Transcript — Eagle Mountain City Council, 20 October 2026

Speaker A: All right, we're going to go ahead and get started. October 20th, it is 4:01 PM, and we're going to have our start of work session. Did want to excuse some of our staff is out of town, and I do know that our city manager Ben is online participating as well as others, I'm sure. Working out of town. Yeah, and they're working, they're at the ICMA conference and working in Southern California. So we appreciate them joining us online. And we'll go ahead and get started. This first item is the discussion about the MAP funding capacity and the tier prioritization. And I believe that's Kyra.

Speaker B: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Speaker C: About a little bit of time to talk about the current status of the MAP program. Sweet. Okay, so, uh, main things that we want to talk about today are just our funding capacity and the tier prioritization. Just as a reminder, I just provided a report to you guys going over how we closed out this last fiscal year. So we had a huge jump from the beginning to the end of the year. We increased by about 139% in applications. So while we had 281 over the full year, 200 of those were just from the second part of the year. So the demand is there. We're definitely serving the community. And some of those discrepancies in the approvals and closings were just that some of those closed simply after the fiscal year. So, um, demand right now just for this current year has been increased again from the last year, but as you can see, we can only fund about 1 to 3 grants per month. That's obviously going to depend on their tier status and how much we're funding, but you can see that we're getting many more applications than just the 1 or 3 that we can fund. And so what we're doing right now is we're rolling over the additional grants to still give folks the opportunity if funds Opened up, and they can only roll over for 3 months. Most of those guys are all of our Tier 3s, because obviously the general applicants are taking priority after our Tier 1s and 2s. And so, yes. This is just an overview of kind of how the grants are being disbursed. So about half of them are going to Tier 3s, the general public. The other half is going between Tier 1s and 2s. Of course, we're prioritizing AMI when we start to get a lot of applicants, just whoever has the biggest need and the lowest AMI.

Speaker E: Quick question. Remind me which tier military falls into.

Speaker C: They're Tier 2.

Speaker B: So is it— can I ask a question?

Speaker C: Yeah, please.

Speaker B: Kiara, my question is really regarding the Tier 1 and Tier 2. Are we Are there Tier 1 and Tier 2 applications that we're receiving that we're unable to process?

Speaker C: Absolutely not.

Speaker A: Okay.

Speaker C: So the question today is just to kind of discuss if Tier 3s continue to represent that half mark, they are getting a large amount of the fund, do we want to continue the approach of rolling folks over and allowing them to continue, or looking at capacity a little bit different? One item for discussion would be prioritization. prioritizing within our Tier 3 applicants. And so looking at ways that maybe we are, you know, putting our skilled trade workers or however we want to determine those folks, do we want to start to do anything in that nature? Or do— like, yeah, how do you guys want to— with the overflow and limited funds? And sorry, we'll answer those in a second. Broader RDA discussions, which we've kind of talked about in past conversations, other ways that we can use RDA funds. did talk about a home revitalization program, which, uh, depending on how we wanted to use RDA funds, we could split it with other funding mechanisms. The major thing would be a staffing capacity for, for that kind of a project to be pushed forward. Um, and just to close, reiterating, um, that we're just looking to discuss how we want to prioritize with the limited funds that we have. Thank you.

Speaker F: Can I ask you a— oh, go ahead, Melissa.

Speaker G: No, you're—

Speaker H: go for it.

Speaker I: I'll wait until you're done.

Speaker F: So within Tier 3, how are they currently? Is it first come, first serve? It's not ranked by AMI?

Speaker C: It's first come, first serve, and then by AMI.

Speaker F: Okay.

Speaker C: So if they're putting— I mean, obviously, if— because then now if we have 2 AMIs, whoever got their application in. If they have similar AMI, whoever's application came in first.

Speaker F: That to me seems okay. I don't know if we need to— further delineate based on job class, or sometimes government programs can just get more and more complicated.

Speaker C: Absolutely.

Speaker F: So if it's working well the way it is, I'm fine if we continue to roll over and first come, first serve. It's an awesome program and obviously really popular. So that just— those are my thoughts.

Speaker I: I tend to agree with Councilmember Hewish on that. I'm also wondering, you mentioned they can only roll over for 3 months. Is that just part of our policy?

Speaker J: Mm-hmm.

Speaker I: Could we adjust that to make it a longer one and then eliminate some of that issue? Because I don't want people to miss out just because it's popular. And I already answered my thoughts about whether or not we should tier Tier 3. One other thing that we've kind of tossed around, and I don't know if it's ever been while you're here, but would be to do some sort of ADU grant so that existing homeowners that have the space to convert into an ADU and then find a way to make whatever the rent they charge for that or something within our parameters so it kind of fits that affordable housing thing. I think that is another piece of what we should be looking at. And I know that funds are limited now and they'll always have a limit. But have we done any projections of what we think with the next few bigger projects that are coming online and when they hit property tax next year, what that's going to look like for our fund?

Speaker C: Not that far into depth, but I do have something that I'd love to chat with you guys and present kind of where I'm at. I'm at a good holding point where we could go to a couple different directions. And so that would discuss home revitalization and of course ADU. Mostly staffing and funding as a mechanism is what we just need to kind of nail down.

Speaker I: Could we— Mayor, sorry, Mayor, could we ask staff to kind of look at the projections of what our affordable housing will be? I mean, we have some idea because we're starting to see what things are worth property-wise, and with us knowing that there's a specific calculation for that, I'd like to have a better idea 1, 2 years out. Because that will help me as a decision maker prioritize what's the next thing that we try to accomplish with this.

Speaker A: I think, and I'll jump in because this might change some of the comments, and I do believe Kimberly's online as well. So correct me if I'm wrong because I'm going off memory here. But I think one of the questions for consideration here should be, do we want to fund this more? So when we're talking about, you know, We can only do 1 or 2 a month, and the popularity of the project, it's very popular. And now that the word is out, and I'm going to tell you the word is out.

Speaker C: Mm-hmm.

Speaker A: Specifically like UFA, there's a ton of those guys that have been following this, and they're now seeing what it can do for them. And that's one of our own internal organizations, and they've all been applying for it that I've talked to. To me, you know, it would help that prioritization if we just fund the program a little bit more. And we've got dollars sitting there that are restricted. We don't have any other ideas, so do we just fund it more?

Speaker B: But I think that's the reason for Councilmember Clark's question. I think we just need to know budget projections, right? What's in there? What has been allocated? What's still remaining in the fund? And then recognizing—

Speaker C: I have those numbers right now. We were allocated $1.2 Um, at the beginning of the fiscal year, we've used about $350K. Um, so we've got roughly $840K left over.

