Transcript — Eagle Mountain City Council, 6 October 2026

Speaker A: It's 4 o'clock. Now it's 4 o'clock.

Speaker B: All right, we'll go ahead and get started. Welcome everybody to the work session, the Eagle Mountain City Council meeting, October 6th. It's 4 o'clock and we'll go ahead and get started. The first item on our agenda is a discussion, an overview of UFA and UFSA, and Chief Burchett's here with his army. I don't know who else is coming up, but We'll welcome you to the podium, and anyone else that needs to join can as needed.

Speaker A: Well, thank you, and Mayor, uh, thank Mayor and Council for giving us a few minutes. Um, the reason that we're here today is just to present on the history since when Eagle Mountain joined UFSA and the fire district, and subsequently joining UFA, and just talk through some of those numbers. We're going to talk about, uh, the cost the revenue, the apparatus, and the facility upgrades, just to give you all awareness as you're making these next decisions for your city. Tonight, Tony and I— Tony Hill, our CFO— will be here to walk through all of that with you and happy to answer any questions that you may have. And, and that commitment tonight is— it's— it goes beyond just tonight. So if there's other questions, we're available to help you answer We understand that the decisions that you're going to be making here are going to be difficult and challenging, and there's going to be a lot of questions. So we're happy to, happy to be here for you and answer any questions that you have. So with the slide— oh, here it is. Sorry, I didn't realize it was going off my computer, so I apologize.

Speaker D: Neither did I.

Speaker B: While you're pulling that up, I'm just— I was going to say this in a minute, but I, I'm going to jump backwards. I skipped item 1A, and I did not mention why, but I knew why, and I forgot to mention it. Uh, I'm switching the order on those, but then David Stroud called in. Uh, he was not going to be here, so he wanted to move that item to 10:20. I do want to have a short discussion discussion, if there's anything that we can at least give direction. So I'll come right back to that for the council.

Speaker A: Okay, now that we're all set up with this, Tony is going to take over to first talk about the, the revenue and the expense side of things, and then I'll take it back from him after that.

Speaker E: All right, thanks, Chief. Mayor, it's good to see you. Council, thank you. As Chief said, for just a few minutes today to Just go over a little bit of history and answer any questions that you may have. So I'm going to take the first three or four slides, and Chief will go from there. So Eagle Mountain joined the service area, UFSA and UFA in 2012, and so the first year that UFSA, which is the taxing side of the agreement of the 2 organizations that Eagle Mountain is a part of was in 2013. And so you can see in 2013, UFSA collected $1.6 million in revenue. And the revenue is mostly made up of property tax. There is a little bit of other revenue, some motor vehicle fee-in-lieu and some impact fees. that go into this number, but it's when we— when you see these numbers, it's generally the property tax. And so it was $1.6 million in 2013, and you can see where it is now in 2026, up to $10.9 million. So as you're all aware, right, you are down here, lots of growth in property tax in that time. The next slide is the Expenditures, and I went the wrong way. And you can see it's of course a very similar pattern there. And so the the expenditures are mostly made up of the UFA member fee payment, which covers the staffing at the station as well as the apparatus. So the engines, trucks, and ambulances that are at your three stations. There are some miscellaneous other expenses as well. There's bond payments. For fire station construction. There's capital maintenance on our current— on the current stations, and then some other admin costs. So you can see there again, similar pattern, started with $2.1 million in total cost in 2013, and it's up to a little bit over $12 million now in 2026. So the next slide we have of puts those 2 things together. And so you can see the green line is the revenue or the total available revenue, and then the yellow line— or the yellow— the red line is the expenses. So early on, the expenditures were higher than the revenue. That changed in around 2020. And as those lines come together, UFA would add capacity, would add service to what's being provided down here. So in 2020, the 4th firefighter was added at the stations. They were staffed with 3 before that, and then an ambulance went full-time. And so you can see that that sort of brought the expenditures and the revenue back together again. 2023, it sort of flipped again, and that was when UFSA raised taxes with the intention of building the 2 new fire stations and staffing the 3rd station down here in Eagle Mountain. And so for— so that took a couple years for the full cost to be realized, and you can see that in the graph in 2024 and '25. Where the revenue was a little bit ahead of the costs. And then in 2026, when the full cost of, again, the 2 stations, the bond payments, as well as the full cost of staffing that 3rd station— and you can see what that looks like now in 2026 with about $12 million in expenditures and a little under $11 million in revenue. And And this was really— this visual you have in front of you, in my view, is really kind of the biggest benefit that Eagle Mountain had as you were a part of UFSA. It allows you to leverage the rest of UFSA and get the needed service level increases before the revenue was actually being collected. And so then the last slide from me. There's a lot going on on this slide, so I'll just kind of talk you through it and we'll leave it in front of you and you can look at it. ask any questions. But the top line, the orange line, is showing the yearly or the annual shortfall or excess from the slide that we just looked at. If you recall, the first handful of years, you can see those numbers are in red, meaning there was a shortfall. Then it flips over in the early 2000s, kind of levels off. The tax increase comes, and then the additional staff station comes on, and you can see where it's sitting now. Then the black line below it just is adding those together, so the cumulative effect. You can see that in 2019, it dropped to as much as a Had $2.6 million shortfall, came back to about neutral, and then currently it's sitting about $1.1 million. So like I said, we'll leave that there and you can continue to look at that. That's the last thing for me. I'll be right here to answer any questions, but we'll turn it over to Chief to talk about a couple other things.

Speaker A: Thank you.

Speaker C: Okay, thanks, Tony.

Speaker A: The, the next thing that we're going to talk about here is, is the staffing levels and how those have changed since 2013. Back then in 2013, there were 3 full-time firefighters and 3 part-time firefighters that served the entire city out of 2 stations. As you can see over the years, as Tony mentioned, the staffing level has increased when service demand increases and when revenue is available. But as of today, we're staffing the city out of 3 fire stations with 14 full-time FTEs. So, or excuse me, full-time positions, firefighters a day. And that was with the recent opening of Station 253, which is— was our most recent station here. As far as the stations go, when Eagle Mountain joined back in 2013, UFSA actually purchased Station 251, which used to be right here, and Station 252. And since that time, a significant number of remodels have, have occurred, and totaling in both of those expenses is about $1.3 million or so. And additionally, with that bond in 2021 that Tony mentioned, Station 251 was moved slightly down the road to serve better, serve the community better. And then also 253 was open. So significant investments in both stations and the new station. Then when we look at what apparatus were here in 2013 versus what are currently here, I pulled a report from, from Tony's team. And what I could find was that back then there was a 1978 pumper, multiple vehicles in that '80, '90 range, but the newest vehicle was a 2009 pickup. And there's a couple of pictures that we were able to find. These are probably from Captain Conger and all of his years here. But today we have one brand new ladder truck in the city. We have a relatively new Type 13 pumper and then a relatively new Type 1 pumper, as well as 3 ambulances in the city. So significant changes with, with both station and apparatus and how we're able to provide that service. That's, that's really the information that we wanted to share, just to give you that high-level overview as you continue to make these decisions working towards how to provide that fire and EMS service and how to fund it. And what I can say and what I want to end with is that as the fire chief at UFA, I love being down here. I love the opportunity to serve the community, and I look forward to hopefully many more years of that. So we're happy to answer any questions. The district administrator is here as well, Rachel Anderson. If there's any questions specific to her, we can open it up for questions.

Speaker D: Can we go back to the revenue and expenses? Sorry, this wasn't in our prep, so I haven't— I'm just taking these slides in.

Speaker G: One more.

Speaker H: Yeah, one more.

Speaker D: So the costs that are being presented here, are these actual costs for Eagle Mountain? As I understand it, UFSA is a group of cities together, usually those costs kind of get apportioned out. I'm just curious if these are actual expenses incurred by Eagle Mountain or if these are prorated expenses from a larger pool.

Speaker E: That total—

Speaker A: what that total includes is the, is the member fee to UFA as well as the station costs and the bond payments to, to the bond carrier. So that would be if you were a direct member with UFA, That would be the amount minus the bond payments, if that's the question you're answering. And I don't know if, Tony, you have anything else to say on that.

Speaker E: I mean, you're right on your question. I mean, this is for the most part direct costs in Eagle Mountain, but as you said, we're one organization. We make, you know, we get our property taxes all come in and we make our member fees, right? And it all comes in together, right? So there's definitely some—

Speaker D: Other cities.

Speaker E: Well, yeah, it's everybody's stuff in there. And so there's definitely some allocations that we have to make, right? We look at taxable value and Eagle Mountain's about 14% of the taxable value of UFSA. So for some of the expenditures that are sort of agency-wide, we have to use an allocation like that. But for like the member fee, that's pretty easy for us. You're not sharing your stations with any other members of UFA or UFSA. So Some of our cities are neighbors, so the stations are shared, you know, 50/50, 60/40. For you guys, it's 100% because you're not sharing with anybody, right? So for us, when we calculate the member fee, which is the largest piece in that, we can be certain that we know 100% of the costs are Eagle Mountain's. And so when we talk about this, the allocations part, right, we're talking about some of the admin costs, right? The administrator costs, some of those things. But the bulk of the costs we can tie directly back to Eagle Mountain. Does that help answer your question?

Speaker D: It does, yeah.

Speaker A: Thank you. How much is the debt service payment every year for the station houses, and how long does that bond go on?

Speaker E: Yeah, so we have to—

Speaker B: Are you specific on Eagle Mountain Station, or are you talking—

Speaker A: Yeah, our debt service.

Speaker B: Ours, because there's the bond covers Covered our stations plus 2 others.

Speaker A: How much is our portion of the debt service payment?

Speaker E: So again, we have to do a little of the allocation there. But if you look at the 2021 bond, it was, it was about $37 million total and the annual payments in the $2.3 to $2.4 depending on the year. And the 2 stations, took about a little over half of the constructions. And so the bond payment on the 2021 bond for Eagle Mountain is about $1.2 million. Um, and then the— for the 2016 bond, you have no direct stations on that one, and so we have to allocate that piece using that taxable value. And so that 14%, and so you're about $350 The 2016 bond expires in 2035, and the 2021 bond expires in 2041. They're both 20-year debts.

Speaker B: With that in mind, Tony, the 14%, is that this year's taxable value? Seems like we're at 11 or 12, just going off memory. I don't remember.

Speaker E: 14 point— well, that's the 5-year moving average.

Speaker H: average.

Speaker E: In 2026, you're about, yeah, about 14.5% of the total taxable value of UFSA is Eagle Mountain.

Speaker A: That's right.

Speaker H: I mean, I'm going to ask some obvious questions because I feel like maybe I'm missing some pieces of this. So we're talking about UFSA perhaps leaving that organization and doing a contract. What does that look like for us as far as our financial obligation when we have the bonds that you're talking about? You've talked about the member fees, which would obviously be paying for personnel, equipment, et cetera.

Speaker E: So the obligations to UFSA, if you— if and when you choose to separate, will be the bond payment for the 2 stations that were— that are— so those— that $1.2 plus the $350,000, right? So the 2 outstanding bonds Eagle Mountain would need to continue.

Speaker H: So we'll complete the bond basically.

Speaker E: You need to continue your portion of the bond. And then 252 is the other station UFSA owns that was purchased from Eagle Mountain in 2013. So there would need to be a negotiation on how Eagle Mountain purchases that back from UFSA.

Speaker H: Let me hang on one second. So is the, the actual land for each of the, um, the fire stations something that normally when a city contracts with you that they buy that portion of it and then they're just doing a contract for services and equipment?

Speaker E: Yeah, all the direct members own their own stations, and since UFSA's Acting as the direct member for Eagle Mountain and Mill Creek and all of those, UFSA owns all the stations, but Harriman owns their stations, Riverton owns theirs, Cottonwood Heights, Holiday, etc., owns their stations. And so as a direct member, you—that's why—that's why you need to continue with the bond payment because you take over the ownership, and that's why the discussion on 252 needs to happen.

Speaker A: as part of this separation.

Speaker H: Okay, go ahead.

Speaker A: What were you saying?

Speaker B: I was just going to say there's a lot of that still isn't worked out, to your question, and that's why Rachel's here, and that's something that we're going to start working forward on.

Speaker A: Is it okay if I don't, or can I keep going? Go ahead.

Speaker H: Sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off.

Speaker D: No, no, I wasn't cut off. I just— it's good to have the discussion. What are— who are the top 3 cities with UFSA?

Speaker B: Top 3 in which way?

Speaker E: In terms of what?

Speaker D: Population size.

Speaker E: Mill Creek, Taylorsville, and Eagle Mountain would be the top 3. And then we have Midvale and Kearns and Magna that would kind of be the next.

Speaker H: Are those same 3 the same thing for expenditures as well?

Speaker A: Yeah.

Speaker C: Okay.

Speaker E: It just depends on how many station crews that they have in there. station or in their city. Mill Creek has 3 like you. Taylorsville has 3 like you. Midville only has 2. So, um, so yeah, it just depends on how many crews run out of the city.

Speaker K: And in, in the last fiscal cycle, I'm just curious what, what, uh, by comparison, what is the taxable value of each of those cities?

Speaker A: I mean, compare us to the top 3.

Speaker E: Uh, I don't, I don't have that off the top of my head. I know Mill Creek's Taxable value is by far the largest in UFSA.

Speaker B: They were like 17%? Yeah, 18%.

Speaker E: Or they might have— just UFSA, they might be in the, in the 20s. So you have the unincorporated Salt Lake County has a large portion of the taxable value too. They don't have the population, but they have a large taxable value. They might be second. And then Eagle Mountain is probably pretty similar to like Taylorsville. But don't 100% quote me on that. I'm going a little bit off the top of my head. So, but Mill Creek's for sure the largest.

Speaker K: I'm just thinking about the member cities and just how many of those that you serve are members of the USFA versus just those who contract with you?

Speaker E: Members that are direct members. The remaining 12 or 13 members are members through UFSA.

Speaker K: Who are the 4 cities that are direct?

Speaker E: Cottonwood Heights, Holiday, Riverton, and Herriman.

Speaker K: Thank you.

Speaker E: And Herriman and Riverton became direct members in 2020. They were, were a part of UFSA Cottonwood Heights and Holiday have always been direct.

Speaker A: Which year did you say Riverton and Herriman became direct members? 2020.

Speaker D: Sorry, one other question. When, when tax increases happen, can you walk us through that process?

Speaker E: Yeah, I mean, I think you guys just went through one. It would be exactly the same.

Speaker A: Yeah.

Speaker E: So we are a calendar year entity, so we have to, you know, make our intention known in October time. We go through the budget process. The budget gets adopted in December, and we hold a tax hearing in December as well. We have to do all of the advertising in newspapers. We have to send out postcards to all the residents, to all the parcels, things like that. Is that what you're after? I mean, really, and then the process, right? It starts with the board looking at the budget and deciding that, okay, we need a little more revenue. The last time we did it, it was because we were expanding service, right? We needed to pay for the new bond that we just built the 4 stations with. We needed to staff 253 out here. Had a station in Kearns that we weren't staffing. We started staffing that. So there was like a 3 or 4 year plan to build up to, okay, all right, we're ready now. Station 253 is built. Now's the time to go through the tax increase so we can get these employees hired, trained, and start staffing the station.

Speaker D: So each city is— you set a different rate, I would imagine, or you set the same rate?

Speaker E: No, UFSA has one rate.

Speaker D: One rate.

Speaker K: Everybody.

Speaker D: So it's 0.001756, I think.

Speaker E: For everybody. Eagle Mountain residents pay that, Mill Creek. When we raise taxes, it's the same across the board. Everybody has one rate. And it's even the same down here in Utah County versus Salt Lake. They equalize that rate across the whole service area.

Speaker H: Okay.

Speaker D: And in the 13 years that going back in time, it looks like there's been a rate increase pretty Consistently? I don't think there was one this year.

Speaker E: Just 3 total in that whole time.

Speaker D: 3, oh, OK.

Speaker E: So once in 2018.

Speaker D: So 3 increases.

Speaker E: Once in 2018, and then the, the 2 we did back to back for all the reasons that I just talked about in '24 and '25. Other than that, there's been no Truth in Tax.

Speaker D: OK, and in those 3 rate increases, did you ever have a referendum?

Speaker A: No.

Speaker D: In any of those 3?

Speaker A: OK.

Speaker M: Well, that—

Speaker D: yeah, that's kind of my thought process. It's, it's, it's difficult. It would be difficult for citizens to have a referendum on a large— an entity that large. Okay, thank you.

Speaker A: You had a slide— sorry, did I cut somebody out? Um, you had a slide that had the different apparatus on it and just kind of the state of what we had previously. How often— I know apparatus are very expensive, and it takes a while for them to even just get, like, built after you order them and stuff like that. How frequently of a cadence are your different communities getting new apparatus or changing things out?

Speaker E: I'll take a shot at that, or you can just have it.

Speaker A: We have a capital replacement plan that replaces— the heavy apparatus are typically on a 9-year lifespan.

Speaker G: Okay.

Speaker A: Those get rotated through 'cause we have busy stations that run the wheels off and slow stations that don't. So we have a kind of a replacement pattern. Even when they go out of, you know, let's say a Mill Creek area, they could go to Copperton and get a few more years out of 'em. But we basically buy about 5 Type 1 engines, 3 ladder trucks, and 5 ambulances every 3 years. So that's the number that we need to circulate through. So everybody, all of our stations now are equipped with, with, you know, within the last 5 years have had something new in their station. How do you ensure that across all the different communities that you serve that it's balanced and no one community ends up with all the new and no one community ends up with all the old?

Speaker L: That's—

Speaker A: they've got like— that's part of that replacement cycle.

Speaker K: Yeah.

Speaker A: But they're— they are all, again, with our plan that's been in place for about 9, 10 years now, the capital replacement plan, we've been able to cycle through everything. Many, many years ago, we bought all brand new ambulances and all brand new heavy apparatus. And so that replacement was coming up and the total would have been $30 to $40 million to replace them all at once again. So we implemented that. Rotational plan to every 5 years by a handful. I don't know who's going to answer this question, but I'll ask it and I'll let you guys work it out. You mentioned that everyone has the same tax rate across all of the UFSA cities. How is it determined which of those cities got to have a 3-man team for years and why some got to have 4-man team? The, the decision is, is on the member. So being UFSA is one member, the direction from the board is to push for four-handed staffing in all of the stations. There's only 2 UFSA stations that don't have it right now. One of them's in Immigration Canyon and one's in Copperton.

Speaker H: Okay.

Speaker A: And the call volume there is not high enough necessarily to warrant that. It's still a, it's still a goal. But all of the other direct members, Holiday, Conewood Heights, Riverton, and Herriman, get to decide that, and that's how they can control their costs. Do any of them decide to do 3-man teams instead of 4, or are they all on 4? Only Cottonwood Heights has one 3-person staffed engine. All right, thank you.

Speaker H: Anything else?

Speaker A: Okay, thank you for your time. Appreciate it.

Speaker K: Yeah, thank you. Can I just say one last— yeah, I just want to say thank you for the service that you have provided us. We're grateful for it, and I think it's been— I think it's been top-notch. I mean, I went to your fire school, I enjoyed that. I just want you guys to know that I'm grateful for the service that your firefighters have provided to Eagle Mountain City.

Speaker A: Thank you.

Speaker L: I was going to exactly say the same thing. I mean, there's, there's no doubt every single council meeting our council members are extending appreciation to their first responders. You guys do an exceptionally good job for us. We're very much appreciative for all the work that I was also gonna just ask if you could send those slides to us.

Speaker A: That would be greatly appreciated.

Speaker L: Yep, we'll shoot them your way.

Speaker B: Okay, and I was waiting till the end to say it's been a pleasure to be on the board. It's fun, and at no point ever have we as a body or me on the board not been really appreciative to be a member of UFA and UFSA. I think it's been a privilege and an honor, We love the service and appreciate everything we get, and especially from the boots on the ground too. I mean, these guys already know, but I'm eating dinner Saturday with the 251, no, no, no, 252.

Speaker L: Yeah.

Speaker B: I was with 253 the other night. I mean, I hang out with these guys all the time when I get a chance, and it's just an honor to be out there with these guys, and thanks for your leadership too. And Tony for all the numbers and everybody that supports us. Even the— I appreciate you making the drive down here, by the way.

Speaker A: Thank you very much.

Speaker B: Yeah, thanks. All right. No other discussion or questions on that, right? I was going to, just for everybody's sake, state some other facts, but it doesn't— I don't think it matters and we covered it, so we'll move on. I want to go back to 1A. I mentioned that we're going to push that back to 10/20. I just want to know if there's any notes specifically that we can say, hey, maybe look at this or look at that, so when it comes back, it's maybe a little bit more prepared or ready. Is there anything specific that you want to ask if there's some— Go ahead.

Speaker D: Yeah, I was just gonna say, I think that what I'm trying to balance in my mind is there are, in my neighborhood, for example, there's a property that has 6 trailers lined up. I can't imagine anyone owning 6 trailers. So I have to imagine they either have a lot of family members or it's become kind of a community parking lot. It's hard to tell who's renting what. There was a, uh, a, uh, someone who posted, I think they have some acreage, and they just posted on the Eagle Mountain Citizens page, hey, you know, rent out my land, come just park your trailer here. And so I think there needs to be some definition around what the code— to give our code enforcement folks some actual tangibles of, I don't know if we're looking up license plate numbers to see if they're registered. To that property owner. But I also understand there's situations where maybe you do have 5 acres and a family member is parking their RV. So they're, you know, potentially for larger lots might be some room to have more than maybe 1 or 2 recreational vehicles. But as, you know, smaller lots, it just doesn't look great and it does impact property values people that are their next-door neighbor maybe trying to sell their house. So that's the balance I think I'm trying to strike in my mind is what code should exist to do that.

Speaker B: So is there something that was in the packet that you think needs to kind of be worked on a little bit so we can have some specific direction to tie it to?

Speaker A: How to enforce?

Speaker B: How to enforce as well.

Speaker A: That was something that I kind of was wondering based off of what you said. It's like how would How would staff even begin to know if it's a relative or not is one of the questions that I have.

Speaker B: So Brandon, did the code enforcement guys, have they weighed into this? I just want to know if they feel like, or if they're going to be here to answer if they thought that this is going to be, you know, how they would go about enforcing it.

Speaker A: Yeah, they want some more direction.

Speaker G: The current code, they feel kind of is vague.

Speaker A: Vague enough that it doesn't help them as much as it could.

Speaker B: So I think that's what— between now and the 20th, are they going to have a chance to say this isn't going to work so that we can get a little bit further down the road?

Speaker G: I know that the attached code that was in your packet, they had neighborhood improvement work with David Stroud to prepare that, and so they felt like that—

Speaker B: They like it.

Speaker G: that code. So they have worked on this issue, and they, they— that, yeah, that, that code was based on working with them.

Speaker H: Did it go? Yeah. I mean, I just want to bring up the fact that we've already reviewed this and denied almost identically what it says in here, uh, within the last 12 months. Um, I am never going to be in favor of us trying to have our code enforcement try to establish licensure? Are we going to go start knocking on doors and having them provide documents? I think that that's not even feasible. So I think if we're going to spend time on this, I think we ought to make sure that there's support from at least a majority of people. Otherwise, I think it's a waste of time.

Speaker J: So, so are you— so are you suggesting then that you'd be okay with someone parking as many trailers as they can on their lot?

Speaker H: That's not what I said.

Speaker J: Well, that's why I'm asking the clarifying question.

Speaker H: I don't think there's a way for you to be able to determine that? How are you going to determine if they're doing it for a friend? How many is too many? Are you going to base it on size of lot? Are you going to base it on what your personal perspective is on a piece of land? I think that there's too many variables in there that become worldview rather than it's actually creating a nuisance. You know, I talked with Brett about this before. I mean, we've had this discussion at length. I am not in favor of being overly punitive for how people use their property. When people buy large properties, interesting enough, Brett drove around and identified many trailers on pieces of property that would probably be shocking to the people sitting on the dais here. And so I think perhaps we ought to make sure that our own houses are in order before we do something So, so you—

Speaker J: if there were a way to enforce well enough, you'd be open to some kind of—

Speaker H: I just think we become an HOA at that point, and you know how I feel about HOAs. Let them use their property unless they're doing something that's a nuisance. Yeah, having 12 trailers on there is probably not appropriate, but what is the right number and who gets to make that determination?

Speaker J: Well, and then I, and I think that's the purpose of bringing it back for a discussion, to see, to see if we could figure out a nuanced way to, to handle that.

Speaker H: Is there 3 people who want to do that? Because the staff's already been through this cycle, and how this is written is no different than what we said no to.

Speaker J: I'm, I'm open for discussion.

Speaker D: I am, I am as well.

Speaker A: I, I am too, because I think that we have zoning for a reason. I feel like there's people who are on our council that have said that to me in the past. And whether it's commercial or residential really dictates the use that you can use for it. And if you're renting out 37 slots for 37 RVs on your 1 or 2-acre piece of property, that's probably extending past what residential is. Um, I don't want to be punitive. I want people to be able to use their land, but I also think we have a due duty to make sure that their neighbor's property rights are protected as well. So I would like to discuss it.

Speaker K: And I've, I've been thinking about this too. I mean, and I did have some conversations with Council Member Wood about this. And for me, I'm just— I, I'm not sure that this is the right approach. From my perspective, I'd like to see us perhaps revisit our home-based business code and see if there's not something that we could already do to that code to tighten it up a little bit, create some definitions. Because for me, the substantive difference is this: is it a residential use in a residential neighborhood by a resident that owns the property, or is it a semi-commercial use or something that's grown beyond the scale of a residential use? And how do you tell the difference between the two? I'm not sure how you do that, but I think that's the—

Speaker D: I think that's the gray area that causes the I think in my mind, if I see a trailer, which is pretty common throughout the city, you'll see it on a side yard or no big deal. But when you see 5 or 6 trailers on a property, I'm like, what is the personal use that's not screened?

Speaker K: But Zach, I went by one of my neighbors on the way to the— on the way to the building today, and they had 6 trailers sitting there. There was a dump trailer, there's a UTV hauler, there's a camp trailer, there's a— I can't remember all of them— a horse trailer. I mean, there's just— so— But I think to blanket that is, I think there are some folks who probably have a need for that and it's their personal residence. And are we going to say 2 and you're done, that's a problem? I'm not willing to go there. But I, I, but I But I also think it's a real problem when we have some of our residents who are saying, I'm going to house 30 or 40 trailers that don't belong to me, charge a rent for that, and subject all of my neighbors to the traffic and to the blight that that brings. So I think there is a balance that we need to find.

Speaker D: Agreed. And I think that, you know, the different types of trailers, you know, there's like my— I have family He's a brick mason. He's got an RV trailer, OHV, all good. I think here this is talking about—

Speaker K: Yeah, probably a wheelbarrow on a trailer that you mix concrete in, right?

Speaker D: But this, this specifically I think identifies a recreational vehicle, something that you can live in, vacation in. You know, a horse trailer wouldn't qualify under this definition that I'm reading. So we're specifically looking for You know, fifth wheels, motorhome, truck camper, camping trailer, travel trailer. That's what it's identified in here. And I think that kind of narrows the list of what's being rented out, at least in my mind.

Speaker K: But I think that it's— I think the problem is bigger in a very minor way and small way. I mean, we have lots that have half a dozen dump trucks or some big commercial vehicles that are being stored or that come come every morning and leave every night. And it's, it's a commercial hub of business in a residential area. And so I just think those are the things that, that are, that are operating outside of what I believe should be happening in a residential neighborhood. And so I don't know if this is the perfect approach, but that's the problem that I think we ought to tackle rather than being so myopically focused on how many trailers and what type of trailers. It's like, how can we allow people to use their property in the way that they choose? And if they have 6 trailers and they're their trailers, who cares? I don't care. But I do care when it becomes an issue for the neighbors. It's perhaps— perhaps some screening needs to be considered. I mean, I've thought about that. Maybe some screening requirements if you're going to do something that's a little more excessive. Maybe those trips per day that we talk about in the, in the in the home-based business code. I mean, once you generate, I don't remember the number, 15 or 20 trips a day, you're no longer a home-based business. If you've got more than one employee and yourself that's working there, you're outside of the code function. So I think there's some other mechanisms that we could evaluate and perhaps tweak to allow some of this to be used in a way that is meaningful for the residents, But detrimental to commercial operations that are happening in our residential neighborhoods.

Speaker H: I just want to make one clarification here. The definition for the recreation vehicles include fifth-wheel trailers, boat, OHV, self-propelled, used for recreation. So it's not just livable trailers in 10.10.090. So I think that encompasses a lot of the things that we were talking about. I just My biggest problem with this is that this is really not about a nuisance that it's causing to adjoining people. It's more or less people, I don't like the look of it. That's such a subjective thing. And I think we have way too much of that, frankly. We start to impede on people's ability to use the property they're spending hundreds hundreds of thousands of dollars on, uh, to be able to live there without everybody else telling them how to live. So for me, look, I get it if they have a trailer on every speck of their property. I think it's pretty obvious there's an issue there. If we're going to go forward with this, then let's set some guidelines that are achievable. I think asking our code enforcement to go chase down registrations is not suitable for them. That's too much. And I think they would probably agree with that. When we went through that before, they weren't in favor of that. To Brett's point with the home businesses, again, you're still going to have to establish— look, they've got 6 trailers on there. Are we going to go knock on the door and ask them if they have a business license to operate those? They say they're all my family. How are you going to determine one way or the other?

Speaker D: Would you, would you be open to screening Requirements.

Speaker H: I think screening is fine. I even said to Brett, maybe there's, uh, you can look at— and again, I'm not in favor of being punitive in any way, but maybe there's a lot size that allows for a certain envelope of that property to be utilized for vehicular storage that is running, or trailers, or whatever. Maybe that's, maybe that's a direction that we can at least talk about. But yeah, they should be screened. But if they get to agricultural and rural and we're talking that big, I mean, how are you going to screen 5 acres, 10 acres? I think that there needs to be a further conversation.

Speaker J: But I think this all leads back to— I think we can workshop this and try to reach a better spot than where we currently are. And so, and then, so do we do that in another work session?

Speaker B: Yeah, just move it to the 20th. I guess I was wondering if there's anything specifically that— and there's good Is there enough time?

Speaker A: So like, we're going to need—

Speaker J: like, 15 minutes won't solve the problem, and 30 minutes might not. We might need 45 minutes in a work session, maybe an hour. I don't know what else is on the docket that day.

Speaker D: I was just going to say, it sounds like policing is probably not going to be a viable option for code enforcement anyway. So maybe we're talking about lot sizes, I would maybe go one step further.

Speaker H: If you feel strongly about this, maybe 2 of you can go and work with David to figure that out and then bring it for the rest of us to review.

Speaker B: Yeah, I think maybe that's what I was looking for, because what I was getting at, Councilmember Wood, is what you said, is we've looked at this and what, what could David do any different than, uh, this got put back on the priority list. And we're trying to figure out how we move it forward, and it's still— it's tough. So I know, Councilmember Heros, just something you— I think you're the one that put it on there. So would you work throughout the next couple weeks to get this in a good place? He's not jumping forward.

Speaker J: I'm just thinking about my plate. We could Huh?

Speaker A: I said all of a sudden everyone wants to table it. No, I'm just kidding.

Speaker J: No, I'll work with you, Councilmember Hewish.

Speaker A: Yeah, we'll get it done.

Speaker H: Maybe, Melissa, it would be good for you to give some input. I mean, you voted against it the last time, but if you see something differently now, maybe you should give some input as to why.

Speaker A: I'll share this since we won't be able to work as a quorum, but I have, had multiple businesses talk to me about how it's unfair that some people are operating commercial entities out of their home and they are kind of paying less for their land, paying less for their taxes, all of those things. And then there's ones who are following the letter of the law and doing everything the way they're supposed to. And they're the ones that are following the law are at a disadvantage to the ones that are just kind of doing things under the table and not within code. So I think that might be something to look at, because I do think Councilmember Wright has a point that this may have more to do with home-based business requirements than how many trailers per square foot. So—

Speaker B: We're good then? Okay, if you guys would get together and Brandon, let him know that These 2 will set up a meeting and see if we can move forward.

Speaker A: I'm wondering if it's, uh, I'm wondering if October 20th is enough time.

Speaker B: I think we should hold it off until it's ready.

Speaker A: Yeah.

Speaker B: Because, so, so go ahead and just put that as a future. There's nothing pressing other than it's on the list, and we know, I know we've been to some meetings. It's got— we need to move it forward, but let's give it some time. So Just tell David to get some meetings, and when it's ready, we'll bring it back. So, okay, then we'll hold that one off. Let's move on to— actually, Lacey, did you hear from—

Speaker L: I was just reaching out. Lacey and I've been communicating back and forth on this, and we don't see the Giffords here to be able to talk to this, but the information is in the council's packet. Packet, I provided some context for the council, um, and I'm happy to maybe just at least represent the issue and see if there's any questions or concerns of whether the council has a desire or not to move forward with this, um, in next— because there's no, no actionable item this time. But long story short, um, the city of Eagle Mountain was approached by, um, Mr. and Mrs. Gifford, who are trained, uh, chaplains and have offered their services to the city of Eagle Mountain. In my last city, we had chaplain services for our police and our fire departments. It's another form of employee assistance program. It's kind of in times of crisis. And in fact, there was one particular week when in my last community, we had 3 baby deaths in a row that our EMTs and firefighters had responded to, and it was taking quite a toll on the mental state of our first responders. And so we had a chaplain that was just part of the organization, both for police and fire. They had an office. It was completely volunteer, no costs, no obligation, no proselyting, no— completely non-denominational and whatnot. Just a quick question. Just a resource not only to city personnel but also to victims and victim advocacy, members of the public if there's some sort of a traumatic event. And in order for someone to become a chaplain, they have to go through specific training and, and obtain that certification and, and also receive the endorsement from a municipality. So this is what their request was of the mayor. Um, uh, I am completely indifferent on the issue, just wanted to bring it to you for your consideration. And, um, if it's something the council would like to move forward with, we can put it on a future agenda.

