Council Meetings - Regular Meeting

All right, it's 4:15 and I'm happy to announce that the ribbon is cut at the brand new residence in by Marriott off of Green Spring Drive. It looks wonderful. Thank you for everyone involved in uh in that process from start to finish. It's it's just another example of the the great momentum that we have here in the city and the the many positive things that are happening. And I I want to just express to you and and share with you many of the comments that I got back from the how appreciative the uh the ownership group is of working uh with the council and with the staff. That said, let's get the workshop meeting started. We've got three agenda items. Council. Um, I'll turn to you for a motion to approve as outlined.

Made a motion by Councilman Ivy, second by Councilman Coats. The first item on the agenda is detached accessory dwelling units. Community development director Elden Gibb will present to the council on this particular item. Mr. Gibb.

Thank you, Mayor. We've seen an uptake in uh submitts for detached accessory dwelling units. And just a month and a half ago, the housing action coalition had a conference that highlighted these uh particular submitts as well. I I have the feeling they're going to continue to increase. Um just wanted to present some possible changes to the code, kind of have a roundt discussion here, gauge your thoughts. Um Tara dropped those possible changes into the packet. You can follow along there if you'd like. Um, [clears throat] so maybe I'll just go through I won't read the whole code, um, but maybe just the items I'm proposing that that could be changed. So looking to the general standards in B or uh, excuse me, we'll start with the purpose and intent. Um, [clears throat] proposing that we pull out has no attached garage or carport attached to the unit. So, this this would allow garages um to be attached to the detached accessory dwelling unit.

Can I ask a question on that? Um I've seen some uh you know, like detached garages that have accessory, you know, like apartments above. Would that uh would that allow for that type of Yeah, you know, as long as they met the height requirements. Exactly right. I was going to touch on that. As long as they meet that height requirement, they they could do that.

Right on. And turning down to section B number two, uh it would read the proposed lot for a detached accessory dwelling unit shall contain an already existing single family dwelling unit and then proposing to scratch out the lot size requirement of 10,000 square ft. Is the idea behind that because they still have to meet setbacks regardless that part of it.

Correct. [clears throat] Yeah. Great questions. Number three, uh proposing to scratch the first portion there as it's addressed above. Uh and then it would read detached accessory dwelling units shall not exceed 1,000 total square ft. So just some wording clarification there, not not changing the square foot. Um, and then the accessory dwelling unit square footed added to all other existing or future structures will not cover more than 30% of the rear yard and or 50% of the sideyard area and that would match the modifying regulations for garages. Um,

well, Elden on on that like why are we limiting them to a,000 total square feet? like what if they have a large lot, they want a large accessory dwelling unit that goes with it. I just look at it and does that include the garage square footage because if we have an like a garage below an accessory dwelling above, would that just that's what came to my mind when I read it

about a year and a half ago. Um we hit this code and increased the square footage from 650 to a,000 square feet. Um, so that that's where council landed at that time was they felt comfortable with the thousand square feet. [clears throat] And then to your second question, um, it would be only for the the detached accessory dwelling unit would be the thousand square feet. So any attached garages or covered porches would not be calculated in that square foot. is only livable space cuz I'm in my mind thinking an upstairs would be the living space and potentially downstairs could be a garage.

So yes, livable space would be limited to a thousand square feet.

I don't want to steal Elden's thunder, but I think it's probably good, especially if people are trying to follow along. When when we added the ADU language years ago, the city was very restrictive. If you remember, we only allowed, was it 650 square feet? Um, it had to meet setbacks and we only allowed family members to live in them if you remember. And and so we took the standard as a city that we're going to be really restricted. Let's see how they go. And we've been really happy with what people have done. And so we over time we've been kind of loosening these up. And it helps affordability. If we can put somebody in an ADU that is on top of a garage or in someone's backyard, that seems to help affordability. But we can certainly go as far as the council wants to, but there's been this idea that let's just let's creep a little at a time as we go, but maybe we're comfortable enough now that that you know where you want to land.

I'm just asking the question because we're asking the next one is to go higher. That comes into a twotory effect more than a single story. And so that's why a thousand square feet. I know a lot of people that could build a garage a thousand square feet and so that's why I'm trying to ask clarifying questions on the limit what that thousand applies to because right now it's kind of it just says it shall not exceed a thousand. So is that garage space livable space? That's why I'm asking probably add it to say of of livable space if if everyone's comfortable with

I like the direction this is going. And um one time I worked on a detached uh accessory dwelling unit. Back then they didn't call it that but it was 1,200 square feet in Bloomington on one of those big lots. So I mean I wouldn't mind even if we up that from a thousand you know so I was just going to pipe in and say I wouldn't mind if it grew from that. I mean, again, you know, to Craig's point, as long as it meets setbacks, as long as it meets distance from the building, and and as long as it meets the square footage, and as long as it meets or the square footage of the overall backyard, as long as it meets the height, why do we care how big it is?

It's 30% of the rear yard, right? So, so does I don't care if it's 1500 or 2500. As long as they have the if they have the space on the yard and it's only 30% of the backyard, then it kind of covers it. Yeah, we're we're seeing some big big homes, right, on pretty big lots in certain places. So, yeah, you're right. [snorts] Made them do funny things like little breezeways and things to to silly finding ways to do it. So, why are we hurt hurting them? Okay, Elden, if we just strip the strip that line out.

I would like to find a a number if we could get a consensus. you know, if it be 1,200, 1500 foot, whatever the temperature is here. I I I would like to see a square footage requirement in there for livable. I think we should add the the word livable. We add livable. I think it changes it because a lot of people put garages with them. I

mean, if if we need to go with a number, I mean, I I wouldn't mind doing,000 square feet is kind of tough because it's only a twobedroom basically, you know. Um, I've seen like even out in Hurricane, I worked on a now a detached accessory dwelling unit that has a new house in front of it, but it was also 1,200, you know, three bed, two bath. So, I mean, I wouldn't [clears throat] mind, you know, seeing 1,200,500 if we need to put a number on it. So,

gone up from 640 650 to a,000 and I don't think we've seen any negative effects from that. And I think that the direction from the governor's office and from hack and a lot of others are that this the purpose of this is to try to find ways to alleviate housing and create more h housing for others. But what's interesting since June or since July this has been on the legislative policy agenda every month we are out front of this. We had it well in place before most of this the state has. And so I think we've kind of set this the standard in a lot of ways and I I certainly wouldn't be opposed to raising it to the 1,200 as well with the idea that maybe we could revisit it if it looks like that need to in the future but I don't see that creating any situation at all. Okay. Going to 15 and then just, you know, if for some reason somebody wanted to go over that, they could do a variance, right?

Because the ordinance has them from doing a variance. The ordinance requirements. Um, this last year, I I don't remember any that have wanted to go larger than a thousand. Um, just off the top of my head. I have to do a little more research. But because that was what our limit was, do you think? or was it just because that was what they would have intrinsically wanted? I think just just market demand. Typically these units smaller. There's some pretty big lots down there by the temple on the west side of town, southwest side of town. And

you could easily fit a 1,200 square foot unit, you know, in the backyard easily. Let's go with 1500 and move on. I mean, I think 500 square feet, I don't think it's going to affect one way or another. And they still have to meet the requirements of the the 30% and the setbacks and they can get that high, good for them if they want to, you know. Everybody feel good about that? I don't I don't have a problem with it. I don't I just I I don't want it to be cumbersome. If we set it at 12 and we find that we have we're coming back, we wanted to streamline it and to create a process that's easy to get to. So, I have no problem with going do 15, Elden, if that works for you. Sounds great. 1500 of livable space.

And we'll add the word livable in there and increase that to 1500 is is what I've gathered. Um, number four addresses the height. I'm uh proposing we scratch that and reward it with detached accessory dwelling units with a side rear setback of 3 feet. So it it used to be 5 feet proposing we go up to 3 feet which would match the garage requirement. Um and I'll get into that to a minute. So 3 feet shall be limited to a maximum height of 20 ft. At that 3ft mark they can go 20 foot tall and then additional height may be acquired by moving the building into the lot foot for foot. So if they come in four feet they can go up 21t to a maximum of 25 for the the dad unit. eight feet off the lot line if they were 25.

Correct. Like that. We're we're removing completely the idea that the the unit needs to be at or below the peak of the uh primary house. Correct. Yes. That is proposal to be scratched. Well, so if there's a 17 18 foot rambler, the the dwelling unit could be a little bit taller than the main residence. Yeah. But most houses have the ability to be up to 35 anyways. So, as long as that's still pretty low. You did a 25 foot, it's just a twotory.

Okay, great. Um, number five, detached accessory dwelling unit shall be located no closer than 3 ft on any side or rear property line. And then adding the line, corner lot shall maintain the required street frontage setback applicable to the zoning designation at the proposed location. just for clarification. That's all the proposed changes. I'm happy to discuss anything else.

And just one more thing that I'd like to to really uh discuss and talk about. I know that that in the past we've uh deed restricted for overnight rentals. Um has that changed or is that still the direction that you recommend the city go? I know that we had specific reasons for adding that previously, but they are going to still continue to be deed restricted to prohibit uh short-term over or vacation rental type uses. Is that your recommendation still even with the changes that we make today?

That that would be my recommendation. Yes, we we need housing applicants um not necessarily short-term rentals. you know, that's a great cause as well, but this is meant to provide some affordability to to the locals. How do we verify that that deed restriction took place? Um, it's through the building permit process. Uh, they upload that recorded document into the submittal plan. Verify it there.

Anything else on this item? That is it. I'll uh make make those changes and get it back here anyway if that's okay. It's really appreciated that you're proactive on this. I mean, that's really really great. So, appreciate you.

That is dependable. I'll just echo what Councilman Henderson said. You know, this is just following right in line too with what the state is asking us to do is to look for ways to move the needle and create housing and and and do that. So, kudos for me as well. And I've talked to residents who have already built a garage in the back that is the three foot distance and have talked about wanting to, you know, maybe change that and into an accessory dwelling or a detached dwelling unit. And so it'll give those that maybe want to have that, you know, flexibility to do so. So I feel like there's some good changes.

I can just make one more comment. our internal accessory dwelling unit. We have a lot requirement for 6,000 square feet. Would there be appetite to to get rid of that requirement so that if it fits within the house there, they would be allowed to do that? You know, Riverbend at Sunrise Valley um that builder SNS Homes had a product type that included an IDU. Their lots were not big enough. They didn't meet the 6,000 square foot. So he was forced in to amend the plat some of that limited common space to meet the 6,000 square just just to do the IADU. Six is pretty small already.

You're I'd have to see the product. I don't know. But I'm saying if you're a 6,000 foot already and you try to add an EU on top of that, it's Well, it's it'd be an an internal that's dwelling unit. So under the the main roof um yeah so like a one room bed bath mother-in-law kind of thing little studio studio is any problem with that? I I we we want to remove all the obstacles that might effort here and I don't I don't see a negative that the demand's out there question out there and see if there's appetite that' be good

to go well how I'm curious to see what the product looks like is all not saying you have the answer could could you bring that back to the council and show what that product might look like and just give some professional recommendation. Yeah, I could I could bring some previous examples. You know, it's it's whatever the fit within the setback. So, every product type's going to be different. Um, can I ask a question? Council Henderson, what would you be able to if you have a 6,000 foot lot, how many square foot comfortably fit a house onto that size lot?

I guess it would just depend on what the setbacks were. So if it was 20 on the front, eight and 10 on the sides, and what are we usually on the back, Elden? 20 10 10 ft 10 if you're lucky. What do you think the square footage would be? Just a shot, 1200

on a 6,000 foot lot. You could fit a pretty good size house like the ones that Sullivans are building down by Whammers. I mean, there's some probably 26 2,800 foot homes there that are twotory. So you could probably easily fit a little um ADU that was just like a a bedroom with a bathroom and a little mini kitchen. So the size lot is small, but it's really not restrictive for most of the average size houses that we have in our area that I guess the thing would be the parking and that's probably what counts when Yeah. But is that

is that where we're having the I mean that's usually seems where we have a problem if we get too many residents in one unit. I mean you say that but all of us have kids and all of a sudden Yeah. Too many cars too, right? Like I mean I have a big driveway so they can park in my driveway but some neighbors cars are starting to stack up now. We have bigger lots. And we require an additional parking stall for detached or internal. Okay. Yeah. Internal units are usually smaller for a college student or you know There's a lot of flexibility to have that interior accessory dwelling unit to build it into the the truss and into the plan. It's it seems like it'd be very convenient for a up and cominging generation or an older generation to live with.

Well, some of the problem is that extra parking on that 6,000 square foot because all of a sudden you need three and it's your whole frontage because usually the the width of those lots are a lot smaller is usually what happens. So, do you go depth on that on that because because it requires a third on an interior stack it? Yeah. The the recent plans I've seen, they've had a threecar garage. Um, so that that fulfills the parking requirement for the additional unit. They they are smaller lots. Um, but the builder's able to to make it work. Okay. Could do it 36 ft as a threecar garage. So,

council, do you want that to come back further discussion on the interior back anyways at some point, right? For a change. So, I'm I personally don't want it to hold this up. Yeah, for sure. Moving forward. But if we wanted to look at as a separate thing if you want to bring back hard time envisioning it too, right? And I thing or two. So, I can't I just can't figure it in my head. So, if you want to bring that back separately, I I agree with the council. I do have a quick question, though. If I can get one last one there. Um, the three-foot rule on the property line is for fire code.

Well, I guess you go to zero foot, but you know, there's a five foot rule for fire code and then what is it? Three foot be between the the structures. Is that do we got do we need to put that in the uh reference at all or the ordinance at all that you know must meet applicable codes? Do fail safe in there or what? There's a line item in here uh that must meet all uh I missed it then so I apologize.

A construction of all accessory dwelling units shall meet all applicable building codes adopted by the city. You're fine. Good discussion, good topic. Elden, you have your marching orders. And we'll watch for uh when you're ready on that interior accessory dwelling unit, just let me know. We'll put it on the on a future workshop agenda, but we're ready to go on the exterior. uh council with with your blessing. Um we are in full Hanukkah season and my dear friend Rabbi Mandy Cohen of the Shabbat Jewish Center of Southern Utah is here and so I'd like to just give him a a few minutes to to speak to the council and and give you an update on the holiday and on some of the celebrations. Um Rabbi,

hi everyone. So, as you know, the holiday of Kaneka is coming up next week, starting Sunday to Monday, eight days. It's a very special time. Just a little quick thing about the holiday. The holiday commemorates a time about 2,000 years ago that the Jewish people were oppressed. A small group of Jewish people were able to fight. They went over the oppression. They came back in the temple and they wanted to light the monura in the temple and there was no more oil. Miraculously, a monora the oil for eight days straight. And uh we commemorate that today not only about the war that happened many years ago. It's also about the idea of freedom of religion, freedom of of practicing what your faith is without any fear of anybody telling you not to. And because of this, we want to go out in the streets and have public norightings celebrating together as a community, whether you're Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or any other religion. um just come together as one big happy family to celebrate. We're going to have two celebrations. One in Cedar City, which is this Sunday, December 14 at 4:30 No. And then the next Sunday, December 21st, it's going to be over here in St. George. Well, not here, but St. George. And and that's going to be in Vernon War at 4:30 as well. We're going to have the honor to have the the mayor like Nora with us. So, I'd like to encourage everybody to please join us, the community council, and everybody as well. and um celebrate together and show love for one another.

Thank you, Rabbi. Any questions? I mean, it's we we're really feel um sure privileged to have you with us tonight. And I know how busy our schedule is, so thank you for making time to come and speak to us at the at the workshop session. Any any thoughts or feedback for the rabbi? Any questions? Thump the rabbi. Thank you for being here. And that's on the 21st at 4:30, Sunday the 21st. Awesome. I I would just say I've been a couple of times. cuz I know the mayor's been and it's a it's a really cool celebration and there were there were refreshments. There were snacks. Oh yeah, I forgot you undersold the snacks. There's something there's donuts for the holiday tradition. Um there's also lotas which is like potato pancakes. There's chocolate coins. Um hot drinks, whatever. Really cool way to to

entertainment for the kids as a community. Um lots of fun. Have you ever thought about doing in the better city in Veterans Park here? Okay, let's do it. [clears throat] [laughter] Yeah. Which park? Okay. We could consider that. Sure. Right next to our building. Go check it out. Oh, yeah. Okay. We would love it. We We've got a really nice pavilion here with some steps and a really big grassy area. We would be honored if if you ever chose to either uh replace one of those or add an additional event. Additional. Okay.

And we we would be honored to uh to have a a Manura lighting and celebration with you. Like I say, we we really we really enjoy and and continue to support our Jewish community. Thank you. Okay. And maybe maybe we could also um put up because we have those big minor 12 minor and 9 foot minoras. We could also pull one up somewhere throughout the city. We would love that. Absolutely. Absolutely. Councilman Henderson, what else did you have? Oh, all right. [laughter] There you go. Tell them to bring their dancing shoes. There you go. And we're gonna have dancing drreidles as well. Big Dreal costume dancing. So, make sure you get a little workout.

Well, we show we we so appreciate you, Rabbi, and all that you do for this community. And thank you. Like I say, I we know how busy this time of year is for you and everything. So, for you to make time to be here, it just means a lot to us. Thank you. And [clears throat] and I and many of us will see you on the on the 21st. Good. Looking forward. Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you. Bye-bye.

The next item on our agenda is not as exciting as that one, but is very necessary. Right, Blake? This is a pavement assessment update. What an intro. Public works director Blake Fonsbeck and and friends FS. It sounds like a b a boy band. Fans Beck and Friends. Yeah. Yeah. We started it up, but it didn't couldn't fly. [clears throat] Um Yeah. I'm kind of offended here. I think we [laughter] You love pavement.

