Transcript — Eagle Mountain City Council, 17 February 2026

Speaker A: Thank you. The meeting has now ended.

Speaker B: You are the only participant in the meeting.

Speaker C: 270.

Speaker D: 270. And so we fall within the numbers that is identified in the agreement. What you see in the upper left there, it says Future Plat C. That was originally going to be part of this phase. Ivory Homes has pulled that out. That will likely be some townhomes, but they pulled that out. They're redesigning some things on that. So that will come in again, come back to you for concept level review.

Speaker E: at a future date.

Speaker D: The park you see in the center there, if you recall the agreements, the agreement over the years has been modified, mostly related to park construction. So now the park in Village 2 has to be constructed before the 400th dwelling is platted. So that will then occur in this phase. Just some trail connections, that sort of thing here. Again, park. This is just— the blue and red were my check, my looking at nodes and links to make sure they meet the nodes and links, which they do. Landscape plan along the units, the single-family homes. These are all single-family homes. Just the park strip landscape plan you see here. And that is the concept plan right there.

Speaker F: Thank you.

Speaker D: Any questions for staff or for the applicant?

Speaker G: So the traffic study that was in the packet, I believe, was from about 5 or 6 years ago. 6, yeah. And so my question is, because as I looked through the— like the ARMDA, looked through the development agreement, it says that every new village needs its own traffic study. And so it seems to me that that that this is not compliant with that. And it seems like a new traffic study would need to be—

Speaker D: Yeah, I'd have to turn any traffic question over to Vince. I don't— can't review a traffic study. Or David, I guess.

Speaker C: Were you here to get a context on that? So Overland Phase 2, the most current traffic study is from 2019, or Village 2 is 2019. The ARMDA requires it every village. Are you familiar with the current traffic study? I'm not for that one, no. So I'll ask a different question. Do you feel it's warranted at this point as far as Overland, or what's, you know, help direct council on? So we had this discussion today actually with Brad and myself. We're wanting to see—

Speaker E: we're not seeing enough traffic impact studies for development.

Speaker C: Overall as a whole. And if we are, they're old or they're outdated.

Speaker E: We want to see more, more recent.

Speaker C: The city is growing so fast. 2019, you know, Pony Express was one lane. So yeah, I think we want to see a new study. And especially taking into account the adjacent properties, um, would be—

Speaker I: would be—

Speaker C: I mean, maybe both at the same time, or—

Speaker I: Yeah, I would.

Speaker C: There's probably efficiency in doing it as a region for the area.

Speaker E: Yeah, absolutely.

Speaker C: Does that answer the question, Craig, or is that—

Speaker G: Yeah, so it seems like we need one. And it's Section 6.4, I believe, that— if I remember right in there. But it's— I think it's very clear in this development agreement that there would be a traffic study for each individual village as it gets approved. And so I think that needs to happen.

Speaker E: I got lots of questions, David, and I don't know if you're the right guy, so I'm just going to ask them. Is there purple pipe in this phase?

Speaker D: Excuse me?

Speaker E: Are they putting purple pipe in this phase?

Speaker C: If you'd like, Brad, you maybe—

Speaker E: maybe we're not—

Speaker C: come to the mic in case.

Speaker E: Okay, so that's a no. And then I, I did have a question maybe for you, Brad, and it's just about— obviously you've reviewed the sewer, water, stormwater, all of that. Do you have any concerns with any of, any of what you see there? Okay, that was one of the questions I wanted to ask. And then the other question that I had is in 5.2 in the, in the ARMDA, it says that the matching lot sizes in Village 2, 3, and 7 will have single families no smaller than a half acre or the average lot size of the immediate adjacent property. Has that been factored into this?

Speaker D: Yeah, to the north, there's no approved plan right now to the north.

Speaker E: Okay, and then I have a question about— so does that mean that we're going to do multifamily against that border? Is that— I mean, I'm not sure what that means.

Speaker D: Yeah, what that's referring— I recall the language that when the village, whatever section of the village came in, if there's already an approved plan or even platted lots, that's where you have to match, or I think it's a B grade or something like that, that the language is. But there's no approved plan right now. To the north, on the north side of 2.

Speaker E: Okay, that was one of the things I wanted to ask. And then, oh boy, Arnot Peak. I want to do some arm twisting with you, Brad, on Arnot Peak. I don't know if our traffic engineers kind of talked with you, but it's the timing of that, especially that northern section. I know we've had at least a short conversation about that. What are your thoughts about advancing that timetable or building it all at the same time as we're trying to create some ingress and egress out of Lone Tree that will connect there.

Speaker A: Yeah, we addressed that in the Planning Commission and we're, we're agreeable to work with you guys on that.

Speaker C: That's not a problem. Excellent.

Speaker E: With regards to traffic, so Overland has 8 villages.

Speaker J: This is Village 2. The traffic study was submitted with Village 2. This is actually an amendment to a previously approved Village 2B plan. So this is not a new village, it's just an amendment to Plat B of what was already approved once before.

Speaker E: And really the only amendment is to reposition the townhome locations and make the lots wider so they fit more 3-car garages. This is really the only changes.

Speaker D: The road patterns are basically the same.

Speaker C: So If that helps context.

Speaker E: Those are my questions.

Speaker C: Do you think— is that going to satisfy? Do you think we still need— No, I think that would satisfy from what Brad just said, that it was already contemplated, the area and the density. It's just kind of— that sounds like I'm saying just removing things around and then— yeah, that would work for us.

Speaker E: But I think I would add to that, I mean, it's obvious if that's the latest traffic study, that as Village 3 comes in or the next village you bring it forward, we really— I would advocate that we, that we, that we ask for a new updated traffic plan for sure, or whatever study, whatever you call it, Brad. I mean, just let's, let's just take a look at it. It's been a while since we've looked at that and things have changed significantly, especially in that area.

Speaker H: One thing to note on this too, you mentioned Arnaud Peak.

Speaker C: The original plan that was approved had homes fronting on that on that street.

Speaker E: So it really was a large street acting like a residential neighborhood street. This plan has been amended so that all the homes back on that, so it can act like a true collector street like you were hoping to have it. And so that's one of the changes on this plan. I think it's important to recognize that, that Ivory and Mr. Mackey in particular have been good partners in helping us to— and working with us to try and solve some of the problems that we've been having. We We pushed back and forth a little bit, but I, but I want to recognize that. And I think he just demonstrated it again where he's agreed to build that Arnot Peak sooner rather than later. I think that's helpful to the city and not necessarily needful for his project, but it's certainly helpful to us to accomplish some of the things that we need to do for our other residents. So I want to express that publicly to you. So thank you.

Speaker K: Thank you, Brock.

Speaker H: One, uh, can I just ask a question? This lines up right on Airport Road, correct? I'm looking at the right place, and I don't know who to address this question to, but there's a crosswalk to get across that street. I've come down Airport Road; it's about a 45. Some people think it's 60. What's that?

Speaker F: Fiona.

Speaker H: Fiona. Oh, the road, the cross the cross street on Fiona. So when you're coming down that 45 miles an hour, you come around the corner, and then you're right on that crosswalk. And we're just going to be adding more. cars, traffic in that area. So anything we can do as a city to make that a safer place, to bring the speeds down as we approach that, might be something worth considering.

Speaker E: That's going to be something that falls to the city though, Councilmember Huish, not the developer. So I just— I mean, I think we need to recognize that.

Speaker C: Okay, anything else you want to— it's your time. Anything you want to bring us up to speed on just for a minute? It's just a discussion item, so, you know.

Speaker J: Nothing really on this one.

Speaker E: We're just excited to, to get it moving and get this park going, and hopefully we can just keep the momentum going out here for you guys and for us too.

Speaker C: So perfect. Thank you, sir.

Speaker H: Yep.

Speaker D: So as far as feedback from council, Mayor, we're good to proceed forward?

Speaker C: I didn't see any concerns. The traffic study, uh, and then if he'll help us with that road, I think we're ready to move forward on this one.

Speaker D: Okay, thank you.

Speaker C: So thank you. Still, um, we'll move— I don't see Kyle yet. Is he not here today?

Speaker I: He had to leave for a family emergency.

Speaker C: Okay, so—

Speaker I: He meant to connect with you before the meeting.

Speaker C: I was— I'll just excuse him. And I forgot because it's written down lower, but also Councilmember Wood was sick today, so we'll excuse him and I'll remember to do that later. Um, so we'll come back to that one another day. That's what I was waiting, if I was rolling it back in. Um, we'll go on to 1C. Which was the drive-through locations and aesthetic requirements for the community development. Mr. Brandon, is there an applicant here on that one? Was Haskell or—

Speaker L: I invited Bill Gaskell.

Speaker C: Sorry, Gaskell, that's what I meant.

Speaker L: Yeah, Bill Gaskell to come up and just kind of—

Speaker H: Okay.

Speaker L: Really just wanted to have a really brief discussion about this. You'll remember back, I think it was in October, we had, Council adopted new commercial and multifamily commercial design standards. And this is how our screening requirement reads now for drive-throughs. And so it makes it so you can't have a drive-through like on Pony Express or any other— from a primary street. So that's, it's an interesting choice of words. Maybe we should have used, anyway, primary doesn't say collector, arterial, local, whatever. So as I look at that, that's an interesting choice. But the, I'm hearing from not only Mr. Gaskell, but also there are people who are trying to develop the site across the street from Walmart, and they're struggling with this as well. When we proposed this screening requirement, we were given examples of people, of cities that are using this screening for drive-throughs in such a way that they don't— you don't have them. They're in the back of the restaurant so you don't see them from the road. But that is really challenging apparently, and it's challenging for Bill. He may be explaining this, but I think LOIs are a big challenge with commercial entities. So just in short, I just want to know if the council is interested in re-exploring this requirement because I think it could have potentially a negative impact on our ability to lure commercial establishments in the cities that— in the city that use drive-throughs.

Speaker I: So.

Speaker B: Mayor.

Speaker M: Brandon, can I ask you, like, what you're asking us to consider, if I'm thinking about Saratoga where there are drive-throughs that front primary roads, Chick-fil-A is a perfect example because it goes around the building almost the whole way, 3 sides of the building. But it also runs right along Redwood Road, and then whatever that road is that you turn off on Redwood Road. And I look at that and I think, that's not hideous. It's not causing issues.

Speaker B: Right.

Speaker M: And part of me feels like sometimes when we create code, sometimes it takes the application of that code for us to realize any issues that we might have with it.

Speaker C: Right.

Speaker M: Is what we're talking about, would that allow what's taking place at the Chick-fil-A in Saratoga Springs?

Speaker L: Currently this right here, what we have on the books wouldn't. What I'm proposing is maybe we just eliminate that requirement. We didn't have a screening requirement like this prior.

Speaker J: Right.

Speaker L: And I think we're okay. I think one concern we had as staff was drive-through windows on the vehicles. funding Pony Express, and at the same time, if it's gonna hurt business, I guess I'd rather have business than not. But I just don't think this is something staff's super passionate about, and I think we're more concerned about commercial development than—

Speaker M: I guess for me, I don't remember the impetus for why someone was super passionate about it, or multiple people were passionate about it, but I look at where the drive-throughs are on some of the primary roads, and I don't see a lot of issues with it. I could see the business maybe having a complaint of it maybe being too noisy because of the traffic at some point.

Speaker L: Right.

Speaker M: But that's also on them to do the best practices for their business. So yeah, I think that's where I'm at with this.

Speaker L: I think staff was looking at this from, you know, our— one of the important parts of our job is make sure the city looks nice. And so we were like, well, can we set it up so we can still facilitate commercial development while still making our city look, you know, look attractive. But as we, we proposed this, we, in application, we're like, no, this, this is probably going to be more of a hindrance than a, than a help. So, um, I did invite Bill here.

Speaker B: If—

Speaker L: I don't know if you want to hear a, a, his— a comment or two from him, because he's been struggling and has kind of brought that up to— brought that to my attention.

Speaker C: So I thought it might be helpful to hear something from So I have a question that might help clarify some of this, because the code that you're showing just says drive-through, and the drive alley goes all the way around the building. Are we talking about the drive-through window? Is that what you just said?

Speaker L: Well, that was part of it. We were just— the idea we were thinking was like, well, let's put it behind the building. But I think the biggest thing we were worried about was the drive-through window.

Speaker C: Because the drive alley still circles the building, right?

Speaker L: Still circles the building. And you can set them up so they don't, but I just don't think staff really cares either way at this point. We want the city to look nice, but more concerned about commercial development.

Speaker C: Yes. Bill, if you want to address—

Speaker D: Thanks for having me. My name is Bill Gaskill, for the new members here. Yeah, I think this code coupled with the requirement that the building be set up against the property line so that there's no drive-through, no road between the building and the property line is problematic. And really, I guess maybe to give you a couple examples right here, Chick-fil-A or McDonald's, for example, McDonald's, delivers their food with a full-size semi-truck, and the only way they can do that is to drive all the way around the building. And drive-throughs to go across the street to Chipotle, Moe Betta's, I forget who's there. If we put that drive-through lane on the back side of that building, we would have 4 businesses that customers have to walk across the drive-through lane To get in the front door, so the code requires the drive-through to be on the back side of the building or on the side of the building. The examples were were banks, which is one business in one building. And the minute we put four businesses or even two businesses, you don't have a a you still have another occupant, and you still have customers that are driving. Across that drive-through lane, so to go behind the building, you you can't really go around part of the building and then swing back out into the parking lot because you're swinging back out into that main drive aisle right in front of the building. To put it on the side, you're doing a big loop in a side parking lot, so you're just creating another field of parking. and all of those parking stalls in between the drive-through or crossing the drive-through. So the idea of going, wrapping around the building is really keeping the drive-through lane away from your customers, customers' kids. If, I guess you wouldn't be taking a grocery cart out, but it's to separate the cars from the pedestrians.

Speaker A: Thank you.

Speaker D: I don't think anyone has a problem with a drive-through window being on the side of the building, but once you go to the back, you're where the front doors are. And, you know, drive-throughs are pretty important, especially most of the drive-through occupants are food users. And inside of that space, you have a kitchen, and that kitchen has to be tied to the drive-through window. And the idea is this flow between getting your order and getting the food out the door or out the window as quick as possible. So it's hard to, if you have customer seating, to rearrange that kitchen and your customer seating to put your front door and your drive-through window on the same space. So it's For for a bank, for a tire shop, for a loop shop, it's it's not a problem. But for food and multi-tenant buildings, it it's a problem. So we have we would like to be doing projects right here on this corner. We'd like to be doing things south of. Holiday Oil. We've, we've had tenants and we're kind of on the shelf right now with everything.

Speaker H: So is the ask just for fast food restaurants to move it to the side versus having it in the back? My—

Speaker D: I, I am not here to give any suggestions because I didn't, I didn't write the code. If I did give a suggestion, I would say just scrap what you—

Speaker H: Altogether?

Speaker D: altogether. Um, because coupled with that, again, you can't put these buildings right up on the property line, um, just with the traffic flow. So I'm not here to give you suggestions. I'm just telling— giving you some of the issues that we're facing right now with our tenants.

Speaker E: I, I have a question for you, Mr. Gackle. I mean, and I'm just going to say this, I'm I don't know who's bent on this being this way. Let me just say it that way. I'm certainly not. And if we've got this wrong, then let's fix it.

Speaker F: Yeah.

Speaker E: That's my thought process. But we need someone like you to help us understand what the problems are that it's creating. And so my ask would be to have you work with our planning staff to make a suggestion as to how to correct it so it functions. From my perspective, the important part of this is the screening element. I just wanna make sure that those things are screened, even if there's a drive-through that's adjacent to one of our major roadways, I'd like to make sure that it's screened with some bushes or a berm or something that just kind of keeps that separation between the pedestrian traffic that may be walking along there from that drive-through aisle.

Speaker D: So yeah, we do, we do landscaping, we do berms, small retaining walls.

Speaker E: And I see this as a screening code, frankly. And so the impact of the drive-through is not something that I've really been aware of. So it's It's good to hear your input, and my encouragement would be to get the mayor to let you work with staff and figure it out. Bring us back something that works.

Speaker G: I would agree, and I think for me the most important thing is what the architectural facade that faces that main road, that it looks nicer. And, uh, so I think that combined with, you know, the berming, the screening, I think that's really for me what it is. I don't really care where the drive-through is. And if there's a safety issue, I mean, that's something that's pretty significant.

Speaker C: So, okay. So rather than scrap it, I think the— if I understand correctly, I want to make sure you understand that we're going to look at, uh, some berming requirements and, uh, the facade on the street-facing and maybe tweak that a little bit. Or some of that's already in our code, right?

Speaker E: And maybe remove the location requirement because I think that that's part of what's giving you issues, right?

Speaker C: I'm glad to work. Is that agreeable and understood?

Speaker L: Yeah, absolutely. Well, we have a good working relationship with Bill, and we'll definitely work with him.

Speaker E: Because, Bill, we're interested in attracting more business to the city, not less. And you're the guy that can help us understand how to do that. And if you're running into these problems, I'm really grateful that you're willing to bring it forward and let us understand that there's a problem with our code.

Speaker L: One of the things that I think it would've looked a little more attractive. And that's, so that's what we were, we just trying to make the city look, you know, make it look nice. And so I, we'd love to work with Bill to make it, to make that screening requirement as best as possible. We thought maybe like some type of awning or some, something, I don't know, some, I don't know, I mean, just brainstorming.

Speaker E: I think that's what Council Member Whiting is talking about is just, you know, still try to enhance the front facade even if it has a drive-through on it. Yeah, yeah.

Speaker D: I think some of the code includes that.

Speaker C: Yeah, that's— I think it's in other parts of the code.

Speaker D: Yeah, there's—

Speaker C: and there's berming also requirements or screening requirements, especially against residential, but this will be on a street, so incorporate that. And I think we'll—

Speaker E: You guys iron it out and bring it back.

Speaker D: Yeah, we will.

Speaker L: Bill's good to work with. We'll figure it out.

Speaker A: Okay.

Speaker D: Okay, thank you.

Speaker C: Anything else on that one? If I can have a little leeway, I wanted to go out of order a little bit because I wasn't paying attention. But if we can skip to item 13A, Lead the way. Specifically because I know I've been up at the state capitol today and I know people are busy and I wasn't paying attention to who was here. So this should be quick, but I wanted to jump over. It's a resolution of Eagle Mountain City. It's on the consent agenda, approving agreement with Hamco Consulting to provide lobbying services. with Mr. Dan Hammert. So if you want to come forward, it's really questions and kind of a meet and greet, if you will, or whatever. Make sure the mic is turned on. There's a little button. Okay, we're good. Mr. Dan.

Speaker K: Thank you, and happy to wait as long as it takes. So, um, uh, yeah, so, so nice to meet y'all. I've met some of you in meetings before, uh, on other issues, uh, specifically about some, uh, uranium enrichment stuff, some, uh, nuclear stuff, and some, uh, Military Installation Development Authority activity. But regardless, uh, here before you, um, I'll give you a little bit about my background if that's okay, and then talk about some of the projects that, uh, hoping to work on for your city this legislative session. And then also, you have already a lobbyist, Dave Stewart, and just thought it might be helpful to talk about how I would work with So, first of all, about me. I'm relatively new to lobbying. This is my 4th session, but I'm not new to state government. I served in the state legislature, in the Senate. I represented Northeast Utah County, where it's the seat that Brady Brammer is now sitting in. Served there, was the majority whip in the Senate, and part of the still current Senate president's leadership team at the time. When Governor Cox was elected governor, he asked me if I would resign my Senate seat. I'd just been reelected. I was going to say, and join his cabinet and run what was then the Governor's Office of Economic Development. That seemed like an interesting, unique opportunity, so I said yes to that. I resigned from the Senate and then ran GOED. I did that for a few years. We changed the name to GOEO, and ironically, they're changing the name back to GOED this session. I guess the name didn't stick. Jeff Moss, who didn't represent this area but was right next to it, is now He was asked by the governor to resign from the House and head up that agency, which he's decided to do. So I've had a lot of experience in state legislature. As a senator, did quite a bit with transportation, and that's going to be germane to what I'm hoping to work on with you guys about working with UDOT, Carlos Braceras and his leadership team specifically. And then since leaving the legislature, have found there's not a lot of lobbyists that really specialize in this area. And so given my relationship with Carlos, I did serve on the cabinet with him and knew him from before that as a legislator, do have a really good working relationship with him and his senior staff. And so that's been an area where I've been hired by a number of groups to help with funding, transportation-type funding. Which takes me specifically to what I'm hoping to work on with you, and I have some notes here I'm gonna refer to, but mostly it's—

Speaker I: Yeah.

Speaker K: 'Cause I get nervous and forget what I'm about to say. But mostly what I've been asked to work on is the Mid-Valley Highway specifically. You guys have major transportation issues. There was a— there was— geez, you know this— going east-west in and out of this area is a nightmare. I actually— this is dumb, but I'll still say it—

Speaker D: before—

Speaker K: or I still own Red Hanger Cleaners. It's a little dry cleaning company. We actually have a store in Saratoga Springs. And so I've come out here. We offer a pickup delivery service, which I've had the fortune or misfortune of driving those vans around when someone doesn't show up for work. And I've driven all over this area. And traffic here is not great, particularly coming out to this area specifically. Like even today, I came early because I was worried I was going to be late. And coming off of Redwood, to turn, to come out into this valley. I think there was a stackup of cars to turn left there. I think it was like a quarter of a mile. This was at 3, like 3 PM. It's crazy.

Speaker C: Of course.

Speaker I: Yeah.

Speaker K: And I know you, I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but that's the big, I guess what we're trying to help you with is get more connection access in and out of this area and specifically the Mid-Valley Highway. So the big lifts, and I'm actually quite optimistic already. We've already been working on this. So whether you hire me or not, it'll probably get done. So I shouldn't have said that. You probably don't need to hire me. But we've laid a lot of groundwork here. But what we're trying to do is twofold. One, get the plans for the Mid-Valley Highway designated as a state road. It's not. The whole concept's not. So that's number one. And in conjunction of that, to start UDOT to begin working on this as a major infrastructure project, because also it's not. And so what we're working on is an environmental study to get money set aside for an environmental study to start moving the project forward. And right now I'm actually— this is a pretty— how do I say this in a public meeting? It's like it's hard to do this.

Speaker E: Yeah.

Speaker K: And it's hard to get this done in the way we're doing it. But right now, I'm pretty optimistic. You have an amazing representative in Stephanie Griecious. She is a bulldog in all the right ways. And she's great to work with. She's tenacious, and she's hardworking, and she's been super helpful in this process. And I think we are gonna be successful this session on those 2 points. The other areas where I'm working is Cedar Valley Highway. It's another highway planned, right?

Speaker I: Yes.

Speaker K: On some specifically, corridor preservation, and then ideally to get some money to build the first part of the frontage road on that highway. And that highway's planned, as you may know, 2 frontage roads with the main highway in the middle. And so start that process. Some other areas that we have worked on that have been brought to our attention, Senator Scott Sandel has a bill that prohibits any sort of incentive and then redistributes any tax increment coming from data centers. I know that's something that this community has really focused on as a benefit to the community. That is a bill that I have engaged in with Senator Sandel. I think that's going to end up in a fine place. He mostly just put it out there because he wants to start a discussion, which many legislators do it this way. His concern is there are going to be some haves and have-nots relative to some of these larger infrastructure projects. The haves are going to benefit, and the have-nots are not. Where he represents a pretty rural area, It's most of northwest Utah. He's concerned that his communities, or the communities he represents, are going to be have-nots. And so he doesn't want to find himself in a situation where some communities benefit. It's not targeted at Eagle Mountain, but that is his concern. And I think we'll have a dialogue and a discussion around that. And then also, I've been working on a broader UDOT study. that kind of brings into play all of these connectors that come in and around this valley to help figure out how to get people in and out of this valley better. So that is a completely separate kind of process and study that UDOT is working on or should start working on here in the very near term.

Speaker A: That's—

Speaker K: oh, David Stewart. How do I work with him? I've been brought on with David on a number of projects. Not that he's deficient. If I was going to hire a lobbyist, I'd hire David. So, you know, you hired the right guy. But what I found is different people just have different relationships and frankly different ideas to approach situations. And where David and I have worked together well and we've been hired as a team by a few cities and even a few counties is different people have different relationships, but also different people, like I said, have different ideas on how to approach a project and a process. And specifically to the Mid-Valley Highway, I happened to be in a meeting, this was on the other side of the mountains in American Fork, where Senator Brammer is trying to get some money for a flyover that comes over the freeway to connect into the FrontRunner station there in American Fork. And he got talking to me and he wasn't— he was asking for some advice on how to go about doing it. And we set up a meeting with UDOT and him and MAG to discuss, and American Fork, how to move this forward. It was in that meeting where UDOT asked, they said they would help with it, but they asked for Senator Brammer to push for some intent language to get an environmental study started on that project. It was in that moment and in that meeting where I said, hey, we should do the same thing for Eagle Mountain City. It's kind of being in the right place at the right time, but having also different ideas and expertise on how to approach a problem and get stuff done. And I've, in the 4 years I've been out of the legislature and on a number of these projects working with David, I found that we complement each other very well. And that comes back to, I'm gonna repeat myself now, but just different relationships and just different ideas on how to solve a problem. So hopefully that answers your questions. Happy to answer any questions you may have.

Speaker B: Thank you.

