. Has to be on action. Has to go. Good call. And I'll second that. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Thank you. I'm still learning the ropes. Sorry about that, C.

No, you're good. Okay. Um, next one. Public hearing to consider modifications to city ordinance 2326 and 32 numbering. So, this one I'll take. Um, it has to be heard twice. On what? On what? Number seven, could I'm asking that if we could table this and send it back to planning commission. Uh I it was a long evening. I think some things might have got missed because sometimes people's belly start to growl and they want to leave and so they'll say yes to almost anything. Could we sit I'd like to ask Well, let's have a discussion first because I'm not sure what we're really talking about. But

but the rest of us don't yet. So let let's discuss it as council first and then we can go with I mean we have to it's a public hearing but we advertise as one correct. So let me let me start with what the initial purpose was behind this one and I dealt with something similar last year. Every year the legislature decides to move stuff around um sometimes not even a substantive change. So they moved our entire land use development code to a different section. So now instead of 109A it's 1020. And we of course referenced 109A a good number of times. So the idea here is just let's just swap it so it says the Utah Municipal Code.

That way if they change it again, we don't care. But we did run into one other problem. Um under 2614 the definitions way back when when we defined accessory dwelling units. The state law required us to do internal, but we figured why not do external as well. But when we defined external, we referred to a state code that doesn't actually exist. There is no place in the Utah code that defines an external accessory dwelling unit. Really? I thought they I thought they put something on it. This

they tried, but it failed. But I stole the definition from them. So the definition that's proposed that's in green is stolen from that bill that did not pass. But in discussions with Tom and with others, we realize there may be some unintended consequences of that definition. So let me just kind of point out this would be the only substantive change that you're actually dealing with on this item. Um, so right now all accessory dwelling units, internal, external, have to be owner occupied. So you have an owner in the primary unit, they rent out the accessory unit, or I guess technically you could go the other way. Um, this definition for external ones does not require that. Again, that was not an intentional change. It was not something we discussed with planning commission. That was a that was not intended because it now it just says detached. Sorry, it just talks about the unit. It doesn't talk about anybody residing in it.

The very definition in the state code for an internal one requires that and so we just adopt that along with it. So that's number one. Change that the planning commission did not discuss. The second one is the language here again stolen from the state is it says a detached single family dwelling. Our current code defines twin homes as a single family dwelling but they are attached single family dwellings. So current ordinance allows accessory dwelling units internal and external for twin homes. This change would make it so you couldn't do it with a twin home for an external accessory dwelling unit, but you could for an internal that stays the same. So you couldn't add another house behind your one of the behind a twin home

behind a twin home. Again, not necessarily not something not something necessarily intended when we use this because I literally just borrowed this from the state bill that didn't pass.

Um, but it is one of those that is a change. So I wanted to make sure you're aware of that substantive change if you pass it as is. The reason I mean my thought on that is I mean when you take I guess I'm going to go to density now, right? You you take a single family home and you add an an external ADU, you're going from what low density to maybe what we would call medium density. You take a medium density, which is a twin home, and you add another one. Now you're bordering on taking something from medium density to high density. So I don't know. I mean, I see what you're saying, but I don't know if we would want a detached ADU behind a twin home anyways. Well, I I think way most twin homes are low situated on a lot, you set backs anyway.

And so, if they have the room and they have the parking, then why would we not allow it if they're putting them on that big of a lot should matter. Yeah, it doesn't matter because they're I mean, they're going to hook up to the sewer just the same. If they meet the setbacks and everything else, I don't know why we're restricting it. So, and the owner occupied, just so you know, part of the reason why I think that went through in the the state bill initially was to try and keep cities from freaking out that it would just every landlord would convert No, I knew that's what every single family home into basically a duplex. I think we have one up on the hill that is basically a duplex. The two halves are almost exactly the same size

and it is owner occupied or at least the owner's son, I think. Um, and so that is one of the fears is that you start doubling your density pretty fast if it doesn't have to be owner occupied. But on the flip side, maybe you want to, you know, maybe we want that extra housing. So, taking it back to planning commission, it would just be to change the verbiage to say we'd get rid of the detached. Again, it wouldn't be to change it. It just be asking the same question I'm asking you. Just go make sure and think through the language. Yeah, think through it. Are you okay with those changes? Are you not okay with those changes? They're both easy to fix. If we're okay with it on twin homes, we just remove the two times it says detached.

Would you prefer to to do the whole thing back to have so we pass it as one thing later or to move forward with the the standard changes and only push the definitions back? You don't have to send it back. Let's start with that. Yeah, it is just a question of whether you want their input. If you want their input on this, then yes, please only send this back. Let's at least get it modified to match the code and we'll worry about the definition for external for a later date. So, were they not given this verbiage? They were given it, but there was never a discussion about those

changes. We mentioned to them we had to add this definition, but nobody actually had the discussion saying, "Hey, by the way, this is a change in what we currently do because we hadn't even thought about it. We just borrowed this from state code figuring it would be close enough." But they were presented this exact same verbiage. Yes. Okay. I don't see it back. Yeah. I'm the only advantage of sending it back is honoring them and their role to help think through the details of it and give us the recommendation on the language. And how much further will it delay this on a procedural basis? Four weeks. A month. Yeah. Because by the time you get it on their agenda, they have to publicly notify it as

but it's not it's not stopping anybody from doing something right now. It's just cleaning up. Now what we're doing is we're borrowing from the internal accessory dwelling definition and then just swapping internal for external. That's essentially what we've done for the last 5 years, six years, however long it's been in there. You want to send it back? So it hasn't it hasn't blown up in our face doing kind of a bit of a workaround. I don't to me to me it honors them, right? like they they sometimes feel like we don't listen to them or care and and so to me the idea of allowing them to to vet it is respecting what we've asked them to do. Um so if it's not anybody has a Can I ask Mr. Jet a question? Yeah.

Well, let's let's open the public hearing so we hit it at the same time. Tom, so if it were to be sent back, Mr. Jet, do you think in your opinion as a planning commission member, would there be any significant alterations to this beyond the discussion we had here? I think the accessory dwelling unit ex the external. Yeah, that's what we're talking about. There's going to be pressure to change that to make it nonowner occupied on R2 and R3 zones, not R1. So not not to increase density in R1, but only R2 and R3 that are already a higher density. Hold on. What?

It's not that's not part of the definition. Yeah, I I think his point being is that there may be a middle ground where maybe we require owner occupied in R1 but not in the others. But that's not in the language, which would be a benefit of but that's not a definition of an accessory dwelling unit. That is part of the conversation cuz we're currently an R1 doesn't have to be owner occupied but R2 and R3 does. They all require owner occupied right now. That's the whole idea of an auxiliary dwelling unit is live in it. I think there's support

to change that to not to change it in R1 to increase density in R1 but to increase that potential density in R2 and R3. Well, as it sits, if we were to adopt this definition, you couldn't even have an one in an R2 or an R3 because those aren't detached single family. You could, but again, they'd have to be detached single family because you can do attached single family and R3 if you want. I guess that's it's not really a good financial investment, but you can. So, I'm assuming you're also going to propose to move the detached portion as well. Uh I I I think if someone had a large enough lot that it would work the way it is.

Yeah. But if if they don't have enough and as we well know most developers are not building large twin home lots and so they they may not be but if if someone went crazy and said hey I'm going to build a subdivision with 10,000 square foot per half then yeah I think it would be available to them. But that's not going to happen in most cases. the setbacks are going to be restrictive and I mean if they're going to do that parking but I'm not going to lie to you and tell you that probably won't be part of the discussion but every everything has a hail Mary to it. So the two main parts are that and changing it so that in R2 and R3 they don't have to be owner occupied.

That's correct. So essentially turning them into duplexes. That's correct. Then it's not a necessity dwelling unit, it's a duplex. Yeah. Now you're just changing density within duplex has to be attached. Well, yeah, but well, we're getting into semantics. A duplex has one one deed on two dwellings, correct? A town home has a separate deed on the separate dwellings. Correct. Well, I'm going to get into semantics here because if we want to send it back and they want to do that, that has to be another subsection of this because that is not a definition. Yeah, that is a provision of the definition. And that would be fine.

Correct. We would likely add that if we were going to go down that route, we would we'd probably add it into your R1, R, and then R2 language to make that work. And now I'm feeling like uh that's a wholly different discussion. This is about accessory dwelling units. If the planning commission wants to bring a change to to whether that we allow additional units inside of those zones that are not accessory dwelling units, that's a completely different ordinance to me.

Thank you, mayor. That's where my head was going. I mean, I know um that the reason uh Mr. Jet wants um sent wants us to send this back is because they didn't have enough time to go through all the language. But I think what's being proposed is to go in a different direction, which would would be a whole different discussion. So, my recommendation is that we go ahead and and put this into is it action for next week? Yeah,

and uh and just evaluate this and encourage the planning commission to come up with a plan to to address the concerns that you're bringing up, Mr. Jet, uh as a separate proposal. So, let's uh let's make sure we have anybody else that wants to speak in our um public hearing. Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. And now we can entertain a motion. Well, I guess the question or one of my questions is we could still leave this definition and remove the word detached

or do we just leave it as the whole thing as it is and then have them bring a whole different thing through for everything else? And and if you don't want to address the issue, what I could do on my end is just bring it, you know, the draft for next week would just make to the accessory dwelling unit external match with the accessory dwelling unit internal where we just change the code section reference to say Utah municipal code and we'll keep functioning the way we have been until the planning commission brings back a full proposal to. So if we were to do that, all that would mean is they can have an exterior, but it has to be owner occupied. It won't say whether it's detached or attached or anything. It'll just it'll simplify it essentially. Yeah. And I'm good with that.

