City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening. It's 5:00. We're going to get started with our regular city council meeting tonight. We have with us Jimmy Ken, the Reverend Jimmy Ken from Solomon's Porch Four Square to give us our invocation. Um, imagine that. And not that I've ever been accused of needing one of these, but um at this time of year with the busyiness and the obligations and the things to get done, it's so easy sometimes to forget what we're really celebrating, and that is the birth of our savior. and uh make sure we take some time to enjoy the joy of the season and not just the busyiness of it. Mayor Randall, on behalf of the interfaith council and the entire family at Solomon's Porch, we want to thank you for your years of service to this city and the incredible job you did as mayor. It's been such a blessing and your support to the interfaith community has been second to none and it has been greatly appreciated. And on behalf of all of our member churches, we want to thank you for your service to the city. And we want to make sure that we invite all of you to join us for prayer over the city on New Year's Day noon in the historic tabernacle where our mayor and our mayor elect will both be with us as we officially hand uh hand off the baton as they both will greet uh the crowd. So, we hope you'll all be with us for that.

Let us pray. Our gracious heavenly father, we are so thankful for the city of St. George and all who make it such an incredible place to raise our families and to live. We thank you for all of our council members, our mayor, all of our department heads and staff. We ask that your blessing be upon them this Christmas season and that the joy of the season would carry through the entirety of 2026. May your blessings be upon our city and upon all those who have business with this council today. We pray this in the name of Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

Thank you, Jimmy. We appreciate that. If you'll all arise and join me in saying the pledge of allegiance. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. John, do we have any changes to the agenda? Um, only change is item 2B will be removed.

Okay. Um tonight we have with us before we get into the consent calendar Jared Edwards. He is our new budget um director manager budget manager. And Jared, you want to just come up and say a few words and absolutely tell the crowd about yourself?

And he he is out of high school. I felt prepared and then you said that and then everything I was going to say just ran out the window. Um, thank you Mayor Randall. I appreciate the introduction. Um, one thing that you had mentioned during the interview process was you expressed your love and your admiration for the team that if I was hired I would get to work for. And one thing I can say having worked for many different teams and many programs um across the country and the world actually, I can definitely say that my first week in this office has shown me what a special team this is. Um working in the administrative building and even all of the other people I've met from the different departments. And so I'm just I'm extremely glad to have this opportunity. I'm very humbled by this opportunity to get to serve the people of of St. George in the community, but also to get to know all the wonderful people who are a part of making this community such a wonderful place. And so, if I haven't met you, I look forward to it. If I have met you, I hope you made a good impression. And yeah, I I look forward to it. I'm excited and eager to get going. And so, I'll leave it at that. Thank you very much.

I want you first to quickly tell the audience about your military service.

So, I you me I grew up in the area. I grew up in Hkin. graduated from Herkin High School. Um served a two-year church mission in Richmond, Virginia, speaking Mandarin Chinese. So, if there's any Mandarin Chinese speakers out there who would like to practice, I I love speaking Chinese. After returning, I went to Utah Valley University and did Air Force ROC program. Upon graduating that, I went to Laughlin Air Force Base. Um I actually went there for pilot training. Decided after having our second child that wasn't the right path for me. So we pivoted and went into finance and became a budget officer and then I went to Columbus, Mississippi um an air force another pilot training base there but for a different reason and then Boston Hansum Air Force Base in Boston worked on a $ 1.5 billion dollar highly classified project and so if you ever want to talk about that sometime maybe uh off the radars no phones just kidding I never disclosed that. Um, and then while at Boston, I I got tasked with a deployment to go to East Africa. So, I spent eight months as the East African What was the official title they gave me? The military loves their titles. East African Chief of Finance. So, that was kind of a a fun experience. I was the most senior finance person in all of Africa for the Air Force for those eight months. Uh, once again, a humbling position for sure. And so, that basically sums up my military experience. Well, we appreciate your service and your service now to the city of St. George. We're very honored to have you and you will thoroughly enjoy it here.

Thank you, ma'am. I appreciate it. Thanks.

All right, John. Corey John's mic's not working. First uh first item on the agenda is item number two, consent calendar. There's 17 items on the agenda this evening. Uh these are administrative items in nature. Staff's reviewed them, recommend approval. How or if the council would like to consider any of these um we're happy to remove those. Otherwise, we recommend approval with the exception of the re of the removal of item 2P.

Mayor, I would like to pull P as in Paul off for discussion. Any others that want to be pulled? Then I'm ready for a motion. Steve, did you have anything you wanted to pull?

Yeah, I'd like to just ask a couple questions uh about item C is in CAT and uh and maybe a couple based on that on uh J and K. Mayor, I'll make a motion that we approve the consent calendar as presented, removing items C, J, K, and P. Second motion by Danielle, seconded by Natalie. All in favor say I. I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Okay, let's discuss item number C.

This is my item I pulled off. This was the uh $4 9 million um I think it's is it the first or the just as a general comment the way that this Hughes document is structured is is pretty confusing or maybe I just don't know what I'm doing. It's it feels like there's situations within this where we are we are paying uh we're double dipping on some of the fees uh to the contractor and and I'm excited. Hughes is a great company and and I think they're doing a good job as we move forward, but specifically they've got their general conditions at 10% plus then they've got some other uh uh overhead and and those kind of things, which I thought general conditions covered overhead of your office and your staff and those kinds of things. So, I just would like to find out if someone from Hughes is here that could touch base on that, I would appreciate it. Jean looks like he's here and and he's wearing a tie. So, I like that.

Thank you. Uh, this was presented exactly the way that the RFP was was issued. So, there was uh specifically called out in the RFP for 1.5% for the overhead and 1.5% for the fee. That was specifically called out in the in the RFP 3%. Then the general conditions were the general conditions that was outlined in the RFP. So, the general conditions I'm seeing on page I'm sorry for interrupting you. On page 20, you've got general general requirements, uh, 498,025. Yes.

And that represents effectively 10% of the overall cost including the profit and overhead. No, the profit and overhead is down below that line item. So, as you look at that document, the line item number 01000 on page attachment B, that's $498,000. As you look at the specific spread sheet, and it notes what those requirements are in there, that's supervision, the on-site uh general conditions, which is the t the trailer, the you know the

Yes. So, so is the is the general requirements that are listed on page 20, first line item of 498025, is that the same as general conditions? General requirements, general conditions. Is those interchangeable? Yes, it is. That's the same. The only thing that's separate as you go look at page uh as you look at the summary and it would be page two, three, four, attachment B about page five or six back.

My packet is 785 pages long. So, it might be difficult to track that down, but let's go back to page 20 for a second. $498,025. If you take that times 10% or excuse me, if you divide that by 0.1, which is 10%, you end up with what you're showing is the base estimate total after profit and overhead of 4.984376 million. That's where I'm saying the your general requirements are 10% of everything including your overhead and profit. I don't know if that's is that is that how it's intended to be. And again, I don't see that particular line item that you're looking at. I'm looking at the summary and it calls out for three different line items on there. The general requirements which is 498,025. Yes. The earthwork component 1,330,171.

Yes. The exterior improvements 2,991,587. The general requirements are the specific things that was outlined in the RFP that was to be included as far as the general conditions. Those are typically the on-site and this the direct costs associated with the project. The fee, the 1.5% fee is 72,297 and the fee for the profit 1.5% 72297. Those were all established by your RFP. We have not added anything which I I agree with.

We've not added anything additional and we're not double dipping into anything. Then is it your are you are you telling me then that that 10% of your base estimated total being within a couple of dollars of the general requirements amount is just a coincidence. Uh yes it is because what happens is what there's another bid package still to go.

Oh I know. I know. So when you get to the next bid package, there will be no more additional general requirements that is are associated with the project. That covers the project complete from day one through day 365. So what they've done with this package is they've just strictly taken the general conditions for the 12-month construction period that you had outlined. That's what's included here. So yes, it it but when you add the entire project, the entire project will be roughly $10.5 million. So $498,000 is not 10%. That's 5%. Got it. Does that make sense?

It does. I was just And that's why I wanted some clarification from this because I took the 498,000 or the excuse me, the 4 9 uh 8. Yeah. The 4,819,783. No, no, no. the number you're your base for total at the bottom. Take that 4.984376 and multiply that by 10%. That is absolutely exactly your general requirements. That's absolutely coincidental because the overall budget is $10,500,000. So again, that would equate to roughly 4.8% of that total. Thank you very much for that clarification.

You bet. Anything else?

Okay. Thank you. J and K Steve. Um I just want to make sure that that we're all clear that the that the architectural and engineering fees are between seven and eight plus% on this project. And I that that to me feels like it's excessive. Maybe I'm mistaken. Maybe there was an agreement that they should be the way they are, but that feels excessive. There's nothing I want to change. I'm willing to vote for it as is because this is the general or the professional services agreement that we already went out and did. But I think we need to schedule a work meeting at some time in the future to talk about how we structure these types of fees because I think they um I think they're excessive. That's all I have to say.

Okay. And then item number P. So P is consideration for a fee waiver for the downtown farmers market. And I think it's awesome that we have a market. Um it's a huge driver for our small businesses here. I've actually had a booth a long time ago at the farmers market. So I appreciate the work that they do. A few years back, I'm sure you all recall, we as a council made the distinction between sponsorships versus fee waiverss. Um, which people can apply for either or or both. So, I do want to make it clear to the public that this is not a sponsorship. It's an application for fee waiver. With that said, I don't know if I'm alone in this, but I've received multiple emails, text messages with questions, concerns regarding the farmers market. And were this not up for a fee waver, I want to make it clear that this would not be a discussion. But when there's some level of taxpayer subsidy involved, if there's complaints or concerns about discrimination, I think it needs to be addressed. So, I would love to maybe talk with it looks like Cat Nashley are here, which is great, and discuss some of these complaints that have been pouring in, at least on my end. Someone can correct me if they've not received any complaints about people being trespassed from the market.

