City Council - Regular Meeting

officials and our city leaders as they conduct our business for the greater good of our city. God, we pray that you give each one of us clarity of thought, integrity of heart, and a deep love for the people that uh we all represent. God, help us to listen well, to speak truthfully, and give us the courage to make decisions that honor you and serve the common good of Cedar City. We pray these things in the holy, matchless name of Jesus Christ. Amen. Amen.

Follow me, please. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you, Councilman Glonde, for leading us in the pledge. You're very welcome. Um, just just so everyone's aware, uh, Councilman Wilkkey is coming. He, uh, had to get some cattle to the auction that had to happen today and he's running a little slow, but he will will be here. So, mayor,

I would get my microphone turned on there. Mayor, I would move that we approve the agenda order for this uh work meeting on Wednesday, May 6th. Second. Have a motion and a second. All in favor? I. Any opposed?

Okay. Um then our first one is to well I I'm going to give a little privilege. We uh had our our fantastic um representative from the Legion that Scotty Har Scotty Harville, the post agent and sergeant- of- arms for American Legion Post 74, Cedar City. We'll come up here to thank the city council and the staff for their wonderful assistance in our family legion day. It was a wonderful thing. We could have done a lot better, but we'll do better next year. We're going to have much more better programs and we're going to be participating in the Memorial Day, which I'll be speaking to you on the agenda next week. But meanwhile, I have this to hand out to all of you. Oh. Oh,

these are bags that we handed out to each one of our vendors. There are information on the B1 program. also.

Thanks, Scotty. Thanks for all you. I appreciate you, Scotty. Okay. So, uh, Councilman Phillips wanted to visit a little bit about water restrictions is ahead of the schedule rather than putting it off. Well, yes. Uh, thank you, Mayor, and and council. I, uh, just really wanted to have a discussion because, uh, I just didn't know what plans we may or may not have in the city. As we all know, we had a very um dry winter and I know other communities have been looking at um certain water restrictions and I just want to know before it gets to the point where it may be too late for us what we might have planned or what kinds of things we're looking at doing. And I don't know if we've had any discussions on that.

Matt, I'm looking to you. Do you have thoughts on this one, Matt? And you got my favorite shoes on. So there you go. He's got a whole presentation on this. No, I just brought Matt Baker Water Department. I have We have not had any discussions on water restrictions. Yes. So, currently we're just still operating as usual with our time restrictions from uh what that is 8:00 a.m. to 6 p.m. 8 to 6. But no odd day, even day kinds of waterings or anything at this point. Okay.

20 2023 I think we did that we went to the oh 22 2022 we went to the every other day on even days. Well I would suggest that we at least start looking at it and having a plan in place whatever that might in your mind is there a is there a trigger is there some kind of a thing we should be watching to to decide water usage right now wells we are a month ahead of schedule than what we were last year. There you go. Not surprised at all. So last year we started our first well of April 20th, 2024. This year we were 319 of 2025. Yep.

And we started another one the next day and we started the irrigation well two weeks later and we just started our other big one of our big wells out west of Quit Paul just last Thursday. Well, I really think that it's something that we should look at. Um, I don't pretend to have all the the best answers for it, but I really want us to start looking at that and and u we need to be the leader in that as well as the citizens of the community with our own properties. Yes. If we do do that, we do need to tell Cedar City, parks, fuss, lead by example. Also, the schools, SU and the churches.

Yeah. This isn't mean to have them all go brown and die. We just need to make sure that we're very cautious of it and that somehow we work around to try and have less water and u maybe have it stretch a little further and maybe they're a little dry but they're still green, you know. So, I want to put a plug in for the state has a program where they'll pay I think it's $2 a square foot to take out grass and put in low water uh trees. they do need to have some shade or it just if rock creates heat and so there's a a balance but you go through that plan and they'll pay to take it out and myself I have too much grass and plan to take it out I we we all could probably do better in that regard

um of you know I'm almost an empty neester now and so my kids don't play in it like they used to do you have any thoughts Matt like on now that we have the meters that everybody can see their usage um is there a way we could think about a program that's an educationbased program to help people use that tool to to regulate themselves rather than it having to necessarily be a a forced regulation. Um any have you any thoughts on how we could

I would just like I don't know if everybody in the room knows you guys all know but we do have a program now that where you can watch your water usage online. We have a link on the city website. You can click on there and set up your account how it is on the billing just minus the decimals and you can see your water usage when your sprinklers turn on, when you go to the bathroom, when you shower, when everything is running. There's a lot of information on there. You can see if you can cut everything off down, what you can use. My Neptune My Neptune 360. Isn't that what it is? Or my Neptune 360.

Yeah. Another plug that I'll make is the smart um controllers for your yard. I I'm amazed at how many I see when it's raining that their swinklers are on because it's automatic. Those will adjust and and and I'm also amazed at how many people overwater. You really don't need the water that's putting up that is being put on a lot of them and in my neighborhood included. I mean and and so I'm not being judgmental, but I think a little education will go a long ways. We put way too much water on our grass. Yeah. Yeah. And and at inappropriate times as well. There are a few landscape companies that do overwater. They water six days a week. The only day they don't water is when they go mow the yard and then it's running again. People just let them do that. So,

and I know we have the conservation tier where if you use more, you pay more. But still, I think we need to really sit down and think about a plan that we might look at for the next three to four months for our city.

So, maybe we can talk about it and come back. I was just uh I'm thinking that we ought to make it a little bit more formal. maybe agree to put uh perhaps uh some verbiage on the newsletter about what they can do by metering themselves, their own usage and so forth and give them a little instruction bed in there. And then in the meantime, in the next 30 days, let's just commit to put together a committee to decide what is needed for the rest of the summer and get it done. And tools to to help us in Exactly. Yeah. just let's do it. It's it's important. There's your assignment, Matt. Put it committee. Well, and part of that that I part of that I thought of

be on the committee with our new uh public information officer. Um we could help her be part of that discussion because I think some of it is how do we make the public aware public outreach help? Well, and definitely have it covered in our June newsletter. Yeah. Yep. So, there's we do put that out in the bills. And I think it is in newsletter that we do have that Neptune 360 login. So it is out there. It's on the website. Is that on the uh the printed bills is or just Yeah, because online a lot of us I don't get online. I just pay it automatic and I I do. You get the newsletter. I get the newsletter. Yes, it's in there too. I Yeah, but it but there was nothing in there this last month about it.

Was it the one before? I saw something I read that I got anyway in an email. Okay. Okay. Okay. I just wanted to have a conversation about it and have us look into this. You want to know how much usage has kicked up since? Yeah. So, March, absolutely. I don't want to know, but I Yes, we want to know. Scott's house particular. No, this is city overall city usage, not counting construction usage. We don't have we there's no way to monitor that every day, but we do have about 90 hydrant meters out right now. Fire hydrant meters that contractors have

that they meter that. Yep. So in March, so the first week March 10th through I'll just say this 15th when it was cool, we were using about 3.5 million gallons a day. When it went up to 80 degrees, it was 4.1 and it climbed all the way up to 5 million gallons a day, up to 6.6, down to about 5.5 in the beginning of April. And then you can see where it goes up to 7.6 6 April 11th back down when we had the snowstorm back up and then yesterday we were at 8.98 million gallons of water. And what was our last year or or even a couple years ago comparable for the same month? Don't know because we didn't have you didn't have Okay. So this year keeps track of daily uses.

But now we'll get a chance to start looking at comparables week after week, month after month, year after year. You can see Yeah. Yeah. But I can't remember the numbers. Robert, you might. Um we did get a report on once you implemented the yeah it actually went down it reduced household usage on average quite significantly. We still have some serious abusers but but overall we used the same amount of water for including the growth and that's so that tier really did work. It really did work that the conservation tier. Thank you Matt.

Thanks Matt. Eight out of the top 10 users is irrigation water sprinklers. That includes culinary and irrigation. Quarter acre lots. No. No. 20 acre lots. Okay. Most of them are schools and a park. Yeah. All right. Thank you, Rich. I mean, part of that discussion to Go ahead, Phil. Well, I I got something else a little bit different.

Okay. Okay. So, part of that discussion too, just to make everyone and and those listening aware of is that the secondary system is a big part of that, right? Because if we can get those larger users onto our secondary system, that that'll have a pretty big impact on our overall water use as well. So, and that's well on the way. We've got about 7 million of the 10 million that the conservancy district's been able to to uh get towards getting that that system put in. So hopefully finish our study and of the best way to do it and and then get the last three we hope out of the this next appropriations.

Great. And just for everyone out here's information that's uh we put a filtration system in the sewer treatment facility that uh we'll release type one refu that we can pipe back and put on these big users like cemeteries and parks and schools and everything else. take a huge huge benefit off of our take the draw off the aquafer. Yeah, it's a really big deal.

Okay, got some Yeah. Um I talked with uh Eric from the street department. I talked with Kent too last week. Uh we have quite a few big celebrations coming to the park. Uh Eric's got enough money in his budget right now if if you guys give him the go-ahhead. Uh he could chip seal the area behind the Elks Lodge, the property that we have right there, chip seal and paint that and we could possibly put in angle parking on the other side to increase our parking capabilities quite a bit. So that sounds like that's an agenda item, man. That's a good one. I wasn't sure where to bring it up, but anyway,

I think it does need a discussion because we always have to talk to the business and stuff, but I think it's well worth it and probably ought to be put on the Ron. Would you add that one to our next uh work meeting? So, I think that one is a definitely a good one to talk about. Thank you. Thank you. It's a great great thought. And it might be warm enough then to actually put some asphalt down. Oh, it yeah it goes up and down every day tomorrow. Yeah. After tomorrow. All right, let's uh next agenda item is our storm drain improvement grant. Um Kent.

Okay. Yeah. What we are looking at on this there the application we're in the application season for the brick grant. It's called BRIC. I wish I could remember what the C stands for. It's building resilient infrastructure something. I can't remember what what that stands for. But one of the things that is eligible for that are are storm drain improvements where we have, you know, the potential for flooding especially that that those can score well. What we're looking at is the this uh just to orient you where I am. Here's the Tag and Go on 200 North Airport Road. So from 2150 west, this storm channel that comes past Tag and Go and through the fields here, from here around and over under the railroad and all the way down to um the Lond Highway here where we dump into the Quitchplot Channel is a is an area that gives us a lot of concerns with capacity and in particular or more especially from 2150 to the north side of the railroad. We need to replace the uh the crossing here at the railroad. It doesn't have enough capacity and really this whole channel is is poor. Um but then as we go on down, we do have capacity issues to deal with all the way to Lond this this ditch. So we have the the application process for this is two parts. the uh the state, even though this is a federal program, the state actually requires that we submit a um notice of intent to them. Um they want to gather that from all every everyone in the state who is planning to apply for this. We have done that. Those were due at the end of April. So, we went ahead and filed our notice of intent

with the state. We're working on the all of the design work that needs to be done to be ready to submit the actual brick application to the feds. Um, and I'm trying to remember exactly the date. Do you remember, Phil?

July July 31st or sometime I believe it. Yeah, sometime in July. So, we just wanted to bring that to the council. Um, council member Schmidt has been involved in those discussions, is aware of it. Some others may be aware, but we wanted to just make sure our elected officials that you're all aware of that this is something that we're pursuing. Um, so that so that you're you just know about that and can let us know if you have any concerns. Please come talk to us if you if you have any input or concerns about that. Can can you tell them what our match obligations will be?

So, as as I recall, the match on this is 25%. So, it's 25% local, 75% federal. And so, yeah, the the uh we're looking at um the so if we if we are only able to give fund at our highest priority, which is the stretch coming from 2150 around to the north side of the railroad. Um I mean, that's a I wish I had the numbers in front of me. I I would didn't realize I I needed those numbers, but that was in the order of uh like a $3 million project and we would have 25% of that. Um doing the entire project, our initial estimates and as we work through the design that'll help us refine these estimates, but our our initial estimate to come all the way down to to the Quitchpa channel here is more in the neighborhood of 15 million. M um so if we are able to give funding for the entire thing which would be a lot of money that can go into our system it is met with a significant match right so that that's what we're looking at and so if we're successful in getting the full project funded then we're going to need to have some budget discussions about how we do that

but the belief is it can come over a few years yeah it doesn't have to all be spent at once And so yeah, we do have some time, but it's but yeah, that that is something that will will be a significant budget discussion if we get the whole thing funded. If it's a lesser portion, that's going to be easier to deal with. Of course, this is all part of our storm drain master plan, is it not? Yeah. Yeah. The thing Waldo. Yeah. So there is a mechanism then to to space out the the 25% through the life of the whole thing so we can get money up front and then work and we can pay off our

as I understand it we have I I want to say three years I don't remember the exact number I think we have three years once the award is made to to spend the money and um of course our match would come along as we're As we're spending that money, we would essentially what we would be doing is we would be building project. Um we would be billing or you know requesting reimbursement from the feds for the 75% we'd be eating the 25%. And there's no money from the state uh for this purpose?

Not that I'm aware of. The state does have some uh programs that, you know, they're kind of in the in the infancy of trying to get established with funding different types of water type infrastructure, not just culinary water, but wastewater irrigation. That's something that we don't know at this point whether we'll be able to get anything there. Thank you, Kim. Okay, Councilman Schmid.

Okay. Yeah, this is actually this is a very important project. There's there's probably three or four buildings that are uh possibility of getting foundation washed out underneath it. Also, where the where it comes into the railroad track, uh it could take out that there's a very small culvert under the railroad which needs So, this this is actually a very important project. We did meet with uh uh Celeste Malloy and and her assistant today and uh he he thought that we could also get a letter from her to for assistance on this grant. So, okay. She she they talked with Jonathan and I gave him Jason's phone number, too.

So, great. Okay. Yeah. The Union Pacific has expressed concern about this location right here. Yeah. Yeah, the covert can't handle all the water, so it kind of builds up on that south side of the track and it uh it puts their infrastructure in in some jeopardy. And so they would like to see us get this done. I encouraged them to go for the full amount. Just in full disclosure, I I figured if you can get free money, you might as well try to get the free money and we'll figure out how to fund the match. I think it's great. I think it's a great effort that we sent to Washington and they skim get our get our portion back. I guess there is You're right. There's no such thing as free money. They took it from us in a different way. Yes. But we might as well get get as much of that back in our community.

Expose it out of us. They're gives a little bit back and tell us they did us a favor. Yeah. Okay. One other that just also thought me in that interaction a little bit. Um, one of the things I have been thinking about from a a management of the meeting standpoint is I there's some of you who are very um confident in just blurting out when you want to say something. There's others that are less and they I've had times where people are trying to get my attention to be recognized. And sorry, I can't always see when I'm looking over here. So, I apologize. No, not this is not in any way a

talking about me. I'm I'm just in the I'm just in the place where I can see all of you. And so from just respectful of of uh who's trying to get my attention, I'll let's try to have me recognize you and then we make sure that we don't step on each other's toes as we we try to make comments. So, thank you, mayor. That's perfect. Okay, your eyes are awesome. Um Oh, I see Scott. Oh, could I say that? It's only fair he nailed me last time we were here. We get Scott a little bit back today is all right. We just got to I got have to say it again when Carter gets here though too because he's one of the confident ones today. All right. Um next Memorial Day. Um any Sorry. I should make sure Kent nothing else there.

I'm good discussion man. All right. Memorial Day decoration guidelines for the cemetery. Uh good evening mayor, council, and staff. Ken Nelson, Leisure Services. So, it's that month again that I wanted to come forward and kind of uh just discuss some of the decorations that a lot of us know, but some always say they didn't know. Uh, Mother's Day is a big time for decorations and also at the end of the month, Memorial Day at the cemetery. Um, I just want to make sure that everybody knows that the decorations that they place along their headstones, uh, all that is good until June 1st. So that's from Memorial Day for a week,

one week. One week after June 1st, there is no guarantees that things remain when they're outside of the headstone. So a lot of folks place flowers and things outside the in what's called the temporary zone, just outside the headstone, and that is fine during that week period, but then they will gather up all those um if they're left. So everybody has a week to uh remove it if they want it. M I Councilman Schmidt

Ken just a question and I have noticed have we got all the arrows and sign everything painted well so these people come because there's quite a few changes. Has everything been painted on the road? Yes, they're finishing the the contractor company is finishing that up uh this weekend first and next. So, they'll all be in place. All right. Thank you. Great. Yes, Phillips. Mayor, um Mr. Nelson, uh might I suggest that this would be a good opportunity to get on our social media pages for the city. It's posted on all the social medias and it's sent to John to put in the newsletter. So, we have it out to everywhere that we can. He's already on it looking. We have a brand new person as of like yesterday.

When we sent this out, we sent it to John last month to make sure that we didn't miss the window for the mayor's newslet. So, I think it's out all of the venues that we can. I just want to make sure publicly that we address this. So, if you guys get questions, you you have the answers. You say June 1st. June 1st. Yeah. Councilman Glenn.

Thank you, Mayor. Uh, so I I drove through uh the other day and uh the only problem I had is I wasn't sure which one of the entrances were entrances and not just exits. Um, we don't have anything marked in the middle. I don't know if something like that has to take place in the between the yellow lines to let us know that, you know, maybe a do not enter sign or an exit sign. I I didn't see it. Maybe it's there. Uh I thought once I got in it was very comprehensive. I was able to drive and go where I wanted to and visit person's grave and then get out. But but initially I was like am I going in the exit or what?

I know uh Councilman I know that the sections that we have completed they're there. I'll I'll double check on the one that's just under construction. Okay, perfect. Thank you. That it looks great though. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Thanks, Kenny. Okay,

so we'll start into our and and just uh kind of structure-wise for all of you that are that are here today. Um we're glad to have you, by the way. I love actually seeing our council chambers full of people that we can come and actually express what we think and feel. So, so thank you for being here. Um, the way we will do it is as we get to an agenda item, we allow those that are presenting about it to be able to do so. And then before we move on to the next agenda item, I'll open up the opportunity for people to speak. Okay? Just so you kind of know what to prepare yourself for. Um, the other piece of that is um, we do limit it to three minutes a person and would just ask for everyone's um, benefit of time. If if somebody before you made a point really strongly already that you wanted to make, don't feel like you have to keep repeating it. If you want to, you can, but but feel you know to um yeah, if if the points have been made, then you can decide if it's worth adding explanation points to that and how much detail you go into it. But but we'll do three minutes a person. So, okay. So, our first one on the uh the public agenda is to consider a franchise agreement with Forged Fiber 37 LLC. Okay. So, yeah, this one's mine. Uh, I don't know if anybody is here from Forge because I didn't verify a date. They're mostly out of the area for now. It's a new fiber optic company, well, new for us, that's trying to come into Cedar City just to compete um for them to be able to use our public utility easements throughout the city without having to get a license or consent every single time. They have to come in through a franchise agreement that then requires three and a half%. That's a tax essentially that's paid to the state and then the state forwards whatever they feel like to us I guess because I never guarantee what the state will give us. Um so this is a same template we've used for other ones that come in. They have to work around other utilities that are already there. Your fear always is you get too many of these they start filling

up our peees. But I haven't I haven't heard complaints. I don't know if other the public works have heard anything from any of our other utilities. But as of right now, I haven't heard anything saying we shouldn't add anymore. Yeah. Councilman Schmidt,

right now on a subdivision, you're we're already putting in four. Uh I don't know if there's a real benefit here, but we we've got uh four fiber companies that we're using now. And sometimes the coordination is good, sometimes it isn't. I don't know where these guys are from. Uh unless it's really beneficial. I myself don't want to add five or six because once you add these in, you're going to have 10 conduits in a trench and we're already running out of room. So, unless they're really beneficial, we already have four. Okay. Mayor, I'm just wondering what kind of uh legal obligation I mean, can we raise his hand first? No, he didn't. No, he called on me. The mayor called on me.

The mayor called on me. That's right. This is like back in school, Robert. I know. I used to get in trouble in school a lot, too. Uh, I'm just wondering if there's any kind of a legal obligation where we can't deny them if they meet all of the criteria. It's like then are we playing favorites over one company over another? I mean, I just want to make sure that we're not getting ourselves into some legal situations.

And I haven't done a lot of specific research on recent case law on this. When I've looked at it in the past, the typical rule is if you're able to fit them in, then you're probably going to get some bigger arguments against you if you don't. If that makes sense. um because we don't want to be picking winners and losers if we can help it. Um when cities have started to do that, that's where the legislature usually starts stepping in. That's kind of what messed up utopia a little bit. Um they thought cities were getting too involved in competing. Um so you can have a similar problem here. That's why I say unless we hear complaints about there's not enough room, it's difficult for us to argue why we shouldn't allow more competition.

Okay. Colon. Yeah, I figured that that would be uh something that would be a little difficult to implement. Um um because I don't know that we still have that we have saturation of the market. But one of the concerns that I had is when uh I think it was South Central that started putting in all their lines, they went everywhere, tore up enough space to put their stuff. And um my question when I read through the permissions that they have from us in order to be able to install themselves uh it doesn't cover like sharing piping with anybody else. Is that private property that South Central laid out? Therefore, these guys are going to come in parallel. Has that been discussed? um

they would typically come in parallel to other providers that are in there. Whatever infrastructure South Central put in is theirs. So that means there's going to be a lot of tear up and uh in a lot of places. Our PUD uh went uh or up where I live. Um they they came in, tore up all the way to every house and sort of patched it up. Uh so I'm assuming they're going to do something similar in all of our public streets.

So this agreement wouldn't cover private streets. They would have to uh negotiate with each private uh owner of those streets. One thing I would ask that when you make your motion next week if you consider approving this is that you uh conditionally approve it. I would like to have the opportunity to sit down with this fiber company and our public works folks so we can get an idea of what their methods are and what kind of what kind of trenching they're going to do, what's the impact going to be, how quickly they get in, fix it, and get back out. That's those are the conversations we need we need to have with them. Yeah.