That's what I think we should do then is we should just match the two of them. And then if they want to come up with an exception that we can add to the code, it's a totally different then we add the exception under Yeah. We've got to go back and redefine owner occupied or not. And that's a whole different deal. So I I think so I'll entertain a motion then. Mayor, I would move that we uh I I move that we um move this move this to action and ask Randall to go ahead and make that change that we just discussed to have it match internal. Okay. Have a motion. And a second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Thank you.

Okay. Number eight, consider an amendment to city ordinance 3510B to establish no parking zones in the city of Northfield Road and 1045 North. Y. A picture says a thousand words. There you go. Okay. So, this is an item that uh was brought forward um request for staff to look at the intersection of Northfield Road and 10 what is it? 1045.

1045. I couldn't remember how many five it was. Um 1045 north. um as we looked at that and you know to get separate right and left turn lanes coming off of Northfield Road to help reduce that backup of traffic we get. So as we as we looked at that we came you know what you see on the excuse me on the screen is the concept that we came up with as to what we think the appropriate solution would be. We did do new traffic counts

to see whether under the guidance of the manual on uniform traffic control devices that all stop could be considered at this location. We found that the volumes are high enough to justify that. And so we're coming in with a proposal that we make this an all-way stop intersection. There's already a stop sign for southbound. We would be adding So there already is, excuse me, adding stop signs for the eastbound and westbound movements um

and and adding uh pedestrian crossings there to to uh to help clean that up and you know get a ped ramp in on the south side of the road and so forth. as we looked at that to make this really work um and also accommodate a left turn onto Northfield eastbound

um we do need to restrict parking and so that's really the reason why uh primary reason why this is before you and that's what the ordinance would deal directly with is the no parking of course we are wanting to make sure the council is okay with us making this an all-way stop as well um but there is the the um section in the ordinance where we list out the roadways where we have parking restrictions and so we would be wanting to add these to that.

Is that why we have the no parking on the the only one that I'm like maybe looking at and I think these my fellow councilmen are wondering that furthest one to the left is that just so that if we do start to get a queue up in the left on to Northfield that cars can still is that why that one went to no parking? The the biggest reason actually for that is as cars come up to the stop sign um northbound here, they can't see the cars that are coming. Visibility. It's been a real a real uh safety issue out there where we we have drivers. They just can't see if any a car. Okay. There's a trailer that's a box trailer that's parked along there almost all the time. All the time and Yeah, it's kind of scary.

Yeah. Um, the only the only concern I really have and I will say I was the one that first spoke about trying to create a designated right-hand turn off of Northfield because there's just no way to you get stuck behind people and you want to just go right. I worry about that one residence right there because we're taking the parking away. They're on the west on the east side of the property and also on the south side of the property. So really they have their driveway and that's it. I mean, yeah, on the south side of the property, if they were to park east of their driveway, then that that creates a problem where drivers can't see a pedestrian who's stepping out. That was the reason for that. No, I agree.

He also does have some parking on his side. He dealt with it himself because he dealt with it himself. He's actually put extra parking that he pulls into his lot because he hasn't felt safe parking on the streets anyway. Well, part of it was also when he was trying to do boat repair, but the board of husbands never let him. Yeah, he was. There's two of them there that still do their thing. This lake still has a yard sale, too. Do we Do we think that it's justified having the stop signs there on the east and west towns?

I think I think we believe so. Yeah, it's it's become there's enough traffic on 1045 now that it's become during those peak times especially very difficult for drivers on Northfield Road to find gaps in that traffic. And so we felt like that made sense to go ahead and make this an allway stop. This is a relatively low speed environment here. Um you know we're not asking 45 mph traffic to come down. I have prosecuted a lot of speeding tickets. A lot of 10 45 Yeah,

relatively. This isn't a 45 mile per hour roadway. So, but but anyway, yeah, that so this is kind of our proposal is what you see on the on the uh screen of what we would like to implement. And implementing this proposal would require the ordinance revisions to designate these no parking zones that are shown. In uh in fairness to the the folks that live along there, do we I know we're not required, but should we have conversations with them that this is under consideration so they don't just come out someday and say now I can't park here? I don't know. We can certainly do that if you'd like. Yeah, we could go out and have conversations with them.

So the bulk of the no parking zone on the south side of the street is the back of people's homes, correct? where they're typically not parked anyway. Uh there's there's no access through to their properties from that fence line. Which one? This on the south side of the there just that one block I'm worried about right there. They all access from these these sides. Before we jump to other comments, Ken, I have a question on the left turn uh space that you're going to create right there.

Uhhuh. Um, so is there enough space for a left turn s uh lane and flow through of traffic or is that going to be just allowed and everybody would queue up? So So there is room to keep that through uh traffic lane if we restrict the parking. Okay. As it is right now, someone can just go out and park there if they want. There's nothing stopping them from parking there. So we would need that uh parking restriction. Okay.

Well, the one thing, sorry, chief. The one thing this does do that concerns me though is um I guess well I guess there's always sidewalks, but 1045 north is not part of any of our master plan trail or because now by doing this on both sides, we really eliminate other than sidewalks. You couldn't ride a bike. I guess you could ride in the lane of traffic if you had to. That would be your only option. I'm just thinking as a person's trying to go east or west now, they're not really going to have anywhere to ride other than either the lane of traffic or the sidewalk. But yeah, so where you would be riding in the lane of traffic is where the cars are coming to a stop for the stop sign anyway. So you're not in high-speed traffic riding your bike, okay,

at that point. Okay, Chief. Thank you, Mayor, Council, and Staff. Dan Adams, just a couple of things. Uh since I live in this general area, um this this individual has since moved. So there's new tenants in that home. So the parking that once existed here is no longer and and usually the same here. You rarely see a vehicle parked there. So because that was a real problem,

right? And then um just something to consider, striping here and here for the purposes of safety to egress out could also be applied to Ironwood Circle particularly for about three or four months out of the year with the soccer folks. That street is extremely busy. So I I'm not suggesting that you stripe it all the way, but it may be something to consider for sighteline distance. When you pull off of Ironwood and look back to the west with that curve, it is hard to see oftent times if vehicles are parked there. Is there a home there on the the west side of Iron Wood or is it right at the park? On the west? Yeah, there's a home. There's a home. Yep. So, right there. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Anyway, just just something to consider. Uh this neighbor has a trailer there, Anderson has. So, I'm I'm on those guys frequently to to move things and and he'll usually move it here and then he'll move it out and then it'll be gone for a while. um puts it back. But anyway, I'm I'm happy to communicate if if you want with these neighbors to let them know this is coming. I'm happy to do that if you would like if that helps. I think it would just be helpful rather than just show up and have it done. Always here for us for enforcement, too. Yeah. So, so the proposal right now is to bring the no parking to here.

So, if you would like us to for the meeting next week extend that on down, we could certainly do that. Well, it makes sense from a safety point of view. Yeah. Yeah. But it's a little tricky in that that's every intersection in town, right? Like I don't know. I don't know if no parking on every corner is the right. Well, I I was taught to drive that you never go up to the corner and park because it's a safety issue and most streets usually have a red stripe uh a certain distance from the corner. But so I don't see a problem with doing it. But

state law, by the way, sets it at 20 feet back from the intersection. If you're not approaching a stop sign, 30 ft back if you are approaching a stop sign. Yeah, that's automatically supposed to be. Yeah, whether painted or not. Yeah, both of those have stop. Who knows that out outside of you and a couple of us here? When you pass the test. Well, every one of those had stop signs going on to 10. My son had a had has a house in Lehi that he rents and he used to tell me, "You got to right on the stop sign." Not that way. I can't do it. I'd rather go around the corner. you know, it's self. Yeah. Gives it 30 ft the other way. So, is some of that chief then uh that we just need a ticket people? It doesn't come down the side. I think it comes this way

because if it's already some of those intersections like you're talking about at Ironwood, we just need a ticket. Yeah. And and he and this one will usually he's usually beyond the 30 ft as as is this one. I mean, they're usually back far enough that they're they're within the 10. They're only 20 ft that way because they're not approaching. There's no stop line stop sign here for them to approach. It's approaching this way. You You get past 20 ft really quickly and you're still obstructed. Well, but we're doing this not to I mean, we're doing this so that we can fix the issue on the other corner with the stop signs and the turns and the turn lanes and so on and so forth. So, um it's we need the space, right?

