Hyde Park City Council Meeting 8.25.2026
2026-08-26
we also need to consider the future. We thankful for this wonderful country we have to live in and those that have made it possible to do so. We ask for these blessings to be upon us and do it in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen. >> Amen. >> You please rise and follow me in the pledge. >> Thank you, Council Member Osborne. Um, we will now move forward with the acceptance of our minutes from our August 12th meeting. Does anyone have any input? We'll start with Dave. >> I sent I I sent two minor corrections. Uh a misspelling and Did you get those, Da? Okay, >> you're good, Gol. >> I have no changes. >> I'm good. >> Okay, think we're good with the minutes as written. I'll make a motion that we approve the minutes for August 14th 12th. >> I'll second. >> Okay, we have a motion from council member Osborne and a second from council member Brower. Any further discussion? If not, we'll move ahead with our vote. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Any opposed? Approved the minutes. Now we will move on to the approval of our agenda. Any questions or concerns with the agenda as written? >> I do not. >> If if not, I move that we approve the agenda as written. >> I second that. >> Okay. We have a motion from council member Fels and a second from council member Alred. Any further discussion? Okay. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? All right. We've approved our agenda. Now we'll move on to the citizen input portion of our meeting. Um please come to the podium with your questions or comments for the Baron Council. Just a reminder, comment should be limited to not more than three minutes. And this is the time and place for any person who wishes to comment on a non-aggenda item and items that are relevant to the authority of the city council. Um items brought forward to the attention of the city council will be turned over to staff to provide a response outside of our city council meeting. So we'll now open this portion of our citizen input. Okay. Having no comments, we will go ahead and close our citizen input portion of our meeting and move on to council business. Are we having a police report? >> Um, the chief was not um planning on being here tonight since it's not a regular council night. Um, I will say that I had a conversation with the chief this morning. It was the first day of school for most of our uh schools here in town, most of our students. Um, and there were a few hiccups with the safe route to school with our new middle school. And so the chief and I and the mayor and council member Fowls happened to be there too discussed a way we could potentially reroute the safe route to school to avoid some of the tricky roundabouts and other things where the students were trying to cross this morning. And so we will be trying to reach out to the school to figure out how we can make it safer for the students going to our new schools. And that's pretty much all I've got. All right. Thank you. Anything for the >> I I have an item for the police and that is an update
we also need to consider the future. We thankful for this wonderful country we have to live in and those that have made it possible to do so. We ask for these blessings to be upon us and do it in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen. >> Amen. >> You please rise and follow me in the pledge. >> Thank you, Council Member Osborne. Um, we will now move forward with the acceptance of our minutes from our August 12th meeting. Does anyone have any input? We'll start with Dave. >> I sent I I sent two minor corrections. Uh a misspelling and Did you get those, Da? Okay, >> you're good, Gol. >> I have no changes. >> I'm good. >> Okay, think we're good with the minutes as written. I'll make a motion that we approve the minutes for August 14th 12th. >> I'll second. >> Okay, we have a motion from council member Osborne and a second from council member Brower. Any further discussion? If not, we'll move ahead with our vote. All in favor say I. >> I. >> I. Any opposed? Approved the minutes. Now we will move on to the approval of our agenda. Any questions or concerns with the agenda as written? >> I do not. >> If if not, I move that we approve the agenda as written. >> I second that. >> Okay. We have a motion from council member Fels and a second from council member Alred. Any further discussion? Okay. All in favor say I. >> I. >> Any opposed? All right. We've approved our agenda. Now we'll move on to the citizen input portion of our meeting. Um please come to the podium with your questions or comments for the Baron Council. Just a reminder, comment should be limited to not more than three minutes. And this is the time and place for any person who wishes to comment on a non-aggenda item and items that are relevant to the authority of the city council. Um items brought forward to the attention of the city council will be turned over to staff to provide a response outside of our city council meeting. So we'll now open this portion of our citizen input. Okay. Having no comments, we will go ahead and close our citizen input portion of our meeting and move on to council business. Are we having a police report? >> Um, the chief was not um planning on being here tonight since it's not a regular council night. Um, I will say that I had a conversation with the chief this morning. It was the first day of school for most of our uh schools here in town, most of our students. Um, and there were a few hiccups with the safe route to school with our new middle school. And so the chief and I and the mayor and council member Fowls happened to be there too discussed a way we could potentially reroute the safe route to school to avoid some of the tricky roundabouts and other things where the students were trying to cross this morning. And so we will be trying to reach out to the school to figure out how we can make it safer for the students going to our new schools. And that's pretty much all I've got. All right. Thank you. Anything for the >> I I have an item for the police and that is an update
on the deer traps. >> Okay. >> I understand that we've only been able to trap one deer so far. It's the end of August. We only have another month left. So
on the deer traps. >> Okay. >> I understand that we've only been able to trap one deer so far. It's the end of August. We only have another month left. So
obviously what we're doing isn't working. Um I
obviously what we're doing isn't working. Um I
know two traps are located on Mark Ashcroft's property. He is wondering if maybe we should move one of those traps to a different location to see if we could be more successful and take advantage of the time that we do have. He appreciates that one was caught, but I mean, what's today? The 25th. We should have had 25 by now because all the deer bed down right around the trap. He did say that um they put in a a block um I'm not sure a wheat block or some kind of grain block into the trap and he doesn't feel like that is necessary. That's not something that Jericho looking for especially when there's fresh produce all around the farm. So he is um also wondering if maybe we could re reach out to Nolan Krebs who has a lot of experience in this and kind of find out what Nolan did to be successful because Nolan was successful in getting the deer population under control. But what we're doing isn't working. So we need to figure out something else quickly. Okay. >> I made some notes. I'll reach out to the chief. Okay. Um, mayor staff and council reports. Marcus, do you want to start or do you want to start with council? >> I have nothing that needs to be discussed here. >> Okay. I don't have anything either. Anyone else? >> Um, yeah, I I can handle that outside of this. >> Okay. I I did have a citizen reach out to me concerning this new speed limit on 250 East. any that turns into 800 East. >> Oh, >> and they he was um frustrated that nothing was ever said about changing that speed limit to alert people or input for it. He um feels like it's a major road, an arterial road made to get people places faster. And so now we slowed it down to 25 miles an hour where, you know, it hooks up to North Logan which is 30. it hooks up to 600 South which is 30. And he also um was concerned well his first comment was is this a speed trap to make money because the cops have been out there just pulling everybody over. So and he also made the comment of you guys don't have to live with it. So he uses this road all the time and says that 25 is way too slow. So that's input for us. Okay. Thank you everyone. We'll take all of that into consideration. We'll now move on. Um are we going to do some information prior to our public hearing? Are we starting with Shriber? Yes. >> Okay. We'd like to invite Shriber to come and share with us. >> Yeah. So, Jay Johnson, appreciate the time, council, to come share a few thoughts. Wanted to introduce Shriber Foods to to the the uh council meeting tonight. U and and open it up for, you know, uh I was able to meet with uh David Fowls earlier. uh get into some conversation tonight around this this development agreement. So, appreciate the time. I appreciate you letting us, you know, come and share a few things, but wanted to make you aware of Shriber Foods and who we are and the role we play in the community, a little bit about our organization. So, I have a few a few pieces of information here if you can continue through Marcus. So, wanted to share a few things. So, Shriber Foods started in 1945. Uh today, we have over 10,000 employees around the world. We refer to each other as partners because our our employees are owners of the business. We're one of the largest ESOPs in the United States. Uh and that means our all of our individual employees of our operation are owners of the business and we think that sets us apart. Um we have more than 40 locations worldwide products really around the world. Uh and we have 30 manufacturing facilities where we're producing these these products um around the globe. continue on. So, our locations in the United States, you can you can see from this map, um we just highlight the ones in the US. uh Wisconsin uh Bentonville, Arkansas, Carthage, Missouri, Clinton, Missouri, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Green Bay, Wisconsin, Logan, Utah, Monet, Missouri, Mount Vernon, Richland Center in Wisconsin, Shippensburg in Pennsylvania, uh Smithfield here in Utah, Smith, uh Stevenville, Texas, Tempe, Arizona, and Westbend, Wisconsin. So wide variety of facilities that we have really across the country but a but a large presence here in cash uh and and we're proud of that that role we play here in the community but you can see some of the other locations that we have really around the world heavy presence in Europe South America etc. So who are we the products we produce are processed cheese natural cheese cream cheese yogurt and beverages. So in in each of these categories, you know, when you think processed cheese, think of cheeseburgers. Um we cover approximately 90% of the cheeseburgers in the country. So if you eat a cheeseburger, it's probably Shriber. Um natural cheese, think of the chunks that you might buy or the shreds that you might buy. Uh cream cheese, you know, from bagel bagel shops, retail uh establishments, etc. Yogurt. We're one of the world's largest producers of yogurt and operate some of the largest yogurt facilities in the world in our ourh Spain facilities. In beverages, we produce aseptic beverages. So, think broth or milk, uh protein shakes, those kinds of of beverages there. Our our vision as an organization is to do good through food. And and this is a tagline that's very near and dear to us. You know, we understand that many of the ways that you show love to your family, show love to people around you is through food, right? If it's your birthday, what's what's your favorite thing to eat? Um, and and we understand the role that that food also plays in nurturing the planet. You know, we we are proud to be a part of the dairy industry, you know, that supports dairy farmers. Uh, but milk is a great nutrition nutritious product that satisfies a lot of the nutrient needs that you need. is very uh dense in nutrition. Uh the things that are important to us as you see here, our people, our food, our earth, and our community. So we we take care of each other in our operation. We we behave like a family and our plants. Um our food is important. We know that food safety is critical, right? We as consumers understand that we expect food to be uh food safe when we consume it. Um we believe in taking care of our earth. So being responsible uh to our planet, you know, being good stewards of the resources that that we demand for our operations and then our community. So as as you saw before, all of the locations that we have around the world, we are active participants in the community where we do business today and we're we're proud of the the things that we do in the communities that we operate around the world. Growth. This this shows our annual revenue from 2017. you could see $5.1 billion up to where we sat this past year, $7.7 billion. We're a company that's continuing to grow and and a a large part of our growth is here in the in the cash valley area as well. So, we just highlight the the expansion that we have at our Logan facility that's happening right now. Um, so almost $300 million worth of expansion there at our our Logan facility to enable more yogurt production there and also expansion work happening at our Smithfield location as well. And and so it's great to see that growth and that's one of the reasons that we're here tonight. Um, when you think community involvement, these are some of the charities and and groups that we're affiliated with here in in Cash Valley. the family place that do great work here in our community. Uh child and family services, Meals on Wheels, we've had a route with the Mills on Wheels program here in Logan for more than 25 years. Cash Community Food Pantry, Matt Whitaker and all the good work that he does here in in our community. We donate food. We do service with them. Uh the United Way, proud to sponsor them. Habitat for Humanity. We do a lot of work with the Boys and Girls Club, Big Brothers Big Sisters, the Salvation Army. Uh CAPSA, something that's critical for our community. Uh LEAP with a scholarship program, supplies for a better future where we provide education supplies. Uh the English Learning Center helping people transition into our community. Uh Cash Education Foundation, the Little Little Lambs Foundation, the Fiser House, which supports veterans. uh services, Ignite the Light, which is suicide awareness and prevention, and the AMK Foundation, you know, supporting those with disabilities in our community. So, we're affiliated with a lot of organizations here locally that do good work in our community and help make Cash Valley a place that we all want to want to live. Some of the things that are unique about Shrivever that that kind of set us apart as a manufacturer, we have quite a few shift configurations. So over the years, we've we've flexed our shift scheduling so that we offer a number of different shifts to allow people different uh opportunities outside of work. So there may be a point in time where you need to take care of family. Um you have kids in school, maybe a schedule that works, you know, a different set schedule during the week might work better in your in your personal life. So, we have 18 different shift configurations that we offer at our Logan plant from 12-h hour shifts, eight hour shifts, beginning of the week, end of week, uh rotations, all sorts of things that that we're hopeful that we can find a rotation that that works for people in their personal life so that they can stay with us for an entire career. Um, we have a bid process and we have job triing. So, uh, our partners are able to bid around in the facility, continue to expand their career as, as they start with us. Um, we have job triing, job training that that we invest heavily in the training of our our partners at our facility. We have an on-site credit union. So, we we've got a branch of the USU Credit Union that's there in our facility to offer services to our our partners while they're at work, banking banking services, so they can take care of those things while they're while they're even on break. Um, we we have a care clinic uh that we uh operate offer uh medical services to people at a reduced rate so we take care of our our partners from their their medical needs as well. Um, we have daycare options. We have education reimbursement. So, tuition reimbursement if someone wants to go to Utah State, go to Bridgerland, will help help fund those kinds of education activities. Uh, and I was one of the recipients of that tuition reimbursement 25 years ago as I went to school and worked at the plant full-time. Um, we have a clean work environment. We have stability of our schedule that really offers a a unique uh manufacturing environment and and we feel like really sets us apart in the in the industry. As you can see from the photographs here, uh this is our Logan facility uh that we operate on on Sixth West in Logan. Um this facility looks drastically different today. Um, so this was our largest manufacturing facility for us in the US and what we've added on to the to the facility standalone would be our fifth largest plant in the US. So it's a very large scale operation and and will employ more than a thousand people here uh very quickly as we begin production in this facility on some of the new assets uh in October. So we have new lines that we're we're going to begin production there. Uh and then you can see a photograph of our Smithville plant. We have acquired some land there adjacent to us that we're continuing to expand that facility and we're excited about the growth that'll bring uh to our Smithville plant. But also we you know when you look at these two facilities um over the next two years call it we will we will handle more than a billion pounds of milk into these two facilities which is a huge amount of milk uh that we need we need dairy farmers and we need cows to be to be supporting that kind of growth. And so we're excited about the growth um at these facilities, but that leads us to needing a a facility that we can handle distribution out of. And so that's that's one of the things that we have here before you tonight. Um, if you look at our our site where we're where we're proposing this distribution center uh as part of our phase one in this development agreement, you can see the the advantage gives us really uh one day shipment to the west coast. So this this is kind of our hub to satisfy the western part of the United States and uh and we really need a facility that can that can allow us to distribute the products we're going to be making here. When you look at our project that that we're proposing uh for consideration uh through phase one here, the incremental property tax over the next 15 years, $6.7 to 7 million is the estimate there. sales and use tax, uh, building materials, all of the associated things, uh, with that 0.9 million to 1.5 million direct benefit to the local community from a sales tax standpoint. During construction, from an economic standpoint, uh, the economic output, as you see it here, $164.5 million uh, through construction there. So when you think of all the jobs that that we'll be supporting there at that site during construction, it's a massive amount of of years of of work that that that equates to. And then ongoing as we look at this facility as as we operate this into the future um the recurring impact here you see 125 to 145 but the direct jobs at the facility will be somewhere between 75 and 85 new positions that we'll add to this facility at an average wage of $70,000. And then there will be a lot of associated jobs right that we'll we'll need others to support our growth as well. also other vendors that will be adding capacity for things like pest control and other associated services that that we'll need um for this facility. So, you can see a lot of impact from this from this project in the local community and it's it's exciting to see. Here is a rendering of what that facility what the phase one cold storage facility would look like. This is roughly a half million square feet of refrigerated storage. So when we talk about the products that we're going to be producing, distribution is vitally important for us. And one of the things that our customers expect is comingled loads. So a truckload coming to their distribution that that might have a variety of products, some processed cheese, some yogurt, some cream cheese, all consolidated in that. And so when you think of all of that distribution of of the products that we're going to be producing out of our Logan plant and out of our Smithfield location, you see how important the distribution center becomes for us. And that's why the scale of this uh becomes very important to us as well. And here you can see uh our our site plan uh and and phase one is shown here. You know, one of the things that that you see is this roadway that goes around this facility, and this has been a topic of discussion um throughout the last year as we've worked on this development agreement. Um but as you look at at phase one of the proposal as as you guys see it before you is the the road there on the south of that um that we would have a partial road there. Um the airport of course is on the left hand side of that that layout. uh you have temporary parking uh that we have kind of there in the center and this facility for phase one which is a half million square feet of refrigerated storage for us. Uh I think I think uh Michael want to share share some thoughts about this. That was great. >> Thank you. U Michael Hutchings here um working with the Shriber folks on this development and just wanted to touch base on a couple more things on this slide. So, we're before the council looking for approval of a development agreement. And what this development agreement would do is is primarily focused on phase one of this project. And and we want to take what you're seeing on your screen right there um for phase one and put it down into a contract that is binding on on both Shrivever and the city so that we all have assurances of what's going to happen on this site. So, as Jay mentioned, there's a there's a couple unique aspects about this site. is a deviation from the city's master plan. One of those being the uh the 10th west road that we are looping to the east there. The master plan calls for that road to to biseect the property um running north and south. And the the purpose um and why this has been such a a topic of discussion over the last year while we've been working with city staff and taking planning commission feedback on this um is that we the the Shriber plan for this property is for these future phases to be developed in similar manner to phase one here. And it's important for them to have a interconnected campus where their trucks, their people can enter in down at the phase one access point and harbor all of that traffic in a closed ecosystem for those future phases. And so we've asked for that that road that the public can use and and the goal we understand one of the goals of the city is to maintain connectivity um from north to south using this roadway. Okay, we want to make sure that that is being accomplished still with routing out and around. Um, and also make sure that that Shrivever's traffic is is localized to our project so we don't have semis going in and out of that road and intermingling with your traffic. So, that's one of the the highlights I wanted to to point on of why this roadway is not matching the master plan, why we're asking for that to be uh um modified with our with our approval of the development agreement. So, we have several folks and technical experts here that have worked really hard on this on this development that are here to answer any questions that you may have. Um, I' I've understand that you've had a chance to to look at the development agreement. We we are here tonight to to help get to a great partnership with this city. Um, and hoping for a yes to our development agreement and and please feel free to ask us and provide your comments and feedback so we can make that happen. Thank you. >> You >> Thank you, Jay and Michael. We'll turn some time over to Marcus now. >> You got it. Give me one second. Thank you to the team from Shyber Foods. As they mentioned, this has been in the works for a long time. I gave a version of this presentation at the planning commission meeting last week, so I'm going to breeze through it pretty quickly here. Um, but this is essentially from city staff perspective what has happened uh up to this point in negotiating this deal with Shriber Foods. So, this really started back in February of 2025. Uh Mayor Cox at the time was uh very excited about this agreement and the possibility of having Shriber as a partner and he kind of kicked this project off. For the past year, year and a half, we've been having discussions about the city master plans. We've been doing site plan reviews with their um engineers. I think one of them is here tonight if there's specific questions for the site plan. Uh legal agreement drafting. That's where we're at right now is there's this now agreement before the city which is quite lengthy, quite detailed and Triber Foods is asking the city to approve it. Now the interesting part about these types of development agreements is typically we only do them for properties that are located within city boundaries. However, we got some education found out that if somebody's