Municipal Council - Regular Meeting

We're going to call to order our meeting here.

Bang Not Gavel probably got a long meeting tonight, so hopefully not too long. We're going to call to order the Logan Municipal Council June 16th meeting. We're going to start with an opening ceremony from the USU Center for Community. And we'll invite Shelly and Lexi. I got it wrong the first time, and then I was going to say it wrong the third time, too. And Lexi up the microphone. Thank you. Shelley?

Well, good evening, everyone. I am Shelley Ortiz, and I am pleased to be here on behalf of Utah State University's Center for Community. We want to invite all of you and all of our Clash Valley community to join us at the Utah State University's sixth annual Juneteenth celebration. This event is going to be free and open to everyone, and it's taking place this Friday. June 19th from 5 to 8 p.m. at Bridger Park. It is an evening for celebration, education, and community connection. We're gonna have live music, cultural performances, educational materials, and a complimentary barbecue with both meat and vegetarian options as long as supplies last, so. Last year, we welcomed over 600 attendees to this event. One participant captured the spirit of the evening when they said, this is what community is. And it was absolutely amazing to see people getting together from different backgrounds and learning with and from each other. So I'd like to give some time to Lexi Blackwell, who is president of Utah State University's Black Student Union, to share more about Juneteenth celebrations.

Just to note, Black Student Union is a student-led organization.

And the views and opinions expressed, they do not necessarily reflect, but we think they align with those of Utah State University. Hi, guys. OK.

Juneteenth is a time to honor a pivotal moment in American history. On June 19, 1865, federal troops arrived in Galveston, Texas, and announced the end of slavery more than two years after President Abraham Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation. Juneteenth has been celebrated since 1866. Thus, 2026 marks 160 years of Juneteenth celebrations. Utah has a long history of Juneteenth observances. including celebrations dating back to 1892. Today, events take place across the state, building on traditions of music, storytelling, and community gathering. The USU Juneteenth celebration provides an opportunity to participate in Juneteenth celebrations as part of many broader observances and held through the state of Utah. This is super important to me because it helps me to know that there is a community out there who loves and supports the things we do and the causes worth celebrating. We look forward to celebrating this historic moment with our community at Utah State University's sixth annual Juneteenth celebration on Friday evening at Bridger Park. I will be doing glitter tattoos if any of you are interested. And we now invite you to stand and join us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

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.

Thank you, Shelly and Lexi. We'll now move to acceptance of the minutes, and we'll note that there are two meetings minutes on there, both our May 26th budget workshop and our June 2nd regular meeting, as well as approval of the agenda for this evening, or if there's comments, questions, or concerns.

I have a motion to approve the May 26th, 2026 budget workshop and the June 2nd, 2026 regular meeting and the approval of the agenda.

Second the motion.

We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? We have our agenda approved and our minutes accepted. um a couple announcements here for our 2026 regular meeting schedule our meetings are regularly on the first and third tuesdays of every month at 5 30 p.m but our regular meeting for july 6 has been cancelled in observance of july 4th independence day so our next meeting will be july 21st 2021 2026 that's our next regular meeting Also to note on there, we do have a truth in taxation meeting with a public hearing on Tuesday, August 11th, 2026 at 6 p.m. And that will be here in the council chambers. And there is also a notice, I'm gonna check my time here, make sure it's right. We also have a special meeting that we were holding for a moratorium on data centers. And that will be June 30th at 5.30 p.m. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. And that will also have a public hearing regarding that. We'll now move to questions and comments for the mayor and council. This is the time for anyone in the audience who has any questions, comments, or concerns for the mayor and or council to come to the microphone. We do ask that you keep your comments to three minutes or less. State your name, city of residence, and keep your comments within the purview of the council or mayor.

But with that, I will open up the microphone.

uh to anyone who has any comments or questions or congratulations for something i don't know we have one perfect hi i'm gail hansen i live in logan my grandma was born in richmond and spent her teenage years on 6 south and about 150 west between her back door and the south branch of the logan river there was just open land She would walk up to the Thatcher mansion and do light housework and heavy housework and childcare for the Thatcher family. And in doing so, she crossed the north branch of the Logan River. That Logan River, our history of our city says that we established the fort close to the Logan River. Well, if it's close to the south branch of the Logan River, then this would be fourth north, or maybe sixth north, because the center of town would be a half a mile south of where it is. So when we say the Logan River, at least in those early days, they were very clear that the north branch of the Logan River was the Logan River, that it was bifurcated, divided, but both parts were the Logan River. And I found, as I was looking things up, you know that a tributary is a river that flows into another river. The north branch of the Logan River could be considered a distributary. That's a real word. I didn't make it up. So I've noticed in signage and in documents that we tend to delete the north branch of the Logan River. I was just at Garth Gardens, and the sign there, it's got a nice little flow at the south branch of the Logan River. And the north branch, which is like steps from that sign, does not appear on the sign. I'm going to talk a little bit about the Cache Water District. The purposes of the district include planning for and facilitating other things including the natural stream environment in a cost-effective way. All these purposes are met in a cost-effective way to meet the needs of residents and the growing population. Our per capita water use in this chart, supplied by you guys, has grown from 143 gallons per CD, I don't know what CD is, to 147 gallons over four years. So we're not doing real good at conserving water. We need to do more conservation design, use low impact development, things like rain supported This open space and natural areas, I've got so much, $308 million of taxpayer money to pressurize the system when we could do stormwater for 1.7 million. Thanks.

Thank you, Gail.

Pleasure. Patrick Belmont and Logan. It's good to see you all. I can confirm as a geomorphologist that distributary is a word. And the North Branch of Logan River is unquestionably a river. I do understand that The city has an interest in calling it a canal because there's management issues of having to clean it out. And if it were called a river, we'd have to apply for permits. That's my understanding, at least. And that gets complicated when they get that. But there are probably other ways we can. Rivers clean themselves. So anyway, that's not what I'm here to talk about. But Gail inspired me. We live in a very dry place. Forecasts over the next several decades in Utah are drier. As Gail mentioned, we've got a $300 million water infrastructure proposal. As I was looking through that and thinking about what I think is good there and what I might have other suggestions for, one glaring thing is that there's just very little water reduction and conservation embedded in that. There's lots of ways that Logan could be doing better. I started looking into water conservation efforts that Logan has made. We've made some, but there's a lot more that we could be doing there. So I just want to bring to your attention one program from the state legislature passed a few years ago that incentivizes people taking turf grass out and replacing it with low water use perennials. Beautiful plants attract pollinators and things like that. There's no investment that's needed from the city. You just have to pass an ordinance that new developments would be under some low water use guidelines. And so to me, it seems like a win-win-win situation. I would love to know why Logan has not decided to do this so far. But more than that, I'd love for you guys to consider moving forward and passing such an ordinance so that Logan residents have access to hundreds of thousands of dollars for this incentive program. Thank you.

Thank you, Patrick.

My name is Linda Johnson, and I am a proud resident of Logan, Utah. And I love what Gail and Patrick have said about water usage. And I know that's on your mind that you guys have been very conscientious of that. And I agree about the programs that the state runs, things like Rip the Strip and things like that. And I've actually had conversations places like Anderson Seed and Garden. So I know that people are aware of the programs and I think they're trying to run a separate program for more water wise turf, but there are many, many other options that we can do to, I feel like, educate and beautify that Salt Lake County and even other places in Cache County are taking advantage of these programs currently. And as a resident of Utah, it does sort of bum me out a bit that I can't get any sort of return on that, even though I want to do the programs and will have to pay for the full cost of any landscaping renovation myself instead of take advantage of tax incentives and things like that. Beyond that, I want to say I brought my two youngest kids with me and they wanted to say a few words, which I guess they can probably at their own time since they're a member of Logan, but just how much we love and appreciate all of the fun activities, beautiful parks in the area and things like that, that we've been able to do that even though we're in a small community and we rejoice in being a small community and having a small community feel there are so many opportunities we went to summerfest and north logan does the touch of truck i don't think logan does anything like that um but maybe in the future they could because i mean we have lots of good investment in our city power and stuff. Do you guys know what that is?

Yeah, they have the trucks come, right? What? Yeah.

Yeah, you go and they've got all of their emergency vehicles, the connect buses out, things like that. And we've got to watch a helicopter take off, things like that. But they get kids excited in the infrastructure of the city and how things work. Like cement trucks will come talk about how They do stuff and equipment, things like that. Anyways, but both the summer kickoff and that were very fun. We love playing in the little bit of water that is at Merlin Olsen Park and seeing the higher levels of water that we don't play in at other parks. But I love that that's an option, that there are places that are gentle enough that young kids can put rocks in and build dams and such. Um, so for my family situation, I feel like you guys have helped nurture programs, uh, wonderful programs at the library that we take advantage of and things like that. So thank you very, very much.

Okay.

Okay. Okay. And I want to feel how grateful.

Oh, she lives in Logan.

I feel grateful for my community. I am grateful for my neighborhood. I feel happy with my neighborhood. I am happy.

in my community and my mayor she participates in a program called run club at the park near our house that we lovingly call the sledding hill park and they do that every morning at 9 00 a.m it's free and just run by community people and i love that logan fosters so many programs that make my kids love living here i didn't catch your name what was her name

River. Thank you, River.

And this is Alder, who's very entranced by police officers. I mean, I don't blame him.

Thank you both for coming.

Thank you.

My name is Josh Mulder from Logan, and she's got a really appropriate name. So you guys read in that paper that one of Logan's icons got in a bike versus... Motor vehicle accident. I mean, it's not the first time, but I mean, it's hard to think. You know, I've known about Brett for a long time. You know, I remember heading up to Preston, you know, on the weekends to go out here running. There he would be, we'd pass him and he'd be waving to everybody, you know, Preston back, like nothing. Anyway, it, we're going to, I mean, Sorry, I'm kind of just coming off the top of my head. The traffic in Logan is still horrendous. I know it takes time to do it. thinking that maybe we should do a memorandum. I think that's the correct term with some of the development going on until we can adjust to everything that's been passed in the last four years. We still got a lot of the development coming up, high density, Fort North corridor and all that and that's just going to create so much more congestion. I don't know if you guys travel east to west across Main Street from 1st, Main, 1st. It's crazy. It takes me about five minutes. on the average, just to get across those three lanes. For one, the traffic lights are, they're synced way, synced really badly. And the amount of traffic going is just crazy. So I mean, I think we need, Logan needs time to So I think a memorandum would be good to halt new development going on until we can get a handle on this, what's going on here with the growth. I think we've grown way too fast and without any thought to the future of how people are going to handle it, especially natives that live here. Native Loganites, not native. natives. So anyway, thank you.

Thank you, Josh. Seeing no one, we'll close our public comment. And I meant to, but I failed to excuse Mayor Anderson. He is out of town this week with his family. But I will turn the time over. We've got some mayor and staff reports and Craig Carlson is our acting mayor today. And so we'll turn the time over to him.

This is a library board appointment.