Speaker H: I only have one question. How do you determine who you want to use as your chaplain? Let's say that, uh, the Giffords are great, they move, or the Giffords aren't great and we want to find somebody else, or, you know, whatever the reasons are, how is that decision made?

Speaker L: So, um, the way that it works is the certification program, the entity itself that does provide that, that mental health training that they've received their certification from, would be the responsible entity that would be providing that service for us. And when that question was asked of them, that mayor asked that exact same question, they did indicate in that room that they would want to try to bring others on board, at least 1 or 2 or whatnot, so that they have some sort of succession planning and continuity. You know, because there's times when they might be out of town or something of that nature and other assistance might be needed.

Speaker H: Does that require us doing an agreement with that organization so that the continuity is there?

Speaker L: You know, I don't know. I don't— Honestly, I've never had an agreement before. It wasn't a formal interlocal or anything like that. It was something that was in establishment before I got there, and it's something I think evolved. I think it's very common back east, especially in fire and police situations. But you know, maybe if the council is inclined to do that, maybe. is something that you can assign as a mayoral responsibility that he could, you know, bring the next one on or something of that nature without necessarily having to have council action.

Speaker H: Yeah, I just— I'm trying to walk through. I assume that we just need to recognize that there is a program. That's what I read. And then how do we institute it to begin and what the—

Speaker A: I, I—

Speaker H: it's a little more Like, I guess, understanding of how to help them to be successful in that. I understand what they do. How do we make sure that it's moving forward? And maybe you're right, maybe it is the mayor that kind of oversees that and reappointing them after a period of time, maybe if they're going to retire or whatever.

Speaker L: It could be probably as simple as an appointment with the consent of council, something like that that we could put together. And, uh, and certainly we would want to make sure that contact information was available to the public if some kind of event occurred or whatnot, that they would have resources.

Speaker H: Okay, thanks.

Speaker A: Mayor, go ahead. Um, Ben, you mentioned that this is pretty common back east. Um, are there other cities in Utah that are doing this, and does ULCT have any resources to be able to address some of the concerns that Council Member Wood brought up, because I do think the continuity of service and letting people know that they exist, like, all of those things are important. Um, so I'm just wondering, do you know of more cities that have this?

Speaker L: I don't know in Utah. Um, it's a good question. I can certainly put that out to the city managers group to see who, who might have one or, or more on board. Um, uh, and I'm, I'm not— it's never come up in the time that I've served as city manager with any of the league entities, you know, league meetings or anything that I've been involved in. Definitely it was something I saw growing up in New York, and it was something in Iowa as well.

Speaker C: Thank you.

Speaker A: Yep.

Speaker H: Do the individual public safety organizations not have chaplains of their own? I thought that the Sheriff's Department and the UFA both had chaplains.

Speaker L: I don't know. Does the Sheriff's Department? I don't think UFA I think UFA does, but I, I'm not sure. But you do have a chaplain?

Speaker B: I'm pretty sure UFA does as well, as far as I know. Yeah, yeah, I think— and I was looking—

Speaker H: How's this going to function differently then? Maybe that's my question.

Speaker L: It would be available also to city staff or to the public in general. I know that they— it's my understanding anyway that they responded to the fire that we had out on the ranches in that apartment complex. It's a resource that's available.

Speaker J: I see it as a benefit. I think we should engage in this.

Speaker B: Camp Williams has one. There's a lot around. And our discussion, just for context, wasn't designating them the Eagle Mountain chaplain. It's recognizing them as a chaplain. That way if they show up, they've got basically a recognition that, yeah, it's not just some Joe Blow that's saying he's a chaplain. And it's a rec— you know, that's what I think they're trying to accomplish. It just identifies that they've been certified.

Speaker J: And you can use them in city functions?

Speaker B: Could. Don't have to. I don't think the intent is for them to become the city's chaplain, like we would say for Camp Williams. But they're a chaplain within the city.

Speaker A: Yeah.

Speaker K: Yeah, I mean, I engaged with the— It's the Giffords, right? I engaged with them at the 4th of July celebration, um, at the— not the 4th of July celebration, sorry, the, uh, what was it? It's a Memorial Day celebration at the cemetery. That's where it was. I had to think about where it was. I remember we were at the cemetery when we talked, and I mean, they seem like really great people. And the question that I keep wondering is, what's the downside? I mean, and I tend to agree with you, Councilmember Whiting. I, I'm not seeing a downside. I mean, if they were trying to proselytize or trying to convert or some of those things, then maybe that creates some angst. That's correct. Because I'm certainly not interested in doing that. But just being a resource that's available to the community, that the community can approach and say, I just really need to talk to somebody that can listen and that can offer me some— just a listening ear and some guidance if I choose to accept that, you know. I just, I think there's some real benefit in that.

Speaker A: I was just thinking how it might be useful. I mean, we're a fairly sizable city, and it might be useful to put it out there to different denominations and just say, hey, if you have a trained chaplain in your midst, we would love to include them on the list of chaplains that the city associates with, just to kind of have a deep bench. I just— I think, especially during tight budget times, any time that you can get additional services, or victim advocate services, like all of those things, it's worth doing it. But I want us to make sure that we're getting as many as that are out there, so that we have enough people to help when there is something that goes wrong. Thank you.

Speaker H: I'm not against it. Let's do it.

Speaker L: The only thing I would suggest is that they would be required to go through the same type of training program so that they have the skills necessary.

Speaker B: Okay, so we can reschedule this when they can come. We'll put it on either the consent—

Speaker L: We had anticipated having this on the consent on the 20th, but we can maybe have them here this—

Speaker A: that night.

Speaker B: Then they can at least address it through the consent in the work session. So make sure that they they can be here, and then, yeah, let's look at it.

Speaker L: Sounds great.

Speaker B: Okay, next discussion is a portfolio update by Jace, and we'd invite Aaron to come and introduce us.

Speaker A: So, um, I've invited our investment advisor to come kind of give you guys a brief economic update and an overview. of our investment portfolio, just to give a kind of overview of where we're at as a city. We're hoping to have them do this for us biannually with the timing of, like, our state reporting that we have to fill out. So I'm going to turn over the time to Jace Richards with Nieder Public Funds.

Speaker C: Thank you, Mayor and councilmembers, for letting us come and present a little bit. Just a brief introduction on Meader. So last time you heard from us, we were Morton Asset Management. We have since merged with Meader Public Funds, a public funds manager out of Ohio. We've seen— Can you speak up? Yeah, sorry. Is that better? Okay, perfect. Yeah, we've known Meader for quite a long time. It's a public entity— or a private— privately held entity out of Ohio, and they just seemed like a seamless fit. So we've since merged with them back in April, and it's been a great merger so far. We hope our clients have felt the same, particularly Eagle Mountain. So, I can get right to it. I'll briefly go over the— just an economic update. I'll keep it very high level, although if there's questions, let me know, and then we can just dive into the portfolio, if that works. Going into it, so, 5 things we're particularly looking at when we're thinking about investing in your portfolio. Is what the Fed's gonna do, inflation, growth, employment, and yields. Really, these are the 5 key things that we believe impact the portfolio, particularly what the Fed does with interest rates. So, hopping to what the market's expectation is for the Fed moving forward, whether we see interest rate hikes, cuts, or them holding. At the beginning of the year, you can see the market was predicting about 2 cuts throughout 2026, which are typically a quarter of a percent. That has since shifted, particularly around the time of the Iran war— or the Iran conflict starting, to where now the market is actually predicting that we may likely see 3 to 4 quarter-based— or quarter-percent hikes in the next 12 months. We have already seen one quarter-percent hike here in September. In the October meeting, the market does not expect another hike. However, in the December meeting, there is a higher probability. That being said, as the forecasts go out, we just take a little bit more of a— you take it with a grain of salt just because it's so far out. So much could change. Much of these interest rate hike decisions have been based on inflation, particularly because of the Iran war. We have seen a pretty big surge in oil prices. With the surge in oil prices, oil prices, we've started to see it trickle down into particularly gas and diesel. Obviously, a major part of our economy is transportation, so seeing gas and diesel go up can have trickle effects even further. And so to curb potential inflation, they've pushed into more of a hiking cycle, you could say. With that, you can look here, you can see, so the blue line is CPI going up above 3% again, and then below is a figure called Truflation. Essentially, it's a data scrape of more prices, still above 2%, the 2% target, but a little bit lower. What Kevin Warsh, the chairman of the Fed, has said is that really this is going to be a meeting-by-meeting decision. We, we don't expect it to be a hiking cycle quite like in 2022 where they jumped 500 or 5%. This is likely going to be you know one or two cuts, and then see what they need to do in the future. So with that, we are still seeing pretty stable employment and growth in the economy. Consumers still are spending, and we're not seeing a major surge in unemployment. So with that, there really is no reason for the Fed to cut rates right now. If we started to see a little bit more of that, that would raise concern and maybe put the Fed on edge to either keep rates steady or potentially cut. But right now, the bigger picture is the inflation picture. So with that, it really does benefit the portfolio. We've seen yields come up over the last month to where this is covering the 2-year Treasury note. You can see we're up in about the 4.9% range right now in 2026. This is really higher than we've been in a long time. So with your portfolio, it's a great opportunity because we're able to invest at these higher rates. That being said, I make the joke that what's good for your portfolio maybe isn't always good as we see interest rates on mortgages and everything up as well. So with that, one other benefit we're seeing in the portfolio is this is the U.S. Treasury yield curve. This tells you U.S. Treasuries from 3 months all the way out to 30 years. The orange line is where we are right now, and you can see it is what we call upward sloping. Essentially, that means that long-term rates are higher than short-term rates. So as we look to invest in things out to the 5-year for your portfolio, we're able to get a higher rate in today's current environment. So really benefiting there. I can skip over this. This essentially shows kind of the Essentially cash, which would be the orange line, or the Fed funds rate versus the 2-year Treasury. Typically the 2-year Treasury's higher. We're starting to see, we've seen that inflection point where the 2-year Treasury is once again outperforming the Fed funds rate, or you could argue that is what your cash accounts would get. Any questions or thoughts on the economy before we move forward?

Speaker A: Last question.

Speaker C: Oh, this is just, this is the end of the economic portion. rest of the portfolio, but do you have economic questions you'd like to?

Speaker B: No.

Speaker A: Okay.

Speaker C: All right. I'll hop into the portfolio. So, as you can see right now, we're sitting at about $51.2 million market value in the portfolio, getting around 4.3% at about a 2.1 weighted average maturity on the investments that we hold. We do expect this yield to go to go up over the next year, particularly as we see interest rates have gone up. And I'll show you that on the next slide, kind of what we've been investing in over the last 6 to 7 months. But yeah, in a really good spot, pretty well laddered from zero out— zero year— or from your zero to 1 year out to your 4 to 5 year range. As we look to invest, we might look— we may look to invest a little bit longer term as rates are getting higher and kind of at a longer term or a more unique position relative to the last 20 years of investing. Any questions there before I move on to the next? Okay. So, this is what we've been able to purchase in the portfolio since the beginning of the year. You can see when the Fed— when there was an expectation of Fed cuts going forward, you can see we were kind of investing, if you look in the yield to maturity bar, We were investing in the 4% range. As you come down, a little bit of high 3-percenters, but then as we go into the end of this, the end of the summer and coming out into October, we're looking more in the mid to high 4s, and even now today, we're starting to invest in the low 5s. So that's where we see that yield, or the expectation of yield growth over the next year come from, is as we're looking to invest. This is just a historical report showing net income, or net income from the— for the portfolio over the past fiscal years. You can see obviously 2022 when there was, you know, abysmal interest rates, you could barely get 1%. We were at about 1.22%, moving up to now fiscal year 2025 ended at 4.6%, fiscal year 2026 at 4.3%. Thank you. And we expect with where interest rates are fiscal year 2027 likely around that 4.5 range again with that expectation. So in a really good spot. Also probably just above $2 million. However, on this next page, this is with the securities that are currently held in the Eagle Mountain portfolio. You should expect about one or at least $1.9 million. This is what is could argue contractually owed due to the securities you own. So this is what you will get, even just in income, not considering any reinvestment or any change in price. This is strictly just income. So any thoughts or questions or concerns about the portfolio?

Speaker D: I'll just wait until the end.

Speaker F: Okay.

Speaker C: This is the last slide. This is just showing your breakdown between investments the PTIF holdings and deposits. The only update to this one would be that we've added fiscal year 2025, or the end of fiscal year 2025 breakdown. But really sitting in a great spot. We can see the growth in cash reserves over the last almost decade as Eagle Mountain has grown kind of at a same pace. So in a good spot.

Speaker K: Outside of that, that really ends the Before Councilmember Herwish jumps in, and I'm sorry, Councilmember Clark, to do this, but I'm just wondering if you or Ben or someone could just explain to those, those of us that are a little more laypeople when it comes to this.

Speaker C: Yes.

Speaker K: I'm really interested in helping our citizens understand why does Eagle Mountain have a $52 million portfolio? Where does that money come from? And where's it going? And what, what, Why are we managing a portfolio of this size?

Speaker A: Thank you. That was exactly what I wanted to know.

Speaker K: So I think it's important context for people to know rather than good grief, there's $52 million in an account that's drawing interest. What is Eagle Mountain doing with that money? I think it's important for people to understand where that money came from and where it's going.

Speaker D: And just to add to that, this is just a portion of the city's total liquid assets. So this is— no, no. Well, go ahead. I was just going to say some is with the PTIF, with the state fund, and some has been broken out and METER is managing that portion.

Speaker C: Yeah, so I can answer this question. Really, at the end of the day, it's good for a city to have a healthy size of cash reserves, especially a city like Eagle Mountain considering you've had pretty, I'd argue, explosive growth over the last 10 years. Having healthy reserves to compete or to keep up with that Essentially helps the taxpayer today, but also helps the taxpayer tomorrow. With that as well, the reason why you invest in a portfolio with Meader, as— sorry, what was your last name?

Speaker D: Hewish.

Speaker C: Hewish. As Councilmember Hewish said, quite a bit of the funds, if you look here, are actually with the PTIF, the Utah Treasurer's Office, about 65%. However, the rationale for keeping a little bit with investment firms like Meader is that METER is a little bit more strategic and can tailor investment solutions to the city. Now, METER does have to follow the Utah Money Management Act, which requires us to follow very conservative guidelines. We cannot invest the funds longer than 5 years. However, as I showed before, typically when you invest longer term over a long time period, you can expect a little bit of a higher yield while also creating more stable interest income. So as yields fall, if the Fed comes out and cuts rates, your portfolio is somewhat insulated as we're investing a little bit longer term. You're covered in that aspect, if that makes sense.

Speaker A: I think you're— oh, sorry. I think you're doing a really good job of explaining what the money is and what it's doing.

Speaker G: Okay.

Speaker A: I think Councilmember Wright—

Speaker K: Why does it exist?

Speaker A: Yeah, Councilmember Wright and I, and I'm sure many taxpayers, are like, Where is this money coming from? What's the source of it? And then what does the city use it for? When do we spend it? What is it like? Tell us more, someone.

Speaker K: A real simple explanation.

Speaker G: Yeah.

Speaker C: Yes.

Speaker E: Okay.

Speaker L: Maybe I'll jump in.

Speaker K: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Speaker L: Those questions and whatnot. So revenues can come from various different sources, but the primary sources would be from taxes, from fees, and, and those, and firm user rates and whatnot. So basically, as far as the city is concerned, we need to have a certain amount of reserves as a rainy day fund. So the state of Utah allows us to have no more than 35% but no less than 5% of next year's projected revenues. And so we, we have those in place in case something happens. You want to have a certain amount of reserves that if we did not have operations If some catastrophe happened, you didn't have revenue coming in, you could maintain operations for a certain number of days throughout the year. At any given point in time, we also fall into different times of the year. So much of our tax resources come in, as far as like property taxes, all at one time. And, and so we might be up in a certain part of the year and down in another part of the year.

Speaker K: So rather than stick those revenues in a shoebox, Right. We choose to invest them and get a return on the taxpayers' investments of user fees.

Speaker L: Correct.

Speaker K: And of taxes. I just think it's really important to understand what, what is there and why it's being generated. And there might be a capital project that's out there on the list that's going to be funded out of some of these funds, but it's not done yet and we haven't received a bill yet, so we can't pay it. So what are you doing with the resources in the meantime? I just think it's really important. important that people understand that, that these are not unallocated, right? They're not— they don't have a home. They're not extra, with the exception of the reserve. Anyway, and, and the reserve that we've chosen to keep is 35%, and we're struggling to do that this year with some of the tax issues that we're having. It's likely going to be less than that, just so people hear that and understand it. And even at a 35% reserve, we're only looking at a 6-month a 6-month window to be able to get from here to solving whatever problem we have with those reserves. So I just, I want the layperson, I want my daughter and my son who live here to understand that if they have questions. I don't want it to be hard for them to understand.

Speaker L: Exactly right. And it's probably also important to understand that there are times when a city might take on a major project for which we might have a lot of bond proceeds that are sitting in the bank that we then have until anticipated costs that come out of that. So there's different times, not only in the cyclical nature of a city but also in a cyclical nature of a project. And then it's also important to note that we have many different buckets. So the general fund is different from the water fund and the sewer fund and, and that type of thing. And so we, we have— each of our enterprise funds has to work like a business and has to have its own reserves in place to be able to cover its own debt, debt coverage ratios and things like that. But it needs to operate so that it's not being— so we're not stealing money to come back into general fund, nor is it being subsidized by the general fund. It's being operated as a business entity. So there's lots of different reasons of how we get to where we get, but you're absolutely right, we are stewards of the taxpayer resources, and it's incumbent upon us to make sure that we utilize those resources to the best our ability, and any interest coming off of those can be used for the benefit of the residents we also serve.

Speaker A: I couldn't have said it better.

Speaker B: I have a couple questions. I was just going to ask, as far as you mentioned the Utah Money Management Act, what restrictions on investments must METAs abide by, such as equities, precious metals, et cetera? Could you tell us what confines you operate in?

Speaker C: Yeah, absolutely. As far as what we're able to invest in, the vast majority of what we are able to invest in is essentially bonds or loan issuances from the U.S. government, from corporations, although corporations have a high A1 rating or higher. If you look at your asset allocation here, only about 23% is in corporate bonds. Everything else is more either implicitly or explicitly backed by the U.S. government. So certificates of deposit are only up to the $250,000, or under the Utah Money Management Act, it's $242,000 maximum. And then U.S. agencies, U.S. Treasuries, and cash equivalents. So no equities, no gold, no— essentially a very safe bond portfolio is what we hold. So, and arguing this again, only out to about 5 years, specifically for managing both interest rates and liquidity. You, you do— we do want an ample amount of liquidity available to the city within a few-year time period.

Speaker A: So, and then that's—

Speaker B: Does that help answer the question? Yeah, okay, I think so. And just kind of a little bit of a side note, I guess, but you mentioned earlier, um, like diesel prices and the war and different things, so I was just curious if And especially here on the staff level, the executive order this morning. Did you see this executive order? No highway tax on—

Speaker K: Yeah, red dye.

Speaker B: So diesel can run— any diesels that we have, especially snowplowing this winter, will be important. Any diesel-ran trucks can run red dye on highway. That's about 24.5 cents, I think.

Speaker K: Almost 25 cents a gallon.

Speaker B: Yeah, almost 25 cents a gallon that goes to the federal tax. And so it's hot off the press, but are we going to implement a plan for anything that's running diesel to go ahead and run that red dye?

Speaker K: Well, Mayor, my question is, where are you going to find it?

Speaker B: I think we store it.

Speaker K: If we do, that's great, because I mean, I just— I only know of one place that sells it in Lehi. So I'm just curious what that supply chain looks like.

Speaker B: If not, we need to get a tank. And if that's the case, then that's council if you wanna allocate that. We run a lot of diesel through these trucks, I suppose, and that's why I'm kinda bringing it up in this discussion. It was mentioned, but—

Speaker A: Mayor, we do get our taxes remated on fuel, the fuel and excise taxes, so it doesn't make a difference.

Speaker B: Even federal?

Speaker A: Yep.

Speaker B: Okay, that's what I was asking, if it changed anything. Doesn't matter to you, matters to me.

Speaker D: Thanks for your report. So I've just got a few questions.

Speaker C: Yeah, go ahead.

Speaker D: If we could work through these. Do you know how long Morton/Meter has been managing this section of the portfolio?

Speaker C: I believe— let me go here. I believe since around— let's see, maybe I could ask Erin.

Speaker A: I believe it's been since around 2015. It was first when the city did the utility sales.

Speaker D: Okay, and, and that would be another thing, Brett, the $3 million from the utility sales sitting in here, uh, somewhere. Okay, and, um, would it be possible in future presentations to benchmark? I would love to see— it looks like our duration is a 2-year treasury. I'd love to see that kind of— some kind of benchmarking data of— so that the council can actually see the value. I think we pay 15 basis points. Is that accurate as a fee to meter?

Speaker C: Yeah, I believe 15 or around 12.5.

Speaker D: Okay, so about 12 basis points. It'd be nice to see that value creation of here's what your portfolio did, here's what the 2-year Treasury did, and maybe even here's what the state fund— I'm a big believer that we have a lot of talent outside of the state of Utah managing fixed income portfolios, and I would just love to see that borne out in the presentation. And again, in a future presentation, if you could just break out, here's the 2-year, here's where we're at, here's where the PTIF is, and we're smoking them. That's what I'd love to see.

Speaker C: No, absolutely. I think that'd be great. We can include that in future. For now, I guess I could give a basic number. So that'd be great. Yeah, PTIF came out at around 3.97 for the same measure, uh, at the end of September. Whereas these numbers are at the September 29th coming out about 4.3%, so you can kind of see the outperformance there.

Speaker D: Net of fees?

Speaker C: I think net of fees it comes out to about 4 point— just under 4.2% or just over, around 4.2%.

Speaker D: 4.2%. So we got about 23 basis points extra by having Meader manage the portfolio. That's great.

Speaker C: And then, yeah, in future meetings, I can definitely provide something a little bit more detailed.

Speaker D: Okay. You mentioned the ability to ladder portfolios. So going back to Ben's comments, as we have— as we take out a bond, for example, for the sewer, which is going to be a pretty big project, I don't imagine— does that all get funded at once? When we sell the bond portfolio, we've got $250 million to figure out how to build a bond duration in our portfolio. It's gonna be a sizable amount. Am I stating that correctly?

Speaker A: I was gonna say, I know Mac would love $250 million.

Speaker D: Or whatever the number is. It's a big number.

Speaker A: But yes, and it will all come up front in terms of that. We do have the spend-down schedule, and we will have those funds invested based on that. We have to directly try to match it to what we anticipate for the cash flow.

Speaker D: And that's where Metered could be helpful. With PTIF, it's just one portfolio for the whole state managed the same way without any thought of cash flows. So that's where a private investment manager can kind of help us ladder out those expenses. Can you maybe just give us a little bit of understanding of What the state requirements are for the— kind of how are you handcuffed? You mentioned no equities. Could you push all of the portfolio out to a 5-year duration, or do you have to keep a certain duration of the portfolio at 2 years?

Speaker C: So there— right now there's only a final maturity of 5 years. However, with the duration portfolio, We kind of have an internal push to keep it under 3 years, arguably around the 2.5 range. The rationale for this really is liquidity. So when I say ladder portfolio, you can see you're invested a little bit in the 0 to 1 year, a little bit in the 1 to 2 year, and the 2 to 3 year. What this does is it kind of helps us to get the best of both worlds of investing longer term, so getting the higher 5-year yield, but at the same time, we're not putting equal come out in trouble if there does, you know, if there's an impending need to use the funds. And so with that, the 5-year minimum, or the 5-year maximum maturity set by the state of Utah, is arguably already very conservative. However, we like to keep a duration even shorter just for the sake of liquidity. Does that help answer the question?

Speaker A: Yeah.

Speaker B: Okay.

Speaker D: I think so. And then my last question is, do we have an active investment committee. What are you seeing with other cities as you're reviewing this duration and decisions are being made within the portfolio? Maybe report back, what are we doing and what are you seeing other cities within Utah that are using METR in terms of an investment committee, investment policy statement? Where could we improve our practice?

Speaker C: Yeah, yeah, great question. I think What we're seeing with other cities is actually very similar to how we work with Eagle Mountain. So obviously here we work with Kimberly and Erin, have either semi-annually or 3 times a year visits. I think with Eagle Mountain, actually, you're at a size now where we're having discussions about meeting 4 times a year, whether that's in person or Teams, where we get a liquidity update, where we get a kind of what is the city spending in the next year, or 6 months to a year, even out to 2 years, just so that we can better plan the shorter end of the portfolio. From there, though, other cities— we do work with a couple other cities who have a finance committee that meet together. However, similar to Eagle Mountain, a lot of cities use us as more of a rainy day, longer-term investment fund. And so typically the finance committee discussions revolve around more of like what we're spending in the next 3 to 6 months. So METER, for most of our Utah municipalities, we don't join those meetings unless it's to do a presentation or if they are talking about longer-term reserves. Does that make sense? Does that help answer the question?

Speaker D: Yeah, I think so. Are you seeing any cities— I'm just curious, how much are you managing of the city's total assets relative to PTIF? Are you seeing more money move your way out of PTIF? From what I can find, it sounds like there's only 4 or 5 cities in the state that are breaking outside of the state portfolio. Just curious what you're seeing as a trend.

Speaker C: For the most part, I'd say we have about half of our cities that use us more as a rainy day fund that keep us at about 50% of their total reserves or less. Other cities use us up to about 80% of their reserves. We at METER have decided we don't recommend giving us more than 80% of your reserves to manage, simply because it— you know, we could, we would just front-load it, but there's better options. We believe the PTIF for the cash portion could be much better. So we have a maximum that we usually top out at about 80%.

Speaker D: Okay.

Speaker C: But I'd say it's about half that use us in that function, and the other half use us just under 50%.

Speaker A: Okay. Thank you.

Speaker C: And I guess here, I think it's about 30% that we manage.

Speaker D: Okay. Thank you.

Speaker C: Perfect. Any other questions or thoughts before I— Perfect. Well, thank you so much. I appreciate the time to present.

Speaker B: Okay, thank you. Is there anything else, Erin?

Speaker A: No, we're good. Thank you for your time.

Speaker B: Okay, thank you. Appreciate you guys being here. All right, um, Ben?

Speaker L: Um, boy, things are busy as ever and good things are happening. Um, we are working just to keep the council informed. We're working, uh, really hard on the wastewater treatment facility and trying to get the permits necessary to be able to move forward, hopefully setting groundbreakings in, in the, in the weeks ahead, and working with the state of Utah to ensure that we get the permits necessary to move forward. We're also working with our, our financial advisors as far as bonding is for that, that project is concerned, as well as for the RDA project and the Kroger's and Lowe's project moving forward. Please stop me if you have any questions on any of these things as I, as I move forward with them. We are looking at our technology here in our city and how we can make enhancements to that. So we're going to be doing some analysis there.

Speaker B: We're— I'm getting reports as we speak about the volume, and I've got Carson, these guys kind of working on it, but definitely a question mark. Okay.

Speaker L: We are actively moving forward. We appreciate all of our staff and our HR team with all of our new personnel that we're bringing on and the council support of bringing that new staff on. A lot of hiring is going on, a lot of onboarding going on, and there's going to be a lot of training. And so that's going to be an extra workload for, for some of our staff as they bring new personnel on, but with a long-term relief at the end when we, when we add these great people to our team. We are continuing our leadership training with leaders at every level of the organization and those who aspire to be leaders within our organization, continuing to, to read a book together. And we're going through Good to Great and going through the first several chapters of that here next week. We're also going through our water storage and drought mitigation planning and the different activities that are involved in that with Central Utah Water and other cities and, and planning and reviewing our, our water portfolio in general and making sure our record keeping is up to date. And so that activity is, is still going forward. Of course, our— the council's been heavily involved in our strategic planning of late, working on vision statements and working on our focus areas, and we look forward to continuing that discussion with our staff at every level to ensure that we're aligned with the direction and the will of the council in serving the, the residents. Of course, we're going to be kicking off our, our budget here in the weeks ahead and our audit in the next couple of weeks. And so there's lots of meetings popping up on calendars with regard to, to our budget as well. And then there's been a lot of activity when it comes to economic development, different activities at council has been invited out to, uh, new restaurants and, and new businesses opening up. So great, great activity, um, on behalf of our economic development team as well. Um, several road projects underway— our Trailhead intersection here outside of City Hall, um, Campus Drive intersection, um, widening south of Pony Express, south of, uh, Eagle Mountain Boulevard. And the, the— we're all looking forward to reviewing the safety study tonight. Not looking forward to losing David, but we're appreciative of the service that has been rendered and the good work that's going on in that regard. Several wells are moving forward. Well 7 is under design, and as far as that wellhouse is concerned, Well 8 is about to come online in the week— a week or two ahead with a testing, water quality testing that would be needed to put that into, into implementation. And the drilling is complete on Well 9, and, um, and the work is going forward to be able to test pump that here soon, as well as the water tank, uh, the new 4 million gallon water tank that is progressing as well. Our community service, um, organization is doing a great job, and the boards, uh, and the volunteer work and the different aspects of the projects that they're moving forward with. They're working hand in hand with our parks crews and our streets crews. They just finished off the paving of the trail out in the Wilden Park area. Our crews are working on the widening of the sidewalk over on Golden Eagle, and great work is moving forward in that regard too. I'm sure that I'm missing people people, but, um, and, and some of the activities that we have going on. But just know that our staff is actively working in every area. And later on when I review all of the different activities coming up, it's important to note that our farmers market, the last farmers market, is going to be this coming week. And so we want to thank Jen for all the work that has been done to make our farmers market such a success this past Yeah, lots of fun stuff.

Speaker B: Any questions on that update? Okay, then we need to get through some of these consent items. Um, the— I'm going to start off with 10A, the Firefly, uh, Phase 8, Plat 9.

Speaker K: Mayor, I'm, I'm going to ask I'd like to move that both item 10A and 10B removed so that I can recuse myself from any vote on those.

Speaker B: OK, and so those will be voted on separately. And we'll do that right after the consent agenda vote. We'll just pull those vote and then go back to anything else. So 10A and 10B, then Harmony Phase A. Stop me if there's any questions. Overland Village 2 Phase A and Overland Village 2 Phase A, uh, it's Plat 4 and Plat 5. Uh, minutes A and B from September 15th, September 24th. Resolutions 12A, um, the resolution of Eagle Mountain approving the ranch's Parkway Improvement Interlocal Agreement with Utah County. Is there any questions, or did you have any presentation at all? No, no presentation, just that we're eager to get starting that project.

Speaker A: Design has been funded already, so we're here. We have RFP kind of ready to go once that's approved. Has to go to County Commission the following week, and then we can get started on that RFP for design. Okay, who did you have?

Speaker B: Uh, 12B, Resolution of Eagle Mountain approving a purchase agreement with Smith's Food and Drug. Nothing. And then 12C, Resolution of Eagle Mountain, Utah approving the purchase agreement with various residents to purchase Utah land. Uh, it's a multiple of parcels. Is there any questions on that?

Speaker K: The only question I have about that, Mayor, is where's the money going? I'm just curious. Is it just going in the general fund? Is that what happens to it from the sale of those properties? I mean, when we, when we dispose of property, and there's several of them that they've been working on for a year plus, right? Yes. Um, where does that money go?

Speaker A: It does go into the general fund.

Speaker K: And does it show up under a certain line item, or does it just— how does it come in?

Speaker A: We do have a line item that says sale of assets.

Speaker K: OK, that's what I wanted to know. Thank you.

Speaker B: While we're talking about that for one second, when we talked about this a long time ago, and this has come back and forth, one of the things was that we set it aside specifically for some improvements in either parks or open space. Is that—

Speaker K: That's the reason I wanted to know. I just want to make sure that it comes in separate so that when we're looking at the budget, we can, we can assess that and say, look, we sold $45,000 worth of property in this area. What kind of improvements do we want to bring and where are we going to locate them? So that, that, that's the reason I asked.

Speaker A: I also— oh, go ahead. Sorry, Mayor. Um, I also would like to see it really kind of separated in a way so that we can track it but also be accountable to the residents. In our strategic planning meeting that we had last week, we talked about different park spaces and expanding and, you know, different things like that. It'd be really great to say that we funded the purchase of land for expansion by using the funds from selling some of the land. And I think that's just a good practice. So if there's a way, just like from a bookkeeping standpoint, Kimberly, that we can watch it and monitor And know we've got about this. And I'm not like how we did the utility fund per se. I just, just a way for us to be able to see what it is.

Speaker K: And because if it comes in in the way that you described, if we sell a truck, if we sell vehicles, it's going to be all lumped together, right?