Speaker H: Could you just maybe educate us a little bit? How many other cities are you working with? And I'm more, as I was reading through this, just thinking about time allocation. You know, there's a specific ask on a dollar amount, and you don't have to get into like your hourly fee or anything like that, but I'd be curious just what your bandwidth is and how much time you feel like you'd be able to allocate to Eagle Mountain. Because you addressed some really key issues getting in and getting out. Mid-Valley is So important, we want to get it right and get it prioritized with the state.

Speaker K: It's a great question. On the one hand, I feel like I always use this analogy of balls rolling down hills, right? You kick them down the hill and you watch them roll. We've kicked a lot of those balls down the hill already and they're rolling quite well. I mean, it still takes some work and effort, but as far as bandwidth for this session, on the items I discussed, I'm pretty optimistic on getting those things done this session or significant progress. Well, the way I described them, actually getting them done. Nothing's done until it's done, but I'm pretty optimistic. On the other hand, just general bandwidth, I am busy. And I'll even tell you the other cities I do work for. So Santaquin, Perry, Tremonton. So they're kind of far away. And this is where this matters. I also represent Salt Lake City. This matters because geographically, UDOT and the state likes to spread the love.

Speaker E: Yeah.

Speaker K: I know there is a narrative that for the past few years a lot more transportation money's been going north than south. I don't know if you've heard that narrative, but it's been out there for a while. Regardless, and there are some large projects to the north that are getting funded, but traditionally the state likes to, again, spread the love or share dollars based on need and geographically. And so to that extent, there's not as much as a conflict with the cities I do represent with this area because of that desire by UDOT to spread out resources and not put them all in one place. And so while I am busy and while I do have other clients, I don't know that they're in direct conflict. I don't know if that answers your question exactly, but—

Speaker H: Yeah, or more just like out of a 40-hour work week, you know, throughout the year, or do all—

Speaker K: is all the work happening For most of it, it happens during the session. During the work week? Yeah. So I spend, I bet it's 16, 17-hour days during the session, during the work week. On weekends, you're still working. It's not that much though. I'm gonna guess like last weekend, probably 3 to 4 hours on Monday and probably 4 to 5 hours on Saturday. And so the session is definitely the busy time. For anyone who's a CPA or interacts with CPAs, it's kind of like around April 15th for those folks. That's your busy season. The rest of the year you are engaged though. I thought lobbyists only worked during the session. And what I like to say is either I'm doing it way wrong or I was wrong because I'm pretty busy year round. So for example, on your projects, let's say we get them funded. Those bills are all gonna pass by the end of the first week of March.

Speaker A: Yeah.

Speaker K: Right? And they're gonna have effective dates in May. But as soon as they're done, I know what I'm gonna go do. I'm gonna go start talking to UDOT about, okay, we got you this money, how do we get this allocated per the Transportation Commission? There's other boxes that have to be checked or hoops that have to be jumped through. And while things do slow down outside of the session, it's still, I've found at least, Yeah. 40-hour work weeks and still around and available. And also what I found is if a city has issues, I'm absolutely available to go work on them. And particularly if we're thinking ahead to the next session, that interim period between the sessions is a very effective time to get ahead on projects and to get ahead on whether it's funding requests for transportation or even policy initiatives. I'm making stuff up right now. But let's say you guys want to modify some stuff you're doing around your energy overlays or your, you know, your data center stuff you're doing, and you want some state policy to help support that or modify that. That interim period is an excellent time, and spending quite a bit of time, not for you per se, but it can be, but for me, with legislators getting language drafted ready for the coming session. So I do think I am around and available during the session and try to be responsive, but then post-session I'm around and available to work on issues. And I still go to work post-session as the follow-up to what happened in the session, but usually the orientation moves toward the state agencies in the type of projects we're talking about here.

Speaker H: Awesome, thank you. And I noticed in the scope that there would be a report 2 times a month, which is great.

Speaker L: Thank you.

Speaker K: Yeah.

Speaker M: Do you do any work to lobby with UTA? Because we were supposed to get a bus route and, uh, microtransit, and it kind of fell through. And we will do whatever it takes to get what our residents need. So I'm just curious, do you spend any time with that Board of Trustees or the people that are there?

Speaker K: So UTA is getting overhauled this year. I don't, I don't represent UTA, and, um, my interaction has been I know our local commissioner pretty well. That said, the board is getting overhauled again this year, and my interactions with UTA have both mostly been affiliated— so I represent Union Pacific Railroad, and then in interactions between Union Pacific, UTA, and UDOT, I'm in a lot of meetings with them. So I know a lot of folks there, but as far as pushing for something like you're describing, I've never engaged on a project like that, but I think I know the people well enough, the process well enough, the system, how it works well enough that it could be helpful in an effort to bring some stuff.

Speaker C: I think that's kind of the question, and that's what I— just to bring the council in on this, is part of the idea of you being here is for an introduction. The other part is to give direction on what it is that we want for him to be working on given that he gets a contract, and I think UTA is one of those. It's more, I think the question is more of a focus of will you work with UTA to make sure we get bus routes?

Speaker M: Yeah, and Commissioner Beltran is working on it with Trustee Acerson, and the idea is Utah County is willing to pitch in some of the 5th of the 5th to help fund it earlier so we can get it going. So, and I just feel like they forget that we account for 1/3 of the growth of the state. So anything you can do to help rise that to the top, that would be awesome.

Speaker I: For sure.

Speaker C: So one other thing that I wanted to bring to— that you kind of mentioned, but we have funded through 2029 the Eagle Mountain— well, it's the, um, the freeway to Ranches Parkway. Yeah, full freeway, and then it ends. And I would say, I'd hate to throw a number out there, but a good portion, 50% of our traffic passes that intersection. And it goes to one lane. So we're going to go from 10 to 1. One of the things that I want to make sure that we're working on, and I've been working with Carlos a little bit, is extending at least those frontage roads. You mentioned it, futurely we want to get those frontage roads at least past, you know, another mile, if not to Eagle Mountain Boulevard. So that is, I think, the story that I'm saying that I'm trying to get you to tell them. Is, uh, we're gonna go from 10 lanes to 1 each direction, 2 total. So that's, uh, that's gonna be a huge problem in 2029, and I wanna make sure that we have a focus on that.

Speaker K: Yeah, that's great.

Speaker C: Um, my— when they passed that last year, my suspicion was that they were gonna go to the next phase, but we wanna make sure.

Speaker M: Yep.

Speaker C: Um, were there any other specific bills or anything that we need?

Speaker E: I'll just, I'll just put out some long-range planning kind of some feelers that we've talked about. I mean, when that freeway comes out and hits Eagle Mountain Boulevard, turns south, where does it go? And eventually we'd like to see that kind of connect back up to the Redwood Road area, down into, into the Goshen area, and return back over to I-15.

Speaker D: Yeah.

Speaker E: And we want to see some connectivity out through the Tooele Valley so that we can bypass Salt Lake altogether. If you're coming in from the west, you can come in on I-80 and take a belt route that will bring you right through Eagle Mountain.

Speaker K: You can avoid that whole menagerie And I think I saw the mayor, like you said, up at the Capitol this week, and I think we talked about that even when we spoke briefly, the connection down from Tooele. I think that is a natural kind of flow, right?

Speaker E: I just think that, I think long-term we have to be looking at those things and preserving corridor and starting to figure out what does it look like 20, 30 years down the road, long after none of us are here to benefit from it. 'Cause we're gonna have sons and grandsons and granddaughters and anyway, that are gonna need to be serviced by those things.

Speaker K: Well, and I'll say something that's unique about your valley is it's developable, but it's also proximate to the other major urban centers. So, and you know, I don't wanna say anything too controversial. Sometimes growth is always controversial. But you're in a unique and interesting situation where you have land to grow and with the connectivity, hopefully grow in a way that preserves quality of life. But where you are and where you're proximate to those major kind of urban areas, it's a unique situation that— I mean, Summit County could be this, but they aren't and won't. But you are in like a unique geographic—

Speaker M: Yeah.

Speaker K: area where you could really see some exciting things from a growth perspective. And sorry if anyone here hates growth, but from that perspective, you could do some really neat stuff.

Speaker H: We, we did everything backwards. The Field of Dreams movie— if you build it, they will come. We came, and now we need the building to happen. So if you can help us get ahead of that curve a couple years, that would be awesome.

Speaker C: Yeah, yeah.

Speaker D: The—

Speaker C: and the— and you mentioned SB 231 sandal, right? Uh, and I'm halfway joking, but if they want us to share, they should share with us as well, meaning the other cities that already have economic— you know, it's a—

Speaker E: so if we're going to share tax revenue, let's do it evenly across the board.

Speaker C: Yeah, we already do.

Speaker M: That's the sales tax.

Speaker E: Yeah, no, we don't.

Speaker C: So yeah, obviously we're a big no on that one. If you can help us on the, uh, SB 231.

Speaker K: I'm sure it's not gonna go as is, and I'm sure it's not gonna— it's actually, for what it's worth, it's illegal for him to propose to take local taxes and redistribute them. We do that, the only place we do that with is school equalization with the basic levy, but that's a state-imposed tax. It's not a local tax, and you can't take local, and he knows this. He and I talked about this, but the effort, The idea and the effort, his—

Speaker C: A for effort.

Speaker K: Yeah, yeah, A for effort on his part.

Speaker C: Dan, we appreciate you being here. Evan, I know that you work within this field. Do you have any other comments? I know you guys have been talking. And Ben, anything that you need to add, or are we good? So any questions specific to today's agenda items so that he can leave?

Speaker H: Do we need him to—

Speaker K: Need to go back to the Capitol.

Speaker C: Yeah, I knew you had to get back.

Speaker I: That's why I was—

Speaker C: I didn't see you at first. I would have come shook your hand. Um, anyway, I think we're good on that one. So we appreciate you being here and making the trek out here. You'll see the traffic is getting worse now. So for sure, thank you.

Speaker K: Thank you all. Appreciate what you do. Thanks for your service. And I think you serve in the least appreciated role in government. So thanks for what you do.

Speaker C: Thank you. All right, now we'll get back on track and go to a discussion item 1D, the community Development Block Grant with affordable housing, and Kiara has this one from MAG. And Taylor, do you need to plug in?

Speaker B: I do, and I'm hoping it just is seamless. But in the meantime, I'm Kiara, the affordable housing coordinator. I'll let Taylor introduce I'm Taylor. I work with Mag.

Speaker F: Very well.

Speaker B: I am extended, and I knew this would happen, and so now I need to figure out how to—

Speaker C: You'll have to drag it over. Carson's the expert. He'll show you.

Speaker F: Hi.

Speaker I: I got you.

Speaker C: We'll just move this over here instead. Other than I just double skipped.

Speaker B: I'll remember this one.

Speaker D: Sweet.

Speaker B: Okay, awesome. Yes, so we are here to discuss the Community Development Block Grant, also known as CDBG, um, and that is, um, the fund we explained in the packet that you guys received for— with our update and our report. The overall goal here, um, we just want to give you an update on our previous year Um, for project year '25, where we are, where we're sitting currently, um, and where we are hoping to land for our upcoming project year as well. So we're kind of in the middle of both, um, looking for some direction and, um, project-specific projects that we'd like to focus on. So for the coming year, which starts on July 1st, but we need to get started planning now, Because our deadline is mid-May to submit that to HUD. That's with some comment periods involved. So got to get started now. Our anticipated allocation is that $239,000 number. That's the one we got this year. Every year it's a little different. It just depends on the population and other things that we don't know. The formula isn't public, but it changes a little bit every year. So we plan it based on the current year. Uh, between last year and this year, it was like a $4,000 difference, so that's probably what I would expect again. Um, every year we have a 15% cap on public service, so that'd be about that $36,000 number based on this year. And then every year also fixed administration cost of $32,000, and that's for us at MAG, but the, the cap is 20%. So, um, in addition to that, we have prior year funds of about $7,000. That's from FY24, so last year. And then from this year that we're currently in, FY25, we have that $188,000 number that was put toward CAP, uh, the CAP program. But, um, the city's not wanting to go forward with that, or that's not, uh, it hasn't been feasible so far. Um, and then we also have this FY25 Senior Assistant program that was never carried out, and that's $3,000. So those last 2 line items are prior funds that we don't need to plan as urgently as the regular PY26 allocation, but just to inform you that we need to figure out something to do with that money. Uh, more urgently is the regular allocation. The, the regular allocation, which is just that $239,000 number.

Speaker I: Yeah.

Speaker B: Um, yes, so like Taylor mentioned, we have the cap in the Senior Assistance Program. Um, Right now where we're sitting, the cap— we weren't able— the goal was to get, um, home-based businesses into a commercial space and using funds to be able to do so. Um, with the limited commercial space at the rates that they're at, and, and also we have to focus on folks in the 80% or less AMI, just the numbers weren't working out and it hasn't been feasible. Um, so, so far, uh, we haven't had any businesses make it through the committee, um, to be able to move forward. So those funds are still available. Um, we do also have the same situation with our Senior Assistance Program. Um, that more so just didn't make it through any programming, so those funds are still available. And before we push those through, we just wanted to check with you guys to see if there was another allocation for those. As far as this current year that we're about halfway through goes, the top portion is all the projects for this year. So, uh, for the Senior Center addition, we put $17,000 of this current year and $100,000 of the PY24 funds toward that. And all of these projects, the work is complete. Um, the top 2, the bus and the portables, those have already been dispersed. Um, and then in addition, we've got ADA ramps, which work is complete on that. Um, utility assistance, which the year has passed for PY24, so work is complete there. We're also still working on this year's funds, which we're halfway through that.

Speaker E: Okay.

Speaker B: And my understanding is that we're— we didn't spend quite the entire availability for PY24 and probably won't end up spending the entire amount for this current year as well, just based on the way it's gone so far. So may not be as much of a priority in the coming years. And then we did a one-time back-to-school drive that was back in August. And then Tabitha's Way was the one organization that the city gave funds to. outside. Um, and they're also— they've already spent down all that money in terms of work. We haven't reimbursed them yet. But yeah, that's the current year. And then this bottom portion is just kind of a general overview of what is eligible. So overall, for CDBG, um, the funds are just meant to benefit low-to-moderate income people. What that looks like is for every project, at least 51% of people served must be 80% AMI or under, if that makes sense. So 2 percentages there, but basically at least 51% of people served for each project have to be low to moderate income. And you can keep track of that in various ways. We get into it more in the packet, but like for public service, we have to check income for every single person that benefits from the service. And then for things like the ADA ramps, you know, we'd have to make sure that we're doing it in a census tract that is LMI or at least 51% LMI.

Speaker D: Okay.

Speaker B: Or in the case of the ADA ramps, it serves disabled people, which is that bottom line, presumed eligible groups. We don't have to track income. So always easier to do a project that is for a presumed eligible group. Okay. And so our ideal submission deadline date would be at the end of this month. So we are hoping to be able to get a project list confirmed and finalized over to HUD, and any changes that may come as well. And so just to reiterate and kind of re-explain, the unused funds from project year '25, those are more flexible. That's kind of our past date funds that just need to be reallocated. The less flexible deadline is the upcoming project year and the new funds that are coming in and what we want to do with those. Um, so in the past, like, I— from that overview of this year, you've only given a couple thousand dollars to the outside organization Tabitha's Way. We do have an application process, so these are the outside organizations that have applied for this coming year. Um, we also have their full applications for you to review, but this is kind of just like an overview. All of these are public service, so these would all be subject to the cap. They're all aware that there's not very much available. So, you know, probably only one of these would even be able to get funded. But these are all of the applicants, and we have more full comments based on my pre-application meetings with them in your packet.

Speaker C: But yeah.

Speaker G: Thank you.

Speaker B: Okay, and that is all we have.

Speaker M: Um, Council, one of the things that we've heard, and this kind of came up a little bit on our retreat, is that people often say, well, there's nothing for the teens to do, and there's lacking in things. And yet our library does a ton of programming, and we also have a teen center here in Eagle Mountain that is housed at the Rockwell High School And they also have a very robust food pantry there. And if we're coming up short with ideas of where we should be spending this money, I wholeheartedly think we should be looking at putting some of it toward the teen center and boosting that up and really just kind of owning it as a community until we can get another one built that's within the programming of the school.

Speaker N: Thank you.

Speaker M: The city, so that's one thing. The other thing that I think that we need to be looking at, especially for lower-income families that are struggling, is some sort of utility help. And I know that we have some programs, but there's also issues where they get behind and different things like that, and they would qualify. And I think it's important to keep the taxpayers squared away so that they're not just giving up money. So if there's a program that we could create and a way to shore up different households that are really struggling and make sure they have the utilities that they need, those are the 2 areas that I see that we can make a really big difference with the amount of money that we have remaining for this year.

Speaker H: Can those funds be administered by the city? Like if we had a discretionary utility fund and a process to screen those applicants I'm not sure.

Speaker M: Kimberly's giving us a look, so I would just ask the mayor to invite her up. Yeah, that's fine.

Speaker B: We'll let finance speak to that. Yeah, definitely.

Speaker C: Okay, Kimberly, if you want to—

Speaker B: Yes and no.

Speaker H: I mean, I love that idea. I really do.

Speaker C: I couldn't tell you why she's coming up, but in January there were people that still hadn't paid their utilities from, I think, September, October. And it was a madhouse in here, right?

Speaker B: Correct.

Speaker A: So any funds that we receive through the CDBG program will still retain those particular restrictions. But yes, we have everything in place to be able to administer that. Originally with the funds we received, we were looking at a bridge that would help with the peak water usage. So similar to the heat program that MAG administers, if you're familiar with that, in the wintertime it helps pay utility bills for electric and natural gas services, then we were looking at utilizing this to help kind of create that bridge during those peak seasons. However, it's not restricted for only water usage. We can use it to provide utility assistance for the entire utility bill at— as long as they're meeting the income qualifications and the age qualifications if it's a senior-related type situation. So we typically do require some portion of a commitment. So again, we'd be looking— in general, when you do these programs, you want the dollars to be able to switch, to stretch, and you want to be able to help as many people as possible. We would need to look at our current policy that's adopted, and we would have to make some modifications for this, but it is something internally we've talked about and 100% support and feel like there is a need, and we'd look for opportunities that we can provide additional assistance.

Speaker B: Thank you.

Speaker M: Awesome. The other thing that I'm curious about, and I don't know if it's something that we could use the money for, but it feels like we have this smattering of resources that are available within our community. We see the nonprofit applications that come in and the desire that they have to help, but there's not really any one-stop shopping for people who are in need in this community. Typically, you don't make hiring choices based off of money that you're not sure how much it's going to be from year to year. But part of me feels like we could even have a part-time person in our city that could help when people come with resources and help get that information out to the people in need. But also, when people have needs and they come in, and maybe they're referred through the utility program. program, and/or the community outreach people at the high school, that we have someone that's kind of a point person. I don't want to use the word caseworker because there's a different connotation, but really it's someone who understands the social services that are out there, and we use these funds to hire even a part-time person to stretch the funds so that people have an easier time accessing them. and are aware of them. And I'm just wondering, is that something we can use the Community Development Block Grant funds for?

Speaker B: Yeah, I mean, I think— correct me if I'm wrong, but, um, all the backups.

Speaker A: This one is a little complicated, so thank you for letting me jump in.

Speaker B: Um, you could use the funds to do that. for a part-time position, it would fall under the public service cap, so that smaller 15%, and you could only do it to create a new position, so one time, or to expand a position, and so it wouldn't be ongoing funding that you could use that for.

Speaker C: Yeah.

Speaker E: Thank you.

Speaker H: Can I ask one more question? I live in Sage Valley, and for many, many years we had this little pavilion. It was kind of out in an island of grass. There was no connecting path from the sidewalk to the pavilion, and we had a neighbor that was in a wheelchair, and we'd carry her to the pavilion and then carry her back. Otherwise, she's kind of rolling uphill on grass. It was kind of difficult. Can these funds be used for things within the city to make them ADA accessible? And have we done any kind of assessment throughout our parks to make sure that everything is connected?

Speaker B: They can absolutely be used for Yeah, we would just need to make sure it was in an LMI census tract or that you did a cert— like a survey to see if the service area is at least 51% LMI. But if it's for disabled individuals particularly, yeah.

Speaker C: Okay, sure.

Speaker G: Okay, do we, do we have any LMI areas in Eagle Mountain?

Speaker H: Do you know?

Speaker B: We do, yeah. We have maybe 4 pockets. Yeah, 5 census tracts.

Speaker H: So in those areas we could see if improvements can be made.

Speaker G: It seems to me that we should evaluate those areas to see how the parks, if there are dilapidation within the parks and put money toward that. Would that come out of the 15% cap or is that—

Speaker D: That's separate.

Speaker G: So the cap program that didn't work, we could put it towards these parks and rec in the LMI areas, which I think is a great idea.

Speaker M: Yeah.

Speaker G: I guess another quick question. So dumpster programs. Can that— does that fall under this as well? Or is it only dumpsters for LMI areas? Like a cleanup dumpster?

Speaker B: Yes, as long as it's like a one-time kind of cleanup effort.

Speaker G: Anywhere in the city?

Speaker B: It's coming from the 15% cap though.

Speaker G: Oh, it is coming from that, which is— which that's the part that's limited. And I don't think we want to hire staffing to take up that 15%. I think we want that 15% to get—

Speaker M: yeah.

Speaker E: I mean, some of the things I've been thinking about— I met with the school district and kind of their staff members who— one of the issues that we really have at this, at the high school, is transportation issues for, for people who are in the LMI. Just getting to school, getting back and forth to school, getting to work, getting to doctor's appointments, and those types of things. I'm not sure how to solve that problem, but I'd love to see us put some resourcing towards that, especially where we're so far from some of those services at the the county.

Speaker B: Mhm.

Speaker E: Um, I don't know how we coordinate that or how we do it. And then I'm thinking about homeless and homeless— homeless center. Just, we have a higher homeless population in Eagle Mountain than I think most of us realize, and we have students that are homeless who are coming to school every day and trying to make, make it work. And I, and I like your idea, Council Member Clark, about having some, some resource center where those who really do find themselves in that LMI category and, and with those needs can come and access those things, whether it's transportation, food, clothing, just the basic human element that needs to help meet their basic human needs and to help get them back on their feet and headed in a direction that will help them become better educated, perhaps enter the job— into the job market because they now have access to some sort of transportation system. I could see Councilmember Clark with her little hat and her minivan, and she can just go pick them up all day and kind of drive around the city.

Speaker A: In a high-vis vest.

Speaker E: But I just think that there are some of those things that we need to be thinking about. How can we in Eagle Mountain start to organize and have those resources available to our people who are really in those circumstances? And there are more of them than we realize.

Speaker M: So we had this discussion. What happens next? How do we get from this conversation to get some of the funds where they need to go?

Speaker B: We just, I mean, these are all very great ideas. So we can either come to you guys with project suggestions on what you've mentioned that would fit kind of these different areas and make them feasible, or vice versa. You guys send us any other specifics and we can Work it that way, but—

Speaker M: One last thing that I thought of, sorry. I'm thinking about workforce development and people who may be returning to the workforce or underskilled. We're so far away from a Department of Workforce Services. We have someone from DWS that comes out to Eagle Mountain 1 to 2 times a month and meets with employers to help them know what to do, but part of me wonders if We could use some of these funds to help with maybe a job interview workshop and resumes and even clothing to help them get on their feet so they can look decent for a job interview. And I just don't know what that program looks like, but that feels like an area that we probably need to address as well.

Speaker B: Yeah, that's actually a great area for CDBG specifically because it, it sounds like it might be a public service, but it would count as economic development. something like that. I kind of detailed it in your report that you received, but yeah, like funding some kind of job training program, that would be economic development, so it wouldn't be subject to the cap.

Speaker C: Yeah. So I think the best thing is, are your emails in the presentation at all, or—

Speaker B: No, but I can get those over to you guys.

Speaker C: If you don't mind, because I think we can take the discussion today And, uh, and then if there are any other ideas of, hey, what about this area, if you'd share with us the 5 areas so that we can get a look, and then let's send it back to them, have them bring us back the, the some project ideas. I think that's how we kind of did it last year. Um, we had a few that took up a lot of the budget, but if they can come back with some project ideas— but I want everybody to be able to send the input.

Speaker B: Yeah, that'd be awesome.

Speaker C: So if, if we get your emails and you would Do you want us to go through you or both, I guess?

Speaker B: I'll include Taylor.

Speaker C: OK, Taylor, make sure we get your email.

Speaker B: Sounds good.

Speaker C: So any other comments or questions?

Speaker B: Perfect. Awesome, thank you guys.

Speaker M: Thank you.

Speaker C: All right, that's the last of our discussion items, so we'll go ahead and review the consent agenda. Let's go to item 11. So we're going to start off with item 11A, Harmony Phase A and the warranty. And I'm just going to read these if you have any questions. Ranches Crossing, Plat A and the warranty. Okay, item 12 is the minutes from City Council from July 1st and then January 29th.

Speaker G: All right.

Speaker C: What did I say? I read ahead. July 1st, January 29th, uh, January 30th, and February 3rd. All right, the resolution we talked about, 13A, there's no need to revisit that. 13B, um, a resolution of Eagle Mountain, Utah, authorizing extended hours for construction operation for the 4 million gallon Scarlet Ridge water tank.

Speaker E: I have a question about that, Mayor. Is that just for those, um, overnight pours and then it goes away?

Speaker C: Yes. And I think— did you want to— okay, that's correct. So this first pour is going to be in the next 2 or 3 weeks. That's for the floor slab. They're going to start around 1:00 AM, finish around 8:00. They're going to have 2 pumps there. Um, should be done, should be about 500 yards roughly. And then the next 5 to 6 months, they'll do The roof slab. The wall slabs they can do during the day. They may start kind of early, like 6, 7, but they can do those during the day.

