Eagle Mountain City Council, 23 May 2024

In short: The council spent most of the afternoon in a budget work session going through the city's five-year capital project list and a handful of one-time spending requests, giving staff informal direction rather than taking votes. The regular meeting that followed was short: two public hearings on building-permit code and fee changes, both adopted 5-0 with no public comment, then adjournment.

Present: Councilmembers Melissa Clark, Burnham, Wood, Wright, and Gray, with the mayor presiding. No one was recorded as excused or attending remotely; all five members voted on both roll calls.

Staff: Kimberly (finance director, presenting the capital plan), Steve (city administration), Brad (parks and recreation), Zac Hilton (parks and recreation), Chris (public works and engineering), Tyler (communications and branding), Brandon (planning director, presenting the code and fee amendments). Jeff and Jim were referred to but did not speak on the recording.

Decisions

#	Agenda ref	Motion	Moved / Seconded	Vote	Result
1	3A	Approve amending Municipal Code chapters 15.95 (International Code) and 16.60 (Building Permits), with three additions asked for by the council: a locator map on site plans, soil stability in the geotechnical report, and a cross-reference to chapter 17.61 on land use compatibility with military use	Wood / Wright	5-0 (Clark, Burnham, Wood, Wright, Gray all yes)	Passed
2	4	Approve amending the Consolidated Fee Schedule for building permit fees	Wood / Burnham	5-0 (Burnham, Wood, Wright, Gray, Clark all yes)	Passed
3	—	Adjourn at 5:16	Not named / not named	Voice vote	Passed

Settled without a vote:

• The council told the finance director to combine the $500,000 set aside for land next to the current city hall and the $750,000 set aside for a public safety site into one general land acquisition line, so the money can be spent on either purpose once a direction is chosen.
• Staff was directed to earmark about $10 million of the roughly $14 million in uncommitted capital reserves toward a future city hall, on top of roughly $900,000 for early design and concept work.
• Improvements to the Silver Lake amphitheater were put on hold until the council decides whether that is the permanent home for an amphitheater; if money is spent there in the meantime, members agreed it should buy two restrooms and a small storage or changing space, not stage equipment.
• Members agreed that Nolen Park and the rodeo arena area both need master plans before further money is committed, and asked that these questions be tackled on a timetable rather than one at a time.
• The council agreed to double the placeholder for the 8000 North road from $250,000 to $500,000 as a signal to Utah County that the city is serious, while trying to leverage a county or regional funding partnership first, and asked staff to sharpen the cost estimate.
• Members asked staff to make trail surfacing uniform going forward, favoring asphalt, and to clean up the development code so the standard is consistent.
• Staff will shift the funding source for the Pony Express Parkway roundabout removal to restricted transportation sales tax money, using it as a bridge until regional funds arrive.
• Tyler was asked to bring back the full rebranding plan, including every remaining phase and a total cost, before the council commits more money.
• Staff will bring back cost estimates, alternatives and possible funding sources for connecting Lone Tree Parkway to Old Airport Road.
• Funding for the Alpine School District school site was left as a placeholder; the mayor said options would be discussed in a closed session in a couple of weeks.
• The full capital project list will be sent to members, who were asked to raise concerns within a week, before the tentative budget comes forward.

