Council Meetings - public_hearing

Today is Wednesday, July 8th, 2026. We are in the council chambers at City Hall for our workshop meeting. I will make note that our public forum that happens on the first meeting of each quarter NOW IS AT 6 O'CLOCK AT THE BEGINNING OF THE REGULAR MEETING RATHER THAN THE WORKSHOP MEETING. I UNDERSTAND THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION ON THE ONLINE LINK. SO IF YOU'RE HERE FOR THE PUBLIC FORUM AT 4 O'CLOCK, COME BACK AT 6 AND EITHER IN PERSON OR LIVE. THAT SAID, COUNCIL, WE DO HAVE A FULL AGENDA. THERE ARE NO MODIFICATIONS. SO I WILL TURN TO YOU FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE AS OUTLINED.

SO MAIN.

Motion by Councilman Belliston.

Second.

Second by Councilman Henderson. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Let's get this started. First item of business is the Washington Parkway roundabout. City Engineer Paul Mogul, if you dare come before the council on this item. I see Blake has your back.

Right?

That is loaded. I was thinking we should just accent from the agenda. I don't know. We like Paul.

We do like Paul. Well, thanks, Mayor. Thanks, Council, for letting me be here today. Let's see if I can get the screen share going. Maybe. Okay. As you're aware, a large retail development has been proposed along Grapevine Crossing. Because of the additional traffic this development is expected to generate, we wanted to evaluate how this intersection will perform both today and in the future. We hired a local traffic engineering firm to model this intersection using existing peak hour traffic combined with the projected traffic from the proposed retailer. They analyzed two scenarios, the existing roundabout and a signalized intersection. Based on that analysis, Public Work recommends proactively replacing the roundabout with a traffic signal before the retailer is constructed. This recommendation isn't based solely on the proposed retailer. Traffic along Grapevine Crossing will continue to increase as additional commercial development occurs. Completing this project now allows us to stay ahead of that growth rather than reacting after congestion has already become a problem. I also want to briefly explain the analysis tools that were used. The retailer's traffic impact study used SIDRA, which is an accepted engineering program that uses mathematical equations to estimate intersection performance. For our evaluation, the consultant used VISM to model the roundabout. VISM simulates individual vehicles and driver behavior, making it a more realistic representation of how traffic actually moves through an intersection. This is the traffic simulation software used by UDOT and is calibrated to Utah driving behavior. The signalized intersection was evaluated using Synchro, the industry standard for analyzing traffic signals. Construction timing is another important consideration. If we wait until after the retailer opens, traffic volumes will be much higher, making construction more difficult and creating greater impacts to nearby businesses. residents and motorists. Construction is expected to take approximately four months and those impacts will only increase as traffic grows. For these reasons, public work recommends replacing the roundabout with a traffic signal before additional development occurs We believe this is the most practical, cost-effective, and least disruptive approach for the long-term operation of this intersection. And let's take a look at the video of the two models. We'll first look at the roundabout with current traffic plus the traffic from the big box retailer. And you're wondering why it's backing up on the left-hand side, the Maverick side. That's because of the southbound traffic that is making left turns, and then also the westbound traffic that is also making left turns. So it puts more cars there that conflict with that eastbound movement. It also simulates driver how drivers react and as you can see some of them are a little hesitant and some of them punch it and so as we all drive i think we're all kind of familiar with some of that that action so anyway so paul can i ask a question on so what about making that an automatic right because some of the problems we have out there even now like when we did the police showed us their accident report was that right hand turn

But my thought was, what if you make everyone that's in the right lane go right no matter what, and you only have one going left onto the roundabout? Because that's some of the problem is you've got to double people trying to go through straight. See what I'm saying?

Yeah, yeah. So the problem is with your eastbound movement, during the PM peak times, you have 309 cars making a left-hand turn, and you have 64 cars making a right-hand turn.

Is this the, this is with the big box? Correct.

Yeah. So it's existing plus the big box.

So what is the, I don't know, I just, I'm looking at what's to the west of there, right?

Yeah.

So I'm curious how they loaded it to say, because we don't see near that traffic now. So what changed on the west then different from coming up the parkway?

Well, because it flows so good right now, because there's not a lot of conflict with the southbound left and westbound left, the eastbound traffic flows pretty good. During our PMP, Our PM peak, we have 309 cars making a left-hand turn. For a regular signalized traffic, a signalized intersection, if you have over 300 left, about 300 left turns, then you are ready for a dual left turn. And so we have a significant, it is a pretty good amount, it just flows good right now because there's not a lot of conflict. with a southbound left and a westbound left.

Did they factor residential or other commercial on top of the big box or just the big box? Just big box for now.

So we also know we have approval of another hotel and the auto mall approvals on the west side if at some point.

Yeah, and I'm comparing just like, I know people complain the Bloomington Hills roundabout. I like them. I think you can move through them and get through them. And this is a two lane similar. Now they have some different spur offs because of the configuration, but I always have felt this roundabout is similar to that. And, and they have Walmart there, which is a big box, right? So that's why I'm, I've always been like, yeah, there is some backup on peak times, but the majority of the time it's not. So, and I know we always try to plan for peak, but,

Councilman Coates, a couple of differences between the Walmart on Bloomington and the big box here and then the other commercial that's over there is you've got 100 acres of commercial and the big box that's looking at coming in is 23, 22 acres. So you've got all that other acreage on top of it and the volume of the Walmart in this one is about 50% of what this one would be.

That's good information.

Thank you for that.

Let's take a look at that.

Before we leave, though, but if you go back, even with that, Councilman, all the problems are to the west, not coming from the big box.

I'm just pointing out the flow that's going to be coming in on that east side is significantly greater than just one project, right? On top of the... you know, the other housing and the other apartment projects that are over on that west side where Bloomington only has it. It's in a corner.

It's in a corner for sure. But it does serve not just the corner, right? It serves all the housing that's down there. And, of course, they have roundabouts on both sides of the freeway, which this is only one.

So there's a time aspect of that too.

And the other thing I'd like to look at is, and maybe you know, is what's – Just my experience getting off that exit is right now, UDOT doesn't have any lights on their on and off ramps, which can affect the traffic patterns that come into the roundabout. So has that been accounted for?

For the traffic signal for the off ramps, no, because it's just looking at this intersection. There's been discussions with UDOT about,

I'm just saying sometimes those light patterns will affect how it backs up both ways and how the traffic comes. Because it might, right now it's free flowing. And if you add a signal in there, it breaks it up. So then all those cars can get through. And that doesn't seem like it's been accounted for fully.

Yeah, and I just wanted to note. This is a snapshot kind of and you can see that as maybe the one west leg looks like it's all clogged up and it is right now, but there are other times in the model where it's clogged up on the other side and then it kind of rotates around. And again, it's like you can see as they're going through just one semi that decides I need more space, and they go across, and they cause that lane to block up. And so it's kind of a snapshot to give us an example of what happens, but the problem with the west side is just the fact that it does, if you look at it right now, it's going through A lot of traffic is going through coming from the east and and so as those ones are going around It's just it's just creating that west side is the one that that everybody's like I don't know if I can go Certainly additions or changes to the roundabout may be something that can be looked at But I've been I've been in places where there's a right turn only Lane, but it's an additional lane. So it usually is like a

Yeah, and I've designed something specifically like that that you just force the traffic to go right and keep going right with an island or something like that. Now you have to widen it because we've got to get an island in there to separate it, but. I'm just trying to look at all the options that make sense. So I appreciate it so far. This is good stuff.

We just wanted to show that it does. We had shown in 23, we came and showed the similar model and showed that with our striping, we could make it work till 2032. But that was with nothing changing on the west side. And our biggest concern is just the fact that Paul's already alluded to is that If you wait until things are built over there and then we try to change, it's going to be a real big mess because of traffic that's already demand and wanting to go there. You would end up pushing a lot of traffic down through Grapevine and down to just below where Sitla's at. And that's just a two-way stop there and would be a real issue.

WHICH WOULD AFFECT, YOU KNOW, REVENUES, RIGHT? NOT ONLY FOR THE BUSINESSES THERE, BUT ALSO FOR THE CITY. BUT WHAT WOULD GUESTIMATE CONSTRUCTION TIME FRAME TAKE?

SO WE'RE FIGURING, YOU KNOW, IN THAT... Four to six months basically from time of okay. We're gonna go for this You've got some design and then and then going that we're already proceeding with some of those things just to have them in the ground background There is some property we do have to we have to square this up more and get some of the corners to be able to do full traffic signal there and so we kind of wanted to get kind of a nod that If that happens, the big box is happening, then we would kind of get the property and get that taken care of so that we'd be prepared. And then when we see walls going up or close to that, then we build the intersection before it's open.

The question for me isn't if it's going to be needed at some point, it's when. Yeah, eventually it will. At what point? I mean, I'm with you guys, right? It's better to not be shutting down businesses after they're making money and bringing revenue in.

It's essentially we, for the last, I mean, we budgeted for it just so that we'd be ready. But again, the property can take a little bit of time. It's best to just be... starting to move that direction, what that year is that it actually gets built would be determined based on the actual construction of the business.

So since you mentioned property, is open space on the right or on the east side, on the north and south, is that city-owned open space on the west side, north and south as well? Because I know there's some on the north. It's all Citla, isn't it?

Maverick is SITLA. Terrible is private. And then the other two sides.

Well, then the east side would be SITLA too, but they're going to be favorable to it. So it's not, I'm not so worried about them. It would be the ones on the west side.

Yeah. And essentially the way we have it designed right now, we think we can shave it in a little bit and not have to affect the one on the bottom corner.

Why is it going bigger? Usually there's plenty of room for the roundabout. Like, I'm just, I guess you'll see. I'm just curious. We need more property.

It's just the corners, just to kind of square it up. Because basically, if you think of it, the intersection will, and you'll see that when he shows the model, but it has four, I mean, it has dual lefts on everything, so that kind of pushes it out. Push it a little wider? Okay.

Yeah. Yeah, as we go to the... signalized intersection. It only works if you have dual lefts because the left turn movements are your big ones for both the southbound and westbound and eastbound. So you need dual lefts there. Essentially all four legs need dual lefts. In the model, though, they show southbound dual lefts and I think westbound dual lefts. But that's why we would need more right of way.

I think another consideration, too, is if we have lights in there, I feel like it's safer for pedestrians because I've had residents try to say that they've tried to cross there. And I've also crossed there, and it's kind of scary going from Terribles over to try to get to the trails because of the bushes and everything, too, and the cars go so quickly around the roundabout.

Were you getting a soda at Terrible's?

I got my soda. I don't do the sodas but I do go to the trails.

What was it? Who was the engineering firm that ran the traffic model for us?

Horrocks.

Did we run our own city independent to just kind of corroborate what they found?

Well, so there was a traffic impact study that was done by the big box retailer, and they used a separate engineering firm, Galloway, to do their traffic impact study. We took the numbers that they generated from that, and then we hired Horrocks to say, hey, take a look, throw those numbers in there. We want to see what the model says.

What was the ADT, Paul?

The ADT? You know? I don't have ADT. I just have the PM peak. What is the PM? For when it's in or existing. Yeah, when it's in. Okay. So for the southbound left...

Hold on.

For just with that big box retailer coming in, the southbound left, because that's what the southbound movement would be doing, it's 353 cars from the southbound left. For westbound left, it's 217. And that's with the big box? That's just the big box, what that generates.

With existing plus the big box. That's per hour, right? The 7 o'clock hour p.m.?

It's generally between your four and six, so it's usually five to six when everyone gets off.

Paul, you said existing. That road, when it ties through, do they have an idea of that traffic that's going to tie through? No, they didn't generate anything for that.

It's just existing as is right now, and then... Plus the big box. Because the big box with the TIS that they did, they generated numbers with that, and it's those numbers that were used.

Because that will tie everything off the top of the hill and all over that. Correct. Yeah, so exactly.

I'm curious with the ADT, because it's a five-lane road we designed, so it's probably going to have like 11,000 or 12,000 ADT per day, give or take, or more already, right? Yeah, probably be pretty close to that. I mean otherwise we wouldn't need that five lane road and that's how we master planned it so.

So adding lanes to the roundabout is an option like on European vacation with the Griswolds?

We need a big band right there so we can all say there's a big band again. There's a big band again.

So we've got, what you're saying then is we've got good life out of our roundabout but because of the traffic and because of where the traffic is coming from and going to, it's no longer reasonable to have it there. We need a signalized light.

with five lanes is that correct correct if the big box retailer comes in if not we can get a little bit more life out of it but you're just kind of kicking a can down the down the road for a little bit okay let me see the next one oh whoops sorry And then here's with the signalized intersection. This is a different modeling program at synchro. The eastbound has dual lefts. The southbound has dual lefts. It looks like westbound is just a single left. But this is where the additional right-of-way would come in.

But Paul, the problem is it's not nearly as aesthetic as the roundabout. That's a beautiful sign and feature.

Yeah, you're right. It's something that certainly as we're I mean, designing it, we can put some, it's nice to have an entranceway area there so we can still put some elements in there and do the best we can with that to make that. Get a bunch of antlers and put an arch. Yeah, I think that's been done. It's been done in a couple places. Yeah. But certainly that's, I mean, we've talked in the sense of, yes, we are generally using doing public works, but that's certainly something that we can look at. And I feel like if we're going to do things, let's do them right, especially at an entranceway to our communities.

Are those continuous right turns all around that?

That's the former roundabout.

Oh, okay.

Oh, yeah. Yeah, they just didn't. They just left it in there. Use the erase tool to clean that up a little bit.

We should look at having a free right, though. on the parkway side or whichever side.

For the eastbound movement? Yeah, going north on the parkway to eastbound, you could do a dedicated right right there that can continuously flow. Yeah. Because you've got the right-of-way or you've got the room for it.

Yeah, those are things definitely that could improve it even more. We just had them do a model showing that, but that's not really the final design.

Yeah, this is just a generic layout with just dual lefts on there. Sure.

Any other questions? I have a comment here, too. I think the council is smart enough to see what you're saying. I mean, obviously, when you run the model on the traffic, put the model, the data from the traffic study into the model, it shows. But to me, I don't want that roundabout to go until there is certainty that there is a big box ANY WAY TO MAKE IT WORK. THAT'S MY PREFERENCE. BUT THE COUNCIL IS GOING TO VOTE ON THIS AND I KNOW THIS IS A BUDGET ITEM, BUT I JUST UNTIL WE HAVE TO, I'D RATHER NOT.

RIGHT NOW IT'S BUDGETING FOR PLANNING.

We are we is it in the budget for this?

As I read so we have we budgeted so that we could if we had to build it in this budget year We have the money to do that. Yeah, but really what we're wanting to kind of get just a feeling like Understanding where we're at and that going ahead with just getting the right-of-way and those kind of things taken care of so that We would wait until, like I said, we would really wait until, just like with some of the other lights, that until the windco light, we weren't doing the windco light until we saw them actually building over there. So those kind of things, we would wait until that period of time. We're just trying to kind of start to head. We want to move ahead and keep the planning process moving forward.

