Transcript — Eagle Mountain City Council, 7 July 2026

Speaker A: There it is. I don't think it was working before. It's 4. Okay.

Speaker B: This clock's 1 minute fast.

Speaker A: Is it?

Speaker C: Yeah.

Speaker A: My computer's saying 3:59. I'll give it 1 more second.

Speaker D: Okay.

Speaker A: We're going to go ahead and get started. This clock up here says 4:00. The one on my wrist says 3:59, but we're going with it. So we'll welcome you out to the Work session. It's Tuesday the 7th at 4 o'clock. We'll go ahead and get started with our first discussion. Item number 1 is legislative update as part of the contract. David Stewart's here to give us an update on what he's working on. And then with that, I think it's been 3 years, is that correct? I think the contract comes up at the end of this month, is that right? I'd have to get all the information. Yeah, or is it August? Yeah, but we'll invite David up to give us an update, and then we can discuss the contract in the future going forward, and it will come up later as well.

Speaker E: Great, thanks, Mayor, Council. Great to be here, some new faces.

Speaker F: The—

Speaker E: so yeah, we had a great legislative session. Maybe I'll kind of start and work my way back. In the last little while, we had an election, and even previous to that, there was an election that more directly impacted the city as far as for a Republican nominee for State Senate. A resident, obviously, of Eagle Mountain was able to clear the deck in the first vote, which was pretty surprising to most, because he had 2 seasoned politicians he was running against. That says a lot for him and the style and work ethic that he has, and hopefully bringing that to the Senate. He will be going against, obviously, Senator Buss in November. I think most everybody assumes that he, being the Republican nominee, will easily win that seat, and so then be part of the Senate. Then the primary, you had, I guess, the nearest as far as proximity, you had Senator Brammer, who was in a tough fight, but he pulled it out. You had Senator McKay, who was also in a tough fight. He did not. He was beat by Doug Fiafia, who currently serves in the House, so he certainly knows what's going on, but obviously not Eagle Mountain, but really the south end of Salt Lake County and a piece of northern Utah County, and a few others. Then one that certainly will impact could have an impact on the city. President Adams was a huge supporter of transportation generally across the state and was a great advocate for us at the city. The nice thing we have is the likely person to— after the elections in November, the general elections, then there will be a leadership election in both the House and the Senate. There's not really anticipated anybody to challenge the current speaker. There will be one open seat for that, actually, again, Eagle Mountain, that likely Representative Griechus will be running for. I would be— she has a very good chance of winning that seat. She would then be in House leadership. In the Senate, you'll also have leadership elections. With the Senate President having lost, that seat's now open. The current Majority Leader, Curt Cullimore, is planning to run. There's another senator from southern Utah that's entertaining the idea of maybe running. For us, Senator Cullimore has been great. He, kind of like Senator Adams, one of his big passions in life is infrastructure funding, both water and roads and power and energy and all that. That is one of his focuses that's been— he chaired the Transportation and IGG, what they call it, committee, which is the Infrastructure Committee, before he was in leadership, as President Adams did and as others. And so, and he's been actually very involved. The mayor and I had the pleasure of meeting with and Ben as well, of meeting with the Senate President, also pulled in Senator Cullimore into that meeting where we talked about all things transportation for the city, but specifically, and I'm never going to remember this, it's not Mid-Valley, it's Lake Mountain? Okay.

Speaker B: Still better than the other name.

Speaker E: Brown Ridge? Crown Ridge, okay. So we talked about that, and that now will take us kind of into the session. So Senator Cullimore was there, he's up to speed, he was one that was integral in helping get the corridor preservation dollars that we had to preserve the Cedar Valley Expressway. He also worked closely with us on— and Representative Grecious, who was huge on getting— and probably it's hard to really explain how difficult it is, because to most people it's like, oh, we just put it in a bill, it's no big deal. But in transferring the jurisdiction of the—

Speaker B: Lake Mountain Road.

Speaker E: Lake Mountain Road to the state, that was slated to be a local road. The reality is the cost of that would prohibit us from probably ever building it. There's just not going to be enough money from us or from MAG, or there's just not enough discretionary dollars. There's a process that you generally go through in moving roads to the state system, and usually it has to be an existing road. We were able, again, in working with Representative Griecious and working with Senator Cullimore and others, to— in a bill of jurisdictional transfers that they do every year, and they do a couple, and usually it's technical type stuff.

Speaker F: Right.

Speaker E: But we're able to put this road that's not yet built, just on a plan, and put it into the state system. So it's now going to be funded and ultimately built by the state. That was the first, as we kind of talked leading into the session, that was the critical thing that had to happen. It was something that took a lot of effort leading up to and kind of getting UDOT on board and everybody on board so that it wasn't a fight, and it ended up just sailing through. And what that does is that was the first domino. Now what that sets us up for is MAG had also kind of helped prep the work for the work we did this session, had done a study funded at MAG that kind of looks at— looked at different potential alignments and things and how it would work. Now that it's a state road, the state will have to do their own process. They're looking overall at the Redwood Extension and SR 73 and all kinds of— as a whole region, if you will. And this is now included in that.

Speaker A: Thank you.

Speaker E: Analysis and study. So that was the next step. Once that step is completed, and I would guess it will be anywhere from 1 to 2 years, once that step is completed, you're then— once they kind of get a rough alignment that they determine, okay, this is where we want to now have an EIS actually formally study and evaluate and go through all the potential pitfalls and problems and see if it works. Once you get to the point of the EIS, you can then start preserving corridor And then you go through that EIS. That process will then take a couple years. And then at that point, at the conclusion of that, that's when you're ready to actually fund and build the road. It takes the analysis and the study will give you kind of a rough scope and cost. The EIS will then fine-tune what that is. And then we'll know exactly how much to fund. And so again, just kind of tell you that to kind of prepare you. This is— and this will be something that, you know, it's a couple years here, a couple years there. So, you know, optimistically—

Speaker A: 10 years?

Speaker E: potentially could be building in the next 5 to 6 years, which going from just a colored, shaded, rough line on a map that didn't mean anything to now actually having the kind of the stepped process been kicked off is I think a huge testament to your guys' focus and kind of laser focus on that this last couple years to get that moving. Because until we started having those dominoes fall, it just kept— keeps getting pushed out further. And the nice part is, From a funding perspective, is that puts us into a realm that there is potential available funding. Whereas if you know we want to show up tomorrow and try and build a two hundred you know hundred to two hundred million dollar road, there's not that free money. It's already been committed. So it's now in the queue, and what we'll be working closely with you know likely potentially Senator Brooks and Representative Gresham among others will be to kind of keep that. It's that fine line of. Councilman Brett Wright and I were talking about being the squeaky wheel that's just enough that people pay attention and keep doing it, but not so bad that they're annoyed and kind of kick you off to the side. And so it'll be that weaving that, but continuing that process so that we don't delay it any further. But just to prepare you, it is going to— there are steps and it will take time to do that. And so that was really the main focus of the session, was getting through that. And then worked on— there were some other things dealing with some legal issues that affected cities where there was what they call the Gardner decision in the Utah Supreme Court. What that essentially said is currently in litigation and stuff, you can't— it's called billed versus paid. Historically, the way it worked is a jury is not allowed to hear what was actually paid. So if you came in and let's say your medical bills and everything else were $250,000, but you were able to settle with the hospital, the doctors, and everything else, and it only cost $100,000, you can't ever tell the jury that it was— you're only out of pocket $100,000. They only know what the build was of $250,000. So that artificially, because the punitives and everything else are calculated off that, can astronomically escalate the cost. And what that means to you guys as self-insured, just a lot more cost to the city. So the League came out hugely opposed, worked with the mayor to meet with our delegation, as well as worked with everybody else. We were able to— so the bill, what it did, so the Supreme Court turned the billed versus paid on its head. So it said, no, you can introduce what was paid. They get to see that and then make a determination. There was a bill run to kind of take it back to what the previous had been of, no, you can't show what was actually paid. And we were able to defeat that bill. So that was surprisingly in Utah actually a tough fight. There's still a lot of attorneys that actually are in the legislature and care a lot about that bill. So you had that and, you know, then there's continued discussions about water. and meeting with UDOT on transportation and not just Lake Mountain, right?

Speaker A: Lake and the river, which is the mountain.

Speaker B: Okay, that works.

Speaker E: That's okay, perfect. But yeah, so I don't know, that's kind of rambled on there, but that was really, I think, kind of a quick snapshot. Happy to, at this point, if you had any other questions or things, but happy to talk about that.

Speaker A: If there's— well, a couple of things, I guess. First of all, the highlight that he brushed over is over June and July, we really put a lot of pressure on both the House and the Senate, and of course got that meeting with Kohlmore and Stuart Adams to talk about our needs here. And so that was a big step, and most of those meetings were all arranged with Dave and with Evan.

Speaker G: Yeah.

Speaker A: working together to get us all in the same room. So huge success there. Uh, is there any other questions on what was covered? Because if not, I want to move. I'm going to jump around a little bit just for his sake and time.

Speaker E: Sorry, Mayor, real quick, let me— and I, and I apologize, you mentioned it, but I want to make sure— Evan's been a huge asset to the city, great to work with as far as being a communicator, kind of in between the different departments, yourselves, and everything else. But he and I worked great through the session, coordinated, you know, certainly maybe not quite every day, but several times a week on key issues, on meetings and where things were. And I apologize for not bringing that up. But no, Evan was certainly, you know, was a huge asset up there and attended all the LPC and the league meetings and has built good relationships there. So a huge, huge asset to me representing you, but certainly to you as a city.

Speaker A: So. Yeah, the entire team up there this year was awesome. And still we're continuing to do that stuff.

Speaker B: So. Just one question for you. I really appreciate the update. It's so helpful. We need the money, we need the roads built, and we appreciate all your efforts in helping us do that. There was one piece of legislation that was kind of advancing that talked about data center revenue not going to the city but being used more—

Speaker E: Statewide.

Speaker B: Globally or statewide. And that was super concerning. I mean, we have a lot invested as a city and time invested. And just curious, do you think that is a reality that that could pass or just would love your thoughts on that? And if there's, I just hate hearing any of that. It's like—

Speaker E: Yeah, no, it certainly, and you know, and obviously data centers were kind of the, it wasn't necessarily, or the idea wasn't necessarily fixated, but obviously that would affect Eagle Mountain greatly. But it was kind of this idea of you have these huge infrastructure cap investment type projects that are in certain areas of the state, and should there be a portion of that revenue that then is shared statewide to help lower income tax, or to help do other types of statewide purposes? So, you certainly, there are, to answer your question, there are certainly advocates for that, but there's equally, and more, if you will, of saying, no, there are impacts to the local communities. Now, if there's a new tax, or something else that you want to try to put, or to, you know, capitalize on those types of investments and spread that, that might be something. But to try and come into a community, that argument's currently winning the day. With all the news media around data centers and everything else, they're not quite as exciting, at least at the moment publicly. I think this— I think it'll all kind of tamp down and go away, honestly. But I guess a long way to say it's still there. It's still a threat.

Speaker B: Um-hum.

Speaker E: I don't think the current makeup now that there's anybody that's a key member or members of leadership that are like, you know, pounding, this is what we got to do. So far, it's— there's enough and it's broad enough beyond just data centers that, you know, it really punishes your rural areas, your development, you know, areas that have development, you know, your built-out areas. They're like, oh yeah, this is a great idea, we should do that. We got all ours, now let's, you know, tax and bring in everybody else's. But because of the— if it were just fixated on data centers, that would make me more scared, honestly, because that's unique enough and doesn't affect enough communities. But as a lot of times in most legislation, they kept it just broad enough that it created a lot of allies to kind of— and so as long as it's that, I think we maintain. But that's something we'll certainly need to be watching for, because I don't see it going away. I mean, they're always looking for other ways to bring more revenue in for state kind of projects and stuff. Because outside of income tax, I mean, you have so much, you know, your gas tax goes towards roads, sales, you know, income tax funds education, and you got a sales tax that basically funds everything else, and a big chunk of that's dedicated to transportation and other things. So there's only a small piece, honestly, that really funds most everything in the state government beyond transportation and Health and Human Services and stuff. So it's something we'll need to watch for.

Speaker B: Thank you.

Speaker A: I think, if I remember right, a lot— when that verbiage first came out, we did a lot of work. Evan did some private meetings. I'm trying to remember if it was 507 or whichever one it was, but it was We got some of that language adjusted anyway as it's coming forward. There's still room to massage that. But definitely between the team, we were on that. So this will also tie in, but I wanted to jump to item 15A on our consent agenda that has to do with the agreement and renewal with Executive Consulting, just so that he can Use his time wisely and we can finish this item since they're related. So I know there's a question here. Go ahead.

Speaker H: I'd like your name on it. If we're going to pay for it, I want to know you're the one up there doing it personally.

Speaker E: Oh, on the contract?

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker E: Oh, sure.

Speaker I: I mean—

Speaker H: I don't want the— I don't want your services to be able to be sold to somebody else and we're paying for Dave.

Speaker G: Yeah.

Speaker E: No, and I— and honestly, a lot of my contracts, I mean, for tax purposes and other stuff, it'll list the— and for legal, it lists it. But usually, and I'm sure your attorney can do this, and if not, I've got— I know other clients where it specifically says services to be provided by X, and essentially if whatever that changes, then that, you know, essentially at the client discretion voids the contract type thing. So yeah, that's—

Speaker H: Yeah, I'm totally fine doing the extension with that caveat.

Speaker E: Perfect, yeah, happy to do it.

Speaker A: 2 years, I think, is that right? I think it's 3. Is it 3 years?

Speaker D: Yeah.

Speaker A: Any other questions on that?

Speaker G: So the one question I had was, so the contract stipulated 2 meetings, it didn't stipulate a tempo. So we have a 2-year contract from what I was reading, we can go back and look at it. Are we comfortable with 2 meetings, which would mean basically a meeting a year, or does the council feel like we should have more than that? 'Cause I'm wondering if we need 2 meetings a year, not necessarily in person, it could be remote, but it seems to me—

Speaker E: Yeah, no, and what we've tended to do is a lot of times, kind of early on in the session because it is hard to be here in person during the session remotely. And then previous years when you've had kind of a retreat, I think in like the fall-ish, if I recall, or summer, have Zoomed into that before. And so it's kind of— to me, I see some of those as— I mean, if there needs to be more, certainly can, or whatever your— whatever your need there is. I mean, I'm certainly not one that just wants to meet to meet, but I also want to make sure you feel like you're getting whatever. And obviously know anytime you can reach out to me directly as well, but, you know, have a formal report, that's more I defer to whatever you guys, but whatever it says doesn't mean, if you call me up and say, hey, can you come in? I'm like, well, sorry, the contract says, and I already met with you, so I don't have to. So you don't have to worry about that, but whatever you think is best.

Speaker A: Marcus, do you remember in the contract if the number of meetings per year, in the past it was quarterly, I thought. So is it semiannual, or what's the?

Speaker B: My recollection is quarterly.

Speaker G: It's Exhibit A, Section 2. And it says reporting and it says 2 meetings and doesn't give any tempo for that 2 meetings. So I would prefer 2 meetings annually. And I understand, I mean, if we ask for a 3rd, you're not gonna turn it down. But I think contractually, I think it would be nice to see.

Speaker B: So you'd like to say 2 meetings semiannual? 2 meetings per year semiannually.

Speaker G: Approximately, yeah.

Speaker B: Or every 6 months or some language like that.

Speaker G: Yeah, something like that.

Speaker H: I think it needs to maybe go more specific. Right before the legislative session and right before the mid-year one. That way we have the ability to say, what do you think is on there? And for us to give some feedback of, we want you to chase after these things.

Speaker A: Okay, that works great. And I will vouch for this too, and every time I've run into— and we see each other monthly at least, probably at MAG and other places, right? But every time I say, hey, you need to come, I don't want you to lose your contract, you better come report to me. He does every time. I think if there's ever a question, he's willing to show up. So I think if that ever comes a desire, just let's just call him in. So any other questions on the contract specifically on 15A? If not, we'll finish that one up too and tell you that both items are— oh, I did have one other thing. Yeah, I think we've talked about this a little bit. You helped us with Dan.

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker A: And he's now taken another position. He sent a letter basically of resignation, and I think I've told a lot of you this, but any insight on— I think the end of the month he's going to be done, right?

Speaker E: Yeah, he's taken a new— gone in-house on a couple different clients. One of those happens to be MITRE. He loves to get in the middle of a fun fight, so he'll be in for a fun next couple years. But yeah, so he's going to do that, won't be able to do anymore. And then, um, in visiting with the mayor and others, I have an individual that, um, that I know Dan is recommending, and, and I would echo that recommendation. He's currently leaving his current job to, to, to do this, and so I don't want to share— I'm happy to talk offline, but I don't want to out him before he's able to. But somebody that has extensive knowledge in the arena of water as well as energy and power, and also just, you know, in roads specifically. Former legislator, you know, so very well-versed in all that. But, you know, something I think really complements the team and helpful is his— he is the, the best on water in the state. And so I think last time I checked, we had some issues with water. And so I think he could be very, very helpful there, among other things. But, you know, timing-wise, in the next month or so, be able to do that. But right now, he's having some private conversations to make everybody that he needs to let know, and then there'll be a public sharing. And at that point, could certainly explore. And obviously it's just a recommendation, but I— he would certainly be a great addition to, to the teams.

Speaker H: Speaking of MIDA, yeah, uh, and Inland Port Authority, so Jerry Stevenson is not being reelected and neither is Stuart Adams. Both of them sit on those boards. Any ideas who may be taking their places?

Speaker E: Yeah, so as I understand it, at least as MITA goes, they both— their term is technically up, um, I think next March-ish, April-ish. As I recall, Stuart Adams is actually— his appointment is the Senate appointment. So before he was the president, he was appointed by the Senate, and since he's been president, he appointed himself. I think it's going to be— it's more up to him. It doesn't have to be, you know, if he— my understanding is if he wants to stay on, my guess is that they, you know, the Senate President will keep him there. He may not. I haven't, you know, I haven't really talked to him yet to see what his intentions are. My understanding is Jerry Stevenson, you know, he is, I believe, the governor— one of the governor— governor has 4 or 5 appointments. He's one of his appointments. His term would be up early next year.

Speaker F: Mm-hmm.

Speaker E: He's expressed an interest to continue. That would obviously be up— certainly I know on MIDA, I would guess Inland Port— he's on Inland Port and he's on the Point. He's on all 3. It would be interesting to see if he does all 3. I know when I was with him, we talked specifically about MIDA. He would like to stay there. He hadn't heard yet from the governor kind of what he wants to do. Obviously, he was very supportive of Dan in his new role. Dan served with Jerry Stevenson, so they're good friends. And the governor, I know, so I assume Jerry Price stays there. I'll ask him about the port and the point, but I haven't— I don't know what he's planning to do there. And I'm not as well-versed in their appointment structures and timing and stuff. Most of the time, it'll be a term, but they still serve at the pleasure of their appointee. So whether it be the governor or whoever, they decide that they want to make a change, they can do that really any time. It's not a guaranteed term.

Speaker A: Thank you.

Speaker H: Please.

Speaker A: So back to the Dan question, what I was looking for out of this too, and there's other people that we can look at, but do we wanna continue and use what we've budgeted for Dan and focus that towards water and look into a second guy, the other use that we've had in the past, or what's the feedback?

Speaker H: Is Dan doing it?

Speaker A: Dan's contract is ending the end of July. So I'm saying we want to replace that.

Speaker H: Well, I would say what the reason we brought him on was specifically the water. So if Dan's not the guy now, who's going to be next best?

Speaker A: There's a referral that— that's what he was mentioning that we can pursue. That's what my question is. Do we want to pursue that or no?

Speaker H: For me, I mean, we're going after the person, not the organization. So I think we trust your opinion. So if there's somebody you think is the next best since Dan's not available, we'd love to hear who that is.

Speaker E: Well, and my suggestion would also be, once we can talk openly about it, check in with Stephanie Grishus. She's been up there. I think you guys all respect her, and she'll give you— I've never known Stephanie not to share her opinion. And so she will certainly let you know. But in talking to Stephanie, she certainly echoes my endorsement. And so, yeah. Anyway, so I think to your point, Rich, I'm the same. And again, I look at it as it's— ultimately the buck rests with me. I mean, I'm the primary guy. And so I— if you guys have the resources, it certainly is very helpful. And the reason I suggest it is it helps me. I mean, my goal is to be successful as a group. And if not, you know, I don't certainly promote a friend or anybody else that's, you know, not going to be a good addition to the team.

Speaker C: Thank you. Yeah, Mayor, I would, I would say that I'm favorable to continuing to, to find someone to help us lobby for those, those, those things that we need, specifically water and reuse water. And I think there's some real opportunities on the horizon as long as we keep our foot on the gas pedal. I think if we take that off, that we're going to find ourselves being ignored. So I think that's really important. And with transportation and other funding structures, I found it to be highly beneficial to the city, the services of Dave and his recommendations in the past. So I'm favorable to continuing that, a relationship with a lobbyist to focus on those things.

Speaker A: Okay, I think then we'll— as, as this other contract expires, we'll look into bringing a new contract. What's that?

Speaker H: He's going to say he's okay.

Speaker C: Yeah, I'm okay with that.

Speaker H: 1, 2, 3.

Speaker B: Yep.

Speaker A: So we'll, we'll, uh, is it Evan that's going to Can you work with that to— or Marcus, as far as the contract, who's—

Speaker C: You guys figure it out.

Speaker A: Okay, we'll work on that and then—

Speaker E: That's why you get the big bucks.

Speaker A: I just wanna make sure somebody's assigned. So we'll start working on that and then in August we'll button that up.

Speaker E: Okay.

Speaker A: Does that work? So any other questions for Dave on either of those 2 items? I think we're good.

Speaker E: Awesome.

Speaker A: All right, thanks for coming. We appreciate the report. All right, let's go back to item 1B. This is Marcus on a land disposal process overview. I think this has to do with the state— the new change, right?

Speaker B: Yes, there have been changes in state law to how we conduct land disposals, and so we wanted to bring the issue for discussion. Also, we want to make sure we are on the right path as far as determining what is going to be insignificant versus significant land parcels. So under state law, cities have a lot of leeway in determining what are significant parcels of land and how you dispose of those. Significant parcels versus insignificant parcels is very different. But there's been a recent change in law that somewhat restricts that, and also that affects our timing of having public hearings. Traditionally, when conducting a land disposal, we would notice a public hearing prior to the authorization of the land disposal. If it's authorized, then we would do a contract and then bring it back for approval on the contract, and that would be done at a public meeting. Recent changes in state law basically reverse that. So now you would have a public meeting in which you authorize the land disposal, and then the contract would come back at a and be approved after a public hearing. And so we're— so currently our city ordinance requires a public hearing before authorizing the land disposal, and the state code requires public hearing before approving the contract. The request would be to just have one public hearing when we approve the contract, which is going to be required under state law, and if the council would be okay with altering the ordinance so that we don't have duplicative public hearings.

Speaker C: Is there anybody who doesn't think that's a good idea?

Speaker D: No, I just think it makes sense because there's expense involved when we're noticing things and different things like that. So as long as we're making it an open process and it's cleaned up, I think we should move forward with cleaning it up.

Speaker B: Okay. And so in relation to That seems pretty straightforward, so we'll proceed with doing some code changes and bringing that before you. In relation to the insignificant parcels, prior to Todd's passing, we were working with Todd and several staff members were working with him and the mayor and a couple of council members were meeting together to try to determine parcels that we may want to dispose of and kind of put on a sort of Pre-approved list. So what we're kind of wanting to propose to city council and get some feedback on is whether or not we could just figure out what parcels that we were kind of going to put on that pre-approved list, add them to the insignificant parcel list so that the council can consider them once instead of piecemeal, and approve that those could be disposed of if under. know, certain set of circumstances that are laid out in the ordinance, provided that those are met. Uh, and wanted to know before we kind of prep that, if that's a direction, because that will take some work to prep the map and all that, if that's a direction the council wants to go.

Speaker H: The only, the only thing that's going through my mind with that, in general, I agree. I think that's a good idea. Whereas we've talked about the opportunities that Some of those pieces of land might provide for us in negotiation for other things. Maybe we could have that conversation and just talk about what if it's over a certain size.

Speaker A: Perhaps we right.

Speaker B: So at least have a process for there is somewhat a constraint under state law is that if the fair market value of a parcel is a half million or more, then it's automatically a significant part land disposal. I don't know if that's enough. if that is enough for you or if you would like to— we would bring back a map, of course, and then you'd have a chance to look at the map and see what you agree with and what you disagree with. And obviously we can look at it then. I don't know how you want to proceed on that.

Speaker H: I mean, we're still going to have a discussion about it either way, so I'm good with that.

Speaker C: Yeah, and I would say as someone who participated in that with Councilmember Burnham, I mean, it's been a while since we did that. There's a lot of little pieces that really need to be cleaned up in my mind. And so I think just— it makes sense to me to put them on a list and then to decide what is that line that creates the significant versus the insignificant disposal. See if we can clean it up, make it easy when those things come back.

Speaker A: Okay.

Speaker C: Sounds good.

Speaker A: That's it.

Speaker B: So not 20 minutes.

Speaker A: That's good. Good. Perfect. If there's nothing else on that one, I think we got good direction. We'll go to item 1C. Procedural options for land disposal approved last August, and Lacey's gonna— it has been. Lacey's got some information on this one, and the applicants are both here.

Speaker D: Yes, they are both here to answer any questions.

Speaker B: So as stated in the staff report, this came to council last August to resolve— to dispose of a parcel to resolve encroachments, align boundaries, and existing fence line for the residential properties. It was approved that the entire lot line be moved back, barring everybody was on the same page. We've had a hard time getting ahold of one of the parcel owners. While we have had contact, he hasn't committed to purchasing the property behind his home, so it put us at a standstill. At the same time, the application expired in February. With the changes in city staff, it was—

Speaker A: it definitely went to the wayside.

Speaker B: So we've been trying to work hard to get to a solution, but we're now to the point where without this parcel to be approved from the one parcel, we're unsure of what to do and need clarity from council on how to proceed. So there's a few options, right? I think the one option is that if 3 members of council submit in writing for reconsideration. It could— that item could be reconsidered. And some— so the 6-month sunset clause could be removed if you're so inclined. Additionally, the unanimity requirement could also be removed if you're inclined. So that's one procedural way to get the matter back in front of you with the same— They could file a new application and we could start the process over is another procedural path. And then there's a third thing. Yeah. Yeah. Sorry.

Speaker D: Go for it.

Speaker B: There was two options on the table at the time last August, option one and option two.

Speaker A: 2, where council said option 2, but it would revert to option 1 if option 2 did not go through.

Speaker B: And option 1 is where the lot line would just straighten out instead of moving the entirety of the line.

Speaker A: And so getting clarity on when does option 1 go into effect, because we've been trying to fulfill option 2 without being able to with this one parcel having a hard time moving back. It's very complex.

Speaker B: Can we move— how many lots are there? I noticed there's 11. 11, and 1 of the 11 is the one that we're struggling.

Speaker A: It's 15 lots.

Speaker B: I thought it was more. Is it 16? I think it's 16. 16. So 1 of 16. I think 15 of 16 is pretty good. Uh, is there, is there a possibility to keep, keep that line and let the 15 move forward. And the one that we're struggling, I think he's a landlord or doesn't live there.

Speaker A: Um, he does live there.

Speaker B: It was understood that he was a landlord living in California, but when I spoke with him, he does live here. At the property?

Speaker A: He is here in Eagle Mountain. He has spoken with me. He hasn't come in. I gave him until June 18th to say yes or no.

Speaker B: understanding that this might not be an option again in the future, and I did not receive a response back. Is there a possibility to have the 15 move forward and leave the 1 and not let the great be the enemy of good? I mean, that's ultimately up to you, but again, there's the procedural mechanism. I think the one I would recommend so we don't have to start the process over is that 3 councilmembers submit in writing that they want them matter to be brought back for reconsideration, and then you can formally remove any restrictions you want or make any other changes.

Speaker C: So does it have to be those that were involved in the motion last time, Marcus? Does it matter?

Speaker B: The code just says 3 members want to bring it back. So the issue is that during the meeting, if you want to reconsider an item that's already been done, then it has to be 2 members who voted in the majority. want to bring it back in the same meeting. After the meeting, it can be any 3 council members.

Speaker C: Just 3 council members?

Speaker I: Yeah.

Speaker C: Okay.

Speaker A: Thank you. So could it— does the mayor have any option to put it on an agenda?

Speaker B: So where it's an item for reconsideration, it would be 3 council members?

Speaker A: 3 council.

Speaker C: So look, let me just say that I would support that action. I mean, I'll just say that I would support that. What I would ask is that somebody on the staff write that and I'll sign it. and see if there's 2 other council members that are willing to sign it with.

Speaker B: Agreed.

Speaker G: Agreed.

Speaker D: Sorry, I would like to see it come back as well.

Speaker B: There you go, you got 3.

Speaker A: Thank you, that's what I needed. Bring it back next time. Okay, so Lacey will draft a letter, the council can sign that, and we'll see it on an upcoming agenda. There— is there any questions for the applicants? Anything I don't think so. I think we're good. All right, moving on to item 1D, off-street parking. The off-street trails master plan is Mr. Steve Mumford. Thank you, Mayor and Council. Um, excited to present the off-street trails master plan to you today. This is a project that was funded by a UDOT Technical Planning Assistance Grant several years ago. Took a bit to get started on it, but we finally got started a while back. Todd Black was our project manager for the project. There was a time there after his passing where we had to transition, and I volunteered to to manage the project after that. We had on our committee, we had me, Brad Hickman, Zach Hilton, and Andrew Knowlton. And then as part of that project, we hired Bike Utah as our consultant for the plan. And Cameron Carter is here from Bike Utah to present that to you. We also reviewed the plan with our Community Services Board. At their last meeting a couple weeks ago, and they had a few suggestions for some minor changes to that, and mostly were excited to see this project moving forward. Just wanted to note that I am, as part of the implementation, we've already begun implementation of the plan, and I've started working with Sitla and other landowners up in the Hidden Valley area to obtain easements and legal access to many of the trails that exist up in that area. And Sitla has come out, met with the Lake Mountain Trails Association and the city, did a tour of the property up there, and seems to be moving towards approving those easements and working with us on that. So excited about that and the project moving forward. With that, any questions before we have Cameron get started? Okay.

Speaker I: Go ahead, Cameron.

Speaker A: Thanks.

Speaker B: I am Cameron Carter. I am the planner and project manager with Bike Utah. I'm here representing Bike Utah's planning team as well as Shapeshift Terrain Parks. We were the consultants for this project. I'm going to speak briefly about the plan. High-level objectives, stakeholder engagement we did for the project, and then just an outline of the— how the plan is written. I'll then talk about the 4 main chapters. This plan is written so that each chapter is meant to be a standalone chapter with its own recommendations. So we'll get into that, and then we will close with immediate next steps. So some of the main objectives. Starting off, organize the city's trail data into an actionable database. When we started this project, we were given some data from the city. This was not a complete dataset of all trails, so we combined other sources from, from the state and private sources. We also added several other datasets, including land ownership and some other data into a more actionable database that you can use for future planning. Secondly, it was identifying low priority trails for realignment or removal, and identifying high priority trails for preservation. There are a lot of trails in Eagle Mountain, and so one of the considerations throughout this whole process was narrowing down the list into a set of high priority trails that the city can more effectively manage. Another objective was redesigning the Mountain Ranch Bike Park. There are several challenges that we'll get into that needed to be addressed in that bike park. And then assessing long-term viability of the NICA course and establishing wayfinding and signage guidance. So we'll get into all of those. And then also, just what we're talking about here is off-street recreational trails. These are mostly soft surface trails. And then we're also looking at supporting infrastructure for the trail system, meaning trailheads, signage, parking areas, and restrooms. I also want to note that although most trail users are mountain bikes, we also considered other users and all trails, ATV trails, equestrian trails. So this was a comprehensive look at all trails within the city. I mentioned we engaged with many stakeholders to get a sense of what are the opportunities and challenges with the current system. So some of those opportunities: lower elevation, more easily accessible compared to many of the Wasatch Front trails, especially early and late season. Because of that lower elevation, people are able to access the trail system earlier in the spring and later into the winter. There's a greater variety of terrain and skill level options. Deadwood and Prayer Flag trails were consistently ranked as priority trails for many users. And then users also like some of the existing trailheads, especially the Hidden Hollow Trailhead. Some of the challenges: there's very limited and inconsistent signage across the whole system. There's many conflict points where other trails are crossing each other without proper signage, creating safety issues. There's a lot of erosion and damaged features, especially in the bike park. There's many wooden features that are in disrepair, which creates safety issues. Trails are frequently disrupted by development, especially in lower Hidden Valley and upper Hidden Valley. And then it gets very hot in the summer, so there's a need for additional water access and restrooms. So as I mentioned, there are 4 main chapters to this plan. First is the trail network assessment, which essentially establishes this trail database, identifies high and low priority trails, and values trail conditions. Chapter 3 is about the Mountain Ranch Bike Park. Chapter 4 is about the NICA course, identifying development conflicts and then options for future NICA course development. And then Chapter 5, trailheads and trail signage. So we'll now get into each of those very briefly. Starting with Chapter 2, Trail Network Assessment. So we divided the network into 5 regions. There's the Mountain Ranch Bike Park, Upper and Lower Hidden Valley, The Southern Trail section, and then Firefly. This slide shows an example of what this database looks like. So, you know, for each region we're showing the trail name, the type of trail, length, users. We brought in usership data from Strava, so it's a measure of how many annual users are reporting their trips on these trails, and then difficulty and Trailforks rating. In addition to that, we also did these assessments. So we're looking at landowner conflicts, development conflicts, and environmental conflicts. These are mainly looking at who owns the land that the trails are on. How does this— how, you know, are there any overlapping areas with future development? And then are there any intersecting wetland or stream features for these trails? As far as land ownership conflicts go, this map shows the predominant landowner for each trail. Overall, land ownership is highly fragmented across Eagle Mountain. 44% of trail miles are on Sitla land, 24% are on Eagle Mountain city-owned property, 21% private, and 11% BLM land. Recommendations for land ownership. We recommend prioritizing the Eagle Mountain city-owned trails and formalizing trails on Sitla BLM and private property. So one thing to note within city boundaries, only 12% of the trails that are on Sitla land have an active agreement. Most of them do not. So it makes it very difficult for the city to manage those trails and illegal for people to access them. And then if agreements are not possible, we would recommend rerouting or even closing those trails. Development conflicts. We we looked at two main developments. First is the Mid Valley Road, or sorry. First, we'll look just at the development conflicts. This shows the lower Hidden Valley on the left and upper Hidden Valley on the right. The yellow areas on this map are developed areas, essentially neighborhoods that will be developed, and then that orange line is the Mid Valley Road, which I know has a different name now. But you can see it crosses through, through this area that has many existing trails in it. This map shows essentially the opposite. We've highlighted all the trails that can be preserved, so the ones that do not intersect with development or Mid Valley Road are shown in green, yellow, or red. The ones that are conflicting are those gray dotted lines. So there are a lot of conflicts, a lot of trails that will be developed Essentially removed from the network. One thing to note here is that within the master development agreement, there is this trail corridor in the middle. We think that is a really great opportunity to preserve a lot of trails through the neighborhood. This this shows those conflicts. We've listed out all of the trails that are either significantly impacted, meaning over 90% of that trail will be developed. Or majority impacted between 50 and 90%. So again, many trails are going to be developed, and so there is a need to consider what to do with these trails before development actually occurs. Recommendations: we recommend prioritizing high priority trails, preserving city-owned trails within lower Hidden Valley, and then planning connections. within the Hidden Hollow Trail corridor. I mentioned that, that middle section, and then planning crossings as Mid Valley Road is developed. Environmental conflicts. So this map shows the mainly just streams that are occurring within Eagle Mountain City. Trails that cross streams are more likely to be damaged by erosion, and so it is best practice to avoid those those areas. And when it's— there's also design features that you can add to prevent erosion. As far as recommendations go, we've identified which trails have those conflicts. If there are few conflicts, those can be improved through design, improved drainage, or rerouting a short section. Trails that have significant environmental conflicts, we recommend closing them entirely. And then we also recommend using environmental screening for future trail planning Just to make sure your investments are effective and not going to be damaged by future erosion. And then lastly, for the trail database, we also did a field assessment where we actually went and rode all of these trails and identified issues related to trail definition, meaning it's not clear where the trail is. Also erosion, lack of signage, safety hazards, unsanctioned trails, and trail width issues. So again, this is all part of that trail database that we have provided for the city to use as you're addressing these issues and planning future trails. Next chapter, Mountain Ranch Bike Park. This one is quite a bit more actionable. This shows the current layout for the Mountain Ranch Bike Park, and the yellow box in that bottom left, that is the trailhead on Eagle Mountain Road. There are quite a few issues with this layout. For one, there's a lot of overlapping and informal trails that create a sort of spider webbing that has a lot of safety issues. It's also difficult for users to navigate. There's mismatch between posted and actual difficulty for these trails. Many of them are primarily for advanced riders so that there's not enough Features for beginners, limited access to upper elevations. There's no dedicated climbing trail, poor wayfinding, and then damaged trail features, meaning those wooden features that are in disrepair. This shows the redesigned concept. So you can see there is a dedicated uphill access trail in light green that goes all the way up and connects to each of those other trails. Some improved trail organization, flow, connectivity, clear difficult progression. So there's actual green trails for beginners, then blue and black diamond. Improved wayfinding. There's a new skills area for beginners, an improved jump line that would be an asphalt jump line, so it's safer and more durable. And then this yellow line is a paved multi-use path. The section on the right is existing, but we've extended that to connect to the Hidden Hollow parking area just across the ridgeline, since there isn't currently a parking lot on Eagle Mountain Road. So immediate next steps for the Mountain Ranch Bike Park, we recommend removing damaged wood features, reviewing the concept plan and phasing recommendations, pursuing state and federal grants, and then preparing an RFP for engineering design. The cost estimate for the total construction is about $0.9 million to $1.5 million. That'll be refined through the engineering design. And there are a lot of state and federal grants available for this type of recreation. Next chapter, Eagle Mountain NICA Course. So if you're unfamiliar, this is It stands for the National Interscholastic Cycling Association. It's mainly a program for middle and high school kids to ride bikes and mountain bike race. This is the current course. I know it's a little bit hard to place where this is, but this is Upper Hidden Valley. What's important here is just looking at the shape of that course compared to the next slide, which shows development conflict. So, This is Mid Valley Road, again shown in red, and the current NICA course crosses Mid Valley Road in 5 places, which would not be feasible for the NICA course. So options for that would be either installing undercrossings or, you know, potentially changing the alignment of the NICA course. However, there is a much bigger problem. This one shows development conflict in yellow. So So you can see most of the NICA course is set to be developed. We talked with city, and we came to two solutions for this. Really, unless you're going to significantly change this master development agreement, you would have to move the NICA course. So option one would be relocating to the southeast toward in BLM land. There's a lot of available land there. Option two is creating a new NICA course near Firefly. Again, there's a lot of BLM land up there as well. And so there's still a lot of planning that we need to go into feasibility and coordinating with NICA, but either of these options would be a good way to go.