Yeah. Carter. Um, so can you confirm Paul or Randall or somebody? Is that Do we have four of these contracts already then? Could we find that out by next week? I'll tell you who we have. Yeah, sorry. Yep. I I think I could label them too, but Well, there we have South Central. There's Info West, there's uh South Central, there's Century, TDS, and TDS. Okay. So, it's just those four. So, as far as fiber, we have some of those share or help each other, but that's the ones that we have that I know. That's the ones I know of, too. We already have four. They come in now. They're going to tear the heck out.

In the past, at least, I've seen franchise agreements with each of those. I don't know if they're all current. I'd have to look. I But it's been a few years since. We're putting them all in. So, everybody I should double check to make sure they're current. Yeah. Yeah. Well, everybody's coming in. So, Councilman Phillips, then we'll keep uh then I guess my question would be, and I I think Paul, you're absolutely correct. We need to find out method methodology and everything else. So, is there a rush on this? Can we not hold this and table it until we have those conversations?

I don't know if they're in much of a rush. Um, their first conversation with me was last fall and a couple weeks ago they suddenly said, "Great, put me put us on the agenda." Okay. Um, so that's kind of the state we're at right now. So I don't think there's anything that I can see in statute that says you can't delay a meeting or two to try and gather additional information if you wish. Okay, Councilman Wookie, you know, and I guess if those are our providers or the ones that we currently have contracts with, that further I express the same concern of we don't want to make sure we're stopping other people from doing business. And you know, I don't know if do they all provide fiber? I don't know. I don't think TDS provides fiber. I've never used they do fiber now also. All four of All four of them do fiber. Okay. They do.

Yeah. Councilman Waldo. Um, so there's no representative here from the company. You said, Randall. Correct. Um, they had asked specifically which date they would be on. I told them which date and then I didn't hear back from them since that. So, well, I So, you could entertain a motion to put it on the next work meeting. And that's what I would like to have my colleague um go ahead and suggest because I I I feel uncomfortable uh approving something before the work meetings take place between the city, the public works and these individuals so that we understand the scope

and what they're ready to do and not do. I I I read the entire contract. it it's almost bulletproof if not 100% but it doesn't really specify that kinds of works that there it just says you know bring it back to the original condition and blah blah blah but that's not enough in my book okay Council Cox so and kind of building on that I would I would ask that we just go back to them and say what is your proposal what is your plan what are you what are you looking to do how are you planning to get in this market and and see what their plan is. And if it's pretty minuscule, then we, you know, we we consider it or not consider it.

Okay. And maybe to see if they can have that to us by next week and then if they're not here, then we can postpone it from there. But I think there has to be a discussion. I'm with uh uh with Mr. Bitman on this. We need to have our people talk to their people and understand their methodology. Not all of these uh fiber optics groups have acted the same way in our city. So we want to make sure we don't get into you know endless tearing up and patching up and so forth. Yeah. Carter. So my question for you Randall then because my understanding is this is mostly just allow them to be able to use our pees. Correct.

Yeah. Correct. So, I think what um you know, maybe what Councilman Galan's referring to, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I mean this does this get into the specifics of how they're going to work, how they do their kind of stuff. This is But what you're saying is don't approve this until we know what they're going to do. We just want to have that conversation with them so we know what they're doing because you can see the differences. If you remember when South Central came through, they did that little cut on the sides and then stuck the wire down inside of it and like this far below the asphalt. Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. Councilman Phillips. Mayor, I I would move that we uh table this item until a further date yet to be determined until we're ready to bring it back to council for consideration

and maybe once they've had those conversations with staff. Yeah, I'll second that. Okay, we have a motion in a second. I mean I know this is no voting meeting but I mean we in order for we can't put on action or we can put on action but that would be my motion put on action and then just table. So if that's what you want to do you can vote on removing things. Yes, you can vote associated with how you schedule and approve it until we end the action meeting. Well that would be my motion then to table until it's full fully vetted and ready to come back to council. Okay. Have a motion and a second from Councilman Schmidt. All in favor? I. Any opposed? So, they're a Delaware based entity. I just looked up, which means they're non-disclosure. So, I don't know what they have.

Just Just a quick note, if I may. Um, Mr. Schmidt indicated we had four companies currently providing fiber. There was a time not so long ago when Cedar City was contemplating putting in our own fiber network because we couldn't get anybody because nobody would come. So, uh, we're in a way better place today than we were 20 years ago. Oh, yeah. Just a quick Google search. They're affiliated with AT&T. That means anything. AT&T's here.

Okay, sounds good. Next item is to a public hearing to consider approving a residential development overlay um and a development agreement for Cross Hollow RDO. Good evening, Dallas Buckner. Go civil. Um can we pull up the RDO map? Can You got your own folder. Did you see that? You had your This this agenda item has its own folder in this computer. So,

yeah. Right before I came, I sent out an email. I said, "Hey, let's throw a couple extra exhibits in there just in case." Uh, let's just start with the the top one, the second submitt. So, this is the um this is the official RDO map that we've prepared. It's a three-page document. Um, council's pretty familiar with RDOS's, but essentially this is over on uh Cross Hollow and Cody Drive behind Silver Silo. Um, just to the south of Caramel Canyon Estates and west of the Wildflower subdivisions. Um, so it's the hilly area that's undeveloped. Um, we have uh worked with staff on this. We took to planning commission. uh we were able to get a positive recommendation from planning commission but we are essentially concentrating the density for the overall RDO area which is 77 acres. Uh we've broken it into three pods. We have um pod one. So this is cross hollow drive silver silos right there. Cody drive coming up through the hills. We have pod one here that we're proposing as R3M. We have pod three right here, which we're also proposing as R3M. And then we have this area that has kind of the green hatching that we're proposing as pod two and leaving as R1. Currently, all the property is zoned R1 except for a sliver out along Cross Hollow, which is currently central commercial and is a part of the property, but not a part of the RDO. We're just going to leave that as commercial. Um and so as we work through staff and looking at the guidance that's given in the um the RDO ordinance, essentially what we're doing is we're saying, hey, there's um four units an acre that's

allowed with the the current R1 zoning. Um there's a density bonus that can be given in the RDO. If we could just scroll down a little bit, Kent, just to see those tables. So, for this for the area that's in the RDO, it's 77 acres right here. Um, four units an acre on paper would give you 310 units. The R1 zone with the bonus density allowed for that zone would allow you to get up to six units an acre in the pods, which would get you to an allowable unit for requesting in an RDO of 466. Um, and then here's just some other math, but essentially what we're asking for is 410 unit or 400 units. And so that is 90 more than um than what would be allowed from four units an acre overall um but below the max allowed with RDO bonus density. And so one of the common things that comes up in RDOS's and it's written in the ordinance somewhat vaguely but it says that there should be community benefit for this. And so our proposal if we could scroll back up Kent. So total acreage 77 acres. Pod one is uh 14.69 acres. Pod three is 5.63. And then pod two is I think it's 5706.

It says yeah. So the vast majority of the of the RDO is in pod two and we have a development agreement that is accompanying

the RDO map. Um there's really two items in the development agreement. Otherwise it's pretty much just boilerplate. What we've proposed as the first is um that there's two dead-end streets off of Wildflower. It's there's Church Street and I believe it's Sunnyvale that currently are just deadends to nowhere. Um, and so we're proposing that we would develop pod two in the same fashion as the houses adjacent to it, R1, 10,000 foot lots, and complete these streets. So, this church street right here um would be a culde-sac with some houses around it. And then Sunnyville, we would bring a road out and put a culde-sac there. K, maybe if we could just slide to the third sheet on this PDF. Well, I let's just stop at the second for a minute. So, um the city city requires a lot of information on these RDOS's. We took the approach on this one to just snapshot the the current GIS for the master plan. Um there's some master plans around there's some master plan infrastructure around it. Um the the biggest one uh that we likely talk about today is the Church Street one that is supposed to tie into Cross Hollow. Um we when we brought this through sketch um we had entertained master plan amendments. the city is going to require um modeling studies with those and so just with the timeline associated with master plan amendments we've decided to just move forward with and show the master plan as is if the RDO is approved then we would come through do the studies and propose master plan amendments um once we know

the results of those studies um and then Ken if we can scroll to the last sheet So this um some of the comments we got from staff was just conceptual um access plans and then we tried to simplify this a little bit. So um so on pod on pod one there's an existing road that goes into sunset canyon and we're showing that we're matching there. um we would have some kind of looped street in pod one and then uh with the density requested we would be way over the 80 units an acre that's current or 80 homes on a single access. So we've shown um one proposed through one of these commercial sites as an access um and then on pod three we have kind of a parking lot configuration. We have a note that um the Levits are planning to have a signalized intersection here. And so we've got a note that we need to match that um as they work through uh determining that final location. And then

right on the middle of the curve, they're going to put a signalized intersection uh somewhere

somewhere along there. So we just threw a note on and said wherever they put it, we we got to match it. Um, and so second access on this, um, depending on spacing, um, maybe we're able to work out another one or we might have to work with, uh, Levitz or Iron Horse or development team, um, and tie something in with them. Um, and then off of the existing neighborhoods up here, this is kind of the culde-sac concept and then extending this road out to a culde-sac and having R1 homes around it. R1 homes around it. Um, I think the main this is this sheet is intended to just be an exhibit schematic kind of showing a concept. In order to do this, we'd have to go through and amend the master plan to remove that road. Um, I did pull LAR and did a kind of a conceptual road profile and uh you could look at it from the eye test and say that looks like it's going to be a problem and from the data I pulled I could tell you it's also going to be a problem. So

from the elevation increase up to the Yeah, it's almost straight grade from from the existing road to cross hollow at like 12%.

And the engineering standards allow you to have 12% for like 200 feet and that's it. And so, um, even at even at straight grade, I mean, we were talking about like 24 foot embankments and and when you talk about a, um, a minor collector road or a major collector road, um, the safety profile, it's just something that you don't typically associate with a 12% grade and presents challenges for fire and snow plows and all that. So, um, so we put this on here to show our concept, assuming that that master plan, uh, master plan road goes away. Um, and then Ken, if we could go back to the project folder. Um, so I believe the developer met with all the council members and discussed this. Um, he also held a a meeting with the residents off of Wildflower. if we could pull the RDO color map markup uh to talk in depth a little bit further about this um with council members and the residents. And so we this is kind of a dumbed down version of what we're proposing or just we brought color hatching to the front to show it. But essentially what we're proposing is the gray areas are the areas of development. the development agreement. Uh the first the first item on there is a proposal that after we plat and develop these roads, the remaining portion of pod two, which is that green area, we're proposing to dedicate to the city. And we've said that that could be anywhere from 30 to 49 acres. Um we've met with engineering, planning, and parks and had some discussions on that. I think they see the value in it. Um, but it comes down to council and the rest of staff's input to see if they would accept it. But the

so one of the main gives of this proposal is for the RDO and the the higher zoning is that we would dedicate somewhere in the range of 30 to 49 acres to the city to preserve open space. Um, there's some pretty steep topography in here. parks department has certain standards for master plan trails that are paved. Um, and it would be pretty challenging to try to meet those. And so, um, our our main thought is that we dedicate this to the city. There's a number of existing dirt trails that the public uses every single day and so preserve that that hillside.

I saw a light click on Carter. Are you going to Well, it did. I'm just trying to decide when Okay. I guess can somebody and and you've had more of these conversations it sounds like than I have. Um I mean I I've been there. I know the property. You yourself are saying it's unbuildable. It's sage brush. Why do we want it? What are we going to do with it? Yeah. So what good does it do the city to have more sage brush? Well, as I don't know the answer. That's why I'm asking. It's a legit question.

Yeah. So, as as the city builds out, specifically in this area, I think that preserving the hillside aesthetic that's there, preserving the trails that everyone walks their dogs on every day, um I think that provides value to the city. There's certainly a precedent where um the city already has accepted open space property from the Caramel Canyon Estates and then also from Sun from Sunset Canyon. Um, and that is just straight up hillside. I mean, there's no benefit there. And so, this is where the power lines go through. There's a number of trails. There's a city master plan trail um that if the RDO is approved, we'll look at realigning in some form or fashion because this is just a straight line through hills and valleys. Um,

I guess I just look at it as it's unbuildable. We know your developer is not going to build it. We know we're not going to be able to build it. So, why would we want it? It's going to stay the same whether we own it or whether the developer keeps it. Yeah. One of the disc or I think a a big discussion that um happened at the planning commission and then certainly in the hallway after is that I think the residents see the value. I think park sees the value in preserving open space and trails that are there so that people have an outlet from their neighborhood where they can go walk dogs, run trails, um and recreate outside. The topography doesn't lend itself to a traditional soccer complex.

No, but I guess what I'm saying is if the developer keeps it, aren't is it going to stay the same? Aren't they still going to be able to do all those things whether we own it or the developer owns it? Uh, they could. I mean, there's a tax burden with it. And so if they dedicate it to the city and from our discussions with parks, um there's a certain liability associated with the asphalt trail system. Um but Ken had indicated that where there are natural trails that throw a sign up and say, "Hey, have one on the trails at your own risk." But yeah,

um I think I don't know. I mean, I for coming from a place that's more densely populated than Cedar City and having trails that are open and open spaces that you can walk through. I mean, I I see the benefit. And that's I can't go ahead. I can't speak for the developer, but you could do what they've done across the street and move the top into the bottom and terrace it and have a a bare side. I mean, so so there there are options that might not be as desirable.

Yeah. And that's and yeah, and that's a that's a great point. I hadn't got around to that. But yeah, I mean there's there's I mean the best example right now that's in everyone's minds is directly across the street. But I mean we could blow the mountain tops off and cut millions of yards out of there and pat it out for all kinds of homes and sell dirt to everyone that's in the valley that needs dirt to fill their subdivisions up. And so I mean we could go through and

cut it all up and chop it into quarter acre lots and but I I think preserving it and concentrating the density to the flatter areas um is is more beneficial I think to everybody now. But that's that's part of the reason why we have the development agreement is because I've been in the meetings before where council members or staff have raised those same questions. Why does the city want it? And if the city doesn't want it, then I guess maybe it does stay with the developer or put it into an HOA or something. But it seems like where there's a precedent where the city's already accepted it. Um is so just a second. I had one thought here in Dallas. This is my first time through an RDO. Um I don't know if others have had more experience than that, but

we've done them. Yeah. But uh the whole idea of the RDO is that that added density is given because the developer is bringing something that is for the public good. Right? So the the argument to make sure I understand it is that that green space area is what the developer is offering as the public good that then entitles them to go through this RDO process. Correct. That's that's the only give that they're giving to the city. That's a benefit. Well, we haven't we haven't got to storm water yet. We haven't got to detention ponds the other day. I was going to We should let you finish. Probably

the the other the other part of that though is that the way the ordinance is written is it's not it says that there should and I don't remember the exact verbiage but it says there should be some kind of community benefit but it doesn't specify public private or any of that. And so very likely that pods one and three will be developed as as PUDs. And so there's there's minimum open space amenity type things in there. And so um we do anticipate that there will be more amenities that are put in that will very likely exceed the minimum thresholds in the in the zoning ordinance. Um, but as far as a as far as one of the clear-cut benefits, it's Yeah, here's, you know, three quarters or 60% of this pod to preserves open space where the public's already using it for trails.

Okay, Councilman Schmidt. Well, I know there's more to this presentation, so let's Yeah. Should we let him finish all the way through it? Okay. Then we'll start barting with questions.

Let's get all the way through. Um and so so then the the second part of the um the second part of the development agreement that um the planning commission um did a nonvote on or non-recommendation on was storm water proposal. So when we talk about master plan improvements required on this property, there's the master plan road that ties in Church Street to Cross Hollow. Um there's kind of a random 12inch water line that I that whether that needs to be there or not is to be determined. Uh but the main one is storm water. And so the city's master plan shows um and the the master plans are a very highly generalized straight lines over aerial images. But um there's a 5 acre detention pond shown right here. Um and then there is a 8 acre foot dyke shown right here. And so on this RDO map, um, we have or I have gone through and kind of laid out a preliminary based on those volumes and what I think we could achieve, um, with a reasonable footprint. And so this is the 5acre foot detention pond. I think it's about 1.4 acres, 6 feet deep. Um, there's a curb inlet grate across from the LDS church that I think would be our outlet. Um but there's a five acre there's a fiveacre foot pond there and then there's an 8acre foot dyke. Um one of the things that we had that's not a part of this application but when we went to sketch was I had looked at this 8 acre foot pond or 8acre foot dyke and that location's very challenging and so I had proposed that we look to move it up. So there's a pretty channelized ravine through there and then the master

plan shows it down here. This kind of odd tear shaped triangle is my guess at what 8 acre feet looks like. That's just the facility itself. That's not the cut slopes and pulling the hills back to generate that volume. So the area of grading would likely be much much bigger than that. Um, but as you come up the channel, uh, it's not flat by any means, but it's quite a bit flatter than the rest of the property. And so, um, this was an area that we were proposing to relocate that facility to. Um, seems to me like with the storm drain outlet lines that are in Cross Hollow, these will likely daisy chain, meaning this one will discharge there, this one will likely tie into that and then discharge. Um, but the second part of that, the development agreement was, and maybe Kent, if we could flip back to the folder and just pull up the hydraology PDF. Oops. So, when we looked at at these, these are the So, here's the 5acre foot facility. Here's the 8acre foot facility. So I went on a a USGS website called stream stats where you can kind of pull tributary areas or the area that drains to somewhere. And so there's whenever we do developments there's the hard surface increase that we generate from our project and then we're responsible to detain retain that increased volume to help out with the peak flows and storm drain system. um this magenta purplish. So this is the Redmond water tank. So this magenta area is 136 acres and all of that drains to the dyke. And then the blue area which is it's hard to read that on there but um

101.72 acres 100. So the blue area the total blue area is 156 acres. So the blue area is 156. The magenta area, the whole basin's 136. So you have 106 uh get my numbers mixed up on top 101 plus.

So we've got 156 acres that drains to this pond and then we've got 136 that drain to the dyke. Um and as far as I can tell from the city's GIS, there's not any upstream detention. And so when we initially prepared the drainage um component of the development agreement, we were saying, hey, we recognize that we're going to be some proportionate share from our increased runoff to the 5 acre foot and 8 acre foot volumes. Um but the vast majority of those volumes is serving upstream needs where detention and retention hadn't taken place. um from the planning commission and further discussions the developers had with council members and the public. One of our other um gives on this is to say that if the RDO is approved that we would give the land the city would still pay the upsize share for the basins themselves. Um but when we originally proposed the development agreement, we were saying, "Hey, we want to be paid for the upsides of the construction and the land." Um and on these numbers just with I mean this is very very high level drainage, but we were we were roughly 13% of one basin and 22% of the other basin as far as what I roughed our percentage of the five and eight was. Um, and so the the land component of that, the the major issue that we had with these is that both of these are in the flattest, most usable, most developable areas on the site. Um, and so we were initially proposing that we be compensated for the land on and the

construction value. Um, but the developers now willing to concede the land value. Um, I do still feel like the best location for the dyke is probably going to be up here or that we break those into multiple um locations. But that's really something that when we come through with a master plan amendment um and have some more engineering numbers that we would make proposals and have staff review and work with engineering on. So and and that would divert the water that comes down just before the church, right? And go down and so it would help prevent the disaster that happened a few years ago. there is that

not not well the disaster that happened a couple years ago was from and I didn't do a study on it but from what I've seen and heard was um that that channel along Cross Hollow those grates plugged and then all of that water ponded and then ran behind Silver Silo and then ran down to the LDS church built up behind the fence and then just started dominoing

through people's backyards and So, um I think that water was intended to go to the Armburst Basin, but because of the clogged grates didn't make it there. And so that was obviously a tremendous storm, but I think that the majority of the water that caused that flooding was intended to go across the street and not through the back of Silver Silo and Sunset Canyon. But still, regardless of that, um these are very large developed basins that drain through the property and where there wasn't detention that was put in or required because these were developed so long ago, probably wasn't a part of the standards then. Um there is issues with drainage down here and that's part of the city's 2023 storm drain master plan where we said, "Hey, we've identified these two areas. We need to do something here. Let's do a 5 acre and a 8 acre. Um, and so, but those just happen to be located on one property in that property's most developable part of the project. So,

okay. Is that it from a presentation standpoint? You ready for you ready for ready for some questions being drilled? Okay, Carter, I'll go first. Um, Ken, can you go back to the map that showed I don't know which map it was? Go to his folder and I'll tell you which one it was. It's the color markup. No, was it the second one? Yeah, the second one. Yeah, it was the color markup. So, one question that I I've got a couple, but one of the questions is those two pieces that they're proposing to leave as R1 up at the east side. The developer, when I met with the developer, he himself said he has no intentions of keeping those, right? He's not actually purchasing those property. Those are staying with the original owner. Correct. The Joneses.

And so we don't know if they ever actually have plans on developing those as R1 or

Yeah. Well, I I think one of the things that's important to remember when you do RDO's um and this is important to remember just for zoning and densities overall is that um so pod two, for instance, we're proposing 50 dwelling units in that pod. Um there's no way we're getting 50 50 homes at quarter acre lots on these. And so it's important to remember that what we're asking for with the RDO at 400 units is the upper threshold. We're still subject to the city's underlying zoning and development standards. And so it's very likely that we're nowhere near 400. And this is probably the most clear-cut example because of how we have these roads where we're proposing up to 50 homes in pod 2. My experience with culde-sacs is there might be four houses on that one and then this one maybe 15. And so you're talking about 20. So there's probably 30 unused units in there. Um

so when you take the roads out it's going to reduce from the 400. You're just doing a straight paper linear. Yeah. And the reason in the development agreement why we have it as a range from 30 to 49 is because really on this west side um there's no reason we have to keep those quarters. We could turn those into halves, three quarters. I mean we could push this back line out and people could have walk outs with big backyards. And so we left some flexibility in there to say, hey, the vast majority of this is still going to get dedicated hopefully to the city. um but left some flexibility that if it makes sense for us to turn those into halves or 3/4 or acres or whatever that we we can do that.

