So this new welcome everyone to uh we marked our bodies computer.

Last meeting promises program.

That's kind of my world, but nothing.

Definitely her last last study session has a participant.

She might come to handle or harangue us later on.

Yeah.

I think she has to be really bored with uh she's gonna come attend the parks and trails meetings.

All right, we don't have the need for a closed meeting, so we're gonna skip that.

Um the next item is the new the city yeah, city a discussion on the city newsletter survey results.

Linda and Alex, go ahead and two.

Yeah, so this is a follow-up to our discussion about um the idea of going away from a printed mail to everyone newsletter, and the direction from council at that time was um not a survey to residents, and so Alec is going to present the findings of those at that survey.

Got a little handout for you guys, just kind of a little bit more um additional information that we'll cover you can dig into if you want more space that you could read.

Yeah, and make sure to code us when you're gonna go.

Okay, okay, you got it okay.

Okay, so um we put the the uh poll out in the last issue of the newsletter.

Um and kind of like Linda mentioned the the big reason for this is that between 2021 and 2025, the cost of producing the newsletter has gone up significantly.

That's gone up about nearly 70 percent.

Um and we kind of started looking into this when they told us I don't know how many months ago it was, but a few months ago the costs for both printing and distributing going up again.

So um we put the survey in the newsletter um and we got 556 responses, which surpassed the 382 we needed for a viable sample size.

Um combined between so the three options we gave were primarily online with um limited printing um with copies at the library, senior center, and city hall, like we do currently, um, online only or printed and mailed, just continuing what we've been doing.

Um suggested that they like the idea of um primarily online or online only.

A lot of the online only um people did also express support though for this what we've called the hybrid option.

Um printed and and um and distributed digitally.

So um if we were to go this route, Linda has um talked to Mills with Selbak County.

Yeah, um biggest concern with going any kind of digital route was those who are able to access um online or uncomfortable with it.

So in addition to providing printed copies at specific locations, um we've arranged with the meals on wheels can deliver to um homebound residents that um are unable otherwise to get out.

Um we determined that a 500 copy print run that would be distributed in certain locations would be about five thousand three hundred and fifty-eight dollars annually, which is like a tenth of what we're paying to contribute it as we can do it.

Um do we know if that aligns with the group that really wants it in person?

Sorry, um the meals on wheels is that the target audience for the ones who wanted to print uh bridge copy.

Linda, do you want to speak to that since you were the one that spoke on third to there's there's certainly other residents who prefer print and copy, um they are part of that smaller 28%.

Um what we were trying to address are those who would not be able to go to locations to pick up printing copies.

Um and so that's why we focused on the homebound seniors, and we have a good relationship with meals on wheels program, so they said they'd be happy to work with us to bring to their clients.

Um so this 28%, these were the ones who thought we should just go completely online.

Um again, though they did um they they like the cost of or the uh idea of environmental uh benefits um and cost savings, but acknowledge that it's probably beneficial for people to be able to access it in certain locations.

So they would find, like I mentioned, with um the hybrid model.

And then we have about 27% that wanted to keep it um printed and mailed.

Um so this information um it's in those packets, but um in the end with the support that we got from the newsletter, um our recommendation would be to kind of go with that hybrid model.

Um we thought that it would be good to expand the locations where the newsletters um available.

Um a couple of thoughts are maybe like the animal filter serves the west side.

Um maybe the fire station is unpressed for residents up there.

But um yeah, we we uh we think that it would be a good way to continue the newsletter, um, getting into everybody's hands with um digital distribution, but being accessible for those who still want to print copy or who uh otherwise are uncomfortable with using technology.

So they can go and get a copy of the newsletter at one of those locations.

They don't have to check it out.

No, that would be the library's not asking for sensitive.

So but you'd send it out with your usual text and email updates and yeah, we put it out through Dona Five Draper, we put it on the website, and then um do more of a distribution through social media as well.

We've got to be one of the few cities still do it, right?

There are other cities that are still doing the print version.

Um look into is they distribute it with their with their um monthly utility bills.

Um a lot of times with that it's just uh eight and a half by eleven that's maybe color black and white.

We think that the quality of the printed version that we do is worth keeping.

Um we also looked into if that were possible with our current um uh delivery system for the utility billing.

Um they Grace looked into that and said that it's not really feasible with our vendor to have like an opt-in option.

No break on the postage cost for you this bowls, apparently.

No that's a big postage.

It's a lot.

Yeah, yeah.

I do enjoy getting the paper version of it.

Yeah, it is nice.

And I definitely look for version.

Whereas if it's emailed to me, I may or may not click into it, just to be completely honest.

Yeah.

When you're a grocery store, it's might be willing to have them too.

Because everyone will go to the question store.

Just have to see how many of the things.

If you do if you do the hybrid where you just distribute them to locations, someone in the city's gonna do that, we're not gonna have postage.

Yeah, for example, if we were to take it to like animal services or um the fire station, we would just arrange to have those that they can say.

I like the idea of the post suite as well.

Those do you all want to do?

I like the hybrid option.

I think that you know, we'll and if we can change it, we might be able to find well, this is where the people really need it physically, and so that's easy to change, you know, based on where the need is.

Yeah, so you wouldn't want to get it out too far that you ended up going back to printing so many anyway.

But I think that it's a really important way to communicate with residents, and then worry that we're not losing some of the audience.

I just know my own email is just flooded with things like this.

But I think if there's a way where they can reference it, then they can access it not necessarily via the email, but say, oh yeah, that's right.

I should go look at it, and then they can float up on our website.

Can you measure the open rate?

Do we have to figure out how many people open it?

We don't have that ability.

It'd be really nice if there's a way to then you have an idea how many people are really doing it.

How I think this idea of adding a shortened version into some bill or something is not a terrible one, at least there's some outreach from the city.

Right.

Like the mayor's message or something.

But if you think it's worth it, it's spend the money and keep doing that.

I mean, the biggest valuable it's all choice.

It's a lot of money, but it's getting the message out.

What's the total cost?

55,000.

Yeah, 55,000 a year.

And like we mentioned too, they tell us about every year that it prices are increasing for shipping or voltage and so does this include then the increase that they just mentioned, or this that's current cost, yeah, from 2021 to the president.

From 2021 to present.

And then we know it's also going to increase in 2026.

Yeah, that's not all just postage though.

It's also the printing costing outpost, right?

I think one thing that we've really gotten better at is communicating with residents.

And doing away with it entirely really takes away one modality.

People do look to this printed newsletter to see what's happening in the city and what's going on with comments.

Yeah, I'm going to I'm more inclined to read it if it's paper than I'm not gonna open the digital one.

I don't know.

Can we switch to just a paper that goes in with something?

Or no, that is not a possibility.

We don't pull everybody for everything.

Yeah, but at least we hit some of them.

I mean it's possible.

Um like I mentioned though the uh it's like regular piece of paper at that point.

Do you think there's value in if it's printed in the the way we do it is nice.

So it's nice.

It's a really nice nice and people read it.

People tell me all the time that they've read it, they'll ask for copies if their kid happened to be in it.

Like I'm I'm saying it because I because we do it, but I think uh ours is the best looking of any of the neighboring cities because I've looked at several of them in our by far the best.

Maybe worth the 50,000.

Yeah, I mean the other option is could you do a mailing like it's included in the bill, so we're we're not adding any more postage that could be just like a little synopsis of what the digital one is, and we still do the nice digital one, and that one can direct you if you want to see more whatever to the website.

I don't know.

Yeah, I feel more comfortable if we did something like that with doing what I have the big one, but I really hesitate to completely get rid of the big one.

I think people really like it.

I understand what you're saying, but that added to our workload as well if you like a different version, and then it'd still be an additional cost to put it in with the bills because we're adding insert.

So that would be adding to the current costs.

But not to what our cost isn't it's 55 million.

I think it's worth 55 million people.

Could you do some digital and some not just six issues a year?

Like three that went out on paper and reaches that digital.

Um I was inclined to say digital, but now about it more.

I'm like, and like we said, our recommendation isn't to get rid of it, but rather to eliminate the the newsletter going to every home in the city.

Um, you know, we we have we have time if we went that route where we could arrange for pick up locations.

I know like the senior center, they're always gone when I go to deliver the next one.

Um the library, frequently all of those ones are taken.

A lot of the time, a lot of times the ones here are gone.

So if we have pickup locations, um I don't think it's gonna be a problem where people might be picking them up, but it would save a lot of it.

It's just there's something really special about hitting all of our residents.

We don't really do that in the nether demand.

So what if we went quarterly instead of every other month?

That would be fine.

I I just see a lot of value in the newsletter.

I think it's really well done.

I think people really like it.

I think it's worth the money.

People read it, even though I know they read it.

It's one of the few ones I actually get out of the mail and I look through it.

I'm just every time have somebody call me and say, hey, I'm not like certainly continuing just looking at the cost and then you were aware.

No, I appreciate what it's proxy.

Um I think you know, going to less times a year would be tricky with keeping things timely and you know interesting for people.

So I I think that residents like to hear from Troy and they like to hear from us when we write articles.

If you went to quarterly, they wouldn't hear from two of you a year.

Right?

So if you if you we're doing it six times a year, everybody has a chance to have a message.

I mean, what is the anticipated drop off if you were to switch to what's your vote?

Keep it.

Um may I read it.

Okay, we've got to keep it for Marshall.

Fred, what's your vote?

I think we keep it for right now.

That's a two, Tasha.

I would keep it or have some complement, like still hybrid.

Okay.

Do I need to get on the SAP phone to Mr.

Green?

I think you've got three.

That's three.

Keep it.

Okay, next item.

I understand.

What's your two seconds?

Alex, thanks for the vote yet.

I think it has a lot of value.

I think it's a good way.

If it went up 25,000 this year, that's that I like it a lot.

I always read it when it comes.

I guess that's what you're weighing, right?

That's what that's what I would love to know.

What the trade-off is, right?

What I with that money.

To me, the drop-off in people that would never click to open it is worth the 25,000 dollars.

I agree.

I think that definitely it should go at least sometimes because I think you're getting way more people.

Like cutting it all off, so all digital, I think I agree with you.

That's not people just won't open it.

People are so busy.

They don't have to.

So can I put this in another perspective?

There's what 55,000 residents.

So talking a dollar a year.

Yeah.

Yeah.

And it makes us different, you know.

It's everything's going digital, and we're really trying to get people to on board with us to buy into what we're doing.

Okay, next I think it's worth a dollar.

Is the discussion on the too many roads sidewalk and trees?

We don't have Mr.

Cool, but mark and go ahead.

So you guys recall, you know, we have our safe sidewalk program, the insurance requirement.

We have to inspect an entire 20% of the city every year to keep our liability down to associated with moving accidents with raised sidewalks.

Well we had an approach that worked for three years where we would mark trees that needed to be removed.

Um and we came across a neighborhood where they had a lot of trees and it was going to change what the neighborhood looked and felt like.

But we have to remember our main goal is to lower our liability.

So Tracy, Scott, myself, Mike, um, we worked on this for a while.

We visited with an urban barbarist, he gave us some recommendations.

Um we asked what some other cities are doing.

And so we'd like to adopt um a process where we will still identify the trees in the same manner that we have been, and that being if there's a history of it, the tree causing the sidewalk to be displaced, like we've we know we've ground it in the past, we replaced it, then that tree needs to come out, and that's what we would recommend.

Or if it's lifting the sidewalk, like in the case of this Timothy neighborhood, we haven't been in there and replaced anything, but there's a lot of trees lifting sidewalks.

So the other thing that we would use as determining the tree need to be removed if the diameter of the tree trunk in inches is wider than the park strip and feet.

So in Timiny, we've got trees that are 18 inches across and a five-foot park strip.

Those trees would get marks to go.

At that point if they're causing a displacement, correct.

Not just to not just ripping out the trees, only if it's causing a need for us to have to use our finances to replace to remove remove that liability.

Um so at that point we would mark the tree.

Um, and then we would reach out to the resident, let them know their tree had been marked for removal, inform them that we will remove the tree with our contractor at our expense this time.

However, you have the option to keep this tree, but we have this new proposed waiver of liability that we would give to the resident.

It basically says they acknowledge that moving forward any expenses associated with the tree, if it dies because we cut the roots, if it falls over and becomes a hazard, if it hits a car when it falls over, or it hurts someone, or it damages the sidewalk, they will be liable for those expenses moving forward.

If they choose to keep a tree that we've identified as being deep needed to be removed.

Um Tracy worked up this really good uh tree retention release indemnity and assumption of risk agreement.

Um it would be recorded with the property.

