Since we're a little behind.

Um, first item on our agenda is the a discussion on the river to range trail from design workshop.

You guys want to come up?

And for the record, the river to range trail is a trail at the point that will connect both with the Jordan River and ultimately Porter Rockwell in Draper.

Go ahead, sir.

Thank you.

Um, thanks for having me tonight.

I'm Chris Geddes with Design Workshop.

Um, good to see many of you again.

We were here uh year and a half ago or so for station area planning.

Um so the river to range trail is is the idea of this is is the purpose is to connect the city um from the Porter Rockwell Trail to the uh the Jordan River Parkway.

Um obviously we have some um important infrastructural elements that have prevented that from happening um to date.

So this project really looks at what are the opportunities to do that.

Um, what is feasible?

Um, what are the corridor opportunities that we can connect to, and then importantly, how do we support future funding and implementation as opportunities arise.

Um the project study area is basically from 123rd south to 146 south, um, and then Porter Rock Whale Trail to the Jordan River Parkway.

You can see the outline in your map.

Um, it includes a lot of your your core residential areas that includes the emerging point development at Vista Station.

Um, so there's a lot going on, and the opportunity to really help connect the city east to west is something that's been really important to um to staff.

Um so from a process standpoint, um the first thing we did was we came and we actually walked on the ground, looked at opportunities, used um aerial views just to identify what uh potential um locations could be for trail a trail connection.

Uh we walked with city staff, we had the opportunity to go up and down the corridor, really uh primarily identifying what parks and and um uh existing trails we could connect from, uh, and then where were the real feasible opportunities to actually cross I-15 and the railroad tracks.

Um from there we don't do a pretty detailed analysis about cost and benefit and the amount the number of uh draper residents that in um the uh uh potential trail connections uh could serve, and from that we shortlisted it to four different um opportunities, which I'll talk through here in just a minute.

I want to point out that this is this does not designate a a preferred trail connection.

There are a lot of unknowns, there are a lot of um heavy infrastructure projects that are that are planned in the future.

There's the point development that um is is occurring as as we speak.

So what we wanted to do is provide options so that as opportunities for partnerships, opportunities for funding came up, you can respond to those in a way that makes sense for the city.

Um so opportunities and constraints um really there are opportunities to connect to existing trail corridors really throughout both east and west uh uh draper.

Um so really thinking about where are those opportunities, specifically off-street connections.

What we try to do in this plan was avoid um putting um bikes next to vehicles.

So in in most cases here, we we do completely avoid um uh those those bike vehicle interfaces with a few um exceptions.

Um lots of coordination with regional partners, UDOT, UTA, WFRC is here today, uh POMSLA, which is the point development group, uh really trying to leverage the opportunity that is there, but also make sure that we're thinking about your existing residents and what makes sense um for them from a kind of geographic standpoint.

Uh the Vista uh Vistin area or sorry, VIST and Vista Station area plan was was considered in here.

Uh you'll see that.

Um, and and if you don't know, there is also an I an I-15 northbound study being done by UDOT today that is looking to expand um the the width of the highway north of Bangarder um through the study area.

So that's something to consider in the future.

Um so we talked about I-15, we talked about the rail tracks.

Spangler Highway is obviously uh a constraint.

Topography, especially on the south uh east side of the site as you um as you head up on the point itself and go to the rock port of Rockwell uh trail can be a challenge.

So there's a big great change there, um, and thinking about existing land uses and development patterns.

Um so what we learned through the study, um there are really limited um crossing opportunities uh at I-15 in particular.

Again, we went up and down the corridor to see what the opportunities um could be, and we really landed on four um three and a half, if you will, um, real opportunities to cross the to cross the highway and connect to existing trail systems.

Uh again, existing infrastructure important to really leverage that.

Um we've looked a lot at at drainage easements um and uh and city-owned uh properties to consider where trails might be appropriate, um, and then excuse me, implementation is gonna be critical.

This can be a phased approach, but it's obviously those big ticket pieces of crossing a highway or crossing the tracks that really require us to think long term about how we implement the full trail system.

So the short listed quarter options.

Again, 123 south on the north there, 146 on the south.

We had uh six options to begin with.

We really paired it down to three or four, um, which one is a 1A and 1B.

Um so I'll go through each of those individually.

Um option one, northern option um A, uh which is 2.1.

This crosses I-15 from the um the corner corner canyon creek um trail easement, uh water watershed easement and the Smithfields Park on the east side of the highway.

It jumps over the highway with new pedestrian um bike bridge, basically just south of IKEA, um, and then connects again with the Corner Canyon Creek drainage way, then connecting uh under uh the trail, the train tracks to Vista Station Boulevard and to the Jordan River Parkway.

Um, this one is the most direct um centrally located uh trail connection as we think about the the the geographic geography of the city.

Um it connects those established neighborhoods and Vista Station, um really good strong rail connectivity here because it does have great access to the station there.

Um considerations here, I-15, again, that expansion, um, they're gonna widen it.

The plan is to widen it.

So we have to really think about where that bridge lands and and and who's gonna pay for it.

Um it is an opportunity to potentially align aligned funding with the UDOT project, so the city doesn't have to put the bill for that, but that's a conversation that needs to be had.

Um again, easement needs were along these drainage corridors, so the city would have to require some pedestrian access easements through there.

The second one is very similar.

Um, it just actually takes the same Canyon Creek corridor but moves shifts the pedestrian infrastructure slightly to the south, right up against um Bangater Highway.

Uh, this is um again, it has very similar um strengths uh to the previous one.

Um the biggest challenge here is it's the most complex complex project.

In order to make this happen, you not only have to bridge over I-15, but you also have to tunnel under the two ramps on on either side of I-15.

So two tunnels, one ramp, um again, it catches uh catches Corner Creek Canyon and on over to Vista Station and uh the Jordan River Parkway.

Again, this is the highest one that we found.

Uh the third quarter here is we're calling it the central corridor corridor.

This runs directly into the point development.

Um, the point has a a riveter range open space that runs uh continuously through the site, basically along the alignment of the white line, as you see that there.

So this connects um Weedon Farm Regional Park to the point via the East Jordan Canal.

Um this is the one area or the one of these options that doesn't require an overhead crossing of I-15 because there's an existing canal uh that goes under the highway.

Um there's some complexity in how do you acquire property and depth to get a trail system to go under there, but again, it doesn't require the construction of grade separated bridge.

Um we say timing is dependent on development phasing within the point.

That's true.

Um the point will pay for the the trails within their property, so that's not on the city.

Um but you know, making sure that you're coordinated with POMSA to uh to think about when that happens in the case that this is a uh preferred direction.

Um heading to the west in this case, we are this does um does connect uh across Bangar Highway with another with a new pedestrian bridge and then goes under the railroad tracks, uh which would then connect to the Jordan River Parkway on the far the far northwest there.

Um so this again it will require a new bridge over Bangarder, but not one uh over I-15.

And then the last one is actually what the point has been has been subtly proposing.

I don't think it's not necessarily in their plans, um, but this integrates with the Rivida Range Vision from the Point project.

Um it leverages again that development within the point.

Uh the consideration here is that if the tracks line comes in, it could be built in associated in association with the tracks uh corridor.

So uh there'll be there'll be building obviously a bridge over the highway for that project.

We could uh tie into that in this case.

The toughest part of this one is again that that grade um difference from the Porter Rockwell Trail down to the frontage road along I-15.

It's about 80 to 100 feet in a pretty short distance.

Um, so that's a lot of switchbacking in order to make sure that you have a comfortable um ride for all um users of all types.

Um so uh the comparisons here again, the northern two provide that direct um and central regional connection um with uh great access to transit.

Uh they do both require uh uh you know new pedestrian bridges, in some cases, some tunneling.

Um but again, centrally located as we're thinking about where the existing population is today and the access between existing neighborhoods and and the station seems like you know, a a good strong opportunity.

The central integrates with the point, there's gonna be a lot of energy obviously happening there.

Um so getting people into this new mixed use district uh may be a good opportunity.

Again, whether you go under I 15 or over is is up to you, um, but there are options there.

Um I will say that it's important um from uh city parks staff um to to make sure that the north-south connection over Bangar should probably be included in any um future trail connection you try to make um because they're building uh you know a large um system of trails within the point of the mountain, those should be able to connect to the George River Parkway.

Um and we can't really go directly west of the point because that is a different city that we're talking about and some really challenging access issues there.

Um so um key takeaways.

Um we've identified you know four different opportunities for corridor connections.

Um we do not recommend a preferred alignment uh because we want this to be flexible as as opportunities come up.

Phased implementation is is important, and again, this plan provides a framework for future engineering grant applications, regional coordination, phase implementation.

There are a number of things that could impact this UDOT's plans, um, excuse me, the point plans.

Uh the Utah Trail Network is is providing funding for trail connections.

So uh there really are opportunities to uh make this happen over time and in partnership with with um other jurisdictions.

So uh with that, I will um stop the presentation and open it up for questions.

Any questions?

Is there a time frame associated with this, like goals about when we would want this to be completed or I would ask maybe you read if you do have a response to that?

Uh no, there's no timeline, no funding or anything.

It was just uh a study to see what would be the best crossing opportunities to connect Draper over the freeway.

So on the funding, ultimately, who will be the revenue source for this?

I think it will likely be a number of uh of different parties.

Um the state, um, the city in some cases.

This the city will likely um have to flip the bill for all the all the infrastructure that gets to a crossing of of another um of another property of of I-15 of the tracks.

Um so at grade facilities would would likely be funded by um the city, but I would uh assume that if you can couple this, if you can couple a bridge project or an underpass project with the highway project, with you know, other um with the Utah Trails Network, other other sources of funding, that there's an opportunity to reduce the overall cost to the city on it.

Because I'm imagining some of these as being very, very, very expensive.

We did price them out.

Um the the least expensive one is the first one that I presented, the one that lands over IKEA.

That's about seven million dollars all costs in including seven seven seven million.

Um the highest cost is the is the one that just south of that that includes the two the the two tunnels and the bridge, and that's about 15 million or roughly around 15 million.

Um the one that goes under the highway is again between seven and eight million.

Um so that's the order of magnitude that that we are looking at today.

And what percentage of this do you think the city would be responsible for?

Um I don't have that answer for you, but we do have we do have a cost in the plan of what would be at grade um at grade improvements um within the city street or the city open space um drainage areas network.

Um we could pull we can pull that out for you and get that answer to you.

Mr.

Mayor, do you know if the point is planning to have funding for this project?

Yeah, I mean the the plan is the this is all part of the point project, but nobody's really identified funding yet.

Oh, yeah, a lot of funding to be identified.

I I have a question though with that funding, that first option that you're talking about, the one for this north.

Um are you saying is it feasible with the UDOTS project where they're gonna be widening the freeway there?

Is it feasible that we could tie this in with that project and maybe get some funding with UDOT to do that bridge at the same time of the wide bridge?

I would highly recommend that you negotiate with them to get that done.

Because it that seems to me that'd be the best timing to do that while they're widening it.

And are they widening the bridge?

Yeah, yeah.

And have we spoken with them about that possibility?

We have not, but we'd agree with Councilman Lowry that now would be the great time to get with you dot and at least let them know of some desires and plans that we would like to do and see if we can't.

Because here's what I imagine.

If that's seven million, and then the one by the point seven million, but if you did the one at Bangater, it's like with the two tunnels, you're talking you could do both of those at the same price of just doing the one with the two tunnels.

So ideally, it'd almost be nice to have two accesses, especially that far apart.

I mean, if you really think down the line, yeah, you're gonna want more than one access.

I think we really should find a way to see if we could get funding for that to get included with UDOT on that.

I don't know what the steps are, Mayor, but I'll work on it.

I'm going to a meeting tomorrow.

Do we know when that bridge is expected to be expanded?

It's it I would it's not the bridge necessarily, it's the entire highway north-south.

Yeah, um, so they're gonna expand into the frontage road area.

Right.

Um so it'll just it'll it'll widen um the the width or the length of a future pedestrian bridge.

I I think UDOT has started the property acquisition phase of that project.

So will they reconstruct the entire bridge?

Probably.

We're we're talking about the bridge of the bank banger crossing.

Jen, I don't know if Jen, if you have anything to add to this, excuse me.

Um we've just seen a preliminary plan showing what properties UDOT is gonna have to acquire for their project.

We have not seen any actual design drawings.

Um the collector road that runs from uh what 106 to uh 215 on Bangetar or on I-15 that will be expanded down so it'll go from Bangater all the way to 215, there'll be that collector road to the side of I-15.

Oh, yeah, it's gonna be big.

So I I would imagine there's work that they have to do on the bridges themselves, but as far as redoing the entire bridge, I don't know.