So my next question I want to talk about the detention pond the the lower one the pond not the dyke. So it it's on our master plan to already have it that size correct the volume but it's just square that says 5 acre foot pond. Okay. So I I guess and somebody explained it to me. Um so since it's in our master plan and they're choosing to develop in this area, they're responsible to put it in. So but they're making it bigger than they would have to or just it cuz I'm just confused on why like what are they giving us that they're not already required to do because they're choosing to develop a piece that happens to have a master planned detention pond on it.

Right. So they are Yeah. the the the pond, you know, a mass plan doesn't tell them how it has to be designed, okay? They come up with a design that they think they can make work to provide that acre, you know, the 5 acre feet. Okay.

The uh um and then our what our practice has been on that is that they upsize that to accommodate all the water that's not coming off their property, right? And and that is what we reimburse them is the construction cost for that. So that that is our our normal process. Um and they had come in with the original development agreement as as Dallas said, the original submitt um asking to be compensated for the additional property as well as for the additional construction cost and they've now backed off of that. But this yeah, this is what we always do. Um that's it's on the master plan because it needs to handle water from more than just our site and we participate in that upsized cost. Okay. So, just to reiterate on that, their their development might run off one acre foot and we're asking them to do a five acre foot,

right? Yeah. Okay. So, so our perspective on that was just that with those being master planned, there's very few master planned. I think there's maybe five on the whole city master plan. And so, there's two on one property. And I I would consider these regional basins. And that was the reason for the hydraology drainage map exhibit was just to say, hey, we are whatever the number is, one acre foot of the five acre foot. And so there's a big upstream runoff that's coming through our project and we're a small percentage of that. And so, um, but those are I think the difference or where you were going with it is that any any development we're going to be required to do what our increase is for our project, your

portion of it, but these are regional ponds that are on the master plan that says, hey, there's an issue with the city here and we need more than just what this property is doing. We need a regional a regional facility to help with the upstream. So the upsizing of the land needed is what your original argument was is that we should still pay for the upsizing of the land needed as well. Yep. And that's the piece that you've backed off of and are now just asking for the upsize of the construction costs. Which is which is how staff and how I generally interpret how it's been done. The land the the compensation for the land was the second part of the development agreement.

Okay. So, my last thing when I met with the developer, um, you know, I was pretty frank with him and I like this developer. I mean, I I I think we're good acquaintances and we had a good meeting. The way that I ultimately look at this Dallas and maybe where I struggle a little bit is and with RDOS's in general, um, in this situation is at the end of the day, he's choosing to buy a piece that is mostly unbuildable. And so what he's choosing, what he's asking the city to do is let me buy this piece that I want to make money off of and take the density of the whole piece and only put it on the pieces that are cheap enough that I can build on and make money off of.

That's essentially how I look at it. Now, that's not I'm not that's not the thing that kills it for me, but I asked him I said, "Is there any way that we can at least try to pretend that we have a master plan and somehow get me some type of non I mean single family dwellings or you know detached dwellings." So, we did talk and I don't know if it ever made it into the development agreement. He did say that he was going to try and do some. Have we made it that far? Did he is he? So he he did he did mention it to me and then I had looked I had looked into it. So um the the challenge with doing so we are proposing single family up here. Um

but he's not doing that though. He's So that's why I'm like it's not him doing that. He admitted that he's not even taking that property. So yeah, but I I would say all these subdivisions were originally at the Jones Land and that was developed. Okay, that's right. So, so all of Wildflower, all of I mean it was developed via Barry Church, but yeah, that was all the Jones land to start with. And so whether it's the applicant on the RDO or the Joneses and they have him do it or they have another developer do it, that doesn't mean it's not going to happen. Gotcha. I guess I just haven't met with them. So that's I'm just going off of what he said. They might do it, they might not do it. I don't know. That builds into a question that I had in general like with these with the RDO process

in order for them to get this are there any limits to what the council can say needs to be in that development agreement for them to be okay with it like is there any or is it just wide open of it's a negotiation to that the council gets to try to decide if they're comfortable with to grant the RDO density. So, in a nutshell, it's mostly wide open, but you'll want to be careful, right? If you don't want the RDO, you can say no, this is within your discretionary authority, like zone changes. You do not have to approve this. Um, if you're considering it, then what you start putting in as conditions, those public amenities as we're talking about it, or densities, well, then at least negotiate in good faith, if that makes sense. Right? If you're going to say no, just say no. But if you actually are okay with it as long as they do certain things and they need to be something reasonable and rational that are connected to what it is.

So product type could be part of it. Yeah, absolutely. Okay. Because I did the same thing, Carter, right in my head. I'm like I this area is frustrated in much of the city and we heard it during campaign of how frustrated they are with town homes going everywhere. And and so I I actually took Ryan to to see a a small lot neighborhood in in Enoch to to say, "Look, you can build still affordable housing that isn't town homes." And it still feels like a neighborhood to try to help him catch a vision for something different than just here we go, some more town homes. Yeah. Um

you know, and I and I'm and I'm about the American dream. I'm about trying to make money as well. And so I mean, I'm not a I just want to see something. I'm not, you know, if if I'm not coming in here saying, "Nope, doesn't match the master plan." I'm out. Right. I mean, I think it's along a busy road. It's got commercial on one side. I acknowledge that a lot of it's unbuildable. So, I understand why he's trying to do what he's trying to do. I mean, it makes unfortunately, it does make sense, but at the same time, I want to see him at least try to do something if we can. And so, I was just curious if any of that had made it into the development agreement. We had talked about it. He said, "Let me talk to Dallas." And I just

Yeah. So, so with that, I So, I would say this that the R3M zone is a is a more popular zone than the R31 zone. And so, I have never done an R31 subdivision. I went through and looked at it. Um, I believe the minimum lot size is seven, is it six?

That's because once we give you the R3M, then you can do whatever you want in it. That's how come nobody does the R31 because that would stick you to single family. No, but my the point I'm the point I'm trying to get to is to say that when you talk about having a buildable product on those lots with the setbacks that the city encumbers you with on R31, you look at them as, oh, you can do 6,000 foot lots as the minimum lot size. But if you want to put a a decent house on there, a 1,600 square foot singlestory or a 1,200 square foot and then you build those in, you're going to end up with a R217,7500 foot lot. And then similarly with the RN zone, which I I haven't done one of those. I think that there's some that are being designed. I I haven't done one, but I went through and looked at those setbacks and you can get closer to the minimum. There's a lot of different caveats and it's not like you read through and it just says front setback this side step set.

It's pretty convoluted. Such a good Yeah. And then and then there's also there's setbacks from um like there was a 300 foot setback from everything that's zoned R1 re. So we have R1 here, we have R1 here. This black dash line right here is a 500 foot offset from our RDO. And so if you say, "Hey, we want to see like an RN residential neighborhood zone or the R31, the the RN zone, by the time we offset this 300 ft and we offset it 300 feet from here, we're going to be stuck with I think 7,000 square foot is the minimum. And so then we're But can't the development agreement also modify the setbacks,

Randall? Yeah. Legally, if we can do whatever we negotiate, that's asking that question, right? Like I do think we have a problem with the setbacks to because otherwise people would do this more and have single family homes, right? So it's our restrictions that are preventing that. So I would suggest that we that we look at that so that they can put single family dwellings in there cuz right now it doesn't make sense. It's taking up too much land. you might as well have a you know um I do work in desert color and they have some of their part they have three-foot setbacks and I know a lot of people are like that's nothing well then do town home but I'd rather have a three-foot setback a setback on each house and have them be six feet apart then have town homes well and I think that's when we get into the affordable house is quarteracre lots are not affordable I

and so and and then and then when you talk about planning and zoning concepts like the concept of buffering you say okay here's a here's a major arterial here's a commercial corridor adjacent to it and then generally you work from commercial from high medium low outward um and so we've generally applied that concept um when I had talked with Ryan about the possibility of doing some of the smaller single family detached we were looking at Cody Drive the issue with Cody Drive is that it's a 60oot rideway so it's not quite a major collector um I would have a hard time putting houses that front on there course and I don't think engineering is going to let us

and so no I knew the answer to that I just wanted to look at Ken have to shake his head so you'd have to have an ent but you already have an entry road it looks like but then you have to take up all that land to do the culde-sac or something right

yeah so so then if we go from a public to private we've got to have a roundabout um and then you're also talking about doing double fronted lots to make that happen we have a 5acre foot basin we got to fit in there somewhere there. Um, and so when we talk about an RDO, an RDO's a relatively high level planning dock. And there's a lot that has to get worked out. There's the slope coming off Cody and the curves that make I mean part of the reason why we put this on here for staff to show a circulation plan is we show one access here and we show one through the commercial because by the time we put a basin in here and we have this intersection I don't know if we're going to have enough rightway to fit another spaced road on Cody depending on how this looks because engineering is going to want us to match this intersection. And so there's a lot of challenges to make that happen. And then similarly for this R3 pod, if we're going to have a signalized intersection over here, Cross Hollow's built up quite a bit and then it goes up the hill. Um, but this looks more like a PUD type development on that pod as well. And so Ryan Ryan had mentioned that he had talked with I think you and Scott

about that concept. Um I'm just hesitant to commit to because I just don't know how well it's going to work and and part of part of being a developer is yeah making money but you you've got to be able to put something in there that works. And then when we talk about the concessions on land that we're now saying we're striking from the development agreement saying, "Hey, we're going to give you this extra acreage." We're talking about, you know, approximately three acres within our 14 acres that we're saying, "Yeah, we're just going to give it to the city and not be able to develop develop that." If this basin moves then then maybe that gets reduced but this one's got to be inside our and a five acre foot basin is one acre five feet deep or five acres 1 ft deep or some variation of that but there's even design constraints on that. I mean it'd be great to make that a half acre and 10 feet deep but we have to meet outlets or we have to put pumps and stuff

be too deep at that point. So there's a lot of engineering factors that go into that to s for me to say sounds great. Let's plan on it. But I I just don't know how well that's going to work. And then when you talk about trying to make affordable housing and then forcing double fronted lots on Cody Drive, I mean that's something that drives up costs. And so I just so that's kind of where we left it. he was he was on board with with looking into it and I looked into it and I just couldn't confidently tell him I know that that's going to pencil or be a great idea and so I'm done. Councilman Schmidt,

uh the house is up here on uh on top wildflower right there. Okay. Now, my original understanding was that might be sold or Jones is keeping that property. Are you buying that? Uh, I believe that Jones is keeping that property.

Okay. And then I know they met with everybody. My understanding was that that was going to just be left or sold as if the people wanted to buy the lot behind them or whatever they could. Now, since this is go this is still Jones's property, why are you putting this on this part of the RDL? Does does this have anything really to do with you? This gray part right up here. Um, it does in the sense that Jones has owned it for a long time and doesn't hasn't had any plans or interest to purchase and develop it. And so, by going through this RDO,

so you're you're getting it. So it could be designed. You could build this through this RDO if you wanted to. Well, this isn't part of the RDO, right? Those pieces are excluded. Oh, this is part of it. They're part of it. They are there's there's two parcels. There's the and there's the Joneses. And I think they're pro. So the Joneses and the common property line is right here. And so everything to the west is which is under contract by the applicant. And then everything east of this line is the Joneses. Okay. So with this RDO then that would be uh approved to be built that those two gray pieces and they're tying in that they're single the R1. Yes. So yeah. So

so they're they're protected in that the there will be an R1 zone on that top piece in the RDO. And then and then that's where I say that when you look at the numbers for the big picture on the RDO and we say 400 units and then we say there's pod two. We're putting 50 units in pod two. If this gets developed in this fashion, there's no way there's 50 homes going in there. And so I just say that to say that we're shooting for the stars. But so we so we could make the restriction that there nothing allowed up there except single family homes. That's already in it. Already is. So that's lock that's locked in.

And and part of that also is that the city wants to see those roads completed instead of I mean those roads are especially Church Street is is super steep. So the city wants to have the ability to turn around and have a a proper culde-sac there. And so that's so that's the proposal is basically to to make the whole green area plus this red plus those two grays. Keep those all R1 and then put up to 50 homes. And then that's where in the development agreement we're saying that we would dedicate if the city is willing to accept the open space for uh open space preservation that um there's 30 to 49 acres that we that would be dedicated to the city for open space.

So the the detention ponds that's really not part of the RDO right now, but they got to come in. But the design of those would be later on the actual design, right? Yes. Yes. This this is just a preliminary idea cuz they have to do the study. So So because so this is this is just a supplemental exhibit. The actual RDO shows them at the locations that are currently on the master plan. when we took it to sketch across the board for for roads, for water, for storm drain or for storm water, um staff said we've got to do modeling studies to see what the impacts. You want to get the RDO before you do that.

And then with land use applications that would then trigger those improvements to be built. Yeah.

Okay. So, one other thing just uh and Chief Phillips can correct me if I'm wrong, but um there is fire issues with the green space that we take on as a city. Now, we bear liability if there's a fire through that area. Um and there's a a thinning process that we can do to get the fuels down, right, to to mitigate that risk. But but if we take it without that mitigation being done, then we will have additional costs to go through and and thin that area to keep it out of high fire risk. So there is if we take the land, there is still going to be additional cost to taking that land that the city will incur to reduce the fuels. Is that a fair statement, Chief?

Okay. I said I was done. I lied. Um we're not surprised. Hey, it's not a bad thing. I know. Ken, are you comfortable talking to us about this green space idea and parks? Do you want to talk next week and that way you have a week to prepare what you're going to I know I'm kind of calling on you, but I just know as a city we have lots of property that we kind of go, what are we going to do with all this? And it's like this much more. I just don't. So,

uh, Ken Nelson, Leisure Services. So, we met with Anthony and I met with Dallas and Kent and Don and a few of them. And we talked about this and talked about that there's not really a location for a paved trail is too steep, is the grade not right and all those things. And we haven't been in the business before this as in the city of dirt trails. All of the trails that we deal with are paved. Uh we connect to BLM trails, we connect to Forest Service trails, we connect to other things, but we've never been in the business of building maintaining trails or

um Armburst uh group was happy that we have the trail through Cross Hollows and they're just going to kind of shoot off it and make their walkable space, but we've never dealt with any kind of business as far as maintaining those trails. And that's what I told Dallas is the city's will have to decide if this is a thing if they want to get into that business. Okay. We can plant trees. Scott, there's plenty of trees right there. Okay. Thanks, Ken. Okay. Any other council yet, Baldo?

Yeah. So, you know, of of all these gentlemen beside me, I'm I'm the dumbest one when it comes to this kind of stuff, but I did a little bit of reading and so forth. There are some um qualifying aspects for an RDO, right? Yep.

And so far, the only thing that I hear as qualifying is giving us the land that nobody wants so far or threatening to do something with it that we're not going to like or whatever, which I took a little bit of offense to, by the way, in the conversation. So tell me what are the the RDO definitions that you're including in this project? Well, I would I would say that if you read the RDO ordinance, it's not it's not clear. It just it's vaguely says there's a community benefit.

Well, you it could be a historic overlay, which this doesn't qualify for. It's got to be there could be an environmental overlay which this doesn't qualify for other than the conversation on drainage and potential damage which I think we could make fit in there somehow. Uh there can be a transit oriented uh overlay but again this doesn't fit. Um, there's could be affordable housing and I've heard the term twice, but I don't see the mustard on the hot dog. So,

what are what what are we qualifying as RDO here? What are we defining this as RDO? I mean, there's others if we wanted to go through the whole list, but yeah. Are you asking Dallas to define? asking Dallas or I'm asking anybody that will educate me so that I can make a good decision because so far, like I said, I don't see the mustard on the hot dog here. Okay. Robert, did you have an answer?

Yeah, I just have one comment and that's if we can if we can make sure that the setbacks are there. We have single family dwellings. We get the higher density next to the major roadways, which reduces the infield traffic in the neighborhoods. And I think it's a win-win for the neighborhood. They get their view. Um, we get single family homes on there. we get the density closer to the main roadways. So to me, the mustard on the hot dog is is to get those setbacks where it will pencil.

Yeah, we've got to change that. And so if we get that so it pencils, we can have some single single family homes in there. and the and the denser the the housing, the less road we have to maintain as a city and snowplow and and so there's just there's some other benefits in my mind if we can get that part to work and if these guys are willing to do something with that concept.

Thank you, mayor, members of city council. I was just trying to address uh your one question as far as benefits. Uh the what the ordinance states any public or private amenities benefiting and joining the res and adjoining the residential zones. It goes on it and says i.e. parks, trails, schools, churches and other such amenities as approved with the master plan. So I think it's a very discretionary uh decision on what benefits is the city gaining out of this RDO. Uh we have mentioned you know we have unbuildable slopes for the most part that they're offering the city. Uh it could be argued that open space as you urbanize can be a benefit but these are challenges uh that we would have to take on related to fire. Uh I'm not convinced concentrating all the density downstream is potentially uh the best idea. we're going to put a lot of homes right down in that watershed as opposed to spreading them out. Uh so I I think it's a very discretionary uh uh exercise and what these benefits are. I also think it's an opportunity as this discussion is is is progressing here. This is an opportunity to master plan an area as as opposed to the the macro scale that that we see in the general plan. But we can really look and see and try to figure out what makes the most sense here. Uh, obviously the city has uh, you know, needs for drainage here. It's it's in our master plan. Um, Randall, I don't know if you want to touch on some of the discussions or the letter that that you had written to the applicant and in regards to their first proposal with drainage, but I think that letter had indicated maybe they should take a look at u potentially paying for

more of those improvements than just their share and then we kick in the rest for upsizing. That could be a benefit as well. Thank you.

Thanks, Don. So, you guys didn't get the full back and forth. It looks like it didn't make it into the packet. Um, initially the applicant with uh Mr. Weman's illustrious skills at typing. Um, it indicated that we should be paying for our percentage of the land in addition to everything else. We responded back, well I specifically with assistance from other staff responded back saying, "Well, I mean this is a discretionary thing and according to case law and state property unbudsman, we can require reasonable amenities that we think fit." And so the demand was you pay for all of it, the land as well as the improvement costs for those master plan improvements for drainage. They responded back with what you have in your packet, which was them going back to a bit more to what our ordinance already says, which is the land would be essentially donated. They would remove their complaint or argument for a percentage of the land value as the claimed one of the claimed amenities and then they would just ask for the rest. This is within your discretion because this is a discretionary grant. Um, you don't have to give it at all. And so this is now more into contract negotiation more than just simply a taking that we'd be dealing with if they met our ordinance otherwise.

You know, as far as the mustard, I I guess I I do consider the working together on the detention and the dyke as a huge benefit. I really do. But for me, the green space I just to me it doesn't add value. I guess I'm just being honest. Councilman Phillips,

I'll try to make this brief, but I may add just two comments besides everything else been said. I wonder why pod three, right against Cross Hollow Road. Why why couldn't that, and it probably is a topography, but you can help me understand why it couldn't be moved up further behind those other commercial areas and put commercial along Cross Hollow. I'm just so tired of seeing town homes and everything's right up to the street on a major corridor that should have commercial development as well. And it is it that the topography won't work for it to be moved. So yes, so with with pod with pod 3 specifically, there is a there is a hillside right here

and so the top of the mountain is right there and then it kind of comes down to a valley and flats out to the north to the north. So yeah. So this so it goes up to the top of the hill where the power lines are and then it rolls back down. But one of the things that you're not seeing on this and we had initially had a fourth pod on here, but this is 10 acres of commercial, right? But which it should be with some challenges in the ordinances. We just pulled it out. And so there's there is 10 acres of commercial that's still being preserved along Cross Hollow to Cody Drive.

Is that owned by Young and are you is he planning to purchase that? That's what the applicant that is proposing the RDO has under contract. So that's part of part of the property, but there's challenges with how the ordinance is written where it complicated the RDO more than it already is. So we pulled that. So I I Yeah. No, you probably can't make an on the spot decision, but is the the developer willing to keep that open space and maintain it and take care of the fire and give the city the the drainage and so that it becomes more like an HOA type uh situation where you take care of that land and the the city doesn't have the burden.

He he might be I I I think that So, as far as the the the mustard on the hot dog, so Dawn came and read the We're going to use that from now on. Yeah, that's a new term. How about some then it resurfaces in another meeting

um with with how that's written where it says parks and trails. I've been in a number of these meetings where so we've proposed this as open space. There's numerous dirt trails through there. Whether this there's a the fire risk is a new one that I've heard today, but and maybe it's just me, but I I do see the value in preserving it if there is a park. I mean, there are parks in steep areas, but it's something where we're in this meeting, we look at what previous RDOS's have been approved under the same ordinance, and we say, "What kind of concessions did they make?" I'm not aware of any concessions on this magnitude by a percentage of area and then with a concession on the basin saying, "Hey, there's a regional issue here." If we give the city the land to help rectify the drainage issues, that's a give. But if the city says, "Hey, in order for this to go, we need to see a park in pod two, what what do we I mean, what do we want to see?" I guess there's not really been a precedent on previous RDOS's that says, "Hey, we want XYZ." It's just in that it says parks would be great, trails would be great, school sides would be great. And so, so we've proposed a major chunk of this to be open space to the city if they're willing to accept it. But what does the city want to see on the RDO? And then the previous precedents that have been set with previous RDOS's I I'm not aware of.