Speaker A: Doing nothing there.

Speaker B: So there's still $840K in there. So have we projected out? Because we've already talked about using some of these RDA dollars to fund water for the affordable housing that's coming in Scarlet Ridge. Has that been deducted from the fund?

Speaker C: No. And, and those— and that's kind of what would need to be considered for us to kind of maneuver with this.

Speaker B: I mean, I 100% agree with Councilmember Clark. I think we just need to see those projections so that we understand what's coming, what was left in reserve currently. It sounds like there's $800 and change, and what we've committed, because we have committed that to the water resourcing, obviously.

Speaker C: Well, if we continue on at the rate that we're going now, in just the first 3 months we've distributed $350,000. So just, I mean, from there, if we did that every 3 months, we would exhaust the fund for sure. And so is that something that we want to do? Do we just want to go ahead and have a clean wash of the funds, or do we want to help more folks, or do we—

Speaker B: You're talking about the $1.2 million? I'm confused what the ask is.

Speaker C: So again, how you're saying if we wanted a projection to see how the rest of the year is going to play out, we can tell by the first 3 months spending $350K that we're going to exhaust the fund.

Speaker I: But that's also during—

Speaker B: I'm sorry, that's the $1.2 million. That's what I'm hearing you say, right? And that's what we've already allocated. So who cares if we exhaust it? I thought that was the idea for sure. So I mean, that, that's where I would land on that. But what I do want to know is what's still in reserve and what's coming next year so that we can do some, some planning for fiscal 2027, fiscal 2028. In my mind, that's what I would like to see before— even before we start to add ADU or some other equation or some other thing to the mix. And then I'd like really to have a discussion about how successful this program is and, and what are the benefits that it has been bringing to those families. In fact, it would be great to hear some testimonies— testimonials of some who might be willing to do that. And my last thought, Kiara, for you is I don't know that I 100% agree with what Councilmember Hewish said. I mean, I agree with him that it's functioning. My concern is if those Tier 3 applicants are all being evaluated on what the AMI is, then those at 120 or 110 or 100 are pretty much out of the running right from the get-go, right? And I don't know that that's fair to make them jump through those hoops because what's the prognosis or probability of any of them receiving the benefit. So my thought process is I think we should institute a lottery for those Tier 3s. And what I would consider doing is adding— so if you're a Tier 3 and you're 120 AMI, you get one, you get your name in the hat once. If you're 110, you get 1.5. If you're a Tier 3 and you have 100 AMI, you get 2, then 2.5 for 90, and then 3 for 80, and then Let the lottery decide who gets those pieces. To me, that seems fairer, that those Tier 3s, then everyone has not an equal chance, but a chance of drawing that application.

Speaker I: A fair chance.

Speaker B: A fair chance.

Speaker A: So another question too. On most of these ones that have been approved, are they getting approved at the full amount, or at 80%, or at 70%? Because they could, We could approve some, but like, what's the average been?

Speaker C: So for Tier 1s, Eagle Mountain City, they're all getting the full 25 typically. Then it starts to depend on the price of the home if they're gonna get the full 225 or 7.5% or 3.5%, whichever one's higher or lower.

Speaker I: Sorry, I really like the idea of doing some sort of lottery. I'm not a fan of tiering it based on, like, your profession and stuff like that. We saw some of that with, like, essential workers and whatnot. And anyway, I—

Speaker B: It's arbitrary.

Speaker I: Yeah, it's— I think it makes sense to tier it with the partnering entities and ones that are a part of the RDA. But for other things, I'm not on board with that. I guess, too, us having an idea is going to tell us whether or not we should look at revitalization grants, because if we're exhausting all the funds with the mortgage assistance program, then we shouldn't be going there. Another question that kind of came up as we were talking is, and this is probably a legal or a Ben question, but if there was an entity that wanted to donate money to our affordable housing fund, could it be set up in such a way that they could add to what we're able to get for mortgage assistance and revitalization grants? Like, could we start accepting donations or contributions if it's earmarked very specifically? Marcus, looking at you.

Speaker J: I mean, the, the answer is the normal answer. It depends. But generally speaking, yes, that is possible.

Speaker I: See, and I think that one, I want us to give out as much help as possible because I don't want the money just sitting there doing nothing. I don't really want us to throttle back and say, well, we had 6 in June, so that means we can only have 2 in— you know what I mean? Like, I want us to like go all out because that fund's gonna continue to grow. So I would hope that you can come back and give us numbers of projections of where things are headed with that. And then I think we'll be ready to make decisions about what we need to go with next.

Speaker E: So when this, when this program was created, I stated that this would become the most successful program in the entire state, and it has been. And it's, it's because it was set up under the right principles and with the right format, and it's great, and it's awesome to see that this is going on. I can, I can get behind either AMI or a lottery as long as it is weighted toward the lower AMI.

Speaker A: Thank you.

Speaker E: I could get behind either of those. I'm fine with that for Tier 3. And I don't want to bring employment into Tier 3. That's just mine. I prefer the money to go to MAP as opposed to an ADU type situation just because, I mean, if we did the ADU situation, I would only feel comfortable if it goes to people who are in need. Like they, I don't know, maybe seniors or that have limited assets to otherwise create an ADU or something. I think it just gets, It would be a longer conversation to see if we could come up with the right ingredients to where I'd feel good about that. MAP is a slam dunk to continue supporting that. Eagle Mountain has a lot of properties on the market right now. This helps solve some of that.

Speaker K: Okay. Okay.

Speaker C: Thank you, guys.

Speaker A: If there's nothing else, we'll move along. Thanks for that information. And you got what you need, right?

Speaker C: Yep.

Speaker A: Thank you.

Speaker G: Thank you.

Speaker A: The next item up, 1B, is Alternative Energy Overlay Zone Revisions. Perfect timing, Mr. Evan. I know this, we worked on this a little while ago, but there were a few things that we wanted to tweak. So Evan heard those items and he's coming back to share with us some potential changes, or amendments, I'll call them.