Oh, you bet. You bet. Um so this is uh we brought Jub. Um they're going to, as we told you in the October 22nd council meeting or the workshop, we talked about our pavement and where we were. And then we said we'd done a or they had completed a pavement assessment. So they're going to go over that um kind of go over some how how pavement works and everything and then then we're going to talk about the the big elephant in the room is well how do we maintain it and how do we pay for that? So they're going to come up with some options there. We don't tonight are not really looking at final numbers. We're just trying to introduce some different ways that cities pay for this.

Okay. So, um, I'll bring, uh, Travis Marston up and then, uh, might as well bring Ken up as well so he can start plugging his computer in. So, okay, let's do this. All right. Welcome, gentlemen.

Good evening. So, I was unable to attend the October meeting when Blake introduced JUB. So, I am Travis Martin. I'm a transportation program manager in our St. George's office, um, and a proud resident of Washington City. So, I am excited to be a part of this study. Um, it's great to be involved in projects that, uh, you know, you drive on, you you help pay for, you know, on a regular basis. [clears throat] And so, Ken is an integral part of our transportation team. He's been involved in numerous, uh, pavement condition assessments in other communities in northern Utah. So, I'm going to turn it over to him because he's the guy with all the info, the data, and the answers. So, let's do it.

No pressure. No pressure. All right. [clears throat] All right. Thank you very much. Happy to be here with you tonight. Going to talk about talk about pavement and how how it ages and what we do about that with the treatments that we choose to apply and then how that how that relates to the way that we pay for that pavement and what it costs to maintain it over time. And then finally, we'll end on what different cities across Utah are doing to pay for their pavement. So hopefully we'll give you some good information and you guys will go home and spend the holidays talking about pavement. It'll be great.

At least driving on it. Yes, you should be driving at a minimum. It's good for it. Keep it going. You might look at the conditions a little bit different as you're driving after this, too.

Oh yeah. In fact, my wife after years of living with an engineer, she makes comments about pavement and I just smile in pride. So, uh, pavement is a lot more than just the black surface that we see when we drive on it every day. And just to keep it really simple, underneath that pavement, that asphalt, there are engineered layers that are designed to support the asphalt because the asphalt's actually a flexible material. And that pavement foundation is integral to the structure of pavement that we use every day. And so part of the purpose of the asphalt is that it protects that foundation from damage. And the more that we protect the foundation, the longer the pavement will last over time. So I want you to remember that as we move forward. So here is here's an animation demonstrating what happens with pavement as it ages. So pavement starts to age and it gets brittle. As it gets brittle, cracks begin to form. Those cracks will expand through the asphalt. And once they do, it allows water to penetrate the asphalt down into those foundational layers. And when it does, they get saturated. It changes the makeup of the foundation and weakens it. And what happens as a result is we see more cracking on the asphalt. And then eventually we'll see potholes. We'll see depressions and we see an impact to our daily drive. So keep this picture in your mind as we [clears throat] move forward and I'm sure you can you can think of your favorite road when you see this. So in the engineering world, we refer to the damage that's observable on p on the surface of pavement as distress. And so we're going to go really quickly through a few examples of the types of distresses that we look at when we evaluate the condition of pavement. So early on in the life of pavement,

we'll get these these cracks that appear on the surface of the pavement. Uh if they're going across the road, we call that transverse cracking. If they're going along the road, that's longitudinal cracking. It's not the important part, but the the key to remember here is these types of cracks, they they occur because of weathering and age, and they tend to occur from the top down. Uh, another thing that you'll see a lot is damage on the pavement that is actually caused by work that we have to do. Utility cuts are a big issue with pavement, especially for new pavement. Uh, studies have shown that cutting new pavement can actually reduce the total lifespan of that pavement by almost half. So, the more we can keep from cutting our pavement, the better off we'll be. And then this type of cracking, fatigue cracking or alligator cracking. We call it that because it looks like the skin of an alligator. This is actually cracking that occurs from the bottom of the asphalt layer up. And this happens when that base foundation under the asphalt has been weakened and we begin to see this type of damage. And so that's what it indicates.

What would it cause? What would cause it to weaken underneath? So this would be when we have the fine cracks that have appeared and that has allowed water to get down under the asphalt and that has weakened the the foundation bottom of the water. So once that's weakened it allows it to flex and then you get these cracks coming from the bottom up. So potholes are a result of these other these other distresses. Okay. So stop. This looks like a picture from St. George, but I'm kidding. This is a picture from someone I know very well. I'm kidding. No, you're not. I just [laughter]

I'm kidding. For any of our neighbors and friends over there, so potholes tend to start appearing once we have had other cracks that that have formed. Uh ruting is something else that we look at. This is where you'll see depressions. Uh, 10 points to anybody that guesses where this is, but country. So, these pictures are actually all from Washington. Actually, Ken, I'm going to have to ask you to leave on that one. You you you know that you know you you could have just let me keep the one dig, right? Get [clears throat] pictures of St. George next time.

Next time. Okay, I'll make note. So, uh, ruting is where we see depressions in the wheel paths of the asphalt. This can occur for many reasons. Where where is is that Walmart? Yep. When are we fixing that, by the way? I just had that question come up again and I'm on the radio in the morning and so not the city's responsibility. Okay. Thank you. They're probably getting a lot of heavy vehicles that come through here. That combined with the mix of the asphalt can result in rudding like you're seeing here.

And then weathering in general causes different changes to the surface of the asphalt. And we have different names for them. Ravelling is one of them that you'll see a lot. It's where the aggregate on the surface of the asphalt has eroded away and you you see rough asphalt. How about frost cleaving? Do we have a problem with that down here? You should not have a problem with frost heaving down in St. George. They But what about Washington? Not in Washington either. We don't have that problem. Okay. I didn't think it was cold up here, but that's good.

No, no. Up north, we definitely deal with it. So, back in January, we had vehicles. We partnered with a company called IMS to bring their vehicles out and measure all of these distresses that we just talked about across all the pavement in Washington. And that allowed us to take those distresses, the types of distresses, how much of that distress is there, and for every single block of road, come up with a number called a PCI, which stands for pavement condition index, and that tells us the condition of the road. Think of it like a like a score, right? In school, if you get get an 80 or 90, you're doing pretty good. If you're down in the 40s, not so great. So from here on out, we're going to use these categories. You can see the colors. We'll use those colors and we'll use the category names to refer to the different different categories of payment condition. So now these are Washington city examples. Um a good pavement looks like this as an example. You'll see some fine cracking but overall very very very good pavement satisfactory you'll see a little bit more but still very serviceable PCI of 70 this is typically used in industry as a very good benchmark for kind of above 70 is a maintainable good condition road and once it starts getting much below 70 then we start seeing more distress that causes the need for intervent intervention and maintenance fair pavement 56. You see that's the yellows. And then poor pavement. This is where you start to get those phone calls at city hall about the roads. And then very poor pavement, seeing more cracking. You'll start to see more

impact that you'll notice when you're driving on the road. And then serious pavement. This is the second to the lowest category, but I want to point out a difference between these two. You'll notice the color of this pavement is kind of gray.

And this one looks blacker. This is actually a worse condition pavement than the other one. So color color of pavement actually is not something that we rate when we look at pavement condition because we care mostly about what does it say about what's underneath it. And then failed pavement, the lowest category. This is where we have a lot of potholes. We spend a lot of money sending crews out to patch those potholes, try to maintain the safety of the road. So, the results of the 2025 pavement condition survey in Washington showed that we have lots and lots of really good condition roads. Uh 71% of your roads are in a good or satisfactory category. This is both a really good thing and kind of something to plan for in the future. pavement deteriorates in a relatively predictable fashion. This curve represents how the PCI value declines over time. And you can see this goes out 40 years. There's some different curves out there. I won't bore you with that. But needless to say, this curve actually repres is representative of data that we've collected and analyzed here in the state of Utah. So roads in good and satisfactory condition, pavement will tend to stay there for about 14 years without us doing anything to it. But if we don't do anything to it, it'll stay in for in fair or and poor condition for about eight years. So, if we have 71% of roads in Washington City that are in that 14-year period, you can think back to Blake's presentation back in October that in the past 15 years, Washington City has had a massive boom in the building of roads.

So, this is where you're seeing it. So, what do we do to keep pavement in good a good and serviceable condition over time? Well, one option is we reconstruct the road. And you could do this about every 20 to 30 years. And if you did that, if we take a standard typical residential street, an annual average, that cost you about $46,000 per mile per year to just reconstruct them every 20 to 30 years. We'll just save up. We'll do it then.

20, 30 years, no problem. We can also go and remove a surface layer of asphalt and then put new asphalt down to give it a new surface. And not only does is this nice for drivers, but this also serves to take and seal up any of those fine cracks. And if they're top down cracks, we can remove them entirely. And this isn't as good as a brand new full reconstruction, but it does add a lot of life to the pavement for significantly less cost. In fact, if instead of reconstructing every 20 to 30 years, you intersperse a couple mill and overlay projects in between, you can actually reduce the average annual cost by about 26%. So even though you've got three treatments here instead of two over the same time period, this is the cheaper option. Lastly, when we have those good and satisfactory roads, which you have a lot of, we can use surface treatments such as seal coat and we can go and seal up the cracks to prevent that water from getting down into the base. And that allows us to extend the life of the pavement significantly. In fact, we can get 10 to 15 years onto the total life of the pavement by doing these on recommended intervals. Can I ask what's uh industry standard recommended interval every five

depending on the exact treatment and the condition of the road every every 5 to 10 years is a good guideline. So if we mix all of that and we apply seal coats at recommended intervals, we do mill and overlay where we can and delay the time until we do full reconstruction, you're looking at a nearly 40% reduction in your annual cost to maintaining the pavement and your pavement stays in very good condition for much longer. and applying all those seal coats to that 71% of roads on those recommended intervals, you can nearly double the amount of time that those roads stay in either the good or satisfactory condition category. So instead of 14 years, you could get 25 to 30 years. So this this is where we're looking because Blake indicated that over the last year there have been some projects that have done a lot of good for the road sphere. But it took a couple years saving up funds to be able to do those projects. And while while you're saving up those funds, a lot of these inexpensive surface treatments, which cost significantly less than the than the the rehabilitation projects, go undone and we can miss out on that life extension that we get for a very affordable price. So, moving on to how how cities are funding these programs to be able to maintain the roads this way. And I do want to note that this is what your public works staff are trying to do for the roads in Washington. They want they are trying and doing their very best to make the best use of the funds and to follow this

preservation prioritized management. BNC road funds come from the state. They're primarily primarily sourced from the state gas tax and allocated to the city based on population and based on how many miles of road that you have that qualify for the funding. They are pretty much always insufficient to meet the needs of any of these maintenance plans. The dependence on gas tax looking into the future is a liability because we increasingly have more fuel efficient cars. We increasingly have more EVs on the road and so people are spending less on gas.

Have they figured out a way to capture some of the BNC road funds from electric vehicles? So, do you know anything on that, Councilman? So, I just renewed my registration and it was like [clears throat] triple the cost of a normal registration renewal because of that. So, but I'm not sure that's going to BNC road calculations and ending up I don't know that that is it does cost us triple, but I don't know that. My understanding is that's why they're extra getting pushed all the way down

pay for the gas taxes and so they figure that's the offset and and so they they hit us for it. I just don't know if it I don't know if it trickles all the way down to cities or if it stays at a state level because the state's also taking the bulk of the gas tax. You know, I just hope it trickles. I know there's legislation a couple of years ago that addressed this directly, trying to get the EVs to pay their fair share of the roads.

States across the country are working on solutions for this. Um, without going into details, there's solutions ranging from registr specific registration fees to all the way to go doing away with gas tax nearly entirely and going to a paybymile registration fee. So the the population pressures that cities like Washington are seeing are difficult to capture under BNC road funds as well because you're getting a lot of increased traffic which increases the wear and tear on [snorts] your roads and that's not really doesn't really come through in the way that the formulas calculate how much money is allocated with these BNC road funds. So the BNC road funds as of right now, our understanding is they're going to they're going to continue on. The state's accumulating funds that are distributed down, but there's there is a deficit that cities are needing to make up because the BNC road funds just aren't enough. One way that is very common to do that is through bonds. And there's there's a lot of benefits to bonds. you get immediate access to the capital and if you have a high influx of projects that just really need to be done, it can help you with those rehabilitation booms that happen. But the downside being they they they do increase the pay how much you're paying on it. You have to worry about interest. you have now have a long-term debt obligation and that obligation has the tendency to take and use up your BNC road funds in the future to pay the debt servicing instead of going towards those preventative payment treatments that we need to be doing on a regular basis before we lose out. We call this the bond cycle.

Uh this was talked about extensively by Provo about 10 10 15 years ago and it's a difficult cycle to break out of because once you get on it you end up with deferred maintenance from servicing the debt and then that accelerates deterioration leading to higher costs and poor conditions leading to the demand for another bond and so it goes around. So the question that has come across to many cities is how do we break out of this cycle? And one of the one of the best solutions that's come is the util is the transportation utility fee commonly referred to as a tough and this has a lot of a lot of benefits. So the first is this is not an immediate one-time influx of of cash into the capital for roads. This is an ongoing stream of funds to fund the ongoing maintenance of those roads in a more stable manner than bonding would allow. It also distributes the costs unlike the gas tax away from or away sorry unlike property taxes away from that but actually to the roadway usage which is why it's called a utility fee and this is this is how it qualifies as a utility fee in Utah state. So we bill for water utilities or sewer service based on usage. Well, roads are used as well and they're used at different different rates by residences, by different types of business. And to represent that, typically what we do is we is we estimate the trips generated by each land use based on it, which is the transportation institute based on their trip generation rates

based on studies for these different different types of properties. So this allow this allows the transportation utility fee to scale based on how much that and a an occument someone someone or entity who's paying a utility bill contributes to the use of the roads and these funds are earmarked would be earmarked for transportation use and they this has been successful in many cities and ones at the top top of mind include Pleasant Grove, Probo, South Salt Lake, Far West and your neighbor Santa Clara has had a transportation utility fee for many years. So, just to wrap up there in Washington City, you have a large amount of new pavement and preservation of that pavement is is critical to allow you to have time to address it the way that it needs to needs to occur to save money in the long run. The BNC road funds are great, but they're insufficient to cover the total costs needed. And bonds have their upsides and downsides, but a transportation utility fee can help break the bond cycle. So, looking at next steps, we're going to look at determining the trip generation. So the estimated vehicle trips for properties in Washington city so that we can estimate the fee that would be that would result from funding these this pavement program. I

think one one important thing to recognize is that we wanted to to look at two things by having JB come do this. Number one, the condition of our roads and and what our deficit is. And then the second thing is how do we pay for it? And again, we we're not in the bond cycle right now because we haven't we haven't gone down that road yet. But that's that's probably the next step that cities take is they start taking out debt to do these projects because they don't have the BNC road tax, but then they have to pay it back with next year's BNC road tax and for the next 10 or 20 years, however long they they take the bonds. Or we'll look at a transportation utility fee as a way to do it to to help our roads. I think that's that's the concept is where are we and I and I think coming out of this our roads look look pretty good but we have this sort of road Armageddon that's coming right all these all these brand new roads from all this growth are going to get old and they are going to have to be made

do you have maps that show the conditions of what the you know of the different Yeah how looking of the roads I don't have them immediately accessible in front of me but but we do and we do have uh have a draft report that we that's being that'll be prepared and when it's ready it'll be distributed that has complete maps as well as data that's available to public works online through their pavement management system has all because we've already been doing a lot of the those sales like slurry sales on a lot of our roads right Andy should we have you talk about that just kidding I know how much you love to talk Andy

we get to talk about these things in active transportation and so I get to hear from him. Right. Yeah. We we've been doing slurries for 15ish years as far as I can remember. And we we started out trying to do a treatment on every road every 5 years. Now we're 7 to 10 because we just can't keep up with the five years. And so the roads are getting worse and worse. Now slurry cells might might not be the right treatment because we're behind on everything now. So, so how many how many of those do you feel like you do a a year or you just try to target certain areas?

Well, I I try to So, our maintenance money is around a million dollars and I try to to tailor a project to fit with the money. So, it's not necess I I go try to find the best roads for for the best use of the money. So, it's not really just every single road. I mean, Councilman Coat knows we haven't been in his neighborhood because his roads are good. So it gets pawned off to the next year instead of getting done this time. I I do a a road that's more pressing. And so his neighborhood hasn't been done for since he's lived there. I've lived there nine years. It's it's about time. But [clears throat] but it keeps getting pushed off because there's other needs in our city. Yeah.

And and so that that's what I do. I take we have a Dell has built me a map on Cardigraph where all the roads that come up that haven't had a treatment done in five years, six years or seven plus years and so all that populates on my map and then I drive the neighborhoods and then try to tailor a project to fit best with that map. How much does it cost to buy our own slurry equipment?

Uh I don't know. It it'd be a lot. They're probably $400,000 trucks and we require a slurry contractor to lay 37,000 yards a day. That's that's in our contract. So it it doesn't drag out over 6 months because usually a normal project for us is half a million square yards, which is 4.5 million square feet roughly. I think St. George has their own trucks, don't they? They do they do a lot of chips on their own. I'm just wondering if it would make sense over a long period of time to buy our own equipment and rather than farming it out if that would I don't know

then we have to hire people to do it and because they can't our crews are so busy how do we they barely keep up with the stuff they're fixing. It's [clears throat] It's really specialized equipment. Like the guys that do that's all they do is slurry. The slurry guys, that's all they do is slurry. Is the company that we contract with out of Vegas? Yeah, there's a company out of Vegas, a couple out of Salt Lake, and now there's a local company out of Hurricane. No,

saying it's something to check into cuz I mean if you bought the equipment, hired three extra guys over a long period of time, you guys already have dump trucks and stuff. I'm sure a lot of them are just sitting up there. Maybe over a long period of time it could be cost effective. I don't know. Yeah. So that a slurry truck's not a not a dump truck. So it hauls the aggregate plus water plus oil plus cement and it mixes it on the truck, dumps it out the back into a into a screed that screeds it on the road. Yeah. So it's a specialized truck. Like if you bought a slurry truck, that's all it would do. It you couldn't it would

I'm just saying to haul the pearl to whatever site you're working off of, you've already got that can do that. Yeah. So anyway, just something we can look at. There's probably a size there where it makes sense. And I think we're getting big enough that maybe it would we're feeling big, but either way we do it, we have to we're going to have to look at how we fund it, right? But you're right. If if we could do it inhouse and it made sense, I think we've we've moved different things in house at times. So, how would we move that forward? Who would who would do that study for us or that bring that information forward?

