City Council - Regular Meeting

Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. you Thank you. Thank you.

You guys ready yet? All right, let's go ahead, and we're gonna go ahead and get started with our council meeting. We did have a work meeting before this, just getting our ducks all in a row here, so we're ready to go. But welcome to our council meeting tonight. We are going to go ahead and get started correctly. We have Pastor Greg Wright here from the Westside Baptist Church. Also, Pastor Wright serves our police department as a chaplain, and I'm very appreciative of that, and also just an all-around good guy. Come on up.

Thank you, Mayor. Psalm 145, verse 3 says, Great is the Lord, and greatly to be praised, and his greatness is unsearchable. So let's go to the Lord in prayer. Father, we thank you that we can approach you recognizing that you are great in every way, in every one of your attributes. We acknowledge that and we're glad for the freedom in our country and here in our city to be able to pray and to seek you. And tonight, we not only pray for our mayor and council members in this particular meeting, we're also asking that you would bless our city, all of the entities that are represented in this, the streets, police, fire, power water buildings facilities just every part of what it takes to have such a great city we ask for your blessing and your help we pray for wisdom for those that are making decisions that you would lead and guide we pray for provision for our families in this community that you provide for those that are hurting, those that are weak, that you protect them and care for them, that you bless the righteous, and that you would give grace to each of us. We ask again for your blessing as we come to you tonight, and we pray this in Jesus' name. Amen.

Amen. Thank you. I've asked Councilwoman Natalie Larson to lead us in the pledge.

Please stand and repeat after me. I pledge...

All right, we do have one introduction we want to do. Carol, if you want to come up and give us an introduction to Lonnie.

Mayor, council members, we do have a new employee in our planning department. This is Lonnie Olson. He comes to us from Wyoming, and he's our newest planner, and we're excited to have him on the team. You can say something if you want.

Hi, everyone. I just want to say I have been here for almost three weeks, and I've really enjoyed it so far. And I'm just happy to kind of get on the feet or under my feet and run in with this. And I just appreciate you all putting faith in me to work here.

We're glad to have you here. Born and raised in Wyoming.

Yep, born and raised in Wyoming. So that's where the University of Wyoming is. And I went to school for my master's in Salt Lake City at the University of Utah. So

Very cool. So same weather then as Laramie here, huh?

Yeah, it's quite the adjustment.

Welcome.

Lonnie told me he was happy to get out of the snow and he likes to bike and hike, so.

Very cool. We're glad to have you and we have plenty for you to do. Ms. Carroll, you probably already figured that out. Yeah, welcome. Also, do we have some members of our Youth City Council here? Do I see you? Come on up here and tell us who you are. We always want to make sure you're welcome here.

Hi. Go ahead. Hi, I'm Mariah Bates and I'm just a member of the city council. Awesome.

My name is Lucas Pierce. I'm just also a member.

And what schools?

I go to Crimson Cliffs.

Okay.

St. George Academy.

And you had a speech for us, right?

yeah they both just used the word they both just said i'm just a member of the city council and you are a member of the city council not just you guys are really important to us so don't forget that and we're super glad you're here thank you thank you yeah thanks for being here all right let's see do we have any other pre-agenda items then take us away okay there's one change this evening mayor and item number seven will be removed be removed from the agenda this evening

Item number two is consent calendar. There's 13 items on the consent calendar this evening. Staff has reviewed each of these administrative items and recommends approval. However, if the city council would like to remove any of these for specific consideration, we can accommodate that. Otherwise, staff recommends approval.

Mayor, I would like to remove item G, and then I can make a motion that we approve the calendar with that removed, if that's okay with you?

Yep.

Okay. So I'll make a motion that we approve the consent calendar as presented, removing item G for discussion.

I'll second that motion.

So we have a motion by Danielle and a second by Michelle removing item G and then to approve the consent calendar. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Motion carries. And item G.

okay so cameron do you mind coming up we sent cameron i think the entire council has been talking to cameron not just me about this and we've received quite a few letters so we just i asked cameron if he would address the questions tonight thank you i've got to pull it up sorry about that