Speaker H: Yes, so Mayor and Council, these suggested changes were all based on the feedback that you provided when this overlay zone was approved. And so I tried to tackle every single one of them that I could. We'll just walk through these really quick for you. So the first one, we modified some definitions in here. One of the requests was to disassociate the energy overlay zone from the RTI overlay zone, which is under the purpose section at the beginning. So that language was just removed. And then we took a different approach. There was some debate back and forth, if you recall, about how to approach nuclear technologies, whether or not we want to specify which ones we want or prevent some of the ones we don't want or anything like that. And so it kind of took a bit of a middle-of-the-road approach where essentially we're listing a set of technologies that we prefer, but then leaving the door open to say if there are other technologies that, you know, a company would reasonably believe that we would potentially accept, they may bring those for City Council to review at that time. Obviously, there's certain points in the language or different requirements that are going to kind of eliminate some of the technologies anyway based on water requirements or based on certain safety requirements and things like that. It kind of, you know, it eliminates some things automatically. But generally speaking, we're now indicating essentially to the industry these are the kinds of technologies we're interested in. However, if there happens to be some others that we may have previously eliminated because they were historically high water users, but now, for example, there's a closed-loop water system version of that now, we might consider that now at this point. And then an SMR facility is defined to not include any sort of long-term storage or waste or other hazardous materials as well, just to make that clear that there is no intent for those to be locations where long-term storage happens. With waivers, there's a couple of sections we just—

Speaker L: Hey, Evan, just real quickly on that last point.

Speaker G: Sure.

Speaker L: Do we want to put some guardrails on what that timeframe looks like so that it's not an arbitrary what is long-term? I think maybe seeking out some help in determining what should be considered a short-term storage solution. We talking a few weeks, a month?

Speaker E: I think he put a— didn't you put a deadline in?

Speaker D: I thought he did.

Speaker H: I'm trying to remember.

Speaker L: I don't remember seeing a deadline.

Speaker M: I don't think I did.

Speaker H: I don't think I put a number on there.

Speaker L: If it's there, when you get to it, I just— that was one of the questions that I had.

Speaker H: Yeah, and I don't think I put a number on there only because it is a little bit variable depending on the technology that is used because the The fuels are different, and therefore the waste is also a little bit different in how it's handled. And so it's— that's something that certainly we can look at.

Speaker L: Maybe it should be a waste removal plan.

Speaker H: Yeah.

Speaker L: Something that shows them that our intent is for it not to stay.

Speaker B: Yep.

Speaker H: I appreciate that. With the waivers, there was a piece of language on there that allowed for a potential waiver for water use assessments. And for clarification, it's not that we didn't care about water, it's that some technologies, for example like solar, may not necessarily— we expect there to be a huge water assessment on there. But we just removed that just to make sure that that always is going to happen so that we're not leaving that up to the industry to determine when a water assessment should be brought forward. And then there was other waivers throughout the language that was left up to the DRC, and that was switched over to City Council. Things like fencing and setbacks and whatnot. And that's now for City Council to review. This next one I want to spend a little bit more time with you on. As part of the motion when this was approved, there was a a request to have the AOZ application, the site plan application, the authority to approve that changed from the DRC to the City Council. So that effectively, um, creates that, um, the last major step, uh, where you're seeing all these different pieces come together. All the reviews have happened now at this point. You've now had, um, likely also federal and state reviews at this point. Now that's all that has happened, and now you have the City Council reviewing for that last final approval. And I'm happy to kind of get a little more background from you as far as why that's important to you. I think that's important for you to share. I wanted to just kind of bring up just my only concern with this is that what I understand from the industry is that when we get to this point, if we're trying to align The local, state, and federal at this point. So we're not getting ahead of federal licensing. We're not getting ahead of federal safety checks and things like that. We're trying to line this all up so everything happens at the same time. By the time you get to the AOZ site plan application to be approved, these companies have now spent millions, if not dozens of millions of dollars at this point, going through these applications and licensing processes. And so— I'm sorry, If there is a chance now that we're introducing that the City Council may ultimately deny the site plan application, that creates a lot of risk on them now where they may not want to entertain that risk with Eagle Mountain City and creates maybe a bit of a barrier that we don't want. I'm not saying that's necessarily how it's going to play out. This is up to you and as far as how you want to do that. But that was just the thing that came to my mind is what could happen if we go through with this one way or the other. So I just want to bring that to your attention and get your feedback on if you want to continue to proceed with this or if you want to think about this a little bit longer, how you want to handle this.

Speaker F: I'll go. My thought is they're probably going to be in regular communication with the City Council individually. You know, it's not rare for a developer to reach out to me individually and have a conversation and reach out to council members. So I would imagine that they would have a pretty good pulse before they make that investment of time. But I feel like it's important for the city council to be that last stop so it's not moving through regulatory bodies and the people aren't being represented. from the council. So I support keeping that in, and that may have been my request to add that in there, that, you know, there's representation in the process, and I would think they would be pretty involved before they go to that great expense to make sure it's going to ultimately be approved.

Speaker H: Absolutely.

Speaker L: Yeah, for me, I would say that's the point. I mean, if I could put an exclamation point, that is the point. We want it to go through all of the rigorous processes So at the very end of that, that the residents understand that we haven't left anything uncovered and that it's going to come before us at the final aspect of it. And it's going to make them try to meet all of those requirements because it's a benefit to the users as well as the companies that are providing those. It's not something that is being done everywhere. And so I think that they understand that there is going to be a high level of scrutiny that's going to be happening to It really doesn't matter which state it is in, frankly, because this is a wide, countrywide issue that everybody's trying to address. I think the fact that we are willing to entertain it with some pretty significant guardrails should demonstrate to us that we've done our homework, or demonstrate to the citizens that we've done our homework, and that we have every intention to make sure that before we say yes to something, that we're not uncomfortable with it moving Absolutely.

Speaker H: Yeah, I think transparency and education on this is absolutely key, and it doesn't even matter the energy type. One alternative recommendation I put on this slide I want to provide as well, just something to think about, is if by any means this gives you any pause in having this additional layer of approvals or whatnot, we could beef up the first 2 approvals that are happening. And so you have the rezone application, and then you also have the development agreement. And right now, in the language, uh, in the EAOZ right now, there's some pretty basic information that need— they need to be able to provide to kind of give you some context. But I think this is where a lot of places throughout Utah and other places across the country has really struggled with, is getting good information from the beginning. You see a lot of cities who get a lot of angry and upset residents because they're seeing applications go through, but a company is coming in with very little vague information as far as what's actually being prepared for, right? And so there's maybe a way to front-load a little bit more information to say, if you're going to come, don't come with a rezone application until you actually have something materially to show us as far as what's going to actually come down the line, so that when you get to the AEOZ site plan application, it really is more of a just a checking checkbox process because you've already seen so much and you've already reviewed so much through the first 2 steps already.

Speaker B: So, I mean, let me ask this question, Evan. It sounds like you're suggesting that maybe there's some benefit in tying a site plan application to the rezone request and the development agreement, that those 3 have got to be merged on the front end for consideration.

