Transcript — Eagle Mountain City Council, 23 May 2024

So we'll call this meeting to order. And first up, we have Kimberly as soon as she's ready. Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. Today's budget work meeting, we're going to spend some time talking about the capital project fund requests that we have.

And then we also have some one-time funding request items that we'll be reviewing today. It would be a podcast that people might consider mimes, right? Because we can't actually hear what's happening. A whisper fest.

I know I do. That's for sure. With the microphones up on that side, we just need to keep these mics closed so we don't get that feeling. Yeah, I'm getting that point.

Did you guys hear that? Mayor's is only one. No. Make sure your mic closed off.

Yeah. If you think someone's in my mouth flushes, we can keep them in there. Okay. Let's see if it's in my mouth.

And is there anything I have to do to make it? I'm thinking we need to go back to the days of the whiteboard. That's how we used to die. Just an idea.

I don't know how long you're going to be here anyway, but I would say sit down, because she's going to have a lot to talk about. Is there any reason she couldn't be over here? Yeah, just plug in and stay. Yeah.

That's really being advanced to the backers. So, let's see if it's in my mouth. Okay, as we go through the capital project items that we're going to have for consideration, on the plan here, I will actually, if you can see it okay, and if it shows up on your individual items, we're going to have it just zoom out a little bit so that you can see the area. So, we're pulling in 2024.

It's going to show any projects that we currently have in the 2024 year that we haven't flagged is already being completed, so you can see where they're at, and then we're planning right now through fiscal year 2029. They're going to just group through based on our departments in terms of the classification that we have. We can have some conversations about what the projects cover, the funding source that we've anticipated to be able to fund those specific projects, and I've identified. I've got some resources that are available to identify what additional resources might be available for appropriations in those considerations.

So, for the administration, we've had a couple of projects where they're carrying over from year to year where we have allocated money to be able to acquire some land. Part of it is originally from 2022, and then we also had some money for what we anticipated from the Council that was going to purchase the land surrounding this particular facility. So, at that time, we had some funds that weren't appropriated specifically within the capital project, and the Council had decided to consider looking at buying the land. So, there is $500,000 that's been appropriated for that purpose.

There's an additional $750,000, and it's not showing up on this particular list, that was to pick up some land to be able to consider a site for the public safety facility at that time. And that has been set aside as well already. So, if they haven't, I'll kind of identify the ones that are not in progress. Those would be funds that if you so chose to do, you could consolidate them or reallocate those towards additional projects as well.

Well, I think that's a good conversation because, I mean, we've been talking about this for at least the last couple of months. Do we want, is that kind of on hold for now because of the new direction we're going? Is which one on hold? Well, either, because I don't know what we need public safety-wise if we actually had a city hall, how that changes things.

I mean, I don't want to go spend $750,000 or $500,000 if the short-term result is going to change shortly. I mean, I could tolerate a little bit of pain for a minute if I knew the outcome was going to be sooner than later. Or do we still need to keep this where it's at and keep moving forward on the old direction? I mean, we still -- I don't care about the old direction.

We, you know, you, the council, decide what direction we want to go from now on. So if there's money that has been set aside for a specific project and we don't want to do that, let's move it and change it to a new project. So what I asked in consulting with Kimberly on this, I asked her to put money in for a city hall, a civic center, whatever you want to call it, that's in addition to land acquisition. So we added money for land acquisition that would be for a downtown or a city hall or a public safety building or something related to that.

And then money for city hall for design. I think that $900,000 is probably -- is that for -- The $900,000 is just an estimate to put aside to be able to look at, right, the concept design, to be able to start doing architectural stuff, anything that would be preliminary to that in terms of kind of trying to just place hold some funds so that we could get started in next year for that. So we're obviously good with that. I mean, I'm good with that, I'll say.

But the -- what I don't want -- or what I want to know is are we still pursuing land in adjacent to city hall, which is what it's allocated, and do we need to say don't do that, put it on hold, reallocate it? I think that's what Steve's saying is if we're not going to go in that direction, we'll just reallocate those funds back to this. But what do we need to do as far as an action to make that happen? Because the way it sits right now is it's allocated for that.

You can just give direction to Kimberly to reallocate that. No official action, but give her guidance in this meeting. I would support that. Me too.

So the five-year plan, we will have it be part of the budget packet. So anything that we talk about here, we'll make adjustments. And then you kind of formally accept it at that point, and then each year we come back and we relook at it. So if there is a desire to be able to continue to just have those funds available for land, then my recommendation is that we just consolidate the two that are individually identified, and then we would roll it in to the additional one that we added this year.

That we just generalize saying land acquisition rather than having it be specific, then the funds would be available for that. That would cover both public safety and city hall? Yes. Okay.

Melissa, are you on board with that? For me, yeah. Yeah, I think we're all there. It gives us a chance to think through it and have more discussions.

Because the one was specific to public safety, is there an immediate need for that, or is that okay to -- No, I think we can combine it to the land acquisition and be able to think through our options a little better. Okay. And then I'm sure Kimberly will talk about this, but that next one, the Alpine School District land acquisition, that's specific to the Firefly school site, the 10-acre school site that we're working to acquire and provide for the school district. Are those numbers pretty accurate, what we're going to be looking at?

They're just an estimate. It's just an estimate. The landowner is getting a legal description right now, doing a survey, and then we'll have an appraisal done. And then I know that there's been some discussion back and forth about how to fund that.

Are those negotiations still ongoing? We'll talk about that in a couple of weeks in our closed session on how to do that, but we have a couple of options, yeah. We're just putting it in here as a placeholder to make sure we have the funds set aside, but we have another option, too. And then in regards to just the specifics for any of the other facilities, we just basically have everything on hold waiting for that master facilities plan to be complete, and then we'll start to break it out and show more of that on this project in terms of how and when we might think that that might need to take place.

But we do feel like in terms of a priority, identifying and doing some work specifically for City Hall. Do we have an update on the timeline for that, the master facilities plan? There was an email you sent out that was coming to the next meeting. Yeah, so I sent the email and then I got an email today that said they really are wanting to present on the 21st of May for their schedules and to give them a little more time to finish.

But at a minimum, if they'll present on the 21st, then I'll get some information from them to help guide our discussion on City Hall and downtown so that we can at least have that discussion. And the 30 million, again, is just a placeholder we threw in an estimate, but we'll be able to gather more data as we talk to other cities and Galloway can maybe give us some guidance on that as well. And then again, the facilities, these projects are projects that we funded in terms of the yard improvements that are just on hold with the exception of the funding for the diesel storage tank. That part we have moved forward with, that's the $150,000 that we have in the 2024 budget.

This project in its entirety was originally funded for $1.2 million. And again, it is just on hold pending that facility's master plan. Depending on the outcome, in terms of the work that needs to be done, if there's not anything that would hold that up, they would be interested in moving forward on this project if they could. Again, just depending on what that looks like.

If it's not something that happens in 2025, again, based on that master facilities plan, those funds could be reallocated for if there were other priorities related to the public works yard area that result from that master facilities plan. Then we could consider looking at this funding and appropriating it towards projects within that same region that might be of a higher priority or change the scope of this original project. Do we know what those improvements are? Yes.

So the original scope of this project was to be able to address some of the drainage and then actually pave the grounds around the building and be able to install stormwater drainage. That doesn't sound like something we want to put off. No. Okay.

With the parks, so as we jump into the parks area, this is where you'll start to see some funds that with our project numbers that I have identified there, it will also kind of spell it out for you. But there are projects that have been earmarked related to the utility cell proceeds and I have some additional documentation that I could pull over that we can talk specifically about the utility cell proceeds if you'd like to in terms of everything that is allocated specifically related to that altogether from a collective form. But most of these projects, the particular two ones that have a number for 2015, that's identifying that they were original projects that were associated with how that distribution took place. And we are looking at a point to be able to move forward with some of that work.

Again, for the city center streetscapes, that will do some design hopefully in this next year. So when we broke it out and said $50,000 this year and then the construction would be the next year, would be able to, again, look at some design for those streetscapes and begin to move forward with them. The Silver Lake amphitheater improvements, that is an original project, but in 2023, the scope of the project was modified to instead of looking at the original slides that were anticipated there, the scope of the project has been changed so that it would look at specifically the area around the stage itself. So maybe paving the parking lot, there's that land that's kind of like a gravel area down at the bottom, looking at some parking there, stage equipment, lighting, just kind of general enhancements to that area.

I want to ask a question here, because I can see further down that we have the Silver Lake Community Park phase two. And it kind of feels like we need to figure out what we're doing with that before we spend any more money on the amphitheater part of it. I think we need to come up with a final design for that and decide, do we need to continue further east with that parking lot if we decide that's what we're going to do? How does that all incorporate together?

I've talked with Brad about this a number of times, and are we going to continue on this path of this is going to be a place where we're going to continue to have those types of shows or what have you there? Or are we looking to do a bigger facility? I think before we jump down that rabbit hole, I think it would be good to have a discussion about what it's going to be before we spend any more money on that. Because if we're not going to do that, I would rather utilize the rest of that money to finish the park and to use those funds somewhere else.

That's my opinion. So then in regards to that, I'm just looking for, again, some council consensus on that of whether we, the Silver Lake Park phase two, we don't anticipate looking at design until 2026. So the question is, would you like us to look at that sooner and do some design with that? Or that we just, again, the Silver Lake Ampliator one, that can just be put on hold until this takes place to see what that looks like.

And then consider combining those, those resources. The timing is just in terms of moving forward, so I would just be interested to know where you'd like to see that go. And just to add to that, to make sure it's clear, the Silver Lake Community Park is the Woodhaven, the one down on the southeast by Woodhaven. And then, so the, then the Silver Lake Amphitheater obviously is by.