Okay, so these are questions that were brought up by a contractor regarding our bid. And then I provided some information in email. So first, city code section 110B6B requires a written statement of reasons approved by the city manager and city attorney whenever an award is not given to the lowest bidder, does that statement exist for this project and can the council see it before voting? So there's a section in our procurement ordinance that indicates if you're not going with the low bid, provide the justification. In our procurement standard or our procurement ordinance, there are 11 reasons or 11 criteria that staff is supposed to look at when also looking at the price. They pertain to, is the contractor qualified? Can they perform the work? What's their integrity? What's their character? What's their, financially, can they do that? And so if you don't go with the low bid, we provide, as a department head, we provide the justification for that. In this case, I did send an email to city manager, to city attorney to be able to indicate okay on this project we actually scored the the George Washington Boulevard roadway and I probably should indicate this is for the the item G George Washington Boulevard roadway the the roadway portion of it we received nine bids of which we scored the four criteria past performance qualifications, that's the past three projects or similar projects the contractor was supposed to provide us, their bid amount, and their schedule. So those four criteria were scored five points, five points, 50 points, and 40 points. The schedule being 40 points and the bid being 50 points and the other five points. So we scored this project according to that criteria that we provided for the information for bidders. So I did provide an email to our city manager and city attorney indicating this is how we scored these projects. That was to answer that question. Another question, the second question, can the category level scores for all nine bidders, work qualification, past performance, bid schedule, construction schedule, be made part of the record before the vote? The packet contains only scores. We put in the packet the total score for the bids that we rank these bids. We did not put out to the public all of those categories because there was some subjectivity in them. the past performance of a contractor. We didn't want to hurt, help reputation of a contractor. We didn't want to put that out to the public. We recognized that that could be detrimental to a contractor. So we provided the full score of those bidders in the public packet so that the public could see that. we intend to provide that score sheet to the contractors so that if they wanted to get feedback from staff, that we could talk about that with them. Okay, you didn't score very well here, you did score here, here's the reason why, and talk that through with them if they decided to want to come in and talk to us. for the awarding contract section of the bid documents paragraph four, this is in the information for bidders, states that award will be made to the lowest responsible bidder as determined by the city using the criteria contained in city ordinances governing the award of contracts. How is that provision applied to this recommendation? That paragraph in the information for bidders was actually corrected by an addendum and it identified that the award of the bid will actually be to the highest ranking contractor or highest ranking bid as determined by the four categories listed in the information for bid. When the question came up, I don't think the contractor actually realized that, didn't go back and read the addendum where it was corrected. That acknowledgment of the addendum, the receipt and reading of it, they have to click a yes on the digital bonfire, the program where they submit the bids before they can submit a bid. And so whether or not they, well, in the questions they didn't acknowledge that it was changed in the addendum.

uh let's see for context on question two hang on a second cameron i need to be clear on that so in order to submit a bid in bonfire they would have needed to click that they had received the addendum correct and read it yes and read it that's what they're acknowledging so they can't submit a bid unless they click that correct so whether they actually read it or not

they all we know is that they click the button correct okay thank you yep and then uh question this other question for context on question two i asked staff for these records in writing and i was told they uh will be provided through a grammar records process whose process or response deadline falls after thursday's meeting my understanding is because of grandma laws and um And our city recorder provided a good response to this in an email that we could not give those scorings out to the contractor until after the bid is awarded. And there's reasons for that, but yeah, basically it falls under grandma laws. Let's see, one item to note is, I know that we took this bid, this was the first time that we did it in Public Works, and scored the bids with these four criteria, past performance, work qualifications, bid, and schedule. The schedule was the question, hey, how, why can you score this thing based on time? Please note that this has been going on, UDOT uses this in their contracting and awarding of contracts all the time. Bluff Street was actually awarded price plus time. The lowest bid on the Bluff Street project, or the awarded contractor was not the lowest bid.

Cameron, was that part made clear in the bid documents that you were going to be doing that procedure? What's it called? Plus time? Price plus time. Price plus time. Is that obvious?

That's the title that UDOT uses. It's price plus time contracting. In our bid, we put it as four criteria that they were going to be scored on, and they were going to be ranked based on those four criteria. And so the idea of, hey, can you award and a bid with time and cost? UDOT does it all the time. They did it on Bluff Street. The awarded contractor was not the lowest bid. They were the faster bidder. And so that price element and time element was awarded together to be able to award that to the lowest responsible bidder. I recognize that there's been questions. Hey, we didn't understand this. We didn't understand that you were going to score it this way. We actually had a mandatory pre-bid meeting in this project where all of the contractors that bid, the nine bids that we received, they were all present. They had a representative there where we actually talked about this very thing and how we were going to score it. And then during the bid period, after that pre-bid, pre-mandatory bid meeting, all the contractors had time to send questions to the city engineering staff, and we answered their questions. It wasn't until after the bid was received, then they started asking, hey, wait a minute, can you do this? I don't understand this.

Cameron, with those four categories, was it clear the weight that would be given to each category, how many points for each one?

No, and that's a good question because it was brought up, well, hey, what if you weight the time? I'll give you an example. So we never spelled out the bid amount that one contractor versus another based on their bid amount was going to score different than 50 points. We never spelled that out in the contract. Because we figured, well, that's inferred because we are ranking you based on these four category up to 50 points, 40 points, five points, and five points. So we never spelled that out in the contract time, the schedule. We did not spell it out. We didn't spell it out with the performance five points and the work qualification five points either. And maybe that's something that our staff needs to put a little bit more clarification in to say, hey, the time, the faster you bid it, the more score points you're going to get, or the slower you bid it, you're not going to score as well. But we didn't do that for the bid either. We didn't call out that, hey, if you give us a... Less bid, you're going to score higher. We didn't do any of that.

But Cameron, did you have, I'm confused by your answer, so did you have that time was 40% or 40 points? 40 possible points. So you did have the point allocated to each one of those items?

Yes. I apologize if I'm not clear on that. So 40 points possible for the schedule, 50 points possible for the bid, five points possible and five points possible for both the past work experience and quality of work.

I think that's where the disconnect happened was that time change, that that was going to be such a significant thing when I've communicated with these contractors. And so I guess that's the question is, do you feel that was clear to those contractors? That that was, I mean, time, yes, it was going to be completed on time, but it was going to score so heavily in their favor if they got the job done early.