Speaker H: I think it's for you to be comfortable. If I were in your shoes, and even considering a rezone application to begin with, you'd want to know what's going here, right? And so I feel like you're going to want to know a lot of that information anyway at the beginning. And so hopefully by that point you get down to the site plan application, you should already know a whole lot about this. And so that's— I don't know that I would say they're, you know, 100% tied, but, you know, you would have a lot of the information much more up front. And so by the time you get to the site plan application approval, it's almost like a— it's a given that you're going to approve it.

Speaker B: But it's kind of this chicken and egg thing, right? I mean, I'm listening to Councilmember Wood and he's saying, yeah, that's the point. We want to make sure that whatever it is that you're bringing, we've had a chance to look at it wholly. Yeah, not partially, not segmented, but wholly to say yes to it if we're going to say yes. And we don't want to find out after the fact that we said yes to this part, which compelled us to say yes to this part. We've dealt with that. We've all dealt with that. And so I think there's wisdom in what he's saying, but I also can see the risk for the development community who comes in and says, how in the world am I supposed to proceed if I don't have an assurance that I'm going to be able to do what I want to do?

Speaker I: Yeah.

Speaker B: That's the trick. I think that's the trick. And so as I'm listening, that's where my mind is going, is Maybe in this overlay zone specifically, we require a final site plan or a site plan that is considered final. It might have a few tweaks that they're going to have to come back and make, but maybe that's the way the council gets a chance to review that and see exactly what's happening on the front end.

Speaker N: And the—

Speaker B: and, and our residents get a chance to see that so there's no surprises. Yeah.

Speaker L: So I understand what you're saying, but what assurances is that going to give to a developer if it can be all upended at the end anyway?

Speaker B: What I'm saying is once that approval's been given for the site plan as part of a development agreement and a rezone application, all 3 of those have to go through simultaneously. Together jointly. They can't go through segmented. They have to go through as a package.

Speaker L: No, I agree with that. I just didn't— maybe I didn't understand what you're saying with the final site plan approval. What do you mean by that then?

Speaker B: Say it again, Councilor.

Speaker L: I'm not sure I understand what you mean by the final site plan approval then. I understood that first part where it's all front-loaded, but what is the final site plan? What are you suggesting with that?

Speaker B: Look, often once you have the preliminary site plan done, There are a few changes that have to happen to the final plat when they're working through it. They're usually pretty insignificant, and DRC handles those. Our staff handles those. So I just think that if we can get enough detail on the front end in a preliminary plat that says this is what we're going to build, and if there are any changes— I mean, if there are any changes that are considered substantive and we can define what that means, then they've got to come back through City Council approval. That's going to keep the development community on their toes so that they don't have to ask for those types of changes. They're going to make sure that they're working it out on the front end. And I don't know what's the best solution here. I'm just offering some perspective for consideration by my fellow council members.

Speaker L: I'm thinking about, like, for me initially, there is no overlay without a development agreement. Like this particular one has to be tied to one. Um, I would say that for me, that's, that's got to be a must. But I think that also gives some flexibility. The moment that you move to a private contract with it, it gives some flexibility for the project. And I think that that should give the developer maybe a little bit of breathing room because they understand that we can talk about what are unique things to your project that we don't necessarily have the ability to bracket everything. That's why the development agreement's an important part of that, where we can kind of talk through some of those things. But to give them assurances up front— I don't think that they're naive in thinking that with a nuclear project that they aren't going to have to go through the paces. And I think they should understand that up front, that we are giving a path that has a green light. This path has some very specific brackets to it, some benchmarks to it. If you meet those things, you're likely to get an approval. But I think nobody else is really giving that. So I think we're going to have to go through this process at least once. And I may— I think maybe at the end of that, maybe we revisit and go, okay, we got it all wrong. We need to rethink this. But I think for the first one, it's better to be safe than sorry.

Speaker H: Thank you.

Speaker B: So Councilmember Wood, let me ask a question. I mean, great dialogue and, and, and I, and I share your passion with where you're at. I understand where you're coming from and I don't disagree with you, not, not in principle. What I'm, what I'm, I think what I'm trying to say and maybe what I'm envisioning is this. If we tie all 3 of those elements together, the preliminary plat, the development agreement, and the zoning approval, that they have to come together as a package. I think what that does is it requires The development community to bring forward a project that is being contemplated to be built. It's already been designed. They've already worked through that. And yeah, that's going to take a little more money on the front end, but that's where we're going to have the negotiation and try to figure it out and say, here's what we're going to be comfortable with. And if we give you an approval, then we're expecting you to build Development A because that's all we've looked at. We're not looking for Development B or C or for you to sell the property and change it. We're looking for you to build exactly what we've approved.

Speaker L: Yeah, I would agree with that. I think that that gives— I mean, I think what we're looking for is the, the real picture of what they plan to do. And I think that our language in the development agreement, I mean, that's probably for Marcus. I think he hears us loud and clear on that. We don't want generalities, we don't want broad strokes, we want specificity with this particular thing. But you're right, if it's all up front, we see exactly what the project is, what equipment's going to be used, how they're going to deal with all the solutions that we've talked endlessly about— storage, hazardous material handling, you know, emergency procedures. I mean, all of those types of things, all of that's front-loaded. We have a chance to go through and say, okay, maybe now we want to have an expert come in that's a third party to all of this and help us to understand, is it enough? Right.

Speaker B: Yeah, you don't even consider the rezone without knowing what it is that you're rezoning it for.

Speaker H: And, and to Councilmember Hewish's point, ideally these approvals would not be the first time you're hearing about this. You know, there'd be lots of conversations and even community engagement that happens long beforehand, that the approvals are more after a long engagement with the public and with you, with experts and everything like that, so that you're you're fully aware of what you're actually looking at. And so you're not now trying to scramble on the—

Speaker B: Well, and to Councilmember Hewish's points earlier, I mean, you say, look, they come in and they want to talk to me individually and they do that. All of that is going to have to transpire well in advance of anything ever landing here for us to consider an approval for.

Speaker L: Okay. By the way, I thought you did a good job. your edits. I didn't get a chance to say that up front.

Speaker H: I don't think so.

Speaker L: But yeah, I went through, I went through this. I was happy with the things that you made the changes to. Um, I do think that, uh, maybe that added layer of scrutiny that Brett's talking about is— I agree with that. I think it's a good add.

