Nibley City Council - 9/10/2025

At the special appointed time at normal places. So before we start the meeting, you have to see a Nathan, do you need to get her something to think about? Yeah.

Mhmm. Our community is speaking broadly. We do a couple of of acts of violence lately. And it's been it's been hard. And it's you can't come together, but was I speaking about that? Things that happened today. So let's across the mountain there. I came across a quote by doctor Martin Luther King that I thought would be appropriate that just the ultimate weakness of violence and just also thinking about in person 09:11 c tomorrow. The ultimate weak weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, beginning the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence, you may murder the liar. He cannot be replied nor establish truth. Through violence, you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. So it goes. Turning violence from violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to the naive or any devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness, only like to be that. Hating will not drive out gait. Only love can do that. Nonviolence means avoiding an object only external physical violence, but also internal violence as of spirit. You not only refuse to shoot a man, but you refuse to hate him. I'm grateful for our community, and I I hope that we can just, as doctor King has advised us, show more love and more hate and violence.

Thank you, man. With that, I'll call the meeting for September 10, 06:30PM special day. And let's let's start with the roll call again, please, Garrett.

Gary Hansel?

Gary Hansel. Gary Hansel. Andrew Larson. Norman Larson. Larry Jacobson.

Do you have Robert City Planted?

Joseph Lawson, your name.

Carol Locke, City of Concord.

Terrific. Thank you all for your attendance. Thanks for your flexibility and for working with the the different meeting for our line. And so with that, I will ask you to consider the minutes from August 21 and tonight's agenda. The agenda is for Wednesdays and and instead of Thursday. You give me a look at that. Oops.

A motion to approve the minutes in the agenda.

Okay. There is a motion.

Second. Okay.

That's for approval on August. The night's end. That's a discussion on that.

It would be nice if Cheryl will just have her minutes before the meeting so the meeting will go quicker.

I'm a friend. That's okay. Didn't she give us minutes for me? I'm talking about the meetings. If we had the meetings for this meeting, that would be for it. Oh, a meeting. The minutes for this. Yeah. So we know what we're going to do. And we did. Yeah. Any other thoughts? Seeing none, we'll vote on that motion to approve minutes. And agenda, those in favor, please say aye. Aye. Oops. Aye in favor, none of the votes. Thank you. This is the time for public comment. We welcome you to come to the podium and give us your thoughts on anything related to Nibley City, anything you would like directly to the council. We do have one public hearing scheduled on the agenda. So if you have something on that item, we invite you to, Pierce, if you can, give give us those comments during that agenda item in that context. Otherwise, it's open mic, and anyone who would like to address the council, please come forward. Well, thanks for being here nonetheless. K. With that, we'll close the public comment period and hear a a plan to see report from Levi, please.

Yeah. So other than, item 10 that's already on the agenda, the planning commission approved a development agreement for Heritage Parkway subdivision. That this one was kind of, backpedaling a little bit because they did they did already approve the preliminary plat, and we got to the final plat stage, and the development agreement hadn't been approved. So went back to planning commission so they could approve that that development agreement. That subdivision is already under construction there on 2600 South And 1200 West.

The

and and another item was there was a workshop held to discuss open space subdivision ordinance and in particular in its relation to our two a zone. So it might get it'll probably take a few meetings to get through and and discuss the some potential amendments to recommend to that ordinance. So in a in a few meetings here, city council, you'll probably see a draft come forward.

Thank you, Levi. Did the did the planning commission indicate that open space in R 2 Way is something they would like to workshop with the council, or do they have some things in mind they're

willing to I I think that did come up, but I think I think the direction so we could we could do that. But the direction we kinda came to the conclusion on is that they would work on it and come up with a recommendation to forward to the council.

Okay. So they have some some things in mind. They obviously Yeah.

We do we do have we are planning a workshop anyway in the next with the planning commission on the general plan and the as well as town center. So we could include that if if you if you think that would make sense. We can include that on the agenda as well. Be a little longer of a joint meeting. But

but How about do you feel okay if I jump to Nick Gitska, the press the chair of the bunch? We should ask him a question. Yeah. Yeah. Go ahead. Yeah. Trying to do anything around you or the No. No. I don't

I don't it doesn't matter to me, however however you wanna proceed.

I'll ask Nick about that. Any other questions or comments for Levi on client facing report? Okay. Thank you, Levi. Next, we have appointments for discussion and consideration 2529. This is a development agreement for our upgrade subdivision. This is the second time that we have seen this, and I think, Levi, you have some updated information that the council asked for.

Yeah. Most of this information is in the agenda item report with a little a little bit more detail that I'll give here. So there was there was a question that came up about, within Nibley City Co, there is a requirement that if there's a master plan trail and you subdivide property, that you are required to not just dedicate the the right of way, but also improve the the trail. We we asked our attorney about this, and he just in summary, he he he said that requiring requiring a trail improve that level of a trail improvement would almost certainly be overdoing our ability to perform exactions. The impacts of the single additional law would have to generate enough traffic to warrant the trail and just that one additional lot wouldn't. So and and Tom also got some cost estimates for for this section of the trail. It's about 67 to $75,000 just for your information. So that was the only update we had. Just as a maybe I'll give you just a real quick summary of what's being considered here with this proposal, this development agreement. So the subdivision itself was already approved with with conditions, including the condition that that this development agreement that's in front of you tonight be approved. And I'll just kinda cut to the the primary provisions of this development agreement. The reason they're in front of you is they would allow a couple modifications to the code. One is that they allow a subdivision of the conservation easement. And, really, this comes in the form of well, there there is there is a this this subdivision of right now, it's one one lot with a conservation area. What they're proposing is to create two building lots and one conservation lot, and that would amend the Apple Creek subdivision. This would overall increase the conservation area by about two thirds of an acre, But this would be, from from our interpretation, a a conflict with Nibley City code, which which states that open space land is not sub subject to subdivision. Another modification is that the with within the open space subdivision code, it requires all lots to meet minimum frontage widths, and one of the lots within the subdivision does not meet the frontage width. It it's it's a would be considered a flag lot, and and it's subject to all the other regulations of a flag lot. But Other than that, the or the both staff and planning commission have recommended approval of this development agreement.

K. Thank you.

67 to $75,000.

Can I ask a clarifying question on that? Is that just that lot or the whole trail?

That's the trail that would have but the subdivision there. Yeah. The the this part of the sub the subdivision, the just that lot. Yeah. So it's like 250 feet or something of trail.

Hey, Kelson. We'll turn to you for your consideration. Question? Yes, please.

I was you know, there this morning, and I noticed there's a string that comes from the east. So would that string be in front of Block 37? Because it looks like it goes underground. It gets piped. Is that correct? Once it goes onto this parcel. No. Yeah. Anyone who Scott, if you can shed light on that. Do you understand the question? It just seems that your district item, the more you think, does it go in front of that lot? Underneath what will be the driveway? Or where does that stream that looks like it gets piped go to?

Yeah. So it's already piped underneath the driveway or the the driving area. Oh, okay. The the design channels we have is we don't know what the canal company is going to require. So the canal company at any time will come by. Part of what we're trying to do with this is preserve as much of the openness we can, That's gonna be an ongoing negotiation with the canal company. One of the when you we're out of looking at it, you may have noticed that the canal is actually burst. So it's there's there's some question about is it a street or is it a canal? My argument to the countdown is that it's a strain, and so she's failed because it does run about one cubic feet per foot per second all in our model. The canal stone, his argument is, no. It's not because they dug the canal, and it's perched up on top of that that mesh. So there's just some ongoing back and forth about that. And the the point like, when you when you see this, you can see the right way lines there. And the right way is being dedicated is as if it is going to be kept open. But even if we came in and built on the existing, then that land use change would trigger the ability of the canal from the city. At least my understanding of code state law is that that triggers the canal from me to be able to start telling us what kind of roots.

So we've kind of prepared for a goal

where the the fight that we really wanna have is at the boundary of the property or of the the Plot 37.

Because what that will do is and this is probably more information

than you want with the the idea is that if we move the key the controls for the canal, because this is a pretty complicated section where they're pushing water in four different directions. If we move the controls for the canal, we'll be out of building lot and build them a new site. So, yeah, we can talk and see the right sort of but we just don't we don't I mean, I'm dedicating the easement as if it's going to stay open. I just can't predict it. And part of the reason that that this is mentally was when when when Tom and I were working with with this a year, year and a half ago. Part of the reason we pushed so far with the core of engineers, because I was actually trying to get the core of engineers to say, you know, that's the screen, and it has to be left open. And they have declined to participate. So they kinda just said, this is your problem to figure out. They won't say that. They won't put it in a meeting, but they just won't answer any full copy of letters pretty much. So that's that's how I'm interpreting that is.

So it's kind

of the way the city code is written. The city defers to the canal company, which means they have an application. We defer to the canal company. But regardless of whether this proposal goes forward or whether it's a different proposal, they still have us. So I guess my answer to you is I'm gonna do everything I can to keep it open, which I can't I can't promise you as the applicant that I can keep it open because of existing city and state code And because of the vets. You know what I mean? Yeah. What else, counsel?

I have a couple of things. So I guess one question would be like,

with with adding a firewall that also absorb and says we're not allowed to have we're making this exception to the rule.

Is that biased to future exceptions to the rule down the road?

No. I mean, not necessarily. It's a legislative decision, and you could do it for a number of reasons. I mean, you could say, well, it's a flag lot, but the value is we get additional conservation land. So Yeah. For whatever reason, you could you could approve it. Just like any other legislative development agreement, it's it's kind of a one off thing, and you can, for whatever reason, approve it or deny it. I mean, if you if you have a reason.

Even what's the hope that we we were concerned about that. And so probably is, you know, there's there's some question about where from the deep header. There's an ambiguity in the current code. There's no ambiguity about flag lock, but there is an ambiguity in that workflow to just measure. And it's for me to measure from the front plane of the house or just measure the street. And so what we did here was you'll notice that curve that's right next to the access utilities on the flag. That curve does give the this it depending on how setback is defined, that curve is providing finish. It's just not providing frontage on the back. So it's providing the set I guess I would put it this way. It's providing the frontage or sorry. It's providing the setback from the frontage, but it's not providing frontage. So we tried to at least make sure that that that line is long enough that you wouldn't have to deal with the lease app or the RA in in the future.

