City Council - Regular Meeting

Last I heard October. Good area. So this is Yeah.

All right. Welcome everyone to our Was that too loud? I won't have to bend over. It's better. Welcome to our city council meeting this evening. Um we're going to go ahead. It's 5:' So, we're going to go ahead and get started. Um we'd like to get started out properly. We have um Pastor Greg Wright here from the Westside Baptist Church. Also, just not to be forgotten is he participates in our chaplain program for our police department, which we really appreciate. Thank you for being here.

Glad to. Uh before I pray, I wanted to mention from Psalm 148. It's a psalm of praise. And the first part of it says that the heavens should praise God including the angels and all of the creation in the skies. But then verse seven says, "Praise the Lord from the earth, you great sea creatures in all the depths, fire and hail, snow and clouds, stormy wind, fulfilling his word." And so the the rain and the snow around us, we can praise the Lord for it. And it's do it's there because of God and God wants to be glorified through it. So we pray for water and now it's time to thank him for it, too. So let's pray. Father, we thank you that you are uh sovereign in everything in creation and currently in our daily lives. We do thank you for the snow and we thank you that uh you have been good and gracious and kind in that. We pray father that this would be a blessing to us and in no way a harm. We ask Lord that you would be glorified through your control of all things. Now, in this meeting, we're praying that you would be seen to be in charge and that you'd be pleased to bless our leaders, keep them safe, give them wisdom, and bless our community because of it. And we pray this in Jesus name. Amen.

Thank you so much for that, Pastor Wright. I went ahead and asked uh Councilwoman Danielle Arin to lead us in the pledge. Please rise and repeat repeat the pledge of allegiance after me. I pledge allegiance 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. Do we have any pre-aggenda items? None. Nice. Any changes to the agenda? Uh, no changes this evening. All right, take us away. Okay, item two is a consent calendar. There's seven items on the Kent calendar consent calendar this evening. These are administrative items. Staff has reviewed these and recommend approval. However, if the council would like to remove any of these for specific consideration, we can accommodate that. Otherwise, staff recommends approval.

Council Mayor, I'd make a motion to approve item number two. Second. Second. We have a motion by Austin, second by Steve. Um, all in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Item number three is a public hear and consideration of resolution number 2026-00003R to review and approve amendments to the fiscal year 2526 budget. And Robert will present this item.

Good evening, mayor and council. Tonight's budget amendment includes only one item and this item is directly related to item 2D that was on uh the agenda item that the council just considered and approved. This item is a request for a budget amendment from our airport department to fund the extension of the payment structure for the new west general aviation taxi lane. The original budget included funding for the construction of 35 ft of width for that taxi lane. This amendment would add the additional 45 ft of width to take the full taxi lane to the full 80t of width. uh staff is proposing to pre pre-build out the remaining 45 ft and then charge the users of that an impact fee or some other type of fee to recoup that cost uh for that that construction. Uh the total request is in the amount of $513,777. uh staff is proposing to utilize airport restricted funds and again to reimburse those as we have users sign leases to pay for pay for the cost of that extension of the taxi lane. With that, that's the only item on tonight's budget amendment. Be happy to answer any questions the council may have. Any questions for Robert?

Good. If there's no questions and this is a public hearing, so we'll go ahead and open up the public hearing for those who have come to speak to this item. Item number three.

Seeing that there's no comments, I'll go ahead and close the public hearing and come back to you, council, for your vote. I'll make a motion to approve the consideration of resolution 2026-003R to review and approve amendments to the fiscal year 2025 budget. 2025 2026 budget. Second. Have a motion by Natalie and a second by Danielle. This is a um resolution requiring a roll call vote. Starting with Danielle. Danielle Larkin. I Natalie Larson I. Steve Kemp. I

Austin Anderson I. Motion carries unanimously. Item four, public hearing in consideration of ordinance number 2026-00005 vacating a municipal utility easement located on lots 104 and 105 of Desert Canyon Town Center West commercial subdivision.

Okay, so these two lots have been increased in size. They've added property to those lots and so that has extended their property their south or their north property line further to the north. easements were dedicated on those original north property lines. Therefore, they need to vacate those easements and then reestablish them on the north the new north property line. Questions for Wes? Okay. This is also a public hearing, so I'll go ahead and open up the public hearing for those who have come to speak to this item. Seeing none, I'll close the per public hearing and come back to you, council, for your consideration. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we approve item number four, ordinance number 2026-005, vacating municipal utility easement located on lots 104 and 105 Desert Canyons Town Center. Second.

We have a motion by Steve, a second by Natalie. This is a ordinance requiring a roll call vote starting with Austin I. Austin Anderson I. Steve Kemp I. Natalie Larson I. Danielle Larkin I. Motion carries unanimously. Item number five, public hearing and consideration of ordinance number 2026-00006 vacating an easement for utility and drainage purposes located at the rear of lot 18 of Rivers Edge at Sunbrook.

Okay, this again this is a easement that was dedicated here with the plat that was uh along the rear property line. They've merged properties that they've owned and so the property line now the rear property line will be here and so it's vacating that easement right there and then we'll reestablish it with the final plat amendment right there on that north property line. Any questions for Wes? All right. This is also a public hearing. We'll go ahead and open up the public hearing for those who have come to speak to item number five.

Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing and come back to you council for your consideration. Mayor, I'll make a motion that we approve ordinance number 2026-00006 vacating an easement for utility and drainage purposes located at the rear of lot 18 of River's Edge at Sunbrook. Second. I'll second. Okay. Well, if we have a Sorry, I'm kind of deaf in one ear and can't hear out of the other. Um, we have a motion by Danielle, second by Austin. Um, again, requiring a roll call vote as this is an ordinance. Uh, we'll go ahead and start with Natalie.

Natalie Larson. I Steve Kemp, I. Austin Anderson, I Danielle Larkin, I. Motion carries unanimously. Item six, public hearing consideration of ordinance number 2026-007, vacating of a rightaway easement for sewer pipeline located on the south side of Riverside Drive between the Comfort Inn and Culver. Okay. This used to be uh there you there was a sewer line here. I believe it's still there, but it's been abandoned. And so the request now is to come in as they develop these lots and or these parcels and abandon that sewer line easement now that the sewer line is no longer in use.

Can I ask a question? Absolutely. So has that sewer line been cleaned? If it's not in use, are we lo leaving material in it? I guess is my question. Before we vacate it, has it been cleared? To me, to me, that is something that I would like to know. I mean, I can see leaving it there, but if it's has stuff in it, I think it I think whoever's requesting this should pay to have it removed.