Speaker H: Okay, appreciate that. Um, the next thing is just on geothermal. Added some language to, uh, provide a report detailing efforts to protect the integrity of our aquifers in particular, including the levels, quality, and temperatures. I will say, just so you know, this is one area that recognized from Councilmember Wood last time that we're going to try and get some opportunities for all of us to learn more about geothermal. I will also say on that, I was actually just earlier today up at an energy conference, and geothermal is one of those things that's still evolving a little bit. And some of these things, USU and other universities here, University of Utah, they're very invested in trying to figure out geothermal in Utah, but there's still some unknowns. So you're right to be a little concerned about, you know, getting too ahead of ourselves right now. We don't want to necessarily just jump into it right now because there's still some unknowns. But it sounds like that geothermal will be a really good option for Utah. the long run. It's very clean. It is very safe. There's a lot of technology and a lot of stuff that goes into geothermal to make sure it is a great option for Utah. But there are still things to be fleshed out with that that we may need to tweak down the road.

Speaker E: There are actually a couple proposals I have on that right now. I don't think we discussed— we had so much to look at when we first discussed this code, and I knew we'd be revisiting this, and this is one thing I, I think we need to talk about on geothermal. So when you look under generating unit, it defines some of the geothermal, you know, utilities that we'd be open to exploring, and it includes a couple that are higher water uses, and I think we should eliminate those. And, and if I understand the technology correctly, dry steam or flash steam, I think both of those are higher water water uses. I think for the time being it would be better to eliminate those and limit what we have in this overlay zone to binary or enhanced geothermal systems. From what I understand, both of those are closed loop. The flash and the dry steam would emit clouds into the air of steam. My preference would be to keep our skies free of steam clouds. Even though it is just steam, I think there's a stigma and sort of a branding that it comes with, and I'd prefer to not have that. So I think we should eliminate those and ensure whichever ones remain in the geothermal are ones that do not emit steam clouds. And according to my research, I think binary works, and then one called enhanced geothermal systems.

Speaker B: Yep.

Speaker E: I think that those would be acceptable. Can I ask a real quick question? I know you're on geothermal, but when it comes to low water— just to talk about steam, the low water use, high temperature— let's see, what was it called? Yeah, I had a question about that one. The low water use, high temperature gas-cooled reactors for SMRs, because I think those might emit steam. So I prefer— but I think there are some of those that would not.

Speaker G: Right.

Speaker E: And I would want to limit that as well to— if we are going with the high-temperature gas-cooled reactors, that they're not using a steam component in the emissions.

Speaker H: Yeah, we'll have to specify in emissions because a lot of these will use a little bit of water even as part of a closed loop as part of the heat process internally, but not all of them will vent that to the atmosphere or anything like that.

Speaker B: Councilmember Whiting, I just, I want to ask, is your— I appreciate, number one, that you did the research and that you're helping me understand a little more clearly. Let me start there. Okay, so thank you. And I'm wondering if your pushback is, or your concern is, just the visual impact of the steam, or is it the water consumption? I mean, is it both?

Speaker E: It's both.

Speaker B: So the visual, even if the water consumption is low, just the visual impact of that steam, you're like, I don't want to see that.

Speaker E: That's my preference. But again, I guess we can look to see— look, I mean, there's the steam that the Linden plant puts off for natural gas, which is ginormous.

Speaker B: And maybe there's a secondary turbine system that is designed to cool with water. They use about 3,000 or about 1,000 acre-feet, I think they said. There will not be that type of water available in this valley to do something like that.

Speaker E: Right, right. I guess I could be open to a steam cloud depending on what it looks like. Like, obviously if it's, if it's so minor that it's not really—

Speaker B: That's the only reason I'm asking. Is it just a visual? You don't want to have to— you don't want people going, oh my gosh, they're emitting toxic air, right?

Speaker E: Exactly. It becomes a stigma because you don't want to turn into Cedar Valley and be like, oh my gosh, it's an industrial That was the reason for my ask.

Speaker B: I wanted to understand what your concerns are. So it's water use first and foremost.

Speaker E: Correct.

Speaker B: And I don't think that the council, at least a council today, tomorrow, or the next year, unless something changes dramatically in the water supply, is going to even have an option to do that. So let's start there. I just don't think there's enough water to support something like that. Set that aside, so even a small release of steam you would have some objections to just because of the way it looks? I'm trying to really pin you down.

Speaker E: No, it is. I mean, I would prefer to keep the skies free of that, but there's— because there are technologies available that wouldn't allow— that could avoid that. But if it's a tiny amount of steam, it may be imperceptible. I mean, so that's something I guess, you know, again, there's going to be a grade on that.

Speaker B: And because I don't know how to bracket this, I'm going to ask another question, okay?

Speaker C: Okay.

Speaker B: I sound like I'm advocating for this, and I don't know enough about it to advocate for it, so let me start there. And so my question is, as you look at that, can we reduce that by just simply stating something about the water use and keeping it to a bare minimum? I mean, I'm wondering if we can limit it to just that.

Speaker E: I think that would be difficult to do. I don't know if it's feasible. And I guess it would be— because each of these categories, whether it's an SMR or some other of these, you know, geothermal, you know, how much— I don't know the right calculus for that. But that's why I think it's easier for me for the time being, given that there are numerous choices on the table for what kind of technologies, that we remove the technologies that emit steam. Unless— anyway, that's where I'd start. If developers come say, hey, here's a way for you guys to do it, and it's not going to create a visual impact issue, and it's the best technology because of ABCD, I guess we can have that discussion.

Speaker B: Then you can address it in a development agreement.

Speaker E: Yeah, in a development agreement. But I think just the openly, you know, sort of what we have in the code. I mean, I was looking at some of these geothermal and bringing up these reactors and pictures of them, and they're emitting a lot of steam. And I just, I think it becomes a visual aberration. And unfortunately, people will think that— they won't know it's steam, and then they'll feel this is an industrial complex as opposed to what we're trying to create.

Speaker L: The answer is yes, you can do it. You can capture it so it's almost nothing that shows. And I would say, as far as the stigma goes, you're never going to overcome that no matter how great of a piece PR program you have, people are always going to make the assumption that we are polluting the air. They see any of that kind of thing going into the air, that's, that's going to be the stigma. I would ask the question, when you drive through North Salt Lake and you see coming off the gas power plants, is it clean? Is it not clean? Everybody's going to make the assumption it's not clean, whether it is or isn't. And I think for our city, I agree. How it looks, how it appears, is just as important as the bracketing that we're putting in place to make sure it doesn't actually get into the air. Because I don't particularly want our valley to be an industrial complex, nor to be viewed that way either.

Speaker B: My personal opinion.

Speaker J: Okay.

Speaker H: With natural gas, we also added that Any natural gas operators would need to demonstrate air dispersion modeling to show there's no negative impacts. This should be very easy to follow just because they have to provide that anyway to get air quality permits. The same kind of language that we have in here is the same kind of things that they would need to deliver or produce for getting an air quality permit. So that would just be easy for us to be able to receive that as well rather than needing to wait until a public comment process or waiting until something we— where we grandma it from the state or whatever. We just want to see that at the same time.