proposing an annexation into the city, there's an active application if there's an annexation on its way into the city that is an opportunity to also have a development agreement. And so that's why it's being proposed now rather than after the annexation is completed. Um so as far as we understand the plan is to get this development agreement approved and the next item on our agenda tonight is talk about the annexation, get that approved and then I'll bet they're knocking on our city planners door tomorrow asking how do they start filing for their boundary line adjustments. So, um, the Jay and Michael already did a great job describing, uh, how great Shriber is and all the benefits they would bring for the community. So, I'll just keep going here. A lot of property tax the city could gain from this. A lot of jobs, a lot of uh, good things that Shriber brings to the table that's not explicitly spelled out in this development agreement, but it's things that we know would happen for us if we were to move forward. So this is uh my housekeeping slide just to help interpret the PowerPoint. The development agreement as was mentioned has some concessions. Uh our city code does allow these types of development agreements to have uh land use concessions if there's a benefit to the city and it can be spelled out and identified in the agreement. So as we move through the next few slides, I've got them colorcoded. Green is something that we've decided as city staff is a clear benefit to the city. We're very excited about it. yellow is something that we feel like is good, but again, it's it's something that we need the city council and planning commission to also agree that it's a good thing. So, that's why it's a topic for discussion. And then red is something that the city staff doesn't have authority to approve or deny on our own. And so, we're looking for the city council and planning commission to tell us if this is something you want to do. Um, we got a lot of notes from the planning commission last week. And so as we go through I'll try to mention any updates from the planning commission. So the first item for concern was vested rights and I've got in parentheses resolved because we think it's resolved. Uh one of the things the development agreement does is like they said you take that site plan that was shown and essentially freeze it in place and we freeze the rules and the city ordinances and they want that same type of rules and regulations in place for the next 15 years. Um, in the DA, it has specific definitions for what would and would not be allowed. Um, and again, they want it to last 15 years. And so, the question that we have for the planning commission to consider and for the council is, are you all right with that? The city's changed a lot in 15 years. As you can see from this, we've grown by 2,000 residents in the last 15 years. We're looking to double our population probably in the next 5 to 10. Uh, so a lot's going to change. And the planning commission heard this and said, you know, if we could get some kind of exhibit showing the city code and showing what rules were freezing, they would be much more comfortable with that. And so I did have a meeting with Shriber Foods last week and they agreed that would be appropriate and so they are adding that exhibit to the development agreement. Um the next item was uh public infrastructure provisions. Previously, this was a benefit, but some of the planning commissioners pointed out that this was maybe not as much a benefit as it was, just something to note. Uh, so Shriber did agree. Uh, this was a for me it was a benefit. I thought this was a great thing for the city. Uh, Shriber did agree to develop any and all infrastructure that their project would need for the future. Um, that's a pretty big deal for us because what we were nervous about as city staff is them coming in and, you know, developing something and saying, "We need you to double your water capacity as a city." And then I have to sit there and say, "We don't have millions of dollars to build a new water tank. We can't do that for you." And they said, "Well, if we're going to bring that kind of need to the city's infrastructure, we're willing to pitch in and do what's required for our site." And so that was a a really awesome thing for us. The big caveat there is if they do what's required for the site but the city wants them to go beyond that, we would need to pitch in and cover the difference of those costs and that's already something that's identified in state code. So yeah, that one's not recommending a change. It just went from benefit to review after some planning commission comments there. Um the next benefit is the storm water and drainage. Shriber Foods notes that with the road configuration curving and kind of doing some interesting things down there that there's going to be some weird parcels of land that get created and they're willing to work with the city to create uh some regional storm water detention basins. The specifics of that is to be determined at a future date with their application. The planning commission did note they were very nervous about who would maintain those ponds in the future. They didn't want the city to get saddled with a burden of maintenance when really all all developments that come to the city are responsible for taking care of their own infrastructure. And so they just didn't want the city to be stuck with a burden that normally goes to the development. And so in discussions with Shriber Foods, they agreed to add a section to the development agreement to say that we would have to have a maintenance agreement for any potentially shared infrastructure so that we would know very clearly who's responsible for taking care of what. And so we feel like that resolved the planning commission's uh concern. The next item for review is the 600 South Roadway or 3100 North for those more familiar with the county addressing. Um this one is simply for discussion because they're requesting to be able to build the road as a smaller crosssection than normal and the reason because it deadends at the airport and so there's no there's nowhere to go. There's the airport's not moving anytime soon as far as we know. And so the request is to be able to deadend and build a more narrow road because the only people accessing this is going to be Shriber Foods and whatever happens on the North Logan side. And so we as city staff have approved that concept and it's shown that way on their site plan. Uh here's more information related to that cross-section. This is an agreement uh an exhibit in the agreement that identifies how that half road will be built. And I know that they have been in discussions with Nor Logan City to discuss how the other half of the road will be constructed and built out. All right, moving right along. The next item of concern that was already kind of covered is the 1000 West roadway. Um, and there's a few things that I just want to note, and I know that we'll have some more discussions with this after we have the public hearing. Um, so the developer is planning to build out their half of 10,00 West up to where the existing half road ends. And that's marked as phase one on the phasing plant. And they're not planning on building any more of the road moving forward because, as they mentioned, they're not planning on accessing the site anywhere else further north. They want all their access points to be at that location on the south end. And so what they've agreed to do is dedicate right of way for the road through the rest of the project up through phase two and phase three. Um we love extra right ofway. That's always a positive when we're doing these projects um because it sets us up to have construction of these roads in the future when we're ready for it. But the big problem that we have as city staff is we are advocates of the city's plans, right? we make these plans and say this is how we want to grow. And so we have to we have the responsibility to point out to the city council they're requesting a deviation from the city plan and that the curve deviates from the city plan but also cuts off uh 900 west which was another road that we had planned in our master plan. I do have a correction. At the planning commission meeting I said that there would be a culde-sac at the end. That is not accurate. The most current site plan kind of leaves that to be determined. They're leaving that up to our discussions as we move forward and figure out these storm water ponds and a few other things. It doesn't have to be culde-sac. It's open for the city to figure out how we can make the best situation down in this area. Um, so continuing on this this is a good thing and it could be a bad thing for the city depending on how you look at it. So 1000 West is a regionally significant road like Wolfpackway and so that means it's eligible for grants from the county uh to do large construction projects. Uh the CMPO or the Cash Metropolitan Planning Organization is one of the organizations that gives out these grants and we do have confirmation from their staff that they'd be willing to approve the reroute. In their words, they're more concerned with having the connection than having it be uh perfectly straight. And so that's awesome. We have confirmation that we could apply for these grants even if we shifted the road. The part to consider is that in doing this, we're cutting off 900 West. And is that a deal breaker for the city? I don't know. There's a lot of connectivity happening in the area. But again, we as city staff just have to point out it's a deviation from the plant. 800 West is the Wolfpack Way, the other side of the highway, as we like to call it. It's probably the most prominent road that goes through the area. And so I do want to note that that is not being affected by this plan. Okay. Sorry, I'm going really fast because I don't want to take a ton of time and we'll have plenty of time to talk after the public hearing. All right. Another concern that was brought up at the planning commission is in section 10 they talk about successors and assigns and I marked this one as resolved. There was a big concern about this agreement wanted to be we wanted to make it with Shriber Foods, right? Shriber Foods has proven in their partnership with Logan City that their businesses that wants to be part of the community, they want to contribute and we want that for our relationship with Hide Park City. And so one of the stipulations we want built into this agreement is if something were to happen and they had to sell off a portion of the project in the future, then we didn't want this agreement to be with another party. we wanted to have a chance to cut it off and start fresh with a different party. Um, and so I'm happy to report that I was reminded by our friends from Triber Foods, they already had something in there to give us that opportunity, but we just had it clarified. And so there is a recision clause in the development agreement. Essentially, if they sell it to a non-triber entity, the city can cut off that agreement. And so that is addressed in there, and we're very grateful for that. All right. Now, since the planning commission meeting, there's a new concern that um the city council has identified and they brought to me and so I thought we needed to have it discussed tonight at some point. Um really, it's a concern with the 1000 West Road again, but it's all about timing and how the road's going to be built. So, as we noted, the the Shriber Foods is planning on constructing a portion of 1000 West to meet their needs for their campus. After that, they're only planning on giving us right of way and then they would expect the city to construct that road when we are ready. Um, the hiccup that we have in the agreement is in this section 7.3, it's at the bottom of page 13 of the agreement. And I say that for Michael because I see he's got his laptop.
know two traps are located on Mark Ashcroft's property. He is wondering if maybe we should move one of those traps to a different location to see if we could be more successful and take advantage of the time that we do have. He appreciates that one was caught, but I mean, what's today? The 25th. We should have had 25 by now because all the deer bed down right around the trap. He did say that um they put in a a block um I'm not sure a wheat block or some kind of grain block into the trap and he doesn't feel like that is necessary. That's not something that Jericho looking for especially when there's fresh produce all around the farm. So he is um also wondering if maybe we could re reach out to Nolan Krebs who has a lot of experience in this and kind of find out what Nolan did to be successful because Nolan was successful in getting the deer population under control. But what we're doing isn't working. So we need to figure out something else quickly. Okay. >> I made some notes. I'll reach out to the chief. Okay. Um, mayor staff and council reports. Marcus, do you want to start or do you want to start with council? >> I have nothing that needs to be discussed here. >> Okay. I don't have anything either. Anyone else? >> Um, yeah, I I can handle that outside of this. >> Okay. I I did have a citizen reach out to me concerning this new speed limit on 250 East. any that turns into 800 East. >> Oh, >> and they he was um frustrated that nothing was ever said about changing that speed limit to alert people or input for it. He um feels like it's a major road, an arterial road made to get people places faster. And so now we slowed it down to 25 miles an hour where, you know, it hooks up to North Logan which is 30. it hooks up to 600 South which is 30. And he also um was concerned well his first comment was is this a speed trap to make money because the cops have been out there just pulling everybody over. So and he also made the comment of you guys don't have to live with it. So he uses this road all the time and says that 25 is way too slow. So that's input for us. Okay. Thank you everyone. We'll take all of that into consideration. We'll now move on. Um are we going to do some information prior to our public hearing? Are we starting with Shriber? Yes. >> Okay. We'd like to invite Shriber to come and share with us. >> Yeah. So, Jay Johnson, appreciate the time, council, to come share a few thoughts. Wanted to introduce Shriber Foods to to the the uh council meeting tonight. U and and open it up for, you know, uh I was able to meet with uh David Fowls earlier. uh get into some conversation tonight around this this development agreement. So, appreciate the time. I appreciate you letting us, you know, come and share a few things, but wanted to make you aware of Shriber Foods and who we are and the role we play in the community, a little bit about our organization. So, I have a few a few pieces of information here if you can continue through Marcus. So, wanted to share a few things. So, Shriber Foods started in 1945. Uh today, we have over 10,000 employees around the world. We refer to each other as partners because our our employees are owners of the business. We're one of the largest ESOPs in the United States. Uh and that means our all of our individual employees of our operation are owners of the business and we think that sets us apart. Um we have more than 40 locations worldwide products really around the world. Uh and we have 30 manufacturing facilities where we're producing these these products um around the globe. continue on. So, our locations in the United States, you can you can see from this map, um we just highlight the ones in the US. uh Wisconsin uh Bentonville, Arkansas, Carthage, Missouri, Clinton, Missouri, Grand Rapids, Michigan, Green Bay, Wisconsin, Logan, Utah, Monet, Missouri, Mount Vernon, Richland Center in Wisconsin, Shippensburg in Pennsylvania, uh Smithfield here in Utah, Smith, uh Stevenville, Texas, Tempe, Arizona, and Westbend, Wisconsin. So wide variety of facilities that we have really across the country but a but a large presence here in cash uh and and we're proud of that that role we play here in the community but you can see some of the other locations that we have really around the world heavy presence in Europe South America etc. So who are we the products we produce are processed cheese natural cheese cream cheese yogurt and beverages. So in in each of these categories, you know, when you think processed cheese, think of cheeseburgers. Um we cover approximately 90% of the cheeseburgers in the country. So if you eat a cheeseburger, it's probably Shriber. Um natural cheese, think of the chunks that you might buy or the shreds that you might buy. Uh cream cheese, you know, from bagel bagel shops, retail uh establishments, etc. Yogurt. We're one of the world's largest producers of yogurt and operate some of the largest yogurt facilities in the world in our ourh Spain facilities. In beverages, we produce aseptic beverages. So, think broth or milk, uh protein shakes, those kinds of of beverages there. Our our vision as an organization is to do good through food. And and this is a tagline that's very near and dear to us. You know, we understand that many of the ways that you show love to your family, show love to people around you is through food, right? If it's your birthday, what's what's your favorite thing to eat? Um, and and we understand the role that that food also plays in nurturing the planet. You know, we we are proud to be a part of the dairy industry, you know, that supports dairy farmers. Uh, but milk is a great nutrition nutritious product that satisfies a lot of the nutrient needs that you need. is very uh dense in nutrition. Uh the things that are important to us as you see here, our people, our food, our earth, and our community. So we we take care of each other in our operation. We we behave like a family and our plants. Um our food is important. We know that food safety is critical, right? We as consumers understand that we expect food to be uh food safe when we consume it. Um we believe in taking care of our earth. So being responsible uh to our planet, you know, being good stewards of the resources that that we demand for our operations and then our community. So as as you saw before, all of the locations that we have around the world, we are active participants in the community where we do business today and we're we're proud of the the things that we do in the communities that we operate around the world. Growth. This this shows our annual revenue from 2017. you could see $5.1 billion up to where we sat this past year, $7.7 billion. We're a company that's continuing to grow and and a a large part of our growth is here in the in the cash valley area as well. So, we just highlight the the expansion that we have at our Logan facility that's happening right now. Um, so almost $300 million worth of expansion there at our our Logan facility to enable more yogurt production there and also expansion work happening at our Smithfield location as well. And and so it's great to see that growth and that's one of the reasons that we're here tonight. Um, when you think community involvement, these are some of the charities and and groups that we're affiliated with here in in Cash Valley. the family place that do great work here in our community. Uh child and family services, Meals on Wheels, we've had a route with the Mills on Wheels program here in Logan for more than 25 years. Cash Community Food Pantry, Matt Whitaker and all the good work that he does here in in our community. We donate food. We do service with them. Uh the United Way, proud to sponsor them. Habitat for Humanity. We do a lot of work with the Boys and Girls Club, Big Brothers Big Sisters, the Salvation Army. Uh CAPSA, something that's critical for our community. Uh LEAP with a scholarship program, supplies for a better future where we provide education supplies. Uh the English Learning Center helping people transition into our community. Uh Cash Education Foundation, the Little Little Lambs Foundation, the Fiser House, which supports veterans. uh services, Ignite the Light, which is suicide awareness and prevention, and the AMK Foundation, you know, supporting those with disabilities in our community. So, we're affiliated with a lot of organizations here locally that do good work in our community and help make Cash Valley a place that we all want to want to live. Some of the things that are unique about Shrivever that that kind of set us apart as a manufacturer, we have quite a few shift configurations. So over the years, we've we've flexed our shift scheduling so that we offer a number of different shifts to allow people different uh opportunities outside of work. So there may be a point in time where you need to take care of family. Um you have kids in school, maybe a schedule that works, you know, a different set schedule during the week might work better in your in your personal life. So, we have 18 different shift configurations that we offer at our Logan plant from 12-h hour shifts, eight hour shifts, beginning of the week, end of week, uh rotations, all sorts of things that that we're hopeful that we can find a rotation that that works for people in their personal life so that they can stay with us for an entire career. Um, we have a bid process and we have job triing. So, uh, our partners are able to bid around in the facility, continue to expand their career as, as they start with us. Um, we have job triing, job training that that we invest heavily in the training of our our partners at our facility. We have an on-site credit union. So, we we've got a branch of the USU Credit Union that's there in our facility to offer services to our our partners while they're at work, banking banking services, so they can take care of those things while they're while they're even on break. Um, we we have a care clinic uh that we uh operate offer uh medical services to people at a reduced rate so we take care of our our partners from their their medical needs as well. Um, we have daycare options. We have education reimbursement. So, tuition reimbursement if someone wants to go to Utah State, go to Bridgerland, will help help fund those kinds of education activities. Uh, and I was one of the recipients of that tuition reimbursement 25 years ago as I went to school and worked at the plant full-time. Um, we have a clean work environment. We have stability of our schedule that really offers a a unique uh manufacturing environment and and we feel like really sets us apart in the in the industry. As you can see from the photographs here, uh this is our Logan facility uh that we operate on on Sixth West in Logan. Um this facility looks drastically different today. Um, so this was our largest manufacturing facility for us in the US and what we've added on to the to the facility standalone would be our fifth largest plant in the US. So it's a very large scale operation and and will employ more than a thousand people here uh very quickly as we begin production in this facility on some of the new assets uh in October. So we have new lines that we're we're going to begin production there. Uh and then you can see a photograph of our Smithville plant. We have acquired some land there adjacent to us that we're continuing to expand that facility and we're excited about the growth that'll bring uh to our Smithville plant. But also we you know when you look at these two facilities um over the next two years call it we will we will handle more than a billion pounds of milk into these two facilities which is a huge amount of milk uh that we need we need dairy farmers and we need cows to be to be supporting that kind of growth. And so we're excited about the growth um at these facilities, but that leads us to needing a a facility that we can handle distribution out of. And so that's that's one of the things that we have here before you tonight. Um, if you look at our our site where we're where we're proposing this distribution center uh as part of our phase one in this development agreement, you can see the the advantage gives us really uh one day shipment to the west coast. So this this is kind of our hub to satisfy the western part of the United States and uh and we really need a facility that can that can allow us to distribute the products we're going to be making here. When you look at our project that that we're proposing uh for consideration uh through phase one here, the incremental property tax over the next 15 years, $6.7 to 7 million is the estimate there. sales and use tax, uh, building materials, all of the associated things, uh, with that 0.9 million to 1.5 million direct benefit to the local community from a sales tax standpoint. During construction, from an economic standpoint, uh, the economic output, as you see it here, $164.5 million uh, through construction there. So when you think of all the jobs that that we'll be supporting there at that site during construction, it's a massive amount of of years of of work that that that equates to. And then ongoing as we look at this facility as as we operate this into the future um the recurring impact here you see 125 to 145 but the direct jobs at the facility will be somewhere between 75 and 85 new positions that we'll add to this facility at an average wage of $70,000. And then there will be a lot of associated jobs right that we'll we'll need others to support our growth as well. also other vendors that will be adding capacity for things like pest control and other associated services that that we'll need um for this facility. So, you can see a lot of impact from this from this project in the local community and it's it's exciting to see. Here is a rendering of what that facility what the phase one cold storage facility would look like. This is roughly a half