So if the person moves, next person they would have to know that the house they're buying has some trees that they're responsible for.

Um and I think this really pushes the liability on, you know, we can't absorb the expenses citywide for one neighborhood to keep the trees they want, and we have to keep going year after year and remove the sidewalk and replace it.

Um that that's our proposed approach.

We're just looking for you guys vote on whether or not you like something like this, this idea to give them the option to keep it, but it means they assume the risk moving forward.

So can you give me your rule of thumb again?

If it's 18, like the inches of the of the diameter of the tree needs to be smaller than the past number as well.

So if it's a five inch it's a five-foot park straight, it can only be five inches long.

If it's any bigger than that, it and that would go inside with our coincide with our street tree.

Right, but that's our current street root tree requirements.

That would still be that would meet that, right?

I mean, still we don't we don't even require trees in five foot or less park strips.

Five foot or less, we can't require exactly.

So they're just the wrong trees for that for that.

What is the width of that park strip up there?

Five foot.

And you have sycamores that are 15, 18, yeah.

Yeah.

It's important to note that this isn't just a policy for that neighborhood.

This is this would be the entire city.

So in case we run into a similar situation, this would be how we are.

What happened in zone three a year ago?

We came across some sycamores on 1840 east.

We had already replaced ground the sidewalk in the past.

We let them know the trees needed to be removed.

We don't run into this that often.

I mean, like I've said, we've done three we've done 60% of the city and not run into this issue where we've been removing trees that need to be most people go, you're gonna remove the tree for free.

I don't have to pay five to eight grand to remove these big trees.

Well, those people didn't want us to remove the tree, they argue that us we cut the route, it fell over like two weeks later, and then we were smoked responsible for clean.

So people want to keep the tree, we just need to pass that liability on.

Because we have to remember the the liability and the job of the city is to reduce the okay.

So you're saying accidents caused by the sidewalk.

I make sure I um I've got a couple of new questions.

So you're telling me that if your lot that goes out to the road, any tree within the envelope of the lot, is the tree you'd be agreeing to take over and be responsible for.

Also responsible for the sidewalk.

Yeah, that was my question.

Would they then have to pay to shake down the sidewalk?

The owner of the tree.

Okay, because that's if they only keep the tree, that's flipping the sidewalk keeps causing damage to our right-of-way.

I mean, just correct trees that are in our right-of-way.

We're not gonna tell somebody our current code says if a tree in their private property on the back of the sidewalk is causing damage, they have to remove that tree at their expense.

That's our current vote.

I haven't come across that very much.

I know we will in this zone.

But you're grinding the sidewalk first.

Not necessarily like in this Timiny neighborhood where it's some of them are raised like that.

That that needs to be.

So we're gonna give them the option, you can get rid of your trees and we'll fix the sidewalk, or you keep the trees and your sidewalk.

If someone trips, you get a payload.

Well, no, no, no, no.

We'll we will we will cut the roots on it.

People say they want to keep their tree.

We will cut the roots down, replace the sidewalk, but anything damage, failure, death by the tree, or future damage to the sidewalk from that tree that's been assigned that this they would be responsible for the expense.

See, this could impact where I live.

Old English Road and Rollsville, you know, you we've had to cities had to shape off a lot of the sidewalk there with those trees.

I don't know how we went through the neighborhood last year and we didn't have to do what we marked.

But no, I don't think any trees ever been marked to be removed there.

You tell me that the city can release its liability could push the liability on our public infrastructure sidewalk to some resident who can take it on, and they can say, Yeah, well, we want to be responsible, we want this tree, we want the sidewalk pitch, we want some neighbor to trip on it.

It it's not the sidewalk, it's just the tree.

So it's we have the obligation to fix the sidewalk, right?

Regardless.

We need to make sure that it's safe.

So the way we're gonna fix the sidewalk, we're gonna cut the room.

We're gonna cut the roof because it doesn't bother our sidewalk again.

Exactly.

If it does, after they indicate they want to keep the trees, say five years from now, and it shows that we have to come back and replace that sidewalk or do it, they would be responsible for the expense of that.

Are they responsible if someone trips before we get to it?

Yes, according to this.

Before we get to replacing the sidewalk, let's say we do 20% of the city a year.

But we we go through Timiny, cut some roots, whatever, and then it comes back, but we don't get back through there until the two years from now.

The solar trips breaks our neck for a good hundred thousand dollar slip and fall clean.

On the sidewalk.

On the sidewalk, good.

It's buckled again.

Right.

Yeah.

Are we getting out of it then?

You know, I don't think we would get out of it if the sidewalk's buckled at that point.

I think we could bring in the homeowner, but the the sidewalk itself is our property.

So let's say we repair the sidewalk.

Sidewalk's fixed.

We cut the roots.

They want to keep the tree.

We repair the sidewalk four years later, it buckles before we can get to it.

It's the city.

You know, I think we've got an argument to bring them in the way that the waiver is worded, but I don't know that I see a court going for that.

I think they would they look at the city as being it's they're on the sidewalk, that's your property.

It's right, I think that we can eyes there.

So my guess is that we would take a lion's share of liability on the process.

So in our current case, the current insurance doesn't do a damn thing.

Well, it has to be reported to us.

We have to acknowledge acknowledged.

And so usually if it's severe, it's reported to us.

We mark it.

That that's how we stay out of it currently before we can get to it.

And if it's high enough, we actually go out and grind it right away.

We don't wait.

Okay.

Depending on time of year.

We'll we'll definitely spray paint it, which is what our insurance tells us we need to do.

We keep it marked, and then when we it's first chance we get almost sphere.

Yeah.

Because I mean those are decent plane of cases.

Yeah, they are.

I mean, you can get hurt and you can get and it's legit.

I mean, I if I was a homeowner, I wouldn't want to be trying to take any of that liability.

Well, that's I think that's what we're doing.

We're encouraging people like hey, if you understand the risk you're taking on by keeping that tree, but really if the s the big liability for us is the sidewalk, that's gotta be the most liability we have.

We're not getting out of the sidewalk liability ever.

I don't think so.

I don't know.

I don't want to speak for your tracy, but it's I agree with you.

So all this is if you want to we'll cut the roof to your tree and if it falls over on a car.

Or if it dies, we're not coming back to take it out.

You that's now on your that's now your tree to care for but not the sidewalk.

The sidewalk would be no different than any other sidewalk.

Like we we have to get it reported to us, or we have to have inspected it twenty percent a year.

We mark it and we show our due diligence that we're trying to reduce our life.

So just responsible for if the tree falls over after we cut the roots.

It's up to them.

It's up to them.

Falls over, hits a lady walking on the new sidewalk, gets hit by the tree.

But we should fall into the street if we're cutting that sidewalk that's kills two people.

I'm just thinking like a plane's order.

Yes.

Um the alternative is we go and clear cut the neighborhood.

So dramatic, yes.

Good case for me, is a bad case for you.

Okay.

All right.

What do you guys want to do?

Do you want to do that?

What would we propose?

Let's have a discussion today and and we come back in in January to actually adopt a policy.

You know what I like about this is this is the result of us actually listening to residents when a concern came up and we did this like you know, we push it away.

I appreciate that you guys took the time to like evaluate it.

I know it was a hot bed, but thanks for listening to it.

One thing we'll do in that neighborhood, and and as staff, we've kind of agreed that our contractor probably went through and was a little aggressive in marking.

So we'll go back and and re-evaluate the sidewalks, and so that may reduce the number of fixes and trees that are impacted.

But that's by listening to those residents.

Exactly.

So absolutely that was good.

I think it's a really fair compromise.

I don't know.

Alright, so we've discussed it, now we'll bring it back for vote.

Any further discussion on this?

Alright.

Next is uh Rhett.

Report on new positions.

Come on up.

And also Kelly's notes, well I can I can handle killers.

I just had a few notes I'll be quick.

I've had a lot of reports the last week.

So this one I guess is another thank you on uh behalf of our department for the new staff member, which we got to frame it.

I want to try and frame it in context.

Remember, well, you probably got sick over the years of asking for a new staff member in trouble.

But this month, Mark 17 years I've been with Paper City.

We actually hired Greg Hillbig a few months before I got here.

He was a parks tech.

A couple years down the road I promoted him to be the trails and open space manager.

We had another guy that was helping him, and then a few years later we hired Rick.

But roughly for about the last 15 years we've had two people, two full-time employees.

Uh in trails and open space.

In those 15 years, however, like when I started, I remember we had Canyon Hollow, we have Clarks, we had a few other trails, but majority of them have been built in the last 15 years.

All of our downhill brush, all the backside trails, traverse, traverse, and like you name it.

There's been a lot done in 15 years.

We kept growing, we kept growing, we kept growing.

Trailheads, we've added Peak View Trailhead, Coyote Hollow, Deer Ridge, Silverflower, a couple others.

A lot's been done over the years, and our staff sites stay the same.

So it was busy.

So I guess that's a roundabout way of saying it.

It's been a very welcome addition to add one more full-time employee.

Draper's trails, and I know my bias, but I think we'd all agree we have the best trail system around.

It was well worth the employee that we funded this year.

So thank you very much.

Just to let you know a little bit about our new position.

His name's Rob Smith.

He actually was a seasonal with us for six years.

So what that means is he comes in and requires very little onboarding training.

He kind of hit the ground running.

But we put him in charge of a lot of the paid trails.

We have a lot of mild page trails.

So in other places, but now we should always see a nice shoulder on the paved trails, which will eliminate the go-heads by far and some of those complaints.

It helps the mare bond where we're or have open space taking care of Maribon Wetlands.

Should help with all the Bragmites and all that.

Rob the Armory Army vet, like I say he worked with us for a lot of years.

He knows trails.

He's a navid mountain biker himself, an aphid hiker, climber.

So he knows the conditions, he knows the way they should be maintained.

Loves working here, so it's been a great great addition.

And again, just wanted to say thank you for for listening for understanding and approving that this last uh fiscal year.

Any questions?

Happy to answer them, but otherwise, just thank you.

I think it's huge to have that out.

So great job.

Yeah.

You definitely needed some more hands.

Plus the awesome robo more.

I love a robo more.

I have this last year.

I have a random trail question if I can, real quick.

We have a second.

By goals falls between Ghost Falls and then uh Rattler.

We got some nice donations of some two old pickup trucks.

Oh, yes, they're there still.

I didn't see them till the other day.

You don't see them until it's winter fall.

Do we know the story behind those?

Because I would look it'd be really nice to know the story behind them.

It's a random question.

What we think, I don't know if anyone knows.

I think there's a great big stove too somewhere.

But it'd be kind of nice to know what the story was.

So we have a force truck too.

Things are all inside.

I'll ask him to bring it back to you.

1960, 1970s trucks.

Yeah, they're old.

Like they rolled a long way down the hill.

And there's got to be great stories.

Old.

Yeah, probably at least entertainment.

So I happened to be here the other day when Clark was meeting with the new mayor at Riverton.

And she brought up a concern to me that she had about Bragmites along the Jordan River Trail in the Draper area.

I don't know.

All of that maintenance in Draper's portion of the Jordan River Trail is maintained by Solid King.

Okay.

That's their response.

That takes us to council manager reports.

We have a few minutes who wants to.

Well, I could make a uh thanks, right?

Thanks, right?

Report on the custodial supervisor.

Kelly was going to talk about this.

Custodial supervisor.

Yes.

Um, so uh talking to Gary and Kelly, the uh custodial supervisor actually been a very uh welcome addition to this this particular building on several levels.

Yeah, I'll think of children.

Okay, go ahead.

No, no, no.

No, this is custodian.

We've got a crystal.

Um having somebody here later into the evening, we've got better security.

Uh as you're aware, we've got a lot of after hours, events, groups meeting, what have you.

So the supervisor is is making sure the building is secure.

Um, cleaning has increased tremendously in this building.

Somebody being punished or what's going on, but yeah.

And so Gary Martinson uh extends his his thanks for that.

I think it's been really helpful.

I think we've had a little more stability too in that in that function.

So great.

So all I got.

Alright, council manager, who's got something.

I met with um chair and vice chair of the tree committee, I think last week.

Um they expressed some concerns that they had the way um communication was happening between them and city staff.

Um I I would think that maybe we should discuss the tree committee specifically and possibly other committees and how um their relationship is with staff and with us and relationships like that.

Maybe in the retreat.

Put it on our uh January retreat agenda.

Yes, and do we have a date for the retreat by any chance?

We're just waiting on Catherine.

We gotta find some time, sure.

Okay, anything else?

Kelly's working on that.

That's it.

Caution.

I think it's good to keep it retreating.

I don't know if they think that better.

I think the stability is important.