I feel like it was clear we received nine bids and all of those nine bids had different time periods on them. A different schedule. I can start this time and end this time. They all had different days that they were going to be working. They were not all the same. They didn't go to just the minimum time period that we indicated in the bid. They all gave me different time periods. I feel like it was understood. We talked about it in the pre-bid meeting. We talked about it in the addendum to clarify how it was going to be awarded. I felt like it was. I know that could be subjective. But I think me and my staff, I think we communicated that with them.

So we had a minimum time period placed in there. And was that minimum time period if they put that date in? on their application, was that awarded a zero or how many points? How did we track that?

We took the quickest time was March and the slowest time was back into September.

So we based what they submitted to us, not based off of our minimum time.

Based on what they submitted to us. And so the fastest time received a 40 point score. The slowest time received like a five point score and four people scored it and then average those numbers together.

Okay. Yeah, I can see where the confusion would be there with that wide discrepancy of, you know, I can see the frustration if I'm putting in the bid, not realizing that wide discrepancy there.

Yeah.

Other questions? If I can clarify some more. I tried to calculate it differently. So the bonfire actually provided the scoring for the bid. Staff did not provide that. That was just set based on a formula. I actually took that same formula and applied it to the days that the contractors provided this, used that formula, and the top four bidders didn't change. Even using, so where the bonfire program squished the scores together so that out of 50 points, the lowest score was like 32 points, point something. And so it pushed those scores together. As staff scored the timetable of that, the schedule, um and it stretched it out because 40 points versus five points i redid that calculation just to see if it changed it and it didn't change the top four scores based on the same formula that was used in bonfire for the schedule i used that and it again it didn't change it so based on what the contractors submitted to us for their their schedules the the top four bids didn't change and this is the first time we've done a bid this way is that correct Correct. I should explain that over the years as we bid using our procurement standard where we look at the lowest bid, but we're also supposed to look at some of these other criteria. A lot of bids, not all of them, but just some of them here and there, if they didn't provide us the information we wanted, a clear, concise information, they would be rejected. In this case, we didn't reject any of them because we knew we were scoring them. If I looked at those criteria, and they didn't provide all of the information that we were looking for some of them may have been rejected But we scored them because we identified that we were going to score them would any of the top Contractors be thrown out could be Could be But again, we just scored them I have another question regarding timing I

This road does not exist. It's not replacing a road. It's gonna help alleviate traffic. When you're looking at that bid process, where does money come into play with that $1.4 million difference in bid price? Because it's not in front of a school, a hospital, it's not the boulevard getting replaced. So why the sense of urgency the timing was so critical on this bid.

So I'll explain two things on that. So we have the bridge that's under construction right now. The contract time for that bridge goes until July, middle of July, around July 15th. The current contractor working on that bridge is going to finish well before that timetable. So as staff had looked at when can we finish this roadway, we knew that the bridge was going to be done. And the intersection over by the Dixie Center where it's just Crosby Way right now and just a through roadway, it's going to change to a T intersection. And we knew that that was going to be a delay. That was going to be an issue with drivers driving that going through a traffic signal without the bridge open. So we tried to look at ways to accelerate the construction of this roadway. One of them was we bid out the pedestrian bridge that's on the roadway section. We bid it out earlier because that was going to be a critical path delay for the roadway. And so when we looked at the roadway portion, the reason why we tried to accelerate the schedule and score it according to a schedule is because the bridge was going to be done a lot sooner. And we didn't want that bridge just being out there finished, completed, and Crosby Way into a T-intersection without the roadway connected. That was the reason why we actually pushed it to get that done. To your question about the $1.4 million, the difference between the low bid and the high bid, even talking with the contractor for the lower bid amount, asking him about the time schedule, he responded to me that, oh, if I wanted to accelerate this schedule, I could do it also. I would just have to add more people, which means that the bid cost would go up. So to your question, I couldn't just throw out the schedule, the scoring of this schedule and not even account for it and use those bids because those bids are accounting for the time that the contractors are actually building it. And so even though that $1.4 million difference between them, it wouldn't be that much savings if we tried to make them all go with the same schedule. And so you can't really throw out the time period and get those bids. You can't do that. So the $1.4 million reflects that you're getting a faster schedule on the construction of the roadway.

We're also gonna have some disruption on I-15 coming very shortly. So this road will be crucial.

True.

Cameron, do we know when they're gonna start The I-15 expansion and raise project?

Let's see, they just told me, and I don't have that in my head, but it's within the next month or so they're going to get those bids received, UDOT is. So they stopped the advertisement of bid first part of the summer. They started that, stopped it, and they wanted to wait for the grant that they had put into the federal government, a $25 million grant that they got like $23 and something million.

Mid-September is what they said in that meeting. Mid-September?

For bids. So they will receive those bids and then award that, and it's going to start, could be this year, could be this calendar year.

Just a little clarification, just so I want to be very clear. There's several, all of these contractors, in fact, have been very good community partners. That's what makes this a little tough because you're sitting there, man, I wish we could give it to all of them. They've been good community partners. They've done a lot of good work in the community. Some of them I know personally. Most of them I know at least someone there that works for them personally. And so you... There's a whole ramification of getting a job and not getting a job, and I feel that, so I just want that to be very clear that these are, I still want all these contractors to know that they are very good community partners. And at the end of the day, regardless of what happens here, Only one of them is going to get it. And so I just keep that in mind. I just wanted to make sure those contractors know there's nothing nefarious going on here. This is just simply what we're trying to get a road done at the best possible price.