Speaker E: Perfect. That's, that's all I want to know. Is it, is it just— yeah, and Melissa's up here saying 6, 7, 6, 7. She heard you.

Speaker M: My teenagers make me do it.

Speaker E: She's whispering in my ear. But that, that makes— I mean, that, that makes sense. I just wanted to know if it was limited to just those times when they're going to pour. So it'll be Correct. When they're doing a continuous board.

Speaker C: Yes.

Speaker B: Good.

Speaker C: Any other questions on that one, 13B? All right, that's all of our consent agenda, but since we have a little bit more time, I'm debating going to the end of the agenda to Kimberly's item, but I think we'll get to it anyway, so be ready. First item on our agenda is 14A, discussion of the 5th Amendment to— and this is just a discussion item, so I want to know, uh, if we do that now, we won't have to do it later. Is everybody here, Marcus, that needs to be here for that one?

Speaker J: Um, I don't think so. Well, I think that the applicants kind of want to be here when we discuss it, but—

Speaker C: That's why I was—

Speaker J: So I think—

Speaker E: I don't know who's all here.

Speaker B: Oh, okay.

Speaker C: Oh, yep.

Speaker J: Sorry, I didn't see you. Yeah, so I think we can discuss it if they're here.

Speaker C: And because it's a discussion item with no action, but it was noticed that for the 7 o'clock meeting, do we need it?

Speaker J: Well, we put agenda review on the work session, so we can review the agenda and talk about it now. And if there's additional discussion to be had in the 7 o'clock hour, we can do that as well.

Speaker C: Okay, I do wanna get to that one. Right now so that we can get it out of the way. So—

Speaker M: Mayor, I think it would be good for the public to be able to hear and be a part of that discussion if people come at 7. Are you opposed to just letting it stay in the 7 o'clock timeframe?

Speaker C: Not particularly. It is after public comment, so— All right.

Speaker M: Either way, I just, I don't want to shortchange it because it is such a big deal.

Speaker C: Is there anything we should talk about now then, and I'm just— I'm to get any of it out of the way, or you want to hold on the whole thing?

Speaker M: I am assuming that we're going to get a presentation like Planning Commission got, and I feel like that was useful to the people who were there to know what's going on. We had some residents that came to Planning Commission last week with very specific questions about the project, so I anticipate some Okay, I'm fine holding that one off.

Speaker C: You guys are sticking around, so let's wait on that one.

Speaker F: Sorry.

Speaker C: Great, it's gonna be a good discussion. So the next one, 15A, resolution of public hearing, the second amendment to the budget. I'm gonna come back to that one because I wanna get to the other budget one first, I think, if that's okay. So we'll skip down to 16A, resolution of Eagle Mountain City authorizing the issuance and sale of the bond. Is that Ben?

Speaker I: Yes, Kimberly and I can answer questions now, but Laura Lewis is not gonna be here until 7:30.

Speaker C: Sorry, hold on.

Speaker I: She's not feeling well, so she's gonna be joining us virtually.

Speaker M: Okay.

Speaker C: Is there anything, questions now on that one? And are you good for this one, or?

Speaker H: This one I have to recuse from any discussion or voting.

Speaker C: Okay.

Speaker N: On the bond.

Speaker C: That's what I was asking. So we're aware that that will happen.

Speaker G: And I think we may have answered this, but let me clarify. So there is a call on, like, when interest rates drop, the city would have an opportunity to refinance those, call those back and get lower rates.

Speaker I: Yeah, I think this is one where we'll want to have Laura answering those questions as the financial professional.

Speaker C: Well, and I think that's also a question once they issue the bond. This is just the resolution so we can get the bond.

Speaker E: So it's—

Speaker C: that wouldn't be in this discussion, I don't think anyway, right? We can ask Laura.

Speaker G: I've got a comment about some of the— so the way that the language was written, the mayor and the city manager would have power to pull a trigger. Given that it is such a high dollar volume, I think it's safer to still have City Council be involved with that. It's just that it's a, it's a big amount.

Speaker C: Is that because we might have to go meet with the bond counsel, or?

Speaker I: Yeah, again, I think this would be a good discussion to have with Laura because she can walk us through the entire process and all that type of thing.

Speaker C: Just making sure.

Speaker I: There are timelines involved. I don't know that it's a A grave concern or anything like that. And of course, we want the council to be comfortable and the community to be comfortable at every step of the way. But she could definitely walk us through every step of that process.

Speaker C: Okay, so I'm going to hold off on that one. We're going to talk about that later. So 17A is an ordinance of Eagle Mountain City amending the Municipal Code 1519 and adopting the wildlife urban interface. They called this the WUI map. So is there any questions or concerns? Or Brandon, there you are. Okay. Does anybody have anything right now? Is there a presentation or anything on this? Yeah, I think we'll just wait.

Speaker G: I—

Speaker C: it's unless you have any specific questions to get through.

Speaker I: Okay.

Speaker C: Um, and then 18A, the ordinance of Eagle Mountain City refilling act, chapter 2.3. The Parks and Recreation Advisory Board, 2.4, the Recreational Sports Board, 2.55, Cemetery Board, and Chapter 2.6, Military Veterans Board, 2.7, Economic Development Board, and an acting Chapter 2.80 Eagle Mountain Municipal Code to establish Community Services Board that will encompass those other boards and including with the RAP tax. So in your packet was items there. Natalie has this item. Um, and a presentation, some red lines.

Speaker B: All right, good afternoon, Mayor and Council. Um, yeah, I'm, I'm really just here— I don't have a presentation, but I'd like to address any questions, comments, or concerns you have about the code. Um, I did keep it pretty general, um, and left in there the ability for the board to be able to make their own, like, bylaws and kind of run things themselves, of course with the council's approval on those things. So I did keep it pretty boilerplate to allow that flexibility in there, but I can tighten up anything you'd like as well.

Speaker G: Just one quick question I had. I saw that it requires the board to give an annual report to the city council. Is there— what's the thinking behind annual? Does it need to be more than annual? I mean, I'm just— that was one question I had. If that— is that sufficient?

Speaker M: Oh, sorry. I actually think that we should have it be at minimum twice a year, ideally more like once a quarter because they're taking on all of the duties of the rest of those boards. And I think especially at the beginning, we're going to want more contact. I know that we have 2 council members assigned as liaisons, but I also think it's useful to get the feedback from the body as a body. So.

Speaker H: Yeah, I was— I, I would agree. I think this is great what you put together here. I would just say maybe a little bit more frequent, quarterly, especially with this being tied to the the RAP tax funds, we'll probably want to get some idea generation going sooner than later.

Speaker C: This will also have, I think, 2 staff members, Steve and— I can't remember the other— Brad, maybe? I think I would be the main staff member, and then we would invite, you know, Brad. It depends on the topics for that evening, that agenda. We'd invite Parks and Rec, or Parks, we'd invite Recreation, we'd invite Dawn for events, and anyone else that makes sense based on the topic. Finn maybe for cemetery. It just depends.

Speaker E: Yeah.

Speaker M: It's somewhat related. I know that we're going to be able to start collecting these in April. It's going to take a while for it to accrue, but part of me is wondering Would the 250/30 celebration and different things that we're talking about with the budget tonight be eligible for WRAP tax funds? Is that something we could even use those funds for? Because it's cultural heritage, those things.

Speaker I: So long as it's recreation, arts, or parks as a nexus, you certainly can use those, those funds. funds will really— Those funds will, you know, you just need to make the tie back that it's going to be of benefit to the residents. So if, let's say, you're doing a dedication of a new venue or something of that nature and you're having it as a 30-year, you know, related event, you know, as long as you have a nexus and a tie, to Recreation, Arts, and Parks, you should be okay. But the, the big thing is that the money will start to be collected by the actual businesses in April, and those businesses that turn it in will turn it in either on a monthly or quarterly basis when they file taxes. So the money will actually really start coming in, um, in, in July timeframe. So it's half a year, and just kind of meant to set expectations to, you know, that FCOM income thing.

Speaker E: Yeah, so in Section 280020, Board Members and Terms of Office, the 3rd paragraph down, it says all members shall serve terms unless they voluntarily resign or are removed in accordance with EMMC 2.30.100, but we're actually removing that from the code. So I don't think that should be in there. I think we're going to want to remove that because we're talking about repealing that section of code. So if it references that, it will reference a code that's been repealed.

Speaker B: Um, that is my mistake. I apologize. I meant to reference a different part of code.

Speaker E: And maybe I'm wrong, Natalie, but that's how I read that.

Speaker B: Yeah, no, that's what, what's there, and that's what we're doing. Um, I did mean to reference— sorry, I'm just pulling it up here.

Speaker E: If it just referenced the, the, the, the, the number, it's 280.100 removal. I mean, then, then, then it's headed in the right direction.

Speaker B: Yeah, that's what I meant to do. Or like, I think we have another section of code about how we appoint and remove, and so I would reference that.

Speaker E: It's like 2.27.

Speaker B: I'm glad you caught that.

Speaker E: That was just—

Speaker B: I just mistyped that. But yeah, I will fix that before I just wondered— Policy session.

Speaker E: And then let's see, administrative control. I'm just curious about Section C or number C in 280060, Powers and Duties. It talks about administrative control reserved. It says, except as set forth in this article or by resolution, all other administrative control with respect to the various committee service departments departments is reserved to the mayor and city council or designee. And I'm curious, if it's reserved to the mayor and the city council, who's going to assign the designee? Is the mayor going to do that? Is the city council? To me, I think there's just some—

Speaker F: there's—

Speaker E: we need to clean that up and just decide who's going to pick a designee. And I'm not uncomfortable with anyone in that sentence doing it. I'm not uncomfortable with the mayor doing that or the city council So it doesn't matter to me. I just feel like we need to clean that up a little bit.

Speaker B: This was pulled from like an example from other cities. And if I'm understanding, I don't know, I can be corrected here, but the idea was that to make clear that the city still does like retain all decision-making power, that this board doesn't then control those departments, but rather works with the departments. Well, I can reword that so the designee's less vague. We could put staff or whatever you want.

Speaker E: I think it's fine that it says mayor and city council, but I think we should be clear about who's going to make that, because if a designee is assigned, who's going to do it?

Speaker B: Okay, yeah, I'll clear that up.

Speaker E: That's really the question is if a designee is chosen, then who's going to do that?

Speaker I: So the city that this came from has, I'm familiar with that city.

Speaker E: Oh, I think I know which one it is.

Speaker I: Which binder do you have? Where it has mayor-designee or mayor-council-designee. What that city does is the mayor then issues a delegation of authority letter at the beginning of their term that basically says anywhere it says designee within that code or within the employee policy and procedures manual, there is literally a table that mayor says, I'm designating this to this and whatnot. And then the power could be retracted to them if they want to issue a new letter or further distributed out. In this particular case, the community service director— community services director, which we don't currently have one, but it's a dual title with Steve, would be the designee in that city.

Speaker E: I don't take any issue however you want to organize it. I just want to make sure it's clear.

Speaker B: No, that's a, that's a great question. I'll clear that up.

Speaker E: 'Cause that's a little, for me at least, that's a little confusing. And then I wanted to look at this one and see what my wife wrote on this. Oh, go ahead.

Speaker H: Just to be clear, when I see administrative control, that is not regarding to the funds themselves that will be generated. This is more just the, can you maybe clarify that?

Speaker I: Sure, so the council establishes the budget and basically takes the recommendations coming from the Community Services Board, and they then execute that as a budget. The administrative act is then to execute that budget or implement those projects, and that's usually done through their city staff under the direction of the mayor, which in fact would be the Community Services Director.

Speaker H: Thank you.

Speaker I: Yep, which really means from Ben, only because he delegates to me and I delegate out.

Speaker C: And I think that's what it was, so you're good. Okay, no other questions? I think we're—

Speaker B: All right.

Speaker C: We'll look forward to that discussion. All right.

Speaker B: Thank you.

Speaker C: The next one, I was gonna see where we—

Speaker I: Can I ask one question on that? So I've heard there was annual, there was semiannual, and then I heard quarterly. We just wanna make sure that if she's— Natalie's rewriting it, How often do you want them to report back?

Speaker E: How often have you seen it function, Ben? You have the most experience with this. I mean, how often?

Speaker I: Typically you have them recommending to you what they think should be spent. You approve it and whatnot. Then they come back and report on how it's going, and then they come back every 6 months going through that. There's nothing to say that you can't invite them to come back more often. It's just this is the minimum standard.

Speaker H: I think semi is good.

Speaker C: Okay.

Speaker M: I think that it's important when we do use this that there's 2 times that they're coming to talk about the administration of the grants and 2 times where they come and we give them responsibilities that we want them to work on, because there are things within the arts, within recreation and parks, and I don't want it to be a 2-meeting-a-year responsibility. There's a lot that we need them to do, and we're dissolving a lot of boards to create this one. So I just want to make sure that, yes, maybe the code says semiannual, but we're putting these people to work and we're bringing them in frequently so we can get that accomplished.

Speaker E: And maybe it can say semi— at least semiannually, or, or, uh, additional meetings may be held if necessary. Something like that, just so that, so that it's clear that, that more may be required.

Speaker C: Okay, this, uh, I held off on this one to see if we had time for the other discussion, but we're just going to go back to 15A, the resolution of Eagle Mountain City approving the Second Amendment annual budget. So Kimberly, would you give us some information on this one? And then I think we'll hold off as planned for the other budget discussion.

Speaker A: Mayor, do you want me to walk through the PowerPoint in the session here, or just go over questions and things you have in the work session and then and do the PowerPoint during the policy session for citizens.

Speaker C: Tell me what you need. I think just the discussion, we can save the PowerPoint. I mean, I think the staff's pretty familiar, right?

Speaker E: Or sorry, staff, the council.

Speaker C: Or do you want to see the presentation now?

Speaker M: I think it's better to save the PowerPoint for when the public's going to be here because they can really benefit from it. So just to repeat.

Speaker C: That's what I was thinking. So then as far as questions and stuff that we know now, that we can address. Go ahead.

Speaker E: I have one question, Kimberly. There's a budget amendment that has to do with the Pony Express repairs by Silver Lake. Are we paying the full cost? Are we contributing a portion of that? How is that being—

Speaker A: So right now, the request for that is the full cost of what it was for us. So we funded it originally just out of the operating maintenance budget for streets. And so retracting it, if we don't refund it, it will reduce the amount of overlays and maintenance that we can do on the road system for this year. And when the project was initially coming, we just weren't aware how extensive or what the repairs might look like with that. So the goal with this is that the money is being added back in from restricted funds we already have on hand that are utilized for the streets repairs and maintenance or infrastructure and can only be used for the street's purposes. So this money being added in allows us to continue with what we had originally planned. Since this was an unplanned maintenance item, it'll let us do those additional maintenance needs during the summertime as well.

Speaker E: Thank you.

Speaker A: I do believe that there has been some conversations regarding whether there'll be a contribution from the, from the other community, but I'm not aware of where that sits right now.

Speaker I: Yes, so we are actively working on putting a claim in with our insurance company and working with our neighboring city, Saratoga Springs.

Speaker E: Thank you. That's really, that's really what I was looking for, is that clarification. So thank you.

Speaker G: One question I had is, and I'm trying to find it in the documents, like sideways on my thing, so I'm trying to find it looking this way, but I got to flip, I've got to flip it around, but It seems like there was, I think, a traffic study for Golden Eagle and Silver Lake Parkway, and, and I'm questioning, is that something we, we should be spending our money on? Do we want those connections in place? Because I've heard from some people in that area of great concerns with the elementary schools that are right there. And yeah.

Speaker M: I would say that's exactly why we want to spend the money on it, because that is the impetus for maybe a pedestrian tunnel or changing a light so that it's a better intersection for safety.

Speaker D: Absolutely.

Speaker M: Or, you know, any of those things. And this is just arming us with data so that we can make good decisions about those areas. They have been areas of concern that residents have brought to us. And I think that's why we as a council said, and this was last year, just to give more context for you, we said, as long as we're doing these traffic studies and we're doing our transportation master plan, Can we please look at these specific areas that we receive a lot of emails and questions about? So I hope that helps clear it up.

Speaker G: Okay, yeah, that sounds good. I, I did— I think it's something we need to be open to considering not connecting. I think, I think we need to look at all the possibilities here and, and do, I think, what's safest for the residents, especially. I mean, I went down there, um, at this location and watched kids running across the street At places they shouldn't be running across the street. And I've driven, you know, when I've driven and shown homes in Silver Lake when school's getting out, it's mayhem going down those roads. And if these suddenly connect into a high school, they're all— instead of channeling, you know, traffic down our bigger corridors, we're starting to channel them through neighborhoods. It's going to be problematic. Agreed.

Speaker M: And I live near one of the schools in question off of Golden Eagle, Brookhaven. That's our neighborhood elementary school, so I'm very aware of the little kids and big kids, frankly, that cross there. I think this will help us make our best decisions about what we connect and what we don't.

Speaker E: It'll also— it also— I mean, just to speak to that, if you'll allow me, Council Member Whiting, it also will help us understand the impact of making some of those connections, the expense of the additional infrastructure that's going to be required if we do or if we don't make those connections. Because if that connection is made, it may precipitate us needing to put some signals into some residential neighborhoods, traffic signals. They don't give those away anymore. They never did, but they're getting more and more expensive. So I think that's part of the reason why we want to look at what the data so that we can make a good informed decision about how to move forward there.

Speaker C: Any other questions on the budget amendment as presented?

Speaker M: Nothing?

Speaker C: Seeing nothing.

Speaker I: Okay.

Speaker C: Thank you. That's most of what I think we can get through. We do have a closed session item since we have time. Uh, I'm open to doing that now.

Speaker M: None of us have the agenda. Wait, do you have one? Oh, you do? Do you wanna—

Speaker C: Craig's got it.

Speaker M: I've got it here, Craig, if you want me to—

Speaker B: Go ahead.

Speaker I: Okay.

Speaker M: Mayor, I move that the City Council adjourn into a closed session for the purpose of discussion of pending or reasonably imminent litigation the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual; the purchase, lease, sale, or exchange of real property; a proposed development agreement, project proposal, or financing proposal related to the development of land owned by the state or a political subdivision; and/or the deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems pursuant to Section 52-4-205 Subsection 1 of the Utah Code Annotated.

Speaker G: Second.

Speaker C: All right, we have a motion by Councilmember Clark and a second by Councilmember Whiting, and we'll start the vote with Councilmember Clark.

Speaker M: Yes.

Speaker C: Councilmember Wright.

Speaker D: Yes.

Speaker C: Councilmember Whiting.

Speaker G: Yes.

Speaker C: Councilmember Hughes.

Speaker H: Yes.

Speaker C: Okay, we'll adjourn to closed session. All right, everybody, welcome. As is our tradition, we're going to start with the opening prayer, and our assistant manager Steve Mumford is going to offer that. Heavenly Father, we're thankful for this evening. We can gather together and discuss the needs of the city, and I ask you to please bless everyone who's here to be able to have their voice heard and participate. And please bless the mayor and city council with wisdom and to be able to make good decisions for our residents and businesses. I say to please bless those that are traveling and our families at home as well with safety and health. And please bless, uh, first responders and, and our military. They will receive thy blessing of protection and, and, uh, peace as well. And, and I say this in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

Speaker J: Amen.

Speaker C: All right, thank you. We'll officially call this meeting to order. It's the February 17th City Council meeting, and the time is 7:09. Um, at this time, we want to excuse Councilmember Wood, who has been ill, and wish him well to get better. And, uh, With that, we'll start with the Pledge of Allegiance, and our officers from UFA will help lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. If you'll all rise. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with Okay, thank you. Um, we're going to start. Are there any information items, Ben? Did you have any for today?

Speaker I: Do we— Yes, we do have a neighborhood meeting set up with our council on February 19th, Thursday. Out in Parkway Fields, is that correct?

Speaker E: Correct.

Speaker I: And from 6 to 8 PM?

Speaker L: Yes.

Speaker I: And so we invite the public out to that as well.

Speaker C: Okay, any others that we know of, Lacey or anything? Nothing? Okay, thank you very much. We have some recognitions, and I think we're gonna start with Chief Eric. Knutson is going to introduce—

Speaker F: I—

Speaker C: oh, there you are.

Speaker N: I was like, where'd he go?

Speaker C: He was— we have a, a replacement for one of our long-lost friends.

Speaker H: Mayor, Council, Mr. Reeves, um, a few weeks ago we said goodbye to Lieutenant BJ Echols. What I failed to do is mention who the new lieutenant was, so my apologies. I'd like to introduce, uh, him to you and the staff and the public is, uh, this is Lieutenant Jeff Robinson.

Speaker J: And, uh, Jeff's been with the Sheriff's Office 24—

Speaker I: 3.

Speaker H: 3 years. Started out in the jail for a few years. Um, after that he went to patrol, and he's done everything from K-9, uh, sergeant to Internal Affairs to detectives for many years. He worked for me when we were in the Detective, uh, Bureau for quite a bit. We handled several pretty good cases together.

Speaker J: I've known Jeff for a long time.

Speaker H: He did spend a few years, a couple of years out here in Eagle Mountain years ago as a deputy.

Speaker C: Absolutely loved it.

Speaker E: Had a good time out here.

Speaker C: And I'd like to welcome him out here.

Speaker H: He's a great guy. I think he's a good fit with our team that's out here now with the deputies.

Speaker C: He knows a lot of them.

Speaker J: His last assignment was Internal Affairs.

Speaker H: So we're no longer as scared of him as we used to be.

Speaker J: And so But he's got a wealth of knowledge, and he's done the background on probably the last 20 or 30 deputies we have hired.

Speaker C: Maybe if that's on the road, not in the jail, more there. But anyways, Lieutenant Jeff Robinson.

Speaker H: I don't know if you have any questions of him or anything.

Speaker C: You're okay.

Speaker E: Thank you.

Speaker D: Yeah, thanks.

Speaker C: We've already had the privilege of being in some meetings, and don't tell BJ this, but he's way better.

Speaker H: Well, no, I'm going to tell him.

Speaker C: Uh, thanks. Welcome, Jeff. Um, all right, and we have a couple more introductions with that. We love our first responders, our relationships with both the sheriffs and UFA. So, Ambra, I feel like I spent the whole day with you today. We started at 7:00, 7:30 this morning, right?

Speaker N: Yeah, unfortunately for you.

Speaker C: Yeah, you guys will come up.

Speaker N: Uh, so, Mayor, Council, appreciate the opportunity. Uh, this was a request at, at kind of the request of council a couple months ago. I mean, as normal, Eric is the first responder. We were second responders. But being requested by council after he started introducing all his deputies, the request was to kind of get names to faces and see who is here serving the community. One of our other crews just was clearing a gas call. They may show up. And then we had I think we have a motor vehicle accident that our other crew is on right now. So this is the crew out of Station 253, Mid-Valley, the new station that opened up last year. So Captain Wayman moved into that position when that station opened up, and so I will turn it over to Captain Wayman. Captain Wayman has been around for a long time, coming up 20 years, and it's been a huge part. He's a huge part of the Honor Guard and does a lot for us in that regard. And so anytime we have any funerals or parades or anything like that, he pretty much spearheads and wrangles everybody and kind of herds cats to make that all happen. So I'll turn it over to Captain Wayman to introduce his crew, and if you have questions, let us know.

Speaker D: Thank you, appreciate the opportunity. And for the cops, I just want to make it clear that You know, everybody knows there's one thing that's common between cops and firefighters. They both wanted to be firefighters.

Speaker M: So—

Speaker D: But I'm very happy to be able to introduce my crew. This is Travis Clappy. He's actually a resident of Eagle Mountain for over 12 years now. He's an engineer, been 22 years on the department. This is Ashley Files. She's a paramedic on the truck today. She just got how many Stork Awards?

Speaker C: 2.

Speaker D: It's a Stork Award for delivering babies.

Speaker C: She's very good at it.

Speaker D: She's good at catching babies.

Speaker C: And then firefighter Christian Faber is her partner on the truck today. We have 2 other members that are on the call, so our ambulance is the first-out ambulance in this in the city, and they're, they're out with the other station on a traffic accident right now.

Speaker D: So appreciate the opportunity to let us introduce them and see their face.

Speaker C: Thanks, guys. I appreciate you helping us with the honor guard and flag ceremony.

Speaker I: Thank you.

Speaker E: Can we, can we give the firefighters and our, and our deputies just a round of applause?

Speaker C: Absolutely. One of the— I wanted to point out one of the advantages. This is something that I've been dealing with a ton the first couple of months at the meetings, is whether or not we have 4-handed crews or 3-handed crews and the budget for that. And of course, we have 4-handed crews here. That's why you see 4 on the truck, and it is essential. I think we— Foster and I talked this morning about the difference, and we really appreciate the support from UFA, but then the crews as well. So thanks for coming, guys, and thanks for all that you do in our city keeping us safe. All right, moving right along. Time has been set aside for public comment.

Speaker K: We—

Speaker C: I know I want to start with this little, uh, saying, uh, uh, what I read every time. Sorry. As a reminder, public comment is an opportunity for community members to address the City Council, and each speaker is allowed up to 3 minutes. If you wish to speak during the public comment or public hearing portion— if you wish to speak during the public comment of the public hearings portion, please complete the comment form located in the back of the room and return it to the city recorder, Lacey, on this side. When recognized, please come to the podium, state your name for the record, and the council members will listen but will not engage in discussion during public comment. Disruptive behavior, personal attacks, or comments about individual city employers is not permitted. We'll come back to that because I'm starting public comment. The public hearing items are— lastly, the public comment period is for items not assigned associated with public hearing. If your comment relates to a public hearing item, please wait until that item is called. The public hearing for tonight's meetings is item 15A, which is a resolution approving the second amendment to the annual budget, and then 17A, which is the ordinance of Eagle Mountain amending the code section 15.95, um, with the WUI map. So the time is 7:17. And I will now open the public comment period.

