Transcript — Eagle Mountain City Council, 19 May 2026

Speaker A: Battery's dead.

Speaker B: All right.

Speaker A: We're gonna go ahead and get started. We weren't stalling at all because I know traffic is bad and some people had to drive a little ways, but I'm sure we'll hear about that. So we'll go ahead and call this work session to order. That's the work session of the Eagle Mountain City Council, May 19th. It is officially 4:03, and we'll get started with our first discussion item. If you need a few minutes, I can go to the second one, but we had you first, so. Okay, I'm gonna go come back to you. So we're actually gonna go to item 1B, if that's okay, 'cause I know Benjamin's ready to go. So if that's okay, we'll start. It's a discussion on becoming a believer city. This is something that we've all been a part of over time, and I, I think I've talked to you guys about this. I don't really remember, but Ben's gonna present what it is, and we can give staff direction or whatever it is that we wanna do.

Speaker C: So.

Speaker B: Awesome. How are you today? It's good to see you. I just wanted to take you back really quick to about 7 years ago, just to set the stage. So I had this note in my phone that I wrote down, and I just wanted to read it to you really quick. It says, I have a crazy idea. I'm going to run holding signs to help lift other people as they drive by. I also want to get others involved and grow it huge. The inspiration came over time, but today it hit harder with specifics. I wanted to write it down just in case I forgot. This was back on July 18th, 2019. So eventually I started. I don't know if all of you know, Some of you do what I do. I go around the city running with my sign. Everybody's nodding.

Speaker C: Okay, good.

Speaker B: It's been such an amazing experience. I have had— I can't even count anymore. I can't count the stories of the impact it's had on people very early on, how it's changed people's lives. But I knew I needed to share it. And ever since I started doing it, I actually started in 2022.

Speaker D: Wow.

Speaker B: Took me a while to get up the courage to do it, but I knew I had to share it with people, and I wanted to get other people involved. So what I've done this year— I've been working for quite a while, but I've launched a nonprofit. It's called Show Me a Sign, and the point of it is to invest belief at scale, and to do that through every person and every organization. And so you can join me as a believer. You can sign up, and basically you There's a list of actions, specific things that you do, and you can go and log those. Running is one of them. You get points, kind of gamifies it. It's a fun thing. And I have chapters, start chapters at schools and in the community. But really, I also wanted to involve large organizations like the city. And so at the city level, what's involved in that are 2 things. One is helping me bring belief visible in the environment, number one, and number two is in the people. So two would be the chapters in the city, working with them to bring events like, we have this event coming up next month, we did it last year, the Motivation Mile. We're already doing some of those things as a city. But really the key one I wanted to talk about today was that first one, was bringing it into the environment, and how do you do that? And so what I call that is my Road Signs of Belief initiative. So at the city level, My nonprofit raises the money for signs of belief, and then working with the city government and city officials, getting permission, whether we have to change policy, whether we have, you know, have to talk about those things, but getting permission to install those around the city in key locations, not all over the place, not spamming and making it become something like wallpaper that you just ignore, but something really impactful.

Speaker E: Yeah.

Speaker B: in key areas and having those signs just like the ones that I hold when I run, but having them available 24/7. People that are coming home from work late at night, a terrible job situation, and they see that sign and it changes their day, it changes their week. It inspires them to do something completely different than they would have, to not road rage the people in front of them, to not go on Eagle Mountain City Citizens and post rude comments. Just think of the impact we could have with some of these things. Everybody smiled when I said that. You don't read that group, do you? No, it's a great group. I love living here. I've lived here for 20 years this year. And so that is my proposal to Eagle Mountain becoming the first believer city and helping me do those 2 things, bring belief into the environment and into the people. So I don't know how this works. I don't usually come to this. We have like a Q&A.

Speaker A: Yeah, that's, that's perfect. I actually just sent the website to Lacey to see if you put it on the screen.

Speaker B: Oh, okay, perfect. Yeah, because I just—

Speaker A: to show that if it's possible. If not, it's okay. One of the things that you'd mentioned earlier was the schools have signed up as a school or as a club. What I have pulled up is Become a Believer City, and then it just says sign up now. It says what is a Believer City, and then some of the activities and mentions and stuff on the website. So the question really is, does Eagle Mountain want to become a Believer City on the website? And there's no cost. So those are kind of the questions.

Speaker C: Can I weigh in here, Mayor? I had the opportunity to spend, gosh, I don't know, probably too long at Ben's house on a Saturday or Friday afternoon.

Speaker B: I invited you and he's like, yes, I'll be there.

Speaker C: And so we've discussed this in some detail, and I think that— I think number one, I want to say that I'm supportive of exploring this idea. I think that— I think it would be a shame for another city to become the first city to adopt or to embrace the I Believe in You mantra that Ben has kind of created. And so for me at least, I think it's something that we absolutely should have a real discussion about as a council and and decide, number one, is it something we should do? And I believe that it is. So I'm going to say that I'm supportive of that. I think there may be some challenges with it in some areas as to how do we do that and how do we remain— I just, in my mind's eye, there are some questions that I have that we need to deal with, with legal and other things, right? How are we fair and equal and even-handed with— other organizations who might have a similar need or a similar desire to partner with the city. But I think it's something that we should explore. And, uh, I've had the chance to look at his website, kind of go through it. I just invite each of you to do the same and become familiar with it. And I'd really like to see us take this up in one of our very next off-site meetings and see if we can't do something with that, and then find some time to support what he's got going on on this. Is it the 6th of June, right? Isn't that the date?

Speaker F: Yep. Yeah.

Speaker B: Yeah, 1:00 PM.

Speaker G: Okay.

Speaker H: What's the website?

Speaker B: It's showmeasign.org. Yeah.

Speaker I: I guess my question is how we apply what we do, I feel like can come later in the mix. Where and if signs are going in a certain place, all of those other things. But opting to be a believer city, it feels like a no-brainer to me, so I don't want to delay it at all. I think it'd be best if we— if that's what we want to do, that we move forward boldly and just take care of that, and then we can figure out the rest and how we apply it as a body.

Speaker B: Yeah, so if you click on Become a Believer, Button there, and then we're a city or town. So this page just goes through, it gives a kind of an overview, kind of a pitch, right? This is what it means, and this is why we need to do it, and then these are the benefits. And then there's actually a guide at the bottom you can go through. There's an audio overview at the top. So everything's here. to walk you through. And I understand there's challenges, right? I mean, you can't just have everybody going around putting signs, and you have to make sure it's done in a way that's legal, that's safe. Again, I wanted to reiterate, it's not something the city would pay for. I would raise the money myself through my nonprofit. I would just need to work with the administration side of it.

Speaker J: Can you scroll back up just where it shows that sign on the side of the road?

Speaker B: Oh, at the top?

Speaker J: Keep going. Right there. Is that an example of the kind of signs you're looking to put?

Speaker B: Yeah. So, okay. Yeah. So I have something I put a lot of thought into. It's called the Language of Belief. So there's another page on my site that you can go to and see. Basically, I feel really passionate about this. The best thing that I could say to you, if I had one, if I had 2 seconds with you, right? The most powerful thing I could say to you is I believe in you. I believe that's the best thing I could say. If I tell you I loved you, you didn't know me very well, right? It would be kind of weird. So I believe that's the best type of language to use is, hey, I believe in your potential to do something better. And so I believe in phrases that are of that ilk, right? Of a belief base. And so I actually have a whole list of phrases that I've rated. I have a scoring system and everything that you can go look at on the page as well, Language of Belief. But I would suggest that you look at those phrases and choose the ones that are highly scored there because I've seen them have the most impact.

Speaker J: That was my next question.

Speaker A: Yeah.

Speaker B: I put a lot of thought into it. There's a lot of signs you could put up.

Speaker J: So, we can just take a look at what the messages are.

Speaker H: Yeah.

Speaker J: Even the placement of where they are. I think that would be great. I like this idea. I think it's There is power in words, and sometimes, you know, nobody else can get through to a person, and something as simple as seeing something like that sparks something in you that allows you to take that next step. I think that— I think it's a great idea. I'd love to go through the number of places that we're talking about putting them. I think key locations would be great. I think this embodies What I think Eagle Mountain is, what I've been trying to push forward for the Eagle Mountain way, ways that we can show that we care about our community, that we're here for each other, that we're neighbors working together. I think this is a great way.

Speaker B: I love that, thank you. I keep trying to touch the screen, but it's a screen share.

Speaker K: I think just what you got on your shirt right there, I believe in you, that's so recognizable. I don't know why you're running Cory B. Ride. I was like, that guy's nuts.

Speaker B: I'm very visible and very safe.

Speaker K: But I honked at you a couple times, and it is cool. Like, you're on your way to work, you've had a crazy morning, and you just see that. It's like, some guy's running out here. It's not comfortable to run with a sign.

Speaker B: What a crazy person.

Speaker K: But I think it's a really cool idea. And around our city, there are things like the— I'm just thinking of the Eagle Monument— that people— I really didn't know that people cared that much.

Speaker B: Until it was gone.

Speaker K: Until it was gone, I was like, okay, that's like something that for people is very important. And I think the message that you've carried, that's pretty like a recognizable brand. In this case, the city would just be partnering with you on some parcels of land to put the signs in, is my understanding. Not maintaining the signs, just put them up. And I think we've got a lot of young kids that I think that message really resonates.

Speaker B: Thank you. And there's other things you would have to consider, right? Where we put them. Someone might like to get out and take a picture, right? So don't put them in precarious places. And just, we'd have to be really strategic about how we do that. Make sure it's safe, make sure it's clearly visible. But then again, like you said, let's not put them everywhere. Let's put 'em in key places that would make a big impact. And yeah, thank you for that.

Speaker H: So I'm meeting with Cedar Fort later this week to discuss like a race within the valley here. Cedar Fort has some need to raise funds for their fire department. We have some need to raise funds for our volunteer police. But I was thinking it may be interesting to add an element of this, of what you have, into that. But I may coordinate with you offline about that.

Speaker B: Very cool. Yeah, I've wanted to do a race. I actually looked into it a couple years back. Somebody I'm very busy. I don't make money doing this, right? So I don't want to, but somebody went to organize a race for me and then they kind of— something happened and they backed out, so I wasn't able to do it.

Speaker H: I think we could put together something that would be pretty powerful in the, in the valley here. So I'll be in touch with you on that.

Speaker B: Very cool. I'd love that. Thank you.

Speaker C: So, Mayor, if I can just— maybe I can wrap it up. What I'm hearing is support from the council to move forward in trying to become Believer City. and maybe working out the details of what that means as we go forward. Is that a fair assessment? Yes.

Speaker F: Melissa?

Speaker I: Yes.

Speaker A: Okay.

Speaker G: All right.

Speaker A: That's exactly what I was wondering is what do we want to do from here? Is there more discussion or can we sign up and then work out sign locations? So I think the direction is to have staff, whoever that is, to go ahead and log on and become a Believer City. And then as needs come in, is there any action item required on that? Marcus, are we okay just to—

Speaker C: We can put it on the legislative priority list.

Speaker I: Be generous.

Speaker F: You know, I mean, I think if, uh, the mayor feels comfortable moving forward, given the, the discussion went, then I think you have the authority to move forward. I don't think there needs to be a vote on it and be that formal about it.

Speaker A: If that's— yeah, that's why I was making sure. So if that's the general consensus, I think we'll have Uh, Ben, direct somebody to look into this. And then as the sign locations, things like that become needs, we'll have to approve those as they come in, each, each one other, and just sign it up for now.

Speaker I: Mayor, I also think it would be useful if we were to do like a resolution or a proclamation at some point down the road. It doesn't have to be tied to signing up, but kind of declaring that we are a Believer City, I think, is that way all of the council can vote on that too.

Speaker A: Yeah, I think that would be fun. I was actually thinking earlier today about reading, you know, like we've done before, today's whatever day, you know, that today we're recognizing El Monte as a believer city. So I think that's something we can do in the near future as we, as we progress. So that works. Thank you very much.

Speaker B: Awesome.

Speaker A: Looks like we'll be signing up.

Speaker B: Thank you so much. Thanks for your time.

Speaker C: Thanks, Ben.

Speaker A: Okay, we're gonna go back to item 1A, a discussion about tax increment financing and bonding options. And we have with us— do you want to lead into that? Or I think we can turn it right over to Laura Lewis, our bond counsel, and she can help us understand the needs of our bonding.

Speaker L: Thank you for allowing me just a few minutes when I arrived. I appreciate that. I am Laura Lewis, your municipal advisor with LRB Public Finance Advisors. Randy Larson with Gilmore Bell is bond counsel, and they would be preparing all the legal documents And since we're going to discuss different options of how you might want to secure the financing, I've asked him to be here if you have any questions in that regard. Because of our timing, we may have to move sort of with like a, you know, dual-pronged approach. So I'm going to hand out— did this— I don't know if I sent this in time for it to get up on the screen, so I'm so sorry.

Speaker F: Okay.

Speaker I: Did everybody get one?

Speaker L: I've got more. I won't be able to sell them afterwards, so. All right. Well, we're here to talk about the financing for a project that's needed in conjunction with a development within the RDA area. The funds will be used to accelerate offsite infrastructure improvements of Old Airport Road and Lake Mountain Corridor, which, you know, if it weren't for this, they would get built to like the minimum, if you will. And someone else in the room that's an engineer or whatever could give you more detail. But otherwise, they would be built to a more minimum standard. With this financing, they'll be able to build, uh, you know, the full width, put in turn lanes, and all of those things, which will be, um, very beneficial for the city. The, uh, terms of the development agreement with the developer within the CRA haven't changed. We're not here to discuss any of that. The arrangement's still the same. The participation will be for the city as well as the county— different, um, percentages of participation— but the city and county will each participate by allowing the, um, a portion of the sales tax generated just off this new development to support the, the cash flows for the bonds. Same duration, so everything there that you've talked about before, um, remains the same. The general finance plan— so I, um, you know, remind all of my clients frequently that what we, um, you know, what you identify as the cash source to repay the debt doesn't necessarily necessarily have to be what you use as security. They can be one and the same, probably, well, I'm going to say 80% of the time they are, maybe only 70%, but sometimes we pledge a certain thing. So an example might be in Ogden. So if they did a parking structure, but at the time they weren't collecting parking revenues, so we pledged the asset as opposed to the revenue stream. So it doesn't always have to be, you know, what you're actually financing. So the finance plan here is there's an independent third-party entity by the name of EPS Denver that is conducting a study relative to the sales taxes that will be generated off of— they project will be generated off of just this project area. And they have national databases for how much a, you know, fill in the blank, a home improvement store or grocery store or super mega Walmart or whatever might produce. That's a lot of money. And they are pulling that together along with data that they are able to get locally. Utah law prescribes that that data be maintained under very strict ways that it can be delivered to them, that they can use it in studies. But they are trying to dial down so that you and the bondholders have a very good idea of what those revenues are likely to be. We anticipate a delivery of like the numbers related to that by the end of this month, so in a little over a week, and the full written report by the middle of June. The timing is such so that they would like to get under construction by the end of July, like shovels in the ground. And so we've got a little bit of a mismatch in terms of like waiting for all of that final data before you decide how you'd like to um, finance it. And so we're here tonight to discuss it so you can sort of see the, you know, the pros and cons of different options. Um, I did see, uh, an email that, uh, your city manager sent to you, and I wanted to hire him because he did a— Well, that's good for you. Good for you. He did a flawless job of giving you, uh, information in advance, so it will allow me to go through this a little bit faster. So the debt will be structured based on what we see those projected revenues to be. Our goal will be to structure the debt. If we think the projected revenues are here, we'll put the debt right in, we'll try to tuck it right in so that the finance plan will be for those revenues to repay the debt. So again, with the finance plan, the finance, we know what the revenue is going to be. Now we have to discuss how you want to backstop it, if you want to backstop it, to further securitize that loan. So option 1 will be just to pledge the sales tax tax increment that is coming off of that project area. And as Ben described in his information to you, should we get those, you know, that data back and we go, oh, well, it looks like for every dollar we have in debt, we have $1.01 in likely revenue, that might be a very difficult bond to sell, right? These are projections. They are trying to be conservative. We have been conservative. So Ideally, in order to sell it as a tax increment bond only, that's the only thing that we're pledging, then I would like to have 1.5 times coverage. So for every $1.50 you get in TIF revenue, we would structure it so that your debt payment would only be $1. Therefore, if there's a bad disease, we're spreading, people don't shop as much for a while or whatever, you've got some headroom.

Speaker A: Thank you.

Speaker L: Under your development agreement, you would still capture all of that revenue and you would seek to set it aside to use it as soon as you could, depending upon the bond structure, to call the bonds. So it wouldn't be lost. It just gives some headroom and comfort to, you know, the bondholders about that revenue stream. Because of that, you know, as we go through these 3 options, think about if I were buying that bond, right? If you're the bond purchaser, that's going to be your highest-risk bond. What do they want for risk? Brett knows. They want a higher return, right? So that's the highest-risk bond. You know, we'll structure it so that it's likely to be very successful, but there's nothing else behind it. Sales taxes don't come off of that specific project. Oh dear, right? We're in trouble, right? So that's going to carry a higher interest rate. I've got a summary table with data on on their About the Rates here in a little bit. That transaction also, because of its— it won't carry a rating, there's a likelihood that we may want to do that as a direct purchase as opposed to a public offering. There's both good and bad with the direct purchase. I just mention it because it's different and the numbers on here may show a little bit different. That's option 1. Option 2 is the same Tax increment pledge. So again, we're still planning on using those revenues, but instead of just leaving it, you know, alone, the city can choose to backstop it with your moral obligation. What that means is the city would adopt a resolution that says if there are insufficient revenues to make that debt payment, then we would consider— it does not obligate you— we would consider making up the differential. The obligation would require you to put that shortfall amount into your budget so that you have to actively take it out, but it doesn't force you to make the payment. It just is a show of good faith that, you know, they're not just going to, oh yeah, we said that, but, you know, no one is ever going to get it on the budget, right? It's a show of good faith that you would put it in the budget. You could again, very easily and actively take it out. You're not obligated to do it under that option. The city's credit is high enough that the bond market would view that very strongly because they're gonna say, eh, they're not gonna wanna stiff us on this deal, right? So it's going to sell well, but again, know that you're not obligated. The third option is sort of the full punch. Again, we pledge the tax increment from that project area, but instead of just having the moral obligation, the city can choose to make a binding commitment and pledge citywide sales tax to repay that obligation from that small portion if it doesn't generate enough to pay the debt service. I would advise that if you do that, that we do that pledge on a subordinate basis, Meaning that your other sales tax bondholders would get paid first, and any other bonds that you put on parity with that would get paid first. And from the remaining sales tax revenue, you would pay any shortfall from that other from the from the subset area of this development. So with that, then quantitatively on page the bottom of page. 3. You can see the options laid out with what the construction fund— I mean, construction funds are the same across the board, that $8 million I mentioned. In some of the structures, in the TIF-only structure and the moral obligation structure, there's still enough of a risk that we would want to— for the bondholders so they will buy the bonds, we would want to fund a debt service reserve fund from the bond proceeds. So the The city doesn't have to come up with the money. It comes out of the bond. It gets released to make the last payment. But it's a cushion there. If it's TIF only, again, if you're a bondholder, got your bondholder hat on, if it's TIF only and the development's slow or whatever happens that means that there's a little bit of a shortfall, that gives them a cushion to draw on that reserve.

Speaker E: Right?

Speaker L: If the city— so you go to option 3. If the city chooses to backstop it with a subordinate Sales tax pledge, we don't need to fund that reserve because your you know current sales tax bond rating I think is a double A minus, and it's viewed as a very strong credit. You have gobs of sales tax revenue, so they wouldn't be worried about getting paid. So we wouldn't have to fund that reserve fund. The cost of issuance are going to be a little bit higher with a non-rated bond because we have to you know pay the underwriter more to. sell, you know, that security, or if we do a direct purchase, we may— there may be a purchaser fee they have to pay to review the credit. So you can see the difference in the par amount of the bonds. It goes down with the, you know, bettering of the credit, so to speak, for those reasons. The amortization is the same straight across. I anticipate the rating to be non-rated on option 1, middle of the road on option A+ to AA- with a subordinate sales tax pledge. I think it will be a little bit less than your current regular sales tax bonds because these are subordinate to that. You see the difference in interest rates as a TIF pledge only about— I'm guessing in today's market would be about at a 6.20. On the other option, the bookends, so to speak, I think we could get a subordinate sales sales tax done at about a 4.12% over that 15 years. You see the differentials in average annual payment. On the high end, it's $930,000 a year. On the lower end with the sales tax backstop, it's $732,000. Then you can just see the difference in that amount paid over time. One way I at least want you to think about this is if the city is willing, again, they are all great options. we'll be able to get the bonds done. But if you are willing to either give us a moral obligation or a subordinate sales tax backstop, that means that the— because again, what are we going to use to repay this no matter what? The TIF off the project area, right? Well, if the interest rate is lower, there's a higher likelihood that's going to cover the debt. There's a higher likelihood we'll be able to pay it off sooner. So there are advantages to doing it that way. But I know the one probably big concern or question. Drum roll to the next page. Top of page 4 is what will that impact be if we go ahead and make that pledge? And I should have had to make it a different color. My old eyes have a hard time seeing it, but I'll point it out for you and get out your magnifying glass. If you do choose to support the transaction with a subordinate sales tax pledge, What could we— we've got other projects we need to do, Laura, and you want to be able to finance them with, you know, possibly with sales tax backing depending upon what they are. So the graph at the top of page 4, that top blue line is what your current sales tax revenues are. It's $12 million and change. Maybe it's all $13 million. Now the anticipated for 2026 is in the $13 million range. So that's your sales tax. Again, you can see we're holding it flat. That's not true. A quiz, has your sales tax been flat? Nope.

