City Council - Regular Meeting

All right, we are at 5:30. We'll call the meeting to order. Grateful to have everybody here tonight. And um we'll start uh with uh prayer from uh Paul Edinger. Probably pronounced your last name wrong, and I'm sorry, Paul, if I did, but we're grateful to have you here to pray for us tonight. And then and then after Paul, um Randall McHune will lead us in the pledge. Lord God, your word says that you raise up and dispose leaders that uh you set times and seasons and if we need wisdom that you give counsel to the wise. So Lord, I thank you for all these leaders you've raised up to run this city and we ask for your wisdom tonight, Lord, to run this city and create what you want in this city. Lord, in your precious, precious name, Lord, I just pray your blessing over this meeting. Amen.

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

Okay. First item, agenda. Mayor, I would uh move that we approve the agenda order for the city council action meeting with one exception. I'd like to have us consider uh moving the BLM tankerbased lease extension till after close session and then come back in and vote on that issue. And then I also would move to approve the RDA and the MBA agendas. Okay. Second motion with that with that amendment. Yep. Motion and a second. All in favor? I.

Any opposed? Okay. Then our first one um is the introduction of our new officers. Should we come back to that? Okay. Yeah. Yep. Let's do let's do our information officer first. Sorry. With Mary David Johnson, economic development. Uh today I just wanted to introduce our new public information officer in community outreach and Mary Nelson, no relation to the mayor. So I'll give her a moment to introduce herself and tell a little bit about her background.

Hi council. Um like David said, my name is Mary Nelson. I am the new public information officer for Cedar City. Um a little bit about my background. I have I worked at the SU business school for a number of years um as their PR specialist and marketing co coordinator on their marketing team um doing internal and external PR both for students and incoming students and employees there. Um and I then moved to the Levit group as the communication specialist there for almost a year doing intern mostly internal public relations and social media management for the Levit group. Um, I've lived in Cedar City for 18, 19 of my 25 years. Um, and I'm excited to be here and I'm excited to work with all of you and I look forward to it. Thank you.

Great. We're excited. I had a great meeting with Mary today and I'm I'm very confident in her abilities and um, she's going to be a great asset to to this. Come around and meet us, Mary. I'd already welcomed you, but welcome again. Welcome. Welcome aboard. No. All right, chief. You good now? Okay, we got two. Why did we got two?

Good evening, Mayor, staff, and council. Thank you for for waiting for a bit. Darren Adams with the police department. So, we're here tonight with two new officers. Um these two officers uh have joined us to backfill a couple of retirements and uh we're excited to have them. Um Heather Connor on my left, Dylan Murray on the right. Um Heather's worked for us before. Dylan's homegrown. I'll let you let them tell a little bit about themselves and happy to have them and grateful for the contributions they will make. So, Officer Connor, you'll go first.

Hi, I've worked for the Cedar City Police Department for about a year now. They hired me for code enforcement and it wasn't quite thrilling enough for me. So, I moved up to the patrol. So, I'm very glad that you all have had me today. Thank you. It depends on what you're enforcing. Just the laws. Oh, sorry. Um, my boyfriend Preston in the back is here uh joining me to celebrate this pinning ceremony and he'll be pinning me. Hi, I'm Dylan Murray. Uh, this is my family back there. My mom's going to be pinning me today. Born and raised in Cedar. I went to Cedar High School and I've always wanted to be a cop and

I figured I'd try it and see how it goes. So, thank you guys. So, who's your grandma and grandpa? And that's what I thought. Oh, yeah. Okay. It sounds like your credibility just went way up. Well done. Comes from good stock. Okay.

If you guys got to move, if you guys got to move around to get a picture. Yeah, you can move anywhere from photographs, please. This is about you. Renan will stand right in front of you. Yeah. Now she'll block your phone.

Please angle him to keep staff out. It'll ruin your picture. That makes me all kinds of And those that are pinning, if you want to come up, if you guys want to kind of move closer and face us, and then we'll get you pinned and I will get out of the picture.

Yeah. Did you practice, Belinda? Yeah, maybe we can. Oh, just stick it in there. If he bleeds, he'll be fine. You're not going to hug your boy. Oh, there you go. Start over here and shake the hand. Yeah. Welcome. Thank you for your service. Thanks. Thank you for Congratulations. Welcome. I think you're still doing code of course. It's just different code and lots of it's a good thing to see.

Thank you, Chief. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Um, is anybody here from the summer games? I'm going to guess no. When he got this added, um, John had a a tragedy in his family. He talked to me earlier in the week about. He didn't mention that he was on as the update tonight, but I was not surprised to see him not here. Yeah. So, that will be something we'll probably end up putting back. So, Yep.

Um, okay. So, next, Scotty. County Harville, post aant for American Legion, post 74 city department of Utah council, mayor, and staff. Thank you for everything you do. As usual for our veterans and everything, I'm here to announce our Memorial Day annual Memorial Day weekend ceremony. So, let's see. Uh on Monday, May 25th at 10 a.m. at the City City Cemetery, we're going to be having an event starting with we're going to have a couple speakers. um have the ROC blowering our flags. We'll have an honor guard there. So, we're asking people to come out and participate. We're going to be laying a reef and uh having other people come out. So, um we're looking for volunteers to put flags out on Wednesday, May 20th at 5:00 p.m. at the Sed Cemetery and to remove the flags on the 27th. That's the Wednesday before and the Wednesday after. If you want to volunteer, just come on out at there, meet us at the memorial and

you know where we are on Wednesdays at 5:00 be there to help. So, I know you guys are I try to get Scott as much as I can. So, he's always busy though. But I thank everybody for everything that you do and for the veterans. And if you ever need anything, you have my number. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Scotty. Okay. Um, next one, we've got a a water usage presentation. Um, so Ben, come on up. And this is Ben Nielson, not Nelson, so also not related. Yes, sir. Who are we representing here? Ben will tell the story. You tell us. Yep. Yes. So,

hey, I appreciate everybody letting me take the time to present today. I uh I was reached out with by I was in contact with Joe Baker and he knows Tyler Melon who used to be a councilman here and he wanted me to do some uh water usage analysis for the city and we basically wanted to find whether the conservation tier pricing was working and also whether the tiered pricing has been working in order to keep water usage down and to more you know better levels as we approach these water limits. So yeah, is this the clicker here? Yes, sir. Perfect.

So, yeah, I'll just get right into it. Um, three primary objectives with this analysis was how does overall usage compare between single family conservation tier households and single uh standard residential single family households. So, there's the conservation tier and the standard tier. And so, we wanted to see whether or not those that new tier had a meaningful difference in water usage. And this is primarily for residential usage. So, no businesses. I made sure to factor out SU any LLC's that might have filtered into that data set. So this is primarily households, single family residential households. We also wanted to see whether the water use has changed from 2019 to 2025 and we also wanted to see how persistent the high use households are. Again, that first uh question is the primary what uh Tyler wanted to know and some supplementary analysis to help all this was the seasonal patterns and upper percentile usage. So 95th to 95 99 percentile usage. So just a quick overview, the standard tiered was the rate 101's the building code of 101. That's the bulk of the data set. That's most single family residential households. Uh they have standard tiered billing rates with steep increases in billing rates past 20,000. So I use 20,000 as kind of a soft uh benchmark here in this state in this analysis. Then we have the conservation tier rate 111s. So this is the conservation tier for single family residential. This has a more aggressive tier billing rate. their search charges past 12,000 gallon usage. Um, and so again, this is this is a tier that was set up in order to try to keep water usage down. And so that's kind of the the soft benchmark we have with this one is 12,000. 8,000 gallons per month is considered a reasonable indoor usage benchmark. And so when we're looking at these numbers, we would expect for most houses to stay below 8,000 uh for indoor usage only.

Don't we have two conservation tiers, though? Just the one conservation tier. Uh we this is the conservation tier for residential usage. Resial. I thought we had when you do a single family. I thought we have two different options though on how much water you have to bring. There's one option and there's even a lower one and I'm getting an odd. Yes. So yeah, I was told that this was the there was a conservation tier for residential family and then the standard tier. Oh, okay. Yeah. Well, we have two conservation tiers. When the developer brings in the water, there's two different levels they can bring them in at and one has less water than the other. Sorry. Go ahead. That is correct. But let him finish his Yeah. Go ahead.

Okay. So, question one to answer question one. The conservation tier showed substantially lower usage especially compared to standard tiered households. So, this was the main finding of the OB of the analysis. Conservation tier in the upper potential across the entire distribution water usage is meaningfully down. So, they show much lower high-end usage and typical usage than standard tier. And you can see that over the threshold for the Ray 101's about 17% exceeded that threshold. 20,000 gallons. only 10% exceeded that threshold of 12,000 gallons. So less are using even less water. And so you can see the mean and median for both groups. There's meaningfully there's meaningfully less water usage uh in the standard tier versus the conservation tier. So here's that uh here's just a quick graph of the distribution. This is uh across the months. This shows that across the entire distribution, you can see that the conservation tier is well below the standard tier. Question two, standard tier usage decline from 2019 to 2025. So again, the standard tier has this had this tiered billing set up after 2019. Around 2023 is when it was officially put into practice. And we can see how much water usage is down. Again, the mean is down 2723 and from the median goes down 22 to 20 uh to 18,000 and this is uh thousands of gallons per month. And so again, the percentage of accounts exceeding the threshold 20k declined from 54% to 46% in August. So this is a pretty meaningful dis decrease. is especially meaningful just considering that this was a little bit of a drier year and so you would expect water usage actually increase but in this time uh during this time it actually decreased and there's the seasonal impacts just to get into it real quick we use January as a proxy because that's a good uh benchmark for indoor usage because you know the water's off for the sprinkles

obviously so you can see in January from 2019 to 2025 uh water usage is pretty stays pretty steady and so the meaningful difference is the outdoor usage. So this suggests that it's outdoor usage should mainly be targeted. And then question three, high turnover rate 2025 2019 out of 2025 only six accounts appeared in the top 50 for both years. Of this group, two reduced water usage and four increased usage substantially increases to 93 3923 and 17,000 gallons in August 2025. So this suggests that there's a high turnover rate for extreme users, but the ones that persist exhibit high levels of usage. Um big finding in this analysis was high use households drive a disproportionate share of demand. So among the standard tier accounts in 2025 um around this is the 95th to 99th percentile here around 86% went over double the 20,000galon threshold in 2025 overall. 100% of these user went over double in August. Although accounting for about 4% of standard tier users they used approximately 17% of total standard tier usage in 2025. You also have those on the right for the conservation tier. 4% of accounts used about 23% of the total to total cons conservation tier for water use in 2025. So again, it's usually the upper percentile 95th to 99th percentile. We excluded the 1 percentile just to account for in case there were any leaks or anything like that, anything out of the ordinary. So it's usually this upper percentile that drives the main share of demand. So to conclude, conservation tier households use substantially less water. uh they consistently show lower median and high-end usage compared to standard residential accounts. Uh peak demand is driven by seasonal outdoor use. January users are low and stable for both years and August drives extreme consumption. Residential usage has declined since 2019. So reductions are visible both in overall August comparisons and when

tracking the same households over time. And again the big finding as well a small share of households use a disproportionate amount of water. Again, 4% of households account for a large share of total water usage, especially in those summer months. So, the main overall takeaway, peak demand is seasonal, concentrated, and has declined in recent years, which may be associated with conservation pricing implementation. Yep. Any questions? I have a question for you and maybe you ran ran over it and I just missed it, but when you were looking at this data between 2019 and 2025,

did you account for population growth? Yeah, that's kind of what we tried to control for with that turnover rate. And so, uh, comparing the same households from 2019 to 2025. This may have been I know I have it in the appendix somewhere. Um, yeah, we did some match tier analysis. So, this is trying to trying to kind of get those same households over time because then that controls for whether or not that uh this is due to new new development and all that. And you can see even there with the same households over time that their water usage has declined from 2019 to 2025 even with the increase in population. Okay.

Did you look at any uh capacity difference? In other words, um if we' have kept at the normal no uh conservation tier, how many more wells we'd need, how many more tanks we' need to fit the average capacity compared to this? And maybe you have. And if not, then that's something that would be interesting to to know. Yeah. And you know, that's that's something kind of we wanted like unfortunately this is just a very preliminary analysis and that's something we'd want to go into in the future. So yeah, how many wells did we save and how many tanks did we save by conserving water, right? Yeah, that'd be a good thing to to figure out. No, thank you. That was Any other questions?

I think it is valuable just to kind of have a little sneak peek at the difference it is is making and on our water use. So, thank you for your effort in doing it. Thank you so much. I appreciate you guys. Thank you for letting me take the time. Okay. Um, consent agenda. I'll entertain a motion. I would, mayor, I would move that we approve the consent agenda as outlined on this on our in front of us. Second. Have a motion and a second. All in favor? Any opposed?