Speaker A: Cameron, just a quick note on that. The Firefly developers have been working with BLM, and their plan is to create that course, at least a course that that connects to their downhill trails and, and with a trailhead and everything. But that process kind of stalled during the past year or so as the BLM took some hits on, on nationally, just on staffing levels. So we hope to revive that process here soon.

Speaker B: The last chapter here, trailheads and trail signage. So there are currently 3 main trailheads, the Mountain Ranch Bike Park Trailhead, Hidden Hollow Trailhead, and Rock City Trailhead. Rock City is just a gravel parking lot. Hidden Hollow is an actual parking lot, and Mountain Ranch Bike Park Trailhead is just a road. We recommend adding 5 additional trailheads. One, Hidden Hollow Trail Corridor. This would be Southwest of the Hidden Hollow Trailhead. Jake the Snake Trailhead in sort of the north area. Firefly Trailhead, Fair and Square Trailhead, sort of in that middle region, and another trailhead in the south.

Speaker D: Did you guys— so with the trailheads, what about the Skyline Ridge area? Because there's parking there in the Skyline. I think it's in Phase 7 of that. And we own all the land as a city, and it would end up connecting ultimately to the stuff that's in Hidden Valley as well. Do you know what I'm talking about, Steve?

Speaker A: I think I do, on that kind of long road that goes into the hillside there, I think.

Speaker D: Yeah, and it's like, there's like a little peninsula of low land, and then we own everything up on the cliff as a city.

Speaker A: Yeah, I, I think, um, we can obviously look at that. I think it's a small, a small trailhead, more of a neighborhood access, um, because I don't think there's very much parking there.

Speaker D: But I think there's like 5 spots. But you're right, it's not going to be like what we have in Hidden Valley. It's just if it's part of a trail system, it makes sense to include something that we required to have a trailhead parking lot.

Speaker A: Yeah, we can show that as a Some sort of minor neighborhood trailhead or something?

Speaker B: Yes, we have in the plan, we've marked neighborhood access points, which essentially are trailheads. They would have some sort of map showing you what you're accessing, but wouldn't have as significant of a parking area. And I don't have those listed here. Trail signage, as I mentioned, it's very inconsistent. This left here shows some of the signs throughout the system. We recommend adopting a standard sign throughout the city. We've provided one example here. You're welcome to, to do other examples, but we, we recommend including these components, um, that are on this picture. And then, um, for wayfinding, we recommend prioritizing the Mountain Ranch Bike Park, Lower Hidden Valley, and Firefly since these are more developed trail networks. They're also primarily owned by the city, so there aren't as many land ownership conflicts. This table just shows the cost for certain improvements along those trailheads. It's about $300,000 to $500,000. Most of that cost is restrooms and those parking lots. So to summarize, the immediate next steps would be plan adoption. We also recommend establishing a trails advisory committee or some other working group to sort of oversee implementation of the plan. And then for each of those chapters, again, for the trail network assessment, just confirming those high and low priority trails. Mountain Ranch Bike Park, engaging with stakeholders and community members about the recommended changes, pursuing grants, and then preparing an RFP for engineering and design. NICA course is coordinating with BLM and NICA to plan for those options I mentioned. And then trailheads, adopting a sign standard, confirming the trailhead locations, coordinating with developers, and working with landowners to obtain legal access where you don't currently have it. So that is my presentation. Open to questions. Thank you.

Speaker A: Don't all jump at once.

Speaker H: So I have a couple questions. Can you go back to the slide that shows where Lake Mountain Corridor goes across the property? So that's Mid Valley Road. The new name's Lake Mountain Corridor. Yep, you were just there. So we wanted to show where the impact was across it.

Speaker B: This one?

Speaker H: Yeah, I think there was one after that where you show your trail.

Speaker B: Oh yeah, that's right.

Speaker H: Okay, yeah, that's the one. So one of the things I, I've asked some questions about cost, um, overpass, underpass options, right? Obviously this is— is this one of the main— this is the Neeka Trail, right?

Speaker B: Yes.

Speaker H: So to do an individual underpass is somewhere around $8 million essentially, uh, and I can't remember what the width of that is, and it might be a little more than that because of the width of this road it's going to be. So just ballpark numbers, probably between $8 and $10 million per underpass.

Speaker B: Is it—

Speaker H: I'm asking the question, is it better for us to try to work with the state? Because as you heard Dave say earlier, we're quite a ways out before that happens. But maybe that's something that can be anticipated as part of the design. Or would it be better to just move the that northern portion just onto one side of it so that it can exist in that entire section. And then we can work with the landowners when they develop that as basically an open space rather than building small parks or things of that nature. I think there's some options there, I guess, is kind of where I'm going with this, that enables that to still be utilized in a way it's been used for so long with Most of that that I'm looking at there, you're gonna— most of that's in Sitla. Looks like just a little corner of that is in a private landowner's portion. I think that southwest portion is. And I think the Sitla is much easier for us to work around because it's already state. So I think that's an option for that. I do think there needs to be a crossing for sure, especially if we're going to try to maintain the connection to the trails. One thing I would like to see that you not shown on here is connecting from that trail up to the BLM land to the south. I'd like to see that effort be made no matter what happens to try to make that connection up there so that that top part of the mountain can be utilized as well. The other comment I was going to make with the redesign, if you'll go to your—

Speaker G: the mountain—

Speaker H: I can't remember what it's called.

Speaker G: Mountain—

Speaker B: Mountain Ranch Bike Park.

Speaker H: That's it. Mountain Range Bike Park. I like the idea of having a singular route. I mean, it's very much like doing a ski lift. You're taking everybody up one direction and they can drop off based on their abilities. I think that's a great idea. It also has safe routes for traffic moving one direction. Everything's going up on the one, everything's going down on the other. And I like the skills area. I wonder at the very bottom is the anticipation that there could even be something that's more like a bunny hill for younger kids to go and play that's outside of the skills area where they can still kind of have a downhill experience. I'd like to see something like that because I've seen a lot of parents taking their kids up there and then finding out that the skill level is not there for them to be able to do that. So I think that would be a great addition to that, but otherwise I think that's a great idea. One thing I just wanted to maybe state. You said there's a couple of funding sources. Uh, I'd like to propose to the council, we have— we've added a funding source with RAP tags. That might be an, uh, an opportunity. But I think we have also at least stated a number of times that tot lot parks and like that are kind of an unmanageable park. Perhaps we could start having some conversations about some fee-in-lews and putting this money towards, uh, the updating of some of these amenities.

Speaker C: It's a really good report, by the way.

Speaker F: Thank you.

Speaker C: And I think it will be really helpful in guiding the decision makers to come to better decisions about how we create connectivity and how we, how we take care in a better and more meaningful way some of those facilities that we already have. I'm frankly surprised at the disrepair that you found in the bike park. I'm not a biker, so I don't get up in there and ride, but I get on my electric bike and try to stay on the trails where it's safer. Um, yeah, and I underline er. Uh, as I read through the report in the bike park itself, that access was one of the things that you addressed and some of those access points. And, and I just— could you just speak to that to help me kind of understand a little bit better about exactly what you think we should do there for accessing the bike park? For access? Because I know that the access is up that steep hill and there's a walkway to get there. And then you're suggesting coming in from the neighborhood side. Is that what you're saying?

Speaker B: So the city owns the property across the street as well. So there was some discussion of potentially, you know, building a parking area there.

Speaker C: In the power line corridor.

Speaker B: In the power line corridor.

Speaker G: Okay.

Speaker B: I think that the 2 main access points are, again, this southern portion near, or I guess it would be western portion near the drop zone. And there is a bit of a, you know, the stairs there, but you could put in some sort of switchback. And then the other option is the Hidden Hollow parking area, which already has a parking lot. There is a dirt trail that crosses over, but essentially adding a multi-use trail there. And then there are several neighborhood access points. that could be improved just with better signage.

Speaker A: And Councilmember Wright, I think as we looked at it too and talked about it, I think the probably the easiest and best parking, new parking area in that power line corridor would be all the way down on Ranches Parkway where it comes up into the ranches. So it wouldn't be right next to this, but you'd have to go uphill. It's not very steep, that section until you get right before Golden Eagle Road. But you could have a little bigger parking area down there.

Speaker C: Maybe we can use the bus stop that's not being utilized. Let's start there. I'm being facetious, obviously. But, uh, but I mean, I would like to see us— I would like to see us develop this. I really like the idea of this plan and the trail connectivity. I think we have to be pragmatic and realize that we're not going to preserve all of these trails. I know the mountain bike community doesn't want to hear that, but there are a lot of them. The majority of them are on private ground. So I think that this gives us at least a roadmap to start to kind of discover and to see where we're deficient in those trail connections and where we could perhaps have some conversations with the landowners and see if we can come to some agreement. I like that you're already talking with Sitla. Steve, I want to give you a caution. And I mean, this caution is just let's make sure we're not giving away the farm. I mean, let's make sure that we're having realistic conversations and not making promises that we're that we can't keep. And what I mean by that is let's let's make sure it's mutually beneficial to do that. But I do like the idea of prioritizing the top one or two or three or four or five trails so that we can maintain or at least guarantee some connectivity. We were able to do that in Lower Hidden Canyon as we did a. Property swap with the landowners there, um, for the migration corridor and, and for at least one trail through that area. And those are the types of things I think the council should be actively, um, pursuing with, with staff's help.

Speaker D: I really like the plan. Thank you for creating it. I think the database alone is a huge asset to us as a city. Um, the Community Services Board had a lot of discussion about this and just trails in general, and their general sentiment was to get the bike park fixed up too where the damage is. Um, I like where Steve has said the parking lot in the power corridor. Um, and I agree with Council Member Wood and the whole piece about beginner skills. Um, I actually think if we put the parking lot in that part up against Ranches Parkway, we'd have that whole Power corridor, and we could have quite a bit there that would have beginner skills and maybe even like a cool pump track and some other things in there. So, um, I think this is a good direction, and now it's our job to increase revenue so that we can take care of building something like this.

Speaker B: I think this is a great plan. I actually used to live right next to this park, and I'm having PTSD remembering an experience I had going off one of those ramps, jumps. I was in my 30s.

Speaker H: Yeah, you forgot how old you were.

Speaker B: Thought I was 18. The materials that— when this gets revitalized, I mean, a lot of those components are made out of wood, and they've obviously dilapidated. They get rained on.

Speaker A: They're outside.

Speaker B: You replace them with Trex, or are you proposing What kind of material in the $0.9 million to $1.4 million? Is that being considered or that would be adjusted? The jump line shown in red would be an asphalt jump line, which is about half of that cost, around, you know, $400,000 to $700,000. Okay. The reason is it's much more durable. The wood features would need to be replaced, and I think That you can still keep those in certain parts, but they are less durable. So, you know, something to consider.

Speaker A: Okay.

Speaker B: My thought, we have funds, I mean, from the utility cell that exists today that we have not used. When I think about the mountain bike trails, it's a big part of our city's culture. There are people that— high schools that come here. I, like you, Brett, I don't personally mountain bike, but I know it's pretty popular within our city, and it's attractive to maintain and build these out. So I'd be supportive, whether it's RAP tax or funds from the utility cell, to look at revitalizing some of these trailheads and get them back in repair where they should be.

Speaker A: And that kind of touched on a question that I had, just as a question, as, uh, one of the recommendations was just removal of some of those Obstacles, we'll call them. I think they were mostly built by a private citizen, if I'm not mistaken. I don't remember completely, but I'd hate to just see that thrown away if those same people might want to participate and preserve. It's a lot easier to fix than it is to build starting from scratch. So I don't know the condition. I'm not out there either, but I would. I would. But are they fixable? You know, I mean, some—

Speaker D: The wood's pretty degraded to the point where I would start fresh with some of the obstacles.

Speaker A: Well, I guess what I'm getting at is, have those people that put their own time and money into that been approached about making them safe? I guess.

Speaker D: I guess too, the other thing is I don't think we could keep those people from being involved. They're still super involved. And I think they're invested in making it better. And I agree with you, Mayor, we should be reaching out to them and inviting them to be a part of the rehabilitation process.

Speaker A: Yeah, before we just throw it away is kind of what I'm saying, is that they've been contacted. That's all.

Speaker G: So what's the possibility of volunteerism to help with some of these projects where we could just knock some of these projects one by— projects out one by one?

Speaker A: The Lake Mountain Trails Association is very interested in continuing to be involved in these trails in that area. The private citizens that the mayor was talking about, from what I recall, was basically Cougar Hall and Darren Garrett were the first people involved in creating that. They lived in that neighborhood. I think they're both still there. I'm not positive, but we can certainly reach out to them. I think that's a great idea and include them. Thank you. In the next step of of a more detailed design, the wood features I think was the concern was there are some that are just hazards safety hazards that we need to either remove or flag off or something fence off. But yeah, if there are some that can be rebuilt, the Firefly if you haven't seen those trails in Firefly, the downhill trails. They got a professional group to come in and build wood features and jumps. I actually don't know if they're all wood or if there's— they're like a Trex material. I haven't looked at them up close enough, but they're more professionally built, and that's what we would want here for sure.

Speaker F: Something—

Speaker A: better materials or something that we can easily maintain. And I apologize, Councilmember Whiting, your question was?

Speaker G: Just volunteerism to help with this, because it seems like we have a community that can rally together. When I lived in West Jordan, we built a huge city park through volunteerism. Like, I think businesses supplied the materials, and we had a few hundred people out there building, actually building the park and the different features in it to save money for the city.

Speaker A: I think that's a great idea, and I think we could—

Speaker D: we definitely have enough people involved in mountain biking here that we could I also think we have a lot of construction that's taking place, and almost all of those construction companies look for service opportunities to do stuff. So I could see some of them volunteering to help be the manpower for some of those projects too.

Speaker A: And there are certain aspects of this we definitely want a professional company to build, and there are others that we could bring in volunteers and do some work here.

Speaker H: I want to know if Zach the thinks he's got the technical skills to do the jump thing than the asphalt builder. You got that?

Speaker B: Um, yeah, we can make recommendations.

Speaker C: He's like, no.

Speaker B: So are we looking for some action? What, what's our next step?

Speaker A: Like, tonight is just a presentation to get your feedback, and Cameron and his crew are making last modifications to the plan, and then we'll bring this back for official approval at the next meeting if, if we can.

Speaker C: So can we, can we change the name of Mid Valley Road to the Lake Mountain Corridor so that that's officially in there correctly?

Speaker A: Yeah, that's in our comments already.

Speaker F: Yep.

Speaker B: Yeah, there's also a Crown Ridge.

Speaker C: And on the steering committee, there's the, the last name— I don't have it up in front of me anymore, but the last name, it's, it's— well, no, the last name is Zach Hilton twice. And I think it's meant to be Andrew someone.

Speaker A: Yes.

Speaker C: Okay, I just want to make sure that correction gets made.

Speaker B: I think Todd's also listed on there too. Oh, okay.

Speaker A: If you have any other, uh, any other comments or feedback, get those to me in the next few days, and then otherwise we'll plan on bringing this back. And appreciate your, your time. Thank you, Cameron.

Speaker D: Thank you.

Speaker A: Okay, thank you. Great progress there. We'll move on to item 1E, the first amendment to the Briley Farms Phase B development agreement. And I believe Stephen Lempse—

Speaker C: Mayor, can I ask one quick question? Steve Mumford, this question's for you. Who funded that last presentation? Who put the money towards that research?

Speaker A: It was that off-street master plan was UDOT technical planning assistance.

Speaker C: And so, so they, they gave us some funding to do that.

Speaker A: They gave us about $50,000 for that.

Speaker C: And then, I, I mean, I just want to send a public thank you to them for allowing us to do it. I think that's super helpful for our community.

Speaker A: We will, we will be bringing back, uh, a, uh, in the next budget amendment, probably a couple thousand just to—

Speaker C: Steve, you ruined it.

Speaker F: I know, I know.

Speaker A: So our match, our match was about $2,000, I guess, and then, uh, UDOT put in $50,000.

Speaker C: I just, I just wanted to make sure that we thank them publicly for their— for those resources, because I see that as a real benefit to our community.

Speaker G: All right, so we wanted to, to bring this to you as a discussion before it comes back for a motion. We recently got this application that the builders, home builders for the that's building the Briley Townhomes. It's Phase B of the Briley project. We've come back requesting that they change what was the stipulation in their development agreement that they had 40 of their townhomes have at least garages that were at least 600 square feet. If you recall, those are pretty much double-deep garages, or at least an extra 10 feet on the back, so you could tandem park if you have shorter cars.

Speaker B: Yes.

Speaker G: That was a stipulation, I believe, that the city council specifically asked for in that development agreement. So their request now is they don't feel like they're moving those units as fast as the 2-story ones with smaller garages, because people would rather have the storage in an unfinished basement or be able to use an unfinished basement rather than having a larger garage. So they request that they can reduce that number to 20 units, which I believe have already all been built.

Speaker H: Yes.

Speaker G: And so basically they'd be done building those 3-story units and move completely to 2-story townhome units.

Speaker A: So that's my—

Speaker G: I guess I could flip through this. This is the project as of May 8th. You can see, I think the 3-story ones are all right here. So there's been 4. I think they're all 5-plex, and there may be one coming down here. So you can see, yeah.

Speaker F: So here's—

Speaker G: Oh, it's right here. So 5 of the 4 units will all have the 3 stories. They were planning to do more, so these would change to now the 2-story units. So you see, this is what the original, um, permit was. What they'd be changing here is highlighted in yellow. Or that's— no, sorry, this was the current, um—

Speaker H: 2-story.

Speaker B: Yes.

Speaker G: And then their proposal. So the top one is their narrative, what they wrote, and then the bottom one is what the change in the agreement would be.

Speaker H: So are you saying that the 2 stories actually are a larger unit than the 3 stories are?

Speaker G: They're saying they have a larger footprint. I couldn't speak to the square footage of them.

Speaker A: Yes.

Speaker B: They are. I think under the original plan, the 2-story— the 3-story units— sorry, the 2-story units weren't going to have a basement, but now they do have a basement. So the total square footage is larger even though the finished square footage is smaller.

Speaker H: So these are actually larger units than the 3 stories are?

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker G: And the applicant's here if you wanted to talk to them. They can verify that. So really, they just— they want feedback on whether this is something that we want to take to public meetings if that's— if the council has interest in changing this agreement.

Speaker A: Rich, just as a question, because I'm trying to remember, I know I was involved in this. The one of the things when we stipulated with the state the 22-foot garages and then they came back said we couldn't, one of the things we put in here specifically was 600 square feet because of that. I'm just trying to rack my brain and this one says, well, it still has a 2-car garage. But it's not stipulating the size.

Speaker H: And I think it actually goes further than that. I think this is part of their coming back. This is the new group that bought from, from the original developer, didn't realize that they hadn't done their due diligence correctly and had some entitlements that were no longer available to them. And so this was the trade-off. So I think that's one of the things to remember. They're renegotiating the trade-off that we gave to them because they didn't do their due diligence.

Speaker C: My recollection is it was a granting of the extension of those rights, and this was what we negotiated in there as the upside, right? And so now the request is to come back and say, okay, we know we negotiated this with you, but they're not being received as well as we'd like them to. We have something else that's being received in a better way, and the ask is, would we be willing to remove those requirements? That's how I'm reading it.

Speaker H: So question number 1 for me is, what's the size of the garage in the 2-story? Or are they looking to get rid of it altogether?

Speaker A: It's 2-car.

Speaker H: Well, that, that's open to interpretation. I'd like to know what the square footage is.

Speaker B: The garage is about 425 square feet, roughly.

Speaker H: So we've dropped it down 175 square feet.

Speaker B: Yeah, so that's the standard. The larger ones were the 600, and those are the large ones, and The rate, the standard one's about $425.

Speaker C: Okay.

Speaker H: So I'm just going to state my issue with this from the beginning. I think I was one of the people that fought for the 600 square feet. This won't be a new argument for you. The smaller you go with the garage, then we're pushing them outside of the garage onto the driveways and into the street. That's the whole purpose of getting a garage that fits cars. In Eagle Mountain, We had Steve do a copious study of the amount of— the types of cars that were being used in Eagle Mountain, what their dimensions were, when we came up with this plan to try to help our parking problems on the streets that were making them unsafe. So I'm a little— I understand why you want it. You're not selling the other ones. I think this is probably a more appealing product. On the flip side of that, I'm not interested in pushing cars back out in front of houses and out onto the street again. So I'm struggling with that.

Speaker D: Do we know, is there an HOA that prohibits a certain amount of parking on the street? Is that already addressed, or is that— do we know anything about this neighborhood?

Speaker B: I believe the roads are, you know, obviously within the private roads, there should be an HOA. There is an HOA on the private roads. The HOA could do that. Any public roads, it would be the city could just put up signage.

Speaker A: Being private roads, are they built to the same city standard?

Speaker B: I don't recall offhand whether there are any private roads, but if there are, they would be required to be built to city standards.

Speaker H: Steven, would you bring back up that map that shows all the lots, please? Can you make that bigger by chance?

Speaker B: Okay.

Speaker H: 3 is where we're looking at right now, is that correct? Everything in red?

Speaker G: Yes, so these ones, the number 3s, what you're looking at?

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker G: So these number 3s in blue here, the light blue, those have been constructed. So we're really talking about these buildings right here.

Speaker H: Oh, in the dark blue area, okay. Is this going to reduce the number of units if they're bigger?

Speaker A: No, I don't think so.

Speaker G: I think the only difference is the 2-story ones are a little— they're a little longer.

Speaker A: 42.25 feet deep rather than 38.

Speaker H: So less of a backyard or pad or whatever.

Speaker A: If you want to step up to the mic so we can hear, happy to address some questions to the applicant.

Speaker B: My name is Greg Wall with Landex Development, and I, if it's okay, I think I can answer a lot of the questions. I've prepared just a PDF to go through. Would that be okay, or I could— does that work?

Speaker A: It should already be on this because Steven was plugged in. So are you plugged into the— okay.

Speaker H: Yeah, this one's a little easier to read.

Speaker B: OK, so the— just as a point of clarification on the due diligence, the original developer entitled all 162 lots in the Towns at Reilly Farms. And when we put the, the last 2 plats, which is 58 units and 55 units, under contract, we did our due diligence. And found out that their development agreement had expired. So in order for us to be able to purchase the lots, we needed to renew or reinstate the development agreement. And that was the time when the provision was added to the development agreement that said there would be at least 40 units with a garage that has a minimum size of 600 square feet. And so this, the blue 2s shows the 2-story units. that were planned, and then the red 3s showed the 3-story units that were planned. And as of now, we've started 97 of those units. So that's the 4 3-story ones here, the last 4 lots in Plat 2, which is the orange. And we've built all 4 of these fourplexes, so those 16 units in the light blue, which is Plat 3. And, um, As we've taken those to market, we've found that the interest seems to be in the, the 2-story townhomes more than the 3-story. And I've got, um, kind of the, the details of both of them. The inside of both of them are the same. It's the same materials. They're both very nice. And we'd invite you— they, they have a furnished and staged, uh, 2-story model there and a furnished and staged 3-story model. But on the 3-story townhomes, if you look at the garage, it's the area shaded pink. Their requirement was a minimum of 600 square feet, and that garage is 719 square feet. So it basically takes up the entire bottom floor. The lot is 38 feet deep by 26 feet wide. On the 2-story townhomes, they originally were planned without a basement, but as we looked at the soil conditions and everything, we realized we could do a basement and there was demand for it. So we added an unfinished basement to those 2-story units. That's 520 square feet. The garage area that's shaded pink is 427. And so when you look at that area together, the 520 plus the 427, you have 947 square feet of area for storage and cars in the 2-story as opposed to 719 square feet in the 3-story because there is no basement. And if you look at the overall square footage of both the finished area and the garage, they're very similar in size, 2,412 to 2,475. And we didn't have any intention of coming back and asking to switch from the 40, but The market has received the 2 stories a lot better, and it kind of makes sense. The cost price point of the 2-story is about $15,000 less than the 3-story. And in the— that paragraph of the development agreement, it said we wanted to target attainability and the larger— the 600 minimum square foot garage for storage. And And we think that with that unfinished basement space, we've provided area for storage and kind of accomplished the intent of what we were doing before. But the one of the things I wanted to bring up is that it will, since the lots are 4.25 feet deeper, they're the same width. It would take a little bit of the open space away. But before we had 0.89 acres extra. Of open space over the requirement. And with this, we'd have about 2,984 fewer square feet of open space, but we'd still have 0.82 acres more than what is required. And so that's, that's what our, our ask is. We've built 20 of those, uh, 3-story units with the larger garages that just, uh, the people who have come to look at them have, have not gravitated toward those as much as the, the 2-story ones. And so I'm happy to answer any questions. I hope that answered some of them, and I can go show you any of the floor plans if you would like to see those in more detail.

Speaker G: Greg, it's good to see you. Yeah, Greg and I have known each other for a long time. And anyway, welcome. I just had a couple quick questions. So as I'm looking on the MLS and looking at what's for sale, I see that you have a 3-story that's listed as 2,200 square feet, 2,201. And I don't know if that's just a typo by your listing agent, but that's—

Speaker B: So I know that there are, of the 2-story townhomes, there's 4 kind of models. And I think this is kind of the standard floor plan, but it's possible there's a finished basement on one of the 2 stories.

Speaker G: Yes, yeah, this is a 3-story that's 2,201. It shows it has a So none of this—

Speaker B: okay, yeah, that could have been in Plat 1 or Plat 2.

Speaker G: Okay, it shows active on the MLS.

Speaker B: Yeah, and they still have not sold all of their—

Speaker G: Okay, so that's a different builder.

Speaker B: In Plat 1 and Plat 2.

Speaker G: Okay, and then I'm also seeing— so the, the 1,756 square feet, I'm seeing priced right now at $379,900, which is— so I'm seeing that the the 3-story is priced $10,000 below the 2-story is what I'm seeing on the MLS.

Speaker B: Um, I, I can probably refer to the, the sales agent or the sales manager. Um, he would know better on that.

Speaker C: So Taylor Keys with the Element, uh, sales manager. sitting home we have. So it's been finished for some time.

Speaker B: So just market conditions, we're trying to get them moved.

Speaker A: But, but typically, if you look from a cost perspective and from everything, even still with coming the prices in line with the 2 stories, 2 stories is a preferable unit.

Speaker B: Thanks, Cedar.

Speaker G: I had a question for— and this is probably a staff question. I thought I was on Planning Commission when I think this one came through, and I think one of the things that the council put on there to revive this development agreement was an owner occupancy restriction.

Speaker B: Is that true? That is correct, and we updated the CC&Rs of the homeowners association to reflect that agreement. Okay.

Speaker A: Is that only reflected in the HOA, or is it a deed restriction as well?

Speaker B: It's part of the homeowners association CC&Rs, and when a new home is sold, it's disclosed. It's part of the package for the buyer.

Speaker G: It's reported.

Speaker E: But if—

Speaker A: I'm just saying, if— I don't remember it being that way. If the HOA was dissolved, Would that restriction?

Speaker D: Yeah.

Speaker A: Any other questions? Anything else? Feedback? Any?

Speaker G: I'm probably going to recuse myself from the from any more feedback. I just had some initial questions only because I did a small consulting project for the applicant about a year ago, and I've known the presenter for a very long time. We've had a Done a real estate transaction also together, so I'll probably recuse myself.

Speaker B: So yeah, Craig and I were in the same master's program, and he gave us a broker opinion of value that I think was $200. So that, that's honest.

Speaker C: Good job, Craig.

Speaker B: But one other thing I wanted to bring up just for discussion. As I was reading through the development agreement, I noticed one other item that I wanted to discuss. It's Section 4.4, and that highlighted part says developer shall complete all open space parks and trails for Plat 4 prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for that phase. And this is an aerial photo from May. All the trails in the whole development are done. The pickleball courts are done, and the amenities with the playground are done. But as far as the open space I was looking at it kind of from a sequencing perspective on the construction, and this is the landscaping plan for Plat 4, and I shaded the grass areas green. And in order to put all the grass in before the exteriors on the buildings are done, you'd have to build 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9— about 9 townhome buildings at once because there has to be forklifts that go behind the buildings and scaffolding that go up. And anyway, we wanted to see if we could change the wording on that just to give us enough time after the scaffolding's down to get the grass in without having to try and build the buildings with the grass in place.

Speaker A: What about a bond instead? Is it— would it be a way to ensure that that happens with a bond?

Speaker D: I like that idea because that's what we've done with other developers who've had something.

Speaker B: We'd be happy to do that or agree to a time frame It's just looking at the logistics of building that, that would be really hard to do with the grass there.

Speaker D: It's a total reasonable request. Thank you.

Speaker I: Bond?

Speaker H: I don't have a problem with a bond. I was gonna suggest that too. I think that the main thing is that when you start building them and they're completed, we're gonna want you to start getting after those. It's just a lot of— I mean, it's like contracts. You know, you get boilerplate from experience. You get experience, you get to experience our experience of people not doing what they said they would do. And so we start adding things in to make sure that they're happening going forward. So sure, I think that's the intent, is to make sure they're done.

Speaker B: Yeah, I was on a planning commission for 4 years, so I wasn't in your legislative seats, but I kind of saw that too. But if you got there and look at it, and I would encourage you that it's open from 10 to 6, you can go look at the inside of the homes. And they're very nice, and we landscape them as we go.

Speaker H: It helps them sell as well.

Speaker B: No one wants to have a muddy yard instead of a grassy or landscaped yard. So thank you on that.

Speaker A: So I'm seeing some movement on the park requirement there, the open space at least.

Speaker C: I'm not sure that I feel like the other asks of What's, what's, what's the footprint of the 2-car garage in the 2-story? I mean, it's 426 feet. What size is it?

Speaker B: Yeah, so, um, one other item I wanted to make sure everyone was aware— these are our full-length driveways. They're 20 feet long, and every unit has a 20-foot-long driveway. So there's 2 off-street parking in the driveway, plus every unit has a 2-car garage, so 2 additional—

Speaker H: so 4 total for What's the dimension of your 2-car garage? Width and depth.

Speaker B: Let me get to that one. So the, the 2, the 2-car garage in the 3-story is, uh, 719 square feet.

Speaker H: What's the width and length of it is what we're looking at. We want to know the cars are going to fit.

Speaker B: So the— it's not dimensioned here, but the lot is, uh, 38 feet deep and 26 feet wide. So this entry to the stairs, I would imagine, is probably 4 feet wide, maybe 5. So I would say 22 or 23 feet wide by 38 feet deep on the 3-story ones.

Speaker G: That's the 3-story. Yeah, what about on the 2-story?

Speaker B: On the 2-story ones, the— it's the same width. So I would, I would guess that that hallway is the same width so that The width would be around 22-ish feet wide. The footprint of the 2-story is 42.25 feet deep, so it's 4.25 feet deeper than the 3-story, but there's a family room. And so this looks to me to be approximately square, so I'm guessing around 21 or 22 feet.

Speaker H: That's about a 3-foot staircase.

Speaker C: Yes.

Speaker H: It's going to come off that. The square footage it's showing in the pink shaded area is So really we're looking at 19 feet when you put the staircase in there, which is why we made that comp—

Speaker B: No, no, the staircase is on the other side of the wall. Oh, and oh, you're talking about the steps up?

Speaker H: Yeah.

Speaker B: So we designed all of these. We had our civil engineer go through and we had to change the grading on it. So no driveway is more than 6% slope, and it makes it so we don't have to have as many steps up.

Speaker C: Into—

Speaker B: from the garage floor into the—

Speaker H: Are all of them going straight in or any of them sideways? Because if it has a landing, it's 3 feet.

Speaker A: There's no landing.

Speaker B: There's no landing.

Speaker A: It's a 19-foot—

Speaker G: So you were thinking the width is 22?

Speaker B: Based on the square footage, it's probably 21.

Speaker G: Okay, because— oh, 21. So just take 427 Divided by 21, right?

Speaker B: Yeah, 0.2727 is probably pretty close. I don't know if it's exactly square.

Speaker C: But I guess the concern that I have— I mean, Councilmember Wood was headed in that direction— by the time you add a step or 2, you're taking away 18 inches or 24 inches of the depth. Now suddenly you don't have a 20 or 21-foot garage, you have a 19 or an 18-foot deep garage. And so you become pretty limited in what you can fit in there vehicularly.

Speaker I: My daughter had—

Speaker C: lives in a townhome in another part of the city, and I won't impugn that developer, but it's a 2-car garage, but it's really a 1-car garage with a staircase that impedes the other side from being used for a car.

Speaker D: Mm-hmm.

Speaker C: And so that's part of the calculus that we're using in making sure that these are— that there's utility to the 600-square-foot garage. So for me, I'm going to really wrestle to get there with you. I understand the ask. I think I'm going to ask for some patience with the community at large and hope that there will be people that will come along and value those garages and you'll be able to sell them and move them. But I don't know where everyone else is going to fall.

Speaker H: Yeah, I'm going to tell you I'm in that same place. The reason that we put that in place is experience, and we want to give people adequate places because the reality of it is people who are buying the homes in Eagle Mountain have families.

Speaker F: Yes.

Speaker H: There are a small number of people that are, are not bringing 4 people into the home, but that's not, that's not the case in most cases. Most cases we're bringing in at least 4 people into the home, which equates to 2 cars almost every time. And as a result of that, we want to make sure the cars can be parked in the garage, then they can get out of their cars. So we designed that whole scenario around if they pull in the garage in the wintertime, Can they get out of the car, or does everybody in the car have to get out in the snow so they can park the car? We want to do things that make living easy for people and make it available for them to stay. So for me, I think the reason we put those things in place, I still stand by those. If they weren't good then, they— I mean, I wouldn't have put them in place if I didn't think they were good at the time.

Speaker B: I'm comfortable So just so I understand, it's less about the square footage of storage in the garage, it's—

Speaker H: It's about being able to open your door and get out of the car with the family and go inside the house with another car parked in there.

Speaker A: I think most SUVs and stuff are longer, like say when you add those stairs. So I have a question real quick that might help this move along, if it's even possible. Can you, uh, go to the Open space. When you say these lots are 38 feet or 42 feet, I'm forgetting now what you just said.

Speaker B: So all the lots are the same width. The ones that were planned to be 3-story lots are 38 feet deep. The ones that are planned to be 2-story lots are 42.25 feet deep.

Speaker A: What it looks like to me, and this is what my question was, or if this helps the council, because if garage, which is really what the concern has been from the beginning, if you moved each one of those buildings back into that open space area 2 more feet and added 2 feet into the garage, for instance, you still said— you showed a minute ago that your open space requirement was still met. It would make the garage just a touch bigger.

Speaker D: Yes.

Speaker A: Yeah, you still had that 0.82 buffer there.

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker A: Would it be possible to make that garage just a touch bigger to meet the requirement and still fit all the other asks? Then, then would that— if that garage met the, the rest by adjusting it, you still got to have the 20-foot setback, all those things. Would that, uh, answer the concern? Or is there other things that we're still working on? I'm just wondering if we can position those to make the garage bigger without affecting the unit itself, because you'd basically be adding 2 feet to the front of the garage by pushing the house back. Do you understand what I'm telling you?

Speaker F: Yes.