No, I think it'll be good.

Um the question I have is where we're putting the special events committee with the engagement committee.

Did we just is that we're gonna do that?

That's what I thought.

Well, there was a we kind of like with Kelly not here, I guess one only the answer, but Mike might know.

Wasn't there a letter sent out to the members of those two committees about them being combined?

I think there's been some kind of communication because if I get in contact with anyone on the special events, yeah, maybe I want to know what to tell them.

I think they responded perhaps to um a summary of the council meeting.

So speaking of key.

So it's on that.

Yeah, I don't know if if she's taking other steps to communicate with them or not, I can ask her.

I heard from is it Scott Benson who's on Mark Benson.

He was very much in favor of combining them.

Yeah, we thought it would be a good use.

I don't think, yeah, I I don't think any of them will be against that.

It's just if it could limit we're if we're just limited to 11 people, it might not allow those that have been on the arena committee that have wanted to stay involved, they all could still be on unless we could unless we expanded that to like 15 or something.

I I thought we talked about possibly having everyone reapply from both committees, and then then we would know who is really wanted to stay on.

But if we get 15 really want to, we might want to tweak our code.

Yeah, yeah, that's easy.

Maybe we can make some alternates or something.

Nope, that's it.

Oh wait, we're gonna miss Marcia and thank you for coming and serving another extra year.

Thanks, Brick.

It's been an honor.

We've been very lucky to have a lot of people.

Please have something for your final one.

Do you have something?

I knew you were there.

I'm gonna stay with my standard.

Don't say anything.

Okay, I have one.

Would you pull up my mic Parker?

The land planting process uh software.

I want to show them Solake Counties.

I know with Mayor Wilson down in the room bottom.

Well, who own you know, whatever the hell it is, we're we should we know who owns each parcel.

Oh the parcel map.

The parcel map.

Gotcha, yes, I can do that.

That one.

Let's see here.

Go right there.

The map of parcels.

Yes.

Similar to the custodial supervisor.

What did you think I said?

I thought you were talking about children.

Like we're supervising children.

We're taking custody of them.

We've all adopted a foster child.

Is it Dra project?

Yeah.

Troy, would you like where would you like to go down to the the on our border with the fine city of Rivers and you might go?

This is sorry, that this is quite touchy.

Okay, yeah.

Wow.

This is boom.

Okay.

Go over there to no one.

Yeah, click on that.

Okay.

That's our park.

Okay.

So Solid County.

I mean, you think go to that other little parcel to the left too.

This one here, the zigzag.

Yep.

And then that one.

This one?

Yeah.

Okay.

County owns.

Who owns that?

Is that which one you know?

United States of America.

Department of Interior.

That one went on just the property.

The other one over here.

Yeah.

I was going to say I remember I think it was this one too.

This one?

Yep.

Oh below the dock.

That might be the Department of Interior.

Nope.

Salt Lake County.

Okay.

And then the other one, look at that other little one.

Sure.

This one?

Yeah.

What's so interesting is if we go back in the old maps of this area, there used to be some sort of like a racetrack.

Yeah, that's what this looks like and then that little piece.

This one right here.

Isn't this why we're subject to the Army Corps of Engineer guidelines in that area?

They they have guidelines over all the waters in the United States of America.

One that one final little sliver just check that one.

Okay, sure.

Yeah.

This little slide right.

Yeah.

Yeah.

There it is.

Okay.

So okay, so what the county wants to do is that was that big one in the Department of Interior is that the county?

Interior, interior, I think, and you you don't have to do it.

You dot interior.

You dot interior.

Doesn't look like we have access then.

Could be the uh NSA, who knows?

Um they have access one first.

Over here.

Over there.

Yeah, I thought I thought one something down here was a county parcel.

We looked at this.

Okay.

So I met with Mayor Wilson.

We went over to the side of the road.

The county in its effort to raise funds or you know, get rid of assets it doesn't need has looked at these identified these parcels as something they want to sell or develop.

And they want to talk to us about what we'd like to see.

Now the golf course, the the riverband golf course is owned by the counties up there.

Um what would we like to see, you know, down in here?

Um they they're interested in some type of you know uh starter home type ownership housing mixed with some how do you develop in that area the water tables right it's almost so high.

It looks like a floodplain.

Yeah, like saying drop down to that from the line.

Well, I don't know.

Um they just they they wanted to they want to talk to us about they want to sell this property.

Why don't they put nine more holes of golf course river bands?

Yeah, I don't think they want to do that.

They wanted to do some type of development, they wanted to know if we'd be interested in meeting with them to talk about it.

I just don't think you could build homes down in there.

Is there access to it?

It's got to be one.

I mean that's not our I do you want to talk to them about it.

Not who they're gonna sell it to.

I you know I would imagine it's not a large group of purchasers, but out there looking for this parcel, but how are they gonna access it though?

Right, because it looks like it's maybe lavish.

Oh, you dot's got some access clearly right there.

I don't know if they can get the interior to let them go across their park.

Yeah, it looks like there's a strip here.

That's the oh yeah, that's all that's that our trail that's listed there in the white no, I don't know what that is.

That's like a dirt road.

It won't click.

It's probably right of way.

It's like a dirt road.

We might have access right there.

This might be it because that typically when something doesn't appear, it it's right away.

But they're thinking they want to do some type of ownership like first time buyer, home buyer type housing.

And they want me to bring it up to you guys if you want to meet with them talking about what mic go there.

I'm not against discussing it.

We just gotta find how viable it is.

Okay.

But you wouldn't want you wouldn't want commercial or you'd want some type of uh when she had the idea of maybe doing some similar to like Moda down there where there was some shops and stuff.

I I don't know.

Access is gonna be really good.

Jen, I see you kind of giving you the look.

I I'm digesting what you're saying.

I I know I know.

Um I think a good majority of that property is probably going to be wetlands or have very very high water table access.

Um you would have to go through the interior, a department of interior to get to it because from this station um area, it's a very steep drop-off, and you have a private property owner in between the public road and that property.

Um there's wildlife concerns as well, because I that has all been open space in the past, so I think it's probably a high wild wildlife population in that area.

Um Feral Cats.

Community cats.

Well, community cats.

I know I know people not only in that neighborhood, and there's there's all kinds of animals um that that they see.

Um I it would be very challenging to develop.

Yes, and I know our zoning and land use, I'm guessing um has it all designated open space.

It'd be nice for it to just stay open space.

I agree with Jen.

I feel like I am not interested in developing classes.

I thought that would be your view.

I don't know how you develop it.

I just think that would be a good idea.

Well, it's really nice as river bottom.

I don't know that it needs to be high density housing.

Oh, I don't think it needs to be.

No.

You'd have to be on stilts.

Yeah.

And the access is terrible.

They've just identified a bunch of parcels all around the county that they are using and they want to know if they can get some value out of it.

Makes me question if they really look at that property.

Right.

I think that they actually really look at it and saw what we have.

Yeah.

Well, we met on the side of the road.

But from the road, you wouldn't have that was the extended as far as um our look, but okay.

I'll I'll tell her that it's not something anyone's super overjoyed about.

He's taking her on a hike south of that for a little bit.

She might get her hills wet.

Literally.

There are plenty of fragmitings if we.

Would it be under here, Jen?

The geologic information.

Uh would that show wetlands and blood planes and stuff like that.

Yeah, I think it would.

I think they thought they had access like right off 123rd, but I see that they have no.

Well, there is there is that straight parcel that the line could very well be um could very well be um right of way.

I don't think it needs to be more hounds, but that's maybe sense down over here.

You're digging that strip of rectangular.

Yeah, that could be the right of way.

That could be.

Uh I don't know how to do this.

I'm just messing around.

I'm sure the public would love that even as much.

Right.

Not humans.

I mean, it's all like horse property down there too.

Okay, I'll tell her you guys were cold.

No, we can make it she can they can make it open space and we'll see protection.

We just let them, yeah.

I mean, and maybe they want to give it to us.

I don't know.

I mean, they own open space at the end of the life park.

Like a lovely cemetery.

They want to develop it in that way.

This part of the cemetery.

I mean, that actually would be a good idea.

It would be an amazing spot.

Yeah.

Anyway, that's just that's I don't know what if it'll go much farther than that.

I think it's don't suggest that to Jenny.

To open up the road going through the flight park to that.

They own like I don't know, five acres at the end of the flight, but it's just undeveloped or eyes dust.

It could be a really beautiful cemetery.

Okay, so tell her we don't want to even involve this, but we want cemetery at the end.

Well, maybe an option.

I'm just saying that's lukewarm, not cold.

Okay.

I just don't merit it's I just don't think it's available.

Me either.

But I don't want it developed.

No.

I don't either, but I mean I I told her how would you bring it.

So anybody else have anything else?

We have a few minutes before our meeting.

Right, let's reconvene in seven then.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to our city council meeting.

I'd like to call our meeting to order and get us started.

Our first item of business is a pledge of allegiance, which is going to be offered this evening by our fire chief, Mr.

Clint Smith.

Go ahead, Chief.

I declare to the flag of the United States of America.

And just stands.

One nation under God.

Indivisible.

Thank you, Chief.

All right.

Chief Ferguson, are you ready, sir?

All right.

The next item on our agenda is some of the a tradition that's been going on for I think a solid decade at least.

And it's an opportunity for uh our police department to engage our community, primarily our our elementary school students, in a contest to pick the uh the annual police department a Christmas card.

Chief Ferguson, I'm gonna turn the time over to you, sir.

Go ahead.

Thank you, Mayor.

Council.

It is a fun time of year for us.

Um so as you know, every year we have uh the fifth grade classes submit um Christmas cards for the police department, and we get hundreds of cards, and it's a difficult task to go through them, but we um we've come up with our three finalists and our finalists, which many of you may have gotten in the mail already.

So I'd like to call first um up to the front, uh Raina Hall, who is our um third place card winner, and this is her card.

Raina, come on up.

Thank you very much.

So nice.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um our second place um card winner is my kid's family favorite now.

That's me in the corner if you didn't recognize me right off the bat.

And um, yeah, so uh Liam Cook.

Would you are you here?

Liam, come on up.

All right, and uh our winner this year, and I have broken the um frame, so I will replace that.

But is uh Zuri Jensen, and this is our card that we have sent out as our official card to um probably over a hundred police departments throughout uh the state and the United States.

So Liam or Zuri, are you here?

Come on up.

And then um anyway, we really appreciate these candidates and um I'm gonna excuse myself for just a moment and go out and have a little gift for them out in the hall.

I'll be back.

But thank you.

Thank you, Chief.

And I think they got your hair correct on that on that card, so pretty good.

Anyway, thank you.

It's a great tradition.

All right, the next item on our agenda is an opportunity for general public comment.

I know there's a lot of you here for a public hearing and maybe a few of the public hearings.

If you have a general public comment, this is an opportunity to address the council on a general item.

If you're here for a public hearing item, wait until that item's called so we can keep our record clear.

Is there anyone that would like to make a general public comment?

You gave me a card.

Is it general comment, or do you got one on a public hearing?

General.

Yeah, I just okay.

Come on up, Ron.

Come on up.

Ron knows the rules, but I'll give all of you the rules now for our public hearing.

Um everybody gets three minutes.

The clock's to my right.

Um, your left.

The clock has an obnoxious buzzer when it ends.

We give everyone three minutes, but we don't give anybody any more.

So if you have something to say, say it in three minutes, Ron.

Otherwise, your time will be up and we treat everybody fairly.

We just that's how we go.

So no applause, no cheering, just make your comment.

The comp the council will listen.

You know how to do it wrong.

Go ahead, sir.

Name and address.

That'll start the timer.

Okay.

My name is Ronald Schmidt.

Parkstone Rhyme.

Drive from Utah.

I have a petition from 36 people.

And uh Park Stone's Pet We received a letter on no garbage pink up.

The thing that we have is that our streets are from the standard of the city and the fire department, by the way.

And $37, just about double what we've been paying.

Uh park stone has a empty national 55 and older.

We have people in there hanging and in the 90s and on fixed income.

That's pretty tough for them, you know.

Like that.

Snap your finger and paying everything.

What we want to do, and we're asking if the council would reconsider.

Uh we had conversation with AIS.

They don't have any problem with come off the Rampherman would come off a pioneer.

Turn on the stage way, right hand turn on around, pick up our garbage, up in the west end, and I put in the pack and a copy of the final pot.

I've got pictures on uh notes in there, everything right up just out.

And so what we're saying is, I think rather than just say all street, ours is a real street, 25 foot one, where you come in on uh stage money off of pioneer.

It's 35 of asphalt.

I'm talking at all.