Speaker I: Is it okay if I ask a question, Mayor? So we've had different people reach out about an item that's later on the agenda, but it's related to natural gas. And their concern, or something that was stated, was please say no to this because we don't want to rely on whether or not the EPA has reduce their standards or not. And I feel like I remember when this came up before that Mayor Westmoreland said it wasn't that the standards were reduced, it's that the air quality in the valley improved enough that we weren't in the nonattainment anymore. Um, I'm gonna have a question later about that, but when it comes to this overlay zone, is there anything in the wording or how we can do that to address that concern that was raised by residents?

Speaker H: I mean, a lot of that will get addressed at the state level before it ever comes to us. I mean, the state obviously has a strong desire, an incentive to ensure that we don't go into attainment, or I mean, even if we are in attainment, not make that worse in any way.

Speaker L: Right.

Speaker H: And we are, if we're not already crossing that line, Regardless of what Eagle Mountain has done or what have you, we're already right up against the line. Coming into attainment was, we just barely made it into attainment versus non-attainment. So it's not gonna take much for that. They're gonna have to be very thorough in providing all sorts of information as far as how many particulates and everything that they're providing to DEQ, DAQ, as far as what that air quality is. And so it's— there's, there's things that we can try and do on there, but I don't know that it would do anything more than just be redundant at that point. And for us, it's more of— I've tried to take the approach on this that it's more at least we should be properly informed much earlier on in the process.

Speaker L: Right.

Speaker H: Than anything. And I think that information that is provided to the state is really informative. It is really helpful to see in a scale, in a comparison sense, how this stacks up to other uses across the state and then where we actually expect to see any sort of air pollutants actually migrate throughout the valley, if that even happens at all.

Speaker I: Got it. I think my key takeaway then is obviously not every city can have a mining expert and an air quality expert And that's where we have to rely on that state agency with the experts that actually work for it, that have that charge to help us guide our process. So if they're not receiving that approval from the state, it helps us understand that it won't work for Eagle Mountain either. Okay, thank you.

Speaker B: Councilmember Clark, 1764090 under natural gas. This is a paragraph that he added, and I think this is really helpful. It says natural gas power plants may be approved only where the applicant demonstrates through site-specific air dispersion modeling and any health risk assessment required by the State Division of Air Quality or other governmental agency having jurisdiction that emissions from the proposed facility will comply with applicable state and federal ambient air quality standards. And then it goes on and lists some other criteria. So I think that that covers it pretty well. It's a concern. It should be, and I'm glad you raised it, but that's where I think he's addressed it.

Speaker L: What point in the process is that, Brett? Is that in the very beginning of the DRC? Because that was actually one of the questions that I was going to ask. I think what we don't want to do is spend their money and get to the point where they get to a no because they don't have the proper credits or whatever they need to purchase.

Speaker B: I don't know the answer to that. It's a good question. Councilmember Wood, because I mean, I think that's part of a due diligence on anybody that wants to consider building something like that. They have to know that they're going to be able to do it in this valley and have those air— I don't know what they call them, but the air quality attainment credits.

Speaker L: Do they need that even if we're in an attainment area?

Speaker H: None?

Speaker L: And so they got to get them either way?

Speaker B: Yes.

Speaker L: Okay, so maybe that needs to be something that we prove in the very beginning Just like water shares.

Speaker I: I, I feel like it does though, because anyone who's ever talked to us about any kind of natural gas and they've met and answered questions, I feel like they're always like—

Speaker L: We absolutely said yes to somebody who said they were getting them and they didn't have them.

Speaker I: Huh.

Speaker L: Without going into who that was, that absolutely did happen.

Speaker I: I do think too, on here, to answer your question, Councilmember Wood, it was in The applicant shall submit— it's in subsection C— the applicant shall submit the supporting analyses and agency determinations to the city and shall obtain and maintain all required air quality permits and approvals. And that's part of— may be approved only where the applicant demonstrates— so in C. So I think that it is part of that early determination. But maybe there's something that we can do to tighten that up a little bit. Evan can be a wordsmith for that. But I agree that it's important to have the credits secured before anything else.

Speaker F: Yeah, I mean—

Speaker L: I would say just before final approval.

Speaker K: Yeah.

Speaker A: So.

Speaker H: Yeah, I know the industry norm is that they're usually getting the credits beforehand. But to make sure we're catching everything, we can ask to see evidence of that.

Speaker F: I was just gonna say that the data center playbook is nat gas, single cycle, closed loop. Like, Meta's paving the way. They have figured out the model. So I think we'd be naive if we're sitting here thinking that these projects are going to lead with nuclear or solar, or they're gonna come in with nat gas and try to get the valley to capacity to where the state says, okay, you're full. And I think we just need to be careful of that mindset and make sure that we're communicating, you know, that that's not our preference in every case.

Speaker H: I would remind too, just in case it's been forgotten too, we did put into this AEOZ a cap on the total amount of natural gas that can be put into this overlay zone. So there's 2 gigawatts. You can reduce that or increase that however you want, but right now it's 2 gigawatts worth. So just keep in mind too.

Speaker F: And with Williams, I think that's 289 megawatts. So we're 1/8 of the way there. Is that right? And do we know with the 2 gigawatts, I know in Delta, That power plant is at 2 gigawatts. That's a pretty big facility. Do we know how that would fit within the state code? Would we be well below the state requirements?

Speaker H: I don't know that.

Speaker F: We'd just be speculating. Maybe we don't know.

Speaker H: Yeah, I don't know that.

Speaker B: Okay.

Speaker L: Should that number be in direct correlation with the air credit requirement?

Speaker H: We could try to see if there's a way to do that. We can talk with the state.

Speaker F: And maybe go 50% less than that.

Speaker B: Well, and just for context, I mean, when we look at something later on the agenda, the ENYO, when you look at theirs, they're at full build-out, they're looking at a 3-gigawatt power generation facility. And I think 600 megawatts is what they're intending to do with natural gas. And then the other's broken down, 1,200 and 1,200, and I can't remember. Solar and I think BESS, I think battery energy storage systems. So it's just important to keep that in, in context as far as what's happening further south of where we're at.

Speaker L: You make a good point because that's outside of our municipal boundaries, and maybe that's one of those things we probably need to have a conversation with the adjoining neighbors so that there is a standard for the valley. that we're falling under so that we're not hurting each other.

Speaker B: Well, I mean, and recognize that it's outside of our municipal boundaries today, but it may not be forever that way, right? I mean, we've, we've, we've, we've adjusted our annexation plan to include some of those areas where this would, would be located. So I just, it's just context I think that I want to make sure is in every council member's mind as we move forward and talk Okay.