Correct. Why we're doing it to make the space. That's why we're doing it. So, Okay. Who owns this? Um on this where the red line is there. Is that city property? Is that private property there? It says Northfield Pipe there. That's city property. Property. I think city. I think it's city. Yeah, because we've cleaned that up before. I think it's city. I think it's part of the public right now. I have no like the road was I have no idea how that ever got there, but I think it is city. Sorry. Yeah. see if we ever had to widen it. But then you run into Isn't that weird? Put a lemonade stand there. Yeah. Okay. So, I'll entertain a motion.

Are we looking Are we looking to extend some of the red lines or not? I don't I think for now we just leave them as proposed and then Yeah. Well, I think we could do that and then, Chief, we could moni monitor it over the next six months and find out if it's problems or we need to extend it or if it's going to be okay. Yeah, I think that's good. Even slowing down the traffic will make it safer right by the stop signs to Oh, yeah, for sure. Oh, it's an ordinance, is it? So, I got to put it on action. I've moved that we put this item on action for next week. I have a motion. Second. You can pick which one you want to count as your second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? There's your community garden. Mr. Hey, there you go. There you go.

You just can't park next to it to work on it. No, you can't. Ride your bike. That's right. You park down at the park. So, can I can I ask just one question? And this didn't even occur to me until we were talking just now. We have brought previously items to city council specifically to turn an intersection into an all-way stop. What we advertised and held the public hearing on was to establish the no parking. Do we need a separate We need to bring back the stop signs. We need do we need a separate action for the allway stop? And if so, can we bring that to you next week with this? I mean, yes,

for two action items. If you need to do it legally, I think but we would entertain it next week during our meeting. Yes, we're fine with it. It's up to that guy. If they count it as both of them. I said we'd have to change the wording and I'd have to look to see whether or not we're required to be on the stop sign separately, but I'm assuming we'll be fine. But I will need to look at that to be sure. If you can add it, add it. If not, put it on for the next one. Yeah, I I think that's a good catch, though. I And I Yeah, I just don't want to go down the road and find out we did something wrong. Correct. I don't know if that's actually a requirement anywhere, either in state code or our own ordinance, but it's been our practice. I know to bring those allway stops to city council for somebody might have an opinion on that that they don't have an opinion on a no parking. Right.

Part of part of why we bring stuff to you is not because we have to, but we also want to inform you, which is so I think the four-way stop can was probably to let these guys know or freeway. Okay. To let these guys know what's going on. Okay, that's my guess as well, but I will do the research. So, if we don't need action for that, we won't worry about it. You know, you've agreed. If we do need action, then we can bring that as a second action item. Sure. Okay. So we'll change the ordinance to include a

very good thank you. Okay. So the next item on here, this is a revision to our engineering standards. Um where we are going with this is we are adopting the um American public the Utah chapter American public works association um maintains a set of standardized um specifications and standard plans um that many cities across the state have adopted rather than cities trying to cover everything that would need to be covered in in standard specifications and standard drawings on their own with their own independent documents. Here in Cedar City, we currently just run with our own engineering standards. Now, some of that isn't part of what APWA has. We have engineering standards for design. That's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about construction specifications and those construction details um that are um that we are proposing through this we would address through adopting the Utah chapter APWA standard specifications and standard plans. So the way we have have uh worded this though because we do have a number of of um you know things in our engineering standards that you know even on the construction specification side and the details that we are probably going to want to keep. So with the way, excuse me, I've got a lingering cough I cannot shake. The way we have have uh um worded this here, um our our standards are currently organized in a in a fashion that looks more like a title page. Now that we're on MUN code, it doesn't make sense. So we've taken some of the substance of that and written it

just into paragraph form. That's the first paragraph of what's presented to you that we want to to have in be the way the engineering standards would read. The second paragraph is the real substance here of the proposed change where our our standards would say that we've adopted the 2026 APWA Utah manual of standard specifications and the 2026 APWA Utah manual of standard plans. So that's where what we're wanting to do. We want to adopt those those standards. Another benefit to adopting them is they're much more comprehensive than what we currently have in our engineering standards for standard specifications and plans. They cover a lot of topics that ours do not. And so this gives us standards right right off the bat when adopted gives us standards for things that we currently do not have standards for in terms of the construction. And so that's that's one of the things we want to do in our engineering standards. Sections four and five are the sections that deal directly with our standard specifications and standard plans.

And so what we have said here because we do want to take the time. We're going to continue to work with our public works divisions and try to go through section by section on all of this and see what do we need to keep of our current engineering standards and where are we happy just accepting what's in the APWA um standard specifications and standard plans. So, what we have said here is that we've that we would we we're putting this in past tenses since that's what it will be once you've adopted it. That the city has adopted those standards as its standard construction specifications and standard drawings in conjunction with the city specific requirements listed in sections four and five of these engineering standards. And then we say in the event of a conflict between the APWA standards and the requirements of sections four and five that sections four and five shall govern unless the contrary is approved in writing by the Cedar city engineer for a specific instance or project. So, we're saying someone comes in with a project, you know, and uh our standard until we change anything else in sections four and five, those are still applicable. But it doesn't prevent us from using the provisions of the APWA standard, specifications, and plans. If those are more appropriate to the the item at hand, we could go ahead and approve the use of the APWA um provisions. So that that's what this u that wording is intended to accomplish. And then the last paragraph there, we just want to make sure we have some definitions. We don't want to say everywhere in the standards where it says, you know, you can do such and such if the engineer approves. That doesn't mean the developer's engineer. That means us, right? And so we want to make sure that we have that that um defined. So we're saying that the term engineer in the APWA standards or any of these

section any sections of the city cedar city engineering standards shall refer to the Cedar City engineer and the term city and owner would refer to Cedar City Corporation. So we wanted to make sure that that was clear that there's no one misunderstanding of uh of of who can make the call on that. It's not the not the developer's engineer. So is this going to give you more tools than u for when there's gaps or there's things in design that maybe we haven't covered our engineering standards? So from a purely from a design standpoint, not necessarily only to the extent that the construction standard plans, you know, um do address items that you know, yeah, you're going to do your design consistent with those, right? But but generally the design standards and the construction standards are really two different things. Um, right now we've kind of lumped them together, although we we have done a pretty good job of breaking them out into different sections of our engineering standards, but they but but yeah, design and you know, the contractor doesn't care about what the design standards are. They care about what do the standard uh specifications and project plans tell him he has to build. That's what the contractor is looking at, right? And so it's the the designer who is going to determine what gets put on those on the plans for a project, what gets put in the specs for a project. And uh and and that that comes out of our design standards, not out of the construction specifications and standard plans. I ask a couple of questions. So, is this going to in any way increase the costs of submitting a project uh to the city

by adopting the standards on the design and adding them to what we already have on section four and five? No, I don't believe it does. It just it just clarifies what our standard uh construction specifications and details are for those things that we don't currently have. Now, as we go through and we look at, say we're going through the water um portion of the of the the uh APWA standards and we're comparing that to our current standards for construction on the water as we identify maybe there are some things that we don't no longer need to have in our in our city specific requirements in section three on on the um you know the specification issues. And so we just take those out and now we're just relying on the APWA, right? But it really doesn't change any any expenditure to the contractors. There's also no cost to the contractors to be able to access these standards. Um they're freely available on the Utah chapter APWA website. So anybody can just go on and download them.

Okay. Is there a chance that uh in adopting these uh these standards u and all always defaulting to the sections four and five for you know final definition that there would be confusion on the part of the uh contractor and engineers outside of the city uh in terms of what applies and what what are we going to get approved at the end. Um, I I don't Well, there may be some education we need to do with some contractors and uh but no, our our sections four and five will still apply. If if they haven't been to been given something in writing that says don't do that particular thing according to what section four or five says, do this other instead, then they're doing it according to sections four and five. It seems to me that you'd be you'd be uh opening the door for a more robust discussion engineer to engineer uh ahead of project submission and maybe that's a good thing, right?

Yeah, I believe so. Yeah. So, yeah. So, this is a big step for us. We want to get these APWA standards adopted and then Yeah. Then we'll continue to tackle where do our current standards vary from the Utah APWA and decide which way we want to go and come back with any modifications to our standards accordingly.

Do you feel like the our standards are more restrictive currently like they add additional costs and things that people have to put in or are they less restrictive that by adopting this uh general group of standards will add additional costs to developers? I would say for the most part um our standards that we have now are well I don't know it's it's going to go both ways because we certainly have items that we require in our current standards that um in my mind are much more expensive than they need to be. Whereas if we we were using and I'm thinking storm drain manholes are a good example. We use a fairly expensive actual box whereas most places in the Utah APWA would use a manhole that looks very much like a sanitary sewer manhole. Much much less expensive, right? Um, you know, so there are various items like that where um yeah, this could actually save contractors money. We do have other provisions where maybe our requirements aren't robust enough and we're not requiring enough whereas these new standards would require more. But those once again are ones that those won't be imposed until we come back with something to resolve that discrepancy between the two. Right? If we're going to say, you know what, instead of continuing to do it the way we have in sections four and five, we want to do that same thing the way it's written in the UTIP PWA. That'll be a change to our standards that we'll be bringing in to you.

So, there's not any huge unintended consequences. And I know this is a separate issue, but like the like the fire sprinklers, the fire suppression in homes was a big surprise in one of these that rolled out. I know that's not related, but there's nothing like that that's going to be like, okay, we just added $30,000, $40,000 cost per home that you can foresee.

