Transcript — Eagle Mountain City Council, 1 September 2026

Speaker A: Good.

Speaker B: And you're good? Okay. All right. We're going to go ahead and get started and call this meeting, our work session, to order. It's 4:01. And Ben is going to be here in just a minute. I think he's online for now until he gets here. Okay. And also just wanted to point out we do have a lot of closed session items to get through tonight for the council's awareness. So I want to stick as close as we can to these timelines, and we've told each of the presenters to make sure that half the time's for the presentation and half the time's for some discussion if that's the case. If there's something that requires more time, then just let us know that we needed to bring it back or something. But I want to try and make sure that we can stay on track because we got a lot to do in, in a minute. So.

Speaker C: Thank you.

Speaker B: With that in mind, I did move some things around earlier, but I don't think it changed anything. So we're gonna start off with 1D, discussion item 1D, which is the Well-Being Project survey results. So, Abby, were you gonna introduce? Yes, thank you, Mayor.

Speaker D: I just wanna introduce Dr. Courtney Flint. She's a professor at Utah State University. They did a well-being survey that was conducted in April 2021. 2026 of this year, and she's here to share the results, which I think are really interesting. So I'm gonna turn the time over to her. Thank you for doing this.

Speaker E: Sure.

Speaker D: Awesome. So great to be with you. It's great to be partners again. We partnered with you on this project in 2020. A lot's changed in Eagle Mountain since then, so it's fun to look at the results. I'll hop right in. So the goals of the project, you know, I'm from Utah State. We're the land-grant university. Any Aggies in the house? Oh, we're far from Aggieland. Okay. Well, it's great to be here. We really provide, with the Utah Well-Being Project, a way to help you keep your fingers on the pulse of how your residents are doing, inform your planning processes and decision-making. We do some research on the data related to well-being, and we support statewide and regional initiatives. We work closely with health districts, Department of Health, Department of Transportation, Office of Planning and Budget, things like that. As you can see from the map, we are all up and down the Wasatch Front and east and west and north and south across the state. Our city reports from our 2026 surveys are online. Yours is up on our website, so I encourage you to check that out if you haven't already. So this is an online survey. It is a no-cost partnership with you, emphasis on the word partnership. This would not happen without us working together because we provide the survey, We provide some materials, but you do the recruitment. We figure cities know best how to reach their residents, and we don't have the budget to do it any other way, so this is how it works. You did participate in 2020. You had 506 responses then, and you had 359 responses. These are all pretty comparable numbers to other cities similar to you all. We like to be— since it's not a proportionate representative sampling effort, we like to be very transparent about who we are reaching, and who we are not. So this graph here compares the survey demographics with the demographics that we can see from recent census data. The closer the dots are, and really you can barely see that there are 2 dots in many of these places, what that means is the closer the dots are means we have really, really represented that particular demographic. So we've done actually really well according— you look across income, Most of the age categories here, employment and homeowners and renters, those dots are overlapping. I mean, that's just really incredible. We don't see that kind of correlation as well. We do overrepresent those who are married, but we're pretty darn close on most everything else. That 18 to 29-year-old age group is hard to reach anyway. Mostly full-time residents, 50% have lived here for 5 years or less. Super high when you compare it to a lot of our communities. Communities that are in the project. I should say there were 57 other— 56 other communities that we are reporting on this spring. So let's dive into the results. So personal well-being in Eagle Mountain, we compare the group at the bottom are the rapid growth cities. We use the League of Cities and Towns caucus groups, and so that's what we've represented here. You may or may not sort of feel comfortable there, although you are certainly rapidly growing. Average of 3.92, 72% said a 4 or a 5. It ranks a little bit low here in terms of comparing to other rapid growth cities, but you're right there with other nearby neighbors in Saratoga Springs and in Lehigh. You're all probably not even statistically significantly different from each other. If you look at the big scale and you think from all the way to the big cities to the really small towns, you can see that there are a fair few— there's some communities that are lower than Eagle Mountain. So don't get too hung up on your positionality there in those rapid growth cities. And I think we've got some good explanations for why that's the case where it is at the moment. Community well-being, we see it always declines for respondents. They often feel that others, the community as a whole, is not doing as well as they are personally. So we have the data here. 42% say a 4 or a 5. Change over time since 2020. Now, we don't know if it's the same group taking the survey or not, but if you look on average here, you can see that well-being has declined somewhat since our 2020 survey data. We look beyond these general categories and we dive into 12 different what we call domains or categories of well-being. And this has been informed by various federal and international agencies. You can see that here in this graph, it shows us that the most important well-being domains to the people of Eagle Mountain are mental health, safety and security, living standards, and family life. The highest-rated domains are family life, safety and security, and mental health. So really strong alignment with those things that matter most to folks are doing really well. So that is a that is important. The red zone, which is those things that are important to folks but rated a little lower than average, we find leisure time and local environmental quality. Now leisure time, we know that your largest age group is actually in that 30 to 39-year-old range, and that group, as we look across the state data, those people are not the— don't have the highest well-being. In fact, they're really quite low, and they're really, really busy. They're often raising families and working hard, and so leisure time is a sparse commodity for that group. So that may explain why that's there. Local environmental quality is the most prominent red zone category around the state. So we all, as a state, you're not alone in that position. And as we look at these things over time, you can see that some of them have declined ever so slightly. A couple more, education, local environmental quality, have that deeper dip. over those 6 years. Safety and security has gone up just a tad. Another thing we measure with the wellbeing survey is community connection. How connected do you feel to Eagle Mountain as a community? And we see this is actually quite low here. But let's remember that 50% of the respondents had lived here less than 5 years or less. Well, there's not much time for people to get a strong sense of community like some of our very well-established communities that are also in the survey set this year. But it does give you some benchmarks of places you can go, and I have some data that I think will give you some, perhaps some pointers. We can see that community connection is very important here. We see a strong, pretty strong correlation with overall well-being. We see it with mental health. So, the stronger that sense of community connection, it does have a benefit in some of these other areas of life. There's a couple of things going on in terms of personal demographics and well-being. Those with disabilities have lower well-being scores. Those who are homeowners have a higher well-being score. And we do see a bit of that correlation with income. We see it very strongly across the data across the state. It is certainly a signature there in your data, but perhaps not as strong as others. Also, the community connection, those who are not Hispanic or Latino seem to have a lower sense of community connection here. That is really quite— yes, the Hispanic and Latino community has a higher sense of community connection, and that is the reverse of most of the communities in the survey. We also see by age, you can see those age groups in the from 50, 40 to 50 are actually feeling more community connected than those who are 18 to 39 or those who are 60 years and over. Now here's one of the things we're finding quite interesting is well a Eagle Mountain residents are really very active. They're walking, they're biking, they're recreating in parks, they're gardening. They are using trails in and around your city, and everywhere you see a star, a big star there for community events, those who attend community events have a statistically significantly higher level of community connection. So those community events pay off for those who participate. And then all those smaller stars, those are still correlated, not quite as strongly as that one with community connection, but lots of correlations there with well-being and with community connection. And really, these things appear to be— the data are showing us that these appear to be worth the investment. Working on your parks, working on your trails, having these community events, having rec programs, those who participate seem to have these higher levels of connection and well-being. Okay, here's a striking one. Folks in Eagle Mountain feel that the current rate of population growth is too fast. It is not unlike some of the neighbors around here. So Saratoga Springs bumps you out just by a little bit, but yeah, y'all know about your 100% population growth rate, I'm sure. That percentage that's saying too fast has gone up in the 6 years since we did this survey previously, and those that thought it was just right, well, that's plummeted. So they've replaced, they've switched from just right to too fast. Economic development, you can see here, is a lot more mixed. We've got 50% of folks saying it's actually too slow, but we still have some saying just right or too fast. The too slow folks, about the same. They are exactly the same. The just right folks have declined a little bit, whereas the too fast folks have come up. So really a mixed kind of response here. One of the things we look at is cost of living this year. For those for whom childcare is relevant, and that looks to be about 46% of the survey takers, that 74% of them are saying that that is difficult or very difficult to afford. That one's jumping out in many cities and towns. But healthcare and housing are also right up there at nearly half of respondents are saying those are pretty hard to afford. And you still have just under a third or about a third saying that even food, utilities, and transportation is is a challenge. So cost of living, not unique to Eagle Mountain, but something that's going on. Barriers to travel, travel time, lack of routes and cost are really quite high here compared to most cities, even in the Wasatch Front. So you're standing out there a bit. We ask about a lot of different concerns. This list has grown a fair bit since you participated in 2020. You've got traffic at the top of your list. And water supply and water quality there. And so that's not uncommon to be on the top, but your percentages are really quite high. You've got a whole smattering of other things that are above 50% of folks have a moderate or major concern on these items. I just want to take one minor aside and say that my other hat is I am the Associate Director of the Utah Water Research Laboratory up at Utah State. Water is everything we do. We provide a great deal of services across the suite of water flows and supply through to water quality and help with wastewater treatment plants. If you folks in engineering and in public works have any interest in chatting with us about how we can support you in the water realms, especially given how concerned your residents are, we would be really happy to have that conversation. We would welcome that. Just 2 more slides. What do people value about Eagle Mountain? They really value— some of them clearly have a sense of community, feeling of community, people are friendly. They value the space out here, the quieter pace of life, and the family-oriented environment. They do feel there's some sense of peace here, at least somebody did, and that those trails, that sense of connection to nature is a valued out here. What would improve well-being? Focusing on more roads and infrastructure to accommodate the growth. Another road in and out they would certainly think would benefit them. There's some— many seeking a better balance between growth and homes. We see that in many of these rapid growth communities. A rec center for especially folks on the On the young age and the older age is something that we were hearing a lot in the open comments, access to recreation areas and making sure people know about those areas. And with that, I want to say thank you so much for being a partner. And if I can answer any quick questions, I would be happy to. I will also add quickly that I have also shared all of your open comments, and there are many of them. I think about 80% of the respondents They've got a lot on their mind. So you have those at your disposal. We do not share those publicly. We just share them with you. We use a couple here and there as part of research, but the bulk of them are yours.

Speaker F: So one quick question. How statistically significant do you think the survey is?

Speaker D: Well, because we allow any resident age 18 or older to participate, it is not based on a probability sampling. But we know that based on your adult population and the responses that we have here, you're looking at about a margin of error of about 5%. But we cannot say that it is scientifically significantly representative. However, the demographic correlations that we saw suggest that— and the numbers of respondents that you have— say that I would take these results quite seriously. I can't— because of the sampling lack of— This representative sampling, I'm not going to go all the way to the bank, but I'm going to say you've got some pretty good data here compared to many cities.

Speaker G: I was just going to say thank you for that presentation. As I was going through it, I was like, yep, yep, yep. Like a lot of things make sense around traffic and connections and parks and all of that.

Speaker H: What—

Speaker G: you do this for many other cities. What were the, like, the Number 1, number 2 things that would come to the top of your list that you'd recommend our council look at?

Speaker D: Well, I think working on that community connection score, I think, would be a top item. And that can vary for different folks, what would make them feel more connected. We could probably dig in here to your demographics a little bit more and give you more precision on that if you're interested in that. We would be glad to follow up. The community connection can be done through community events, but it can also be gathering places where people can just get to know each other a little bit better. And those can be at the neighborhood scale. They don't necessarily have to be all the way up here at your 30-plus thousand people's, you know, whole community. Sometimes blooming where people are planted can be a valuable way to foster those community connections. I'd say that would be number one. Number one that jumps out, addressing the concerns of residents on things like water, things like open space. There may be a lot of other things you're doing already. The survey results can be a point of communication and conversation. We hear you. We hear you're concerned about this, and this is what our city's doing. And that can really be kind of a magic moment where this you can respond to the data. We provided flyers for you to.

Speaker I: Okay, thank you.

Speaker B: We appreciate your stuff, and, uh, we'll be able to use that information to help make things better. Did you have anything else to add, Abby?

Speaker D: No, I think a lot of it is really great though to use for planning and things like that, knowing that they want more retail and more community events.

Speaker A: I really like that, so I appreciate them doing the survey for us.

Speaker B: Thank you.

Speaker D: Thanks, thanks for the opportunity to drive down.

Speaker B: Yep, appreciate it. The traffic's terrible leaving town, so good luck.

Speaker D: We'll get some snacks.

Speaker B: Yeah, so with that, we also had our community survey, the annual community survey, and I think we're gonna run right into that with Evan.

Speaker I: Did you have—

Speaker B: okay, yeah, go ahead.

Speaker J: Sorry.

Speaker B: Go ahead.

Speaker J: Didn't mean to interrupt you. Good afternoon, Mayor and Council. I'm pleased to introduce Ron Gailey. He is from OnPoint Insights. We have worked with their company a number of times before on previous surveys, including our general plan survey, previous annual surveys. Today he is here to talk with you all about our annual survey. We do have a basic framework for that that we like to use year after year so that we have comparative results over time. But he is here because there is some wiggle room where we can make sure that we're getting the answers to questions that you have from our community at this point in time. So I'll go ahead and let him take the floor.

Speaker K: Hello everyone, and I'm going to share my screen really briefly with you. Okay. On the annual survey, one of the benefits of the survey that we do do is it allows you to see, as we saw with the other one, what's important and how you're performing. But we do it across a great many attributes. This particular page is showing you from 2024 the top 20 attributes of about 50 of what people thought was most important. and then how you're performing on it. And I only wanted to show you this just to let you see where things were 2 years ago about what is important and how you're performing. I've been working with Evan, and we've been working together to make a few minor tweaks to the main part of the survey. It's very solid. I think it's very consistent with the past, but some things I think are being strengthened.

Speaker L: Thank you.

Speaker K: or broken out when something was important and we couldn't tell specifically what was inside. We're doing that, I think, better for you this year. We're reducing the number of questions about streets and roads so that you don't, like, double count and so forth, right? It'll be a little cleaner on streets and roads. But then what I wanted to ask you today As we're wrapping up the survey and getting ready to go live, is if there are additional topics you feel we really ought to explore so that— we have always in our survey about 3 minutes of questions that we can go deeper on and ask some additional questions. And I just wanted to talk with you about maybe some of the things that may be of interest to you. In the past, we've done questions about communications. Now, you know, we had talked about doing more on parks and recreation, but that's kind of— we held off on that after my last presentation to you. But just wanted to find out if there is something where you'd like to go a little bit deeper this year and explore something that might help you as you plan for your General plan, or as you plan for your budgeting.

Speaker F: I would be curious to know, and I'm going to get the council's opinion on this as well, but I'd be curious to know what would the what the residents would feel and how and how they would rank like an ice skating rink versus a field house versus other rec options, and where they would want us to put our energy.

Speaker K: It's a really smart way, and oftentimes we'll give them a list of about five or six items and have them prioritize them.

Speaker F: I would love to see that. I would be really curious to see that data.

Speaker M: Is there a way when you ask that question to help them understand the financial impact on them? Because I think everybody wants something until they realize what the price tag is.

Speaker K: There is a way to do that. And it's a smart thing to do. As a matter of fact, if you have narrowed it down to 1 or 2 or 3 things maybe, and we can put the financial implications of that, we can do that. In some cities, we'll ask them something like, if we were to do, let's say, a skating rink. If we were to do a skating rink, should we go big, go good, or go fair? You know, you do that, and most people say go big or go fair. Very few say go adequate. Then you say, well, go big means this financially, probably, and go go good means this, probably financially, and go fair means this. What do you think now? And they'll tell you. And normally with that, you can find out if you got a go for it or a don't go for it kind of a response. We've done that for Maple— Mapleton. We've done it for several cities, as a matter of fact.

Speaker M: One of the other things that has come up over the course of this year is trying to better understand how our residents need us to communicate with them, what mode of communication. And I know that we're attempting to do quite a bit of a spectrum of communication, but it would be great to get a better handle on what people are hoping for. So whether that's mailed postcards, emails, right, you know, all the different things.

Speaker K: We've done that for many cities that have a great structure for And we can just make sure that it's dialed in for your specific options here that are under consideration.

Speaker M: The other one that came up previously, and I still think I'm a strong advocate for getting the answer for, is which recreation programs our residents want to see us work on next. 'Cause we've got a little smattering of everything, and we've just brought— we're bringing soccer in-house for this fall. But I would like to know what's the next one we should be studying, where we should be putting our efforts into.

Speaker K: So— Do you know, I like that question. It's a little bit long, you know, because there are several options. And I would suggest that be added to another survey. We— it normally takes to do that question, it normally takes about 6 or 7 minutes to kind of go through and find out, like, For the different age groups, like which of these ideas for recreation they would most like to do. We can potentially shorten it and we can potentially make it fit, but that one is a little bit more time-consuming to get it right.

Speaker I: I—

Speaker M: do you think that we could gather adequate data just to give us a general direction in which to head? Because—

Speaker K: Probably not all of them.

Speaker M: Right.

Speaker K: All of these that you're talking about, like one— I mean, it's a little more— the communication one, that's like 2 minutes. So that's OK. But this one's probably about a 4 to 5 minute, even if we try to do it adequate. Because I don't— well, of course, I don't know what all the programs are in your facility.

Speaker M: I think that's what I'm getting at is if it was just our like first shot across the bow to figure out like which direction we should at least start getting information, Doesn't have to be so extensive in the very first thing?

Speaker K: It doesn't. I can show you one we did. So I can show you one and why what I'm envisioning takes more time. I can show you one that we did for a city. And we did one for Tremonton, Utah, but we did one for Melissa, Texas that I'd like to show you. Both are good. And they each took like 4 to 5 minutes to do well. But we could do a shorter version, which I'm going to show you the Melissa, Texas one because it is short, the one question, but it doesn't go into depth into what goes within it. So I'm going to just open up my screen here.

Speaker I: Can I—

Speaker B: I got one question on that screen real quick.

Speaker I: Sorry.

Speaker K: Uh-huh.

Speaker B: Just because I want to know the nature of the question. We can wait. It was towards the bottom. I can come back to it though.

Speaker K: Oh, hey, I'll come back to that. Okay, here you're saying where we were, right?

Speaker B: Okay, so right here, uh, the question or the— sorry, it's right there. It says, uh, city's own police force. It had 9% as far as important, uh, 7% were very good, but then the very poor was 67%. What was the nature of that question? Does the 67 represent that people don't like the Sheriff's Office or that they prefer their own? You see what I'm saying?

Speaker K: I think this question, you didn't have one, right? And we put it in there, how is the city doing with the police force? And I think it came off negative. And, but we didn't explain it or go into detail of what that would involve or what was, you know, or how it is. I think this is just a general rating of the police force at the time.

Speaker B: So is it fair to say that that's really not a very good representation of what's really— because of the nature of the question?

Speaker K: I think it is, because, yeah, I think in general we're just asking them to rate the police force. I don't know if they're rating traffic. I don't know if they're rating patrolling the neighborhoods. There are a lot of things we don't know about that particular question because we didn't go into depth.

Speaker G: I think the word own is what's throwing me off.

Speaker B: That's why I'm— that's where I was at too.

Speaker K: Right?

Speaker G: That's a nuanced word to throw in there.

Speaker B: So that's why when you say own, then what's the results? And then if it's not important, meaning 9%, but yet it's 67% poor.

Speaker K: Well, then also because if we go to the police department, which we did rate, right? And you see the 5th one down? a fair number of people have had interaction with the police, and if they did, the results are pretty solid.

Speaker B: Yeah, and that's why I said the nature of the question.

Speaker K: And maybe the answer, because I have to agree, that one was like, they're not rating something that you have, they're rating something that you don't have.

Speaker C: I think it's the nuance between whether we have our own police force or whether we have a sheriff's contract.

Speaker K: Right, it should have been a separate question.

Speaker C: That's where it gets skewed.

Speaker M: Could we just talk about maybe police presence instead of calling it police?

Speaker K: I think, I think that's fair, and, and I do think that is a fair question and an excellent one, Mayor, to bring up.