It has curbing gunner among time, and we don't have any signall because it was set up in an empty name.

All right, and walking in the street.

So anyway, uh each one of you has a petition.

You have the coffee of the people that are signed, and the president you'll change HOA signed it.

So we're not representing the HOA.

I'm representing the forming four people in our Hill Premier, I don't know.

Anyway, a third of our subdivision land is in open state.

We have three four homes and we have a lot and park.

Now, what city, what service do you give us?

You give us some plings to fire and admin between three and print.

And so we're the golden fish.

You don't have to pay in anything.

We can have you in my thanks, Ron.

Thank you.

All right, is there anyone else who would like to make a general public comment?

Go ahead.

Name and address, please.

Vivian Goobler, 1208 Parkstone Drive, Draper.

I have lived in the city for over 25 years, and I also am concerned about the increase in our garbage fees.

Um we represent the 36 individual home people that pay for their garbage to pay the 44 dollars for that that it came to our bill this month.

We were all shocked.

I know we received letters from the city about why, but we just feel that precedence was sent in the past.

I've always paid what every other citizen in Draper pays for this service, and we feel that we've been targeted.

We understand that there are areas of the city that are private roads that have problems, but we are not one of them.

I talked to the person in charge of the garbage, he's wonderful.

I talked to the city manager, wonderful.

I also talked the public works person called me.

Wonderful.

I even talked to your HR department head in the in the hall tonight and explained why it was here.

He just said, Oh, why are you here?

Because I was here early.

I wanted to sign in.

So I expect that we could have some change in this in this venue.

Um I have learned that Draper respects citizens of Draper, and we would like that respect extended to us in equal amounts that we do for every citizen in Utah.

We feel that we do not want to be, you know, because there are areas.

I know there are areas that are dangerous for the garbage department to go into.

I understand that, but we are not one of them.

I asked the garbage um captain, or I don't know the title, if there was anything that we did improperly or wrong, were we doing anything that caused a problem?

He said we were not.

He said he appreciated our business and liked coming into our area, and we really enjoyed their service.

They did an excellent job.

We really, really would like to have them back.

Not complaining about the new service because we haven't had them that long.

But I just feel that we need to go back and have the same service that we have always had and have always appreciated, and really want to have that treatment as has been set precedence for the 25 years that I have been in Draper.

So I appreciate your time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I like the term garbage captain, Robert.

It's a good good term.

Is there anyone else like to make a general public comment?

All right, seeing no further general public comments, so I'll close that public hearing.

Go to our items next, item number five.

These are items for the council's consent.

Item 5A is approval of the December 2nd, 2025 City Council meeting minutes.

Item 5B is approval of resolution 2576.

It's resolution of the Draper City Council adopting data privacy policy.

Item 5C is approval of resolution 2577.

It's a resolution reappointing David Hales and Jordan Putnam as members of the Draper City Historic Preservation Commission.

5D is approval of resolution 2578, a resolution reappointing John Mack as a member of the Draper City Parks, Trails and Recreation Committee.

Item 5E, resolution 2579, resolution of the council establishing the regular meeting schedule for the city council planning commission subordinate bodies and committees for the year 2026.

Item 5F approval of resolution 2580, a resolution of the Draper City Council approving City Council assignments for the year 2026.

Item 5G is approval resolution 2581.

It's a resolution of the city council electing Brynn Heather Johnson to serve as the mayor pro tem for the year 2026.

Mr.

Mayor.

Go ahead, Ms.

Fodry.

I move we approve consent items 5A through 5G.

We have a motion by Ms.

Vaudrey to approve the consent items.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

All right, second by Ms.

Lowry.

All right, motion by Ms.

Rodri.

Second by Miss Lowry.

Any further discussion on the consent items?

All right.

Ms.

Vaudery, how do you vote?

Yes.

Ms.

Lowry?

Yes.

Mr.

Lowry.

Yes.

Ms.

Johnson.

Yes.

All right.

Item passes four to zero.

That takes us to item six, six A.

I will know for the record, we have four council members present.

We are missing one of our council members, Michael Green.

Michael Green for the record is deployed in the service of the United States and will be gone for some extended period of time.

So he won't be able to participate in the meeting, and he won't be uh on the council seated here for the next uh six or seven months.

So just for the record for if you're wondering where Mr.

Green is.

Item 6A.

This is a public hearing.

It's orders number 1688 and ordinance 1689.

It's an ordinance amending the official land use map and an ordinance amending the official zoning map of Draper City for approximately 17.88 acres of property located approximately 13782 South 300 East, known as the Bangater Crossroads Land Use Map and Zoning Map Amendments.

We'll have his initial staff report by Mr.

Todd Draper.

Go ahead, sir.

All right, thank you.

As you mentioned, this is the land use map and zoning map amendment for the Bangor Crossroads project.

This is the vicinity map.

You can see the general property there outlined in red, uh north of 138 south and uh just uh east of the Bangater Highway.

And this is the aerial view of that.

It is vacant at this time.

And the current land use map as portions of the property in the uh medium uh residential density, low medium residential density, and in the office service uh land use categories.

Current zoning map for all those different parcels is RA1, and the request is to uh change this to a regional commercial zone or CR zone, and then uh the same uh regional commercial land use designation for the land use map.

This is a conceptual site plan that the applicant did include with their uh submittal, and again the regional commercial designation is uh here uh listed from our general plan, including wide range of commercial uses, uh combined uh destination-oriented businesses, retail commercial entertainment related uses, and this would be large-scale master plan commercial centers, big box centers, things like that.

And this would be appropriate in the location with excellent transportation access to major highways and strategically placed along high traffic corridors.

This is the purpose of the CR zone.

I'm not gonna go through and read it all, but uh it's essentially there for our uh regional commercial.

Just a quick list of some of the permitted uses that would be allowed in the CR zone, such as uh convenience stores, uh restaurant retail, uh, veterinary services, and then some of the conditional uses.

Again, these are not all inclusive lists.

This could include, say, a car wash or entertainment, uh recreation entertainment outdoor.

And then here are a couple of site photos of the property.

This is looking north, um, and then uh from the uh south uh west corner, kind of towards the northeast corner, and then again over on third west, looking towards the west.

The planning commission did review this and forwarded negative recommendations on both the uh land use map and zoning map amendments.

Uh their concerns were that a development agreement they felt should be included and that it would need to address potential height of buildings, landscape buffers, and street improvements.

Uh with that, um we have provided an ordinance that uh provides for a delayed timeline for effectiveness of that ordinance.

Uh, if you choose to approve these tonight, it would uh require the applicant to submit for a development agreement no later than December 29th, and then have that agreement go through the review process and be fully executed and recorded on a reform May 7th.

Uh, if uh it passes that to May 8th, the ordinance has a provision in it that would render it and all and void at that point, and the land use and zoning designations would revert.

And with that, I know I uh handed you one last public comment that came in late this evening.

I don't know if you've had time to review that, and then the other public comments were provided earlier via email or uh together with the staff pack and report.

Are there any other questions you might have for me?

Questions for Mr.

Draper?

Mr.

Draper, could you just give a little bit more detail about what happened at Planning Commission?

It was denied, but that was basically because there was a need for a development agreement.

They recommended denial to the city council.

Uh that was one of the main issues was uh more than one commissioner uh expressed a desire that a some kind of a development agreement perhaps come in uh with this.

Uh there was concerns again again about that building height.

Uh the the uh CR zone allows a 45-foot building height where surrounding residential be limited to 35.

Uh, and then there was some concern with the uh landscape buffers between existing residential and uh potential future commun commercial center if this is approved.

Thank you.

Any other questions for Mr.

Draper?

All right, the applicant here.

Come on up, sir.

Give us your name and address.

Mr.

Mayor, members of the council, my name is Dwayne Rasmussen, address 1224 West Samuel Holt Drive in South Jordan.

I'm representing Mr.

Tom Lloyd, the owner of the property tonight.

I'm associated with a company called Castlewood Development, whose office is in Midvale.

And I'd like to just give you a little background here and be ready to answer any of the questions that you may have.

First and foremost, uh, this property has been talked about both publicly and privately for a long time.

And Mr.

Lloyd has been engaged on occasion with several major tenants who are interested in this property.

And before bringing anything to the city council, we thought the first thing to do was probably to address the existing difficult traffic conditions that are there and perhaps meet the needs of a of a future development at this intersection.

Mr.

Lloyd contracted with uh a firm to go to the state legislature and secure 3.45 million dollars in road funds to be distributed through Draper for the construction of these off-site improvements.

Uh Todd, could I have you pull up the aerial for just a second?

Thank you.

The improvements that were uh stipulated in the traffic study which was submitted to you and been amended a couple of times, but the improvements never really changed, call for improvements that I'd like to point out right now.

From the entrance there on 138 south going west, there's an additional lane that will be widened there.

And when you get to the corner of 138 south to go on to Bangetor High there highway, there will be a dedicated right-hand turn lane that you can make a turn without stopping.

Then going along Bangator Highway, there is a new lane to be constructed all the way along the front edge of this property to 150 east, and there'll be a stoplight in the center of Bangator Highway about midway through the through the project.

There is also improvements to the corner of 138 south, uh calling for a dual left-hand turn lane off 138 south head south on Bangetter Parkway.

And that will take.

I'm going to get into just a minute what the level of service at those intersections are now and what they will be.

There's also improvements to the signal at 150 East and Bangator Highway, which uh allow for a much better operation of that particular signal both now and in the future.

Uh I gave to Todd earlier today a little summation of our traffic study.

Todd, could I get you to bring that up?

And just the aerial portion of it if you would.

On the left is the verbiage outlining the the uh improvements that I just talked about, but I'd like to just start at the top in the current conditions of 2025.

And currently the intersection of third east and 138 south operates at a level of service E.

The intersection of 138 South and Bangator Parkway operates at a level of service D.

When those improvements go in that I just described, and I'll add one additional thing to that.

We have agreed, I think, with the public works department in Draper City that uh they will install a traffic signal at the corner of 30s and 138 south.

When those things are done on along 138 south, that intersection goes to a level of service A in existing conditions, and the corner of Bangator Highway and 138th goes to a level of service C.

Then when you add a shopping center to it in the year 2040, which not only takes into account the additional traffic that will be brought about by the shopping center, but additional growth in that area as well.

The intersection of 100 or 30s and 138 south goes to a C, and the intersection of 138th and uh and Bangator Parkway goes back to a D, but it operates much more fluidly because of the right-hand turn lane, the dedicated right-hand turn lane, and because of the dual lefts off of off of that.

Those are the major pinch points right now.

If you have any questions about that, I'm happy to answer them when I finish here.

But I just wanted you to see what those improvements do to existing conditions and to the conditions when the shopping center is built.

So, with the federal the estate funding that Mr.

Lloyd secured on behalf of Draper at the uh at the legislature, these improvements will be paid for, and it's our anticipation that these improvements will go in starting in March or April this year, dependent weather dependent.

So we're anxious to get started on that.

The drawings have been submitted and approved.

Um, whether there's any development or not for us to improve these road conditions.

Um a word about uh commissioner or uh councilman Lowry's question about the planning commission.

I I think Todd stated it correctly.

They really wanted to see a development agreement in place here.

And I hope that we'll find some conditions that will allow you to approve this subject to a development agreement.

We've had some conversations with the staff now.

We took into account a lot of what our neighbors said in the in the planning commission hearing.

I'm going to go over a list of things that we think need to be addressed in that development agreement right now, and then we'll have time to submit that between now and the 29th of December.

Those things involve perimeter fencing adjoining residential areas, both the height, the materials of the of the uh of any fence separation and landscaping adjacent to the fence on both sides in some cases.

All building setbacks will be addressed in this, uh, and I don't think we're gonna find an issue with regard to building setbacks on the on streets, etc.

Building heights, we are okay with 35 feet being having it limited to 35 feet.

We'll address site lighting with the staff, uh, particularly those areas that are adjacent to residential areas.

Some of the some of the areas out along Bangator Highway will need probably a little bit more lighting, but we'll be away from the residential areas.

A word about third east.

We anticipate that any center that goes there will need uh uh an access from third east, a ride in right out is what we're anticipating, and the traffic study showed that.

Um site plan will include access accommodating a right turn to right and right turn in and a right turn out, but no right turn in and right turn out, but no entries from the from the left coming north.

Uh Draper City will agree to install that step traffic light at 30 east, as I've already said, and we will ensure in the delivery in the development agreement that there will be no delivery trucks entering into or off of 300 east.

Um details along third east need to be addressed in the development agreement, such as a wall, the height of the wall, a berm behind the building, screening the building and the loading docks and all of the rear activity area in any uh retailer that goes there.

