Transcript — Eagle Mountain City Council, 2 June 2026

Speaker B: Joining the meeting.

Speaker C: Joining the meeting.

Speaker D: Brett, can you hear us okay?

Speaker E: Yes, I can. Thank you.

Speaker D: Great, we can hear you too. Thanks.

Speaker B: There it is.

Speaker F: Wasn't working.

Speaker A: All right. Welcome to the City Council meeting. This is our work session, June 2nd at 4 PM. We're actually 4:03 getting started, and, uh, we will start— actually, I want to start by making, uh, letting everybody know, uh, we do have Brent and Zach online, correct?

Speaker B: Correct.

Speaker A: And, uh, they are joining remote at a conference. Uh, we actually have a lot of staff as well. They're at a water conference and working on some of those issues with the entire state. We have Representative Schmoller, we're trying to work this out. So we'll excuse them and welcome them online. Also, for anybody in the public that was wondering about item 17A, that's the Horizon item with Scott Hazard, that's been pulled. So we're not going to be discussing that tonight. It was a public hearing as well. So if you were coming for that public hearing, that item has been pulled. With that, we'll go ahead and get started with some of our discussion items. And the first one is an employee policy and procedure update. It has to do with cell phones and the issuance of cell phones. And we have Angela Valenzuela from our Human Resources who's going to present this. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Speaker G: So you have the line that's being taken out from F under mobile phones. We're just going to strike that first line there because it talks specifically about city-issued devices being given to all employees. And what this would do is be optional. An employee can elect to continue with their city-issued phone.

Speaker H: I don't know if you can see that.

Speaker G: Or to use their own phone and only have to carry one around, and then they would receive a stipend equal to the amount the city pays, which is around $41.

Speaker I: That was easy.

Speaker A: So, you know, this is something we've been talking about since January, I believe. Basically, if you want a second phone or feel like you need a second phone, That's what it costs the city is about four. We went back and forth between forty and fifty dollars a month, kind of depending.

Speaker I: But that's what it costs the city.

Speaker A: So you can have the option to carry a second phone or get a reimbursement to use your own phone. And then we just their number would have to be made available to the council and the staff. I think that's kind of the only change. So I will. Ask if there's any questions or discussion on how you guys want to see that handled so we can bring this forward.

Speaker I: I think the only question I have about that is just, I'm assuming that they're going to have to provide their telephone number as the contact number. Correct. It'll have to be listed.

Speaker G: Yeah, there'll be some internal policies that we would make sure that they follow and know, and that, that's one of the things that they have to provide that phone number and be available at all times, just as if they had a city-issued phone So the second question is probably more specific to maybe like mayor, city manager, some of our senior-level staff members.

Speaker I: Are we going to do their own personal telephone numbers for those numbers as well, or do we feel like that there's some sense in keeping that number the same so that when there's a changeover of that position that the people are calling one number, not trying to find a new number? I mean, it's optional.

Speaker A: You can choose either one. And so the mayor's always had a phone. Since I came on in January, I chose not to take that phone. I just wanted one. We still have that number, if I'm not mistaken, and it's just not— nobody's packing that phone.

Speaker I: So can we port it? So that number's still active and we just port it to Jared's phone? That way, if they call that number, it'll read as his personal number if he decides to do that. And then the next 2 or 3 mayors, that number is still the same. And if they want to use their own phone number, great. If not, that number is still coming to them.

Speaker G: We would need to— we would be paying for 2 phones essentially at that point though, because we would need to keep that number active.

Speaker I: You're talking like $3 a month. You can put it— there's holding companies that will hold that number and forward it.

Speaker G: Oh, just hold the number, not keep it active?

Speaker I: Yeah, well, the number stays active and they put it in basically a bank.

Speaker G: We can look into that.

Speaker I: Yeah, that would just— that number, if you—

Speaker A: some reason we got all kinds of feedback today, but if it was, uh, if that was the case In order to forward it, that's different than the hold. The hold just freezes the number. It would have to be an active line, which at the minimum I think is $9, $10, $11 maybe.

Speaker I: But that's trying to keep the confusion, you know what I mean?

Speaker A: Yeah, I know what you're saying. So really the question is, is that a desire of council to do that?

Speaker I: I don't want to have 2 phones. I think that sucks.

Speaker A: Would the next guy want that?

Speaker I: Who knows, right? I doubt it. I doubt that they want to do that. There has to be a way for them to be able to call a number to get a hold of the mayor, just like there's a mayor email address.

Speaker A: We do have a desk. There's a landline that goes to the mayor's office with its own number, if I'm not mistaken. Chaz usually takes that, but I'm seeing nods that say that we have a city number and we have the mayor's desk, and then Chaz usually takes care of those. I don't I've never heard of Ring.

Speaker G: It's forwarded to Chas's desk.

Speaker A: But we have the landline, I think, which is probably the real answer.

Speaker I: That's what I'm looking for, so that it's that plan, that's fine.

Speaker A: So then that satisfies that if we just keep the landline?

Speaker J: Yeah.

Speaker A: Okay.

Speaker K: So my question is, how recently have we evaluated the cell phone contract to see that we're getting a good deal monetarily?

Speaker G: Kim is actually questioning that right now as we speak. She started getting into the weeds.

Speaker D: Of the bill.

Speaker G: She was looking at some of that stuff.

Speaker K: There's a lot of competition among cell phone carriers right now, and I would be— I believe we could probably get that price down to a lower number.

Speaker C: It's been within the last 24 months that we transitioned to T-Mobile in terms of— would have been the last time that we looked at that. The primary reason at that time for transitioning had to do with coverage. So we do have some key areas within the community that we have some coverage issues, and at that time for us, T-Mobile was going to be able to meet those needs better than we had. But I did, as in review of this policy, I did recently reach out to them for the current contracted government rates, and we are looking at that as well. But it was in the last 24 months.

Speaker K: Okay, can we build into this policy that there's an automatic requirement to revisit This, you know, what we're paying, and then to have it adjusted, whether up or down. I mean, because maybe these services go up, then it needs to go up. If it goes down, we want it to go down.

Speaker C: We have proposed in the policy that we wouldn't set the rate. The rate would be reviewed annually as part of the budget process, and that the employee would only be able to receive the amount based on what our contract is. We do want to avoid that there would be any additional cost to the city. So again, if we make any changes, then that rate would also change, but it would be reviewed annually as part of the budget process. And that is identified in the policy.

Speaker G: Our internal policy reads on that portion 5, monthly stipend structure, city employee cell phone stipend will be set by Finance Department according to the standard contract service rate with the city's wireless service provider as of July 1st each fiscal year. So it would, it would change.

Speaker I: So I have a follow-up question to that, and I just wanted to make one other comment. What if the service that the The employee is using is not adequate?

Speaker G: It's not what, sir?

Speaker I: Adequate. What if they have a cheaper service, therefore they're not available in important parts of the city?

Speaker C: We have the ability to require the employee, so it is again, the employee could, but if they can't meet our requirements for the need, then we would require them to have a city-issued phone.

Speaker I: That's, yeah, that's, so that's the first part where I was heading with that, and then Angela, read that part again that you just read. I forgot my question, but if you read that part you just read, Angela will remind me what it was.

Speaker G: City employee cell phone stipend will be set by Finance Department.

Speaker I: Yes, that reminds me. What if the plan that they pay for is less than that and our stipend is now exceeding that and giving them money back?

Speaker G: That would be what the city was paying for them either way.

Speaker I: So we're paying for their whole bill plus they're getting extra money? That's what I'm saying. What if their bill is lower?

Speaker G: Essentially.

Speaker A: I think, I mean, that's up to the council, but I think if the stipend's a stipend and someone finds an adequate, which is the key, service for less money, then if they carried a city phone, it would cost us either way. So if they have the ability to do that for less, I highly doubt it, but the other option would be paid that same amount for a city phone anyway. So I don't know that we'd be I don't think anybody's looking to make $2 a month or something off a cell phone. That's probably not their focus. But if they're finding something that's drastically that much cheaper, I'm going to guess that it's probably not adequate either. And then they'd be forced to not get a stipend and carry a phone.

Speaker K: I just want to make sure the contract's reviewed annually. As well, just to make sure we're saving money.

Speaker A: We were with Verizon, I think, before. That's been looked at a lot recently. That's still been the case, but we'll continue to do that. I think Carson and Evan have both been on that.

Speaker B: Did you—

Speaker L: I just— when we had Verizon, it was awful. Like, if we called anyone on staff and they were in the building, if they weren't like standing on one leg, With like their hand in the air, they couldn't have a phone call here. So I think, yes, we should do an evaluation of the cost, but I also think we have to go with what's actually adequate, that word that we talked about before. So that's really important to me. And if Verizon isn't going to have enough coverage here, then they just don't get our business.

Speaker I: So.

Speaker G: At the time when we went with T-Mobile, I remember it's because they were putting the towers out here specifically. and promised us that coverage, and we've had it. It's been pretty good.

Speaker A: And I know Councilmember Huish has talked about it, and we've actually asked Carson to look into adding Verizon towers. Verizon wanted to, and I think we approved one at the high school that just hasn't been done. So there's still— we're gonna lean into that a little bit and see if we can't get other carriers out there, both for the public and just to broaden that network. I think even Marcus had mentioned that a lot of the service issues had to do more with traffic and the amount of calls that were on the— I can't remember what they call it, but it was basically traffic, right? Too many people on the tower, something like that. So anyway, online, either Councilmember Huish, Councilmember Wright, have anything to add?

Speaker E: Nothing for me, Mayor.

Speaker A: Okay, moving forward with that, I suppose.

Speaker D: Hang on, Mayor, I think Zach had one. I'm just trying to get him unmuted. Hold on, Zach, you should be able to talk now.

Speaker A: I'm starting to think the gremlins live with Zach because last time I always— isn't he the one that had to call in? Yeah.

Speaker D: I see his bubble moving, but it's not coming through.

Speaker A: Brett's— Councilman Wright's phone works, so I don't know what's the deal with one of those other chairs. Yeah, he's not with Verizon or T-Mobile. We'll come back to that in just a second. Write down your questions, if you will, and we'll see if we can't get it working. If you'll let me know if you think you've got it sorted out, we'll come back to that. Is there any other discussion? Are we okay moving forward with it the way that is, bringing it as an item on the next— here in the next few agendas anyway?

Speaker L: Councilmember Whiting, do you want something to be added in here that it needs to be reviewed like every 12 to 18 months? So there's a little bit of wiggle room?

Speaker K: Yep, I think so.

Speaker L: Yeah.

Speaker K: So 12 months, I think. I mean, if we're going to reset the contract, if we're going to renew the rate or look at the rate once a year, I think we shop out options once a year.

Speaker A: Don't you think? I think there might be. I don't know if Carson wants to speak to this or just tell us, but I think, you know, a lot of times when you get a phone or something, I don't know what the city contract is, but sometimes you have to do minimum 2 years. You know, so that there could be— or you have to buy those, right?

Speaker I: Isn't it usually knocked out? There could—

Speaker A: I don't know about the other city town. I mean, I know personally in my business, the 2 different bills, but do we have any kind of—

Speaker G: I'll let him speak to that, but it is a major— it's a pretty big overhaul changing if we were to change every year. When we have done it, it's a lot of work, and then we're changing everybody's number.

Speaker C: They don't all—

Speaker G: we're not always able to get everybody's number back, so it's about everybody going through and changing the numbers, changing them online. All of that stuff also.

Speaker F: Sorry, so what was the main question that we have?

Speaker K: So how often should we review the rate that we're paying for the cell phones?

Speaker F: Cell phones is probably a separate category where we do want to do that more often. I would think annually. Most of our contracts, we should be doing those probably every 5 years at minimum. But in this case of phones, there are a lot of moving pieces that are probably a bit more tricky. For instance, we had had quite a few of the different functions for the city that had asked for mobile devices, so like iPads or Surfaces that they can use out in the field. And so some of those just barely got put on that bill. So it's all one kind of conglomerate. So it's not just strictly cell phones. But I do definitely agree with council that we could shop around and definitely find something that's cheaper. And I know Kim really is doing a fantastic job already kind of spearheading and chasing that down.

Speaker I: I think if our plan is to let people use their own phones, then the changing numbers is no longer a problem. That's going to happen often anyway, so that probably isn't an issue anymore.

Speaker F: Yeah, from my point of view, the ones that we are worried about are the key numbers. So like with the mayor or any administrative staff that you want that routinely more for the mantle and not necessarily for—

Speaker I: Yeah, that's what I was asking earlier. I think the desire of the mayor and maybe even others is uses their own number and not worried about that number, uses a stat line. So I think to that point, I don't think that's even an issue anymore. I think we can shop every year because the numbers don't matter anymore.

Speaker A: Well, I think the real question is really about expense. So can we look into— I think so. I'm trying to navigate what it is that we're looking to put in the code or in the policy compared to what we're looking to accomplish. Even if we found Okay, we look into it annually and our total bill is $1,000 for all phones, but we could get this other one for $998. I don't think we want to switch for $2 or something. You're not asking to take the lowest bid, you're saying evaluate it. So what is the metrics or what are you hoping to get out of that evaluation? If there's a significant savings, it depends on the quality as well. Sometimes we don't always take the lowest bid. It's what's quality. Yes, we evaluate, but what are you hoping to get out of the evaluation?

Speaker I: I think that's it, right? There has to be an evaluation of service, price, phone number available. If that's something that matters still at that point, because maybe it doesn't. Maybe everybody's just done that.

Speaker A: Yeah, and to that, I think what Councilmember Clark was getting at is, did you want to add that to a policy that it has to be? And if it does, then what's the reporting? Does that even have to be reported, or what is it we're trying to accomplish?

Speaker I: I think most of the time when we're looking at contracts like that, we want them to bring 3 to evaluate, the 3 best.

Speaker F: That's usually best practices, at least having 3 quotes.

Speaker A: And then just remember that the, you know, sometimes that $2 savings is going to cost you $100 in staff time just to change them, right? I mean, it's—

Speaker K: but we're going to be adding more employees and more employees, and at some point those $2 Makes a big difference.