So you're asking the council for nods in the work session to acquire right-of-way for a potential future project? Yeah. Signalized intersection. I think that gets us just the comfort to start at least.

Council. I would like to look at an option with the roundabout.

Okay.

I would like to evaluate what happens when there's signals on them, interchange. Does that affect it? And then having a free right where it's backing up. If it makes sense to add lanes for a free right on the areas that are backing up around. Instead of, like an example, coming from the big box, we have two lanes right now and a right. On the roundabout, we have two lanes. What if you did a bot right away and just did a free right? What that would do. And then 1,100, the same thing, adding a free right. And maybe you need two lanes and a third right or just the one lane. Because I think coming from the Commerce Boulevard, coming from Commerce Boulevard, if you had one lane and the free ride and forcing people to go right down the parkway, then what does it do? Does it back it up more trying to get across? I just look at it and I drive it every day. I don't wait five seconds right now. I'm literally in and gone. I drive it multiple times during the day when it's busy. I'm always on that road. That's why I'm struggling with it. I know the traffic model says, and I've done this a long time, and sometimes it proves it and sometimes it's not right. And I know they're really, they, the programs are pretty good, but just, it's just a generic spot. I just want to look at some other options that'll help it with that traffic. And I'm also concerned that we haven't accounted for the stuff to see in Hills to the East, right? Like, cause councilman, you're right about we, if we haven't, if we've only done the big box and not all the other commercial and the residential, that's going to come flow from the top peak of Coral Canyon, Maybe that puts it over the top. But that's what I would like to see is some more data on that before we go deciding what we do. Because I think buying right-of-way, if adding an extra right-turn lane helps that problem on a couple of those problem areas and the roundabout can stay and it still functions good.

But we'd still need more right-of-way to do the extra right-of-way. Then maybe we have to do that. So maybe the right-of-way is not such a big deal because we kind of. But we can certainly we can certainly do another What do you think council about councilman coats thoughts about running the?

Analysis with the dedicated right turn lanes and and with the light to the north Let's say just for round numbers, right

You got a retailer that's going to kick off $2 million a year in revenue that's coming to the city, and you just screwed up their business for half the year. And so you eat half a million to a million in revenue to the city that has lost revenue to us while we're trying to make that change down the road, right?

Because they haven't started construction. They haven't submitted plans. I'm not proposing we do that. If we make this change, I agree. We need to do it while they're under construction. If we decide to go this route either way, Expanding the roundabout or putting in a lie.

It needs to be done when they're opening their business That's my only challenge is do it on the front end rather than then find out after How about then we Kind of get in a feeling that we go and we kind of look at a couple other little options there and see if there's some things with the roundabout as well as How other things affect it further out? I like your plan going forward

I can understand where you're coming from, but it makes sense. I like that you're preparing for because it's going to be we're going to need it down the road. So I like that you're preparing and planning for it because like Councilman Bellison said, it's if there's a need, you rather do at the front end. And so I appreciate your guys' planning and I'm supportive of going forward with it and building it simultaneously as the if the big box store does come in, we can build it simultaneously. So there's not going to be an impact on the business down the road.

Planning is good. Planning is good. That's what we're doing here tonight. But those plans need to evolve with what we know and not what we speculate. I, too, I like the roundabout. I realize that they originally built with the idea that they're going to move more traffic. And that's why they came in, so in Utah. But they do have limitations depending on the amount of traffic through them. So I'm very comfortable with going forward as long as we're acting on what we know and not what we are speculating.

So can you move forward with the land acquisition? Because you'll need that regardless of... I think we're probably going to need that.

Yeah. Any changes that we make there other than what we have currently?

I think you know, you've got to know what your design is to know how much you're buying.

Yeah.

So I think we could look at expanding the roundabout, but in some of the conversations I've had with the retailer, they've been really concerned about the roundabout as far as... As far as them placing their business there, they would really much prefer a signalized intersection, probably just because they're more comfortable. We'd probably have to get them on board with a larger roundabout if that's the direction.

I'm not saying widen the roundabout as far as, because usually you don't do more than two lane roundabouts anywhere, right? Like they don't really work that good. I'm saying look at some options for these free rides. Add just the right turns where we're having problems to help it. But if it doesn't, then I just feel like we haven't evaluated some of those things that we need to look at.

Well, and the free rights, implementing that into the, even if it was a traffic signal, implementing that in there might be a plus, too. So it's good to look at that. We can definitely do the planning and kind of start moving forward. And then before we purchase property, we can come back. How's that work? Paul, Blake, you got the...

INPUT FROM THE COUNCIL. CLEAR AS MUD.

YES. AND JUST FYI, SO LIKE ON A TRAFFIC SIGNAL, JUST AN IDEA OF TIMING ON THAT. SO USUALLY YOU'RE THREE MONTHS DESIGN, SIX MONTHS ORDER AND PARTS AND THREE MONTHS CONSTRUCTION. SO YOU'RE ROUGHLY ABOUT A YEAR OUT, JUST FYI. And just keep that in mind as we plan ahead. Now, this one would probably have just a little bit longer construction window. We're probably a little bit further ahead design-wise, but roughly about a year from when we decided to go with the signal.

What is the construction for the big box? Do we know? What's that? Do we know what the construction of the big box is? We don't have that yet.

But I imagine it would take them at least a year, year and a half to construct one from the time they start. And so we have time. We've talked about that with a couple of other projects. We don't want to pull the trigger until it's time, but we don't want to be holding them up and in construction when they're ready to open either, so we'll time it.

Yeah, if you remember the light at 500 East, I mean, they wanted us to build it and build it, and we just held on until they were digging and until things were going, and then we built it, and we're still done in time, so. Obviously, yeah.

Running some pipes there.

IT IS. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE IT.

THANK YOU, GUYS.

BEFORE WE MOVE TO THE NEXT ITEM, I WOULD LIKE TO RECOGNIZE GARY WEBSTER FROM SENATOR LEE'S OFFICE, WASHINGTON CITY RESIDENT. APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE TONIGHT. APPRECIATE ALL YOU DO BACK IN THE OTHER WASHINGTON, THE LESSER KNOWN WASHINGTON. I THINK IT SAYS D.C. BEHIND IT, BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE THE U.T. Next item is a parks and recreation impact fee facility plan I'll invite parks department director. It's got a good ring to it Paul Walker We've got the engineer from sunrise engineering there if you'll also just state your name for the record Yeah playing world with sunrise engineering

Yeah, thanks, Mayor and Council. As you mentioned, it's the Parks and Trail Master Plan. It's time for another one. The last one we passed in November of 2019, so it's time to do another one. So we have Blaine here. This is kind of the draft of the plan. We'd like to get some feedback before we go much further forward on this. So Blaine will kind of go through a summary of this, and then we're happy to take any questions and input you guys have.

TAKE IT AWAY, BLANE.

SO WHAT I HAVE HERE ISN'T REALLY MUCH OF A FORMAL PRESENTATION AS IT IS JUST SLIDES OF THE PACKET THAT YOU GUYS ALREADY HAVE. WE REALLY DO JUST WANT TO GET YOUR INPUT, MAKE SURE THAT WHAT WE'RE DOING IS THE DESIRES OF THE COUNCIL, THAT WE'RE NOT OFF BASE AS WE'RE GOING TO FINALIZE THIS. SO FIRST, JUST AS A SUMMARY OF JUST ANY MASTER PLAN, WE STARTED OFF LOOKING AT POPULATION, HISTORIC AND FUTURE. WE'VE USED GROWTH RATES THAT HAVE BEEN SHOWN IN PREVIOUS MASTER PLANS. WE WORKED WITH THE CITY AND IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S A FAIR OR CITY STAFF FAIR ASSESSMENT OF WHAT TO PLAN GOING FORWARD AND JUST KEEPING THOSE SAME GROWTH RATES. SO IT'S A FOUR AND A HALF PERCENT GROWTH RATE OVER A TEN YEAR PLANNING PERIOD. AND THEN THE BIG THING THAT WE'VE LOOKED AT FOR THE PARKS IS LOOKING AT WHAT'S CALLED THE LEVEL OF SERVICE OR ESSENTIALLY like how good it feels or the quality of the parks and recreation facilities in the town as it appears to a resident. And we've done that for parks, for trails, and for the recreation facility. With parks, what we've done is we've taken an inventory of all the city-owned parks as well as private parks and school facilities. And the reason some of those say a parent level of service is just because there is a facility that has a field, like for example, the school parks, they're not always available or open to the public. So there's some factors in there taken into kind of estimate how frequently they're available to the public. So with that, there's roughly 7.7 ACRES OF APPARENT AVAILABILITY PER THOUSAND RESIDENTS WITHIN THE CITY. AND THEN THE TARGET LEVEL OF SERVICES WAS ESTABLISHED IN THE PREVIOUS MASTER PLAN, AND THAT WAS AT SIX ACRES PER THOUSAND. SO CURRENTLY THE CITY IS OPERATING A LITTLE ABOVE THE TARGET, THE MINIMUM TARGET THAT'S BEEN DESIRED.

SO THE CITY COUNCIL LAST TIME DETERMINED THAT SIX WAS THEIR GOAL?

City Council staff worked with us to establish that in the previous master plan, yes. So we could look at different targets as well, but that was just, as far as this being an update, we've kept through with the same level of service target as previously as it seemed to work well. The next is looking at trails. Trails are what they are. There's no apparent difference there. We can use the trails. So with the total trails within the city, there's about 1.6 miles of trail per thousand residents. And the target that was established five, six years ago was 0.7 miles per thousand. And if we look at recreation facilities, this one right now, there's just under 3,000 square feet of facility per thousand, but really when it comes to recreation facilities, The bigger value is just having one, having access to one. But this does show that when this was made, I think the 3100 was closer to what the level of service was five, six years ago. And obviously we haven't expanded the recreation facility in the city. And so as population has grown, that level of service has decreased slightly. But one thing to note, this doesn't take into account is facilities that exist outside of Washington City. This is looking at just the one up the road. There are obviously private facilities as well as facilities from the other communities that do have an impact on residents. So if we were to take those level of services and then project out 10 years with that 4.5% growth rate, this is what we're looking at. The parks level of service would decrease from 7.7 acres per thousand down to 4.7. And then the trails would be from 1.06 down to 0.68 miles of trail per thousand. And then you'd see the recreation facility decreases pretty significantly. Then if we look at that, There's an organization that exists, the National Recreation and Parks Association. When the previous master plan was done, that associate actually had guidelines and kind of criteria of what cities should shoot for. Since then, they've actually retooled and no longer have that same criteria. Now they just provide kind of general metrics, kind of averages of where communities sit compared to each other. And so that's what I have here on the top table is what their metrics are with all the cities that they survey and inventory across the country. And then the bottom is how Washington City stacks up with those metrics. So on the residents per park, so the number of residents that are per park, the city has JUST UNDER 2,000 RESIDENTS FOR EVERY PARK, WHICH WOULD PUT IT ON THE UPPER SIDE OF AVERAGE, LIKE IN THE MEDIAN OF THE CITIES IN THE COUNTRY. BUT THEN IF YOU LOOK AT ACRES PER THOUSAND, AND THIS 9.7 INCLUDES THE TOTAL ACRES, NOT THE APPARENT, IT'S STILL ON THE BOTTOM END OF THE MIDDLE. BUT THEN IF YOU LOOK AT MILES OF TRAIL, WASHINGTON CITY IS PROBABLY LIKE LEADING THE STANDARD ON THE UPPER END ON THAT ONE. And then with recreation facilities, they don't do it on a per size. They just say what the average city size is that contains a recreation facility. And so the city's smaller than the average community size with the recreation center, or sorry, bigger, but probably is smaller when the recreation facility went in. Is there any questions? Oops, sorry. Any questions on level of service? or metrics, anything like that.

I think they're good.

So then we go into the planning. So we've got the growth. We've got the level of service is now what it's looking like it'll be. So now we need projects to keep that level of service matching with either existing or at least the targets. And so we worked with the city staff to identify the parks that are in the horizon. A lot of these are carry over from the previous plan that were, you know, then there were 10 year, 15 year projects. Now they're in the zero five year to 10 year window. A lot of these are driven by developments going in big developments that will have parks and then use park impact fee credits to build these parks. However, there are a few that are are the city parks like the LA Park and the right ball fields on here is the expansion of Wills Park. AND SO THESE ARE THE 65 ACRES OF PARKS THAT WE'VE LOOKED AT WITH CITY STAFF TO KEEP THINGS MORE OR LESS IN LINE GOING FORWARD. AND THEN WE DID THE SAME THING WITH TRAILS, HAVE A TRAILS MAP OF ALL THE DIFFERENT CONNECTING TRAILS, BACKBONE TRAILS THAT THE CITY'S BEEN LOOKING AT.

I THINK WE CALLED THOSE THE RIGHT FIELD BALLPARK. WHAT WAS THAT? I THINK IT WAS RIGHT FIELD.

WAS IT RIGHT FIELD?

That's the play on words.

That was the right field. I apologize for that, Mary.

Yeah, right field's ballpark.

We'll make that change.

Guys like me played in right field because people hit there less often, you know.

I do believe you're right on that one, so we'll make that change. And then we got the trails did the same thing, looked at different connections. I know a lot of these are in the Washington Dome area. I'm trying to GET SOME TRAILS AND CONNECTORS UP THROUGH THERE AS WELL AS MAKING SOME CONNECTIONS LIKE MILL CREEK AND STUFF JUST TRYING TO GET TRAILS THAT EXIST NOW THAT ARE SPREAD OUT THROUGHOUT THE CITY CONNECTED. AND THEN SO IF WE LOOK AT THE 10-YEAR PLAN WITH THE PROJECTED PARKS, HERE'S WHERE WE WOULD SIT IF ALL THOSE GOT BUILT WITHIN 10 YEARS, YOU'D HAVE 5.76 on the acres per thousand. So it would be just under the target, but it would be a decrease from what it is now. Trails would blend about what it is at currently. And then we were talking with city staff, didn't feel that the recreation facility expansion at this time was needed or warranted within that 10 year window. And that would be something to be looked at closer to the 15, 20 year window. And so then we get into taking all those and what that would mean for an impact fee to be able to fund these projects. With those 10-year plan for parks, we got about $41.5 million worth of parks projects and $11.5 million for trails, and then none for the recreation facility, and then a little bit in there for updating this master plan in the future. A LITTLE OVER $53 MILLION OF TOTAL PARKS AND RECREATION PROJECTS OVER A 10-YEAR WINDOW. AND THEN IF WE WERE TO TAKE THAT AND DIVIDE IT AMONG THE PROPOSED OR ESTIMATED PROPOSED NEW HOUSING UNITS THAT ARE GOING TO BE BUILT WITHIN THAT SAME 10-YEAR WINDOW, IT LOOKS AT AROUND AN IMPACT FEE OF $5,494 TO BE ABLE TO GET THOSE PROJECTS.

WHAT IS IT RIGHT NOW?

So this would be a slight increase. And this is one of the reasons, when we looked at the level of service for parks, it was a little below the target. And that was with a conscious effort to keep this from being an astronomical increase. But if the council did have a desire to keep that up higher, we could. And it just would make this number bigger.