Fantastic. Um first action item is to consider approving a residential development overlay um agreement to cross hollow road and Cody drive. Good evening Dallas Buckner go civil. Um so we had a lengthy discussion last week. We got some feedback from council um and we've had continued discussions with council um and staff throughout the week. And so, um, I sent out earlier today, um, some exhibits, a revised development agreement, and I was going to try to go through the, uh, some of the schematics that I prepared to hit on the development agreement adjustments and then kind of work through there. So, Ken, if we could start with the uh, Redline Gregerson RDO second submitt

and else while he's pulling that up. I should have said this before you got started, so I'm sorry. I know that this was an issue that we've had a lot of public input on throughout the week as well as as communications with uh with you. Um I I just I never want us to not have public feel like they can be heard, right? So there's going to be modifications discussed from what was originally proposed last week. So, anybody that is here, um, after we finish this discussion, I feel like it would be appropriate to allow before we make a vote to still give citizens an opportunity to share thoughts on things that that have been changed or discussed different from what might have been talked about last week. So, as long as council is is not going to override me on that, then um, that's the intent. So, anybody that is here once we finish the discussion, if you do want to add to that before the council votes, we'll give you the opportunity. Okay. Sorry.

All right. So um this is the original map that I had put some red lines on. So the I think the first number and thing I wanted to hit on um before we get into the modifications is I just want to clarify that pod one is this area right here and is currently with the revision still proposed at 250 units an acre on pod one. So that would be 250. That would go to Cody Drive. Did you say 250 an acre? You said 250 per 250 total. 250 total. Thank you. We know what you meant. Yeah. Standing room only in that acre. 50 stories high.

So as far as as far as uh potential homes on a paper basis based on the thresholds here,

we will up to 250 on Cody Drive. um on pod 3, which is the other R3M portion, we've reduced that from 100 down to 80 units. And then in the development agreement, we've requested that we've gotten feedback from staff that there's anticipated future lighted intersection on Cross Hollow. So, we proposed to match that. And then currently the city's ordinance um allows for up to 80 units off of a single access. So, we've reduced this one to to 80. So, we could have a single access and match that. Um, and so we're requesting in the development agreement that if if this is approved, pod 3 is approved at 80 and approved with a single access that matches that signalized intersection. Um, and then in pod two, and so on cross hollow, you would have the potential for up to 80 units on cross hollow. And then pod two is the largest parcel where we're proposing the open space dedication and we've reduced that from a proposed of 50 units down to 20 units. And so from the overall table standpoint, we've reduced it from 400 to 350, which was a number that was thrown out in last week's meeting. And so that was what we had targeted. Again, these represent the upper bounds of what could be built on those

as exists, right?

As Yeah. But we still have to conform to the underlying zoning and development standards. And so in practicality, these are probably still high thresholds. Um, and then the other thing that I just wanted to highlight that we had mentioned, but just for council and the public, there is 10 acres that we have set aside that's a part of the property, one of the parcels that's included in the RDO that is not a part of the RDO. It's existing commercial and is intended to stay commercial. And so we're going to still have a commercial corridor and it's more or less kind of in line with Silver Silo um and the other building that's out there. So not a part of the RDO currently zoned commercial, still going to be commercial, but pod one would access uh to Cody, pod three would access to Cross Hollow, and the upper developments would tie into Church Street and I think Sunny Veil. Um, and so you're distributing that traffic load in three different streets.

Doesn't pod one also access crossolo has to have two accesses. Yes, we're definitely going to have to have two accesses, but one of my exhibit I'm going to look for some feedback from Kent on where

when we get there. So, we will absolutely have to have two accesses. Um, one of the schematics that I've put together on the single family discussion in pod one, um, it looks like we might have the possibility to get two accesses on to Cody. Um but we we have talked about having if this is developed as a commercial corridor that when we have parking lots through there we might have a private drive cross access so that there is the ability to get out to cross hollow through the commercial. Yeah, I I think cross hollow would be a good can't conf that'll come with the actual

um so so as far as the the RDO map itself, these are really the only proposed changes on here. The rest of it's pretty much captured in the development agreement. Um can if we could flip to let's just start with pod one. So that's the SFR concept. that PDF. So this is Cody Drive with the aerial imagery underlaid. And so um some of the feedback that we had got proposed by the developer discussed with council and then discussed in the meeting last week was a single family detached component of the RDO to buffer Cody Drive from multifamily that's typically allowed in the R3 zone. And so I don't know what council wants to see to scope or how much. Um I've boxed this out for the pond, the regional master plan pond. And then we've looked at a couple there's a couple different concepts been that have been implemented in the city. This layout reflects a 4500 square foot minimum lot. Um, we've proposed, uh, I think it was a 20 foot building setback, 22 foot garage setback, five and five side setback, 10-ft rear setback. Um, but this is been provided just to show council that there's this is a single family lot concept. There's also what I call a patio home, which would be like the crest line PUB that Levit did up on the hill across from the ball fields. There's the safe harbor at Black Rock off of 56 where you're more so doing a building envelope with driveways and patios and then all the common spaces owned. And so the language that I put in the development agreement was saying, "Hey, we will commit to a

single family detached residential component." Um, I spoke with Dawn earlier and he was worried that we might try to distribute that. Our intent is to try to buffer it off of Cody Drive. So concentrate it at Cody Drive. Um and if the language isn't clear in the development agreement, then we can add that. But the intent is to do to do that and try to concentrate it. Um we had picked the number of 15 single family units. It wasn't clear to me from council if we just need to have a single row buffered off of Cody if 15 units is adequate. But the changes we're proposing are to try to meet in the middle with with council. And so this was provided just to say, "Hey, here's a small small lot concept um of 4,500 foot lots. That appears to work." Um we still might and I'm kind of more inclined to go the patio the patio home building envelope driveway route. Um, but this was just to show kind of a proof of concept and then say, "Hey, between the two, we'll commit to a first phase that has at least 15." If if council was more about just having a buffer directly off a cod of drive and that's a single, then we

You're showing 19 right here on this plan. Correct. I am. Yes. No, this this shows 15. Um, or no, sorry, this shows 19. we picked but this was based on just basically projecting this basin line across and seeing where the cutoff was. um as far as actually designing this basin and the actual footprint there's a lot of sure

engineering factors and so I don't know so I just kind of reconfigured it and the main thing that I was as far as the access discussion and this is the feedback for K from Kent but Ken if you would blow that up a little bit so we can just look at Cody drive and see those. So the roads that are shown in here are what a typical PUD minimum road would be, which would be 26 ft of asphalt, two foot curb gutter either side for 30, and then a sidewalk on one side. So that's a 34 foot rideway. So these roads are 34t wide. Um if we line this up with sunset, the city typically has 150 foot spacing on roads. And so if we get four in there at 50 feet wide, we can get to 217 and a half. So we could it looks like we could potentially get two roads on Cody with a spacing of 234 center line to center line. Doesn't quite line up with the LDS church parking lot. Um but that's

You're okay with the 234, Kent?

I I think the 234 would be acceptable. The uh um Yeah. and the the offset from the church parking lot driveway. Um, that may still be workable. I think that conceptually I think this can be made to work. One thing that we'll need to have is for the fire department to weigh in on whether this um, you know, in their um, determination whether this would meet fire code to have the two accesses that are that close together for the size of the project. that would be something for them to to weigh in on. But but barring a uh um a a fire code issue, uh this seems workable to me.

And I think that very likely we would still have some kind of cross access through the commercial. But when I put together this layout, I just thought it'd be great to have two on Cody Drive. And so if we can space it appropriately. Um if there was that fire concern, I think we would look at having a third shared access through the commercial, we might do that anyways. Um but when we when I put this together, it looked like this would work. And so if we could get to on Cody, I think that would be my preference. Kellis, I realize this is conceptual, but in this PUD, you are following the guidelines of the driveway lengths and things like that,

correct? Yeah. So the setbacks would still the setbacks would still apply. And so some of the verbiage we have in there is that when you do a PUD um and then I carried this through on public roads because we anticipate the only public road being drive

um is that we would have the 20 foot setback off of Cody. If we do a PUD, we're going to have to have it 10 foot with the block wall anyways. We put the block wall in there regardless if we do a PUD or not that we'll put it along Cody. Um, but then I did have a carve out that said we wouldn't we could have up to a five foot setback off private roads, but we wouldn't meet the setbacks. And that's where we get to 20 on the building, the main structure, but 22 on the driveway because the engineering standards or PUD standards or development standards have it as 22 foot is the minimum. Correct. And just Oh, sorry.

No, go ahead. Just as a thought, um the front of course with the utilities has to be what it is, but I would suggest that we either um some other cities have done this and Enoch has and it's been very successful is is making a lower like a one foot uh side um offset and then you gives you a wide one on the other side to access your back lot and people can get trailers off the streets and it actually cleans up the street a lot more. And so I would recommend or or just suggest from that perspective that maybe we just do fire code off uh setbacks and it will clean those up and people can access their backyards and then park trailers back there. So instead of a number fire code

fire code. I Yeah, I would I would be in favor of that. Um we would obviously on the private road side probably push it, but um it have to work. I get it. Yeah. But I but I'm I'm in favor of that because the reality is when you do a five foot setback on either side of a building. You can't use you can't hardly get a wheelbarrow by it size. So I really like his idea. Can you show me? Okay. Sorry. Carter was next. Scott and we'll come to you.

Finger that time. So now Dallas, one question I had. I thought I read it in the notes with the schematic as it's drawn. Are we okay with not having wasn't there like you're going to have to ask for an exception to not have a culde-sac or something? So yeah, Ken, if you could just hit the zoom out one more. So I left this round this circle on here just to show you guys the scale of a 4,500 square foot lot versus a standard culde-sac. And so we have shown right here 150 foot from the intersecting road. Okay. And so the fire code says that uh you drive 150 ft and if you drive 151 ft camera turn around cold sack.

Yeah. You can't turn around. Um and so I I showed this as a way to just graphically show how big that is. It's almost another lot. And then if we did an offset cold sack. So if we do if we do end up doing a hammerhead type configuration like this, we would want an exception from the culdeac requirement at the end because the current city ordinance says it used to be the 150, then the city changed it to I think 30. And I think that with some of the emphasis to interconnect subdivisions, I think if we're not there yet, we're on the way back to 150.

Um, and so, but I I just wanted you all to see how big that culde-sac is, especially in tight lots. You'd have you'd have a hard time building that

right into that. And I I just want to clarify especially for the residents who got lots of emails expressing concern and and actually that they were excited about capping it and making single family. So none I read through the RDO and there's nothing in there that would allow apartment complex correct or non-detached town home banks. Is that there so an apartment complex is not going to go in there at all? Um, so the so we haven't put any restrictions on the R3 on pod three or pod one, but from the feedback we received from council with the single family detached, we were saying, hey, we'll commit to a phase one of 15 single family to buffer Cody from the R3 and then in the and then beyond the wherever that 15, whether it shakes out in a configuration like this, patio homes or some variation thereof that we would still have what's allowed under the R3 zone,

right? And if you put higher density in there, like like town homes that are that are double doored or whatever, you're still maxed out at 350 residences no matter what you put in there. Correct. So that I think is the is kind of the spot that makes it so you're going to have the same amount of cars no matter kind of what that configuration is. And and we're locked in on a pod basis, too. So you can't exceed. So even if we don't use them in pod two or pod three, you're going to give it up on one side or the other. Yeah. Sorry, Scott first and then to to Phil. I just wanted to ask Dallas, I realize this is conceptual, but if you could maybe bring it back in a little bit so we see more of the pod.

Zoom out. Oh, this is clipped on just Okay. How do you how do you see the transition going from what you're kind of proposing here into the more R3M from this point within the rest of the pod?

Yeah. So, it it depends on it depends on what product type we go beyond there. And I think I think the developer probably expressed this to the council members when he met with you is that the the initial hesitation to cap single family and now we're coming back and saying we'll commit to 15 lots in phase one of single family is if this concept does well then he could continue this concept on um but there's not a lot there's a couple I can think of three examples of these smaller single families And so he wants with the risk associated with doing a development, he wants to have the ability to pivot. And so when we talk about putting these in, we're looking at doing this and then how do we develop further and if the patio home concept takes off and it does well then and similarly that's why we left the flexibility in on the small lots versus patio homes is if we come through and do 4500 foot lots and people say hey I'm not interested in taking care of a backyard. we go to patio homes and patio homes do better, then we want to have the flexibility to do that. But as far as projecting these roads down, um it depends on if it's twin homes or if it's three plexes or fourplexes or whatever, whatever falls within the R3 that he'd like to lay out and see. But the other part of doing this is for conventional homes that get built here that like my office does, there's not a lot of floor plans that fit on these right out of the box. And so that's the other component to giving the flexibility between the p the patio home and the small single family is that we've got to go through and develop floor plans and market research and see what's going to fit and what we think's going to do well and those type of

things. And that's where that's why I can't say hey this is going to be our phase one. It's going to look exactly like this when we come through. I only have a comment mayor and then move on. is my comment is that my my concern is and it still is a concern although I think this is moving in the right direction is you know once we make the zone change to R3 there's no going back so the more detail we can have on what is the expectation the better it is for everyone that was all Councilman Schmidt

I I like your uh proposal here of the single family homes most of the comments that I've received over the last week. Uh the biggest feedback that I'm getting is apartments and uh I think we'd have a little better response from the community and everybody if we were not to put apartments in this phase pod one, but we could have them though. Not if you put it in the development agreement that they can't. Yeah. But the current development agreement does not say that. Correct. I I think we need to to maybe look at that. I don't know if apartments would be great. town homes or however you want to do them, but maybe pod three, you could put apartments down there, but just consider that.

Okay, Carter, can go. Okay. Um I'm liking this a lot more than what we saw last week. From what I've heard, you're a detail guy.