The complaints that I've received, which have been several, many, uh, have all appeared to be a cut and paste text message with the exact same language in it concerning uh, First Amendment rights and and people being in public spaces. Um, my understanding, and maybe our legal guy team can correct me if I'm wrong, that space during that special event is no longer quote unquote public space that anybody can just walk through at their leisure. I think that that those special special event holder uh event hold permit holders have some level of uh assurance or should have level of assurance from the city that their event will go off with uh without a hitch and that they'll be able to control the environment inside their space. Um I'm I don't want to see anybody's constitutional rights violated in any way, shape or form. I want to make that very clear. But uh I think that inside even on public property once you have a special event that has been approved the those special event permit holders should have some level of assurance that their event can go off without a hitch.

Yeah. And I think I think we've all talked about this because um you know we have been receiving these text messages. Uh I think the example that we've used is if I was to reserve the park for my wedding and then there was no level of reassurance that someone couldn't just walk right into that space and do whatever they wanted during my wedding celebration. So we do have to have a separation when people are reserving these spaces. So I don't know if Cat and Ashley want to share what their experience has been. There is one resident who we know has been trespassed and maybe the police department could share also what their experience was with that and how we're taking care of that. We do want to make sure that we protect people's constitutional rights and we also want people to be able to have an effective farmers market. So that's what we're trying to achieve.

Yeah. And I want to make clear too because I agree with your example of if you're holding a private event, even if it's on public property, you do have a certain level of protection of who you want to have come in and out of there. I think where the confusion has been on this particular situation and we have our legal expert here who can correct me if I'm wrong. I think some of the concern is coming in now with the fee waiver is if there's that added taxpayer subsidy involved of not just a private event but now there's a level of a fee waiver happening to assure that there's not truly, you know, we're going to trespass this person but not this person, but they're doing the exact same thing but maybe on different sides of the aisle. So I think that's where my question comes in is I just want to make sure that there's not, you know, some level of picking winners and losers as this is not necessarily a private wedding event, but there is a certain level of taxpayer involvement with the subsidy involved. Because if that fee waiver wasn't there, I don't think we would even be having this conversation or needing to address who's being allowed in and out of of an event. Um, one other thing too I wanted to read to just for the public as well is what our policy actually states and what we're actually considering um, here as a council in terms of fee waiverss. Any other, you know, markets, they can apply for a fee waiver. This is not a unique situation that we're making, you know, just specific to one group. We've had other markets in town actually that have also taken advantage of this as well because it is such a benefit for the community. So what our policy

actually says for us to consider in granting a fee waiver is number one um that the applicant provides evidence of their inability to pay fees or number two shows good cause that the event promotes the health, safety or welfare of the citizens and why the fees should be waved. and the event subsidized by taxpayers and number three provides evidence of other remuner reuneration can't say that or benefit that the city will receive in le of fees. So that's really what we're considering here but I would I would love to hear maybe what the experience has been from the downtown farmers market and from our law enforcement as well. First, Ryan, you're up. And then on deck, Chief Whitehead, and then Cap. So, that's correct. A special event permit is a time, place, manner restriction on uh government property. So, during the time of the event, the event space is considered private space. So, that's why we have insurance to cover it. These special event folks, they have insurance to cover our property. So whether or not the the city waves the fee does not really um endorse or not endorse the the activities of of the special event holder.

Ryan, if I'm correct, then it's a to them to decide who they're going to trespass or not. It's not the city's responsibility or action.

We treat it as uh it's private space. So when they are reserving it, that's why we have the special event proc the the permitting process. There is a use agreement which is essentially the rental agreement. And so it's up to the special event permit holder to determine what's the conduct within the confines of that time, place, manner, uh you know that space, whether it's at the park or at a city building or some other government property. And my understanding there are there they've posted and there are corner markers boundaries at their farmers market and the public is free to sit outside that boundary. I don't know like maybe you have to stay moving. You can't plant something. You can't put a table down. But you could sit at a park bench adjacent to that activity as or any other park but just not inside their space that

I've actually been to the farmers market when um it was during one of the elections when somebody was collecting signatures and they were inside the farmers market. Cat Ashley told them where they could be not in the farmers market. So the guy literally took his table and went outside the farmers market and kept collecting signatures. They have marked off with flags where it is. And then just a few weeks ago, a couple of people showed up to they're saying they're not protesting, but to engage with the public. And uh Cat and Ashley told them where they could do that and literally took their chairs from their booth and gave them their chairs and sat them just outside the farmers market space and let them sit there for the whole entire time of the market. So I think I think they're doing they're treating everybody fairly. I know that when the no kings protest was happening, there were people walking through with signs and Cat Nashley asked them to please leave. They weren't allowed to be there and they left. So that's the difference. And Chief can explain. If they're asked to leave and they don't, then that's when it kind of gets elevated to you guys. Good evening, Council and Mayor. Kyle Whitehead with the police department. So, I went back and I looked at some statistics from this past year. I was curious because I knew this item was going to be on the agenda. Keep in mind, we look at the farmers market like any private business because they've gone through the licensing process. We've worked with legal. They essentially own that space for that

period of time. And the people who are organizers, they can say what can and can't go within those boundaries. And so typically when we get called there, we're not there to enforce rules of the business or rules of the farmers market, our we're we're there to look for law violations. And just like any business, when someone is asked to leave and they refuse, that's criminal trespass. and which is what happened in the situation many of you are probably receiving emails about. Uh now keep in mind this individual had been told on many occasions including uh as we would respond that notified and informed of what the law is, what's allowed and what's not. And so it was after several attempts to gain voluntary compliance, this individual was cited. Uh in the last year, we have only had five incidences that I could find that were on record of our where we actually had to respond to the farmers market. Four people that were being disruptive, confronting people in booths, uh a number many number of things, but only five instances of the police were called out of however many farmers markets we have a year. So, uh, we're really not called there a lot. And keep in mind, there may be other interactions where people are approached by the farmers market staff. We would never get called because our expectation is they try and handle the situation first. Then if they can't get it resolved, then certainly notify us and we'll come and try and fix it. Chief, how many trespasses have there actually been of those five instances where law enforcement were called? Do you know how many of those resulted? Because it's my understanding. I mean, I

think like mayor mentioned the no kings protest when they came. I think police were there. They were asked to move and they did. Correct. So, no one was trespassed in that situation.

The only person I'm aware of was the one citizen. Uh, and then there may have been a person that that individual was with who may have also when I read the report it it kind of left it a little bit vague and I didn't go into the details to really verify. So, one for sure potentially a second who was kind of there videoing and kind of instigating things as well, but those were the only two that I'm aware of have been trespassed from the farmers market. Cat, you have anything you want to add? You don't have to if you don't want to. So, yeah, there's only one. The the second one ended up leaving and so we didn't trespass them. And we explain every single time, look, this is a community event. There are plenty of spaces where you can have different opinions and you can express those. But here we want to host an event where everyone can come feel welcome and enjoy and build community because that's what we fight for is communal spaces where everyone can be together and not think that it's us versus them. So, in our guidelines, in all of our operating standards, we've always maintained a neutral, like this is a community event. We asked very respectfully for them to just step outside the bounds. We asked repeatedly. This is not the first time we've encountered this individual. We all know that they know the rules again from three years ago because they we went through this same process and never ended up trespassing them then because they followed the rules. And so now it's recurring again. And that's the only time we've trespassed somebody. And part of the reason why we trespassed

it too is because we we would approach explain exactly what was happening. I would say you can go here, you can go there. I'll give you our chairs, which is I've offered it to every single signature collector, protester. I'm like, you are welcome to be here right on the outside just as long as it's not inside these bounds. You can use our chairs. And every time it's very combative and challenging and there's posts where they have called other people to come and do the same thing to us, there's a long line of evidence online that it is targeting towards us. And I just feel like for our safety at this point or even to maintain the businesses, I even told them one time, I was like, "Look, I'm I'm just my stance is I'm defending these businesses. You guys stood in this walkway for 30 minutes and I watched you and for 30 to 45 minutes while we tried to remove you. There was six businesses, one here, one in front of you guys, one here, and the other three on the other side that no one would even come near their booths. They'd turn around and walk away or somebody would walk through and not stop because they were like, I don't want to be recorded. I don't know what's going on. So, I was like, there's six businesses that for at least 45 minutes didn't have a single sale. So th I was like this is affecting their businesses in the middle of walkways where we have other community members trying to tr trying to go and it's also not something that's on our insurance. It's not something we cover and it doesn't and it doesn't meet our guidelines. So as long as you guys go outside the bounds, we're good. And that's been our experience. And we're just trying to run a farmers market. So, thank you for that. And I think we've had really good uh discussion and explanation. All all of this is the way

I understood it. I'm trying to I'm going to kind of take us back to why we're here. How many on average businesses or booths do you typically have at the farmers market? In the summertime, it drops down. It's like 60 to 70. And then in the winter time, sometimes we've been breaking 100, but right now it's like 80. And and how much is it to have a booth roughly? Um we keep it low. It's $25 for the farmers. It's 40 for bakers and 45 for artisans. So would it be fair to say by us waving our fee, it helps you to keep the fee down for all those small businesses? Yeah. Yeah. Perfect.

Because the only reason we've ever been able to keep it down without the fee waiver is because we've been able to get sponsorships. And this year, just with a lot of what's shifting and going on, it's been harder. So, there's definitely going to need to be a booth fee raise if we don't have a fee waiver. Perfect. Yeah. Thank you. And just one last to to go off of Jimmy's comment, you have had a couple of of um people who started at the farmers market that are now in brick andmortar stores.