And that and that is a challenge, right? Because the RDO process is completely open to what these five individuals correct negotiate with the developer. So the president gives some guidance of maybe what has happened in the past, but it doesn't lock us into doing anything that has been done in the And to be honest, the developer has ideas of park type amenities that could go in the open space, but I had cautioned him to say that whatever we put in the development agreement, you're going to be held to. And I don't know what the city's willing to accept. I don't know if the city's willing to accept that as open space if he builds some park amenity to some standard. Is the city willing to take that on and then maintain that? And so that's so it's a good question, but I'm kind of throwing it back on you and saying,

"What do you want? What do you guys want?" Well, yeah. Let's go Councilman Schmidt first here. Hot dog to eat it, too. Go ahead. Oh, go ahead. All right. Uh, probably the the biggest benefit I see as a green area is a lot of people, not just the the neighbors, but a lot of people walk through there. They're all different kind of places. Yep.

And so I I see the the value in it. If the if the city doesn't take it, if you keep it as a private, then you you take the liability and you're probably not going to want everybody walking through there, riding their bikes through there, motorcycles, or whatever. And so I I I see the benefit of it. It's really used by a lot of people. Uh it doesn't have to be a paved trail. There's there's all kinds of people walk their dog, walk everything. Everybody uses it.

Yep. And so I I understand uh wanting to keep that so people can use it. If you keep it, if the city doesn't take it, if you if you keep it, then you assume that liability. Uh and fairly good chance you might not want everybody going through there. So that's one of the benefits that I I do realize is this. Do I want to build a park there? No, I don't. Uh, but people use it as it is. They make their own trails. I I think it's a cheap park. Just it's a cheap park. It's a natural park. And if the city takes it, then the liability not so great.

Tell it cause wildfire. Then it's not a cheap park. Then it's not a cheap park. Okay. So, council, we have a lot of people here that I think want to talk on this one. Um, we okay to to turn it over to to them? Anything else you want to say, Dallas? No.

Okay. Um the other the other thing is we open up uh the opportunity just to to uh help you also understand process. We're not going to have a lot of back and forth with council um just the the amount of time that takes. But if you notice at the bottom of your agendas, every council member's contact information is there and uh and so we want to make sure that that that is um you feel comfortable to use that, right? like a one-on-one discussion will probably even have more impact than than your um three minutes that you have at the pulpit. So, so don't be afraid to to harass us all during the week because we won't vote on it until the earliest next week if we're ready to do so. Um and this is just your opportunity to to speak and and share your thoughts tonight. So, we'll open the public hearing um for this RDO. Anybody that would like to come and

come up, make sure you state your name. Yeah, state your name. Thanks, Robert. Um, and then again, 3 minutes and I'll kind of let you know when when that's up if you go that long. Okay.

Thank you, mayor. My name is Donnie Cook and I live in Carmel Estates. Seems like most of this discussion has been of what will be built on the property and not whether anything really should be other than the commercial zone. That's kind of a no-brainer. the strip that borders Cross Hollows. It's prime real estate and will only increase in value once the Hidden Valley Shopping Complex is completed. Four years ago, there was a city master plan designating most of this area as R1 and open spaces. I took that into consideration when I bought my piece of property and built my home. There's approximately 60 or 70 homes valued around a million dollars each that'll be directly impacted by the proposed zoning changes with $60 million worth of real estate and the property taxes generated from them that'll be affected by the decision that you guys are going to make.

Listen to all of us respectfully, please. Most of us do realize that growth is inevitable, necessary, and a positive thing for our city. But it needs to be managed responsibly, taking into consideration not only the geographic and infrastructure constraints, but also the aesthetic value it creates in the community and the atmosphere that it impacts. My concern is that the current planning commission and council are looking at the pro proposal in front of them as strictly a business transaction between the developer and the city. If this is true, then it should not be. I question the ability to manage growth in a manner that respects the current citizens, those of us that bought that property adjacent to this. A few of the recent decisions that have been made in the city didn't work out too well. Storm water number one, the Cody Drive rehabilitation project to mitigate flooding a couple years ago failed after the first monsoon rain washed out parts of the road and they had to be worked reworked in several areas. the new Smith store, their request to hold water up above temporarily before it's released downstream. And downstream does mean down into that Cross Hollows basin area. And you've already given permission for the Hidden Valley project, a variance that does state that during heavy rains, the proposed pedestrian paved bicycle trail connection underneath will be unusable, will be flooded at that time. I think this new development proposal will also neg negatively impact that area. I think the last thing and maybe the most important thing to everybody in this city is the the failure of the city

to secure land for a new freeway interchange just south of town to alleviate the traffic congestion at the current interchange. And that's due to the growth both south and west of town. When I had spoke to the UD do representative a year ago regarding that interchange, I asked them, "What's the plan when they've finished their responsibility uh at the existing interchange to accommodate the new traffic flow on the surrounding surface streets?" He kind of smiled and laughed and said, "Hey, my problem. That's the city's problem."

And this is hard for me, but I've got to to keep the threeminut rule and your time is up. Thank you for your time. So, thank you.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. Uh, my name is Scooter Williamson. I do live in the Cross or the um Sunset Canyon area um surrounding the affected area. I respectfully ask you to deny the Cross Hollow RDO is currently proposed. The proposal is not simply a small neighborhood adjustment. According to your own staff report, it increases baseline density by approximately 90 units or nearly 30% while concentrating most of that density into two density pods along Cody Drive and Crossall Road. The density increase is much more when they exclude a large chunk because it would cut into profits due to excavation costs. At the same time, the developer is asking to reduce or modify infrastructure obligations, including discussions surrounding master plan roads and major storm water detention requirements. To many residents, this feels less like balanced planning and more like an attempt to maximize profits by increasing density and cutting development costs while shifting long-term impacts and liabilities onto the city and surrounding neighborhoods. Most importantly, city staff itself recommends denial. The report states that the applicant is requesting bonus density, changes to master planned infrastructure, and for the city to take ownership of steep hillside land that comes with maintenance, fire mitigation, and possible flooding liability. Staff then concludes that the applicant is offering nothing in exchange for these requests. The report also says traffic impacts cannot currently be evaluated or recommend recommends future traffic studies because of limited access points and concentrated vehicle trips. I would ask the council to consider why approve major density increases before fully understanding the impacts. Staff additionally notes that much of the proposed open space is steep rough terrain that is generally undevelopable. So, the Mi city may inherit long-term maintenance, wildfire, drainage, and

liability concerns in exchange for allowing substantially more density. The staff report clearly states that RDOS's are discretionary and approval is not required. I also think it is important to recognize that the residents of Sunset Canyon neighborhood and many surrounding areas are predominantly long-term and well-connected members of the community who are deeply invested in Cedar City and care greatly about the responsible growth, public safety, infrastructure, and preserving the character of the area. They are watching this decision closely. I respectfully ask you to follow your qualified staff recommendation and deny the proposal in its current form.

Thank you. Okay, Ann Clark, you know that I would usually get up here and yell and scream about a zone change and say follow the general plan. And I'm very conflicted about this because I went down, you know, we we bought our house 20 years ago. And then you could go out down cross hollows and the arena was out there. You kind of felt like you were in the west and cowboy country. And slowly all of that is filled up with mostly highdensity housing. I drove down there again today because here's my conflict, Carter. I like the green. I like the raw land. There is beauty in the raw land, right? And so so many people use that area. So I drove down there and I'm looking up driving up and down Cross Hollows and then you see that the Levit have totally demolished a hill down there. They're developing totally wiped it out, demolished it. And I'm thinking, how where will the other hills be in 20 years? Will there be any green space? Will all of those hills be developed? And then I thought, maybe it's a trade-off to have the green space. See, this is where I'm conflicted because I would say no high density housing, but maybe that would be the the trade-off to have the green space in the beautiful raw land. My problem is is when I listen to the RDO and I listen to Dallas, then all of the sudden he said, "Okay, but you could you see where the gray area is, right? You we could extend that down." Is that what you're saying, Dallas? Where's Dallas? That's what I want to know. Could you all of the sudden decide in your RDO to extend that down and have more houses down there? 50 houses. See, my problem with an RDO is they take over the general plan. So, they say they're going to do one thing and and I I met with Ryan and they say they're going to do one thing, but now all of a sudden, oh, we could extend that. That's what I'm trying to ask Dallas.

He's behind you. Can you extend that, Dallas? This This is going to take up part of your time if you haven't answered this. That's my only question because then I then I think then do we trust it to have the green space? I think the green space is worth it. But I don't know because I don't know if I trust the RDO. The RDO ties it in legally. So the so they have to do they say they're going to do exactly the way it is right now. Just to warn you, the the way the ordinance is written is it says um RDO master plans will show plan zone areas as pods that approximately show the boundaries of the zone. So you've seen the ones with the levits that have come through and they have modified the lines a little bit. The densities and numbers have to stay the same.

The numbers have to stay the same, but sometimes their lines are about as exact as ours are. And so sometimes when they get in the real world, they will shift. But yeah, you could have potentially they could change that. See, so that you can't kind of up to the max unit they're already. It's up to the max units. So if you then want to limit that, then you shrink the number of units allowed up in that area. So based on based on my disc my discussions with the Joneses,

this this is my recommendation to the Joneses as what is what you would call the lowhanging fruit to develop on the rest of this property. And so when I say that these could get pushed out with, that's why we put a range in the development agreement saying that we would dedicate 30 to up to 49 acres. But we're not talking about changing the road configuration. It's just that why do we need to put a 100 by 100 quarter acre lot right there if we have all this land behind us? Why don't we make that 100 by 150 or 100 by 200 and make those third acre half acres so that these people have bigger backyards? You're still going to see the vast majority of this get dedicated to the city if they're willing to accept it. But from looking at the topography on this, looking at the study of whether this road can actually be punched through, it can't in my opinion. Um, and so this is what I had told the Joneses. If it was my property and I'm developing it, this is what I would propose. But these are shown in here as approximate road configurations and based on the R1 that we're proposing for this pod. The minimum requirement is a quarter acre lot, 10,000 square feet, 100 by 100. And these would likely be quarters. But when we get to the ones that face out and they're walk out basement,

the reason we have the range in there is just to say but the units don't change. Yeah. Yep. You're good. Doing 100 by 150 or 100 by 200. Thank you. Your time's up. You can't trust the RDO. Thanks, Sam. Thank you. Hi, my name's Julie Cook. Uh I'm curious, who are the Joneses that you're talking about that own the property on R2? What Jones is that?

Okay. Is Okay. Well, I'm a Jones, so they're related. So, I'm four generations Jones in Cedar City. Um, I grew up on one on 200 West. And this is more of the human element. I knew everyone on 200 West, 300 West, 100 West, and 700 West. And there's huge value as a child growing up in neighborhoods. You know who the good people, the bad people are, the nice people, the kids, the where you can go when you're a kid and your mom's not home. You know who the perverts are in your neighborhood. Okay? and we had them. What I what's bothering me with this RDO change is not only a switch and bait from what we were told when we bought our property at Carmel Estates, but you've now got 3,000 plus people potentially living down in the Cross Hollows area who we do not know. That's not community. That is chaos. And right now what I see is a freeway going down Cross Hollows Road. You got people going 55 miles an hour on that 40 mph road. You've got apartments and and you've got the Alec Meisner houses and I cannot get out of Crescent Hills sometimes for 5 minutes because cars are back to back going 50 miles an hour. So once you do your traffic study, I'd like to see uh a traffic a mile per hour changed to 30 miles an hour from Silver Silo all the way to 56. I think you're gonna just And then Cody Drive was never meant to be a thoroughfare. It's a dangerous uh it's a it's just a dangerous road period. It's very steep. And in the wintertime when you're coming down from Cove to turn into our neighborhood and the roads aren't maintained, I've slid sideways into traffic and it's bumper to

bumper now. You've got people zooming up and zooming down that road and it's going to be a mess. Um, let's see. There was one more point. Uh, I I just think that I'm I object to the R the RDO and the zoning change. The Henley that's going in is probably going to we're going to probably have something the same size as the Henley, which is one, two, and threebedroom apartments. It's a mess. Okay, that is it just destabilizes that whole area what what we've spent our lives trying to build and what the people in Alec Meisner are trying to do. So that's a huge development and your your title it's doubling the size of the Henley is what it is. So, you've got 3,000 strangers all over across Hollows and I don't know who they are and it bothers me and and maybe step pet back and take a deep breath and think about what you're doing. Slow down and what it's going to do to this community because I don't like it. All right. Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh good evening, mayor and council members. My name is Travis K and um try to figure this out. I have the unfortunate opportunity of living right there. Now, I bought my lot before this was changed. I bought my lot before Dr. Horton was put in and before this most recent development. And I spent two years of my evenings and weekends physically building my home that I now hate. Because I can't trust my children to play in front of my house. I have found drug paraphernalia on my driveway in the porter john that I had in front of my house while I was building it. This is no longer a safe neighborhood for my children. We have police officers in these town homes way too frequently and nowhere else in my neighborhood. This has literally ruined Sunset Canyon. And as we continue to put this crap in here, I can promise you I owned this lot when the flood happened. And I would rather have a flood wipe out my first level because this retention pond isn't in here than have this crap in my neighborhood. It will do nothing but bring more traffic accidents on Cross Hollows Road. I know in the last week I think there was three of them right here where 350 South comes out on Cross Hollows Road because these people in these town homes there's not enough parking. So they park their trucks out on Cross Hollows Road and they've got full-size pickup trucks and cargo trailers and you've got a 55 mph road that people travel on down here and cars are getting total all the time because you can't see to pull out onto that road. There is absolutely zero visibility. there is no more safety for my children in front of my street. They

can't play around this neighborhood anymore. Um and and so I I would appreciate it if you really take a look and you see, okay, look, we've we've damaged this area enough for the people that built what they hoped was going to be their forever dream home in this neighborhood. We've damaged it enough. There's nothing else that needs to be damaged in here. Let's leave this R1 and tell these people while they want to make money, there's plenty other places in the valley to go make money. Let's leave it alone and just let people enjoy a somewhat what is left of a somewhat quiet neighborhood because it is disappearing faster than than any of us want to. And we're all stuck there now because there is no way I would get value out of my home if this goes in. And especially after these town homes in Dr. Horton, my home value is ruined like this gentleman started. You have million-dollar homes up here. You have high close to a million- dollar homes down here. And nobody's paid me to compensate for my property loss. Thank you.

Thank you. Hi, my name is Jan Gilbert and I would like to take a little different angle approach at this. Cedar City is growing at over 3% counting over 3%. University of Utah study survey respondents said that the rate of growth 80% of them said that rate of growth is too high. Okay, we're going to grow. There's no question we're going to grow. My concern is that this type of zoning change accelerates growth. And the reason I say that is they can put up 350 apartments in 18 months, two years. And all you have to do is look at the Henley apartments that went up south south of the event center 18 months. In that study, most of the growth, most of the population growth has been in migration, people coming into the area. I'm not anti-growth, but 3.2% is pretty high growth, and you're going to need to plan for it if you continue to make the zoning changes and continue to allow very rapid high dense growth. Okay. As far as that space, ask Chief Phillips. Lot of junipers, a lot of deadwood, needs to have fire fire reduction. There's no bus service on Cross Hollow. You're going to need to consider that if we continue to grow at 3.2%. Also, in the city's own affordable housing

study wy 71% of the respondents said the city needs more single family housing. Just consider what your constituents are telling you. Thank you. Hi, my name is Jalisa and I live in Sunset Canyon 2. Robinson, I know you um she does and we got the record on the minutes. So,

um let's see. I I don't mean to to just beat this dead, but I just I feel like it would be remiss for me to not stand and and also fight for my home and my neighborhood and the people that um I I care greatly about in my neighborhood. And these projects have have been crazy um trying to get out of the neighborhood. Like we've talked about, there's cars everywhere and people that are that are flowing from these homes are now parking into our neighborhood and it is just affecting the value. It's let not letting our kids ride their bikes freely through the neighborhood. It is it's diminishing the value of our homes. People don't really uh want to be over there as much because they know it's so densely populated and we have so much on the west side of Cross Hollows. It is what it is. Let's leave it there. If we can, please, please, I just ask you to please not let it come to the east side on Cody right there where we live where our kids play. Our kids ride their bikes to the church. They ride down in the parking lot. Cody Drive is already really really busy and especially in the mornings and afternoons as this the middle school starts and lets out. Um I have to watch my kids and tell them you cannot ride your bikes on Cody. It's way too busy. And as we keep adding developments like this, it just further makes that hard for our kids to play. And we have invested so much time and effort, just like these other folks that have got up, we have invested a lot of time and effort and money and resources into building our homes to be long-term homes, and we care about the value of them and of Cedar City. So, I um we already kind of struggle with some water pressure issues in our neighborhood. adding further developments and using more of that water will contribute to that. The traffic is terrible. Um, and we when we bought our home, same thing.

We bought uh eight nine years ago and all of these items were not a part of that zone at that time and and it has just changed the dynamic and I'm just asking you to please help us preserve what is left of that. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Thank you. John Anderson. And could I have that area highlighted up or enlarged? Okay, that's good enough. I live right there. The second there's three lots here. This area here is the 55 plus we call it. And it's a private with their own street. And their waterershed comes off right here and goes down church. And what I can do is show you this is last September. And it'll keep playing. Just pass along yourself. Watch that.

It was not any huge storm. Look it up. September something date on last year. That's front of my house. That shows you what's coming down that hill. And if you think you're going to put that culde-sac there and these homes here and that's both sides of that street coming down like that, I can't wait to see that. I'll videotape that and just can't wait to get with everybody to sue people because it would be insane. So, just take a look at that and it'll show you. One is the people that owned the house right there after I bought my house. This area was developed back here by a developer around here. I won't mention their name, but basically ruined it all. Our view, my wife doesn't want to live there more. That was our dream house. uh the people that developed the house right there uh well-known people here I won't say their name you all know them they sold their lot because of that and if you build I understand that they said that a long time ago when this track was built they didn't uh do these two pieces that's why the road ends is because economically it couldn't be done and it was this that hill down here drops off so much that your public works uh uh trucks get stuck. The snow plow again got stuck this year. We didn't even have winter this year and they got stuck. So that hill is just unbelievable.

Uh also the people that built here are just like me and moved in here that have lived here this whole time. When they develop that back there is going to ruin their views. Absolutely. I think this is all these people right here. It's going to ruin them, guys. Just like they did uh right there, that development behind us. They said the street wasn't going to be that low. It was going to be lower. Brought it up to here. Put the houses up. Now we can't see anything. All my windows to my house aim out that way. Do you wonder why? And I don't want to leave. I was in the fire service for 36 years. And I can talk to you about the fuel mod back here and the people over here at the last planning commission said he was his insurance company was cutting him down. We can make this place if the city does accept it as open space.

Uh we can we can modify that fuel. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Where's my phone at? Thank you. Got passed down the row. Everybody get to see it. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. I wake you up.

Good evening everyone. Uh my name is Brendan Watkins. Um if we could zoom back out, I'd like to um my wife and I just bought those two lots right there with the hopes of bu building a home that that we see ourselves in for a long time to come. that would would greatly affect us just like Travis and and Jalisa and others have said. um the the pod one right there. Um being reszoned to high density none of us that will be directly affected want it or see the need for it or um or see see any reason to change it from what it's already zoned for. Um, I I I understand some people have brought up concerns about needing um more affordable housing. I'll I'll say that my wife and I aren't aren't wealthy. we we make a livable income and we're able to to scrimp and save and build our own home on on what one of those two lots. Um, and that that's just to say it it's not it's not impossible for for single family homes to to be built and for them to be built affordably. I know that there's a subdivision right here that that we've been talking about that I don't want to incriminate myself or whatever, but I I help build some of

those those smaller homes in a PUD that have um smaller uh setback requirements. All that to say that personally I I'd be much much much happier with something like that right here directly across the street from me than heaven knows how many apartments. Um and to to conclude, I would just like to to echo everything that's been said. I know a lot's been said. Um and I I would just like like to restate that again that we see no value and and no reason to to accept what's been presented. Um, thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Any vote? Got an Kelly. Welcome. Thank you kindly. Good evening everybody and thank you for your efforts regarding a very difficult situation. What's your name?

Excuse me. I was thanking you first. My name is Kelly Newville. I'm going to introduce you to me so that you will understand the integrity of the development of section 16 that was owned by the Jones family who was my grandfather. I am a lifetime resident of Cedar. I'm the great granddaughter of the statue in front of your building, Henry Lunt. I am also the great granddaughter of Lehi Willard Jones who developed and worked this area harder and longer than almost anybody that I can find research on. My uncle is York Jones who had more integrity and love for this community also than anybody I've been able to match. He they've written books to try and show their integrity and the beauty of our community. I'm also a licensed real estate broker for the state of Utah. I represent the Joneses and the Lee Family Partnership for 20 years. We have met with many engineers, many developers trying to stomach the stuff that has happened to the Jones's parcel and to the the there's multiple names on the lower parcel. So I'm just going to say the partners particle below that the master plan and the flooding all of that uh you know again greatly affected these people but their desire was to still do this the right way. After many efforts of trying Ryan Gregerson came to the table that also loves this community. You're saying that he's making a lot of money. He has spent a lot of money to try and resolve for the Jones family who he cares for very much. It is Randy and

Sherry or Jones. Thank you. They are wonderful people. They are first cousins. They are my family. And isn't this canyon beautiful? It is such a beautiful canyon. I do have a listing with them and I do have a buyer agreement with Ryan Gregerson. I also am very grateful for Dallas. Dallas has spent countless hours trying to resolve a very difficult situation of the Joneses owing owning section 16, developing it into a lot of these homes that you guys truly love and cherish the values of them. They did too. They developed with that. But with that situation of de 16 being developed, the drainage runs right off. You saw there's two major drainages for the whole hilltop that was allowed to be developed that way that greatly affects the Joneses who is now in their master plan because of steepness, elevation, uh whatever.

