City Council - Regular Meeting

Welcome everyone out to our Pleasant Grove City Council meeting today, Tuesday, September 15th, 2026. All council members are here and we welcome all those who have joined us here and those online. We have asked our city administrator, Scott Darrington, to give our Pledge of Allegiance, after which council member Steve Rogers will give our opening remarks.

Our Heavenly Father, we're grateful to be gathered here together as the City Council and as residents of our wonderful city, Pleasant Grove. We're grateful to conduct some business that helps our city to move forward and to be a great place to live. We're grateful for our community and the support of one another and the differences that we share and the way that that makes our community vibrant and and that it helps us to learn and grow from each other. We're grateful to be able to hear from our residents and help us all to maintain respect for one another and to consider the issues and the items before us carefully and with an eye toward ensuring that our city is safe and is prosperous and is a wonderful place to live. We're grateful for our wonderful nation, the freedoms that we enjoy. Please bless our nation. Bless the leaders of our nation to make decisions that are in line with things that will help us to be able to live in freedom and in liberty and to protect those things that we love most. We love the Heavenly Father, and we say these things in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

Thank you, Scott and Steve. Scott, is there any adjustments to the meeting agenda?

Yeah, no changes.

All right. With that said, I'll entertain a motion for approval of tonight's agenda.

Mayor, I'll move that we approve the agenda as presented. Second.

We have a motion by Council Member Phillips, a second by Council Member Lamone. All those in favor?

Aye.

That's unanimous. Thank you. We're going to go ahead and move into our open session tonight. We do have... a couple of public hearings. So if you're here for items 9A and 9B, we'd ask that you wait until that time. But if you're here for anything else, we encourage you to come up. We'll set the timer at three minutes and we just ask that you state your name. Our open session is open. Welcome.

hello my name is russell short so who would have thought that stop signs would be so influential right i saw it in the meeting it was a 4 30. so i live near that intersection on loader drive and nathaniel drive and i understand that there was a survey done i don't know what's included in that if there's elevation changes or what but there's two things i can say for certainty is when you watch that intersection you have especially now with only one stop sign, you see two things. You see cars speeding through, and you see cars trying to stop, because they're used to a stop sign being there. What that to me tells me is that it's not... intuitive the current configuration with one stop sign. Many cars are used to it. They'll come up and they'll slow down and stop. So I don't like that it only has one stop sign now. I think it increases the danger in our community. The other thing it removed was the crosswalk that was there. And at the south side of that intersection is a LDS office or church building. And many people cross there. So without a stop sign to slow traffic down and a crosswalk, I think it is a disaster waiting to happen. Also, I know of at least two incidences in wintertime when there's snow on the road where people come down that road and they slide off the road and they have hit the telephone poles there. A stop sign increases the chance of an accident. And I actually did take the time to go talk to our residents about it. Out of all of the houses I knocked in that area, I only had two that preferred a single stop sign. Everyone else, I've got 36 signatures in one day, preferred the three-way stop because of the safety and the crosswalk for the children. So I would implore the city to reconsider and put it back to what people are used to. I know many people did not fully stop there. The Californians stopped. They slowed down and rolled through it. But at least they slowed down. There are other residents that I know are impacted greatly by this. They live on the apex. It's hard to get out of their driveway. Cars come through there very fast. Residents on the opposite side of the road that have lived there for decades 40 plus years, have seen the danger. I remember when it used to be a yield sign. And yield, same problem. People still slowed down, still sped through it, but at least they slowed down. And I believe that was a consideration why it became a stop sign. And now it's changed, and I don't think it's intuitive. And one thing that I'd point to in regard to that is they put up these big flashing signs that say, slow down, new traffic pattern. And there's still multiple almost accidents that I've seen just at that intersection. you're welcome to come sit in my front yard and see it. So that's all I have.

Russell, thank you. If you want to give your copy or if that's just your copy, you can give it to Scott here if you want.

Yeah, I'd be happy to get a copy of you guys. Thank you.

All right, anyone else? Okay. Well, you have two great helpers. Good job. With that, we'll go ahead and close our open session tonight and move to our consent items. As you look through, you'll see the items A through E. I'll entertain a motion.

Mayor, I'll make a motion to approve tonight's consent items A through E.

We have a motion by Council Member Williams. Is that a second?

Second.

Second by Council Member Rogers. All those in favor? Aye. It's unanimous. Thank you. At this time, we don't have any board, commissioner, committee appointments or presentations. We'll move into our public hearing items. Item 9A, public hearing to consider ordinance 2026-2028 for a zone change for approximately 1.03 acres of land from our rural residential zone to our 120 zone. located at 980 West, 1800 North. Director Cardenas.

Great. Council, Mayor, Mayor and Council, the item that I'm going to present is the proposal of Braxton Rapp for a rezone. What the applicant is proposing is to rezone one parcel of land. The parcel of land is about one acre, a little above one acre, 1.03 acres. And this parcel right here, this rectangle that we can see right here, it's a little above one acre. The applicant is proposing to rezone that from the rural residential, as we can see right here, painted as the lime green, into the R120 zone. The R120 zone is this, how are we gonna call that? a little lighter green, the sepia gray, kind of like that. So it's adjacent to it, and what the applicant is proposing is to change the zone, again, from an RR that requires 21,780 square feet to 20,000 square feet. These two zones, the RR, every time I say RR, I think of R&R. Thank goodness we just had dinner. The RR zone, again, requires every lot to be half acre lots, okay? Just by itself, that could be subdivided because it's one acre. What the applicant is thinking in the future is to do a flat lot subdivision, meaning two lots, one base lot in the front and one lot in the back. However, recently, probably in the last year, we work in our, last couple of years, we work in our flag lot ordinance and then we don't count out the stem, the stem that goes up to the lot in the back, we don't count that anymore, okay? So the applicant in the idea of trying to make a subdivision for the future and we had something called the DRC, the preliminary application meeting, we discussed that possibility and the first step is to do a rezone. So again, the applicant has the idea to do a subdivision. We don't have the application for the subdivision here in front of us, so we don't know exactly where the stem is going to be. We don't know if it's going to be on the left. We don't know if it's going to be on the right. We don't know where the location of the home is going to be. That's part of a subdivision process. What we have here in front of us today is the rezone. to require 20,000 square feet per lot instead of 21,780. Now, these two zones, the RR and the R120, I'm going to call it twin zones. Why am I going to call it twin zones? They're pretty similar. They're pretty similar. If we, just by the naked eye, if we see one lot right here to the right, that is, 21,780, and then we see another lot to the left that is 20,000, we won't be able to find the difference. They're pretty similar. And the reason why we require a little bit more than the other one is because the rural residential has animal rights. The rural residential has animal rights. The R-120 doesn't. So what the applicant is trying to do is, again, to go from the RR to the R-120. Now, we have a general plan. Our general plan tells us that in these areas, we can see both zones are appropriate. Both zones are compatible. The biggest difference is about 1,500 square feet, 1,500, and the one has animal rights and the other one doesn't. But they're pretty comparable to each other. So there wasn't anything in the general plan that would go against this proposal for the rezone. Let me see what else I can find right here.