We're we're certainly able to look at it. We'll take a look at it and and look at the amount that we do and and what that cost and how long those trucks last and the employees we'd have to do. So, we'll we'll look at it with this budget cycle. But I think the critical thing is we can't do that without funding. You know, somehow

it reminds me of a very simple saying, but you know, what you own you're responsible for. You know, we we these are deed roads and we're responsible for them. So it's and it's hard because we have so many you have the BNC road funds from the state aren't quite covering the need. We have so many you know needs on the general fund. How and how much how much can you can you allocate over there? So it it makes it tough because you have you recognize that in the long term this is definitely you know staying on top of asphalt pavement maintenance is the right thing to do but in the in the short run it's easy to say oh this feels more pressing but then you just kind of kick the can down the down the proverbial road

right it's tough and I don't I don't think we're asking you to make any decisions we're just trying to get that no but the the conceptually that's That's the concept. We're trying to get the concept. And then the next the next presentation, and tell me if I'm wrong, is is the actual financial presentation, which is here here's how much per year you would need to be able to keep the keep the pavement up, right? Yes. And here's the gap. And so if you do a transportation utility fee and you start it small, we our gap may not be huge right now. we can fill that gap where it's not an overwhelming thing for anybody, but the longer we wait, maybe that gap starts to widen and widen because we're not we're not keeping up with the the maintenance.

Yes. That's the next presentation, right? Yes, that's correct.

And it'd be good to know whether that money that you guys are be like that you're talking about is coming into that the fund, you know, the fund to help with the roads, too. Like that would be another answer because it's like it's nice to have the people that are using the roads be taxed for it rather than, you know, adding a tax to someone because essentially it's another tax that we'd be taxing everybody on their utility bill. Many of whom maybe don't even use the roads because they don't have a vehicle or don't have transportation or because their home their home. Like there's older people that don't drive or have vehicles anymore. And so you'd be adding another, you know, bill to their limited income that they have. So,

I mean, it'd be good to have more answers.

It's also a good thing to think about is, you know, I mean, our neighbor to the west, they they have a lot more commercial than us, right? And we're starting to get some more commercial, which is going to help with that cuz I was having a conversation with someone and they're like, "What do you guys use?" I'm like, "Well, we use what we have." But they're like like, "We don't have the commercial you guys have and that makes it easier for you guys to do roads." Now, I'm sure they don't have enough money either because no I don't think any city has enough money to maintain their roads to the level we would all love, but we do the best what we can and we have some of the best roads in the country. And I've been to a lot of places that have really bad roads, and we try to maintain them. And our weather here helps it so it doesn't get as beat up as some of the winter uh cities that I work in and stuff. But I think it's important that we get a plan, right? I mean, look how far we I'm glad we were able to do something on Landfill Road and we able to work with a a group that we all chipped in and got it fixed for but it again it was a band-aid, right? It wasn't a full reconstruction and that one could have used a full reconstruction, but we did a band-aid to get us through the next 10 years and I think it's going to hold up well. I'm excited for it. But we're going to start working on a plan for that with the landfill to try to get so that money is saved now so that we don't get into this bond cycle and that in the next 10 years when we have to reconstruct the entire road, we have the money ready between the city and the landfill and the county and get that road totally rebuilt. So, we're we're trying to work on that plan now. I think this is a good plan. However, we decide to fund it. And if we don't decide to fund it, then that's then that's us not planning. And I think we have to plan it somehow. And if we don't do it this way, I'm open to ideas. Let's find another way too, you know, and maybe it is some a little bit of commercial that growth, which we're getting, and a little bit of this that kind of helps.

Yeah, that's the good news, right? We have in the next 10 years a lot of good commercial that will be

Mayor can I uh to Councilman Henderson's point I think it'd be valuable to break it down in terms that we understand like if we could get obviously if we're giving out bids we know how much that cost is per mile in the city for the slurry code or the seal whatever those break down and what it would look like financial breakdown what it would cost the city per mile if we were to invest in a machine and try to try to have employees and do it ourselves. I think that we need to have those numbers so that we if there is dis further discussion to move forward with that. I think that we need that to be considered because it's a viable it's a viable question.

Do do we know does St. George do they also contract out the some of this crackill and slurry sill that they do and then they just have their machine for projects that they want to take inhouse. So, they're not they're not doing everything in-house, but they have the ability to do some things in house. Maybe Andy could speak to that because I I I watch these crews come up and there's a time of year and it's kind of all hands- on deck and I see what they're doing with those projects, but then I've seen like in St. George, they did uh you know, Riverside Drive, you know, relatively recently and it seemed like that might have been an in-house because you saw the big piles of pearl and their own crews out there. But

yeah, so St. George will bid out their crack sealing and their slurry seals and they do chip seills in house. Okay. So, so they have So, it's a a little bit of a hybrid. Yeah. So, the chip seals where they spray the oil and then they lay the chip on the top where and is that what they did on Riverside recently? Yeah, they did that we did that on Telegraph and the field road and the downro. Yeah, we've done those too, but but we haven't done those in house. No, we don't we don't have the equipment to do that or the manpower right now either. We did have we did have the county came and chip for us one time and [clears throat] we paid their just their wages for that project, but the county won't do that anymore. Yeah.

Did you say the budgeted maintenance is a million? Did you? Yeah, it's a million. How long's it been that number? Uh for So when Bronson was the road manager. So I don't know how long ago that 10 years ago. Yeah, Councilman D. eight years. And that's still that's still more than the BNC run road funds that we collect. That's that's with the city pitching in [clears throat] quite a bit more of our general fund. And where does that is general fund money, right? Fund. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Do you know do you know how much of it is the BNC funds? Check. I can check get an answer for you. Thank you. Now, you [clears throat] made the comment that that we own and we have to maintain. Yeah. Same goes for the equipment,

right? I've always found subcontracting uh things is a is [clears throat] a lot cheaper over time than actually owning the equipment, trying to maintain the equipment, whatever, because those guys when it is a specialized type of a subcontractor, they're just able to do it that much more efficiently, right? So, um I I'd be a little worried about getting too deep down the road of let's start our own road cruise just because I think it can it can turn into quite the beast. I might be able to give you some information that aids in the discussion that the the cost difference if you if you look here and these are these are current estimates on the seal coats. You're anywhere from 16 to 40 cents per square foot for a se, you know, any type of seal coat. And they'll range in here. A mill overlay. I go back here is $2 to 350 a square foot by comparison. And I bring this up because right now the yellow portion of the pie that you see here and the orange portion, these are the poor and fair roads currently. And these are the roads that the eligible treatment is no longer seal coat and crack seal. It is mill and overlay.

The 21% the fair. Yes. So that is 21% of roads that you don't want to do it right away. You want to let it let it come down and live its life until it's time to do that overlay. But those are ones that are coming due. And the light green roads, the 38%, they're going they're headed towards the yellow category. Get on the maintenance. And we love doing seal coats, but we can unfortunately only do them so many times. and the pavement does still deteriorate with it, it slows it down is what we're doing. So extending the life,

we're extending the life. And while we can take and double the amount of time that it stays in that good and satisfactory condition, it eventually will turn yellow and it eventually will turn orange. And we eventually have to go in and and do a mill and overlay, which if we're not prepared financially to take on that cost, then then we have a problem. I really appreciate um Ken and and Travis and your group. Um it's been [clears throat] really good information. Blake, I appreciate that you're uh presenting it to to us in small bites, helping us to kind of wrap our heads around it. It's hard to drink from a fire hydrant. It it's it's a lot and and it's understand how it works and then you'll you know I think we have that great nice dark green and light green 71%. But it's because we've grown so fast so we've we've created over the last 10 years um almost doubled our our uh mileage in the city. And so it's kind of skewed. It looks like that like, oh, we're doing we've got that because we're just doing such a great job of maintaining the

train running down the track and the tracks running out. We're running out of track. Yeah. Yeah. We're we're kind of building out there and we've got to catch [clears throat] up with that. So, and we'll come back in January and uh with that with the financial side of it. Final thoughts, council, there temperature requirements for seal coating. Does it have to be over 70° or 60° or something like with asphalt? I believe there is but Mandy can I think it's 55 isn't it for sil coat 55 55 and rising and we generally do ours in the spring um St. George does theirs in the fall. So these companies kind of

start with us and then go up north and do everything and then [clears throat] kind of end back here. That way they get a longer season. But they're

um I and I would just add in the experience I've had in other cities, we've kind of gone both ways where we've either contracted or we've done it with our own crews. Um, generally the problem with doing it with your own crews is when you contract you have a bid and you have them competing and so you get a better price than if you're doing it yourself then it you don't you can't adjust the prices. You don't you know some years when contractors are desperate they'll kind of buy a job things like that. You don't get that when you're when you're doing your own cruise. You also, as uh Councilman Bellson said, you're always trying to maintain that equipment and keep it keep it up. Um, and then you've got staffing. So, if you end up with those three or four people and then two of them leave that have the experience, then you're you kind of you're having to deal with that. So, so there's that aspect of it as well. But we can certainly put together a report on all of those, you know, comparing the two and we'll we'll do that with our next when we do our presentation in January.

Feel good about that? Feel good about that. So Blake, when you do that, maybe put in some thought into the life of a vehicle like that and how long it would take to pay off that equipment. Yes. Fitting it out. Overhead. Overhead costs. Yeah, definitely. We just need to know what we don't know. Yeah, sounds good. Okay. All right.

Mayor, can I clarify one thing? So, I mentioned earlier a bill um that amended uh tax for EVs. That was in 23. It was HB301. And it changed it modified the way some of that money is is taken from road tax, electric, that kind of thing. But, um it's put in the transportation fund at the state and it's not given to the cities. If that's something that we wanted to look into, we could certainly talk about it and see if there's I don't know if that's even a possibility, but it does not come back to the municipality. Well, this is quite literally where the rubber meets the road and we are meeting with our legisl legislators. Jordan, when did you schedule that? 8 a.m.

boardroom. Okay. And Tara will get that on our calendar along with the Hanukkah celebration. Okay. Awesome. Thank you gentlemen. Really appreciate it. Um the last item before we adjourn the work session is a TDS and PEG channel commitment. Uh Councilman Bellison has served on the CEC TV uh committee and brought some uh some uh developments to my attention and I think he's invited Sean Deon to be here as well. Councilman Bellison. Sean kick this one off.

Sean if you don't mind coming up while while he's walking up. Uh CEC is no longer everybody is aware of that. Um in fact, thank you for the check. You guys made the check out to me, but I'll sign it over to the city. Enjoy Christmas. Um but to that end, the franchise agreements and Sean can explain it a lot better. The the franchise [clears throat] Councilman Coat wants that committee now. It's it's it's not too bad. I mean, Yeah, there you go. [laughter]

Um, anyway, long and short is that uh the franchise agreement with TDS requires them to continue some payments back. And Sean, if you can just take it from there. Yeah. So every uh uh municipality that the cable company has an agreement with the franchise agreement the ones that you guys have and all the other municipalities uh with CEC the two parts is a PEG channel the public education government channel also known as a public access channel is built into that and for the last 30 plus years the $1 per video subscriber from TDS. Now that money which you got there uh has been going it's moved down. Good luck getting it back

and thanks for hanging in there with us. You know, we probably should have put you at the first, but you know,

it's fine. It's good. I'm just missing the Ivan's Christmas party. My wife's watching. Hi. Um, the franchise agreement states that TDS must offer a channel. The channel exists. It's there. Also, that $1 per video subscriber from TDS, that money goes to funding the channel. And that's where that money. So in the past with CEC, there was city money and then there was TDS money. Well, the ending of the CEC, the city money is gone and the CEC money, excuse me, the uh TDS money is what are you going to do with it? Uh the franchise individual that came to our last CEC meeting said that the money can go to the municipality, to you guys, but that money is meant for the station. So, if you want to operate your own station, open up a station or you can amend your agreement with TDS and uh remove the station and remove the dollar per subscriber or as I'm saying, maybe continue it the way it has been and TDS the the Washington video TDS subscriber money would then come back to the university where I would continue to operate the TV channel in a limited capacity. Right now, that's working out to about $730 per month from the city of Washington. And uh as time will tell, that money will slowly decrease over time. So again, that's coming from the TDS video subscriber, not the internet subscriber, just the video channel. So I'm not sure who still has cable. Everybody still have video cable? 700 people in your city have video cable.

730. 730. So anyway, it's not a lot a large amount, but where Sean and the university are going to continue with some of the um some of the community events and whatnot, they're proposing that diver back to the university so they can continue doing that. I think St. George is on board other cities, but it [clears throat] has to be city council decision otherwise that money comes back to the city or so. Can we can we in an agreement just because I we want to be done with our contract, right?

We're done with our obligation to CEC. It's just TDS and and TDS their explanation was we don't really want to go and redo all these franchise agreements with all the different cities. We just assume, you know, pay the money. So, so I guess the question I have is what what do you plan to do with it? You say in a limited way, but We we haven't necessarily seen a lot of activity from CEC in our city. So $700 a month isn't nothing. I mean, we could take it away from our residents and let make them give them an extra dollar in their pocket, but what do you plan to do if

um when I they made me general manager of CEC, I think three three three and a half years ago, and uh trying to get seven municipalities to work together even on a name change was um challenging. So now I have the broadcast equipment uh which is running on 15-y old equipment right now in my back office just keeping the channel alive. So I'm hoping to a spend the about 15,000 I need to buy new equipment and make it more of an automated station similar to how I'm running the Utah Tech radio stations. So four of which I have over there right now. So, it would be a combination of student stuff that's happening, pre-programmed stuff, and then maybe anything that's pre pre-produced that I can put on and schedule. No cameras, no lighting, no studio. It's just basically a box sitting in the back that I would program. And then beyond that, maybe take that money and maybe make some student scholarship money. Maybe I can get more students involved. Students like to get money for some reason. Is it is [clears throat] it also really only available to the TDS cable subscribers to watch it?

As of right now, how does somebody watch the CC channel? The uh right now it's only on the TDS uh system. I do have some software to make it a streaming option. Uh it's the options of putting it on Roku or Amazon Fire, some of these other internet providers is available. Uh but that's a down the line as soon as I get things turned back on. But for a streaming option at the university, I already have that backbone set up. It would just be a matter of ABC and system admin and and uh it is it Rod Zendel does a lot of the content for sports. Is it Rod Zendel? Yes, he's doing stuff.

Yeah. So, does this have anything to do with the content he's creating with No, that would be separate. That'd be um uh we would not be using that content because it's part of ESPN plus so we would not be able to all of his content so that wouldn't be part of what you do because I know he does some pretty cool stuff on with athletics and I know he broadcast ESPN plus contracts are very and even when we had CEC actively running there was many of the of the games that we could not play I just I thought that might be part of the content of

it'd be great I'd love to take Yeah, I mean if you want to throw up a camera and and do PB football, I'll put it on the air, too. So, council questions you you may have. My question is I mean, if if if we kept this many going to the city, what would we have to use it for? How could we use it rather than So, the TDS representative said you guys can use it. It's up to your discretion, but there are also he also threw in the caveat of saying we can also ask how you're spending that money. that money is designed and set apart for the TV channel itself. So,

so just to throw it out there, we have staff that spends time and money getting the YouTube channel for broadcasting our our council meetings and planning commission meetings and it could help offset some of those costs that we have with that because we're not using C. But that wouldn't be part of the PEG channel that be separate. But I thought it isn't it like a royalty to us? Isn't that the point of it? No. The money is meant to run the channel. Money that comes from the dollar per subscriber is meant to run the channel and for the channel. If the channel's gone, why are they giving it to us? I guess that's where I'm missing. Why did you get this last check or why

why are they giving us a dollar per subscriber? So, let's go back. So late 90s we have um 1992 1996 telecommunications act which bring up the whole peg channel issue. CEC is developed I think 98 and that's when a lot of these initial franchise agreements came about. The idea being that the municipalities don't have the opportunity or the resources to run the station university does. So the agreement was put into place that the municipalities and the university would work together. So part of the money that came in was from the subscribers of cable TV. So that money came to the university to buy the equipment and to run the operation. But now I guess I'm what I'm confusing. What's happening to it now?

Because the my understanding is we used to help fund it which the money that came from the city is no longer being sent from the city. Correct. So why are you coming to us if the money just goes to you anyways? Because right now, now that the CEC agreement is over with, the franchise agreement says that the dollar per subscriber can come to the city. Can come to the city. Yes. So, it's between in your franchise agreement that dollar is coming to you which is being used which is set aside for a PEG channel. Yeah. Whether we want to run a PEG channel or we want to let them run. We're not going to run a PEG channel. I don't think we're going down that road. I don't think Jeremy wants to.