Jadine Denniston. Jadine. Yeah, Jadine Denniston. She's here. There she is. Appointment to library board for her. It sounds like she's worked, very well qualified, 37 years at the school library and 29 years teaching library classes at Utah State.

So we'd ask the council program to vote.

It's just a couple of years.

And I will say, Jadine has served on the library board before. And when I talked to her when she walked in, she said, I'm thrilled to be back. I would heartily approve that appointment.

We have a motion. Is there a second?

I have a second.

We have a second. Any further comments? All those in favor of ratifying, is it Jadine? Is that how you say it? Jadine Denniston to the library board. Please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Thank you, Jadine. Welcome back. We're happy to have you. With that, we'll close our mayor and staff reports and we'll move on to council business and initially planning commission updates with Councilwoman Jeannie Simmons.

There will be some rezones that we will workshop this evening that were discussed at Planning Commission. And they also did an initial discussion about the wetlands code amendment that we had sent back and is now coming back. But that will be continued to the July 9th Planning Commission meeting for further study.

Thank you, Jeannie. We'll move to council announcements. Does any council members have anything important that they feel like they need to bring up before the council before we move on to our action items this evening?

The only thing I have to report on, June 4th, I attended the Cache Valley Center for the Arts board meeting and we, and they, budget was approved for that meeting. And that was really, I mean, they're so operationally, they're doing great and very much value what they do for the community.

Any others? If not, I'll mention one or two briefly. Okay. Well, I'll just mention my two briefly. Oh, did you have one? Yes. Sorry.

Today actually we had a, I believe it's the last meeting to select and come approve the mural that is going to go on Center Street. I think it's going to be a great addition to the already growing murals all in that area. So I'm excited about that. Okay.

Thank you Ernesto. I should have a couple of look at my calendar. One or two are just an update for the public and one or two are, I guess, I guess an update up here. One that I just want the public to know about. Most of us attended a wonderful lunch hosted by the Logan City School District School Board and it was great to sit with them and talk about ways that we can build the community together. In my a couple years on council that's not something that has happened before and it was it was a great invite from the from the school district and I think there was some some good discussion there and I hope I gave Mayor Anderson a nudge that maybe we should host one in a couple months and see if we can make this like a biannual thing with them to make sure we're working better together there was good discussion about the elementary schools and middle schools and what we can do to build community around them so that was one that I thought was was great Briefly, Melissa and I went to a rec center meeting with the county on Friday, which is always a bit of a lively discussion, but I'm always optimistic and supportive of hopefully we can get some movement towards a rec center for the community if that's what the community wants and it's good to see the county. trying to pull that together. So it was a good meeting.

And we should be clear, it's a steering committee. Right.

Yes, it's a steering committee. Thank you for clarifying for me. And the last thing, I know I announced this, but there is a special council meeting on June 30th at 5.30 p.m. here in the council chambers, and that's discussing a possible moratorium on data centers. So if you have thoughts on a moratorium for data centers, that is a time to... Come and share those thoughts.

So I want to add two things when you're done.

Yeah, I just have one last thing. If you guys will indulge me for just 30 seconds. We have our new council intern sitting in the back of the room. Can I have you come up? Is that okay? And I just want to have you introduce yourself. Bryson to the council. I know some of you guys haven't met him yet. He just started last week at Utah State. Kindly offered us an intern. And Bryson went through an interview process with a few other possible interns and was selected. And we're excited to have Bryson. I didn't warn you for this. Do you want to give us a 20-second introduction?

BRYSON WONDERLEE Absolutely. My name is Bryson Wonderlee. I was born and raised in Salt Lake City. Salt Lake City proper, not one of the outlying Jordans or Murray or anywhere. In Salt Lake itself, I'm going to be starting my junior year at Utah State studying law and constitutional studies. I'm with a minor in history, also a minor in criminal justice. My ultimate goal is to be on the Circuit Court of Appeals as a judge. And this was a wonderful opportunity presented to me through AmeriCorps and the One Utah Service Fellowship. It's kind of the 22nd version of me. Thank you, Bryson.

So Bryson, I emailed you a bunch of stuff.

You should all have his email. You are welcome to call him, email him, pester him. We have a limited number of hours, but he is available if you need him to help with anything. I have him doing some data center research. I think Jeannie's emailed him a couple of things that I've heard.

Well, I just tried to focus a little bit.

Well, yeah. And we have him looking at some zoning code research as well. So if you need help with anything, Bryson is happy to help. I'm sure we'll figure this all out together because it's been a while since we had an intern and I'm excited to have you. So thank you for jumping out for me, Bryson. Thank you. I was glad that I saw you sneak in. Jeannie?

I was not paying close enough attention when you started this and I should have. You and I both attended the first meeting with planning to start redoing and reestablishing zoning that will more comply with our new general plan. So we're starting that process. And I also attend the Cache Metropolitan Planning Organization meetings and that meeting was one of the more interesting ones I've been to lately and there's as you know if you've gone on second north and then second north becomes something else and then it becomes Wolfpack Way and it goes north well the goal is that it's supposed to go to Smithfield and so the county has established the route now they've done a study and they've established the route and about half I want to say half a block, but it's longer than that, half a mile. After where it finishes in Hyde Park, it will veer up to the north and east and meet up with another road and go into Smithfield that way. That's the next piece that will probably be funded and studied, and so you can look forward to driving there. all the way to Smithfield on whatever is Wolfpack Way. I don't know whether the whole thing is or only part of it.

Probably turn into Bobcat way eventually.

Well, I think that's exactly right.

That might have to be like six inches of dirt to divide those two.

And then it'll be, you know, anyway. So just so you know that, and CMPO does a lot of work, in case you don't know, planning our transportation future. So... If you're ever curious, go to the CMPO website, look at the master plan, and it gives you an idea of where they plan to put roads in the future. And it's instructive as to how we're going to manage some of the traffic that exists and the people that want to go from point A to point B. So that's all.

Okay.

Thank you, Jeannie. We will now move on to our action items for the evening. And our first one is a public hearing on a budget adjustment. Rich is going to get some microphone time tonight. We'll start with this one.

So this is a request to amend the fiscal year 26 budget. This is the final amendment. Request to appropriate $750,000 of electric fund reserves toward rooftop solar infrastructure associated with the Public Works campus project. Request to appropriate $8,801 for police overtime shifts. We do those fairly regularly. Request to appropriate $5,850,000 for the Public Works. In grant funds. What's that? In grant funds. In grant funds. The Public Works Department will receive from the COG for the 4th North and 6th West project. And lastly, a request to appropriate 4,630 grant funds for the fire department.

Any questions for Rich?

So can I ask, I just want to ask for my own thought process. I understand that we allocate the money that we received from the COG because that's important but we're not to the point where we would be doing anything with the solar infrastructure just yet so why do we allocate it this fiscal year rather than wait until it's ready to be done?

because we want to effect a po and i think we wanted to do that before the end of the year okay so the purchase order is all in place okay thank you and we can't really do that other than if we did it in stages would be the only other way to deal with it okay that's fine just needed to know any further questions for rich

This is a public hearing. Anyone from the public who has comments or questions on resolution 26-23 is welcome to come to the microphone. State your name and city of residence. And please take three minutes or less. And we'll open our public hearing.

How you doing?

Good.

How are you? My name is . I am a resident of Logan, a student at USU, landscape architecture. And I was curious if there were any plans for changes in taxes going more for parks and rec. department or development, I should say, or any income tax or taxes.

TODD BANDUCCI- Yeah, to not answer your question, I'm going to answer your question, partially because I don't want to take your. So right now, we're just doing public comment on this specific resolution, so these budget appropriations. Maybe that's something that we can address during resolution 2618.

Okay. About the general project. No, you're okay. It's my first time.

You should have seen my first time up here. It was a train wreck. Ask Jeannie. So I understand. But let's talk about that in resolution 2618. So that's item F8F on your agenda. Is that okay? Yeah, yeah, yeah. That'll be like 15 minutes. Just so we're keeping the public record clear and we're going through things.

Are you okay with that? I understand that works.

And I didn't catch your name at the beginning. Ernie. Ernie? Yeah. I'm going to write your name next to 8F here and call you up. Okay. Thank you, Ernie. Are there any other comments or questions on resolution 2623? Okay. Seeing none. Thank you for that, Ernie. We'll just, we'll bring you up here in a minute and try to answer that for you. I'm going to close the public hearing, bring it back to the council. Any further questions for Rich? There's a couple of big ones on here, so I'll give you a moment if you have one.

no okay one more question just remind me again on the fourth north and sixth west corridor because we have the funds now do we know when that will start taking place it's probably not until next fiscal year so early isn't that like three weeks away

It's late next fiscal year.

Rich says next fiscal year, and I'm like, are we like 14 days from next fiscal year?

We're not going to start in the next 14 days, Paul. So this is the bad thing. We will see this again as a carry-on resolution. It's just I like to get those in as soon as possible because if one invoice shows up, we don't have the budget to cover. So I try to get those in as early as we can. Because sometimes little things trickle in, but it's part of the big project. We need the funds in order to move forward.

Okay. Thank you. I'll move to approve resolution 26-23. I will second.

Motion and second. All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Resolution 2623 passes. We'll move next to our next public hearing, item 8B, resolution 2616. And we'll have our HR director, Ambry, who's looking wonderful today. I liked the blazer. My wife popped in for a minute earlier and she's shopping blazers and she liked yours, so.

Send me a link. Wow. I didn't know we were fashion shows.

Well, you know, you got to keep budget hearings. She walked out of Ambrey's office and was like, I liked it. I thought, well, I'll talk to Ambrey in public.

Thank you.

For the public record. Now I'm blushing. Sorry, guys. Your wife might be blushing. I'm just watching. I'm going to text.

So this one is a resolution that we do bring before the council before every budget year. It's in regards to our contributions that we make on behalf of our employees to the Utah Retirement Systems. Did you want me to go into more detail on this one again or?

Can you give me a 10 second for the public since it is a public hearing?

Yes.

I know we went over it but.

So there's Tier 1 and Tier 2 members. Tier 1 members are those that are benefited with the Utah Retirement Systems before July of 2011. And then tier twos are those that are after. So this resolution is in regards to the pickup contributions that the city will pick up in the new budget year for those retirement contributions that we make on behalf of the employees.

So why is it that we have to do this every year? Great question.

I think they require it. Doesn't the URS require that?

The URS requires it and blames the IRS for it. So it's one of those three letter S words. This is our practice and has been our practice for decades. But about 10, 12 years ago, the IRS blamed the IRS and said we had to formalize the fact that we are picking up these retirement contributions.

I actually think it's important. Sure. Because I think it's important for people to know that what part of their compensation is benefits and I think it's important for the public to know that we try to take care of our employees.

And I think it's really just to clarify and make sure no one misunderstands and thinks somebody was supposed to do something they didn't do.

Any further questions for Amber before I open the public comments? Public hearing? Thank you, everybody. This is a public hearing. Anyone from the public who would like to ask a question or comment on Resolution 2616 is welcome to come to the microphone, state your name and city of residence, and take three minutes or less. I expect lots of comments on this one. Seeing no one, we'll close our public hearing and bring it back to the council for a motion.

