Transcript — Eagle Mountain City Council, 21 July 2026

Speaker A: Melissa, we're good. We'd like to welcome everyone here today. Yeah, yeah, zip it. Welcome everyone.

Speaker B: If you want to stay in the council chambers, you need to stop talking.

Speaker C: Okay.

Speaker A: All right, we'd like to welcome everyone. I'm Melissa Clark. I'm filling in as mayor pro tem today. Mayor Gray is online with us until about 5:30, but he's asked me to conduct because I'm here in person. This is the work session for July 21st, 2026, and it is 4:00 PM. And we are going to start with our discussion and information items. Our first item on our discussion agenda is an overview of Best Friends Animal Society programs. And this was a request brought by Councilmember Huish and Councilmember Whiting. And I'd like to give Councilmember Whiting just a quick second to talk about why he asked to have this on the agenda.

Speaker D: Well, I think there's numerous reasons, and I'm grateful that you're here. This is awesome, and we're excited to hear from you. And I don't want to take too much time explaining it, but I love cats and I love animals, and apparently Councilmember Huish is on board with enough of that as well. But there's, I think there's some awesome tools that they can provide to the city to improve the way we, we care for animals in our community.

Speaker A: So awesome. So we'll invite Kate Hall and Bailey Tolton from Best Friends Animal Society to come up to the microphone and present to us.

Speaker E: Okay, awesome. Can you guys hear me okay? Okay, we're gonna kind of tag team this. So I'm gonna start the first half and then I'll turn it over to Bailey. But my name is Kate Hall. I am a campaign strategist with Best Friends. And thank you so much for having us here today. We're super excited. Thanks to Councilmember Whiting and Huish for allowing us to be here. And we met with them previously to discuss some of this. So we're just super excited. In your packets, you should have received 2 documents from us, I believe. The first one is an ordinance review. We do this quite frequently throughout the state of Utah and throughout the country. This was requested to just see how your city ordinance is doing, if there's anything you can do better with pets, anything you can do better with community cats, things like that. And the one thing that we found that we would recommend is to update to accept the Community Cat Act. That was a law that went into effect, I think it was 2011. The legislature passed, but it's an opt-in, so cities have to add it to their ordinances. Recently, Cedar City and Salt Lake have added those. And so the language that you see before you is language that we've copied from Cedar City. So our legal team drafted that. It should be applicable. You can put that right in your ordinance if you want to. So that is the first document, and I'm happy to answer any questions. I'm not— I don't have a legal background, so I'd be happy to pass on any questions that I don't have the answers to, to our legal team and get back to you. The 2nd document that you have in front of you is this Utah County resources. It just has 4 different ways that we're offering to partner with cities in Utah County, one being the ordinance review. So you've already done that, which is great. The 2nd option is to put some information on your website. American Fork, the city of American Fork, has done that. And so I'd be happy to share that link with you guys. You can also just Google American Fork animal control, and it should pop up. But they've added some resources. They've added a phone number for us, and it's actually decreasing the workload on their animal control because we're responding to more of the complaints about cats that city members might have, and they're able to prioritize those higher priority asks from the community. So that's one thing. Another is to do community canvassing. So if there's areas in your city that, you know, you have a big colony of cats, And you know that you have some neighbors that are great and they love the cats, and then some neighbors that might not love the cats. We can do outreach and we provide free deterrents for people who don't want the cats in their yard. They work very well. We can set them up. They're free. And then we can also provide resources for the people who do like the cats. So we have a clinic here in Orem, actually, that does spay and neuters for just a dollar. So we offer those services too. community members. Um, and then the last thing that we offer to partner is the Community Cat Program. So that's doing an entire pilot program. Um, it includes a lot of these other options as well, and I'm gonna let Bailey kind of talk more about that because she's the community cat expert. So.

Speaker F: Hi, everyone. So my name is Bailey Tolton. I actually live in Eagle Mountain, um, in City Center. I've lived here since 2020. I love our city. Um, it's been a great place to raise my kids. I do work for Best Friends as the community cat program coordinator. So, um, I'm not sure if you know this, Utah County is the only county in the whole state of Utah that is still euthanizing healthy animals in our shelters. Eagle Mountain's animals go to one of those shelters and Um, those— not only are we paying for these animals to go to the shelter, but a lot of them don't have great outcomes. Eagle Mountain, with us becoming so big and so many people moving in, we've seen an increase in how many cats from our city have entered that shelter. Um, Cedar City is similar in size to us, and they have started a community cat program. I did try and get data. from them regarding how it's going and was unable to do that. But I did find a study that was published in New Mexico, or yeah, Albuquerque, New Mexico, at their shelter. And when they started their community cat program, it reduced the cat intake by 37%. Feline euthanasia decreased by 84% by having this program. And the live release rate was 47.1%, meaning almost 48% more cats left that shelter alive. Um, why this matters to me and why I think it should matter to Eagle Mountain. Um, we all want our tax dollars to be spent wisely. I know you guys know that, and I know the citizens know that as well. Um, I think this is a great opportunity for us to be proactive with our growing city. I think it is a great opportunity to use our money to have our animal services money to help animals be reunited with their owners versus us paying for them to be killed in our shelter. Um, the cats that are killed in our shelters, I— they don't deserve it. I think the root problem is people being irresponsible pet owners.

Speaker G: Thank you.

Speaker F: I don't think it's fair that these cats have to die simply because we are letting our unfixed pets outside. So with that being said, I hope Eagle Mountain will consider learning about how this program has helped other communities. And I think we have a great opportunity not only to save lives, but to use our tax dollars more efficiently. And I think this is a great way for Eagle Mountain to show that we are compassionate and we are.

Speaker G: Thank you.

Speaker F: forward-thinking as a community. Thanks.

Speaker A: Thank you. Does council have any questions for our— Councilmember Hughes?

Speaker H: I have a few. Councilmember Clark, can you just maybe really quickly remind me, one, is there a cost to the program for the city to participate in what you're doing? And just what does that structure look like? What's the ask of the city? I obviously, I think it is a problem. I have a couple situations in my own neighborhood, and I imagine everyone does in their neighborhoods. Um, how many do you know? How many cats are going to the— are being euthanized from our city that are going, I guess, going to that one particular shelter? And then maybe just walk us through the quickly through the process of you have a cat, it gets spayed and is just put back in place to where it was before. Is there a way that you mark those cats so, you know, if they've been spayed, so you don't have kind of— Just maybe walk us through. Uh, cost and then process.

Speaker E: Yeah, so I can do the cost piece and then I'll let Bailey. Yeah. Um, so the cost would be free to the city. We're offering these as just good faith and, um, and free program. Um, like I said, it's a pilot program. Um, and so we have— we've made a couple proposals. The last one we put together was from American Fork. We haven't officially signed anything with them yet, so it's not currently in place. Um, but what we agreed to with them was a 1-year pilot to see how much it would decrease the workload on animal control officers, um, see if it would decrease the intake on the shelter and what percentage. And then we would reevaluate in a year and see if that program is worth their time, if they want to continue it. Um, we offered a few years ago to do this with Provo, and they wanted to do a 3-year program. Um, so it kind of just depends on what you guys are, are wanting to do. Um, but eventually, when we've done this in other areas, um, after we do it for a number of years, it actually decreases the problem enough to where we're not putting in any more resources, and the, uh, the animal control officers are able to take over the program fully without any increase to the budget because the cat population has decreased so much. So they're not having to spend as much resources. So I hope that makes sense.

Speaker F: Yeah, and then as far as how many have entered the shelter, I know in May of this year we— it took 14 cats Um, last I checked from our grandma requests, it was 14 cats specifically from Eagle Mountain. We do offer $1 spay/neuter to the community, and we have seen an increase in those from Eagle Mountain showing up to get the community cats fixed. I don't have an exact number on how many are from Eagle Mountain, but we do have that data that we can send you. And then, as far as how we know they're fixed, when they go to the spay/neuter clinic, we ear tip their left ear, I believe. Um, and that ear tip indicates that they have been spayed/neutered, and we also vaccinate as well during that time. So, yeah, all of that would be free to the city if we do a community cat program. Um, and I believe we also have resources to pick up the animals and transport, um, as well to the spay/neuter clinic.

Speaker H: Okay, is there any catch, anything I'm not missing?

Speaker C: Here.

Speaker E: I don't think so. Um, yeah, we— it would be a customizable plan. So we would love to sit down with any animal control officers or anyone involved and get an idea of what their specific issues, what their specific needs are. We are offering these services because Utah County has a really high cat population. And like Bailey said, this county is the only county in the state that is still killing healthy, treatable animals. And so we, we aren't offering these services in a lot of other counties. Most of the other counties are running similar programs through their own shelters. Um, and so there's no catch. We're just offering to help, um, decrease the community cat population. So, thank you.

Speaker H: Yeah, thank you.

Speaker A: Any other questions? Go ahead, Councilmember.

Speaker I: Yeah, so can you just help me understand how you guys are funded? I mean, who's funding you? You guys are here working. It's a job. Obviously, you're collecting a paycheck. So how are you funded?

Speaker E: As an organization, we have a number of donors. It's a national organization. We're based in Kanab, actually. So that's where our headquarters is. We actually have the largest animal sanctuary in the entire country. So if you get a chance to go down there, highly recommend it. But we have a number of donors. We also partner with a lot of rescues. And so a lot of our money goes out to the rescues. We have a ton of grant programs that we provide them, but it's mostly donors. It's community members that just want to help. Out in their own communities. Um, some people will have specific things that they want the donations to go to, like Utah-specific projects. Other people will just say, here's $20, do with it what you need. Um, so most of it is donations. We're a nonprofit, 501.

Speaker A: Um, with other communities that have used the program or a similar program, and they transitioned from a kill shelter to a no-kill shelter. What has that process been like? And have you guys played any role in assisting those communities to know what they should be doing and how to implement that?

Speaker E: Yeah, so we have a lot of different programs. Um, like I said, we're a nationwide organization, um, and we've played a hand in a lot of shelters, um, going from no-kill to— or going from not yet no-kill to no-kill. Um, and for those not aware of that term, um, no-kill is just language that we use in shelter world. Um, and it means that shelters are hitting a 90% save rate. So 90% of the animals that are going in there are having live positive outcomes. Um, we recognize that some animals are going to be sick and they need to be euthanized and they're suffering, or there are unfortunately dangerous animals that we don't want back into the, to the community. So that's what that 10% buffer kind of accounts for. Um, and so we just recently, we helped 2 states. Montana recently just became an entire no-kill state.

Speaker F: Wow.

Speaker E: And I think Idaho as well. And we've played a role in a number of Utah shelters. I think when we started in Utah, about a 3rd of the shelters were no-kill, and now we're up to all but 2, and there's 59 shelters throughout the state. And how that process works is we work with each individual shelter to assess their needs. So sometimes they need veterinary assistance. And so we have an embed program. We will send veterinary assistants or actual veterinarians into a shelter to provide training, to help kind of with that workload and then ease them off of it and get them going. We also provide grant programs. So if it's an issue of funding, which I know a lot of municipal shelters have not enough funding, and so we provide grant programs. So just things like that based off of what individual shelters need.

Speaker A: Awesome.

Speaker E: Thank you.

Speaker A: Any other questions before we Is there any direction or thoughts that council would like to convey to staff?

Speaker D: I'm supportive of this, but so would we bring this back up at the legislative portion of our scheduled or our policy meeting? I think we can make a motion then.

Speaker J: Yep.

Speaker D: Because I'm supportive.

Speaker C: Same.

Speaker A: Awesome. Okay, thank you.

Speaker E: Thank you so much.

Speaker A: We'll invite Kiara Poole and Elizabeth McNanny, just a clarification.

Speaker K: The last one, you mean at a future meeting? Because it's not on the agenda.

Speaker L: Legislative priorities.

Speaker K: Oh, legislative priorities.

Speaker I: Okay.

Speaker C: Yep.

Speaker A: All right, as they're making their way up, they're going to talk to us about our program year 2026 Community Development Block Grant funding priorities and project planning. So, ladies.

Speaker J: Sweet. Thank you, guys. Um, Okay, we thought this might happen, so we have a quick little backup detour. I'm gonna let Elizabeth introduce— she's gonna be presenting, and then I will hook this up.

Speaker G: Okay, I'm Elizabeth McNanny. I work with Resource Consultants, and I've been working with the City of Eagle Mountain for the last few months and kind of transitioning, helping to transition the CDBG program back in-house. My background is I've worked with HUD programs for probably 15 years. I've worked with federal programs kind of all across the board, everything from Federal Highways to USDA, as well as HUD and Treasury for about 20 years. And I am excited to be here. Thank you, Council, for having me here today.

Speaker M: Yay!

Speaker G: Okay, we can just go right past the front page. Do I, do I have a clicker? Does this work? Okay. All right, we'll talk about just the overview of entitlement funds. It'll be a quick overview and an overview of what's in the annual action plan. Kind of next steps, because you'll be seeing me again in just a couple of weeks, and I'd welcome any feedback. So Eagle Mountain is an entitlement community, and to be an entitlement community, you must have 50,000 people as a city and not also be involved with an urban county. So there are cities that have the access to entitlement funds, but they choose to still run their funds under an urban county. So Eagle Mountain has been an entitlement city for 2 years. We have just started the 3rd year, and we'll talk about that as we go through this. So CDBG is a formula process, and there is a YouTube video about how HUD determines the annual allocation. It is Super riveting, if anyone is interested. So this really targets— these funds target housing and community development activities, really aimed at households that earn 80% or below of the area median income. And HUD funds are received directly rather than through the state as an entitlement community. So, just to kind of give you a baseline for what the 80% means, you can see here, these are the updated numbers. They came out last month. A single-member household can earn up to $66,750 and qualify as 80% area median income. So, anything below that is eligible for Any household below that is eligible to receive funding through CDBG with certain caveats. So, the CDBG program, the primary objectives are to develop viable urban communities, primarily for low and moderate income persons through decent housing and a suitable living environment and expanded economic opportunities. A lot of times that's talking about Housing, public services, and the built environment. There are national objectives. Every activity that is undertaken must meet a national objective. The most common one is benefit to LMI households. The next one, prevent and eliminate slum or blight, is very restricted with very specific caveats that must, you know, things that must be met before that can be used. And the 3rd one is address an urgent need. You would never use that one unless HUD tells you you can. It's typically a natural disaster. So the core principles are again to benefit LMI persons and communities and community participation and leveraging and partners. You'll see in the next couple of slides, there's not enough money in the CDBG program for Eagle Mountain city to solve any one challenge that you might face, but it's about strategic and targeted investment. Things that are eligible: housing rehabilitation, economic development, public services. Here's kind of a list of public services. This is definitely not exhaustive. There's a much longer list. But these are some. You have supported subsistence payments, meaning utility assistance, as well as food pantry services within Eagle Mountain City through CDBG previously. Public facilities and neighborhood improvements. You have also worked with the senior center with upgrades there. Things that are ineligible.

Speaker I: Fundraising.

Speaker G: Normal expenses of the government. Income payments. We can't write checks to anyone. Buildings or portions thereof used for the general conduct of government. Typically, the purchase of equipment is disallowed. Maintenance and repairs. So the difference is, if you have a park in an eligible area and the service area is eligible, You could do upgrades, but you can't mow the lawn. So that's kind of the difference there. Activities affecting multifamily structures or public facilities, including infrastructure, must guarantee that 51% of the beneficiaries are low to moderate income, and activities related to single-family housing developments must serve 100% low to moderate income, because it's looked at household by household. And many jurisdictions require that their public services primarily try to serve at least 100% or close to 100% LMI clients. So food pantries and, you know, the utility payments and things like that. And no project is really eligible if it doesn't meet that 51% income benefit. So for 2026, program year 2026, which started July 1st, the CDBG award is $246,979. Of that, planning and administration can only use up to 20%. There's also a cap on public services. So public services are capped at 15% of your entitlement award. So that seems— it's low. A lot of communities would like to use more on direct services, but HUD to this date has not made that possible. There are some changes hopefully coming down the line that may change that in the future. You right now have an opportunity over the next year because you have a significant amount of prior year resources. You have a bucket of funding that's about $220,000 that has not been allocated and has not been spent. So that increases the amount you have available over the next program year. Prior year resources unfortunately do not increase your public service cap, and they do not increase your administrative cap. So your public service funding available For program year 2026 is about $36,000, and administration and planning is about $49,000. So you can see there you have a little over $380,000 available for other activities. And in a 5-year consolidated plan, basically you have the overall plan, the 5-year plan, and then every year you have to have an action plan that drills down a little bit deeper. For HUD to tell them your priority projects for that year. So we are in year 3, and you will see me in a couple of weeks with a proposal for the 3rd-year annual action plan. Here are some of the components. You've got, of course, your executive summary and lead organization, expected resources. You'll see exactly what we just went through on the previous slide. Slide about resources, annual goals and objectives, and projects. You'll also— in the plan, there's some sections for housing and non-housing needs. This is not like a housing needs assessment. This is very prescriptive. It's HUD speak. So you start with needs which are only in the consolidated plan. And then you have goals in your consolidated plan that flow down to each of your annual action plans. So you could have 4 or 5 goals, and only 3 might be captured in any individual action plan. They don't all have to flow down. And then you have projects. Those are— these are the buckets. You have projects in your annual action plan, housing. Public infrastructure, public services, things like that. And then the activities are really a function on the other side. It is the reporting side of ITIS, the discrete activities that you're undertaking. This is kind of a flow way to look at this. Create a suitable living environment might be a need. Public facilities and public infrastructure improvements may be a goal. Public infrastructure improvements to benefit LMI Eagle Mountain City residents could be a project, and ADA upgrades in X area of Eagle Mountain City could actually be the activity. And ADA upgrades you can do pretty much anywhere, as long as they're not specifically targeted to kids. Because kids are not a presumed benefit for, for HUD, but adults with disabilities are. So ADA upgrades are really fantastic ways to increase access for members of your community to important places. So outline of possible projects, rehabilitation and preservation of housing.