So the Silver Lake Community Park phase two is not the Silver Lake Amphitheater park? No. Right? It's the Woodhaven.

And we can call it Woodhaven or Silver Lake Woodhaven Park. And we've got a larger conversation to have then. Yeah. I would definitely say I'm not in favor of making that small of an improvement to a park we haven't finished.

That's right at the beginning of our city. I think we've got to have a bigger discussion about that. Well, and, and I don't want to blow it up even further necessarily, but, you know, as our city has grown, as long as we're talking about that, we might ask ourselves, is that where we want our amphitheater? Exactly.

That's the question. That's what the discussion with Brad was. I didn't say that out loud, but that's the discussion. Yeah.

Before we spend any more money on that, is that where we want to have it? Yeah. I think we need to move, I'd like to see it move forward, but yeah, I mean, that's, we do need to answer that question. I just two cents for any theater to be able to use that space.

It becomes really, really complicated because there's no restrooms or places for them to do cost and changes down there. And for us to have a bigger facility elsewhere, I think we're looking at multiple years out. We could spend a smaller amount of money and make the current amphitheater that we possess as a city more usable for our art so that they can continue to grow and build that up. So that when we do get to the point where we do decide where our final destination is for an amphitheater, this was something that got us from point A to point B.

So if we're considering any kind of improvement, I would strongly encourage putting two different bathrooms so that there's a place for them to go and change. Yeah. The reality of it is, is they do summer camp there with the theater kids. I mean, it's being used.

So, I don't think it's lost money by adding bathroom facilities to something like that. But if we're talking about stage equipment and a bunch of other stuff, we're not there yet. So, so I, I think it's good for us to set money aside. But when we do it, I think it needs to be very utilitarian.

So, I agree with that. That was my concern is that they're already using it. And so, I don't want to make it so they can't use it. But yeah, adding, are you thinking unisex bathrooms?

Well. Two of those. So, you could just. They would need.

We'd have to do that anyway. Yeah, in addition to bathrooms, they would need some sort of like changing room and storage. Yeah. The way I, so, having a theater background, the way I would do it is have the two different bathrooms.

But then have a space in the middle that could be used for some temporary storage while they're doing a show. Because right now the other options are a trailer or a, you know, like they're, they're not pleasing to look at. And in the next five years, I think we're going to be using that facility until we can think of what else we're going to do. Whether we up our game there or create something elsewhere.

So, in the next five years, let's make it usable to those groups that want to use it. And it's a great investment. Bathrooms are always a great investment. So, two bathrooms, some sort of storage space for during shows.

What are the contemplated improvements for the Nolan Park? I'm just curious about that. I don't know. I don't know that we have anything.

So, there's just, this is just set aside to kind of look to that, to improve that park. Do we? Yeah. There's no specific improvement that's in mind.

It was part of the IFFP plan that we wanted to make sure that was on the IFFP so it would be eligible. But we would have to design a component that we'd add to it. Can I give a suggestion? Sure.

Fill in the holes in the field and roll it. It's pretty awful to run. Like, they do football there. They do soccer there.

And it is craters of the moon. That would be something we could do to improve that field for usability. Because they use, it's used a lot for both of the sports. It's kind of a coincidence.

So, my youngest daughter was given an assignment to write something about, you know, some sort of public improvement thing. And so, she's so, I've said, just come to a council meeting. And she's so nervous. It's just, but what she's writing on is she'd like to have swings there, you know.

So, for whatever that's worth, something to consider. I'll try, I'll still try to get her here. And, I mean, I think that that's a, I like that, that there's some community involvement. And someone who's in close proximity to the park, one of our young men or young women who might use it.

I think it would be great to facilitate some of those outcomes. Yeah. I'll come in and say something. Yeah.

We just know that that was a park that was put in really early in the community when it was developed. It wasn't amenitized very well. It is a big grass field and we've used it. I mean, for celebrations and whatnot, we haven't been able to do things.

It is being heavily used for programs. Currently, part of that is because we lost some space at Smith Ranch as well while we're constructing that park. Yeah. So, as we shift things around, there might be some space that we can add some amenities.

Can we add like another pavilion maybe on the other end? Yeah. Because there's only that one on that one end. I think it can be whatever we want it to be.

Okay. And what I'm hearing is I think that it needs to be a similar conversation with Nolan like it is with the amphitheater. Like, obviously, Nolan's going to exist. Yeah.

But what's the master plan for this facility and what are we going to use it for? Agreed. And what scale should we build it to? That's what I hear you asking.

Yeah. Is that appropriate? I would agree. I'd like to put that in a timetable to accomplish it because I'd like to see us tackling these things simultaneously rather than just picking them off one at a time.

Okay. If we've set money aside in the budget, let's put it to work. Yeah. Okay.

Thank you. As we get down here to some of these additional ones as well from the parks and art, they don't have a lot of description on them. It generally is just referencing that they're pulling directly off of a back-backing facility plan that would say we're anticipating that we're going to do some of these things. And so we're kind of generalizing at that level.

So we might discuss by a specific region. And then as those come closer along, let's go to that and start the question. I've got a, just a question that came to my mind. So I live over in Silver Lake and on Pony Express Parkway, and maybe this is for Zach and Brad, you have asphalt that runs the majority of that.

When we get to Porter's Crossing, it switches over to concrete. I wondered if we have a uniform plan for the trails going forward where we're not switching back and forth between asphalt and concrete and why we decided to do that there. So when we are putting forth money, what is the plan? Asphalt or concrete going forward?

Are we going to make that uniform? Same thing. We've had a lot of property that's come in over different times. We've tried to keep concrete in certain areas of like park space and whatnot.

But what we have found is over time, I think the maintenance level on asphalt trails is easier for us to do to maintain without having to go in and remove all the concrete. Once the subgrade is established, we can seal coat, we can do overlays. A lot easier on the knees too. What's that?

A lot easier on the knees than the concrete. Yeah. So we're, yeah, we're trying to get some to some uniformity. And some of it could just be depend on the type of park or whatnot.

Developments have kind of gone back and forth in more, I guess, like quarter acre lot areas. You're going to see a lot more concrete sidewalk, right? But then when you get to more of like a rural footprint or a bigger lot, then the standard changes. And it says, okay, now you need an eight foot path down one side of the road or the other.

So part of it, I think, will be have to be clean up our code because a lot of that stuff does come into development. So if we have a preference one way or the other, we just probably need to clean that up. Yeah, let's, I would say, I mean, I would be in favor of us fixing that so it's uniform going forward where we're not doing two different things. Okay.

Especially since that's part of our trail master plan. I would say that we do have some areas where we do concrete and I think there is a functionality aspect of the concrete in certain settings. But anytime we can deviate away from that, when it goes back to a trail for maintenance, we try to go back to asphalt. Thanks.

I do want to take some time with this week. We'll probably -- we'll take as much time. These particular ones here are ones that are available for the most part out of the capital project fund where we do have some reserves and some allocations that are available. And depending on how that kind of fleshes out, then that is what may be giving additional resources, again, as you look at the growing needs for the community and where we're going to -- we have additional projects that the council may have that are beyond the scope of what we look at and how to identify the community here.

So with the, like the little area, we have the arena lights and we have the equipment. Those are both things that came out specifically in this practice for the school here in terms of creating lighting and firing equipment that will be finished off next year. So I'm assuming that's something that's also leading on that facility's master plan as it comes forward. Is that correct?

I just wanted to clarify so that if there were other things that we could be factoring at least at this level, that we're going to take that out right now. Do you feel like that we need to add anything else? I mean, maybe until we get the facilities master plan where we can take a look at that because, too, what Brad was talking about with the others, I think the same thing needs to happen with that park. It hasn't been master planned.

And we probably need to take that space and utilize that space to its best use. Because I think one of the things that we're right up against the property owner to the south, to be able to utilize that space that we have for parking and for the warm-up areas and that type of thing, it would be nice to be able to designate all of that, put the proper material there, fence it off so it's not being -- other materials not being put on top of that where the animals will be -- walking, et cetera. So I think that there would be benefit to doing that for that one as well. Yeah.

And for me on that one, I think it's like the amphitheater. Really the conversation is, is that the permanent resting place? If it's not, then I would say there's -- if it is, then there's a lot of things we can do. If it's not, then I wouldn't want to personally allocate funds there.

It is until it's not. Yeah. But like I was with Zach out there last night. We did a big clean-up project for Earth Day with the nature and wildlife.

And one of the things I've talked about for a long time is basically a storage shed. And one of the things that I've talked about for a long time is basically a storage shed on that -- you know, one of the things I've talked about for a long time is basically a storage shed on that. Yeah. One of the things I've talked about for a long time is basically a storage shed on that -- you know, one of the things I've talked about for a long time is basically a storage shed on that, you know, a great big garage on the southwest side of kind of the arena.

And it has multiple uses. It could store the -- things that only get used once in a while, like the float. I mean, I wouldn't want to personally allocate funds there. I wouldn't want to personally allocate funds there.

It is until it's not. Yeah. But like I was with Zach out there last night. We did a big cleanup project for Earth Day with the nature and wildlife.

And one of the things I've talked about for a long time is basically a storage shed on that, you know, great big garage on the southwest side of kind of the arena. Like the float, even the tractor that, you know, we've talked about the age of that tractor that every department uses. And then during the events, it's kind of like that changing room. It's where you have your hospitality and your offices.

But I wouldn't want to go construct something like that. I personally wouldn't allocate funds if it was only for a couple of years. So it kind of just depends on what that master plan looks like. So just quickly to the additional 80,000 that's shown on there is a phase two component for lights as well.

So we're taking care of the arena, but we understand that there's some lighting issues on the exterior of the rodeo arena. I haven't got the final numbers on that. But just to be clear, what we've tried to do with this lighting component is tried to make it very efficient to where if we do relocate that we can pull those poles out and we can reuse them. So we're trying to be consistent in that avenue at least from that aspect so that we have options.