Daniel, can I ask you this question?

Yes.

So I see, what property are we? It's this one right here. Okay. This one right here. It looked like it was the white one. Yes, my bad.

The next door, but it's the one that's. The one next door, it's already in the R120. It's already in the R120. Yeah, it's already in the R120. Actually, let me see the image that we have in the staff report. We can see it right there. This is the one that we're talking. So the second one from the corner to the left, this one is already in the R120. We can see the size, but again, this is already one acre, so it's double the size.

And it's currently zoned rural residential.

It's currently zone row residential.

They want to go to R120.

That's correct. They want to go to R120, yes. That's what the proposal is. Both zones are single family, and both zones are categorized as the very low density. When we did our general plan and we were working on this, we decided that those two zones could go north of 1800, and both of them would be comparable to each other, okay?

So Daniel, the question I've got is, being on the planning commission for all those years when we were going through that, redesign of the code, if I recall correctly, there were concerns from the city about flag lots in general. maybe I'm right, maybe I'm wrong, remembering wrong, but maybe can you just address some of the concerns that we have generally from a city planning on flag lots?

Yeah, again, the item that we have in front of us is not for a flag lot, it's for a reason, but one of the concerns that we had and the reason why we did a code text amendment was because we were having a bunch of flag lots and by a bunch I mean three to four in the back. So we reduced that to only one. And that was trying to get utilities right there, trying to make sure that we had a share access. All that was complicated. In this case, by having only one, those complications are eradicated. They're not there anymore. Okay? So... Both zones, and this is important to mention, both zones, the RR and the R120, have exactly the same requirements for setbacks for a flag lot. There's no difference in it, there's no difference, okay? Again, the need for the applicant to go for a rezone is number one, so they can have, eventually they can go for that subdivision and have only one flag lot, okay? Again, when we review this stuff, we found out that it's compatible with the surrounded areas that we can see in the map. It's compatible with the general plan. We presented this to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission forwarded a unanimous recommendation of approval for the reason of the property from RR to R120, okay? That's what I have, Council and Mayor, Mayor and Council.

That works. Does the applicant want to speak or is he here? Braxton?

It's up to you. You don't have to.

It's up to you. Okay. He covered it? Okay. All right. Any questions for director? All right. Okay. Be close. We'll go ahead and since this is a public hearing, we'll go ahead and open this up to the public. Again, if you come forward, just please state your name.

Okay, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing and bring it back up here.

Oh, was there? Oh, sorry. I didn't give you enough time. Sorry. I didn't know if they wanted to go in front of me or not. Oh, no. Welcome.

Thank you. The house right next door.

Can we get you to state your name?

Oh, Sandy Shepard.

Sandy Shepard, okay.

The house right next door is my mom's house. I'm the entruster of the house.

You're talking, mine doesn't really work. That one on the corner?

Oh, okay, so it's, yeah, it's the one. Wait, I think it's that one. It's the 930.

Okay, yeah, the corner.

So there's a road in front of the house and there's a road down the side of the house. And if this is zone, there's gonna be another road down the other side of the house. So there's gonna be three roads around one house. And then on the other side of the fence, 930 owns like three feet of that. And the reason that the fence was brought in was because there was a ditch there so that it could be like weeded and maintained. But then there was problems with the flooding. So the city come in and covered that. And then she's also worried about what with the road next to the fence that it's going to ruin the fence more because it already has a lot of damage. I have pictures if you want to see. And then I had a question for like the if the it's been because the water table is really high and I don't know if the person that's going to be buying that lot do they know that the water table is really high and if you have a basement it has to be pumped. You know I don't know I mean I don't know about that if the city needs to do that. Gary has offered up his property for the road to go through, but he lives, let me show you where he lives. I'm trying to, this thing doesn't work.

There's a little button on the end. Oh, right there.

Okay, so let's see, I think, okay, so

Okay, so Gary was right here.

So he's offered up his property for the road, so it would go in, like in between him and Vicki's house for him to offer up his property, which he already did. But I don't know if that, Vicki doesn't know about it, because you know it would affect her.

Okay, thank you.

Sorry, I thought it was a smoke detector. Oh, no.

All right, anyone else? Oh, we got you to come up. Okay. There we go.

My name is Braxton Rapp. I'm the property owner. We actually purchased the whole property back in February. So with the road she's proposing, you know, coming in, we haven't fully decided on which side that road's going to come in for, you know, whichever is going to be better. Having the three roads, I can understand the complications it could cover as far as that goes, but It is my first time subduing a property, you know, planning to do a build down the road, but with the size of, you know, I guess that side of the property, there shouldn't be really as much issues, I guess, as far as traffic goes. Another thing that's good is if that road were to go in on that side, it really, if you were to look at right now, when we moved in, there was a whole bunch of debris along the fence line there, and it would clean up all that, you know, and you'd have a easement, I guess you would say, as far as gravel that comes in that keeps the area clean. And really, there's only one house back there, so the only traffic that would be going back there might be family, friends, stuff like that. There was an option of putting it on the opposite side, but there's a lot more squish of an area on that side where it would kind of compress with that neighbor more so, I guess I'd say, in the house. But on that side, obviously, you'd have to connect the driveways. It's within a 60-foot span. know i think it's great that he offered up his property to bring the road in from his side although you know i don't know if that's necessary i guess in this just mainly you know where that lot lines up with his lot you know his house if you guys kind of see the corner a bit right there you only probably have 40 to 50 compared to the back end of my lot right there and so it kind of just separates the two lots and where i don't know how You know, you'd have to buy property from him. He'd have to subdivide to bring his down. However, that would work out. But I wouldn't propose, obviously, going that route.

Sorry, if I can just give a reminder. This is just for a rezone. Yeah. All the discussion has been site plan level, and we're just not there yet. Correct. And so... Yeah, more of just trying to ease the mind. I would like the council to consider the rezone, and then when it comes to site plan time, then we'll have all these discussions.

Yeah, we can have you answer and have Daniel answer.

Yeah, more of just trying to ease the mind of that thought, but yeah, that's all I have. Thank you.

Appreciate it. Okay. All right, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing at this time.

Well, I think I already brought it back up where we closed it.

So, council, is there any questions on the rezone? Okay. Okay.

I mean, again, we're not talking about site plan. I think that Daniel and his team will be well aware if there's an easement in that ditch and making sure the setbacks are correct on the lane that goes down and how all that may or may not come back together. So I think the concerns that Ms. Shepard brought up are, you know, real concerns that would come up later if there is an actual development that actually happens. But... As far as I understand, Daniel, with regard to changing this from rural residential to R20, it lowers the lot size ever so slightly just so that the lane can go back and there's enough room for two lots.