Times up. That is it. I'm sorry. There is. But you have all of our phone numbers. I do. I have one other thing to say. The open space. Do you know how many people use that space and how the Joneses are affected by that? It's beautiful. It It doesn't take a lot to maintain it. It can be used as it is. It's being used now. Thank you, Kelly. Thank you. I appreciate your time.

Thank you. Okay. Anybody else like to speak? Okay, seeing none, we'll close the public hearing. And again, I do strongly encourage you to to not have this be the only place that you you talk. All of us are very open to further conversations and and I know I know each of these men uh personally and I know that this is they they care and they want to listen and hear and try to come up with something that that can work. So, so please, please take advantage of this week because next week there's just so you understand process, it's just the council next week that talks and then makes a decision. So, you have from now until next council meeting to to have discussions that you feel like you need to have. Um, Carter,

so one of the issues that I've always had with the R3M, and this is there is a question at the end of this, um, you know, is that just the wide variety of what we allow in the R3M, right? I mean whether it be town homes, condos, apartments, I mean it's how we got what we have on the golf course. Like it or hate it. So as part of this process, Randall, um and this is nothing against the developer you're working with. I mean, at the end of the day, the market does what the market can do. Times turn. And so I would never blame a developer or somebody for they had intentions to do one thing and things change and they did something completely different. But when that happens, we end up having to sometimes pay for that. And so this would be the only time during this whole process, Rand, for example, if we wanted to say, "Hey, we'll do this, but nothing three stories has to stay to two stories." I mean, this is something those are types of things we could put into our development agreement. Correct.

Correct. You can put them in there. Um, yes, this is only your guaranteed time. If obviously they come in, request a change later, at that point, you could potentially do so. Um, but that's not a guarantee. So now is your best time to think through exactly what you want to limit, what you want to allow. Um because otherwise there's no guarantee any changes will happen in the future. Okay. But that wouldn't be something that would be out of line to include in a development agreement. No, we've had similar to that in some of our development agreements. I mean essentially it's it's our way of saying we want town homes, not apartments. I mean in one way because you usually don't build twotory apartments.

I just want to add to that that and the council knows this and staff knows this. the public probably not so much. But this RDO application is a much more restrictive application than just coming in with a zone change. Correct. So before we came through with developing this plan and all the time that's gone into it is that we recognize there's not an appetite for what's happened on Cross Hollow to just come in and propose a zone change and say, "Hey, we just want to do R3 and see if we can fit out there." And so when when we have these long discussions and we put together these maps, this is a more restrictive application than just a true, hey, we have 77 acres, we want to go to R3,

but it's more restrictive with higher density. It is, but but it's but the but what we're proposing is less dense than what the R3 allows for even for the pods. Like for instance, pods one and three are are at 17 units an acre compared to 24. And the other point to just harp on again is these are paper numbers that we don't always paper out. Yeah. That that we still have to design to the underlying engineering standards and zoning standards. And so when we say 400, I would be shocked if we got 400. Yeah. So,

I I just have maybe something you guys can chew on or uh pencil out in the coming week, but I would and I get, you know, our master planned infrastructure has to support what you're doing here. But I would I would prefer or propose that you look if we did if we off if we minimized our setbacks that you put single family housing there if that would pencil out and then maybe put a lower cap on the total number of households that could be there so that the so that the the the strain on the infrastructure is the same as if you built R1. Um, and and then and and then I think we kind of have a balanced win-win here. And and I don't know if it'll pencil. I mean, I I just don't. But and then I have one question, and you may not know the answer. How much flat land is there if you were just to build R1? How many homes could you get in there minus the the steep stuff? What's in the in the flat? Because I mean, you could put that many homes in as it exists, right?

Well, so minus the detention. Yeah. There's obviously there's market factors that that play into that, but so the majority so there's of this 70 acres there's probably 20 25% of it um that is the slopes exceed 25% of the total and so those would be very challenging to develop. So 75% of the 70 could be developed. 25 Yeah. 25% of the I've got it on RDO. I'm just wondering if you put all our one in there, do we, you know, how many homes is it? And if we have the same amount of homes, then then I if we

and that's what I was going to ask a clarifying question to you as well, but but so 20 acres of the 77 is an area that when we when I did a slope analysis on it, it exceeded 25%. So on paper you could do 80 houses at the 20 acres, four units per acre on 20 is unbuildable. Yeah. Yeah. 20 of the 77 is Well, no. What I'm saying is because how many acres do you have between pod one and pod three? Uh well, I'm talking I'm not talking about RDO. If he just went in and built R1 the way it's zoned, um the the flat buildable stuff's about 50 acres. You can get four or five per acre.

Yeah. But it's it's one of those things that that I mean based on market conditions today it's probably not feasible to go in there and take the hilltops off but that doesn't mean in five years 10 years I mean what that it might not be yeah what what's happened in um not Iron Horse but what's the Saddleback

Saddleback I mean that's a that's a great example of of a project that's on steep slopes and so we could go in there and demo the whole thing and remove all the brush and and it might not be this year. It might not be for five years, might not be for but you could go in there and put in all kinds of manufacturing and turn into wall city and pad lots out and get close to 40 units an acre across the whole thing if it if it pencled. But really flat buildable, there's only 20 acres because that's all. No, he's only asking Well, look at the map. So, you're adding the Yeah, you're adding the areas of

Yeah. I mean, if it was flat and buildable, he'd be asking for more land. The the true flat buildable is the 20 acres that he wants to put into those two pods. I mean, right? Am I wrong? If there was more buildable land, he would be wanting them. There's some retention. There's Yeah, there's there's more buildable land, but as far as So there's like there's there's all kinds of there's pockets in here that So, Ken, could you flip back to the RDO to the first sheet?

And maybe we don't need to belabor the point, but my my point is um if you can get X number of houses in there and we do it in a smaller, more dense way with single family, does that pencil out and we make that work? I um possibly that that's that's the only reason that I ask

the the question that I would have for you is so if we do on the on the paper basis say we've got 77 lots or 77 acres 40 units an acre based on R1 current zoning that comes out to 310 excuse me we're proposing 400 if we whittle that down to 310 does that make a difference in your It does because the because the infrastructure is basically have the same number of toilets and doors and households that are that are going on the infrastructure. So to me that makes a difference

um because we have to be concerned about the infrastructure if it'll support it. Um and then and then it minimizes the number of cars coming and going and you know everything else. Um,

it's a lot easier to say we're going to allow you to have the number of units that you are already allowed to have versus saying we're going to give you even more units than you were allowed to have other than, in my opinion, we need to give a little bit because you're doing the retention basin. You you're paying for the sins of the of the upstream people that didn't take care of the water. That that's the the reality. And so there's got to be some give and take. So maybe that's 350. I don't know. um going from 310 to 350, but I um you know, max households and and then then it kind of to me feels a little bit more of a of a even uh negotiation as opposed to hey, you give everything and also pay for the sins of the forefathers that didn't take care of their drainage. Um so there's got to be some given up.

What's that? No, were you okay? Yeah. I'm just saying um I would be I would Are you hungry? No. No, no. The the we have a long agenda. We do. We We do, but this is an important issue and and I think we need to reach a compromise that works for everyone. Um well, it's never going to work for everyone. And you know, and and when my house was built, it took someone's view, right? I mean, and so that's just the reality of of growth and development. And um and anyway, we could go on that for a long time, but if there's some compromise in there, I'd be interested to hear what that might be next week. And I'd be more willing if we cap the number of homes that could go in there.

And even better if you can get them to be single family detached and it would be better single family detached. And we would I would be willing to reduce the setbacks to make that pencil out as well. Okay. Just a one quick question. Sorry, didn't mean to cut you off. You good? Yeah, I'm good. Okay.

Okay. One one quick question with this coming in here then this is going to increase the traffic quite a bit. Are you even though the commercial lots with this and where your second access is coming out are you also improving cross hollow clear out past your second pot up here. Uh, so we would be required so not as so the improvement on cross hollow not a part of the RDO but as the commercial develops I know I I know that but I'm not I'm not wanting that

if if we're going to do this I'm looking for cross hollow to be fixed down to your other pod because we're increasing the traffic so much cove drives a lot I would like to see the road even though you're not fixing the commercials yet it's going to put a lot more traffic. It's only a onelane road on the one side. So, just something to think about. I' I'd like to see you fix the road all the way up to the end of your other pod. So, from the from from this spot on pod two on your side to Yeah, we go but until we develop all the way up along there two but until we go all the way up, we can't use it as a two-lane road anyway. No, it's restricted as it goes all the way up to

that does help.

It might be a while. So, going along with that, Randall, you and I looked at each other and I had a thought. Um, if per our ordinance currently, if they were to not deed it over to us, when they went to go develop pod three, where would they have to end their development on their piece that they owned? Would it still just end at the end of pod three or would they have to take it all the way to the end of their property, which would technically be the end of the yellow? to be honest, I'd have to go pull that through. Um I think like what you were talking about with what Mr. Schmidt was talking about, that one might have to be done as part of pod one because it might be close enough to be within that improvements, but we'd have to look. So I don't necessarily want to say that now what would have to be done because I think we'd sit down and calculate out distances and where their access points are and stuff like that because that's what it comes down to. Is your is your question to swing this down to hit cross hollow and say that's the limit.

Oh, I guess it doesn't. I You're right. I guess I was thinking cross hollow hung hug hugged that line, but it doesn't. So, it doesn't. My point is I was getting scared. Hold. Okay. So, I'll entertain a motion. I would move that we move this agenda item to action next week. I have a motion and a second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Okay. Thank you, Dallas. All right. Next item is a public hearing to consider a development agreement for a property located at approximately 1157 South Main Street, Smith Marketplace. Hey, as you exit the room, could we ask just one favor? If you go out, go as we because we have to legally leave those doors open.

Yeah. So, feel free to talk and visit, but if you would go away from the door out to the parking lot way over here in the just so we can keep going. And again, thanks. Thank you for all coming. You don't have to go home, but you can't see. All right. So, this one AWA Randall. Do we have a representative from Smith's AWA here? We do. Please come up. Good evening.

Good evening, mayor and council members. Uh Jeff Randall with AWA here on behalf of Smith's Food and Drug Centers uh for the project uh on Main Street and I'll call it Cedar Nolles I guess is our main intersection. So um here to talk through with you tonight the development agreement um that we've been working with staff on for this project. Um Smith is eager to get this going, but we need to work through this and get this wrapped up um in order to move things along. So, um I've got I'll just go through some slides um be happy to answer questions as we go or if you want to listen to me and come back later and answer questions, we can do that. But um so working through this um Smith is proposing a 123,000 foot marketplace. Um be similar in size if you've been to the one in St. George at Sun River. It's pretty pretty pretty much identical to that. Um it'll look pretty similar to that. They do have a uh fuel center going out. I find the button going out uh in front. There'll be a fuel center out here. Um, Smith's does own this entire piece of property. Um, they are marketing these other pads uh for lease and are talking to a few other tenants on those. Um, nothing that's been agreed upon at this time, but they are they are looking at, you know, options there as well. But, um, the project, uh, main access does connect into Cedar Nolles. the new signal that got put in at Senior Nolles a year or so ago um uses the other two existing access points, one up on the I'll call it the north end and one on the south end that both of those do have cross access um with the adjacent properties and to the north I'll even say the adjacent neighborhood to the north uh has some

cross access there. Uh we are proposing we've worked with staff on a proposal to connect to Green Lake Drive um to bring some of that traffic into the development so the traffic doesn't have to go down on Main Street to then come back in. I know the South interchange and that inter that intersection down there by Maverick is very congested. It's a mess. So hopefully this takes a little bit of that traffic off and brings it into the into the development. So, um, one of the one of the requirements in the in the city code is I believe for the size of building that Smith has, they need five loading bays. I guess Don, correct me if I'm off here, but I believe the code requires five loading bays. Um, Smith has three docks is what they typically function with. Um, and so we are asking for uh a reduction to three loading bays. Um on the back this is what Smith's all of Smith stores operate with. Um their operations works well with three loading bays. So um one of the concerns was the screening of the screening and noise abatement with the loading docks because on the sorry I go back one on this side of this picture um this is residential over here adjacent to us and so the concern was what is the the screening and abatement. Um, you can see we've got multiple walls. Uh, we've got two screen walls and about a 10-ft retaining wall. Um, this dock sits about 15 ft lower than the residential over here. So, from their backyards, this will sit way down in a hole. It'll be screened noise. Those walls will push the noise up, which will abate the noise uh that might come through come out of this area. So, um, another one, um, over on the other side of the building is what is called the commerce pickup. This is the online pickup. If you order groceries online

and come over here to pick them up, um, this is Smith's standard configuration of that online pickup and it's a Krogerwide, nationwide layout and standard. The dimensioning of this does not meet the city standards. Um, it's actually when you account for all the hatching area that's around it. Sorry, I keep clicking the wrong button. Um, all the hatching area around it, it's actually larger, but the actual stalls themselves that are designated for the cars are a little bit smaller. So, we just wanted to clarify that we are asking for a deviation in stall dimensions, but it actually is bigger overall.

Is it width? Is it width of the stalls? It is width and length, but the main part is is because they cross-hatch all that for the person bringing the cart out to load into your car. Um, overall width, if I was to go from like the center of this crosshatch to the center of that crosshatch, it's actually wider. If I go from the end right there clear out here to the end, it's actually longer. So, the designated parking stall is more narrow, but you have more dead space between stalls that make it wider. Wider. So people can load. You can load. Yes. And I'm assuming, and Kent, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm assuming maybe part of the reason we have a discrepancy here is because we probably don't have a design standard for East Commerce. We have them for standard for standard stalls

stalls. And so we're kind of trying to fit a round peg and a square hole and it's not quite working. And so we need to think outside the box a little. Correct. Sounds good. All the other stalls on site, the standard stalls, all meet code. No, no concerns there. So, um,

next one, uh, we've got is the elevations of the buildings. This is the Smith's elevation. Again, it's very similar to the Sun River, the Sun River, uh, St. George site. Um, fuel center, similar to their standard fuel center, similar to the one you have here in town. Um, as far as look, um, this one is a what we call a single stack. So, they're not double stack deep. if it's a single long uh single wide long um landscaping. Um overall we'll meet the code for trees. I know council member Phillips we've met with him a few times and he's uh he's not Mr. Fernully.

He's he's emphasized trees and we are we've got all the trees in here. Um you'll love me someday.

We love you, Council Member Phillips. Um this is uh complete um zerocape. There is no lawn. There is no grass. This will all be shrubs gr um like fountain grasses and trees. Uh rock mulch uh covering the area. So this um what's requested here on the landscape standards. This is just a colored out plan kind of showing you the the site. Um signage, we are asking for some deviation in the signage. Um there are um one 35 foot tall sign that's going on the main entrance that is set back. You'll notice a little bit um due to some utilities and other things that were put in already um with that signal and so forth. So that sits back a little bit uh stay out of some utility easements.

So which ones are the exceptions? Yeah, but just a minute before you move off of that one, please. Where did we go? Sorry. Uh, is that just for for Smith or all the other pads will be identified? Okay. Right here. Thank you. Yeah. So, this one on the left is the 35 foot tall sign. So, that'll be Smith's and the other pads and then you've got the fuel pricing. Is that the official name? Red Hill Shopping Center. Yes. Okay. Yep. Um, if I go back to the site plan, Don, I don't recall which ones are I know the height of that sign is taller than code. Is that correct? Yeah. So the 35 foot I believe what's the max? 25

would be a max of 30. 30. So 30 is the max. This is asking 35. Um there are the two 15 foot signs, one on Green Lakes, one on Main Street and then the 8ft pad signs. Yeah. So yeah. So the exceptions are that primary sign at 35 ft in lie of the 30. Uh the monument signs are limited to a height of uh 20. So they don't exceed the height. The number of signs because they're shopping CENTER SIGNS WOULD EXCEED would exceed the maximum number of signs. Uh I don't think staff has much concern due to just this is a large project.

I mean if we were to cut if we were to cut these up into individual lots, they'd all have their own pole sign. So there's not a whole lot of heartburn there. Uh the price sign on the trail, that's an illuminated 15 foot gas price sign if I recall. I'm not sure that's really necessary off that kind of residential area. So that would be this sign. That would be off your trail there off of this lake. That's if it's not. So explain to us why you guys are wanting to do one right off the trail if it's not or is it really for that road coming?

It's it's for Green Lake. It's for the tra it's it's the signage on Green Lake. So it would be the one thing is is that sign's going to be set back by the trail because there's the drainage channel there. So we can't put the sign out by the road because of that big drainage channel. So the sign will be set back off the road due to the drainage channel that runs through there. So there's essentially you're coming down Greens Lake, you'll go up over a little bridge up over the drainage. You'll come into the property. You'll pass the trail where the sign will be. Yep. Correct. That would be right off the trail. Correct. Yes. So it' be right adjacent to that. Well, yeah.

Yeah. The trail the trail you can see comes down right right here and then the sign's right behind it. So yeah, you'll come over the bridge of the channel, cross the trail, and that's where the signage. Is there any reason it couldn't go back a little bit further closer to where that parking lot is? Kind of more right in the corner instead of right up against our trail. Um the only thing I would say there is that drops down. Grade drops down pretty good right here. Like I I want to say grade here by this parking's probably 8 to 10 feet lower than the trail. make it taller cuz it drops down. So that sign would sit. You wouldn't see it from Green Lakes if we dropped it down into the site cuz you're dropping down. Is this directly across from the LDS Chapel or what's right across from that entrance? The LDS.

I just if there's houses right there and as somebody who I used to live literally on Southern View Drive, I just don't know if having a neon sign facing towards a subdivision is if you click to the elevations. Do me a favor there. This one they won't be well in my mind. I could see the desire for advertising uh as far as you know, you've got the church as kind of an entrance to that residential neighborhood. I'm down the block away. I can't see the sign, but that uh sign on the bottom, which in my mind would be more appropriate than having the digital the bigger one. I would agree with that. And then then the only thing to clarify that's digital on this 15 is the gas prices the gas prices at the bottom. Everything else is which makes change

lighting and they change. Correct. I don't like I don't like I don't either. But could I just jump in with a quick comment over here? Jeff, I was like, who's the uh So, so Randall was just asking me about the sign. Does that create any kind of a safety issue for sight distance to be able to see pedestrians and bicyclists on the trail? And I would say that's a design detail we would need to work through to make sure that the position that the location and orientation of the sign are such that we can safely accommodate the trail users.

While you got the microphone, can you um tell me what if anything would be wrong with adding uh another 5T to the main pedestal sign going allowing the 35 versus the 30 going above the Yeah. code. Yeah. Um, you know, that's that's pure aesthetics. I that's I would say that's what it is is pure aesthetics. The uh the sign just given the way the site lays out, it does sit further back from the street than what a lot of them do. Does that mitigate it or not? I guess that's a decision for you. Yeah. I mean, okay,

one quick comment on the safety part of it. The yellow thing, the yellow triangles, they kind of it's kind of hard to see that they're triangles. Those are your sight distance. Those are your sight distance triangles. So you can see we have one up here on the trail right here. Can you zoom in on that, Kent? Driveways. So that we we have shown those on or no because it's a slideshow. That's right. Never mind. Okay. So anything else? Yep. Let me keep on going then if we're going. Keep going. Uh building signage. Uh pretty standard stuff here. if you have any questions there. Um, advertising the Smiths, the pharmacy. But since you're saying owner request, are you asking for things that are outside of our I don't believe so on this on this signage. This is just

Okay. Standard signage package. Wanted to make sure everybody's on board with it. We've got it. You're paying for it. That's right. We are. Uh, lighting standards. Again, I don't believe there's anything different here from the code. Um, again, just the these are the it's hard to see the numbers are so tiny, but this gives you the light levels and the light standards. Um, I have a question on that one right here. Sorry. Yes. Your favorite councilman with trees, but um, are those lights uh, all pointed downwards? I mean, we're looking at dark sky issues and I want to make sure that it's at least consideration of that. They are all dark sky compliant. Okay. Yes.

Where is our nearest residence to all this? I guess there's a stuff other side. So that these these lots, these long lots you see right here, but they're blocked by the buildings. Those are residential lots right there, we have commercial here and then there's residential up on the other side of that commercial. Yeah. Okay. So, not too big of a deal. Um I I guess I would also add over on this side where Green Lakes curves, there's a few that start. There's a few over on this side of the on the other side of the D channel. Correct. Once you make that curve. Yeah, as you make that curve there.