Speaker A: No, that would all happen in the fleet fund separately from that. But just in regards to the land disposals of what the council's done, we I just want to make sure that everybody understands that we haven't had any significant revenues come in on that, and the ones we had previously talked about either didn't end up going through or they were ones where they would pay when they sold their property, like a separate agreement was done, not something where the city had received money up front. But when we initially looked at some of these pieces when Todd Black was involved in it, some of the money as we recouped it was to hopefully be able to go to offset the cost of trying to work through these open space mitigation of— and the land disposals themselves.

Speaker K: Have any of the residents in this specific application chosen the path of waiting to pay for it or paying for it over time? I can't remember. So they're all prepared to pay for it now? That is my understanding, yes.

Speaker L: Okay, great.

Speaker B: Okay, so we're gonna track that separately and then make a note, whether it's Terrence or Kimberly, that as we go through the budget process, we call it out specifically. 'Cause I think what I don't wanna do is see it sit there and not get used. So let's find a place to just be thinking about where we can use it and put it to work. Let's see, that was the— that was 12C, right?

Speaker C: Yep.

Speaker B: Okay, 12D.

Speaker A: I got something here too, Mayor. Sorry.

Speaker K: Oh yeah, resolution. I'm, I'm going to just ask that, that, that be pulled so that we can have a separate vote on it, please.

Speaker J: Okay.

Speaker K: 12D, the community garden policy.

Speaker B: Is there just a separate vote or is there any questions or discussion that we need to work on during the vote?

Speaker K: No, I just think that I'm going to have a difference of opinion from the council and want to make sure that I have a right or the opportunity to vote differently should I Okay, is there any other questions on that specific one, on the language, any updates?

Speaker A: Okay.

Speaker B: Um, I just gotta remember, you guys are keeping track, I'm sure. Okay, so that's all of the consent agenda. As far as scheduled items, uh, 13A is a Resolution authorizing disposal of some parcels of land. Do we need to hold off on this discussion? I'm really just— I always do this, but I'm wondering, is there anything in the scheduled items that we can work out right now that we need to discuss, or do you guys want to wait? I think we have— we do have some— a lot of closed session items that Is there anything on Corrigan Farms that we need to ask questions on? I think— go ahead.

Speaker A: I was going to say, I think some of the questions for some of those will be with the applicants, um, when they come. So it might be useful to wait, and especially since there's been some public interest in some of these, it'd be almost better to hash it out in front of the public so that they can see kind of the deliberative It's going to be a long night.

Speaker F: Did you have anything besides that?

Speaker L: No.

Speaker B: Okay. So any of the IFFP stuff? Okay. If there's nothing else that we need to discuss right now until the policy session, I will take a motion.

Speaker D: Mayor, I move to adjourn to a closed session for the purpose of discussion of pending or reasonably imminent litigation, the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual, the purchase, lease, sale, or exchange of real property, a proposed development agreement, project proposal, or financing proposal related to the development of land owned by the state or a political subdivision and/or deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems pursuant to Section 52-4-205 of the Utah Code Annotated.

Speaker J: Second.

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

Speaker M: Yes.

Speaker B: Councilmember Wood.

Speaker H: Yes.

Speaker B: Councilmember Hewish.

Speaker L: Yes.

Speaker B: Councilmember Clark.

Speaker A: Yes.

Speaker B: Councilmember Wright.

Speaker H: Yes.

Speaker B: Okay, it is 5:34 and we'll adjourn to closed session.

Speaker A: You guys good?

Speaker B: All right, welcome. October 6th, it is 7:04, and before we get started, uh, Council Member Hughes is going to offer prayer.

Speaker D: Our dear, kind Father in heaven, we come before thee tonight grateful for the opportunity we have to meet in this public setting to discuss various policy decisions. Grateful for the great residents of Eagle Mountain. Ask thy blessing to be upon them and their families. Grateful for the police, fire, those that keep, keep us safe. Ask thee to bless and protect them. We're grateful for this good land in which we live. Grateful for the many opportunities that it affords us. And pray that we may have good discussions that will have positive outcomes tonight for all the residents of Eagle Mountain.

Speaker A: Amen.

Speaker D: We pray for these things in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

Speaker H: Amen.

Speaker B: All right, now it's 7:05. We'll officially call this meeting to order, and, um, Council Member Clark's going to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Speaker A: Please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Speaker B: Now, um, turn some time over to Ben for some information items, upcoming events.

Speaker L: Very good. Thank you, Mayor. Um, we have a Touch-a-Trunk, um, Thursday, October 8th, from 4:00 to 5:30 at Eagle Mountain Public Works building. Um, last— the last farmers market is this Saturday, October 10th, from 9 to 11. So we're— again, thanks, uh, Jen Corrington for all her work this, this past year, and encourage our community to come out and support our vendors on this last, last day of the farmers market. Um, Stocktoberfest hands-on community CPR and AED training is Wednesday, October 14th. from 7 to 9 PM at City Hall. Space is limited, so please register. Um, Halloween Town will be Saturday, October 17th, from 11 AM to 2 PM at Cory Ride Memorial Park. Um, Bag the Leaf program return— returns Tuesday, October 20th, and will run through December 18th, with dumpsters available at the 2 locations, Silver Lake Amphitheater and Pony Express Rodeo Grounds. And the Eagle Mount Public Library has won the 2026 Quality Library Award from the Utah State Library Division, an honor given to libraries whose work exceeds the state standards for public library service. So we want to give them a round of applause.

Speaker B: All right, perfect. Thank you. Um, next We will start with our public comment period. 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 period, please complete a comment form located in the back of the room and return it to our city recorder up here. Council members will listen but not engage in a discussion during public comment. We ask that everyone remain respectful Disruptive behavior, including cheering, booing, clapping, or comments directed at individual city employees, is prohibited. If you have issues or questions regarding staff or personnel, administrative staff will meet you in the foyer for further discussion. Lastly, public comment period is for items not associated with scheduled public hearings. If your comment relates to a public hearing item, please wait until that item is called. The public hearing items are 14A, which is the ordinance of Eagle Mountain City rezoning certain lands as Corrigan Farms. Just as a note, 14B is the development agreement on Corrigan Farms. That is not a public hearing. If you wish to address item 14B, speak now, and 14A will be during the public hearing. 15A is also a public hearing. That is the culinary water impact fee facility. Facility Plan. 15B is the wastewater fee and facilities plan impact fee. And then 15C, which is an amendment to our code, Section 9.10 and 17.47, regarding archery use within the city. 15D is an ordinance amending the Eagle Mountain Code 1760-120, the fencing and screening provisions. And then 15E is the, uh, Eagle Mountain City, Utah, amending the Municipal Code 172540 residential standards table. And then 15F is amending the Eagle Mountain Municipal Code 17140 master site plans. So those items, we'll call those as public hearings when we get to them. Any other items that you'd like to address, now is the time. It is 7:09, and I'll open the public Public comment period.

Speaker A: The recorder's office received a public comment form last month from Maddie Peterson. We did reach out but wasn't sure if she was going to be here this evening. Maddie Peterson, we'll get that in the record. Ashton Steed filled out a form. Ashton Steed, am I saying that correctly? No. Brett Jones.

Speaker D: Hello, Council and Mayor. So my name is Brett Jones.

Speaker A: Um, so we have the widening project coming to the south end of Pony Express coming soon, right? Um, I'm just wondering what we could do to consider possibly a street lamp at the corner of Pony Express and Shadow Drive. Um, it's the first road you come to on the East side if you're heading south, just right next to the fire station 252 for reference. So I know this route is used a lot by kids, especially a lot of the more housing and stuff getting built further south down there to get to you know elementary schools and stuff. I know with winter coming, days are getting shorter with daylight, and I know it's because I live down Shadow. It's pretty difficult with all the data center traffic coming. in the evenings, um, to try to get into that intersection. You know, you sit in the left turning lane and then you wait and you wait and you wait, and then you have to double and triple check, make sure there's no one in the crosswalk. Um, and the evenings with it starting to get dark, I just, um, I actually submitted this, uh, issue last year, um, to— in the Eagle Mountain, um, app as something to, to possibly consider. So just wondering if that's something that could be, um, worked into the widening project. So if they're going to have to dig up stuff, you probably have access to power if they can put a street lamp in there, or even sooner. So that's all I got. Thanks.

Speaker B: Hey, so I didn't hear what the ask was right at the first.

Speaker A: You talk about a street lamp, just, just some more light to be able to see people in the crosswalk. Sorry. Sorry.

Speaker B: Yeah. So you're looking for a street lamp?

Speaker K: We heard it on this side. Okay. Thanks.

Speaker A: Jeff Lister. And that's all I have.

Speaker B: Okay, that was everybody that's filled out a form. Is— okay, you filled one out? Oh, you emailed it in. So my next question is, is there anybody here that did not get a chance to speak that would like to? Okay, come— you can come up now. If— go ahead and come up now and make your comment and then turn your form in after. State your name for the record, if you would.

Speaker E: Yeah, um, I'm Maverick Bochicchio, and I'm gonna do my best to, uh, breathe through this. I struggle. So I'm just here, um, I saw the air quality permit for—

Speaker A: I think it was like 2.3 million And I think it's tons of like CO2 for what you guys are planning to—

Speaker E: and I want to know if this is like misinformation, if, you know, because from my understanding right now, there's a 500-megawatt—

Speaker B: Is this on the— so I've seen the air quality permit.

Speaker A: It's 289 megawatts, but—

Speaker J: Okay.

Speaker M: We don't normally engage during public comment. Can we wait till it's done? So he can have his 3 minutes.

Speaker B: I was asking because I thought it was on the Corrigan Farms agreement. That's why I'm asking.

Speaker E: Okay, I'm just asking. I've seen really high numbers, you know, like millions of tons of CO2 and formaldehyde and, you know, these air quality permits that are going through. And I moved out here to get away from the traffic congestion and the smog, and prices were cheap and You know, I felt like I was doing my family a favor by being in an area that was filled with homes. And I really took offense when the mayor said they were going to build homes in this community because I worked concrete and I loved building homes and I love building communities, fields. I did Daybreak. I did the model homes. And I did, you know, perfect job every time. And I was so proud of the community that we built. And then just to think that, well, we were going to put homes here until I said, let's put all the data centers here. Let's have all these rich people feel like they can pollute our backyard so that they can get richer because it's just land. And these gas power plants need water. And we— I used to— the ground used to freeze when I'd work construction so that it would be hard so I wouldn't get my feet all muddy. It doesn't freeze in the valley anymore, so your feet are always muddy. And we grew up with valley snow. It wasn't mountain snow, valley rain. It was valley snow. And it would pile up and it would be black and nasty from all the tire marks. And we all remember that. It was— I remember thinking I would freeze to death on Halloween.

Speaker A: 30 seconds remaining.

Speaker E: And it's just so much warmer. I've heard 4 to 7 degree temperature increase from, you know, if everything is approved and we get those gas power plants running and they use all the water. And I'm like, I remember you guys being so like, it's all renewables. You know, we can be conscious, like we're doing smart development, we're thinking of you guys, we don't want you to get cancer, we don't want you to be sick, because it's just making these people who are already rich and unhappy richer.

Speaker I: Your time is up.

Speaker B: I love all of you.

Speaker A: My name is Amy Lawson, and I'm actually a resident of Tooele County, and I'm here with Tooele Cares, and we're part of a coalition that is just asking for a moratorium on any new data center across the state. So I'm here for 14B right now, asking that you say no for any new zoning that allows for a data center out here in Eagle Mountain. Thank you. That's all I have.

Speaker B: Okay. Would you like to speak? State your name. And he emailed a form in, double-check. If not, we'll get one filled out after.

Speaker F: Yep.

Speaker A: Uh, Jay Johnson. Janelle Smith. Uh, we're residents on Lake Mountain. I'm here tonight because Lake Mountain Road has transformed into a high-speed commuter shortcut. Every single weekday between 5:00 AM and 7:00 AM, 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM, the street sees thousands of drivers cutting through at high speeds directly past front yards and family homes. This volume and speed creates a severe safety hazard on a narrow residential road. that was never designed to handle shift change commuter traffic.

Speaker B: Most critically, it has made the crossing of the street extremely dangerous.

Speaker G: I'm asking the city to take action through 3 steps.

Speaker A: Protect the children, the people that cross it, the animals. Install a high visibility crosswalk at the 3 intersections.

Speaker F: Thank you.

Speaker A: with flashing beacons if possible, and then temporary speed cushions to force commuters to slow down. Implement traffic calming signage, temporary radar so the speeders know how fast they're going, and possibly stop signs at the multiple intersections. The other is to target peak hour enforcement, which has been happening, station traffic enforcement on Lake Mountain Road during critical shift change windows. I've seen everything from 40 to 80 miles an hour. The road was graded today, which is great, but it increases traffic and speed by exponential amount. So thank you.

Speaker B: Okay, is there anyone else here that did not get an opportunity to speak?

Speaker A: Okay.

Speaker B: Please state your name and fill out a form, give it to Lacey.

Speaker A: Hi, my name is Casey Jensen. I'm here today to discuss my concern as a pedestrian of my safety.

Speaker B: And I live not too far from Eagle Mountain Drive and Pony Express.

Speaker A: Geez, I've gone out during peak hours and I have almost been hit by a car several times. I— all I'm asking is to invest in just pedestrian safety equipment, as multiple other residents here have discussed. I think a streetlight near Shadow Drive would be an excellent idea too. Also, there's a discussion about another resident moving here due to lower volume of traffic. And I wholeheartedly believe that investing in public transportation will relieve an immense amount of that traffic. And I believe that high volume of traffic also deters new buyers and new money coming into the city. I believe that's all. Thank you.

Speaker B: Is there anyone else that we missed?

Speaker K: Gentleman here.

Speaker B: Okay.

Speaker A: My name is Jacinto Moreno, and I'm here concerning the— oh, geez— the Corgan Farms data center. I'm just concerned with our current data center, the Meta, and its power consumption being around 133 megawatts. The power consumption and the heat from that, along with the CO2 emissions, just kind of are worrying me as a citizen. I think that's a great question. as well as the expansion of the metadata center, adding more commuters and jobs for, uh, people in Eagle Mountain. I just think the concern should be brought towards that. Um, but that should do it. Thanks.

Speaker B: Anyone else that I've missed? Okay, seeing no one, we will close the public comment period at 7:21 and bring it back to the council. Time's been set aside for the council to make comments, and we'll start with Councilmember Clark.

Speaker A: Thank you, Mayor. Um, it's good to see so many faces here, uh, some new faces and some old friendly faces. And I see a former council member sitting out there in the front row, and It's good to see you. I am so— I've been thinking a lot about the concerns that people have about the things that we're doing as a city. And I think it's really important for you guys to feel like you can reach out and talk to us because our packet this week for our city council meeting was 749 pages. which means that we get it on Thursday night, and we need to prepare and read it, and try to figure out what the residents of our community want us to do with the decisions that are being proposed in that 749 pages. Our community is growing, and there's lots of things that are happening, and it makes it really difficult sometimes to be able to reach out to all 80,000 residents. But that doesn't mean that we're going to stop trying. We continuously work with our comms team and our staff here at the city. We try to make ourselves available on social media and via phone calls and different things like that so that you guys have access to us. And earlier this year, we were doing neighborhood listening sessions where we'd come to different neighborhoods and invite you to just come and share your concerns and your ideas and your hopes and dreams. So I think the thing that I want to stress more than anything is we work for you, and we get that. We know that it's a sacrifice for us to do that, and it's not meant to be something that we do forever. We spend time away from our families doing this, but we do it because we believe in the system where people elect people that share their values and go and vote on their behalf. So I just want to kind of reshape and reframe that. I also want to thank our staff for all that they do. We're losing a staff member next week, and, um, he's a really incredible staff member, just like a lot of our staff members. So I don't want to, like, outshine too much, but because he's leaving, I just want to say, David, thank you. Thank you for the tenacity And the excitement that you brought to a really boring topic of engineering. And we're really grateful for the things that we were able to accomplish as a city with your help. So thank you for all that you do, and we wish you the best in your next chapter of life.

Speaker K: Thanks, Mayor. Welcome, everyone. It's good to see you. It's always nice to see some of— so many smiling faces and Eagle Mountain residents. and those who are outside of our community. Ben, it's good to see you again. Thanks and welcome for— welcome back to the chamber. That side's a little more comfortable than this side, I think. I'll just say it that way. I too just want to— I just want to express my gratitude to David Salazar, recognize the contributions he's made to our city, in particular as we have been working through transportation engineering plans with him. And all of our staff members work as hard as he does. The turkey thinks he needs to live in a warmer climate because that's what his wife grew up in. And so I wish him and his family the very best in their new adventures. And the mayor gave me permission to share this, so I'm going to share it. We've— and I'm excited about this. I don't know if the council members all know this. I know some of them just heard me speaking about this earlier, but we We've secured a gentleman who's agreed to come work for the City of Eagle Mountain to do the job that Todd Black was doing. His name is Justin Dodd, and I'm really looking forward to him coming and serving our community. He's due to arrive middle of November. He's a Wyoming Fish and Game biologist and right now a conservation officer, and he has some military background. And so I just think he's going to be a really beautiful fit. And I was privileged to sit in some of the interview processes. I was invited to do that by the mayor and some of our staff members. And Brandon's shaking his head. He sat in those meetings, he and Brad and Steve and myself and others. And it was— he's the right man for the job. And I couldn't be more excited for the gentleman who's going to get to come try and fill some very, very big shoes in Todd Black's.

Speaker H: Thank you.

Speaker K: Todd Black's former position. So I'm grateful for that. Welcome, and I look forward to the dialogue that we'll have this evening.

Speaker J: Welcome. It's happy for me to see as many of you as are here. We love it when you reach out to us, and we can— we need your eyes and ears to notify us of things that we might not be aware of. Like, Jay, thanks for talking about Lake Mountain Road. That's— I know we just We just concluded a speed study where numerous streets were studied, and I don't think Lake Mountain Road was one of those. So, but that would be one that we'd want to get, I think, on a future study for sure. And I'm excited to have the review later of the speed study results, and it's something the council is taking super seriously and dedicating money towards solving these issues. So thank you for bringing that to our attention.

Speaker A: Thank you.

Speaker J: I just wanted to let people know about a teen trunk-or-treat that is being put on by the Eagle Mountain Youth City Council. It's going to have horseback riding and dancing. There will be a costume contest, a pumpkin carving contest. It's free. You would need to bring your own pre-carved pumpkin. It's the 22nd of October from 6:30 PM to 8:30 PM at 2440 41 East Cedar Drive. And so it should be a lot of fun. There's a lot of energy right now with the Youth City Council, and they're doing a lot of great things, and this should be one of those. So let your teens know about that, have them come, and it should be a great, great time.

Speaker A: Thanks for being here.

Speaker H: It's good to see so many people here. I think— I don't know what you're all here for, but I'm glad you're here. I hope that you have some input that you can share with us when the opportunity comes. I appreciate the people who have reached out to me one-on-one. I want to make sure that I say that because I think we have a real desire to tell the truth about everything. It's really hard to do that on Facebook. I think that's an avenue that's become pretty disappointing in dialogue. I appreciate the people who have reached out, who I've had telephone calls with, that have reached out to me through direct messaging, that have reached out to me through texts. There isn't anything to hide. I love being able to talk to you and be able to tell you the reasons why I've come to the conclusions that I've come to as a council member, why I voted the way that I voted. And most of you who know me know that there really isn't anything to hide with me. It's what you see is what you get with me. Um, I appreciate you being here because I think we make way better decisions when the people who live in the areas are telling us what we can't see. It's a big city. I mean, it's 54 square miles. We, we can't see everything, and we don't know impacts of everything. Uh, sometimes we are a little bit 2D, and we need you to kind of bring the 3D world into our city hall here and let us know what are the impacts, what are we missing, how can we do better. So when you come and you share those things, I take notes every single time so that there's some things we can talk about, get some follow-up on those. Thank you for bringing that in about the lamp. I think that safety is a big deal to me. I care about the people who live here. That's why I'm doing this, and I'll be very happy to be done with it at some point.

Speaker B: Thank you.

Speaker H: But I want to make sure that when I'm done, that I left a mark with— we did things to make it better for the people living here. We made it safer for the people living here, and we made it possible for people to live here and not hate the existence of being here because of traffic or because of industries that are not compatible with the lifestyle that we've all carved out here.

Speaker A: So thanks for being here.

Speaker D: Thank you. And I would just echo, Dave Salazar has been an awesome streets engineer. I don't know any different. He's going to be very difficult to replace. He's very adept and in tune with the traffic within our city and the flow. And we're just working hard to improve traffic because we all are dealing with that. I wanted to— I also appreciate those who have reached out to me individually. There's kind of this hierarchy of— I don't know what you would call it— success. of getting something actually done, like a streetlight is a great example. At the very base level, you have like a Facebook complaint. You know, this road sucks. Fix it, City Council. It's like, I don't— okay. Then there is like an email that's well-worded. Then there's coming here, taking time out of your night to make a public comment where I can actually see a face and somebody who's being impacted. Thank you. And then there's maybe taking a city council member out to where you're talking about and showing us and seeing those, those, those types of activities. I know they require energy and effort, but it makes such a big difference. On the Williams Energy, the gentleman that, that brought that up, that's, uh, I've been out there. I've been to the site. I've walked through where the 17 turbines are going to be going. It's a 289-megawatt project that is intended to power 3 data centers. Meta has kind of hit capacity with their green energy initiative with Rocky Mountain Power. Rocky Mountain Power has basically said we don't have any more solar credits or power to sell you, and so Meta will be powering those 3 data centers through nat gas. But I do have concerns about air quality. I think we need to be careful about the message that we're sending to the market of what kind of power will be okay within our city. We've recently passed an alternative energy overlay zone that will allow for geothermal, natural gas, nuclear. I don't know that we only want to settle on natural gas as the only option. I struggle with that and trying to find the balance. Cities cost money. The more homes that we add, to the city, the more cars we add, the more streets engineers that we need, and that increases taxes. How do we balance out commercial? We're not on I-15. We're not on the way to anywhere. And data centers happen to be interested in coming here. There will be roughly $3 million that will be generated from the Williams plant, and that has a direct offset to costs in the city to build roads.

Speaker G: Thank you.

Speaker D: So the thing that I'm always struggling to balance is the quality of life in Eagle Mountain and at the same time not having to go back and ask residents for increased property taxes. How do you balance that in a city? It's just, it's a struggle. It's something that we're working through. But I appreciate those that came and made made a comment. And Jay, I would love to, to come and sit out on Lake Mountain Boulevard. I think those are great ideas, and you came with some suggestions, so that, that's a positive. Appreciate everyone coming tonight. Thank you.

Speaker B: Perfect. I had earlier— I'm going to start at the top of this— I talked to Officer Gilstrap earlier today, and I thought he was going to come, but I haven't seen him yet because I think he was dropping his daughter off, but he sent me some numbers and I'll bet he shows up in a minute. But I had asked him about Lake Mountain Road specifically, and I don't see Officer Knutson here either, but I asked him to go over there and do some, uh, some enforcement. Had 46 traffic stops in—

Speaker A: Where?

Speaker B: Oh, there he is. I was just talking about some statistics that Officer Gilstrap had given me, and now I'm going to ask him to come up here and tell me what it's been like out there on the road.

Speaker E: So, um, great timing.

Speaker B: Did you have fun?

Speaker A: As fun as I'll ever have.

Speaker B: So specifically on Lake Mountain Road, I've asked you a couple weeks ago to spend some time out there and I think you spent 3 or 4 shifts with a couple of different guys. Give us some of the statistics.

Speaker A: Yeah, we've done multiple shifts on Lake Mountain Road since we were apprised of the issue 2 weeks ago. In the 2-week time period, our CAD system shows that we've made 46 traffic stops on Lake Mountain Road. Most of those have been citable offenses well over the posted speed limit. We've recognized that there's a lot of traffic that overflows off of Pony Express onto Lake Mountain, and we've been trying to address it appropriately as needs arise, which has been needed just about every morning between 4 and 6 AM.

Speaker B: And the evenings as well, right?

Speaker A: Oh yeah, oh yeah, traffic's real fun in Eagle Mountain mornings and evenings. Keeps us busy.

Speaker B: So, and then the other thing that we had talked about a couple weeks ago, and I don't remember which one of you had— we're going to move the, uh, the sign over there?

Speaker G: The speed trailer?

Speaker M: Yeah.

Speaker A: Yes, we're going to be moving that off of Ira Hodges over onto Lake Mountain Road.

Speaker B: Do you know when?

Speaker A: We've been hitting it pretty hard still, and we've been having a lot of good enforcement there, so we were planning on hitting that for probably about another week before we put the lighted sign out there. There's plenty of signage on Lake Mountain Road.

Speaker N: There shouldn't be any excuse for the speeds.

Speaker B: Okay. Yeah, just keep doing that for a minute, and then probably a week or two we'll see the speed trailer over there. And then also for the council, anybody up here, staff, as you're working with the— maybe I'd ask you to work with Meta specifically, is that they've designated routes and that's not a designated route. The problem is, is the subs. Every day it's a different sub and they don't necessarily know. But if we could get them to help us with their subs to use the designated routes, that is not the best route to use in a rural area. And the traffic Do you know the, like, car count? If you stop 46 cars, it's—

Speaker A: Well, the car count, as soon as we clear a traffic stop, we're ready for the next one. So the— it's, it's pretty consistent with the speeds.

Speaker H: Uh, we've noticed that different vehicle makers on their mapping system like to try to designate Lake Mountain Road as a 55-mile-an-hour zone, so that way we've had a lot of speeds up in that range.

Speaker A: That's been swiftly corrected, and we've also provided some updates to safety staff down at QTS about their employees driving that speed.

Speaker B: Perfect. Well, thank you for the update. You're welcome. Appreciate you coming down. So that was— I talked to him earlier and I thought it was just going to be easier for him to tell us what he's been experiencing. But we'll continue to help do what we can on Lake Mountain Road and try if we can't correct the traffic patterns. Also, I get to sit on our MAG board and work on transportation and funding, and it's an uphill battle and it's a heavy lift. And I'm telling you, we have had some huge victories at MAG in Eagle Mountain in the last few months, and I couldn't have done it myself. As much as I get to go down there and take credit and kind of do the final voting, that guy over there has set us up for some huge success. And I just hope we can get somebody in here that can continue to helped me be successful, and I, and I couldn't do it without you. So thanks, David, for what you've done, and we get to hear from you in a little while. We'll be— it'll be late night, but I can't wait to hear the rest of your report and wish you well in your new endeavors and just tell you that, you know, you can always come back. The road goes both ways. Uh, also our guys from UFA, and you guys made it over here but you didn't hear Chief Perchette, just left. And, you know, it's always fun working with those guys and kind of seeing what the actual numbers are. And that just our partnership with UFA in general has been over the last 15 years has been amazing. And we've had great, great medical care and fire safety, and, and these guys are always here to help us. So, you know, it's— I just want to make sure that everybody knows that I love and respect UFA. And they're a great partner in our city, and we appreciate them always being with us. Also, as mentioned before, it's our last farmers market. I got to spend a lot of time there this year. I've tried to be there as much as I can and answer questions and bump into people. It's been a really good time. So make sure you make it to the farmers market and our library that was mentioned earlier in the meeting. They, they continue to get awards in this little teeny tiny thing over here compared to some of the others. They're killing it, knocking it out of the park. So good job to our library and everything that they bring and do for us. And so I just wanted to add some congratulations there and ditto to everything else that's been said. So appreciate you guys all being here and we got a lot of work to do. So let's get started. First of all, the consent agenda, 10A and 10B and then 12D, I think.

Speaker K: So, Mayor, I'll make the motion. Mayor, I move that the City Council approve the consent agenda removing item 10A and 10B and 12D and placing them on the regularly scheduled agenda.

Speaker H: Second.

Speaker B: Okay, we got a motion by Council Member Wright and a second by Council Member Wood, and we'll start the vote with Council Member Wright.

Speaker K: Yes.

Speaker B: Council Member Whiting.

Speaker J: Yes.

Speaker B: Council Member Wood.

Speaker F: Yes.

Speaker B: Council Member Hughes.

Speaker D: Yes.

Speaker B: Council Member Clark.

Speaker A: Yes.

Speaker B: Okay, that passes, and we can go right to item 10A.

Speaker K: Mayor, let me just make a declaration that I have a potential I have no conflict of interest with anything related to Firefly. I am the owner of a residential property in Firefly that I rent, and I will recuse myself from voting on item 10A and 10B.

Speaker B: Okay.

Speaker H: I have a question. Can we make a motion on both of them, or they got to be done individually?

Speaker M: Typically we vote on agenda items individually.

Speaker A: Okay.

Speaker B: Okay, so is there any questions on 10A, is Firefly MPA 8 Phase A going into warranty. If there's not any discussion, the purpose of removing that is just so Brett could recuse himself, and I'll entertain a motion.

Speaker H: Mayor, I move that the City Council approve the fire plat MPA 8 Phase A Plat 9 into warranty as a bond release.

Speaker A: Second.

Speaker B: We have a motion by Council Member Wood and a second by Council Member Clark, and we'll start the vote with Council Member Whiting.

Speaker J: Yes.

Speaker B: Council Member Wood.

Speaker J: Yes.

Speaker B: Council Member Hughes.

Speaker D: Yes.

Speaker B: Council Member Clark.

Speaker A: Yes.

Speaker B: Okay, that passes 4-0. Yep, 10B, uh, Firefly MPA 8 Phase B Plat 1 into warranty.

Speaker H: Mayor, will you accept a motion?

Speaker L: Yes, sir.

Speaker H: I move that the city council issue a bond release for Firefly MPA 8 Phase—

Speaker B: It says into warranty. I don't know what it—

Speaker H: Well, it's a bond release. It'll, it'll say into warranty at the end of this.

Speaker A: Okay.

Speaker H: Uh, I'll start over. Issue the bond release for Firefly MPA 8 Phase B Plat 1 into warranty.

Speaker A: Second.

Speaker B: Okay, got a motion from Council Member Wood and a second from Council Member Clark, and we'll start the vote with Council Member Wood.

Speaker H: Yeah.

Speaker B: Uh, Council Member Hirsch?

Speaker H: Yes.

Speaker B: Council Member Clark?

Speaker A: Yes.

Speaker N: Council Member Whitey?

Speaker J: Yes.

Speaker B: Okay, now 12D. It is the resolution of Eagle Mountain city approving the community garden policy. I do know the community board is here, both the garden and the board members. If there's any questions, we can call them up for discussion on the— go ahead.

Speaker K: No, Mayor, I mean, I'm the one who asked that this be pulled, and it's just because I think I'm going to have a contrary vote probably to, uh, to, to the rest of the council. I'm making an assumption about that. Maybe I'm wrong. And I just, I would like to just at least explain my concerns with approving this. And the concerns that I really have are not that there's a community garden or community garden space. I'm concerned about dedicating our employee resources to managing this, to managing the finances that come in, to tracking all of that, to tracking the expenses, to making sure that there's water at these spaces, even though there's a charge that's been proposed to be charged to a number of residents. I'm also concerned about the limited number of residents that will benefit from this. And for me, it's just a principled— it's a principled discussion. And for me, it just doesn't— this shouldn't be something that the government should be involved in from my perspective. And I recognize that there are those who are going to feel differently than I do about this.

Speaker A: Thank you.

Speaker B: If you don't have any questions, uh, any— no other discussion or questions?

Speaker D: I, I would, uh, I appreciate Councilmember Wright's comments. Having sat in the Community Services Board, we do have a subcommittee committee for the gardens that will manage that. Jen Corrington— or it's not— is it Corrington? Okay, sorry, I've got Corrington in my brain tonight because of another agenda item. Uh, she runs the farmers market, and I think it's a great opportunity for residents who want to learn how to garden, may not have the yard space. As we know, there's— there is some density within Eagle Mountain. I think just provides an opportunity for people to pay a nominal fee to come learn a skill that maybe they otherwise wouldn't be able to. And I do think we have a board that's very committed to see this project, including Mr., Mr. Jay Johnson, in developing, overseeing, and seeing that it will be a successful endeavor. So I'm, I'm going to make a motion that the City Council Well, do we want to have any more discussion?

Speaker B: Okay, before I make a motion, as long as you want to—

Speaker D: okay, okay, I'll go ahead, Mayor, and make a motion that the City Council approve a resolution of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, approving a community garden policy.

Speaker A: Second.

Speaker B: Okay, we have a motion by Councilmember Hughes and a second by Councilmember Clark. And we will start the vote with Councilmember Wood.

Speaker H: Yes.

Speaker B: Councilmember Herish.

Speaker L: Yes.

Speaker B: Councilmember Clark.

Speaker A: Yes.

Speaker B: Councilmember Wright.

Speaker F: No.

Speaker B: Councilmember Whiting.

Speaker J: Yes.

Speaker B: Okay, that passes 4-1. And thank you very much. I sometimes let you speak, but you already did, so we're good. Uh, let's move on to 13. 13A, a resolution of Eagle Mountain City authorizing land disposal application for— who had— oh, this is— no.

Speaker K: 13A, right?

Speaker B: Yeah. There you go, right at the bottom. Resolution of Eagle Mountain City authorizing land disposal application to proceed and directing staff to begin Again, notice the public hearing process for significant real property in Eagle Mountain Code 3.30.060. So this is Lacey. That's what I was looking for.