I move we approve resolution 26-16. Second. We have a motion and a second.

All in favor please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Resolution 26-16 passes. We'll go back to Ambreen for resolution 26-08. If you'll run us through this one and give us a little background for the public again as well. This one's even more fun.

So this one is adopting the salary schedules for our elected officials as well as the salary schedules for our executive municipal officers, which are our department heads, our assistant department heads, and our managers. So for the elected officials, you guys do have to approve your own wage for the next budget year, which is very hard to do. but we do recommend that you guys do it. We recommend because of the work you guys put in as well as future work as well for what our council members do do and then also it's to keep that position attractive for future individuals to run for council because you guys do put in a lot of hard work and so we do want individuals that are qualified to run in the future. And then again, the elected official, sorry, the executive municipal officers, that is something that Senate Bill 91 a couple of years ago required that we present the pay scales for what our municipal officers would be paid in the next budget year as well.

So Amber, just so you know, when I ran for office, I didn't know anybody that they paid us. So I think that the remuneration should not be the driving force for being healed. So that's just my statement.

A number of council members have said that.

And I agree with you, but it is hard to justify time away from your family and kids when it's free. So it does make it easier. I agree with you, and I'm not like double our wages for the public record. But it is easier to look at my wife and be like, well, it is my second job, so.

I didn't know either. And then when I did learn, at some point I thought, oh, well, and when individuals would encourage me to consider it, and then I did learn about it, I thought, well, that makes it a little palatable, you know, thinking about considering it, knowing, you know, so. But I wasn't aware either. It is something that is, I think, approving your own compensation is an awkward thing. I watched the school board go through this process and a lot of discussion around those things as well. So I would also just mention that what we're asked to do is not it is what everyone has to do. So just so that people understand that as well, that the practice is not something that other municipalities are not having to do. I've heard people ask like, oh, why wouldn't they do it this way or that way?

And so also mention that. Thank you, Embree. Any further questions before we open up the public hearing? Anyone in the public who would like to comment on ordinance 2608 is welcome to come to the microphone, state your name, city of residence, and please take three minutes or less. And Gail's the first one there.

Hi, I'm Gail Hansen and I live in Logan. And the commitment, the courage, and the humility that you guys bring is something that I've appreciated ever since I started paying attention. Having a decent recompense for the hours you put in makes it so that it's not just rich people. And that's important to me. People who have wealth and influence don't need to be protected. They can do it. They've got it. Us regular everyday people need a voice. And I think you should be paid And I think you should be paid pretty well. It keeps you honest, and it keeps the pool of people who are willing to do this among the humble. Thanks.

Thank you, Jo. Thank you. Any further comments from the public? Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing. And I do want to point out that this also has Yes, we do work and maybe I should spend more time on my other real job as I call it. But I also wanted to point out that all of our staff are getting their pay on here too. And they're the ones that are here, you know, six o'clock listening to me say jokes on a Tuesday night.

And do what we ask them to do.

Yeah, and the amount of work they put into it and the number of times that I've popped into Russ's office in the past three weeks and he's been in the middle of something and I interrupt him or Rich, you know, all the others. I'm not going to start naming them, but they all put up with a lot and they all work really hard and they all work long hours and I think it's important that they're, I appreciate that, Gail, but I'm going to point the finger back at staff because they do 99.9% of the work here and nobody sees them because they either don't show up or they stay on the back row over there. And so I think it's very important that we recognize that too. So thank you to them. And I'll shut up now. If anyone has further comments or would like to make a motion.

I would motion to approve ordinance 26-08. Do we have a motion?

Second?

I'll second the motion.

We have a motion and a second. All in favor of approving resolution 2608, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Resolution 2608 passes. We'll now move on to a public hearing on budget transfers. Thank you, Ambry. I appreciate it. And we'll kick it back over to Rich again.

So this is a required public hearing as part of our overall budget process. It's required that when we transfer money from enterprise funds to the general fund, we have this public hearing. Prior to this public hearing, we have to notice for X amount of days Every man, woman and child who live within the boundaries of the city of Logan through our utility building office. We noticed them at this meeting assuming council approves this budget containing the transfers we have to do another notice during the month of july where we send out again notices to everyone who has a utility bill letting them know what was passed so budget transfers have been a part of the logan city or transfers from enterprise funds have been a part of logan city budget process for a very very long time i've been saying it's 20 plus years but i've been saying that for 20 plus years so 20 plus 40 plus 50 plus years it's been a part of the budget Back in, I believe it was 2016, the council passed a resolution governing how these were to be, rather, the council updated a resolution governing how these transfers were to work. We transferred 5.5% of budgeted revenue from our sewer treatment fund, 7% from water, 8% from our electric fund, and then our environmental health fund. In publicly owned utilities, The owners, the stockholders receive dividends as the benefit from holding that stock. Our citizens receive the benefit of having these enterprise funds in a similar way. Their dividend is lower property taxes than they otherwise have to pay for the same amount of service. These are contemplated as part of every rate study that we conduct for each one of those separate enterprise funds. And they are carefully regulated by the council, as I said previously. Again, without these transfers, we'd have to raise property taxes significantly. So I do believe that this is a good way to fund all of the general services that we have, public safety, including fire and police, parks and recreation, general government, public works, community development. Who did I leave out? Finance? Legal. It does fund all the services that we provide as a city, and it does help keep property taxes low. Part of the reason for that is property taxes apply to taxable property within the boundaries of the city of Logan. But we have a significant amount of our property, including property owned by federal government, state government, county government, city government, churches, non-profits, hospitals, USU. Much of our property here in Logan is non-taxable. So those entities do not pay property tax. But they do pay utilities. and therefore they pay this transfer to the city of Logan. It helps us to sustain the services we're providing without overburdening only those who pay property taxes. We estimated some time ago that for every dollar we decrease transfers, we'd have to increase taxes by $2.40 because of the difference in the number of taxable properties in the city of Logan. Cache County does not track that, so we can't perfectly calculate this. However, that's our estimate. So I do think it's an appropriate way to fund our city. And I ask that council approve this by approving the budget after this public hearing.

How common is this in Utah? And can you give us examples of other cities in the state

So not all cities, but almost all cities that have an electric utility utilize transfers. Many are higher than us. I can't remember. At one time I did some research, but most are somewhere around the 10% to 12% range. And we've decreased ours to about 8%. Part of this, as well, is a requirement that we discuss admin fees. But admin fees are not transfers. Transfers are a movement of cash without any kind of compensation. Admin fees, on the other hand, much of the services we provide to those business-type funds, those enterprise funds, many of the services we provide, like utility billing, like shops and garage, like legal, HR, all those services are centralized in the general fund. So we bill them for those services, as well. those administrative services. So I just need to state that in there as well. I'm sorry. Hope that answers your question.

Thank you.

Any further questions for Rich?

So just a random question, but when you say for $8 that is transferred, it would cost the resident like $2.40 or whatever. Do we know what that total amount is that you transfer?

Yeah.

I mean, I look at the, there's a bunch of numbers on here.

It's, I know it's, it's 4.5. It's about 7 million. Yeah, say it's closer to 7. Roughly. OK. 4.7 million.

So you can do the math then.

7.0 million. OK. And I should put a total in here.

That's all right. Thank you.

Which a million's 50 bucks on 50 something on a median household. So 50 times 7. I'm not doing the math publicly. I'll just stop. Any other questions for Rich before we? Okay, we're gonna open the public hearing. This is a public hearing. You'll notice it's not an action item because as Rich mentioned, this would be part of the budget approval, which is our last public hearing for the evening. But if you have comments or questions or concerns on this specific part of the budget, we do a public hearing for it. You're welcome to come to the microphone, state your name, city of residence and take three minutes or less. And I will open the microphone up to the public. I would wait for the next one, Ernie. Can we do that? If it's the same comment? Same comment?

Or similar?

Sorry, if you're going to ask a question, let's have you come to the microphone so everyone can hear. Is that okay? Yeah, if you have a question about this transfer, you're more than welcome to come up. Sorry.

No, I'm sorry. You mentioned, similar to what you had said, the transfer funds, is it $1? Compared to as if it was taxed, it was 247 on average. And then annually, that was how much again?

It's about $7 million. And I didn't state it very eloquently. Let me try one more time.

I was trying to get it down, and I can't.

For every dollar, we decrease transfers. and these transfers are $7 million, we'd have to increase property taxes by $2.40 in order to compensate.

Because we have so much property that is not taxable.

That's correct. So every dollar it goes down. So in other words, through property taxes, we'd have to raise $7 million. But on those who pay it, it would be $2.40 as opposed to the $1 they decreased.

And real quick, quickly. $3.50. Would you explain again how those transfer fees work? Where does that dollar come from?

Where's that coming from? So it's an accounting mechanism. Yeah, let me maybe, I wish I had this here. It works out to be, I'll just hit the big one. From electric, it's $4,156,000. So we budget that at the beginning of the year, and then monthly we transfer 1 12th of that from the electric fund to the general fund. And we do that through... A miracle of accounting. A bank transfer.

But everyone pays their utility bill, their electric bill in the city, including all the nonprofits and the university and all the government buildings. They pay their power bill. And that money goes to the electric fund, which is a separate fund in the city. And then we transfer a portion of that to the general fund to pay for the roads and the fire and the police.

A small portion.

Yeah, a portion. It's a very small portion. Those entities aren't paying property tax that would normally fund roads, fire, police, and other. But they do pay electric. So we're funding a portion of that with that electric bill.

Does that make sense? It's a pretty good way of doing it. I'm just learning all this stuff. How many different entities are there that we pull from for that administrative?

Just four. We pull from our electric fund, which is the largest, and that's $4 million. We pull from our water fund at 7%, and that's $1.3 million. We pull from our sewer treatment fund, 5.5%, and that's $745,000. And we pull from the environmental health fund, which is the garbage pickup fund, which is $1.1 million. And many years ago, when we were collecting trash around the entire county, that was larger. But we've since slimmed down and sharpened our focus, and so that's a small amount. But that's OK.

And what about, what about like gas? That's a separate, separate entity too. But that's more, isn't that privately, privately? I think gas tax.

So we do have a gas tax that comes into the general fund correctly.

And... That's distributed by the state though, state plus it.

And there are two different amounts and I can look those up. It's $3 million for class C funds and then transportation funds about $1.4 million.

The class C is for roads, right?

But that's where the gas tax comes from, is class C. Okay.

Okay. Thank you. And do you have any other questions, Ernie? I kind of feel like we interrupted, so I want to make sure that you got it.

No, no, that's just a little more clear. I had the same sort of question as you.

Also, Ernie, this, if you... find the agenda on the local city website the links the hyperlinks will take you to that detail listing out those budget items if you wanted to revisit that i was going to actually ask that afterwards yeah so the blue highlight they're actually hyperlinks that will take you to those so you can look at those okay perfect yeah all right thank you thank you any other public comments or questions on our transfers

Seeing none, feels weird not to call a vote. We'll move to our property tax impact schedule and let Rich read this. This one does not have a public hearing as well, but obviously you can make a comment on this during the budget portion in just a moment, so.