All so all this money is from the subscribers in this check. That's No, no, no. Actually, what is this check for? Our reimbursement for CEC because we used to help fund CC in addition to TDS helping fund it. But because we're not h we're not having to pay, but TDS's franchise agreements are still in place without them basically blowing up all their franchise agreements and redoing them. When is their franchise agreement done? Does it ever end? like from TDS as longc at some point TDS might say we don't have any subscribers we're done well then then they would be done at that point

but their franchise continues on as long as they're providing cable to somebody in in the community their franchise agreement is more than that it's you know where they attach to our polls and they're in our public utilities ements and all those kind of things they just don't want to hear negotiate all their franchise agreements with all the cities long time to do all that. So they said it's it's less of a hassle for us to just pay kick the funds back. So why are we here today then? Like we have to authorize the money going back to it and comes to us and we would authorize it to be diverted to them so they can keep the channel alive. Just to divert it straight to them so we don't have to deal with it.

Yeah. Correct. That's what would happen is we don't it doesn't come through our account and go to theirs. It'll just tedious them direct. It's just important for the council to realize it's still happening and it's and it doesn't have to happen if you don't want it to. But but we're not using any of of the funds from tax city funds, taxpayer funds of any kind. This is all a transportation utility fee. The dollar fee that's being added to every customer that's that's running the CC channel. If you still find value in it, great. The But if we didn't divert it, we don't want to run our own. So either either let him run it or take the dollar away from just those are the options.

TDS has made the decision they don't want to take the dollar away. Well, I'm but I'm saying that but even if we took the dollar away from them, we couldn't anyways. your cable subscriber would get a $12 check in 12 $12 refund check for what if we had Jeremy do videos and then the subscribers would go down say it again just I just do my videos on Tik Tok and so it that's free you can you can I over I mean it's no it's obvious that over the last 20 years video subscriptions have gone down and part of the reason for the dissolution of CC was that money was going down

funding And I'm saying, well, there's still a little bit left. My attitude is let them have it. Let them keep the channel alive a little bit longer and all right, you know, we're happy. But you've heard the recommendation from the councilman with the assignment. Any objections? Sean, I hope the Christmas part is not over entirely in Ivans. Are you going to try to make it over there? I'm going to make it over there. It's 20 or 30 minute drive. Thanks for coming out. Thank you very much, everybody. Thank you for your time today. Thanks for what you're doing. Have a good night. You know, c you get you give something like that to council to chew on, we'll chew on it, [laughter] right?

All right. It's 5:35 p.m. Uh, at this time, council, uh, before I call for a motion to adjurnn, I'll just, uh, let you know that we'll start back up with our regular meeting at 6 p.m. That said, I'll call for a motion to to adjourn the workshop. So made. Have a c a motion by Councilman Bellson, a second by Councilman Coats. All in favor? I. Any opposed? We are adjourned unanimously.

started momentarily. We'll get started. Today is Wednesday, December 10th, 2025. We are at city hall in the council chamber for our regular meeting. Our meetings are broadcast live at washingtoncity.org/meings org/meings and archived with a link there to our YouTube station. Our invocation will be offered by Councilman Kurt Ivy after which Councilwoman Kim Caspersonson will offer excuse me, the invocation will be offered by Councilman Kurt Ivy and the pledge of allegiance by Councilwoman Kim Caspersonson. Our father in heaven, as we come before thee this evening as leadership and staff of Washington City, we wish to give thee thanks for all the many blessings for the place in which we live and the benefits and the blessings that we have in living here. We pray for our citizens this day, our veterans and all those that keep us safe. Please bless them this special time of year to feel thy love and to know of of thy son. And father, we pray that we might be able to make the right decisions for this city that we can be exemplary in our decision making that we always hold the standards that um thou would have us to have. And we are thankful for all of our many blessings in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

Amen.

Ready to begin. I aliance 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. Before I call for a motion to approve the agenda, I will note that we do have need to go to close session tonight for p purchase, exchange or lease of property and character or professional competence of an individual. I'll call for a motion to approve the agenda.

Have a motion by Councilwoman Caspersonson, second

by Councilman Ivy. All in favor? I. We'll start with announcements. This is our last council meeting of 2025 unless something urgent comes up, which I certainly hope that doesn't happen because our rotation is the second fourth Wednesdays and the fourth Wednesday of this month is Christmas Eve. So, we all want to be with our families. On Saturday, we have two events. Starting at 10:00 a.m. here in Heritage Hall will be the Washington City Arts Council. It's the first annual artisan holiday market and that goes I 10:00 a.m. I believe till late afternoon. Also on Saturday the 13th at noon, Wreaths Across America will have a program at the Washington City Cemetery. On Sunday, December 14th, at 4:30 p.m., as Rabbi Mandy Cohen spoke to us earlier, we will have the Grand Manura lighting at Vernon Worer & Park. The city offices will be closed Wednesday, December 24th, and Thursday, December 25th. in observance of Christmas Eve and Christmas Day. They will also be closed on Wednesday, December 31st uh for uh actually not sure if they're going to they will be closed Wednesday uh on January 1st in observance of New Year's Day and on Wednesday, December 31st at 1000 p.m. will be the New York the New Year's uh Eve fireworks.

Uh they'll be lit off from the baseball fields near the community center and that's always a great event. So that takes us through the end of the year. Council, is there anything that I missed on some of those items? All right, the next item on the agenda is declaration of abstensions and conflicts. Do you want to announce the thing for Mayor Randall?

Oh, yes. That just came through. Yeah. So, there is a open house for outgoing St. George Mayor Randall. That is going to be on December 19th, 4 to 5:30 p.m. in the in the new St. George Council Chambers, 61 South Maine. So, if you have a chance to go there, that would be be great. And um I think there's also one for Mayor Rosenberg tomorrow afternoon. And I believe either on January 6th or 8th there's one for Mayor Hart. So we'll try to get the more details. I should have added them to my notes, but we'll we'll email that out or get it on your calendar.

Mayor, the one for Mayor Hart or Mayor Rosenberg tomorrow is at their council chambers at 2 p.m. Okay. Is it open house 2 till It is an open It [clears throat] is an open house. Okay. I think two to four 4:30 something like that. And then we'll get the details out on Mayor Harts. That one I just saw that today. Mayor, can I can I say Mayor Harts? Do you have it? Yeah, it's it's on January 6th at 2 p.m. at the Ivan City Hall.

Okay. We're going to miss three really good mayors really really have been good friends to to Washington and really great examples of public service. Okay. Uh any anything to declare or abstain from? Any conflicts tonight? Seeing none, we'll continue moving right along. We got we do have a long consent agenda, but it's way quicker than in voting on these individually. So, I'll I'll read through them quick and we can pull anything if you want to go deep, but mostly we'll just uh read through it. Consent agenda is item 4. consists of consideration to approve the minutes from the city council meetings of 111225 and 111825. The board audit report from November 2025 and a number of local consents. Consideration to approve the renewal of the following off- premise retail beer licenses. Albertson's First Stop Gas Stop Washington Harts Gas and Food Maverick number 390. Maverick number 657. Terrible 370, Walmart Super Center number 1439, and Whammers. The renewal of the following on premise restaurant full service licenses. Black Bear Diner, Don Pedro's Family Mexican Restaurant, Coral Cafe and Entertainment, Ovation, Sienna Hills, Red Robin Gourmet Burgers, Royal Thai Cuisine, and St. Helens Restaurant LLC. the renewal of the following on premise beer recreational amenity license. That's the Coral Canyon Golf Course at Greenspring Golf Course and Greenspring Golf Course. And the renewal of the following hotel liquor license, the residence in and the last one is the renewal of the following bar establishment license, Coral Cafe and Entertainment. Council,

if there are no items to pull from that or minor clarifications, I'll call for a motion to approve. I'll make a motion to approve the consent agenda as read aloud. Thank you, Councilman Coats. Is there a second? Second. Second by Councilwoman Caspersonson. All in favor? Any opposed? Um, mayor, I'm going to split my vote on that one. Okay. I for items 4 A and 4B and nay for item 4 C. Duly noted. We have unanimous on items as said and a descending vote on the others. Tara, I'm sure you've got that in the minutes. Thank you. Mayor, may I ask a question to council? Go ahead.

Uh, Dad, why do we have to do these consent every year? Is that a state requirement? Yes. Um because the state of Utah and the legislature of Utah have given themselves essentially a legislative monopoly on the on the creation, production and sale of alcohol in this state. All of these businesses that have been listed and even you know the city's golf course must have a state license and the state license will not issue without local consent. And so these businesses have to apply at the end of every year for the following year.

And if say someone doesn't then they just lose it until they reapply. Yeah. In in most cases our recorders office does a good job of just helping them with a renewal. It does require a payment and some paperwork, but we've we've digitized it so it's it's not quite as cumbersome as it might seem, but yeah, they are required by state law every year to reapply consent and then they have to then go and apply with the state for the state's license. I just hoping we could streamline this a little bit for at least the lower level ones, but if that's legislature, then we'll have to talk to them.

Yep. That's that's how it works in Utah at least. We'll move on to the next section of the agenda, award of bid. We have two. The first is 5A. Consideration to award the bid for the Merryill road traffic signal to Interstate Rock in the amount of 278,834. City engineer Paul Mogul, if you'll present. Most of the questions I get these days are in regards to this uh particular item.

I I bet so. Um yeah, [clears throat] so this project consists of installing a fully functional traffic signal includes signage, striping, uh adding a right turn pocket for southbound traffic on Washington Fields Road and pedestrian ramp replacement. On December 2nd at 3 p.m. bids were open publicly and read aloud at the public works building. We received three bids that were competitive. The lowest bid was Interstate Rock in the amount of $278,834 and staff recommends approval of the low bid to Interstate Rock. If there are any questions,

I'll make a motion. Council, if you don't mind questions, just wondering [clears throat] what what what's the timeline? So when you know more people ask about this, when do you think it'll be?

Right. So uh the timeline once they start work, it'll be 75 days. The traffic signal parts have been ordered. Um, we ordered them through the UD do warehouse. Currently, they don't have them in stock up there yet. Um, they get a shipment in December. We're crossing our fingers that the the parts will be in there mid December. If not, it could be as late as February before we get the parts. And so, it could be as late as then before they start. May I can I ask a Yeah. Council Ivy, then council Dustin.

So, it looks like one of the biggest discrepancies in the bid is on line 20 where it talks about traffic signal system. 220, 104, 197, and 171. Two are really low and really high. Are we It's engineer's estimate. That's the engineer estimate for construction for 220. The bids were 104, 97, and 97. [snorts] Yeah. So, there's usually two uh contractors in uh in town that do the traffic signal parts. It's usually KV Electric in Tri-State. And so, that's probably why you get the kind of the two prices on those.

They're okay. Council Bellison. Yeah. I'm just curious off the top of your head, you the one that we did here recently at 500 West, I I guess did did that go through the did the city do that or did the developer do that because the that was their requirement for the apartments? Yeah. So, the developers reimbursing the city for that? Do you recall what that amount was? The traffic signal I actually Yeah. Uh that traffic signal was 336,000. Those coming down 40 grand give or take 50 grand.

Mhm. It's kind of what I'm seeing on other infrastructure and horizontal improvements is things are kind of softening up a little bit. I was just telling Councilman Henderson that residential site a little bit more. Okay. That might have been a little tougher traffic control light too. That's what I was going to say. The where it was and the traffic in that one, but we've also got a right turn lane southbound on Washington Fields Road on this. Correct.

Yeah. And the 500 West one also had some extra power stuff to it that kind of added a little bit increase on the cost. But this one has that right turn pocket. The one there on telegraph also the traffic control up there was a I don't know. It's kind of dicey. It was just fine. You guys did a good job. Any additional questions, comments? If not, I'll turn to Councilman Coats to make this motion. Make a motion we approve the bid for Melo Road traffic signal in the amount of $278,834 for two Interstate Rock. You've heard the motion by Councilman Coats. Is there a second? Second.

Second by Councilman Ivy. Let's go. Roll call beginning with Council Member Bellaston. I Henderson. Coats. Ivy. Caspersonson. I.

The bid is awarded as stated Interstate Rock unanimously. Item 5B, consideration to award the bid for the Main Street widening to advance construction and design in the amount of 125,345. Once again, city engineer Paul Mogul. This project includes uh 93 9,370 square feet of asphalt, 435 feet of curbon gutter, 2 roughly 2,000 square ft of sidewalk and restriping. On December 3rd at 10:00 a.m., bids were open publicly and read aloud at the public works building. We received seven bids that were very competit competitive. We had two bids within $250 and another two bids that were within $50. Uh the lowest bid was advanced construction and design in the amount of $125,345. Staff recommends approval of the low bid to advance construction.

Questions for the city engineer? Well, what's the the plan? I'm assuming it's not part of this project, but to restripe all of Main Street because it's kind of because it's been pieced. Is it going to be all restriped all the way up? [snorts] So, right there at Arowede Way to Washington Parkway. It will be. Oh, perfect. Okay. Have we worked with Advanced before? Advanced construction. I have not. No. I If we have, it's been very little, but not that I know of. I'm I'm comfortable with a motion when you're ready, mayor. Well, we take our pavement very seriously around here. We do.

I just We spent an hour on it in our prior meeting is all. And then Paul, while you're there real quick before Councilman Ivy makes a motion, um can you just give us an update on the widening of of that project to the north? Is that is that done already or is it is it happening? The the Yes, it's completed. Is it completed? So, this just fills in that one little section, the remaining section and allows us to from Buen a Vista to Washington Parkway have that road full width. Correct. Yep. So from Brio Parkway to Washington Parkway is is widened all the way out. It's full build. It's just that section from this section.

Yeah. Got to got to get it done. When when would they mobilize and begin? Um soon as we award it, then they have 30 days to get all their bonding and all that stuff in place and we'll start right away. I believe they've contacted us and are itching to get going ASAP. So, okay, it could happen pretty soon there. If there are no other further comments, I'll turn to Councilman Ivy for a motion. I make a motion to award the bid for the Main Street widening to advance construction and design in the amount of 125,345. You've heard the motion. Is there a second? Second.

Second by motion by Councilman Ivy, second by Councilman Bellis. And we'll go roll call beginning with Council Member Henderson. Hi. Coats. Hi. Ivy. Hi Caspersonson. Hi Bellison. Hi. That is approved as stated unanimously.

Item six, public hearing. This is a public hearing and consideration to approve an ordinance for an easement vacation located at 2005 North Creekide Court. Um the applicant is Mike Stewart. Is there anyone here this evening to speak in regards to this easement vacation? Uh Mike, are you presenting or is there somebody from staff presenting on this? John Hinky, you're presenting. Okay.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. um [clears throat] applicant uh came to the city uh to discuss um vacating a portion of a storm drain easement um to help facilitate the construction of a home on [clears throat] the lot shown on the exhibit. Um public works doesn't have a uh an issue with um vacating the 5t of the easement. Storm drains only about 4 foot 4 and a half foot. So it's still easily maintainable for us within the 15t drainage easement that's that would be left over. So, our recommendation is for approval of the the slim vacation of that easement. [clears throat] Thanks, John. Questions for for Mr. Hanky? Maybe just a comment. Mayor, go ahead.

I really appreciate what I'm hearing here tonight that you work so cooperatively with this uh with this uh developer and builder to look at this and say, "Hey, yeah, we can do without it." And get the home built. I think that's wonderful. Good job. Thank you. I think we would all echo those sentiments. Thank you, Councilman Ivy. Thank you, John. Thank you, Mike. There's no need to talk, but you're here. Thumbs up. Okay. I want to agree with what he said. [clears throat] Yeah, it's the right thing to do. It makes that usable. We need We need our lots to be buildable.

Okay, this is a public hearing and consideration. So, I'm going to open the public hearing. Does anyone uh have any comment about this easement vacation? Seeing none, I'm going to close the public hearing and I'll turn to the council for a motion. I'll make a motion we approve the easement vacation on 2005 North Creekide Court. You've heard the motion by Councilman Coats. Is there a second? Second. Second by Councilman uh Belliston. Let's go. Roll call beginning with Council Member Coats. Ivy Caspersonson Belliston Henderson. Hi. That is approved unanimously. He took off so fast. I was going to give him a hard time, but I guess I know he's

balanced. And by the way, you know, Mike Mike has two wonderful daughters who serve on the Washington City Youth Council, and they did a great job

the other night at our Pearl Harbor USS Utah Remembrance Day. And they just th those along with all the youth, they just represent us so well. I wish Mike could have been here to hear that. I'll have to tell him later. bragging on his family. Conditional use permits. Item 7A. This is consideration to approve conditional use permit C-25-13 for a Department of Alcoholic Beverages Services retail store located at 350 West Buav Vista Boulevard. Community Development Director Elden Gibb will present to the council.

Thank you, Mayor. council. This property here is zone C3 uh under Washington city ordinance 9-10B-2B under the use regulations. Uh state approved and operated liquor stores are required to obtain conditional use permit approval, which is why we're here tonight. We'll pull up this exhibit some renderings here. The building is approximately 12,500 square ft in size and includes retail, storage, and administration areas. Each DAB building is designated with a modern feel that incorporates colors that blend in with the surrounding area and draw inspiration from the region's landscape. The state of Utah procurement and contracting laws prevent DABs from entering into a contract with a firm to produce detailed sightspecific plans. In order for the state to hire this firm or a firm to produce these drawings, the state must first obtain conditional use permit approval. The planning commission reviewed this request on November 20th, 2025 and unanimously recommended approval of C-25-13 based on the findings and conditions stated in the staff report. That concludes staff report. I'm happy for any questions you may have.

All right. Uh council, what any questions that you have for staff? now is the time and then I'll invite the applicant uh to come forward after that. Seeing none, Tom Gibbs, you come forward and [clears throat] talk about your project and field any questions. It's good to see you,

council. Appreciate it. Um I'll invite Craig Mccay up. He represents DFCM uh Department of Facilities Construction Management. He'll be my partner on this project. Um, I'll be working with the on the DABS site, DABS interests, and Craig will work with the state's construction interests. U, we're really excited to do this project. Um, we did a study many years back that determined that there was need in this local market area for a new store and we will uh are looking forward to getting a store in your city. So, and working with your people.