Speaker A: Yeah, well, what I'm saying is then you take every one of those employees that come in once a year to get a new phone, import their number over, you just wasted an 8-hour shift to save $2 a month.

Speaker K: I'm going to just spitball here, but I think most city employees will take credit and not think so. So I don't think it's going to be a big issue.

Speaker A: Okay, that's— I just want to make sure that if you're asking for this to be in the policy, what it is that we're asking for, an evaluation that comes back with Bring 3 business—

Speaker I: that they've pre-evaluated.

Speaker G: That wouldn't actually be in the policy from what we're proposing. That's why we wanted to have the discussion to see what— the only part of the policy that was changing was that one part that's being redlined because that's the only part of the policy that mentions mobile phones. So the other parts are all like our internal procedures and making sure when the employees are signing off that they're going to be responsible for Making sure the phone works, that they're responsive, all of that stuff. That's the other policy. So we weren't really addressing—

Speaker I: No, I think we're aware of that. It's open now. To Craig's point, why not address it now? If we're going to talk about it, let's talk about making it a policy.

Speaker C: So if the council would like to give us direction in regards to how often, that is a purchasing matter, and I'd recommend that we address that not in the employee handbook because That's the policy section. That's what we're addressing right now is the policy for employee handbook. So when we start to break it off, we talk about we want to have our purchasing contracts removed— reviewed more frequently. I recommend that if you do want it in a written policy, that we would address that in our purchasing policy from that particular standpoint. But in general, these are items that we would be reviewing. Again, we did We did put that provision in the handbook that we would look at it annually in terms of that cost. Every contract that we have to some extent, unless we have a multi-year contract, is one that we have to review as part of the budget process in preparing for those costs.

Speaker A: That's what I was getting at, and that was much better. That's what I was trying to figure out. So it's talking about purchasing. Does that satisfy this?

Speaker K: Yeah. So what do we need to do to add it to our purchasing?

Speaker C: So it may already be addressed in there. So what we could do is we could go in and look to see where we're at. What does the purchasing policy include specifically as it relates to the timeline for any service agreements? If you want them to have a shorter duration than what we currently have, we would need to also just look at our T-Mobile one to see. A lot of times those are a 2-year type of a contract.

Speaker L: Okay.

Speaker I: I think he's made it pretty clear what we're looking for. So if it's in the other policies, let's get that in there. I'm in support of 12 months, review it, bring it back through according to whatever purchasing policy is, and let's make sure that we have the best deal. Even— the thing is, it's going to go lower. You're going to have less phones. If you're going to do this, you're going to have a lot less phones, which means our costs are going to go up. That's likely. That's the likely scenario.

Speaker D: Councilmember Huish might be hearing set, so he should be able to speak now.

Speaker M: Okay, can you hear me now?

Speaker D: Yes, we can.

Speaker N: All right, sweet.

Speaker O: Awesome.

Speaker N: I was just going to weigh in my thoughts. At our company, we just do a $60 a month reimbursement. It's pretty straightforward and simple if you're using your own cell phone number. You just said a reimbursement for $65. I would propose a $60 reimbursement.

Speaker A: Did you, did you say $50 with a 5 or $60 with a 6?

Speaker N: 6-0.

Speaker A: So, so you want the reimbursement to be $60? Does anyone—

Speaker K: I'm still good with the $41 just based on your math because you're probably getting a better rate due to the The city's probably getting a better rate due to the number of phones we have.

Speaker L: And would that also— sorry, I think the $60 probably takes into account the fact that you had to purchase the phone. Us paying $41, is that just what it costs us for the line, or does that include the cost broken up of the actual phone?

Speaker G: I believe we get the phones as part of our deal.

Speaker L: Also, when we get the phones as part of the deal, is it a 2-year commitment? Because if that's the case, then we shouldn't We shouldn't set it for 12 months, we should set it for 24 months.

Speaker P: Correct.

Speaker F: Well, so the way that they break it down is that like if you order a device that's kind of out of generation, 1 or 2 removed, they basically give you the device free, but then it is the contract on the line with that device that then is charged. Um, so the number being reflected at a lower rate is because we get those devices basically, hey, you're government, here you go. Um, as kind of a— stipend-y type thing on there and to make it alluring, right? Whereas very much to your point, if you do have to go and purchase your own device, it is kind of on your own dime, your own wear and tear. And so to Councilmember Huish's point, at least in my past experience in private sector, a lot of the time whenever there is a BYOD or bring your own device scenario like this, it will be a little higher than even what the—

Speaker A: I think that's a good point.

Speaker F: Company would pay just because they are fully aware of, you know, hey, and then it puts the onus on the person that's decided to enroll versus the company even having to go through all the, the man hours, the maintenance, all that. Um, there would just be a simple, from a technical standpoint for me, employees would still have to enroll in an employee-owned device thing that basically puts profiling on there to kind of manage certain things that way. Um, but otherwise— But otherwise, Yeah, you're right on the money.

Speaker A: So I think where I would say, and Councilmember Huish, just correct me if I'm wrong, the policy actually reads just whatever it costs the city rather than put a dollar amount in there. It was currently $41,000, but that could fluctuate year over year. It could go up, it could go down. And if that's in there, then it's always just going to be that number. And I think the safer bet is let that go. Like right now, it might be more of a window between $40 and $60, it might land on $50 if that's what the cost of phones are this year. A future year might be less. So wouldn't the policy just be whatever it's saving the city from not having to provide that line, and that would be the pass-through? Correct.

Speaker G: That's what the intent was.

Speaker A: But currently that's $41.

Speaker I: Yeah, I mean, because you're providing phones now. When those phones drop, that price is going to So it's a moving target no matter what. Yeah, well, you're going to have less phones, your cost is going to go up, so then you're paying a premium price for people to have an individual phone.

Speaker A: I still think it's going to be cheaper than it is right now.

Speaker I: Probably is. That's why I say just pick a number. I mean, trying to chase the 41 or 62 or whatever that is, and usually, I mean, at least in the private sector, they're not looking to pay your entire phone bill. They're going to give you a cost of being able to use it for work. So make it $50, and if that goes up, it goes up, but you're not paying for most of your personal phone bill.

Speaker A: You're right. Yeah, my phone's $119 a month or something like that. I don't know whatever that is, but so it's, it's, uh, that's not for your own individual use though.

Speaker I: Yeah, $50 for one phone is what the usual one is.

Speaker A: So is that better than just doing whatever's saving the city? You want to pick a number? Is that what everybody agrees with?

Speaker I: It's arbitrary anyway, so just choose a number and say that's what the stipend is going to be.

Speaker C: My only concern with that is the potential that we will be— it will cost us more than we currently budget for our cell phone plan by picking a number that is higher than what we currently pay. The objective was it's out of convenience for the employee to not have to carry 2 phones, and if they elect That they can either— if they don't want to deal with the pricing, then they can choose to carry a city-issued phone. If they want to only carry one phone out of convenience, then the cost and the expense would not be any more than what it would have cost the city to have them on their plan. Our plan isn't based off volume, it's based on government rate. And so reducing the number of people on our plan would not increase the rate that we are paying for the lines we currently have.

Speaker I: Answer the question. You know what the rate is and that's not going to change, then make that the standard rate.

Speaker Q: Come on.

Speaker L: I just feel like we went full circle. Like, so basically the dollar amount's determined by what it costs the city and we're just going to go with that. Yeah, I— my only reservation is that I think it probably needs to be At least every 24 months, not 12, because I feel like as long as it takes us to do a full evaluation of stuff, you're 6 months in and then 6 months later you're starting the process over again. So I would— maybe there's a way to just check what rates are and then there's every 2 years you do like a full evaluation. But I don't know if doing it every year is practical for manpower.

Speaker I: Are they making us sign a 2-year agreement for a government contract? Does anybody know that?

Speaker G: Unsure at the moment. I know in the past when I used to, the first time we had T-Mobile was a 2-year agreement at that time.

Speaker I: With the government pricing?

Speaker G: Yes. But that was way back.

Speaker I: Whatever the contract is, that's what it has to be evaluated at.

Speaker K: And maybe that's the tempo is just whenever the contract is due, we get it shopped out every time, bring 3 options to the Council makes a new decision, and maybe we go to a 5-year contract because we get a great deal. Maybe we go to a 2-year contract, maybe it's a 1. So it needs to be— anytime a contract is up, needs to be renewed and competitively bid out.

Speaker L: I like that. I like just kind of using what makes sense.

Speaker A: So, so what I understand is we're going to Use the number that the city is—

Speaker R: Okay.

Speaker I: Whatever, just follow what the contract is. If it's a 2-year contract, and so the wording needs to be that when the contract is going to expire, it's got to come back for approval with City Council.

Speaker O: Okay.

Speaker A: That's on the purchasing part, on the reimbursement part, whatever it is, so that they can get their stipend.

Speaker I: Okay.

Speaker A: That's what the city said. That's what the cost is. Okay. Perfect. I think we've got that one. Councilmember Huish, are we good?

Speaker N: Yeah, I'm good. Thank you.

Speaker D: Okay.

Speaker A: And Councilmember Rice, still no questions?

Speaker E: I'll put it on the stand here.

Speaker G: Okay.

Speaker P: Perfect.

Speaker A: We'll move on to item 1B, which is another policies and procedures manual update. This is Kimberly Roosch has about the administrative services.

Speaker S: Credit cards.

Speaker A: Oh yeah, that's right. I hope Councilmember Wright's got a lot of notes on this one.

Speaker C: So Mayor and Council, this is an item that we're bringing back that was brought before the council back in December that was tabled at the time. And so we're trying to get that back before you to be able to review. Based on the feedback and some of the information that we had at that time too, a lot of the questions stemmed around I had used a term for credit card administrator. Who would that actually be and what would that look like? So in the revised redlines that we've done here as well, we have just included it. And currently it is designated as the city treasurer or designee has the responsibility for issuing those cards and is the manager over that credit card purchasing program for us on behalf of the city. Most of the items in there are clerical in nature to be able to identify kind of the reflect the current practices and what we're doing there. The specific change that we have in regards to items that are allowed versus not allowed for a particular change is we did add a provision under the section that talks about the purchasing of gift cards has been strictly prohibited in the past. We added a provision that it's restricted unless preauthorization is approved. Our purpose for wanting to be able to add that in there, again, we don't deal with gift cards very often, but in the event that we did do one, we have internal documents that require gift card purchase authorization that would have to be identified. The recipient of the gift card has to sign it and acknowledge it because it does run through our payroll system. There are IRS fringe benefit tax implications, and so we capture that as part of that. But rather than it just being strictly prohibited, we wanted to have a provision that allowed it to be available based on preauthorization. I just had a thought.

Speaker I: Mm-hmm. Is there anything in our policy— I just looked to see if I saw anything that We want to put in there that prevents them from using that card number as an autopay.

Speaker C: Yeah, I don't recall that there's anything specifically in there, but that is something that we could add that would designate that as being prohibited.

Speaker L: Or could it be something with permission? Because sometimes you get an autopay discount, so especially when it comes to certain bills.

Speaker S: We—

Speaker C: there's nothing that's in there. as I'm able to pause long enough to start to think about the transactions that I've seen come through on some of these. So, we do have some that are currently set up on an autopay nature. I wanted to try to give an example. One that I remember before, I don't know if it still exists, might have been like on the communications side.

Speaker R: Yes.

Speaker C: There are certain applications where we're paying a $10 monthly fee for something. If we have a subscription for For example, I believe we have an employee who has a subscription for like a business application related to ChatGPT, and it has a monthly charge that requires it to be attached to that. We do have a few that are designated that way for that use.

Speaker I: I guess the main thing is just where are the parameters of that? I mean, if it's just authorization to be able to do something, that probably ought to be in there, because that can absolutely be a problem if somebody's done that and we didn't Leave the— I say company, that's not the right word. Leave the city, they're no longer working for you, you've got a recurring charge.

Speaker C: So we do have receipts that are required. Yes, in the event that an employee were, we can have that included in our offboarding practices that we would have, because we have some provisions already that in terms of when an employee is terminated and turning that in and making sure that we have all the receipts. Receipts and stuff that we could include, you know, as part of our offboarding experiences to make sure that we are reviewing automatic transactions. Depending on what it is, those would potentially stay the same. We would just have to transfer them to a different card.

Speaker I: That was my one question.

Speaker A: Councilmember Wright, I know you had a lot of questions on this one in the past. Have anything today? Thank you, Mayor.

Speaker E: I do have just one question. Number one, well, number one, I want to thank him really for identifying the treasurer or designee as the person who's responsible. That was really one of my big hangups last time we looked at this. And then just ask a question regarding the gift card certificates. It says unless pre-authorized by city administration. Who would be— who would be allowed then to authorize those purchases of the gift cards? The city administration doesn't define any individual, or at least to me it doesn't. It's pretty broad. I'd like to tighten that up and really identify who we want to give that authority to.

Speaker C: So internally for us, one of the ways we looked at it previously was whether we were going to restrict it to the Human Resources Department from making those purchases and being able to distribute them. In terms of authorization, for the most part, we can designate whoever you want. Right now it is an authorization that is running through the finance. It would be the same thing. It would be running through the city treasurer. So the city treasurer would be the one reviewing that based on their request, what it is that they're asking for to make that purchase and why. It does require on the form that it has to be signed by the employee's department head authorizing that as well, that they support that request before it comes forward.

Speaker E: I would really like to see— I mean, I like that. I think giving it to the city treasurer is the person. I think we should identify that city admin, which means the city treasurer. And I also think included in that, there needs to be a sign-off by human resources so that we know that the tax implications are being tracked.

Speaker C: So we do have that sign-off that happens on the actual gift card policy forms that we have. So they have to get preauthorization, which includes sign-off as that passes through those different areas to ensure that it is being withheld. And the employee recipient has to sign it too, that they're acknowledging. And that guarantees that we don't have gift cards that are being purchased and then retained by an individual purchasing them. It's an internal practice that we would, we would have in terms of that acknowledgment and ensuring that we know who the recipient, um, is and would be able to identify if we have frequent purchases to individuals that were occurring.