Speaker M: And I think the, the follow-up question after that would be like, do you feel safe? Like, because I think those are like, do you see our police here and do you feel safe? Those are like, I think—

Speaker K: In most cities, that's the way we have done it, is where you just talk about Neighborhood patrols, and you find out that, and then overall, how are they doing? But so I don't see that you have a police problem, and maybe they don't like the idea of making your own.

Speaker G: But 2% of our people love the court we have.

Speaker K: But I would say that this was not the perfect question, Mayor. Now I am going to go to Melissa, Texas, and show you one question. So the question So the way we did this is we said— here it is. As the city begins to budget for the next fiscal year, the city needs input on what recreational classes, events, and programs are of most interest for our residents. Our city may or may not be able to meet everyone's wants or desires, but it's helpful to know what's valuable. And then we showed them the list that you see here, which is rather broad. So there's fitness programs, sports programs, outdoor nature programs. They just had a variety. They had so many things they were considering doing. They had about 60 or so ideas of things that they could do. And this gave them a broad overview of the types of things that came out highest. Is that the direction you're thinking?

Speaker M: I think for us, I mean, for me, when I ask, We just barely brought soccer in-house, and outside of junior jazz, there's not a lot of other things that we are providing. We partner with outside organizations to bring those services here. I would like to know which sports type thing is the next specific thing recreation-wise that they want us to do, because we have lots of really great opportunities within our community from private entities for fitness and and some of those other things. At least there's something, but there's not private entities per se that are offering really good versions of recreational sports. So for me, it's more of a, which is the next sports thing you want us to take on?

Speaker K: So when we did it for this city, after we asked about a lot of attributes, it narrowed down to these are the top 20 that people were most interested in seeing. And I don't know if you can see this well, but they just had a variety of things that they would love the city to focus on. But this did allow them to focus on the few that they wanted. And maybe we show you this list and you choose from the list of what we were considering in another city, and we narrow it down and have a smaller list that would be in your consideration set here. And then we just present the things that you're considering.

Speaker E: Okay.

Speaker B: Anything else on that one? Was that the end of the results? I want to make sure. Is there more slides?

Speaker K: No more slides that we need to show. And really, we were just trying to get feedback for anything new that you wanted. And this was super helpful. And a thing to clean up. Which I think is also helpful too. So we'll do that with the police.

Speaker B: When you say own the police, I mean, that's obviously a nuance that could, for people who know, you know, throw the question a different direction.

Speaker K: I think it should have been a question of its own. Should we own our own police, yes or no, or something like that? But it shouldn't have been the rating in general.

Speaker B: Yeah. The rec stuff, and you added something, right? You happy with the way it looks?

Speaker K: We did rec communications and then we just said major investments into something like ice skating.

Speaker B: Yeah, the nature of communications, that's a big problem we've had and maybe we talk about the way that question is worded, but it's— the public has had a big push this year about transparency. It's not a matter of being transparent, it's a matter of—

Speaker K: Getting the information out.

Speaker B: Yeah, even if we said it, they didn't hear it or didn't get to them. We need to figure out a way to better get the word out to people so that they have it available and in front of them. So that's something. Did you want to add one more thing, Melissa?

Speaker M: Yeah. Oh gosh, I completely— oh, I was wondering if it would be instructive, because I think we've had 3 different iterations of our Citizens Academy. What if there was just one question with the demographic stuff was like, have you participated in the Eagle Mountain Citizens Academy? Because I think those people tend to have a better understanding of what's going on and make very informed decisions. And I think it'd be kind of fun to see, are they a statistical outlier or like that?

Speaker K: So it's almost a demographic, right?

Speaker M: That's what I'm getting at.

Speaker K: A demographic of the handful. How many have been through it?

Speaker M: Probably 60. Yeah, because it's 60 people.

Speaker K: Do you know what? I just don't think it makes sense to use that as a demographic. If you— I mean, you have what, 60,000 people here? We're going to go to 1,000 people. 80,000. Oh my heavens. And then we're hoping to find those 60 people out of the group, and it's probably very unlikely we would get 5.

Speaker M: Okay.

Speaker B: A lot of the people that have been end up coming to the meetings.

Speaker K: Yeah, for sure. Look, I'm in favor, but— and you may want to find out people who'd be interested in going through as the Citizen Academy. We could ask people if they'd like to do that. And then you could just, you know, you could get a nice list of, you know, if so, you know, give us your contact information and you could invite people who are very interested in that.

Speaker M: You guys, do we want to know— I know we talked about recreation and communication. Do we want to talk about what resources we as a city or private entities have brought into our community? Like, The fact that Department of Workforce Services is coming, food pantries, some of those things like are— because we always kind of guess and throw a dart at the dartboard when it comes to Community Development Block Grant funds, and I'm just wondering if that would be a useful question.

Speaker G: What's the question?

Speaker M: Whether or not— which services our residents want us to be providing.

Speaker G: Post office.

Speaker M: Well, yeah.

Speaker F: Yeah.

Speaker B: I got that question today.

Speaker G: Bus routes.

Speaker E: Yeah.

Speaker K: Yeah.

Speaker M: Okay.

Speaker J: All right.

Speaker M: So we already know that.

Speaker B: Yeah, I think it's a little bit too broad. It would just have to be, is there something missing? And then we just have to take the feedback.

Speaker E: Right.

Speaker K: Right.

Speaker B: Any other comments? Off topic, I was gonna say that I did watch some of the podcasts. Evan did great.

Speaker K: Oh my heavens, yeah.

Speaker B: Your team was good in it. And then I watched some from like Colorado and some of your other stuff. It was pretty fun.

Speaker C: Do you know what?

Speaker K: It was really something to see all of the— that was a big topic and it's getting bigger all the time.

Speaker B: Yep, it was fun.

Speaker I: So good job.

Speaker B: Appreciate your team and what they do for us.

Speaker K: Thank you.

Speaker B: Good, thank you. All right, we're gonna move on back to the top. Item 1A, the Eagle Square commercial signs. And Steven is up front today with that one.

Speaker N: All right.

Speaker G: Thank you.

Speaker O: Lacey, can I have the screen, please?

Speaker J: Sorry.

Speaker O: As it's coming up, so as an introduction, as you know, the Seagull Square commercial, I don't know if the last time it's come to City Council when it was approved, it's probably been a year or more. It's been platted. If you've driven past it, they've been grading the site, working on it. We have received an application to put 2 signs up for the development. So one of them would be here on their— I guess it'd be in the lot, but along that private road. There's no really issues with that one. The one that's coming before you that we want direction on is the one here along Pony Express. So it's the sign S1. And the reason mostly to get feedback is, is it is in the city's right-of-way. So typically that's— we don't allow any structures in the city's property, especially in the right-of-way. Yes, there's potentially to allow it if that's the city council's desire, whether that's through a lease or how that you want to figure that out. But before we move this sign application forward, we just want that direction and direction for the applicant how they should proceed.

Speaker G: Yeah, I think if there's no utilities or issues there, I mean, it, it doesn't look like it's in the way as long as it's not blocking visual traffic or creating any safety issues. Do you have any concerns with safety?

Speaker M: If we were to widen the road down the road, um, do we have an idea of what kind of cost we would be saddling a future council and taxpayers with? Would it just be essentially building a new one?

Speaker G: Well, that's a risk for them, right?

Speaker O: But I don't think the city would be bearing the cost of moving that sign.

Speaker M: If we widen the road and we take out their sign because we— sorry, it wasn't— um, if we widen the road and it's our project and we remove their sign because we're going to put road there, don't we have an obligation to relocate that sign?

Speaker P: Typically, no. Like, in the case of a, you know, using a good example would be a franchise agreement with a telecom or cable company. We may, if it's for a city project, we make them move their stuff at their expense. I don't know why we would treat this any differently than Comcast or DirectCom.

Speaker C: Does it— can it produce any issues in the PUE? That's one of the things I'm worried about is you have other infrastructure that may need to go in there. It's just one of the concerns that I have. If you want to run some power or some water or some other supply down the side of the road, what do we do in that instance?

Speaker M: I will say that there's already some city signs that are along that area that have advertisements on them. And I felt like the contractor that was putting it in was able to navigate bringing the utilities and things that they needed to underneath and around the signs as they are there right now. So I think it's probably doable, but maybe engineering would have a better idea for us.

Speaker B: Yeah, Vince, I've heard a few questions— site triangles, things like that. I know David's not here for the specific stuff, and then the utilities.

Speaker Q: You want to weigh in Before we go. Yeah, we, we did take a look at this and we, we worked with the applicant to make sure that this sign was pushed back far enough so that even with future expansion of this roadway, it wouldn't have to be moved again. We didn't want to put it in a place where it works now and didn't work for the future. And so yeah, we did look at that. We did have them push it back a little bit so it's outside of that future right-of-way. So as far as sight triangles, yeah, it's far enough back that it won't affect the sight triangle coming out of that intersection.

Speaker B: Even with expansion?

Speaker Q: Even with expansion.

Speaker C: Do we have any examples of where we have signage right now that's in the current right-of-way that we should— that we could be aware of that would look like this or that might be impacted like this?

Speaker O: It's my understanding that every sign— so here on the intersection of Ranches and Pony, um, there's a sign here for this office building. The Chevron has a sign. Um, both of those are within the right-of-way as well.

Speaker C: So there is some, at least some historical context that we have done this in the past for some of the businesses, recognizing that it's a risk for the business and that at some point when that road— not if that road widens, when that road widens. And I mean, we're seeking funding for that now. So my hope is, is that we're tearing this sign down in the next year or 2. I, for your sake, Mr. Simpson, I hope that's not the case, but, but I just think that's a risk that the development or developer has to be willing to take if we're, if we're willing to say, go ahead and build it in the right-of-way, recognizing that there's a risk it may need to come down. Isn't this what David's working on with you, Mayor, at MAG, to try and get the 7 lanes?

Speaker B: Yeah, and I was just, I was kind of going to go into that. I was with MAG today most of the morning, and, uh, so as far as the TIP funds We were working on the RTP today, but TIP funding we just finished, and then the next one will be 2 years, and of course 3 years after that before we get it. So it would be 5 years before we get it. Now, would we pre-fund that? Likely. But at minimum, it's not approved yet, but it would be. So not in the next— it would be approved in 2 years, then we'll Maybe 3. Yeah, so we'd build it in 3 to 4. But that's the risk. And happy to allow the applicant to weigh in as well if there was any other questions too. Is there questions for the applicant?

Speaker C: I do. So, I mean, so Mr. Simpson, obviously you're making the request, so this must be at least something that you're willing to, to, to take that risk Yes.

Speaker B: Yeah, Councilman Wright, you're correct on that. We had worked with the engineering department there, and the recommendation for the future widening of Pony was to go back 25 feet from top back of curb. And so this sign begins 30 feet from top back of curb, and then to clear the safety issues, We're 80 feet from Porter's Crossing, so we go east 80 feet to make sure those sight angles are there. And so we're trying to make it similar to our sister development to the west, Porter's Crossing, where Ridley's is.

Speaker G: That particular sign is entirely in the city easement, and so when you widen that street, we'll—

Speaker B: we're going to have to move that sign.

Speaker C: back.

Speaker B: That one's entirely there, done back I think in 2013.

Speaker Q: That's exactly—

Speaker B: yeah, we appreciate the consideration and, uh, to let us put this one, uh, in, in the right-of-way following the recommendations from the city engineer and the planners.

Speaker C: So anybody going to struggle with that?

Speaker M: No, it sounds like staff worked with the applicant to really get it where it needs to be, so I don't have any objections.

Speaker C: So probably the direction, Mayor, is to just bring it back and let us do it, let us deal with it as an action item, right? Okay.

Speaker A: Okay.

Speaker B: Is that fair enough?

Speaker K: Sounds good.

Speaker O: So do you want the agreement drawn up then and brought back to you?

Speaker B: Yeah, and I think the direction is obviously the owner's risk, right? That would be the key factor. Other than that, I didn't hear any other major concerns, right? So if you're okay with that, then I think that's what we'll do. Okay, perfect. Okay, any other comments or questions? No, just that I need an encroachment letter from Vince for the sign too. That's a public utility easement. It's not in the city right-of-way, but it is a PUE. And so I have my encroachment letters from all the other utilities, but Eagle Mountain needs to provide one. So yeah, for us to If that gets drafted, either one. And Vince has got an email on that. Drafted and reviewed by Marcus, and then, uh, then we can do it as an action item to approve the, the contract, if you will.

Speaker K: Okay.

Speaker B: The letter, however Marcus directs us. So is that all right? Thank you.

Speaker G: Okay.

Speaker C: Yep. Thank you.

Speaker B: And Stephen will help that process move along, so. All right. Moving right along. I appreciate everybody being ready today. So, 1B, the home business standards. And I think this one's Brandon.

Speaker G: I put it on the agenda, but this is just— I put this on here for the council to have a discussion about the home business standards. You know, they're in Title 17.

Speaker N: Chapter 65.

Speaker G: I think there was some question about whether the council should—

Speaker B: I think they just want to—

Speaker G: the idea is to have a discussion about whether some of the home business requirements should be adjusted to allow— I know one type of use was maybe for agriculture or farm-related uses.

Speaker B: So I think Councilor Clark has a little bit more information.

Speaker M: For you, I do. I've had at least four different residents reach out to me as a council member to talk to me about some of this. There are some that have open application with business licensing, and our home business license, the way it's set up right now, is the only thing this particular business can get licensed as is like a greenhouse home-based business. And based off of what I've heard and read. That our city attorney has said is if it's, um, a greenhouse one, then the only thing that they can sell is greenhouse products, which they deemed was plant starts, microgreens, plants, and potentially even broadening it wide enough to include bees and bee-related items, right? Um, but one of the things that they would like to do is to sell more than just produce and plants, but to be able to sell like eggs from their chicken coop and other farm-related items. So I think that this code could be updated as simply as changing it from greenhouse products to farm products and then provide some definition of that. Um, if we did that and they just complied with the rest of the home business licensing requirements like trip count and some of those other things That I think would take care of it. Steven, I know that you've— did you talk to the applicant at all that had the open application? Have they reached out to you specifically, or they've just been working with Jonna?

Speaker O: I've talked to them.

Speaker C: Okay.

Speaker O: Is there anything specifically about, or?

Speaker M: I'm just wondering if there's anything else that we need to discuss as a body to determine whether or not we want to make this change. Change. So it broadens it to kind of support those agricultural uses.

Speaker O: Yeah, I mean, I think, like Councilmember Clark mentioned, I don't think our code meets what she needs to do now. Um, opening up to whether it's animal products, animal byproducts, that, that's, yeah, a different conversation. That would probably encompass more of what she's looking for. Um, honey was one that Our code doesn't explicitly allow right now to be able to sell out of the house. So it's really— we could go a lot of different places, but for this one specifically, that would help.

Speaker M: One other thing, just to piggyback— sorry, Councilmember Whiting, I jumped the gun on you. Um, baked products is also something that we're seeing a lot and lot— a lot more of our residents doing, and they'll advertise it and say, I've made 8 loaves of sourdough, you can come pay for them and Venmo me and pick them up on my porch. They're just front porch bakeries in effect, and they're not getting tons and tons of traffic, but it is a way for our residents to be able to stretch their income and, and support themselves a little bit more and be a little bit more self-sufficient. So that's one other item that kind of came up in that discussion.

Speaker F: I was just going to say I 100% support this. This is, this is to me part of the culture of Eagle Mountain, and we need to have this.

Speaker C: I don't disagree with that, Councilmember Whiting, but I guess I do have some concerns. Is there a line that needs to be drawn? That's really the question that I'm asking, because are we going to allow the slaughter of cows and the resale of beef? I just think that this is something that probably requires a little more forethought and some discussion. What about chickens? You know, Do you want to buy some chicken breasts from me? Because I might raise some chickens and bring them, make them available for purchase. So I just think that those are some of the discussions that perhaps we should have. I think we should look at loosening it up a little bit. I'm not arguing a counterpoint. I just think that, I think there has to be some guidelines and some boundaries that we set.

Speaker M: I think To Councilmember Wright's point, there are quite a few regulations, both federal, state, county health department, that would govern some of those additional things. But things that are like, uh, the bread, the eggs, the honey, right now our code—

Speaker R: Milk.

Speaker M: Milk, uh, milk is governed by a state code with raw milk stuff, and so is meat, to be honest with you. Um, and that has to be done at like a USDA butcher, all of those things. But I think, um, we could broaden it to farm products and then dig into some of the concerns, um, concern areas that you're talking about. Because I do know that there are people within our community that do sell meat that they've raised, but they bring the meat, the animal, to a butcher, then bring the butchered meat home and sell it for pickup and different things for people to purchase. So I think in a lot of ways it's already happening. But in this particular instance, they went through the motions of getting a business license and it helped us discover a hole in our business license code.

Speaker G: I think to me the scope probably needs to be narrow, one by one, not a categorically hear all the things so we can have more thoughtful discussion around eggs, how many eggs, and what falls within this, within the state code. I know there are businesses that are operating outside of our code today, like RV parking is a big one, that we should probably have a bigger conversation about that as well. But yeah, I don't, I don't have an issue, but I think we probably want to keep the scope narrow and within the confines of the state law and federal law.

Speaker M: Do you think that our restrictions of how many trips per day, how many employees they can have on site for a home-based business, are restricting enough, narrowing enough to be able to get it to where it needs to be instead of deciding how many eggs or how much meat or some of those other things? Because I think the trips is a natural limitation that's built into our code already. Yeah.

Speaker B: So, well, and I think, uh, off-street parking has to be part of that so they're not plugging up streets. Trips per days, uh, if those things are all addressed in the home-based business already, that's a start, right? So is that the main concerns? Not so much what's for sale, it's, uh, more about trips, parking, Any other major—

Speaker G: I think the goal is to have some kind of— if you want to start a business, you're likely going to do it out of your garage. That's the whole point. But it gets to a point where you need to go buy land and go big. And it's figuring out what's that transition from being a home-based business to taking advantage of the residential discount on your property tax.

Speaker B: What I'm wondering— so I was thinking about this a minute ago, but You reminded me, like, say you're going to sell meat or slaughter chickens, right? Something that we just got brought up. Do we do that on a quarter-acre lot, or does it have to meet the animal code table, if you will? You know, you can't have beef until you have— is it half acre or 1 acre, depending on what the—

Speaker M: Does the beef have to be raised on your lot, or could you have an ag lot somewhere else that you're raising ranching the beef on and then butchering it.

Speaker B: Well, that's, that's what I was thinking through. Can you tie it to that table to avoid— I mean, if you're on a 5th of an acre and you're selling, commercially selling beef that is generating 25 trips, you're also turning your place into a refrigerated— your house just became a meat locker, right? You couldn't do it on a lot that small, so you're going to need a storage shed or something outside of that. That's kind of why I thought Can you correlate it with the lot size in the animal code? It doesn't necessarily have to be raised there, but to sell slaughtered chickens and beef, you know, maybe you need more room.

Speaker C: I think the home-based business code does set some guidelines and it sets some guardrails there, you know, with the trips per day, the number of employees. And I think it's really just differentiating between a commercial business and a home-based business. And, and if we can do that, I don't think we should be regulating things so that somebody that wants to keep bees can't sell the honey. That's ridiculous to me. And if our code doesn't allow for that, we need to fix it. And I think that's what Melissa is talking about. But by the same token, I don't think that we should be creating commercial chicken egg production farms in our Townhome condominiums, right? I just— so I think that we have to just balance it. And I do think that the animal code will play a big part in that. And I think the home-based business already does some of that.

Speaker B: Yeah, that's where I was saying, if you can get the home-based business, the animal code to kind of dictate some of the uses or something. So then if that's going to come back, obviously, Brandon, you'll assign that to whoever's going to work on that code. Do you feel like there's Clear direction on the guardrails. Yeah, I think we've got enough information.

Speaker G: Yep, sorry, thank you. I think we have enough information to move forward on this one.