Speaker I: Lacey.

Speaker B: We had one that came through the email today from Joy Rasmussen who said, I am concerned about the water and sewer bonds because the city already passed ongoing rate increases last year. Citizens cannot afford more rate increases beyond what's already been passed. If there is any— if there is a way to guarantee that these bonds will not result in extra rate increase beyond the ones already approved last year, that would ease my concerns. Concerns that of, and that of other citizens. Also, I ask that the city pass a law to help stop further data centers from being approved to build in our city. I read that 5 more have been approved. I think that's enough given their energy, land, and water demands, plus the noise level they will cause.

Speaker F: Thank you.

Speaker B: And then we have one here, um, Tony Castillo, and he requested that I hand this over to City Council as well.

Speaker E: So what's being passed out is actually the document that was attached to our HOA, which is the Overland Trails Phase 3A. Um, our HOA was basically formed strictly to maintain a city street, the alleyways. So originally, the homes that are part of 3A, our garages were supposed to be into the alleyway, but there was some concessions and deals made where instead of the alleyway, we now have our garages on the public street. In return, the builder was made to form an HOA, and said HOA has to maintain and insure a city public street. And we just feel like we've been having this issue for years, and we've been trying to figure out why the heck is this formed. And we did some research, digging in, digging in, and we found this from the Planning Commission back in 2006 where it says basically, um, conditions of approval: an HOA shall be created to strictly enforce the CC&Rs and provide for maintenance of the street. The HOA shall be responsible for all maintenance and upkeep of the alleyway. Um, and then we go to another document. I think it's, uh, if you guys flip it, um, it'll say Big Homes. And I've highlighted because it says, you know, it deals with The at the time section 7.7.8 of the Eagle Mountain Development Code. I tried to find it and couldn't find it anymore, but back then you know that's where how it was meant to be was in terms of garage access or alleyways. But a small street in the rear of the lots has been dedicated to the city, and then you go back down to number three: An HOA will be formed to enforce these CCNRs and provide for maintenance of the city. street. The current plat approval does not require neither the creation of an H-way nor the maintenance of the other open space found on the plat. So like I said, there's 28 homes and we're, we're just frustrated because we're paying this monthly fee and we get nothing other than the privilege of ensuring your city street and maintaining said city street. So my challenge to the city council is How do we get this resolved? Because we're, as an HOA, we're looking at all avenues to get out from this agreement that was formed. So I know you guys can't make a comment, but would love to get this on an agenda down the road and hear you guys' responses on it as well. So thank you for your time.

Speaker A: 30 seconds remaining.

Speaker C: Just, I just wanted to make sure that Marcus, when we do address this, The— it was kind of presented backwards, but the Big Homes agreement was June of 2006. The approval from the city was August. So the prior one's not the approval. The second one, but in this case.

Speaker G: So—

Speaker H: Okay, I mean, I don't have it in front of me, but—

Speaker C: Yeah, so when we look into it, and you can have my copy or we can send one down there.

Speaker M: Just—

Speaker C: You are the only participant in the meeting. Let us know if there's anything we need to do. So, Lacey, that's it? Okay, then at this time it is 7:22 and we'll close the public comment period. And before we go on, I want to circle back to Mr. Fossum. And we saw the rest of the crew came in, so since they're here for a specific reason, let's bring them up. You guys might as well come up. You're going to get called anyway.

Speaker E: We all got to come up too?

Speaker N: Yeah, come on up. So you guys are 252 today, right?

Speaker D: Yep.

Speaker N: All right. So they're out of ranches.

Speaker C: Yeah.

Speaker E: You're not normally there.

Speaker D: No, he's normally there.

Speaker N: So this is the crew out of the ranches. We have a couple that are on vacation or trades, and so this is the crew that is covering them. You're normally there, right? Okay, so we've got 2 of the 4 that are normally here, but we'll go ahead and introduce them. And so Captain Ascardi, Matt Ascardi, just recently promoted Yep, 6 months ago. Oh, he's still on probation, so he can't say anything sideways, which is— No, I'm done. Oh man, gosh. We're in for a world of hurt. So Matt Ascardi is, like mentioned, newly promoted, and usually when you're newly promoted, you're out on the rove and covering different stations across all of UFA. And Henry Hunter is the engineer, then Renee Soriano, right? Yeah, and then Curtis Watkins. And you are a resident of Eagle Mountain currently, right?

Speaker C: Yes, I am.

Speaker N: Yeah, so Tony is also a resident. And so we've got 2 of the 4 that are residents here and the other 2 are out and about.

Speaker C: We're residents for 2 days.

Speaker N: Yeah, residents while they cover the citizens of Eagle Mountain. So with that, I don't know if you had anything else from the group, but they were just clearing a call, which is why they bumped over. Do you have any questions for the group?

Speaker C: Yeah, they just missed the standing ovation, so we're gonna do it again.

Speaker D: Thank you.

Speaker C: Thank you. So, oh, keep them coming. Keep them coming. You steal the show. We already did the standing ovation.

Speaker E: Yeah, we're good.

Speaker N: We're good. You know, we figured they thought that they were getting out of this by showing up, you know, comfortably late. But so you're on the IMO tonight, right?

Speaker K: Yes, sir.

Speaker N: So, okay, if you'll go ahead and introduce yourselves. They're both part of the Mid-Valley crew as well with 253, with Captain Wayman, who's apparently not in here right now. So if you'll just tell us your names.

Speaker B: I'm paramedic Chris James.

Speaker D: Perfect.

Speaker B: Hi, I am firefighter Nicole Snelson.

Speaker C: Do you guys live in Eagle Mountain?

Speaker M: No, I live in Pleasant Grove.

Speaker C: Okay. Some do, some don't.

Speaker N: But you are tied to 253 regularly, right?

Speaker L: Yes.

Speaker J: You're on the crew?

Speaker G: Yeah.

Speaker M: Yeah, this is our regular crew.

Speaker N: So this is— they are normally at 253. So 253 has their whole crew here, and that's a first in a long time apparently. So between vacations and sick and everything else that happens, they rotate in and out pretty frequently. So we've got a crew whole, which is awesome. And then as the other ones come in for, you know, when they're off vacation, we'll bring them up and reintroduce. And I think we're good with standing ovations. I don't think we need one every time.

Speaker C: Thank you guys. And just anything the council wishes to address on that? Okay. On behalf of the body, I'll just say that we appreciate your guys' service in keeping us safe and taking care of our residents. So thank you very much. All right, back to item number 10 is time that's been set aside for council to make comments. So we'll start with Councilmember Clark.

Speaker M: Thank you, Mayor. Um, it's awesome to have so many of our first responders here. My dad was a firefighter when I was a little girl, so I have a special place in my heart for all of you guys. Thank you for all that you do, and thank you to your families because I know it's a huge sacrifice as well. Um, and I'm grateful to have so many residents here to just kind of share their thoughts about things that are going on in the city, and we're grateful when you bring things to our attention. We as a city are growing and changing, and there's lots of things that we have on our agenda. And sometimes it gets really, really confusing and scary when you see something that says this is going to be $200 million or $220 million or has the potential to be those things. So the thing that I would ask is, as you start to see these things and posts that people put up. If you have questions, reach out to us. All of our contact info is on the city website. We're happy to answer some of the questions and the things that we're thinking about with it, and we're even more happy to receive your guys's feedback when it comes to items like the things that we have on our agenda. So thank you all for being here.

Speaker E: Welcome and thank you to our first responders and our second responders. You guys will get to decide who's who. I'm not going to enter into that fight. I'm just glad you're all here. Just express my gratitude to the citizens of Eagle Mountain for the opportunity to sit in this seat and to listen, to hear, and to make decisions on your behalf. And I would just reiterate what Councilmember Clark said. Our phone numbers are published on the website. We're pretty much— we cannot escape your input, and we don't want to. We need it and want it. So please reach out to us and ask us questions. To have a conversation one-on-one is so much more beneficial in my mind than it is to throw innuendo and wonder and make supposition. When you really take the time to engage with one of us, you'll find that we're not quite the noobs that you think we are. At least I hope that's what you find. Or you may find that we are the noobs that you think we are. at least have some background and some understanding that perhaps you haven't been allowed to hear or see. And we're happy to help you understand what we see and what we're concerned about. Eagle Mountain is the best city in the state of Utah. There's no question about that. So I'm sorry for those of you that don't live here. But Councilmember Clark told me just to remind you that we do have a mortgage assistance program for first responders. So the more of you that want to come live out here, you know, you don't have to work. You don't necessarily have to be You could be here every day, but you could come and live with us as well, and we invite you to do that. So thank you to the mayor and the council members for their, their hard work, and for our staff, and for all that they do to help us enjoy the measure of success that we do.

Speaker G: It's interesting, I had some thoughts prepared, and, uh, these prior 2 council members already shared some of what I was about to share. So I'm just going to reiterate this, that there's a principle in life that Stephen Covey taught about seeking first to understand before seeking to be understood. And sitting now in this chair where I was sitting in that chair just a few weeks ago and having spent numerous hours already serving in this capacity, meeting with different entities that are— that have interests here in the city, whether it's developers or landowners, businesses. Doing— going through that process helps provide a more understanding, and then that helps hopefully sharpen the decisions that we make. And it's just interesting when I, you know, occasionally will look on Facebook and see comments from citizens. It's evident when some citizens talk and they don't have all the details on the table. And so I echo the sentiments of Councilmember Clark and Councilmember Wright that If you have a concern about something that's so significant that you're ready to lead others in a cause about it, come talk first and see what information we have. You may still feel that your position is right and you should still have a voice and lead people against something that you feel is not correct. But I would encourage coming and actually getting as many details as possible before trying to lead others down a certain pathway. You might be surprised about the details and information that you'll learn in that process that may change the way you approach things. And I'll tell you that sitting in this chair has given me a lot of additional perspective I didn't have previously. And I comment to my wife, I say, you know, it's interesting when you try to judge what a puzzle is when you don't have all the puzzle pieces to look at. And as sitting in this perspective here, gives us some additional puzzle pieces. You also bring additional puzzle pieces that we may not have, and it's really critical for us to hear from what your perspective is and what you're experiencing. So we definitely need to hear from you. We have our own perspectives we bring, but we need to hear yours as well. And we will have a more— a stronger city if we can collaborate one with another and in a respectful fashion where we get as much information from each other as possible instead of trying to voice a viewpoint without having heard the other side just yet. That's an important principle in life and something I teach in my company. I teach the values of love, serve, connect, and transform as some of the more important principles that you can follow to have a successful organization. It's challenging for us to connect as citizens when we're not willing to listen to one another first before vocalizing our own opinion. And so it's my hope that we can remember those principles, and I'm saying this to myself as well, to remember these principles, that we can listen to others first and seek to hear their viewpoints before trying to vocalize our own.

Speaker H: Yeah, I just want to echo everything that was said previously. One of the quotes that has been coming to mind to me recently is, if you If you want a smaller government, you need a bigger people. And when I first heard that, I thought, okay, that means I need to lift where I'm where I'm standing in my own community. So I love when citizens come and they bring things like this. You know, they're digging through 2006 Planning Commission notes to figure out how how was my HOA formed? What are the next steps that I can take? I joked earlier in our working session that if you remember the movie Field of Dreams, there's this line, if you build it, they will come. And in Eagle Mountain, we all came, and now we're trying to build it. We're trying to get the infrastructure and the roads and, you know, the proper staffing and all of those things. So we're playing a lot of catch-up. And, you know, as Councilmember Whiting said, I'm sorry.

Speaker F: You're—

Speaker H: you kind of see the top part of the iceberg, and once you get into this role, you are learning about the other 90% that's just not obvious. So I appreciate the opportunity to serve and look forward to our discussion today. Thank you, Mayor.

Speaker C: Yep, thanks guys. And I just want to add my appreciation. Definitely talking about different roles, when I stepped into this seat It's a little bit different than what I'm used to, and especially thanks to our first and second responders. And we'll let you arm wrestle that, but we'll decide who wins at the rodeo and the goat tying or whatever, right? So, but definitely thanks. And in this role, I get to kind of get in the trenches a little bit more and spend a lot of time with both staff and, and all of our department heads and whatnot. It's a pleasure to be in the trench doing the heavy lifting with, with you guys. And all of our staff members. It's been an honor. So just want to add my gratitude and thanks to as well the council who put up with me and take my calls all the time to try to get through some of this lift that we have in front of us. So let's get right to it. We talked about the consent agenda in our work session. So if there— are there any questions? If not, I'll entertain a motion.

Speaker E: Motion to approve the consent agenda, Mayor.

Speaker H: Second.

Speaker C: We have a motion by Council Member Wright and a second by Council Member Huish to approve this consent agenda, and we'll start the vote with Council Member Wright.

Speaker I: Yes.

Speaker C: Council Member Whiting.

Speaker G: Yes.

Speaker C: And Council Member Huish.

Speaker H: Yes.

Speaker C: Council Member Clark.

Speaker A: Yes.

Speaker C: Okay. The first item on our agenda, We were going to come back to this discussion, right? I can't remember where we got on this because we talked about it in the— yeah, 14A is the discussion of the Fifth Amendment to the Overland Master Development Agreement. Marcus, did you have anything on that?

Speaker F: Yes.

Speaker J: So this would be the Fifth Amendment to the amended and restated Master Development Agreement for Overland. This relates to to a commercial development in a portion that has been previously designated as commercial. For the development, it would encompass approximately 53 acres of land and would include a Smith's Marketplace and a Lowe's, among numerous pad sites included in the development. As far as trying to compress a, you know, 20-page agreement with 60 pages of exhibits into a brief presentation. I would say that the highlights of it are it does include incentives. Right now we're still in a draft phase and there's some stuff going back and forth, but right now what was given to you relates to $8 million in incentives. What we talked about in Planning Commission when they heard this matter And, you know, I'll reiterate it here, is that there's also certain money that has been— that was given to us by Utah County in relation to the construction of Airport Road, and they are wanting us to use that for this particular segment that abuts the development. This development— let me back up— is located between Midvalley Road and Airport Road east of Pony Express Parkway.

Speaker M: Yes.

Speaker J: From, I guess, kitty-corner from Quarry Ride and across from Frontier Middle School. So that's the location of it. So yeah, so I think the total incentives would be $10.27 million that are being sought at this point. And this is to support the infrastructure for the development. It would go to roads, sewer lines, water lines, that kind of thing to support the development.

Speaker A: Right.

Speaker J: In order to enable Smith's to move forward in developing this property as a commercial development. It already has, like I said, it already has vested historic commercial zoning. So, I mean, this is consistent with what was anticipated here for many years under the Overland Master Development Agreement.

Speaker H: And this would be just putting a specific development in place for that.

Speaker I: Let me see.

Speaker J: Yeah, there's, as far as there's certain exceptions to code that they're looking for, I think the highlight, the one that we talked about most in Planning Commission I wanted to highlight is they're asking to allow for additional lighting above what we would allow under code. So right now our code says you can have up to 100,000 lumens per net acre, and they are asking for 150,000.

Speaker H: per gross acre.

Speaker J: So it's a significant amount of additional lighting, and I'll let them explain the commercial justification for that. But that— I think those are the highlights of the agreement, and I'm more than happy to answer questions about specifics.

Speaker C: Okay. And I know— I think I talked to you about— Councilmember Herjus about the lighting and encouraged you to go look at Walmart, so you might have some stuff on that. Are there specific questions right now before we bring up the applicant, or you want to comment on that?

Speaker H: On the lighting, I did take your advice. I drove to Walmart, stood in the middle of the parking lot at 10 o'clock at night and looked up, and I could see stars. I then drove to the Smith's in Saratoga Springs, same exercise, and I could see stars. I think the difference is just how much of that light do you capture the way that the lights are built. If you go to the Walmart in Saratoga Springs, Springs, the cones release a ton of light. In Saratoga Springs, they have these flat surface tops and the light projects down on the parking lot versus letting it escape upward. So if the lumens go up, that's something that I kind of look for, is to make sure that we're pointing them directionally down and not letting it escape up, up into the—

Speaker C: But through that exercise, you felt more comfortable with the Ask at least.

Speaker H: I could see stars from the parking lot at Smith's in Saratoga Springs. I'd encourage people to do that.

Speaker C: Okay, go ahead.

Speaker M: I think maybe this is a question for Mr. Draper. In the code where the dark skies stuff is, in Section D of 17.56.05, it talks about the total outdoor light output should not Shall not exceed the 100,000 lumens, but then it also immediately after that sentence says this cap is not intended to be achieved in all cases or as a design goal. Instead, design goals should be the lowest levels of lumens necessary to meet the lighting requirements of the site. And I think that sentence in there is telling us that when safety is called for and some of the other things so that they can function in the space. space, that the human element of City Council should be looking at the number of lumens allowed and what's a part of the plan. Does that sentence mean anything different when you look at that?

Speaker J: Well, let me, uh, let me find that and read that.

Speaker B: Sorry.

Speaker C: And while he's doing that, I just wanted to say, if it, if it is a question of safety, I don't mind if we need to I'm gonna ask our Chief Knutson to come up and give us some kind of, any kind of—

Speaker B: You are the only participant in the meeting.

Speaker C: No, there's a lot of people here.

Speaker J: Yeah, so, I mean, my understanding is based on the Planning Commission discussion was that is the basic rationale is in relation to safety for the customers there, whether they're going to one of the gas stations that would be part of the development or You know, frequenting one of the many pad sites or one of the main anchors. It's a safety issue is kind of what was conveyed during that meeting. And again, they can explain more deeply as to why that is. I would, you know, as far as an answer to your question, Councilmember Clark, I would say that, yeah, I mean, it does give us some wiggle room, but, you know, that it's in the development agreement, so that would make it very clear that they would be able to exceed that cap if that's approved.

Speaker M: Got it. I just think that it's important when we talk about it that it's not like they're breaking code when in reality code says that it's not intended to always be just that cap. So I thought that was a good thing for us to draw attention to.

Speaker C: And did you need to address the safety issue with our Sheriff's Department or anything, or do you think—

Speaker M: No, because I also I have done the exercise of going to Smith's at 10 PM and Walmart at 10 PM, and I know there's definitely a difference. And, um, I think that every effort will be made to make sure that we keep the nature of Eagle Mountain, but safety is also important for the nature of Eagle Mountain too.

Speaker H: Is, is there anything required in the MDA that would require for the light to point downward versus escaping upward?

Speaker J: I mean, they're required to comply with our dark skies ordinance. This would be just kind of clarifying they could go up to 150,000 lumens, but otherwise the ordinance would apply.

Speaker H: Okay, thank you.

Speaker C: Any other questions before we bring up the applicant?

Speaker H: And if—

Speaker C: and Kyle or Brad or who's leading? Okay, yeah, go ahead. Yeah, push the button there for the mic to come on. Thank you.

Speaker L: Kyle Zanti with Smith Food and Drug.

Speaker D: And Jeff Randall with AWA Consulting.

Speaker C: We also just want to thank Mayor and Council and Ben for letting us speak tonight and discussing this project. We're excited to potentially be a part of this community.

Speaker L: We've worked on this for the better part of 2 and a half years now with your staff, and what an incredible group.

Speaker C: Wouldn't spend it with anyone else and wouldn't fight the traffic to get here for any other city other than Eagle Mountain. Evan, from the very beginning, I think has been a great— Here's to Evan.

Speaker E: That's right.

Speaker L: Evan's been a great advocate, I think, for you guys. And I think really pushed to at least get us to the table.

Speaker C: And I think once we did take the time to come out here, I think we were very, very excited and very pleased to potentially do a store here in this community. So I think, Jeff, if there's anything you want to say, I think we're ready for questions, or do you want us to sit back down?

Speaker D: Yeah, we can just answer questions. On the lighting question, I know, uh, Council Member Huish, we talked a little earlier and you brought up some of those questions. Um, all of the light fixtures will be— they're called cutoff. That, that lens you're talking about, it's a cutoff lens, so it doesn't allow any light up, it forces it all down. Um, so all of our light poles, uh, the lights that are on the building, which are called wall packs, all of those will have those cutoff lens to meet that dark ordinance that Marcus is talking about. And then on the lumens level, we've gone back and Kyle and I were going through this earlier today. We've kind of tried to study some of our stores, dial in where's our light levels at. One area that I'd say increases the light levels is our fuel center canopies are very bright. bright, as kind of typical in the, in the fuel world. And when we subtract that out, it brings us down. So we're looking at where we can be there. We're— we definitely can come down from 150. I think there's some more, some room in there. We can run through some numbers and figure out where we're at, but I think we do have some room there to kind of bring those— so the, the main parking fields, the main areas, the big, the big areas you I think you get pretty close to that 100,000 number. So we might have areas like the canopy, the fuel center canopy, that's brighter, but the rest of the area will be pretty close. So we'll work through those numbers with you and be able to get you some more information there.

Speaker M: One of the things that— and I just want to make sure that it's on your radar and that staff's aware that this is kind of our desire— within our code there's very specific specific— I don't know what it's called. It's where the light comes down under a fuel canopy and can reflect back up, and how much that is. It's different than all the rest because of fuel canopies. I just want to make sure that every effort is made to follow that part of the code because it does contribute a lot of light. Um, I'm like—

Speaker D: You're talking kind of like the reflectiveness? Under the canopy?

Speaker M: Yes, yes, yes, yes. Let's see, there's a whole section about it for, um, under fuel canopies, and I'm trying to find it.

Speaker D: Okay, we can look at that.

Speaker M: But yeah, but that— I think that's an important piece because if we're taking that number out of the net number, then let's for sure make sure that we're following the code for the fuel canopy area.

Speaker D: Yeah, makes sense. Okay, we'll take a look at that.

Speaker E: Gentlemen, welcome. So in 3.2 of the agreement, it talks about some additional permitted uses that are outside of what the vesting from the 2017 ordinances give. And specifically, the ones that I'm interested in hearing you speak to a little bit are the commercial laundries and outdoor storage. What's your intent with those 2 uses?

Speaker D: So outdoor storage, there is an outdoor storage plan, if I remember right, as some of the exhibits in there. For example, Lowe's has outdoors— like, they've got their outdoor garden center, their sheds, the different things that they do. Smith's doesn't have nearly as much outdoor storage. Occasionally we might have a fireworks stand.

Speaker K: Christmas trees.

Speaker D: Christmas trees, seasonal, seasonal display, more type stuff. So that's the outdoor storage component, and there's some exhibits in that document that kind of identify those areas of where we would maybe want to do those. Commercial laundries, I don't think we have any intent of that at this point.

Speaker E: Is there a reason that you need that? That's my question, because typically they introduce chemicals into the storm system. And yeah, I'm just curious if there's an actual need for that or if we could remove it.

Speaker D: We could look at that one and talk with our leasing group and see if there's anything there that we see coming or anything there. We can take a look at that one for For sure, Councilmember Wright.

Speaker E: And then I just, yeah, I think my question was answered earlier on this one. Several of the lighting you talked to. Acceleration lanes. Well, there's still a couple of things in there. It's like one of the things in 6.31, and I guess I can get there and we can talk about the roads too. But in 6.31, I'm just, I'm a little anxious about this portion of the agreement for a reason. I trust our city engineer. I love our city engineer. I don't have any issue with my city engineer. So I want to start there.

Speaker D: I'll look over that direction.

Speaker E: The concern that I have is just making sure that we have checks and balances in releasing any escrow that might come out of there. I've just seen some issues with that in other circumstances. And so I'd like to see that be tightened up a little bit, Mayor. That would be my suggestion is that, you know, to release that, it's got to be at least 2 people. And I think you ought to be one of them and perhaps the city manager. The 2 of you ought to review that after the engineer gives you some sort of a, you know, a recommendation. But I'm uncomfortable with that just being any one person. Doesn't matter if it's city engineer or the treasurer.

Speaker C: Would you be fair To make it 3 or at least include Marcus?

Speaker E: Yeah.

Speaker J: I don't care whether or not I'm included, but I'm fine with just putting in the language for those specific people. I don't know that they care as much.

Speaker D: No, yeah, if it's city engineer and mayor or city engineer—

Speaker J: I think they want it just done administratively.

Speaker D: I think that's what they're asking.

Speaker C: Yes.

Speaker D: And I totally agree with the checks and balances side of things. That makes a lot of sense.

Speaker E: Definitely. I mean, if we're going to be taking money out of it, I want to make sure that—

Speaker D: Yeah.

Speaker E: That it's been approved through a number of checks and balances, let me say it that way. And then regarding traffic flow, you know, just— can I see the map? Just when I look at it and I look at kind of what you guys are looking to do for the main entrance on Pony Express Parkway, I want to understand that a little bit because I'm having a hard time— I'm having a hard time envisioning how that traffic runs, and I hate to see that light stop the traffic on Pony Express that's headed south.

Speaker D: So, okay, visual. That's what we talked about, Mayor, on Friday. Okay, so yeah, Mayor and Kyle and I talked about this on Friday a little bit, and, and there's a signal design called a high-T signal, um, that I thought Mayor had a great idea with this. We, we've, uh, I've talked to our traffic engineer and he's rerunning kind of the simulation and the We're looking at some of that modeling to see how that'll work. We would need an acceleration lane coming out, so like the left-outs would have to have an acceleration lane then to merge into the oncoming traffic. So we're looking through some of that modeling and the dimensions it'll take, but we are looking at that for sure.