Speaker M: Nope.

Speaker L: Shoo, it goes up because you've got a lot of growth, you've got a lot of new commercial coming into town. So again, this is a very conservative look at that. If your sales tax revenue remained constant at the $13 million and change, that little blue, the little blue bar at the top of this is would be the 2026 subordinate pledge. So you can see, yes, it takes up some of that headroom, but not a lot. The green bar is— oh, the orange bar is your current sales tax outstanding bonds. The green bars are what the hypothetical debt is. What is your bandwidth? If you were gonna go to the max, we're gonna borrow up to that 2 times coverage and build to your little heart's content, and you could bond for about $82 million.

Speaker A: Okay.

Speaker L: today with no sales tax revenue increase, right, which you're likely to have?

Speaker E: $82 million.

Speaker L: $82 million. I'm not advocating you spend it all, but you have a lot of capacity is the point here. So that if you agree or decide to do the backstop, you're not, you know, losing anything, because I don't think you're planning on bonding for $82 million. If so, Randy and I will be like, woo-hoo. So with that, your— the other thing is, will this have any impact on the sewer bonds that you need to issue because of, you know, the expansion that's needed at your treatment plant? And the answer to that is no. There will be no impact because those bonds— again, we've talked about what secures each bond, right? What secures those bonds are water, sewer, and storm sewer revenues after you pay operations and maintenance.

Speaker E: Yes.

Speaker L: So do the bondholders care, the rating agencies care about the general health of the city?

Speaker I: Yes.

Speaker L: Will this have any direct impact on those bonds? No, not at all. Let's see, last but not least, I've got some stuff on the current market conditions. I was telling Evan I could just put a tornado there because that's what it feels like, right? Every day is a new whatever. Municipal bond rates in the last week have followed the increase in Treasury yields, not, you know, basis point by basis point, but they have gone up. Treasury rates have actually gone up more. It's making long-end municipal bonds harder to sell because there's a bigger divergence between those two on the long end. If any of you listen to the news, you probably know what's driving market conditions largely right now. I mean, there's always, you know, economic data coming out, but, you know, the concern— excuse me— over, you know, the oil not flowing freely through the Strait of Hormuz and what's that going to do to the world economy. Yeah, EIA petroleum— you have had to save me with water before. Thank you. The petroleum status report is due tomorrow. FOMC minutes are going to be released tomorrow. So depending upon that petroleum report, it might not be a great market in the— great day in the market. You know, we watch jobless claims, et cetera. You can see the historical bond indices. We're at not the peak, you know, since 2016 on the municipal side, but we're on the higher end. If we were to take this graph and look like back since the dawn of time, because I'm really old, I remember when interest rates I was in the mortgage industry in the early '80s. Well, they were like 18% mortgages, if you can imagine. So if we looked at this over a longer period of time, this is close-ish to average. It's a little bit above average. So it's not a bad time to issue bonds. It's never wise to play the market, particularly in a volatile market, because heaven only knows what tomorrow's going to bring. On the last page, we've got what the AAA municipal market data— so this is a tax-exempt historical historical look at a tax-exempt benchmark. And with that, I'm going to turn a little bit of time over to Randy to talk to you about the— under the 3 options, what legal documents you would have to adopt as an RDA and as a city council. If you could take a minute to do that. Okay with that?

Speaker K: Mayor, can I ask some questions, or do we want to wait?

Speaker A: I think this might be relevant, so I wasn't sure if you were ready for questions.

Speaker L: Yeah, I thought I'd let him talk and then he or I will answer your questions.

Speaker A: So let's have Randy talk and then we'll go to questions.

Speaker M: You bet.

Speaker J: I'll be, I'll be quick like the lawyer at the end of a commercial. Okay, the, uh, the city will need to adopt a resolution for either the moral obligation pledge or the sales tax subordinate pledge. For the TIF bonds, that will be the CRA. So of course the city council is the governing body, but that will be the one that takes action to issue the bonds. Um, for all 3 of those, they, uh, there is a notice and a 30-day contest period that follows, um, the, uh, the date of adoption, how quickly we can get it into the newspaper.

Speaker A: Mm-hmm.

Speaker J: But there is not a public hearing for any of the 3 proposals that Laura has discussed, uh, required in that, in in that process, okay? Trying to think if there's anything else that would— well, parallel would be the project area for the CRA, and I don't know exactly where we're at with that, but we could run parallel to create the project area to allow for the sales tax increment to be collected, and we could run that parallel with the bonds, but that would be a parallel legal process to the bonding process.

Speaker C: Okay.

Speaker O: Sound good?

Speaker K: That was quick for an attorney.

Speaker J: Just wait till I send you my documents.

Speaker L: He'll make up for it, trust me.

Speaker K: Oh yeah. I'll be just recusing myself from the vote, but just from an education— I don't— I'm not giving any investment advice to the council. So I just want to be clear on that. But I— Laura, thank you for your presentation. That was really succinct and super helpful. The one question I had was going back to, to the debt capacity. You mentioned the $82 million. If, if we were to take out debt, let's say for a city hall or something not commercially related, yes, is that something we need to factor into this $82 million number, or could Would that be outside as like a general obligation? Is this just looking at commercial tax?

Speaker L: This is just looking at sales tax, yes. So if you were to finance a city hall, a rec center, parks, fire station, all of those kind of vertical projects, all of those could be done with a GO vote, could be done with sales tax as the security. Or it can be done with the actual physical facility as a security as well. Now, in order of interest rate, again, I started with the lowest interest rate is going to be GO bond. Second will be the sales tax, and those are probably 10 or 15 basis points from each other, so not even a whole quarter percent, but there will be some difference. And then probably add a quarter percent or 25 basis points to that if you did it as a building authority. Building authority is how we secure if we pledge the real property as the asset. So I'd want to like know, I mean, have an idea. Nobody knows the future, right? But I'd want to know like, okay, is the plan to finance a city hall and then a rec center? If we had some idea of timing, right? Rec center, the rating agencies will knock you down because they don't view view it as essential. Now I have looked at them, you know me well enough, I have looked at them and said citizens would rather a rec center than a cool city hall as a general rule. But they don't care. They view a city hall as essential. Fire station is essential. Police station is essential. So if we were, you know, if we wanted to say, okay, we don't want all of our sales tax capacity used up, we want, you know, the physical facility to act as security to one or more of these. We could do it as a building authority, keep your sales tax capacity freed up, if you would. And we also— this nice thing we don't do in the, you know, personal or commercial lending world, but local governments, we can cross-collateralize your assets. So let's say you wanted to do a park and it's like, oh, well, you know, bond market thinks that's nonessential. You'd still get a good rating, but you wouldn't get as of rating if it were a city hall. Well, we can— or a fire station. We can finance a fire station and the park. They're cross-collateralized. You make the lease payment on one or you make the lease payment on either of them. Similar with city hall. So you have various options.

Speaker K: So in a worst-case scenario, we could max out the $82 million for commercial-related activities and in in addition to that, do a GO bond for a city hall or— okay.

Speaker P: Yes.

Speaker K: I just wanted to be clear on that without impacting our credit rating.

Speaker E: Yes.

Speaker K: The second question I had, I was just looking at, and it may just be a difference in the credit agencies. It looks like you're using S&P. I was looking at Fitch this morning and it had, I guess these are 15-year bonds, but the 5-year AA I think was like at 3.7%. We're at 4.1%. How would you compare those?

Speaker L: I always hedge when I'm showing numbers in the public.

Speaker K: So our rate could be better than what you're showing here.

Speaker E: Okay.

Speaker L: To that point, I had a conversation with my colleague that does all my quantitative analysis, and I'm like, ooh, because he had that, the one with the sales tax backs off about a 384 or something in that neighborhood. And I'm like, ooh, Nate, have you read the news? today, right? I mean, because it's just a matter— I mean, if we had been marketed today, right? Yes, I think we would be under 4.

Speaker J: Okay.

Speaker L: But because we're not marketing today, I put a little bit of wiggle room in it. Again, these aren't guaranteed rates or anything, but just again for the purpose of, you know, not getting too dialed down and having markets change and people go, well, you had on this piece of paper.

Speaker K: So I, I have been some Okay, and then maybe just 2 more quick questions. We have the ability to prepay. Is there a limited amount of time that we could pay?

Speaker L: It depends on the structure. So if we did a direct purchase, the difference between direct purchase and a public offering would be if we did a direct purchase, we would put together a term sheet and submit it on your behalf. It would state right at the top that we are acting as your municipal advisor, and purchasers would know that. We would submit it to purchasers, I think most of which, maybe one, that we have a list of probably 12 or so that we're sending those out to. I think all but one of them would be a bank, bank that you'd be familiar with their name. If that direct purchaser were to buy the bonds, we don't need an underwriter. We don't need an offering document. We still need a plethora of legal documents, but we don't need an offering document. Typically, with direct purchase, they will— some of the purchasers will view it as having an edge if they allow the bonds to be callable at any time. So it's one of the things that in addition to rate, they'll say, okay, we'll give you rate X and we'll allow it to be callable at any time. Another entity may say, we'll give you rate, you know, X minus, but we won't allow it to be callable. So it's one of the things, if we do a direct purchase, we get all the stuff back. We, you know, put together a nifty little spreadsheet so that you can see all the, you know, options, if you will, and we work with the city, your finance director and city manager, to choose what's going to be best for you. In that instance, I think it would be highly likely that they would be callable Maybe not any time, but I bet we could at least get down to a 5-year call, maybe a 1-year call without a penalty. If we do a public offering, the standard currently is to have 10-year par bonds, so we wouldn't be able to prepay them until year 10.

Speaker K: For a decade.

Speaker L: We can— we've been able to negotiate with— when bonds are being structured with 5% coupons, we can usually get away with a 9-year par call. If you said, I want to have them callable sooner, well, every year I come down, that's going to drive your interest rate up. That changes in the market, and typically, it doesn't get very cost-effective to get too demanding beyond like a 7-year. You really start to lose the edge you might think you are going to get by having that bond callable, because you're paying more in yield for it. Okay.

Speaker K: Thank you.

Speaker C: Can I ask one clarifying question, Mayor? Laura, how is MET calculated? Is it part of the sales tax revenue calculation, or is it a separate consideration?

Speaker L: Can you see the deer in the headlights?

Speaker I: Clearly it's separate.

Speaker C: Okay, and that's what I thought. I just wanted to make sure that I was thinking correctly, that it is separate, because that's also another revenue stream. That could be pledged towards something, perhaps if the city decides to go in a different direction.

Speaker L: Oh, municipal energy tax. Hello.

Speaker H: I just—

Speaker L: I didn't— I was— as you could see, I was like, MET. I was thinking tax terms.

Speaker C: Municipal energy tax.

Speaker A: Yes, you can.

Speaker L: You can also pledge that. We can pledge that in conjunction with or separate too. So let's say you just use, you know, the sales tax here. Then you could pledge your municipal energy tax to a park to support a park bond. So it was a good question. I'm sorry I wasn't up to speed on my acronyms.

Speaker C: So the municipal energy tax is calculated into this— into the graphs that you provided?

Speaker L: It is not included. That is correct.

Speaker J: Thank you.

Speaker L: Laura.

Speaker F: Yes.

Speaker L: You're going to throw another acronym at me?

Speaker J: No, I hate them. You'll never hear me say an acronym.

Speaker L: And I should have known that one.

Speaker J: I'll say it. My question's actually, what happens to the bond should the state take over the road maintenance? They designated it as a state road. Do we continue to pay on the bond till the end of the bond?

Speaker L: Yes, unless you can negotiate something with the state to pay you. I mean, never say never. I would ask, certainly, but my guess is that they would likely say, oh, we're taking the maintenance. Too bad, you paid for it. But never say never.

Speaker A: If there aren't any other questions, I, I think— are we looking for specifically which of the 3 options we're comfortable with?

Speaker L: That, that would be preferable because it allows us to— allows us— it allows him to write up the various documents.

Speaker G: Yep, Mr. Larson will need to prepare the documents, and there are 3 different sets. If it's depending upon which option, it's best to have some consensus.

Speaker C: I'll speak first, Mayor, if you'll let me. I think we should do the one where we, we We guarantee the security. I mean, we get a lower interest rate. I also am uncomfortable with setting aside $900,000 or $800,000 that sits in that revenue fund that sits on the front end. It reduces the amount of money that we can put to work, and that money becomes worth less and less as we have to sit on that for 15 years. So I just— The third option makes the most sense to me. It's certainly the the safest for the bondholders and probably the riskiest for the city. Sorry, but I also think that we get the best bang for our buck.

Speaker J: Are you stating option 3 just for clarity? Okay.

Speaker I: I'm in the same boat. I think that that puts us in the strongest position to be able to do all the things that we know we're gonna have to tackle in the next couple of years. And it makes sense to go for the lowest interest rate possible. So I'm in agreeing with Councilmember Wright.

Speaker A: And I kind of heard whispers on this side that everybody says Option 3. So for sake of time, I think, uh, it looks like Option 3 is, is our preference. So is there any other needs on this specific item that you guys need, or—

Speaker L: Nope. Thank you for your time. Appreciate it.

Speaker A: Thank you.

Speaker F: Thank you both.

Speaker A: All right, moving right along. We will move to discussion item 1C. This is about recreation events sponsorship and advertising. This, I know Steve Mumford has a little bit and also our Community Services Board Chair Jesse Southworth, and Melissa also wanted to lead in with a little bit. You're welcome to plug in for the presentation.

Speaker I: While she's walking up here, I just wanted to let the rest of council know that I, first, I love being a liaison to this board. But second, Jesse and I had a really great opportunity to meet with Jason Hall and Mayor and just talk about the state of soccer and where we're headed and some of those things. And as a part of that conversation, making sure that we're competitive in what we offer our kids that sign up was a big part of the discussion. And as we got into that, we started talking about ways to pay for that and it naturally led to a conversation about sponsorships for soccer and just rec things. And I felt more comfortable bringing it back to the body so that everyone would have a chance to weigh in on it. And that's kind of where we are today. So—

Speaker A: And then, Viss, before you get started, Steve, did you have anything that you wanted to lead in with?

Speaker J: Just to note that Jason Hall and Dawn Hancock are here to answer questions. I know Jessie's going to— she's taking taken this on and is going to present and answer your questions and represent our board as well. But she'll talk about sports and events a little bit as well. So as you're thinking of sponsorships, we're thinking of the whole gamut.

Speaker K: So yep, turn it over to Jessie.

Speaker P: Thank you, one second, sorry. It's real weird.

Speaker Q: Okay, I don't know why.

Speaker P: All right, good afternoon, Mayor and Council. Um, so the Community Services Board would like to explore sponsorship opportunities for recreation programs and community events. Uh, right now the city does not accept any sponsorships for recreation programs, but I know they've been used in the past for events, but nothing formal has ever been, uh, created or followed. Um, and I think that's just a missed opportunity, so I wanted to take this on. Um, today I'm not asking for any, like, official final approval of a sponsorship program. We just simply are looking for direction on whether or not the board should move forward with discussing and developing a formal sponsorship policy framework. If there is support, we would work through the details and bring a recommendation back to the council for review. I think why this is worth doing, sponsorships create a win-win-win situation without burdening families with higher fees or putting everything on taxpayers. Sponsorships would directly improve resident residents' experiences. They allow for lower costs to participate, better equipment and facilities, access to scholarships for those who need them, and overall higher quality programs. Local businesses want to support their community, and sponsorships give them an organized, meaningful channel to do that while building goodwill. And sponsorships would help stretch the city's budget further and reduce the burden of municipal funding. As you can see here, many of our neighboring cities already have sponsorship programs in place. They range anywhere from— most of them are around $300 to around $25,000. And that shows to me 2 things. First, there's a lot of flexibility in how a program can be structured. And second, there's real potential to improve the recreation program services and events provided for our residents. This is a closer look at what Saratoga Springs offers for their recreation sponsorships, and it would be a fairly simple plan for us to recreate. Each tier provides additional benefits, giving businesses more visibility and value at higher sponsorship levels. My personal belief is that we should start with the jersey logo sponsorships. They're simple, clear, and would require minimal effort to implement. These images show what leagues in our area are already doing, including the Eagle Mountain Youth Soccer, which is who we partnered with, one of the club teams, Liverpool, and even you've got Real Salt Lake there. The approach would help offset costs, allow us to provide higher quality materials, and improve the overall experience for our recreation participants. For event sponsorships, I pulled Lehigh as an example. This model provides an organized path with clear expectations for both the city and potential sponsors. We could do something similar or start even with a simpler version. And then the final question is, are you comfortable with the board continuing to explore the overall concept of the sponsorships? And more importantly, are there any concerns, limits, or red lines you would— we should be aware of before we go further?

Speaker I: I'll add too really quick that we had the opportunity to meet with Jason. We haven't sat down with Dawn yet to find out what her desire and needs are, but that would be a part of the Community Services Board's process before they did anything to really get feedback from events.

Speaker K: I personally think this is a great way to lift some cost from the parents. That's the direction that we're going. Um, it also gives an opportunity for businesses to market throughout the community and contribute to the community maybe in other ways that they can't. So I, I am fine with it. The one thing that I'm just kind of thinking through what, what kind of events would we have sponsored. I, I, I think in some events it might be okay, in other events— and maybe Don could guide us on where we could do support as a city— but we also want to be careful to not, I guess, playing favorites. If you go up to Idaho Falls for the 4th of July, it's a Melaleuca fireworks show even though it's Idaho Falls.

Speaker I: Right.

Speaker K: So we just need to be careful to make sure that we're retaining the events that we want to support and farming out events that maybe we're okay with third parties paying for. But I love the idea of jerseys for sure.

Speaker J: The thought that just kind of came to my mind along those lines is if you have a sponsorship partner that suddenly is somebody we don't want to be a partner with because something happens, we need to have the capability of being able to absorb whatever that sponsorship So to his point about a fireworks show, let's say that our sponsor, whoever that might be, suddenly has done something in the media, everybody hates them.

Speaker E: Right.

Speaker J: We need to be able to have the capability of being able to pull out of something like that. Second thing, love the idea with the jerseys. I think that's smart. I'd say let's go even further and, and go after the field markers, all of that kind of things, things that There's a cost associated with that we could do better with and have better ways of marking things. I think those are great things. I do think there's a maybe an argument to be made as separating them so that there are sponsorships for recreation and sponsorships for events, and depending on the event, I mean, obviously with like some of our big events, maybe we want to structure that differently, right? To be able to. get a sponsorship goal that we need to get to, to be able to fund this as part of our, you know, getting t-shirts or something like that for all of our volunteers or whatever. I think if you keep it separate, maybe it's a little easier to manage what the sponsorship looks like. Last question, who's responsible for seeking the sponsorships every year?

Speaker P: The Community Services Board.

Speaker J: So you guys will be making telephone calls to businesses?

Speaker P: Yes.

Speaker J: That's, that's the question.

Speaker P: Or, I mean, unless there's a better solution, but as of now, I think—

Speaker J: I think that's got to be part of what we make the decision on, that there's a plan in place that we put in place. Because if you're not on the Community Services Board in 4 years, does the next person behind you have the same passion to chase after that? And then do we lose kind of that benefit? So I think whatever we do, it needs to have the ability to ex— I will say this, They get hit by a bus. If you get hit by a bus tomorrow, does the next person have those things in place? Well, I do it for me all the time too, because like if I'm the person with the passion and nobody else has it, does it move on past me? And I think if we're going to have success with it, it needs to be built in where it doesn't require you to be successful. Okay.

Speaker H: I totally support this. I think it's awesome. And this is the creativity and energy that I was hoping that this board would provide. And it's amazing to feel that already with the board as new as it is. I think it's awesome. Kudos to what you're doing, and, uh, thank you. Uh, local first, I think, yes. Uh, I would say if there's a tie in terms of like 2 businesses vying for one spot, then it would go to the local business.

Speaker P: Right. Okay.

Speaker H: I think that's where I would go with that. But I think regional sponsors, certainly whoever's willing to help out here, I'm totally good with. So Yeah, thank you.

Speaker C: Develop the policy, Jesse, with your board. I, I love the idea. I like the creativity. You guys figure it out and come tell us how it's going to function.

Speaker E: Okay.

Speaker I: We've talked about this a little bit already, but, um, one of the other things that came up in our discussions was making sure that we're not putting ourselves in a position that we're competing with already local nonprofits that are trying to do good in the community. And I think that you have Some cool ideas to address that. So I'm excited to see what you guys come up with. Thank you.

Speaker P: Thank you.

Speaker A: You look like you had a second idea. All right, I think that gives us pretty good direction to work on and go ahead and start with the policy and come back.

Speaker P: Okay, thank you.

Speaker A: Thanks. All right.

Speaker F: Good work.

Speaker A: We'll move back.

Speaker G: Yeah, thank you.

Speaker A: Everybody said good work with no mic on. Uh, 1D discussion for Corrigan Farms rezones. Senior Planner David Stroud.

Speaker M: All right, Mayor and Council, again, this is a discussion item tonight for the Corrigan Farms. I'll show you the general location aerial here. As you can see, we're near QTS, we're near Meta. In fact, the yellow line is the boundary between the city and the county. In fact, the property that is there in the red obviously is a corrugated. That's actually the staging site right now for the contractor trailers and whatnot for QTS. But the applicant had approached the city and requested initially the industrial zone. One of the comments we had from staff was RTI is probably would be a better zone there. And so looking at the zoning map, you can see The property with the red square. The property is currently surrounded on 3 sides by the RTI zone. And then of course the county to the west. So that was our recommendation that the RTI zone would probably be the best option if you're going to rezone due to the nature that RTI currently surrounds the property on 3 sides. And so we present that tonight as a discussion item for you.

Speaker H: 100%, yes.

Speaker J: Yeah, I'm— RTI is what it ought to be. I think that's the whole purpose of this. So yeah, I'm assuming you're going to bring this back in a formal rezone then?