We can try to camera it and see what the condition is. Typically, when they abandon a line like that, they'll concrete both ends so water can't get into it. We can definitely check into it and see what the condition is of it.

Well, I don't know if it had a leak in it. I don't know. But to me, I would like to know if it was a neighboring yard that it was been cleared. And I think whoever's requesting this, if it has to be cleared, should be responsible to pay for the clearing. Like, you know, if you have a septic tank that needs pumped out, that's kind of the same thing as leaving a septic tank full if it was full in the backyard. One other question, Scott. How deep is this? We don't have it on our on our maps because it's been abandoned, so I couldn't tell you. So So it is not hasn't been in use. Okay.

I suspect that that was one of the original lines to when the sewer plant was down in that area. Yeah. When the ponds were down there. Yeah. And the the plant. So it's been

out of service for a number of years. Any other questions for Wes or Scott? Okay, if there's no other questions, this is a public hearing. Uh, so I will go ahead and open up the public hearing for any of you who have come to speak to this item, item number six. Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing and come back to you, council.

I'll make a motion to approve ordinance 2026-007, vacating a rideway easement for a sewer pipeline located the south side of Riverside Drive between the Comfort Inn and Culver's. I'll second. So, we have a motion by Natalie and a second by Steve. This is a an ordinance also requiring a roll call vote. Starting with Steve. Steve Kemp I. Austin Anderson I. Danielle Lurin I. Natalie Larson I. Motion carries unanimously.

I'm number seven a public hearing in consideration of ordinance number 2026-00008 vacating a utilities drainage and irrigation easement located between lots located between lots 56 and 57. Lots 57 and 58. Lots 58 and 59, Southgate subdivision phase 5.

Okay. Lots 56 and 57 are owned by the same property owner. Their proposal is to merge those lots which requires vacation of that easement between the two lots. 58 and 59 are also owned by another property owner. They're merging those two lots which then would require the vacation of that easement. And so they were that's the request they would they are requesting to vacate the easement between 57 and 58 and then adjust that property line. And with that adjustment then we'll just reestablish a new easement there along that property line that then we'll subdivide the two properties.

Thank you Wes. Any questions for Wes? There's no questions. is I'll go ahead and open up the public hearing for those who have come to speak uh on item number seven. Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing and come back to you council for your consideration. Mayor, I'll make a motion that we approve ordinance number 2026-00008, vacating a utilities drainage and irrigation easement located between lots 56 and 57, lots 58 and 59. A second.

Did we miss we okay with that how that's worded? Did we miss a lot? What? Oh, 58 and 59 as well. All right, I like it. So, we have a motion. Did someone second that? Sorry, caught me off guard. Okay. Yes. Thank you, Steve. I have a motion by Austin and a second by Steve. This is a ordinance again requiring a roll call vote starting with Danielle. Danielle Larkin. I Natalie Larson I. Steve Kemp. I. Austin Anderson. I motion carries unanimously.

Item number eight, public hearing consideration of ordinance number 2026- 009 vacated in municipal utility easement located in common area between lot 216 and Diamondbacks drive in Cineva phase 2. So this request is the so this is was uh when the plat was dedicated recently for this suna phase 2 this was dedicated as common area and common area um municipal utility easements come on put they're dedicated on top of those uh common area in case city needs to put utilities or so forth. when they built the house, they've encroached into that easement or or that common area and have decided just to get rid of the co remove the common area and uh thus they need to vacate that utility easement goes with the common area.

Questions? Is this common area necessary for the subdivision?

No. They had that roundabout right there and they put it in there because they kind of wanted to create this entry feature coming in to their subdivision which will still stay on the north side where you're coming in off of 2450. They've just decided it's not necessary anymore is what I've been told and they're just going to remove that. Any other questions? Okay, I'll go ahead and open the public hearing. This is a public hearing uh for those who have come to speak to this item. Item number eight. Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing and come back to you, council. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we approve item number eight, uh, ordinance number 2026-009, vacating a municip municipal utility easement located in common area between lot 216 and Diamondback Drive, Cenea phase 2.

Second. We have a motion by Steve, a second by Natalie. This is an ordinance again requiring a roll call vote starting with Austin. Austin Anderson I. Steve Kemp I. Natalie Larson I. Danielle Lurin I. Motion carries unanimously. Item number nine is a public hearing and consideration of ordinance number 2026-010 vacating a seriesman Santa Clara and Ryan is going to present this item.

I feel like I need to start. May it please the court. Um, so the city of Santa CL reached out to us because as you can see uh on their property there is a a sewer line that is going to be removed uh as that property is being developed. And so since it's in Santa Clara and it was partly dedicated or was dedicated to the city as well, uh we need your blessing to vacate it and then as soon as they reinstall it then they'll dedicate it back to the city. Did

I get that right, Scott? So this is actually probably a technicality, but when that line was installed in it was either 96 or 98, it doesn't become a St. George line until it enters into our our boundary. So in reality, this is a joint line between Santa Clair and Ivans. So, we wouldn't even need them to dedicate it the easement back to us because we have no no ownership in this line.

Scott also wouldn't if they want to send their waste water to our treatment plant, don't they need to hook up to us at some point? Don't they need this? Yeah. Yes, they do. Okay.

Any other questions? If not, I will go ahead. As always, we like to hear from the public. So, we'll go ahead and open up our public hearing for this item, item number nine, for those who have come to speak to this.

Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing and come back to you, council. Mayor, I'll make a motion that we approve ordinance number 2026-010 vacating a sewer easement in Santa Clara. I'll second. We have a motion by Danielle, a second by Austin. This again requires a roll call vote. Starting with Danielle. Danielle Lurin. I. Natalie Larson. I. Steve Kemp. I. Austin Anderson. I. Motion carries unanimously.

Item number 10. Consider approval of ordinance number 2026-011 amending the city's general plan by changing a land use map from commercial to MHDR on approximately 8.91 acres generally located west of Dixie Drive and south of Canyon View Drive. And Brian will present this item.