Yeah. My my understanding about the whole size is that with this matter, you have to set that from

the room.

Yeah. From the right of way. I mean, that's how I would You know, visit the. But

He said he was saying to the. He said measure the setback. He said that the right way.

Well, the right of way is where the proper I I I guess there's you've got two property lines in this case. You got the Conservation lot and Lot 37. But, typically, I guess, it that's at the same place. The the the right of way or the the street the street right of way or the the where it interfaces with that. Typically, we'd go 30 feet from there. That's the that's the setback and doesn't quite meet that. But I think what Sean is saying is on within Lot 37 and where the setback lines are drawing drawn on that, it does it does have adequate frontage there. So it's just pushed back further.

We bring any changes we made. It's fun. They may get some of the trails. They can't put it in case we need the trails. They didn't get put it on this one. Specifically,

a a lot to the east

where they can hold this.

And I remember he came in along with a fence, but

he would land into a fence or he had put in that forefront fence because he was riding with me and she's sending a no amount.

I just remember that we made an income changes probably before. But

we're looking at the original development agreement in. There isn't a way that we can just say, hey. Look. We need the trail in.

Yeah. So I I did I did ask the attorney that kind of in the in that way that you did of well, should we look at this as just this subdivision or or the last subdivision? He said, really, this is we should look at this as a proposal in of itself, not not bring in the old Okay. The old subdivision. And, really, it's one additional lot that we're talking about. And so whether we can exact something like that for this one additional lot, he he felt like that was not proportional to the to the impact of of adding one additional lot.

Yeah.

I mean, if if he had come in and proposed multiple logs here or done something, it'd probably be a different conversation. But whether we could have or should have in a previous subdivision, that's that's kind of water under the bridge is the way that he he expressed that we we need to look at this kind of in isolation.

Okay.

What what is creating your RAS?

Well, this was great. This was the end of the show. Just laying this. But for This is the final one that has to complete it. And Would you like to Yeah. Go ahead, Adam.

What are your Yeah. So with this, there's really where you're trying to take care of. There's There's there's no way to do it even if there's any unresolved area in the suspicion. Okay. The other conservation lots really don't have there there's not an available area for us to have this kind of conversation. And so now we have to not only would the council have to model boundaries, you you would actually have to claw back on the conservation space to make those lots possible. So, really, the reason that I just had to get everything to conservation was to just put it in and then and then and then say this once this this was done. Because I think I think that the total area of this it could be mistaken, but I think the total area of this was somewhere around two and a half acres before. Maybe a little bit more than two and a half acres. And of that, the conservation space was right about an acre. So there was quite a bit of it that was left open for sure. And so by getting the rest of that, the way that we look at this is is basically we just

have the time to think about it and kinda figure out

where the actual building must be and it's done. So what would have made this I would have known what he was doing during the day, and we would like this to be the main portion. And with the to do some of this stuff, but it didn't move. So and then the but but that's the intent is to just be I unless the council nobody I don't think anybody can come in with any effort to ask for anything after this. I guess, all building space is allocated after this.

Is that part of the conversation to the attorney at all that development is completed? Because

I would argue that changes things a little bit from what you just answered about the trails being completed. Because we expected it to be in for I I wasn't around from those organizations, but I was prepared either.

But the concept that this is a done development once this subdivision happens,

now all trails we could ask be done doesn't seem off to me.

I'm not an attorney. And like I said, I don't know what the rules were then, but we're we're amending on the current changes here. I don't know if you're open to even that kind of discussion. But

What what I would say if you wanted to have that discussion is that the right way that's dedicated is 10 feet. We really can't give more than 10 feet. Like, that's just because of the geometry of of where that slope is and the way that everything works out and the city setback requirements and everything. 10 feet is really all that can can be dedicated without removing utility flop through the center. So given the tenth, getting the city standard is 20 feet and the cost of those are supposed to be shared between adjacent property owners, I'd be willing to have a conversation, but I I don't think that we can have a Sean builds it all a competition because half of it would be something that we could talk about, but then I don't know how you like, when it's up to you guys to ensure that the other half of that. I think what I'm what I'm going to do, you know, and some of the things that we get into are it's it's neat, ADA, city standard details. To me, it's it's a big of none. I don't think that the the the engineer's estimates are reasonable. But if the city comes in and says, well, actually, we bury the power line, there's $40,000 right there. And what's the utility to the city side? Councilman, I'm willing to have the discussion, but I'm not really sure where it goes. And yeah. I I'm happy to work with you on it. I just don't know what that means. And and so that's yeah. I I hope that's a fair answer. Yeah. But

I was trying to think the same thing.

Because the other one that was referenced that didn't get put in in. I think it's also somewhat split a bit of a up there. I heard Paul's split a bit of there as well. Right? And so I don't know if it's a like I said, I don't know where it would go, but I like the idea of talking about let's get at least what we can before this phone is done in the conversation about half or being in Lua

or where we built the city.

Because I think the design was a good design. So, Trevor, I don't think we disagree with that, But trials never get built on a good design either. I don't know.

I I should bring up I I didn't wanna kinda get this in the mix too much here, but just just to point out, we have received an application for the area to the south, and we have given we we've only had one review. It's at a staff level at this point, but we have given them comments that we need to accommodate that trail within that development as well. So, I mean, really, it's on the line between the two of them. And so who pays for that? And, you know, if it's half and half of it, we need to have more discussions about that. But just keep in mind that we have received a subdivision application for the property to the south as well Yes, ma'am. And open to the south of this, the property owner to the south. Yeah. I mean, it's the whole it's it basically is that whole area that abuts Apple Apple Creek, Corey Johnson's property. But, anyway, that's like I said, I didn't really I I don't I don't know if it's appropriate to, like, pull that in too much because we haven't put that in front of the planning commission. We haven't come to a recommendation as staff completely on what on on what that looks like, but it is kind of a I just wanted to bring it up.

So with with that comment, that that makes the trail more realistic. And so if he has this trail as a to him, but if we need to pull some land from the other development to make it bigger and then maybe vice versa, can we move that around a little bit? You know, they need some building rock to slide the trail off. They're a lot more. We can look something there. I mean, there may be an opportunity that the whole thing goes on the one to the south,

and that might be the best place for it. We'll we'll kinda see how that plays out and if we can and if we can exact that from them. And so we need to look at look at those options there.

K. So the 60 to 70,000, is that beyond just this the trail, or is that to build both sides of it? So it's just an It's the trail. It's the it's the trail along this lot or the along this

subdivision or amendment subdivision amendment area, I guess. Just that kind of what's shown there, what's being dedicated and and hashed.

If I may, I I think part of the tricky thing with this is that as I understand current code, current code does require the trailer to be built to have the subdivision and that there'll be a link between that and where we connect to subdivision to the south in the future. This one is kind of a weird name that I just wanted. And because I wanted to I could see how this would all gonna connect in the future, and I wanted to preserve that right away. But as far as where actually that ends up, and like I said, I'm I'm happy to negotiate, but I'm not sure what we'll be approaching to this week because we don't need I can tell you that I'm willing to still discuss with you after this is done. But I also can tell you that there's a limit to the economic value of this. And right now, at that level, it pretty much I mean, that's lots of silver looking at. They also cost a lot to go. And and so at some point, it's just why I do it at all because it's just not not reliable.

So what would the the fence height be on this thing? So in other words, he's got the four foot fence in because it's next to a trailer. This is good for regular size fence.

Yeah. I mean, those those limitations would be in effect if it I mean, it the it's already on the trail master plan. So anywhere along that back lot is gonna be subject to those those limitations. Like, I mean, at least at first glance. Unless, for example, it's a whole it it's not just a trail corridor. It's it's an it's an open area. Like, the the one to the south may be a bigger a larger open space area. And the way that we've read the code is it's not just if it's adjacent to a trail, but it's a trail corridor. So a narrow corridor that those fence regulations are are in effect. So there's a fence right next door. I'll just point to an example. That one is adjacent to our city trail there. But they put up a six foot fence, and that was allowed because it's adjacent to the the city property, which is also a park area, you know, or the fields there. So they were allowed to do that. So I don't know. I mean, as far as countries sorry to get in the weeds a little bit on that one to answer your question. But

yeah. There's there's an existing test from you. The existing firm's fence from it is for a I think it's the four for the highway post red fence with the tech back end. You can see what it is if you look at So the case is the cold sack. If you wanna put a restriction, you can send it to us all cap on it. But the care because that's that's the existing. And there there's restrictions on the

conservation area in. Now those same restrictions don't necessarily apply to the lots. So if you're fencing in the lot, they can have they can have other types of fences. But just for some of those areas where you're only fencing in that conservation area, there's additional restrictions in our code. It needs to be and to be honest, it's a little bit vague and difficult to I I've got to make a call whether it's I I don't know if it's agricultural, rural, in nature, something like that. But there there are some locations here where that would have to be the case and, you know, 10 rope fence like that could you could you could build something like that, but not a solid vinyl fence.

So the the four foot limitation even on a even next to a trail is the maximum height of all passage each. Mhmm. So you could have a six foot fence. More than four feet, dog ants. They can do it, but it can't be paid.

Right. Yeah.

But I guess my point is I don't know. I I guess that it depends on the timing of whether that would apply or not in this in this particular location, the timing of development and the development in the cell.

So if we put

we wanna accept it for a trial, we're gonna try that. Like, we said, plan for a trial survey landscape and put it in, then

they're just giving it back to me. Like, highway I don't know. You know?

I just remember we did a lot of heat from another trail.

Like, what? I was in this. Does the lock to the east, 031980034, still have in its plan, its design, the right of way and intention of trail that we can sit?