Speaker E: With that explanation, Kimberly, then I don't have any issues with that. Thank you. I think everything else looks really great. You've done a good job of buttoning it up for us.

Speaker K: So do these credit cards accrue any points And if they do, who benefits from that?

Speaker C: We do receive actual reimbursement or a rebate that comes back to the city. It gets receipted in as miscellaneous income in the general fund when we have those come in.

Speaker K: So it comes to the city, not to the employer?

Speaker S: Correct.

Speaker K: Okay, then I have one, uh, perhaps wording change on G9. So it talks about prohibiting, uh, Credit card payments or— Yeah, prohibiting credit card use with consultants. Then gives you a list of architects, engineers, attorneys, attorney's fees. What we may want to put in there on 9 is saying consultants including but not limited to the following. Because there are other consultants we have. We have lobbyists. We have a whole host of consultants that I think that may fall out of the— the ones defined by 8, 8, 8, 8. So you may say including but not limited to the following. And I think that will open up a broader understanding of any consultant as opposed to just only those listed in 8.

Speaker I: What if you put something that says board might counsel approval?

Speaker K: Well, I think that's part of the administrative process.

Speaker I: Probably able to wrap that line with that, because I think they're trying to keep it narrow. You don't want to open that up where they can be used broadly rather than going through their normal purchasing process. But if you have just a way to be able to bracket that and say, where did you just read that from?

Speaker K: So 99G under G.

Speaker C: I do want to clarify too that credit cards are simply a payment method, and it does not. They still have to follow all the same purchasing requirements regardless of the payment method of a credit card. So in the— typically too, when you're dealing with the consultants or stuff, then those are going to be greater than, you know, $5,000. It would require a purchase order. Typically for the consultant-type things, we've gone to bid or gotten quotes or done things like that. So just to make sure that you know too that a credit card does not provide Preclude them from having to follow any of the requirements. They are still subject to all the purchasing policy stipulations.

Speaker I: Yeah, I think that that sorry I missed the first part of that. So this is the prohibited list. He's probably right. Not but not limited to. It's probably not bad to put in there.

Speaker C: And then we're just going to I mean like when we designate it that way. It does. We would treat it similar to if something happened and we saw it come through, we would classify that as a consultant. But maybe the card user didn't think that was a consultant. It would just initiate like, we want to make sure and clarify for you that you understand that we would classify this. When they are called out specifically, it makes it really clear. When it just says anything else— It does leave it open to interpretation about what may be classified as a consultant service or not. From just as a card issue, like a cardholder, we'd want to make sure that we were aware of that from any steps that we took from a violation of the policy.

Speaker S: Okay.

Speaker A: Councilmember Huish has some comments.

Speaker N: Yeah, this was more just a clarification, and I was hoping, Kim, that maybe you could dispel any myths. But the question is, today every credit card used in the city is assigned to an individual. In other words, are there any community cards that are in a drawer that anyone can use if they need to run to Home Depot? Could you just maybe dispel that myth?

Speaker B: Yes.

Speaker C: So every single card is issued to an individual. So the myth might stem from the fact that we have like a Costco membership card that employee would have to check out to go make a purchase at Costco, but the actual charge itself would be on an individual, an individual's named issued credit card, and that person is responsible for those charges.

Speaker T: Okay.

Speaker N: Awesome, thank you.

Speaker A: Okay, uh, I think Councilmember Wright already weighed in. Councilmember Huish, is there anything else on this one?

Speaker I: Who's that?

Speaker L: No, I, I'm good with the things that were hashed out. A lot of the stuff that you guys were saying were things I was questioning.

Speaker A: Anyone else? Okay, thank you. That, that should be ready to come to us as well.

Speaker C: We'll bring that on the 16th.

Speaker A: Okay, thank you for your help. That's one we've been working on for a long time. So we'll move on to item 1C, which is Scenic Mountain, uh, the area rezone. There's 223 properties already in there and assessed to it similar to our other ones, the historical zone. Uh, so we're just looking to update this into a more current zone that fits what's already there, and Mr. Hobbs is going to tell us more about it.

Speaker P: Thank you, Mayor. I think you already described it quite well. As part of the process of working through what areas of the city need to be rezoned, we're still waiting for some direction on specific areas that might be desired by the council as a whole. But we decided to start on the periphery, like you might start on a puzzle, on the outskirts and working your way in. So we chose the northeast area of the community where we still have old properties that Yes. —that were developed as part of the Scenic Mountain Project. As you see on the screen before you, of course, the location off of the parcel viewer map of the county and an aerial view. There you have a copy of the future land use map just for reference. And you'll note that the lion's share of the area under consideration right now is within the community commercial future land use setting or category. And then the balance in— it looks like a neighborhood residential 3. The intent is to change the zoning on the properties, give them current zoning as was noted or expressed, and then with that adjust the future land use map categories to coincide or harmonize properly with those zones. The Planning Commission had a chance to look at this and they had one minor map correction and they were pointed to this QR code that took them to a list That I'm going to show you now.

Speaker K: Let's turn it this way.

Speaker P: This is the start of the list of the 223 or so properties that we're talking about at this moment, and you'll notice in there accounted for is their existing feature land use map, setting a category, their zone, the proposed. And the future land use designation or category or setting, and then the proposed zone. So as you work your way down, as with normal policy, streets have gone to the Ag Zone. We've got some open space parcels that are intended to be identified now as being one of 2 different open space zones. Same with common space. And as you work your way down into the actual residential areas, then you find NR-3 or NR-2.

Speaker U: Okay.

Speaker P: with associated multifamily zone based or predicated upon the number of units in a building tie best to MF-1 or MF-2. And then the houses which are detached, though they don't exactly fit lot size-wise, the closest we have for them right now in terms of small lots is the RC zone. And so just put them into that category.

Speaker I: Thank you.

Speaker P: And that gives you an idea of what we're working with on this first in this area of more to come rezoning efforts.

Speaker I: Just one question. With the 3 parcels at the north end that belong to EGOT, is there any requirement for them to improve the open space? My feeling is no. So we rezoned the open space. I have a question for staff. I think we're going to be making open space for commercial community. It's right along the SR-73 expansion that they're going to do there. I think that as part of their expansion, they generally do something along the roadside, but do we know? And if we make it open space, is there any requirement for them to do anything with that, or are we basically just at their mercy?

Speaker P: I'm not aware of anything like that, Councilman. I think we can just designate and be okay, but we'll still send a notice, and if they have concerns, If they have concerns about that, they'll express them. In this case, we're just in that work session mode to see if it's an agreeable proposal with your group.

Speaker I: In my mind, I'm thinking if there's something that can be done, maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea for us to explore what that looks like along any of these types of state corridors, being that we're going to have another state road going through our city that has a requirement for it to be improved to some degree. whatever that is, at least weed mitigation, you know, et cetera, along those. But if we don't have any capability of actually enforcing it, there's really no point in that exercise. Is that something that you think you could find out from UDOT if there's perhaps in other cities that that exists along the I-15 corridor or any of the other state roads, if there's an onus that's required to do something with that municipality or county or whatever?

Speaker P: And I can see that with the development project, But yeah, I'll certainly research it.

Speaker I: If they're not, then it doesn't matter. But if there is, maybe we need to have a zone that's specific to those types of uses along there.

Speaker M: Makes sense.

Speaker A: Thank you.

Speaker K: Okay. Yeah, the only question I have is, uh, I mean, we're not increasing because this is all developed already, so it's not like we're granting any more rights. We're just trying to assign what rights were given previously to a new zone.

Speaker M: That's right.

Speaker A: Sorry, a zone that actually exists.

Speaker P: Yes, that's the key. The zone that's on the books now and can be used to answer questions to the private sector especially.

Speaker A: Okay, let's go online just to make sure. Councilman Huish, is your councilman right?

Speaker N: Nothing for me, thank you.

Speaker E: I think staff should just bring it back on the consent agenda. I don't think this one's going to have any trouble going through.

Speaker A: Okay, perfect. Thank you. Sounds like you're good to go. Um, that's all for our discussion items at this point, so we're going to move on to item 2, which is the, uh, city manager information items. Is there anything For the council?

Speaker S: I have a longer report for the regular meeting, but I think I inundated you with a bunch of emails lately with a bunch of updates, at least 3. You know, just know that the staff is working hard on budget and projects, capital projects that are going forward, an exceptional Pony Express Days, and a great appreciation to our events and our communications and all the staff that help support that and the elected leaders as well. And I think that's it, unless there's any questions council has of me.

Speaker A: Okay, I don't hear anything from above, so we'll move on unless those guys— feel free to stop me. Mayor, can I ask one question?

Speaker B: Yep.

Speaker E: And maybe, maybe, Ben, you're waiting to do this in the policy session, so I want to be careful, but I thought you were going to at least offer some information about a chapel application that might come in before us.

Speaker A: Is the chapel— I think— is there something about the church house?

Speaker U: The rec— remember the rec hall, the height issue?

Speaker A: Isn't that on our policy section?

Speaker S: Yes, that's right, actually.

Speaker A: Thank you very much, Brad.

Speaker S: Thank you. Got a million things in my head, and I appreciate you reminding me about that.

Speaker E: So I saw Mr. Baker in the audience, and I thought we have to address this while he's here.

Speaker A: Okay, that's good.

Speaker S: So during my report, one of the things I talked to Councilmember Wright about was, was the fact that we, during our DRC meeting, we had a Yes. ...request for some exceptions to the recreation portion of the church that's being planned right behind the Walmart area there. And I believe that the 3 exceptions really had to deal with the height of the recreation facility, the wall that would be facing Walmart that would be visible to the general public, as well as some trees and landscaping So I'd like to, if I could, turn some time over to Brandon to be able to talk to those to see if there's any questions or concerns with regard to those potential exceptions being included into a development agreement.

Speaker U: I'm going to turn the time over to Steven Layman.

Speaker S: And the ball keeps rolling down. Actually up to the person who really knows what they're talking about, and I'm just making it up as I'm talking.

Speaker V: I'd love to be able to clean that too.

Speaker P: Keep it going.

Speaker V: I'll try to keep this brief so you can move on. Um, yeah, like I mentioned, there's, there's 3 points of conflict that we wouldn't be able to approve the site plan as they presented it, so I wanted to go over those really fast. Our purpose would be to seek a development agreement to be able to grant those exceptions. So the first one is our code requires— I'm going to try to show you both here— that any parking lots larger than— again, I don't remember the number— comes from 87,120 square feet, requires a raised pedestrian walkway through the parking lot in order to access the site. So there are— this is the asphalt portion, so the parking lot is 91,000 square feet. Okay. 665 square feet. They are providing— So what's it like they're not providing? So originally they were going to provide this walkway that gets to the recreation building. This is ADA compliant, as well as the one that would then cross all the way over to here. We also asked them to put in an additional one that's shorter here, because I think this one— I believe this one would probably get used more often, at least to access the existing building with the remodel area. So it wouldn't be necessarily raised, but staff feels like it meets the intent. There's going to be ways for pedestrians to access the site. So that's the first one that we'd have to deal with. I don't know if you want to discuss these one by one or do you want me to just review them real fast?

Speaker X: Sure.

Speaker V: Okay. Second one is, as I mentioned, the height. Typically, we have a 35-foot height limit on these buildings. They're proposing 40 feet as the max.

Speaker Q: Let me show you.

Speaker V: So 40 feet is what they're proposing here for the maximum height. And then the third one would be this wall. So this wall would be facing east. I think I mentioned that is what is going to be up against Walmart. So maybe not as viewable from the general public unless you're standing behind Walmart. I don't know what the view would look like from SR 73. We don't have that yet. They did send us these renderings. So you can see, this would be the southwest corner of the Walmart property looking north. So this is without the building, and then a mockup of what it would look like with the building as far as the scale goes between the two. And then their best attempt at putting that building in, the trees will block some of it. It is at a higher elevation than Walmart properties. Take that into account. So those are the 3 asks that you'd be dealing with in development agreement. So I think the applicant just wants feedback whether you're willing to maintain those and whether we should pursue a development agreement and bring it to council.

Speaker G: Sure.

Speaker K: What would be the purpose of— why do they need 40 feet?

Speaker V: I think when they talked about— so there's a basketball court included in that recreational building. And I think it's just to be able to— whether that's the design of the building, they need the 40 feet the way they're laying it out. I'm not an architect, so I don't know. But that's the reason we were given.

Speaker L: Is there any view of what it looks like from the neighbors to the north or Scenic Mountain looking south? Because honestly, it doesn't faze me by Walmart. It's like, that's the loading dock of Walmart. It's— people aren't going there to take wedding photos. But is there blocking anything or any kind of nuisance that's coming from that? Are there any lights that are up on the higher parts of the building that are going to shine into? I know that they have issues with Walmart shining their lights down. They don't have to have the lights on sometimes at night in their homes because of how bright Walmart is. So like, is there anything to succinctly say from the north looking south? Are there any issues with lights around?

Speaker B: Yes.

Speaker V: Not knowing where the lights would be, it's really hard to tell. We don't really have a great— because this would be— this is the best 3D we have. This would be the north side right here. Um, it's only going to be maybe 5 to 8 feet taller than what the current building that's already on the north end of the property is.

Speaker K: Yeah.

Speaker V: So it would be the tallest building there, maybe not significantly taller than what's I just—

Speaker L: I'm inclined to let this project move forward because there's been so many things that have built up to it. It's a very unique situation. It's built specifically for the people that live immediately adjacent to this property and some people that are coming to visit the people that are immediately adjacent to the property. I think that it's going to be a huge benefit to this neighborhood and I think it's about time that they finally get to use their land the way they wanted to.

Speaker K: How tall are the LDS chapels that have gym, the basketball courts as well? What's the height of those? Not including the seat bowls.

Speaker V: I think the canonical tall is 35 feet.

Speaker K: So they have been able to successfully have basketball courts at 35 feet?

Speaker I: It's only like the peak.

Speaker V: That's the roof. The steeple can go up to 70.