Speaker A: Excuse me?

Speaker J: You'll be bringing this back in a formal rezone?

Speaker M: Yeah, yeah, I would come back. Yeah, we're just discussing. I get your, your feedback. If something you think is more appropriate there, great, let's discuss.

Speaker J: But, uh, no, I think this is always been the intent of this area. The RTI fits the narrative of what we're trying to do in that area, leaving the underlying zone there. So I think the rest of it's all agricultural and RTI.

Speaker M: So, and if it's any consolation, I'm sure the county zoning— Brandon may be able to speak— it's probably RA-5 out there as well, which is similar to our ag zone as it is.

Speaker J: So, okay.

Speaker K: The only question I had was, why was it not rezoned with with the RTI initially?

Speaker M: I, I— the applicant can speak to, I believe, looking at the county records. I think Corrigan, at least the name Corrigan, it could be the same group, but, but that name is fairly new to that parcel, so it could be newer owners. Because this time, previous owners may have been—

Speaker J: I don't think it was QTS's property. I think it's being sold to them. That's my understanding.

Speaker I: Yeah.

Speaker K: Okay.

Speaker M: Maybe the previous owners didn't—

Speaker F: Yeah.

Speaker M: Hey, we don't, we don't want to do that. Who knows?

Speaker A: Okay, thank you. It sounds like bring it back. And then if I know you've got the next one, Deer Run concept plans. So unless you had more to add, let's move right on to Deer Run.

Speaker M: Okay, Deer Run is a request from Ivory Homes. The property— here's the aerial. You can see it's on the north side of SR 73 and the newly extended portion of Airport Road. The property you see there in blue, zoning of the property is foothill residential, and the applicant has drawn up a concept plan based on that foothill residential. Zooming in a little bit, you can see there is an important aspect to this property, and that's the deer migration corridor. Does go through the northwest corner of that. The bump out you see there on the northeast portion of the property as well. That is actually 2 parcels owned by the city, and so the applicant would like to incorporate that property as well into the project. Those those 2 parcels are currently under the Clearview Development Agreement. The 2 biggest portions on the Clearview Agreement are half-acre lots, and it does have equine rights on those parcels as well. So the potential layout that the applicant has submitted, as you see here. We did have to massage this a bit due to block lengths, for instance, to the adjacent Holbrook property, which is unhighlighted on the properties there to the west. Certainly, I believe the applicant has been inquiring with Holbrook on purchasing that in the future, as was related to the Planning Commission at the previous meeting. But the applicant, bottom line, would be a single-family development. A couple issues for discussion would be the city property. There is a wash that does go through the property. Staff is of the opinion that the wash would be best served either as open space or to the city. The way it's drawn up right now, the property lines would go to the— the center line of the wash would be private property. And then of course the deer migration corridor would be another discussion point as well. The applicant is here tonight.

Speaker K: The question I had is that obviously the wildlife corridor, if that little tip or corner, how many lots does that come back if you were to—

Speaker O: you're probably looking at the corridor.

Speaker K: Yeah, to that line. What is it? Is it lots 102, 3, 4, Yeah, 102, maybe 103.

Speaker M: And of course, the corner of that long lot, 101. Obviously, whatever's done with 101, you can't use that corner of it anyway for anything. So it probably wouldn't affect 101 very much, if at all. Definitely would be 102, 103, and whatever the potential for the adjacent Holbrook property as well.

Speaker K: Does it cut into Lot 116, or is it just those, those 2?

Speaker M: I don't want to say just those 2 lots, but I would say it probably does not affect much, if at all. And again, you've got that long corner triangular piece which you wouldn't be able to build or do anything with anyway, so probably wouldn't affect that one a whole lot.

Speaker E: Okay.

Speaker K: If at all.

Speaker H: So, so what's going on with Lot 101? So Lot 101, what, what Is going on with that?

Speaker M: Uh, I, I think the applicant expressed, uh, the possible church site.

Speaker G: Okay.

Speaker H: And so they would— and there would not be any access from within the development? That would just be— the road would go along the north side of Lot 101?

Speaker M: Yeah, there wouldn't be any access. Certainly, as this progresses, we would want to see— if it does become a church site, we'd want to see at least some pedestrian access through Is Lot 101, the size of that contributing to the overall—

Speaker H: like, I know you have to have a required average. Is Lot 101 sort of pulling up that average?

Speaker M: It's an average lot size. I would say Brad, if you want to come up, Brad. Brad Mackey with Ivory Homes is here. Do you know, Brad, did that— does that factor into the overall size of the—

Speaker O: I believe it does, yes.

Speaker K: Because it's not a lot.

Speaker O: And the Holbrook family actually still owns that piece and will always own that. It will be a donation to the LDS Church from the Holbrook family.

Speaker F: So under our city code, if there's sort of an outlier lot, it's actually not factored into average lot size. So that would not count towards the average lot size, even if it remains as is. So it would still have to comply without factoring in 101's size.

Speaker O: What defines an outlier?

Speaker F: I mean, I'm paraphrasing, but it's in the code, and I can pull it up and quote you the verbiage if you want. But that's the nature of it. If something is significantly larger than all the other lots on there, then it wouldn't be counted for average lot size purposes.

Speaker A: That would also apply to the parks and the other lots that are— I don't know if they're counted there, right? But just wanted to be clear.

Speaker O: I know the parks were not counted as far as lots. The park space was not counted In lots, for sure.

Speaker A: Anybody else?

Speaker J: Yeah. So I'm going to talk to you about the roads. So what those are, the road to the north, there's a parcel to the north that will be responsible for building part of that when they complete theirs. I don't see half of the width of that road being contemplated in here on the north side. We built lots right against it. And then the road that is coming at a northwest trajectory, it ends at the end of your concept plan to nowhere. Then you can show an outline of what could be possible in the future. But in my opinion, if you're going to do that, we want to see that connect to an actual road.

Speaker O: What's the plan? Is there a pointer?

Speaker J: I can point to it with the pointer if you want.

Speaker A: Yeah.

Speaker J: So this road right here that we're not showing—

Speaker Q: Yeah.

Speaker J: That actually goes up and over to the middle school. That's an existing road that's being used now, even though it's not a paved road. The property to the north is gonna be required to build their half of it when they decide to do that. That section is not contemplated in your half to build because you're building on the south side of that. The same thing for here, to come to an end here. A road that goes nowhere is no help to us.

Speaker A: I think— can I, can I expand on your question a little bit, Rich? Currently, this road right here services a business, and it actually ties on right here. So if this was to build, there is no access right here. So I think your question is—

Speaker J: Well, you're actually moving the road at that point, but you're not willing to—

Speaker A: Because this—

Speaker J: I understand that. I'm saying the whole point of that is this is existing now, we're moving it up here, but nobody's actually doing anything up here. That's not contemplated in your plan, which it should be. And one half of the width of this road should be your responsibility to build, and when this other, uh, parcel is done, they will do the other half of that road. But this road goes to nowhere.

Speaker O: So, so let's start with the stuff I can control, which is this road that goes nowhere. I'm planning on picking up this parcel right here from Steve Holbrook. It's a different family. If I pick that up, then I will extend that up. The reason it's here is because you have a culvert that crosses the wash right here that was installed when we did— when we built Airport Road for you guys. So The road would work best right here. If I can't get this piece over here, then we will just bring the road up right in here.

Speaker J: That answers my question. If you don't get it— I don't love ifs when we're saying yes to things because—

Speaker Q: Right.

Speaker J: I want to deal with what we have, right? So if what we have, what you're saying is you can't get this, then this road— I think we need to show both. There needs to be a rendering that shows, here's my if statement. If I get this, then we're here. If we don't, then we're committed to also going up here and connecting to that road.

Speaker O: The other option is we're less than 30 lots on a single access, so we could put a, a temporary turnaround right in here. Um, that's an— that's another option as well. But I, I was under the impression this was concept plan, not final or preliminary plat, so I, I assumed we could address that down the road. As far as this up here that you're asking about, you as the city own this parcel and this parcel. So that would be if you wanted to develop these 2 pieces. I was just asked to include these on this site plan so you could see what you could do with those 2 parcels under the current ordinance. Right now, your master plan shows this road being built and You don't have access to those roads because it's too close to intersections. So the only way to access your parcels here and here is through our parcel. So that's why those are included on this concept plan, so you could see how those could be accessed in the future.

Speaker J: That's true, but then your concept plan doesn't work at all if that doesn't happen and we don't sell this to you.

Speaker O: It works fine because The road is right here on your north boundary. Our boundary where these lots are on the south side of the road.

Speaker J: So to my point, there's the what we have and the what we— the ifs, right? So what we have probably needs to be this, right? And then maybe this needs to be— if we're going to show it as a concept, if this is sold to us, this is a possibility. If I get this, this is a possibility. And if not, when we talk about concepts, we're looking at Giving you instruction for you to come back and bring it as an application. But if it's filled with too many ifs, then what are we actually getting? Kind of, and that's kind of what I'm looking for here. If okay, if it's an if, this is a yes, right? This is what you're looking for right now. If you get this here, the intent is to do this here. Right now you have this, so there should be a road that shows that that goes all the way across. If you buy this property from the city. Then it's going to go up like this. You're going to get the benefit of each of these lots. That road isn't the city's responsibility. That would be the developer's responsibility. Those are the ifs, right?

Speaker G: Okay.

Speaker H: So I would like to see a concept plan that includes the wildlife corridor. Have you talked to the Alliance at all regarding their feelings on this?

Speaker O: This today coming up here was brand new to me.

Speaker H: I—

Speaker O: no one's ever told me that. If you go back on your slide to that presentation, I don't know, this leg right here has never been shown to me, only this one right here.

Speaker F: And then in our—

Speaker O: you know, I've, I've basically shown this concept plan like 4 times to you now, I think, over the year that we've been working on this. Um, we agreed to put— to allow the fence along this boundary in one of the meetings. And then if we buy Steve Holbrook's piece, we would push that to the edge of the wash here because I thought the whole point was to put a fence along the north boundary to funnel everything into this wash. So this leg right here is a whole new add-on that I've never seen before. Because my understanding was everything was to push with a fence across this boundary to push it into the wash and have the deer cross right here at the migration corridor. So I don't know where the new lake came from.

Speaker I: I think you'll find that the Wildlife Alliance is really, really helpful, and they're great partners with developers. They're not like a Sierra Club type of a group. They really want to help you get to a yes. And, um, because we don't currently have our biologist on staff right now, and we're working on getting a new one, but I think they would be a useful tool for you. And I would encourage you to connect with them because I think they're going to help you get it to a point where it keeps the special about Eagle Mountain and we can move forward with it.

Speaker C: Okay, Brad, I'm gonna, I'm gonna say this. I think this is important for you to hear. Hear and to understand. That's not a new leg. It's been there for a long time. I think it's unfortunate that we probably didn't communicate very clearly to you as you've been having those conversations internally, or even with council, that that is part of the wildlife corridor that we really want to try to preserve. And I do think it's that part of the reason for that is we've been missing our friend Todd Black. I mean, had he been Right. And working on staff, you would have been aware of this a long, long time ago.

Speaker O: Well, that's, that's who I met with.

Speaker C: Yeah.

Speaker O: That talked about the fencing plan.

Speaker C: Yeah. And I mean, it also, at least for me, and I just want to make this point with my fellow council members, I've been trying to make this point for a while. I think it's one of the reasons why we need someone that is qualified and focused on these types of planning issues that we're dealing with, in particular with the Wildlife corridor on staff. I'm going to just leave that there. They'll know what I'm talking about with regard to that.

Speaker H: So, and then I likewise agree with the with the staff's recommendation about the wash being under city control, and I'd be I'd be curious to hear the council's thoughts on on that aspect of the the city owning maintaining control of the wash that's going through there instead of it being private ownership. Or do you have, do you have a strong feeling on that?

Speaker C: I have ambiguous feelings. I own part of the wash that runs through my yard, right? Um, so I do have ambiguous feelings, and, and I've watched what some of my neighbors have done that I wish they hadn't done, if I'm being completely frank. Um, I think there's, I think there's At least there's some wisdom in the city owning it and being able to monitor and control and take care of it and have consistency in the way that it's treated. I think that there's some wisdom in that, but I also understand from a development side that what you're doing is you're taking acreage out of their lots, and that's difficult for me to find a place where I feel comfortable in requiring that.

Speaker N: Thank you.

Speaker H: Well, and here's my response to that, because I think when we are encountering circumstances like this where there's a wildlife corridor, where there's a wash, we need to be a little bit more flexible perhaps on some density that, okay, they're going to lose some lots from the wildlife corridor. I don't think that's necessarily appropriate for us to just have them lose that. And so You know, somehow, and I don't know how, you know, an engineer would have to look at that and say, okay, well, we're gonna lose some lots here. Maybe we can incorporate them somewhere else within that development. I mean, that's— I don't wanna see any developer or landowner lose money because there's a wildlife corridor going through there. I don't think that's appropriate to ask. So that's something where I would be flexible in working with the developer in that regard.

Speaker N: Thank you.

Speaker H: And maybe on the wash, maybe just if there's a trail through there. I don't know. I mean, I don't know. I guess that's something we're still up in the air about what we want to do.

Speaker C: Well, I'll just— I think there's room, Brad, to have a conversation that addresses all of these things kind of in concert as an overall 30,000-foot view. I mean, we have the wash to deal with. We have city-owned property to deal with from my perspective. We have the roads, the road connectivity, and, and the wildlife corridor. I just think there's— I think there's a lot more discussion that probably needs to happen before I'm going to feel comfortable saying this is a great concept plan, let's move forward with it. I think it's a good start. It's helped us identify some of the issues that perhaps we're going to have, and I think it, it is going to necessitate some broader conversations, more in-depth conversations with you and with your, your team.

Speaker O: And, and does that happen here or with staff, or where, where would you like that to happen?

Speaker C: My suggestion would be to bring 2 council members in at a time and just rotate through them.

Speaker K: I don't—

Speaker C: I mean, I don't know. I don't know how anybody else feels about that. I'd be happy to participate in that. I think every council member here would. And maybe we can find a consensus and a way to kind of deal with those things, because there are a lot of issues with this, but I think it's a really neat piece of property that if it's done right and if we're working together and we're not putting up— we're not putting up walls, but we're taking those down and we're trying to figure it out together— I think that it can really be an asset to this part of the city and to you as a development company.

Speaker O: I agree, and we're glad to work with you.

Speaker K: Yeah, I'd be happy to to visit as well. And I tend to agree with Councilmember Whiting on if you lose a couple lots, 102, 103, being flexible, maybe adding in a couple smaller lots within the neighborhood somewhere else to, to pick that back up.

Speaker O: And if we just took the square footage out of the wash and said there's this much square footage lost, we can—

Speaker A: yeah, yeah, yeah.

Speaker O: I like horse trading.

Speaker H: Good.

Speaker O: Yeah. Yeah, it's all good.

Speaker A: I would just add this, and, and I don't have much of a say, but I do have an opinion. And I know this got rezoned to where it was because of the, uh, some urgency for this road. To my knowledge, this is not zoned currently, correct?

Speaker G: Correct.

Speaker A: And just as a caution to the council, I know Craig immediately mentions a trade for some density. This is in the ACUB area, which has has some buffering, uh, requirements, which they don't want housing at all. I personally, when this was rezoned, was the only no vote. Uh, I didn't think it should be housing at all. This, uh, has no entitlement. It's shown here with some pretty high density already. With that said, at a minimum, I, I advocated my guts out to get that at 1 acre plus, even 2.5 acres. So when you say density, that might be 1 acre as opposed to 2.5, as opposed to not housing at all. So, so even if that was there, I would just say remember there's no entitlements on that.

Speaker C: Can I revise my, my request? I think you should meet with 2 council members and the mayor. Let me say it that way.

Speaker A: And I may or may not be in that room, and at the end of the day I don't have a vote. But you, Rich, did you want to—

Speaker O: And you all know that I have a lot more tied up in the area.

Speaker N: Sure.

Speaker O: So I think as we move forward—

Speaker A: Horse trading, right?

Speaker O: Uh, well, no, no, no, I, I don't want to horse trade on that. I just want to say as we move forward, we probably need to plan the whole area and, and not— I mean, this one piece, we know what it's zoned, and I need to move forward on it. But we also have a whole lot more than just this that has bigger implications on what we're doing in the city. So really, we need to bring that into these conversations as well to make sure we're aligned in what we're trying to achieve together as developer and city and make sure that we're, we're doing it the right way.

Speaker F: So.

Speaker K: Well, Sorry, one last question that just came into my mind. Will these properties all have— I noticed that they're all average acre lot or acre and a half?

Speaker O: Half acre.

Speaker K: Oh, half acre.

Speaker F: Okay.

Speaker K: Some of these will have animal rights or no?

Speaker H: No.

Speaker K: No, this will be more like an arrival kind of—

Speaker A: No, much— it can have a minimum of a quarter, maximum of 3 quarters, with an average of a So a lot of these are quarters because of that average. So that's what the foothill is.

Speaker J: Is that eligible for an equine overlay though?

Speaker A: No, not— it has to be half minimum.

Speaker J: That's what I'm saying. If they have a half acre, they're eligible to apply for that, right?

Speaker F: If they have equine overlay, they couldn't have those rights. I'm assuming that's what you're referencing, the animal rights, because anybody can have a dog or a cat or a little household pet. If we're talking about things like livestock, livestock, horses and stuff, then, then they're— that would be in play.

Speaker J: Is it? So the— I mean, I understand that it has to be a half acre, so would this be applied specifically to those lots that meet that requirement?

Speaker I: Correct.

Speaker J: Okay.

Speaker A: I thought that was a— it was in an area where they were all half acre, because putting an overlay on a specific spot zone with a quarter acre next to it, I mean, that would be, you know, a policy decision.

Speaker C: But look, I think we I think we have to back up from that because from my perspective, this is already zoned foothill residential. There's no overlay in place. If the landowner wants to request that, that's certainly something we could entertain.

Speaker J: It's something that's available to them, Brett. If it's a half acre, they can ask for an overlay.

Speaker C: I understand that, but I'm not hearing him ask for that.

Speaker J: He's not, but I'm saying that an individual landowner can ask for that because it meets the qualification of a half acre. That was the question. So other question, this is for staff. We don't have a current wildlife biologist on staff. Who's performing those services for us? Are we reaching to other agencies to have them evaluate our applications until that decision's been made?

Speaker M: As far as I know— and Brandon, if you can speak up, or Steve— right now we're not. We don't— again, we don't— you said we don't have a biologist on staff now. I don't believe any of these are being—

Speaker J: So I'm going to, I'm going to make the suggestion that that still needs to happen even though we don't have somebody on staff. There are other agencies that provide those services or outside consultants. We, we can't just not do it, especially when we know that it's in the corridor. I think that that's something that needs to be part of the process until that decision has been made. It still needs to be evaluated. Yeah, Mayor, this is Greg. We, we had a little bit of discussion late last week about this corridor, and I, I did bring that up. We're trying to track these things and trying to bring this to the attention, and it's just a timing thing. Um, I agree that we need to look at all this regionally because the other thing that I'm going to add to the record with this as well is with these washes, the way that they flow, like, we're not seeing flow in them this year, but I think we need to be thinking about Ponds higher up above these areas so that we can dictate flow. So I just want to add that to the record, and we need to be looking at all of these things and how they tie and coordinate so that we can get on top of them so we don't continue to run into the same issues that we've had in the past. So have we been thorough on this? And, um, no. Um, but we did have a discussion towards the end of last week We did talk about some of these scenarios. We did talk about that we probably need to get some feedback from the Alliance and get them involved because they do have some— they do know what was going on because they were working really close with Todd during the process. So that's what we've been doing. And we need to do a little bit better and try to do a little bit better. Brad, just a— this is Rich. Just a quick question then with regards to Past flows that have come through this area. When you're evaluating that, and maybe Vince is the person to answer this question, so if it is Vince, then jump in. Are we evaluating? I mean, you have to do a SWIP on this anyway, right? We're going to have to take a look at how the water drains and where it runs, whether or not the ponds that they have are sufficient. Do we use historical data to help us to determine the size? that it needs to be based on previous water flows?

Speaker K: Yeah, that's correct.

Speaker O: As far as the development goes, they'll, they'll size for their internal, but where we have a wash coming through, it's a completely different case.

Speaker C: And as a city, I think it's our responsibility to kind of master plan that and look at the wash itself.

Speaker J: So that probably needs to be something that's in consideration, even though we're at a concept stage. Maybe it's not big enough. We know we've had flooding in this area in the past. What we don't want to see is that same thing that's happened in some of our other areas that are downstream from this, where it continually floods the same homes over and over again because of that natural wash flow. So I just want to make sure as we're talking about this, it's easy to look at things in a flat map kind of way, but there are other things besides, you know, the wildlife corridor and even the wash. It's Is it following that exact wash? Is it coming into a plain and flooding the entire plain? And what are we going to do to make sure that these homes aren't impacted in the future by that?

Speaker O: And, and just so you know, those new culverts were installed, so you're actually in inlet control mode for this wash. So the wash can only handle the capacity that is in the culvert. So you, you actually know your flow right now because Because it had to be sized for the culverts that you put in in the Airport Road and up on— what's it called— Harmony or something like that. So you actually know the flow through my section because it's controlled by your culvert sizing already.

Speaker J: Did we upsize these so we don't have the same Bell Street problem?

Speaker O: We did upsize it, yeah, and we took the culverts out of Bell Street. And so yeah, it's a better condition than it was.

Speaker J: I was kind of referring to that because we've been down this road before, just one more road over. So thanks. Okay, I was just going to say, when I mentioned ponds in this area, I'm not thinking the pond needs to go right in the middle of the development, but I think we need to do a better job as a city at looking at the upstream checks as those flow down so that we can make sure that we can mitigate those flows Whether or not it's capacity or whatnot, because, you know, most years we're going to be good, but it's that one year that we, we have significant runoff like we've seen in the past that we're going to have a problem. So we just need to make sure that we're looking for it.