There will be underground conduits and there will be poles of wire that we will lose with that. But the structure itself and the wiring that feeds those should all be intact and we should be able to pull those out and reuse them. Let me just ask you the question. So the master facilities plan, when we take a look at this, if there's an appetite with the body to designate a future location, this would probably be the time to do that, right?

To say, okay, we believe this is where we want it to be. Maybe it's not going to be for five years or 10 years or whatever it's going to be. But let's designate it because that will help us in the planning for our current facilities, how much improvement we want to do on something we know is going to be. Yeah, and I think just being involved with this for a long time, I think the real option that we're going to have is someone on the north side of the city, right?

I mean, that's what's realistic on the table because we're, I mean, we talk about discussion about city hall and moving it and buying land. I think that we're going to have an option maybe up there in some of the conservation easements or something to make a deal. And we probably just need to like try to negotiate that. So if it's something that we have an appetite for and it's something that we want to move forward, then we need to like probably get that on the radar and then we need to probably start having some discussions.

Because I think that that's what's going to happen if it's going to happen in my perspective. Thanks. Yes. At the Walton Park, that is where we will receive some specific grant funding, and we need to be able to do more with that and return those grant funds.

So this would include some additional funding to be able to get that bill and then finish out the original grant funds that came to about more than $21,000. I want to say one thing to that really quick. I think we do have an option where we did collect a fee in lieu that's in conjunction to where the observatory sits in the amount of about $115,600, which I think helps some of that funding option, the additional funding that we need to do. I think that this is an important one where if we are going to do it, this year needs to be the year that we do it because it's kind of drug out a little bit.

And we either need to do it or we need to probably talk to the contributors and see what that looks like moving forward. So I think we do have a fee in lieu in play there. Thank you. And then the other, the only other items for parks that are related to starting funding for this year 2025 is we have the Point Express Regional Park Phase 1 that has $150,000 again to look at some of the loan and conceptual type of work with the anticipated construction to begin in fiscal year 2020.

So I think that's the point. I think that's the point. And then I would go to actually just jump down really quick into the street section. that's the other area where we have funds that are particularly tied to that capital project fund 47 where we look at using those resources for projects that might not qualify for impact communities or damage to streets or that may be just generally from that standpoint.

I wanted to take a minute and point out. I wanted to see. Okay. So the roundabout removal at Point Express Parkway, it is a project that we kind of have, I think in 2023, we kind of put it on the shelf a little bit to look at that.

So as that starts to roll forward with those self-tax dollars within the transportation that the city has that can only be used for those, this would be an area then that I would recommend that we use that resource to fund this and not have to use just our general unrestricted capital project funds. So after the end of the fiscal year we have roughly $1.7 million that was available from those transportation specific tax dollars. And my recommendation would be that we would ship the funding source on this particular project at this point to gain that resource. And I think there has been some design but I know that there is some work that has to get done by the time we actually went to construction.

So as an information item this was a project that we submitted to MAG for TIP funding and the vote from the TAC committee yesterday this ranked in the top 10. Projects so I think that we will very likely have MAG funding available for this project so that might be a better source of funding although you know I think the timing of that is still probably 2028 so. So we could maybe use those sales tax dollars as a bridge right to be able to fund the project and move it forward and when the MAG money comes in it could come in and reimburse that then those monies would be available for an additional road project. I had I forgot it I was going to point out one other project or just a notice it kind of reminded me when we got here when we were talking about the facilities and back by the rodeo grounds when Zach and I were there last night and trust me this is a lot bigger conversation than just right here.

But that light that we're talking about at the roundabout you know we were looking at the street I can't remember where that road is but on the south side of Brandon Park and the designation of that road if through where Sintla touches the park right there behind the rodeo facility. And that road if that road if that became a major I don't know if we call it a collector we didn't really know what if it's an arterial or whatever but it would literally come out at that light and it would be super beneficial to what we have going on south of the city. And again I'm just kind of planting that seed because it's it's nothing that we're going to fund right now it's kind of off the topic of what we're talking about but I think with this light and that facility and all those things it's going to play into whether or not we want a road that connects right there. So are you talking are you talking about the road that turns to a dirt road that runs on the north side of the road that runs south?

No but where it turns to dirt there's a stop sign in the middle of the intersection there that goes back to the west along the south side. Oh and runs along the south side of Brandon Park? And if that continued east behind between Sitla and the park and tied on either at Major Street or I guess it would probably tie on at Major Street I don't think it would go all the way to Pony Express. Right so tie on at Major Street but I think that's a for all the people in that area in the development that's going out there that's going to be a way beneficial quarter mile stretch right there.

Is that if you refresh my memory is that immediately south of the park and the rodeo grounds? Yeah. It would be between the rodeo grounds and Sitla. It's this way that runs here over to Major.

I think that would be a great project but I also know there's some deed restriction on that property. On Sitla? In the park. So I know that part of our plan right now is for a park to be.

If it could be put on Sitla's that would probably work. Right. Because we don't have those deed restrictions. Oh on the park itself.

Park itself. Oh that. Well like I said there's probably some challenges and things to work out but. Something to look into while we're looking at.

Yeah. Okay. We're going to jump down to the waste water section and we've got a big project that's coming forward and a. Also with our tertiary treatment.

So the tertiary treatment one that we've had that's been on the books for a little while that we're moving forward. We do have some grant funds that are tied to that. 1.5 million dollars. They do have a hard and fast bend down date for us because they're tied to those federal dollars.

So this project right now is underfunded. One of the items that we have kind of discussed internally we've met with our financial advisors is. That we do have a bond refunding opportunity that would come up in August where we would have some potential savings to refund. One of our water the 2014 water and sewer revenue bonds and at that time if we were to do that.

Then I would recommend that this project maybe be considered for seeking additional bond resources that would allow this project to move forward. At that point so right now we just have a funding shortfall based on our estimates of roughly 1.8 million dollars. For that. What does this project include the tertiary one.

I'm going to I could say it but it's not going to come out quite so well so I think I'll let Chris speak up real quick on that one. This will just treat our wastewater effluent to type 1 quality so that really reduces some of the restrictions and requirements that the state imposes on handling requirements. It makes it basically reuse water quality so that we could use it for reuse water on parks and open spaces but even if it's just going into our RIBs it still reduces just the overall scrutiny that the state gives us on this water. Okay.

And you know we so it includes the membrane treatment and UV treatment but we've also been looking at reverse osmosis. Right. Because we want to make sure that we're bringing down our TSD before it so it's not so high that it's going to damage grass when we if we do use it for reuse. That does make sense to me.

I went on the tour. Right. Yeah. That makes sense to me.

Thanks. Then with our treatment plant expansion this is one that we want to make sure we're kind of keeping on our radar and next year to be able to start to do some design work. To get that going so that we will be prepared. I believe the overall construction is one that would take 18 months to two years for it to be completed.

And I believe that right now the estimated timeframe for needing to be able to have this available is probably within the next five years. So to be able to start this design plan, get it going and have all that work done with maybe a potential construction that would be I think what year is that? About 2028, 2027. And then it would be again about two years for it to be constructed.

When we get to that construction point this is a project that we would need to be able to go out and seek bond funding on. Again, it's a relatively large one as a result of just the scope. It doubles the size of the existing capacity that the treatment plant has at this time. And again, like so many of our vital infrastructure, you have to have that treatment plant up and running for the day you've reached your capacity.

So at this point, again, if we were to look at this within our impact fee facility plan, it's going to show it's only about 2% eligible for impact fee funds. Because of just that growth window that it's looking at falls outside of the scope of when this would actually come online and having those. So we would look again at the initial design and stuff. There will be money that will come forward in those wastewater impact fees and that's how we, you know, try to fund the design work.

And then when we get ready to do the construction, it would be bonded. And then we would be able to kind of identify what we would anticipate that there would be a component again that we need to be able to account for within our user rates. In addition to what the impact fees would be able to cover for that over time. And then there would be an available buy-in component again as well.

So even though it was fully constructed at that point, any development and growth that comes in that's being serviced by that, there would be a component that those impact fees would come in to help fund that and make those debt service payments as well. So my question about this one is that we think it's $40 million today. That's three years from now. It's not going to be $40 million in three years.

We actually think today's cost is like $34 million. So that's our projected cost? That's our projected increases, yeah. Okay.

So I did bump that up. If you were looking at the IFFP, it will be, yeah. Okay. That was what I was hoping for.

Yeah. Thanks. And then these other, we've got a couple other projects that are going to come down and you'll see that the resource in terms of funding is showing that it's coming from the wastewater fund. And the reason I kind of want to point these ones out too is because it does factor in, we will be having that rate analysis that will be coming forward to you.

Again, a big component is that we're trying to be able to ensure that we have the reserves available for repair and replacement type items that will take place within the wastewater fund. When you get to that point with that study, it is factoring in that we are anticipating that we need to use these fund balance reserves for these projects that need to be moving forward. And it's taken that into account. If for some reason the council decided that they did not want us to move forward with these projects or to look at it slightly different, then those reserves would adjust a little bit in terms of where we're sitting at with our reserve funds as we look at those rates.

I did want to just one more on the wastewater as just identify the land acquisition component that we have. It is related to kind of an existing agreement that we put into place on a right of first refusal when we bought the previous acreage for the wastewater treatment plant. So that was a five year agreement. It will come due in fiscal year 2026 where again the funds that we have put towards that project at that point would you either use it and buy the land that was anticipated or at that point you decide you don't want the land and you move away and then the payments that had been used for to hold that right of first refusal are just there available to the landowner as a result of that.