million square feet of refrigerated storage. So when we talk about the products that we're going to be producing, distribution is vitally important for us. And one of the things that our customers expect is comingled loads. So a truckload coming to their distribution that that might have a variety of products, some processed cheese, some yogurt, some cream cheese, all consolidated in that. And so when you think of all of that distribution of of the products that we're going to be producing out of our Logan plant and out of our Smithfield location, you see how important the distribution center becomes for us. And that's why the scale of this uh becomes very important to us as well. And here you can see uh our our site plan uh and and phase one is shown here. You know, one of the things that that you see is this roadway that goes around this facility, and this has been a topic of discussion um throughout the last year as we've worked on this development agreement. Um but as you look at at phase one of the proposal as as you guys see it before you is the the road there on the south of that um that we would have a partial road there. Um the airport of course is on the left hand side of that that layout. uh you have temporary parking uh that we have kind of there in the center and this facility for phase one which is a half million square feet of refrigerated storage for us. Uh I think I think uh Michael want to share share some thoughts about this. That was great. >> Thank you. U Michael Hutchings here um working with the Shriber folks on this development and just wanted to touch base on a couple more things on this slide. So, we're before the council looking for approval of a development agreement. And what this development agreement would do is is primarily focused on phase one of this project. And and we want to take what you're seeing on your screen right there um for phase one and put it down into a contract that is binding on on both Shrivever and the city so that we all have assurances of what's going to happen on this site. So, as Jay mentioned, there's a there's a couple unique aspects about this site. is a deviation from the city's master plan. One of those being the uh the 10th west road that we are looping to the east there. The master plan calls for that road to to biseect the property um running north and south. And the the purpose um and why this has been such a a topic of discussion over the last year while we've been working with city staff and taking planning commission feedback on this um is that we the the Shriber plan for this property is for these future phases to be developed in similar manner to phase one here. And it's important for them to have a interconnected campus where their trucks, their people can enter in down at the phase one access point and harbor all of that traffic in a closed ecosystem for those future phases. And so we've asked for that that road that the public can use and and the goal we understand one of the goals of the city is to maintain connectivity um from north to south using this roadway. Okay, we want to make sure that that is being accomplished still with routing out and around. Um, and also make sure that that Shrivever's traffic is is localized to our project so we don't have semis going in and out of that road and intermingling with your traffic. So, that's one of the the highlights I wanted to to point on of why this roadway is not matching the master plan, why we're asking for that to be uh um modified with our with our approval of the development agreement. So, we have several folks and technical experts here that have worked really hard on this on this development that are here to answer any questions that you may have. Um, I' I've understand that you've had a chance to to look at the development agreement. We we are here tonight to to help get to a great partnership with this city. Um, and hoping for a yes to our development agreement and and please feel free to ask us and provide your comments and feedback so we can make that happen. Thank you. >> You >> Thank you, Jay and Michael. We'll turn some time over to Marcus now. >> You got it. Give me one second. Thank you to the team from Shyber Foods. As they mentioned, this has been in the works for a long time. I gave a version of this presentation at the planning commission meeting last week, so I'm going to breeze through it pretty quickly here. Um, but this is essentially from city staff perspective what has happened uh up to this point in negotiating this deal with Shriber Foods. So, this really started back in February of 2025. Uh Mayor Cox at the time was uh very excited about this agreement and the possibility of having Shriber as a partner and he kind of kicked this project off. For the past year, year and a half, we've been having discussions about the city master plans. We've been doing site plan reviews with their um engineers. I think one of them is here tonight if there's specific questions for the site plan. Uh legal agreement drafting. That's where we're at right now is there's this now agreement before the city which is quite lengthy, quite detailed and Triber Foods is asking the city to approve it. Now the interesting part about these types of development agreements is typically we only do them for properties that are located within city boundaries. However, we got some education found out that if somebody's proposing an annexation into the city, there's an active application if there's an annexation on its way into the city that is an opportunity to also have a development agreement. And so that's why it's being proposed now rather than after the annexation is completed. Um so as far as we understand the plan is to get this development agreement approved and the next item on our agenda tonight is talk about the annexation, get that approved and then I'll bet they're knocking on our city planners door tomorrow asking how do they start filing for their boundary line adjustments. So, um, the Jay and Michael already did a great job describing, uh, how great Shriber is and all the benefits they would bring for the community. So, I'll just keep going here. A lot of property tax the city could gain from this. A lot of jobs, a lot of uh, good things that Shriber brings to the table that's not explicitly spelled out in this development agreement, but it's things that we know would happen for us if we were to move forward. So this is uh my housekeeping slide just to help interpret the PowerPoint. The development agreement as was mentioned has some concessions. Uh our city code does allow these types of development agreements to have uh land use concessions if there's a benefit to the city and it can be spelled out and identified in the agreement. So as we move through the next few slides, I've got them colorcoded. Green is something that we've decided as city staff is a clear benefit to the city. We're very excited about it. yellow is something that we feel like is good, but again, it's it's something that we need the city council and planning commission to also agree that it's a good thing. So, that's why it's a topic for discussion. And then red is something that the city staff doesn't have authority to approve or deny on our own. And so, we're looking for the city council and planning commission to tell us if this is something you want to do. Um, we got a lot of notes from the planning commission last week. And so as we go through I'll try to mention any updates from the planning commission. So the first item for concern was vested rights and I've got in parentheses resolved because we think it's resolved. Uh one of the things the development agreement does is like they said you take that site plan that was shown and essentially freeze it in place and we freeze the rules and the city ordinances and they want that same type of rules and regulations in place for the next 15 years. Um, in the DA, it has specific definitions for what would and would not be allowed. Um, and again, they want it to last 15 years. And so, the question that we have for the planning commission to consider and for the council is, are you all right with that? The city's changed a lot in 15 years. As you can see from this, we've grown by 2,000 residents in the last 15 years. We're looking to double our population probably in the next 5 to 10. Uh, so a lot's going to change. And the planning commission heard this and said, you know, if we could get some kind of exhibit showing the city code and showing what rules were freezing, they would be much more comfortable with that. And so I did have a meeting with Shriber Foods last week and they agreed that would be appropriate and so they are adding that exhibit to the development agreement. Um the next item was uh public infrastructure provisions. Previously, this was a benefit, but some of the planning commissioners pointed out that this was maybe not as much a benefit as it was, just something to note. Uh, so Shriber did agree. Uh, this was a for me it was a benefit. I thought this was a great thing for the city. Uh, Shriber did agree to develop any and all infrastructure that their project would need for the future. Um, that's a pretty big deal for us because what we were nervous about as city staff is them coming in and, you know, developing something and saying, "We need you to double your water capacity as a city." And then I have to sit there and say, "We don't have millions of dollars to build a new water tank. We can't do that for you." And they said, "Well, if we're going to bring that kind of need to the city's infrastructure, we're willing to pitch in and do what's required for our site." And so that was a a really awesome thing for us. The big caveat there is if they do what's required for the site but the city wants them to go beyond that, we would need to pitch in and cover the difference of those costs and that's already something that's identified in state code. So yeah, that one's not recommending a change. It just went from benefit to review after some planning commission comments there. Um the next benefit is the storm water and drainage. Shriber Foods notes that with the road configuration curving and kind of doing some interesting things down there that there's going to be some weird parcels of land that get created and they're willing to work with the city to create uh some regional storm water detention basins. The specifics of that is to be determined at a future date with their application. The planning commission did note they were very nervous about who would maintain those ponds in the future. They didn't want the city to get saddled with a burden of maintenance when really all all developments that come to the city are responsible for taking care of their own infrastructure. And so they just didn't want the city to be stuck with a burden that normally goes to the development. And so in discussions with Shriber Foods, they agreed to add a section to the development agreement to say that we would have to have a maintenance agreement for any potentially shared infrastructure so that we would know very clearly who's responsible for taking care of what. And so we feel like that resolved the planning commission's uh concern. The next item for review is the 600 South Roadway or 3100 North for those more familiar with the county addressing. Um this one is simply for discussion because they're requesting to be able to build the road as a smaller crosssection than normal and the reason because it deadends at the airport and so there's no there's nowhere to go. There's the airport's not moving anytime soon as far as we know. And so the request is to be able to deadend and build a more narrow road because the only people accessing this is going to be Shriber Foods and whatever happens on the North Logan side. And so we as city staff have approved that concept and it's shown that way on their site plan. Uh here's more information related to that cross-section. This is an agreement uh an exhibit in the agreement that identifies how that half road will be built. And I know that they have been in discussions with Nor Logan City to discuss how the other half of the road will be constructed and built out. All right, moving right along. The next item of concern that was already kind of covered is the 1000 West roadway. Um, and there's a few things that I just want to note, and I know that we'll have some more discussions with this after we have the public hearing. Um, so the developer is planning to build out their half of 10,00 West up to where the existing half road ends. And that's marked as phase one on the phasing plant. And they're not planning on building any more of the road moving forward because, as they mentioned, they're not planning on accessing the site anywhere else further north. They want all their access points to be at that location on the south end. And so what they've agreed to do is dedicate right of way for the road through the rest of the project up through phase two and phase three. Um we love extra right ofway. That's always a positive when we're doing these projects um because it sets us up to have construction of these roads in the future when we're ready for it. But the big problem that we have as city staff is we are advocates of the city's plans, right? we make these plans and say this is how we want to grow. And so we have to we have the responsibility to point out to the city council they're requesting a deviation from the city plan and that the curve deviates from the city plan but also cuts off uh 900 west which was another road that we had planned in our master plan. I do have a correction. At the planning commission meeting I said that there would be a culde-sac at the end. That is not accurate. The most current site plan kind of leaves that to be determined. They're leaving that up to our discussions as we move forward and figure out these storm water ponds and a few other things. It doesn't have to be culde-sac. It's open for the city to figure out how we can make the best situation down in this area. Um, so continuing on this this is a good thing and it could be a bad thing for the city depending on how you look at it. So 1000 West is a regionally significant road like Wolfpackway and so that means it's eligible for grants from the county uh to do large construction projects. Uh the CMPO or the Cash Metropolitan Planning Organization is one of the organizations that gives out these grants and we do have confirmation from their staff that they'd be willing to approve the reroute. In their words, they're more concerned with having the connection than having it be uh perfectly straight. And so that's awesome. We have confirmation that we could apply for these grants even if we shifted the road. The part to consider is that in doing this, we're cutting off 900 West. And is that a deal breaker for the city? I don't know. There's a lot of connectivity happening in the area. But again, we as city staff just have to point out it's a deviation from the plant. 800 West is the Wolfpack Way, the other side of the highway, as we like to call it. It's probably the most prominent road that goes through the area. And so I do want to note that that is not being affected by this plan. Okay. Sorry, I'm going really fast because I don't want to take a ton of time and we'll have plenty of time to talk after the public hearing. All right. Another concern that was brought up at the planning commission is in section 10 they talk about successors and assigns and I marked this one as resolved. There was a big concern about this agreement wanted to be we wanted to make it with Shriber Foods, right? Shriber Foods has proven in their partnership with Logan City that their businesses that wants to be part of the community, they want to contribute and we want that for our relationship with Hide Park City. And so one of the stipulations we want built into this agreement is if something were to happen and they had to sell off a portion of the project in the future, then we didn't want this agreement to be with another party. we wanted to have a chance to cut it off and start fresh with a different party. Um, and so I'm happy to report that I was reminded by our friends from Triber Foods, they already had something in there to give us that opportunity, but we just had it clarified. And so there is a recision clause in the development agreement. Essentially, if they sell it to a non-triber entity, the city can cut off that agreement. And so that is addressed in there, and we're very grateful for that. All right. Now, since the planning commission meeting, there's a new concern that um the city council has identified and they brought to me and so I thought we needed to have it discussed tonight at some point. Um really, it's a concern with the 1000 West Road again, but it's all about timing and how the road's going to be built. So, as we noted, the the Shriber Foods is planning on constructing a portion of 1000 West to meet their needs for their campus. After that, they're only planning on giving us right of way and then they would expect the city to construct that road when we are ready. Um, the hiccup that we have in the agreement is in this section 7.3, it's at the bottom of page 13 of the agreement. And I say that for Michael because I see he's got his laptop.
There's some subsections that specify when and how the city would get that right ofway. And and the short version is there's this expectation in the agreement that when the building permits are underway for phases two and three, so we're talking probably a few years in the future, that Shriber would want to see a developed plan for the road before they hand over the ride ofway. And that's a fair ask, but there's a problem with that. And that is the city. We count on these grants that we talked about that I talked about very briefly from the county or from the state to design and build these big roads. Without these grants, we can't do it. We can't afford to do it. And so one of the things that uh I would like to have the council discuss with Shriber Foods tonight is um look at those subsections and possibly remove or amend them with the understanding that the city isn't looking to try and force them to build infrastructure or try to pull a fast one on them. It's just a question of logistics. As a city, these roads are on our 20-year plan from today. We're not budgeting for them now. We're not going to be budgeting for them in a year from now. And so what we're asking is the opportunity to talk about moving forward. We would love to get the right ofway secured so we have it in our pocket and then be able to take that to the county to apply for grants to do the design and the build of those roads. But we can talk about that after the public hearing. And so in the end, is this valuable to the city? In my discussion at the planning commission, you all remember the point was this is a great deal for the city. We're getting a great partner with Shriber Foods, but the big question is, does the city council agree with the terms that are being proposed? Because I don't have the authority to sign off on this, so I'm just bringing it here and the council can make that decision. Thank you. >> Thank you, Marcus. Um, council, do you have any questions for Marcus before we move forward to the public hearing? All right. we will open up our public hearing for the de development agreement between Shriber Foods and High Park City um on parcel 0429000000005 um and continuous James family parcels. Just a reminder, um, you'll have three minutes to address, uh, your comments or concerns to the council, and we invite you to come up to the podium at this time. Uh, Kevin Flint, live at 175 South, 700 East in Hyde Park. Uh, give you a little quick uh Shriber story that we have. We just returned from 18 spending living 18 months in the Czech Republic and oftentimes we had to go to meetings in Prague and there was a Shriber factory in Beneslav Czech Czech Republic and we knew if we were going 15 kilometers per hour in front of the Shriber plant we were going to be late to our meeting. So, um, certainly not opposed to Shriber coming into the city. Uh, I just did want to state that I'm concerned about how this development agreements come together and why we're doing a development agreement in the first place to do phase one for for Shriber. Uh, we have ordinances in place to protect the interests of the city and its citizens. And from what I understand, phase one could very well be built under regular ordinance and not under a a a uh development agreement. So, with that being said, I would just encourage you as a council to consider, you know, what we're giving up as a city in order to bring Shriber in and and really take a good look at what benefits we're going to get. I know that we've been, you know, we've been told there's going to be increased tax revenue. That tax revenue doesn't always all come back to the city. That, you know, the school district will take a bunch of it. Uh we've been told it'll have 75 to 85 jobs for residents. There's a good possibility that those that those employees do not live in Hyde Park. They'll come from other parts of the county. Have another concern that it's a 15-year deal. We don't want, you know, you don't want to be the council and in five years another council's taking a look at something on these roads and they're going, "What on earth were they thinking?" Uh, so take a good look at the road situation, the term, uh, the time. uh you know, we're giving up some concessions there and and I find in my mind I think these development agreements sometimes are are runarounds are regular ordinances and codes that are in place there to protect the citizens and and when whenever we get into development agreements, all of a sudden we have people involved that aren't even citizens of the of the community that are making decisions, making suggestions, but they don't have to sit here in down and listen to them and watch what what the what the result is. So, just take a good look at that and see, you know, do the benefits really outweigh, you know, what we're giving up. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Good evening, council. Uh my name is Alex Moore. I've been a resident here for just over two years. Uh I've lived in the valley for 15. I've been with Striber Foods for 20 years. Um absolutely love the company and I've been very fortunate to have traveled all over the country uh to all of our plants and in every every uh location that I've been to, Shriber Foods has done good for the community. Um my brought my family here from Providence. we moved up here uh because of decisions that this council and this this uh town has made uh investing in uh schools and infrastructure uh and that I have the same investment in Shriber Foods. So, I'm wearing two hats here. Um I think that Shriber Foods is a fantastic organization. Um I think that you know some of the things with this development, they're trying to protect themselves. Um at the same time, as a resident here and uh I'm building my house here, I plan on getting here for 15 20 years. Uh, Shriber Foods is I want them in my community. Uh, I've seen what they what we do at Logan. I see what we do in Texas and Wisconsin. Uh, it's a fantastic organization. Truly cares about the people in the community. Uh, and invest a lot of time and effort into it. So, uh, please take that in consideration. >> Thank you for your comments. My name is Kelly Harmon. Uh 132 uh South 950 East in Hide Park. Uh been here two years as a resident. Been building here in Hide Park for many, many years. We've done a lot of the uh large warehouses out in this vicinity. Um couple of questions. I just I don't know that there's answers but whether North Logan has been um dis they these uh the access has been discussed with North Logan. Um so 3100 or I believe it's 600 on Hide Parks is probably in my mind uh the main access with a light out onto the highway. Um, but the other access is coming down uh 1,000 or we actually put in a section of uh in North Logan of 450 on the end of our industrial park and that road dead ends. Uh unless North Logan is going to uh do a taking on that property and extend it to Airport Road and then possibly a light at some future point. Um, most of the traffic, if I'm understanding correctly, that would be coming south would deadend into 2850 north Logan. So, if the conversations have been had with North Logan City as far as the impact on those city streets, that's one question. The other question is is and we have built a a few roads here. We built about a 900 foot section of CMPO road as part of a development agreement that we did with H High Park City for our Hide Park gateway project and other roads in in H High Park. If there's a precedent that the city has actually paid for the construction of roads that are a direct benefit to a developer such as in this case Shriers. So we've done the Proventus warehouse facility out there. I think we have maybe 400,000 square feet that uh that we have leased out and all of those roads were paid for by out of our coffers as developers. So that's the question is whether uh Hyde Park City has a precedent before that they've actually I mean understand that the roads are going to be dedicated but in our situation we build the roads and then we then we dedicate them to the city. So, it's almost I don't understand the logic behind the city picking up the tab to build those roads that directly impact the uh that Shriber development. Shriers would be a great asset to the city. We love the idea of Shriers being here in the city, but we like to think that the playing field is somewhat even knowing that there's always variations in things. That's all I had to say. I appreciate your time. Thank you for your comments. >> So, uh, good evening. I wanted to just take a minute. My name is Mark Chains. I don't live in your community now, but I grew up in this community. In fact, I think I've spent a thousand hours in this location playing basketball in the old civic center. Uh when I was a kid, we grew up at 493 East 200 South at at a time when my parents house was probably the easternmost house on on the edge of town. Not not the case anymore. I along with my sister are the co-rustees of my parents' trust, my mom's trust that owns this property. Um for many many years, we've grazed cattle on that property. Um and I hope everyone understands where the property is at. It's bounded on the west by the railroad tracks. And so when people talk about dead ending into the airport, you actually dead end into the railroad tracks before you dead end in on the other side into the railroad uh into the airport, I'm sorry. Um we wondered for a long time when when my parents were getting elderly what we would do with this property. We knew, although part of the family were still involved in the ranching business, we knew we'd have to sell this property in order to settle my parents' estate. Well, I wasn't always real happy about that because I'm part of the family who uh is involved in the ranching business and we use again this pastor was indispensable to us. It leaves us candidly a little bit unering what we're going to do, but we'll figure that out. We know this needs to be done. We were pleasantly surprised when we were approached by Shriber because we wondered if we were to develop this property in small sections what that would look like ultimately and how long that would take. I recognize that there's a concern that gets raised about 15 years and how long that seems. I don't know if you read my email that I sent all of you but candidly I if if Shriers doesn't get a development agreement and development agreements aren't uncommon. They're very very common. And I've dealt with development agreements all over the state many times. Um it's just the ability that people need to know what they're dealing with over the long run. And I've wondered if we don't get a development agreement done here, are you going to be dealing with multiple development agreements with smaller businesses trying to develop these pastures and things over time? Uh it'll take a long time. Um we I I I will tell you personally that from the day we started to engage with Shriber through the president and that's been almost two years now they have been absolutely as at least as far as I know transparent. Um they've been good to work with they've returned our calls promptly if they were unavailable. Um I I find it intriguing and I don't know why but there's a connection that I appreciate with Shriber that the CEO of Shriber um grew up in Bloomington, Idaho up by Bear Lake of all places. Um that the president of Shriber USA is from High Park. His brother still lives here in Hide Park. The the point I make is we would urge the city council to to approve the development agreement. I think there are many I I I don't I haven't done a deep dive into the development agreement because that's really not our issue. That's the Shriber High Park issue and I recognize that. But at the same time, I think there are enormous benefits that is going to come to High Park. I'm proud to be from High Park. I still feel a strong connection to this community and I think Shrivever is a wonderful opportunity particularly when you go down to the location where Shriber will be located and and so my request and encouragement is that you approve the development agreement. Thank you for your comments. >> Mel Melinda Lee, resident. The decision before you tonight is not about whether or not Shriber Foods may build and do business in our city. The land is for sale. The city would annex it. The current industrial zone matches their manufacturing use. Shriber could purchase the land, install the accompanying infrastructure, build what they need, and operate as desired, all according to city code. Instead, Shriber does not want to build according to city code. Shriber wants a development agreement so that they may be excused from certain requirements. Development agreements exist for extraordinary circumstances where a developer brings a unique benefit to the city, something above and beyond their normal development, and thus asks the city to concede certain code requirements. Shriber is asking the city to freeze the current development standards for 15 years for their own company and for any others who may want to build within their campus area. And maybe that's been updated since last week. They are also requesting to curve the master planned road out and around their campus and back again, lengthening it by about 20%. And Shriber proposes to not build that multi-million dollar road, not in phase one, nor ever. And I would Did you look up how much that road would that section of road would cost? up to >> I guess I'm saying consider if like Nibbly City courted a business that would bring tax revenue to their city. The business would come if they did not have to build that a multi-million dollar road that would benefit Nibbly City, Logan City, and Hyum City. Assume Nibbi said yes to that business. Nibbi receives tax revenue. Sooner or later, Nibi would likely approach the COG or the CMO for grant money to build that same road. If approved, all of Cash Valley now pays for the installation of that road through taxes. I just wonder how Hide Park City residents would feel about Nibbi receiving all the financial benefit while our residents and the rest of Cache Valley contribute to the road construction that was conceded by Nibi. I would love to have Shriber here. I would, but not at the city's expense. >> Thank you for your comments. nameger. I live across the street. I like Shriber Foods. I got This is nothing against Shriber Foods. Had two brothers that together put over 60 years for Shriber Foods. It's a great company. What I see when I sit back here week after week is developers coming in here and bartering over our master plans, our ordinances, our impact fees. And then I hear that we need to have more bonus density because the developers and the land owners can't make enough money. So, we're letting the developers and the land owners tell us how to run our city? I don't think so. I mean, I got nothing against drivers. It's a great company. But I don't know how many times I've sat here and watched us bend our ordinances and our master plan for the developers and the land owners. It needs to stop. >> That's all I have to say. >> Thank you for your comments. Are there any further comments for the public hearing? Okay, then at this time we will close our public hearing. Now we will open up for discussion amongst the council. Um, one thing I'd like you I guess Shriers has all kinds of experts here tonight. Is that right? So, do you have your traffic expert here about that you could tell us about traffic flow? Maybe how many trucks are going to be coming in and out of there, where they're going to exit and
There's some subsections that specify when and how the city would get that right ofway. And and the short version is there's this expectation in the agreement that when the building permits are underway for phases two and three, so we're talking probably a few years in the future, that Shriber would want to see a developed plan for the road before they hand over the ride ofway. And that's a fair ask, but there's a problem with that. And that is the city. We count on these grants that we talked about that I talked about very briefly from the county or from the state to design and build these big roads. Without these grants, we can't do it. We can't afford to do it. And so one of the things that uh I would like to have the council discuss with Shriber Foods tonight is um look at those subsections and possibly remove or amend them with the understanding that the city isn't looking to try and force them to build infrastructure or try to pull a fast one on them. It's just a question of logistics. As a city, these roads are on our 20-year plan from today. We're not budgeting for them now. We're not going to be budgeting for them in a year from now. And so what we're asking is the opportunity to talk about moving forward. We would love to get the right ofway secured so we have it in our pocket and then be able to take that to the county to apply for grants to do the design and the build of those roads. But we can talk about that after the public hearing. And so in the end, is this valuable to the city? In my discussion at the planning commission, you all remember the point was this is a great deal for the city. We're getting a great partner with Shriber Foods, but the big question is, does the city council agree with the terms that are being proposed? Because I don't have the authority to sign off on this, so I'm just bringing it here and the council can make that decision. Thank you. >> Thank you, Marcus. Um, council, do you have any questions for Marcus before we move forward to the public hearing? All right. we will open up our public hearing for the de development agreement between Shriber Foods and High Park City um on parcel 0429000000005 um and continuous James family parcels. Just a reminder, um, you'll have three minutes to address, uh, your comments or concerns to the council, and we invite you to come up to the podium at this time. Uh, Kevin Flint, live at 175 South, 700 East in Hyde Park. Uh, give you a little quick uh Shriber story that we have. We just returned from 18 spending living 18 months in the Czech Republic and oftentimes we had to go to meetings in Prague and there was a Shriber factory in Beneslav Czech Czech Republic and we knew if we were going 15 kilometers per hour in front of the Shriber plant we were going to be late to our meeting. So, um, certainly not opposed to Shriber coming into the city. Uh, I just did want to state that I'm concerned about how this development agreements come together and why we're doing a development agreement in the first place to do phase one for for Shriber. Uh, we have ordinances in place to protect the interests of the city and its citizens. And from what I understand, phase one could very well be built under regular ordinance and not under a a a uh development agreement. So, with that being said, I would just encourage you as a council to consider, you know, what we're giving up as a city in order to bring Shriber in and and really take a good look at what benefits we're going to get. I know that we've been, you know, we've been told there's going to be increased tax revenue. That tax revenue doesn't always all come back to the city. That, you know, the school district will take a bunch of it. Uh we've been told it'll have 75 to 85 jobs for residents. There's a good possibility that those that those employees do not live in Hyde Park. They'll come from other parts of the county. Have another concern that it's a 15-year deal. We don't want, you know, you don't want to be the council and in five years another council's taking a look at something on these roads and they're going, "What on earth were they thinking?" Uh, so take a good look at the road situation, the term, uh, the time. uh you know, we're giving up some concessions there and and I find in my mind I think these development agreements sometimes are are runarounds are regular ordinances and codes that are in place there to protect the citizens and and when whenever we get into development agreements, all of a sudden we have people involved that aren't even citizens of the of the community that are making decisions, making suggestions, but they don't have to sit here in down and listen to them and watch what what the what the result is. So, just take a good look at that and see, you know, do the benefits really outweigh, you know, what we're giving up. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Good evening, council. Uh my name is Alex Moore. I've been a resident here for just over two years. Uh I've lived in the valley for 15. I've been with Striber Foods for 20 years. Um absolutely love the company and I've been very fortunate to have traveled all over the country uh to all of our plants and in every every uh location that I've been to, Shriber Foods has done good for the community. Um my brought my family here from Providence. we moved up here uh because of decisions that this council and this this uh town has made uh investing in uh schools and infrastructure uh and that I have the same investment in Shriber Foods. So, I'm wearing two hats here. Um I think that Shriber Foods is a fantastic organization. Um I think that you know some of the things with this development, they're trying to protect themselves. Um at the same time, as a resident here and uh I'm building my house here, I plan on getting here for 15 20 years. Uh, Shriber Foods is I want them in my community. Uh, I've seen what they what we do at Logan. I see what we do in Texas and Wisconsin. Uh, it's a fantastic organization. Truly cares about the people in the community. Uh, and invest a lot of time and effort into it. So, uh, please take that in consideration. >> Thank you for your comments. My name is Kelly Harmon. Uh 132 uh South 950 East in Hide Park. Uh been here two years as a resident. Been building here in Hide Park for many, many years. We've done a lot of the uh large warehouses out in this vicinity. Um couple of questions. I just I don't know that there's answers but whether North Logan has been um dis they these uh the access has been discussed with North Logan. Um so 3100 or I believe it's 600 on Hide Parks is probably in my mind uh the main access with a light out onto the highway. Um, but the other access is coming down uh 1,000 or we actually put in a section of uh in North Logan of 450 on the end of our industrial park and that road dead ends. Uh unless North Logan is going to uh do a taking on that property and extend it to Airport Road and then possibly a light at some future point. Um, most of the traffic, if I'm understanding correctly, that would be coming south would deadend into 2850 north Logan. So, if the conversations have been had with North Logan City as far as the impact on those city streets, that's one question. The other question is is and we have built a a few roads here. We built about a 900 foot section of CMPO road as part of a development agreement that we did with H High Park City for our Hide Park gateway project and other roads in in H High Park. If there's a precedent that the city has actually paid for the construction of roads that are a direct benefit to a developer such as in this case Shriers. So we've done the Proventus warehouse facility out there. I think we have maybe 400,000 square feet that uh that we have leased out and all of those roads were paid for by out of our coffers as developers. So that's the question is whether uh Hyde Park City has a precedent before that they've actually I mean understand that the roads are going to be dedicated but in our situation we build the roads and then we then we dedicate them to the city. So, it's almost I don't understand the logic behind the city picking up the tab to build those roads that directly impact the uh that Shriber development. Shriers would be a great asset to the city. We love the idea of Shriers being here in the city, but we like to think that the playing field is somewhat even knowing that there's always variations in things. That's all I had to say. I appreciate your time. Thank you for your comments. >> So, uh, good evening. I wanted to just take a minute. My name is Mark Chains. I don't live in your community now, but I grew up in this community. In fact, I think I've spent a thousand hours in this location playing basketball in the old civic center. Uh when I was a kid, we grew up at 493 East 200 South at at a time when my parents house was probably the easternmost house on on the edge of town. Not not the case anymore. I along with my sister are the co-rustees of my parents' trust, my mom's trust that owns this property. Um for many many years, we've grazed cattle on that property. Um and I hope everyone understands where the property is at. It's bounded on the west by the railroad tracks. And so when people talk about dead ending into the airport, you actually dead end into the railroad tracks before you dead end in on the other side into the railroad uh into the airport, I'm sorry. Um we wondered for a long time when when my parents were getting elderly what we would do with this property. We knew, although part of the family were still involved in the ranching business, we knew we'd have to sell this property in order to settle my parents' estate. Well, I wasn't always real happy about that because I'm part of the family who uh is involved in the ranching business and we use again this pastor was indispensable to us. It leaves us candidly a little bit unering what we're going to do, but we'll figure that out. We know this needs to be done. We were pleasantly surprised when we were approached by Shriber because we wondered if we were to develop this property in small sections what that would look like ultimately and how long that would take. I recognize that there's a concern that gets raised about 15 years and how long that seems. I don't know if you read my email that I sent all of you but candidly I if if Shriers doesn't get a development agreement and development agreements aren't uncommon. They're very very common. And I've dealt with development agreements all over the state many times. Um it's just the ability that people need to know what they're dealing with over the long run. And I've wondered if we don't get a development agreement done here, are you going to be dealing with multiple development agreements with smaller businesses trying to develop these pastures and things over time? Uh it'll take a long time. Um we I I I will tell you personally that from the day we started to engage with Shriber through the president and that's been almost two years now they have been absolutely as at least as far as I know transparent. Um they've been good to work with they've returned our calls promptly if they were unavailable. Um I I find it intriguing and I don't know why but there's a connection that I appreciate with Shriber that the CEO of Shriber um grew up in Bloomington, Idaho up by Bear Lake of all places. Um that the president of Shriber USA is from High Park. His brother still lives here in Hide Park. The the point I make is we would urge the city council to to approve the development agreement. I think there are many I I I don't I haven't done a deep dive into the development agreement because that's really not our issue. That's the Shriber High Park issue and I recognize that. But at the same time, I think there are enormous benefits that is going to come to High Park. I'm proud to be from High Park. I still feel a strong connection to this community and I think Shrivever is a wonderful opportunity particularly when you go down to the location where Shriber will be located and and so my request and encouragement is that you approve the development agreement. Thank you for your comments. >> Mel Melinda Lee, resident. The decision before you tonight is not about whether or not Shriber Foods may build and do business in our city. The land is for sale. The city would annex it. The current industrial zone matches their manufacturing use. Shriber could purchase the land, install the accompanying infrastructure, build what they need, and operate as desired, all according to city code. Instead, Shriber does not want to build according to city code. Shriber wants a development agreement so that they may be excused from certain requirements. Development agreements exist for extraordinary circumstances where a developer brings a unique benefit to the city, something above and beyond their normal development, and thus asks the city to concede certain code requirements. Shriber is asking the city to freeze the current development standards for 15 years for their own company and for any others who may want to build within their campus area. And maybe that's been updated since last week. They are also requesting to curve the master planned road out and around their campus and back again, lengthening it by about 20%. And Shriber proposes to not build that multi-million dollar road, not in phase one, nor ever. And I would Did you look up how much that road would that section of road would cost? up to >> I guess I'm saying consider if like Nibbly City courted a business that would bring tax revenue to their city. The business would come if they did not have to build that a multi-million dollar road that would benefit Nibbly City, Logan City, and Hyum City. Assume Nibbi said yes to that business. Nibbi receives tax revenue. Sooner or later, Nibi would likely approach the COG or the CMO for grant money to build that same road. If approved, all of Cash Valley now pays for the installation of that road through taxes. I just wonder how Hide Park City residents would feel about Nibbi receiving all the financial benefit while our residents and the rest of Cache Valley contribute to the road construction that was conceded by Nibi. I would love to have Shriber here. I would, but not at the city's expense. >> Thank you for your comments. nameger. I live across the street. I like Shriber Foods. I got This is nothing against Shriber Foods. Had two brothers that together put over 60 years for Shriber Foods. It's a great company. What I see when I sit back here week after week is developers coming in here and bartering over our master plans, our ordinances, our impact fees. And then I hear that we need to have more bonus density because the developers and the land owners can't make enough money. So, we're letting the developers and the land owners tell us how to run our city? I don't think so. I mean, I got nothing against drivers. It's a great company. But I don't know how many times I've sat here and watched us bend our ordinances and our master plan for the developers and the land owners. It needs to stop. >> That's all I have to say. >> Thank you for your comments. Are there any further comments for the public hearing? Okay, then at this time we will close our public hearing. Now we will open up for discussion amongst the council. Um, one thing I'd like you I guess Shriers has all kinds of experts here tonight. Is that right? So, do you have your traffic expert here about that you could tell us about traffic flow? Maybe how many trucks are going to be coming in and out of there, where they're going to exit and
come in at, and stuff like that. I'll uh I'll be careful to uh start with I'm not a traffic expert, but I am the civil engineer on the project. Um and I did lead the team of experts who did the study that uh it's in draft form right now. So I can tell you that the uh traffic leaving from a truck perspective uh is all coming in and out of the facility. excuse me, at one location and that is uh directly across from an existing access onto 10th West. So, we've lined that up so that there wouldn't be any, you know, offset intersection or driveways and all of that tra traffic will enter and exit at that point where that is. And I don't know, Marks, you got a site plan somewhere? I I probably should have had something like that uh so that you could see it, but >> it it is uh it shows up pretty good there on that. If you want to zoom in on that driveway, Marcus, >> it's in the PowerPoint. >> Oh, okay. >> That might be as good as it's going to get. >> Yeah, maybe you can just point it out. Right. So, >> the 600 South or the 10,000? >> Well, the one for the trucks. We'll we'll talk about the trucks first. That's probably the more significant one. >> That's a 1000, right? >> Yeah. That that is currently lining up that's designed to line up with the one across the street that exists uh today into those uh developments to the east. And um so in our study uh as and again not a track traffic expert, but the the folks that did it and and did the study and did the traffic counts and projections and everything, the vast majority of the truck traffic coming out of this facility is projected to turn south out of that down to 3100 or six south. Then they would turn and go out to the highway to the light on 3100. Um there's not too many trucks projected to go north on that 10th west road. Um and I I apologize I don't have all those numbers but they are in the study. They'll they'll be you know given to the city. Um and then the only other access is and Marcus maybe you can point that one out on 600 South and that is for the partners access. Uh, so as they come in, there's a kind of an L-shaped parking lot there by the office that the partners will be parking in. So those are the only two accesses uh for this facility. Now, with that being said, you know, there are some, you know, the the future plans for phase three are still a little bit up in the air and there may need to be we we by the way, we haven't uh, you know, got into great depth with the fire marshall and and fire chief and stuff on this. So, there may be some emergency and I guess that's a good point. There is an emergency access back in that culde-sac. Marcus, maybe you can point that out as part of phase one. So that'll be emergency access only. It'll be gated and uh there might be others like that as well. Uh just so that if there's ever a fire or something like that, but the fire department has full access to the entire campus. So there other questions related to traffic? Hopefully I answered your question here. Okay, >> thank you. So the road has been a sticking point for me because if if you build according to our master plan, it would go through your campus and you would be responsible for the cost of the road. Um, if we curve it up and around, then you are willing to build half the road as it comes. Is that my understanding? >> So, in Utah, as I'm sure you're familiar with, when when there's improvements that are necessitated by a a development, the developer pays for those. if they are benefiting or providing what's called regional benefit, then there's a an allocation of cost given to that um based on who's actually going to use those improvements. So, yes, if the if the road is routed out and around, and I know there were a couple public comments on this, that Shrivever has no intentions of connecting to or using 10th West after that phase one portion that Shrivever's building. >>