Good evening, mayor and council. So, this property is generally located west of Dixie Drive and south of Canyon View Drive. Current zoning is a mix R110 and a PDC plan development commercial and then the current general plan is for commercial. Now this property has gone through several changes in the past. In 2018 it went from LDR to MDR and then again in 2018 from MDR to MHDR. In 2022 it then changed from MHDR to commercial. The reason why it changed was because this was a potential location for the BLM building. The proposal is to change this back to the MHDR, which was when it was approved approved as an MHDR from 2018 to 2022. Um, knowing that it the application is for an MHDR, just know that with the topography, which I'll show you a couple pictures here in just a minute, just know that it will probably be on the low end of that MHDR, probably closer to a 9 to 12 units per acre. MHDR, as you know, is allowed the 10 to 15 units per acre. again just with the some of the challenges on the property, some of the topography, potential soils, that kind of stuff. Just a couple pictures just so you can get a general idea if you haven't been out to that piece of property. Um, this is from the access road on the south side. This would be looking from Dixie Drive looking to the northwest. Just notice the significant elevation change from Dixie Drive to the to the top of that little hill at Little Null. This would be looking east um coming down Canyon View Drive. This would be looking directly west from Dixie Drive and then this would be looking to the south from Dixie Drive. So again, you can see some um potential topography issues, complications, maybe not issues, but complications. Um the planning commission held the public hearing on February 10th. They voted for

approval with no conditions to with a 5 to1 vote. The one nay vote, they were concerned about losing the commercial in that area. There was also one person who came up to speak for public comment. They were from the Pelican Hills subdivision. Um, a few of their concerns addressed increased or more high density in the area, increased traffic, decreased safety, some of those items that were pretty typical, right? Um, we also received two letters. There's the two or three letters. Two of them were very similar to the public comments and then the other one was there is a rope patent that goes along um from that access road from the picture that I showed before. So kind of along this side here, there's an access road. They just wanted to make sure that they knew that they have the right to to the road because of that patent. Um

excuse me, Brian. Did you say they do or do not have it? There is a road patent that shows that um his company is Rogers Construction Company as well as the city of St. George and the gas company also has right to a road in that area. That's that's the paved road that's there now. Yes. Correct. Yeah. Okay. But but it's not a public street. It's just a paved easement effectively.

Correct. Yeah. And then maybe just a little bit on that little road there too, just so you know, um, from what I understand, and maybe Wes can correct me if I, um, am not correct, but the the plan is for, yes, they do have access to that road right now that gives him access to his uh, development there on the south. Eventually, there'll be another connection that they'll be able to have, another access that will connect to connect to Canyon View Drive. So eventually from what what I understand is that this will probably go away because they will get access to Canyon View Drive from this property to the west. Is that correct? West. Yes. Okay.

But that road now is necessary because of the size of the apartment complex and having a secondary egress.

Correct. For the egress. Yes. Yes. And that's that road here. Um also there's obviously the concerns with density. Here's a couple different maps that you can look at. These purple areas on this map are all are all high density areas. So you can see this the Pinion Reserve at Green Valley. You probably know this one as the Canyon View Apartments, but this was approved earlier last year. Um quite a few units of high density. Also other concerns, uh Valley View Drive, just the amount of density that's on Valley View Drive. All these orange areas are medium density residential. The purple being the high density and then the subject property down here on the on the south portion of this map kind of valley View Drive kind of funneling down towards Dixie Drive into this area. So there is quite a bit of density in that area as well. So things to consider. Um with that I can answer any questions that you may have and also the owner and the applicant are here if you have questions for them.

Thank you Brian. Any questions for Brian or the applicant? No questions. One question. I I've never heard of a road patent. How is that different than a road easement? You want to address that, Wes? You get it from the federal government. It's the same. Okay. Same. It's just how it's conveyed, right, Wes? Okay. If there's No other questions. I'm ready for a motion.

For discussion. Yeah. I'm concerned about loss of the same things that were heard in the planning commission about loss of commercial um being the and I know everybody represents everybody in the city since we're all at large elected officials but being the only res member of the city council that lives on the west side of town. Um I drive Dixie Drive probably five or six times a week at least. The only commercial we have is a small node of the Green Valley, the little Green Valley Market. That's uh where the gas station is, the Sinclair station across the street. This little node of commercial, which I believe the Patel family has uh purchased from the applicant, a threeacre parcel to build a gas station in the future. And then you have to go down to 1,600 to get into some more commercial. Maybe Brian can demonstrate that. Otherwise, you have to go all the way up to Dixie Drive uh along there's a couple of pieces along there that are uh starting to filter in that are commercial and then that's it. So, the loss of any commercial on Dixie Drive right now I think would be um concerning. Uh understanding though that you know the applicant wants to has obviously changed this several times in the last six or seven years and wants to do what he thinks is best for his property and in what the market will bear. other discussion.

I guess I have the same the same concern about commercial. I know I think I was a lone vote last time something out there went out of commercial just because of the density that's there already. Um, we made that mistake in Little Valley with commercial that people are having to travel a long distance and I I just look at the density and to get to a grocery store, Steve point, you're either up on Sunset or you're back up on Bluff Street. So, I would like to see that developed was commercial and and the city work with that. This one's really tricky for me because yes, granted, we we need commercial nodes. We need our density spread in smart ways throughout our community. And that's really tricky for us. And to Natalie's point, we need commercial in spaces that works so that people don't have to drive very far across town for simple commercial needs. But I also know that, you know, I've voted in the past to allow this applicant to change it to the the density that or the uh zoning that he's requesting now because it made sense a few years ago. Um I do think it's it's important for us to allow people to be able to use their property in a way that will work with the market. and the fact that it's not working with commercial might be an indicator that this location, you know, does is is primed for possibly like the small gas station that's going to be there, but not for a large commercial node. So, this one's tricky for me, but I suppose I find myself leaning towards allowing the applicant to try to use this property in a way that makes sense for him. I think that's where we get down to planning as a city though, like

that we plan for things like this that we make sure that we have availability for our residents. And back to Little Valley, there was commercials planned and residential came in and now we're fighting back to get commercial. And you look at 3000 River Road, you look at those places where people are swimming upstream to get to a gas station. So to me to me it makes sense that we try to keep commercial where it is there because people will always oppose commercial coming in mostly unless it's a Costco.

As I look at it, I wonder if it makes sense to keep the property along Dixie Drive commercial, but keep that big bulky area. They change it to MDR just to clean that up. A question for Brian. When this was changed from MHDR to commercial, is this the exact configuration or is this or is it different? I I don't recall it being the property along Dixie Drive.

I I believe all the maps that I've seen did show it along Dixie Drive. Do you remember differently though? Yeah, that's that's I I remember being different, but maybe Mr. Dubler could could speak on that.