It's also been discussed with the staff, and I think uh you can credit your planning staff for this.

That one of the issues that came up with some of the neighbors last time was that third east is hard to cross from a pedestrian standpoint.

We have agreed to install uh uh uh what they call a hock signal there to allow pedestrians to activate it and and have flashing lights and have them cross that pedestrian area safely.

And lastly, we will agree to uh any use restrictions uh that we that we can live with long term, and I think most of those objectionable uses such as bars and and nightclubs and things like that will be eliminated, convenience stores eliminated, uh, other things that I can just speak to right now, but we'll hopefully get that development agreement back to you in the planning commission sometime early next year.

We'll have it submitted to the to the planning staff by uh December 29th, as Todd suggested.

Um I'm happy to answer any of the questions you may have.

I think that pretty well addresses the issues.

Um we want our neighbors to know that we want this to be a first class project.

We want it to work for Draper.

We we think it's a terrific area for can additional commercial development that will bring uh activity to Draper City, and we're happy to answer.

I'm happy to answer any questions you have.

If not, you want me to wait until the neighbors have spoken.

I'm happy to come back up.

Any questions for the applicant right now?

I have one uh question, Mr.

Rasmussen.

With this traffic study here, we look at the 2026 conditions with the improvements with uh that intersection at 138th and 300 east, with these improvements improving it from an E-grade to an A grade.

Um where does it contemplate if there's a ride in ride out with use from that?

It's it's taken into account in the body of the study.

I I didn't show that, we didn't show that particular intersection because we don't see any conflict up there.

This was the biggest conflict in the in the in the uh in the study area, so that will function uh at at an acceptable level of service without any conflict, but we did want to address this particular intersection because it currently backs up as you know from Bangtur all the way to this intersection and sometimes beyond with that dedicated right-hand turn lane onto Bangator without having to stop.

Uh, that will that will uh really make that intersection function much better.

One other thing, perhaps well, I'm I I didn't remember to address, and that is we are talking with the city of to you dot about extending that lane onto the freeway from Bangor Highway so that there is no uh bottleneck there, and they have been open to that, and we're working with the Draper staff to talk to you about that.

I mean across 150 150 east, yes, across 150 east to the freeway.

Yes.

Any other questions for the applicant this time?

All right, thank you, sir.

You get the last word since you've applied.

Thank you, Mayor.

All right, all right.

This is a public hearing, uh, ordinance number 1688, ordinance number 1689.

Um this is the way we work.

Um, I have a number of cards that people have submitted, which I'll call, but our policy is to let anyone that would like to speak have an opportunity to speak.

So we don't we don't restrict the number of public comments on an item.

Our rules are really easy.

Come to the podium, give us your name and your address.

That'll start your time.

Everybody gets three minutes, nobody gets more than that, so this just a way our rules are.

The council will listen to you.

Um, they won't address you and answer questions specifically over the dais, but they'll they may discuss it later, and you can hear their discussion.

But it's an opportunity for you to make public comment to the council.

So that being said, the first card is Rosemary Thomas.

Come on up.

Hello, I'm Rosemary Thomas, 13703 Brown Farm Lane.

I believe you've already made up your minds on this proposal before hearing your constituents' comment, and also despite the planning commission's negative recommendation.

But here's my last ditch effort.

My family has lived east of the proposed development for 23 years.

We've raised our family here, invested in the neighborhood, and watched Draper grow.

We are not opposed to growth.

We understand that change is part of a healthy city, and that this property cannot remain zoned exactly as it is.

What is being proposed does not align with what councilman Mike Green recently described as matching the development pattern around the existing property.

The pattern here has historically been residential.

For decades, there was a natural buffer along Third East in the form of older single family homes.

That buffer existed until the land was purchased by the current landowner.

With those homes removed, the responsibility to provide a meaningful transition did not disappear.

It shifted to the city and to the developer.

Our primary concern is the protection of Third East and the transition between this development and both long established neighborhoods and newly built homes.

Third East has increasingly become a busy residential street, allowing any access from this development will only intensify traffic problems.

Once commercial or high density traffic is introduced, Third East will no longer function as a neighborhood street.

It becomes a cut through that directly affects safety and livability.

We've repeatedly been told there would be a buffer, yet with each revision, that promise has been reduced.

A buffer that exists only on paper is not a buffer.

If commercial development is approved next to residential neighborhoods, the Berman buffer must be substantial, permanent, and enforceable, not symbolic and not something that can be changed later.

If growth must occur here, why can't a smaller development blueprint be considered one that fully protects third east and includes no access point?

For years, this area has been defined by residential neighborhoods.

Zoning decisions should protect that character, not slowly dismantle it.

We respectfully ask that you require no entrance or connection to Third East, now or ever.

A meaningful permanent berm and buffer.

Zoning that aligns with the established residential character of this area.

We are asking for a development footprint that honors commitments and respect for existing neighborhoods.

Thank you for your time and for considering the people who already call this neighborhood home.

Thank you, Rosemary.

Next, Christina Kessler Day.

Nice job, Rosemary.

I've lived in the neighborhood for 22 years.

Give us your name and address, please.

My name's Christina Kessler Day.

I live at 448 Brown Farm Lane, which is adjacent to the old Dam Janovich property.

Um I've been coming to Draper since I was 18 years old.

I'm 57, almost 58, so that's a long time.

So I remember Third East when it was nothing.

And somebody a while back said it's always been a busy road.

It hasn't been.

And we've been fighting ever since to keep it zoned for housing.

And I think Rosemary was correct when she said that Draper City has a responsibility to uphold what it says it's gonna do.

And the people on the city council in the past backed us up.

And Mr.

Lloyd has never cared.

We need somebody to care.

This isn't this is a thriving healthy neighborhood, not just Brown Farm, but the element, all of the housing around there.

We've got kids and we know each other.

And having an ingress and an egress on third east is not gonna work for us.

It's zoned residential.

Mr.

Lloyd knew that when he bought it.

And no matter what you do, changing it to commercial is not what Draper City represented to the rest of us for 20-something years, including when we bought our our lot.

And um that's what I want to say.

I think that it's disingenuous, and I think it shows a lack of integrity on Draper's part to throw their residents under the bus like this.

And also just an interesting point for you.

Mr.

Rasmussen said that Mr.

Lloyd had secured funding through the state legislature on behalf of Draper.

You know, that doesn't sound very nice.

It sounds like he's saying, we scratched your back, now you scratch ours.

And anybody paying attention is gonna pick up on that.

Mr.

Lloyd secured funding from the Utah State Legislature for UDOT changes to the street so that he can get what from Draper City.

That's what it sounds like.

So this isn't just a question of are you gonna protect our neighborhoods?

It's a it's a question of the integrity of the people on the city council and the integrity of Draper City.

If somebody scratches your back just right, are you gonna pay him back?

Thank you.

All right, the next card I have is Gus Bernardo.

Hope I'm saying that right.

I apologize if I'm not.

Go ahead.

Come on up, sir.

Maybe you're correct.

It's because Bernardo and I leave at 136 away south, Charlene.

Uh, my property uh borders the the property in question here.

Uh I just uh just want to resonate with Rosemary and Christina just said over here about uh the concerns we have about these development.

And uh I did write a letter to the council and uh and to the mayor to about some of the concerns I have in and to uh Mr.

Rasim Rasmussen and Mr.

Lloyd uh uh the considerations they've uh talk about over here today about higher fancy and uh substantial burn um buffer, you know, for our homes, especially our homes uh uh uh our backyards is uh borders this property and those as well as the you know the three under yeast uh um property we talking about uh um it's just we we share the same concerns that just being spoken here in uh we just like to see the if there's improvements on this if there's taking considerations that concerns we have about even making our um property uh more a little more protected from uh from the lights, traffic or sounds, or um docks or whatever is is being uh how is this proposal development proposals being designed.

So I'm just making this short and appreciate your time to listen to me.

Um next.

Sorry, look like I had bad hand writing.

Uh my name's Robbie Sitz.

Okay, okay, we'll take that.

Um I live at 1359 Shirlane.

Umce again saying my property backs right up to the proposed property.

Um and the biggest concern that I have is with the increase in traffic that is potential for this happening is what about the potential with the kids and everybody around this area as was spoken to earlier.

Um, I initially called the city, and I said this in the planning commission about putting something better at the 300 East and Stokes Avenue crossing due to the high rate of speed in which everybody goes and not paying attention to people trying to cross that crosswalk.

Um, there is a school zone light there, but it is specifically for Channing Hall, and they never turn it on because it's only for Channing Hall from what I've been told, and 10 kids need a cross there in order to be turned on.

Um, but my kids like to go over and play with the other kids on Farm Hollow, Brown Farm, all that.

And I have had to go several times to sit there on that corner and make sure that they do not get hit by passer by cars who are not paying attention.

If somebody's making left hand turn onto Stokes from 300, the people going south on 300 do not pay attention to anybody in that crossrock whatsoever.

Um, so I did ask for that Hawkeye system, and I know Mr.

Rasmussen did state that they are willing to put that in.

I just want to make sure that that's actually what would happen if this was to pass because if they want access to 300, it will increase traffic there, regardless of a right in, right out or a traffic light there.

Um, 4 30 in the afternoon to 6 30 in at night is a complete uh crap show.

I'll keep it nice on 300 and also on 138.

I mean, it's atrocious trying to navigate that at that point in time.

Um, I'm sure some of you have driven that.

Um, but and then just to echo what Gus said, you know, lighting and protection for the homes there just off of 300, Ireland Lane, 135, you know, 3560 there that all back it, especially those on you know, Shur Lane and Ireland Lane, and then 135 South that don't have any type of protection so far.

I mean, I look straight at lights all night for Bangater Highway, and I look at Harman's and I look at the bill sign, and I see it all all the time.

And if we're putting another building there, it's just gonna be brighter.

So just some protection for that area to keep it quiet, keep it nice, and allow us to you know have some privacy from what could potentially be there.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Next card, last card I have is Mr.

Matt Smith.

Good evening, City Council.

Thank you very much for your time.

My name is Matt Smith.

I live at 329 East Brown Farm Lane.

While I'm not generally opposed to commercial expansion across Bangor Highway, I'm asking I asked that the city council not approve the zoning change for three key reasons.

First, as Rosemary indicated, the expanding commercial zoning all the way to 300 east will permanently damage the character of surrounding neighborhoods.

Even with berms, trees, or walls, the neighborhood is going to be changed forever.

When many of us bought our homes, there were residences along 300 east, and we relied on the expectation that the residential zoning would be preserved.

Second, many nearby residents are strongly opposed to any commercial property access on 300 East.

The proposed development and the 22-2022 traffic study both call for an entrance or exit on the 300 East.

With all due respect, even a right in or right out access to the property conveys your acceptance of spillover traffic into our neighborhood and worsened congestion on an already overburdened road.

Mr.

Rasmussen referred to the traffic study.

The traffic study that was conducted in 2022, and the 2023 update are simply outdated.

In 2022, many of us were just coming back to the office from COVID.

Further, the study does not factor in localized growth, such as the new hotel, the Chick-fil-A, or other general population growth that has occurred between 2022 and 2025.

The study is also based on as much smaller footprint than what is now proposed.

The traffic study does not include the two restaurants, two other retail centers, and a bank that appear in the application.

While the planned improvements that Mr.

Rasmussen referred to may improve current conditions, a new study is needed to ensure that surrounding intersections still operate at acceptable levels once trips from a development of this scale are added.

Third, approving this zoning change without a completed development agreement and updated traffic study is simply premature.

Several of you have said that you can only vote on what is in front of you.

So why approve zoning without a final site plan, a traffic analysis, or binding negotiations and mitigations?

Approving zoning first shifts long term risk to residents at future councils.

Finalizing a development agreement first protects the city residents and developer through clarity and accountability.

Binding access and buffering commitments and meaningful input from meaningful input from the most impacted neighbors.

Taking more time now avoids greater problems later.

Please do not allow commercial expansion onto 300 east.

Do not permit access to 300 east and ensure the development is sized.

So all intersections operate at acceptable levels long term.

Do not please give up your negotiating leverage by approving zoning prematurely.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, that's all the cards I have.

Like I said, our policies to let anyone speak that wants to.

I'm assuming there are more of you that like to make public comment.

Um, I'll just take you in order if people that are interested.

Who would like to make an uh a public comment on this item to the council?

Someone's raising our hand back there.

Come on up, give us your name and address, sir.

Yeah.

I can't tell what jacket you're wearing.

No, not that guy walking out.

We want him to go.

Um, just come on up.

Yeah.

Give us your name and address, please.