Okay and then we're going to touch on these capital projects specifically to the water fund. They're the last ones that are kind of outlined here in this five year plan and then I do want to jump over really quick and talk about the resources that are available still within fund 47 as you consider additional projects or needs that the city might have. What I'm going to do is just jump down to the projects that are new that we haven't seen that are still if they have an RNM it means that they've been requested the year shows the year that they originally first started to show up within our plan but we haven't actually funded them in terms of earmarking those resources specifically related to them. So in the next fiscal year for the most part it's this hidden canyon distribution line in terms of doing some design study and then being able to do construction the following year.

We do have a large number of projects as you can see in 2024 fiscal year that are still underway. So again as a result of those projects we're currently working on most of the work will be continuing with well seven that we drilled and well eight in terms of those pump houses and the service lines that will actually put those two new well resources into service. And then and then just design work on additional ones so new projects beyond the ones that we have kind of reviewed in the last several years we don't anticipate really looking at some additional construction items until about fiscal year 2026. All right.

Kimberley this probably won't surprise Chris I see two two and a half million gallon tanks that are contemplated there. He's smiling because he knows I'm going to ask about this. I just want to make sure that we're looking at the capital costs and the weighing the two and a half versus the four million gallon tank and just the efficiency of that. The reason I am I am aware and that was brought up specifically about the council's desire on the plan.

The reason I chose to show it this way is because the impact fee facility plan calls the scope out as only a two and a half million gallon tank. So if we were to move forward with that we either need and we want them to be four million. At this point the additional source wouldn't be able we'd have to fund it from a different resource than impact fees. Or we would need to review and look at that at a four million gallon tank and determine if again the demand within that window we're looking at might fall outside of that and make those not be impact fee eligible.

Fair enough you're the finance lady I just do Chris smile because he knew I was going to ask. Yeah. So I think that would just be something that we would take into consideration as they come along. But that is the I did want to just point out that was the primary reason that I chose to show them at that level.

So that covers those kind of specific projects through kind of our window that we're looking at. With the like master transportation plan that was recently adopted and stuff we'll continue to look at those projects and get this build out. If you've noticed after the last couple of years each year we start getting it built out further and further in terms of being able to try and identify that and be ready to move when those resources become available to us. So with that again the items that we had here that were listed it does allow to where we have roughly an additional four million dollars within the.

Within the capital fund 47 that doesn't as would be currently not committed towards. Any resources so it is I guess I should clarify it. It's actually about 14 million dollars that's there but within the scope of the these projects that we've reviewed today. We are proposing that we airmark 10 million of that towards the future City Hall that we would have some money that we would put down to go along with bonding or things that we would need to at that point.

You must have heard me whispering to Councilmember Gray. I looked at him and said City Hall. So there are again so if we if you want us to look at again anything that is there beyond these projects that we've had. What we will do is will again as you get the tentative budget it would reflect that we can to continue to tweak and modify that.

But if there aren't any other projects at this point for consideration that you feel like that we didn't discuss today. My recommendation would be that yes that we peg any additional fund balance that we have available in that fund towards. Being able to move forward with the City Hall project. While I agree with that I do have one question.

I mean we haven't really discussed the transportation connection between Lone Tree Parkway and Airport Road. And I'm just curious was it on here? Maybe I didn't see it. It's just what do we have allocated towards that?

125. And that's just the design. And on that topic I also want. Are we working on the design?

Are we physically working on that Chris? We are not physically working on that. I know we had a discussion at one of the recent City Council meetings about that. Steve and I have had some discussions on it but we haven't gotten an RFP out on it yet.

Yeah I'd just like to see a determination as to what we're looking at as far as cost goes for something like that. We can work on getting that and maybe having some different alternatives and what we think the costs would be for all that. And then what types of funding sources we might be able to access for that. I'd like to see some information on that if you're able to find that.

I think in our previous bond and of course some of that for Airport Road was going to be reimbursed. But I think we set aside like a million dollars for that anyway didn't we? There was. I shouldn't say set aside.

Right when we did. We looked at the original project and we had said here's the scope that we're looking at. But where we didn't have the design we didn't have any idea of what that cost was. And there was some question as to whether or not we would be in a position.

So basically all the money that we had at that point was released with the exception of the design portion component that was related to that. And then our primary priority has been this Airport Road. Getting Airport Road built out and again we have the phasing that will take it all the way to the north side of SR 73 in preparation for that new school that's been opened. So there has been a lot of additional work that's kind of gone that way in terms of really getting all of the engineering that's involved.

We have a sewer line that's going to come in in conjunction with that and several other utilities. And with just some of these bigger ones again those are tied to those bond funds. We really like to try to get those spent down within three years of when that was funded at that point. So we're narrowing down to kind of a one year mark at wanting to get forward.

It did push some of the other projects we hoped that we would maybe move quicker on at this point. Kind of stalled out a little bit as we've tried to really focus on some of these key ones that we have. I just had a thought when you brought up the old Airport Road. I know that we ended up buying some abandoned land basically from the purchase all the way up there.

Perhaps we could take a look at Councilmember Gray's idea of a park and ride and utilize some of those funds to make that a reality as we go through that piece of land that's between Sage Park and Old Airport Road. I think that's one of the reasons why I keep advocating for that road because I see tremendous advantage in that connecting there and that it's going to continue. Number one it creates a secondary outlet from Loan Tree. I mean they're pretty much, okay they have two accesses on the Pony Express but do they really?

And there's a lot of development in there and I think with the construction of Old Airport Road, with that sewer line being put in there, I think there's going to be some development that takes place there anyway. And the quicker that we can get that done, great if we can get developers to come in and get after that and pay or fund for some of it. But I think that that would help open that up and it just makes another connection that would allow to get traffic off of Pony Express Parkway, out onto Airport Road, onto 73 and out of the city. I think what it adds to that area of 73 is pretty significant too because that's a fairly congested area traveling at really near freeway speeds.

So, you know, safety and flow for sure. And I wonder too, I don't know, Jared, maybe this is what you're going to say. But yeah, I just, you know, the 8,000 north extension. Yeah.

Go ahead and go for it. Just roll. So this is the time to, on that street, so you asked where to, you know, as far as allocating funds. Obviously, I've been promoting and having discussions and trying to get the county on board with that 8,000 north, is that what we're calling it?

I believe so. And I know there's actually some other challenges that, as I've looked at it, with the new alignment that, I don't know, we determined it was either orange or red that went west, that line. It's not where the existing dirt road is. And obviously that's a landowner, we're going to have to, I think they're willing to accommodate that road.

And even the existing road is actually not owned. We have a, it's only an easement through there. So that's a private, I think at this point it would be, but the new alignment wouldn't be. That's the problem.

So that's going to be the question on that new alignment is how that is. But yes, I would, I thought we already had 250,000 allocated. Yeah, that's my recollection. Is that still, it's not in here, do we still have that set aside?

Yes. The 250,000? Correct. Okay.

And just in good faith, do we just leave that there or do we need to add to that or what's? Well, you know, based on the recent, particularly based on the recent conversation we've been having, it seems like even if it's not completely defined yet, kind of have a placeholder that we can work with. Maybe in our future years, allocate a little bit more. Yeah, I don't know what it looks like.

So there could be some land acquisition, there could be some. Yeah, we, yeah, there's going to be steps to get there. So. We're in the rodeo budget.

The rodeo budget. Perfect. We could get a couple of feet done. Maybe.

I don't know, whatever you guys want to do on that one then. I'd like, even if we're not totally defined, you know, I'm thinking to have it on there and. And why not put it on there? We've all talked about one.

Yeah. So that we can start to, you know, identify the steps to get there. Well, I think for me, it shows a little bit of. It shows some positive movement in the right direction.

Yeah. Those conversations to collaborate with the county to say, hey, look, we're here. We're ready. Yeah.

And this is our plan. And so, I mean, what I would suggest is this, Councilmember Gray, this is what I'm hearing you say without saying it, is how much money do we want to set aside in that budget? So why don't we double that budget? I don't know how council feel about that.

If we, if we added an additional 250, now we have $500,000 in there towards that road. I think that lets the county know that we're serious about taking care of that and getting it put in, as long as that's what the council thinks. I don't know whether we're in agreement on that or not. Well, let me ask you this question, too, to contemplate.

One of the things I think the mayor and I talked about, and it could have been others, is do we just pave our section anyway? And would that be what we do? And then whether or not the county participates? Or would your feelings be more, as long as they're going to participate, then we'd go ahead and spend the money.

Otherwise, it's just a placeholder. That's what I'm wondering. Do you want to allocate $500,000 to just move forward? Or do you want to place hold to see if the county will?

I think I'd place hold it and try and leverage it first. That's what I would try to do, to see if we can get some partnership and buy in from the county. If they're unable or unwilling to do that, then certainly we ought to look at what it's going to take for us to take care of it. Yeah, I agree.

I think we have a case for it being a regionally significant road. And if that's the case, then we can try and get on the next MAG funding cycle. So it's worth looking at, for sure. That's a good idea.

Yeah, I'd say a placeholder with $500,000. Yeah. So just to be clear, we're probably talking about building a new road that connects from where the school road comes in, right at the tip of Old Airport Road, the northern tip, and then tying into the existing road and paving as far as we can, or working towards the west as much as we can. Is that right?

Yeah. Okay. Sounds like $500,000. Is that what you understand?

Yes. Okay. Additional $250,000 for a total of $500,000. And I think maybe a little asterisk we can give to staff is if we can zero in on pricing a little bit better to just bring that back.

Yeah. And is that something that, in terms of the project and the overall bidding and everything, this will be a county project and we'll just be a contributor to that, or? Especially. Well, the problem is, well, here's, Jim.

Just to clarify again about, like, what would, like, for staff. Well, if our goal is to take it to MAG, certainly as a county-city joint project, I think we're stronger, and then the thing about that is it will take several years to get funded. However, it's an easier spend if we know we're going to get reimbursed, right? So, do we need to put that onto our master transportation plan so that when we take the MAG it shows there?