Speaker B: So potentially, I mean, we'd have to rip out the new trail we just put in and maybe regrade the detention basin, but—

Speaker A: That's why I was trying— isn't there enough room there, like 2 feet? I mean, it's not—

Speaker B: So remember, this is 38, so we need 4.25, and then you're asking for 2 more, so 6.25 feet would—

Speaker A: It'd be too— I'm just trying to figure out if there was a solution there, and maybe there isn't, but is that the main concern, or is there more than that?

Speaker H: I'm pretty staunch on keeping the 600 square feet, personally.

Speaker A: And that's why I was wondering if that would get us to the 600 square feet by doing something of that nature.

Speaker B: But that'd get us close, I believe. Are trash cans going inside the garage, or—

Speaker A: Yeah.

Speaker B: They need to go inside, right?

Speaker D: There's no other place to put them. I mean, because all they own is like the footprint. Yeah.

Speaker F: Uh-huh.

Speaker G: Yeah.

Speaker B: It's got trash cans, 2 cars.

Speaker D: I will say that in the 3-story one, Having the additional parking, or not parking, the additional garage storage is nice because one of the things that you run into, and I've heard all of us talk about this, is like there's strollers, there's trash cans, there's like all of that stuff in these like starter family homes. It's definitely an issue and they don't have any other place to put a stroller.

Speaker B: See, that's one of the interesting things that we've gleaned from the buyers who have come through. They prefer the basement storage space because it's conditioned. It doesn't get super hot in the summer and super cold and dusty. And so they, they've said that their preference is to have that additional storage space in their basement, and they actually have more storage space than they would with a 3-story.

Speaker A: Well, I think we've got to move along, so I want to know Uh, it, it sounds like 600 square feet is going to be a sticking point. Um, I—

Speaker B: Yeah, I, I agree. When, when you've got really tight car space, getting a car seat in and out of a back of a car, it's challenging. In the wintertime, moms opening up the door on a slippery driveway, and if you really can't fit both cars in, one of the cars is going to end up in the driveway and you end up with oil stains or over time, you know. So we have neighborhoods like that that have tight garages.

Speaker A: To be clear, 2-story versus 3-story isn't as much the issue, even though that's what's in— it's about the 600 square feet. So whether it's a suspended floor, I mean, I know that might add cost, but—

Speaker C: Mayor, I'll say this, because I think from my perspective it's really about the utility of the garage. And I think when you get into those smaller— here's what happens. I think when you sell a product like this, you're, you're really trying to get someone into the entry-level housing market.

Speaker B: Yes.

Speaker C: And so we get a lot of young families. They are pretty inexperienced in the purchasing process. They come in, they expect a 2-car garage to facilitate their needs of 2 cars, and regularly it doesn't. And it's because there have been some encroachments into that garage with stairs in particular. That's what I've seen probably the most egregious impact. And the garage starts really small to begin with. They're 18 by 18 or 18 by 19 or 19 by 19, even 20 by 20. When you do that and then you try to put a couple of garbage cans in, park 2 cars side by side with a 16-foot door, you really start to impact the utility of that space. And unless you have a short car, a small sedan, anything minivan or above, you start to get in trouble being able to park it inside. And so you don't. And you put it out on the street or you put it in the driveway, and as soon as you have anybody else that comes over to participate or to a party or family gathering, suddenly you have 1 or 2 more cars that you're dealing with. I know that you have some visitor parking. I'm sure that you have that in the development. Yeah, we do. I just— that's the— I mean, you probably don't really understand or maybe even appreciate the reason why we've pushed in this direction. Those are the reasons at least that I have felt like this is something that's worthy of hanging on to, and I just— I'm going to have a really hard time with much flexibility on that. Me personally. The rest of the council will tell you what they decide, and if they decide to go a different direction, then that's what the council will decide.

Speaker D: I think it's really easy too for people to get upset and say, like, why is the council being such sticklers about this? But the reality of it is we look at the stability of a neighborhood. We want each neighborhood to have people who wanna live there. And if they can't park their car in certain places and they can't do all of those things, people only live there for 2, 3, 4 years and then they're gone. And then when you have a neighborhood that's like transitory like that, where it's constantly changing, they lose the pride in their neighborhood. Like it just, and we see it because we have enough neighborhoods in Eagle Mountain that we've seen that trajectory and what happens. Yeah. So it's more about making sure that this has really good staying power as a neighborhood and stability than just garage space. But the garage space is a key indicator that we've determined as we've gone through stuff. I also think it's really neat that you're looking at the market and saying the 3 stories just aren't cutting it, people don't want them, and being agile enough to come and propose something different. I hope that there's a small enough tweak that you can make to the floor plan to be able to get it to where it needs to be, because I think that it could be a very beautiful neighborhood if we can get those things in place.

Speaker B: So I, I think it is a very beautiful neighborhood, and I would again invite all you guys to go look at it. I think you'll be surprised. It looks on the inside more like a parade home than a townhome.

Speaker H: I don't think that's in question. I mean, I've been to your neighborhood. I don't think that's the issue. The issue is about usable space inside. You already know where I'm going to go. I'm a real estate agent also, by the way.

Speaker B: What's that?

Speaker H: I'm a real estate agent also. When you have 3 stories, it's smaller. That's just the reality of it. When you do a 2-story, generally you have a bigger footprint. In this case, bigger footprint, we lost our garage in the process of doing that. And we've worked pretty hard to make our garage spaces usable. It's a fight that we've been fighting everywhere, including at the state to make it so that a 2-car garage actually fits the cars that people are driving, not a compact car and the minivan, because they can't put an SUV in there or a truck. And our city drives trucks and SUVs.

Speaker A: Yep.

Speaker H: Uh, that's what we found as we went and did the research. And so we, we've tried to accommodate that to make it so that people can stay where they buy. Um, and it's not that we hate your product, It's just that we feel pretty strongly about the garage as being a usable garage for our residents, and that's where our standard, as far as this council goes, is.

Speaker B: Okay, well, I appreciate the feedback and the input. We'll look and see what the options could potentially be.

Speaker C: The landscaping, I think we're open to considering that adjustment. So I mean, at least bring that back to us.

Speaker B: Okay, very good. Okay, thank you.

Speaker A: Okay, thank you. Was there anything else, Steven, on that one, or are we good?

Speaker I: Okay.

Speaker A: All right, if we're, uh, okay on that one, we do need to move on. And the next item is, uh, the city manager information for the council. Do you have some council updates? Um, I don't have a lot to report other than just, uh, a great thanks to the community at large for the water and their support as we've been, uh, having 2 wells that were down. Now we have one of those 2 wells back up. We're still working to bring another one back up, and then an additional one will be coming on— a brand new well will be coming online in the weeks ahead. So we definitely appreciate the public, and we also appreciate the public's respect to— and, you know, with when it comes to the fireworks and the fire conditions that we had this year, I think we had a great event. Our staff really came together at all levels to have a great fireworks event. And I know our council really came together to help communicate everything with regard to the fireworks and the water situation. So—

Speaker I: Hey Ben, I just would—

Speaker H: one thing for that. I want you to know that's being raved way outside of our city. I've had people reaching out to me that don't live in our city, never have lived here, that came to the fireworks show 'cause there weren't a lot of choices. And I mean, I've heard comparisons to the old Sugar House.

Speaker A: Fireworks show.

Speaker H: That's a big deal. So congratulations to our staff for putting together that great event. We're well known for that now. I think that's something that's going to be great in the future for us too. So good job.

Speaker F: This—

Speaker A: and this is just a caveat on that too— the economic impact of people that come here and spend money because of what we paid to have that show, I think the dividends were definitely shown, and I know Abby did a report on that with cell phone data. But it's, you know, we wrestle a little bit with whether to put a little bit more money into that show and then restrict the other fireworks. So I think it paid off is what I'm getting at. That was awesome. And I totally agree with that because I think a great addition that Donna and crew made this year was to include the farmers market at night. I think that was really popular, and I think they really did a good job and made, made money. And those are local businesses, you know.

Speaker D: So, and the businesses were running out of food. The food trucks that came, the lines were long. It needed—

Speaker B: yeah.

Speaker A: So lessons for next year, right? Bring more food. And then, of course, all of our crews are busy with projects all over town, construction and whatnot. Everybody is working at the max right now. So I just want to extend appreciation. And, and they still yet make time to come in early for, for leadership training classes and different things like that, to go above and beyond just to be able to provide good services to the residents. And then lastly, my daughter's coming back after being gone for 18 months down in Texas, and so I'll be off the next 2 days. But if you need to get a hold of me, I will be in town. So. Okay, now just We've got a few more minutes. We need to get through this consent agenda. So first item is we do have— and I might— I've been wrestling with how to do this to be more efficient. So I might do item 9A first and then 8A, which is— so 9A is a proclamation becoming a believer city. And I was going to ask, so we got to read this proclamation. Do you want to volunteer to read this for me?

Speaker B: Sure. Do it like you said, regularly.

Speaker A: Yeah, I'm just talking about the way I'm gonna do it in the next meeting. So you'll read that and then we'll do the other recognition from the Rotary Club, which is minor, but I'm trying to make it to where we can do this all at once. So we'll do those 2 things. Then the appointments, 10A, first one was Jesse Call for 1 year and then Angelina for 1 year as well. I don't think there's any questions on there. Um, then, so on to the consent agenda. The 13A is Parkway Fields Phase B out of warranty. Stop me if you have questions. 14A is, uh, minutes, the regular minutes from June 16th. 15A we've already covered. I don't suppose there's anything new.

Speaker G: And so do we need to clarify that there will be 2 meetings per year on the— do we need to clarify—

Speaker A: For the motion?

Speaker G: For the motion on that instead of— because it just said 2 meetings on the contract.

Speaker B: Um, yeah, 2 meetings per year, you know, and then if you want to specify the times, then do that.

Speaker H: Can we put the specific time frames in there so that they're coming right before the legislative sessions. If— does anybody disagree with that? Marcus, if you could work that out in there, that they come right before those. I think that's all the language needs to say, before the legislative session and the midterm, the mid-year one.

Speaker A: Well, I think that I would even— we said it before, but that he would be amicable in other meetings as requested.

Speaker H: Yeah, I think that's a good idea. Because then 2 set ones and then to be available at the council's request. Does anybody else disagree with that?

Speaker I: Do you want his name in the contract?

Speaker H: And his name in the contract so we know Dave is the one going and doing the work for us.

Speaker A: Okay. Okay, so as long as we've got those notes, 15B was a resolution approving the medium park in Overland Village 2 Phase B. David Stroud has that one. Is there questions? Do we need to work on that one?

Speaker H: Nope.

Speaker A: Easy. Um, 15C, a resolution of Eagle Mountain approving the first amendment to a water tank reimbursement agreement for White Hills Water Company. Um, this is Marcus. If there's no questions, perfect. That's an easy one. Uh, 15D, resolution of Eagle Mountain City approving the second amendment to Eagle Quest Master Development Agreement.

Speaker H: I wanna like, do we wanna talk about that now or do we wanna take it off and talk about it in regular session since we don't have much time?

Speaker A: My thing would be is can we solve anything? If it's gonna come off anyway—

Speaker H: It's gonna be a longer discussion than 5 minutes.

Speaker B: I agree.

Speaker G: I agree, there's a lot of questions about it.

Speaker A: 15D.

Speaker H: I would, I'd like to take it off and we'll put it back on the policy and then we can deal with it there.

Speaker B: Agreed.

Speaker A: Okay, um, that's the consent agenda that we had to get through. Is there anything that we need to talk about that would make the next meeting easier on like 16A through 16E?

Speaker H: Uh, I think there's a long conversation for 16A. If you don't want to do that in the meeting, then we can maybe just give some guidance and have it come back. That's up to you, but I think there's some questions that I've heard, at least from a different, couple different council members, of seeing information we need.

Speaker A: Okay, so we're not gonna cover that right now.

Speaker D: Right.

Speaker A: 16B is a public hearing as well with the code land use tables, senior housing. That's, I think there's a lot to talk about there. How much time do we have? 10 minutes if we need it.

Speaker C: I'm just wondering, I mean, can we go back and look at 15D and just have a short discussion about that? I don't know if that needs to be a long or a short discussion, but I'm just looking for some clarification on that one from Marcus.

Speaker A: Sure, if we can get that one done, I'd rather do it now.

Speaker C: And so I'm wrestling with this one, Marcus. I'm just gonna state that. And, and my question is, um, what are the legal requirements. Are we legally required? Well, obviously we're not legally required to extend this, at least I think that's obvious.

Speaker B: Right, we have an agreement in place, so those have timelines where the benchmarks that the developer is required to meet. Due to extenuating circumstances, he's present, he can expand on that a little bit more. And they're not gonna be able to meet it, and that's why they're requesting extensions.

Speaker C: Maybe that's what we should hear is what are those extenuating circumstances? 'Cause I don't know that it's—

Speaker B: Well, he's present, so if Mr. Ostler wants to come forward and explain it.

Speaker C: Yeah, I don't know that it's super clear in what we got in the packet, except that there are some, and I'd like to kind of understand what they are.

Speaker A: So David, do you have the answers here? We're happy to invite the applicant up as well.

Speaker C: Mr. Ostler?

Speaker A: Okay. So the first question was this. I thought you had this one as well. So do you have— you might need to come up here as well. This one's Steven, I believe. Yeah, it's the Eagle Quest. Oh, so let me just briefly—

Speaker E: any comment on the park?

Speaker B: Or is it—

Speaker A: are we good on the consent on the park? Applicant's asking me if they need to— The park one's good. This one was the Eagle Quest question.

Speaker D: So—

Speaker C: Sorry, you probably thought I said B. D is what I said, David, the last one in that section.

Speaker G: Sorry, I knew you were—

Speaker A: no sweat. So we know the questions specifically right now is the reason for the delay, I guess, and I don't know if, Mr. Russell, if you want to address that.

Speaker C: Yeah, I might.

Speaker G: You might be better at that one than me.

Speaker D: Okay.

Speaker G: I don't want to make anything up.

Speaker F: No. So there's probably 3 reasons why the request. What's— where we've been held up, where we, you know, where we don't have control. That's really why the— if you look in your code, hey, where is it why we don't have control? One was when Sunset Flats went into bankruptcy. We didn't have control over that. We need to have those roads in Sunset Flats to be able to get to our property. Then Sunset Flats, as they're coming out, well, they then go into receivership. The bank then also then goes and goes through a merger. So now we're waiting on that bank to now go through disposal. The third thing we're needing to wait on is the SITLA agreement where there's a bypass road. We have to complete in our agreement the bypass road to go out on Aviator. And we're— that has not— we've talked with Ivory, we've talked with the SITLA. We understand the city's trying to negotiate to take care of the bypass road, but that also is delaying our development because that has not been, I believe, resolved on the city side and with SITLA. And so we're kind of— so there's things we don't control that is stopping us from being able to move forward. That's kind of the reason why we're asking for a second amendment.

Speaker C: Thank you.

Speaker F: Other questions?

Speaker H: I'm going to tell you, that makes zero sense to me. We entitled an MDA that was contingent on a different landowner building the roads for you to get access to your property? Is that what you're saying?

Speaker B: That's correct.

Speaker H: Marcus, is that true?

Speaker B: The agreement doesn't require that. The issue is, I think, more of a practical issue from the developer's perspective. Given that Sunset Flats was an entitled development where Sunset Flats developer would have to build certain roads, they were, as a practical matter, waiting for those roads to get built. And obviously, you heard what happened with Sunset Flats, and that caused those road extensions to delay getting built. So I don't think it's quite as simple as We entitled something that was contingent upon that. It's more of a practical consideration for the developer and just waiting for the neighboring development to finish the road.

Speaker H: I wasn't part of that decision, so I— there's no way I ever would have entitled that with that not clear. I mean, I would assume that if you're going to come in and get an entitlement, that you have a plan to go that doesn't depend on somebody else doing their stuff, because you have no control over their finances, you have no control over the temple that they are going to be building at. All you have control over is your own property, correct? So how, how are you not able to start your property without—

Speaker F: So we started the process when D.R. Horton started Sunset Flats. So we start meeting with the city with that process. D.R. Horton, my understanding, has had kind of the whole process. They decided not to move forward after a certain phase. You had Sunset Flats that's moving forward, so we understand they're moving forward with it. So we're coming through the entitlement process because we're the parcel next to it, and then they go into receivership. So we're, you know, we don't sign ours until 2023, which we thought they were coming out. We were talking to other developers that have been making offers on Sunset Flats. Then we hear now the bank, you After we've now went through, we hear the bank is going through a merger and they have to wait for all that merger to happen for— and I'm going, okay. Then we've went and met with Ivory on Aviator Avenue and they're agreeable to work with us, but they're saying, hey, we won't want to sign off on Aviator Avenue until the city gets their bypass road taken care of. Once again, that was a requirement of our MDA is to put in Aviator Road. Well, Citland and Ivory won't sign off on that until the bypass is done. I understand you guys have been working with them on a negotiation up there and all the Smith stuff that has— when you put the amendment together, it had to be worked out for that bypass road. And I don't know where that all sits. I'm just going, everything's been in play. It's all being talked about. So we're in the process going forward because it's all in play. And as it keeps going in play, it's— the pieces are not being completed as they're in play. I mean, we would have never thought thought as you come out of COVID that a development, the developer would, would go belly up. I mean, they had so many offers, we don't understand it, you know. But you do have a developer that sends up flats. Who would have thought the bank that takes receivership of it, it's not going to build, that they're going to go through a merger? I mean, it's going— our timing, we were just going through, we didn't sign this till 2023. So we're 3 years into this, you know, and here we are. Our MDA expires on July 24th, 2026. We don't dare move them forward because we have to have our MDA before a developer. You know, we're not— when you say developer, we're a landowner. We're not a developer. We're the landowner. We have to seek a developer to come in. We've been under contract with probably 3 different developers, but they can't move forward because of all these different processes. So it's not that we're not out there trying to market.

Speaker H: I know that you've been in our shoes somewhat when you were the mayor in Highland. Put yourself in our shoes. You're saying we're going to do it this time. This is now the second time for an extension. Why do we believe that it's going to go forward now? If you haven't got control of the development of your property, why do we believe that it's going to be different now?

Speaker F: So one is you got Sunset Flats now in. So I now have the access coming off from the south end of our parcel. The one thing I don't have control over that you guys have control is what gets resolved with SITLA with that bypass road. We didn't recognize that Sitla was going to hold that up. They're trying to use us as leverage to get you guys to get something done because they keep going, well, can you go talk to— to be honest, even your own staff, just I'm not trying to chuck your staff under, but your staff wanted us to go negotiate with Sitla, try to get Aviator in. You'll use the other leverage. And I'm going, okay, I agree. I don't control the Sitla situation. You guys have been meeting with them. You have a better idea where that's at. I think you are holding up Sitla. SITLA for the Smith situation, because I understand in that agreement that that doesn't— can't be finalized until that bypass road— you guys know where it's at. I don't think the public knows where that's all negotiation. I get it has to be behind closed doors, but, you know, so that's— you ask why, why we do the extension. I believe that you want Smith to come in, and that agreement will probably get put together somehow with that bypass road. And after that, that gets put together, then we can kind of Get it all taken care of.

Speaker H: Well, you're probably not going to love where I'm going to go with this. I think that if we're going to give an extension, that we want to have some discussions about some of your entitlements then.

Speaker F: And that's— and that— and then I appreciate that. I'm just going to—

Speaker H: I think— I mean, look, the reason that that code was written the way that it was is so that we have people come in that get their entitlements and get to work. We're fine giving entitlements to people, but our expectation is come in and build it. Where we have been a city that have allowed a lot of land entitlements for decades, and that doesn't serve the people of Eagle Mountain well. And so we wrote the code in place to say, yes, come get your entitlements, we'll work through that process, but get to work and get it built.

Speaker F: So I think as you— and we can talk through it— I think if you look at our development, we did work at the time, we were pretty flexible with the city going through. with what the land use was. We have some 1-acre lots. We buffer from different things. We have— I mean, I think we have a good mixture of lots. I don't know if you wouldn't still approve. I think that's the question you have to ask is going, if this development came in, would you still approve it? And if not, why— what would you want? Because I think that what we have as a product is still what should be approved in here in Eagle Mountain, and it probably still would be approved.

Speaker H: I can give you my opinion Only one person on the council. Some things have obviously changed because that area was never designed to be what it is now, and as a result, we now have our our city hall that's going in there, our downtown. We've put architectural restrictions in there so it has a specific look and feel to it. We press pretty hard with the commercial development that's coming in to abide by those same things.

Speaker G: For me.

Speaker H: I'm looking for those same things, that you become a partner in that area of building with architectural standards that are going to be— that will fit with what that area is so that we look intentional in that area. And when people come, that your product that your developer is going to come in and build looks like we intentionally did this, that the Lowe's and the Smith's, the downtown, the city hall, the library, any of the residences that are built around that look like this is an intentional idea that we wanted to create an environment for our downtown that was uniquely Eagle Mountain.

Speaker F: And I think, and I, you know, if you look, the neighbor to the north of us is going to have a lot higher density than what we have. You know, that's, that's what's your plan. And so I'm going, okay, so if that's what you're kind of sharing is, hey, we want to have a density situation.

Speaker H: I notice I didn't say density.

Speaker F: I know, but I think we're low further away from your town center where our parcel's at than what—

Speaker H: I know where your parcel is.

Speaker F: That's why I'm just trying to— that's why I'm going, I'm not sure how close that— where you're trying to envision that. And that's something, but that's something to kind of look at.

Speaker H: Yeah, so that's my opinion. If I'm going to consider doing any adjustment to that and giving them more time, I think that we need to renegotiate some of the elements of the MDA.

Speaker F: Any other questions?

Speaker A: I think just for context of some of the new people, there were a lot of things that came out of this approval, or that this was one of the first after we approved the new zone code. And I remember one of the things that I really pushed on is under the residential code, there are 3 different things, and we were always asked for the very highest because that we never got The smaller or larger lots. So I said the words third, third, and third, meaning use all of those zones, not just always the biggest one. And what came back because of what I said was this. So if you want to know where I was at for context, and I know these two know because we worked really hard on this, that was not my intent. My intent is, would we approve this under that zone code? Why would it not all be the— what zone is it?

Speaker D: The—

Speaker A: not rural density, the residential 1.

Speaker H: R-1.

Speaker A: The R-1, rather than mostly R-3. But by land mass, that's where it landed, and it did get approval based on the fact that what I asked for was a little bit unclear, is land mass, not lot size. And my point was, is why not all R-1 instead of any of it. So would it get approved that way? Probably. I mean, the products— it's not a bad subdivision. My point was, is under the residential zoning, why would it not all be R-1? So I don't know. I don't know the answer to that, but that's up to these guys now. I changed seats.

Speaker D: I also think it's important, like, Sunset Flats was approved in either 2016 or 2017, and It took way longer than it should have. There were a lot of issues with it. So like, I do give him some credit for that. Like, there are things that are out of your control, and yet you're still going through the motions and executing the parts that you can do. So I'm— to me, it's a little different when a developer comes in or a landowner comes in and says that, and they've made meaningful progress and they're working through and having these meetings versus the ones that show up right before their thing expires and they haven't done a thing on it. So, and I also look at, this is a very unique chunk of land because it goes all the way up to like the stuff that's over by the, the bigger lots by Lake Mountain and stuff like that. And I just think that it would be really hard to get this to a point where we could approve it again. I think we're looking at 6 months to a year if we send them back to the drawing board. And I don't know that that's fair either. So, um, I'm willing to consider it. I think it would be good if there are specific things, Council Member Wood, that you want to negotiate in there, like throw them out so that like we can tackle them. But I don't want to just say sorry, no, because I feel like there has been effort made with this.

Speaker C: Maybe I could ask that question of the applicant, Mayor. Just, Mr. Oster, can you just speak to— it sounds like you've had meetings with different parties, but you're still the landowner and you haven't, at least yet, partnered with a development company.

Speaker I: You've had—

Speaker C: have you had a hard time getting someone to come in and help you?

Speaker F: Well, no, you're actually— your first amendment was actually Pulte Homes that was under contract with us that came in for— we didn't bring the first amendment. It was Pulte Homes that brought the First Amendment, that they extended it. Does that mean— so we actually had a developer that was coming in doing the extension to make sure they could get through that time, you know. And so Impolte is doing part of Sunset Flats, and we went, we saw, you know, you got Century Homes and Impolte Homes. We've talked with them. We've talked to D.R. Horton. I mean, we see who's actively there. That's who we've been talking with. We've talked with Lennar, you know. All of them have showed interest, you know. But we were actually under contract with Pulte when he— or last year when he did the extension. So that's why they did the extension. I mean, when you ask him, we've been active.

Speaker C: And you're no longer under contract with him, is that what I'm—

Speaker F: No, because we don't— we can't move forward. Meaning, some of it was the Bureau of Open Water. The water kind of changed some things because we've got to go and try to get that put together. But some of it's also, okay, Ivory has been friendly to us, meaning that they're talking. And I kind of thought, hey, this will get resolved as this gets moving forward.

Speaker C: Guys, can we keep the discussion up here so that we can hear, please?

Speaker F: So anyway, I appreciate it. But no, so we have been actively doing— I mean, we've met with the staff on different things when different roads, you know, projects have been going on. We've been actively showing up to your different meetings. It's not that we've been— I think some of the concern is you do have developers or landowners that come get entitlement and also they disappear. We haven't been one that's disappeared. We've been active. We've been here showing up. We— when Pulte was here, we were here. We just didn't have them do it. But Dave there with Pulte moved it forward. And so, I mean, we've been actively doing it. I think you can talk with your staff. We've been involved with your staff and talking through different things that come over. And so—

Speaker C: Well, Mayor, to me it sounds like we should probably pull this and address it in the policy section, right?

Speaker A: That's what I was just going to say. If it's not something that we can solve, is this going to be Okay, okay, then I think that's where we're at. So let's, uh, address that here in a minute in the 7 o'clock hour. And, uh, with that, we do have a couple of things, just, uh, some updates to talk about in a closed session. So if you guys are open to that, I'll entertain a motion.

Speaker B: Mayor, I move to adjourn to a closed session for the purpose of discussion of pending or reasonably imminent litigation, the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual, the purchase, lease, sale, or exchange of real property, a proposed development agreement, project proposal, or financing proposal related to the development of land owned by the state or political subdivision, and/or the deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems. Pursuant to Section 52-4205 of the Utah Code Annotated.

Speaker G: Second.

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

Speaker D: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Wright.

Speaker C: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Whiting.

Speaker G: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Wood.

Speaker C: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Huish.

Speaker B: Yes.

Speaker A: Okay, we're adjourned to closed session at 6:11.

Speaker C: Okay.

Speaker A: I think everybody's here and—

Speaker B: Yes.

Speaker H: Ready.

Speaker A: Before we get started, we're— as is our tradition, we'll have Steve offer us a prayer. Our Heavenly Father, we're so grateful to gather together tonight and discuss the needs of our great city and our community. We're thankful for the mayor and city council and the staff and everyone, volunteers and others who take time out of their lives to, um, to help our city and, and to help our residents and businesses. And we ask thee to bless our decision makers tonight with guidance and bless that all those here will be kind and courteous and also Blessed for their participation. And we're so thankful for this great country that we have to live in, and ask you to bless those who protect us and first responders here in our city as well. And say that in the name of Jesus Christ, amen. All right, thank you. I will officially call this meeting to order. It is 7:04 on the 7th of July. And as before we start the meeting, we will— Vince will lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Speaker B: 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.

Speaker A: Okay, thank you. Um, I'm going to give this just a second. First thing, if you're ready, I can skip it, but the information items. Ben, we can come back to that if you need a second.

Speaker E: I'm good.

Speaker A: Um, thank you, Mayor. We have several things. Uh, first We want to thank everyone who joined us for the America 250 Independence Day celebration. It was a great, great event. Our staff did a great job, especially in, in lieu of all the fireworks that, that couldn't go off. We had a great celebration. It's getting recognition, and people are coming in from outside our city. And so we truly appreciate everybody involved, and we certainly appreciate the citizens who held off in, in having their own fireworks show and were able to come out and celebrate with us together in a safe manner that kept our community protected. Also, also a thank you to all those who donated blood today at the American Red Cross blood drive that was here in this room. Hutchinson Museum Western Settlement, July 9th at 10:15, meet at Quarry Ride Memorial Park. Food truck rally, we're doing that every Thursday night from 6 to 9 PM at Quarry Road Park. Farmers Market is every Saturday from 9 AM to 1 PM through October 10th at Quarry Road Park. We have a movie in the park coming up July 10th from 9 to 11 at Silver Lake Amphitheater, and this next movie is National Treasure. We have yoga July 8th at 9:30 at Nolan Park, family yoga July 15th at 9:30 at Nolan Park. Senior Citizens Computer Classes, July 14th at 11 AM at the Valley Crossroads Chamber of Commerce. And Camp Floyd Mysteries of Cedar Valley, July 16th at 6 PM in the City Council Chambers. This is for 16 and older. And then lastly, we have Senior Bingo, July 20th at 5 PM at the Senior Center. And then lastly, I just, I just wanted to thank the community as well for all of their help in helping us while we had 2 wells down by restricting their water use. And one of those 2 wells is back up.

Speaker E: And so we now—

Speaker A: we have alternating days when people can water, and hopefully we'll have the next well coming online within about a week or so. And then just after that, we have a new well coming on that will enhance our overall system and its redundancy. So Thanks to our, our water department and all the work that they're doing. They're out late last night with a water break as well. We had some homes that were affected, and so, um, we just want to thank all of our crews who are doing great work around the city, citywide. Appreciate that. Lots of good stuff going on, uh, and so anybody that's, that's interested in all the good events, then we'd love to see you out. This next part, I have a question because I'm trying— I've been wrestling with trying to be efficient here. Typically when we do a recognition like this, we do a picture and things like that. Do we want to do a picture up here, down there? You guys okay with if we do it that way? I'm trying not to move up and down so many times.

Speaker C: Okay.

Speaker A: I think what I've settled on is we'll do the proclamation of Eagle Mountain. So we're going to do item 9A first, proclaiming that we're a believer city. Then we'll do the Rotary presentation. Then we'll actually do the plaque and the pictures at once, and we'll just do it from up here if that's okay. So, and we'll have the presenters in front. So that's, that's the way we're going to go. So starting with 9A, Ben, you're welcome to come up to the microphone if there's any questions, but we're going to read the proclamation. Craig's volunteered.

Speaker G: Proclamation proclaiming Eagle Mountain as a believer city. Whereas Eagle Mountain City, Utah recognizes that strong communities are built not only through infrastructure and public services, but also through the values that unite neighbors, strengthen relationships, and inspire civic participation. And whereas the Believer City Initiative associated with the Show Me a Sign organization encourages communities to lead with belief as a shared civic value by fostering encouragement, connection, and hope across public spaces, civic institutions, and community life. And whereas the City Council recognizes the importance of cultivating a community where residents feel valued, supported, and connected and where people actively invest belief in one another. And whereas Eagle Mountain City desires to promote a culture in which residents are encouraged to support one another, contribute positively to community life, and help ensure that every person knows they matter. Now therefore, Mayor Jared Gray and the Eagle Mountain City Council do hereby proclaim that Eagle Mountain City is hereby designated A believer city. And Eagle Mountain City affirms its commitment to: 1, promote encouragement, connection, and hope throughout the community. 2, explore opportunities to make belief visible in appropriate public settings and community activities. 3, support initiatives that inspire residents to invest belief in one another. 4, encourage civic engagement and community pride through positive action and service. And 5, foster a culture that reminds individuals they are valued, supported, and capable of making meaningful difference. Dated this 7th day of July, 2026.

Speaker A: Perfect. Thank you. Uh, is there any comments or anything that you want to add to that? Yeah, we'll do the, the presentation of the plaque in one second. If any questions or comments— I'm excited. I'll speak, I guess, for the— for most of us, unless you disagree, that this is kind of cool to be the first city to be a believer city and to promote this kind of— I think we do it anyway, which makes Eagle Mountain different. And to be able to put it on paper and to receive a plaque and to encourage this is pretty exciting for us. So as we grow, I want to continue to promote this kind of, uh, brotherhood, if you will, in our city. So I think that's what makes us unique. Perfect. So thank you. Now, before we do the presentation of the picture, uh, I'm going to go to the next one so we can do the pictures all at once. So, um, yeah, sure.

Speaker E: Let's give Ben a hand.

Speaker A: So this one, I'm going to ask Bill from the Rotary and anybody that you brought with you, the Rotary Club members, to come forward and tell us what they're all about. Just turn the mic on.

Speaker C: I'm Bill Brimley.

Speaker F: First time I met Jared, I think I was either a Cub Master or a Sunday school teacher for him.

Speaker H: He was a little kid and his beard—

Speaker A: his beard was nowhere near as thick or as gray at that point. And the next time I remember seeing him, I think I was making pancakes for him in my cafe when he was sloughing school.

Speaker D: I'm grateful—

Speaker B: we're grateful to honor him today as he came to and supported our Rotary Club of Lehi golf tournament.

Speaker F: And he came away with some pretty stiff competition, I might add. We won the Mayor's Cup, and we'd like to present that to him now and invite him back to defend that title next year.

Speaker B: Thank you.

Speaker D: Just make sure you have a window because I can't see you, or if you can't see me, I can't see you.

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker A: Just make sure, yeah, if you can see me, I can see you.

Speaker D: If you cannot see me, then we're in trouble.

Speaker A: Can you hold the trophy a little bit this way? Perfect.

Speaker C: Perfect.

Speaker H: That's awesome.

Speaker D: Yeah, yeah, he's got it.

Speaker A: Perfect.

Speaker B: You can go right here.

Speaker C: We know you didn't get here without her.

Speaker A: Yeah, and then Melissa, I just want to make sure that you can see me.

Speaker I: Yeah.

Speaker C: No, you're good.

Speaker A: This sign is a perfect addition.

Speaker B: Cool.

Speaker G: Thank you.

Speaker A: Go ahead, yeah.

Speaker C: Ben, I just wondered if you want to just make a statement. I mean, I asked the mayor if he would allow you to come up and just say something. You're a guy that's never short on words. I thought we ought to hear at least a few sentences from you and probably a little more. Do I need this up?

Speaker A: Yeah, okay. Yeah, so it's, you know, it's a long time in the making. I started out doing what I do with my sign and always had the thought that I should share it. And sharing that at the city level is going to be a really cool thing. And you're right, Mayor, you already do events and you help me and support me and to spread belief in the community. But there's even more things that we're going to be doing. And part of that is roadsides of belief. as well around the city that I'll raise money for. So it's gonna be an amazing thing. It's just, it's changed my life so much. I didn't think when I started doing this that it would make much of a— I didn't know, right? I thought maybe it would.

Speaker B: I just had the idea and I kept putting it off and kept throwing it out.

Speaker A: You know, like, I don't wanna do it. I don't want the attention. But man, when you listen to those ideas that are good, that stretch you, Amazing things happen. So ever since I've done it, it's just—I've had story after story after story from so many people, and I just want to share that with everybody and with the city on a—you know—in a more official way. And this is the way we do that. And I thank you so much for becoming the first guinea pig to do this and to try it. And I want to make our city that model. on the Hill that we can then get other cities to join in. But we always know that Eagle Mountain was the first. And I love where I live, and I appreciate it. Thank you. We do know people from Highland that could possibly be the second city, just saying. You know the mayor. Perfect. Thanks, guys. And we appreciate the recognition and we love to support good causes. So that's really what this is about, is supporting good causes and doing good. We'll move on to item number 10. Open for a motion if there's no discussion.

Speaker G: Mayor, I move that Jesse Call be appointed to a 1-year appointment as a Youth City Council advisor through May 31st, 2027.

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

Speaker H: Yes.

Speaker A: Council Member Whiting.

Speaker G: Yes.

Speaker A: Council Member Wood.

Speaker H: Yes.

Speaker A: Council Member Huish.

Speaker C: Yes.

Speaker A: Council Member Clark.

Speaker D: Yes.

Speaker A: Okay, that passes unanimous.

Speaker G: Um, Mayor, I, I move that Angeline Washburn be appointed to a 1-year appointment as a Youth City Council advisor through May 31st, Second.

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

Speaker B: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Wood.

Speaker I: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Huish.

Speaker H: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Clark.

Speaker F: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Wright.

Speaker C: Yes.

Speaker A: That's unanimous. And then just a reminder, because I'll forget, to update the Youth Council mayor in our paperwork, and, and that Whatever that— update that stuff. Mayor, they are here. Yes, I saw them and they can come forward for the oath of office. Yeah. Yep.

Speaker D: Sorry, it's a lot of movement today. Oh, it's okay.

Speaker A: It's okay.

Speaker D: Just wasn't sure what the move was.

Speaker A: Cool. Thank you. We appreciate all those who serve on our boards. And a little, uh, side note that maybe Craig will report on later, but I would love for the council to come help me with this. On Friday, they're going to feed me like the world's hottest hot wings and ask me questions based on— yeah, what's that show called? I don't know.

Speaker I: It's the Hot Ones.

Speaker A: Yeah, the Hot Something Challenge, whatever. So We love hanging out with the youth and the things that I'll do.

Speaker D: What time is that at?

Speaker A: Noon on Friday here in this room. And then if I'm out of town when they do the dunk thing, I know Brett really liked that last year.

Speaker C: I'm in. They already invited me. I'm in. I told them I'm in.