Well, and just to clarify, Cameron, because transparency obviously is very important with this, and you did mention with grandma request laws that we were not able to release the information until after a bid is awarded, essentially. So does the city intend to go ahead and release this information so that the contractors can have all of the information that was requested?

That I believe is what our intent is, yes.

Okay. But the reason why it wasn't put into the packet is for protection, essentially, of the companies. And because of that scoring system partially being based off of past experience, we didn't want to have anything put out there potentially negative for a company. Am I understanding that correctly?

Correct. We're intending to meet with the contractors to give them some feedback if they wish it.

Okay, yeah, because I think that's, this is a tough one for me, because the transparency aspect is so important. And when we're going out to bid, we want to make sure everything is transparent and well understood. And obviously, we as wanting to be good stewards of tax dollars want to assure that We're getting the best price we can, but also time is money as well. So I understand factoring in those other aspects, but having it be as clear as possible when we are going out to bid. And it sounds like with this being the first time doing it this way, I can see where there was some confusion. So that's why this one is tough for me.

Thanks, Cameron, for answering all those questions. And it sounds like you're already planning to meet with all the contractors afterwards. I think that'll be great, especially with us doing this new process so they can give us some feedback and we can make sure that there's clarity because like the mayor said, these are all good companies. We want to continue working with all of them. We want them to be successful.

their bidding processes and we want to make sure that we're not hanging them up in any way on that so with that mayor I'll make a motion just give one to give legal a second here before you do that thanks Thank You mr. mayor and members of the City Council I do want to make you aware and I think you are aware that the city did receive a formal protest today under the procurement code which is 10 dash or sorry 1-10 be that's six of our city code Unfortunately, that protest was required to be submitted within 72 hours of the bid tabulation when it was given, which, depending on the date you use, at the latest it would have been Saturday morning at 9 o'clock. So this protest didn't come in in time. I DO WANT TO LET THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT ARE INTERESTED KNOW THAT CERTAINLY IF THE BID IS AWARDED TONIGHT AND A CONTRACT IS SIGNED, ONCE THE CONTRACT IS SIGNED, WE CAN RELEASE THE HERETOFOR PROTECTED GRANDMA DOCUMENTS AND WE CAN GET THOSE OUT. BUT IT ALSO ALLOWS FOR AN APPEAL PROCESS UNDER TITLE I CHAPTER 15 OF OUR CITY CODE AS WELL. So it's not the end if there are those that want to appeal the decision That decision can go to the administrative law judge.

So I'm sorry to be clear then just sorry Daniel before you make your motion. Can you One of you to give us the ramifications of one way or the other of this decision Denied or approved

Right. So again, if the decision is denied tonight, then the process has to start over and we have to redo the entire bid process. If the award is granted as recommended or approved as recommended, then the city proceeds with the contract. There is an appeal process available. if it does get appealed and goes to the administrative law judge again if the administrative law judge upholds the city's action then the project proceeds continues to proceed if the administrative law judge disagrees and says no we did it wrong then again it goes it's a do-over basically then then we start again okay is that clear any questions on that for jamie all right any other discussion

I have one question for Jamie. Based on my research, that decision by the administrative law judge would need to be within two weeks?

So under the procurement code, there was a time limit. Under the appeal provisions that I'm talking about, there's a time limit on when to file that appeal, and it's a fairly quick one. But then it goes, then there's a process through that administrative code.

Thank you. Okay, any other questions?

not then danielle yeah mayor i'll make a motion that we approve item g from the consent calendar um the contract of jp excavating inc to construct the george washington boulevard from virgin river bridge to river road prod i'll second

that you steve sorry austin okay we have a motion uh by danielle a second by austin to approve item g all in favor say aye aye aye any opposed motion carries unanimously This meeting's kind of got some oddities to it, so I'm going to be stepping out and turning the meeting over for this next item to Danielle.

So item number three is a public hearing consideration of ordinance number 2026-063 annexing property into the city of St. George and adjusting the corporate boundary lines to include 2.277 acres located at the intersection of 3430 East in St. George and 3930 South in Washington City.

Okay, so at the city council meeting on May 28th, 2026, the city approved a resolution to hear the annexation. So that put in time, that had put in place a timeframe now that they had to go through a process to look at the annexation. So tonight is just now to come forward and approve the annexation, approve an ordinance for the annexation. That's it.

Okay. Since this is a property belonging to our mayor, I just want to make sure that we go through the process exactly as we should so that we don't have any questions. So I will read to you what it says from our Annexation policy plan, the city council in their role as the municipal governing body not only has to weigh the recommendations of the planning commission, but also determine the terms and conditions upon which property is to be annexed. Should that be the ultimate decision that reduce or eliminate the burden on the city's existing infrastructure and services? These are not simple decisions to be made by either body and should not be rushed. It is anticipated and highly appropriate that these decisions could be debated, discussed at length, vetted thoroughly, differing opinions expressed, and decided without unanimous consent. Aside from and in addition to the concerns for infrastructure and services involved with annexation, there are other political, social, and financial considerations that should be considered. So I read that to the council from our annexation policy so that we are certain that we have, whatever the discussion is amongst the council, that we're certain that we have gone through our annexation policy and whatever the decision is that's made tonight, that it is made according to that policy. Is there any discussion amongst the council?