Speaker H: Besides that, uh, we had, uh, decommissioning bond requirements was added to natural gas. And then on coming back to nuclear again, just real quick, um, we did require that any description of any hazardous waste chemicals and materials that are meant to be kept on site for more than 24 hours need to be, um, something that we're notified of, that we're kept in the loop as far as what's on that site. Part of that for safety response and other things. And then I already kind of mentioned this earlier, but we're opening the door to older technologies only that have been modernized in some way, so that there's a closed-loop system or there's some sort of modernization effort that has happened.

Speaker L: Would that be the appropriate place to have them submit a removal plan?

Speaker H: Sorry, say it again.

Speaker L: Would that be the appropriate place to have them submit a removal plan? So it does state that if it's going to be there for over 24 hours, they need to notify us. But perhaps that's the place to say, and a removal plan within— and I think that's probably where experts need to come in and help us with that, what that timeframe ought to be. But it ought to be short.

Speaker H: Yeah, I think it'll depend on what it is. And I don't know how we delineate that right now. But, you know, say for example, nuclear fuel itself. They're going to store some fuel on site before it actually goes into the reactor, and then when it comes off or out of the reactor, it is going to stay on site temporarily, ideally for not very long, right? And then it does need to go. I don't think it's realistic that it's going to stay there for only, you know, a week. It might take some time to arrange transportation.

Speaker L: No, I think it'll be probably in months, right? But not years.

Speaker H: But there might be There might be some other types of hazardous waste or chemicals. I don't know. It depends on what the technology is. That might be things that we're just not considering.

Speaker L: I would say this is hazardous waste that we're talking about, not hazardous materials, because hazardous materials are what they're going to use to generate. The waste is their spent. We don't want them just sitting there deteriorating.

Speaker H: Yeah. Yeah. And we can certainly ask for that. That is going to be part of both the processes of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Department of Energy. They have to disclose those sorts of plans. They have to disclose their transportation plans, all sorts of things that have happened with that. So it wouldn't be an added ask for us to have that. It would just be something we need to be able to see as far as how that's gone. At this point, that's all I had. Any other last-minute changes you want me to consider or wrap up into this before it comes to you.

Speaker F: I think just to solidify that 2 gigawatt versus the— I don't know what the Utah air capacity would be. I was just looking at the Lindon Utah Power Plant. Now that's 1 gigawatt. So we're considering twice that amount.

Speaker L: 3 times.

Speaker B: It's actually 1.2, I believe. I think it's 1.2.

Speaker F: In Lyndon.

Speaker B: In Lyndon, yeah, it's 1,200 megawatts.

Speaker F: And in this AEOZ, we're considering 2 gigawatts or allowing that much nat gas. So twice the amount.

Speaker I: But it doesn't necessarily mean twice the amount of the steam clouds and those things because they're different types of systems.

Speaker J: Right, right.

Speaker B: But it's the NOx emissions.

Speaker F: That's exactly right. It's the NOx emissions that we need to—

Speaker G: Yeah, it can be clear and poisonous, right?

Speaker D: Yeah.

Speaker F: So we just want to be considerate of that.

Speaker H: There, there has been evolutions in, in how you handle the emissions as well. You know, some of these plants are a little bit older and new technologies have come, um, so we'll want to scrutinize that to make sure that the latest and greatest have been, you know, brought into bear on that.

Speaker B: But yeah.

Speaker A: Okay, so is that, uh, if we do these changes And he brings it back. Is there any other modifications, changes needed, or—

Speaker B: No, but, but I'm going to recommend, Mayor, that we, that we bring this back sooner rather than later. And I sent you an email to that, to that end, and I haven't— I'm just asking for us to— so I'm grateful that you brought it today. I'm grateful we had a chance to talk about it. I, I'd say let's get it back here sooner rather than later so that we can get those guardrails in place.

Speaker H: This, this will need to go through Planning Commission first and then come to you. But yeah, we'll get it thrown.

Speaker A: And you're—

Speaker L: let me ask the obvious question. Is there anybody disagrees with any of the suggestions that have been made? So I would say go to the tape and whatever was suggested, let's add those things in and bring it back to us.

Speaker C: Okay.

Speaker J: Okay.

Speaker A: All right. Thanks, Evan. This one, uh, next item is 1C, a discussion on Corgan Farms to This came before us last meeting, and if I'm not mistaken, the intent here is there's a future item. If we can get this worked out, we can take action later, but we're here to—

Speaker J: That is the intent, to be prepared to take action if that's the direction we want to go.

Speaker A: So we're here to work that out now, and then we'll see where that goes.

Speaker J: So I sent some red lines based on the feedback we received at the last meeting. And so, you know, I can leave that as a starting off point. I removed, you know, references to energy being approved through the agreement and that that would come through a separate application, as well as those from the accessory use list. I also clarified, you know, in relation to the sewer improvements that they would— that the owner of the property who would be the successor in interest to the development agreement would bear any O&M costs related to that, to any of those stations that they connect to, to address that concern that was raised by Councilmember Wright.

Speaker A: Let me see.

Speaker J: I removed the overhead power lines language and I reduced it to 10 years. And I think that addressed you know, the concerns that were raised. Now, recognizing that obviously there would be further discussion and perhaps there's additional changes that need to be made.

Speaker B: I'll just say thanks for listening, Marcus. I appreciate it. I think what you drafted is Well written and certainly meets my expectation, and I'm grateful for your effort. Can't believe the mayor put a half hour down for this, but hey, it's what it is.

Speaker J: You know, it's just in case, you know, we can always discuss the agenda.

Speaker A: You should have seen what I was dealing with when I did that.

Speaker B: And maybe it'll take an hour. You never quite know. I don't know where everybody else is at.

Speaker E: I, I don't have any further questions about it.

Speaker F: No questions for me.

Speaker I: I'm good, thank you.

Speaker L: I mean, my stance has not changed, uh, and I've been very open with the applicant about that. I, I'm not warm and fuzzy about creating a decade worth of entitlements without the project beginning. It does have the 3 years built into it for horizontal that they're going to have to get started with. I'd like there to be maybe a little more teeth, say if they don't, that there is a hard stop until they fix that problem. But I know that I'm the outlier on this one. Thank you for taking out the the power plant information, 'cause I think that that became more of a primary use than a secondary. I'm probably not gonna get there, but I'm good with what you put in there. I appreciate the changes. I think I've given the input that I want to on this, so it can probably go. Sounds like you guys are gonna find a majority on this, so.