Well, because the bridge would have to span a wider gap, then so I would think they would have to redo the bridge, right?

Maybe I'm not a Scott.

I don't know.

When I get to my point meeting, I'll get with them, figure out how we're looking at planning accesses now.

But I don't we don't these guys don't know what the points plan is, or neither does the point yet.

So but my point is with this that widening project, now would be the time to do that.

It would be a lot more cost effective and efficient.

I'll bring it up tomorrow.

Any other questions?

If not, thank you.

Thank you.

Appreciate it.

Next, we have our discussion on solid waste.

John and Scott, who's doing it?

I've been voted to give a preview or uh kind of a preliminary why we're here and what we're talking about.

So as we uh went through the private street um change, uh we we also began looking at what the costs are for us to provide solid waste cost, solid waste services to the residents.

Um as we began to look at that, we decided that it would be in our best interest to issue an RFP to see what qualified bidders might be out there and what their costs would be also to provide those services.

So Scott and Robert and I have worked very diligently to try to say this is what our costs would look like, and then what happened was we got four qualified bidders, um, and we went through those bids uh and determined who would be the best provider, um, which also happened to be the cheapest provider.

And so uh what we're bringing to you today is uh an information about what that change could look like.

Um it's certainly your choice on which option you would like to do.

So in the slide you see, um current pricing is really where we are today.

So currently to have a garbage can and a recycle bin, so bases one of each is $15.

Now, if you had an extra garbage can, uh that cost is ten dollars additional for that extra can.

So a total combined price if you have both, so two garbage cans and one recycling can of twenty-five dollars.

Now sixty percent of the residents are in that category.

The others are in the they just have the base rate.

So as you're looking at this, think 40 percent just have the 15 dollars, and 60 percent have the 25 dollar cost.

So we went through it, we said what can the city do, and what's our cost going to be to be able to provide this same service moving forward?

As we looked at that, our costs are $25 for a base rate, so for one of each can, and then we would look to raise the additional can rate to $15.

So in that instance, um, someone with a base can would be paying $25, just base cans would be paying $25, but with one additional can would be paying $40.

The private contractor uh who is the low bidder came in with a base price.

Their their actual price is shown in the table below, and it's nine dollars and twenty-two cents.

Just so you're aware, we will still need to provide some services to be able to operate this.

The uh disposal service does not do um billing or some of those things.

So in-house we will continue to do the billing for the uh garbage.

Uh we're gonna have one employee to be able to track the cans and different things like that.

So there are some in-house costs that we will still uh bear, and so as we looked at those, that upped the rate from the 922 that they said for the base rate to the $19 shown in the green.

So that's for a base service.

Again, one can, one recycling and one garbage can would be $19, and then they would be billing ten dollars and fifty cents.

Well, they're billing $92 with a slight uh additional rate for uh administrative costs, raising that to ten dollars and fifty cents.

So that's kind of where we're at.

Um, the difference again, and the difference that we're showing here is what the rate would be uh if the city continues to provide the service versus with the private contractor.

So if we continue to provide the service, we would raise our rate to 25 versus the 19.

So that's the six dollar difference that you are seeing in the slide.

Um, and then with the the same with the additional can 15 versus the 1050, so the 450 uh difference, and the net together 40 dollars versus the 2950.

So I think that's my piece of this as far as the dollars go.

Um, but if you have questions about that, you know, feel free to ask me.

Um, and then Scott can kind of talk a little bit about uh ACE and the private, because ACE is the current uh the private contractor that would be being used here.

So questions?

John, how do you figure the nine?

I think it's nine dollars and seventy-eight cents is the admin cost that we're figuring.

Um the biggest piece do we feel that that's gonna be adequate to cover the admin cost?

The biggest piece that we're that we are bearing is we are actually um still going to cover the now.

I'm drawing a blank on tipping fees.

I'm drawing a blank on what the fees were.

So there's a tipping fee associated, and the city is still going to be covering those tipping fees.

Now that 978 difference, uh, we've we've gone through the numbers, and all of us believe that that 978 will keep us um above broke.

So it's more than break even.

Yes, it's more than break even.

And if we were to go with the new city pricing and just stay how we are, how does that new city pricing put us as far as being profitable?

What we tried to do is make those an even scale, and so that's what we did.

So the price that you're seeing here provides an even scale for each of those scenarios, which provides us with enough to hopefully continue at the same rate for a couple of years, so that we aren't gonna have to raise rates again next year.

I'm not gonna make any promises, but we've looked at that and tried to say, okay, what would it look like?

And then knowing that tipping fees are continuing to increase, how do we you know price that sufficient this year to carry us for a couple of years?

And that's what we've tried to do, and tried to make those two scenarios equal so that you can really have a clear picture of what we're looking at comparing.

Thank you.

Can you talk about some of the additional costs that are associated with us uh providing the service that are not part of the overhead costs, um, you know, such as you know, maintenance of the vehicles, those those kinds of things, and how that will differ if we choose to go with the private contractor.

So we currently have I think they said 12 uh garbage trucks, and so um if we continue to provide the service, we will continue to you know increase replenish our fleet and continue to uh you know provide that service.

Uh we have a we have a mechanic who works almost entirely on uh fleet on solid waste vehicles, so there are definitely costs that the city bears that we believe will go down if we move to a private um provider.

Um I'm trying to think what other ones we're talking about.

Well, the other big the other big one is um by by the fact that we maintain the 12 or 13 vehicles that we have when we build our new public work facility, which we need to do, we'll have to if we stay with our own garbage service, we have to accommodate those 13 vehicles and their mechanic and the regular maintenance in that facility, which raises the cost of that facility uh pretty significantly.

And the main the main issue for us really is we have to if we do it ourselves, we have to carry the whole thing.

We have to have all the vehicles in a spare, we have to have all the drivers, everybody on staff ready to do it every day.

Whereas the private contractor might have a vehicle go down, they have another one they can bring in from another neighboring contract or put a driver on, you know, that one gets sick, they got another driver that can handle it.

They they definitely see an economies of scale that allows them to have their costs be much lower.

I personally think getting rid of um the storage and maintenance of the vehicles is gonna be much more significant over time than if we try to maintain our own system.

Do we have an idea of what kind of savings that will be, roughly?

I don't think so.

We don't really know for sure yet.

Well, we're gonna get money for the trucks.

The the price of a garbage truck itself is about 450,000.

So all that money can go into uh helping build the current new public works facility.

So I mean, over the years, look, I was on the council when we switched to doing it ourselves, so I'll take some ownership of it because I voted to do it.

But in those days, um the economy and the way it was, it worked, it worked out.

We made we made money from doing it, we were ahead of the game, but what's gotten to us is like everything else, the cost of these machines, they're high maintenance, they're difficult to we don't buy them at bulk like a big operator can buy them at a much cheaper rate that we pay almost retail for them.

Um they break down a lot.

We have to keep the staff and drivers, and I think the you know the cost of have beaten us.

We're we're out of the business.

We can't we're not big enough to do it at the same scale that ACE that ACE can do it at.

ACE's vehicles are nice, they're new, they're they're well maintained.

Um they they follow the law with respect to load um loadout, right, Robert?

Um they they make sure they're not overweight.

The other thing to keep in mind too is tipping fees are gonna go up probably a buck every year for a while.

Ultimately, there's six years left on the landfill.

At the end of the landfill, they're gonna build another transfer station on the west side, so tipping fees are gonna go up to cover that that facility, and then everything gets trucked south a hundred mile round trip.

So garbage is gonna get more expensive.

We've been fortunate, we have not raised our garbage rates one time in the entire time we've done it.

Probably to our own chagrin.

But anyway, yeah, yeah, but we've operated in the red the last couple of years too.

All except for about last year.

25.

Any other questions?

How do we pass or how do we handle liability?

Does ACE then take on liability?

Oh, yeah.

So ACE will be the service provider, so they will provide the insurance for the drivers and the trucks, and the and the so that will be passed off to them.

Okay.

And what about any increases in gasoline prices?

So right now our rate is set for the current year, and then the contract I believe has escalators each year to be able to allow them to cover some of those anticipated increased costs.

Um most of those escalators, and I believe it's the same in this, is but are based on the consumer price index, so is the consumer price index rises.

Yeah, it it's akin to the consumer price index, but it's a specialized index that deals with these types of operations.

The only other the question that I have, and maybe Scott will address this, but you know, we have some valued staff that have been operating this equipment and things.

What kind of assurance do we have that ACE will interview and they have the the need for these employees?

Because I hopefully we could just make a transfer of those employees.

Yeah, on I mean, unfortunately, we can't make any decisions for ACE.

In fact, we haven't been able to even talk to them about that.

Um I can say in 2023, we considered going out with an RFP for different reasons, not because we thought we were losing money, but because of the liability issues that we were seeing.

Um what we ended up doing was we we really went to our division, the solid waste division, and we talked to the all of the employees there and completely changed the culture successfully.

Um the people that we have now are amazing.

Um, and they want to be there.

That's really unfortunate that we can't get these numbers to better align.

It's it's truly an unfortunate, and it makes a difficult decision.

Uh but I just want to mention that because they have worked hard and it's their their efforts have paid off.

It's just that ACE has such a huge advantage in the economy of scale because they don't have to have as many drivers.

We feel everything to a significant detail when someone goes sick, or if we're running thin, which we would have to do even to hit these numbers, we'd we we need to stay at eight employees instead of ten, which were where we've been, but we also don't have the private streets, so I think we're fine that way.

Uh but every time you know, if you get someone that's sick and another one that's on vacation or one or two, and it just really we end up without options and we start having to pull from other divisions, which in the past we've had to do, we haven't had to do that for the for quite a while actually.

But it it's really difficult.

But I can say that um I I've worked with these guys, I've talked to them, and this is it's really a difficult thing for them and for us.

Um they've worked hard.

So I can't remember what your question was specifically, but just about the existing employees.

Will they have opportunities to apply for working with ACE?

They will.

Um the there are opportunities out there, and and ACE has expressed interest in our employees, partly because they know the area, they know the routes.

Um in the next session, we'll go over some of the history just to share a little bit with you.

Uh well, what one of the things that ACE is gonna do is they're going to keep all the routes and schedules the same if we go with them.

So either way, that part's not changing, right?

So the residents aren't gonna know really much difference either way.

We go.

Um we've provided a very good service.

We uh I mean, honestly, solid waste is probably one of our most complimented divisions in public works.

Um, which you know is really nice to have that.

So difficult time.

Yeah.

It is, thanks.

Well, it's important to note they they've done such a good job for almost the entire time.

Their service levels have been able to, and and such excellent work that it's been a it's been a place where we've been able to do a little do better.

Um it's not their fault that it is not that everything.

Every every vehicle, everything has gone up in price.

I mean, they've certainly done the yeoman's work for us, and I hope that they they will get opportunity there and can continue to work.

But they've certainly done amazing work for us and are grateful for all the years of service because they did a good job for spend 10 years now at least, I think.

Uh about six sixteen years, yeah.

16 years, yeah.

And the amazing thing, honestly, is we started out with these same numbers 16 years ago.

Now, amazing isn't always amazing because if we would have been raising the rates, maybe that we would be in a different situation.

But this is a hard pill to swallow, I know.

Um, and I know it's I've I've sat down with these employees multiple times since we put out the RFP.

Uh, and it's you know, they want to stay.

They they truly love working for Draper, and it's an amazing place to work, and they recognize that.

So just a shout out to them.

One of them's here, Joey.

He's so thank you.

Yeah, we do appreciate them, and they uh we have lost a couple since the RFP went out, and another one's retiring early.

So we're getting down there to where it's pretty thin in August.

So we have to we have to keep this service going at least through the time if we transition uh at least to that long, and if we don't transition, then we have to have staff to continue.

So this is an important step.

Any other questions for Scott?

We will go over more of the history in the next session just to get that on the record and any public that may show up.

I think you all understand a lot of it.

So we've had a lot of discussions in the past.

Well, all I can say is when we went to it ourselves, it made sense at the time, and it proved to be a well-run venture for up until the the cost of gotten to us.

So I mean it's and that really took us by surprise.

Uh if we would have known we were gonna be in this situation, we certainly would have combined the RFPs at the same time last year.

I mean, it's a pain to go through this, and uh we just didn't know until finance brought it to our attention, and even then it's it's been a lot of number crunching.

It's taken a lot to get us all on the same page to where this is leveled out, and we're all comfortable with this pricing.

So one other quick question on the dumpster rental service.

Is that the fee that we'll be able to still provide for the residents to rent the dumpster?

So that's that for the this just the city.

That's the fee that will be charged to the city.

Um the city will still run the program, and that's the the fee that would be charged to the city by ACE.