Speaker A: If I can't come, Mayor Pro Tempore will fill in for me.

Speaker C: I got to find my wig though. I got to find my wig or I can't show up.

Speaker A: Part of the responsibilities. Okay, we're gonna move along. Thank you, and we appreciate all the fun things we get to do. Now we got to get to the busy work. So next is item 11, public comment. We have set aside time for the public to express their concerns, comments, and ideas. Time has been set aside for public to express their ideas and comments. We limit your time to 3 minutes. I will now open the public comment period at 7:22. As a reminder, Public comment is an opportunity for community members to address the City Council, and each speaker is allowed up to 3 minutes. If you wish to speak during the public hearing portion, please complete a comment form located in the back and return it to the city recorder. 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 you in for further discussion. Steve has that assignment. Lastly, public comment period is for items not associated with the scheduled public hearings. If your comment relates to a public hearing item, please wait until that item is called. The public hearing items on the agenda are 16A, which I'm just gonna read the number, the agenda's posted, 16A, 16B, 16C, 16D, and 16E. Those are all public hearings. If you've come to speak on those items, wait until we discuss that item and we'll have a separate public hearing for that item. Uh, with that, are there some comments? McCaden Hanson.

Speaker G: Hi, um, my name is McCaden Hanson. I live over in Parkway Fields. I had a meeting back in January with Mayor Gray, Councilmember Clark, and Parks and Rec about this, but I am here today to continue advocating for the installation of a championship-level disc golf course in the city.

Speaker B: You were waiting for me to show up, huh? I've been texting you.

Speaker G: It's all right. There is a piece of land in the power corridor just north of the bike park that is otherwise unusable, but shapes up really well for a disc golf course. I'm aware the city already has a course at Pioneer Park, but that one was clearly aimed and designed for beginners and families, which it does really well. But the goal with the new course would be to attract players from around the state, To come to Eagle Mountain to play in tournaments and other events. It would also add an additional outdoor recreation option for residents in the area, and depending on the funding amount, additional tee pads on each hole can alter the challenge level for different skill levels of players, ensuring it's welcoming to anyone that wants to play it. Through funds allocated from the WRAP tax, the Utah Outdoor Recreation Grant, fundraising from the disc golf community, And donations from local businesses. The QTS Data Center and Mountland Supply Co. have both already shown big interest in donating to this. I think funding for the project through all those routes should be relatively simple. The new UTA Park and Ride is directly across Pony Express with a crosswalk to the location, so funding for a parking lot won't be necessary. I reached out to a local professional course designer who can put together a planned-out course concept with projected cost estimate that can be bid out to private contractors or installed by the designer and his crew, making design and installation simple as well. Disc golf as a sport is growing at an extremely fast rate, and giving players near and far a reason to come to Eagle Mountain helps the sport and it helps the city.

Speaker B: Thank you.

Speaker A: Thank you.

Speaker B: Bronwyn Richardson.

Speaker D: Hi guys, my name is Bronwyn Richardson. I am a full-time student and a stay-at-home mom, and I have proudly called Eagle Mountain home for nearly 10 years. When I learned that this council is proposing a 220% increase in this— in the city's property tax rate, I was shocked. I don't believe this proposal reflects the financial reality of many families in our community face. According to the latest Title I designations from Alpine School District, Eagle Mountain has 2 Title I elementary schools and a Title I preschool. Title I status exists because a significant number of students come from low-income households. And that should remind us all that not every family in Eagle Mountain is thriving financially. Some families in our city struggle to afford food, clothing, housing, and other basic necessities. For those families, another $30 a month isn't just $30. It's another bill in a budget that's already stretched to its limit. Property taxes aren't optional. Families can't decide to skip paying them or wait until next month. Every increase falls hardest on those with the least flexibility. The city has stated that this proposal would generate approximately $6.9 million, um, in additional revenue. Before asking residents to provide that much more in taxes, I ask you first consider the burden being placed upon the, upon the people who earn that money. The median household income in Eagle Mountain is $113,000, yet housing costs remain high. Average rents exceed $2,000 a month, and families continue to face rising costs for groceries, fuel, insurance, and child care. Even households earning the median income are feeling the pressure. I'm also asking for greater transparency. The city's Truth in Taxation information states that 100% of the additional revenue will go towards public safety. However, residents have also heard public statements discussing employees' compensation as part of this proposal. Both statements are accurate. If both statements are accurate, then please provide—

Speaker B: Order.

Speaker D: A clear—

Speaker B: 30 seconds remaining.

Speaker D: Line-by-line statement accounting, showing exactly for how every additional tax dollar will be spent. And I will close with a quote from Edmund Burke: Overtaxation cost England her 13 American colonies. Thank you.

Speaker B: Finally, Jeff Ruth.

Speaker A: Jeff Earth from the Landing neighborhood.

Speaker B: I understand parking's going to be on the agenda tonight, and I talked with Jim a little bit about it. I hope you pass it, because what you see right there is the neighborhood kids just keep adding cars. The farthest one there hasn't moved in probably a year.

Speaker A: The other one's been several months.

Speaker B: Thank you. Then they added 2 more, and then here a couple weeks ago they added one sitting on the street with a car cover.

Speaker C: I had some dogs coming in my yard, so I went and drove around trying to see where they were coming from, and I couldn't believe how the alleys looked like a ghetto because everybody just puts their junk back there in the alleys and lets it build up.

Speaker B: Well, they can't get a car in. Their driveway or in the back. So what do they do? They just keep parking more on the roads. So I hope you pass it. I mean, Neighborhood Improvement has a tough job, but I sure do appreciate them. Um, and like I said, this is just one example. If you drive through the alleys in my neighborhood, it's bad. And Neighborhood Improvement brought down a couple of dumpsters to try to get people to clean up. I'll admit I went in my basement and I was amazed at how much junk I took out of there. So there again, I thank Neighborhood Improvement for helping. Um, so please move it forward. Let Neighborhood Improvement take care of some of these cars and junk that's sitting around. Um, and just one thing on the tax proposal. If it's all going towards law enforcement and fire, I fully support it. I mean, from somebody that struggles month to month, there's been many times I've called officers out and I never saw them. So I believe it's something we need. So thank you all for all you do. Thank you.

Speaker A: Okay, that's all the forms we have turned in. Just last call, is there anyone else here that would like to address the council that did not get a chance? See, okay, go ahead and come on up, and I'll just ask you, if you didn't get a chance to fill out the form, to do it after and return it to Lacey. And state your name for the record, please. Sarah Davenport-Smith, and actually I'm a resident of Saratoga Springs, but I come to Eagle Mountain a lot. Rotary Club International, I just wanted to say a little bit about us because Bill didn't get to tell you about us.

Speaker B: He talked about Mare Gray a lot, which was super fun.

Speaker A: But I just wanted to let you guys know that Rotary International has been around since the early 1900s, and it was started by a group of businessmen in Middle America, and they said, you know, we want to do something for our community. They happened to be in Chicago, and they said, what do we do? Well, they built some infrastructure. They built the first public toilet in the city.

Speaker D: That's amazing. That area. And from there, it's grown.

Speaker A: And in fact, you may or may not know, Rotary International is mainly responsible for getting vaccines to a lot of children around the world, and polio is almost gone because of the efforts of Rotary. But we do a lot, and one of the other things that I get to be in charge of is our youth. And also our youth exchange. We have the best worldwide student exchange program, and it's fully supported by our State Department as well. And in fact, we have one child heading off to Belgium, another one who is from Belgium, and someone who is going to South America this summer. And that's all just from our little club in Lehi. and clubs all around Utah. Rotary Clubs do that all around Utah, but we do a lot. The reason why the mayor got to play in our golf tournament was to support our scholarship program, which supports Westlake, Lehi High School, and also Sky Ridge. And we would love to include Cedar as well. We would love to include Eagle Mountain. So—

Speaker C: Thank you.

Speaker A: Anyways, just wanted to let you guys know about who we are and what we do and why Rotary is awesome. Thanks a lot. Hey, hold on, I got to— you got to say something for me.

Speaker F: Okay.

Speaker A: I wrote it down, and one of the reasons these recognitions were, uh, put the way they were is the I believe in you and that kind of attitude of giving back. What's the motto? Rotary? Rotary International? Um, service above self. There you go. I wrote it down, I hear service before self. And I think that's part of the message that we were talking about earlier is that, you know, you get a lot more than— if you give, you get back more than you give. And so I just love that. I've given a few speeches and I use that all the time, service before self. So yeah, thank you.

Speaker C: Thank you.

Speaker A: Was there anyone else that did not get a chance to speak? Don't forget to fill out a form if you would. Seeing none, we will close the public hearing, the public comment portion, and move on to our next item, which is council and mayor items. We're going to start on this side with Melissa.

Speaker D: Thank you, Mayor. I'm grateful that so many people came out, and I know that you all have different things that you're interested in, and I love the texts from our residents, and I love the messages and the information that we wouldn't otherwise have without your help. We had some elections for our Youth Council mayor this last week, and there were 3 great candidates, right, Councilmember Whiting?

Speaker I: Yeah.

Speaker D: And I had the opportunity to just talk with Councilmember Whiting today, and we were talking about how sometimes it's hard when really amazing people don't end up getting elected. And I told him, I said, in a lot of ways, it's like when Mayor Gray and I were running against each other. Now, what you guys don't know is we're really good friends, so everything's great. But after the election, I had a choice. I could withdraw and just keep to myself and not serve, or I could dig in and support Mayor Gray and show up for our city every single day. And I chose to do that. I'm glad that that's what I chose. So I encourage the 2 individuals that didn't get elected to choose that option because we need you. We need you on our Youth Council regardless of what your title is. We need you, uh, part of our city regardless of what your role is here. You're amazing and we're grateful for all that you bring. Um, the other thing that I wanted to say is I'm incredibly proud of our city I'm proud of our events. Like, you guys, we had the most epic fireworks display ever, and I'm so proud of the people of our community that rallied behind the request to not use fireworks during this kind of crazy year of drought. And I'm also incredibly proud of our staff. Over the weekend, we had some well issues, and we came to you and we said, Hey, could you guys not water? And we reached out to the schools and the churches and all of those things, and we asked them to also not water just so we could keep our tanks at the level they need to stay at. So one, we could fight fires, and two, we wouldn't have to— it wouldn't drop below the PSI so we'd have to do a boil order. And in addition to getting on the fixes this week and taking care of some of the issues with the 2 wells that went down, We had communications staff that was like basically on call all weekend long giving updates, sending out texts, doing all of that stuff. We had water and everyone basically from Public Works stepping in to help. And crazy things are happening at 1 o'clock in the morning. And I'm incredibly proud of the men and women who come and give so much of their time here in the city, and they don't make a ton of money. Um, but they keep coming back because they're crazy, and we're super grateful for all that they do. And I just want the residents to know that yes, we are looking at this tax rate raise, and we need to have our public truth in taxation in our public hearing. But I promise you that the people who are sitting up here, when we look at what the budget is and dig down into every single line of the budget. We think about the Jeff Ruths of our community, and we think about the Bronwins. You matter to us, and we know how financially hard the situation is right now for all of us. And please know that we're being very careful about the decisions we're making, and we're grateful for what you bring to our community. So thank you for being here.

Speaker C: I'm just gonna say ditto. That's pretty easy to say ditto to. I was just— so on the 4th of July, I found myself alone in the park. My wife wasn't feeling well. My family, we had an event scheduled yesterday, so I had all 9 of my grandchildren and my 4 children who were here. So I had some— I had one son and his wife and 3 grandchildren come in from out of state. And so I— Those of you that know me, I can get a little booby, so I'm sorry about that. I might just cry about this. But just sitting in the park alone, I had a couple of residents who sat by me who recognized me, and we had some conversations about what was happening. It was a pretty remarkable experience to spend 2 and a half hours just observing. I saw Jacob there. He came to the fireworks show and said hello to him and some of his children. children, and several other residents who I recognized and spent some time with. I just don't think— I don't think our average citizens understand the level of commitment that comes from these individuals who sit here. We care. Sitting there looking at the 16,700 people that came to that event, on the 2-hour block and watching the fireworks and just feeling overwhelmed with the quality of work that our staff produced, watching the interactions of our citizens one with another, celebrating what has to be one of the most magnificent holidays that we're going to experience this year, the 250th anniversary of the birth of this nation. And, uh, I just felt gratitude to live in a country where we're free, to have an opportunity to serve, and humbled with this question that kept resonating in my mind: who are you, Brad, to sit in this seat and to make decisions for the 80,000 people that are impacted by those decisions, recognize that I feel that. And so when we're talking about a tax increase, oh goodness gracious, that's hard. My 80-year-old mother lives in the city, my 35-year-old daughter lives in the city, my 38-year-old son lives in the city, and their families are impacted by it. My wife and I live here, and I have numerous other family members and friends who live here. And I wish the tax increases had come $2 at a time over the last 10 years. That's what I really wish had happened rather than a $26 or $27 a month adjustment. But as we've dug into this and looked at this, this is for public safety. All of those resources, that $6.9 million that you're referencing, is going to go into the public safety fund. It's going to pay for our sheriff's contract. What you probably don't understand, and the nuance to that is, is that we have been using other resources to fund our sheriff's department. We've only had about $2.8 million that has been dedicated to that from property tax. And so that shortfall has been coming out of sales tax and other fees. So what does that mean to you as residents? Here's what it means. It means your parks haven't been taken care of. It means that the public spaces aren't being taken care of. It means we're not able to build roads as quickly and as often as we'd like to, because boy, do we get beat up about those things. And I'm looking at Jeff, because Jeff comes and he beats us up pretty good sometimes, and we love him. But he's fair. I'm just gonna say that. He's fair in his assessments. So I want you to know that this is an opportunity. I'm really grateful for the opportunity to serve you. And there is nothing that we do here that is easy or that is automatic. Everything that we contemplate is weighted. And I just am grateful that you've extended me that opportunity. So thank you.

Speaker A: Thank you.

Speaker G: You can see why it's easy to serve with these fellow city council members. I love all of them, and I'm grateful for their, for their service and their wisdom and what they do to make this city a great place. And I just wanted to extend a gratitude for Jesse and Angeline for taking the role to serve again as youth city council advisor for the coming year. And I know it takes a lot of time out of your personal schedule to help with that capacity, but it is such a significant one. Eagle Mountain City's got the greatest youth and they deserve the greatest programs around them, and grateful for this. And a lot of people don't know, but our Youth City Council has, I think, tripled in size basically since last year. And a lot of that's because of what's going on with the advisors, and we're appreciative for you're doing. The youth are our future, and we need to make sure this city provides the resources to make it the best youth city in the state. So thank you for your service. And I likewise just comment that it is a weighty seat that we sit in. And even though we respect one another here on the dais a lot, We, we disagree. And if you stay tonight, you're going to see probably 3 or 4 disagreements, like, like different agenda items where there'll be a lot of discussion. And that's healthy. And that's— and the great thing is we can discuss our differences of opinion and still hold respect for one another. And, and really, that should, should be the clarion call for any of us who, who discuss politics and different ideas one with another, that we can, we can do so understanding that there's a genuine love between those who are discussing, and that it's okay for disagreement to occur and have differences of opinion. But thank you for giving us the opportunity to serve you. And we live in an awesome city, and I'm grateful for the staff, grateful for the city council members, grateful for our great mayor. And thank you again for giving us the chance to serve.

Speaker H: First of all, grateful to see so many people out here. I love when there's— the seats are filled and we get to hear from more. I wish more people would have given more public comment. I actually want to address Bronwyn, if that's okay. Um, I realized— so I've been trying to stay off social media lately because I just feel like it's super divisive. Uh, just a lot of, uh, a lot of people that just want to watch the world burn. This last week, as I was thinking about my responsibilities on the city council, I actually took Craig's advice and started watching some documentaries about the forefathers. Thomas Jefferson was one of them that made me think about this. I can't remember what it was that I was going to write it down. It's a great quote. But what it made me do is it made me look differently at what was being said by citizens that were upset about some of the decisions. And there was 3 major decisions that people were upset about in the last week and a half. Decision about the fireworks. Decision about turning the water off in your yards and not watering so that we could fill our tanks back up, and obviously the tax. This is what I figured out: I think we think we're doing a great job of getting the messaging out, and I realized from your comment today that it's not—that you're not hearing what we're saying. We're not saying it in a way that it's being understood. Understood. For that, I want to apologize. It's not intentional. We feel the sting like everybody else does. We pay the same taxes that everybody else does. And I actually wanted to just make one caveat to what Brett said so that it is clear: there's not extra money when we do the the tax for the property. It's all going to pay for our entire contract, not new. People our entire contract with the Sheriff's Department. And the reason that that decision was made is because everybody uses that service, and it's a fixed cost that raises as we add more people to our city. They all need to have public safety. All of our other funding sources fluctuate, and we can't afford to have that one fluctuate. That would— that needs to be steady. To his comment about the other sources of income from sales tax and other sources. There are a lot of other things that we don't have the money to pay for that we need to pay for. And we have been running— I've said this before, and I know it hasn't been popular with previous councils— we've been running cheaply, not conservatively. And as a result, we're paying as citizens in Eagle Mountain 2026, we're paying for decisions not to do a steady increase so that we could have the same services that are being afforded in other cities. And this council decided enough is enough. And we recognized that we were going to be taking the heat for past decisions so that we could make things right. And that's happened with fees for utilities. It has happened with— and by the way, I feel all of these things too. It's put a hurt on our family's finances to pay more for our sewer and water. I feel that, and the taxes going up, I will feel that as well. At the end of the day, what is best for everybody is that we make sure we can we can pay our bills, that we're providing the services that you should expect in other cities as well, and that we're providing a quality of life that you come to expect. I I hope that we can do better in expressing that in the message that we're giving to people as we talk about something that is. Always going to be divisive, like talking about taxes. Because I think if you knew all the people up here directly, we've had very heated debates about whether we should do any tax increases. At the end of the day, what it came down to is that how else are you going to pay for the essential services? And that's the end result of those discussions. So thank you for bringing that to our attention. We will do better in getting that information out so that people understand we know it's hard, we're sorry, but there is no other way. The other thing that I wanted to just make comment— I'm extremely grateful for the efforts that our staff has been putting in, particularly our event staff, over the last couple of months. I love Ben's message because I think it emulates What I feel like Eagle Mountain's way is. Our way is to believe in each other, that we believe in community. I'm grateful for the people who are dedicating their time as people that are sitting on boards, people that are doing that are elected officials, our first responders, and even the people who it's their job to be here. It's still a sacrifice. It's not easy being a member of a city hall. Because there's a lot of times that people are not very forgiving when the decision wasn't really yours to make. You're just the one who gets to hear it, and I want them to know I appreciate that they that they do those things, that they are taking it for the team. I recognize that. I know it's not easy. I'm asking for our citizens to be a little more forgiving, give a little more grace, recognize that. The people in, in City Hall, your elected officials, the people who are serving on boards are doing their best, and they're doing the best with the information that they have. Thank you for being here. I'm extremely proud to be a member of this community, very, very proud to be an American, especially this last week. Thanks for coming.

Speaker B: I just want to echo everything that has been said. I think it's been well said. I woke up this morning, and, um, I'd had a conversation with a resident about this tax increase about a week ago. And I try to stay off social media, but sometimes I just can't resist and was punching out a response. And I thought, this just isn't an adequate way to communicate with residents through Facebook. You maybe get 3 paragraphs in, you don't quite communicate communicate what you want to. I know Colton here has, has been doing his best to be fair to everybody. Um, we thought about maybe doing a long-form podcast so you can get to the depth of the issue and really understand what is being presented and what the issue is. I've wrestled with this. I've worked through the numbers forward and backward as a financial planner. That's my vocation and what I do. And, um, it It is a challenge. It is a real challenge. It's something that I'm wrestling with. I may not agree with where the budget landed, but I do think we're understaffed. I've just got an email from a resident who sent pictures of city property around her house that's just 6 inches. We're out of code on our own property. Yeah. Talk about code enforcement. We've got a lot of areas that have weeds, that the grass is dying. I live next to a park and it's not in great shape. And when you look at the numbers and see the staff, this last weekend was a great example of what I would call a stress test on one city, one part of the city. We had a fireworks show ready to go that went off really well. We had a fire department there to help support. On the other side of the city, city, poor Max Straw and his team trying to band-aid together some wells and get a message out, hey, we've got to, we've got to reserve what we're doing. And I was really impressed with all the residents between the fireworks, not being able to light those off on America's 250th anniversary. That's a hard ask. I think it was a really hard ask for our mayor to ask that of residents. I'm pretty sure this is a community that loves America. So our staff is amazing. They're tremendous. I've had just awesome interactions. I know they're stretched thin. They show up early. They stay late. In fact, we've got one, one of our staff members who was here last night trying to get a communication out that there was a leak and a flood. You probably saw it on Facebook. One of our family members, or one of our residents, their homes was being flooded this morning, and that communication was going out. He's here early this morning. He's going to be here late tonight. And I'm just really grateful for all that our staff does. I'm grateful for our community. My wife and I moved out here, I think, in 2005. And about in 2012, we had the opportunity to leave Eagle Mountain and move somewhere else, and it was just like a no for me.

Speaker A: Like, this is, this is where we belong. We love, love the city.

Speaker B: And I'm grateful to serve with everyone here. I'm grateful for for the staff for all that you do, and grateful for our community. We're going to make the right decision with this tax increase. On August 6th at— I think it's at 6 o'clock— we'll have a full-on conversation, and I really look forward to that. I hope people come and we can have a full dialogue so we can make the best possible decision for the city. So I look forward to that and just having more dialogue, and feel free to reach out to I appreciate, Bronwyn, your comments tonight. Thank you. Thanks, Mayor.

Speaker A: Okay, thank you. Just, I would say, like Brett, ditto to everything. We really wrestled with the restrictions for the fireworks and worked a lot with our fire chief and our public safety staff, our admins, and the council to, to really— I wrestled with that for a long time, actually. Went back and forth with, can we find an area that's safe? And that just couldn't make sense of it. And finally had to pull the trigger and do that. But in the process, we were able to put a little bit of extra funding towards our city show. And it was absolutely epic. I did want to apologize last year. I always go alone and I drug you with me. So I didn't go alone this year. I abandoned you. So I was out of town and I didn't get to go to the show. I didn't get to go to the show, but next year, next year I'll go with you. We did the water restriction as well. You know, we've been just skating on thin ice there with— it's this fine line. I'm going to say what nobody wants to say. As soon as the city comes out and says, hey, we need to conserve water, everybody turns on their water and it has an opposite effect to hurry before it gets turned off. I didn't that this time, and we tried to really ease into that to make sure we didn't lose more water than we were producing. And through the weekend, I continued to get texts, hey, I turned my water off, how are we looking? And the best one was today, I still haven't done laundry for like 5 days, can I do my laundry? I'm like, we only asked you to not water your lawn. But people really went above and beyond, and I appreciate that, that they They felt the urgency and the need to help us get our wells back online. And our systems were good. Our staff— one other conversation I want to say earlier today. As council members, we sit up here and think— Ben and I and Brad and some of the staff have been talking about the 92-ish projects that we're managing right now, like water tanks and roads and big, big projects. and how understaffed we are. Sewer treatment plant. Yeah, sewer treatment plant, which is one of the biggest. And then as council members, we're up here, why hasn't this happened? Why hasn't that happened? And we allocate money in the budget and expect things to happen overnight. And it's funny because I, you know, we get pushback sometimes from staff. And I said, you know, the funny thing is our staff is so good that we keep throwing things on their plate and they look at us like, there's no way we can do this. But then they just smile and say, we'll give it our best shot. And they go out and get it done and continue to overperform when we continue to pile stuff on them. So, you know, guys that worked through the night last night and they're still here today, it's the dedication. I mean, I don't think most of us realize, but I don't think most of us would do it. And they continue to come. So we really do have a great staff. And you can do your laundry.

Speaker C: So everybody—

Speaker A: heard that from me, go ahead and wash your clothes.

Speaker G: And shower.

Speaker A: And shower. But continue to do your best on your, on your grass. I mean, we— I think we all overwater our grass. It doesn't have to be that dark, dark green. Just keep it alive, I think, this year is the goal. So conserve where we can. That would be my, my ask. And we do appreciate you guys all supporting and all the events that we do and that we can come together and be a community. I said this last time that what makes us a community is the fact that we still wave at each other and say hi at the grocery store and we're still personable. We haven't got into our little boxes and, you know, we treat each other with respect. So appreciate everything that was said. And with that, I think we better get some work done.

Speaker G: Thank you.

Speaker A: We're going to move on to our consent agenda. I do have a question. I know item 15A and 15D, there's questions. If that motion looks like it's going to muddy up the other consent motion, I'm happy to take a separate motion on 15A.

Speaker D: I've got it all, Mayor.

Speaker A: We'll give it a stab, but if we need to separate it, I'm happy.

Speaker D: Mayor, I move that the City Council approve the consent agenda with the following changes. First, removing 15D from the consent agenda and placing it on the regular scheduled section of the agenda. Second, changing item 15A and updating the agreement to include the name David Stewart. Number 2, clarify the reporting requirement to say—

Speaker A: Plus a year.

Speaker D: I got it. Consultant shall attend either virtually or in person a minimum of 2 city council or strategic planning meetings of the city per year, specifically before the regular legislative session and interim legislative session, and as requested by the body of the city council.

Speaker A: Second. Okay, I was just making sure that we got through all those, and I believe we're good on the motion. Okay, we'll, uh, have a motion by Councilmember Clark, a second by Councilmember Wood, and we'll start the vote with Councilmember Whiting. Yes. Councilmember Wood. Yes. Councilmember Huish. Yes. Councilmember Clark. Yes. Councilmember Wright. Yes. Perfect, thank you. Okay, we'll go ahead and, uh, jump right into 15. 15D, as it was removed, will— that's a resolution of Eagle Mountain City approving the Second Amendment to Eagle Quest. I know there was some discussion. I think we're kind of at that negotiating or ask phase. So I'm going to ask that we have the applicant come up and we'll just see what we can get done and see where this goes. So, Mr. Ostler, this is where the rubber meets the road, I guess. And I don't know who wants to go first. But, uh, notice he had any comments. Do you have any comments off to start with? Make sure your mic is turned on. On.

Speaker B: There it is.

Speaker F: Yep, there it is. It goes on. Uh, you know, just as we look this— you know, there were some questions about where the process— you know, those who are here recognize as we went through to get approval for this plan, it wasn't as a one or two meeting. We, we came through several times. I believe it was a little over a year to kind of get to the plan where we're at. And I thought that was a good compromise. There was a lot of compromises on both sides. So I felt like where we're at now was a compromise that was done. The other thing is, you know, you brought up about, you know, maybe in Highland City. In Highland, we don't have them expire. If you get a development approved, then they're approved. And I understand cities do it differently. But you had asked a little bit about that. The other thing I think is, you know, I've been a council member. I've been there. Some of it I look and go, okay, we have it go through Planning Commission. You know, they've went through. They look at it. You know, I made comments there. We got a favorable recommendation there. I've looked at the staff report. We have a favorable recommendation from staff. You know, I'm looking, okay, you know, kind of— so to me, I think we're kind of good. I think there's reasoning to extend. I think, you know, we're close. I think really kind of where we're at right now is I think if we can get this set— like I said, we've worked with Ivory Homes. They're not— with the Aviator, in our agreement, we're supposed to complete Aviator all the way out to the light on Pony Express. If you don't get something, it's something we'd have to really work with because Ivory does benefit for us putting that road in where they don't have to go put it. So there are some benefits from them. But we're also— we've been a little bit patient because we knew there was some working of the city to get something worked out there with Ivory, with that bypass road, or with Sitland. So that was, you know, we haven't really pushed as much. We've met with them a couple of times. You know, we could push if that was the case, if we knew we were approved to go forward. So that's kind of some of my comments. If there's other questions or things I can answer.

Speaker A: Just for the council's sake, I know the ask is an extension. I want to know I don't know that I saw. Maybe you know how long you need a year.

Speaker F: I think it was for two. It was two two years. I think in the agenda packet. Is that right?

Speaker C: Twenty nine.

Speaker F: What's having the agenda packet?

Speaker G: It says require the preliminary plat to be submitted within twenty four months and the site work to occur within seventy two months. It would extend the preliminary plat approval to July twenty four, twenty twenty nine, and the overall expiration of the agreement.

Speaker F: So 3 years.

Speaker G: To be 2033.

Speaker F: The extending of the agreement was something I don't think we put out. It was something staff maybe recommended.

Speaker B: So, I mean, I can speak to that. Given that the 72 months for the plat expiration, having the agreement expire essentially on the same day didn't seem to make a lot of sense. Because you were saying on the one hand you have to be in site work within a certain timeframe, but you also have to be done. At that same timeframe. So it was giving them time to actually complete the development afterwards. That's consistent with our code, which allows for 2 2-year extensions of an MDA.

Speaker G: So you're saying if the preliminary plat did not get submitted within 24 months, the agreement would be voided at that point?

Speaker B: Just the plaza? No. So it's— I believe there's a 72-month— I'm trying to— getting them confused in my head, but there's a 72-month timeframe by which something has to be completed. And I believe that's the site work has to be begun by then in order to keep the— meet the deadlines for the— that are required in the benchmarks in the agreement. However, if you're just starting your site work, 72 months in, then, and the agreement just expired, then that doesn't make a lot of sense. So it's allowing the agreement to postdate that at the start of the site work so they can actually complete the development.

Speaker G: And so when you say the development has to be completed, like all the, like the horizontal infrastructure has to be Or all the lots have to be sold out?

Speaker B: So if the MDA is— so they have 72 months to begin the site work, I believe, is what the requested change is, right? That's also 72— the agreement is only 72 months long as is. So the agreement would expire the day that they start— they would have to start the site work. Site work doesn't make a lot of sense. So it naturally makes sense to extend the agreement somewhat so that not only can they begin site work within the first 6 years, but also complete— build out the development before the agreement expires, to give them a reasonable opportunity to do that. I was just going to say, so we— this started in 2023? Yes, when all this got started.

Speaker F: And that's when it was signed.

Speaker B: We're contemplating going to 2033. That just seems a bit out there.

Speaker H: I'll give my, my 2 bits and then everybody can kind of weigh in. When we did the MDA code, we wanted to prevent exactly what's happening from happening again. 10 years is too long, especially when nothing started. And we've had, uh, 3 years of total inactivity since, since it was signed off on 2023. So this is before I— I realized after I went back and looked, I actually was part of the decision-making body for the Planning Commission when you very first came through. I just, I was looking at the wrong property. Um, I remember the conversation about the northern portion for bigger lots, the contemplation below the road and what that was going to look like, having, uh, discussions about transitions. I think you remember those conversations, whether or not the road was wide enough to, to be considered a transition. I remember all those things now that I remember what we're talking about. And I— my concern was the same then. How do we get— how do we get started? Um, some of the things that, that you expressed in the the beginning are troubling to me, that being able to fulfill your requirements to your contract cannot be tied to somebody else. I mean, that's the purpose of a development agreement, is that you're stating to us we can get started, we have the capability of doing our project. That's the understanding that any council would have in looking at a development agreement. Well, it's been 3 years and nothing's happen still. And there have been a lot of other circumstances that you've, you've set up there. Some of those are financial decisions that you've decided not to go forward in hopes that somebody else will be a participant or that they would build it and that would reduce your costs. And we understand those things, but according to your contract, it's not really applicable to your contract. If that was something that needed to be contemplated, I ask, why didn't we put that in the MD That in order for you to get started, this road needs to be built. So I'm hesitant. I'm hesitant to give you the extension because then what? What's going to keep you from doing the same thing and hoping to outlast this council and come back in and ask for another extension? What I'm willing to do is I would like us to table it, and I would like to sit down to the negotiating table again and let's talk about what your project is. If you believe that you can do it with some of these things, we're going to need to see some steps forward. I'm going to want a lot, actually. I'm going to want you to follow our current code. That includes our architectural standards for that area, our road sizes, all of those things. Because otherwise, what's the point? What's the point of giving the extension with no guarantees? You're taking a risk and you're asking us to take a huge risk. So for me, that's how I look at it at this point. If you'd like an extension, it's going to be— there's going to be some skin in the game for you for us to give that extension so that you can sell that property to somebody to develop in a way that fits with what the current situation in that area is for our city. When you got the development agreement, it was very different back then. Unfortunately, uh, it's different now. So that's my, that's my opinion. Again, I'm one of 5 people, uh, but that's where I stand.

Speaker F: Do you mind if I just ask one thing? You mentioned there's— that this, the city— I'm trying to understand a little bit where you're saying that this harms the city. I'm not quite sure why I'd understand how it harms the city.

Speaker H: Because we have a piece of land that you agreed to develop and you haven't developed it. And so everything around it is developing and your piece of land hasn't even begun. And you're operating on old standards now that nobody else has. So when you come in to do that, it's going to, in my opinion, it's going to stick out like a sore thumb because you can do things nobody else can do.

Speaker F: So you'll just— the development right next to us is of course Sunset Flats. Off the other side is Ivory, which I— they're, they're kind of grandfathered in. They don't get a change. And I think our product mirrors all that development there. So I'm not quite sure. That's why I'm going—

Speaker H: They've agreed, they've agreed to some things in as far as the architectural designs go to meet with that downtown, as has the commercial developments that are there and our downtown development that's already been designed and contemplated.

Speaker F: So I guess I wasn't aware that our parcel fits now in the downtown.

Speaker H: It's all part, it's all part of that area. It's always been part of the town center. If you go back and look at the old general plan, you're in that. Purple area.

Speaker F: So I guess I never saw us in that general in the general plan in the town center area. Yeah, that's the first time I'm hearing that we're even in the town center.

Speaker H: You've been you've been in there since before 2018.

Speaker A: So so I think one of the things that that's more broad that I just wanted to put in this context too. What we found, like you mentioned other cities that don't have a sunset clause or expiration. What we have is we're up here dealing with. Approvals that were done in 1999, 2001, and they never developed, and then things changed, and now they're saying, well, we have this entitlement, we have to get it. But on the flip side, when things change and they want something different, it's easy to come in and say, hey, things changed, so we need something different. But they're never willing to change if they have an entitlement that doesn't expire because it's too late. And on that note, I think most of Ivory's— We hadn't identified what the commercial was. At least there's wiggle room there. So when we approved a subdivision like this, we didn't know that you'd be right next to 50 acres of commercial property. Maybe, and I'm just saying as a scenario, this would have been more appropriate to change your piece to commercial. That's why it needed to expire, because that entitlement only applied because if it would have built, then the neighbors would have built differently. But because they built first, first, that with no expiration, now we're stuck with something that doesn't fit cohesively. So that's why we came up with the expiration, so that we don't have these, oh, this has been entitled forever. So that—

Speaker F: and I don't mean— well, and we're actually probably one of the problems, because meaning Sunset Flats probably didn't have an expiration on theirs. And so here we were assuming that they started their first phase, so we start our process because they're moving, you know, forward with the developer. And we get caught where they don't finish. I mean, that's where you're asking, where did we get caught? Probably in your code where you change it to move forward. We have a developer next to us that's not moving forward. I mean, that's, you know, I think they started, you know, they, they, I can't figure, you know, it's their own business situation why they go belly up, but they go belly up right there in, in COVID time where everything's so crazy. But that kind of, I'm going, we couldn't figure it out. And then when they, we, we were talking to developers thinking, They're getting under contract. We heard they're under contract moving, and then we go get ready to move. This one we're getting approved, and also the bank changes on us. Meaning they also go through selling and going. So I mean, going back to your point, we never anticipated we wouldn't be moving forward. Does that make sense? That's you know, and and so that was the roads or things because we contemplated different things. To be very open with you, we worked with your staff even on the roads. There was some spiking going on by a property owner went even through the foreclosure where he put his name on those parcels. And I think your city was having a hard time completing some of the roads because of it. Because we were looking, let's don't wait for them. I mean, that was when you're asking, I agree, don't— let's control our own destiny. But there was some spiking going on, meaning that have a parcel owner that he goes and he's put his little name on some parcels, they can't complete the road. The city has bonds and they weren't able to initiate the bonds. That's something that Marcus probably can talk I'm going, so we're kind of, you know, the city has bonds that can't enforce. I think you guys are trying to approve they had to get bonds done because we were in— that was one of our meetings, the stuff. Will you please put the roads in? You have bonds. Will you please? Well, they got some legal problems there. I mean, is it— it's just like it just kept coming up and coming up.

Speaker H: I need to correct myself. You are outside of the town center on there. You're adjacent. So, okay, I want to make sure I correct that.

Speaker F: I'm sorry. That's why we keep talking about it going, I didn't know we were the town center concept. So—

Speaker H: I, I think I'll just say this. What we contemplated back then, it's grown well beyond that. You're, you're going to be part of that as, as the neighbor to the west, because we never anticipated having big users that are there. That's going to change that area. And so what was originally contemplated is going to change. But I think that there's a route for you still to have a very profitable project there, just not in the— in my opinion, not in the contemplation that it sits at right now. And we don't want to hurt anybody, but we want cohesiveness, transition, and we want the downtown to feel like we did it on purpose.

Speaker F: So I guess I have not— is the downtown up by a parcel? Because we have the road on the one side.

Speaker H: They're adjacent.