Speaker A: Good evening, Council. I have the map up here for your review. I do have application in the packet that goes through the application, everything that the applicant has as far as the property in question for disposal. I also have Zach. Staff has reviewed this. Zach has some updates on the— there's a sprinkler box right there on the corner of the property. Like I said, Eric is here to answer any questions that you may have. And to clarify, this is under the new land disposal code, so you're not approving the disposal, you're just approving that we can move forward with the disposal, and we will do a public hearing in the future after we meet all the requirements on that. Did I miss anything? Good. Okay.

Speaker D: So I just want to point out how green that grass is right up to the property line. When I was reviewing this application, I thought that's exactly sometimes what you expect from government versus private ownership. It looks awesome. So kudos to you. And you saw that across all 3 yards. Where I struggle a little bit, um, I don't love how this was all laid out, however the development agreement was, was put together. Um, I understand why developers have that little strip to get to their, uh, needed parks requirement for the development. Um, I, I think I would support this if it were all 3, uh, of those properties together up to the the sidewalk line. I think I could probably get there if those 3 property owners would just take out that entire strip versus having one, uh, because then the city has to kind of maintain these other, uh, 2 areas. And I just think it would be a lot cleaner if we could put together those other 3 property owners in this application.

Speaker K: So I, I want to just make a, make a suggestion for us to think about. I, I'm, I'm, I'm opposed to liquidating this property. And let me tell you why. As I've looked at this, I think there's an opportunity to provide some parking for this park that doesn't exist on both ends, both the south and the north section in the picture on the left. I think that can be converted to parking, and there's an easy trailhead access into the park from that area. So has it been done yet? No. Has it been cared for in the way that we'd hope? Probably not. But we have a lot of open space in the city that's in this condition, and, and I think this is an area where we could actually turn it into something that's beneficial for the entire community rather than selling it off to 2 or 3 property owners. So for me, this one's— I'm going to be a hard pass on this one.

Speaker J: And something that I've, you know, as I've been looking at this particular street, when you look on the opposite side of where the proposed property is, that there are trees on that other side. So there's almost like this corridor entrance into this part of the neighborhood. And if these, you know, if that, if we sell this property, it becomes asymmetrical with the other side. I think it's, I could see those trees, you know, a handful of years from now, I could see the trees on both sides, you know, growing and maturing and being a beautiful entrance for numerous people to enjoy. This particular subdivision, there's some really small lots. in some of the areas there, and at least the people can enjoy their drive as they go through the community with the open spaces there. So I likewise hesitate to sell. I would be open to parking if that becomes a beneficial use to the neighborhood, but I hesitate to move forward with the sale.

Speaker A: I agree with a lot of the stuff that's been said, but I also want to point out that If this land was something that was a responsibility of that developer to put in trees or grass or whatever, they sure didn't do a very great job in that location. So I think that it might be useful for us as decision makers and the body responsible for things like this to look at ways that we can hold developers accountable for their requirements that they're supposed to. to do. I know that we have warranty bond releases and all of those things, but, um, I'd like to make sure that we avoid situations like this so that residents don't feel it's on them to take over park space to make it look nice because it wasn't installed to the best of its ability. So, um, that's just something I, I'm calling on the body to make sure we Anything else?

Speaker H: I don't know how I feel about this one. On the one hand, I sympathize with the homeowners that are there having a piece of land that nobody's taking care of because it looks bad. To maybe a counterpoint, Brett, to the parking is basically you're going to be bringing cars right up to the back end of that house, uh, at different times of the day, morning and night. That would put headlights in pretty close proximity to their back door and back windows. Uh, that would be concerning for me. I, I think you're not wrong on the assertion about the parking problems there. But I think if that's really a concern that we have, there is opportunity at that northeast corner of the property. You might have to adjust the trail there, but you could do parking inside the park there because it's not really usable space on that east side other than the trail. So I think there's some other solutions if parking is really what we're talking about. To me, I view this in one of two things: either we need to give them the opportunity to be able to improve this piece of property that makes their property devalue in its appearance, or we need to take care of it. One of those two things.

Speaker J: Well, I'm looking at an older photo on Google. Earth, if I'm looking at the right spot, which I think I am, the grass looks better in this photo.

Speaker A: Still pretty patchy.

Speaker J: Yeah, I mean, it's, it's not, not perfect, but it looks—

Speaker A: Are those trees on our property?

Speaker J: The trees are on the city's property. And, and that's part of why I hesitate to remove this, because of the beneficial— how those trees benefit the neighborhood, the look, the feel. And if you look on the south side, there are trees on the south side as well that sort of have created little corridors people drive through there that everybody benefits from. And that's what the benefit— the purpose of open space is to benefit the public. And so I mean, I know where I stand on this. And I mean, again, I actually would prefer parking to be found elsewhere. I prefer that as opposed to this. But I still— I'm against the disposition of this.

Speaker E: Thank you.

Speaker H: I'm going to ask you a question, Zach, before you say something. Would it be better for us to maybe do some decorative xeriscaping there so we're not trying to mow right next to somebody else's property, trying to figure out what part belongs to us and what part belongs to them?

Speaker A: I can send you guys a photo. That is not what it looks like today. That, that is not a current photo.

Speaker N: It's, it's green.

Speaker L: So I just sent that photo to you.

Speaker N: Thanks.

Speaker G: Can I just add some additional context? I mean, this year was a rough year for us. We all know that we had a lot of water issues and whatnot. And so as I'm looking back through these aerials and whatnot, there's a lot of them that reflect the condition of this year. And so that's Where I would— yeah, I'm glad that we had the photo that was brought up there and we can really look at it to see what it looks like.

Speaker J: Mayor, I'd like to make a motion. I move the City Council deny 13A, a resolution of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, authorizing the land disposal application for Utah County Parcel 668282978.

Speaker A: I'll second that.

Speaker B: All right, we have a motion by Council Member Whiting, seconded by Council Member Wood, and we'll start with Council Member Hewish.

Speaker J: Yes.

Speaker B: Council Member Clark.

Speaker E: Yes.

Speaker B: Council Member Wright.

Speaker K: Yes.

Speaker B: Council Member Whiting.

Speaker J: Yes.

Speaker B: And Council Member Wood.

Speaker L: Yes.

Speaker B: Okay, we'll move on to item 13B, a resolution of Eagle Mountain City authorizing the land disposal to proceed and directing staff to begin the notice of public hearing process on parcel 464910332 and 2 other parcels designated as significant real property pursuant to Code 3.30060.

Speaker L: Lacey?

Speaker A: Yes, so as mentioned in your packet, this one came to you before you in April of 2021, and at that— or April 21st, 2026 of this year. And at that time it was denied 3 to 2 with the recommendation to come back with the neighboring— with the neighbors. So this is that application in Meadow Ranch along the HOA. It was previously maintained as an HOA corridor and no longer is getting maintained. So Chelsea Lindsay has done a new application with the neighboring— with the residents, the neighbors. And I believe that she is here to answer any questions. Again, this is just to see if we can move forward with the land use Okay.

Speaker B: And I, I don't remember. I just wanted to make one maybe clarification, and they could speak to this. When they went back after the first one, it was kind of a— they were sent back with maybe an idea of it would be more open if it was all, or if everybody participated. Some neighbors were not able to be here, but they did reach out and say they would like to participate. that they are adjacent to this property and they did not want to see the disposal go through. Um, just— I don't even remember which ones it was, but I just wanted to make that clarification. I think they might have sent in an email.

Speaker A: I haven't received anything. I did receive documentation from the applicant of the signatures who would like to move forward with it, but I have not heard from anybody who has not.

Speaker B: So there are some that did not, correct?

Speaker A: There are some that— let me look. Looks like there are a couple that are moving, but I'm unsure. Is Chelsea here?

Speaker E: Yeah, she's here.

Speaker J: Yeah.

Speaker A: Can you come help clarify? Yeah, just the ones that we didn't get. I know that you and I spoke a couple times about it.

Speaker I: Thank you.

Speaker A: So in green is a yes if they were interested. They need more information such as, you know, what would the price be, what does it mean for me? Um, so our first round, only one person had said no. Uh, another neighbor— I don't know if I can say names, I don't know if it matters— but another neighbor, uh, expressed some information this week that he said he would not be interested in purchasing. Um, technically you only need one neighbor on each side of it to purchase, and we have a yes for all of that, so we can dispose of all of it in its entirety.

Speaker I: Okay.

Speaker B: Yeah, that's— I just want to make that clarification for the council as we discuss this, and then I'll open it up for either discussion or any other questions for the applicant. Is it one application or per—

Speaker A: Correct, it's one application with all the residents on one application.

Speaker D: Just a quick question. Remind me, was there a drainage issue or utility easement access issue with Brad, was that—

Speaker B: do you know?

Speaker G: I don't think there's an existing easement for drainage. I'm sure that there is some flow that goes down through there. But in my recollection, I mean, I think it was probably preserved for some kind of trail network or whatnot is really what the intent was. The problem with the trail network that runs through there is it's kind of a trail that goes to nowhere.

Speaker A: Yeah.

Speaker G: It ties into the north, but it doesn't tie into the south. And part of that's just because of the rural atmosphere that that section of the city was built under with the swales and whatnot. And so there's not curb and gutter, there's no sidewalks, there's no trails on one side of the road. I think the intent was for a trail corridor.

Speaker A: That would be correct. And then Nighthawk Lane does have swales along the frontage of the property because all the properties drain towards Nighthawk Lane on that side and then Sunset on the other. They're drained forward and there are— there is a swale in the front on the Nighthawk Lane.

Speaker K: I have another question for Brad Mayer, if I may. My question is this, Brad. I started looking around at the trails up in this area as I reviewed this application, there's quite a few of them in Meadow Ranch. And what I didn't get a chance to go back and do is compare them to our trails and open space plan, the master plan that we have. And so my question is, are any of these types of areas, or this area specifically, contemplated in our master trail plan? Do you know?

Speaker A: I have reviewed the master plan. You can speak to it as well. You guys wrote it.

Speaker L: and reviewed it.

Speaker A: It's preserved open space is what it was classified as in the original one before you did it last year. It was not in there at all. Now it's open space.

Speaker G: It's because in our new Parks, Trails, and Open Space Master Plan, we really tried to break out and identify the open space areas versus the areas that had been developed or put into use. And so with that, the concern that I have is, yes, we could pave a trail in there and that wouldn't, that wouldn't be a hard cost, but it's the other connecting sidewalks and trails and things of that nature to add that. And this came up years ago when the school opened because there was students that were walking right down the roadway And we had discussions about this trail network being built behind there. But it's one of those trails, if you build it, are they going to use it? Because it doesn't really go anywhere. And so to answer your question, yes, we can build a trail in that corridor. But if we're going to build a trail in that corridor, it's bigger than just the trail in that corridor. We're going to have a bigger project that we're going to have to fund. To get the connectivity through that subdivision.

Speaker J: So I know part of this— I know you say it doesn't really go anywhere, but it does go somewhere north because there are 46, almost 40— no, I guess there are 18 acres on the north side of that. As that continues to go up, and if there were a paved trail in there, I think people would would use it if we're paved and and it could be used. So I I know when this came before us the first time, and I realized this might be a split vote among the council, which I'm totally fine with. I'm going to hold my my original vote was I was I was not in favor of it even if it were all combined together. Now I'm just one of five, just because I feel like that that I think I feel like a trail should be paved in there, and I think it. you know, that those trails that connect up to the 18 acres should be paved, and that becomes something that we— that the city can then use, that the public can then use. And it provides an additional route for kids going close, you know, down to Blackridge. And I realize people can walk on Sunset, but—

Speaker G: Yes.

Speaker J: It's still another route that goes down to Blackridge Elementary.

Speaker G: So that's where at least I stand.

Speaker J: And I realize we were split vote last time, but my vote hasn't changed because back then I just I was always of the opinion that I was not of the mind to dispose of the property, even if it was all being sold at the same time. So at least that's where I particularly stand on this.

Speaker A: Yep, we remember that because we thought it was silly. Sunset Drive has the asphalt that goes straight up, so— but that's okay, we can all have our opinion.

Speaker B: Craig, I just wanted to ask, you mentioned paved, and I'm going back to The original intent was actually horse trails.

Speaker J: And I'm fine with horse trails too, because I think either way, I'm saying preserving that for whether it's pedestrians or horses or—

Speaker B: So that was what my question was. I think the greater question that you're saying, or I would say it differently, is you want it maintained whether it's paved.

Speaker J: There you go.

Speaker I: That's a better way to say it.

Speaker B: Okay. I just wanted to make sure if you're asking for asphalt or if you're just asking that it remain an open trail.

Speaker J: If it were maintained and it was very visible that it's a trail, then I think it would get used— foot traffic, horses.

Speaker D: Gravel.

Speaker J: And I know that, yeah, gravel could work. If— I know there are some lots up there. There's the equestrian overlay zone that's up on that side as well. And for horse owners, that's a real— it's much nicer to go on a trail like that than it is to go on asphalt.

Speaker B: Yeah, and I think currently there's some encroachments on there, which is why this was originally brought to us.

Speaker J: But, and, and, and, and it's, again, the encroachments are frustrating. That, that's, that's—

Speaker B: They're just gonna have to be mitigated is what it is.

Speaker J: So yeah, the encroachments should not be occurring, and, uh, it's not legal for them to do that.

Speaker B: Okay, so real quick, I'm just going to ask, are there any other questions for the applicant specifically. If you don't mind, I'll have you just sit right here close for a second while we finish this conversation. If there's a specific question, we'll ask you to address it. So, um, anything else to—

Speaker D: I think I'm probably in alignment with Council Member Whiting. If this should either be maintained as a— either a horse trail or pedestrian trail right now, if I were walking along that street and I were to see that, I'd probably think this was private property and would not walk down it. And if you knew it was a public trail that you could walk on, then you're more likely to walk along it. And with encroachments, maybe that's why it's just not being used. So I would say as a city, we probably need to demarcate if we're going to retain it and actually maintain it, make it a usable path through that, through that area. That'd be my preference. So if we Keep it.

Speaker I: Let's use it.

Speaker B: All right. Any other discussion?

Speaker K: Or if not, we've got a lot of work to do.

Speaker F: Go ahead.

Speaker H: I'm going to change my opinion from the last time.

Speaker L: Okay.

Speaker H: I mean, I just think, you know, one of the problems when you have large lot properties, areas, it's very difficult to connect pedestrian traffic to other roads. Yeah, I'm not, I don't love that people have just decided to make it their land. That, I mean, it doesn't belong to them. So that part I'm not super happy about, but I think that we haven't made it clear that it is a path for whatever the reasons are. And I think that there's probably some real benefit to having that be an option away from Sunset, which is a pretty busy road.

Speaker A: Thank you.

Speaker H: So I can find myself on the, the Craig Whiting team on this one.

Speaker A: I, I think one thing that we need to do then to you guys is be willing to put in the work. We have the plan for trails and we should be looking at areas like one neighborhood at a time and kind of collectively the whole city, um, because Everyone said if this is a trail, we should be maintaining it. So I think we need to give direction and make sure we're having staff know that this is the level of service that we want for certain trail areas. If we don't have the funds to do it right now, then we need to just say this is unimproved open space until we decide to improve it or designate it or signage or something. But I just think that we need to do the homework. as a body so that we take it from being strips of weeds to actual usable park space, if that's what we're doing. So thanks.

Speaker I: Mayor, I'll make a motion.

Speaker J: I, I move the city council deny 13B, a resolution of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, authorizing the land disposal of various parcels noted in the, in the staff report.

Speaker H: Second.

Speaker B: All right, we have a motion by Councilmember Whiting, a second by Councilmember Wood, and we'll start the vote with Councilmember Hewish.

Speaker D: Yes.

Speaker B: Councilmember Clark?

Speaker A: Yes.

Speaker B: Councilmember Wright?

Speaker K: Yes.

Speaker B: Councilmember Whiting?

Speaker J: Yes.

Speaker B: Councilor Wood?

Speaker I: Yes.

Speaker B: Okay, that passes, and we'll go on to the next one. Uh, it's 14A.

Speaker H: Mayor, can we ask our Community Services Board to add that to their list of trails that we need to take a look at and get it onto some sort of a plan?

Speaker B: Sure, sounds like she's willing. And let's do it. I lost Jay, but he's— he— I know he likes those horse trails. So, um, Steve's not here. You want to make sure that he gets updated?

Speaker A: I'm sure the one that's present will make sure it gets added to an agenda. I have no worries about that at all.

Speaker B: Just so he knows, we got to work on it and direct staff because we'll have— and also the parks and everybody, it's going to involve some people. So, all right, 14A is a public hearing. This is our first public hearing. It's an ordinance, Fiegel Mountain City rezoning certain lands known as Corrigan Farms. David is not here, but— okay.

Speaker D: Hi, I'm his—

Speaker B: You're the fill-in?

Speaker G: Fill-in tonight.

Speaker A: So David and his wife have both had a little rough day, so I'm going to fill in for him.

Speaker G: This is a property, just a little over 40 acres And just a little south and west of the current QTS site, just on the very southern— close to the southern border of the city, as you can see outlined in red.

Speaker A: And it is very close to the main QTS property, as I noted.

Speaker G: So the request here is for it to be rezoned to the RTI, Regional Technology Overlay. And it is property that is surrounded on 3 sides by the RTI overlay already.

Speaker A: Utah County is off to the west. West.

Speaker G: Um, there is, uh, currently on the property—

Speaker A: I'm going to— we don't—

Speaker D: I'm actually going to take you to another photo here, if that's okay.

Speaker G: Um, I'm going to take you to what's on our— this is a pretty recent, uh, photo, aerial photo. So the property is being used by, uh, currently being used, uh, for kind of ancillary, ancillary purposes, uh, for data center, for, for QTS.

Speaker A: They—

Speaker G: it's being used for, uh, their what they call Trailer City for craft tents and so forth.

Speaker A: Uh, it's also being used for parking, as you can see, um, on, on the property there. So, um, these two buildings here are largely—

Speaker G: well, we issued the temporary occupancy, temporary certificate of occupancy on these 2 buildings.

Speaker D: And so there's just a lot of construction going on in this area. And so the request here is, again, just simply to rezone this to the RTI overlay. Thank you.

Speaker A: zone and to allow it to be utilized for—

Speaker G: which would open it up for uses like electronic and utility generation, data centers, general storage facilities, and so forth. So that's the request.

Speaker A: It went to the Planning Commission and they recommended approval of the proposal. Staff also believes that's a good use for the property considering its proximity to the other data centers in the area. And so I'm just here if you have any questions on that one, on this one.

Speaker B: I didn't even notice the applicant is here. I was wondering. So if there are any questions, the applicant is here as well.

Speaker A: I think it would be good to hear from the applicant because there's a lot of clamor about what this land should be and who's doing it, but I think hearing what the applicant seeks to do with the land is important.

Speaker F: Uh, yeah, I'm gonna try to speak to you and to the participants, if that's okay. So I don't want you to feel like I'm turning my back on you, but just speak. My name is Reagan Peck. Um, me and my best friend back here, his name is Corey Sosa, he owns the property. Property with me. We bought it 15 years ago. And in a discussion like this, there's never like a winning side and a losing side. It's a tough discussion to have. And so we enlisted a consulting firm who— he's here today, Jeremiah. He— we wanted to see what would be best for this particular property yesterday, today, and in the future. And so Corey Sosa and I We hired the consulting firm and looked at what was going around us, what we believe the city may do moving forward. You had mentioned the alternative energy zone further south and a couple other items, and we felt the best thing for the property right now is to be rezoned into the RTI. If you notice, we aren't going to build any houses there. We don't plan on having any residential buildings. We don't think that it's a good use to have you know, a warehouse of some sort or a body shop or a gas station. It— in this area, we feel this was the best usage for the zoning, especially because it's already there on all 3 sides. And to the west, going into Fairfield, I even spoke with a lot of those neighbors on what— and even Mayor Holly McKinney for Fairfield and what they thought they might be doing. And not to speak about Fairfield's business, but it's—

Speaker A: I'm sorry.

Speaker F: a very similar footprint, without saying too much, as what you're seeing on our side. And so this map, if you were to expand it, it would look even more dense for stuff like this rather than just what we have planned. I know that we— just so all the people here can meet us, we are also 14B on the agenda item and are public hearing, and I don't know how to speak to that as well as to answer questions from you guys. But I'd love to get your opinions. If you recall, we came here in April without an agenda item just to talk with the council to say, what do you guys recommend? What opinions do you have for this particular piece of land? We would be interested in hearing from you and the city. We wanted to hear from residents. We wanted to know what would be best because we are residents I mentioned last time I live here, my family lives here, my full-time job is a school counselor at the high school right up the road, and we don't have any plans to go anywhere. So it wasn't supposed to just do this and get out of town. And I hope anybody here that was for this item sticks around for a little bit so we can talk about 14B, because right now there's not an end user. There's not a buyer. There's not a builder. We don't— we're trying to put this together that would be best for us, obviously, myself and my best friend, and what's best for the city. So I can't sit here and lie and say, oh, this is about, you know, trying to take the high road. I definitely want to get the most money out of this property as possible, but I'm trying to do it the right way by coming to City Council in April. Prior to, you know, applying for anything, hiring a consulting firm that has done this a thousand times more than me and my best friend have done, and coming before you today of saying I would love to answer any questions you might have, knowing that I may not have all the answers, but I feel like we've done this the best way possible from a resident's perspective, not some end user or a multi-billion dollar company or. You know, somebody that just is not in the area and gains the profit and then leave, if that makes sense.

Speaker B: Yeah, and we'll address 14B separately. This is just the rezone, right? So I don't know if there's any other questions on that one. It is a public hearing. You want me to start with the public hearing?

Speaker C: Yeah.

Speaker B: Okay, so if you'll take a seat close by, we'll go ahead and start with the public hearing. It's— this is the same rules apply that we talked about earlier with the public comment. This is a public hearing on the rezone portion, and, uh, it is 8:15, and I will now open the public hearing.

Speaker A: Casey Voles. Did I say that right? Vokes? Yeah, Vokes. Sorry, it's a K, not an E. Thank you.

Speaker B: Welcome back.

Speaker N: Yeah, thank you. Uh, yeah, Casey Vokes. Um, I moved out of Eagle Mountain 6 years ago to Houston, Texas, and then we just moved back. It was a no-brainer in spite of the traffic. So I just get up and go early. But I will say I am surprised by how much opposing traffic there has been. And so that has kind of brought about sort of a, you know, a quick learning on my part. First of all, I want to add my voice to the conversation on some of these issues. I've just kind of sat back, watched on Facebook, took it in from the neighbors, kind of seen what's been happening, chatted with some of you. And my thoughts overall, of course, I think, you know, if a resident wants to change a zone that they've got and it's their property, like, yes. You know, one of the things that Houston does right is it's not a big zoning place. You can build and do with your property what you And I think that's the right way it should be. Now, that said, I think that we've kind of got ourselves in a weird situation with too many, like, kind of agreements and, like, well, maybe if, ultimately, some, in some cases with these data centers. And I don't know all the backstory, I just got back. But I'm definitely concerned. I mean, I've already talked to a law enforcement officer who's expressed that a lot of the issues that they're running into is because of the QTS traffic. That is creating a huge need.

Speaker H: Thank you.

Speaker N: And there is a huge impact that seems to be happening in our community. And, you know, $3 million, and we definitely, when you dig into MAG, and I have, I've read a lot of the minutes lately, mayor is definitely going to bat in there. You're getting some wins. You're also getting voted down sometimes. We definitely got to get in there and make sure we have your back too as residents because it's a big problem. I mean, it's, it's, it's ridiculous when you see certain projects getting approved across the county when they really don't need it, but we have a huge need here. And so when I just look at it, for me, it's the big picture. I think there's got to be a laser focus on the basic functions of government— roads, police, fire, you know, public safety. Those are the things that I'm going to care about. I know that there's funding buckets and there's going to be things that you're going fund because the money's there and you got to spend it somewhere. But that— I do get concerned, you know.

Speaker A: I don't—

Speaker N: for me, community garden, I didn't trust them in Houston for sure. Maybe they're nicer here. They probably will be.

Speaker A: But yeah, that's about it.

Speaker N: I just think we got to go forward, especially with the data centers. There's such a clamor and a demand. They want places to build, I don't think we've got to give them crazy agreements. They need to pay for real the impact of, of what they're doing if they want to build here. Um, but that's kind of, you know, for sure residents should be able to change zoning. Thank you.

Speaker L: Amy Lawson.

Speaker A: Your name is up. Thank you. Sorry, I won't take that much time. I am Amy Lawson again. I'm here with Tooele Cares on behalf of Utah Versus Tech Billionaires, and we are asking for you to say no to the rezoning for 14A and 14B. I was just going to say that and say we are asking for a statewide moratorium for any new data centers at all, but when it specifically to the overlay. And then I feel really bad for this guy as I listen to him speak. He has had this property for 15 or whatever years and now is feeling forced in what he has to do with that property because of what has surrounded it that I'm sure he didn't plan on 15 years ago when he bought that property. I heard him talk about a shop, I heard him talk about a gas station, and I'm sure that his family probably had a lot of different visions for what they would do with this property as they continue to spend their life here. And it's unfortunate for him that I'm asking now for you to say no to him and to any other developer that wants to come into this town or any other town across the state for data centers. We don't have enough information. You guys are a good example of what we don't want happening across the rest of the state. So I am asking you to say no to 14A. Maverick— I'm not sure if I can begin to say the last name.

Speaker K: It starts with a B.

Speaker I: Boccaccini?

Speaker B: No?

Speaker A: Jacinto Manillo?

Speaker B: Moreno.

Speaker A: Moreno. Sorry, I'm really bad at names. I did have some other concerns that—

Speaker B: Get close to the mic, if you would.

Speaker A: Terribly sorry. I did have some other concerns with the data center power, whatnot. It is currently consuming, I think, 133 megawatts at the moment, which, for reference, 1 megawatt is around 1,000 households.

Speaker C: So that is one thing that I am just concerned about because I do not think our power grid can handle that right now, especially with how, like, Rocky Mountain is.

Speaker A: Another side note, not dealing with the data centers off of Pony Express heading Towards the metadata center, I would like there to be some consideration for more streetlights just outside there.

Speaker C: As a pedestrian who has to commute at night, specifically on the bike paths, I have a hard time seeing what's happening because there is no light from the Holiday gas station onward.

Speaker A: I believe that should do it, though.

Speaker C: Thank you.

Speaker A: That's everything I have.

Speaker B: Is there anyone else here that would like to speak on this item that did not have the opportunity? Seeing no one, we'll close the public hearing at 8:22 and bring it back to the council.

Speaker J: I'll give an opinion on this. So here you have a situation where the property is literally surrounded on every single side with a particular right. Every single one of the applicant's neighbors has a particular right that he does not have. So if the city says no, because we have the power to say no, the applicant then could very easily go to court and say, I'm being discriminated against. All of my neighbors can do this and I can't. As a council, we would have to have an exceptionally compelling reason why this would not— to support not rezoning this. We'd have to have a very compelling reason. Absent that, it has to be rezoned.

Speaker H: All right, so my concerns are more policy. Concerns. So in the RTI zone, it requires that there's a development agreement. I've got a problem with the development agreement because it's not really with anybody, and our develop our master development agreements require benchmarks. And I kind of brought this to your attention, Reagan, when you reached out to me. We're not looking to give people the option of being able to be land brokers in Eagle Mountain anymore. We want them to come and build. It's not a no, it's come and get started. So I don't know how to reconcile this because you don't have a current buyer for it. I think you eventually will, but we want the opportunity to be able to negotiate with the people who are coming where it's best for the citizens. And if we do that all preemptively, we lost all of the ability to negotiate anything. So I'm struggling a little bit with where to land on this. I'm not a big fan of the RTI overlay zone. I think I'm on record saying that multiple times because I think it's way too broad. And we keep applying it to situations that don't really fit it and allow for broader uses than I'm comfortable with for each one of them. But to Craig's point, what other option is there as far as the rezone goes? So I don't know where I'm at on this. The 2 were tied together, the 14 or 15B with the development agreement. I'm not comfortable with the development agreement. So maybe, Marcus, you can give us a little bit of direction. It requires it to have a development agreement.

Speaker M: So the RTI doesn't require a development agreement. It requires a development agreement if you want to take advantage of the administrative approval process. You know, obviously, and you know, I neglected to send the draft that had the Corrigan Farms LLC as the other party, so I apologize for that. But the rest of the agreement, with one minor change that was added in response to Planning Commission recommendations, is identical. So the issue with the benchmarks, I think, is legitimate as far as that goes, because it's impossible to have benchmarks that tell you how government buyer. But as far as how you want to proceed, obviously the rezone is not dependent on the approval of the development agreement. That could always be tabled or brought back at some future date when they have a buyer, when they have the zoning entitlements. My recommendation is to tie the two together because, you know, at some future date, I think we actually lose leverage once we rezone the property. So I understand that, you know, as far as benchmarks go, this is a shorter agreement than our typical data center agreements because it's a smaller property. So it's a 20-year agreement rather than a 40-year agreement.

Speaker H: I want to direct you to our code because I think that what you said is missing some elements there. So 17.48.020, the special approval process dictates that the development agreement is a requirement in order to qualify for the RTI zone.

Speaker M: In order to qualify for the special approval process.

Speaker H: It says that in order to qualify for it, you have to go through a special approval process.

Speaker M: That's literally what it says. So you can— zoning is zoning, right?

Speaker G: So let's pull up the zone here.

Speaker H: If I'm reading it wrong, tell me I'm reading it wrong, but I'm— I don't see—

Speaker K: Councilmember Wood, are you referencing A in that section where it says development agreement?

Speaker M: I am. Yeah, so A says in order to qualify for the RTI site plan approval process, so that's what it's referencing, a development agreement approved by the City Council is required. So that's what I'm saying. In order to qualify for that special approval process, you need a development agreement. But to rezone a property, you can just rezone a property.

Speaker H: Well, once you give the RTI, that's the That's the method of the RTI, is a special approval process. I mean, we're talking about the dominoes falling, right?

Speaker C: Correct.

Speaker H: So once you go to the RTI, here's the process to do that.

Speaker M: No, so once you go to the RTI, then you have the rights to those uses in the RTI, such as a data center, for example. That would be an approved use in the RTI overlay. They could build the data center. It would go through the normal approval process for building a data center unless there was a development in place, in which case they would qualify for the special approval process.

Speaker H: They wouldn't be able to utilize any of their rights on it without a development agreement because it's over the 50 acres?

Speaker M: It's 40.99. So it is actually under 50 acres. They would be able to— again, they would have the data centers permitted use in the RTI. They would go through the normal process for that. So they would, you know, do plat. Go through the public process, the site plan approval, all that. We'd go through the normal processes that we would do for any other type of development. The administrative approval process associated with the RTI, which is I think the big carrot for a lot of these companies, is only applicable if they meet the requirements, one of which is a development agreement in place.

Speaker H: Last question. On the slides that Brandon showed, it said that RTI zone gives— let me see here— electric and utility generation, distribution, and transmission. Brandon, if you would pull that specific code in RTI up, I would appreciate that. I wasn't able to see it.

Speaker M: That's not in the RTI, but it is in the development agreement.

Speaker D: This is—

Speaker M: So that's something that they're asking for as part of the development agreement. But it's not— I agree with you, it's not in the RTI as an approved use.

Speaker H: I just want to make sure that that's clear. That's not an allowed use in there as part of the zoning.

Speaker M: Right. It would be— it's in the development agreement. It's not part of the zoning.

Speaker A: Okay.

Speaker B: Sir, do you want that excluded as the zoning?

Speaker H: I mean, it doesn't belong in the zone, so yeah, it has to be.

Speaker B: It's going to get addressed in the next item, correct? Okay. I think— did you have another comment, Councilmember Wright? Maybe.

Speaker K: Well, I'll just say that there are several portions of the development agreement which we'll get to next that I have some, some issues with, Councilmember Wood. And I, I think there's wisdom in— if we're going to seek an approval on this, or if we're going to consider an approval, then I think there's wisdom in making sure that the two of them work together as a unit, an A and a B. And so while I, I don't— I support what you said, Councilmember Whiting. I, I think that the request to, to entitle this property with the RTI overlay zone makes sense to me. I mean, it just, it fills in the, the green patch down there and, and allows that RTI to then kind of thrive in that area with like uses. So that's That's not my concern. My concern is with the development agreement itself. And so because of that, my suggestion would be that we consider tabling the RTI approval until we can work through the details of the development agreement and get that right. And once we feel like we have that right, then, then we can consider them again together. But that's kind of my thought process at this point.

Speaker A: Thank you.

Speaker H: I agree with that assumption. Anybody else have anything?

Speaker A: So just to clarify, if the rezone goes through tonight and the development agreement doesn't, the development agreement is only important specifically toward being able to do the special approval process, correct? Marcus?

Speaker M: I mean, I wouldn't quite phrase it that way, but it is, uh, it is an essential element of getting the special approval process. I think there are other important aspects to the development agreement, such as clarifying the expectations of the parties.

Speaker H: Yeah, and we do have the ability to, to have any property having a master development agreement. That is in our code. And I would say anything that falls in this area would always have to have a master development agreement, in my opinion.