Speaker B: Is there anything else that we need to do? Okay, I think that's perfect. We appreciate that. Was that good? All right, um, all right, item 1C. I think this is our last of our discussion items. This is the community garden presentation. I know there's a slew of people here that are going to work on this, but Steve, did you have an introduction or do you want to turn it over to the community board? The Community Services Board has been discussing this, and especially at their last meeting, and we invited Jen Corrington from, from the community who's heavily involved and puts together the farmers market. Yeah, and I know Brad's also had some, uh, insight here, so go ahead.

Speaker J: Hello, Mayor and Council. Oh no, it's not going. Okay, so I am here to present a community garden pilot program.

Speaker D: What we're—

Speaker J: all we're asking for tonight is if you support the idea of it, if the site that we have proposed is acceptable, and if we should keep going forward with the idea. The reason we want to do a community garden or have this is because there's a lot of residents without yard space. And it would be a way to learn and teach skills of self-reliance and create community connection, and it could be scalable if it— if this one works. This is the proposed site, so it's over not far from here, just west of Pioneer Park. West? Yeah. And this is close up. This is what it looks like. I'm not sure exactly where in this Rectangle, it would be, but it's somewhere in this rectangle. And that's my understanding of it, at least. We would just need to have that confirmed. How it would work is we'd have five to ten raised beds approximately, and we would need they would have improved soil and drip irrigation. We would have a coordinator, which is why we've invited Jen here, which she has a lot of. Experience and expertise, and she would be able to run the program for us. And ideally, we would have zero requirements from the city. We wouldn't need any hours from you guys, except for maybe a few confirmation things and things we can't get around. The idea— this is a model that we looked at— was the Wasatch Community Gardens, which They have assigned plots to each to specific residents, and they have an each bed has a named steward. They have a remedy period, so if someone stops maintaining their plot, they have to fix it within a certain amount of time, and then they have a requirement for volunteer hours for the gardener. We what we had talked about was having a small, modest annual plot fee and a minimal monthly maintenance fee that could go towards things like, um, what did we say?

Speaker M: Seeds.

Speaker J: Oh, seeds and the, the water and fertilizer and things like that. Um, and then we'd have raised beds with imported soil, which avoids— I mean, we have rough soil here. It's hard, can be hard to grow things. So we would have some soil brought in, and then we would just have oversight by a subcommittee on the Community Services Board, and then that would be— that subcommittee would be mostly manned by someone like Jen if that were to be who was voted in. Having a drip line makes it so that we wouldn't be wasting any water. The water's already there, and we wouldn't need to have any— I mean, we would still need to have a hose With a little bit, we'd have to have water to be able to put in the new plants, but it would all be maintained by a drip line. And then this was just potential, a range of costs of what it might cost to start up. There are things that we have added in later phases, like having a fence and a shed, that could be done sooner or later, depending on what you guys thought about. And then the timeline would— we would just need your direction now, and then in the fall is when we would like to prepare the site and have it all ready to go by spring. And so that's what we would need. And do you guys have any questions?

Speaker F: So that's where the disc golf course is, right? And so how And so I guess one of the questions you had is, is this going to take what could have otherwise been parking?

Speaker J: Yes, that is one of the things on there. Some people had requested— they had made a request saying that they would like parking there, and that would be a good spot for it.

Speaker G: But there is a water line there today.

Speaker B: Yes.

Speaker G: In that parking area?

Speaker J: Mm-hmm.

Speaker G: So we've got irrigation running through there, is that right?

Speaker N: Yeah, as we mentioned earlier, I think in a previous meeting when we discussed this, there is a meter that's already been set there with a backflow prevention device. In the past, we have had community gardens tried to be facilitated there twice that I know of, and we did the same thing. Where the city basically covered the cost of the seed and most of it was native type vegetation that would be grown and edible. And so, but we just never could get it to take off. And I think the city ended up spending about $10,000 through about 2 efforts and we never seen a byproduct from it. So that's the history of it. But as Jessie reached out, my conversation with her was, If we're gonna go back and we're gonna pilot a site, I think that we should try the same location and just see if we can figure out and get something moving, and then you can figure out how to modify from that point. And so that was my recommendation.

Speaker J: And that way we're not losing as much if it does for some reason fail. But as us and the Community Services Board, as we discussed with Jen, I think that having her as the coordinator for this will make it a win. Yes, you can make a comment.

Speaker A: Thanks so much. Um, I— we've had a lot of people reach out from the community that are very, very interested in doing this. We had one guy that came and talked for about 45 minutes to us at the farmer's market about it, really interested. Older retired people sometimes, and there's so many people who want to know how to garden. but don't know how. And especially with our economy, I think that it is an important thing that we try and feed our community. So even though I would be over it, I would recruit other people. And I think that is going to make the difference of whether it succeeds or fails, is if we have people who are really interested in doing it, who have the time, who want to donate that, and actually make it happen. And I think it also needs to be food plants, things that they will actually eat, rather than just something that is native that's edible. I think if we're, you know, and if we do it right, the right way, I think that it could be really successful. And it could— we could possibly have several of these throughout the community.

Speaker G: So the people that are being drawn in into the Can they be from anywhere in the city, or is this going to be like a zone restricted only within a certain area?

Speaker I: I think—

Speaker B: Do you just go out and sign up for it and go farm?

Speaker A: I think anybody in the city. I don't think it necessarily has to be from that neighborhood. And then if it turns out good, then we— okay, we put it into another neighborhood.

Speaker B: So part of what— just to clarify what Brad was talking about too with the physical Financial impact and things like that. My understanding is at this point, very little to zero staff time and no financial ask from the community.

Speaker J: At this time, that is correct, yes. We're just looking for direction.

Speaker M: Won't it need some to install water, like to get the spigot part of the water line on and some of those other things staff-wise? So it's just setup cost but not maintenance costs, correct?

Speaker A: Yes.

Speaker P: Okay.

Speaker M: I actually am a huge supporter of this. There's places all over the state of Utah where Master Gardeners go and volunteer to Thanksgiving Point, Temple Square. They go and they help maintain a certain area that they're given responsibility for, and it's awesome. So like, I think this is the direction we want to head as a city.

Speaker J: Well, and on this, like, something that I know has been thrown around out there is different classes, and what better place to have a gardening class and add a garden. It would give us a place to do that. Mayor?

Speaker N: I just want to add one. I think my biggest concern with this idea over the years has just been the liability that it could potentially put the city into. And what I mean by that is we've talked a lot about in these corridors putting a lot of fruit trees in or doing these community gardens. And what if somebody goes out and sprays chemical application on something to treat for some bug that's there and then somebody picks the fruit and gets sick. And so that's my protective nature of the city to bring up these things. And I think that some of those things need to be mitigated as we work through this. And I think that we need some barriers or parameters to work through it and address some of those situations if we are gonna move forward with it, just to protect the city.

Speaker G: Like a waiver, I understand that I could die from eating these peaches.

Speaker A: I also think that the fence probably is, one that should happen sooner rather than later because— and we get a lock on the water spigot. And those— somebody asked the cost of the water. That is part of what that monthly maintenance fee for whoever is. They would basically rent a space. Like, say for instance, the box is a 4 by 8. They would rent a 4 by 4 or a 4 by 8.

Speaker G: And so then those monthly costs would help pay for all of those My only thought is if we move forward with this, and I'm supportive as well, that we just have good materials, that we don't halfway do this where your 2x4s are rotting out in 2 years. I mean, I think this is a social experiment. They don't own the boxes, they don't own the material, the equipment. It's not their own property. And when it's not yours, you tend to just let things dilapidate.

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

Speaker G: So I think if we move forward, that the materials would need to be good quality, that can be durable, last a long time, like a playground. You just build it to last.

Speaker J: Well, and I fully support that, and that can get a little more costly, of course, but that is why, I mean, if the city was open to it, we could have a sponsor-a-bed program or something like that where different people or businesses could donate money or They could donate the bud for us, and that would be a way to make sure it was done the right way.

Speaker B: See, and I like that idea because it could help people that maybe couldn't afford to pay the maintenance fee, but they could seek sponsorships. But so what I'm hearing, or what I'm understanding, and maybe you can correct me, it sounds like there's support, but we need maybe some— I don't know if I want to call it a contract. We need some guardrails or some agreements, if you will, LOI, whatever Mechanism that says here's the the property, here's who the manager is at this time, and and here's how it's going to operate. For instance, the liability question on the sprays that if there's spray used that number one has to be approved by the city first. You can't spray without, and then secondly posting a sign or something that says that this has been sprayed, or you know there's some kind of. Notice, you know, I'm just giving an example. So go ahead.

Speaker C: Yeah, I'll share some thoughts. I'm probably gonna be the one who's the outsider on this a little bit. I don't think this is a good idea for the city to get involved in this. And so my approach to it would be to look for corporate sponsorship, to find a way to put it. I think the city could donate the land, or at least dedicate the land and make the water accessible. But I don't think the city should take responsibility of managing it, or playing any part of it. I think if the community wants to see it be successful, that we should go seek some private funding to put in the original beds, and then let the city dedicate the space for that to happen, and let those who wanna come participate pay the few dollars that you're talking about to be able to do that. And Jen, I don't know where you're gonna find your time. I mean, I know how busy you are. I'm grateful that you're willing to teach that to our residents, and I think that it, I think in concept I really enjoy it. I just don't think it's something the city should be funding and being held responsible for.

Speaker B: So I think that is the thing, is it's on city land, and that's why I wanted the guardrails. There is no funds asked and no staff time, but the land is there. So like, that's why I said I think we need the sign that says that, you know, it's been sprayed, or—

Speaker C: But who's going to take that, Mayor? I mean, and who's going to monitor it? Are we going to have a staff member that goes by and watches this every— I mean, those are the problems that I think these types of things cause, or at least the concerns from a liability standpoint. I mean, if I'm a private business owner and you're asking to come do this on my property, I have all the same concerns that I have as a member of the city council for the city. I mean, there'd have to be some indemnification from my perspective of anybody who participates in it or consumes anything that's grown in it. The city needs some indemnification from my perspective. There's just too many unknowns in that. That's problematic for me as someone who looks out for some of those things in my own private life, in my own business. The buck always stops with me. If you can find someone to sponsor, I'll sponsor a bed. I'll just say that out loud and on the public record. I'll be happy to sponsor a bed at the $200 or whatever you need, but I think we We can find a way to do that through our business partners rather than trying to put that on the city. And only if we can find a path forward with our attorney to find some way to indemnify the city against some potential future loss.

Speaker M: I would just kind of ask too, with the concerns about liability, we have park equipment that people play on and could get hurt at. How do we indemnify ourselves with that? There's signage, play at your own risk, those kinds of things. So I feel like the way that we create some of the guardrails that you're talking about, because us doing it as a city versus a private business doing it, there's a lot different liabilities that you have to take on as a business because the buck stops with you. But as a city, it's to me it's like. Playground equipment in a lot of ways.

Speaker I: So I just maybe wanted to jump in there really quickly. Um, as far as things like park equipment and all that kind of thing, anybody can sue anybody for any reason, and the city could be sued at any time. And that's why we have insurance with the trust. We mitigate the impact of that by having policies and procedures in place, by having good record keeping that says this is how we're maintaining this, and all that type of I think what I'm hearing from various groups, there are various members of the council here, is that the word guardrails or the world or the rules or how it's going to be administered— did the city act prudently? Did we put the right rules in place? Did they sign the right waiver? Have we worded it properly? Or whatever we needed to do to make sure that we mitigate the risk if we do move forward with this in this direction. I have seen this. I have seen it be successful in cities where there are participants where that really come out. I've seen it die on the vine more than I've seen it be successful when all of the work falls on one person. And that's the big fear. And so it's really when a collective group comes together and you have a large enough population base that it's being watched, because oftentimes if it is just a small group. Then you get the vandalism and you get people coming in. And, and, and then I, I have 8 kids and we've grown a lot of gardens and we're really good at putting it in and really bad about, uh, weeding and maintaining it. And it, by fall, it looks a lot different than it did in the spring. So.

Speaker M: I, I just want to say that I'm super supportive of this because I think for years I've been advocating for something like this. And there's always going to be concerns about anything we do as a city, but sometimes we need to say, what is it going to take for us to get to yes? And I think when residents bring something to us and say, this is what we want, especially when we're looking at all of the tax things, our budget, all of that stuff, this is a low-cost way to say to the residents, We're still trying. We're being penny pinchers about it, but we're still trying to make sure that you have those quality of life amenities. So like, I want to help find whatever the rules are, whatever the signage has to be, so that we can make this wildly successful. Because I love when people tell us you're not going to be able to do this. It's my favorite.

Speaker D: So—

Speaker C: I mean, we have their community garden boxes in the Section 8 housing. I'm just curious how they're functioning because those exist and they're on private ground, HOA ground. So I mean, I think there are opportunities that exist, Councilmember Clark, and I'm not aware of them actually functioning in any meaningful way today. Now they might be, I could be wrong about that, but I know that we have approved in some developments those things as an amenity, and I'd be curious to see how they're functioning, if they're functioning at all.

Speaker F: Okay, on the north side of Silver Spur Way, it looks like the city owns either side of that. And so there's like a gravel area on the northwest side, looks like it's city-owned, so people could park there. And then the northeast side, if ever we needed to create a parking for the— this golf course, it looks like there's room there. So I'm not worried about the parking aspect and the garden taking that up.

Speaker B: So again, I think the two things that I've heard is number one, maybe we'd set some land aside. We don't want to touch it outside of that, and I think that is what they're saying. But then number two is I think there needs to be some kind of agreement, if you will, that says how it's going to function. That's that's what if there's is that what the council would or wouldn't support? Or is there more or less than that? That's what I'm trying to get to. Is that—

Speaker M: I think the money is not the issue. We can find sponsors. I think it's the support piece and whether or not we want to throw our weight behind it as a city and try it one more time. And maybe the Community Services Board works with their garden committee to bring us what those guidelines are to bring, because they have rules that they want to keep too, because they're going to be putting their time into it. So I think for me, the next step that I'd like to see is bring us the next layer of it, and let's see if we can address some of the concerns, kind of mitigate some of those.

Speaker B: So that's, that's what I was getting at, is it wasn't a money question. They're not asking for any money. The next layer is some type of LOI, contract, MOU that says the city gives the land, this is the manager, and here's what we'll do to You know, as far as signage, spray, permissions, is that, is that what we're looking for?

Speaker G: Yeah, I think so.

Speaker B: And is that something you'd support, or— I don't want to do it as an exercise.

Speaker G: I think anytime someone in our community stands up and says, I want to lead an initiative to better our community, our park, or whatever, and no staff is required, let's do it. I'm in support, but I also think we need to Be careful around risk, liability, that kind of stuff, which Marcus is a genius. He'll figure that out.

Speaker F: I support this a lot. I'm really grateful. Our community connection score was low. This will increase our community connection. I'm willing to give it a try. Let's do it.

Speaker B: So it looks like we've at least got a majority to go to the next step with the contract. Now, I don't know that that's a staff-driven— I'll take a little advice from staff, but is that something that we could let the Community Services Board— I also know that Charlotte's here that worked on this. Could we assign them to bring us something, or do we want to— Marcus, you went to— do we want to do that wording ourselves?

Speaker A: Was it—

Speaker B: is it something that— I know we're busy. Could they bring us an MOU? How do you want to see it?

Speaker P: Okay, so I want to make sure I understand where we're at at this point. So where we would agree to let them sort of use our land, lease it, if you will, for a community garden, they would agree to— so who is the they, I guess, is the real question. Who's the entity we'd be allowing to come in and do it? So that's my first question.

Speaker B: I think the city's authorizing the land and whether the management's under the—

Speaker P: So is it going to be our community gardens or somebody else's that they're using our land for? Because I thought that— That's what the latter was, what we had settled on. But if it's going to be our program, then, then I think it's a very different proposition versus somebody else's program on our land.

Speaker B: Well, it's definitely a city-sponsored group that's bringing this. So yeah, so is that—

Speaker P: So if it's going to be our program, then we would, you know, have people sign a waiver of liability for using the program. I mean, obviously Yeah. You know, posting of signs disclaiming liability is helpful, though not necessarily dispositive on issues of liability. You know, it's just a matter of, well, how are we going to manage compliance with the program? Who's going to do it? Make sure that people are signing the waivers, because it's one thing to say we're going to require waivers, another thing to follow up and make sure that everyone who's engaged, who's using the program, whether as a garden or as a customer of somebody using, you know, growing something there or whatever, whoever's consuming it is signing a waiver. I mean, that does sound very, you know, but that would be the way we'd handle it if it's going to be our program and we just have to be willing to accept the risk.

Speaker B: So what's the tool that we want to use to govern this? Is it an MOU? Is it a—

Speaker P: With whom? It would be with our community So, I mean, the committee, we wouldn't enter into— the Community Services Board is not a separate legal entity.

Speaker B: But I think it's—

Speaker P: Apart from the city. It's just, so you can't enter an agreement with yourself.

Speaker B: Well, then I wanna make sure that we are able to list the protocol of how it's managed.

Speaker P: So we would adopt the policy.

Speaker B: So do you wanna say—

Speaker P: And this is how we wanna manage it. So I would leave that to the Community Services Board to prepare. So have them bring that to the policy. And then I'd be happy to review it if they want me to, and— or if you want me to, and we'll go from there. But we would want anyone using the program to sign a waiver of liability, or anyone volunteering.

Speaker B: So let me recap this again, and then I'll make sure we sell this board. So they will bring us a policy that says this is how it will function, with this who manages, this who oversees. How will signage, things like that, whatever we've talked about, we would enact it as a policy and then that managing members or member would report to—

Speaker P: Yeah, so we could have whoever we want, you know, managing the program, you know, from city staff as well as, you know, any board members.

Speaker B: I pick Brad. He's decent. It's probably Zach, but—

Speaker I: And I would say that there's enough out there, that there's policies already in place, Salt Lake City specifically.

Speaker B: Do you know of some that you can point them to?

Speaker J: I can find it, I can find them.

Speaker B: So then if we adopt it as a policy, is there still head nods, still support to—

Speaker M: Yeah, and I think the liability form's easy. We can get 1,000 parents to sign the liability form for bounce houses. every year at Pony Express Days. I'm not worried about 12 people doing gardens.

Speaker D: So—

Speaker M: Well, they would need to do a contract anyway with whatever they're doing.

Speaker A: They would need to do a contract anyway with whatever they're doing, and part of that contract could be a section about liability.

Speaker I: Um, the only thing I would caution on that is if you do charge residents for that, we want to make sure that we follow all financial policies and the cash collection. We budget the revenue, we budget the expenditures that we might have out of it.

Speaker J: I mean, is that what you guys would like us to do if we went this route, to charge?

Speaker B: Okay, I think that's gonna have to be part of the policy, is what the fee is, how that's handled, and how you collect sponsorships. Yes, the first one's going to come from Councilmember Wright. He'll vote no and then he'll write you a check.

Speaker C: That's possible.

Speaker S: Perfect.

Speaker B: But I think that's part of it. So with that, I think we gotta keep moving. Do you have clear— ask questions.

Speaker J: Okay, so are we good then if we do go forward in the Community Services Board and create a subcommittee and at least bring you a policy before anything gets started to have for approval?

Speaker B: I think that's the case, yes. And make sure that the policy has all the items that we listed, the financial aspect, the Signage, things like that.

Speaker Q: Liability.

Speaker B: The liability waiver.

Speaker C: Compliance with existing financial policy.

Speaker B: Yeah, compliance with existing financial policy. So if you'll sign that, or if that means that it's just you, one of you two, but assign that policy, writing the policy, if I can think.

Speaker J: Yes, okay.

Speaker B: And then get it with Ben and Marcus Then we'll, uh, I'll write that policy.

Speaker M: Yes.

Speaker B: Okay, is that good?

Speaker J: Thank you very much.

Speaker B: Okay, thank you. All right, moving along. We good? I feel like I'm a little out of sort. So, um, moving on to our agenda. I know we'll get through this as quick as we can, which I think we can, uh, to get to our closed session. Uh, I do know that we had a really good time I shouldn't say good time, a really busy time in New York. But is there any other, uh, Item 3, City Manager information items?