So in order to capture what it actually costs to take that weight of that dumpster to the landfill, they they would cover that cost, and they would come pick it up and drop it off and all of that, but we would have to include another 30, 40 dollars on top of that, which really is it's more of the average range, I would say out there.

Our costs are really we're not covering our costs with the fees we're charging right now.

And then the facilities really is just all of all of the city facilities, all our buildings, uh parks especially.

Uh so that's a monthly fee that we would be charged.

That's also rolled into all these other fees that you see.

So we do feel comfortable with these numbers.

I that was one of the questions.

Uh I I we really have put a lot of work into this.

It's it's been a growing process, and uh we're finally at that comfort level, but even though it's not a comfortable decision for you to make.

Next, don't leave.

I think you're up again for CI.

Oh no, parks, rat.

No, Scott, major road CIP is next.

All right.

A lot of this is uh we've covered a lot of these projects, so I'm gonna go fast on most of them, but there are a few things that we need to talk about.

Zone four sidewalks were substantially complete on this.

Um as you know, we we had some hiccups with trees, and uh I think we have a really good solution resolution to that that's worked tremendously, honestly, with this neighborhood that we had the issue with.

There's other cities that are looking at what we did because they're fighting the same battles.

So uh interestingly enough, the Timony neighborhood.

If I understand correctly, there was only two people that signed that liability form.

The rest of them we took their trees out, and so even though they all wanted a half of them more than half wanted them, and they came out in force when it came down to them taking the liability, only two were willing to sign that form.

So I don't know a hundred percent if those are accurate numbers, but it's pretty close.

Uh 700 1700 east storm drain, that's basically done.

So the Bangder intersection improvements.

This project is associated sort of with the development that's going to happen over here, but in advance of that.

This is being done with the funds that we received from the state.

Uh it's the widening of 138th and the widening of Bangar with some turn pockets into this development.

That estimated completion is in August.

Can you go up?

Have you had any um feedback from UDOT yet on their portion?

I have not, and uh it's frustrating because they've committed to doing it multiple times.

I've heard them commit, but there's uh they've committed to me.

Uh I I don't know if they've committed to you, but they've committed to a lot of people.

Uh they just haven't funded it, and I don't know what's gonna get them to do that, but we're probably gonna have to get our lobbyists back involved.

And yeah, so I I met with our lobbyist Greg Curtis and Senator Cullimore last week to um help Senator Cullimore understand the need for not only the project that would take uh a dedicated turn lane onto Bangar, but to also solve the problem westbound over the freeway, which is is a disaster right now.

Yeah, and um so Senator Senator Colmore understood and and Greg Curtis obviously understands, and they're working uh with Utah officials to impress upon them the importance of of these projects um to create a better traffic flow in this area.

And I think I think Mayor Walker was meeting with Utah too.

So isn't some of this the timing on the light?

It is no question.

That has to get fixed.

Like it is so backed up.

Yeah, I think I think without having to talk to you, you know, I I travel through this intersection every day.

And I think they're they're prioritizing moving eastbound traffic on Bangar because that as you're well aware, that backs up to 650 west, you know, during rush hour.

So they prioritize the signalization of that intersection, two movements versus one movement westbound uh for every road, you know, every time the lights change.

Um but that's not working because it's backing up our side of Bangarder to where it starts going up the hill now.

Exactly.

And I and I made that really clear to um Senator Colver.

He understands it it it looks like there might be width for another lane already in place.

There is it it's not a difficult fix, they've known it for a long time.

My discussions have been like, yeah, we're gonna get started right on it, and then it just fizzles.

And that I've had several of those conversations.

I mean, even if we just started with the lights, so it was equal, it would really help us out.

The problem is that you get backups on the I-15 from the on-ramp onto Bangatur.

So like northbound.

Um so they prioritize those.

So the the key is getting the most volume through a short the the short duration light by adding a lane, you fit you get 50% more traffic through that same width, you know, time width, and it really will help.

It's necessary.

Um they're going to do it, I'm sure of that.

I just we just need some pressure to get the timing.

That needs to be just an urgent number.

See, Tasha, I misunderstood too on this.

I thought that when we were looking at the rezoning of that, that the state had gotten some funding.

Was that funding arranged for the project we're doing?

I was thinking it included the U DOC, but that's totally separate.

Yeah, it's separate.

In this area, if we don't get the overpass fixed.

I I think it's just it's gonna get worse.

It's already, you know, what a D R and F and I it's gonna get worse if we don't get that over.

Yeah, and if it's not funded yet, I mean that even if it is delayed even more.

I'm not aware because literally the when I've the last conversations I had, it was like they were gonna get it was a high priority, they're gonna get on it and just haven't we looked at what's gonna happen when we open this this lane, and then they everyone has to turn you have to turn right on 150th because it doesn't go straight.

So people are gonna need a merge on bang iter that's already bumper to bumper.

So that lane is actually always gonna be uh right turn only.

What will open up is this hatched lane right here because and that will continue, so you'll have three lanes that continue across 150 east, uh, and you'll have another turn lane that will in addition to those three that will be the on ramp onto I-15.

So the three lanes that go through here will continue and go all the way across I-15.

And there is already the width on I-15 across I-15 and on the other side of I-15 for that lane.

There's just a little bit more width that's needed here.

Okay, so this this lane that we're creating will always be right will be right turn only after 150th.

So you can't go straight on that.

Correct, but you will have three lanes that do go through.

Well, just having that alone will help eliminate some congestion, right?

Yeah, yeah.

The it's if we can get the choke point resolved across I-15.

But we're gonna stripe it so that when this lane opens, there's only two lanes that are going across.

Because there's not a third lane there.

Yeah, okay.

So this is a temporary striping until that gets done.

Our pump station uh three upgrades.

Um we're almost finished with that project.

I believe there's a shutdown that is scheduled for next week, the week of July 13th.

It's a one-day shutdown.

Uh so we will be noticing that.

Uh it's only I say this this is probably about the fourth time that we've scheduled this shut shutdown.

So uh hopefully it'll go through.

Hopefully, we'll get all the parts in that we need, but we we only want to do one, so we've put everything off, and this should be the final one uh to get it all done.

No, this is an emergency shutdown.

Oh sorry, it will get us two more months, but then the final shutdown will be on the case.

I was wrong.

So we won't be able to do that shutdown.

Uh race in the search chain until we get filtered as not.

We have had a very difficult time getting the parts that we need, and I misunderstood earlier today.

So I what I just said erase that part.

Um there this is only a one-day shutdown for this emergency situation to get the pumps in there.

Uh, but we'll still have to have the other shutdown when the other parts come in.

So um, so our pavement maintenance is going well, they're actually getting pretty close to being done with the slurry seals, and that's always very nice.

Usually we're much later in the season when that happens.

Um and we've had a lot less complaints this year than typical, so that's been good.

I know there's still been some, but um it again, usually it just takes a few months, and people then appreciate what we just did.

So I I know in my area, Scott, where it was done, it just happened yesterday and today.

There are individuals that went right through the cones and have totally messed up the road.

It's some delivery delivery people and landscapers.

So I don't know.

It's very frustrating.

We deal with this every year, and unfortunately, people ruin their cars.

They I mean they they do dangerous stuff sometimes.

Yeah, and these aren't the residents, it's people that have come in to all right.

Pioneer Road 700 East to 1300 East.

This is gonna be our big project this year, and uh you may have heard a few things.

Um we've worked with everyone, uh everyone's satisfied with the parking situation, except this person on the corner.

Um, they're not keeping as many parking spots as they wanted.

Uh, but we can't provide more due to the site visibility issues and providing the access to their actual property here and to this lane.

So uh it just kind of is what it is.

We're actually we're we're squeezing in a couple here that's not shown on this drawing, but we've squeezed in as much as we can.

So just wanted to let you know that.

And the other ones we've already talked to, and they're pretty much resolved.

So that project, a lot of these projects are just waiting for Draper Days to get over with, and then they'll start in earnest.

Um 146 and Miniman intersection again.

This is one that's ready to start right after Draper Days.

This will provide the dual left turns um and hopefully be done by the end of September.

700 West sidewalk.

Uh there may be some people come in to our next uh meeting complaining about the narrowing of the road, and it's not really there's only one area where we narrowed the road, and it's this area right here where we had significant utilities, and there's plenty of road width that we could just gently um push the road to one side and then bring it back.

So it's not really a narrowing of the road per se.

Uh we're just avoiding some very costly utilities and property acquisitions by pushing it down in that area.

Otherwise, the curb and gutter is gonna sit where the existing asphalt is right now.

So the gutter pan is is gonna equal the asphalt that's there.

It's really not narrowing.

Uh this is gonna resolve a lot of the drainage issues that we have in this area, as well as provide a continuous sidewalk along the west side of 70 west, all the way from 123rd to 114th south.

And the sidewalk gap project, we have two this year.

Um the manfilled way, we're gonna have that finished.

Uh this is right by the Draper Elementary, and it'll be finished before school starts.

We're about ready to get started, probably right after Draper Days.

Um, and then Canyon Point Road, that's across the dam up in Hidden Canyon Estates.

Uh, that'll be done this year as well.

The par parking lot expansion.

This is here at Draper City Hall, and we're adding about 30 32 stalls, and uh starting that in August.

Suncrest detention pond, we're actually eliminating that pond, just taking uh the storm drain down.

This will go to our regional pond and eliminate the need for that pond.

Uh and then Suncrest PRV replacements.

Uh this is part of our water infrastructure that's in critical need of uh repair because of a lot of things actually.

Uh so this will replace two of the three.

The third one will be replaced when we replace the uh water line in Suncrest Drive, uh, which is hopefully gonna be done in the next few years.

Uh we have a we've received a grant for that work uh from the EPA, so that'll get done.

And then Lone Peak war uh widening.

This is not this year, this is next year.

And this is gonna be a very big project uh and very much needed.

If you recall, this is what the road does right now.

If you recall, this is what the road does right now, it does this almost 90 degree turn and connects 123rd down to 12650.

That's gonna be widened and then straighten the alignment will be straightened.

And next year also uh 700 East Harm 14 South dual up turns.

This is a project that we're doing with Sandy Sandy City.

So this will be next year.

And Fort Street Pioneer, we were hoping to do this next year, but with all the property acquisitions that's gonna need be needed, it's probably gonna be pushed out to summer of 2028.

We're also we've got some serious drainage issues that we've got to find detention areas for.

So that's the end.

Do you have any questions?

Any questions?

Thank you, sir.

We're at your next uh parks uh CIP update.

Thank you, Mayor and Council.

Just want to share with you uh an update on projects that parks and rec department's been working on.

Um completed projects.

We completed this one last month, uh pretty minor, but it's got rave reviews from the neighborhood.

If you're familiar, this is the cranberry neighborhood, and we just put this nice trail connection, which allows all the neighbors that live in the area to access uh the Port of Rockwell Trail from the neighborhood without having to go all the way around or over to 114.

So that's in, it's done, and uh being used.

So current projects we have going on right now, obviously Jensen Farm Park, uh phase three is basically completed.

Some few minor things we're working on, but our biggest last step was uh put a mural up on the big concrete wall, which looks really nice.

We gotta do some safety things on the concrete wall, but that's about it.

So we're planning on the 21st, which will be two weeks from tonight, uh, to have not only the completion of phase three, but the grand opening of the whole park, phase one, phase two, and phase three.

You know, to me it's awesome to think from when we cold called Randy Bowler and asked him if he'd sell us some property instead of put 200 homes to now we're finishing phase three.

It's awesome to see government working, and this park's been very well received by all the the neighbors around Seventh West, they're very excited.

So we'll have a a good grand opening in two weeks.

Pictures and ribbon cutting for you guys, and our staff's gonna plan some games and activities for the neighborhood and stuff as well.

So that is finished.

Uh this one we're really excited about.

We have finished our RFP selection process.

We've awarded the project to Lyndon Jones.

We have our kickoff meeting with them coming up uh next week.

So this will be a great project to eliminate the at grade crossing here on the bridge at Pioneer and Waynesworld.

So you'll be able to access the trail the whole way over the UTA bridge without having to get off the trail.

It'll be a paved trail all the way.

We're also adding this new leg, which will allow good access from the east side.

We're gonna re-landscape this piece.

So it's gonna be a nice looking project, and it'll really serve our city well to complete the trail.

And that should be done here within a few months.

When's that one gonna be done?

Um by the end of summer.

Uh Phoebe Brown phase two.

I've left it in here.

We don't have a lot of movement about a month or so ago.

We met in this room with a lot of the residents.

I know our city attorneys had some correspondence back and forth with with them or their attorney, but right now we're just waiting on direction how or when to move forward, so there's not a lot of update on this one.

When you say direction from the city council, yeah, that's what I was gonna ask.