Yeah, go ahead. Uh, thank you for the time here. I appreciate all you guys here taking the time out to be here. But, uh, this property has always been the same since I've owned it. Well, it always has. the the three acres in the middle was sold off quite a few years ago and that is going to be commercial. At least that's what I've been told. A half out or a half a mile to the s to the north is the Green Valley Market and commercial and a gas station there. And if you go a half a mile down to the to the south southeast is the Maverick and a whole bunch of commercial in there. Now the reason first of all the reason we changed it to begin with is like it was stated uh we were trying to get that BLM contract that was awarded down it they they changed their whole parameter and so it was able to go further away from the interstate and it went down to the uh to the airport area. So yes, we were kicked out of that. I have had this property for sale for four or five years and not one person has that showed any interest in commercial. Given the topography of that ground, if you're driving down Dixie Drive, all of the property except for the three acres, all the rest of the property is up 15 to 20 feet. So as you drive by it, if there was anybody in their commercial, you wouldn't see it. So nobody It just doesn't work that way. Nobody wants to go shopping at a place they can't see.

Or better yet, nobody wants to build a place like that that's not accessible. So commercial has not worked. the all the interest I have received has been in the housing and so that's why we're trying to get it back there. We feel like there is plenty of commercial on either side of it and I believe that's that's it. Do you guys have any questions for the applicant?

I have a question for Mr. Gooler. um the the road easement uh that the Rogers own per the letter we received, how will that be dealt with regardless of how you whatever happens with this property? I mean, what's going to I mean, what is your plan? That's kind of an interesting right now. I can't answer that completely. We have I've talked with Wes and the city about doing a a road at the top corner. Can you put the That's That's to the west that Wes mentioned before and Brian. Yeah, they they've mentioned it.

It's a matter of that one. So, right right here. So, right on that corner right there, they're actually cutting a road down through that property line right now. And right there, there's supposed to be a road that comes across that we've talked of that'll come across and that will be their secondary road. So, you're referring to the your west property line that would there would be a road that lines up with the Pelican Hills southwest side. There's a road there. There's proposed a road would go in there for a secondary access.

And what would it line up with the Pelican Hills entrance? Is that what you're saying?

Hi, Adam Allen with American. We did the design and the engineering on that parcel and we're working with Lonnie on this. And if I can make the mouse work. So, there'll be a secondary access that comes up from here and it comes over and ties into what's called um Grand View Town Homes. They have a road. It comes it comes down and along here along the property line and then it actually swings over and ties in over here. We couldn't get it to line up with Pelican Hills uh because of the elevation and the grade difference that was there. And so we worked with West to West and the city to get it as far away as possible where they're both on opposing sides of that road. So in the future the plan has been when we worked with that with the owners of of this um the Rogers's was that this entrance would then no longer be needed at that point. So that's just all not been built out yet.

So I'm clear. Where will it connect to that apartment complex? The new road that you're that will eventually be there. Right. It'll come right along here. It'll connect about right there and then it'll go to the west. It'll go to the west. Clip the corner of the corner of this. Okay. And then go over and and then tie in right at the bend of Canyon View. Yep. And then this it ties into the main road that comes along here that comes down and then back over and ties in right right about there. And that's a 60 foot road. I believe it's on the master plan or is that something that

we worked with uh Wes to get it on to get that going there because the um intersection of Canyon View now has the traffic light and so we wanted to try to get everybody to Canyon View to the traffic light. Uh and then there'll also be another master plan road to the south of Skyrocket Road and Skyrocket Road is no longer going to have the traffic light. Correct. Yeah. So that's kind of why we worked all that routing out differently. So So have you guys interfaced with the owner of that other property? Yeah, they're the ones who requested it to do that with Okay. Because I know you're trying to follow some contours that why it dips into the Google property and comes back out.

Yeah. To make that work to where it'll work for the fire secondary access. I'd be interested in seeing that road alignment and how that works. But I understand your point. Thank you. Any other questions, discussion, concerns or motions?

Well, Mayor, I'll I'll try a motion. Might get shot down. I'll make a motion that we approve ordinance number 2026-011 amending the city's general plan by changing the land use map from commercial to mediumigh density residential on approximately 8.91 acres generally located west of Dixie Drive and south of Canyon View Drive. It's a it's a it's a tough piece. I think with the topography, I do think it'd be nice to have some commercial there, but with the topography, it's more set up to put in some medium density housing to to take advantage of that. So, with that, I'll I'll second Danielle's motion.

So, we have a motion by Danielle and a second by Austin. Uh, this is a ordin an ordinance that requires a roll call vote. Do you want to have discussion on the motion? Uh, I'm happy to have discussion if you'd like to. I would. Okay.

Um, I understand what Mr. Googler is trying to do. And I and I think that being somebody that's in this industry that that we need he needs to go the direction the the market's running. I but I feel like this is not like the the design of that road where it would go what happens with the the Rogers patent easement whatever it is that's now paved that nobody has access to except the city and Rogers uh and who else gas company

the gas line the gas company but at the same time I don't want to shoot this project down and have him have a year or more that before he can bring it back. So, I'm I'm I'm inclined to vote no on this, but I would rather that we continued it and did some more work on it. So on that roadway that goes up those contours. Wes, is that you? That this project could go forward without that roadway build on that property to the west. I I guess for me, egress, a Canyon View is going to get a ton of traffic as soon as we can get Cap Canyon open, which is going to be sooner than later. But if you know I'm all about community connection and how we get in and out of places. So it's not on this one this project to develop that road. It's on the project to the west because it looks like the majority of the the road would be on the west property. Am I going the right direction?

Well, the road does come through and I can't I can't quite remember but it turns and then it runs right here where they both would share the road. The problem like they indicated is it's probably a 20 25 foot drop right there to get down to Canyon View. So when they came in with Graham View and and and we and they were doing the apartments and Lonnie was looking at developing his property, we worked out with Rogers. Um the road alignment sweeps down, comes down where where uh Lonnie would dedicate his portion, Rogers would dedicate their portion. But again, like I said, then the road eventually leaves and comes over here to tie in a better location. And so Lonnie does have some responsibility in dedicating and building that road um through there. That that was kind of the agreement with the Rogers and Lonnie as far as getting that road built and then like was indicated then this would be the second access over here for the apartments and it was determined that then this wouldn't be necessary anymore. That was kind of the agreement when we worked out with both parties. No,

at this point though, we're just looking at the general plan, right? I mean, so we're not looking at access. We're not looking at any of those items. Correct. We're just just a general plan. Yes. So, so could some of those concerns and Councilman Kemp's concerns be worked out prior to to the next step where this is still just a general plan phase? Clarification.