Yeah, it's I think that the farmers market is absolutely critical not only in strengthening communities, but it gives these entry points. So you can start a restaurant with huge overhead and your profit margins in food are five to 10%. So you can start out with a ton of debt and hope that it works and hope hope that it builds or you can start at a farmers market, prove your concept, prove your product, gain a following and transition into brick and mortar. We've seen it with Sandtown. We've seen it with Noodles and Dumpling. We had we've had several that have gone or moved away, but we do have a lot of people that have started at the farmers market and now have brick and mortars.

Great great point, Mor. And last thing is what just for clarification, what's the fee amount that we're waving? It's I think it comes out to 20 grand a year of fees. Okay. I think it's $450 per event per event. And we would be willing, well I the council has all said they would be willing if another farmers market wanted to start up somewhere to wave those fees as well. There's a lot of cities that run their own farmers market and thank goodness Shane and Sadie are back there going, "Oh, no way that we're glad somebody else wants to do it."

And I think you should. I think every community needs their own farmers market. But we I I was introduced into St. George and that's where I started and I love the community that we built, but there should be more than one.

You know, when you brought up standing in front of a food booth and the the small percentage that people who sell food make and to take somebody out of the market really half the time they're there that day, the loss they suffer suffered personally was great. And I'm sensitive to that because we used to only frost stop on the boulevard and spring break would come and we'd lose two days of businesses because of the pedestrians on the street and the traffic and there was nothing really we could do about it. But it was hard on us as a business. But we had, you know, 300 other days of the years to work off and these people only have three or four hours on Saturday. And if you have fruit or vegetables that are going to spoil, what are you doing with them then? Yeah. Or bread. So for me it's unfortunate that this has happened and I hope that you know people will feel safe at the farmers market. We want them to do that. You know I gave you a lot of push back initially when I drive by when I see people when I see the sense of community. I was talking to somebody. I don't think sometimes people actually intend to really go there and buy a ton of tomatoes to do or whatever. But it's a it's a place where people could belong, where people can grab a snack, a drink, see their neighbors, see their community, and and that's really important to me in these city parks that we create something for everybody. And I feel like you've done been very responsible with this. I love how you have handled this because I think you have tried across the board to all these people you've mentioned today that you've tried to create say you don't have to leave the park. You just have to stand outside our boundaries and we're good.

Yeah. And I and and across the board you've said that to everybody and I and I believe that.

Thank you. to build on uh Councilman Hughes, Mayor Elect Hughes comments, um I just took those numbers, average of 75 booths. If each one of them did $500 worth of business, that'd be 37.50 times our 6.45% tax sales tax rate, that's $2,418 in sales tax. Now, I know that does not all come to St. George, but that comes into the community in different ways through the state and the county. If each booth only did $300 in business, that would be $22,500 in revenue and $1,451 in in just just sales tax. So, the the the other benefits of community and those other things aside, uh, Councilman Hughes got me thinking about the actual economic benefits and they are a multiple of the fees that are being waved.

Yeah. I was like, we you guys get a lot of the sales tax and it's great because and I'm so happy for them because we've had so many of our artisans like I've heard Ashley and I cry all the time at the farmers market. It's ridiculous. I'm almost 40 so it's must be parameopause. But they come up to us and they will tell us like, "I was working three or four jobs here and there, or I was working side hustles and kind of doing this as a passion, trying to juggle my kids, and I've been able to step away completely and have a second income off of working at the farmers market one day a week. So, you're providing a better quality of life for the artisans and for the bakers and for the farmers that are there. Obviously, the farmers need any outlet they can get, but it is bringing a lot of money into the community and a lot of tax dollars back.

Final thing I'm going to say, uh, Cap, um, when you guys applied for a fee waiver, I called Shane and said, "How how much time are we having to spend down there?" and he said, "You guys are the best renters they've ever had. They never have to come in and clean up after you or anything." So, thank you. And Shane just gave you a thumbs up. We appreciate that you respect the park and I think you're running a great market. People love it. Um, it is a sense of community down there and so keep it up. And with that, are we done with the consent calendar?

Wait, not yet. I have Oh gosh. Okay. I have a question for Ryan. And I appreciate too that Yeah, I'm I don't have any questions for uh

Yeah. And I I appreciate that the city is not running the farmers market and that there's people willing to do that and provide the opportunity. I have a question with the policy actually and maybe this is something we need to clean up for future but where it has the bullet points under the fee waiver of one two three that provides evidence of their inability to pay. Is that mandatory or is that an or number two on the policy which would be or shows good cause but there's no and or. I'm just wondering if that's actually required because I mean it's my understanding that sometimes the fees have been waved, sometimes they haven't with the particular downtown farmers market. There's been sponsorships that have helped. So I'm just wondering if that's something we need to clean up for future if we are waving the fees in this situation. Would they have to technically our policy show an inability to pay the fees? So, this is in the city code. So, it's not a policy. It's it's our code. Um, and it's a semicolon. So, and I love arguing about a good semicolon. Um, but I would say that because we have an and in there that the inability to pay. And I didn't hear this, but I would assume that the farmers market might lose some artisans if the fees weren't waved. And so, and we've heard that there were sponsorships that they lost and so or that it would be raised. So, inability to pay, I think, I think that's up for you to determine if if that meets it. But I would say that those three things need to all be addressed. I think that we need to that's a really great point that Michelle brought up and I think we need to change it to an andor because just below this fee waiver we have the fee waiver for the dove center and we've

never required any of those groups to show us that they couldn't pay right like we're basically saying we understand this as a benefit to the community that's why we're waving the fee so I think that we need to clean that up

with All that being said, do I have can I get a motion? I'll make a motion, mayor, that we approve the remainder of the consent calendar as presented, items C, J, K, and P. Second. Motion by Danielle, seconded by Steve. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Item number three is a public hearing and consideration of resolution number 2025-029R to review and approve amendments to the fiscal year 2025 and 26 budget.

Good evening, mayor and council. Tonight's budget amendment has four items on it. Two of those items uh we will actually not be presenting tonight. Those were related to item 2B which was pulled off to tonight's agenda. So I will present the remaining two items for your consideration. Item one is a st a request from staff to amend the budget for professional service costs associated with the construction of a new animal shelter. Uh the PSA that was on tonight's agenda was in the amount of $285,000. This year's budget included $75,000 in the budget for the remaining cost of the original needs assessment, but also initial design costs. Uh we actually have a balance of $59,000 available from that funding. And so we would request to amend the budget amount of $226,000 to fully fund that PSA that was on tonight's agenda. Funding for this request from come from our general capital project fund fund balance uh for that item. Item three uh which is the second item uh for your consideration in tonight's budget amendment is a request from our community parks and community services department to add funds uh for the prefabricated pedestrian bridge structure for the lizard wash park was which is another item on the consent agenda. Um the in November 2023 voters approved a $29 million geo bond that funded a number of trails, parks, and park facility improvements throughout the community. The lizard wash park was one of those projects. This is a community park planned desert color community. This parks includes a bike park, playground, pond, pickle ball court, pavilion, and restroom facilities. The total all over overall budget for the project will be $5 million. The fiscal year 26 budget only included $150,000 in it for initial design work. Uh staff would request to amend the budget in the amount of $29,541 to fully fund the pedestrian bridge portion of that project. Uh the future

future uh we'd come back to staff with future budget openings as we get further along in that project. Uh funding for that project would come from our geo bond uh funds that were issued in 2024. And with that, that completes my two items for council's consideration. Happy to answer any questions you may have. Questions for Robert? Not. I'm ready for a motion. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion. Public hearing. It's public hearing. Sorry.

I know. I asked. I know. So, I will open the public hearing for anyone who has come to comment on item number three. Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing. And now I'll take a motion. Mayor, I would like to respectfully make a motion that we approve item number three, resolution number 2025 0 29R as uh presented by staff. Second. Was that you, Natalie? Mot motion by Steve, seconded by Natalie. Resolution calling for a roll call vote. Starting with Natalie. Natalie Larson. I

Jimmy Hughes I Danielle Larkin I Michelle Tanner I Steve Kempi. Motion carries unanimously. Item four, consider approval resolution number 2025-030R to amend the master fee schedule for fees related to the pass through rate from the Washington County Solid Waste District. And Tiffany will present this item.

Good afternoon. Good evening. Um, so the board of the water Washington County solid waste district did approve an increase of 2.5% to the garbage and blue can rates. This is just an increase on the their portion of the bill. The city's admin portion is not being proposed to uh be increased. The net effect of this is an increase of 34 cents per month per customer for garbage and 16 cents per month for recycling. So 50 cents a month if a customer has both services. We're all on that board, so we knew this was coming. Ready for a motion or a question?

Do you have a question, Steve? Well, I can make a motion that we approve item number four, resolution number 2025-03R to amend the master fee schedule for fees related to the pass through rate from the Washington County Solid Waste District. Second motion by Michelle, seconded by Steve. All in favor, starting with Steve. Steve Kemp. I Michelle Tanner. I Danielle Lurin, I Jimmy Hughes, I Natalie Larson, I. Motion carries unanimously.

Item five, public hearing and consideration of ordinance number 2025-109 to add the name Tech Ridge Parkway to the existing numbered street 250 West Street from from 1190 South to 1300 South. And West Jenkins has this item.