My name is Robert James at 248 East 13800 South.

Um, we live in the Rockwell condo unit just facing north, and we can see over the across the whole um developed proposed developed unit.

And I see traffic there all the time.

It's even worse than the previous um people have said.

I look out our front window there and I see traffic backed up clear up to 30 east, is backed up on 30 inner south.

And it's also backed up on Bangar Highway clear from the from the I-15 um exit, cleared back to the 1300 south and even beyond.

It's actually it's really bad the traffic and and the the band the leeway that the um the developers trying to suggest is not gonna work.

The traffic's just too much, and if they put a light between 138th and 150 east, I'm not sure how that's gonna work if they say if they're gonna continue with no light situation, there's still light there in between the one 150th and 138th.

I looked out the window tonight because I can see the traffic all the time, especially evenings as the previous people have said the traffic is really bad.

It's backed up all the way, the standstill basically all the way to the highway I-15.

And so I I suggest that yeah, developing plans should be in place more than just simple words.

Actually, it should be in place in fact and should be uh not developed for business but for residential as it's as it is right now.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Who would like to be next?

Come on up.

You gotta pick yourselves.

Come on, come on up.

Hi, my name is Brandon Thomas.

I live at 366 Brown Farm Lane.

Uh I request uh that you defer your vote on this until the development plan is complete.

I uh recommend you accept the recommendation of your planning commission and vote no until 300 East is completely blocked from access.

I do not believe the right turn in and out will sufficiently handle the increased traffic that we often see from 138th all the way past Stokes Avenue.

Anytime there's any sort of freeway traffic, everyone abandons it trying to get up through the uh Alpine route to get home, and so we see substantial traffic already on 300 East.

Uh, I support uh the other comments that were made that the traffic study is outdated and that the size of the development far exceeds uh what was originally planned and ask you to uh defer your vote until all of that has been sorted.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Who'd like to be next?

Come on up.

Good evening, council.

My name is Joshua Hogarth.

I live at 287 East Concord Farm Lane.

Um Draper, Utah, 84020.

Um I own a tr uh civil engineering firm, and I have looked over these plans.

Um it is a bit disturbing.

I look at the Hells Engineering and traffic study.

It is my professional opinion that 300 East and 138 South is not sufficient.

I believe it will still remain an E grade uh road right there for traffic.

Looking at it, I see that there's three homes there.

Um it's as if you if you wanted to complete that, you would need to demolish those and start to add the lanes into there.

Um the other thing is is looking at the map.

I looked at the map before I came here.

Um kind of at that bottom left hand corner when it jogs up, Utah actually owns to that section right there, and then Draper City owns below that towards the traffic light.

Um I know that the representative of the Lloyds had mentioned uh, you know, an in and out on the back side, but also right there.

I you know, looking at that, I believe the traffic would be congested.

Um the in and out on the back of that.

I I I concur with some of the statements.

I I see what you're hearing tonight from these folks, they're not wrong.

Um, they're actually dead on.

Uh and I would stake my business on that.

Um besides the point, um there are some concerns with kind of zoning.

Um, just to be quick.

Typically, uh when you're going from an RA1 to a commercial, most development doesn't happen like that.

It usually what happens is you kind of progressively go through that.

And I think you know, that's probably something that your zoning and uh planning is probably looking at this and going, you know, there's really no way to accommodate it.

And I I believe their recommendation is right.

Um with that, I what is concerning with you is typically UDOT has plans.

I looked at their plans, and there's there's no plan uh for this on UDOT's website.

Anyone can go on there and look at any plan at any time.

Um granted they are probably talking to them, but you dot changes all the time.

I work with them, the Department of Interior, the Bureau of Reclamation, um, and there's nothing there.

Uh I would suggest that you hold off on this vote and collect some more information.

Um, definitely look at the development.

I do know that there's been a comment about development over here being commercial.

This is our a this is all still uh residential zoning around that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Who'd like to be next Carolyn Phippin, 363 Brown Farm Lane.

I think the point's been made about a hundred times that these roads are completely um incapable of accommodating the massive new traffic that would be uh necessary in order to make this development something that is economically feasible.

Um, and just because there's no way to appropriately transition this area to the very high density commercial that the owner is seeking, does not mean that the city should throw aside all of their past plans and all of the basically commitments made to the residents who own properties around here.

The expectation that all of us had in purchase of our properties around here is that not necessarily that this would remain as residential one acre, but that it certainly would not be the highest density commercial that could even exist, especially with the issues that exist on these roads.

It's been brought up that third east is backed up any time there's an issue on I-15.

That's at least every other day.

It is nearly impossible to get out in a timely manner during rush hour onto third east currently, and opening up third east to uh a commercial property right across the street.

It uh surrounded actually on three sides two sides by multi-million dollar homes is pretty outrageous.

And I think that all of the comments, most of the comments that have been made are reflective of the fact that nothing about this makes sense with the plan that Draper has put forward in the past.

The um assumptions that were not assumptions, the plans that were put in writing when the city made their plans that all of us had access to in purchasing our properties, and then you know, we've all seen what's happened on 123rd.

It's hardly a navigable road anymore.

The same thing will happen to 138th, and the same thing will happen to 30s.

There will be no decent way to even get out of Draper onto the freeway or off of the freeway.

So please reconsider and please ensure reconsider.

I say that because I think decisions I'm around enough to know decisions are made before you even show up here.

But I'm hoping that third east will be cut off for traffic into this development makes absolutely no sense for those who actually live in Draper and pay the property taxes here.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Who'd like to be next?

Anyone else?

All right.

Seeing no further public comment, I'll close the public comment period and bring us back to the council.

Um applicant, if you want to readdress the council after the public comment, you're certainly entitled.

Do you want to?

I I point out two things.

One is these levels of service that I showed to you earlier are all done at peak hour traffic and take into account the worst case scenario.

And secondly, this traffic study was updated, and your your engineers have a copy of it in October 30, 2025, and October 2nd, 2025, or December 2nd, 2025.

And the reason for those updates was the the uh the October 2025 was to reflect the new square footage in the building in the site plan, and the uh December one was to reflect the 30th exit.

So the staff, your staff engineering staff has those, and that's where that came from.

Uh sit down unless you have any more questions.

Um I have a I have a question about um the intersections that you said uh were uh rated at a D.

Um does that reflect the newest traffic study that you're talking about in October of this year?

It does.

Um an E is worse than D, is that correct?

Indeed it is.

Okay, I I just went through that intersection tonight.

I would say it was probably not a D, but more like an E.

So I'm just wondering what the what does the traffic level?

Intersectioning you're talking about.

138th and Bangetter.

Yeah, uh that is clearly a D today at peak hour, and sometimes could operate at an E.

Um, but that's peak hour throughout the day at peak hour, it will be a D.

When the center goes in, it will be a C after we put these improvements in until the center comes, and that's data to clear out at 2040.

And um from what I've seen when I've driven through there at the at the peak hour, it seems like the issue is actually bangetter past the freeway.

And has any of that been addressed?

Would you repeat that one more?

So um you can't it's not uh to me, it doesn't seem like it's freeway traffic.

That's the issue.

It's crossing across the freeway on Bangetor, staying on Bangetter.

Has that been addressed with you dot?

Are you talking about traffic coming off of bang off of the freeway onto Bangater?

No, I'm talking about Draper residents trying to leave or anyone in Draper trying to leave Draper going go to Riverton, you know, IKEA to go across Bangit or across the freeway.

No, we just looked at this particular area uh to make sure it would function.

Okay.

Yeah.

Todd, do you have those?

So my concern is this intersection here that goes from a D to a C back to a D.

Is there any other options that would improve that rating so that it would not drop again?

Commissioner Lowry, I don't think so because we've taken into account again worst case scenario and all the options available within we've expanded the right-of-way, we've added two left turns off of 138th to go south on Bangar Highway.

And I I think that that intersection, if I were to look at the the data in more detail, would be a problem coming from the west going through that intersection and coming from the north going through the excuse me from the south going through the intersection.

But a D in the world of traffic is acceptable when it gets down to an E and an F is when it gets to failure.

As I told the planning commission, and I don't think the residents appreciated it very much, but I tried to convince my dad for a long time that a D was acceptable in school.

And that that's that empirically doesn't add up, but a D in the traffic world is acceptable in terms of level of service.

I I've got a question with that too, Tasha.

In the I'm trying to think why does it move from 2026 to 2040 from a C to a D.

Is that really the impact of what's happening north of 138th?

Or is it just because in 2040 the population is going to increase in other areas of Draper?

I I think you've hit it right on.

I don't mean to answer the question, but I think it it reflects additional population and initial growth in this entire area, not just the center.

The center doesn't cause that, it takes it clear out to 2040.

I did you have any more questions, Tasha, before I go ahead.

Um I had a question about uh these road improvements that UDOT's working with and things.

There's comments saying they don't see any of that on UDOT's site.

This might be an answer, Todd, for the staffed answer, but can we address that?

Because the way I understand it, that this project's underway for these improvements to be done, regardless of what is going to be built on this property.

I can answer that if you like staff do fine, otherwise I can.

Yeah, if you I know Scott isn't able to be with us tonight, so maybe you can help fill in on that.

Yeah, it wouldn't be on UDOT site because the improvements are to non-UDOT roads.

These droves are all owned by Draper City right now, and that's why you have approved them, and that's why it's not on UDOT's plan.

But I I think he's talking about north of 150.

So you U Dot hasn't drawn plans up for that, correct?

No, not yet, no.

But we have approach them, and uh they are in the process of of uh figuring out how to fund that and get it done in conjunction with these improvements that we're putting in.

You go back to the overall map of this project.

Will you point out to me using the map where the exits are from the project and whether you can turn right or left at those points?

The exit on to third east is right across from Brown's farm lane.

Uh it will inter it'll intersect with that, and we can start there.

Okay.

The exit onto 138th is where the little notch comes out onto 138th.

The exit onto Bangator Highway, it's about midway up there.

Is uh it's just you can move you can move that mouse, Dwayne.

Oh, so this exit on to 138th.

Pardon me?

The exit onto 138th with the non-138.

If I can get this thing under control, that's that is a right turn in and a right turn out only.

There's no left turn in there.

Okay.

The intersection of Bangor Highway and the new traffic signal.

I can't get it up there because that what about there we go.

Um will be approximately right there.

And what how can you go there?

It's a traffic signal you can go right in, right out, and left in, but no left out.

Because U DOT and Draper City, neither one of them wanted to stop traffic coming down Bangator Highway.

So no left out there.

No left out, we have to do that.

So that the traffic coming on Bangar will continue to free flow.

Okay, so the people that live in South Mountain cannot turn left there to get back to their homes.

They cannot turn left to go out.

Okay.

They can left turn left to go in, it will stop traffic coming north on demand.

Okay, keep going.

Okay, and then the other entrance is at 150 east right here at this corner of the property.

That too is right in, right out.

I keep it.

Okay.

So anyone who lives up the mountain at all, how are they shopping here and then returning up the mountain?

They they can come out the 138th opening right there.

But that frequently backs.

It's gonna be very hard to get all the way over to the left-hand turn lane.

I I think the traffic studies will show that with these new improvements and the traffic no longer backing up on 138th because of having to stop to get on to Bangit or will free flow, and there will be plenty of breaks in there where you can make that turn.

The the difficult movement will be for those people coming out of Rockwell Square, and the traffic study clearly points that out.

But they can come out there, they could also go out the third east exit, turn right on 138th, come down and turn left and go up Bangar Parkway.

Okay, but there's no way to turn left onto Bangarder or 150th.

There is not uh at UDOT's objection, and I think your Draper City engineers agreed with that too, that it didn't make any sense to stop that high high speed traffic coming south on Bangar Highway.

Why not left on 150 east?

Why is it yeah, or somebody?

Just because of the proximity to the to the signal.

It's right, yeah.

Access management says not to do that.

Okay.

Any other questions for Mr.

Rasmussen?

Any questions for staff?

Thank you, Dwayne.

Thank you very much.

Let me ask you one more question, Joan.

We've heard these public comments concerns around these substantial buffers, protection from lights, making them downward facing walls.

Are those things that you have taken into consideration here?

Yes, those are things that we think need to be addressed in the development agreement.

And we will we will in the development agreement attach exhibits showing what will be built, how high it will be, how far the berm, how high the berm is, how high the wall is on top of the berm, what you can see from the east of it.

Uh again, there's no building in this development that's any higher than 35 feet high, which would be a two-story home.

It's my understanding from staff that if this potential development agreement were not able to mitigate these concerns, and we did not come to agreement, then the any zone change would not go into effect.

