Transcript — Eagle Mountain City Council, 26 May 2026

Speaker A: All right. I think we're good. If everybody is good, we're going to go ahead and get started, and we'll call this meeting to order. It is the budget work session for the City Council, and it is 3:06 when we are starting. First of all, I wanted to excuse Councilmember Wood and Councilmember Huish. Councilmember Huish is online, and I think Councilmember Wood may be joining us if he gets a chance, but we're not sure. So for right now, we'll go with that. And then the first item is a discussion of the property tax impact schedule. So I'm deciding who— Kimberly, did you have some information on this one? I did not go over this agenda very well, so I'm not as prepared as I need to be. That's why I'm a little scattered. So, um, I know we've had conversations about the property tax schedule, but yes.

Speaker C: So, um, Mayor and Council, because we are in the truth in taxation process, any meeting that we hold in which we will be discussing the 2027 proposed budget, we have to include this, um, property tax schedule notice. So that's why it is on the agenda. So, Mayor, what we will have you do is just actually read the schedule. Um, yep.

Speaker D: Yes.

Speaker C: Okay, so we will have that this meeting, and then we'll have it again. Right now, the next time we would talk budget is on the 16th, so we've got it scheduled for the 16th as well.

Speaker A: Okay, perfect. That's what I was looking for, and it was just underneath my other schedule. So I can read this tax pro— the property tax impact schedule. And then there's no action, just— it's just information only.

Speaker D: Okay.

Speaker A: Proposed property tax impact schedule. The Eagle Mountain City will consider an increase to its property tax rate to generate an additional $6,958,141. The following information is intended to provide decision makers and the public with an explanation of how city's operations would be affected if the property tax increase is adopted. Eagle Mountain's current property tax rate is 0.000534. Eagle Mountain's current property tax revenue is $2,839,998. The proposed revenue with tax change will be $9,798,139, and the new property tax revenue to Eagle Mountain City would be $6,958,141. The estimated increase to Eagle Mountain property tax revenue is 245%. Estimated increase to average primary resident— estimated increase to average primary resident market value $500,000, estimated tax increase would be $359.79, and total city tax would be $506.64. The estimated increase to the average business for the market value is $2.5 million— it's $2,554,303. The estimated tax increase would be $4,705.86. The affected budget, uh, Sheriff's contract, the proposed budget is, uh, $9,798,139, and then the budget tax change would be $8,290,000. Which is $1,507,939 in the budget change. So— sorry, I've said that wrong. The budget without a tax change— the new change is the $1 million. If new property tax increase is approved, the revenue will be used to fund essential public safety operations at the level approved by the city council. These funds help support core functions of the Utah County Sheriff's Office Eagle Mountain Division including the additional— the addition of deputies to meet the growth of the city. I know that was awesome, but was that clear? Okay, that is the, uh, tax schedule that we're required to read. So any questions? Okay, next item 2B is a budget discussion, and this for the The proposal of this budget work meeting is for the City Council to review, discuss, and ask questions about the tentative budget. Last Tuesday we turned over the tentative budget to the council, and I think everybody's had a chance to review that. So now's our chance to talk about it, and we can open the floor to the council for any questions that you may have or discussion items. And as a same thing, I'm sure this could go to anybody, but do you have any presentation to start with? So it's whatever questions you want to start with and whoever wants to be brave. I had Kimberly send out a list of some of the proposals earlier today. And when I say I, I mean Ben. And it's stuff that we've talked about and whatnot, but—

Speaker F: I think that it might be useful if Kimberly or Ben or a staff member, could just in a very succinct, quick timeline tell the residents how our process includes reviewing each department, staffing needs, those kinds of things, and how we make sure that we're not overspending and we cut out the fat. Because some of the questions that I see us asked either on social media or via email or text often include, why don't you just cut things? And I think that it would be useful to have someone speak about that so that it's included as part of this meeting. So if residents go back later and watch it, they're like, oh, okay, that is something that is a part of their process. Look, we just need to get her a little table right up by the podium.

Speaker C: I know Steve offered earlier, hey, do you need to sit over here? And I says, nope, I'm just going to direct all the questions your way. So, um, um, actually, it's my pleasure to come and to be able to try to address any questions that the council has regarding this tentative budget process and where we are, um, in that, um, today. So for the benefit, and I know Councilmember Clark, you asked for succinct, so that's a challenge for me. So we'll see if I can stand up and meet that obligation.

Speaker F: It's a challenge for all of us sitting up here on the dais.

Speaker C: So the process for starting preparations for the fiscal year 2027 budget actually started in October for us. So there is a— the process starts internally where we We start meeting with the departments. We talk about what we call the 5-year needs assessment where we're kind of reviewing what their expected needs are as we're growing as a community. We look at their current levels of services that they are providing and what those— whether or not we feel like that is continuing to decline. Are we meeting that? Part of that is the discussion that leads up towards the request. We look at the challenges that they're facing as a department when it comes to personnel and particularly when we get to that part of the budget request. We have what we call a personnel justification where we ask numerous questions of those divisions when they're requesting personnel about what the needs are. How would they mitigate it if we can't approve this? What— we want to make sure that we're capturing what the impacts are of if we don't say yes or we can't find the resources to fund this position, what are the things that we need to be aware of about the level of service that we can continue to provide to the community as a result of that. As those come in and are submitted, then we have a committee. Right now that committee involves myself and Terrence and the city manager, and we even had the mayor in those— many of those meetings to be able to participate. But what we start looking at is those justifications that are coming in and do our internal review process of where we're trying to again be— make sure that we are being as unbiased as possible, that because the staffer might be better at writing their justification or doing their their communication, we don't want that to necessarily be the sole indicator. We're looking at, this is for the strategic objectives of this city, of what we are hoping to accomplish. If we don't fund these positions, again, what are the risks to— are there safety components? Are there— oh, I don't know, any number of items that we have. So there was some preliminary scoring that took place internally that helped us rank what we classified as the items that we'd be recommending initially to be able to come forward. One of those also happens to look at funding and the resources. How can this be funded? Some areas, if they are covered by individual fees and services, we might be in a better position to be able to support those positions with the resources that we have to us. And then March— I believe it was our March meeting with the councils when we first initially went over those lists with the with the council about, we cover to you all of the requested positions, even the ones that might be recommended as hold at the time as we bring the tentative budget forward. And then the list that was being kind of referred to that I resent out is a list that helps identify again of the positions that are included in the tentative budget, how are they funded, and what is the individual impact from a from a funding resource that we have. So as far as positions go, that's how we got to where we are today.

Speaker G: That's awesome.

Speaker F: Thank you so much.

Speaker A: If you want to start, I actually had a couple of things that I wanted to just throw out there too to think about. And I can start with this because it's, um, maybe not what the bulk of the meeting would be about. But with, uh, first of all, I want to say our staff did a really, really good job. And one thing I love about Eagle Mountain and what Councilmember Clark kind of touched on, I see in other cities where it's kind of like use it or lose it and they just spend just to spend because they want— they don't want their budgets to go down. And what I'm getting at is here in Eagle Mountain, our staff does a really, really good job at getting by with what they need. And if there's extra, you know, it stays in the general fund, we're able to reallocate it or use it. So I just wanted to point out that they have been absolutely very, very good at not just wasting money just because it's there. And I say that and leave with that for this reason. One of the easiest areas in the past to maybe cut fat, if you will, or to non-necessary would be in our events, which we've advocated for a lot. And I've been one of the biggest critics, but I've also been one of the biggest advocates of bringing our community together. And our wonderful events department gave back $30,000 this year from next year's budget compared to last year. So one of the reasons is we're not doing the Techno Blast. Is that— they say it right? And, uh, that freed up some space. One of my questions to the council is, do we want to leave a little bit in there for either different events that you had ideas, uh, on, or one of the things that I know I've talked to council members, the Easter egg hunt was just an Easter egg hunt. It's kind of over in just a few minutes. Do we maybe bolster that with other activities and leave a little bit of money in there so that event can be, you know, a couple hours with some booths and face painting or whatever that is? But I think all those things cost money. So maybe it's half that money gets left in there or whatever that is. I'm just telling you that they were doing their part to be very, very very good with their finances, and I think we could feel confident that if we left a cushion in there that it wouldn't get wasted. It would just be there so that if we need it, it's there. That's, uh, why I mentioned the first part. The other thing is, um, we did— I wanted to report back that the Nolan Park $750,000 has been allocated from last year and it didn't get spent this year. So the Nolan Park discussion There's money already set aside, and do we want to either add to that? We had a big discussion that led right up to this meeting about, you know, some design. What does that park look like in the future? And I'm just going to be honest, I don't know. And we— none of us know. That's why we need to— but what are we willing to— there's $750,000 that's already in there that's depreciating every time we're not using it. So what do we want to do with that? So those are some of the questions. Another one that I've put out to a couple people is the North Service Area. If we start allocating funds to Salt Shed or something up there, that's another budget that came in under budget, was our streets department. So they always have the ability to do more maintenance on years that we have less snow. So we don't discount that, but just things to— I want those things on your radar and more field or better, you know, maybe some repairs in our fields with taking on the soccer. So I'm throwing out some of those capital and other projects as well as the events budget for you guys to have on your radar. And then I know that we're gonna probably dive into some employee asks and needs, I guess, as we grow and need more staff members. So I'm just leading with some of those things. They're not in any particular order. I don't have any preference, just whatever you guys want to— this is our time to move forward.

Speaker H: So one question I have, just looking at the list of positions that Kimberly sent us earlier today, I see a position not there that was on a list earlier that we'd received from Terrence pertaining to the library. And I'm curious to know why the new list that we got didn't have anything from the library on that.

Speaker C: So the list that we sent to you after— so initially went out on May 6th— is because this is the list of positions that are included in the tentative budget. That's what's on this list. So it does not include any of the positions that had been originally requested that are not recommended moving forward in the budget.

Speaker H: Okay, so the— so there was, there was a list of original requests and then it got filtered is what you're saying, and who did the filtering process?

Speaker C: So the filtering process comes through the budgetary committee side of things, so that would be Ben, myself, the mayor, of identifying what we have in terms of funding resources and when we're looking at what we need, what is being recommended to come forward as part of that tentative budget administration request.

Speaker B: Okay.

Speaker H: Is it okay for me to speak on the library's behalf for a moment? Is that appropriate here? And it may be good to have the library speak too. I know Michelle is attending online, but from what I understand is our library is understaffed by something like 8 or 9 employees. And so given that there's been astronomical growth, especially recently, in our library subscriptions, and I know the library had put forward, at least originally, a, I think, one full-time employee, which doesn't even remotely get them close to the number they should have according to what standards are. And so that's why I was just curious as to why that particular position didn't make it across the finish line. And perhaps, you know, it may be good for the council to hear from some thoughts from Michelle on that as well.

Speaker B: Um, certainly Michelle can absolutely speak to this as well. I think our biggest deficiency is not necessarily in staffing of the library, it's in the square footage of the library. And, and that's our, our biggest challenge as our city has continued to grow. And you look at our square footage and the, and the number of books and periodicals and everything else that we have to offer our residents, it's dramatically low. And as we plan for a new city hall and plan for a new library Certainly we're going to need to staff up at that point to be able to take care of those needs at that time. And so I think from an administration point of view, we're really looking at it from the space constraints that we have and when is it the most appropriate to add staff and would that be in the planning of a new facility.

Speaker C: If I may, Councilmember Whiting, too, I do want to clarify and make sure that even from our staff standpoint, there's a level of understanding that there was only a couple, a handful of positions that maybe didn't make it through. And then again, of the list we said, these are what we would call a P1, P2, meaning like the P2 positions were ones that were initially also flagged as being on hold again from funding resources. But every position that is asked for is desperately needed within the individual departments. So one of the things that I would like to stress that we do differently at Eagle Mountain City is when we're doing our budget process, we are building on. So the initial department requests that are submitted for the budget, our departments are really good at knowing this isn't an ask of, if we could have everything that we wanted, here's what we're going to ask for. We start off with, what does it take to just do next year exactly what we're doing this year? And if we don't have the money to keep doing that, we don't get to add anything more to that. The first conversation is, again, we have a revenue resource problem and we can't do anything more unless we can get additional revenue. And then if that happens, then we can start to add in some of these additional asks that we have or that are needed. But at Eagle Mountain City, we will always pace behind simply as a level of the growth that we have. And we do have a lot of unique things that we, um, just based on the layout that we have of our city and so forth, of the infrastructure that has to connect across open spaces and regions that we have. We are 3 cities that are interconnected by these infrastructure needs. We have a lot of demanding growth and so forth. I'm not telling you anything that you don't need to— that you don't already know, so I want to make sure I'm not just talking to talk. What I wanted to stress here is that our departments, of all the requests— if you want a list of all the requests that everybody needs, we don't submit though. They don't even ask for it in the department, in, in our budget, because they know it's not even an option. These aren't what it takes us to get to what we would consider to be an optimal level. What we're getting is this is the minimum we feel like we can do to try to keep pulsing forward and not necessarily be going backwards.