Uh, great. Council, what questions do you have? the the the packets very thorough with were familiar with what was presented at council or at the planning commission. I I watched I was at planning commission that night and I think they did a good job representing and our planning commission got it right. There was some concerns from the residents but I think you're always going to get concerns with these type but at zone for it's right against the freeway. It's a good spot and beautiful building by the way. really really like the rendering and and we're going to be close to this building right that we're presented.

So So we [clears throat] have two prototypes that we operate off of. This is prototype number two and it's the one we plan on doing on the lot. We did a test fit to ensure that it fits. Um there'll be a slight modifications to the building to make sure that it is specific to the site. Um and we're also adding a little bit of an area onto it for our um local compliance specialist office out of. Currently we're renting a space for him in St. George and we'd like to move him into this building so that he can service the bars and l and bars, restaurants, other licences in the area out of this building.

So is your truck delivery on the freeway side or on the side? Like I'd like a nice nice visible from the freeway so it doesn't look like a industrial area on the back side of the freeway. Yeah, this so depends on the orientation of this building where it's going to be seen from. This loading dock on this prototype is technically on the front of the building kind of off to the side and tucked back. Yeah, this one has like four sides around it. So, it's kind of I'm just saying I would like it to be visually pleasing as people are driving down our freeway through our city and and I think it will be. So, all I have there any additional comments on this?

You made a long trip, right? We just we're trying to get your money's worth for all that. We're happy to be here. We talked a little bit over the break about, you know, potential timeline maybe just for the benefit of the council and staff community that talk a little bit about your the timeline that you anticipate on this. Yeah. So, once we finalize on the lot um the purchase of the lot, we will go into our design phase which will be a shortened design phase um for us because it's is one of our prototypes. So, we think we can be 8 to 10 months on design. And then once we start building, we will be another 10 months or so. Okay.

And getting I I we I drove by by the the site today and they're out doing a lot of a lot of dirt work and underground work. So they're getting that pad ready for you. Craig, what what would you add and tell us your role again? I'm the DFCM project manager. So I work for the state. I'm Tom's counterpart. So I will be the project manager that um represents the state's interest in this project. Wonderful. So you'll oversee and you'll you'll oversee the bid and

construction oversee the bid. I'll oversee the contracts for the contractor, the design team. Um, and then I work closely with Tom and the executive director for DABS to make sure that we're building a a building that meets their need, but then we're also meeting some of the requirements from the city to make sure that it's not looking like an industrial park with some loading docks on the side. So,

well, we're confident you're going to make it look really nice. We we've seen um some of the others that you've built and we know you do a quality project. So, we're we're happy you chose Washington. Um thank you, gentlemen. Council, any further discussion on this item? If not, I'm ready to entertain a motion. Just can I just say really quickly? I I also listened to the planning commission and I know that there was some concerns that were mentioned and I think it's helpful to read what our economic developer said um in her notes about how the primary customers are institutions such as restaurants and hotels that serve residents and travelers. No alcohol is allowed to be consumed on site and the state implement strict 100% ID for all sales in the store. And so I feel like it'll be a good

it's going to be a good for Washington city. And I know that there was some comments made and I just thought that'd be good to to to share. Well said. Thank you. Any additional comment [snorts and clears throat] if not I'll entertain a motion. Mayoring make a a motion. I actually listened to the planning commission as well and I thought you did a nice job in answering the questions and with good relevant information. So great comment. Councilman Casper. I make a motion to approve a conditional use permit C-25-13 for a Department of Alcohol Beverages Services retail store located at 350 West Buista Boulevard. I have a motion by Councilman Ivy. Is there a second? Second. Second by Councilman Henderson. We'll go roll call beginning with Council Member Ivy.

I. Caspersonson. I. Belliston. Nay. Henderson. I. Coats. That is approved on a vote of 4 to one. [clears throat]

We'll move on to item 7B. This is consideration to approve conditional use permit C-25-14 for a hotel located at Washington Parkway and Buen a Vista Boulevard. The applicant is Bush and Gudgel. Community Development Director Elden Gibb will once again present to the council. This proposed hotel previously received a height waiver of 65 ft by council on July 23rd and the proposed building elevations show the building at at this height of 65 ft. The property is zon C3 which requires hotels to obtain an approved conditional use permit. the entire parcel. I'll open up the site plan here. The entire parcel is approximately 15.5 acres with the hotel encompassing 3.3. The hotel is the first commercial building on this site and there will be more C3 uses to follow with this being the first phase. The hotel includes 143 rooms with a proposed 176 parking spaces which satisfies parking requirements. The exterior building elevations incorporate a variety of material and include stone, brick, stucco, metal paneling, fiber cement products. The proposal also includes a landscaping plan which is aesthetically pleasing. Staff has reviewed the proposed project and finds that it meets the standards as outlined in the general plan and zoning ordinance. Planning commission did review this request on November 19th and

unanimously recommended approval based on the findings and conditions stated in staff report. And I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Questions for Elden? Seeing none, uh, would the applicant like to come forward? The applicant's representative, uh, Bob, is that you, Bob Hermanson? All right, this is this is a triple header for you tonight. This is the first one. Yeah, back to back. Let's do it. Um,

yeah. So, Bob Hermanson representing the project tonight. I I don't know if anybody has any any questions. Uh Dual Brand Hotel um sits there on the corner. It'll be first of several buildings coming our way through this area, but uh yeah, super happy to have it roll this way. But any questions on your guys' end? I think it's going to be great. Yeah, I really do. I think it's going to set that corner and that tone for all of that to it's just kind of light it on fire and build it all. Right. You did great work, Bob. Thank you. Appreciate it. Uh, seeing no questions for the staff or applicant, uh, unless there's further discussion, I'll entertain a motion on item. I'll make I'll make them on item. Where are we?

7B. 7B. I'll make a motion to approve the conditional use permit C-25-14 for hotel located at Washington Parkway and Buav Vista Boulevard. I have a motion by Councilwoman Caspersonson. Second. Second by Councilman Coats. We'll go roll call beginning with council member Caspersonson. I Belliston. Hi. Henderson. Hi. Coats Ivy. That is approved unanimously 5 to zero.

Okay, we'll move to the next section of the agenda which is ordinances. And I will make note that the uh public hearings on ordinances occurred uh at the planning commission level and those have been reviewed by this elected body. Item 8A is consideration to approve an ordinance for zone change Z-25-22 to update the existing PUDC located at 323 East Telegraph. The applicant is Johnson Engineering Community Development Director Elden Gibb will present to the council.

As you're all aware, this site here is built out and in in use here. Um the applicant's proposing a few changes to help facilitate uh more traffic through their site and improve the area. The applicant's proposing to replace the above ground storm water pond with an underground chambers to allow an additional 14 stalls that will butt up to telegraph. Relocate the trash enclosure 20 ft to the northeast as shown on the plan and add a add a right out onto Telegraph Street. Staff recognizes access to the site is challenging. Staff supports the proposed changes as they meet the guidelines for this zone. The planning commission reviewed this request on November 19th and unanimously recommended approval with the findings and conditions stated in the report. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Council questions for Elden.

I have a comment mayor if I can. I hope this really helps. I know it's been a little bit of tough access right there. And I'm really hoping that that extra, you know, right hand turn out on telegraph will'll help be able to get in and out of there cuz I really like flavors and I want to see them get a little more busy. So,

as I do, mayor, you know, it's again, I'm going to sound like a broken record, but I appreciate staff looking at this out of the box and working with the the owner to come up with solutions for this because, like you said, I I really want this to succeed as well. It's a wonderful flavors is wonderful. They have great products there and and we want to do everything we can for their success. So, I I stand in support of this as well. Good comments. Is the applicant or the applicant's representative here? And if so, would they like to present it to the council or field? Any questions? I think that's good enough. Okay, council, I'll turn back to you for further discussion and or a motion on this item

and make the motion. Uh that if we that we approve an ordinance for zone change Z-25-22 to update the existing PDC located at 323 East Telegraph Street. I have a motion by Councilman Belliston. Is there a second? Second. Second. She just beat you to it there. Second by Councilwoman Caspersonson. We'll go roll call on on this approval beginning with Council Member Caspersonson. I Ivy. Coats. Hi. Henderson. Bellaston.

That is approved unanimously. Five to zero. It's good to see you guys tonight. You're welcome to stay, but you don't have to. Item 8B is consideration to approve an ordinance for zone change Z-25-23 from R16 and C3 to PUDR located at Washington Parkway and Tortois Rock Road. Uh the applicant is Bush and Gudgel. Community development director is Elden Gibb. Uh, I will, as I noted earlier, we we did uh do recognize the public comment that occurred at the plan commission. Uh, Elden, if you'll present staff report on this one. Here's the location here up on the map. You can see just to the east of Tortois Rock Road. Pull up the site plan and we can review that. Proposal includes 134 town home units. This is a 9.8 8 density unit per acre ratio. The surrounding zoning is C3 to the east, open space to the north and south, and R3 and R16 to the west. The applicant has situated the proposed project next to the C3 zone in an effort to transition between the existing single family residential units that are to the west and the future commercial development to the east which we just approved that hotel a little bit farther east. So that that commercial's coming here. As shown on the plan, the town home units are accessed from within the proposed subdivision and have been set back 25 ft from Tortoise Rock Road to allow a 10-ft trail and landscaping improvements to be made next to the roadway. This trail will improve walkability from the residential areas to the commercial development. The town

home units are twostory. I'll pull up a photo of them. You can visualize it. twotory with a building height of 23 feet 3 in tall. The exterior finishes and incorporated landscaping plan are aesthetically pleasing. Each unit will have a twocar garage and a 20ft length driveway. Um required parking for the project is 344 parking spaces and the applicant is providing 3 64 parking is adequate for the project. Proposed amenities include a pool and clubhouse, pickle ball courts, playground, and a recreational area for a total of 37,365 ft. The planning commission reviewed this request on December 3rd and unanimously recommended approval based on the findings and conditions stated in staff report. That concludes staff report. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Questions for Elden? Elden, will you uh specify this is dual zoning R16 and a C3? Will you explain how that works? Whether those are tied graphically or if they're either orations are for those zonings, those two zones. Well, we're asking to pull out of the C3 and R16 to No. What I'm asking is the way it currently sits. Is there C3 that is specific in one area and R16 in another? If so, would you please bring that up? You bet you. Yeah. I'll pull up a map here.

While he's bringing that up, I was just gonna It's my understanding that the C3 is next to the the homes. Is that correct? That's what I thought it was. And I was just looking through what could be in a C3. Is that correct, Den? Sorry. Say that one more time. Councilwoman, is the C3 zoning next to the Yes, it is right next to all the homes. Yeah, the dark red is the C3. Correct. Yes. where that circle is, uh, that's where the proposed PUD sits, asking to remove that commercial off of Tortoise Rock and replace it with this town home unit.

And and what is allowed now would be manufacturing, processing, creating, repairing, painting, cleaning, or assembly of goods, auto automobile repair shop, bottling works, lumber yard. And so I feel like this is a better I like how they were feathering [clears throat] from the the homes to town homes to the commercial because if you had, you know, some of these items that I listed next to the the homes, I don't feel like that would be very good to have. So I like how they've been thoughtful about feathering the commercial. Thank you, Councilman. Further comments?

Question. Councilman Henderson, then Bellison. Do you what is the history of zoning of this area? It seems like it came in for a zoning change not too long ago, this general area. I'm just kind of curious how has this been C3 for a long long time or has that been a recent change or I can't quite remember. I know I know we saw this a while back but I

Yeah, great great comments. So we started with the general plan here. Uh you know the applicant and their team really took a highle land use visual approach to this. Um in this upper left hand corner here um the general plan was changed from medium high density to PUB. Um and then down here 12.89 acres um was changed to community commercial to PUB as well. If we put up the the general plan, you'll be able to see that perhaps don't want to work this evening. Um, and then just to the right in the upper right hand corner, medium high density was changed to commercials. So in essence, we we swapped commercial locations from this corner here, this T intersection, put residential and move the commercial to the east to create a buffer from those residential units.

So are we having like a is it basically a net zero swap? Um are we gaining some commercial or gaining some residential or what, you know, what are the numbers on that? It it it is almost a wash. Um I I think we're losing.3 acreage. Did you say I'm sorry? Say that again. What number did you say?

I believe we're losing about.3 acres of commercial to residential. Um it was 12.01 acres of medium high density to commercial and 12.89 acres from community UD. So, so basically a wash is what you're saying. So, okay. So, that's the reason I'm asking is know since we're a little bit

shy on commercial in Washington city, I you know, sometimes you hesitate to go from commercial to residential, but I knew there was some changes that had taken place here. So, basically, it's kind of a wash overall commercial to residential. Just just switching some places, right? Correct. Yes. Where this cursor is bouncing used to be commercial. Uh that commercial was relocated up up here to the CCOM area. Okay. Thank you.

So Elden, a couple questions. U projects like this, we would require a 10-ft setback with a block wall from public rightways. From what I'm seeing, there isn't. There's not only the public rightway towards Perry Landing, but also the new public rightway that's coming up on the east side of the project

with the 10ft setback right away. 10 10 foot setback and then a and then a block wall or party wall. Uh for PUDS, it's 25 foot. The applicants set those homes back uh to to meet that requirement. ing a a block wall on the back side of that limited common space. But they show that that's where it's at. I mean, we require a landscaping plan. It would be shown in the landscaping plan, right? What I'm seeing, it looks like that's backyard that they've identified, not not a setback from private from um the public rideways.

Yeah, I know. We did it down in in the fields with the U solar project. that's that's done that was all set back 10 foot with block wall before before they did it and every other one that we've done I I don't recall one that where we've done it where we didn't require it maybe I'm just as to what your concern code requires to have a block wall around the property right it it does not um that that's been a standard that's been done but our our code doesn't spell out that requirement requires if it's changing from from commercial to residential. So on the other commercial side it will

I don't I can't think of any townhouse projects that we've had where the backyard um was open to a rightway where we didn't require it. I agree and that's what that's what's being shown on both to I look I don't have a problem with the project. I think it's I think it's a good-look project and everything else that if we're going to require it everybody else it's be consistent right I think what Ellen's saying and I don't I don't know the answer for what you're saying but everybody everybody has done it it's been a code requirement that we've had but we can just ask the applicant plan is though what's that

the applicant what the plan is I mean we had it on the one up there on the North Maine, north end of Maine, uh, right across from Sentiente. They They put one in. I'm just saying I don't know that we required they put one in. Does that make sense? I I mean, I'm splitting hairs, but most most projects do want to because they want the backyard to be private, right?

Well, I would I would prefer it if the backyard was private. So, I see Bob making a note of that. Any additional questions for staff before I invite the applicant forward. Applicant Representative Bob Hermanson, you've heard the questions. You probably have the answer. Yeah, great questions. I'll try to answer them best I can. So, what we have is we have a 15t landscape strip that has a 10-ft trail and then you have a a a 6ft privacy wall that wraps the entire project. Can you blow that up cuz I'm not

Yeah. So, I'm sorry. So you can barely see the and I should have hatched that better for you. I'm sorry that the area that's white there. So you can see the 15 foot landscape and then you have another 10 ft and that's private back limited common areas for each unit but that meandering um uh two lines there with no hatch in it. That's a 10-ft trail. That's a master plan trail. So you have a very small meandering you know you only have 5T to meander in there. You have uh total of 15 feet with a 10 foot trail, five feet roughly total in addition to that. So 15 to a privacy wall and then limited comm behind that. So on tortoise rock you're saying the the privacy wall is on the north side of the trail easement.

Well this is rotated but in this map it looks like it's Yeah. Yes. It's 15 ft from Oh yeah. Tortoise Rock goes north south. Okay. So Bob the question is are you putting the block wall Sorry? Yes. Yeah. the block walls going around the units for each lot or are you going to do a a containment wall that there'll be a containment wall with the backyard limited common area walls that'll just tie into it. So, are you going to do the same thing along the detention basin, the big one up front? Um, if we wouldn't mind going over there. So, my intent there was just to run one continuous wall where the limited common area is to leave that all open to just leave that open by the detention point. You would run it along the houses, not along the road, right?

Correct. Yeah. I was just going to leave the basin open because you guys have a full easement over that already. Okay. And then you would run along the new public road on the east. That's correct. Yep. And we actually added a trail. It wasn't part of the master plan, but just for the community and um just talking through it. We've also done the exact same thing there. We have 15 feet um there with the trail in 10ft asphalt trail and then a privacy wall and then the 10 foot limited common area. My apologies. It's hard to see on there. Yeah, the plans are fairly small and I forgot my tablet. So, I'm And I forgot my readers, too. No. So, I got another question for you, Bob. Yep. The detention basins you have. Yes.

It looks like you're just trying to get your numbers right. I am. I don't understand why we're not just discharging into the existing storm drain basin. I understand it's citymaintained, but on this type of project, I don't understand why we're not just discharging their detention into here so they can utilize these other areas for landscape areas to use. I that's what I don't understand. Like I know that you might want that. Do you want that? I just We do. We We requested it in the in the in the comment was that wasn't available to us. But it's your land. That's what's frustrating to me. It's your land. It's not our land. So we have an easement over it. It's regional detention.