I don't know. I'm so this is the new east access road that's being built and so right now it's 250 uh west and so what the applicants requested was to um add the addition of Tech Ridge and so it's a city council action and it's also a public hearing. Thanks John. Sorry I'm going to open the public hearing. Thank you

for any that all of us who have come to comment on item number five. Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing and come back to you council for a motion. I'll make a motion to approve ordinance 2025-09 to add the name Techridge Parkway to the existing numbered street, 250 West Street from 1190 South to300 South. I'll second motion by Natalie, seconded by Steve. All in favor, starting with Natalie. Natalie Larson. I Jimmy Hughes, I Danielle Larkin, I. Michelle Tanner, I Steve Camp I. Motion carries unanimously.

Item number six, consider approval of a property exchange of real property to quality development LLC for city property along a banded hill banded ridge drive.

Okay. you, as you may remember, last council meeting, we came for they came forward with the request to amend that uh rockfall hazard line. So, it was right here in the pink before and the request was to push it out to where it is shown now on this map. Just kind of giving you some context of where you are. So, the request and as you may recall a couple years ago, Quality Development donated to the city all that hillside property. So, with the adjustment of that line, they're requesting to have the city um deed back to them this portion of the property behind these lots with the anticipation that they'll amend the plat and each one of those lots will purchase that property.

Questions for Wes? If not, I'm ready for motion. Mayor, I'll make a motion that we approve a property exchange of real property to Quality Development LLC for property for city property along Banded Ridge. Second motion by Danielle, seconded by Jimmy. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries.

Item number seven, consider approval of revisions to the city's hangar lease policy. All right. Good evening, mayor and council. Uh before you is the latest copy of the hangar uh lease lease policy. As you're aware, um in this policy, we use the term lease to describe the property agreement. This may be appropriate in some context, but with the FAA, um they use the the term lease, and this policy in front of you has has the change to the to uh revisions to that for that change. As we go down through here, um, I've highlighted the sections, um, inside this, uh, like in, uh, if if you follow down with me in the in 3.2, um, where it states not a ground lease. Um, what we did is we went through here and we simplified this terms, is it can it be a pressed in the lease agreement? And we plan on putting that in a part of the form inside the lease agreement on how um the proper the proper way to not record on airport property.

Dustin, while you're so sorry to cut you off, but while you're on that particular point, because that was actually a question I had was Yeah. If it's not a ground lease, then what are they leasing?

Yeah. So what what they are leasing is the right to the property. The FAA will not let us encumber the property at all. The FAA says that we the city has to be in control of the property. And if we let somebody record against it, then we lose control of that property, whether it's to a bank or to a mortgage company or or what have you. And so in FAA compliance with the grand asurances, we're not allowed to encumber the property. So that's an FAA Oh, sorry. I was going to say an FAA requirement that will be clarified further in the actual lease with the individual. Okay.

Yeah. And and the current lease does talk about those encumbrances.

Just some some background. Um, I worked with Dustin and the legal team on this quite extensively and one of our primary concerns um was that we as of today we have a trusted that has been filed against property inside the airfield inside the park or the the fence which is in violation of FAA regulations. The reason for originally take calling it a a license versus a lease was to try and make it very clear that people would have to that they would be borrowing money against their improvements sitting on the ground. Um with after further clarification on the grant asurances calling it a lease, it doesn't matter whether we call it a lease, a license, an agreement to use as long as we are very clear and it is clarified more clearly in the actual lease agreement between the parties. This policy is not signed by anybody. It is a general policy for how we're going to really this policy's purpose was to create how we created a wait list because we had a very long line list of people who were interested in building a hanger and we did not have that many hangers available or pads to build hangers available and so we were trying to create a policy on how we would fairly uh distribute those hanger pads as they became available. It expanded into some of these other areas, but that was the main purpose was one to set up how the weight list works, which we did. And the weight list went from 70 people down to Dustin 30 35

I think. I think we're even below 30 now.

Okay. We have 30 people on the wait list um for all different kinds of reasons. And then and then secondly, we wanted to put people on notice with this policy that they would not be able to borrow against the land itself. Even in a lease situation, if you have a leaseold interest, you can borrow against that your leaseold interest in the ground, not just the fee simple interest, which most of us do when we get a mortgage on our home, is we are borrowing against the fee simple interest in the land, not the leaseold interest. The FAA will not allow either of those types of borrowing to happen. And anybody I know that uh Councilman Hughes has been involved in the mortgage business in the past. One of the most difficult things to do is to get a lender to remove or reconvey their trusted or mortgage on piece of property because there's really no motivation for them to do that in an expeditious manner. So that's where we're trying to head that off. Yeah, that's that's correct. Um even even if you look at the terms of our lease, um the FAA doesn't like us to go past a 50-year lease. That's like the max because they want us to retain ownership of said property. And and and and that's that's FAA guidance. Um and then if you go down to uh let's let's go down we'll skip down to 3.5. Um the termination um um yeah so on the termination 3.5 these terms can be detailed in the new lease agreement. We figured that this would just simplify this this uh this policy and that is something that we plan to go over and when somebody comes to get a lease, we plan to sit down with them, talk about the encumbrance problem that we have out

there and the proper filing for that. and then also to go over um the terminations and the details in the in the new lease agreement versus versus lengthening this policy out. That was a great change by the way. That was one of my concerns in voting against the last policy back in May was that section was a big part of it. So, thank you for simplifying that. Yep. Abs. Absolutely. We want things simple. Um when you go down to let's see here. Let me grab this 3.6.1. Um, talking about uh Hey, Dustin, can we go back to 3.7? Yeah, absolutely.

It says it needs to be done within two years of the date on 3.7. The hanger needs Oh, the hanger construction itself. Yes. So, we have, not that anybody wants to have it returned, but something happens with materials with a natural disaster, there is a way for them to put something in writing to say we need six additional months, something to that effect. Because sometimes people have said, well, I don't know, something happens and we're just short of two years, then our lease is terminated. That has been a concern that's come up.

Yeah. and and and inside that um if they can show like like for instance like steel tariffs right now um that's that's a prime example of people and supply and demand problems. We know those problems exist. Um you know the city is in construction, right? We build things we understand where these problems lie with inside the city and yeah it is it's my intent to work with the original lease holder. I do not want to to take somebody's lease from them. Um if they're productively after uh productively uh building the hanger and accomplishing that then yes absolutely will work with them. I don't think that's anybody's intent on the council to to to to take action on something like that. again um looking at the the the policy versus the actual agreement the the legally binding agreement between the the landlord i.e. the city and the the hangar owner or the hangar builder. Uh I think there will be further clarification about this item in the lease itself. So that will be where that language will be spelled out more fully about you know what the procedures are to to extend whether it's you know steel tariffs or some other act beyond their control. Uh

that's the that's the place for it to be spelled out.

Right. And and part of that problem could be sorry this thing's trying I'm trying to judge what how far I should be off of this. I feel like I'm eating it and then it starts popping. Um the uh so part part of the part of the education process that we got to do with the with the hanger owners out there is the proper way to gain financing. Um right now I've been working on a on a hanger sale for the last three months with an individual that's trying to buy a hanger and they can't obtain the financing the way that the FA would like it obtained. Now in those type of circumstances, absolutely. like we're not like it's not my it's not our interest and it's not the city's interest to to you know that time started six months ago when we finally got financing right. What what the intent inside this is is the people that do start to build something finishes it so that the city isn't inheriting somebody else's project. That's the intent here. Dustin, I appreciate what you're saying with 3.7 and that you are willing to work with people if there's supply chain issues, things like that. I'm wondering, do we need to clarify that within the policy so that if you are extending someone three, four years, there's not confusion or concern that one person's being offered that and the two years is being forced on someone else. Do we need to add something to that language?

I I would say that that we should we should address that in the lease agreement itself is is where that binder should be um versus versus just in this policy. But yes, yes, it's something that we that we can add some language to to accommodate that.

Dustin, I had one question on 3.6.1. This is one that we discussed um in our some of our meetings, but the airworthy condition, do you feel like that's adequately covered now in the 3.6.2 where if someone was doing, you know, similar to what you've just been discussing, if they were doing a long-term repair and their their um plane was not in airworthy condition, that 3.6.2 adequately covers that and gives you the leeway to allow them to continue to repair it. Yeah, absolutely. I think and and that's that's a case by case basis too, just like we talked about with the steel tariffs. Um, for instance, uh, you know, Lycoming is having a hard time getting engine parts right now

and and I'm aware of those things and if they just, you know, want to have that communication with me, there's there's no problem there. Absolutely no problem. But again, it's spelled out. it will be in the lease agreement where those those terms are spelled out so people don't have to worry about oh well we we just have to rely on Dustin being a benevolent leader we that'll be spelled out in the agreement and they'll know exactly what they need to do to get those extensions yes that's correct

while we're on 3.6 so on 3.61 61 where it says no less than 20% ownership. Is there an issue with this precluding possible nonprofit flying clubs? I know we have nonprofit flying clubs already out there. Is that going to potentially preclude any of those?

Right now, I'm working with an a nonprofit flying club coming into the airport and this hasn't precluded them from being able to operate. Um, this doesn't No. If they if they if if if the owner of the aircraft gives authorization for somebody to come in and fly that aircraft, then they get airfield access. That's that's how that works. Like we don't we don't preclude anybody. You know, if if you were to own the airplane and you want Steve to go out and fly it and you give Steve that authorization, it's a huge mistake. I was going to say I would not recommend that.

And then Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. because you're the owner of the aircraft or the LLC, whoever owns that aircraft, absolutely they have the right to be able to access that aircraft. Um, in 3.6.2, um, uh, in the middle of that, you'll see that there is a based aircraft must be flown at least once every 12 months. We cannot enforce that. That is not an airport enforcement item. Um that is something that I overseen uh that I didn't that I overlooked the last time we were doing this and yes we cannot we cannot force somebody to fly their aircraft. Um instead their aircraft has to remain in an airworthy state. So, that brings me to another one of my questions because I went back and watched the meeting that we had in May when this was approved and I voted against it because I had some concerns, but it was pared multiple times in that meeting that outside legal counsel had approved this as meeting all FAA standards and requirements. But now obviously there's some issues in here that actually don't meet FAA requirements. Is this the same outside legal counsel that told us it was okay before?