Yeah, we're is there any direction from us you're waiting on?

Well, I think we're waiting to know how to proceed with the legalities.

So right now, just to give you an update, we did meet with the homeowner.

Um their biggest concern their biggest stated concern is is safety.

And so just with regard to um the safety issues, as I went through and looked at our stats.

We've only had two claims in the past 10 years on a trail.

So we had one involving a mountain bike and we had one involving trees um doing damage to a fence.

We did not pay out on the mountain bike accident, we did pay out on the tree um fence damage.

So the amount of damages that the city's paid just in the past 10 years for trails is five like about five thousand dollars.

So we know that from a safety perspective, um we're actually not incurring a lot of risk, and so one of the things that we have discussed with the homeowners, and I think that they are currently discussing contemplating um would just be um if they would be willing to work with us if we agree to indemnify them to a certain degree on any um you know accidents that might happen on on the city trail itself due to you know obviously the city's negligence, and so um they seem to be considering this.

Um I think at this point what we would need to know is are you ready to proceed with this particular um section of the trail?

Um we do you know um have that link still, I think to make to combine the whole thing.

So we can work that out as is what I believe.

So at least at this point.

Council members way in.

Um I thought we already kind of gave this.

We need to move forward go on the trail.

Ren?

Absolutely.

Oh, I agree, yeah.

Well, that's four of the five.

Okay, there you go.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh this next one's a fairly simple project that we've done to this point, mostly in-house.

If you remember, we've got two parks side by side.

Inauguration Park and Sunrise Park, but uh there was a big fence here with a bunch of Russian olives and junk trees, and we had a lot of safety issues with kids cutting through our fence multiple times a year to get to the nice park.

So we've really greened up the grass, worked hard on the irrigation to get it looking nice, and then we've you can see now that it's become one big park, so that both neighborhoods, both the inauguration and sunrise neighborhoods have access to the park.

So our next step is to uh it's one we've been doing mostly in-house.

You won't see a lot more movement till summer kind of busyness gets down, but later fall this winter we'll be finishing that project.

But it'll be great to combine that for both neighborhoods of that area draper.

Um this one we this is if you remember, this is our current bridge that we're looking at the other day.

It's amazing how it's still holding on, but it needs to be replaced.

The channel just keeps getting wider and wider.

So we have it under contract with Avid.

Um there was a little bit of problem this last week with their concrete footings.

We first asked them if they wanted to use Gabian baskets and they wanted to use concrete, and then we need you know, we needed to figure out how they're gonna get it engineered and get that much concrete that high up, and they can't figure it out that part quite yet.

So we're working on the footings, but the the bridge is ready to go that we'll have have done late summer, early fall as well.

And this one is about done within the end of the month, it should be done.

It's uh it's basically off-ramp off of rattle and home, but it will eliminate a lot of the the cross traffic on Eagle Crest, and it'll just provide an easy jump off over to Woods Hollow, and then you can continue on Eagle Crest.

So it's just one that uh most of our staff have just done, and it's gonna be a great addition to that side of the mountain over there.

This one we've discussed with you a few times.

It's the new trail up by Red Rock Climbing Area.

Uh this is one that we're gonna be starting on next week, and our in-house uh parks and trails crew will be doing that ourselves.

Octune baby is still yet to be scheduled.

It's gonna be funded by Corner Canyon Trails Foundation.

They've agreed to do that, but uh we haven't got a date on them, so it'll probably be next year when that one's finished, but it does need a good tune up as all the downhill bikes do at time.

And that was the end of our projects.

I've got a lot of that are in the early stages, but I just kept the ones that we're working on right now.

But uh if there's any questions on those, I'll be happy to answer them.

I've heard from a couple of residents with concerns about wear and tear on the suspension bridge.

How often do we have to replace some of those wooden slats going across?

Uh this year's the first year we've had to replace any of those.

We had a few wear out and fall off.

We actually contacted Wadsworth to see if we could find out where we got those in 2015 to get some of the same treated lumber.

But it's not often, but we have had to this year, but we're 11 years old now.

Yeah, and it's gotten a lot of use.

Oh, every day.

So is it now fully functional?

Okay, great.

Daniels.

Okay, thank you.

Any other questions for Rhett.

All right.

Thank you, Rhett.

That takes us to uh council manager issues.

Who wants to start?

I have nothing.

Anyone else have I go ahead.

I just have a couple things with uh the rodeo that we have this weekend, Friday and Saturday.

Kelly and David have been amazing in what they've been doing, preparing for this.

So I appreciate all of their work on it.

It's and Kelly, you can pipe in on any of this as far as the sponsorships and stuff.

If you want to talk about that real quickly, and then um we the sponsorships keep coming in.

We just received another what six grand, I think, in the last couple days.

So we have reached over a hundred thousand for sponsorships.

I think we're about one oh two, which we only had eighty-eight last year.

Um so those have been really well.

Travis and business licensing has done great job, and um we've just reached out to people.

So uh rodeo sponsors, we have some good ones.

Um Fred's done a great job too.

If you go by the arena, it's it's really decorated for America 250.

We have lots of uh the youth council coming in with a big flag.

We have horse riders carrying all the flags in.

It should be really patriotic.

We got our new video board.

Um that'll have the live feed with replay with it.

Um one of the things I didn't see Chief Eining here or with Clint.

We do want to recognize our police and fire in that grand entry.

So if either Chief Smith or whoever will be the top from the fire department, we want you to be available if you can be, and we'll do that with the police department too.

And then Rhett, can we just make sure that that gets power washed this by Thursday?

It's been done.

Great.

That's a that's a key.

Then one other thing I just wanted to ask with the council.

Um we have uh an individual that Delane and Becky Hutchen that have been a part of that planning this rodeo for since it started.

Um his name is he goes by Hutch.

I think you guys have uh heard of him.

Um Hutch is getting up, he's up in his 80s, his health isn't great.

I'd really like to be able to recognize him while he knows he can be recognized.

And have thought about um maybe if it'd be want your approval, if we could have them maybe be named as like the grand marshals of the rodeo, and we could recognize them, have them come out and ride them or drive them around similar mare like you do with uh the Draper royalty.

If uh the council approves of that, we'd like to I'd like to suggest that.

I think that's awesome.

Okay, that sounds good to me.

Okay, and Kelly and I can coordinate that with David.

And that's all that I have with the rodeo.

Are you gonna put him like in a monster truck, or what are you gonna do?

Figure out what you want to do.

Put them in a covered wagon or that's what that's what we have.

That's what we got to figure out.

Yeah.

It might be two Dodge Tundras driving them and the royalty around, so we'll figure it out.

Well, thank Frank.

Thanks, Fred, for pitching in and upgrading a lot of cool stuff.

That video board is gonna be awesome.

The city staff has been amazing on it, so thank you.

Right, anything Brand, do you have anything?

No.

Mike, you said no, Tasha.

I am continuing to have concerns about the 8404,000 phone number.

It's just not functional.

I I get at least two to three messages from residents a week who've called it and are just on hold for half an hour with no response.

I don't know what we're doing about that.

It's an ongoing issue, but I it has to be addressed.

People are so frustrated with it.

Can anyone speak to this?

I can I can update you a little bit on that.

Um I've talked with Ivan Whitaker over at Beck 911.

Um, they are so short staffed right now that there are times they just cannot answer that phone.

Um he again reminded me that in an emergency, please encourage people to call 911.

But they're just swamped and uh struggling to find dispatchers, 911 dispatchers for the entire valley.

Um they've been patching our channel, Draper PD with Murray PD, South Salt Lake PD, so that they have one dispatcher covering both cities at a time sometimes, and um so we're doing what we can to work with them during the daytime hours.

We have taken our tree.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Jake.

You may know about this.

And we are patching through numbers from that into our records department, and they are answering those calls, but that's only during the day, Monday through Friday, uh, eight to five.

I mean, I think it's still happening during the day.

I don't I don't know what to do about this.

Can we have Draper?

Can we send these calls to Draper staff?

Is that what you're saying is happening right now?

From from eight to five Monday through Friday, they're coming into the police records department.

And someone's for sure answering that phone.

Well, as they can, but yes, it's it's much better than VEC.

Um I mean, there may be times when somebody's not available in records to answer the call, but we hope that it would remedy.

This is kind of not sustainable, right?

Like we're patching together and make it work right now.

What is the long-term plan for the VEC number?

The long-term plan with VEC, they're implementing AI into their system.

Um it's quite expensive.

They're bringing it in, they've tested it out of Phoenix PD and some other larger metropolitan areas.

They're hoping that that's going to offset up to about a hundred thousand calls per year that are coming in there that will free up dispatchers so they can come back to answering non-emergency calls.

Um in the meantime, other chiefs that I've talked to are doing exactly what we're doing.

They're patching them through into their into their office staff during the day.

Mr.

Barker, is there any way we can temporarily put some staff onto this line that we're running into the city so that at least if they call here during the daylight hours, someone answers the phone?

Yeah, Chief Ferguson, I could talk about that and come up with the plan.

I mean did you want to say something?

Yeah, and I will check first thing in the morning and see how many calls we have been receiving.

But to my knowledge, they have been going through Monday through Friday.

Okay.

I I don't know if this is the right thing, but I would wonder if it's possible to create our own number for that that we run as a city that we could message out until VEC has us under control because people get really frustrated with us.

I mean, and it's not necessarily urgent stuff like the ducklings that fell down the storm drain, but we also don't really want residents driving to the fire stations to ask for help with problems.

Like I just think we need to be doing better by our Draper residents.

When it's such a simple thing to have someone answer the phone.

Like I do think maybe we need to just say to people we know VEC is not able to meet the capacity of calls right now.

If you need help during the daytime hours, don't call 8404000.

Call the city staff and we'll get you to the correct department.

Yeah, we can look into that.

I'll report back to you.

Anything else?

Yeah, anything else?

No.

Are we paying into VEC?

Are we paying for this?

Through the nose to be per paying for VEC.

Yeah.

Oh yes, we are paying.

Through the nose would be an accurate.

Okay, so we're paying for a non-functional service that hasn't been functioning for I would say six months at this point.

That's probably conservative.

Okay.

So I hate to say it.

I really think this is a serious problem.

I've brought it up multiple times.

It's not getting any better.

If anything, it's getting worse.

I at some point can we pull out of VEC and staff our own phone lines?

I I think we have to find a different answer.

That ain't the answer.

Yeah, we can't we can't do that.

But we also can't not answer the telephone.

Well, we we're answering the 911 calls.

That's what matters the most.

Um I mean, I look, it's definitely a problem, but you can't solve every problem.

I mean, I you know, I don't know how you solve this problem.

I don't I'm not sure that I have any.

I don't think you can.

I think they're doing what they can.

Or at least message back to VEC very firmly that they need to be hiring more staff.

Um having run a dispatch center before, I assure you, he's doing everything he can.

It is a very difficult job to fill.

They they have a turnover rate, they have a failure rate in training alone of over 60 percent.

Um it's it's a difficult job to to train people to do, and when they do get them, it's a it's shift work.

Um a lot of them are single parents.

Um they wash out a lot a lot.

It's very few dispatchers in the state of Utah that make it to retirement.

So he's he's doing what he can.

We're doing what we can to support him as chiefs, fire and police.

And I'm very aware of this problem.

Um I I'll start working on it tomorrow and see if there's any other solutions that we can come up with for our citizens.

Um do we have an idea of the volume of non-emergency calls that are made daily?

I mean, do we how have an idea how big it is?

I I've I've got those stats um in a report I can pull off my computer.

I would like to have a report.

Like, could at the next study session, can we actually go over this and what the number of daily calls?

Where they actually like are people calling the A40400 number when they should be calling a different department?

Like maybe we need to communicate with residents who you call for what.

Yeah, I don't I we I don't want to create a culture where we just call 911.

No, I don't I really don't want to do that either.

That'll overwhelm the system completely.

Um it is something that I have talked in length with Mr.

Whitaker about the director of VEC and other chiefs.

So we'll Yeah, I'd be really curious to know what those calls actually are.

I don't know if there's a way to track the number of calls that our citizens are putting in that are not being answered.

Um the only way I could track are the ones that are being received.

Okay, but I want to know the ones that are being answered.

Are they all police calls?

Like are they calling the right number?

That's a that's a good question.

I don't know the answer to.

I can find out.

Because maybe we can redirect some of those calls with better communication.

Yeah.

Does anybody else have any other counsel?

We have a few minutes.

We'll take a break until we start at seven.

All right, we'll get underway.

Call our city council meeting to order.

We're gonna start like we do often with the Pledge of Allegiance.

It will be offered this evening by Councilmember Fred Lowry.

Please rise.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

And to the republic for it, which is stands on a nation under our justice.