Yeah, it really there's there's no no immediate change from this other than that we now have specifications for something that we didn't before. I I think the the piece that attracts me to this is the fact that there is going to be additional discussion between the engineers outside and your team and uh you know I know that everybody is focused on making sure that whatever we do we don't add unnecessary cost or um I don't know I guess complexity to a project where it's not needed. needed. Um, so I'm all for standardizing and maybe looking for ways to reduce costs without jeopardizing integrity of the project. Um, but it is going to take, I think, just me thinking out loud, it's going to take more effort on your on your and your team's part to make sure everybody understands the benefits of this.

Yeah. Yeah. And there are enough cities around the state who are already using these standards that uh you know a lot of of contractors are already familiar with these standards. Um others may not be. If they've only been doing work in Cedar City, then they clearly would not already be familiar with these, but others are going to be because they've been working in other jurisdictions that utilize them. All right. If you're all right, I'll open the public hearing. Anybody would like to comment. Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Uh, mayor, I'll make a motion that we move this to action. Have a motion. Second and a second. All in favor? I. Any opposed?

Mayor, I'd also like to point out that uh in previous administrations, once we got to a certain point, we had a pizza break. And and I had everybody say that was not necessary. I mean, you're the ones that make it go long, not me. All right. Number 10, public hearing to consider modifications to engineering standards 2.1.

Okay. So, this um item, let's see. I don't think I have this in the packet. I probably should have included it. Let me I I think the easiest way to to point out to you what it is we're trying to accomplish with this next item is to jump out to the west side of town off of Highway 56 and just point out a couple of things that we have going on here. Um so this is just so that you're aware of where we are. 4500 West, 4200 West, 4050 West. Um this is Iron Springs Elementary School. Okay. So, when the Cedar Meadows and Lamplight subdivision subdivisions were being developed, you had all the way from Highway 56 down to Center Street, there is no place that a road was stubbed to the west when those were being developed. Therefore, now as Iron Springs is developing out or Iron West, excuse me, is developing out, um, there were no stubs there to be able to connect to to have these neighborhoods have any kind of connectivity until you get all the way down to our master planned road at Center Street.

And if that weren't a master planned road, we probably wouldn't have that one stubbing through either, but we do because it was on the master plan. So you've got this big long stretch there where there's no connectivity at all between the neighborhoods on the east side of Cedar Meadows. We've got the same thing all the way from Highway 56 down to Center Street there. We don't have the road stubbed. We do have one culde-sac here that can extend um but but it doesn't now. And I don't know whe you know that's not quite the same thing as a as a stub that is clearly going to be connected to um

you compare that to what happened in the Mountain Shadows subdivision just to the south of Cedar Meadows there you have in addition to Center Street coming through you have other roadways that stub to the east and to the west. So as these properties to the east and west develop, we have that ability to get some interconnectivity between those developments. That helps us with traffic circulation. It also helps us with uh utility connectivity. U being able to loop up water systems, you know, give um logical routes for sewer service to be able to get through all of those kinds of things. So this this kind of illustrates the issue that we're trying to solve with the proposed change. So with that said, and this one is item 10. Okay. Want to make sure I get to the right thing. So, so here is where we have um in our engineering standards what we have right now in 2.1 um section 2.1 of our engineering standards we have some some fairly vague wording that uh that says that you know that we have these uh general requirements for public improvements within the city and that those improvements include all improvements of a public need including but not limited to streets, water, sewer and drainage. Okay. And then we we talk about um you know that improvements have to be extended from the nearest acceptable point of connection, right? And uh that you know we have just some very vague things in there. We get to a point where we say that all water lines shall be installed at the boundary lines of a development, but we don't talk about any of the rest of the infrastructure. and we don't have anything that really says there's going to be connectivity. We

need to have some type of connectivity. And and this has been an issue that's come up on a number of projects. Um we had an issue that we've been working with um two different developers on trying to to get a connection and the city has jumped in and we're actually putting some skin in this one to to try to solve it so that we get some connectivity between two developments where there's a real need from an infra uh uh especially a utility standpoint but it'll also really help with with others. So, and that was a project that one of the parties on that was development team and as uh Tyler Romell and I were talking about this one day. We we had quite a discussion about it and and Tyler came back with some proposed wording changes to this particular section that he thought would help. We reviewed that. We made some minor modifications from what Tyler had and then we added some things to it. and and this is really what we've come up with now is is what you what you have in front of you. So what we're trying to do now is we're saying that um the when that the layout must provide for future extension to adjacent properties. Period. Right. Um then we say when applicable improvements must also comply with um city master plans. That kind of goes without saying, but that is one of the reasons why we get these stubs is to comply with city master plans. And then we also come in and we say that when no topographical barriers exist, all improvements and and not just water lines, all improvements shall be installed to the boundary lines of the development. And then we go into talk about what those topographical barriers are that they're they include but are not limited to mountains, canyons, and extreme extremely steep slopes. And but what so what we're

wanting to try to say is there's no reason to to put a stub road into a you know a ledge. Yeah. Into a ledge. You know we if there's if there's no potential for that road to go somewhere then let's not spend the money to stub it. Right. Yeah. An example would be what's a subdivision up by the temple that looks over the edge. You have culde-sacs up there. You're not going to drop a road, correct? Down into the subdivision below. Yeah. So,

and so, so we do talk about the topographical barriers, but then we also say that when topographical barriers um as determined or agreed to by the city engineer. We're not going to just let the developer say, "Oh, that's a barrier." No, no, we need to agree to that. Um, there may still be a a need for some type of access beyond the subdivision, right? Maybe that's a public open space that we need to have access to. Maybe there are utilities there that we need to have access to or that other utility companies need to have access to.

And so we do say that there may still be a requirement for some access to adjoining properties even with the topographical barrier. um you know, in the absence of a stub street, but we're not going to stub a full street for for just that. It would just be some type of of uh you know, access the minimum needed that would be provided that may be nothing more than a pedestrian walkway in some cases, right? Um then we say streets and new subdivisions shall continue the alignment of existing streets and adjoining subdivisions or their proper projections when adjoining property is not yet uh not subdivided. So, we're just saying, you know, we one, when a new project comes in, we need to consider the properties around it and see where do there need to be some stub streets to go in. And then also, when the next properties come in, you can't just ignore those stubs. You need to connect to them.

So, you really don't get to choose. So, it's whoever goes first gets first pick, I guess. Yeah. But, but that's part of what they need to show us is that that Yeah. what what we're proposing to put in that can reasonably find produce that kind of connectivity that's needed. Well, that's part of my concern. Oh, sorry. No, that go ahead.

That that's part of my concern is if if your utilities are stubbed in on the east side and you have to run it all the way to the west side to get to the to the lot, that only benefits the adjacent neighbor. It doesn't benefit um that home. And so is there any like buy back or pay for the extra footage? Um like pull up the map. There was a street where the main line ran down the east side of the house, but there was a street that went on the on the other side. They can connect on the east side where give us an example here. Well, so zoom into like these bottom corners right where you are.

So like right in uh here they can connect here and then they're going to have to pay for it all the way here. It benefits them. Iota it benefits them to have to run all the way about this still part of the right but but even at that you can come to here and then the rest of that is well you're not necessarily you're going to have to go to where the gas company and the power company tell you to go right so they're they're going to give you a map and they they might run you mo most of the time they'll take you to the end of the property sure they won't stop in the middle so you'd have to go to the end of that if they're showing that lot. They're going to make you go past past the lot.

And I agree that we need to have the connectivity. That that's a no-brainer. But to me, there's going to be some situations where there's not houses on the bottom where they've got to run a whole a whole lot worth away from the main connections and and who pays for that, I guess. So, they could just, hey, let's let them develop and then they get the the connection. Away they go. Uh, and there's some extra square, you know, extra linear footage there that is is not benefiting that house. So, Robert, maybe a better example of what you're talking about is here where we we have lots that do have frontage on another street. Correct. They don't really need this frontage.

That's a perfect examp you do, but this that I was just using that as that was up there. So, yeah. So, Kent, also on these uh we've got a couple property owners right on the boundary lines that uh you cannot get on their property. Uh you can't I mean digging the sewer or whatever, you can't cross the fence. So, we just put it as close as we can, right?

But there's so whoever comes back in to tie in, he's going to have to tear into the road a little bit. So, that we just need to make sure that that's allowable because there's some people you can't touch their property. Well, and to Robert's point, I mean, in this case, would it be fine for it to read that that they just have to have it there um on that intersection and then whoever develops has to bring it from there? I I wouldn't do that. Everybody's pointing to their screens. And of course, none of us know what they're up there, too. Stop it here. You wouldn't be able to finish your road then because if you have if they come in, they're going to tear out the asphalt. Yeah. See, then they'd have to tear up your road. better off just to take it to the

and and I agree that it needs to be taken and we don't have them do that. But what I don't agree with is that that they bear the full brunt of the cost um from running it down there that benefits them zero. Well, the good thing is is they probably got the benefit on the other end where they they may have they may have. So can you add something that forces a type of reimbursement in that situation for that? I mean they have to put it in but how much are you talking Phil? Like you're talking 90 feet of of water and sewer line. If you if this was a 100 foot lot, you're talking 100 feet, you know, maybe 10, 15, 20,000 bucks. But we're talking water, sewer, gas. Well, the road you already have on you.