Speaker I: Sure, I'll just cover a few things really quick. Um, I just— there's a lot of things that we should be thanking our staff for at this period of time. Um, I know it's been a very difficult time for our community, but the amount of work that has been involved in completing the audit and completing the budget and, and even going through with the tax increase and all of the, um, follow-up items from election to grandma requests and all that. So I just want to extend appreciation. I know the council has wanted a lot of information from staff, and they've been, uh, very buried with, with other things, such as coming up with, um, all the information needed for our sewer treatment bond and all the different work that has been going on in different areas. And so we've tried to manage that and try to manage getting requests back. And so we thank the community, and we Thank the council for your patience, and I thank the staff for their efforts involved in that. With that said, October kicks off the 2000 FY 2026 audit as well as the FY 27 budget. So here we are again, and look forward to a happy new year. And with that said, there has been a lot of information gathering and whatnot so that we can be well prepared for our sewer treatment plant expansion. The mayor mentioned that we went through a bond rating exercise with S&P and Fitch to be able to share the story of our community and do so in a way that will show the opportunities and the good things happening and hopefully lower our interest rates, which would save our residents millions of dollars over the life of that bond. And so I can't extend enough appreciation to all the staff that helped us prepare and those that had the honor of going and sharing our story. I think it was a very successful event, and it was an honor to be part of that group. Also today, we took a tour of Williams that's doing the construction of the power plant down— facility down south of Meta. That's a $1.7 billion investment into our community, and it was exciting to take a tour and see all the good things that are going on there.

Speaker R: Thank you.

Speaker I: They have 300 jobs in place between now and 2028 while they're doing that work. And so that's a significant increase in taxable value for our community that will hit the books in 2028 and 2029. The construction will be completed in '27 and '28, so that's why it's a year later. And that's why some of the issues— we have some good things happening in our future, but it doesn't hit the books until a little bit further out. And of course, you need the power before you have the other benefits from other development in the area. With that said, we have a number of projects that are kicking off right now. Many of you have probably seen the Trailhead intersection work start at the intersection of Trailhead and Pony Express where we will have a new signal light. Campus Drive and Ranches Parkway will have its improvements with a high-T intersection improved there. The Scarlet Tank Ridge tank is moving Moving forward, about 10 months left on that tank construction. We've had a lot of improvements in work on wells of late. I know Well 2 is up and running now. I know it had some issues, but it is up and running. So we appreciate our staff being able to bring that up and solve the issues that were related to that maintenance issue. And Well 8 should be up and running in October. Good things are happening there, and I think you can see it not only in, in the community at large, but in our soccer fields. I think our soccer fields are looking exceptionally good. I've had compliments coming in from the community about those soccer fields and some of the improvements there, and I think we're all seeing it in our yards with the blessing of the rain that we've had of late too. So good things are happening in our community, and I just want to extend appreciation to the council for all your continued support.

Speaker B: Yeah, and just, uh, when you're talking about the staff, also I'm gonna add our consultants. Uh, Laura Lewis put a really good presentation together, and then her staff, uh, I don't know them all, but that was super successful. Um, any questions on any of that? I know that was fast, just wanna make sure everybody's up to speed. Okay, uh, let's go through the consent agenda real quick. I, I think this is pretty easy. 10, uh, item 10A is the change order, the White Hills 4 million gallon tank, and this is the final kind of closeout. Were there any questions? I know Vince is here to answer questions. Okay, anything that you need to add? It doesn't sound okay. Item 11A: The minutes for our regular city council meeting on August 18th and the August 26th special meeting. Okay, the preliminary plat for Gateway Park Phase Three.

Speaker M: I would like for us to pull that from the. consent agenda so we can discuss that a little bit. There were some things that came up during Planning Commission. This is for the charter school, right? That I think would be useful for us as a body just to quick talk about. So if you guys are willing. OK, thank you.

Speaker F: I agree with that.

Speaker B: Nothing that we could solve now, right? So it's just— OK, so we'll go ahead and pull that off and put it on the regularly scheduled items. A is a resolution of Eagle Mountain City approving the 2nd amendment to the Briley Farms Phase B development agreement.

Speaker F: So did, did the applicant do what we asked them to do?

Speaker C: Yeah, they, they took it from the 40 with 600-foot garages to the 20 that they've already built with 600-foot garages and 40 more that will have the 400 and— what is it, 490-something? And that was the size we were asking Well, yes, that, that was what they demonstrated to us last time, so they actually added an additional— what they did is we reduced it on 20 and they added 20 more. So I wanted to just thank you for that, for listening, and that makes sense to me at this point.

Speaker B: So we're comfortable leaving that on the consent agenda. Thanks for coming. That was easy. The 13B is resolution of Eagle Mountain City to become an official member of the North Utah County Aquifer Council. No questions yet?

Speaker M: No.

Speaker B: And then 14A is ordinance of Eagle Mountain City amending the Municipal Code 245.010, the Youth Council term limits. And I wanted to make sure this— you had a lot of—

Speaker F: yeah, it looks good to me.

Speaker B: It represented what you said last night.

Speaker G: That's great.

Speaker B: Okay. And any other questions on that one? 14B, an ordinance of Eagle Mountain City amending the Eagle Mountain Municipal Code 3.30 regarding land disposals. This has to do with the map.

Speaker P: We don't have the map yet, but this has to do with the state law changes. So we're updating our code to conform to those changes.

Speaker B: Okay, and no other questions on that one that I can see? Okay, the rest are scheduled items. I think because of what we have to discuss, unless there's specific questions that need changes between now and then that we could hurry and go over— is there anything that you know of that we need to, uh, to work on? Yeah, you're good. There's nothing. Okay, go ahead.

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

Speaker M: Second.

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

Speaker F: Yes.

Speaker B: And Councilmember Hewish.

Speaker G: Yes.

Speaker B: Councilmember Clark.

Speaker M: Yes.

Speaker B: Councilmember Wright.

Speaker C: Yes.

Speaker B: Okay, and that motion passes. Yeah, and I was going to say that later, that Rich was missing, but we'll get that in the policy session. So You're good.

Speaker M: You're good.

Speaker B: All right. It's 7 o'clock. We're gonna get started. Before we get started, I've asked Stephen to start us off with prayer.

Speaker O: Our Father in heaven, we're so very grateful for this chance that we've been blessed with as citizens of the city and staff members and those that we come together to discuss those issues that are important to us that affect all of our lives. We pray that we may be cordial with one another, that we can be responsible and thoughtful in our words and actions. We ask that we may be guided in the decisions that are made and the responses that we feel are appropriate. We ask thee as we end tonight that we all may return back to our respective homes in safety and get the rest that we need for the coming day. And these things we pray for in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

Speaker Q: Amen.

Speaker B: All right, it is 7:02, and I'll officially call this meeting adjourned. Meeting to order of the Eagle Mountain City Council on September 1st, 2026. And before we get started, Council Member Whiting's going to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. Please rise, join with me. 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. Okay, first of all, before we get started, I just wanted to excuse Councilmember Wood. He's got some personal issues that he's taking care of, so we'll excuse him from tonight's meeting. If he gets a chance, he may join us online if that happens. So, um, First of all, Mr. Reeves, is there any information items?

Speaker I: We do have some. Thank you, Mayor. First of all, we have the EM30, the Eagle Mountain 30-Year Anniversary Challenge that has kicked off today. Stephen, do you want to talk about that? Steve?

Speaker B: Yeah, the EM30 Challenge is exciting. It's going to be September through November. So it ends just before our actual 30th anniversary on December 3rd. And it's a challenge similar to the Walk 250 with America 250 that's to inspire people to get outside, recreate, especially here in Eagle Mountain, hike, bike, walk, run, and then there's a bunch of other options if you're not able to get out and do that, to read 30. So we call it kind of Bike 30 or Hike 30 or Run 30 or Or read 30, or sew 30, or serve 30, or do a lot of different things to celebrate the 30th anniversary of the city. And then there's a way to submit your completion of that online, and you'll get an exclusive 30th anniversary sticker and then be entered into a drawing for prizes.

Speaker R: Thank you.

Speaker I: We also have, in conjunction with that, the America 250. It's our 250th anniversary for our nation, and there's a pop-up museum at the Cedar Valley High School on September 2nd, tomorrow, from 4 to 8 PM. Of course, a reminder that our farmers market is every Saturday, 9 AM to 1 PM through October 10th at Corey Ride Park. Our Constitution boot camp, Wednesday, September 9th, from 7 to 8 PM at Cedar Valley High School. Stargazing, Wednesday, September 9th, from 8 to 9 PM at Walden Park. Utah's statewide virtual job fair, Thursday, September 10th, from 10 AM to 1 PM on jobs.utah.gov. There is a walk to fight suicide Thursday, September 10th, at 6 PM to 8 PM at Cedar Valley Football Field. There's a scorpion hunt Friday, September 11th, 8:30 PM. Meet at City Hall, Council Chambers. September 11th Day of Service is going to actually— is on Friday, September 11th, including Hero Parade at the elementary school and flag ceremony at Cedar Valley High School. We have Shop Fest Saturday, September 12th from 9 to 5 PM at Corey Wright Park. Days of Service— this is in conjunction with the September 11th, but ours— our Days of Service were going to be held this year on September 15th, Tuesday through Thursday, September 17th. So we have many activities planned throughout our community, and we invite the community to participate. Our fall dumpsters will be here for cleanup Wednesday, September 16th through Wednesday, September 23rd at Quarry Ride Park. And we have an exciting announcement: Eagle Mountain's own Xavier Gozo, who came up through Real Salt Lake organization, has signed a five-year deal with. Crystal Palace FC, making him the first player from Utah to reach the Premier League, arguably the top soccer league in the world. So we want to congratulate him.

Speaker B: Yeah, that was fun. I saw the news when we were working on that bond, and it was, it's kind of fun to see an Eagle Mountain native get that recognition, make it in the pro sports. Thank you, Ben. Our next item, 8, this is the time set aside for public comment. As a reminder, public comment is an opportunity for community members to address the City Council, and each speaker is allowed up to 3 minutes. If you wish to speak during the public comment, the public hearing portion, please complete a comment form located in the back and return it to our recorder on this side, and we will recognize you during the public comment or during the public hearing portion. Council members will listen but not engage in discussions during public comment. We ask that everyone remain respectful. Disrespect— disruptive behavior including cheering, booing, clapping, comments directed at individual city employees is not prohibited— is not allowed— is prohibited. If you have issues or questions regarding staff or personnel, administrative staff will meet you in the foyer for further discussion. So let us know if that's a case, and our assistant Steve will meet you out in the foyer. Lastly, public comment period is for items not associated with this public— the scheduled public hearing. If your comment relates to public hearing item, please wait till that item is called. Tonight's public hearings are 15A, that's the code to repeal and replace the Section 1760 regarding retaining wall construction, and 15B, which is the ordinance rezoning lands, certain lands known as Pinnacles, and approving the Pinnacles Master Development Plan and Master Development Agreement. So at 7:08, I will open the public hearing or the public comment period. And—

Speaker K: Yeah, we have Jason Ayu.

Speaker B: Jason Ayu. You're good now.

Speaker T: Okay. Good evening, Mayor, Council. My name is Jason Ayew. My wife and I, my wife Joanne and I, have been here for 26 years in Eagle Mountain. This is our home, this is our community, and we're excited to be able to discuss item 12A, which is a plat. And on that plat, you're gonna hear about our site plan for a school that we propose. It's a charter school called Ripple Academy. Having my children have born and raised here in Eagle Mountain and have been great products of the public school system. One thing that I've learned from my own 2 children is that both, even though living in the same home, they both have 2 completely different learning styles. And my son Chaz thrived really well in a traditional learning, moved on and went to college, graduated from college. My daughter Zion, not so much. She really struggle with the traditional learning style. And so Ripple Academy is a life-based learning model that, you know, thinking about as we develop this school, it really would've been fantastic for my daughter Zion to be in this school. But we can't go backwards, we can only move forward. And, you know, as we put some initial interest out there, our school proposes hopefully will be open by next August 2027 if everything goes well, knock on wood. But we've already had over 300 members, 300 members of Eagle Mountain that have expressed interest into that learning-based model of Ripple Academy. And so we just want to put a name and a face in front of you as you— I'm sure you'll hear from us many times forward, but thank you for your time and hopefully we appreciate your support in getting our site plan approved. So thank you.

Speaker I: Anthony Wood.

Speaker E: How's it going? I put my comment down under item 16, but it was— it's not really directed towards that. Essentially, I wanted to say thank you guys. Thank you for, you know, listening to us and working together with residents. In regards to that truth in taxation, we did. I know you guys were facing a lot of varying degrees of criticism, and much of it seemed to be pretty distasteful. I know you guys had a lot of late nights and very long conversations helping everyone figure it out and get the information out there. I appreciate we were able to come together and come to a very reasonable number. I found myself talking to a lot of residents. Many of them were blaming council members for all of the truth in taxation stuff. And I found myself telling them a story and that they needed to realize that they were slightly accountable as well. Now, that story was essentially just imagine that your family is the city. You know, you're the city council. Your spouse is the mayor. Your kids are the residents. You know, your family is pregnant, you have another kid on the way, and you start saving up for a new car because you need one. You know, after a few doctor visits, you find out you're having triplets, and now that car is not going to do. You need a minivan. It's going to cost a lot more money. You go to your family, you tell them like, hey, I'm going to cut back on your allowances because we need to finance this vehicle we can't quite afford, but we need it now.

Speaker J: No.

Speaker E: You hear crickets. You come back a couple days later, you tell them again. Again, no response. Crickets. Now, what I was telling everyone is that, you know, they get all mad when they find out that their allowances were cut. You know, what are you doing? What are you doing? You know, you're cutting my allowance back. You know, oh, we had to get that van. Well, they'll start replying with like, we didn't need that van. Who told you we needed that? Like, we don't need it. It's too expensive. where are you putting the money? We could have done something different. You know, all those crickets during the first conversations were us residents not coming to the first few meetings and discussing everything and figuring it all out. Ultimately, I was telling them that if you want to know what's going on, or, you know, if you want to complain and have some value behind it, you need to come to the meetings and listen and know what's going on. I heard some residents talking about how 30 seconds remaining. Some residents were complaining about like, oh, you know, we didn't discuss this. I want to know this, I want to know this. And I was literally sending them dates of when we were having council meetings in the past where you guys covered that. And I was sending them video clips from those meetings. And it's like, they discussed it, you weren't there. I just wanted to say thank you though, so.

Speaker B: All right, that's everybody that's turned in a form. Is there anybody that did not get an opportunity that would like to speak at this time? Seeing no one, we will close the public comment period at 7:13 and bring it back to the council. And, uh, for this time has been set aside for them to make comments and address the public. We'll start with Councilmember Clark.

Speaker M: Thank you, Mayor, and thank you for your thoughts. Ironically, I have a set of twins, and we only had one kid when we found out we were having them, and we had to move to a minivan too, and it was a major life change. It, like, we didn't fit in the car that we had anymore, and it was a pretty big deal. So, like, I really got the visual of what you shared.

Speaker J: Thank you.

Speaker M: I have to remind myself when people get mad at me or call me something on Facebook that the only difference between me and the people who are saying what they're saying on Facebook is information. And we're working hard to improve what we do as far as information goes and getting that information out to you. And we're, we're patient with our residents because we know what it feels like to be angry about something or confused. Or afraid. So give us, give us a little bit of grace as we work through finding out information about how to get you information. One of the things that we discussed during our work session today was our normal community survey that we do each year, and one of the questions that we talked about was finding out from our residents what's the best way to communicate with you, what mode of communication is going to actually serve serve you the best. And I think that attention to detail is something that gets missed by people who aren't here sitting up on the dais. But we want you to know that we, we really do want you to be a part of the process. We believe in your ability to help us make decisions, and we're grateful that you're here. And I just want to say too how grateful I am for our staff. They put in countless hours. I know our recorder's office had to get a packet ready, then they had to get a bunch of other stuff ready and meet deadlines. And they're not the only ones that are just busting their tails to make things go in our city. And I just am super grateful. We wouldn't be able to be who we are without you guys. So thank you.

Speaker C: Thank you, Mayor. Yeah, thank you, Mr. Wood. I appreciate your comments. We've taken it on the chin for a few weeks, and it's nice to hear somebody that actually appreciates what we do. Whether we get it right or wrong, we know that we do both. I mean, I recognize that, at least I get it that way. Sometimes I get it wrong, and hopefully that's a minor amount of the time, and more often than not, we make good decisions. I call them SUDs, seemingly unimportant decisions, and we make Lots of them. And I think that the more that we can make in a positive manner that bring positive results, that ultimately those benefits and blessings will come up and they show up on our doorstep. So seemingly unimportant decisions that we make daily, weekly, yearly as we sit here and have the opportunity to make those decisions on your behalf. So thank you for your words. Welcome to all of you that are here. It's good to see some smiling faces. Mr. Ayoub, you don't know me, but I know your dad pretty well. And what an awesome man your father is. And so thank you for being— I didn't know that you're a member of our community, so that makes me happy. I've only been here 22 years, not 26. So you got me beat there. And then I want to just— I guess I want to make this point. And I know that the council members know this. I met with the seniors today, the senior citizens. I'm the liaison for the city with the senior citizens from the city council, and they expressed some concerns and some issues that they're having that are not unlike what our staff members deal with.

Speaker N: They need more room.

Speaker C: They've got more members of their community that want to come and they want to participate in their building. We added a building there 2 years ago, 3 years ago. Was it last year?

Speaker U: Last year.

Speaker K: It's—

Speaker C: and they've outgrown it already. And it was just a trailer. It's just a Connex. It's an extra, right? What do they call them at the school? A pod of some portable of some sort. And we were fortunate that we had some federal funds that allowed us to do that. Didn't come out of our taxpayer dollars, at least locally. It came out of some federal funds. And so I'm asking the council to consider perhaps directing some of those CBDG funds in that direction towards them. But it also underlines at least a major concern that I have is For our staff members, we're looking at hiring some new people. For every person we hire, we probably need 3 that we should be hiring. And for every person that we hire, that's just, that's just 10 more people that are having to work out of closets or from home or remotely. And I don't think our citizens really see that impact, but I'm, I've been here long enough now that I'm, I'm seeing that and we just lose efficiencies when we have to function that way. So I hope that you'll bear with us as we make many hard decisions. We're talking about a sewer treatment plant, huge bond. But if you want that stuff to go where it's supposed to do, we have to make the right decisions, right? So I just, I want to express my love and my gratitude to each of you for allowing me the opportunity to serve. I'm nothing special. I don't know a whole lot, and I've learned even more having out here, but what I can promise you is that every decision that I make, I will always do it— I will always make it asking this question: What's in the best interest of the people who are members of my community, myself, my family, and you who are here in attendance tonight? So thank you.

Speaker F: Welcome, everybody. It's great to have you. Go Cougs.

Speaker B: Thank you.