And uh I'm I'm glad you're smiling at me. I thought maybe today you were going to throw tomatoes at my end, but uh um this this I like. Um, and and I'm going to not say too much until you're done with the whole presentation because we have a lot to go through yet. But there were certain things that were written to several of us by by the developer that I I need to know if they're really going to be going in here. Things like, you know, a gymnasium and pickle ball courts and who's going to be able to have access to that and who isn't and so forth. Um cuz I am I like I said I'm liking where we are right now. I mean we still have to go through the rest. Uh but I'm I'm going to insist that these things are clarified on the agreement before we approve this thing.

So on so on on that note as far as like amenities go. So when we talk about the kind of the vague language we went over last week and then what our contribution is to the city to try to meet in the middle on this when we talk about those type of improvements, those are something that oftentimes fall within the PUD. And so the PUD development or the PUD ordinance has some thresholds that also give you the idea of gazeos or sports courts or whatever. I think that when we talk about including those, I think that my my understanding from the developers, those are included in pod one. Um, oftentimes, like I have a number of town home projects I've done where there's sports courts, pickleball courts, basketball courts, lawns, those type of things. Um, as far as who they're for, they're for the residents of the PUB, so they're private amenities. But on the back end, does a developer go out there and kick kids off the pickle ball court if they're not a resident? And so I think that the developer would be comfortable committing to those private amenities going in the PUD, but as far as they're not open

to the public, but the enforcement side of it is that practically there are kids. And I and I really appreciate that you clarified that because in our discussions and some of the council members um offline we wondered, you know, how it was going to be made available to all when you're actually doing a PUD and that needs to be controlled and and I'm okay with that as long as we understand when and where it's going and it's in the in the agreement. So, so

and and the flip side of that is that if we were to make those commitments on for instance the area that is the open space then we get into the discussion of well who like if we to what standard do we build it to and then are we maintaining it or is the city is that a park and and that's where I think that putting those amenities in a PUD is cleaner and the public doesn't technically have access to it but yeah or have an issue with that. I Let's see what you have for the rest of the Can I clarify a question follow up to that? When you say put it in the PED, you're saying not have it in the development agreement and it comes as as part of your CCNRs later.

Well, no. So, I I think what uh council member Golan's saying is that he would like to see that written in that there's going to be the PUD amenities that there's going to be amenities, but they're going to be inside the PUD. Yeah. Yeah. And so if that's written into the agreement, in the development agreement, we we are comfortable to put in these are the lists of the amenities that will be part of it or that the agreement's void. Yep. Okay. You are okay putting those in the development agreement? I would say that I know he sent out an email. I don't remember what every single one of those is. I don't know. It was pretty verbose. Yeah, that's what I was worried about. And so sometimes less is more. Yeah. I think we probably if it's going to go in the development agreement then we probably want to come up with

what they really are you're committing to. I% agree. I was sorry Carter was was next. I'm just kidding. Um I do have one question though. So our PUD ordinance Randall or or you could answer this. Our PUD ordinance requires a certain square footage of open space for every square footage of development or for number of units. What's it based off of? I think it's 3% men correct off the gross area. Okay. So here's my question then. You have right on here it says no open space or amenities for the single family residences. So they're going to be in a PUD but you don't want their square. You don't want that area to go towards the calculation for the open space. No. So what I was what I was trying to get out there because I have a similar note on the parking is that if we go to a single family lot

okay type configuration then we wouldn't have guest parking required. I if this is a part of the PUD I don't see a way that we're not subject to the PUD ordinance and so I think it still goes off the gross I just that's what I was going to clarify but I'm just saying we're not going to have guest parking and public amenities in the single family roads we incorporate that further to the south correct okay so sorry Robert my bad so putting amenities in that are private I don't it legally from a city perspective What incentive does the city have to bind them to amenities? I I don't understand why we're want to ask for that.

My my thought process is this is if if you're if it's a zone currently is a quarter acre lot subdivision and we're going to make concessions on the densities being potted like we are to help establish a community feel that then makes that a better overall neighborhood. I think that's a reasonable request to have in there. Um because that's part of the agreement is we're saying we're trying to protect the neighbors to saying this is still going to be developed as a neighborhood that you're comfortable living next to and and amenities help that feel more like a a neighborhood.

Right. And but there there's also the reason they're doing it is because they're going to control the flood uh the the water. They're going to detain the water. Any there's a lot of other things that are that are give and take on that. And I agree. I think it's if we need to nail them down specifically to what amenities are there. I don't know that if you don't have anything in there, then they promise to do it and then it never happens. And then we let down a neighborhood next door that thought we were going to protect them to make it feel more

just to answer. We didn't ask for it. They offered it. Now I'm I'm putting their feet to the fire. That's basically how this happened. Uh and when and that was one of the positive things that I saw coming out of the discussion last week where they went the extra mile to say look we're we're going to we're going to do this. So that's fair. We didn't have Phil first and then Carter what one thing I I hope that we don't have here is that we don't have a bunch of cars once we build these small units and there's no places for anybody else to park. I don't want to see everybody parking on Cody Drive. Sure.

I don't want to see I mean we've got two big developments around town. One on the south, one on the north and everybody has to park out in the street. Well, we got more than two. So I I would hope there do do something. Yeah, but they're the wor that we are not parking on the roads. I got I got a parking ordinance change that uh needs to happen in order for that to to do I don't want to see cars all over Cody Drive and all over these roads because nobody has a place and we have to fix our ordinance if if we want that to happen because right now our ordinance is allowing it to happen because the way it's written. Well, we changed the ordinance because we don't want cars on the road. We're talking

Yeah. So what I what I was saying with the caveat on the single family is that if we from the parking ordinance standpoint based on the number of bedrooms, garage spaces and driveways can accommodate it on the lots. If we go to a patio home version of this, then I think we have guest parking and we will certainly have guest parking with whatever we continue to the south. And so that was I was really only trying to say that if we do do this small lot complex and we can meet the ordinance by having a twocar garage and having the wide enough driveway, we would not be subject to guest parking for the single family detached only. But the rest of it we will. Yeah. Yeah. Carter.

Well, one thing that I was just going to say that we have to try to remember um you can do nonpuds in the R3M, but it's difficult. So most of the time they are PUDs. So the developer is saying these amenities that he's willing to do by ordinance, he has to put in amenities if he's going to build a PUD. So he has to do open space. He has to do some kind of open space. So but but if he chooses to go what it is, it has to be open space. But if he chooses to go uh city streets, which he could do, correct? Um then we'd still want to have it in the order into the correct. I guess what I'm trying to say is is yes, I do appreciate the effort he's making, especially by specifying what he might be willing to do, but part of it is he has to do something. Right. Right. It's already in the in the ordinance. Yeah. If he does a PUB.

The other thing that I was just going to add is that if Ken, if you could just blow that up a little bit more. I'm trying to look at these numbers right here. But we made reductions in the other pods in pod two and three. You just scroll down a little bit more to the bottom of the layout. So this this right here shows 4,500 square foot lot minimum 19 lots, gross acreage of 2.95 acres and a density of 7.6 units an acre. And so we did not show a reduction on pod one, but if we develop in this fashion with these single families, we're de facto reducing the amount because

our proposed density is 17 units an acre. this is sevenish units an acre and so we're going to lose 30 off the top because this is roughly three and so right but the cap's at 350 so if you give it up there you're going to take it elsewhere and so I think that's reasonable a reasonable approach to be honest okay so I think that takes care of that exhibit unless we got go ahead

um you probably answered this when you talked about the culac but I'm just wondering again scroll up just a little bit maybe Kent thank you. We were talking about the alignment of the streets to begin with. Um, you've still got some property it looks like on the what is it the east there on pod one where you could shift. I mean, am I looking at that correctly? Gets pretty steep right there, doesn't it? Yeah. So, it it starts to get steep. If you Ken, if you could just hit the minus one time on that just to back out so you can see the imagery. So this is and so you can see where the water's coming down right there off of Right. Right. Right. Right. Right.

And so I think that that is a channel before the curb and gutter was put in. I don't know how much is really running through there, but when we talk about incorporating this big pond and then if we have this, there is steep slopes here. There might be a way to incorporate some kind of drainage if we break these up. Um, but we're really stuck on this road having to line up. Yeah. With sunset. With sunset. And so I think we're fairly limited in what we're able to do unless we go to a patio home and we put a knuckle or something or but the reality of all of that will Yeah. That's all engineering that has is the black line the the property line of pod one.

This Yeah, this is the property line. So this is the east line of the property and pod one. Okay. You want to keep going through? Yeah, we should probably move forward. Yeah. What's next? Um, so the next one, Kent, is the Jones. The Jones one. Yep.

So, this one's for my good friend Anne Clark. Um, this is in pod two off of Sunnyale and um and I think Church Street. And so we, this pod two was north arrow is to the left. Um, but we reduced this from 50 units to 20 units. And so I talked with the Jones family, provided them this exhibit. They were fine to for me to share it. But this shows a couple things. This shows reasonable in my opinion, what I'd call the lowhanging fruit for developing up here um based on based on topography for R1 type lots. And so we would and the city is also staff's expressed that they want to see these roads finished out in some capacity and not just have dead ends. And so we're showing a culdeac here um with four four lots. We're showing this one getting extended. Um we've had some discussions with the trails committees. We're showing that we would have a 20ft trail access that would tie church to

this. I don't know what this road's called, but and then we also show that at the end of this culde-sac, we would have an ex the ability for the roads to get out to the trails. Um, typically the way we've done that in the past is that we would do those as parcels and dedicate those to the city or to an HOA or something, but just record a trail easement over them so they're accessed. But this was what I what I would call a reasonable layout to develop there. And once the Joneses reviewed it, they said we'd be comfortable taking it down to 20. And so again, we're not committing to this exact layout, per se, but we're restricting it to 20 houses in Pod 2. Um stating that we'll have access from those new roads to the open space. Um, and I think that if we developed that this would in a similar layout to this that this would give you access and kind of meet some of the discussions that were had with the trails committee, but there might be a little bit more work to do. The main the main thing on this is that in order to do this, because there's already a couple hundred feet of road right there, city's ordinance says you can only have a 500 foot dead in culde-sac. 500 foot would only get us to about right here. And so we want this in the development agreement that

we actually gave you. I thought we had we changed ordinance a few weeks ago. 750, isn't it, Kit? Seven. I believe it is 750 if I'm not mistaken. Would that work, Dallas? When I when I drew this, I did it 500 ft from right here to the start of that culde-sac. You should be okay. So you should be But we'd have to add this in. So, we we're probably we're probably at I don't know. We might be we're pretty close. We we did change it to 750 I think a few weeks ago. Y I I think we'd be close enough we can work something out. Yeah. Good. Thank you, Ken. Thank you. That was it. Okay. Any other questions on this pod? Nope.

Okay. Next one. Um I And then I think we're just to the development agreement now. So I went through and just added pod three on there. um pod pod three we really just reduced it from 100 to 80 and then we're doing the single access vesting so there's not an exhibit for nothing changes I want to know how close it is to cross hollow road it's on it it's on the right of way across hollow road but there's but there's the channel and the trail before we get to the property line maybe bring there it is this is a hard one to read or see how it bends around yeah but where's the road it bends like that.

And so right there it borders on that turn where you so the the existing road is on the south uh side of this. Um of course we will be filling more of that out with roadway as we widen the road. Put in So if this is approved, this project will go right up to the road. No, to to the right of way, not necessarily to the road itself. And the trail. And the trail. And the trail. Yeah, trail too. And on that road, they can't have they they can't have uh roads facing that. They've got to be on the interior. Yeah. Right. So, we would we would have to work with development team on that location intersection.

Yeah. And that's going to tie in wherever that traffic signal goes. No, I So, I'll can can you go to the north of the map, please? If we're done looking at this down here.

All right. That's it. So, while you're thinking there, Councilman Glan, I'll just kind of share my I have no vote and I recognize that. Um, I I have a lot of empathy for for the Sunset Canyon area and what has been built around those homeowners that that bought originally, thinking that that would be R1. And this still is zoned R1. So, I have a lot of empathy with the the fight that they've been giving this week on on trying to at least preserve this section as an R1 um type area. Um I on that same side, I do believe the RDO concept is the best way to make this as usable as possible at the highest and beneficial use for the overall parcel in the city. So, I I very much am in favor of trying to work out an agreeable RDO solution to this property. Um I I wish Ryan had confidence in the single family detached product because my preference would be to say here's your cap of your number of units and build them single family detached and if I lived in Sunset I would feel comfortable with that um as the spirit of the R1 zoning that is there. Um but I understand the development's a huge risk too, right? And so I I understand his flexibility in it. Um I personally would um like at bare minimum to see us say great if you feel like the market just doesn't accept that product. There's town homes that can still be done in a beautiful way with this amount of extra land as the bare minimum. Um, but I I would not I'd love to not have the flexibility to go to apartments and at least have them be residences that is people are owning.

On that note, couldn't we just change it to R31 in that pod? Then you couldn't do town homes as as back as a safety. So, um, again, I would prefer it to just be all single family detached, but recognize there's some, um, there's huge risk that you're So, we could exclude apartment complex and and allow duplexes and still get to the same place. And I think maybe the residents would be more comfortable with that. Yeah. Just want to throw that out from a discussion standpoint. And I don't know if you've had that with Ryan about apartments versus having to have that as a safety valve or the deal is a dead deal. Um or if having the safety valve as town homes, but just a thought. So, Council Member Schmidt.