Speaker A: I think that's what I was going to point out, to be really clear with the council, is the, the budget committee that I've been a part of has never ever just cut a position. It's always the— on the department head or something like, hey, who What can we get by with and what can't we? Nobody's ever said, well, you can't have that. It's usually the department head saying, well, I need 10 guys, but I'll get by with 7. It's never came from the other side. So I've personally never told anybody they couldn't ask for a position, and I don't think Ben has, I don't think Kimberly has. So when those get moved to a different list like that, it's because the department head, and I think Ben nailed it, is space. If we hired 7 more people, where would you put them? I think there would be more than the patrons there because we can't fit that many people in the building, right? But could they use— do we have the work for 7 more people? Yes. But can we get by with 1 or none? They also said yes.

Speaker B: And I would maybe add to that that the state standard is that we should have more libraries. There's no doubt, per our population. But we should also have more square footage for our population, more articles to check out for our population. So it's one component of many.

Speaker F: Mayor Zach has a comment online.

Speaker A: Who did you say? Zach? Zach? Yeah, I told him that he'd come to him right after Brad, but we can go there now if you're done. Yeah, go ahead, Zach. We'll come to you now.

Speaker I: Thank you.

Speaker J: I apologize for not being there in person.

Speaker B: Can you hear me okay?

Speaker A: He's—

Speaker J: can you hear me?

Speaker A: We can't hear you, Zach, if you're talking.

Speaker J: Um, I'm unmuted.

Speaker A: Something's not working. So is it a volume? Let's go. I'm going to jump to Brett real quick. Sorry, Council Member Wright had some comments, and we'll come back to you in a second. Zach, see if we can get it figured out.

Speaker K: You can call me Brett Mayer. That's my first name. My mom calls me Brent and she named me, so as long as you don't call me Brent, that'll be fine. Yeah, just a couple of thoughts. I mean, as I've kind of gone through the budget, I think that the budget team's done a really good job with this budget this year. Let me just start there. A couple of things that I'd— and we'll come back and maybe talk about personnel. Looks like Zach may be there. Something happened.

Speaker A: Okay.

Speaker K: All right, thank you. I think, I mean, I think we should, I think of events, we're able to save the $30,000 that was in their budget last year. I think we should allocate that, appropriate that to them so that they can hang on to it. And if they need to expand some of the events that we're currently doing to make them a little bit better and a little broader, I would be in favor of that. The streets department, you and I talked a little bit about this. I don't know what their budget savings was this year, but For me, I think it makes complete sense to build a lean-to and put some salt up on the north service area. I think that'll save us a bunch of fuel costs, and maybe let's park one of our snowplows up there. Something. We ought to consider that where we already own the property. That's something I would be supportive of as well. I really want to see us program and start to program or allocate some resources for a park in the Sweetwater area. I know that Parkway Fields is working on their thing. I think there's a 10-acre space there, and Brad, I think you know where I'm talking about. I don't know if council would support that, but I, I just feel like with the work that we've done in, in the ranch side of things where we did the, the Smith Ranch Park, it's probably the most recent big park that we put a lot of money into. I'd really like to see us do something similar in the city center section, and I think that's a really good area where we have some missing, perhaps a need.

Speaker A: Can I give you an update? Sure. So, so I forgot to circle back with you, and we talked about this as far as, you know, different areas. And two things that I wanted to make sure that I, I forgot, and it's my fault. Number one is the Nolan Park already had the 750 in there.

Speaker K: I know that.

Speaker A: And then the number two part was the observatory. We are spending a ton of money, not in that park, but the observatory. And, and most of that is donated. But the update that I wanted to get out is that we did get. Do you want to speak to it, or you want me to?

Speaker K: Is there an ask from council though to match some funds or to set some funds aside for that observatory?

Speaker A: I think that's the update.

Speaker B: We, um, we— when I say we, I mean Natalie, uh, reached out and, um, presented to the, the county for transportation funds. We did get a $250,000 award from that just recently, so we're shy of about, about $250,000 to get that project funded, but it's really close.

Speaker A: And that's a total of about $1.5 million, a little more than that. Yeah, $1.5 million that will be spent here in City Center on the observatory. And that's everything. We're within $200,000 getting— $250,000 getting that funded. So to your point, I think that, that I'm going to work on a grant for that $250,000. In the meantime, if the— if we don't get other funds You know, I think that's something we need to talk about on top of Navy.

Speaker K: What's the anticipated M&O on that, Mayor? I'm just curious what we're looking at to take care of that long term.

Speaker A: Natalie, you better speak to that because I know she has some— there will be a way to check those out.

Speaker F: And I think for the most part it's not a ton, but a lot of it is having the building so that the Utah Valley Astronomy Club can come out and like co-host events with the city or local organizations. And Natalie will say more, but like I was a part of this when it was first proposed, and the nerds— I'm going to say that as a term of endearment— will do a lot of the, the stuff, the programming that takes place. Ours is really the charge of taking care of the physical facility, which is like a small building.

Speaker C: So—

Speaker G: And sorry, I only heard part of your question. You said, what is the anticipated what?

Speaker K: I guess if you could just speak to what the maintenance and operation expenses are going to be related to it once it's in place. If we can find the money to do it, what's it going to cost us to take care of it?

Speaker G: So we're expecting very minimal maintenance costs.

Speaker C: Um, it—

Speaker G: like, um, Councilmember Clark mentioned, it is like a standalone structure. There is no restroom, so we're already maintaining the park restroom at that park, and that's the same restroom we intend to have. You know, it'll be right by each other, so we're already maintaining that. We're already maintaining other features at the park. Um, we'll just make sure it stays clean, and then, um, UVU will help us with the maintenance of the actual telescopes themselves because they are the high-expert—

Speaker K: that's what I was concerned about is who's going to take care of that, what— how is that going to fall, uh, who's that going to fall upon, and are we— I don't know how to take care of a telescope. I don't know if our staff knows how to do that, but I'm just concerned about the nerds. The nerds will come do it. Okay, well, that's all right. I was part of the nerd club at one point. I'm still part of the nerd club, I think. Councilmember Clark, that, that answers That answers my question, Natalie.

Speaker B: Thank you.

Speaker A: And I don't want you to think that takes away from Parkway Fields. I just forgot to tell you that—

Speaker K: from Sweetwater.

Speaker A: First Sweetwater. Yeah, that there are funds being allocated throughout the city.

Speaker K: I'm just hoping that we can find a way to program some impact fees for that park and see that advance. That's what I'm hoping. So I'm going to advocate for that. And then I'll try and be quick and give everybody else a chance to speak. One of the other things that we've talked about ad nauseam at least from my perspective, is how are we going to slow speeds down at our elementary schools? And I know that not everyone's going to like to hear this or agree with me, but I'm going to put it out there. Councilmember Wood and I have been working on this. In fact, David Salazar did a little bit of work for us to give us some idea of what speed tables might cost to improve some of these areas by our elementary schools. And a rough estimate to do it in concrete is somewhere between $8,000 and $10,000 per retrofit. And I just think it's far past time for us to do that and figure out a way to plow around them or over them. I think we need to do that for Silver Lake, for Brookhaven, for Mountain Trails, for Desert Sky. There may be others. Perhaps the school that's just, just directly south of us here may merit some of that type of traffic mitigation. But I really want to see us put— if, if you get it done for $8,000 or $10,000, I think we ought to put $100,000 in the budget, and we ought to allocate it towards that, and we need to do that sooner rather than later.

Speaker A: That would probably be just the concrete cost. There's also a lot of— it's a lot more than that.

Speaker K: So come tell us, David, what is it going to cost? What do we need to allocate? Because I'm going to tell you, from my perspective, it's high time that we do something about this.

Speaker L: So I was texting you while you were talking, hopefully you wouldn't get to that point yet, but it's probably more than double. For asphalt, it's going to be anywhere from $15,000 to $17,000. For concrete, probably $28,000 to $30,000. I think concrete's probably the better option. They cut it in and they kind of fill it in, use the existing asphalt as like a formwork. I think that's a better product, less likely to wear off than just kind of doing the asphalt on top of it.

Speaker K: I think at least in those 4 locations, we just, we hear it every, every, every school year. It'll come back again when school opens next year. We just have people that are trucking through those neighborhoods at higher speeds. You only do that once on a speed table, and that will curb behavior, literally. And I just think it's time that we figure out a way to do that. I know that our streets department's not fond of that suggestion or proposal, and I also know that it has an impact on emergency services, so I'm not numb or blind to those impacts. But at some point, I think we've got to take some action to curb some of the, the speeds that we're having in the elementary schools.

Speaker A: Hang on, before we move off of this, I just want to make sure the, the staff and everybody knows what we're advocating. Do you want $100,000, or do you want 7, or do you want 4? Like, what's—

Speaker K: how much is it going to cost to do one complete, David? $25 grand. I think we have to have at least these 4 or 5. So we do 2, 3. I think Silver Lake, Brookhaven, Mountain Trails, it's probably $200,000.

Speaker A: So if we— you want to do a dollar amount and see how far it gets us?

Speaker K: That's what I'd like to do.

Speaker F: Well, and it's one-time funds too. I mean, we could use other sources, but—

Speaker K: and that was the other thing that Councilmember Wood and I have talked about, is perhaps we should use some of the money from the utility sales to fund this and to just make it happen. And the thing I would ask you, David, and perhaps staff, is if there are other areas that we're blind to, that we're not aware of, where we think that we ought to be considering this? I'd just like to know that. These are the 4 that I know, because I get complaints about these all the time.

Speaker L: I, I think there are some others we could look at. The comment I mentioned to both you and, um, Council Member Wood was that I think before we do this, we need to have code that kind of dictates where these are applicable and for what reasons. Also, that would limit in spacing, and then, you know, certain road types where it would not be applicable. Otherwise, I think we would just open open the floodgates and they would be everywhere, unfortunately.

Speaker K: Sounds like if council agrees, you're giving yourself an assignment. Sounds like to me.

Speaker L: Sounds good to me.

Speaker F: Can I ask too, I'm supportive of us finding some sort of traffic calming or control measure. I think that is one of the biggest things that we hear about. I know that in Salt Lake I've seen that they have the speed tables, but then there's like a cutout at a certain width for tires, and I'm assuming that the cutout for the certain width of tires is for emergency vehicles. Does anyone in the sound of my voice know what I'm talking about? Oh, there's so many— somebody in the back row. Anyway, um, I, I'm wondering if we can kind of split the baby when it comes to these speed tables and have it be something that doesn't impede emergency services but does get the job accomplished for the speed table. I don't know why they have those, but I'm assuming it has something to do with that.

Speaker L: But yeah, and we can talk more. If you can send me more information, I can look into that. Um, I think speed tables is an option, um, but they're not like this magical mythical thing that's going to fix all the speed problems. Sometimes they often just move it to another location or another street. So those are things we have to look at when we're adding these as well.

Speaker K: Yeah, and specifically for me, it's really a safety issue at our elementary schools. For me, that's the reason I think we need to be looking at that.

Speaker L: Yeah, I think the other one could also be parks potentially adjacent to busier collectors. We could look at that as well, park crossing.

Speaker K: That's excellent. And I think when smarter people than me get together and start to have those conversations, we'll figure it out.

Speaker M: Okay.