Thank you, Fred.

Takes us to item number three on our agenda, which is an opportunity for general public comment.

We have we have three items on our agenda that are public hearings.

Item 5A 5B and 5C.

Um if you're here for one of those items, we ask that you wait to make your public comment when I call those items for public hearing.

But if you have a general public comment and you would like to make one, um we will we'll do those now.

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

All right, hold on a second.

Let me give you our rules in case you're unfamiliar.

Um to the right of me is a clock, it's set at three minutes.

Um everybody gets three minutes.

You don't have to take them all, but you can, but you don't give more than three minutes, so that's the way our rules work.

Please give us your name and address when you start your comments.

I'll start the timer.

It's an opportunity to make comments, not a question and answer period with the council, so you can make a comment, we'll listen.

Um we don't allow displays of signs or applause or any of those type of things in our public comment.

So um I'll take those in order to want to go, sir.

Would you have to go first?

Give us your name and address.

Go ahead.

Uh my name is Ken Davis.

My address is 3379 East Daneborg Circle.

Uh Mayor Walker, Council members, thank you for the courtesy of a few minutes this evening.

Um I have the privilege of being here with my two children.

Uh my better three quarters is away on work, so I'm Mr.

Dad.

I live in Cottonwood Heights with my wife Katie.

And I am the Republican nominee for Saltley County District Attorney.

Tonight I'm here to listen.

A short word on why I'm qualified to do that.

I spent the last two decades leading teams in difficult environments.

I did two deployments to Iraq, was an infantry officer, a ranger tab, a bronze star, and came home to continue my public service.

I came home, went to law school, I clerked for a federal judge, and went from there to the United States Department of Justice and served uh most recently as a deputy district attorney here in Salt Lake County from 2017 to 2021, where I built the cybercrime unit from the ground up.

Today I lead cybersecurity and serve as corporate counsel for Woodbury Corporation, and I serve on two Utah Supreme Court advisory committees, including the rules of professional conduct.

I share that not as a resume, but to make a point.

Leadership, as you all are the most acutely aware, is showing up where the work is being done and listening to the people who are doing it.

That's what I'm trying to do tonight.

Over the last few weeks, I've been visiting city councils from across the valley from Harriman to West Jordan, Taylorsville, Sandy, tonight, Draper, because the district attorney is a countywide office, and its work touches every one of those rooms.

So that's what I want to keep doing, regardless of whether or not I win in November.

That's why I'm here tonight.

The DA's office, like I said, is a countywide office.

When your officers refer a case, the income of the outcome and the impact land here in Draper.

When a domestic violence victim calls 911, what happens next is partly on the district attorney's office.

Draper should not have to wait for a press conference to find out what's happening in one of its cases to happening in an officer-involved shooting.

The fentanyl and meth stolen cars moving up and down the Wasatch corridor, or the 20% of offenders who are making up the majority of it.

So I'd like to open a direct line.

I'd be happy to attend a town hall if you're willing to have me.

Answer any questions that you bring me.

Tell me what Draper needs from the next district attorney.

I'll take it seriously.

How many of you got to find and I welcome you to uh welcome you all to do so?

Mayor, council members, thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Who'd like to be next?

Mayor Walker and uh Draper City Council, thank you for allowing me to speak.

My name is Kathleen Anderson.

My address is 1923 at Ken Avenue in Salt Lake City.

I'm here um on a matter of just a personal point of privilege.

We my husband and I, we wanted to recognize and thank soon-to-be U.S.

Army Major Mike Green for his service and his recent eight-month deployment.

We wanted to say thank you, welcome back home, and to just present you with a couple gifts, if that's okay.

So a hero for a hero, some candy, and then uh Rob's most prized possession.

You're gonna get a 787 American airline trading card.

So thank you, Mike.

Thank you so much, Kathleen and Rob.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Go ahead, sir.

Hello, my name is Jim Stitz.

I'm at uh 1312 13122, Vista Station uh number 427.

And um, I just want to um briefly provide uh a semi-outsiders perspective on our water situation since I recently moved here uh earlier this year.

Um I had lived in South Jordan during the late 90s, and then up at uh Utah State in Logan into the early aughts.

And at that time, Utah was already notorious for having the second highest water consumption per capita in the country.

Um over the subsequent 20 years, I continue to pay attention to what's happening here, and I thought, surely, with all the grim news coming out of Utah and the apocalyptic headlines uh about the future of the Great Salt Lakes, surely the good people of Utah would have come to their senses by now and would have come to appreciate the gravity of their situation.

Um but when I got here, I was stunned.

I continue to be stunned at what I see.

We've still got green lawns everywhere.

We've still got all these little bumpers and medians in the retail parking lots with delicate European flower beds, and half of that water goes straight onto the pavement.

Um it makes me wonder do we still not understand what's going on?

Are we not taking this seriously?

Do we not appreciate um that we are in grave danger of handing our children in ecological wasteland, including the collapse of the Western bird migration as the brine shrimp and the brine flies die, um, turning the Great Salt Lake Valley into a toxic dust cloud as all that lake bed gets lofted up into the into the atmosphere.

Um the loss of what few wetlands remain along the Great Salt Lake.

Do we just not get it?

Are we not taking it seriously?

Um I will sidebar this by just briefly by saying I, you know, because I don't understand how much of the the water jurisdiction as an issue is under control of the city versus the regional water utility versus the state engineer.

I you know, I'm not in a position to say you should do you know, thus and so pass this and that ordinance, but it is apparent to me that we still are under the grave misimpression that we have all the water in the world.

We don't.

I see no reason why we should be continuing to permit this uniform carpet of green bluegrass lawns just because we have this peculiar attachment to an outdated aesthetic that passed its its expiration date a long time ago.

Now there are some places that surely grass is appropriate, the kids need their soccer field, fine.

If the adults insist on playing golf, fine.

I hope they're paying decently for it, but we're still acting like we're we just don't understand where we live.

And I I would hope you would take that perspective into consideration whenever you're setting water policy.

Thank you.

All right, I have a card.

I think it's Chris Hill.

Is that right?

Chris, I'm gonna let you come up and give a general public comment.

Come on up.

It's uh we don't do comments on action items, but you wanted to talk.

I'll give you a chance to make a public comment if you'd want.

Go ahead and give us your name and address if you would, sir.

Sure, thank you, Mayor.

Thank you, council, and thank you, city uh officials.

My name is Chris Hill.

I live at 5183 North Luke Street in Eagle Mountain.

Honestly, I'm here tonight because I bid on the recent RFP for the solid waste and recycling contract, and admittedly a good choice as I we did my research.

Ace is a great company, and I have nothing bad to say at all, but we're a new company, and what I've been challenged with consistently is how's a new company to start a service when we're not considered for the service.

So I would just hope that you know, going forward, you consider the fact that there are a lot of really good companies.

An example in my case, prior military veteran, 30 years in the solid waste industry with Republic and other companies.

We're trying to start a new company here locally, and this is a great opportunity for us to have done that with a great city, and an opportunity for us to partner with you and contribute to the community as well as to find a home here, build our facility and run our routes out of here.

So just a little disappointment on my part because I'm trying to bid contracts and I'm not being considered because we don't have the experience.

I've got 30 years of experience, more experience than most of the leaders here in the industry, but I can't be considered because I don't have any routes.

So I would just hope that in the future you consider that there's opportunities out there for people, and rather than just leave it to those that exist, the larger companies that have been here a long time, prime and case or case in point, AC started with one truck, I'm sure, and at some point they grew to what they are.

Great company.

Again, I have nothing bad to say, but I just hope in the future you'd offer opportunities for those like us to have an opportunity to bid and serve you as well.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else that can make a general public comment?

Oh, Tyler Ashby 1116 East, 132nd South.

Um for 20 years I've been told the same thing by co-workers, bosses, mentors, investors.

Tyler, you are gonna catch more flies with honey than vinegar.

My response is always the same.

Flies are born in shit, and I'm here to disrupt.

You wouldn't hire me if you didn't need me, and I wouldn't be here if the status quo is acceptable.

I am a disruptor.

It is what I do, it is my business, it is how I approach life.

I actively look for truth and justice, and I am not afraid of the consequences, and I do not believe I am above the consequences.

John Lewis said, get in trouble, good trouble, necessary trouble.

You will see that from twenty when the truth comes out from 2021.

I did everything quietly except spend 20,000 that I did not have.

I have that money now, and then I got noisy.

In my past attendance of the city council, I have stayed until the end of the meeting out of respect for the body and what you do.

Have a good night.

Thank you.

Does anyone else like to make a general public comment?

Apologies.

All right, seeing no further general public comments, I'm gonna move to item number four, which item number four A, which is an opportunity for the council to approve consent items.

I'm 4A is approval of the June 2nd, 2026 and the June 9th, 2026 City Council meeting minutes.

Item 4B is approval of resolution 2634.

It's a resolution of the Draper City Council acting as the governing body of the Traverse Ridge Special Service District certifying a tax rate for the 2027 taxable year.

Council members.

Mr.

Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to approve the consent calendar.

Motion by Miss Lowry to approve items 4A and B.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

Second by Ms.

Johnson.

Any further discussion?

Our hearing non Tosh Howdy vote?

Yes.

Ryn.

Yes.

Mike.

Yes.

Items approved unanimously four to zero of council members present.

That takes us to item number five.

Item number five A is a public hearing item.

It is ordinance number 1726.

It's an ordinance of the Draper City Council amending the text of titles 9 and 17 of the Draper City Municipal Code related to corner lots.

Exciting business.

And we'll have a staff report by Mr.

Todd Taylor.

Go ahead, sir.

Thank you.

So these proposed text amendments are in response to unclear text uh related to corner lots and the setbacks for those lots.

Specifically, this is for lots and parcels that are abutting a private road and which have no access to that private road.

Previously, before we realized that the text was unclear, we were treating these lots as interior lots.

Uh but since we discovered that uh text was unclear, we have been determining them to be corner lots, which changed the setbacks.

Uh we've also proposed some other changes just uh uh improve the clarity of the uh the code.

Uh so I just wanted to give an example.

Uh this is a uh parcel that's on Fort Street.

You can see it here in about 2012 when it was in a little bit more rural setting um with no development to the south.

Uh then a development came into the south, and they they placed the Sainsbury Court uh just to the south of the parcel.

Um this parcel uh does not have access to Sainsbury Court, it is owned uh by all of the lots within the subdivision and still gets its access off of Fort Street.

Uh more recently the house was removed.

Um you can see here just that um the Sainsbury uh Simmons subdivision to the south.

So again, this uh lot was previously identified as uh interior lot, currently it would be treated as a corner lot, and this text amendment is uh meant to clarify the text so that we can again determine it to be an interior lot since it has no access to Sainsbury Court.

Uh so what we we've done is uh gone into the definitions and added uh sort of an exemption for uh not counting uh that private road as a road for the purposes of of determining what a corner lot is.

Uh we brought in um new definition for uh public right-of-way or private street and public street.

These were actually brought in from our subdivision code so that they'd all be in one place.

Um we just made some modifications to clarify uh setback measurements, um, removed the uh unclear text, and then we uh are referencing the previous definitions of in our subdivision ordinance to reference into our zoning code now.

Uh on June 25th, the planning commission heard this item and for the deposit of recommendation uh with a vote of three to zero, and uh that concludes my presentation and available if you have any questions.

Questions for Todd.

All right, no questions.

Thank you, Todd.

This is a public hearing, ordinance number 1726.

Is there anyone from the public that would like to address the council on this item?

All right, seeing no public comment, I'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the council.

Mr.

Mayor.

Yes, sir.

I'll make a motion that we adopt ordinance 1726, amending the text of title nine and seventeen of the draper code related to corner lots.

Right in motion by is by Mr.

Green to adopt ordinance 1726, sir.

Second, I'll second.

Second by Ms.

Lowry.

Any further discussion?

Mike, how do you vote?

Yes.

Yes, Bryn.

Yes.

Fred.

Yes.

Items approved uh four to zero of council members present.

Item five B is next.

It is a public hearing as well.

It's ordinance number seventeen twenty-seven.

It's an ordinance of Draper City adopting text amendments to section nine-thirty one-zero four zero of Draper City Municipal Code regarding standards for the creation of detached accessory dwelling units.

We'll have the staff report by our own Mr.

Todd Draper.

Go ahead, sir.

All right, thank you.

So uh to start out, this is not a city initiated text amendment.

This came from a resident.

We did as staff uh work with them a little bit on some of the language, but uh this is being proposed by them.

Uh so this proposal is essentially to take uh existing accessory buildings and allow them to be converted into detached accessory dwelling units or DADUs.