Speaker J: So, so, Council Member Wright, you're suggesting that, um, you want an approvable development agreement in place before you change the zone on this?

Speaker K: My, my question is this, and maybe it's for the applicant, maybe we can ask him a question. Mayor, my question is simply this: is that going to hold you up from doing anything? Because, because I have some significant concerns with the development agreement as it's written.

Speaker F: My understanding coming into this and speaking with you guys— this is great communication because it's teaching me as well. I've, uh, like I said, Rich knows I've come, texted back and forth to learn as much as I can. We were under the impression that this was going to be essentially 2 items. In theory, we were applying for a rezone and that nothing would take place on that rezone property until there was some development agreement. The reason that I wanted the development agreement was I wanted to have a little bit of say, if not a good amount of say, on who might utilize the property because I didn't want to just throw that to the wind and then I get cards taken away from me. Not trying to be selfish, but I want to be strategic for the city's purposes as well. And so So in the development agreement, are we okay to talk— we'll talk about that in a minute, or do we want to just address it now, or what do you think? Like, I don't—

Speaker K: We'll get to it.

Speaker J: I think we need to talk about it now.

Speaker A: At the same time.

Speaker H: I agree.

Speaker F: So I think part of the reason with the development agreement, and he'll be able to explain more, there is things in there that honestly, if you were to look at the development agreement for QTS and the development agreement for Meta, we took it almost verbatim because I said without knowing what's going to happen. I'm going to take it from what's already been approved. Therefore, when it comes, other than a couple things might have been different, such as length, because I'm not a— I'm not a 400-acre site, I don't need 7 phases. Does that make sense? Um, yeah, I think I could confidently say this property will end up being for a data center. Now, we've had plenty of data center buyers, I guess you'd call them, end users come and talk to us. Um, none of them do we have a contract with. Is it listed? Is it anything like that? The development agreement is going to be catered towards a data center. It's going to be catered towards power generation behind the meter, to which we own our own water and I have my own air permit, or to where I'm not going to supersede anything that that 41 acres would be a liability or a burden on the community in any way, shape, or form. The water gets sold with it. We even paid engineers to look at what a site might look like that would utilize the water we have so we're not then coming to the city. And I'm not saying they wouldn't, but for at least me, I can sleep well knowing everything in that development agreement is not to hide, scare, pull the wool over your eyes. I may not be good with the legal jargon. I may not know exactly Hey, you can't say this or you can't do that. But I can stand here in full confidence saying the— I was under the assumption I could rezone this property and then market it to who I think would best benefit me and the property by saying the city council has already approved the ability to do this. You need to go file for building permits or whatever it might be with you guys. I don't think— I'm not— I didn't think that this was a congratulations, you now have a blank canvas to do whatever you want. with whomever you want. I was fully under this— the assumption I can do rezone today, the development agreement you guys either agree with or don't, but the rezone was done. And then whoever did something on the property still had steps even with an approved development agreement. Does that make sense?

Speaker K: So, so, so, Mayor, I mean, if I can suggest a course of action, because we've got a lot on the agenda to get through, my, my suggestion is this to the council, to consider There's nothing that precludes us from immediately after taking that action and going through the development agreement. If we can find some path forward with that, I'd like to hear what the concerns with the development agreement are from my fellow council members. I'd like to share mine. I'm going to pause you for just a minute because, because this is really for us to kind of decide. I'm thankful for your answer, but we need to talk through this. So strategically, to me, it makes sense to table it for the rezone, consider the development agreement, see if we can hammer that out. There's nothing that precludes us from tabling the development agreement and pulling the rezone back up. If we're comfortable with where the development agreement goes, we could give an approval on the zoning, and then we can take a look at the development agreement. I think they have to be done in that order. Is that right, Marcus?

Speaker M: Yeah, I mean, we can always reconsider any item on the agenda. So if you wanted to even pass the item rather than tabling it—

Speaker B: Yeah, that's what I was going to suggest.

Speaker M: You can come back to it after considering the development agreement. If you determine to table the development agreement, then you bring it back and table it.

Speaker K: So if we pass it, we can reconsider it and table it?

Speaker M: Yeah. And so if, uh, we don't have to take it. I would suggest just passing it for now and moving on to the next agenda item and then bringing it back after you've considered developing it. If you say, all right, with these tweaks we're okay approving the development agreement, you bring back the rezone, rezone it, and approve the rezone. If you say, nope, we need changes to the development agreement that are large enough in scope that we're not comfortable doing it from the dais, then table it, bring back the other one, table that one too. If you're like, nope, no way, no how, we're never approving this, Then you go that direction.

Speaker B: So here's what we're going to do. Just hang tight for just a minute. We're going to go on to item 15— or 14B. And I think you have a separate presentation or—

Speaker G: Marcus.

Speaker B: Okay. Marcus has a presentation.

Speaker M: Yeah. So this development agreement largely follows the template for our other data center development agreements. I'll just highlight a few kind of nuances to this. You know, because of the— there's not a specific buyer in mind, some of the precise needs are sort of left a little bit more flexible where modeling may be performed. The city would have approval rights as to the outcome of that and be able to say, this is how we want you to do it. You know, using the sewer improvements as an example, it highlights kind of the Expectations that what the modeling will show, but leaves it flexible and gives the ultimate approval of of how whether it's going to route to the lift station, you know, on the Meta property or sorry on the QTS property or adjacent to the QTS property or whether it's going to go directly gravity flow to the treatment plant. It leaves that open for the city's ultimate approval, but that they would be bearing the cost of. those infrastructure needs, regardless of how it's ultimately going to be accomplished. So that's kind of one change. Another thing that I think actually was a Planning Commission recommendation that I think is a very good one is in Article 7. So, you know, under— you know, if you go back a number of years where I think the city had less negotiating power on some of these things, it's just sort of the language was we can develop it whether or not we want, if we want, and if not, we won't. Here it says once they be— you know, it kind of locks them in once they begin the development that they don't want— they no longer can terminate the agreement. They're bound by it. Clarifies that. And I think that's stronger language that was added to the benefit of the city. But again, it just kind of walks through the specifics. infrastructure needs in Article 5 of the agreement. And otherwise, I think it is largely consistent with other data center agreements. So, yeah. So we can talk whatever questions you have.

Speaker B: Okay. So first of all, before you speak, we'll make sure there aren't any questions for staff specifically.

Speaker A: And if there is, then next we'll I think there's a little bit of confusion, Marcus, because some people just received the email and not everything came through.

Speaker K: Yeah, I'm working on what came in the packet, so if there's a difference, I need to know exactly what it is.

Speaker M: Yeah, so the only thing added was a second sentence to Article VII and the name of the company. Should be the only differences. So—

Speaker A: Article VII is term?

Speaker M: Yes. So there was a second sentence added on there specifying that once they begin operating, Once they start on the project and actually begin construction, then they no longer have authority to terminate it at will, which is what the original language, I think, said.

Speaker A: I'm looking at the one that you just barely sent us, and it doesn't have that second sentence that you're talking about. Like, it doesn't— oh, it says the company? Did you add the name of something, or no?

Speaker M: So company is— so at the beginning of the agreement, it identifies who the company is, and then it just uses company throughout the rest.

Speaker A: Got it. Thank you. Got it?

Speaker K: Yeah.

Speaker A: Okay. Thanks for your patience with us, everyone. We wanna make sure we get things right.

Speaker J: And so that's where I was saying prior to the commencement they can cancel, but basically once commencement's happened, then—

Speaker M: Then they're committed to, they're bound by the agreement. They can no longer, they no longer have cancellation rights.

Speaker K: They're still required to start within 3 years or renegotiate that, right?

Speaker I: Let me see.

Speaker M: So, I mean, so yes. So the language in 4.9, timing and rate of development, is there that, again, that they're committed to begin horizontal construction within 3 years. And if they are unable to do that for whatever reason due to change in circumstances as they are now, then we would meet and in good faith to try to figure out how to move forward. And it could be we're going to terminate the agreement because you haven't started. It could be, um, this is what we're going to— this is how we're going to adjust. That's consistent with language again in other development agreements we've done.

Speaker A: Marcus, what happens if the future owner doesn't necessarily want to build a data center on it but wants to use it as like, what, trailer city? Is that what you called it? Like, I mean, it's only 41 acres, so it's not going to be like a Sure. Like, what happens if that's the case?

Speaker M: So this development— these development rights are specific to data center and those other associated uses related to it. It also includes rights for onsite power generation, to be clear. So anything outside of that, they wouldn't have any rights under the development agreement to build.

Speaker A: But parking for construction of a data center is an ancillary use, isn't it?

Speaker M: I mean, during construction, sure. But I mean, we're not talking about parking. In this case, we're talking about what's existing now is, you know, parking for the QTS construction on a neighboring property. That's not a use for the property, you know, for its permanent use.

Speaker A: Okay. Thank you.

Speaker K: Well, let's go through the agreement. Oh, you have something?

Speaker F: Just one comment. The timing, the reason the 3 years are going out longer is it is currently— Layton is using part of that property. And so in— with respect to them, we tried to push it out as much as possible if I were to sell it so that they don't get screwed and have nowhere to go. It wasn't anything on my end. Like I said, no one's pushing us to do something right now or whatnot. But he had mentioned like within the 3 years or however long the duration of the development agreement is 100% the reason for that is they are— I've committed to them to let them use a lot of our space for another year and a half. And so my concern was if this— we sell it in a year and a half, does, does that 1.5 years post-Layton's moving out, if they do, does that give enough time to start moving horizontally? Does that make sense? I know that's in there and I don't mind— don't change the language. The point being is there's It wasn't just me throwing numbers and durations at the wall. It was trying to help Layton. They think they employ— just on our property, there's— I know the citizens don't like it, but there's 2,300 cars that go there a day that are working on site. And I don't want them to have to park in Saratoga and take a bus to their job site. They were good to us. I want to be good to them and try to help them out as well. And so in doing so, I'm trying to keep the durations as long as possible.

Speaker A: Thank you.

Speaker F: It's not for me. I'm not building anything. So 1 year or 10 years for me doesn't change. It's more so to make sure Layton has time to get their ducks in a row with what they might need to do— Layton Construction, that is— and then anybody from there, if that makes sense.

Speaker D: Jump in with some questions. So it's zoned today as agriculture?

Speaker M: That's correct. Okay, that wouldn't change.

Speaker D: This is an overlay. So the use today, it's not being used?

Speaker F: No, we have access.

Speaker D: Or there is some?

Speaker F: Yeah, they didn't take all the property. I only gave them a portion. I still have— we also have cows and horses and chickens and pigs, and they're still— it's still agriculture, and the underlying usage will remain ag.

Speaker D: So what a question I have is, I, I— my concern is more just around the trend that we're going to start setting here where Meta is setting up Williams. They've got 289 megawatt. Williams is going in, 17 turbines. And then QTS, I think they're maxing out Rocky Mountain Power. In this development agreement, it just references natural gas only, no other energy sources. And so my concern is if we kind of continue down this path with nat gas, what is the south end of our city going to look like?

Speaker A: Um, I think with your—

Speaker D: That, that's probably my biggest concern is just the energy, whether it's a data center. To me, they're, they're buildings, they're processing information. Um, it's obviously useful. Everybody uses social media, right? I think Meta, when I met with them, they said 90% of the traffic that flows through there is from Instagram.

Speaker A: Geez.

Speaker D: 10% is from inference. So data centers are not going away, but I think we need to be careful around the responsible use of how is the energy produced, where's that coming from. And as I was reading through the agreement, I just saw nat gas, and it just makes me wonder if that's the right path within the development agreement. Obviously, it's going to have to be behind the wall 'Cause Rocky Mountain Power is at capacity, is my understanding. And then my second question, maybe with 40 acres it doesn't matter, but we've got major traffic issues flowing through the city, and we're just kind of adding to a problem that we have not solved yet for residents.

Speaker F: If I may speak to some of those questions, I don't have all the answers, but we had a— we pay a significant amount of money to have a geothermal thermal study done on the land to see if geothermal energy would be better with our water and whatnot. And this area in Eagle Mountain is actually a really good area, same with Utah, for having a lot of faults. And you need a lot of faults to have geothermal energy. And we come to the conclusion that further south in the valley is actually better for geothermal energy. You guys can look up the studies that they've done. And so for us on our 41 acres, it wouldn't be really beneficial for any data center to come in and build and try to use geothermal energy for such a small site. For that site, you actually don't need an air permit, pending how many megawatts you produce. But to be safe and to try to do what's best for the city, we went and spent a lot of money and research and are obtaining our air permit that may never even have to be used, but it can go with the property. The reason—

Speaker A: Sorry.

Speaker B: I think that I can ask this question. Are you not wanting to only limit to that? Would you rather change that language to our new code and say that— Yes. So, Marcus, I think the real ask is, could we change that language to state the energy overlay zone would be applicable? Because that is one of the uses and it's within that zone.

Speaker A: Yeah.

Speaker M: We could adjust the language in 5.4 to basically anticipate, you know, anticipate that they would be asking for a rezoned alternative energy overlay to overlay in addition to the RTI. And, you know, under that zone, there would be a separate development agreement that would be required to specify the type of energy and go through some of the details of the energy. And if that's what's wanted, that's certainly something we can do.

Speaker B: I think that was the purpose of the zone, right?

Speaker D: Exactly. Just to give the developer and the council, quite honestly, some flexibility in the path going forward. That's why it exists.

Speaker F: Is there anything that I need to do on my end for that, or is that just language? I'm not advocating for one or the other. I'm trying to just make it—

Speaker M: As far as the language in 5.4, I mean, yeah, well, there's enough, I guess, because there's a lot in the recitals as well that references energy, and there's some of the other things in there that reference energy. And so it probably— there's enough changes that it probably warrants bringing it back for another date rather than trying to do it here in the middle of the meeting. So I don't think it's super complicated, but there's enough of it that I wouldn't feel comfortable just trying to do it on the fly.

Speaker B: So if that's the case, then to help this move along, we can identify that we need changes from natural gas specifically to the overlay zone, the power energy overlay. And what were some of your other questions, Councilman Wright?

Speaker K: Let me get to my first page. Let me just, I'll ask a couple of quick questions, Mayor. I've got some notes that I need to—

Speaker B: And, and just real quick, while you're looking at those notes, is that a consensus with the council? Because I don't want to go make that change and have everybody say, I don't want that overlay. So is, is that—

Speaker H: I think they've already approved that overlay zone, so I think—

Speaker B: But do you want that in this development?

Speaker A: Probably not.

Speaker J: So, so are you saying that it would be a— that would go into place immediately, or that it would just be It would be approved in the development agreement that the overlay existed.

Speaker B: It doesn't approve what is used. It's overlaying the zone as an option. Rather than limiting it to nat gas, you would be allowed whatever's in that zone, which includes all of the power generation sources that we outlined. So I just ask that we change that, and then I don't want to come back and have everybody say, I just want natural gas. So I'm wanting to know, is that acceptable?

Speaker H: No, I think the problem— I mean, I'll just maybe say some of my issues. I think that we've said yes, and one of the issues are how many natural gas plants is too many.

Speaker A: Thank you.

Speaker H: I'm not asking you the question. I'm just saying to us, for us as we see them, as they are operating, their noise and all the things that go along with them, how many is too many of those things? We haven't contemplated any of those things. That was one of my issues with the overlay zone, is that it was broad and generic. It wasn't as specific as I think it needs to be. And I think that if we just keep saying, oh yeah, well, let's just throw another natural gas plant there so they can do it so it doesn't impact, you know, the, the, the grid— what are the consequences of those decisions? So I'm in favor of broadening that so it's not specific to that's the only way that it can be generated. But I mean, I've been pretty open about doing a development agreement with a non-user.

Speaker B: Okay, so yes.

Speaker A: Well, Marcus, if this comes back, if that's the action of this body, in the 1748-040, it talks about prohibited uses, and it says any use that produces gas, smoke, odor, dust, vibration of earth, or soot that in the opinion of the city council will negatively impact commercial or residential areas that are currently existing, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Um, are there certain types of energy generation that are prohibited based off of that definition that's in that part of code?

Speaker M: Yeah, so if the alternative energy overlay zone was, uh, applied as well, then Those specific— that general clause in 1748-040 would give way to the more specific clauses of the alternative energy overlay zone. So you can say it's in 040 that, you know, it says that generally speaking, you know, if something produces gas, smoke, odor, dust, vibration that the council determines would negatively impact commercial residential areas that are currently existing, Then, and thus therefore it's prohibited, then if you then approve an alternative energy overlay zone and specify in the development agreement that you can do a natural gas power plant, since that's what we've been talking about in this meeting, for example, or geothermal, and you specify that in the development agreement, that's gonna control, 'cause that's more specific.

Speaker A: Right, I guess going back to the discussion of whether or not we rezone or development agreement, The rezone for me is less of an issue because there are such strict prohibited uses. We could rezone and that would take care of this. It would give more time to find better verbiage in the development agreement and figure out exactly what power generation everyone's okay with, especially if geothermal is an option and there are no negative impacts of geothermal. Um, I just— I think the rezone is more protected than what I think people are looking at it to be.

Speaker K: So, Mayor, I'm just going to make this suggestion. I don't think that this is ready for an approval. I just feel like there's still some stuff that needs to be ironed out. I'm not saying no, I'm just simply saying I don't think it's ready for us to say yes. And from, from where I'm seated, there's enough discussion and disagreement perhaps among the members of the council that I would love to see this come back in a work session and work through the development agreement portion of it and then bring it back in conjunction with the rezone. I don't think we should do either one at this point in time. I think we should table them both and, and move on.

Speaker H: Thank you.

Speaker K: And bring it back for discussion in a work session, the agreement itself.

Speaker H: Uh, if, if that's the case and we decide to do that, I'd love for Marcus and Evan to bring back to us what are the consequences of doing a development agreement with somebody who is not a data center and what opportunities we may be missing out in negotiation process, particularly in MET tax incentives and all that type of I think we need to know what the outcome of that is if we go forward with this portion of it without the other part of it in the negotiation process.

Speaker B: So I actually was agreeing with that, which is why I was trying to find out if there's specific changes, just bullet points that we know are the issues, sticking points, because then it's going to be a really long conversation again that still won't be there. So if there's a consensus that, that 5.4, the natural gas, could be The energy overlay, okay, they can go work that out. Is there any others that they need to specifically work out? And I don't disagree with you, I'm just wondering what are we going to— bullet points, what do they need to work on?

Speaker K: Well, let me just share my concerns and I'll just quickly try to go through it just from my notes. So under the accessory uses, I'm wondering why there's general storage facilities in there. Why does that exist as a use that they're looking to add as an accessory use that doesn't exist in the RTI? And maybe Reagan— Regan or Reagan can answer that, or Mr. Peck. And they have water and sewer facilities. What water and sewer facilities do you want to build as accessory uses to a data center on this 41 acres? What are they? I mean, what's the purpose of putting that in the development agreement? I don't know the answer to that, but I'd like to know. Changes to the applicable rules in 4.4. 4, at the end of the paragraph, it talks about that. And I, I actually worked through that one. I think we're okay. In 5.1, the sewer lift station, I have some major concerns about the sewer lift station and about just the data center or the developer of this property only putting in the infrastructure. I want to have a conversation about them owning the, the M&O on their portion of the lift station because I don't want them connected to a lift station at all. So I just think there's a lot of things that we still need to hammer through. Not saying we can't find an agreement. I'm just saying there's some portions of this that I'm uncomfortable with, and the way it sits today, I would say no. 5.2 road improvements. I'm curious about the road that's on the west side of the property. It's not mentioned at all in the road improvements, just the north, just the north access road. What's the plan to develop the west side of the property? Property, and what are— what's the— what are you going to commit to?

Speaker M: The property is another municipality.

Speaker K: They don't have to build a half road on that, half road width?

Speaker M: We don't have anything.

Speaker F: It dead ends and one goes to Fairfield.

Speaker K: OK, that's— that answers that question for me. That was the question that I— that I had as I looked at that. And 5.5, let me look at what 5.5 says. Due to the temporary nature I'm gonna have to— so where's 5.5? Can you pull that up, Marcus, where I can see 5.5?

Speaker A: That's the power.

Speaker K: Yeah, so it says—

Speaker M: All right, 5.5 is, I think, kind of, you know, it's regarding allowing overhead power lines. I don't know if that— on the property itself, which is consistent.

Speaker K: Yeah, but I'm curious. So are any power lines gonna be temporary in nature? That's my question, because it says Where does it say this temporary? Oh yeah, right there. So in the middle of the paragraph it says the city acknowledges and agrees that no variance is required for the overhead power lines because the overhead power lines are permitted under the applicable rules due to the temporary nature of the overhead power lines. On what planet are these going to be temporary power lines? That's my question. I mean, that doesn't make sense.

Speaker M: I think that was pulled from the Meta agreement.

Speaker K: So I just think there's some cleanup that we need to do on this and some discussion that we need to have as council.

Speaker B: So, so far the power, the overlay, um, I thought I had it in my head. The, the one that you just brought up, the, uh, sewer lift station needs to be worked out. So the, the ongoing expense of the sewer lift station.

Speaker K: Yeah, the maintenance and operation.

Speaker B: Yep. And, uh, The road we solved.

Speaker M: So just for clarification, we're talking about upsizing an existing lift station?

Speaker K: Yes, Marcus, but my concern is this: if we're, if we're going to entitle a data center to connect to a lift station, I don't want the citizens on hook— on the hook for having to make improvements to that, or not even improvements, to maintain it and operate it.

Speaker M: So it would be a city-owned lift station, and the, and the user fees would own— and those connecting to that are paying the user fees associated with the M&O of that. And that's— so that would be— But if you're telling me we can't do that, then we don't do it.

Speaker K: But that's a question that I want to work through.

Speaker M: Yeah, sure. Again, we don't— yeah, I mean, that is— those are captured through user fees typically, I guess, is what I would say. The maintenance and operation of our lift stations.

Speaker K: Then I may be a no on a lift station connection for a for a data center. That's what I'm saying. I don't want to maintain another lift center, another lift station that the citizens are maintaining, even though there's user fees associated with it, because the citizens are going to bear a portion of that cost. And it's going to last longer without the data center connected to it and utilizing the capacity, even if they upsize the capacity, wearing it out sooner. So those are concerns that I have, and they may not be able to be mitigated But I'm unwilling to say yes until we have that conversation.

Speaker M: Okay. I just want, again, for clarification, we're talking about a lift station on the— that is— was dedicated to the city by another data center that built it, and they would be upsizing that existing lift station that is currently only handling data center flow.

Speaker B: So if I could maybe clarify, if it's only used by multiple data centers, there aren't any residents, can we restrict that That if there's ever any maintenance, that they would also take care of some of the M&O because the city—

Speaker M: Again, in the event that— again, the way it's put, um, that, that is an option. If you want to restrict it so you have to gravity flow directly to the sewer treatment plant, then we can change that language if that makes you feel more comfortable. Um, I don't know what— how they feel about that. Um, again, we were going to let the modeling kind of determine what is actually needed from the project, what was the best, what makes the most sense. You know, again, if they had to upsize the lift station, they would be responsible. Those are project improvements. They are responsible for that cost.

Speaker A: So—

Speaker K: You may be able to—

Speaker M: If you want to add language saying that there is some sort of— again, they pay user fees to that. So I'm not sure what else there is as as cost recovery for their actual impact, uh, because they're going to pay a higher user fee due to the— based on the impact they're having on the sewer system.

Speaker A: I think too, when we look at lift stations and the nightmares that have happened in certain parts of the city, they're privately owned ones that were put in at different standards than what the city requires. And having one that's very specific and it was installed for this use, and it was installed at city standards with SCADA and all of those other things. I feel like they're two different things. And I totally get where you're coming from, because I don't want residents to have to bear the brunt of that. But from what I understand, Marcus is saying is that—

Speaker I: Thank you.

Speaker A: Any improvements are done by the actual users of it. And that particular lift station isn't a resident lift station. It's just the one that was built for the data centers. So I think if we could put something into the agreement that clarifies the responsibility of that and a little bit more to do with that, it would help to address some of the concerns that are being brought up.

Speaker K: Is that the only way to service this area, Brad, is through a lift station?

Speaker G: I mean, we haven't looked at it You know, model-wise, to a model level, but there's a high likelihood based on everything else that we're seeing there that it's probably a lift to a lift station. There's a good potential for it.

Speaker K: And so just walk me through the scenario. So we entitle it, we say yes, put it in, you're going to pay for it, we take ownership of it, we start to collect user fees for it, and it fails, which they always fail. Who's going to pay for that repair or the maintenance and operation of that? The data center is going to pay for that, or is the city going to pay for that?

Speaker G: So right now it depends. So if they have to build a secondary independent lift station, then there's probably some onus that we could probably get that arrangement to work through with the entity. But the existing QTS, the lift station that's there in that region, is actually slated over to the city And they're trying to get that turned over to us per that original agreement. So I think just to add some context, there's— when I say it could be a lift to a lift, we don't know that yet. But just knowing the, the grades and everything that are there, it's a high likelihood that it will be that scenario. The next scenario would be that that land— this landowner would have to tie in potentially the sewer system on the QTS site to flow through their site, potentially to get to their lift station to flow. So it's— without looking at it and knowing exactly what it is and working with the project, it's hard to say today.

Speaker A: Brad, really quick, if there's no lift station involved and it's just sewer, who ends up paying for the sewer repairs and operations The city. What? The city. And if it's a gravity—

Speaker G: like, if it's a gravity sewer line on a right-of-way, it's the city.

Speaker A: Right. So, like, either way, we bear some responsibility for it, but we also are able to recoup those costs through user fees for that particular area, right?

Speaker G: But I think the biggest concern— we ran into this in the past— is that we're trying to get to a regional aspect of a lift station and not individual lift stations. Because if we're going to go individual lift stations, we need to put that burden back onto the people that are building them.

Speaker A: Got it. And that could be something that's written into a development agreement, right? Where the responsibility lies?

Speaker M: Yeah, as far as the response, again, right now it's written that if they would have to connect, if they're going to connect to a lift station, it would have to be one that already exists. And then they would be responsible for upgrading it. As far— again, they're going to pay the user fees. That's how you pay the M&O, and that's how it is for every— again, for everything we have in our sewer system.

Speaker K: Yes, Marcus, but what we say— I want to make sure this is crystal clear and make sure that I'm understanding it correctly— but what we're saying is we're okay allowing you to put in another lift station that we're going to then own and be responsible to maintain As long as you're paying user fees, which would be the same if they were just flowing into a into a sewer line period without a lift station in line, right?

Speaker M: They would pay the same user fees based on that.

Speaker K: They're not paying a higher user fee because there's a lift station. It's correct.

Speaker M: It's based on the volume of they have water.

Speaker K: They have a higher infrastructure cost to put it in, and I get that. But they turn it over to the city, and now the city owns this higher piece.

Speaker A: I think part of the problem though too is that our code prohibits private lift stations. So we created the problem of us taking it on. So if we don't want any lift stations, then we should ban lift stations altogether, which would mean that certain areas of the city couldn't be developed, right?

Speaker K: I think it's something to consider with regard to this agreement. Is there a way to have a private lift station? to protect the citizens from having to bear the cost of the maintenance and operation of an additional lift station that they don't need.

Speaker A: Could it be like a special service district?

Speaker M: It's not an additional lift station. That's, I think, where we're at, where I guess I'm not understanding.

Speaker K: It is if Brad's report comes back and they have to build a new station to service his property.

Speaker H: That's not what the agreement contemplates.

Speaker M: The agreement says existing lift station. It would just be an upsize of an They're upgrading an existing lift station. So it's— we already have a lift station that we're responsible for on the—

Speaker K: Who's going to maintain the one that they have to build if they have to put one behind that lift station?

Speaker M: They're upgrading an existing lift station. If they have to tie into another lift station, then they would have to tie into another existing lift station. So if it was lift station to lift station, there's nothing in this agreement that would authorize them to build a new lift station that's not already existing.

Speaker G: So basically what you're saying, Marcus, is they would have to be able to gravity feed to that existing lift station or else they can't connect?

Speaker M: Yeah, or they're going to have to come back and ask for permission to do something different.

Speaker K: That might solve my concern.

Speaker F: We were under the impression of that. We were never planning to— I mean, there's sewer already to our property. through the additional stuff with QTS that was to a lift station. And so it was never even a consideration on our end to do something like that.

Speaker K: Can you tell we love lift stations? I love lift stations.

Speaker F: No, I— this— I really wanted to say to everyone, I know—

Speaker A: I love them.

Speaker K: I love them so much I want to get rid of them all.

Speaker F: That I'm taking a lot of your time, but this is almost more beneficial as a conversation for me than it might even be for you guys, which I appreciate. That's how much I'm invested in this going the right way for the city. I I'm grateful for Marcus too. He's been really good to sit with us and do it the right way.

Speaker B: Okay, so, uh, Councilmember Wood, I appreciate you being patient. I know you wanted to jump in a while ago. It's kind of been on this end. Did you still—

Speaker H: Yeah, so the other question is, why are we giving them 20 years when we don't have a TIF that we're looking at? We don't have a CRA. Why do they need 20 years for a development agreement?

Speaker M: Um, we— I don't think— I'm not wedded to 20 years. 20 years. I just want to make sure it has time to develop. If they think they can develop it faster than that, then I'll let them decide how long the agreement needs to be.

Speaker H: As I look at this, it's 40 acres. I mean, it's a pretty small facility.

Speaker M: Yeah, I mean, if they can do it in 10 years, great.

Speaker D: Why not? Let's change it to 10.

Speaker H: Why not do benchmark chunks, then make them come back and ask for more time? I would rather do that than have them do nothing for 15 years.

Speaker B: So they already have to start Vertical in 3. Why would we go more than—

Speaker H: They don't lose their development rights. So 20 years just has it sit there for 20 years.

Speaker M: Again, I'm not wedded to 20 years. That was just the number we picked.

Speaker H: I would say I'm not comfortable with 20 years. There's no reason to give it to them. There's no benefit to the city for 20 years. So I think that needs to be amended, but I don't know what that timeframe should be. With the user, I mean, they're building data centers You know, less than 5 right now.

Speaker B: Yeah, so if they have to start in 3, wouldn't at least 10 be plenty? That's what I'm getting at. So I mean, just— I'm trying to find—

Speaker H: I'm saying why not set it at 6, and if they need more, let them come ask for it?

Speaker B: That only gives them 3 to build.

Speaker H: Isn't the point that we want them to get started and build it?

Speaker B: I agree with you. I'm just saying that gives them 3. If they start in 3, is 3 enough? Depending on who it is, right?

Speaker H: I've said 6. Give them 6 and make them come back and say we're wrong.

Speaker B: Is there a consensus there? I just want to know, because if that's— when it comes back—

Speaker H: That's my opinion. We haven't made a motion on this yet anyway.

Speaker J: So you're talking about 6 years total for construction from the moment of start?

Speaker A: Yeah.

Speaker J: From the moment of starting.

Speaker H: And if they need more time, they can come back and ask for an amendment. That's within the Master Development Agreement code anyway.

Speaker J: So I would be curious for you to gather— maybe you have data on this— like how many megawatts would be needed to support the data center that would go there, because it might be a lot smaller than all of us are thinking. And we're getting our minds wrapped around, like, the energy source and maybe the— like, how many turbines would you need for natural gas? And should we go that direction?

Speaker F: That's a great question, and I'd love to address it. We're looking at a lot of different options, and there are many options. On that site, you're not going to get anything— even with the greatest of everything on the planet to date, you're probably not getting more than 200 megawatts. on the lower end is kind of what maybe you're going to be looking at. To answer your question specifically, because it's a great question, I'm only concerned, only concerned about Layton. I'm honestly trying to do my best for them. I said 20 because I thought, what if this buyer comes and they're like, we're not ready yet, and we'll just let Layton stay there till they finish out QTS, which they're projected 8 or 9 years. So I thought, okay, worst case they go 10 years. then they start doing their stuff, they have 10 years. For me, it's not to have this sit for that. I mean, it's a fantastic concern, which I agree with. If Layton wasn't in the picture, and we're all agreeing it's Layton Construction, I can say, right? If Layton Construction wasn't in the picture using the land, which I told them, and I'm not going to go back on my word, I gave them my word, they have a year and a half left. So we're looking at about March of '28. My concern is if you say the development agreement was good for 4 years, a year and a half has already gone for anything that they may look to do. And I don't even know what that might look like. Just blanket statement of saying, I, I want to take care of anybody that I said can use that land, and I'd hate to come back and tell a buyer sorry, or tell Layton get out of here because I only have so long with the city. So I do Completely understand your concern, and I don't— I think it's very valid. Maybe 20 years isn't the mark. The only reason I said that was if in case they needed it.

Speaker H: I would say to that, Regan, that then you're probably not ready for a development agreement. If you're coming in and asking for a start time and you're not ready to execute that, why ask now? Because you have obligations to the current user that you want to keep. You're a year and a half too early.

Speaker F: Per se, I agree, but not— and I'd also disagree because let's say I sold it tomorrow. You're going to be 6 to 8 months of due diligence on that buyer. So that puts me now, I'm only essentially 7 months away from, if they wanted to start, right? 7 months away from Layton being done. The reason we brought it to City Council now is because we think we're at the exact right time. Some of these companies are going out a year for due diligence, and I don't blame them. They're looking at spending a lot of money and a lot of time and a lot of resources. So even if I sold it in an hour, I will promise you I'm 6 to 8 months on the company's due diligence based on conversations I've had months prior to coming here. And so I didn't do it in the spring when we first came because I agreed with you, we were 2 years too early.