That's been our conversation with staff to this point as well.

It gives us a chance to work through that, and I think address a lot of these concerns that I brought up tonight that the neighbors have brought up, and to be able to bring that back to you in a form that will be acceptable to you.

It may not always be we I don't think we can meet every concern that the neighbors have, but we're going to try and do the best we can and accommodate this type of development.

Are you amenable to holding some meetings with the neighbors to further investigate these concerns and what can be done to mitigate them?

Absolutely.

And so I'm open to do that today, tomorrow or early next week before Christmas.

Well, and the week before.

I also believe we have until May to finalize approval.

Is that just the application?

Okay.

Thank you.

Anything else?

Well, can I just restate the way I understood the things that you'd be looking at to mitigate in the development agreement?

And was the the building height, landscape berm, a wall on top of that berm.

Uh no construction traffic on 300 east or construction and no delivery for the center eventually.

Um the ride in, right out on 300 east.

Um there's been mention about the traffic study about being an A-grade intersection.

Also a hock signal on 300 east with the crosswalk.

Right.

And that the lighting would be controlled in a way that it could be downward or mitigated along those property owners.

And then also there was a note I think is I'm aware of that this size of store has been reduced from what we originally heard.

Well, if you go way back historically, there was a time there was 120,000 square foot footprint on here.

Now we're proposing about a hundred, which is plus or minus.

Um, and then we but at the time we were talking about that, we didn't know what else was going to go on the site.

For example, there was a time when we had a hotel in it, that's no longer a consideration and could be left out of the uh potential uses.

Uh it's just strictly retail at this point.

That was the other item was that we also be able to limit what uses would be utilized on that property.

Yeah, and we're we're gonna propose a list of those to the staff just as soon as we can get to it, and we'll take input from the neighbors as well.

We're happy to do that.

Okay, Mr.

Barker, can you clarify that the application is due, but we'll still have plenty of time to address some of these valid concerns that have come up I'll defer to Jim, but that that's my understanding.

Yeah, so the ordinance stipulates that they make their application for the development agreement by December 29th.

That gives us time to work on that and have that back and forth.

Um Mr.

Rasmussen can have neighborhood meetings during that time as well.

Um with the goal that by May we've adopted and recorded a development agreement.

But that certainly is more time than December.

Right.

That gives us a six-month period, really.

Yes, yeah, nailed.

Right, yeah.

But you don't have the time pressure of neighborhood meetings within the next week.

You can meet with the neighbors the next six months.

Now that we've talked, no, we can't, because we can't be making changes to it.

But now that we've talked about it, it gives me an idea that maybe what we ought to do is submit a draft development agreement to the staff, have their opinion on that, and we'll take that to the neighbors and let them weigh in on what's in that.

Uh recognizing that we won't agree on all points, but we're happy to do that.

You bet.

Thank you.

Sure.

Any other questions?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any questions for staff?

No, I think I'm just gonna probably restate what Ms.

Lowry said, but I just is that uh if there are things that we're not agreeable to on the development agreement, we don't have to pass this.

So if it's something that we're not agreeable to, then it will revert back to what its current zoning is.

And it actually reverts back to planning commission, so it starts the process again.

Yeah, well, it won't revert because it will never have actually taken effect.

Right.

So it'll remain as our it'll remain as RA1 until the develop either a development agreement is agreed upon or May 8th comes along.

Well, even then it would still remain if if there was no development agreement.

The way that this is drafted as an ordinance is that it has I think what you could call a sunset clause or somewhat or if you don't have a recorded development agreement duration date, then it it essentially is it doesn't go into effect at all.

So it will just remain in its current zoning and land use designations.

All right, council members.

It's well up to you to take action.

I guess the just a comment on this, Mr.

Mayor, too.

Is this with the the time that I've been on the council?

This property has been a difficult one.

And uh it's always been a topic of discussion from when I first came on the council, and uh you know, there was a townhome project, I think that was presented there, and that was adamantly not wanted, and I think the council pulled back on that.

Then there was an office building complex, which had even homes buffered on 300 east, and that was also adamantly not wanted, which I was not in favor of either, because I didn't want to have some high story office buildings coming off Bangar and ruin our view of Corner Canyon.

So then it also then comes to well, what can be a project that we can somewhat control in a way to help mitigate um the effect of this area, and I recognize this is a difficult one for those that are around that live near this area.

I I do, and uh it's a difficult decision.

I do appreciate that maybe we have a developer that's willing to listen though to come to an agreement on certain things that we can help mitigate, and that's the thing that I really want to make sure that if we do rezone this, that we do our darn best to help protect and limiting the the impact to the residents around this property.

Traffic's a problem everywhere, though.

That's another issue.

So Mr.

Mayor, Ms.

Vodry.

I move we approve ordinance number 1688 and 1689.

All right, the motion by Ms.

Vaudry to approve ordinance 1688 and 1689.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

Second by Miss Lowry.

Any further discussion on the motion?

I think that the planning commission was correct in recommending that we get a development agreement in conjunction with the zone change so that we ensure that we get the changes we agreed upon.

But it's also our responsibility as a governing body to consider what best serves the city as a whole.

Anyone else?

Um, I also agree with what's been said about having a development agreement.

I think that we are in a good position to have um someone who's willing to to listen to neighbors.

You you don't always get that, and so I I think that we need to take advantage of that.

I also appreciate the work staff has done to create this as a tentative project moving forward, dependent upon the development agreeing agreement, getting to a place that we can all live with.

And if we don't, then the zone will not change.

I think that's really important.

So thank you, Tracy, for your work on that.

Thank you for the residents expressing your views and sending your emails.

You might not think you're being heard, but you are because it does help us in what we can help work out and negotiate on a development agreement.

Anything else?

All right, Ms.

Vodry, how do you vote?

Yes.

Lowry.

Yes.

Mr.

Lowry.

Yes.

Ms.

Johnson.

Yes.

All right.

Items approved unanimously on vote four to zero.

Next item on our agenda is item 6B.

This is a public hearing.

It's ordinance 1690, 1691, an ordinance amending the official land use map, an ordinance amending the official zoning map of Draper City for approximately 1.44 acres of property located approximately 231 east, 13800 south, known as the open shawl draper 138 land use map and zoning amendments.

That was a mouthful.

Go ahead, sir.

All right, thank you.

Though there are some similarities with this one and the last one, they are different projects.

So again, this is the vicinity map right at the corner of 138th and Bangater.

And the aerial, and you'll see the number of parcels that are involved here.

Portion right at the corner is the RA1 residential agricultural zone, and then the office residential for the balance.

And again, they'd be looking to rezone these to the CR regional commercial zone.

And the same purpose for providing that commercial kind of regional commercial big box uh establishments.

And then just the uses, of course, uh that could potentially uh be there in that zone.

Of course, this is a smaller uh area uh so some of these may or may not be as uh likely for this piece of property again the side photo.

This is essentially the land that is right up against uh that sidewalk there, and then just behind it, and then uh with this photo, it's actually more of the land here, uh kind of to the right side of the photo.

Planning commission again uh recommended or forward a rent negative recommendation to the city council for both the land use and zoning map amendments with the same concerns about heights, landscape buffers, and street improvements uh of note.

I did not receive any written uh public comments specific to this application again uh with a few minor differences pertinent just to this application.

Uh the ordinance that's before you uh contemplates a delayed uh enactment uh on May 8th or before or May 7th or before uh with the development agreement being submitted before December 29th.

And with that, are there any other questions you have for me on this particular one?

Yes, um in uh 2B in um exhibit A, if you could give me some clarification about uh specific sentence in that hopefully I'll read it.

Okay, it says um development within the subject area will be required to share accesses and have cross-access agreements in place for each site due to the limited access locations available.

Yes.

So with this, uh obviously uh there is the discussion ongoing about how traffic will flow.

There is limited opportunity to access these properties from 138th or from Banger.

Uh and so the idea being that uh a shared access with uh right there with the other property would uh be developed.

Uh our code already requires cross access between adjoining commercial properties, and so this is just another component uh of that uh and would be uh needed to also be reflected in the development agreement.

So this parcel will need to be able to access the previous applications.

Is that correct?

Most likely.

Uh I can't speak for our traffic engineering uh as to oops where exactly um the distance needs to be from that intersection for that access.

Uh but my understanding is uh it's pretty much uh back as far as what would need to be with the conceptual one being placed right there with the uh the adjoining development.

But what about connectivity between the two?

Yes.

So required.

Yep, that's also required.

They need to provide reciprocal access, both the previous application and this application.

It's just a component of the ordinance.

Okay, thank you.

Uh Todd, I have a question.

I'm sorry, Mary, is it's my understanding that a portion of this property is going to need to be utilized for the improvements that'll happen on Bangater and 138 South.

Is that correct?

Yes.

So that would also be part of the development agreement.

Uh Tracy might be able to speak to it a little bit better, but uh yes, the the city would in uh as part of that development agreement receive uh some of that land for those improvements, and then there would be other things uh potentially there, some reduced uh setbacks, things like that uh to say the street uh that they would be looking for.

So there would be some give and take if you will.

Any further questions for Mr.

Draper.

Thank you, Todd.

We may have you back.

The applicant here gives your name and address.

Go ahead, sir.

Good evening, Steve Lovell, counsel for applicant addresses 9980 South 300 West.

Sandy.

Uh as was stated, my client is um willing to dedicate the or yeah, dedicate donate the the land, the right-of-way to make this this whole project work to make the traffic work.

Um I will say uh just not to take issue with uh Mr.

Draper's uh opening statement, but I heard something different from the planning commission.

I in fact, throughout the planning commission, I thought I was gonna get approval until the very end.

I mean, multiple times they said, well, we can see that this property doesn't share the same characteristics as the rest of the center.

We don't have the same buffering issue, we don't have the same proximity issue, we don't have the same, you know, every issue that was brought up, uh, they said we recognize that this is different, that this it would make sense to do commercial hair.

And the only reason that I recall at the very end, it was just a last minute pivot was that they felt like approving the zone change for this property would just make it easier for approving the zone change for the bigger project, which they didn't want.

So although my client is completely on board with entering into a development agreement, I would point out and hope and ask that the same standards don't apply to this property as they would for the other, as far as landscaping buffers and um and those those sorts of things that would be very applicable for the the needed buffer for the residential.

Um I think the current zoning uh the municipal code, all the um rules and requirements for this this property fit very well within the code as it's written.

Um as Mr.

Draper pointed out, we would like to see some softening on the setbacks since we are giving up the land, it will you know further it'll make it hard to develop this land if we're set to the setbacks by the the you know the new right-of-way.

Um, but other than that, um the shared access is already provided for in the ordinance, uh, and all the other commercial uh code uh requirements would be would be followed with regards to parking, lighting, signage, and so forth.

Any questions for the applicant?

Um yes, I have the same question for you as I had for um Mr.

Draper about the connectivity between your parcel and the previous applicant's parcel and what the plan is for that.

Yeah, so this is a unique project where you have two applicants coming simultaneously.

The code anticipates that when there is an abutting property that is going to be used for non-residential use, the first mover, the first applicant will provide some access to that abutting property to limit the number of access points to major roads.

Um I've I've done this in other uh in fact, I did this on 123rd uh development.

I I've worked on with a client for the valveing on 123rd, where we got access to 123rd because we couldn't get access on an adjoining street, but we had a covenant that stated that if we ever get access to any other street, uh that we'll abandon the access on 123rd, and we signed that covenant and we recorded it, and and that that became part of the entitlement for that development.

So the same thing would be here.

If if my client was moving first, we would be given access on our property with my thought would be a covenant that if as soon as the the adjoining property is developed, there would be some type of connectivity.

We'd abandon our access and just have the one single um one single point, and that would uh be true for them if they move before us, they would provide the access and then provide connectivity for us.

Where here we're applying at the same time, and with a with two separate uh development agreements, it's gonna give the council the ability to help guide that access where it's gonna be how the flow is going to uh work out, and um and two applicants that are going to work with the city to make sure that that that works out.

Thank you.

I'm a little unclear as to what you're saying here.

It's my understanding that you would be included in this development agreement.

We'll have our separate development agreement.

No, uh sorry.

Um let me clarify.

I just don't I want to make sure that our development agreement isn't a mirror, it's not there's there's gonna be two separate development agreements.

They they have different challenges.

So like a 20-foot berm is not necessary to buffer uh Mr.

Openshaw's property.

Exactly.

Right.

So I I think that's the point you're making.

Yes, I don't want to be in the same development agreement.

You probably don't need enhanced landscaping or I mean exactly things like that.

Yeah, right.

Right.

But there may be things we do want in that development agreement.

That's right.