That's correct. So I will be careful calling that a road. That's not a road. That's an access to one home in the back. The lane, right? Correct. So this right here, this is a road. This is also a road. They're public roads. This will be a stem, access stem. Not an easement. It will be an access stem to the lot. That's why it's called a flag lot. That will be the pole of the flag.

It's the driveway. I mean, it's no different than any other driveway.

It's a driveway. It's a driveway for one single home. And at this point, we don't know, as the applicant said, is where that will be located. That will be at the time of the actually subdivision plot. It's a subdivision. On the site plan would be about the location of the home. But issues like that, for example, what we're talking about, the easement for the canal or whatever, those are review at the time of the plan when we actually see where the new proper lines will be and stuff like that. Correct. I just want to confirm that also that, like I say, the RR and R120, they're kind of like twin zones. The difference is slightly in square footage and the one has animal rights and the other one does not.

But importantly for me, and I verify that you said it already, is that the setbacks are the same, whether it's rural residential or R-120. For the flag lot, yes. For the flag lot, they're the same.

They're the same, they're the same, correct.

Council, any other questions? All right, with that, I'll entertain a motion on Ordinance 2026-28.

Well, Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we approve Ordinance 2026-028 for a zone change as previously read.

OK. We have a motion by Councilmember Anderson. Do I have a second?

I'll second.

Second by Council Member Williams. This will be a roll call vote. Council Member Lamone. Yes. Council Member Phillips. Yes. Council Member Williams. Yes. Council Member Rogers. Yes. And Council Member Anderson. Yes. OK. It's unanimous. Thank you. All right, moving on to our next public hearing to consider ordinance 2026-29 for a vicinity plan amendment on approximately four acres of land located approximately 152 north, 1400 east in the R120 zone. Director Cardenas, welcome back.

Long time no see.

Yeah.

Okay, Mayor and Council, As the mayor just read, the next item is for a vicinity plan amendment. I don't wanna sound like a broken record, and I know we have reviewed vicinity plan amendments in the past, but just in a couple minutes, let me tell you, for those who are listening to us and people in the public, a reminder what a vicinity plan is, and for my mom who's watching me.

Is she right now?

No, she doesn't speak English.

But is she watching?

No, I don't think she's watching. I want to believe that she is, but I don't think she is. I don't think she knows how to log into YouTube either. What's a vicinity plan? In 2014, we had an engineer that helped us and give us ideas where possible roads for future development will be located. So what the engineer firm did, or the engineer in this case, he looked a map of the entire city and so okay, took a look at the properties that were not developed PROPERTIES THAT WERE NOT DEVELOPED, LARGE AREAS, AND HE STARTED, BASED ON THE ROADS THAT WE ALREADY HAVE, HE STARTED DRAFTING THE POSSIBLE LOCATION OF FUTURE ROADS. THAT'S WHAT THE VICINITY PLAN WAS. IT'S JUST THE POSSIBLE LOCATION OF FUTURE ROADS FOR UNDEVELOPED LAND. When we have a vicinity plan amendment, it means that someone wants to do something with the property, wants to develop it, wants to subdivide it, wants to do something with the property, and the location of the roads is not convenient to their development or is not conducive to their development. So what they propose is a different way OR ELIMINATION OF THE POSSIBLE ROADS IN ORDER FOR THEM TO ACHIEVE THEIR GOAL OF DEVELOPMENT OF LAND. VERY IMPORTANT IS THE STAFF ALWAYS LOOK AT THIS VICINITY PLAN AND WE ALWAYS TRY TO LOOK AT THE CONNECTIONS. THE CONNECTIVITY IS VERY IMPORTANT FOR US, NOT JUST FOR THE PEDESTRIANS, BUT WE LOOK AT THE VEHICULAR CONNECTIVITY AND SO ON. When the engineer worked on this plan, he didn't look at the lot sizes. So a vicinity plan doesn't show us the sizes of the lot, doesn't show us the location of the homes, anything like that. possible location of roads, okay? And it's a very high view of the area. Once we actually take a look at the area, we can see in many cases, oh, a road was supposed to go here, but there's no possible way a road can be here. And even the staff has said many times, it's in the best interest of the city to remove or to amend the vicinity plan, okay? Our vicinity plan looks like this. If you guys take a look at your staff report.

Daniel, can I just ask a question on that? So do you have to change the vicinity plan before you change the plot? Is that a requirement, or is the vicinity plan more of just a... Guidelines.

The vicinity plan is more of a guideline, but it's a guideline that was adopted. It's a guideline that was adopted.

So because it's adopted, it has to be changed by resolution?

Correct. It has to be changed through the city council because it was the city council, the one that we adopted this set of plans into as an appendix to our general plan, okay? Take a look at that area. That's the east bench. I like to call the east bench of our city, okay? And those blue lines right there, those are possible location of roads. Now, when we take a look at this possible location of the roads, a lot of those go through the middle of homes, so they're impossible to be put right there. Some of those geographically, because of the grading, cannot happen. And that's the case of this one right here. We can take a look. So this is... 1400 East, this is 1400 East, and it's about 150 North. And we can see that there's a road that goes in the back of all these properties right here. We can take a look at this now. That road cannot happen for three reasons, okay? Reason number one, the elevation and the grading issues are very complicated for the road. So the slope is gonna be tremendous right there. problem number two why that road can happen right there is because by putting that road right there then we open it for further development of the lots in the back and we cannot talking with public works we cannot provide utility services we cannot pump water all that high all the way right there and number three and very important is because the the aqueduct runs through right there. Actually, the aqueduct runs parallel to that road. We cannot put a road on top of an aqueduct. In reality, Salt Lake City, the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City and Sandy own the rights of that easement. and they will not even let us cross that isment, meaning a perpendicular road cannot go through that isment, leave alone a road on top of it or parallel to it. So those are three reasons why that road is not feasible. Now, the applicant, Daniel Ray, he owns this property right here that is dotted in aquamarine. or teal, right? I've been studying my colors lately. So he owns that property right there. As we can see, the road goes right through the middle of the property, okay? Now, what the applicant is proposing, and he approaches staff to say, hey, I would like to amend the vicinity plan because I cannot have a road going through my property like that. I think the intent of the applicant in the future is to consolidate the lot. and have one large load. Now how he's gonna develop that, again, that's in the future for him to see. He has to work with the Metropolitan Water District of Salt Lake City and Sandy. He needs to figure out how he, if he can even cross the aqueduct and so on. But we're not here to discuss a reason We're not here to discuss a subdivision. What we're here to discuss is the feasibility or not feasibility of that road going to right there. Staff recommends that we remove that road and as people develop in the future, find different ways to access the back of their properties. And that's what the applicant is proposing as well. Let me see, we present this item to the Planning Commission, and the Planning Commission forwarded also a unanimous recommendation of approval. As you guys know, we send notices to the neighbors. We always say, every time there's a public hearing, we send notices to the neighbors, 300 radius. And one of the neighbors is the aqueduct owners, and they reach out to us, reach out to the staff, reach out to the city to let us know that in no way, shape, or form they're going to allow development or a road to cross the aqueduct. Let me show you an image that I have right here. This is the property that we're talking about, and the road kind of like runs this way. I'm going to do it like this. The... Yes. Do you guys see this looks like a road, but this is not the road. Actually, this right here is the aqueduct easement. And it goes to right here. It's not drawn right here, but it goes right here. So all of this area in order for someone to develop or to put a road or something like that, have to get the permission from the aqueduct easement owners. There's no permissions available at this point, okay? That's what I have, Mayor and Council. I'm open to questions if you guys have any.