Speaker I: So that's not including the actual size of the roof inside the jambs. I'm not really in favor of changing our styling unless there's a very good reason to do those types of things. If we're talking about steeple, I mean, that's probably something that we're having a different discussion about, but this is This is a recreation hall, and if we do it here, that could easily be something that we have to say yes to again in a different location. I think we've set a seating height of 35, unless we're viewing this as a commercial use now, which I don't think that's the case, in which case that changes that. I don't know that it's really identified that I can find. Specifically, this is a little bit of a gray area. But I don't think they want to have a commercial zone on this. That wouldn't be beneficial to tax collection. I think to me, 35 probably would not be unless there's an appetite by the city to create a special use when it's an ecclesiastical entity.

Speaker K: And I agree with Councilmember Wright, or Wood here, because— so if we allow that here, I don't see how if another ecclesiastical, like another— Like the LDS Church. Like the LDS Church, for instance. So say the LDS Church came in and applied and said, okay, we want 40 feet. How would we be able to say no at that point? And I worry, I do worry about some precedents with that. I think that height is something that is I think that's a pretty ubiquitous rule that needs to apply through the city. I'm more flexible on pathways. I think that's— I don't have any issues with that. The fact that this is right up against that Walmart, I'm not as concerned about the architectural features on that side as well. That is a reasonable request, but I think the height does open up other issues that we could bind ourselves unwittingly as a council.

Speaker E: Councilmember White, can I speak to that? Mayor, may I speak to that just a minute?

Speaker A: Yeah, go ahead.

Speaker E: I'll just say that, I mean, I've had a chance to probably digest this a little bit deeper than most council. I know that most of you are seeing this for the first time, and I've seen it for a few weeks. It came before DRC and had a chance to think a little bit about it. And part of the issue, as I talked to Mr. Baker, that they're having is that they want to do both basketball volleyball in here, and they'd like and have designed the building to be that tall, recognizing that they don't want to bring plans forward if there's really no appetite by council to consider making an exception in the only way that is available to them through development agreements. So we're not talking about changing code, we're not talking about a variance, we're not talking about anything like that. The code would still stand for all other uses. And in his very specific instance, just like you said, Councilmember Whitey, it's a pretty unique location in the city with a big box store directly to the east. And so the question in my mind became— and I listened to Councilmember Wood and I say, look, we don't want to adjust the skyline. And my question is really— What's the detrimental impact by considering that through development agreement? I'm really interested in hearing that because from my perspective, I don't see a lot. But that's why this is before council, is to really allow the applicant to kind of take the temperature of the council to see if there's even a willingness to consider this making an exception through development agreement. If there is, I would be probably more favorable to that. And if there's not, then, then he'll at least know the direction he needs to go to be able to bring the project forward.

Speaker G: Thank you.

Speaker I: So I'm just trying to think what are some other buildings that are existing in the city that might have that use. It's probably going to be the school, frankly. You're probably talking about their gyms. Do we know the height of the gyms in our middle schools or elementary schools?

Speaker V: I don't. I don't know if that's something we ever look at.

Speaker I: So I would say that's probably a good place to start. Let's figure that out. Maybe that's, maybe that's where we find the common ground in that, that the different Do we consider civic schools educational use? Institutional educational civic uses to wrap that in? Because I don't want to make exceptions, frankly. I don't like that. I mean, I understand what you're saying, Brandon, about MDAs, but first in usually creates a problem for us down the road. We have experience with that.

Speaker S: I'm not saying that.

Speaker I: Rather than just saying, okay, we understand the use, what they're trying to do, let's address it so that the next person comes in, we already have a thing in place that we're addressing it so that we're even-handed in the way that we're addressing this. Because generally speaking, if we already are there at 40 feet of the schools, then why does it matter?

Speaker A: I think one— wait for you to finish that, but just as a thought as well, You said civic, and of course schools, whatever, but you know height is gonna at least be a discussion. I don't know where everybody's gonna land, but when we started in City Hall, some of our own, you know. So I think, and that also could be specific to a downtown district, which is different as well because downtown's different than everywhere. I think you can make it as an exception in a certain area, possibly, but—

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker A: Anyway.

Speaker L: I guess— sorry. I think the thing is, to my fellow council members, some of the things that we have said when people have wanted us to consider higher buildings for hotels, or they wanted us to consider, you know, X, Y, or Z, we don't want to put it in code is usually what we say, because we're willing to look at the specific circumstance and weigh the circumstance with the impact and all of those things. And I feel like as a practice, we as a body tend to make these choices and changes through development agreement rather than code because there's sometimes that we just don't want that code spread far and wide throughout the city and it's very specific instances. So for me, I really look at this and think, if this was built in a neighborhood with apartments, we probably wouldn't even bat an eye at it. Like, and it's a special circumstance. It's a church and recreation building nestled behind a Walmart in a bunch of homes that are the people who are going to use this specific property. If it limits their ability to be able to do what they want and need to do in the space, then I think we should really look at it and say, is it going to impact the neighbors? Is it going to change the nature or character of the space or hurt the city in some way? And if it doesn't, then I think we should consider it and lean more into property rights and letting them use their property to its fullest capacity.

Speaker I: Okay. You've got two different arguments there. If we're talking about property rights, those have already been established. There's a code that they follow; they don't meet that requirement. So the answer is no. I'm trying to find a solution that goes forward that creates an even standard. The next entity that is a religious entity that wants to come and build something that has a recreational use, what is that standard going to be? If we're trying to do it so narrow that it can only exist. In this particular neighborhood on this particular lot. I think that's a dangerous precedent because overall I think I've been pretty upfront about I want this project to happen. But I think we have to be careful when we start being too specific where everything has to be this council is going to make this decision because the next council may not have the same expertise in land use and it's very easy for them to just arbitrarily just start saying yes to things without any really a baseline for us. So for me, I'm trying to find— The fact that you said volleyball, that was actually one of the questions I was going to ask. It sounds to me like we're trying to get some height on that. That's why I asked about the schools. Basketball, that's not going to be a problem. There's plenty of height for that. But volleyball, that's a problem. You've got a ceiling problem where you'd be hitting that. So I think this is a discussion that's not even on there. I think let's get some information to bring back to us and find out what the height of these other buildings are. And then let's put something in place that allows for this to happen in these specific circumstances. I'm not looking to say no. I'm saying that for this specific circumstance, in this way, we can say yes specifically to this. And that way, when the next applicant comes to us and says we want to build a recreation hall as part of our ecclesiastical whatever, it's very easy because we've already laid it all out for them.

Speaker A: So, Steven, I'm going to come to you because we do need to get through some more other things. This is a— we kind of need to move on. Are you clear on where we're at, or do we need some—

Speaker K: No, I'd be curious if Councilmember Huish has any comments on that.

Speaker A: Oh, I didn't— yeah, Councilmember Huish, if you want to weigh in.

Speaker N: Well, I can see both sides, both arguments. We want to be consistent throughout the city. My questions are, are there any surrounding properties where their views would be obstructed or in the way? I tend to lean towards following code, but I also think there could be exceptions made.

Speaker Q: For example?

Speaker N: Let's say that the LDS Church wanted to build a temple somewhere in Eagle Mountain. Would we have that same requirement that they keep the top of the temple at 40 feet? I'm just throwing out a specific example where, you know, there could be other religious exemptions that would be made.

Speaker I: So that same question was through my mind, but the reality of it is I don't think that They're stating this is their house of worship, this is a recreation space. I think we want to make sure we keep those separately. For anybody who's trying to do a house of worship, I think that is a different category than what we're talking about here. I'm sorry, can you repeat that? Being a religious organization owning property shouldn't give you specific development rights to a building specifically, in my opinion. Houses of worship should have a standard that we follow that applies to everybody. Recreation centers that belong to a 501 or belong to a religious organization or a private organization ought to have a standard that we're following. I'm one person, by the way. If nobody else agrees with me, that's fine too.

Speaker L: I think it's not going to hurt to do what you asked Commissioner Wood to to get some of the measurements. If we can get to a yes and make a code adjustment that gives us a good framework moving forward, great. And if we can't, then we can kind of battle that out and get it to the place that we need to get to as a body. So I'm inclined just to send Steven on his way and tell him, bring us back information and let's move forward with that discussion.

Speaker A: Well, I'm kind of curious what we at Legacy Center was, because if you had a swimming pool and then basketball courts They have a, I think, a track that goes above. For instance, I think we— again, this would be downtown. If we were ever to do a rec center, would there be a height restriction on that? Depends on what it looks like, right? So civic would be the main question and location, whether it's downtown.

Speaker C: So—

Speaker I: Well, again, you're talking about 2 different entities. Civic is us. That's a different thing than a— Yeah, it's for a use or an institutional use or a civic use.

Speaker A: Civic would be everyone compared to a private, say, 501, right, or something of that nature. And so, and you could separate them. I just want to make sure that's clear on the civic one. Um, so we're good?

Speaker V: Okay, so here's my plan. Correct me if I'm wrong. We're going to look at other buildings, whether it's schools, see what their heights are. See if it's feasible to drop it down or comfortable. Possible code amendment, whether it's to separate if there's a recreational aspect to these buildings or standalone building, that could be adjusted. But then the other 2 items, we could do a development agreement.

Speaker I: I think we're looking for a narrow scope of that, and then if not, to Melissa's point, then it maybe needs to be dealt with in an MDA. But I think that you can— we should be able to find a path through so that anybody else that comes in a similar situation where they're trying to do recreational use, that we have a standard outside the Civic, because the Civic is us, and we have different rules for the city. So, Mayor, can I ask one more question?

Speaker A: Yeah, go ahead.

Speaker E: So the question is this: having, having had some conversations, or at least listened to the DRC meeting. I think one of the concerns in the applicant that I heard from the applicant is just the timing of this. They're anxious to get started. And so I think if there's— and look, I, I, I, I think what the council is saying makes a lot of sense, so let me start there. But I think really he's going to walk away from this meeting and he's going to make a determination. Okay, if I, uh, if I, if I If I have to meet the height requirement, then I'm going to have to design my building in such a way that it's 35 feet if I want to get started right away, because this process that we're talking about is going to take a little while to get to a place where it might function for them. And so then the question remains in my mind, then is the council willing to entertain a development agreement for the, the wall that's just flat that's against Walmart and for the—

Speaker D: Absolutely.

Speaker E: Crossing guard issues. I think those are the questions that we just need to be really clear about. Sounds like the height is the hangup, but the other 2 are not, perhaps.

Speaker A: Is it fair that if I said— now we don't have a lot of closed session items, maybe just a little bit, so we can go a little longer. But if this requires a little more attention and we need to massage this, could we move it to item— I used to always call it item 19. But we can maybe come back to this and give it the time it needs, or— I mean, it's up to you guys if you think we can get there. Otherwise, we can put a pin in it. I just want to know for sake of time what you guys— if you want to try to hammer it out right now, if we can get there, or do you want to—

Speaker I: I would say no, it's not on the agenda. So I think we need to give him his instruction and let him go find that information and come back to us. As an agenda item.

Speaker L: I was just going to see if there was a way to find out the numbers during the break, but also if we are going down the code road, it's going to have to come back, it'll go to planning, then 10 days from that it'll come notice for us. Like, we're looking at at least 2 months out if we do code for this, which is fine if that's what the will of the body is, but if we want to help them move forward with a development agreement, that's, I guess, the question. But if this is what it's going to take, I think the question that Mayor was asking us, though, you guys, is wall and pathways. And I do not care about the height of the wall or the pathways. Not the height of the wall, but the look of the wall. So for me, yes, absolutely, I could do a development agreement for Maybe everyone else can weigh in.

Speaker K: Let me throw one other question out there real quick to the council, because— so what's preventing— let's say, assuming that Cedar Pass Ranch had no HOA that would prohibit it otherwise, what's preventing then someone in Cedar Pass Ranch to come and say, well, I want a 40-foot-tall recreation building? And we say, well, you're not next to Walmart. I mean, That's hard to— it's hard to tell that person no.

Speaker L: I think that's what I was thinking too, because there's not going to be a lot of other situations where you're going to be stacked up against a Walmart and we don't care because it's the loading zone of the Walmart. But I am cognizant of the fact that— of what Councilmember Wood's saying, like, we're kind of setting the tone. We have a unique situation as a body right now with the knowledge pool that we have. So if we can get it right, that would be awesome. But I think it's going to be hard for us to control it just enough so we don't end up with a situation like that. Because right away I was thinking, what if somebody wanted to do that in my neighborhood? What, you know, and I'm glad that you brought up Cedar Pass Ranch because that's a very unique area. And frankly, there's probably somebody there who could afford to build a building like that. And I don't know that it would be something that would work in that space. So I don't know.

Speaker A: So it sounds like, uh, I'm kind of split 2 and 2. Gather information, come back with, uh, hammer it out later.

Speaker I: Well, Zach, you're the only one that hasn't weighed in. You want to do an NDA, or do you want to have them come back and we do a code?

Speaker N: Yeah, I tend to fall, uh, probably on the side of Craig and Rich here, to have Steve go away, research the, the next steps to bring the building in line with code.

Speaker A: Okay. Yeah, I mean, I hate to hold people up, but our process is our process, and I, I support that 100%. So If that's the case, then you know what to do from—

Speaker V: You mentioned you wanted that today. I can find heights for buildings today.

Speaker A: I think that's up to you. For information's sake, you could pass it on to council, but I don't think this is going to get addressed today, so it's going to have to come back is what I'm understanding.

Speaker I: So the question that I'm going to ask— this isn't even on our agenda. We've already dedicated 20 minutes to it.

Speaker S: Why are we bringing this to this level where we're scrutinizing something that isn't This was really something coming from DRC, and the question was if this is not a significant issue or concern of the council, maybe it's something that we could have them go forward with because it was— because of the timing nature of the construction of this. And so it was suggested, I suggested during DRC with Brett, that maybe this week take the pulse of the council on this.

Speaker L: I think that's a good idea.