come in at, and stuff like that. I'll uh I'll be careful to uh start with I'm not a traffic expert, but I am the civil engineer on the project. Um and I did lead the team of experts who did the study that uh it's in draft form right now. So I can tell you that the uh traffic leaving from a truck perspective uh is all coming in and out of the facility. excuse me, at one location and that is uh directly across from an existing access onto 10th West. So, we've lined that up so that there wouldn't be any, you know, offset intersection or driveways and all of that tra traffic will enter and exit at that point where that is. And I don't know, Marks, you got a site plan somewhere? I I probably should have had something like that uh so that you could see it, but >> it it is uh it shows up pretty good there on that. If you want to zoom in on that driveway, Marcus, >> it's in the PowerPoint. >> Oh, okay. >> That might be as good as it's going to get. >> Yeah, maybe you can just point it out. Right. So, >> the 600 South or the 10,000? >> Well, the one for the trucks. We'll we'll talk about the trucks first. That's probably the more significant one. >> That's a 1000, right? >> Yeah. That that is currently lining up that's designed to line up with the one across the street that exists uh today into those uh developments to the east. And um so in our study uh as and again not a track traffic expert, but the the folks that did it and and did the study and did the traffic counts and projections and everything, the vast majority of the truck traffic coming out of this facility is projected to turn south out of that down to 3100 or six south. Then they would turn and go out to the highway to the light on 3100. Um there's not too many trucks projected to go north on that 10th west road. Um and I I apologize I don't have all those numbers but they are in the study. They'll they'll be you know given to the city. Um and then the only other access is and Marcus maybe you can point that one out on 600 South and that is for the partners access. Uh, so as they come in, there's a kind of an L-shaped parking lot there by the office that the partners will be parking in. So those are the only two accesses uh for this facility. Now, with that being said, you know, there are some, you know, the the future plans for phase three are still a little bit up in the air and there may need to be we we by the way, we haven't uh, you know, got into great depth with the fire marshall and and fire chief and stuff on this. So, there may be some emergency and I guess that's a good point. There is an emergency access back in that culde-sac. Marcus, maybe you can point that out as part of phase one. So that'll be emergency access only. It'll be gated and uh there might be others like that as well. Uh just so that if there's ever a fire or something like that, but the fire department has full access to the entire campus. So there other questions related to traffic? Hopefully I answered your question here. Okay, >> thank you. So the road has been a sticking point for me because if if you build according to our master plan, it would go through your campus and you would be responsible for the cost of the road. Um, if we curve it up and around, then you are willing to build half the road as it comes. Is that my understanding? >> So, in Utah, as I'm sure you're familiar with, when when there's improvements that are necessitated by a a development, the developer pays for those. if they are benefiting or providing what's called regional benefit, then there's a an allocation of cost given to that um based on who's actually going to use those improvements. So, yes, if the if the road is routed out and around, and I know there were a couple public comments on this, that Shrivever has no intentions of connecting to or using 10th West after that phase one portion that Shrivever's building. >>
>> So Shreber intends to build 10th west up to that phase one line um that you can see that's already a partial roadway that Triber would then finish out and then for the rest of that Triber doesn't need that. All truck traffic's going to come in um into phase one and then would be dispersed through phase two or three. So that roadway of 10th west is really serving all of the development to the east and any development to the north that may come in the future. And so it's those parties that are benefiting from this road that will ultimately end up paying for it or if there's regional grants because this this road such serves such a regional significance um according to the the North Logan group or excuse me according to the the name of that the group >> in CNO. >> Yeah, CNN. Thank you. the CMO group that they're they would provide grants for this. So, um yeah, Shrevers is not intending to build the half either a half road or pay for any of the the construction costs of that 10th uh 10th west as it goes around. But as as we were discussing this with staff, um you know, there there's two costs to building railway. There's the land cost and then there's the construction cost. Tribers offered to dedicate free of charge to the city all of that portion of the roadway past phase one. So you go you go past that um where where Max was just highlighting where the trucks turn in. All of that roadway is we deed it over to the city for for free and we we've approximated the value of that. That's a million dollar benefit to the city that they won't have to pay for. So that that's the uh the trade that we've we've worked and negotiated heavily for is that we we rerout reroute that road and the costs half of the cost of the land are coming to the city for free. So then the city can use impact fees, they can exact it from those other developers that are going to benefit from that road and they can use grant money to actually pay for construction costs. And so we just want a a nice proportional partnership with the city on that point. Does that answer your question? Yes. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I I got one more though. If I could get >> I heard you say that that you would deed that road over to the city, >> correct? >> Now, is that the entire road, not part of where it sits? >> Yeah. Right. >> Great question. So, the development agreement right now would require Shrivever to dedicate the land underlying that roadway as you see in the map. uh of that site plan right there. So whatever the roadway width, Shriber would then dee that over to the city. >> So you got full width according to our master plan all the way up until about here and then they're proposing that it would be about half >> um to share along that property line. That's something that the city's done in the past and then back to full rightway section to connect back up here with the future 1000. So most of it's full, but there is a section where it goes down to half. >> So what So I just I can't believe that if that road is constructed and it connects into Smithfield in the through the West Fields that you guys would not use that road for your trucks. >> No, it's a really great point. So there, like Max said, most of the traffic, the vast majority of the traffic to this site is heading south. Products come in from the from the south. They're they're utilizes cold storage facility. Their trucks are reloaded. Everything heads south. There's a few vehicles that may head north on there. And so really in when it comes to land use law of who's going to pay for infrastructure, there's a proportionality element of it. So if you it's under Utah law, it's unfair to make a developer pay for an entire massive road construction if they're only using a very small if they're the project necessitates a small portion of that road, which is the case here. So we are fine paying for all those project improvements that we have to put in to make sure our project works and they're going to be necessitated by our traffic. More than happy if we're paying for those. This roadway would just it if it's used by by Shrivever, it's going to be a dimminimous use compared to the regional use by everyone else. >> Okay. >> The frustrating part though is that the city doesn't build roads. Developers build roads. And so you're the developer. >> Yeah. >> But you don't want to build the road. >> It It's a great question. developers do build roads that are associated with their project. And although this road is adjacent to it's close fire project, it's it's not a project road. We >> we would prefer that road not to exist at all. >> It would be great. >> It's a state that the the roads adjacent to your property will be built by the developer. >> Yeah. And and I know that that's a common um way that ordinances are written. >> That's the way ours is written. >> Yeah. And that and that may be the case. There there's an overlay of of those ordinance with state code and also the the federal and state constitutions protect developers from just kind of these blanket requirements that just say, "Hey, if you show up, we can make you do X, Y, and Z." Um, and that's where I'm bringing up that proportionality um of if you're if your project's going to use the road, you pay for it. If it's just adjacent to your road, but you're never going to use it, you have no need for it. Your project doesn't necessitate it. you know, we have we have traffic studies that show all of our traffic's heading south. Um, it it's just not something that we can finance and pay for. But I mean, I think one point I want to highlight is we're Shriber wants to be a great part of the city on this proportionality. I mean, we're dedicating million dollars worth of land for this roadway to the city where otherwise if the city were to condemn it, um then they would have to pay for that. That million dollars goes into that portionality analysis. If this was a a regular exaction type, um the city would have to say, "Okay, you know, we're going to require this road. The land's worth a million bucks. It costs a million to build. you know, Shrivever's already giving you 50% of the value that we just want to be a good partner. Want to make sure there's connectivity there. >> Would you be against donating 1.2 million of property for the road? >> You know what, and that's a great question, too. If if you look at those detention parcels too on here, so we we have offered to donate that roadway land, which we approximate the value of that to a million. If you add in um there's there's three detention parcels. If I can those might be a little tall. They're the triangles that are on the uh east side of the property there. We've also offered in the development agreement to donate those to the city for water detention for the use of regional water detention benefits. If you add in the value of all that acreage, we're we're offering close to $3 million in property value to the city for this for the roadway and water detention. And I don't want to I appreciate that. Let me say it that way. Um, also recognizing that those are pieces of land that Shriber isn't going to be able to do anything with other than pay somebody to come and keep the weeds down or whatever the case is. And what I was really referring to in my question, um, just doing doing rough math and trying to look at the length of the roads here, so forth and so on. Um, there's about 119 acres that you're proposing as part of this development. One acre is 43,560 square ft. square ft as part of this development. And when I look at the section of um the easement on the far east side that you're proposing only um giving half of that ride away. So 33 feet versus the 66 ft. Um it's about 1,000 ft in length. That's about 33,000 feet that you're not deeding to make it a full width road, which comes out to 0.0063 of the total land as part of this development. Little over half a percent. You want to be good partners. You've got space. said, "You don't we don't see it on here, but when we look at at what's what's in the development agreement, it shows I don't know couple hundred feet between the proposed road or the easement that you would give us on the east side and any structure that would be built. It's just going to end up being again, you know, grass, weeds, whatever. And so if you're willing to give a million in easement, the question is why aren't you willing to give 1.2 million and just dedicate the entire 66 ft rideway from north to south. >> Understood. Thank thank you for the question. So that that phase two and three are conceptual right now. So, one of the one of the things we need to think about is when we go and plan this site, if that road shifts to the west, that may impact those future phases. So, and those we are just not planned out to a level of detail to provide the exact layout with that that tenth west. But on top of that, if if you look on the the site plan here, all of those properties that we're going that half road on are undeveloped land right now. So when that road comes along, you know, those those properties are going to benefit immensely from this road. >> But remember, you're not developing them. >> That's correct. Yeah. >> You're not developing them. >> That's correct. Yeah. >> You're requiring the city to develop them. >> No. No. We No, you don't have to develop those roads. Whoever owns properties, when they go sell them, now that they have nice road ready, >> they're going to benefit immensely. And so that they should dedicate the other half of that road. And that that's been a common practice in the cash valley for for a long time is to do these, you know, partial roadways on that split parcel. So that that but it's only splitting the parcel because that's where you drew the line. >> That's correct. Yeah, we >> because you drew the line to split the parcel. >> This was >> we didn't draw the line. We didn't say that. That road is supposed to go straight north to south right through the middle of your campus. And I appreciate Jay's time this morning that helped me understand the the landlocked issue that you have in Logan. That's why we're even here tonight. >> Yeah. >> And not able to go from manufacturing across the road to, you know, the warehouse. I get that. So, I I I have a better understanding why it is that you're approaching this with a development agreement because yeah, you could go ahead with phase one and you could have you could have been you could have had the warehouse halfway built by now, but with the intent being we want to expand and we want to have a campus in there. So I understand the concern there, but we are giving up the city giving up for the entire community kind of a a road through there, not requiring the developer to have to to build a road curve gutter sidewalk like we do everybody else through that. um and allowing it to be shifted, but it could have been shifted, you know, 33 feet less to the east than what it is. And yeah, okay, so that's 33 feet less that you can't build a manufacturing plant on, but out of 119 acres, you've got a lot of smart people that could figure out how to probably get the space you needed. and and you've still got an enclosed campus. I just see that that I don't I don't care that the other people on the east are going to benefit from that. To me, everyone's going to benefit. North, South, and everybody that's ever going to drive that road is going to benefit from it. You aren't Shriber's not paying anything other than giving 0.0063% of the land to allow a full rideway on that east side. So I >> convince me otherwise. >> I mean it's something we can discuss with our group of of shifting that. I I go back to the proportionality of of the relationship here that that really this 10th West Roads not necessitated at all. Like the the fact that we're giving, you know, that Shrever willing to give a million dollars worth of land to the city is is an immense benefit to you all. I think we could argue that in reverse though that us changing our master plan and losing two roads that are connectivity for our community is a immense benefit to Shriber. >> Absolutely. I I totally agree that that's the negotiation here and part of this development agreement that we're working out is it's a it's a give and take relationship. We want to you know we we don't come in and just say oh 10th west we don't need it. You're on your own city. Um best of luck to you. Oh, and these detention ponds that are going to benefit everyone else that we are willing to deed over and and co-maintain with the city worry. I hope I hope your other developers worry about those like we want to be a good partner. And so that that I totally agree. It's it's a it's a mutual relationship. You you're giving up and rerouting your your road and we're we're providing some benefit to the city in form of free land um detention. I think the road is our biggest sticking point from our I mean we hear it from our community. I think that's been the discussion amongst our council. I think that section 7.3 with the details of the development of the road are concern. >> Yeah. And if our city planner just reminded me of another aspect of city planning as she likes to do that I think she should probably share with the council that may help. So, just a quick reminder about our life with UD do um and their oftentimes unwillingness to give parcels access to the highway in order to develop. So
>> So Shreber intends to build 10th west up to that phase one line um that you can see that's already a partial roadway that Triber would then finish out and then for the rest of that Triber doesn't need that. All truck traffic's going to come in um into phase one and then would be dispersed through phase two or three. So that roadway of 10th west is really serving all of the development to the east and any development to the north that may come in the future. And so it's those parties that are benefiting from this road that will ultimately end up paying for it or if there's regional grants because this this road such serves such a regional significance um according to the the North Logan group or excuse me according to the the name of that the group >> in CNO. >> Yeah, CNN. Thank you. the CMO group that they're they would provide grants for this. So, um yeah, Shrevers is not intending to build the half either a half road or pay for any of the the construction costs of that 10th uh 10th west as it goes around. But as as we were discussing this with staff, um you know, there there's two costs to building railway. There's the land cost and then there's the construction cost. Tribers offered to dedicate free of charge to the city all of that portion of the roadway past phase one. So you go you go past that um where where Max was just highlighting where the trucks turn in. All of that roadway is we deed it over to the city for for free and we we've approximated the value of that. That's a million dollar benefit to the city that they won't have to pay for. So that that's the uh the trade that we've we've worked and negotiated heavily for is that we we rerout reroute that road and the costs half of the cost of the land are coming to the city for free. So then the city can use impact fees, they can exact it from those other developers that are going to benefit from that road and they can use grant money to actually pay for construction costs. And so we just want a a nice proportional partnership with the city on that point. Does that answer your question? Yes. Thank you. >> Thank you. >> I I got one more though. If I could get >> I heard you say that that you would deed that road over to the city, >> correct? >> Now, is that the entire road, not part of where it sits? >> Yeah. Right. >> Great question. So, the development agreement right now would require Shrivever to dedicate the land underlying that roadway as you see in the map. uh of that site plan right there. So whatever the roadway width, Shriber would then dee that over to the city. >> So you got full width according to our master plan all the way up until about here and then they're proposing that it would be about half >> um to share along that property line. That's something that the city's done in the past and then back to full rightway section to connect back up here with the future 1000. So most of it's full, but there is a section where it goes down to half. >> So what So I just I can't believe that if that road is constructed and it connects into Smithfield in the through the West Fields that you guys would not use that road for your trucks. >> No, it's a really great point. So there, like Max said, most of the traffic, the vast majority of the traffic to this site is heading south. Products come in from the from the south. They're they're utilizes cold storage facility. Their trucks are reloaded. Everything heads south. There's a few vehicles that may head north on there. And so really in when it comes to land use law of who's going to pay for infrastructure, there's a proportionality element of it. So if you it's under Utah law, it's unfair to make a developer pay for an entire massive road construction if they're only using a very small if they're the project necessitates a small portion of that road, which is the case here. So we are fine paying for all those project improvements that we have to put in to make sure our project works and they're going to be necessitated by our traffic. More than happy if we're paying for those. This roadway would just it if it's used by by Shrivever, it's going to be a dimminimous use compared to the regional use by everyone else. >> Okay. >> The frustrating part though is that the city doesn't build roads. Developers build roads. And so you're the developer. >> Yeah. >> But you don't want to build the road. >> It It's a great question. developers do build roads that are associated with their project. And although this road is adjacent to it's close fire project, it's it's not a project road. We >> we would prefer that road not to exist at all. >> It would be great. >> It's a state that the the roads adjacent to your property will be built by the developer. >> Yeah. And and I know that that's a common um way that ordinances are written. >> That's the way ours is written. >> Yeah. And that and that may be the case. There there's an overlay of of those ordinance with state code and also the the federal and state constitutions protect developers from just kind of these blanket requirements that just say, "Hey, if you show up, we can make you do X, Y, and Z." Um, and that's where I'm bringing up that proportionality um of if you're if your project's going to use the road, you pay for it. If it's just adjacent to your road, but you're never going to use it, you have no need for it. Your project doesn't necessitate it. you know, we have we have traffic studies that show all of our traffic's heading south. Um, it it's just not something that we can finance and pay for. But I mean, I think one point I want to highlight is we're Shriber wants to be a great part of the city on this proportionality. I mean, we're dedicating million dollars worth of land for this roadway to the city where otherwise if the city were to condemn it, um then they would have to pay for that. That million dollars goes into that portionality analysis. If this was a a regular exaction type, um the city would have to say, "Okay, you know, we're going to require this road. The land's worth a million bucks. It costs a million to build. you know, Shrivever's already giving you 50% of the value that we just want to be a good partner. Want to make sure there's connectivity there. >> Would you be against donating 1.2 million of property for the road? >> You know what, and that's a great question, too. If if you look at those detention parcels too on here, so we we have offered to donate that roadway land, which we approximate the value of that to a million. If you add in um there's there's three detention parcels. If I can those might be a little tall. They're the triangles that are on the uh east side of the property there. We've also offered in the development agreement to donate those to the city for water detention for the use of regional water detention benefits. If you add in the value of all that acreage, we're we're offering close to $3 million in property value to the city for this for the roadway and water detention. And I don't want to I appreciate that. Let me say it that way. Um, also recognizing that those are pieces of land that Shriber isn't going to be able to do anything with other than pay somebody to come and keep the weeds down or whatever the case is. And what I was really referring to in my question, um, just doing doing rough math and trying to look at the length of the roads here, so forth and so on. Um, there's about 119 acres that you're proposing as part of this development. One acre is 43,560 square ft. square ft as part of this development. And when I look at the section of um the easement on the far east side that you're proposing only um giving half of that ride away. So 33 feet versus the 66 ft. Um it's about 