Speaker K: So, and then I'll just quickly run through the positions, and I'm sure we'll have further dialogue on this, and then, and then I'll be I kind of leave it to the council. There's a couple of positions that I need to learn more about. Um, an assistant city attorney. I know that— I know Marcus is overworked and overwhelmed with much of the work that we're giving him, so I'm not saying no to that. I want to understand a little bit more of the reasoning behind that. Seems like we've been using some outside counsel, and maybe it's just an economy of scale there, so I'd like to get some more information about that. Equally, I'm interested in hearing more about the payroll and benefits administrator, trying to understand, is it just a growth issue? We just have too many people and we don't have enough folks managing that? And then the one for me that is really kind of a tough pill to swallow, and let me— and I'll put it out there and I'll tell you the why behind this— is the community services director. When I look at just those 3 positions, what I see is I see us adding qualified, competent leadership. And my thoughts and feelings are that we need— I think we need more boots on the ground doing the legwork and taking care of the actual filling the potholes, maintaining the grass, preparing the soccer fields. We haven't even talked about recreation. When we get to recreation, perhaps we can talk about that because that's a whole new department in my opinion, and we have to talk about how are we going to manage the soccer program and who's going to do it and what resources are we going to give to the city to do that, to the, to the staff to do that. So those are some of the questions that I have. I'm a little hesitant on those 3 upper-end positions because I feel like, um, maybe our focus needs to be more on putting the boots on the ground so that the work actually gets done. I want to know what are the results that we can expect by approving these positions in the budget. That's really what I'm hoping to see is not just that we need these people, because I believe that, 100% believe that. In fact, I know that to be true. We need more than the people that are on this list. I think Kimberly just told us that, that they've already removed people. But for me, I want to know what's the return on our investment? What can we expect as a council? Can we see some results in our utility billing being more effective? And in managing that department better for our community, for our citizens, and serving their needs in a little higher way. I mean, can we expect our soccer fields and our, our parks to be— to fill in the mole holes? I don't know what you call them, the, the holes. And, and so that people aren't tripping and they're not risking some of that stuff, can we manicure them a little bit better? I don't expect golf course level work, but can we improve the quality of our fields? And if we're going to do that, I don't see that as being someone that is in an administrative position. I see that as being somebody that's out there with a shovel and a wheelbarrow and some dirt and a rake and some grass seed. That's kind of where my mindset's at on this budget.

Speaker A: Okay, can we try Zach again?

Speaker J: Can you hear me?

Speaker A: They— I hear that online they can hear him, but it's not in here. We can't hear him.

Speaker J: So you could— can you hear me now?

Speaker C: I see his thing moving, but it's not coming through. We can call. Can we call?

Speaker F: Can you do that?

Speaker A: Okay. Uh, I know Councilman Whiting had another comment too, so while you're doing that, let's just have a quick 60-second plug on the, on the the speed tables.

Speaker H: I'm 100% in agreement with that. We need to focus on the safety of our kids in Eagle Mountain. And that's one of our treasures is we have an amazing kid population. We got to really prioritize them. And the data I have to help with this is at my employment, we— so in Lehi, we— the way our office building is set up, there is a private road that the office owns, but it's a public access. And so we have two parking lots, and in the middle of that is a road privately owned by us but publicly used by the citizens of Lehigh. They were flying through there, and it's two parking lots that people were walking back and forth, and it's— anyway, it was dangerous. We put in a speed bump, a lot less expensive than a speed table, but the speed bump cost us maybe $7,000. Solved the traffic issue, the speeding issue. Everybody is now going really slow there. It works really well, and so I'm 100% on board with what we need to do for our schools.

Speaker C: I have Zach on the phone. Ready?

Speaker A: All right.

Speaker F: Yep, go ahead, Zach.

Speaker J: Okay, now I think so. All right, perfect.

Speaker D: Thank you.

Speaker J: Well, I appreciate everyone's comments so far, and I'll just try to Summarize on some of the, uh, capital projects. The speed tables, I, I fully support that. I actually went down to Silver Lake when they were getting out of school and it was just a madhouse with those two, uh, schools stacked together. It makes sense to slow the speed down and trim the trees. There are some signs that you just can't see at all that exist in the park strip that just either need to be removed or, or cut back. So I would I would agree, tend to agree with the speed tables. Um, on the— I've got a, I've got a list of things, but I just wanted to walk through my process as we were reviewing the staff, uh, requests that were prioritized as P1 and P2. I initially took the P1 list, those that had been prioritized first, and sat down with both the mayor and with Ben and reviewed those positions one by one. I think we invested about an hour and 45 minutes going through that. After going through that process, a couple days, um, later, I received the second list, and I think Kim mentioned that she had forwarded the P2s which were being advanced. The first round, the cost, I believe, was about $1 million of staff that we were being asked to consider. And with the second additional round of staff, it added another $864,000 of staffing costs. One of the things that I would caution the council against is using RAP tax dollars that was included as a potential source of revenue to pay for open space people. And I would just encourage the council to not create a RAP tax that— or create salaries that are dependent on that RAP tax being available. So that was one principle that I really don't support, using the RAP tax to pay for salaries, although I understand it goes to pay, you know, someone's salary to maintain the parks. I really feel like that needs to be maintained through other revenue sources. So my mindset around the first cost of $1 million versus $1.8 million, in my mind, I think it would be prudent to work with the first million-dollar amount, whether they're P1 or P2, but work with that million dollars if the proposed property tax gets passed. We do have the ability to do a budget amendment and maybe add in some additional positions later in the year, but I don't want to confidently say that that money exists within the budget today, that $4.5 million or $5 million. My personal mindset or personal restraint, just from a financial planning standpoint, I believe Kim taught us this principle of if, come. I think we should wait until that all gets resolved and then maybe come back later in the year and discuss adding additional positions. I had some of the same questions in my mind. The 3 positions that were being put forward as P1s were the City Attorney, the Purchasing Agent, and the Community Service Director. I, in my initial review, those 3 were removed, which was about 3, about a third of the cost in those 3 positions. And I felt like maybe we could get more bang for our buck adding in, um, some of these maybe lower paid positions but could have a good ROI or return. So I, in my review, what I did is I took some of those P2s like the open space technician, the open space lead, the parks crew lead, the parks technician that were on that list and pull those forward to be funded sooner rather than later to get our parks just in a, in a, I think, a better operating condition. A good friend of mine is a coach, and one of the kids, they're playing soccer And he asked him to kneel down and all the kids were kind of complaining of how hard the ground was. It just wasn't soft grass. And I feel like that's an issue that we need to address in my local park, which I use as kind of an anecdote. There are 3 tree stumps that whoever came out, I reported that the trees were dead. They came out, cut them down. And there's just stumps in our field, which is a liability to the city. I don't know how many more of our 60+ parks have that same thing. I prefer to have somebody come out, take the stump out, replace it with a tree or sod over it. So I feel like we are understaffed in that space, and that just shows in our city, um, across our parks. So those were some of my thoughts. There was one position that I would like to advance for the committee to consider, and that's replacing Todd with an actual biologist. I believe Council Member Clark and I were discussing this, and we were looking at that salary range with benefits. I think— and Council Member Clark can correct me— she was looking at the cost there, but it was about, I think, $95,000 or something like that. But I, I feel like a biologist can help us keep on track with our wildlife corridor and help the developers to really understand that we're serious about maintaining the ecosystem as best we can. Although there's developers with vested rights, we just can't lose or miss that, that part of the spirit of Eagle Mountain. Protecting those open spaces, the biologist can help with the wildlife corridor, can meet with the developers, but also help us to manage some of these open spaces that we have. Todd, they brought out goats last year, and the kids loved having goats in our neighborhood. Like, 3 or 4 areas, these goats would just, like, roam around, and it was kind of fun. We've got a lot of open spaces that need to be considered. Do we sell them to adjacent homeowners, or do we do something unique with those open spaces that we have? So I just wanted to advance the biologist role, which was neither a P1 or a P2, into this budget. And then maybe just the last couple other thoughts in terms of parks and roads. And I don't know if this was in— I can't remember if this was in the budget, but having an egress for Lone Tree, we have got to figure that out. That's got to be a priority, I feel like, to help those residents alleviate some pressure, putting a road from Lone Tree to Airport Road, and that'll also help alleviate some of the other traffic that we're seeing on our road, on our other roads like Ranches Parkway and Pony Express. I'm supportive of renewing or rebuilding, or however we're looking at Nolan Park. That's a park that, uh, we have a splash pad that is currently nonfunctional, or it's functional but is just a water waste or something. The 30,000 gallons a day when the splash pad is turned on. Um, I talked to the mayor about having some kind of, uh, recycling process, which that there's going to be some cost there, and maybe adding in some parking spots, adding in absorbent Observatory at, uh, Walden Park. I think I'm supportive of that. And, um, those were just a few of my thoughts. I'll just pause there.

Speaker C: Mayor, if I could just reply for clarification, the wildlife biologist position is included in the tentative budget. It is on that list, um, as a, as a P1. It just kind of towards the bottom.

Speaker A: And Zach, I would have, have you speak to the road you're talking about with Lone Tree. We're actually making a lot of progress on that. So when you say connect to Airport Road, for instance, one of the things that David and I have been trying to figure out, and as well as Zach and others, is do we roto-mill the dirt path? Or I mean, what is it when you say some improvements? Like right now we've cut in a It's not great, I don't think, but you can— there's a dirt path the back way that goes down and connects towards over— yeah, Ochre Mountain towards Overland. Would an improvement in your mind be make that dirt path gravel or roto-mill or to where it's, you know, fairly usable or what's— what, you know, I mean, we talking about $10 million road or we talking about making it better than it is.

Speaker J: Yeah, I think my mind is creating a long-term solution, egress from Lone Tree to Airport Road, if that is a possibility, that we start working towards a longer-term solution to relieve the traffic that's going on to Pony Express.

Speaker A: And I think that— and that's why I was asking, because all that will be paid for by development. Over time, and it's actually fairly soon, especially coming from the south? Or are you saying allocate general fund, which means tax dollars, to make that happen sooner rather than later at the benefit of the developer?

Speaker F: Could we do it— sorry, before he answers that question, could we do it sooner by us finding money and then reimbursing the fund that the developers would have to pay later because it's in the camp.

Speaker A: So once we build it, it's theirs. They don't pay us back. And that's why it's been— and we have made deals with Ivory to specifically speed that one up. And they said they would just as a favor. They're going to build clear to their border. So the only— we're just missing a small section there that would be— I think that's on John Hatfield's property possibly, and it would connect. But I don't know that he's in any hurry. So, you know, and that's why I said it would— a gravel or roto-mill— roto-mill packs down. I mean, Lake Mountain Road, everybody on that road's driving on gravel. I mean, we could make it drivable without paving it. I'm asking for direction of when you advocate for that, what, what What is it that you expect to see and put a dollar amount to it? And you're welcome to—

Speaker K: can I step in here a little bit, Mayor? I mean, I think number one, we should recognize that Ivory did agree to advance the timetable, and I'm grateful that they're willing to do that coming from the south, because what we're really trying to do is just create some emergency ingress and egress and a permanent solution at some point in time. I think we've got to, at a minimum, I think we've got to work with those those landowners and work some sort of, even if it's just an easement with the right to put down some sort of a road base that will act as a, as a, as a beginning point for a road at the city's expense. I would be okay with that. What I don't want to do is I don't want to take $10 million or $15 million out of the city's budget to build that road when the developers are going to come build it anyway. They're just not doing it as quickly as we'd like them to, but I know that there's some discussion and some work that's happening there. I just want to create a meaningful egress for the folks in Lone Tree, and I think that's what Zach is saying. I think that's what every council member here has felt. We just want to create some meaningful ingress and egress for those folks.

Speaker A: So, so to be fair, and I want to make sure that we're giving clear direction, so Zach might have to speak to this if you want to move forward. I'm talking to Hilton, not, not councilman He was— but I talked to Zach a few weeks ago about some roto-mill projects. Maybe you could speak to it. I mean, I know we're throwing darts, but give us some ideas on dollar amounts and what it would take to make that road, you know, minivan accessible. Not—

Speaker K: do we know if Perry or if Hatfield are willing? And does the road split their property lines, or is it on one?

Speaker A: Me, David, too. So there's two, maybe two comments here. Turn the mic on.

Speaker E: There we go. Uh, as, as far as maintaining what's existing there, um, we currently have the Eagle Mountain Boulevard mill and overlay, which is tentatively planned to be done like next week. We are planning on keeping those millings. And so we do have a product, right, that it won't— there's going to be some cost, but it's all in-house. It wouldn't be anything that would cost us extra that we've talked about adding to it, at least at the entrance sides, mostly for dust control. The existing road that we have there now, we've drove it throughout the winter and multiple times of the year where a car could easily access it. I would say the primary concern would be where it's entering either side of the subdivision, that we have some form of dust control. Whether or not the millions would be enough to cover that whole road or not, it would certainly at least be enough to do either end. And it would be stuff that we're prepared to do here shortly.