We have to look at this when he comes in and pre presents his project. We'll have to look at how he is going to get access to a public road and make that work at that time. Originally, like when this was commercial, this was going to actually stay open as a as an access and then both parties could use it because it was commercial and everything, but that's kind of changed. And so, you're correct. As he brings forth his plan, we'll have to look at it and make sure that the access works for for both parties. But according to Rogers letter, Nobody has access to that road except the city and the gas company and whoever owns this apartment complex which I assume is Rogers

and I haven't looked I mean I just seen the document but I assume that Lonnie still has access to that. Well that that's where there's that's why it's a question for me because if we get a letter from Roger saying nobody else has access to this then this fish effectively bifurcates the the Googler property into two pieces. one down by the by the road and one up above that have no way to connect unless they work something out with Rogers.

So this the this the road and then it looks like a company called Fang LLC. Maybe that's who Rogers sold the Graan View project to. They're out of Highland, Utah. I just pulled them up on the county records that where like I would like to see this with just that's what I'm saying. I'd like to continue it because I'd just like to see like where is that road concept going to come from and where is it going to show up and and how do we get you know Rogers or whoever owns this apartment complex which I assume is Rogers since that's how he gets a secondary access you know pull pull those other parties into the conversation and even if it's nothing legally binding at least understand what everybody that everybody's singing out of the same handbook

remember that The application that's in front of you this evening is a general plan amendment which the question is does this property make sense for commercial or MHDR? Okay. Then I'm I'm fine moving forward with it and but with the understanding that before we get to a a zone change, a plan approval, a road design, a road dedication, etc., etc., etc., So it would we need to get that stuff worked out. Can that be made as a condition or not? Not on the

No, not in the general plan. And mind you, so when they came in on the corner, they had not only the sea store, they also had some additional commercial on that side. And at that point, all of that information on the access where the road is located was all um handled as part of that application. And so we could pull that up again and again if they if they come forward with any kind of PD, then we could look at all those details. I guess I I'd like to table it as well just because I hate to see a piece move out of commercial that they can't find access to that they have difficulty developing it how they want to and then come back and try to make it be commercial again because people at Pelican Hills will not be happy with commercial again. So to me it's like we take it out of play commercial if the residential doesn't work out we're not going to get it back for commercial. So, I would rather see it play out. Try to get some of these things mitigated so so the parties all understand what they're up against and maybe they think they do already. But I hate to take commercial off the table because the neighbors will say they don't want commercial. That's my only thing. But I guess if they're willing to take that risk, I guess that's on them. But it's hard to get commercial back in neighborhoods once it's developed around it. So there's a motion and a second. So there should be a vote. So let me let me just ask this before we do that. What there there is some concern here. So rather than I think what I'm hearing is rather than have this denied, those that are leaning towards a no would rather see a um it tabled so that we don't put an unnecessary delay on the applicant. So I guess my question with with the motion and the second would there be any interest in

a substitute motion a substitute motion and again I would look to the applicant as well saying if they would rather have that versus a possible denial well but half of the council's already right so that I'm reading the tea leaves so I guess that's that's the question before you if not then we'll have to take a vote If there's no if there's no u desire by the the motioner and the second to uh offer a substitute motion.

Can I say anymore? I I guess I'm not completely understanding what we're talking of here, but the property to the west has already been passed through the city and there's a road being cut right now on that. So, the access is there. That's what I was going to say is basically I don't think that a lot of what seemed like I'm sorry. Go ahead.

I It just seems like a lot of what we're talking about could needs to be talked about when a plan comes in for whatever the development would be. But I'm like I say, I'm I I 100% agree with you on that, Lonnie. It this is just a general plan amendment, but if this didn't work out and this property has changed zoning several times, it will have a hard time coming back as commercial. And commercial, I know you said you tried to sell it. It's you look at sunsets all the way build out. Somebody's going to need that property. But if you come back, the same residents who are not happy about this are not going to be worse happy about.

Again though, Natalie, the the three acres in the middle of it there, that's going to be at road level. Yeah. So that is zone commercial. Yes. And it's going to stay that way. Yes. But all the rest of that land is up way up 20 plus feet. So it just the access because of the topography the access to that property it just commercial just doesn't work. We I have not had one person interested house up there. Beautiful Ruth Chris steakhouse up there be a beautiful view. We'll take care of that in another minute. We'll take care of that in another.

All right. Okay. Just so coming back, we do have again a motion and a second. So we have to either vote on that or have a substitute motion. So, okay, hearing that we are not having a substitute motion, we do have again a motion to approve item number 10 by Danielle, a second by Austin. This is a ordinance

and mayor, I wouldn't mind making a substitute or tableabling. It just doesn't make any sense to me. like I don't have any idea what we're figuring out when we table. To me, there's access. This is just a general plan. Either we agree with it or we don't. And so, I think we should just move forward.

John, I think if we were to go back, we would need some clear direction on what the council would would would like. if they would like cross-sections to show that there was a you know a separation between or you know the hillside and so you can determine whether or not it makes sense for commercial we'd want some clear direction from the council on what information that you would like in order to make a decision I guess Stephen Natalie if you have if you have something exactly that you want then I'll change my motion and we can table it and say you want these answers and we can come back in a few weeks but if you Don't

I think that Austin's idea of of taking the big piece that from the narrow because that road right now is splitting it at some point if keeping the three acres and the the rest of the property on Dixie Drive together as a commercial parcel would give you the ability even if you had to do a bunch of excavation and take it down and retain so that it was at road level. That was going to make more sense than trying to build town homes or apartments or something that wrap around and then deal with Rogers to get over that road and wait but maybe wait for the other road to get done and then you're going to you can't have any access onto onto Dixie from here because it's too close to the other access. So, I mean, we we I know it's just a general plan and we can vote and and Mayor Hughes can break a tie if there is one and then we can talk about the and then we can talk about the uh the other stuff before we come to a zone change.

And I don't you just so you understand, Mr. Gublair, if we vote and we vote against it, you won't be able to bring this parcel back for a zone change, I believe, for another year or it might be 18 months. Is it a year? So, I'll table this for you so that we can have more discussion so that that gives you a better chance because right now, at least if I'm reading the tea leaves, it's looks like you're not it's not going to pass. So, I'll table my motion. Technically, it's a motion to continue. Okay. Not table, a motion to continue. Well, there would need to be a motion to continue and a second and then by a majority vote, then this item would be continued.

Okay. So, I'll make a motion to continue. Substitute motion, right? Substitute motion. I'll second it. Okay, I think we're heading in a better direction here. So, um, we have a substitute motion now from Danielle and a second by Austin to continue item number 10 to clarify, uh, a couple of things. I'll leave it at that. A couple of things. Okay, we're going to go back. We're going to um gather up all the information on the access and we'll also get some cross-sections. Their engineer will provide some cross-sections on what that uh you know what that property will look like in relation to Dixie Drive. Is there anything else the council would like to have to help them?