There is a trail easement. There's a there's a trail easement that it's kind of a trapezoidal in in that area. But on our trail master plan, it's right on the border between the two properties, so I think we can and depending I I think there may be an opportunity where

with the with the development to the south,

that might just be a better place for it if we can negotiate that. It'd have it'd have a lower impact on the canals and the, you know, the trees in the area and everything. So we're looking at we're looking into that, but I guess there's options there. And at the end of the day, obviously, we're not gonna put two trails in. But I guess you put one on the north and one on the South side of the canals, but we'll we'll we'll have to figure that out.

Cheer it up.

Cheer it up. Cheer it up. Cheer it up. Cheer it up. Cheer it up. Cheer it up. Cheer it up. Cheer that's true. Yeah. The 0034

in the East, I mean, the parts of yours shows that city in Beretta. Like, that's what's on the back there just off of

So this is but I I think what I I think what Nate was referring to is East West.

Yeah. So

Right. But it overlaps with the canal. We we looked into it. We had budget in the city at one point to to to build a trail and, you know, would have required piping the canal most likely, maybe a bridge over the canal. There were some different options that we looked at. But now that the property south is developing, we think we can we can approach it in a way that we'll pursue the trail that makes the most sense, the the alignment that makes the most sense, not just being bound to what these easements and, you know, right of ways that we currently have or might have.

Yeah. So, like, the trail will be small sense as the ones that these trailer kids have already showed us.

Yeah. Right. Right. So if we can do that we can If we can do that, then we'll we'll do that. If we can make that work, that's kinda the direction we're headed. Yeah.

Clear where that branch is.

Yeah. So

This is how they do slide work on campus. Right? Don't put it in the end and then take a look. People talking. Mhmm. Yeah. And I see what, in my opinion, looks like good access throughout the creek and on the edge of Apple Creek for that trail system.

I mean, there are power lines there. Right? But that's it can't use.

And then that's that's another thing we're working with the developer to the south on. There might be there might be some changes there.

Yeah. Yeah.

They're slightly I mean, they they I see right at the peak of the hill. On the east side, they're a little bit to the front of the property line. It's west side, they're a little bit to the south of the property line. But that line is just the line that goes to office. The

market.

And and so if we're not gonna put the trail there to another parcel, then I don't know why we need one. And maybe you just do a field in. Is it you don't seem that this is even feasible for Adam? Might as well slide his house back. It's hard to it is a

I I see I see your point. I at this point in time, though, we don't the property of the south, all we have is a preliminary class location that hasn't been approved. We don't know exactly where that's going to land. So this at least and this is just something that was the applicant proposed. I don't know if it necessarily hurts to have another option there. Tom and I talked talked about it today. Yeah. We don't we don't know exactly where that one to the south is gonna land.

If if I may. I just Yeah. Because there's the primary tree one. But if you look at the satellite edges, there's pretty much all this is. Mhmm. Yeah. So The East West Property one? Yeah. Good. Yeah. So I can't guarantee the council that the property for the South is going to play ball and dedicate and be and be willing to work with it or be willing to run or something. But this is what I could do. I can make sure that at least one of those access points, even though it gets down, goes through a ditch, and it goes up to Steam Hill. Then that access stays in whatever future council decides. South Side. That was just to make sure that that connection didn't I can't afford to make it 20 feet wide, and I can't afford to make it 88 because of the Okay. Because of the slow side on the on the west side of the hill. It's pretty steep, but it works. As long as you don't go out in this

so

Yeah. The most for us, Norco.

I motion to approve the ordinance twenty five twenty nine with the fee in lieu of the trail for $37,000.

K. There's a motion. I'll repeat it if you want. Do I have a second?

All seconds we can discuss. Yeah.

Motion from Norm. Second. From Aaron to approve the development agreement and modification to the subdivision with a $37,000 fee in lieu of the trail on, on the South Park.

Norm, does 37 just come because that's half of the it Tom wrote that. Yeah.

I I I mean, from what they're saying, I don't think the trail's gotten colder. No. If if you're part of it, I mean, I I don't know. I think I think as time goes by, I think the council either gets smarter or or not as smart. It's good to have girls put in if we're gonna put girls in.

So I just waiting to have some motion. Pay for half of it. See more library going here.

Nick? Yeah. I'm just wondering if it would be wiser to continue

the direction to

have that talked about and brought forth in writing for us rather than write from the bench. You

know? Yeah. I know. I think it you all need to see the words before. We could be one of the black drivers rather than passing them out. At least continue with that direction staff to discuss with the prominent. Is there a

nope. Just a discussion, man. K.

Okay. That's a one. Yeah. I have a motion to amend. To continue to continue. Fill the f, Peter. Yeah. So all the staff directions that we discussed. Let let's do this as substitute motion. Yeah. It's pretty pretty substantial. So the motion the substitute motion becomes to do what Norm asked for, but to allow discussion between staff and the proponent, we would continue to decide them until the next council meeting. That is a motion from Nathan Hennessy. Yeah. Gotta

get it

right. I'm looking for a reaction, John. I I'm just thinking through what little I remember about code. I'm sure you can. Well, I think that I think that I'm kinda stuck. But I I would have to look with possibly, I have to look with finances. Yeah. I I don't know whether because this is this isn't done as an economic subdivision. This isn't done as a this wasn't done to sell more lots and make more money. This was done because the way that it is right now, it's buildable on that server where Lot 34 is proposed. Or sorry. Lot yeah. Lot 36 is proposed, and it's buildable in that whole southwest corner, the whole upper side by the canal. And I would just have to look at economic viability and whether I can still do what I would like to do. I mean, I I looked at this as a way to clarify the use and to make sure that it developed along the lines that that my vision was when I did this in the first place. I didn't do this with the intention. I would. And so additional capital expense has never really factored into it. And I just like, I I've actually never done an economic analysis of this stuff with you know? And so I I reaction is I have no idea. I mean, I was it's it's definitely not something I was planning on because I looked at the trail donation as a as a a not required by code way to make sure that that bulk access stayed open because it was never required. It's not currently like the only reason that we can even have this discussion and and that even opens this up is because it's a it's a development agreement that reopens the legislative side of it. If this wasn't if it wasn't for the the fact that this was a development agreement, if we were just doing this under the city code, this could not be required. Yeah. But Lot 37 doesn't exist right now. Lot 37 doesn't exist, but Lot 35, which includes development of essentially right now, all of this is outside

of the

conservation area. The conservation area is essentially limited to the border of the canal. I'm just I'm kind of meaning it here. But, oh, no. The old one is still here. Yeah. Mhmm. So the conservation area does not include any of this. It doesn't include that triangle. I'm not 36, but the front is there. And it doesn't include where is it? You know? It's it doesn't include anything here about the bed. Mhmm. So, basically, I can go as much as I want to 40 feet high all through here. And this access is not guaranteed unless you negotiate 20 feet from this guy, which is also probably not required because you can only require the trim at the end of the whole stack. So whether he has to donate that or not, trying to hinges what's going on with this. That's to me, that's almost a legislative decision. That that may be a legislative decision as well that he would have over the negotiation that he would have to agree to. Unless he puts right here somewhere. He puts a cold sec right there, and his only option is to get out of that cold sec or to do that and exit this driveway, then I'm not sure if he does it. So, yeah, I'm I'm willing to discuss it. Yeah. But I but I I'm not sure that, I'd be asking to make a decision right now today about whether I would support that amendment. Right. I you know, I'm not a developer, and this isn't part of the. And I I know that people look at this and they think of Sean Bells, Apple Creek, and probably made a lot of money. But the reality is that I developed a conservation system and visionary developed everything. So visionary develops 80% of this. So my core thesis was really the cold stack at the bottom. So when I take that and I start feeling that against, you know, what I mean eight years ago, it's it's something that happened. Yeah. And I I think that that's what the motion is all about is Correct. The chance about it. Yeah. That's for you to look at it. Now the the liability to you is it's more effort in another three weeks. It's been eight years. I ain't 59.

I'm glad you feel that way. It's not going.

And and I think there's any number of possibilities that could come back from that discussion with staff. It might be no. I'm not gonna do that. It's gonna work. Well, we might be able to find something else that gives the possible value that there I'd like to see Correct. That I don't have to make a check for that I can't you know? Usually, when you do a subdivision, you write a check on the front end, and then you sell lots of back end. And so you carry the cost, and you can get the money back. Yeah. And so this kind of thing can be you know, this fee and move not close to fee and move at all. It's just there's no cash on the back end of this because I'm not intending to sell either one of these lots. So I just have to magic up $37 in that. And if we can you know, I I I appreciate emotion. I hope that we can come to a place where there is any good change in value. That might be some key in lieu. It might be, you know, what you guys want that I can do that gives you value. You guys have done this before. There may be some things that we can do that that give the city and the citizens value that are not a trail by trade. That may be a, you know, a BMX trail for the next two years. And then to your point, who won't just disappears when the property itself develops. And and to be honest, the trail alignment that makes a lot more sense, which is the one that stays up on top of the bluff. It's not gonna be bluff, but the one that stays up on top of the hill and does have that c drop on. If you guys can negotiate that, then, yeah, what is the utility? So so the I guess I'm I'm being one minute, but I I would appreciate a little bit more time to talk to to the city and and even the ease of you to find out, is there a place that we can come to that, you know, that that gets us to where we won't be. Maybe the city wants to have a party fight with them to try to meet that upward channel and more. Maybe there's there's maybe there's some maybe there's nothing, but maybe there's.

So

Any other comments, questions? The motion before you raise to continue into our next meeting with the intent of finding the number it was, 37,000 fee in lieu of or Mhmm. From discussion, some other value trade. Mhmm. And I suggest the path forward, please, I just put it on put the bull's eye on your forehead. Read the council's mind and create in what they want.

Yeah. I don't have two council members that you're going to be part of this. No. That'd be great too. Okay.

Yeah. Because I like Any in particular or just

pick? K. Yeah. He was running.

I don't know. Boris is boring. So if if I'm available, I'm happy to Yeah. Come in

Awesome. That should be it.

Yeah. Yeah. I'm not I'm not great at reading your mind. Sorry. You've been You're trying. Even after knowing it for I think five or so years. Yeah.