Speaker A: And real quick before David jumps on there, Council Member Huish, do you— I take for granted that people might know when we say we put roto-mill down what that means. Does everybody understand what that does? Explain it? Okay, so what they do is they're basically grinding down 2 inches, 1.5 inches of asphalt over on a different road.

Speaker E: We're doing 3 inches of replacement. And it's for the full length of the median. By—

Speaker A: Yes. So it's asphalt shavings, and it's— you mentioned road base. It's like— it comes out about the size of road base. They can put it down and roll it, and as the sun gets on that— a lot of my driveway is actually roto-milled tailings. The sun gets on there, there's so much oil content in there that it actually kind of compacts, and you wouldn't know that it wasn't paved with an asphalt machine other than you can see the little chunks. So that— by throwing down asphalt tailings that we already have. The sun gets on that, they level it out, it becomes almost like a road. Now I think in order to keep the integrity there, and we'd have an engineer speak to this, we might want to throw down a skiff of road base so that we don't have it— I don't know what the ground looks like under it, or does it have road base?

Speaker E: It does not, but it is very stable, right? We basically just graded out an old road that's been there for who knows how long, forever.

Speaker A: If it's stable and you feel like the tailings are gonna—

Speaker E: Yeah, I think the benefit of the tailings would be both dust control as well as just helping muddy, right? Like it prevents your car from— if it's raining or anything else, you don't get ruts and muddy.

Speaker K: I want to make sure we're talking about the same thing, because I think what I'm hearing you say, Zach, is improve the temporary temporary egress that exists today, right?

Speaker J: Correct.

Speaker A: Yes.

Speaker K: And I'm not sure that that's what I'm hearing from council. So I want to, I want to kind of back up a little bit. What I'm hearing is, at least what I'm hoping, is that we can find some forward momentum on that permanent egress and, and ingress into Lone Tree. And what I mean by that is work with the property owners to, to find the road, to design it to locate it, to secure property either through an easement or a future purchase contract. And then if we want to do some of what you're talking about on that, I see that. One of the complaints that we get all the time is that that just spins them around and puts them out 100 feet from their egress right now onto the same highway. And if we improve that, it makes no meaningful difference or very little meaningful difference to the residents who live in that subdivision. So I want to be clear that we're talking about two different things here.

Speaker A: Connecting— I thought that's what it was too, so thanks for the clarity. So we're talking about connecting to the south on— South to Overland.

Speaker E: Well, I just want to add one quick thing to that too. Like, if we're talking about the actual future alignment of a roadway, so we're kind of pre-building the road, right? We have to take in consideration we still have water, sewer, we have all the, all the things that go underneath the road before we build the road.

Speaker K: Well, those are the things we need to know about. And, and, and, and, and if you can help us understand that the only way we can do this is it's going to be X, Y, or Z, this is the only meaningful way that we should tackle that. I just don't feel like we have those answers yet. Yeah.

Speaker L: So the section of road we're talking about, it's a little under a mile. It's like 5,100 feet to, to the end of Arnett Peak. So Overland's doing Arnett Peak, which comes up north of Airport road. So you have Fiona down here and you have Arnett Peak. It goes up and turns and stops at their property line. Be, let's say, 1,500 feet up and over to Lone Tree Parkway. Pricing it out, the road was about $5 million if we just were to build the road, and it would be like a ribbon road, 26 feet width of pavement, um, but that would not include utilities. We'd have to at least put water in there as well to— for the future developments. And so you asked about alignment. We tried looking at placing perfect connection where the road would be straight and over. That kind of chopped up JDH's property, um, preliminary layouts, so they didn't like that. So it'll probably have to go on the border, kind of spanning, uh, Perry and then JDH. Um, so that does make the collector kind of jog a little bit. It's not awful, we've done it before. Um, but yeah, the concern is just the funding of it. Like, there are a lot of other problems— projects in the city that we could use that money for other things.

Speaker A: I know it's important to So can we use the mill tailings to connect to Arnett? I think that's the question. And if that's not the case, then do we save those mill tailings for some other meaningful place and figure out the issue that we've all been trying to address, right?

Speaker J: But—

Speaker F: So I think part of the issue is now multiple summers, because this is your 5th summer going into— serving on council, this has come up. It's come up for a while in the last couple of years, and every single year it's like, yeah, we're working on it, we're working with the landowners, you know, like all those things. And this isn't a slam on any staff member or anything. I get that this is a Herculean task, but when we sit in the neighborhood— and trust me, Councilmember Wright and I have sat in this neighborhood and really been pelted feeling frustrated by the people who live there, and rightly so, that we haven't addressed this problem. And I think that if they could see that in 18 months, this is what's going to happen, in 3 years, this is what's going to happen, the temporary fix is this, and we have those things moving forward with meaningful progress, I think the people of Lone Tree would be way more secure and believing what we say we're planning on doing. I think that this area is a classic example of it's either too expensive or too complicated, so it just kind of keeps getting bumped down on the list of priorities, even though it's super important, because there are a ton of people that live there, and we saw what happened fluke occurrence a couple summers ago when one of their entrances was blocked and there was a fire truck that was like— it was just the perfect storm of problems. And then even last fall, two contractors showed up at the exact same time and shut down both entrances of that neighborhood. And you've done a great job of helping us address some of those things with code, But if we can't say that we are going to do something at this point and this point and this point, then we haven't solved the problem. And I think we need to find a way to solve it.

Speaker K: But I think the question—

Speaker C: I mean, I don't—

Speaker K: I'm going to put it this way. I think the problem lies with the council. I'm just going to put it back on our plate. Because what I've heard David say is we can build the road for $5 million. It's really a question of, are we willing to take the citizens' resources that come from all around the city, their tax dollars, and build that road? Or do we just kind of keep waiting until development builds that road and it doesn't have to come out of the citizens' resources? That's the quandary that I'm in, and I'm not certain how to answer that, to be completely honest with you, because I've wrestled with this. And that's part of why I'm trying to find a balance. If there's some way that we can secure the right-of-way.

Speaker L: One thing we could do, we could do the proposed solution this summer. You know, kind of put the tailings down for that temporary access now, as far as the immediate solution. We could start engaging with them to look at some kind of easement and maybe do some kind of on-site improvements, maybe blade it, grade it, put some more millions down in, you know, the the next, I don't know, 6 months to a year, however long that would take to create that temporary access in the meantime.

Speaker A: We could just engage them with that.

Speaker K: Those are the kinds of solutions, David, that I would like to examine because to be completely candid, I'm uncomfortable spending $5 million of taxpayer resources. There are a lot of needs in the city, and when you look at— $5 million goes a long way. Goes a long way in the city, right? And so to dedicate that to one road project that is— that's a real problem, but that has been created through decades of development and an unwillingness or an inability for us to really create some connectivity there. So, Brad, you got something to say, so step up to the plate, my friend.

Speaker I: I've just been involved in this process for the last few years. And so we have met with those landowners in that area. And I think, I think we can work with them. I think we can figure out easements. But I think that we're going to have to kind of work with their conceptual plans and what they have as well, because this minor collector that we're proposing through there, or this collector road that we're proposing through there, The alignment of it today would take away to where they couldn't have lots that front onto it. So then they're going to lose some of their buildable lots. And so there's technicalities of it. And so I think that we can have those discussions with the developer, but I think that there's going to be some asks on the table that we're going to need to encounter as well, to be truthful and honest. I think that that's what we've seen as we've gone through this process. We did propose early on that we wanted to see it right on the lot line with the Perry land and all of that, because then it's split and it's on the edge of the property and it doesn't dissect it. But there, I think we can go negotiate those things and we can pursue some of those things to see if we can get some easements. But I think there's going to have to be some formal process that's going to have to take place in that with that.

Speaker K: Well, then Then I don't— I'm one member of 5 that's going to get to vote on this, but my encouragement would be let's go do it. Let's have those conversations sooner rather than later. I know that they're preliminary and that we've had them, but let's go firm something up. And if it means that we need to look at some conceptual plans or enter into an MDA that gives them certain rights to allow us to create some connectivity through this area, I'm willing to have a conversation about that. I don't know if the council is, but I am.

Speaker H: I've got some very strong opinion about what I'm about to say here. The land immediately west of Lone Tree has no right for residential use. It is agricultural zone until this body says otherwise. And the reason why I bring that up is I— when I hear that developers are creating plans that do not align with the zone Or the future land use map. Maybe I need to take the future land use map into consideration here. But even that, the future land use map is not the gospel. The zone is. And they haven't talked to the city council yet. I haven't been approached. I don't think any of you have been approached about plans west of Lone Tree. I'd like to see what those plans are, what they're wanting to do, and that they come and talk to us first.

Speaker K: I have seen some residential concept.

Speaker A: Okay.

Speaker H: And I hadn't heard anything yet. But for me, if a developer wants to change a zone, they really need to come talk to us first and get us involved early instead of, you know, what I'm hearing, well, the road's not going to align well. Well, in my book, they can farm the land, and I'm not being— I'm not saying this in a mean way or whatever. I'm just saying that's what the land use is currently. The zone is agricultural. And so— and this is what— this is the only tool that allows the city to try to plan a little bit larger have a larger scope with which we can plan the city and connect different areas, because if they want to change it from agricultural to residential, then we can get some— then we can say yes, but we need to align the road in a way that will work for us as well. And I know, yes, we want to be collaborative. I think the city council here has shown that we are collaborative with developers. We're not punitive. But I— anyway, when I hear that they're planning and I haven't seen it, I want to be in on what's going on with, with plans.

Speaker A: Okay, now I want to go to Council Member Huish real quick and get a comment.

Speaker D: Good second.

Speaker J: All right, the, uh, I guess you can hear me. The audio is not great, so what I'm going to assume is everyone just agreed with everything I had to say. That's, that's going to be my assumption, and I apologize for not being there on purpose. I'm making this difficult for being out of town. Uh, just a few things that, um, have really helped me in my personal practice, and that is when, when we're, when we're short-staffed, oftentimes there's a technology that can help us to fill in some of those gaps where sometimes we don't need to hire a person. Uh, one of these, and I don't know if These tools are currently being utilized, but I would fully support having some licenses through Anthropic. It doesn't have to be Anthropic, but it is a very high-quality product. I think our city attorney should have a license in a closed system where private confidential items can be analyzed and be a tool or resource for him. I would love that as a council member to have access to something where we can safely take confidential items uploaded into Anthropic's products called Claude and evaluate some of these NDAs that were expected. I'm not a real estate— that's not my background, nor am I an attorney. But I think our citizens have an expectation that we do the highest quality job that we can. So one, one thing that I would add somewhere here in our budget is that we have some level of AI technology available for staff, available for the council, the mayor, uh, for, uh, our, our city manager to maybe enhance their or, or extend their skill set using, using AI. That, that's one ask. I also wonder if we could review the Lifesize product that we're currently using. Is there a better product so that we can have better connectivity when we're remote? And then the last thing I'll just add in there, and I know the mayor knows I'm passionate about this, but having a Verizon tower close to the city building would probably help half of our employees. I'll just— I'll stop there. I'll jump back on to Lifesize for the audio. Thank you.

Speaker A: Okay, so if I can wrap this up, and then I know Councilmember Clark wants to— not— sorry, not wrap it up, I mean try to bring this together. We don't want to use those tailings on the emergency access, but we do want to use them on Arnett and try to figure out, um, and I'm talking north of Ivory, so the section of Arnett that would connect Lone Tree through probably JDH to Arnett. And we would rather see that progress, which would then also mean stable ground because it hasn't been a road forever. Do we need to put a little bit of road base under it or what, as opposed to a multimillion-dollar project? So is that— I know you have a comment, maybe it's on that same thing, but have I— am I clear on that understanding?

Speaker K: I'm not against using some of those tailings for the existing road if that's the best solution that we can come up with.

Speaker L: I think it'd be the quickest solution for now, and then we could also look at maybe even some more millions later on when the easements and alignments are figured out. We can bring that back to council.

Speaker K: So I think, I think it's kind of staged or phased approach. Maybe that's phase 1. Phase 2 is we, we work on the, on the right-of-ways and connections, landowners. Let's get it going south sooner rather than later.