Speaker M: Perfect.

Speaker A: So one other clarity that I wanted to make a minute ago, this city portion up here is not part of the rezone. Is that true or not true? It's under a previous MDA, and that does have the equine overlay, as mentioned earlier. None of this does. And, uh, but this section right here would under an MDA. But what's the zone? Is that—

Speaker M: Yeah, it's Tier 2, I believe. It's, it's half— again, half-acre minimum, equine rights. And I know there's probably a mechanism, Marcus, you'd have to jump in, how that can be withdrawn from Clearview or developed just as Clearview.

Speaker F: I mean, so we own the property. We could just, you know, remove that development agreement from the property we own unilaterally. We just do it by resolution. You know, if we're— if we were contemplating, you know, selling it, it'd probably be easier to to do a development agreement with Ivory and then just amend and restate those, you know, clarify in the development agreement that they're no longer subject to that prior development agreement. That would be probably the easy button if we're inclined to sell them. If not, then it doesn't really matter because it's our property and we can change it anytime when we know what we're going to do with it.

Speaker A: So I just want to make sure that everyone understood that that needs a rezone or a something as we move forward. So then, not seeing anybody else that has any specific questions, being a concept plan and knowing that we gotta move on a little bit, do you feel like, does anybody know, feel comfortable with where this is at? Do you know what's being asked?

Speaker H: We're gonna meet.

Speaker A: Or are we holding off? I thought we were meeting on the other stuff, the areas.

Speaker M: Does this need to be, Well, wasn't there the thought of meeting with the council 2 at a time?

Speaker A: And that's where we're at, so we know.

Speaker J: Okay.

Speaker M: That would probably be the next step, would be to do that.

Speaker A: Okay, I just wanted to make sure that Brad had clear expectations and that we didn't leave something hanging.

Speaker O: And do I schedule that, or do I want Dave to schedule that?

Speaker M: Lacey, do you schedule the councils?

Speaker A: The councils takes care of their own. Okay, so I think, uh, yeah, reach out one at a time and they can pair up however they'd like, but no more than 2 together.

Speaker J: Please do it by Teams for me. Yeah, it's a lot easier for me.

Speaker O: You don't want me to see you face to face?

Speaker J: Work is my issue, so I'm not, I'm not available to do that. So if you can do it by Teams, that's a lot easier for me to work.

Speaker C: That's great.

Speaker Q: Thanks.

Speaker A: Okay, is there any other questions or do you have any other comments that we need to go over at this time?

Speaker P: No.

Speaker A: Okay, thank you. I forgot to mention earlier that item 1F is going to be postponed. It's going to be held off. It wasn't ready. So Robert Hobbs is going to bring that, I believe, on the 2nd. We should see that again. So we'll move on to item 1G, which is the Utility Billing Water Assistance Program, and our City Treasurer, Aaron Aaron has this one. Should be fairly simple.

Speaker G: Easy peasy.

Speaker A: This can be an easy one.

Speaker P: Should be. Good afternoon, Council Mayor. So this is regarding our utility assistance program where the funds are already allocated to use. We have approximately $15,000 that is left that we can use by the end of December. What we're just proposing is to expand the program so it can reach more of the city, and then also just a little bit wider base of what it's going to cover. Currently, um, it's only homeowners that are eligible. We're looking to expand that to renters as well. And then currently it is 50% of the water basin usage, um, up to $75 per month. And it would be a maximum of 3 months that they would be eligible according to restrictions on the program. We're looking to change that to just 50% of the utility bill up to $75, and then it still has the same restriction of 3 months that we can offer it. So we're just looking for consensus if you're okay with that, if you have any other feedback.

Speaker J: Just one question. If we went to the 50%, What if that doesn't cover the entire water bill? Could it still be shut off, and some of the other services could be shut off even though we've covered 50% of it?

Speaker P: So it— when we allocate it, it always goes towards the water first when we're applying, as far as it goes to fees, and then it goes to water, and then beyond there it pays other services. So it's how we allocate it.

Speaker J: It would be whatever's left over to pay for the rest Okay, thanks.

Speaker P: Any other questions?

Speaker I: If we keep the limitation of 3 months, are there people that are going to need services well beyond that 3 months? Is that your experience?

Speaker P: So the 3 months is a HUD requirement. We cannot provide beyond that in a calendar year.

Speaker I: But there's also funds like the HEAT program program and some of those other ones that can step in after the 3 months. This is like a temporary assistance kind of a thing.

Speaker P: So that would be for other utilities. This is only for the city utilities, so water, sewer, garbage is what this would cover. It doesn't cover anything beyond that. So power, they have their own program.

Speaker I: Do, do we foresee a time where this will be funded from an additional fund, perhaps like affordable housing or something like that, or donations? Like, the limitation is specifically because of Community Development Block Grant funds, but is there a chance that there would be additional funding coming from a different stream at some point?

Speaker P: That's something that we could have Kiara look at to see if we can obtain funding elsewhere. This is just regarding what we've already been allocated for the 2025-2026 year that we have to use up by the end of December.

Speaker I: Awesome, thank you.

Speaker P: We're good?

Speaker A: Looks like we're good and everybody agrees to move forward with this one.

Speaker P: All right, thank you.

Speaker A: Thank you very much. All right, um, next item, number 2. Uh, do you have any items?

Speaker G: Sure, I'll just mention a few things really quick. Um, just want to extend appreciation to the elected leaders that participated in the Central Utah Water Planning meeting that kicked off. We're trying to bring more water resources into our community, and our elected leaders being dedicated to come to those meetings, as well as another one coming up with USU and planning for more water-wise landscaping and water, you know, improving our design requirements, whatnot. So We appreciate you and the staff that's involved in that. We also appreciate the council for being involved in the neighborhood meetings. We had a good one this past week, a very lively one with a great turnout, over 80. And, uh, and so, um, we love the fact that you're getting out amongst the people and, and, and getting some really good communications going back and forth. We have many events and programs that are in planning and going on right now. Those will be talked about in the next meeting. Um, we also have the Utah County Sheriff's Department is going to be honoring, uh, those, uh, who have served so well this past year, uh, this coming week. Um, of course, we're working really hard on the budget and getting everything ready for the council's consideration there. Many of our projects are kicking off and working, um, and moving forward. We had some delays, uh, with some of the road projects due to the weather, um, but our water projects and other things are moving forward really well. And, um, and then, uh, lastly, uh, just to give the council a little bit of a heads up, we did have some success this past week with our assistant to the city manager who presented to our, um, to the county with regard to our observatory. And, um, while nothing's public yet, the county is consider— is putting in contributing money to that project now, and so they will be a contributing sponsor as well. Still have a little bit of a shortfall, but we're, we're moving forward and good things are happening there.

Speaker I: Is the amount that the county is going to contribute equal to the amphitheater contribution they're making to Provo?

Speaker E: No.

Speaker I: Okay, thanks.

Speaker A: I, I actually forgot to report back on that. I think it was Thursday we talked, and I did put some pressure on the county, and then apparently they They replied, so yeah, it's good. They, uh, I said just give us a number.

Speaker C: So, Mayor, can I ask just a quick question? I'm wondering if, if it would be— I was talking to John Magnus earlier, and I was wondering if it would be— if we'd be able to get him to come participate in that water summit that's happening in Heber the 2nd, 3rd of June. I just feel like he would be a real asset there.

Speaker G: Yeah, we can—

Speaker C: if we can get him registered and bring him along. I, I, I mean, I didn't really He wasn't on the invite and wasn't planning. And I asked him and I said, boy, I think we need you there. I don't know how everyone else feels about that.

Speaker G: We'll put that invitation out.

Speaker C: If we could do it, that'd be great.

Speaker A: And I was just— you mentioned the lively meeting that we had on the— over by the Ranches Boulevard without mentioning David, who took 90% of the arrows. So he's, uh, I don't even know that he's here. Oh no, he's not here today. He's still recovering. Uh, but he did a stellar job too. So thanks, thanks for, uh, staff for being there too and, and really taking the charge on that. Um, we need to go through some of the consent items the best we can, and I, I don't think it'll be too difficult. I do want to mention that item 14A that is going to be on the consent is here only for a correction. We, we had a mistake from earlier, and there's yet another correction. So if we can fix fix that in the motion. Just as a note, it says the fiscal year 2026 through 2029, I believe, in the packet, and it should be to reflect 2026 through 2027. So just make that, uh, second correction, and then that one, that one should be good. But we can go through those as we go. So, um, we have a couple appointments. Just a reminder, it doesn't always have to be this way, but the— I have as the liaisons to— why did I lose it?

Speaker I: I am.

Speaker A: It's— I believe it's Craig and Melissa for the Planning Commission.

Speaker K: No, Zach.

Speaker A: Zach. So if you guys— there's 2 appointments, and if you care to make those motions. And then we have The bond releases—

Speaker B: had to get there.

Speaker A: Uh, Ochre Mountain out of warranty, and then Overland Village 2 out of warranty. There's no questions. The minutes, no corrections. Uh, the 14A is the resolution that I mentioned. We need that correction. Um, is there any other questions on that one? Easy. And then 14B resolution Um, approving a memorandum of agreement with Ivory Homes. Mr. Draper?

Speaker F: Yeah, so this originally came before the council back in April. Um, it included Citla as a party. The only change between it is removing Citla as a party. That's the only change that's being sought. The prior one was approved, um, but not executed because Citla did not want to executed.

Speaker J: I have a general question about this. I sent you the email. So that contract, that MOA, is not in effect because one of the parties didn't agree to it, is that correct?

Speaker F: The memorandum of agreement is not in effect, correct? Correct. It was approved by the city council but was not executed because Sitla was not willing to execute.

Speaker J: And now we're doing a new MOA that is just a single party.

Speaker F: It was between us and Ivory. Yes, there was a single other party, correct.

Speaker J: Okay, so we're not reapproving, we're looking at a new one that's with a single party?

Speaker F: It's identical in every other respect, but yes, it would be a new authorization because it's substantively changed.

Speaker J: Okay, so I understand that part of it. Now I have some questions 'cause I didn't vote on the first one.

Speaker F: You did make the motion.

Speaker J: I don't think I voted on this one, did I?

Speaker N: You did.

Speaker F: I watched the video, I was watching it for some other reason, that occurred in the same meeting, and I noticed that you actually made the motion.

Speaker J: Well, I didn't pay attention to this one part apparently. Do we feel okay about giving less water per unit?

Speaker A: It's—

Speaker J: I mean, that's a may, right? It's a may, but are we comfortable with that? That's one of the things I wanted to ask the council before we go and approve this again. I didn't catch that the last time around. Maybe that I didn't that wasn't on my radar at the time, but I just wanted to ask that question.

Speaker C: Councilmember Widdow, I mean, I'll speak to that. And maybe it's something that we should probably address in a closed session at some point. But what I will say is this, that I think we need to be willing to to review from time to time the water that we are requiring for each type of development and just make sure that we are contemplative of what the actual water use is. And I think that that's what this May does, is it opens up that discussion so that we can, we can actually look at it with this developer in particular. And I think citywide we need that we need to be at least aware of that and cognizant of that and updating that from time to time as, as we see fit. That's probably what I'll say.

Speaker J: Just one last question, uh, maybe just— I'm posing this to the council. Understand that in E, each of these things are may's. However, we've dealt with some may's in the past that then became shall's because the understanding is that we were going to go forward with that. So before that goes goes forward with a yes, just understand that even though it says may, the inference is that they're looking for that horse trading to happen. So I just want to make sure that that's clear.

Speaker K: And oh, I was just going to ask, and does this require them to use the current architectural standards versus—

Speaker J: It references it.

Speaker K: What was approved?

Speaker J: It references it.

Speaker K: Says that they will Let's see, or that's a may as well.

Speaker J: It's in D that they will construct higher quality architectural treatments for multifamily residential buildings located adjacent to the future City Hall site to complete and complement the city's vision for a Market Street environment with specific standards, materials, elevations.

Speaker H: Marcus, my question is, what, what is the city losing by removing Sitla from this agreement?

Speaker F: Mr. Wilk? You know, I would say that the problematic part of Sitla not being part of the agreement is in reference to the middle school site, 'cause that's really the part that affects Sitla. And whereas the way that it's written, it's not super binding, but we are committing to negotiate in good faith. some loss of their, you know, entering into an agreement to, you know, negotiate in good faith in the future regarding that issue. Doesn't mean they won't negotiate in good faith. They're just not signing a document because of, my understanding is time restrictions and actually sending it through their board for approval and all that is the reason why they wanted it to be removed.

Speaker K: Okay.

Speaker F: That's the big loss in my mind. The rest of it I think is mostly things that are related to Ivory, and they are a signatory.

Speaker H: I, I hesitate to remove SITLA from this agreement based on their timelines because we've got timelines, and we also have a responsibility to the citizens of our city to make sure we're doing good agreements.

Speaker F: Yeah, I mean, that's the, the risk certainly, is if SITLA doesn't if we can, you know, that's the risk. That's, I guess, that's the way I'll put it.

Speaker J: Uh, just one last question with regards to that. That, that was the last question I had about the location of this. Are we— is this MOA a specific location? Is it the surrounding area around City Hall? Because it's not really specific about where this exists, uh, and the 35-acre parcel, it's not specific where that might Um, this, this MOA is not specific to that, so there's flexibility as to where the specific location—

Speaker F: I know location ideas have been discussed, but this would not be binding those specific locations.

Speaker J: Okay, last question. Uh, why would we have interest in securing a lot for a middle school when that is the responsibility of the school district?

Speaker F: Um, so we have an obligation to provide a 10-acre site that was presumptively for an elementary.

Speaker J: I understand what you're saying.

Speaker F: Okay, so that's what it's in relation to.

Speaker A: Thanks.

Speaker G: So do you have a question?

Speaker A: Okay, I just wanted to make sure that we're good on that one, and it, it appears that there might be some need for Any further discussion?

Speaker J: Yeah, I think we need to pull it off and talk about it in our policy session.

Speaker A: Okay, just wanted to make sure I knew where we were at, if there was more. Okay, uh, the next one is 14C. Make sure I didn't lose my place. This one's a resolution of Eagle Mountain City initiating the city's withdrawal from United Fire Service Area. I can say that I was in the UFA meeting this morning and this came up. Specifically with the budget. I have a lot of maybe answers if there's questions. Chief Fossum is also here to address this one. He does need to be excused later, so if we can get through what we need to on this one, it would really help him out, even though job comes first, right? But if there are any other questions on this, I'm happy to answer.

Speaker J: I just think one of the things we just want to make clear to this citizens that we're not getting rid of UFA. I think that that needs to be clear, that we're removing the taxing entity of the UFSA and contracting directly with UFA like other cities are.

Speaker A: Well, I, I would, I would caveat that with— and Ben has some information as well, we were looking over the email that came in literally as we were walking in here— that that would be our intent, but we don't currently have a contract. So yeah, pending—

Speaker F: This would simply initiate that process.

Speaker J: Yeah, thank you. That's the words I was looking for, just so it's clear what the intent is, that we're not firing UFA, we're initiating a process to contract directly, to adjust our agreement.

Speaker A: Yeah, this is strictly with UFSA, to leave UFSA and to start over. So any questions for Chief Fossum?

Speaker J: Do we want to just make the statement that the purpose of that is then we're getting the services we're paying for, we're not paying for other people's services. I'll say that. That's my intent with it. Nobody else is comfortable with that, I'll say it.

Speaker A: Did you have anything to add? No other questions? And that one's okay where it's at? Perfect for you. Um, the rest is all our scheduled items. We, uh, do have some updates on some legal stuff. If the— there's only 2— one public hearing and one ordinance that should be fairly simple. Is there any need to go—

Speaker J: Just, I just have one question. I don't know if this is a Brett question or, uh, Fossum or maybe Marcus. I understand the 4-item, um, the—

Speaker A: Really?

Speaker J: Yes, that. What is that, 15A?

Speaker K: 15A.

Speaker J: 15A. So I understand the the law that's requiring there to be a buffer zone, right? Is there any onus on the adjacent owner? So the development gets completed and now we're going right to the property line. Does the adjacent owner that has not developed, do they have any responsibility for a buffer on their property? That was one of the questions I had when the law was written. I think it's very clear with the residential developers that they have a requirement as they develop it that there's supposed to be a buffer. That's also to help with insurance for the individuals that will own those homes. But what about the land that is adjacent to that buffer zone? Do they have a requirement for a buffer zone to the developed land?

Speaker A: I think the— if I understand it, and this came up in our meetings up there, the buffer's from the structure. So it's 30 feet from the house. So if there's no house on the adjacent property, there would be nothing to buffer from. Is that the question on buffering?

Speaker J: And it's a property line, I thought. Yeah, it's a property line buffer.

Speaker A: From what I said, you can step up here if you'd like. We talked about it today in our meeting, and I'm pretty sure it's the structure. It was 30 feet from the structure, is my recollection. And a lot of those are— it's wildland, so it could be BLM, it could be National Forest Service.

Speaker J: But it also might not be. It could be an individual landowner.

Speaker F: So it would apply— it's a structure setback from— so the way that it's written is saying, you know, a WUI boundary lot is a lot that is within the wildland urban interface area that's adopted on the map. Okay? where the applicability would occur. And so, the WUI adjacent setback means the applicable setback on a boundary lot on this, what I just said. So, it's anywhere in that WUI area on the adopted map for a primary or accessory structure for property lines partially or fully abutting land described in the definition of a boundary lot. So, it's land that contains certain features that land that is outside of city limits that is not subject, that's not developed, and land that's owned by STITLA or the feds or some other governmental entity. As a practical matter, those would be the— it'd be, you know, BLM or STITLA. So those are kind of like where the— I mean, I see that Beth really wants to chime in here, but—

Speaker M: Yeah.

Speaker F: Yeah, I mean, that's what we're talking about is where these would apply to somewhere within that that contains those features, then you have this setback requirement from the property line.

Speaker J: My question was more general about the state law, because I, I feel like— I mean, this is maybe something that needs to be talked with our state representatives.

Speaker I: It—

Speaker J: I understand the, the ability to be able to fight the fires and to prevent structure fires, but also, I mean, all that onus is going on to people who have houses there, that somebody's land that doesn't have a fire barrier can absolutely move right up to them because there isn't anything preventing that from getting there. I just, to me it seems like there needs to be a shared ownership there. And obviously it doesn't, that doesn't exist in state code.

Speaker F: Yeah, this is not, I don't, my understanding is not a state code specific requirement. It's a best practice requirement.

Speaker J: Yeah, I understand that part of it. Thanks, you answered my question.

Speaker F: Okay.

Speaker C: I guess my question is just this. I mean, and staff alludes to this. This is a step over and above what the state requires. And so I'm just curious why. You know, it's a discussion that we probably need to have. I'm just— and maybe staff can answer that. I know, Beth, that you probably did some work on this. I'm curious why we feel like we ought to consider this, because I'm having a hard time saying if the state's requiring us to do X and they're newly implementing this and we're compliant with that, why are we taking it to the next step? That's what I'm trying to really understand. And what's the onerous that we're putting on our citizens by doing so?

Speaker J: This is a—

Speaker D: it's a proposal.

Speaker J: It's—

Speaker D: we're not— I think we're bringing this to you fairly lightly, but It was recommended to us from the RUFA.

Speaker C: So that's what I'm trying to understand, Brandon, is what's the intent of this?

Speaker D: Yeah, it came— we received a recommendation from RUFA to do this, so.

Speaker J: Okay. What does this do to existing structures then that are already there? Are they required to remove those structures?

Speaker F: It's a zoning ordinance. So it would be a nonconforming use, or nonconforming, noncompliant structure. So, I mean, as long as they maintain it, then great, they're nonconforming. If, you know, they were to— they can't enlarge the nonconformity, they just can maintain it.

Speaker E: I was just gonna say, this is all in the presentation that I'll present to you and address and explain. Policy session.

Speaker A: Yeah, because it is a public hearing, I don't— I'm just curious if there's any specific questions, but, uh, we'll, we'll wait for that for the policy session as well as the flagship agreement. Is there anything that we need to go over now on that, or should it wait? Okay, um, I think that is everything for the work session. So I mentioned that we do have some updates from some of our legal updates and other things to talk about if you're interested.

Speaker H: Mayor, I move to adjourn to a closed session pursuant to Section 52-4-205, subsection 1 of the Utah Code Annotated. Second.

Speaker A: Okay, we have a motion by Councilmember Whiting and a second by Councilmember Wood, and we'll start the vote with Councilmember Huish.

Speaker H: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Wood.

Speaker J: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Whiting?

Speaker H: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Wright?

Speaker D: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Clark?

Speaker I: Yes. Yes.

Speaker A: Okay, that passes. We'll adjourn to closed session at 5:57. As, as is our tradition, we're going to start with the opening prayer, and Rich Woods offered that.

Speaker J: Our Father in Heaven, we're grateful to be together as citizens, elected officials, and staff members of Eagle Mountain City. We pray that thy spirit might rest upon us, help us to be contemplative of the decisions that we're making, to listen to each other, to think of the future as we make these decisions. To be able to alliterate the reasons that we are making the decisions, we're grateful for the people who make up our city, for the community that they have created and that we are a part of. We pray that that would watch over and protect each of them. We're thankful for our first responders. We pray that that would continue to watch over and protect them as they protect us. Please watch over our military. Particularly those that are in harm's way. Keep them safe where possible. We're grateful for the good country that we live in as we celebrate the 250 years and the circumstances and the sacrifices that have been made to give us the freedom that is sought after by the rest of the world. Pray that we will be good stewards of that freedom, that we will remember the importance of being involved as citizens, doing our civic duty both at the municipal level and at the county, state, and federal level as well, and to let our representatives know what we would have them do. And we say these things in the name of Jesus Christ.