Speaker F: We have Ivory on the other, and we have— but I didn't think— I thought your town center was a little bit— that's why when you're talking about the town center, I'm going, well, to me it's—

Speaker H: When we say downtown, we're not just talking about the piece of land that we own. It's the area around it.

Speaker F: Oh, I understand.

Speaker H: Yes, you're part of that. Ivory to the north is for sure. Their Overland project, they're going to be part of that. Our hope is— I mean, they've got a development agreement that we don't have the ability to alter. Our hope is that they will be good neighbors and help with some of those architectural designs so it looks like we all did this on purpose. But where you're asking for something that we have the ability to come back and negotiate, I think that that's— again, I want to give everybody else a chance to talk. It's not my show here. This is just where I stand.

Speaker B: Thank you.

Speaker G: So I think part of the challenge that sort of gets thrown at the City Council is the agenda gets posted, got posted late on Thursday, July 2nd. July 3rd, a lot of family stuff. July 4th was a lot of family stuff. Then we're hit with Sunday, Monday, and we had over 400 pages to read covering like numerous different topics. And so I think fortunately for this specific one, your agreement has— It's a lot. Till July 24th, I think the current one. So if it were to be tabled per your suggestion, that would give at least a— it would be able to resurface in 2 weeks still before that date, and between now and then we can have more conversations about that. And so anyway, I think just trying to grasp, put our minds around it, at least I'm going to say put my mind around it given everything else we're contemplating at the same time. I think it would be healthy to see sit down and have some meetings and conversation about what is sort of happening in the vicinity and see if there needs to be any modifications or changes. I will say I like the fact that there's good segmentation within the development. I like the fact that there's some bigger lots in there. And I think that's, you know, there's some healthy, I think there's some healthy way to the, it was, you know, there's obviously a lot of thought I think that went into the design of that. But and I think before, I mean, I'm not ready to just put an agreement out to 2033 because I agree with Council Member Wood in that I hope that city councils take the the sort of the procedure that we're only approving stuff that on the residential side that can be acted basically now instead of down the road. And so like my initial contemplation when I saw this, I'm like, well, if we can't act on it now, then let's let it expire and then let's. reevaluate it once it's time to be developed. That being said, you've put a lot of effort into it, and that's why I think it merits not just saying, well, let's just let it expire and let's reconsider. I think, in my mind, it merits a tabling, some conversation between now and the next 2 weeks, putting it back on the agenda 2 weeks from now, and going from there. And that's where I'm standing as well at that.

Speaker A: I've heard at least 2 people say table. I know we're not going to work it out tonight. Is that the direction we're going to head, or is it— we're not going to be able to negotiate from the dais is my point. So I'm looking for either opposition to that or support for that from the other 3 of you. And let's get this one moving.

Speaker H: Let me ask this question. Is there anybody who's in favor of putting this Proposal forward.

Speaker B: As written? As written.

Speaker C: No, I mean, I frankly, I— this one, this one, I'm conflicted on this one, Curt. I'm just going to tell you straight up. We worked really hard to get it to this place. I mean, I was here when we went through this. You remember. And I'm not overly disappointed in the lot sizes that we got in there. I mean, the smallest lots are 8,000 square feet. So, but what I am disappointed about is that it's basically set inactive and you've tried to share the reasons why. And I think some of them are, have at least the ability for us to consider that, right, as an option. But I also think there's probably some work that could have been done that hasn't been done, and maybe I'm off base there. I'm— but that's kind of my sense. I mean, it's like the airport road, just working with Citlin, knowing that that's going to happen. That hasn't changed. That alignment hasn't changed. There's nothing different about that. And if you haven't already procured that with them, that just tells me that you haven't pursued that with the— perhaps with the energy and effort that I would hope you would. That very specifically. Maybe there's some adjustments up on the north end that you're dealing with and contemplating, but that airport road alignment, I don't know why we're still talking about you have to work with Sitla to figure that out. That should be figured out in my mind. So that's where I'm doing this, going, is it better just to let it expire and let's just, let's have another bite at the apple, or do we, do I listen to what my council members are suggesting and We table it, we have some negotiation, we have some discussion, and where does that take us? That's really my question, because I'd like to see you get going.

Speaker F: Well, and as you talk about the Sitland and the bypass road, the bypass road goes across to Aviator, so that's why I think they're bringing it as part of that, the Aviator intersection. That's my— and so I think the staff's been working with it, you know, and that's why we've been with— I, I read like to be We were open, probably, you know, we have talked. I sat down with Brad several times or with Ivory. And yeah, he'd probably be agreeable. I mean, I think, I don't know if you noticed, they have a church site that's there right on Aviator Avenue that they're going to have to start getting some access. So we, when you ask, you know, we've kind of thought that sometime they're going to have to get some access there to kind of put that road in, you know. And so, you know, that's closed. It's in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' name.

Speaker C: Yes.

Speaker F: we've been watching, you know, all that going on that we're going, okay guys, why aren't you finishing the road? You just sold property here. What are you doing? You know, I mean, so we're watching. We've been talking with them about it.

Speaker C: So maybe I would ask this question, Mayor, if there are any other questions that council members have of the applicant. And if not, then let's, let's, let's ask him to, to take a seat. Let's have a discussion as a council. And if there's 2 council members that want to make a motion to table, then let's entertain that.

Speaker A: That's fair with me. If you want, we'll go ahead and have a discussion and let's see where this goes. They've heard your ask and I appreciate that. We'll see what we can come up with.

Speaker H: Thank you.

Speaker A: I think these two have definitely—

Speaker H: No, I don't think that I've said we're going to table. I mean, I'm going to tell you, we're talking now.

Speaker A: Okay.

Speaker H: I'm— in my mind, I'm trying to work out what did the applicant think think today was going to be. We've talked about all these scenarios about what Citrus is going to do, what they're not going to do, what Ivory is going to do, what they're not going to do. You know, Pulte Homes wasn't able to do their part. You know, D.R. Horton pulled out. I mean, we've gone through all those scenarios. What is the idea to come in and ask for an extension?

Speaker B: For what?

Speaker H: We've literally seen no movement on this property. To your point, Brett, you make a good point. We haven't seen anything negotiating the parts that can be negotiated to the north that have nothing to do with the south. I find myself at a crossroads here of if we were to table it, to what end? What is it that we can negotiate in a 2-week time period that would be of any value to make this project move forward, because I don't believe that he has the ability to move forward. If we give the extension, we're going to be back here again giving another extension because it's not ready. And so I, I'm struggling with this because I, I think all of you know how much I feel about getting to the project. I mean, I was pretty instrumental in writing the MDH code for that very reason, is to make sure that we no longer became a city that was full of land brokers, that we got too busy. So I'm not going to make the motion for a table. I'm probably in the place of let's start over.

Speaker G: When you say let's start over—

Speaker I: Just let it expire.

Speaker G: Well, yeah, but I was just saying, Even if it does expire, all of the conceptual engineering work's done. So even if it's expired and it's over per se, it's not hard to start back over.

Speaker H: Well, yeah, they're not ready to go though. I think that's evident. And when they're ready to go, they can come back in, do another application for it, and we can get started with the new MDA code. It's going to be far more restrictive than the one they had.

Speaker B: So just for the record, the agreement doesn't expire until 2029. They would simply be in breach. So those are 2 different things.

Speaker H: Why don't you give us further explanation of what in breach means then?

Speaker B: It means they'd be in breach of the agreement. We'd have, you know, potential remedies under the agreement, including, you know, a lawsuit for breach of contract. We could withhold municipal approvals related to the project. Since they're not seeking any, I don't think that's really an issue at this point. And so we could seek kind of traditional remedies in contract law. It's not— the agreement would still be in effect, but we wouldn't have to live up to our end for the time being. Now, they could potentially cure the breach at some point in the future, but that's kind of where we'd be at. The agreement wouldn't actually be expired.

Speaker H: Let them go into breach then. Yeah, there's nothing that we need to solve for them then. Mayor, will you accept a motion?

Speaker A: I will, as long as those who haven't spoken have said that they're good. Did you want to weigh in?

Speaker D: I think I felt like— I felt like I had a chance during work session to say what I thought, so—

Speaker A: Okay, then, then I'm good.

Speaker H: You'll accept a motion? Mayor, I move that the City Council deny a resolution of Eagle Mountain City, Utah approving the 2nd amendment to the Eagle Crest East Master Development Agreement.

Speaker A: Second. Okay, we have a motion by Councilmember Wood and a second by Councilmember Whiting. Any questions? That's pretty straightforward, so we'll start the vote with, uh, Councilmember Wood.

Speaker C: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Huish.

Speaker C: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Clark.

Speaker D: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Wright. I'll come back to you. Councilmember Whiting.

Speaker G: Yes.

Speaker B: Yes.

Speaker F: Okay.

Speaker A: All right. We are moving on to item 16A, an ordinance of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, enacting Chapter 17.64 of the Eagle Mountain Municipal Code, establishing an alternate— alternative energy overlay zone. And this Evan Barrett, he's been back in Washington, and I know you met with a lot of people that influenced this, so you have a lot of good information. Um, I know it's going to be a good discussion, so we'll turn it over.

Speaker B: Great.

Speaker D: Then you'd get an application to do a rezoning. There's so many public hearings between now and then.

Speaker B: This, uh, work— Maybe.

Speaker A: We used to call these gremlins. I don't know if you have a new name. Everything's black up here, so Carson maybe can help us.

Speaker B: I was joking that you were IT before me. Yeah. Let's try that and see if that works. Does that show up now?

Speaker A: I'm just wondering, I was kind of giving it half a second. I'm looking forward to see what doesn't have a presentation that maybe we could just be talking about why they're Working on this. Is 16C the accessory recreation building? Could we maybe— could we jump to that?

Speaker I: Why?

Speaker A: So you guys keep working, Evan, and I'm going to jump to 16C, an ordinance of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, amending the Eagle Mountain Municipal Code 1775.052 regarding accessory recreation buildings. This is Steven, as far as questions. There's no presentation per se, or yes?

Speaker G: Just the code.

Speaker A: Okay. And we have it here in the packet, I believe. So let's start off with questions if we can go there, and then we'll bring Steven up if we need to. Steven, it's not going to help because we can't get on the screen, but maybe jump on that mic over there where where Brandon was if you want, and we'll work on this. So I'll open it up for discussion or questions.

Speaker G: I'm just grateful that there was some creativity in this solution and that the staff brought this forward before us. So I don't really have any questions on this one.

Speaker A: Okay, we do have the applicant here as well. I couldn't quite see, but just in case there's questions for the applicant, right? No questions from Rich, Zach. Okay. Oh, there's a public hearing on this one. I was just making sure that I covered everything. So this is a public hearing, and we'll go ahead to that point now. So at 8:28, I will open the public hearing. And ask, I know you're busy over there, but is there anyone that came to speak on this?

Speaker I: No.

Speaker A: Okay, I didn't mean to distract you. No, no one. Is there anyone in the audience that did not get a chance to sign up for this item that would like to speak? Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing on the 16C and bring it back to the council. If there's no questions, I will entertain a motion.

Speaker H: I just wanted to make a comment. Thank you, first of all, for engaging in this process. Appreciate the work that you did. And this was Steven that did this one, is that correct?

Speaker D: Yeah.

Speaker H: Steven, it's well-written code. I don't know where— I can't see you. I don't know where you are.

Speaker B: There you are.

Speaker H: I think you did a great job. It's concise, it's to the point. I think it addresses the concerns, at least that I had, and creates a path for any other religious organization that is looking to do a culture hall, that we've put a standard in place, uh, that will enable them to have the same rights. And I, I am a fan of consistency so that everybody, uh, can enjoy the same, uh, benefits. So I'm happy with it. Motion? Yeah, make a motion. Yeah, which one is it? 16D. Mayor, I move that the city council approve an Sorry, 16C.

Speaker A: 16C.

Speaker H: Yeah, there we go. I move that the city council approve an ordinance of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, amending the Eagle Mountain Municipal Code 17.75.052 regarding accessory recreation buildings.

Speaker F: Second.

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

Speaker B: Yes.

Speaker A: Council Member Clark.

Speaker D: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Wright?

Speaker C: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Whiting?

Speaker G: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Wood?

Speaker H: Yes.

Speaker A: Okay, that passes. All right, it looks like we're going to go backwards to 16A, and Evan, you're up.

Speaker I: Okay, apologies for the technical difficulties. I think we're good to go now. So I appreciate the opportunity, Mayor and Council, to bring to you the alternative energy overlay zone. It's been through a few different iterations, And as mentioned in kind of the introduction that the mayor provided, a lot of people have seen it and it's been seen by a lot of great experts as well. So just wanted to give a little bit of an intro to this, just some things that we haven't really talked and explicitly said before, and mostly for the purposes of the public here, for our general approach to energy. I just want to make mention that we are looking at this alternative energy overlay zone primarily for the purposes of helping to provide energy generation opportunities for our commercial and industrial users. We treat, as we look at a lot of this, the residential and the commercial industrial uses as separate, where obviously our residential uses we want to protect and safeguard and make sure those are never impacted by anything that is coming to the city. We're not looking to take away from any residential energy supply or stability. That is of the utmost importance for us. And that advancing energy development in the city as a priority is for the specific purposes of attracting more jobs, more tax revenue, broadening our tax space and overall elevating the quality of life for Eagle Mountain residents. And so anything that would lead towards any sort of negative consequences, whether it be increased rates or increased risk of anything, we're obviously very opposed to seeing that happen. So we've crafted this overlay zone and worked with experts and worked with industry with that understanding in mind that we are looking at this as an opportunity and not meant to be anything that detracts from anything that we hold dear in Eagle Mountain. Really, a lot of this comes back to economic development for our city. For us, having reliable energy is not just a nice thing to have. It's something that we obviously very much need in a residential setting, but it's also extremely important in a commercial and industrial setting. And nowadays, more than ever, having abundant energy is a big determinant in economic development growth. It's a big determinant in site selection for the large companies that we hope to bring, really any size company, small or large nowadays, that could bring quality jobs for our residents and that broader tax base. As a whole, The state of Utah is working through energy, but it is underdeveloping. It is not developing quickly enough, and there's no guarantees at this point that Eagle Mountain will have enough energy for its economic development purposes, just relying on what's already underway across the state. There's certainly been questions, I think, among residents and others about data centers and want to talk about that really quick and then how we're looking at this broader and philosophically. There is some benefit, you know, of course, of having more energy abundance to be able to serve the data centers that will be built in Eagle Mountain to help those continue to build out. Eagle Mountain years ago looked at bringing data centers to our city because we saw there was a lot of advantages if brought in right and if we're worked with them in a proper partnership and collaborative fashion, that they can be great community assets that bring significant property tax and municipal energy tax revenue, and they bring high-quality jobs. But they're also very low impact to our community in multiple respects, and especially in a very low-cost service. I don't know that most people realize that a lot of the development that Eagle Mountain has seen right Right now, especially in residential development, it costs more to service those homes than it does in property tax we actually collect from them. Data centers are the opposite of that. It takes very little to service them and we get a significant amount of revenue that comes out of those. We've also seen with the current data centers that are built and are being built, there are other multiple positive outcomes that have been coming from them, from the infrastructure that's come through from the temporary jobs, temporary and permanent jobs, other commercial growth, the direct community giving, and things like that. And so at this point, you know, there is a benefit in seeing those continue to develop. However, there is a much bigger picture than this when it comes to energy. It's not all about the data centers. It is about economic development as a whole. Whether you're being factories or research centers or whatever they may be, they all need energy. And right now in the state of Utah, we're not sure that we are going to have enough to be able to help see Eagle Mountain grow to what it can really be and have the jobs here locally to help turn traffic around and help make sure that, you know, everyone has a great quality job they can go to. Thank you. Some questions we also see is why not just wait and why Eagle Mountain? Right now this is really, in my mind, it comes down to one primary answer and that is outcome control. So if we're not proactive and support power generation growth right now, commercial industrial development is much slower. Projects developing outside of Eagle Mountain city boundaries may not provide adequate power to Eagle Mountain for our projects, and we want to make sure that we do have that available to us. And we also potentially lose out on opportunities for tax revenues, jobs, and additional economic development. I want to talk a little bit too about what this alternative energy overlay zone is meant to do. It's not meant to just focus on one particular energy type. Our valley can support multiple types of power generation, whether it be solar, geothermal, nuclear, or natural gas. When we look at power generation types, there's a lot of different technologies within these categories. And as we've looked at putting this energy overlay zone together, water was a really big consideration as far as how we frame this overlay zone to make sure we are carefully narrowing down what some sorts of power generation uses we want to see in this valley. There's a lot of different types of solar, geothermal, nuclear, and natural gas, but there are several ones that are extremely safe and advanced and use very little water, and so that has been the priority.

Speaker B: If I can get my thing to advance.

Speaker I: So just a quick history, too, as far as how we've gotten to where we are. In early 2025. We originally approached this by looking to amend the RTI overlay since we were looking at seeing power generation potentially develop near industrial that was already underway with RTI overlay zoning that was already in existence. We'd heard at that time that there were challenges of taking this approach, and we couldn't address that immediately at that point, and so we decided to make some changes. We decided as a city at that point to carry out several objectives: to learn more about energy, to share better information with the public, and to return with a new solution in March of 2025. After the legislative session in 2025, we received HB 249, SB 132, which also changed the landscape of power generation development in Utah. Following that, we also had our town halls— our town hall. The city council visited Idaho National Labs. We had an energy page created with a lot of great resources for the public to better understand energy. We had planned events and we had done a bunch of other additional learning. Staff in particular They met with multiple companies and multiple experts to try and understand the technologies and the different risks and things like that as much as possible. We then created the first iteration of this alternative energy overlay zone. We received sign-off from the Planning Commission at that point, but the City Council asked for some revisions. The 2026 legislative session followed, bringing us SB 135 and HB 136. HB 78, which also changed some things about the frameworks as far as how energy projects are approved in Utah. And then finally, we proposed revisions to the city council a couple months ago for the alternative energy overlay zone in addition to other enhancements. And the city council's feedback at the time was that it was in a good place. We took that to the Planning Commission, who also signed off on the revisions. And that's why we're here now. Just a little bit more on the education side of things. All of you know, because a lot of you were participating in these, it's not just been about nuclear as well. We've tried to really understand everything we can about power generation in every respect as possible. So these council members and mayor, they've visited 3 different natural gas facilities. We've toured solar facilities, so on and so forth. We visited University of Utah and had communications with Brigham Young University. And there's a lot of other things that haven't been on here previously. Most recently, as was mentioned by the mayor, I also traveled to D.C. a couple weeks ago. Visited with a number of agencies there, but one of those was the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to get some additional insights from them as far as what we can be doing better here. As we get into some of the details of what this overlay zone is, I just want to help kind of lay this summary out that the approach here was that we wanted to have that careful balance of attracting energy projects that provide great economic opportunity, ensuring proper protections and oversight is in place to protect residents and their properties. As a reminder, we're proposing this alternative energy overlay zone with no geography in consideration at this point. That inherently gives additional layers of review because someone would need to come and ask for this zone to be applied to the property. There will be other additional layers of review within our community as well, between the development agreements and permits and things like that as well. But also having no geography assigned does inherently create an opportunity to put a cap on certain energy types as well. There are multiple layers of oversight and approval, and I think this is really important for the public to know, is that just by the city creating this overlay zone does not necessarily mean that a power generation project can happen. There are multiple layers at the state level and several layers at the federal level that also need to be approved and completed before anything could ever actually happen here in the city. So as an example of this, this has been something we shared in the past. On the federal side, this is an example of the multiple agencies that could be involved any one project depending on the type of energy used or the location of it. And on the state side, there's also an extensive list of different agencies that have to give sign-off. So it's not an easy process to get a power generation facility constructed by any means. Even though we would be coming in with our own extensive requirements and regulations and things like that, the chances are that ours would be, you know, somewhat minor compared to everything they would have had to have gone through before then. For us, our— we have 3 major things that we're handling through the alternative energy overlay zone, the rezone application. The rezone application for the alternative energy overlay zone requires submission of a whole bunch of materials and still also gives us the ability to request additional materials if we don't feel like there is sufficient information provided. We do require information on the property, the timeline, the water use, the types of energy to be used, and so on and so forth. There's all sorts of different criteria for evaluation and things like that. And then additionally, the building permit also requires extensive information, some of these things which would be already created as part of the federal review process, but we want to be able to monitor those and be able to view those and study them ourselves as well. And we also require copies of all the federal and state permits so that we understand that we're not getting ahead of those projects or those requirements. The development agreement requirement also is a little more open-ended, and intentionally so. There's no obligations that we have to complete that within a certain amount of time. Gives us a lot more flexibility so that if there are specific projects that are unique in some way or, you know, have special considerations that we want to capture, the development agreement will be the ideal opportunity to take care of those. And we can really use that to tool in a very flexible way to accomplish a lot of things. Overall, the alternative energy overlay zone creates standards for our energy— our power generation projects in this city. What you won't find is consideration of wind, hydro, or coal in the alternative energy overlay zone, and that's because all 3 of those aren't really compatible with our area. You will see common among all the energy types and considerations for lighting, fire safety, seismic safety, dust control, traffic controls, hazard materials handling, screening, and buffering. You'll see some specific standards by energy types, and just some examples or specifics on batteries with fire safety and financial assurances for solar and things like that. You'll see some absence of some things with geotechnical and hazardous materials only because some of these things are already reviewed at the federal and state levels, and so it would be redundant for us to do so. Although, as I mentioned before, we would want to see their reviews of that— of those considerations. I just wanted to make a note as well, as I mentioned briefly, with the federal side of things, specifically talking about nuclear with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. So as I mentioned, I met with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission a couple weeks ago. As far as I'm aware, and I think as far as they're aware also, this would be the first time that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has ever reviewed a local zoning ordinance for siting of a nuclear facility. I couldn't consider it an official review because they've just never had that sort of a process before. But they did review our overlay zone and only found one incompatibility with their regulations, and that being is our definition of a microreactor. It should be pointed out the NRC doesn't actually have a definition right now of a microreactor, so that's part of the problem is that we're also in some ways paving the way for that, is that we're creating definitions that the federal government does not yet have either. So we may have to alter that in the future. But otherwise, they had found that everything made sense and that everything that we had in there was not stepping on toes, so to speak, as far as what they do, and that we're in our proper lane for everything. There were also previous considerations and questions about the Atomic Energy Act of 1954. about whether or not that particular act gives the federal government ability to basically overrule anything that a local government does in terms of approval or denial of a nuclear project. So I directly asked them about that, and their message back to us was that essentially That's not how it's meant to be interpreted. It's meant to be interpreted that local governments are not to interfere, essentially, with the licensing process of the NRC. We cannot impose controls on them, but if we have our own local ordinances, we have our own zoning requirements and things like that, we have every right to do those things. So the NRC will do what the NRC does. But we still have every right to deny an energy project according to our own ordinances. The federal government does not step in in that way. Yeah, last little thing too is the NRC wanted to make it very clear too that when going through the licensing process, Public support of a project is a major consideration factor. They do their own analysis on that to understand that there is local support for nuclear. They don't want to approve a license for a nuclear facility if it's broadly unsupported. So we do have a ton of regulations and a ton of controls within the AEOZ, as we call it for short. And so I think one of the natural questions you might ask is why would anyone even want to use the AEOZ if it's going to have a whole bunch of requirements around it? The really what we're trying to accomplish out of this is that it creates an actual pathway for success for a project to be able to to happen within the state of Utah and specifically within Eagle Mountain City. It it creates that clear pathway for approved uses, and it gives a reason— a company reasonable understanding of local support. The only other real consideration here is that it cuts down the site plan process specifically to be reviewed by the DRC. Everything else still gets reviewed by the City Council and Planning Commission as, as it normally would. It's the only thing that is reduced in process-wise is the site plan. With the risks of just not having this tool, we have mentioned, of course, we need the economic development. We need energy for economic development. And so without promoting energy development, we potentially risk having energy or economic development continue to maintain its current pace, which has not been adequate at this point. Development agreements would remain the only tool which we have to try and regulate any energy projects that come through. And then power generation could be sited outside of Eagle Mountain. If far enough away, our area potentially loses out on that power. We don't have any guarantees that that power comes to our area. If it's right outside our border, we have no say in the approval standards or location of where that's done. And then we have the inability to attract projects Which means we still have restrictions on current projects, current data centers, current other projects we're trying to attract and things like that. We did make some updates, as mentioned, to the AEOZ recently that was brought to council over the past— a couple months ago. So just wanted to make sure that we run through these really fast again. We expanded the definitions for abandonment. Had new definitions for abandonment and ancillary building of microreactor, removed the definition for cooling tower, and separated out some of these definitions for small modular reactor units and facilities. We have made a couple adjustments to the approval processes, specifically in nuclear, so that we're not doing things in the wrong order when it comes to state and federal and local. And then had some exemptions with microreactors. Thank you. Tried to close some loopholes, and then added administrative appeal process. We put restrictions on technologies, wanted to specifically make sure that we— it was understood that natural gas, it needed to be low water use, preferably air-cooled and fuel cell-generated systems. We didn't eliminate combined cycles specifically, even though that is typically the higher water use, only because there are hybrid versions now that exist that could be used. But the emphasis has been put on closed-loop water systems. And then with nuclear, we specified more directly which types of nuclear we wanted to see, eliminating some of these higher water uses and the more— the older generations, the 2nd and 3rd generation nuclear power technologies like the pressurized water reactors, boiling water reactors, light water reactors, so on and so forth. And so we're only promoting the 4th gen walkaway safe, low to no water use designs, where the physics of these are literally different from older generations, where as I've visited with companies and visited with different laboratories and things like that, they've, and even the NRC has also asserted this, that a lot of these new technologies are designed in a way where it's, there's really no way that you can cause an overheating or a disaster of the kinds that we've heard in the past. We've added language to say that we're not obligated to give water for these uses, that water will need to be purchased and we don't need to be the seller. The projects need to demonstrate water is procured before any permit is given so that they're not coming back and, you know, saying we're stuck, please save us. You know, they need to be able to demonstrate that. water is there. And they need to make sure that they're providing better information about what water is needed for the different phases of development. We added caps to the types of energy for natural gas and nuclear. And so nuclear, this zone would only ever approve up to 3 gigawatts of generation, and then natural gas up to 2 gigawatts of generation. And then other regulatory factors, as just an FYI, mainland limit this further anyway. And then this also can be utilized to limit the total power generation projects of the city to what we need and not to be a source of power generation for the state as a whole. We added some language about decommissioning, just trying to enhance decommissioning planning language, the reviews of solar and things like that. There wasn't any changes to nuclear only because the NRC already has very specific requirements for decommissioning, and so for us to add more on there would be redundant. And natural gas also, we didn't do much on there as well, only because the cost to decommission is extremely low and in some cases near zero, just because of the high scrap value, the low impact on the terrain, and things like that. We added a lot more things related to safety and emergency planning as well, a lot more information on battery storage, just make sure everything is complying with international fire codes and so on and so forth. Geothermal, trying to make sure we're covering everything there. And then solar as well. There's a number of things that just we hadn't even considered before that we learned about later, about glare hazards and things like that to roads and aircraft and things like that. So last thing with architectural standards, we just added a couple of exemptions under this only because originally we were trying to treat this similar to the RTI overlay zone where we want to have some consistency in the architectural standards and some high-quality architectural standards. But there are some structures that would likely be constructed as part of these facilities that just can't abide by certain elevated architectural standards. They have to meet certain federal standards and they just unfortunately don't always look pretty. They just have to meet those safety standards. So we just make some exceptions where there has to be a certain design of a certain facility in a certain way to meet federal standards. In summary, the alternative energy overlay zone balances the ability to attract power generation facilities that will greatly enhance our economic development outcomes while also ensuring our home and residents are properly safeguarded and leadership is able to effectively evaluate projects that arise. I'm happy to answer any questions at this time.

Speaker G: Can you clarify why the difference between 25 megawatts and more and 25 megawatts and less?

Speaker I: Yeah, so the, the 25 megawatts is kind of the threshold at which we set our definition for microreactors. versus typical smaller modular reactors. And that was just basically based on— we had met with multiple microreactor developers, and none of them exceeded 25 megawatts as a single reactor development. And so without a full definition from the NRC, that seemed to be a safe limit to where we crossed that line.

Speaker F: Okay.

Speaker G: And so basically the approval process is going to be a little more streamlined for something that's less than 25 megawatts?

Speaker I: Potentially. It depends on how they put— how they use that. Because microreactors, you do a single microreactor, then yes, it could be a much more streamlined process. It could be like a 2-megawatt-something sort of facility, and it has an extremely low impact. These are also designed to be extremely safe and things like that. They're treated differently. by the NRC anyway. But much like modular reactors, microreactors can also be strung together. And so if you string together, you know, 10, 12, 50, whatever, then you start getting into a nuclear facility, is how we're trying to define that at that point. And so when you start stringing some together and you get over that 25 megawatts, then that process goes back to just the regular process. And we've tried to look at different ways at which that could be potentially abused, or there's loopholes or whatever, where it's like, you know, you might try and have each microreactor on a separate parcel or something like that, or they're trying to, you know, use them for different purposes, or they're trying to do— there's all sorts of different ways that you could potentially try and take advantage of loopholes. And so we've tried to close every single possible loophole on there so that At any point at which you get over that 25 megawatts, we're treating that as a regular nuclear reactor at that point.

Speaker G: All right, and then if you could remind me, so we require a bond for decommissioning for the BES and the solar. We don't require a bond for any of the other energy types?

Speaker I: For geothermal, we would.

Speaker G: There was a bond, there was a bond in there. Maybe I missed that. Okay, but the others we don't, and is that because Why would we not require a bond for those? Like, say, let's say they go bankrupt and suddenly we're left with this facility.

Speaker I: Yeah.

Speaker G: So a bond would typically help us in that regard. So some of these product types, these energy types, wouldn't have a bond. Should we require the bond, and why do we not?

Speaker I: So with nuclear and natural gas in particular, nuclear already has their own requirements for the those sorts of things when it comes to decommissioning, be able to have the funding resources to go ahead and do the decommissioning process and whatnot as part of their licensing process. And then the natural gas side of things, the cost to decommission and to, you know, remove those facilities is extremely low. We could add in a bonding process. If we wanted to, if you want to make sure that that is you know safeguarded. But from the experts that I've talked to, there's a lot of value in a lot of the equipment, even if it's abandoned. That even just the scrap value of the metal alone would generally cover the costs of removal.

Speaker D: Can I ask Council Member Whiting just a quick kind of follow-up discussion with that? When we talk about A decommissioning bond. I know that some are governed by federal requirements and they have to bond and do those things because of federal requirements. What would you think about having something that was like requiring a decommissioning plan? So whether it's there's a bond that's required or this is what would happen in the event of a decommissioning situation.

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker D: Because I understand that we don't have to require a bond because it's already required by another bigger entity than us, but maybe having that be a part of the approval process would help kind of address some of the concerns that I think maybe you're getting at.

Speaker G: Yeah, and I think most of them did require a decommissioning plan, like all of them might have, I don't remember. And I like the idea that the plan's included.

Speaker F: Okay.

Speaker A: Yeah. Evan, I— sorry, I just— it's on the same topic. I, I just wanted to ask, uh, a lot of these plants, like I'm thinking IPP for instance, they've been down there for 100 years and maybe 100 more. If— yeah, I know, I work down there too. The, uh, at the time that they build it, they place a bond at today's value, and 100 years from now that value goes up. What makes that How does the bond increase with like inflation or costs? Is there a mechanism to—

Speaker D: So I asked that question when we were looking at solar before with a development agreement, in particular landowner that was doing something on the south. And she had said something about like every 2 to 3 years or every year, they reevaluate the amount that's bonded for so that it has to be enough to cover the cost. Is that your understanding too, Evan, or?

Speaker I: I haven't gotten into the specifics on that, so I'm afraid I don't know the answer to that question.

Speaker A: That's why I brought it up. I think it's important that maybe that's included, that we evaluate 5 years, 10 years. You know, we know what the last 5 years have done, and specifically the last 10 years, that those bonds are renewed or updated or evaluated at least. I'm just throwing that out for— any other questions? If— go ahead.

Speaker D: I have a ton. One of the things that I kind of gleaned from this, and thank you, by the way, for the presentation and all the work that you've put into this. This has been like a 2-year process and we've all done a ton of homework. So thank you for putting it all together in one presentation. You had talked about how there are certain standards and I kind of wrote a note saying standards, if we rely on federal, what happens if the federal government changes their requirements or standards? What happens with that? I mean— like if they reduce them, I guess is probably the best question.

Speaker I: If I can use, I guess, nuclear as an example, because that's about my best— I know best, because that's the questions we've gotten the most on. Because I specifically asked the Nuclear Regulatory Commission about that. I think it's pretty well known that they're going through reviews of their standards, and a lot of people I think are perceiving that as a reduction in standards. The way it was described to me, and this comes from— I literally met with almost the entirety of the Office of Advanced Reactors at the NRC. Nobody is reducing any standards. If anything, standards are removed only because they're no longer applicable. And so safety and risk mitigation and environmental concern is of the most priority of the NRC and any other regulatory body. And so the way that they are looking at those different things is trying to make sure that they're not necessarily a barrier or a complication for some of these power generation projects by continuing to require a number of standards or a number of different requirements and things like that that are based on technologies or based on science that is no longer in use. And so there's been enhancements to efficiencies. The way that the chairman of the NRC described it basically is that they're not— they're trying to avoid asking people to do homework for things that are not actually required anymore. And so I think there will be standards that do change overall over time. There will be standards that change with natural gas. There will be standards that change all the time because the technologies evolve. We learn more things as a human species that can help us be better at the use of these technologies. But my understanding is that at no time is the intent to ever change that to make those less safe in the name of profits or the name of anything else. It's just to make it better.

Speaker D: It's clear. Yeah.

Speaker E: Yeah.

Speaker D: Okay, so you mentioned limits on natural gas and nuclear, but my question is, when I say limits, the amount that can be generated by that power type. My question is, shouldn't we be looking at that with solar? Because it feels like we could be over-dominated with solar items, and part of me feels like we should be including that in what we do as limits. Is that something you considered?

Speaker I: It is something I consider. That's up to you as a city council if you want to do that. I ultimately did not think that was necessary, only because we're talking about power generation projects within the city limits.

Speaker F: Okay.

Speaker I: Within the city limits, the size of projects that you get, you know, is maybe halfway decent. But generally speaking, for a solar project to really be profitable of any size, any, of any kind, it needs to generate a few hundred And to get a few hundred megawatts, you need thousands of acres of development. And the likelihood that anyone would, even a single landowner, would have thousands of acres to sell for solar, which would not be the highest and best use, they wouldn't get the most value out of that land, would be very remote.

Speaker B: Okay.

Speaker I: So to me, it wasn't as much of a concern unless, you know, we see great extensions of Eagle Mountain's property that, We fear at that point that then, you know, that sees, you know, potential for solar use.

Speaker D: Okay, I have just 2 more quick questions.

Speaker G: I'll comment on that one real quick. Yeah, because it seems to me the overlay zone wouldn't be applied anyway, so that landowner would have to come to us. What are you going to do with it? Well, I want solar farms. And I think at that point we say, well, we're not— we don't have an appetite for it at the moment.

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker A: And if I could, on this thing On the same subject, if we do annex into those areas, you may want more generation because there are low water use— uses within those expanded areas that could be power generation for the rest of the city. So our annexations could change that. So I don't think you'd want to necessarily limit it. And going back to your previous question about what if NRC or federal regulations change, councils can change this ordinance so that Valid.

Speaker D: Okay, so really quick, you mentioned paving the way, and I want to clarify because I feel like this is something through all of the different public comments and hearings and all of that stuff, people have said they're concerned about experimental technology, and this is something that's existed for a really long time. So I want to clarify.

Speaker C: Okay.

Speaker D: When you talked about paving the way, that's really about paving the way for clear identifying language, but not paving the way with the science, correct?

Speaker I: Right. Yeah. What hasn't really existed to this point is a clear regulatory pathway between local, state, and federal all working together. harmony to bring about good quality and safe power generation facilities. We focus on the most advanced technologies only because the most advanced technologies are also the safest. They're also the most efficient. They're the least impactful on the environment. They use the least amount of water. Those are the ones we want to pursue only because they're the best for the community. But obviously, We're not looking to be an experiment for any of these technologies. They will have had to go through national laboratory testing. They'd have to get through all sorts of different approvals and certifications before it ever comes to us. In fact, most of these new technologies are usually tested in commercial settings within 2 or 3 different locations across the United States before it ever actually gets put into to the scale of which we'd be looking to need.

Speaker F: Okay.

Speaker D: Last question, you guys. Sorry. You mentioned setting— we can set regulations on the power generation, what the project— like all of those things, but we can't do anything to hinder the review process and the entity that has to do the review process. So it doesn't mean that the federal government or anyone else can come in and say, Eagle Mountain, you have to do this. What it means is we have to let them do their analysis, their review, their plan, all of those things, but we still have autonomy as a governing body representing the people to do what our people want. Is that accurate?

Speaker I: Correct, yes. The NRC and others, they can't come in and just push aside our decisions. own regulations. Our regulations are in full force. In fact, I might even correct myself a little bit to say we can actually influence the licensing process, in that I mentioned that local support is a major factor in consideration of the licensing process. So if we make it very clear to the NRC in a licensing process that we are not in support, then that will weigh heavily on their decision to license.