Speaker F: So add on to that, we do an unauthorized listening tour, and I know that David Yuleberry said that we need to go to Lone Tree to talk to them about their egress and their emergency plan and all that kind of good stuff. I think it would be useful to make that probably our next stop on the listening tour so that we can talk to them about it and have a realistic timeline of here's the tailings, this is what we're doing, because last year we had a temporary solution of another temporary, a little bit better temporary solution this year. But to come up with this is kind of like a deadline for ourselves to work with the landowners to get it done, because I feel like what we've told them is the same thing every time. It's very complicated. We're working on the land. We're doing all of this stuff, but there's no meaningful evidence of that moving forward. And the last thing that I want to say about Lone Tree, and I know that we discussed this before and it was kind of put on the back burner, but if we can't get all the landowners on board to go south, then maybe we need to push more with going to the north. And I know that that will create a little bit of throughway through Lone Tree. But something for Lone Tree is better than nothing for Lone Tree. So I know the airport is, but there's also the wash and everything else. But we— if we can't get it to go south and actually work, then I think we need to open up looking at the north again if we have to. So, all right, I think it'll work.

Speaker A: The problem is the funding, and the funding's not gonna be any better to the north. So I wrote it down.

Speaker F: The issue with funding, Mayor, I think has more to do with the fact of how many people does this road serve. If the road were something that more people could be using or would provide a bigger benefit if it was to the north, then I think it's easier for us as the people that hold the purse strings to be able to say, yes, I can see spending $5 million on this because of the it's going to serve more people or in a different way. But when it's essentially going down and finishing something up for Ivory and the other two landowners there, it's, it's harder for us to say, yep, we're going to make this commitment of $5 million. I think that's the wrestle right now because it goes back to what Councilmember Wright said. It's about the council and us not being okay with spending $5 million in this particular instance if it's not going to serve everyone, because we have to serve everyone.

Speaker A: So, so you're saying is it regional in nature, meaning does everybody get to use it, or is it mainly just for the people that live there, and that's the difference? So what I wrote down that I think I'm going to have Ben help me with is, uh, we need a timeline. So meaning whether that's Ivory or whoever wants to talk to— how soon can Ivory get to their border, and then we know that I don't think it's going to go past that, so then if they get it to that border, by when could we, you know, either stockpile some other roto-mill throughout the other projects to make that connection for Arnett viable within— is it 2 years, is it 3 years, you know. I know Ivory's been a very willing partner to help us get that going. That's— they've advanced that phase. So if I remember right, it's very soon, but, but we need to be able to— at the timeline. So is there any— anything on that one? We good on that one?

Speaker B: Okay.

Speaker A: Um, I've kind of lost track to where we were at.

Speaker F: I think everyone else is more clear.

Speaker A: Okay, go ahead.

Speaker F: Okay, so there's a lot of stuff that I'm complete agreeance with my fellow council members. I also see the need to either add more quote unquote boots on the ground or add salary to some of our boots on the ground so that they are able to do what we're asking of them. When I look at certain positions, I struggle with them because one, they are a higher ticket item, and two, It's hard for me to look at a position and think we can't outsource this in some way. And I know that our city attorney is arguably one of the busiest city attorneys in all of the state, and that's just the reality. But I'm also wondering, could we bring in additional help through outsourcing? Would it be cheaper? Not necessarily. Is it a short-term solution? Yes. Does it bind us to a new employee that we then have all of these other things to? No, it gives us some, you know, wiggle room there. I also am looking at the purchasing agent, and I know that some people were like, um, we can't— maybe that's not necessary, but I spent all last summer with Public Works and our purchasing person, and almost 100% of her time was dedicated to figuring out which group we would go with first to engineer the wastewater treatment plant, then which group we'd go with to manage the building of the wastewater treatment plant. And it was a huge time suck. And that's just one of the bazillion projects that we're doing right now. So when I see that on the list, and after spending that summer seeing all of the work that went into that, I really truly understand why we probably need that. That being said, that's probably the case with every job that's listed on here. We're just not privy to how much they're needed, so it makes it very difficult. Um, I also think that the community services director position is one that we could probably put off a year. Um, I think we need to because of the same thing that Councilmember Huish said. About basically not spending the money before we know that it's there. We know that we need to increase our deputy count. We know that we're looking at a potential tax increase, but we also know that there's little levers that can take place in the middle of that whole truth and taxation process that could result in us not having what we're planning for. And without going too deep into that, I think that safer for us as an organization to choose to fund some of those bigger ticket items midway through budget year or even next budget year, um, because we have some incredible people that already work in the departments that would fall under Community Services Director. And it goes back to the original statement about boots on the ground, additional boots on the ground, and really making sure that we take care of salary-wise the existing boots on the ground too. Um, I look at things like building inspector, plans examiner, those things that are all under building and planning and whatnot, and a lot of those end up getting funded through impact fees and, uh, building permit fees and like all of those things. So I'm less apprehensive about those ones. Um, as far as parks So that's my general thoughts about the positions, and I wish that we could fund all of them tonight, but I know that we have some things that we have to work through budget-wise and tax-wise. I agree that it's good to leave the cushion if we've already budgeted for it. And when I say cushion, I'm very clearly not saying slush fund. I'm saying— we're in the middle of a drought, we may not be able to use our fireworks contract that we've probably already paid for. We may need to pivot like we did in 2021 or 2020 and do something that's an alternate to fireworks. And if that's the case, I want our events department to have that $30,000 so we can pivot and make the best decision possible for the safety of our community. So To speak to Mayor's idea with that, I also think that it's smart for us to go to the north service area and look at some sort of sprung building or lean-to or whatever we're talking about to put salt shed up there and potentially park some vehicles up there. Maybe that's where we put the tailings because we create like a little work yard with it. Lone Tree is still a huge priority for me. And I also want to say this so that everybody hears it. Lone Tree is a cautionary tale for us. We have other home developers that are coming to us right now saying, but I want to do this, this shouldn't be a problem. And I look at Lone Tree and I look at us potentially making the same mistakes in other areas, and I want us to be really cognizant of that because those mistakes are $5 million inadequate road mistakes, and I don't want us to keep doing that. Parks. One thing I'm in agreement about the loan— not loan tree— the AI thing that Councilmember Huish said, and this comes from what I really would love to do is throw all of our minutes and all of our agendas into AI and be able to go back and ask it for a timeline of park improvements. And a timeline of when this road was widened. And I think the technology exists to do that. And if we need to budget $20,000 or $30,000 to help us do that and save manpower time, I think that it's smart for us to do that because Sweetwater is a park that was a pit before. Am I right? That's the right park, Sweetwater, Brad? And in 2017, 2018, seen somewhere in there. We took an empty pit and put the actual playground in there that wasn't finished through the obligation of the builder in that area. If we had actual information about this timeline of who got what in which areas and which service areas, I think it would be really useful to us because we could say we did a big thing in Smith Ranch. We also, just before Smith Ranch, did the thing in Sweetwater, now we're going to do, you know, and I think it would be a useful tool for us as we're making decisions. So I would love for us to make that possible. And I am also very aware of the splash pad in Nolan Park. And I actually think it's way more than 30,000 gallons a day. I think it's probably closer to like 180,000 gallons a day because Zach Hilton said it would use between 200 and— it can use up to between 200 and 250 gallons per minute, and that's like a lot of water if we have it running even for a day or a couple hours in a day. So, um, and I also get the concerns that people have expressed about using a park that's smaller and having something in the ranches closer to to where most of our multifamily is so that there's additional resources there. But we've also had that stinking splash pad for several years and we've never made, we've never pulled the trigger to make it recirculating. So I think that, yeah, well, it's, and they're not cheap, you guys. 8 years ago when we were looking at splash pads with match grants, you're— it's like $750,000, $1 million. I mean, and it's probably way, way, way, way more than that, like double, triple, quadrupled since then.

Speaker A: So $3 million.

Speaker F: Yeah, I quadrupled. See, um, I— we have to do something, but I also don't want this to turn into our Lone Tree egress where it's too complicated or too expensive or whatever.

Speaker A: Can I throw something out there real quick? I don't mean to interrupt you, but it's relevant to that exact— if we were paying for, use your number, 180,000 gallons a day, I think we'd— if we had to pay for the use of that water, it would be in the millions as well.

Speaker F: Valid. Totally valid.

Speaker A: Just, just pointing out that that's— it's a resource and it costs money.

Speaker F: I agree. I just I remember my very first budget year, we got the list from David, and we all had to like categorize and rank the things we wanted. And the thing that didn't get done was an expansion of the bay over at the Public Works building, back when the planning building, back when it was that. And it wasn't the sexy thing that everyone on council understood. And I remember after that whole whole exercise of going through that thinking one of the most arguably most important things that we needed to do as a city didn't get funded, but we got 10 new pavilions for little parks around the city and thinking we can do better. So, um, I— pavilions are easy to put in, splash pads are harder to replace. I don't want the hard to keep us from doing it. So did all of my things make sense to everyone. Okay, thank you.

Speaker K: I just had one clarifying question, Mayor. Um, Councilmember Clark talked a little bit about this, the purchasing agent, and I think I heard Councilmember Huish say that that's one that he is giving him a little pause. I don't want to put words in his mouth, I just want to clarify that with him because that's what I believe he said.

Speaker A: So, so there— I've been all over the place trying to make sure that I can organize this for staff, and what I was going to I'd like to suggest in the last few minutes is that we kind of go through this with yes, no, and then I can— then we can focus on the ones that we need to. So because for me, I've been like, okay, some people said yes, but I don't know if there's a consensus.

Speaker K: Okay, well, I'll start off and let's see what— if you're okay with it.

Speaker A: Well, can I— I want to stay with like attorney is the first one.

Speaker K: I think we put a pin in it.

Speaker A: Okay.

Speaker K: I don't know what everybody else thinks.

Speaker A: On the attorney, you put a pin in it? Does anyone else—

Speaker C: Mayor, will there also be an opportunity, I guess, that if you— I think it would be helpful to make sure that we provide any additional context or information behind the request.

Speaker A: You're going exactly where I'm going. I want to know which ones need talked about, and that's why I'm trying to get there. So yes.

Speaker B: So if I could jump in, we've heard a lot of great comments and whatnot. I think some of the things that we talked about are just things that we can do within our budget. This year and maybe budget amendment. Some of the things are one-time monies in the next year. Going through the, the list of personnel, the ones that I marked that the council brought up was attorney, purchasing agent, payroll and benefits administrator, community services director, and wildlife biologist. First of all, everything on the list I think is in the budget, right, today. So everything is fully funded in what is being considered tentative. It's whether you we want to remove them. And I always love this quote, uh, I used back from when I very first started this, and that is that the easiest budget in the world to cut is the one you know nothing about, by Norm Dugger. And, um, and so you have all of your staff right here, and any one of those questions, we'd love to bring people up. And then lastly, really quick, um, the AI one specifically, Brandon and, and Community Development are working on an AI tool right now that we could potentially bring in that not only will take care of the MDA work but will also allow us to upload our code, our design standards, and do an initial plans review using AI before. So we're already looking at that as a tool. It's just not in the budget today because we haven't landed on, on what technology work would work best for us.

Speaker J: Someone said Someone said minutes, and that was something else we were also contemplating as well.

Speaker F: So I think it's because— well, minutes, because it gives us a timeline and we can find out when did we approve that, when did that part go through. Real quick, Ben, when you say these are in the budget, these are already funded, is that they're in the budget with what the potential proposed tax increase would be, or they're in the budget with the way things are right now?

Speaker B: Okay, so, um, when the budget is tentatively sent to the council, it can— it has what's conceived as items that would be approved unless the council wants to make any changes. So when you accepted it, these are in the tentative budget today. You can certainly take anything out, we totally respect all of that. You can add more things in, we totally respect all of that too. But what is what you see here before you. And by all means, this is your opportunity to tweak that. But if you have questions because, you know, I'm just not sure what a purchasing agent would do, we have Melissa here to talk about that. Or I'm just not sure what a payroll benefits person would do, we have Kimberly to talk about that. So that's what I want to make sure you have enough time to go through that.

Speaker A: And that's exactly where we're going. And I think— and to be clear, I think, Melissa, your question was This is if the tax stays the same today.

Speaker B: No, no, um, so, so do keep in mind that there's— it gets a little bit complicated in this. These are not necessarily funded by the tax increase. The tax increase is being funded for the purpose of public safety. These would hit fund balance if the tax increase didn't go through, and we do need to make sure that Originally, when I first started as a city manager here in Eagle Mountain, I showed a graph where a really good city is a well-balanced city where you build a foundation of public safety, quality of life, economic development and prosperity, and essential services. Right now, arguably, we have put all of our— not all, but a significant amount of our resources into public safety, which has made it so it's more limiting to some some of the parks improvements and open space improvements and other type of things. If the tax increase goes forward and we do tie our most stable revenue source to our most needed essential service, which is public safety, that does allow this council, a future council, to determine how to use those other resources to invest in quality of life, economic prosperity, essential services, so that you have a more balanced city going forward, but that's up to you in the future.