But if if you're going to do the road, then you got to put then you better put them in. Otherwise, you're going to dig out all the asphalt. You're going to dig out all the water. You're going to pay a whole lot more. And so the developer would rather, I'm sure, because it just ruins your subdivision. it goes back in and digs it all up. So, if you do it the other way, it'll cost more to do the asphalt than it would to It cost more to put the utilities in. Yeah. I' I'd if I was building it and myself, the owner, I would take it to the property. But I guess the but the question the mayor had maybe wasn't so much the asphalt, curb, gutter, and sidewalk, but what's what's 100t of gas line, water line, and sewer line? The gas line does their own. Okay. So, what's 100t of water and sewer? Yeah, but they're going to have to pay for it now because the gas line the gas line in this

example. I'm going to tell you right now, the gas line's going to the end of property no matter. But no, but if the gas line is running north and south and we're going to make them turn the corner and run east and west, they will. Well, they know if there's going to be future development there, I can't imagine. That's the main road. They'll go down that road. Yeah. Okay. They'll go. And I had a a question with regards to um like uh easements for emergency vehicles and things like that. Um I know in the I'm in an HOA, but we have a culde-sac where at the end of it we have an Eastman for emergency. You're one of the bad players. I am one of the bad players.

Um but is that something that needs to be considered in the language that you're proposing? So that's um I think what you're talking about is really a separate issue that's covered elsewhere in our in our ordinances. Um so we do have requirements that if you have more than a certain number of of housing units, then you need to have a second access into that. Um that's another issue that we're going to have to spend a little more time on. Uh uh Chief Phillips and um Mike Schz, our fire marshall, and I have already had some conversations about it. what the fire code actually says and what our ordinance say don't quite match up there.

Um, and we actually allow more units than than what the fire code says we should be. And so, but that is that's a separate issue that's that's not directly related to or not directly impacted by what we're showing here. But to to your point, if we're going to be able to develop property in a way that we can get the appropriate access, we can be fully compliant with fire code, it sure helps if we're requiring these stub roads and properties can connect together. Absolutely. Because then both properties, you know, end up with the benefit of of those additional access points.

Don't disagree with that at all. But you could have a development that actually had to pay for it on both sides. you know, their development hits and so it's just an added cost and I hopefully they recognize that and negotiate the price cheaper when they buy it. So, one question that I have though, Kent, how does this fall into place? So, let's say this person, using this example, let's say the person to the east of this property right here, your finger, this big field right here, the person who buys it happens to come in, gets a zone change, and goes to an R3M and puts in a PUD, and they want to put a I mean, is this does this only apply to public streets or what happens if you put in a private subdivision right next to it and they want to wall up the whole thing? And

so what my think my interpretation of what we've written is they need to extend that public street. So doing a different development type that doesn't extend the public street isn't an option. Yeah. Okay. So they couldn't do a if they wanted to do it, they would have to at least extend the public street and then have a little infrastructure. Yeah. Driveway. They would need to come in with a proposal as to what they were going to do with that public street, where they were going to tie it back into something or if they're going to put in a culde-sac, what that would look like. Those are all things we need to be and I'm fine with that. I just wanted to make sure that we didn't Yeah, that's the next thing is take out PUDS. It's just not on here yet. So, any other question answer on that?

If not, let's open up the public hearing. OH, the trip.

So, Chris Hall, I'm the planning manager for U DOT. Thanks for taking my comments. is something that that I wanted to bring to your attention that this this issue here has been kind of a statewide issue. the recently in the last couple of years state legislature directed UD do to do a connectivity study or grid study in all the metro areas to say how could we better connect these neighborhoods because there's benefits to all of the traffic network when there's better connectivity like this when there's at those culde-sacs and some of those studies came back that depending on the circumstances you could see an a reduction of 40% 30 40% on some of your main arterial roads so there's a a greater distribution of much better traffic flow in across the whole metro area,

which you're not quite a metro area yet, but you will be soon. So, that's why I wanted to come to make sure you had that information that it's a statewide issue. There's a lot of cities that haven't done this that they're struggling with it of like, oh, now we need to connect these. They have to go through homes in those culde-sacs. uh even some of the the geographical things they're looking at saying that wasn't feasible at the time, but we really need to make that that connection across these steeper hills or across this river or creek or canal that they're really trying to say we need to make those connections now to make the traffic network function. And so it's good to be in front of this and have these conversations to say this connectivity is going to be beneficial for the future traffic network.

You make sure you take it back to UD do that we're on the forefront. That's right. getting this done ahead of Ken. Do we have a copy of that study? We're a good player. But Chris, I think I don't think so. Let's get a copy of it. Can't we? Ken's just smart like that. He doesn't even need studies. Well, we we tried getting rid of studies last about that. I've been dealing with this issue for a lot of years and I've been involved in with stuff going on in cities that had good ordinance provisions and ones that don't and I've seen the difference and we're trying to get more on the good or Chris, I appreciate your comments here because we're already having a lot of congestion on 56. Oh, bad.

And we don't have enough connectivity that can get other routes. So yeah, that that exact example that that Kent showed was a a prime example that there's all those houses that can't get to the elementary, the vet and other commercials there. They have to go out from the state highway, get on a busy road for a really short distance, and then get right off because there's no connectivity. Yeah. And we will have push back from the development world, right? Because that means they lose a lot or two. I've already had two calls from development. Kids can't spend lots. Well, they got a choice. Either do it or don't put it in. And and that's the conversation I've had is the good of the overall community is that connectivity makes such a big difference. I think this is a great this is a great thing.

And I'm sure some people also like I mean it got to help traffic got to help everybody. Yeah. And this needs to be done paying for all of it, right? I get it. I mean and then then then the neighbor gets the benefit of all their being good neighbors. That's that's the part I struggle with. Not Yeah. Yeah. 100 ft of pipe and stuff is what they really shouldn't lose a lot unless they're planning on putting a culde-sac put another house there. But every one of those put a house. Chris, you and here for almost uh three hours. Three hours. There's anything else you want to share with us because you've been very good to sit there.

I would just like to share my appreciation for Kent and other city staff. We work with them, the Iron County RPO. They're great great partners with UD do and we really appreciate the partnership that we have with with city and and everybody. Thank you for your patience and coming tonight and thanks for your help on the trails in our city because we're very happy to have that um inner mountain international mountain biking association award for him. So thank you for all you've done. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Can one last comment that I have on this? I I fully support this. One maybe small if I'm just thinking through it, devil's advocate, small concern I have is

is the one maybe good thing that about the way we do it is I like that it gets traffic moving towards our big roads. One thing I've always struggled with and I think this is something you're getting at and we're going to have another discussion is I hate the idea of just pushing one neighborhood into another neighborhood into another neighborhood to then get out to the main road. Like I don't want this to be an excuse for one neighborhood to just say, "Well, now I don't have to connect out to the highway. I can just push everybody into the neighborhood next to me because they already built the connector. Like for example, if we use that example out there, if you bought just that plot, now I can just push everybody into the neighborhood next to me. I don't have to get them out to the main highway unless well that all depends how they I'm just saying I mean we see that kind of stuff. So that's

and that that's a good point to bring up and I I wanted to come back and comment on that because when it comes to a state road, we have access management policies that say you can only have a connection. Yeah. So many so often. So, so yes, if you talk about multiple subdivisions, then yeah, there probably needs to be another connection, but oftent times it's much better to have that distribution inside the the the um subdivisions rather than trying to put too many go out and back in that the city owns

that they they need to have the appropriate spacing and Ken's been a very good advocate making sure that those access management spacings are correct for the type of of roadway. And so that's a critical aspect to look at too is that you can't have too many accesses to those major roads. Correct. Rather than they don't function like Well, we just went through that. We actually had to Yeah, we've changed our master plan recently because that access was denied on That's what Main Street's got.

This is something that Lehi City has done in in some of their newer expansions. They have made that connectivity from one subdivision to the other. And a lot of times now the roads that used to be really packed are a little bit more um relaxed in terms of the traffic congestion. So it works. It it really works. All right. Can I add something? Oh yes.

Um so just I kept trying to jump in. I'm always interrupting. Um so there was a mention obviously of benefit to the neighboring properties and that's absolutely true. But what we're looking at is actually apart from that, these neighborhoods when they come in, we're trying to reduce the burden they're adding to our master plan infrastructure. And the reason why I emphasize that is that's a question that courts often ask about takings, right? If we're only benefiting other people, then yeah, they're going to come scream at us and tell us to pay for it. But this is reducing the burden they that subdivision itself is creating. Transportation is the easiest one to see. You add in more that have to go on to 56 that is added to the public infrastructure that we are asking them to mitigate what they're adding. Will others benefit? Yes. But that development itself will will benefit from what we're requiring here today.