Yeah, right.

Uses are always a big issue.

Right.

Uses building heights.

I think there's gonna be leftover property um from the improvements along Bangar that there's been discussions about transferring those to Mr.

Openshaw to provide some of the setbacks on the west side, but yeah, I mean it it's not as as an intense use and as impactful on adjacent properties as there are things we would want to do.

Certainly covered, and perhaps some of that might be landscaping or like some of the similarities.

It would be nice if it were cohesive.

Cohesive, right?

Yep.

Well, in your code already, as you have a very robust um complete code that provides for landscaping, provides for lighting, provides for parking, all those things.

So we don't need to reinvent the wheel and create all these new standards in the development agreement if the current standards work.

But anything that you want to modify from your code and say, well, we don't want you to put a hotel here.

We don't want you to put a 45.

I think the code allows to do up to 55 feet, so we can meet those same retail standards because that's my client's desire here as well.

My Mr.

Barker, I have a question with this too, where these applications are both coming at the same time, and we talk about right of access between both properties.

Is that something that we address in the development agreements between them two to make sure that there don't become disputes on the access between there is a dispute right now, and I don't want the city to be involved in that I'll be perfectly frank.

So we we if if our code says there has to be access, that um means there has to be some kind of access.

And beyond that, I at this point I would caution.

Right.

Well, the code does provide a requirement that both parties have to provide each other access, and that's I think as far as that's the only thing my client's looking for is access.

So as long as we're meeting the code, I think my client's completely fine.

But he will have a separate development agreement.

Absolutely.

Yeah.

Yeah, this is a an entirely separate application, even though they're adjacent and contemporaneous projects.

Any more questions for the applicant?

Thank you.

All right, this is a public hearing.

Six items six B on our agenda is ordinance 1690 and 1691.

I don't have any cards.

Is there anyone that would like to make a public comment to the council on this item?

Come on up, same drill, give us your name and address.

My name is Christine Kessler Day.

I live at 448 Brown Farm Lane in Draper.

So when he says that he needs an ingress and egress on there on 138th, I can see that.

Um I don't know if there's anybody here's living on the south side of 138th, but that's just gonna add to your traffic issues, and I can guarantee that when people aren't able to come out on 138th, they're gonna go out on third.

And so your planning commission, they're pretty savvy, they have a lot of foresight, and they see that there's an interconnectivity here.

So A plus for them for seeing this and troubleshooting for you guys.

I don't have anything against the owner of this piece of property.

There's no history that we have like we've got with Lloyd, and so I don't want to thwart them in their endeavors, but I do want to point out that there is definitely a connectivity issue between what they're looking at with Lloyd's property and what they're looking at here, and it's gonna affect people across the street across the street from 138th, and it's going to affect us with that third east ingress and egress that Lloyd wants to put in.

And so I I really hope that you take all this into consideration because we see it, we live it every day with the traffic.

It's not just Brown Farm, it is the whole the whole residential area, and I feel a responsibility for my neighbors to bring that up and and watch out for them.

Thanks.

We'd like to be next to the name is Kayla Kilsmar.

I live at 259 East 13800 South.

It's actually owned by my dad.

I just live in his basement, but he was not able to come today, so he asked me to come for him.

Um my concern is we're like the only house that has to get in and out on 13800 right there.

I can doesn't matter the time of day.

I mean, middle of the day when like school's in and works in, yeah, it's great.

You can get in and out, no problem.

But like even in the morning to take my son to school or even to get to him his bus stop, which he has a bus stop on third east and brown farm lane, right on that corner.

That's where he gets his bus, and he's expected to cross third east.

That it's crazy.

I mean, it's better than crossing 13800 because there is a bus stop right across the street from us.

But my dad bought this house in 1990.

I was four months old.

I grew up there.

I learned how to ride my bike on 13800 South, no sidewalks, no nothing, and it's just gotten crazy to where like I can't even get home from Harman's in five minutes, and I live right there, and my only issue with this one, or I think what my dad would have a concern is the access point is literally right next to our property line, and we can already hear the car wash across the street by the grease monkey when it says pull your car forward, pull your in our house, like we can be inside our house trying to watch a show, and you can hear that.

So to have access right there and to have potential commercial right there, depending on what it is.

Like my dad made a comment, he's like, I don't really want like a McDonald's there and hearing people order their food every night, and yeah, if we don't like it, you can move and stuff, but it's not that easy for everyone.

Like I said, my dad's been there since 1990, and his health has declined this year a lot.

He just had to retire and stuff.

So moving is not really a feasible option right now for us.

So my concern would just be really the traffic and the safety of the kids because there are a lot of kids around there, and they it's scary.

I learned how to ride my bike on 13800 South.

Two-lane road.

I walked with no sidewalk all the way down 30s, but now it's it's just scary even on the sidewalks.

That's all.

Thank you.

So anyone else would like to address the council on item 6B.

Uh Robbie Stagg, 138, 135, 98, South Sherling.

Um I agree with the advocate when he's saying like he doesn't want to be lumped in with the previous one.

But they do, and as he stated before, whoever builds first builds the access, and then they share access.

So and it was brought up by the council of who and how they will get back up to the mountain.

Um, because there's a lot of write-in write-outs, and then they have to go a long ways or try and make a darting dash to that left-hand turn lane for Banger Parkway to get back there.

Um I was brought up earlier, but I just want to second it, or just echo it that that's gonna cause all those that are coming up from the mountain or coming down from the mountain, and there's a lot of them because I keep building up there, um, that they're gonna turn on 30s to make that left-hand turn.

So it's just gonna back up 30s even more because you're gonna get that right-in or write out, and then they're gonna try and shoot across to get to that left-hand turn lane with the new light that would be put in just to turn up to 138 and get back home.

So that's the only concern that I see with this property is just they are connected, yet they aren't connected because they have different stipulations.

I understand that, but they are gonna share a parking lot, and that shared parking lot leads to shared access and exit and egress.

So that's all I got.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Matt Smith, uh 329 East Brown Farm Lane.

Just uh agree with the points that were made about the um the access to 30s.

Tashi made the point about all the people going up to South Mountain.

That's that's what they're gonna do, just like Robbie said.

Um I know that the applicant doesn't want to connect this to the prior, you know, point six A on the agenda, ordinance 1688 and 1689, 89.

They are absolutely linked.

We talked in the prior agenda item about the traffic study, and we know that some of the intersections get a D rating.

When you add this property to it, what do those ratings become?

It's unknown.

And so those are absolutely have to be factored in together.

Um, and then lastly, I really fear that with the increase in volume with this plus the other property, we're going to create a another issue with Brown Farm Lane that it currently exists and will continue to exist with Wien Farms Access with Rockwell Apartments with Rockwell, uh, that the housing development in Rockwell, there's gonna be a lock-in situation.

We will have no ability to exit out of our neighborhood onto 300 east.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

All right, seeing no further public comment, I'll close the public hearing.

Bring this back to the council.

Mr.

Alpicant, do you want uh do you want to say anything more?

All right, Mr.

Mayor, Mr.

Mr.

Lowry.

I make a motion that we approve ordinance 1690 and 1691.

Our motion by Mr.

Lowry to approve ordinance 1690 and 1691.

Item 6B is our second.

I'll second.

Second by Ms.

Johnson.

Any further discussion?

No, I just want to make note.

I think we're making note of the public comments that have been made, and for sure we'll consider the same things as in a development agreement with this applicant.

Anyone else?

Mr.

Lowry, how do you vote?

Yes, Ms.

Johnson.

Yes, Miss Lowry.

Ms.

Vaudre.

Yes.

Item is approved unanimously on a vote four to zero.

Next item is item C.

This is also a public hearing.

It's ordinance 1696.

It's an ordinance of Draper City amending the text of title 910, 17, and 18 of the Draper City Municipal Code related to geologic hazard ordinance, known as the city initiated geologic hazard ordinance and text amendment level staff report by Mr.

Taylor.

Go ahead, Todd.

Uh thank you.

The geologic hazard ordinance uh was adopted in 2007.

Uh there have been several amendments since as part of that ordinance.

Um the city currently works with some third-party reviewers to provide us technical expertise.

Um that's uh Alan Taylor and David Simon.

Um we've been working with those uh experts on these amendments, and the purpose of these amendments is to improve clarity for applicants uh to include uh and they include best engineering practices and the insight that we've gained over implementing this over the past eight years.

They're also pulling in uh state standards that were previously referenced uh from the code, so the applicants would have to go look somewhere else to find those standards, and then uh finally correcting an error that uh was found in the code.

As mentioned, the text amendments are to titles nine, 10, 17, and 18.

Um basically we are proposing to move the ordinance from Title IX, which is our land use and development uh regulations or our zoning code, which we typically call it chapter 9-19, and then it's proposed to be moved to uh chap title 10, which is our building regulations, and it would become chapter 10-7.

Um, as part of the move, there are currently some appendices that are in the the code, the ordinance, and the proposal creates a geotechnical engineering standards document and moves those appended appendices out into that document.

And if this item is approved, the next item on the agenda is to adopt that document by resolution.

Um this table is really just a crosswalk of how the each of the sections moves from title uh nine to title ten, and then there's establishment of some new sections specifically for establishing those standards and specifications for allowing uh some exemptions and then moving the appendices to the engineering standards document.

Uh the plan commission heard this item on their December 11th meeting and uh voted uh to recommend approval on a vote of four to zero.

Uh that concludes my presentation, and I'm available if you have any questions.

Questions for Mr.

Taylor.

I think you todd.

This is a public hearing.

It's ordinance 1696.

Is there anyone from the public like to address the council on this item?

Item 6C.

All right, seeing no public comment, I'll close the public hearing.

Bring this back to the council.

Mr.

Mayor, I'd move to approve item 1696.

Motion by Miss Lowry to approve.

Is our second?

I'll second.

Second by Ms.

Vaudry.

Any further discussion?

All right, hearing none, Miss Lowry, how do you vote?

Yes.

Ms.

Vaudrey.

Yes.

Mr.

Lowry.

Yes.

Ms.

Johnson.

Yes.

Items approved unanimously on a vote of four to zero.

Next items on our agenda are items seven.

They are action items 7A is approval of resolution 2574.

It's a resolution of the city council adopting the geotech geotechnical engineering standards for Draper City.

We have Mr.

Taylor.

Do you want me to hit all these at the same time?

Or you do you want to council members?

Do you want to question have presentations or do you want me to read them and you can all right?

Item 7B is approval of resolution 2575, a resolution expressing Draper City's intent to adjust its common municipal boundaries with Highland City affecting parcels 11017, colon one zero one five seven and thirty-five colon 544 colon zero zero five zero authorizing the schedule scheduling of a public hearing to provide notice thereof.

Mr.

Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to approve resolution 25-74, 25-75, and ordinance 1695.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

Second by Ms.

Vaudry.

Any further discussion?

All right, hearing them, Ms.

Lowry.

How do you vote?

Yes.

Ms.

Vaudry.

Yes.

Mr.

Lowry.

Yes.

Ms.

Johnson.

Yes.

Items approved unanimously on a vote of four to zero.

All right, that takes us to item eight, which is our most favorite of items, the adjournment thereof.

However, before we do it, um, I do want to say um this is Ms.

Vaudry's last, her really, really last council meeting.

Um, and I want to just express if I can, and I'll give all of you a chance, but I just want to express really um my heartfelt appreciation to Marsha for the many years of service to this community, starting with the historic park to Corner Canyon, to every single thing that you've been involved in, rodeo, draper days, everything that you've done for all your almost whole life that you've lived here, both you and your husband Doug.

Um, you served us well before as a council member.

You retired, um, and we thought you were going into the sunset, but then we drug you back back out of retirement.

But we really appreciate I appreciate that you were willing to do that.

It created a a great situation for us to have a person to serve in a in an interim term that already was trained, already understood, and and already had the the needs and you know concerns of our citizens at heart.

So, Marsha, I just want to tell you I love you with all my heart.

You're one of my most dearest friends, and I've I've enjoyed serving with you as much as anything I've done in my life, and I thank you for your service to our community.

Of course, should we get a picture of her at the front?

Yeah, let's do it.

It's time for a picture.

I echo everything that was said, and I think it's been great that Marcia, you were back here this last year, and thank you for all the great effort work that you've done.

Is there a motion to adjourn before we go photo?

I think I think Marcia needs to make the motion.

Marcia, there's one last motion for you to make Mr.

Mayor, I move we adjourn.

I have a motion by Miss Vodry to adjourn.

Is there a second?

A second.

All right, all in favor of adjournment, say aye.

Aye.

All right, any opposed?

All right, we stand adjourned.