Sounds correct. Really that just definitive clarification because all we have is a letter from Roger saying, "Hey, nobody else has access to this road except me and the city and the utility company." I would like to know if that what the reality is on that. And we can what what we can do we can also provide you with the previous approved plans which do show the access. It was a PD and so part of that PD it shows all the accesses and we can get all the information on that patent in regards to that easement. Right Wes? Clear everybody clear

and I agree with Mr. Gooler. Just looking at the county's too, there is a dramatic amount of of elevation change that would need to be mitigated to do anything, especially with the property along Dixie Drive. Okay. So, we have a motion and a second for the substitute motion to continue this item, which means it can happen immediately. There's no delay. We can just get this clarified, get it back on our next agenda. Correct? Okay. This is a roll call vote starting with Austin I. Austin Anderson I. Steve Kemp. I Natalie Larson I. Daniel Len I. Motion to continue carries unanimously. Thank you.

Item number 11. Consider approval of ordinance number 2026-012 amending the city's general plan by changing a land use map from LDR to MDR on approximately 17.64 64 acres generally located west of Mesa Palms Drive and north of Curley Hollow Drive. Okay, this is the property generally located west of Mesa Palms Drive and north of Curly Hollow Drive. It's 17.64 acres. The current zoning is R18 single family 8,000 square foot lots and R110,000 square foot lots. The general plan is LDR, which allows for 1 to four dwelling units an acre. Here is the subject property, and again, they want to change it to MDR, medium density residential, which would allow for 5 to nine units per acre. The planning commission held a public hearing on January 13, 2026. No public comments were made. They did forward a positive recommendation with a unanimous vote of six to zero and I can answer any questions you might have and the applicant is here as well.

Thank you Brenda. Any questions for Brenda or the applicant? Absolutely. If there's no other discussion then I'll entertain a motion. I'll make a motion to approve ordinance 2026-012 amending the city's general plan by changing the land use map from lowdensity residential to medium density residential on approximately 17.64 acres generally located west of Mesa Palms Drive and north of Curley Hollow Drive. I'll second. We have a motion by Natalie and a second by Steve. This is uh ordinance also requiring a roll call vote. Starting with Natalie. Natalie Larson. I Steve Kemp. I

Austin Anderson. I Daniel Lurin. I. Motion carries unanimously.

Item number 12. Consider approval of ordinance number 2026-013 amending the city's general plan by change of land use map from AE to MDR on approximately 1.95 acres generally located at the northwest corner of 1800 north and 2100 west. Okay. And here is the location on the satellite view. Like John said, it's located at the corner of 18800 north and 2100 west. It is approximately 1.95 acres. The current zoning is RE20 residential estates 20,000 square ft lots. The current land use is AE agricultural estates. One thing to note, this area has quite a mix of um general plan designations. So to the east, it has LDR, lowdensity residential. To the north and northwest, it has AE agricultural estates. To the south, MDR, medium density residential. A little bit of LDR, and some open space. Here is the property exhibit. The planning commission did hold a public hearing on February 10th, 2026 and forwarded a positive recommendation with a vote of six to zero. There were some public comments at that hearing. Uh there was concern for privacy of the backyards near that property. There was also concern turning agricultural property into higher densities as well as increased traffic. We did receive one email comment which was included in your packet and I can answer any questions you might have.

Any questions for Brenda? Brenda, what was the date of the planning commission of that? Was it okay? February 10th. February 10th. Yeah.

Any other questions or discussion? If not, I'll entertain a motion. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we approve uh item number ordinance number 2026-014 amending the city's general plan from AE agricultural state to LDR lowdensity residential. Now, I'm on the wrong page. Thank you. Number 12. Good though.

My bad. consider. So, uh, I'd like to make a motion that we approve ordinance number 2026 013, amending the city's general plan by changing the land use map from AE to MDR, uh, medium density residential, approximately 1.95 acres located at the northwest corner of 1800 North and 2100 West. Second motion by Steve, second by Natalie. This is an ordinance requiring a roll call vote starting with Danielle. Daniel Lurin I. Natalie Larson I. Steve Compite. Austin Anderson I. Motion carries unanimously.

Item number 13, consider approval of ordinance number 2026-014 amending the city's general plan from AE to LDR on approximately 11.97 acres generally located on the northwest corner of 2450 south and 310 east. Thank you, mayor and council. Um, this is a request to change the general plan. Um, as was just stated, this is the property outlined in red on your screen. Um, 3210 East is on the east of the property. 2450 south is on the south. Um, it's part of a larger piece. We'll see the other half here in just a minute. um they're requesting a PD on the on the western half of the property, but on this piece they are um proposing to change the general plan from AE to uh to LDR. This is zoning map. It is currently zoned A1. And this is the boundary map that they submitted showing the location of the property. Um again it's approximately 11 just under 12 acres. Um the reason primarily for this change is that um the LDR designation gives a little bit more freedom a little more uh there more cho choices of zonings that they can ask for. So they're

flexibility and flexibility. Exactly. So that's the primary purpose. The planning commission held a public hearing and recommended approval of the application. If you have any questions I'm happy to answer those. for the applicants also here property owner.

Any questions for Dan or the applicant? Discussion. I'm prepared to make a motion if you're ready. I am since I already did half of it before. Yeah, that's good. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we approve item number 13, ordinance number 2026, amending the city's general plan from AE agricultural state to LDR Lensi Residential on approximately 11.97 acres, located on the northwest corner of 2450 South and 3210 East. I'll second.

We have a motion by Steve and a second by Austin. Again, an ordinance requiring a roll call vote. Uh, starting with Steve. Steve Kemp, I. Austin Anderson, I Danielle Lurin, I. Natalie Larson, I. Motion carries unanimously. Item number 14, consider approval of ordinance number 2026-015, amending the city's zoning map by changing the zone from A1 to PDC on approximately 8.46 46 acres located on this northeast corner of 2450 south and 3000 east.