Council, do you have any questions on removing the road? Is the applicant here? Do they want to speak? They don't have to, but. All right, it is a public hearing on item 9B. We'll go ahead and open the public hearing at this time. If you do come forward, please just state your name. Okay, seeing no one coming up, we'll go ahead and close the public hearing and bring it back up here to the council. Do you have any further questions for our director? If not, I'll entertain a motion on ordinance 2026-29.

Mayor, I'll make the motion to approve Ordinance 2026-2029 for the Vicinity Plan Amendment as described and submitted by staff.

Great. We have a motion by Councilmember Phillips. Do I have a second?

Second.

Second by Councilmember Rogers. This will be a roll call vote. Councilmember Rogers?

Yes.

Councilmember Anderson?

Yes.

Councilmember Lamont? Yes. Councilmember Williams? Yes. And Councilmember Phillips? Yes. That's unanimous. Thank you. Okay, we're gonna go ahead and move to our action items that are ready for a vote. Item 10A, to consider awarding SNL Incorporated, the Pleasant Grove Library Landscape and Pavilion Project, based on a request for proposals RFP amount not to exceed $406,922.68. Director Windington. Yeah, thank you. We advertised for and actually did some interviews

for firms. This is a pretty unique project, so we felt like there was some additional effort. Instead of just straight competitive bid, we did a request for proposals, and we did interviews. We held a pre-proposal meeting and had a Q&A session and did a site visit as well. After reviewing all the proposals and looking at all the information, we recommend awarding the work to SNL for the library work to be done.

So is this the, I know we discussed last time it was close to a million, like the final cost.

This is just the portion of SNL's work. There is a pavilion that is a separate order for that. There's a prefab building that's a separate order for that. Engineering services separate from this. So the budget overall is closer to $850,000, $900,000. with some contingency, and this is just the SNL construction portion to be able to place those items.

But by approving this, are we approving the entire project right now?

Yes. Yes.

So how do we get – I guess that's my concern is – I don't know if that's just my concern. I don't know if I'm on board with a $900,000 project right now. I don't know. And by approving this, I feel like I'm committing to that. I haven't seen a rendering. I don't know about these buildings. I just don't feel like I know enough about the project to commit to this. It's going to end up being close to, probably at the end of the day, a million-dollar project, and I don't know if I agree with that amount and what's being proposed. So that's my concern without approving this, without seeing the rest of the project plan.

Scott? Scott?

Well, Neil, do you have a render? We'll show you a rendering as far as that's concerned. Can I just clarify, though? Oh, yeah, go ahead.

Do you have a comment, Dustin?

Well, just maybe a question, because the way this is written is not to exceed 406.922. How does that include the entire $800,000, $900,000, if it's saying?

I just wanted to make an additional comment before. Sorry to cut you off, Scott. But, I mean, we did discuss... and express some concern. I know we've allocated this much for part of the library project, and then I think as we learned that to get what they really are proposing that they need, they needed quite a bit more money, almost double what we originally had kind of contemplated allocating. I know that many on the council, we expressed kind of a little reservation on allocating a million dollars to this project. And which right now we're allocating 400,000, but it sounds like- But all of us know that it's- But all of us know to get what they're actually asking for is closer to a million. So I think anticipate the answer, which is we're not asking for the million. We're only doing the 400,000 because we didn't allocate sufficient funds. But what I'm worried about is the thing that Sid has mentioned, which is, well, once we go down the tracks of the road, I think what will happen, because it was said- informally last time was, well, but really this gets you nothing because really what you have to do is you have to do the ADA, you have to do the pavilion, you have to do everything else, and that ends up being $900,000. We talked about how it's really not possible to phase this. So I guess what I'm anticipating is the answer is, well, yeah, but we're only doing $400,000 of this, but that does not jive with what we were told last time, which is you can't phase this project and we need a million dollars.

Yeah, so let me recap on how we got here. So this is a project we've been talking about for a couple years. Initially, the project was just going to be a pavilion and a place for the library kids to gather. As we started putting it together, working with the library, then it was discussed that not only do we want a pavilion, we also want an outbuilding so that they can store their equipment there and they don't have to haul it back and forth. from the library. And then we talked about the seating and creating an ability for people to sit essentially in a bowl. We call it an amphitheater, for lack of a better term, to a point where we got it designed and we got a construction estimate and a bid. The construction estimate, and Neil will tell us what that is, some thousand dollars, which includes the contingency. I don't anticipate, unless there's something that's really crazy in there, that we're going to get to a million dollars. We've already budgeted close to $600,000, about $600,000. What we were requesting last time is that in order for us to do the full project, we need some more money from care tax. And so that's what the request was, is if the balance that we need, we're asking to fund through the care tax so we can just do the whole project. I think what Neil said two weeks ago was our initial intent was to bid it in phases if we needed to. We could do a phase one and then a phase two. And Neil, you can explain better if I'm not explaining it very well, but it made more sense to just do the project all at once as opposed to... phasing and neil can you can you walk us through the project but let me before we get to the project just i just want to continue to talk about the dialogue at least coming from staff Um, the, uh, the intention was, um, what we talked about two weeks ago is our, our proposal, our recommendation is that we, we fund the whole thing and we do this. Um, if the city council does not really want the project, then let's, then we kill it right here and right now.

We just say, I don't think that's what we're saying is that we have to kill it. We're just trying to get more information. So that's why I don't like that wording is because all of a sudden we look like the bad guys and we're going to kill the whole project. That's not the case. If I'm not mistaken, is this the first time we've seen a rendering?

Yep, that's right. It probably is.

I'm frustrated by that. And I know we've talked about the pavilion for a couple years. I was on board with the $250,000, $300,000 pavilion. Now we are close to a million. I'm going to tell you right now by the end of the day when this is done, probably close to a million dollars with building costs right now and inflation.