Items E and F are kind of the same thing. However, this is a new requirement from the state of Utah this past year that we, make available and sorry we make available and present this schedule to the public i want to remind everyone here that this schedule the property tax impact schedule is available in the back room on the table it is also available on our finance department website under financial information you can see this Yeah, I'll just read this because we are required to present that and I don't know what those requirements actually are. So I'm just going to read this and that will mean that we present it. City of Logan is considering levying a property tax rate that exceeds the certified tax rate. The fiscal year 2027 proposed budget includes a property tax rate increase as follows. A, the approximate dollar amount of additional ad valorem tax revenue that would be generated for the City of Logan is 1.360 million. The approximate percentage increase in tax revenue for the City of Logan is 22.88%. The approximate c the approximate percentage increase to the amount of property tax paid in total not just to the city of logan on average on an average residence is zero percent and i'll explain that in just one minute the approximate percentage increase in the amount of property tax paid in total not just the city of logan on an average commercial property is zero percent the cash county cash county ordinance 2026-23 reduces the Cache County general levy for fire service. It is intended that the City of Logan proposed property tax increase will not increase the overall property taxes paid by Logan residents. Amounts that were paid to Cache County for fire service would instead be paid to Logan City to be used for fire service. Primarily the additional property tax dollars are proposed to be used as follows in our non-departmental area to fund additional street lighting utility expenses for fifty four thousand six hundred and fourteen Operational impact non-departmental will be able to pay the full cost of calculated street lighting utility fees to the electric department police department funding police officer one position for 131 086 operational impact the police department will be able to fund one additional position otherwise it would have to be eliminated from the proposed budget you'll see in a moment uh the fire department on fund the ongoing operational cost of new station 73 in the northwest area for 1 million 174 300 operational impact the fire department would be able to fund the operational cost of new station 73 otherwise local would either have to reduce service in another area of the budget or reduce the fire service this is for a total of one million three hundred sixty thousand dollars thanks for reading that rich

Any questions for Rich? I know you've all seen this.

And this will be part of the focus of the public hearing in the next part.

So Rich, I do have one question. You have in this paper, there is an ordinance listed for Cache County. Is that ordinance officially presented? Is it in process? What is its status?

So I say that Cache County officially adopted it. The Utah State Tax Commission is where we approve our rates. It is officially entered in the tax record. It is now listed as a separate tax levy, and they have decreased their general levy, meaning that Cache County has decreased their general levy. I believe it's going to, I believe it's already passed as far as they are concerned. It's already a done deal. The only question is now, what does Logan City adopt as their tax rate?

So they have passed the reduction of their general levy officially in a Cache County council meeting.

They have, and it has been officially entered into the tax rate system. All of that is maintained by the state of Utah and Cache County. So I have access and I've looked it up and I saw it there. I don't know what ability, if any, the county or any other entity would have to change that. I don't believe there is any at this point. However, I'm not the guru of all gurus, so I don't know what I don't know.

Right, right.

How dare you.

My only, yeah, my only... little nervousness about this is that we we aren't doing something in addition to the county keeping their tax so that's the only thing i just want to make sure that when we have truth in taxation we are pretty pretty dang certain that they've reduced theirs and that's the same conversation i've

bluntly had with Rich a few times. And Craig, as of recently.

And maybe I can just, for the public's sake, kind of clearly state what is happening. Cache County is reducing their general levy on Logan City, well, on the entire county. Can I interrupt you? Yeah.

Explain it like we don't work in government. What is a general levy? Can you explain this like a little bit more? I can try. I know you're an accountant, but let's use not levies.

Well, you're explaining the zeros that you were talking about. Right.

So Cache County is reducing what they're charging local residents for property tax. The reason is They were charging Logan residents for fire services that Logan residents were not receiving. We all think that is a really good thing. It's proposed that Logan will increase our rate by just less than the amount that Cache County is reducing their rate, so that a Logan resident will pay approximately the same amount that they paid this year that they paid last year. in property taxes in total that amount of increase Logan City is proposing is 1.360 million it's our intent that we will take that additional funding and build the Northwest Fire Station which we need to build it's not the exact amount but it's really pretty darn close Now we're also proposing we hire one police officer and where you pay some minimal utility fees, but the majority of that is for fire service so we can open station 73, which we currently do not have in the northwest area. We've known that this station was going to need to be built at some point. I knew it as finance director for the last 20 years we've been talking about it. I had no way of funding it other than a gigantic property tax increase on Logan City residents. Well, because Cache County reduced their property taxes, It's not just a great opportunity, but it is a perfect solution for a problem that I had no answer for. That is building station 73. And what it does do is Logan residents pay approximately the same amount they paid last year for property taxes. In other words, even though Logan is getting 22.88% more tax revenue, because cash added reduced how much they're going to collect, it's not going to feel like a rate increase to our citizens. So we're proposing that we keep that tax revenue that Cash County is reducing, and we open Station 73 with it. I think it's the best and highest use we could have for these funds that were being used for fire service. We continue to use them for fire service in Logan City. And it plugs this hole that we have for Station 73, and for the most part, makes us whole and increases our ability to respond to fire and everything else that the chief can explain to us for the foreseeable future. This would be a good thing for Logan residents.

And I think it's important to say that Logan residents were already paying this for fire services, but they were paying this to the county who doesn't provide fire services to Logan City. So you were paying this for fire that nobody, like they were using on the county, not on us. And so we're just accounting it for it essentially here. Yeah.

What some of you will see when they open their property tax bill is they should see Cache County going down the line item for Cache County General Fund and Logan City going up. But in total, it should remain relatively flat. Now I'm saying should and relatively on average. The reason for that is property tax revenue is controlled at the municipal level, meaning Logan City receives the same amount it received in the prior year. That's what property tax, truth in taxation does. It controls at the Logan City level. However, there are so many details that affect what an individual property tax payer is going to pay that it's hard to guarantee that that's exactly what they're going to see on their property tax schedule. However, unless they finish their basement, unless their area was reassessed, unless something significant happened in their neighborhood, what they should see is property tax for Cache County go down by approximately $59, Logan City go up by approximately $59. On a median house? That's on a $530,000 house, which is the median single family home, which is remarkable. That's incredible.

That's another topic.

That's mind blowing.

Katie, you had a... You covered what I was going to say, but I would also just add in a previous meeting, the fire chief also shared and you can find those documents as far as the need for the new station, the challenges that they've had in terms of response times to that northwestern area of Logan and all of the sort of the concerns, the rationale, the information, so you can, that information is out there. It's not just something that's being stated here.

And to make it easier, if you want all those slides, send me an email and I will send you 40 pages of PDFs that you can read on, Chief's laughing because to be blunt, when this was originally proposed, I maybe freaked out a little bit. and said there's no way in heck I'm raising our taxes 22.88%. That was a big stick in the mud. But I do think the justification is there. And if you want that information, my email is mike.johnson at loganutah.gov. Everyone else's is the exact same with their names.

Except me. Except Janie.

Except for Janie. Do you want to share yours publicly? But you are welcome to email me and I will share that information with you if you have concerns about the reason for this.

And it's on the video. It is. YouTube. It is.

But sometimes it's harder to scrub through. Ernesto.

Could some households be caught in the crossfire and actually see an increase in their property tax?

Again, this truth and taxation is meant to control Logan City and how much it gets. It doesn't control as well how much individual property tax payers pay. Here's the general idea. As property values go up, the rate goes down to give Logan City the same amount it got in the prior year. That's how it works. But unfortunately, my home was reassessed not terribly long ago, and because my value goes up, and somebody else's value maybe stays the same, and because that rate changes just a little bit, I end up paying a whole lot more, and that neighbor whose value didn't change ends up paying less overall. It's the way truth in taxation works, and it's hard. And they don't know it.

Well, I'll just add that, because I didn't understand this a couple of years ago that, and I'll try to use accounting terms, but our property tax is a budget base. Is that revenue driven? Is that the correct term? But like we get the same amount of dollars, which is what you're saying. And so it makes it so we can budget for payroll and projects like Logan City gets X dollars every year. As values go up, rate goes down. But dollar amount to the city stays the same.

there's no increase in money to account for inflation that does not exist in truth and taxation it's the same dollar amount we got in the prior outside of growth outside of new people who moved in who need services right that's that's the way it is well New houses that were built. New houses that were built.

New development. It's a really convoluted... It makes sense that you get the same budget so you can pay your payroll and plan on it. But it's a really convoluted way to do it. But I actually don't know a better way to do it.

There's California Prop 13 and they fixed the house value. And then the only thing that changes is the rate. That makes it super understandable for the person who owns the home. But right now, they're discussing that person that bought their home in 1953 and has this lower rate. how are they going to be able to sustain their fire service or any other services under that law. There's no perfect law. There's no perfect law. Ours has its own loopholes. Unfortunately, we'll have to deal with it. And we will have some of those, and there's nothing we can do to combat it.

They did a really good job the other day at the Utah League lunch talking about this and how it evolved. And it made it much more clear. And I think it also makes your point which is every year or every couple years a city should consider a small increase because that keeps it their revenue up with some level of inflation But like you said, we get the same dollars. If we do nothing, we get, you know, if we got $100 10 years ago and we never made a change, we would still only get $100. Even if the houses were worth four times as much, we'd still only get $100. So I think that in this case, we hope that taking the money that was being used by the county not for the benefit of Logan City and making that money work for the benefit of Logan City residents is the right answer.

No, I'm just kidding. I'm just teasing you there.

To Ernest's question about the crossfire, maybe it was answered. And this is getting super in the weeds, but I think we've already gone there.

It's deep.

We're down. We're down in the dirt. As far as this property is getting reassessed and how that happens, I think that there's nothing about what is happening here budgetarily with that shift from The lowering from Cache County and the increase of Logan, that would have any bearing on reassessments of properties and that process, that process happens regardless. So if you're going to, if this weren't even being considered, And your property happened to be reassessed, you would have an increase in your property taxes, regardless of what they're not related to not related to this. So I just wanted to make that clear in case that was.

You know, 1 other point I need ramp is just, we also can't control other entities. and there is a school district, there's a county, and there are various other small services that are provided by both entities that could be part of someone's property tax bill. We can't control those and I don't actually know what Logan City School is doing. Cache County School also affects some of our constituents as well.

And I don't, I always usually remember this number, but I'm forgetting it tonight and I know you'll remember it. I always like to remind the total amount of our property tax that is Logan City. It's like 11%. 11%. So your total property tax bill.

So of the 22%, if we were, if, you know, Cache County wasn't doing anything, their property tax bill would go up 11% of 22.88 or closer to like 3%. That's the magnitude in total that we're actually talking about.

I do feel like there's been a little bit of justification here, but I think it's because we all, well, but I think we all struggled so heavily with this when it was originally, when Mary Anderson first proposed this to me, I, Maybe threw up in a garbage can. I was not happy with it. You weren't. You weren't. Everyone's like, no, Mike wasn't.