Meeting map

Agenda ref	Topic	~Start (elapsed)	One-line note
Work session	Capital plan overview; land for city hall and public safety	0:00	Two separate land set-asides folded into one flexible line
Work session	Public works yard improvements	0:10	On hold for the facilities master plan; drainage and paving called hard to defer
Work session	Silver Lake amphitheater and Silver Lake (Woodhaven) Community Park	0:14	Council wants the "where should the amphitheater be" question answered first
Work session	Nolen Park	0:22	No specific improvements planned; council asked for a master plan
Work session	Trails: asphalt versus concrete	0:27	Council asked for one uniform standard
Work session	Rodeo arena lighting and future location	0:30	Lighting designed so poles can be pulled and reused if the arena moves
Work session	Walton Park and the observatory	0:37	Grant money has to be used or returned; a fee in lieu may close the gap
Work session	Pony Express Parkway roundabout removal	0:40	Ranked in the regional top ten the day before; funding source changing
Work session	Wastewater: tertiary treatment and plant expansion	0:47	A $1.8 million shortfall now, a roughly $40 million expansion later
Work session	Water fund projects and tank sizing	0:57	Impact fee plan only allows for 2.5-million-gallon tanks
Work session	Uncommitted capital reserves	1:00	About $10 million proposed for a city hall
Work session	Lone Tree Parkway, Old Airport Road, 8000 North	1:02	Placeholder doubled to $500,000; state road designation floated
Work session	Cemetery storage shed and pad	1:10	Interments already match all of last year
Work session	Kubota tractor and flatbed trailer	1:17	No replacement schedule exists for the tractor
Work session	Rebranding phase two, including public art	1:20	Council asked for the whole plan and total cost before approving more
—	Break, prayer, Pledge of Allegiance	1:30	Prayer offered by Councilmember Wood
3A	Building code amendments (chapters 15.95 and 16.60)	1:33	Presented with item 4; hearing opened 5:13, closed 5:13
4	Consolidated fee schedule for building permit fees	1:45	Hearing opened and closed at 5:15
—	Adjournment	1:46	5:16

Discussed but NOT on the agenda: a possible new east–west road behind the rodeo grounds, between the park and state trust land, tying into Major Street; asking the state to designate an extended Mid-Valley Road as a state road all the way to SR 73; and using leftover land near Sage Park and Old Airport Road for a park-and-ride.

On agenda but little/no discussion: the flatbed gooseneck trailer request drew one clarifying question and nothing more; the $12,000 for interior branding and the roughly $18,000 marketing initiative were listed but not debated; and the fee schedule resolution passed with no council discussion at all.

What was discussed

Work session — Land for a city hall and a public safety building

The finance director opened with the capital project fund, which lays out planned spending from the current year through fiscal year 2029. Two older set-asides had been sitting unspent: $500,000 to buy land around the current building, and $750,000 for a possible public safety facility site. Because the council is now weighing a new civic center or downtown, a member asked whether either purchase still makes sense: "I don't want to go spend $750,000 or $500,000 if the short-term result is going to change shortly."

The mayor said the council is free to redirect money it set aside for a project it no longer wants, and staff confirmed no formal vote was needed — direction given in the meeting was enough. The council agreed to merge both amounts into a single, general land acquisition line covering either purpose, alongside roughly $900,000 newly added for concept and architectural work on a city hall. A consultant is expected to present the facilities master plan on May 21, which will inform the wider city hall and downtown discussion.

Work session — Silver Lake amphitheater and the unfinished park

Staff explained that the amphitheater project's scope had already been changed once, from slides to work around the stage itself: paving the gravel area for parking, stage equipment and lighting. A member pushed back, pointing out that the separate Silver Lake Community Park phase two — the Woodhaven park, a different site — is not designed until 2026. "I would rather utilize the rest of that money to finish the park," he said, arguing the council should first decide whether this is where the city wants its amphitheater long term.

A member with a theater background made the counter-case. Groups already use the space, including summer theater camp for children, but there are no restrooms and nowhere to change, which she called "really, really complicated." Since a larger venue elsewhere is years away, she urged a small, practical investment now: two restrooms with a storage space between them for use during shows. Others agreed the spending should be "very utilitarian" and stop short of stage equipment. Nothing was voted on; the direction was to answer the location question first.

Work session — Nolen Park and the rodeo arena

Nolen Park has money set aside but no defined improvements. It was included in the impact fee facilities plan so it would be eligible for that funding, but a design still has to be attached to it. Staff noted the park was built early in the city's history, was never given many amenities, and is now heavily used partly because program space was lost while Smith Ranch Park is under construction. Suggestions from members included leveling and rolling the field, which one described as "craters of the moon," a second pavilion, and — from a member's daughter, who has a school assignment on public improvements — swings.

The rodeo arena raised the same question in sharper form. Lighting and equipment are funded, and staff said the new poles were deliberately specified so they could be pulled out and reused if the arena relocates. A member said he would not personally fund a large storage garage there if the facility is only staying a few years, while another observed simply, "it is until it's not." Members floated the north side of the city, possibly through a conservation easement deal, as the realistic long-term site, and suggested the facilities master plan is the moment to designate a future location.