Okay, Mayor, I I agree with most of the feedback I had. I I really would not want to see apartments right here. So, I would hope that you could work that out. Other thing too that has not been mentioned here uh according to my understanding the last week it was talked about the fire hazard that uh could take place in the open green space and Dallas would you just elaborate a little bit what the developer is willing to do on that?

Sure. Yep. So can could we flip over to the word dock? Um, so I think and as we're so I'll answer this one and then we'll kind of skim through and make sure I haven't missed anything. But um, so all the blue text I think starting on sheet two, but um, from so it was the fire the fire hazard was mentioned last week. I think that was a um, we didn't talk about it a ton, but I think that was a bigger issue than than we had initially discussed. So, we talked with Chief Phillips um as far as what that looks like and then we also I spoke with um an arborist as far as trying to gauge how big of a commitment that is. And um so in the development agreement with POD 2, we've said, "Hey, we're going to reduce the unit count and then we will take on the fire mitigation." The discussion I had with Chief Phillips was there is the initial treatment and then there's the ongoing maintenance. If we were to complete the on the initial treatment, which is the heavy lift, then the 3 to 5year maintenance is something that's more manageable by the city. And it sounds like that's done in some capacity already. And so if the city with this development, if the RDO is approved, we commit to doing the open space dedication to the city and we commit to doing the initial treatment um in compliance with whatever the WOOI standards are at that time. Sounds like the city's in between adopting. They have a current 2021 version. They're going to 2025. But if the city will accept the open space dedication, then we would commit to doing the initial treatment and the city would have the ongoing burden on the three to five year.

Okay. Very one I think. Okay. And I think last I heard that's around 70 to $100,000 is what I heard. Correct. That's that's what So the arborist I spoke to had regional knowledge here. It's not a hard bid by any means, but yeah, talking about slopes, there's factors of whether you can run equipment or if it's hand work and how good's the access, but he had said that 50 to 60,000 sounds reasonable. 70,000 or higher if you're not using a local. It's kind of what he said, but he said I could see other people bidding it, but um but he said 70,000 would be the the high-end number if you if we used him, but it wasn't a site visit. It wasn't walking. It was just

kind of familiar with the And the other thing the other thing I had on this with you guys doing this, are you still looking at putting a retention pond up the up the canyon up the into the green space and then that big one down on the bottom?

I So that Yes. So that would be my preference based on how much I've looked at the topography. I think that's going to be the least impact to the hillsides, least amount of dyke infrastructure to make it happen. Um, and so part of us, so the way I have it written in here is that the open space dedication would happen after the final plat have taken place for once both of those roads are developed. And so when we talk about the area that needs to be treated, if those subdivisions come out, then those will be cleared already for development. Um when we had initially talked about doing master plan amendments with which if the RDOS's approved, we would come back through and make master plan amendments, staff said that we need to do studies with the city's third party consultants. So depending on the outcomes of those, I would like to see the dyke moved up. if the dyes moved up and put um higher into there, that would obviously be cleared. And then the other factor too is that I believe the power company already comes through and does mitigation under their portion. And so it's possible that if all those things align, then our fire treatment area gets reduced.

Okay. So with this with this development then uh is that one of the first things you would be doing is fixing the detention ponds and fixing the potential flood areas. I when when would they when would that all come about? It's a it's a good question. I would say that um it depends on how we develop. So, if we come through and do a first phase of 15 units, I would say it's going to probably be based on how much is flowing to the subdivision at the point that Kent, if we could maybe flip back to

I appreciate your willingness. Just a curiosity question for Kent and you. Isn't a lot of that just going to be worked out in the details of when you actually developed and when it's needed? Yeah, that's kind of that's kind of where I was going with it was to say depending on how big a phase we do and what's impacted by the drainage. So because we can't put in a development agreement that level of detail because it's there's too many variables and right they they get to a certain point they have to do it and so they'll build into it. Yeah. So the flow line of this channel runs out right here. If we put houses right here and don't get into it then okay correct me not doing the

So and while he's going through that I would mention and we do this in fact I think we have one that'll be on the planning commission agenda next week. Um master plan improvements we try to get them in as early as possible. That's the ordinance we have. So if you don't want it as pod one because I mean not pod one but pod one phase one. Yeah. Um you'll want to say at which at what point percentage phase number something to say the whole thing or the bottom one has to be in by this point the other other one has to be in by a certain point otherwise it will remain until the final phase and sometimes final phase could be 10 15 years. Personally I'd like to see it done first.

U it eliminates flood problems for for you guys. It eliminates road problems before. I can tell you several subdivisions have been built and they do that last and all it is is causes major problems. So I would strongly encourage that it be done very early. K would would you weigh in on that?

So excuse me on those uh two master plan storm drain facilities. We have the pond there and there's also that that dyke that that stores water behind it further up the up into this area. um those you know what we have up in this area is really intended to protect the downstream properties from flooding, right? And so in my mind, the timing of that can certainly be tied to when the downstream improvements that would be most affected by that occur. Right? We certainly wouldn't would not want to start developing in this area here down here on this commercial where we know that that flooding is likely to take place um without those improvements being built. Would that one there impact the ability to develop a first phase off of Cody Drive? Perhaps not. So I I think it

that might be something we do need to detail a little bit more with some thought in the agreement. I Yeah, probably. I would I would if if I got to pick, which I don't, but um your opinion still matters, Dallas. I would I would assume that this basin is going in with whatever phase one we're doing um just because of the ponding aspect that occurs there. Um but to Ken's point, that's what I was going to say as well is that if we end up developing up here and we're higher than the flow line of what comes out through here, I think at that point, you kind of have to. We have to. Yeah. Yeah. Okay.

So, mayor, if I could, Dallas, I just kind of want to fill you in on where my mind is at on this. And so, to fill you in on a couple things. I'm a person who I like exacts when it comes to numbers. And so, I've spent today doing some counting. Um, for your information, we received an email today with 255 signatures on it from the neighbors.

Um, that's quite a few. So, 255 signatures asking for us to deny this request. And then I just looked and I just did the math. I just counted. There's within 4/10en of a mile of this location, there's 520 highdensity units that have already built between the Henley Apartments, the town homes that the Willox brothers have done, and the Dr. Horton town homes. There's 264 apartments, 51 at the Willox, and 205 town homes at Dr. Horton's location. And so, how many R1 is there? Uh, a lot. I didn't count those, but it's Let me finish talking. No, I'm just say it's never been more than 25%.

Yeah. So, I mean, you know, where I'm at, I actually I actually think pod three would be a great location for R3. I don't think R1 at pod three where it's on the curve. It's right there across from the that to me makes perfect sense. The pod one is really just where I truly struggle. And so, it's hard for me. I'm just being honest with you. It's hard for me to look at 255 residents and say, I know better than you and you don't want it, but I think it should happen. So, that's just where I'm at. And when it comes to zone changes, I know we tried. Public clamor is this thing that we hear a lot about in both directions, but when it comes to a zone change, it's the one time we're actually allowed to take that into our opinion, and that's just kind of where I stand. So, I'm just letting you know where I'm at. Okay. Any other comments?

So, as far as as that, I've been following the the housing. There's never been more than 20 high density built in the last 10 years to about 75% single family. in the overall community. The overall community that's not just that area, but that that area could be different than that. That's what I was trying to get at to answer his question. Y

and right now to date, it's 11% in 26 of high density to single. So most of what we're building in the valley is single family. What what he's referring to is we just got a notice yesterday from our build yesterday, day before in the last two days during our budget meetings. We were given a report on building permits and only 11% of building permits in Cedar City are for high density. The rest are all for single family detached. Yes.

I just wanted to maybe follow up a little bit on what Councilman Coch was saying. Um, I've sat in this chair for a number of years and um, about two and a half years ago, everybody from Fiddler's Canyon was here screaming at us because how come they were chosen to be the place for all the high density housing and it was unfair and why didn't we spread it out across the city, etc. And then about um, oh, I don't know, 18 months ago or so, we started hearing from people out in Cross Hollows area about all of the Henley Apartments and Wilcotts, etc. and Dr. Horton. And then about a year ago, we started hearing about it from Blunt Highway out there through 1600 North and all of those apartments going in and town homes going in out there. The fact is that growth is happening all over the city. And the city doesn't pick winners and losers. We try and figure out what's going to work best for the city as a whole. and but we we do listen to constituents and we do want to hear what they have to say because we all live in this community and we all want to make sure it's a place we all want to continue to live. So that's all of the factors that I'm taking into consideration in looking at this project.

Okay. If there's no other discussion here, um do you have anything else you wanted to add? I just wanted Ken, if we could just flip back to that word doc one more time. I just want to make sure we hit on everything. I I just we sent this out. I sent this out before lunch and so I didn't know if council had had a chance to read through all of it, but we haven't. Yeah, I haven't. We did receive it. Don't take that as we haven't received it. Yeah, we did get it. I read through it. We got it right after lunch. I was answering a lot of emails to constituents.

Yeah. Um so, uh if we could just go back up to the top. I'm just going to skim through it. So, I think we hit on all the pod one conditions as far as small lots versus patios. Um pod two we hit on reduction to 20. Uh we hit on the WOOI. Um the dedication trail preservation. Uh the variance on Church Street sounds like that might the culde-sac might not be as big of a um concern. Maybe no variance at all. Yeah. And then if we could keep going pod three. So that was the uh the reduction to 80 investing the single access

uh the storm water I just revised to say that we're going to give the land we develop it there's the proportionate share based on our percentage of runoff and the upstream tributary. Um actually I have one question on that. Sorry and maybe we've touched on this but is this one of those that's big enough that we have to take it or do we why do we want the detention pond? We need the detention pond to handle the storm water. Why do we want to own it? Because And it's the regional part. As soon as it's regional, we want it. Okay. So, if it was just theirs, we would probably say, "We don't want your detention. You keep it." Correct. And what's the size that once we get above a certain size, we have to take it. We don't have a choice. What is that size? Do you remember? 150 acres

is I don't know. You have an ordinance that says if you it can't be turned over to the city unless it serves 150 acres or greater. But we're this pond will serve a lot of existing development clear up east of Cove Drive even. So I get that. I know. Yeah. And then we basically just put that in there to say that we develop it to a certain standard, it gets approved and then turned over to the city. Got that's fair because there's a lot where most of the water is from the city anyway. Yeah. Yeah. And then I think I think that's it. I think you have hit them all. Okay. All right. Oh, in traffic study.

Yeah, we need to Well, that was I'm sorry, I didn't have my hand in the Sorry, I was looking over here reading. Go ahead, C. Don't miss your turn. You'll get the old Well, one of one of the things that I still am concerned about whether it's 400 units or 350 units is some kind of a traffic study because it is going to cause increase in traffic uh whatever we do. And I think we need to see some modeling on what that's going to look like for Cody Drive and for Crossalls. I will say that we did anecdotal traffic studies. Oh, I love anecdotal. And um and we came up with at a couple different times six cars a minute at various times throughout the day over the past since last week

on which street? On Cody. Um but we with the removal of the road uh the master plan road coming off of Church Street tied into Cross Hollow and its infeasibility um the city's going to require us to model anyways and so we were just wrapping this in. there was a lot of push back from the the public also as far as the traffic concerns and so we just put that in there say that we will we will have a traffic study and when we started that's why I just wanted to kind of say which ones were going to which road so it's not all 400 going yeah and and part of that reality is that is a master plan five lane road right so

the it's designed and supposed to be that so go ahead the other reality is I was talking to Mr. Weman about that yesterday. It's the fact that um you couldn't possibly take into account the development that is not finished and all of those people are going to have children that are going to have to go up that road. So, it's it's a little uh premature but good indications when it was done. uh we need to do with all the assumptions of full housing, children, percentages and all that because it is going to it's going to tax that road all the way up to the to the elementary, middle, and

schools up the hill. This would be a question for Kent that I don't know the answer to, but when just with his traffic background, but does the when we do a traffic study on like if the RDO gets approved approved at 350, we go do a traffic study to look at removing the road and then the loading that happens on each is do they run that like the water system model and sewer system model where they have citywide where Henley would be factored in or is it a per project like hey now we just have 300 coming onto these roads.

Yeah. So on the uh the change to the master plan of the uh potential elimination of the road coming off Church Street down to Cross Hollow. Yeah. The the the model is already built that uh they could take a look at what happens if we remove that road. if we remove that road, the traffic has to find some other way to meet that future demand and not just and not be able to utilize that road. So, that's one thing that they would be looking at. Um, and then seeing does that does that lead us to some other mitigative measure that needs to be t taken if that if that road is eliminated or are we okay with that road being eliminated? Does that not cause a an issue that needs to be mitigated in terms of your development itself on that? That's where the uh um the uh consultant will have to be looking at what uh you know what does the um you what does traffic look like when the project opens up and when it's completed but then also looking um out into the future. Um and but they're they're looking at what are the projected background traffic volumes for those scenarios and then you add this traffic to it and and what's the impact of adding this traffic to it. So that's what they're going to be looking at. So the short answer is they do have to look at at uh the uh the other developments in the area and what's what's taking place with that.