I would just ask John and Jamie if all of the last time we voted on this, that was to vote to consider moving forward with the annexation, and there were several steps that needed to take place. And Wes, have all of those steps been completed?

Yes.

That's all I want.

So this is a public hearing. Does anyone have any more questions for Wes or any discussion before we open the public hearing? Okay. Thank you, Wes. We will open the public hearing for this request for annexation. no one all right seeing no one coming up for the public hearing we will close the public hearing and i will look to the council for a motion

I'll make a motion to approve ordinance 2026-063, annexing property into the City of St. George and adjusting the corporate boundary lines to include 2.277 acres located at the intersection of 3430 East in St. George and 3930 South in Washington City.

I'll second.

All in favor? Oh, sorry. I mess this up every time because I only do it about once a year. Okay, motion by Natalie, seconded by Steve. All in favor, starting with Austin?

Aye. Steve Kemp, aye.

Natalie Larson, aye. Danielle Larkin, aye. Michelle Tanner, aye. All right, who's going to invite the mayor back in?

Item number four is the public hearing in consideration of ordinance number 2026-064 to vacate a portion of the Sage Haven Phase 15 subdivision plot identified as a temporary turnaround easement located at the west end of Samaria Drive.

Okay, right here before you, this is Sage Haven Phase 15. What they did is, you can see right here, this length is longer than 150 feet where that roadway terminated. And so then what they're required to do is provide a temporary turnaround until such time as the road extends. So they provided this temporary turnaround right here. It was included as part of the subdivision. So it's just basically vacating that easement, the temporary easement for the temporary turnaround. That's a lot of temporary.

Questions? none if no questions come back to you this is a public hearing so we'll go ahead there's no questions for west we'll go ahead and open the public hearing for those who've come to speak to this item see none i'll close the public hearing come back to you council mayor i'll make a motion that we approve

Ordinance number 2026-6064 to vacate a portion of the Sage Haven phase 15 subdivision plat identified as a temporary turnaround easement located at the west end of Samara Drive.

Second.

We have a motion by Austin, a second by Danielle. This is an ordinance requiring a roll call vote starting with Michelle.

Michelle Tanner, aye. Danielle Larkin, aye. Natalie Larson, aye.

Steve Kemp, aye. Austin Anderson, aye.

Motion carries unanimously.

Item five, public hearing and consideration of ordinance number 2026-065, vacating a portion of a municipal utility easement located between lot 122, Seceda Crest, and DeVario Phase 3, and lot 123, Seceda Crest, and DeVario Phase 3, partial amendment A.

Okay, the owner of lots 122 and 123 of Seseda Crest Phase 3 are proposing to merge their lots. And as you all know, there's a utility easement on both sides of that side property line. The request is to vacate it so that they can merge the two lots.

Questions for Wes? Okay. Yep, this is also a public hearing, so I will go ahead and open the public hearing for those who have come to speak to this item. All right, seeing no one, we'll close the public hearing and come back to you, Council.

I will move to approve ordinance number 2026-065, vacating a portion of a municipal utility easement located between lot 122, Seseda Crest at DeVario Phase 3, and lot 123, Seseda Crest at DeVario Phase 3, partial amendment A. I'll second.

So a motion by Michelle, second by Austin. This is an ordinance requiring a roll call vote, starting with Austin.

Austin Anderson, aye.

Steve Kemp, aye.

Natalie Larson, aye. Danielle Larkin, aye.

Michelle Tanner, aye.

Hold on one second, Brent. Wes, was that your last item? You're not gonna try to take off on us, are you? Well, because I think today, today, what they were trying to do is get me to bring a casket here to the city hall. Is the rumor true that you've turned 60 today?

It is. Wow. I'm very, very sad right now.

And you came to work.

I did because then I would just sit home and drink.

Your face matches. And I don't even drink.

And if you know Wes, I'm sure that's going to happen. Let us brighten up your day a little. Can you guys all join me in singing happy birthday to Wes? And make it the best happy birthday you've ever sang.

His face matches his shirt. Yes.

Here we go. Happy birthday.

Dear Wes.

Thank you.

I do have a little birthday gift for you. Is David still here? Is David here? Take a picture. Chad, you can take a picture. We've got to take a picture with Wes up here with the city council in the background on his 60th birthday.

Yes, because my funeral is coming soon, I've decided.

We get to do our work. We get to do our work. We get to do our work. We get to do our work.

I remember when you turned 50, Wes.

Well, congratulations, Wes, thank you.