1,000 ft in length. That's about 33,000 feet that you're not deeding to make it a full width road, which comes out to 0.0063 of the total land as part of this development. Little over half a percent. You want to be good partners. You've got space. said, "You don't we don't see it on here, but when we look at at what's what's in the development agreement, it shows I don't know couple hundred feet between the proposed road or the easement that you would give us on the east side and any structure that would be built. It's just going to end up being again, you know, grass, weeds, whatever. And so if you're willing to give a million in easement, the question is why aren't you willing to give 1.2 million and just dedicate the entire 66 ft rideway from north to south. >> Understood. Thank thank you for the question. So that that phase two and three are conceptual right now. So, one of the one of the things we need to think about is when we go and plan this site, if that road shifts to the west, that may impact those future phases. So, and those we are just not planned out to a level of detail to provide the exact layout with that that tenth west. But on top of that, if if you look on the the site plan here, all of those properties that we're going that half road on are undeveloped land right now. So when that road comes along, you know, those those properties are going to benefit immensely from this road. >> But remember, you're not developing them. >> That's correct. Yeah. >> You're not developing them. >> That's correct. Yeah. >> You're requiring the city to develop them. >> No. No. We No, you don't have to develop those roads. Whoever owns properties, when they go sell them, now that they have nice road ready, >> they're going to benefit immensely. And so that they should dedicate the other half of that road. And that that's been a common practice in the cash valley for for a long time is to do these, you know, partial roadways on that split parcel. So that that but it's only splitting the parcel because that's where you drew the line. >> That's correct. Yeah, we >> because you drew the line to split the parcel. >> This was >> we didn't draw the line. We didn't say that. That road is supposed to go straight north to south right through the middle of your campus. And I appreciate Jay's time this morning that helped me understand the the landlocked issue that you have in Logan. That's why we're even here tonight. >> Yeah. >> And not able to go from manufacturing across the road to, you know, the warehouse. I get that. So, I I I have a better understanding why it is that you're approaching this with a development agreement because yeah, you could go ahead with phase one and you could have you could have been you could have had the warehouse halfway built by now, but with the intent being we want to expand and we want to have a campus in there. So I understand the concern there, but we are giving up the city giving up for the entire community kind of a a road through there, not requiring the developer to have to to build a road curve gutter sidewalk like we do everybody else through that. um and allowing it to be shifted, but it could have been shifted, you know, 33 feet less to the east than what it is. And yeah, okay, so that's 33 feet less that you can't build a manufacturing plant on, but out of 119 acres, you've got a lot of smart people that could figure out how to probably get the space you needed. and and you've still got an enclosed campus. I just see that that I don't I don't care that the other people on the east are going to benefit from that. To me, everyone's going to benefit. North, South, and everybody that's ever going to drive that road is going to benefit from it. You aren't Shriber's not paying anything other than giving 0.0063% of the land to allow a full rideway on that east side. So I >> convince me otherwise. >> I mean it's something we can discuss with our group of of shifting that. I I go back to the proportionality of of the relationship here that that really this 10th West Roads not necessitated at all. Like the the fact that we're giving, you know, that Shrever willing to give a million dollars worth of land to the city is is an immense benefit to you all. I think we could argue that in reverse though that us changing our master plan and losing two roads that are connectivity for our community is a immense benefit to Shriber. >> Absolutely. I I totally agree that that's the negotiation here and part of this development agreement that we're working out is it's a it's a give and take relationship. We want to you know we we don't come in and just say oh 10th west we don't need it. You're on your own city. Um best of luck to you. Oh, and these detention ponds that are going to benefit everyone else that we are willing to deed over and and co-maintain with the city worry. I hope I hope your other developers worry about those like we want to be a good partner. And so that that I totally agree. It's it's a it's a mutual relationship. You you're giving up and rerouting your your road and we're we're providing some benefit to the city in form of free land um detention. I think the road is our biggest sticking point from our I mean we hear it from our community. I think that's been the discussion amongst our council. I think that section 7.3 with the details of the development of the road are concern. >> Yeah. And if our city planner just reminded me of another aspect of city planning as she likes to do that I think she should probably share with the council that may help. So, just a quick reminder about our life with UD do um and their oftentimes unwillingness to give parcels access to the highway in order to develop. So
what could be considered is that providing half width that meets up with these parcels to the east provides those parcels to the east the opportunity to develop off of a road that they could actually have access to. So this I don't want to give say one way or another but you could consider that this is Shriber offering those parcels the opportunity um to develop and build their section of a road and have full access to it where otherwise if they wanted access to it they'd have to get an easement right if the road was moved completely onto Shriber's property um those folks if they wanted access to it, there would have to be some weird driveway easement situation. So, you could consider that Shriber is benefiting parcels to the east that may not have the opportunity to develop because of UD do's access restrictions opportunity. >> We wouldn't want driveways all off that road anyway. you would want one and then kind of like a what what a state street type thing where you get off onto another main road and access all the >> well I'm not a transportation engineer so I won't speak to that but um I do believe it gives these parcels the opportunity for development that they may not otherwise have if they didn't have the opportunity to um connect to that particular section of road. >> That's a fair point. And >> really this is replacing our 9inth west, right? Like it's in that curve becomes a replacement for 9th west which maybe they would have had to bore bear the expense >> right and and the 9inth west if I remember looking. >> Did it run? >> It doesn't go right along the parcel anyway. It it's it's 100% on >> on this proposed >> both. Oh, that's right. They both >> on these. Yeah, they're both on that. So that >> that's why I was feeling like >> Yeah, that >> it could be holy on their land because if we're giving up two roads, it's >> correct. Yeah. And I think what what Muel says is is a fair point. Also, when you look at the county's master transportation plan, this 1,00 West isn't anticipated to be built until 2043 to 2050. >> So, there >> my my math says we're we're outside the 15-year vestment, which is another question I need to come back to at some point because later in the document it says something about this lasting for 20 years. So, I just need a clarification on that. But back to this point, I still have the concern with the paragraph 7.3 um that we don't build roads. We're not going to build this road. If we agree to this, Shriber's not going to build the road the way this gets built. And the only benefit here is that it is COG. It's grant eligible just like Wolfpack Way. We didn't we didn't build it. So So it's a little bit different than, you know, 10,00 East in my mind here in town and and going through and and the developers developing it. It's as far as I know, no one that's building along Wolfpack Way had to pay to build Wolfpack Way. >> Well, they get to build well >> the extra pieces of it. The city went in and got a grant to build the main travel lanes, but the developers have to build a portion of it to complete the cross-section. >> Which parts do they have to build? Remind me. >> So on each side, um, Wolfpack Way that exists today, there's an additional 10 ft of asphalt approximately, curb and gutter, and then on the west side, they would have to build a sidewalk. On the east side, there's an asphalt trail in place already, right? The city did go out and get a grant to do travel lanes that exist now. We got the grant covered the roundabouts which are super expensive. >> Okay. Yeah. >> And we did the trails. >> Okay. Thank you for the clarification marks. >> Yeah. >> So, just to go back to 7.3. Sorry, I don't mean to derail the train here. That's where I was going to >> um >> do you want to have a discussion with the folks from Shyber about this in more detail? Um I mean they're all here so this is your chance. I don't think I can approve this development agreement with that paragraph the way it's written right now because I think that if I interpret it correctly, we can't pay for the design of this road and have it complete. And I think the development agreement says it gives us >> 30 days to have the design and construction plans >> completed at within within 30 days and the process. >> Yeah. To be fair, we would have a signal long before that 30 days, right? Developing these parcels would probably start with like a boundary line adjustment, pre-application meetings with the city planner. We'd have a few months of advanced notice. The I think the bigger concern is the cost of the engineering. If you look at the grants we're applying for right now for the Wolfpack Way continuations, >> the engineering alone is a couple hundred,000 and that's not something that the city can just hand over even in a few months. That takes us a couple years to work on. And so that's the big concern. Um we would love to have these roads designed and ready in a reasonable time, but Shriber is going to be showing up and saying, "Hey, we want a building permit in about 3 months." and we're gonna go, uh, we don't have $100,000 to go start the con the design of this road right now. >> Right. >> Sorry. >> And that's essentially where I'm going is that that the way it's written to to have the city do the design for the phase two piece and then who pays for that road? If we do we go and get a grant for that couple hundred or thousand feet of phase two and then at some year to be determined later on when they decide yeah okay we're ready to put a manufacturing plant in and then we pay for the design on that again and we go to COG again and say well now we need this much for me if it's going to be done it ought to all be done at one time and I would say when phase three is proposed because I'm not sure that we need the phase two piece. If they're never if they don't want it, then wait until we know for sure a manufacturing plant is going to go in and this road needs to curve. If something happens to the economy and it's like, oh, stink. You know, we've got all the storage out here, but yeah, we're we're not going to be manu we're not going to be building a manufacturing plant uh for who knows how long. and and that gets sold, then I'd be like, "Well, let's go back to our original master transportation plan. They don't need the campus. We go straight." So I just assume see something that says, "Hey, when when we get phase three underway, we have a conversation." And that's far enough out because we can't just roll in to the cog any time, any place, and say, "Hey, we want millions of dollars." There's a there's a time limit. There's, you know, we have to have that submitted for whatever fiscal years ahead. And so that's the only way this road gets built cuz we can't build it. They won't build it. And so it's going to have to be with grants. So that's a huge part of this that's not considered in 7.3 that I have an issue with. >> Go ahead. >> Yeah, thank you. I I think we can make this really easy. We we've circled up internally on this um issue and we're we are not married to the the mechanics of dedicating it as written in the agreement. It was it was a way of mechanics to to get the property to the city, but ultimately we are fine with dedicating the land for that road on a on a timetable that works for the city. Yeah, maybe >> if we need to revise those subsections A through C to to accomplish what you're highlighting, we're more than happy to do that. That's not something we're we're bothered with at all. >> Yeah. To put a finer point on why it's important, typically with these grants, the city, if we show up with right of way already dedicated, we get a little bit of priority consideration. If we've been able to get right away from a developer or from private resident as part of an agreement or something, we can get some level of priority uh scoring, we'll call it, when they give out the grants. And so for us, doing uh a couple phases isn't super helpful, but if we were to get all the right of way in hand, that would look really good when we go for that application to get the money to do the design and to build the road. That would be more helpful for us if we have to go after one of these grants. >> Got it. If we just have one sec, I'll I'll confirm, but I think that I think that works for us. >> Okay. >> Before we let them go talk about it, are there other points you want them to go talk about? >> Yeah, we don't need sidebar on that one. We're we're totally fine with that mechanics, Mark. >> Okay. So >> yeah, we can if >> if if we want to condition the approval of the DA that we revise sections 7.3 to fix subsections A through C to align with what you need to do to get your grant, totally fine with us. >> Okay. Well, that's great. Whoever on the council's game to make a motion, write that down. >> Yeah,
what could be considered is that providing half width that meets up with these parcels to the east provides those parcels to the east the opportunity to develop off of a road that they could actually have access to. So this I don't want to give say one way or another but you could consider that this is Shriber offering those parcels the opportunity um to develop and build their section of a road and have full access to it where otherwise if they wanted access to it they'd have to get an easement right if the road was moved completely onto Shriber's property um those folks if they wanted access to it, there would have to be some weird driveway easement situation. So, you could consider that Shriber is benefiting parcels to the east that may not have the opportunity to develop because of UD do's access restrictions opportunity. >> We wouldn't want driveways all off that road anyway. you would want one and then kind of like a what what a state street type thing where you get off onto another main road and access all the >> well I'm not a transportation engineer so I won't speak to that but um I do believe it gives these parcels the opportunity for development that they may not otherwise have if they didn't have the opportunity to um connect to that particular section of road. >> That's a fair point. And >> really this is replacing our 9inth west, right? Like it's in that curve becomes a replacement for 9th west which maybe they would have had to bore bear the expense >> right and and the 9inth west if I remember looking. >> Did it run? >> It doesn't go right along the parcel anyway. It it's it's 100% on >> on this proposed >> both. Oh, that's right. They both >> on these. Yeah, they're both on that. So that >> that's why I was feeling like >> Yeah, that >> it could be holy on their land because if we're giving up two roads, it's >> correct. Yeah. And I think what what Muel says is is a fair point. Also, when you look at the county's master transportation plan, this 1,00 West isn't anticipated to be built until 2043 to 2050. >> So, there >> my my math says we're we're outside the 15-year vestment, which is another question I need to come back to at some point because later in the document it says something about this lasting for 20 years. So, I just need a clarification on that. But back to this point, I still have the concern with the paragraph 7.3 um that we don't build roads. We're not going to build this road. If we agree to this, Shriber's not going to build the road the way this gets built. And the only benefit here is that it is COG. It's grant eligible just like Wolfpack Way. We didn't we didn't build it. So So it's a little bit different than, you know, 10,00 East in my mind here in town and and going through and and the developers developing it. It's as far as I know, no one that's building along Wolfpack Way had to pay to build Wolfpack Way. >> Well, they get to build well >> the extra pieces of it. The city went in and got a grant to build the main travel lanes, but the developers have to build a portion of it to complete the cross-section. >> Which parts do they have to build? Remind me. >> So on each side, um, Wolfpack Way that exists today, there's an additional 10 ft of asphalt approximately, curb and gutter, and then on the west side, they would have to build a sidewalk. On the east side, there's an asphalt trail in place already, right? The city did go out and get a grant to do travel lanes that exist now. We got the grant covered the roundabouts which are super expensive. >> Okay. Yeah. >> And we did the trails. >> Okay. Thank you for the clarification marks. >> Yeah. >> So, just to go back to 7.3. Sorry, I don't mean to derail the train here. That's where I was going to >> um >> do you want to have a discussion with the folks from Shyber about this in more detail? Um I mean they're all here so this is your chance. I don't think I can approve this development agreement with that paragraph the way it's written right now because I think that if I interpret it correctly, we can't pay for the design of this road and have it complete. And I think the development agreement says it gives us >> 30 days to have the design and construction plans >> completed at within within 30 days and the process. >> Yeah. To be fair, we would have a signal long before that 30 days, right? Developing these parcels would probably start with like a boundary line adjustment, pre-application meetings with the city planner. We'd have a few months of advanced notice. The I think the bigger concern is the cost of the engineering. If you look at the grants we're applying for right now for the Wolfpack Way continuations, >> the engineering alone is a couple hundred,000 and that's not something that the city can just hand over even in a few months. That takes us a couple years to work on. And so that's the big concern. Um we would love to have these roads designed and ready in a reasonable time, but Shriber is going to be showing up and saying, "Hey, we want a building permit in about 3 months." and we're gonna go, uh, we don't have $100,000 to go start the con the design of this road right now. >> Right. >> Sorry. >> And that's essentially where I'm going is that that the way it's written to to have the city do the design for the phase two piece and then who pays for that road? If we do we go and get a grant for that couple hundred or thousand feet of phase two and then at some year to be determined later on when they decide yeah okay we're ready to put a manufacturing plant in and then we pay for the design on that again and we go to COG again and say well now we need this much for me if it's going to be done it ought to all be done at one time and I would say when phase three is proposed because I'm not sure that we need the phase two piece. If they're never if they don't want it, then wait until we know for sure a manufacturing plant is going to go in and this road needs to curve. If something happens to the economy and it's like, oh, stink. You know, we've got all the storage out here, but yeah, we're we're not going to be manu we're not going to be building a manufacturing plant uh for who knows how long. and and that gets sold, then I'd be like, "Well, let's go back to our original master transportation plan. They don't need the campus. We go straight." So I just assume see something that says, "Hey, when when we get phase three underway, we have a conversation." And that's far enough out because we can't just roll in to the cog any time, any place, and say, "Hey, we want millions of dollars." There's a there's a time limit. There's, you know, we have to have that submitted for whatever fiscal years ahead. And so that's the only way this road gets built cuz we can't build it. They won't build it. And so it's going to have to be with grants. So that's a huge part of this that's not considered in 7.3 that I have an issue with. >> Go ahead. >> Yeah, thank you. I I think we can make this really easy. We we've circled up internally on this um issue and we're we are not married to the the mechanics of dedicating it as written in the agreement. It was it was a way of mechanics to to get the property to the city, but ultimately we are fine with dedicating the land for that road on a on a timetable that works for the city. Yeah, maybe >> if we need to revise those subsections A through C to to accomplish what you're highlighting, we're more than happy to do that. That's not something we're we're bothered with at all. >> Yeah. To put a finer point on why it's important, typically with these grants, the city, if we show up with right of way already dedicated, we get a little bit of priority consideration. If we've been able to get right away from a developer or from private resident as part of an agreement or something, we can get some level of priority uh scoring, we'll call it, when they give out the grants. And so for us, doing uh a couple phases isn't super helpful, but if we were to get all the right of way in hand, that would look really good when we go for that application to get the money to do the design and to build the road. That would be more helpful for us if we have to go after one of these grants. >> Got it. If we just have one sec, I'll I'll confirm, but I think that I think that works for us. >> Okay. >> Before we let them go talk about it, are there other points you want them to go talk about? >> Yeah, we don't need sidebar on that one. We're we're totally fine with that mechanics, Mark. >> Okay. So >> yeah, we can if >> if if we want to condition the approval of the DA that we revise sections 7.3 to fix subsections A through C to align with what you need to do to get your grant, totally fine with us. >> Okay. Well, that's great. Whoever on the council's game to make a motion, write that down. >> Yeah,