Speaker E: You hit on the very next thing I was going to ask you about, is just some acceleration lanes out of some of those, and in that one in particular.

Speaker D: Okay.

Speaker E: I mean, you have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 entrances, and I think 4 of them have a decel. Well, no, they all have it. They all—

Speaker D: I think they, I think they, uh, they all have decels. They don't have the acceleration.

Speaker E: I just wonder how much trouble it'd be to put an acceleration lane in those so that we get people coming out and then they can merge into traffic. I, I know that may add a little expense, but I think that it also adds an element of safety and better traffic circulation in that area in particular. So that's, that's one of my asks. Uh, and then I'll, I'll defer to my councilman friends at this point in time.

Speaker D: Okay.

Speaker E: And maybe something else will come up, but—

Speaker D: We can take a look at that.

Speaker G: I know, and I know we had a chance to talk prior, so I don't want to reiterate too many things, but just so the public can hear some of the commentary as well, uh, one of the concerns we had talked about, uh, was the left turn, the, the queuing lanes for turning left. I'm just— I mean, I ran into issues with that on Redwood Road trying to turn into Smith's, actually, you know. And so I think making sure that those queuing lanes would be long enough to allow for those left turns to occur, I think that was one of the issues that I— at least on the traffic. You've touched on the other ones already, Councilmember Wright. And then I just wanted to touch on the We talked about architectural design. And just a few notes, just for the public. So the location of this is right next to where the downtown would be. And we do have a higher set of standards for the downtown architecture. And because we're trying to create a sense of place that is unique and powerful, magnetic, inspiring, and given the location of this being right next to—

Speaker C: Downtown.

Speaker G: to the downtown. And given that this is really a collaborative project that also involves some land that city-owned currently, and I feel like the city can come in and say, we do want to have higher levels of architectural standards. I think you'd mentioned in the— just when we were together that pad sites, it's easier for that to occur. Is that— am I right in saying that?

Speaker D: Correct, yep.

Speaker G: those, and I know those are prominent, more prominent right across Pony Express.

Speaker L: Mm-hmm.

Speaker G: I think that would be absolutely essential to have those stand out. And also, for me, I really still want, you know, the Lowe's, the Smith's, I still want those to be— to have the higher architectural standards. It's a one-time opportunity. And if Smith's were coming in anywhere, pretty much anywhere else in the city, You know, I wouldn't be as concerned about this. But when it's right here, that's— it's something for me to feel comfortable moving forward. I really feel like that architectural— additional architectural detail and element that makes it prolific needs to be involved. And just— it's really going to be— it's going to be, I could probably say, close to a nonstarter if we can't get to something like that. Because, you know, It's because of where it's at located right next to the downtown. And I really appreciate, you know, seeing what you could do with that. I really appreciate that the traffic's going to be very challenging right here. And I recognize there's a commercial zone already. And so there's something that will be here that needs to be commercial. So I'm not disputing that. But there's some impacts that are at play here too. And trying to manage that, mitigate, mitigate the traffic issues as much as possible. So, uh, very appreciative of that as well.

Speaker C: Okay, that's—

Speaker D: yeah, appreciate that. Yeah, we're happy to look into that, Craig.

Speaker C: I think we want to build something the city's proud of, you know. If we're going to build something that's hopefully here the next 100 years, you know, we want to be able to be like, that's my Smith's. So we're with you.

Speaker H: Yeah, that's awesome. I, I love that mentality, and that's how Hopefully we're thinking about all of these decisions. I can't tell you how many thousands of dollars I've spent at the Home Depot in American Fork 20 years ago, and now it's all going to Saratoga. We're excited to—

Speaker D: Bring it to Eagle Mountain.

Speaker H: Yeah, we're excited for the economic activity and commercial—

Speaker D: We talked about leakage, right? We want to stop the leakage that's happening to the inner city. That's right.

Speaker H: And it brings that economic growth back into the city. It relieves the citizens from a lot of the tax burdens. So we're really excited for this project. I think we kind of addressed the lumens issue. We've talked about the ingress/egress out of the project. And I would just echo Councilmember Whiting's comments on just the— it doesn't have to be Park City. I know I said that earlier today. I didn't want to, like, scare you away. But it does need to kind of have an Eagle Mountain theme. And, you know, the Pony Express Trail used to go right through this city, and, and you're just parked right in the middle of 3 major routes. So would love to see that, you know, that, that signature, that Eagle Mountain signature on the, on the face of the buildings. So that's all I had to add.

Speaker C: Okay, did we cover it all up here? Any last comments?

Speaker D: No, we really appreciate it. It's good feedback. We'll take this kind of into account and work with We're working with Marcus closely on this and look forward to coming back and bringing back the final product and working through this final agreement with you. So, okay.

Speaker I: Okay.

Speaker G: If I could just add one more.

Speaker D: Yes.

Speaker G: Because I know Councilmember Wood's not here, and I don't want to speak publicly for him, but I do feel like I just— in the conversations that I've had with him, he also echoes a lot of the sentiments that have been talked about. There's also concerns about the TIF financing that's that's being included in this. You know, Eagle Mountain is is growing. I mean, there time once was where we we had to give a lot of incentives for people to come. The city's grown to a healthy level, and it's going to continue to grow very quickly. And I think I I I I don't want at least this item to have passed through the meeting thinking okay, the TIF's all good. I still think that's for discussion. It's something we got to still think about and ponder about. And I know that Councilmember. Mr. Wood would have at least expressed that when he was here.

Speaker D: Sure, sure, we appreciate it. And we're, uh, we'll, we'll reach out to him as well to get any feedback from him here in the following days as well.

Speaker E: So I want to ask just one final question, and I may ask this of Brad. Um, Brad, do you have any concerns with the sewer, water drainage, any of those things? PRV valves, we're good? Okay, you've been through all that? Okay, thank you.

Speaker D: Okay, thank you very much.

Speaker C: Yep, and that was just a discussion item, so there's no action needed, but thanks for coming, guys.

Speaker L: Thank you, guys.

Speaker G: Good night.

Speaker C: All right, the next item is a public hearing. It's 15A, a resolution of Eagle Mountain City approving the second amendment to the fiscal year 2025-2026 annual budget. And this one, we're going to invite Kimberly to come make the presentation.

Speaker A: Thank you, Mayor and Council. While I pull this up, just want to give a quick plug for our Citizen Academy. Those applications are open and available. I love finance. If anybody else wants to learn to love finance, sign up for the Citizen Academy and come and learn about all the great things that not only finance does, but all the other amazing departments in our city. So we hope to fill that up just like we have with all the others.

Speaker B: So.

Speaker A: Okay, so this is our second amendment, and I'm really grateful we're halfway through the fiscal year with this. One of the things that we like to do as we start to look at it is we are looking to see how we fared through the first 6 months and we reevaluate our revenue projections. It gives us an opportunity to see if there is any additional funding resources for some of those initiatives that we didn't have the resources for and were not originally approved in the budget. That is one of the things that we look at during these mid-year amendments as well as just any other needs needs that might have come up during this year in this process that we have. So with this particular amendment that we have, then we are looking to increase the overall city budget so it would go to $163 million with the changes that we'll touch on within these different funds. But right now, primarily we're looking at within the general fund and then our special revenue, our enterprise funds, and our capital project related funds are the ones that we have changes that are being affected or proposed tonight with this particular amendment. So in the general fund, one of the things, again, because it's just a— it's a newer time, so I like to take a chance to explain and talk a little bit about with some of the funding that we're doing here. We need to make sure that we're maintaining a balanced budget. So with the asks that we have here, and it's showing that the overall general fund increase is this $1.7 million. All of that is not an actual outflow of resources, but because we have to maintain the balanced budget with the additional revenue growth that we're expecting, that beyond what we're asking to spend will be rolled over into fund balance, and it has to be an appropriation, which shows up as an expenditure item. So we'll talk a little bit about that as we come along the way. But particularly, we do have a request for one additional FTE in our building department for an additional inspector that we have. With the requests related to this, this is the location, the area where the revenues are coming in. So, Council, you guys will remember we talked a little bit about revenue when we had our budget and planning retreat in regards to that. As far as our tax dollars and those particular things, we're on target with budget. We don't actually project that we'll have additional revenue growth this year in relation to those. But the area that we do have is related to those building and community development related fees. Now the primary reason again that drives that is when we do have some of these larger commercial or development related projects, those fees come in, they come in this one-time year, but we're providing services over a 2-year period for inspections and so forth. And so there, it's not uncommon again that what you see is an influx of money that you are seeing up front, but the demands for that is going to come over time and will be spent down. So this particular item here, again, it is being funded with resources that would be generated within this year, and it is primarily needed for those commercial-related projects and resources that we have. Some of the additional highlighted items within the general fund that we are looking at is to replenish the road maintenance funds. We did have that unexpected project this year related to the settling of the road there on Point Express Parkway across from the Silver Lake Park. And so adding these funds back into it allows us to do the original planned maintenance as well. And with this particular item, we do also have reserved funds that are available specific to roads that would account for that. We're asking for some additional professional services that we have needs for that will be within our Human Resource Division, Engineering, as well as Economic Development. And let me— there was one other division that I can't— I can't see my notes. Usually it has like my notes there. So, but with the America 250 as well. So as you guys know, this is the anniversary here for our America 250. as well as the Eagle Mountain 30th anniversary celebration. With that, this budget amendment does include some funding resources, but those would be used more towards the lines of being able to purchase merchandise that is specially logoed related to this that then can also be available for resale for the community. It would be being able to help fund the time capsule that we have been discussing to have for the city that would be set aside for that. And just making sure that we can highlight and take advantage of this great year that is ahead of us in regards to the celebrating of our community and our nation as a whole. The surveying for the property disposal, this is related to the council's continued efforts to try to clean up some of those encroachment items that we have. Now, long-term, we do expect these to be replenished through the sale of that land. So as individuals choose to purchase that, right now the ones we've done so far have been where the purchase will take place at a later time. It's more of like a deed restriction that when they sell the property, that would take place. So we don't have those funds that are being replenished, but we do want to be able to continue with this particular program. project to clean those up. Um, and then, um, some evidence storage lockers for, um, our Sheriff's Department is an expansion need. So of those items there, those are all considered what we would say is a one-time funding item where we are looking to use resources that are on hand. They're not going— ongoing operational costs that we have, um, and don't require continued revenue commitments beyond the current fiscal year, which is the reason that they are being recommended at this time. I touched just a little bit on the general fund side in regards to the fund balance and the money that we are looking at. Even though we have this projected revenue growth of an additional $1.7 million, those funds are coming in from a resource that are restricted, and so they will be able to be used to cover the costs related to the request for the one-time FTE and those increases there on that building division side. But the other items that we talked about from a one-time nature, then we are looking at the use of fund balance within the general fund. So there are the road portion that we talked about, and then there, with some of those professional services, it is related to some engineering costs to do some studies related to roads. So that $575,000 would come from fund balance, but it is coming from a restricted source. So it doesn't reduce the maximum fund balance we can have. It's actually drawing down on those resources that are restricted specifically for road purposes. And then that remaining $300,000 is the portion of those one-time costs that in order to fund them would require us to use Part of the fund balance reserves that we have. Dipping into that and pulling it down would draw those reserves down by about 0.5% is where we would be with that for this year. Is there any questions about that before I flip on?

Speaker M: Okay.

Speaker F: Okay.

Speaker A: So then with our enterprise funds, we call them enterprise funds. Those are our business-type activities, the water, wastewater, and so forth. So we have a project that's already been underway. It's our tertiary treatment project that actually retreats wastewater that can then be used for secondary water on outdoor irrigation purposes. That particular project, we received grant funding from the state as well as at the county level, and then some matching funds and stuff from the city. So this is rolling forward some of those project funds because the project is still ongoing and it's not completed at this time, and that it also accounts for a, um, a transfer. Um, we had a $1 million commitment from our wastewater impact fee funds, and so that money will come over to the wastewater fund, um, to meet that match requirement that we had and for them to be able to finish this project down. So, um, on our capital project, um, location, we We have had a couple of council meetings, I believe, where we've had some discussions with the council regarding the eagle monument, about having it be reinstalled, as well as having the wall in that area rebuilt and restructured for that. And then adding an additional digital display that would be in the quarry ride area that provides that same information to residents that you can see from the Silver Lake area where the Silver Lake Park is, and then off the freeway, off Pony Express Parkway where it turns onto SR 73, we have another message board. So this brings us a message board that is downtown in the city center area. And in the past, what we've done when we've had events or things like that is we've had to pull in that mobile trailer and put the sign up for, for providing and communicating that type of information. So this would just create, again, a more permanent visible option for our residents as they come through this area to receive that communication. And with these 2 particular items, then the recommendation on the funding source would be to use some of the utility sale proceeds that we have on hand. And we have those funds that are there and earmarked for public purposes as the council decides. We typically look at that spending and allocation once a year during the budget process as we look at capital projects. So we will be having that come up again here in the next month or so as we work through our budget planning process for the next year. But that is a source and the location that we are recommending to fund those 2 particular projects there. Then the Mid-Valley Highway Phase 2 study, as well as the design for the traffic signal at Trailhead and Pony Express. The reasons that these ones show up now in the capital project and not just in the engineering budget within the general fund is because they are at a level that they will become— it's a beginning phase of an actual capital project that we have. So the design for the Trailhead-Pony Express intersection, we have funded already in this year to start the design, but originally it was just that we would need a traffic signal. But again, with all the changes that have occurred, if you'll recall, that is the one that's right outside of City Hall. It will have to be a reconstruction of that intersection because we have medians on both sides, roundabouts, I guess it would be, on both sides of those. So this will add some additional funding so we can get started on that design process as well. And then the guardrail on Pony Express. So this was one that the council actually approved at a appropriated last year, but we didn't get started on it. It was utilizing some of the resources that were left over as we looked at that emergency egress area off of the Lone Tree. And so at that time, the council had said and identified that those sources would be— could be used for the same item here, but it's not actually in the budget to be spent. And so this just cleans that up for us since we didn't get it in before June 30th of last year. So that accounts for our capital project items. I'm gonna click to the next one, but I just wanna check and see if you have any questions on that before we do.

Speaker H: Questions on the capital project fund?

Speaker I: Yeah.

Speaker H: The digital signs, I'm curious what's driving that. Is that a citizen request or is that more of a—

Speaker A: That one's, that came forward as a staff request. In terms of, again, anytime we have events, we're just pulling out the mobile sign construction trailer that we're trying to use from a communication standpoint. And then people here, that's the only time they get information. So we just don't have anything placed in City Center at all in terms of the message board that communicates to residents about what is taking place. So if you've ever paid attention to the ones in the 2 locations, it's not just about events. It communicates about our city council meetings, all kinds of things that are coming up within the city. But there's just not, again, that location is a very visible location where people are coming through, which is why we chose to pick Corey Wright is 'cause we were already having to deal with the temporary signage that we were constantly putting up when we have events that are taking place at the Corey Wright Park.

Speaker D: From that point, So, um, okay.

Speaker H: Yeah, I just wanted to kind of better understand if that's citizens that are asking for that communication or if it was something internally.

Speaker A: Because, yeah, internally of an overall objective and goal, um, from— I guess what we hear from residents is more methods of communication. So those who aren't on Facebook or other ways that they can receive and be aware of things, and this was one of those that we felt might be able to assist in in both ways.

Speaker M: I'll just also add, it's exactly what Kimberly just said. People always say like, oh, I wish I would have known about this. Well, I didn't know about this. Like, that's my biggest like bane of my existence. And I think it's really important that if we have another option to get information out to our residents that we seriously look at it. I hate spending money on stuff like this, but I also think about the manpower to pull the orange signs out and then return them and do all of those things. And all of that is adding up too. And they're woefully inadequate because we have to like cut words in half and all of the other things. So like to me, our residents are asking for more information and this is one of the ways that we can actually make it happen. So I support the digital sign for this.

Speaker H: What, what is the maintenance cost of those signs each year? So we have like the initial front, like the digital ones.

Speaker D: Mhm.

Speaker M: I don't know that I've ever been told. Oh, here comes Brad.

Speaker A: We, we pay a, a small, um, annual fee that is less than around $2,000 a year, but it's for our internet connection and stuff to make all of that happen at all, and that covers the cost at all of Yeah, most of it's been just the technologies in it that's been updated.

Speaker J: I think most of the wear and tear on them has been— they've been put together, they were pretty solid when they went together. And from an aesthetic and a visual aspect and durability, we haven't seen a lot of issues with them. They've stayed constructed and whatnot. Over time, we probably— there will probably be some components that we need to replace. And I think that's a good point. But we haven't had anything significant other than just the technologies inside of it.

Speaker H: Thank you.

Speaker M: And this one's going to be bigger than the 2 existing ones, correct?

Speaker J: Yeah, we got a design, um, to do one that's larger. Um, I don't think we need to make that decision today, um, obviously on the size, but, um, I think the proposal when we measured it out was like double the size that is there. When talking to the vendor about options, they come in like 1 by 1 blocks in like a grid. And so we can essentially grid it to the size that we want. And so it's really just about getting the money allocated so that we can start having those discussions to see which direction we want to go, how big we want to make it, and whatnot.

Speaker M: And where is it going to—

Speaker B: sorry.

Speaker E: That was my question.

Speaker M: Well, on behalf of Councilmember Wright and myself, Where is it going to be located at the park?

Speaker J: So in quick discussions with the vendor, I mean, I, I think right on the corner of the park's probably going to be the best place.

Speaker M: By the pickleball area over there. And that's, I mean, that's our downtown city center, literally. So.

Speaker J: And to be honest, I mean, it's, it's not just because it's a corner, but there's already some power feed in there and some of those things that are necessary for them anyway that we can probably utilize and tap into. So that seems like the best fit, but obviously we'll explore it and look at it and take recommendations and go from there.

Speaker G: How critical is it that it goes in now versus, say, a year from now?

Speaker J: Um, I don't know that it's, uh, super critical. Um, it's just, uh, I think long-term, I think we have enough people that use our park, but by volume just for our events alone, standalone. And we're, we're a busy city, and you've all attended the events. And it's, uh, with all the feedback that are on those construction signs and whatnot, um, we hear the same thing. We hear the same feedback that you get as council members, where we didn't know that this was going on, we didn't know that's what it was, we didn't know, uh, we didn't know that we could attend that. We thought that might have been a private— so I think it'll do good for the city to get information out there for not only our events to really showcase and say, look, here's some things that are coming up that you need to be aware of in the city, but today this is happening. And I mean, I think that our park has proven and shown itself over the years with the volumes of people that attend it that It's become our gathering place, and it is our gathering place. And it's just advocating and showing one more mechanism to draw people to come and participate in the community.

Speaker E: And Councilmember Whiting, I would I would say this: It's really frustrating to me to see those utility cell proceeds sitting in an account. I know they're they're drawing some interest, but those dollars have been sitting there now for decades, and they're worth a lot less. than they were when they were first generated. They won't buy what they would then, and yet we continue to sit on them. And so from my perspective, I just think they're better to invest in the community and to get something of value today that will bring some immediate benefit. So I mean, I'm fully supportive of this. I think this is the right place to put some of those monies.

Speaker M: One other thing that I think we need to remember is that The other 2 are located in Silver Lake and the ranches, and our population growth is exploding in City Center, and there's also homes that have existed here for 30 years. So I think putting one down here sends a clear message to our residents that use this part of town that it's important to us that they know what's going on too. So I would just make the case with that as well.

Speaker E: Thank you.

Speaker H: I was just gonna ask, can the utility sale proceeds be used for other projects like trail connections within the city, or is it specifically around Corey Ride?

Speaker I: There is— I'm gonna just answer, make one other comment, and I'll have Kimberly answer that, 'cause I think that they're general, can be used anywhere at council discretion. But the biggest complaints that I receive are The fact that it takes a lot of employee time to go out those out there, set those up, and then I get complaints from the residents when it's Friday night or Saturday activity, and we're not taking them down till Monday or or even Tuesday if it's a three-day holiday or something of that nature. And so our events are still on the construction signs sitting out there, and and it just kind of looks tacky as opposed to a fresh fresh. professional look at our downtown when we're going to have our downtown across the street. That's, that's the impression that I've gotten and why, why this was brought up. But I'll turn the answer over to Kimberly on the use of utility funds.

Speaker A: Yeah, so the utility sale proceeds are completely unrestricted. So they are an item that each year that we look at with the council to identify if there are particular projects or things that you'd like to slate them for. So We have about a little over $5 million still that's available and about—

Speaker E: $500,000, I hope.

Speaker A: No, we have about $5 million.

Speaker E: $500, that's it?

Speaker A: Yeah, that's right, $5. That's it.

Speaker I: $5 million.

Speaker A: $5.

Speaker E: Holy cow.

Speaker A: Yeah, so there's about $5 million that is left and of that, around $3 million of it is still unassigned. So there's about $2 million of it is assigned towards and committed towards specific things. But each year, again, if those things aren't moving forward, or depending if they are, we give the council an opportunity to again reallocate that. We do that same thing on the cap— So these funds sit within the capital project fund. So there are other resources that are also available in the capital project fund, and we look at those every year as we put together— and actually, as we put together what we call our 5-year capital improvement plan, where we're trying to identify what our needs are and the resources, and then to look at those funds.

Speaker H: Thank you. That gives me some good context. It's not an either/or. I'm—

Speaker A: in my head, I'm thinking, like, is this the best use of what we have? Correct. Yeah.

Speaker H: So there, there is an existing amount of money that needs to be used over time and— yes, and put it to its highest and best use.

Speaker B: Yes.

Speaker I: Okay.

Speaker A: And, and, and the big reason that there's still money left over is because, again, when this money first came in, it was 2014, 2015-ish. But, um, the council did 100% allocate that out towards programming and things that they wanted to have happen. Most of that happened. And then again, over time, um, some things came in under budget, or some of these items that haven't moved forward just yet, um, some items that had big ticket things. Then again, over time, it didn't appear to be a need for the community anymore, and the council unassigned that money. And so I often like to talk about sometimes when you have pockets of money, it's just as hard as when you don't have any money. You want to make sure you're spending it wisely and that you're not just using it. And this is something that the council has been very sensitive about when they sold those utility systems, that these were funds to be able to help further things that the citizens were asking for a lot with landscaping and improvements along the roadways and things like that and stuff. So anyway, okay. Let's switch over. Okay. When we jump over to our special revenue funds then, what we have here is— I was trying to think really quick all of a sudden. So for us, our impact fee funds get classified as special revenue funds for our non-business type activities. So we have a project that is already being in the works related to the Cory-Wright parking lot. And when the bids came back for that, it was at an additional cost. And so this budget amendment would pick up the additional funding that would be needed to actually do that project. If we choose not to, it means that we just won't move forward with that project. This is, um, the funding would need to be appropriated in order for that to move forward. And then, uh, the East Trunk Line, um, that sewer line design. So this would be starting the design process for the major trunk line that would run kind of— I know it's east, but if I were to say it like from the Lake Mountain Road, not that far up, but you're looking on that east side down, and then we'll eventually connect in with the wastewater treatment plant. So where the freeway— is that what that is? Is a freeway there? Anyway, there's a major road that's going there, and we need to make sure we're designing the utilities before the roadway comes because you want to get that installed and stuff as well beforehand. So I do want to make sure we just have a tiny bit of discussion about the mortgage assistance program. So the mortgage assistance program, it sits within what we call our affordable Housing Fund, and the Mortgage Assistance Program is just one program. It's like the only program we run right now, but it's a program in there. So when that was funded, that program was funded at $1 million, $1.1 million. It was like $1 million and then $100,000 that was for some administrative costs to make sure that it kept running. So we are, we're going to run out of that. We basically have all that million dollars that was originally assigned for that specific— and that million was directly related to the grant awards that we were issuing. So with what has been approved and in the process right now, we either would have to stop and not take any more applications and just finish the ones that we have and that have been approved, or we need to add some funding to get you through the end of this fiscal year. So I talked with Evan and Kiara a little bit about this in terms of what that would look like. And so it really is just, again, a decision of the council to say we— so the money that we get for this, it specifically comes from the redevelopment areas. So there's a component in there that requires a percentage of that money to come towards affordable housing. And, um, so this, this particular program here, we either would need to kind of end it until we reappropriate money, or we need to consider reappropriating. So the request that has been submitted in here is to ask for an additional $500,000 between now and June 30th. That would, on average, allow us to issue about, you know, 4 grants a month through the rest of the fiscal year. So—

Speaker M: Can you give us an idea? I know that it's kind of a moving target because some of our projects are coming online and haven't reached their full property value potential. But what are we typically bringing in every year into the fund right now? What was last year's?

Speaker A: It's about $1.5 million. So last year was a bigger influx because we had some more area that triggered from that, but about $1.5 million right now per year.

Speaker M: We had a balance going into it.

Speaker A: Yes. So I have all of that information available if you want me to pull it up. It's in my notes, but I can't see my notes and I can't tell you all the numbers off the top of my head.

Speaker M: It's okay.

Speaker A: But we have reserves, so it doesn't impact the reserves. It really isn't going to impact your ability to do any of the other programs. So that was one of the things we wanted to talk to with Kiara and Evan, you know, like with the housing programs and the different things. I know you guys have had some information that's come through through from the planning side, and there's just a lot of things that we're looking at. And that was something that was important to the council, is that we don't want to tie up all of the affordable housing dollars into a single program. We want to have diversity in terms of what we're able to do with these funds and available. One other thing that we are using this money for is we do use it to reimburse the general fund for our mandatory contribution to the homeless shelter. So the state takes a percentage of our sales tax dollars. It's based on a population base each month that goes there. So the reimbursement amount right now is about $235,000 a year. And that money comes out of affordable housing and it goes and it reimburses the general fund from those sales tax dollars that were used for that contribution initially. So it's a qualifying event and we— and so we use that for that purpose.