Thoughts?

I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU WANT TO START. IS THAT YOUR LAST SLIDE?

YEAH, THAT'S IT. JUST GO FROM THERE. WHAT THOUGHTS THE COUNCIL HAS ON WHICH DIRECTION MORE OR LESS, WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ARE?

SO I KIND OF WANTED TO GO OVER THE PARKS MAP. I MET WITH PAUL AND JEREMY EARLIER THIS WEEK AND THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS ON THE TRAIL MAP THAT THEY'RE GOING TO TWEAK AND CHANGE AS FAR AS GETTING TRAILS IN THE RIGHT LOCATIONS AND THEY'RE GOING TO WORK THROUGH THOSE. As far as the parks I kind of want to just go through the parks and identify the ones that make sense and ones we should even if they're not on the 10 year plan right and then we can talk about the impact fee because there's a few on here that don't make sense. I know there's some that we have maybe just start on the north end and the first part that comes to my mind is that Mill Creek Gorge Park. IT'S KIND OF BEEN ON THERE FOR THE LAST FEW, I JUST DON'T SEE IT AS A NEED IN AN EXISTING AREA. WE HAVE A TRAIL GOING THROUGH THERE, BUT WE DON'T REALLY NEED THAT PARK.

THAT'S A GOOD ONE TO START WITH. IS IT A PARK OR MORE OF LIKE A NATURAL, KIND OF A NATURE, I MEAN, IS IT AN EXPENSIVE PARK? HOW IS IT QUANTIFIED IN THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN?

No, I think that was actually one that's being cleaned up now, and we're taking that out of the 10-year, I believe.

Yeah, that one's just outside the 10-year. It's a natural park. It would be more of a trailhead. The trails connect there.

But we have the trails that, like, we need the trail that goes through there and ties into the Brio development, which makes sense, and it connects to Mill Creek. I just never, I know it's been there in the past, but it's always been kick down the road and kick down the road. I just think we need to kick it off the map and just. THE BEAUTY OF THAT IS JUST THE NATURAL AREA. I DON'T FEEL LIKE WE HAVE THE TRAIL HEADS TO THE NORTH AND WE HAVE THE BOILERS PARK DIRECTLY SOUTH. DO WE REALLY NEED TO PUT MONEY INTO A RESTROOM AND STUFF RIGHT THERE?

COUNCILMAN COATS, I LIKE GOING DOWN THIS DIRECTION BECAUSE I WAS FEELING THE SAME WAY. YOU BROUGHT UP NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE PARKS AND THEN YOU LOOK AT JUST ALL THE AREAS THAT WE CAN GO AND HAVE RECREATIONAL ACTIVITIES WITH OUR FAMILIES. I like the idea of going through everything and seeing what is, having more of a conservative approach to this to seeing what is really needed and trying to keep the level of service good, but then also looking at what we have around us, what we currently have, what we have neighboring communities. Because I do I feel like you like there's a lot of parks or trials that are on here that are going to add you know to the cost of the impact these which also. in the long run adds cost to the budget because we have to pay for the maintenance and then adding more employees to maintain those. And so overall it's gonna cost more money for the city. And so I feel like this is a, we can look at these and try to be more careful about what we're going to be putting on the master plan. So I really love this direction that you brought up.

So are we in agreement? So we don't really need that one. I mean, I want this to be a discussion like, what are we thinking on it? And if we want it, cut it. If not, let's move on. I just think this one is one we should cut because we're going to have the Cilente Park to the north. Can you go back to the map?

Yeah.

Sorry, I'm looking at the map.

I was just trying to show the list of the 10-year.

And a lot of these I'm talking about are not on the 10-year. I'm not. But I'm just thinking that doesn't affect the cost.

Maybe I can go.

And some we should have on.

It's not wanting to change for me.

On the map, I know this is just cleanup items. We had the Buena Vista Park, which is really the Boilers Park. It's just called wrong, right? So it's not a new park. Is that what we said, Paul?

It was a placeholder for a park that was on the... the east end of Buena Vista that really isn't needed anymore.

Because we have the trailhead.

Yeah, we have a trailhead. Grapevine came in close and there's some other development hotels and stuff where that was, so that's one that We've got plenty of parks in that area.

Well, and we definitely have a higher level of service in terms of parks and even trails north of the river than we do south of the river. And there's a lot of growth south of the river. Of course, the Wills Park helped kind of balance that out a little bit, but there was a bit of a discrepancy. Paul, just your thoughts on that Mill Creek. I know that I appreciate what the councilman's saying on just He's right, the nature is the beauty of it. I mean, is it much more than just a trail, or I mean, what else was envisioned there over the years?

It's always been a master plan. I think going back 20 years, it was in our original plan. It was just kind of maybe a... Cove? Yeah, like Santa Clara had their own arboretum. It was more just some trails and a parking lot and restrooms. More of a natural park and... And it's always been in the plan, but it's always been one that's been pushed back and kicked down the road.

Is that the one down in the gully where you're on Quail Ridge Drive and then there's that road that goes down that's not completed?

Okay. But we're not saying get rid of the trail. Just do we need to put in the, you know, whatever. I mean, it's expensive to put in a restroom nowadays and how that works, so. I just look at it as the Boilers has a restroom, and then future Salonte Park has a restroom in Grapevine. You're covered in that whole area.

And Councilman Casperson makes a good point, too. If you have a restroom there, you've got to maintain it. That's employee and cost. I love the trail there. I mean, if there's parking with – I mean, Mill Creek will tie in. You're right. You'll go underneath. I-15 and Buena Vista from Nice and Park. And there's some parking there. It's not far. It's not in the tenure anyway, but I see what you're saying. I love the trail. I think it's the council's discretion on if you want to keep that or not.

I live close by there, just right up the street. I honestly don't see a need for a park there. I think it would sit. Nobody would use it. There's hardly any kids up in that neighborhood, really. I mean, there's a few, but... I mean, I drive by the Boilers Park several times a day. It's hopping. Well, other than pickleball first thing in the morning, it's hopping. But during the day, there's... It's quiet. Yeah, it's quiet. So I am envisioning a park down in the building down there just empty all the time. And we may have to maintain the bathrooms, you know. But anyway.

Okay. Got the feedback. Next one. The next one that I had was, and I got clarification and maybe on the expansion or the elementary schools, it sounds like they're not doing that now. IS MY UNDERSTANDING. ARE YOU TALKING WASHINGTON ELEMENTARY? WASHINGTON ELEMENTARY. WE HAD IT ON THERE AS A WASHINGTON ELEMENTARY EXPANSION, BUT IT'S I'M NOT OPPOSED TO IT IF THERE'S AN OPTION, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE THE SCHOOL IS GOING TO REMODEL THAT AND KEEP IT FOR THE NEXT 20 YEARS.

I THINK COUNCILMAN, YOU MAY HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN SOME OF THOSE CONVERSATIONS, BUT AT SOME POINT I THINK THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WAS INTERESTED IN TRANSITIONING THAT FACILITY TO THE CITY, BUT ARE WE HEARING THAT THAT'S NOT HAPPENING ANYMORE?

That was the plan that I had heard. And then when COVID happened, they got some funding and put more money into that school and that gave it more life. And it seems like that's the direction they're going now.

Is that in our 10 year or is it outside of the 10 year? It's outside the 10 year.

Right now it's just kind of a placeholder if that option comes up.

I'd really like to dial in on what our plan is for this fiscal, this next five years, right? Five to 10 years. And I mean, if they're putting money into it, it's not going away. so um about the buena vista park did you already mention that one yeah that one's just a it's the boilers it was a it was an old one but now the trait trail grapevine trail heads there it was just the wrong location is what paul on the map oh okay well the grapevine crossing i think that's coming i think that's a good one on the grapevine crossing It's in the next 10 years, though, give or take, right, depending on what happens with the big box and those.

Your mic.

It is on now.

Pull it a little closer or lean in.

Yeah, I don't know how to answer that one because we don't know where that one would go. It might get shifted somewhere else.

And I think keep it on there for a placeholder. If it shifts north, you know, somewhere in that area, if that's what makes sense, then I just know that that development's required to do that at least two and a half acres because we did that one.

That one was at two and a half acres because that got split with Canyons Park. With Canyons Park, yeah. It was four originally.

Is it an amphitheater still or not an amphitheater?

I don't know if the big dog comes in. There's no room for it. So we have to find some. Like, I'm fine with leaving it and planning for it, but. Because I still think there needs to be something, but maybe it's two small somethings instead of one, two, and I don't know. It's something to think about. You've got to stop me anywhere. These are my notes, and I'm going through them.

So does Long Valley have another park planned for down there?

Just the eight-acre one.

All down through the middle, the low ground through the middle. Okay, because I thought they already had that. Well, I guess they already have that other area, but that's all HOA controlled. Yeah. Okay.

So then I got down to, and I wanted to have the discussion on the Kirkland Park. I asked Paul to remove the word field because we're not building any sports fields. It's more of a net for the irrigation pond and some parking for that natural area on that one. So that was kind of my comment to him there. And then the historic canal trailhead, we've talked about that for a few years. The location's not in the right spot on the map. It's up by the entrance to Schnaubkeide.

Yeah, it should be just above Indian Oaks.

Yeah, so I think we're in agreement for that one, right? Yeah, that one's really clean and doable. The next one I have is over toward Coral Canyon on the Cottonwood Coral Canyon Park. This is supposed to be a natural park without water, but I just, I don't know. I think the trail through there is important, but I just don't know if this is really necessary on this one either, but I'm open to discussion. Because we have heritage, and we have Highland right there, and then Sunrise Valley below it. And the only people that it would serve is that community that we have down there that we just approved that's not built off of the old landfill road.

Were they supposed to build anything as part of that? Do we remember? Was their amenity was just the trail system down to the Sullivan?

That's correct. But that's why it was affordable. If they're required to build it because we gave them impact fees.

We talked about this this morning. We need to look at it because Coral Canyon had a different deal with the city when they did their PCD. They didn't have to pay impact fees, but they owed us a certain number of parks. So we may be able to move this one somewhere or do something different with it. But we don't want to forget about it. if they owe it to us. So we'll look at that in the PCD.

Then we shouldn't remove it if that's the case. But I just don't want to go spend a $4 million park down in the wetlands, right? I agree. For a small residential group, we should look at doing something different.

Everyone's in agreement that may not be the right place for it anymore. They were supposed to be a lot different development down there when they originally did it. There was a golf course down there at one point, too. Jeremy's for that. I think we should still do a golf course.

all in favor so uh the next one i think long valley makes sense and the washington dome trailhead makes sense because we've already talked about those and approved well i had um want to have a conversation about the washington dome because when we when we talked about it my understanding was we were just going to try to plan for you know some connectivity between communities on What side would that be? By Long Valley and connecting Sunrise Valley. But then to have all the additional trails on there, like for me, I would rather have it be where you can have a trailhead where people can just go explore rather than to have all the costs of doing all those trails.

Didn't we talk about one though? Because we wanted one restroom. I'm trying to remember the conversation.

Yeah, when we talked, I remember it was a proposal of having several, and we thought that was too much. But what I remember is maybe having one restroom in a parking space where people can go, and a trailhead, and they can explore the mountain without having all the additional trails that are all on this.

The trailhead would be gravel trails, split-rail fence, super simple.

We talked about this being more of a primitive trailhead with gravel parking lots.

perhaps a vault toilets and like we didn't dig too deep into that but the plan of this is a little bit lower level of service a primitive place for people to park and fewer amenities in the in these particular trails and then the much lower cost natural surface trails which i think could be i think the community would rally around natural surface trails at least to have a little bit of a network and a definition so it doesn't just get i mean i've lived in that area i've lived at the base of the dome for almost 20 years and And I've seen a lot of people just disturb that beautiful natural habitat. So I like the idea of keeping the cost down, but I like having the natural surface trails. And you don't have to go crazy with them, but at least have some definition on where those trails are so people aren't running their motorbikes and ATVs and

SO ONE OF THE THINGS I TALKED TO PAUL, WE'RE STILL DOING THE PAVE TRAIL AROUND THE BASE OF IT, RIGHT?

I THINK THAT'S PART OF THAT FEASIBILITY STUDY.

SO ONE OF THE THINGS I ASKED PAUL IS TO IDENTIFY THAT IN THIS MASTER PLAN, WHAT'S PAVED, WHAT'S NATURAL SURFACE. IS IT IN THERE, BLAKE?

I DON'T THINK IT WAS IN THE FIGURES WE SENT OVER.

IT'S IN THE LIST, BUT IT'S NOT IN THE MAP.

I'M SAYING ON THE EXHIBITS, KIND OF IDENTIFY WHAT'S NATURAL VERSUS WHAT'S PAVED. So it's just more easy to identify.

That would be actually really helpful.

And that's something that's new to us. We're hoping to get some standards for what we will accept for a natural surface trail. Washington City has always had our trail standards, 10 foot wide asphalt. So this is kind of a new thing, and it's helped us reduce some costs, get some miles of trails, but not require them to be 10 feet of asphalt.

And I feel like for the buck, you get a lot more bang because there's so much acreage. And then also, their grant monies are available. I mean, I think this is an area where we can really hit that level of service without spending a lot of money out of our coffers.

So how does it work? Is the study still going? You're doing the Washington?

The study's been completed. So what the study did is it gave us kind of an outline of where the trails would be best located. And so the next step is we've got a grant that's going to open this summer that we're going to apply for for the environmental. So the next thing, it's all BLM property, or most of it's BLM property. So the next step is to do an environmental study and work with the BLM. And then that would have to be completed before we could do any construction on any trails.

And how long does that take?

That's generally a year to do that process.

Because when I was looking through all the list, because it says all the green trails highlighted in the green are part of the Washington Dome feasibility study trails. And so it looks like these are all part of the trail facilities plan, all the lists, right? So this is all incorporated into the cost of the impact fees. So I don't know. So we're planning on doing all these unpaved trails? on the Washington Dome, that's the plan for this?

Some of them we may be able to push outside those 10 years, but this was to have the option to work on any of those trails.

And then what about all the private property in those areas?

Those ones are going to be a whole different ballgame. They would probably come after the trail system in the BLM properties.

Was it just on the south? What is it, on the southeast side? I think there's a corner of private, if I remember.

Yeah.

The old Stuckey Farms, they had a park in there that didn't meet our standards. At times they wanted us to consider taking it over. Any updates on that? I know it still doesn't meet our standards, but any conversation about that?

I'm not sure. They had some initial conversations, but I don't think that was anything they wanted to move forward with.

I haven't heard anything in the last year from the new owners. From the new owners, really. Again, same conversation. dip their toe in the water a little bit, but it would take quite a bit of upgrading to bring it up to city standards. It may not ever be feasible, really.

And that's what usually happens on that HOA is they don't want to pay to get it up to the city standard like every other park has to before they turn it over.

Yeah, it would need bathrooms. It would need more parking. It's not super close.

That's a good point, and it's not a surprise to at least the developer down there. Yeah.

So any other questions? Or should I move on to the next one?