So in that in that context, I was doing what I was instructed to do and they being the attorney were adhering to what we were asking for. Okay. So those conversations and how that transpired um that's what we were what what we were asking to put in the policy and so and so that's that's where that come from is is that was a mistake on my behalf that I should not have have I should have caught that that should even have went to legal counsel I should have caught that

but in your defense it should have been the legal expert that the out whoever that's why I'm wondering is it the same out I don't know what outside legal expert that we used that was versed in FAA but if they read through it and gave everyone enough confidence to pass it to me that's just concerning that we were given that legal advice then and then now it's obvious that there were some issues with the FAA and I'm not haunting you for that in fact you didn't say that at all in that meeting but there was multiple people who did say that in the meeting regarding the outside legal counsel. So, that is just concerning because, you know, I was concerned about it back then as well. And I'm glad to see these changes being made.

Yeah. And that's and that that's I understand my job more now than I did back in May. Let's just put it that way.

Um, okay. Then, if we go down to um uh let's go down to 3.9.2. Um that this is the this is a sub lease fee um that that we're that we're we're saying instead of putting it in the in the policy that we would just attach it to the master fee schedule that you guys approve every year. That way you guys see it. That way you guys know what's going on. Um and yeah, I know that you're gonna want to talk about this too. So let's just let's just go. Let's just talk about it. Right. So, yeah, that that's been a concern. The sub lease fee. I've heard that concern from uh others out at the airport. I know obviously the lease fee, you were great and sent out a comparison of of those fees. And I don't feel like we are uh charging an extreme amount in terms of lease fee, but I do question the sub lease. It sounds like it's kind of a per airport basis, not something that's standard necessarily across the board to have that subleasase fee. And so I wonder if that's something that we even need to have in there as far as covering. I mean, obviously the airport is highly subsidized by the federal government and grants and um user fees, which I actually appreciate that about the airport is that it does run off of user fees. So, is this an area that we could potentially help those general aviators and um you know, small businesses out there by eliminating those subleas fees?

Yeah, absolutely. fees. Fees always can help help with that, right? And eliminating fees as you guys talked about the farmers market, right?

Could I comment on that? I've given this quite a bit of thought about the the policy of the the monthly leasing fees uh versus other types of fees. And if if we look at the amount of revenue that would actually be generated um by every single person subleasasing a space and every single either shade structure or lease, it's to me it's not a significant enough amount and I would propose that we w uh strike that fee from the section 9.2 9 point three excuse me 3.9.2 to um remove it from the fee schedule and that there won't be a subleasasing fee charged for uh leases of airplane space.

I like that change. Okay. Does that work for you, Dustin? Oh yeah, absolutely it does 100%. In my mind, it's just not worth that that juice isn't worth the squeeze,

right? Okay. And then um we let's see we went down I can't remember exactly where we were. Um 3.9.1. Um this is just referring to that the that if that if somebody sells a hanger and that started in 2012 that they just assume that original start date when they purchase that hanger. That is what that is referring to. And that is that is in in uh uh FAA compliance manual that we have to do that. And so we just wanted to clean that up and make Which section are you in? I'm sorry. Uh 3.9.3. Thank you.

Yep. Um and then uh 5.1 we just eliminated the how to get on there because we've already got the the hanger weight list uh going and so we just decided it didn't belong in the policy and we could just make it a little bit shorter. So and people can get on the wait list now that it exists now that it has been loaded to the website and is there and the pol and and that that process has been set up. Uh it's there's I agree with your position here. There's no need to further belabor it. Yep. Okay. Awesome. If there's any other questions,

Dustin, before we move too far, so back on 3.93, I'm wondering where it says it's the intent of the city to use those fees for airport purposes. If we strike that and say the city shall use fees for airport improvements and maintenance just to give that reassurance that yes, it will be used for those purposes. I mean, it's it's not going to be used for other purposes anyway, but that way it provides the public to that reassurance that it it will be used for this, not just our intent.

Yeah, that's that you're you're exactly right. It's it's a way for us to to the people that are using it. Um, if somebody sells a hanger and they leave the airfield, well, they're not using it anymore. And then that gives us a way to to fund asphalt improvements, pavement maintenance, and stuff like that. And yes, absolutely, we can that we can make that change. Hang on. I've got a few more. I've got to look back over my notes. Make sure what we missed here. Okay, back on 3.4. Similarly, where it says shall be increased, changing that to may be increased.

I would disagree with that. We're only raising the fees once every 5 years. Our current fees are how much per square foot right now was 25 25 cents per square foot per year which is how much average for a pad? $1,800 a year. Yeah. An 80 by 80. Yeah. I I think it is it is vital that we have that every fiveyear increase and that it is consistent across the board and we have a whole bunch of leases that are already in place that have this language in it. that that we don't want to be backtracking on the 100 plus lease. How many leases do we have on the airfield? Uh I couldn't even tell you. A lot. It's over a hundred.

A lot. We would have to unwind some of those things. If we were to I I just think that this type of fee raise is part of how you look at your long-term Yeah. So revenue. So, um, grant assurances require me to, um, and my rates and charges to be sustainable as possible. Y, and that's that's this allows me to be able to do that and comply with grand assurance 24.

Okay. Yeah. And I'm not disagreeing that there needs to be fee increases. Just when I saw that it shall be, I thought, well, are there ever circumstances where we don't need to? So, you're saying it's it's set. We definitely need to in those increments. Yes. There's not going to be times where it wouldn't make sense. Yeah, we do. We We would need to to keep that keep that going.

Okay. a five cent increase or whatever it whatever the increase is only happening once every five years on such a minimal lease. I think it's something that we honestly I think that the the fees are for the padded hanger pads are below market and that is what has created the uh frenzy that we had for a while for people wanting to get their hands on these hanger pads because it provided opportunity still does provide opportunity for people to uh acquire a hanger pad build a hanger and then make substantial amount of money on the sale of that hanger. Uh I I'm not opposed to people doing that. There's people that don't want to build their own hanger. There's want people that just want to be able to step in and buy a hanger. And I and that's part of the that's where maybe the free market steps in. And I appreciate that. I do not ever want to see the city get in the business of building and selling hangers because we do have private individuals with throughout the community that are willing to do that and we shouldn't be competing with that private industry.

Yep. I agree. Um, also, uh, in changes in rates over time, um, this is out of the airport compliance manual. Um, a sponsor has not foreclosed from them revisiting its rental rate structure from time to time. So, in the in the AFA compliance manual, um, they state that the airport needs to be able to adjust those rates on an as needed basis.

Okay. One last thing on 5.3 regarding the weight list, which I completely understand why we need the weight list, the high demand. I'm in agreement with that. Some concerns that I have heard, however, is the um ones who already own a hanger being essentially bypassed on the list. So not really having a full first come first serve basis if there already is ownership being analogous to you know someone owns a condo so now they can't purchase a home type of situation is how I've heard it compared or concerns that way. Is there any appetite to look at making it strictly first come first serve regardless of current hanger ownership?

That's I'm I'm afraid that we are going to rewind the clock and go back to what happened

because it's already been going that way for the last that as well as we have many of the people that are on the list. Once we work through this weight list, then there then people that already have a hanger that want to get another one and do what we just spoke about, which is go through the the process of building a hanger and then either leasing or selling that hanger, they will be able to do that. But until we work through our backlog of a whole bunch of people that are standing in line that want a hanger that have no access to the airfield and have a plane, I think we have to service those people first so that they have access to the airfield. That's part of we're required to give everybody equal chance to do that per the grant asurances. Correct.

Yes, that that's correct. And then and um inside that too um some of the individuals that already have a hanger out there that have other aircraft that they are currently building um they are on the hanger weight list. We didn't we didn't we didn't blackball them from that list. Um those individuals are on the list but we are servicing those that do not have access to the airfield for their private plane first. first. Yes. Yeah. How many air how many based on the current uh plans on tax on the west taxi way with the hangers that'll be built out there? How many hangers are we going to be able to pads are we going to be able to provide in the next year?

38 and there's 30 on the wait list. Uh there's it's less than 30. Oh, there's less than 30 and we're scheduled to have 38. Yep. Available. Okay. Yeah, we once we've burned through the wait list, we'll then then it's then it's an open, you know, then then the the being, you know, just being on that list, someone could just be always on the list if they wanted. Yeah. And that's the that's the intent of that list is it opens it up once we get through that list and and then Yeah. is is is

well then it'll it'll go back to precoid era where you know we had plenty of hanger pads and people would come in ask for a hanger pad and we would say great here's the map pick your spot pay your fees have a nice day yeah my fear is we're never going to get through that list if we don't pass a policy and get moving I'm I'm with you okay I'm having a great time here if I can stay here all Right. Sorry. Good question. So, I'm not I'm not faulting that. Hey, nobody else wanted a work meeting, so we got to do it here, Jimmy. Yep. I I love it. And I think we're good with it now.

Okay. Awesome. We'll uh we'll uh go to work. Thank you. So, mayor, I think I heard maybe there's three head nods that on 3.9.2 two to strike the last sentence and in 3.9.3 to amend the sentence to quote all fees associated with an agreement shall be used by the city for the motion purposes. Yes. Yeah. I would go ahead and make a motion to that effect if you're okay with that, mayor, that we approve uh with those changes the revised city hanger lease policy. Second.