I know. But if we have a project right next to our regional detention, why aren't we accepting regional water? It's not like usually I understand because we have larger infrastructure get down. It's not affecting any of that if they make it a touch bigger. Why are we trying to put all these little nitpicky teeny detention ponds in that aren't going to work as well as the big regional one that's literally next door? That's my comment. I guess

I think the challenge that I the way I understand it is is that if we do expand it and include it in there, which is the simplest method by far, no question, is it just the the maintenance side of it right now there's there's water from this subdivision that would have been maintained by the HOA that now is being maintained by the city and we do it all over when we have adjacent to it. My house is Treasure Valley Park. It's maintained by the city. Your the same maintenance costs are going to cost us for the little bit of extra. So, we're totally for that. If you guys would like to consider that, we're happy to work through staff on that. It's we're we're good either way. Continue your thought, Councilman. Continue my thought. Can you Yeah. I mean, what do you see there?

So, here's my thing. There's another subdivision down by my house, and all we did is this big old area that's just rocked, and it's horrible looking, and it's it's for all those Well, I can't even remember the subdivision down there south by the high school. I I think about how tight we're doing this density and there's no there's no place for these kids to play. And so we have these big regional things and now this is more of a sediment basin one. I know that. So it collects a lot of sediments and stuff. So you can't like grass this one, but I'm sitting here going, why are we not incorporating and letting them have these little play areas and these little triangles? At least it's some grass or some landscaping that these kids can use. It's I don't know. I just feel like we're it's it's crazy to me that we can't something adjacent to this can't accept it. That's the whole point of these basins. So, we should utilize it. But, I would I would like you guys want to go back and look at maybe expanding that regional just a little bit and making that change or would you just rather move forward kind of the way it's written?

Well, I mean, we've already looked at it. That was option one and I presented that just trying to work through with staff. just a little bit unusual and so it just didn't seem like the an easy path. So we've went to this option. I mean my unit count wouldn't change but it would just do exactly what uh Coats is referring to. It open up that space for usable rec w recck space and so my thought was I'm happy to work through staff and look at it to see what the expansion would be and to see if it works through but my units and my density would be identical. So I that would be my proposal is to if I can work it through with staff and everybody is okay on expanding that it will work. I'm telling you right now it'll we've already looked at it. You know you could just add that corner in because basically it's exactly what uh Coast is referring to is that we've got one private basin that literally has a hump in it to gets to the to the public basin. And if you take that down and expand it, especially that long fingered one right there, that one alone will take probably 99% of the storm dam.

I just hope staff can look at it and it just seems logical to combine them. It just it drives me nuts that I understand we have our rules and the reason the reason we have them makes sense, but when they're right next door, it doesn't make sense. So make the argument for the other side. The argument for the city on this situation, you're maintaining it anyway. There's no argument. The argument is if you're far away do you let people run them into the regional detention basin because then it increases increases your pipe size. Not one set of pipe from this development is costing the city anything. But if you go build a regional line across the street now you got to upsize your pipe to handle their water and you don't how far you how far will you let it happen. Right adjacent and that's it.

That's that's my argument. Didn't the one up there on the top end of Main Street dump into that regional that All of them do. The whole basin drops into that one. It just isn't. It's just going through the It's going through the wash. So, Coats, are you just wanting basin one?

No, I'm I'm I'm assuming you can do Well, the reason what caught my eye is we have these little teeny ones next to lots 87 and 95 that are so small and they're trying to make their numbers work, detention, because there's certain calculations you got to do to get your numbers. Those are pointless. don't be maintained. And then basin three seems like it's something that could be used as an amenity to the area or something that's usable for people to use. And then basin one, I guess, would be incorporated into the bigger basin. But Bob would have to tell us if the mass works to get rid of that many basins and utilize the big one because the big one has so much flow that is designed for already.

Sure. And we would have to go through that exercise entirely to find out. But we would be more than happy to do it for our own benefit as well because it would benefit us just because we would have more amenity space. Like I say, the the layout and the density would remain the same. There's there's no change there. It would just be does that is basically based into usable space or not. Okay. So my next question is to Blake. You have an easement. you're are you required to maintain that ease right now or how does this look long term this basin because yeah it's their property but if I was you I'd want to get rid of it at this point and donate it to the city so it's not their property

come up come up to the mic and I know the mic isn't as tall as you are so either you got to shrink or at some point we got to get a taller mic Yeah. Or would we want them to donate that piece that Yeah. With either with doing doing what I'm saying about combining all the detention or not, is it is it appropriate to say yes, we have an easement on it already. Do we want to take that property having to maintain it already?

Yeah, it it could be feasible to do it that way. Um it's just uh if we're maintaining that one maintaining a little bit bigger is not is that what we're No me off guard sorry Blake so currently we don't own that property. Okay. We only have an easement on that property for a detention pond which means we have to maintain it. I'm asking you if that's the case, shouldn't we just take ownership of that whole property at this point when they go to plat this first plat and they or is that not something we want to do and just keep the easement?

I don't know. I'd have to do some consulting on that because I I'm not sure exactly where we've um would we bring John up here because I want to hear what we doing. Do we have any catch basins that would be better for the easement or because I I feel there's kind of a coming over to the to the mic. Yeah.

Reluctant as you may be. Um, yeah, if we're I guess if we're going to be maintaining a storm water basin either way and we're going to be taking over the [snorts] flows from the development itself, we might as well have control of the property at that point in time. You already have to maintain it because you have an easement there. We have an easement. We do we do maintain minimally.

Yeah. We would it would be you would want that to be in a different ownership or something and us having to get permission or have an agreement I guess to where we can go on and maintain it. We certainly could. Yeah. It's just kind of a use but wash either way. It's not if we're going to take it then we'd be maintaining all of it or you know

anyway. I would I would I guess I Yeah, as I would recommend let's let's see if we can make an agreement to have the property under our control and the basin ours for then we can control it not only now for existing storm flows but anything in the future that we may need to address bigger to handle any detention that's on this this side only I'm saying because it's adjacent to it [clears throat]

throw out there. You know, if we take this property off, we'll include weed maintenance. The those projects going to be planting trees and bushes around that detention basin. So, there'll be some cost there and upkeep as well as just one. Sounds like trying to send code enforcement after us. I I guess then that goes back to the development. Are they going to improve the street frontage with landscaping? Yes, they are. Thanks, guys. You're talking along Buina Vista? Yes, talking along all the streets. I just didn't see a

the landscaping plan that addressed that. That's clear. It's just there's a trail along Buista as well. And then there's just a little bit of planning because there's that same 15 ft with a 10-ft trail along Buista as well. And so to be clear, uh, so all of this area, this whole corner, like everything else in this area is is state trust lands. Um, that specific area because it because the city already has the easement on it, that is not being purchased by the development. I'm just was just staying away from it because it was that. So that would have to be something that would have to go to sit. Well, then we'll just keep it the way it is then.

Yeah. Any additional space, um, the development itself is happy to do whatever and give it whatever whatever you guys want to. We're happy the way that it is, we would do an easement right at that point. If Sitless still owns it, I would just keep it how it is. And then you'd improve the roadways. Yeah. And improve the the landscaping along that. Yep. It's part of your HOA. And then the detention we would Yeah, that's that's exactly what we were trying to do. Yep. I think that makes sense to me. Right. So, are you talking about eliminating the small detention basins and collectively and you and running that flow into the regional? Is that what you're saying?

That's that's what I'm saying is eliminate the detention ponds here and put them all into the regional and he might I mean Bob will have to do the math and and see a little bit larger detention pond. Y what would that impact be Bob if if that were to happen and you were to end up with more space within the sub within the development. How would that correlate to more for space for the kids and stuff and just more homes and keeping the density the same? Yeah. So, the density would remain the same because there isn't any enough space to change that and add more units. But that density you're talking about your overhaul unit count, correct? There's 134 units on there and and I couldn't increase it even if we do this. It wouldn't change that number. It's not that big enough to matter. So, you can't really increase amenities.

Um amenities just the this um Councilman codes hit it right on the head. the the one in the right in the middle that funky triangle shaped one basin three that basin three that is usable space and so we would land fully landscape that and I would be totally on board with the thought is to put uh turf through there it might be artificial just because we don't want too much maintenance but um but yes all of that could be usable that whole corner you already have in this amenity clubhouse and a tot lot yep yeah and to be clear the the clubhouse it's labeled the clubhouse it's showers and bathrooms, right? Like it's it's proportionate to the project, right? It has a very nice, in my opinion, pool with a very large deck space.

Um, but but the clubhouse is not a meeting area. It has a shade structure. It has bathrooms and showers. That's it. Um, and then it has the two pickle ball courts and then the top park and then just the grass and that whole area there. Are you are you looking at doing artificial turf there as well or

you know I'm kind of I'm thinking that that might be real grass around the top park because I just feel like the kids would like that better and it doesn't get so warm. So my current thought is from the pickle ball courts running um up the screen which is uh east here um would all be real grass and everything else would be artificial. And let me just jump in because I know Councilman Ivy's has a line of questions he has, but what I'm thinking is you've got the new ultraefficient water standard that Yep. that you could get that reduced impact fee at the district if you if you meet that standard. And yeah, we're planning,

of course, I I know that all on this council, they want places for for kids to play. And but if if that can help with affordability on paying a lower impact fee there and and lower water use, that's is that something you're already planning on doing? For sure. Yeah, you got we're we're following suit right along with you. That's right. Sorry, Councilman. No, you're good, mayor. Thank you. So, I watched the uh planning commission in person as well, and it seemed to me like a lot of the residents didn't really understand some of the details about this project. Did you did you sense that as well at all or?

Yeah, I think that um part of the part of the item was basically like it's it's nothing now and that's pretty awesome, right? Just open space and they've been used to that. But then also understanding that that currently it's C3 and there could be full-blown commercial there with many uses that have been brought up as well. And then this the the our intent here is to transition obviously from densities like we would in a general planning fashion and transition into these higher density products as far as commercial goes and the highest intensity which will be obviously near the interchange all the way through here.

But a lot of them that a lot of the res our good residents that stood in opposition they didn't mention the C3 zoning or that I just I'm again I think that there was a little bit of a misunderstanding. So just to be very very clear and the what you have in entitlements right now is you have C3 correct which council person read read out what some of those could be in that commercial zone and you have R1 six R16 correct and what you're proposing is a PUDR which is a PUD residential correct

that basically gives the city some say in how it develops and what amenities there are so that it conforms well with the area and into the So, have you had anyone reach out since that meeting for clarification? Because I felt like there was a disconnect in what actually you're proposing and what some of the res residents thought that it was going to become. Well, I think that through the discussion in the meeting um from from the initial items with from Elden presenting it to then the public hearing and then the discussion amongst everybody, I felt like there was a full circle just generally sitting by them while because I was here and they were here just listening to them. I felt like they in the end of that meeting understood that the C3 existed and they did not understand that to begin with and so [clears throat] I because they've totally calmed down. I was there. They didn't they didn't come they weren't really upset at all. They didn't come up to me and they all of the initial initial items that they were bringing up that were challenges for them I felt like were dissipated because at the end of the discussion they got there and understood that it was C3 and they did not understand that.

And [clears throat] I excuse me I didn't have the opportunity to speak with Andy Mafer but originally in the zoning that that you have now the entitlements what was the intent of the C3 there was that was that ever talked about of what you wanted to do with the C3 on this location? Yeah, it was actually brought up and I believe it was that that brought up the original master plan. So, this was a a larger master plan that had a hospital anchored in the middle. That was the old. So, this this zoning was part of that original zoning which came in as the medical plaza for that entire room was going to have the hospital and Northstar and all that stuff. Okay.

Yep. And that so it matched. I mean, and there was a site plan that was that was shown. It wasn't part of my submitt just live in the meeting there and and uh you guys can correct me if I'm wrong, but um the the hospital sat there in the middle and they had medical office buildings right up to that edge. Yeah, we were very familiar with that. In fact, it it was we were sad that that changed.

Um so I you know I get heartburn um when when we take away any commercial from the city. You know, we are struggling and fighting for every we can get to maintain our roads, like we talked about earlier, our public safety, but I think tonight in listening and hearing, it seems like it's almost a wash, like Elden said, between the two, you know, and I do understand the importance of buffering, and I do understand that some uses may not be great for the neighbors on the west side. So, um, I guess I just wanted to to to just clarify that even though I am not in favor of taking away city commercial, in fact, we're working right now on a master plan update to find out to identify locations so we can bring that in.

Sure. To to to solidify those in the future. Um, I just wanted you to know that that's that is a very unique dynamic for me and that I think that I'm I'm okay with it understanding where it's at now. But originally in the in the planning commission meeting, it wasn't really detailed that that it was a wash between those two. And so that might be helpful too to send that message out if someone was to reach out.

Sure. And we did that, you know, as part of the overall development. that that was my application and I did the best that I could to take acre for acre and rotate that essentially down along that that edge the west edge. The only reason that it was short that.3 is because of the master plan road I work through there the connect and I attached to the road and that's the only reason it was reduced. We didn't want to, we were trying not to reduce it as well. And so I I was having the same vision as you wanting to keep all of that because I I know the situation well.

And so just to be clear, it was it was.3 at best of an acre or less and that's as close as I could get it to make it physically fit on the ground where it was. And so I totally agree with you and understand it was just as close as I could make it for you.

No, I think that.3 is negligible. But, you know, the residents also talked about things like traffic studies and and wanting those type of things that always come up because, you know, you've got some great members or citizens up there that live in a great area. They they don't want it negatively impacted. And so, working with them going forward would be wonderful. And I think you do a nice job with that. But again, I don't want to be redundant, but I think there was some misconceptions that they're still out there. Maybe just a good explanation or conversation will let them know that this is really a better development now in my opinion than what possibly could have come in under the C3 which could could have potentially negatively impacted their neighborhood.

I agree and happy to do that just as somebody reaches out. Yeah,

good points. Thank you, Councilman. Any further discussion or questions on this particular item? If not, I'll uh turn to the council for uh for a motion. I'll make a motion we approve ordinance zone change Z-25-23 from R16 and C3 to PUDR located at Washington Parkway and Tortoise Rock with the finding conditions provided by staff with the additional condition/clarification that we have block walls on the main public roadways of Tortois Rock Road along the detention basin and the new public road to the east. And I'm just recommending and then staff can get with the applicant on working on those storm drains, but it's not I'm not making that a condition. I'm just

that those storm drains can be work on the detention ponds being combined with the regional because it's adjacent directly adjacent to the existing regional basin we have. Can I ask a clarifying question? But you wouldn't want it to extend to the discussion where we would be acquire acquiring property from settler. Not this time because Sitla owns it. Understanding that there's no reason. We'll just keep our easement with Sitla. I agree. Was that we'll just deal with that. I mean, if Sila wants to donate it to the city, that's fine. But I don't we're not going to buy it. So, I'll just leave that how it is for now, knowing that's not being purchased by them. All right, council. You've heard the motion by Councilman Coats. Any questions on that? Any additional questions or clarifications on that?

I gave a second. So, yeah. Can I can [clears throat] I make another clarification? I'm I'm assuming that they're going to landscape the street frontage around the detention basin though. So, and maintain by their HOA the landscaping. And that and that's my next question looking at the applicant the applicant's representative. Do you feel good about that? I I think what I hear the council councilman and council saying is that if you're able to move that detention that storm drain into the regional then that gives you flexibility with the landscaping in those areas. Sound good? I've got a motion uh by Councilman Coats, a second by Councilman Belliston. We'll go roll call beginning with Council Member Ivy. I Coats Henderson. Hi.

Belliston. Caspersonson. That is approved. And I think um will be an even better project for the discussion. Thanks for hanging with us on that one, guys. Next item of business item 8 C. This is consideration to approve an ordinance for general plan amendment G-25-05 from low density to neighborhood commercial located at 400 West Merrill Road. Community Development Director Elden Gibb is doing the work tonight. He will present to the council on this item.

This entire parcel covers 14.05 05 acres. And as shown in the exhibit, the applicant is proposing to change approximately 11.77 acres from low density to neighborhood commercial. The remaining 2.28 acres is proposed to stay lowdensity residential. The surrounding general plan land use designations are low density to the north, east, south, and St. George City boundary being directly to the west with this property being developed as commercial. Staff has reviewed the requested change and is comfortable with the proposal. The planning commission reviewed this request on December 3rd and unanimously recommended approval onto the city council based on the findings stated in staff report. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have at this time.

Council, what questions you have for Elden? Um, real quick, what was the reasoning behind keeping the uh two acres low density? Look like a road stubs there maybe. Exactly. Yes, you can see that uh I believe it's Leaf Lane stubbed into that property. They wanted to to carry that residential use out and to the east. Uh there'd be no internal connection from residential to commercial, however. Okay, got it. Can I just make a comment? I

So again, I want to I want to commend Rusty on her staff report notes. She's always very thorough and and her comments on this are excellent. The economic development director strongly supports the proposed general plan amendment to capture sales tax revenue. This one, as the other one was a challenge, this one's a lot easier for me. I think it makes sense. I think it's part of what we need down there. um capture as much sales tax as we can given the current buildout that's going on there. Thank you. May I make a comment? Councilman Henderson,

I really like this. The the only change I would like to see on it is [clears throat] I would like to see 240 west all the way down to Merrill Road be uh residential with the commercial starting at the backyard [clears throat] lot line of of that uh residential. It just doesn't make sense to me to So, so the subject property here, the uh east boundary of it is right on 240 240 West right where Elden's doing that. I would like to see those bigger residential lots go all the way down to Merrill Road and then have the commercial on the west or on the east end of this subject property start at the backyard line of the lots. Those those lots are you know 6 acre half acre lots. I'd like to see those lots continue all the way down to Merrell Road. Councilman, just clarify here that this commercial will be in this Utah shape square. So the this will remain residential here,

right? I'll make that note. Make sure that was clear there. So what I'd like to see is if you take your cursor over to right there, I'd like to see those lots continue all the way down to Merill Road on 240 West. So, and have the commercial start backyard going west. So, to me, it just makes sense to keep that residential all the way down that road.