We spent two and a half hours standing and talking about it.

Yeah, listening to Mike rant and yell. So I think that's why we're all like, OK, this is why, because we didn't like it either. I mean, nothing on fire. It was just a hard one.

Question on the police department position. It says here the police department will be able to fund one additional position. Otherwise, it would have to be eliminated. Take it out of the budget.

Eliminate it from the budget.

I'll pick better words next year.

Thank you.

Because if you don't eliminate it, you're eliminated. Why didn't you just say that on there?

We would execute the position public.

All right.

But you are going to get yourself in trouble.

moving on unless there's anything else for rich okay we'll move on to rich again for and this one will be a public hearing and i feel like this this one or the next one is if you have comments on this this is budget and tax increase so you're welcome to comment on this property taxing it's a grace here but resolution 26 18 rich we give us a short little we've beat this one enough yes and then we'll do a public hearing i think

public hearing about what you read.

It is and the rate that we are adopting because we are required to adopt a rate is .001085 for the City of Logan. That includes the library levy, the general fund levy, as well as the increase in property taxes which we have hopefully discussed in detail.

Do you want to discuss it again? No. Any questions for Rich before I open this public hearing? I'm sure a few people are here for this. This is a public hearing. If you have questions, comments, concerns, or thoughts on Resolution 26-18, you are welcome to come to the microphone, state your name, city of residence, and please take three minutes or less, and I'll open that public hearing up. You sit there, so I assume that you're going to... Gail Hansen, Lynn Logan.

As far as the increase in property taxes, as a homeowner, I have learned that if you have adequate fire service, your insurance rate goes down. So this could actually make insurance cheaper for people on the west side, and they will be happy. That's all I have to say.

Not only on the west side, potentially everywhere. We'll see what happens. We're currently at a level two. we could with a fourth station within logan because of the synergies and other things it could possibly go down for everyone but there's no question for those on the west side yeah would it be safe to say maybe can we do the public hearing is that okay sorry i just want to make sure the public we have talked a lot about this so i just want to make sure the public has time to if there's anyone else who would like to comment on this okay you're gonna have

Yeah, I was going to say, I do have Ernie's name written here, but I feel like we talked about a little bit before. Do you have more questions on this one, Ernie? I'm going to call you out. Okay. Okay. You're good. Okay. I'm going to close the public hearing. Sorry, Ernesto.

Take it away. Thank you for keeping us in order. Yeah, I was just going to say, sometimes it's probably hard to promise a decrease on insurance premiums, but maybe keeping them a little from increasing, is that a better way of...

Yeah, we can't control the premiums. However, if we have a much more qualified department or a level certification that it overall would be less than it otherwise would be.

We definitely can't control insurance. Any other questions for Rich on the tentatively approving a certified property tax rate resolution 2618? And obviously this will go to Truth in Taxation on August 11th. So you are welcome to come on August 11th at 6 p.m. here in the council chambers if you have more questions or concerns.

I move we approve Resolution 26-18.

Jeannie says, Mike, stop talking.

I'll second.

We have a motion and a second. All in favor of Resolution 26-18, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Resolution 26-18.

Can I interject one thing at this point? You already mentioned it, but it is important that we mention This is now tentatively adopted. We will have a final adoption on August 11th. We have a public hearing for final adoption on August 11th at 6 p.m. We just have to put that. That's what I just said.

You weren't listening. Jeannie was saying go and I said. Perfect. Jeannie.

It's about the next one.

OK. Rich, 2617. Hit our budget for us.

So tentative budget. The amount of the budget is $222 million. 136,462 from the mayor's proposed budget. There are several minor changes and really large changes. Obviously, the 1,174,300 for the for the for station 73. I have finalized the general fund and library property tax levies that are minor. decreases in those levies because of I have to estimate and then I get the actual dollar amounts. It was remarkably close but nonetheless not perfect. I have rebalanced the general fund.

Did you say, sorry, the general fund and library went down?

Down from the mayor's budget about $20,000 in the general fund and about $15,000 in the library. So I had to just rebalance those budgets because we do have to pass balanced budgets. Okay. I've combined, this is just a way of changing, it's a nerdy accounting thing, but I've combined the the real property tax or the personal property tax levy into one line item called property tax. I should have done that 20 years ago. I don't know why I kept them separate. So hopefully you don't mind that. Didn't change the numbers, just combined them into one line item. Where was the $1,174,300 allocated within the fire department budget? Because of that new law, House Bill 236, I put it in the revenue and then I have to put it in a restricted expense account until, assuming we adopt it on August 11th, I can release it from that restricted expense account and put it in the fire department budget. So I can't put it there yet. I have to put it in, it's account 395, our reserve fund. I have to put it there.

Does it stay there?

No, as soon as we adopt it on August 11th, it will go into the fire department budget.

How do we ensure that it is spent for what we are intended to spend it for?

Thank you, Jamie. It absolutely will be used. I don't know how to answer that.

From a budgetary standpoint, can there be

We wanted it in, I wanted it in a reserve account, specifically for capital projects related to the fire department.

So it will, it is, it will be put, assuming it's passed and it moves into the fire department, it will be put in the capital projects fund to be, well, it's actually the contract funds will be put there for the fire station. And it does have the words fire contract revenue next to it.

Contract funds. What do you mean by that?

I know, potato, potato. So this is super complex.

I'm sorry.

No, I know. But the funds that, in theory, we'll receive from North Loken, we're putting... Jeannie's talking about the tax increase funds.

I'm talking about the tax increase only.

I know.

And I don't know how else to explain it.

Oh, okay. I know. You just changed gears. We were like, wait, different money.

So those funds go into the fire department. To take the personnel for station 73.

No, the money was to build station 73. Initially.

Yeah, okay. I'm just trying to figure out how best to explain. We also have contracts with other cities. And what I've done is taken those funds and put them in the capital projects fund to be used for the building of Station 7. So you're doing this? Yes.

Because... You're doing a swap?

Yes, because it makes more sense to do it that way. Right, because you're...

So the 1.1 is going straight to personnel.

Yes. And the contract revenue, which is the same dollar amount. Right. because that's the the money that's available goes to the capital project fund to be used for the building of station secretary okay we may have to have an argument about that but that's okay i know if i didn't have to i didn't want to have an argument in the public i know if i didn't have to reserve those funds until august 11th i could do it differently but because i have to reserve those funds because if council does not pass that at august 11th we have to cut those funds from the budget they have to be removed right and so about next year what's that about next year next year they'll be part of the budget and hopefully the tax rates coming up and they would be under capital they would be under the fire station budget paying for fire personnel.

So it stays in personnel.

Let's see what I talk about. I can show you why.

Yeah, I'm having a little trouble with this.

I can show you why.

It's paid for the... Because the original concept was that this money would go to build the station first And then would go to sustain the station once it was built.

And that's exactly what we'll have.

But you are instead using it to pay people that may or may not be a part of the new station.

They will be a part of the new station.

No, they are essentially contract employees at this particular moment. And you are moving them into a different category.

Okay. Let me show you, because we're getting into the nerdy how-to. I know.

I know. I'm sorry.

Let me show you how we can't afford it. But they are being set aside for the fire station.

I think ultimately the- I mean, Jeannie, if you have questions, we need to make sure we answer them before we approve a budget.

Let me state this- At least to the point that you're comfortable with a budget. Let me say it this way and give you some insurance.

Don't.

The funds are being moved with capital projects funds. They can't be appropriated without counsel. In other words, they can't be spent without counsel approving they be spent. They're being moved, but they're not being spent. Does that make sense? Does that give you more insurance? It can't be spent for anything. So if we bring a resolution tomorrow to spend capital projects funds, you can say, these are not the fire department funds. We'd say, no, those are not the fire department funds. We can show you that we have those set aside. Does that give you more assurance? Yes and no.

Part of it's a conceptual conversation we've had over and over again, but involves

I know where Jeannie's coming from. We've had this conversation to the point where you're tired of me walking into your office. So.

I can show you the new law complicates life because we have to reserve those funds.

I totally understand that part.

And so what I had to do is pull them out of the fire department budget in order to reserve them. I can't pull them out of the fire department budget and put them in as a transfer to the capital crisis fund. I can't have them in both places. I can show you in the budget document. And I wrestled with it as well. And so instead, if I take the contract revenue and put that in the capital process fund, it can be part of the budget already. I can pull these funds out of the fire department budget and still reserve them and meet the state law requirement.

But one point, oh, sorry, Ernesto, go.

So is there no restriction in moving the contracted money for a different purpose? And, I mean, usually it takes us years to say to build something. You make it sound like we're going to build it right away.

As we kind of discussed, we have $60 million appropriated for the Public Works campus building. We're earning interest at the rate of 4% off of that $60 million. So I'm not really good about the public. Let's say $2 million of interest is being accumulated within the capital projects fund. Council has stated in our last public hearing, or in our public hearing, when we last discussed this, that we wanted that station to be priority one, that those funds be used for it. So if we allocate those funds toward it, we're substantially progressing toward the point where we could build the new station. I don't know the exact timeline, but sometime in the next one or two years.

And once that station is built, this $1.174,300 will go straight to operating costs, personnel costs for that station. So initially it's going to build the station, and then it's going straight to operating costs.

Except for right now, it's going right back into the station for operating costs. And the contract money is being moved out, which is less.

No, the contract money is the exact same amount. It's the same amount. We're putting, if you'll just confirm for me, we are putting $1.174 million of contract money aside right now, as soon as this is passed, into reserves to build and fund that station, correct?

Approximately, yes. It's either 1154 or 1174.

When you, it's either 1-1-5-4 or 1-1-7. Okay, so it's a difference of $20,000.

$20,000 because of the difference between the contract and the...

I've made fun of my wife three times today. We have to define approximately because when I say I'm buying something approximately, it's different than her. So roughly within $20,000, that money will be going to capital for the station.

Yes.

In addition to the roughly $2.4 million a year we're getting in interest.

If we continue to have a contract. Roughly, yes.

If we continue to have a contract, yes.

And none of that can be spent without council appropriating those funds.

But if we continue to have a contract.

And that contract is variable. I mean, it could end, it could end at any moment.

So that's why I want this money in the fund that doesn't pay, that fills the station.

It's semantics.

I know it's semantics.

It's the same dollar amount.

It isn't semantics.

Dollars are fungible.

But it isn't semantics if things change. It's no longer semantics if things change.

But it's not changing. That's exactly what you're asking for. It's just I'm asking for the flexibility to make it happen.

Can I ask a question?

Of course you can. You're in charge. No, I'm not.

Jeannie, if contracts change and that budget change, what would it take from the finance department to make this more comfortable for you? Does that make sense? What would we have to do to make this more comfortable? Am I asking a question? You know, I'm just... Because I understand you're concerned and share a lot of it.

So how come are you comfortable?

Because I'm comfortable the contract's not going to change in the next few months.

So for any of this to be, for some of the fears that Jeannie is sharing, a change would have to happen at the contract level with North Logan, I think is what you said?

Well, it probably will not happen for the next year. And so it would have to happen.