Yeah, just before we move on off of the Washington Dome, I think I would like to have more information with the maps and everything of where the planned trails will be and whether they're paved or unpaved. And after we do that, I feel like we should try to look and see, kind of like what we're doing now, what makes most sense and what is doable. and make a plan for that rather than just saying, oh, we don't know what we're gonna do with the private areas and what is it gonna look like and what is the cost gonna be? So we have more details on that.

So you can see all of those at washingtondome.com.

Why do you have the map too?

But there's like the interactive, you can see all, because the committee met for six or eight months and engaged with the community on all of it. So she has pretty good, more details I think can be seen

I think it'll help once you get that identified what's paved, what's not. I think it'll help you, Councilwoman, to see. Because I wasn't even clear, right? So that's why I recommended we do that. And I think they're going to implement that in this map for the next round before we look at it.

Hey, we'll get that updated.

Hey, Blake, speaking to that mic.

Sorry.

And this is a healthy conversation, but just DIFFERENCE IN COST BETWEEN A 10-FOOT PAVED TRAIL AND WHAT IS A STANDARD 5-FOOT NATURAL SURFACE TRAIL? WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE IN COST?

I DON'T HAVE THE NUMBER IN FRONT, BUT IT'S A SIGNIFICANT DECREASE FROM THE ASPHALT TO THE UNPAVED TRAIL. ONE, JUST IN SHEAR WIDTH, BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT MORE GRADING TO WORK ON A WIDER TRAIL.

NO LAND ACQUISITION, AND AGAIN, YOU COULD GET YOUR NORTH-SOUTH, SOME OF YOUR EAST-WEST CONNECTIONS, AND NOW YOU START TO JUST at least build a basis of a network. And I think it does allow for community just to get out. I've seen these done in the Las Vegas area, down in the Tempe area, and they are just used. In fact, even as is with just the trails, and some of these are even old four-wheeler trails, but I see community walking dogs, and the community is out on these. So really what you're taking is a natural asset and then just at low cost, maximizing the use, and then just organizing some to where it's like, oh, this trail now has a name, and this is where I can go, or if I go this way, it's, and then we actually preserve, I mean, some people think it's kind of ugly, because it's just a gray dome, but I think it's kind of pretty, and I think it deserves to have some,

So do they actually grade and, like, road base?

There's different ways you can do it. Some have done road base. I've worked with Leverk and one recently where they hire a trail builder. They essentially design and build the trail kind of at the same time and just more or less grade and just compact a trail.

You can do a chat. I've done a couple chat trails that way. They're usually not 10 feet wide. They're, you know, they're. five to six feet wide.

I think we assumed on our costs either four or six.

Nice. So the next one, I think it's a carryover from our master plan, is the Harmon Farms Park. So I was kind of saying, because we've just dealt with the Harmons on the trail through there, and they have plans to develop it someday. So I don't know, Paul, we talked about maybe just cutting this one.

Yeah, this one is far out on the horizon. We also thought this might be a placeholder just for somewhere in the fields. If somehow the Adams property or somewhere wanted a trail, we wanted it to be an option, or excuse me, a park, we wanted it to be an option. So that's kind of the reason that this one was left in here. It's kind of a placeholder for anywhere in that kind of central field area.

Do you want to move it over to the Adams?

I think that's a great idea.

Moving over to the future Adams annexation that if we wanted to do something there. Because I'm for that, but that's also not in our 10-year plan either, right? Yeah. And you can see if you look at the parks, right in the middle is kind of a hole. So maybe it makes sense in that development.

Yeah, it would be a good location for a trail. It would definitely fill some gaps for a park.

So I'm going to. If there's no other discussion on that I wanted to jump down to the Washington fields complex that's in the sticky debris basin, I think we just need to ask that we have the layout park. Right just north of it, and I think that's one that our future county Commissioner can help us if he county wants to build some some facilities there. So I think we should just ax that one from this, because we have the Alea Park right north of it.

And not only that, Councilman, but I think that we made a motion that contained a condition that we couldn't have it there. The Alea Park we can't have there, but.

That piece right there is actually up on the bench where it's shown. It was down in the wash there to the east that the motion said you couldn't have. But everything in the south is going to be industrial anyways. It doesn't make sense to me to put a part right there on the edge of everything.

I agree.

It's going to have all their own recreational activities within their.

This would even compete with the right fields, right? That we've already graded by the Wills Park.

That's farther north.

That's a different. Yeah, this would be, yeah, this is way further south than the right fields.

So we should just ax that one for now. And if we need to in the future, we can look at stuff on the east side of the Southern Parkway as we start developing, if there's any residential toward Water Valley or anything like that.

Is that, does anybody know what, Is that city property, Trustlands property?

It's Trustlands. The debris basin, it's Trustlands. And we have no ownership of that property yet?

Nope, and it's in the floodplain.

Yeah, but we don't want to park in the floodplain there. We have enough problems with floodplains and parks. So that brings me to my, I think it's my last one, and I know I'm wordy. It's the Wills Park expansion or right ball fields. I wanted to have a conversation with the council. I know we had planned eight ball fields there. I want to propose we do four ball fields, a circle, and the rest just open usable rec grass. I don't want it to be determined that it's just ball fields because we have a need in the fields for more fields for just community members that we can program to do lacrosse or flag football or whatever we want to do as a city and have a more open space grass and not just baseball fields because baseball fields are just so specific. And talking with Jeremy, he mentioned, well, are we building the baseball fields for our community or are we building it for sports, travel sports? And I thought that, oh, that's a good question. So I'm asking the council, I would like to see it for baseball fields that rest grass for the extent expansion.

You know, councilman, that's exactly what. I've always considered in that next phase that it'd be four ball fields because we have other modes or other modalities that we'd like to put in also. But I think four is plenty and that certainly meets the standard of whatever expectation was when the property was donated to.

So we're talking three softball fields and then one for the boys?

I'm just teasing. I'm saying we could do Or we could just get rid of all the baseball. I'm just kidding. No, I agree we need some more baseball fields down there, but I just don't think we need eight, and I think we need to, and we have a lot of other sports that we can multi-program down there. So I would like to, that's what I present. We continue going forward as, and in the master plan, we call out grass space and four ball fields when we do our estimate for it.

St. George's, the Canyons baseball complex they've got over off Snow Canyon Parkway isn't even eight. ball fields. I mean, it's seven, so it's close, but I think four would probably be plenty. They actually have a wagon wheel here, and it's got five of them that fit in a wagon wheel.

Yeah, I don't think we can fit five there. I think it's too small, right? I know we did a concept plan years ago, I saw, and that's where we saw the eight, and I remember the discussion when you were on the council the first time with Councilman Turek, and I appreciate it, and And that was kind of the general thought is maybe baseball fields. But I don't think there was ever a discussion of exactly what to do. But I'd like to do some baseball and some grass. And then we have the Great Wheels Park. And I think it'll be a top-notch facility.

There was never a conversation, as I recall, about how many fields, though I don't think anybody perceived it would be more than probably four fields.

What I love about this conversation, too, is I think the council's being very mindful of our community's ability to use it. and not just catering to these traveling sports teams. And I also appreciate what our neighbors to the west did in some of their fields. They're turf, they're not grass. They're turf fields and those can be multi-use too and be more efficient on water. But I'm fine with four fields and then having a flexibility with grass or similar in the rest.

So Paul, at one time there was even talk of a swimming pool. An open swimming pool there. That was years ago, but is that still something on the...

So it's in the plan. It's outside the 10 years. It's on there as a proposed recreation facility. That's the satellite Washington Fields recreation facility would include a pool in that area.

Well, I agree. I think that as we talk about the fields, I would like to duplicate what the Little Lake fields here by the community center are. I think our focus needs to be on Little Lake softball, baseball. If we have one large field for Hold your kids to play, then I think that would be great, but that would be my...

I think we need to have a couple larger fields, right? Yeah, get two larger. One or two. So just pulling up the Little Valley, the fields in Little Valley, they got four fields there, and then that's where they've got all the pickleball courts, and they've got volleyball courts and some soccer fields right there.

They have four soccer fields, and... Four baseball. Four ball fields. That's kind of what I'm after is a little valley feel.

That's plenty. We've been down there playing with my kids. It's great. It's plenty. It doesn't get crazy. You get more than four, it just gets to be a little much.

Well, it's also, if you consider this too, if we master plan that area, why couldn't we put a little bit of neighborhood commercial in there? and get some amenities in there that allows people to stay there and eat and have refreshments in that park area. I mean, I think that this needs a good look. We're not really committed to anything at this point, but I think if we look at it holistically and make it not only a park, but make it maybe some infrastructure for the city and to grow by and for residents to enjoy and visitors to enjoy, I think I'd like to have that conversation too as we go forward.

And I've got a question. When we talk about open grass areas and fields and and the lack of parks south of the river. Are we looking for these to be athletic fields, or do we want this to be a community space where we can have events like Veterans is where we have all the city events. It would be great to have something with the flexibility to do similar things south of the river.

I would like, my personal opinion is more like Veterans, where it's just open grass. And I'm not saying we couldn't do a little bit of combination, but I feel like we need places that people can do. And a third grade soccer team can just show up on a Wednesday pick a corner and go play, right? Sullivan's are programmed grass area. That's how I feel it should be, but I'm trying to find, like, I can't tell you how many times it's just people are like, yeah, we don't have a field or we don't have this to play on from these.

But you could also program our rec league, you know, games down there. And I actually even like the idea of having the council take a stab at it holistically and looking at some of these creative ways because 10, 20 years down the road, people will want to gather in a central location down there. So I think that is definitely a conversation. I think it gives you enough for this facilities plan. But I think this is definitely something that the council should start to chew on for what that ultimately looks like.

Yeah, I know many families travel to Mesquite to go to the fields down there rather than stay here. So I think the more fields, I feel like they would be used for sure.

Okay, what else? Anyone else on this?

I'd love to comment. So I'm, you know, I love this conversation that we've had. I'm not enthusiastic at all about raising the impact fee 800 bucks. I mean, right now, it's so unaffordable. I agree. It's just so bad out there right now for anybody to afford a house.

That's a third. I think we should keep it. I would go up just under five, but I wouldn't go, like, I'm not 450, 400. I think we should be the same, 48 for now.

I agree. It makes my gut ache just to think of raising impact fees right now. It's tough.

This is an area that we can.

I just don't think we can do it, or at least I can't.

So this is why the council chews on it, guys. All right? Bringing something back. THAT MAKES IT WORK. I DON'T WANT TO RUSH THIS. WE DO HAVE MORE WORK SESSION ITEMS. I ALSO DID A CONTINUATION OF THE WORK SESSION ON TO THE REGULAR MEETING IN CASE THESE WENT LONG. SO IN LIGHT OF COUNCILMAN HENDERSON'S AND THE NODS THAT I Is there low-hanging fruit on this based on some of these parks that we reviewed that could change the factors and lower that impact fee to something that's five or less? I mean, I'm just trying to hear what the council is saying.

Yeah, absolutely. There's things we can do there. The other thing that can be done is, one, the impact fee analysis shows what the max allowable is with that given plan. So it's always an option just to be less than that. But the other thing we can do is put some of these that are on the nine-year, eight-year, put them at the 11-year. And then it's just something that keeps an eye on. Because a lot of these are developments that are coming in. And if they come in, they're going to want TO USE IMPACT FEE CREDITS TO BUILD THEM, BUT IT COULD BE OUTSIDE FOR NOW, AND THEN IF IT LOOKS LIKE, OH, HEY, THAT DEVELOPMENT IS GOING IN, AMENDMENT COULD BE MADE AND IT'S PRETTY EASY TO SWAP OUT TO PARKS.

WHEN WE HAVE THESE Master plan communities. We have some beautiful ones around the community, and they've built really nice amenities. But do we have, like, we don't just give them a blank check on this, right, Paul? They have a level of service that's kind of city standard. You meet this city standard. You build it out. But you're saying some of those we could, it's like, I really appreciate the way the city manager works with department heads on budget. It's like, If you're 80% certain you're going to build it within this year, put it in the capital facilities plan for budgets. On this, I think we want to have some certainty that these are ones that are going to be built in so that we keep that impact fee tight and tied to projects that we think we're going to build. I think that's really important, even from just when people are paying impact fee.

We expect these to be built.

Yeah, we can definitely.

So in your plan, the 10-year plan, you've got 9,684 new housing units. If you were to reduce the impact fee just for conversation, that would make the impact fee down about $3.2 million. It would be just under $50 million. So that's still. That's where you've got to get. That's kind of where. Is that what I'm hearing? Just under the $50 million.

You've got to get under $50 million. We did it in 2019. So when. When you were on the council, Mayor, the impact fee that was, I guess, recommended wasn't adopted. It was a lower amount that was adopted. And when it came in for us in 2019, we said, OK, look, because there was this whole list of all these different things that could be impact fee eligible, and it wasn't really tied to anything. So we said, OK, look, here's a spreadsheet. This is tied to this, and this is tied to this. And that's kind of where we came up with that number last time. Because the council sat there and said, these are the parks that we specifically want to be included. And then the spreadsheet just tells you that's the number it needs to be, right? So it did raise a little bit from what it was before. Certainly, it's the same type of a thing here. Just maybe say, hey, here's our recommendation. And then the council look at it and says, yeah, we want to include this one, this one, this one, this one. And then that way it ties back and it just generates your impact fee at that point.

I THINK WE'VE ALWAYS BEEN SHOOTING FOR THAT SAME NUMBER. WE FELT THE SAME THING THAT COUNCILMAN HENDERSON DID. AND I THINK NOW WITH THE CONVERSATION, I DON'T THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ANY PROBLEM GETTING IT BACK TO THE NUMBER THAT WE'RE AT RIGHT NOW. AND WE'RE PRETTY CLOSE.

OR EVEN LOWER.

WE'LL HAVE NO PROBLEM GETTING IT BACK TO THE NUMBER THAT WE'RE AT.

OR EVEN LOWER.

BUT I THINK, COUNCILMAN, YOU'RE ABOUT 4 MILLION OFF. 3, 4. YEAH.

WELL, THE WASHINGTON DOME PROJECT IS 5 MILLION. SO THERE'S THAT.

I actually, Councilman Bell, some of you arm wrestle for me. She'll beat me. We're going to arm wrestle. We can do punching. You could. Horse. You would beat me in horse. And pickleball. Thank you. Anything else, Council?

No, I appreciate the discussion, and I really appreciate you guys bringing it so we can. DEEP DIVE INTO THESE.

WE'LL MAKE SOME EDITS AND COME BACK.

THANKS, BLANE. PAUL, WILL YOU STAY UP HERE FOR A MINUTE? WE'VE GOT TEN MORE MINUTES. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM THAT YOU'RE PRESENTING ON AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO, IF YOU'RE OKAY, COUNCILMAN IVEY, THAT E-MOTORCYCLE DISCUSSION WE'LL PUT AT THE END OF THE REGULAR MEETING AGENDA WHERE WE'VE ALREADY PLANNED FOR THAT, THINKING WE MIGHT GO OVER. ITEM FOUR ON THIS AGENDA IS WILLS PARK UPGRADES DISCUSSION. STILL PARKS DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR PAUL WALKER. STILL A NEW TITLE. A MONTH INTO THIS THING OR LESS?