It would probably need to be modified. It's in the plan, I believe, but it would need to be modified to show the exact alignment, the new alignment and the phasing, to increase the phasing. Because I believe it's probably shown as a phase three, I think it's a phase three project right now. So then my question is, I think we need to immediately, and I'm saying rather than waiting, if we like that new alignment, I think we need to get the landowners on board.

Yeah. And if they're good with it and they're okay with just trading, great. But if it's going to, if we're going to have to buy that or if that entails something different, then we might want to get back to that old alignment. Yeah, the land acquisition, we need to move on right away, I think.

It depends on what the gyms is working on. There's Cole Brooks and Steven Sand and Jim, all three. Well, let me add one other thing to that. I know that Jared had a talk with our lobbyists in St.

George this last week and talked about state roads. And I've been thinking about the Mid-Balley Road where we might be able to get some state funding. There might be a good idea for us to bring that back in and show that connection all the way over to SR 73 on our plan and ask for a state road designation for that. Continuation from Mountain View Corridor all the way to SR 73.

And maybe that adds another funding mechanism for us. We need to coordinate with our partners in the west, right? Correct. You're saying the Mid-Valley Road that goes up and over the hill.

Also go all the way west. From Mountain View or Foothill and Saratoga all the way to the west. I did talk to the Cedar Fort mayor, it's probably been a month and a half ago. And he said, you know, before that people were resistant, but the reality of it is we know what's coming.

He says kids are starting to sell the farmland and there would be a great benefit to having something like that available for transportation. So if it helps us to be able to do that, I think that also gets us the speeds we're looking for and having it to be as significant as we think it needs to be. And just a note, Kimberly and I were talking about it, but some of the projects aren't shown here because they didn't show up in the report that was pulled. But Old Airport Road is a current project that we have funding for, so it's just not shown on this list.

Same as the 8,000 north, 250,000, some of those things that were already previously identified. It seems like we probably need to do those soon too, the designations so that we can get that on the next mag vote. Yeah. In the last little bit of the time that we have, I'd like to jump over and look at some of the one-time funding requests that we have.

So when we look at something that's considered a one-time funding request, it generally means that we're looking for it to be paid for, again, out of either general fund reserves or capital project reserves. But it's not necessarily a capital project item, but could be like a capital equipment, like a larger piece of equipment type item for funding. So I'm going to pull that up really quick. I'm going to pull that up really quick.

If I'm going to pull that up really quick. I'm going to pull that up really quick. I'm going to pull that up. I'm going to pull that up really quick.

I had a comment about the cemetery storage shed and pad. Jared made a comment about needing some space for storage and also utilizing for the events that are held at that facility. Can we incorporate the two? Well, we know that we need to have space for the cemetery storage.

I'm assuming that's all. Are we looking at putting the tractor in there? Is that what the plan was? Who am I looking at?

Brad? What are you planning on storing in there? Is it just equipment to maintain the cemetery? It's doll collection I think.

It's doll collection. I think it's really the equipment to facilitate burials at the cemetery. So we have a lot of grids and platforms and just different things that we store at the shop and we haul it back and forth. And so I think they were trying to get a location on site so that we can leave some of that stuff out there so it's just there.

How often are you having to transport the tractor over there for cemetery things? We were just talking about this today. So I think last year I want to say it was like 12 to 14 internments that we did all year. We're already at 12 this year.

Say that again. We're already at 12 this year. And so I think with the cemetery, I think I've said it a lot in the past and I think we'll continue to see it. It's an exponential growth thing that we'll grow into.

We do have some money for a facilities plan. I don't think that the shed that they're looking at needs to be a large shed to hold equipment in. I don't think that's the need. I think it's just for some of the smaller odds and ends so that we have it on site so we can just pull it and use it when necessary.

Instead of trying to gather it up every day and then haul it back to the public works building. So I think that's really what they're after some smaller nature. I think long term we'll have a facility out there that'll probably just be an operational cemetery where that's where somebody goes to to pick the plot and discuss it. And that's I think that's going to how it's going to work long term.

We just knew that we'd have to grow into it. We didn't know what it will look like. But I feel like it's like a two year pattern where we like go two years kind of at the same number of areas each year. And then it's like it almost doubles for two years.

And then like that's kind of been the trend line. But this year it seems like it's it's it's picked up. We've done quite a few more. I think it's 65,000 people close to 70 where we're probably going to see more.

Yeah, because I mean, I think I honestly think we're probably in a three or four year window. We're probably going to have to build the next phase just looking at the numbers. Wait. Can I ask a question?

Yeah. Can you because I'm never going to be able to ask this question again. Why would we put a staff member out there dedicated just to cemetery versus having a staff member like at City Hall or something like that for selling plots and talking. So.

Or did you not say that because I thought. So I said I think that it will I think it will go to that. I think it'll be busy enough. I mean, just looking at every other municipal cemetery that's in the state in a region.

That's what they turn into because it's maintenance and upkeep and people have questions about headstones. And I mean, so if you don't have somebody out there like are they going to go out there and then are we going to make them come to City Hall wherever that City Hall is located. At some point I think it's going to make sense to have an onsite like this is what we have available. This is what you can expect.

This is where we store our equipment. So like a sextant or something different. A sextant. There's probably going to be a crew.

Most most cemeteries that are larger in size. So like American Fork. They don't have a staff of like 10 but they have a sextant and then they have like two full time. And then they hire some seasonals.

On site. What's that? On site. Okay.

But I mean you're talking 20,000 plus graves that they have too that they maintain, right? And they're about out of space. So I don't know what the trigger point is to say like hey this is when you build the building. How full is the cemetery now?

The first phase. So I would say internment wise we're not like it's not internments that drive the next phase. It's the sales. Yeah.

I haven't looked at it in a while. But I mean we've sold a lot. So maybe we just need to make a plan once we get to this percentage of full we need to talk about the next phase of that. We need to build the next phase which I think we've kind of already identified like there's a 17 acre piece.

My thought just since we're on the topic is I think that you would build the next phase directly to the west. You would loop the road around it so that we have a connected loop that goes through the cemetery. That makes that seems like that makes the most sense to me. Yeah.

And then you continue to phase out from there. But I think we do need to go through the master plan and just understand make sure that we're getting all the components of the cemetery that we need. Thanks. So we've sold approximately a little over 600 spaces.

And there's a lot of time dedicated into meeting with people going through that process. And then record keeping is the other component of it. So. But right now that's where our numbers are.

Do you know. Do you know how many lots percentage wise we have sold or have left. So we have approximately it's just under 1600 total. And we've sold 600.

Okay. We're not quite halfway there. We're getting about halfway. But I, but I'm just, I'm, I'm projecting off the exponential growth factor that that's going to continue to kind of keep trend.

And that's what I'm saying. I think three or four years, I think we're going to be on track. Okay. Are we bringing in enough from our sales of the cemetery plots to help cover the costs of what it costs us to run the cemetery?

Or are we, is there any subsidization from just like the general plan? Basically are the fees covering the cost is what I'm asking. I think to this point, I think everything's been covered. Right.

Um, and obviously, um, a lot of that is just because, um, we earmark portions of like the park staff time. So I wouldn't say that it's like 100% to say like for cemetery hours, we're billing all that, those hours, right to cemetery. We bill a percentage. Got it.

So as we go on, if we want it to be where we're covering those costs relative to employees and everything, we probably will have to shift some of those to make sure that they more adequately represent that. Okay. Thank you. But I'd say for internments, um, for the fees that we charge, um, the only escalated rate that we have is on Saturday.

And that's just to cover overtime costs because it's always overtime. Everything else we've, we've split our staff Monday through Friday to try to keep it reasonable, um, and facilitate any, um, interment within the week. Do we have something built into our process that we reevaluate the costs of the plots and what those costs are? Do we do that every five years, 10 years or anything like that?

Yeah. We never did build anything into it. Um, I know that when we implemented it, we implemented that at a really low rate. Right.

Um, I'd say we're probably one of the cheapest in Utah County by far. Um, and so at some point, yeah, I think it is going to be something that we're going to have to look at. I just, I'm thinking historically like how the water rates didn't get changed or adjusted for 20 years. And then all of a sudden it's just this big change.

And, um, I, I would like for us to build in check marks along the way so that we can say, is it time to make a change? Oh, no, not, you know, like, and just at least look at it. Otherwise we're caught down the road and we're subsidizing half of the cost of it because we didn't evaluate prices. So, and I think some cities that are really escalated in their grave site purchases are ones that are running out of space, right?

The more, like the less space you have, the more expensive they get. Um, and you know, with us, I think it's something that we can definitely look at. Um, another factor that could come into play is I know Saratoga Springs is looking to build a cemetery as well right now. And so I don't know what that impact is going to be to us because I think we've, um, we've been, uh, our cemetery has been a place where Saratoga residents have been buried in our cemetery as well.

So we've got some factors. Thank you. This might apply to you too, but I have, uh, two questions. One, uh, I'll start with the easy one.

I talked to Zach last night about that Kubota tractor. I know almost every department has used that. And the last time I saw it, it was pretty rough shape. Is the parks department, I don't think the streets department uses it hardly at all anymore.

Is the parks department using that? And what's the condition that's in there? Or what other departments are using that's what I'm curious on. We use it.

Um, and when we use it, we, I mean, I would say most of the time it's for like brush hogging. Cutting weeds. Is it still attachments? Sufficiently operational?

It seems like. I mean, I think it's been working, right? No. So do you have a, and maybe Jeff knows too, but is there a, a timeline on replacement for that?

No, me and you had this discussion kind of on the side. And I, I, I think we need to look at that on that piece of equipment. I don't think it's ever been built in to say, hey, here's a depreciation rate on this and we're going to replace it on X day. So it's probably something that we need to look at.