So it would have to happen like when for anything to be at risk of being different than what we're discussing?

I don't think any of this is at risk because they need a 12 month window according to the contract. But I don't think that'll change. In other words, that 1.174 is going to be there in the capital projects fund for the building at the station. after that timeframe though, they could quit at any moment.

But at that point we'll have the station built. We would hope. And we'll be funding the station with this 1.174. Not we would hope, we'll be funding the station.

And we would not be at the mercy of, which is one of the silver linings of this. So the contract with North Logan and providing fire service supports employees, some of our fire staff. I don't know the exact number, seven? I'm not sure. 10, okay. Supports 10. But this is the concern of if the contract were to change, we've got 10 employees that we are currently not, we do not currently have ongoing budgeted funding for. this would change that. And that would provide security for us to ensure that our employees are funded in addition to the capital project. So that's, I keep talking about contracts and people are probably like, what are you talking about contracts? This is the best contract. Does that make sense? I think you're next to ask a question.

I think you might have already answered this, so maybe it's just confirmation for me. The contract money that is being moved from wherever it is to move the money around that would be coming in.

General fund capital.

Yeah, that was my question. Is it going to a restricted account within the fire department or is it a restricted account within the general fund?

It's the capital projects fund, which is committed for capital. And a commitment can be changed only by council.

Because you and I have had this conversation. You remember this one. Maybe. We've had so much of this. Because I said the same thing. I said, how can we restrict this fund to, like, we're raising taxes for fire. Like, we're taking county fire money and raising Logan taxes to pay for fire. How do we make sure that money goes to fire and isn't used for a park or a bike lane, right? Which are good things. But if that's what we're raising taxes for, and that's what we're saying publicly, it needs to go there. And what you told me was, well, the five of you pick where money goes. And my word to you was- Unless you don't trust yourselves. Well, my word to you was, anytime we're pulling money out, you need to be very clear, which you generally are, but exceptionally clear until this fire station is built. If we pull anything out or change anything in the general fund capital projects, and it affects the timeline for fire, we need to be very clear on that so that we know if we're making a decision that affects that. Because at the end of the day, it's our choice. And Rich has committed to me personally that you will be very clear that if we're changing that timeline around, you will look at me and say, Mike, you said you wouldn't do this. Please don't do this. Correct.

I would also imagine Chief Thompson is going to hold us accountable for ensuring that those dollars are spent and fire where they need to be spent because if i were the department head and had that revenue opportunity to ensure capital or employees i would also be but so that's another i guess check check assuming that the budget is adopted we could come forward to council and say we want to use some of those funds to design a station to buy property to do whatever

And we would let you know.

And you could come and say we want to use it for something else. And hopefully we would look at them and say, no, this is what it's for. We would tell you. I know. That's what I'm saying.

And really, if we ever appropriate from the capital projects fund, your question should be, how are we coming along with the plans for the station? Now, I don't anticipate we will because we've spent everything we have on the public works building. But if there was some small dollar amount coming forward out of the capital projects fund, you should ask, how are we doing with the station?

All right. Paul, you can work it out with Chief. No, he said that.

How are you feeling, Jeannie?

In the interest of time, I'll be fine.

You know I'm willing to stay up all night. Like if you have concerns, I want to make sure that we have them addressed and we feel comfortable. And I'll be blunt, I'll continue it if you feel like you need, like.

We can't.

I know Rich just fell out of his chair.

We can't, but we can. We can. We cannot. You have to make a decision today. Otherwise, we close up shop and tell the systems.

We can continue it for a week and hold a special meeting next week.

I think Friday is the drop dead, dead, dead. Are we on F?

In the interest of time, I'm fine. We're on G. We're on G. I'm fine. It'll work out.

Okay. Can you tell me what is roughly the balance on that capital projects fund?

I mean we really cleared it out. Unobligated. Unobligated. interest revenue so two million plus anything that we're receiving this current year there is some fire contract revenue in the current year that's going there 800 000 ish i don't have an exact balance but i will at the end of this fiscal year so two weeks would you tell us sure please sure thank you that was the balance for the capital fund yeah

public works want a new building.

So then we'll know when you ask for 10 million out of the capital fund that we don't have it. It's coming from somewhere else.

That is correct as far as I know.

Okay. I'm good.

Does anyone else have questions for Rich? No. I have taken a lot of time on issues before and I appreciate I know you spend a lot of time on this outside of the meeting too so I'm always happy to give you time.

Just my expectations were different than the reality. Okay.

This is a public hearing. So for any of you that aren't confused right now, and have comments or questions, and I know some people are waiting patiently back there for our workshop items. Anyone from the public that would like to comment on Resolution 2617, this is our budget for the entire fiscal year next year for the city. You're welcome to come to the microphone, state your name, city of residence, and take three minutes or less. And the microphone is open.

I'm Gail Hansen, I live in Logan. And I appreciate the many, many, many decisions that are made through consensus in this council. I also appreciate the consensus is not required. And it's not more valuable than a divided decision. In societies where consensus is required, people shut up. and don't have a voice. So I appreciate the opportunity that you each have to vote your conscience. And I didn't look at the budget this year like I did last year. Last year, I was so I was on it. And I I am so appreciative of the staff work that gets done in all the departments. So I just wanted to add that.

Thank you, Gail. Seeing no one else coming up, we will close the public hearing. And thank you, Gail. I have voted no on a budget before over a small issue. And to some extent, I felt like a crazy person voting no on the entire budget over a little thing that I didn't love. But sometimes that's what you do. But I appreciate your comment. Any other comments, questions, concerns from the council before we call for a motion?

One comment is that I wish, given that the county was decreasing their levies for Logan and property taxes that we could say, oh, we're gonna give Logan residents a tax break. But knowing the things that we know, the statistics that have been shared with us from the fire department on the needs, the growth that we've seen on the west side, I think it would be neglectful for us to not plan ahead and to use this as an opportunity to fund it this way. So, thank you for thinking of those things. I know matters of big numbers and budget are not easy. And I appreciate all the work that goes into it.

I know that was my initial thought was, great, let's give them a little bit of a tax break.

And then I. And then I. 26-17.

I hadn't called for a motion yet. I thought you said I was in charge. Before we call a vote, I agree with Ernesto.

Get out of here. Feisty over there all of a sudden.

I was half expecting a no vote. But it's a hard decision for some of us. I'll tease you. I know it's a hard decision.

Well, I think too. I hope it's clear that this was something we've taken a lot of time and discussion about and thought about.

And I think staff got really sick of some of us. And I'll raise my hand and say that I think they were tired of me walking into. Chief Thompson is like, I have to write Mike another email and sit down with him again and stand in the hallway with him again.

But they're- And Rich said, I have to play golf with him again.

He was like, it's not even fun because he just sits there and goes, how else can we fund this without raising taxes?

I voted to approve the motion because I believe that partly my sticking point is semantics and accounting rules. And so I'm willing to work through those.

And we'll keep an eye on it together because I agree with you that we have to keep an eye on it. It has to be used for what we're raising it for. Does anyone else have a comment before I call a vote or before Jeannie makes a motion? I can't just second it.

I was going to say, I think she moved.

She moved and Katie seconded. I just haven't called a vote yet.

Okay.

Okay. Nope. All in favor of approving resolution 2617, please say aye.

Aye.

All opposed? Any opposed? Motion passes. We have a budget. We won't continue it and make you pull your hair out. I was not expecting you to make the motion and then vote no, but just to keep us all on our toes.

I honestly don't know what you do if you don't adopt it.

The federal government goes in. We won't. Workshop items, let's move to resolution 2624. Russ Aquinas dressed nicely for a workshop here. I know, he looks good.

Thank you, Council. I am here tonight to present for your consideration for additional, I'll say additional fees that we did not include inadvertently two weeks ago when you passed our fee schedule at that time. I'll tell you just a little bit about each one of them. These are fees that in terms of frequency, They're not used as regularly as the others that you've looked at. I think that might have led to my oversight in not including these ones on here. The first is a four-hole golf loop fee that we charge. This is to accommodate customers that don't have time to play up a full nine holes.

Or are incapable of doing so.

Well, I was going to say that. I'm speaking for myself.

And so four is probably a good number. I think my only complaint, though, is those are the holes I lose half my balls on. Well, then you need to work on your game. I do.

Shoot, shots fired. We'll help you out. Four-hole golf loop fee, which is currently at $10 fee. We're proposing that stay as is currently in place. We just want to make sure that these four are on the fee schedule and that they've been approved by council. The second exhibit is a Pioneer Day parade entry fee. We tried this last year in incorporating a fee for parade entry, but only for business and commercial entries. Prior to, we would get quite a bit of feedback, in fact, from people either there to enjoy the parade or people that would tell us afterwards that, you know, you need to have some perhaps some kind of control in terms of producing better variety. And sometimes you do that by charging a fee and then people kind of pay more attention to the things that we have in place like the parade theme, for example. And so it seems to work and So we're bringing that before you tonight as well to keep that in place for this year and for future parades. Exhibit C is a fee for the inflatable amusement device fee probably better known as bounce houses and things of the sort that you would find in a park. We currently charge $75 per device for that. Don't go there. Yeah, don't go there. Yes. So when we were looking this up to put it on the agenda for you, the commercial term is inflatable amusement devices. And at any rate, we charge a fee. It takes some time for us, the staff, to meet with the organizer. One of the biggest concerns we have where this gets set up that we're protecting our irrigation lines in the park. These setups generally require very long steel stakes to anchor the balanced house or whatever it might be. And then the process in time for our clerks to meet with the organizer get the paperwork that needs to be reviewed by the legal department and ensure that the organizer has the needed insurance to cover both the city and their event.

These fees are separate from the event permit fee, correct?

Yes, they are. Thank you. In some instances, as you might know, the city special event process may or may not involve the level of sophistication or planning. This could also apply to a family reunion as opposed to a community event. Nonetheless, we still have to do our inspection in order for that to take place on city property. And then the last exhibit D is folding plastic A-frame sign holders, which are used for some City events or I should say special events that are on or in city right-of-ways that would require Signage to more so than anything else. It's not about traffic control, but it's more about informing motorists that may be parking or typically would park in an area that's going to be used for a special event. And probably the example that is used more times than not is Center Street. Because both sides of Center Street allow for patron parking, it's the organizer's responsibility to provide advance notice to the public that's parking in these places if it's intended to be used as part of their organizing event. to put their information available and that location will be closed for whatever duration of time that the event's being held for. And we store those signs. or the A-frames and it's up to the organizer to contact us and then we go through the process for them to get their information placed on these signs, use the signs and at the end of their event return the signs back to us. Again, this is one that doesn't happen often but needs to be part of the fee schedule. With that, if you have any questions, I'll try to answer them. Questions for Russ?

So this is just something we have to do. You're not increasing fees. It's just you have to say it is on the schedule.

It's typically, yeah, only if a person wants or an organization wants that service. But the fees aren't going out this year.

Yeah, but the fees aren't going out.

Just procedural for this part.

Okay. And no, I don't have any questions.