Work session — Streets, and the roads that were not on the list

The finance director recommended paying for the Pony Express Parkway roundabout removal out of roughly $1.7 million in restricted transportation sales tax money rather than general capital reserves. Staff added that the project had ranked in the top ten in the regional technical committee vote the previous day, making outside funding likely, though probably not until 2028. The suggestion was to use city sales tax dollars as a bridge and free the money up again when reimbursement arrives.

Two connections drew more energy than anything on the printed list. Members argued that linking Lone Tree Parkway to Old Airport Road would give the Lone Tree area a real second way out and pull traffic off Pony Express Parkway; only $125,000 for design is allocated, and no request for proposals has gone out. For 8000 North, members agreed to double the placeholder to $500,000 to demonstrate commitment to Utah County, while trying to secure a partnership first. A member also warned that the new alignment crosses land the city does not control: "the land acquisition, we need to move on right away."

Work session — Wastewater and water

Two wastewater projects dominated. Tertiary treatment, which would clean effluent to a reusable standard, carries $1.5 million in federal grant money with a hard deadline and is currently about $1.8 million short. Staff said a bond refunding opportunity in August on the 2014 water and sewer revenue bonds could be used to raise the difference. Asked what the project actually does, an engineer explained it reduces the state's handling restrictions and would let the city water parks and open space with the treated water, with reverse osmosis under consideration so the salt content does not damage grass.

The treatment plant expansion is the larger item: roughly $40 million as projected, against about $34 million in today's dollars, doubling existing capacity and needed within about five years. Only about 2% is impact fee eligible because of when the growth falls, so construction would be bonded and partly repaid through user rates. On the water side, a member questioned why two 2.5-million-gallon tanks are shown instead of a single 4-million-gallon tank; staff answered that the impact fee facilities plan only authorizes the smaller size, so a larger tank would need either a plan amendment or a different funding source.

Work session — The cemetery

The one-time request for a cemetery storage shed and pad prompted a wider conversation about how fast the cemetery is growing. Staff said the shed is not meant to house large equipment, just the grids, platforms and small items currently hauled back and forth from the public works shop for each burial. The numbers made the case on their own: 12 to 14 interments in all of last year, and 12 already this year. Roughly 600 of just under 1,600 spaces have been sold, and staff expects the next phase will be needed within three or four years.

Members asked whether plot fees are covering costs. Staff said they broadly are, but only because parks staff time is billed to the cemetery as a percentage, and that the city's rates are "probably one of the cheapest in Utah County by far." A member asked that regular review points be built in, citing water rates that went unchanged for twenty years and then jumped: "I would like for us to build in check marks along the way." Staff also flagged that Saratoga Springs is planning its own cemetery, which may change demand.

Work session — Rebranding, phase two

Communications staff brought three items: just under $300,000 for monument signs, wayfinding signs and public art; $12,000 for branding inside city buildings; and about $18,000 for a marketing initiative. Of that, $100,000 is public art for this year alone. Asked what had been spent so far, staff estimated around $300,000 including the website and logo changes, and could not give a firm figure. A member said he had predicted the effort would exceed a million dollars before it was finished and now expects to be close, while acknowledging he had been the lone dissenting vote each time.

Councilmember Clark pressed hardest on where it ends: "We could rebrand everything. We could paint this room orange if we wanted to." She said the residents' priority is "having enough money to be able to buy groceries and put gas in their car," and asked what had actually been contemplated when the council first approved the branding. Staff acknowledged the concern, said the intent was not "a never-ending cost and spiral," and agreed to bring back the complete phased plan with a total cost. Councilmember Wright defended the spending, saying it elevates the city's standing and creates a shared identity, and noted he had paid for his own branded shirts.

3A — Building code amendments, chapters 15.95 and 16.60

The planning director presented this item together with the fee schedule resolution, noting the planning commission had recommended approval of both earlier the same day. The changes have two drivers: cleaning up how the city adopts building codes, and clearing an obstacle to a new electronic permitting system. Rather than listing every international code separately and amending the ordinance after each legislative session, the city would simply adopt the state construction and fire code and reference current tables and fees by name. The building valuation table, which updates once or twice a year, would no longer be copied into city code.