Speaker F: I think that you bring up a really good point because we are looking at a potential tax increase so that we can more adequately fund public safety, because for a while our public safety costs have been subsidized by other parts of the budget. And I think it's really important for our residents to hear that when we talk about a tax increase, it's not for the things that are on this paper, but without a tax increase, we're going to have to continue subsidizing the public safety part, the cost of our budget, with other areas of revenue. So I think without that tax increase to fund public safety, these things that are on this paper are not possible, correct?

Speaker D: And I—

Speaker B: You're absolutely correct.

Speaker F: That's what I just want to make sure as we're having this conversation And the other piece too is like us cutting something versus tentative budget. When the tentative budget was brought to us, it was very clearly said that this is where staff and the mayor hand the budget over to council to look at and pursue. It's not like this is a given and this is all said and done. So I think that's the way we approached it. So as long as we're all on the same page, we're good.

Speaker A: Yes, sir. None of this is possible if we don't do something. That's why I'm trying to determine what that is. Not going through every piece, is there anything outside of the 5 that were just listed? Are all the other ones on the list proposal okay to say that we're good to advance? Could I get somewhat of a consensus that we're okay with all the rest of the positions? Other than the 5.

Speaker K: I have one question before I answer that, Mayor, and it really goes back to what Councilmember Huish said. As you look at the potential funding source, those that are proposed to be funded with sales tax/rap tax, I tend to agree with the statement that he made about the rap tax, that I don't think we should be dedicating rap tax to ongoing—

Speaker A: I think, I think I actually agree with that, and my understanding is there, there was some column that we had talked about where the potential, but at this point, all of these could be funded through the general fund except for—

Speaker K: Well, I think the way that Kimberly's broken this down is really helpful. The transportation tax, permit fees, development fees, utility fees, all those are funded from different sources. The upper section is the only one that, you know, down through, through what is it, the recreation and sports coordinator, that's from there up are the only ones that are impacted by sales tax. Everything else is funded from different funding mechanisms. So, I mean, that for me automatically makes those on the lower portion of the list easier to deal with, because they're funded from other sources where those revenues are strong and where they're able to be pledged and taken.

Speaker A: I think loud and clear that those are possible. They qualify, like the open space qualifies for ABTAX, but I don't know that— I think I agree with you that I would rather not I don't see it funded from there.

Speaker K: So the question is, when we hear that this is funded in the tentative budget, the question that I have is, is it contemplated by being paid with RAP tax, or have we calculated it to come out of sales tax proceeds?

Speaker C: It is currently calculated with sales tax. So we did not allocate any RAP tax whatsoever towards anything. I just was trying to identify that that would would be a potential source if you needed it.

Speaker A: Okay. That's completely up to the body if they want to use those funds or potential funds that could be used. But right now they're all coming— they're all proposed to be general fund expenses. That's what I— so then are we good moving forward with— I know now I'm going to be sensitive because I know Councilmember Huish maybe said not some of the other P2s, but then he put back in the open space ones. Which really only means 2 of the recreation and 2 of the building and the wastewater, if I'm not mistaken. So I did hear that, and I don't know if he's still able to comment, but I want to know, other than the 5 positions, is everybody else willing to advance the entire list?

Speaker D: Yes.

Speaker H: So, yeah, I was going to say, which one is 5?

Speaker A: The ones that Ben just mentioned is the attorney, the purchasing agent, the payroll, the recreation, the wildlife biologists. I'm not saying they're not going forward. I just want to focus on those if the rest are good.

Speaker F: The wildlife biologist, I, I don't know that there's anyone on council that disputes.

Speaker A: No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying there's been questions about it, so we're going to talk about those 5 if the rest of the list is good.

Speaker H: But, but I think the wildlife biologist has enough support of at least 4 people.

Speaker M: Sure.

Speaker A: So I don't think so. That's, that's not the question. The question is Everything except those 5 are we good with? And I'm sorry, I'm not saying that right. I want to know if we can make—

Speaker K: what we're saying, Mayor, is we're okay with— we're okay with only— we only want to talk about 4. That's what we're saying.

Speaker F: Well, and can we— can we have Council Member Huish weigh in on whether he meant purchasing agent or if he was talking about payroll and benefits administrator? Because they're right next to each other.

Speaker K: He meant purchasing.

Speaker D: Okay.

Speaker A: Okay, so I just want to make sure if there's any others that we need to talk about. That's what I'm asking about. No, the whole rest of the list is good. Okay, that's what I want to know.

Speaker H: I, I think, I think actually Council Member Huish may have a comment on the arborist technician as well though. So he and I were talking about that one earlier and he had a question mark on that.

Speaker A: Then, then that's what— then we need to ask what that position does, and that's what I'm curious.

Speaker H: That's Let's ask about that one.

Speaker A: Okay, then I'm going to put a question mark by that one. Now, if we're good, I'm going to start from the bottom, and I'm hearing— and I want to just say this— there is at least one council member that had some questions about wildlife biologists. But if 4 people are saying go with it, then I'm— then we're going to leave it on. Is that what— at least 2. Okay, we're good on that one. The— going from the bottom, Community Service Director, I've heard all over the board. Is that one you do want to advance or not advance, or do you need— or what specific questions you have on that one? Is that the—

Speaker K: can Ben just speak to it? I mean, you're talking about a $200,000 a year position. What's the purpose of it? That's my question.

Speaker B: Absolutely, I'd love to. So on this particular one, when we look at the three areas that we would be focusing on— quality of life, essential services and, and, um, uh, community and economic development. This is the quality of life one, and a good community services director will come in and end up working to pay for themselves with the development of new soccer programs, new programming all over the place. They will basically— they'll be the partner with the parks director who would be taking care of and maintaining it, but come at it with the programming. So a good community services director will help take care of your seniors, they'll be your— help take care of your sports and recreation, help take care of your events. They are the main pivot person between anything that is quality of life, library, and whatnot. And they'll be your main contact person with the community services board, your main staff person to that board. And I just looked at, you know, certain cities when they truly transform and bloom in the realm of quality of life and the service offerings that we give, it's because that community services director comes in, listens to the council, listens to the community, and starts developing the programming. And the programming themselves with all the user rates and fees and whatnot helps to pay each time you have one. There's a little bit of overhead that helps pay for that person. When we had RAP tax on there, it was really just to kick off that position to start off, but not be a long-term stream of paying for that. It would really just be the seed money to start it. But that's, that's the idea behind it. And if it's this year, great. If it's not, if it's in the future, that's great. It's just that the RAP tax was approved by the voters, and so there's a certain expectation in the community that we're going to make some quality of life improvements.

Speaker A: So then this might help with council as well as I think one of the questions on that position and whether it's now or later is up to you guys. It's not important to me. What I want to know is one of the biggest questions is the expense. And I think that number came maybe from HR and it has to do with more areas with the rec center, which we don't have. Is it possible that that position could be hired and have some of those same responsibilities but at a, more reasonable expense being with less responsibility until we had a higher need. If that was the case, would that change the, the need sooner rather than later if it was for less money? So is that even a possibility, or has it just got to be this or we won't find anybody?

Speaker B: Um, it really depends on what you want. So you bought— you pay for what you get and where you want to go. You can hire to maintain maintaining what is today. And we, in fact, are— we have fantastic staff. There's no doubt that they're doing a lot. They could do so much more if they had greater investment in our existing staff. But it's where you want to go. And so it's really a matter of timing. How fast do you want to take on recreational improvements? And if you want to wait on this one and make it a mid-year appointment, or consider it, you know, after you start seeing how much money is coming in with RAP tax and MET, nothing things like that, that's just fine. This is really all about timing and your desire as a council to raise the level of service and community and quality of life at the timing that you feel good about.

Speaker A: Okay, so then what I'm looking for, and I'll let Councilmember Clark weigh in, is, is it now or later and at what expense? Because that, that's kind of what we want to know. Do you want to do it cheaper? Do you want to fund the full amount now, later, whatever?

Speaker F: So Councilmember Clark, I think that we should wait and I've shared some of the reasons because I think we need to take care of the boots on the ground that are currently doing that. Library, rec, events, you know, the major things right there, seniors, they're all being done right now by current employees. I think that we need to fund those employees so that they can continue to grow the program, and a year from now when we're having this discussion And again, we'll ask ourselves, are we ready to bring in a middle manager to help coordinate that and sit in budget meetings and do all the boring parts of administration? Because right now what I care about is what the people see, and that's the events, the rec, the library, all of those things. And I think we need to take care of the people who are doing the job, and then we look at bringing in someone who coordinates the people doing the job. That's my opinion on this.

Speaker K: I'm gonna wait.

Speaker H: I'd rather wait on it. And I also am questioning the $147,000 salary. I think we can get a high-quality person for something less than that number, especially when I'm looking at that and it's being proposed to be $27,000 more than an attorney, which takes a lot of years of schooling, et cetera, to do. So I would question the salary on that one.

Speaker A: Okay, I think some of that, and we could speak to it, is it actually included a car, um, and I don't know where that came into the number.

Speaker C: So it, it doesn't come into— that's a separate number. I would like to add, only from where HR kind of falls under administrative services, from just a context with some things, this particular position in terms of a community service director is a functional area director position. It's not a middle management position. That's why you're seeing a cost associated with that in terms of what this role would be.

Speaker K: But don't we already pretty top-heavy in functional area directors? I mean, that's my concern.

Speaker C: I would say— okay, my response to that is going to be no. And I'm going to just talk to you a little bit about why from my perspective where that means and what no means and when we talk about what a functional area like director is doing and what that involvement is. So What we're hearing from the council is that we want to heighten, right, we, we want to enhance this area that we have. And Community Services is an area that, again, that we don't have right now. There's not a functional area director. Uh, Steve is functioning in that capacity, taking that on in regards to what his role is as well. One of the challenges that Eagle Mountain has historically had is the exact conversation that we're having. We need to We want to grow, we want to enhance, but we don't want to pay for it. We want to bring somebody else in to be able to do it and hope that they can grow as our organization grows. If we were starting to try to develop a public safety or police department, we wouldn't start by hiring a sergeant or a police officer or whatever. If— again, this is just my personal recommendation coming from the capacity that I sit in and where I am at. That if community services is an area that you want to enhance, that leadership role is a priority position that needs to be filled in order to grow and develop that. And I'm not saying that in any way, shape, or form of choosing this over enhancing. As you're aware, we do have a compensation study that is just getting ready to kick off and get underway that is going to look at our structure and our compensation to our employees and the positions and the responsibilities and the things that they're looking at. I'm gonna be careful that this isn't a, we have to choose this over something else, and just look at this from what is the purpose of a community service director, and what would they be bringing to our organization? And I do completely look at it from a leadership standpoint, and having that to help fit in, so.

Speaker F: I totally understand where you're coming from, but the reality of it is, is their role would be to grow programs like events, like soccer, like all of those things. And if we aren't in a position where we can fund enough people to take care of the fields that soccer will be played on or do some of those other things, then it doesn't make sense to bring in someone to do that job until we get that baseline of level of service with our amenities, I think, improved. The last thing I'm going to say about it is that largely the things that would be done by the community services director are going to take place during the summer. That's where we're going to see the biggest, like, bang for our buck. It's the things that the residents will see because we want them to see it. If we go out to hire someone, we won't be bringing them on and starting them probably until at least August, if not September. And when we do that, all of the really cool big events the rec, like all of those things will have taken place. And the quote unquote return on investment of putting the money into a community services director could be immediately seen if we enhance the salaries of the people who are currently doing the jobs. I'm not a no on this. I'm a wait until we take care of some of our other bigger issues.

Speaker A: Okay, perfect. And just to be clear, none of these positions will be before September. They all have to wait. So—

Speaker C: Actually, yes. Yeah, that's correct.

Speaker A: So the earliest any of these would be is September. And just real quick, I'm trying to get to some of these other ones, but if we didn't fund that one, that duty falls to Steve. Steve, I just want to hear that you're capable and that we can get by and that— You know, I mean, your chance to say that you're not overworked. I'll never say that. I just want them to understand what they're saying no to, right? And what you do to make up for the difference. Yeah, I appreciate that.

Speaker K: I think really what this decision does is impact Ben more than anything because then I spend more of my time on community services and less time helping him with administration.

Speaker A: So, but am I capable?

Speaker L: Absolutely.