Speaker S: before we have them spend a lot of money and time trying to do design work or spend time with our staff, with legal, if the council is not inclined to move forward. Or we just wanted direction from the council before we began.

Speaker L: I guess one thing too, I mean, the applicant's here. What I would be curious is the height of make it or break it for this project. Or in my discussions with you, you always have Plan A, B, C, and D, and I'm just wondering if there's Another option that could allow you to move forward? And if given the feedback that we're okay with the wall and we're okay with pathways, is there a path forward for you guys? And I'd like to give you feedback if that's the case. So, Mayor, could we just ask him that question and have him answer?

Speaker A: I'm a little bit torn. I, I was going to bring the applicant up earlier, but again, it's not on the agenda. And if there's 3 people that are saying bring him back, I don't I don't know that I— I feel like I got to respect the will of the body on that. So if others are okay with that, then I'm at your mercy.

Speaker I: I just want to make one comment. I think it's dangerous precedent for us to start doing this. Why are we making a special consideration? Every applicant should have the same route to be able to bring something before the council. And if we're doing it not on the agenda, what's to prevent that from happening in the future where everybody else should have And by the way, I'm in favor of your project. But I just felt like there's a reason that there's a rule of law that we follow. And if we're going to circumvent that just because we're trying to move something quicker, then we're opening ourselves up to other people saying, why do they get special treatment? I just think that's a bad process to sit in. It's not on our agenda. I think we've given some instruction and we need to move on.

Speaker A: Okay. I think that's where we've landed unless anybody changes their mind. That's, uh, I don't mind that it gets brought to our attention by no means, but I think the amount of time we spent is sufficient. So, um, are there any other items that you want to— Okay, perfect. Then I think we're gonna move on. So you're good, Steve? Okay, thank you. Um, we're gonna move to the consent agenda items just to make sure we have enough time. Um, and we have a lot of staff members as well online, so I just As we go through these, we might need to make sure. I think Brandon, is Debbie Hursties logged on yet?

Speaker U: I know he said he was planning on jumping on.

Speaker A: He's on according to Lacey. So we'll start going through. Let's see, we'll start the meeting with the recognition, then we'll go down to the consent agenda. Okay, number 11, bond releases and marketplace town center. Center out of warranty. And just stop me online as well. Just holler if you, if you want to stop. Uh, 12.

Speaker L: Sorry, with the bond release, is there anything about the condition of some of the inner project roads and parking lot that would have any bearing on whether or not it's out of warranty and it's met all of its Because it's pretty rough over there, and I don't know if we have any power to help facilitate it being improved or not, but—

Speaker A: Who's best to answer that?

Speaker D: My understanding is that we get documentation from engineering saying that it's ready to go out of warranty because they've done their checks.

Speaker J: So yeah, so that particular project, I'm not aware of the specifics, but— I remember placing— it's going out of warranty.

Speaker A: They've done their due diligence. I imagine Vince has been on this. Would you check during the break to see? I don't know if he's online. Is he online? He is not, no. Just check with him and give us an update before we— when we get in a regular meeting, I'll ask for an update on that one. I assume that the process has been met, but given the Just the reports from that area, we want to double-check that that's— that we didn't miss something.

Speaker I: To Melissa's point, I think we've had at least a loose discussion about the requirement of them to have a safe drivable surface in these commercial— because we talked about this with another user up in North End of the city. What is the Mark, I don't know if you're the person to ask this question. What is the standard of them making sure that they don't have missing asphalt or it's got this huge dip that can cause damage? Is it because it's private property, there's nothing we can do, or what is the standard?

Speaker Q: So where are we specifically talking about?

Speaker I: This is in Town Center. There's a specific one that they're talking about, which is just right over here, right?

Speaker A: Yes.

Speaker Q: So when we're doing the— they can't force someone to bond for private improvements under current state law. That didn't used to be the case. But so when we're talking about public improvements that we're inspecting, when we're doing that, we're inspecting, you know, city sidewalks that are dedicated to the city. We might go into warranty. When they come out of warranty, we're inspecting them again. You know, other subdivision improvements, things like that. So roads, infrastructure, that kind of thing. We're not inspecting the private property, like, you know, parking lot.

Speaker I: Their interior roads would be considered parking lot, correct?

Speaker Q: Their what?

Speaker I: Interior roads that are part of the parking lot would be considered private property?

Speaker Q: They can be. It depends on the situation.

Speaker I: So this is probably not part of that.

Speaker Q: Yeah, so if it's a private road, we wouldn't, you know, that's part of, you know, we wouldn't inspect that.

Speaker I: So this is part of that anyway then?

Speaker L: Well, one other question too, are lights a part of that? I know that in a regular subdivision, there's streetlights that are a part of the obligations, but there's a light—

Speaker Q: Like sidewalk lights or something?

Speaker L: Yeah, like one of them got hit like probably a month into this development, and it still hasn't been repaired. Is there any obligation that they have? Because it talks about one-year maintenance period that's required in their development agreement, and I'm just curious.

Speaker Q: Right. Again, if it's a private improvement, we wouldn't ordinarily inspect that unless there was something specifically in the development agreement requiring that specific thing.

Speaker L: But wouldn't lights in the parking lot be a requirement of being able to build in the master development agreement anyway?

Speaker Q: Yeah. I mean, if it's code requiring an issue, and I'm not sure what. I don't know what the code says on that off the top of my head. Then that could be a potential thing. I don't know if that's a warranty issue, that's more of a code compliance issue.

Speaker L: Got it. I think it— this question will come up more and more because we're having more and more commercial areas, and we're going to start seeing more and more of them leave the warranty phase. So, um, some of those questions are important to me because I want to make sure that the things that they're required to do as part of their development are actually done and maintained so that the safety is there for our residents.

Speaker I: So I was just looking at what the code says here. This is in 1630.060, where it talks about the release, and council may approve phased release portion of the funds of bond as work proceeds, but at least 10% of the total shall be retained until all required improvements are installed, inspected, and accepted. If any required improvements are not completed, the city shall use as much as necessary of the escrow account or improvement bond to complete these improvements. I don't know if that really states how you can force that if they have something on the property that's private property.

Speaker Q: under state law that we can't collect bonds on private improvements.

Speaker I: Does that include lighting if the property has damage on it when we release it?

Speaker Q: Yeah, so again, lighting, like in a parking lot situation for commercial development, I think that would be more of a potential code enforcement issue than a bond issue.

Speaker I: Okay, thanks. Does that make that clear, Melissa?

Speaker Z: Yes.

Speaker A: Okay, so we're good on that one as far as leaving it on the consent item. Everybody's satisfied that they've met the allegation, and we will ask for just a clarification if that's okay. Uh, 12A, the May 19th minutes. Uh, 12B, minutes from the work session May 26th. Okay, 13A, resolution of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, authorizing the mayor to sign So I just wanted to make a comment.

Speaker I: Why do you need to bring this to us? I mean, it's, it's not expending money, it's asking for it. Why isn't it something that the mayor can just do without having to come back to us?

Speaker A: The mayor doesn't dare do anything without permission.

Speaker I: Well, again, you're not expending money, you're asking for it. It's a bond.

Speaker K: It's a grant.

Speaker A: Excuse me, grant. Yes, go ahead, Kimberly.

Speaker C: The reason specifically that this one is coming is because it is a requirement of the grantee. In order to grant to us, they require us to bring it to council.

Speaker A: Okay, and I think there is, if I remember right, the Community Services Board worked on this one and Steve. If— was there a presentation, Steve? I know Jesse's here as well.

Speaker AA: Yes, I can do that real quick.

Speaker A: Let's see.

Speaker AA: Yeah, first I'd like to, uh, apologize that the presentation wasn't included in the packet. It's, uh, of course it happened all at the same time as our Pony Express days and everything else, but, um, but again, this is only coming to you because of, um, the requirement from the county. And can you see my screen? Is that working?

Speaker A: Yes.

Speaker C: Okay, perfect.

Speaker AA: Okay, this is annual funding that's provided to cities based on the census population estimates. And so this year there's $25,369 available for Eagle Mountain. Um, this type of funding is generally for tourism promotion, development, operation, and maintenance of cultural facilities, recreation facilities, or And they call it the recreation grant, which tells you that a majority of the time these are used for recreational facilities. Some of the past projects we've approved or we've received the funding for include the cemetery gazebo. There's a trailhead being worked on currently that was last year's funding, playground equipment, asphalt trails, and others.

Speaker C: Okay.

Speaker AA: So our options are— June 8th is the deadline for the, for these, uh, the submittal of the application. And we need to submit the application to use the funds or an application to hold the funds until next year, which those would then add to next year's total. And we'd have something like $60,000 or so, $55,000, $60,000 next year. The Community Services Board discussed this recently at their last meeting and made the recommendation to submit the application to complete 1 or more asphalt trail connections that are missing in the older neighborhoods of the city center area. And generally, and Zach's probably there in the meeting, but, or David, but generally these are the cost estimates that We can look at for asphalt trails. It's right around $25 a linear foot just for the materials. If you're looking at the cost for doing the work in-house and you include the labor and materials, but don't include equipment, vehicles, or benefits, then you're at about $66 a linear foot. If we contract it out with the design and everything, you're probably closer to $90 a foot.

Speaker AB: Okay.

Speaker AA: So these are the— what I did was throw together 4 trails that I've talked with, um, Jesse Southworth about, and I know she's there in the audience as well, um, as the, the chairman of the board. This first one is in the, um, Pioneer Edition area. It's approximately 400 feet just north of Pioneer Park. And those costs there, the $26,000 to $36,000, is based on the, um, these numbers here, the $66 and the $90 per linear foot. So there's, there's one missing segment there. That's a possibility. This is a photo showing that area looking from the north to the south. And then the second one we looked at is a much more narrow area, much longer. It's just a little further east from Bob Graham Boulevard down to an existing trail on the south. It's about 730 feet long. The 3rd trail is further southwest, so it's just east of Walden Park. And you can see the trails in Walden Park, so this would extend to the east. This portion, the 925 feet, is just that east-west portion.

Speaker Y: Okay.

Speaker AA: That connects the 2 roads.

Speaker A: And hey, Steve, sure, just before you go on from that one, go back. Yeah, that I see, I know where that one's at. On the far right-hand side of the red line, that's that piece that's up for disposal, the behind the Moody's. Is that for sure where it kind of curves? I'm just wondering, is that within— outside of the disposal piece?

Speaker AA: The, the red, the red line doesn't have to be exact. I was just trying to tie it into the existing sidewalk there, but it could, um, it could swing up however we need it to, to connect, as long as it's on our property. That, that property just to the south is private property, if that makes sense.

Speaker A: Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's, uh, part of the Patterson development, I believe. Yep.

Speaker AA: Right, that's right. So that's what that area generally looks like. And then this 4th one is the north-south trail that's just attached to that, um, proposed trail. This would connect all the way down to Eagle Mountain Boulevard on the south, and it's about 1,200 feet. Again, through kind of a narrow area, but a missing trail segment there. And this is what some of that area looks like. And then the last one that I'm showing is a trail that wraps around the northwest corner of the Eagle Park subdivision. And then on the bottom there, you can see another segment that potentially connects over to Antelope Meadows, I believe. And what— Meadows is a little further west. Um, can't think of the name of that subdivision off the top of my head, but the one just west of Eagle Park. So this is about 1,400 feet is the, is the portion up in Eagle Park. That's the only missing segment that wraps around that subdivision.

Speaker A: So just a few other considerations.

Speaker AA: If we, if we completed this in-house Just to note, which we can do, but our streets crews would be diverted from other projects and other maintenance. The other kind of larger question is, should any of these areas be considered for land disposal rather than trail improvement? That's maybe a question for another time, but before we just jump in and move forward with it, with, you know, considering all of these trails. Well, there may be some of these that make more sense to dispose of if they have other connections or options on sidewalks where others make, make a lot of sense to improve. And then if the cost of the trail is higher than the grant amount, do we have the funding available to make up the difference? Um, that's all I had. So anyway, really what we're looking for is for the council to consider options and authorize the mayor to submit an application Or at least sign the application and give us direction on which, uh, which trails or trail you're interested in, or if you'd rather wait until next year and look at something else.

Speaker A: So I just wanted to make sure that Council Members Wright and Huish could see the presentation. I know—

Speaker E: Yes, Mayor, we could see it.

Speaker A: Okay, so this is some of the stuff where Council Member Huish says he wants to see that asphalt machine. Working a lot. So this is— this will be to your, to your wish, and I'll go ahead and start online. Then Councilmember Huish, I see your hand raised.

Speaker N: Yeah, my thought around the different options, I think ultimately we should try to work to do all of these. The project that seems furthest along where there are property rights being realigned Is the trail number 3. Steve, if you could pull that up, that connects into Walden Park. If you go east in Walden Park, there's a trail that just ends right at the road that carries into the— into those backyards. And I think we're pretty close around having the property disposal, so we know where those boundaries are going to be. Those conversations have been had. And Mayor, to your point, where that red line connects in, I think there's I don't know if it's a 20-foot gap or 30-foot gap where that will be able to connect in there, but I would consider starting with that one since it's furthest along in the conversations around where those boundaries will be. It would tie in nicely to Walden Park there and give some good access. And that's a pretty good easement on both sides. There could be some other development that could happen. I don't know what that gap is between those fences. Oh, it looks like, Steve, you've got it. Those boundaries realign with the yellow marks. Is that, is that the property disposition that we're looking at?

Speaker AA: Not, not necessarily.

Speaker I: Okay, okay.

Speaker AA: The yellow, the yellow is the parcel map, right from the parcel map.

Speaker U: Gotcha.

Speaker N: That's my only thought. Ultimately, we should probably just address these one at a time. I think this one's furthest along.

Speaker A: And I just wanted to make sure— I know the, the red line's just kind of in there for reference. But I would have a question for y'all if you have, if you have a preference. If that walking path goes one side or the other, right down the middle, one of the things on that particular one that's on the screen was the, the neighborhood talked about doing like some pump track type stuff or bikes. If the path's right in the middle, it makes it to where you could do less of something else on either side. So would you prefer that path on one side or the other? Ask the neighbors what's the direction, give staff on where that path goes. That is, I think, 90 feet wide roughly, or 110, I think, maybe before the disposal. I can't remember.