The rest is clarification: a cleaner list of what a site plan must show, language covering owner-builders who build their own homes, a fuller list of required infrastructure for single-family homes, and a requirement that water rights be dedicated before a certificate of occupancy issues. Council members asked for three additions. One asked that site plans include a map showing the nearest collector road and a pin locating the site within the city, because small plans are hard to place. Another asked why the word "structural" was being dropped before "engineer"; staff and a member explained Utah licenses professional engineers without a separate structural designation. She then asked for soil stability testing to be added to the geotechnical requirement, citing collapsible soils and subsidence problems elsewhere. Finally, the council asked that the new state rule on land use compatibility with military use, chapter 17.61, be cross-referenced. All three were folded into the motion, which passed 5-0 after a public hearing at which no one spoke.

4 — Consolidated fee schedule for building permit fees

This companion resolution updates the permit fee table, which the planning director said currently comes from the 2015 International Residential Code. The categories change: one bracket is dropped and a new one added for homes above five million dollars. Staff was explicit that the goal is not more revenue — some permits will cost less and some more — and that no full-year fiscal analysis had been done, only spot checks by the finance department on sample house sizes.

A member asked how a permit valuation is actually calculated and was told it is a complicated cross-reference between the permit fee schedule and the building valuation table, driven by occupancy and construction type. Another caught a one-dollar gap between the packet version and the slide; staff explained the slide was copied directly from the code council's own published table, and the error was theirs. Staff also noted the old Springbrook permitting system "is about to collapse on us," which is why the finance director has been pulled off budget work to help. The hearing drew no speakers and the resolution passed 5-0.

Notable moments

• A whisper problem opened the meeting. Before any business, members spent a minute wrestling with open microphones. One joked it "would be a podcast that people might consider mimes, right? Because we can't actually hear what's happening."
• A resident's homework became public input. A member said his youngest daughter has a school assignment to write about a public improvement and wants swings at Nolen Park. He said she is nervous but he would still try to bring her to a council meeting; others encouraged it.
• Nobody spoke at either public hearing. Both hearings on the building code and fee changes were opened and closed within the same minute, with no members of the public present to comment.
• A member owned his own voting record. During the branding discussion he said, "I'm going to laugh because I'm going to say it was a 4-1 vote every single time," adding that his objection had always been the money and conceding much of the work was probably needed anyway.
• Who picks the public art. A member asked what stops staff from choosing art the council would not support once the money is allocated. The answer was that procurement rules require the selection to come back to council for approval before it is funded: "they're not going to run out and just pick a project and say we're done."
• An off-agenda road got planted as a seed. A member described a quarter-mile connection behind the rodeo grounds that would tie into the new traffic signal, then admitted it was outside the topic: "I'm just kind of planting that seed because it's nothing that we're going to fund right now." Staff noted a deed restriction on the park side may complicate it.
• A tractor with no replacement plan. Asked when the city's Kubota tractor — used across departments and reportedly in rough shape — would be replaced, staff conceded no depreciation or replacement schedule was ever built for it.

About this transcript

The audio was produced by automatic speech-to-text, and several proper nouns are clearly mangled. "Point Express" is Pony Express, "Sintla" and "Sitla" are the state trust lands agency SITLA, "utility cell proceeds" is almost certainly utility sale proceeds, "TSD" is likely TDS (total dissolved solids), and "CMO" is likely a certificate of occupancy. "Nolan Park" is rendered here as Nolen Park. The park named "Brandon Park" in the transcript is uncertain — it may be a substitution of a staff member's first name — so it is described by location here instead. Names appearing only once, including a fire district reviewer and a third-party code consultant, are not reproduced because the spelling could not be confirmed.

Speaker attribution is the main limitation. The work session has no roll call, and most speakers are not named as they talk, so nearly all of the budget discussion is attributed to "a member" unless someone was addressed by name — Melissa Clark, Jared Gray and Wright are the exceptions. The regular meeting's two roll calls are reliable and record Clark, Burnham, Wood, Wright and Gray as the five voting members, which is a different council lineup than the city's current one; a former member, Curtis, is referred to in the past tense. The mayor presides throughout but is never named on the recording, so no name is given here.

There is a stretch in the rodeo arena discussion where several sentences about a storage shed repeat verbatim four or five times — a transcription loop, not five separate statements. Elapsed times in the meeting map are estimates based on position in the transcript; the only clock times spoken aloud are 5:13, 5:15 and 5:16, near the end.