Speaker E: Homebuyer assistance.

Speaker G: Support for affordable housing development. HUD, it's a Housing and Urban Development program, but you cannot build housing with CDBG dollars. Neighborhood improvements, again, ADA upgrades. Park upgrades in eligible service areas. So you really have to look at where the park is, and then you have your service area. And is that 51% LMI? And then public facility improvements. Senior centers are, are definitely pretty easy because the beneficiaries are presumed benefit for HUD. And no project is typically eligible if it doesn't meet at least the 51% LMI benefit. So the next steps, again, I'll be back here. in front of you in a couple of weeks to do a presentation and hopefully adoption of the annual action plan. And we can't submit to HUD until that happens. And I would happily stand with Kiara for any questions.

Speaker A: All right, council, what questions do you have?

Speaker C: So I have a question about the rehabilitation and preservation. Are there guidelines with how that can be utilized? To rehabilitate or preserve an existing home?

Speaker G: So it would be typically if you're running a housing rehab project or activity, as long as the homeowner is low to moderate income, and it really is identifying and addressing a deficiency in that home.

Speaker C: So replacing roofs?

Speaker G: Yes.

Speaker C: Main sewer lines, exterior siding, things of that nature.

Speaker G: Yeah, health and safety issues primarily, and ADA upgrades again are easy to do, are low-hanging fruit for our aging population. I am included in that bucket.

Speaker C: So, what about the absence of landscaping? Maybe their property's gone completely back to dirt. Does that include—

Speaker G: not really. Okay, that typically—

Speaker C: just want to know where the boundaries are.

Speaker G: Yeah, it really is about addressing deficiencies in the property, and if you're running more of a beautification program that's outside of the scope typically of CDBG.

Speaker I: I got a handful I'm going to lay on you. Excuse me. We had a conversation earlier before the, before the meeting started. One of the things I wanted to suggest, and I know that these, these ladies have agreed to look into it, to the council is whether or not there's an opportunity to use some of the CDBG funds to support the purchase of water shares. for affordable housing. We're going to look at an affordable housing project that we're talking about, perhaps using that as a tool. And so these ladies are at least going to look into that, and I would recommend that if that's feasible and there are not too many strings attached, that we at least consider it. Um, I'm intrigued by the ADA, and one of the things in my mind that comes into play, especially with $381,000, $382,000, is how much of that could be used on ADA improvements in the city. And I would defer that perhaps to David, to our traffic engineer, and see if we can identify some areas in the city where we could use that. I certainly think the intersection on Ranches Parkway and SR 73, although I know that's some state property, maybe that doesn't work. But I really would like to see some areas in the city where we might be able to use those resources. And then an additional question is, can we, can we, can we utilize those funds for trail connectivity between some, some intersections where it's nonexistent? Um, to help that, I'm sure there's going to be some, some guidelines we have to use.

Speaker G: It would, it would depend on the area and the service area that you're connecting. Would it benefit primarily low and moderate income?

Speaker I: Well, so I think that maybe that's where it would be really beneficial to us, Kiara, if we knew that in this area we probably would meet that 51% threshold, and in this area we won't, and maybe we could target that a little more specifically.

Speaker G: The challenge with that is it's not just this area is LMI, it's that the service area of what your improvement is, who are you serving with your improvement? So then you have to look at that, and that has to be primarily low mod income. So it's not just in an eligible area.

Speaker I: So can you help us identify some areas that might qualify? Because I, because for me, that's an impossible task. I don't know where we should even be thinking about.

Speaker J: Yeah, I think for trails specifically, that That one is a little tough just because of the overall demographic and the population of Eagle Mountain's income is quite high. Um, and so to say, you know, we, we can, we'll get creative no matter what we do. Um, but we do just have to consider the overall, I guess, group when we do stuff like that. And that's why kind of like seniors, like more specific targeted demographics are easier to get away with.

Speaker I: Intersection improvements that would change something from an area that's not ADA compliant to an area that becomes ADA compliant would be eligible. to use some of these funds for that. Okay, I want to plant that seed.

Speaker G: Yes.

Speaker I: And then, uh, the water we talked about, $88,000. And then my next one, you led right into it, is the senior building expansion. I think we should be considering that, being the senior liaison and the only senior on the council, recognizing that they're stretched to the limit even with the improvements that we've made because of our growth pattern. So I, I, I don't know what that looks like, but that's an area where I think we ought to at least consider spending some of the resources.

Speaker J: Yeah, we'll definitely get with their team. That's one of the not easiest, but kind of straightforward paths that we've seen with this.

Speaker C: So what about widening a sidewalk? That's because we have some that are really, really narrow that would allow for wheelchair access. Would that fall under? I mean, because I know intersections are pretty clear. Well, if we have a sidewalk in an area that is in, in that particular LMI. to make it accessible and safe for wheelchair use, or even for walker use for that matter. Does that fall within those same guidelines, or is that— you got to get pretty creative to try to prove that? Is that what the issue is?

Speaker I: Okay.

Speaker G: Yeah, you need to get into the weeds a little further.

Speaker J: But the ADA portion about it is what makes it easier to get into the weeds. Yeah. Yep.

Speaker N: Yep.

Speaker I: Thanks.

Speaker H: Just kind of bouncing off of these 2 comments, you know, the local park I lived by for many, many years, There was a pavilion, but from the sidewalk to the pavilion, there was no connection for a wheelchair. We had someone in our neighborhood, we would carry her wheelchair up to the pavilion anytime, and that's been resolved. So I just wonder, in some of our neighborhoods, maybe Zach Hilton or others might know where some of those areas are that we could make those easy connections.

Speaker I: One of the things I'm thinking, Councilmember Huish, is is even if we just dedicate a, a preponderance of this to intersection improvements, then it lightens the burden on the city to perhaps make those connections or those widenings that might need to happen between those intersections. So it just— anyway, I'll leave it there.

Speaker G: And the one caveat with that is looking at if something is already budgeted. So if it's in the budget, you can't supplant. If you're already planning to do something, you can't Plant it with federal funds.

Speaker A: What about like on a long-term planning, like a 5-year plan or something like that? Yes, if we haven't like allocated funds in that fiscal year. You mentioned that you'll be coming back in August with some sort of proposal for us. What are you basing that proposal on, just the feedback you've heard today or feedback at previous meetings? What will that consist of?

Speaker G: So feedback from today, also meetings with stakeholders, some of your nonprofits And, you know, what the needs are in the community, but definitely we'll take what we're hearing today and incorporate that for sure.

Speaker J: And we have incorporated some— like, we're thinking about some feedback that Steve Mumford has helped us gather from the Community Services Board. So they did provide some good feedback, and we don't live in Eagle Mountain, so we rely so heavily on that feedback. Just, you know, what are the needs? What things Do you guys see? And then we take it and get creative and try to bring something that works.

Speaker A: One thing that I'd like to encourage my fellow council members to consider supporting, and I hope that it makes it back in the proposal, are some of these principal pantries and like our library food pantry, and then the pantry that's at Rockwell. It's got a teen center associated with it. All of those things serve individuals who are on the LMI. eligibility, and I love that we've put a lot of resources into our senior center, but I also think we need to look to some of those younger members of that LMI eligibility and make sure we're taking care of them as well.

Speaker I: Mayor Kim Clark, I would just say this. I agree with that 100%. I, I don't think that we should shy away from the 15% and 20% buckets that we've been talking about. I think we should absolutely continue the utility billing assistance. I think that we should, we should do all of what you just suggested, but we bump up against limits. And, and what I'm seeing is that that fund grows and we don't want it to carry over year to year. We want to put it to work.

Speaker D: So the food would hit the 15% limit, right? That's part of the 15%. Yeah, yeah, I agree. I think we need to max those out and then, and then use the remainder.

Speaker J: And those ones are fairly straightforward to max out. Same with our admin. It's the, it's the additional funds that right now you guys see it rolled over. That starts to create other issues for us, and we don't want to— we don't want that. So if we can just get the money out, we have a couple pockets that we mentioned. ADA senior, there's certain areas that it's easy to say, hey, these are project areas, and we can just get creative on how that fits Eagle Mountain.

Speaker C: Are you only able to come to us once a year? If you see that we've got extra, can you come back to us and say, hey, we got another $150,000? We can say, well, let's spend it here then.

Speaker J: Yeah, we can.

Speaker C: Well, I think we could be proactive with that. So if you see that, I think all of us are in agreement it shouldn't be sitting somewhere. Let's spend it.

Speaker A: In a little less than a month from now, we're going to have UTA on demand and still no viable bus route. But could we use some of those funds to help purchase passes for lower-income people? Could we have passes at City Hall that if you could prove that you're LMI, You could come and get some of those things to help with transportation.

Speaker G: So that would bump up against the 15%. And so far, and this year you did have an application process. This was before I was working with Eagle Mountain City, and you received 3 applications.

Speaker J: I don't know if you guys recall, they came and presented. Yeah, so those, and those are the— and they're looking to be able to obviously utilize public service dollars. So, right.

Speaker A: Awesome. Thank you. Any other questions before we have them sit down?

Speaker F: Thank you.

Speaker J: Thank you guys.

Speaker A: All right, we'll invite Beth Fuchs up. She's going to talk to us about the wildland urban interface standards. And as you guys remember, this is bringing this back to kind of address small lots, and she's seeking some feedback from us.

Speaker M: Apologize for the delay, but we got it worked out. Okay, so we have discussed this before when we were doing our WUI map. We Brett and I spoke with the fire officials and talked to them about ways we could make our city safer for fire hazards, particularly wildfires. And we came— I came and spoke with the council before, and there were some concerns with some of the things that were presented. And so I've gone back to the dry board, have a few other suggestions to see if it's something we want to do, or if we'd Don't want to go in that direction. Sorry, it's not advancing. There we go. Okay, so that was the background, and I did also want to let you know that HB 215 that was passed by the state does have some changes to standards that we're not allowed to prohibit residents from clearing vegetation if they're within the WUI boundaries. So I will be bringing that back to the council, but I wanted to see if we were going to do anything else to see if we bring them back together, or if I'll just bring that one back. So, after our discussion, I got thinking and want— I'm a visual person. I wanted to see what this would look like, what the impact would be on the residents. And I know one of the concerns was having standards that would limit certain residents from being able to fully utilize their land, where if they live somewhere else, they would be able to do different things. And so, as I looked at that, I looked at some of our larger lots, Particularly those that already had a 35-foot rear setback, because that would then allow them to have 30 feet of defensible space for their property. And so, as I got looking at that, another thing that comes into play with that is accessory dwelling units, because our current code requires that those meet the setback standards for the primary dwelling unit. So, in that, that would prohibit from putting an ADU in an extremely hazardous area where, where they would be exposed to a fire, and that's already in code. And so I took kind of a standard lot with the minimum frontage for a half-acre property. And then one, some of these areas are more challenging areas, so you could have some oddly shaped lots. So I kind of did the 2 extremes to put them together. And if you look, The orange areas are where someone would be able to place an accessory dwelling unit or any accessory structure and have it 30 feet away from that and be able to have that 30 feet of defensible space. We also talked about, though, that really where it's 30 feet of defensible space, not necessarily a 30-foot setback that we're concerned with. I also looked at The opposite. So what if instead it was 30 feet spacing between structures? And so these are— that's what this would look like. And as I was looking at this, I realized most people aren't going to build a huge accessory structure in the middle of their backyard. You're going to probably put it closer to the home or closer to the rear of the lot. And so on a larger lot, I think where people would naturally place those structures. would allow them to have 30 feet of defensible space. So we could, if you wanted, instead of looking at a setback standard, look at a minimum lot standard. And if they had the— we would be looking instead of mandating something, facilitating it, make sure that lots in those areas were large enough that they would be able to easily enjoy the use of their property and still be able to provide 30 feet of defensible space, or the other. Recommendations by the state when they come in. And if we were to move forward with this, that would kind of take care of rear lots. We would need to decide if there could be whole developments that wouldn't have a side yard that would be impacted. But if it did, how would we want to address protecting those? We wouldn't necessarily need to accommodate it all on the property. We could do it with like a trail or a road or something so that there is still 30 feet of space between the home and the improved wildlands. And I also wanted to just clarify, I'm just— I was talking about having this only apply to boundary lots, and that what I brought before only applied to those adjacent to wildlands, not property that's against unbuilt areas. However, the state will be coming in and assessing and charging These were all properties within the WUI. So we, if we did something, we need to decide, do we just want it to be there? Would we want it to just be along wherever there isn't development? Because if it's against an area that isn't developed, not could be developed, but we don't know when, you have that kind of interim hazard. And for example, what happened in Roy yesterday, even if it's not a wildland, you can have fast-moving fires come in. So we need to think about and consider things like that. And it— Councilmember Wood brought up and recommended last time that we had these discussions of informing residents that they're in the WUI, that them know. And I think that's an excellent idea because they may choose to place an accessory structure in a different location with that knowledge, or choose a different material type. or things like that, and they'll understand and can maybe when they're putting in their landscaping, take into account some of those state recommendations instead of having to change things later. And so I just also put in the WUI map to remind us where these areas are. And again, some of these areas could fall out of the WUI, especially as they're being developed, but they're probably going to be certain properties that are always going to have that wildfire lit. risk, especially if they're near washes or hillsides, things like that. And these I just put in for reference if we needed them. And so those were kind of my thoughts based on our previous discussion. How does the council want to proceed? Do we just want to move with state requirements, or do you want to consider any additional standards?

Speaker H: Can I just ask a question on the unplanned buildable area? Is that a requirement of the state? Or is the requirement just up against unbuildable wildlands?

Speaker M: So it's just where we've defined it on our map. That was just to kind of illustrate different situations we could run into, because some of those WUI areas are going to be surrounded by developed land. Some will have undeveloped lands, but they— that aren't in the WUI. So it's just different things to consider.

Speaker H: I'm wondering if it would make sense to whoever owns that land to have a 30-foot defensible space instead of putting that on the property owners.

Speaker A: Oh, like, so there'd be a buffer built into the development around the edges?

Speaker H: Yeah, that'd be my preference.

Speaker A: Could we give like open space credit or something like that with that?

Speaker C: What do you do when it's a government agency or it's a different municipality?

Speaker H: Because a lot of times you're talking about the area around the outside, like Silver Lake, Saratoga.

Speaker C: You could have that right up against BLM land. You could have that against county land. So there's some challenges. I agree. I think the responsibility needs to be shared both with those who have structures on their land and those that don't. Yeah.

Speaker A: Any other thoughts from council? Councilmember Wright? Councilmember Whiting.

Speaker D: So what is— so what if you have 2 WUI lots back up against each other? Seems like you could have 15 feet on one side and 15 feet on another side of defensible space. And would that— would that work?

Speaker I: You have 2 WUI lots backed up. I mean, how would you get 2 WUI lots backed up?

Speaker D: That wouldn't work. That wouldn't be a need.

Speaker I: I'm just curious, how would that become the requirement? Because it's really the border, right? It's the outside.

Speaker D: So it's the WUI area, but I guess as you develop it, that WUI area sort of decreases.

Speaker I: But your buildings are permanent.

Speaker H: But your buildings are there. Like, if you are on that boundary lot, you put in your 30-foot setback, that building's there. I guess that's a risk you take buying that property.

Speaker I: Beth, I'm— I mean, I want to share a couple thoughts. I'm a little confused. I'm going to— and that's easy to do with me. Um, it seems to me that the half-acre standards that we already have create a 35-foot backyard setback. So I don't see that as an issue. The issue is really the side yard, is what I'm hearing you say, and then perhaps whether or not we require half-acre lots or larger on the periphery. I think that's really the question that we are looking at. I feel a little ambiguous about this because it's, do we, do we, do we impose additional standards on something that we're not required to for safety? That's the first question that perhaps we need to address as a council and, and speak to.

Speaker C: The other issue too is that we know it's going to change. I mean, the reality of it is you impose something on somebody that is a very temporary nature.

Speaker I: That, that's the concern I have, is that it Because it's just what Councilmember Whiting said. Well, what happens when you get 2 back to back, right? What happens when we annex and it changes? Um, so I just— it's a moving target.

Speaker C: Uh, that's why I, I think it— I understand the purpose of it. We're trying to mitigate fire spreading, and, and I think everybody's on board with that. I think we've demonstrated that, but we've got to be careful with legislation that has a moving target. On it that can change, and we're putting a burden on a homeowner to do something that is a temporary thing that they are going to have the— I mean, are they going to be reimbursed when it gets built up against them? The answer is no, right? So they're going to have to make this investment into that until the developer behind them decides to complete theirs. And once that's done, they're no longer in WUI. So I just— things like that, I have some consternation about because it's I don't, I don't love imposing restrictions that cost money that are temporary. We know it's going to eventually change. But I also think there needs to be something in place that at very minimum, they should be required to clear it, but they should be able to build something on their land also. Like, I don't know, I just, I'm struggling with this one.

Speaker A: Beth, you had something?

Speaker M: Yeah, I just wanted to clarify. That's why I was looked more at the lot size, because there wouldn't be any additional requirements on those residents than any other resident who owned a half-acre lot. The, the 35-foot setback's already in place. It just allows them to be able to put in, to clear the land if they wanted to. And then also the side, if we had it through a road or a trail, then it's the developer who's putting that in. They would have the normal 15-foot garage side setback as other residents. So that was more the direction. So it shouldn't change anything. They wanted a half-acre lot, they'd buy a half-acre lot and have the same rights as anybody else in the city who had that.