Thanks, Russ. We'll see you in two weeks. All right. Appreciate it. We'll now move to Aaron Smith with a Mapleview subdivision and plan development overlay concept plan. I think Aaron, if I can take a touch of Liberty, this is our first PDO with two council members.

Yes. Can you give us a brief what's cause they're, what's the timeline? I'm going to perfect. I get set up here. My first slide addresses that.

Thank you.

Perfect. No, thank you. I'm going to minimize your, your lovely mission statement to bring up some slides. workshop in bold letters all right thank you jed so this is the maple view subdivision plan development overlay so i do want to start with what is a what is a pdo you're going to hear me say pdo a lot and so i wanted to walk through what it is how we review it and and how it's going to come to you and as this concept plan and then later as a full application so plan development overlays are a lot are designed to allow for some flexibility in the application of zoning regulations so this is If it's not the cookie cutter of the code, how do we get it through a process other than we previously did this often through some sort of deed restriction or something else. This is our process now where we bring through a legislative amendment to the code. So it's plan development overlays are for project sites greater than three acres. other projects that you've seen come through. Cache Valley Marketplace came through as a PDO. Willow Lakes came through as a PDO. And it's a two-part review process. That's what's important tonight is we're on part one. This is the concept plan review. This is not a formal application. This is our chance to meet with Planning Commission, to meet with City Council, the applicant to hear feedback and comments before they formalize their application and bring something more responsive to what they hear from both those groups. So there's no action taken by City Council tonight, and that's why this is just a workshop. It doesn't have an ordinance assigned to it or anything because this is the end of phase one. It's just hearing from you all. Then they will come back with a formal application that will include a zoning map amendment and a land development code amendment. That's what makes this a legislative action. Most developments that we see or subdivisions that we see Planning Commission is the decider. This is different because it involves a legislative decision on an amendment to the code. Also associated with this will be a preliminary plat, just like a regular subdivision. I do want to emphasize this particular one, you won't see building elevations or those sort of things. This is a subdivision. So the primary instrument we're seeing here is a preliminary plat and sort of a site plan. So that's my last point here. This is a subdivision. There's no attached housing or things that would require a design review permit. So it's really just what we're looking at is a non-standard subdivision with a mix of lot sizes, those sort of things. Any questions on PDOs before I move on and start diving into this proposal? Okay. We did meet with the Planning Commission. We had a quick turnaround, which is, we did that with this being a non-action item. We got on the agenda quickly for both. So we get that feedback to the applicant. I did write down some notes and I wanted to provide them as we go through this. There was general support for the concept and layout with the Planning Commission. They liked the transition to lots, the mix in lot sizes, the connection to open space. There was interest from the Planning Commission in seeing more housing types, including attached housing, twin homes, duplex, townhomes, ADUs all came up and were discussed. Other commissioners, but that wasn't everybody, other commissioners really liked the emphasis on smaller family, single family lots that this one had. There was interest from the Planning Commission promoting owner occupancy in the development. There were concerns about the shared driveway, but staff did explain that they would have to meet fire code. So there's some minimum requirements on what that shared driveway looks like, access through lots. And then there was interest in from the Planning Commission on how, what amenities will go into the open space that we discussed and then support for a strong neighborhood connection to that open space at the park. And there was support for connecting one of the stub roads on the north end to 290 South. So those are the notes from Planning Commission. And we can refer back to those if you have questions as I go through the presentation on the actual site plan here. So we're on, to orient us, we're out on 2nd South and 14th West. This is right next to our 200 South Park, right next to the Equestrian Estates subdivision that terminates there at the end of 350 South. It's currently zoned NR4 and you saw this previously as a rezone several months back as a rezone from NR4 to MR9. And at that time the direction was this should be done as a PD. And I, now I may misstate that, I believe it was withdrawn right before it was heard with you all. So I, it was heard with Planning Commission, withdrawn for this before city council, so. Our current future land use plan, we have a new one. It's now called low density residential out there. I will just highlight real quick what our new general plan says about low density residential. It's to promote more diverse housing than previous land use designation. It accommodates single and two family attached or detached dwelling units. Densities typically range from one to nine units per acre. And then future development should align with the scale and character of existing neighborhoods to maintain a cohesive residential fabric. So those are sort of the highlights that I wanted to hit on from the low density residential land use out there. Zooming in, here's the proposal. So it's a 10 acre site. There's 51 single-family lots proposed. They vary in size. Obviously, the larger ones are on the eastern edge near the Equestrian Estates. There's about 10,000 square feet. Those smaller ones are around 4,000 square feet. They propose connections to 350 south and then out to 14th west, as well as two stubs, a stub going north Uh, kind of towards that 290 South and I'll get into more about that, that connection in the sub South. That really that has to develop South for any connection to be made to the grid. But that North sub is going towards what is a park space, but is a potential connection to that 290 South. Within the development, those Those roads are 60 foot local streets with the exception of, here I'm gonna actually zoom into our better one here, with the exception of a private drive here coming off of 350 South that connects to three lots. Now that private drive would have to be at least 20 feet wide, should have a sidewalk as I'll get into, and it has to have a turnaround for fire back there. But that's a proposal for three lots to be accessed off of a private drive. Then there's the open space, acre of open space on the northern end. This is primarily within our landfill overlay. I'll back up one. You can see that hatched area. That's the landfill overlay. It's unbuildable for residential structures, but it can have open space in it. As far as the lot configuration, Current zoning, you know, it's NR4 now. It could have 40 units per acre, for a 10-acre development. However, that's not likely. In subdivisions, a lot of that acreage gets eaten up by roads. And so you're likely, I ran a calculation on it and got about 27. You'll probably hear the proponent somewhere around maybe 23. If it would develop as its current zone, that's what you'd get out there. The acreage of the different, so they kind of fall into four sizes of lots. You have the ones that are about 10,000 square foot lots. Those are kind of equivalent to our NR4 zone. Then you have a few that are around 6,000 square feet and then those that are about 4,000 square feet. Of those larger 10,000 square foot lots, you have seven of those. Of the NR6 lots, you have seven of those. And then of the smaller, around 4,000 square feet, you have 37 of them. Acreage wise, about a quarter of the land is is those 10,000 square foot lots. About 60 percent of it is that 4,000 square foot lot. So primarily smaller lots. Transportation, I do want to highlight the 14th west corridor is planned as a minor arterial. A minor arterial is 102 foot right of way. While We were planning for that width. They wouldn't be required to construct that width this time. The proposal from engineering is for them to construct a collector, which is an 80 foot right of way. So they'd have to construct half of that. But we want to preserve the full 102 feet. I spoke with the applicant. They have the, they planned this with a 102 foot. So somebody did their homework. That was great. And they actually have a 102 foot plan. That's where that yellow line is. The yellow line is just a line. I would ignore that one. That is the best answer I've ever had. It's a line. Ignore it. Right here, the orange line is the center line, would be the center line of 14th West. And they're showing the 102 feet out to the edge of the over here and over here. So it's a six... 51 feet on both sides of that line to the edge of the subdivision, which is actually this line.

Can I ask two kind of unrelated questions? Yeah. And you can tell me to shut up until the end of your presentation if you want. We own the property to the northwest here. That is the park. That 102 foot right away bumps right into the trail there in that northwest corner. Top left. Right.

So 102 foot, we'll get it where we can.

Do you have, can you go back to the other one? You don't have a measurement for what the 80 foot right away would look like, but it'd be a little bit in. Given that this developer would be, assuming this goes forward, required to pave their half, so the east half of Fort Tarrant West, do they, one, do they have to pave that all the way to 200 south to make that connection and two given the city owns what's on the other side of it normally that would be built out when it was built on the other side of the road but given we already own that would we look at just paving the other half at the same time that's a good question i don't have a direct answer for it i've the conditions from engineering was to just to

build this as a collector adjacent to the subdivision. It wasn't called out to continue construction of it up to 200 south. Because it's currently all dirt.

How much further is it to 200 south?

It's one block because you're at 200 south. Yeah, it's another block. It's one block to get it to 200 south. Otherwise their exit to the west is a block of dirt road and a block of pavement. I'm just curious. But currently it's not to pavement to 200 south. To 200 south. Okay. I don't know if I love that.

But this is a PDO. Right. Things to discuss. Examples of where in the Willow Lakes one, 14th West was required to be extended and make a connection. All right. So that's the transportation corridor. The park connection, so let me highlight 290 South. There's an opportunity here to address a connectivity issue that would traverse the park in a small portion. So this highlights where a connection can be made to 290 South. It would create a remainder parcel. That remainder could be another building lot potentially. It's not, from my conversation with parks, it's not something they would want to hold on to. It doesn't make much sense. And when I go to the next, I'll highlight real quick the design for the park. initial this was an earlier draft that kind of shows more of that southern end of this but initially they imagined 290 south actually traversing more of the park and creating a larger remainder so this is actually a nice opportunity to minimize uh where that road's coming through really bring it into a subdivision to the south that that will clean up some of these lines and create more overall park space compared to this early uh kind of design for 290 south So I did want to highlight that. It's an opportunity with this configuration.

So where is that picture?

Well, here's Equestrian Estates. This would be the property that we're looking at right now. Yeah. It would be right here. We originally planned on buying them. And what I was just showing is that instead of 290 traversing the park all the way out in this configuration, it could just tie in right here.

No, but we anticipated park in part of that piece of property.

Yeah, but we didn't own it.

But that's part of the master plan for the park. Correct or not correct?

I don't know what you're asking. I apologize.

Those four white buildings at the bottom and the blue space, what is that?

that would be a good question for the master plans of parks that might be one now this was an early draft this is not exactly how it is laid out now yeah this is the one that shows this area the best and most defined go for it i really contemplated not sending this to him

This was a concept plan drafted up in 2023. So obviously we didn't know about development of the parcel that you're looking at tonight. And there were different configurations discussed with engineering because there was plans to move traffic from from the existing subdivision west 14th. It was just a matter of which road was that going to be. What you're looking at tonight, not the concept plan, but what Mapleview subdivision, what that is all about, that actually works well for us. other than just to state that if the intent is to connect their road through the east side of their subdivision, it would seem to make sense to do that to 290 South, which is where that curve or turn the road that Erin is showing connects to. What that would do for us from a park standpoint is we would be less inclined or the desire to have park space in that quarter donut, if you will, because it creates some safety issues with the road now splitting public space. It would be better if some other consideration was given to that and leave the park on the west side of that turn in the road.

And your original concept plan, 350 South, went clear across, or almost across.

Yeah, I think engineering at the time thought that rather than taking 290 South straight across, that the, what is that, 350 South, would be a better alignment for them. I can't speak to why one would be better than the other. We just wanted to ensure that the park space would stay whole. And even under this concept, this isn't one that I mean if you're looking at that kind of a bluish space space as being part of the park that's not the best outline from our perspective you know we'd like to keep things kind of grouped together okay I understand that part but I'm a little concerned about the cross streets

Not on this, because this is not the proposed cross streets.

Can you just remind us why we're looking at this? Because most of this is not.

I wanted to show what the park could potentially look like in that space.