Speaker H: But your ability to hit that 3-year mark that's in your development agreement is pretty low.

Speaker F: I think that I would hope for you to— I don't know what goes in with the amendment. I don't think that's a bad idea, because I think if a developer or a builder came to you and said, hey, these were the parameters, I think you guys are upstanding men that would say, yeah, you're not trying to pull the wool over our eyes. I would agree. That's why I'm saying I would— starting in 3 years is— that doesn't bother me. I just want to give them time to do what they needed to do. And if there is a provision where they can come back and say, these are the legitimate reasons why, I would agree with you. I wouldn't want somebody to come in there and be like, guess what, we can do whatever we want for 30 years. I agree. I would just hope that there's some clear language for the end user to say, yeah, if you need more time, come to the city and explain why. And one of those reasons might be—

Speaker B: So on that one, Marcus, it looks like if we can— I didn't get an exact consensus, but I want to keep moving forward. But we need to tighten up the timing somewhere. I've heard 6, 10-ish.

Speaker A: Would you consider 6 after the 3-year or whatever that trigger is? So then it gets them closer to 10, which I think is where I would be. But I'm also sensitive to like the reasons that you're giving. But would you consider 6 after the 3?

Speaker F: To Rich's point, I'm after a year and a half. That's to whatever, you know what I mean? If you said, hey, 3 years after the year and a half to start and then give them time, that's fine. I'm not worried for how— because they, like you said, I think it's a great point, they can come back to you and say we need more time. I just— I want—

Speaker B: So based on the comments that we've had, just clean up the timing that we've heard.

Speaker H: I think that Brett made the point that I agree with. I think it needs to come back to a work session. I think we've talked We've talked about a number of the things. I think Marcus has at least some parameters of things that need to be talked about, but we're not there on this.

Speaker B: Well, and that's why I'm trying to just say clean up the timing and move on. So is there any other points that need to be cleaned up specifically? Not really? So the ones we've talked about, if we can clean those up, then we can go to the negotiation of the fine details if we need to. Is that where we're at, you think?

Speaker H: Yeah.

Speaker B: Okay, so if that's where we're at on this one, then let's jump back to 14—

Speaker M: Hold on, let's make a vote before we pass this and then have to come back to it again and make another vote. If we're gonna table it, let's table it and then go on to the other one.

Speaker B: We're going back to 14A, the rezone.

Speaker M: That's what I'm saying. We haven't tabled— there's no vote that's taken place on 14B.

Speaker B: There's no vote on 14A.

Speaker M: Right.

Speaker B: So does it matter what order?

Speaker J: We moved our discussion to 14B. So he's saying we moved it, we moved on to 14B, so resolve that before going back to—

Speaker H: It is resolved.

Speaker J: Well, but he said, he said take a vote on 14B.

Speaker M: Yes, let's do a motion and then go back to 14A.

Speaker J: So, uh, Mayor, I, I move that City Council table, uh, agenda item 14B.

Speaker K: Second.

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

Speaker A: Yes.

Speaker B: Councilmember Wright.

Speaker K: Yes.

Speaker B: Councilmember Whiting.

Speaker J: Yes.

Speaker B: Councilmember Wood.

Speaker N: No.

Speaker B: Councilmember Huish.

Speaker H: No.

Speaker B: That passes 3-2. All right, now go back to 14A.

Speaker K: Mayor, I make a motion that we table item 14A.

Speaker A: Second.

Speaker B: All right, we have a motion by Councilmember Wright and second by Councilmember Whiting. We'll start the vote with Councilmember Wright.

Speaker D: Yes.

Speaker B: Councilmember Whiting.

Speaker J: Yes.

Speaker B: Councilmember Wood.

Speaker H: Yes.

Speaker B: Councilmember Hewish.

Speaker L: Yes.

Speaker B: Councilmember Clark.

Speaker A: Yes.

Speaker B: Okay, and that passes.

Speaker J: Can I just make a comment? This is all moving in a forward direction.

Speaker F: No, this is great. Like, even though it feels like nothing happened. Hey, this is great.

Speaker J: I think a lot went in the direction you really wanted it to go.

Speaker F: And it helped me understand a lot. I appreciate you guys taking the time and talking me through a lot of things. Anything needed from me based on tonight, or will they— will work just behind the scenes, correct? Okay, have a great night. Thank you.

Speaker B: All right, 15A is also a public hearing. It's Ordinance of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, updating the Culinary Water Impact Fee Facilities Plan. And we have our city engineer here to give the presentation.

Speaker A: Good evening, Mayor and Council. Good to be with you tonight. Get this pulled up real quick and then we can move ahead. All right. Discussion tonight is on the culinary water IFFP update. As you guys know, this came before you approximately a year ago as a new IFFP. At that point, as you know, the city is growing fast. I don't have to tell you guys that. And it's changing a lot. And so to keep up with that, we're bringing it back to you a year after it was approved. And there are reasons for that. And we'll go through those reasons in just a minute. One of the biggest reasons is new development, the Spring Run area, Talons Cove area. You guys have seen this concept plan come before you. As you know, there's actually been just east of the Walmart area developments that have come in already, ready to develop right now. It was originally assumed that this piece of property or this big chunk of land in our city was going to be out in the future, you know, 20, 30 years. But as we can see, it's, it's moving ahead faster than we originally anticipated. And so we wanted to add this section of land to our culinary water IFFP at this time. Um, just, just a note on the IFFP, uh, for the public mostly, but it, it's a plan that is really focused on the next 5 years of projects that we have going on. And And what it is is trying to nail down what those costs are going to be so that we can get impact fees, um, as development comes in. We don't want to put the cost of that new growth on the existing, uh, members of the community. We want to put that on the members who are moving into the community, in the— into the community. So the point of the IFFP is to nail down a cost of what that impact is going to be in the next 5 years and then move ahead with it. So, um, another thing that we kind of nailed down— we, we got a lot more information. We've completed a 30% design on our, uh, Central Utah Waterline that's going to parallel SR 73. Um, as you can see from this map, it's just— it's on the north side. We haven't nailed down the alignment exactly, but what we did nail down was the cost. Um, and we were trying to more than anything get the cost nailed down so that we can figure out bonding and funding and things moving forward. And so as we got that nailed down, we actually went back and compared it. Uh, it was very different from what was in the original IFFP, so we needed to update that cost. And then the cost of diesel is up, the cost of construction is up. As you know, costs are rising daily, and because of that, we went through all of the cost estimates in the IFFP from last year and just made sure that we're actually covering all the costs that the— that is— that these capital projects are going to take. So bottom line, um, our cost from the 2025 plan for the next 5 years for all of our capital projects for culinary water, uh, was $73.2 million. We had to bump that up to $109.1 million. So big jump. Uh, part of that— and I should go back to the SR-73 project to explain— that project went up quite a bit in the cost, and that's kind of the majority of the, the cost difference that you're seeing. Part of that is because through the 30% design process, we were looking at it going, this will cover our water needs for maybe the next 10 years, but we want to look further than that. We want to upsize this pipe and make sure it covers the needs of the city, not just for 10 years, but for the long term, so we're not having to run a parallel pipe in the future. And so that, that was kind of the main piece of this puzzle that bumped up this cost. And with that, I'll entertain any questions you have.

Speaker B: Nope. Nothing.

Speaker H: Thank you. I think it's— I, you know, I appreciate seeing forward thinking and forward planning. I think that's a reality that we can't hide from. We got to have that pipeline in the north area, particularly what's going to be coming in that area in the future. So thank you for putting the time and effort into that, thinking forward.

Speaker A: I echo that. I think it's interesting because we— one of the things we get raked across the coals the most is when there's fee increases or user fees, just different things like that. And people ask the question, why aren't you guys— why isn't growth paying for growth? And I think that this administration and this engineering team is setting us up for success, and I hope that the residents see that this is us as a city making sure that those costs are borne by the people that create them. So thank you for being here.

Speaker B: Okay, thank you. We will— this is a public hearing, so at 9:24 I will open the public hearing. Brett Simpson.

Speaker C: Mayor and City Council, thank you for the opportunity. Thank you for all you do staying late tonight, and quite an agenda.

Speaker A: So, um, finally got to this, uh, topic, so appreciate that. My question is, uh, so Brett Simpson, I'm with Pony Express Land Development. I'm a developer. We own, uh, some land to build homes, some that's zoned for residential. We also own some land for commercial as well. And so with the plan, $109 million, the increases, the 5-year plan, the Table 6 in the plan that talks about the population and the growth, I'm wondering if council or if Vince has any idea or any guidance they could give me about when I'll be able to buy water from the city for my residential developments. I've got 20 acres I'm sitting on that I can't do anything with because it's zoned for residential and there's no water.

Speaker K: I don't have any water to dedicate to the city.

Speaker A: There is obviously scarce— scarcity in water in this particular area is As you all know. And so my question is, if with this plan, if there's any projection about when the improvements will be completed enough that the city would be able to start selling water for residential developments again. And if anyone has any thoughts, I'd be interested in hearing them.

Speaker H: I'll venture. I don't know that the two are tied together. We made a decision about selling residential water because of the lack of the resource and the need to be able to reserve that for commercial and institutional use. So as far as running the lines and all that up to that area, I don't think the two are necessarily connected, my opinion.

Speaker B: Okay, we're still in the public hearing portion, so we can address that in a minute. I don't know where we're at with time, but Thank you for that.

Speaker A: I paused it so I can resume. Are you doing—

Speaker C: Yes, I'm, I'm finished. Thank you.

Speaker B: Okay, was there anyone else?

Speaker A: I have nobody else.

Speaker B: Yeah, what, uh, who did you— did you say someone— no one else?

Speaker I: No one else.

Speaker A: Okay, sorry, I didn't hear you. Sorry about that.

Speaker B: Okay, if there— is there anyone still— anyone else here that would like to speak on this item that did not have a Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing at 9:27 and bring it back to the council. Did you have a—

Speaker A: Yes, I take issue when people say there's no water because there's like 16,000 acre-feet that are just out there. It's just they're in different hands. The city only has a finite amount of shares that we have, and as a body, we've decided to dedicate those shares to industrial and commercial uses. There are plenty of private entities out there that are selling water, and it's a market-driven price. So I would encourage you to look to that as an option, because I don't think the city is going to change what we're doing anytime soon, because we have a responsibility to future generations to make sure that we preserve the water for things like city infrastructure and commercial entities so that the people growing up here can ultimately have jobs and, you know, those pieces. So like, I, I would encourage you and your group to go around and look at the private market. There's, there's people out there that are helping people purchase these things. It exists. And the city and this valley has tons of water, um, collectively but you're going to have to do the work to go find it individually.

Speaker B: All right, is there any other questions for staff on this, or nothing? Then if there's no other comments or questions, discussions, I'll entertain a motion.

Speaker K: I move we approve item 15A, Mayor.

Speaker A: Second.

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

Speaker L: Yes.

Speaker B: Councilmember Whiting.

Speaker J: Yes.

Speaker B: Councilmember Wood.

Speaker I: Yes.

Speaker B: Councilmember Hewish.

Speaker D: Yes.

Speaker B: Councilmember Clark.

Speaker A: Yes.

Speaker B: All right, we'll move on to item 15B, an ordinance. Uh, this one is also a public hearing, an ordinance of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, updating the wastewater master plan and the wastewater impact fee plan.

Speaker A: So this is going to feel like a little bit of a repeat, so I won't repeat a lot of it, but pretty much very, very similar reasons why we're coming back for an update on this one. Rising costs and adding that spring run area in the north end of the city. The adding this part of the city actually necessitated additional Piping or upsize of piping in the Ranches Parkway area. All of that flow will come south and then goes east towards Timpanoga Special Service District, and we couldn't facilitate this area without upsizing that Ranches Parkway pipe. And so that was something that was that was new. It wasn't an upsize or anything like that. That's it's. It's one that's— it wasn't in the 2025 plan is what I'm trying to say, and it is in the 2026 plan. The other part is we did finish our 30% design on our East Trunkline project, similar to the Central Utah Waterline. But this East Trunkline project, it comes down the east side of the city. As you know, our Pony Express sewer line is nearing capacity, and so we need to run a parallel line to get the waste down to the sewer treatment plant on the south side of our city. And then just the construction costs, as I mentioned before, in all aspects are going up, and so we updated our cost to reflect them. This one, uh, went from $193.7 million in 2025 and is going to $259.4 million in 2026. Uh, the majority of this one was actually in the wastewater treatment plant upgrade itself. Um, costs there have risen quite a bit over what was originally anticipated. And, and so, uh, almost 90% of this increase is in that one project as we take our sewer treatment plant from, uh, 2.6 million gallons today, uh, per day up to over 8 million gallons per day. Any questions on this one? All right.

Speaker B: No questions? This is also a public hearing, so if there aren't any questions, at 9:31 I will open the public hearing. Nothing? Not a soul? Ah, man. Is there anyone here that did not have a chance to speak on this item? Seeing no one, at 9:32 we will close the public hearing and bring it back to council for any discussion. If there's none, a motion?

Speaker A: So moved. Mayor, I move that the City Council approve, um, Item 15B, an ordinance of Eagle Mountain City updating the wastewater master plan and wastewater impact facility fee facility plan, IFFP.

Speaker K: Second.

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

Speaker L: Yes.

Speaker B: Councilmember Wood.

Speaker A: Yes.

Speaker B: Councilmember Hewish.

Speaker J: Yes.

Speaker B: Council Member Clark?

Speaker A: Yes.

Speaker B: Council Member Wright?

Speaker K: Yes.

Speaker B: Okay, that passes. We'll go on to item 15C. This is also a public hearing. It is an ordinance of Eagle Mountain, Utah— Eagle Mountain City to amend— what'd I say? Uh, the Municipal Code 9.10 and 1747 regarding archery use. within the city, and we have Natalie with us.

Speaker A: Good evening, Mayor and Council. Just a quick overview of this item for the public. We've had— or the City Council requested that we look into incorporating archery zones into our city, into our city code, so that it would be allowed, first of all, and then second of all, that we could make sure that we're doing so in a way that is safe for all parties. Um, our summer interns Addison Cragin and Ethan Jacobson researched this code and put it together. Um, they came and presented it to you guys in August, um, took your feedback and your thoughts, incorporated it. We went to Planning Commission and they gave it a favorable review. And now it's just back to the City Council.

Speaker B: All right, any questions for Natalie? All right, then we will move on to the public hearing. It is 9:34, and I will open the public hearing on this item. Nobody wants to talk about archery? I love archery. Anybody here that didn't get a chance to speak? All right, at 9:34, we will close the public hearing and bring it back to the council for any discussion or motion.

Speaker J: I think we've seen it all, so—

Speaker B: All right, you can go for it.

Speaker J: Mayor, I move the city council approve agenda item 15C, an ordinance of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, amending the Eagle Mountain Municipal Code Section 9.10 and 17.47 regarding archery use within the city.

Speaker D: Second.

Speaker B: All right, we have a motion by Councilmember Whiting and a second by Councilmember Hewish. And we'll start the vote with Councilmember Wood.

Speaker H: Yes.

Speaker N: Councilmember Hughes.

Speaker J: Yes.

Speaker B: Councilmember Clark.

Speaker A: Yes.

Speaker B: Councilmember Wright.

Speaker K: Yes.

Speaker B: Councilmember Whiting.

Speaker J: Yes.

Speaker B: Okay, that passes. And we will go on to 15D, which is an ordinance of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, amending the Municipal Code Section 1760-120, General Fencing and Screening Provisions. And this is also a public hearing.

Speaker K: I have a picture on this one.

Speaker I: Mayor and Council, some time ago, not that long ago, had an industrial business that came to you and they asked through development agreement or one of their development agreement conditions to be allowed to have barbed wire fencing atop their external— I think it was chain link fencing— as a security protocol or measure. And it required, as I understand, a new development agreement or at least be added onto a development agreement to allow for that possibility. This code would offer the opportunity for security fencing to be mounted at the top, chain link, et cetera, were allowed. And this would be only in the RTI zone, and one of the questions to ask would be, if even agreeable, do you want staff to have some kind of standard for the fencing? Height, et cetera.

Speaker H: Just a quick question. So specific security fencing for a specific use or just for all RTI?

Speaker I: RTI. So it was targeted towards one particular kind of use.

Speaker H: Yeah, I— so I'm looking through this and I had a short conversation with Councilmember Wright about this. I can see where there's some applicable uses to that. Perhaps data centers might be part of that conversation. We talked about even energy production facilities, but I think we want those screened anyway. But I obviously, I'm not opposed to having razor wire on top of it to protect the facility as well. But having it broadly available, I'm less interested in. So I would like to see some specificity to it for security measures for perhaps those 2 uses. I don't know how anybody else feels about that.

Speaker I: Thank you, Councilor, for the good comments. Then staff would request tabling of this for that, as well as any instructions on the build-out of that wiring if you have any concerns. You know, would it be 3 strands on 2 extended poles? Would it be rolled? What would it be? And there is a correction as part of this that I should have pointed out that we'd like to have left in there. It's just clarification.

Speaker K: I guess I'm just wondering, Councilmember Wood, about— I mean, the 2 uses that you spell out make sense to me to allow that in some ways, but are there other uses in that RTI that we might want to consider? And that's where I'm wrestling a little bit with this, is if we're going to do it, do we want it to be very limited in scope? That's what it sounds like you're advocating for, and I understand the reasons for that. I'm just—

Speaker H: Could you make it a special use and then— I mean, I guess if you did a special use, then you got to state what it is. I mean, what else besides those 2 would you consider it for?

Speaker K: Well, what if you have a drone manufacturer that wants to secure his facility or her facility and they want to use some sort of a barbed wire top of the fence to keep I think that everybody could apply it in that sense and say for their own protection of their property, right? Well, and so that's what I'm wrestling through in my mind is, are we being too narrow or are we being too broad if we go the other way? And I'm not sure what the right answer is. I'm just asking the question 'cause I'm thinking about those things. Right now it's prohibited. You can't do it at all.

Speaker I: Yeah, and Mayor, one other quick comment. My apologies. Maybe one of the other considerations council should have with this in thinking through it a little past the staff report is right now the opportunity to have that is ascribed to the DRC to decide upon. Maybe that ought to be better in city council's hands as part of site plan review.

Speaker K: But the RTI overlay zone requires a development agreement. We just went through that. I mean, it does require a development agreement, so why not require— why not include that as a condition of the development agreement if the end user wants it?

Speaker I: My thought was that would be something you'd have to keep adding every time. Besides, the development agreement was based on processing, that you can expedite a process.

Speaker H: That would give you the ability to be discerning in when that should exist and when it shouldn't. shouldn't exist, though. And I think the number of development agreements that we're actually looking at are probably pretty minimal.

Speaker B: What I'm just wondering, rather than putting it in the general code, to put it in the RTI anyway, because that's an area that I don't know that you'd ever deny it. Is that what you're suggesting, or?

Speaker K: Well, why don't we just, even if we just write it into the RTI overlay zone at the time of a development agreement, that they request that as— yeah, that, that, that they request that entitlement and that, that it's a may. May request it by the council.

Speaker B: Yeah, great. Okay, so, so change that line into the RTI overlay as a may, and then it become— it comes in the—

Speaker K: then the burden kind of goes back to the applicant when they're looking at the use, and they have to make that decision on the front end instead of on the tail end of everything.

Speaker B: Okay, was there anything Anyone else on this one? Are you clear on the change?

Speaker I: Yes.

Speaker B: Okay, then this is also a public hearing, so if there's no other comments, I will open the public hearing at 9:40. And Lacey has nothing. So is there anyone here that would like to speak on this item? Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing at 9:40 and bring it back to the council.

Speaker K: So my question is, does it make the most sense to just deny this and have it come back in the RTI overlay zone as a, as a May? Is there any other changes? Rob, how do you feel about that? 6 is with me.

Speaker I: Deny and I'll bring it back, or table.

Speaker K: What would you prefer? Because I'm going to just I'm going to make a motion according to what you tell me.

Speaker I: I would just say table this one, have to readvertise it.

Speaker K: Okay, then, then, Mayor, I will make a motion if you're open to that.

Speaker B: Go ahead.

Speaker K: What number is this one? Somebody tell me. 15E.

Speaker L: 15E?

Speaker A: E.

Speaker K: So, Mayor, I move that we— I move that we table item 15—

Speaker J: D as in David.

Speaker K: D as in David.

Speaker H: Second.

Speaker B: Okay, we have a motion by Councilmember Me, Wright. Wright. And a second by Council Member Wood, right? And we will start the vote with Council Member Hewish.

Speaker D: Yes.

Speaker B: Council Member Clark.

Speaker A: Yes.

Speaker B: Council Member Wright.

Speaker K: Yes.

Speaker B: Council Member Whiting.

Speaker J: Yes.

Speaker B: And Council Member Wood.

Speaker L: Yes.

Speaker B: Okay, that passes. That's, that's why I was confused where I was at. I was waiting. All right, so, uh, public hearing, uh, Eagle Mountain City amending the municipal Code 1725.040 residential standards table.

Speaker I: Mayor, council, we talked about this before. Scenic Mountain, remember, was just recently rezoned. We had about 223 lots out there that were part of that action. This is one of the exhibits from that, that effort. In so doing, we talked about the concern that staff had, which was that in trying to assign a zone on our books to the properties out there that best matched the configurations, the sizes, etc., existing conditions of those properties, it was revealed that a number of them were below even our RC zone in sizing, which bottoms out at 4,500 square feet. So a lot of those were about 3,800 and change. To further the effort of trying to keep from having issues with those properties questioned down the road by the private sector as to whether they were legally conforming or not, et cetera, and then force us into generating zoning verification letters, potentially rebuild letters at the time of a financial transaction by any of the parties in that Scenic Mountain project. We discussed and it seemed agreeable to have the proposed zoning code amendment, which is before you right now in red underneath the chart. And it simply says that for not new properties, Nothing newly developed, but for those existing properties, if they happen to be under 4,500 square feet and/or have a setback configuration that was substandard per our code in some fashion, that we would recognize those as legally conforming, not nonconforming, but conforming. So in other words, we're giving them a buy. And this same approach you may see, if you're agreeable with it, down the road, but it's again to try and unobstruct people's financial transactions with properties. properties that are already built out.

Speaker B: Any questions? Seeing none, this is also a public hearing. At 9:44, we will open the public hearing and find out if anyone came for this. Not a soul. All right, is there anyone here that would like to speak on this item that has not had the opportunity? Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing at 9:44. And come back to Councilmember Whiting.

Speaker J: I'd like to make a motion. I move that the City Council approve Agenda Item 15E, an ordinance of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, amending the Eagle Mountain Municipal Code Section 17.25.040 Residential Standards Table.

Speaker D: Second.

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

Speaker A: Yes.

Speaker B: Councilmember Wright.

Speaker K: Yes.

Speaker B: Council Member Whiting?

Speaker J: Yes.

Speaker B: Council Member Wood?

Speaker J: Yes.

Speaker B: And Council Member Hirsch?

Speaker J: Yes.

Speaker B: Okay, moving on to item 15F, an ordinance of Eagle Mountain City amending the Eagle Mountain Municipal Code 17100-040, master site plans. Back to Rob.

Speaker I: Thank you, Mayor. Excuse me, my apologies for the formatting error I just observed with the auto reformat that did with my paragraphs and didn't catch it. My only consolation is that you see even in national news stories sometimes errors that the editors miss. This is an attempt to do a couple of things. One is clarify or make, you know, a little easier to read perhaps some of the content, but mainly it's to get away from the question like we had with the charter school not that long ago as to what to do when your code now says, well, you need a master site plan for that project, because you've got more than 5 acres you're dealing with. And then, oh, by the way, you need a regular site plan approval thereafter. That makes sense for when you've got a configuration of multi-pad sites or lots or maybe a multi-tenant building setup. But in that particular instance, it created a little bit of confusion if we're trying to go right by the letter of the law. So this attempts to make that clear that it's one or the other, and there are some set conditions which follow what's basically in the code now. Thank you. Maybe reword it a little bit. The other one though, that's more of a policy shift, which I try to draw your attention to in the staff report, is what you see in D and E on this slide. And this is a little bit of a different take on how we process our site plans and plats together. Current code basically says, well, where they're required, you got to bring in your site plan before you do your plat. Just today and previously, which is what raised the question in my We had parties that were saying, well, what if we just want to divide a big property we have? We'll follow the platting standards, we'll take care of the road planning, offsite and on, the utilities, et cetera, but we don't have a user yet. When we get one, then sure, they can come in and apply for your site design approval and get their architectural stuff pinned down, the parking and landscaping, et cetera, at that time. For each of the properties that they're trying to work with. And so that's not an unusual request. It's actually pretty common from experience in other jurisdictions that, yeah, someone could, with residential or commercial or industrial and so forth, ask for that. The idea though would be that we would not offer that opportunity for residential. It'd only be for commercial and industrial if you're agreeable with what's written there in particularly E.

Speaker L: Questions?

Speaker H: So just a couple questions about this. Uh, preliminary plat approval vests in, uh, uses, correct? Once a preliminary plat has been approved?

Speaker I: I'm sorry, let's—

Speaker H: to Marcus.

Speaker M: So, um, Site plans are often after preliminary plat approval, but a site plan can act as the preliminary plat. So I guess it varies.

Speaker H: But the preliminary plat is the binding document?

Speaker M: They're both binding land use approvals. Now, they vest different things. The preliminary plat typically will vest certain things like lot layouts and road widths and all that. A site plan will vest additional things. But again, the site plan can be the preliminary plat. So—

Speaker A: Yeah.

Speaker I: Mayor, apologies. I wanted to point—

Speaker M: The site plan is generally more specific than a preliminary plat.

Speaker I: With our OpenGov system, staff agreed anyway, with that new program, it would be cleaner for us to have— even though you can combine the two, paperwork-wise, registry-wise, et cetera, if you will, to have the 2 applications be separate. They can still come in, be reviewed together like they are now, but the record would show this is the application for the site plan, this is the one for the plat. They can be linked, associated with each other, but then you don't have the confusion issue that goes with having them combined in that system. Plus, sometimes we'll get— we've gotten documents that are supposed to be part of— I remember this happening, happening, but I can't remember the project. But the documents for the plat came in with the site plan. But there was such a mix there that it was hard to tell, well, this is— we've got enough for the plat without a lot of extra work to sort through it all, and this is for the site plan. It's much cleaner just to have this is that and this is this.

Speaker H: So my concern is this enables the developers to play the game. With us. And I, I think we've already had this discussion a number of times in the last year about what does the rest of the plan look like, what is the road flow, what does all those things look like. But if we, if we give them the preliminary plat, that requirement is no longer required. They now can, can do their particular plat without having to contemplate how, how the road flows. And for me, I would prefer have master site plan Every time, because that requires them to show the full layout, phasing, all of those types of things, and then we can come back and have a chat about your plat. That's my opinion.

Speaker B: I'm going to let that marinate for a minute while I see if anyone came to speak up. Okay, all right then. In that case, at 9:50, I will open the public hearing. Not a chance, no one. All right, anyone here that came to speak on this item? Seeing no one, I'll close the public hearing at 9:50 and bring it back to council and see if they had enough time to, uh— go ahead.

Speaker K: So, Councilmember Wood, I just want to ask you a couple questions. I mean, Help me understand. I think I understand what you're saying, but can you just kind of give me maybe a broader picture view of that? And how would you— how does it relate to this application? How would you solve this application? Are you looking at this as something that needs to be denied?

Speaker H: I don't like putting the preliminary plat first or separating them. I think the two have to be contemplate, especially with the decisions we've been making lately, we're still asking for them to come and show us. So rather than changing the language where they can put one or the other first, where it's not really clear which one has to go first, they're always going to do the preliminary plat first because they want to build a drive-through. They don't want to come and talk to you about how that traffic plan is going to contemplate through their entire development. How it's going to connect to the other developments adjacent to it. They want to build their drive-through property. And I think that there's a lot of negative that ends up happening with that where we didn't have an opportunity to go, that's going to cause these other problems. To me, good planning means let's see the whole picture, then we'll come back and say, yeah, we're okay with that use for that particular thing. But the master site plan, you have If they don't know that in advance, then they aren't really planning out the site. They're just trying to make a buck on a piece of land. I'm not okay with that.

Speaker J: Okay. So you're just— you don't like paragraph E?

Speaker H: Correct.

Speaker J: You're okay with paragraph D?

Speaker H: Being concurrently submitted, sure, because you got to still evaluate the master, but Yeah, the preliminary plat preceding the master site plan. I've been no on that for since I was on the Planning Commission, 'cause it's created additional problems. And we've had many developers come and do that very, very thing to us. And they do it whether you're talking about commercial or residential, which they're smart, by the way. I would do the same thing. But it's not in the best interest of the city to let them do that, 'cause it's exactly what Brett said. It piecemeals it.

Speaker J: Okay, so you don't like paragraph D either, either of those paragraphs?

Speaker A: They can be—

Speaker H: I mean, they can be reviewed together anyway. We were doing that before. I don't like putting preliminary plat before master site plan or allowing the preliminary plat to be approved without the master site plan. So not a big fan of the language.

Speaker B: All right. If there's no other questions or comments— oh, go ahead.

Speaker G: Yeah, I'll tell you what I've seen in my career is I've seen plats come first, honestly, and that the development community actually appreciates the ability to create lots of land because Because that's what— all you're doing is creating lots and laying out roads. You're not—

Speaker A: they still have to come in for a site plan.

Speaker M: If you look at the requirements for—

Speaker G: if you look at the requirements in '16 for a preliminary plat, it requires a traffic plan. It's a traffic report that shows anticipating trip generation and levels of service. But then you get into the site site plan, then you have to do a traffic impact study, which is a— and correct me if I'm wrong, but it's a higher-level study. So they build on each other. You create the lots, and then you come back with the site plan and give more detail. And you can ask Rob, he's talked to developers, and developers will tell you that they appreciate the ability late, just simply lay out lots and then be able to come in and give you some specificity when—

Speaker A: after they've been able to at least lay out the lots.

Speaker G: That doesn't give them the ability to come in and start laying out shopping centers.

Speaker A: They can't do that without a site plan.

Speaker G: So I just want to give you a little context from what I've seen throughout my career.

Speaker I: Thank you. And then the other issue, again today, 200-acre or so parcel, property owners are interested in trying to rezone it. The way our rezone and MDP codes work, you know, that pushes them into an MDP. But they right now are wanting to leave it as a blank slate. And then at some juncture when it's ready to plat and/or get a site plan approval, et cetera, then whoever comes to buy it, speculative will take care of those details, whether it's one party or multiple parties. That's— they want that freedom, and it's been—

Speaker H: That's by design, though, Rob. I mean, you're literally talking to the people who wrote that code. We changed it from how it used to be because all people were doing was coming in, titling land, and then sitting on it for 8 to 10 years. And then 8 to 10 years from then, we're going to go take a look at code that nobody's okay with. So I think, yes, by design, these things were written the way they were, and you're right. Brandon, they are opposite to what the development community is used to on purpose because we were taken advantage of.

Speaker I: In that context, it's good to know.

Speaker A: So yeah, thank you.

Speaker H: I'll make a motion.

Speaker B: Is there anybody else had any comments? If not, we'll entertain a motion.

Speaker H: Let me get to the name of this.

Speaker B: It's 15F. Yeah, I move that we deny Item 15F. Okay, we have a motion. Is there a second?

Speaker K: I'll second it for the sake of discussion. I'll second it.

Speaker B: Okay, uh, we have a motion by Council Member Wood and a second by Council Member Wright. And, uh, is there questions specific to the motion to deny?

Speaker A: No.

Speaker H: Has, has your opinion changed on this? I mean, we spent quite a bit of time on this particular area.

Speaker K: For, for, for For me, Councilmember Wood, it's about trying to listen to what staff's needs are on some level. I mean, I want to make that clear. And finding that balance. My opinion about this has not changed. I mean, for you, and so that everyone can kind of hear that. But I think what I need to understand more clearly, and I think it's going to necessitate probably some broader and deeper discussions with you, Rob, and perhaps with you, Brandon, is to understand what are the challenges that you're facing that I'm not aware of. Um, because by saying no to this, we're telling you we don't want to give you the tools that you're asking us to give you to be able to process the applications. And, and I, and, and I, I, I hesitate to do that to our staff without a firmer understanding of what the impacts of that are.

Speaker I: And Council, point of order, if I might interject. Maybe you would find agreeable to pass it minus the wording Offered up as a possibility with paragraph E, because again, we're trying to separate out master from standard site plans, and just to put a little cleanup stuff in there too.

Speaker B: Or if there's some wordsmithing that needs to happen, it could come back with the table. But we do have a motion on the table, and if we can at least vote on that, if it requires further discussion, we can. But I think I want to move to— let's see.

Speaker J: So if we deny it, and then the staff has a revision they'd like to bring back, is that possible?

Speaker H: Yeah.

Speaker B: It's definitely possible. I think it's easier to table to bring back, because of its notice.

Speaker E: So—

Speaker M: Yeah, there are obviously costs associated with noticing it again. So tabling's preferred if you still want to consider something, even if it's different than what's presented.

Speaker B: Okay, were we here? I think so. Council Member Wright?