Speaker M: Is the Olin-Walker contribution based on population?

Speaker A: It is based on population, so it changes every year in January, and then we get our number and we're set for the year.

Speaker E: So I think it's important for the new council members to understand that we're going to pay that one way or the other. It'll come out of general fund money if it has to, because it's a contribution that the state— it's a mandatory contribution to that fund. And because we have these RDA dollars that come in through the affordable housing, it's been able to fund that contribution.

Speaker D: Sure.

Speaker E: So it's really helpful that that happened. But, but it— there, we're generating $1.5 million, and that number is going to go up a year in RDA affordable housing dollars, at least for the foreseeable future. That looks like that's going to be the case. So I'll just say from my perspective, I have no issues allocating an additional $500,000 from my perspective, Kimberly, to that, to that process through the end of fiscal 2020— is it 2025, 2026? I have no issues with that. I don't know how everyone else feels about it. And I think it's really important. One of the things that's made me really nervous about these funds is that they continue to grow, and we really had no program in place where we could expend them. And my concern was that big brother was going to look over our shoulder and say, gosh, Eagle Mountain, if you've got $2.5 million or $3.5 million or $5 million for affordable housing that you're not putting to work, we've got a good place for it to go, and it's going to be in Draper or somewhere else.

Speaker C: I don't know.

Speaker E: And so I think it's really important that we're cognizant of putting these funds to work to produce exactly what they're designed to produce.

Speaker M: I wholeheartedly agree with Council Member Wright. I think the thing that I would ask though is, um, is staff starting to look at potential other options? And will that be something that we'll get to talk about soon as a council? Because we've talked about revitalization grants, we've talked about ADU grants, different things like that, and we never wanted it to be like a voucher system per se. We always wanted to foster homeownership and just stability within our community. And I don't want it all to go to MAP, but right now that's the only program we have. So as we're looking to the future, I'm excited for, especially with some of our new council members and their experience, looking at other ways that we can make good use of this money.

Speaker E: It sounds like the demand is still pretty high for the program, right? We're not having any trouble placing those resources in the hands of people who qualify?

Speaker A: That's correct. What we are seeing is we are issuing more Tier 3 grants than we are the Tier 1 and Tier 2. And so one of the things that we might talk about is that even though we have a certain amount of dollar that is there, do you want it to be broke out between those tiers where we're trying to target, or is it just a matter— as long as the goal is that we can help people get to Eagle Mountain?

Speaker E: So I would love to see the data on how that's been distributed, Kimberly. I know it would fund about 40 forgivable loans, um, the million dollars that was set aside for those, those purposes. I would be really interested in just seeing that data. How long is it taking for those loans, those applications to be made? How many are we seeing a month on average? How many are approved? How many are rejected? How many qualify? How many don't? It'd just be good to get a sense of, is this something that's going to continue in perpetuity, at least to some degree? Is there going to be a waning a waning desire to participate or need to participate? And if so, I think we'd like to be aware of that sooner rather than later.

Speaker I: So we are planning for a retreat in April. We're talking about having a retreat maybe even before that time. We're trying to find a date, and that's one of the things I wanted to talk to the council with later tonight. But with that, one of the topics is specifically RDA funds, how you want to use them. and prioritize them. That came out of the previous retreat as something that you wanted to come back to discuss.

Speaker A: That's it. That's it.

Speaker F: So—

Speaker C: So is there any other questions about the presentation? This is a public hearing, so—

Speaker E: You can ask all the questions.

Speaker C: And I want to get them out before the public hearing. That's actually a good thing. So— Anything else? Okay, thank you, Kimberly. With that, this is a public hearing, and so we will take care of that now, and I will open the public hearing at 8:31. And before I do that, actually, Lacey, is our recording good, the streaming and everything? Okay, sorry, I'm a little late on that.

Speaker E: I tried.

Speaker C: Okay, so at 8:31 we'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here to speak on that?

Speaker B: Yeah, Jesse Southworth. Hello, excuse me, Mayor and Council. Um, I'm sure if you saw my face during that, you know that I'm not super thrilled with the budget. Um, I first had an issue just with the, the digital sign at Quarry Ride Park because I think that our current signs are, uh, semi-worthless. Mostly they're hard to see and they're primarily used to promote the city's social media pages. Sometimes I see videos of fields on there, but I'd prefer to look at the real thing. So I think that the signs are a waste of money, but at first I was thinking that it was going to be something where, oh, we have this extra money, let's put it on these signs, as Zach asked. But it seems that we have extra money, so now I'd like to know what is it that we have to do to get some of that $5 million that we have sitting around invested into some of the older parts of our city. Um, City Center right here, you just go east of here, there are plenty of trails and things that are— there's no paved paths, things that were left unfinished. And repeatedly last year I heard that we weren't going to do anything with this open space because we don't have any money to do it. And now that seems that— I don't know, either we're going to put a sign and use the money there, or we have extra money sitting somewhere that could be done there. So now I'm just curious as to what could be done, um, to get that money used there. Also, I know that it's probably $2,000 maybe a year that to maintain some of the CMS programs and the, the software for the signs, but I do know that those digital signs, especially one that would be the size that I expect, the one at the park would be, cost significantly more. Usually it's about 10 to 15% of the initial cost of installing it per year just to maintain functionality of it. But I mean, I'm willing to be wrong on that, but really at this point I would just love some of that budget to go towards bettering the existing parts of the city and maintaining trail connection, even if that's one of the things. So So thank you.

Speaker F: That is all.

Speaker J: Okay.

Speaker C: I have a feeling there's more.

Speaker J: Charlotte Ducos.

Speaker M: All right. Charlotte Ducos. I actually—

Speaker B: I love the idea of trying to improve communication.

Speaker M: I think that having a sign Especially if it's multidirectional, so if you can see it from both sides, I think is a good idea. I do think that we need to communicate with our residents what's going on and who's invited and all of that information. I hope that the cost comes down a little bit from what's on there. I think that's a lot of money. And so I'm hoping that it is a little bit lower than that.

Speaker B: But the thing that I actually really wanted to speak to is—

Speaker I: Thank you.

Speaker M: Because of the project that I do in my classroom, where we've looked at the budget for many years, I know that those utility sales funds are something that have been sitting there for a really long time because they've been there since my project started. I also know that one of the proposed uses for those funds was the city streetscapes here in City Center, as well as other types of improvements in the city center. My— what I heard tonight is that $200,000, $300,000 of that is going to go to a sign, possibly, which means that there's a whole lot more that's still there for those streetscapes. I think if we're looking at trying to build an upscale city center, we need to start working on those streetscapes. And so my encouragement is, if you want to build a sign, let's build it at the most cost-effective way that we can. I think that it has value. But I think we need to commit to doing these projects that have been sitting there for a really long time and really contribute to the quality of life and the aesthetic beauty of our city, particularly here in the city center. As well as one of the things that I heard a lot as I campaigned last year is the visibility and the landscaping and the water waste that is on ranches. Parkway as well, and we talked about the expense of xeriscaping some of those areas, taking down some of that berming and making it a little easier to see there. And it seems like some of that money might be able to be used for some of our hardest visibility areas, you know, along our main corridors as well. And so I know that some of it is not just having the funding; it's having the. people and the manpower to do the job. I understand that that is a huge issue there, but, but if the money can be used for the landscaping, it can probably be used for some manpower as well if we need to hire in some seasonal to help with that.

Speaker A: Very second second.

Speaker B: And so that would be my encouragement, is as we're looking at our next year's budget, as was mentioned, those, those dollars are depreciating, so let's get them spent.

Speaker M: And I would encourage it to be on of those projects that have already been— like, we allocated it and then unallocated it. So let's reallocate that and get some of those longstanding projects done that would benefit residents in this area of town.

Speaker C: Okay, is there anyone else who would like to speak on this topic? Sorry, I beat you to it. Okay, we'll have you go, and then, and then just make sure you fill out the paperwork and give it to Lacey afterwards, but state your name for the record. And you can turn in your paper. Go ahead. Uh, Jay Johnson.

Speaker E: I live in Glenmar Ranches.

Speaker D: Um, I work for Yesco. I proposed the display that, uh, you guys are looking at.

Speaker E: Um, one of the things that was brought up was maintenance.

Speaker C: Um, there is some maintenance to, uh, to anything, um, but it's very low, uh, a lot less than 10 or 15% on average. Um, I could get you numbers on that if people are interested.

Speaker E: The other big thing is, is the city, I'm sure, has advertising dollars they're spending elsewhere that they could probably take that from certain areas and put into this.

Speaker C: So the display is quite a bit larger than the other ones, and I do agree that it could be better managed as far as the content that's on it, which Yesco could help with.

Speaker L: Thank you.

Speaker H: as well.

Speaker C: So, um, one big thing with the new display, um, it does come with a 5-year warranty on everything. So there's no maintenance from an initial standpoint for 5 years.

Speaker E: So, um, again, just— I live in Glenmar Ranch, is real close to this.

Speaker C: One other thing that people will have a question about is light pollution. Um, this sign's designed to be directional for the light, um, and then it follows a lot stricter rules on where the light can broadcast and how far it does and how it dims.

Speaker D: So I live close enough that if this was to go up tomorrow, I would see it from my back porch.

Speaker E: So if I didn't want it there, that, that would be a thing.

Speaker C: Or there's already lighting issues with this particular area.

Speaker I: So anyways, thank you.

Speaker B: Jeff Ruth.

Speaker C: Jeff Ruth from the Landing neighborhood.

Speaker J: I just want to say I like the idea of the sign.

Speaker E: I think bringing out that road sign, parking it over there, it gives very little information.

Speaker J: It's tacky.

Speaker E: I think the sign is very much needed, especially for all the events at Corey Ride. So like I say, I think it's a good idea and money well spent.

Speaker H: Thank you.

Speaker C: All right, is that everybody? Seeing no one, seeing no one, we will close the public hearing portion at 8:39 and bring it back to the council.

Speaker M: I think it'd be useful just to have a quick refresher course on what the utility sale funds were like designated as and what is already committed, because I feel I feel like within the last 8 years, we've talked about a very specific dollar amount for medians in city center and park strips, streetscapes, all of those things. And we've also, when the original council and mayor, which I was not on, made kind of the determination of buckets of money, they wanted to make sure that the money was evenly spread spent between the ranches and city center so that it wouldn't be all of the stuff up at the ranches. And there were some improvements made to the medians there when Mayor Pengra was our mayor to help reduce the plants that had water needs and different things like that. So it's kind of almost like a phased approach, but maybe someone from staff, either someone who's been here a long time or maybe Brad, can talk about—

Speaker F: Yeah.

Speaker M: Where we're headed with the funds for streetscapes. Is it still allocated or have we peeled that back? And just kind of give us an update to that because I think it's a very valuable and important question that was asked.

Speaker C: So we do that every year in our budget when we go through the budget meetings, which one of them will be later today. And each time we look at those funds, she shows us— and last year when she showed us, we reallocated those Because like currently the medians are coming out. As opposed to improving those, we're actually gonna pull those out and expand lanes. So, but we look at those every single year in our budget process, that entire account.

Speaker M: Agreed. I just think that some of the reasons that have been given about why we weren't gonna pull them out was one, we didn't know if medians were gonna stay. Two, there were utilities that were coming and going in the spaces. On the park strips. And instead of having to pay to landscape it twice, those were some of the things. So maybe Brad can just give some context for us.

Speaker J: Yeah, I think you're spot on. I mean, I think that that's what we brought up back in Pangra's time. We had moved forward and we were going to do a bunch of landscaping. And then we had a whole bunch of utility companies coming through with fiber lines and all sorts of things down the side sides of roads. And we've watched that happen in the ranches where it's all developed and whatnot. And as a staff member, I didn't feel like it was adequate at the time to go in and install all this brand new landscaping just to have trenches and everything cut into it. Now I get that there is a timing for everything and that you should improve some of these things and whatnot, but that time just didn't feel like it was the time. We had heavy growth, tons of fiber lines, tons of utilities down the sides of the road. And so we've kind of held back on that. I'm speaking off— I haven't looked at the utility self-funds, so you can't hold me to the exact number, but I'm pretty sure there was around $500,000 for medians, and I think there was about $750,000 for the landscapes on the sides of the road that was allocated. and then initial utility sale funds from those sale proceeds. That being said, I don't think that those have ever been grouped back into the— they got sucked back in. We've always kept them line itemed out. And so if it is something that we wanna move forward, that's something that we can discuss in the budget process. And if we wanna see it done, then we prioritize it and we figure out a plan to get it done. That's my recommendation.

Speaker A: Thank you.

Speaker C: I— oh, sorry.

Speaker M: Is that right? I'm a chatty Cathy tonight. I just think that maybe being cognizant of the whole utilities thing and having to deal with the trench digging and replacing and all of those things, we are a city that can figure things out and come up with creative solutions. And maybe we look at ways that we can improve the look and feel and continuity of the city city center streetscapes without making it subject to as much change because of utilities. So, and I agree, I think that that line, those 2 line items were kept separate. At least that's the way that I remember it. So it's always been like a little bucket of money that eventually we were going to deal with it. So anyway.

Speaker H: Brad, you and I over the years went back and forth on Sage Valley, and I would just Just imagine there's probably 20 people like that that you have calling you saying, hey, can we get a trail? Can we do this? Those little connections, they— last year, for example, we finished a path around Sage Valley, and that was such a huge win, you have no idea. That just that project, I don't know how it was paid for. Maybe it came out of this. But do you have a list of projects like that that are big wins for the residents?

Speaker D: Yeah.

Speaker H: But maybe not a relatively huge cost for the city or to pull from this fund?

Speaker D: So I—

Speaker J: no, I don't have a big list. And, and part of it is, is like, uh, over here in the city center, there is a lot of open space acres. And I mean, we've had a lot of discussions about that. And so it's— there, by volume, there's so much. And so where do you start? Where do you stop? Um, what are we going to do with it long term? Are we going to keep some of it? Are we not going to keep some of it. Like, we've had discussions about every scenario, and so I think collectively we just need to continue to have those conversations to understand the direction that we want to go. Because the same way that I just talked about the roadscapes, I don't think it makes sense to go in and landscape something and then turn around and get rid of it. So until we have a plan and a path forward, I think it's wise to just have discussions and figure out what that approach looks like. To answer your question about majority of the asks that we get are, hey, can we have a couple more benches? Can we have a couple more trash cans? Like, that's stuff that we facilitate all the time and we don't say no and we take care of those things out of the operating budget. Sometimes with these trail networks and whatnot, those have been advantageous for us to do them because we have a paving machine. And so we're able to install some of those trails at a low cost. Um, but I do know putting in landscaping, um, it comes— irrigation systems come with a significant cost, uh, watering turf comes with a cost, and all those things. And just with the climate of everything, we just got to be wise in the decisions that we make.

Speaker L: Thank you.

Speaker H: So just as a council, maybe, and mayor, just— we'll just keep track as we're residents reach out to those various projects and add them into this next budget year.

Speaker C: I think what I heard is he said you're the only squeaky wheel.

Speaker H: That's, I think, what I just heard.

Speaker C: That's kind of what I took.

Speaker H: But he responded. He got it done.

Speaker E: It's awesome.

Speaker C: Yeah, we'll keep track of those. Obviously, there's a lot of trails here that I think we could connect and probably pretty inexpensive. That's one that we could definitely Put on.

Speaker M: Sorry, one other thing that I think is really important. When the utility sale funds originally happened, there was a grant program that was created, and it was much like what I envisioned the RAP tax board and the grants for that. So one thing that I'm really excited about is now we're going to have this very specific pot of money that can be used for projects like this, and we're going to create a mechanism by which our residents can can submit a request and help demonstrate a need, and then this body of people are gonna be able to just help us decide as a council what we spend that money on. So like, there's a bright future ahead is what I'm trying to say.

Speaker C: And I'll just say this on that point. I know I've had some conversations with council members. I agree with Council Member Wright that that money's not— it's depreciating in value. To be quite frank, but at the same token, are there other needs that we could better use it for? Because this would qualify for a bucket of money that is restricted, and these are unrestricted. So you know, specifically the sign—that's something the rap tax could pay for, and these unrestricted funds could be used on you know something. I don't have any ideas. I'm just just considering the fund.

Speaker H: Can I ask a question?

Speaker G: So with all the open space acres in downtown or in city center, where is that? Is that on someone's desk somewhere about planning and designing, or is that just not any— no one's working on it currently?

Speaker C: Well, I can tell you that I've done an extensive amount of work, and in fact, you and I walked some of the trails over there.

Speaker G: We walked it, but is there a plan in place? Or is someone going to create a plan?

Speaker C: What I can tell you, what we've been working on, I've worked with both Brad and Zach mostly, and about what is the future there. And it's really, I know the residents thought about bike parks and different things, but we haven't got any traction on that. So I think it just needs more of a conversation.

Speaker G: So I think this is—

Speaker C: It's brought up because of the land disposal, right?

Speaker D: Yeah.

Speaker E: Council Member Whiting, I mean, the truth of the matter is, is that we do have a Parks, Trails, and Open Space Plan, and it's in the process of being updated. It's not perfect, but but our staff's worked really hard to kind of review those areas that exist in the city and make recommendations. And I think you're in the middle of doing that now, aren't you? So we'll be looking at something fairly soon that will be an update to our existing plan. So it does exist, but it's hard to implement it without some of those resources. And so then it's a matter of the council has to really prioritize and say we're ready to tackle this one. Are are we going to? tackle youth sports. I mean, it's, it's always these competing interests where you have to look at it and say, where are we going to put the limited resources that we have? Because they are limited, and, and many of them are restricted. So it's, it's a balancing act in trying to decide. Sometimes we have— I had a resident get really frustrated with me one day because we approved the Smith Ranch Park at $8 million. That's a lot of money. One of the first things I did as a council member, and I had to help him understand that that was a restricted bucket of money that could only be used for those things. It was park impact fees. So I think sometimes we don't understand all of that even as council members, and certainly our residents don't, that those funds can only go to certain places. And so when they're unrestricted like the utility cell, they're pretty precious because they're rare, number one. So to answer your question, I know staff's working on that.

Speaker G: So do we need to host like an open house? Like when our consultants come for projects we're working on, they host these open houses, get a lot of different ideas. Do we need to host an open house in the city center saying, hey, give us ideas for this land? Because it seems to me, you know, we've got a few million dollars sitting aside. And Councilmember Clark, you said prior councils have said let's make this an equal distribution between ranches and city center, and I'm saying we should shift most of that to city center. I think that's where most of the needs would be. And this seems to be one of those needs where we've got these vacant parcels that we can make— that we can beautify as long as— we just got to get a plan in place and then see what it costs. And then some of these are going to be low cost. Trail systems could be super low cost, and we got to and decide what we want to do with it.

Speaker M: I, just to clarify, the splitting up of the funds has already taken place. The amount that's going to be spent in the ranches has been spent. The remainder of it really is mostly city center money. So you're right. I also, you had said something about, are we gathering feedback? When we redid our parks, trails, and open space plan, there are multiple, like, Open house, little farmer's market, you know, like those kinds of things. And that's one of the reasons why I think us going on our listening tour is really important. We're going to be in City Center this Thursday, and we can hear from the residents that are excited for something to be done, what they want done. That's a great opportunity for us to hear that, so.

Speaker E: Thank you. Can we come back to item 9?

Speaker C: Yeah. All right, we're back to the budget amendment, which obviously there's a lot of things in here that we've got kinda in the weeds on. So let's come back to any specific questions on the amendment items. So far nothing. If not, I will accept a motion.

Speaker E: I'll give it a whirl. Mayor, I move that we approve— let me get the right, uh, resolution— of Eagle Mountain City approving the 2nd Amendment to the fiscal year 2025-2026 annual budget, uh, with the proposed amendment resulting in an overall budget increase of $8,014,123, bringing the total FY25-26 budget to $163,179,862 and 5.16% increase over the previous adjusted budget.

Speaker H: I'll second.

Speaker C: Okay, we have a motion by Council Member Wright and a second by Council Member Huish. And yeah, that's as presented is what I see, right?

Speaker K: Yeah.

Speaker C: So the motion is as presented. Any discussion on the motion? Clear? All right, we'll start the vote with Council Member Whiting.

Speaker B: Yes.

Speaker C: Council Member Huish?

Speaker H: Yes.

Speaker C: Council Member Clark?

Speaker M: Yes.

Speaker C: Council Member Wright?

Speaker E: Yes.

Speaker C: That motion passes. All right, moving along. The next item, 16A, is resolution of Eagle Mountain City authorizing the issuance Issuance of— get my tongue to work— and sale of not more than $220 million aggregate principal amount of water and sewer revenue bonds. I believe this one's actually— is Laura online?

Speaker M: And wasn't there an update to it too that we got an email? Does he need to say it differently or are we good? Is the motion just needs to be made differently?

Speaker C: Okay, and this one is, uh, Ben, do you want to lead us into this or have Laura help us or Kimberly?

Speaker B: I see her, but she can't— I can't hear her.

Speaker D: Oh, you're here for—

Speaker C: Gilmore Bell.

Speaker E: So if you want to speak here on behalf of—

Speaker I: Sure. Um, I, I can paraphrase my— the memo that I put out that was posted online. I appreciate that, Council Member Clark.

Speaker A: And I do believe Laura is We had some connection issues, so if we need to, we'll probably have to call and then do a speakerphone.

Speaker I: Okay, very good. Thank you. So ultimately, this is a project that is much needed within our community to meet contractual obligations for the continued growth in our community and the entitlements that many of our, our developers have with within our community. This is a 200— basically, this is what's called a bond parameters resolution, and it is not necessarily setting the amount of any kind of bond at this point. It is really putting the outside parameters or the guardrails on a future bond that the city would consider. But this is the first step. The bond super parameter resolution is actually what it's It's called. And it's the first step that basically outlines the City Council's intent to move forward with projects both in our water and our sewer fund and outlines the, like I said, those guardrails around those projects. So the 3 projects that this project really, this potential bonding would cover, would be a new 6 million gallons per day sewer treatment plant expansion. That's right. And a sewer trunk line project and a Central Utah Water pipeline and booster pump project. In the actual language of the, uh, of the bond parameters resolution, it's really outlining that this is for water and wastewater enhancements, but those are the, the intended 3 projects that we would use the funds for. The bond parameters resolution also establishes the anticipated anticipated maximum bond amount, the maximum possible interest rate, maximum duration, par amounts, and whatnot. So basically it's the parameters by which we would operate. At this early stage in the process, we are still working to refine the costs on our sewer treatment project. It's also— we're also in the design phase, and in fact the council just a few minutes ago approved funding for the design of the East Trunk Line, and so we appreciate that. So all of those costs are under refinement, but we have high-level engineers' estimates that we have included in this, along with contingency to ensure that the bond parameters resolution is going to be large enough to ensure that we can move forward with these projects. But we anticipate the actual cost to come in much lower. The reason we want to start early in the process of having a bond parameters resolution is not only one, to engage the public and allow them to come to a public hearing and participate in that process, but also two, we want to ensure that we have the best possible cost and the least likelihood of project schedule delays by being able to order long lead time items early, such as transformers or the membranes in the membrane bioreactor, those things that would take upwards of a year to 2 years to acquire, we want to make sure that we get those ordered at the lowest possible price, which is today's price, and we get those coming and they're on hand so that when the project does move forward, we can, one, make sure that we have them and it's not going to cause any scheduling delays, and two, that that we can reimburse ourselves for those purchases out of future bond proceeds. Part of this bond parameters resolution anticipates that we would use bond proceeds to be able to pay for those hard costs. Without such a resolution in place, we would only be able to reimburse ourselves for design costs. So that's the general high-level view of what a bond parameters resolution is.

Speaker C: Involves.

Speaker I: We will continue to work on refining the costs involved. Like I said, we will continue to work on looking for grants and low-interest or zero-interest loans that we can put towards this. Of course, we have to go through a process to become bond-rated to be able to ensure that we are— our credit rating is good. And then we will look at market conditions and when it's the best time to move forward based on the solidification of all of that information. Um, uh, but with the passage of this bond resolution, we start the public process, and the council is envisioning that we will— that you'll be setting a public hearing, um, for the purpose of gathering public input on March 5th at 5:30 PM. Um, with that, I'm going to turn the time over to our good friends at Gilmore Bell To be able to answer any other questions or to correct anything I lied about just a few minutes ago.

Speaker C: And Laura is online too.

Speaker I: And Laura as well.

Speaker C: So you guys can battle over who says what.

Speaker B: We might be having microphone issues with Laura's mic, so she might have to call in.

Speaker C: Oh, got it.

Speaker A: That's perfect.

Speaker C: Can you— See if she can—

Speaker N: Right there, okay. Okay, Laura, I'll, uh, when you get mic more, that you can chime in and correct me where I'm wrong as well. So I'm Garrett Gross, Gilmore Bell. We're bond counsel to the city. Um, any, any— first off, couple great, um, uh, great summary there and description, very thorough, of, of the bonding process and what the parameters resolution is intended to accomplish. I will note, uh, we did Also make a couple little tweaks to the resolution. We upped it to $230 million because there's potentially, just to provide the city some optionality to possibly refinance some outstanding bonds. So we just threw that, we raised it at Laura's and Louis Young's suggestion, $10 million. We've adopted that, or we've drafted that, and that should be in the actual resolution.