Okay. I'm sending you ready to vote on which is now the substitute motion to continue with those goals. I'm saying add ons. Those in favor of the motion to continue to our next meeting, please say aye. Aye. K. Five in favor of non post. I just wanna see eight. Eight years and above three weeks.

No. Two weeks, didn't it?

We are It is two weeks. Yeah. I think. So we gotta get on that next by next week, I think. We should get something scheduled. Two weeks.

I mean, 37,000 is get into where they are thinking about whether it's a justified section or not at the end of the day. The whole reason and I told Nate to do this. The whole reason was to preserve Lot 35 because there was somebody else's bidding on property that was in the area or two way, and the phone and the trail were both gonna go underground. Now I guess later. And and so that's why we did it. I hope that my heart is pure. I hope that we can get to a place where everybody can be on board, I can afford to be the one that gets to continue to develop it. I don't wanna get into a position where it frankly, like, what I wanna avoid is I wanna avoid being in a position where I can't afford a whole lot to it, and and I just have to sell it to somebody who wants to, you know, only own acre lot on the backside of a for prostration parcel. Because that's effectively what it is right now. And and that's a very different way of developing this property than what I had in in that what we bought. And I just the the the reason we're here is totally my fault. I just didn't really know how to how to do it. And so if you could help me to find a new way to get to something where you feel like getting good value for the citizens, and I feel like I can stay on with the steward of the property, That's really where I'm like. So k. Thanks for that. But not in another eight years. I'm gonna be too late. K. Thanks, Thank you. Council, next we have 2523 ordinance. This is second time we've looked at an Indian parking regulations due to some changes in state code.

Levi, do you have anything to update us on? There's nothing to update on. I'm happy to give any additional information if you need it or or just just a reminder of of what's being proposed if you if you'd like or you can just discuss. Just let me know.

Yeah. So the point information, those sneaky little devils, you know, they said, okay. Well, the state is going to make us count the garage as parking spaces. We'll just increase the number of parking spaces. And Yep. I noticed that Joel Yellowhorse reviewed this. Did he review the planning commission's recommendation?

No. But I'm

I'm I'm we're looking at red lines, the additional number of parking Yes. Planning commission recommended. Right? He didn't review it, but I'm

and I'm not an attorney, but I'm familiar enough with this provision of state code that I would I would be confident to say that the planning commission's recommendation isn't against state code. Anything more than that would be. So I know, for example, you can't require more than four parking stalls Uh-huh. For a single family dwelling and internal accessory dwelling unit. The state parses all, you know, whether it's internal or detached, and we've kind of gone toward just looking at them the same in a lot of ways. So I think it's legal. The question is whether you think it's Fair. Whether it's fair and it's a good idea. It a a lot of the discussion maybe I'll just disclose a little bit of the discussion with the planning commission is that they said in in practical terms, it's not gonna make a whole lot of difference whether you approve staff's recommendation or the planning commission recommendation. For most almost every home that's been built in Nibley has a two car garage, and I don't think that's because we require it. I think it's just because it's the market forces. Where it will be different, this is, you know, this is me speaking, is when you if we if we get a market for a one car, you know, single family dwelling with a one car garage that only has space for one car in the driveway. And we've seen some examples, not necessarily in Nibley, but of more affordable single family housing with a one car garage where it might be difficult to fit that set depending on how the setbacks play out and everything, it might be difficult to fit that second car without having a a two car garage. So to me, it's just allows a little more flexibility. But, really, in most cases, you're gonna get your two or three car garage that people tend to like to build, and they're in front of that garage, they're gonna have space for two or three cars or more if they've got a long driveway.

Right. And then parking and

or more. They got to Yeah. So staff's recommendation allows a little more flexibility if there is that type of market for something like that. Like and I would say the closest thing we have to that is our condos that are approved in Ridgeland Park. They have a one car garage with space for one additional parking stall. They do have guest parking, but

Shit.

But but you there are single family homes. If you look around, the that's how much parking they have is enough for two cars. And Okay. But they were concerned about spillover parking impacts and the fact that we don't allow parking in the wintertime, and we don't wanna worsen that issue. And

Yep. So

Okay. Well, they're not sneaky little devils. But No. They were very thoughtful about it, and and they and they say, in effect yeah. I mean, the reason we didn't account the garage before is because they're like, well, who's to say people aren't just gonna throw a bunch of junk in their garage and, like, use it for parking? But,

I mean, we can't really get Lots and lots of garages.

Yeah. And so are driveways and so are I mean, people throw their junk on their property. Yeah.

Anyway but I suspect that it is probably the big stuff. It's state and maybe even it's over, but it's. Right. But there are impacts to not having so that's why we worry about it.

There are.

K. I'm just not talking And in terms to the council, do you have questions for me and I, or would you like if you would, please consider this.

Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to approve warnings 25, 23 with my admissions recommendation.

And I think that's the sorry. Just to be clear on the motion, I think that's the red line version and thieves.

I don't remember how I put it in here. I I I can't I can't remember if I if I put a note. But either way, we'll whatever the motion is, we I assure you, in this case, it's we'll get it right. Okay. So there's I have a motion

and a second in front of them. Thank you. And just if you all want to see the words

Yeah. I can put them up. I just Yeah.

Yes.

Two numbers.

I think it's the same as what's in Teams.

I couldn't oh, I'm in the wrong folder here. Yeah. You're right. That's the planning commission

K. Recommendation. Yeah.

K. Discussion on that motion, please. Is there opposition to voting? Just say, I don't wanna vote yet. Otherwise, I'm gonna ask you to call the wall. Okay. Okay.

The

flexibility that you talked about between staff recommendation and my commission, how much flexibility is with?

In my mind, in a lot of our subdivisions, we need, in the our PUD subdivision, for example, and if we get an R 2 A 0 open space subdivision, we have five foot setbacks. That's not the five feet isn't really enough room to park a car. You need you need about 10 feet. So if you don't have, if you only have a driveway in front of a one car garage, you're probably not with a 20 foot setback, you're probably not gonna have room for two cars there. So that's that instance, if you have a one car or no no garage, let's say there was some market for that, and they just had to somehow fit in two parking spaces. Those those instances, you you wouldn't wouldn't have space for. So it gets into affordability. And if you if you get down to, you know, trying to deliver an affordable unit, It could be an issue if you have to squeeze in a two car garage and the additional space that that that requires on a smaller lot, you know, taller, tighter, four to 5,000 square foot lot. We have we do have some here in town, and most of them in, for example, in Ridgeline Park have two car garages, but I'm looking at them, and it's like, gee. That's that's mostly driveway in front of those. I think if you actually look close at it, they're by by putting that driveway in there violating another provision of our code, which is 60% landscaping in the front yard. When you have 50 foot frontage, it's there might be 50 approaching 50%, but probably not 60% of their landscaping. So just allows that on those tighter lots of smaller lots.

Which I'm just thinking of, like, here, those tighter, smaller lots are going to appeal to those that are hoping to purchase a home on one income, single single people. They're looking to they don't need a car loss necessarily because they they need something for visitors, but they probably only have one car that they're gonna need. Okay. I just can bring this up. My kids were getting into near that age. Maybe five homes and that sort of thing. They're choosing to have just one vehicle rather than two and using other options for transportation. That's so I'm just saying if the future goes, I don't know that the standard you have is going to consistently be the standard of the future. There'll be more options, I think.

So I just wonder if having that flexibility

is useful. Then they're gonna be.

Yeah. Good discussion.

Good discussion. Yeah.

Good discussion. Katie's it's that very boat. Right? Looking to not together, but separately. It didn't even had to buy a house and 5,000 square with a lot of change. The house built for 90 degrees. Nobody had a required requires back then.

I just think we get that. Yep. Potentially, what options are there?

Yeah. I think more flexible means less restrictive in this case.

And it's more it imposes additional costs

Right. To the Yeah.

To the resident. But

Just in terms of encouraging more formal housing types, we feel like maybe it was restrictive, but staff's.

So does that mean to more people

because we don't have a room to park.

And we had I mean, it goes for Africa's issue. I've been forced to do our emergency park a long.

We forced them to do this. I agree. Like, you're getting the exact same boat. Everybody else. But

we're gonna come here. And so parking for me is a big problem because

can't park on the roads in no way. I can't park on the front yards. So we've got a good enough space to park at least one or two vehicles in on the I don't

know. Like, where where all the families are gonna live in with families, we can I mean, I mean, I don't want to hurt any of them? From what I've read, that's a huge number. So now that's four or five. I mean, with all my kids in home, that's five cars that I bargained.

And so Alright. I have to Do you need

the mysterious in order to prevent the other problem of enforcement when you're trying to park under one or other places to find a place to buy? I get to a port of the we have pretty good

at this.

And

I like to see it.

Yeah. I agree. When when my when our kids started driving in high school, they're worried more about where they're gonna park at home with

the fact that they were out driving. It's like

Do you ever have to go home? Yeah. I have to find a place for you to park. What do I have to find these places for you to park? So those are those are good points, both sides. Discuss it more? Is there an objection to voting? And you can say, I object, and you don't have to say anything else. We'll just

think about it for a bit if that's okay too.

Is there an objection to voting? I don't see any. So with that, the motion before you is to go with flight information version on the screen.

And

we'll call the roll, please, Cheryl. Are you okay? That sounded like yes. I don't know. I was I was gonna run out there and see if you're okay, and then you came back. So

In favor. In

favor. In

favor. Thank you.