Um All right. Utilities. This was one area that I wanted to talk through um because I know there's some discussion here and Matt probably is here to talk about this as well I'm guessing and Matt sat over there next to me. Um so we are asking for a public water system running through this site. Um which is different uh in our understanding from what the city has done in the past. Um, we've worked with Matt and Paul and Randall and Ken talking through this. Um, and I wanted to go through some points on on this. So, we are asking for a public water system versus a private water system. Um, the city the city had asked for a private water system um that had W7, they're called the W7 details and and they're further in the slides if we want to get into that, but they are master meters. um to kind of go through this. The the city code as I went through the code and the standards, the engineering standards, the code establishes that um public ownership and control of the water system is established in those standards. The water water works um water manes, fire hydrants are owned, maintained by the city. Um the city code anticipates infrastructure and easements, not just streets. Um it talks about that public systems can be in streets but also within easement areas not just streets. Um parking lots with the dedicated utilities fits within that framework. Um city controls the design, the location and the construction of this water system. You're going to inspect it. We're going to design it to city standards, public water standards. Um you're going to control us on what that design and those inspections turn out to be. Um, what the code does not say is that water manes, all water manes have to be within the rideway and must that are outside the rideway or private. And it does not say that commercial water

manes are private. It does not anywhere in there say that we have to be private. Um, I think that's maybe the direction the city's gone in the past, but there's nothing that says we have to go private. Um, maintenance has been, I think, a concern as well. maintenance of this water line if it runs through our parking lot. Um, a couple of points I want to make out is that really maintenance in our parking lot is going to be safer and more cost-effective than maintaining them in a road. You've got traffic control issues in the road. You've got cost of m maintaining a a pavement section in a road is typically going to be much thicker than our pavement section when you're going back and patching up those roads. Um, your traffic control costs are going to be higher. um operational dis disruption. You're disrupting the public as you shut down that road to maintain that water line. Um access is often better in parking lots. You got bigger areas to work with than the confined little space you're working on uh in a parking lot. Overall, maintaining a water line in a public street exposes the city crews and the public to active traffic. Requires traffic control disruption. In contrast, within our easement in a parking lot, it's going to be controlled environment. safer, reduce liability, and lower maintenance costs. Um, another issue that came up um recently is that the city the city's uh consultant finished the water modeling for this site and came back and said that the water pressure, if you look on the map, the the dark blue line is what we had proposed and we were connecting to Main Street in these two locations. And with those two locations and the W7 master meters that the city had requested, the pressures came back at 21 PSI to meet our fire flow requirements for the site. Code allows 20 PSI. By the way, 20 PSI is nothing. Um, the

fire marshall, I don't know if he's here. Fire chief.

No, fire chief's here, but fire marshall not. But the fire marshall said, "Hey, I'm not all that comfortable with 21 PSI. I'd rather that be higher. Um, they removed they reran the models removing the W7 master meters. Those master meters are massive. If I go, that's this big huge vault and all this equipment you see here. These master meters have a huge amount of pressure drop through them. As the water goes through it, it really constrains it, drops pressure. When you remove those those master meters, they went up to, I believe it was 37 PSI. The other thing that was disclosed was that if we run over and connect the water line into Green Lakes Drive, this this line shown here, this will there's quite a bit more pressure over in Green Lakes Drive and this will increase the pressure for our system as well as a benefit to the to the main line in Main Street as well. So, um by going to a public water system, one we eliminate the pressure drop through those master meters. We connect, we propose we'll connect to Green Lakes Drive, bringing better pressure to not only this system but the overall city system on Main Street. It provides the adequate fire flow and pressure and it becomes an extension and improvement to the city system. This isn't a oneoff private system that the city takes on. This is this really just becomes an an extension and an improvement to the city system. Um, so with that, we're This is where we're asking that the city approve, the council approve that we go to a public water system. Um, we will, um, my last slide's not in here. I guess I didn't throw it in. I think I have my notes here. But the we will provide public easements. We've talked through the city on what public easements they'll want. We've put these water lines in driveways. They're not under

any parking stalls. Um they're not in within any landscape areas. They are under asphalt um to to make the mainten access to it and the maintenance of it convenient. Um water meters will be located adjacent to the buildings, fire lines to the buildings. We will be providing public service uh to these buildings and servicing these users, these business users just like anybody else along Main Street or other commercial areas. Um, we'll be doing full city inspections and compliance with those inspections, uh, guaranteeing the access and the rights that the city has to get in there and be able to maintain it. So, any questions on that part of it? Hello, Sure.

Just a couple things on the water system, and I'm sure Matt has more than I do. Uh, they're going to connect to uh existing water infrastructure on the north side of their property. Remember Mr. Gger? that was in here a little while ago.

They're going to connect this uh that Main Street line all the way down to Mr. Gigger's. That line loops all the way back to Greens Lake. So, if you zoom out, we're getting the benefit of having that system looped by connecting down by Mr. Guyer. That's one. two uh one major concern is the soils in this area are notoriously um allergic to water and if we own the water manes in there we're liable when that building settles and we do not want to be liable to settle a 100,000 square foot building because we own the water man 123,000 square sorry 100 plus

county uh so those two issues in my mind at least mitigate against going to a public water system in that area if they take the um the liability for that kind of movement on themselves before we agreed to putting the water in there. Would you have any hiccups? Matt's got more information than I do.

I can speak to the allergic soils as as Paul called them. Um you are correct. There's a lot of those allergic soils here in Cedar City. Um, I've got other sites in Cedar City. We're having to deal with them. Um, this particular site does not have them. We do not have collapsible or expansive soils on this site. This site is actually very rocky. Um, to the point we have boulders out here and we're going to be crushing rock to be able to get this site done. Um, maybe as you've drove by you'll see some piles of boulders and rock sitting out here.

Those all came out of the sewer and water trenches when they put the new sewer and water lines in along the front. like that's the type of soil we're going to be we're going to be working with out here. So, we're not concerned about it. Um because this site actually has some of the better soils we've seen in Cedar City. Uh to give you an example, the existing Smith that's in town. That's bad. Horrendous soils on that site. That one's bad.

We we did some really significant things to deal with the soils on that site 30 40 years ago. But um this site we are not concerned with in that regard. I can tell you there's settlement issues in Rocking Horse subdivision, which is immediately across the channel from you. Uh there's homes in there that have settled. Uh there's retaining walls that have settled and sloughed off into our sidewalks. And that is immediately to your uh east. Mhm. All this right here. Uh a lot of the soil on this property has been brought in over the years. If you reme, for those of you that have been around long enough, you can remember how it was piled out there for years and years and years.

Um, I would encourage you before you make your decision, please listen to Matt. He's got a lot more data than I do. Okay. Well, go ahead. Go ahead, Mayor. Okay. The one the one I I I actually like private. You mean public? Public. I like public. the two vaults. If you put those big vaults on each side, you no longer have circulation because the water cannot go back through the vault. And so if you put a vault on each one of those, you no longer have a looping system. But but you don't. But you do because it's hooked down by Geer. It cannot circulate through the vaults.

It doesn't loop through the private property, but it loops our system on Main Street back to Greens Lake. Our system won't do that. Yours won't, but ours will once you connect down by Steve Geger Auto. I don't Where is Steve G? I don't know this Guer story we're talking about. It's right about there. Right where he's pointing. There's the thrift shop and the So, we're not connecting down there. That was part of the plan was you were going to connect down there. That That's what we have said in every review and in every meeting we've been in that you are making that connection with with existing sewer or I'm sorry, with existing water. You're talking that little piece that's missing, Kent. Correct. Okay. All right. Yes, you are. Okay. Yeah, we're talking like 100 yards. It's not

We're talking that 70 ft or whatever that's missing in there. Yes, you are correct. Yeah, it's very small. Yeah, we're talking right there. It's not that I thought you were talking about our new system going down there. I was like, "No, we're not running our new system down there." But yes, there is a small section. You don't want to go down all the way down Main Street, but your system that's when I go AC, by the way, I'm working on the piece directly across the street. And yes, there is a main on that side of the street. We are going to extend. Yeah. So, question for legal. Oh, no. Well, I just have a question for legal. Did you raise your hand? I did. Phil,

is there a way to I mean, just spitballing here because we have this question. I mean, I I completely agree with the soil, you know, concern and I think that's a real one. Is there a way to say, "Yeah, we'll make it public, but we sign an agreement that we're held harmless if there is an issue with, you know, an admnification or something where they can't come after us if we have a settlement issue." I'm just asking. I don't know. The the best answer is probably we can make a real noble attempt to cover all scenarios that might affect us. Okay. Um, and there are plenty of contracts that work that way, but there's always once you make it ours, you run the risk that we miss something in the contract, we miss a scenario, there's a contract argument later. If it's not ours at all, there is no risk.

Great. I understand. But we will do our best to mitigate it if you wish to make it public. So, is yours related to that, Robert? Because I have a No, mine mine was related to the water tiein. Are we just teeing off it? It doesn't loop. If we're just teeing right to that, it's got to connect somewhere else to make a true loop. Well, it doesn't loop around the store. That's what I'm saying. I If it's just teeing off, there's no loop at all. Are you talking about the we'll call it the Geer connection or our on-site loop? So, are you looping on both ends of that? Are you connecting to city on both ends of that? We're connecting to the city here, here, and over here

on the water. So, that's the loop. Okay. That's the loop they're presenting, but the city is saying that there's another connection that loops without having to go into theirs as a private loop right up here. Okay. Are you putting a vault on this Greens Lake one? Uh, if we go private, I'm not proposing to make that connection to Green Lake because No, I'm not putting three vaults in.

Yeah. Okay. Now, now the one thing I will tell you is that this W7, and this may be something Matt can clarify, this W7 has a note on it within your detail that says it's only to be used with 13R fire sprinkler systems, which is for residential. So, I don't believe that under your own standard we can even use this on a commercial project because it's only rated for residential uses, which I believe is because of how much pressure drop is through it and we can't get the fire flows the the the pressures we need for the fireflows. I've been told by the fire marshall you guys will not be a 13R. No, we will not be a 13R.

So, I had a followup on the settling concern. So if there's a city water line in the city street and that city water line breaks and puts dump bunch of water that causes a building on private property adjacent to that street to settle. Is the city liable? I'm not going to make a commitment that we're liable based on those simple facts. But I will tell you we have paid people for our water lines breaking. So what's the difference? I guess is my question to that because if if you're liable if it happens on a city street with a building adjacent to it and you have a rideway and it breaks and there's a building adjacent to it, what's the difference?

This this water line is proposed by Smiths runs right next to their building. If you make that loop a public loop, if you keep the public loop out on Main Street, you're not right next to their very large, very heavy building. you have a lot of distance between you and most of our main lines will have some distance setbacks and the like. Chances are if that leaks on Main Street, you're going to settle Main Street first and you're going to catch it while there's a pothole on Main Street before it seeps over and makes that building sink.

Okay. Just seems like there's other places in the city where we do have those lines that are still very adjacent to buildings that are along a city street. Some of them can be and it's just a question whether you want to expand that risk. I mean, you look at the line they have it here. It's running all the way around almost what threequarters of their building. We're not even just running by the front. We're covering threequarters of the perimeter of the building.

Yes, Councilman D. Actually, with this with this drawing, you're actually increasing the opportunity for leaks because you're making them put meters clear out by the street and you're running service lines a whole lot longer. If you go a public system, put the meters in the buildings, uh, you actually reduce the leakage possibilities quite a bit. And if you install this water line correctly, you won't have much of a problem. The problem is if you don't put it in right. I don't disagree with you that if you run all those service laterals off of Main Street that you may have leak potential because you have more service laterals do but those will not be our responsibility. That's true. I understand that.

And we won't have to pay for anything when they fail. I guess I think you're up. I have one question real quick for maybe for Randall and Paul. I could not find in the city engineering standards or the city code that says our lines are to be private. So I guess I'm not even sure where I'm what I'm asking of variance to in the development agreement. When it really comes down to it, there's nothing that I see that designates commercial developments are to have private fire lines, private water manes. I don't see that anywhere in the code in my research

and in my look at I don't have one that clearly says that there are ones that can be interpreted that way. So I'll say two things. So the one that can be interpreted that way is 37-16 except for otherwise providing these ordinances. The following shall be the exclusive method of extending water manes in Cedar City, Utah on dedicated streets. That can be interpreted only we only care when it's already on a dedicated street or it could be interpreted to say we only want them on dedicated streets. The other one I would say is this. State law does not require a government agency, including a municipality, to ever receive a responsibility, if that makes sense. We don't have to receive land that someone wants to give us. We don't have to receive lines that people want to give us. We have to agree that it's in the city's best interest to accept it. So, that's probably more a state law that I would hang my hat on than I would hang it on to city ordinance. Uh there's a recent one I think just passed last year for land itself that we have to fully officially sign off and even have the mayor sign off on receiving it except as part of a subdivision where our engineer can sign it. So that's the strongest one for me is otherwise people just give us stuff all the time and now suddenly we're liable for it.

We also have practice where we have not done this on largecale commercial subdivisions. They're all private lines. You look around, you go down to Walmart and Home Depot and those are all private lines. You go to any other commercial place in town, they're all private lines off the off the dedicated public I was gonna ask that. Do we have any? No. No. So, I have one question regarding that, if I may.

Yep. Um, are did we ask Walmart and Home Depot to do a loop for the city to increase their pressure um and and and to help the city out? So, that to me is is an aspect that we need to consider. Fair. Um, why is it beneficial to you to have this as a public instead of a private? You're I'm assuming you're going to have an HOA in there because you got multiple pads, shared parking. So, help help me understand why it's not okay just to have them be private. Seems like a pretty big deal to you, so I'm just curious. I'm on the same note. Why?

Well, a couple things. One, one, the pressure issue. Pressure is an issue here. We need to make sure we get that back up and in and whatever the solution is here. Second, the design you're asking for to do here is a very I mean it's it's a

it's a very expensive design way beyond and I'll tell you, we do projects all over Utah and outside of Utah. You are only the second city I've run into in 30 years that designs water lines like this. So, do you have feedback outside outside of the Las Vegas Valley because Las Vegas Water District does it this way, but for example, if I go to St. George, we're running public lines. I'm doing I'm doing grocery stores in St. George right now and we're running public lines. So, we called St. George on that Kroger product that you just put in by Sun River. Yep.

It's a private It's a private system. The fire loop is a public system, but everything else is private. the the so the whole thing isn't what St. George told us was the fire loop around the building is a public line. The the main lines are are private within that whole area. Is that that's what you found out, Mike? So So to clarify that, the loop around the building is the same loop we're talking about here. What's private is the fire lines and the services going to the buildings, which would be the same thing here. So what what we're doing here is the exact same thing we did in St. George. Okay. That's we just got different information. Well, I I think it's the same. It's just

So, this line So, this one that we're talking about here that you want to make public isn't the service to the building. It's just the fire line. This this will provide fire service and culinary service. It's an 8 inch main. So, it's it's an 8 in main line that will serve fire hydrants. It'll serve fire lines that go to the fire sprinklers in the building. It'll go to the the water meters will come off of this and then that will run to the building. But typically the fire hydrants are public, but then the fire lines that go to the sprinklers are are private. Once we tap that main and we run off from that tap over, that's private. Once we set the meter, everything past the meter is private. That's how this would be done. And that's how St. George is done as well.

I mean, the alternative is just to take a 2 inch off T off of the main line and call it a day, right? I mean, they're doing a lot for our system by making a loop all the way around it. I hate to see you put on all these vaults because all they they're hurting us all over town. The we're having fireflow issues everywhere. If you if you go this way, Cuba private, then you're not putting in the line to to Greens Lake. It sounds like

if you do put in the line to Greens Lake, you're going to have to put a vault there. So that's three vaults. That's probably close to four or $500,000 for these big vaults. And I'll and I'll I mean part of this is there there is there was some city asks and there's some Smith's asks in this agreement. Green Lakes is a city ask. City asked for us to connect to Green Lakes. There's some cost. There's a there's a 20 foot wide box covert. We've got to build over that channel to bridge that channel and get over it. We've been asked to build curb gutter and sidewalk from our connection point up to the residential neighborhood so we can bring pedestrians down and into our site. That's all got six figure costs associated with it that we're willing to do, but we're asking to save a little bit of money on the water system in lie of that. Like we're willing to make this a win-win situation. We feel that even the water system alone is a win for the city and that it improves your system overall. But we're looking at this like we want to be partners with the city. We want to make this a win-win situation. And we're willing to do some extra things that were asked of us. and we're asking the city to do something for us.

Okay. So, that's the real bottom line answer to that question. There you we're trying to get a win-win scenario here. Thank you. Okay. Matt, do you want to share anything?

Should we wake him up? Blinking your eyes like you've been here a while. You want to go to bed. Matt Baker Water Department. So, like you've said before, we have the current Smiths, the Home Depot, Walmart schools, SU Hospital, manufacturing plants out west, PUDS, all have their own private fire system. They are maintained and tested by the owner. This practice has worked and we have no issues with it. So, one I know Scott was here last week, heard my spill three weeks ago. If you want to hear it again, I'll read it again. So, I just have question. Did we ask any of Did we ask any of those to loop our system or are they just basically a tea off? They're just a tea off.

So that it's a completely different scenario then. Right. So Walmart does connect I think off of Cross Hollow and it runs over to Province Center. I still want to clarify that because I I've heard two different things. Are we asking them to loop the system? Because I thought I heard that we don't need that system looped through Smiths. that we're going to get the system looped.

So, we had Ridley uh with our consultant run models on the two different options to loop our system. One option to loop our system is completing that line along Main Street to the north. That loops our system all the way back to the Greens Lake system. and it ties it all in because that line along Main Street to the north actually dead ends from the Greens Lake system. So once you connect it to the rest of the pipes that go south on Main Street, you're looped. It's not this micro area that we're talking about, it's more of a macro area zooming back out to the neighborhoods.

So are we asking them to loop within their project as well? Does that give us benefit? We also asked Ridley to run the numbers to tell us what the benefit of looping on that north end versus looping uh through Greens Lake was. And I don't know can do you have those numbers? I think Jonathan does. Oh, Jonathan's here. Sorry, Jonathan. I didn't see you there. It's a whole different So, we can give you that information probably. Yeah, it's not even comparable.

Jonathan St. Engineering Department. Yeah, I did I did share with uh with the Smiths with their engineer and they they quoted what I had given them. Um if they make that connection to Greens Lake Drive, it does it does help considerably to increase the to increase the the fire flow and the pressure. Now, sure. I got a question. Pressure or fire balance per minute? Because everything I got is all 2,000 gallons per minute. That just increases pressure. Yeah, that's right. Yeah, it does. It definitely helps the pressure on the fireflow situation. You'll have to put a vault though. If you put that line in, you got to go to the microphones here. If you put that if you connect that line, you'll have to put a vault on that line.

Private private. So that therefore then some of your bonuses go downhill. As far as the overall system, uh making that connection to Geer helps quite a bit more than just looping through to Greenslake Drive. Um they looked at that and it it did increase the fire flow in other areas of the system but not not considerably but making that connection at Guyers does help considerably and that I don't think that's ever been in question that that needs to be done. But are we asking for both? I'm wanting to make it very clear. Is does the city want both of those connections? Does that benefit the city or is the Geiger one good enough and we don't need the one through Smith's? We don't I mean

we do need the one at Guyers. We don't need the We don't need it to loop through to Greens Lake for them to meet the the pressure that's required. Now, would it would it benefit it? Yes. So, it just benefit that project. It doesn't benefit our overall system with fire. It does benefit it a little bit, but not much. So, our additional ask is to loop on the other end. Is that correct? The city's additional ask up on the end. Yes, the geer. Yeah. And that's Yeah, that's been there all That's not an ask though. That's a requirement. Well, but they they don't have to loop both ends if we're just teeing because if we compare Walmart and the others, we just teed off of it, right? I mean, here we're asking them to to loop it in two ends to make a true loop. We're asking them to complete the frontage, right?

Yeah, correct. The the the loop, as we're calling it, at the north end of their project, yes, we're creating a loop, but what they're doing is they're installing a water line that doesn't yet exist across the frontage they're developing. That's just a standard city requirement. has nothing to do with the rest of the discussion really. That's a standard city requirement that they put that line in. I got that. But but we're asking them to hook to two ends on that loop, right? No, that was our original Well, their original one was having the three ends of Greens Lake and the two off Main Street. And I brought up the idea of connecting it to Gigers and then they wouldn't have to go through the ditch and add more cost going through the ditch. And he was great with that to just cook off geers and loop off.

So Kent, I got it. what what do you think about this private or public? So, um, let Matt

I will say similar to, uh, what Jeff from AWA said, you know, the public mains through shopping centers are very common. That is what we see almost new development from my experience. Uh, before I came here to Cedar City, I hadn't really seen private systems in this day and age being being used in that fashion. Um, in my last city that I worked for, the older shopping centers in town had private mains. That was a practice many years ago. The newer ones did not. We were actively working with property owners to acquire easements over those private mains in the older shopping centers to turn them into public mains. Um, because we saw the benefits of having public mains there. Um, it allowed those to connect up to other parts of the system and let water flow through in all directions. And it was an overall system benefit. Also relieved some concerns we had with with a lot of private mains that and the potential of any crosscontamination if something got into their system. So that was what we did there. Now does that mean that's what we need to do here? Not necessarily. Can we find an an engineering solution to the fireflow issues for Smiths with either public or private? I would say yes, we can. The current configuration of two connections to Main Street doesn't get us there. um not in in an acceptable fashion, but maybe taking one connection to Main Street and one connection to um Greens Lake that does significantly improve the pressure um under that 2,00 gpm fireflow. So, so there are solutions either way. It's my opinion based on my experience that the public mains are a

better way to go, but there are other viewpoints on it and I respect those viewpoints and I just say we can work with the developer to make either option work. And now let's let Matt finish what Matt was wanting to share. So Matt,

so I'll just skip Well, I'll go to the 13R thing he brought up in the W7. So that was in 2021 when we were using compound meters which is a low flow and high flow meter into one which does restrict flow. We moved away from those and it's just one ultrasonic meter with no guts in it and it's rated at 4,000 gallons a minute. Well there's I think that's just needs to be taken out that R needs to be taken out of the spec. Now on to my little notepad here. So why we shouldn't rate payer cost and allocation. Acceptance of a privately located infrastructure would result in operation, maintenance, and life cycle costs being borne by the city's rate base for facilities that primarily serve a single private development. Lack of systemwide infrastructure benefit, insurance-driven subject water infrastructure is required solely to satisfy private insurance underwriting requirements and does not increase system capacity, redundancy, resiliency, fire flow, or service coverage. Nor does it otherwise constitute an improvement to the city public water system. Viability and claims. Ownership and operation of water facilities on private property increases the city's exposure to claims for private damages, service interruptions, personal injury and loss revenues, including claims arising from service disruptions, access limitations, or private operational constraints. The areas contains susceptible soils, meaning water leaks or line breaks can lead to ground instability and structural settlements. For example, we had a building on South Main Street experienced settlement issues due to a leaking fire line that went undetected for several years. Because a fire line was privately owned, the city held no liability for the damages. Similarly, a manufacturing facility located out west of town experienced a fire line break that created a large sinkhole beneath the building. As this was a private previous case, the infrastructure was privately owned and the city was not responsible for resulting damage. The operation and maintenance water lines located on private property require non-standard maintenance practices, increased coordination and restoration of private improvements resulting in elevated O andM costs relative to

facilities and public rightaways. Unfounded capital life cycle obligation. City acceptance would obligate the city to fund long-term rehabilitation, replacement, and upgrades of infrastructure without corresponding systemwide benefits or identified funding sources. Operational reliability and emergency response. Physical security and operational conditions on private property may restrict access and delay routine maintenance or emergency response adversely affecting system reliability. Uh policies considerations. Acceptance of privately located water infrastructure would establish a precedence inconsistent with adopted city policies and complicate future infrastructure ownership determinations. Access and control limit long-term access, clearance, and protection of infrastructure on private property cannot be assured due to potential site modifications, redevelopment, or changes in ownership. And conflict with with private site operation, commercial site operations, including traffic control, loading activities, and security measures may interfere with utility access, construction activities, or emergency repairs. This does not constitute a public improvement or component of the city water system. does not extend, upgrade, replace, enhance, or otherwise improve city water infrastructure capacity or level of service. Exists solely to satisfy private insurance requirements for fire protection associated with the property and is required to supplement private fire protection only as a city has existing public fire hydrants located within the public rideway surrounding the property.