Or more.

Or more. So I was on board with the pavilion. This is last week or two weeks ago was the first time I heard about outbuilding. i had no clue i have no clue about any of this and tonight i'm basically being asked to prove a million dollars because the 406 is leading to the next phase which is going to be close to a million dollars i'm not comfortable with that this is the first time i've seen a rendering and so i'm frustrated because i don't want to be a bad guy against the library saying well do it all at once we just need to get it done no we don't need to get it done and no i don't even know if we need an outbuilding i don't know so i'm frustrated because i don't want to be the bad guy and i don't feel like that's my fault when i haven't received the necessary information to make a million-dollar decision tonight. I know it says exceeding $406,000, but it's a million-dollar decision, and I'm not comfortable. Yeah, we can talk about it for a few minutes tonight, but I just don't think that's fair to put that on us, and so I'm frustrated because I don't want to say no to our library.

So a quick question. How much has the City Council already approved?

Well, okay. Just go through that. My apologies. You have not seen a rendering, and that is true. That is not fair to you. And it's not in the packet.

The, oh. This rendering that we saw for just a few minutes.

Yeah, no, because what's in the packet is just the bid. It's our mistake for not getting the rendering in front of you. Council does not have to make a decision tonight on this.

Well, let's just go through this so that we know what this is about. Sure. Because I don't know what it's about. I'd love to see what this is.

Okay, yeah, no, go ahead, and then we'll talk about the next steps.

So... The existing library building is right here. First East is over here.

I think this is the patio they have right now. Yeah.

So the patio is right here. There's some air conditioning units right here. The initial ask was for a pavilion that you can see right here. This is the shape of it. And I'm sorry it's not in architectural form. But the pavilion is similar to the pavilion over at our park across the street. And then in order to build the pavilion, you've got some different facets associated with that. And one of them is a pathway that meets ADA access. And so the other is there's some power conduits that run right through here. There's some concrete. And then you might recognize that right here is currently grass. We were going to put some cobbly rock to try and dissuade wandering toddlers right there as well with the potential for a fence. So we put this out for proposal. I know it says draft on it, but these are pretty close to the final prints. I just opened up one of the things in the... Yeah, just hang on there for a second.

Yeah, I'm trying to get it just right here.

So the storage is literally right here.

So there's a storage building right there. And there's significant grade challenges when you start looking into the details of this. And so initially, we said, we got $600,000. What can we do for that? We said, OK, let's design out the final plan so we know where we want to go. And then let's see if we can bid this out and see what we can get for the $600,000 in the original plan. Well, the shell of this pavilion, just to buy from the vendor, is $200,000, just that. So that's a separate contract that we buy through the vendor. And then we said instead of a competitive bid process that is a typical design, bid, build, we did a proposal so that we could actually talk to the contractors after we get proposals back. Traditionally in a bid-build, you bid it, you analyze if it's a qualified bid, say you won the bid and you move on. This gives us an opportunity to interview the the potential proposed contractors and ask them questions. How can we save money? Where is there money to be saved? How can we build this project and stay closer to budget? The answers we kept coming back to were really the only thing you've got is this particular storage building right there at 70 grand. That's an ordered product as well where we build a pad, bring a crane in, and set it down and it's a building. So in order to shape the property, you have to disrupt this much grass. In order to build ADA access, you have to build this pathway around here. And sadly, four hundred thousand dollars is just it just isn't a lot of money anymore in terms of uh... contract to build something so the s n l portion that we were presenting before you today was the four hundred and six thousand dollars everything else i'll show you the breakdown of of where that is through this spreadsheet right here Just for quick reference, you can see that that 406 shows up right there. But engineering costs come. We've thrown in $10,000 for construction. We've got some Rocky Mountain power costs. We've got some utility costs. We've got electrical costs. And then when you add in that, the $406,000, $70,000 for the prefab, $220,000 for the pavilion. We threw in $12,000 to get a hose bib out there so they can squirt it down and have access to culinary water. And then a $40,000, roughly $39,000 contingency. For this size project, roughly... you know, 5% is actually pretty low, but we were confident in the plans and the process, and since these other items are fixed, that we didn't need a full 10 to 15% contingency.

Okay, I just, this is the first time I've heard about all of this. Yeah. I thought we were doing a pavilion literally off the east side of the library, similar to the one in the park. It was like a square pavilion coming out for programming. That's what I thought.

That's what this is.

It's not. It's close to a million dollars. And I have major concerns with where kids are going to be going next to 100 East. This is a storage shed. This is a huge pavilion area. This is nuts to me. I didn't think this is what we were doing. I'm sorry, I don't even know if there's a different solution. We haven't looked at options for storage units. What's wrong with the pavilion at the park? Is there a way they can walk across 150 yards to the park and use that pavilion? I don't even know if we've discussed options. I thought that's what we were proving the entire time was just a pavilion that they could do some programming at. This is much different than what

So I have a question for you. If you compare what we have over here with the walking pass or anything, what part of this is nuts to you? I'm not trying to be...

The whole scope of the project.

I mean, because we went through and we've approved, correct me if I'm wrong, $600,000 to move forward with this project and then some CARES money. And we've been talking about this for a while. I want to get everything out in the open so we can get all the answers for you. It's just, what is crazy or nuts to you?

The whole scope of the project, the whole like the elevation, the storage shed.

Well, we deal with elevation on almost every project we do. I don't.

He said there was addition. I mean, the coming up the closeness to 100 East of safety concerns. We have two. We have multiple pavilions in the park. I'm just wondering, like, how this went from like a pavilion off the back to almost a million dollar project. I'm so confused. Like, this is not what we even wanted the RFP for. I didn't think it was just for a simple pavilion. And now we're like storage. landscaping, I mean, I don't know. I'm so frustrated.

Can I ask a question of Denise? I'm sorry if you have this. I'm trying to, I usually keep a record of everything, but once we pass the budget, then I put it in my file at my office. what did we have this as a line item for originally on the one-time monies? Because it was originally asked out of the one-time monies and then we moved it to CARE, right? So I'm just asking, what did we have originally as the amount on the one-time money ask? And how much was the phase one, do you remember?

Phase one was I think the 200 plus the 342 plus the 49. I think phase one was close to 600,000.

Is that what it was on the actual sheet? Yeah. Because again, I understand what you guys have on your numbers. I'm just wondering what was handed to me You know what I mean? I understand you had some care money, you had some other things allocated. I just want to know what was handed to me as the number that was asked to be allocated. I remember it being 900. Then there were two phases, and the first phase was an amount, and the second phase was an amount. It wasn't broken down into 250 and 300 and all that. It was just one amount. I'm sorry I'm putting you on the spot. I know. I'm just wondering what was actually handed to us as counsel. Okay.