Speaker I: Could we consider— I mean, my thought process is, is could we just consider as part of a development application that the developer make an assessment about the WUI and that we require that to be reviewed as part of any new development that comes forward. Because I think at that point in time, you can look at each individual piece on its merits, and understanding that it, it may change, it may not change. I don't know, I'm just throwing out— I'm spitballing here.

Speaker M: Regardless of what we do, I think staff should be sure to inform the council that we're dealing with a WUI area. Now, some of these areas already have vestings and entitlements, Some do not, but I think it would be worth working with the developers of those properties to try to make them safe. And I'm not saying these are the best and the only ways. I just think it's something that we have an opportunity most other cities don't to take these into consideration as we're approving development. And so, just being conscientious of that and trying to find ways to make sure that our residents are safe. Thank you.

Speaker H: Councilmember, I mean, I do like the idea of spacing the buildings apart, having that 30-foot setback between the primary residence and a barn, or— to me, that makes sense.

Speaker A: I have no issues with that. I can't remember who brought it up, but somebody said something about requiring half-acre lots on the periphery. Is that something that we want to pursue and have be a part of this conversation, or?

Speaker D: I'm almost thinking we have so few. I mean, we have— there's areas, right? But we almost need to look at this as each development application comes through.

Speaker N: Okay.

Speaker D: That's what I'm thinking.

Speaker A: All right, anybody else have any thoughts they want to share?

Speaker I: Well, I mean, I mean, if you just take an example of the Horizon development, right, it has entitlements on it. I mean, some of those lots are going to be bigger. There is some open space that is at least being considered there. And obviously there's changes that are occurring there, right? There's at least contemplation, but that's kind of an island in the city. And at what point does that no longer become an island? And do we really impose those standards on an island? Those are the questions that are going through my mind, and I don't know that one size fits all. And maybe the contemplation should be against those Those lands that are BLM or others. I mean, maybe that's where the contemplation should start. I don't know.

Speaker A: So, well, so what I'm hearing is that it's a unique situation every single time. So we really probably should be adding a review of this to every development process and ask staff to alert us so that we can have the discussion when we have the factors unique to that area. Is there anything else we want to instruct staff to work on?

Speaker D: I liked Councilmember Wood's suggestion about a plat notation and disclosure requirements. So, you know, buyers know that they're in a WUI area.

Speaker A: All right, it sounds like— did you get the feedback you needed from us?

Speaker M: Yes, so I'll bring back the state requirements and the plat notation.

Speaker A: Okay. And if there's a way for us to make it a required step in our design review process or whatever, because we still want to know if it's an issue and we want to make sure it's part of what we're doing.

Speaker C: So I'm gonna ask a question of David. Do you mind? Do you mind if he comes up so I can ask him a question? Oh, David Yuleberry.

Speaker A: Absolutely. Go ahead.

Speaker D: Nice shoes, David. Love your shoes.

Speaker C: Yeah, just in thinking about this, I mean, I understand all of the reasons that we're trying to mitigate some of these things, but it feels like we're putting a huge amount of, uh, onus on small lot property owners, which generally speaking are not the ones that are spreading the fire. It's usually on large lots. Have you heard anything from the state, from any of the fire organizations where they're talking about Creating defensible spaces on some of these large pieces of land, whether they belong to the— an individual property owner or to the state or to the federal government. Are you aware of anything where they're talking about that?

Speaker I: Or— If they're in the WUI area, they're required for those, whether whatever the size of the lot may be.

Speaker H: So those larger lots are required for those 30 feet if they're in a designated WUI area. It just depends on what city they're in.

Speaker C: And they would designate those areas. Okay, that's good to know, because I don't think that was clear to us. How are we notifying them?

Speaker I: Because basically, when we started with the map, you get an area that they would define by the definition in a WUI area. But there were plenty of areas in our city map that were— it wasn't actually— the topography wasn't dangerous.

Speaker C: It was prior to development that they were marked as that.

Speaker I: So there was a few areas in our own map that we changed out of that.

Speaker C: From— that was initially red flagged as in the WUI area, and that's up to the individual cities to go through those maps and make those changes. So it's not just specific to homeowners, it's to actual just landowners.

Speaker I: Yeah.

Speaker L: Okay.

Speaker P: And so we can—

Speaker I: and you go through and you have to make your argument, obviously, as to why it should be exempt from there. And we went through that in quite a few areas.

Speaker C: Thanks for the clarity.

Speaker I: Yeah.

Speaker A: Anything else? All right, we're moving on to our next item. Uh, Rob Hobbs will be presenting a discussion item, proposed private purchase of 0.13 acres of the ranch's golf course. Mr. Hobbs.

Speaker P: Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem, Council. Staff was approached by, uh, Ms. Bree Folsom, owner of property at 3544 East Royal Dornoch Drive, with the request to purchase adjoining or abutting land, some 1.13 acres of golf course ground. Uh, that they have an interest in. The golf course is willing to sell the ground, as indicated by an email, which I inserted into your packet. And so the question is, is the council agreeable with this land transaction? If so, then we will instruct the applicant per se to go ahead and apply for a rezone, as well as a plat amendment, a minor one at that.

Speaker F: Okay.

Speaker Q: Sorry.

Speaker A: While he's pulling that up, does anyone have any initial thoughts that they want to share?

Speaker D: Well, the initial question I have is, I mean, I know this borders Ranches Parkway. Is that land in any way contemplated in an expansion? And it's probably far enough off, but I just want to ask the question.

Speaker N: I—

Speaker A: where's Mr. Salazar? So I think you were a part of some of the conversations that we had with this particular piece of land and the right-of-way acquisition for Ranches Parkway. Based off of the image of, like, the overhead map, is any of this in risk of us needing to acquire it for our road widening projects?

Speaker D: For the widening, no.

Speaker C: I think we talked about using it for some public works access or utility access in this area.

Speaker A: Okay. Any other details from staff?

Speaker P: Not this time.

Speaker I: Okay.

Speaker A: Council, what other questions and insights do you have?

Speaker H: So would we need to retain some kind of easement to access that property in the future? That was the only question I had.

Speaker A: Was that question for Brad Hickman or Marcus?

Speaker K: So right now it's golf course property, so it's subject to that agreement, which does allow us to have certain rights of access for public utilities and so on. Um, if it were sold to a private party, um, we could, as part of, uh, the reason that they're asking our permission is because there's the reversionary, or there's the clause in the, in the, in the contract, right? And, um, and so the, um, we could condition kind of releasing our interest in the property on them, uh, Grant an easement.

Speaker A: Okay, I think— yeah, so for sure go after some sort of easement. Councilmember Wright?

Speaker I: Yeah, I want to raise another concern. I mean, recognizing that it is part of this, this agreement, and, and not, not everyone will probably agree with me, my concern really is, um, allowing this to be sold, uh, without having something in place that indicates where those resources go, knowing that there's some, some debt that exists. Um, I, I'll probably leave it at that, and it may be something that we need to discuss in another setting, but I want at least the council to, to, to have some contemplation about that.

Speaker A: Any other thoughts from anybody on that?

Speaker D: Well, you know, when a, uh, I mean, in a similar circumstance like this, uh, if you sell off a piece of your land and you have a mortgage on it, The mortgage company is going to want some of that money to come pay off some of that debt.

Speaker I: If you're in arrears.

Speaker D: Yeah, or just even if there's a lien against any of the property, even if it's not in arrears, but even if you have a lien against the property, the mortgage company is going to require if you sell a part of it, that part of their balance comes— gets reduced as well.

Speaker I: And maybe that's something that we're going to need to have a discussion about outside of this setting.

Speaker B: Okay.

Speaker A: Any other comments from staff? Any other comments from council? All right, let's move on. Our next item is going to be also introduced by Rob Hobbs. Um, and it is a discussion item about the Triumph subdivision. Now, this is later in our agenda as well as a possible action, but we also have the applicant here. Do you like to start?

Speaker P: Council, the Planning Commission advanced this to your bench with a positive recommendation upon having reviewed the matter. This is a combination of master development plan and amendment, uh, an agreement amendment. The Triumph subdivision was entitled a few years ago, and at that time was given a residential Setting and zoning. The applicant is interested in, as you can see by this exhibit, creating at least 4 areas that would be for affordable housing. The city has already dealt with affordable housing comments in the past, especially by staff promoting the idea. The applicant has a few asks as detailed in the staff report. To make the project, quote unquote, affordable. And they are here, as you already indicated, to explain what they would like to do. But essentially what you have are open-air tandem parking spaces with private roads built to a city structural profile, but not with the full right-of-way width, et cetera, that the city's schematics require.

Speaker N: Okay.

Speaker P: And then you have a select set. They had 3 samples shown to the commission of possible house designs that would work for each of the lots. We would have reduced lot sizes and expected setbacks as well. And that would make it, uh, for them pencil out better. They think that'd be an introductory comment. Any questions?

Speaker A: Any questions, counsel? All right, can we invite the applicant to come up? And field some questions. Please introduce yourself.

Speaker O: Are we on?

Speaker R: There we go.

Speaker S: Scott Hazard. Thanks for your time today. What questions can I answer for you?

Speaker A: Council, what questions do we have for this applicant?

Speaker D: I'll jump in. I mean, I got a lot of different notes, but Okay. So, oh man, I got a few questions. I like, I love the affordable housing purchase price cap because that sort of solves one of the issues I was contemplating a few days ago is that if you have a family size of 8, they could, their 80% of what they could buy, the purchase price would be much different than a family size of 1. Then someone could buy in as family size is 1 and then turn around and flip it to a family size of 8 and make a profit. But that's, so I like the introduction of the cap. Based on the numbers we just saw from the CDBG presentation, it looked like the 80% AMI of a 2-household was $76,300. If you do a multiplier of 3.25, that puts you at a purchase price just under $310,000. So that sounds good. I mean, is that sort of what you're anticipating?

Speaker S: That's at 80% AMI. We will not be below $310,000. So our starting homes will be probably more like $325,000, $329,000.

Speaker N: Okay.

Speaker D: So that multiplier— so that multiplier, I think, caps where you would be. So in other words, that multiplier would be below— we would need to increase that multiplier in order to go to $325,000 because otherwise our current multiplier is hitting us at $309,968 for a max purchase price.

Speaker S: You're talking about for the deed restriction? So, the, the multiplier sets in after the first sale.

Speaker D: After the first sale.

Speaker S: Yeah. And the intent is exactly what you just described, where we didn't want to just let an equity grab happen because as developers, we're leaving a ton of money on the table to make this work. Um, and we're all— obviously, there's also a lot that the city's contributing to try to make this work, at least that I'm asking you to. So, we didn't, we didn't want gen 1 of buyer to just benefit and then take a, take a bunch of money and bail. So, so we've created that restriction as a multiplier so that purchase price will always scale with AMI. So it's— we felt it was better, and we're open to feedback. We felt it was better than putting a 3% or 3.5% or 4% annual cap to the purchase price because it allows them to grow equity as income increases on the average within the state. And it's always tied— the idea is to service that population. And so equity gain is basically just tied to income.

Speaker A: Yeah.

Speaker H: Yeah, I love this idea. I mean, we all know that the median income has not kept up with the median home price in Utah. Yeah, this attempts to solve that problem. It's deeded. So there's, like you said, you can't buy the property and then flip it a year later to a higher price. It's always just going to follow the median income, which is going to help. I think I'm just thinking of a lot of young starter families trying to get into a home. It's innovative.

Speaker S: Yeah, that the deed restriction was probably our biggest challenge to bring this back to you in a formal format to ask for a vote because of those types of challenges and then getting appraisers and underwriters to sing out of our songbook so they could be Freddie Fannie underwritten. They can't be HUD-funded, so we can't do an FHA/VA loan. They won't allow the deed restriction. But there's been a lot of collaboration and thought with many different parties to try to get this to a point where we can get loans on it, we can get it funded. And our intent is that these are, these are designed to be attainable in perpetuity. All other programs that I'm aware of in the state cap at like 10 years, and then it's free-for-all, do whatever you want. I'm like, why did we spend all this time and effort? for a 10-year program. So tying it to the AMI, I think, should allow us to, to run in perpetuity. And then in the deed restriction, we've empowered the council to make modifications to that down the road if it seems like it makes sense. We've created some restrictions there because we didn't want you pestered with every little— everybody wants something. It has to be a market-wide, industry-wide impact, a community-wide impact. So that you're not hearing requests from every individual little owner to say, hey, make an exception for me. Can you change this? Uh, because we recognize 10 or 15, 20, 30 years down the road, the dynamic might be different. Maybe income doesn't scale nearly as much as it needs to, and there needs to be some concession. The multiplier might need to change. Uh, so we've empowered the council to be able to make those decisions.

Speaker M: Go for it.

Speaker H: Just one other. Yeah, I have a lot of questions building in my head. This, these, these pods will be under an HOA.

Speaker S: Yes.

Speaker H: Is that correct?

Speaker S: Yes.

Speaker H: Same HOA as the properties outside of the whole—

Speaker S: Yes, they'll be like an HOA that'll handle just these attainable housing clusters. But yes.

Speaker N: Okay.

Speaker D: So, so maybe this section needs to be clarified because when I'm looking at the affordable purchase price cap, one of the sections pertaining to that says, that any transfer shall be equal to the product of the resale multiple and the AMI. And it says any transfer. So I didn't realize— so when I'm reading that, I was thinking when you're selling it as well, because I would assume that would be a transfer unless that was defined otherwise within the contract, within this language here.

Speaker S: Colby, do you have a better response to that, or Kaden?

Speaker C: So you're saying for the initial sale?

Speaker D: Well, so, yeah, what Mr. Hazard is saying is the initial sale would not be subject to the resale multiplier. But I didn't— that wasn't clear to me in the, in the deed restriction language.

Speaker A: If I understand your question, that 3.25 is a plug for the time being. When we go to sell these homes in these communities, we will set the multiplier to equal the purchase price.

Speaker N: That makes sense.

Speaker D: So that when, when I'm a new buyer and I purchase the home, the purchase price, if I take my area median income then and times it by the multiplier in the deed restriction, it will equal the purchase price that I bought it for. So we will sell it at the qualifying purchase price and then from there, AMI will increase their purchase price in the future. So that multiplier is going to change with every single contract?

Speaker Q: No.

Speaker S: So we plan to do it on a node-per-node basis because of the cost of construction. So when we build out phase 2, like the first node here, we'll have set purchase prices for each floor plan there. And we might have, you know, 3 or 4 floor plans, but we intend to build them all out at once. And to get some economies of scale there to further contribute to the affordability aspect. But so each node will have its separate multiplier, essentially.

Speaker A: Any other thoughts? Now, this is an item that shows up later in the agenda for a possible action. Are there any details of that item that we need to hammer out?

Speaker D: Yeah, so I've got a few more questions. So the, so the one of the asks Is that the city provide or purchase the water necessary? I would like, I would like that quantified in terms of like, how much are we asking? And I think it would be coming from RDA dollars. How much is in our RDA to actually provide?

Speaker C: So that's actually something I wanted to make a note on. It's a good question. I think that we need to make it tied to available RDA funds. So, if that runs out at a future date, that we're not now taking that out of our general fund to buy water for these. So, I think that that probably needs to be some language that's put in there that if the RDA funds are no longer available. And then the other thing too is I just wanted to be clear, market water that is on the market, but we're not providing that from our own stores.

Speaker S: Yeah, the proposal has never been for the city to provide water or to sell water. That's never been the proposal.

Speaker I: In fact, I think it came from Uh, this body, I was the one who suggested it.

Speaker S: I'll take the blame. Yeah. Uh, the idea that maybe RDA funds could be used to purchase this on the open market. There's 2 variables there that I think are important for us to define, or at least create a methodology. Uh, one is we need staff to calculate what's our, you know, per acre foot, what's our quantity requirement for these small houses on really small yards. Uh, my sense is it's probably different than what's in the in the existing table because it's a very different product type. Uh, minimal outdoor irrigation, very water-wise landscaping, and very small homes. So that would be one factor that we would need to determine. The other thing that I think we should insert, and I've had this conversation with staff but didn't know what number to put in, is that there probably needs to be a cap on a per acre-foot number. Um, you know, so I, I don't call my buddy Isaac and say, hey, sell me some water at $65,000 an acre-foot, and then the city's on the hook. To pay for it. So I think we ought to have a methodology or insert a number, something that's reasonably representative of market value that's still attainable, where we could actually acquire water at that number. But that's reflective of a market rate.

Speaker C: What if we tied it to what our ability to sell it, what the price, if we were to use our own stores, we would contribute up to that amount of money, and then the responsibility for the remaining amount would be up to the developer.

Speaker S: That would just add to the purchase price. So, I mean, if you think about it right now, right now, it would be roughly 10% of the cost of the home.

Speaker C: What do you get that right now? $31,000 for an acre foot of water?

Speaker N: Just—

Speaker S: yeah, I've seen it sell for as high as $35,000. So I've been— we'll use $28,000 to $32,000.

Speaker C: Say $31,000, right in the middle. I think right now it's selling, uh, if we sell seed CDB water, I think it's $21,000, $22,000. So, yeah, $21,000 responsible for $9,000 an acre-foot. You're not going to hit a full acre-foot for a house that size. So, I think it's reasonable, but that's probably the only way you're going to be able to follow that in a reasonable way. Has to be tied to something that's fixed. Yeah, that's an amount that is fixed.

Speaker S: The only— I think that that creates some safety for the city. The only challenge I see with that, Rich, is You know, water is becoming an increasingly scarce resource. And if water does jump to $40,000, $50,000, $60,000 an acre-foot, I can't deliver these. There's just no way I can subsidize that kind of money to make— to hit these price points and make it happen. Or we have to add it into the price of the home, and then we've thrown ourselves out of that 80-90 AMI target, which is what we're after.