Speaker E: Amen.

Speaker A: All right, thank you. We'll go ahead and call this meeting to order now at 7:10, uh, policy session of the Eagle Mountain City Council on Tuesday the 19th. And we will begin with the Pledge of Allegiance, and Cadence Hornson is going to help lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Speaker Q: Repeat after me.

Speaker K: 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 liberty and justice for all. Indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Speaker A: Okay, thank you, Cadence. Um, come back here and I got to get all my stuff ready to go. We will begin with some— is Don here? Don was here. Don's here with some information items from Don. This is, uh, leading up to the events of the week. Um, tons of stuff. This is our last meeting before all chaos.

Speaker Q: Yes, it is. Um, first up, I have some information items for— from Ben. Um, the library will be closed on Saturday, May 23rd, and Monday, May 25th. Um, and then just a reminder that Eagle Mountain residents can receive 2 free landfill passes each year, and they can be picked up at the customer service desk here inside City Hall. Okay, um, Pony Express Days is May 25th through June 13th. I'm just going to read off the event and the day and time, and if there's any follow-up questions as to what the event is, you guys can ask me after. Uh, May 25th will start with the Memorial Day ceremony at 10:00 AM. Uh, May 27th is family fun night, 4 to 8 PM at Nolan Park. May 28th is the first night of the carnival, 4 to 10 PM at Ride Memorial Park. May 29th and 30th are full days of the carnival, um, and that starts at noon and ends at 11 PM. May 30th is our grand parade, and Jim Smith is our grand marshal this year. Um, May 30th we will also have a car show from 4 to 7 PM at Mid Valley Field. May 30th is also the fireworks, um, at 10 PM, Ride Memorial Park. May 27th through 29th, we have a pickleball tournament at Quarry Ride Park. There's a lot packed into Phoenix Thursdays this year. June 1st is our first annual Guns and Hoses pickleball tournament. That's our UFA against our Sheriff Department, um, so it'll be super fun. 6 PM Memorial Park. June 5th, um, we will have a Pony Express Days movie in the park. June 6th, we'll be doing a street hockey tournament. June 6th, um, we'll do the Motivational Mile with Ben Lyon from 1 to 4 PM. June 6th is also the kickoff of our farmers market at 9 AM. June 6th is also the demolition derby, 7 PM. Pony Express Express Rodeo Grounds. June 11th through 13th is the PRCA Rodeo, 7 PM, Pony Express Rodeo Grounds. Okay, any questions on Pony Express Days?

Speaker J: Just one clarification. The first event, the Memorial Day, you didn't give a location.

Speaker Q: Oh, sorry about that. That is at Pony Express Memorial Ceremony— Cemetery.

Speaker A: I wanted you to add because a lot of those have registrations like the pickleball and then tickets and stuff like that. Do you want to— I know you start to go way back to the top, but which ones that you know of need tickets and where can they get them?

Speaker Q: Um, so tickets you'll need for the carnival, obviously, if you want to participate in that, you can get it at our city website. Um, and all of the registration links for all of these are on our city website. So the pickleball tournaments, you'll need to register for any of the sporting events. Um, everything else is Just free to attend.

Speaker J: Is that all under the events site?

Speaker P: It is.

Speaker H: Yeah.

Speaker C: Yep.

Speaker Q: There's a Pony Express Days tab on the website. All of the information and registration links are there.

Speaker C: So, Mayor, what I heard Dawn say is she doesn't have anything to do between now and the middle of June.

Speaker Q: I don't. So if there's anything else you'd like me to add, just throw it at me.

Speaker C: Thank you for—

Speaker Q: We're not busy at all.

Speaker J: Just one other thing too, with the derby and the Pony Express rodeo, you'll have to go to Pony Express events to buy those tickets?

Speaker Q: Yes, there is also, I believe, on our city website a link to their website to purchase the tickets as well. So that's all of Pony Express Days. Anything else for Pony Express Days? Any other questions?

Speaker A: Holy smokes, do you need help?

Speaker Q: Lots of help. Parade, mostly the parade.

Speaker J: Are you asking for volunteers for these?

Speaker Q: We are, especially the parade. Any help that we can get along the parade route, people can reach out to us at events@eaglemountain.gov. We can get them signed up to help us.

Speaker J: Um, I think that would be great if we could put that information onto our website and social media so that people know we're looking.

Speaker E: Yeah.

Speaker J: And where they can get a hold of you to do that, because I think we'll get a lot of people show up.

Speaker Q: Okay, I'll have them post that for us. Um, okay, outside of Pony Express Days, I just wanted to talk about a couple other upcoming events, um, that are following Pony Express Days, just for it to be on your guys's radar. So the food truck rallies will start, um, the first Thursday in June, and they go every Thursday until the end of August from 6 to 9 PM at Ride Memorial Park. Um, and then we'll have our Fourth of July fireworks on July 4th. The event will kick off at 8 PM, and we're leaning heavy into the America 250 theme, so it should be a super, super fun event. And then our Summer Bash and laser show July 25th from 4 to 10:15 PM, again with the America 250 theme for those. So have a lot to look forward to this summer.

Speaker A: Man, it's gonna be fun.

Speaker Q: It is.

Speaker A: You have questions? And Ben, I assume that covered everything, right?

Speaker C: You had heard?

Speaker G: Good.

Speaker Q: Not as great as Ben at reading it off, but— All right, sweet.

Speaker A: Thanks, everyone. All right. I wanted to point out this for those of you who have never been to a queen contest, that you notice all these pretty ladies in the front row and how they sit. How many of them have their phones out? None. And they have their hands like beautifully placed on their legs and like absolutely amazing. That's how they sit for like 6 hours during the contest without moving. It's amazing. So with us tonight, we have the newly crowned Pony Express Breast Days royalty, and I'm gonna let them introduce themselves, starting with the queen and the attendants, and then the princess court. I think Angie would have to correct me. Angie's our queen mom. I didn't call you queen bee. So, um, she— is this our youngest princess we've ever had in the, in the court at 8, right?

Speaker E: Yes.

Speaker A: So we're pretty excited to, to welcome our royalty. You guys can step up and Go ahead and introduce us— introduce yourself to us.

Speaker J: Okay, um, my name is Kayden Sorensen. I'm your 2026 Pony Express Rodeo Queen.

Speaker Q: Um, I'm from American Fork, Utah.

Speaker E: I used to live in Eagle Mountain though, so Eagle Mountain is kind of home to me.

Speaker Q: And yeah, we're just here to invite you all to the Pony Express Rodeo, June 11th through the 13th, like Don said earlier, and then also the demolition Derby, which is June 6th.

Speaker A: I'm Camilla Sylvester.

Speaker J: I'm your guys's 20— uh, the second attendant this year, and I'm so excited to be here. And, and yeah, just a second what Cadence said, just, um, the rodeo is going to be so much fun this year, so we're excited if you guys come.

Speaker L: I'm Lydia Knapp.

Speaker P: I'm the first attendant, and I'm from Lyndon, Utah. I have served in the royalty before, and I love it here in Eagle Mountain and I'm excited for this year.

Speaker E: Hello, I'm Kelsey Bowen, your Pony Express Rodeo Royalty Princess. I am locally from Eagle Mountain, Utah, and I'm just so excited to serve this community as my first time ever competing. Thank you.

Speaker L: I'm Nicole Anacleto, your first attendant as a princess. I'm originally from Eagle Mountain, Utah, and I speak fluent Portuguese.

Speaker E: I'm Whitney, and I'm second attendant.

Speaker A: Good job, Whitney. Okay, you guys come back up here because we're gonna do something. I'm gonna orchestrate this for a picture. So queen and princess right here, then the attendants on that side and the attendants on this side for the princess, and then we're gonna stand up and take Just make sure everyone has a window so like you can see the camera, because otherwise I can't see you.

Speaker Q: Just, just so you know.

Speaker I: Yeah, dip down just a little bit, Lydia.

Speaker E: There you go.

Speaker I: Stand on your tiptoes, Jared.

Speaker A: All right.

Speaker J: Thank you.

Speaker A: In the past, you guys have asked questions or made comments. I'm just asking if anybody have anything you want to add or we good to move on? Just wanted to make sure you had a chance. Okay, um, we will move on. Thank you, ladies. The next item is public comment. So we will open the public comment period. Just so you know, there's forms in the back in that blue folder. If you haven't filled one out, you can, and you can make your comments that way. So I will now open the public comment period at 7:20. 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 hearing portion, Please complete the comment form located in the back and return it to the city recorder. Council members will listen but not engage in a discussion during public comment. Disruptive behavior, personal attacks, or comments about individual city employees are not permitted. If you have issues or questions regarding staff or personnel, administrative staff will meet you in the foyer to discuss that. And if that's the case, Steve, we'll meet you in the foyer. Lastly, public comment period is for items not associated with a scheduled public hearing. If your comment relates to a public hearing item, please wait until that item is called. Today's public hearing is item 15A, and it's an ordinance of Eagle Mountain City amending the Municipal Code 1710.030. So if that's the item that you're here to comment on, hold your comment until that item is called. All other comments will be heard at this time, and we'll look to Lacey.

Speaker M: David Peterson.

Speaker J: Hi, my name is Dave Peterson. I live in the Silver Lake area of Eagle Mountain, and I just wanted to voice my support for a road from the Silver Lake area to the new high school. And also just want to thank all of you for your service. I know it's sometimes thankless, but I wanted to let you guys know how much we appreciate your time and let you know my feelings on that.

Speaker A: So thank you. Thank you, David.

Speaker J: Robert Woodward.

Speaker C: Hey, I'm Robert Woodward. Uh, just to kind of mirror what Dave said, again from Silver Lake area, and all of us over there, the more that you speak to us, you'll probably understand we all support that road. We We need it badly.

Speaker I: It's been discussed that we need a study.

Speaker C: We don't need a study.

Speaker Q: We need a road.

Speaker I: We can do a study if we need a roundabout or if we need a light or anything like that.

Speaker C: But the accident the other day on Pony Express just proved the fact that there is no way in and out of there.

Speaker A: People were stuck for hours.

Speaker C: It was a bad situation. So please, please take that into account.

Speaker E: Thank you.

Speaker C: really need that other emergency exit out of that neighborhood.

Speaker P: Scott Griffith.

Speaker N: My name is Scott Griffith. I also live in Silver Lake area. I wrote mine down because I get angry and frustrated if I don't write it down. And I stumble over my words. So yeah, I'm from the Silver Lake area. I've been there for 6 years now. It's been fantastic. I love Eagle Mountain. I love everything about Eagle Mountain except for the traffic, of course, like everybody else. But I started an online petition on this Silver Lake Parkway road that had 300 signatures in less than 2 days, and it now has 445 signatures. of individuals just from the South Silver Lake area. Currently, Pony Express serves as the primary route in and out of Silver Lake, as it does for all of Eagle Mountain. And creating severe congestion during peak travel hours and leaving residents vulnerable to delays of work, school, emergency services, and daily activities. Completing Silver Lake Parkway to connect somehow with Mountain View Corridor and the new and the road to the new high school would provide a critical secondary access point for Silver Lake that would significantly improve traffic flow, reduce travel times, and support the long-term mobility of our small community. This need is becoming even more urgent as many families and children are having, you know, 3 or 4 or 5 children, and all of those kids are going to be driving age within the next 5 to 7 years, and that might more than double the amount of cars on the road. Additionally, without a connection to Saratoga, we would likely be denied entry to the new high school in our own backyard by the new school district. Equally important, the connection is a matter of public safety. Like Mayor Gray said on ABC News yesterday, in the event of a wildfire, major accident, natural disaster, other emergency problems requiring evacuation. Relying on a single primary exit for thousands of residents and over 2,100 homes in the Silver Lake area just isn't okay, in my opinion. A completed Silver Lake Parkway would provide a reliable alternative evacuation, improve emergency response times, and strengthen the overall resilience of Eagle Mountain. Not just Silver Lake, but also for the nearby ranches and other neighborhoods.

Speaker J: Thank you.

Speaker N: Investing in a connection is not just about convenience. The steep incline on Pony Express into Eagle Mountain could be entirely bypassed in the event of severe weather.

Speaker P: 30 seconds remaining.

Speaker N: As motorists could take the long way out if their car isn't safe for travel. And then number 2, I just wanted to mention there needs to be a stop sign on Golden Eagle Road and Silver Creek Way. I encourage all of you to go there during start and end times for for the elementary school Brookhaven right there. Um, a kid almost dies every day, and I don't think a kid should have to die in order to put a stop sign in. And I don't think a, uh, travel study or whatever needs to be done.

Speaker H: It just—

Speaker N: it's dangerous and it's scary.

Speaker I: Thank you.

Speaker L: Your time is up.

Speaker N: Thank you.

Speaker A: That's all I have. Okay, that's all that's been turned in. Is there anyone else here that came to make public comment? Seeing no one, we'll close our public comment time at 7:26 and come back to our agenda. The first item on our agenda is a fun one, item 10A, a Planning Commission appointment. We'll start with number 1, separate motion, then number 2, and then we can do the swearing in right after.

Speaker F: So go ahead.

Speaker K: Mayor, I'll make a motion to appoint Chad DiCorsi for a 1-year To fill the 1-year vacated term, uh, going from May 2026 through March 2027.

Speaker I: Second.

Speaker A: That's to approve the appointment for Chad DiCorsi?

Speaker C: Correct.

Speaker A: We have a motion by Council Member Huish and a second by Council Member Clark, and we'll start the vote with Council Member Clark.

Speaker L: Yes.

Speaker A: Council Member Wright.

Speaker E: Yes.

Speaker A: Council Member Whiting.

Speaker H: Yes.

Speaker A: Council Member Wood.

Speaker J: Yes.

Speaker A: And Council Member Huish.

Speaker K: Yes.

Speaker A: All right, this, uh, number 2 appointment is Laura Jensen for a 3-year term as the alternate from May 2026 through March 2029.

Speaker I: So moved.

Speaker A: Perfect. We have a motion.

Speaker H: Second.

Speaker A: We have a motion by Council Member Clark. I love it when you do that. And a mo— and a second by Council Member Whiting. And we'll start the vote with Council Member Wright.

Speaker C: Yes.

Speaker A: Council Member Whiting.

Speaker H: Yes.

Speaker A: Council Member Wood.

Speaker J: Yes.

Speaker A: Council Member Huish.

Speaker K: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Clark?

Speaker H: Yes.

Speaker Q: Yes.

Speaker A: Okay, perfect. That— those motions both pass, and we'll invite the city recorder, Lacey Messerschmidt, to administer the oath of office. My brain is faster than my tongue today. And have you guys come up, and we'll join you on the side.

Speaker J: Go ahead and raise your right hand.

Speaker P: I, state your name.

Speaker L: I, Chad Kirksey.

Speaker J: Do solemnly swear.

Speaker A: Do solemnly swear.

Speaker P: That I will support, obey, and defend.

Speaker A: That I will support, obey, and defend.

Speaker P: The Constitution of the United States.

Speaker A: The Constitution of the United States.

Speaker P: And the Constitution of the State of Utah.

Speaker A: And the Constitution of the State of Utah.

Speaker L: And that I will discharge the duties of my office. And that I've discharged the duties—

Speaker J: And that I've discharged the duties— Of my office with fidelity.

Speaker A: Of my office with fidelity. Same thing. I mean, it's not the Queen's, but come right here. It's one of them. All right, now we'll move along. Thank you guys for your willingness to serve. I really appreciate that. Um, excited for the good recommendations we'll get from the Planning Commission. We're going to, uh, now's the time that we have set aside for the City Council and mayor to make comments. Um, Melissa, you want to start with the comments? Council Member Clark?

Speaker I: Sure, I'd be happy to. Um, I'm super excited to have a full Planning Commission again. It's always hard when we don't have that I think our Planning Commission is probably the most thankless job in our city because they do almost as much preparation as we do as city council members, and we're super grateful that you were crazy enough to say yes. And also, I had a really cool opportunity last week to go attend Cedar Valley High School's Aviator Celebration of Excellence. It stands— ACE is like the the acronym for it. But it was really, really cool because as they're like announcing all these kids and their really cool accomplishments, there was one girl that had like probably 25 things that she had accomplished. All these certificates, she got her associate's degree. I mean, she was just stellar. And kid after kid after kid, I was like, oh, I know that kid. I used to be like their scout leader, you know, different things like that. And I was thinking to myself, These kids grew up here. They started kindergarten here in Eagle Mountain, and now they're graduating from our high school. And it just really hit home with me how the magnitude of the decisions that we make here at City Council and how much those decisions impact the kids and the people of our community. And I was thinking about the fact that we're not just passing budgets, But we're creating a place our children can be proud to call their hometown. And whether they wear the colors of Cedar Valley High School or Westlake High School or Rockwell High School, they have one thing in common: that this place is theirs. And I hope that as they go out into the real world and take on the next big adventure, that they are proud to call this place. Place home and that we can do them justice by the things that we do here on City Council.

Speaker C: Thanks, Mayor. Welcome everyone, it's good to see you. Um, thank you to the planning commissioners who have, who have now officially been appointed and sworn in. Welcome to the fight. You'll know what that means here shortly. I know, I know Chad's been involved in that, uh, in that battle already, and we're just really grateful for you. Um, Pony Express Days— I always love Pony Express Days, and I'm excited for that. The 4th of July in particular always makes me smile. I had the chance over the last 2 days to— in fact, this afternoon I, I went to one. But I, I have 2 of my grandchildren. I have a grandchild who's graduating from 6th grade and getting ready to go into the new middle school, and, uh, not the new one, but the one here in City Center. And so I've been to Mountain Trails Elementary And it's a pretty interesting thing to be a public servant on the City Council and to spend time in the community at some of the community events and at a school in particular. Boy, there's just a truckload of kids and parents and families and grandparents. And I'm just, I'm just really appreciative of the teachers, the staff that work there, and the tremendous work that they're doing with our students and with our kids. And today I was, I was John Hancock. I've got a grandson who just graduated from kindergarten, and I don't remember doing kindergarten graduation when I was in kindergarten, or 6th grade graduation for that matter. But I, I, my mind went back as I sat there and listened to the things that he recited. They had the Pledge of Allegiance. They have some things that they say in the morning. And, and anyway, I was really moved by by what they're being taught in those schools. And what I remembered was going back to a council meeting where I was really wrestling with whether or not John Hancock Charter School should be placed where it's at. I'm still not sure it's in the right location. I'm going to say that just to be official. But the fact that we were able to get to a yes, and I really wrestled with getting to that yes, and I know that other council members did as well. But you fast forward a few years and you start to look at those impacts. Those are the types of things that we're building. Those are the types of things that you're building as community members. So thank you for your energy and your effort, for your dedication, for your patience. Traffic is awful. We know that. We're fighting the fight. Some days it feels like we're going backwards, but most days we're actually making a small dent in it and trying to, trying to move it in the right direction. I just love Eagle Mountain. I love the people of Eagle Mountain. I love this community, which is a very unique and robust and a unique destination for families to come and to live in a family-centric community. And I'm just grateful to each of you for making it that.

Speaker H: 2 days ago, there was an amazing rededication of this country as a dedicated land for, for God and God's purposes. And if you did not listen to Speaker Mike Johnson's prayer that he offered to rededicate this country, I encourage you to look that up on YouTube and listen to that. It's about 10 minutes. It will move you to tears and also remind us who the founder of this country really is. one nation under God. God set up this country. He preserved it for numerous— like, he preserved it for millennia for us to now occupy it. And you got to think, well, if it was preserved for that long, for what reasons did he preserve it? And I would invite you just to take the 10 minutes to listen to Mike Johnson's prayer, Speaker Johnson's prayer, and then take another 10 minutes to share with your family. It is very powerful and very moving. I'll also read the scripture that President Trump shared. He said, and this is God talking about the dedication of the Temple of Solomon that was God's temple. If my people which are called by my name shall humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then will I hear from heaven and will forgive their sins and will heal their land. And I invite us to remember the, the real founding father of this country, and then the founding fathers and mothers that were inspired to help set this up. I invite us to share these messages with our family so that they will remember. And it really is about that. It's so easy in our day and age of materialism to forget who set this country up and for what purposes. And so I give you that invitation.