Uh if this uh were approved, it would allow for that as long as that accessory building or structure complies with the uh setbacks for an accessory building or structure already in the ordinance.

Uh this would also require them to meet the height of that accessory uh structure building for the ordinance, so that is lower than what would be currently allowed in uh for a new detached ADU that was complying with the setbacks for the main home.

So with that, this is just kind of the uh text um staff did put this together in our typical format with blue being the added language, red being the language taken out, and then what is in black is is remaining.

Uh essentially to create two different categories, uh one for new ones being built, and then one for existing structures.

Uh at staff's recommendation, they did add those structures that existed prior to the enactment of our last change to the uh accessory dwelling unit uh standards, and then uh most of these uh are the same, with again, like I mentioned, the two different uh options for compliance with setbacks and height, either meeting uh those for any other main building uh in the zoning district, or for those meeting uh the accessory building setbacks.

Uh, what this will typically be is uh a 10-foot setback from a property line uh and up to uh 25 feet in height to the peak for existing accessory buildings.

Um there is a very low likelihood but small possibility that that could include accessory buildings under 200 square feet, which could be as close as up to the property line.

Unlikely, but it could be a possibility.

Um the other changes to the text here really, uh, just to make it clear uh that they can be located in in any yard that isn't the front yard.

Uh, and then uh this uh last piece here is actually just the height, but it's been incorporated into that earlier piece right there.

And uh apparently my edits to this slide didn't take as well.

It was actually uh at the June 11th meeting that the planning commission did forto positive recommendation, but that was on a 5-0 vote, not a 3-0.

And if there are any other questions, I'd be happy to help answer.

Go ahead.

Um, so we talked about the the setbacks of um either over 200 feet or under 200 feet.

Are there only really the the two options?

That one would be um at least 10 feet from you know the the neighboring property, or it could be on the property line.

Uh yeah, it uh those are the two options for accessory buildings in our ordinance right now under 200 square feet.

Uh there is an additional piece of that.

It when I say it could be at the property line, it still has to be 10 feet away from a building or dwelling on a neighboring property.

So there is still, if you will, a fire separation, but if there was nothing on that other side of the property line, they could be as close as up to the property line.

But it's very unlikely that someone is going to be able to take a shed or or other outbuilding that's to under 200 square feet and convert it into an ADU that's a very limited amount of area.

I'll also add to that.

Sorry.

Yeah, generally I'll also add to that.

Um with those size standards for detached structures, there's also difference in height.

So a structure that's under 200 square feet, yes, it can go to the property line, but they're actually limited to 12 feet in height to the peak of the roof.

Um, where uh structure that's over 200 square feet, they have that 10-foot setback, but they also have additional height from that 12 feet.

So they are a little bit larger structures than so the under 200 square feet is is really designed to be a shed structure.

So it would be difficult to convert those because of the small area, but also the low ceiling height.

And the current DADU setback is 20 feet.

Is that right?

And that could be 10 if it was like an R4, but where most of our uh residential will is kind of in that RA2, uh RA1 kind of zone, that's gonna be a 12-foot setback.

The idea being if you build it to the main building setbacks, it's gonna be in the same area you could build house, part of a house or expand a house into uh and then the height was the same up to the 35 feet, same as a house could be built.

So then what this is doing with this text amendment means that we would then have a variance from what our existing uh ordinances if someone was to build an exterior ADU right now, they couldn't build it on a property line, they'd have to meet those setbacks.

Yes, yeah.

This would be only for existing outbuildings, not somebody couldn't build an outbuilding now and then convert that into to one of these uh after that.

And it'd be only for those buildings that existed prior to that date.

I have some concern around that because I feel like we deliberately set those setbacks to be what they were for ADUs, and these buildings were not originally intended to be used as housing, and now we're switching their use and changing the setback.

And that also brings me to the concern of the surrounding neighbors.

Would this change be made would have no opportunity to express dissent with potentially new housing going right up to their fence line because they would be granted this same right as any other?

I I have a policy concern with this because I feel like we're being asked to change citywide policy for one specific interest.

And that may be a question for the applicant.

Um, but uh they can probably explain better their reasoning for submitting this, but it is allowed in our code that they can propose that uh amendment to the code, and that's what we've brought here.

Yeah, that's clarifying.

Yes, go ahead.

No, clarify.

Can you clarify if this was I haven't seen a city or sorry, a citizen initiated text amendment?

Did they have the assistance of private legal counsel when they applied for this, or is this something that they brought on their own?

To my knowledge, is it something they brought on their own, but they could better answer than I could if they had any other additional assistance.

But at least like in your involvement with them, they have not been represented.

Not to my knowledge.

Okay, thanks.

I guess my question is I'm wondering is why would we allow existing exterior buildings to have a different setback than what we have established for these exterior ADUs?

It would seem we would need we should apply the same standard for new construction and existing ones.

Yeah.

Uh with this, they would still have to comply with building code uh for that residential structure, just the same.

So there may be some additional things that would need to be done.

Again, um there are other cities that have provisions that allow for some conversion.

Uh, and I know that the applicants presented some evidence to that uh effect as well, uh, but that is not something when as staff we looked at the ordinance the last time that we we took that into account or or uh look to to create this kind of a process.

So uh again, we're just bringing it uh to the council for consideration.

I mean, is there another means that this could be addressed rather than doing a citywide text amendment?

I don't I don't know that there is.

I mean, this is a specific instance for this applicant where the uh building that they have that they would like to convert does not comply with that setback, and so this was what they uh brought forward as their proposal to remedy that.

And while this might work in that one instance and not pose a problem for their surrounding environment, my concern is that they're asking us to adopt a citywide policy, which might pose problems in other areas with other neighbors.

Is there any other option in which they could just singularly address this concern, perhaps through a development agreement or something that would only be specific to their one property?

Um I don't know if I can really answer the development agreement question because that probably depends a little bit on our legal counsel as to whether there would be consideration for the city in that instance.

That would be a concern, certainly.

So I I will add it's Jen again.

I will add the applicant did apply for a variance and they were unsuccessful in that application, they could not meet the standard set by the state for a variance on the uh setback for their proposed ADU.

So they did try another avenue unsuccessfully, so they are trying uh tax amendment.

Um that's what we've brought before you.

Um we have not discussed a development agreement with them.

I think it does come down to what the consideration for the city would be in that instance.

Who reviewed that variance?

So variances go to our appeals and variance officer, so it's a third-party uh attorney that the city contracts with to hear all appeals and variances, and standards for variances are set by the state.

Um, and it's essentially it's there's there's like five standards, but essentially it's based on a physical hardship with the property.

But it's just one judge that makes that determination.

Correct.

Yeah, and it's an ALJ process, and the city does have council that represents its interests in that process as well.

Any other questions for Mr.

Draper?

Is the applicant here?

Yeah, please.

You're welcome to address the council.

Uh if you want now, you could wait till after public comment, or and you can have the last word.

So come on up and give us your name and address.

Okay.

I'm Ellen Rohr.

Thanks, Mr.

Mayor, Council, Planning Commission.

That's my husband Bob Rohr, my son Max Roar.

Our address is 763 West 11560 South Draper.

And the reason why we went this route is because perhaps not unique to Draper, but unusual in the Salt Lake Valley is not having a concession for an existing building, a detached ADU C, which would be a conversion of an existing building.

And so our approach was we're not going to be the only people in this situation.

And the a variance was an approach, but as we looked into it, we thought, well, what is happening in the state of Utah, which has made uh a very public approach to we want ADUs, we want to have people age in place, that is our intention for our home.

But the broader picture is what is available to all of the outbuildings, accessory buildings, barns, shops that would make appropriate living approaches, and keeping in mind that there's still a permitting process.

These it's not going to be a shed turned into a house.

It will also comply with the rest of the building code that's been established in Draper.

So our approach is that it would be time to address this, given the the goals and the initiatives of Draper City as well as Utah to make some concession for detached ADU that's already, you know, to convert an existing building.

Because our option would be to tear down a perfectly good building, and ours isn't the only family that would be um concerned here.

So that's why we decided to take this route with a text amendment.

So there are still the rest of the um rules are in place in terms of what the building has to meet in terms of code and permitting.

It's just an appropriate building that it seems wasteful and against the policy of Draper to have to redo a building that is in code based on its accessory status, but wouldn't be if it's now an ADU.

Does that make sense?

But I think we need to bear in mind that it's in code for its use as a garage, not as housing.

Right.

And you're trying to change the use of the building.

Yes.

And in your case, you may not have a backyard neighbor that's going to be upset by this, but I think there are other cases where this garage or shed may abut directly to the property line, and all of a sudden your behind neighbor suddenly has another, basically another house right on the property line.

But that property right on the property line only exists.

That only functions as I understand it with a 200 square foot building, which is not appropriate for an ADU.

So this is the problem is this is a citywide policy.

So you're changing it universally.

It's not going to be that we're looking at each case in point, right?

And I cannot say that this is going to work.

Right.

It may not.

But it also will be an issue for existing buildings on Draper properties moving forward.

And so the other neighborhoods, the other cities, have put something in place that is just like we're proposing.

It's not like this is new or clever.

It's where we got the idea.

Wait, so um, Todd, are you saying then any structure that's over 200 square feet?

Has to meet the proper setbacks.

Any structure has to meet the setbacks.

There's just a difference for accessory structures when they are over 200 square feet or under 200 square feet.

Yeah, so if they're over 200 square feet, what's the setback for that accessory?

It would be 10 feet from the property lines instead of the traditional 20 feet.

Uh it would it would uh it would depend on the property line specifically.

Um the side yard setback would be different than the rear yard setback.

The rear yard would be 20 side yards uh for most of our residential zones are either 12 or 10.

We do have a few of the smaller zones with eight, and then of course, our multifamily gets down into the six feet and five feet range.

So anything over the two hundred feet of an accessory accessory building would be ten feet that would be grandfathered in this.

Yeah, that yeah, anything that that met that thank you.

Any further questions for the applicant right now?

All right, thank you.

We'll give you the last word as part of it.

This is the public hearing.

Is there anyone from the public that would like to address the council on ordinance number 1727?

All right.

Seeing no public comment, I'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the council.

All right, Mr.

Mayor, I'd like to move to deny ordinance 1727.

I understand what you're asking for, but my concern is the universal application of this and the fact that we had no recourse to other residents and their neighbors.

There would be no public hearing moving forward.

They would just be approved.

We would not be looking at them is an individual situation.

All right, there's a motion to deny ordinance number 17270 second.

I'll second.

All right, we've seconded by Ms.

Johnson.

Is there further discussion, council members on this item?

Um I I would also like to just explore if there are other ways to do this on a more individual basis because I agree with um Tasha that um it may work in certain situations, but not in others, and so that's what my concern is with this overall change.

I would agree with you.

That's my concern too, because I can see what their need is and you know, where it's reasonable that we have to be careful of what the unintended consequence could happen if we do this text amendment.

Yeah, sharing the same concerns.

Uh this is a law of general applicability, and I don't think it's narrowly tailored to this specific problem we're trying to resolve.

Are there any further discussion amongst the council?

Um Josh, how do you vote?

Yes, Brennan Yes, Mike, yes, Fred.

Yes.

All right.

The item is denied by a vote of four to zero council members present.

I am next item on the agenda is item number five C.

It's a public hearing as well, and it's ordinance 1728, 1729, and 1730.

Ordinance of Draper ordinances of Draper City amending the official land use map of Draper City, the official zoning map of Draper City, and approving a development agreement of approximately 1.95 acres located at approximately 762 west, 12300 south, known as the Kuwahara nursery land use map and zoning map amendments and the Kuahara nursery development agreement with a staff report with Mr.

Todd Draper.

Go ahead, sir.

All right, thank you.

This is you mentioned is the Kuhar Nursery Development located here from the vicinity map on 123rd South, kind of as you're headed out towards uh Riverton.

Uh the site is the nursery uh portion of uh Kuohara, uh not there, Thriller Park and whatnot that is is back this direction.

This is the aerial map where you'll see the greenhouses.

Uh the land use is uh currently off uh commercial office and service, and it is zone C01, which is professional office.

Uh the uh application before you tonight or applications are to uh change this to a residential multifamily, uh, the RM2 zone, and then the land use map uh also to that high density residential, uh similar to what you'll see here to the east.

So uh both of those.

The development agreement is for a site plan that would uh divide this in a little bit different fashion than onto uh individual lots of lot and yard.

This would be individual lots that just have the pad or the footprint of the home on them.

Uh they are proposed to do 21.

So the development agreement contemplates this will be one more than what we typically allow on uh kind of single uh access there with all those and uh a private street, so it goes to 21 instead of 20.

Whoops, these are elevation drawings that were submitted.

Uh the development agreement does not indicate that they would do this exact design, but this is an example of a design that could be done.