Speaker K: I think he tucked the path closer to one of the, you know, private property lines.

Speaker A: On either side.

Speaker K: And to leave that space open for other things down the road.

Speaker A: Okay, that's why I was asking that. Does anybody else have a preference on that as far as direction?

Speaker L: Is this setting it in stone? Isn't this just asking for money and then—

Speaker A: Yeah, I just want to make sure. Is that the case when it comes back?

Speaker L: That's what I'm asking.

Speaker AA: We have to submit for the specific trails. This funding is basically guaranteed as long as we submit the application.

Speaker I: Does the application require you to identify the location, Steve?

Speaker AA: Yes.

Speaker A: Okay.

Speaker AA: Well, well, the, the agreement for sure afterwards The letter has to identify the location. I've been told that the application does as well, but, um, I— they have very little information provided for this application from the county side.

Speaker A: So I think we can at least say that it's in that path, but whether it shifts right to left, we could work that out. I just want to make sure that before we go building that conversation's had, Steve.

Speaker AA: Oh yeah, yes. And if— I think the location of the trail within this, within this parcel, uh, we can submit a map and just show it, show it on one side or the other, but we can set that in stone later as we, as we, uh—

Speaker A: As of right now, this just came to me, but the, the north side has a connection in the middle of the block, so it would make more sense to Put it on the north side and the south side. It does not connect to the south that I see. So I would think the north side boundary line, but once we have that disposal worked out. So any other questions? Councilmember— oh, I said online. So Councilmember Wright? Maybe we lost— oh, you know what, I think he did say he might have had to jump off, but he's on here. Do you see— we'll pass. Councilman Wright for a second. Um, Councilman Clark, anything here?

Speaker P: You guys?

Speaker I: My only question is, just before we start tackling in the neighborhoods, are we— have we connected along our main thoroughfares for safe routes, specifically Pony Express, you know, on the west side of the road? between Lone Tree down to the high school. Where are we at with the completion of that trail? Should we try to finish those major trails first before we start diving into neighborhoods? That would be one of my questions.

Speaker A: I think the west side and the east side had a gap that somebody's asking about. Is that right?

Speaker AA: That's correct.

Speaker A: There's a gap on the north end. Yeah. So, I mean, if you want to prioritize that, Steve, is that a possibility to prioritize that one as well? Or if the appetite was too low, I heard Councilmember Huish say tackle them kind of one at a time. But does that one need to come up?

Speaker AA: I'm not familiar with gaps up there except that all along the east side of Pony Express Parkway, basically from Bobby Wren up to— what? Up to— Lone Tree Parkway, there's missing trail. I guess there's a new trail at the church that was just built there.

Speaker I: Yeah, I'm not talking about the east side, Steve. That's all undeveloped area. I just want to know, do we have continuous trail from Lone Tree onto Aviator on the east side?

Speaker A: I believe we do.

Speaker AA: I believe we do on the west side.

Speaker A: West side, not east side.

Speaker I: West side. Yes. I just want to make sure that all our paths where the schools are, that we have continuous path. for the kids to walk. And if that's the case, we think that we've accomplished that. The next question would be, do we have the same thing existing on Eagle Mountain Boulevard? I would say that to me, those have to be probably our priorities, where we know that we're walking to and from high schools, middle schools, and elementary schools, and then we can tackle its interior.

Speaker AA: And, and that's a great question, and there are a couple of missing segments on Eagle Mountain Boulevard that are, um, I think too difficult for this, uh, to work through for this application based on the ownership.

Speaker N: Steve, can I ask you a question?

Speaker Y: Sure.

Speaker N: I'm assuming you're, you're proposing these 5 connections because they're closest to the grant budget, and it looks like this one, for example, would be $60,000 to $83,000. If we go out like a longer stretch, it's obviously going to cost more. Is that why we're looking at these 5? They're just closer to the grant size.

Speaker AA: That's definitely one reason. The, the Community Services Board wanted to look at missing segments within city center neighborhoods, and so I basically went on the aerial photos and scoured the neighborhoods and found in the, in our oldest, our oldest neighborhoods, which segments were missing that hadn't yet been improved. And then I did look along the roads as well and, and identified 2, 2 segments along Eagle Mountain Boulevard, like I said, but they're, um, they're not owned by the city currently.

Speaker N: Thank you. I know there's some in, in, uh, Meadow Ranch as well, but I think if we could focus on City Center, and it would be lovely to see one of these every other month just getting knocked off the list. This seems like a good one to start with.

Speaker A: Okay, anything else? Any more questions? We're good on that one. Okay, uh, 13B is a resolution to go out to City of Utah approving a service contract with BCS for third-party building permits and plan review and inspection services. This is Brandon Larson.

Speaker U: Yep, I don't know how much, uh, information you want on this one, but, uh, we're just trying We're trying to rework our existing contracts. We've historically worked with WC3. We're kind of exhausting them and wearing them out a little bit. So that's a little bit of a joke, but we've got a lot going on and we need additional help. And so we've— and also in talking with other jurisdictions, it's not uncommon. to contract with multiple third-party outfits to help with inspections and reviews. And so BCS is a really, really good third-party outfit. A lot of the old— a lot of the people that we've been used to working with at WC3 actually are now at Building Code Solutions. We've begun working with them and want to enter in, and in talking with Melissa, the idea was like, well, let's get WC3 and BCS to enter into 5-year contracts, service contracts. So got this one ready for BCS and should be bringing one for WC3 to you here shortly. So if you have any questions, I'm here to answer them.

Speaker I: Thank you.

Speaker A: Seeing none, we'll go on to 13C. Anything online? I told them to speak up if there was, so I kind of paused. Hopefully, um, okay, we're going to move on to 13C, uh, Resolution of Eagle Mountain City approving the Community Service Board rules and regulations. This is another one we do have Steve online and Jesse, the board chair, here. And I don't know that there was a presentation, but for questions, is that right?

Speaker AA: That's right. The Community Services Board reviewed this a couple of— at both of their meetings. We made a few minor changes at the second meeting and then recommended approval.

Speaker K: The one question I had, maybe it's redundant in the language of the— the language that's here, but I wanted to add the word trails to Article 2, Section 2. And I gotta pull it up myself to remember what exactly that was, but I think it's the purview that the Community Services Board has. And it didn't mention trails. I think it mentioned parks and recreation or something like that. It didn't specifically call out trails.

Speaker B: Okay.

Speaker K: I thought it would be helpful to, to add trails to that.

Speaker AA: Yeah, that makes sense. It's, it's called scope of review, um, the matters considered by the board— parks, recreation, arts and cultural programming, etc. So we can add trails, certainly.

Speaker L: I think that's a good call out. That's a good one to add.

Speaker A: Did you have anything to add from the board? Nothing? Any other questions from online? Nothing? Okay, with that one add, just make sure that goes in the motion. I think when we do the consent agenda, we can leave it on. And we will move on to item 14A. Ordinance, Eagle Mountain City, Utah, repealing and reenacting section subsection 8.15.08 OG, Eagle Mountain Municipal Code, regarding construction work during restricted hours. This is something that's come up a lot lately about Working specifically indoors after hours, but then also on some of our major roadways. So any questions? Let's see, that's David Salazar. Do you have a presentation or just— Yep, I can give a—

Speaker J: I've got 5 quick slides if you want. Can I go through?

Speaker C: Okay.

Speaker J: Okay, so the proposed amendment looks at updating the noise category for Section G for construction work during restricted hours. It removes— it moves authority from City Council to the city engineer or or a designee, which aligns with the current traffic control code. It does maintain the requirement that City Council be notified for all upcoming nighttime work, and it also has provision for emergency work exemptions, which currently we do not have in code. And then it allows for coordination for conditions and other property notifications.

Speaker A: So why the change?

Speaker J: This was from comments from City Council a few meetings back. About just how we can continue to improve efficiency with the city by you know reviewing each kind of project on a case-by-case basis to see when it makes sense to have work occur off hours while still maintaining your guys being kept in the loop. This would reduce project delays as far as getting projects out to bid, issuing contracts, things of that nature. So some of the criteria that's in the code. It does prioritize public safety first, so when we're doing offsite work, we would look at things as traffic flow management. For example, there's a project coming up this summer at SR 73 and Ranches, which we're going to recommend for nighttime work because we know that's a very busy intersection and we don't want to try and reduce congestion there that's already present. This would also look at material placement, utility ties-in. And just trying to minimize impacts to the public and just safety in general. Some of the safeguards we have imposed is that it gives authority to the city engineer, also requiring you all to be notified prior to work started. Then it also has a provision there about notifying property residents and businesses in the area. And then, as I mentioned, it also adds a provision for emergency work, which is limited to city and utility-related operations. So, you know, your neighbor Joe can't go dig up his driveway in the middle of the night. So that's kind of all I've got for that code section. Happy to answer any questions.

Speaker A: Seeing no questions, we're going to move on. So yeah, I just had a little pause to make sure. Ordinance of the City of Vermont City, it's 14B, Ordinance of the City of Vermont City approving a franchise agreement with the Forge Fiber 37 LLC, a subsidiary of AT&T. I know Marcus has this one. It's a franchise agreement for more fiber in our easement, right? Am I saying it right? Go ahead.

Speaker Q: Yeah, I mean, so in order for a telecommunications company to perform work in the right-of-way, they need to get a franchise agreement that sort of outlines the rules of what they're going to follow. This is in addition to any sort of permits that would be required for specific work being performed in the right-of-way. So AT&T, their subsidiary Forge Fiber 37 LLC, is seeking a franchise agreement under the 1996 Telecommunications Act. You know, we're required to grant franchise agreements on a nondiscriminatory basis for telecommunications companies. And so we negotiated a franchise agreement starting with our template as kind of the baseline, and we kind of filled in the details in relation to things like the bonds required and things like that. And kind of some of the, you know, they're asking for a little extra time on notification in relation to if they have to move their stuff because of a public project, for example, or expanding the right-of-way. They need to move their equipment, you know, they're asking for 60 days rather than 30. So that's kind of the baseline, but if you have specific questions, I'm more than happy to respond.

Speaker L: I didn't see in there, and maybe I completely missed it, but are they going in any specific location, Marcus?

Speaker Q: So that's kind of not part of the franchise agreement itself. So they would come in with a specific application for like an excavation permit in order to go in the right-of-way, and they would have to submit that type of documentation then.

Speaker A: Okay. Any other questions on that one? I know Councilmember Wright had to jump off because he's having a meeting up there at that conference. He might have a question, but not that I'm aware of, so we'll ask him in a minute. Then that is the end of our consent. So as far as scheduled items, like I mentioned, 17A has been removed. Is there anything that we need to look at before we go on break on any of the others? The public hearing, 15A, has to do with the disposal of property, I believe, in that same area by the Walmart. There's also The bond that we've talked about last few meetings, the— that's item 16A. Anything we need to address on that?

Speaker C: Mayor, I did just want to let you know on that particular item that I do have Brad Patterson that is on the line if we have questions. We would want to preferably maybe talk about them if we have time in this work session, but if If not, then they will stay online as well.

Speaker A: And it's Brad, you say?

Speaker C: It is Brad Patterson with Gilmore Bell is online. I have some background information I can give if the council has it, but I just wanted to let you know that he was online.

Speaker A: So if there's some questions that we could get out now, that would save him from having to stay, unless you think it's a bigger conversation than that. Do you think— you don't have any questions on this one? And online, uh, Council Member Huish, are you— is this item going to require a large discussion? I know we talked about it last time. I'm just wondering if, uh, we could ask Brad his questions now, and then, uh, if not, he could be let free for the evening.

Speaker N: Yeah, I think our maybe only question was— Brad, welcome, good to have you with us.

Speaker AA: Thank you.

Speaker N: I think the only question was, do we need to specify whether we And just a disclosure, I won't be voting on this issue, so I'm just asking, but do we need to specify if this is going to be a callable or non-callable bond issue?

Speaker Y: Not at this time. Eventually, when the bonds are actually sold into the market, the call features will be determined at that time.

Speaker N: Awesome. That's the only question I had. Thank you.

Speaker Y: So just one other, just one other point that I wanted to point out is that following the City Council meeting, there will be a meeting of the Redevelopment Agency as well. Yeah, at that point in time, that's when the, the bonds will be issued, uh, and one of the, uh, actions will be taken at that point in time is to authorize the execution of an interlocal agreement. And the city will also be taking that action as well. So if anybody has any questions with respect to that item that's going to appear later on, I'm happy to discuss that at this point in time too. Otherwise, I'll let you get on without having to be bored by bond nerd stuff.

Speaker N: We like bond nerd stuff.

Speaker Q: I do.

Speaker A: So if it— as long as— yeah, and Brad, I think as long as Kimberly or Lacey have your number in case it does come up, we can I could get a hold of you and get you back online. But I think, uh, from what I understand, it sounds like we got a handle on this. I know Kimberly's also well-versed, so, um, I think we wouldn't need you to come back. I don't think—

Speaker Y: Exactly. That's always an option. And I think, Kimberly, you do have my cell phone number. Just ring me up, and once I hear from you, if I need to jump back online, I'll do so.

Speaker I: Perfect. Thank you. You got a message? I sent Brad a text and said if you have a question about this, send it to us so we can ask the question in the policy session.

Speaker A: He does have a question? If he does— oh, okay. Yeah, if he does, we'll— we can come back. And most— and most of the questions I bet we can answer here as well.

Speaker I: So we'll see if we can get back to that.

Speaker A: Thank you. The last item is a discussion we'll take care of in the and policy. I think they're— I put this on here on purpose for— I think we have a little bit of work to do before the 16th, and I dang sure want to get as close as we can before the 16th. So that discussion should be robust and exciting. Also, just one other quick thing is that after that, we will have the RDA meeting. Kind of on that same item we just talked about, not the budget, but the previous one with the bond. Is there any questions on the RDA portion? It should be pretty much the same. So we'll have that RDA meeting right after our regular meeting. With that, I think we're good. We do have one item that should take about 30 seconds, just an update if you wanna hear it, as far as a closed session item.