We don't know necessarily what's going to go into the east yet, right? Green Field could just end up with a strip of residential houses right there. Is that I mean we don't know yet what what they want to do on the east match up with it. Hasn't that been annex? No. Annex that in that's going to annex in with a zoning that annexed or is the the one next to it? But but yeah, they'll it's unanexed. So there's your annexation. So

they could ask they could ask for different zoning. We we may end up with just one strip of single family homes right there. And I I just don't know. I mean, we just need to think about if that's that's what you want to see right there. So then they're going to have in their backyard that that your homes. So I mean I drive on that road every single day, several times a day because I'm working over in that neighborhood and

but I don't think those homes facing that street. Like usually we on those main roads we try not to have them face that street. This is this is one street down, right? I guess there's there's some I'm not saying there's not. Well, think about this too.

I I'm not opposed to if you wanted to do that and put that in your motion. I'm just This is for uh avata, right? Right now, if you did neighborhood commercial, you put two outlets out on Merill Road, but you could put a third outlet over on 240 and egress to where you're not trying to fight traffic on a main street because at some point that'll probably end that could

I'm not for this project because I don't think it's the right spot for this commercial. But if you're going to put commercial, you should go all the way to 240. because of those reasons and that. So, I get what you're saying, but on on Maro, which is going to be a busy road. I'm I'm concerned you're going to limit this commercial if you're going to do it all the way, but I I personally don't like it here. I I think we've The reason why I don't is because I fought so hard about the PO in St. George went and met with them and I so I'm that's why I'm against it is I don't think it's appropriate right here because we fought so hard for our I did at least fought for our residents to not have the PO but we couldn't do anything about it. So now I'm like now I feel like I'd be not sticking to my guns on we shouldn't have do it to our own residents now but that's my opinion. Now, did did you fight against PO or did you fight against the road alignment on PO because I don't remember that we we tried not to get

the original PO was swapped the other way along 3000 East. Then they swapped it to go along Melo Road and put it right up against our single family residence. So now I'm sitting here going, it's okay for me to do. That's why I'm against it. You know what? You already know what I'm going to say. I mean, it feels a little bit like me, it feels a little bit like shooting ourselves in the foot just because we didn't we didn't want it in St. George. But now that we have it, don't we want to take advantage of the sales tax there? I mean, now we're understand what you're saying. And I So, this is me, right? No one else has to agree with me. I think it's hypocritical of me

to sit here and fight for the residents and in the same and sit and go against St. George about this and then me come in my own council chambers and approve it. me. I'm the I'm the only one that sat in that room that day and and fought that. And so that's just just me, right? If you guys think it's better for the community and tax revenue, that's great. We don't even have residents here complaining about it, right? So maybe they don't care. I'm just I'm just telling you my way I feel about it. My only comment, and I'm not disagreeing with you, you feel how you want to feel, but we didn't win. And so now we have commercials, but we want to make the best out of it that we can rather than I understand where you're coming from.

I think that's Jeremy. I think that's kind of where I'm at, too. I guess what I'm concerned about where that green field there, I think it's still in the county to the to the east of the subject property. It makes a good point that if if that were to become, which I've already stayed my opinion about that many times on commercial in the city. I think it's important to have a good look at all those. it may be problematic to have just a strip of houses there unless unless we think that that that zoning there is not going to be residential or that it would be not be commercial. I mean

yeah I mean I I guess my main issue with it is if we were to go all the way down with those halfacre lots down to Merrill on 240 it would to me it would soften the transition between commercial and the residential. I mean, you got houses that are two, three million dollar houses and then all of a sudden you got commercial right there on the same street. So, to me, just having driven up and down that street and I understand the you know, the traffic flows, the egress and all that kind of stuff. I mean, I I kind of feel like Councilman Coats does in in a way, and that's why I kind of feel like, you know, that would soften the transition between

between that ne uh that residential neighborhood and the commercial. So, that would feel better. But those 240, right? They do. There's a couple right there. Yeah. Yeah. I'm saying they we try not to on those, but there's a whole set of houses that whole I would say a whole block hollow there. Yeah. Yeah. You can see them. These are all facing 240, but everything else is not. These aren't. The east side are not. The west side are Yeah. Yeah. The whole west side is facing 240. Okay. But we But typically we try not to

face houses to main roads like this. But the way these laid out, it worked out better that way. And so it happens. But I know the one thing that'll keep our residents happy is not raising their taxes. We do that is sales tax. So my position

Elden click the layer for that just shows you the general planning there. When the the Adams family who owned those unannexed lands worked with the city to connect Merryill Road on that new route. They did as part of their negotiation ask that they be designated neighborhood commercial at that intersection which you see there. You see that red red square there. And so so part of what the planning department is I believe is trying to do is they're looking at the commercial that's come to the west on the St. George pieces of the of the uh LDS church properties and then also part of what the Adams have asked along Mel Road and just trying to trying to plan in a way that that that that tries to acknowledge those realities and [clears throat] so there is a piece there nearby to the east that is already general planned for commercial.

Thank you. Uh Rusty, this seems to be like in your wheelhouse. would you make a comment and then certainly we'll give the applicant and the applicant's representative an opportunity to speak.

Thanks mayor uh and councel. So this is this is one area where um as Washington city is seeking to increase our potential for commercial development. Um we did speak with the applicant. We understand that there is housing to the south. this is something that they're looking at because of the commercial to the west and they do they do have to get a general plan change first. Um we've encouraged them staff has encouraged them to look at PUB commercial zoning so that you can come back they'll come back to council and you can ensure that it's tastefully done. Um, they've also had [clears throat] a lot of interest from retailers that are looking at this area in general. And so that's kind of what precipitated it as as as these retailers are looking in in the area in general and they're really finding this area good for commercial. So I think staff may also recommend um when the properties are annexed in to the east that there may be some commercial along the frontage because of the Mel road is being a is a is a major road and we already have the commercial on the St. George side. This is a way for Washington city to capture some of the sales tax revenue that comes there.

Thank you Rusty. Further questions for staff? If not, I'll invite the applicant or the applicant's representative to come forward. And if [clears throat] you'll just state your name for the third time there. Bob Hermanson. Um, appreciate your time tonight. So, all of the comments are are great and and and uh they they all were warranted. Um, the comment about fronting on 240. Um it just my my comment on that would be it would create a situation where um you would have very large halfacre lots but budding up against Merryill um and that on a sideyard essentially that seems a little bit odd just because it's such a harsh what is Merryill a minor collector? I can't remember the size.

I don't know if it's a major I think it's a 90. Is that right? Yeah I I think it's a 90. Um minor arterial.

Yeah. So, um, yeah. So, that's one comment and and 100% in in some rough sketches that we had, we were accessing on a 240 through the commercial to to Councilman Billston's comment. Um, so that is definitely an access point and then and then having uh two to three access points running to the north directly into Merrill. The other reason that we have that um snippet of residential down there on the bottom is we do have a road stub to us. And so essentially all that it is is as simple simple as it continues directly into a small knuckle and turns to the right and exits with with a with lots wrapping around the outside of it. There's five lots there that are uh anywhere from.35 acres to 44ish acres. They're very nice size lots. They're similar to the ones that are to the south.

Maybe help me understand this a little better. Um, so on the part that you're leaving, uh, medium density or low density, um, you're going to have a road wrap around there. Will it have halfacre lots on both sides of that road or will that road butt right up to the commercial?

No, sir. essentially right there's lots we actually in this discussion acres but even looking at that we went back and just trying to be be good neighbors. There was a there was a comment with some um direct uh side angles through Pine Valley is that they thought that it would be better if we expanded those lots a little bit. So, we went back and actually added 30 ft to the back of those lots um to just give that a little bit more buffer right right where the detention pond is there. We also actually increased that um while we got looking at it the the line that runs north and south there, I'm sorry, east and west and bumped it another 10 ft as well. So, we increased it on top of that. So, they're all u they're not h halfacre lots, but they're they're very close. There's just five of them. Um

Okay, that that [clears throat] makes a little more sense to me. So, we just didn't want that road through the residential to continue into directly into the commercial. That was just a just a no-go. We didn't want to do that. We want them accessing off of Merill and then one access off of um 20 240. Okay.

Yeah. And so that was our intent and it was completely basically if you will bleed off from you know the sales as it's getting ramped up and its success other tenants wanting more space. And so that's where originally we had looked at this with four different options for residential and then with the sales being being ahead and then all of a sudden that started coming in and it just there's just a lot there's a lot availability and so the intent is to match intensity on the west side of the project. That's also why we're happy to to submit a the PDC plan is that to show you is that basically we'd have higher intensity uses on the west side of the project and as we um work our way to the east the intent is to have a more professional office space so it more blends more into that residential.

Okay. And so that makes sense. Yeah. So so we were feeling the same way but trying to accommodate it with the intersection and the access. Um that's why we were more than happy to bring the PDC in to show it to you. Yeah, in those uses. Okay. Thank you. How soon do you anticipate bringing if assuming this is approved tonight? How soon you anticipate bringing that back? I'm sure it's going to be pretty quick. We We have a couple of different options, but really we needed to get this done so we can have real conversations with everybody because it was kind of a no-go, but but it's active and so I I don't think it'll take long. It was pretty active. Okay, further questions for the applicants representative.

Thanks, Bob. Yep. council further. This is your opportunity now to discuss this further andor and or make a motion. The mayor, I'll make a motion to approve an ordinance for general plan amendment G-25-05 from low density LD to neighborhood commercial NCOM located at 400 West Merrill Road. Second. You've heard the motion by Councilman I. I have a second by Councilman Belliston. We'll go roll call beginning with I believe we're on council member Coats. May Henderson. Hi. Belliston. Hi. Ivy.

Hi. That is approved. Three to one. Make us proud down there, Bob. You always do. Um Bob, I'm sure you want to get home to your family. If I take more than about seven to if we take more than about seven to 10 minutes, bounce. But if not, could you hang around just for a little bit longer? Sure. Thank you.

Let's go on to item 8 D. This is consideration to approve an ordinance for general plan amendment G-25-06 adding the water use and preservation element. Uh, the applicant is Washington City and our very own community development director, Elden Gibb, will present on our behalf. I'm on a timeline, 7 to 8 minutes. This will be quick here. I got to get to report from officers.

Um, this comes from state bill 110. Uh, we're required to to incorporate add a water use and preservation element to the general plan. We've worked through that and um as we did that, you know, I recognize that we've adopted the joint agency regional water conservation plan. We have a very proactive updated landscaping and water conservation ordinance that we're uh abiding by implementing and one example is advanced metering infrastructure throughout the city. So, we're very up to date on the things that we're doing proactive. Um, this is divided up into six sections and I'm happy to discuss anything that you'd like to discuss.

Any questions? Any discussion? Otherwise, I'm ready to entertain a motion. Make a motion we approve the general plan amendment G-25-06 for adding the water use and uh preservation element. Have a motion by Councilman Coats. Second. Second by Councilman Belliston. We'll go roll call begin with council member Henderson. I Belliston. I Ivy I

coats that is approved unanimously 420. Next section of the agenda resolution. There are two items. Item 9A consideration to approve a resolution for an equipment lease with Zans's bank court for the purchase of golf carts. Appropriately, city manager Jeremy Red will present on the golf item. Try to do this in less than 30 minutes. It's a golf item, so it takes a lot of consideration. Let me do it. [laughter]

Time for us to lease new golf carts. Uh, previously we have leased them directly from a different company that's now going that is not no longer in business. So, we're going to lease them directly from Inter Mountain Golf Carts, but you do it through Zans's Bank. They need a resolution from the council. Um, we we'll use the pricing that's from the state contract. We went out Zans's Bank had the best lease price, 4.4% 4% rate and at the end of the lease, uh, Inter Mountain Golf Carts buys back the carts at the balloon payment of $95,000. So, pretty straightforward what we've done in the past. But, so are we replacing all the carts or is just a portion? All the carts.

We're on a lease that's now we're we're done with the lease. So, those go back, they get bought back by the the previous company and we'll buy all new golf carts. Happens every five years or so. When's the roll out? Uh, they'll order them right right away. We hope to have them in in a month. A new golf cart. Do the Does the lease make I'm sorry, I thought you were done. Does the lease make money for us? No. No. It's a break even kind of thing. Just a way of spreading out that cost over five years so that we're not paying $500,000 today and then five years from now we have another,000 bill.

Paying on the value considering pulling out the residual when we give them back if there is any. We well we're guaranteed a $95,000 buyback at the end. Okay. From Inter Mountain Golf Card and so we end up paying 400,000 instead of 500,000 and it works out really well. Lets us budget it across the life of the golf carts too which is nice. Any further discussion, questions on this item? I'll entertain a motion. So moved. Have a motion to approve by Councilman Henderson. Is there a second? Second. Second by Councilman Coats. [sighs] Resolution. Sorry guys. We'll begin with council member Belliston Henderson Coats. Hi Ivy. Hi.

That's approved unanimously. 40. Item 9B. Consideration to approve a memorandum of understanding between Washington City and the city of St. George. City attorney Thad Sigma will present. Council members Ivy and Coats are on deck as they were part of this conversation. City attorney.

Thank you, Mayor. Uh this is a written document that has kind of got a long history, but I'll keep it brief. Um St. George City earlier this year proposed an amendment to their annexation policy plan. You'll all remember you've you've had some discussion and consult on that. It had changed some things that caught Washington's attention. Washington City did file a formal objection to that. Also earlier this year, Washington City initiated an annexation petition for certain lands. And so thisou is intended to document the agreement that was reached as the mayors and certain council members of both cities came together to discuss it. The the general and it's a pretty short document, but we don't need to read it all. Generally what it does is it it indicates that in exchange for Washington City agreeing not to protest an annexation from the area of annexation that St. George City calls area D that in exchange St. George City would agree to remove annexation area F from their policy plan. Now, if you read real closely and compared the maps, you would see that part of St. George, part of Washington City's current annexation action, of which St. George did not object includes lands within area D. And so, um, we've had discussions with their attorney's office and and St. George knows that they did not object to that. They know that the intent of this agreement is not to guarantee them the BLM lands within area D and that they've have not objected and Washington City in essence is able to continue forward with with our annexation on where it sits.

What questions might you have for me? Nope, Tad, you caught it. I saw that the annexation area D the north half was current annexation that's not quite done but in the process. I just will want to make a condition that St. George didn't want to update their map when when I [clears throat] when we if we make a motion on this that a condition that St. George acknowledges that they didn't want to update the map for ourou because it didn't affect them. Right. And that I'm not following you. Sorry.

I just want to make sure they're clear that we're annexing this in. But when I read this, it doesn't I understand what you said. When I read it originally, I was like, "Hey, that's wrong because they're saying we won't object to it." But I don't want them to come back and say, "Well, you agreed to this, but then you went and annexed in a bunch of property." So, so our annexation and their time frame to object expired before this was written. We'll have all expired before this is signed. And so, as a matter of law, I'm comfortable that it's clear that our annexation is is prior in time and in right to this one. And so for me, I'm looking at the language in um that's why I'm confused. I was Looks like my packet's only showing the resolution. Anyway, I was looking at the language. I'll There it is. In paragraph number, it's it's Roman numeral 3, expansion area D. The second sentence of that section, the cities agree that Washington will not protest this area annexing into St. George and and in exchange, St. George agrees to with withdraw expansion area from its annexation policy. Um, and then the very last paragraph before the general section, the cities understand and agree that the property owner will request annexation of expansion area D into St. George and that the property owner will request expansion annexation of expansion area F into Washington at the same time. So that's I think the understanding you're referencing.

That's what I'm concerned about is it says we won't object to it, but then we're going into annexing it in. That's that's what got me my concern. Yeah. And so so we discussed that through and um we are in first place on that already by nature of the date and time in which we filed our annexation. Their their decision not to object to it. And [clears throat] so um nothing in here says Washington City cannot annex any of area D. What it says is we agree not to protest if they annex the lands. Okay. But what happened to the other areas that was in their original paperwork A, B, and C?

Those have remained as published. Uh the meeting didn't discuss those. There haven't there hasn't been any agreement as to as to uh what those will or won't be. So those stay in the annexation. So they're in both our annexation plan, right? So decides to do it at that time. No.

If St. George and and I understand from my meetings with them that once both city councils have reviewed that their city council's reviewing the similu this week also um they would they they intend to go ahead and adopt it and essentially knowingly create a situation where they overlap and both cities in theory can then decide if and when they choose to annex. And so part of what what we've been doing is choosing to annex early and often on that section that had some importance to Washington City. [clears throat] I

I actually thought it was a really good exercise in in the relationship we had with our friends and neighbors there on such a long shared border. We really appreciated the the the staff working together, the counterpart, mayor and council. just it was a good good respectful meeting on both sides and um this is good work. I think I think we're I'm comfortable with it. Yeah, I I feel like it reflects the meeting that I attended and I I do agree that the map probably doesn't reflect the meeting's understanding, but it does reflect St. George City's annexation policy plan amendment that they published. So, it's the same map that they had already published.

Okay. [clears throat] And so the issue here is can a property owner that wasn't the property owner that we were discussing about allow something to be annexed into Washington city and the answer to that is that property owners already consented in the in the proper time to object to Washington city's annexation. no neighboring cities objected and so so we're essentially down the road past the opportunity to protest that happening as it's coming.

So with that, is there anything on the horizon that we need to be considering? I know that you've talked about it, but just to be in very clear terms, is there anything else that we need to be aware of or is there a boundary on the east or the west that we need to be proactive on or we you feel like we're in a good position? Well, there's you're you're you're informed of all the areas that are not finalized for either city. Um on the north, I believe the Washington Parkway and whether that project gets approved and funded will will create kind of a rush on the north side depending on where it ends up going.