As far as the zone comparison uh is concerned, uh, just kind of the different uses here.

This is just a limited selection of what's kind of allowed there now.

If we had schools, churches, banks, bars, convenience store, funeral home office, preschool, or recycling collection station.

The proposed zone uh would have four single-family dwellings as they're proposing the 4,000 square foot minimum lot size, uh, with allowed uses being things like agricultural school, single-family, two-family, multi-family dwellings, cemeteries, or commercial uses would only be in historic buildings, which isn't the case here.

Um, one thing to note uh the density that they're proposing is within the allowable density of the RM2.

Um, however, with the RM2, we do have that 4,000 square foot minimum lot size.

They are looking for reduction where these footprints would be only about 800 square feet apiece.

Uh the net area after you take out the roads, uh, essentially we'd create uh with the 21 lots uh the the balance is about 2,950 square feet per lot.

So it is looking for a little bit of a reduction or an increased density of single family homes.

Uh benefits of the city list in the development agreement, uh, the right-of-way dedication and owner occupancy requirement that they're willing to do of up to 70% of the units uh that they would do through their private C C and Rs.

Uh again, some of these benefits uh to the developer would be looking at the land use and zoning changes, that uh gross density, uh, the building pad layout for the lots, uh, that reduced lot size uh and the reduced setbacks.

They're minor reduced setbacks mostly to the rear of the buildings.

Umides and and front would mirror what we would typically require.

Uh they are asking for a modified private road cross section.

Uh they're looking to reduce the parking stall width within the garages, uh, where those pads are only 20 feet wide, the interior of the garage only be about 18 and a half feet wide, uh, and wouldn't comply with our ordinance that requires the interior to be 20 feet wide.

Uh, and then they would be, like I mentioned earlier, allowed to develop the one additional unit.

Um city staff didn't identify some concerns with this uh, mainly with that uh the fact that the dedication of the right-of-way is a standard regardless of whether they did a development agreement or not.

Uh, there are some concerns about the number of single-family home, single-family units proposed versus what would typically be allowed in the RM2.

And then there was some concerns with legal that this agreement may not have adequate consideration, which could render the agreement void.

The planning commission did hear this at the June 25th meeting, and they did forward positive recommendations on all three applications to the city council on unanimous three to O votes.

And then just a few site photos.

This is looking northward into the property from the southwest corner.

A little bit closer up of kind of the shop and some of the buildings in there and the greenhouse is a nursery.

And then this is just looking again to the east up 100 23rd, and then again to the west there.

And then just another photo from the south east corner looking towards the north there.

And if there are any other questions, I'd be happy to answer them.

I did forward uh the public comment that was received today.

Questions for Mr.

Draper.

Can you go back to the request about the right-of-way?

Uh the access for this one or so there, no, you can go back to that.

With the you can go back to the map.

This one.

Yeah, or the design, just showing how with the development agreement.

What's the these would be there'd be two access points under there'll be a single access point here from 123rd in this is a U dot road, so we don't entirely know what uh UDOT will require as far as design of that uh access.

Right now, currently you can turn left out of there into the center turn lane uh in that location, uh, and even down to this location.

So that may still be a possibility.

Um they would have to look at that for and then from an access standpoint for emergency vehicles.

You've got one means of a grass in here, and with these modified road widths.

Well, I can answer a little bit on the road with they would still be within our code as far as the road width.

What they're looking to do is actually modify and not put sidewalks on all of them, or we would typically require that here, but they do have a community walk trail uh along the perimeter, and and there would be a little bit of a difference here.

They they would provide some additional guest parking, so that is technically a modification from our standard.

What about for emergency access?

Um, I would think that fire marshal Buckley's probably reviewed this already, correct?

Yeah, and has his stamp of approval.

Uh I don't think he raised any concerns uh at this level with with it.

It uh looks to meet most of what we're looking for as far as access.

So can you speak to the current zone?

Um current zone is professional office, so the the current use uh doesn't conform to that per se.

Um I don't know if uh Jennifer has any more historical background on that, but I do not.

Um the farm's been there a long time.

That's what I know.

Um, so my guess is the nursery itself predates the zoning that's currently on the property, but the current zoning would allow it, it's designed more for office type uses.

Um just I just made a list of some of the uh variances that they're asking for, reduce lot size, reduce setbacks, reduce interior parking dimensions, no sidewalks.

Those seem to be um fairly significant tasks, in my opinion.

I too share that concern about the number of requests for deviations.

I will mention it, it doesn't have no sidewalks.

They are proposing this main uh walk through the development and then connecting ones uh from the community trail.

Yes, we can you speak to those driveway lanes?

Driveway lanes don't look like they're developmentally standard as well.

They look like we're doing not have full-length driveways either.

Uh the the driveways they uh have indicated would be the 20-foot, so the driveways would match.

Uh there is no entry on this side.

They are calling this the front, even though it's the driveway.

Uh, and then the rear is where the front door would be now out towards these uh community trails.

So you just go to the elevation you'll see, it would just be garage on the one side, and then the entry door would be on the other side.

Looks like a parking nightmare for guests.

Any other questions for Mr.

Draper is the applicant here?

I believe they are.

Good evening, council.

My name is Austin Richards, and I work with Alpine Homes as as the applicant here.

Uh we're located at uh 11814.

Uh that mic down a little bit to your face.

Thank you.

Is that better?

Uh it's located at uh 11814 South Election Road.

Um just a little bit of context on this property, so and and really what we're trying to accomplish with it.

Um we're trying to uh create a little bit more of an entry-level home, something that's like more in Draper, which is obviously a challenge.

Um, and doing it, and we're trying to use the development agreement as kind of a way to uh provide the guidelines that we could move this forward and uh you know trying to thoughtfully create uh you know what that home would look like and you know how they would walk and move and uh go around the subdivision.

Um with no sidewalks, right?

With the sidewalks and the guest parking located more centrally in the community, but getting there, there's no sidewalk to get there.

So that's doesn't seem contrary to your statement.

Uh along the perimeter of the community.

I mean it's along the perimeter and through the center.

Um so still trying to get people to be able to get in and out of the homes.

Um in addition to that.

Um, you know, we felt like uh you know this proposal would also allow some kind of a reduction in uh scale versus what the existing RM2 zoning was on the other side and create kind of a single family transition uh between the multifamily, but then create you know for sales single family homes, you know, in between that and the existing communities on the other side.

So that's what we were trying to go for.

Um, we've we've built a similar type of product like this in other cities, and I feel like this could be a great fit.

So happy to take any any any further questions.

My primary question is um generally speaking, when a land use decision is made, the current zoning is presumed correct.

So I need to know what fact geographic limitation or situation requires and says the current existing zone is not correct, and why I should overcome that presumption.

Sure.

Um I mean, I think it was someone pointed out just previously that the current use isn't in full conformance with the exact zone that it has, which is use was not the question, sir.

I asked you why is the current use not correct for development, not its current entitlement, not its current non-controller use.

Uh I think it's it's we feel like the separation from existing commercial properties is is the biggest driver for us.

Um the other commercial properties are located up the hill and around the corner.

Uh in our meetings with uh UDOT thus far, they're requiring that meeting to be extended all the way through.

So there's no access to any commercial properties on the other side of the road.

So this would be its own island of you know, uses of future uses like schools and daycares or whatever else, where what we felt like is we would uh kind of complete the residential portion of this part of the city.

Anybody else have any questions for the applicant?

All right, thank you, sir.

We'll give you the last word after the public comment if needed.

This is a public hearing.

It's ordinance number 1728, 1729, and 1730.

Is there anyone here that would like to address the council on this item?

You almost just be bored when the city and city council meeting.

All right.

I don't see any public comment on these items, so I'll close the public hearing and bring us back to the council.

I think one of the concerns.

Oh, sorry, go ahead.

Go ahead.

Um, one of the concerns I have is that um the staff um wanted to see the the expansion of the garage so that it met our standard of um 20 feet.

And I I think that's a real concern that I have, not just for this project, but for other projects that have come forward.

Um this the when we've granted uh a variance for that for driveway length or garages, it's been uh a property that's close to transit.

Um so like our station area plans.

But um I I this doesn't to me seem like it's gonna be a um property that's gonna be able to utilize public transportation, and so I think having adequate parking um is is really important.

So that that's a big concern that I have for this develop proposed development.

Yeah, I I understand the sidewalk concept because it appears the sidewalks are going around to walk around where the front doors are of all of the the town homes.

So I get that that concept of the the sidewalks.

I'm concerned about the density of this.

Um it's the reason why there isn't enough parking is because it's so dense.

And then I mean we would even agree to one additional unit than what we would even allow in this zone.

I'm hesitant to zone away from a commercial zone also.

And we also have questionable access.

You know, this is already a really difficult traffic area.

We have cars going very quickly, and then you're talking about adding a considerable number of vehicles.

That's all the more why I think it the density of it, it's too much for me.

If I were really question if this is the appropriate use for the parcel.

Yeah, I don't see a reason to deviate from the existing entitlement.

Is there a motion?

Mr.

Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to deny ordinances 1728, 1729, and 1730.

All right, we have a motion by Miss Lowry to deny ordinance 1728, 29, and 30.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

Second by Ms.

Johnson.

Any further discussion all right, Miss Lowry?

How do you vote?

Yes, Ms.

Johnson?

Yes, Mr.

Green.

Yes, Mr.

Lowry.

Yes.

Items denied by motion of four to zero by vote of four to zero by council members council members present.

That takes us to item number five D.

It's the last item on our agenda.

It's an action item.

It's resolution number 2635.

It's a resolution approving an agreement with Ace Recycling and Disposal Inc.

for residential solid waste and recyclable material collection services on public streets in Draper City.

Mr.

Cooley is up.

Go ahead, sir.

Thank you, Mayor and Council.

Um I wanted to just kind of let you know why we're approaching this in this manner.

Uh normally this will be a longer drawn-out process.

Uh, but due to the sensitive nature of deciding the fate of a whole division within public works and the employees therein.

We needed to take care of this one way or the other the same night that we presented it to you earlier in the study session.

So uh before I just kind of recap our discussion earlier, I've asked um Robert Markle to just give a brief history of the solid waste division, why you know where it's come from and why we're here tonight.

So if you could do that.

Thank you.

Um in 2009-2010, the city decided that they were being overcharged by private contractors, and decided to look at providing that service in-house.

And so we started, I think roughly in 2010.

Um at that time we set the rate to $15 per month for the base services, garbage and recycling.

So over the next 10 years plus, we operated under a skeleton crew.

Um this led to some safety concerns, some risk liability issues for the city uh with that smaller crew, the division at times was underperforming at frequent accidents.

Uh over those some of those years, we had disgruntled and unsafe drivers, chronic understaffing, poor management practices, compliance issues.

And we made a real effort in maybe about three, four years ago, to try to change that culture.

In doing so, we improved the safety and our compliance issues, but that required hiring and retaining better drivers.

As a result, they come with higher wages.

Compliance with the standards and combined with safer operations has also increased the workload for our fleet division.

Keeping these trucks safe.

There's a lot of ins and outs on these on these machines, so it takes a lot of mechanic time to keep them running.

Like I said, we had the same rate for 16 years.

As you guys are all aware, in those 16 years, tipping fees have gone up, equipment has gone up, wages have gone up, maintenance and fuel prices have increased.

So that kind of leads us to where we are today, where with these rates we we are not able to break even.

So that's why we've gotten to this point where we're exploring other options.

So to recap, um our current pricing for the base rate, which is one can of solid waste, your typical trash, and one additional uh or one can of recycling is $15 and has been for the past 16 years.

In order for the city to continue providing this service, we would have to charge $25 for that base rate.

Currently, the additional can rate is $10.

We would have to charge $15.

The cumulative combined price for the current pricing is $25 versus $40.

When we saw these numbers, um we decided that we needed to see if there's other options, even though the city 16 years ago decided to go away from private contracting before we uh brought this to the council to make that decision to do that.

We wanted to see if there were better options.

So we did uh put out a request for proposals.

We did get some responses and we analyze those.

Um the lowest, the highest rated bidder um was also the lowest priced bidder, um, their price, and that that was ACE recycling and disposal, and their price, their prices are shown here below, which is the 922 for the base service, 92 for the an additional mixed cart, and 92 for an additional recycling car per month.

Um, with our overhead, so when we talk about overhead, um Draper City will still be maintaining this program.

Um was uh contracting out would be for the pickup and delivery of the material.

Uh Draper City will still pay the tipping fees for the that material, which comes out to about $700,000 a year.

So it's a significant fee.

Um, and as well as we maintain the carts, we provide the carts, uh, and we do the billing.

So it's it's really the whole operation in coordination with the uh private contractor.