Thank you. Okay. Any questions for Matt? Nope. Okay. Any further discussion or Well, I have I have one quick question on another something he talked about earlier. Are we done with the water stuff for now, I guess, is the question. Yeah, I don't have any more on. Okay. Was there any other requests? I do have one other item and then we can have questions. And mine's quick. The last one uh was to talk about the storm water. Yeah,

here it is. Storm water. Um, so storm water uh came up as we talked with the city came up as a as a concern as we worked with engineering. Um, this site had a storm water discharge. It's actually shown on here if I mark it. There's a storm drain line that comes out right at this corner of the property. It goes under Main Street. And this is actually the line that goes back around the hotel and the apartments and ends ends up over in um on freeway. What's the road there? Cedar Cedar. Cedar Nulls. Cedar Cedar Nullles. Nolles.

Nolles. I was like, I just lost the name of the road all of a sudden. Cedar Nolles, which then Kent and his team informed us of all the flooding down by the freeway and that this would add to the flooding and so forth. So, we were asked by the city like, "Hey, can can you look at options to get water, storm water up to the drainage channel that is uphill, by the way, about 30 40 feet uphill." Um, instead of going through this storm drain that runs west. Um, so we did we looked at that. Um, we are still putting in a detention system. This this blob you see right here is the underground chamber system that storm water would be detained in. Um and then we are putting in a pump that would pump the storm water up and pump it into the channel. Um with that there's extra cost in that pump. That pump's about $100,000 to put that pump in. Um so what we did was we're proposing normally you would detain at 0.2 2 CFS per acre. Um, for this site, I want to say that equates to about two or 3 CFS. I can't remember the number, somewhere in that range. We're asking for a discharge of 5 CFS. So, we're asking to to be able to discharge more water, 5 CFS to the drainage channel. Um, what that does is that allows us to reduce the size of the detention. Saves a little bit of money in the detention, but we're adding a whole bunch more money with the pump. So, we're we're trying to

you're just wanting to you want to break we're trying to break even here um by helping not add to the flooding problem but get the water up into the drainage channel where the water can be handled. So, that is what the purpose of the request there is is um and then on top of that typically when you my understanding of the impact fees on storm water if we do detention storm water impact fee gets waved. This case we are doing detention but we're releasing at a higher rate. So, we're asking that we still have our fee waved, similar to if we were doing standard detention.

So, they're asking to do less detention and have the entire impact fee waved. That's my problem. They're not they're not going to do if we wave detention, storm water impact fees for somebody, it's because they detain everything that exceeds their historic flow. Smith is not asking to do that. They're asking for a temporary detention underground and then discharge at a higher rate and we still wave the impact fees. Hang on, K. Yeah.

Actually, I think this is great what you're proposing because Smith, if we don't do something or if we try to take it towards Main Street or take it these other ways, we're going to create a whole lot more problem. So, myself personally, I think this is a great idea. Just don't wave the impact fees. Well, no. They're putting in the pump. They're they're saving us a lot of trouble with the city's request. Yeah. I mean, I I think it's good. So, the waving of the fees, Paul, correct me if I'm wrong. If if we detain and Kent, correct me if I'm wrong here. If we detain to the normal 02 CFS per acre, the city would wave the impact fees. Correct.

Normal the normal K. Go ahead. Yeah. Yes. If you retain the full amount. So if I So retained or detained? Detained. Detained. The full Well, assuming you have an outlet. Yes. And your outlet is pumping system. We released our two or three CFS. So essentially under standard, we would be allowed our two to three CFS release rate. Correct. And we would give full waiver of fees. That Yes, that would be correct. So what we're asking for is an increase in the release. We're still detaining, just not as much, right? to a channel, getting the water in the channel faster and out of the way before the flood comes down the channel.

I don't I don't disagree. You guys are doing good improvements. I don't disagree that putting in the channel is probably a good idea. And at your request, the problem is the total waiver of the impact fee. What you put in that channel is going to have impacts to our storm drain system downstream from you, which is typically what we would take our impact fees and use to make improvements with. you are getting a smaller detention and a faster release rate and asking for us to wave all of the impact fees. But why the reason we're doing that is because you're asking us to not release our historical runoff down the storm drain into

correct which we have the right to do. But that also causes us to have problems with infrastructure and we're not going to pay an impact fee and you're gonna get flooding downstream and not have any money from us to go fix. Let's let's back up a little bit, Jeff. Um you don't have a right to discharge all of your water, all of your historical flow into that pipe. That's not where all of that historical flow has necessarily gone,

which also is not acceptable. in the state and every the state and us both agree that's not acceptable to just discharge into Main Street. So you were faced with a situation where you need to have a place to release your water to unless you can infiltrate it into the ground. In order to have a place to release it to, you would be running a very long storm drain pipe to somewhere where you could get that into a facility that could handle the water. That might be down uh towards the high school. That might be over uh through the interchange over to tie into the channel down by Walmart, wherever you could get it to go. We were suggesting to you that a more cost-effective solution is probably to pump it up to the channel up to the east side of your project. So, we're not you're not doing us a favor by pumping it up there. That's a solution that is a good solution for you. The other thing I have a concern with about this uh particular design is that not all of your site gets to that to that uh um underground storage and even gets pumped up to the channel. You have nowhere else for it to go. You've got two pads there that you haven't accounted for at all in your drainage calculations as near as we can tell. And so yeah, we have concerns about the drainage, considerable concerns. And all of Lisa's review comments to you have said, "Hey, what are you going to do with the water for these parcels?" And you guys don't ever address it.

Can you tell us what two pads you're referring to, Ken? So, we have an idea. Yeah, these two over here. Okay. On the north end there. Okay. Cuz they're And I'm assuming cuz they're downhill of this those bladders or whatever in the ground, right? Those two pads will retain their water on site. They will be responsible to retain. No release. They'll do a retain, not a detain. not a detain. They will be required to retain their water on site and perkin to the ground. Does does your soil analysis say they'll be able to actually get that to infiltrate? Yes, we've done percolation tests out there. We've done four different percolation.

Okay. I know Lisa had a lot of complaints about your drainage report. She wasn't able to tell from the drainage report what was going on on that. So, just throw that out there. How much of an impact fee are we talking about here? What's this? Is there a dollar amount? Can somebody tell us what this amount is that we're sitting here? Jonathan just stood up like he knows. Yeah. I mean, Jonathan knows. Well, and I No, I'll wait. I'll wait. I'm sorry. Mayor Jonathan Status. So, if they were to pay the the full impact fee for both the store and the fuel center, the total cost would be $120,000. Okay. So, really that's what we're talking about is 120,000.

120,000. Um, we did look at if we prrated that based on what they're actually releasing, they'd be responsible for about $50,000. Yeah. Okay. So, that that's just that's a rough number. Yep. Scott.

Well, that was my we've been on this for quite a while, but that was my whole question to begin with is I had a concern about the release of this and saying rather than wave it all, can we find a percentage that seemed fair enough for the work they're doing, but also the higher amount of discharge and item two tonight, we talked about this is where all that storm water is going to go right down to Cross Hollow. So whether it's 50% of or 60% of I that was my whole question to begin with Jeff. Good. Okay. Council

I am 100% on that vein. I think that there is a an equilibrium that we can find here as opposed to be either or or nothing. Uh personally as a as a councilman in this city, I want to get this project going. Um it's going to speak uh a lot to u to what we're trying to do here in terms of improving the economy, getting more jobs on place and so forth. And uh I want to make sure that we don't get hurt longer term. The impact fees are necessary so that we can you know maintain and do all all those kinds of things. But you're also investing on a solution that mitigates all kinds of other problems. uh even Kent correct me if I'm wrong even if we if we don't discharge or we I'm talking us and combined discharge onto that existing uh drainage thing if we don't discharge everything you're still going to get a big percentage of it if if they don't do this kind of stuff right so it's it's going to it's going to increase the the flooding on the freeway side am I correct I'm not sure I followed that

channel better if they pump it than if I know it does. No, from what I understood what I'm saying is that I think I understand the question well. Let me try and and see if if I think what what Kent was explaining is putting into to the area that goes to the freeway would not have been an option period from the beginning. the the historical flow went to Main Street and the state of Utah will not allow it to flow onto the state of onto Main Street. So So we would then have forced them to take that somewhere else and the option that seemed the most feasible was the pump. Okay. And the pump that they're proposing will increase the outflow, reduce the investment on the

what do they call it? Detention pump or whatever bladder it is in there. And uh Paul, our concern as a city is that that output will increase the maintenance requirements downstream, right? Not maintenance. Impact fees can go to do uh capital upgrades. They can't go to on and m Yeah. So the the point of the whole discussion from my perspective was don't wave the entire impact fee. prorate something, give them credit for what they're doing, collect the rest of the impact fee because they're not doing a total solution on that impact fee. Okay. So, we're on the same wavelength, I think, right, uh, Scott? Yes. Yes, sir. Okay. Thank you.

What was the Carter? Thank you. You're welcome. What was the uh the volume difference of what we wanted versus what this new or the what you were proposing? I don't know. Jonathan, do you have I'm just trying to get a percentage roughly 12 when you Yeah. What's allowed to be released and we we excluded those two parcels that we talked about and then maybe also one of the parcels at the south and there's a parcel at the souththeast corner that we couldn't tell if that was included or not. You're talking over here? No, southeast right there.

That one. Yeah, that one does. Yes, that would drain. That one is in here. Okay. So, if we include that one, so you'd be allowed to discharge 3.3 CFS. The plans that we have show that the pump would uh discharge 5.5 CFS. So, who's better at math than me? They're asking for 2. Yeah. So, we can figure out the math during the week. So, anyway, concept, you get what I'm trying to figure out concept. Okay. Well, I think we're all on the same page, whatever the percentage is. Yeah. and and and we can leave staff to work that out and it's prorated according to the Yeah, it's about 40%. You can do the dollars, you can do the CF. I have another quick question that doesn't have to do with the public water system stuff or the sewer. Or the sewer.

Can Can I ask Jonathan a follow-up question on the storm first before you go there? So So Jonathan, the way our ordinance is set up, our storm drain impact fees are based on the area of the structure, right?

Yes. So, we have other out parcels that are part of this system. How does that figure into what would be waved for the storm drain impact fees or would those still be charged at the time that development happens on those parcels, those out parcels? But I guess what I'm getting at is I think the total impact fee per our ordinance is higher than just the number that you had because there's also those other out parcels that are part of that system.

Well, we were discussing today when I was talking to Lisa, we discussed when those other parcels go to pull a building permit, they would get charged that pr-rated amount as well because they're draining through that detention. Okay. So charge based on the same proration percentage. Yes. Okay. So the 120,000 estimate you gave us that was for just the Smith's building. That was not the impact for and the fuel center. And you did say that now that you Okay, I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments before I open up? Yes, I have one last comment and it's it's this is going to be an easy one, Jeff. I hope

this came up in planning commission and it is true. The way you're connecting into Green Lakes and the trail systems there and also our active transportation. I want to make sure there's some bike racks here because the current current Smith does not have a single bike rack. There is We do have one standard bike rack out in front of it. Yes, but there's a bike rack. There is one on our new designs, we do put one. Okay. I just want to make sure because more and more people are biking and taking groceries with them and it's it's a a a mobile e-commerce. Yes, we we have a couple other stores that we've done where we connect to trails like this and it's actually there's a lot of bike usage to be honest with you. We've seen that and we'll plan for that. Thank you, sir.

Okay, Carter. So, mine's also a quick one and it was the very first exception you were talking about or request. Why do we care how many uh loading bays that they put? Like why is our requirement five and they want to do three? Like why do we why does our ordinance specify how many loading bays we want them to have? We we base it on the square footage of the building itself. The idea basically being this. If they don't have enough to cover their needs, they're going to take other parking spots. They're going to take drive aisles. You you see it sometimes with lens to be honest. Sometimes they end up having to kind of block 100 East because of too many trucks trying to go into the exact same spot. I guess that's true. Yeah, the lenses. But I mean tight spot to begin with.

Yes. Okay. I guess in that situation, but I don't where they're the way this building is designed, I don't see them bleeding onto a public street with a truck to wait to load. I mean, no. No, it would take up their parking lot, but it's their parking lot and they have a lot of something we can work. Yeah, that one I I don't think it's a hill any of us are dying on. I was just like, I don't see there's a lot of space back there. The thing is our our ordinance is written for a more typical application. They've suggested that that that this be something that we would allow contrary to what our ordinance says and there's good reasons to allow it. I don't think we have any objection. Okay, perfect. That's all. Okay. Any other comments or can I open the public hearing? Public hearing.

All right. We'll now open the public hearing. Anybody like to speak on this one? Oh,

all right. Uh Dr. Justin de Blau. Um, first of all, I want to talk about that trail system. As a cyclist who uses the trail all the time, concerned with that signage that'll go there, even on the roads in Cedar, the way you guys have them set up, we almost get hit all the time as is. This intersection is going to probably increase the likelihood that we get hit coming across that. I don't know why you built a trail and then allowed someone to break the trail for an intersection. Um, so I would ask that if you do break it and you have to put a sign there, you move that sign as far away from the intersection as possible because an F-150 already doesn't see us in most parking areas. Everyone in Cedar for some reason needs to drive F-150s.

So, puts us at risk already. And in the state of Utah, cyclists have no rights. And so, anytime we get opportunity to take rights, we're going to take them. So, please don't kill us there. Um, the other thing, um, Councilman Waldo said this will probably increase jobs. I probably disagree with that. This will most likely just transfer jobs from the current location to this one. I didn't major in macroeconomics, but these are minimum wage jobs and you're just transferring from the current Smith to this Smith. So, I don't think you're really adding anything with this whole complex. Um, and you're taking away the one thing in town that cyclists have as part of this. I know it's totally different, but I just would wish we could just keep that trail for once in this town. All the other trails in town are destroyed. Can we just keep this one preserved? There's two other outlets to park out of.

What do you mean they're destroyed? They're covered. They're broken through roots that you can't ride on half the time. They're stuck by cyclists. Roots are coming through them through the ground. They're popping up popping up. You can't ride a bike over them. You have to have a full suspension mountain bike just to go across them.

They're not maintained. So, my I'm not from Cedar City like everybody else is, but my what I've learned since I've been here is we build things and we let them fall apart. We don't maintain them. Um, this is the one section of the road that's fairly wellmaintained and then you're going to break it apart and you're going to increase traffic deaths. If you want me to bring stats next time, I can tell you what the likelihood someone's going to get hit in that spot because that's what I study and that's where it's going to happen. I don't know if that's been accounted part of your assessment, but that's where it's going to happen. So, thanks for your time. Thank you. Thank you.

I was wondering what you were here for, Ben. Ventous active transportation committee. Um, so I I agree with Justin uh with a lot of this uh creating that road uh no matter what it will cut the amount of people willing to ride on that trail. So uh just anytime you create an intersection with cars, it just scares people. So, and with the uh the study that I showed you before, uh the the rule is uh twothirds will ride with when there's no cars interaction. Um and then that goes all the way down to 10%. That's a sixth of the people willing to to ride on bikes uh with cars around and intersections. If you do choose to go, I would just ask that uh once again the uh the signs setting it back and then also I worry a lot about queuing. There are a lot of places in town where um cars just aren't don't care about pedestrians and so they're just going to drive forward to see where they can look ahead um or they just they they they block where we can walk or uh bike which makes it more dangerous and then we just have to go around if we stop. Also, this is one of the really great paths where there isn't a block and you can just glide through where now this is going to create that breakage as well. So,

okay. Hey, good perspective. Thank you. Okay. Any other comments? No. Seeing none, we'll close the public hearing and entertain a motion. Mayor, I move that we uh put this on action for next week. Have a motion. Second. Third. And a second. Whoever one you want to put down. All in favor? Any opposed? Okay. Thank you. Look at that. We're clear through item number three of 12. Thank you very much for your time and it's 9:00. All right. Number four. The prior mayor got cooperative agreement. He had a vision of forestry and fire.

Yeah. The prior mayor would have bought us pizza by now. You got you got to take the good with the bad. Mike Phillips with the fire department and Danny with forestry, fire, and state lands. Um in 2017 city signed into the cooperative agreement. It's come time to renew that agreement. It's an agreement where um if we have a large fire in Cedar City, we can order Guys, can you go outside?

Aircraft and other stuff to fight the fire with at no cost today. Um then they take and um put it into a 10-year average, take out the high and the low, and they base our participation commitment, which I think is around $22,000. That $22,000 is then paid for through our wildland program. So there's no cost to city. So like the tender that was sitting out there, Danon just wrote up a sheet on it for a carryover for five-year project on that. So there's really no significant changes from the prior agreement. You have to ask Randall that he read it. So just so you know, some of that that $22,000 match that's Mike's crews going around doing wildland mitigation around town

like in the green space area. that that average uh is uh cash flow neutral to us anyway, right? I It doesn't have an an effect on our No, not really. It's a cheaper effect because any payment we make to them is still payment, but we're paying our guys to go out and do the thing, do something good for us rather than just pay money to the state. I would say it also provides additional safety for us as well because of the way the program is set up and it is revenue neutral. So I would move that we put this on consent next week. Have a motion and a second. I had a question but that's fine. Do we need a public hearing on it? No, this was not one.

Just a contract under public hearing. That's why. Yeah, good question. Okay. All in favor? I. Any opposed? No, it's just under public. Great. Next one. Consider that was that was easy, right? Oh, you get to stand for another one. Okay. I'm like, why are you sitting down, Mike? Considered a disposal of city property.

So, um Mike Phillips with the fire department. We just purchased a new water tender. You saw it outside and you saw the old one was there. Um we've had that truck for quite a while. It's a 1995 uh freight liner. It's 4,000gallon water tank with just under 100,000 miles on it. Um it was a gift from Three Wishes to us. that's made us a lot of money on the wildland program. We would like to donate that to Canaryville Fire. The benefit to that is when we have a fire, Canaryville comes back and helps us. We had a fire on the freeway two nights ago. Um Canary was shuttling water to us on a semi fire. We had the fire freeway closed there just north of exit 51.

I think that's uh I think that's a great thing to do, Chief. So, and I'll let I'd make a motion that we move this forward. Consent. consent or consent. Put it on the I make a motion we put this on the consent agenda. Have a motion. Second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Thank you. Love the new I love the new paint job on that new tender out there. Yeah, that's leg going to love that. I loved it. Great. Consider uh selection of an auditor. Aren't you glad you don't have to come to these meetings all the time? It's an experience for sure.

Uh I'm Lindy Mat, accountant at the city and um I'm here to ask the city to authorize the finance director to enter into a contract agreement with HBME LLC as our new independent certified public accounting um firm to audit our financial statements. for this most current fiscal year going to end June 30th, 2026. Um we interviewed them as well as um we received three proposals, chose to and interviewed them and they approved or we thought they would be the best to audit the city's financials. And just so everyone knows, there was a committee that was put together to uh Waldo and I were on that and and went through the process of all the bids and narrow it down and

Great. So, you wanted to make the motion. I'll make a motion that we I'll second it. Perfect. The two guys that were involved motion and a second to put it on consent. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Great. Thank you. Thank you for waiting all this time.