Speaker K: It just comes down to balance of helping Brandon with community development, helping with community services, and whatever else Ben has me doing.

Speaker A: Okay, I just wanted to hear it, and if they change their mind, they can let us know. Let's move up to the— Actually, I'm going to jump to the top of the list just in case we run out of time. But the assistant city attorney, I've heard a few people say pin. I don't know that everybody said that. Is that the general consensus? Wait.

Speaker F: Melissa? I would say wait and use outsourcing non-permanent resources to make that happen.

Speaker A: Then in a 30-second synopsis, Marcus, if you want to let us know why we either do need it or what it will do if we don't fund it. Like, what are we going to miss?

Speaker M: Sure. I just want to kind of very briefly address something that Councilmember Wright said earlier. The reason that we have right now a lot of outside attorney fees is because we have a lot of litigation going on. So that's the reason. That's not always been the case. Which has been the case recently. As far as Councilmember Clark's statement, I would say that outsourcing it is significantly more expensive, and we would go— we would plow through that. If we're talking about funding a position, say, just use a round figure, $100,000 a year, tack on another 40% for benefits. You know, if you're paying, you know, $400 an hour for an outside attorney, handle that. You plow through that pretty quickly. So that's the downside to doing that, is you get significantly less bang for your buck to use outside counsel on those situations. The goal there would be to, one, you know, per city code, attorneys should be attending DRC every week. That's one thing that I just don't have bandwidth to do. So there's just certain responsibilities that fall by the wayside. And You know, that this person would be able to, I think, handle some more of those community development responsibilities, I think, where they would be able to spend more time with the ordinances earlier in the process, spend more time, you know, assisting earlier in the process rather than waiting for people to say, "I need help with this," and trying— and just faster timelines in getting things done. That would be, I guess, the 30-second version. I'm sure I could go deeper into it if I had more time.

Speaker H: It would be interesting for the council to probably learn how much we have spent on outside counsel in the last 12 months. And it would also be interesting to learn whether we can hire— like, because part of the outsourcing is because of the specialties involved with outsourcing. And so— Can we hire someone that could pull that outsourcing back in, or are we gonna still be outsourcing? And so it'd be interesting to hear, here's how much money we spent on outside counsel, here's how much was for specialized outside counsel, and that could help us better understand the situation.

Speaker M: I would say the majority of our attorney's fees are just general litigation right now. We have one case I think would be specialized, more specialized outside counsel that we would still probably, you know, farm out. And then the other cases are the types of cases that if we had, you know, litigator and like a legal secretary or paralegal, that we could handle in-house. But we can't currently, because—

Speaker K: Marcus, can you speak to some of the things that perhaps you're not able to get to, because you just don't have the bandwidth? I heard you say DRC.

Speaker M: I mean, DRC is one example. I think, you know, it just, you know, like reviewing ordinances would happen more quickly would be an example. You know, right now I have, you know, Comcast is up for renewal on a franchise agreement, and that's just kind of been on the back burner because just the other responsibilities. And so it's more of a timeline thing, and getting things done more quickly. Litigation, I think, is the perfect example. I would want to hire somebody that had litigation experience, because I do think that is a way to help the position pay for itself, because right now that is specifically something I've just told city council members time and again, I don't have bandwidth, you know, for things like that. So I think that's probably the biggest example of something that's just not getting done. But yeah.

Speaker K: So I mean, I'm going to reserve the right to change my mind, okay? Because I know, look, I wanted to know why do we need an assistant city attorney. I sit in those DRC meetings, I listen to those conversations, and there's never a meeting that happens happens there that I don't hear somebody say, "I'll get with our legal counsel and I'll get back to you," right? And I see that happen every Thursday. So you're giving me pause on this here. Because we went a number of years without an attorney and, well, we were with a part-time attorney, which was almost being without an attorney, if I'm being frank. And I just, I think we've been much better served having full-time legal counsel on staff. And I'm probably, I think I'm moving in a place where I'm going to feel okay about, about saying yes to this.

Speaker F: Marcus, really quick, um, with this position, I think that's when I say outsourcing. For two decades, we at least had a city attorney that was a part of a firm who was quote unquote our city attorney, but it was that. So part of me is thinking, do we need another full-time person, or could we do something like that arrangement, full-time person plus that contracted type person? Or could we also stretch your reach if we had a legal secretary or a paralegal or something like that that's maybe less costly but allows allows us to get more help for you, because like a lot of what you do is also the busy work of law, and like reviewing the contract and stuff like that, and I'm just wondering, could we get more bang for our buck if we had a busy work paralegal that could help? Like, so I think we're just looking and asking about options.

Speaker D: Sure.

Speaker M: So I guess, you know, addressing kind of like the part-time, if you're envisioning like a part-time staff attorney. My experiences with that have been negative. When I worked for Provo, we did have part-time attorneys in that office, and it was extremely difficult to find qualified individuals that wanted part-time work. It happens at times, but other times you get less qualified applicants, and it was just really hard to keep those filled and to get good people in. So that's just kind of my personal experience, and so I'm not a huge fan of that route. For that reason. As far as a, you know, paralegal, legal secretary, where I see the greatest value in a position like that is, yes, that person could do some of the busy work of that I— I mean, for want of a better term, that I do, like in running a department and a budget and all that. Could they help assist the to free me up for the stuff that I'm actually, you know, that I'm primarily getting paid for, if you want to put it that way.

Speaker K: Sure.

Speaker M: That's helpful. You know, a lot of, you know, I don't know that I spend so much of my time doing things like that.

Speaker F: Okay. Final question. If we fund an assistant city attorney, Will we finally get our justice court?

Speaker M: You know, you can— I think we're entitled to a justice court. There's just a process we have to follow. If you want a justice court—

Speaker F: Don't answer it like a lawyer. Answer it like somebody who's in a budget meeting.

Speaker M: I mean, we are legally entitled to one.

Speaker J: It's just a process.

Speaker F: Oh my gosh. We are legally entitled to one. Yes.

Speaker A: I got to keep moving. I got to keep moving. So look, we have planning commissions in 9:30, is that right? I know we started just a couple minutes late, so I know if it's okay, we're going to go over just a little bit, but we have got 3 or 4 more things. First of all, I want to jump off the list for one second. I read the property tax impact schedule in the beginning of the meeting, and really we need to know, or I'm kind of curious, that it has to do with some of this, the direction. Is the council proposing the 245% or what's the— is it— it depends on what— like, I need to know.

Speaker K: You proposed it, Mayor. We just get to vote on it and adjust it.

Speaker A: Okay, I don't even know if that's a fair statement, but I'll accept it and say, are you accepting the proposal or what do you want to do with that number?

Speaker F: I think the people of Eagle Mountain want us to make sure do all the due diligence. And I also think we're all very sensitive to the fact that even if we vote yes and propose this and move it forward, that there are other things that can happen to act upon us that make it so that that doesn't necessarily pan out. And I think all of us are looking at that potential and the whole if-come thing and saying we're hesitant to fully go all out with some of these positions because of that concern?

Speaker K: I'm going to say I'm unprepared to answer that question, Mayor, until we have our public hearings and we listen to the public and we take that input. I mean, we wouldn't be— we wouldn't be honest if we wouldn't— if we wouldn't at least own the fact that we're considering it. But that's where it's at for me right now currently, is that I'm considering it. I think it's needful. But certainly I've not drawn a conclusion that that's absolutely where I'm going to vote. I want to see what the people have to say.

Speaker H: Mayor, exactly what Councilmember Wright said. Can you keep going?

Speaker C: So June 16th meeting is where we do have to have the council make a decision that you're— this is what is being recommended as the proposed going forward. That's the— we have to do that because we have to certify our stuff by June $1.2 million. That doesn't mean that is what the council adopts. It means this is what is the proposed amount that goes on the tax statements and for the hearing and for all of the notices. But that decision will have to be made on the June 16th meeting along with the interim budget.

Speaker K: So are you saying that you need us to say that?

Speaker C: That's— I'm saying you don't have to say that today, but you have to be prepared for June 16th. Yes.

Speaker K: Okay, that's good. That's great, Council. Thank you.

Speaker A: So it'll be prior to the public hearing. And the reason why I jumped to that is because if there's no appetite to go to whatever, then we have to have a deeper conversation over here. That's why I kind of jumped back. So I just wanted to make sure that we're on the same page there. And if that's the case, go ahead.

Speaker F: Can we have Melissa come up and talk about the purchasing agent?

Speaker A: That's where—

Speaker C: that, and then right after that, the human resources, uh, And just for some information too, so this purchasing agent position is actually a request that started last fiscal year. This was a last fiscal year request that was on hold. It was reconsidered again mid-year, but again, mid-year is your— where we didn't have additional resources that we could put towards. We didn't move anything forward, and it is continuing to pulse forward, and it's a high demand and need.

Speaker D: I'm grateful to be here. Purchasing agent generally goes a little overlooked. Every purchase over $75,000 comes through me. Every contract that we do comes through me. I write them. If we have red lines, Marcus approves them and we shuffle them out. I'm very busy. I work overtime every week.

Speaker C: It's difficult.

Speaker D: To get the job done. And I'm teary because I care about the city and I care about my departments. It's important to me that they get their contracts in a timely manner. It's important to me that RFPs get put out and done correctly and that vendors are taken care of. I take care of all your vendors. I take care of all your bids. I take care of all your contracts. I take care of all the POs that come in, over 5,000. My name's on all of them. I do all your change orders. I do anything financially as far as purchasing comes through me. We are a growing city. We are growing exponentially. I cannot keep up. At this point, and I apologize again, I'm sorry for being emotional. I cannot keep up with the work that's coming through. I need help. That's just the end point. And Marcus knows because I'm shuffling him red lines and negotiation stuff all the time, and he needs help. We cannot keep up with the contracts that are coming through. We just cannot. Largely, I'm doing, um, most of the general contract management while Marcus is handling all the upper stuff. So when we go through the negotiations on my side, I'm shuffling him all red lines and we're backed up. That's just it. I need help to keep the city moving. Questions for me?

Speaker K: I really just wanted— Melissa, for you, I sense that, and I'm in favor of this position, by the way. Could you just give us an idea of how many contracts and how many RFPs you're dealing with, perhaps? On a weekly or monthly basis? I think that might help us understand the volume or the workload that you're dealing with.

Speaker D: Since May— well, no, that's a lie. The end of March until now, I've done 10 RFPs. I have a bunch in the hopper. That RFP means I do the worksheet with the department. I edit it, I post it, I answer all the questions, I download it, we do all the scoring, we do all the contracts, I'm negotiating with the vendors, and that's just RFPs. I work with Recorder's Office to get all the contracts executed, and then contracts right now, I mean, I just took 5 off my board that we just got executed today. I have 5 more in mid-negotiations, 4 which are red line, which I know Marcus is not going to want to hear. They're coming to him next. And this is just since March, the end of March, middle of March. The workload, that's not including Amazon orders, Staples orders, the vendor applications, all the regular POs. There's been no training. I don't have time for it.

Speaker A: Texting Zach. I don't know if you have communication, but if you wouldn't mind sending a message to me. He is.

Speaker E: I have him here.

Speaker A: Okay, good. He is.

Speaker E: Okay.

Speaker F: All right, Zach, you're good.

Speaker K: You're good to go.

Speaker J: Thank you. And I appreciate Lacey putting the phone next to the speaker so I can hear now. Um, yeah, I, I have some questions. I'll first— my questions are for Kim. So when we started this process, we were given, uh, all the P1s that were totaling about $1 million, and then another request came through for P2s, which is what we have today, which is $1.8 million. When I asked about that, I was told because the considered tax revenue was potentially coming, that now we can add the P2s. And I just want to make sure that what you're proposing, the P1s and the P2s, are not dependent on the tax revenue. That, that, that's confusing me.

Speaker C: So, yes, your question does make sense in terms of that being able to happen there. So of all of your P1s and your P2s as well, um, the impact of those positions to the general fund is $1.3 million. So yes, all of these positions that are being requested are, you know, cost roughly $2.6 million. Of that, the ones that are impacted or will impact the general fund is $1.3 million.

Speaker J: Um, I have the spreadsheet here. I've totaled everything, and this is maybe where I'm just lost. I've got, uh, 20— there's 28 positions on this list that you said. When I ran the total Actually, with benefits, it was $2.6 million. So we're like a universe apart.