Yeah. They're also benefiting. Correct. Yeah. Because they traffic through the other one and they're also benefiting by they get to choose where the road goes. Have we closed this public hearing? Yes. I would like to close the move. He's getting angry. I I would move that we put this item on action for next week. Second. I might have some. All in favor? Any opposed? Okay. You can tell Tyler that at this stage we are ready to rock and roll. So, let's uh I got one more. Oh, we got to call a sec first. Ken Kent's got one more. But he's going to make this one very close. Next time, so we don't have 12 of them in one meeting. But I only have three of these. Feel like a lot. Okay. He'll be concise on this one. Good.

So, we all we all read the packet. So this this next item is related to our culdeac. Okay. Um we have a let me pull up where have I got it here.

So this is our current standard drawing for culde-sacs. Okay. And with the with the culde-sac, what we say is that the radius at the rideway line here depends on the type of road that we have here. In reality though, um you never build a culde-sac for anything other than a local street, right? You're not going to culde-sac an arterial street or a major collector.

And so really the table that we have here doesn't really mean a whole lot other than the top line. But what but the problem we run into with this is when we build it according to what we have in our table on these local streets with a 50ft radius to the right ofway line. That leaves us short of meeting fire code standards for the diameter of that usable turnaround area that they have available to them. the the fire code requires 90 a 96 foot diameter of that usable space. So really face a curb to face a curb. What we show right here is um a fair amount less than that. I can't remember the exact number I if I could uh do the math quickly in my head. I think it's in a packet.

But so you you wind up at at somewhere more in the in the 80 foot range, I think, if I'm not mistaken. 80 between 80 and 90. And then you gave me 89. 89. Okay. 89 is probably right. 89 is less than 96. So we're not meeting fire code with our current culde-sac standard. Okay. And that's curb to curb. That's not counting a vehicle parked on the culde-sac. If there's a vehicle parked there, then it's even worse. Yeah, that's right. Um, so and this size culde-sac, not only does that not meet fire code, but it makes it difficult for our sanitation vehicles that need to go in and pick up garbage and

everything else that need needs to utilize that. So what our proposal is now let me jump to the item here. What our proposal is is we've we've tried to address some things in the length of the culde-sac, the diameter of the culde-sac, and then talking about temporary culde-sacs and where those are needed, these temporary turnarounds on a stub road. So, what we're saying is, and I've changed the definition of how we measure the culde-sac, so so this isn't really a 50-ft change. It's a a lesser than 50 foot change. But what I'm what I'm saying, and it's only because it's what I'm used to from everywhere else I've dealt with, is that we would measure from the center line of the cross street to the center point of the culde-sac. We're saying 550 ft. Okay, that's an that's allowing an increase of what does it end up being around 20 feet. Yeah,

20 between 20 and 30 feet on the length of that culde-sac that is in residential zoning districts. What we're saying is in other zoning districts, for example, if this is in an industrial park where you have a culde-sac, which we have a few of those out near the airport, east of the airport, right? Um, do we, you know, do we need that 550 foot limitation or could we go longer? I think we could go longer. You're talking about large lots. You're not serving a lot of properties on that on that culde-sac. And what the fire code has as the longest um length you can go on a culde-sac without some type of special approval is 750 ft. And so what we said here is let's go ahead and take culde-sacs in the other zoning districts, the industrial and commercial, and say that those can be 750 ft long. So that that's part of the change.

So get on that, why not make residential the same? Why why shorten it up? We could um I'd like I'd like to see it stay the same. 750. If we're making the culde-sacs bigger so that they're they fit better, I don't see why we need to bring them down. Actually, culde-sac's pretty nice. So, and and that that's a really good point and we can certainly go that direction if that's the direction the council would like us to go. I I would point out that um and uh and you might

you you might roll your eyes and fall asleep on me when I say this, but when it comes to um the movement of traffic, circulation of traffic through neighborhoods, um and the ability of people to be able to interact with their neighbors, um culde-sacs are really kind of our worst thing. They take people and they kind of silo them into one little group that they have no connection to to the people around them. The uh and from a traffic circulation standpoint, utility standpoint, all those other things, the absolute best thing is a grid, right? The grid allows you to disperse traffic through throughout the the uh um neighborhood however it needs to be, so you're not pushing everybody out onto one street. it um you know so it reduces that traffic congestion that's associated with it. It really makes for a more more livable community. For that reason there are cities here in Utah um Salt Lake City being one that actually say in their ordinances now that no uh culde-sacs are allowed in new development.

They just flat say none. You've got new development. design your development to where you don't need culde-sacs because really culdesacs are are our enemy when it comes to you know circulation of traffic and all those other kinds of things. So I don't think we want to make culde-sacs any longer than they need to be. Now we do need to be able to work with the developer on a case where you know what you're trying to lay something out. It's a really odd shaped piece of ground. there's some kind of constraint there, you know, and to make something fit, maybe you need a 700 foot long culde-sac. Okay, that's something we can work with.

Does the ordinance that we just modified help a lot with that because now you're going to help the connectivity happen within the ordinance and if a developer chooses to plug cold sex in between I I believe so, but and there the two relate in another way I'll get to in just a minute.

Okay. But yes, I think it I think it is helpful. So, so really we're we're saying, okay, let's continue to do culdesacs, but let's not let those culde-sacs get any longer than they need to and contribute to the issues even more than they need to contribute to those issues. Okay, that doesn't mean we couldn't go to 750 ft across the board, and if that's the direction council goes, we're certainly supportive of that. But we were proposing my initial proposal was to actually shorten it and then we after some discussion we we settled on no let's keep it about where it is for residential. Um

could we leave it till maybe it's an option just like we said because there's a few times where it would help. Can you make it so it's an option that not it's mandatory but if we if it needs a window right

there's a window that we could. So, part of what part of what the council gave us the ability to do here several months ago in a change we brought through in our ordinances is for the city engineer to be able to approve variances to our engineering standards so that we can work with the developers on something. There's a good reason why this needs to be a little longer and we can kind of work it out and say, "Yeah, you know, there's not a better solution. We agree. Let's do it. We can we can grant that variance." and so without having to, you know, bring their process to a halt while we try to schedule coming through city council. So, so I think we already have the tools in place to work with those locations where the culde-sac needs to be a different length. We would obviously be in communication on any of those kinds of requests. We would be in communication with the fire department as well to make sure that that they don't see a problem with it.

But can't you just define them as socially evil and detrimental to the good of society? How likely are you going to be to give a guy another 10 foot on a culde-sac? You just told in a public meeting how anybody who lives in a culde-sac is maladjusted and doesn't talk to their neighbors. Paul must live in a culde-sac. So I live in a my my wife absolutely loves her culdeac. Oh yes. Yes. We we are rather exclusive and maladjusted. You're okay. Are we okay if we open this? Let's open this public hearing. Let's keep this one moving. Public hearing might be the pleasant one in Nicole Saga.

Any any public comments? Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing. Okay. Now, I don't know if you really wanted to do that because we haven't gotten to the end of of this yet. Okay. Okay. Let's talk about the rest of of the provision in here. So, we get into where, you know, dealing with a temporary culde-sac. Okay. Does everyone know what we're talking about with that? There's a road that's ending and maybe it's at the end of a phase of a development, but we don't know

how soon it's going to come, the next phase, right? It might be next year, it might be 10, 15 years from now. So what we do now is we require the way our current engineering standards are written, we require a temporary uh end to that, a temporary turnaround to be built for anything that's longer than 35 ft, I believe the number is in our standards. So that doesn't even get you to the back of those lots where that where that stub road is going to be, right? It just say if you're going to go beyond that, you've got to have a temporary turnaround. At one time, our city standard was 200 feet on that. And that was reduced a few years ago to the to the length we have now. But that length we have now really makes it tough to be able to try to even build these or you know put into new developments these stub roads to be able to connect to adjoining property

because if we can't even finish the road off and so now we're putting a temporary turnaround in that the only way you can get it in is to encroach on the lots and potentially leave a lot unbuildable until the road extends. you know, that gets that gets pretty difficult to to to deal with and it make it really creates a hurdle in trying to achieve the connectivity we want to achieve between developments. And so what we are proposing on this is we're proposing that a temporary culde-sac would be required on any street that ends in a temporary dead end where the length of the street is longer than 150 ft from center line of cross street to the temporary dead end or where one or more lots front the dead end street that do not have frontage on the cross street. So, going back to what we were looking at earlier over in Mountain Shadows, what we would be saying is this deadend road right here, there's no not really a a need to build a temporary turnaround on that.

This isn't that long. Um, you can you can uh you know, these properties have access have frontage on the other street on that cross street. There's not really a reason to put the temporary turnaround in. this would be a different situation because we have a lot here that its only frontage is on that dead end, right? And so we're saying if there if you have a lot that the only frontage is on the dead end, we need the turnaround, right?

So the only question I would have is to me it has more to do with the 150 like a driveway for firet truck to get in and fight a fire. Why does it matter if it's one lot or two lots or three lots? Because you're you may do a subdivision that has smaller lot widths that you might have three or four lots on each side of the road. So what does the h why does the lot matter instead of just the depth? Okay. So one one way that matters at least matters to our public works department is that you know this house right here for 411 west. Okay. Where do they put their garbage can? In front of their house. Huh? In front of their house.