Speaker I: I think the suggestion that I would make would be, Scott, I mean, recognizing that that there's some variables that need to be worked out. I think if we can put together just some brackets that, that, that you're comfortable with and the city becomes comfortable with, that makes a lot of sense to me. The other thing is, you know, I think Councilmember Wood makes a good point, is, is subject to the fact that there are available RDA dollars to purchase the water. But I think we should just look at it pod by pod. And, and I know that you, you know, with the concept that you have in place, you're saying, look, I just want to trans— I just want to transfer this concept to the next area, to the next area, with some subtle, perhaps subtle design changes. I don't know. One of the things that I want to make sure that we're really focused on— you're saying that you might have 3 or 4 different plans, and you've shown us some really beautiful designs, at least in my opinion, that make a lot of sense. I think they're super livable. I think we need to have the language in there that recognizes you're going to put the refrigerator and the stove and all those things that we've talked about. out in there. I, I don't know that that was in there. I didn't see it. It probably is somewhere and I just missed it. Um, so those are a couple of the things that I'd just like to see get changed, but recognize that this first pot is really an experiment. And, and I don't— look, I think, I, I think it needs to be said publicly that you're being pretty generous in coming to the table and trying to help us develop this. I'm really grateful for that, and we're trying to, to, to help you get over some of those hurdles that you're facing to be able to deliver a product that's pretty unique. And my goal and our hope, I think, is if we can't set a standard by which the rest of the state can learn something, and, uh, and maybe we can actually start to tackle the real problem with affordable housing and get our kids into single-family homes.

Speaker S: Yeah, and that's my real goal, Brett. This is not a one-off thing for me. Uh, I, I see Eagle Mountain leading out with a product like this to show the rest of the state on what can happen When a willing city and a willing developer can collaborate and come up with some solutions. And I'm sure there's plenty of warts we're going to shave off of this first cluster and then figure out how to do it better in the next one. The purchase price inclusions that you referenced are not included in the amendment to the development agreement, and we can incorporate those. I don't have any issue with that.

Speaker L: I just—

Speaker H: it's funny when you're driving through other cities and you see $600,000 townhomes as affordable housing. I'm like, that's This, this really is trying to solve the problem, and I'm excited about it. The other thing I'm excited about is none of these properties can be rented out. They will all be primary owned, which is awesome.

Speaker S: The enforcement of that's going to be challenging. Right now we're saddling the HOA with that. They're kind of acting as, as Rob put in the staff report, as a de facto housing authority. But we'll do what we can as the city matures and develops, and maybe at some point you've got a housing authority and we can turn that element over to the city, or maybe we just—

Speaker C: I have full confidence in our HOA Karens to take care of that.

Speaker D: So, so the HOA will take care of the roads?

Speaker I: No.

Speaker S: So the only public infrastructure element we've asked the city to handle are roads and utilities. All of the surface landscape improvements would be handled by the HOA, including irrigation. Uh, but maintenance of the utilities in the road and the road itself would be, uh, would be the city's responsibility. So snow removal, crack seal, you know, asphalt repair, all of that would be under the city like you would any other road.

Speaker D: Okay, and then the other, the other, other questions. But so parking, because then the roads are so narrow, I assume that you're restricting parking so it cannot be on the street. Yes, but I didn't see that verbiage in the CC&Rs. There's a section on parking that didn't seem clear to me. 11.6. Maybe I wasn't reading it.

Speaker S: Yeah, we would add a note. We would add a note to the amended plat for that, and we've worked that out in DRC with the fire chief. I didn't realize this, but a red curb is insufficient. You need signage. So we'll, we'll, we'll work on that. But yes, no, no parking on the street side other than the little razor strips of parking that we've added for additional overflow and visitor parking.

Speaker I: Just for reference, will you just once again tell us a 2-bedroom is going to sell at— what are you calculating it at currently?

Speaker S: In the low $300s, um, probably $330-ish, um, for, for 2-bed, 1.5-bath. Uh, the biggest plan, which is our 2-story plan, uh, we priced out last at about $374,000, and that includes all appliances. So that's fridge, washer, and dryer included, includes all the window coverings. It includes all landscaping front and back and all the fencing. So all of those things that are really a first cost outlay for a new homebuyer when they buy a home, then they realize, oh my goodness, I have all these other expenses. The only thing they really have to worry about is furnishing the inside. Everything else is covered in the—

Speaker I: And my last question, Scott, and it's really a compliment to you. Is there anybody in the audience that knows somebody that would benefit or purchase one of these? I just think this is— I think this is an amazing opportunity to try something different. Thank you.

Speaker A: Oh, Councilmember Wood, did you have just thoughts?

Speaker C: I'm sure we're going to talk some more about this. I'm not firm on how we deal with the water, but I want to— I mean, you know, I'm a workshop. Let's talk about it. Let's figure out something that is scalable, that doesn't require a lot of oversight. Um, one of the things I was— when I was looking through the deed restriction, I am concerned about the city being required to deal with all the transfer stuff. I would love to see that be a 3rd party, frankly, just because that can— things can change and sway and whatever. And if we want this to have lasting, it needs to be someone that is actually Running this program, maybe it's a 501 or something like that, that is responsible for doing this, that doesn't have skin in the game. And I don't know what that looks like, but I really want this to last. I think, you know, that I'm invested in, in this working. I believe that this is the only attainable housing product in the state. Everything else that I have seen develop is something that is not really producing the outcomes that we're looking for, for the individual that's buying the house. And I, I'm proud of it. I think we put a lot of work into this one. I want it to work, but I want it to be something that's scalable that we can do throughout the city. I hope other people steal it and want to do it in the rest of the state, because I think it's a good program.

Speaker I: Councilmember Wood, I'm just going to make a quick suggestion. I mean, we already have someone reviewing all of our, all of our loan applications for those who are Or seeking the forgivable loan that comes out of those RDA funds. I just think that the city could help participate in reviewing that at some point in time.

Speaker S: That's a great suggestion because it's all of her underwriters that we've vetted this through. So she seemed like the, the perfect one to manage that end of the process. And so she's been included all along. So I think all the points and questions I heard are very valid. It looks like we've got a few things to sort out. amend, uh, before we're ready to go to a vote. Is that a fair stand— fair statement?

Speaker C: I think we can probably deal with most of these things in a—

Speaker S: in a motion.

Speaker C: In a motion, don't you think? I mean, so I think when, when we come back, we've addressed most of the concerns. Um, having an administrator do that— Marcus, if you think that we need to have more strong language than what we've talked about, tell us now, and we can give them the ability to go and do that. But I think I don't want to sit on this much longer. The prices of houses go up as we continue to sit.

Speaker S: So, just so you know, my first phase of Triumph is submitted to staff for final plat, does not include this, but there's a slight adjustment I'll need to make in the first phase to accommodate this. And I'm hoping to knock through this right away so that I can start delivering houses next, next spring, summer.

Speaker A: One, one. Oh, sorry.

Speaker C: Hang on. I want to make sure Marcus answers my question.

Speaker K: You know, I won't have any time during this meeting to hammer out the language, but I'm sure we could figure it out. Watch the recording, make sure we encompass everything that's in there and work through it. That's what the council wants to do.

Speaker A: One thing that's kind of a sticking point for me, and I'd love to, like you said, workshop this— the water price. I know that we have to find a target, we have to find a fixed number.

Speaker J: Sure.

Speaker A: But I also don't want to automatically basically underfund the water by like $9,000 per acre-foot. So I would ask that we look at maybe what market is going for right now. And set the cap similar to that, as opposed to the Central Utah Water Project water, because we all know that no one's touching residential water at that $21 or whatever price it is right now for us.

Speaker C: Yeah, it was just a suggestion. I think there probably needs to be some sort of a scale. Maybe even we create some parameters based on, you know, sales price or Size of lot or whatever. I think that's one of those moving things. We got to get that part figured out, but I'm open to suggestions for sure.

Speaker R: Yeah, as am I.

Speaker D: And I'd still like— because I don't feel like we have the data on how much money do we have in the RDA funds? How much money is going to be required? Like, I don't have that data. Based on that, I would like to see those numbers.

Speaker C: Staff can—

Speaker K: staff.

Speaker A: Yeah, Evan, you probably could shoot that from the hip and just tell us. Wasn't it $1.7 million last year was what went into the fund, and that was with a fraction? Will you say that one more time?

Speaker C: And we'll—

Speaker D: okay, so, and, and how many shares would be required for this project?

Speaker S: I'd need staff to do a calculation for me on that, but my assessment is it would be on, on a market value per per acre-foot, it's probably somewhere in the $20,000 to $25,000 per unit.

Speaker D: And how many units are contemplated?

Speaker S: There's 32 in this first phase, and they're all about— they're, they're all a little smaller, a little bigger.

Speaker D: But so 30, 32, um, okay, times $25,000, so $800,000 per pod. But, but each pod's different than— like, some have more than 32 or less than 32 on these different pods. But tonight's, tonight's discussion would be inclusive of all the pods, correct? Or are we only looking at 1 pod with the agreement right now? I mean, my, my, my, I would sort of favor, given how new this is, to approve pod by pod, just in, or even pod 1. Let's see how it goes. And we're like, yeah, this is so good. We're approving these other, other 3.

Speaker A: Yes.

Speaker I: And I think your point is well taken, Councilmember Whiting. I think, I think that what I would probably suggest is that we enter into this agreement Pod 1, recognizing and perhaps entitling 2, 3, and 4 for a similar or a like outcome, but realizing that it's got to come back so that we can tweak those details that are going to pertain to each pod.

Speaker D: Well, and if we're going to consider using RDA funds for this, I mean, that's a big chunk of money we're doing. And anyway, that's where I think is we got to sort of consider this pod by pod.

Speaker A: I think we all kind of are good with that. So, could we instruct staff in the motion that this applies to Pod 1, and then we'll come back for the rest of them? I mean, what do we need to do to get this across the finish line?

Speaker D: Are you okay with Pod 1 being approved?

Speaker S: Yeah, yeah, I, I just, I would want to see this successful, and I think this is, this is going to require collaboration as we go. Um, so, you know, my intent is we get through Pod 1, I'm going to come back to you, even if it were Already vested and titled. I'm going to come back to you to return a report and say, this is what went well, and these are targets we totally missed, and this is how we're adjusting for the next phase. So, I see this as an ongoing collaborative effort, and you're on the journey with me regardless. I think we're in the saddle together. And if the biggest issue really is just the water right issue, you know, we could say, okay, generally we're looking at these 4 clusters or those 4 pods, but water rights will address on a phase-by-phase to assess What's in your budget? How much is a prevailing cost to buy the water? Um, you know, maybe that's something that we look at at a phase-by-phase to see if there's funding for it, and maybe we wait. Maybe we don't deliver that cluster in that timing, and the timing, uh, you know, runs with the funding.

Speaker C: So one more thing to that, though. I think it's important to remember, even if it had to add an additional $10,000 to it because of the economy of whatever it is at the time.

Speaker S: These are cheap.

Speaker C: I mean, I didn't think that's being lost on people what this affordability is actually creating that does not exist. So, as we're haggling over $1,000 or $10,000, recognize that they are not buying an appliance package. They're not doing any of their own landscaping, fencing, Those are tremendous costs that people are going to have to do with any other product. So, even if we get close, we won.

Speaker S: Yeah, I agree. And there may be different ways to help with the offset of the funding. Water just seemed like an element that we could address directly because it's such a big component. But like on the CDBG grant, you know, I heard you ask the question about, can we buy water rights? Well, maybe not, but can we buy all the common area landscaping as part of the project, and the developer buys his own water rights. Is there an offset where funding could be used and we classify it a little bit differently so that the funding can be, you know, used where it can be used? I think we could have that flexibility built in.

Speaker I: That's an excellent question. And I mean, and I'm pretty sure council's aware of this, but just for the benefit of my 2 new colleagues, I mean, those RDA funds are replenishing year by year, and they're growing at a, at an at a pace that, um, we're going to have to find a home for them to make sure that we're successfully using them.

Speaker A: Yeah, I think to that point, if we don't use it, the state's going to come and say, what's this money you have sitting here, and take it from us. So I'd rather put it to really great use. Are there any other thoughts from council, um, that you want to share before we move on to the next item?

Speaker N: Great.

Speaker A: Thanks. All right, thanks, Mr. Hassell.

Speaker C: Thank you.

Speaker A: All right, so our next item on our, uh, discussion agenda is city manager information items. So, Mr.

Speaker L: Reeves, um, the one thing I just really wanted to bring up is that we have an anticipated July 30th meeting that's joint with Saratoga Springs. I know that the mayor of Saratoga Springs won't be available that evening. But this was one where we were going to talk about connectivity of our 2 communities, specifically all the different connections that kind of follow the Spring Lake neighborhood, as well as the Lake Mountain corridor connection. And we anticipated having the church in attendance because they own a lot of the property there, having the school district in attendance because they have property there. I just wanted to get that on your horizon, see if that is— if there's any specific work that you wanted or needed accomplished prior to that meeting and how we can best support you in that endeavor.

Speaker H: I will be flying back from Montana that night, unfortunately, so I won't be here. But I think as long as you have good representation— I believe that's at 6 o'clock.

Speaker D: What day again?

Speaker L: July 30th.

Speaker N: Next week.

Speaker A: All right.

Speaker I: I might defer just to David. David, what do you think that we ought to— I mean, there are several connections that we ought to be having a discussion about. I'm just wondering if you can bring some maps and—

Speaker L: And it's probably also important to note that UDOT and MAG and Avenue Consultants will be in attendance as well.

Speaker C: Yeah, and I think this whole thing got brought up because we had the Lake Mountain corridor study kind of showing that really great east-west connection, you know, shorter travel time.

Speaker A: And we put on the RTP draft, Saratoga Springs didn't like that revised layout.

Speaker C: They liked the original one that kind of went farther south and came back up.

Speaker D: So that's what kind of started this whole thing.

Speaker N: We can talk about some of the other connections as well.

Speaker H: Wild Blossom.

Speaker C: Also the connection to the east, kind of making Wagstaff Way our primary—

Speaker I: Look, it's going to be one of those really fun coordination meetings where we listen to a variety of opinions and we try to work to the middle. I mean, I think that's really the goal, is to hear one another's concerns and to see what we can do to amend and bend without breaking to produce the best outcome. That's my hope.

Speaker N: The Wagstaff Way is a good one too.

Speaker C: That 122 collector in Spring Run area right now, it tees into that connection.

Speaker N: I think that'd be a good one to also discuss. Hey, can we realign that portion so that is our main thoroughfare in that region as well?

Speaker A: Any other thoughts?

Speaker H: So just to clarify, those that will be in attendance will be MAG, The LDS Church, UDOT, but nobody from Saratoga Springs.

Speaker L: Saratoga Springs, it's a joint council meeting with the 2 councils.

Speaker H: Oh, they are coming. Yes. Oh, good. Okay, awesome.

Speaker A: All right, any other feedback for staff? Ben, uh, do you have any other announcements for us?

Speaker L: Um, I will be out of town, uh, tomorrow, and then of course, um, our offices, uh, it's, it's Pioneer Day, um, we'll be Closed on Friday, and so really Thursday is like Friday. And so just— I'll make that announcement in the next meeting.

Speaker A: Awesome, thank you. All right, so let's move on to our agenda review. We do have quite a bit to discuss in closed session, so we're probably going to try to get through what we absolutely have to and then save the rest for during policy session. So one of the asks from our recorder's office is that we give special attention to the motions recorded in the minutes. Um, and if anybody needs more time, Mayor Gray indicated that it would just be better for us to pull the minutes from the consent agenda if needed. Did anyone have any issues or concerns about the motions in the minutes?

Speaker D: Well, I have a— so, one comment on the minutes. The name Jesse Call— Jesse's name was misspelled in 3 locations, so it's J-E-S-S-I. So I just like that noted somehow. I don't know if we need to make that, or if we could just state it here and it's good.

Speaker A: Yeah, that one's probably good. Anybody else have anything about the minutes before we dig into the rest of the consent agenda? All right, moving on. Uh, bond release, Briley North Plat A out of warranty. Does anybody have any questions about that one? Pacific Springs Phase A Plat 5 out of warranty. Okay, and we just talked about the minutes. The next one is 12A. It's a resolution, um, appointing a member representative to the North Utah Valley Animal Services Special Service District Board, and that individual will be David Yuleberry, replacing Finn Cofed. Does anybody have any questions about that item? All right, next, 12B. This is a resolution approving the 1st amendment to the stadium development agreement. Does anybody have any questions about that? All right. Uh, 12C, a resolution of Eagle Mountain City approving the 1st amendment to the Briley Townhomes Phase B development agreement. Do we have questions about that? I know we had that as an item last meeting. Uh, the applicant is here if you'd like to ask questions, or staff.

Speaker Q: Yes.

Speaker D: I had one brief question. So lots 207 through 210 had 3-story varieties built on that with the larger garages, but those were not originally contemplated in the count you needed for 40, correct?

Speaker A: And yes, please come to the microphone, introduce yourself.

Speaker C: Greg Wall with Land Eagle Development, and we're working with the developers for the Towns of Reilly Farms Phase B Platts 1. Or 3 and 4.

Speaker I: So those 4 lots were in Plat 2, and the language of the development agreement contemplated lots in Plats 3 and 4. But those had not been built on yet by the prior developer, and the home builder Element Homes had the opportunity to purchase them, and they did that so they could have a model home ready by the time the construction on the infrastructure for lots or Plats 3 and 4 were completed.

Speaker K: So.

Speaker I: Yes, it's the exact same model as the 3 stories with the 600+ or 600 square foot minimum garages.