Thank you, Cheryl. I see four votes in favor and one of both. So we have a new ordinance. Have a modified ordinance. And thanks for that discussion. Let's move right along to public hearing on ordinance twenty five seventeen. This is an annexation and zoning adjustment on parcel...2001one. And nobody signed up, but we still have those. Yeah. I will open the public hearing. No. Wait. You give us a intro if you would, Levi, because counsel's intro as

well. Okay. And I will mention that the applicant is online if you have any questions for him. So this is an there there has been an act annexation petition filed. You've you've seen that you accepted the the petition for further consideration at prior meeting. It is located within the annexation deck declaration area for the city. It's a nine acre parcel with the adjacent right of way of 1200 West included in the the annexation proposal. No unincorporated islands or peninsulas would be created. I'll show you on the next screen just to reorient you with exactly what we're talking about, but their utilities are available directly adjacent to the parcel, which would be from likely from the North Of Nibley Farms Subdivision. The applicant has proposed zoning r two a, which is, in opinion and planning commissions in support of the general plan, which is medium density residential for this area. And then the applicant has indicated intent to develop this as a standard RTA subdivision, but this doesn't necessarily tie them to that. But that's that's what they've intended. So here's here's the parts that you could see. Just just the norm of that subdivision is Nibley Farms. 1200 West is just just on the east side of this this parcel. And planning commission, they did recommend assigning zoning of R 2 A to the parcel in conjunction with post annexation station, and staff's recommendation is approval of the annexation and zoning assignment. The the planning commission, just just for clarity, their role really with the annexation is is zoning. It is to recommend the zoning. So that's that's kind of the extent of their recommendation. Staffs is is to approve the annexation and zoning.

K. Thank you, Levi. Mister Strange, you're just you're here just time to weigh in on the public hearing that we're about to open. Not sure if that's what you came for, but we'd love I just have to see what's what's going on. And later that. Yeah. Okay. Stop by. Nice.

I don't know. I feel like I'm here. You know what? We're happy

on all of those accounts.

Yeah.

With that, we'll open public hearing on consideration of, this annexation. You can put the put the so Dan can see where it is. Anyone who wants to speak on this matter, address the council? Once, twice, three times. We'll close the public hearing. I've done that. K. Thank you, Levi. And with that, we'll turn into the counsel for discussions and consideration on annexation and zoning asylum on this part. Do you know where we are in the end? We're south way south and west from here.

Okay. I have to. I have to. You know what I mean?

So 1200 West and about thirty six hundred south. So there's a new subdivision just to the north of this, NewBlue Farms. This this just abuts it directly to the south.

Hey, Donald. Good. The only question you have is if you do r two a, we wanna do an open space. But,

like, it leaves existing code where it's in the process of being changed, or is there something that kinda helps with making making them wait till that's deleted?

Or I just need some clarification on that. It's my only hang up.

Yeah. I wish I had a solid answer for you because they can submit an application. This one, I've I've always struggled with it legally because we can if if there's a pending ordinance that we started, we can impose those requirements in the middle of the process. I suppose if we got all the way through the process before that process ended, then they could. But, like, let's say we change it in the middle of the process. My understanding is, yes, we could impose those requirements even though they've already submitted it. So it's the vesting that it changes, and I don't really see a scenario where we get any subdivision application and get it reviewed and approved all the way through the process before before that that gets really considered by the council.

Well, do we move?

Because of me.

Yeah. I mean, yeah, I just don't know how relevant it is because we have we have received some concept plans for a subdivision or a a stand just a standard RTA subdivision.

So the submittals are one for annexation and two for r two a zoning. Mhmm. We don't have a submission for a subdivision.

Not yet because they we can't. We they're they're not in Nibley City, but they've they've they've showed us concepts. They've said this is what we intend on doing. They've they've showed us some I mean, they've they're working on the preliminary plat to to submit once this gets approved.

Right. But But it seems like that preliminary plat doesn't have standing because it hasn't been submitted yet because they need to give Yeah. Annexation and something.

Yeah. And Blaine just commented that they're intending on 22 single family lots. So,

Blaine, thank you for listening in. I'm can can you can hear us okay, Blaine, first of all, and would you like to speak on this? Do you know do you understand what we're asking, Blaine?

Can you hear me?

Yes, sir. Loud and clear. Okay.

Yeah. I so just this is my first time with the annexation process. So, yeah, I haven't submitted any preliminary plans yet. But like Levi was saying, we're looking at the R 2 a zoning just with the single family lots similar to the north of us. And so, yeah, I I guess, is there a specific question? Or

Yeah. I I'll try to take care of them when you were talking to them. So I think your specific question is we just went through something similar on RPA within what we call an open space subdivision, which allows you to get a smaller lots and a density bonus on setting aside open space. And we haven't actually been through that in R 2 A yet. We've done plenty of standard R 2 A subdivisions. But at the moment, with public comments and such, we're we might be we're leery enough that the planning commission started looking at changes to the or to a open space subdivision, which includes that density bonus and requires dedication of open space. So I think the question is, are you are you are you looking at a Standard R 2 A subdivision, or are you thinking about an open space R 2 A subdivision? A

standard R 2 A.

Okay. And and the previous slide said that. I don't think we can commit you to that at this point, but we can commit you to hey. By the way, we actually had a public meeting on the R 2 A Open Space Subdivision, and that might entitle us to hold you off if you went that route even though you just said you had planned to go that route?

I wanna go just a standard route for one of Okay. For one of these times and just go through the process from start to finish and make everybody happy, actually. So, yeah, we're it's just we're just going for a second. Patching up an opportunity to make it complicated, Don. Right. Right. A learning opportunity. Right? Always growing.

Does that answer your question, Garrett? Okay. And just for the record, I think in something that wasn't an infill project, r two a open space could work. And this isn't really infill. This is this is new ground. Not that I'm encouraging you to do anything different than what we just said. Right? Yeah. Perfect. Other comments? Let's go, Nathan.

Well, walk me through the process. We can it's gonna be a first reading, obviously. Mhmm. But we can can we divide the two decisions? I mean, what's the and in front of us now is here's what I'm saying. We can annex and give a different like, once we talked about the default connection, we and Abby, we don't really know what we really want. They would then have to submit another application for Aviso. Does that make any difference here?

You could. You could do that. They've included in their application and what we the process we typically do is and and you need to assign it something. I mean, so that it is zoned. You could if you wanna, you know, force them to go through that process. But

And you said that we see it on the not necessarily, but, like, it's a, yeah, something

But, yeah, a draft of a preliminary plat really is what we've seen.

Okay. Thank you. Aaron?

This geography question, there's a church going in right here. Is it on this side of the street or on the other side of the street?

It's side. It's on the other side and a little north of this.

Yeah. Okay. Snow things. I don't know. Could you show them that?

Bring the parcel viewer? Yes, please. Yeah. That's that's gonna be on a future agenda, by the way, that that you're you're referencing because the city council still needs to review the site plan. But, yeah, it's a ways north because if you follow my cursor, that's that's where the the church is actually going about right here, and this is South. Okay.

Just for orientation. Yeah.

So the church that might come along is already annexed into that property.

Yep. And they submit an application. It's it's gonna likely go on the next planning commission agenda.

Was that part of that? Another annexation

agenda. Three parts Yeah. I yeah. I should have actually mentioned that. So that one was put on hold, and they you know and that that included a couple other property owners, and they opted to submit a separate annexation, application. You know, we looked at, well, could we just do a portion of that? And that that's not really loud. You you either you get the whole thing or or nothing. So we had they had to start over again.

And motion to approve orders of twenty five seventeen.

K. I have motion and a second from Garrett. Motion from Norma. Second from Garrett that would approve ordinance twenty five seventeen. Annexation and zoning assignment r two a and waive second reading. That's the motion for you. Be normal. Good.

Yeah. I think that's on our goal. That's it fits that area, so I think it's mix it. Mix per se words.

No. I don't change it up too much. I remember the day when one third acre seemed like something really small, but it doesn't seem so small anymore, does it? You know? K. Discussion counsel. Nathan,

as the, found you've got a lot of things to make things more complicated.

I don't know. My only like, we're currently going through our future land use map and general plan,

and it's this area is kind of basically as is currently draft wise for those that this is called currently what they would say, mixed residential, this area, which is a little different, what we so as I think what we call now is medium to high for this area. Maybe you want to add. And I just don't know if part two way is enough. So I I don't have any thoughts, but I just thought I'd probably put there. But similarly, I think it's similar what they're they're they're used to feel small.

I don't know. Board breaker.

What would have happened here in SARS today exclusively?

What do you need from that area? There's a need to be a small or not?

Possible. I

think I'm saying, like,

I think I'm saying, like, this mess. And we need to I guess what I wanna do is see the.

Like I said, I did it. I don't know what makes me think complicated, but I I don't wanna just do it because it's easy.

But you're not required to just make an outside whatever we we are not. No. In fact

There are there is a school of thought that said you shouldn't think about the specific land use certification for the case on either of it's what you have planned for the city or doesn't Yeah. In terms of by zone, not by

subdivision. I think that's what I'm since we're going with general plan, it's just on my mind. It's like,

I don't know. Can't hear you.

I was just telling you, I'm putting that

in that future area, and then the steering is part of the detached housing.

I think we're in there because we're still working on that. Yeah. They're on the border of detached residential, but it also has a lot of mixed use, neighborhood, commercial.

Yeah. So if you guys are wondering what we're talking about, these are mysterious discussions on

I I I'll sum it up. I think it'll be better than that. You're viewing in the committee that 12 West has potential for more than just RTOA,

and this is right.

So I I guess what I my proposal or I guess we'll do a substitution. We disperse it in.

Alright. I think that's close enough to call an amendment. Okay. You're open with that. Yeah. I have a motion for amendment. I'll second that. And a second from Aaron. So the motion and second is to amend to first reading. Mhmm. And that means, Will, and I like it how this is going. Because now we need to just talk about the specificity of first reading or second reading as a matter.

So if if you zone in the there's a part two way in the future land, change the entity. You can always change his entity.

Yeah. I don't know if we have the zoning or it says the

cloud. Yeah. Writing.

It's not since it's on for our end. Yeah. So But I didn't I don't know what to do with the same thing, you know, for you. I can play in the Yeah. I think it's mostly been a sitting there staring at us. The concept of mixed use, they were commercial as a viral animal. I'm blanking. But it's, like, definitely not allow anything or anything like that. So I Mhmm. That's all. Just one thing about it.