They put it in front of their house. So how do we pick it up? We don't have the ability to come down here, turn around and come back and pick them up the way we normally would. So what do we do? We have to back a truck all the way down there, which we don't like backing trucks, especially in neighborhoods where there could be kids running around, those kinds of things. So, we have to back a truck down in there to be able to pick up their can.

That that's really the reason we were looking at that. Now, does that mean there couldn't be once again as we work with the developer to try to come up with the right solution and and in consultation with fire and public works that there couldn't be a variance approved? Of course, there could be if there's a strong enough reason for it, but but the reason we picked the 150 ft is because the fire code actually says that you need a temporary turnaround if you have a dead end that's longer than 150 ft. Yeah, I knew that one.

So, we were just making that consistent with the fire code. Let's say, however, that that we had something like this come in and because of the size of lots, this ended up being 180 ft. Is that a problem? Well, it could be, but that's where we would be consulting with the fire department, with public works, and making sure that we're all comfortable with approving that variance. Right. Okay.

Ken, I have a question on the last part of that since it says and there will be a a fire hydrant at the end. If you're if you have a fire hydrant within two or 300 feet, do you are you still requiring a hydrant at the end of the culde-sac? So that's that's part of our current standards and and our current standards do require it. We need some way to flush the line. Can you just do it with a blowoff

and you could um the way the way the city has chosen to deal with that um and it's been in our standards for a long time is that there needs to be a hydrant at the end. Now, as we go through all of the our our engineering standards with the uh um you know, going through water, going through sewer, everything with the appropriate divisions of public works, that's certainly something we can we can take a look at. That wasn't related to to the geometric considerations of the culde-sac. So, we didn't try to address it here. We were going to leave that same.

Yeah. Something we just looked at because most of the water standards now calls for an open bore flush. So if you got an 8 10 or 12 then you're fish you're flushing through an 8 10 or 12 in pipe where a fire hydrant it's only six and it's on a bend. Well we're talking about a permanent ability to flush a line so it doesn't get stagnant is really what this is all about. Okay. All right. Any further discussion? If not I'll enter a motion. Uh I would move that we take this item to action for next week. Have a motion and a second. All in favor? I. any post. Now you're finally done with I would just like to say I didn't have one thing to say.

Tyler, you are smiling. It means you had a sandwich or something back there. Not yet. Get out of here. Let's make this record-breaking. Make it painless. Can we do all three of these at the same time? No. No. I just try to pick. But we can say we we read them in our packets. And is there any questions for Tyler? Tyler Glack, airport manager. Any questions? Massage. Actually, so massage vending is the quarter chairs, right? You put it, you put it in and you have the chairs or the foot. It's a year trial basis. We're going to see how it goes. Right. Correct. Who's signing the contract for him? Um be the gentleman. What's their address? You don't I do not have the address in there yet. We don't have that information.

Okay. I will add that in there. I haven't gotten that yet. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? Nope. I think we can put this on consent. I'll second that. Have to come before us for him to have a contract to get a vendor in there. It's a very good question. So, technically, uh, the the terms of that contract probably could have been signed by his department head or the mayor without coming to you guys. Don't tell me. That's what I'm saying. I mean, he should have the ability to Yeah. to have it contract out of their I'll be happy to carry the contract signature. So So since you brought it, we'll put it on consent.

All right. Sign tomorrow. I made the motion. I don't I second it. Yeah, I had we got the second favor. Okay. I I post. Great. Okay. Next one, Tyler. All right. This land lease tag airport manager land lease for Ono Investment. Mr. Jeffing. This is an existing lot that Mr. Clayton Cheney lease. It never got developed and so we're looking to we we've terminated that lease. Um and now we're looking to initiate this lease. The only change with the previous approval was he wants it 10 ft wider um to be able to fit a larger aircraft in it for a customer he's building it for. Um it doesn't interfere with any of the utilities go the opposite direction. Wouldn't interfere with anything else. So any other questions on that one?

Where where is it located? I mean, I know the address is in there, but I by tanker base that Okay. How many hangers does he have now? Uh, he's developed two so far and then he leases or rents one from us. So, he's got three. Okay. He used to own more, but he sold a bunch. He sold a couple to SU over the years. Can we put leases on consent? Is is it better for us to just lease them to him so he can lease them to somebody else or should be better for us to develop them? That's what I'm thinking. Right. Uh so how long is this lease?

Oh, this will be a standard lease. So a 20-year initial contract and then we have five five year renewals. So 45 years and then it can continue on beyond those 45 years as well. Does it rate change after 20 years? And then in the every five years we'll do a CPI adjustment uh with you're on the board now. You can see about getting that I I listen I've been talking about this even before I was put on the board. I think that we're losing a huge opportunity for revenue for the city and u you know we for the airport councilman not for the city. Okay. Yeah. For no revenue diversion. Sorry that was my exact comment. Are we in the business of competing with private industry? Are we in the real estate business

and developing real estate? That's that's the I'm just saying that there there there are commercial opportunities in here that go beyond leasing valuable land for 20 or 30 years to somebody who is going to make a lot of money make a lot of money and we're not and I agree 100% with that but then but then we become builders and developers and is that our role what's wrong with that you know we don't have enough money to put you know 20 or 12 in pipes down the street It's well this one to me it's a little different on the airport and the airport is a city amenity that only exists because of city doing it right

well the FAA really but I I would move that we place this item on consent for next week second have a motion and a second all in favor any post thank you sorry Tyler I didn't mean to drag you into this all good I agree and thank you for reminding me, Councilman Phillips, that I'm on the board on that just in case you forgot. Item 14.

All right. Last item on this one is Tiger Airport Manager. Uh, aircraft rescue firefighting apparatus. We had a grant for that last year with the FAA. Um, we've already done a change order regarding this item. However, that didn't include the FAA grant amendment. So, we had to get new foam that was certified. Um, we got rid of the old stuff and it cost us an extra uh $11,733.68. Um, the FAA's agreed to pay it verbal agreement and so now we're doing a grant amendment with the FAA and that's what this is for. Our match on that grant amendment will be $586.68 and that'll come out of this year's budget, airport budget.

Yes. So, we'll have to do a budget revision this with Terry's this last quarter. So, so you're coming to us asking for $586. Yes. Correct. Yes. Beautiful. May I make a motion we to put this on consent? I have a motion. Second. Oh, go ahead, Councilman Cox. And a second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Thank you. Thank you, Tyler. That's the cheapest thing you've ever asked for. Appreciate it. All right, last one. Hi, I'm Paul Bitman. I'm a socially maladjusted culdeac. Your wife, your wife's standing there cheering you on, Paul.

West Canyon Park, West Canyon Park, please.

So, I'm here tonight in my capacity as the president of Southwestfield Irrigation Company to make requests at Cedar City. And I'll give you a little background. Uh, I think everybody here's been to West Canyon Park both before the improvements and after. before the improvements and after uh there was a ditch running through West Canyon Park. It's owned and operated by South and Westfield Irrigation Company and its sole purpose in our eyes is to move water from point A to point B. For years, kids have played in it. It's been unimproved. It's been dirt and rocks and for years kids have uh thrown their little brother in it maybe and done other sundry things and had fun. But algae didn't grow in it until we developed it recently.

Oh, no. Algae still grew. On the rocks. It grew on the rocks rocks and it was slipp. I've seen kids fall on the old ditch. Sure. So, uh, the new ditch was put in. Um, it was concreted. It's nice. It moves water from A to B very nicely for the Southwestfield Irrigation Company.

Uh, there's also been an increase in people slipping and falling in that ditch. Uh and the irrigation company is a simple request from the city uh to either indemnify the irrigation company for the liability of using as a recreational amenity which the irrigation company has absolutely no interest in doing or pipe the ditch. So we the irrigation company doesn't want liability for these slips and falls. Uh we had another one the other day with a lady that slipped and fell in there and whacked her head. And if the city refuses, what is South and West and Phil's irrigation?

The request would be for the city to pipe the ditch. If and if that if both of those are refused, the irrigation company board most likely move to fence the ditch off, which would be terrible right there. Oh, absolutely. This is a horrible situation. It's a wonder it hasn't killed somebody yet. Little kids falling hit in the back of their heads or whatever. So, I'm I'm all for I grew up in ditches all my life and we had what we call the big ditch and you go down there was moss all over it and you'd slide on that thing and go in the water and it was a blast and you'll be crashed and burned. I think I don't know if it's just the cuz it's got just enough of an incline or what, but it's

Yeah, it's just changing because before even though there's algae you'd stub your toe and you'd slide a little, but now it's just you just keep going some ditch. Yeah, I can't blame him for wanting to do that. Do we can you make it so the water doesn't even come there? Do we have to have Can't you just keep it in the main channel? That is our main channel. That's what Well, there's the down into the city. That's what takes it down to all of the houses for the irrigation company. That's the main line. Oh, gotcha. Is there a way to put some rough, you know, in the cattle industry and the dairy industry, they run uh lines in the concrete to to give you traction. So something you can dig your toes in spray all that stuff in the back of

and yeah, I think that that's just probably a separate that's kind of a separate issue. The irrigation company would still want to be indemnified. I'll put my city hat back on. We've talked about using the same type of uh pore and play pour in place play systems that we're going to use elsewhere in the park there. Uh won't it just get mossed over too? you would see an advantageous as uh when you do slip and fall, you would not be hitting concrete. You'd be hitting something that is uh somewhat somewhat more uh you bounceable, but you would still get the moss. There's no way to deal with the moss there because

irrigation company is sending raw, unfiltered, untreated water through it. Yeah. And some of you said they're not going to shut it off. Well, and they they can't treat it because they treat it for irrigation. treat it and you and the only way the moss dies out is when we shut it off in the winter and then the moss all dies out. Sure. So, so really what we've just got to decide as a city with this agenda item is are we okay to indemnify and keep the use of it for a recreation facility that a lot of people do love to go use or do we want to eliminate our liability as well?