please. other concerns, areas of concern. I know there was question about vesting, but I think we feel it's resolved with a recision. >> Yeah, I mean it's it's still the the big question is are you okay with 15 years? And that's really what it boils down to. There's only so much legally that the city attorney can say that we can do to protect ourselves without putting things in here that Shriber was uncomfortable with in the agreement. And so really the question is just are you comfortable with this? Because the city staff we feel like doing the uh attachment of today's codes removes the ambiguity from the future about what rules we'll be playing by. We're also including in there it's going to be snapshot of the entire code. So, it's also like our land use table. So, we'll know what types of uses are and are not allowed in there. Um, if there were to be another, you know, Shriber affiliate who maybe wasn't related to food production, we could have that list to fall back on to say, well, we you don't fall under this list, so we're not excited for you to come or what. I don't know who knows what's going to happen in 15 years. But we feel like that is um about as good as we can get without having to do more intense negotiations and getting the attorneys really uh wound up about some stuff. No offense attorneys. I've got a question that I'd like clarified and um paragraph 11.4 Four, the term of the agreement says the term of this agreement shall commence on the effective date and shall continue until the 20th year anniversary of this agreement. So, I'm trying to make sense of, you know, we've been focusing on this 15-year vestment for an agreement that's going to last for 20 years. So, is that something that wasn't changed or should be changed? Or do you not care about the vestment between year 15 and year 20? I just help me understand. We haven't had this for very long. >> Totally fine. >> You know, a week and I think it's a different one that we saw last week that the planning commission saw. So, I'm trying to pick through here and figure out what's going on. So, help me understand that. >> Thank you for your question. The the 15 years up in the earlier section is a a vesting sunset. So after that 15 years, the those city codes that we've locked in place would go away and then the current code would jump in. And then this 20-year provision is just for the entire agreement. Like this agreement is going to last for 20 years. After 20 years, it goes away if it's not extended by the parties. So it's dealing with two two different timelines. One one with vesting the 15 years as to vesting alone 20 years is the agreement overall. So if we were to change any kind of our code of ordinance somewhere in the next 15 years that might affect that, you'd be in here in a real hurry at year 14 and a half to get whatever phase three built before you had to comply with our you can only go one story high now in the industrial zone or something. >> Yeah, you're not wrong. I've been Yeah. On the on the I've had that task before. >> Okay. to come in and and or we extend the agreement if >> so we're really talking a 20-year agreement and then I think it also says it can be extended for 5 years um as long as you've done phase one which we hope is going to be done you know here really soon. So what we're really saying then this agreement automatically be extended for additional five years. So we're really looking at a 25 year agreement not a we're 15ear agreement. >> That's right. Yeah. If we're making progress, then yeah, things should keep rolling for for 25 years. But one key thing to point out that one of the major benefits to to Shrivever's agreement is that vesting. So really that vesting sunset happens at 15 years and a lot of the rest of this agreement dealing with obligations that Shrivever's going to have to build infrastructure um to dedicate certain lands. So there there is longer tail times to those items. But yeah, the vesting sunset at 15 years puts puts us on the clock on a 15-year clock. >> Okay, thank you. >> Yeah, no problem. >> I I got a question on the U 7.3 Marcus. If >> does this address the concern that the commission had if we do what was suggested here? Uh the well the commission didn't bring this up. This is one that as I heard from different council members who were reviewing the draft the post planning commission draft this was brought to me by a few council members. So I guess maybe try to remain anonymous but council members does this address the question? And I mean, if we if Shriber rewrites this section to be more accommodating to the city's concerns and work with hard timelines for the grant applications and not require a design before dedication, does that resolve the concern? >> At least the concern with that particular section, maybe I'll reword it that way. I feel like it addresses the concern with that section. >> What? I couldn't hear you. >> I feel like it addresses the concern with that section that we the 7.3 with the dedication of the land. And I one thing on this road, um I just I don't think it's very likely that by the time they do phase three that they're not going to want to access that road somewhere along there to let traffic in and out, let employees come in. And um so I mean all the other developers they had to develop their roads. I I mean and so by doing this we're just kind of letting them off by not having to do anything. And then it's pretty likely they'll probably want to have access to use that road. >> Would you feel more comfortable if we ask them to develop to the end of phase one the road? They so we wouldn't be asking for the whole road. I know they phase one line the land but if we went all the way >> where their phase one ends that >> I mean that's just how it goes is >> developers you know develop the road along their property what they want to develop. >> Yeah. C can I address your question? >> Sure. So yes, if if phase three if we come along on phase three and we realize, hey, the way we've got to design this, we're going to use 10th west. We're going to go in, we're going to connect into 10th west. There's nothing in this agreement that prohibits the city from requiring us to pay if we actually use the road. So the the way it's drafted right now is to just say, you know, we want 10th west to line like this. We're we're not going to build it right now because we don't need it for our project. It's not considered a project improvement. It's a regional. But >> if a future face says, "Yeah, we we actually do need that. Sorry, city. We we're going to connect in 10th west, that's us." Then yeah, we'll pay our proportionate share of that roadway. >> So I don't see that in the agreement here anywhere. So and and if things aren't written down and recorded, you guys will just hook into it and go about your merry way. So that's that's what I'm kind of concerned about. And I'm I'm happy if we want to condition your approval on adding that more expressly in here. So there there's an entire section in here on section six which outlines public infrastructure that is necessary for the project. And we're we're making it as clear as we possibly can that Strive is going to be responsible for all public infrastructure that's necessary for our project. anything that's a system or is just to benefit others we we would pay our share of but we won't pay the whole thing. So it's it's a fairly lengthy section but that's summary of it. And so 7.3 just says up front we're not going to be obligated at the the very last section, sorry, the very last sentence there just makes a note that nothing in section 7.3 obligates the developer to pay for design construct 10th west. And so we just want to say by dedicating 7.3 or by rerouting it, we don't want to commit to being on the hook for paying for 10th west. But it doesn't mean that if we don't use it and it's not a benefit to our project that section six kicks in and it becomes a project improvement that we're paying our share of. Hope that helps alleviate the concern and if we need to make that more expressed in the agreement. I mean that that's a reiteration of what um the Utah land use development management access. So if we if we want to tie it out to that or we want to make it more expressive here, we have no problem with that. So, council member >> Ernie talk to you about that at all? >> Yeah, we've looked at this. Um, essentially there's this really particular piece of wording in here that talks about applicable law. Um, like uh let's see, upsizing public infrastructure section 6.3. It says, "Developers shall not be required to increase the size or scope of any public infrastructure beyond the size or capacity capacity necessary for the master development's use as determined by applicable law." So, that was a a phrase that we really wanted in there because what that boils down to is when Shrivever submits their site plan, we're going to go through a pretty uh in-depth review process, right? They'll be have to submit calculations for the fire flow to make sure that they have the fire suppression right for their building. They'll be required to do, you know, modeling for the sewer, for the storm water to prove they can handle things. The other thing we're going to be requiring is traffic studies. And so what the applicable law provision does is it allows us to come in and say, "Hey, your traffic study says that you're going to have to we'll use a really hyperbolic example. Don't don't freak out, friends. the the traffic study, you have to double the size of that road and build a roundabout. In theory, what this applicable law section says is, hey, this study based on the traffic that we are bringing to your roads, it says we need to do these things, we're going to build that for you. And so, yeah, the attorney and I, we fought really hard to get that provision put in there because that was the whole fight. And that's why I had that section originally as a benefit to the city because originally Shriber was like, I don't know if we can do that. But we said, no, this is really important for us because we don't want the city to be the hold up for your project if it turns out that your facilities cause a huge burden on our infrastructure. And so that's why we've put in here based on the approvals and this required studies and the applicable law, that's what they'll have to do. So, if it says they're going to need another access point for fire safety, guess what? They get to hook on to 10th and they get to do their improvements for a limited portion of that based on their proportionality and their use and the need for that phase of the project. And I think as I'm looking at paragraph 6.2 two that says similar similar thing that that the developer still has an obligation to construct public infrastructure is identified in 6.11 and 6.12 and that's I think what we were talking about here referring to that because yeah I'm kind of with Geralt thinking you know if you know if if I'm one of remind me partners your employees partners you know if I'm working or if I live in Smithfield field or or some place north. I'm going go, "Hey, you guys got to give us an access from the north side cuz I'm tired of driving all the way down the stinking highway and turning at the light and getting stuck behind of all of our trucks trying to get in and out of there. I I want access to a parking lot, you know, on the north side." So, you know, 15 years down the road, you know, I could see any number of things happening. um that and and what I see here and what you've referred to and Mark has addressed and I've have to hope that our legal council is engaged enough in this that this what I'm seeing here protects the city. Um and it would address your concern, Geralt. This is really stinking hard, you know. Um, if I can just be fully transparent the why not >> first start, right? Yeah. You've never been you've never been transparent, Dave. the the planning and zoning commission and the city council have not had access to this document for very long at all. In fact, P&Z, I mean, they may have had it the day prior to their meeting and having to figure this thing out and there's all this legal ease and I'm I'm having to go to Google to figure out what was it trolling or tolling. You know what? I don't even know half these terms mean. And I'm I'm supposed to make a decision on it. And and we just haven't had that much time to to really dig into it because we we haven't been part of the process. And so I appreciate your patience with our questions to try and understand what we're really trying to figure out here. Um because I respect the comments that we've heard from the public on both sides tonight and whatever decisions made tonight is either way is going to impact Hide Park City forever. I mean, this is not an easy simple thing and and we haven't been given much time or help. I mean, we're, you know, we're trying to do the best we can to to figure this out and make the right decision. Um, so, thank you for your patience and our and our questions and and such here and maybe our lack of knowledge, but we're just trying to trying to figure out what's what's right for I think the residents and the city forever and ever. and also try to figure out, you know, what this partnership looks like, you know, if if we go this direction. And I I like others have said, have no reason to not think that this wouldn't be a great partnership. So, I I want to state that also, but my first priority is to the the residents who elected me to sit up here. And so, that's what I've got to consider first and foremost. Other thoughts or concerns, questions. When I make a decision, I feel pretty settled about it. I'm unsettled. So, The sticking point for me is still the road. >> The road is the road sticking point for me. >> Just how it how it lays out how it >> Well, right. Because not only is it not 10th west, but it's not even 9inth west, it's 870 west, maybe if I as I've looked at the map, I think all the land from this adjusted road west to the railroad tracks is property that you're purchasing, right? The tribers would be purchasing. That correct?
please. other concerns, areas of concern. I know there was question about vesting, but I think we feel it's resolved with a recision. >> Yeah, I mean it's it's still the the big question is are you okay with 15 years? And that's really what it boils down to. There's only so much legally that the city attorney can say that we can do to protect ourselves without putting things in here that Shriber was uncomfortable with in the agreement. And so really the question is just are you comfortable with this? Because the city staff we feel like doing the uh attachment of today's codes removes the ambiguity from the future about what rules we'll be playing by. We're also including in there it's going to be snapshot of the entire code. So, it's also like our land use table. So, we'll know what types of uses are and are not allowed in there. Um, if there were to be another, you know, Shriber affiliate who maybe wasn't related to food production, we could have that list to fall back on to say, well, we you don't fall under this list, so we're not excited for you to come or what. I don't know who knows what's going to happen in 15 years. But we feel like that is um about as good as we can get without having to do more intense negotiations and getting the attorneys really uh wound up about some stuff. No offense attorneys. I've got a question that I'd like clarified and um paragraph 11.4 Four, the term of the agreement says the term of this agreement shall commence on the effective date and shall continue until the 20th year anniversary of this agreement. So, I'm trying to make sense of, you know, we've been focusing on this 15-year vestment for an agreement that's going to last for 20 years. So, is that something that wasn't changed or should be changed? Or do you not care about the vestment between year 15 and year 20? I just help me understand. We haven't had this for very long. >> Totally fine. >> You know, a week and I think it's a different one that we saw last week that the planning commission saw. So, I'm trying to pick through here and figure out what's going on. So, help me understand that. >> Thank you for your question. The the 15 years up in the earlier section is a a vesting sunset. So after that 15 years, the those city codes that we've locked in place would go away and then the current code would jump in. And then this 20-year provision is just for the entire agreement. Like this agreement is going to last for 20 years. After 20 years, it goes away if it's not extended by the parties. So it's dealing with two two different timelines. One one with vesting the 15 years as to vesting alone 20 years is the agreement overall. So if we were to change any kind of our code of ordinance somewhere in the next 15 years that might affect that, you'd be in here in a real hurry at year 14 and a half to get whatever phase three built before you had to comply with our you can only go one story high now in the industrial zone or something. >> Yeah, you're not wrong. I've been Yeah. On the on the I've had that task before. >> Okay. to come in and and or we extend the agreement if >> so we're really talking a 20-year agreement and then I think it also says it can be extended for 5 years um as long as you've done phase one which we hope is going to be done you know here really soon. So what we're really saying then this agreement automatically be extended for additional five years. So we're really looking at a 25 year agreement not a we're 15ear agreement. >> That's right. Yeah. If we're making progress, then yeah, things should keep rolling for for 25 years. But one key thing to point out that one of the major benefits to to Shrivever's agreement is that vesting. So really that vesting sunset happens at 15 years and a lot of the rest of this agreement dealing with obligations that Shrivever's going to have to build infrastructure um to dedicate certain lands. So there there is longer tail times to those items. But yeah, the vesting sunset at 15 years puts puts us on the clock on a 15-year clock. >> Okay, thank you. >> Yeah, no problem. >> I I got a question on the U 7.3 Marcus. If >> does this address the concern that the commission had if we do what was suggested here? Uh the well the commission didn't bring this up. This is one that as I heard from different council members who were reviewing the draft the post planning commission draft this was brought to me by a few council members. So I guess maybe try to remain anonymous but council members does this address the question? And I mean, if we if Shriber rewrites this section to be more accommodating to the city's concerns and work with hard timelines for the grant applications and not require a design before dedication, does that resolve the concern? >> At least the concern with that particular section, maybe I'll reword it that way. I feel like it addresses the concern with that section. >> What? I couldn't hear you. >> I feel like it addresses the concern with that section that we the 7.3 with the dedication of the land. And I one thing on this road, um I just I don't think it's very likely that by the time they do phase three that they're not going to want to access that road somewhere along there to let traffic in and out, let employees come in. And um so I mean all the other developers they had to develop their roads. I I mean and so by doing this we're just kind of letting them off by not having to do anything. And then it's pretty likely they'll probably want to have access to use that road. >> Would you feel more comfortable if we ask them to develop to the end of phase one the road? They so we wouldn't be asking for the whole road. I know they phase one line the land but if we went all the way >> where their phase one ends that >> I mean that's just how it goes is >> developers you know develop the road along their property what they want to develop. >> Yeah. C can I address your question? >> Sure. So yes, if if phase three if we come along on phase three and we realize, hey, the way we've got to design this, we're going to use 10th west. We're going to go in, we're going to connect into 10th west. There's nothing in this agreement that prohibits the city from requiring us to pay if we actually use the road. So the the way it's drafted right now is to just say, you know, we want 10th west to line like this. We're we're not going to build it right now because we don't need it for our project. It's not considered a project improvement. It's a regional. But >> if a future face says, "Yeah, we we actually do need that. Sorry, city. We we're going to connect in 10th west, that's us." Then yeah, we'll pay our proportionate share of that roadway. >> So I don't see that in the agreement here anywhere. So and and if things aren't written down and recorded, you guys will just hook into it and go about your merry way. So that's that's what I'm kind of concerned about. And I'm I'm happy if we want to condition your approval on adding that more expressly in here. So there there's an entire section in here on section six which outlines public infrastructure that is necessary for the project. And we're we're making it as clear as we possibly can that Strive is going to be responsible for all public infrastructure that's necessary for our project. anything that's a system or is just to benefit others we we would pay our share of but we won't pay the whole thing. So it's it's a fairly lengthy section but that's summary of it. And so 7.3 just says up front we're not going to be obligated at the the very last section, sorry, the very last sentence there just makes a note that nothing in section 7.3 obligates the developer to pay for design construct 10th west. And so we just want to say by dedicating 7.3 or by rerouting it, we don't want to commit to being on the hook for paying for 10th west. But it doesn't mean that if we don't use it and it's not a benefit to our project that section six kicks in and it becomes a project improvement that we're paying our share of. Hope that helps alleviate the concern and if we need to make that more expressed in the agreement. I mean that that's a reiteration of what um the Utah land use development management access. So if we if we want to tie it out to that or we want to make it more expressive here, we have no problem with that. So, council member >> Ernie talk to you about that at all? >> Yeah, we've looked at this. Um, essentially there's this really particular piece of wording in here that talks about applicable law. Um, like uh let's see, upsizing public infrastructure section 6.3. It says, "Developers shall not be required to increase the size or scope of any public infrastructure beyond the size or capacity capacity necessary for the master development's use as determined by applicable law." So, that was a a phrase that we really wanted in there because what that boils down to is when Shrivever submits their site plan, we're going to go through a pretty uh in-depth review process, right? They'll be have to submit calculations for the fire flow to make sure that they have the fire suppression right for their building. They'll be required to do, you know, modeling for the sewer, for the storm water to prove they can handle things. The other thing we're going to be requiring is traffic studies. And so what the applicable law provision does is it allows us to come in and say, "Hey, your traffic study says that you're going to have to we'll use a really hyperbolic example. Don't don't freak out, friends. the the traffic study, you have to double the size of that road and build a roundabout. In theory, what this applicable law section says is, hey, this study based on the traffic that we are bringing to your roads, it says we need to do these things, we're going to build that for you. And so, yeah, the attorney and I, we fought really hard to get that provision put in there because that was the whole fight. And that's why I had that section originally as a benefit to the city because originally Shriber was like, I don't know if we can do that. But we said, no, this is really important for us because we don't want the city to be the hold up for your project if it turns out that your facilities cause a huge burden on our infrastructure. And so that's why we've put in here based on the approvals and this required studies and the applicable law, that's what they'll have to do. So, if it says they're going to need another access point for fire safety, guess what? They get to hook on to 10th and they get to do their improvements for a limited portion of that based on their proportionality and their use and the need for that phase of the project. And I think as I'm looking at paragraph 6.2 two that says similar similar thing that that the developer still has an obligation to construct public infrastructure is identified in 6.11 and 6.12 and that's I think what we were talking about here referring to that because yeah I'm kind of with Geralt thinking you know if you know if if I'm one of remind me partners your employees partners you know if I'm working or if I live in Smithfield field or or some place north. I'm going go, "Hey, you guys got to give us an access from the north side cuz I'm tired of driving all the way down the stinking highway and turning at the light and getting stuck behind of all of our trucks trying to get in and out of there. I I want access to a parking lot, you know, on the north side." So, you know, 15 years down the road, you know, I could see any number of things happening. um that and and what I see here and what you've referred to and Mark has addressed and I've have to hope that our legal council is engaged enough in this that this what I'm seeing here protects the city. Um and it would address your concern, Geralt. This is really stinking hard, you know. Um, if I can just be fully transparent the why not >> first start, right? Yeah. You've never been you've never been transparent, Dave. the the planning and zoning commission and the city council have not had access to this document for very long at all. In fact, P&Z, I mean, they may have had it the day prior to their meeting and having to figure this thing out and there's all this legal ease and I'm I'm having to go to Google to figure out what was it trolling or tolling. You know what? I don't even know half these terms mean. And I'm I'm supposed to make a decision on it. And and we just haven't had that much time to to really dig into it because we we haven't been part of the process. And so I appreciate your patience with our questions to try and understand what we're really trying to figure out here. Um because I respect the comments that we've heard from the public on both sides tonight and whatever decisions made tonight is either way is going to impact Hide Park City forever. I mean, this is not an easy simple thing and and we haven't been given much time or help. I mean, we're, you know, we're trying to do the best we can to to figure this out and make the right decision. Um, so, thank you for your patience and our and our questions and and such here and maybe our lack of knowledge, but we're just trying to trying to figure out what's what's right for I think the residents and the city forever and ever. and also try to figure out, you know, what this partnership looks like, you know, if if we go this direction. And I I like others have said, have no reason to not think that this wouldn't be a great partnership. So, I I want to state that also, but my first priority is to the the residents who elected me to sit up here. And so, that's what I've got to consider first and foremost. Other thoughts or concerns, questions. When I make a decision, I feel pretty settled about it. I'm unsettled. So, The sticking point for me is still the road. >> The road is the road sticking point for me. >> Just how it how it lays out how it >> Well, right. Because not only is it not 10th west, but it's not even 9inth west, it's 870 west, maybe if I as I've looked at the map, I think all the land from this adjusted road west to the railroad tracks is property that you're purchasing, right? The tribers would be purchasing. That correct?