Getting getting our discussion on the amendments. Is there opposition to voting on the amendment? I don't hear any, so that means we'll go ahead and vote by voice. The amendment is to go from second re waive second reading to the main motion to be vote first reading. Those in favor of the amendment to make this for first reading, please say aye. It's aye. Aye. Any opposed? May. K. Thank you. So that I count that down here from I count that four in favor of the amendment and one post. Is that correct? K. And then the amendment passes. So now the amended motion is approve ordinance twenty five seventeen four four three. Would you like to vote on that, or is there opposition to voting on that? Seeing none. And since it's for first reading, we can do this by voice. Those in favor of twenty five seventeen for first reading, please say aye. Aye. Are there any opposed? Okay. We have a past couple of first reading. Blaine, we hope to see or hear or have you tune in again in a couple weeks. We should have this on our next agenda, I assume. Right? Nothing nothing for staff

to look at? Nothing for additional information? Any any concept plan and stuff would be appreciated for the so, please. Yeah. Okay.

Yeah. If you're open to that, Blaine.

Yeah. I can send one over.

We we we won't commit you to it until you make an actual application. It's just FYI.

Sounds good. Yeah. Appreciate it.

Thanks for joining us. Thank you, counsel. I think we could just go right on and get out of here for midnight unless there's something I don't know about this last item.

It's a doozy.

I hope that makes it a minute. So with that, let's talk about ordinance twenty five thirty. This is a way to amend property boundary adjustments between cities coming from changes to state code, I believe. Is that right?

Yep. Garrett probably knows more about this than I do because he's been involved on on some of these, but I'll I'll explain this. So the the state, they they there's a bill in the last last state legislative session on boundary adjustments, boundary establishments, previously known as lot line adjustments or parcel boundary adjustments. So those terms are no longer with us. They're referred to as for a simple boundary adjustment or full boundary adjustment. So, really, just just in in summary, this is to bring the city into compliance and state code, but I'll explain it a little bit more just to say, you know, you know, what what you're what what you're considering to be adopted right now. So sim simple boundary adjustment. This is an adjustment that does not affect public right of way, municipal utilities, and or other public property. It doesn't affect an existing ease and on-site wastewater system or internal lot restriction or result in a lot or parcel ad conforming with land use circulations. If any of those conditions are met, then it's called a full boundary adjustment. And the state has a lot of a lot of the detail that's in this bill has to do with what the applicant has to submit in order to record the the parts the boundary adjustment. So, really, when we're talking about property boundary adjustment, this is when there's two property owners, they wanna move the boundary. You know? You you wanna buy 10 feet from your neighbor. Let's say, for example, you do a property boundary adjustment. We currently do, and what's being proposed wouldn't change any of that. We we do require the applicant to come in and have sit submit an application where they just submit to us the same thing that they would submit to the the county recorder in order for our city staff to make sure that they're not breaking any land use regulations by by doing the the parcel bound the or do doing the property boundary adjustment. What they submit is just a little bit different if it's a simple or it's a full boundary adjustment. And if it's a if it's a simple, they you they require what's called a conveyance document that's defined more in in state code. But but if they if they have a full boundary adjustment, then it requires a survey. And and what's being recommended here, and this is an option of whether we require an amended plat, which we are recommending if it's within a subdivision that that we would require an amended plat to be submitted. This was after speaking with the county recorder. That's what they recommended. They said it's just easier for property owners and anyone searching for for information about about the lot that if it's recorded as an amended plat, it's just it's just easier for for them to to obtain that information than if it's just a convenience document. So we're recommending that be required, which state code allows. And, currently, either the city planner or the city engineer can review and approve these boundary adjustments. The and, again, it's just reviewing to make sure they're compliant with cities, land use regulations. We we put in in practice. When these come in, we typically have both of us review them, but because of kind of the timeliness of review and and the fact that we've we've felt like we both have the expertise, we could kinda make a call on this. I mean, it's not it's not too difficult to say, okay. Yeah. It meets lot sizes. It meets the the structures on there, it meets setbacks. But just, you know, with our schedules and everything, just giving the option of either one just to be able to review these in a timely manner in case, you know, one of us out of town or something like that as we get these. And that wouldn't change that. It it's it's been working in the past going forward. It's just different terminology and a little bit different of what they have to submit according to state code. One provision that that is currently in the ordinance that wouldn't change, and this was caught at the at the planning commission levels, kinda shout out to them for bringing this up. The nonconforming lot. So if someone if someone has for example, we have a lot of nonconforming lots in Nibley City where we like, our one zoning requires one acre. Well, there are a lot of half acre, quarter acre lots in within that zone. They're they're legally nonconforming lots. But you said legally nonconforming Legally nonconforming lots. Code changed after that Right. Right. Thing. So we have a lot of those. So if they let's say, for example, there's a two acre lot next to a half an acre lot, and it's r one zoning, and they wanna add a quarter acre from from the two acre lot and get and sell it to the half acre lot. Well, that half acre lot would still be nonconforming, but it's allowed because it doesn't make it less conforming. So there's a provision in here that says you can do it as long as it basically doesn't result in a lower level of conformance for with result you know? And that and that's not just lot sizes, but lot frontages and setbacks and things, anything in our land assortment. So we we kept that and then we felt like that was appropriate. Another part of this legislation, and it's it's referenced in the code, but it's a boundary establishment, which is different than a boundary adjustment. And this is only to resolve ambiguous, uncertain, or disputed boundaries between two properties. And in this case, really, the city doesn't get involved. It just gets recorded. And the state says that's just something they need to work out between them. We don't we don't get in the middle of those disputes. We don't if if it's so that's this is different and distinct from the the boundary adjustment, but we reference it just to be clear and and reference date code. So staff and planning commission recommendation is is approval of this ordinance that would bring bring the city in compliance with state code.

Thank you, Levi. Did the

so since this is a ordinance change, did the filing commission hold a public hearing? Yes. K. Yep. No comments were made, but we there was a public hearing. Yeah.

I'll turn to cancel that.

We can't do the option on environment.

Yes. Yep. Yep. Oh, you're talking about the the yeah. Yeah. I think the Utah County and Utah State, they're good. Anyway, they were all in the same sentence. But, yeah, it says Cache County. No. Yep. Thanks for bringing that up, Garrett. That's in the draft.

Aaron?

I

have a motion from Aaron and a second from Garrett to approve 2530 and waive the second reading. Thank you. Motion is before you. Any thoughts, comments? It's kinda hard to fight city hall I mean, state legislature. This is all been reviewed by Joel Yes. The time.

Yep.

Is there opposition to voting? Seeing none, we'll proceed. Cheryl, will you call the roll for us, please?

In favor.

In favor. In favor.

Thank you.

Five in favor, not opposed. If we if we should, it did work for you, Levi. Thank you very much. Let's do some counsel and staff reports and then go home. There.

What's the hospital? Here it is.

See you, dad.

Yeah. I just had a pair of shoes. You wanna read some of the stuff?

We

do this. So

Yeah. I mean, Couple things this year, like, at least last week. The 12 West Avenue is finished here in a few weeks. And

And.

Right. There's a lot of that.

Yeah. So that's we talked about briefly, and with the completion of this, there will be are to be located at the Frisbee Disc Golf Course. So that is an option for kids that are coming from the South to be able to use that across, but that's a great question that we need to do a little bit of honestly, should have anticipated a little quicker. Had some thoughts put together. So we'll we'll be doing much with search on time here shortly and and come back with a and a solution.

So the kids are walking they work on 12th West? Or kids were coming from the gates to the west. But if the kids are going Thomas Edison, they might be walking or not 12th West. They could be. Could be. Across What a great place to walk to school. Right. Anywhere that's.

Okay. You see your streams? Yeah.

Erin. There are a lot of kids do their experiment with me and each their wild tongue testing so they can do Yeah. I think when we talk I was talking about there and try to book,

and he counted four kids that were needed, I think. And Dylan might be making that up, so don't quote me on that. Let us get some tighter numbers. But we are on a wheel investigate and figure out what's the best thing to do.

And

And then another discussion we had was just about thirty minutes, especially where. And a lot of them are just about how much is there at school drop off and pick up. And I think it was that Nick had suggestion about we thought about the right turn only coming out of the school draw so that when people need if they do need to turn left, they just turn right, go around, around, around, then come back. That's a little bit thought about, explore, or, you know, care, even though So we had a lot of discussion about that over the years with principal a lot. And, you know, the principal has been very against enforcing right turns.

But with the moving of the crosswalk, which I will say has been well, except for that issue, seems to be very successful. See everybody seems to be having a lot actually and usually this morning. That's particular drama. It takes off at Heritage on our bike to work. So I think it's been a good move and that but it the way it it it seems like it's set just far enough east that people trying to turn left use the gap when the crossing guard goes out there. They'll pull out in front of the traffic that's waiting to turn left. And so I I do think at some point, we're probably gonna convince the principal that that needs to happen. I mean, it's not horrible, but it would be better, cleaner, and safer, in my opinion, to force everybody. Right? Yeah. It's like a I mean, it's like an extra forty seconds to go all the way down there and look around. I know I she time it. But Is this definitely a principal decision? No. We're just trying to create We're just trying to to get Yeah. Just trying to create a vision partner there. And that you know, we're we're in discussion with we had a lot of discussion with the product about auto copy. And I just, you know, asked you to kinda follow-up on some of the ideas and things that we've talked about too and have implemented just since the the this year's beginning. So I'm kinda getting off a little bit, but crossing the browser. And so I I think eventually you see that.

I think we'll see it happen. Yeah. I wonder what the addition of those speed up as getting out of there. Yeah.

It's possible. They're

Principal runs my kids. He doesn't want he he puts teachers out there doing traffic. And he doesn't want teachers trying to do a lot of course on a public highway because they're gonna

be turning flat when they're supposed to be on Unless unless there's a Median. A medium. It's the mid

median or some people. Right? Right. And and part of it could be, you know, it's only during school. Like, we could have we could make the process or put out companies and assign bring it to a store to sign just during pick up and drop off time. So we we have options. We're talking we'll work through that. I think it's a good suggestion. Dev or there are even principal raws discount. K. So we can probably watch this and maybe make some tweaks. So, as I said, we are talking to to Carrie. Tether there as at the back crossing, but also just for there was some fair amount of discussion about the roundabout crossing yards and what things that were happening there. We did add some signage and some things that seem to be helping quite a bit there across the park scene. At least from what I'm hearing, it seem to be even happier and feel safer. So we have we have made some progress and some improvements there. I wish she'd be down on 12 West Park Avenue quicker. She'll see him come.