Speaker D: So you're basically asking for those 4 to count toward the Phase 3 requirement.

Speaker C: Toward the 40 overall requirement.

Speaker D: The 40 overall requirement.

Speaker A: Does anybody have any issues with that request? Okay, I thank you. Have a seat. The next one is an ordinance. This one is approving the off-street trails master plan. We spoke at length about this at our last meeting. Does anyone have any thoughts or items on that? Okay, so the next item is a motion to reconsider. The one of the applicants for that is planning on being here in the 7 o'clock meeting. So, can we hold the review of this one off until the next meeting. Great. Let's skip to the next one. Um, an ordinance of Eagle Mountain City amending the Eagle Mountain Municipal Code Section 1620 for preliminary plots, 1625 for final plots, and 17100 for site plan review. And I don't know who's assigned to this one.

Speaker R: It's not on there.

Speaker A: Brandon Larson.

Speaker O: It's me.

Speaker A: Thank you.

Speaker O: Um, this is just a simple administrative— well, I shouldn't use the word simple. You may not think it's simple, but what I— what we're trying to do here is clean— it's another part of our effort to try to clean up our development process. A while back, we ran into an issue where we realized that we didn't have all the information we needed to calculate some bond numbers. And so what we're trying to do is get some of that, get that information from the applicant at the front of the application process. It might mean that an applicant might have to update their cost estimate a little bit. They may have to update it a couple of times through the process, a few times through the process, but we feel like it's going to be a benefit not only to the But to staff, to the city, to be able to get an idea of how much public improvements are going to cost. And it's going to give the applicant, I think, a better— it'll put them in a situation where they are better taking more care to plan for their public— the construction of their public improvements and paying for them.

Speaker L: So.

Speaker I: Okay.

Speaker O: We, we are proposing this additional document for preliminary plats, final plats, and site plans. There might be another one that I'm forgetting, but we just think this, this information will be really helpful and help it so that we don't end up at the— end up at the end of the development process without a clear understanding of how much public improvements are going to cost for development.

Speaker A: Thank you. Does anybody on council have any questions or thoughts that they'd like to voice?

Speaker H: Just, I love the plain English summary for SB 202. We need those on every single thing we're reviewing. It's nice.

Speaker A: Yes. All right, let's move on to the next one. This one is an ordinance amending Utah Municipal Code 8.15.070, noise levels, and Mickey Mills is presenting this one. Do we want to have her come on up? Why don't you come up? Well, we think that the HDMI cable— so you're either going to need to go over there.

Speaker G: I don't have a ton to show. It's really just a very short 1 line being added to the code.

Speaker A: Okay, go ahead, Councilmember Wright.

Speaker I: Thank you. Hi, Mickey. I, I just have a question about red lines. I'm, I'm— it's, to me, it's just a little bit confusing, and I hope you'll help me walk through it a little bit. And it's in Section D, the hours of restriction exemptions. Um, I'll let you get there. So, 1, parks— the hours of noise restriction within any park as defined in EMMC 7.05030 are as follows. 10 PM to 6 AM. So I'm interpreting that to mean that, uh, you got to be quiet in the park after 10 o'clock and, and before 6 AM. And then it says golf courses. The hours of noise restriction for privately owned golf courses for maintenance activities are as follows: 5:30 AM to 10 PM. Does that mean they can't mow during the 5:30 to 10 PM?

Speaker C: They're saying you can't restrict it during that. So that's what the bill says.

Speaker S: Yeah, that's an exemption.

Speaker I: Okay, so they— that's the time when they're going to be able to do it. Okay, I told you I was confused, so I'm glad that they clarified it. Does that make sense to everybody else? Just me having a hard time with it? Okay.

Speaker A: Okay, any other questions, comments? All right, thank you. Um, the last item that is a regularly scheduled item is discussion, possible action For Triumph, and we already discussed that with the applicant. Um, so I think what would be good is to retire early to closed session so we can get through the list of things that we need to do. Would someone like to offer a motion?

Speaker H: Pro Tem Mayor Clark, 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 physical or mental health of an individual, the purchase, lease, sale, or exchange of real property, a proposed development agreement, project proposal, or financing proposed 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 52-4-205 of the Utah Code Annotated.

Speaker O: Second.

Speaker A: All right, we have a motion from Councilmember Huish and a second. From Councilmember Wood. Let's start the vote with Councilmember Wright.

Speaker I: Yes.

Speaker A: And I will vote as a councilmember.

Speaker G: Yes.

Speaker D: Yes.

Speaker C: Yes.

Speaker D: Yes.

Speaker A: Thank you. All right, thank you. Here, Councilmember Wright will be offering a prayer for us before we begin our meeting.

Speaker I: Our Heavenly Father, we're grateful to bow our heads in prayer this, this evening, and we express gratitude for the opportunity to live in the United States of America, to enjoy the freedom and just the gifts that this land offers to us as citizens. We're grateful for one another, grateful for our staff, for all the hard work that they put forward on behalf of the citizens of Eagle Mountain, for the tireless hours that they work, for the sacrifices that they make away from their families as they strive to deal with those issues that come up in the middle of the night, on the long weekend, or any other time that seems to be inconvenient when those things happen. We express gratitude for them. We express gratitude, Father, for willing developers who are willing to come and to invest their money and their resources in our city in an effort to produce something worthwhile and something that, that benefits and blesses them and provides opportunity and, and, uh, allows our citizens to grow and flourish and for our community to, to be viable. We're grateful for the economic development opportunities that continue to come to us and pray that we'll be blessed with wisdom as we exercise and make decisions regarding them. I want to express gratitude this evening in particular for the council members, both present and past, for mayors both present and past, and for all those public servants including our Sheriff's Department and our, our firefighters, just for their efforts, for their love of our community, and for their willingness to sacrifice their time and to provide their services on our behalf. Pray, Father, for wisdom and guidance in the decisions that we'll make today. Bless us with civility and kindness as we interact with one another. And express gratitude for the opportunity to make and to be involved in these discussions and decisions. Humbly do so in the name of Jesus Christ.

Speaker K: Amen.

Speaker A: Amen. Thank you. And we'll call this meeting to order at 7:03 PM. Uh, first we have a few housekeeping items. Mayor Gray is not here tonight, so I'm filling in as mayor pro tem and conducting the meeting. Um, we'll excuse him. Um, and then housekeeping-wise, I need to announce that there's 3 items that were noticed for public hearing as follows. However, these 3 items, only 15A will be held as a public hearing tonight. So, if you received a public hearing notice or something like that, we want you to really pay attention to this part. Um, 16A will not be a public hearing. That's the ordinance of Eagle Mountain City amending Eagle Mountain Municipal Code 8.15.0.0 noise levels. And then 17A is also not a public hearing, approval of 2nd amendment to the Triumph Master Development Agreement for the Triumph subdivision. If you would like to comment on the 2 noticed items, 16A or 17A, You may do so during the public comment portion of the meeting. Yes, I know it's next.

Speaker I: Thank you.

Speaker A: And next, Councilmember Whiting will lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Speaker C: 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 S: With liberty and justice for all.

Speaker A: All right, um, thank you all for being here. Uh, we are going to go right to information items and upcoming events with Mr. Reeves to provide that information to us.

Speaker L: Okay, uh, thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. Um, our city offices, um, and public library will be closed on Friday, uh, July 24th. 4th in observance of Pioneer Day. And because that Friday is closed, Thursday is kind of like our city's Friday. So it'll be a skeleton staff that will be here on that Thursday. We have fireworks that we're promoting at Utah Lake on July 24th at 10 PM. There's been donations made, and there's going to be a barge on both sides of the lake. For more information about the fireworks, That is at fireworksstate or fireworks at utahlake.com, and and also too, we are because of the dry conditions going to be working with the state of Utah on a ban of fireworks at your residential homes and and within the city limits. And so we encourage our community to go support. support this at Utah Lake. In addition to the celebration on the 24th, our city itself will be having a celebration on the 25th. It's called our Summer Bash. It's a laser show, and that'll be from 4 to 10 PM at Cory B. Wright Park. So great events both on, on the 24th and the 25th. Our Back to School Night is Saturday, August 1st, from 6 to 8 PM at Cory B. Wright Memorial Park. And then we have a Truth in Taxation public hearing scheduled for August 6th at 6 PM, and we invite our public to attend.

Speaker A: Thank you, Mr. Reeves. All right, now we've reached the public comment chunk of our agenda. Time has been set aside for the public to express their ideas, concerns, and comments. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes each. 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 public hearing portion, please complete a comment form located in the back and return it to the city recorder. So it's on the little table back there, and our city recorder's up here. Um, 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, Deputy City Manager Steve Mumford will meet you in the foyer for further discussion. Lastly, public comment period is for items not associated with a scheduled public hearing. If your comment relates to a public hearing item, please wait until that item is called. And I had already announced that 16A and 17A do not have public hearings. But 15A, which is an ordinance of Eagle Mountain City amending Eagle Mountain Municipal Code, uh, 16.20 for preliminary plots, 16.25 for final plots, and 17 site plan review regarding application requirements and cost estimates. So, if you'd like to speak on that one, we ask that you'd wait until that public hearing takes place. Now, I will open the public comment period at 7:08. And invite anyone. Lacey, do you have some for us? Awesome. Please come up, sir. Did you say George?

Speaker M: Yeah.

Speaker I: Yep.

Speaker E: Come on up.

Speaker M: Thank you.

Speaker A: Please state your name in the microphone.

Speaker N: My name is George Reed. I live on 1148 East Ira Hodgins, Janick Parkway. We have a very, very serious problem about speeding. On that road. I've spoke to the mayor at a friend's wedding. Uh, that was what, 2 months ago? Nothing is being done. Uh, I talked to Mr. Salazar because he's the assistant engineer. He said that they're going to do a city study for speeding. We have had 4 studies done on Ira Hodges already. We've had the wires put across that road 4 times. Uh, I talked to Sergeant Gilstrap. I— he actually invited me to do a ride-along with him, and, uh, he had let me know that, uh, on the one study that they did, that there was at least 6 instances of people going 60 miles an hour on a 25-mile-an-hour road. I literally had, uh, 2 young men coming off of, uh, the street next to us. They were coming around the corner. We heard a bang. He skidded clear around the corner, hit my driveway, and skidded halfway up my driveway, busted a wheel and knocked off 2 tires. Being the guy that I am, I fixed his car for him. I told him to leave it there and I would fix it for him. So, I try to do everything I can to make things right. We do have petitions signed here. We have 50 names. On this, they've talked about putting us like a speed table. We need a speed bump, a speed dip, something to slow everybody down. It's just, it's out of control.

Speaker A: Thank you for bringing it to our attention. We'll invite you to give the petition to our city recorder.

Speaker N: Ira Hodges was never meant to be a thoroughfare. We know they put those 2 residential areas to the West of us.

Speaker E: Okay.

Speaker N: And so everybody has to come down that road. I would make a recommendation. It gets extremely bad as soon as school starts. That's going to be starting here in August. We would petition that something be done prior to the start of school.

Speaker M: Okay.

Speaker N: Okay.

Speaker A: Thank you. Yes, please. Thank you. Thank you for sharing your concern with us. All right, Lacy, who else do we have?

Speaker G: Shelly Anderson.

Speaker A: Shelly Anderson.

Speaker B: Uh, Shelly Anderson, 1176 Ira Hodges.

Speaker M: Thank you.

Speaker B: Um, we moved into our neighborhood almost 19 years ago. We've lived in Eagle Mountain for 29 years. We've been here a long time. We moved out here with the hopes of living in a small town, which we did for a long time. Moved into a bigger home because that's what we wanted for our family. We moved into an equestrian neighborhood because we own horses and we love that. The equestrian neighborhood that we moved into is supposed to have a golf course behind it, which was going to be really cool. Fast forward today, we're getting high-density housing, I believe, behind us. And there's no sidewalks, and our neighborhood doesn't want sidewalks. Planning Commission, I think, kind of messed up. The road should be a lot wider. Especially for all the traffic that has to go through there to get to the elementary, which we fought when that happened because it wasn't a good thoroughway, and we lost that battle then. I thank you for everything you do. I don't want you to think that it goes unnoticed and it goes unappreciated. You guys do a lot, and I appreciate it. I'm gonna ditto everything George said. I about got hit by a car last night, by a motorcycle. As I stood in the middle of the road and went like this, slow the heck down. He continued to come straight at me and then swerve around me. We've had cars swerve into the gravel pits off the road in front of our house. We had our mailbox plowed over by a minivan a couple of years ago. We've had a gun pulled on a neighbor because he was mad at the guy speeding, and the guy pulled a gun on him. We've had 3 kids hit in our neighborhood. It's enough. The minute someone gets killed, Or wounded greatly, it's going to be a huge problem, and I want to save that from happening. Our horse happens to live across the street from us. I have 10 grandkids. First thing they do when they come over is want to go feed the horse. I've had cars swerve at my grandkids. I've had them speed as we walked the Arctic Circle to get ice cream cones. I watched a little kid wreck on his car, and cars pull over and honk at a little 5-year-old to get up and get out of their way. In a crosswalk. It's enough. We've complained to the sheriff department multiple times. We have yelled and screamed at neighbors. I'm sure half my neighborhood hates me. I don't care if I can save one life. If I can save one limb, it is worth it. It is time to act. I talked to Jared Norton. I'm sure you all know who he is. He's on Unified Fire. He said enough is enough. Speed bumps have to happen. Stop signs. I don't care if you put a stop sign on every 3-way in that neighborhood. People are fed up. Um, it'd be nice to say everyone would be nice. If everyone could just be nice and slow down, it'd be great. That's not what's happening. It's getting worse and worse the more people that live there. So we would appreciate if you'd do something for it— about it.

Speaker A: Thank you, Shelley.

Speaker B: Thank you.

Speaker F: Thank you.

Speaker A: All right, anyone else? Okay, so that's it for the forms that we have filled out. Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to come up and share their thoughts? Go ahead. If you could fill out a form after you're done and make sure our recorder gets it, that would be great. Just start by stating your name in the microphone, please.

Speaker I: I'm Justin Hopkinson.

Speaker O: I live on 872 East Waddell Street, just over from where they live. And, and so I got the other entrance to Mountain Trails Elementary. And yeah, when school starts, it's, it's horrible. And I adopted a little boy from a cousin's heroin addict, so he's 6 years old now, has severe ADHD. I have to keep a death grip on him. Otherwise, he'll run out in the road.

Speaker S: And he's—

Speaker I: there's some cars, new people that moved in, that these kids that are racing up and down the street, contractors that I've yelled at hundreds of times.

Speaker O: And I walked out in front of one guy hauling a big load of material, and he yelled at me.

Speaker Q: He says, you think I could stop?

Speaker A: I'm like, exactly.

Speaker I: Look at this little boy. If he runs out in front of you, you're going to be able to stop for him?

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker O: And it's, it's out of control over there. And I've called numerous times the police to help us out.

Speaker C: And it's, it's, yeah, it's out of control.

Speaker O: And I'm scared for my little boy and all the other neighbor kids. And yeah, definitely during the school time that people are going out of— the parents are out of control. They'll go into oncoming traffic to, to go around the people, the long line to pull in there.

Speaker A: It's, it's That's horrific. Thank you.

Speaker C: All right.

Speaker K: Thank you.

Speaker M: Thank you. All right.

Speaker A: Anyone else would like to give public comment? All right, we'll close public comment at 7:15. And as we do that, I think it's important just to, um, set the expectation for our city manager that I think council would like a report back at our next meeting of how we're going to address Ira Hodges and Just give us kind of a return and report on that, because we can tell that it's a significant problem. So, thank you.

Speaker L: Happy to do so.

Speaker M: Sure.

Speaker I: I'm— I ask the mayor pro tem if I could speak to this for just a minute. I want you to know that this has been a concern of ours. Um, we've, we've tried fairly diligently to find some resolution to several places in the city, and Ira Hodges is one of them. In this budget cycle, this past budget cycle, we actually funded $200,000 worth of speed tables. And one of the areas very specifically that we targeted is Ira Hodges. Uh, I want you to know that, that we've set money aside for that to happen. We are waiting for our staff to finish up a report, which we should have in the next week or 2. That's the anticipation, to make sure that, that the traffic tables that we think are the best solution, that our engineering team agrees with us. If there's something different that they recommend, we'll certainly keep you in the loop. Um, but we're very aware of that, and you're not alone in that concern. There are several other areas that are adjacent to elementary schools that are really awful in the city, and we're concerned about it citywide. We're not going to take comments, or we're just going to— I just want to give you an update. Um, but I want you to know that we're very aware of it and that we're as concerned about it as you are. I've been to your home. I've seen that. I've watched it. So, um, and I think that, that our staff is really great at listening to us and understanding, but what they don't often get the chance to do is to come sit and meet with the residents and And to hear those concerns that you just shared. So thank you for sharing your thoughts, Shelley, and, and, and, and the rest of you. Um, anyway, I just want— I wanted you to know that we're very cognizant of it, that we are making some forward progress for the first time in the 5 years I've been here, 4 and a half years I've been here. We've actually allocated resources and we're making— we're making some adjustments.

Speaker A: Thank you, Councilmember Wright. All right, now time has been set aside for City Council and Mayor to make comments. Let's go ahead and start with Councilmember Huish.

Speaker H: Thank you, Pro Tem Mayor Clark. Government just never moves fast enough. That's the one thing I've learned sitting here and being on that side, that there, there's clearly a need all throughout our city. And I just echo what Councilmember Wright has said. If I could show up tomorrow with a speed table, I'd probably just put it in. Um, but we want to make sure that the engineering is right, that we're allocating resources in the highest problem areas, and, and your concerns are valid and are heard. Appreciate all that our staff do. I'm amazed at all the different projects we have going on. It's a pretty vast machine that's being built in Eagle Mountain, and we have a lot of infrastructure projects going in. We've got water being built. sewers being built, lots of infrastructure, and I'm just grateful. It's amazing that how a city works and functions, and I appreciate all that you do and, um, look forward to tonight's comments and agenda items.