Speaker J: Love seeing everybody here. I appreciate those who are here. I wish the people from Silver Lake would have stayed. Um, I live there, by the way. I'm very aware of the situation there. My kids go to Brookhaven, and next year they'll go to Silver Lake. Um, one of the things I think is important, and I want to highlight a couple things— I was grateful that Jared, our mayor, decided to meet with ABC and to kind of lay out what we're trying to accomplish. One of the disappointing things I'm going to say is that people jump so quickly to conclusions of nefariousness about the people who are up here. And I want to dispel that first and foremost. Nobody's benefiting financially or otherwise by being here. In fact, it's the opposite. The sacrifices that are made by the people who are your elected officials is substantial, financially and otherwise, to be here to represent the people of Eagle Mountain. With regards to the discussions about roads, There's no greater advocates for getting the roads fixed than the five people sitting up here and our mayor. The reason Lake Mountain Corridor even exists is because of the people sitting here, and the fact that it's going to take eight to ten years has nothing to do with us. That has to do with finances. I think it's funny when people are like, "We'll just spend the money." You just, you know, take it from here and put it here kind of a thing. And I think I would encourage people to learn. Before we make statements like that, understand where the money comes from, that there are limitations to how money can be spent. And trust me, if there was a big pot of money that we could take and build the road, it would already be built. We benefit individually, our families benefit from having roads that get us in and out of the city. And even to the, to the comments from the people who live in Silver Lake with me, believe me, we want to have connectivity, but what we don't want to do do is create problems that are bigger than what we are already experiencing. That's the reason that we have the studies being done, and we have to look at everything as a holistic picture, from what Saratoga Springs is planning to do to the south of us, whether or not that connection is the right connection, or if there are other connections. We have to make those contemplative decisions, because if we don't and everything's a knee-jerk and we act in the very moment because something needs to be done right this moment, we set future generations up for consequences that we could have avoided. And I just think it's important for people to understand that we don't take these decisions lightly. We argue a lot about these decisions in closed doors, in one-on-ones, oftentimes to get to the solution that is best. And if you think for a second that we're, you know, just making these decisions lightly, it's— I'm going to tell you, it's not. A lot of sleep has been lost. A lot of tempers have flared, trying to decide how the best way to accomplish these things for the for the citizens. And I just think it's so important to highlight the work that is being done by the people that you've elected. You can clear us all out in the next election if you think that'll solve it, but I'm going to tell you that would be a mistake. The people who are fighting for you right now is the best council that has been in Eagle Mountain. I've been here thirteen years. They're pointed in the same direction, and that is progress. We now have allies at our county. We have allies in our surrounding cities. We have allies at the state. That has not been the case ever, and that's because there are individuals working collectively for the same goals to try to make Eagle Mountain a safer place, to get better egress and ingress into the city. And I just, I want to say that. I want to be on the record saying that whoever wants to take that and do whatever they want with it. I'm available for you to call if you think that I'm crazy. Call me and tell me I'm crazy, but let's have a one-on-one conversation. I'll produce the facts for you of why we make the decisions that we make. Maybe that'll give you a better understanding of why we make the decisions that we make. But I think we're all open to that very same thing. Our telephone numbers are available. I'd rather you call me than try to fight this out on Facebook because it doesn't seem like anybody's interested in the truth there. So give me a call and I'll tell you the facts that I know and why I make the decisions that I make. Thank you for coming and being a part of the process. Those that are watching online, get a hold of us. Then you don't have to wonder anymore. You can know the truth about why we make the decisions.

Speaker K: Thanks. Thank you, fellow council members, and thank you everyone for coming tonight for whatever purpose you're here— to learn, to observe. I wanted to share a quote from a book that I read. It's by Walter Isaacson. He's one of the great biographers of our time. He's done biographies on Steve Jobs, Elon Musk. He did one on Michelangelo and— was it Michelangelo? I think it was. No, it was Leonardo. Sorry. And he did one on Benjamin Franklin. And I wanted to share just a quick quote that Benjamin Franklin said, that knowledge is obtained by the use of the ear than of the tongue. And that's a good reminder. We have been going on these listening tours to each neighborhood around Eagle Mountain. I think I've been to 5 now. Somehow I've been able to go to all of them with my fellow council members. And it's been a really eye-opening experience to go to each community and just hear what the needs are. Silver Lake wanting to connect to the high school and have access to a road. Here recently we had one in Cason, correct? Cason's neighborhood in Highlands on Ranches Parkway. And I would just say that oftentimes if we will just listen and ask questions, we become much better informed, and that's really our goal with those. So as we celebrate our 250th, in the world that we live in, I think it's a good practice for us to learn to listen. As my mom would say, Zach, God gave you 2 ears and 1 mouth. And she was right. So I'll go ahead and close with that. But I appreciate all of you being here.

Speaker F: Okay.

Speaker A: Thank you. I just want to add a couple of comments similar to what Councilmember Wood was touching on. But on Thursday, I was sitting at a MAG meeting. I think I was at roughly hour 17 or 18 on my day that day.

Speaker N: Late—

Speaker A: those, those meetings go late, and I started UFA extra early. Literally looking at the prioritization of our funding that some of our roads in Eagle Mountain did not score high enough on to make the funding threshold. I was less than pleased for your enjoyment. And I let them know, and I will guarantee you that I'm advocating for Eagle Mountain roads. I think because of my just short of a tantrum that some of our roads might get moved up into a funding category. So I think to the ABC news piece that ran yesterday, they did about a 5-minute interview and picked about a 10-second clip. About 8 to 10 years. I didn't say that I was okay with 8 to 10 years. What I said is that's not soon enough. So I haven't had time to look, but I've heard that on Facebook, you know, I'm not doing enough. I literally went on the news to say we're not waiting 8 to 10 years. We're going to take action. So just kind of an update that those things are happening. All weekend I've been working on our roads. I've called the state leadership to request a meeting. We're going to do our best to work with them. They've invested a lot of money in our area. But we have to have a resolution much sooner than what it is right now. So I just wanted to report on that. As I mentioned, we're sitting in MAG as within a 20-minute period— and this I'm going to expand on— we had 5 calls within 20 minutes right behind 3 or 4 calls that had already happened, with agencies responding as far as Pleasant Grove, American Fork, Lehi with mutual aid. 5 calls within 20 minutes. Extrications, life flights, search and rescue, not minor fender benders. And we needed help from across the county. We can't do this any longer. So With that, a huge appreciation, and I know— I don't even know what cruise we're on, but all of UFA, all of our first responders that are keeping us safe even throughout the county, that we sure appreciate the effort that's put in to keep us moving, even if it is at a slow pace right now. And we're doing our best to make sure that we can accelerate that timeline, and I'm not taking 8 years for an answer. That will not work. So we will take measures. I've been meeting with our attorney internally to see what it is that we can do to best serve us. And we don't know what that is yet, but we're working on those solutions. And I can promise you it's not on deaf ears. I sit in this traffic too. Just want to, on a lighter note, spend some time— I love spending time in the schools. For years I got told I had never been inside a school. School back during those discussions. Today and last week, and I'm there all the time, I did a Shark Tank event with the junior high. Super fun. We'll see if we can get some of that out on social media.

Speaker G: But I got a—

Speaker A: I told him I was like Simon Cowell. I'm not gonna be nice to these kids. But I did buy 2 businesses, so I'm broke. They had great pitches and it was kind of a math project and we— they were doing bungee jumping Barbies, and it was fun. So I got to sit next to Julie King and of course banter with her like we always do. And, and I— now I'm gonna go back to a more serious note because Julie was upset. As I was leaving, one of the little kids came running up to me and asked for my autograph. And it was, it was actually quite— she's like, did you pay that kid? You set this up, something's going on. And then we had this cool text thread, and I just wanted to say echo kind of what my fellow council members said about the opportunity to serve at this time. I sent her a message after I was done teasing, and, you know, we always poke each other, and said, you know what, it's never lost on me that nobody's looking for Jared Gray's autograph, not one person. They're there looking for an autograph from the mayor of Eagle Mountain. And that to me is a big deal. To those kids, it's not— they're not looking for me. They're looking for the mantle and the responsibilities that we hold as elected officials. So that was pretty touching for me, and I think that's important that we remember. I say it all the time, it's not mine, it's just my turn. And it was quite an honor to be able to represent the city in signing autographs. So that was a lot of fun. But thanks. So we've got to move on.

Speaker J: Enough of that.

Speaker A: Let's, uh, go to item number 12.

Speaker G: It's actually—

Speaker A: actually, all the items are consent agenda. This is the next thing on our thing. And remember, there's some corrections on item 14, and I believe there was— I didn't write them down, but, uh, one item that needed to be pulled possibly. Okay, uh, would—

Speaker I: I'd be happy to make a motion. Okay, Mayor, I move that the city council approve the consent agenda, um, updating a typo in item 14A to state 2026 through 2027 and removing 14B and placing it on the regularly scheduled items part of the agenda.

Speaker K: Second.

Speaker A: Yeah, I think I got, uh, Council Member Wright. So we got a motion from Council Member Clark and a second from Council Member Wright, and we'll start the vote with Council Member Whiting.

Speaker H: Yes.

Speaker A: Council Member Wood.

Speaker F: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Huish?

Speaker I: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Clark?

Speaker I: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Wright?

Speaker D: Yes.

Speaker A: Okay, with that, we will— the consent agenda passes, and we will go to item 14B, which is— she said B. Okay, it's a resolution of Eagle Mountain City approving the memorandum of agreement with Ivory Homes. Did I— yes, Brad stuck around. So we went over this in the— at length in the Work session. Do you, from the council's perspective, do we need Brad up here? Do you need information from Marcus? What's the— what are the questions? Brad, you're welcome to come forward. I'm sure you're going to get asked questions. I didn't know what they wanted, but I might as well just call you up. So this is a memorandum that we've discussed at length that had to do with the road exchange and Yeah, it's, uh, in relation to the bypass road.

Speaker F: There's, you know, various provisions of sort of understandings that the parties have as to how we want to proceed in the future on things and, uh, and what direction we want to go. And so this would be, you know, an agreement to work in good faith towards getting, you know, formalizing those issues.

Speaker H: I think I expressed earlier, and this is not a question but an expression, I, I don't feel comfortable removing Citla from the agreement based on the—

Speaker F: So we, you know, after the work session, I briefly spoke with Brad about the issue of the school site, and he mentioned that they can just unilaterally purchase that 35-acre property from Citla per their agreement and do a deal with the city directly on that. And so the memorandum—

Speaker A: When you say they, you mean Ivory?

Speaker F: Ivory.

Speaker A: Ivory could purchase from Sitla and then do an exchange with the city.

Speaker O: So, so maybe I could— I mean, chime in a little bit.

Speaker F: So maybe a part of the agreement is helpful.

Speaker O: Yeah, so our agreement is a lease agreement with Sitla. The, um, Villages 1 through 8 are currently part of our lease agreement. Um, any transaction, um, that we do in those 8 villages We conduct the business and we purchase that from SITLA, and then either we give them a percentage of the residential sale, or in commercial uses, we split profits one way or the other. And so all the transactions happen through Ivory. So anything we do with you on this, We would do the transaction, and then we would get consent from Sitla before we proceed with anything. If that makes sense, the Pony Express parcel where we've talked about placing a potential school site is an option parcel in our lease agreement. So in order for us to work with you on that site, we would have to exercise our option to. take that piece and then work with Sitla to purchase it and then do all of the other horse trading ideas that we come up with. And that, that is the purpose of this memorandum of understanding, is that nothing's set in stone yet, but we will work towards a solution that's equitable for everyone, meaning Ivory, Sitla, and Eagle Mountain City.

Speaker F: Thank you.

Speaker O: Does that make sense?

Speaker A: So would it make you more comfortable— I don't know if this is even a question— if they instead— it's a memorandum of understanding or of agreement, right? Um, does it make you more comfortable if it says they will? Right now it's kind of more of a good faith, so I'm trying to get that a little stronger, that they will make that transaction happen or facilitate that. Like, is it a verbiage thing?

Speaker H: No, I was— if CITLA had any obligation, I didn't want that obligation removed. But if Ivory has a unilateral ability to execute on CITLA's portion of the agreement, then I feel better about that.

Speaker O: Yeah, any agreement we do in the future, we will have to get their consent on. So we will work with you to come up with the levers that we want to pull, and then we will go take it to CITLA and get their Blessing before we proceed on anything.

Speaker J: I've been pretty open about what I want removed. I don't want an MOA that deals with water reduction requirements. That doesn't mean that we can't negotiate that as part of an MTA agreement or an amendment. I don't want to be obligated to it, though.

Speaker O: And I don't think this agreement does that. In my opinion, it was just a list of— Then it doesn't matter if it's in there.

Speaker J: That's, that's kind of my point. If it doesn't matter, then it shouldn't be in there.

Speaker O: I think it was just nothing, nothing's in there that's concrete though, right? These were just ideas that we could look at to, in trade for the school site. They weren't, they weren't concrete items. They were just potential things to look at.

Speaker J: That's my only— Brad, if take that out of there, I don't have a problem with the rest of it. I think we can act in good faith with all the other things, but water is not one of those things I'm ready— I, I'm willing to horse trade with.

Speaker I: I was just thinking how in a lot of ways the things that are in this memorandum of agreement are very similar to the tools that we put in our toolbox that we can use with the wildlife corridor. Not everybody's going to get all the things that we listed in the code, that this could be a tool. But it's, it's one of those things that a council has the ability to use to get good outcomes. But I am super sensitive to Council Member Woods' concerns. I'm just wondering if there's some language that we could change in the memorandum to make it so that it's clear that it's just Just a potential tool and not a guaranteed thing. I know that water's such a huge thing now, and every developer on the planet is like, you need to do this. So it's, it's hard when we do it in good faith with one, because then the expectations are that we will be able to do that with all the others, and it really is very case by case. So I'm struggling with that as well.

Speaker C: Would it make any difference to, to you 2 council members if in, in E where it says city's considerations, we were to modify the language? It says the city will consider providing benefits to the developer, which may include, and then it lists some items there. If that were to change to the city may consider providing benefits to the developer, which may include— what if we remove the word will?

Speaker F: Okay.

Speaker C: Because will to me is a strong word. It says we're going to do that. May just opens it up to the fact that it's just a possibility. And I don't know how that would sit with you either, so I'm going to throw that out there and see how the council feels about it. And then I'll ask—

Speaker J: I think the main thing is, is that's something you want to negotiate. For me, it's— that's not a tool. The other things, I think we can talk about any of those other things, but water's not on the table for me. And I think if we want to talk about that under different circumstances as part of a master development agreement or an amendment to a master development agreement, that's different. But I think putting that out there and saying that that's a negotiating tool that we're willing to do is the wrong message. So for me, it would be simply just removing EI from that. I'm fine with the rest.

Speaker C: How do you feel about that, Mr. Mackey?

Speaker O: To me, it's all a negotiation, right? That's the whole point of this memorandum, is trying to find a way that we can come to a win-win solution. And so if that's not on the table, then there will be something else that has to be negotiated.

Speaker C: So, so what I mean, you say, Councilmember Wood, is if, if I is removed, that then you're going to be okay with that?

Speaker J: There's a lot of other things in there that they get a benefit out of that we don't even need to have a discussion about water. I mean, density transfer, increased density, I mean, all those things, those reduced setbacks, those are big asks already.

Speaker C: So then what I'm going to suggest is that we change the city not will but may consider providing benefits to the developer, which may include removing I and just going forward with II from there forward, right? Is the council going to be okay with that?

Speaker K: That seems fair. Yeah, I mean, there's a lot to—

Speaker C: You okay with that, Brad?

Speaker O: We'll work through it.

Speaker C: We're going to have some negotiation. This is not done.

Speaker O: Yeah, this is— again, this is a—

Speaker C: it's a template to say we're—

Speaker O: a template of, of something to start a negotiation to work on, on a solution that benefits everyone.

Speaker C: Okay, then, Mayor, if we're ready, can we, can we move to a motion I'm happy to entertain a motion. All right, let me get there.

Speaker J: You want me to make it since I made the last one?

Speaker A: Go ahead, go ahead.

Speaker J: I mean, I'm happy to do it. Mayor, I move that the City Council approve Item 14B, a resolution of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, approving a memorandum of agreement with Ivory Homes with an adjustment to Section E. The language will say city's consideration the city may consider providing benefits to the developer, which may include then omitting I and continuing with II.

Speaker C: Second.

Speaker A: All right, we have a motion by Councilmember Wood and a second by Councilmember Wright, and we'll start the vote with Councilmember Wood.

Speaker J: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Huish.

Speaker K: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Clark.

Speaker I: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Wright.

Speaker C: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Whiting.

Speaker H: Yes.

Speaker A: Okay, that concludes our consent agenda, and we'll move on to our scheduled item. Thank you, Brad. Um, our next item is item 15A. It's an ordinance, uh, uh, and a public— this is a public hearing. An ordinance of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, amending the Eagle Mountain Municipal Code Chapter 17.10.030 Definitions and 17.25.040 Residential Development Standards. And this will be presented by our long-range planner, Elizabeth Fuchs.

Speaker E: Good evening, Mayor and Council. So first, I wanted to start out with explaining the genesis of this item. So a few months ago, we approved the WUI map, so the Wildland Urban Interface map. And in preparation for that, Brandon and I met with the fire officials and discussed different aspects of that map. And during that conversation, I asked if there was anything we could do as a city to improve our ability to survive and fight against wildfires. And so this was recommended by the fire officials. As something that we could do, and so I'm bringing it to the council in that light of explaining this is an option, something we could consider as a city to implement. But it's certainly not required by the state code or city code or anywhere. This is just an option for us. And so after that suggestion, I started looking into where else has this been done? Who else? Which other jurisdictions are doing this? And most of the places that I found. Found were counties outside of Utah. So this isn't something that is widely implemented even within the state. This would be something a little different for us to do. And so we don't have— like, it wouldn't be a copy-paste of something done somewhere else. We would want to adapt those standards for what would make sense for our city if we chose to go in this direction. I thought it was still worth bringing to the council to consider this, even though it, it isn't really being done elsewhere. Because unlike other cities, a lot of other cities, we're surrounded mostly by wildlands, and we don't intend to fully build out. We want to protect washes and natural open space. And also, we have a lot of large lots, and a lot of those don't have fully improved yards. And these are all great things for our community, but it does also increase the risk of wildfire spreading through our city. So as I looked at kind of the pros and cons of this, there are some challenges. There's difficulty in defining exactly where we want this to go, and we can— the— I call it wooey boundary lots, and we can dive into that here in a minute. Now, it could increase the housing costs because if we were to put in this greater setback, it would most likely need to have a larger lot in order to accommodate those. So these boundary lots would then be required for safety to be larger. And it could limit and impede the placement of accessory structures if we were to choose to include those in the standards. But the benefits of this, kind of the reasons we might wanna consider this, is it helps protect residents and their properties. So the WUI code suggests a 30-foot setback. Because usually a 30 or greater setback on the property of well-maintained space cleared of vegetation drastically improves the chances of that structure surviving when a wildfire comes through. And this would create a fire perimeter around the city. They talk about defensible space when they're— when it comes to fire prevention with wildfires. And so I think of it kind of cities used to have walls around them because the best way to prevent to protect your city is to prevent a threat from ever getting inside. So these properties would kind of be the first line of defense for that wildfire. So not only would it protect their properties, but if we can stop it there, it's not going to get inside the city anywhere else. And HB 48. From last year, properties in that WUI area are now going to be charged fees by the state, and they can reduce those fees if they do certain things to make their, their, um, properties more resilient against wildfires. And one of that is to create a 30-foot defensible space. But the state code says it's 30 feet or to the property line. As, as you raised, okay, if you don't own all 30 feet, you can't really clear it. And this takes into account, let's say that on the other side is a wash or a hillside. We don't want them, you know, you clear out the vegetation, that's going to help with fires, but that's going to cause some other issues if we start clearing out all the vegetation off the hillsides and out of the washes. So this would make sure that they have 30 feet of defensible space on their property that it's— they don't have to worry about another property. And hopefully it would help. I know we've talked about people haven't been able to qualify for fire insurance. And this won't guarantee it. But if we're a unique city saying, hey, we're doing something to protect against wildfires, hopefully we could help our residents be able to qualify for it, for insurance. So I wanted to pause here before we take a look at any of the code and just do a pulse check and see, is this something that the council is interested in considering?

Speaker K: Uh, so my, my home insurance was canceled because of the way that the fire department ranks where I live. That all gets aggregated into data that goes back to the insurance company.

Speaker E: Mm-hmm.

Speaker K: And they just sent me a letter and said, you need a new insurance carrier by next month. And so I had to shop. I've got some weird company I've never heard of. They're insuring my house now. And I'm just curious if we add maybe a more restrictive or more uniform code like this, and I don't see our fire people here, could that improve that score across our city?

Speaker E: I think Brett is online.

Speaker K: That's what I would want to know.

Speaker E: Is he online? He said he was going to try to be there.

Speaker A: Yeah. Yeah, I'm online.

Speaker B: Can you restate that question? It kind of got cut off.

Speaker K: It wasn't a great question. Let me try to rephrase it. If we adopt more restrictive policies around our WUI, will it help the fire scoring to better inform the insurance companies so we have less people losing their home insurance policies is my question.

Speaker A: I—

Speaker B: that's a hard question. And I don't have— I don't think we have a good answer and I don't think we will have a good answer due to the fact that the insurance companies, even when municipalities in certain jurisdictions have established higher thresholds, It really hasn't. Insurance companies have still come in and canceled insurances due to the risk and the payouts that have been associated with those risks.

Speaker J: So I think it would be a hard—

Speaker B: I think it would be difficult for us to anticipate that at best.

Speaker J: I would—

Speaker B: And Dan DeVogue, who's the fire marshal over Our area. And historically, when you look at fires in general and the history of major disasters and fires that have ripped through neighborhoods and jurisdictions, you will always notice that there are certain houses that are spared. And there's been a lot of study that goes into why those have been spared. And it almost always comes back to defensible space or God's grace.

Speaker N: Right.

Speaker B: Those are kind of the two things that get pointed to. So the biggest thing is defensible space. The 30, 30 to 50 feet is, is what has been preached for years. And it is something that we feel strongly about that will save homes ultimately, especially if we have a wind-driven, wind-aligned event. in high bluey areas. And so that's kind of the background behind it. So sorry to go on a diatribe outside of the question that was asked. The answer to that question, I don't think that we have a good answer. I don't think we will have a good answer. And, you know, if we have high insurance payouts, it very well may not matter what we do with the municipality because insurance companies can kind of— I think that's a great point. Now, I know legislatively they're taking a look at different things to be able to manage it, but that's kind of what I would anticipate. And Marcus may be able to weigh in a little bit more in depth on that one.

Speaker F: I mean, he's not wrong. Insurance companies are going to contract and do business with whom they want to. And there's no law in the state of Utah that will requires them to insure a specific home.

Speaker K: Yeah, my understanding was that there are scores.

Speaker G: Right.

Speaker F: I mean, it wouldn't hurt. It's a question of whether it would help. It's not going to hurt.