Yeah. That's all I had. Did you have any else? I don't know.

We are down 3200, but it's not noted as a bike lane. It's not just I mean, they they didn't know it was a bike lane, so they were so they got a either of us to boarding. Are we are we have we fleets that we're going to go under to identify a bike lane so they can go into a bike lane?

Yeah. Okay. There's bike there's there's bike symbols. There's a there's signs throughout that say bike lane. Yeah. Intermittently, yes. All all the way from Highway 165 to the edge of Nibley,

1600 West about yeah. We we do need to do that, I think, but and and Justin, you know, this. I'm not surprised at you. Painting fog lines and painting the areas where vehicles are turning right interfere with the bike lane, you know, like a dash line. It could be riding east and there are ways to turn into norms on the vision, for example, and it's just a solid WiFi. Then, really, we ought to be warning. Vehicles that are turning right across the bike lane, they're about to enter interfere itself, bikes and cars. Yes. And so out here, if I I know there's a bike lane that runs on the North side of 3200 South all the way, and it's about 25 feet wide. And it's painted that way. I don't think we need as much as I love bike lanes, I don't think we need the whole 25 feet for a bike lane. So if you park out here on the curb are you parked there? Well, okay. You'll be in the morning, and you'll think you're a convicted felon. You know?

But but You blame me for the tone. I wrote it.

And still have the bite, but it's all if I feed a bite. So that's how we get it, especially when they come to a nimbly city meeting to complain about something else. Yeah. It's just like it was clear. So that's fine. So that's expensive, I think you said. Right? You know that? Yeah. We we

went to a consultant and asked for design ops design bike and is basically struggling on 3200 South in the West and 2600 South. That was all for you. And those things were really risky. So tell me we've got it back. They're 200 south right now. We're trying to get that design and figure it out. And Yeah. We're we're talking to a different consultant too. We might be able to take keep the or get the cost down and do something different.

She is. She says she thinks that looks better for Dawn. But I was gonna explain to her, you're trying to accommodate energy. She's like, that dog won't run off with electronic issues. I gave her the click to your team on my side, and he doesn't want them from that. She wanted if you could make an exception for electronic issues to break it up. And, yeah,

reused one, so I don't know how it works. So

so now because her her concern is she had a big dog. And the kid she has had as well because then the dog and there was a leash. That dog tried to take off when we might drive the kid her kid,

and then that multiple prompts. And last thing,

was the So let me ask. Let's let the electronic leash do the thing for the kids, but

couldn't there be a physical leash from there as well? Yeah. It's okay. I mean,

then, you know, it looks like wearing pants and suspenders, I suppose. I'm sorry. Pants. No But, I mean, if the dog is truly contained, the dog won't mind down a physical leash on there as well.

When were explaining to her that it's it's really hard to find a balance that works for her. Like, it's nearly impossible, but that's what we try to do is the impossible. So if you wanted to let him bring in. Last thing was somebody asked if we have any like, Canvas or anything like that or

Cross the board. It was a crosswalk.

No. Or was it just crosswalk second?

Do you have home in? That's what I No. It was.

So our our crossing guards do have cameras, not all of them. We are pretty good to the Lord's gate in cameras. The crossing guards definitely have them. You know, crosswalks do not. We have talked about, as we build out our communication network that we've been working on the last few years with the SCADA stuff and security cameras, about expanding that into maybe some parks, maybe maybe particular intersections and things like that, but it's pretty pricey. We've opted to kinda look at some other options to to beef up security and kinda minimize vandalism rather than pull pull the trigger on those other camera systems yet. But it's something that's possible, but it's a big big ticket item. Yeah. I understand. So the camera is on a crosswalk

to find people that don't I think that's the case.

Specifically, over the intersection in near the Park Avenue, but the 12 was closest to. She's concerned that people will start learning before kids are, like, all the way out of the. So people we had the cameras watching when we just get license plate there, which the cars look fire and blah blah blah. Yeah. We have that problem every intersection.

And we should I'm not sure we can write because it's based on. I know we can't speak. We we can't speak Utah legislature prohibits it. They might prohibit all the space.

I think they do. You think they prohibit all of that? Yeah. I mean, photo yeah. Photo radar. Photo radar, the the speeding photo from experience. Again, from another state. But yeah. No. Yeah. In Oregon, they do it. I always tell my wife that that's gonna give us a ticket.

So I noticed the new painting on starting on twenty six hours out. The temporary Temporary. The temporary. Just thought I'd let you know at certain times of the day when signs have just certain tangles, it is absolutely impossible to see any of that.

So Yeah. You bring your own video. But

there are there are times when you're in your head. Absolutely can't see it in.

Yeah. You'll notice yeah. That chalk paint's pretty impressive to me for a bunch of other reasons, but

even with the nighttime phase, it's really difficult to see as well. And it's because it doesn't have glass beads in it. It makes a huge, huge difference. And so, again, this was it's kind of a testing. I'll let you probably really talk about it. But

Yeah. So then we got the this this spray shot from the health department. So we were the county was doing a striping plan for the Cache Bikeway, and we were testing to see if a bike lane could fit on 2,600. You know, they and and what or they would just put in shareholders. And from my viewpoint, I don't know if shareholders are gonna help at all other than maybe for wayfinding, for bikes. But for safety, I get to separate, I I didn't see much benefit. So we're seeing if it could fit, if it was viable, but it's less than perfect, and we'll have to assess whether to we're going to recommend a permanent bike lane there or not. But they gave us the paint. The the health department did, and and, luckily, Steve and and Chet and Mitch went out and painted it. I put up the signs, did it in about an hour or two, and we're we're out there counting, observing, looking at it, getting getting speed data to see if there's any impact on on vehicles going through there as well. So we'll see where it leads us. But

Yeah.

Yeah. It it I saw yeah. That I appreciate that feedback. Yeah. So if it was the right page, you'd have the problem go away.

Yeah.

Yeah. And it's gonna go away in about a week. It'll it'll fade out. First rain Yep. I mean soon as it'll rain. We'll we'll send, like, fourteen days. We'll see. I it kinda looks like it will. It's baby. Yeah.

We're allowed to see. They still choose to be on sidewalk, but the one that I have seen had been reading the kids probably should be. Like, we're talking first grade in Hunter. So the those are the ones that I see using Viking one twenty six hundred. I'll take that back. I did see that I stored today on the site. Anyway, it's and And can I say thank you? Cancel the membership. Oh, that's fun. On December. Super.

Pretty pretty.

It's pretty much for better. Anyway, it was very appreciated. They they appreciate it. It will stop your life.

And even though Tom's not here, I should've told that person. Thank you, Tom.

It seemed to help. Yeah. I see some update on service and stuff like that. So that'd be great. I just wanted to get some idea of what's needed as far as our action plan with the special service district. We do a public hearing here in October. And I just don't know if there's been outreach side of councils, if we can organize that and to just do it on their own.

Yeah. Yeah. May I have had those discussions with Chad?

We have a couple kinda running two routes simultaneously,

so I don't have any real updates on that other than we are talking to other councils and mayors and trying to get them onboards. Preliminarily, discussions have been really good, but it's all very.

So let's know.

Speaking of signs and intersections, I I think that the signs on the intersection at 1200 Or 10th West in 2016 South. We're talking about traffic cones. I think it's great. We don't know if we've seen or heard improvements.

The only thing I heard from the two neighbors that lived there, he said people still tend to peel out to the stop sign and then speed quickly, but that's a problem that would have been a year regardless. Yeah. But I haven't heard any crashes, like, running running their spots by the system. Yeah. I mean, it's

it's amazing the science of.

Hold on. Just because the only thing that changed was the blinky sign.

Mhmm. Okay. Oh, yes. That's right. Yeah.

Yeah. For the record, Tom wrote the rule of being on now. I I just the blinky sign I wanted to do with the things first But being able to rule me seems to be working fine. So Yeah. I'm not gonna let him forget

it. It seems to be working.

I thought we gave him points for sure. He gave me

overruled you and he was right. I would let him forget it. Mhmm. Now if he overruled you and he was wrong, I would remind him.

And then we are one year since both of the last few designs coming up, and I was curious if we're on schedule instructions. So we can feel. Yeah.

I can address that here, man. Thank you.

I got it. I'm gonna go ahead with this one. We I think we have a problem to solve with sidewalks. And I think I've seen this coming for several years now, and then some residents have brought it to a head. 20 miles an hour on a electric scooter is not compatible with pedestrians.

And

I think we have people we have we have fifth grade kids that are telling their parents they walk to school in the street instead of the sidewalk because they don't feel safe on the sidewalk. And so we have a I mean, this has been coming. Right? Electric bikes, electric scooters, especially. I think we'd have a safety problem for the kids that are riding fast on sidewalks because people backing out of driveways don't expect 20 mile an hour vehicles on sidewalks, especially if they're going against traffic. But kids on scooters still own traffic laws. Push them out into the street or out to where there are bike lanes. Do we I did look up and just started looking. Utah code will help us to put speed limits on sidewalks. Now how you enforce that? I don't know. But, you know, the the new pressure on sidewalks, because small kids can now go fast with electric. I don't know if a scooter is available, but electric electric ways to get around. I I think we have a problem to solve, and I think the state has gotten involved in some of this. And, Levi, I kinda think you probably have an interest in some of this. So we're not gonna solve it tonight, but I think we've made our I think our sidewalks are less safe because of kids on electric vehicles. I'm not sure what to do about it.

It's kids then then the whole Yeah. Sure. I shouldn't just kids. Yeah.

With kids. Momentum is mass times velocity. So the kids have the velocity, but not as much mass. So thank you for that. It's not just kid. I think I can solve it easier for adults because I could say, well, if you're gonna go 20 miles an hour, you have to go out the bike lane rather than the out in the vehicle, man. But I don't think I want kids that don't understand the rules of the road. That I think that's why I'm focused on kids. Yeah. Kids don't understand the rules of the road, so I'm not sure we should be pushing down out into the vehicle.