All right, Brenda, sorry. Item number six, consider approval of a conditional use permit for a private school serving students through grade eight located in a designated landmark site in a residential zone on approximately 0.21 acres located at 135 south 100 east okay this is the location the general plan is downtown connected neighborhood and the zoning is rcc residential central city

the frederick boyk home was built in the 1870s and was designated a local landmark on august 19th in 2021 so here's their proposal they'll have 30 students with one teaching station the operating hours are monday through thursday 9 a.m to 3 p.m friday 12 a 9 a.m to 12 p.m and the student drop-off times will be a half hour long time each, 8.45 a.m. to 9.15 a.m. and 2.45 p.m. to 3.15 p.m. That way they can space out the drop-off and pick-up times for kids so there won't be traffic jams in front of the home. And all the outdoor activities will occur in the rear yard fenced-in area. So their proposal meets all of the requirements that are in the code. You may remember we brought through the zoning regulation amendment, and you all passed that on May 7th of this year for this kind of conditional use permit. This is the first application for this kind of conditional use permit. Here's the site plan. And so the parking requirement is 1.5 spaces per teaching station and one space per 15 students. So that would require four spaces. So they're showing four spaces on this plan. Here's the ADA space here and then a space here and two spaces here. They are allowed to...

I'm sorry, go ahead.

Okay. They are allowed to count on street parking for 50% of their parking requirements. And here's where they're going to hold outdoor activities back here in the rear yard, which is fenced. This is the traffic plan that they are required to provide they indicated that this will also be given to the parents, so that they will know what the plan is for pick up and drop off and. here's where they'll drop off the children in front of the House and then the parents are supposed to turn and take 100 South there, so there won't be a backup here. The Planning Commission did recommend approval with these conditions and I can answer any questions you might have. The applicants are also here and they can answer any questions you might have for them.

Is the applicant good with the three conditions that were given by the Planning Commission?

They are.

Any other questions for Brenda or the applicant?

I'll make a motion. Ready for it. Okay. Yeah, I think this is exciting. It's always nice to have alternative school options and especially one right in the neighborhood there. So I will move to approve a conditional use permit for private school serving students through grade eight located in a designated landmark site in a residential zone on approximately 0.21 acres located at 135 South, 100 East. I'll second that motion.

We have a motion by Michelle and a second by Danielle. This is a conditional use permit, roll call? Okay, so all in, just to be clear again, motion by Michelle, second by Danielle. To approve, all in favor say aye.

And I'll clarify that the motion does include the three conditions from the Planning Commission.

With the conditions from planning commission all in favor say aye aye any opposed motion carries unanimously, thank you.

I'm number 8 consider approval ordinance number 2026 dash 0, 6, 7, amending the acting bill interchange zone plan development commercial zone on approximately 3.4 acres generally located east of arrowhead Canyon drive and South of have a suit drive.

Okay, this is for the Bucks Ace down in the Centre River Commons area. Plan development amendment. Located in between Smiths and the Hampton Inn on Arrowhead Canyon Drive. And current land use is plan development as well as the zone plan being plan development commercial, all part of the Atkinville Interchange zone plan. Conceptual site plan. Let me start over. The building is approximately 45,600 square feet. It appears to meet all setbacks. This is also the conceptual landscape plan. Just know as well that there is a 27 foot trail and utility easement along that west side. And there's also, as you probably saw on the zoning map, that there is a residential area just to the west. So they will be required. to do the landscape buffer and the six-foot masonry wall along that west side. Providing street trees along Arrowhead Canyon Drive and street trees along that private drive, Havasu Drive. You'll also see that they show a little monument sign there, just as a reminder for any of the signages that it will have to meet the Sun River Commons Master Sign Plan, so just keep that in mind as well. Conceptual photometric plan appears to meet code. We'll make sure that we go through it thoroughly at the site plan review. And here's the renderer, the elevations. So elevations kind of depending on where you look for height. Some of those shorter sections are 26 feet. You've got 37 feet 2 inches over here on that far east side. And then that middle section which is a little bit bigger, that architectural feature is just over 39 feet. Just also a note as well that the majority of this building is single level. There are just two little spaces that have a second story. There's a little office space right above the main entrance. And then there will also be a second level over here on the west side close to that residential area where it is a break room for the employees. And I think there's also just a little bit of office space as well. But the majority of this building, single story, the windows that look like they could be a third story, they're just architectural features, just a pretty ugly building. This is the view from the north. This is your view from the east side if you're on the Pioneer Road side. And you can see some of the building materials as well, so stucco, wood look metal, and you'll be able to see these better on the renderings. But composite panels and painted steel. And this is the side on the west side along Arrowhead Canyon Drive. So this is the side that would be facing the residential zone. And then also the rear portion of the building that would be facing the Hampton Inn. We will get to the very end where you'll see the condition from the Planning Commission. But one of the things that we noted on there for the condition was that any signage along the south side of the building or on the west side, that it not be lit, just so that it doesn't impact that residential zone to the west. Some of your renderings, some of the renderings from the north. This is that main entrance, and you can kinda see a little bit of that office area that'll be on that second story. It's really not very big at all. From the northeast and the northwest, just a couple notes here. Again, just that second story, just where there'll be a little bit of an employee break room. And then also, just the renderings don't show the masonry wall continuing to the north, but it will continue to the north to probably the site triangle, just to provide that residential buffer. And then this is the southeast side, the southwest side, and the materials board. I did put the materials board. It's a little bit smaller, so I put it behind Councilmember Kemp and Councilmember Anderson if you guys did want to take a look at it. But again, the composite metal, the stucco, some of the painted steel for the accents really And then let's just briefly talk about the parking. So the parking with the uses and the square footages, it's required that they have 163 parking spaces. This property by itself only has 112. And so what they have done is that they have gone and done a shared parking agreement with the Hampton Inn to the south. Remember as part of our code that they can do a shared parking agreement with the property that's adjacent to it as long as their hours are different and their peak uses are different hours as well. Obviously with a hotel and a retail hardware store that you would think that the peak uses will be different. This just shows kind of in that parking agreement where they've determined where those 50, 51 parking spaces are going to be and they are going to share them back and forth. Both Hampton will be able to use some of ACE's and ACE will be able to use the 51 stalls on that west side of the Hampton Inn as well. There are a few requests on this building, depending on where you measure the height. We just wanted to make sure that it was covered. Building height, you could potentially measure it at 37 feet 2 inches. Remember that the Atkinville Interchange Zone Plan allows building heights up to 35 feet and architectural height up to 45 feet. So this one may be just a touch over depending on how you measure it. Just remember that there's also been other buildings approved in this area. The Hampton Inn right behind it is almost 68 feet. The office building over by In-N-Out and Del Taco is about 50 feet. And then we've also seen the Home to Suites, which is a little bit further north on the development, but they're just over 53 feet. So still well below some of the buildings around it. Another request is in the Atkinville interchange zone plan. It does say that hardware stores are allowed, but they're only allowed if they're smaller than 40,000 square feet. With this building, if you've been to the one in Hurricane, you know that really the hardware use is not everything that they do, right? It's also a retail store where they sell clothing and toys and they have a little ice cream place, some of the sporting goods. So really this building by itself is only about 60% hardware and more about 40% retail. Just over the 40,000 square foot limit, but really only about 60% of it being that hardware use. The final request is in regards to that privacy wall that's for the residential buffer. The way that the building is sitting on the lot, they really tried to maximize the width of the lot. With that and where the masonry wall would have to go, it would eventually run into the building, terminate into the building. And what they are requesting is that that privacy wall, instead of continuing to the south property line that it ends where it terminates with the building, And really with that you can see anywhere where the block wall would not be. It's just landscaping. There are no windows, no doors on that portion of the building. So really this would have no effect on the residential area to the west. With that, Planning Commission had the public hearing on July 28th, recommended approval with a 5-0 vote, just with that one condition, just the no-lit signage along the south or the west property lines, just to protect those residential zones and protect the hotel. Jared Madsen from Sky Engineering is here if you have any questions, and I can answer any that you may have as well.