She's looking for that, I think. what I'm sensing isn't necessarily the project being an issue, but the dollars. When you say a million dollars is crazy or whatever, I recall specifically discussing the proximity to 100 East, the concern of how do we mitigate the potential of kids going over. I do recall that being part of the conversation. I think the elevation things come up once you start digging in. I mean, there are things you have to mitigate and deal with once you start. planning and engineering, maybe the ADA thing is part of that that came up as far as how would you address ADA requirements perhaps. But to me, I think to me it's the question of the number right where you're headed, Steve, is we approved something like 600 and now it's sizably larger than that.

I don't know if that it was 600. Do we have the number?

So the original amount that was on the, we had phase one and phase two combined was $906,188. And then we said that phase one was 576,188. And that's about the number that we're talking about. We had some prior year funding of about 233,800. And then we asked for money to be the 342,388, and we did that out of, we're doing that out of CARES. So there's where our, like, five.

So we allocated, this year, we allocated 300 and something thousand, 350, yeah, 342. That's closer to the number that I was remembering, plus we had some money that we had already allocated. And we thought for that amount, we were gonna be able to get a pavilion. I think once the engineers, who are a lot smarter and more experienced than us, got involved, they said, wait a minute, you can't get a pavilion for that much money.

Yeah, I mean, our estimate's been 900 plus since the day our group received it. For the whole thing, though, right? So, yeah, I mean, and then we said, well, okay, what can we do for phase one? Phase one doesn't exist is what essentially we've come back to say. Phase one, we wish we could build half of it. We wish we could... I shouldn't say that. I'm not going to say it out loud. But I wish we could have a way to build $600,000 worth of infrastructure and provide a pavilion. But we didn't know about the power issues and the power relocations. The grade issue did become greater. I mean, we kind of knew about that. But I mean, we got $290,000 in prefab buildings right there. That's just the cost of goods in 2026. And my bad for not bringing the plans and fully bringing it out. So I apologize for that.

Maybe a good thing though is you said originally the entire project was 980 something or other? and now it's 100 grand less?

I mean, are we? We're asking for the 406 to be awarded while we access funds that are already over here. And I think we kind of brought it up that we needed some extra care funds to move forward with this project.

uh... yet so if i know the eight twenty three robert nine oh six was a construction estimate now we have a bit number yes i think that's why that numbers come down i guess that's my point that that's a good thing it well uh... again to kind of recap initially uh... the council has already approved five hundred and seventy some thousand dollars on this project two weeks ago we came back and said We now have a bid. We would like to do the whole thing. We need additional care monies in order to do that. That was the discussion we had last week. There is $200,000 of general fund capital in this money. This is money we budgeted two years ago, I think, initially, that's been sitting here as we've been putting this project together. And everything else is care tax or a grant from Utah County.

How much is the grant?

60 grand.

I mean, I really appreciate, Neil, I hope you don't feel like we blame you at all. I think what happens is these things evolve, and then as they evolve, me personally, I look at it and say, okay, well, now we have a lot more information than we did when we allocated the funds a couple years ago, and then even this year, now we have a lot more information, and for me personally, it may come down to, okay, maybe we do need, I think I personally need more time to evaluate whether a million dollar project, 200,000 of it, which is coming out of general fund, which we, you know, directly correlates to the tax increase because that's general fund money. I know it's one-time money, but it still is money that can be used for anything we need in the city. Or saved. Or saved and put it into our rainy day fund. And so for me, At this point, at least again, how I feel personally, I'm really grateful that you brought all this information to us. So now I can evaluate whether we move forward at 800,000 or we look at doing a different project. I think that's what it sounds like to me is probably the recommendation. Either we go forward with the library project at almost just over 800,000. or we maybe evaluate whether we want. And I'm not ready to say yes or no because this is information that I'm trying to comprehend in a public forum in live time. And I think that's.

Yeah, let me apologize specifically to Council Member Lamone. I should not say the term let's kill it if we don't like it. To be fair, this is the first time you're seeing the rendering. That's my mistake. That's not Neil's mistake. That's my mistake. This is something that you should have seen once we completed this before we bid it. So that was a few months ago. We've been verbally telling you all along where we're at. We did that at this year's budget, and then we did it again two weeks ago, but we never did show you that this is what the project has ended up being.

I don't know if we even knew that there was going to be another $400,000 ask either, though.

Well, there's not. No, this is just the bid of the money we've already talked about within the 800,000.

I think I would push back on that a little, Scott, because we specifically talked about the money when the full ask was 900, and we did not approve 900. No, correct. And now you're here asking for 823.

No, no, so two weeks ago, we asked for the additional money from the CARES.

And I think it was pretty clear from our discussion, we weren't ready to do that. We had to have a lot more discussion about what we were getting. And to me, it changed my perspective of the project. And that's where, now seeing the rendering, I'm like, that is a great space. I'm a little curious as if the library needs it. Is this the long-term use for this space that we really want? So now it starts opening a can of worms. If all of a sudden we were at a $500,000 project, and now we're you know, 60% higher than that, and we're trying to comprehend this in real time when it's the first time seeing it.

No, that's my mistake. This is a discussion we should have had two months ago. And now that we have the bid numbers, we have the dollar numbers, we know exactly what we're dealing with. Not fair to the council.

So do we want to put a date certain on this?

My recommendation is we table it. Continue this item? Yeah, we continue it. It doesn't need to be date certain. The contractor probably doesn't want to be hung out for a long time. I mean, we need to decide yes or no on this project. This will give you an opportunity to, we'll send these to you so you can review the renderings. You can give Neil a call or Sherry a call as far as the use of the space.

Can I ask you to ask Sherry to maybe just proactively provide the use and what the difference of having this would be rather than being able to do the same type, like Council Member Lamone brought up, the same type of program by walking across the street and using the pavilion that currently exists.

Yeah, I don't know if you guys remember, but we had Stacy Martineau come in and explain the use of this space when we did the budget, and she talked about the concerns of walking across the street and things like that. I mean, those were... when we're talking budget we're talking of many different things and this was probably a five minutes you got from stacy explaining kind of the use of this and i can understand if it's not something that's i remember that she said you know looking at the kids faces and that you can see them easier if they're outside because they can be a little bit more spread out and they didn't have they didn't feel like they had enough room inside i guess my specific ask is

More so than just we have an outdoor space now is why specifically do we need this outdoor space as opposed to just setting the program to be at downtown park and that's where people meet.

Yeah, for sure. I mean, that needs to be understood by the council. This is a big dollar amount is a big project.

And I think what we're saying is, is there options? I mean, I'd be willing to spend some of this money and hire a crossing guard separate than anyone in the library to help kids walk across the street. I'd like to go walk this and see, based on the rendering that we just saw, I'd like to walk it in person. Neil, if you could be there and show me so I can get an idea about how close they are to 100 East. the where the building's gonna be, so I wanna get a better idea about that and just is there options if they need storage? Is there a storage facility we could, is there ways that, can we get them a little golf cart that has a trailer behind it they can take over the park if it's access? Like is there just some options that we have that could, I mean we could use money towards a different project that could minimize, I don't know, but that's just some of the questions I have and I would like to go walk the property.