Speaker F: Wow, yeah, this last, last month or so has been quite, quite a month for us up here. And I've thought about a lot of things, learned a lot from residents and shared a lot in return. And I just wanted to make a couple comments. You know, when we communicate with one another, you can either assume ill intent from the beginning and begin your relationship that way, or you can assume good intent and begin it that way and then make decisions from there. A quote that I like, great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, and small minds discuss people. Well, when it came to the tax discussions, some people kept it at the idea level, and ideas were going back and forth. Then at the end of the day, after ideas were discussed, people could say, well, I agree with that approach, or I don't agree with that approach, but it didn't get personal. It was just, I have a different managerial style or a different vision. And there's no animosity in that. But I found there were a lot of people that stayed down at the people level instead of discussing ideas level, and they just wanted to attack character and attack, you know, just attack and assume ill intent. And I don't think that's safe for a marriage. And when you have a marriage companionship, you know, you should hopefully assume good intent and that if there's been a miscommunication, it's usually been There's been a miscommunication, but I'm grateful for the for the residents that that kept the discussion on ideas because when that happened, solutions came out and bridge building came out. And I think that's a lot where we where we need to keep keep our discussions at the idea at the idea stage instead of it attacking character stage. And I recognize as public officials we're going to get you know we're going to get some of the character attacks and that that's going to happen and. I would just invite people to come meet with us first and then make a decision if you want to about our character after you come actually meet with us. We live in your same neighborhoods. We ride the same, drive on the same roads, go to the same schools, cheer for the same Cedar Valley High School football team, and we're in the stands with you. Just come say hi to us. Come meet us. I homeschool my kids, and then my kids have done some various things with the public school as well, and I love the diverse opportunities for learning because you're right, all, you know, our minds don't, you know, all think the same way and we do need different ways to be able to learn and grow. So I'm excited to have the discussion a little bit later about that school you have going in. Thanks for bringing that. And that, again, that's the idea phase, right? The ideas that bring solutions. That's more what we need. We need more ideas and we're better together when we can share ideas with one another. So Thanks for your patience with us as we work through this process. I actually gained more friends from this than I probably gained maybe some enemies as well, but I don't consider them enemies, and they might consider me an enemy. But I met some people I didn't know before that I'm like, wow, I have much respect for, gained greater respect for in this process. And so I'm grateful for the people that reached out and took the time to actually get to know us, have legitimate discussions that moved the city forward.

Speaker G: Yeah, thank you, Anthony, for making that comment. I had a coworker yesterday, she came to my office and she said, you're famous. I was like, really? She said, yeah, my daughter's been following everything on your city on TikTok. Like, that's not how I wanted to get famous, but that's okay. Everybody now in America knows about property taxes in Eagle Mountain. You know, I look at all the positives that have come from this. Tonight we're proposing code that would not have existed had we not had an active conversation in the city. We'll hopefully be putting in place a safety fund that when you pay your property tax, 100% of That will go into a safety fund segregated from sales tax. That's something that didn't— has never existed, as far as I know, in our city. We'll be creating, hopefully, if it passes, a rebalancing mechanism for city councils to not just kick the can down the road, you know, to have some kind of mechanism. Do we need to save up for a car? Do we need to consider that we are having triplets, and how do we plan for that? We're also going to be working on a budget in brief, a very simple 10-page document that is at an 18-year-old level. Somebody who can vote can read it and understand what's happening in the budget for the next year. So there's a lot of positive things I think that came from it. There's some negative things. There are certainly things that we've learned and things that we'll work on and improve next go-round. So I look at it and I think There are a lot of positive things that have come from it. And I'm just grateful. I think the one thing that we all have in common is we all love Eagle Mountain and we all want what's best. And sometimes that's gonna be crossing swords and sharpening our swords. But I, you know, I love what Craig's comment was. If we can focus on the ideas and come together with the best ideas, that's a huge positive.

Speaker E: Thank you.

Speaker G: So anyways, I'm just grateful. I'm grateful for the residents. I'm grateful for the process. It has been difficult, but I'm thankful for where we're landed.

Speaker B: All right, thank you. Appreciate the comments. And just add that, yeah, I too love the things that we've learned. I look around and I think of all the really, really smart people, and one of them might be Scott Hazard. Smartest guys I know in the city. And when I was able to talk to him about some of the things that we were working on, he says, well, I didn't know that. I'm like, I knew something that Scott didn't know? That was like floored me, right? So it was, uh, it was definitely a learning experience, and especially with people that I really look up to, uh, to be able to do that. I also, uh, did get the opportunity to live next to the Ayus, and I really appreciate their ideas, uh, although I'm not going to admit whether it was my brother or not that might put a U in your front yard or not. I don't know anything about that, but I know that he also got one, so it might not have been him. But no, it's super fun to be neighbors. You're actually— you didn't know this, but on the other side of the hill, your backyards almost touch. So just on the other side of the hill. But the— yeah, it's super fun to see everybody come with their ideas. And I love the public when they get to come out and I thought Melissa would say it. I'm actually disappointed. When people come and yell at us like that, it's just people caring loudly, right? Isn't that the show from Parks and Rec, right? I just hear people caring loudly. So no, it's super fun. So thanks for all your input. I was gonna add the last few, last month has been a whirlwind, but we had the opportunity to go spend some time saving the city a lot of money. I think, over the years. And last week, me and a couple of staffers went back to New York and was able to help improve our bond rating. Just the work that was done there and the things that our staff does and our consultants, we had Laura Lewis with us, and it's just amazing. And then the people that were here trying to meet deadlines on, with the county and getting agendas ready. Thank you. And our attorneys reviewing documents and just the planning staff. Everybody was just, it has been a whirlwind. And so grateful for all the work that we're getting done and even constrained that we're able to really, really move the needle, I feel like, and do some cool things and hopefully save a lot of money and be able to keep that budget lean. So with that, I think we'll get started. And I know the first item We talked about in the, the work session, the consent agenda item 12A might get moved to the—

Speaker C: Yep.

Speaker M: Would you accept a motion, Mayor?

Speaker B: Yes, sir. Yes, ma'am.

Speaker M: Mayor, I move that the City Council approve the consent agenda, removing item 12A from the consent agenda and placing it on the scheduled items section of the agenda.

Speaker C: Second.

Speaker B: Okay, we have a motion by Councilmember Clark and a second by Councilmember Wright. And we'll start the vote with Councilmember Hewish.

Speaker F: Yes.

Speaker B: Councilmember Clark.

Speaker A: Yes.

Speaker B: Councilmember Wright.

Speaker C: Yes.

Speaker B: Councilmember Whiting.

Speaker C: Yes.

Speaker B: Just, I just wanted to double-check. Councilmember Wood never, he did not join, right? Okay. Just making sure I didn't miss a vote. That passes 4 to 0. And we'll go right to item 12A, the Gateway Park. And I know, Steven, turn it to you.

Speaker Q: All right.

Speaker R: Thank you.

Speaker C: Do you have a screen coming?

Speaker O: I'm patient this time.

Speaker D: All right.

Speaker P: Okay.

Speaker O: Yeah, it seems like some of you are familiar with this. That's why it's been pulled off the agenda. This is a preliminary plat. Applications kind of come through quickly in attempts to help the proposed school to meet deadlines that they have to get this open when they want to. So the property we're dealing with is near the intersection of Mount Airy Drive and Corby Ride Highway. So it's just west of Enbridge here and And Eagle Mountain Storage. So it's this little area here. Here's a shot of the preliminary plat. So it's a 3-lot plat. Lot 1 is where the proposed school would be. It's a 6-acre lot. And then lots 2 and 3 would be, I'm guessing, just later phases of this development. Here's it again. So, go back to this. So, as I'm looking at this, our Transportation Master Plan, so this is Wagstaff Way, so this would be the north end of that preliminary plat, and then this road is there on the western edge, just some context. So we're looking at a future minor arterial and then a future collector road. So, this is, this plat that we're dealing with tonight, And then kind of gives you some context there is that you look at the Spring Run Plaza development, so you can kind of see where Wagstaff Way is looking to connect there. There will be a gap for the time being as those 2 roads develop, um, but eventually those will come together and form that connection. Uh, as we're reviewing it, there were 2 points that we want to bring up. So the first one is our code doesn't allow on preliminary plats to have lots front arterial and collector streets. Uh, in this case, I think staff's comfortable with allowing that, seeing as unless— like, we, we talked to the developer— unless they can find a way to do it, it's kind of tricky to do with a school and have them still function the way they need to. Uh, right now, the school's been proposing 2, um, ingress-egress points out of their property, and they're as far away from the intersection as possible. So we were— we think with the other 2 lots, We're looking at maybe 1 or 2 or 3 additional points out onto those collector roads. So I feel like if it's— it's not necessarily an important standard to hold to in this case. And then the second one would be that western collector road.

Speaker C: Go back.

Speaker O: So this one right here, right now the developer is proposing it be named Gateway Park Boulevard. This will eventually connect up to Wild Blossom Boulevard in Saratoga Springs. With our recent code change that was approved, and just looking at it, I think staff feels that that name of Wild Blossom should probably continue just for coherency. Yes, it does, it will split the boundary between Saratoga Springs and Eagle Mountain, but I think it'll just create coherency on that road and make it easier to traverse and to find addresses and—

Speaker G: Thank you.

Speaker O: the cohesion between those 2. So those are the 2, um, conditions— that, that be renamed, and then if we're okay with not letting them have those access points onto the roads.

Speaker M: I asked for this to be removed from the consent agenda because I want to talk about the name of the road. I get that for our code we've made it a priority for us to have roads contiguous have the same name. However, I think where I draw the line with that is where it runs into another city. Um, we have Woodhaven that is going to eventually connect to something over in Saratoga Springs, and we have Silver Lake Parkway that's going down to eventually connect with the new high school. And I don't see on any planet us Entertaining changing the name once it gets to a certain point, and Wild Blossom is a very design-specific name for the housing development that's there. And we have other streets in that general vicinity: Ranches Parkway, we have Spring Run, and I just think that. The project in this area will be better served with sticking to the overall name of Gateway Park Boulevard.

Speaker B: One, I just had a question. I know I don't have a lot of say on this, but the driveway situation, I know staff said they didn't mind or that maybe it fit. I just wanted to raise the question what we've done in the past, and specifically residential. This— I don't remember the parking lot, but can you go back to the— well, actually, speaking of Woodhaven, there are 3 homes that are on basically on Woodhaven, and we've cut that, uh, you know, there's that big C-shaped half moon so that if someone was backing out of their driveway, they could get forward and go out. Is it, uh— I don't have my stuff, but with the plat, is there room to make some kind of a cutout like that, would that address a concern?

Speaker C: I think you just have to ask the developer that question, Mayor, because it really is dependent upon the internal, the internal construction.

Speaker B: Well, and I think my, my point was with council, if we're not okay, would that be a solution? I just wanted to point that out, and, and I'm happy to let you address that if there is a concern. I don't know there is. I just wanted to bring that because it was addressed.

Speaker K: Go ahead.

Speaker L: Okay, is this not work— oh hey, it's working now. It wasn't working a week ago. Um, Scott Hazard, I'm, I'm the developer, one of the applicants. Uh, to answer your question, Mayor, these are not 6, 8, 10,000 square foot lots. This is a 6-acre parcel. Um, the intention you heard earlier is for a charter school site, so they'll have circulated egress that comes One off of Wagstaff Way and then one off of Gateway Park Boulevard, if you so see it that way. There really is no way to load this internally. If you recall the collaboration for Wagstaff Way and for Gateway Park Boulevard, these collectors and arterials that run through our 600-acre master plan that we'll be bringing to you shortly, we're advancing this.

Speaker K: Thank you.

Speaker L: us accelerate it more quickly to meet the timeline of the charter school. Um, but this— all of those, uh, larger roadways were, were programmed and designed in collaboration with, uh, David Salazar and with the, with city staff. They did not exist when we put in the original, uh, Gateway Park improvements with the storage garages, the flex space, the Enbridge facility, etc. So there was no contemplation to try to work an internal road to try to create like a little horseshoe or half moon is just a waste of property, I think, on a 6-acre lot. The other lots are not 6 acres, but they're also significant in size. And the south side of Wagstaff Way, so between Wagstaff Way and State Road 73, is a tapering traffic route according to our modeling because it connects to a right-in, right-out. Most of the traffic will, in the modeling, will either go to Spring Run Parkway, the signalized full-service intersection when UDOT expands that facility, or it'll go eastbound to Mount Airy Drive where there's another signalized intersection.

Speaker C: Scott, that was one of the questions that I had. Mayor, may I just jump in here? And it's really, so until UDOT does the expansion, what is the plan for the connectivity to Whatever the name of this road is going to be. Yeah, this kind of the S-shape that you have right now for the right-in, right-out, is that going to— are you guys— is that going to be developed?

Speaker L: So that's what we'll connect to. That S-curve has been paved from— I mean, it's been paved for a really long time. So that was permitted when we sold the corridor preservation parcel to UDOT. We sold them about 8 acres along our frontage. We wanted to maintain the access. We put the permit in. Typically, the permit requires a road like that to be on a property line, but in this case it didn't because of the topography. We had to create— UDOT required us to create a safe egress road, which required us to kind of run that up parallel grade and snake it up the hill. So that's why it's snaky, is because it's going up that hill. The property line's smack in the middle of it, if you can see that yellow line.

Speaker C: So when UDOT's facilities in there, what does that look like? Is it a right-in, right-out right at the base of where the mayor's cursor's at?

Speaker L: It'll tie to a frontage road. So when UDOT expands— so for now it goes to the right-in, right-out on the existing facility. Right now the program— the programming for the expansion design is when it's completed, it'll tie to the frontage road, and then the freeway or arterial traffic will go in the middle, similar to what you see at 2100 North. I think it's a similar road profile.

Speaker C: Thank you.

Speaker B: I think what I was gonna say, my point when I was talking about the C or the half-moon entrances onto the lot, was there residential lots and they're backing out? There won't be anybody backing out onto the collector.

Speaker L: No, all of this is charter school, and then there's these other 2 lots here that are intended to mirror a use that's similar to what we did here, some flex space or something along those lines.

Speaker B: So showing these entrances, they're gonna be pulling out into the road just like any other?

Speaker L: Correct. And you'll see that on the site plan for the charter school when it comes before you to determine whether or not the way they're proposing that access and circulation makes sense to you. But from what I've seen, they're looking to access one here on Wagstaff Way and then circulate out here onto Gateway Park Boulevard. If I could just say one thing about Gateway Park Boulevard, obviously we're not excited to brand a major master planned community in another city, which is why we're proposing the name change. And because we're a significant grouping or massing of land, we've got about 600 acres there eventually, we wanted it to be destination-oriented.

Speaker G: We're—

Speaker L: when you're on Ranches Parkway, you're in the ranches and you know that. So, but Wild Blossom is primarily an east-west road. It only curves to the south at the very last little bit to connect into our north property line. So the vast majority of that right-of-way going north-south would be a whole different coordinate set. So I think that should be taken into consideration in addition to we're crossing a boundary with another city.

Speaker B: And I just wanted to add one more thing as you talk master plan for the council to consider. If the entrances are, say, here and here that we just talked about, without a master plan, is there any kind of an assurance that we could have that The future development of something over here is not going to have an entrance, you know, they're going to line up is what I'm getting at. They're not going to be offset intersections so that if you have an entrance, you know, here, that you'd also have one here to a business on this side.

Speaker L: Yeah, so this, this is programmed as a commercial lot. Um, so, Mayor, I get the, I get the point, and I think we can work to make sure that that's safe. I'm sure whatever we bring for development on this, we would collaborate with staff and try to have some intelligent safe design there. This parcel is becoming more and more constrained due to the RCA approval that at best is creating an 18-foot cut where it hits my southern property line, which really affects the ability— like, I can't load from this lot on that whole side, and I can't for hundreds and hundreds of feet to the north because I just—

Speaker K: it's a tunnel.

Speaker L: So I'm going to have to load somewhat from Wagstaff Way or from this side to be able to even make that property work.

Speaker B: I just want to make sure there's some kind of contemplation of lining that up.

Speaker I: This—

Speaker B: what if you're going to load off this side, that there's a— they're across from each other?

Speaker L: Yeah, I think we could work to make sure that that makes sense moving forward. Just know that it'll most likely have to load from that side because we have new constraints that we didn't anticipate on the west.

Speaker F: I'm ready to make a motion. I think we should call it IU Boulevard instead, but I'll make this motion.

Speaker C: Craig, before you do that, can I just ask a question?

Speaker N: Oh, yeah, go ahead.

Speaker C: How does the council feel about the name?

Speaker F: I think Gateway Park Boulevard. I like it. It comes to me, it comes down to branding, and we're a different city, so I'm okay having it be—

Speaker C: Okay, that's what I wanted to hear.

Speaker F: Okay, so I move that City Council approve the Gateway Park Plat 3 preliminary plat with condition number 1, omitting condition number 2.

Speaker M: Second.

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

Speaker M: Yes.

Speaker B: Councilmember Wright?

Speaker C: Yes.

Speaker B: Councilmember Whiting?

Speaker F: Yes.

Speaker B: Councilmember Hewish?

Speaker H: Yes.

Speaker B: Okay, that motion passes. Thank you. Appreciate your time. And we'll move to item 14— nope, 15A. And that's an ordinance of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, amending the Eagle Mountain Municipal Code to repeal and replace Section 1760130, regarding retaining walls and construction standards. Um, we'll invite Vince. There you are.

Speaker Q: You probably see me here a little better, I think. Mayor and Council, it's good to be with you. We'll get this pulled up here and we can get started.

Speaker K: Okay.

Speaker Q: I'll warn you, this is a lot of engineering and technical stuff that we're going to talk about. Hopefully you have your engineering hats on. As I've been here for the last couple years, this is one of the codes that has come up kind of over and over again, not just from an engineering standpoint, but from planning and from our building inspectors. And it became pretty obvious that there were some weaknesses in the previous code that we wanted to address. And so, This is a conglomeration of engineering and planning and the building inspectors all meeting together and kind of coming up with what we think is best. So why we're updating the standard. The old standard, if you remember, it had specific types of materials called out and And it was kind of based on those specific types of walls or types of materials of walls. We wanted to go away from that a little bit and base it more on an engineering basis. There was nothing in the old code about surcharge loading on top of these walls. And we'll talk a little bit more about what surcharge load is in just a minute. But we wanted to address that. Height limits, a set 6-foot for absolutely everything. A lot of requests for variances to this, and so we tried to address that one too. And then in the old code, there was no formal inspection program required. And so once it got through the city review process, they would go out and build it, and it wasn't always built according to what we had specced out. So to kind of simplify things, we said, let's just divide this into 2 main categories, prescriptive gravity walls and engineering retaining walls. The gravity walls are just 4-foot walls maximum. Someone wants to go in their backyard and build a kind of a rock wall in their backyard, as long as it's 4-foot tall and no surcharge on the top, that's perfectly fine. No permit required. The city would still look at it, obviously, but no building permit required for that. And the one thing we would look at is surcharging. You know, are we parking cars on top of this? Is it being built up for a parking pad or an RV pad? Is a building or a shed or something going to be on top of it? Those are the kind of things that you would see in a surcharge situation. And then the other thing you'd look at for surcharges is the Is there a slope on top of the wall that comes up to the top of the wall, and is it flat or is it actually sloped? Because if it's sloped, then there's actually more loading on that because of the slope. So those are the things we looked at, and this is kind of the way we defined our two walls. So this was the main complaint from the the building inspectors: is it wasn't clear when actual building. Permit was needed and when it was not. And so we tried to clarify this in saying, you know, the gravity walls, 4-foot, no surcharge, then no building permit. If it's above 4-foot or if it has any kind of surcharge, no matter what the height, it would definitely need a building permit to go forward with that. So we tried to fix that little issue in the code. Height standards. Like I mentioned before, 6 foot was, was really the max for any type of wall height. What we have proposed in this is that in residential properties, keep that same 6 foot height. I think that's reasonable for most residential properties. And then in the commercial industrial areas where they have bigger buildings and bigger parking lots that need more flat area, move that up to 10 foot to allow them to flatten things out and to use their property. And then obviously that 10 foot is clearly in the building permit range, and it's also in the range where we would look at it really close on an engineering standpoint.

Speaker U: Multiple tiers.

Speaker Q: of retaining walls. This was in the previous code, but the tier length between the walls was 1.5 times the height. We propose to change that, and this came from the building inspector's request that that is changed to 2 to 1. So if you have a 6-foot wall, it's 12 foot before you can actually put another retaining wall. And that actually corresponds with the International Building Code, and so we're actually just kind of mirroring What the International Building Code, or IBC, says on that one. And then, if for some reason it has to be less than that, if there's constraints in the property, then it has to be built and designed as a single wall system. And in engineering terms, it basically means they have to do the geotech for both walls, looking at them both not independently as different walls, but as one wall system. So, as part of that, and actually this applies not just to the tiers, but to everything, we better defined exactly what was submitted to the engineering department and to planning as far as engineering requirements. In the old code, it basically had to be stamped by a professional engineer, and we kind of relied on that stamp. Now we're actually going to be reviewing a lot more information— lateral pressure, seismic loading, the drainage, bearing capacity, those kind of things— so that we're looking specifically at each wall, because each wall is, is going to be a little bit different. And so we want to look at the calculations behind where they got to and just make sure that we agree with those things before we're approving those on an engineering basis.