Okay. So it so it wouldn't be a snapshot of just our project. they would have accounting for the rest of Yeah. which I think is kind of what Councilman Glenn was saying. Okay. Okay. Any other comments at this stage? Is there anybody that would like to to add to the conversation? You're welcome to come up. I will still limit you to three minutes, but you're welcome to come share if you have questions or discussion. Dad, you just pushed this button. It was red. You're good. Okay. So, my name is It should be green. Oh, it should be okay. Perfect. But it's red.

It's red. So, that's good. Okay. Well, my name is Katie Barry and I'm from the Sunset Canyon neighborhood. And I first of all just we're kind of representing all of us. But, um, I want to thank you guys. This has been very awesome to see how much you care about the signatures that you've got and the phone calls and the emails. And, um, we're a very tight-knit community in that neighborhood. And so yesterday I had the opportunity and the day before to go get some signatures for this petition. And I just want to um first reiterate to everyone who doesn't know it had just that we would like it to stay either R1 or R21. We just don't want to have a long leash. We just we would love to have single family homes. Um we also want curb and gutter in the same CCNRs as our neighborhood. So that's what the petition said. And I just want to tell you about my experience. I walked through the neighborhood and I I was nervous. I went on an LDS mission and I didn't like that part of it, but I I just I went and knocked some doors and every single door, bar none, every single one that opened the door signed the petition. And some of them, it was within maybe three words that I said, they knew about it. And I told each one of them what it said. And all of them wanted it. And each one of them had different sentiments, but everyone wanted the same thing. And I we are not opposed to development. I just would like to say that. And yes, I I understand the frustration of the developments across the street, but we do need to be realistic and realize that that was mixed use or commercial and that it would have been high density anyway. But this specific lot is R1 and it does back R1 and it is adjacent to R1. And R1 in the city code does talk about how an R1 um development is supposed to have minimal vehicular and pedestrian traffic. And as a resident of this neighborhood, I would just like to say that that is no longer the case for our neighborhood nor the neighborhoods

nor not Cody Drive. Um it is very busy. We see people all the time walking around our neighborhood. So I would just like to say with this um I don't like the patio home idea. I don't like the narrow streets because where are they going to go walk? they're going to go walk in our neighborhood. And not to say we don't like people, we love people. We have a really fun neighborhood, but um it just increases crime in our neighborhood. We've already seen it. And and we just if this neighborhood could be a little bit self-contained and again, single family homes, I don't think you would hear one peep about us. And we've seen beautiful RDOS's around Cedar City. Um Crescent Hills is a beautiful example of a neighborhood that has had great success. Those homes were pre-sold. They have single family. They also have duplexes that back the commercial. So, I don't and we love we love Crescent Hills and I don't think any of us would be opposed to something like that. But when you introduce additional traffic and um both vehicular and pedestrian to an already R1 established neighborhood, it feels like we're not given primacy to our neighborhood or the ones above. So, anyway, thank you.

Thank you. Hi, my name is Jan Gilbert. I spoke at the last meeting. I also sent you an email with my thoughts and this is making progress. I'm familiar with patio type homes. I've seen them work very well for seniors, for families just starting out. But I'm still a little bit concerned about the density if I can make this work. Well, wrong way. There's a round one works better.

No, he's trying He was trying to move

across the street. Don't for just across the street from the silver silo. Don't forget about Hidden Canyon Commons and what's coming there. Also, they show on their marketing plan high dense housing behind the retail. So, in addition to Mr. Wilky's 500 plus units, you have the potential for a lot more if in fact that's the plan and it's been approved. You've addressed the fire concerns up the canyon. Um, we're making progress, but I think that the general population still wants to see less density. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Mary Watkins. You all heard from me in the last several days um over email. Anyway, um I'm also a resident of Sunset Canyon. I'm renting a home right now. And then I also own the two lots just north of Pod One. Um yes, right there. Um so those are our lots we're hoping to build this summer. Um and the house just to the west of us just had to be lifted and had their foundation completely redone and um the whole bit. So ours are high enough that it's uh basically all the sediment ran to them. Um, and so ours are fine for soils. Um, but I would just like to point that out um, in pod one that that's probably going to be a significant concern. And then just reiterate what Katie said. I was also out um, canvasing. And, you know, I did have a couple nice old ladies tell me that they didn't sign petitions, but that they they still supported me, which I would have appreciated the signature, but that's okay. Um, and I I want to thank um, all of you uh, that read my email. I really appreciate it. Um, and just and I just want to say again, I said this in my email, but we really did not expect this field to stay a field forever. As nice as it's been, that was never never the hope, right? We fully expect it to be developed. We just want it to be done in a thoughtful way. And the fact of the matter is, as far as like, you know, I understand the market concerns with with single family, but the fact of the matter is Henley isn't done. It's not full. I you know I don't quite understand the logic of assuming that there will be market support for so many high density when there's so many that aren't even done and we're not even you know we have no we can't know for sure that they're going to fill and so um and and that was a concern I brought up in my email as well. I've been an

apartment manager. I know that the quality of tenants goes down when it's not or when it's not filling up. So the owner gets desperate and you know you just take who you can get and we want high quality neighbors and you know we just we want it to stay R1 if possible and you know R21 at a minimum. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Good evening. My name is Brendan Watkins. Just heard from my lovely wife. Um, I I would also like to reiterate everything that's been said by my wife and by by Katie. Um, as a resident of Sunset Canyon, the only thing I would add, um, uh, on top of the the density concerns and the traffic and the other things that have been mentioned, I would be really opposed to a second entrance exit from Pod One onto Cody. I think as much traffic as possible should be directed where all the traffic is, which is onto Cross Hollow, and as much traffic pulled away from Sunset Canyon and Cody Drive as possible. That's that's the only thing I would add.

Thank you. Thank you.

And Clark, I don't know. First, I want to say thank you. I think you've all tried to make some changes that would help those poor people. Um both on Carmel Canyon and Sunset Canyon, I guess it's called. But I I look at those people and I here's what I think. They all looked at the zoning before they built there and they thought, "Oo, here's here's R ones." And and truly, even in Carmel Canyon, they're going to go out. They all saw R1. So my problem really here is this is if we and I keep saying this and I've said it a million times probably and you're probably sick of it but we have got to zone and mean what we say and I know that there are times I completely understand there are times where hey we didn't plan that we couldn't have seen that 10 years ago but see we have more of this when we have zone change than anything else and that's why I'm saying really think about it the other thing is is if you drive down on Cody I drive there down there every Sunday and go to church My husband said, "Hey, this is going to be a really tight needle to thread every constantly because always it's parked in front of the church and it's parked across the street across the church and then you're going down this narrow little street and that I worry that it's going to be that way all of the time." The other thing my worry is is you know that I do not trust because I've seen them have so much flexibility. So if we tie it down then maybe. But I I I'm you know I'm thinking ooh like Carter said so many highdensity housing now may it may be spread out Robert it may be only 25%. But on cross hollows it feels like a lot and I don't think that that's what these people wanted but really truly they'll do the fif this is my worry they'll do the 15 single family homes and then they're going to do high density for the other 235 or whatever it's going to be whatever they push for. So, I'm just saying if you do do it, you better tie it down tight because there's always there's just so much flexibility. But I

I really say think about the people that were there first. See what I mean? And I realize that that doesn't mean we don't develop, but they bought with a certain expectation and then also did the traffic study. Thank you very much. Thanks, Sarah. Okay. Any anybody else? Can I raise my hand? Well, of course. I just making sure I just have to turn my head the other way. you might have to slap me instead of just

So, just for mine, and this is just for me, I'm I'm hoping you'll table this because it doesn't sound like most of you even read the current proposal um that they've submitted. Um I would know because I didn't have a full chance to go through it either. I've been kind of running through it. Don also had a really quick run through, but it has not been diving in deep. Um listing off a few things that I would recommend we put in here, clarify a bit more about the location of the single family homes for phase one. also being specific that phase one has to be done before phase two starts. Um we have actually a number of them including one of the fiddler's ones that they're skipping phases just based on market and when they got into it. So just calling it phase one doesn't make it happen first. Um clarify the effect of the traffic study. Don was a little concerned that it says there has to be one but it doesn't. You have three possibilities of a traffic study. Traffic study comes out and says everything's great. Wonderful. Or it comes out and says can't do it. You need to do some mitigating things. or it might say even if you mitigate, there's just no way to do this. That third option is not in the development agreement. So, we'd like to kind of tweak that wording to let them know that if their study says it's just not possible, we're not going to let them override it and do it anyway. Um, let's see. The cold stack one's probably fine. Uh, our ordinance requires a 10-ft pee along all primary access private roads. So, if he's allowed to move it down to more than five feet, that's a problem. So, we'll just need to make sure we clarify that. Um I assume they don't want to because otherwise you're not getting utilities into your homes. Um,

yeah, and that's that's one where I I've had this discussion with staff before, but the so all the private roads are a pee and then there's a 10-ft pee beyond the pee and then there's a pee around the subdivision boundary where all the common space is also pee and so but on the Yeah, I I hadn't thought about the private road one, but that one would obviously be an issue if we're doing five foot setbacks,

right? And and we'd have the same thing as we also require that 30- foot triangle. Um so that you have to make sure that even if you're doing five feet on one side, you'd have to make sure the 30- foot sight triangle works. Otherwise, we're creating a traffic danger that's in there. Um let's see. Dryways are probably fine. Uh we talk about uh podspecific numerical limits. So our ordinance is a little bit unclear on this. Um most people read through an RDO and say, well, pod three is going to have 80 units. So pod 3 is only going to have 80 units. Almost every RDO we've had, they've come in and tried to shift unit counts from one pod to another. Um, ordinance could be interpreted both ways. We as staff try to interpret as pod specific. Um, you've already got, you know, our applicant Dallas is already saying they'll stay pod specific. I would recommend we put that in the agreement to make sure they don't get shifted. Um, you guys wanted to limit apartments to pod 3 only. So we can put that language in there if you wish. amenities. That will come down to it. The amenities is written for PUDS in general. It just says they have to have some amenity. If you want to be specific, then we'll need to put something in there.

Um, we didn't have any language on parking with regards to Cody Drive, although it would be helpful if you're single families closest to Cody Drive because that means anybody coming in from multi- multi-unit housing is going to be going through an entire single family section to park. So, that will at least help there. Uh, block wall. We should probably be more specific as to height and its location as compared to the roads. Um, it says covered though in the PUD ordinance because it does specify heights and it it does. The danger you're running into is if we start putting language in here, then it questions does it override an ordinance? Okay. And so if we're going to mention it, we should probably make sure we're mentioning that it still needs to follow all other requirements. And we don't have to put the height. could just say

everything meeting all other requirements because in here it also just says along Cody Drive when our ordinance says it should be 10 feet from Cody Drive. Um that potentially is an override. We actually have one of them when we did that on purpose. We specifically wanted in fact it's Phil's industrial one. We specifically put it at the the property line to the street. The wording here isn't clear which one that one is. So I I don't have a preference on that. I'm I was under the assumption of PUB where it's set back 10 ft, but the city does have the master plan trail I think on the north side of Cody where it already has a 10 foot and so but either way I was I was when I put that in there I was thinking six foot CMU like you typically see in

right whatever they do on the wall I just hope they would not don't leave a blank space that nobody takes care of it. So either put it on the property line or if you move it up because otherwise we're going to end up with 10 ft of weeds. So well the PU the HOA would Yeah, that usually we leave that to HOA. Somebody's got to take care of that. Some of them do well, some they do that, but yeah, beyond that, we'd want to make sure there are no driveways on Cody Drive.

Um there is some language in here that I would recommend we remove because some of it might make us liable to potential owners. So for example, we look at the 3 to 5 year fire maintenance. The wording in there is obligating us to do that. Um, so subsequent owners in this, if we don't meet that three to five and there's a fire, guess who's getting sued? We are. Now, we'll get sued anyway, but this is the agreement they're going to highlight and say, "Look, you agree to a three to five year." I would remove that language from this. We will do it as the fire department and whoever else is going to help maintain it deems as appropriate based on timing, budget, etc. So, we don't end up waving our liability by agreement here. Third parties probably couldn't sue us under this, but anybody who buys under this could they wouldn't be a third party. They would be part of a part of the contract.

Um, and then again, you guys mentioned it. We already talked about it. Timing of the storm drain improvements will need to be in there as well. That's a lot that needs to be tweaked and worked on. So, I'm really hoping you don't vote on this tonight because there's no way we as staff can sit down and do this for you because you'd be giving us too much of your legislative authority. Yeah. So, um, if I may, mayor, um, I think, uh, with all of the revisions and all the I don't want to call them late,

uh, finetuning that you have done, there's still a lot of questions that we have not been able to answer for ourselves or for the council. And so we were going to go ahead and push the approval of this until we got a chance to look at everything including the suggestions from legal counsel. um that I would also recommend that after today's conversation, you guys go back and take a good hard look at what you have come up with already and make sure that we're talking in between the meetings so that uh if there's something you want to tweak, you you get it done in this next period. So, with that, I'm gonna I'm gonna turn

and we want to define private amenities because I think outside of working through the fine details with staff and verbiage, I think the main takeaway that we still need to address is definitions of private amenities inside the PUD. Yeah. And and go ahead and take a look at that. And we will we will not include them until you've come back to us with Is that fair? Yep. Dallas, I think it makes it a little bit more equitable for you and the team. Uh, so with that, I will defer to my colleague. Council, I think you should make the motion. No, I am not going to make a motion. There's a motion to take. I promise to myself

that I would not make a motion on my first year here unless I absolutely had to. Well, you're going to second it. I will second. Actually, Robert, I I do just want to make sure everyone has in there what we so we don't have to go again and again and again, right? Like the setbacks will be if you want to change those. I think we're game for that. Um yeah, my recommendation would definitely go to just fire code. Yeah. Go fire code. Yeah, that's what agreed on. Whatever. That's why I want to make sure we keep in mind fire code can be zero back and forth. Yes. So, as long as you're okay with zero, then that's what fire code would allow. as long as they change the materials. It just it just makes a more usable back lot. That's fine. That's why I just wanted to make sure you understood.