You sure you don't want further discussion? No. I don't think your mic's working. Hey, the mayor was kicking me, making me say all that, by the way. She was ready to be done. Yeah. Um, my mic quit working. Just FYI out there. Um, motion was made by who? Jimmy. Seconded by Natalie. All in favor say I. I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously.

Item eight, consider approval of ordinance number 2025- 110 amending section 4 construction standards in the St. George city standard specifications to address an overall update to section 4. Okay. As you know, um the standards and specs have about eight sections to them. We've been working on one through four for about a year and a half now. We just decided to get four done and out of the way as it has the biggest impact. And so this we'll come back with one through three. This will actually become section three because we're going to combine one and two and then three will become two and this will become three. So that is one change. So basically we've gone through all of section four. I know if you look at the red lines, it looks like it was a complete overhaul. There was a Yeah, it was. So, the last time the standards and specs were updated was in 1999 2000. So, things have changed a lot since then. And so, there was kind of a Yeah, a little bit. We were all younger then. So, anyway, so it it's changed and so we went through that process with the geotechnical engineers and they modified it where they needed to bring it up to standards and so forth. And so that's why you see so many changes and and also it's the way we um way construction is done now and so forth. There really were only three big changes that that would affect the development world per se. Uh one of them was let me see if I can find this. So right now the way the standards read is when we do a geotechnical study for a road the standards say base it on um you base it on a traffic index which then tra which then translates to average daily traffic and we've been doing that for years and that's where you get um

the three. So right now when you pull it up right now this is basically your minimum thicknesses of asphalt and road base based on a road. So that's your minimum and then after that your study if it requires more then you know then you have to abide by the study because the study just tells you hey you're not meet you can't meet your minimums here. Rarely do we see that and unless it's really poor soils. Um, as we met with the geotechnical engineers, they said, "Hey, we need to change this. Your thickness, your pavement thicknesses are too small right now. They're too thin. Um, we need to really do this based on a truck loading." So, based on your eels, your equivalent single access loads. And so, we need to change how we're doing it. So, we went through that process with them. And, um, this is what they came back with. So, you can see that. So now the asphalt thickness for an industrial local is seven as a minimum six and a half six and a half on a arterial major six on a arterial minor right now it would be four uh major collector would be I think three and a half and then the others go three two and a half two and a half anyway as so as we talked that through and felt like yeah that's the approach we need to do we need to change that go to a truck lo truck look at trucks. They're really the impact to our pavement more than just your standard vehicle. So, as we did that, we looked at that, felt like, woo, that's a big jump and that could cause some real concerns with the development world and it could cause increase in out, you know, in development and home prices and so forth. So, what we decided as public works that what we would do is we would hold to this to the what they are right now. The only changes in these three, these two right here, these three right

here I should say, they're now right now in our code or in our our spec there, two and a half is your minimum. Um, we're bumping them to three because we feel like that's where it needs to be regardless. And so we would not help out. Public works would not help out in those. But as you do your geotechnical report, you'll come back and it'll hopefully it'll say based on doing it on based on the truck loads, the amount of truck traffic, they'll show up as a minimum is this. Now, it may get more, but that that'll be where your minimum is at. Now, we felt like so it's for instance, so there's that church that they're building along 3000 East right there where uh Crimson Drive tides in just a little bit there where anyway, if you look at that, they had to improve a portion of 3000 East. If we kept with these minimums, they would be required to put in 6 in of pavement over 10 inches of road base. they're bit the the church doesn't create that kind of road traffic and truck traffic, but it's just that they're located on an arterial road. So, we felt that was unfair. So we've made the decision and so what we put in here is the city or public works for major collectors all the way through industrial locals public works would pay the difference from what they're at now to what they are shown in the geotechnical report with these being these being the minimum and the reason we felt good about that again it's like the uh church um what I was telling you It's about on Horseman Park right over there.

Yeah. Yeah. So is that example, you know, they really don't generate that kind of truck traffic. And so we felt like we really want the thicker pavement. It'll help and the road base is it'll help make the roads last longer. So we felt like public works ought to pay for should pay for that increase on those type of roads because they generate traffic more than just for their business. They generate it for, you know, it's traffic coming through there for other other businesses. So that was one change we felt like since you bring that roadway up though. It's a five lane road and how it goes back into the industrial park one day or the other.

How do you justify that right there? Because there are trucks that go up and down that road. There's a lot of construction trucks that go up and down that road. Right. I know the intent of the church isn't that, but that is a major road and there is a lot of trucks that go up and down that road. Like I could see if it was on Crimson Ridge Drive that would be different, but 3000 is a heavily used road. And when they bring up those cement trucks, all the stuff up that road, it it does create some tracks in the road. Wes, aren't you saying that you actually will do the thicker pavement, but they just the city will pay the difference?

Right. So, we would go back to what's in our standard now based on just traffic loads, not and we'd go back to this. So, on that one right there, they would be responsible for the minimum three and a half. So, when you go ahead,

so just real quick, I think help clarify. So, we're not able to require them to put in more payment than what their use would require. And so if their use has a certain impact, that's what they're required to put in. And anything above that, the city would step in and put in that pavement. And so in that situation, um the church would have a certain amount of uh pavement that they'd have to do based on that use. And what this is proposing is to to um increase that pavement with because we know there's a lot of truck traffic. And so instead of us having to go in the future and repave that uh street, we're able to go in now at a cheaper cost, pay the difference to have an increased um amount of asphalt, and it saves us money in the future.

Correct. Thank you. So that's kind of what we're after on that one. So that was one big change. The other change is just to um right now, and I'll try to keep this short because it's super boring. Right now, when we do when you go out and you you're doing your road base and that you have to do a a gradation, and I'll show you right here. I hate to bore you, but anyways. So, I'm just going to do it really quick. So, let's say on a half inch, you come in, you're doing a grade one. This is for your road base. You you're supposed to be in 79 to 91% of that should pass or should Yeah. should pass through that civ. And so if yours is, let's say it's uh 80 right here on that half inch, you have a tolerance of plus or minus 11. So it can either come in at 91 or it can come in at um what's 11 minus 80? 69. And uh so make sure John knew my maths right. So anyway, so that's where you would fall. The problem we're having is we we get for it's just the way it is right now with gravel and that we're not having we don't have the best gravel anymore that we used to have and we had it in abundance and so we're starting to see where it creeps outside of those areas and it creeps out of like the it's like instead of 80 you're getting down I mean instead of 70 you're now getting in at 68. Well, what the what the code allow or what the specs allow now is okay, you're out of your compliance. What you can do is just run a CBR test which determines strength of your road base and then a sand equivalent which return which determines, you know, its ability to drain it. Well, they never fell those tests and I've been getting a lot of heat from the inspectors over the years about this. they never failed those tests and so we just approve it and move on even though it's substandard

roadbase. So what we've done is we've we've changed it so that uh let me see if I can find it. It's right I think. So what we've done is we've changed it and I don't have that. We've we've put in there now where we have uh so this would be your acceptance limit. So let's say you came in on that one just before. So you're you're during your testing it came in at 80. You're now below the 69. That's the you know the 11%. Let's say it came in at 67. Then the city would require you to still do a CBR or or a and a sand equivalent test. If you were lower than that, up to 15%. If you were and if it passed, great. We'd let you. But if you get more than two of those, then we would say, "No, you're out of compliance, even though you've passed in the suspension limit." This would give them a little little buffer, but they can't have more than two into that buffer. And then we'd make them stop and go get new road base. However, if it goes below the suspension limit, you're out. Stop immediately. You have to go get a new source for your road base and go through the whole testing process. So we're just trying to tighten that up a little bit so we get a better roadbased section which you know which is very important to the support of your road. So that's what that's another change that they'll have to really will really watch now and it will affect them because they are out of compliance a lot but they're running those tests and they're meeting them and so we're tightening that up to get a better road base in there to help our roads last longer. So that would that's another change. And then again, the rest of them are pretty minor changes. So, those are really the two big ones that will affect the contractors. Um, but the first one, like I said, we've proposed that the public works just pays for the

cost difference in the asphalt and roadbased thicknesses.

Wes, do we have any sort of projections on what kind of um how much that's going to cost the city? Uh no, but it shouldn't be too great because you know if you look at it um 80 I don't know what the percent but it's a high percentage of your roads. So so it will increase the so right now like I said the local right now is two and a half two and a half and two or two and a half on the collector. And so we're going to hold them to doing that portion of it. We've increased it to half an inch on all three of those and the roadbase. And that's where the majority of your roads are. And so that's where you'll, you know, they'll have to absorb that cost because we feel like, hey, we've been short all along. We, you just need to step up and start paying. But as far as the other roads, the major collectors and arterials, it shouldn't impact development too much because we don't see those very often. Most of your uh major collectors and your arterials are almost built out. really the only one coming in that's an arterial street would be Gap Canyon Parkway and we're going to end up helping build some of that anyways and work with the developer. So, it shouldn't have that big of an impact on development.

I guess my question is more like we're basically by doing this we're adding expense to the city, but I'm I'm thinking that we could also prove long term that we're reducing expense. Correct. So, I guess that's more what my question is is or can we show the public that yes, we're adding thickness, we're adding depth to the pavement, but we're able to show the data on why that makes sense because we're saving money long term,

right? Because really, we're saving on the long term when repairing a road or going in there and, you know, actually tearing up the road and reconstructing it. And and I don't think we've really run a number on that. We could do that and look at that what that cost savings is what we project how long the road will last relative to how much they're how long they're lasting now. We could look at that. We haven't really run any numbers on that. I mean, it would be good for us to know that because if it's cheaper to do, you know, the thinner pavement and just repair it, it would just be good for us to be able to show why we're choosing this route.