Okay, this uh this picture in front of you reminded me this is easily identifiable as the property with the radio antennas. My understanding is that those have run their course and if I'm not mistaken, they will be removed sometime in the summertime. So, it'll be a change of scenery out there, I guess. Um this particular uh piece is the western half of the one we just looked at. Um the designation um in the general plan is commercial. And so in keeping with that, they are proposing a a PD on the property. Now they're just asking for the initial PD, not the full-blown with the elevations and the site plan and all that kind of stuff. They are proposing to just ask for the use list and the zoning designation on the property. Currently, it's zoned A1. This is a concept plan they put together simply to show that, you know, they have potential to lay something out. It's we're certainly not holding them to this. It's just kind of a a placeholder so that you understand that that something can be developed on the property. This is the property survey. And then these are the use lists. We tried to as closely as we could mimic what happened across the street. So, as you recall, on the property across the street to the west, this PDC here is uh the Old Farm uh property, and they um they've also got a PDC on their property that they're working through the details on right now. And um so very similar in nature um to that one. And so if you have any questions on any of the particular uses in the use proposed use list, we can go through those. Um otherwise planning commission held a public hearing on this as well. U did have a couple of people that were just that were curious maybe didn't understand the process as well.

Uh but they ultimately uh recommend approval of the application and um were and along with the use list as it's proposed. Again the applicants here the property owners here uh or I can answer any questions. Dan, I'm a little bit uh I read through the use list and the retail sales with outdoor storage or outdoor uh displays um farm equipment implement sales and then there was a couple others fencing and things. Is this a possibility where someone could have like a a yard next to their shop or next to their storefront where they sold fence posts and

Yeah. Yeah, tractor parts potentially. Yeah, I mean something like that. Farm farm implement sales will oftenimes have that kind of uh display and that would allow that. That's yeah, that's specific in the code. So, okay. Thank you. Other questions for Dan or the applicant? I wonder where the sens are relocating the deer herd that hang out in that field. Like where are they going? James the freezer. Sorry. I was going to say there is taxiderermy allowed on one of the uses with conditions.

Does the applicant want to share anything? Not want you to talk us out of anything, but James Sullivan. Um, honestly, there's nothing I I would need to say other than the radio towers is kind of it's kind of up in the air right now. They were supposed to be off a year ago, but they're the new facility they built is not working yet. So, they're they're wanting as long as they can get out of me, and I'm just telling them we're monthtomonth getting through this process. So, uh, our current agreement is just a month-to-month lease, and it can end anytime or stretch out. We may I'm going to try and give them as much time as possible because frankly if those do come down they're they're going to lose a couple of stations. So that's all we've got.

Anybody have any other questions for James? Thank you. I'll make a motion. Mayor Go for it. Mayor motion to approve ordinance number 2026-015 amending the city's zoning map to change the zone from A1 to PDC on approximately 8.46 acres located on the northeast corner of 2450 south and 3000 east. Second. We have a motion by Danielle, a second by Natalie. Again, an ordinance requiring a roll call vote starting with Natalie. Natalie Larson I. Steve Kemp I. Austin Anderson I Danielle Larkin I. Motion carries unanimously.

Item number 15 consider approval of ordinance number 2026-016 amending the Desert Color Plan development commercial zone on approximately 65 acres located east of Desert Color Parkway between Southern Parkway and Black Mountain Drive. All right. Um you may recall seeing this. I believe it was last year. Um, this was this is the Ruth Chris site. Um, you can see that that will be down kind of in this area. This pad that we're looking at tonight, sorry, this mouse is a little sensitive. Is up in this area. Um, Dan, I think you're on the wrong item, aren't you?

You need to be on 15, not 16. Skipped ahead. Oh, I infected you. mine. He's just trying to scoot us along. I got so excited about that one. All right. Sorry about that. You got Lonnie excited, too.

Yes, we'll come back to that. So, this one um this one's in desert color. Okay. This one's in Desert Color just off Desert Color Parkway. Uh this is a 0.65 65 acre site and um it is currently um zone PDC and the a um coffee shop is an approved use in the uh desert color PDC zone and they are proposing a a small if you if you've seen any of the other Dutch brothers around town that's what it's going to look like. um approximate it it's approximately uh 20 feet in height. I'll show you that right there. Uh but again looks very similar to the other Dutch brothers around town. Um they are providing a double drive-thru lane which can stack approximately 20 to 22 cars before it even gets to this point uh where it might block off some of the parking. So, pretty sufficient as far as um the uh the drive-thru uh goes. People will be able to also walk up to the facility and order make orders on this um souththeast corner uh site right here. They've got a little uh overhang on the roof that will allow people to uh get out of the sun and make their orders there. They are not providing any um seating on the site. So, their parking is definitely uh sufficient for what they need. Um at a thousand square feet, they only needed four spaces. They're providing eight. Um if they did decide in the future to throw out a couple of chairs or something on there, that would definitely their parking would definitely be covered. Um given the just the small uh footprint

that it has. Dan, where's where's the bike parking? They I don't know if they got that specific on here, but we'll make sure that they have back part. I'm asking about that also because Desert Color allows um golf carts. Yeah. And they've really built themselves as a walkable and bikable community.

And when I went out there on my bike the other day, it's really strange how you come out of desert color to these commercial spaces and all of a sudden it's just sidewalk instead of trail. We've got trail coming up connecting to the neighborhood above here, you know, when it comes across um I-15 and then they've got trail in the neighborhood. And there were all these kids, kids were still, you know, coming out back and forth. It was very active. There were people on bikes and people walking, but it was um I'm just curious, does the golf cart privileges extend all the way out to their commercial area first of all? and are they putting in the infrastructure so they can continue with that walkable, bikable, golf cart um community that they've built said that they are

Yeah, certainly walkability is important to Desert Color. They're they are providing it does get into more of a as you get into the commercial area. You're correct. It does get more into the um sidewalks as opposed to, you know, the the asphalt trails that you see around. Um I think that's I mean I think we need to look at it because we're also building with you know UD do the SR7 trail so people are going to be frequenting this by foot and by bike and that needs to be part of their plan I think.

Yeah. So Desert Desert Cutter has two commercial areas. They have their downtown commercial area that's supposed to connect to the neighborhoods and be that walkable. Then they have their big box area and this part is located within their big box area. Um, our code does require a certain number of uh, bike parking just anywhere in the code or anywhere in the city and so they will have to comply with that as or that requirement. Correct. Somebody comes out of desert color on their golf cart. Are they not allowed to do that? We to come over to the

We've limited where the roads where they can have golf carts on their roads. And so we'd have to go back and look at those exhibits that kind of demonstrate where they can have um where they can have golf carts. I know they did extend some of the uh the trails an extra two or three feet to accommodate the uh the golf course the golf carts, but we'd have to go back and look at those exhibits where they allow for the golf carts to go.