>> Sorry, do you mind repeating that portion? >> So all the land from the road where it's adjusted up that curve clear down to the railroad tracks would be the proposed property UV purchasing from the J. >> Yeah, that's right. It's about, excuse me, 119 acres and drivers purchasing all the way to where you see on the left side of your screen where it it goes from gray on the road to uh more transparent. >> And that that's essentially the 119 acres in there. >> Do we have any idea what um the projection is for traffic on that road in the future? Oh, I don't have that information. I'm sorry. >> This is >> that would be a traffic report that we don't have. >> Yeah, as as council member FA mentioned, um this is on everybody's master plan for like 20 years from now. Um and there's development happening slowly in the area, but the city is not was not planning on having this road be a priority. I mean, right now, we've got major pressure for Wolfpack Way. We're securing grants to get that built out to our border with Smithfield. We have lots of pressure for that one. This one's not wasn't even on the radar until uh Shriber showed up and started these discussions. And so I I'm sure the CMO has done traffic modeling for the entire valley on these roads, but as a city, we don't we haven't done any of that math yet. >> Okay. And then the the south boundary is with North Logan, correct? >> Yes. So, this is I can flip it. Of course, I went the wrong way. Love that. Okay, now we're north south oriented. Yes. So, the 600 South is our border with North Logan City. Do we have any idea what they have planned for their northern parcel that meets up to our >> Oh, I don't know. I don't think it's it's zoned industrial. >> Okay. >> And so my money's on more of the same that we're already doing in that area and that they are already doing in that area. >> And I know that Max did have a meeting with the folks from North Logan City. They called me after that was over to talk about it and have talked about how they're going to build out the road on that side uh as they need to. Um so they they are aware >> quick question on the road again. Um, is anything going to be done? You're going to give us the land for the road, correct? >> 100%. Not just part halfway or whatever, >> right? >> Yeah. >> What you see there in gray is what we would dedicate is what Trevor would dedicate. >> So, there is a section that would only be half, >> right? There's a there's a section that's a half road >> where it butts up against the other center. That section would not >> that would just be okay. That that's what my point. Okay. >> Yeah. >> So that means the owner or whoever has that property would be responsible for half of building that road. >> That's correct. >> You're giving us and yet we're tell them they've got to build the road. You're giving us half the land. >> That's correct. >> For that section, right? >> Yeah. Yeah. And the the other half would then be um Yeah. exacted from that developer or that property owner um so that they can connect onto a public roadway. >> Why can't you make it the whole road there? Your give us that so that it makes it cleaner. We don't have to worry about the property owners at this point in time. Later that would be an asset for us too >> to not an asset. So you don't have to ask them for that a half. Is that what you're saying? >> Correct. >> Or or not ask them but pay them for that somehow or another. Right. >> Oh, you know they just don't give us you know. >> Yeah. So >> under Utah law, you can you can require that as a condition of their development that they give you the half road and build it and because they're going to use it, >> right? >> Yeah. It's a pro it's a project, >> but we don't get it for free. >> Well, I think what you're thinking of is if the city like with Wolfpack Way where there's not active land use applications and there's not an opportunity opportunity to exact that property, at that point the city would have to compensate those people. Okay. So, for whatever reason, the city decided, hey, we want to build 10th West way sooner than our developer friends are ready on the other side, we would be going to those people at that point and compensating them for that ride of way. But if we wait until they are ready to develop, that's an opportunity for the city to exact that from those uh parties. >> Thank you. Yeah, >> if we wait for them to >> Yeah. which is another reason why we want 7.3 modified because >> like I said, this is on the 2040 plan. We're not thinking about building this road anytime soon. So, we would rather have the development come fund these portions of the road and at that point, the city can go out and hunt for grants um or do other things to get the rest of the road built out. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion. Go >> ahead. >> I move Oh, >> I was just going to say if it's helpful to the discussion, I own the property immediately to the south on the north side and I own the property immediately to the north. We're not intending to do anything with that property in the foreseeable future. In fact, it's my wife and I's intent to leave that property to our children, pass it through our estate to get the tax advantage of doing that. I'm not planning to die anytime real soon. You never know, I guess. But the point I make is unless either North Logan City condemns our property or hide park or whomever on the other side condemns, 10th West is not going to go north or south of this for a long time because we don't have problem. That's not in the trust. That's my wife. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Go ahead, Dave. I move that we approve the development agreement between Shriber Foods and Hyen Park City partial 04-029-00005 and contiguous James family parcels um with the development agreement to be amended such that paragraph 7.3 sub paragraphs A alpha Bravo and Charlie, as previously discussed, be deleted and replaced with phrasing that the city and Shriber will work together to ensure the easements are provided to the city in a timely fashion that the city can apply for a grant to pay for the construction of this 1,000 West extension I think we're referring yes that we're referring to or words to that effect.
>> Sorry, do you mind repeating that portion? >> So all the land from the road where it's adjusted up that curve clear down to the railroad tracks would be the proposed property UV purchasing from the J. >> Yeah, that's right. It's about, excuse me, 119 acres and drivers purchasing all the way to where you see on the left side of your screen where it it goes from gray on the road to uh more transparent. >> And that that's essentially the 119 acres in there. >> Do we have any idea what um the projection is for traffic on that road in the future? Oh, I don't have that information. I'm sorry. >> This is >> that would be a traffic report that we don't have. >> Yeah, as as council member FA mentioned, um this is on everybody's master plan for like 20 years from now. Um and there's development happening slowly in the area, but the city is not was not planning on having this road be a priority. I mean, right now, we've got major pressure for Wolfpack Way. We're securing grants to get that built out to our border with Smithfield. We have lots of pressure for that one. This one's not wasn't even on the radar until uh Shriber showed up and started these discussions. And so I I'm sure the CMO has done traffic modeling for the entire valley on these roads, but as a city, we don't we haven't done any of that math yet. >> Okay. And then the the south boundary is with North Logan, correct? >> Yes. So, this is I can flip it. Of course, I went the wrong way. Love that. Okay, now we're north south oriented. Yes. So, the 600 South is our border with North Logan City. Do we have any idea what they have planned for their northern parcel that meets up to our >> Oh, I don't know. I don't think it's it's zoned industrial. >> Okay. >> And so my money's on more of the same that we're already doing in that area and that they are already doing in that area. >> And I know that Max did have a meeting with the folks from North Logan City. They called me after that was over to talk about it and have talked about how they're going to build out the road on that side uh as they need to. Um so they they are aware >> quick question on the road again. Um, is anything going to be done? You're going to give us the land for the road, correct? >> 100%. Not just part halfway or whatever, >> right? >> Yeah. >> What you see there in gray is what we would dedicate is what Trevor would dedicate. >> So, there is a section that would only be half, >> right? There's a there's a section that's a half road >> where it butts up against the other center. That section would not >> that would just be okay. That that's what my point. Okay. >> Yeah. >> So that means the owner or whoever has that property would be responsible for half of building that road. >> That's correct. >> You're giving us and yet we're tell them they've got to build the road. You're giving us half the land. >> That's correct. >> For that section, right? >> Yeah. Yeah. And the the other half would then be um Yeah. exacted from that developer or that property owner um so that they can connect onto a public roadway. >> Why can't you make it the whole road there? Your give us that so that it makes it cleaner. We don't have to worry about the property owners at this point in time. Later that would be an asset for us too >> to not an asset. So you don't have to ask them for that a half. Is that what you're saying? >> Correct. >> Or or not ask them but pay them for that somehow or another. Right. >> Oh, you know they just don't give us you know. >> Yeah. So >> under Utah law, you can you can require that as a condition of their development that they give you the half road and build it and because they're going to use it, >> right? >> Yeah. It's a pro it's a project, >> but we don't get it for free. >> Well, I think what you're thinking of is if the city like with Wolfpack Way where there's not active land use applications and there's not an opportunity opportunity to exact that property, at that point the city would have to compensate those people. Okay. So, for whatever reason, the city decided, hey, we want to build 10th West way sooner than our developer friends are ready on the other side, we would be going to those people at that point and compensating them for that ride of way. But if we wait until they are ready to develop, that's an opportunity for the city to exact that from those uh parties. >> Thank you. Yeah, >> if we wait for them to >> Yeah. which is another reason why we want 7.3 modified because >> like I said, this is on the 2040 plan. We're not thinking about building this road anytime soon. So, we would rather have the development come fund these portions of the road and at that point, the city can go out and hunt for grants um or do other things to get the rest of the road built out. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion. Go >> ahead. >> I move Oh, >> I was just going to say if it's helpful to the discussion, I own the property immediately to the south on the north side and I own the property immediately to the north. We're not intending to do anything with that property in the foreseeable future. In fact, it's my wife and I's intent to leave that property to our children, pass it through our estate to get the tax advantage of doing that. I'm not planning to die anytime real soon. You never know, I guess. But the point I make is unless either North Logan City condemns our property or hide park or whomever on the other side condemns, 10th West is not going to go north or south of this for a long time because we don't have problem. That's not in the trust. That's my wife. >> Okay. Thank you. >> Go ahead, Dave. I move that we approve the development agreement between Shriber Foods and Hyen Park City partial 04-029-00005 and contiguous James family parcels um with the development agreement to be amended such that paragraph 7.3 sub paragraphs A alpha Bravo and Charlie, as previously discussed, be deleted and replaced with phrasing that the city and Shriber will work together to ensure the easements are provided to the city in a timely fashion that the city can apply for a grant to pay for the construction of this 1,000 West extension I think we're referring yes that we're referring to or words to that effect.
>> I was like did you get that done yet? We have a motion. >> It's been it's been recorded forever and ever so it's out there now. >> Motion by council member Fels um to approve the development agreement with Shriber. Yeah, I'm going to reread >> with conditions. >> With conditions on the dedication of the easement. >> I'll second it. >> We have a second by council member Brower. Any further discussion? >> Okay. With no discussion, all in favor say I. >> I. >> Any oppose with nay. >> Nay. >> Okay. Motion passes 31. >> Okay. >> Thank you, council. will now move on to a public hearing to get citizen input on the annexation request for 183 acres pursuant to section 10-2-8000UAC as requested by Mark F. James and Rebecca Nielsen. >> So at this time we will open the public hearing about the annexation. And again, you will have three minutes to address your comments or questions to the council. Okay, having no public comment, we will close the public hearing and we will now move on to consider ordinance 20267, an ordinance annexing 183 acres pursuant to section 10-2-8000UAC as requested by Mark F. James and Rebecca Nelson. >> Mayor, can I make one comment? >> Yes. briefly. Sorry, I know council member Fel's just itching to make a motion. So, the uh there is a protest time period where somebody can protest these annexations uh in a particular format. Uh the city did receive three letters from three different parties related to this annexation. Two letters were in support. Uh, one of was from the James family, one is from the All Red family who also owns a significant portion of land in this annexation petition. We received a third letter from a landowner who owns a portion of property in this area who was not in favor. However, their protest was not filed in the correct location north in the correct time. And so, our city attorney determined that it was not valid and uh would not affect the annexation. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you for that information. >> So, if we don't pass this, >> what does that do to our previous? >> Doesn't help our Shriber friends. >> Yeah. Well, I >> was there kind of in tandem, I guess. >> Mayor, I'd like to make a motion if I can. >> I move that we approve ordinance 2026-07, an ordinance annexing 183 acres pursuant to section 10-2-800 UAC is requested by Mark F. James and Rebecca Nielson. >> Thank you. Council member FYI have has made a motion to approve ordinance 2026-07 for the annexation. >> You won't believe this, but I'm going to second that. >> We have a second by council member Osborne. >> Any further discussion? Okay, having none, we'll look for vote. All in favor say I. I. I. I. >> Any oppose with me? Okay. Motion passes 4 Z. All right. Now we'll move on to discussion items council. Any items for discussion? >> This is any topic. >> Any topic. >> Okay. I would like to present the topic of all the dirt being put on our property down >> by the >> way off of Wolf Packway by the water. Just wondered what the if there's a plan for that or what's going on. >> We are working on it. The contractor doing a Wolfpackway project needed a quick place to move the dirt. It's a lot more dirt than we thought it was. So, we're working with them to figure out where else can it go. But the plan is that would not stay that high when they are done >> because it's four feet. >> Yes, we know >> the privacy fence of east of them is six feet. So, they have two feet of privacy fence now. Yeah. So, we're currently in discussions with Sunrise Engineering, the project managers to figure out what do we do because originally it was going to be like 18 inches of dirt. Clearly, it's way more than that. So, we are uh working with our public works and with Sunrise Engineering to come up with a plan for where that dirt's going to end up by the time our project's over. >> So, like that won't be our expense as a city to move it, right? >> Uh it should not be. We're hoping there's plenty of money in the grant and in the scope of work that we can get that relocated and it wouldn't cost us a dime. Okay. >> Just curious on the timeline for the wellhouse and mine >> the wellhouse to be done. the inspection tomorrow. >> We have a a final final final. >> I don't know how many finals in it. >> This is going to be tomorrow. >> And we have all of our fingers crossed that this is going to be the real final and we'll be done with it finally. >> That's about as good as I can say. >> I wouldn't have gone on record, Marcus, to say that. >> Sorry. >> That's about as nice as I can say it with a permanent record. >> May I ask too? We um in the contract we set up some provisions that if they were late there would be consequences. >> Correct. >> Has have we followed through with those? >> Um we have told them that there are certain expenses the city will not be covering and we will be billing back to them at the completion of the project or we'll just take it out of the retainage. So either way, the city is going to be recouping funds that we have lost because the project has lasted way longer than we thought. Um, it's not going to be anything that we can do uh punitive. I don't know. All we can do is cover admin and other costs that we did not have as part of the scope of the original contract. So at this point, all we really have legal grounds for is to cover the costs that we've incurred. we wouldn't be getting any sort of damages or any sort of additional compensation >> uh based on other factors. >> Okay. So, you'll let us know if we need to cue the confetti and >> Yeah, we sure hope that we're going to have good news for you after tomorrow. >> Any further discussion? >> I have a quick reminder. Our uh tax increase hearing is tomorrow and it will be a very short meeting hopefully. Um as far as procedure goes, there's nothing else on the agenda except for the tax increase hearing. So if anybody tonight has comments or concerns about what happened at the meeting and you want to come back tomorrow and talk about it, unfortunately we're not going to have an open comment portion. It's just going to be the hearing for our tax increase. >> There will be a public hearing portion. >> There will be a public hearing related to the tax increase. we're not going to have the general public input that we have at most of our council meetings by state code. There's a very strict list of things we have to follow in order to comply with some new laws related to that. So, tomorrow will be uh a regular kind of regular council meeting, but the only thing that we'll be discussing is the uh tax potential tax increase and the city budget, >> but it may not necessarily be a short meeting. >> It'll be as short as the public meeting. >> Very short agenda. >> The short agenda. >> Who knows how long it'll take. We don't know how long it will take. It will take as long as the public needs it to take. >> Yes. >> Okay. I'll make a motion that we uh close this meeting. >> Okay. We have a motion to adjourn by council member all red. >> I'll second it. >> And a second by council member FA. All in favor say I. Orange.
>> I was like did you get that done yet? We have a motion. >> It's been it's been recorded forever and ever so it's out there now. >> Motion by council member Fels um to approve the development agreement with Shriber. Yeah, I'm going to reread >> with conditions. >> With conditions on the dedication of the easement. >> I'll second it. >> We have a second by council member Brower. Any further discussion? >> Okay. With no discussion, all in favor say I. >> I. >> Any oppose with nay. >> Nay. >> Okay. Motion passes 31. >> Okay. >> Thank you, council. will now move on to a public hearing to get citizen input on the annexation request for 183 acres pursuant to section 10-2-8000UAC as requested by Mark F. James and Rebecca Nielsen. >> So at this time we will open the public hearing about the annexation. And again, you will have three minutes to address your comments or questions to the council. Okay, having no public comment, we will close the public hearing and we will now move on to consider ordinance 20267, an ordinance annexing 183 acres pursuant to section 10-2-8000UAC as requested by Mark F. James and Rebecca Nelson. >> Mayor, can I make one comment? >> Yes. briefly. Sorry, I know council member Fel's just itching to make a motion. So, the uh there is a protest time period where somebody can protest these annexations uh in a particular format. Uh the city did receive three letters from three different parties related to this annexation. Two letters were in support. Uh, one of was from the James family, one is from the All Red family who also owns a significant portion of land in this annexation petition. We received a third letter from a landowner who owns a portion of property in this area who was not in favor. However, their protest was not filed in the correct location north in the correct time. And so, our city attorney determined that it was not valid and uh would not affect the annexation. >> Okay. >> Thank you. >> Thank you for that information. >> So, if we don't pass this, >> what does that do to our previous? >> Doesn't help our Shriber friends. >> Yeah. Well, I >> was there kind of in tandem, I guess. >> Mayor, I'd like to make a motion if I can. >> I move that we approve ordinance 2026-07, an ordinance annexing 183 acres pursuant to section 10-2-800 UAC is requested by Mark F. James and Rebecca Nielson. >> Thank you. Council member FYI have has made a motion to approve ordinance 2026-07 for the annexation. >> You won't believe this, but I'm going to second that. >> We have a second by council member Osborne. >> Any further discussion? Okay, having none, we'll look for vote. All in favor say I. I. I. I. >> Any oppose with me? Okay. Motion passes 4 Z. All right. Now we'll move on to discussion items council. Any items for discussion? >> This is any topic. >> Any topic. >> Okay. I would like to present the topic of all the dirt being put on our property down >> by the >> way off of Wolf Packway by the water. Just wondered what the if there's a plan for that or what's going on. >> We are working on it. The contractor doing a Wolfpackway project needed a quick place to move the dirt. It's a lot more dirt than we thought it was. So, we're working with them to figure out where else can it go. But the plan is that would not stay that high when they are done >> because it's four feet. >> Yes, we know >> the privacy fence of east of them is six feet. So, they have two feet of privacy fence now. Yeah. So, we're currently in discussions with Sunrise Engineering, the project managers to figure out what do we do because originally it was going to be like 18 inches of dirt. Clearly, it's way more than that. So, we are uh working with our public works and with Sunrise Engineering to come up with a plan for where that dirt's going to end up by the time our project's over. >> So, like that won't be our expense as a city to move it, right? >> Uh it should not be. We're hoping there's plenty of money in the grant and in the scope of work that we can get that relocated and it wouldn't cost us a dime. Okay. >> Just curious on the timeline for the wellhouse and mine >> the wellhouse to be done. the inspection tomorrow. >> We have a a final final final. >> I don't know how many finals in it. >> This is going to be tomorrow. >> And we have all of our fingers crossed that this is going to be the real final and we'll be done with it finally. >> That's about as good as I can say. >> I wouldn't have gone on record, Marcus, to say that. >> Sorry. >> That's about as nice as I can say it with a permanent record. >> May I ask too? We um in the contract we set up some provisions that if they were late there would be consequences. >> Correct. >> Has have we followed through with those? >> Um we have told them that there are certain expenses the city will not be covering and we will be billing back to them at the completion of the project or we'll just take it out of the retainage. So either way, the city is going to be recouping funds that we have lost because the project has lasted way longer than we thought. Um, it's not going to be anything that we can do uh punitive. I don't know. All we can do is cover admin and other costs that we did not have as part of the scope of the original contract. So at this point, all we really have legal grounds for is to cover the costs that we've incurred. we wouldn't be getting any sort of damages or any sort of additional compensation >> uh based on other factors. >> Okay. So, you'll let us know if we need to cue the confetti and >> Yeah, we sure hope that we're going to have good news for you after tomorrow. >> Any further discussion? >> I have a quick reminder. Our uh tax increase hearing is tomorrow and it will be a very short meeting hopefully. Um as far as procedure goes, there's nothing else on the agenda except for the tax increase hearing. So if anybody tonight has comments or concerns about what happened at the meeting and you want to come back tomorrow and talk about it, unfortunately we're not going to have an open comment portion. It's just going to be the hearing for our tax increase. >> There will be a public hearing portion. >> There will be a public hearing related to the tax increase. we're not going to have the general public input that we have at most of our council meetings by state code. There's a very strict list of things we have to follow in order to comply with some new laws related to that. So, tomorrow will be uh a regular kind of regular council meeting, but the only thing that we'll be discussing is the uh tax potential tax increase and the city budget, >> but it may not necessarily be a short meeting. >> It'll be as short as the public meeting. >> Very short agenda. >> The short agenda. >> Who knows how long it'll take. We don't know how long it will take. It will take as long as the public needs it to take. >> Yes. >> Okay. I'll make a motion that we uh close this meeting. >> Okay. We have a motion to adjourn by council member all red. >> I'll second it. >> And a second by council member FA. All in favor say I. Orange.