That's, that's why I was wondering because it's still, you know, I mean, it's not on here. And I think it's probably something that's been pretty vital to the city and in almost every department at some time. But, and I don't know if anyone else has anything on that one. But my other question is the fifth wheel trailer.

Is that a flatbed gooseneck? Is that what we're looking at here? Flatbed or a camp trailer or that's for you? Yes, sir.

Flatbed? Flatbed. I'm going to ask a question to Brad about coming back to the tractor. Well, we know that there's a number of these places that we keep talking about that need to be brought up to a better standard that belong to us.

Is one tractor with the bush hog on it going to be enough to take care of those? Or are we waiting? So I think in the next couple of years, I think we'll have some options that we'll bring forward. I can see some of our open space maintenance changing and evolving for years.

Like we've just covered it underneath the contract and we're going to continue to have open space. The difference being when we start establishing some of these open space areas and we define what they are, the maintenance standards might change. Like so some years we might not even cut. And it might be more of like a chemical treatment to cut down on the noxious weeds or whatever it is, right?

And so that maintenance level will be different. And so I think we've just got to, as a department, we've got to, and as a city, we've got to work together to try to define like, what is that standard? What is it we want it to look like? And then once we can establish that and then we can quantify like acreage wise, what we're doing, then we can say, okay, actually, if we are going to cut this amount every year, it's probably would be good to maybe have two tractors.

I just can't quantify it at this point because I don't know. That's what I was asking. Thanks. All right.

Mayor, in council, just because I know that we're pushing it up for us to jump into that policy session and stuff. I'd like to take just a few more minutes because I know what's on the policy session and I think we'll be able to get that done really quick. Right? Between, so you'll get this list.

This list is going to go out to you. You'll get the list of the capital projects so you'll be able to see what they are. You know, within the next week, if you are seeing anything that you guys have concerns about or want to be able to have some discussion further on those items that you'd like us to make a change before things come forward in the tentative budget, then please reach out. But while you're collectively here as a body, I do want to take a few minutes to just talk about some three items that we have that are on our list that stem around our communications and kind of continued branding that we have for the city.

So, and I know that Tyler has some additional information and that he's here to be able to address any questions that you might have related to that. So, again, for the branding update, the monument signs, the new wayfinding signs, public art installation stuff, that particular component of it is looking at just under $300,000. And then we have branding spaces in terms of the council chambers, office spaces, cubicle plaques, those types of things at $12,000. And then a marketing initiative that's around $18,000.

So, I would like to be able to allow you to ask any questions you specifically have to Tyler regarding those as we continue to move these forward. Can I ask a question? I want to know if this is all new money, right? On top of what we spent in the branding thing to this point.

Which at this point, every time we have a change order or whatever in branding, I keep saying, I knew this was going to cost a lot of money. Can you give me an idea of what we spent so far? I'm guessing between $300,000 and $500,000. More?

So, I can't give you a specific number right now, but between the website, which is branding related, changing over some of our logos for projects that were allocated for in phase one in fiscal year 2024, in the fiscal year 2024 budget, and the actual process of changing over our-- The consultant, the design, all the-- Mm-hmm. I would put it at around $300,000 right now. So, we're looking at six, you know. I said we'd be over a million dollars before we were done.

And I think I'm going to be close. Well, I think it's important to keep in mind, much of this would have been contemplating either way. I mean, because there's stuff that's, like, some of the wayfinding we've just been holding up on and some of the other stuff. You know, I guess we decide just to keep all the old eclectic signage or, you know.

I'm going to laugh because I'm going to say it was a 4-1 vote every single time. It probably means I just needed to get on board with it. But every single time was because of the money, and I just-- And you're right, I think a lot of this is probably needed anyway. So, might as well have a new sticker instead of an old one.

So, maybe some of that plays into it, it just wasn't-- Can I ask what the public art project is? Yeah, yeah, I'm glad you asked about that. So, part of the phasing, and I just want to know for the record that it does not-- that does not have to be done this coming fiscal year. But a major goal of the branding committee and of this rebranding effort is overall to improve and elevate the look and feel of the community.

And so, among some pretty lengthy discussions with the branding committee, we considered one of the silos that we're focusing on, which is resident quality of life, that public art would be a major component of that. We're very cautious, and we're very considerate, and we're very aware that we need to see this through the lens that that has been unsuccessful in the past. But we do feel that making a first move and a first step toward that, that the council adopted a public art code last year, that this would be a good time to make a tiny step forward on that as part of overall efforts to elevate that look and feel as part of rebranding. Can I ask a question?

Do we know what it is? We don't. So, we have a preliminary staff report to get us started, and then we're hoping that that will lead into more comprehensive efforts that we would bring back and talk with the council about. How much of that budget is contemplated towards the public art?

One hundred thousand dollars just this year. Okay. Thank you. Councilmember Clark?

Well, I'm just wondering, like when you guys passed the branding, did you have the idea that that would involve public art and updating office and cubicle plaques and conference rooms and like all of those other things? Like, because I guess the question is, where does it stop? We could rebrand everything. We could paint this room orange if we wanted to, but at what point is what you guys approved when you approved it, what was contemplated and planned?

Because there's more and more things that keep getting added to it. And I think we need to be mindful of that because, yeah, it would be nice to improve the way of life for our residents. But you know what's really nice? Them having enough money to be able to buy groceries and put gas in their car.

So I just thinking like we need to have a better idea of where we're headed with this instead of bringing back stuff. Because you mentioned even when you talked about the public art item, you said that's a hundred thousand dollars for this year only. So does that mean that there's a plan to spend 200 next year and the year after that? Like, is that part of the plan?

The council has an appetite for comprehensive plans to be completed. I think the branding committee is more than prepared to bring those forward so that there's a better picture for what the end game is. What I don't want to put forward and what I don't want to instill here is that this is nebulously moving forward with a never-ending cost and spiral. I don't think that's the goal.

I think this is a good way to set the table for the generalized goal of elevating the look and feel of the community. I understand that there are necessary concerns for being very fiscally prudent with taxpayer dollars. And at the same time, I think there are some really key things that ought to be focused on at the same time to complete it and complete it well. Or at the same time, balancing that against our fiscal constraints.

I would say that if you have a plan, we'd like to see it. Yeah, absolutely. Because that at least gives us an idea of what the overall spend is going to be for it. It gives the council the opportunity to say, yes, we're on board with it or maybe not all of it, maybe these things or not at all.

And I think that's important to be able to make that decision. So we're not, I agree with council member Clark. There needs to be an idea of what the end goal of this is and what the overall cost is. Because the reality is, is we're taking this money from other places that we want to make sure we're comfortable with doing that.

Understood. And I will look toward that. Do you, was the plan not presented to the council when they approved rebranding? It, it very much was as a phase one priority last fiscal year.

And then we tapped onto that, the, the website components of it, which was a, a directive given, given to me. And so this, this next fiscal year will be phase two. And so I've got phase two laid out. But if the council is desiring the total picture and ending, then I can get that to you here in the next couple of weeks.

And, and we did talk when we had the discussions about phases, more phases to come. So that's. When you guys did that, did you know how many phases there were going to be and about how much it was going to cost and what things were included? Or was it, we're approving phase one, there's going to be more phases, but we're not sure what's in them.

I just want to have a better idea of the context of that decision. Can I just have one, a thought here too, that may be helpful. Can I get an answer to the question that I just asked before we move on to that thought? Well, that's what I'm attempting to do.

Okay. I'm attempting to give it some context. And then, and then we can go from there, but we're calling this branding, but really this goes back to the visioning. And it's, it's efforts to fulfill, you know, to do the discovery in fulfilling, you know, those, those visioning goals.

So with that, I, I don't know if somebody wants to answer that council member Clark's question in more detail, but I, I, I, I'll take a shot at it. Yeah. A little bit. I mean, I, I was here and I, I felt like there was a pretty good sense of where we were headed.

At least I, I felt like that. I felt like we understood the basic cost was about that $300,000 mark. We talked about billboards and other things and we removed those from the plan. If you'll remember.

Um, I also know that, uh, at least my expectation was, is that there was going to be some additional costs that would come forward as we looked at street signs. Um, the monument signs are kind of new, but certainly an addition or some corrections or changes. I anticipated that there would be some changes that we need to come forward, um, to implement this fully for the city and to, to capture the vision. And, and I might be, maybe I'm the, maybe I'm the only one left.

I don't know. Um, we had a hard time with council member Curtis. He was pretty, um, I mean, I love council member Curtis and love serving with him, but he was a little more resistant to this. And, and council member gray has expressed his concerns.

And fiscally, it's always, it's always scary when you set money aside to spend it on things like this, because it's not something that you buy and sell. And so you don't see that return on that investment. You don't see that, uh, you know, that it's a tractor that you put out in the cemetery and you dig holes and you use it up. But I personally think from what I've seen, this does elevate Eagle Mountain to a new status and to a new level among, among cities.

And, and frankly, I'm interested in that. I think it's important for us to make that statement to say, look, we've moved beyond the country bumpkin hicks that council member writes, which we all were. And, and we've, we've become a little more sophisticated and we're, we're, we're community and team members that matter within the state. And I just feel like this helps to project that and to make that statement.

Does it cost us something to accomplish that? Yes. At some point it's going to be too much. We're going to have to say no to X, Y, or Z.

What, what kind of image do you want to create for Eagle mountain? That's really the question. And so, and I think that our branding committee has done a beautiful job of doing that. Um, I'm super happy with it.

And I may be alone in that. And, and, and I think it's worth some con at least some continuing investment to just follow through with the vision and to give it a chance to plan. Those seeds and let them grow. That's, that's kind of where I'm at with it.