Speaker C: Thank you.

Speaker Q: And then I mentioned this one, inspection requirements. The previous code didn't have any inspection requirements, and this defines— there's a list of multiple inspections in there. We don't necessarily have to do every single inspection that's listed in there, but it says we can, and it really allows our building inspectors to be able to go out and check they need to check and, and look at the things that they want to look at as these things are getting built. Um, the one exception to that is the mechanically stabilized earth walls. Those walls, um, they're the walls that you see UDOT put up when they're building a roadway way, way up above, and, and they're 20, 30-foot tall walls, and it's— it looks like concrete panel paneling is what it looks like. But those panels are anchored back into the soil, and so the soil behind it is really what, what is holding that wall up. And that's— it's very critical to get proper materials, proper compaction, and those kind of things. And so that's why we said on those walls, we, we want to— we will require inspections on those, and we want to see the tests on the compaction and those kind of things, just so we're We're making sure those are being built in a safe manner. And then property line and easement standards. The old standard was the wall, the face of the wall had to be 3 feet from a property line. And we're actually saying, yeah, we kind of agree with that because it clearly defines on whose property that wall is. And if there's an issue with it, it's clearly defined who needs to deal with it or address it. Where if it's right on the property line, I think that's where this code originated from. If it's right on the property line and there's an issue with it, then you have the 2 neighbors arguing over whose wall it is and who built it and those kind of things. And so I think to avoid that, that's where this code originated from. And we propose that we keep that language in here. Now, we did add some language. If you have a retaining wall, like on the back of a property that's going on multiple lots, there's no reason to do a small retaining wall and then stop, and then have another retaining wall in the next lot and stop, and have another. We can have a continuous retaining wall across all of those. But in that case, it's typically built by the developer, and he's building it as one cohesive. coherent or one cohesive system. And so we would be looking at that as the developer comes in and comes in for approval and those kind of things. But we said that that is allowable to go across property lines in a perpendicular manner.

Speaker M: Vince?

Speaker Q: Yes.

Speaker M: With that, it talks about how if all owners agree At that point when it's being approved and whatnot by the city to a developer, really probably only has one owner at that point. Are we looking to get some future owner information, or is there going to be some sort of disclosure in like the real estate documents? Like, or is it just better than it used to be?

Speaker Q: Right, right. We didn't define that in this because we were mostly just looking at the technical side. But yeah, I think what we were thinking is if you come in after the fact, 2 neighbors want to put in one retaining wall and they're separate owners. If it comes in as a developer, I think it's the same owner and they can still put it in how they want.

Speaker M: Okay, thank you.

Speaker B: Yep.

Speaker Q: The other change that we had was the The PUE that is on the back side of most lots, or even on the side of most of our lots in the city, that public utility easement has some restrictions. And in the old code, it said we couldn't have any kind of retaining wall on the PUE, which was actually a conflict with the 3-foot rule because most of our PUEs are either 5-foot or 10-foot offset from that property line. So with that one, we basically modified it to be similar to if someone comes in and wants to put a sign in our PUE, they have to come to us for an exception. It has to be looked at and approved, but we would allow retaining walls in that PUE now with the new code. So yeah, that's really a summary of all the changes we made to the code. Open it up for any questions you guys have.

Speaker C: I don't really have a question, maybe just a comment, Vince. I mean, great job, number one. Thank you for taking an engineer's look at this. I think it's actually really well done. My only concern is with 5B, and I just I, I, I don't think we should leave multifamily properties in the, in the approved for a 10-foot wall height because I think that just encourages hillside development, which I want to stay away from anyway. So that would be my only comment, that, and that's something I'd ask the council to do is consider removing the word multifamily from 5B. Obviously we have a public hearing and, and, and other things, so I don't really have any other questions. That, that's my only comment.

Speaker F: Just my, my question being, So the 3-foot wall face, does it really have to be 3 feet to make sure people know whose wall it is? Can we make it a little sooner, closer?

Speaker B: That's what he changed.

Speaker F: No, I think he said that's what it was.

Speaker Q: Yeah, it's still 3 feet from the property line.

Speaker C: Yeah, but the footing is 1 foot.

Speaker Q: It's 1 foot for the footing.

Speaker C: So you're 1 foot from the footing from the property line, and then you're the center of the wall. So if you have a 2-foot, I guess it's a little further away than that. It just depends how big the footing is.

Speaker U: Right, right.

Speaker Q: And it doesn't necessarily have to be three foot, but it would have a footing on the wall.

Speaker C: So if you're on the lower side of that, even though the face of the wall is three foot, or maybe it would be close, take care of it. If if it's built right on the property line, now you're in your neighbor's yard taking care of it if you need to. So for me, that makes complete sense.

Speaker B: The other question I had was. Maybe I missed it, but I think it's 6B. When you're talking— or is it C? 6A or C? When you're talking about tiered walls, so the base wall and then the second wall that's tiered back.

Speaker Q: Yep.

Speaker B: There's no definition, at least I couldn't— you have the length, but is there that gap that you're asking for? It doesn't say how much. Twice the width. 12 feet? I mean, you can have— if you have So if you go 4 feet and you go back 2 feet and go another 4?

Speaker Q: Right, then it's considered a single wall. Yep. So yeah.

Speaker B: So then my question is, even on the industrial at 10 feet, I used to build a lot of these, and whether it's block or whatever, at some point on anything over 6 feet, they'd have to have a mesh or an engineered Yeah, kind of an anchor system. Anchor.

Speaker S: Yeah, I'm sorry.

Speaker B: That would also get buried behind that wall to keep the middle of the wall from bulging out.

Speaker L: Sure.

Speaker B: So is that also— if we're going to go to 10 feet, I'm just curious if that's something that we need to, especially if it's load-bearing.

Speaker Q: Yeah, that is something we would look at in our engineering review. We didn't spell that out specifically in the code, but in the It requires a permit. Yeah, it requires a permit, and it requires submittals of all the calculations. And so as part of those calculation checks, we would look at that. Does it need to be anchored to have stability?

Speaker B: Do you think that the code would protect us a little bit knowing that anything over 6 feet is going to most likely require that, that we should at least say something like that?

Speaker Q: Right. I think with our engineering check, we could check and verify those things as they come in. We could add it to the code explicitly if you want, but I think it's—

Speaker B: Is there any— is there ever a time when you're going over 6 feet and we're talking about 10 feet that you wouldn't require it?

Speaker Q: Yes, it would depend on the type of the wall that they're building. Like a thick concrete wall with a big footing on it wouldn't necessarily have to have anchors on it. So yeah, it's a solid wall. If it's a solid wall. Correct, correct. Solid wall.

Speaker C: Yep.

Speaker B: If you feel comfortable. Okay, so is there any other questions for Vince? We do have a public hearing, so nothing there. All right, thank you. Um, with that, it is 7:58 and this is a public hearing, so I will open the public hearing and ask Lacey if anyone— nobody turned in anything. Is there anyone here that would like to speak on this item that did not get the opportunity? Seeing no one, at 7:58, we will close the public hearing and bring it back to the council for further discussion.

Speaker C: I'll make a motion unless there's concerns. Anybody have anything they want to add before we do that? Melissa?

Speaker M: I just— I want to say this. I'm really grateful that we're doing this. I think that engineering and staff did a really great job in preparing this code. But some of them are contingent on whoever is working in the department at the time and what inspections and things that they're going to require. I want us to always make sure that the culture of our city is that we require the inspections and the engineering plans and all of those things because there are places in our city where this hasn't been done, and I want to make sure that that doesn't change. as we have different staff members over the years. So I think I'm calling on our Building and Engineering and Community Development Department to just really make sure that we make these inspections and permits our goal and our culture in our city. Thank you.

Speaker C: Entertain a motion, Mayor. I move that the Eagle Mountain City Council approve an ordinance amending the municipal code to repeal and replace Section 17.60.130 regarding retaining wall construction standards with the change of removing the multifamily, the word multifamily from item 5B.

Speaker F: Second.

Speaker B: Okay, we have a motion and a second. The motion by Councilmember Wright and a second by Councilmember Whiting. Do we— sorry, go ahead.

Speaker M: Do we need to have Can we have them move or in front of institutional, or is that inherent for staff to be able to make that change?

Speaker C: I'll amend my motion to include the word or.

Speaker M: Thank you.

Speaker F: Second.

Speaker B: Okay, is there any other questions on the motion? The, uh, motion stands with Councilmember Wright and a second by Councilmember Whiting, and we'll start the vote with Councilmember Wright.

Speaker C: Yes.

Speaker B: Councilmember Whiting.

Speaker F: Yes.

Speaker B: Councilmember Huish?

Speaker O: Yes.

Speaker B: And Councilmember Clark?

Speaker M: Yes.

Speaker B: Okay, that item passes, and we will move to item 5B.

Speaker I: This is a—

Speaker B: or sorry, 15B, you're right. An ordinance of Eagle Mountain City rezoning certain lands known as the Pinnacles, approving the Pinnacles Master Development Plan and Master Development Agreement Amendment. And I believe Robert is ready. Good evening, Mayor and Council.

Speaker H: At the heart of this particular matter is simply a request to rezone 3 parcels, properties of land, aggregated about 14 acres— sorry for the typo in the report— from their commercial neighborhood setting or zoning to agriculture. This is based on a request, of course, by an applicant representing that they have an interest in temporarily making this happen to effectively save money on their tax bill, understandably so. The zoning assigned to the project which you see on the screen before you as far as location. That's the Pinnacles, which is over north of Aviator and west of Pony Express. Was something that was inculcated into a development agreement memorialized back in the fall of 2022. At that time, the Pinnacles set aside the properties that you see on your screen for, again, commercial neighborhood, with the balance of the project into some form of residential a different kind of commercial up at the top, if you will, and then off to the west or to the left of the image, area for townhouses, which has been already reviewed and approved. As part of this action, if council's favorable with the idea, by association you have also the requirement, of course, to amend your future land use map so that it harmonizes with the new zoning. And then because this was made part— this whole affair was made part of a development agreement set with the master development plan, those 2 items also need to be amended. But mainly it's housekeeping. It's just simply saying we're okay with this new zoning here, this ag zoning, and therefore we're going to amend the master development plan and agreement, especially paragraph 3.2, and then our future land use map to all fall in line with that decision. Any questions?

Speaker F: So is the motivation for this is to save money on property tax?

Speaker H: Yes, and there was some discussion at the Planning Commission, who by the way advanced a favorable recommendation on this request, as to whether that was going to happen with the zoning of the property being changed. And their understanding that everyone walked away with was basically, yes, we think that will happen. And the applicant explained the why for and how for of that. So assuming they're here tonight, And they can also go into detail on that matter if you'd like them to. And we haven't had any contact from outside parties or communications, whether by phone or email or visitation, that have discussed this matter with us other than just the applicant.

Speaker B: That's it. No questions for staff? Just making sure there is public hearing, so I can go to that if you're okay. We'll go ahead and hold the public hearing. It is 8:04, and we'll open the public hearing and ask Lacey if she's seen anybody come forward. No one. Okay. Is there anyone here who wants to speak on this item? Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing at 8:04 and bring it back to the council. I do know the applicant. The applicant is here, and is there any questions for the applicant?

Speaker K: Anything?

Speaker B: Any discussion? Anything?

Speaker C: I'll share some thoughts. I mean, let me just share some thoughts. I'm opposed to this, to granting this, and certainly not with any desire or willingness to be punitive towards an applicant that wants to reduce their taxes. So let me state that publicly for you, Andy, so that you hear that. That's not the reason that I'm opposed to this. This was part of an MDP, it was part of an MDA, it was part of a negotiation to develop this entire area, which included giving some multifamily densities in this area. And the tradeoff, at least in my mind, was that we were going to ensure that there's some commercial development that comes in there along Aviator. I think by choosing to move this back to Ag, what we do in a sense is we reset the table and we say, come back and petition a future council to do whatever you'd like. You can still do that with the neighborhood commercial resident designation, zoning designation. It's just it requires the council to then understand the context of where it's been and why. So at least for So for me, that's where I'm feeling some hesitancy to want to do this because of that.

Speaker E: So—

Speaker B: Sorry, I was just— Marcus, I just can't remember on— as far as greenbelt exemptions, you can get greenbelt in any zone, right? So even commercial zone could get a greenbelt or an ag exemption as long as there's an agricultural use, right? So plant a cherry tree, harvest Sell a cherry.

Speaker P: It's been a minute since I've looked at that code. I think it has to be ag-zoned or something similar to that. So I don't think you can greenbelt.

Speaker R: I know.

Speaker P: But I'm not 100% certain on that without researching.

Speaker B: Residential qualifies for greenbelt, right?

Speaker P: So I'd have to look at that. I don't know if this is 5 acres or more.

Speaker B: I don't know how— Right. If it's 5 acres or more, which I don't remember the property. Yeah, it's plenty over 5.

Speaker P: Plenty over 5, okay. Yeah, so I'd have to look at that. I'm not certain.

Speaker B: Just a thought that there could be some tax savings if there was an avenue to go. Go ahead, Greg.

Speaker F: I think going back to Council Member Wright's point, I think that this was part of a larger negotiation with some give and take, and one of those, and it landed upon this particular grouping of approvals. And so it's sort of, it was taken as a whole when it was approved.

Speaker M: I will say that when it came previously, it was way more dense, like the property to the east, and the council at the time was the one that was pushing to have additional commercial right there. So like, I feel like that was an ask of people from our city. As opposed to the developer per se. So I'm— I get why they would like to reset that piece for tax purposes and really determine viability down the road so that when it does come back, a future council can look at what the best use of it is. I do understand the hesitancy because what it does is it puts the responsibility on a future council. To do their homework and really understand what's going on with that piece. But I would hope that our staff reports have come such a long way from what they used to be that they could provide that context in the staff report and even older documents to show what it once was.

Speaker R: But am I allowed to make a comment here?

Speaker B: Yeah, I'll let you speak. Zap can address the concern.

Speaker R: All right, thank you. This is— my name is Andy Flamm. I represent represent the property owners. I just wanted to say, when this first was negotiated, or I guess that's the right word, negotiated and contemplated with the city, it happened over several years. And one of the concerns was 800 North in Orem. There's a lot of traffic on 800 North, and there's a lot of old homes that are having to get purchased and redeveloped. And forward thinking, This was determined in meetings with the Planning Commission and staff and others that we wanted to preserve some commercial corridor right here in anticipation of a future freeway. I don't know when that will be, but it was a good idea and I supported it and I thought it was a great compromise. I still do. The development agreement— this was actually approved in the fall of '21. So the development agreement actually expires next year, if I remember right. But so we would have to come back if we rezoned this property to anything else in the future, and that development agreement probably wouldn't even apply at that time anyway. But the reason why I'm here trying to rezone it back to ag, which is something you probably rarely see, is when we put in—

Speaker S: Never.

Speaker R: Never. When the roads were put in, when we had to detain— retain water on our site for Aviator, we lost our greenbelt status and we're getting killed. And to get it back in, we're told that we need to get it in ag, and we're working with some leases to get it back in because right now we've had this thing on the market for a year and a half. We've talked to a lot of people. There's no demand for commercial on a dead-end road at this time. Now, there will be, and we believe in that vision of having this be commercial in the future. But until then, we're just getting killed on taxes. And I know that's been a hot topic, but when you actually look at taxes in general, property taxes, but when you look at what actually goes to the city from this site, and most of it's going to the county or the school district or whatnot. Our application fee tonight to even just do this rezone probably put the city ahead already. So again, we were trying to be— or we were, I felt like, a good partner when we brought this project forward. There was a lot of discussion and what the city wants, and we were Again, we're not asking to change to high-density residential, which I've been in so many meetings in here where an applicant comes back and says, we tried for a year. Well, this is 6 years in and there's still no demand for commercial. And so anyway, that's the ask. I just wanted to give a little bit more context to it just because I know there's some new faces from when this originally came forward. But any other questions for me? from the council or the mayor?

Speaker B: Go ahead.

Speaker P: Yeah, sorry, I looked at the Act and I mean, so technically you could get greenbelt status in a commercial zone, but it's not a permitted use. So, and it sounds like if they lost greenbelt status, it's because they're not engaging in Act uses, which means there's no nonconforming use. So they couldn't get greenbelt status in a commercial zone because it would be a nonconforming use.

Speaker B: Unless we made some kind of exception or—

Speaker P: Well, no, I mean, they're asking to rezone it. So then they obviously— ag would be a permitted use. They could get their greenbelt status back.

Speaker R: We've got the rest of the property fenced and we've got leases. And this— it was a dry farm historically, but when they came in and they had a grade to put in the retention ponds on the 3 different parcels, County just happened to come out right when that was all graded, and so anyway, we didn't have the new crop out, and we lost that status.

Speaker B: So anyway, another question that I wonder if we'd consider is the future land use map would, with an expired MDA, as long as it was on the future land use map as neighborhood commercial, would that guide a council to that? And then could you write a one-page Agreement would extend it at least six years on this piece. It says that it's intended to be, you know, because it's going to expire anyway.

Speaker C: I mean, all that's a possibility.

Speaker R: Totally supportive of keeping the the land use map with commercial. We're not intending to change that. That's that's not what this is about.

Speaker C: No, and you know, and my my concern again, I'll just restate it. This is a perfect place for someone to come back in if it's rezoned. Zone to ag and ask to build multifamily housing in this area. And for me, it's just— that's a nonstarter. It's intended to be commercial. I understand that perhaps the viability of that is not today. But we had this conversation, at least I wasn't here at the time, so it predates me. 2021, I wasn't here.

Speaker R: I think you were at Planning Commission maybe at the time.

Speaker C: I was on Planning Commission at that time. And so Look, I've stated my objection. The others may feel differently than that. That's where I'm going to land.

Speaker M: Um, Councilmember Wright, do you feel like the land use designation on the future land use map helps to kind of set the vision for this area? Because we have lots of areas that we as a city have returned to ag because we wanted that to be like the base level, and then they have to come and ask for something different. Do I—

Speaker C: and the reason for that, at least in my mind, is because we wanted to reset that so that it would come to something that we want rather than what it was. Okay. And for me, commercial makes sense here. It's just— and it already has that designation, and it's part of a larger agreement. I think that's the— for me, at least, the hurdle that I'm not able to get over.

Speaker M: What about the expiration of the larger agreement? Because that is something that went into place when you were on Planning, and I was—

Speaker C: the MDA will expire in 6 years, right? We want those things to reset, and it's really a question of what does this council want? Does this council want to see this maintained as a, as a commercial area, or do we want to reset it to, to ag? I've stated my objection to it. The rest of you can do what you want.

Speaker M: Okay, thank you.

Speaker F: So even if, even if the future land use map shows commercial, you still feel like that there's That they're—

Speaker C: There's nothing on the future land use map that dictates that it's going to happen. The zoning requires this to be commercial now. That's the difference in my mind. It's no different than what we dealt with on the north end of the city where we have these mixed uses and it says, we'll try to pursue commercial uses in this area and it always ends up residential. For me, it's protecting some of those commercial uses in an area that I think we're going to want and need it. We had an applicant who came before us and wanted to build a 12-plex on that commercial lot where Freddy's is at now. So I think it's the same argument that I've seen time and time again. It's the same movie. I'll make a motion, Mayor, if you want, and, and then we'll find out where the rest of these guys are at. How does that sound?

Speaker K: Do it.

Speaker C: If you're willing to let me do that, let me get I got to open it up here.

Speaker E: OK.

Speaker O: I have it here.

Speaker C: I've got it. Mayor, I move that the Eagle Mountain City Council deny the reason— the item— what is it? 15B, rezoning certain lands known as Pinnacles and approving the Pinnacles Master Plan, Master Development Plan, and Master Development Agreement Amendment.