Chief uh Phillips, you will also be called upon to give your opinion during this next week or so. He already weighed in and we'll be happy to do so. When we had discussed that issue in a previous change, we were told by the fire uh marshall that anything less than three feet, they won't go through. Um and that's probably pushing our luck. So, if we do allow shrinking of those sideyards, it might be wise to also include a requirement that any like air conditioners and stuff like that can't be in that sideyard. Those can be helpful to encourage or increase the chance that fire will actually go into a backyard. They can go on the roof.

I just they'll just spray it from the front. I mean, they'll they'll do what they can, but they're not going to put their lives on the line more than they have to. Of course not. Yep. Okay. Okay. I I need a clarification on the 10-ft setback on along Cody Drive that you talked about. Um don't isn't there also a landscape requirement? That's where the landscaping goes for a portion. But yeah, that 10ft section is landscaping. It wouldn't be weeds. It would be like it is on Cross Hollow Drive. Um our landscaping would allow them to literally just put gravel which then just So got to take care of that. Then it turns to weeds. Then we don't do that. We That's not technically what an ordinance says and we're trying not to interpret it that way anymore. But if you look at a lot of them, old ones especially, it's straight gravel. Scott 40 trees along there.

Well, why wouldn't we want to match the aesthetic that's already been established on cross? Absolutely. All of those things along Sunset Canyon and even in the Willox department, they put trees in with the gravel and I think we need to require that. I don't think it should be just gravel. I'm not going to make the motion. You want me to make the motion? Yeah. Is everybody comfortable with clarifying any other details? If as long as we I think got everything ironed out the way we thought was. Yeah. No, the motion is not to vote on this right now, Scott. Is to Am I hearing a motion? No. Why don't you want to make a motion? Okay, for Pete's sakes, I make a motion that we table this until we get a few more things clarified. We have a motion. Do you want a date, Randall? Depends. It depends.

I think that's just between as we work it out, right? Yeah, this may take in a week. It's done in a week. If it's takes a month, so we can come back anytime. I think it should be after May 29th. Do we have a I want the mayor back a renoticing to bring this back or if it's tabled it can so that's your distinction at least the way I read it if you table it to a date certain we do not need to renotify this as a public hearing if you table it to an unnown date which is what the motion is right now we would have to redo the public notice council you uh defer for a friendly amendment to your motion I would I would say that we put the first work meeting in June as our date. June 3rd. He's saying that because I'm gone in Korea for the

I'll be gone on June 3rd. Oh, that's work. But it's fine. You'll be here for the vote. So I I can put I'd like input from you guys first though. Like I don't want to Yeah. I I think the concern is just on our end as far as pushing it out is that there's already been extensions and as far as Yeah, there's a contract extending the contract into June. 29th's not an option. It' be the 27th would be the Wednesday. Well, that would be the work or that'd be the action. Do Do you need it be a work meeting though? Because we've already had a work meeting in a public vote. Yeah. If we're just doing the amendment, we can go ahead and do it in one meeting without two, right?

Yes. The question is is we're going to be coming back with some various wording that you haven't yet addressed. So having a couple of meetings will probably be a must regardless. I doubt this would be wise to do all these potential changes in one meeting. Yeah. And and Scott, if I may, I think we can have those discussions in the absence of the mayor. We can copy him and then uh go ahead and finalize. Will you be gone on the 27th, mayor? Yes. I'll be here next week. The 20th. 20th. But then we we leave on the 21st and then I'll be gone on the 27th.

So Randall, if we punt it to just next week for the work meeting and then action on the 27th, that's fine legally because we don't have to notice, right? So that's not to say we'll get there by next week, but I guess that's it puts on your shoulders to try and we'll try to be sensitive to the obvious. If that is if that is the case, then I need to withdraw my amendment to the motion. So, somebody needs to re Do I need to remotion this? Motion it to go on the I make a motion that we table this until next week and get these Hopefully Randall, you'll give them a list of everything you said. So, so the simple motion is table it until next week.

I make a motion to table this till next week. I have a motion in a second. All in favor? I Carter did. Any opposed? Okay. Thank you. Thanks, Dallas. And with that, Waldo's leaving. Waldo's like, "I've had enough." Okay, next. Uh, are we Well, we're going, so we're going to keep moving. Yep. Consider development agreement for a property located at 1157 South Main Street. You're up.

So, we've had a lot of conversations with the engineers for Smiths in the last week. on your table in front of you, there's a copy of the revised development agreement. If you look at pages two and three, that's where the appropriate changes are made. We're going to address three items. One is the sign over on the Greens Lake Drive entrance, one is the storm drain, and one is the water system. So, oh, go ahead. I was just going to say, so with that, and I think and I know I spoke to with him today, and it's all right if he interrupts, but it's not if we do. Paul said, "Go ahead." No, I was talking to him. Oh, sorry. I just want to No, go ahead. You got to pay attention. That's my I just need a clarification.

What is the difference between the red and the blue? So, the red's the changes that came through last time. If it's not struck out, it's still in. Well, then I think we have an issue, but we'll get Okay.

So, if you go to paragraph uh seven on page two, we're talking about the sign. Uh the owner is committed to moving that sign as far back from the intersection so it doesn't reasonably interfere with uh the trail traffic coming down and the sightelines associated there with you go to the next session we're talking about the water improvements. The water improvements will be done in the following manner. They'll connect the water line along Main Street all the way to the north uh with our existing system. Every pad on their on their lot will be served by an individual uh line coming off a meter which will be located in the public rideway towards Main Street. So, we'll each have separate meters for each lot and they'll all have a line ran to them. Uh there'll be a fire loop around the property which will be a private infrastructure where guys take off the fire loop because they have to put a fire suppression system in their building. They'll do the W8 vault with the with that equipment. There won't be any W7 volts needed anywhere on the property. That's the water system.

Can I ask you a question on that? So Carter had his finger out first. I was going to let him go through them all. Yeah, let him go and then let's come back and question. Is that okay? Just let him run through. The last one is the storm drain. And the storm drain just says uh they'll get a discount on their impact fees commensurate with how much underground storage they put in. We'll prorate it. Um we talked to them this morning. They said it's kind of sixes. So whatever their client wants to do, those are the changes. That's it. So okay. So now we'll go to Carter first and then

Yeah. So I mean we could do it before or after. My thought was just those are the three main things. I do just want to clarify we're all on the same page. We're okay with giving them the variance to go down to the three bays. That's also in here, right? The three loading bays and we're giving them the extra 5T on the 30 foot tall versus the 35t tall. So our read from last week and our discussions were Smith this week was the five feet on the big sign wasn't a controversial issue. The loading bays, three of them, wasn't a controversial issue. The design of the e-commerce pickup area. Oh yeah, that was in there too. Parking. Yeah, parking wasn't uh wasn't a controversial issue. We just focused on the three things we knew there was some disagreement

which I think you guys have done amazing job. And you guys are in agreement with the new water design and the storm drain and all that, right? Yes, we are. So there you have it. Perfect. Leaving it at that. We reached an agreement. Still had a question. I just had a clarification. What What is the green line? Is that what size is the green line and the purple line? And I thought I didn't think we were tied into Greens Lake. I don't I don't know what this exhibit is. What's the green and purple line? Yeah, let's enlarge that down to the south end. If we can can't I'm not sorry. I I just threw this up so you had a picture of the overall site. That may not have been the best choice.

The lines The lines on this map are irrelevant. They don't mean anything. just this is just a demonstrative map showing the the the overall site. Okay. So, I just looked at where the water ties in, but I didn't see it all. No, those those don't mean anything. Okay. Well, we are going to Greens Lake. No, we're not to the water doesn't tie into Green Lake. The water doesn't have to confuse drawing. Yeah, that's that's what we provide on a daily basis. Thank you, Councilman Phillips.

It was nice to hear your voice since you came all the way down. Um, thank you. I do have a question on page one of the agreement and I am not a lawyer so maybe I am I just want to make sure because it's not struck out. Please look at G and H says the main lines of the water system serving the property shall be owned, operated and maintained by Cedar City. The main lines I just want in the street. Okay. I just want that for clarification. That's right. And then it says H storm water system be designed to facilitate waiver of storm water impact fees. We have the word partial in there. We will we will modify that uh to to fit the rest of the

Okay. I just wanted to make sure. Yes, sir. I think that's a good catch. Council Phillips. Yeah. Partial waiver. Even just that would be So, uh I'm ready if you guys are. Yeah. Rick, would you like to share anything with us since you came all this way?

All All I want to say is um we love working in this city. We really do. and for Smiths, we just feel like staff and as well as you expediting this and mayor, your your staff is amazing and we did have a bit of a discussion last week. I'm sure you remember that. But, um, through that discussion, we were able to to get to where we need to be and we're ready to move forward and we'll be out there. Just to give you some timelines, we're probably about two weeks to start grading out there. We do have permits for the retaining wall and the grading and we're just excited to be a part of this community.

Any idea? I mean, this is neither here nor there, but any idea on date of completion or anticipated? So, it's anticipate. This this needs to open next year. We have to I mean, we have to. Yeah. So, sometimes so Kroger says do it and we just we'll be out there. I don't know which quarter yet. It's fluctuating between a couple of quarters. Probably depends on the winner, too. Yeah, I'll let you know. I will. Yeah, you will. It also depends. Um, we're gonna count how many boulders we have on the site. So, this is so not your first road, mayor. Mr. Phillips, the two sections you referred to is a there's a portion in this agreement that says this is what Smith wanted, right?

There's a portion of this agreement that says this is what the city want. Correct. So the G&H you referred to was a reflection of what as we were negotiating Smith had asked for. Okay. But it's still in there and it's not crossed out. That's it's not supposed to be. Okay. That's fine. The next the next section in the contract says well here's all the stuff the city wanted. Okay. The following provisions in the contract say here's all the stuff we agreed to. That being said, Mr. commitment. Mayor, I would like to make a motion that we approve a development agreement for a property located approximately 1157 South Main Street, Smith Marketplace. Second. I have a motion and second. Give it to All right. Phil got the second. All in favor? I. Any opposed? Thank you. Roll call.

Oh, sorry. This one's got to be roll call. My bad. Councilman Phil. I I I I Let's turn some dirt. Rick, thank you very much. Thank you. Thanks for coming down, Rick. Of course. Thank you. Okay. By the way, you look better in person than on that screen that we were talking the other day. So, there you go. We need one of those halo lights. He didn't give me Hey, he didn't give me a Zoom call. All I got was a phone call. Well, number 11, approve a resolution adopting the 2627 fiscal year tenative budget.

So, this one I'll just lead with. So, I sent everybody a list that I had um kind of created as as options to still put in. This is my first time through this. So, this is of course tentative. So, it's not like this is in stone whatever we approve today and we can continue to have discussions about what to tweak or add or take away. Um it's kind of up to us like from my understanding on how much of that we do today versus another night. Sure. And if you have items that you want considered to be added, it would be really helpful if you get them to us so we can get a cost estimate. So we can do that uh in the next couple of days.

You would? Yeah. Get us this information. We can get cost estimates. When we bring it back for final adoption, we'll have a list of those cost estimates. That would be the time that you would say, "Okay, okay, we want to add uh $10 more,000 for Randall because he's got a spiffy haircut or whatever you want to do." Got it. Okay, perfect. And so, did anything has anything altered based on the tenative budget we had from the conversation we've had the last two days?

Not officially. So, under Utah law, cities adopt a tenative budget before they have the final budget adopted. Um the tenative budget is essentially the city's draft budget and it allows the public and the council time to review the proposal re provide feedback and make adjustments before the budget becomes final. So the public hearing on the budget is June 3rd. That was my question. And adoption of the final budget is June 10th. Okay. I was going to make the same comment. It's just a formality to go through the proper steps and we still have time to modify it to get to the June 10th. So my my only thought was that list that I sent where some of the things on that list were things I pulled from our five priorities that you guys filled out.

Right. So I think it might be helpful for us to at least run through that and determine if there's any of those that that you'd want numbers on to consider so that then the staff can Does Ken have that he can put on the screen by chance? Did you happen to email it to him? I can I didn't I sent it to you. I didn't even send it to Paul the first time. I forwarded it to him later. Um, so I'll read through them and just one by one say is that something that that we would want numbers for and we'd want to consider or is that not something we'd want to even consider this? Maybe you read through them. I'll just go one at a time. So the first one I put on there was one from our discussion that I took out the theater remodel. We already know the number for that. So if we that one's on the list to still consider to put money back in for that. Yep. Um, we we visited about weed abatement. Yep. I'd like to see that. And so do you want a number for that one?