Speaker G: The ISO rating is a component of the fire response times, a component of the water system and the water availability into a given neighborhood. And all of these type of things is a comprehensive look. We actually have a pretty high ISO rating right now, which is pretty good. But different areas of town, and depending on how close you are to a hydrant and all that kind of thing, can affect insurance companies. Nothing can compel them to actually insure, but I think you're seeing nationwide this happening all over the place. For sure. When I was in Iowa, companies were just pulling out of the state just for no other reason than tornadoes and ripping shingles off roofs and whatnot. So insurance companies are becoming more and more risk-averse.

Speaker J: So I guess the question then is the real benefit that we can hope to help them with is what they're being fined, and then obviously the 30-foot barriers, trying to prevent that from taking over the city. My concern is going to obviously be their right to use their property. I mean, some people, that's their entire backyard. So I mean, I think that people are going to have some of those concerns. I stated before, I feel like this, this bill didn't go far enough. It's penalizing those that bought a house that they had nothing to do with how big the backyard was, and the adjacent owners don't have any responsibility to do a fire line that goes up against those properties. I would really like the state to have a more broad approach and say, we don't know when those are going to be developed, and so there should be 30 feet of fire line that's cut, a road at the very minimum that protects the houses from the structure from going through your property, which it's absolutely going to go through because that's where the weeds are and the sagebrush and so forth. But yeah, I mean, I, in principle, I think it's a good idea. Uh, I'm not enthusiastic about taking people's sheds, barns, and that kind of thing down and saying you can't have those. Um, I'd love to see other options that they can do to make them fire resistant as part of that plan if possible, but that'd be my only 2 cents on that.

Speaker E: Um, just, just, uh, I'll respond to him and then we'll go to, um, Council Member Clark. So we do have it in there. Well, first, it would only apply to the O's that require a building permit. So that means they're over 200 square feet or they have electrical or plumbing to them. But we also do have the option that if they were to— that they could get an approval if they were to have them be— have fire safety taken into account. So like if they did a metal shed or other fire-resistant material, then they would— we would allow exceptions for that reason. Because we don't— we wanted this to be about fire protection, not doing that. And the Planning Commission did suggest adding accessory dwellings in there. Of course, if the council doesn't want accessory dwellings, we could Accessory building, sorry. We could take that out.

Speaker I: I think for me, there's been so many times where a project's come before us—

Speaker B: Oh.

Speaker J: That was Amber?

Speaker A: Was that Brett? Go ahead. Maybe not. Yeah, sorry.

Speaker B: It's hard to talk.

Speaker A: No, can you hear me? Yeah, go ahead.

Speaker B: Yeah, sorry, Council Member Clark, I didn't mean to cut you off. Um, one of the other things to keep in mind too is this is, this is directly related to the, the WUI high-risk areas and new builds within those areas. Uh, and so it's not specifically, um, going to take hold, you know, in throughout the city or in all properties. It's primarily going to be in those high- high-risk areas that have already been identified by the state that are still going to get taxed and, and have some fee assessed. This will help, uh, to protect those areas as they do builds. So, uh, Councilmember Clark, I apologize to cut you off.

Speaker I: No worries. It's hard when we have delays and different things. So what I started to say was there's been so many projects that have come before me, and I think all of us where we, we can look at it and we can say that's not going to work because someone's trying to get the most lots out of it humanly possible, and we know that the wash is going to impede something, the slope is going to impede something, and now we have the WUI adjacent setback that would— and the fire risk, I guess, is the best way to say that. And we can only say no or force something with very specific things: health, safety, and welfare. And this is very specifically for safety. This is a tool that allows us as a land use decision body that to look at a project and say, we have this setback now, and for safety reasons, we're going to require that these lots are bigger or there's bigger setbacks. And I get that that will increase some lots' prices, but the reality of it is, is not every lot in every city is made for every financial situation. And the people who could have a lot like this were— are going to be in a better position to have that setback and to leave that space and have that defensible space. For that reason, I'm inclined to approve this because it's another really good tool for us as decision makers to make sure that our neighborhoods, especially the ones adjacent to WUI, are safer.

Speaker J: Just a follow-up question. Um, maybe this is obvious to everybody else but not to me. So the WUI can exist within our city boundaries. It's not just the outward boundaries that we're talking about. That being the case, they can fall out of that as well as the next subdivision is built. So the question that I'm thinking of in my mind is, what are we doing to notify the people who are buying the house that can't do anything with their backyard? Because I can promise you the developer's not going to tell them that.

Speaker L: Yeah.

Speaker J: I think if we're going to implement something like that, there needs to be some responsibility placed on those who are building the property to let that be known as part of the process, that you are in a WUI area 30 feet of your backyard. is not buildable for any accessory, anything back there. Because look, there's a lot of things we don't have to take responsibility for— people's views and the sky above and any of those kind of things. But if you're going to put a restriction like that on the property, they need to be notified in a way that's meaningful.

Speaker E: So this would only impact new properties, so new builds. So it would be something that we, we would be looking at as we're approving Plots and and and developments.

Speaker J: That's what I'm looking at. I'm looking at the ones that are coming into it, and they're saying, "Great, I got this brand new house I built." What I didn't know is that I can't put anything in my backyard. I think it's important that that if they're in the WUI that we need to let them know that they exist in that zone. That needs to be something that is required of the builder to let them know. Also, to let them know that as the next development is done, they will fall out of that. But for whatever that period of time is, like, we need to help them to be aware of what they're saying yes to. So if we're putting the restriction there, I will—

Speaker E: let's dive into the code because I, I realize this might need some more work, and I'm fine if we table it and come back. I wanted to start— have a starting point because I figure it's easier to start with something than to start with nothing. And my hope is to try to impact as few properties as possible and not have the properties who are falling out of it for it to apply to them. So that did make some of the trying to define things a little tricky. But when I talked about that wall, if you think about it that way, it would only be the properties on the wall. So if you have a property and right now it's the last property between you and a hillside, but there's developable and buildable land behind you, that means it's going to be large enough and level enough to put in housing or a business. Then that's a defensible space for the city, so it wouldn't apply to you. This only applies to people if you are up against a wash or a hillside, the very perimeter of the city Where we don't have— there's behind you, that land is never slated to be developed. This— the people it might— that it could impact is if we annexed in later. So those people may end up with a bigger setback and then development goes in behind them, but it's not meant, oh, you're Phase 1, so you have to have a 30-foot setback, and then Phase 2 goes in and the edge of that has to have a 30-foot setback. But it could be a Phase 2 It could be, but again, if that land's large enough and level enough, we would be able to defend the city from there. So that was my thought process. We can change that, but trying to— again, we— this is for safety. If we can accomplish safety without impeding their land rights, then we want to do that.

Speaker C: I think one of the questions that I have about this, Beth, is— and I'm thinking specifically of Circle 5. Circle 5 is in the WUI. I think it's identified as a WUI-5 area, and we know that there are entitlements in that area. And I'm just thinking, how's the developer who already has some existing entitlements in there, how's he going to make this function in an existing area? So I mean, I kind of— I'm hearing all of this, and what I'm hearing is a desire to think about how could we create safer areas in the city, and I think that's an admirable desire. But I also think we need to look at what's the real-world impact to existing entitlements and to those future entitlements. And if it's just gonna pertain to future and we're only looking for the boundary, where's that boundary at?

Speaker G: Yeah.

Speaker C: You know, because it's this boundary today and it's that boundary tomorrow and it's this boundary in Eagle Mountain 6 months from now, right? I mean, it's just, it's always moving. And so I'm really wrestling with this. I get the safety aspect of it as somebody who deals with this on his own property. And I'm really wrestling with creating additional government red tape that individuals have to deal with that they wouldn't otherwise have to deal with because they live in Eagle Mountain City. So I'm, I'm, I'm kind of on the fence with this one. If I looked at it today, I'd probably just be a no, but I think if we can engage in it and perhaps find a better way to get to a yes, and we can understand Embritt's position and how we can incorporate that a little, a little better, but I'm not prepared to say yes to this. this today. I'll just put it that way. So I, I mean, I know there's a public hearing, Mayor, but I think we should do what we can to get into that portion of it. And I don't see this moving forward today.

Speaker A: Well, I, I was going to ask that too, depending on kind of the direction for the council. I don't know how much of the presentation— I know you said you went this far, um, how much would apply to the public hearing as beneficial to the public, for the simple reason that if it's going to change a lot And this is going to be unpopular. I hate noticing it again, but if it's not the same thing, I also find that unfair to the public. So I'm willing to have a public hearing on this as it stands today, but if it's going to come back, can— we'd have to re-notice it, even if we pass it.

Speaker F: I mean, it depends on the, you know, how major the changes that you're contemplating are. I mean, if you're talking about pretty significant changes. I mean—

Speaker A: So, Marcus, here's the question though. In the past, we've left the public hearing open. Do you have to re-notice it if that's—

Speaker F: I mean, so, I mean, if you're tabling it to a specific date, then I would say no, because that's— people who wanted to comment on this code were on notice that we were having a public hearing today, and they would be on notice of the new date if the motion to table. And so that, that has, you know, serves the function of the public notice. If we don't know when we're coming back, we're going to have to re-notice it either way.

Speaker A: Okay. And the other thing I was thinking is we could have the public hearing, and if there's no one here that came to comment on this anyway, then I'd be a little bit more comfortable. But again, if there's significant changes. So I was just curious about that.

Speaker E: If—

Speaker A: and I've kind of heard a little bit of both, that maybe it's okay, maybe it's not. So I'm looking for direction from the council. Do you want me to continue with the public hearing?

Speaker H: Well, how much longer do you have in your presentation? Like, were you toward the end, or is there like a lot more? Is there more salient details the public would want to hear right now?

Speaker E: I could give just a really quick summary that might— for the public. So basically, The code, other than defining where this— the first part defines which properties it would apply to, and basically it would have a 30-foot setback for primary structures, and then there is that they could apply for an exception. And mainly this will impact R-1 and smaller for rear setbacks. It's really only a corner property it might do a side setback. They'd have to have more property on the side of their lots. But larger lots have 35 rear setbacks anyway. And then the accessory dwellings— accessory dwellings— accessory buildings, it would also have a 30-foot setback for those. Again, you could, if your shed's smaller than 200 feet, it wouldn't impact you. So it's only if it's above 200 or has like electrical and plumbing. So, and, and then the Planning Commission, they recommended having those accessory buildings in it as well, accessory structures.

Speaker A: And Council Member Wright, just curious, some of our other exceptions, if you will, are actually decisions made at Planning Commission. But if the exceptions are built into this for places like Circle 5 that says, hey, this is our suggested rules, if you will, but just like a mitigation plan for other codes, if they could come with some kind of plan or exception, request for exception, that it's easily mitigated, does that make this better?

Speaker C: I mean, I see it as very difficult. I'm just going to put it this way. If I move into a piece of property and I buy it and I'm subject to this and I establish all of that and at some point the adjacent property develops, now suddenly I'm being restricted to use my property just as anybody else in the city can. I can't build a shed within 5 feet of the property line because I've got— I have to meet the 30-foot or I've been held to that standard and then it changes. I just think there's a lot of ambiguity in it. And I just see it as a code enforcement nightmare. How do you know? And when you're bringing an application, well, does it still apply or is it outdated? When did we update it last? And I just hear all of these arguments from the individual property owners when they're trying to build an accessory dwelling.

Speaker K: I'll just add to that. In my— I'm just thinking of my neighbors. We live by Airport Road. 80-foot setback for an airport easement. I've never had a plane crash. But it exists because of the FAA, and it severely restricts my ability. You have to push all of your sheds, all of the outbuildings toward your house when I'd rather have them back, you know, up against my fence. I have neighbors who have horses, they have, you know, barns and places that they store their hay, those are going to Like, like a, you know, that'll create a fire. So I, I find it would be hard to, to manage that and, and enforce it. I think I'm probably a no at this point. Like, we should comply with the state, but I think it's going to be difficult to do it on new builds going forward and large lots and creates issues for the developer as well.

Speaker A: If, if this is the direction I'm hearing, it's still a split. I think I want to move forward with the public hearing and we'll just— and we'll see where it lands. So with that, I think we've got some pretty good information and some good commentary. I do want to open the public hearing at this time. It is 8:26 and ask if anyone has— none. Is there anyone here that would like to speak on this item that did not have an opportunity?

Speaker E: Yes.

Speaker A: Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing. And if we have to do it again, we'll have to re-notice. It's 8:26. We'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the council for further discussion.

Speaker C: I'll throw out another idea, Mayor. I'm just sitting here thinking about this because I— look, I think the safety aspect of this can't be, um, just dismissed, right? It does matter.

Speaker O: And—

Speaker C: but I'm wondering if this is the right approach. That's really what I'm sitting I'm wondering if we shouldn't put together something that is like a detailed recommendation for new builds that are in adjacency to the WUI and allow those private homeowners to make those decisions. That we're giving them some recommendations that will help keep them safe and create that defensible state. I don't know what the answer is, but I think we have to develop this a little bit further before I'm going to be ready to say yes.

Speaker I: What I hear you saying is more of a carrot approach instead of a stick, and I think that that's always a better— that's good governance, is to help educate, provide resources, knowledge, all of those things. So like, I, I actually, when Councilmember Huish was speaking, I started thinking about the fact that maybe what we need to be doing is more education in these areas. But I think that The education approach or what you just said is going to be just as difficult to get the information out to new homeowners who are moving in. So I feel like while this is a valiant effort, there's no real solution for us to solve the problem that this code's trying to solve.

Speaker J: I think there needs to be shared responsibility too, and I don't know if that's something that we can, that we can require. I mean, I believe that there needs to be some responsibility of the homeowners, the developers, a certain space, but I don't think that negates the responsibility of the landowners. If we're requiring them to retain their water on their property regardless if it's done or not, why would we not require them to put a defensible fire line on their property so that they're not the cause of the fire spreading and ruining all the homes adjacent to it? I mean, I just— if we're going to go down that road, it needs to be a shared responsibility. Responsibility, in my opinion. Then you have 15 on one side and 15 on the other side. It also gives access to the fire department on the property that isn't developed to be able to fight the fire. You essentially have a fire road.

Speaker K: Or if you do build something within that 30-foot space, have defined materials that it could be built out of, and we'd probably need to define that: metal roofs, metal exterior.

Speaker A: It's concrete, tilt-up.

Speaker K: Concrete, everything.

Speaker J: If there's work to be done on it, it's probably not this one, is what it sounds like. I'll make a motion if you're okay with that.

Speaker A: I'm okay with that if you give specific direction. I know Bess put a lot of time into this, so if you— if we're just not interested, or if you want to—

Speaker J: Do you— so let me ask this of the council. Do you feel like the wording in this is something we want to keep, or do we want to start over? That'll determine how I make my motion.

Speaker H: Well, it sounds like we had a good idea developing here with, okay, so if you want an accessory, like some kind of structure within that 30 feet, it has to be made out of certain materials. That makes sense.

Speaker J: Does that solve all the problems?

Speaker A: Well, right now it's restricted, so does that lift the restriction if it meets the requirement?

Speaker J: For the accessory dwelling, that was an— recommendation by the Planning Commission. So that would be in above what they originally brought. Do we think the 30 feet needs to exist all on one property? Does it need to be shared?

Speaker I: One of the things that I keep going back to though is even if we do put those things, answering your questions, who's going to enforce it? Is it going to be enforced at site plan stage? What if they don't have a shed at that point? And if they don't have to have a building permit because it doesn't exceed 200 square feet and it doesn't have a utility going to it, then there's no enforcement for that. Like, it feels like we've kind of opened Pandora's box with this, and that's where I'm kind of getting held up right now.

Speaker A: That's where I'm at.

Speaker J: So it sounds like we probably just deny this then. Okay, uh, Mayor, I move that the City Council deny 15A, an ordinance Eagle Mountain City, Utah, amending Eagle Mountain Municipal Code Chapter 17.10.030, Definitions, and 17.25.040, Residential Development Standards.

Speaker C: Second.

Speaker A: I have a motion by Council Member Wood and a second by Council Member Wright, and we will start the vote with Council Member Huish.

Speaker K: Yes.

Speaker A: Council Member Clark.

Speaker M: Yes.

Speaker A: Council Member Wright?

Speaker C: Yes.

Speaker H: Yes.

Speaker K: Yes.

Speaker A: All right, that passes 5-0 to deny that.

Speaker C: I still think we should work on this.

Speaker A: So, so that, that's where I was—

Speaker C: With that said, I still think we should be having some discussion about how do we, how do we create some defensible space.

Speaker Q: Beth?

Speaker E: Yeah, I'm not offended by this at all because I was struggling with it, how, how to work it out. But the same thing, it's a good concept, but I didn't think this was going to pass tonight as written because I recognized it had some issues. So maybe we'll have some more conversations, more thoughts, and see if we can come up with something that'll work better.

Speaker J: I think it probably gives us the, the direction of maybe we need to start looking at what accessory structures should be. Perhaps we shouldn't be saying yes to ones that are made of wood, especially those that are being built that Maybe it needs to be that we're doing metal requirements because we are literally in an area where wildfires are a problem. That's some of the things that we probably need to start looking at, just like we're looking at conservation efforts for land to use less water and things like that. I think this is part of that overall discussion of perhaps some of those standards need to change, especially in those areas where it's been identified. that's the beginning of the conversation.

Speaker E: And I do think education's part of it, because if it were my home, I might not know that, but I would want to know things I could do to protect my home.

Speaker H: I think we need to remember this is part of the Circle 5. Like, when it comes back at some point for approval, we need to remember adding some language in that, that agreement pertaining to fire standards.

Speaker A: Okay, I know Brandon's been trying to—

Speaker D: Circle 5 is coming I'll be coming back to you at the next meeting. And, uh, and, uh, the other thing I was going to say, um, now that I've told you that, um, the state's adopting the 2024 WUI code. And so that becomes effective, I think, July 1st, somewhere around that time frame. And so it'll be good to dive into that more and understand it better because there are defensible space requirements in there. And so after becoming more familiar with that, we might have some better recommendations for you.

Speaker C: So, Brandon, and I was just— I mean, I asked the mayor if I could say one more thing, and, and I'll say one more thing and then I'll be done. I just think that we may need to consider some additional development standards on those areas that are adjacent to a WUI. And what that does is it creates some of that buffering and requires some larger lots to buffer against that to help create that transition. And I recognize that that's temporary and that it's going to move, but I also think it accomplishes some of the things that we've been trying to do, is to encourage some larger lot development, in particular in the foothills and some of those areas that are adjacent to these WUI standardized areas. So I think there's some room to do some really unique and creative things with this.

Speaker A: So that was a great suggestion, and I just want to make sure we capture that. 'Cause I know that Beth works hard and sometimes these things just stall out. And I was going to say in 30 seconds or less, but I know what that really means is add 2 zeros for everybody here. So, you know, like, what exactly do you want Beth to, like, focus on? Building materials, larger lots, I hear. I just want to make sure that she's not just spinning wheels to get— you know, what should we be doing to—

Speaker M: Yeah.

Speaker A: Yeah, I know Craig's talked about a lot of building materials, alternative foam, and—

Speaker K: Thank you for your time on this. I think it's really important. And what I— just having the conversation is key. I'm thinking about the building materials, enclosed hay barns, things like that, that if you're in that space, especially if there's animal rights that we have—

Speaker A: You want them enclosed or not enclosed? Enclosed can be worse for combustion.

Speaker K: Well, yeah, I mean, whatever would be the safest in that case.

Speaker A: If it's hay, I mean, it depends on how it is when it's put in there. Yeah, it just— if it's moldy, it's going to start and create heat.

Speaker D: Right.

Speaker A: There's just no good answer. So it's materials.

Speaker K: Mayor would have some insights on hay barns, but I'm thinking of like 5 neighbors right now. If it hits my neighborhood, we're in trouble because they're all up against the property line.

Speaker J: Just quickly, I think Brett's suggestion about the larger lots on the outside, I think that's, that's a pretty easy thing to, to require because that will enable them to have the 30 feet and still have usable land. If we do that with quarter acres or smaller, they have no land. So I think that's step one. I think our fire department help us with what materials are combustible, what are not, what are just going to melt in place. Like, I think they can help us with the standards for those things. And Dan DeVogue should know some of that stuff as well. And then I think anything that's on the perimeter of the city is probably where we begin with that defensible line. And perhaps that's not just areas that are built that we require Require landowners to create that defensible line around our city.

Speaker E: Well, and I think if we're dealing with larger lots, that 30 feet could either be a setback from the property line or between the buildings. Then they might lose the accessory structure. You know, it'd be their choice, but then they would have more freedom with their—

Speaker J: To your question, Brett, the way you enforce it is you contact the person who owns that parcel and them that they have a requirement to clear brush so it doesn't spread a fire. And that, it's done in other cities. That's not new. I lived in— by the way, I lived in San Diego County when the fires were there, and the people who were on the periphery had a requirement to clear brush. So it's not a new, new thing. I was there when the whole place was on fire, and I had 4 inches of soot on my house. So yeah, it can be done, and it's something that we can enforce. force. We just need to.

Speaker E: And some of that is going to be— the state is doing that. They're having people come out and inspect their properties, and if they do certain things, their fees are going to go down. So the state will be informing them as well that they are in a high-risk area. Any more comments?

Speaker I: I'm just wondering, is there a way— do we need to be looking at areas that aren't necessarily necessarily up against WUI, because people have said, what happens when something else gets developed and that WUI goes away? But I look at areas like Kiowa Valley, in the middle of Fremont Springs, Porter's Crossing. I mean, we literally have a mountain in the middle of our neighborhood that's covered in fire.

Speaker L: Yeah.

Speaker I: You know, everything. And we've had fires there, and we've had to be evacuated a couple So like, even though those homes exist, and technically there may not be a WUI just on the other side of them, there's still that danger there. So regardless of where we land with code, I think the education piece definitely needs to roll forward. And then I want to say one other thing. I think so many times people think that city council comes to meetings and it's a foregone conclusion. We've all decided what we want to do and that's it. But the tonight was a really great example of a staff member and council throwing their different thoughts out there and coming to a conclusion that we could all get behind. And I think that's the beauty of having a body of people that make decisions for our city. We all help make the decisions better. So I'm just going to say that.