Speaker X: Yes.

Speaker A: Oh, that's right, there's 2 items I just told you about.

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

Speaker C: Second.

Speaker L: Second.

Speaker A: Okay, we have a motion by Council Member Whiting and a second by Council Member Clark. And I just want to make sure, Council Member Huish, you have a a code, a link to get in, and he'll be joining us, right? I know Councilmember Wright might be tied up for a little bit, so we'll start the vote. Councilmember Huish?

Speaker N: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Wood?

Speaker V: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Whiting?

Speaker K: Yes.

Speaker J: Councilmember Clark?

Speaker L: Yes.

Speaker A: Okay, we'll adjourn to closed session at 5:57. Okay, we're good to go, and I will, uh, welcome everybody here. It's a full house, thank goodness. Uh, before we call this meeting to order, I have asked Kimberly, to open us with a prayer.

Speaker C: Our Father in Heaven, we are really grateful for the opportunity we have to gather here at the City Council meeting. We pray that thy Spirit may abide with us, that we will be able to listen openly, that we will know that everybody who speaks and come forward Um, does so with the best interest of Eagle Mountain City at heart. We pray that we may be led, guided to make the decisions necessary, that we'll be able to help our community be a place where all feel welcome and a part. We're thankful for those who serve in our community, in law enforcement and fire and throughout the military, and those who may be serving abroad, and ask thy Spirit may be upon them to strengthen them as they fulfill their duties and responsibility. We're grateful for this great land that we live in and pray for the leaders of this nation and our state. In these things we pray, in the name of thy Son, Jesus Christ. Amen.

Speaker A: All right, thank you, Kimberly. And, uh, at this time it is 7:02, and we'll call this policy session, City Council, the 2nd of June, to order. And, uh, the first thing that we will take care of is, uh, we've asked Finn Coffett to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. So, all rise. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you, Finn.

Speaker J: First of all, I wanted to excuse—

Speaker A: the dais is a little empty tonight, but they are online, I believe, with us. Are both council members online?

Speaker S: Yes.

Speaker A: Okay. Brett Wright and Councilmember Zach Huish. Are out on city business and doing other things, and a lot of our staff as well, uh, at a conference talking about water and other, other needs. So, um, they are joining us but online, and I hope they represent us well up there on their other assignments. Um, moving on to item number 7, just making sure we get everybody squared away here because you're going to get called on, Ben.

Speaker O: Yes, sir.

Speaker A: I'm kind of stalling for you, but item 7, there's some information on this.

Speaker S: Thank you, Mayor. Um, I do have a few. Thank you very much. So upcoming events, Eagle Mountain City Library Summer Reading Kickoff is tomorrow, June 9th, from 10:15 AM to 11:15 AM at the Friends, um, In Need of Animal Sanctuary. There's Bring carrots or celery if you would like to share a treat with the animals. We have a food truck rally that begins Thursday in the east parking lot of Cory Bee Ride Memorial Park from 6 to 9 PM. Farmers market begins this Saturday morning at Cory Bee Ride Memorial Park from 9 AM to 1 PM. Motivational mile is this Saturday, June 6th, at Cory Bee Ride Memorial Park from 1 PM to 4 PM.

Speaker A: Thank you.

Speaker S: Pony Express Days Demolition Derby is this Saturday, June 6th, at Pony Express Memorial Arena at 7 PM. The Pony Express Rodeo is next week, June 11th through the 13th, at Pony Express Memorial Arena, and tickets for the Demolition Derby and Rodeo can be purchased online at ponyexpress-events.com. And then, Mayor, with your permission, I'd like to read a statement if I could. Mayor, council members, and members of the public, um, tonight I have the privilege of recognizing 2 individuals who contributed to Eagle Mountain City, um, whose contributions to Eagle Mountain City have left a lasting mark on this organization and our community. Faina Kofod and Laura, um, Armentrout will be honored during a retirement celebration on Monday, June 8th, However, with this being the last council meeting before Finn's retirement, and with her prominent and public leadership role, I wanted to take a moment to honor her service during this council meeting. Finn has dedicated many years of her professional life to serving the residents of Eagle Mountain. During her tenure, she has served in a variety of critical leadership roles, including city recorder, administrative services director, and most recently, assistant Thank you. Throughout each of these positions, she has consistently demonstrated professionalism, integrity, and unwavering commitment to public service. In local government, there are people who perform their jobs well, and there are people who become part of the institutional foundation of an organization. Fin has been that foundation for Eagle Mountain. She possesses a depth of knowledge about the city, its history, its policies, its people that simply cannot be replaced. She has helped guide this community through tremendous growth, organizational change, countless elections, major projects, and thousands of decisions that have shaped Eagle Mountain the Eagle Mountain we know today. Public service is often measured in projects completed, budgets managed, or policies adopted, but the true legacy of a public servant is found in the people they influence, in the culture they create, and the example that they leave behind. Finnan's legacy will be reflected in the many employees that she has mentored, the leaders she has supported, and the high standard of service that she has modeled throughout her career. On behalf of the mayor and council, city staff, and the residents of Eagle Mountain, I want to express our sincere gratitude to, uh, Fainu' Kofod for your years of dedicated service. Thank you for your leadership, your friendship, your wisdom, and your countless contributions to this organization. So please join me in thanking I move to certify Yulia Kofet for this outstanding service to Eagle Mountain City, wishing her a happy and well-deserved retirement.

Speaker C: Second.

Speaker A: Now that's pretty cool. I love seeing that. I hope I don't have to do very many of those in my time here. I like to see people stay. Finn, I might put you on the spot. Just a chance to say one minute of the— we get 3 minutes of public comments, so I'll give you 3 minutes to—

Speaker X: Is that all I've earned? Yeah, I would expect somebody to say 30 seconds.

Speaker A: I just want to give you a chance to speak.

Speaker X: Thank you. There's a reason that I have to stand up to see Mayor, Council, and staff, because I'm so short. But simply put, it's been my absolute I wasn't prepared for this. Sorry.

Speaker Z: 30 seconds.

Speaker X: It's been a privilege and an honor for me. I've seen the city go from really nothing to what it is today, and it's because of the heart of the employees and the residents within this community that we've been able to grow to To a city of almost 80,000 people. And my husband and I were just talking about this recently, about our claim to be— our being out here. And I'm proud to say that, yes, we took a chance. We were the first connection to city utilities phone number back in the day. I know that there were other residents out here, but we came out, we took a chance. We had no idea what we were getting into. And the fact that I've worked with some amazing people. I can't remember the countless number of mayor and council members, but pretty much all of them. I don't think I've served under Debbie, or a couple of others, but I value the friendships and the relationships.

Speaker T: Thank you.

Speaker X: that I have developed along the way and those that I've worked with. And you are in good hands. We have an amazing city administrator— city manager, excuse me— who cares about the community so much so that he moved up here and bought a house. Ben, in the short time that I've worked with you, I truly appreciate your leadership and guidance. And I have absolutely an honor, the greatest honor and respect for the Office of the mayor and the city council, and I became citizen during the process of citizen and the ability to vote. It meant the world to me, and I respect that role. So I appreciate your service, and I'm just happy to say that future Tuesday meetings are going to be dedicated.

Speaker S: So come on out Monday at 4 o'clock to honor Finn and Laura.

Speaker A: Okay, thanks, Finn, and thanks for all your service. Um, next item on our agenda is item number 8, and we'll turn that over to David Yuleberry for a recognition of graduates of the CERT program. This is kind of a cool accomplishment as well.

Speaker O: Okay, thank you, Mayor, Council. Uh, Dave Ulibarri, Public Safety Director and slash Emergency I'm happy and excited to present to y'all our, uh, 4th year 2026 CERT Team CERT internship graduates from, uh, Cedar Valley High School in Westlake. Uh, we have our biggest class we've ever had in the history of our program with 17, uh, 13 of which are here tonight with their families to be recognized. I have a short, uh, just under a minute slideshow to kind of give you a grasp of what they've been learning. Uh, it is a semester program, uh, for each of them, and they graduate with 5 national certifications in emergency response. And at the end of the year, I bring both semester, uh, interns together, and we do a mock disaster over at the school where we have actors, and I bring in my makeup artist, and we make it as real as possible and make them very uncomfortable, and that's when they learn the best. So I'll show you real quick, and then we'll get into the certificates. That was at the end after our simulation. Here is fire extinguisher demonstration. We teach them cribbing to lift and move heavy objects upstairs. Someone who was pinned. And this was our— from our moulage and our triage exercise. We also learned CPR, stop the bleed as well. We also take a visit to our fire stations, and that's always a highlight for the kids. Teach them different ways to lift and move people, and we do group training exercises as well. And this was Halloween, so I wanted to spotlight that one. Xander with the, uh, very high quality Jack Skellington.

Speaker A: Surely you're not saying that's the only time you dress like that.

Speaker O: Oh no, that was just— I didn't realize it was Halloween. It was just Thursday for me. Yeah, these kids know I take my drip really seriously.

Speaker I: So I'll read their names and then we'll hand them their—

Speaker O: what they'll be receiving tonight is their Community Emergency Response Training certificate, which is sponsored by Homeland Security, and their Stop the Bleed certificates, which is sponsored by the Department of All the other 3 were emailed to them through email for their online FEMA and their American Heart CPR. So without further ado, first we'd like to recognize Axel Rubio. He is not here today. He is in Army basic training.

Speaker Q: Yep.

Speaker O: He is a— he was an early graduate and he started basic training in the Army. We're proud of him. He's been there for about 4 weeks now. Ryan Easley.

Speaker D: Here.

Speaker O: Okay, Xander Osborne, Jack Skillington.

Speaker A: Yeah, I didn't say this and neither did they, but go ahead and line up right here after you graduate, just left to right, and then we'll get a picture. And we'll do a picture or something. Thank you.

Speaker O: Next, we would like to recognize Kaiser Roca. Logan Bennett had to work tonight, and so Gwen will accept on his behalf, as well as Kaylee Roberts did as well. Everybody else, I think, is here. So Avery Sherman, come on down. Uh, Colton Miller.

Speaker A: Thank you.

Speaker AA: Congratulations.

Speaker O: Kenzie Reed. Cleo Craig, was she able to make it? I didn't see her come in. So Cleo Craig, also we'd like to recognize her. Dallin Roberts, he's out of town as well. Kalea Lecker, was she able to make it? We had a few go out of town right after graduation.

Speaker A: Understandable.

Speaker O: I know for a fact Delilah Snell's here. She's Front Row Joe. And Cadence Rideout. Thomas and Kate Westmoreland. And last but not least, we are going to want to recognize— and this, this girl, this young woman will take a couple minutes to address council and mayor, just wanted to speak on behalf of the group for a couple of quick minutes— and that would be Laura Gallardo.

Speaker H: Hello, I know you guys have a very long meeting, so I'll keep this brief. As you guys just heard, my name is Laura Gallardo, and I had the opportunity to do this internship this past semester. I first heard about it when I was in my junior year during a career fair, and I saw Dave set up in the little booth, and I walked up to it, and I was like, whoa, this looks pretty sick and like pretty valuable information. Yeah, these are— Our class schedules, you should definitely look into it, and I'm very, very glad and grateful that I had the opportunity to take his internship this past senior year and this past semester. Obviously, he already went through a little bit of what we learned, and so I won't take too much time talking about that. The biggest takeaways from this internship for me was not only the certifications that I'm walking away with, but also the the connections and the, you know, more durable skills that I've learned and the soft skills that I was able to exercise and practice with during this entire internship. I am very grateful that I had the opportunity to learn about so much things that obviously you guys already have in place and preparations and emergency response levels and managements. And so I'm really grateful that I now have the confidence to not only have that information and those tools for myself, but to also have that and feel a little bit more useful when I'm going out in the world. And, you know, it gives me a little bit more confidence as a young woman to be able to know that if the situation ever arises, which we always hope that we can avoid those situations, I'll be able to help people when it matters most. And so thank you to our amazing mentor, Dave.

Speaker C: Round of applause for him.

Speaker R: Sorry, I'm just gonna say something really fast. So my name is Gwen Whiting. I'm the internship teacher at Cedar Valley, and Dave and I started this program 4 years ago— mostly him. I just facilitate the students and grade their assignments. But Dave is not one to toot his horn sometimes, so I just wanted to share something that was sent to us by a former CERT students. It says, hey Dave, Schaefer here from last year's CERT class. I wanted to let you know that partly because of CERT, I have now gotten 2 scholarships. Both are centered around community engagement and service and together total $11,500. What might have seemed like a small commitment on my end has really paid off. In case you're wondering, I am currently studying—

Speaker AB: English.

Speaker R: econ analysis degree here at the U and will be doubly— double majoring in legal studies with the hopes of going into law school and eventually federal law. Thanks again for being such a great, awesome teacher. And he sent that to me, and this just goes to, like what Laura just said, these connections that these kids make through these— this internship is amazing, and we couldn't ask for a better mentor or someone to teach teach these kids these things that they will be able to use for the rest of their lives. So thank you, Dave.

Speaker A: Okay, thank you. Now, Soraya, I'm going to give instructions for you. Everybody needs to move to my left, this way, right? So center of the screen that way. So tell us— that's good. Well, not too far. Tell us when. So she just wants to get a quick picture. Does that work right there? Turn and squeeze in. Are they okay now? And if you can't see me, I can't see you.

Speaker C: So just picture everyone's like in a window.

Speaker A: Okay, you should have one. Thank you. Thank you, guys.

Speaker S: You're welcome.

Speaker A: While we're waiting for this to clear out, I'm proud to announce that we have 2 mayors from former— former mayor from other cities, so welcome to the How many mayors have come to Eagle Mountain?

Speaker B: 3.

Speaker A: 3? Where's—

Speaker L: Oh, Mayor Foreman too.

Speaker A: I heard of his name, but I didn't see him. So yeah, we have 3 mayors with one of our own and 2— yeah, that's kind of fun. I heard his name, but I didn't see him.