OFFICIALLY I THINK IT'S BEEN A WEEK.

A WEEK, OKAY.

BUT WE'VE BEEN DOING IT FOR A LITTLE BIT. SO LET ME SHARE THIS. SO WE'VE GOT SOME FUNDS LEFT FOR THE WHEELS PARK. AND THE WHEELS PARK'S BEEN FANTASTIC. IT'S BEEN REALLY SUCCESSFUL. WE'RE KIND OF GETTING A FEEL FOR IT AND KIND OF WHAT'S GOING ON DOWN THERE AND WHAT'S HAPPENING AND WHAT PEOPLE ARE LIKING AND KIND OF SOME THINGS THAT WE MAY ADD TO IT. SO WE JUST WANT TO GET YOUR FEEDBACK ON THE DIRECTION TO GO. WE'VE GOT A FEW THINGS. WE DON'T HAVE MONEY TO PAY FOR ALL OF THEM, BUT WE'VE GOT A GOOD CHUNK OF MONEY AND WE COULD PAY FOR A LOT OF THEM. SO WE WANT TO GET FEEDBACK FROM THE COUNCIL, SEE WHAT DIRECTION WE SHOULD GO WITH SOME OF THESE. I'LL RUN THROUGH SOME OF THESE.

I MIGHT JUST MENTION WHERE THE MONEY CAME FROM. This is money that, as we were building our park, after we borrowed the money, we were making more in interest than what the interest was costing us to pay out. We made about $1 million more in interest than we paid out on the loan during that time. Now, the federal government wants their portion back because these were tax-free government bonds. So we had to pay back about $700,000, leaving about $300,000 left that we had held back. So just interesting to know why we ended up with some money.

Interesting. Interesting they should have gave us the million But it's still still based off of the debt it was taken out correct Just just interest that was that it accrued while we waited to build it All right, give us the options give the council the options okay, so the first one we've talked about is shade There's a lot of concrete a lot of synthetic turf down there.

This is kind of the places we're looking at adding shade. One of the difficult constraints we've got is the lighting out there. We would love to put more shade, but if we put shade, it can block the lights. It was really a bit of a challenge to get some of these bowls as deep as they were lit, so we have to be mindful of that when we put some shade in. So we've got some kind of areas we've preliminarily laid out for some shade, a lot of them around the perimeters and around the play areas in the splash pad. This is an example of some much smaller ones that we've got at Canyon Park and at the Dog Park. These are 8x8. We're looking at doing 12x12, 16x16, or 20x20 combinations of those.

Do you guys want to know a quick fun fact?

Yeah.

The reason why we have that at the Dog Park is because they ordered the wrong color for the Canyon Park. And we said, well, we're not paying for that. And they said, well, we don't want it back. and gave it to the city.

It's a good, they were good, so. I go down to the dog park and people congregate underneath those. And they'll move the things around to try to match the shade. It's much needed. Henry thanks you.

Henry. So these, yeah, so you guys are familiar with these. They're kind of levered. Those bigger ones, can they withstand the wind? Yes. These, I think it says they're rated for 110 mile per hour winds. They last.

It's not too bad. They last for, like, usually what goes bad is the sun just beats on the shade, and you've got to replace just the shade. The fabric. The tarp.

Yeah. We've got fabric at. at the over the bleachers at Sullivan and we've had to replace those one time usually they last really well and they'll get thin and then the wind blows really bad storm and then then we'll have to replace them but they they last quite a long time and the structures these are very these are very cost effective shade structures compared to some of the bigger ones that you can get yeah and just idea some of the areas we're looking at so so Paul yeah just real quick

When you say they're cantilevered, are they retractable at all, or they're just fixed cantilever?

They're fixed.

OK. Yeah.

So a lot of the areas we've got the synthetic turf out there, someplace we've got 15 feet of synthetic turf. And it would be great to have some shade over that. This is around the splash pad. If we put, this is one of the locations we'd like to put it, it would shade the bench, but also give some area on the ground where people could come in and get out of the sun.

Would you just place it over the turf?

Yes, we put it in the turf, kind of next to the sidewalk, and then it would cover that whole turf area and go out into the other sidewalk where the benches are a little bit.

The only issue with that is if people eat on there. And I don't know if you've seen other tables at other parks, how messy that can be. I don't know how it would be to be able to clean the turf.

Yeah. I don't think we should put benches there. I think we should. put the shades because people come with their lawn chairs and walk with their kids and let them do it that way versus putting more benches and tables underneath.

They'll put their towels out and stuff.

We've seen that quite a bit.

So you're just proposing just to do shade now?

Just shade. We do have the benches that are already around the playground, but I'm saying we should just add the shade in areas that they can also just put a lawn chair because that shade moves.

I like that. I was just mentioning it because of the other pictures you had shown that have the shade over the table.

So we do want to do that in certain places. We'll get to that. But the options that we're thinking around the playground area, you can see in this picture sort of there's a lady sitting right in the shade of the trunk of the tree. So there's plenty of surface out there that people would use if it were out of the sun. We've looked at a couple of areas. We've got some large open landscape rock areas. And these areas we would want to put some concrete and some picnic tables. So we may do a combination depending on how the council feels about it. That's another option is we could add some larger canopies with some picnic tables.

Is that by the 40 yard dash?

Yes.

Is that?

Is that area used a lot as much as the other areas? The 40-yard dash is used a lot. There's a lot of families that come and use that. It all kind of ebbs and flows different times and different ages.

Well, that's where me and Councilman Casper are going for the Washington Dome. We're going down to the 40-yard dash. Yeah, there you go.

Yeah, there's a small pavilion by the ninja course in the 40-yard dash, and it's full of people. Is it? Because I'm concerned it's kind of off in the corner, but maybe I'm...

I mean, I don't hang out in that side of the park. I hang out on the other side.

And again, we're looking for places that won't affect the lighting as well. We would love to put some of these in the middle, but it just isn't as feasible in the middle.

He's being careful, but I'll say it. Lighting and security.

Yeah.

We can't block certain areas.

Yeah, and you've got that... kind of strange group of rollerbladers that are there sometimes. They're kind of strange.

I'll make sure our cameras can see them. I'm not looking to my left. I'm just looking at you, Jordan.

It is odd to go there and you're an old guy and you're in rollerblades and all the kids are like, you're weird. What are you doing here? And there's like three of us or four that hang out. And then I haven't seen Jordan back, so I don't think he comes anymore. I think he retired.

So any feedback on the stage structures?

Can you go back to the overall exhibit, Paul? The one that, again, I didn't think about the lighting. I wanted more around the skate park because that's where a lot of the kids are. I definitely agree with the splash pad and the playground because there's so many families that hang out there. The one on the very southwest corner, that's such a weird spot and it's kind of in a hole that I just don't think it's worth putting anything there. just, I went and looked at it last night and I'm like, I just think it's because the pump track kind of goes up high.

Yeah.

And I think it's kind of in a hole that I feel like we shouldn't put anything there. And, but I also still want to put, is that an area where kids would sit and kind of wait for their turn? No. Cause it's like, it's like off the parking lot and the pump tracks up here, the kids sit on the top of the pump track in the middle and kind of work their way back forth, but they don't, that's just, I should know better, but

You guys go down to the park. I don't have any kids at home. They haven't blessed me with any grandkids yet, so I try to avoid going and hanging out in parks.

He's not there with his kids. He's over there doing jumps and back flips.

My kid's there more than me, and it's kind of a problem. Like, this park is a problem for me right now.

Yeah, I think, Paul, just to kind of summarize for you up to this point, I think that makes a good point there. That's an area where they're coming off the BMX track right there. And trucks come back up there, and they have tailgates down. So that area might not be great. The area where the rocks are up there on the 40-yard dash on the east side, no one's been there because there hasn't been any improvements there. I think if we incorporate it so people are using the play structure and the 40-yard dash, maybe more in that corner could overflow to that. It might be better than just along that northern strip of the 40-yard dash.

I was thinking move the one that we were just talking about on the southwest up to where the actual grass pad is and maybe hit that area. Do you see where I'm talking?

Where's the grass pad?

The real grass between the playground and the big bowl. There's that grass area. And the trees just aren't big yet. And I was thinking put a shade somewhere in there that kind of is by the grass that goes over the grass.

Yeah, yeah.

Don't do concrete, just put the shade, and people could put up their lawn chairs, and then they can see the playground, they can see the skate park, and kind of go both ways, was my thought on that one. But I'm about adding more shade, too. Like, I'd rather put more money in shade, because we don't have much, because the palm trees do a sliver, right, everywhere. And the other trees aren't grown yet, and they will eventually.

Yeah, and the skate part has a lot of seating built into it, little stem walls for people to sit on and hang out, but it's really difficult to be able to shade any of those areas. Paul, how much more do you have to go through? I can go as quick as you guys will let me.

Take a high level, and we can continue this in the regular meeting as well, because we're a little after 5.30 now.

Yeah, we can come back to it if you'd like. You okay with that, council? Okay with that, council?

Okay, thank you. We're going to finish up the Wills Park upgrades discussion, and we'll have the e-motorcycle discussion as part of the regular meeting. This time I'll turn to the council for a motion to adjourn the workshop session. So moved. Second. Motion by Councilman Ivey, second by Councilman Coates. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? We are adjourned until 6 p.m. Today is Wednesday, July 8, 2026. We are at Washington City Hall in the council chambers for our regular meeting. Our meetings are streamed live at washingtoncity.org slash meetings and archived there for later viewing. As is tradition over the last few years now, maybe more than a few, maybe three or four years, We will have the invocation given by a member of the Interfaith Council, and tonight we welcome the Reverend Jimmy Keston from Solomon's Porch Foursquare Fellowship to start our meeting off with an invocation. Following the invocation, Councilman Curt Ivey will lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. Pastor.

Thank you, Mayor, and what a privilege and joy it is to be with you. And as we enter into this 251st year of American exceptionalism, it is a blessing to know that the principles that made this country great are principles that Washington City adheres to in its governance and always shall. And what a grateful time this is to be an American. Let's pray. Our gracious Heavenly Father, we are so thankful for the many gifts that we have in being Americans and for this 250 year celebration that we just completed as we move into this next season of the American experiment. We know that it is city councils like this one in Washington that are truly the core of what American political system is about and government closest to the people. And we are so grateful for these who have been called to serve this city, all of its department heads and employees. We ask that your blessing be upon all those who have business in front of this council today. And may you give our decision makers wisdom beyond their capability to guide the city forward. I pray this in the name of Jesus Christ, my Lord.

Amen.

Amen.

Please stand. You'll repeat after me. Ready, begin.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you, Mayor. I have a church service tonight.

Good to see you, Reverend. BEFORE WE START WITH OUR REGULAR MEETING, WE ARE GOING TO PIVOT TO OUR PUBLIC FORUM. NOW, WE DO THESE PUBLIC FORUMS QUARTERLY AT THE BEGINNING OF THE FIRST REGULAR MEETING, AND SO JULY 8TH IS THE FIRST MEETING OF THE THIRD QUARTER OF THE YEAR. SO AT THIS TIME, Before I invite any residents to speak, and I would just ask you to speak on an item that is not on the agenda, but I would just remind you that if you want an even quicker response, you can go online and type in letusknowatwashingtonutah.gov. And a member of the city staff will respond to your inquiry. You can also email the council at councilconnectatwashingtonutah.gov. And that gives you quick access to the mayor and council. That said, we enjoy the opportunity to represent and listen to you. So at this time, I am going to open it up to any Washington City resident who would like to share some feedback with their elected representation. If you'll just state your name and just verify that you're a Washington City resident. And then most well-spoken comments can be made within about three to five minutes. THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE COUNCIL TO LISTEN. THE CITY MANAGER AND THE COUNCIL ARE TAKING NOTES. SO YOU MAY NOT GET A LOT OF FEEDBACK, BUT I CAN TELL YOU FROM EXPERIENCE THAT YOU WILL GET FEEDBACK AT SOME POINT, WHETHER IT'S A LITTLE BIT NOW BUT CERTAINLY MORE LATER. SO THIS TIME I'LL OPEN IT UP FOR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC. START HERE AT THE MIC THERE. And if you'll just state your name and that you're a Washington City resident.

Hello, my name is Caitlin Hershey. I'm a Washington City resident living very close to the OMP landfill, and my health has been severely impacted by the underground fire releasing toxic chemicals into the air. What started in June 2025 as daily headaches and migraines quickly turned into hormonal issues such as underactive thyroid, PMDD, and PCOS issues. Please note that burning materials such as rubber from tires is a known endocrine disruptor. Tires also contain latex, which is a common allergy that many people have, myself included. When the weather cooled down in September, the smell in our neighborhood started getting stronger and I started breaking out in large patches of hives all over my body, which you can see in the packets provided. I have been through hundreds of blood tests, doctor's appointments, and have even ended up in the emergency room due to anaphylactic hives that covered my entire body and burning, itching welts that started threatening my breathing. At this ER visit, I was given an EpiPen, high doses of antihistamines, anti-inflammatories, and steroids to calm my system, but the hives returned the next day in spite of these life-saving measures. I have also been to the ER with my son, During a particularly bad week of pollution in December, not only did I break out in horrible hives, but my son also experienced severe breathing issues. And he had been in urgent care the day before the ER visit and was given a breathing treatment and a steroid shot. He seemed to do better from this treatment until the toxic chemicals started seeping into the air that evening. We went outside just to get in the car and his symptoms became worse. He was gasping for air. By the time we got to urgent care, they checked his oxygen and we were immediately sent to the ER. Watching your three-year-old's eyes roll back as they struggle to breathe is a pain worse than the hives I have been experiencing for 10 months. Please note that the hives I experience are not normal hives. As you can see in the pictures provided to you, they are much larger, more intense, more painful, and I have tried several antihistamines with little effect, mast cell stabilizers, and biologic injections. The treatments I need are not easily covered by insurance and come with their own side effects, which is why I've had to stay on powerful immunosuppressants for over six months, because it is the only thing that helps me somewhat function. But I still wake up covered in hives and cannot function until the medicine calms my system down which can take several hours. The best treatment for this condition is an injection called Xolair and it costs $5,000 per month without insurance. I've been given a trial of this and still continued having severe hives. I have been trying to obtain insurance approval for another medication to help this painful condition and the cost of this medication is $2,500 per month at this point or sorry there was a point where I started doing better around May but then the toxic fumes came back which resulted in my body going into another severe flare ruining all the progress I had made at this point in time we are planning to move due to the fact that no matter how hard I try to do what is right for my health I can't avoid breathing I truly hope my story helps you realize the damage this pollution may cause to the people who live near O&P and I am not the only one experiencing problems related to this pollution. My problems are simply more visible. Others cannot take a picture of the problems they are experiencing. Please do something to help this community. ONP may have been here first, but your city council approved this development and it is your job to help us now as they continue to pollute our neighborhoods. Thank you.