Speaker B: Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. I'm really excited about this. I think we all know that Rocky Mountain Power is kind of at capacity and they're looking for, for ways to maybe unload that. Can you just talk a little bit about the, like, the build-out of the infrastructure around these facilities. There's going to be some kind of substation buildout or distribution network when the power is generated. Does that fall on the city, county, the companies that are installing them?

Speaker I: It depends on how these are ultimately deployed, because some of them could be deployed specifically to serve a single customer or a small set of customers in an industrial center. So then you may not see really any transmission distribution lines. They may just be somewhat local to that area. If it does, you know, potentially serve broader customers, connect into the main grid and things like that, they will obviously consider, you know, the challenges that may come based on the site they choose as far as how difficult it is to get, you know, the rights to be able to put new transmission distribution lines as needed, new substations built. There's always the possibility that new lines are created. We know that there's already plans for new transmission lines into Eagle Mountain. We already have 345-kilovolt lines that run on the east side. We— there will be more connections coming in from the south from Spanish Fork, and there'll be additional connections coming in from the west from And so between those different lines that are already planned to come through, our connectivity to our different planned industrial centers and things like that were— that would benefit most from this, you know, that the situation for siting power generation facilities should be pretty straightforward as far as where they would likely go and how they would connect to the overall network.

Speaker B: And What revenue opportunities is there for the city just as these kind of start to build out? I mean, this is like a several decade conversation that we're having.

Speaker I: Yeah, yeah.

Speaker B: Can you speak to that a little bit?

Speaker I: Absolutely, yeah. So there's the known and then there's the kind of unknown because there's some various things that can come out of these too as a catalyst for things. The known things right now is municipal energy tax is the biggest one for sure. As a private company comes in and builds a power generation facility and serves customers in Eagle Mountain, Eagle Mountain collects a 6% municipal energy tax, and that can generate quite a bit of revenue. Those power generation facilities also do produce property tax as well, pretty significant property tax. These power generation facilities power generation facilities are pretty high value in the orders of multiple hundreds of millions of dollars, if not over billions of dollars. And so that it creates a lot of those revenue opportunities. I think it's important to note that for any of the data center projects that we have that may put power generation facilities on their properties that they have, power generation was not in any of the tax increment financing arrangements, the CRAs. And so those would not be, there'll be no incentives applied to those power generation facilities. We'll get the full value out of that. There's certainly additional value that comes from the other infrastructure that comes as part of those different facilities. But kind of the lesser known aspect aspects of this is more of the workforce that comes out of these facilities is usually extremely educated and highly desirable. I saw this firsthand in my own hometown where there was a nuclear power facility. That nuclear power facility attracted hundreds of really high-quality employees who then were so attractive it attracted other companies that didn't even really have anything to do with power generation. They just wanted access to that workforce. But in my hometown as well, they also attracted research and development facilities. For some of these on the nuclear side, some of these nuclear companies also produce medical isotopes that come out as a byproduct of these facilities, and so that becomes a major market potentially as well. There's a lot of different economic benefits that potentially develop out as part of these different facilities. As kind of secondary benefits as well.

Speaker A: Thank you.

Speaker C: Evan, in all of your research, did you come across any data that just talks about the siting of these sites, a distance requirement, like a minimum safe distance from some of these sitings?

Speaker I: So I did as much as I could on that and specifically went to with the nuclear side in particular, specifically address that with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to understand how their regulations were changing as part of that and understanding what things that we should be looking at. Specifically asked them about distance to homes, distance to hospitals, distance to schools, churches, other sensitive facilities, infrastructure facilities, water, sewer, treatment and all sorts of stuff like that. They emphasize that with the modern advanced nuclear reactors, that there is no requirement per se that you can just blanket put across any of these different companies. But with the advanced reactors now today, it really is up to the fence line as far as how far you need to be away. from them as far as restricted space, if that makes sense. The emergency planning zones generally only go to the fence line now for any of these advanced reactors, just because of how the physics works in these reactors, wherein they— there isn't really a meltdown capability within these anymore. It's physically impossible now at this point for anyone to intervene to actually cause any sort of major issue with them. And so they've, the NRC now feels comfortable that the fence line is appropriate for these. When it comes to things like natural gas, you'll probably observe there are natural gas facilities that are very close to residential and other uses even within Utah. We visited the Lake Mountain, or not the Lake Mountain, but the Lakeside power facility. That one is very close to other developments. Uh, there's other natural gas facilities in West Valley and other places that are next to very, um, very classy-looking, um, residential developments, and you wouldn't really even know that they were there. Um, and, uh, and those are also particularly safe as well with how they're designed. Um, there's, there's always going to be some element of of a setback or some element of a protection zone for any of these, mostly for the sake of security. We don't obviously want anybody to ever try and tamper with a facility for any purpose, but that's at the most really what it's now coming down to is just for a security consideration.

Speaker C: But each and every site that's identified will, number one, have to come with a development agreement, and then number two, be rezoned to be able to allow that use, right? Correct. And so in that development agreement, you could actually restrict certain types of energy production even though it's maybe entitled under the overlay. You could restrict it through development agreement, correct? Yes. Just trying to think through some of the logistics of application for this, right?

Speaker A: So if there's not any other questions, this has taken quite a while on this item, and I'm gonna be honest, I've looked forward to see what we could move around, and I wanna get through all the public hearings.

Speaker H: Then let's table it.

Speaker A: So yeah, I wanna, but first I wanted to get to the public hearing because it was noticed, and that will help it when it comes back. So if that's okay, do we have, well, let me start here. It's 9:18, and we'll open the public hearing on this item. Nobody has come to speak on this. Is there anyone here in the audience who would wish to speak on this item? Seeing no one, we will close the public hearing at 9:18 and come back to the council. I know this is something we've really worked on for quite a long time, and, uh, I think we, at least for the most part, have a desire to see something move forward. Is there some direction, some questions? Uh, is it close?

Speaker H: I don't think we're done asking questions.

Speaker A: Yeah, that's what I'm asking.

Speaker H: What's what's what what's what are we going to do? We've heard from Melissa. We've heard a couple questions from Brett, one from Zach. I don't think we're even close to asking all the questions for this. So if you're in a hurry, then let's table it.

Speaker A: I know we got a lot of things that have been noticed. There's residents here that are here for other items. So I want to know what what if we're here to ask questions about the general production of energy. That's one thing. But is it a As it pertains to the code, what in the code do we like and not like, and what direction does it need to go?

Speaker D: I think we should take the time that it takes to answer and ask the questions. If we need to table other items because we don't get to them, then that's fine.

Speaker A: Perfectly fine. I'm just saying let's move.

Speaker G: Okay. Well, okay, I'm going to be quick on this. There are 4 spelling errors. Can I just bring this up real quick? Under the section geothermal, K2B, the word identification is spelled The word exceeding is spelled wrong. And then under geothermal, K5, the word exceeding is spelled wrong. Under natural gas, K3, it should be plant instead of plan. And then K4B, it should be— specific is spelled wrong. And I know you put those Easter eggs in there to see if one of us read, and apparently I'm the only one that read. So—

Speaker A: You're just the only one that got to that. Rich hadn't asked his questions yet. So do you have any other questions pertaining to I've got a lot. I'm talking to—

Speaker G: I have comments but not questions. But whatever. Okay, I'll be super fast. So we're asking Lehigh and American Fork, places that are near I-15, to take on high density because that doesn't make sense in Eagle Mountain. It also doesn't make sense to put energy production along I-15. So you got to ask, what's Eagle Mountain's role in the whole scheme of things? Our role is not high-density housing, but we do have a responsibility, I believe, in the energy sector. And when we're looking at the battle, like we've talked about 1776 a lot, what's the battle of 2026? The battle with China is over energy. We've got to produce it. And not only that, we have to produce jobs in Eagle Mountain that are not tech sector jobs. Energy opens up the door for manufacturing and other jobs that don't rely on tech, because tech is under attack by AI. So I think it's the wisdom of the council to lead out in energy situations and energy production, both for the, for the independence of the United States, but also for the jobs and future economic security of our city.

Speaker H: All right. Question number 1, do we want to be specific about the small modular reactor units? I think we've eliminated some of the water ones there, but I personally would like to be more specific about what we do want so that only what we want comes and applies, while we're not coming in and going, oh, maybe we're okay, they use a little bit of water. I think we should be specific. Water. Uh, personally, I, I've done some research on this, and I think to me the liquid metal fast reactors and the molten salt reactors, based on what the information that's been shared with us, my own research, present an opportunity for us to not be completely dependent on the MET, especially if the state's demonstrated that they intend to meddle with that. Um, I think there may be an opportunity for us to do an agreement that would do some sort of a royalty for the material that's produced from that. That could be something that would be a benefit to the citizens in perpetuity. They're also the 2 safest technologies, so I'd like us to consider that. Let me get back to—

Speaker A: While you're looking at that, you and I talked about that a lot, and you got to remember, if they produce energy, We only get the AMET if it's consumed here. If it goes on the grid and goes somewhere else, we get nothing. But on that note, they're billion-dollar plants. We do get property tax on personal property.

Speaker H: I think that needs to be one of the considerations too. If the intent is for them to produce energy for the users here, then there ought to be something that prevents them from selling it elsewhere.

Speaker A: Well, it depends on the production, but— But that's the reason that you set limits for the amount And the royalties, but don't forget, they do pay a property tax. That's what the—

Speaker H: All things considered, but those are also things that the state can give and take away. So contract are things they can't mess with. So I think it'd be good for us to be specific about that. I'm concerned about getting into the geothermal. We haven't done any research as a body on this. We've been provided no information. We don't really know the pros and the cons of it. I mean, obviously it produces energy, we know that part. But the process that it is used to bring the thermal energy out, I think we need to have some more data, some experts come in and talk to us about what that is before I'm comfortable putting that in there and letting somebody come in and do that because it's an allowed use.

Speaker E: Thank you.

Speaker H: I'm also wondering what the thinking, so I don't really love mimicking the RTI for this. I think we already had this discussion when it was brought forward to be part of the RTI. This is not something we're looking to fast-track. I think we've been pretty clear on that. We wanna have the time to be able to go through and evaluate and make sure that we're comfortable with all of the points an energy production facility regardless of what kind it is. So I'm not comfortable making any administrative decisions in this code. There's a number of places where it says that, which I'd like us to either discuss those, remove them. But I think that these are things that really the elected officials need to be— we're going to be on the hook for it. We might as well be the ones making the decision for it. And there's a number of places that that exists. One of the questions also in application for rezoning 1764-030, C9, why would we waive a water use assessment? I just think that that flies in the face of everything that we have been working on with water. I think that needs to be removed, waiving a water assessment. I think that that has to be part of that, particularly if it's going to be done for data centers. I believe the state's pushing pretty heavily for that to be the case. So I think that needs to be dealt with. Then in D of that same Section 1, compliance with the general plan. I mean, I understand why you put that in there, but it doesn't make any sense because we don't have any standards for when it would be compliant. Compatible. Where it's an overlay, maybe that's one of the things to debate with the rest of the council. Should it be an overlay, or should there be a designated area where the energy overlay should exist? And I think in most cases we've talked about this shouldn't be in the city. When we say that, we mean by residential. I don't think we're saying in our city limits, but I think we need to be specific about what we mean by that. If we're saying that solar fields Shouldn't be in the city. Are we saying at all? Are we talking about they shouldn't be next to residential, or they shouldn't be right next to commercial because they're a nuisance? So I think that needs to be clarified in there so that when it says compliance with the general plan, that it's clear what we mean by that. Then in, I want to remove the RTI overlay. I don't think that that—I'm not interested in making those two hand in hand because I don't think. That I'm looking to extend the RTI overlay south of where it already exists. In my mind, the whole reason that we considered the annexation area to the south was for the very purpose of this energy production zone. Let's see, I already hit that one. Also in Um, 1764040, uh, B3. I don't want to continue the practice of just giving them free rein for grading and excavation without having a weed mitigation plan, specifically because the south end of the city tends to be our biggest producers of tumbleweeds, and then all of our citizens take the brunt of that when the winds kick up. So I think there needs to be something in place that they take some ownership responsibility of preventing those. So when they go and they do their grading, they do a large-scale grading, they need to do weed mitigation until they complete their process. And that any damage that's caused from not doing that, that they ought to be the ones to remove them and destroy them. Then 4, right after that, the approval authority. I'm not okay with it being an administrative decision for site plans and final plats. I think we want to be involved in that process all the way through. We've— I don't know how many city council meetings we've had where we've talked about site plans and what our expectations of those containing transportation, etc. I think as we start getting into this, we're going to have further— we'll have some experience, and experience will then give us the ability to say we learned, we want this. And if it becomes an administrative decision, we won't even see those things. So I'm not comfortable with that decision-making being at the staff level. Let's see. With both the geothermal power plants and the natural gas plants. So I asked the question, I went to AI and said, what are the distance requirements? Are there any for power plants to exist in relative proximity to residential and commercial? And it actually sent me to the EPA site.

Speaker A: I think we need to do some more research with that.

Speaker H: I'm going to ask you to go and do that. I don't really want to get into those details until I'm clear on what the those are, but I think it's something that we need to take a look at, that we make sure that our proximity is in line with what the federal government expectations are for any power plant that has emissions. And then in conjunction also with the geothermal power plant, the seismic injection controls Again, I think we need to better understand what that looks like when they're doing injections into the ground to bring the thermal energy out and what the consequences of those are, not just at the site but perhaps seismic activity and things of that nature. I think we need to have a better understanding what that is before we start making those types of decisions. Let's see. Well, that might be the main, main issues there. I agree with what's been said about the bonding, by the way, making sure that the bond escalates with time in accordance to the value. The decommissioning, I think that there are standards that are in place at the federal level, but I think we need to make sure that our standards are higher than what is out there, particularly for solar. Oh, that reminded me the one other thing, the storing of hazardous material. I think that we want to understand what that actually looks like and whether or not we want to store hazard material of any kind on the properties here. So that's going to extend to the buses, that's going to extend to, uh, the solar panels, natural gas plant, nuclear, uh, facilities, uh, and the geothermal. Uh, I'm not interested in being a storage facility of any kind, uh, here in the city. I think that there's opportunity for those to be removed quickly. Um, I don't want to— I don't want to have a story where it's leaching into the ground because we weren't paying attention. So I think we want to make sure that we understand what those storage, uh, guidelines are, not just referencing them. And then maybe we need to evaluate making them a little stringent, more stringent, to protect our water supply and air supply. That's what I've got.

Speaker C: I don't have a lot to add to that, actually. I think Councilmember Wood went through all of it.

Speaker F: Look, I think what—

Speaker C: I think what's been done is really excellent, Edmund, and I want to say that publicly. So I really appreciate your work on this. I think that we're— I think we're at like the 90th percentile. I think there's just a little bit more work to do to get it to where I think you're going to find unanimous support for this. And so I don't know what the path forward is, but it sounds to me like it's pretty It's probably time to consider tabling it and to incorporate some of the feedback that you've received into this code.

Speaker D: How much more is— do we need to work on this? Because it feels like we've been discussing this code and other iterations of code to kind of govern and control this part of what we're doing. I don't, I don't completely know how much more we need to do to this.

Speaker H: Like, if you feel like it's ready, then I think you go ahead and make a motion to that fact if you think it's there. And if not, then I think a motion needs to be made to make changes that, that they feel appropriate. I think not everybody's going to be in the exact same place on this. If you're uncomfortable with that, make the, make the motion for how it stands, and maybe you've already got the, the The point of what I asked.

Speaker D: I think the point is, is that we've had several times where we've come, code's been presented to us, we've given feedback, those changes are made. And then we give feedback, those changes are made. And I'm just wondering how much more do we need to work on this so that we can get it to where it needs to be? Because I think Right now we're unprotected. We have nothing. And I want us to have code that governs this so that we can protect our residents. And I, I'm reluctant to just keep tabling, tabling, tabling because I want us to get to that point where we have that protection in place. And I'm not saying that it's not okay to ask the questions. I'm just asking How much more will it take to get us there?

Speaker A: And if maybe I could, if I could add one thing, and that is you do recognize that you have not applied this to any area, so you can always apply it with a zone change. Zone changes are not required; it's council discretion. The second is, I think trying to make the ordinance perfect negates the fact that. That every project is unique, and you will have a development agreement for which you can contractually require many things that might be site-specific or tied to a given project. And so you can— you'll have that opportunity as well. And going to Councilmember Clark's, you know, having those protections in place is important, but I think that probably the most important protection that we have in place is that We actually want to invite those in, those companies in, and we've had meetings back in D.C. and with, you know, companies back there, and we've had meetings here. We want to invite those companies in, and we'd rather have them on our side of the border where we have controls as opposed to being in an inland port zone outside of our border or in the county where we don't have those controls. And so rolling out the red carpet it doesn't mean that you couldn't necessarily direct us, even if you approved it today, there's no application, you could still direct us to keep refining it and refining it and refining it and getting it better and better and better. And we keep working on it. But passing something and having it in place is one step towards making it better. 1% improvement every day gets us stronger and better and whatnot. And, and, um, but not passing something means that we just keep perpetuating. And we have a tendency of that with general plans, with capital facility plans, with impact fee plans. We're not collecting revenue, we're not collecting— we're not putting plans in place because we want them perfect instead of having them there where we keep working on them iteratively.

Speaker B: I was just going to say, how close do we think we are? And you've got some feedback. I think Rich has applied like the strictest standard of all of us on the council. And that's good. Do you have like a good punch list? And how long do you think it would take to maybe rework some of the language?

Speaker I: I do have a punch list. I mean, to what Ben's point, I think we can approve something today and address a couple of these things later. There are several of these things I can give a little bit of feedback on. feedback on if that's appropriate. For like the geothermal, what I heard is there's mostly a need for education on that. Fortunately, I'm not aware of any interest in a geothermal facility at this time in Eagle Mountain. I think we have time to go ahead and provide that opportunity for education to see if there's any additional changes to the requirements we need to make there. So So whether we, you know, pull that out at this time and address that later or we just leave it in and then refine it later, I think we have plenty of time to address that. When it comes to things like hazardous materials and storage and things like that, I think a lot of that will also be addressed more on a case-by-case basis because the types of materials, the quantity of materials, and all that sort of stuff That's not something we could ever really totally anticipate in a broad ordinance. That is going to be kind of a case-by-case basis. I'm not sure exactly how we would draft that right now to try and be all-encompassing. And in a similar light, with trying to name specific SMR technologies, I understand the desire with that because getting as specific as possible to the ones that we know, the ones that we trust, makes a lot of sense. In my research and in my work with different companies, the technologies are still evolving so rapidly. The cooling technologies, the fuel types, the designs, the size of the reactors— there's so many different variables right now that I worry that we could be inadvertently missing really good technologies. excluding those. And so my approach was to try and remove the ones that we know that are not going to be conducive to Eagle Mountain, the ones that are the high water users, the ones that carry more risk and things like that, and leave it open for now. But at the very least, as has been mentioned, you know, during the rezone application, during the development agreement, all these things come to light as far as what the technology is. We have to get to know the technology really good at that that point, and we can deny those at that point. If, if that new technology comes in, turns out to be something that is, you know, not, not ideal, then there's, there's no reason why we need to approve that. Um, I think there's, there's certainly some things that we can, um, you know, make changes as far as process goes. Um, you know, when it comes to, you know, site plan approvals and things like that, that's something that I I would feel comfortable making pretty obviously quick changes to that. I think that might even be something that could be changed at the dais right now if that's something that could be worded quickly. But if not, then we can bring back an amendment quite quickly for that. As far as research on distances for natural gas and geothermal as well, I think that one is obviously very well understood. Understood too that we want to be very considerate of that. I think a lot of that will actually be resolved or worked out before it actually gets to us when it comes to the federal and the state reviews of that. If there's going to be any sort of issue with those sorts of things, the federal and the state governments and their different agencies or whatnot will have already identified those issues and we would have had information on that. But if we also carry issues with that above and beyond what those have or what have you, again, we have our development agreements, our zoning requirements. We don't have to zone an area we don't feel comfortable with. If just natural gas in general, you don't want that anywhere near, let's say, you know, a mile from residential, it's up to you as a body who determines where that zoning goes to to just do that, right? That's— that you can create that policy for yourselves. So I think you have a lot of power already to start limiting that with or without the information you have now. Obviously, we'd still want to provide you plenty of information, education, so that you can make an educated decision. But I think you do have within what's here today a lot of capability to help steer what needs to happen to keep everyone safe and make sure the city is in a good spot.

Speaker A: So with that, as far as direction, a couple of things that I wanted to add that maybe go in the development agreement is things like the royalties, which we've talked about. Does that go in this zone code or does it go in a development agreement? Uh, on top, right? So then it's not in front of us tonight because it's something we'd address later.

Speaker H: But which one you choose matters. That's the point of that.

Speaker A: Say that again?

Speaker H: Which ones you choose matters because not all of them produce something that you can get a royalty off of. That was the point of that.

Speaker A: They all produce power.

Speaker H: They don't all produce natural materials after that can be utilized, like platinum, like all of the different magnets, isotopes, that type of thing. There are only 2 specific technologies that do that. That's why I was specific about them. Look, so look, you either agree or don't agree. I'm okay with that. I am going to be stringent. Ben, I want to just address that because I feel like you lumped a lot of things in there. I'm not real happy with that because we care about it being right, not about hurrying through so that people can come and, and put pressure on us to put something through, we're the ones who get to deal with the citizens that come and say, why are you putting this in our backyard? And I'm not going to do it just because of pressure. We've got to get this one right because it's not like doing a zone for townhouses. There are real-life consequences with this, both in the air, the ground, what we do to the ground, et cetera. We're not going to hurry through this because it's inconvenient for the staff. I'm I'm sorry, maybe that makes me an a-hole, but for me, I'm going to be an a-hole on this one. And I'm going to say it's got to be right or we don't do it. Perfection has nothing to do with it. Evaluating appropriately each of these technologies so that we know what we're getting ourselves into has to be a penultimate goal of ours for this. And if I'm alone on that, then so be it. 4 to 1, vote me. Thank you. On that one, but I will go down on this one. I will not put this through without there being some specificity to each of these things. And again, if you disagree, Melissa, put forth your your motion and see if people agree with you. But I'm not comfortable with where it's at. That's why I brought those things up. They need to be put in there, in my opinion. And maybe I don't have the the other 2 people to vote along with that, and that's fine. But I'm ready to put a— sorry, I'm ready to put a motion into that effect so that it can be right. But if somebody else has a motion they think can carry, by all means.

Speaker A: Councilman Wood, I, I want to sincerely apologize if it came across that we want to try to rush this, because certainly we haven't. I don't want to put this across to—

Speaker H: then why bring up the general plan? I mean, that was kind of a low blow. And you know that.

Speaker A: Because in all reality, we, we really do have an issue where we're not getting things across the border.

Speaker H: And if you want to air dirty laundry on the dais, we can certainly do that. Otherwise, I would expect— I would expect some, some respect with regards to those things that we can deal in a chamber that's not this one.

Speaker A: Councilman Wood, I'm actually trying to apologize if I offended you in any way, because that's certainly wasn't the case, and that certainly wasn't the desire. What I'm saying is we have an opportunity, for example, with impact fees, to collect impact fees with every building permit. But when we don't pass something, we don't collect those impact fees, and then it— we all lose as a community. And, and so the general plan is the basis, is the foundation. It's the And then from that, your capital facility plans and your IFFPs and your IFAs and everything else. And the general plan is the basis of your zoning code. And what I'm really saying is we spend a tremendous amount of staff time and we reach out to you constantly to try to get your input. This hasn't been pushed. This was years in the making, but we've reached out to you Reached out and reached out and reached out to try to—

Speaker H: I'm just going to ask that you either— we talk about this in a different place, or I'm going to respond in a way you don't want me to respond. I don't think that you're being fair in your assertions, as though the council's dragging their feet on all this. So we can continue down this road, or we can move on with what we're talking about.

Speaker E: All I want to say is I apologize if I offended you.

Speaker A: That wasn't the intention. Making iterative steps is a benefit.

Speaker D: I think Mayor brought up a really good point for my fellow council members. Um, with royalties, that feels very much something that should be a part of a development agreement. Um, I get limiting technologies. My question is, do we limit every technology in the code, or do we let the body that exists at the time that the question and application is posed look at the realities of the science that exists at that time and make a decision? I think we could beat this to death, which in a lot of ways we have. But I also want us to kind of draw a line, like Mayor said, about like What is development agreement? What's code? What is something that we're going to ultimately have to decide at a rezone request, and what is something that has to be, you know, worked through with this code? And I think I value Councilmember Wood's concerns. I want us to look at them. I don't just want us to pass it and not have all of us on board. What I would like is to have a better understanding of how we get from here to the finish line and get this right. It wasn't be quiet, stop asking your questions. It was what do we need to do to get it there? Because I want us to have that protection in place. So maybe just a few more minutes, we figure out what we need to do so we have a very clear punch list, and then we table it so that everyone's concerns can be addressed, and we bring it back at the next possible meeting that we could get it figured out for and get this protection in place for our community.

Speaker B: So one of the items I had noted was replacing the administrative appeal with coming back to the city council.

Speaker A: What else?

Speaker C: Councilmember Wood, I cannot— can I just engage you for just a minute? Ask you for—

Speaker H: I'm probably not in the right place right now, so you're going to let the steam come down.

Speaker C: But I'm hopeful that— I'm hopeful that this will help get us to where we— where we are trying to get. I think the list that you— that you added, I think that your commentary is valuable. Let me start there. And so I don't want to ignore or glaze over that. I'd really like to see that incorporated into this— into this code. And if that means that we need to table it, I'm on board with that. Let me just state that, OK? My question is really this: could we have another 10-minute discussion where you address each of those things and we just up and down the dais say yes, we want to incorporate that change, yes, we want to incorporate that change, yes, we want to incorporate that change, yes, we want to incorporate that change, and see where we can get? And if we find that we have some unanimity in that, then we can make a motion to incorporate all of those changes that we agree on. And get something done. Because I do— I am sensitive to what Councilmember Clark is saying and, and to what Ben is asking us is, look, can we do this, protect ourselves with development agreements, with rezone requests? I think that those are 2 mechanisms that we have that are pretty clear. But I don't disagree with your concerns. I, I agree with your concerns. And I think if we can address those, go through them line by line and say, well, I'm a yes, I'm a yes, I'm a yes, I'm a no, I'm a no, I'm a no. Whatever it is, I don't know if that sounds like a plausible way to get to a better place with this, but would you be willing to engage on that level? That's really my question.

Speaker H: I've stated my concerns, so if you guys want to talk about those, you're welcome to. I haven't heard anybody give any other things that are on there, so it really is just mine that you say yes or no to.

Speaker C: All I'm going to say is I like the things that you've presented, so I would like a chance, even if you don't want to discuss Further. I would like to know, this is the concern, and I— then I'll ask the question. I want to know whether council's supportive or doesn't want to see that change made. Would you be willing to do that? That's really my request.

Speaker H: I'm always willing.

Speaker C: Please, then.

Speaker H: I just— I don't appreciate the slapdown from the mayor and from our city manager.

Speaker C: I respect that. I respect that. I really do. But I want to see us get to a place where we can get something solved. So please, if you would do that, and Mayor, if you're okay with that, can we do that? Let's go that direction.

Speaker A: Rich, I don't know what I slapped down. That was my question, is what's in front of us?

Speaker H: And let's say when you try to cut off the conversation that we're having about this because you're getting impatient with the— that's not what I said.

Speaker A: I said that we're having educational questions, and that's not what's in front of us. I want to know the code, what questions you have on the code, and what needs The problem is, is that the questions that they're asking are because of lack of education.

Speaker H: You have 2 people who— here who have not been to any of the things that we've been to for any of the nuclear reactor stuff.

Speaker A: And turns out they're the ones that haven't asked any questions.

Speaker H: That's because they don't know even what to ask, Jerry.

Speaker A: So what's the— what—

Speaker H: So you give us an opportunity to go through and have this discussion.

Speaker A: I 100% have been trying to do what Brett just asked, and I'm telling you, do that. With what's in front of us so that we can get through this.

Speaker H: I'm fine with that, but the reality of it is that's not what you said. You wanted to get on with the agenda, and that's dismissing the conversation we're having.

Speaker C: I want to intervene between 2 of my friends. I want to say that, okay? And I want to go through the questions. So Rich, would you please restate your concerns in each section that they pertain to, and let's have a discussion about those.

Speaker H: I want us to be specific about small modular reactor technology.

Speaker A: Could you state the section so the staff knows where we're at so that we know what verbiage we're working on?

Speaker H: Well, that's under definitions. And which staff are we talking about? Because Evan already knows what I'm talking about.

Speaker C: And how would you change that, Councilmember Wood?

Speaker D: Can I ask a clarifying question before he answers that? Councilmember Wood, you— this was the section where you were talking about molten salt, like the different types of reactor Technology, correct?

Speaker F: Correct.

Speaker D: And I— when I heard you talking about it, you talked about how you didn't want us to use the old version of water cooling and all of that stuff. I saw that the water cooling was already limited in the way that the code's written. So in a lot of ways, I feel like the only ones that are available to us are the molten salt and the metal-cooled ones.

Speaker H: And high-temperature gas reactors. That's why I was being specific about the ones we thought should be in there.

Speaker D: Okay, so—

Speaker H: Which is what I said, liquid metal fast reactors and molten salt reactors.

Speaker G: And I guess—

Speaker D: sorry, one of the things, Councilmember Wood, is I agree that those are the superior ways to do it, and I don't want us to do the other ones that you want to exclude. But I also don't want us to write the code in such a way that it excludes technology that we haven't toured yet. And—

Speaker H: The purpose of zoning is to be specific so that you are not saying yes to everything. You're literally making a list of prohibited and allowed uses. So if you put everything in there, then why write the code? Just say bring whatever you want.

Speaker D: So could we write it in such a way that it prioritizes a certain kind? But it allows for a process when there is different technology to ask for that.

Speaker H: There is nothing that prevents them from bringing in a new technology and asking for that to be considered.

Speaker D: Okay.

Speaker H: It's prohibited in, in the very forefront. They can come and ask for it if it's something, but we just listened to at least 2 council members say we don't want to be the guinea pig. You were one of them. If you say a new technology, we're absolutely becoming the guinea pig for it. So let them bring something to us. We can consider adding it to it once we have an understanding of it. But to Evan's point, even about geothermal, we know nothing about that. Why is it even in here?

Speaker B: So we're removing geothermal. How does everybody feel about that?

Speaker G: Well, even if someone brings it, there's not— even if it's in the code, we have a master development agreement. We can just deny it. deny it anyway. That's why I'm not quite as concerned about some of the nuanced language, because we have the ability to deny anything that comes through. Even if it's one of the reactors we have written in here that we're open to, we can still deny it, because we still have that ability in the code. That's why I'm not quite as concerned if the net is a little larger than we might consider. I'm okay with that, because we can shoot anything down. If it was an as-of-right use, then you're right, then we don't have that ability. We need to make sure everything is already buttoned up as is. But I think there's a little bit of flexibility because we have the ability to turn stuff down due to the MDA.

Speaker D: Okay, do we feel like we have the vernacular and the exact terms to be able to address the types of technology without— because even with the microreactor term, we found out from the NRC that The terminology we were using wasn't what it needed to be. There were some tweaks there. I'm concerned that if we put this into the code, that we're not gonna get the different types of technologies that we're supposed— that we're shooting for written in there accurately when the limitation's already put in there with water. So are we confident that the ones that you've listed are the only ones that we wanna consider?

Speaker H: Have you seen any other technologies that you want to consider?

Speaker B: I—

Speaker C: Mayor, I think this is fruitless, to be honest with you.

Speaker B: I think we just need to move on.

Speaker C: And, and I mean, and so if you're prepared for a motion— do we do the public hearing? We done? Um, then I'm, then I'm going to make a motion to table this item.

Speaker D: Second.

Speaker A: Okay, we have a motion by Councilmember Wright, a second by Councilmember Wood. Um, we'll start with Councilmember Clark.

Speaker D: No.

Speaker A: Councilmember Wright.

Speaker C: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Whiting.

Speaker G: No.

Speaker A: Councilmember Wood.

Speaker H: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Huish.

Speaker B: No.

Speaker A: Okay, that motion fails. And so I'll open up for some discussion or another motion.

Speaker B: Mayor, I'll make a motion that we adopt an ordinance of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, enacting Chapter 17.64 of the Eagle Mountain Municipal Code establishing an alternative energy overlay zone with the adoption of, of changing out administrative appeals with the city council where it talks about administrative. I do think that should come back to the city council and we have a tight control.

Speaker D: That's my motion. Second.

Speaker A: Okay, we have a motion by Councilmember Huish, seconded by Councilmember Clark. Any questions, clarity on the motion? You good? Okay, they're good. Council good with the motion? I'd like the questions on the motion. Okay, we'll start with Councilmember Wright.

Speaker H: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Whiting?

Speaker G: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Wood?

Speaker H: No.

Speaker A: Councilmember Huish?

Speaker G: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Clark?

Speaker D: Yes.

Speaker A: That motion passes.

Speaker C: I do want to state, Mayor, and I want to ask, um, I just want to ask staff to bring back those items that have been identified and let's continue working on this.

Speaker G: And I agree with that statement as well.

Speaker D: I agree too. Thank you.

Speaker A: Yes, so I, I think the, the message there is that we've, we've had a good discussion and there's clear direction that there's still a little bit of work to be done on that. So if you can take and incorporate some of those and bring them as an amendment, that maybe we could work on that. But man, we've worked on this for a long, long time. Offsites. It's nice to see that there's some direction ahead and now we can— I think there's a ton of work still to do on this, but we've got to start somewhere. So— Mayor, can I just— Yeah, go ahead. Evan has done a fantastic job on this, and I think that's one thing all of us can agree upon.

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker A: So Evan, our hats off to you. Yes, it's— we're still working on it, we're making it better and whatnot, but the level of professionalism that you've brought to this is just astounding. And, and, uh, the incorporate— we're probably the first in the country to have an ordinance like this that NRC has, has gone down and reviewed. That speaks to your character and credibility and professionalism. I just want to extend that publicly.

Speaker G: We'll call him Dr. Evan from now on.

Speaker A: And honestly, on that note, he's been beat up and thrown to the wolves because we haven't been good to him on this. It's such a hard topic and he just keeps coming back with another try. And it's to his credit that he doesn't get Uh, discouraged.

Speaker C: So, but this is incredible compared to where it started. Yeah, I mean, I— we, we, we, we need to recognize that for sure.

Speaker A: And nothing's personal on that with, uh, just trying to make it right. And I know we're all, uh, concerned, and we'll, we'll move forward. So, uh, 16B, an ordinance of Eagle Mountain City amending the Eagle Mountain Municipal Code 1710-030, the definitions, and 1725-030, land use Table enacting 1744 Senior Housing Overlay.

Speaker G: Mayor, I'm open to tabling this till 2 weeks from now.

Speaker A: The— it is noticed as a public hearing, and so because of that, I want to— well, and that's possible. I just—

Speaker D: Councilmember Whiting, is there a ton that you feel like we have to do to this to get it there?

Speaker G: I think there's going to be a lengthy discussion on this one.

Speaker D: Okay.

Speaker G: And not, it's because again, it's sort of like, this is new. And so there's a lot that we're gonna have to work through on this one. I appreciate what's been brought. It's just, I know it's gonna be a discussion.

Speaker A: So I know there's some discussion and this is where I was going with the previous one, because there's some things that may need change so that they can at least get their head around options in those areas. Could you give us a direction of what you think the discussion's gonna center around? So that the staff could come back with something.

Speaker G: I think it's going to be a long discussion though. I mean, a discussion where I'm going to be asking questions and I want to hear feedback from the council. So it's not like I can say change this, this, this, and this. I think it's the council, what do we think about this, this, this, and this? So I think that's where it's more— if we engage in this, it's going to be a 30-minute discussion at least.

Speaker D: So to that point, I would prefer not to do the public hearing right now because because so much is going to change or be addressed by council and staff. And I think the public should get to comment on the most advanced version of what the code will be. Um, so if you're wanting to table, I'd prefer to table just outright and not do the public hearing at this point.

Speaker B: So as far as noticing requirements, which is what If we're tabling it to a specific date, we notice that for this date, people are on notice that we're discussing that. And if we go and table it to another date, we don't need to re-notice it. It's already been noticed.

Speaker A: Okay. And the other part of that is if they opened it and continued it.

Speaker B: I mean, that's the same thing. I mean, that's one way of doing it. And that's a way we've consistently done it in the past. And I'm fine with doing it that way is, Open it, get people who came here today, if there's anyone who wants to speak on it, the opportunity to speak. And then it's— and then we just continue it to, again, to 2 weeks from now or whatever and continue the public hearing.

Speaker D: So you're saying open the public hearing but leave it open?

Speaker B: Yeah, take any comments that—

Speaker D: I'm okay with that. I just don't want to be like, oh, sorry, we already had our public hearing, 'cause it's gonna change a lot between now and then.

Speaker A: Okay then, and on that note then, if, if there are some known changes, could you reach out privately so that we can have those before the next meeting so that Beth and Kiara can work on this? Or is it more—

Speaker G: I mean, I'm happy to send my feedback individually, but I, I think at the same time I do want to hear my fellow council members' thoughts on it.