Speaker A: Thank you, Council Member Huish. Council Member Wood?

Speaker C: I'm probably not going to be as warm and fuzzy as Zach was. Hearing you guys say that just makes me more mad. About our inaction, frankly. I mean, I when it happens, everybody's going to go, "Oh my gosh! Let's hurry and try to fix the problem." And I just I do not make the excuse that government can't go fast enough. That is a lie.

Speaker I: I'm sorry; it is a lie.

Speaker C: We can. We have the resources to do it. It is our Unwillingness to do things that are out of character of what everybody thinks we should do. And I, I'm upset. The same problem exists in 3 or 4 other neighborhoods where elementary schools are. It's unacceptable, and I am sorry that we have not acted. It's inexcusable, and I can promise you that those who are dragging their feet, if it was in front of their house, it would already be built.

Speaker A: All right, Councilmember Whiting.

Speaker D: So I heard multiple times we've worked with the sheriff's office on this, that, and the other. You're all just giving the reasons for a tax increase. We need more public safety officers, and it's pretty evident. I think the ones we have are doing a great job. We just need more of them because we've grown a lot as a city, and they cost money for them to come in. And so, You know, the tax increase is going to be discussed here soon and voted on. And one thing that I'm looking forward to with these additional, you know, public safety officers is we may be able to get more patrol happening in neighborhoods, especially to help with speeding and things like that. And I can't speak to prior, you know, prior studies that were done. All I can speak is the studies happening now, and I can speak to the resolve of the council that sits up before you to solve these problems, and it's going to happen. So you, you can feel the energy that's coming right here. It's, it's going to happen. We'll bring solutions and as fast as we can. So, um, anyway, we're grateful for the public comes out and gives us insights and comments because we need your eyes and, uh, need you, need you with us, um, to give us, help us, help us make better decisions. Uh, one last thing I'll mention, uh, be on the lookout for a new half marathon that will be here in Cedar Valley. We are in the works to make this happen on October 3rd. More information is going to be coming out. It will be the I Believe in You Run Cedar Valley, and it's going to be in partnership with Ben Lyon. And we'll be carrying signs, and we're going to have a run here that is going to be epic. It's going to be a combined effort between Cedar Fort and Eagle Mountain City, who will be co-sponsoring. It's going to be pretty epic to bring our community together. And money from that is going to be going toward, uh, this volunteer fire department that Cedar Fort has, as well as our volunteer police services here as well. These are some of the things where people say, well, you know, we want you to, to manage differently so you don't have to raise taxes as much. Well, this is one of those efforts to bring in money from businesses and other people who are willing to— the running community— to where we can then have that money flow into some of our public safety as well. well. We are looking at other ways to do that, and in this case, it's going to help with those items I just mentioned and then also help with unity and, uh, mindset and mentality in this, in this valley. And I'm really excited about that. So more, more details will be coming out about that.

Speaker A: Thank you, Council Member White. And Council Member Wright?

Speaker I: Well, I took a minute, but I'll, I'll just add one thing that I'd like you to be aware of. Um, the seniors are putting on kind of a food drive for the pantry, and I just want to read a list of items. So if if you have these or willing to donate them to the, to the food pantry that's in our Eagle Mountain Library here just behind us. Flour, granulated sugar, vegetable oil, iodized salt, black pepper, onion powder, garlic powder, baking powder and soda, white vinegar. And also helpful in the pantry would be peanut butter, canned tuna or meat, canned milk, canned vegetables, canned soups, packaged pasta, oatmeal, hot cereal, white or brown rice. I just think it's important to remember that there are those in our community that have food insecurities, and anything we can do, those of us that perhaps have a little bit that we can donate, those are the types of items that they're looking for this month. I wanted to make that announcement. Thank you.

Speaker A: Thank you. And I just want to say thank you all for being here. I really appreciate your neighborhood coming out and sharing some of those very personal concerns and experiences. Um, we do need to do better, and I think we're working toward that. Um, and I'm grateful that no one's been hurt in the way that we've talked about. I appreciate you talking about life and limb, and sometimes neighbors get mad because you have to stand up for what's important. So thank you for coming out for that. And I thank all of my fellow council members for the things that they've shared. Um, we have some cool things going on in our community right now, and, um, We have a really cool communications department that's trying really hard to make sure our residents are informed of what's going on. One thing that our community services board has been working on is a bingo card, and it's a bingo card that goes from, like, Pony Express Days all the way to basically the end of the year. And there's prizes and different things that different people are going to be donating for people who complete their bingo card.

Speaker J: But.

Speaker A: If you missed one of the items on the bingo card, there's a QR code on there with some like makeup items, and we encourage you— it's a really fun way to celebrate our 30th anniversary as a city, um, and to participate in that. Um, and that's all I have to say. Um, I will entertain a motion for the consent agenda making the minor adjustments to the minutes as noted during work session.

Speaker D: Yeah, Mayor Pro Tem, I, I move to, uh, approve the consent agenda with the, uh, spelling corrections to the minutes as noted in the work session.

Speaker I: Second.

Speaker A: All right, we have a motion from Council Member Whiting and a second from Council Member Wright. Um, we'll begin the vote with me. Yes.

Speaker J: Yes.

Speaker P: Yes.

Speaker F: Yes.

Speaker A: Yes, thank you. That passes. All right, so now we get to go on to the scheduled items. So the first item is a motion to reconsider, and that is going to be presented by Lacey Messerly, our city recorder.

Speaker G: Council, this was the land disposal that came to you last August.

Speaker A: It was approved with criteria on option 1, where all of the residents were to participate in the plat amendment, and we have had a hard time getting ahold of one of them.

Speaker G: So we're bringing it back for a motion to reconsider. We've talked about this at length. So the applicant is here to answer any questions.

Speaker A: You want to start with the questions? We can go from there. Awesome. I know that there are questions because I've had a chance to talk to some of our different council members. Councilmember Wright, do you— are you ready with your question?

Speaker I: Yeah, I have a couple of questions. I— when we talked about this most recently, it seemed that there was one holdout. In looking at the amended flat, it looks like there may be 2. Is that accurate?

Speaker G: Yes, there is one who is getting a divorce, I believe.

Speaker A: Sorry, I turned you off. Um, can you explain that one a little bit more about the applicant who is going through a divorce right now?

Speaker F: Yeah, so she— sorry, whoa. She is still planning on buying. She's still buying now. She just cannot— like, she can't incorporate it until October next year. And so she still would pay and everything and own it. She just can't incorporate it yet. So there's only 1 holdout that we haven't been able to.

Speaker I: So I guess my question then, Jesse, is that Lot 63 is shown in the amended plat with that portion behind their lot as not part of their property. And Lot 66, is that— am I reading that correctly?

Speaker G: Yes.

Speaker F: So 63, the one that's closer to the end?

Speaker I: No, 66 is the 3rd lot in, and 63 is in 5 lots, 6 lots it looks like.

Speaker F: Okay, so 66 is the one where she— it's not showing as a part of her lot because it can't be a part of her lot yet. She has to own it separately. And then the other one is the person we can't get.

Speaker I: So, so it's— she's going to purchase it then. So, okay, that makes sense. It's just separate Yes, so that it has a different parcel number. That makes more sense to me. And then can you, can you tell me what the portion is that's identified as POSIF? And I'm not— or 1F maybe is what it is. It's a piece of property that's adjacent or right behind lots 267 and 266, and I believe that's the Moody's home.

Speaker A: Yeah, yeah.

Speaker F: So that's just the, the part that was designated. There was 20 feet we had to leave open for a path.

Speaker I: Okay, so that is for the path, and the city is maintaining ownership of that. Okay, those were my questions. Other than that, I think it's fine.

Speaker A: Any other questions from council? All right, uh, this is not a public hearing, so I'll entertain a motion on this.

Speaker I: I'm a little confused as to what we need to do on this. Do we need to— do we need a motion to reconsider it and then No, the item is already on for reconsideration.

Speaker K: That happened when 3 council members sent a written statement to the mayor asking that it be reconsidered. So, at this point, procedurally, what we need to do is make a motion to— if you're inclined to approve it, make a motion to approve it and changing the conditions from what they originally were.

Speaker I: Okay, do we want to have a discussion about what that looks like?

Speaker A: Sure.

Speaker I: Does anybody, does anybody have consternation about removing the one lot, which is, it seems it's 63, then is the one that is going to be removed, Jesse, and 66 is still part of that because they're going to purchase it, right?

Speaker F: Yes, they're still going to purchase. So it's just that one.

Speaker I: And what about the timeframe? Because I know the timeframe has kind of been adjusted. How much time do we need to get this done?

Speaker K: Um, to get it, uh, as far as an agreement done and all that.

Speaker I: Yes. How much time should we— should we— because we're talking about changing the timeframe because it's expired.

Speaker K: Yeah, so I mean, at this point we have an amended plat that would have to go through the process.

Speaker I: Um, we need 6 months.

Speaker L: How long?

Speaker K: 6 months is more than enough time.

Speaker B: Okay.

Speaker F: Um, um, I have a question.

Speaker A: Go ahead.

Speaker F: Will that include like— because with the last one it was moving the fence within a certain amount of time, but we're going to hit winter now. So I don't know if we need to adjust that because we had 6 months from the date of the motion from the last time to move our fences.

Speaker I: Yeah, I mean, okay. I mean, Council Member Wood saying why don't we give them 9 months. Does anybody disagree with that?

Speaker N: Yes.

Speaker A: So we're having—

Speaker K: Rich, can you turn your mic on when you're talking?

Speaker J: Thanks.

Speaker C: I'm just saying that, that, I mean, they're going to be dealing with frozen ground. So give them a year. What difference does it make?

Speaker D: Yeah, I'm good with that.

Speaker A: It sounds like council's good with giving them a year. Are there any other questions about what the motion needs to entail?

Speaker I: I'll take a stab at it.

Speaker A: Thank you.

Speaker I: I know I'm probably going to mess it up, but Marcus will correct me, or somebody on the— to my right. Well, maybe somebody to my left will fix it. I move that we approve the disposal of $1.5 6 acres of designated significant real property in Utah County parcel number 49;601;0080, pursuant to EMMC 3.30.060 and 3.30.070, with the following changes to the original agreement: that we extend the timeline to Um, for this to be done within a year, and, uh, that we, that we remove the requirement of Lot 63 to participate in the agreement and allow the other remaining 15 property owners to do so.

Speaker H: Second.

Speaker A: All right, we have a motion from Council Member Wright and a second from Council Member Huish. Are there any Questions from staff or discussion? City Council, does it need anything else marked?

Speaker K: I think we're okay.

Speaker A: Okay. Okay, seeing none else, we'll go ahead and begin the vote. Councilmember Whiting? Yes. Councilmember Wood? Yes. Councilmember Huish? Yes. Councilmember Wright?

Speaker O: Yes.

Speaker A: And I am a yes as well. So that motion passes.

Speaker M: Thank you.

Speaker A: Alright, moving on to the next one. You guys, there's like a legit 3-ring binder up here, so there's a lot to get. Okay. Alright. So we're moving on to the next item, and this one is the public hearing. It's an ordinance of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, amending the Eagle Mountain Municipal Code Section 16.20, preliminary plats, 16.25, final plats, and 17.100, Site plan review regarding application requirements and cost estimates, and Brandon Larson has a presentation for this.

Speaker O: Thank you. This is, as I noted in the earlier meeting, this is part of our effort to clean up our application process, particularly the front end of our application process. And as you noted, it's for preliminary plats, final plats, and site plans. We found that we've typically required a cost estimate towards the latter end of the approval process, and actually after the approval process, and it ends up creating a situation where when we're going to generate bond estimates. We've found occasion where the information we needed wasn't readily available. So we think it's— we believe, and based on my own experience, and I've worked in another subdivision process where we required the cost estimate at the front of the process, and it really was helpful in Planning for, uh, planning for improvements and just understanding the improvements that are required, and also for preparing bond— the bonds. So we feel like this is a good improvement. We feel like this information is already being— we don't think it's going to be a big ask for an engineer and the developers because they already have this information.

Speaker P: We're just asking.

Speaker O: for them to give it to us earlier, um, so we can really facilitate a, a little bit smoother development process for them. So if you have any questions, I'm here to answer.

Speaker A: Thank you, Brandon. Does council have any questions? All right, this is a public hearing, so I'm going to open the public hearing at 7:34 and invite anyone who has a burning desire to speak about this item to come up to the front. No one would like to speak. Seeing none, I'm going to close the public hearing also at 7:34 and call for a motion.

Speaker D: Mayor Pro Tem, I move that the city council approve agenda item 15A.

Speaker A: Is that enough in the motion?

Speaker D: Yes. Second.

Speaker A: All right, we've got a motion from Councilmember Whiting and a second from Councilmember Wood. We'll start the vote with Councilmember Wood.

Speaker C: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Huish?

Speaker H: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Wright?

Speaker I: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Clark is a yes. Councilmember Whitey?

Speaker H: Yes.

Speaker A: That passes. All right, thank you. Moving on to 17A. This is a— oh, sorry, skipped it. Thank you. Um, this— it's the only thing we took out was the public hearing part of it, so thank you. Um, 16A is an ordinance of Eagle Mountain City amending the Eagle Mountain Municipal Code 8.15.070, and Mickey will be presenting to us. So we'll just invite her to get set up and share her presentation. It's going to be a very short presentation. I'm just going to show you the actual code language.

Speaker G: And Councilmember Wright, you are right with a W.

Speaker A: I did, I, I did mix it up. So when we— if you—

Speaker G: if we do approve, I will need to We'll need to switch the 10:00 PM to 5:30.

Speaker A: And I'm glad that you caught that because the double negative went right over my head.

Speaker G: So, this is just a code amendment moving the Eagle Mountain code to be aligned with the state code changes.

Speaker A: And it's really just limited to—

Speaker G: we can't regulate the golf public or private golf courses from doing maintenance activities as it relates to noise between the hours of 5:30 AM and 10:00 PM. 10 PM.

Speaker A: Uh, so the exception would be 10 PM to 5:30 AM. Awesome, thank you. Does council have any questions besides that one update to it? All right, I'll entertain a motion.

Speaker D: Mayor Pro Tem, I move to approve agenda item 16A.

Speaker I: All right, change that she recommends.

Speaker D: Um, well, as presented, yes.

Speaker A: All right, we have a motion from Councilmember Whiting.

Speaker H: Second.

Speaker A: And a second from Councilmember Huish. We'll begin the vote with—

Speaker I: Can I, can I just ask that we clarify that in the red line, that below item number 2, golf courses, that it'd be switched from 10:00 PM to 5:30 AM? We just switched those 2 timeframes.

Speaker K: I was just going to raise that issue.

Speaker I: Let's make sure we do that. Okay.

Speaker A: Okay. Do you need the motion specifically to say that?

Speaker D: I'll withdraw my motion.

Speaker I: Okay, then, if you're gonna withdraw your motion, then I will make a new motion. And let me get to where I need to be to do that. Sorry, Councilmember Clark, where is it? I move that the Eagle Mountain City Council adopt or approve an ordinance amending the Eagle Mountain Municipal Code 8.15.070 with the following change to the red line. The last item under number 2 for the golf course, that the times be reversed so that it's 10:00 PM to 5:30 AM.

Speaker A: All right, we have a motion from Councilmember Wright. Do we have a second? Second. Uh, second from Councilmember Huish. Is there any discussion? Seeing none, no discussion, we'll start the vote with Councilmember Huish. Yes. Councilmember Wright. Yes. Councilmember Clark is a yes.

Speaker J: Councilmember Whiting?

Speaker A: Yes. Councilmember Wood? Yes. And that passes. All right, now we're moving on to 17A, and this is Rob Hobbs that will be coming up to present on this item. This is a discussion slash possible action. It's a— would be an approval of the 2nd amendment to the Triumph Master Development Agreement for the Triumph subdivision. And Mr. Hobbs.

Speaker P: Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. Mayor Pro Tem and Council, as discussed in work session, we have a request by developer to amend a master development plan and agreement that was created with the Triumph project in 2022. Developer is seeking to create 4 pods, if you will, ranging from about 3.5 to 4 acres, 3 to 4.5 acres around that range, with some flexibility to be Afforded to the project to facilitate— oops, pardon— the use of smaller than normal lots in the foothill residential zone, to basically grant or get an exception to the buffering standards that we have in the code for sizing of properties, to also associate with that have reduced setback allowances. And finally, to have private streets that would be built to a certain form of city standard in terms of the subroadbed, et cetera, but not in terms of right-of-way width. Open-air parking is proposed, and staff has also— the council has seen in the past representations of at least 3 prototype houses that could be put into the development. If the project is successful in providing attainable housing, we expect the applicant will be able to move on and, and develop his other pods that he has in concept form. We discussed the water issue earlier, where the applicant is not going to be asking the city for water, and also that they will be helping to orchestrate with deed restrictions the ability of folks to apply to purchase properties in this development. Staff recommends this project for your consideration and approval.

Speaker N: Thank you.

Speaker A: And stands for questions. Thank you. And just as a reminder, this was originally noticed as a public hearing, but it does not need a public hearing. So just as a reminder, in case somebody is wondering with that, um, what kind of questions does council have?

Speaker D: So, uh, okay, one question. So the— so looking at the whole concept as opposed to just the affordable housing Lots, the lots outside of that. I think they are supposed to, supposed to average a half acre. Is that correct? The remainder? And is that still the case with the lots that are still outside of the affordable housing? Do they still average a half acre?