Okay, we can look into that. Other questions for Wes? Ready for a motion? I'll make a motion to approve ordinance 2025-110 amending section 4 construction standards of the St. George standard and specifications to address the overall update to section 4. Second. Motion by Natalie, seconded by Danielle. All in favor, starting with Steve. Steve Kemp, I. Michelle Tanner, I. Danielle Larkin, I Jimmy Hughes, I. Natalie Larson, I.

Motion carries unanimously.

Item number nine, consider approval of ordinance number 2025-11 approving a development agreement amendment for Kacina Cliffs phase 1, lot 24, and Kacina Cliffs phase 2, lot 38. So, as you may remember, back in I think it was like April, we came in and did a a a development agreement with the owner or the builder of Kachina Cliff, lot 29, because they had disturbed into the area under property that was deemed undisturbable. They came in, traded some property on another lot they owned, lot 38, and so forth. And we went through and did a development agreement with them. As we got into August, I I don't I can't remember how we found out, but when they were developing the lot, they felt like they needed to protect the lot more, and so they built some drainage improvements even further up into that area that was deemed undisturbable. We noticed it, went out and notified them, and so what they've come back, they requested to amend the agreement. So, we've written an amended agreement. And basically the amended agreement had three points to it. One was you'll need to dedicate you'll need to take from that lot 38 again an area similar to what you disturbed in lot 24. You'll need to pay any legal fees that the city has incurred from a from that from a lawsuit uh from somebody in Entrada. They have uh Jamie told me they have paid that they paid how the the cost of the legal fees that we the city has incurred so far. And then the other one was just to paint that area or treat that drainage structure and kind of dress it up so it kind of it blends in more with the natural surroundings. So those were the three parts of the agreement. And I'll just show you um so they'll have to then come back also and then amend their final plat on both lots. So it will basically

increase. So lot 24 basically the increases right in this area here is about 1,200 square feet that they've added to that area that to the disturb. So this will become open area that can I mean area that can be disturbed on their plat. And then they've taken this portion out of lot 38 and that will become undisturbable on lot 38. I know it looks a little strange, but this area to the I'm going to say to the south right there, it's already undisturbable and so they didn't show that on their plat. That's already shown. This area right here was part of the original agreement and this right here is part of the amended agreement. So that they've came back and that's the it's an amendment to that development agreement. So, the legal action with the developer and the HOA has been resolved.

I believe you could ask Jamie that. Well, I just want to be clear on that if there's any future problems that that law is with the developer, not with the city. Sorry. Yes. The uh the initial lawsuit was an appeal of a land use decision. uh the app the appellants have withdrawn that um and it's not they're not going to be able to refile it. So that's resolved. We had a final number for the legal fees on that matter and and as Wes indicated those have been paid. Good. Tiffany's holding that check. Thank you. Other questions for Wes?

Ready for a motion? Yeah. Okay. Go ahead. Doing it at the same time. Um, and I assume the developer obviously was agreeable to all of this and saw this as a a good compromise, I guess. Right. Correct. Yes. And they've signed the agreement and everything, so we're ready to go.

Perfect. So, I will go ahead and approve ordinance number 2025-11 approving a development agreement amendment for Kacina Cliff's phase 1 lot 24 and Kacina Cliff's phase 2 lot 38. Second motion by Michelle, seconded by Danielle. All in favor starting with Natalie. Natalie Larson I. Jimmy Hughes I. Danielle Larkin I. Michelle Tanner. I Steve Camp I. Motion Passes unanimously.

Item number 10 is a consider approval of anou with Washington city regarding the 2025 St. George city annexation policy plan. And Ryan has this item. Thisou was approved by Washington City two weeks ago. It essentially removes parcel F out of our annexation policy plan and it resolved with their concerns. Washington city and parcel or what's identified as parcel D remains in our city. And so it was a way for us to come together and and address their concerns and basically just forces that F into Washington City. It can't come into St. George City.

If there's no questions, I'm ready for a motion. Mayor, I'll go ahead and make a motion to uh approve the menou with Washington City regarding the 2025 St. George city annexation policy plan. I'll second motion by Jimmy, seconded by Steve. All in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Item number 11, consider approval of ordinance number 2025-112 amending the city's general plan to adopt an annexation policy plan as an element of the general plan. Carol will present this item.

Okay. Um we are back for the final time for the annexation policy adoption uh process. This started in April. We've gone through several um public hearings and meetings. Um we are now at the final stage. Oh, look. That's messed up, but that's okay. Oh, there we go. Okay. So, um just a refresher, the uh policy, the annexation policy, um it does follow state code. Um it outlines how utilities will be um extended, how growth is paid, and this is all growth in the city, how it's all paid through impact fees, and it explains how a person will annex into the city and that um the growth, all annexation growth must be consistent with the general plan. Um this slide here shows you the map right here to the right. This is the original map we had. Um there there was areas A through F. Um but as we just um talked about theou that we had with Washington city, we've removed area F um from our plan um due to the agreement with the city of Washington. So this is the new plan. Um it just has everything the same except it does have area F missing. Um, I've mentioned this before about the same policy that we had back in 2009. Um, and this is just those two together. Um, I'm going to quickly go over each area. Uh, we have five of them. Area A, uh, this one is north up, um, in the habitat conservation plan. Um, if we do annex a annex any area in this, um, area A, it will be for utilities. uh roadways or recreational purposes only. Um area B

kind of the same. It's part of that um habitat conservation plan. You can see by the polkadotted area and if we do annex that, it'll be mostly sensitive lands um for recreational purposes. Um area C, this is that area off of Dixie Drive. Um the the vulture is what it kind of looks like. Um if we annex this um it'll be for any kind of development. Um it's used for agricult agricultural purposes right now. You can see there's a lot of flood plane in that location which um we'll have to mitigate if we do annex. Um area D uh south uh east portion of the city or beyond the city. Um this does have flood plane as well. Um so there are sensitive lands in here. This would be open if we annex into any type of future development. And then okay and the final one is um area E. It's outlined in red there. Um you can see the part up in on the top of the screen um outlined in a dash purple line. That's the um area F that we are no longer considering. So that's area E. Um, it's serviced by Washington City Fire right now and it's property is undeveloped. So, that's what we have. We did present this to the planning commission. They did recommend approval. Um, we've already had a public hearing here for city council. So, this is just uh your um approval if you do wish to approve this.

Questions for Carol? I have a question. Maybe not just for Carol. We've got that donut hole. see the Googler property that we are providing all the services for. What do you mean by mitigate the the the flood plane or the river? What mitigation would we be required to do if we annex that property in if we annex the property um and someone would like to develop on it? Actually, it would be the developer that if they wanted to go into the flood plane, they'd have to mitigate that. either um raise up the property or um put in some uh rib wrap or something so that they don't have flood plane issues. It's just meeting the code. It's what everyone has to do whenever they develop around flood plane.

Well, they've already got development in on that parcel in several places and in the last year they raised a large portion of that property. Um, right. And I will say that the map that you saw, that is our flood plane map, but we do have several properties that have petitioned to FEMA to be removed from the flood plane because of um the mitigation they did. So, it's not quite 100% accurate. So, there could be some areas in there that are no longer in the flood plane, but it's just something we look at when we bring some a piece of property in. whether it's going to go in the hillside or whether it's going to be in the flood plane. It's just something just to make you aware of.

Is there a reason we're not annexing that property? I know the Googlers were against it 100 years ago, but what what's going on now? We we typically have been annexing um property as the property owner wishes to annex. And so the city typically hasn't gone out and forced annexation. And so we're just waiting for them to um to uh submit a you know annexation request.

We're providing all the services to this piece of property and I understand Norwin's family's been there for forever and they're still farming a big section of it, but they have taken a bunch of the property and they've brought it into residential use, subdividing it on the west side of the property. It just seems that we should it's the only piece that's a donor hole that we should pursue annexation. Is that possible? If the council wishes to provide direction to do so, then I'm sure we could figure it out. But until then, we'll wait for the applicant to to submit a request. Those those part parcels that have come into residential have been annexed. Correct. And I guess there's so few

the parcel that that where he just built his large home out of brick and and lifted the ground up for about five acres all the way around it. That is had not been annexed or the subdivided parts have been that that's still part of the hole, I believe. But yeah, understand.

Is there any benefit for not annexing? I would just say as and and I'm going to fully disclose this as well as the owner of uh parcel E. Yes. Um I'm in the same situation as an agriculture part-time agriculture producer. Um the thought process is if we annex that we might lose some of our uses. Now, I know we can be grandfathered in, but it but it's to us that are doing those farm activities and agriculture activities. It's more of a we feel like we have a better chance of continuing that lifestyle and that activity a as being in the county, if I can say it that way. As somebody in that hobby farm situation who is in the city, I agree with council member Hughes and I understand that they're so few and far between where we see that anymore that I would hate to pressure anybody into giving up that agriculture that really has a strong heritage in this area.

I love the the farm there. I I live over on that side of town, the only member of the council that does. As a hobby farm, Natalie, you say you own your 20 acres that you live on. Have you seen any change in your ability to farm because you're inside the city boundaries versus not? It's hard for me to say because I'm not in the county. So, um, I'm in the city and people in the county, Jimmy probably could explain this, county has different rules than cities do. They're more liberal as far as what goes on in the county

than they are in a city just by the nature of a more urban area. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, I would just say that in having a polite but elevated conversation with one of my neighbors, um they had already explained to me and this is the benefit that they had already called both cities and found out that there's nothing they could do because I was in the county. So yes, there there is an there is a at least for me a perceived advantage. I mean I don't trust the guy sitting up here to make the right decision. So that's a very good point. So you you you trust the county commissioners more than you do us.