Katelyn, thank you for having the courage to come and share that. I know that's been an ongoing issue. I will give you just what little update I have. Bear with me for one second. I can tell you that J. Lynn Knudson with the Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Waste Management and Radiation Control, along with the Division Director Ted Sonnenberg, will be visiting the Purgatory OMP Landfill at a future date and will give me an update along with Fire Chief and City Manager. AND WE WILL DETERMINE FROM THAT POINT WHAT UPDATES WE CAN PROVIDE TO THE PUBLIC. ARE THERE ANY OTHER INDIVIDUALS, RESIDENTS WHO WOULD LIKE TO GIVE COMMENT TO THE CITY COUNCIL DURING THIS PUBLIC FORUM? SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC FORUM. AND BEFORE WE MOVE INTO OUR REGULAR MEETING. I'LL JUST MAKE NOTE AGAIN THAT WE WELCOME GARY WEBSTER FROM SENATOR MIKE LEE'S STAFF AND WE WELCOME SAM HARVEY FROM CONGRESSWOMAN CELESTE MOLLOY'S STAFF. WE APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE AND WE APPRECIATE THE ONGOING SUPPORT FOR OUR COMMUNITY. COUNCIL, WE DO HAVE NEED TO GO TO CLOSED SESSION FOR ITEMS 11A AND 11B. I'VE BEEN ASSURED IT WILL BE BRIEF. THAT SAID, I WILL LOOK TO YOU FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA AS OUTLINED.

SO MOVED, MAYOR.

I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN COATES. IS THERE A SECOND?

SECOND.

SECOND BY COUNCILMAN BELLESTON. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? WE HAVE AN APPROVED AGENDA. We will start with announcements. I have invited our friends from Greater Zion to come and present to the council and to the community a state of tourism in Washington County. So I'll invite Chad McWilliams and Matthew Watson to come forward. You know, Chad, I was tempted to say Sherlock and Watson, but I kept it to Chad McWilliams and Matthew Watson.

He's definitely the smarter one. I will give you that for what he does. My name is Chad McWilliams with Greater Zion Tourism and Convention Office. My role within the tourism office is sports and adventure and large-scale events and whether those be... Off-road events athletic events or anything like that and along with golf marketing, so we do market and help support all 14 of the golf courses and and and green springs and i'll just tell you green springs thrives. I speak with Kevin, and they do a great job out there, and that is one of the people's favorites. You know, they want to play one of the two or three big ones, but we're grateful for Green Springs. And then maybe I'll say a little more affordable, you know, to some of the tourists that are coming in to play golf.

And we love Green Spring. It's our city course. We also love Coral Canyon, which is the other golf course in Washington City.

Yeah, so Coral Canyon, privately owned, but I was just where you guys oversee Kevin and the crew out there. But Coral Canyon, all 14 of those golf courses within the 20 mile radius are a gem to us. We've been recognized as one of the top three golf destinations in the last couple of years in the U.S. for the things you can do outside and off the golf course. I was talking to Council Member Bellison. I am not a golfer, but him and I are surely will, you know, in the near future, maybe drive on a golf cart and take any of you guys that want to go golf out. And then Watson, Matthew Watson, our community partner and relations manager. Matthew's role is to kind of visit with each one of the partners that we have with the businesses, the hotels and all the communities. And he kind of hears the complaints. He hears what's going on. He's kind of our eyes and ears and mouthpiece for what we do within the Greater Zion office.

Thank you, Chad, and thank you, Mayor and Council, again, for inviting us to come out and talk to you today. So I just want to spend a little bit of time today talking about why tourism is important and why the visitor economy is important to you, not only as Council members, but as residents here, and why that impacts the residents so positively. So as Chad mentioned, we are the Greater Zion Convention and Tourism Office. So we are the official tourism office for Washington County, and our mission is to maximize the revenue generated by visitors to create a superior experience for visitors and residents. Now, what does that mean? Hopefully throughout this presentation this afternoon, we can kind of explain a little bit what that means and why we do what it is that we do. But before we dive into that, I just want to go ahead and start with this quote. And those of you that have heard me present before know that I absolutely love this quote. And it really illustrates why the visitor economy is so important to our community. So if you build a place where people want to visit, you build a place where people want to live. And if you build a place where people want to live, you build a place where people want to work. And if you build a place where people want to work, you'll build a place where business has to be. And if you build a place where business has to be, you'll build a place where people want to visit. And so I think this quote really illustrates just kind of the cycle of investment that tourism spurs on in our community you know gone are the days where folks chase smokestacks nowadays people are chasing vibes and so they want to live in a city that has a good quality of life our residents want to stay in a city that has a good quality of life and the visitor economy is what allows our residents to have such a strong quality of life here in washington county in washington city Now, just want to go ahead and don't want to bore you with too many numbers today, but want to talk a little bit about some of the visitor spending impacts. So this study right here is one put together by the Kempsey Gardner Policy Institute looking at visitor spending in 2024. One of the great things about tourism is those are folks that come into our community bringing outside money and infusing outside money into our economy. So they spend money not only at our hotels, our restaurants, our stores, so that means that they pay state and local sales tax. So in 2024, one of every ten state sales tax dollars was contributed by a visitor. One of every seven local sales tax dollars was contributed by a visitor. So to put that in perspective, that's the equivalent of over 1,000 teacher salaries. So that's 1,000 of your kids' teachers that their salaries were paid for by a visitor that you did not have to pay for. That's the equivalent of 1,500 miles of road maintenance in our state. So again, you can see that those effects really run deep, and we're really grateful to have such a strong visitor economy here. So I want to take a little bit to talk about transient room tax. So transient room tax is the tax that a visitor pays whenever they spend a night at a hotel, short-term rental, a hotel site. And that's the money that goes back to our office to fund our office is that 4.5% county transient room tax. And there are very strict guidelines on how that must be spent. So 56% of that is to be spent on projects that not only benefit our residents, but also encourage future tourism. And the remaining 44% of that is spent on establishing and promoting tourism in the area. In addition to the 4.5% transient room tax that the county collects, Each municipality is able to enact a 1% transient room tax, and this is money that goes directly into your general funds. So to put that into perspective, year to date, Washington City has collected over $235,000 of that 1% transient room tax that goes into your general funds to use at your discretion. And one thing that's very exciting, as sure as council knows, you have many hotels that are in the works that are being built here in Washington City. So as those hotels continue to go online, that transient room tax number that you collect only going to increase but here's the thing you know we all love Kevin Costner here in Washington County but I have to say Kevin Costner is a liar he one time said if you build it they will come and that is the biggest lie that has ever been told by Kevin Costner that is simply not true if we build hotels visitors are not just going to come we need to make sure that we promote and keep those hotels full and we'll talk about that here in a minute So I mentioned in that previous slide the projects and how we have to spend some of that money on promoting and building projects in Washington County. So here's just an example of all the projects that we have funded in Washington City since 2022. So we've contributed almost $4 million to Washington City for projects since 2022. Again, projects that we all know and love, like the Wheels Park. like the beautiful old gym renovation that is just right behind here. So again, these are great projects that benefit residents that visitors helped pay for. So we are very, very grateful for the visitor economy to allow these projects to happen. So I mentioned, you know, we need to promote tourism. So there's there's a myth out there that we don't need to promote tourism. If we stop, people will simply keep coming. And again, as I said, that's not true. Every single destination in the United States is competing for people's hard earned, earned, discretionary income to travel. And so we need to make sure that we stay competitive so that we can continue welcoming those visitors and their dollars to our area. And so our office is very strategic in how we promote this. There's kind of a myth that we have a come one, come all message, but that's simply not true. We want visitors that stay longer, spend more, and really are good stewards of our area. Everyone in our office lives in Washington County, and a lot of us live in Washington City. So we want to make sure that these cities that we know and love stay the cities that we know and love. So how do we promote tourism? We do this in a couple of ways. So we promote heavily to the domestic markets. Do you live in Washington City? I don't. I don't. I live right on the border of Washington City. You should move a block over there. I was going to say, I might have to. I spend most of my money in Washington City, but one of these days we'll move over. So as I was saying, we promote heavily to the domestic market. We promote heavily to international visitors from around the world. We also bring in a lot of different meetings and conventions to the area. We focus a lot on sports events and adventure tourism. And then we also promote film production. And some of you might be sitting up there and thinking, wait, why on earth is a tourism office talking about film production? Well, film productions, when they come into town, they're visitors. They're bringing in new money to our economy, and they bring a lot of money. It was one time described to me that when a film production comes to town, it's like they have a boxcar full of cash and they set it on fire because that's how much money they spend. You know, we heard a story that when Kevin Costner was filming Horizons out here, rather than washing jeans, every few weeks they would go to the Tillys at the mall and buy out all their jeans because it was more convenient for them to buy new jeans than to wash them. Again, that's money that's coming into the pockets of our residents. In addition, film is a billboard that lasts forever. So when folks see this beautiful area on film, that encourages them to come out and visit here. So really a perpetual cycle of visitation. I'm going to go ahead and let Chad talk a little bit about some of the events and how we promote events in the area.

You know, when you were on the film, we were out at, I was having a meeting out at Entrada, and we were talking about their golf course and how hard it is to play their golf course and what we could do to kind of get that message out. And we got talking about film, and people still travel and ask for the Zac Efron room. You know, that he, I mean, it's all not the same beds, not the same. But they still ask for that. They want to be where they're at. So these people want to see these places were filmed. So it's kind of a neat thing. We get a lot of people who want to know exactly where Butch Cassidy and the Sundance kid were filmed in Snow Canyon. They want that crawl look. When we have events and we take people, they're like, what area is it? I think I got it down pretty good now. But one of the avenues we do use to kind of fill these Tetris holes in our calendar at the time of the year is we use sports and adventure events to kind of plug some of those holes and to boost up the economy. A couple of things that we really, that we're kind of proud of having here in Washington County is Trail Hero. Those that know Trail Hero and Trail Hero Music Festival, it's about 4,000 rock crawlers and jeepers and side-by-sides who come in and spend a week in Washington County up at Sand Hollow and throughout the county. But then they also have a three-day musical festival that's open to the public and everybody throughout Trail Hero is probably the number one economic single event that we have in Washington County. Their economic impact on a very conservative is between eight and $10 million on that particular event. We don't really feel a whole lot of that impact like we did with say Iron Man and things like that. Well, what do we replace Ironman with? Well, one of the things I'll tell the council here, because we just announced here a couple months ago, is the Spartan will have a Zion trifecta weekend, which will be about 12,000 to 15,000 athletes in Sand Hall the first weekend in March. And what was nice about that, it came at a cost of half of Ironman and half the impact of Ironman. You know, Washington City got a lot of that brunt of, roads closed and using your staff and everybody to kind of for the what, you know, and the why are we taking on this hit. But this is one that's going to benefit everybody. The other one that we like to use that we invested in a couple years ago is with the PGA and the LPGA out of Black Desert and at Copper Rock. Those two single events have created, I just finished the economic impact, I'll send to all the people on the city council for last year's golf was conservatively 147 million into Washington County's economy. That's based on one individual's playing at least two rounds, spending at least two nights and spending a minimum of $100. And that does not include the jobs that it creates with your secondary, your tee boxes, your birdie lounges, your golf simulator kind of places. But I'll send you the full report on that here as soon as I get the graphics done on it. But that's why we invest in these events. One, going back to Trail Hero once again, When they first came here, they brought Kawasaki in to be a vendor at their thing. Now look at the big plant that Kawasaki is now building here. Talking with them, there are obviously a lot... And by here, you mean here in Washington City. Yeah, Washington City. But it's a lot with what we have to offer here. The philosophy. Yeah, the quality. Yeah, he's going to move across the street. I'm kind of stuck downtown St. George for a hot minute, but I've kind of eyeballing some of those places out there by the new wheels park. So we're looking there. But we use these events and we plug these events in strategic times of the year so that we can boost that economy up year round. We are still kind of working on June and July and August because they are hot. We focus on water sports and things like that. and some indoor stuff. And then the Dixie Center is one of those ones that we know we need an expansion on. And we're constantly looking at that. But in the summertime, we bring in big conventions. And we have an individual in our office that that's all she does is works on bringing in these big conventions into the convention center. This summer we have a religious group that rents it out quite regularly and they bring in thousands and they spend a lot of money while they're here and they don't really, nobody knows they're here. But one of the things that we're kind of lacking with our meeting and convention space is we don't have enough weekends in the year that are perfect weather weekends and we don't have enough room anymore at the convention center. So hopefully in the next couple of years, you'll see the convention center double, and that'll allow us to bring in more conventions so that we have more dollars that we can then reinvest back into our communities that we're working on. And like Matthew said, these dollars go right back to you, just almost that $4 million in the Wheels Park, which is one of these things we'll have another side message here in our meeting is that with that Wheels Park, Now I can start looking at that as like, what events can we stick there? What can we bring in to highlight that? Is there some Red Bull stuff that we can do in there? Is there some some BMX stuff that we can do. And so that opens up another asset that we have that makes Washington County one of the best destinations in the country, if not, and I'm kind of biased, but number one in the state. So we're grateful for that project.

You're going to have problems fighting off the kids to get off of it for an event. Yeah, we'll have to figure that one out for a second. Maybe on a Wednesday in the middle of the day in the summer, you can have it.

I grew up by there several times looking at it going, what can we bring in here? So we're grateful for that facility.

One of the things I always like to talk about with the convention center is not only does that benefit the events we can bring in, but it benefits us here as residents. I know many of us, there are beloved events that happen at the Dixie Center every year. And I think we can all attest to we've been to the Dickens Festival, and it's a bit too crowded, and there's not any room to breathe. So again, by expanding the Dixie Center, that will allow some of these community events that we know and love to grow, which is super exciting. So we talked a lot about, OK, how do we bring people in? But where are folks coming from? So people come and visit our home from all over the world, which is something that's really cool and something that we should be proud about. So up here on the screen, you'll see some of our top markets, both domestically and internationally. So again, international visitors are great because they spend more and stay longer. Australia is one of our favorite markets. They're actually Utah's number one ski market. So Australian and New Zealand visitors, they really can't ski there. So they come here and they spend about two weeks in Utah and no one's going to spend two weeks skiing. So they spend about a week skiing up in northern Utah and then a week down here in our national park. So again, a really, really great market that is infusing new money into our economy. Now, I know we talked a lot with you guys today. But of course, we want to be respectful of Council's time. And so we invite you, if any of you are interested in learning a little bit more details about what we do, some more of the details of how we promote visitation and why it's so important to you, we would be more than happy to come back to a work meeting. or we invite any of you to reach out to our office, and we're happy to sit down with you one-on-one. If you want more regular updates, we send out a partner newsletter periodically, which I have attached to this QR code here. So anyone is more than welcome to scan that and get those regular updates. And because you've heard so much from Chad and I, you're probably sick of hearing our voices. We wanted to close with a video from some of the residents here in the area to hear why the tourism economy is so important to them.

Maybe.

This is our home. Where we live, work and raise our families. We know this place is special, and we're proud to share it with the world.

We're bringing so many people in here. It's changed our community, and I feel like it's changed it for the better.

If you look at what drives business here, it really is dependent on the tourism aspects, the hiking, the biking, the outdoors, the activities, the events, the history, the arts. All of those things make St. George a really great place to come.