Speaker B: Second. Okay, we have a motion by Councilmember Wright and a second by Councilmember Whiting. And I think we were here. Councilmember Whiting?

Speaker F: Yes.

Speaker B: Councilmember Hewish?

Speaker G: Yes.

Speaker B: Councilmember Clark?

Speaker M: No.

Speaker B: Councilmember Wright?

Speaker C: Yes.

Speaker B: Okay, that passes 3-1. Uh, thank you. Let's see, that takes us to item 16A, uh, an ordinance of Eagle Mountain City enacting Chapter 3.50 of Eagle Mountain Municipal Code establishing property tax allocations. Actually, before I move on, I don't think this was a big deal, but I— when there's one vote, did you want to make any— do I need to stop or—

Speaker M: Oh, I think it really just comes down to the fact that I think that it is a good move to reset that land with the expectation that it's commercial because it's in our future land use map. And I remember the ask was something that the city asked the landowner of, so that's why I just felt like it, it made sense to approve it. But I respect everyone else's right to make their choices too.

Speaker O: Yep.

Speaker B: I just— before, I like everybody to have a chance to explain if they choose. So, uh, yeah, it's, uh, enacting Chapter 3.15 or 3.50 of the Eagle Mountain Municipal Code establishing property tax allocations. Um, I, uh, Evan's got some information, so.

Speaker S: Yes, uh, Mayor and Council, we'll run through this code just to kind of COVID what's, uh, changed since the last time we talked about it and, uh, answer any remaining questions. And I will say right off the bat that, uh, this is definitely not a perfect code. Uh, it's something that we haven't had before, as was mentioned, And it's the best shot we're giving it right now. But I expect there'll be some kinks in it that we'll probably have to work out later as we go through this process. So we'll work on this together over the next budget season and see how it goes and modify as needed. But we tried to cover everything we could with it. So as you recall, the instructions that we received from the council is to draft this code. That would essentially allocate the property taxes, all the property taxes that we receive to public safety into a public safety fund that would be restricted for those uses. And then it would establish certain coverage ratios that we'd then be monitoring from year to year to make sure that where we need to reduce property taxes 'cause we're collecting too much, we do that. Where we need to increase property taxes 'cause we don't have enough, we do that. But then throughout the course of the year, we're also keeping tab on the certain metrics and, you know, different analysis to make sure that we have a good handle on where our public safety needs are and that we are tracking this effectively and transparently for the public so that this is working as intended. So just to break it down a little bit for you, and I'll just run through this fairly quickly, the first couple of pages They go through the purpose and the general policy, and so you have just essentially breaking down that what we just said. This is, you know, for property tax to go into this public safety fund. But I want to call attention to a couple of things in here. First, there was, you know, commentary made last time just about how do we make sure that this this code isn't just something that we just have, and it's not. I don't want to use the word necessarily enforced, but we talk about accountability, trying to make sure that it's something that we are sticking to, that we're not just kind of loosely adhering to. And so I was trying to come up with some method that we could do that, some sort of pressure that it puts both on council and staff to make sure that we move forward with this vision, but it's also not too heavily impactful that we start kicking ourselves because of how we're doing this. And so what I came up with for now is that essentially we're creating an order of operations with things wherein we're forcing the conversation of the public safety side to come earlier or as early as possible in this, where obviously we know as a growing city, one of the most important things that we have to monitor is our own staffing levels citywide. And so we know there's going to be questions every year about how much staff that we can allocate for all sorts of city services. But when we're talking about property tax as kind of that key revenue source that's going to fund public safety, and with this coverage ratio, knowing that that coverage ratio may require more sales tax or less sales tax from year to year, we need to settle that core public service that we offer as a city, um, first and then talk about the other staffing stuff later. And when I say later, it's not that finance can't necessarily start gathering some of that information, start getting some of that feedback so that we can continue the process as quickly as it needs to go, but no decisions necessarily by the city council or their staff will happen with the other staff until the public safety fund and everything like that has been figured out. If that, hopefully that makes sense. I also wanted to just call out an attention, just there's obviously on page 2, there's some definitions. One of the ones that's another change that I didn't really notate specific on here is that there's a definition for qualified public safety costs. I added in there that some language that makes it clear that facilities falls under that as well. So we can make sure that we're— we do have a public safety impact fund already, impact fee fund, but if there's other revenues we could pull off property tax to help pay debt service and other things for public safety facilities, then that's worked in there as well. Um, on pages 3 and 4 talks about the creation of that public safety fund. I did eliminate a sentence that as I went, so there is specific state code that talks about the creation of funds for property tax dollars. And so there was a line that we had in there that I felt like ran contrary to what state code has in there. It doesn't make any meaningful change to the code itself that we have in here. So this is just more of a cleanup item. The rest of that, there's some stipulations about making sure that the funds can't just be transferred to and fro for whatever reasons. It needs to stay in the public safety fund for those public safety purposes. The coverage ratio evaluations added some language in there about making sure that we're collecting some level of service metrics, and those level of service metrics are gonna be what helps us determine what is that public safety funding requirement We're not just throwing out feel-good numbers of how many sheriff's deputies or whatnot that we need. It has to be supported by evidence. Pages 5 and 6 goes into additional guidance on the fund balance, how we handle when we have an increasing or decreasing fund balance, how do we handle other cost allocations, which is mostly relevant if the city chooses at some point to establish its own independent police department will wanna handle things like HR costs and IT costs and risk management and things like that that often fall in other departments but then have to get transferred to and from. And then there's the annual reporting side of things. And with the annual reporting, I did add a section in there about making sure that annual reporting or an annual summary makes it to the public. Earlier in the process so that it's not something where the public's only finding out about it at the tail end of the budgeting process. That just as much as you are also receiving that information about the public safety fund and the public safety needs in our city, the public is also learning about that through this, you know, similar metrics and things like that and receiving it in multiple formats. Besides that, I do want to pass some time to Kimberly. We talked about this a fair bit and just wanted to give her some time to kind of talk a little bit about her thoughts on just how to implement this. And then just some things that would help if you guys can work together on making sure that the process keeps moving smoothly as we go through this.

Speaker K: So.

Speaker U: So, Mayor and Council, a couple of items just to kind of keep in mind with this particular code. So one of the items is the special revenue fund that we're creating. It will be created from a budgetary purpose, so it it'll work similar to the way that we have our water and sewer impact fees. So the water and sewer Sewer impact fees we separate from a budgetary standpoint, but in the year-end financial statements those are actually just part of the water fund and the sewer fund because you can't have a special revenue fund for non-government activities. Okay, so this there's some accounting provisions where it's like state code we can do certain things, but when it comes to the financial statements for accounting, this won't meet the requirements for an like a separate special revenue fund. So that's all on our books and the things that we're doing. You'll see it as a separate fund. We'll budget it separately. But in the year-end financial statements, it will be grouped up as part of the general fund. So I just want to make sure that that part is clear. Then that when we talk about trying to ensure that decisions have been made kind of about the funding for public safety before we make decisions on other things. What those decisions that we're talking about from the council's perspective is how much revenue do we need to be able to generate from a property tax standpoint compared to other revenue resources in relation to funding public safety with the understanding that we won't actually receive a certified tax rate until June, which is way past when we have a tentative budget that has to come to the council. So when we're talking about making these decisions for the planning and moving things forward, it's not something that can wait until the certified tax rate is available. So in Utah, when we're talking about taxes, it really doesn't have anything to do with the rate. The rate is just what happens based on the revenue you decide that you need. Thank you. And that is how it's designed to work. So it will be looking at that and that we will have projections from that. And it doesn't prevent you when it gets to the end and you get your certified rate and the revenue you thought you were going to get would be looking at truth in taxation. It means that we want to get mentally at the perspective of is the council is considering truth in taxation every year. It doesn't mean you end up having to go through Truth in Taxation. Your decision is how much tax revenue do you need to fund this part of the service. So in terms of the order and the timeline of things, I want to make sure we have a chance to talk about that and what that looks like. Do you have any questions kind of about what I'm, you know, kind of trying to cover from that perspective?

Speaker G: So just so we're all on the same page, this is kind of what I hoped we would have had earlier in the year. Uh, I think our coverage ratio was 32% or 35% going into this whole conversation, and we started out, let's go 100% coverage, and now we've kind of dialed it back. I think we'll be at 52% with— for this year. So going into next year, as we're having conversations with Chief Knutson and staffing and going through those metrics, um, is it possible for us to kind of anticipate what that revenue might look like from a property tax perspective and match that up? Like, that, that, that's really the goal, is just that right out of the gate we're looking at the coverage ratio, we're looking at that number one. And Chief Knudson is going to, um, you know, seeing what we've just kind of went through as a city He's going to be probably pretty measured in, okay, this is the ask, and as a council, we're going to say this is safety, and residents now will know that every dollar they're paying in property tax goes into the safety fund. So I just want to make sure that we're logistically going to be able to do that, understanding that the certified tax rate won't really be established until later, later in the process, but we'll at least know going into that. If we need to increase a little bit to get another half a million dollars or decrease because the data center property tax has taken us way over what the need is for sheriffs, you know, and we might need to dial that back a little bit.

Speaker F: Right.

Speaker U: So it's tying these 2 policies together. The policy where you said what is the coverage ratio that you want to cover, and if you're trying to target a minimum of 75% to that, then that really is where you are coming up with this is what the existing contract is, and then we start considering asks or what those staffing needs are, and then being able to say to cover 75% of that, we are talking revenue at least at this number.

Speaker G: You agree that is all possible early in the budget process?

Speaker U: Absolutely. possible early in the budget.

Speaker C: Yeah.

Speaker U: What it can't be or has to happen is very early on in the budget you have to say regardless we don't care about the 75% policy, we don't want to consider tax, truth in taxation at all this year, right. So you're either using the policy to drive you, it's not, you're not deciding whether you're doing truth in taxation. You're deciding whether you're following your policy and the certified tax rate when it comes in The revenue you said you needed, it either falls within that line or it just means you now have these public hearings that you do.

Speaker C: Or, Kimberly, perhaps there's something that you know is coming online that isn't in the diagnostic or in the report so that you can look at that and say, okay, we are 3 months from this becoming a reality, right? I like this, Councilmember Herwish, because it creates an accountability for council members to be aware of that metrics. And I mean, I've been here a number of years and this is the first time I've ever really looked at it from that lens. And that's why I'm grateful to Councilmember Hewish for kind of pushing me in that direction to examine it. And I, I also, I'm going to say this, it's kind of a moving target. That's what you're saying is it's a moving target. And, and we might think it's X, But it really is going to be Y, and it can be up or it can be down, right? Usually it goes up, doesn't usually go down, or it's just flat. So, but I like that it compels us to evaluate that and to say, okay, we're still in a good range, or boy, we're way out of whack on our range. We need to talk about how do we, how do we fill the gap.

Speaker G: The other thing that it— I'm just thinking about incentive structures as a council. We're going to want more commercial. Because we know when we add more rooftops, we need more sheriffs, more cost. Truth in taxation, that's not fun. At least I didn't think it was very much fun.

Speaker B: Commercial actually brings more calls for service than residential, though.

Speaker G: Well, I guess depending on the commercial, right? Like the data centers probably aren't getting too many calls.

Speaker E: Correct.

Speaker B: So I have a clarifying question, and I know you and I have talked about this a few times, and sometimes we don't always say things the same way, so I'm going to make sure that staff and you are on the same page. Because you said things like, this is a public safety fund. I want to identify that. And then you said we only covered it at 32%. Knowing where we're headed, is this only for the sheriffs to evaluate, or is it all? Because we are way over 32% if it's for both. So I think it's unfair to say—

Speaker P: Yep.

Speaker G: Okay, okay.

Speaker B: So, so I want to make sure that now we're bringing in next Yes, so is this public safety fund?

Speaker U: You're not even necessarily bringing in that. We already have a public safety division that includes more than just the contract, right? We have dispatch fees that we pay. We have emergency management services. So yes, that's a clarification. Is this only the sheriffs?

Speaker C: We have school crossings.

Speaker U: Or is this public safety?

Speaker B: School crossing guards. We're talking police and fire. Like, are we trying to meet 75% of what? What? And 32% is not the correct number because we're paying more than that now out of property tax because it's 100% covered for the, for fire out of property tax currently.

Speaker G: Well, now you're bringing in fire, which will be—

Speaker B: is it part of this fund or not?

Speaker G: It would be, yeah. I mean, I don't know that it's drafted that way today, but next year we could amend the code to include fire. Right now it's just specifically the sheriff's contract. But next year—

Speaker K: It's both.

Speaker B: It's public safety. That's what I'm asking.

Speaker S: The code as it's written right now specifies police services. Even though it says public safety fund, it is written right now as police services, but with the idea in mind that it could be amended next year to then keep the title as public safety, but then change the the scope to include fire.

Speaker B: So why don't we just write it for both now? Is the intent not to be for both?

Speaker G: Well, because we just don't have fire today, but we could amend it.

Speaker B: It can still— even if we're paying 100% of fire and 50% of— that's still an 85% coverage out of property tax.

Speaker G: If it's legal to put that in the code, I'd be okay with that.

Speaker B: They're both contracts. What's the difference?

Speaker S: That's up to you.

Speaker B: That's why I was asking. I think— I mean, it's Yeah, I agree.

Speaker G: I think we were just focused more on the sheriff's contract, and then next year, once we actually have fire announced, then we amend the code to include—

Speaker B: Would you be okay to just do public safety?

Speaker G: Oh, I think absolutely.

Speaker B: There's no reason to bring this back.

Speaker S: Yeah, I think the only issue would just come to, you know, when we're talking about staffing and coverage and things like that, we obviously just can't talk about that really until we know what with UFA once we actually have that under a contract.

Speaker B: Property taxes are covering that. I think it's unfair to say that 100 plus 85, that's more than— I think that's more than what I— that's my opinion. That's an opinion. That's not—

Speaker G: Yeah, I think the weighted average of where we landed with the sheriff's contract, the 69% increase and 100 of UFSA, when you do the weighted average, it's like 77.

Speaker E: 86%.

Speaker B: Which is why I say it still falls within that.

Speaker K: It would, it would, yep.

Speaker B: So we don't need 85% of just the sheriffs, we need 85% of all public safety?

Speaker G: Correct.

Speaker B: Regardless of whether we're in-house or through UFSA?

Speaker G: Correct.

Speaker B: Is that, is that clear?

Speaker C: Can I— let me state this, Mayor, because I mean, I think we're going to have these discussions as we enter into that UFSA discussion. And so from my perspective, This gives us the tools to evaluate all public safety and to say, are we in that percentage? I think it should probably relate to the whole thing, Councilman Pewisch. It sounds like you agree. And if that's the case, I think that will help give us a guide too for next year to what do we do with that rate associated with UFSA. It'll, it'll give us a guideline to land where we really want to be.

Speaker G: My only question would be, what is the timing on UFSA? The UFA?

Speaker B: So the, the conversation, and it's been really, uh, with referendums and different things, it's been a, a little bit harder to nail that down. But we gave the notice to withdraw. The problem is, is the taxing, moving that tax over and timing of who collects the tax. So right now what we've decided is that we would leave or exit UfSA July 1st, 2028. Sorry, July— January 1st, 2028. Then next year, so 2027 budget year, just like this year, one year from what we just did, we would do the Truth in Taxation process to— Establish the rate. Establish the rate so that if for some reason we have issues, then we couldn't get out because of the that people want UFSA to keep charging too much, because that's still possible. And otherwise, we'll be able to pull it in and people will see the wisdom in that. If it passes, then we can exit. If we exit too early, then nobody's taxing at all.

Speaker C: And we still want fire coverage, right?

Speaker B: Yeah, we still want to. So, and I'm gonna— I think that was the layman's term of saying the timing of how that works. And if Marcus wants to clarify, you're welcome to. Was that a fair enough assessment?

Speaker P: Yeah, I mean, that is my understanding is that they want it to be on January 1st of whatever year we pull out. So yeah, if we aren't able to raise our taxes to cover, that would be problematic for funding it. So it does make sense to leave, to stay in UFSA until we've pulled that, done that switch.

Speaker C: But let's be clear when we say if we're unable to raise our taxes, If we raise those taxes, UFSA is going to lower their tax.

Speaker P: I want our residents to hear that.

Speaker C: There's going to be a trade-off there.

Speaker P: The net change would be essentially zero in the first year and go down over time.

Speaker B: Or go down even the first year because of the difference in taxable value, but we have to get through that. So then the second option that I've already worked on with the state, and I know Evan and I have talked about it, it's been a while, is creating legislation that when you have a special service district, that we don't have to do the entire Truth in Taxation process, because it is just changing where that tax and how it's getting paid for. It's not an increase.

Speaker C: Right.

Speaker B: But I think that right now that we need to work on that, because it's an increase for one and a decrease on the other. I don't think that's an increase overall. So that's something that we will, as they work on that 5% rule, I've already talked to the bill sponsor from last year that They've got to have a carve-out for special service districts, or how do you ever leave? You'd be trapped forever and they could go wild. So that's, that's, uh, why that timing. I want to do it sooner, but because the public's done what the public's done, then it's going to cost us another year of paying way too much to UFA—

Speaker G: UFSA.

Speaker B: We love UFA, whoever.

Speaker G: So is it, is it easier— maybe I'll just ask Evan and And Marcus's question, is it easier to pass it as is stated right now? Just considering the Sheriff's Office, would it make more sense for us to— I mean, I can make a motion and amend it to include fire as well. I don't know how difficult that would be to add that in.

Speaker P: I think if we were to pass it today, I would prefer to leave it as is. And if we were to change it to include fire, I would table it and bring it back. I don't think it's any easier or harder either way, to be honest, because either way we have to make changes and bring it back, whether it's in 2 weeks or whether it's in a year.

Speaker S: If I can make just one quick correction too. If you choose, and I don't know which way you're going on this, If you choose to, you know, move forward on the ordinance as is tonight, just after talking with Kimberly, and I've caught this myself too, is there's one word that we'd need to change in the motion. So under 3.50.110, it's at the very end of this code, B was added. It says the annual summary must be shared with the public in a public meeting prior to the adoption of the annual tenant It shouldn't say adoption, it should say acceptance of the annual tentative budget. So just want to make sure that is clear so that we don't get our words mixed up as far as what that's supposed to be.

Speaker G: Which, which section was that? That was 3.50.

Speaker S: It's the very last section, 3.50.

Speaker B: What was the word change?

Speaker S: From adoption to acceptance.

Speaker B: OK, adoption.

Speaker S: Because when the City Council receives the tentative budget, You're not adopting it, and in a budget you're accepting it.

Speaker B: From adoption to accept.

Speaker P: Okay.

Speaker B: Adoption to accept.

Speaker A: All right.

Speaker G: I'll go ahead and make a motion then. Yeah.

Speaker M: Mayor.

Speaker B: There was no public hearing, so if there's no other discussion, I'm yeah.

Speaker G: Okay.

Speaker Q: All right, Mayor.

Speaker G: I'll make a motion that the City of Eagle Mountain adopt an ordinance of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, enacting Chapter. 3.50 of the Eagle Mountain Municipal Code establishing property tax allocations with the change, the change of the word adoption to acceptance in Section 3.50.110.

Speaker F: Second.

Speaker B: Okay, just clarification, he moved to adopt the resolution or is it approve? Does that matter? We okay with adopt?

Speaker P: Um, I, I don't have a preference for adopt or approve the ordinance. It's fine.

Speaker B: Okay, when you approve—

Speaker G: do you want me to restate?

Speaker K: I'll restate it.

Speaker B: No, I just want to make sure that adopt was okay.

Speaker G: Oh, okay.

Speaker B: If you're good with that. If he's good with it, I am. What's your— did you have a question? Okay, we're good. Uh, motion by Councilmember Hewish and a second by Councilmember Whiting. Are there any other questions? I think we'll start the vote with Councilmember Herch.

Speaker C: Yes.