Speaker E: Are we saying that that would be to refinance existing bonds that we have?

Speaker N: That was the difference in the $10 million. That additional $10 million would be to refinance outstanding water revenue and sewer revenue bonds of the city.

Speaker I: And a net savings to the city if we were to do that, potentially based on the interest rates we obtain.

Speaker N: Right, exactly. So we're doing that now to preserve that flexibility, and it was done last minute. There's actually 2 separate notices that were created because state law requires that those notices of the public hearing that'll be— that'll take place on March 5th, that 14 days of notice are given. So we actually added that to the parameters resolution, you know, late in the game, as you'll see there. So with that said, great summary. Any questions? Any on the parameters resolution, the process?

Speaker G: So I think we wanted to ensure that there's a call provision that's included in this, and is that in there?

Speaker N: So the tip— great question. The typical— most, you know, when you go with a smaller issuance, when you go typically to a private institution or a single lender, there's a little bit more flexibility in those call provisions. For a potentially larger issue, And in order to get the best rates, typically on what we call a market deal where the bonds are sold to the public securities markets, there's typically a call restriction of about 10 years. And that's flexible in terms of— but typically you have to pay more in terms of an interest rate for that flexibility. But 9 to 10 years is typically the standard on that for those—

Speaker J: Non-call.

Speaker G: Are those options you provide us at the time then when this becomes available and you say, okay, here's without a call provision, here's with a call provision, and here's the parameters of that, and then the city's able to decide what we feel like might be the best?

Speaker N: Correct, yep, yep. Luis Young and Laura Lust, they would work with you. We advise on the legal side, but they would work with you on the financial side on what to help you get the best financial terms. And working with potential underwriters on what would be the most advantageous provisions for the city at the time based on the market conditions.

Speaker C: And I should— I probably failed to note when we started this discussion, but Mr. Huish is quiet because you have, uh, you wanted to recuse yourself on this one.

Speaker H: So yeah, I just for work purposes need to recuse myself from any discussion or vote on the bond specifically.

Speaker C: Okay. So is there any other questions? Does this microphone work for Laura yet?

Speaker B: Can you hear us, Laura?

Speaker C: She can hear us, but we can't hear her. If you want to put it by the microphone, then we Sure.

Speaker N: We're going to mic you in, Laura.

Speaker A: So I think the one thing that we have to— and I don't know how that works— is we'll get a loopback because we'll be able to hear what she's hearing when it comes through the speaker. So we'll see.

Speaker C: She needs to mute and then—

Speaker A: And then just try to listen through the phone.

Speaker F: I cannot mute the screen that I'm on. The buttons don't work.

Speaker A: Can you make it though so that you can't— you're not listening to us through— yeah, so turn the volume down so you don't listen to us through the Lifesize link, just through the phone.

Speaker F: How's that?

Speaker A: Okay. So we'll see if you can— we can hear you. Can you hear us?

Speaker F: Yes, I can. How is that on your end?

Speaker M: Good. Perfect.

Speaker F: Excellent. All right, well, first of all, I apologize for whatever's going on that you can't hear me and we had to improvise, but you know, things, things happen. I do appreciate you let me present from home. I was diagnosed with pneumonia on Friday, and I'm— notwithstanding a whole bunch of antibiotics, I'm still a little bit on the recovery So I do appreciate the option of not having to drive down there and have you listen to me hack my head off when I start coughing. Just a few other things to add what Garrett has indicated to you. I'm going to touch first on the call provision. That question was just asked. Garrett covered that very well. There are occasions in the market when we can get an 8-year call without paying higher interest costs. We are always able to get a 10-year par call, and sometimes I'm going to say, you know, 30% of the time we can get a 9-year call without an additional premium. So we would discuss with the city, is it worth paying, you know, whatever the extra might be, 5 basis points, 10 basis points, to have it callable any earlier? You know, I'd certainly want to know before we agree to that, what you think the source of revenues might be to have revenues to pay earlier. You know, could be impact fees. Impact fees are eligible to pay these bonds. So there, you know, we will have a lot of discussion in that regard. And a couple of other things I just wanted to mention in Section 1, where it talks about the maximum parameters, then introduced to you. We've kept the par amount of $230 million, as he indicated, to account for that refunding. You don't have to issue that many bonds if the refunding does not make economic sense at the time we go to price. We will not do the refunding and it will stay outstanding at its current rates. So that par amount could be less. We have a maximum interest rate of 6.5%, but it might be helpful to know that right now today, if we were in the market, I would expect that interest rate to be closer to 4.5% or 4.6% with 5% coupons on those bonds. And we've also got 35 years maximum maturity. But again, we're currently running numbers assuming a 30-year maturity. I always advocate for a little bit of flexibility. I'm not expecting interest rates to go up But the last thing I want to do is try to predict where interest rates are going. So if they were to go up and made the debt service problematic, we could amortize it over 31 years or 32 years and end up with the debt service that we have. I think I had one other thing relative to the designated officers that need to approve the final pricing. I will need those individuals on the final pricing call. I don't know when that will be today. As we get through the calendar and we know when and how much money you need, we will have a pricing date. And I will be very cognizant of making sure that the city manager and your finance director are aware of that date and they clear it for the mayor or mayor pro tem. It's typically a morning call around 11 o'clock. to do that pricing, and, and we would get you, you know, prepped for that call. It's generally a pretty quick call, so it's not like you have to keep your whole, you know, day open for it. And I think everything else has been discussed that I would want to mention, again, unless you have any, um, additional questions.

Speaker E: Laura, can you just speak to— and, or maybe you or Or the gentleman here, can you just speak to the revenue sources that would be utilized to repay this bond?

Speaker N: So yeah, so, so for these bonds, they would be limited, limited to water and sewer revenues, right? There wouldn't be general taxes, no, no taxes. The way we structured this is such that it would be limited to those fees that would be pledged right now. That doesn't restrict necessarily from allocating or, you know, paying out of other funds, but typically has to be restricted to what can be pledged is those fees from water and sewer revenues.

Speaker E: It's the impact fees specifically? Is it user fees? Is it rent fees?

Speaker A: Yeah, typically.

Speaker D: All of the above?

Speaker I: It would be user fees that would be the pledge or the collateral, if you will. And impact fees can be used but can't be used as collateral.

Speaker N: As collateral. They can't be pledged, right?

Speaker E: Yep, correct.

Speaker G: I mean, I, I, and I don't know if this is a question as much as a comment, and I, because I think it might be helpful to have some additional, some city council members on that call. And it may be, I think it would be difficult probably to have depending on when that call has to happen and how much notice you need. Like, how much notice, I guess, is needed before that call? It's like, is it one of those things where there's a week notice, a 2-week notice, like a day notice?

Speaker F: I can respond to that.

Speaker D: Yeah, let's see.

Speaker A: Go ahead, Laura.

Speaker F: I think I heard the question of how much notice is needed before, um, uh, we set that pricing call. We usually know a week in advance, uh, when that pricing call is. I can tell you it will 99% chance be on a Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday morning. We typically try to avoid pricings on Monday or Friday. And so we would know a week in advance of the day. We would not know probably until the day before what the time would be. And we'd like to allow for a little bit of flexibility if it's a tough day in the market. You know, we might— underwriters— I don't underwrite the bonds. Underwriters may need an extra hour or 2 to market the bonds. But again, we just want a little bit of flexibility on that day of the final pricing.

Speaker I: Might, might I recommend that you keep it the way it is with the mayor and the manager acting on behalf of, but call a special meeting as soon as this is made known so that the council can be fully brought up to speed and can give direction to the mayor and manager to be able to move forward administratively towards that end?

Speaker C: So there's some certain requirements I think that might help too, Kimberly, that you've talked about. It has to be an elected— one elected official. I can't remember the— there's—

Speaker N: yeah, I mean, that has to— that can accept the prices. So we've set up the resolution such that the council would authorize the mayor, mayor pro tem, the city manager, as well as I believe the finance director. I'd have to double-check on that.

Speaker I: I think we have just the mayor and manager right now.

Speaker N: I think that's okay. Yeah, we might have modified that last minute. So yeah, no, that's— but that's the minimum.

Speaker C: But yes, you are more than welcome to obviously have— That's what I was getting at is the minimum, it has to be that, but the others can be on a call or something.

Speaker F: Correct.

Speaker G: So can you address how would this— so the bond passes, how would that affect? Taxes in the city? Are taxes going to go up for citizens to help pay for the bond?

Speaker N: So direct— I mean, no, directly no. This bond is what we call a water sewer revenue bond, where the collateral, as we mentioned earlier, is solely restricted to the water and sewer fees, right? The fees from that system. No taxes can— legally, they can't be pledged. To the repayment of the bonds.

Speaker G: So would those sewer and water fees potentially go up then?

Speaker N: I mean, they could, right? I mean, there's certain covenants that are in the bond or that are in the, what we call the indenture, which is the legal governing provisions for the bonds. And to the extent there was, per se, not sufficient what we call debt service coverage, You know, potentially the city might have to raise rates in order to meet those coverage ratios. Now, from what I understand, and I'll let Laura speak on this, the financial position of the city is such that I don't anticipate that that would have to happen in the future, but I don't want to speak for the—

Speaker I: So yeah, Laura's raising her hand, so I'd like to make sure that she has the time because I do believe they will.

Speaker E: They will. Okay.

Speaker N: I misspoke.

Speaker A: Go ahead, Laura.

Speaker F: Thank you. As Gary indicated, uh, with the security for these bonds, there would be no obligation for the city to raise taxes. That is crystal clear under state law. If you had such an obligation, that would have to be voted upon by your citizens. So what we pledge here are those system revenues, which are inclusive of water, Sewer and storm sewer. This is a very large project, and I anticipate that the city will need to continue. It's done a very good job in the past, in recent past, of increasing your water and sewer rates occasionally. We are looking to structure the debt so that it will increase over time, unlike, you know, when you all go get a residential mortgage.

Speaker E: Okay.

Speaker F: I get a residential mortgage. If I want a fixed rate, I get a fixed payment that's the same every month. They don't care if I'm going to be earning more or less in the future. I just get the same payment. In the municipal bond world, we have the ability to structure the debt around estimated increases in revenue. So when we think of Eagle Mountain, it's like, oh, there's going to be a lot of population. growth. So we are working with a debt service coverage model where we'll take into account what your historical population growth has been. We'll probably dial that down again to show the markets that we're being, you know, conservative. But in addition to that, I believe there will need to be rate increases of— I mean, I'm ballparking it now, so please don't, you know, freak out or whatever, because we still have a lot of number crunching to do, but I'm expecting, you know, somewhere between, you know, 3% and maybe 5% on, you know, a multi-annual basis. Again, it depends on, on the population. So when we issue the bonds, as Gary indicated, you will covenant that you will maintain rates and charges such that your net revenues So all your gross revenues less your operating expenses will generate $1.25 for every dollar in debt payment. We'll be very mindful of that as we're issuing the bonds and we show them a projected debt service coverage table. So that is what we're expecting at the moment. Again, we'll refine that as we move forward.

Speaker N: Well said, Laura. Yeah, legally there's not a requirement other than to We're going to meet the ratios, but she's right, you know, practically speaking, it sounds like there may have to be some raising of the rates over time.

Speaker C: Okay. I don't see any other questions. If there's nothing else to speak on, I'll entertain a motion. Nobody wants to make that motion. Okay, Council Member Whitey.

Speaker G: Okay, Mayor, I motion— I move to approve a resolution of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, authorizing the issuance and sale of not more than— we're saying $230 million aggregate principal amount of water and sewer revenue bonds Series 2026. As presented here in the agenda.

Speaker D: Second.

Speaker C: Okay, we have a motion by Councilmember Whiting and a second by Councilmember Wright. Is there any questions or discussion on the motion?

Speaker E: Can I just make a statement, a public statement?

Speaker D: Sure.

Speaker E: I think it's just important for our residents to understand. I mean, $230 million makes me sick to my stomach. I'm just gonna say that. Kind of feels like when I bought my first mortgage. I left there excited and happy, and I'm not even excited and happy about this. But this is an absolute necessity for our city, and I hope that our citizens will recognize and understand that the necessity of this has been coming our way for a number of years, and we have not paid the attention to it that perhaps we should have. When we received some of our earlier information that our loading is at 100% in our current plant, the 2.4 million gallon plant. The loading is the capacity of the plant to produce or to process the sludge. I'm gonna call it sludge. I don't know what they call it, chocolate milk, I'm not sure. But to process that, the heavy solids in the sewer treatment plant, we really thought we had still another 3 or 4 year window that we could work towards this outcome. When that came to us earlier this year, and we've been working on this for a couple of years. This isn't brand new. But we're really at a point of no return where if we do nothing, you're going to all recognize it. And I would rather deal with you being frustrated by a bond issuance than by the alternative that that might create in your individual home. And there's been promises made by this body and others to the development community and to those who are building in our city currently that we'll be able to process that waste and that we'll be able to get water to their homes so that they can have drinking tap water just like you do. And without this, we're not going to be able to meet those obligations, and that's not a place that you want us to put you either. So that's a really simple explanation. I'll be happy to go into detail with anybody that wants to hear it. Give me a call, send me an email, let's talk about it. But the reality of it is, is This is the responsible thing for us to do regarding our fiduciary duty. And I'll be quiet and let the mayor call for the vote now.

Speaker C: Craig also wants to make a comment.

Speaker G: Yeah, and this might be a question better answered by Ben or someone else, but another— I think questions that citizens might have regarding this is, wouldn't impact fees typically be enough to not get us in a $200 million hole? And why— so why are we here? I think it would be helpful to answer that question as well.

Speaker I: Sure. So first of all, the reason you can't pledge impact fees is because they come in inconsistently. So you don't— there's no guarantee that there's going to be 1,000 new homes every single year to be able to pay those. There might be a year where you have 2,000. There might be a year where we have 2008-09 where the housing market drops off. And so we have to use collateral from a revenue standpoint from the actual user rates. So that's probably one answer. But the second, I think, more philosophical answer to this question is that we are building a facility that is a 50-year or longer facility. And the benefit to those not only comes to the existing residents that live here today, but the benefit will come to those residents that move in and live here and raise their families or their kids or grandkids into the future as our population continues to grow. And so proportionately speaking, it makes more sense for us to ensure that impact fees and user rates over time are paid for, for an asset that's used over time as well, so that those who are reaping the benefit of this asset are helping to contribute and pay for it, and it's not all on the backs of existing residents.

Speaker G: And historic impact fees, to explain, it's not like the city could have charged more historic impact fees to help us not be in this situation, is that correct?

Speaker I: That is correct. So historic impact fees, of course, have been used to pay for only what's in our capital facility plan, more specifically in our impact fee facility plan and our impact fee analysis, which is only over a 6-year project or period. So only those projects, what you do over a 6-year, that 6-year window, and that's pursuant to state code. And so we, we could only do projects that we already had in there— trunk lines, lift stations, things like that. And while we anticipated doing upgrades to the plant, we, and we have collected money for that, those upgrades have been done. At this stage, we need to be able to make significant increases to our overall plant capacity. And the way you can ensure that future impact fees can be used on that is by incorporating the debt service into the IFA so that that debt service over the next 30 years is— or 35 years or whatever it ends up being— is being paid towards that debt as those new residents are moving in. So new growth should be paying for new—

Speaker G: That makes sense. And just to hopefully Hopefully that the citizens heard portion of what you said is state law dictates how much a city can collect in impact fees. The city's been following the state law in terms of what impact fees have been collected, so it's not like the city wasn't following that and suddenly because we weren't following that now we have this bond that has to be issued. We followed what the state has allowed us to do, and we are now at this juncture where we're faced with what is now.

Speaker I: You know, there's something else that maybe, having been through this before in a neighboring city and having seen the pain and struggles and everything, there's one element of this entire project that's really not ever talked about. And that's the fact that we're using what's called membrane biotechnology, bioreactor technology, an MBR. This is going to create a high-quality wastewater. Yeah. Quality Type 1 sewer effluent that can be used and reused. Now, we're working with the state of Utah right now, amongst other cities, trying to be able to reuse that water resource within our community, and it will be a perpetual, ever-growing resource, which is fantastic for our, you know, the 2nd most arid state in the nation. So that is a fantastic thing. But what is the actual economic value if we were to try to go out and buy 6 million gallons per day of water off the open market. That is what we're producing. So there's an element of what we can do with that should the state approve the reuse application that we have in right now. So there is an asset to this as well.

Speaker C: Melissa, I let everybody else speak, so before we do a vote, happy to—

Speaker M: Sure, I'm happy to. I think the reality of it is Government exists for the very basics— fire, police, water, sewer, roads— and we've tackled a bunch of those things tonight. But the reality of it is, is this is a test we can't afford to not get right. I've had neighbors who've had sewage backup in their house because of some local issue in their neighborhood. And it sucks really bad, and I can't imagine how awful we would be as public servants if we let that happen. And the reality of it is, is this is just like big boy and big girl stuff. This is what we got to do, and we're—we were elected to make these tough decisions. And I think the important part is this is a very open and public process so that our residents can be a part of it. We want you guys to come and tell. Tell us what you think and weigh in on it and help us get to the right solution together. So I echo everything that's been asked and said, but that's my 2 cents on it.

Speaker C: Yeah, and I'll just say this, Councilmember Wright. In your first couple months of service, we approved a big bond that made your stomach hurt. And now, now we're doing another one in your first few months of your second term. You're not running for a third term, are you?

Speaker M: No chance of that.

Speaker C: It's going to get even bigger. I'm just teasing. All right, we'll go ahead. Motion's still on the table, and Councilmember Huish is going to be recused. Councilmember Clark?

Speaker M: Yes.

Speaker C: Councilmember Wright?

Speaker E: Yes.

Speaker C: Councilmember Whiting?

Speaker G: Yes.

Speaker C: Okay, that passes. I'm glad we got through that one. The next one, ordinance this is a public hearing.

Speaker I: Thank you, Laura. Yes, and I think it was Greg, right? Garrett. Thank you, Garrett.

Speaker C: So the next— an ordinance of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, amending the Municipal Code 1595 and adopting the, the Eagle Mountain City Wildland Urban Interface Area Map, known to— known at the state as WUI.

Speaker L: And we talk a lot about I've got a 30-minute presentation for you, but I don't want to give that to you.

Speaker C: Condense it.

Speaker L: I'm just kidding. I know I'm not going to give you that. So the Wildland Urban Interface, WUI, is an area that— well, first of all, there is a WUI code. Wildland Urban Interface Code. The state has the State Construction Code. It's in 15A, Title 15A of the state code. And that State Construction Code adopted the 2006 Wildland Urban Interface Code. And then to kind of connect the dots a little bit here, in Chapter 1595 of our code, we've adopted the state construction code pretty much in its entirety. That includes the WUI code. So what's interesting, if you look in our code, we've adopted it, but we don't say where it's applicable. On top of that, we are part of what's called the Cooperative Wildfire System. And the wildfire system is basically, it's run by the Division of Forestry, Fire, and State Lands. It's, the simple principle basically is, okay, state will pay for our wildland fire, fighting wildland fires, as long as we work to prevent and mitigate some of the fire hazards in our jurisdiction. So, House Bill 48 of 2025 require— uh, requires cities that are connected to that CWS, the Cooperative Wildfire System, to enforce the WUI code. So we, we have it, we've adopted it, but we don't really enforce it because we don't have a map saying where it's applicable. So that's, that's what we're proposing, uh, That's what we've got for you tonight is a proposed map to show where the WUI code would be applicable. And so to give you a couple of examples of WUI requirements here on— so a permit is required for these types of uses like fireworks, fireworks stand, automobile wrecking yard, lumberyard, Things that are potentially flammable, you gotta get a permit through the code official, who'd be someone like the building official or maybe even our fire marshal. Dan DeVogue kind of plays that role for us. The other thing that you'll notice is there's requirements for roofing covers, eaves, downspouts. Exterior walls, you have to have higher-grade ignition-resistant materials in those areas. Other thing that's kind of probably something a number of you have heard, that a number of the council and public here may have heard of, is defensible spaces. So if you're building in the WUI, and if say you're in an extreme hazard area, You'd have to have kind of clear the brush 100 feet around a structure. So it's just kind of a sampling. The code's, I believe, 38 pages long. So there's a number of requirements. But the point is just to help structures and the built environment be safe when it's in a more, you know, in an area that's more prone to wildfires. So we've prepared a WUI map. Um, it obviously— the— we, we've— we were showing the entirety of the city, and, uh, the— it's just the orange parts that would be in the WUI. Um, we get to control— the city gets to control what's included in, or what land we include in the, uh, what lands applicable to the WUI. Um, what we did to come up with what areas, uh, what areas we proposed that the council include in that area, what we did was we used the Smooth Structure Exposure Score, and that basically is, it represents It considers both wildfire likelihood and consequences of wildfire to homes. So we used, I'm gonna get out of this for a second and show you, and hopefully it hasn't logged me out 'cause it logs me out every couple minutes here. But I'm gonna show you that map in just a second. But this is Forestry Fire and State Lands website.

Speaker E: Yeah.

Speaker L: They're kind of wildfire risk.

Speaker E: I don't know where my—

Speaker L: maybe. There's— so that map that you're supposed to be seeing, what it is, is it puts That smooth structure score—it goes from one to eight, one being the lowest exposure and eight being the highest. And so what we did was we went and took the forestry fire in state lands. You can still hear me from the microphone, I assume. We took seven and eights. That's That's high-risk area and then extreme-risk area. And we mapped that on the— put that on the city map. And voilà. Thank you so much. This guy doesn't make enough, I don't think. So you can— so if you come on this map, you can see, okay, There's your yellows. A lot of the cities—

Speaker H: Brandon?

Speaker K: Yeah?

Speaker B: I'm sorry, will you adjust your mic a little bit closer?

Speaker L: Oh yeah, yeah.

Speaker N: Thank you.

Speaker L: Yep. So you can see a lot of the more western areas in that 4. But as you come over here to like the bench areas, you're getting into like 6s and 7s and 8s. And so we took the 7s and 8s and put them on that map. Let me get back in here. So 7s and 8s, that's your highest, where you have the most extreme fire hazards in the city. One thing I did want to note is there is, some of you have heard about a high-risk WUI. Designation that's different than what we're talking about here. There's— there is a— the Forestry, Fire, and State Lands manages the high-risk WUI area, and that's used by the county to assess like a special fee. I think it's like $120 a year. These areas have to pay an additional assessment because they live in such a hazardous fire area. And then the insurance companies, that's— they use that mapped area. They can only use that mapped data. It's like a floodplain map. Yeah, exactly. They have to use that map data. They can only use that map data in determining which area has a high risk. They can only use that data to determine which properties are in the high-risk WUI. So that's— so I just wanted to get that out to make sure that there's 2 different things here. We get to determine what we put on this map. We can't determine what's on this map. So again, just trying— that was one of the things I thought when I got here. I'm like, where's our WUI? map. And, and so I get to help, I guess, bring that to you and hopefully get something adopted. Um, one thing I will note again with 7s and 8s, I took all of the— if you, um, don't get to zoom in on this super well, but I, after talking with— as I gone through this, I worked with, uh, Chief Fossum, um, with Dan DeVogue, also with our Utah County Fire Warden, who is an employee of Forestry, Fire, and State Lands. We reviewed this map, reviewed the idea of putting— using 7 and 8, including those areas in the city that are in 7 and 8s on our WUI code map. And we were all in agreement on that. So one of the topics of discussion when we were going through that was those properties that are already developed and in subdivisions probably aren't as big of a risk. So we took those subdivided areas out. There should be no subdivisions in this area. However, if people—

Speaker I: There was.

Speaker L: So if we— there may be Future homes developed up here, there, here in this area, like in lower Hidden Valley, they may, when they develop, they may be subject, they would be subject to these requirements at the time of building permit.

Speaker G: So then that's what the question I had is, so let's say, so you have like the Horizon subdivision, which is sort of still in the works. to fall in the WUI, lower Hidden Valley is falling in the WUI, they're going to have to have sprinklers inside the house?

Speaker L: That's a good question. And I guess Chief Fawcett might be able to answer that. I don't— there's some aspects of this. There's lower and higher levels of WUI code that come into play or like when they kick in. So I don't know if you want to explain that a little bit to them.

Speaker N: Yeah. Specifically on the sprinkler side, that's in The 2024 WUI Code, which hasn't been adopted yet. There is a House bill, I believe it's HB 41. Marcus, I don't know if you have it up, but I think it's HB 41 that's in legislation right now going through rules. That kind of forces adoption of 2024 WUI Code, but it carves out sprinklers specifically. And, you know, we're— They're pretty friendly towards development up at legislature legislation, and so I think they're trying to create some sort of carve-out that it's not completely cost prohibitive to adopt that code. So that may come into play if that House bill goes through. The other thing that that House bill does, from my understanding, is it kind of enforces. Anything from a risk score of 5 and greater, which would then kind of force our hand to reconsider our map where it currently sits. But that's all going through the legislative process currently. So specifically to sprinklers, I don't believe it's in the 2006 WUI code. 2024, I believe it's in there, but they're trying to provide carve-outs for that. Does that answer it?

Speaker G: Very prohibitive to have sprinklers, especially lower Hidden Valley, and the types of homes that would be going in there, it'd be so prohibitive to— cost prohibitive to do that. But I just— yeah, that was my question.