Thank you, Brian. Any questions for Brian?

I don't have any questions, but it's nice to have a non-controversial item for this community that seems to be highly favorable, actually.

You probably saw in your packet, we did receive one positive letter, too. So they're pretty excited, I think, to have this down there.

Mayor, I'll make a motion that we approve ordinance number 2026-067, amending the Atkinville Interchange Zone planned development commercial zone on approximately three-point acres, generally located at Arrowhead Canyon Drive and south of Havasu Drive, along with Planning Commission's one recommendation.

A second. So we have a motion by Austin, a second by Steve. This is an ordinance requiring a roll call vote, starting with Danielle.

Do we need to say verbally that we're including the planning commission's recommendations?

He did. Oh, you said it. Yeah.

I just need to listen better. Aye.

Michelle Tanner, aye.

Austin Anderson, aye.

Steve Kemp, aye.

Natalie Larson, aye.

Motion carries.

I have number nine to consider approval of ordinance number 2026-068, amending title 10-17A of the city code, amending ADU regulations on lots exceeding 311,000 square feet, and clarifications on existing detached structures and health and safety codes.

All right. Thank you. Earlier this year, the state passed SB 284, which made some requirements of cities to allow detached accessory dwelling units on lots that are over 11,000 square feet. To be honest, St. George City has been pretty progressive and aware of the need for ADUs and have allowed them for quite some time. So this is really just a tweak to allow accessory dwelling units on lots that exceed that 11,000 square foot threshold and to bring it in compliance with the state code. So with that, this is the proposed language. We are proposing that 1017A3D be rewritten. That struck out language is then reinserted in number Number two, so number one would be one accessory dwelling unit shall be permitted on any lot containing a single family dwelling subject to the standards of this section. And then number two, a second accessory dwelling unit may be permitted on. And then lots or parcels located within downtown boundaries. So that's consistent with what we allow now. And then lots or parcels containing at least 11,000 square feet provided one ADU is attached to the primary dwelling and one ADU is detached. So again, consistent with the requirement from state code. And then a lot containing, a lot shall contain no more than two accessory dwelling units. The other thing that SB 284 did was required that that existing structures that people want to convert to an ADU have some sort of a path forward to allow that. So this section J states that an existing legally constructed accessory structure may be converted to a detached accessory dwelling unit subject to meeting the requirements of this section. So as long as they can meet the other provisions of the ADU, that would be allowed. And then finally, again, another section from SB 284, this is just compliance. Again, health and safety codes, all accessory dwelling units must comply with all applicable building health and fire codes. So again, that just came straight from SB 284. So Planning Commission held a public hearing. There was no comment received on it, but they forwarded a positive recommendation unanimously. If you have any questions, I can try to answer those for you.