That's great. Um I don't think I had much more to share. Um there's uh the materials materials boards down here as well. Um planning commission again held a public hearing and recommends approval of this application. Questions for Dan?

Discussion. I think it looks good. I think it makes a lot of sense. Mayor, I'll uh make a motion that we approve ordinance number 2026-016 amending the Desert Color Plan development commercial zone on approximately 65 acres located east of Desert Color Parkway between Southern Parkway and Black Mountain Drive. I'll second. So, we have a motion by Austin, a second by Steve. This is an ordinance requiring a roll call vote starting with Austin. Austin Anderson I Danielle Darkin I. Natalie Larson I. Steve Kempai.

Motion carries unanimously. 16. Item 16. Consider approval of ordinance number 2026-017 amending the Black Ridge Plan Development Commercial Zone on approximately 3.44 44 acres located on the northeast corner of Black Ridge Drive and 250 West.

All right, now we're getting to this one. My apologies. Um, this is again the site here, Black Ridge Drive, 250 West, Roose down in this area. Uh, this pad is located up in here. Um, it's zoned PDC. Um, and that's all we'll have on the on this uh particular property are two restaurants. Um, you recall this was slated for a hotel from years gone by um that had that moved across the street and um and now they're proposing these two restaurants. Um they got so just by by way of reminder um on this property you see Again, the Roost Chris site down here. Pad number two is this one. It's proposed a rodio grill. And um they're basically coming, they're not changing any of the sites. They have the number of stalls uh parking stalls that were required in the code. We looked at that against this the footprint of this building, made sure that it's still adequate for what they're proposing and and it does meet the code. um the site, just so that you know kind of where we're at with the site. Um they've submitted their application, we've gone through it and we're just about ready to wrap it up. Um so we should see some movement on this on this uh property here fairly soon. Um these are the proposed elevations. Um it's approximately 30 feet to the highest point. So that's from here to to here and then some renderings of the property or of the the building and the materials board again should be right there. Um with that planning commission held another public hearing

on this and they uh issued a recommendation of approval for this site as well. You ready for a motion? Yeah. I have one question for you Dan. Sure. Yes. So, um, when we approved this before for the hotel, there were pretty extreme mitigation measures that had to be taken because of the soils. I'm just assuming that the same apply here with the landscapes. Yes. Okay.

Yeah. The landscaping, they were very um specific about not having about having very drought tolerant uh plantings, uh, trees, that kind of thing, and limit the number of trees and shrubs. Um, So yes, that has been taken into account. We're actually working with the parks department to make sure that the landscaping that's been proposed is that kind of that kind of landscaping. Sounds good. Now, any other discussion or question?

I just want to make note we did get a letter from Dr. address regarding the view and unfortunately that's a part of building in our community. But I just want to acknowledge that we all did receive that letter and we read it before making the motion and I I think the soils thing up there is well known and I think I have confidence that we're going to staff's going to get that worked out. So, I'll make a motion to approve ordinance 2026-017-0177 amending the Black Ridge Plan Development Commercial Zone on approximately 3.44 acres located on the northeast corner of Blackidge Drive and 2050 West. Second.

Motion by Natalie, second by Danielle. This is another ordinance requiring a roll call vote starting with Danielle. Danielle Larkin I. Natalie Larson I. Steve Kemp I Austin Anderson I motion carries unanimously. Thank you. We are to this point already. No appointments. Let's go with reports then. Uh Austin you so we if you have any reports this is a time where you can do that unless this is your first time probably to give a report. Do you have anything you want to report?

Um I've got I got appointed to the mosquito bin board. I went to that meeting wasn't not much to report but I did attend. So is there is there mosquitoes? No I asked them I affectable and the solid and I attended the solid waste board. So I learned about a me mosquito abatement and how our solid waste is transported. So nice. I'm attended my meetings. Nice. Yeah. Steve,

nothing to report. I'm just going to give a shout out to our staff. Um Corey Frost and Chad and David did a great job with um state of the city. You didn't do too bad yourself. I thought it was a really nice e effort. And then um the transportation expo I think was well attended and it's always nice to get that feedback from our residents about what's what they like and what they don't.

Perfect. Daniel. Yeah, I just wanted to brag about our parks department since I'm assigned to them. Um, for years there's been a Japanese garden across the street in the front of the Children's Museum building, but it it's older and it kind of got overgrown and so they just put in a new Japanese garden back here on the northeast corner of the new city hall and it's really beautiful. So, everyone will have to go back and check that out. but they just do a great job designing, very thoughtful design, creating so many peaceful and beautiful spaces in our city. So, I just wanted to say how much I appreciate them. And the mayor did take golf away from me, but so now Austin will have to brag about golf, but he is a golfer, so I thought it was a fair It made sense that the mayor took it away from me.

And the bridge was built by our uh parks director, Shane Moore. Yeah. Yeah. In his garage. Yep. And the rake, too, right? Didn't he build the rake? The little wooden rake. They told me he built it himself. Well, he he was out here in the little garden out here on the corner with a wheelbarrow today earlier and doing the work. So, because he I think he wanted it a certain way. So, send a guy to Kyoto for a few days and falls in love. Yeah. Yeah. Anything else, John? Anything else? Yeah, I just have one thing. Um, I know that you guys received an email from our new uh special events coordinator, but she's actually here, Amy Fish. Oh, yeah.

And so, we just want to welcome Amy. You'll be getting emails and whatnot from Amy. So, we're excited to have her. She's also um operating our front desk up at the third floor. And so, there's Amy.

Yeah. If you come into the third floor and you're having a bad day and not happy, you have to be happy when you see Amy because she's very pleasant and very nice and Shal let me in the door when I don't have my badge. So, that's always cool. Only thing I'd like to say is thank you all for your participation in the state of the city. I lots of good comments and uh appreciate you all as the council taking part in that and your important role. So, other than that, I don't have anything else. Is there anything else besides our esteemed attorney would love for us to adjourn to a closed session for purposes of litigation update and property possible property acquisition?

I make a motion we go to close session. I'll second for those two items. Is that okay, Ryan? to discuss those two items mentioned by the city attorney. Yep. Second. Perfect. We have a motion by Steve, second by Austin. All in favor say I. I. I. Any opposed? Nay. Motion carries 3 to one. We will adjourn to close meeting. Thank you all for coming.

Oh yeah. Just for the record, we excuse uh Councilwoman Tanner. She has a great excuse. She did have a baby um on Friday, Thursday, 12th of February, uh 12th of February. Maverick J. And everything seems to be going well. So, if you get a chance, congratulate her. I think she is going to join us for a closed meeting.