Speaker Q: Okay.

Speaker A: Just letting the room kind of clear out. We have a full house, and now there's some seats if the rest of you want to filter in. Those who are online, you're missing this. It's standing only. We are ready to move on, and we'll start The next item is public comments. So time has been set aside for the public to express their ideas, concerns, and comments. Just for information, item 17A has been removed. So if you're here to speak on that item, you're welcome to speak. You can speak about anything you want, but that has been removed. It would be a public hearing otherwise, but it's not tonight.

Speaker Q: Yeah, so there's a number of people that came to speak on that, so they can use the public comments.

Speaker A: Okay, yeah, I just want to make sure we're clear on that. It will— it was noticed as a public hearing, so it'll have to get noticed again as a public hearing. And you'll still have the next public hearing whenever— It was the Horizon—

Speaker F: Yeah, Horizon—

Speaker A: Ordinance of the Wyoming City approving Horizon Master Development Plan. So that's one that will come back. At a later date, so the public comment is limited to three minutes each person. I will open the public comment period at 7:23. As a reminder, public comment is an opportunity for community members to address city council, and each speaker is allowed up to three minutes. If you wish to speak during the public comment portion, please complete the form in the back and then return it to our city recorder Lacey over here on the side. City members or council members will listen but not engage in discussion during public comment. Disruptive behavior, personal attacks, or comments about individual city employees are not permitted. If you have issues or questions regarding staff or personnel, administrative staff will meet me in the foyer for discussion. I'm going to ask that Finn take care of that. Is that okay? And, uh, if anyone's here to speak about any of our public or our staff, Finn will meet me in the foyer. Lastly, public comment period is We will now open the floor for items not associated with scheduled public hearing. If your comment relates to a public hearing item, please wait until that item is called. The public hearing items tonight on the agenda are 15A, which is a resolution of Eagle Mountain City considering disposal of a portion of Utah County Parcel 453260109. So if you're here to speak on that item, uh, you can wait until that item is called in 15A. Any other item that you wish to speak on, we can do it at this time. And we'll go to Lacey.

Speaker D: These first couple did know that it was the first of the team, so we can go through these if they would like to speak. Holly Thomas.

Speaker C: Would it be possible to bring up the map?

Speaker W: Or is it—

Speaker C: are we not going to be able to bring up—

Speaker W: can we bring up the map for the development even though we're not—

Speaker D: apparently it was pulled again.

Speaker W: It was the second time it's been pulled.

Speaker A: Yeah, I don't believe we have a map, so— but the council's familiar.

Speaker W: Okay, just because I was going to show that my property comes up right up to it. I've got 10 acres that we built. So the ridgeline ordinance is kind of what my concern is. Again, I'll be coming back. This is the second time I've come and it's been pulled. It looks like 2018 was when they first passed the original ordinance. Scott Hazard bought his, uh, his— that property in 2022. Um, so that was kind of my concern, is they's claiming it's grandfathered. Um, I'll backtrack a little bit. I've been in Eagle Mountain since 1998. I lived in Cedar Pass Ranch. I've seen this place grow from, you know, the polygamists and one street in the city center and us in Cedar Pass Ranch. So I've seen the city over the last 28 years change. The ridgeline is a big concern because you can see that for miles and miles. It's not just Eagle Mountain. You can see it all the way to Lehigh. I care about Eagle Mountain. I care about the character of it. I think this would be a dangerous precedent to allow building up on it. I personally own ridgeline property. Part of my 10 acres is on a ridgeline. So, I mean, my brother-in-law has been itching to develop, and I would rather not see homes up there. And I think this could open up a whole problem if one person's allowed to disregard the ordinance. I feel like that can just lead to other people justifying it. Another concern, our house was built up right up on the hill too, not on the ridgeline of course, but the blasting. We did not have to do any blasting, but we've been here for blasting, and we have felt our house shake because of blasting. And with our home, they had to bring out a pick. I just, I'm really concerned about the damage to the ridgeline, the hillside, if they're going to try to go in and try to blast through that rock, because we are on solid rock up there. And so the other thing that I'm concerned about is looking at the map, and I saw there are only 2 means of egress, which I saw that map and I thought, that is a death trap. I have spent more time than anyone up on that hillside. Because again, I own 10 acres. I walk daily with my dog. The fire risk is out of control. I mean, it is, it is bad up there. It's all very dry. The conditions are extremely bad. I have found— I can't even tell you how many campfire rings I have dismantled personally. I even found a lighter by one of them. Kids go up there, they build their little campfire rings. It's just a matter of time before we have a fire up on all that vacant land. I'm just Concerned about the fact that a fire would go right up the hill.

Speaker C: 30 seconds remaining.

Speaker W: And so, and also we're not even allowed to have fireworks in the area. Second thing is the wildlife. Todd Black— I'll come back again— he literally sat in my dining room talking about the, our, our 10 acres and what we can do with it, uh, and the fact that they actually changed, had us change our property to open space. And I have seen coyotes, I've seen foxes, I've seen, I just I saw a fox the other day. Hawks, rabbits, I've seen everything up there. And I'm just concerned about how this development will affect the wildlife. Again, last thing is— Your time is up. I got it.

Speaker H: Okay.

Speaker G: Thanks.

Speaker D: D'Lynn Anderson. Sheila. Sheila.

Speaker A: Okay. Sorry, everybody. Sheila. Yes, because I asked for them.

Speaker D: This one as well for 17A, Cole Thomas.

Speaker M: Hi. Yeah. My name is Cole Thomas. I just wanted to speak a little bit about this, the possible development of homes on the ridge lineup by the cell tower here in Eagle Mountain. And I wanted to start off by saying that building these These homes don't really have any positive contribution to our city at all. The first concern I'd like to point out is, I mean, I grew up here. I know Eagle Mountain has curated a very welcoming suburban aesthetic, particularly surrounding natural beauty. So rising above a lot of our houses are these beautiful juniper-covered hills. They serve as a sanctuary for wildlife and they provide access to nature for our Eagle Mountain residents. And building homes right on top of that hill is just going to serve It's going to serve as nothing more than an eyesore. As well as aside from this issue, the main thing I want to point out, one of the main things I want to point out is the fire issue, how building homes on top of this ridgeline is going to be a very large fire hazard. So first off—

Speaker Y: First off—

Speaker M: Building roads that are going to access these homes at the top of the hill are going to be very expensive. It's going to be very difficult, as well as it's going to be very hard for things like fire trucks, ambulances, and police personnel to access it. So considering the fact that it's a no-fireworks zone because of the dry landscape, a fire that isn't dealt with immediately can quickly harm a lot of the residents in the area. So developing homes on this ridgeline would be very much a hazard to the people who live in the area. Next thing I want to talk about was the dark sky ordinance. So one of the specific parts of the dark sky ordinance is that there's limiting rules on how high lights can be because the The more elevated lights are, the more they contribute to light pollution. And putting these houses right up on top of the hill, they're going to contribute more light pollution than any of the other houses in here in Eagle Mountain. One of the things I wanted to say is here in the state of Utah, we've had a bit of a bad track record with a lot of our governments and local legislators allowing millionaires to ruin our our neighborhoods, whether that be from mines or the new data center that they're building in Box Elder County. It's been a problem, and you guys have the chance to change that, to do something different. So that's my time.

Speaker D: Also for First Amendment, Paul Scott. Terry Roland.

Speaker B: Hello. I feel like I'm about to repeat a bunch of what you've already heard. I, the first lady that talked, I second pretty much everything she said, except for I don't live in Cedar on that side of the hill. I live in Lone Tree Ranch. I've been out here since 2004. I am alone in my home. My husband passed— sorry, my husband passed away in 2020. I worked my butt off to pay my house off so that I have security. I'm 60 years old. In this economy, I can't afford to sell my house and move. I have 3 dogs. I live a block away from the bottom of that hill. The blasting that we've lived through already, I get anxiety, my dogs get anxiety. There are veterans in my neighborhood. I can't even imagine what they go through. And it's not even blasting like by our house. When they're out there doing their drills for Camp Williams, my house shakes. So now ask yourself what that's going to do when you move that blasting 10 miles closer to my home. I want to know who's going to be responsible for the inevitable damage. There's homes at the very bottom of that hill. I live one block over on Ficus. When my foundation gets shaken till it cracks, when windows get broken, who's going to pay for that? I'm not turning that into my insurance. That is not a natural disaster, and I didn't do the damage. And I'm not going to go to litigation with some property developer that has millions of dollars and can put me off for however long and pay me 10 cents on the dollar for a ruined home. I feel like if you go ahead and put this through, it could happen to someone else. And I don't have anywhere to go. And I'm not the only one in my neighborhood that's at this age. So why would you let them do that? That's nothing but rock bed. There's animals that live there. I don't want my house full of mice. When they developed those homes down below my house, that's what happened. We got infested with moles, mice, snakes, scorpions. They displaced all of those animals. And I know you guys don't care about the animals, but some of us do, and I don't want them living in my house. Please reconsider doing this. It's going to cost a lot of people a lot of money and a lot of problems. Think about the veterans, if nothing else.

Speaker D: I'm unsure if this one is for 17 as well. Tracy Knight. Okay. Tracy Knight.

Speaker T: Well, let me just state how much I love Eagle Mountain, and I retired here, and I'm going to mention a word that will make you shudder from Southern California. Okay. And I want to live in Eagle Mountain, not in Southern California, because Southern California had really bad development plans, as in no plan, and it was all driven by real estate developers. And I know people impacted by the fires in Southern California this past year and lost homes, and it was uncontrollable. And what I would like to know Is what part of Eagle Mountain receives notifications regarding this, these meetings for this project? Is it all of Eagle Mountain?

Speaker B: Anyone know?

Speaker A: If you want to finish your comment, this is not—

Speaker T: Oh, okay, then you'll find out. Okay. Because if it's anything but all of Eagle Mountain, shame, because this impacts everyone. And I'm especially concerned, have you changed the current, the variances that we have had on slope and street width in order and approved it for this project? Have you changed variances? Yes. And if so, why? Who approved it? And what are the checks and balances that went up against that? Also, I have heard rumor that you're allowing a narrower road width for this development, which also it's not. And it was said, well, they will all have parking because they'll have garages. It's not about parking. I understand that. Fire engines cannot get up there, but they're dealing with it by having sprinklers in the house. Yes, every fire, every brush fire starts in a house. That is a safety concern, and the egress out of there, people in a fire, they're not going to be able to get out. As Holly Thomas said, it's a key safety risk. And then how do you justify to us the variances? Is that true? Have slope variances been changed? And you can tell like everyone who's here, I suspect, is pretty upset. So does anyone want my last 30 seconds? Okay. I'm going to go sit back down. And I still love this place, but don't make me be unhappy about living here because I don't want to move. I have too much stuff.

Speaker A: Thank you. I'm going to— so I want to just answer a couple questions. I think it'll help for the general public. More specific, not just to that comment, but I just want to make sure everyone knows nothing has been approved on that development. That's the developer asking for approval. Nobody allowed smaller streets. Nobody's allowed anything at this point. That's them asking and proposing that. The council has a decision to accept or deny that. So the, the, the— I think a lot of people online and here in person are saying that who's allowed this, or why did you allow this, or how come this is going forward this way.

Speaker S: I think that's a good question.

Speaker A: It's not going forward. It's them asking if it can go forward. And it's up to the council to decide if they need— why, you know, if they can have that exception or not. So the decision has not been made is what I want to make sure everyone understands. There's no decision been made yet. There's just a developer that's asked. You're welcome to come and ask if you can put a 70-story high-rise on your lot. Probably won't happen, but you can ask.

Speaker P: I'm not asking.

Speaker A: I'm just saying that it's— so we can't, we can't speak without the mic, so, um, I'll ask you to be quiet. But it's a— I'm just pointing out anybody can ask. Nothing's been approved. So just know the council is fully aware of, of the asks and the exceptions, and whether they grant them, you know, it will be— maybe we don't know. I, I can't speak. I don't know what they'll decide. So I just want to make sure that's clear. So to move on—

Speaker D: That concludes all the ones for 17A that I had. So the regularly scheduled ones, we have Holly Reimer.

Speaker Z: Hello. So I'm here to speak about the extension of the road in Silver Lake, the neighborhood, Silver Lake Parkway. I just want to start by sharing my appreciation for all that you guys do for the city. I know that you guys have a pretty thankless job and that you guys put in a lot of hours, so thank you for all that you guys do for our city. I understand the concerns regarding increased traffic on our major neighborhood roadways, including Golden Eagle Road. My own house sits very close to Golden Eagle, and I'm out there driving it most mornings between 7 and 7:30. I know firsthand what the current flow looks like, and in my view, absorbing more traffic is absolutely worth it. We simply cannot expect a brand new high school to function safely or effectively without— with only one way in or out. Beyond traffic disruption, this extension is a matter of student safety. Right now, it is practically impossible for students to safely walk or bike to the new campus due to the lack of sidewalks on the south side of Pony Express Parkway. Our kids deserve safe and dedicated routes to school. This extension provides exactly that while simultaneously giving us an entire neighborhood a vital route in and out of our neighborhood. For the safety of our students and the long-term infrastructure of our community, please consider extending Silver Lake Parkway.

Speaker D: Jeff Bean.

Speaker AB: I want to echo the same comment, and I don't have too much to add about extending that road so that we have a connection from Silver Lake neighborhood to the new high school. The main thing I'll add is just I think we're still waiting for a traffic study, and I think that'll be very informative in putting data to what we're trying to express. But I think if you look at the, you know, essentially the satellite map view of that area, Like, the houses are in our neighborhood. So I think the concern is that people are going to cut through our neighborhood and use that as a back road to get to other places. But I, you know, I think if you look at where the houses are, they're in our neighborhood. So the people who are going to be using that road are the ones in our neighborhood. We have a huge density of people in Evans Ranch and Silver Lake neighborhood. And all those people are looking for a way to escape the, you know, driving past the Silver Lake Elementary School. And it might help get some people in our neighborhood using a different route,