Um consider the BLM tinkerbase lease extension. All right, airport manager Todd Galika. Uh, thanks for having me here for this uh agreement extension. I'll try to make it quick. Um, I anticipate we probably will put this on a an action item though because I want you guys to be able to see the rates that I'm going to propose and kind of stew on those, but whatever decision you make is fine. So, the BLM tanker base located on the airport. Um, their lease expired in 2024. We finally got their uh proposed agreement extension a couple months ago and we've been stewing over that with them. So, um, what I've submitted is what we're proposing. And ignore the acreage and square footage on what I put in the packet. It's incorrect. Um, the total square footage of all their property right now is actually going to be 16.014 acres. So, we're sitting at 697,569 square feet of land. Um, the way this agreement was established in believe the paperwork was showing 97 when they negotiated this was a dollar per year. um we are authorized to do that with this type of lease on the airport typically you cannot give deals but because it's a public safety firefighting uh or or whatever else um is kind of under that encompass you can give those special rates to them. So we're proposing a new rate and that's the main topic of this discussion that I wanted to present was uh a different discounted rate not a dollar a year for the whole property. Um, I reached out to, I believe, nine airports. I only heard back from four others that have these air tanker bases on them. Um, and kind of what rates that they are imposing on tanker bases. So, just a quick summary, Pocutello charges uh 3.3 cents per square foot with 451,000 uh square feet. Twin Falls is about 7 cents per square foot. Uh, Prescott is about 6 cents per square foot and Casper is about 5.7 cents per square foot. How

many square feet are we? 697,569. So, a couple different rates that I put on here um was ranging between 3 cents to 7 cents because I believe we should still give a pretty good incentive and discount for them to be on the airport. We do collect landing fees which are substantial and fuel flowage fees which are substantial on Goodyears. Um but there still is maintenance around the airport that we do for the air tanker base. This is per year you were talking about. Correct. Yep, it is. So right now our premium or our our land lease rate is 40 cents a square foot for a typical hang hanger owner. Yeah. But

and so if we look at like a 10% of your typical land lease at 4 cents it generate about 27,92 um at 4 cents a square foot. Um if we're go down to the low what which is what Pocutello is at, we're looking about 20,900. Um each cent that we increase is about another $7,000 that we see in our in our budget. So, if we go towards the high of 7 cents that I'm proposing, it's about $48,829 per year. Um, and so we kind of look at that range of where does Cedar City want to lie at. The average that I got from those other four airports was about uh 5.5 cents per square foot. Do we have any competition that we would lose the tanker base to?

Um, not directly. There's a big investment they've put in the our airport and so for them to relocate would be very expensive. They're not going to send airplanes other locations. It's more Nobody else has a long enough runway to handle the big tankers anyway. Right. They could put them at other places like St. George. I don't think they want to go to St. George. It's hot down there. Too hot. It's hard to take off in hot air. Okay. Council Phillips, can you tell me um if have you had any discussions with him yet to even get a feel for this? Because I think you're correct. We need to find something in that probably four to five cent range or something like that. But I have you had any conversations to and who do you negotiate with?

Yes. So there's some local representatives. Courtney Christensen, he's the air base manager. Okay. And then Tory Meer, she manages the kind of financials of the region out of Denver. Um the biggest thing that they're always going to push back. They don't want to pay. I mean, it's a negotiation. Um what they've said is it takes out of their total operating budget for staffing. However, we're charging a dollar a year right now. Um, other places are charging sometimes. We've seen I think in Washington or Oregon there's a place that charges about 20 cents a square foot. If there's if it's talking 25,000 $27,000 and there's a big fire, they're going to bring people in to take care of the fire.

Correct. Yes. We're a critical uh tanker base in this region. The closest ones are going to be in Idaho, Arizona, Nevada. Hill Air Force Base is the only other location that can take this size area. And then my last question is um whatever we land on, whatever it finally ends up being, will it be retroactive back to 2024? Uh I believe so. Yes. Okay. I need to clarify what with them, but typically that's how it's handled. Thank you. So this is just a procedural question. How many years is this title? Wait, my procedural question. Um can we give him a range to negotiate from X to X and then whatever he comes up with bring back? In other words, three cents to five cents or whatever.

I would not recommend that in a public meeting because Yeah, we're telling we don't want to show them our hand. Hold up. I I just had a What's the length of the contract? We got to make a decision. So, this is a 25-y year agreement. Typically, how we've handled things too is every 5 years we look at inflation. Um, Twin Falls airport, they do a 3% raise every single year. So, it's another part of the fees. Do we want to look at or whatever our standard is is every five years we do a C or a inflation based off a CPI like we do every other lease. I think that's the route we should go. Um but yes, it'll be for 25 years. Okay. Thank you. So yeah. So it is a fair question that Robert was getting to though. Like if if it should be in close session.

Well, if we're if we're giving him a range, I think it was if we just want to say this is it, go tell him, then I don't think you have to. if that's with just our number. But if we wanted to give him negotiation power, then we should definitely do that inclusive. Yeah, I think we ought to consider that. I'm sorry, I have my finger on my nose, so I was a sign. No, I think we ought to consider doing a close session on this discussion because there are a couple of other flexible parameters that we can add that would be beneficial to both parties, I think. Okay. Yeah. And that's what I was getting at is if we're if unless we have a set number then it takes the negotiation. Should we just add this to negotiate? We got to do it close session. Mayor, I would Oh,

I'm sorry. Before you do that, would that be okay with you or are you It'll still be next week. That would be great. Yeah. Yeah. Perfect. So, mayor, I would Can we do that next week? Mayor, I would move then that we take this agenda item and move it to a close session in next week's meeting. I have a motion. Second. All in favor? I post. Great. Thank you, Tyler. Thanks, Tyler. You have another one. Consider the Schmidt Exchange of Service Agreement extension. I'll have to exclude myself here. No. Yes, you would. Oh, that's the same last name.

All right. Tyler Glick, airport manager. So, this is original agreement dating back from 2015. An RFP was done uh for an exchange of service agreements. There was only one bidder on that and that is the person is individuals in the room. Um and so we are looking at doing our second extension. We extended back in 2020 of a 5-year extension. This would be the the second five-year extension of three. Um the only difference that we've made on this agreement is we've put inflation in the uh expected amount of work that we expect to receive and then also the the labor rates have increased as well um in this contract. So we're just looking to get another five years out of that. Um it's been extremely beneficial to the airport. Uh we've gotten a lot of little projects done that we don't have in our capital budget or in our operating budget. Um, and in exchange, we get to fill in property on the airport that needs to be filled in.

How do we How do we Oh, I'm so sorry. My finger is I finally did it for once. I'm so proud of you, Carter. Thank you. No, mine's just a quick contractual question. So, in understanding now, we're in the second extension. So, procedurally, if we wanted to say, "Hey, let's put it that back out to RFP," the right thing to do would be do that at the end of the third extension, I'm assuming. Correct. Unless both parties agree to do otherwise. But yeah. Okay. It's like we've already when we signed it, we kind of said we'll give you the three extensions. Correct. Okay. That was it. Okay. Councilman Phillips. Oh, that answered my question. So, you had a motion. Hey, same question. Um, actually, I do have one more question. This is just the pit. Is this You didn't raise your hand

because I just don't know this when we talk about dumping. This is the pit over over by the Ashdowns on the other on the west side. So, this is inside the airport fence between the Bulock pit that the city uses and the airport runway. We have a low spot that we're filling in. I didn't even know. Okay, great. Councilman, I just want to verify how do we quantify u cost for services is cost for services. I mean, you have this project to be done. He does it. How do we make sure that it all equates out to what we've all agre who does that? So, uh with the agreement, they're allowed to dump 210,000 cubic yards. It was established uh in 2015 on how that was

and there's a value for that, right? Correct. That's pretty easy to ascertain. But then when you have this little project and this little project he says that would have cost you X number of dollars that goes to our finance department. How do we know that where we are? Oh, it's a a great question. So, typically I'll handle most of that is we use the chart that's supplied by uh Schmidt Construction and I don't know how many hours that project will take and then I'll deduct that off of what we're doing for uh the total contract value. If we need to go another route, I'm happy to do so. No, I'm just wondering does that leave based off of hours that you can watch calculate and be able to check to make sure you were really there for five hours. Correct. I mean, Tyler's going to need to make sure that nothing gets excessive. That's what we do in a lot of our other areas.

Even engineering does that as a general rule. Well, if someone makes an engineer's estimate and it's way off, we'll correct them. And so Tyler would have that same burden. Does it get audited ever by outside of just him? I mean, does it ever go to engineering or somebody once every few years to say, "Hey, do these numbers look the independent auditor is supposed to look take a look at all of our contracts." Okay. Including especially the ones that are new for the year. Okay.

Okay. And then um I know I'm sorry. Is it And it might have been in here somewhere and I apologize if I missed it. Does it have it in here somewhere how far we're allowed to get one way? Like how much of a credit can he build? Like right now it's currently starting out with a $56,000 balance. How high do we allow that balance to get? I don't know if there's a cap in there, Councilman. I believe um right now we're we've used up all the existing u value of this contract and so this would extend that. So we haven't really gotten to that where we've had an accumulation of a lot of uh work to be done. Okay. But that's a great question. It usually runs a closer to zero balance. Three minutes is up. Mayor and council, that's a good question.

But I will entertain a motion. Mayor and council, I would move that we put this on the consent agenda for next week. You can't put this on consent. I would move that we put an action for next week. I second that. Anyways, motion and a second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Great. Thanks, Tyler. Tyler, thank you so much. Okay, so the next one, you see the names listed there. Um, we just had some that their their service on the raptax arts um committee has come to an end and the names that I'm recommending to replace them. So, Kelsey Levit, Elaine Vickers, and Kyle Bishop. Um, I only have one question. Yes. Do we thank these people when they are released from service? Yes.

Thank you. All right. I would move that we uh put this on consent for next week. Second. Motion and a second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Um, consider a resolution to amend the consolidated fee schedule. I think the term is when Oh, go ahead. I should have asked this. When does this change on those people? Is that for this year's wrap tax or delay make it through effective now? Okay. Yep. That was part of the issue is making sure we have a we have a quorum. Okay, perfect.

Okay. So, on the consolidated fee schedule, I'm not going to go through each individual one. Um, unless you really want to stay here till 12. Um, do you have any questions on the ones that are in there? I think all but the declaration of candidacy ones have at least some explanation. The explanation on those is I was asked to put them in that I don't know past that other than if they're running for office and incurring government expense,

making sure they're serious enough to pay 50 or 100 bucks is not asking too much. And that the comment behind that is that uh that tiny little bit of barrier we we can look back at history and say there's probably times we spent money in running primaries that we wouldn't have had to run primaries if somebody just actually had to pay a little bit of money. Very small, right? But if you there's no barrier, then get my bully pulpit for a minute for free and it cost the taxpayers. I'm surprised we've never had to do it in the past quite frankly. And many many other cities already have these in place. State law allows it. I know the county does. Most do for all the county ones can be painful. Oh yeah. Hundreds of dollars for Well, yeah, but the

Okay. So, Scott, did you have a question on another one? Uh, yeah. My first one is on this uh banner program. I'm very concerned about pricing some of our nonprofits out. I mean, I get the cost, but I'm really thinking that $10 per banner is a lot. And then is that $10 to take them up and $10 to take them down? My understanding is no. In the conversations I've had with them that that's just the cost for the cycle. Okay. Yeah. The justification on the side says the cost break down.

I saw the cost break down, but I still think it's very high. Somebody that has 72 banners, that's $720 they got to pay. And some of these nonprofits, that's a lot of money. So, I would um I would ask us to reconsider that maybe down to $8 per banner or something. But that's that's number one. Am I Do I still have the the Yeah, keep the mic. You're good. You run through them all. You're the only one that said you had a question. Well, yeah. Two minutes in. Whoa, he's got I'm scrolling as fast as I can. Have we not had any charges for swim meets in the past? Because it looks like they've been zero and now we're charging,

which is fine. I just I think the charge in there that you see is for private club swim. Oh. Oh, okay. This isn't for the high school because we have an inter local agreement, don't we, with the school district contract? Correct. We're still not going. So, this is if the swim clubs want to bring in a swim meet, the private swim clubs. Do they do that a lot? They have meets. Yeah. Oh, I mean, is this going to price them out though or we're not going to get it? Do they do that in St. George and some of the I think we're at private clubs. Yeah, they do. be shooting myself on the foot here. But they charge on the Heritage Theater. I think some of the increases are crazy. We go from $75 to $80.

Why not go from $75 to $100? I I think that's crazy, but and and I his explanation is comparison to others. So you'd have to ask him what those other comp. So I have a Can I have a question? Yeah, go ahead. And just so on the on the swim fees, do we charge the same for baseball clubs that come in and soccer clubs that come in and basketball clubs that come in? I know we charge for the arena clubs that come in. Is it fair across all those?

We we we don't charge basketball clubs because we don't have the facilities. Uh we do charge private entities that come in for baseball and softball. There's private companies that do tournaments all summer long. we charge them. I I believe we do charge if it's a private entity that comes in on a soccer tournament, we'll charge them as well. Okay. As long as long as it's across the board, I don't have a problem with it. I'm pretty sure that's the case. And all of our I guess it's engineering or building site because there's quite a few of them in here. They list them all and then they go plus the traffic stuff. What the heck does that mean? I was wondering the same thing. Where are you talking about? What?

That's your uh I don't know what p I'm on page 13 of the PDF. So I'm on page 10 right there plus traffic stuff in fairness that's my notes and I don't know because I don't want to be approving something I don't know what we're approving and yeah if it doesn't have a specific dollar amount like those kind of notes that are on some of these those are not getting added to the schedule. Correct. Yeah. Okay. I'm going through. So, scroll to the top of that is what's the heading on that? Um, I guess there's it's all the engineering stuff. It's all engineering stuff. How much was the zone change one? Go down. Wow. Okay.

Do we ever incur traffic stuff when we do subdivisions or Well, we have to do traffic model. So, the note plus the traffic stuff, please understand how this document came into existence. It's in a book about that thick that we use to go through budget presentations with each department. So, it's very possible that Terry made a note on that page that referred to something else is has nothing to do with the fees. So, the the note plus the traffic stuff if you would approve this, it wouldn't transfer to anything. Sorry about that. Subdivision one went way up. Yeah. Well,

um, yeah, this some of this engineering stuff is very complicated. It's 400. All the ups and downs where some have increased and some have gone down and some have increased where before it was. I know there's a method to the madness, but perhaps I can suggest something given the hour. If you would not mind uh making a motion to table this to the next work meeting, we will ask all the department heads that are responsible for requesting these changes to be present at the next work meeting. So you can ask them your questions and they can give you answers. Could we even include it in our budget discussions with them? Have them added a minute there or they already have Tuesday if that's okay. Yeah, sure.

Is that right? Let's just have them add it to those discussions. Thanks. Part of part of the finance department um presentation this year is going to include a user fee study. So if you wanted to hold off until after you've approved that and we've done that, you could do that, too. Well, I'm fine with them trying to give us an explanation maybe in their budget. I'll just do that through the budget process. So I would move that we table this until the next work meeting discussion. Have a motion. Have a motion to table. Second and a second. All in favor?

Any opposed? Great. Uh, consider settlement agreement with Armbber. In 2013, we were sued by the Armbre family over a myriad of things mostly related to development and storm drain issues in the Cross Hollow area. In 2015, we entered a settlement agreement with the Armuse family. Part of that settlement agreement, the city promised to put in some sort of recreational amenity in the cross hollow detention pond once the overall arm Bruce development hit a certain number of rooftops. They far exceeded the number of rooftops. Recently, we've had discussions back and forth about, well, maybe we maybe we don't want to do the recreational. Maybe that's not the best spot for it. Anyway, uh negotiating back and forth with Mr. drumm. They would be willing to release that uh requirement to install a recreational amenity in the uh bottom of the detention pond in exchange for $500,000 payment. We would pay them that would settle all that litigation. It' be done and we would not have to spend probably more money to do a park in the bottom of the retention pond.

I think that's great. I'll make a motion that we accept that. I have a motion to do what, sir? Oh, this one's got a to put it where the put it on the consent agenda. Put it on the consent agenda. There you go. I think that's a great deal. I have a motion and a second. All in favor? Go on. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Yes. Opposed? Okay. Well, we didn't even give you a chance to say why. Do you not want it on consent? Well, we still talk about it on action instead. Yeah. I just um I'm trying to figure out is Well, I have some questions. Is this going to is this going to help us with the other projects with the armburst that we're trying to work on and and

so I so the the one that's still remaining is the trail right well that and the property property airport oh across from the airport he wanted to separate those two correct and he was okay with this as an agreement so this is one we've already talked through with him and he's still going to um contribute to the trail system and finish that connection And where's this money coming from? Remember that magic $4 million that went to 3.5? That's now what's at three. This money is included in your fiscal year budget for 2627. So can we approve this without having approved budget?

According to the terms of the of the uh settlement agreement, we have to make payment by the end of July. So if you approve it now, we'll put the paperwork through or I think it's July 15th. All right. I will change my vote to yes. Okay. So, on consent it goes. Yes. Okay. And then uh consider entering into a contract with Taurus for energy management services. Okay. So, this one's a little more complicated. Taurus has a a process that they've developed uh where they take power from the local power grid. They spin it through a um a machine that they developed, an inverter, whatever.

Yeah. And they charge batteries with it. uh they take the power at a low demand time where it's usually less expensive. They charge those batteries up and then it slowly discharges and it evens out the power flow to our facilities. Um it also provides us a limited amount of backup power uh in case Rocky Mountain system goes down for uh wildfires or for any other reason. Battery backup. The battery backup probably wouldn't last more than three, four hours, but it does buy us some time. Yes, sir. Is this inside the city? Taurus? Yeah.

Taurus is a company that uh was born and raised in Utah. They have they don't they they're not here. I think they're in uh the Wasatch Front somewhere. The mechanisms are outside of each building. So what so so what they would do is they would come to six of our facilities, wastewater treatment plant and a bunch of our wells out in quitup and they would install these pieces of equipment uh at a location that we help them figure out. Okay.

Rocky Mountain Power through their Watts smart program pays for the capital costs. Uh there over $3 million for all of these sites. We would then in turn pay Taurus to manage and operate the the their technology on our site uh through this 5-year agreement. They estimate that we would see a modest power savings somewhere between $630 and $1,200 over that 5year period. The benefit to us from the operation standpoint is it evens out that power flow. We don't get bumps. Uh so it makes it more reliable for us. Um and we do have that limited backup ability. The broader benefit is there's a benefit to the power grid uh globally around this area in in that we're taking power from the grid during the nighttime when there's a low demand and when there's high demand we're using less power.

Is that savings per month? No, that's that's estimated overall savings. So, it's going to save us a thousand bucks over five years. Yeah, it's pretty much a wash financially. It doesn't cost us anything. Helps the overall grid in general. Well, what does it cost us to pay Taurus for the I was talking to that's after the estimated savings is after we've paid Taurus their fee. Okay. Yeah, great. So, it wouldn't cost us anything for the capital Rocky Mountain Power pays that for the O andM on it over five years. We would estimate we save even if you go with the low estimate we save 600 bucks in our power bills and they do the on andm okay Councilman

uh two comment well one commented question I think it also would help us with the surges we have and our pumps at the water and stuff and correct parts breaking down and Matt having to spend $2,000 to fix something and if it helps even some of that out. But my question is, have we done any studies or do we have any information on what this does environmentally? I mean, do these batteries make noise? Do they create extra heat? I mean, just environmentally, are there any issues that we're not thinking through?

I'm not aware of environmental studies. Uh, noise issues I don't think would be a problem. The locations are going to be they're going to be at the wastewater treatment plant, which is isolated and there's not a lot of public involvement. They're going to be our quitup whale fields which are typically surrounded by 20 acres of of of cows grazing grass. So the noise issue I don't I don't think that's a problem. Extra heat I don't know. Okay. I just I had to ask I don't want us to be insensitive to that because all of this stuff together makes a difference. So

Okay. Waldo. So, I've got a a system in my home that um where I have a battery pack and I push more electricity to the grid than I use because of what I produce and what I store. Uh one of the issues I've had is that there are software reliability issues. uh these place these things uh have software and uh a little mini computer that monitor and track and do all of those kinds of things and uh I don't know how proven the system is. So that's

I think that's the idea behind them managing it for 5 years. We don't touch them. So they they're responsible to make it all work. Well, I I got the same thing. But when my my software goes off, I have to wait for somebody to come in. So, are we going to have somebody on site that will do that reliably and immediately? I I don't know if I can answer that question. I can ask that question, but I don't know if I can answer it tonight. Okay. It's like the only two things that make noise uh Scott are uh the inverters and then the batteries have to be cooled. Um, and they use just fans, normal fans. So, there's a little bit of noise, but it's nothing.

Okay. Okay. I'm Councilman. This does not replace it. The backup generator though, does it? No. No, no, no. Okay. We still have No, it just stores. Yeah. So, we'll still have those. And even when we so we have a project on that we're developing to re retrofit all of those wells out west to to get them to a horsepower where we could reasonably afford backup generators. These systems would still work with a a variable speed pump.

Okay. Okay. I'm assuming in this contract we're essentially I mean it comes with a full warranty on they if something happens to one of those batteries there's no expense that we could possibly incur. I guess could this go the other direction where we end up getting a bill somehow. So the expense that we could incur is if we at some point during the five years say we want out of the contract, we would then be responsible to either uh on a pr-rated basis pay back Rocky Mountain Power for the Watts smart portion uh and uh remove the equipment and send it back. But we can control that. We just stay in the contract for five years. Gotcha. Yeah. Okay. Mayor, I would move that we put that on consent. Then

have a motion. I second it and a second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Mayor, I would move that we adjourn this work meeting. There one other thing. So the schedule for the budget that's not on the calendar and I did we change for next Monday and Tuesday. The hours have changed, right? Or is it still 12 to what is it? 12 to 5 or 4? Yeah, it's 12:00 to 5 Tuesday. Still 12 to 5. Yes. Okay. I thought Sorry. Yeah. No, I I don't know where I missed it. That's not on my schedule. And I have some other appointments interspersed in there. Um Monday and Tuesday. Monday and Tuesday. Okay. Okay. But I'll do what I can. All right. I would move