And I recognize that we have new council members and we're going to have some new thoughts about that. And, and perhaps some broader discussion that needs to take place. Would you, would you be okay with Tyler bringing forward kind of what the plan that they have? Absolutely.

I think that makes a lot of sense. Council member. I don't want you to feel like I'm saying no. I'm just saying, what are we, what are we looking at?

What does the future hold? I'll be honest with you. I like the fact that we're going to start doing art in the city. I think those are some of the things that you see in cities all over the state when they start to put forth things that people can go and enjoy.

Things that to council member Wright's point, they, they elevate us as a city. They show some sophistication. I'd like them to follow who we are. I want to put that in there.

I don't know that we're looking to come up with art that would probably not fit in the community that we are, that would probably be more beneficial in a city that's in an urban environment. Yeah. In fact, Tyler and I spoke about that specifically. What we did not want is a mural in a ghetto, right?

That's not what we're talking about here. Yeah. This is, that's not the goal. So.

To be fair too, because for me all along, where I struggle, and I was talking to somebody from the Great Depression today, right? That mentality of we reuse and use until it's no longer usable. Where I struggle in the rebranding thing is taking a sticker off a truck just to put another one on that wasn't wore out. Now putting it on a new truck, we would have put the old sticker, new sticker, didn't matter, right?

Now having said that, for me the money to just replace something that wasn't broke, but the art project, the 100 grand, we didn't have art. This is something that's part of rebranding, but it's more of we want to beautify. So to be fair, my own, you know, this is allocating money for a project that you can tie it to rebranding, but it's actually above and beyond. It's something that we're not just tearing something down to rebuild it, we're beautifying and adding to.

It's creating community identity. Right. I think for me that's the major component to it, is that it creates community identity. Which I'm good with, right?

Look, look at my shirt. Yeah, yeah. See? I like it.

Yeah, here we are. Me and you. Which do you like better? And I don't mean that facetiously, you know, and I, I mean, I believe in it.

I purchased these myself. The city didn't pay for these. These are my shirts and my logos. I paid, no, not my logo, but I paid for the logos to be placed on this shirt.

And I just believe in it enough, I think it binds us together. And I, and I'm seeing that in the community. It's just starting to take hold. I'm excited about that because we are different.

We do think of ourselves differently. And, and people that come here, they sense and feel that. And they're not sure what it is. But I think this helps to, at least for me, it helps to coalesce that this is what it is.

This is what makes it. Can I ask one more question? And I appreciate that. And like I said, I'm kind of getting on board with it anyway.

But one of my favorite arguments to have with my little brother, and he likes to have with me more than anything, is once we allocate the money, we don't have no say, meaning the council. He's a city worker in a different city. And so when we approve this funding for say $100,000 worth of art, and then I know Councilman Curtis was really particular about this, is what's the mechanism to make sure that we're not going to get, I don't even want to say woke or whatever, you know, some kind of art project that the council wouldn't be on board with, right? Because literally once we say here's some money, that's where our jurisdiction kind of stops.

At least that's what he'd argue. I would say that we probably want to have some say in that one. I would love nothing more than the council have some say in that. Agreed.

I would love to understand that once we allocate the money. But look, the procurement code requires that, where this is a visioning or a statement that's associated with council visioning and city identity. The procurement code's going to require that those come back and they're presented to council for approval. So even if that money is set aside in the budget, they're not going to run out and just pick a project and say we're done.

That will come to us for approval. We'll have to then sign off on it before it's ever funded. Okay. We're going to have to stop talking.

Okay. I'm done. I'll be quick. Councilmember Clark, did you have any follow-up?

No. Thank you. Thanks. Mayor, the time is yours to close this out and we will let you jump on to your next session.

Okay. We will wrap up our work session then. Do we need a break? Are we ready to roll right into, yeah, let's take a quick one.

Let's take a five minute or whatever break and do that. Councilmember Wood will offer a prayer and then we'll get things underway. So if we could have quiet for just a moment. Our Father in heaven, we're grateful to gather together as a body and as staff members and as citizens.

We pray that thou would bless us, that we will have thy spirit to direct our decision-making, that we will do what is in the best interest of the citizens of Eagle Mountain, that we will listen to each other, that we will have healthy debate, that we will be dignified in our discussions with each other. We're grateful for our staff members and the amount of time that they put into bringing this information to us so that we can make good informed decisions. We're grateful for our first responders. We pray that that would continue to watch over and protect them in their duties.

We're grateful for our military and our veterans. We pray that that would continue to watch over those who are in conflict now on behalf of our country. Watch over and protect them. We're grateful again for all that we have when we say these things in the name of Jesus Christ.

Amen. one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. All right, first up, we have a public hearing, an ordinance of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, amending the Eagle Mountain Municipal Code, Chapter 15.95, International Code, and 16.60, Building Permits. I'll switch places on you.

Would it be okay if I presented both of these together? Yeah, okay. Three and four? Yeah, three and four.

I did that with the planning commission. Okay, and they're both public hearings, so I think that's fine. Let me go to read four as well. Okay.

A resolution of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, amending Eagle Mountain City consolidated fee schedule for building permit fees. Okay, it's yours. Okay, very good. When I presented this to the planning commission earlier today, it flowed better when I kind of treated them together or addressed them together.

The planning commission, I will say, heard this earlier today and recommended approval of both of these. What kind of the impetus for this is, well, there's a couple of things. Number one, this idea of trying to clarify some of our, how we treat international codes in our, in chapters 15, title 15, rather. We've been working on that for a little bit.

We've also been working to get an electronic permitting system for building permits and, or other types of permits that we do, yeah, community development. And we're going to go live on Monday for, for our planning permits, so that's, we're, we're there. But building ran into a little snag with, with our building fees. And so part of what we're coming here, what we're proposing here will help kind of make that a little, that process a little easier.

So we've been working with a company called OpenGov and they have a, a system that's really helpful in, in managing our city permits and the fees, the fees side of that. It's been a little complex the way we, we're currently structured and so forth, it's making a little bit, a little challenging. So this will help, help in that regard. So what this proposal does is, and you've had a, you know, you have a copy of that proposal before you.

I'm just going to hit on some important main points in the code here. So one of the things that we've been trying to do is get to the point where we don't have to amend our code every time the city, every time the state legislative session, uh, happens. So, um, we're trying to, if you look in 1595, the first of 15, of our, our city code 1595, you can see that we've got a laundry list of international codes that we've adopted. Um, we can really do that a lot more simply by just adopting the state construction fire code.

Because all of those codes are adopted, uh, by the state and we have to comply with them anyway. So, um, so we are proposing here to, to just adopt the state construction fire code and kind of free up a little space in our code there. Um, planning on, uh, another big component of this is referencing current codes. When we're, when we're, when we're citing codes, tables, and so forth, we're saying we're going to, we adopt the current state codes.

We adopt the current, um, um, fee, we'll reference the current fees in the consolidated fee schedule. We, uh, we, uh, we, we use the current building valuation table, um, so the, the idea is that if, if we, if we, right now we've, we've, we've got a, we've got a setup so that we, we, we've, we're referencing specific sections of code and then, like I said, we have to come back in amended. But, um, that, so a couple of things, the consolidated fee schedule, we want, as you can see, it's, it's in our code, in our code right now in 1595 and we've also got it in our, um, fee schedule. So, we see no need to have it in, in both the code and the fee schedule.

So, we just want to reference the, um, um, bump it out of the, of the code and just say C, consolidated fee schedule. Um, and then with the building valuation data table, um, we just don't want to put that in there. It's a pretty lengthy, uh, table that's the building valuation data table that comes from the international code. We, that, that, uh, table gets updated, um, quite frequently.

I think one to two times a year they, they're looking at building construction costs and other important things when they're making, as they adjust these. So, we want to make sure that we're using the most current valuation table to make sure that we're getting the best building permit calculations, or the most accurate I should say. So, um, that's, that's part of it is, big things, again, is to kind of simplify our code, but then another component of this is to clarify it. Um, in 1660, uh, in chapter 1660, um, we are trying to, uh, we, we want to clarify to the building community and people who, who use, uh, who apply for building permits, like owner builders, that, you know, this is your, this is the set of information you need to, uh, submit for a site plan.

And so, you can see that in, in 1660, the first part of 1660, um, we, we've got a, a, a list of, of site plan elements that need to be included, a little more clean, uh, the layout and the code's a little, a little easier to read. So, um, a little farther on down we talk, we address the owner builder, uh, situation, we have, do have people that want to, that do build their home as an owner builder rather than having a contractor. The state code refers to sole owner of property, so we just are inserting, uh, referring to that situation in our code. Hey, Brandon, can I ask a question real fast?

Yeah, go ahead, sure. In 16, uh, let's see, 1660.040 application, every time a site plan comes before us, there's, sometimes you have, when you're looking at it, it's kind of hard to distinguish where it is. Yeah. And I, I know I've brought this up a couple times to different council members and planning commissioners.

So, I wrote this note in here, I think it would be super helpful to us, uh, if we added that there needs to be a map that shows the nearest collector crossroad and a pin on the map of the city to show where in the city this is located. Because sometimes, even when they're like really small. Yeah. You're not sure where it is that we're looking at and for context of surrounding uses or whatever, that would be super helpful.

I think so too. Right. Could we add that? Yes.

Into that? I mean, if, if the council would like that in there, I think staff's very supportive of that, so. Um, I think also, there was just two other notes that I wrote in here in, in 040. Yep.

Uh, under section seven, where we take out the structural designation for the engineers. Is there a reason that we don't want to have a structural engineer in there? Well, um, one thing that I failed to mention at the first is, so, in going through this, we've been working with, with our building official, with our fire, with, uh, Dan DeVogue from Unified Fire. Also, we have a third party consultant that we work with, uh, WC3, George from WC3.