I would. Yeah. And what what uh what are you really looking for? Let's just kind of have a little bit of a discussion. We've got to have a better job of take care weeds in our city. So, are we wanting them to to spray all over the city or we want him to look at the main thoroughfare roads that we we make sure get sprayed? I I agree with Councilman Phillips. We got to clean up our city. So, now we gave we gave two people for grates to the street department and I would think that they could possibly do some of this too. I'm thinking we got to No, we got to be careful though. You gave two people in storm drain, which is an enterprise fund, storm drain, which the money we generate for the enterprise fund supposed to be spent in the enterprise fund,

not co-mingled with uh SEO road money and general fund money to go do street stuff. Well, let me ask you, could could street pay could they come up with an agreement in inter department agreement and one department pay the other department for that employee? So, it's not coming out of So, the time that that person works is not coming out of sewers enterprise fund. It comes from streets. Well, remember in our discussions, we asked them to come up with a plan. Yeah. And bring it back to us of a proposal. So, if they can do that in the next couple of weeks, we can still get it into the Yeah. final budget. And there's a lot to consider when you're talking the policy of how we do this.

We have to have conversations uh relative to are we doing public land or private land? Are we going to spray so that we help XYZ developer improve his property so we can go sell it? Are we going to go onto uh Chief Adam's front yard and spray the weeds that are growing there? I don't think that was the plan. We need to look at our sidewalks that we own. We need to look at our interchanges. We need to look at the the medians out of the airport. There's lots of city property property that we need to take care of because if we can't take care of it, how do we turn fingers on other people and tell them to take care of their own?

That's the point of the discussion because the budget is very different depending on the extent in which that you're going to ask to do that. So is it is our is it our city my yard? I I would think that at most and I don't know I'm just shooting from the I would think one person like I mean at the end of the day this is a person we're talking about depending on what we have them do. Yeah. How much that's that's the clarification that I think is an important discussion. Part of the part of the presentation from from the street department yesterday is if you give them more money for chipsill and they can convert their current operation away from chipsil into this alternate road maintenance system where they sub it out. They can free up some of their own staff to go do some of these other things. So that might be the number you get back.

Yeah. Well, Robert, so the way the county did the weed abatement was if it was on private property, you could call and get them to come, but you paid for the product and a nominal fee. And there's to me there's some value there with noxious weeds, you know, the the the thistle and and things like that because then we are not constantly doing it because someone else is not. And those those put off thousands of seeds per plant and they lay dormant for 30 years. They can still come up. So, if we want to get our arms around that kind of thing, we've got to somehow have everyone on board and and so that's that's the way it worked and that's the way the county helped m minimize a lot of that.

And that's uh if I may, that's the way we do it in our HOA up in Ashdown. Um, you know, we take care of the the sidewalks and things like that, but on the private property, we give them a heads up. If they don't come out and take care of it, we do it and charge them back. Okay. All right. We'll have discussions with them and try to get some numbers. Okay. The the next one I had on here was in the current um south interchange re redo plan, the state road has a detention pond right on the corner of the stoplight, which I hate. Um I I hate it from a visual standpoint. I hate it even more so from the fact that that's a prime commercial piece of property that we'll get zero tax revenue off of forever.

Can't they use storm drain goes right there? So, the the one I this one I have on there that I would like to see numbers on if we were to to pipe that down to the the detention basin on Cross Hollow rather than than having it be there. Um, so that frees up a piece that can be surplused and turned into revenue generating commercial. My understanding, but I'd like to at least know the number and I'd like to know the number. They're keeping that 7 by10 box cover. My understanding for flood control, it goes right there. Why can't they tie into that? That's all what I want to see kind of looked at and and what the cost. I think that would be worth looking at.

So, um, Councilman Phillips had uh downtown parking on 100 West, that angled parking. Um, in your written description, it talked about the idea of of bulbing out where the the parking lots pull onto 100. Right now, the stop signs are clear back here and then extending it a little bit further to the south, maybe up to the back of the Elmo Hotel or somewhere else. So you get more parking down resial neighborhood. Yeah. Just right at the edge of that. Make that safer. So then they pull out.

So I don't know on some of these if you're going to have numbers from staff because the concepts of the the the concepts are not well defined. I'm sorry. Even the cross hollow pond one is that conceptually could be a lot of things and those cost estimates could vary a lot. Understand? And some of them if they're really challenging, we may just have to say not going to be in this budget or it's a budget revision down the road. Yeah. Or we get closer with the detail and say well it's

Mayor I will say um on behalf of downtown parking authority that's one that I serve on um we have discussed that bulbing idea and I do think that's something that they would support the idea of just because they control those. We've had it there for years and people are taking their life in their hands trying to turn out there cuz yeah, we have an issue there and we need to I think bulbing or having something would definitely Okay. Where you come out behind um so that one um we've talked multiple comments and discussions over the way we currently have our zoning ordinance um and and then lead that into master plan planning in general. Um so I think

how does that fit in budgetarily? I think it may be wise to to go seek and find um other places and consultants that have helped other cities go from the current way we do our R1 or two R3 to a different type of ordinance for for zoning that's more of a consistent density based zoning. Um you know we've talked about I'm sure all of us have had those kind of discussions. I think it might be wise to to include in the budget some money to be able to get some outside help in how we analyze the those ordinances and whether they're a good idea or a bad idea and what's been done in other places. So So not so much you're not proposing that we redo the master plan in this fiscal year, but that we look at what

I I think the zoning would need to be dealt with first. Once you have a a look at in depth of the zoning, then that feeds into now we need to look at the master plan and do it. I I doubt we get both of them done in the year, but I put them both on the list is kind of considering the last one took a year and a half. Yeah. So, that's the one there is just a a number and of what that might take to get a somebody to help us through that zoning process, that ordinance process. Um, uh, Carter had, this is the only thing Carter filled out on his and I did it for him, but the, uh, citywide storage facility was an idea that he had.

So, let me talk about that really quick. And this came up from a trip that I went with the chief with Chief Adams when we went out to the old treatment plant when I was looking at some of their K9 stuff out there with him. We have so much land out there. And so where I'm kind of at on this is we heard it. I mean, how many ConX boxes are in this year's agenda? I know. At $7,000 a pop, they start adding up and you've got, you know, Chief has to keep vehicles for how many years do you have to keep a vehicle if it's involved in a years? Yeah. 50. Yeah. So we have conx boxes. So,

yeah. So, we have ConX boxes that could potentially have vehicles in them first. So, my thought was and what I would propose for this year is not necessarily a budget thing, but I would like us to start and if that does need a little bit of money for engineering or somebody either one, yeah, possibly start a scing fund, but I would like us to see the possibility of building one major storage facility, whether that's individual storage units and events gets four of them or one big building that shares a forklift and they each this, you know, events has that part of the building and And so I think have that part of the building. Yeah. I just think we've got So we've got storage. We got stuff at Quanza Hut's at the golf course. I got a place for you, man. Yeah. Well, we already own the property. We're not buying stuff.

We're not buying property. We already own the property. So that's that. Mayor, if there's a if there's a budgetary if there's a fiscal note attached to that, that's one thing, but I think it's more just use the idea to get to I support the idea. We just, you know, I don't know where it lands in priorities. And you know, or even, you know, if engineering could say, "Hey, this so we have an idea of what a sinking fund would even look like. that building is going to cost a million dollars, $2 million out at the old wastewater treatment plant on Bulldog. On Bulldog, we own all that property. We own all that property sitting right there and it's like why not build a storage unit facility and let's try to consolidate majority of our departments that have stuff stored in every Yeah. corner and great place and it be good for Okay, so that's that idea. Um I put iron leaders on there. I I think

that Yeah. What was that? What does that mean? So, it's a an annual. It would be in my mind it would be an annual that we're committing to fund somebody from our city staff to go participate in that every that's 1,500 a year. Um the last on their website I just I looked today it's 2,800. They don't have grants for it anymore. So, it's $2,800 a participant and the participation would be what? So, the Are you familiar with the program? Yeah, I am. But I don't It's a monthly sending somebody. Yeah. You said you're you're basically paying the enrollment cost to run the program for the person that you're you're sending to. We would choose we're thinking of maybe sending you to so you could learn a little leadership skills also. That was a joke by the way.

So the the two I would jump to would uh to me it'd be logical to have some people's children economic or the PIO officer would be the two sense. That's a $3,000 investment. Has the city ever sent somebody officially before? We did like the first two years there was somebody from the city in it. That's when there was grant money available though, so it didn't cost anything. Okay. Um the grant writer concept is another one. I would definitely like to see a full-time per person or if there's a way I David's comment the other night, I wasn't aware of those kind of factors of because my mind was just letting it be consultants that commission based essentially. But but if there's problems with that, then my ideas may be bad and you do have to hire somebody. I don't know. And that is a problem.

I'd like to really see that. So probably look at um us to do a little research on what normal salaries would be for a grant writer would probably start. Yeah. Okay. Great. Um and then I put it down as hosting budget, but that was that idea that Waldo brought up of just having some kind of money in some department's budget to make sure when we have people in for meetings and we're we're trying to sell ourselves. I think we could probably accomplish that out of existing financial resources. I do too. I don't I don't know if it's this isn't the easiest the easiest way would be to add if you wanted to add money to throw uh two or $3,000 in administration sunundry budget and set that expectation that

we provide that service. That's perfect. Whichever way is most expedient to be handled might get a co some of us that have been hosting people or anyway that's that's perfect. Thank you. So there I didn't have a chance to read emails much at all today. So if you have any others that you replied, why don't you bring it up? And

yeah, I'd like to we had a little bit of a discussion on this uh yesterday uh during the budget uh discussion, especially when it came to uh the airport. And uh at the airport, we talked about the pads that we lease where there are people that have already built their uh their hangers. And uh I had the opportunity this a this morning, was it this morning? What? I don't remember anymore. Uh to walk through with Tyler. We went out there, looked at um at the terrain and I got a better feeling for what he was talking about. So the issue I think as we discussed it yesterday was that you know there's a drainage issue there. there's potential liability with one of the pads that is all the way to the bottom of the other pads and uh uh one of the second pad up has already taken mitigation action and putting cocking around their windows and things because it's going to happen. Um so we allowed these folks to build their own but we never made any provision for drainage. we expected him to do it. Now, we have more property up uh towards east uh above the what's already built out that we will hopefully begin to recruit uh tenants for that they will go on and put on their own hangers or buildings on. And when we do that, um, we'll probably then put in drainage so that we don't have a liability going forward. Uh, or, you know, have to litigate with somebody sues somebody because all the water runs into the pads that are

already there. So, my recommendation is that we take what's already there and run the 50 ft of uh of drainage from the top of what's already built down to the Is that a creek? What do we call that, Tyler? It's the flood channel. The flood channel.

Uh even though it should have been done by the people that built the the pads, let's do that. And then from then on, we make everybody tie into that as we build further east uh on both sides of that drain uh thing. So if I remember correctly, there's about a I think we've got some money uh that 56,000

56,000 there. uh plus uh I think it'll cost about another 50 grand to to put in the pipe and do whatever uh other materials are necessary. So I would I would like to take care of that uh sooner rather than later and put it in the budget so we can tackle it now and then not worry about any liability going forward. Number one. Number two, uh Tyler and I talked about um the need uh for developing a business plan for every revenue generating entity in our city. And uh we started the discussion today. We're going to um form a small committee that will have people from the board, not everybody, but a few of us and maybe people from staff involved in in looking at the strategy for the for the overall airport kind of kind of a five-year look and then really take a look at what we control and we don't control. And then on those things that we control make sure that we have a tactical plan going forward so that we can start measuring u uh performance. We can start measuring you know the the resources that we put against each one of those revenue generating aspects of the airport. And also on a strategic side, we can start looking at what it is that we may need to get involved in. And by that I mean maybe repurchase so that we can control uh more aspects of what that airport represents in our community. So, so the

the whole conversation started there and we ended up that maybe strategically we might as well just take care of this little piece of liability. Okay. So, that one that one was a proposed one. So, you're just saying we need to reconsider that one in the Yes, please. Okay. Yeah. The the business plan side doesn't have a fiscal note to it. That's just a strategy thing that you want to Yeah. No, that's a strategy thing. But not only am I going to be doing it there, you can help with others. Well, we're going to be doing another I haven't spoken to David Johnson yet uh about it. Your your consulting fee is free. So, thank you. Well, it's really really affordable at this point. Okay. Does anybody else have one that they want numbers on? Question.

We'll just come down the the row if So, just we'll keep going with you, Phil, if you have any others you wanted to add to the list or get Well, I I just I'm not sure if we added to the list as kind of a clarification what you and I had talked about a little bit with the water department.

Okay. Do you want me to bring that up? Okay. So, we met with Matt today a couple times and we had talked about moving one from a level one up to a level two and then possibly uh and there's already a level one position open. We're going to eliminate the two meter reading positions and take the one level two person up and have him become a full-time inspector and water tester person which would help Tom. I haven't told you Kent this yet, but I'm sure you would agree this would be good. That was way back. Kent Kent K. Sorry. Anyway, that would

You haven't been here long enough to earn your own name. That would give Matt two openings for level one and that they so he actually he's got one that's been posted already. He would post two more. He keep him at 13. It does bring in a full-time person that he already has that can inspect water. So So that's we're not really sure what that means for the funding side. I I don't know. I don't I don't know. We're just trying to get What do we need budget money for? Well, I sent Oops, sorry. We're going down. So, I just I just wanted to mention because you and I talked about I don't know, maybe Matt can come in and Yeah, we can have those discussions. Fine tune.