Yeah. Okay. So let us set up a time, a field trip per se, for any council members, mayor, any of those that want to come and join so that you can come get the visual look of that. We'll have Sherry there. She can verbally explain it. We can have her give you a write-up as to the use and the reasons why specifically.

I think a write-up would be helpful.

Yeah, I think so.

And I'll provide a PDF report so that you can review what we just looked at with what I've got as well.

Thank you. Can I maybe clarify just on the budget item, too, that was brought up? Because it sounds to me from before, prior year, we approved the $200,000 that was budget general fund money. that has already been allocated to this. And maybe I'm wrong, but in my mind, that doesn't affect the tax increase that we just did because this is money that was pulled out from maybe a prior year that's essentially setting aside and reserved for this project specifically. Am I understanding that?

To me, a dollar is a dollar. And if we're asking for people to come up with 600K, then we've got to be very careful about allocating where we allocate our money. And so I get what you're saying, Dustin. This is a one-time money allocated somewhere else. It's not ongoing like we needed the tax increase for. And I feel comfortable with doing that. But what I think comes down to my personal conviction then is I want to make sure I know that we're using the dollars that are going to benefit the greatest good in our city. And so that's what I want to know is going to happen with this project.

No, it's all fair. And my apologies. I mean, this is my mistake. Obviously, our communication wasn't as robust as it needed to be to make sure there was an understanding of this full project and the funding, I mean, as we've been going. We'll move forward and get this to you, and then we'll get a decision.

Yeah, we're going to have to continue, but Scott, I'm showing October 6th is the next meeting, is that correct? You want to just go for that date?

Ideally, ideally, and if we're not comfortable at October 6th, then we can push it to the next meeting.

Are you comfortable if I move to continue this to be put on a future agenda as staff?

Yeah, just continue it indefinitely. Without a date? It's not a public hearing, so we don't need a date certain.

So just do it to, yeah.

So Mayor, I'll make a motion that we continue action item 10A that is listed on the agenda tonight without date.

We have a motion by Council Member Rogers. We have a second. Second. Second by Council Member Anderson. All those in favor?

Aye.

Thank you, Nell. Okay, moving on to 10B, to consider Resolution 2026-42, amending the personal policies and procedures previously approved by the City Council, specifically amending section 10A, 16, leaves of absence in Section 5, maternity leave changing the title to parental leave in order to provide leave for both birthing and non-birthing parent. David, thank you.

Thank you, Mayor and Council. We value our employees. And we have heard recently from a couple of different avenues, some employees asking questions or asking that we consider some of our benefits. We do an annual employee survey. So there's been some comments on that. I do all the exit interviews with employees. There's been some comments from there, some other. avenues as well. And one of the comments that has come up from employees is asking us to consider our parental leave. We have vacation, we have sick balances, but there are some employees, especially those that might not have been with us for very long, and they're typically our younger employees and they might be adding to their family having a child and at that time their PTO balance is a little bit low. We've done some research on this recently and really discovered that a lot of cities have moved to offer parental leave. A lot of our neighboring cities, Eagle Mountain, Lehigh, Orem, there's a list that I can provide you. And we've looked at how much leave they provide, and we feel that we've come up with a recommendation that's in line with a lot of these other cities. So we drafted a policy that you can find in your packets for new parent leave that would be a benefit for full-time, benefited employees, male and female, that they could get a balance of two weeks leave if they are having a new child, if they're adopting a child, or if there's a court-ordered foster care situation. So for most employees that work the regular 40-hour week schedule, this would be 80 hours. Our public safety employees typically work more than that 40 hours, so we would prorate it. So for police working an extra schedule, they would get 84 hours. Fire would get 96 hours. If approved by you, that would take effect now. So that is the policy as written. Are there any questions?

Council, any questions?

So this is additional time to what would be sick and vacation?

Correct. So employees, and sometimes if they're actually birthing a child, they would want to take more than two weeks. And they would have that option. They can use their vacation leave. They could use their sick leave in conjunction with this. But yes, Council Member Rogers, this would be additional time.

I'm so glad we're doing this, I think that's great.

Yeah, I was gonna say I appreciate the conscious effort to make sure we're acknowledging the employees and recognizing their value and it's a good thing.

Is this in line, is this policy in line with American Fork, Lehigh, is it comparable in, you know, I wanna make sure that as we look at our benefit packages for our employees that it's comparable in similar cities.

Yeah, Eagle Mountain, for example, they do 80 hours for birthing parent, 40 hours for non-birthing parent. Lehigh is two weeks for non-birthing parent. Orem is three weeks. So I think in terms of time, it's pretty comparable.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, thank you. All right, with that said, it is Resolution 2026-42. I'll entertain a motion.

I make the motion that we approve Resolution 2026-042, amending the personal policies and procedures regarding maternity leave.

Thank you, motion.

Maternal leave.

Yes, motion by Councilmember Lomon. Do I have a second?

Second.

Second by Councilmember Anderson. This will be a roll call vote. Council Member Lamone? Yes. Council Member Anderson? Yes. Council Member Rogers? Yes. Council Member Williams? Yes. Council Member Phillips? Yes. Okay, synonymous. Thank you. All right, moving on to 10C, to consider Resolution 2026-43, declaring its intention to reimburse itself from...

Oh, sorry. Denise.

Oh, easy, Scott. Okay. Attention to reimburse itself from the proceeds of one or more taxes financing for certain expenditures made and or to be made in connection with the acquisition, construction, and equipping of certain capital improvements, i.e., police vehicles, technology, and recreation equipment.

Director Roy.

So... Generally, each year we do an equipment lease for police vehicles. They're on a three-year rotation. And then we also have computer replacement and equipment replacement for the rec center. And so this is our yearly lease. We're getting 10 police vehicles. And then we'll do $60,000 worth of computer replacement. And then $45,000 of cardio equipment. And so I sent out a competitive bid. I only got two bids. U.S. Bank. came in with 4.2%, and our other bidder was 4.57%, so it's pretty competitive, so $1,200 difference. So U.S. Bank will Received the bid and our lease amount will be four hundred and fifty one thousand eight hundred and fifty five dollars That's for a three-year lease and then the resolution It takes us a little bit to get the the lease closed a lot of paperwork and so the resolution if the vehicles came before we get all the paper in that we can reimburse ourselves so that if I had to pay for the trucks yesterday, that I can reimburse myself. So that's what the resolution adds also.

Great. Any other questions for Director Roy? If that's a resolution, I'll entertain a motion.