Well, they seem to be more agriculturally friendly. This is this is a very sensitive issue, but I do want to again make it very clear that I plan on voting on this issue, but I am a property owner of uh parcel or whatever we're calling it, area E. So, and and for my intent, just so everybody knows, my intent is to keep it at a farm as long as I can through my lifetime. So, yeah, I don't know. And is there further discuss?

I just wanted to understand why we would have a donut hole, the only donut hole in the city that And we've annexed the property. All the Burgess property that went used to be it used to be kind of a leg that came in from the south. We annexed all the Burgess property in because we needed to put in Gap Canyon Parkway and now we have this donnut hole sitting there and I just wanted to understand what the thinking was for why we would not just approach the Googlers with them annexing and and maintaining their zoning, maintaining their use, all those kind of things. But I appreciate your comments. Thank you. And you make a great point, Steve, because we are providing services uh obviously emergency services to those to those areas

and water and power. Yes, that's correct. In in in my case, the power would be coming from Dixie Power, but yes, water and any of those things and emergency services. Absolutely. So, there there is a but there are very few left and and I appreciate that and I and I enjoy driving by it many times a week and It doesn't bother me that it's there. I just I'm Maybe it's the OCD in me saying, "Can we clean up this map?" It is the OCD in you. In saying that, Steve, it doesn't bother you, but it may bother other residents. Bother who? Other residents.

Yeah, I have one neighbor. Most of my neighbors actually are very they are every time they see a piece of equipment parked on my property, they become they call me, text me because they have a neighborhood text about the horsesh and they have names for them all but and are you're not developing are you? Cuz the day you do we're moving. We love it. You know they even love the flies I guess. I don't know that come along with it. So there, but but there's always one or two that just they were promised that there was going to be nice homes built behind them. So there's also those that were promised they would have open space behind them forever, right? Yeah. Real estate agents, scumbags. Are you ready for a motion, Mayor? Yes.

Okay. If there's no other discussion, I will and and can I Mayor my just got his headline for that scumbags. Also, that came from Steve though. Make sure you quote it, Mory. That'll be the first time you've ever quoted me on anything. Yeah. Nice. Mayor, also I'm asking if uh after this vote if I can take a a moment of personal privilege. You may.

Okay. I will go ahead and if I can get back to where we are. Item number 11, make a motion that we uh approve ordinance number 2025. Sorry. -112 amending the city's general plan to adopt an annexation policy plan as an element of the general plan. I second the motion. Motion by Jimmy, seconded by Steve. All in favor, starting with Steve. Steve Kemp. I. Michelle Tanner. I Danielle Lurin. I. Jimmy Hughes. I. Natalie Larson. I. Motion carries unanimously.

Thank you, Mayor. And just just a couple of points that uh I wanted to make that motion because that's my last motion uh as a city council member and uh after 14 years and the mayor and I have are kind of like dinosaurs. She's not but maybe me. The only person more of a dinosaur in this room is Guzman, who uh is like dinosaur bones, but um I was going to say I don't look like a dinosaur, so that's kind of offensive, but go ahead.

But I just wanted to say that the mayor and I have go way back. We've known each other for a long time through the good and the bad, and I've appreciated the our our relationship. I got to know the mayor and the Randall family um when I first ran for city council years ago. and uh we've been through a lot of different things together. Uh what I choose to remember one of my favorite things that the mayor and I uh got to do together when we had this episode in our our country's history where there was a big push to uh uh of defunding the police. uh there was a big deal uh you know that there was this push and and the mayor uh to her credit came to me and and as we had some discussions she said you know we should be doing something opposite of that. We should be finding ways to increase funding to our police department to make sure people understand how important they are and make sure those guys uh know that we appreciate them because there was a lot of you know they were basically getting uh thrown ran through the streets. It was not, it was just not good. And so she came up with a plan to uh to do some uh backto-blue uh signs that we were able to encourage the community to come and get. Uh she put that together. We got some initial funding and we were able to go out and um have the public and and I had those signs at my business and tons and tons of people came and got those signs and um it was it was something I appreciated that we got to do together. So, and that's something I'll never forget and and I appreciate those and many other ideas that you've come up with and the hard work that you have done for the city. Um, being this is our last meeting, I wanted to make sure you understood that and understood my appreciation for our working relationship. Thank you.

Thank you, Jimmy. I appreciate that. Um, it is our last council meeting of 2025, so I want to wish everyone a merry Christmas and a happy new year, but it is also my last council meeting. And um it has been an absolute honor and privilege to serve the city for 12 years. Seven as a council and five as the mayor. My family has sacrificed a lot. And my dad's here tonight. I love you and happy birthday. He's spending his birthday at this boring meeting. I wrote Jimmy a message on the back of my sheet and said, "I'm not going to miss Thursday night. Um, but my family, they've supported me and uh, my mom was actually happy I wasn't reelected because she's seen a lot of the hatred and the threats and it scared her in today's world. my granddaughter who also has a birthday today and is turning 12. Happy birthday, Kov. I love you. She was over at my house two weeks ago and she said, "Grandma, I'm sad you're not going to be the mayor, but I'm happy you're going to be with us more. I've missed a lot of ball games on Thursdays. Um, and I have a 16-year-old grandson that plays lacrosse. All of my grandkids are

involved in either dance or sports of some kind. And and um so I will be I will be grateful to spend more time with my family. Um and Tony won't be so bored home alone on Thursday nights with just him, the dog. We have an amazing city and it's because of the residents that live here. I've told everybody, you know, I've been here a long time. There were 8,000 people when we moved here in 1978. We've grown huge. And um even though we're the fifth largest city in Utah, we still maintain that small town feel because of our residents. I can't say enough good about the department heads that we have. They are absolutely incredible. They work so hard to carry out the council's wishes and thank you. It's been an honor. It's been a privilege to work with you. I still have real estate at Toniquent Cemetery, so I'm not going anywhere until I end up there. Um Jimmy will do a great job. He loves this city as well and was born and raised here. He's been here few years longer than me. I appreciate all the council members I've had the opportunity to work with. I've worked with three city managers

and um it's it's really been great. I've made some longl lasting friendships that I'll carry with me for forever, but I am looking forward to my Thursday nights back. And um I was telling someone today, I think it was John My family, I have four children and 11 grandkids. And the last time we went on a vacation together was in 2008 before my oldest son left for an LDS mission. And he was back for six weeks when my second son left for an LDS mission. And then my girls got married, my oldest son got married. And so we're actually all going to Disneyland in January, all 21 of us. And I'm looking forward to that, to not have to answer my phone and to just get to be with my kids and my grandkids and my husband. I have the best parents in the world. Dad, my husband's just been quite ill for some time. And so you'll see my dad by my side a lot because he's a protector. No matter that I'm going to be 60 in a couple months, I'm still his baby girl. And I appreciate you always having my back and caring about my safety and supporting me.

Christina, Steve, Michelle, Danielle, Jimmy, Natalie, John, Ryan. Thank you. It's been an honor and a privilege. And it's not goodbye. It's see you later. As I pass the baton to Jimmy on January 5th, and I'm grateful that the interfaith council asked us both to attend prayer over the city. They did that with Mayor Dan and and John and I think it sets a good precedent going forward. Um, with that council, I'm not going to take any reports, but I'm sorry we have a stupid close session. Rinard, are you going to cancel it for me? Mayor, if you're not doing any reports, can I just take a second for personal privilege?

Yes.

I just want to say how much I have appreciated working with you, especially over these last couple of years. I don't know if there's anyone else up here who had quite the public tumultuous relationship that the 1L versus the 2L Michelle's once had, which to me that's way way in the past. And you know, I'm so grateful over the last couple of years. I I had a really people have asked, you know, you and the marriage seem like you're such good friends. What happened? And I'm like, well, that's a good thing to, you know, be friends and get along with the people that you work with. You don't have to always agree on every single issue to respect one another and do what's best for the city, which is why we're ultimately all up here serving because we do love the city and want to do what's best for the city. And so I think it was probably close to two years ago now or a year and a half ago, I had a very strong prompting that we needed to go to lunch together. And I am so grateful for that lunch that we had together and to be able to have that heart-to-heart and see each other as human beings. And it's been great working with you, especially over these last couple of years. And I'm excited for you and your new opportunities and that you get your Thursdays back. In some ways, maybe we're all a little bit jealous of that. But anyway, I just wanted to say how much I have appreciated working with you.

Thanks, Michelle. And I still want to hold that baby when you have it.

Just to attest to who Mayor Randall is. So when I ran for council the first time, which was in 2019, and I won, she she called me and she said, "Let's go to lunch." And I was kind of scared because I knew she'd been campaigning really hard against me and I didn't know her very well. And I said, "Yeah, sure." So we went to lunch and she sat down and the very first thing she said is, "Well, I campaigned really hard against you." And I said, "Oh, yeah. I know. I know you did." and she said, "But here we are. We're together now and so let's do some good for this city." And then we just had this productive lunch and sat there and chatted about how much we love the city and what we could do and how we could work together. And that speaks to her character. She didn't pretend with me. She's always exactly who she is. She didn't put on any fronts. She just said, "Here we are." And she was she's always been honest. She's always had such integrity. Um, I've just really been so honored to work with her and to watch her leadership and to see her sacrifices. And I think she's exactly the reason why we live in such a beautiful place because people like her run for office, which is scary. You feel threatened at times. Your family feels threatened. There's so many things that happen that you just have to keep reminding yourself, I'm not sure why I'm doing this. and then you look around you and you say, "This is why I'm doing this because I love this community. I love the people in it." And she's been an incredible example of that from the very first day that I met her. And it's just been an absolute honor to work with you.

Since we're doing it, my personal privilege will just be Thank you all. With that, I will have a motion to adjourn. Motion by Steve, seconded by Natalie. All in favor say I. I.

We'rejourned. Thank you everyone. Thank you for all of us. I'm not