Speaker K: I'm gonna vote no on the motion because I want to give staff a chance to work through this. So I'm gonna vote no and hope that we can get to a table.

Speaker B: Council Member Whitey?

Speaker J: No.

Speaker B: Council Member Wood?

Speaker H: Yes.

Speaker B: Council Member Hewish?

Speaker D: No.

Speaker B: Council Member Clark?

Speaker A: No.

Speaker B: Okay. Motion fails.

Speaker K: And I'll make a motion, Mayor. It's item 15F as in Frank, right? Mayor, I move that we table item 15F, an ordinance of Eagle Mountain City amending the Eagle Mountain Municipal Code 17.100.040 master site plans and ask staff to work with individual council members to, address the concerns that have been addressed.

Speaker B: Second. Okay, we have a motion by Councilmember Wright and a second by Councilmember Whiting, and we'll start the vote with Councilmember Whiting. Yes. Councilmember Wood. No. Councilmember Hewish. Yes. Councilmember Clark. Yes. Councilmember Wright. Yes. Okay, that motion passes. We've kind of had a long night here, going for 3 or 4 hours, so if you guys are all right, we could take a 5-minute break and then come back for this last item that we can have David set up. Is that all right?

Speaker H: That's good.

Speaker A: Good. Okay.

Speaker B: All right, guys, we'll call it to order and get started. Okay. We are moving on to item 16. And this is a discussion of the speed study results. We've been working on this for a couple of months, and it's a big document, a lot to talk about, but one of the last things you get to present. So, David, it's all you. Thank you, Mayor, Council. Appreciate your time.

Speaker A: Uh, before we start, I just want to say thank you everyone for the kind words earlier.

Speaker B: I really appreciate it. I've been very grateful to have served in this position as the Assistant City Engineer, and it's been a privilege, and I wish everyone the best in the future. Um, quick sidebar, I wanted to make a note about Mayor's comment with our MAG work. We've been working hard to get Corey Ride kind of pushed up in the phasing, so that's been huge. The other thing we've been pushing on is, uh, Lake Mountain Corridor, which was pretty far down the list. It was a Phase 2 plan when I was at MAG 2 weeks ago at the RTP workshop. Um, this is still a draft, but right now Lake Mountain got pulled up.

Speaker A: It's now a Phase 2 plan.

Speaker B: Which means it should be funded in 2037-46. '37-'46 funded.

Speaker A: We're gonna have a bake sale, move that right on up.

Speaker B: So it's still a draft. Um, we have one more workshop on my last day that I will be attending, and then it goes for, um, TAC approval and then MPO approval in November. So this was one, just so you guys understand, is this— there's a big thread on Facebook. It was some Senator Buss was talking about how she saw that some funding had moved up. This wasn't even— the state took this over last year in the session as a road that will do never, right? It had nothing on it. Through this work, it wasn't even planned to be funded past 2055. It has now moved all the way up to 2036, '37. Now with that And some of you guys heard, we had that meeting with Representative Schultz. I think if they can approve it in this next session as a future funding, we could pre-build it. So that literally moved it from not even a, just a wish, to we're gonna build it in the next couple years because of some of the things that we did.

Speaker H: Well done.

Speaker B: It was, that's pretty cool.

Speaker A: It's really cool. We've had great support.

Speaker B: UDOT's been very receptive. MAG has been hearing our concerns when we've been talking to them about that. The state representative's been wonderful. Also on that list is also Mountain View South as well, because we know we can't build that to go to nowhere.

Speaker A: So that's also important that that happens. So, so it's a big win for the city.

Speaker B: So glad to see that happen. Moving on to the speed study. So tonight we have Hales Engineering to present the results of the city citywide speed study. This came about— we evaluated 35 locations that were identified by the mayor and council members and residents, and Hales has gone out, collected data, assessed road conditions, and developed recommendations for speed limits and potential traffic calming measures.

Speaker A: Our goal tonight is for Hales to present their data, review their recommendations, and then receive direction from you guys on how to proceed.

Speaker B: Now, we see this as an ongoing process rather than just a one-time study. Since the study, we've been collecting more information from residents, Utah County sheriffs as well, and this is something we want to continue on a regular basis. In addition, we also want to revisit the locations where we implement traffic calming measures to see, are they effective and how effective are they?

Speaker A: So with that time, I'm going to turn it over to Hales Engineering to walk through the results.

Speaker N: Thank you, David. My name is Joseph Browning.

Speaker G: And I'm Sean Elliott.

Speaker B: And I don't know if you heard this, but we're looking for a traffic engineer.

Speaker G: I'm a planner, though.

Speaker A: Notice.

Speaker L: Okay.

Speaker A: You probably know what we're working on.

Speaker G: Yeah. So, so I have to tell you, I came to Hales a year and a half ago. I worked for MAG for 29 years. I know all this stuff, all this stuff you're talking about, and I'm grateful we're talking about local transportation and not regional tonight because we'd be here for breakfast.

Speaker L: So, and Sean, I didn't even recognize you. You look great. You just look awesome. Getting out of government service has probably been very good for you.

Speaker K: The stress is gone.

Speaker E: I didn't have—

Speaker G: I could sleep.

Speaker N: All right. Okay, so tonight we'll go through a bit of an introduction to the study. And we'll talk about some context about how speed limits are set. We'll talk about the locations that we've analyzed. We'll talk about— we've got a few proposed speed limit changes. And then we'll dive into traffic calming measures, different types of traffic calming measures that we've recommended. And then where those— and then where we recommend those. Okay, so we, as David said, we looked at 35 different segments in the city to evaluate the posted speed limits and the speeds on those roads and to look at whether traffic calming measures are needed. And so we came back and about half of them ended up Warranting traffic calming measures, locations that we recommended them. Some of them have a greater need than others, and we'll get into that. So what we typically take a look at when we do a speed study is we want to look at vehicle speeds. We laid out tubes at each of these locations. which collect vehicle traffic, like traffic volumes, vehicle speeds, and vehicle classification. We had these tubes set out for 2 consecutive weekdays at each location, which is more than we typically do, just so that we have a solid picture of the— Of how fast people are driving. We want to look at, as part of that, a crucial number is the 85th percentile speed. So that's the speed at which 85% of cars are traveling below that speed. We try to plan for these thresholds because it represents the speed that the vast majority of drivers are going at or below. And we also do a review of the safety, the crash data. We take the 5 most recent years of crash data and we take a special look at speed-related crashes, especially severe speed-related crashes. And we dive into as well crashes involving non-motorized users, so pedestrians and cyclists, because they are more vulnerable. And speed, the speed of a vehicle in a collision affects them the most greatly. We also look at the context surrounding the area. So the land uses, the access frequency, the density of driveways. We also take a look at whether We see much pedestrian or cyclist activity in the area. And we look at growth and development in the area. And to this I would add the functional classification of roadways. So whether it's a local road, a collector, or an arterial, in terms of what the road is designed to accommodate, whether it's designed more for mobility or for access, we take that into consideration. And then the roadway design. So if there are areas with limited sight distance, for instance, Pony Express has some areas with a 35-mile-an-hour speed limit with some vertical and horizontal curves. And we wouldn't necessarily want to recommend raising the speed limit there because you can't really see— you can't see far enough for a higher speed to be appropriate. And the roadway condition, we take that into account. And of course, the existing speed limit. So this is a map of all the locations that we studied. These were— we coordinated with the city, with city staff in determining Where these data collection points are. So the circles, the dots represent the location where the data collection actually occurred, and then the lines beyond that are the broader segments between major intersections that we looked at. So how speed limits are set, guidance on this is has changed in recent years. Conventional wisdom had been to align speed limits with the speeds of the vehicles that they're traveling. But recent industry guidance and based on research has been that context should be a more important factor in determining the speed limit. Recently, UDOT has updated its policy to reflect this, and since implementing that policy, they've lowered the speed limit on quite a few roads. In fact, I believe they may have lowered it on SR 73 in recent years. We want to look at those factors I mentioned earlier. That's the driving factor. The speed limit, and so the goal is still alignment. We do want vehicle speeds and the posted speed limit to match as close as we can. In instances where we feel like a lower speed limit is more appropriate, in that case, we'd recommend traffic calming measures to aid in the or if needed, roadway design features to. To help bring those vehicle speeds into alignment with the appropriate posted speed. When a speed limit is changed, it doesn't— what we found is that it typically doesn't have a huge effect on vehicle speeds. So if a speed limit is lowered, for instance, We'd want to make sure that we implement traffic calming measures to go along with that, to make sure that people are driving at the appropriate speed. Enforcement is certainly an important part of this, you know, of alignment, but targeted enforcement, if— Unless it's kept up over time, once the campaign has ended, the effect wears off. So we want to— so we're taking a careful look at design features, at traffic calming, to make sure that these effects are more permanent beyond just the lowering of the speed limit.

Speaker A: Can I ask a question?

Speaker G: Can I just add too that the bottom quote there that talks about, you know, raising or lowering your speed limit, you know, when you look at the 85th percentile and you look at the context and you say this road really should function at let's say 30 miles an hour, right? You— there's always that fear that if you raise the speed limit, then people are going to go even faster. Studies have shown, data has shown that's not true. People drive what they feel is safe for that road. And it's how you design the road and the characteristics along that road that encourage people to either go faster or go slower. And so going and having a study on a corridor and saying it should be raised or it should be lowered, you know, people aren't going to speed just because a new sign went up, they're not going to slow down because you've lowered the speed limit either. You've got to do other things too if they feel already comfortable driving that speed.

Speaker A: So yeah, yep, when it's appropriate, I would like to ask questions about how we can mitigate concerns for kids crossing streets there, because on the one that you did suggest to raise, there's 2 schools worth of kids that are crossing at different points on it, and I just want to figure out like school zone or what. So I want to come back to that.

Speaker G: When we get to those, we'll go through them.

Speaker K: Yeah.

Speaker N: Okay, and this is a map showing where we've recommended speed limit changes. The red indicates a lower speed limit and the blue indicates a raising of the speed limit. And then the green area along Golden Eagle, there is no posted speed limit along that particular section. And so we've recommended a Haste speed limit for that. So diving into the details for some of our justifications on this. So Silver Lake Parkway is currently posted at 35. The speed limit signs are up at the north end by Pony Express. And There is no signage between the roundabout and the southern terminus, but it is assumed that it is still 35. Given the school there, the high amount of pedestrian activity, especially the children, we recommended And the traffic congestion there. We've recommended lowering the speed limit there to 30. On Golden Eagle Road, where there is no posted speed limit there, we've recommended that the speed limit there also be set to 30.

Speaker F: Mm-hmm.

Speaker N: And that is because 30 miles per hour is appropriate for a collector-type road with limited access. And we wouldn't recommend a higher speed limit because of that similar pedestrian activity there. Porter's Crossing Parkway, this is a location where we did recommend raising the speed limit to 30. It's currently posted at 25. For similar reasons, it's a collector road with very limited access. However, to your point, we did recommend some traffic calming measures there, some pedestrian safety enhancements, because of the— in part because of the crash history that's there. But we'll talk about that in a bit. And then Airport Road, we've— it's currently posted at 45. We've recommended lowering that to 40. And there is— at least within the developed area. And the reason for that is because the road north of there is— there's a lack of development that the higher speed makes sense there, but we felt that a lower speed limit was more appropriate for the developed portion, especially where there's a crosswalk. I acknowledge that there is a school zone which does handle the before and after school periods of children crossing there, but—

Speaker A: That's not a school zone.

Speaker N: Pedestrians are also able to use that crosswalk outside of that school period. So that's another factor into why we recommend a lowering there. And then last location with the change, we'd recommended that Pole Canyon Boulevard, east of Raccoon Lane, so think about Lake Mountain Road, we recommended lowering the speed limit to 30. 30 on either side of Lake Mountain Road, at least for the portion where it's a narrow 2-lane road. And pedestrian crash history is part of the reason for that. It's a narrower road. There aren't any pedestrian facilities on the west side. And then we did notice some pedestrian activity, even independent of the charter school there, on the east side.

Speaker M: on the east side.

Speaker N: There's also the— there's a large drop in the road grade that we feel we wouldn't want any speed higher than a 30-mile-an-hour limit for that, so.

Speaker A: Thank you.

Speaker G: Okay, so that's the speed limit proposed changes. There weren't many of them, but, um, and again, I think as Joseph said, um, you know, looking at the context of the roads, you know, Golden Eagle, it was designed as a collector road, it's functioning as a collector road, but there's 2 schools on it, and so there's got to be some balance, right? And so this portion I'm going to go through just some of the mitigation issues that we're thinking of. Like I said earlier, you can change the speed limit, but if— especially if you're trying to lower the speed limit, you've got to put some things in to try to slow people down. It isn't going to happen just by signage. So the way that we looked at this is anything where speeds were— the 85th percentile speed was 5 miles an hour or less over the posted speed limit, we're not proposing changes on though. I think there's one.

Speaker B: Generally.

Speaker G: Yeah, generally. Yeah, and I'll go through those. But for the most part, you know, we see that being close enough to the posted speed limit to not see that there's, there's a warrant to put in the cost on those. That and looking at crash rates and so forth also. And I think the few that we do propose, there's because there are some higher crash rates. The 5 to 10 miles over the 85th percentile. Those are the ones that we have suggestions for that we would call moderate areas. And then the 10 miles over, and it's one area of town, you probably all saw it, but those are the ones that we have to have a pretty good discussion on. So let's see. So there's 2 ways to slow traffic. There's the easy ways, the perceptual, the the way they look at things. A lot of that can be handled with signage, with markings, with feedback signs, you know, the speed limit, here's what you're going, that kind of thing. They're usually quick, low cost, so forth. Physical measures, call them vertical, so speed bumps, that kind of thing, islands, bulb-outs, and I'll get into each one of those in a minute. But those are more costly. They're more permanent. They come with maintenance costs too. So, and then at the bottom here, combining multiple speed management measures is usually more successful. So one area I noticed in town, you mentioned it earlier, it's Ida Hodges Parkway.

Speaker A: Ida Hodges.

Speaker G: Yeah. I've noticed there where you've done the lane, the funneling with the white Curb lanes on each side, right? And that tends to slow traffic down, right? But in that case, on that road being such a— I would call it a— it's not wide enough really to be a collector, but it's being used as a collector to get around, right? So probably you need a few other things in there to help out that too. OK, so some of the types of calming techniques. We have speed cushions. You'll notice these are— they're basically a speed hump, but they cut out 2 places for fire trucks to be able to go down the middle and not have to be impeded as they are going to a fire. One downside in Eagle Mountain is that works for your fire trucks, but I guess it would not work for your ambulances or your police cars. And so—

Speaker A: Does it work for school buses?

Speaker K: Does it work for school buses? Are they about the same size? Same track size?

Speaker N: I don't know. I would imagine they're similar, but I think we would need to look into that.

Speaker G: Our hope would be speed buses would probably— they're not in need to get somewhere in a hurry, right, like the emergency services.

Speaker J: So what about normal cars, normal trucks? Their wheelbase is narrow enough that it would require to go over— they couldn't just line up those and just fly right over?

Speaker G: Right. The upside is you can line up and at least get one tire through, which is what we all do, right? So this is if your emergency services are concerned about the speed humps slowing them down getting places, or speed tables. When we talked with your staff, it wasn't as much of a concern, so because it would only be impactful to the fire engines and I mean, not impactful. Uh, the ambulances, it wouldn't work. The police cars, it wouldn't work. They'd still have to slow down to go over these. So, um, if you had ambulances that could maneuver this, then it would be even a, a more strong option for the city, I guess, is, is what I'm saying. So, um, there's also speed tables. Uh, these are good usually at crosswalks. They're the ones where you, you go up and then you sort of level out for a bit, and then you go back down. So a little bit longer. They're not as— how would you put it?

Speaker N: Severe?

Speaker G: Damaging to the vehicle if they accidentally hit it going too fast, right? But they do get people to slow down. And they also are very good at crosswalks because they mark the fact that this is a crosswalk, right? People pay attention that it's there. So curb extensions, they're also called These work very well in pedestrian safety in that one, they make it so that the cross— the pedestrian has less road to have to cross over, for one. They also allow the pedestrian to stand out closer to where the drivers can see them. If there's parked cars that block where the pedestrian is, they can't be seen. And so— and they also allow drivers to feel a little bit more narrow, and therefore they helps slow drivers down. So probably one of the better options for you. A lateral shift. This is showing, and I hope you can see this, but basically what you're doing is with paint, and also there are some islands in here in the middle of the road and even on the shoulder to sort of aim cars to go do a curvature as they could drive down the road. We're not talking Lombard Street in San Francisco, but It's enough to get people to slow down. When I talk about Golden Eagle Way or Road, that's one place where we suggest these. And there's a straightaway on that road where you have the highest speeds. And the lower speeds are where the road is bending. So this would be one of those applications. Landscaping. So a great example in Eagle Mountain, in fact, you've got a lot of streets this way, but Silver Lake Parkway. On the diagonal portion of Silver Lake, it's sort of got a bend to it, but you also have a lot of trees, and that breaks down the visual view of drivers. Now, you could argue it makes it less safe for pedestrians because there's more things in the way, but in this case, I just drove it today. The speed limit's 35, and I felt comfortable.

Speaker A: Thank you.

Speaker G: people around 33. And part of that's the bend, and part of that's just I can't see very far, right? And so landscaping can be an item to help break down speeds. Curb gutter sidewalk, of course, that's another way when you have a road that's not very well defined, defining it can help bring down speeds. But it also gives you a safe place for your pedestrians.

Speaker A: pedestrians.

Speaker G: The radar feedback signs, there's sort of mixed opinions on these. They seem to work better in residential streets than, say, Pony Express Parkway or major roads. They sort of blend into the background after a while with that much traffic driving on it. Also, they work better— you can choose to put them in permanent locations, but Sometimes moving them around is another way to get people to notice that, oh yeah, I need to go slower on this road.

Speaker K: They work better if there's a police officer right behind them.

Speaker G: Yeah, that's true too. Some of them actually flash red and blue, but I guess in Utah that's illegal. But those ones get you noticing, right? Optical speed bars. This is relatively a newer application. UDOT's started using these on more curvy roads, but what they do is again they slim the lane down. They also alert you to the fact there's a curve ahead, and that gets you slowing down. And so we have a few places we'd suggest this. Pavement markings, just basically the speed limit in the road. Something I don't see as much in Utah, but— Edge striping. This is the one I was talking about on Ida—

Speaker N: Or Ira Hodges.

Speaker G: Yes, sorry. I used to know all the streets everywhere, and now I'm starting to get old. But anyway, narrowing the perceived width of the road down just with striping actually gets people to slow down. Curve warning signage is good, and then flexible delineator posts. This is showing the speed limit sign in the middle of an island. It's a A cheap way to do an island in this case. Obviously, in fact, you've got them on Major Street where you've got the pedestrian crossings and you've got these islands with the paint in the road. That's an inexpensive way to do it. And they are noticeable. Obviously, if you have curbing, that even gets people's attention even more. And this is just a diagram talking about a summary of each one of those that I talked about. I'm not going to go through each one unless you guys want me to. It's in your report. OK, so no traffic calming needed or recommended. These are those areas that we collected data where the speeds were under 5 miles an hour or less.

Speaker N: Within 5 miles an hour of the recommended speed limit.

Speaker G: Right, right. So, um, and so, so our recommendation is these speeds seem appropriate for those streets. Um, we didn't have crash history that really supported that, that there were needs on those streets. So, um, these are the tables just showing each one of those locations. Um, and so you'll notice the posted speed limit— NP means there is no posted speed limit on that street. We assume it's probably 25 in most locations. But we did not find any signs on those roads. And then the 85th percentile, so again, that's that speed with the majority of people that you would call your non-reckless drivers are driving. And so as you can see, in the case of all of those, they're within that 5-mile-an-hour range. And then the crash history, these are speed-related crashes on those roads. And so again, The highest one was on Aviator Avenue. And again, that is an arterial road, I believe, in the city.

Speaker N: I think it might be a collector.

Speaker G: Right. It has a lot of traffic on it. So you would expect a few more crashes on that road. Any questions on these ones before I move on? Okay. Okay. 11 locations with moderate needs. These are the ones, again, that 5 to 10 miles over the posted speed limit. We put crash history may support adjustments, and I'll go over those here in a minute. The proposals that we have for mitigation projects are about $400,000 for these roads. And again, in the next month, we'll— we have one other element of this study we're still going to work on now that we've gotten through this part. We do get to write you up a nice study that'll have all the details of all of this. So let's see, Mustang Way, we're proposing radar feedback signs and landscaping. Now, I'll say landscaping on that road would help a ton, 'cause it's just straight as can be. But you also have your limitations that you don't own that land, right? Part of it's in HOA. So The hard part with that road is it really does act as a collector road, even though it's not really a collector road. So, um, and so keeping it at that 25 mph is tough, right? Um, we, we put in there curb gutter sidewalk. Again, this area of the city, we did witness a lot of school children, and they're walking everywhere because there's nowhere to walk. And so, you Having a sidewalk or a trail or something on that road would probably go a long ways. Ranch Road south of Cedar, we put in there curve warning signage because it is curvilinear, optical speed bars on those curves.

Speaker N: Yeah, there were a couple of crashes where people took the curve at too fast of a speed and went off the road.

Speaker A: And so we recommended some signage there to alert people of the curve.

Speaker J: So you think the curve warning and the optical speed bars will be enough to—

Speaker G: So the curve warning, at least the fact that they crashed on the curve, tells us that they didn't realize the curb was there, right? And so having something to warn people that there's a curb there, and then also the optical, the lines also help alert them to the curve. That's what we're seeing in that area. The speed is really, you know, you look at the 85th percentile, it's not, it's actually only a mile.

Speaker J: The road was just not designed well right there, just where the hill and then it dips down and it turns sharply.

Speaker G: And as we'll talk about here in a minute on the next list of projects, that whole area is Cedar Pass Ranch. It's that wide open, spaces, right? And that's what encourages people to speed or, you know, to drive the speeds that they're going. This road is different just because it's not a very long portion and it's got a big curve in it, and that's why they're going slower. But we are proposing, you know, measurements here to— mitigations to, you know, fix the curve, basically.

Speaker N: Yeah, draw attention to it.

Speaker G: Right, right. Cedar Pass Road North of Valley Drive speed cushioning. Cushion, landscaping, and again, landscaping, I understand this area is, again, that wide open feeling is what we're saying is part of the issue there. You could also do a lateral shift, which was again that using islands and paint to actually sort of give a bend to the road type of thing.

Speaker N: It requires some repaving to get that.

Speaker G: Right, especially since that's such a narrow pavement width.

Speaker J: So you feel the speed cushion would be more appropriate than a speed table at that location?

Speaker N: Yeah, for the purposes of allowing a fire truck or similar vehicle to pass through.

Speaker J: Okay, and so the speed cushion, even if someone uses one tire where there's an opening, it will still slow the vehicle down generally because they got to go up over the other, right?

Speaker G: It slows them down. I would say not as much, meaning, at least from my experiences, At least, especially if I'm a truck, right? And again, this is something the city— give us direction, because we could say there's no reason to do speed cushions if your emergency services are okay with speed tables, right? We were basically saying this is an option, right?

Speaker J: Okay, so it's really just the speed of a fire truck getting somewhere. Right, more than anything.

Speaker G: And it's police, ambulance, fire truck. Fire truck is fine. It's the ambulance and the police that are the 2 that would be impacted by a speed cushion, or speed— either one. Yeah.

Speaker K: So I want to be clear. So you're saying the speed cushion's the only vehicle that that really is designed to let through there without any impact is the fire truck? That's it?

Speaker N: Or garbage trucks as well. Vehicles with that kind of—

Speaker G: That wider footprint. There are ambulances that have wider footprints, but just not here.

Speaker J: I'm almost more open to the speed table, but I guess we—

Speaker N: yeah, we could think about that.

Speaker B: Something to note too with the speed cushions, another drawback here are motorcycles.

Speaker A: That's another con of having the speed cushions. With the tables, you can stop all traffic. So something to consider as well. Right.

Speaker H: So—

Speaker K: Sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt. No, that's fine.

Speaker G: No, and in fact, part of your recommendation, if that's the route you want to go, we'd be more than happy to make those changes. So let's see, Ranches Parkway north of Half Mile Road. Um, a law enforcement pullout?

Speaker N: Correct. Yes. So we, we, we tried to look at, uh, ways to, to calm traffic on, on Ranches Parkway. And, uh, uh, the— there's no shoulder there currently. Um, there's, there's already landscaping. So there's, there's a lot of those, those kind of standard features we, we'd already recommend. Uh, pedestrians have— are, are separated. Um, but it occurred to us that, uh, it's It's very difficult for law enforcement to police that road as they would a normal major road, simply because they don't have a place to stop and wait. I know I've heard they're currently using turn lanes, like left turn lanes, to kind of camp out there and watch for speeders, but the idea of this is we would give them a better, more permanent location for them to So even when that road network becomes 7 lanes, which is what it's slated to become, should we be planning some of those police pullouts in addition to that?

Speaker K: That's my question.

Speaker B: Yes, so eventually with Phase 2, we will have those shoulders. We'll have that. And the nice thing is, you know, when we do the half-mile signal, we'll have the traffic signal there.

Speaker A: But this is kind of just—

Speaker B: we wanted them to do the study without, you know, interference from us and present the data. And so All right.

Speaker K: See, David, you know I'm getting ahead of the game, right?

Speaker B: I'm glad you are.

Speaker G: We didn't look at the 7-lane cross-section. So I was aware of that, though, and I just spaced it as we did this. But putting on my regional hat just really quick, the fact that that road is just inundated with traffic, and it is— you have so few ways in and out. And I'm sure your citizens are frustrated with everything that goes on trying to get in and out of this place, right? That's part of why people are speeding on these roads too, is they're trying to get somewhere as quick as they can because they can't get anywhere quick, right? So once you do finally get the mature system, transportation system, and not everything has to focus on these roads because you have a freeway and so forth, hopefully that will help change, right? All right. Stonebridge Lane. This is up at the curve right by the charter school?

Speaker J: Yeah.

Speaker G: A radar feedback sign, edge striping, that's to narrow the perception of the width of the road. Speed cushioning and landscaping could be other options. And again, we can change that to a speed table if that would work. Most of that road already has enough bends and so forth in it that traffic calms itself, right? It's just that one area. Golden Eagle Road. Let's see, east of Silver Creek. Radar feedback signs, lateral shift with flexible delineator posts, curb extensions. And I'm going to go more into depth on that road here because I know there's a lot of interest on that road. You know, our 85th percentile on that road by the school was 30, 32 miles an hour, but on the straightaway that's east of the school, it was up to 38 miles an hour. So, um, and I'll just go over that here in a minute. Porter's Crossing Parkway, um, again, we're proposing some curb extensions at the crosswalks to, to make those crossings less that the, the children have to cross. That, that road, it's, it's a collector road, and it's, you know, it, it— you have a whole lot of, you know, the, the median down the middle, the trees, all of that's helping to keep keep it slower. But 25 is not the appropriate speed for that road. And so let's put some more safety into it. Pony Express, south of Red Hawk Ranch Road, a law enforcement pullout. Again, that's a hard road. I mean, it's just— you got a lot of traffic and a lot of people go fast on that road. So there's not much else we can think of to help with that road other than enforcement or getting your major road system built out. Pony Express west of Hidden Valley Parkway, and again, this is law enforcement pullout landscaping. Airport Road east of Barnett Peak and Fiona Street, this was that portion that we just talked about lowering the speed limit on. We also are proposing curb extensions, optical speed bars, pavement speed marking, all those things to help alert drivers to slow down.

Speaker H: Quick question, is that where the crosswalk is to the school?

Speaker G: Correct.

Speaker A: Yeah.

Speaker H: Okay.

Speaker A: Yeah.

Speaker N: Oh, there's Major Street was the last one there.

Speaker G: Oh, I'm sorry, I missed one. Okay, a Major Street speed table was proposed on that road.

Speaker N: At the crosswalk?

Speaker G: Yeah, yeah. Okay, Golden Eagle Road, this is just the focus—

Speaker K: Can I ask a question about that Major Street?

Speaker A: Sure.

Speaker K: Because I noticed that it this Major Street, the posted speed limit is 25 and the 85th percentile is 31, and the other one on Ira Hodges was 25 and 30, and you're recommending completely different approaches to that. And I'm curious, aren't they similar in the traffic that they're dealing with in those areas, especially with the volume with those schools, with the school there?

Speaker N: They are, and the reason why we have recommended the speed table on Major Street Major Street is because the speeds were 31 close to this crosswalk where the data was collected. And so we felt the speed table was an appropriate measure for that crosswalk in particular, whereas I believe the crosswalk on Ira Hodges is at the 4-way stop, if I'm not mistaken.

Speaker A: Right.

Speaker G: there's no pedestrian crossing mid-block on Ira Hodges. One thing we did talk about with staff, we didn't put it in here, but the fact that Ira Hodges is so narrow through that neighborhood, and it's going to a school, but it's also going to a high-growth area, it might behoove the city in the future once, I think it's called Spring—

Speaker E: Springwater.

Speaker G: Yeah, that road, once it's put through, It might be good to close off Ira and make it so everybody takes that road from Pony instead of the shortcut through the neighborhood. But so, yeah, but you know, that's just something to think about for that because that road, it just does not feel like it should be a major— it's not major, but it does act as a collector and you have a lot of school traffic on that road. Okay, Golden Eagle. This is just a diagram of some of the things we're proposing along that corridor to bring people down to that 30 mph speed limit. Like I said, the 2 purple dots, the one closer to the school, the 85th percentile was 32 mph, which is pretty close to that speed limit. The other dot was 38. So people really do speed up in that straightaway. And so the lateral shift in the road there In the straightaway and then doing the bulb-outs, we think would help narrow that road down to bring people down to that more appropriate speed. And then the radar feedback signs there by the school are some of our proposals for that. Okay, these are the last roads, the ones with the greatest needs. And we went back and forth, and so we're going to sort of have that back and conversation with you on this, but as you know, this area, the roads are, they're narrow, right? But they're not narrow for the area, right? They feel like a rural-type road, right?

Speaker N: Yeah, I would add to that. It feels like if you accidentally left the road in your vehicle, like it would be pretty low consequence. And so as a result, it feels like you can go much faster.

Speaker G: Right, right. So I drove on them today, and this isn't being recorded, but I know— I, yeah, I know, I'm joking. You know, I got myself going on one stretch of— I can't remember the name of the road, the long road there going east and west.

Speaker L: Ranch Road.

Speaker G: Ranch Road. You know, I got up to 37 at one point. Most of the roads I was going around 32. Just feeling comfortable driving through that. And that's what I was trying to test, right? There were other people by me going faster than that, right?

Speaker J: Last night I was driving on one of those roads at 27, and the car behind me rushed around me and passed me.

Speaker N: Oh wow, yes. The same thing happened to me. I was driving about 30 a couple weeks ago, and the big SUV came around and passed me, probably doing about 50.

Speaker G: So these roads in red all had those 85th percentiles 11 miles over the posted speed limit. You know, 35, 37 miles an hour was the average. What that tells you is people feel comfortable driving that way. And part of that is that wide-open feel, the rural feel. You know, they just encourage that. Even though there's a residential neighborhood, now the homes are far apart. which also encourages that. So my wife's from Blackfoot, Idaho, out in the farm area. Nobody would go 25 in these kind of roads, right? That's just not what they do. And the crash history, there's not much crash history in this area, and I'll go over that here in a minute.

Speaker K: So what you're saying is we should, we should entitle a bunch of condominiums in that area. That's what I'm hearing you say.

Speaker G: Is this being recorded?

Speaker A: The comms team's over there. They're clipping it to put it on.

Speaker G: We could put a natural gas facility in over there. Okay. So just going through each one of these corridors then, you'll notice the posted speeds, the 85th percentile speeds, showing how all of these people are driving faster. So we put in recommendations for mostly all of these were either speed cushions or speed tables. And again, we can we can adjust that. These very straightaway roads again, those lateral shifts would help, but they would probably be more costly because you don't have as much pavement. You'd have to actually add pavement to make that work. Let me just talk about this here. So one thing we noticed lower traffic counts. So this example project is on. Canyon Wash Drive, the orange circle there. That location, we had 560 trips a day on that road. That's a pretty low amount of traffic, right? It suggests that most of our traffic is internal, meaning you're not getting a lot of cut-through trips through here. Now, we did this during the week, right? I think it was on a—

Speaker N: It was on a weekday, yeah.

Speaker G: Wednesday, Thursday type of thing. You know, we've heard that on Sundays there's particular groups of peoples and times that there's a lot of people going all at once, right?

Speaker K: Sure.

Speaker G: Yeah.

Speaker B: I know this was independent data and stuff, and they say, well, that makes it look like local traffic because of the trips per day. But you also need to know that there's only about 8 homes on there. So that means that's about 30,000 times the amount of people that actually live there. So it's a cut-through.

Speaker G: Right.

Speaker B: So even though you're saying that's a, a low trip count, there's places where there are condominiums that have lower trip count than that. It's because— so I don't know that that's low trip count to me.

Speaker N: And Canyon Wash Drive is a, is a, is a pretty major access to this, to this neighborhood. So there are, there are at least a few homes. So a typical home produces about 10 trips per day, just, just for context. So you think about how many homes this this particular connection serves. And it's likely that there is some cut-through traffic, but what we're seeing is that a lot of it is local residents.