Speaker A: I don't even think we agree on much other than the minutes. But anyway, I think that's a pretty good direction. I want to cut this off. So are you— you know where we're going?

Speaker E: Yeah, that's good. Thanks.

Speaker G: Kind of.

Speaker A: Yeah. Glad you do, because I don't. Thank you. We'll hope to see that. And we want to keep our residents safe, but sometimes that infringes on our own freedoms, right? So Yeah, all right, one more item. It's Item 16A, Ordinance of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, approving the Flagship Homes Development Agreement. And Marcus has some information.

Speaker F: Yeah, this is an identical agreement to the one we did with Meritage Homes. This is also in Harmony Development, and so it's an attempt to treat Flagship the same that we treated— in the same way that we treated Meritage.

Speaker J: So essentially let them do a bond and come back and do it at the end?

Speaker F: Yeah, they would bond and have a, you know, 9-month sort of deadline to start.

Speaker J: I have a thought sort of related to this. Have we considered the possibility of buying the forms for these types of fences? And working something out with contractors so we have some uniformity with these going down the road?

Speaker F: We can do what exactly?

Speaker J: The forms for the walls, these concrete walls. Have we considered that?

Speaker G: Is that something—

Speaker A: When you said have we considered, we have.

Speaker J: We as the city. Is that something that anybody's talked about at the staff level of owning the forms to be able to create these and maybe reducing some of the cost associated with that?

Speaker F: I don't believe that's something that's been considered.

Speaker J: Might be something to talk about and see if it is— if it's not financially feasible, I mean, I'm a no. But if it's something that would reduce the cost and get the uniformity and make it easy to replace them, might be something to consider.

Speaker A: I think, Rich, to that, I mean, I know I've worked in this industry for a long time, and it goes along with excavating gravel pits. Some of those pits and concrete places will hold the forms, pour them, and just deliver you the walls if you have a specific pattern, for instance. Maybe it has their logo on it. What I'm recommending is that maybe we ask John in our legislative to look into some of the costs and if we want to add that to the list, because I think it's something that we could consider and then have that brought back. It would be fairly simple. So unless— if there's no other comments, I know Craig's itching to make a motion.

Speaker H: Mayor, I move that the City Council approve Agenda Item 16A, an ordinance of Eagle Mountain City Utah approving the Flagship Homes Development Agreement.

Speaker J: Second.

Speaker A: Okay, we have a motion by Councilmember Whiting, a second by Councilmember Wood, and we'll start the vote with Councilmember Clark.

Speaker E: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Wright.

Speaker C: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Whiting.

Speaker H: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Wood.

Speaker J: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Huish.

Speaker K: Yes.

Speaker A: Okay, good work. We got through that. With that, I think John is still here. Um, great opportunity to bring that up. Okay, yeah, if you don't mind.

Speaker J: Basically, John, if you could maybe do some research into whether it would be cost-effective, first of all, for us to acquire the mold, or the forms, I mean, for these concrete panels. Jared and I have talked a little bit about this. Essentially, you have posts that have channels in them. You pour these concrete slabs. They slide down in the channels. If we had something like that, perhaps this becomes less onerous and less costly for us to have this standard along all of our arterial. They're easy to replace if they're damaged, and maybe that becomes a partnership that we can work out with, to Jared's point, with the pits that are— have their own cement factories there that they can pour some of these things. I know they do blocks and things things like that there. But it would be maybe something that could offset some of the cost. I know that's usually the biggest problem is the, the cost of doing that that a lot of developers have. That helps us to be able to accomplish the safety aspect that we're looking for, create some uniform, uh, looks on our arterial roads. And it's something that, uh, we don't have to worry about changing of companies going out of business or whatever. We can maintain that uniformity. That's just an idea that I've been thinking about.

Speaker K: 6 feet?

Speaker J: Yeah, they're 6 feet.

Speaker A: Yeah, the size of the wall. So those panels are usually 6 feet tall by— do you remember, they're 8 feet long? I didn't even give you a chance to speak.

Speaker C: 8 or 10.

Speaker A: Your item was 2—

Speaker G: 10.

Speaker A: They're 10-footers. Okay, I couldn't remember. So 6 by 10 panels. And just because usually that's done by motion, but I want to make sure that council is Is there anybody that thinks that that might be a benefit?

Speaker J: I just feel like, why not?

Speaker C: There's no reason to not look into it.

Speaker G: Yeah.

Speaker J: Okay. Well, can I make the motion to that effect?

Speaker A: Yeah.

Speaker J: I move that we add that to the legislative priorities list and have John do some research about the cost associated with that and see if it's financially beneficial to do so.

Speaker C: Second.

Speaker A: Okay. We have a motion and a second by Councilmember Huish. And I just want to ask before we go to vote, are you clear on the Okay, just making sure. Any questions on the motion? Councilman Wright?

Speaker C: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilman Whiting?

Speaker H: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilman Wood?

Speaker J: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Huish?

Speaker K: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Clark?

Speaker I: Yes.

Speaker A: Okay, are there any other legislative— well, while we're on this note, I want to— is there anything else that we need to talk about for the list?

Speaker F: Yeah.

Speaker G: Okay.

Speaker C: You and I talked a little bit about this, Mayor, and it's— and I know that John's at least been looking into it on the surface, but I think a I think as a council, we need to discuss water policy with regards to the paper rights that we're accepting and the prioritization dates.

Speaker A: Didn't we already set a policy, or are you asking to set a policy?

Speaker C: I'm asking for us to work with John and for the council to really come together and gain some further understanding from John and see if we can't come up with crafting some guardrails that we want to put in place so that we're not accepting really new water rights that are at a higher probability of being removed.

Speaker A: I thought we already had that in our policy. That's not in there now?

Speaker F: No.

Speaker A: Okay, that's good.

Speaker C: And so I just think that there's wisdom in adopting something like that, and there's a lot of moving parts to this. And so I'm hoping John will educate us and that we as a body can then kind of say, okay, Knowing all this information, what do we want to do? Because the prioritization date's important, understanding that—

Speaker A: I think— so can I add a little bit to that? We've been to some meetings and I know what we're looking for. And I know John could help us with— and I'll say this, John— with maybe drafting some of that code. But I don't know if that wouldn't need a little help. He could follow up or track it. But I think we're asking John, shoot, to maybe look at.

Speaker C: Well, and I'm going to say, having had the conversations I have with— oh, Ben looks like he needs to get in here. I'll be quiet for a minute.

Speaker G: I was just going to say, John Schutz, in coordination with Hanson Allen Luce, with our engineers, because I think there's a combination of strategies that engineering and legal both bring to help you make a better decision.

Speaker A: And then maybe have John—

Speaker C: Educate us.

Speaker A: marry those together or whatever to our policy. Yeah, and you can kind of track it, but I think we're going to need that expertise, no?

Speaker C: So, so with, with that said, um, if we're going to do it, I, I just kind of feel like we need to, we need to take an hour with those parties in the room and just have a conversation where we can become better educated. And, and I don't know when or how that happens. I don't know.

Speaker A: Well, we've sort of Yeah, we've been trying to— we don't have a specific date, but Evan, I think, tracks those offsites, or Ben can. But that definitely needs to be one of our agenda items, to create a policy around water right allocations.

Speaker C: And specifically, I think we need to create a policy around the paper water rights that we accept, and with the specificity about their I don't know what the right terminology is, John.

Speaker G: It's their priority date.

Speaker C: The prioritization date that those water rights are associated with. I think that's really important, because there's some strategies that I think we need to employ there.

Speaker J: Right, 'cause if we just look at priority dates, that's just like taking a hammer when we need a scalpel. Because sometimes when you get a change application, the priority date moves to the change application, which is okay, because the parent right, still has the older one. Um, but that only applies to a water right in '54 block. If it came from '55 or '59, then the change application is the new date. That's why we want you on point, John, because you understand this.

Speaker K: That's—

Speaker E: yeah.

Speaker J: So, right, there's— we can definitely say these are some good water rights, and there's some bad water rights, and there's some that are going to be in this gray area where we need council direction to— if you want to accept them. But yeah, it's a lot of moving parts to Will you just let me make a motion then?

Speaker C: I move that the City Council put on the prioritization list that we direct you and staff to work with us to create water policy associated with prioritization dates of the paper water rights.

Speaker J: Second.

Speaker A: Okay, we have a motion by Councilmember Wright and a second by Councilmember Wood, and we'll start the vote with Councilmember Weiting.

Speaker H: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Wood.

Speaker G: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Huish?

Speaker K: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Clark?

Speaker F: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Wright?

Speaker J: Yes.

Speaker A: Okay, any other additions to the priority?

Speaker H: I have a follow-up from 2 weeks ago. We had a member, a citizen of Meadow Ranch, come and let us know that the equine overlay zone inadvertently missed, you know, the extra development that had happened. Is that on anybody's plate right now, or is that just Because I think we've got to move that ball forward.

Speaker A: I'm not a member, actually, so do you remember?

Speaker G: I don't.

Speaker J: I remember the conversation.

Speaker K: I remember him coming for open comment. He did.

Speaker J: We will follow up on that.

Speaker H: Do we need to put that on the list?

Speaker G: No, staff will take the direction to follow up on that comment and report back to the council.

Speaker F: Okay.

Speaker H: I think we'd want to get that— we want to get that extended. To where it should be. Yeah, and we shouldn't hopefully wait too long. I know we got a lot the city's working on, but—

Speaker K: I just have a clarification on— I'm not sure where this landed on the priorities list. I think I took, took it back to do some homework, and this is on making— having the ability to make payments to the city in Bitcoin, not utilities, but application fees, things like that. Is that on the—

Speaker J: It's on the priority list.

Speaker K: Yeah, it's on the priority list. I've started.

Speaker J: Poking my nose in, but right now we're—

Speaker K: Have you really?

Speaker F: Okay. All right.

Speaker J: With Finn getting ready to retire, we're working on some water issues we want to get wrapped up.

Speaker K: I'm stoked. We would be the 4th city in America, the 1st in Utah. It would be way cool. Utah actually accepts Bitcoin for paying your taxes, FYI.

Speaker J: Yeah, it is possible.

Speaker F: We just have to find out if our vendor can actually do it.

Speaker K: Yeah, I think most of the cities that I looked at, they're doing— they have a connection through PayPal.

Speaker J: Yeah, PayPal is the way to do it.

Speaker K: The primary, yeah.

Speaker A: Okay, so if there aren't any other additions, I'll come back to the reports.

Speaker J: Brandon's actually gave a report on the stuff that he's covering tonight.

Speaker D: Well, just a couple questions. So one, we talked about the senior housing over Yes. And then the overlay zone, or that idea you had, a presentation from Beth a little while ago, is just a point of clarification. There was some discussion about an overlay zone or just a zone. Do you want us— do you want us to produce both options, an overlay and just a regular zone? Do you want one or the other? direction from the council on how to do that. We were talking about that today, and we weren't sure in our staff meeting how you— we weren't clear on how to proceed with that.

Speaker J: I'm wondering, does it need to be a zone, or do we just add it as a right with standards in specific zones?

Speaker A: We could do that.

Speaker D: That's a possibility.

Speaker H: I just don't want— I want the market to prescribe where these go as opposed to us choosing where they go.

Speaker J: So do you just allow them in certain zones?

Speaker H: I think you allow them in certain zones and let the developer make, you know, sort of make applications to go that direction with it.

Speaker D: One thing I was thinking of with an overlay is you guys get the opportunity to approve wherever they go. So it gives you more say in where they go.

Speaker J: Mainly, you're talking about more like assisted livings in that? regard though, right? Not senior housing, single family.

Speaker C: It's—

Speaker D: I think that there's still options on how that could go. I was thinking more of kind of like your twin homes and things like that instead of assisted living. And Beth, you can correct me if I'm wrong. She's been more focused on this than I have. I don't know that has— maybe you can clarify. I don't know that we've talked a lot about assisted living. I thought it was more like 55+ communities.

Speaker E: Well, our original understanding was an overlay. So we have drafted the overlay and it kind of has all of those in there and different options for them. Then I started working on his own, so we can can bring both. We're going to Planning Commission with it at the next meeting, so we want to make sure we present what the council wants. And so there's pros and cons with both. Putting it in— we could add it to existing zones, but where we want different— to allow different housing types, that was one of the things we were running into with a zone, because you have both single-family And multifamily in the same zone and figuring out how to add that to all the tables and everything that we currently have in code.

Speaker J: One of the things that I've been thinking about is we want to incentivize them to do these. There are things that we want. I don't know if a zone is an incentive for them. I don't know if doing even just standards inside of a zone— that's probably one of the things that we should contemplate. How can we incentivize incentivize builders to do senior communities. And I would make the argument, trying to help multiple people in the last couple of years find senior housing, they need to be gated, in my opinion, because they're not looking to be existing in a regular neighborhood.

Speaker K: Yes.

Speaker J: Because they could— the next person can come in and not have it be senior housing if it's done in that regard. So then it stops meeting the purpose that we did it in the first place. And you can disagree with that, but I just think if we're going to do it, it needs to be specific. It should probably be a gated community if we're talking about twin homes, fourplexes. All need to be single level, no stacked single houses, any of those things. They all need to be patio-type homes. But they don't want to take care of their property. I think that's a good point.

Speaker A: Why is that a requirement? I'm getting pretty close to 55. I can still walk upstairs. I'm just throwing that out there. I mean, I've seen Brett go upstairs.

Speaker J: Yeah, I'm going to tell you, when people are going— I can promise you, when you get to that point, Jared, the last thing you're going to want to do with your back is going up and down the stairs. And your wife's going to say, enough, I don't want to see you fall down the stairs. But I'm going to tell you, I come from that community of geriatric care. They're looking to prevent slips and falls that generally end up in hip breaking and things of that nature. So stairs is bad for the senior community, and most of them are looking to get away from that because they don't feel stable on the stairs.

Speaker K: So I just—

Speaker J: if we're going to do it, what incentivizes them? They don't want to take care of the property, so it needs to be something that's enclosed, so somebody else is taking care of it. I think for For me, that's what I'm looking for out of this. I don't care if it's an overlay zone, but it needs to have some better guardrails, in my opinion.

Speaker E: Okay, because the overlay would be an easier mechanism to work in some of those incentives because it's a whole chapter of code. So it gives us more room to play with to add things into that.

Speaker C: Yeah, so I don't think it's a zone. I think perhaps it's an overlay. And I mean, another strategy in my mind is to consider doing it by development agreement only. I mean—

Speaker E: Okay.

Speaker C: It's just what's the incentive, right? What's the incentive that gets developers to pay attention to that? 'Cause frankly, I see some of the amenities that these communities are going to have, they're going to be higher and more expensive amenities. And what incentivizes them to do that? That's my question. How do you get them to want to do that?

Speaker E: The market?

Speaker C: Yeah, but they'd be building them if the market demanded it, and we're not seeing them being built right now.

Speaker H: But if we give them enough density, then— especially if their other option is X, and we're going to give them more density with Y, then that will hopefully help. I just— I'm— if it's only done by development agreement, the challenge is, will the developer developers know that it's an option. That's my only— we need to get a signal out to the development community. We're looking for these types of product, like this kind of product type right now. And so I just, I want to make sure they know it's an option.

Speaker E: Well, it would still be listed. We could still list it in code and just have one of the things in the overlay that it would be done through agreement.

Speaker C: You've created development standards by which you're going to allow them. I mean, I think that that's what you do, and you put those into the types of uses. And then maybe it is a special use in the very specific zones that you want to allow some of that to happen.

Speaker D: We want— one thing that we keep hearing about is about education, and that's something we want to do too. We really like Kyle and Soraya. Their team's really good. And so we're working with them to find ways to communicate more effectively, um, try to get the word out about WUI and about the senior housing options that might be available. And so we're, we're going to— we've had them come to our staff meeting recently, and we're going to keep working with them to, to, to get the word out on this, on, on these things. Ultimately, I guess we're just looking to see what kind of tool you want, and then we'll— we, we can kind of think through incentives and so forth and bring something back to you.

Speaker J: So I think we need to find a big enough carrot. I think that's what it's going to come down to, because I'm going to tell you, there's a market for it. They can't find any senior housing right now.

Speaker C: We just have to find a big enough incentive to get developed.

Speaker J: And it may be exactly what Craig's saying, that maybe it is density, but density the Eagle Mountain way.

Speaker F: Yeah.

Speaker A: Is there anything else on that one?

Speaker D: Did we get clear? Is an overlay zone right, or do you want options?

Speaker A: I think overlay is good.

Speaker J: Let's start with an overlay.

Speaker D: Okay.

Speaker E: And we anticipate there'll be lots of conversation, and it may take a few refinements before we get there, but we wanna get it right. So thank you.

Speaker D: The only other thing I was going to mention is, so state code, obviously, that we just went through the legislative session, and we've got staff lined up to go through all these numerous codes to see if we need to make any code changes. One in particular, one or two that I'll particularly mention is we'll be working on the political signage, and kind of connected to that is we've talked, and I think it's on the priorities list, is the seasonal signage. We're working on a temporary use code that kind of goes along with that. So those 3 things are kind of tied to each other. I just wanted to let you know that we'll be working on that, on those 3 things, temporary uses, political signs, and seasonal signs.

Speaker C: So we'll—

Speaker I: Thank you.

Speaker D: we'll get all those squared up.

Speaker A: Okay, that's all the items from Brandon. Was there any others? Okay, for the legislative priorities. You know what, I've been sitting here kind of leaning back thinking about when we get done before 9, and there was some wagers about getting done before 9, that we have more time to discuss these. We spent a ton of time on that, and I like that. because we still have to talk about liaison reports, so we're not gonna make it. But I think that— I'm just pointing out that we had a lot of time and we got a lot done. So any liaison reports? Thanks, guys.

Speaker I: Well, we had mine today with the Community Services Board, and now our Planning Commission is fully staffed, so— Yeah, I probably—

Speaker A: Riveting report. And I probably missed the vote on taking the opportunity to thank, uh, it's probably short stint, but Mandy for her service. They got called out of state and they're moving to the Midwest, and so we appreciate her service on the Planning Commission. So that was awesome.

Speaker H: Um, I'm meeting with the library board tomorrow. I met with the Chamber of Commerce last week. They got a great CEO and a great board, a direct director of the board. And, uh, anyway, so they're going to be on our On our work session in the next meeting, so I'll let them speak at that moment. But the Youth Council met with them as well. We're gonna probably have some changes coming down the pipe for some, we're gonna adjust some of the code for them.

Speaker A: On which one?

Speaker H: The Youth Council.

Speaker A: The Youth Council.

Speaker H: And I won't go over all of them, but one of them, for instance, is we're actually removing 7th graders from it and only making it 8th through 12th. And just some other changes. But I've already been coordinating with Natalie on that to get that cycled back, so.

Speaker A: Okay, Lacey, did you hear that? Make sure you add a note for the work session.

Speaker J: So just a— I just wanna ask some questions actually.

Speaker Q: This is—

Speaker J: I don't know if Brad's still on.

Speaker A: Brad Hickman.

Speaker J: Hickman. Is he still on with us? No? So Ben, I'll maybe just hand this to you. I wanna make sure that we're making all of the things available available for the preparation of the rodeo grounds. So this isn't a last-minute decision. There's a lot of preparation that needs to take place, so they need to have the tractor over there to make sure that we're getting the, the ground tilled up. We also probably need to, to do what we can to help prevent the contamination of dirt by other materials being dropped on the rodeo grounds. So there's a special material that they bring in for that. So we need to make sure that we're not combining. Um, and then, um, I just want to make sure that we're doing everything we can to help, uh, the Pony Express events that puts on our rodeo for us, that they have the things that they need, uh, where we're not scrambling at the last minute. Uh, and then the last thing with that is the volunteers for that. I would love for us to take a more active role as a city in helping to facilitate getting volunteers for that, but that burden is not placed solely on the company that's putting on the rodeo for us.

Speaker K: Community Services Board is meeting tomorrow, and they are well on their way. Jesse Southworth, our chair, president, CEO of the committee, she's building this awesome website. where citizens can go and put where trails should be?

Speaker G: App.

Speaker K: Oh, it's an app. Sorry, app. Android's coming soon. It's awesome. Within like a week of her presidency, she's moving. And the committee's doing a great job. I also just wanted to report real quick on— we met with Ace Disposal today, Councilmember Wood and myself and Ben. I appreciate Ben putting this together. Just to explore the idea of doing bulk curbside waste. So we're currently looking into 2 different options. One would allow for bulk waste either on a monthly or quarterly cadence where people could put a fridge, a dresser, any heavy items out on their curb and they would drive through the city, pick it up, and haul it off. And then we're also looking at a dumpster program where dumpsters can be rented for neighborhoods at $50 to $100 cost per neighborhood to just rent the dumpster and fill it up.

Speaker J: So also, third option would be even on an individual basis. So if you had to clear out your entire lot, that would be available for you to rent. We're looking at all 3 of those options.

Speaker A: Okay, is there anything else on that? Any— we've kind of covered the liaison reports. Any communication items coming up? We're still trying to schedule some meetings and stuff, right? So I think we've covered all that. If that's all of it, then open for a motion.

Speaker I: Motion to adjourn.

Speaker H: Second.

Speaker A: Okay, we have a motion to adjourn by Councilmember Clark, a second by Councilmember Whiting. All in favor?

Speaker M: Aye.

Speaker Q: Aye.

Speaker A: Any opposed? Seeing none, we are adjourned at 9:05.

Speaker I: What did he say before we went? What was the last thing that Zach said?

Speaker L: First and foremost—

Speaker K: Garbage.

Speaker C: Here.