Speaker B: Councilmember Clark.

Speaker G: Yes.

Speaker B: Councilmember Wright.

Speaker O: Yes.

Speaker B: And Councilmember Whiting.

Speaker F: Yes.

Speaker B: Okay, that passes. Thank you. Appreciate the insight and the foresight on getting that thing through. Yeah, so, all right, we have just about wrapping up legislative priorities list. I have one thing I want to add. And I spoke to Council Member Wood today, and there was something that I said that's a good thing for this list, and I forgot what it was. So if you remember—

Speaker C: Can I, can I add one thing, Mayor? Oh, are we going to let John do his magic first?

Speaker B: You're welcome to talk about it, and then you can follow. If you're ready, go ahead.

Speaker N: Yeah, right now we're working on the legislative priorities for next season as they're working through the legis— the interim session right now.

Speaker B: So we haven't really moved on your council priorities for the city stuff that I'm working on. I have to reach out, reach back to everybody and see how they're doing with the other part of the list. So not much to report other than that.

Speaker N: And I have met with, I think, all of you now regarding the list except Melissa.

Speaker B: So we're almost done with it.

Speaker N: Yes, she did say after— she did say after the 12th, after another meeting we have So is there anything that you need to add to the list?

Speaker C: Yeah, I would like to add something, John, and see how the council— see what the council's temperament is to do this. We've had this discussion before, and I think there's going to be broad support. But I'd like to put this on the list that we do whatever it is we need to do to dedicate or to rename the wildlife migration corridor Migration Corridor as the Todd A. Black Memorial Wildlife Migration Corridor. I just don't want to see that get lost. We're coming up on the 1-year anniversary of his— of our losing him, and I just want to make sure that we do that and we begin to refer to it in those terms. If the council agrees with me, I agree with it.

Speaker M: Do we need to make a motion to add that or direct staff or something?

Speaker C: So moved.

Speaker M: So seconded.

Speaker B: Okay, so there's a motion by Councilmember Wright and a second by Councilmember Clark to add to the priority list the name change of the corridor. And we'll start the vote with Councilmember Clark.

Speaker U: Yes.

Speaker B: Councilmember Wright.

Speaker C: Yes.

Speaker B: Councilmember Whiting.

Speaker F: Yes.

Speaker B: Councilmember Hewish.

Speaker F: Yes.

Speaker B: And so that's— it's a great action, and I don't mind it being on the list. I'm just trying to think if it sits there for too long, If there's an easier way, I mean, this isn't it's not code. This is just no, we just put it on the agenda.

Speaker C: Yeah, and my thought process is this, Mayor. Maybe we can erect some signs. We can you know put them on some of the fencing that he erected. Just something to recognize and name it, and then change it on our maps so that doesn't just show up as the deer migration corridor or the wildlife corridor. It shows up as the Todd A. Black Memorial Wildlife Corridor.

Speaker B: My point was is there's not a lot for. We just need it to come on an agenda to change the—

Speaker C: Whatever you want to do with it, Big John, let's make it happen.

Speaker B: So yeah, I'll put it on top of this.

Speaker G: I have till the 12th to meet with Melissa, so the other one can sit and wait for a little bit.

Speaker I: 13th.

Speaker C: Actually, the 14th.

Speaker B: The 12th is a holiday. So that's— I know there was a couple other things that we— oh, I want to— and I'll come to Councilmember Clark, but for Councilmember For Hewish's sake, I don't know that I've heard, but you brought up earlier the code for parking trailers. We should probably get an update or whatever on that. Go ahead, Councilmember Clark. Or do you have—

Speaker G: Do I have an update on it? Yeah, just for us to talk about it.

Speaker M: Is it on our list yet?

Speaker B: We put it on the 4th.

Speaker G: I think it should be on the list.

Speaker M: Okay, so it's just a—

Speaker G: Is it on the list?

Speaker B: Follow-up.

Speaker K: I'd have to check.

Speaker B: I don't remember seeing that.

Speaker I: If I could jump in on this one. So it was put on the list. It was created, a code was created. It did go through Planning Commission and it did come to City Council and then it was denied. So this would be an action to put it back on the list if that's what we want to do.

Speaker B: Well, so it was denied prior to going back on the list. Before the last election, when it was denied, correct? So then it got back on the list. And so I think what we need to do is—that's what I'm getting at—is I think we just bring the bring that code back. Yes, because I don't think there's a ton of staff work because we've already done the staff work.

Speaker I: Yes. Do you do you want it to come on as a work session discussion amongst the council first before running it through planning commission and everything and doing noticing? Or do you want just to start? I was.

Speaker B: I think so, because the reason it was denied is it wasn't ready. So there's obviously some talk, but—

Speaker G: Maybe bring it back in a working session and we can fine-tune that a little bit. I know I'm new and there's been a lot of thought put into that previously, but I think the issue still is persisting.

Speaker I: And initially this came up from residents with support from staff. So we're behind it. I think at the time that it came up, there was residents that were in favor of it, and that's how it got onto the legislative priority list. And then at the time it came back to the council, there was residents against it, and for different reasons. And I don't question that at all. It's just we're happy to— we serve with a pleasure.

Speaker B: But I do think that we already had— if we still have that, we had it written. It's just a matter of bringing it back for discussion. So let's— if— I think that's why, as far as the list, That's why I brought it up, is if we just have Lacey pull that back up, put it on our next work session, and we'll, yeah, we'll just move forward. So that one will kind of give you a little relief, 'cause I think we've got it. Councilmember Clark.

Speaker M: Okay. I shared some code for annual budget metrics and budget in brief with, it started as an email from Councilmember Hewish, to like me and a couple staff members. So I don't know if John's on that email or not, but if he's not, would someone please forward it to him? Um, I also am grateful that we're going to be taking a look at the business licensing for home-based business. One of the other things that has come up with different residents is the, the idea of agritourism. There have been applications, or at least questions about pumpkin patch and just different things like that, or farm-to-table dinners, or farm— like sourdough classes, and just different things like that. So with the support of council, I would like for us to consider adding agritourism code to our legislative priorities list, and hopefully economic development team can help kind of guide that a little bit. And then the last one that I wanted to check on is Justice Court. This got added to our list, I want to say like February 2024.

Speaker B: Can I jump in on that?

Speaker E: Yeah.

Speaker B: I actually was, during our work session, I was communicating with Chris Karn and Paul Binns about this topic, and that's what it was that I said I couldn't remember. So in—

Speaker N: You're welcome.

Speaker B: Yeah, thank you for— because I was like, I have to talk about this. In Lehigh, they have somewhat canceled their Justice Corps. And the council, it's been a— if you listen to their meetings, it's been a little bit of a wrestle over there on the whole Justice Corps. Mayor Binns called me and said, hey, would you guys be interested in joining us and doing something different? Because this just isn't working. I mentioned, you know, we've already been kind of looking at doing something with Saratoga. Even if it's district or if it's municipal, Saratoga thinks they pay way too much for for what they have, and I don't want to say they hate it, but it's it's it's expensive to do it for just their city. So I mentioned that I would bring it up tonight as I was trying to get through that, and and I forgot. But there there's a great desire. At least the 3 mayors that have talked about it, to either— it can be municipal court, but 3 interlocal, and we could house it. I believe— I haven't talked to Mark, obviously, but Chris isn't aware. And, uh, we could house it at Saratoga. We could do a separate building, you know, build a, you know, do, do a fund and bond for its own court. But I'm just curious what the— because of like what you're saying, we know that there's a need. The public wants Police force, things like that. Do we want to—

Speaker M: I, I think we for sure should explore those options, and I get that it's a pretty significant cost. Um, even before we do that, I know that there's something that has to be done with our code to enter it into some sort of system so people can get ticketed for something. So I'm saying that so Chief Knutson can tell us what that is. So in the interim, while we're waiting for a justice court to get established, we can do whatever it takes so that we can actually start enforcing our laws. That's all I'm asking for is enforcement.

Speaker I: So, so it would be adding the bail schedule to— so that our ordinances are within the ability for the master offense table.

Speaker M: Okay, so moved. That's all I want, you guys.

Speaker B: I want it done. So I think by the end of this This one may be a little different because I don't know that it's necessarily John's job. In my opinion, I think I'd rather instruct Ben to work with Mark and Jason.

Speaker M: But can we get that to happen so we can enforce our law?

Speaker B: Well, if not, you've got the power to fire him.

Speaker C: I don't know, just tell him to do it.

Speaker M: No, I— to me, in a lot of ways, the legislative affairs person is It's their role to pick up the football that we've laid out and run with it until it's done.

Speaker B: But I also think the relationships with our city managers is where this is gonna happen.

Speaker M: But I think the other cities already have their stuff entered in, 'cause they already have their own police forces. It's the disconnect within ours.

Speaker B: Oh, we're talking about 2 different things.

Speaker M: That's what I'm talking about, yeah.

Speaker B: We're talking about 2 different things, sorry. I apologize. You're talking about the bell schedule.

Speaker M: Yes.

Speaker B: So yes, that is something that, It's actually probably our fee schedules. You can put it on the list, but it's going to fall under the recorder's office or in the—

Speaker I: I know Finn was running with this one. We'll just have to figure out how we're going to move forward with it.

Speaker B: So that's a separate issue than what I was talking about. Yes.

Speaker M: So, but in the meantime, that's what I'm saying. Yes, let's explore every option we can with our neighboring cities. But the thing that's holding us back from enforcing stuff is that master list and entering that into the system. And I just want to make that happen by the end of this year, please and thank you.

Speaker B: So is there— is there support on this one?

Speaker P: This is something that's been on the back burner for me just because I haven't had time to address it, and that I was planning on assigning to the new attorney. So I'm happy to assign that to whoever that person is.

Speaker B: So is that better than the priority list? Because I think—

Speaker M: Is that something that we could hire or secure the services of a contractor to do? Like, what does it entail? Like, what are we looking at? Because—

Speaker P: It's just reviewing the code, finding, you know, everywhere where it's set where it creates a criminal offense. And then you have to get the code, and then you have to create language, charging language for them to put into the court system. So it's working with the Administrative Office of the Courts to get that into their system, so that, to the master offense table, so that in their computer program, they can just pull it up. It'll say, you know, Eagle Mountain Municipal Code or whatever, you know, Section 6.05020, animal violations, and then it'll have charging language, and it'll automatically be able to reference that.

Speaker M: Ben's gonna solve all my problems right now.

Speaker P: It would be able to have a dropdown box or whatever they have in their computer program. So it's not something that I can— I'm aware that there's actually a state law requiring it. It's just something that the kind of the fickle nature of the AOC that they require it.

Speaker I: I've been through this once before. It is a fairly detailed and tedious assignment, so it may take some time, but it's not something that we can't work to accomplish. Either through an assignment with internal staff or looking at options, because other cities enter these things as well, and maybe we can contract that out. We will look at those options and move forward.

Speaker B: Thank you.

Speaker I: And Kimberly had Teams'd me just to let me know that Richard is looking into the Justice Court cost right now, so that assignment has been given.

Speaker B: So I don't think that necessarily— unless you want it for tracking, I don't know that it needs to go on John's list.

Speaker M: Justice Court has been on there since since February of '24. So unless somebody has moved to remove it in a meeting that I wasn't at, which didn't happen because I'm at every meeting, it needs to happen. So let's just make it happen.

Speaker B: That one's good. And then as far as the justice court, I think that's fine if he's looking into it, but I do think a conversation with the managers is going to go a long ways.

Speaker I: Um, the 2 managers as well as the county, because what we were kind of looking forward is, uh, that precinct type of—

Speaker B: Well, do we— yeah, do we do a district court or municipal But I think that's why you talk to them to see what their appetite is and then talk to the county about which route. So that's what I'm curious about. I don't know what their appetite is.

Speaker I: I would be happy to do that.

Speaker B: And I know Jason's gonna— his eyes are gonna be like, uh, it's gonna be nice.

Speaker I: Jason and Mark and I get along just well.

Speaker B: Yeah, so now anything else for legislative priorities?

Speaker F: There was a comment from Councilmember Clark about agritourism. What did you want to get put on?

Speaker M: Um, I— we've had people ask about pumpkin patches, Christmas tree type lots in a neighborhood setting, and farm-to-table things where they could have a one-time thing where they use farm food to create a special dinner and just make it a ticketed event. Um, I'm not necessarily supportive of making a Christmas tree stand in the middle of a neighborhood, but I'm definitely willing to look at the farm-to-table stuff and potentially even a pumpkin patch in the right area. So, um, I would love council and staff to work together along with our businesses and people within our community that have the desire to offer agritourism and make it epic, because I think it's yet another thing that Eagle Mountain Do we really have the resources to target that as one of our main objectives?

Speaker C: That's my question. I'm not going to disagree with you that there could be some benefit to it. But I mean, we sit here and we moan and groan about the fact that we're not working on the Justice Court, and we task people with, let's figure out how to do a pumpkin patch. I just think we have to be careful in the asks that we make.

Speaker M: I agree with what you're saying, but in a lot of ways, agritourism is a tourism is a component of economic development. And looking at what other cities have already done and bringing that for a discussion item doesn't feel like it will take away from the duties of the other people who are working on code. It feels like it's more of an economic development department working with the state's Office of Tourism to find out what best practices are. But if we want to put it on a back burner for a while, I'm okay with that too. It's just— okay.

Speaker F: I'm fine putting it on there, but making sure staff is sort of prioritizing what is on there. I mean, I'm sort of fine to put it on there so it's on the radar still.

Speaker I: So this is very déjà vu. If you think agritourism, you think things like the Cache Valley Cheese down in Beaver, right? And getting your ice cream cone. You think of the Red Barn. in Santaquin with—

Speaker U: Red Barn.

Speaker I: At Rolly's Red Barn. You think of Maddox Steakhouse up in Perry. You know, those are farm-to-fork, or they're growing their beef right there and all that kind of a thing. Where— and having been through this, like I said, it's very déjà vu— where it is the most successful is when you have an industry like Basin Fruit Growers or Cache Valley Uh, their, their, the cheese and the milk production and dairies and whatnot, when they come in and work with the city partnership hand in hand to try to bring that forward, as opposed to a residential or a one-off type of thing, which is, uh, so we're happy to make it work and happy to bring code, and, and, and I've got a lot of experience in this area. Um, uh, we just want to make sure we're targeting the right thing, and do we have farms in place that we are trying to take our milk and turn it into, you know, stops on a freeway, that type of thing. You know, that's, that's where it can be a destination. There's no doubt.

Speaker M: Um, I think one of the things that I'm thinking about is the fact that I know of at least 2 farms right now that are operating within our city limits that are already doing things like these, and there's no code that addresses what they're doing. And I think it's useful for us to look at that because everything's fine until a neighbor complains to Neighborhood Improvement about it. And, um, if it's something that council needs to work on code for it, maybe Councilmember Whiting and I can take it and run with it. I, I just—

Speaker B: we have the issue in our city right now, and I think, um, yes, we have to prioritize stuff, but we also have to look at the My personal preference with the small body here and knowing that it's a little bit split, I would rather that that's a council priority, knowing that we are thin-staffed. And if everything's priority, nothing's a priority. That'd be my preference. But if you do want to pursue putting it on a list and having staff work on it, then I'm fine with that. I think that's a good idea.

Speaker F: Councilmember Clark and I will work on it. We'll bring you— we'll bring something to you, and we'll make it specific to what's already existing in the city.

Speaker M: Thank you.

Speaker B: Okay, yeah, if we can do that, that helps our staff load, I think, a lot. Uh, so anything else for John? I think we're good. All right then. Uh, I know you mentioned the seniors, uh, you met with them. Is there anything else?

Speaker C: Can I— I just— I want— they've rescheduled the chili cook-off for October 26th at 5 PM. I just want to invite the council, and they're going to have a kind of a Halloween-themed party there. But you have to come and prepare your chili at the senior center or here at the city hall, because I learned that you can't, you can't make it at home and bring it. You have to cook it in a commercial kitchen that's been checked and all that good stuff. So I'll give you more details, but that's October 26th at 5 PM. if you just put that on your calendars. And I've asked Dawn to send out an invite to each of you so you're aware of that. That's all I have, Mayor. Thank you.

Speaker B: Okay, did you have any reports for liaison stuff? Shop Fest is coming up, I think you mentioned, right?

Speaker M: Well, that's Craig's report, but the American Legion didn't meet this last month, and I think maybe we should look into that. I do, while they're not meeting, I think we need to progress forward with the veterans breakfast because I think that's something that we as a city need to host and just give it as a gift to our veterans and military families in our community and kind of take that back under our wing.

Speaker B: For some reason I was thinking that was in the spring, but is it in November 11th.

Speaker M: Yeah, and I think this year it's like on November 14th or something, 'cause it's the Saturday immediately following the 11th. So—

Speaker B: If there's no plans for that, then I think we should work with Dawn, and I think she's worked on—

Speaker M: I think it's on Dawn's radar. I just want to keep it top of mind so that we're all preparing for it. Once upon a time, the city council would go and make the pancakes and help make the food and serve. And we'd bring Boy Scouts in to help wash dishes and everything else. And then somehow along the line, it ended up being a bunch of veterans serving other veterans. And I think the point of the Veterans Breakfast was for the community to serve our veterans. So.

Speaker B: I've been to that event for many, many years.

Speaker U: Yes.

Speaker B: I've cooked a lot of pancakes and bacon. Any other reports?

Speaker C: I got grease on my shoes.

Speaker B: Youth Council, anything?

Speaker F: Youth Council's meeting this week, and I'll be there with them. And, uh, Chamber's doing awesome. We've already talked about Shop Fest, but they're just crushing it. They're doing such a great job.

Speaker G: Did Melissa already talk about, uh, liaison? I know the community services— oh, thanks.

Speaker B: The Community Development Board presented tonight.

Speaker G: Yeah, community Services Board, they presented tonight. There's a list that they're going to bring back. I don't think we got it on our working agenda, but they have a list of projects within the city. We also had some reported initial RAP tax revenue. I don't know if we're ready to discuss that. I think Steve has some numbers there, but it sounded like the RAP tax revenue received is coming in faster than maybe what was initially I knew it. Communicated when that was being voted on. So positive things happening there. But I believe in the next working session, Mayor, if we could add the Community Services Board to present the list of topics so they can get some guidance from the council on where to put their energy and focus to start laying down some of these projects in our city.

Speaker B: Let me ask you a question. specific like that, I'm fine if it needs to be. But are you giving me a little leeway to say put it on as soon as I can, or does it have to be next meeting?

Speaker G: They're kind of— they're, they're doing everything at a full sprint.

Speaker B: So like, I just don't know what the workload is yet because I want to make sure that if it's— if the council brings it, then I'm going to put it on, and it might be prepared for—

Speaker M: I will say that they wanted to put it— they want it they wanted to request putting it on today's agenda, but because of everything else, they were okay with putting it on a subsequent agenda. So I would say as soon as you can humanly get it on there, Mayor.

Speaker B: You make a note if there's room in the next agenda, and if not, we can make sure we—

Speaker G: 15 minutes. 15 minutes.

Speaker B: Okay, um, say again?

Speaker K: Good for motion.

Speaker M: Yep. Wait, we got to make a Yeah, I move to—

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

Speaker B: Second. Okay, we have a motion by Councilmember Whiting, second by Councilmember Hewish. Councilmember Clark?

Speaker M: Yes.

Speaker B: Councilmember Wright?

Speaker C: Yes.

Speaker B: Councilmember Whiting?

Speaker F: Yes.

Speaker B: Councilmember Hewish?

Speaker G: Yes.

Speaker B: Okay, that passes. At 9:06, we will adjourn to closed session. Fantastic. All right, it is 9:47, and we're back in our city council meeting. And if everybody's okay, we'll entertain a motion.

Speaker E: Motion to adjourn.

Speaker C: Second.

Speaker B: Okay, we have a motion to adjourn by Councilmember Whiting and a second by Councilmember Wright. All in favor?

Speaker C: Aye.

Speaker B: That's unanimous, and we are adjourned at 9:47.