I have a question. In the first red line edit on page 231, where we struck only one accessory dwelling unit or guest house should be allowed on a lot or parcel, then within the downtown boundary, two ADUs are allowed per lot. If we had left that language the way it is, would two detached units be allowed? I'm asking staff or legal or somebody because it seems like at one point we had discussed this that having that second ADU on on lots where it was possible and I know one of the ones we looked at they were actually two detached units this will restrict it now to have to have one attached and then the second one could be detached correct

If you look at the way it's worded, number 2A, a second accessory dwelling unit may be permitted on. Then it says A, lots of parcels located within the downtown boundary. So the intent was to take that language and allow it and apply it the way that we're applying it now. So I don't think that, and Jamie, you might want to jump in, but...

Yeah, the discussion, Council Member Kemp was, you know, in the downtown area within that downtown boundary. That was a discussion. And this sort of acknowledges that.

The code right now that we have right now adopted, you can have two attached, two detached, one attached, one detached downtown. This one is just changing it in that now if you have 11,000 square foot lot anywhere in the city, you can have one attached, one detached.

It does not limit the ability because we looked at a specific example of a very long, narrow lot where the home builder had built a home and then had one detached and then had a bunch of dead space behind his home and was looking at possibility of a second detached unit where he had parking, he had all the other things we needed. Would this preclude him from doing that?

Was it downtown?

Yes.

No.

No, so then that's what I say. That was the downtown discussion and that still applies. What Carol is saying is that this now allows one of each anywhere in the city, not just downtown, if you have an 11,000 square foot lot.

But by striking that last sentence, is it, have we told people they cannot have two detached, are we inferring that they can't have two detached units downtown?

No, we're not. The downtown stays the same.

It's scratched out but then it's added back in.

It was added back in lower.

It's just combined with the 11,000 square foot lot.

But that sentence specifically says you have to have one attached and one detached.

There's two parts. The first part talks about downtown and then the second part talks about 11,000 square foot lots.

No, we intentionally preserved what we did in the downtown area. We intentionally preserved that, but this broadens it citywide.

It does not say downtown can have two detached.

Okay, so you're talking about D2A, that sentence?

Yeah, it doesn't say D2A.

Preserves that ability for two detached in the downtown area. Yes. Okay, thank you.

Any way you want to do it.

I'm ready to make a motion, Mayor. I'm ready.

Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we approve item number nine, ordinance number 2026-068, amending title 10-17A of the city code, amending ADU, accessory dwelling unit regulations on lots exceeding 11,000 square feet, and adding clarifications on existing detached structures and health and safety codes.

Second.

We have a motion by Steve, second by Michelle. This is an ordinance requiring a roll call vote, starting with Natalie.

Natalie Larson, aye.

Steve Kemp, aye.

Austin Anderson, aye.

Michelle Tanner, aye. Danielle Larkin, aye.

Motion carries.

Is that it? Okay, so now we need a motion to... Yes, let's do that. Do we have any appointments? Nope. Then we need reports from council members. Starting with you, Michelle.

No reports.

Mayor, Friday, August 28th, is the Arts Summit. So every year, our Art Commission holds what's called the Arts Summit. So if there are any arts organizations that have received RAP tax, they're required to come to the Arts Summit. And if there are arts organizations that would like to receive the RAP tax, they should come to the Arts Summit. So it's something you can register for on our website, and it is happening on the 28th.

Very cool. Natalie, anything?

Dixie Days is coming your way. Social media has a lot of posts on it. There's a lot of great activities, a little bit for everybody. We had our last meeting today on it, and I just think it will be a fantastic event for our community. But we also have the September 11th by our fire department memorial coming up. And if you haven't been to the Field of Flags before, you should bring your children and your grandparents and get there early in the morning and sit there and look at those flags and remember that there's an individual who lost their life. And if you haven't done that, come in the evening or come whenever you can. I've been there when the fire department has worked with the Legacy Elementary School and other elementary schools and brought those kids to that event and Some of their parents weren't probably even born at that point, but it's very very thoughtful memorable moment And then they're having the stair climb also at Tech Ridge and people should sign up to take that challenge so look on the website and Get signed up for that I Have no reports

Mayor, I serve on the Southwest Mosquito Abatement Board, one of my favorite boards. But at the last meeting we had talked about, there's been several positive cases of West Nile in the mosquitoes here. With all the rain we've had, We've had the mosquitoes that came out. They're working to get that down. But one thing also I want to mention, a resident's probably, I didn't know this, but if you do see mosquitoes around your area, have a problem, you can call Mosquito Abatement and they'll send people right out. And they're very passionate and do a great job. So I encourage them to take advantage of that.

Standing water is the enemy, right?

Yeah. And keep, you know, inoculate your horses. You don't want West Nile on the horses. But I didn't know either. I was like, how did we get it? And I guess we get it from birds. Mosquitoes bite the birds and the birds fly from here to Salt Lake or wherever. And that's how the West Nile gets spread.

It's interesting. Very, very cool. All right, anything else?

Okay, now we need a motion.

We do need to reconvene in our work meeting, so I need a motion to adjourn city council and reconvene in work meeting.

Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we adjourn the city council meeting and reconvene in our work meeting in the city council boardroom.

Second.

We have a motion by Steve, second by Michelle. All in favor say aye.

Aye.

It's non-debatable. Lonnie, do planters wear ties in Wyoming? They do?