Speaker A: But again, that's the problem.

Speaker C: I'm just gonna look, I'm just gonna say this, and I don't know— look, I know we had a chance to weigh into this once, right? And so I'll give you my 30-second synopsis. My preference would be to remove most of this, to go to just a zone for senior housing, and to keep it specific to the product types that I'd like to see happen. That's going to give you some idea of at least how dramatic the changes are going to need to be in my mind.

Speaker D: Okay.

Speaker C: And I don't know where the rest of council is going to land, but my personal feeling is that we need to sit down as a body and have a discussion about this, even if it's in a work session, before we're looking at a final product, 'cause this is nowhere near where I think it ought to be. I might be alone in that, but that's—

Speaker F: Stay here.

Speaker A: And that's what I'm trying to get at, is if this isn't what we're looking for, then why continue this? I think we need to start over, and that's the direction I'm looking for.

Speaker C: Well, it's the semantics about whether we need to re-notice it or— None of that I understand. I don't understand any of that. That's something—

Speaker B: I mean, if it's gonna be a wholesale change, my preference would be to just bring it back for work session, have them make the wholesale changes, re-notice it, and do a new—

Speaker C: I honestly think that's a better path forward on this one.

Speaker A: So then does that then take us to a table, or does it take us to a denial?

Speaker B: I don't know. I would just table it to a work session.

Speaker D: Okay. I'm prepared to make a motion.

Speaker A: And not the public hearing? Do we still—

Speaker B: Right. So I mean, at this point, we would not be doing an act as an action item. I mean, it sounds like there are potentially wholesale changes that are being contemplated. So let's just bring it back, table it to work session, bring it back, make those wholesale changes, re-notice it, and bring it back.

Speaker D: Mayor, I move that the City Council table an ordinance of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, amending the Eagle Mountain Municipal Code Section 17.10.030, Definition 17.25.030, Land Use Table, and enacting 17.44, Senior Housing Overlay Zone, and direct staff to bring this back to a work session so we can have a robust discussion.

Speaker G: Second.

Speaker A: Okay, we have a Motion by Councilmember Clark, second by Councilmember Whiting. And we'll start the vote here with Councilmember Whiting. Yes.

Speaker E: Councilmember Wood.

Speaker A: Yes. Councilmember Huish.

Speaker B: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Clark.

Speaker I: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Wright.

Speaker B: Yes.

Speaker A: I said it in my head, but I just pointed, so. All right, we'll go on to 16D, Ordinance of Eagle Mountain City amending the Eagle Mountain Municipal Code Section 1710.030 definitions 17-801-20, political signs, and Section 17-801-60, temporary signs. This is presented by Stephen.

Speaker C: Sorry.

Speaker G: All right. We ready?

Speaker B: Yes.

Speaker G: I'll try to go quick. As a bit of a background, Half of this change for the sign code to deal with seasonal temporary signs due to the lack of not having that in our code. I know a couple council members were approached about this, and so that's what part of this is. And then the content dealing with political signs came from the state code updating to make us make these changes. So.

Speaker D: Thank you.

Speaker G: You kind of go there. So first change is adding definition for park strip. We didn't have it anywhere in our code, so because we're talking about signs, we're just going to add it here to the sign definition. This is directly what the state code says, so it's— we took it from there. The biggest change is just right off the bat, that now we are required to allow political signs in the park strip. There are stipulations, and again, this is directly what the state code says. It has to be the property owner that is adjacent to the park strip and maintaining it in order for that to be able to post a sign there, or they give consent for somebody else to place a sign there. So in a way, it's their responsibility. They'll take care of it. But those are the stipulations there to be able to place a sign in a park strip.

Speaker B: Okay.

Speaker G: Now, we did put that they can be only 3 square feet, which is pretty typical for a small campaign sign, small political sign. So we're not getting really big there. Can I ask a question on that real quick? I— what was, what was your campaign sign size? Wasn't they— weren't they 4 feet? 4 square feet? 2 by 2?

Speaker D: This is different.

Speaker G: The ones that like to go in the yards?

Speaker D: Those are 2 by 18— 24 inches by 18 inches.

Speaker G: 24 by 18, not 24 by 24.

Speaker D: No, because then they'd be square.

Speaker B: Okay. They're rectangles.

Speaker G: Okay.

Speaker H: Just a little— 18 by 24 is what they are.

Speaker G: Okay. And that would be— that would work.

Speaker A: Now, let's see. I honestly didn't do a lot of research on what the standard size was.

Speaker G: I just kind of guessed that's what it was.

Speaker A: So if that needs to change—

Speaker G: Yeah, that would work. That would work. Right below that, I know last year when we updated our political signs, we did talk about having the signs that were posted come down within 5 days after the canvassing or the 5 days after the general election. The state code now says we have to be— they have 14 days to remove that, so we can't be more restrictive.

Speaker A: So we just bumped that back up to 14 days.

Speaker G: And then another part of that code changes, we have to designate a place where political signs that are— we either take them down or somebody else does because they're not in compliance. We have to be able to store those somewhere until they can be picked up. So we designate that as our city's Neighborhood Improvement Office, whether it's they are the ones who collected the signs or they can be deposited there. And then—

Speaker A: Is there— sorry, I didn't read all this. So on that, Do we store them for a certain amount of days and then—

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker A: Okay.

Speaker G: Yeah, so we have to make a reasonable effort to contact the owner. And then if, let's see, if contact is made, so let's see. So they have 5 business days to pick it up or we can dispose of it.

Speaker A: And then my other question on that is if they go put it right back up in the same place, Is a second offense a finable offense? That's, that's what I'm asking.

Speaker D: Well, if we're going to do that, then we need to start fining the developers that put illegal signs up every Friday night and take them down on Sunday. So if we're going to pick that fight, we better be ready to pick the other one.

Speaker G: Part of the state code did allow us the ability to charge. So if signs got deposited there, um, however, I opted— this was my personal choice— I opted not to include that in here because it opens up a lot more complicated work for staff to be able to collect those fees and when and how they have to charge. So it was simpler and it probably would just save us time.

Speaker C: What I would say is if it becomes a problem in the future, then we could readdress it.

Speaker A: Right.

Speaker G: And that's That's perfectly fine. And I think until we know how much of a problem this may be, I'm going to leave it like this.

Speaker B: Okay.

Speaker G: So going down to the temporary and seasonal signs, before they were very restricted on whether they couldn't even put them up at all or they were very restricted at how long they could. It never really fit the duration of those uses. Now the requirement is, as long as a temporary or seasonal use has an active building or an active business license, they can have one of these signs up. So they can have one sign on the premise that they're located on, up to 32 square feet. Height's measured the same as all the other signs. And then the off-premise ones, they can have 2 removable A-frame signs that they put up in the morning Or whenever they're open, they take down in the evening. So they're not a hazard of blowing over, getting into the road. They're not cluttering up times over the weekends or whenever they're not open. So those are the 3 signs they can have.

Speaker A: Go ahead.

Speaker D: I want to make sure, and I don't know if it's the wording that's kind of throwing me off, but I want to make sure that it's not just signs for temporary seasonal uses with someone who has a business license. I think it needs to be a temporary or seasonal business license, because I don't want regular businesses that have the luxury of having regular signage to take this to mean that it's a summer sale for 5 months and they get to add more clutter to what we have visually in our city. So, um, I don't know if we need to add, uh, uh, obtained a temporary seasonal business license to correct that. But I would love to workshop that so we don't fall into that trap.

Speaker B: Okay.

Speaker G: And honestly, I'm not aware if we have different business licenses for that. I'm not very familiar with that. So if that's the case, I'm happy to add that in there. I can talk to our business licensing specialist. I know that businesses that are, we'll say, permanent, they can't put up What's called special event signs. So when they do have sales or grand openings, there are— there's a different section of the code that talks to that.

Speaker H: Are we required to allow them to have a 4 by 8 sign for temporary use? I mean, based on the staff report, that was only specific to political signs. So can you give them access to be able to use the political signs? I'm trying to figure out why we want to start putting temporary business signs that are 4 by 8 anywhere.

Speaker D: To your point, Councilmember Wood, um, right now businesses can't have more than like 12 square feet of signage, isn't that correct? Like on monument signs.

Speaker H: So we shouldn't make it any— Those are specific Like, they're permanent signs. This is a temporary sign. You think about that, what people are going to come up with, with a 4 by 8 plywood.

Speaker D: I think that it shouldn't be any bigger than what permanent signs can be. 4 by 8 seems much bigger than what we allow for permanent.

Speaker G: Are you talking about like a wall sign or monument sign?

Speaker D: Yeah, so I believe that it's 12 square feet that a permanent business can have for their signage.

Speaker G: So a wall sign can be up to 10% of the wall face it's on.

Speaker D: But what about like the ones that are like standalone? Because none of these are 4 by 8.

Speaker G: A monument sign? Yeah, so a smaller one can be 32 square feet as the sign face. Oh, then you include like the, the brick or the stone. Got it.

Speaker A: Combined ones can be up to 100 square feet.

Speaker D: I think that 4 by 8 might be a little bit big for a temporary business.

Speaker H: Do you have a No, I'm just not sure why we're even considering sizes of that size or signs of that size. But is the— and just maybe the question in item D that you have there, is that what the existing code says that you've crossed out?

Speaker G: Yeah, so that's probably where I got it from. It's just I think I just repeated a lot of what was in one Coming from above.

Speaker C: So having hung a lot of these 4x8 signs around the city during campaign season, I just don't see that as being in a temporary use as being that obtrusive. And maybe I'm alone in that.

Speaker D: Let's talk about the purpose of them. Both Council Member Whiting and I were approached by a business owner here in Eagle Mountain, and she runs a temporary business. Because of the way our codes set up, she would have to apply for a 2-week permit every single time. And it got to be a lot to ask of that one particular business because we didn't have any code that addressed temporary signs in the same way that they should for seasonal signage. So we brought this to Steven and said, hey, can you help us get this code there? So I don't necessarily think that 4 by 8 is too big, but Will we make them have an approval like we do for other signage, or can they just put up whatever 4x8 one that they want? I think that's where I wanna make sure some of that is buttoned up.

Speaker C: Where are they gonna put 'em? Let me ask that question.

Speaker D: So the one that is being— that came to us is a farm stand that is located in the parking lot of the Holiday gas station in The Ranches. And she has like no signage except for maybe banners that are on her little tents. And even those, I don't know if she's allowed to do that unless she has a temporary permit.

Speaker G: Not— yeah, unless there's that permit there, not right now.

Speaker C: So where's she going to put it, in the public right-of-way? I mean, where's she going to put a 4x8 temporary sign?

Speaker D: But I think the point is she can't have signage even on her tent unless she fills out that permit every single— every 2 weeks.

Speaker H: So I think let's fix that problem then. I think this creates a whole separate problem by having— I mean, 4 by 8, it's going to be sheeting. Let's just be honest. It's a temporary sign. They're not going to spend a bunch of money on it, but we're going to have sheeting wherever they can put it, which means that they're going to have to fix it in the ground somewhere or it's going to be blowing all over the place. If the problem is not allowing them to have signs on their tents, then let's fix that. I think this creates a whole separate slew of problems by I mean, you guys know what happens when the wind comes with the signs that you've put up for political things. It can yank them completely out of the ground or bust the 4x4s. It's like a sail.

Speaker C: I had it snap my 4x4s, the wind. Right.

Speaker H: So I just, to me, I'm not in favor of doing a 32-square-foot sign for a temporary business at all.

Speaker D: Councilmember Whiting, do you have any additional insight? Because I feel like you were The one that's kind of brought this to me.

Speaker G: Yeah, uh, the one question I had is, so 60 days or less, I think the farm stand is going to be more than 60 days. So it seems to me that the approval should last as long as the, the season should last so they don't have to come back. That was my only question. I hadn't really thought about the sign size, but I was just concerned about the days, that it should just match whatever that season is for that business. Sign size, I'm open to discussion on that one.

Speaker H: I agree with you. I think it should be for the length of the permit for their seasonal use there, and it needs to be appropriate to the stand that they've set up. But a sign that's that size, we're asking for problems with that. And if they're taking the stand down every night or they're locking it up, it should be something that can be affixed their stand without it being blown off or whatever. I think, again, let's solve the problem that was actually the problem instead of writing a code that a specific user is asking for that could have far-reaching ramifications.

Speaker D: Okay. So what I'm hearing is fix the length of the permit for seasonal signage so that it runs with the seasonal business Permit, license, and TBD on whether or not that's a thing. And then address the size. Councilor, everyone, is there a size that we're okay with? Are we okay with like a 2 by 4? Are we okay with a 3 by 6? What is the size that we think is appropriate?

Speaker B: I think something you could pick up and move with one person, like a 3 by 6 or—

Speaker G: What, you know, is the goal to have—

Speaker B: 8 by 4 is massive.

Speaker G: Is the goal to have the on-premise sign be movable, or is it simple to just have it make sure it's attached to whether it's a fence around a Christmas tree enclosure or it's affixed to the tent that's selling things?

Speaker A: I think that's container. That's—

Speaker H: that probably makes the most sense, and it probably needs to be something that can deal with the wind so it doesn't become a sale.

Speaker A: So language that it has to—

Speaker H: it may need to have the ability for wind to pass through it.

Speaker C: And honestly, if we, if we don't do a seasonal business license, then maybe that's how you solve the problem, is by purchasing or being granted a seasonal business license. Then that grants you the right to put a sign with some restrictions out for the period of time that you're conducting business. I mean, why can't we tie the two together? So, I mean, this is the first I've heard.

Speaker D: So there is a seasonal business license that— because I was the one that said something to you and I was having a mind blank about it. So yes, there is. There's a temporary business license and there's a seasonal.

Speaker C: Is there a time frame associated with each of those?

Speaker D: I'm looking it up.

Speaker C: Because I think, look, if I come in and I ask for a temporary business license, I have to decide how long that's going to be. I'm guessing it's going to be 3 or 6 months. Then grant them a sign permit for that amount of time and let them go to work.

Speaker D: Let them go to business. This says a seasonal license will enable a seller to conduct a sale for up to 4 months. This seasonal license will specify the location at which the sale may be conducted, and no sales by the licensee may be conducted at a location other than that specified seasonal license. I think that the signage just needs Incorporate it in there and forget it.

Speaker A: Yeah.

Speaker D: Ta-da!

Speaker G: So do you want it then—

Speaker D: That may be what I told him to do.

Speaker G: Do you want it then— so if we just change the language here to— so right up here to temporary or seasonal business license, does that fix it, or do you want to take it into the business licensing section of our code?

Speaker D: Well, here's the thing. Even though we have temporary and seasonal and, you know, ongoing business licenses, we have a section of code to address permanent signs for ongoing business licenses. So we should probably have a section of code to address signage for seasonal and temporary.

Speaker C: Yes, and it should be part of that.

Speaker H: What if we just did it as part of the business application and not Not complicate it with code. When they do their business application, put a thing on there for signage, and let the staff determine what is an appropriate size for that. I think that simplifies us having to rewrite code or to give sizes, because you're going to know exactly what they're using for their temporary business permit. I think that we put that in your capable hands of making that decision, in my opinion.

Speaker D: I actually like that. I think we could just write into, with the application for the seasonal business license where they have to identify where it is, just add a line in that section of code where they have to identify what signage they're going to use, and it can be no bigger than this, and it's a staff approval. Steven's like, I don't care, just tell me what to do.

Speaker A: I'm good with that.

Speaker H: Mayor, will you entertain a motion?

Speaker G: This is a public hearing.

Speaker H: It is a public hearing.

Speaker G: Can I— do we want to finish with the political sign? Oh yeah, political sign looks good. Fine to me.

Speaker A: Okay, then go ahead. I'm good. Okay, um, if there's no other questions on that part, this is a public hearing, and at 10:21 I'll open the public I will close the public hearing. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak on this item? Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing at 10:22 and bring it back. There is other sections of this besides political signs, right? And— or is that the end of it?

Speaker G: That was— that's it.

Speaker A: Okay, that's, that's, that's all. So go ahead.

Speaker H: I move that the City Council approve an ordinance of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, amending the Eagle Mountain Municipal Code Section 17.10.030, Definitions, Section 17.80.120, Political Signs.

Speaker B: We have a motion by Council Member Wood.

Speaker D: Second.

Speaker A: And a second by Council Member Clark.

Speaker D: For the sake of discussion, I'm omitting the temporary signs on purpose. I know you But do we need to direct staff to bring what we talked about back? Do you need to include that in your motion so that we can get that done?

Speaker H: Yeah, I would, I would say we want to put the single line in the business license for temporary use at the staff level to make that determination that it's appropriate sign for whatever the use is.

Speaker D: So then I amend my second.

Speaker G: I may have missed this. Did Section 17.80.160 get included in your motion? So there is something with political signs in that section.

Speaker H: Remove all language about the temporary signs.

Speaker D: Seasonal.

Speaker H: Or it says temporary signs.

Speaker G: So just all the sections, just nothing related to political or to seasonal signs?

Speaker H: Correct.

Speaker A: Got it.

Speaker H: I amend my motion.

Speaker A: Could you just start over? Let's— I'm sorry.

Speaker H: I move that we approve 16D. removing all seasonal sign language that's been altered.

Speaker D: Second.

Speaker H: Okay. And then adding the section to the business license for you guys to determine the size of sign appropriate to the use.

Speaker A: Okay.

Speaker G: And that the sign in the business section would go with the length of the permit. Yeah.

Speaker D: Are we able, sorry, can we do discussion now? What I'm wondering is, Do we have to do a whole new public hearing because it's a completely different section of code? Like, is that another agenda item?

Speaker A: No, we're only working on the motion right now. We did the public hearing based on the item.

Speaker D: No, I know. What I'm saying is with us removing it and asking staff to stick it in—

Speaker C: They'll bring it back.

Speaker D: Okay, so it's going to come back to us as an item for business licensing?

Speaker A: Okay, thank you. So the motion has been kind of changed and moved again, but there was no second. Was there a second on the—

Speaker D: No, it was, I did.

Speaker B: She didn't re-second it.

Speaker A: Okay, as long as the second's there.

Speaker D: Yeah, I re-seconded.

Speaker A: My question is, does it meet the state code? 'Cause that was the whole purpose.

Speaker B: So we're a little bit confused as to what the motion is. So we need to restate, 'cause that's a moving target.

Speaker H: So the motion was to accept the changes to 17.10030 and 17.80120 for political signs, and then remove any seasonal sign changes.

Speaker G: But we also need to include 17.800160.

Speaker H: Say that again.

Speaker G: You have to include 17.800160 as well.

Speaker C: So moved.

Speaker A: Thank you.

Speaker B: Okay, um, in answer to the mayor's question, the, the state code code is in reference to political science, and that's staying in there, so we're good.

Speaker A: I just wanted to make sure that the purpose of why we were going didn't get removed. So, uh, the second's still good? Yes, she said. Okay, we have a motion by Councilmember Wood. We think it's clear. If there's confusion, uh, make sure that it's in the minutes, and, and I will Encourage the council to look at the minutes next time to make sure it reflects the motion. Okay, seconded by Councilmember Clark, and the vote will start with Councilmember Wood. Yes. Councilmember Huish. Yes. Councilmember Clark. Yes. Councilmember Wright. Yes. Councilmember White. Yes. Okay, we got there. 16E is also public hearing. It's ordinance amending the Eagle Mountain Municipal— or the Eagle Mountain City Annexation Policy Plan.

Speaker B: It should probably be retitled because we're— you can't amend an annexation policy plan. You just enact a new one. Or adopt or whatever. All right. Thank you for that clarification. That's probably a good place to start. We are— I want to be clear, we are not amending. We can't amend the annexation policy plan because if you remember back in December of 2025, last— just 7, 8 months ago, we were— 6 months ago. We were here and we adopted a new updated annexation policy plan. Since that time, we've become aware of another area that may be advantageous to include in our annexation policy plan, and so we've— we're proposing that we include that area. And so what we did, So let me go back here. So this was the, the plan you adopted in, uh, in December 2025, and it includes 6 areas. Um, the kind of more washed out areas— I'm not sure I understand. We don't need to hear you, Siri. Um, you— the washed out area, orange areas, were the areas that were already In our annexation policy plan, the kind of more brighter portions of 1 and 2 and 3 were new land we brought into our annexation policy plan. So this is what we adopted. And then, like I said, we adopted this. And then we— There was some strategic resources that were discovered in this area. And so the idea was, well, let's consider bringing Area 7, let's have an Area 7. So that's kind of where we were at. That's kind of the genesis of this whole, why we're back here. So, We had to go through, and like Marcus just pointed out, we can't just amend our policy plan. We have to go through the whole process. So we started over, made a new map. Basically looks like the old one, just with now an Area 7. And then we went through the same procedural process where we noticed affected entities. And affected entities for an annexation policy plan is a little different than a typical affected— the typical definition of affected entities that we deal with. So in this case, we're just mainly dealing with like special service districts and school districts that would be impacted by this action. So, and also cities. Cities and the county. So we noticed everybody that we were required to notice, every entity. We received no feedback from anybody on this proposal. So our first step was to have— we noticed the affected entities. We had a special meeting with the Planning Commission to give affected entities the ability to speak or to give their feedback. And we received none. Then we had another public hearing at the Planning Commission level to, again, give the general public the ability to speak on this proposal and received no— really no comment there either. But did receive a recommendation, a positive recommendation from the council or from the Planning Commission on this proposal. So again, an annexation policy plan is oftentimes— maybe it's just me, but I often think of the actual annexation policy plan map, but it's more than that. Again, it contains quite a bit of information in there to help guide decision-making when you want to— when you have an annexation. plan or an annexation proposal before you. So skipping it, a lot of this was for the Planning Commission to consider. They had to consider population. They had to consider whether there were— they had to consider impacts to—

Speaker C: The environment.

Speaker B: Utilities and infrastructure, and also impacts the school districts. We showed them the Lake Mountain School District, and actually Nebo School District is impacted a little bit too because of this. Nebo comes all the way up there.

Speaker D: Brandon, really quick with that. Is there a way to get it moved from one school district to another? Because if we ever do, any kind of RDA or anything like that, that means that we'll have 2 school districts that would have to be a part of an interlocal, and that feels super messy to me.

Speaker G: Yeah.

Speaker D: So like—

Speaker A: The big issue there is gonna be road connectivity and the kids from that area being able to come up to our school district because they do go to the Goshen Elementary School.

Speaker B: Yeah, they do, which is still quite a ways if there were houses there, so. But nonetheless, we, with the Planning Commission, we gave them population data, infrastructure data based on our new master plans that Vince and his guys did with culinary and sewer water and so forth. Gave them that information. They made a recommendation, a positive recommendation. Again, the decision-making guide that is part of This annexation policy plan that you have—it identifies four major things. It lists potential reasons for annexation, like okay employment and economic development is a big reason why we would consider annexing property. And we—it addresses state code criteria and statutory limitations. So it helps identify code. State code criteria you need to be aware of when you're making a decision on annexations. And then it also says, okay, if you're dealing with Sitla land or Sitla or military land, there's some even additional requirements to consider. And then that annexation guide also addresses Special considerations just for our city. So annexation guide, annexation map to help you to graphically see what— see the potential annexation areas. So you've seen all of these areas, areas 1 through 6. You— nothing has changed. It's just area 7. Area 7 has, again, if you'll remember, Going back to December, we in that decision-making guide portion of the annexation policy plan, each one of those areas gets kind of discussed, and it we we discuss it we discuss benefits and challenges. The chall the benefits and challenges for Area Seven are very similar to the challenges for Area One. Obviously, distance from city center and from the main part of Eagle Mountain is a challenge. Our infrastructure's miles north of this area. So that's a potential challenge. One thing that we have going for ourselves here, one of the benefits is because we have mineral rights owners who are interested in developing their mineral rights, we have a potential partner who could help us with the costs of developing the infrastructure to that area. So that becomes a really helpful thing. And then when you start thinking about that, well, that helps us because the reason— one of the reasons for Area 1 was for a transportation corridor to hit Redwood Road and maybe get out to the lake. And so there's some really good opportunities here with Area 7. You get— you have strategic resources potentially within our city boundaries. We have a potential partner who— mineral partner who might help us with developing our infrastructure. And so there's some real benefits. We do have to be careful of environmental considerations in developing mineral rights, and then especially when it's next to Utah Lake. So again, this is a full— this is not an amendment. This is a full update to the annexation policy plan. Looks a lot like the last one, just adds Area 7. Then anything else that's different was just graphical enhancements to better see, like these lines here that show how our annexation boundaries have kind of expanded over the years. So any questions that you have for me? Okay.

Speaker A: Okay. If there's no questions, this is also a public hearing. So I will open the public hearing at 10:36 and ask if there's anyone here to speak on this item. Is there anyone in the audience who wants to address this? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing at 10:36 and bring it back to the council for any questions, comments, or motion.

Speaker G: Mayor, I move to— that the City Council approve an ordinance of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, adopting the Eagle Eagle Mountain City Annexation Policy Plan.

Speaker B: Second.

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

Speaker G: Yes.

Speaker A: Council Member Clark.

Speaker I: Yes.

Speaker A: Council Member Wright.

Speaker B: Yes.

Speaker A: Council Member Whiting.

Speaker B: Yes.

Speaker C: Council Member Wood.

Speaker H: Yes.

Speaker A: Uh, 17A is an ordinance of Eagle Mountain City amending the, uh, Chapter 1010. That's the parking regulatory vehicle parking in residential zones. We did have some public comment on this earlier. And this is not a public hearing? No, not a public hearing. We had public comment already that addressed this item. Will you entertain a motion?

Speaker F: I'm ready.

Speaker A: I think most of what David's gonna show us is probably included in the packet. So before you go through all of that, knowing that we don't have a huge audience here to present to, I wanna start with some questions. Do we need to see the red lines? Do you have questions on the red lines?

Speaker H: You want questions or comments?

Speaker A: On which one?

Speaker H: Redlands.

Speaker A: Yeah, go ahead.

Speaker H: I feel like we've kind of had this conversation. We went down this road with the food trucks. We went down this road with commercial trailers. I'm going to find myself on the, on the side of not being overly restrictive for people having things on their property. Now, those pictures that Jeff shared with us, I think it's evident they're parking on the lawn. We certainly don't want that. I think a designated park— we need to be specific about where they can be parked, and the vehicles should not go over the top of the sidewalk. Beyond that, I don't really care personally. I mean, I think we start getting into these places where we tell them they can't park anything on there, and we're adding additional cost to these people's monthly bills to park side by side. Boat, you know, jet ski, whatever, in a parking— in a— go and spend $300 a month to be able to park it somewhere else when they've spent, you know, anywhere from $1,000 to $2,500 a month in mortgage to be able to have their own property and park things on their property. I think we start getting into this— are we going to ask our people to go and ask for Registration again. We kind of went through this before. Unlicensed agricultural vehicles. I think that needs to be specific what you mean by that. Again, I don't really care if they have an agricultural vehicle on their property. I'm not sure what we're trying to accomplish by this other than they're parking on the lawn. If they're parking on the lawn, I think that's pretty evident. We cite them for that. But if they're parking on a The side of the house with gravel on it or concrete, why do we care? That's my opinion.

Speaker D: So to that end, with that section— gosh, second box on your presentation, isn't it just saying that it's already prohibited on public streets and we're clarifying that it's in residential zones? Aren't all of those things already an issue and unlawful to park there? Is that correct?

Speaker A: Well, just real brief, just introduce. These are changes proposed to you. Obviously, Jim working in neighborhood improvement has come across issues he would like to see code changed to assist him in doing his job better. The first change you see on there would be just a change in hours on a public street. The second box you would see would be just to prohibit unlicensed vehicles, trailers, whatever, from being visible in the front yard, or— but they would have to be basically behind a fence or in a garage if they're unlicensed.

Speaker G: So an unlicensed trailer, like— that was my question. Does unlicensed apply to every one of those unlicensed recreational vehicles? Unlicensed trailers?

Speaker A: Yeah, you'd have to have a current license to be able to park in the front, in a driveway. You know, people do— I get it, they put them in their front yard, they're getting to go for the weekend, they'll park them there to load up or everything. Or even if it's licensed or unlicensed, basically if it's licensed you can be in the front. If it's not, because you can get some of those that are in a state of disrepair, someone's working on them. So great, put them behind a fence or put it in a garage.

Speaker G: So it sounds like it should be clarified to say that section could say something like unlicensed vehicles, whether agricultural, recreational trailers, or otherwise, just so that it's clear that you're talking only about unlicensed in each of those categories.

Speaker D: Can you pull up like the red lines that you put in our packet, or do you only have them on these slides? Because I think the red lines in the packet are a little bit better. The other thing— what? It's just, it cuts out all the black and white part that clarifies it.

Speaker H: It's a tongue section. Yeah, it's another section underneath. It's unlawful to park any. And they put that on here. One of the questions I'm just going to ask this. What do you do when people go on vacation? What if they go to Europe and they're gone for 3 weeks or a month? We're going to tow their cars?

Speaker A: Well, if they're on the street.

Speaker H: That's what I mean. Like, is that where—

Speaker A: If somebody complains about them.

Speaker H: Because I'm going to tell you, in my neighborhood, you've got 2 cars parked in the garage, 2 cars parked on the driveway, and a car parked on the street. So they go out of town, are we going to tow their car?

Speaker A: Yeah, we don't know if they're out of town or not. But we don't do anything with them if they're actually on their property. But if they're on the street, if we get a complaint on them or whatever—

Speaker H: Unregistered makes total sense to me. Unregistered shouldn't be parked on the streets. They need to be registered. But I think it says any vehicle parked continuous on the public street for longer than 72 to 48 hours. I mean—

Speaker A: Yeah. So when we get a complaint or we know know that, like, a lot of times the rotors are completely rusted, and that's been on the street for quite a while.

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker A: But if we get a complaint and say this vehicle's been on the street for 72 hours or whatever the case, we go over, we actually put a red tag on it, let it sit for another 72 hours to make sure that we know that, you know, we're not going to take anybody's word for it. We're going to put a tag on it, wait another 72 hours, 72 hours, and if it's still there, then yeah, we tow it off the street.

Speaker H: Do we make any contact with the homeowner?

Speaker A: Well, we have knocked on doors within the surrounding area.

Speaker H: Are you finding that that's not yielding what we're hoping?

Speaker A: Yes, sometimes, sometimes they answer the door and we find the owner of it.

Speaker B: A lot of times, you know, they're not home or whatever, and we do tow them off the street, but we don't, don't do that if they're actually The calls that you're going out to, just could you give like a synopsis? Are they mostly just you can tell the car has not moved in months? Because I would think if the car's moving, you know, kids are going to work, coming home, neighbors probably aren't calling.

Speaker A: There's cobwebs, there's on the brake drums, there's rust on the brake drum.

Speaker B: Like 90% of the time that's the case?

Speaker A: Uh, no, 80. A lot, a lot of them.

Speaker B: 70?

Speaker A: Probably 30, 30, 40%.

Speaker B: Oh, okay.

Speaker A: I mean, it's not, you know, every area that we get called on that there's rust on the rotors or whatever. But if we're going and addressing a complaint, this one's been on the street for a little while, we mark the tires, tag it, and everything. But then if we go, we're leaving the area and we see something similar, or we pass it and we happen to see that the rotors are rusted, we're going to address it.

Speaker C: Yeah.

Speaker A: Just so that we're not isolating one vehicle that somebody complained about. When we actually go there and we address that one, if we see something similar in the same area, we're going to address that too.

Speaker B: We've got a— in my neighborhood, we have a dead end, Sage Valley Drive, where cars just show up and they just stay there until somebody comes along. Maybe it's you that we're calling and, you know, towing them away. Yeah.

Speaker A: Is that down in Sage Valley on the stub road?

Speaker B: It is, yeah.

Speaker A: Possibly. Because we've been on several in that area.

Speaker C: My question is about unlicensed trailers, Jim, because my understanding is that single axle It's not required a license. So would it be anything that's unlicensed, including single axle?

Speaker A: No, because if it's a single axle trailer, if it doesn't require a license, we just— still, it can't be on the street for longer than 24 hours without being used.

Speaker G: But it can be in the driveway?

Speaker A: Oh yeah, yeah.

Speaker G: And that's totally fine?

Speaker A: Yeah, just what we don't like to see is when there's starts accumulating on the lawn area in front of the front room window or whatever. It starts getting accumulated like that. That's why we, you know, wanted to come up with something to where it's not going to be on the street. It has to be on an impervious surface. Can't be on a lawn or in the front yard area. So that means it'll be on the driveway or on the side yard next to it.

Speaker H: So the question with the 10-10-100 where it says that it, um, unlicensed agricultural vehicles, recreation vehicles, trailers, or other vehicles within the front setback, that's pretty wide, and that can go all the way to what we just talked about, the impervious section on the other side of the driveway. Yeah, maybe we need some specificity there then to state that it cannot be parked on grass, dirt. It needs to be parked on concrete.

Speaker C: Yeah.

Speaker H: I guess the other question that everybody probably needs to weigh in on, are we going to prevent them from parking? 'Cause we said yes to these other sections where we've moved them back 2 feet from the sidewalk. Agricultural vehicles, recreational vehicles, that are licensed, occupied or empty trailer, commercial vehicles, food trucks, and food carts. That's a lot of work to make them go through to try to identify licensed, unlicensed, especially if the trailer's not parked towards you. You know, you're up on the property pissing off the person that lives there because you're trying to determine if it's been licensed or not.

Speaker A: Yeah, we don't, we don't go on onto the property.

Speaker H: How would you be able to determine that?

Speaker A: If they're backed up in there, we can't.

Speaker H: Right. So it feels like we're making extra work. Tell us what you want to accomplish. Maybe that we can help you with that. Because I feel like we're creating more work with this for you than helping you accomplish something.

Speaker A: What we'd like to see as a department is not to have the vehicles, trailers, or— in the front yard area, which would be the grass area in front of the front room. Window or in front of the access going up to the front door or whatever in that area. Agreed. Keep it, keep it in the driveway or on the side yard of the driveway.

Speaker H: Except for the driveway or an impervious material adjacent to the driveway.

Speaker A: Keep them in the driveway. Don't block the sidewalk or on the side yard. Hopefully behind the fence.

Speaker D: Wouldn't you just build a Sorry to cut you off. Wouldn't we just be able to add to the code there where it says must be located behind a sight-obscuring fence on the driveway or side yard or within an enclosed garage? Couldn't it just be that simple?

Speaker H: That makes it so a whole lot of houses can't park on their property because they don't have the ability to put it behind an obscured fence. You gotta remember, there's a lot of properties that have a 5-foot setback.

Speaker D: But what about the driveway?

Speaker H: On the side.

Speaker D: Are you saying, like, 'cause I'm saying that it's okay for them to do it on the driveway.

Speaker H: Well, they have to be able to get in and out of their garage. So if it's a trailer, they gotta move the trailer every time they're going in and out. They're moving their side-by-side. I mean, so that's what I'm saying. I think we're creating a complicated problem. You're basically just saying stop parking on the lawn. And I think that we just need to be specific to that, in my opinion.

Speaker A: I guess one question would be, as far as unlicensed vehicles, if they're off the street, do you care then? Do you want them— you only want to regulate—

Speaker C: I think if you restrict it to the driveway and to the side yard and you're very specific that that's the only place that they can park, then what do you care if it's licensed or not licensed? If it's in the street, get rid of it.

Speaker D: The other thing too is there are people who have like a project car that they're working on and different things like that, and you're not going to license that while you're restoring an old '57 Chevy. So like, I, I think it does add additional work for you. I think what you're asking us is just don't let people Park crap in front of their house. They can do it in front of their garage, on their driveway, side yard, just not in front of their front room. Okay.

Speaker G: So what if you have a clunker car that doesn't work that's been sitting in a driveway for six months? We're we're good with that.

Speaker C: Well, are you gonna are you gonna ask somebody that owns that property and that is maintaining it to get rid of it? I mean that I I mean I I don't know about.

Speaker D: Brandon raised his hand.

Speaker C: Brandon had a question.

Speaker B: I just wanted to make one point of clarification. I, um, someone who is in the know with that, who's in the agri— has been involved in agriculture in the past, has made it aware— made me aware that oftentimes agricultural vehicles actually don't need licensing. So there, there is— they are exempt.

Speaker D: Are there agricultural vehicles in our little, like, 1/5-acre lots?

Speaker B: Probably not.

Speaker D: Like, to that sense, like, to me, for us to be able to get the agricultural exemption from licensing, I think you have to be using it in— unless you live on a small lot and you're driving to work at a farm. Either way, I just— it may not be an issue.

Speaker B: Probably not be an issue, right, too often of an issue, but maybe some of our bigger lots may have that issue come up. But I think I'm okay if somebody has a broken-down car on their property in the driveway. That's, that's fine. But if they're parking on the grass, parking in front of their house, it's in the way, it's unsightly. I mean, this picture that Jeff is kind of extreme, but that's probably a real picture he took.

Speaker C: So do you need to address corner lots? I mean, do you need to address corner lots because that becomes a whole different set of problems.

Speaker B: What do we mean by side yard? Do you mean like a side gravel driveway?

Speaker C: We mean side setback.