He, uh, is on, I can't remember the exact board, but he, he is helpful. He, he sits on boards at the state level that, that reviews building codes and makes recommendations to, recommendations to the legislature. He proposed, uh, that he said that, that the, the state code actually doesn't require a structural engineer. It says it's a professional engineer.

So the idea that from, from that amendment is to more align with what's actually required at the state level, so. So, the, the reason I ask that question is, if you have an engineer that's not. Can I interject? Thank you.

California has a designated structural engineer as a license. Utah does not. You're not licensed as a structural engineer. You're licensed as a professional engineer.

And that's why. So every engineer should be able to weigh in on structural or civic. There's just not a distinction between structural and civil. Okay.

Or any other. Yeah. It'd be just the, the, the, the area they're working in professionally. Correct.

Okay. Correct. Thank you. Uh, and then the last one is in, uh, number eight.

Yep. Uh, there's not, I don't see anything in here about soil stability. I know that we have, we've had a number of issues with that in this area because of our collapsible soils. Would there be a benefit to having them test soil stability?

Yeah. There, there should be an amendment in there about geotechnical. That's what I'm looking at right here. That's number eight, the report.

Yeah. So it, it talks about slope stability, retaining wall design, but it doesn't say anything about the soil stability. Soil stability. Cause I know with the sinking that we keep seeing happen in different places.

Subsidence. Right. Perhaps it would be beneficial to have them test that. You're right.

I don't, I don't have the code in front of me cause I've got my thing up. So yeah, you're, you're right. It does talk about slope and not soil. I think that would be a good addition actually.

I think that just protects us. And so we don't end up in a similar situation as some of the other cities. Chris is shaking his head here. So yeah.

Yeah. That makes sense. Go ahead. Is the rest of you okay with that?

Adding that into that code? Yeah. Jared, you, did you just ask him if it was required by the state? Yeah, that is.

I, I mean I'm not. Cause if it's required by the state then we wouldn't need to add it, but. Right. That's why I asked.

I thought it was in the IBC anyway. So I, I don't know that it is, but I would thought so. It's an extra protection for us is how I'm looking at it. I know that that was an important thing that at other jurisdictions that I've worked for.

So I think that would be a good thing to add. And just for reference, we do, so we do require a compaction certificate and a, an observation, a soil observation. I don't know what it's called exactly, but at footing, for footing inspection. Um, they provide a geotechnical engineer provides a, a soil observation report.

Okay. Um, but we can, if it's not in here, let's put it in so that it's clear. Yeah. Um, then the last two main points I wanted to hit was, uh, we, we have a new, clarified, nicely laid out list of required infrastructure for single family dwellings.

The, the former list was pretty, um, kind of bare bones. Now we've just kind of elaborated on some of those requirements in this case. Then the final thing was just, I, I think this is kind of touching on, uh, something that we've dealt with a little bit, uh, in the last six or eight months, just making sure that we have, uh, water rights dedicated to us before, um, we do a CMO. So I think that seemed like a wise, wise, uh, addition to our, our code there.

So these, uh, these, I, staff, uh, believes these are all really good, um, amendments. They're housekeeping. It just helps our, helps our, our office and department operate, uh, a little more efficiently. Um, along with, uh, so again, with, with the fee codes.

We're, we're trying to get those updated with, uh, to, to, uh, use the most up-to-date information. We've been using ICC, uh, data tables. They also have this permit fee schedule. Our permit fee schedule, I believe, comes from the, I, the 2015 IRC, International Residential Code.

And so this is just a little more updated. It's, hasn't changed, uh, uh, well, you can see the categories on the left-hand side. Um, didn't need to do that. Um, you can see those have changed just, uh, a little bit.

Um, some, like that 25,000, 50,000, that's, that, that category's just gone. We had to add another category for houses cost more. So now we have, uh, uh, five million dollar and up category. So we, the idea here isn't to get, uh, the idea is not to seek more revenue, um, through building permits through this process.

Some of the categories are going to make it so that a building permits less expensive. And in some categories, it'll make it a little bit more expensive. We haven't done, like, a yearly analysis to, yearly fiscal analysis to see how, how this would work. But we, we have tested it on, uh, uh, on, so, in certain situations.

Like, we, we've looked at, okay, if a house of this size, how much would the building permit fee cost? And so I know that the, uh, uh, our finance department did do some of that analysis on a kind of spot checking to see how, how the, these valuations. Brandon, how is the valuation calculated? That is a really good question.

It's very complicated, uh, and I, it's not something that I actually get, get involved with. I know they, they do, they look at, uh, our, they, they use the permit fee schedule. I know that they also, you know, like in this building valuation data table, if you've got a, a, a single family home, R3 at the bottom, they'll, uh, they will use, I think they use VB. And, uh, so you go from R3 to VB and that, that gives you a key.

So it's really this metric of, of all the variables associated with each of the building projects. Right. Whether it's two bedroom, three bedroom, single family, multi-family. Yeah.

Okay. I just didn't know how that was done. Is that, but is that something that we're comfortable that we're able to? Yes.

Plug it in and we're done. We've, uh, really appreciate Kimberly. She's been super busy trying to work on the budget at the same time, but she's been, we, we've had Springbrook. We've got building, building permit applications running through our old Springbrook system and it's about to collapse on us.

And so Kimberly's kind of taking some time away from that, from budget to help us get this going. And so she's, she's been working through a ton of this, uh, and. I'm not looking to clearly understand that. I just wanted to make sure that, that we do as a.

Yeah. The building department and Kimberly understand it. I do not. I just, just have a quick, um, question in our packet.

It is what you're presenting here is, is $1 different in one place. And I'm assuming what we have in our packet is the correct version because it says 100,001 to 500,000. Your version says a hundred thousand to 500,000. Yeah.

You're very, you caught that sort of the planning commission. Um, I thought it was a, well, after they asked the, first I was like, oh, I made a mistake. But actually, um, that, that came from the, that's coming from the ICC table. Um, this is, this actually was copied and pasted from their, their website.

Um, and so that's what they, that's how it is. They made the mistake. I like that. There you go.

Yeah. I have one other question. Yeah. Just in light of the new state code with regards to the military, uh, distance.

Do we want to make sure that that's added into this for the approval process? Um, we have done that, we put that in there. We, you took care of the military, I'm trying to remember which section of code that is in. Do we need to point there, I guess, because if they're looking at the application and the things that they need to do for a building permit, that's one of those things, correct?

It is. It, it definitely is. I'm trying to remember which section of code that's in. That's, oh, I'm inviting you right here.

Remembering code, it's up, it's their responsibility to notify, not the builder, right? That, that's what we were talking about last time. Yeah, it, it, it is our responsibility. I'm trying to.

Yeah, but they, they're going to, whoever's going to do a building permit is going to want to know that that's something they're going to have to go through that process. Right. Regardless of whose responsibility it is. If you don't mind, I'll just take a look back here at our last meeting and see where that was at, because it doesn't hurt to put that in there if it's not properly placed for us to remember it.

I don't know that you need to put the whole code in there, but maybe just something that references back to that code. It's 17.61, Brandon. Okay. So if it's 17.61, it would be helpful, because this is going to be for zoning.

It, it wouldn't hurt to put that in the, in 15, either, well, actually probably 1660. So. Do you want us to reference that when we make the motion? That would be, yeah, that would be great.

Here is the, yeah, 1660 would be good to. What was the, what was the code? It is. 17.

Yes. 17.61. No, but they're, they're saying we should put this in that code that were. Okay.

I'm going to take advantage of the opportunity to go ahead and open a public hearing. So it's 513. There will be two public hearings. So this one will specifically be for 3A, the chapters 15.95 and 16.60.

So is there any, anyone that would like to speak on this? Okay. Do you have anyone? Nope.

Okay. Then we will close a public hearing on item 3A at 513 and come back to council. Well, we tell, we need two different motions, don't we? Yeah.

We need two different motions. So let's do one at a time. Does anybody want to talk about this or are we good? I can make a motion.

Any other further discussion on this? If there's not, I'll entertain a motion. Mayor, I'll make a motion if you'll allow me. Yes.

I move that the city council approve amending the Eagle Mountain Municipal Code chapters 15.95 international code at 16.60 building permits with the condition to add 17.61 land use compatibility with military use in section 16.60. Okay. We have a motion by council member Wood. Do we have a second?

Yeah. Oh, those three. Yeah. You had additions to the site plan.

You had the soil stability and then you had the land use compatibility with military use were the three things that I recall. As noted by our planning director. Okay. All right.

Amended motion. Second. Who is that? Council member Wright for the second?

Yes. Okay. Any clarification needed? Let's start with Council member Clark.

Yes. Council member Burnham. Yes. Council member Wood.

Yes. Council member Wright. Yes. Council member Gray.

Yes. Okay. That motion passes. Okay.

Thank you. A resolution of Eagle Mountain City, Utah. I'm ending Eagle Mountain City Consolidated Fees Schedule for Building Permit Fees. And I'm just going to go straight to the public hearing.

It's 5:15. We'll open a public hearing. Is there anyone that would like to speak on this side? Seeing no one, we'll close public hearing.

At 5:15, come back to Council. Mayor, will you entertain a motion? I will. I move that City Council approve amending Eagle Mountain City's Consolidated Fees Schedule for Building Permit Fees.

I second that. Okay. We have a motion by Council Member Wood, second by Council Member Burnham. Any clarification needed?

Okay. Let's go to a vote. Council Member Burnham. Yes.

Council Member Wood. Yes. Council Member Wright. Yes.

Council Member Gray. Yes. Council Member Clark. Yes.

Okay. That motion passes. I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. Move.

So moved. All right. Well, do we need a second? Anybody second?

Second. Okay. All in favor, say aye. Aye.

Any opposed? It is 5:16. We are adjourned. Thank you.