Okay. Can I just make a comment on that because there was a perception uh after we finished the meeting yesterday that perhaps we were pushing to keep the employees that were uh made redundant because of the lack of need for meter readers.

That is not what was on the table. What was on the table was to provide the headcount um and the funding for the headcount to stay at 13 and then find the individuals by posting that would fit that uh the qualifications and qualifications that we needed for that for those jobs. So the 13 would be maintained. It was a a cost of u I think an incremental cost of around $15,000 because there was already a provision in the budget for 70,000. But the meter readers would have to apply for the new jobs

if they wanted to, but they would become redundant. So if they wanted to apply for it, they could and they have to qualify at under the interviews and uh and that would be handled by HR and we'll be fine. So that was the intention. I don't want any That's right. Yeah. Okay, great. Carter, anything else you'd add? Yep. So, the only thing that I have, and this is a well, it's kind of a two-part question. It'd be a question. The first part is for Renan. Renan, would there be a cost that we need to if we were to add the a possible bond initiative for the gymnasium on the November ballot? Would there be a cost that we need to add to the budget to add that to the Probably. Is there any way you could get us what that would cost to the county? What it would cost us to add that to the Not tonight. Not tonight. Put it on your list. She's like,

so that's something I would like to consider. Have to check with John. Yeah, would have to get us up. So, yeah. So, get that number. That's something I'd like to consider, mayor. So, that way if we do decide to end up going that route, and then the only other thing would be, and this might be, I don't know if this would be a Kent or Paul or who, but on that same note with the gymnasium, I'd like us to make sure we go back to whoever we've had engineer it so far and make sure that the numbers Well, yeah. And if we need to add, if they're saying, "Hey, if you need if you need a packet that you can present to your public on this gym, we need to spend a little bit more to get packet ready." Then maybe we we had a conversation about this briefly today about whether we're going to put it on this year or not. Okay.

Uh we plan on putting it on your first work meeting in June. So you can discuss, okay, as a group whether or not we want to put it on this year, we want to put it on next year, exactly when we want to put it on. Okay. No. I having the but having the numbers is good part of that conversation. Yeah. And I've had some discussions today with we can talk about it in June with other taxing entities and what their plans are and whether or not they'll have anything. So I think we have to strike when the timing is right. Perfect. Thank you, Carter. Anything Robert? I think Scott was going to bring up what I was going to bring up. I don't know. Yeah.

So go ahead. I I just uh I sent in an email earlier today that I do want to really consider adding that extra $10,000 to our economic development department for our main street coordinator. I think it's important and I think I think I clearly heard what all of you were saying. I think we can get there and I think if that person has more time we can get those results and we can work on the strategies. Fully agree. So that's something I want to that's just a one that we took out that we'd add in but not a new one that we need numbers on. Just add that I think gives us our list of anything new that we need numbers on. So thank you. I think that's all we needed to do on that for today. So with that I'd entertain a motion to approve the tenative budget.

Mayor with that I would move that we approve the uh resolution adopting the 2627 fiscal year tenative budget. Have a motion. Second and a second. All in favor? Roll call. Oh roll call. Starting with Councilman Cox. Hi. Hi. I I Oh, thank you. He was like right after you all. Sorry. He wants to get out of here. I was trying to count. No. Nine o'clock this week. Um, next one. To consider a resolution to amend the consolidated fee schedule.

So, there was a number of questions that council raised last week. Uh, and there was two thoughts that came out of the meeting. One was to address those questions during the budget session. So, I emailed everybody and told them to be ready during their budget presentations. Why you're all here to ask questions or answer questions on uh fee schedule changes. Well, we went through Monday and nobody asked any questions on fee schedule changes. So, I emailed them all back again and said, "Make sure you come on Wednesday to answer fee schedule changes." So, if you have questions on the fee schedule, we've asked the folks that proposed the fee changes to be here, so you can ask them your question. Should we just run through them real quick then?

Well, I I would just say if there's specific questions you have, then let's bring them up. If you don't, there's no reason to run through them all and take the time. I'm fine. I need I need better understanding of the building department's fee schedule. It was very long and very to me complicated. Maybe I'm the only one that is because I think Matt kind of went through and explained his yesterday in our budget. Yeah, I'm fine with that. And I'm fine with the filing fees and those kinds of things. Are you okay with the banners? That one's kind of complicated.

No, I'm not. That's I brought that up in our discussions. I I need to have a clarification. I know what David's going to tell us, but I'm worried that we're going to price our nonprofits right out of the ability to do it. And I know we had talked about we had talked about you and myself and David. It just didn't happen. We had talked about getting together and really going through those and I just and that's probably as much on me as it is on anybody. So I apologize. Okay. Well, let's start. David, we're not on you. We're going to do building department first. He was making his list. So, we're going to start the building department ones. Yeah. All I was getting with that is we might need to pull the banner portion out of the fee schedule. Yeah, you're good. That's all I was saying.

So, what was the question then, Scott? It's right there on the screen. Well, I'm I just need some explanation of this because I don't quite understand it. I mean, have we had have we had fees in the past? What were the what were the old ones and what is the new? As far as I know, these are the existing fees. Well, if they're existing, how come we have to approve them again? Because it's all of our fees, right? Thought it was only the ones we're changing. No, this is only changes. Okay. Okay. An intro paragraph explaining that they needed a Yeah, it's only Yeah. I'm not sure on that. I don't know the answer to the question. Okay.

So, where where the building department chose not to come, I think you yanked these out and we'll tell the building department if you want to come and ask the council, you need to show up. And and if there's any others in here that do the same, let's do the same thing. Okay. Yeah. They're not here. And my only other one was the banner program. Okay. Well, we have that guy here. So, David, would you like to come and talk about the banner program now? I think. Well, we want to try and hash it out. Just table that portion, pull that one, too, and then we meet and come back. I think that depends on if there's three people that are okay with it or not. No. Yeah, that's true.

Uh, so couple small caveats is one, John, my former PIO, and Anthony worked on this. John's no longer here. and anony's out of town. But I'll give you the short and skinny of it. The short and skinny is that we at the city's cost, our cost right now is about $10 per banner and we are only uh we're only bringing in I'm sorry, we're bringing in less than $6 a banner. So whether we have staff, we, you know, to cover staff costs um $10 per banner or we decide to contract out, either way, just to cover our cost so we're not going in the red. Um we we're proposing that we charge at least $10 per banner.

Oh, so you want to go to just flat $10 per banner. No more sliding scale. No sliding scale. It's just if you want 30 banners, it's $10 per banner, $300. And is it $10 to take them up and $10 to take them down? Uh, can you zoom in? I I I'm starting to realize I'm getting deeper in my 40s and I have to uh It says at the very top on that top right column the cost breakdown to install and remove. So I'm assuming your fee is okay to cover both ends. Yeah, that that was my understanding. I just wanted to I was second guessing myself when you asked that. So I was looking what we had here. So, at this point, the council can determine whether or not it's worth it to to the city to subsidize the banner program.

Staff's giving you the cost to say this breaks us even. If you want to subsidize it to uh make sure that uh entities without a lot of money can put banners up, all of them. I don't want to subsidize it. If you'll scroll, if you're not

Sorry, I was making sure this on uh if you'll scroll uh down, I guess. Um I think there was a couple yeah to those estimates there's two estimates at the bottom. Um so if collob sign if we c our cost is about $10 per banner for our staff to do it. If we paid collab sign contracted them to do it's $10 per banner but other entities like rainbow sign it the cost was $26 per banner just to give you perspective. So we were being highly conservative saying today's cost is $10 per banner. Um, but you know, I'm I'm just giving you perspective. I I think we could justify more than $10 per banner, but we were trying to be conservative for some of the concerns, Councilman Phillips, that you brought up um to not price people out and and our nonprofit organizations, etc. So,

I now that we've explained it and gone through, I'm actually okay with the price. I do still think it'd be nice if we could sit down and talk more about the programming side of it, not the cost side of it. But like, who gets preference? And I mean, there's that's a whole another Yeah, that's a different discussion. As of right now, we're booked a year out and we've been working through some of that and I think we've got most of it resolved. Okay. Scott's comfortable leaving it, too. So, we're good. Whatever we do, we don't subsidize. Yeah. So, I think everybody's on the same page. We love That's the goal. Yeah. We're good with the 10. All right. Thank you. Any others that you needed quick clarifications on? So, if not, then the only one we're pulling out is building department. Yeah. Okay.

So, mayor, I would move that we adopt the resolution to amend the consolidated fee schedule minus the building department's changes. I have a motion. Second, and a second from Councilman Smith. All in favor? I roll call. I I I I Thank you. Okay, mayor. I have to excuse myself. Yep. Next one. Thank you. Um, any discussion on this one?

I just have one question. This can kind of go, the credit can go, as we're talking about, for example, what Councilman Galan brought up at the airport. Right now, things sit at about a $56,000 credit in our favor. It can at times go the other direction also, right? Where we owe where we owe where we owe him. We have not done that. It hasn't ever gotten that far. Okay. Yeah. Talic airport manager. Yeah. We've never gone to that place and we aim to never go into that position with this project. I was thinking, you know, we're trying to well if we got a budget for it, but that's fine. I think we'd separate it out into different invoices and completely break away from the So, it only usually goes the one way by the hard where he owes us.

Okay. Mayor, I would move that we uh approve the Schmidt exchange of services agreement extension as proposed by airport manager Galatica. Second. Motion and a second. You can do all in favor and he'll abstain. All in favor? Yeah. Yeah. I I Any opposed? Now, I'm gunshy on which ones I have to do roll call. One abstain. Okay. Mayor, with that with that, I would move that we would public comments. Public comments and then we'll do Thank you. Anybody here that has a comment they would like to just add, give us in general. That's right. Oh, it is on there. Okay. Seeing none, we will now entertain a motion.

Okay, mayor. With that, I would move that we close this meeting and go to our Well, we're going to do the MBA and the RDA first. Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I would move that we go to our municipal building authority meeting. I have a motion. Second. All in favor? Call. Do you have to do roll call to do that? No. No. Not to close. Um, now we uh chairperson for Mun. Yeah. Who Who's I think you are mayor. Am I on this one? I'm I'm the chair of the RDA. Yeah. Sorry, did I go wrong order? That's all right. We're we're in MBA. One of those. Yeah, I think you're the chair. I think it's Robert. So, Robert, call us to order, man.

You're meeting call to order. So, I'll call this to order. Anyone want to make a motion? Um, you only have one agenda item, correct? Yes. I um Mr. Mr. Chair, I would move that we approve the tenative budget for 2026 for the NDA budget proposed previously. A motion and a second. Oh, I get I get seconded. Oh, you get he gets the vote and everything. And you have to roll call it starting with him. And so we'll roll call starting with you. I I I I I motion sustained.

Mayor, I would move that we close this or chairman, I guess, mayor or I would move that we close this municipal building authority meeting and go into our redevelopment agency meeting. I will second that motion. All in favor? All in favor? I I We're getting there. Chair of this one. Any opposed? Scott, we just got to let her run on and get caught up. I'll wait till she's ready. All about Renan for another month. She's not count.

No. Hey, mayor, you make a motion on this one. Um, all right, gentlemen. Uh, of the council and mayor, I call this meeting of the redevelopment union together. Uh we have one item on the agenda and that is to approve a resolution adopting the 26 27 fiscal year budget. I so move. We have a motion. Is there a second? All in favor of that? I roll call. Roll call. I am going to start with the mayor. I I I I I. Motion carries. Mr. Chairman, I would move that we close this redevelopment agency meeting and go uh into our closed session. I have a motion. Is there a second? I'll second that. Have a motion in a second. All in favor? I. Anyone opposed? Motion carries.

Do you have to roll call to go into a closed? I don't. You have to roll call to go into a closed. Yeah. So, technically I'd be the one calling that. Yeah. So, technically I'm calling that vote. So, all right. Let's do a roll call. Well, he's calling. I have to do to go into close session back to city council. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Cuz we're going back into the city council. So, now So, now closing city council meeting to go into the uh close session. Who's so the motion? Carter made the motion. Carter's going to make the motion to go into the close session. I made the motion. No, I have to make the motion to go back to the normal meeting first. So, that one and then call for a vote. Scott, I'm sorry. What are we doing? Yep. So, going through roll call.

Oh, roll call for the closing of the uh RDA meeting. I'm sorry. No. To go to go into the close session. Oh. Oh. I I I I I Wow, that was complicated. I didn't know what I screwed it up. I should have said close the RDA and go to the normal meeting. Yeah. Back into city council and then let him say correct and then let normal Wait, please. And then we're going to have to go back into the city council meeting after this closed session, which I don't know why. You must know something. I don't know. You're the one that made the motion, Carter.

Or answered a question. I'd be jumping. Part of it is just an answer. I say you're the one that made the motion last week.

Oh, that you're motion. Well, because everybody

Sure. Waldo. I take offense to that. I hung out here for eight years.

We don't want We don't want to leave forever. language.

Just change change the language. Great. That's as small as Z amendments. Say that again. Take out the take out the language that says you have to give us water rights before that's in there right now. and put in a provision that says you got how many more months do you need to finish? We got two issues.