Speaker N: Yeah, and I believe most of the sprinklers is not internal sprinklers, it's exterior or a capability of water features on the exterior of the structure, not necessarily the interior. Because once Once you get fire, especially brush fire, inside of a house, we can't fight it anyway. And so that's one of the things is generally it's on an exterior type of feature, some sort of waterscape, some sort of sprinkler system exterior, not necessarily interior. So—

Speaker E: That was my question is let's suppose that an area Once a trail such as the ones that have been identified are in the WUI map, how do they come out of it? I mean, once it develops, can they— how are they removed from that? Is that something the city can do?

Speaker N: There's a process where we would make an application to Fire Forestry State Lands through a particular process, and then they would send out their warden. Right now, Garrett Nelson, who's the Utah County Fire Warden, he would have to come out and get eyes on and do the review for FFSL.

Speaker D: Okay.

Speaker N: And then modify the score appropriately. The smooth score that Brandon showed you, it's, you know, it's their best guess from GIS layering, onsite visit, historical recognition. Like, they take a lot of stuff and mesh that together. But there are some inconsistencies within the map itself, and that's something that they're trying to work through. But they do have a process, or at least there— when we met with Garrett, um, there's, there's a process to, to remove stuff that is identified as, as a high-risk area. Um, and particularly as we build out and we have subdivisions or, you know, data centers, or we have large areas where basically we, we've scraped down to, to dirt, um, those will no longer fall within that high-risk area. And that process is what we'd have to do. Now, again, we have control on our side through this process on identifying that map outside of the high-risk map that the state has already put out. So we can kind of identify what has already been—

Speaker L: Developed.

Speaker N: Been developed and already has features in there that, you know, don't make it as susceptible. But that's something we'll have to look at as well.

Speaker E: So just for clarity for the public and for the councils, it is HB 48 that is—

Speaker N: Oh, 48. I apologize.

Speaker L: 48 for 2025. And then this upcoming bill, the one that's running through now, I can't— I don't remember.

Speaker E: I'm pretty sure it's 48.

Speaker L: Is it 48?

Speaker E: 48 is the one that's working its way through the legislature right now.

Speaker N: Yeah, there's, there's that one currently that's, that's working its way.

Speaker C: Okay, well, and then if I can just clarify, it does look like the lower and upper Hidden Valleys, most of those are not included in the orange area. The Horizon development is, looks like that hill. And so it's when you're down in those valleys, most of that's excluded.

Speaker L: Um, yeah, I'm kind of zooming in there. We, we noticed that a lot of that Hidden Valley area ended up in like 6, 5 and 6, area 5 and 6. The other thing too that I didn't mention is we have to review the WUI map every 3 years to make sure it's the area that is being mapped is accurate and, you know, well thought through. And the WUI code tells us we have to work with guys like Chief Fossum and Garrett Nielsen, our— the fire wardens. So we work through them. But we, again, we do have the ability to control this map much more. We don't get to control the high-risk map at all.

Speaker H: So, Brandon, yeah, question I have for you. So my home got— my insurance canceled our house last year, and I live in a subdivision. It was kind of surprising, and I learned about this indexing process that I don't know if the fire department establishes that locally Do you know how this will impact that? Will that replace that system, or will there be kind of 2 systems in place?

Speaker L: There's 2 systems in place. It's this map right here that we don't control. Your insurance company can only use the high-risk WUI data that the Forestry, Fire, and State Lands maps. So that's not— it's out of our hands. But yeah, the state kind of dictates that area.

Speaker C: Is there any other questions at this time? I do know this has been— the league is— it's on their radar. We've talked about it every day. It was on there today. So we're still trying to— do they have a support on this one, or—

Speaker I: I think it's still pending.

Speaker C: Still pending. And it's one that we work on Every day. I know Brett's been in those meetings, so.

Speaker L: One critical thing that I will say is, so we've got that bill running through right now, and one line of thinking is, well, let's just wait till we get that done to finish this process up, 'cause maybe if they make us map 5s and 6s, but then let's wait. Well, I don't think we should do that, and this is why. Because House Bill 48 of 2024 2025 said that we needed to get this done January 1st or December 31st of 2025. And so, um, the, the care— what, what they do to the, the hook there is like that I told you earlier, that they'll pay our fire bill if, if we work with them on the CWS stuff. Well, part of that is us having a mapped, uh, WUI, uh, a WUI map, and, and we don't have So I think it's best that we get this mapped and then we can come back and amend it if needs be.

Speaker C: And the bill that we're working on this year is the one that has the carve-outs. So I think if there's nothing else, we do have a public hearing on this one. So if we're okay, we're going to go to that. It is 9:44, and I will open the public hearing and ask Lacey who's here to speak on that. Not a single person. Is there anyone here that Seeing no one, we will close the public hearing at 9:44. There has been some of that at the state too. Um, so the public hearing is closed, and I'll bring it back to the council for any further questions or dialogue on the WUI map. Councilmember Clark's good. If that's, uh, if there is no other discussion, then I'm interested in a motion.

Speaker G: Mayor, I move that the city council approve an ordinance of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, amending Eagle Mountain Municipal Code Chapter 15.95 and adopting the Eagle Mountain City Wildland Urban Interface Area Map.

Speaker I: Second.

Speaker C: Okay, we have a motion by Councilmember Whiting and a second by Councilmember Huish, and we'll start the vote. I'm going to start down here.

Speaker H: Yes.

Speaker C: And Councilmember Clark?

Speaker A: Yes.

Speaker C: Councilmember Wright?

Speaker E: Yes.

Speaker C: Councilmember Whiting?

Speaker G: Yes.

Speaker C: Okay, and that motion passes.

Speaker M: Yes.

Speaker C: The next item is 18A, an ordinance of Eagle Mountain City repealing various codes with advisory boards and enacting Chapter 2.80 of the municipal code establishing Community Services Board, which will also handle the RAP tax. This is, uh, Miss Natalie has a presentation here.

Speaker E: She made the changes that we asked for.

Speaker C: Oh, and we did talk about this in the work session, and she has made those changes, which I think council has seen. So, um, we'll pull those up.

Speaker B: Good evening, Mayor and Council. Um, just to provide context for everyone listening online and in the room, um, this new code would create a community services board that would take on the responsibility of several of the other boards that we currently have in our code. It would replace those and kind of have a centralized point for residents to be able to interact with the city in terms of everything community service related. So we would have the— this new Community Services Board, and it would take on, you know, the RAP tax, parks, recreation, cemetery, um, I think also like some like connection to the veterans and the American Legion. So that would, yeah, this would be kind of like the one-stop shop so that citizens have a centralized place to go. They know what meetings to attend if they want to have their input and they want to be involved. And yeah, I have— I'm available for any questions if you guys have any additional questions. Thank you.

Speaker C: So we did talk about this, and as it's in front of you, the changes that we talked about have been made. And so if you're satisfied, good.

Speaker M: I just want to make sure that someone's reaching out to the people that were appointed to these boards. I know that you've been calling and talking to different people, but I also, I want to make sure that this isn't a place that we fall down as a city and we acknowledge them and thank them for their service because we're just summarily dismissing them.

Speaker C: So yeah, I know at least any board that has been active or any participant on the boards I've reached out to, some of them may be reappointed to the new board. I also know that the recorder's office, I think Stephanie and yeah, I think they've been reaching out, right? Are there any That we know, has that been completed or are there still some that we have not reached? I think it's mostly done.

Speaker E: Mayor, could— I mean, could we ask, I think Council Member Clark makes an excellent point, something I hadn't thought of. How about just a thank you card that goes out to those who are currently serving or whether they've been able to meet and get together. I just think a thank you card from the city would be at least that much, right, to recognize their service.

Speaker M: We've historically done even like a plaque, just like we've done like with Planning Commissioner, City Council, to thank them for their service and serving on that board. So for sure, a thank you card. I just want to make sure that we're legitimately reaching out to them. And if it's something that you can't do all alone, I volunteer the entire council to help you.

Speaker C: I think— I think Ben— it's Ben with the Recorder's Office. Is that a good place to keep it, or do you have an idea?

Speaker I: We could also work with Chaz and Laura as well. So we'll take care of it.

Speaker F: Thank you.

Speaker C: Yep. And then we'll need a list for sure of who's active and which terms haven't expired, things like that. So— and I'll get together. I'll have Chaz get us together so that we can, uh, go through the ones that I've already contacted for sure. So is there any other discussion on this one? Questions? No other concerns? Okay.

Speaker H: Mayor, I move to approve an ordinance— tell me if I'm saying this right— uh, an ordinance of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, repealing Chapter 2.3, Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. Chapter 2.4, Recreation Sports Board. Chapter 2.55, Cemetery Board. Chapter 2.6, Military and Veterans Advisory Board. And Chapter 2.7, Economic and Development Board. And enacting Chapter 2.8 of the Eagle Mountain Municipal Code to establish a Community Services Board.

Speaker E: Second.

Speaker C: Okay, we have a motion by Council Member Huish and a second by Council Member Wright. Is there any questions or discussion on the motion? Seeing none, we will start the vote with Council Member Clark.

Speaker A: Yes.

Speaker C: Council Member Wright.

Speaker E: Yes.

Speaker C: Council Member Whiting.

Speaker G: Yes.

Speaker D: Council Member Huish.

Speaker H: Yes.

Speaker C: Okay, that motion passes. Some of the code, just while we're on this, for council to be aware of, Marcus, and you can remind me, we're working on changing the appointment terms to Q1, right?

Speaker A: Yes.

Speaker C: And so that's something that we'll see that's kind of part of this. So terms will expire March 31st and start on April 1st?

Speaker J: Yeah, that's, that's what we're working on.

Speaker C: And then the seniors board. also was going to be brought forward to be in this same section. So just to make you aware that we are working on it, but that's coming. Um, legislative priorities update. Mr. Magnus.

Speaker J: Good evening, Mayor, council members. Tonight we're gonna do an update on the strategic plan, general plan update. I know the hour's late. It's up to you if you still wanna hear it or you wanna kick it to the next meeting.

Speaker H: Dealer's choice.

Speaker M: We're already here and dressed up.

Speaker E: You might as well tell us.

Speaker D: Okay.

Speaker C: We do have—

Speaker J: Brandon's gonna give you a really quick update of the strategic plan, general plan update. And then if you have any other items you wanna add to the list, we can do that afterwards.

Speaker L: Hi, really quick. So the future land use map, uh, we brought that to you, uh, just a couple of weeks ago, and that's, uh, getting tooled up. And, and, uh, so once that's finished up, we, we will, um, bring that back to you just for a final yep, looks good, and then we will start preparing the future land use map The other chapters, frankly, most of the general plan's been— we divided it into 4 sections. We've sent out 3 sections. And so the last section's just basically land use map and the implementation chapter. So most of it's done. Strategic— the strategic goals, we've talked about redoing those a If that does happen, we're gonna end up revising a little bit of the general plan. But we can work with that. And AI is very helpful in helping us to— can help speed that up a little bit. So our goal is to get that to you here, you know, once you get that strategic plan— strategic goal update.

Speaker D: Thank you.

Speaker L: Looking to get that to you here later, hopefully midsummer, if not sooner. So that's— we've sent out a few, a number of those chapters. If you have any feedback, let us know. We'd love feedback and just really appreciate the support you've given us. So Yep.

Speaker E: That's about it.

Speaker J: We'll bring another council priority list item on the next meeting. We only have 13 more days, allegedly, of season. So we're getting close.

Speaker E: And I will— my brain will function again, hopefully soon.

Speaker C: Yeah. Yes.

Speaker J: Yes, they— all the good bills come out now.

Speaker C: Yeah, right when they suspend the rules and start going crazy.

Speaker J: Yeah. So we'll be busy for the next 13 days dealing with some of these. And the fire bills are HB 41 and 45. 41 implements the code with the carve-out for the sprinklers. 45 implements the code, no carve-out for the sprinklers, and makes it So no city can go below Zone 5. So that's the difference between the 2 bills.

Speaker L: 41 has been—

Speaker C: That's what we talked about today.

Speaker J: Yeah, 41 has been enrolled. So unless the governor vetoes, we will be updating the fire codes with the carve-out for the fire sprinklers.

Speaker C: Okay, other legislative priorities? You're good unless there's any other questions. I just wanted to make sure that anything that Evan's tracking that we're working on. I do want to bring up, if while you're thinking about it, if there's anything, uh, HB 184. You saw the League sent just now action alert to strongly oppose this. Uh, I've reached out earlier this afternoon to Stephanie specifically, and she said it's dead in committee, but it can always get on life support and come back.

Speaker E: Is that sub 1 or sub 2?

Speaker C: This is sub 3.

Speaker D: Sub 3.

Speaker N: Yes.

Speaker I: Yeah, and they typically don't issue those unless something— a vote is imminent.

Speaker C: Yeah, so this— yeah, the action alert at least. And it— so I think I've only talked to Stephanie today. That's the only one I've had time. I don't know if we need to reach out to Heidi and Emily or Bramer, um, and make sure that we react, because this one will preempt city's authority. One of the things in here is if we don't act within 30 days, deemed approved on subdivisions. So that's a little scary, a little bit of an overreach. So I might encourage everybody to reach out to our people and tell them it's— I don't think it has any traction. Anything else?

Speaker M: I actually have a question about that specific thing. Is there any way that we could push kind of like a carve-out or an exception for cities that issue over X amount of building permits a year or have X amount of vested units? Because I see—

Speaker C: We need a bill sponsor to do it.

Speaker M: Like, I see, is it coming up in committee? Has anyone pitched that?

Speaker C: It's dead in committee right now. And so what I would tell you is I don't want to make a carve-out. I want to kill it. I think you should kill it too. the league because it's not good for any city, let alone us. If it was to get traction, I think that would be a bare minimum. But for right now, I think the stance is just—

Speaker F: Kill it.

Speaker C: Yeah, this is a bad bill.

Speaker J: Mayor, so I was asked about that bill tonight. It has a hearing tomorrow at 4 o'clock.

Speaker C: It is back on. That's why we got the answer.

Speaker J: It is back on agenda tomorrow at 4 o'clock.

Speaker C: So it was dead at 3 o'clock and it's got— welcome to the system.

Speaker J: Right. So 184 had been held in committee. There's a sub 2 and a sub 3 out, and it is on the agenda tomorrow at 4 o'clock.

Speaker C: I did bring this, and I don't know if you guys got it, but I brought this back earlier. It tells kind of the— I think I gave them to these guys, but you guys are welcome to that. It's kind of the rundown. Terrible bill. Sorry, Evan, I keep looking over there. Nothing? No more? Okay, um, any other legislative priorities from the body? Okay, we'll go on to the liaison reports and council mayor business. Um, is there anything, or I can start here? Go ahead. No liaison. I filled in for you at the seniors this month, and they have a lot going on. And I think you and I spoke, but I can't even remember what it was. Yeah, yep, you've got that.

Speaker G: Did you guys see the dance, youth dance? How awesome was that?

Speaker K: I was there.

Speaker G: I wanted to be there, I couldn't be there. But yeah, seeing some of the social media footage, it was awesome. Lots of attendance, it looked like. I'm gonna be meeting with the library board tomorrow night, so I'll have an update on that afterwards.

Speaker E: Nothing?

Speaker C: Council Clerk, you good?

Speaker M: Great.

Speaker C: Okay, um, any other— let's see, the last thing is, is there anything on the communication items or go to the discussion?

Speaker I: Um, the only thing I wanted to bring up is we were talking about, um, the desire to have an additional retreat Prior to April, is there a desire, and when does the council want to look towards doing that?

Speaker M: For this next retreat, is this like an all hands on deck staff one, or could this be bare bones and do it like on a Saturday morning so that it depends on the agenda items?

Speaker C: And we've got four or five different things, and maybe we tackle the most pressing. And then save the rest for St. George.

Speaker M: I, I just, I'm very cognizant of the staff time, but I also get that we do more as a city council than most cities do in an entire year. And sometimes we're asked to take off so much time from work, it may be good for us to do a Saturday morning or something like that so that it doesn't take more time off of We can look at some dates and see staff-wise and then have Lara—

Speaker I: Maybe I'll send out a Doodle poll to everybody and—

Speaker E: That would work.

Speaker M: That sounds great.

Speaker C: And then we'll see if we can't get something here shortly. And we can do an evening. We can kind of tackle these a little bit at a time, I think. A couple hours of time would be great. The last item is a discussion on the discussion on the annual budget. And I'm sorry this got pushed clear to the end, but I think we're gonna get a— we're in the beginning of the budget cycle, so maybe a little higher level view of the—

Speaker I: And maybe while Kimberly's coming up, the reason that— see, we typically have historically have met on the off weeks between 3 and 5 before Planning Commission, but we know it's been impactful on elected leaders and your schedules and whatnot. So we were trying to do it the first hour of your work meetings, but our work meetings have been so, uh, jam-packed that it's now pushed to the end of the meeting, and here we are. So thank you, Kimberly.

Speaker C: So I, I did have some conversation.

Speaker E: I'll let you weigh in too, but I was just going to say, I mean, I, I I liked how 3 to 5 worked on off Tuesdays personally. I know it's a sacrifice, but it's also a dedicated time with a hard stop. And I think 2 hours is about all I can take of budget discussions in any one sitting. And so I really like how that functioned, Kimberly. I realize that that may not work for everyone, but I really like how that works.

Speaker A: I think that's where, again tonight, what part of the hope is, is it's more about determining what is beneficial to the council. Okay, so we don't want to have meetings just to have meetings. We want to make sure that, you know, like, I'm sure that—

Speaker C: So, Debbie, I lost my mic. And Ben, I had some conversation based on that, and I think the council is open to 3 to 5, as mentioned. On the off weeks, is it once a month or twice a month?

Speaker A: It's just once a month.

Speaker C: So is it the 2nd Tuesday or 3rd— sorry, 4th Tuesday?

Speaker A: So we did it in between the 1st and 3rd council meetings, so it would have been the 2nd Tuesday, I think.

Speaker C: So it's the 2nd Tuesday from 3 to 5. We have council meeting, then we'd have a budget meeting, then we'd have council meeting, then we'd have nothing.

Speaker E: So what's that gonna give us, 3 meetings before—

Speaker C: Between now and May.

Speaker A: So it will only give you Actually, 2. So you're gonna get March and April, and then you're gonna get the tentative budget in May. So in regards to that too, so the tentative budget, I just wanna make sure, because it is one of those items that feels a little bit intimidating, because what happens on, we're mandated to provide to the council the first meeting in May a tentative budget. But when that tentative budget is being turned over to the council, You basically have to, you are accepting it, and that's it. But what that means is you're accepting the fact that administration provided you with the tentative budget as required by law. And then that is when the beginning process takes place for the council to be able to kind of dig through it, make any changes, have meetings, as much as you want, and then we have to have an adopted budget by the end of June, so we, and have our public hearings and things like that.

Speaker M: Okay.

Speaker A: I like to try to make sure we're touching on things as we come along, because the last thing we want is for you to get a budget in May that then has to be torn apart, or that doesn't feel like it's meeting the objectives and the vision of the council and what we want to do. So that was the— that's the purpose between kind of having these budget meetings, is we just kind of bite off chunks of some of these pieces, and we'll cover operations and personnel and we'll have a meeting where we talk about capital and things like that. And it's to try to make sure that we continue in the direction that the council is expecting for the upcoming year.

Speaker C: So to be clear, let's go back on dates because right now we're planning on the personnel part on March 5th with our other, the special meeting, right? That's what we talked about?

Speaker A: I think we—

Speaker I: Isn't March 5th just the public hearing or?

Speaker M: Yeah.

Speaker C: Yeah, because we didn't, we weren't able to have the other meeting and it does have to do with finance, I was gonna do both. And I thought we talked about that. So if we do March 5th, 'cause if we come in anyway, the public hearing should be pretty light. That's a Thursday? Yeah, it's a Thursday.

Speaker M: Yeah, but that's—

Speaker E: So we're gonna—

Speaker M: That public hearing is the $230 million thing. And with that type of public hearing, we have to let it go until they're done, right, Marcus? That's the one where like they could filibuster forever. When I say filibuster, 3 minutes at a time, different people.

Speaker J: Right. I mean, depending on how many people show up, we would have to let all of them speak. But that's not any different than how we would do any public hearing.

Speaker M: Mayor just jinxed us by saying it was going to be light.

Speaker C: Well, we have a meeting on the 3rd, and then we're going to come back on the 5th and do it.

Speaker E: What week is that?

Speaker C: Thursday.

Speaker E: It's on a Thursday. And if we plan— otherwise, we're not going to see her until when?

Speaker A: So then you're— then we're looking at April, right?

Speaker E: So yeah, so it makes sense to me to at least schedule it, to notice it, and to conduct it that way if there's time to do it. If we find that we're running 6 hours in a public hearing, I mean, at some point in time the mayor can call that and say we're just gonna— we're gonna postpone that and dismiss you, and we'll just finish up the public hearing.

Speaker C: So I think we'll plan the 5th on a Thursday, and that will be right after the public hearing, which I think is scheduled for 5 o'clock. 5:30, you're right, 5:30. Then we'll come, the second Tuesday of April would be the next meeting and then it's May. So those are the 2 meetings that we're looking for right now. Is that agreeable? And it'll be 3 to 5 on the second Tuesday of April.

Speaker E: Is that gonna be enough? That's my question because— April 14th.

Speaker C: 14th, almost tax day.

Speaker I: The question is, that is not for you. Well, Kimberly's good all the way through.

Speaker A: If you want to start, I'll be here in May.

Speaker E: And I haven't— I haven't— I mean, I obviously haven't participated in this with Councilmember Huish or with Councilmember Whiting. I don't know how engaged they're going to be. I know how Councilmember Wood's going to be engaged. He's going to engage. And Councilmember Clark always engages. So I'm counting on that. Okay. And sometimes I can't shut up. So But, but I think the issue that I have is, is it going to be enough? And I, I would rather overplan and finish it up early where we can release you in May and you don't have to see us in May and June, rather than feel like, oh my gosh, we're having to adopt this and it's still not where we want it to be. And you guys haven't been through that process. Should we wait till you go through it?

Speaker M: Should we add a 3 to 5 both on the the 2nd and the 4th weeks.

Speaker C: I was just gonna say the 28th. That's when I'm thinking would work best.

Speaker E: So let's get through it early and let's terminate it early if we can.

Speaker C: So the 28th of April would be the 2nd Tuesday, or sorry, the 4th Tuesday, the 2nd meeting.

Speaker M: That's my birthday.

Speaker C: No, I've been here on my birthday a lot. We'll bring you a cake. So if you want, we can pencil it in if we need it, if that's—

Speaker H: I am available.

Speaker E: We usually celebrate birthdays here, Zach. You don't know that yet.

Speaker C: So the 28th of April, if you want to pencil it in, would that be— that would be a 3 to 5 as well.

Speaker M: And then— Can we get calendar invites from this? Like from—

Speaker E: Yeah.

Speaker M: Terrence has got us. He'll take care of us.

Speaker C: Okay. The 14th, the 28th.

Speaker E: And then let's see how many we need.

Speaker C: So the 5th, the 14th, and the 28th are our 3 budget meetings prior to the tentative budget and the public hearings, which will happen in June.

Speaker A: Correct, and then in May, we can continue to have more meetings. So again, that's when we'll have the draft tentative budget that will also come. Last year was the first year we kind of tried to have the full book available that provided more information to kind of explain the whys behind everything that we were doing. But as we dig into that, that is where we can as we're going through it. If you have specific questions more on projects or more on if there is program changes, then we, again, once the tentative budget comes out, we're focusing specifically on council-driven initiatives of what do you want to know more about or have questions or to make sure is clear before we move forward.

Speaker F: Thank you.

Speaker C: Okay, those are on the calendar. And then for today's discussion, it was, uh, it's not personnel.

Speaker A: Yep, so that's all we're going to cover tonight because it is, uh, 10 o'clock and, um, you've covered enough.

Speaker C: It's about—

Speaker A: yep, it's covered enough. We'll make sure that we, um— so what the change is, because you're going to give us some dedicated time, that is what will make this work. It does make it really hard Either if we're going to present, we want to be able to give you and have the time. It's not just about us providing information. It's really important that we're getting the dialogue and that the council feels comfortable with what the strategic goals and objectives are and what we're trying to accomplish. So if we can have these dedicated meetings instead of trying to smash it into the end, we will make sure that that time is utilized well and to the best of it. And then my final note is I was so excited today. It's only happened 2 times in my 29-year career that people have talked and commented during the public hearings for budget amendments, so, or anything related to budget or finance. And I love— I mean, it's not a negative thing. It's that people are engaged and they have something to say. So tonight was a great night for Eagle Mountain City.

Speaker E: I'm going to say something to you, and I want you to hear this loud and clear. Having participated in this process now for 4 years, this being my 5th, I really appreciate the way that you have kind of morphed it. It's highly effective, it's very engaging, and I feel as a council member that I'm heard, that the priorities that I'm advocating for allows me an opportunity to engage with my council member compadres. I don't know what I call you guys.

Speaker D: Colleagues.

Speaker E: Colleagues. I couldn't think of the right word. And that we together come to some decisions about what our priorities are and how we're going to achieve them with the budget. So I, I think it's the best process. You've, you've developed it into the very best process that I've participated in, and I'm grateful for that. And I hate to see that get modified. That's why I'm advocating for the time that you're asking for.

Speaker C: Okay, that's a discussion item only, and I see Kimberly saying dropping the mic. So unless there's any other business, are you open to a motion?

Speaker M: Motion to adjourn.

Speaker G: Second.

Speaker C: Okay, we got a motion from Councilmember Clark, a second from Councilmember Whiting, and we'll start the vote. All in favor?

Speaker H: Aye.

Speaker C: Any opposed? Motion passes, and we are adjourned at 10:11 PM.