Mayor, I'll make the motion to adopt Resolution 2026-43, declaring the intention to reimburse ourselves as was explained by Director Roy.

Great, we have a motion by Council Member Phillips. Do we have a second?

Second.

Second to Council Member Lamone. And this will be a roll call vote. Council Member Lamone? Yes. Council Member Anderson? Yes. Council Member Rogers? Yes. Council Member Phillips? Yes. And Council Member Williams? Yes. Okay, synonymous, thank you.

And for the record, I have researched this, so even though I was missing there for a minute.

All right, last of our action items. Consider Resolution 2026-44, authorizing the mayor to execute an amended interlocal agreement between Pleasant Grove City, Utah County, and PG Cares, Communities That Care, CTC, Prevention Coalition for the E-Cigarette, Marijuana, and Other Drug Prevention Grant for 2020. for the school year 2027. Tina's not here, so I guess you're here.

I was so excited to play city attorney, I got up here early.

That was quick.

Well, because I thought I might as well play finance director, too, while I'm up here, so... What this is, we have an agreement with Utah County regarding PG Cares. We just did an amendment just a few months ago for $2,500 additional dollars from the county specific to training. This $2,500, it's another $2,500 this amendment of a grant to us, but this is for a specific program for the e-cigarette, marijuana, and drug prevention. So this is the paperwork in order to receive that extra money.

Great, great program. Any questions for our city interim attorney? All right, with that, I'll entertain a motion for Resolution 2026-44.

Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we approve Resolution 2026-044, authorizing you to sign the recommended amended interlocal agreement.

Great. We have a motion by Councilmember Anderson. Do I have a second? Second. Second by Councilmember Lamone. Will there be a roll call vote? OK. Councilmember Anderson? Yes. Councilmember Rogers? Yes. Councilmember Lamone? Yes. Councilmember Williams? Yes. And Councilmember Phillips? Yes. OK. It's unanimous. Thank you. All right, moving right along. Do we have any other items we need to talk about, Scott?

I don't think so.

Okay. Review and discussion.

I did have one thing in regards to an open session.

Great. Go for it.

Okay I share the same concerns with that resident regarding the stop sign and I know we did a study but I think sometimes the studies can be wrong. This is a third party study whereas he and the 36 families that he petitioned to live and drive in that area every day are seeing the dangers that removing the stop sign the crosswalk crosswalk could cause myself being one of them because that's in my neighborhood. I share his concerns with, and Steve said earlier, with sliding down the hill on Nathaniel and on a wintry day, the speed coming off Nathaniel, heading west, and that is a crosswalk area for the LDS church, which people use that for activities during the week and also on Sundays. So I have major, major concerns with removing it, and I share his same concerns, I think, him getting that petition with 36 families should speak volumes. And again, I understand it's a third-party study, but I do feel sometimes those studies can be wrong and are not taking into account the day-to-day activities and the inherent dangers that could come from what people are seeing every single day. I don't know what that looks like moving forward, but I think it's major concerns regarding the crosswalk being removed and the stop signs specifically regarding the speed on Nathaniel heading west. and that it's been this way for so long. To me, it could have just stayed. It didn't really need to be removed unless there's been major accidents or concerns coming forth from the public to have it removed. I understand the reasoning behind it, but I'm really, really concerned, especially after he's come forward and gathered that support from the neighborhood, and they share the same concerns.

Thank you, Council Member Lamont. All right, Scott, do we have any items for discussion for October 6th?

Just our secondary water rates and then potentially the bid for the project we just discussed. Okay. Right now those are only two items.

And you'll send some of that information out to the council beforehand?

Yes, very soon.

Great, thank you. We've already went through mayor and council business. Anything else on the calendar, Scott?

I don't think so.

If not, we'll get it out. Okay. All right. Yes?

Can I just add? I'm sorry, Scott. I just kind of piggybacking on Council Member Lamone's statement. Is there... I saw him bring in the petition back, the copy that we asked for. I don't know, Scott and Neil, if you guys can maybe go through that and give us a report on your thoughts on whether that shifts our thinking as a city, just kind of with our... knowledge of that stop being a little different than maybe just a cold, hard analytic, you know, analyzing the facts, but whether there's maybe a reason to reconsider. I don't know. I'd just like to have... Council Member Lamone's statement, it dovetails with kind of what I was getting at and what the gentleman said. I'd just like to maybe have a follow-up. Just maybe review the petition and let us know what you guys... We'll do that, and we'll involve Tina.

I mean, once something's warranted, I mean, we... There are consequences to putting those things back up. So we'll... do a little recap and send that off to the council so that you at least have the staff's recommendation and opinion as to where this needs to go. I will say speeding is an enforcement issue. It's not a stop sign issue. Using stop signs for speeding, as Neil said, is not the way you do it. If we need to get more enforcement up there as far as a police presence, that's something we can do.

Can you guys also just consider the understanding that, I mean, I think Neil, you talked about how people are gonna have to go up and cross at different places. Sometimes people aren't as proactive as we want them to be in finding new places to cross the street. So I don't know if there's other solutions regarding crossing the road there, if there's alternatives to that. Alternatives to a stop sign, I don't know. Maybe just something that comes back to us.

We'll get together and give you a report. Because I was just looking at the end. They gave me two copies. I don't know if anybody, I'll keep one if anybody wants to look at this.

We can scan it and send it out to the council. Oh, yeah.

Okay, I'll do that.

Because I understand what you're saying. There's consequences to a warranted study not being implemented, but there's also consequences to changing it. and I think it can go to both ways as to what the resident was speaking about. And what his concerns are, I think, are pretty significant concerns, especially moving that crosswalk. I know there's youth that cross to go to the church, families that cross on Sundays, and then just coming down Nathaniel. Like Steve said, that is a raceway. Yeah. And I know what you're saying as far as, but again, this is analytical, but at the end of the day, you're going to get a teenager speeding down Nathaniel when knowing that the stop sign isn't there. I do think it helps with speed control. So I don't know if you can just look at it.

I actually would love a copy of the study.

Can I get a copy of this?

Thanks, Neil. Well, we'll send that as part of our follow-up. That's great, thank you. Yeah, we understand. I mean, this is a pretty major change, and Neil and I had a discussion. I think ideally we would have handled this a little differently as far as the communicating to the residents. how this change was going to roll out. And so we're going to probably play a little bit of catch up, but no, we'll have the discussion. There's a human side to this that we need to discuss and see what that means as far as what the initial outcome is. We'll make a recommendation as staff and then the council can decide how you want to handle that. But I mean, we'll do what's requested. I think it makes sense for us to revisit it and take a second look.

Thank you.

Okay. I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

So moved.

I think Todd made a motion to adjourn. Council Member Williams.

I don't know who boxed out who.

Council Member Williams boxed out Council Member Rogers. I'll second it. Second by Council Member Rogers.