Speaker G: This was the highest count of all the roads in the neighborhood, meaning you can see as you work your way towards 73, this is the corridor people are using.

Speaker K: And I'm going to tell you, because we're all very familiar with that, at least the majority of us are.

Speaker E: They all live there.

Speaker K: 3 of us seated here live in that area. have for decades.

Speaker G: Right.

Speaker K: And so what we see is, at least what I see, is I see North Ranch traffic trying to get to Pony Express Parkway, and it's just a connector. That— it's a collector road that brings traffic through there in both directions.

Speaker G: Right. And we're not saying there's none, but it's still a pretty low amount, meaning these roads, even being narrow as they are, they're designed for more than that.

Speaker K: Half Mile Road, that's me. I'm on that one.

Speaker G: So anyway, so let's see. I put on here similar rural areas in the Benjamin area have 30-mile-an-hour roads. So the issue here is we can put in traffic calming. It's going to be costly for this area. Getting people to go 25 miles an hour when they're going 38 miles an hour might be tough. And it might be you have to put a lot of traffic calming in. to get it to work. So the fact that the accident rate's pretty low, you know, and the— there are a few streets in there where you're on hills and you're on curves and so forth. People aren't going that fast on those portions of those roads, right? You got pedestrians, nowhere for pedestrians to walk other than you got wide shoulders, right, or wide areas. I think I saw signs up there's horses, you know, people ride horses and so forth. So this is a hard one, right? Because, you know, it seems like 37 miles an hour seems too fast, right? So there should be some things done in this area. But is 25 the appropriate speed limit too? So we leave that one a little open-ended as part of our report on that. So our next steps, obviously we'd like to get some feedback from you tonight, and that will help us finalize our report. We are working on the final draft of the speed study in general. We do have one other part of this study, the Scenic Mountain to Talus Ridge connection. They want us to do modeling to find out the impacts of making that connection. We put that off until after we we got this portion done.

Speaker A: So we're going to start working on that.

Speaker K: Have you— did any of your modeling on Silver, uh, Silver Lake Parkway, or did any of that include a connection to Saratoga Springs? Because it did.

Speaker G: Yes.

Speaker K: So you contemplated a connection to that high school?

Speaker G: Yes, yes, yes. Yeah, and that, that all was done in the Silver Lake Parkway study we did just, just recently.

Speaker B: And carried over to this one.

Speaker G: And carried over to this one. Um, and then, yeah, and then once we're done with all that, we'll be back to present the findings. So we might fly David back from Florida. He can come.

Speaker B: Okay.

Speaker N: Yeah, we'd love to open it up to questions.

Speaker I: Lots.

Speaker D: So the total cost to put all of that into place is about $400,000? Oh, is it $860,000? Oh, it was the first section. $400,000 for the moderate or something. Okay, the 2 sections.

Speaker G: $460,000 for the—

Speaker J: I told you guys it would be $1 million.

Speaker A: Yeah.

Speaker G: Oh yeah.

Speaker D: But that's a good use of funds.

Speaker G: That's about $800,000, yeah. Now again, you— and especially in Cedar Pass Ranch, you could probably go crazy putting a lot of things in it. You know what I mean? To try to bring it down to 25, it might be a little bit more than what we proposed. But, you know, I think what we would— recommend in that area is do a more detailed study of how far— if you were to do speed tables, how far apart should they be? You know, where would you locate them? You know, you have to also do site treatments where you put speed tables because people will just drive around it if you don't have anything to block them. I guess you could throw a big boulder in or something.

Speaker K: Half the neighbors have already done that.

Speaker N: Probably recommend a sign or something.

Speaker G: Yeah, a horse hitch, right?

Speaker D: A question on the— while we're talking about speed tables. So I had in my head that the cost of a speed table was $70,000 or $80,000, and you had $8,000. Are we talking like a fully developed crosswalk cement? That's a big range in cost. I mean, we could do a lot of speed tables for $8,000 apiece.

Speaker N: What we've seen from FHWA, I think this is specifically referring to the asphalt ones.

Speaker D: Yeah.

Speaker N: It's about $8,000 from what I've seen.

Speaker D: And does it matter if you do asphalt or cement, or asphalt works fine?

Speaker N: Yeah, asphalt works fine. I suppose the advantage to cement is that it probably draws It shakes out more.

Speaker K: Yeah, yeah.

Speaker A: There's less maintenance too. But the concrete has a higher upfront cost, but then there's less maintenance where the asphalt—

Speaker D: Over time.

Speaker A: There's a lot of slowing down, braking there. Sometimes you get ruts on the approach and then hard acceleration. The concrete, you don't get that as much.

Speaker D: Yeah.

Speaker G: And a lot of times at speed bumps and speed tables, the lines start to wear out, and whether you're on top of that or not as a city— There's cities that aren't on top of it, right?

Speaker D: So in Cedar Pass, where you have like more country roads, maybe less traffic, you might go asphalt.

Speaker A: Yeah, yeah.

Speaker H: So just a couple comments. You guys hit pretty much the same places that we had talked about. They're all by schools. We actually have funded speed tables in our last budget to stop the traffic because we— The other 15% that's going faster is a problem when you have 1,000 students at each one of those elementary schools. I'd like to know your opinion on that. One of the examples you showed on Golden Eagle, you have where you narrow the crosswalk basically. You bump it out.

Speaker A: Right there, the bulb-outs.

Speaker H: The speed table is a preference of mine because I intend for them to stop. We want them to stop. We've already had some crosswalks crossing guards who have been hit, unfortunately not reported. You guys are looking at crash scenes, and I'm like, if they don't report those things, then how do you even know that that's an issue there?

Speaker A: Right, yeah.

Speaker H: But I mean, I actually saw it happen, and they didn't report it. And each one of the schools could benefit from the requirement of all the cars to have to stop to allow them to safely cross. Cars are pretty bold. when they get impatient, and as soon as there's a break, they're like, they'll just get out of the way kind of a thing. And I just, I'm not willing to risk little kids, especially when we have so many of them at each one of these schools. So in the locations, Silver Lake Parkway, Golden Eagle, the corner right there is Silver Lake Elementary School, Brookhaven Elementary School, which is right at Seedling and Golden Eagle, Pony Express, That's on Smith. Smith Ranch, you identified that. Ira Hodges goes to Mountain Trails Elementary School, which a lot of kids, it's a problem there with people speeding through there at the pickup and drop-off times. I wonder, we didn't really look, have you looked at Eagle Valley? I don't know if that area has the same problem, but it's just right up the street here from City Hall. Hidden Hollow you hit, and you hit Desert View.

Speaker K: And Blackridge.

Speaker H: You literally hit every single one of the elementary schools.

Speaker A: Right.

Speaker H: We look at it and say, if it's not a collector road, let's put a speed table on it. And the ones that are bigger than that, love to know what your ideas are when you have a Pony Express and you can't really stop all the traffic because you need to have the flow through there. What are some better pedestrian options for them other than just turning lights on and hoping people don't run through the 4 lanes?

Speaker N: Yeah, that's a good question. I think on a road like Pony Express, you could consider something called a— it's programmed into the signal, it's called a leading pedestrian interval. So what it does is it— the pedestrian, like the walk sign comes on a few seconds before cars are able to start moving. So it prioritizes the pedestrians, and they start crossing the crosswalk, and it gives vehicles a chance to— yeah, yeah, give them greater visibility. That's something you could do there. And you're talking— are you talking specifically at crossings with traffic?

Speaker H: So Hidden Hollow Elementary, you have Pony Express at Hidden Valley Parkway. Then you also have the one that was over on Airport Road.

Speaker G: He's talking about basically school crossings.

Speaker A: Yes.

Speaker G: Yeah. So I guess my thought on that, and I think Commissioner Clark asked this earlier, but, you know, where you have school crossings now that are signed, you have the 20-mile-an-hour flashing light. I mean, you have the safety elements that are put in already for those locations. If you're in a residential area, and speed table is something that you want, I don't see a problem with that, right? Something like on Golden Eagle that is a collector road, that's harder, right? The speed tables don't work well on those type of roads only because, again, you design that road a certain way. If you put enough speed tables on it, you're bringing it back down.

Speaker H: It was one of those unfortunate accidents of the school district chose without any input from anybody. Because initially, I think everybody here would agree that Golden Eagle should have been through street, right? Then they threw 2,000 elementary students on that road, right? That— I mean, if you guys were over there, you probably saw them spilling like ants out of there. And they do. They literally just cross wherever they want.

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker H: So maybe we need to change the designation of that road through there, because the only way that we're going to be able to prevent the accident that's going to happen, I I mean, you saw them speed up as soon as they get past Silver Creek Way. And once the other side opens up, it's going to go the other direction too. So yeah, maybe you're not wrong. Yeah, it's listed as a collector road, but maybe it shouldn't be now because of that.

Speaker G: It's also designed as one though, is the problem, right? So having more driveways, having, you know, not being as long as it is, not going from point A to point B, That's why people use it like they do, right? And so now that it is a collector, now if you want to declassify it, make it a local street, you got to do more than just take it off the map, right?

Speaker H: If you put the speed tables on it where the crossing is for both the elementary schools, that mitigates a lot of that though, doesn't it?

Speaker N: It would certainly help, yeah, yeah. And you could— I think that you could Keep a collector designation and still have the speed tables there. Typically, we try to avoid that, but if you've got, especially in situations where you have a stop sign or at a roundabout or a traffic signal, things like that, you know, maybe speed tables are a good option for crosswalks there.

Speaker G: Another option too would be to have bulb-outs. but also have a refuge median in the middle. Again, that narrows the road down and alerts people that they got to slow down for this area. Um, so that's another option that we could propose in that.

Speaker A: So I— sorry.

Speaker F: Oh, go ahead.

Speaker A: Because it's kind of piggybacking off of Council Member Wood. Um, when there are speed tables on places like Golden Eagle, do you see people slow down for the speed table and then gun it after to make up the difference. That's the thing I'm worried about, because he said the kids spill out like ants and they just cross wherever. That's exactly what's happening, and I worry about the gunning it after to make up the difference.

Speaker G: So, so the same thing happens when you put in stop signs that aren't warranted. Yeah, drivers typically will then speed up because they felt like you've slowed them down unfairly. Right? So if you only have one speed table, and again, as we said, you've got to initiate a lot of different things. The proposal that we put with the lateral shifts to slow people down, all of that was to work together, right?

Speaker A: Yeah.

Speaker G: Now again, we could put in a speed table. I wouldn't recommend it for a collector road, but we can do things. I think the bulb-outs at the crosswalks, maybe a median, that would help.

Speaker A: In Europe, I've seen on fail videos, but they're awesome, those arms that come down in certain places where there's crosswalks and stuff like that. Is that something that's done anywhere in the United States?

Speaker N: I'm not aware of any.

Speaker A: Is it something legally we could do?

Speaker K: That's a train, Melissa.

Speaker A: I know, but listen, I will do what it takes to keep kids safe, but we also need to keep the roads. Like, so I'm just wondering, is that— no, I, I take it back to the team and see what they say.

Speaker G: Yeah, yeah, it seems like one of the hardest issues is all the parents parking, and then you have kids running out behind cars, and, you know, and, and that's the school district.

Speaker K: And so I'm gonna, I'm gonna throw this out there. I mean, here's an idea that I've thought of, especially in those areas during school pickup and drop-off. Why not do some of those bulb-outs so that you create some pedestrian crossings that, in my opinion at least, become much safer and designate parking, parallel parking along the side of those collectors to reduce the width and the magnitude of those roads? So even if it's designated as a collector at certain times of day when, when the kids are there, perhaps you could, you could narrow those areas down. down in a certain section of that road where the schools are at.

Speaker A: That's exactly what happened at Smith Ranch. You guys probably saw Smith Ranch. It used to, it used to be the only way to get out of that neighborhood because Porter's Crossing didn't go all the way down. And because there were so many cars on that road, people would creep along it because you didn't have any other choice. So I mean, maybe that's what we need to do. If only we had a, engineer that could just stay.

Speaker D: One road that came up earlier today from one of our residents, Jay Johnson, on Lake Mountain Road.

Speaker A: Was that in here anywhere? No.

Speaker D: That wasn't in here. I wonder if there's some follow-ups maybe.

Speaker A: So we can add that.

Speaker N: That's unfortunately become a speed issue in the last few weeks.

Speaker D: It's a newer development. Yeah.

Speaker B: So we've noticed with the data, on traffic picking up. Cars have found out, I don't need to wait on Pony, I can blow through Parkway Fields, so I can go up that way.

Speaker A: So we've just started noticing—

Speaker B: Well, and that one had to do with the data center put a new entry on the expansion phase that wasn't being built, and they made an entry off the road off that side on the east side of the property that is Lake Mountain Road.

Speaker A: So that's what we want to look at next this summer, next hot topic to look at.

Speaker D: Yeah, but these are good ideas. I mean, we could probably figure out some of these, these other areas.

Speaker B: So some things that I like personally that's different than these that I didn't see recommended anywhere— can you go back to those pictures that show like the pop-outs and the— right there. Whoa, you were on them fast. Sorry. Yeah, I love those because I think I'm one of those guys that like uses— I straddle the line all the time because I always have a trailer, so you need more room to turn. And I tell you, when there's something in the road, you're going to slow down because—

Speaker H: Do you mean this trailer?

Speaker B: Yeah. So to me, I think those are as effective as even a speed table or other things. And it's way cheaper, way easier. And so I would love to see those incorporated in some of those areas rather than some of the other things. And then the other thing that I had a question on And David knows this because I specifically spoke to him. You mentioned right off the get-go that one of the reasons we have people speeding on these roads is because of the traffic issues out here and they can't get anywhere quick enough. So where I take issue is, is those, those collector roads are supposed to go faster, which means that how do we keep— for instance, I'm going to use the ones that I— that we all know are the, the hot topic, but I'll use Airport Road. You mentioned lowering the speed limit. I'm completely against that for this reason. I want to raise the speed limit so we can go somewhere faster. But then, okay, well, how do we take care of those kids? Why did we not do any tunnels? Because that's going to be— that's programmed to be a 122-foot road. I mean, that's one of our major, major—

Speaker A: 176.

Speaker B: 176.

Speaker A: That's Airport Road.

Speaker G: You're right. That road, when it becomes the regional road that it is going to be, you don't want a crosswalk right there.

Speaker B: So why would that not go under? And I didn't see that anywhere. And I only use that one as the example because I think the Golden Eagle one is the same thing. I think that if we've got a pedestrian problem, go under or over. I don't think— because that's a road that's supposed to go on.

Speaker N: No, that's a good question. We could certainly put that in there. I think the reason why we Didn't in this case is because those do tend to be very expensive. I would need to look at them.

Speaker B: So is one life. And I think we— and because I know these guys are getting— maybe Brad or somebody's over there having convulsions or something, but because there's utilities, so going under it might be a problem. So I want to make sure that I'm not just asking. But I think that it's— we've got to think about, well, how do we— can we keep those people going and still keep people safe? And yes, they're expensive, but they're not too expensive that we shouldn't do it if it's right. If it's right, it needs to be done.

Speaker G: One thing, we looked at the here and now, so that future road, we weren't really going out to the big projects. But obviously, as you build those projects, you need to look at—

Speaker B: Yeah, that was the goal. For this scope, it's more of the immediate conditions, not at the 7-lane situations and these things.

Speaker A: We can definitely look at that as we continue, but It was more, let's fix the problem right now.

Speaker B: What's the issue? How can we stop it today?

Speaker G: Yeah, I agree. As we went back and forth on should Airport be a lower population, a lower speed. Yeah, a lower population would work. In that— yeah, I know. In that we know that road is going to be a major facility. In fact, watching all of your problems regionally, I think of how are you going to connect to the South Valley when that area grow someday. But that's another topic. So anyway, yeah, that's, uh, one thing I was going to point out pushing through these pictures, the bulb-outs. Another benefit of bulb-out is people have to slow down to make turns, which again then helps slow down traffic overall. And they have to slow down and actually look.

Speaker B: Do you have a boat or an RV or a horse trailer? I'm just asking.

Speaker A: No.

Speaker B: Yeah, that's why I hate those. I know you can't turn. I can't make a right-hand turn if that's there with, with my horse trailer, but not without cutting into this other lane over here. And specifically, Council Member Wright and I, uh, worked on our street standards and we made them wider. They begged us to do these in areas and we said no way.

Speaker K: There may be some areas where it's appropriate, Mayor, but I think they should be limited. Maybe it's that school zone.

Speaker B: I think there are areas where where they could be appropriate. There's no question. But I'm not completely against them. I just want to— if you put that there and a sign, well, at least put the sign back so I can jump over the curb, because I pull a trailer.

Speaker J: The school zones are great places for those, though. That's where these guys— they were recommended. They have those in Daybreak all over the place, and Daybreak traffic is slow.

Speaker B: So I'm just going to say school buses. If you have a road this wide, sure, it makes sense. But let's say that that bulb goes out and you've got a narrow road. The bus is getting— the back tires are going over that. They can't get wide enough to get through.

Speaker G: We would not propose you build them that trucks and trailers could not get around them, right? I mean, they do—

Speaker B: Well, I'm just telling you the flip side.

Speaker N: There'd be an appropriate design vehicle that we'd want to design those to accommodate.

Speaker A: Yeah.

Speaker K: Mayor, we're going to have to send you back to the CDL driving school. That's what I think.

Speaker G: That's funny.

Speaker K: Because I pull a trailer and I can usually get around those without an incident. Don't you got to be able to see?

Speaker J: So it's 11:18 PM, just FYI. What's the next step?

Speaker H: Yeah.

Speaker B: He was the one who wanted to raise the speed limit. I was just going to ask that same question. You know, we've all kind of given some different ideas and suggestions, and now is it go back and incorporate some of those and come back with a final phase, or what? Do you have a couple more comments over here, I think?

Speaker D: No, I just think the next phase is like to fund it. Next council meeting, can we bring this up for a vote?

Speaker K: So really, just let me ask this question. Is there anybody that sees anything that they've recommended that you say we absolutely should not do that?

Speaker H: I'm still yes for speed tables at school zones, unless they're on Pony Express or Airport Road.

Speaker A: So Britt wanted to talk about something on the speed cushions real quick. As you're deliberating and kind of mucking through what you want to do, I would just disregard speed cushions. It doesn't— it's going to be negligible for us. We're still going to have to slow down. The second that we run a fire truck through one of those and tip it because they didn't angle it right or they had an issue coming in, it's all going to go away anyway. So if you're going to go, like, go, yeah, speed tape, whatever you do, it's going to have an effect on 911 response and service. I would probably recommend against the arms. That's the one thing that will absolutely impede us from going anywhere.

Speaker H: Just push through them.

Speaker A: Yeah, those are cheap to replace. Yeah, that is true. Have you seen the bills? So regardless, just, I would say speed cushions, don't even consider that in your deliberations.

Speaker K: I'm glad, I'm glad for that information because that was the way I was leaning, thinking that we should, if we're going to do a speed table, we should just not do speed cushions.

Speaker A: It doesn't benefit us.

Speaker D: That's helpful.

Speaker A: And at the end of the day, you're going to get more problems from a speed— I've had a couple areas where we've had speed cushions, and there are more problems that it creates than it helps. And you get pedestrian cars that will rip through and try to kick it, and you'll get one angle up and 2 tires off. And it's— yeah, we have plenty of job security. We have plenty of idiots that are out there. So. Anyway, that would be my consideration on the cushion piece. Just don't worry about it.

Speaker B: Mayor.

Speaker K: Go, Melissa, go.

Speaker A: Mayor, um, I would like my fellow council members to think about prioritizing at least one tunnel. Um, I know that that wasn't any of your recommendations, but I know that in certain school zones, that's really going to be the only, like, true fix. And I know that Saratoga was able to do one. with some funding from the school district, some funding from UDOT, and I think Saratoga or MAG, something like that, I can't remember.

Speaker K: Where?

Speaker A: But I think what we need to do is get an idea on cost and say, okay, every 2 years we're gonna put in a tunnel someplace, because we can't fix the really dumb locations that schools were put, and we can't change the fact that we have a bazillion children, But we could start saving up basically to make sure that we could put some of those in. And I know that Council Member Wood's working with John, just working on trying to get something going with the state for requirements for when schools go into areas like this. So anyway, that's— I like all the things we've talked about, but I'd really like for us to think about Funding a tunnel, because I think that's going to be one of the only true fixes we have.

Speaker H: I think we're all talking about the same location. I think Airport Road, we'd like to know what the cost of that would be.

Speaker G: Okay, so on your arterial, probably. So Pony Express there also, would you say?

Speaker A: Well, yes, we should have one at Hidden Hollow. Yeah, we should have one at Silver Lake, and we should have one on Airport Road. Like, those would be the 3 'Cause those are all ridiculous roads.

Speaker L: I think you're gonna find that a bridge is gonna be cheaper than a tunnel because of all the infrastructure along Pony.

Speaker A: Okay, so a bridge at Pony, tunnel at Silver Lake, and tunnel at Airport Road.

Speaker G: And where at Silver Lake are you talking?

Speaker A: What?

Speaker G: Where at Silver Lake?

Speaker A: Where the school crossing is down there.

Speaker H: I wouldn't do the Silver Lake one. I think that's overkill there.

Speaker G: Down by the roundabout at the south end?

Speaker L: Yeah.

Speaker A: Okay.

Speaker D: And on Airport, are you talking about going under SR 73?

Speaker H: No, it's where the school is, where Desert View is.

Speaker B: Right by the Ivory, just—

Speaker D: Oh, okay.

Speaker H: Putting a tunnel that's underneath it.

Speaker B: Fiona.

Speaker H: Fiona.

Speaker A: Oh.

Speaker H: I think that's the— for me, that's a location worth looking into. I mean, maybe it's just going to be crazy stupid, so maybe an over—

Speaker D: Option as well.

Speaker G: We can just put both.

Speaker H: Yeah.

Speaker A: One or the other, whichever.

Speaker H: Then at least we know what it's going to be. And if it's something that can be expandable, because we know it's going to get bigger, that's my only issue with going over the top of it, because then you're tearing it back down when you widen it out. So.

Speaker A: Well, I think in those locations we already have the right-of-way.

Speaker B: So if we built it, we would build it.

Speaker H: Build it to the width.

Speaker B: Yeah. And then if we have to add a wider pad on one side just to get to there, and we could rip the pad up, but then the bridge is fixed there.

Speaker H: Great idea.

Speaker G: It might be cheaper just to do a tunnel on that, on the short, since the road's so narrow now. And then when you build the big road, it's probably going to cost—

Speaker H: Just add the other one on.

Speaker A: Add the box on potentially.

Speaker H: Fiona. This is Fiona.

Speaker A: Fiona. Fiona, yeah. Thank you. David Salazar has to build it before he can leave the city.

Speaker H: We've budgeted his flight back every month.

Speaker B: All right, I'll be on contract, there you go.

Speaker G: Can I just ask, like, so with the Fiona one, if you invest in a tunnel, is that— is the route for the school ever gonna change where it becomes nonfunctional for the school?

Speaker A: Or is—

Speaker G: and then is— if it's Fiona, is that the right location for the traffic to flow through?

Speaker K: I just think we've got to be particular.

Speaker H: We're always going to have a pedestrian crossing on that area right there. Whether they're going to the school to go to school or crossing to the other neighborhood.

Speaker G: But if we're going to put one there, it's like what he talked about earlier with the other traffic calming measures and whatnot. How far down that road are we going to try to do that to mimic it for crossings?

Speaker H: I don't understand what you mean by that.

Speaker G: So if you're going to do one at Fiona, And you're going to bridge the gap between the Ivory development. What happens when we go north and we develop out there and then there's flow of traffic?

Speaker H: We should be contemplating that for every single crossing across those roads.

Speaker G: It's how many of them, right?

Speaker I: Right. So—

Speaker H: Yeah, because you're right. There's going to be a northern section of that that needs to be addressed. And so Melissa made the point. I've been talking with John Magnus and some of our state senators. The school district should be responsible for the impact they create. And they should be a participant in putting safe routes in when they put a school in, particularly elementary schools, whether that's going underneath it or over the top of it. But you can't just drop it there and say, okay, you guys figure it out.

Speaker A: I think I missed that dialogue or that context.

Speaker G: I missed hearing it, so thank you.

Speaker J: Just one random question. What about speed dips instead of a speed table, like out on Cedar Pass Ranch?

Speaker A: Yeah, Cedar Pass.

Speaker J: I'm wondering about that because there are a lot of trailers going through there, horse trailers and other kind of trailers.

Speaker N: Yeah, that's a good question. I think the thing you need to coordinate with that is the drainage surrounding the roadway. You just want to make sure it doesn't pool up with water during a storm event.

Speaker H: They've got great swells that just push the water right up into the properties over there, so that'll work great.

Speaker G: Yeah, I will say that most DIPS they've gone away from doing, meaning most of those—

Speaker A: well, so have staff bring back a plan to fund that.

Speaker N: Trailers won't bottom out.

Speaker G: Yeah, so, so you don't see DIPS in the industry anymore. They just, they had so many problems, um, you know, people bottoming out and so forth. Um, I don't know why other than I know everybody hates them.

Speaker N: They do tend to be a little less visible, I think, sometimes.

Speaker G: That's probably off guard.

Speaker B: Yeah, yeah. So, so to move this forward, I think everybody's saying what's the next step. This is just one that could be my opinion and might not be. There, we could just fund it the way it sits, but I think we've had recommendations to not do certain things. I also think there's a lot of human element, meaning this is great data from an outside perspective. There's also those of us who live there And I think we can say things like, they don't have any suggestions for those things in the middle of the road. I think in some areas we use those. So I think we need to take this data and use the human element. This is just my opinion. And fix it up, whether that's with staff or have it come back, then fund it. That's just my opinion. But I mean, if you think it's already done just like it is.

Speaker H: No, I would like to sit down with a map and say, put a speed table here. I want the ability to have that conversation.

Speaker B: Well, some— I think some of these that might have been something less, it could be a speed table. And I think some that were a speed table could be something different. That's the human element.

Speaker H: It's a conversation that probably needs to happen that's in more of a work session environment instead of us up here and you down there. Let's sit down and take a look at it and say, okay, this is what we're seeing on the ground. This is what the residents have told us on the ground. We're going to talk about IR Hodges, we're going to talk about Silver Lake. They're going to kill you with the stories about Cedar Pass Ranch. And we need to talk about those things so that they can say, what you're saying there is not bringing into account what people are doing, their behavior, because you were there for 2 days. So it's different on the weekend, or it's different during the holiday.

Speaker B: Well, that's the human element. I think so. So I think this— I don't think we just say let's fund it. I think there's—

Speaker H: No, I think we're going to need to work Do we need to kind of—

Speaker C: And then say go.

Speaker B: And then once we come up with something, maybe send it back and say, now that you have that, you know, is this—

Speaker H: That's my vote. I don't know how the rest of you feel. Brett, you seem like you're not sure on that.

Speaker K: I'm happy to head down that road with you, as long as there's a speed table in it.

Speaker F: Yeah.

Speaker B: Well, I think we're going to upgrade some of these to speed tables, and I think we might do some bull bouts.

Speaker D: This is going to take us some time. This is going to be a process. We're not going to do all of this in a week. So I think we need to probably prioritize the most critical locations first, work through those, fund those, and work our way out.

Speaker B: See, and I think that's what, to your point, Rich, those delineators are going to get put in in a lot of places.

Speaker K: I'm going to say I think we need to find a way to fund both the yellow and The most egregious and those that are recommended, because there are others that are going to develop by the time we get these things kind of coming under— back under control.

Speaker B: So you're saying set aside at least that amount of money and then determine how to—

Speaker K: And we're going to be going into a new budget season, so I think we should— staff should be looking at that, and we should be looking at setting $1 million or $1.5 million aside for speed improvements in the city. something like that. But I'm on board with that, and that's not insignificant, but at least it gives us a target to work towards. Even if we don't expend it all in, in the first year, it gives us something to work on for the next year and a half or 2 years.

Speaker B: So does that give us enough direction? You have a comment?

Speaker L: I think it gives us great directions, especially with the budget planning and all that type of thing. But I guess maybe one thing I might suggest is that if the council took a the time to go through, prioritize, have this interaction dialogue, come up with its plan, and then put it together into a project, it would make a lot of sense that one, it would be funded as part of this whole budgeting process, but two, it could be put together in a package that could be executed between the end of school and the beginning of school.

Speaker H: Agreed.

Speaker L: And, and because the reality is we're already going to hit winter. We're not We're not going to rush. We might as well do it right and not have impacts to the residents.

Speaker H: I agree.

Speaker B: Okay, so let's set that plan in motion. And I also—

Speaker H: Make it so, what he said.

Speaker E: Yeah.

Speaker H: That's the plan.

Speaker B: And I agree too that this needs to be council-driven, because if staff brings this, we're just going to—

Speaker A: they're going to—

Speaker H: I think that's what he just said. We're going to get together. We're going to figure out that plan.

Speaker B: That's why I said I agree with that.

Speaker H: Package it all up, wrap it in a bow, put our names on it, and here we go.

Speaker B: Yeah. And then next year we can get it done. So we'll start working towards that and move forward. So any last things here?

Speaker N: No, I was just going to say we did recommend the delineators in the middle of the road on Cedar Pass Ranch, but those kind of got combined with the lateral shifts. But we'll make those more clear in our final recommendations.

Speaker G: One thing I would point out in the end, this diagram here of Golden Eagle, if there are other corridors like Ranch Road or that kind of thing, this would be the kind of thing you'd want to do is once you decide what you want is to have a visual of where you want it and then also how far apart do they need to be. You know, that, that, that probably would take a little more work though. So.

Speaker B: Okay. Thank you guys. Appreciate you coming and hanging out to the very end.

Speaker J: That's interesting.

Speaker H: Mayor, in looking at the time, is there a way that we can forego the rest of this and call it for the night?

Speaker B: Yeah, I mean, the rest of this is up to you guys. So if you—

Speaker K: Can I ask one thing, Councilmember Wood? There's only one thing that I want to get on our legislative priority list.

Speaker H: Thank you.

Speaker K: I want to just make a motion to council and see if someone will second it, that we require staff At this present time, that is John Magnus, but we require staff to bring us a quarterly report regarding the, the, our CWCD water, um, here, uh, just, just an update, just an update every 3 months on where we're at with that so that we have an active eye on that.

Speaker B: Okay, that, that's fine. Uh, it's, it's some—

Speaker K: it's something, Mayor, that we can handle in a closed session. That's what I wanted to should be handled in a closed session. But I want to make sure that this— that the council is apprised of what we've done, what's been sold, what's still, uh, in our reserves, and that we're managing that as an active asset of the citizens.

Speaker H: I'll amend my second for all of that.

Speaker A: Go ahead.

Speaker B: Okay, uh, motion by Council Member Wright and second by Council Member Wood. We'll start the vote right here with Council Member Whiting.

Speaker L: Yes.

Speaker B: Council Member Wood.

Speaker H: Yes.

Speaker B: Council Member Huish?

Speaker D: Yes.

Speaker B: Council Member Clark?

Speaker A: Yes.

Speaker B: Council Member Wright?

Speaker K: Yes. That's what John told me I had to do to get that report in.

Speaker B: There was a couple other— I know there's just some liaison reports if anybody has some, but that chili cook-off for your schedule, Don will send you out all of the information.

Speaker K: So can, can, can— by a straw poll, it's the 26th, it's Monday the 26th. I don't know the time, probably 5 o'clock with the time, the time the seniors eat is 5 o'clock. And it's gonna be at the senior center. You're gonna have to make it at the senior center. You can't bring it made and serve it. You have to make it there. So you can dump your whatever in your crock pot. I just need to know if— how many of you are gonna be available to do that so that we can then divide and conquer and make sure we have enough for those that typically come.

Speaker J: Okay. And you guys are all invited to the teen activity if you wanna come to that.

Speaker G: It's at my house. That's what the address is, my house.

Speaker J: We'll see what—

Speaker A: you're gonna need to get help with the horses.

Speaker B: I was gonna ask if you needed help, but we can talk offline about that.

Speaker J: I might need help with that. And just to put on your radars, because of the explosion of the Youth Council members, they do need a few thousand dollars more. So the next budget cycle's gonna be like January? So they need maybe, I think, I can't remember, it's between $8,000 to $12,000 more, something like that.

Speaker B: They used to only get that.

Speaker J: Yeah, well, we're double the size.

Speaker B: We already doubled it last year to 15, I thought. Didn't we put it at 15?

Speaker J: No, it's, it's like, I can't remember, 10 or 12. They, they need closer to 20.

Speaker B: Well, okay.

Speaker J: They need like 8,000 to 10,000 more. I can't remember. I don't remember the exact number, but it's something like that.

Speaker A: It's just going up.

Speaker J: Put it on your radar.

Speaker B: We'll talk about that. Was there any other reports that need to be talked about?

Speaker K: The seniors added 6 new seniors to the their group this week and they need some more space.

Speaker B: And money, probably, just like everyone else. Okay. I think that's everything I got.

Speaker H: Motion to adjourn.

Speaker J: Second.

Speaker B: All in favor?

Speaker I: Aye.

Speaker B: Any opposed? Seeing none, it is 11:34. Motion by Councilmember Wood and second by Councilmember Whiting. All in favor? 11:35 and we are adjourned.