Every overnight visitor to Greater Zion helps our economy through the transient room tax, which is reinvested in our communities, building and maintaining trails, supporting jobs, and preserving the places that make Washington County unforgettable.

It's a great place for everyone, but I also just think that people don't know what those tax dollars are doing and providing when guests come and they stay and they spend money in hotels and they go to restaurants and they visit the parks and they go shopping. Those are all things that bring us amenities that we don't have to pay for.

Zion National Park is the heart of our community, drawing the world to our doorstep. Its impact touches nearly every family in Washington County through livelihoods, local pride, and the beauty we all share. Tourism is the lifeblood of all the businesses in Springdale.

If you turn the clock back 20 years, you would see nothing like what you see now.

For the last 20 years, we've had to scrape for everything we could. Now with all the tourism that's coming here, with the exposure that we've gotten in Southern Utah and Greater Zion, we've had the ability to bring in more income and continue to grow and flourish here.

People are drawn to this place. It's beauty, it's energy, it's sense of possibility. But what we have built here didn't happen by chance. It's the result of years of smart planning and investment.

I think messaging and advertising from people who care, such as the county, the local towns, the state of Utah, I think we can't take the foot off the gas there. I think we need that forever.

Without marketing, and I've seen this in other communities, when you pull back the tourism marketing, you lose what we've worked so hard to build in getting people to recognize us for all that we have. It goes away really, really quickly and it doesn't come back very fast. It would take us years and years and years to build back what we've got now.

Continued tourism funding is vital for expanding our venues, improving recreation, and sustaining long-term prosperity, all made possible by dedicated visitor taxes.

I understand that expansion is coming to our airport, and expansion is coming to the Dixie Center. Those are things that benefit not just tourists, but also the locals.

Vision and investment keep Greater Zion thriving for everyone.

Tourism is such an important industry here in our community. It's easy to see how a hotel benefits from tourism. It's easy to see how a restaurant benefits from tourism. But those hoteliers pay their workers and they buy tires and they buy groceries and that grocery store pays their workers and they buy, you know, sporting goods or whatever. To be able to provide that and to create that synergy is so important.

Those people that are enjoying this area and connect to it, We want their friends because they're going to be like-minded. They're going to want to take care of the park. They're going to want to be the right kind of visitor. They're going to continue to grow what it is Greater Zion has worked so hard to get to. We still have so much to do. Without Greater Zion, we can't keep this momentum, and we're not there yet.

Tourism isn't just about visitors. It's about us, our families, our businesses, our shared future. When we invest in tourism, we're investing in the heart of our community, our home, our hopes, and for the generations to come.

I can't wait to see what this becomes in the next five to 10 years. I'm super excited.

Well, and that's what it was like Matthew said, it's tough to put a state of tourism in Washington County in a 15 to 20 minute. Presentations we appreciate the time and like we said we would love to visit with each of you or come back and really dive into Kind of specifically what what's working.

What's not whatever you whatever you guys would like so we appreciate the time Well, thank you Chad and Matthew excellent presentation I'll share a few little stats with you in the community since the wills park opened We've had a hundred and ten thousand visits fifty two thousand unique visitors and 35% are from outside Washington County, and people have visited from 40 states. So if that's your mission, the contributions that began in 2022 into Washington City and the contribution to the Wills Park are greatly appreciated. And then just before you leave, I just let the council know is that I've invited Councilwoman Kim Casperson to serve on the Greater Zion Sports and Events Advisory Board.

And I think that nod is a yes. All right. After we meet, she might change her mind, but we'll visit on what that really entails. And it won't be a lot of your time, but we appreciate the voice from Washington City to be on that.

THANK YOU. COUNCIL, I DON'T HAVE ANY SPECIFIC ANNOUNCEMENTS BETWEEN NOW AND THE NEXT MEETING. IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU HAVE? SEEING NONE, WE'LL CARRY ON WITH THE MEETING WITH THE NEXT ITEM WHICH IS DECLARATIONS OF ABSTENTIONS AND CONFLICTS. ANYTHING TO DECLARE? ANY CONFLICTS? SEEING NONE WE'LL MOVE TO THE CONSENT AGENDA WHICH CONSISTS OF THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF 6-24-26 THE BOARD AUDIT REPORT FROM JUNE 2026 AND THE APPROVAL OF AN ON-SITE OR AN ON-PREMISE RESTAURANT LIMITED SERVICE LICENSE FOR AKARI JAPANESE LOCATED AT 875 WEST Red Cliffs Drive, Suite 1. If there are no items to pull from that for further discussion, I'll call for a motion to approve the consent agenda.

Mayor, I'll make that motion to approve the consent agenda as read. And I'll second that.

Have a motion by Councilman Coates and a second by Councilman Bellison. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? The consent agenda is approved unanimously five to zero. We'll move on to a word of bid. This is item 5A, if you're following along. It's consideration to award the bid for the Buena Vista Boulevard and Brio Parkway Traffic Signal Project to Suncor in the amount of $181,206.80. City Engineer Paul Mogul will present to the council and answer any questions you may have.

Thanks, Mayor and Council. On June 30th at 2 p.m., bids were opened publicly and read aloud in the Public Works Building. We received three bids that were very competitive. The lowest bid was Suncor in the amount of $181,206.80. And we, staff, would recommend approval of the low bid to Suncor. And I'm here to answer any questions that you may have.

Paul, this one seems lower than the other ones. What's the difference? Because usually they've been about 300 to 400 on some of them.

Yeah, there's not a lot of extra site work. Some of them we've added like a right turn pocket or something like that. Just the light poles? Yep, just the signal pole. And two of the ped ramps on the Brio side are getting widened, and that's about it.

Who provides the engineer's bid? Is that you or is that a third party?

So whoever designs the traffic signal provides the engineer's bid.

They're about $30,000 high from the winning bid. What was the reason for that, do you think? Is it just cost of items coming down? Is that hopefully what I'm... Yeah, I think so.

Yeah, I think so.

Councilman, you also never want to... ESTIMATE A PROJECT, IT WOULD BE THE LOW BID AS AN ENGINEER. YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE THEY HAVE BUDGET. BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE THE RESOURCES TO BUILD IT.

IS THIS ALREADY IN THE CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN? THIS ONE, YES. THIS ONE IS ON THE TRANSPORTATION MASTER PLAN.

If there are no further questions for Paul or any further discussion, I'll call for a motion to approve as stated.

Make a motion to award the bid for the Buena Vista Boulevard and Breaux Parkway traffic signal project to Suncor in the amount of $181,206.80.

You've heard the motion by Councilman Ivey. Is there a second? Second. Second by Councilwoman Casperson. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? THE BID IS AWARDED TO SUNROCK AND THE AMOUNT STATED WITH A VOTE OF 5-0. THANK YOU, PAUL. MOVING ON TO ITEM 6, SECTION 6 ORDINANCES, ITEM 6A. THIS IS CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE FOR ZONE CHANGE Z-26-12 TO UPDATE THE EXISTING PUDR FOR A BUSINESS LOCATED AT 3585 SOUTH COMMUNO REAL. This is Sunrise Residential Treatment Facility. Community Development Director Eldon Gibb will present.

Thank you, Mayor, Council. This item was tabled during the June 24th meeting to give the applicant time to look into and further address a few of the items, first being tree mitigation along that north boundary line. In your packet, there's an updated exhibit. These Afghan pines are existing. The applicant's proposing to extend these down that north boundary line, as you can see in this updated landscape plan. The second item discussed was moving the AC units to the ground and or relocating them to the south end of the building so they are not facing the adjacent neighbors. The applicant was made aware those AC condensers are not able to move and they are planning to place THE SAME AFGHAN PINES IN FRONT OF THE AC UNITS IN ADDITION TO THE TREE LANDSCAPING SHOWN. ITEM NUMBER THREE WAS LOWERING THE PAD OR DIRT WHERE THE PROPOSED BUILDING WILL BE. THE APPLICANT STATED THAT THAT PAD HE'S REQUESTING THAT PAD HEIGHT STAY TO HELP WITH DRAINAGE FLOW OFF THE SITE THERE AND TIE IN WITH THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT. And then lastly is the exterior building material. This is the updated rendering. The applicant's planning to do a traditional stucco system here, lath, gray coat, and then a color coat to match the existing buildings. That concludes staff report. I'm happy to, questions you may have.

Council, questions for Eldon?

Did the setback change from originally noted? This is 22 foot setback from the north and 80 foot setback from the east property lines.

I don't think it's changed. Uh, we just defined it. Okay.

So then I, I went and looked at it the other day. Um, I think I can, I appreciate what they've done with the trees to help and they've kind of tried to position those trees to cover those condensers. I think the only thing I'm struggling with is the pad elevation because They say they want it to meet grade, but then this whole building has stairs up to it. So in my thought, why don't we just remove the stairs on the west or south side, make it flush with the pad and drop the pad about a foot, because the pad sets up like three feet from the adjacent property. So that's my only thing is I feel like you could, I mean, I know you can make it work. It's just, there's a cost to it, right? And so I understand we want to, he wants to limit costs, but I truly feel that it shouldn't go down a foot or two and make it flush with the south side so they don't have stairs there, and then it doesn't affect their drainage. But that's the only thing I can see is kind of where I'm leaning, what we should require.

Those are great comments. I would just have the applicant speak to that.

Further discussion, further questions, comments with the staff? Is the applicant here or online or available to speak? Or the applicant's representative? Okay. Council, I'll turn back to you. We appreciated the community input last meeting. I'll turn to you for further discussion on this item and or a motion.

Mayor, I was just gonna ask the applicant whether these units they're hard to see exactly what they are but they may look a little bit like portables that can be transported on on wheels and then set up there they would have a main frame and wheels under them um just kind of wanted to ask questions about that but i think that's pretty well what it what it is unless you can see it differently i don't think there's wheels i think they get transported and set and set on the frames yeah

It's not like a RV trailer park. They are, they are portable buildings, but I don't think they have wheels. I think they're set. I'm not positive though.

They'll be required to meet the. Foundation requirements attached to the permanent foundation is the applicant online here.

I represent mobile modular and I can speak to that. Yes.

Yeah, you heard councilman Ivy's question in regard and councilman coats comments in regards to the height and the grade.

yeah i i would i would leave that up to the end user on the on the grade but i can speak to the mobile and modular question for sure go ahead and state your name for the record please yeah it's it's bill ackerman mobile modular all right go ahead bill Um, yes, they are mobile and they come in on wheels and axles, but there's, there's in our industry, there's no difference between the two. Everybody kind of gets a little worked up, whether they're mobile or modular, those all will be stripped off. And the only difference is a modular sits on a, on a trailer, a flatbed and a mobile comes in on a wheels. And we just do that for cost of transportation. And so all of that running gear gets sat, taken off and sat on a foundation.

Thank you bill, I think that answered the council members questions.

You're welcome. I'm here if there's any anything else I'm more than happy to answer.

Maybe I'll ask Bill, can you put dirt up against the 1 side of your building?

You, you can, if absolutely, if, if, you know, we'd like to put like a, either a pressure treat or, or some type of, so there's no rotting. And so it continues to, to maintain, uh, you know, the, the proper look. I mean, we don't want to put anything out there that, uh, um, is not commercial graded. That is not, that does not look permanent. If that makes sense.

Yeah, it makes sense. And that kind of comes to my point is I feel like we could lower the pad at least a foot, if not two, and then put dirt up against the edge of the building on the south side and then taper away. And then it's not sticking up. Because that pad's like three feet-ish, four feet from the parking lot. And then you go up another 12 feet. It's just a big building. So that's my recommendation is we lower the pad if it can work. And then it meets the adjacent grade as well that they're trying to accomplish. That's just my opinion.

Is it what's the overall height on these?

Well, I think it was 1212.

Yeah, yeah, they're just above 12 feet. Yes.

Okay.

Does that include the 3 foot skirting?

Or frame yeah, that's that's the rail. Yeah, exactly the frame to the to the peak of the roof. Yep.

Council this is this isn't an easy one. IT'S A TOUGH ONE. I THINK THE APPLICANT HAS ATTEMPTED TO ADDRESS THE ITEMS THAT YOU BROUGHT FORWARD. THEY'VE ADDRESSED THE EXTERIOR. THEY'VE ADDRESSED THE TREES AND THE BEST THEY COULD WITH THE AC. YOU'VE HEARD SOME OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM COUNCILMAN COATS ON THE SLOP AND GRADE AND MAYBE THE WAY TO MITIGATE THAT HEIGHT. WE HEARD FROM RESIDENTS. Again, this is your discussion to have, and at some point we'll, if one of you has a strong feeling on it, go ahead and make a motion. We'll see where it lands.

Mayor, I'll just make a comment. I appreciate the efforts they've made, and I like the idea of doing a standard stucco system on the outside. That'll really improve the looks of it. I like the way they've done the trees. I agree with Councilman Coates. If there's a way to drop the grade a little bit, I mean, that would be ideal. But I'm fine with these changes that they've made. I don't know how we would address the grade situation, have staff. I mean, what are you thinking?

I just think it's a condition of approval. Wouldn't you think? Is that they'd have to lower the grade?

Yeah, that works.

If you're wanting to go that route, maybe give us a height from the parking lot.

What is the difference right now? Because I'm estimating off just looking at it. This would be three or four foot taller than the existing parking lot. All I'm saying is drop it like a foot or two.

Between a foot or two is what might... That's reasonable if the sloping and drainage works, I would say. Okay.

NO THOUGHTS. SOMEBODY WANT TO TAKE A STAB AT A MOTION? I CAN, IF THE COUNCIL IS READY FOR ME.

READY FOR MOTION? GO AHEAD. I'LL MAKE A MOTION. WE APPROVE ITEM 6A, ZONE CHANGE Z-26-12 TO UPDATE THE EXISTING PUDR FOR THE SUNRISE RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT FACILITY WITH THE ITEMS THAT WERE PRESENTED. in our current packet with the additional trees for screening, the setbacks as proposed, the lowering of the pad between one and two feet. Is there any others? Do you want to clarify the tree screening of the AC units? The tree screening in front of the AC units. I think that's good. I think they've accomplished everything, and I think that's working with, oh, and the building being stucco finished.

Yeah, the exterior finished being traditional stucco as presented and as described. You've heard Councilman Coates' motion. Would somebody like to second that?

I'll second that.

I have a motion by Councilman Coates, a second by Councilman Belliston. We'll go roll call, beginning with Councilmember Ivey. Aye. COATS, AYE. HENDERSON, AYE. BELLESTON, AYE. CASPERSON, AYE. ITEM 6A IS APPROVED WITH THE CONDITIONS AS OUTLINED. MOVING ON TO SECTION 7, ITEM 7A, THIS IS A RESOLUTION, CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT AND PERPETUAL LICENSE GOVERNING THE INSTALLATION, MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF A PRIVATE WATER LINE within a city public utility easement to serve the lakes within the Alea PCD. City Attorney Thad Signal.