No. I agree. I guess the kids on the street and on the sidewalk and on the grass and or

all around with us. I think it does. They're all all the road. Just plain thing. And so

I challenge us

to solve this. I don't know what the answer is. May I only get the sunblock? You might still have kids that will come on when she eaters. We don't have a spider. You have to really watch them. They they just come down. They feel like it's a safe spot. But that speed isn't necessarily a safe life speed.

I'm very Yeah. I yeah. I I think that whether kids understand it or not or even whether adults understand it or not, I think that I know when I'm riding my bike out in a vehicle, I I have additional responsibility. I know the kids understand that as opposed to riding on a sidewalk. But they don't they just go fast. And grass. Yeah. Like marks.

So an attachment to this is I also see people walking in my brain to challenge problems.

What quest is the answer? No. That's the most walked in bike lanes. Yeah.

But if there's room to go around with me

where the bike lane gets enough popular. Right?

I I felt this today on just bike. Like, I was just had a so I rode my bike with my two young like, three youngest ones in the trailer, and the other two were in front of me

on bikes. And I I'm also

I I didn't know I don't know. I haven't biked a lot. I didn't like, I didn't feel safe at all on the sidewalk. I had to come down 165, and I didn't have to come down 32 or so. I decided to go on the sidewalk instead of the bike run with the kids. And the whole time, I'm telling them, you know, hey. You got to watch for driveways. You gotta watch driveways now. Ironically, we're coming down 8 West, 1st City 3200 South, and I have bowed running to the back of my daughter who has stopped. What are you doing? And she points, and there's a lady backing their car Yeah. Out of the driveway.

I'm like,

oh my god. Good job, You know? So, like, yeah, I feel it. It's great. It's funny that that happened in the. Yeah. I mean But I didn't feel safe at a just a pedal bike speed.

I know I've had others drivers who are very conscientious worry to death about running a whole break in in the sidewalk. Again, that's the back end drive over my car. So Right. If you have to come, please. We we invite you. You've stuck with this workshop list. No. Let's Yeah. Well, I mean, we can't we can't this isn't on our agenda, so we have to be careful. Greg Anderson, of course. So with that,

we make an incredible news message in the newsletter.

Yeah. As soon as I find a solution. As soon as we find a solution, I'm happy to advertise it. And even

this is kind of a hey. I'm thinking about this. Yeah.

Because it may Thank you. I I've thought the same thing. I just don't know what to say yet. Yep. Yeah. Absolutely. Yeah. Absolutely. I mean, I've I've done that with people that have contacted me.

It helped. They're putting on both communities and we have concern.

How can we can we

yeah. Yeah. Okay. Well, I don't know. We should figure out an agenda item somewhere along the way. And, like I said, Levi, I'm I'm thinking you're gonna be a great asset here.

Alright. Do the transportation is gonna be a good expensive discussion too?

No. Not really. Really.

But those guys that did that, I think, transportation flight and investigated lives. Alta?

Alta. Yeah. Alta. Alta.

Believe it or not, Nibley is not unique around some of these things. We we like to think of ourselves as very unique, and I led that too. But other cities have the same problems. I know Salt Lake City, especially with the rent a scooter.

Okay. They've approached us, by the way. It's not for a few years, but, like, Bird and Dick said, do you guys wanna partner? Boy, I haven't heard back from you. Oh. So So they're even looking at communities like Nibley for that. Or scooter.

Mhmm.

No. I'd say For duals.

Yeah. We we Yeah. I think it's a big I think it's a big problem, yeah, across the Great point. We we need support. Maybe law enforcement as well.

I see. Speed on the side. So

They have them on the path on 2nd East by

is North Dakota? Yeah. No. I'm Greg Canyon High School. Now I'm questioning whether it was a stop sign or a speed limit.

Remember, they have them all over Saint George, and I always laugh at them on on path on pathways. But they I always laugh I always laugh at them.

Wait. Maybe Alright. Thank you for that. We'll we'll work on it. That's it for me.

Just one thing. I I mentioned it a little bit, but we are hoping to do, next week a joint workshop with planning commission and city council. So just wanted to ask if there's any problems of doing that on the eighteenth at 06:30. Can't make it there. Yeah. So in conjunction with the planning commission meeting,

we thought

Yeah. Okay. We we thought of doing it then just because a lot of times, council meetings go long, and this needs a little bit of attention. But Mhmm. Separate tonight. Could've done it tonight.

We'll get there.

So probably from 06:30 to about eight because we we're we're gonna be doing both the general plan. We're gonna be discussing the general plan, and then we're also going we have a group, Utah State University professor and some students that are giving some attention to our town center and and the open space areas around the town center as well as the design the potential master plan design of that. That's gonna be part of it as well. Unlikely you'd be there. Okay. I can't. Because if if there isn't probably three of you, we could reschedule it. It's not like, we could do it a different time. Maybe the maybe the twenty fifth is an option if the agenda is not too full for council. For us? Yeah. That's another option. But

I'm good with the day you suggested it. I'm good.

You're you're good? Okay.

It should be okay. Yeah. They just don't want that spot.

Okay. Well, we might hold it. We'll let you know if that changes.

K. Thank you.

So, Shay, was the day needed to RSVP for the utilities in town's meeting? We saw a time, and we should be out before midnight. So get those in if you haven't. By the work week, it is going well. Our staff is doing a great job on participating, and I believe if we win this small business or if this would be our sixth year in our own. So get our staff a chair. If you see them, Michael Turk. Reminding counsel that our second graders will be here on Friday at 11AM. And what we currently have on their agenda is discussing what types of amenities they want in in the Roorkee facility. I

think we should ask them how fast they should be able to write their scooters and all that.

That could be the second agenda. I don't know. As fast as they know.

I like that, actually. I might ask them. Okay.

That sounds great.

And, lastly, the day of service, it was successful. I volunteered Anthony to help me cover all the areas. He went down to fire Firepipe Park into the disc golf course, and he took pictures. And I haven't been able to review those pictures yet, but after hearing reports of all the projects were completed, I was at Morgan Barn And Hall. Morgan Barn seemed to have a great deal of effectively there. I think our community are above that area, and it's, you know, it's a place of pros, and it's brightened. So there were individuals weeding and picking vegetables and putting down gravel and putting down mulch, and it was there was a lot of happy service going on there. The service committee is going to meet students so that we can review that and hopefully bring you back specific numbers in the future.

K. I'll try it quick. I do have a better number of items off real quick. So if you have any questions, Bill Prasad. Corporalize is is progressing with the project. I'm I'm sorry. I don't have an exact schedule, though. I do know that things seem to be moving forward without very many hiccups that have been a little bit of need for a small retaining wall. There's been some issues with some strong drain pipe that was installed years and years years ago that needs to be tweaked and maybe even in the future have some issues or have some work done to it. But I think overall, the project seems to be progressing fine. You saw I already mentioned the pedestrian crossing on 3200 South. That's a pretty good should be completed here in a couple of weeks. The well drilling is going well, and it has been the test wells are in down to 600 feet. It looks promising. They're moving forward with a full size casing of 20 inch drill bolt now or just about to start. They haven't started that already, but waiting for some engineering to come back on the well designed security, but everybody seems to be really happy with how that's going so far. Wanted to give a quick shout out to our sewer operator, mister James Cleverley, and his his family is welcome to do baby into their household, little baby boy. Got his name. Right. So if you know James or see James, feel free to reach out and congratulate him. We're excited for him and his his family. We're also looking for an addition team member being willing to move us into cleaning. Our cleaners have done a great job for us over the last couple of years decided that they are ready to move on to something else. So we have had some interviews already. If you know somebody that's looking for some part time work to come in and clean this building and a PevapWorks building, please let us know. So that's like Yeah. So, typically, we lean on one table for council, and then that that's usually when, like, the offices have been cleaned out of that. But the other parts of jobs company after it's been rented to make sure that it's been usually, you know, nine times out of 10, that's walk in and make sure they've done a job check and it's clean. But sometimes if they didn't do their job and didn't clean up, then that person would be then responsible to clean up and then let us know so we can pull deposits as necessary. So it's kind of kind of a weird deal. And if they're interested in one or the other, we have talked about maybe splitting that or just trying to figure out the best way to handle that. So we're assuming you're an applicant right now to kinda formulate a plan, what we see, who, and what's interested. We talked about that. A couple of things that are coming up just to give you a preview. The state of Utah is what it's legislature authorized division of drinking water to implement a fee, and so there is a feed being proposed tomorrow, actually. It's the public hearing board. It's been discussed for a couple of months now. But right now, it's looking to be about 3¢ per thousand gallons of water, which equates to about $18,000 a year that we will need to enhance the state of Utah. They're saying that this increase is for covering salaries and continuous of compliance programs in the clean water because that is about about cutting their budget question. Now that is still yet to be determined. So what they're telling us is they're gonna get this approved and the feds don't cover their budget, but they won't end the fee. But our discussion and our decision will have to be on what wanna pass that on specifically as a wide item in our utility bill or if we just wanna eat that. So that's coming into the direct side of near future. We will probably share my event looking into how to run-in. We'll we'll talk about amending the budget or updating budgets, talk about first day in softwares that we'll discuss. And the last meeting, we we decided there's probably ways to do that, so we're just trying to get the easiest one and one screen wide one. Be able to do that. So that is coming back to you. The other things that we come into you should another thing that we can really show is on leasing, artificial agreements to lease the farm property as well as the property of the straight west of Yoshi Coyote Farm, but allow them to feed that seed pasture large animals. So that's coming. Only other good news is the Niddly Fury nine year old soccer team is undefeated. Honestly, it's going well.

Any other good news? Yeah. Alright. Yeah. That there's no objection to adjourning. We are dirt. Thank you. Thank you.

We made it, but only because they're dealing with supposed. It's better.

She could share all this. We made it, but only because of getting this postponed by hackers. Otherwise, they would beat us.

Yeah. Yeah.