Um on the east side, it's fairly well designated with the exception of the Hughes property that that Washington City's got a firm position uh is in St. George City's annexation plan. That could change based on politics or other things. Um, this appears to button up the rest, but we we haven't had a lot of correspondence with our neighbor to the east, and we don't anticipate there's adversity there, but I guess in theory that could that could occur someday. Does the city of St. George have utilities to the Hughes property? No, that's part of the issue is it would it appears to be more economical to have it be Washington served by Washington City utilities. Thank you, Tad. Y

council, back to you for further discussion and or a motion. We'll make a motion we approve the memorandum of understanding between Washington City and St. George City on the annexations. Heard the motion by Councilman Coats. Is there a second? Second by Councilman Bellison. Roll call beginning with Council Member uh Henderson. Hi. Coats. Hi. Ivy. Hi. H uh Belliston. Hi.

Approved unanimously. Four to zero. We will move on to report of officers from assigned committees. Normally I start with you, Councilman Bellison. However, we're going to start with a little video and then I'm going to ask uh Bob who's gracious enough to stay around just to give us a little bit of an update there. Elden, do you have that video? We got it queued up. Maybe we do. No audio. So, actually, I'll just talk a little bit while while we're seeing um these. This is lot 101 and 102. It was my privilege this afternoon in my office to sign the plat and uh Bob will pick that up from from Bonnie in the planning uh office in the morning and he'll take that over and get it recorded. Uh these are I Bob will tell us for sure I believe 150,000 square foot 175,000 square foot. Justin Harryman just uh emailed me today. They were 100% leased and um and Bob's going to give us a little more update on it. But you know I remember four years ago almost this exact time in fact it was Veterans Day when they were wanting the group approached me about annexing this property into St. George. I know Councilman Bellison had some, you know, laid some groundwork down there when he was on the council prior, but what I really like that

what I what I like about this is, and this is kind of the lesson that really occurs to me that we're seeing come to full fruition here, is as a as a as an elected body with the full support of our staff, um, we had the courage and the foresight to extend Washington Field Road south with those utilities. When we took the initiative to go out and get the the public improvement district with the tiff entirely set, we did some work. We we didn't have a lot that we could offer, but we offered what we could. We partnered with the right group. And now, just four short years later, we have two massive buildings that are just a a complete gamecher in the county on what high-end industrial distribution space looks like. And then I did have the chance, if you'll come on up, Bob, I spoke to Bob about what we can expect in terms of building and access. And if you'll just tell the rest of the story, and then I'll put a bow on it.

Yeah, sounds great. And and shout out to the staff. Honestly, it's been fantastic. You guys have just honestly just killed it. Play it again, Elden, while he's talking. Everybody just did it. Yeah, it's awesome. So, um so yeah, so we have these two buildings that are fully leased up. We have another building that's just down to the street to the west to we call the RU building um which also has a full lease as well. It's 300,000 square feet. It's under full And these are

so Yeah. So the south building is slightly smaller. It's about 165. that one to the north is slightly larger and it's just short of 200. Um so yeah, so these are not small. Um the uh yeah, that the next one that's under full construction is is 300k. It is leased and has a tenant right now. Um we have three more sets of plans that we will be submitting uh back to back to back in the next three weeks and three sets of plans. We have another 300k building that there's uh some very serious activity on. So, we're going to charge forward on that building as well. That's just to the right of the one on the screen there, just next one to the north. It's identical to the RU building. And then, um, we're also going to submit, um, at the intersection of Washington Fields Road and our Parkway, there's 150,000 foot building right there, there's some other activity for a building that size. We're going to submit that one.

So, if you're doing the math, that's 950,000 additional square feet. Yeah. And then the one just across the street from this one is the 500k one. We'll submit. That'll be the last one we submit and there's been activity on that. So, um we're internally at like 90% plans on all three and the architect is just right behind us and so those are coming uh as quickly as we can get them in. So, it looks like from this you're under you're grading that road and access to the interchange right now. Um overpass

just where we we were adjacent just improving what we we needed to just because we were adjacent to it. Um so the the the item on there is that we we hope by the end of next week we'll have rightaway documents approved by UD do and then the intent is is that um there's uh we need to get buy off from from all of the stakeholders which there's there's only three there there is one that's somewhat challenging sometimes. We're hoping that that individual signs and if they do um we may be starting the the interchange next year. That is our that's our goal. And then uh and then yeah, I mean there's ton of activity out there, but couldn't couldn't be any happier working with Washington City. You guys have been great. And yeah, it's moving really quickly. Like there's I've never seen a project especially of this magnitude have this much activity. It's kind of unbelievable. Yeah,

it's it's been a great project. I I know that uh Justin and you if you'll I know a date hasn't been set for ribbon cutting, but please keep us in the loop. And Justin's also offered to give us a tour of the building. I remember two or three years ago, we were up north at their West Valley facility and in our

yellow vests and hard hats, you know, looking at their their post and some of their other facilities up there. But but again, I think I think when you have the right partner and the right trust, sometimes in order to make these things happen that are really a benefit to the community in terms of of jobs and revenue to the city, sometimes you got to take just a little bit of initiative and just put a little bit of skin in the game in order to prime the pump and get it going. And I just thought this is a great example of a public private partnership and us working together in partnership

and in all honesty from my point of view being a third party is my understanding is that that's the reason that they came to Washington City to be really clear. Yeah. And so good job. It was good. You've earned your money tonight. Get have a good evening. Don't stay any longer. Uh that uh that's all I have council and then we'll we'll go down to you councilman Bellistston.

Um really the only report I've got from uh sign committees is and this is you know for Councilman Coats as well. Flood Controls adopted their 2026 budget sent out that what the ACE crews you guys all got to see that it's it's I mean those guys do a lot of every year they're doing a couple spring and fall and and clearing different areas of the community and so been they've been a valuable asset

totally agree I think uh Rick Rosenberg does great with those guys and keeps them appreciate all they do is it's critical to our water infra our water corridors to make sure they're cleaned up, get all those tamaresque and all that fun stuff out of there. So,

I think on flood control, um, Mayor Rosenberg was saying that we're about a 10 to one for the on the money put in versus the money we received back freeing grants and money from the feds for taking care of um, you know, clean up of uh, you know, areas that are problem areas, you know, in our drainage. So, uh, it's been a good asset to have that as a flood control authority with all the cities in involved. And it's Santa Clara, St. George, and Washington really is it because those are uh drainage lines that go through multiple cities. Thank you, Council. Appreciate your work, Councilman Henderson.

I don't really have anything, Mayor. Thank you. Okay. I saw your crew out there by Landfill Road or Country Way. Well, I I do have them. hang out there and have lunch because they're always there. [laughter] I do have a mosquito meeting tomorrow and I'm expecting some merch. Where's Caspersonson? If you guys could start treating me nicely, you you may get some merch next time tomorrow. Okay, got some codes.

Yeah, I have a a couple items real quick. The the first item is just an update that the demo is complete. Uh so with the efforts of the county, the landfill, and I'm going to even say myself, we saved the initial bid was three $600,000 for the demo and thing, and we got it for $300,000 just by

for the old scale house to demo it and repave the whole area. It it's a pretty thick section at 6 in that they do right there with all the heavy trucks. And so, but that first bid, I just knew it was bad and I'm like, "No, we're not doing that." And then the county actually charged us like five grand to demo the site. And then Republic let us dump it for free. So, it kind of was a good partnership and made sense. And I'm taking you next time I negotiate for Christmas trees.

You just say no, mayor. That's the key. Um, and then I think some of you have seen or not, but and Landfill Road is paved and striped, so I appreciate Andy and his crew working getting that done. So, it's a nice beautiful road out to a nice beautiful facility. They are landscaping the front of the detention pond around the landfill. So, they're they added a little money there to do that. And then that closes out our CIB funding, which we still have just under a million dollars left that we're not going to use. So, we can return that and save that and uh then it won't cost us as much. But, we had our annual So, they make you do annual payments. It's 400,000 a year. We can't pay it early. They only want it once a year. It's not like you can pay it off early. You just can't

make you can't pay monthly payments. They're like, "We don't want We want it once a year." So, you have to save up and pay them their check every year. But, it's about I think it's like $480,000 we have to pay for the next 30 years. But, it is 2% interest. And we're probably going to self-fund the P the new PCC, which is the public convenience center, the phase three of the project. So, that's coming up. And then, uh, David, I emailed you something. if you can pull it up. But two seconds, the Republic So they've had a few fires. Yeah. And a lot of the problem with fires is batteries.

So I'm bringing this to you to let you know. I don't think we can do it. But they want people to purchase these buckets and pay $100 to put their batteries in and then mail it back to them to dispose of property. Even like double A and all that because most of us just throw away our double A's in the garbage, right? And but they say that it's problem, but I think the real problem is the the lithium batteries that are in like the scooters and those things that are causing the fires that we've had. like they had two trucks not burned down this year, but they had to dump their loads because of lithium batteries this year alone.

Um, so it's more of a reminder to our public that you can't throw any battery away. They recommend no batteries being realistic. I think we've all done it for years. Like I don't know. I'm just being realistic. And but there is a place that you can go on to Republic's website and you can it's like a little five gallon bucket. They wanted us to have it at our cities and I'm like, who's going to maintain it? Who's going to do it? And it's not more the cost, it's more of it's going to cost us more to maintain it than send it. So, so I don't I don't recommend we go down that road because I think it's just a nightmare. But if someone wants to in the community, they can and you can go do it. It's But it's just a little sack that you throw them in and then mail it back. But it is But they do charge you for it, which is I don't know. I thought it was kind of weird that they charged if they were worried about it that much. But it's kind of

I wouldn't want them to catch on fire in the post office though. Maybe we would. But I did learn that's probably I did learn [clears throat] that Lowe's and Home Depot will take them back. I'm thinking if you want to go to Lowe's and Home Depot, they take them back those type of batteries. So you can take them back. Auto batteries, you should go. And then of course there's always the special hazardous waste day that we do twice a year, but it costs us about $150,000. [clears throat] It's like 65,000 on that day. That day we do it twice a year and it costs that. Biggest thing that comes is paint, old paint. Mhm. So they're looking at some options to potentially have their own kind of bed for paint and save money that way because it's

big mural. Well, I guess you can. So apparently if you lay it out and you let it dry then you can put it in the landfill. It's just the liquid part you can't put in the landfill. So you have to have a special containment you can lay it out let it dry and then put it in but you have to be permitted for it. They're we're looking into it to see what that actually costs because and pay 65 to 70% of your loan payment your debt service. Sure. But you know so we're always trying to save money where we can and keep the cost down but I think it's running well. So that's my report and thank you. Good job, Councilman Ivy.

So yes, I have with Mo. I'll start off there. Um we were felt very good about our last meeting where the city secured $1.1 million prime to widen Merryill Road. It came in as the top priority. And I just want to share my appreciation for Blake and for public works. you know, we do a good job representing the city and advocating for everything that's entitled to us and I appreciate that. And I didn't think of this, but Councilman Coach reminded me um the landfill fire um that occurred out there just like a couple weeks ago um had our residents out that lived by there in Red Waters up in arms. They were afraid that the other landfills on fire again. But um so today was is an important day in the history of that landfill. This is the 30th day for that report that was supposed to be submitted to uh DEEQ. And so I was just wondering I haven't heard a lot. I know a lot of you the residents come in and spoke to us before a public a public comment period. Um Jeremy, could we have um Chief Evans just give us an update on that or what's going on? I haven't really heard a lot from I

think the last update I saw is they were waiting for today which is the 30th day the 10th of December and then the DEEQ will review their plan. They hope they they don't expect that it's a finalized plan. They'll have to go back and forth, but they hope that it's it's uh enough that they can get them started on the remediation process. So I haven't heard what they got back today or how it's how it's coming along, but that's that's the latest update we have. Let's see if if is Chief Evans on. Let's if we've got a an update. I don't I haven't heard anything either. I just wondered if they might have reported to him earlier today. I

I'm not sure if he's on the line. I didn't have a heads up on that. No problem. That's okay. I just uh I just want you to know the fire, they're still experiencing the same problem out there as they have. It hasn't gotten better. So, we need to continue to work to give them all the relief that that we can. So, mayor, can I have one more thing? Yeah. And then I might add one more to you as well. So, I just want to say I went to the fireman Christmas party and I went to the policeman and it was the cutest thing and I showed the picture to Jeremy, but with they was in Heritage Hall for the fire because we have those little windows that have those deep benches, right? Yeah.

Santa was coming. So, all the kids came up and they were just looking out that window because they're like, "He's coming. He's And then the fire uh department or the truck came up, pulled right up next to it. Those kids freaked out. It was awesome. They ran outside and then Santa got off. It was It was really cute. So it was like it was like, "Oh, that place is amazing for that kind of stuff." And I it worked out way better than I imagined. And it was just funny like the little things of little kids sitting in the window. I never would have thought got to me, but it got to me a little bit. So I don't know. So I'm glad we have that place and we're utilizing it. So that's all. Mayor,

so in place of Councilwoman Caspersonson, I know she does the active transportation. I'm loving those trails and there's there's some trails several sections down. Can you just give us an update on I saw them south of George Washington Boulevard, too, finishing up some split rail fencing there?

I should make Paul finish that. Yeah, I agree. I'm more than happy to. But there's four segments and they're all paved and done. The last walkthrough was this week for the last segment down by south of George Washington Boulevard. I think the community members are loving it because they are all over those things. So, I think they've been a great addition that it it's funny how you wouldn't think a little trail would matter, but man, it really is helping get these kids north and south along that section of road and it gets them off Washington field roads and the street. They they feel safer on those canal trails. So, I think it's it's awesome that it got done. So, I appreciate the staff working on it. It's I' I've been amazed at how popular they are and there are some pretty trails that in some areas you wouldn't have known. So, I would recommend you go walk them or run them

and check them out. And then we do have lots of kids that think that it's a racetrack though, too. So, Paul and police need to work on that. They get on those motorcycles and think it's a new highway for them. Spike strips. No, I'm teasing. No, no, don't do that. But Paul Paul and his team got a good they got some signs up that says no ebikes, no e motorcycles. I saw those. I think those are helpful to help kind of inform what's allowed and what's not allowed on our trail system. But yeah, there's I'm super excited about those.

And then I think as you kind of go from Lost Ridge and Merrill south, that subdivision seems to be building out and I think we have another section along Washington Fields Road of Trail that will that will parallel Washington Fields Road.

Yeah. So what what we have is so the four segments we did was north by uh Indian nullles which is where the where the future hopefully trail head will be there. It kind of is the end of the line for the canal there on that north side. Well not going north south end of the line but that connect all the way down to I can't remember that road name red sands or something like that. And then we start over again on Washington Dam Road because we have a gap that we can't get right now because when it gets developed, we'll hit it. And then it runs from uh Washington Dam Road all the way to Lost Spring, Lost Ridge. Lost Ridge and then Lost Lost Ridge goes down to the elementary.

Yeah. And then from there it goes down to Washington Fields Road. And that's that privately built section that looks like it's coming right away. And that group's coming right now. And then we have the commercial piece which that could get us all the way down to George Washington. Then across the other side down and then it goes down from George Washington all the way down to our city limit. So we have [clears throat] there's there's only a couple little segments left.

Which part? No, it's not. It's private property. It's blocked off. So So there's a sidewalk. Yeah. Sidewalk. Not very far even really. You just parallel it. But it's just east of in the Indian null. Is it Indian nullles? Indian. Yeah. Seminal way. This is your old neighborhood, Councilman Bell. It's in Indian Nolles. Indian Nolles. Is that what it is? Your old neighborhood. So, right there, just behind there. And we weren't able to acquire those easements right now because they're not ready and it's not developed yet. But when it gets developed, then that's when it'll go in. But I think it was very successful. I know. I've been working on it for six years and so I'm ecstatic that it finally got

but it seems a little bit like it [clears throat] par it it mimics Aura that we just all of a sudden came really quick after a lot of years of work [clears throat] and the real value to the community because it connects those neighborhoods connects those regional parks down towards the Wills Park and Sullivan and things. So anyway, I just I'm really excited about that. You know, Stone Hedge is really excited too with the with the trail that's gone through there because it cleaned up that area. Yes. just naturally cleaned it up and remember we worked for for a long time to get that taken care of and it looks really nice. People are really excited and they're using it already. So that's good work, good effort. Good to see families out using it and enjoying it. Thanks council. Next item, city manager report.

I don't have anything else to add, mayor. I I think that we had great, you know, the entire month of November, December, some really great events. We've talked about those a few times, but really appreciate all the hard work. Lots of lots of elected official and staff time and and community time that went into those, but fantastic events and just echo what Councilman uh Ivy said. You know, we we're on top of the the DEEQ and and the landfill and we'll keep we'll keep right on that. I'll I'll keep updating you and we can keep updating the residents, but nobody's forgotten. Well, and and what I like about that and and I I love that we we we've heard and we hear the residents, but I think it's appropriate that we continue to direct them to the the state agency that has the oversight and and that's really where we need to keep doing that because that's their responsibility and we'll we'll we'll do our part in where we can, but they have that primary duty and we'll keep we'll keep directing them there.

Absolutely. And then just recognizing that, you know, we'll we'll continue to follow up. We're not also letting that just be on them. We'll continue to follow up. We'll make sure that they're they're on top of it as well. So Jeremy, would you be the the point of contact for DEEQ or would it be Chief Evans? I'm not sure if Evans has been Evans with me. Okay. Thank you. We do have need to go to close session for items 12 A and 12 C. I'll uh call for a motion to move to close session. So made. Motion by Councilman Ivy. Second. Second by Councilman Henderson. We got to go. Roll call beginning with Council Member Ivy. Belliston. Henderson. Coat.

We are approved. Four to zero. Unanimous. We'll we'll move into close session. Uh let's take about a five minute or so break and then we'll meet in the boardroom.