Thank you, Mayor and members of the council. Mr. Tim Anderson is in the gallery here to represent the applicant's interest, if the council is willing to give him time to address you and maybe respond to any questions that you have there. Also, there's public works leadership here that probably will be able to talk about the exhibit in better detail than I can. And so Mr. Mogul or maybe Blake might be the ones to stand up on that. But we've got the agreement tonight. This has been an agreement that has taken many months and a lot of staff work, both in the legal department, I know in the public works department, I've been with them for many hours as well. I may just start with recitals A and B. because they recite essentially the history. Recital A talks about the amount of water body acreage that they're entitled to do. And just a reminder to the council and the public, the amount that they're entitled to at 18.7 is nearly seven acres less than their cellar was entitled to. And then recital B, I'll just read it. AND IT SAYS NOTHING IN CITY'S CONSIDERATION OR APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS, LAND USE APPLICATIONS PERMITS OR OTHERWISE CONTEMPLATES OR OBLIGATES CITY DELIVERED COLONIAL WATER FOR USE IN THE WATER PARK, LAKES OR LAGOONS. SO JUST A REMINDER OF THE HISTORY THAT THIS PARK DID RECEIVE LAND USE ENTITLEMENTS BUT WITH THE VERY, VERY EXPRESS LIMITATION THAT THEY HAD TO USE THEIR OWN WATER. Those two set the essentially the foundation for this agreement because Washington city has entitled them, but also restricted them from doing it with public water. They have a need for easements and rights to move their private water throughout certain public roads and rights of ways. And so that's the essence of this agreement is to give them a contract that gives them the right, um, but also is reviewed and approved by public works. SO THAT THEY LOCATE THESE THINGS IN SPECIFIC PLACES UNDER CERTAIN STANDARDS THAT MEET ALL OF THE PLANS THAT PUBLIC WORK SHOULD HAVE FOR THOSE SAME PUBLIC AREAS. SO THAT'S THE CRUX OF THE AGREEMENT. DO ANY OF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT IT FROM YOUR PERSONAL REVIEW OR ANY PROVISIONS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT? IF NOT, I'LL JUST KIND OF WALK THROUGH IT IN HIGH LEVELS.

I JUST HAVE TO REMIND ME, IS THERE CONSIDERATION FOR THE EASEMENT?

There is no financial consideration in here. Essentially what we've done is we've skipped that and just converted it all to their burden and duty to do. So you'll see that on page two, there's a paragraph that indicates that it's their obligation to build, construct, and install. And so the city's not doing any of this for them. There's no reimbursements there. Page three, it's their obligation to maintain and repair. The city's not maintaining or repairing or reimbursing maintenance or repair. If you go to page 4, there's assurances that they will indemnify the city, as well as on the next page, details about insurance policy. It's a bigger policy and a bigger protection than the city requires from most other developments. On page 8, we've got compliance provisions for non-potable water systems, and we list that they've got to deal with the state of Utah and their sections, and then A five point in section 5.3 on that page we go through there's a list of what I think are the concern issues, you know cross kicks cross connection, which means the risk that. Somehow their private system gets connected to the public system and so we've got provisions in there for that. we've got provisions that require that their pipe and be clearly identifiable against and differently for many of ours. We've got provisions that they have above ground signage that helps future people that work in and around there to know that. We've got provisions to require that they maintain certain water quality standards. We also have metering and reporting. We require that they meter and report to the state, and also that they participate and provide their system details to Blue Stakes. And so, again, another duty and a burden we're placing on them as part of this grant, if it were to be granted.

That was my one of my questions that was the Blue Stakes thing, you know, so they're required to register with Blue Stakes. And if there's a call to Blue Stakes, then their current water lines are marked up.

Yeah, it says licensees shall register the facilities of Blue Stakes of Utah and shall comply with all requirements thereof, including timely response to dig notices and marking of underground facilities prior to any excavation. in or adjacent to the easement.

Who's going to blue stake that? Because blue stakes, they call in a water line. We, as a city, go out and mark our water lines. The communications marks theirs. Who in their area are going to be able to do that?

So they're going to be required to have those staff people that do that. So they're going to have to have somebody with that expertise that does it or contract with a company that can or will. The city does not plan or intend to blue stake it on their behalf. WE THEN GET INTO PARAGRAPH 6 ON PAGE 10. THE FIRST ONE SAYS IT'S ALL PRIVATE, WHICH IS IMPORTANT TO ME TO CLARIFY. THIS IS ALL PRIVATE. THE SECOND ONE SAYS NO CITY OBLIGATION, AND I'LL JUST READ IT. THE CITY SHALL HAVE NO OBLIGATION WHATSOEVER TO OPERATE, MAINTAIN, INSPECT, REPAIR, REPLACE OR FUND THE FACILITIES AT ANY TIME. ALL COSTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES ASSOCIATED WITH ONGOING OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE SHALL REMAIN EXCLUSIVELY WITH THEM. SECTION 6.5 IS AN AREA THAT I HAD CONCERN. And it's not that it's a problem. It's a detail that needs to be addressed. And it's the transfer of maintenance. So all of these obligations that we're making clear that are theirs, we also know that developers eventually sell out and leave and that ownership transitions. And so that might be the paragraph that was my highest of concerns. And so what we've got is we've got the developer with fully yoked several responsibility up until they leave. We also have the HOA in jointly and severally as well as the successors of any of those so that when the developer's gone there's still an entity on the ground that has a power to collect a fee and assess a fee that also can hire the staff to fulfill these duties and responsibilities.

Is there a cash bond or other sort of bond just to give us the surety that if they do have to access those lines that it doesn't fall upon our cost and our effort?

So there is no bond element in this agreement. If the council wants that, we can. There's a lot of language that says if they have to do that, they have to repair it to the same standard.

I'm just thinking what's the worst that could happen, and normally we leave that to the city manager who's really good at thinking through, and you actually, through the worst that could happen. But just thinking, I just don't want us to be left holding the bag on something.

Yeah.

My concern is in a right-of-way. Like if it's outside of a right-of-way and they're in the, the PUE and still meet the required setbacks from our power and gas outside of the right-of-way. I don't have concern, but the one area that's down along Village 19 and those pieces down there at the very bottom, that area is within the right-of-way. And I just am concerned about the blue stakes and dealing with that and the liability. They need to just move it outside of the right-of-way. That's kind of my thoughts.

Just for my own curiosity's sake, we got culinary water's blue pipe, right? Secondary water's purple pipe. Is there a different color pipe?

You could sock it, like if you wanted to put a sock on it of a different color. Sewer's green. I mean, I don't know. Those are the three main ones, right? Gas is yellow.

I'm just wondering if there's a way to get a pipe that's a different color so that if somebody were digging and they see something, it's easily identifiable that, hey, whatever.

So I don't have the answer if there's a way to get a different color pipe, but I was in a meeting when I heard our Public Works folks talk with their engineers about that very question, and I think the goal is if they can find a pipe that's just distinctly colored, that they'll require that it be that pipe that gets used.

What's the diameter?

Of the pipelines? I don't know. Eight inches. Any other questions about the agreement or the concepts of what it's trying to accomplish? Okay, Mayor, I'll sit down, and I think that the more technical questions.

Sorry, go ahead. One quick question. So most of the streets down there are private streets, though, right?

Most of the streets. There are some public streets that it needs to cross and or traverse alongside of.

Right, but generally speaking, it's private streets.

Yeah.

Okay.

Before you sit down, Todd, The prior developer, prior ownership group, would they have ultimately had to ask for the same thing for what the original plan was?

No, they had no requirement not to use culinary water. They could have taken the 24, 26 acres of lakes and ponds and just connected to a culinary water meter.

So for our benefit, what you're saying, and I'm glad you said it the way you did, is for our benefit, This keeps the promise that their lake features will not use culinary water. That helps give us assurance, and so that's Washington City's interest in being accommodating in this situation.

Yeah, this is treatment that is very unique throughout our city. We have many housing developments and commercial developments that HAVE A CULINARY TAPPING THAT USES IT FOR A FOUNTAIN OR WATER FEATURE OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE, RIGHT? POOLS AND SWIMMING POOLS, WHICH SOME OF THESE WILL BE. SO THIS IS THE ONLY ONE THAT I'M AWARE OF IN OUR CITY THAT IS SPECIFICALLY DISALLOWED FROM USING CULINARY WATER FOR THOSE USES. BUT OTHER USERS DO IT EVERY SINGLE DAY. SO THE REASON WHY THIS AGREEMENT IS NEEDED IS THEY'VE BEEN required to develop a private system. Now, I was here. They told you that they could develop a private system and that they would. And so the requirement wasn't necessarily heavy-handed. It was part of the negotiation and discussion that got them to where they got. But yeah, this is the only development in this city that has this type of requirement. And so this contract isn't in a form that we use with other people because everybody else comes in, abides by our landscaping ordinances, our water conservation ordinances, and they get a culinary meter and use that culinary for pools and different things.

That helps me understand. Washington City's interest is helping the developer keep their commitment to not use culinary water, which now shows me that we have an interest in facilitating this.

Correct. And I'm not going to use the word obligation, but I believe if a city comes and says, we'll accept your offer to make a private water system, but then 10 months later, we say we won't accept your map of where you're going to place it. I think we have got some element of participation duty. If we were going to require that they do a private system, we'd probably have to reasonably try to see if that can fit within public spaces because we're the ones that required it of them.

Council, questions for the city attorney?

The reason I want to avoid the word obligation is it was a negotiation in public meetings in different ways. It was an offer from them. They wanted to do it. They saw it. And so we've all been there. The history is pretty clear. But yeah, it was a provision. And this document is essentially, and this is part of why there's not Consideration amounts in there.

It's different than a cell tower that wants to lease land that really doesn't do much else for us This to me shows And I'm not advocating the council's gonna vote where they're gonna vote, but this shows to me that there's mutual interest Yeah in making you know based on I know you say that mayor, but I disagree in the fact that they they had a plan and

they knew they were going to get water they just ran out of room and so they want to put it in our roadway that's my problem with it everywhere else they try to do it but this spot for some reason they don't want to do it here so we have a mutual interest we gave them options that would help with it might be the city's infrastructure at some point right so i'm sitting here going i don't know that's where i struggle with it but i'm just again protecting the city so it makes you a great council member And one that people hate?

No, no, no, no, no, no. It's a unique situation, right? And I think we all recognize it from all sides. It's a unique situation. It's also, you know, private streets in a large park, you know, and whatnot. I mean, as long as we can maintain separation, I don't necessarily have an issue with them using some of the public.

Can I ask the question? Can you pull up the map, Thad? The one I'm talking about, is that a private street or a public street?

You wanted to look at the exhibit in the packet? The exhibit.

Just so everyone can see.

Are you able to pull that up, Eldon? The one that's a heavy line is City Right-of-Way.

That's within the City Right-of-Way, right? The other ones are all within the easement outside of the Right-of-Way.

Well, they're public utility easement.

Yeah. I'm just saying, I don't think they're in private streets. If they're in private streets, that's not my problem, right? That's their private street.

My biggest concern is if it can be done in a different color pipe that uniquely identifies it so that it doesn't get hoops hooked into the culinary side or hooked into our side or something else, then great, right? That would be my biggest concern. But I think that we also have an obligation to try to work with them. And keep the project going, right? Like, I wasn't a super fan when it was done, but, you know, it's there. I don't see too much of an issue with it.

I don't disagree with you, and I know I'm always the one that comes up and argues about it, but I just think it's, hey, city, we need this. Hey, city, we need this. Hey, city, we need this. And, hey, city, as a city, we're like, we need this. Well, we can't do that. That's how I feel with this group, so I'm going to be honest. So i'm not in the mind of helping them, but if the Council does that's fine, I want to I want their projects to succeed, but I also want them to. We warned them all all this stuff through that whole process and now they're coming back asking for different stuff and that's what my frustration comes from.

I will just share the meetings i've been in I expressed something I said look all your walls are on the perimeter just put your main line on the perimeter and. YOU KNOW, TO AN ATTORNEY THAT DIDN'T KNOW MUCH ABOUT ALL THE OTHER STUFF GOING ON THERE, IT MADE SENSE. THEY HAD GOOD ANSWERS AS TO WHY THAT WASN'T FEASIBLE AND DIDN'T WORK. AND SO THE CITY STAFF HAVE PUSHED AND ASKED THEM TO, LOOK, YOU GUYS OWNED ALL OF THIS AT SOME POINT. GIVE US A BETTER OPTION THAN THIS. INITIALLY PUBLIC WORKS REPRESENTATIVES SAID, LOOK, WE WANT YOU TO PUT IT ON YOUR STUFF. DON'T PUT IT IN ANY ROADS. Because of where the wells are located, that's impossible. They do have to cross some public roads to get to where they want it to serve.

Just so you know, I don't mind the crossings. Those happen. There's ways you can case it. You can do things. It's along the entire road.

So my idea initially failed because the gardener piece there is one that's in dispute with the developer. And there was no way they'd ever get across that one. And so those type of issues are what they had a good answer to me on. And so there was an effort to try and get it out of the public roads entirely, but it it wasn't it never became feasible That's part of why this took about eight months to get here Further questions for that Counsel any questions for our public works professionals Blake and his staff just one mayor Maybe just a head nod, but I was thinking when they were talking about using a

an individual pipe color that would signify that the pipe was not of the city. I know that when we used to bury electrical trenches and water trenches, they run the broad filament tape on top of it. That would maybe a foot, but you'd pack a little bit and then put it just above it. If something like that could happen as well, if there's not a different colored pipe, I think it could be easily identified by that and it's a standard practice.

Well, that's standard practice in like a power, you know, power trench so that you don't take that next bucket, right? Yeah. But when you're exposing things, it's pretty, I mean, it's just a thin line of plastic and it pretty much gets pulled out, right? So, if you can get an actual pipe.

Yeah, that would be the best. That would be the best for sure. But if not, there might be something in those.

Blake, would you or any of your staff want to address this or share anything with the council? Rock, paper, scissors, John Hinckley. I knew it was gonna be you. Now he's saying the most handsome representative of, I'm teasing.

I'm teasing. Yeah, we've gone round and round trying to come up with something to differentiate between our water sewer, our secondary irrigation. Like you said, a sock usually is the best option with that. You can do the tape. We do that with power, stuff like that. But again, it's there until they dig through it. So we really don't have it.

I'm picturing a nice lavender.

You've seen our lavender. Purple pipes are our... So yeah, I mean, we haven't really come up with a...

Do you have any concerns with sharing or how, what are your thoughts on this?

So as that reference, it's taken us quite a while to get to this point and stuff. Originally, we didn't want anything within our right of way. We've worked with them. We've got minimal crossings. We have moved almost everything, at least back to the PUEs, other than red slopes. Just to give you a reference on how this is looking on red slopes. Red Slope is public street. It's wider. It has a median down the center of it. And we have all of our public utilities on one side of the median. And the Bell Line would be solely on the other side of the median. So it gives us the additional room also within there for future utilities that we may need to put in the roadway and stuff. But right now, we would be totally separated one side of the island from the other. Would I love to not have anything within my road or my right of way? Yes, most definitely. But we tried to work. Like I said, we got everything else. We got moved out. This was the one that we just kind of fought back and forth on.

So is there anything in the agreement that protects us if they don't get their blue stakes out there?