Speaker P: Triumph Phase A, Plat 1 has just come in and it takes into account the lots, the northeast, basically, of the pie that you see on the screen right now. And so with that, we'll start reviewing it. But as the other final plats come in, then we will look for conformance to that standard. And if there's a need to exercise some bit of change, then the developer, I'm sure, will propose something that the city can review.

Speaker A: Okay. Any other questions from council? There were a lot of things that we discussed about this. In our work session, is it at a point where we could make a motion and direct some things?

Speaker D: I've got some commentary on the language that would— so maybe some comments and some— I don't know if you want me to bring that up now or not.

Speaker A: Yeah, we'd love to hear it.

Speaker D: Section— so looking at the deed restriction 2.05, it uses the word conjunctive, and I believe that it was intended to be injunctive. So I think we need to change that word. 3.06 has 2 3.06s, and so the numbering is incorrect after that. So that would need to get changed as well. If you look at 4.04, it references Article 5, but I believe that it was intended to reference Article 4. And actually, let's see, did I say that on 5.01? So that's 4.04. There's that error in 5.01. I believe also it references Article 5 when I believe it's meant to reference Article 4. And then let's see here.

Speaker I: Can you repeat that one, please?

Speaker D: That one. So Articles 4.04 and 5.01 both reference Article 5 in the verbiage when they— I think they intended to reference Article 4.

Speaker I: Way faster than I can type.

Speaker A: Reference Article 5. You're not hearing the stuff on the microphone, but we're just helping the person who's making the motion get all the details.

Speaker D: So Um, and then there, uh, shoot, I gotta find this in all my notes here. 7.02, the word foreclosure is misspelled in the last sentence of 7.02. See, okay, those are the corrections. Then I've just got some There's one more— some questions.

Speaker A: Sorry, there's one more correction, and then we'll head to your questions. In the amendment, um, Section 2.2.5, it talks about— it spells out the word— the words 53, but then puts the numerals for 56, and it should just be 53 and 53, because when this was approved, that's what our standards were, um, or at least set so that they match each other. It's not a big one, but I wanted to make sure we brought that one up. Okay, Councilmember Whiting, what are your other thoughts?

Speaker D: And this is just maybe for clarification in the contract. So I think it's Section, uh, 6.02, if I remember right, that it says the city can delegate numerous aspects of the administration of this, the deed restriction, to other entities, and does say accepting a few different things. And I just want to make sure that That Article 4 cannot be delegated by the city. And Article 4 does, and I think the verbiage is probably in that section, but Article 4 is what specifies that the city from time to time could modify various aspects of it, including the multiplier that's used and, and pretty much many other things in there. I just want to make sure that Article 4 is not something that, that could be considered as— that could be delegated elsewhere.

Speaker J: Okay.

Speaker D: And then on Section, let's see, 3.04, it mentions some aspects, you know, some circumstances in which a transfer could occur without qualifying income. And I know it's stated above in a prior section, if someone receives ownership on a transferred basis where qualified income was not used, I still want that person to know there is a primary occupancy required. So let's say a father passes away and wills the property to the son. The son doesn't live there. At that point, it's a breach that the son's got. In other words, the son's going to have to sell.

Speaker C: So you're saying that there should be a due-on-sale clause in here?

Speaker D: Well, um, just a reminder that transfer— that if you received this through— if you received the property through one of these ways stated in, uh, where it's not qualified, where you don't need to check income, you still have to— if you received ownership, you still got to live there as a primary occupant.

Speaker C: So we got to put that into verbiage here. So what's the best way to do that? You're going to— you're going to say the requirement. So it's transferred by death, heirs, whatever that might be. There's a requirement to be a primary—

Speaker D: Uh, you still—

Speaker C: yeah, if you're the reviewer, and if not, then it should trigger what, a do you want to sell or a requirement to sell?

Speaker D: It would. Sorry, it would. Yes.

Speaker C: So how— we probably need to put some language in there.

Speaker D: You know, I mean, I, I under—

Speaker C: I understand and I agree.

Speaker D: And, and I'm— and it may, it may, you know, it's probably— if you look at other areas of the whole deed, it says in all cases this has to be primary Ownership occupied, but I think in this specific section it would be useful to reference because I could see this happening where someone dies. It now passes like let's say let's say will it I'm living there will it to one of my kids who's not living there I die the kid's gonna now own it not living there I think it's nice in this section to state you're gonna have to sell it because you're not living there or move to that or move to into or move into it just just that there is a Requirement that it be, that it be owner occupied.

Speaker A: Yeah, do we need to add in a lot more language or just clarify the very specific requirement of owner occupancy?

Speaker D: Yeah, I just, so I think 3.04, just stating that if someone receives title under Section 3.04, that—

Speaker K: How does this language work? Notwithstanding the foregoing, this section is the very last sentence would be added. this section does not alter, change, or otherwise affect the owner occupancy requirement.

Speaker D: That sounds awesome.

Speaker A: Awesome.

Speaker I: Leave it to the attorney to make it simple.

Speaker A: Thank you, Marcus. All right, so do you have any other items on your list? See, and Council Member Wood, I hope that you're getting ready to make this motion. Okay, does anyone else have thoughts that they'd like to share before While Councilmember Whiting's finding the rest of his thoughts. Oh, we— you ready?

Speaker D: So, okay, so here's the other question I want to ask the council. Is the LMI homebuyer definition 80% of AMI or less at the time of contract? In my mind, it should be at the time of closing, because what if they go under contract with whether— what— with whatever income and during the contract period, you get a promotion. Are we still going to let that person close? They, they're now above the 80% AMI. So, and maybe, maybe, maybe this is, maybe this is an underwriting thing. Maybe underwriters are just— maybe we just go back to what the underwriters are doing on this.

Speaker H: I think, I think we go with contract.

Speaker D: So, at the time of contract, so you don't really care what happens during the contract period?

Speaker H: I mean, in the life of these properties. Parties over time, it's going to always revert back to the AMI. Look, I think assuming they sell—

Speaker I: I mean, I'm going to speak not from the real estate side of things, and I'm grateful that you 2 are digging into the details of the deed restriction, and I asked you to do that, Craig, and I'm grateful you did. Um, I knew you would. Um, from my perspective, at the time of a contract is okay for this reason, because if something changes in that time frame and Certainly it could. Does it really matter? Because I think what we want to do is give assurance to the developer that he has a qualified applicant, that there's funding in place to make this happen. And my anticipation is, is that these are going to all happen boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom, boom.

Speaker C: Unless that is a requirement of underwriting and now they don't qualify.

Speaker I: Because, because, because— so do they pull, do they pull income verification like at contract? then at closing.

Speaker C: Yeah, you're not going to lock into anything until you're close to your— the end of the— especially with this being a build in the very beginning, for sure it's not going to be till the end, right? In the resale, that's not the case. But you have 2 problems, right? That's, that's a good question.

Speaker A: Um, Abby Ivory is giving us an indication that she has some information to share. She's also a mortgage broker. Is that what So, well, and we're just loaded down with them. Okay, we've got a little bit of input here. Um, so I do, I have experience as a— I'm a current mortgage broker. I own my own company, so I do have a little bit of knowledge about this. I've been doing loans since 2001. So, um, they will only get qualified for income 1 time. So by the time closing comes around, they just try and see if they're still employed. So they're not going to check income again, but you could say at the time of contract, just like you would anything else, you know, their ability to qualify for something would be at contract, but you wouldn't really have to do anything more than that.

Speaker C: Okay, so they're not doing income verification at the end?

Speaker A: They do it as part of the process, part of the loan process, but when you get ready to close, all they're doing is just making sure that they're actually They don't check income again, even if they're in some kind of affordable housing program. They just can't keep doing that over and over, so they just do it once. Any other questions for our expert mortgage broker?

Speaker I: The layman had it right.

Speaker A: All right, thank you for sharing your insights.

Speaker D: I just— I have a question, just timing-wise. This would be for the applicant. Are you building and selling them as, like, in other words, typically, is this going to be a 30-day close? Are you going under contract before the lot comes, like, the home comes out of the ground?

Speaker S: The intention is we may release these right towards the end when some colors or textures could be chosen. But this is not like a pre-sold build job. These are spec homes. We don't really want to deal with the buyer through the construction process. We're going to choose everything, or our designer will pick most everything. So some might have a choice on maybe carpet or flooring or paint color, but there shouldn't be any kind of— I don't know how I would verify any kind of subsequent disqualification, Craig, if, you know, if they qualified at the beginning and then 30 days later when they're ready to close, I don't even know how we would check it again. Because the process to vet them in the beginning is pretty significant. And I don't know that we would do that again 3 or 4 or 5 weeks later. So it's a pretty short timeframe from when we vet them and approve them to when they're closing on the home. Yeah. All right.

Speaker A: Any other questions or comments from council?

Speaker D: Yes. So more, more for your motion here. So I believe that we— well, council member, right? There, I think there was a discussion with the applicant regarding, uh, well, regarding, uh, what was going to be included with the home. So landscape, full landscaping, full fencing, fencing. Was that also, or just landscaping? The list, sure, just so we can—

Speaker S: so purchase price inclusions that could, could be included in the development agreement. Uh, full landscaping front and back, fencing.

Speaker I: Um, can we say water-wise landscaping?

Speaker S: It is water-wise landscaping. Yes, water-wise landscaping. Um, all appliances, including refrigerator, washer, and dryer, and all window coverings.

Speaker I: That includes a microwave? Mhm. Okay, this one, I mean, all appliances.

Speaker D: Well, back in the day, I remember selling homes in Eagle Mountain where there was no air Air condenser, air conditioning condenser unit. I don't remember that. Some of those just— oh, you want their conditioner? That's sold additional.

Speaker S: They'll all have AC and condenser units.

Speaker D: Yes, thank you.

Speaker S: And furnaces.

Speaker C: AC, or excuse me, uh, electric ranges.

Speaker S: Uh, most likely, yes.

Speaker D: Okay, and then, and then another on the, on the, uh, on your, uh, motion that the approval would have pertained to Pod 1, but I, I don't know if Pod 1's defined As which of those 4 pods it is?

Speaker S: Yeah, it's the northernmost pod. Northernmost. That's the first cluster. It's the only one that we've actually designed. Okay. The other ones we'll show you as we go because our product mix might change up a little bit. Each lot is specific for the footprint of the home, just for maximum efficiency. So, they'll kind of evolve a little bit as we go into the others. And we've only fully designed 3 plans. We will design and engineer more when, you know, if this is a go.

Speaker H: So, and 14, that was phase 1. Yes.

Speaker S: Well, it won't be in our first plat. It'll be in our— it'll be in plat 2. Yeah.

Speaker A: All right, before I entertain a motion, I'm gonna invite John Magnus to start making his way up because we're gonna get you in a second. We've got, we've got a record to break. Okay. I will be texting Mayor Gray to let him know. Anyway, Councilmember Huish, did you have another item? Sorry.

Speaker O: We got it.

Speaker A: You got it covered. Okay.

Speaker D: Is there anything you need to say about the water? Was there any other additional?

Speaker C: So let me read these to you, then everybody can make their— whether we agree or not. What was in 2.25? I didn't— that one you went too fast on. No, that is under 2.05. What was 2?

Speaker K: That was changing 53 feet to 53 feet within the brackets, um, which, yeah, I've already done.

Speaker C: So, all right, okay, so 2.25, change 52 The words 53 feet and the number in parentheses, 53 feet, to match. 3.1, to specify as long as RDA funds are available for the purchase of the water, uh, in the deed restriction and affordability covenant. Articles 2, 2.05, conjunctive changed to injunctive. Article 3, 3.02. What was the one? I got that down, but I don't remember what that was.

Speaker A: Was that the fixed numbering one? No, that's— let's see, 3.02. I had—

Speaker C: oh, this was the, uh, the question that we talked about in the previous, uh, meeting about who is going to, uh, be the person to administer. The deed restriction. Do we want to leave it as it is? Do we want to have that changed to something else?

Speaker D: I'm comfortable with it as is. I think it gives us the chance of choosing, right?

Speaker C: But I didn't have any questions on— you guys good with the language in that one?

Speaker A: I didn't have any questions, especially since we'll get to see it again after when they go to pod 2.

Speaker C: Okay, Article 3, 3.04, as changes stated by our Eagle Mountain City attorney, including owner occupancy requirement. Article 4, 4.04 and 5.01 to reference Article 4 instead of Article Uh, in the amendment to the MDA, uh, to include amenities, fencing, water-wise landscaping, all appliances that include washer, dryer, microwave range, and refrigerator. And then approvals applicable to the northernmost pod in Plat 2.

Speaker D: Okay, and then the numbering from 3.06 onward, the numbers are incorrect. So fix the numbering from 3.06 forward.

Speaker P: And then—

Speaker C: Is that in the amendment?

Speaker D: That's in the deed restriction.

Speaker C: In the deed restriction. Just a sec. Fix numbering from 3.06 onward. Onward. Okay.

Speaker D: And then I think 6.02 is probably what you were looking for. So 6.02, that it'll specifically specify that Article 4 cannot be— that the city cannot— that the city cannot delegate the terms of Article 4.

Speaker A: All right. Would a motion—

Speaker C: Just a second. I want to make sure I got it. So Article 6, 6.02, city cannot delegate for— there's an Article 4, 6.02.

Speaker A: It's 6.02, Article 4 can't be delegated, right?

Speaker C: That doesn't make sense. It'd have to be Article 6 because they're numbered that way.

Speaker A: All right.

Speaker C: Okay, Article 6, 6.02, city cannot delegate authority. Is that correct?

Speaker D: They cannot delegate. Let's see, its responsibilities under Article 4. Because Article 4 gives an ability to do a whole bunch of changes. It gives the city unilateral ability to do that, and we don't want to delegate that right to anybody else under the delegation of authority mentioned in 6.02.

Speaker C: Okay, so Article 6, 6.02, city cannot delegate its responsibilities under Article 4, correct?

Speaker A: Okay, does the motion need to state all the things that he just stated, or can the motion say as stated? No, I'm going to say them all. I want to be clear. All right, go for it.

Speaker C: Let me just do quick organization here. This is Rich we're talking about. Okay, yeah, I did one motion 6 times in a row last time, just so we're clear. Mayor Pro Tempore, we entertain a motion.

Speaker A: Yes.

Speaker C: I move that the City Council approve an approval of Second Amendment to the Triumph Master Development Agreement for the Triumph subdivision with the following changes. In the Triumph MDA 2nd Amendment, adding the language for included amenities to be fencing, water-wise landscaping, all appliances including washer, dryer, microwave, range, refrigerator. This is specific to The northernmost pod in plat 2 only for approvals. In 2.25 of the amendment, change the spelling from 53 feet and parentheses 53 feet to match. In 3.1, specifying the RDA funds. Or excuse me, the purchase of water as long as RDA funds are available. Moving to the deed restriction and affordability covenant, fixed numbering from 3.06 onward. Article 2, 2.05, change conjunctive to injunctive. Article 3, 3.04, making changes as stated by the city attorney, including an owner occupancy requirement. the end. Article 4, 4.04 and 5.01, to reference Article 4 instead of Article 5. And Article 6, 6.02, city cannot delegate its responsibilities under Article 4.

Speaker D: And, and one more item real quick, if you'll take an amendment. Article 7.02, the foreclosure is misspelled in the last sentence, to correct the spelling.

Speaker A: All right, so we have a motion.

Speaker I: Second.

Speaker A: With an assist from Council Member Wood, with some assistance, and then a second from Council Member Wright. Are there any questions or discussion?

Speaker C: Finish my motion, you jumped.

Speaker A: Oh, okay.

Speaker C: Article 7 foreclosure is misspelled.

Speaker I: Second.

Speaker A: Thank you for that clarity, Council Member Wood. All right, so we have a motion from Council Member Wood, a very fastidious motion, and a second from Council Member Wright, are there any discussions left that we need to have about this particular motion?

Speaker D: I, I think just a statement for me in that this is a test. This is not setting precedence anywhere else in the city, that there's not an expectation, I think, for anyone else, this, like, or just circumstances where we'll, we'll turn a bunch of half-acre communities into, into affordable housing. This is just a we're going to try this out and see what's happening in this specific circumstance, unique circumstance, and that this action today is not intended to set some kind of a precedence.

Speaker A: Thank you for that addition. Any other questions or comments? All right, we'll begin the vote with Council Member Wright.

Speaker I: Yes.

Speaker A: Council Member Clark is a yes.

Speaker F: Yes.

Speaker A: Whiting was a yes. Go ahead, Councilmember Wood. Yes. Councilmember— yes. All right, that's 5 yeses and that passes. Thank you. All right, so now we're going to invite our management and policy analyst John Magnus up to provide us with an update.

Speaker Q: Good evening, Mayor Pro Tem, council members. I'm gonna make this short, quick. One of the legislative priority items that we had on there was Councilmember Woods— Wood, sorry— was about when we get the development agreements and they come back at the last minute and want changes. I talked to the state attorney. Basically, parties to a contract can try to renegotiate at any point in time. Trying to make a blanket statement saying we're going to deny it would not be a good policy because it's a one-size-fits-all, and maybe there is a reason. They need to come back and we need to work with them. So I'm looking for direction. Do we take it off the list?

Speaker C: I mean, I'm gonna be honest with you, I can't even remember talking about this. I'm trying to remember why this was a big deal.