But that wasn't our property.

But it's kind of a ranch. I'm sorry to throw wrenches.

I don't like to throw wrenches.

I wanted to show an interface that there are plans for this area.

You're showing a plan of private property. Nope.

This isn't showing, everything south of this line here is the private property, actually south of this line.

Yeah.

This is all us and I wanted to show plans in this area. Okay.

But if we hypothetically adopted this as you've got drawn here, you'd actually get more open park space and still your road connection.

Correct. And you're not buying land. Returning to this and sort of those connections to the open space, I think this is important as well. One of the emphasis here, we don't have a lot of what's going on here. The proponent can kind of cover some of the proposals, whether it's a pump track. Likely there will be some stormwater facilities here, but there are preserved connections to the neighborhood. for trail corridors. And one thing that we discussed with Russ is how that would connect to the park in the space to the north with the trail loops that are planned. Not super close. Planned, they're already in. Oh, I'm going the wrong direction. I have a better picture this way. I apologize. yeah here so you can see the existing uh parking lot where the playgrounds will be and an existing trail loop here uh i think there's potential this is the location of the open space these are where there would be connections from the neighborhood is how this loops into the trail so you could add a trail possibly there that's property you could add a child yes i'm assuming your budget so yeah i mean but i'm wondering can i ask a question on your corner aaron

If you'll go back to that one that has your little donut, it's dinner time. Do you know roughly the acreage or square footage of that donut? Is it actually buildable? Oh, yes. And would a driveway work on that corner somewhere safely? And finally, I'm asking you three questions at once. or if we require them to build this road through our park space and then leave a section of a park space are we hypothetically intending for them to purchase park space and join in my face or give them that space and then require the road that would be something we'd be looking for guidance from city council i just didn't know parks was like saying we'll give them this space and they're okay i mean you have to buy our space and then build our road

Well, that's part of our process.

Technically, the mayor's in charge of selling land, correct? Yeah, I mean, that's an executive function now.

That's a part of the negotiation. Sure. And likely on who pays for the road could tie back to...

Related to this, but just to make sure, from a standpoint of the, so 1400 West currently would not be, the main access would be 350 South.

And then jogging down to like 380 South. Zoom out a little bit more. You can see that layout a little bit better there. Right.

Okay. So if they connected through the, but 1400 West, did you say is dirt?

Currently. Currently.

And currently pretty much dead ends of that corner there where the- And so for the neighborhood, I mean, I think you would want, so 350 South is the main access point. Yeah.

I would describe that now until 14th West develops fully. Until, okay.

And so that- quarter of a donut, that would then, of course, give two ways to enter and exit.

Yes.

I just want to make sure that was clear.

Which is the intention of the stub to begin with, going north.

And how many exits, OK. And then help me understand too, back to the question on that piece of property, given that the landfill... Overlay zone. Overlay zone, thank you. The hatch marks on there that are impacting this top left corner of this property, which is why there's open green space.

But keep in mind, they have to have open space.

Right. They have to have open space anyway, so it works out well.

Correction there, the single family subdivision would not have a requirement for open space. Okay. However, this one has. That's right. The previous concept, I think, which didn't come to us.

Which had multi-family. Would have required open space.

Would have required open space.

This does not require open space. So this is an impact component. um as far as the overlay so what is the process if we were to consider that road 290 tie-in how that is paid for and then also that piece of property because it would seem like a From my perspective, given the landfill overlay impact on that property and given the need for a road to both 350 South and 290 South that Someone can say, I don't know.

It seems like a no-brainer. It seems like we should do it.

Is that what you're saying? Well, we have no use for that land once it's done. Why not give it to the developer to develop it and trade for the rogue component?

I think if council would give direction to proponent and staff on what they want to see come back. The direction is we want to see 290 similar to the precedent we have with the 1400 West from Willow Lake, something similar to that. We want that road built or we want that road connecting up to 200 South. Staff and the proponent should probably be listening to what the direction is because they need to get this through city council.

So Aaron, I'm going to change gears a lot.

Let's do it.

The property that is directly to the west of this piece of property is partially privately owned and partially overlaid by the landfill. Is that correct?

The park directly to the west is City Park. That is City Park.

Directly to the west is all City Park.

And you can see all that trail running through it.

That's the trail.

That's the outdoor recreation complex. Everything green there.

There's a fox mom with babies living up there. They're really cute.

Okay, one thing that we have always tried to do that does not appear to be happening here is to try and create connectivity between major roads and subdivisions. So my thought is that 350 South comes out at an intersection, which is a little odd and I don't understand exactly why, you know, it's like one house width away from an intersection, which is an odd place at a collector road to have an entrance or an exit.

350 South is not a collector road. 350 South is a local street.

1400 is a collector road, and if 350 is coming out at that almost an intersection, Because I assume the road going to the west will be developed as well.

Go back to your big map, though. Going west is still park even further west of that.

I don't...

I mean, maybe.

I think she's talking the red line.

I know, but that red line is just a dead-end dirt road to... It's like a...

So we're going to have construction traffic going into a dead-end dirt road on a dead-end dirt road to build a huge... housing development without any really connectivity to anywhere else in the city.

Well, that's why I was asking if we're paving the road to the north because it seems insane to leave the north, 1400 west, not paved up to 200 south.

It makes no sense whatsoever, but it also doesn't make sense to pull 350 south out right at that intersection or not at the intersection.

It's not really an intersection. That intersection is not going to be like a big long-term connector intersection. Based on what's west of here, you are not going to, where there are road stubs, you're not just going to decide that that's your connection to go west because you're going to hit a pond and another pond and a trail.

Anything north will tee with the park. Right. This is about as far south as we can bring that. uh about as far south as we can bring that because anything where 350 comes out where everything this intersection that you're discussing right here right everything north it's all going to be a t because it's all because it's all hitting the park on the west right this is the closest you could probably get there without uh just bringing it straight through all those uh lots and that's what she's asking why aren't we taking it why are we not taking 20 watts out with the road within there's no planned road to the west it's a it's a driveway there's is really what what it comes down to this will dictate our alignment possibly but um but you're saying just to be clear

West of 1400 West is a park, will continue to be a park. Yes, please. When 1400 West, when you go right at the bottom, it is a dead end, will continue to be a dead end. And as part of a park. And... There's really no use for, I guess I don't understand why we would pay 1,400 based on my understanding. So people would have a way to get out.

14th is a major road.

And 200 South is the main road that connects to 10th West. So we do want to pave where it's not paved. Yeah, north.

For a block. Because then it currently does it dead ends into the landfill and green waste.

It's one block that we'd have to pave.

And part of the process is that we can request that to be part of it.

There is going to be a conversation about proportionality on this in that this is a 50 lot subdivision and that's a lot of 600 feet of road and whether or not it's even feasible to cover the cost of that road will be a conversation that you'll want to discuss with the applicant.

Russ, are you wanting to say something? I know you've worked on this a lot and I feel if there's any clarification that would be helpful.

Yeah, I just may have an answer for Jeannie's question. So the reason for the spacing there is 1400 West is categorized as a collector.

Correct.

For arterial. And the intersection spacing there is dictated by Public Works and Engineering. So 350 south curves to the very south edge of this property so that it achieves maximum spacing between 200 south and the new 350 south.

Okay. That's a reasonable explanation.

As we annex, see the red line is annexation. and those areas are private south of there, they'll likely swing up and create a four-way intersection at this new, are we calling it 350 or 390? Because it actually swings down to become 390.

So is it a full street? It's a full street within the development. It's not a, because it looks in the picture like it becomes a tiny street at the bottom.

All of their internal streets will be full. Their outer perimeter will be centerline in. But all of the streets within are a full cross-section.

Except for that little private one. Except for the private driveway.

Yeah, that's like a shared driveway. But the real streets will be, you know, sidewalk to sidewalk built the entire cross-section. Does that answer your question?

Are we really going to swing that road up west of here and move the trail that we just put in a year ago at some point? we just realign the trail without the, I mean.

Yeah, the trail will account for that and be adjusted. And it depends on the annexation, what type of development or land use is there. Sure. But that's the reason why that block was pushed out is to increase that spacing on those intersections so that this can be a higher volume, higher capacity, or a higher speed street with fewer cross traffic.

So Melissa, you were part of the Woodruff neighborhood plan that asked for this to be NR4. What would make you think this would be a better solution than NR4?

I don't think anyone there will be happy with this solution personally because that was the whole point is people were not wanting the small lots. That's why it was zoned in R4 is because they wanted to keep it bigger lots and bigger areas. Granted, times have changed, you know, and it's harder to keep the bigger lots and make it affordable. But Yeah, I would say that would be, they wouldn't be happy with this development as much.

Just to clarify too, before the concept were townhomes, right? Yeah. And now we're looking at single family.

But townhomes required a resort.

Right. My question is the little connecting road up there, that neighborhood, Aren't the lot sizes similar to what this is being proposed? And isn't the intention to have neighborhoods that have similar lot sizes?

The development to the northwest, sorry, northeast of here, you can see the smaller lots are NR6, and they're like 0.14 acres. And a lot of these smaller ones are about 0.1. But what's directly east of it here are closer to like three-quarter to an acre.

I know those are. Yeah, I'm looking at that. I'm just looking at, I mean, yeah, those ones are newer. The ones at the north are newer.

It's a newer visionary development. Those would be 6,000 square foot lots. Yeah. 0.14.

So I mean it does blend with that and they've kept the bigger lots on the east side to help blend.

And the neighborhood look at the neighborhood council look at this.

It hasn't.

Consider this as townhomes or as or like this?

It hasn't gone to the neighborhood council yet.

It hasn't gone to the neighborhood council.

There's one comment on Facebook where I posted in the neighborhood Facebook group.

So.

I don't want to put this one.

Yeah. But like Willow Lakes, we can have them go to the neighborhood council.

Yeah. I mean, I think we should. In the process. At some point. Yeah. I totally, like... I mean, I guess we look at the overall picture, which were, I don't know. Stop me, Erin, if you have more to cover first. I totally get it. Like I want bigger lots too. But they're so dang expensive these days.

Do we want bigger lots here? Or are we wanting, like there's various size lots within this. There's smaller lots and we're wanting more affordable housing options. Because I thought that's what that was.

Well, but you have to balance what the neighborhood asked for in their neighborhood plan and what they agreed to, what they wanted to have in that area, that particular area. And everything else that goes on.

And what they wanted was like something that zoning would have reflected 27. What they wanted was NR 4. NR 4 which would have been about 27 homes versus what is proposed as 51.

I will say that I wish there were a way if we were going to go with this much density that it's not just all driveways.

Density-wise, five units an acre. I didn't mention that. This is five units an acre, so it's an NR5, roughly.

Overall.

Overall, that's gross. Once again, it's hard to get maximized density in single-family subdivisions, as I mentioned with the amount of roads.

But I feel like with the smaller lots, it's going to be like driveway, driveway, driveway, driveway.

It is, when they're all double-wide.

I mean, that's what they are.

That's what's up.

Do you know what the frontage, roughly, is on any of these?