Well, we going to have a liability no matter what because it's a city park. And I need to tell you that your insurance comp your insurance provider Irma, we ran this by them. They think it's a terrible idea for you to indemnify anybody much less the Southwest Field Irrigation. So my question is on the admification, does that mean we can't stop even if we do that, we cannot stop a lawsuit from naming them in a lawsuit. It just means that if somehow they were found guilty and they were fined in a lawsuit that we would then pay them, we would then identify them for whatever their loss is. You would hire lawyers for them. Yep. You would. We would do all of it. Correct.

Okay. It's not a hold harmless. It's a ademnify. Okay. Do we have any idea of what it would cost to do the pour and play? Kenny, do you have a good feel for that? Or any other options? Is it $200,000? A whole bunch of non-slip options, but none of them work because it's going to algae over. Yeah. The only reason you kind of gravitated to the pouring plate is because it has a little bit of smush to it. But you don't fall. Sorry. Uh Ken Nelson with Legis. You're either just cushioning the fall. Yeah.

Or or doing nothing because they don't have any material that is used to submerge uh like ditches. The splash pad hits has water and then it leaves, right? That thing never dries out, right? So they have nothing industrywise to deal with the ditch. So all we're we've played around with the concept as Paul said of just cushioning the blow. That's the only thing that's going to happen. And it's going to be Would it hold up underwater? For how long? Right. That's not the the pour in play. That's not the um that's not that's not what the usable that's not what it is. Yeah.

Splash pad has water and it keeps you from slipping, but then it dries. It's not made to submerge. And are you got and are you thinking you you're going to cush on the rocks or just the main floor in the walls? How far do you go? How high up do you go up the side? Oh my gosh. That's just the nightmare that they built. So our preliminary conversations was like the floor and come up the side a little ways. If we were to pipe that, but out of maybe out of the pipe just put a little stub that could make a little pond or something. I mean, I've seen a lot of kids play there myself, but you cringe when they fall. But if there's a way that we could make a little small pond or something for them to play in or

where it slows the water down and then goes back into a pipe. Yeah. The irrigation company would still want you to indemnify them. Sure. Your feature solely and use your water out of it. There's not enough flow through that uh irrigation to to run two systems. can't necessarily say I blame South and Westfield. No, me neither. So, our decision again would just be do we indemnify him or not for now and then the other part is what do we do after that? Randall,

and again, I mean, I'm repeating the same thing. Irma is not a big fan of it, but your choices right now with, you know, the irrigation company is either stop letting kids play in our water or indemnify them. Um, so that's your choice. Well, we can't stop them, but if we if we don't indemnify them, do they put in the culverts? No. The only thing they'd likely put in is chain link fence because I doubt they're going to get any more expensive than that. Yeah, I think you're right. Chain link down both sides of it. And yeah, it's not going to be pretty, but all they care about is protecting their interest, which is exactly what I would do if I was their council. From the irrigation company's standpoint, that worked fine for us when it was dirt and rocks.

Um, the improvement is really a recreational amenity. It has nothing to do to the efficiency of our system. What if we just took the cement out and left it as a dirt rocks? Okay. Same thing. You still you still want to be in You do, but it's still temporary, right? I mean, that's again your question is how quickly can you change that back? And irrigation company wants this protection next week. The other component of it is um through social media and other channels. This has been advertised as a water feature to come and play in. Mhm.

When when we were kids and when you had kids that was the irrigation ditch and and if you played in it, you played in it. It wasn't advertised to the world as a recreational amenity. It's now considered an attractive what do they call it? Attractive nuisance. ractive nuisance from the from the ditch company standpoint. The nature of it is has been altered. Yeah.

And it's been publicized and frankly from the city standpoint. We get calls from people who are ticked off when the irrigation company shuts it down because there's a thunderstorm up the mountain and we don't want the silt in it. We get people ticked off and calling us saying, "Where's my recreational amenities? You advertise the water feature up there and there's no water. So, um, yeah, the nature of that's been changed. So, this is a no- win situation. Well, this is not the time for the discussion, but have we estimated how much it'll cost to pipe it? How long is it, Paul? It's 50 60 feet on that more than that. Good question. Oh, the length to that

we would ask that it be where comes out out there by that bridge and up by the bridge back to the to the north where it goes back to the natural ditch. Yeah. Most of your fall is in that. Uh it's probably more than that. 18inch pipe work that might be fine. Yeah. The company probably sure of course because it splashes evaporates.

Can if we go this direction we have definitely got to get a splash pad because all the water feature of that whole park will be gone. Yeah. Somewhere up here can along the blue line probably down to about right here. probably going to be about $40 $50 a foot. Take it out and put it back. So yeah, start where your arrow is. Well, plus you have to go through the ditch. You have to take out all the rocks. You're going to be about five or six thousand. Come down to probably right around it. Take Well, you got to tear all the tear stuff out. Hard to take and pull the concrete out. You're 330 ft roughly.

300 400 ft. So just just take 50 bucks times that. So from the irrigation company standpoint for the city is do you want to keep it as a recreation 20 grand? That would pipe it and take out the other. How much would it cost ballpark to put a water feature there if we piped that over? Few hundred.

Yeah, it's at least a few hundred thousand. So, so, uh, the ability to make the splash feature is currently there with what the circle does up above. It's got two water features in it now. One doesn't work that Councilman Phillips and I want to change, but um, the ability to have a water feature is there up above in the place that's going to get the pour in place, and that's culinary water. M that's not ditch water part of the problem. So that's making a splash pad with ditch water.

That's Yeah, that's the different aspect. So and and the kids enjoyed that, right? This it's we have the ability to put another couple features in that. Um but it's just whatever you folks choose to do on that. So if you pipe that kids are just going to walk down to the creek like they used to. I mean, when the water's not there and you have big boulders and, you know, risk there, too. Do we have the same liability? You're just going to move it from one place to the other. If you piped it, you'd probably pipe the grass over the top. Well, I'm talking about Cole Creek. They I mean, the kids are going to get in the water one way or the other. Well, if they go off the property, I They go all the way into Cole Creek. Um,

that's a little tough to get there. It's a little steep. Well, a handful will climb down in there, but our liability risk of an actual just pure ditch is almost zero that point. Yeah. It's the fact that we've modified this that's turned it into a play feature. Um that's it's creating the problem. So, if you pipe it through that, my measurement is about 560 ft really quickly. Um and get it back to the way it was. We don't advertise that as a water feature. Then we go back to the same risk we had before, which everybody was fine with. Well, but if we go back, are they still going to want to be indemnified? They haven't for Well, I mean piping the new pipe this area.

Oh, if we just go back to dirt. What if we just turn it back to a ditch? Leave it open. If you still if you still advertise it as a recreational amenity, yes, we want to be indemnified. Okay. So, you'd have to go completely back to what it was or improve it. We don't We're not Yeah, we wouldn't advertise it. I I think I think genie's out of your bottle. We would, yeah, we would want it piped.

Just thinking out loud, we're going to need to figure out a way to indentify them shortterm and then come up with a plan to either pipe that over and add water features or something else. But that's a separate discussion. There's no way we can reject the indemnification because if we reject it, you're going to go put a chainlink fence in there and that's Yeah. And we can't do that. But if we don't identify them and we're going to change it anyways, they're just going to put they'll put the chain link fence up at their cost and then yeah, we pipe it and then we don't want to change but we don't want it wire fence wire bar wire razor constantine wire on the top.

Just electrify it like they do in Brazil and all the houses. Just remember that the the conversation's unique because we we didn't put that modification in for the ditch. Rotary did. We approved it. We approved it. I know. But I'm saying the concept. Yeah. So, we should have to be indemnified by the Rotary Club. That's what I was just thinking. Well, I'm going to tell you the claim on at least one of them, at least the potential claim is against everybody because that's what they're that's what the first question they asked is who all is involved and they wanted names and numbers for everybody who might have a hand in this. Yeah. Including the guys that did the construction work. So, even though they left their kid getting it, it's the standard concept of sue everyone. No good deed goes unpunished.

Exactly. Okay. So, good enough discussion? Yep. Yeah. Mayor, I move that we put that on action. Have a motion. So discussion. All in favor? I. Any post? I move that we adjourn this meeting and go into close session. Second. Have a motion to second. Hi. Starting with Councilman Phillips cuz don't we have to do this and by roll