So those prices uh with the overhead included would be would go from 15 to 19, which is six dollars less than if we uh provided that service in-house.

The additional can rate would go from 10 to 1050, um, which is the difference of 450 compared to what we would have to charge.

That difference, the combined price would be 29.50 versus 25 for what we do currently.

Um that 1050 is the difference between what our what we would have to charge and what the private contractor we would charge under that contract.

So in a nutshell, that's really what we're looking at here.

Um the choice before you is to basically continue with the service that we are currently providing.

Well, either way, we'll have to come back with uh a change to our consolidated fee schedule to accept these uh new prices, whether it's the city pricing or the private contractor pricing.

Uh but we we need to keep our services going at least indefinitely, or until uh the new contractor takes over the collection services.

So the resolution states that um we provide these materials, we've evaluated evaluated everything and including whether in-house would be the best option.

We recognize there's a significant increase in the fee.

We issued the RFP according to the laws.

Um they we've determined that there is a qualified third party provider that would significantly reduce the necessary fee increase for the same collection services.

If you go this route, this you're deciding that the council finds that this qualified third party will reduce the city's liability exposure demonstrated, and it's a prudent use of the public funds, and Draper Cities evaluated the proposals, which we've already gone through this process according to the we've determined that the highest ranked responsible bidder based on the weight of evaluation criteria in the RFP.

So ACE recycling and disposal is that contractor.

Um we've negotiated an agreement, it's attached in this resolution is exhibit A, and it sets forth the terms and scope of work and so forth.

And the city council is determined that entering into this agreement is in the best interest of its residents to ensure a cost effective, safe, and reliable waste management services.

Um essentially, we're asking you to make the decision to pass the resolution and to go with the the private contractor, or to continue providing these services.

Either way, there's going to be an increase in cost.

Uh and that's really the decision that's before you tonight.

Scott, can you talk about with the if we go with this outside contractor their um agreement as far as following the same route schedule that we have and things like that?

What changes will there be to any of that to the residents?

Yes, um ACE disposal has um assured us in through the RFP process that they will maintain our current routes and current schedule.

So nobody's schedule will change.

Uh really there's gonna be there would be very little impact to the residents.

They wouldn't, they won't even notice.

It's a different color truck.

Yeah, garbage can stay the same and everything.

Everything.

Uh because it is city run, um, it's really gonna feel a lot the same.

Obviously, there's gonna be an increase in fee, but the increase would be much less with the private hauler.

So if we stay with our current situation in order to be sustainable, we'd be looking at like a 66% rate increase.

That's kind of what I factored it to be.

And then if we go with the out we still have to have a rate increase, but it's more around 20 something percent versus 60.

That that sounds about right.

Um, and again, you know, the numbers these are the numbers that we'll be bringing back.

Um, so the difference is the 25 versus 19.

Now uh about 60 percent of the residents fall into the category where they have a second can.

So over half are looking at part, Scott.

Second part, yes.

Thank you for that correction.

Um over half, you would be looking at the difference between 2950 for your combined price versus 40 dollars.

And that's significant, and we all understand and realize that.

My biggest concern on this, you've done a lot of great work, is I you know, I still want to go on the record with this.

We have some great employees with our collection service and have been amazing, and it's my hope that ACE will allow them to apply and consider them for employment to continue with these routes.

That's my big hope.

Yeah.

And I appreciate you bringing that up because it is what makes this so difficult for me personally because uh these, you know, it was only two and a half years ago that we approached the group that we're talking about.

Not all of them were here.

Uh we made a lot of changes, but we changed the culture because of these people that came in and filled the gap, and because of the ones that were here that are here now, and they truly want to work for Draper City.

Uh when we broke, you know, when we issued the RFP, we had to tell them what was going on.

Uh we didn't want them to find out just by seeing you know the RFP come out.

So we we broke the news to them, and uh it was it was amazing how much they cared for Draper City and how much they care for each other.

It was awesome to see, quite honestly, and uh we don't see that everywhere in the city, but it it was evident amongst this group.

Just the reduction in claims that we've seen over the last couple of years, I think is noticeable.

So that's done a great job.

And that's cost that comes with the cost.

Uh that didn't just happen by accident.

We you know, it's easy to overload a garbage truck, quite frankly.

Uh, you know, it and we don't do that anymore.

And we do go down Suncrest Drive.

We don't come down Travers, uh, just like ACE will have to do if they if you decide to pass this resolution.

Uh there's a lot of things that we did culturally to change uh the whole atmosphere into a uh uh safety-driven focus, and it made a difference.

Yeah, I would just like to reiterate what Fred says.

I have one resident in particular who I know I've shared this with you before, but has sent me videos of herself and her toddler out on the front porch as the garbage cans go by, and the toddler just adores the garbage man, and they always wave and they stop and they talk to the little boy, and you don't see that every day.

And I think it's something really special.

And I'm sad about this because I think you have some really, really wonderful people.

We do.

Yeah, um, I I agree.

I think that you know, our one of our greatest resources are people, and you know, I I can set my clock to when my garbage is picked up every week, and I think that's something we sometimes take for granted.

And so I I hope that you know, if this does pass, that you'll please you know um let your um staff know how much we appreciate all that they've done to make the service um pretty remarkable, in my opinion.

Thank you, and I will definitely pass that along.

Um, if I could maybe add a little colored commentary to this whole thing, because I'm the only one up here that was around 16 years ago.

Um, and I was an advocate for bringing solid waste in-house.

And at the time when we did the analysis, um our our then assistant financial director made the case that we could do it um you know better and and it could be a uh an enterprise fund, a revenue stream for the city where we could deliver the service at a fair price and still make some money that we could take and then use um to enhance other other programs and other things in the city.

And I guess when we when we when she first approached us with it as a council, we were we were skeptical, but she she worked it through for us, and then you know, we took the leap, and and frankly, it worked out for about 14 and a half years just perfectly.

Um the employees, of course, make that happen.

They did have done a tremendous job.

Um, but we we have been ahead of the cost of delivery.

So we were making money as a as an enterprise fund for the city for about the last 14 and a half years.

We have not raised the price one penny in the entire time we've provided the service, which is amazing.

But like everything that's happened in the last few years, the cost of delivering everything has increased enormously, and these vehicles primarily have nearly doubled in cost to buy.

We only buy 12 or 13 of them, we don't buy them in the hundreds, so we don't get the break.

Um, we paid near retail for these vehicles when we buy them.

We we don't have the ability to to cover uh you know as easily um sick employees or vacationing employees that did a bigger company can do.

Um but I want I do I do want to say that for like I say 14 and a half years um Robert, all of you guys did a great job running this program, especially the and it comes right down to the final driver who who stops and talks to the little boy.

They did great work for us and they made they made a really good go of it, and I wish we could I wish the numbers worked out better that we could you know and I guess the answer really is you you could decide to just do continue to do it, but the cost is more, and um the other the other consideration that's different now than it was 16 years ago that is a legitimate consideration is um as we've grown out of our public works facility and are in absolute need of a new one and are and are moving forward in that direction.

Um if you keep solid waste, you you have to occupy a large portion of that new facility to deal with these vehicles and their maintenance.

And that over time is even a lot more money and not really factored in to what the real cost would be for us.

We can build a smaller building with or a building that can accommodate other vehicles and other maintenance, fire vehicles, police vehicles, et cetera.

So that's a consideration that we didn't really have in 16 years ago.

We we hadn't outgrown our public works facility, we hadn't traded off part parts of the land, and we weren't leasing part of it like we are now at the time we owned it all.

So that's a different environment that we're in.

But I do think that um you know it's an opportunity for us to um continue to serve our community, but uh not raise the cost as much as it would cost.

The other question I have, and I just want to be caught because when we did this 16 years ago, one of the things we've discovered was that they're there, you know, I want to make sure we have a way to audit and make sure we know how many carts slash cans um everyone has because there was when we switched last time, and I'm I'm getting old now, my memory could be a little faded, but I recollect that uh we found a whole lot of people who had a whole lot of carts slash cans that they weren't paying for.

Um they'd acquired them in windstorms or had acquired them through the five-finger discount, however, they got them.

There were there was one family in particular I remember that had like 11 of them, and uh they were only paying for one.

And so I want to make sure that as we go forward we look because we have a way to you know check that periodically, not saying I it happened before, I suppose it could happen again.

But anyway, that was one of the things that was interesting.

Because we are going to do the billing, we are going to maintain deliver and fix repair key cans as they need it.

Um, the other thing I want to point out for the public is our bid process we went through we picked the highest rated and lowest and the lowest pitter.

So the selection process was was proper.

And and if you choose to select ACE, you're well within the parameters of the law in our process for uh an RFP.

Lastly, um the future of solid waste is more and is going to be a continual cost increase going forward.

If we kept it, we're raising rates every year, most likely going forward, no matter what.

We can't sit for 16 years on one rate.

The the problem with solid waste is in this country we still bury our garbage.

And as long as we bury it, we have to find holes to put it in.

The hole that we currently use and out on the west side of the valley has about four to six, well, six years, I guess theoretically, and it's full.

Once it's full, um, they will build a transfer station on top of that site, just like the one in Sandy that we have now, and then all solid waste will be trucked over 100 miles round trip.

Um, every single load will go to the new landfill.

So unless something happens between now and then where we stop burying garbage or somehow gas gets cheaper because straights open and things like that occur.

Um, everything is going to continue to increase in cost.

Tipping fees are going up to cover the end of the landfill and the and the new transfer station on the west side.

So these although these rates are higher and it isn't increased now, um, be prepared because it's not getting any cheaper, and the cost of transportation is only getting more expensive.

So I I think as you look at this, we had a good run.

Um we had great employees, and I I do hope, like Fred said, everybody here agrees that they get an opportunity to continue to work and work in the community.

Um ACE has excellent equipment, they provide excellent service.

They already provide private street service.

We we entered into that contract um earlier or last later in the year last year, and as I understand it, um there hasn't been a single complaint about the service they provide.

So I think the citizens can expect the same high level of service and quality uh solid waste removal.

So just a little bit of background on it.

I've I've been around a long time.

I know for most of you you thought it just flew by, but um, there's some memory into into all that.

So thank you, Mayor.

I appreciate that.

And uh you know, it it really is a difficult thing to go through this, and uh I know it's gonna mean a lot to hear these these words from you uh for the staff.

They they do care about their jobs, so I guess another comment, Mr.

Mayor, if I understand it right, with the and Scott with the equipment that we have, we'll be able to sell that, and we can use that money also towards a public works building.

Correct.

So that's another important thing I I see in helping us.

How long is our uh contract for?

Uh it's going to exp I don't know the exact length, but it will coincide with the expiration of the private streets contract, uh, which is about four and a half four and a half years.

It's four four years with two op two optional renewal periods of three years each, so potentially ten years.

Okay.

And I I share the sentiment on the gratitude for our employees.

Thank you.

Um Scott and Robert have done a great job managing this, and and it is as Scott indicated.

Um he's um garnered uh trust of of the solid waste division, and um we've implemented an incentive program that has in I guess incentivize folks to stick around and and the majority are a couple of I think somebody's retiring and one or two others left, but overall I think Scott's leadership and Robert's leadership as well as um the whole solid waste division.

Um we're happy to incentivize and and we um you know are committed to meeting our obligations in that regard because they really have if if if this RFP went out and everybody quit I'd I'd be driving a garbage truck, which some days sounds actually quite nice, but um so I just add my my kudos to uh Scott and the Solid Waste Division.

Thank you.

I think that incentive program's vital.

So I'm glad that you're doing that.

All right, council members, unless there's any further discussion, is there a motion uh for action on resolution twenty-six thirty-five?

Mr.

Mayor.

Go ahead.

Well, I move that we adopt resolution twenty-six thirty-five and approve the agreement with ACE recycling and disposal for the residential solid waste and recycled material collections.

My rationale is the cost difference is significant, and uh, I think that same means needs to be passed on to our residents at this point.

I have a motion to approve resolution twenty-six thirty-five.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

Second by Ms.

Lowry and motion was by Mr.

Green.

Is there any further discussion?

Thank you, Scott, for your work and Mark Robert as well for and all of our employees that have served us so well for many years.

Um Mr.

Green, how do you vote?

Yes, Ms.

Lowry.

Yes, Ms.

Johnson, yes, Mr.

Lowry.

Yes.

Items approved four to zero by the council members present.

I will acknowledge for the record that council member Dalin is absent from the meeting.

Um that takes us to item number six.

Mr.

Mayor, I move that we adjourn.

Uh, motion is by Mr.

Green to adjourn.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

Second by Ms.

Johnson.

All in favor of adjourning this meeting, say aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

Hearing no opposed, we stand adjourned.

Thank you,