Speaker H: Just say garage side. It's never going to be parked on the, the house side. We, we never want them parked on the house side. Is that kind of where you're looking at?

Speaker A: Yeah.

Speaker H: If you do garage side, I think that solves the problem. It cannot be over the sidewalk. It can't impair the pedestrian right-of-way. Does that solve the problem, do you think?

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker D: The thing is, you guys, I have this literally across the street from my house and like 2 or 3 houses. So like, it's definitely a problem. It's a nuisance when you drive down our road. It's dangerous because they've got their stupid trailer parked out there. It's dark. Like, and they, they have it out there for 4 months while they're getting ready to go to the dump. So like, this is a bigger problem in my neighborhood anyway than My comment piggybacks onto what Councilor Clark just said.

Speaker B: There are, by and large, people behave well. Jim gets calls a lot from people who are frustrated with situations like Councilor Clark just mentioned. And so that's why we have these laws. We have a few bad actors who make their front yards unsightly or make it a little dangerous. And so we do deal with it. We do have people call pretty frequently. I end up talking to them myself occasionally. And so there is an issue.

Speaker C: We shouldn't obscure the sidewalk either.

Speaker D: I agree with that. I agree. Councilmember Wright just said we shouldn't obscure the sidewalk. I guess at the heart of it, we want to let people be able to use their property. We don't want to be overly punitive, but we also have an obligation to make sure that we're protecting property rights of everyone on a street so that their property values aren't going down because it looks like deliverance. And, you know, than that it's safe to drive down the street. So like, if this is a recommendation, um, and we just need to change the wording so it includes driveway and garage side yard, then let's, let's go for it and let's get this done.

Speaker B: Thank you.

Speaker H: Do we want to remove the unlicensed qualification and the sight-obscuring fence requirement?

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker H: I'll make a motion then. Uh, move the city council approve an ordinance of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, amending the Eagle Mountain Municipal Code Chapter 10.10, parking regarding vehicle parking in residential zones, altering 10.10-100 to read parking on driveway and driveway side setback, or driveway side—

Speaker A: Garage side.

Speaker H: Thank you, thank you, garage side. So let me restate that. On driveway and garage side yard, on impervious material or concrete, and setback from the sidewalk 2 feet.

Speaker G: But I think you have to state it in the negative though, because it is unlawful to park any— So we have to define more—

Speaker H: Other than. Does that cover it?

Speaker E: Seems to.

Speaker A: I'm not hearing a second, so I'll—

Speaker G: I think we're favorable to it.

Speaker D: Well, then somebody has to—

Speaker C: Second.

Speaker A: I'm not hearing a second.

Speaker B: I'll second. I'll second. I'm second.

Speaker H: So I think the intent is to make sure that any vehicle that's parked there is parked on the driveway, garage, or the garage side setback. Is that the intent?

Speaker F: Yes.

Speaker H: 'Cause we have a whole bunch of code before this that we could really just solve the issue with one thing rather than having 6 different things to say the same thing. It's complicated and it probably doesn't need to be. Would it be better to just do that and remove the other 6 sections of that and just say, or do you want to have all the detail for you guys to sort through?

Speaker A: Well, that would clean it up a lot for sure if we can kind of narrow it down to one.

Speaker H: Marcus, do we have to notice it differently if I do that? So this isn't a public hearing.

Speaker B: The only thing we are required to do is give a fair description of, for a public meeting, of What the agenda item is. I think we've done that.

Speaker H: I think 1's probably okay. I think 2's okay. See, I think 3 is essentially saying exactly what you're saying. So it says agricultural vehicle, recreational vehicle, or occupied or empty trailer within the front yard area, excluding a paved or gravel driveway of any residential zone of the city.

Speaker A: So we could probably just add a couple things to So if I could just clarify here, so you want to allow anything parking as long as it's on an impervious surface, either in the driveway or garage side. And you did mention the 2-foot, which you already have in the code, 2-foot off a sidewalk.

Speaker H: And if we added the other things that you have in there, the recreational vehicle, that's on there. Trailers in general.

Speaker A: Could I stop for a point of order? We have a motion and a second. So if you want to rescind your motion for further discussion.

Speaker H: We're having a discussion about my motion.

Speaker A: It sounds like we're having a discussion about changing the whole code. So—

Speaker H: Okay, I rescind my motion.

Speaker A: Thank you.

Speaker B: Okay.

Speaker A: Trying to make sure—

Speaker H: Okay, so back to what I was saying. So back in 3, we need to maybe just add those couple things that it's probably solve that problem, right? Is that agreeable to you, Jim? I want to make this easy for you, not more complicated. That sounds good. So I'll amend my motion to strike—

Speaker B: make a new motion. He's starting to get under my skin.

Speaker H: I move that We approve 17A with the following change. Strike 10-10-107. Add to item 3 under A, trailers or other vehicles. I think that covers it.

Speaker A: Mm-hmm.

Speaker D: Could the motion be restated? Sorry, I was trying to find where we were. I'm sorry.

Speaker H: Why don't somebody else make the motion?

Speaker D: I just wanna make sure that I'm understanding the changes that you made.

Speaker A: Okay, so we have a motion.

Speaker G: Second.

Speaker A: I'm still— there's no second, waiting for a second. And not hearing one, that motion can die for lack of a second. So if anyone wants to make a motion that further clarifies that.

Speaker B: I think you were headed in the right direction. It was probably right, but my brain's trying to remember what we said.

Speaker D: That's— it's late.

Speaker H: One more time for you, Jim. I'm gonna make one more effort. I'm sorry. We should be better at this. I move that we approve 17A, striking 10.10.100 and changing Hang on. 1010100A.3, to include all trailers or other vehicles. And then I want to amend where it says excluding a paved or gravel driveway and garage side setback.

Speaker B: Second.

Speaker A: Okay, we have— is the motion clear? You're okay?

Speaker D: Well, I— can I ask a question about that? Because in 3, It talks about occupied or empty trailer within the front area, and we're talking about making those few little changes.

Speaker H: I said change to all trailers.

Speaker D: Okay.

Speaker A: Okay, the recorder's good. The, the presenters say they understand and that it meets the intent, so we have a motion by Councilman No other questions on the motion. We'll start the vote with Councilmember Clark.

Speaker D: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Wright.

Speaker B: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Whitey.

Speaker G: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Wood.

Speaker H: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Huish.

Speaker B: Yes.

Speaker A: All right, thank you. What about the 10/10, uh, 10/10/30, the 48 hours to 7 and 72 hours?

Speaker H: The only change I made was the 48 It hours to 72 hours. was the 10-10-100.

Speaker G: 10-10-30 stands.

Speaker A: Okay, that was part of the motion.

Speaker B: It was approved. Yeah.

Speaker A: So that was part of the motion.

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker F: 48?

Speaker C: Yeah. Okay, cool.

Speaker A: Is that good? Okay. If we didn't accomplish the reason that was here that we needed to, so— That's all right, thanks.

Speaker E: Okay.

Speaker I: We tried.

Speaker A: We tried. 18A, a discussion and possible action. This does not require an action, but it is a discussion and could be acted upon. So the citywide speed management study in key locations. There's, I know we're all familiar with this. David Salazar had asked for some possible funding for a study, speed study throughout the city, citywide. Is here to answer questions or expand on that request and take feedback from the council. So I've got everything in the packet. I've got a presentation I can show as well. I'm not sure why it's not coming up yet. There it goes. I can run through the presentation and locations if you'd like. Just let me know.

Speaker H: Is now the appropriate time for me to ask you to add that one section?

Speaker F: Yeah.

Speaker H: So when we did the connection across the wash in Silver Lake on Silver Creek Way, we created— and I don't know if you remember Rob Braden, who lives at the bottom of the hill, coming in and asking us to do something to mitigate the speed that's happening from there. So the first section of that That is in the list that goes from Golden Eagle on Silver Creek Way up to Harvest Crop Drive, which I believe is a stop sign. But the section after the stop sign that goes north over the wash up to Willow Walk, they're experiencing pretty. Hefty speeds because it's downhill and people are not hitting their brakes. They're literally just driving straight through that, and there's a bit of a blind curve there. So I'd like that to be part of it, added to that as well, please.

Speaker A: So for my study, I can give you a short version if you'd like because I know it's kind of late. But basically what we're trying to do is we've heard complaints and concerns from residents and you all about speeding locations. I provided a document showing the 30 locations— 31, including this one that Rich is also proposing. And our goal here is to collect data that we can evaluate, review, and understand what the speeding is, the severity of it, road conditions, and to identify potential solutions for the area. With this information, we can then come back to council and provide recommendations to help mitigate speedings in these locations throughout the city. We're looking to estimated budget— this would be not to exceed $50,000. We would then hire a consulting engineer who would collect vehicle data speeds based on the 85th percentile, vehicle classifications, peak traffic conditions, road geometry, site conditions, and then crash history. The consultant would then review the data and then start to evaluate recommendations for those areas, provide engineering construction estimates for those improvements if required, and then prioritize the ranking of implementation. Some of these recommendations could include, but not limited, are no action, right, radar detection feedback signs, speed limit modifications, pavement markings, bulb-outs, curb extensions, elevated crosswalks, or other solutions. And the benefits of this is that we would kind of begin— this would not be just a one-and-done. We would look at this as a needed basis. This could be annual, you know, as needed. But it would provide a system where we would collect data before making decisions. It would help us prioritize areas in the city that need improvements and others that do not. And it would also help avoid any unintended traffic or any operational impacts. We already know a lot of roads are pretty congested, and the last thing we want to do is cause more delays on our roadways. And this would provide a consistent process for future speeding requests in the future. Speeding is a tricky animal. It's not something that's, you know, just indicative of the road type and conditions. Every situation is unique, and there's no magic silver bullet. And so our goal here is to identify the right improvement at the right location and not apply one solution everywhere. While we're collecting this data, there's 2 locations identified in the Scenic Mountain area, and we can use that data to compare to the 2025 traffic impact study in the area for making that connection to Saratoga Springs. Their traffic study estimated that connection would generate about 20,000 vehicles a day. And since we'll be out there anyway collecting that data, we can then just spend, you know, a few more hours and run the model and kind of verify the data they have and also look at what kind of impacts that would have in the neighborhood, if there are any safety improvements required. And this would be a very cost-effective way to conduct another traffic study while having more connections in our city. So final deliverable, we would have a report to present back to you guys, a decision matrix that identified every location, what was founded, you know, the speeding, the 85th percentile, and then planning level cost estimates for each remediation in that area. And then the final report would include feedback from, from the council. So our requested action tonight Is to utilize $50,000 to— I've got an RFP already drafted up, and then if there are any more additions to the list, I can just attach my list and send that out, you know, tomorrow, the next day, and we can get that study going. So any questions or concerns I can address, or any additional—

Speaker C: David, what's the anticipated time frame for the study to come back?

Speaker A: Well, it's pretty quick. I talked to one consultant who we've used a lot, and they specialize in this. And they're telling me anywhere from 2 to 4 weeks, just depending on their schedule, but it's pretty fast. They'll put the counters out there. Depending on location, they may use counters on both sides. Some areas they may use video. And then they can process the data pretty quick, because we're only looking at 30 locations right now, or 31, excuse me.

Speaker G: So there's a Correction on the name on number 6. It says Foothill Road corner. It's Fort instead of Foot on that. And then how precise— I mean, I see the red dots. Is that precisely the spot, like a strip's going to— like a measurement's going to go? Because if that's the case, the one on Valley Drive midway point, I would move it just a little further east.

Speaker A: OK. Yeah, and there's fine-tuning. Like I said, I— a lot of the information was given to me in the email and just, you know, text, so I did the best to kind of approximate where the speed needed to appear to occur. But again, if you have more information, please share with me. We can fine-tune that.

Speaker G: Yeah, I think the Valley Drive one just a little further to the east, because there's— it's put sort of right at a corner. I think people will naturally slow down a little bit. Okay. But they start picking up a lot of speed just after that. Okay. So maybe a little further east. And then I would ask, I mean, for those that are driving at Cedar Pass Ranch, what's not being studied is the 3rd entrance. But I haven't heard any complaints from neighbors on speed from the 3rd entrance. So that's why that one's not in there. But Ranch Road is. And so I think some of these others are.

Speaker D: Is 3rd entrance Canyon Wash? Is that what you're saying?

Speaker G: Yes, correct. The 3rd entrance is Canyon Wash. And I haven't— and Maybe because people are coming in off of that, so they're already starting from a stop. I just have— and then there's an uphill, so people are probably just naturally slower there. But, but some of these other ones, we— I mean, we've had some people reporting 80 miles an hour down Valley.

Speaker B: Really?

Speaker G: Yeah, in motorcycles, just flying, because it is long and straight with no— yeah, it's pretty wild.

Speaker H: I would add also, I know we've had some complaints on Bobby Wrenn also. That's not on here because of the straightaway that people are ripping down there as fast as they can. I don't know if there's some value in adding that to it. It would be go from Pony Express East.

Speaker A: Yeah, I think we could add a couple more. But yeah, we could also look at location of Valley Grand as well. So, and like I said, this is going to be an ongoing process. We're just trying to to get the ball rolling for the key locations in the city. Yeah, just keep it going on it.

Speaker H: So just trying to think of the places that we know we've at least heard comments from people where the problems are.

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker E: Okay.

Speaker B: Just a clarification, so this is not using the money that was already budgeted for, I think, 3 or 4 speed tables? This would be in addition to, and we're kind of working on these simultaneously?

Speaker A: That's my understanding. I think Ben could talk more to the funding, or Kimberly.

Speaker B: Okay, and these are going simultaneously. We're working on the speed tables, getting those installed in Silver Lake, and doing the speed study.

Speaker A: I think— I don't think it's simultaneously. I think that you use the data coming from the study to justify the construction of the speed tables and/or whatever methods is coming. Whatever the proper method is in each given intersection may be unique and may be different. And so the study is going to give you the results telling you what you should put into that particular intersection. For example, by Silver Lake, taking out the overall circle and putting in an intersection where you have a controlled intersection with crosswalks makes more sense than an intersection, which you can't do. The only thing that— and Ben just kind of addressed it, but I would ask the council to weigh in on is what— and Kimberly to help direct— if this is approved, that we have an idea of where the funds come from or what was the So if this is approved, there's still additional action items that would be required by the council.

Speaker D: Number one, even authorizing it today, depending the— because it's not currently in the budget, then pricing would require the contract to have—

Speaker A: the purchasing policy would require the— we wouldn't be able to enter into this agreement without that.

Speaker D: Coming to the council. Now I'd have to have Marcus weigh in on whether he feels like the decision made today is giving that authorization and would cover the requirements of the purchasing policy. Um, it still would have to come forward for a budget amendment to the city unless you were to, um, authorize it again from existing funds. So like if you said, hey, we have this money that we've set aside that we want to to do this and we're fine with using it for starting the study, knowing that in September when we do our budget amendment to roll projects forward and things like that, that it would mean increasing the funding back up to the original level you need for your speed tables based on the results of the study. You might wanna add more money because maybe the study says you need to do more things or—

Speaker B: Can studies, Like, this is obviously capital project stuff that we are going to be doing. Can we pull it from the capital project fund?

Speaker A: So what I would say there is that in September, I mean, you are going to pass the final budget and all these— you are putting money in the capital projects and you are putting money forward. And because of the fact that we are utilizing the data coming from the study to justify what improvements go in, why not use the funds that are already allocated for the speed tables to fund this study now so you don't have to jump through any of those hoops, and then allocate more or less funds based on the data that comes out of that study for the improvements, pulling it from the capital projects? Because right now the money's all going to capital projects in September pending your approval of the tax increase.

Speaker C: So, I mean, and I— you, you understand where he's going with it, and I think that I think for me the issue is timing. I think we want to do this sooner rather than later. And I mean, so if we have to go through a bunch of more hoops to have a budget amendment and to allocate resources towards this, it's going to slow the process down. That's what I'm hearing and seeing. And so, I mean, originally I might have had some consternation about saying, OK, let's take some of what we've already budgeted. But as long as we have a pathway forward to replenish that come September, August, and it accelerates the timeline under which we can be building these, I'm going to be fine with that. I don't know how everyone else is going to feel about it.

Speaker B: I just feel like we need to— we, we know we have problem areas in Silver Lake, and I would love to see some advancement of a speed table. I don't know how that's going to change the, the, the speed study will really change that reality that we already are already aware of. I'm not opposed to doing a speed study. I just think it'd be nice to—

Speaker A: well, the thing is you don't want to put the improvements in without the data. Otherwise you open up the floodgates of putting them in wherever. So once you have the data and it justifies putting in the speed table, then you're on solid ground to move forward and the whole bit.

Speaker H: Okay. I'm going to speak up here because I feel like we've, we've been very clear All 5 of us, and we're being frog walked on this. I mean, the reality of it is we've told you where we want them in the school zones. We set money aside from the utility sales so we don't have to jump through the hoops. That money is available now. I don't understand what the problem is here. I understand you don't want to do them. That's clear. I think it's been made clear by engineering. It's been made clear by our streets department. But the reality of it is. There's a problem there that will only be solved by cars having to stop. We've already had crossing guards be hit. Marie is one of them who isn't a crossing guard anymore, but she was hit right there because a car decided not to stop. So when do we wait? Do we wait until a kid's hit and killed and then, then it becomes a priority?

Speaker D: One of my big concerns is that I feel like we're doing a Band-Aid on something that needs to be addressed with a bigger solution. I feel like especially down by the Silver Lake Elementary, we should be looking at a tunnel and we should use utility sale funds and just bite the bullet and do it because I don't think any amount of speed tables is going to solve the problem of people who don't want to follow the laws and keep kids safe, but a tunnel would make it better. And I, I, I want us to do what's right, but I'm also okay with spending the money we need to spend to give it the best option for keeping kids safe.

Speaker H: The question is, is we've already made a motion on this, we've already allocated funds for it, we've already given direction. Why is it not in process?

Speaker A: I would argue that it is in process, and the appropriate way to do it is to do the study first so you don't open up yourselves to the liability of, I put something in that's not justified by the study that doesn't meet MUTCD standards, and you put the city at liability, greater liability than not putting it in just off the dais. You follow engineering standards and protocols to do it appropriately, and then you are protected from all the liability. I know that you— all of us have our interpretations of what should or should not be But I tell you what, I am not an engineer, and I don't care, and I'm not trying to persuade you that you should or should not do something. I am telling you that the proper process and the first step is to do it with a study so that you protect the interest of our taxpayers and the liability therein.

Speaker H: So you're saying your statement is then if we put a speed table in that we're opening up liability to the citizens?

Speaker A: If it's a non-justified one, yes. If it's totally justified, put it in. If you should have a tunnel, put that in. I don't— I'm not an engineer, but what should happen is that an engineer should put a study together to tell you what you should do, then you follow that engineer's standard, and then you are safe and protected. But if we do it from the dais, then we're not listening to engineers and we're not doing it appropriately.

Speaker H: Well, I actually contacted an engineering firm and asked this question. Question, and what you just said is baloney. I'm just going to tell you that. And it was Horrocks that I called. I had a discussion about engineering speed tables. They're like, that takes like 15 minutes. We're not talking about rocket science here. So I'm finding this hard to swallow. But Marcus, he's made a— he's made a statement that we're going to be legally liable if we do that. I'd like to have you give us some information. I'm not putting you on the spot here. But I'd like you to be able to provide that to us. If we're going to make statements like that, it ought to be substantiated instead of just throwing that out on the dais. And then once this is done, I want to come back and talk about this because there comes a point when we've said it for a year, we've allocated money to it, all 5 of us voted on it, and it's still not done, and you're telling us that we now need to go through these additional hoops where we already know where the problems are, where the crosswalks already exist. that we're going to pretend like those aren't the places that the speed tables go. They already exist in other cities. I doubt that it's as big a liability as you say it is because they're in the exact same places for elementary schools that we're talking about. So I think we need to go down that route. If you're going to make that statement, it ought to be substantiated, and if not, you ought to be prepared to defend that.

Speaker C: I want to weigh in again if I can, quite quickly. David, how long does it take to get How long would it take to get the study done again?

Speaker A: Probably 2 to 4 weeks.

Speaker C: So 2 to 4 weeks, we should be able to know where we could evaluate that. I understand, I understand Councilmember Wood's frustration with trying to get something done. We've, we have pressed this for a while and, and to no avail. I'm going to say it that way. But it feels to me like we're starting to move forward and make the progress that we want. And so I know this may not sit well with him, and that's okay. I mean, I'm okay with waiting 2 to 4 weeks to get the data and to then reevaluate it, because what I'm not okay is not doing anything and not moving forward. I think there's gonna be other areas in the city we're gonna identify issues that we're not even aware of or that we're not contemplating. I think we're gonna have to amend some of the monies that we're setting aside for some of those areas, because it's a real issue citywide. I agree with you, Councilmember Wood, those elementary schools need some mitigation.

Speaker H: They're not specific to just Silver Lake, by the way. We've talked about this in other places. Mountain Trails has the same problem. Blackridge has the same problem.

Speaker C: Completely agree. And, and so my, my, my point is simply that we need to do something, and we've kind of not been able to accomplish a lot in the last— I've been on the council coming up on 4 and a half years, and I've been trying to get something done here and been pretty unsuccessful at it. What I find is, as a single council member, you can't get a whole lot done at all, but as a group of council members, you can accomplish a lot. And I think that we've moved this ball forward. I think staff recognizes and understands that this is a priority that we're going to accomplish this year, and so I'm willing to give them some leeway and to trust the data. I mean, I've had to say that in other circumstances and just look at it and then to really evaluate. I don't know if a speed hump, a speed bump, a swell— I mean, I have my doubts about whether some traffic calming paint on the side of the road is going to make much of an impact, but I think there needs to be something that impedes traffic flow and slows it down. Speed table makes sense because we have crosswalks and safety issues for those kids. To me, that makes a lot of sense. But again, I'm not a traffic engineer. I don't have that expertise, and David and his team do. And so I'm going to ask him to evaluate that with the traffic engineers and come to us and tell us where it needs to be that way.

Speaker B: So I just want to be clear, I'm supportive of a study, but I'm also— once we have that study, like the next day. I would love to see some action being taken in Silver Lake. And the mayor, we talked earlier, he talked, you know, we have so many priorities in the city that David Salazar is probably feeling like, I don't know which road to work on today, you know? And I'm just gonna say Silver Lake for me is an area that we need to address ASAP. That's like top of my list. So if we can get something done before school starts, that would be awesome. Thank you.

Speaker G: I think given the speed with which the study can be done, it makes sense to not go through budgetary hoops. And it makes sense at this point to allocate some of the money for the speed tables over to the study because we can get it done fast. And as soon as that study comes back, then we— Yeah, yeah, it's already in there. And we have enough money to pay for the study, and we have enough money to— even once the study comes back, we have enough money to immediately start on some of the action items. So that's where I'm falling in line with what Councilmember Wright is saying as well.

Speaker D: So do we need a motion to direct staff to move forward with the plan, or— well, it says possible action, so I'm just wondering, Marcus, do we have to do a motion for this, or—

Speaker B: Typically when you're taking action to direct staff—

Speaker D: Sassy. You could have just said yes. It's late.

Speaker I: Yes.

Speaker D: Yes, Councilmember Clark.

Speaker B: Thank you, Council Member Clark. I appreciate it.

Speaker A: I just want to— if you're going to make that type of a motion, I want to make sure that we're setting clear expectations and priorities. Other projects will be put on hold, uh, I assume. And the expectation that if this takes 2 to 4 weeks, that's the, the possibly the— let's say it's the 6th of August, because I know that's a Thursday. We wouldn't meet as a council to approve whatever the study says. Until the second meeting in August. That's not even construction. That's the study to look at. So, so, so to say that there will be a speed table in there by the time school starts around the 15th of August is, is absolutely unrealistic, correct? That's correct. And 2 to 4 weeks is an ideal situation. We're— I mean, we're assuming the consultant can start right away. I do have 2 who can, but I still haven't gone out to bid for a short bid time because we're going to be under the $75,000 threshold, which will be helpful.

Speaker H: So it will go quickly.

Speaker A: To get it done before school is going to be a stretch. We did paint Silver Lake. That's something we're looking at. Zach and I have talked about another immediate solution to address the speeding there. We've talked about Brookhaven, and we're looking at some things to do there as well. So we, we hear your concerns, and just from an engineering standpoint, I'm, I'm not against any of these solutions. I'm just looking for the best solution for all these locations.

Speaker D: What if while we're getting the answers back and we're getting the ball moving, we ask that, uh, Chief Knutson has some of his deputies really take a special interest in that area until we can get whatever measure we're putting into place? Because we all know that it's an issue there specifically, and I think If we can't get something done by the time school starts, let's use the deputies that we have to help us with that.

Speaker A: Are you talking specifically during the crossing of the school kids, or are you talking just in general?

Speaker D: I think during the crossing, because that's when the problem mostly is.

Speaker A: So we're talking later in August, spot checks during the crossing hours before and after school?

Speaker D: Yeah, and I would drop the hammer on the people who are driving through there in such a hurry so that they're all like, we're not going to do this anymore for at least 2 weeks so that they know they're going to get ticketed if they're not doing what they're supposed to be doing.

Speaker B: All year long.

Speaker D: Well, the thing is, is down in Saratoga at Foothill and whatever road Lakeview's on, that's a horrible intersection right there. It's super scary. The dude who crosses there wears a like a body cam, and they forever, when they first started that intersection with the light, they had cop cars there to pull people over, and they did, and I think that really improved that intersection. So if we can get some attention there to get some improvement until we can get whatever we're building built, I think that's a good, like—

Speaker A: Intro.

Speaker D: Yeah, thank you.

Speaker A: But to say, but so I just wanted to be clear, to say this will be done before school is unrealistic. So I want to make sure that—

Speaker B: That's why I made the point about simultaneously, like, let's do the study, but let's put in a speed table. I don't know what other alternatives, like a tunnel is—

Speaker H: Expensive.

Speaker B: It's like $1 million or more. And is—

Speaker A: Well, there's bulb-outs. There's other things we can do too. The speed tables are great where they work, but we have concerns about diversion traffic. need to look at that as well. There's already speeding on Silver Creek Way. If we put a speed table there, that could also start to have more traffic heading north cutting through Golden Meadow Road as well. So that's something we have to look at in the study. When you put a table, people also are going to be slamming on their brakes more, they accelerate. There's other factors we have to look at as well. Like, it's not just like a one and done. So we want to look at all the options and present the best one for you guys.

Speaker B: I make a motion.

Speaker G: All right, Mayor, I move that the City Council proceed with the speed studies outlined in 18A, adding the roads identified by Councilmember Wood. I don't think there were any other Woods, right? There were only 2, the ones you added. And funding this from money previously allocated to speed tables.

Speaker A: And I think that's it.

Speaker D: Second.

Speaker B: I do too.

Speaker A: All right. So we have a motion by Councilmember Whiting and a second by Councilmember Wright. And any questions? Councilmember Wright?

Speaker H: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Whiting?

Speaker B: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Wood?

Speaker C: No.

Speaker A: Councilor Heriot? Yes, but I still want a speed table. Councilor Clerk?

Speaker D: Yes.

Speaker A: Okay. All right. I think we have clear direction there. Last thing is any legislative items from John Magnus.

Speaker C: John's coming out for midnight with us. Give him a minute. I—

Speaker A: Turn it on.

Speaker B: It's on. You're on.

Speaker I: Oh, it is on.

Speaker H: Okay. Um, 2 items tonight. So I looked into the Bitcoin, uh, using as payment.

Speaker B: Our vendor that processes our payments— I heard Bitcoin. I'm listening.

Speaker H: Our vendor who processes our payments does not take PayPal or the other Bitcoin purse that you can use to pay your bills. So right now, it's not an option for us to use cryptocurrency as a payment method.

Speaker B: That may change in the future if they go to—

Speaker H: if there's more available, but currently we can't do it.

Speaker C: Okay.

Speaker H: That was Councilman Huish. Huish was asking about that.

Speaker B: The other thing I've been working on is the poured concrete fence.

Speaker A: Um, I sent—

Speaker B: talked to 3 companies. I've heard back from one.

Speaker H: The one company said that they could design something for us and it would be our form and they would keep it in perpetuity as long as they're open. It's a big company. They, they do the western United States. Um, they have a facility here here in Utah. They would hold the forms, and whenever somebody needed for the project, they would just pour the fences for them, and they could use them. And they can use a custom design if we want to. So I'm still waiting to get back some prices from them, but that's what Councilman Wood had asked for, for us to own the forms. And this company will let us own the forms, so I should hear back from them before the next meeting, they can get some prices. And then it'll be a matter of council deciding what you want the wall to look like. You know, do you want our emblem on it? Do you want our logos? How do you want it?

Speaker B: You want something off the rack. So I would advise—

Speaker H: I would ask that like 2 council members work with me, try to come up with designs, and then send them off.

Speaker B: Thank you.

Speaker H: for them to come back with some pricing on it after that.

Speaker F: So, and that's all I have for you tonight.

Speaker H: The other stuff we're still working through.

Speaker A: Thanks.

Speaker H: So I think I vote myself as tribute to help you with that since I'm the one that brought it up.

Speaker A: So I was just gonna say it was you and I, I think, that did that, and we could use one more person if they're passionate about that. So you and me, and anybody wanna On design?

Speaker B: For the wall.

Speaker H: Yeah, yeah, I'll volunteer.

Speaker A: Okay. And so as we go forward, schedule the meetings and we'll go forward with that. And I think it's important that we look at pricing and I know that that's available, but we probably need a little more information, right? To see what that's gonna cost and then maybe see what it will save and the whole purpose of that. Okay.

Speaker H: You had an item you wanted to add tonight?

Speaker A: No.

Speaker B: Yes, I talked to Evan about it as our legislative liaison, and he's going to work on it. So we don't need to add it to this list. Well, maybe we should. It has to do, and I'm probably bringing this back to something the council's already talked about, but throughout our city there on this is maybe larger lot. Properties where people are renting out. I have a couple in my neighborhood where there's four or five habitable RVs that they're just using to rent out their lot for income, and it's not screened. They're just out and open. I have a neighbor who's trying to sell his house, and when you walk out his front door, there's five RVs. It looks like a trailer park across the street, and I think it's an issue. Um, Cedar Pass approached the council individually regarding, uh, fleet trucks. There's a particular property with a number of trucks that, um, you know, they're not paying a commercial property tax or a business property tax. They're paying residential taxes. So figuring out how we appropriately either screen or, or or regulate how many RVs can you have on your property. So Evan's working on that. I don't know if there's a strong interest in the council.

Speaker A: Some background, because I know these people have already voted that it's already in our code that that's prohibited. Last time it was brought to us, uh, by Jim because they were having some problems, the council kind of suspended enforcing that. So this is an attempt So we're going to attempt to either clean up that code or give Jim some teeth because right now they're just not— it's already in our code, they're not enforcing it. So that's the goal, right? To figure that code out. Any other questions, comments for— nothing? Okay. Council and mayor items, liaison reports? One.

Speaker C: One quick one, if I may, Mayor.

Speaker F: Mm-hmm.

Speaker C: Met with the seniors today, Senior Council. Just, they've changed the date of the senior games to September 28th, and we're just going to— they would love for us just to come and to interact with them. They still want us to come on September 21st. That's 2 Mondays in a row. September 21st, they want us to come to— they're going to do a chili cook-off and bingo night at the senior center. And they really— and they're saying somewhere between 30, plan somewhere between food for 35 people. So I just need to know which council members will make a commitment to be there, and then we'll divide the food assignment and away we go. So I'll just leave that out there. September 28th, that's when—

Speaker D: So we're supposed to bring chili?

Speaker C: Excuse me, the 21st is the chili cook-off, 28th is the senior game.

Speaker D: And that's what you, you need us to commit to bringing something?

Speaker C: I just need you to commit to being there on the 21st, and if you come on the 21st, and we're gonna each cook a different type of chili. They're gonna judge it.

Speaker D: Done. I'll bring 3.

Speaker C: Yeah, so, and, and, and my wife's breadsticks are gonna kick your— all your rear ends, so I'll just say that. Okay, well, I'll bet money on that one, Melissa. So lunch or something, okay, we could probably do that. Yeah, anyway, that's it.

Speaker A: So just, just as a note, as As we get a commitment, if you'll follow up, it'll have to be noticed if there's a quorum. Yeah, so depending on the commitment there, just make sure that we have that. Yeah, I already mentioned earlier the Youth Council on Friday, anybody that wants to come. And then of course the dunking.

Speaker G: The dunking is on August 5th. In the afternoon, I don't think we have a specific time set up just yet, but if you want to come get dunked in a water tank, I'll be there. Yeah, that was really fun.

Speaker D: I'll come there to dunk people.

Speaker G: You can come to dunk or be dunked. And also the other thing I'd note is KJ Call was the youth that was voted in as the mayor, and so that, that's what happened with that. And one other, I just loose end, I think, from last meeting is, was it Rudy, his last name Chavez?

Speaker F: Chavez.

Speaker G: Presented something to us in the public comment period, and I didn't realize that he had a request monetarily with that. And so how do we need to address that now? And it was a small request.

Speaker D: What was the monetary request?

Speaker B: $100.

Speaker A: Yeah.

Speaker D: To cover just, With the—

Speaker G: I forget the name of the organization, the veterans organization.

Speaker D: The American Legion?

Speaker G: Yeah.

Speaker A: Was it flags or something, I think?

Speaker G: So where do we need to bring that item up? If we— because I'm supportive of it.

Speaker A: I think that— so we either need to back up to the legislative priorities because I don't know that we took any kind of formal action and it would require some budgeted money. If everybody's supportive of that, then we need to—

Speaker D: Haven't— Mayor, haven't we always had money set aside for veterans things like we do for the breakfast? And it feels like there's probably a line item someplace. There is a line item related to veterans that's in the special events budget. I don't recall off the top of my head exactly what that looks like. The council also has their special project funding in the budget, depending— again, I don't know what type of money we're talking about or what that ask is.

Speaker A: $1,500, I think.

Speaker D: I think the key is that we just— when we're going to do— if you're going to do something like that, I believe that we have to ensure that we're receiving some type of service. If we are doing it strictly as a donation, then It would require some public hearing information. If it's just for flags and purchasing certain things, wouldn't it just be easier to get the wish list and address that? Because we have purchased flags in the past. So I'm wondering, is that just— is there a staff member that would be able to do it, or do you want one of us as liaisons to go and talk to Rudy about what the money's gonna go for?

Speaker A: $1,500. He has the list here.

Speaker G: Yeah, I just found it. So it's for purchase and replacement of American flags used for ceremonies and public displays, veteran relief and assistance programs, scholarships benefiting veterans and their families, community veteran recognition programs, other veteran-related initiatives as mutually agreed upon by the parties, upwards of $1,500 annually.

Speaker D: I read that, it's— this is formalizing things that we've purchased and done before. So like, it's— we've purchased flags before, and when they need replacing, we should do that. We take care of the breakfast, we do different things like that. I don't think he's specifically asking for, I need $1,500 check. It's, we're committing to continue supporting in the way that we've supported in the past.

Speaker G: Okay, so there's a memorandum of understanding And I assume nothing's been signed on this, but I think he was asking for a signature, which would— and there's a commitment of about approximate $1,500. So what's the next action item with that? Is it you?

Speaker D: I think it would have to come and be on an agenda. 'Cause just like all of our other partnering organizations, like the rodeo or anything else, we have to have it on an agenda.

Speaker A: So I'll say this just informally right here. support for this with the thumbs up, whatever, and we're in a public meeting, I would ask that we've seen the agreement, that it could come back maybe on a consent agenda next time to support that. And then we can figure out internally if we put it in the events budget, uh, something like that. I think we could increase their line item through a budget amendment specifically to the veterans. We need to work on that. But if there's support for this, then I'll just, I'll just throw it on the next Yes. Is that fair?

Speaker H: Yeah.

Speaker A: Doesn't mean it's gonna pass, it just means that you wanna talk about it. Unless, Marcus, that it requires a public hearing. I said consent because I think it's an already budgeted thing. If this is different than that, then we'll put it where it needs to be. So we'll work on that.

Speaker B: Yeah, it's just nice to know.

Speaker A: So, You met with the— probably multiple times— the Community Services Board. There's been a lot of action. I think the farmers market this weekend, if I'm not mistaken.

Speaker B: I had, I had visitors the night of the Community Services Board. Melissa, I think, was there so she could give a report.

Speaker D: Yeah, I was there. We had a really— our meetings are almost as long as city council meetings, which is crazy, but, um, they're tackling a ton every single meeting. they come and they have a new action item. They talked about, um, some additional sponsorship things that they have worked out with recreation. And, um, we did the reading of the Declaration of Independence, and shockingly, like, 20 people showed up. It was actually really cool. And, um, I just— I think that it's a great board and there's a great group of people serving on it, and I think they're doing cool things.

Speaker A: Okay, I don't— is there anything else that I've missed? I don't know of anything that I— that, that we don't know. If you don't have any questions of me, nobody else has anything to report, uh, that's all that I've got. So motion to adjourn. Second. Okay, backers. Council Member Clark. I made a motion. Councilmember Huish with a second. All in favor?

Speaker D: Aye.

Speaker A: Seeing that is unanimous, we are adjourned at 11:43.