Speaker Q: This has to do with—

Speaker K: I think it's Eagle Crest East was kind of the instigator for them coming back, and others that have come back waiting to the very last minute before it expires or whatever. I mean, we can create a policy, but We're just not, you know, the council's not under any obligation to actually follow that policy, because if they, under the circumstances, say, you know, in this case, it actually makes sense to renegotiate the development agreement at the last minute, then they would just do that. Um, because parties can always amend a contract, uh, you know, as long as both parties are willing. And it's just hard to enforce such a policy, um, because again, if, if Under the circumstances, the city council at the time wants to do it, they'll do it. And if they don't, they won't. And if somebody comes in last minute and, and that's the reason they deny it, then that's the reason they deny it. If somebody comes, you know, somebody comes early on and they still want to deny it, they'll still deny it. It's just really hard to, uh, to bind future council action in that way, especially when you don't know the given circumstances for why it's being asked for.

Speaker C: I'm trying to remember what I wanted out of that, and honestly, that didn't provide any clarity to me. I don't even remember. So probably take it off because I can't recall why.

Speaker Q: You were very frustrated at the fact that they were coming at the last minute and you want us— because it wasn't the first time this has ever happened to the city, wasn't the last time, and probably will keep going forward.

Speaker C: They keep coming back for more extensions or something like that.

Speaker Q: And so creating like a policy is problematic because maybe there is a legitimate reason.

Speaker C: John, I could have been wrong. It's possible. So maybe just take it off. Okay. All right, I said maybe.

Speaker Q: Now I love it. We're gonna jump over to the council's legislative priority for state legislation. Evan's gonna give a quick presentation, then I'll follow that up with someone else.

Speaker A: Cool. Lightning round. Evan Barrett.

Speaker R: Yeah, we're gonna just tag team real quick. I'm just kind of inserting myself here just to kind of Uh, this kind of came as we did our agenda prep meeting. Um, Councilmember Clark kind of brought up the fact that John and I kind of have this understanding of what the process should look like, or could look like, uh, for trying to prepare the city council for the next upcoming state, um, legislation round. Um, we want to make sure that we're proactively preparing for that. We have your priorities, um, in order and prioritized and everything like that, and that we're working well as a team. Um, but like I said, John and I have an idea of what that looked like, but we didn't actually convey that to you to make sure that you're on board with that. So, um, I just have some printed versions of what that looks like. Um, so just to run through this really quick, because we, we Been through some of this already, and, and feel free to modify this or provide any feedback. But we've broken this down into basically 3 phases here. Again, this is— we're looking at this as like a year-round process because this keeps coming around and around and around, right? And so John had already reached out to you a while ago, worked and met with you individually to get some of your individual feedback as far as certain issues that you wanted to bring up any sort of concerns, any sort of things that you want to tackle at the state level. And so that was meant to really give an opportunity not just to hear what you had to say, but also work with us to say, you know, hey, this is something that's of concern, but I need to know more. So let's do some research together. Let's work out some things. Let's, let's collaborate on that. And so that all that information came back to John and I, and then we work with our lobbying team to also vet them any information they know or any advice that they have. We're at this point now with the prioritization phase where we're coming to you, and John will get back up and present with what has been collected from each of you individually. But we want to start prioritizing those things. What do we really want to focus on? We also want to do this with you on a regular basis, this kind of phase, this prioritization phase, multiple times over the next few months as we get closer to January, so that as new issues come up, as new things change or whatnot, that we're relooking at that prioritization and constantly preparing for that. Once we have that, everything solidified and finalized, we have all our preparations in, in, in place, then we divide and conquer, but still coordinate, where John and I work on putting together a lot of the, the code writing, the legislative one-pagers, all the different materials that go into supporting our lobbyist team. The lobbyist team then becomes— I like to put it— our strike team. They're the ones that go out and get a lot of the work done, um, along with John and I, but also the mayor and the council as well. Um, and then in that last part of it, uh, at the full council at the bottom, we obviously want to make sure that we're reporting back on outcomes as they happen. Um, and at the final part of that, this whole thing is meant to be not necessarily linear. You can cycle back through if there's other things you want to talk about individually, you want to get research on whatever we can do that. But in my mind, this is how it's all meant to be laid out. We want to take individual interests and things like that, but then we also want to make sure that we're all working together towards agreed-upon and cohesive goals so that we're not all over the place. Um, and this is also not to say that if the council, uh, you know, sets a priority for things and something that you individually really feel passionate about is, is not listed on that priority, at the end of the day, it doesn't mean you can't go out and still push for that. We'll still support you and whatever you need to do that. They just may not be the full city's resources pushed towards for that.

Speaker C: So, just how my mind works, I like to categorize things. When you guys are going and looking at what bills are coming out, how is that presented to you? Are you pulling that information from committees? Where are you getting— is that what— is that where it's coming from, is committees?

Speaker L: As far as the state level?

Speaker R: where the bills come from. Yeah. So we're— I think we're in a really much better position than we've ever been now, just because we've been at the Capitol, we've been participating with the committees, we've been very— working very close with the league, the cities and towns and whatnot. And so, John and I have been at the committee meetings making sure we're hearing it there. We're having opportunities to talk with the committee members and things like that. And so—

Speaker C: That kind of lends to the next part of my question. Sometimes it's hard when you come to us and say, well, what matters to you?

Speaker R: Yeah.

Speaker C: And having that question posed to you and you're trying to go, okay, you know, of all the different categories, what things matter? For me, at least, it would be helpful as you're going through this process. You guys are probably separating things out. Say, okay, these are in education, these are in, you know, whatever they might be. If you could share it with us in that form. I think it would probably help us facilitate the conversation better to you to say, oh, education. Yeah, I remember this is something that mattered to me. I want to talk about this. Or this is transportation, uh, you know, B and C roads or, or whatever. I think that helps us to give you better input rather than on the spot. We kind of freeze and go, you know, I don't know, you just tell us what you think is important. But I think you need help too to say, okay, what should we focus on? Um, because you can't focus on everything.

Speaker Q: Yep.

Speaker C: But maybe that's just one of the suggestions I would make. And we, we have the ability— I mean, AI is a powerful thing to help us to be able to go through and summarize some of those things. So you're not spending all your time chasing some of those things. We can do some of those things. But if we at least understood, you know, here we're going to go look at the committees. So the Transportation Committee, the Government Affairs Committee, you know, whatever those might be, here are the bills that they're looking at. doing, that gives us the ability to come back to you and say, this one's important, this one's important.

Speaker R: I appreciate that feedback. And, and you mentioned AI briefly. John can talk about a lot more, but we do have access to a great tool that is dedicated specifically for this purpose, which actually allows freeing up a lot of John's time so that we can be a little bit more, again, proactive. But, but there's, there's the one side of this where there are bills being created right now. There's bill files open, there's legislation And so on that side, we're somewhat reactionary to those things. We're trying to see what can we do to influence, to mitigate some of the impacts to that, and how can we insert things. But the other side of my mind is, what is it that we're now trying to influence at the outset? You know, what can we start to instigate to create our own bill files? How can we work with Stephanie Grecious and Heidi Baldry and all these others to do things of our own?

Speaker J: Yeah.

Speaker R: Um, and that's something that we haven't been able to do or haven't really done much of previously. And so there's, there's both angles of it, but we can be a lot better for sure at providing more information of what's coming down the pipeline and how can we influence that and things like that. So there's a lot more information we can provide you.

Speaker H: Do we need to have something in this flowchart where we are including Representative Grecious and Buss, Baldery? How does that communication happen that our needs are getting To them, or is it just more informal, us reaching out to them?

Speaker R: Yeah, I, I kind of, for, for sake of space, I kind of group them as part of the lobbyist team, even though they're not lobbyists. They're still kind of part of that same group as far as their overall function in my mind.

Speaker F: But—

Speaker A: Okay, any other questions for these guys? I know that it was discussed that possibly we'd revisit 1A to see if there was an action— not an action, uh, direction given from council as a body. And that was the overview of the Best Friends Animal Society programs. Is there any desire to formalize direction to staff as a body, or—

Speaker C: My personal opinion is I think we need to study that more. I think there's some holes in that with Some of the recommendations once, you know, a cat has been taken into custody of how they're gonna release them. I think there's— I would like to have a conversation about what are the consequences of just following exactly what that said, because one of the things I was telling Councilmember Whiting, they've been picked up for a reason. They've— they're a nuisance. They're tearing up people's garbage. They're fighting with their cats. They're somebody else's responsibility that's now become a homeowner's problem. So I think we need to make sure before we just go straight forward and say, you know, all cases, we're always going to do this. We need to put some brackets in there that there are things more than just they're a danger. There probably ought to be some other things in that as well.

Speaker A: Okay. Thank you, Councilmember Wood. Oh, sorry.

Speaker D: I was going to say they are willing— I mean, just in their commentary, they said they're willing to customize a community. CAP program. So I think the— so I think maybe the motion would be for us to engage in discussions with them and to have them begin implementing, or at least just having discussions with us to see how they can be— how they can improve things with us, especially where the cost to us right now is zero, which is nice.

Speaker C: This is just a discussion item, so you'd be making a motion to have Our legislative team spend time on it. Yeah, yeah.

Speaker D: Yeah, and I'm supportive of, like, because I know they've got their code that they proposed, and we didn't really debate or discuss or digest the entirety of that code. So I agree that we need to look at that. But I, but I, but I feel comfortable enough to make a motion that the— it's added to the legislative priorities list that the city begin working with Best Friends Animal Society. And I'm not exactly— I mean, I don't want to, like, define the parameters necessarily. Let's start discussions with them on the various resources they presented to us, and then let's— I think we start— let's start moving that ball forward.

Speaker A: All right, so we have a motion.

Speaker H: I'll second.

Speaker A: From Councilmember Whiting and a second from Councilmember Huish. Are there any questions about the motion or discussion?

Speaker I: I'm wondering if it should be that specific that it's just this entity. I mean, I recognize that they're offering to do something for free, but I just wonder if we should just cast a wider net.

Speaker A: I— what I'm thinking, Councilmember Wright, I was thinking that as the motion was made because I feel ill-equipped to know what our other options are. And perhaps our next big thing that we ask staff to do is to bring back Some of that code for us to discuss as a body, as a discussion item, and try to find out what our other options are. Would you be willing to amend your motion to remove some of that extra stuff?

Speaker D: Well, I'm looking at, for instance, they've got a fully funded trap, neuter, vaccinate, return program. That's better than what we have now. We don't have that now. And they will work with animal control to handle some of their duties. Which may take off some pressure from the animal control people that we've got.

Speaker C: I, I just— so we have a motion that's on the table. I think the main idea of this is, are we willing to let them go do the research, not to get into details of this? Is that correct?

Speaker A: That's what I see the motion as, adding it to the legislative priorities list.

Speaker D: Is there— is Councilmember Wright— you don't— what do you—

Speaker I: No, look, I'm, I'm going to support it, Councilmember Whiting, but I mean, I'll just state this. I— it's not something that is high on my list of priorities, but if, if it's important to you and Council Member Huish, I certainly think that let's work on it. And if you can bring something back that makes sense, then we'll, we'll decide as a council. It's not something I'm going to spend a lot of time and energy on.

Speaker D: Well, no, not— yeah, I mean, it's, it's a— it's an element, right? It's an element in a big, big grouping of elements that we work on. But I, I, I would love for them to begin talking to our animal control All right, and see if there's something we can do to help with them.

Speaker A: All right, so we have a motion and a second. Is there any other discussion? All right, I think that it starts with me. Council Member Clark is a yes.

Speaker F: Yes.

Speaker A: Council Member Wood?

Speaker Q: No.

Speaker A: Council Member Huish?

Speaker H: Yes.

Speaker A: Council Member Wright?

Speaker I: Yes.

Speaker A: Uh, that passes 4 to 1.

Speaker C: Can I just make a comment on my no? Yes, I just think that there are far more time-consuming things we should have our staff chasing after. Uh, maybe this is— with it being a pet project like this, it might be good for the, the individual. Yeah, I didn't mean it that way, but that just to have the council members that feel strongly about that to kind of do the legwork because the staff has got a lot on their plate.

Speaker H: I mean, I, I'm okay moving forward. This is no cost to the city. I see it as a value add. I don't think we need to to do a huge calorie burn. It's a pilot program. I, I just don't see a net negative to adding this. It's reversible, amendable.

Speaker I: Okay, well, I think the thing that would be nice to know is what kind of time could it save our staff? I mean, that to me is the most interesting part of it, is what type of cost savings could it bring to our staff? What time would it free up from our code enforcement and others? So, I mean, that's the, that's the carrot part of it for me.

Speaker A: All right, so it sounds like we're clear on what needs to happen with that. for legislative items. We'll move on to— oh, go ahead, go ahead.

Speaker Q: Skipped one, one portion. Um, this is a list of— I met with you guys in May to discuss things going forward. The highlighted, we, we grouped them, they're not in any particular order. Uh, so the highlighted, the bolded ones— county government, city government, public safety, recreation— those are the kind of areas. Ones underneath it are specific things that we— I discussed with different members. Um, it goes down to— I scroll down the list— education. So I'm going to send this out tomorrow. Um, what I like—

Speaker C: You can cross off 34, that's been done.

Speaker Q: 34? Oh, line 34. Oh, rename crime. Oh yes. So, um, what I'd like you to do is Score it 1 through 5, 1 being most important, 5 being least important. Score the highlighted ones, the general areas, so we know which general areas to work in, and then also score the ones underneath to see how important those are to you. And then we'll take an aggregate of it. And I'll also be reaching out to make appointments to discuss these things with you one more time and go over what has transpired so far in the interim session and what we're seeing coming forward. Um, one of the state assemblymen have already opened up 25 bill folders. So he's the one that writes a lot on housing. So it's gonna be a busy year for us. And then he talked about the AI. We've got a contract with Civic Relay. It's an AI that will read the bills, tracks them, tracks where they are on the— and you all get access to it so you can read it. It will summarize for you. You can make notes on it and they'll come back to us. So what we're hoping this year, instead of me having to write all these white papers, Is that when we get a bill that we don't like, we can actually start writing legislation that we want in it to change it and see if we can get someone to carry it as an amendment.

Speaker A: So, all right. Thank you. All right. So now we're ready to move on to City Council and Mayor's business and liaison reports. Thank you, Mr. Magnus, and thank you, Mr. Barrett. Um, this time is set aside for City Council and Mayor's comments, um, on city business and for council members to report on their liaison assignments. Councilmember Wright, can we start with you?

Speaker I: Yeah, I'll keep it short. I told you that the seniors are working on the pantry, trying to facilitate a monthly donation from the seniors to them, those that can help. And they've got a lot of activities coming up. They're doing very, very well. DRC— I'm amazed by DRC. I think you all know that. It's really an honor to sit there and listen to and watch our staff interact with those applicants that come before them week by week. Um, and then ULTC, there's a lot that we're getting ready for with the, with the interim and what all that's going on there.

Speaker A: All right, so I will quickly report on Community Services Board and the American Legion. Um, the Community Services Board continues to amaze me with all that they're doing and moving forward. So, um, we have a meeting coming up tomorrow which I'm looking forward to. And then for the American Legion, they had presented a proposed MOU for us, and there was some discussion within council of whether or not the $5,000 was like something that they were asking for a donation of or what.

Speaker I: But it was $1,500. Is it $5,000? I thought it was $1,500. It wasn't $5,000. You might be right.

Speaker A: $1,500. Yeah, yeah, it's $1,500. Sorry. Um, In talking to them, it's less about the dollar amount and more about some of their needs— flags for when soldiers come home or for special holidays and funding to help with the Veterans Breakfast— that they added an additional one of funding to help with the Veterans Christmas Dinner, which hasn't previously been on the list. So my recommendation is to have a representative from the Legion sit down with our event staff to kind of figure those things out and to have someone from the admin team be a part of that conversation. And then once they've discussed that, bring it back to us for approval. All right, Councilmember Whiting.

Speaker D: Youth Council has a big water fight to start, uh, right, right before the school year starts. So August 5th, put in your calendars, in the I don't remember if we have a specific time. 2 o'clock, 2 to 4 o'clock at Corey Ride Memorial Park. And there are some of us up here who are going to be in a dunk, getting dunked by the youth and any angry developers or angry citizens. They're—

Speaker I: Welcome.

Speaker D: Are also very welcome to come dunk us. Um, so excited for that. And, uh, there's a lot of energy happening with the Youth Council right now. And, uh, they're growing. Uh, Chambers doing an awesome job, and it seems like there's a grand opening, it seems like every single week somewhere, which is very impressive.

Speaker A: So we have 4 tomorrow— I mean, 4 next week.

Speaker D: 4 next week. It's crazy. It's awesome.

Speaker A: All right, Council Member Wood.

Speaker C: Mine's gonna be short and sweet. Uh, rodeo stuff's done, so we're looking forward to next year. Uh, Lake Mountain School District Uh, identified a new location and renamed A-TECH. Uh, I'm trying to remember what— it starts with a B, but somehow I can't remember the name right now. But that has been identified and a location, so that's exciting that we'll have that in the new school district. Uh, they continue to expand the administration, uh, to prepare for the takeover next year in 2027. Uh, and then I'm behind on Alpine School District. I'm watching that one on video.

Speaker A: So thank you, Council Member Wood. Council Member Huish?

Speaker H: Just echoing what you said on the Community Services Board tomorrow night, 6 o'clock. I'll be here.

Speaker A: Yeah, you got to put on your racing shoes when you go to the Community Services Board.

Speaker H: Is there a dress code on the dunk tank, by the way? I'll be coming back from a business meeting.

Speaker D: Whatever you— yeah, I'll— I will be in a swimsuit, but okay, um, if you want to wear a suit I may be in full soon.

Speaker A: All right, is there anything else? Communication items? We're good. All right, so then I entertain a motion to adjourn.

Speaker C: So moved.

Speaker D: Second.

Speaker A: All right, we have a motion by Council Member Wood and a second by Council Member Wright. All in favor? Aye. Aye. All right, that passes. We're adjourned, and it is 8:26.