Speaker A: So, Zach, let me tell you, I said this a few minutes ago, this is all contingent upon something. I had already said that. So the reason the two numbers are different is because of different funding sources. If you look at the ones that have the dash mark, there is about what Kimberly's saying is $1.8 million, or $1.3 million is general fund cost. And then when you look at the planning and building department, those positions are paid from other funds, uh, like fees and building permits and things like that. That's where the other $800,000 comes in, which is what gets to the $2.6 million. Is that right? So, so that's the grand total. The $1.3 million is the general fund cost, and the, the entire thing is, uh, 2.6. And with no tax increase, without considering anything, which is why I came back to the number, then nothing can be done. We can stop everything, including—

Speaker J: I just want to make sure I understand.

Speaker A: Yes.

Speaker J: The P1 list, looking at the wages, that was $1 million. I'm assuming with benefits that's $1.3 million.

Speaker B: Correct.

Speaker J: But when I add in all of the P2s we're talking a $2.6 million number. So my question is, are we just talking about the P1s today?

Speaker A: No, that was something we addressed a minute ago. I said there were 5 things that were questioned. Is the rest of the list okay? Now, you didn't weigh in, but the rest of the council said they were okay with the P1s and the P2s. So if you're questioning all of the P2s You'll have to take that up with your fellow council members, but that's why I asked which positions do we need to talk about, and right now we're focused on the 5 or 6 or whatever. Yeah, yeah, right now specifically the purchasing agent.

Speaker J: Yeah, and I just— maybe there's a communication gap here, but I just want to make sure that I understand that the P2s are contingent on the tax increase.

Speaker K: The whole list is contingent The P1s, Zach, and the P2s are contingent upon it. They're going to come out of the general fund, and if there is no tax increase, there's not resources in the general fund to fund any of the P1s or P2s.

Speaker J: Okay. So the $4.5 million that's raised, uh, in addition to, you know, or that, that's freed up by us funding the Sheriff's Office contract with property taxes, $2.5 million of that, if we funded P1 and P2, would I guess soak up most of that increase? There'd be, uh, $2 million left over.

Speaker C: I just want to make sure I'm understanding.

Speaker K: I want to frame it—

Speaker B: I would say no, because not all that is general fund.

Speaker K: Yeah, it's, it's $1.3 in the general fund, but I want to frame it a little bit differently. Councilmember Huish, what's occurring in my mind, the way that I'm seeing it is this, and it may be semantics for you, but for me, it's the fact that the sales tax revenue currently is funding our sheriff's contract. It's coming out of our general fund budget. What we're proposing is to increase property taxes so that that creates a stable revenue source to to fund the sheriff's contract. And what we're able to do is then recapture those sales tax dollars which have been pledged and have been being paid to the sheriff's contract, put them into the general fund, and allocate them to these areas where we are woefully understaffed, and be able to start to make up some of the difference and raise the quality of life in Eagle Mountain. That's how I'm seeing it.

Speaker J: Yes, I, I agree with that. I understand that. I just I think I probably need to pause because the building inspector— some of these positions will not be paid for by the general fund. They'll be paid for by development fees, permit fees, um, I'm assuming increased utility fees. It's the sales tax piece that I, I guess I probably need to work through that a little bit more.

Speaker K: Yeah, I'm happy to go through it with you, Councilmember Huish, offline if you want. I'm happy to go through it line by line, and I really would like to get your thoughts and hear your thoughts. The one question that I have for you— and we've got Melissa Yates sitting at the microphone wondering if we're going to approve her purchasing agent, and you raised a concern earlier and stated that you you had a concern with that position. Were you able to hear what she shared regarding the workload that she's dealing with?

Speaker J: Yeah, so the way that I was working through this, I didn't see the wildlife biologist at the bottom.

Speaker E: I see that there.

Speaker J: So what I was trying to get to was a neutral number of adding in some open space parks crew lead. Like, I really feel like we need to advance those P2s. And, uh, so the— so really the only two that I had left or questions on were the assistant attorney and the community services director.

Speaker F: Uh, Council Member Huish, I heard the second that you had questions about. What was the first one?

Speaker K: Attorney.

Speaker G: Attorney.

Speaker J: The assistant city attorney and the community services director.

Speaker F: Were you able to hear the back and forth that we had with Marcus about attorney stuff?

Speaker J: Yes.

Speaker D: Okay.

Speaker F: I—

Speaker J: one question I have is, are any of our staff using— like, I'm hearing reading through lots of contracts— are we using AI at all?

Speaker D: Currently using AI because we do not have a closed secure system. And as far as purchasing goes, that puts the city in a liability issue.

Speaker B: Some of our staff does use AI for various purposes, but we don't have a holistic closed-loop one for our entire city.

Speaker J: I think, I think we should seriously consider doing that. It seems like a I mean, we use it in my daytime job. We have a contract and it's awesome. It saves us a ton of time. And I think we're needlessly— like, this technology exists. We should strongly consider, you know, like a purchasing agent that would lighten a ton of load, just being able to upload a document and start to query and ask questions. Or prepare RFPs, that's exactly what AI is designed to do. And so I just think there's probably some roles that we could better leverage technology.

Speaker D: Okay.

Speaker A: Now, we can come back to some of these questions. And I've tried to get a hold of you today. I know we've been playing phone tag, but— With what's right in front of us, I've only got like 10 minutes max, maybe 5. Move forward with the purchasing agent or no? Yes.

Speaker E: Yes.

Speaker G: Yes.

Speaker B: Okay.

Speaker F: Yes.

Speaker A: So I'm gonna put that one as a yes, advance. Then the human resources one, the payroll and benefits real quick.

Speaker G: I will be quick. HR, with HR, every employee that we hire impacts HR. Year to date, I did a quick number. I'm sorry, the last 12 months we've hired 115 employees. Year to date we've hired 60 employees. 63. Yeah, a lot of those are part-time or temporary seasonal positions, but we have to go through the whole process with every employee. We have to go through our new hire paperwork, report them eligible or ineligible to URS, we have to report them to the state, we've got to enter them in HRIS system for payroll. Our culture here is a reason why a lot of our employees return, including our seasonals, and is we We try to treat them right. We try to give them the whole spiel, one day you can be full-time, these are the benefits. So we try to do that with all employees. With talks of the— well, soccer's coming in now. One of our busiest months is Junior Jazz because we're hiring all these seasonals. Now we're going to have soccer as well during summer included in that. With the increase in personnel, I mean, when I started in HR, At the end of 2019, I think we were at less than 100 full-time. We now have a total of 236 employees at this time. We have had an IRS audit in the last few months here, and payroll was one of the things where they found a few items. We only have a part-time person right now in that payroll role. They report to Finance, but HR is still very involved in it. With bringing on this position, it's been proposed that it would be moved to HR with Finance having some, you know, with the GLs, have to do with the GLs as well on that. But with a part-time payroll person, a lot of this stuff still comes to me, a lot of the day-to-day questions because they're only available part-time. This would also include benefits. Benefits take up a lot of our time. We just went to RFP for a new benefits broker. Our plan is with Motive Health. It's very different than some of the other plans out there. They're a lot more expensive, and it encourages needs. We need employee buy-in. We need employee engagement in this, so it takes a lot of educating our employees employees, sending them out items to work on, whether it be steps incentives or calling them because the pharmacy has contacted us and are letting us know that there's a huge savings to them and the city. And because of that, our premiums are a lot lower than these other insurance companies that are out there. So it does take a lot of education for employees. With increased personnel comes increased increased. You can ask Marcus on this one. Personnel issues— there's not a lot of personnel issues, and that's not what I'm saying, but when there are personnel issues, they do take up a lot of time.

Speaker A: When I think our turnover is just about 10%, right? So you can also add that in there.

Speaker G: Last time we checked, yeah.

Speaker A: And then that moves—

Speaker G: FMLA, short-term disability requests, all of those things take a lot of time. So we want— we would like somebody. We think that we're at The size now that we should have someone that's full-time in that area, payroll, benefits, well-versed and certified in payroll law to make sure that we are taking care of things, taking care of employees and taking care of our liability. With that being said, I do turn— I take up a lot of Marcus's time. Two of those RFPs that Melissa mentioned were mine. So I'm sorry, but she did a really great job. I know she is tied up with a lot of things right now. Mine is the priority 2, so after them, and I wouldn't feel right unless it was after them. But I just— whatever your decision is, I respect it and we'll get things done either way.

Speaker K: Marcus, you should have just sent up Angela and Melissa to argue for you. That's what you should have done.

Speaker F: If he wasn't so busy, that's what I would say.

Speaker A: So then on this one, it is a P2, which I was gonna mention that because it was kind of in that maybe you could get by without them, say what would happen if we didn't do it. But for sake of time, and I think that maybe I'm hearing a little better outcome, do we move this forward or no? Or do you have more questions is what I'm really asking.

Speaker K: How many employees, 200?

Speaker G: 236 right now.

Speaker K: 236, and they're seasonal, so they're coming and they're going.

Speaker G: Some are seasonals, yeah.

Speaker K: Are you the only one who's dealing with this currently, Angela?

Speaker G: So do we have an HR specialist, Teresa? She is newer, she's learning the ropes really fast. I'm really impressed with her. And then, um, Chas and Laura, they're kind of assistant to all, right, and admin, and they help out where they can.

Speaker K: Are they, are they helping you with some of those duties, and that takes—

Speaker G: Yes, but not— Okay, but payroll mainly falls on—

Speaker K: That for me is the— that gets me over the hump, understanding that we're tasking them and taking them away from the mayor and from Ben. That's problematic for me. So I'm— I think I'm okay with this.

Speaker A: Advanced?

Speaker H: Yes.

Speaker A: Okay, so this— I'm going to take the question mark off and put advance on that one. We really only have one more, and then we can circle back. And it's the arborist technician, it's literally just parks. So I don't know that we need a big spill on that. Just is it— is there a reason there's a question mark on this one?

Speaker H: I think we have like 3 arborists already on staff.

Speaker D: 2?

Speaker H: No, that's not the case.

Speaker I: We have 1 community forester and 1 arborist. And so the community forester is our lead, all tree guy in the city. We hired him a couple years ago. We added an arborist technician last year, and this attempt is to add one more arborist technician so that we have a crew of 3.

Speaker A: So I think what I want to point out here is this is kind of boots on the ground. Even though it says arborist, it's a technician, which is a fancy way of saying this is a guy that's going to do the work. Now, specific to trees, whether you want to call that a parks technician or—

Speaker K: Can he run a mower and fill holes in the soccer field.

Speaker I: Everybody that works in Public Works is willing to do anything.

Speaker K: Anything.

Speaker I: Like, we've hashed this out before, and we have a great team, and we have a lot of people that cross departments want to work. It's just that as an organization, as we grow, this is one of the areas we've got to get stronger, and it's in our organizational structure, and this is an attempt to do that.

Speaker F: I also think that Councilmember Huish brought up two things today. One was tree stumps and the other one was trimming, or maybe it was— someone talked about signs, the trees by the signs for school. So it's like, this is what that person would take care of.

Speaker H: Okay, so let's move on. I'm good.

Speaker A: You're good with that one? Good. Advance it then. Then the last thing that I'm going to say is, uh, back to the community service director. Nobody's changed their mind, that one's on hold. But back to the top, the only one now that's That's basically— that one's on hold, and the only other one I wrote 50/50, because I'm not sure, is the assistant attorney, because we kind of waffled.

Speaker H: I still wanted to get data for the last, because we have data that you could give us. How much do you spend on outside counsel? I think that would be helpful. I would want that.

Speaker A: It's hold for now, but maybe not permanently, meaning further discussion.

Speaker F: Well, I support that position, because I do— I think there's a lot of heavy lifting lifting that's done, especially with all of our development that needs that. And we heard all the other instances that Marcus has to touch.

Speaker A: So I'm wondering where Zach was at on that one. I'll have to get it because that's the only two— that's not a corn.

Speaker H: How long will that take Chris to get that data?

Speaker A: Well, it's a future conversation either way because we got to wrap up.

Speaker C: So by June 30th, we anticipate we will have spent close to $150,000 on outside counsel this year.

Speaker A: Okay, so let's just keep a pin in— we're going to scratch community service, keep a pin in the attorney, and the rest we're, uh, moving forward. Is there anything else that needs to happen from the council's perspective? Okay, if not, then our last item, number 3.

Speaker K: Motion to adjourn.

Speaker H: Second.

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

Speaker F: Yes.

Speaker A: Council Member Wright?

Speaker K: Yes.

Speaker A: Council Member Whiting?

Speaker B: Yes.

Speaker A: We're adjourned at 5:23.