Speaker B: Thank you.

Speaker A: Okay, if there's no other questions, then that was easier than we suspected. And, uh, we'll move on to a few other things. I know, um, Brad's been ready to tell us the updates. He's filling in for Ben.

Speaker N: So, yeah, thanks, Mayor. Um, just want to bring up a couple projects, um, at this time, just so council's aware and public's aware. So as staff, we've been working with the state on the permitting for the sewer treatment plant. We had a meeting about a week, a little over a week ago, and then we had some follow-up meetings. The result of those at this time is that we can move forward with the treatment plant and move forward with the groundbreaking and start moving dirt and getting the foundation built for the plant, which is a win. We still have some other hurdles that we gotta work through, but we'll be diligent to work with the state and work through those parameters and whatever's set forth. And so, and I'll bring this up again later, but there is gonna be a groundbreaking ceremony this Friday. at 10:00 AM down at the sewer treatment plant for those that would like to attend or can attend. Also, another project that we've been working— our crews have been diligently working on is what the Streets Department's been working on, installing that— changing that 4-foot sidewalk over on Golden Eagle Road to an 8-foot sidewalk. And they worked really hard last week while school was out to— and weather permitting— to try to do as many pours as they could and not interrupt the flow. They succeeded yesterday in completing the last pour. And so there's a couple days of cleanup this week, and it'll be open and functional for use to that school. So just wanted to update on that.

Speaker F: Remind me, why did we widen it to 8 feet? What was the purpose for that?

Speaker N: Because on the south side of the, of the road, there's an 8-foot sidewalk that runs through Through there and through that one section that's in front of the school on the north side, it was only a 4-foot sidewalk. And so we, we had egress, like people were not using it because it was so narrow. And so we decided to move that to an 8-foot sidewalk.

Speaker F: So it's kind of a bottleneck for pedestrian use.

Speaker G: Yes.

Speaker E: Okay, thank you.

Speaker N: And then just a couple other items really quick. With the scarlet tank, they're getting ready to start setting rebar. For the lid. And I just want to get this on the radar because we made some adjustments to the code a little while ago about nighttime work and nighttime pours. But we'll work with our communication teams as that gets here. But that'll have to be one continuous pour as we work through that project. And we'll bring that back up. But they're probably more than 2 weeks out. But we wanted to just make sure that we got it on the radar. And then the last project really that I have to update on at this time is the White Hills well. We've been working on an upgrade to that well system out there, and part of that upgrade is to put a chlorination system in. And so we just want to get it on the radar that once we get all the testing and the permitting done on that, that the residents in that area likely won't be used to that chlorination smell. And it's not, it's not going to have an excess smell. It's going to be in compliance with everything else in the system. But I think you as council and the public needs to just be aware as we turn that into the system that it there will be a noticeable change, and we just want to get it on everybody's radar and let them know that that's the normal practice and that's the way the water systems run. And if you want some history on that, it's really that that water system out there has been it's clean spring water, and so it's it's really clean. But for us to tie our system together. And really make it functional for everybody. We can't blend a spring water system like that without, without the chlorination in it. And so this is trying to bring our water system together so we can tie it together and then use it functionally throughout the city.

Speaker F: So is that a smell that will be ongoing or just a temporary—

Speaker N: It may not be a smell.

Speaker B: I don't—

Speaker N: most people aren't going to notice it because it's It's something that you deal with, I mean, every day when you turn a faucet on in any other component of the city. But where they haven't had it, they will likely notice some kind of change or difference.

Speaker M: Yeah, just to add to that, I mean, the smell is going to be more or less when it hits, let's just say, a dirty sink. It'll off-put that chlorination smell. And if you have a very refined palate, you might be able to notice a taste.

Speaker B: taste difference.

Speaker M: I couldn't tell you the difference, but some do.

Speaker N: I just mainly— we just want to get it out in front because then we know that there will probably be some questions that come from it. But that's all we have at this time, Mayor, and I'll cover the other updates in the policy meeting.

Speaker A: Okay, perfect. Thank you. All right, now's a chance for us to go over some of our— especially the consent agenda, but the rest of our agenda review. So jumping ahead on the consent agenda, item 10, we have some bond releases.

Speaker B: B, C, and D, I'm gonna need you to pull, Mayor, where I won't be able to vote on those due to a conflict of interest.

Speaker A: Yeah, so we'll do a separate vote on those and make sure that they get pulled for a separate vote. Otherwise, there's no other discussion needed. Same as we've done, just the separate vote.

Speaker I: Yeah, with that, so normally when we're approving something, we have to do individual motions. Is there a way to do a motion for all of the consent agenda items except for those 3 and then do one motion for the remaining consent agenda items?

Speaker A: I'm okay with that.

Speaker J: Yeah, I think we can do that.

Speaker A: Okay, cool, because it's still just the rest of the consent agenda. So, uh, with Brett's— thanks. Um, change order— was there any questions on any of the others? Okay, number 11A, change order on Well 9.

Speaker G: Did you have a—

Speaker N: I think, uh, Max here, and he's prepared to talk through that. I mean, I know that there was a number that was submitted in the packet, and I think that that's adjusted, and I think that number's actually come down. So if you'd like to talk through any—

Speaker A: That's not a bad thing.

Speaker N: No, it's not a bad thing.

Speaker M: So Mayor, Council, thank you for the time here to kind of go over this work order or the change order. I don't have like a full-on presentation, but I did share an updated spreadsheet, and I don't know if everybody's received that. If not, I can throw it on the screen.

Speaker A: It looks like everybody saw it.

Speaker M: So the basis of this is just due to the timeline of this project, it kind of— let's just say it went over a year. So there was some escalation costs in fuel and material, and they had some issues as far as drilling a lot of cave-in. If you guys are familiar with Well 7, We have 2 bits that are stuck. This is why this portion is needed. Once that starts to happen, they pull out. Depending on what the issue is, may throw back in concrete to help firm that up. They drill back through it. So those are some of the ongoing costs there. And then with that, just with the uncertainty of what they're drilling through, you may think you could drill a perfect hole, but it does cave, creates more voids. And that's where the intended, you know, the extra use of gravel pack and whatnot. So with that, I mean, if there's any questions or certain line items you'd like to discuss, I'm more than willing to.

Speaker A: Any questions? Not seeing any. Sounds good. Okay, thank you. The other, uh, item 11B, change orders, the Trailhead Pony Express traffic Yeah, with David not here, I can answer any questions you guys have on that one.

Speaker B: I have a presentation if you want to see it, but I think that was in the packet too. But if you have any questions, let me know.

Speaker A: Sounds like we don't have any questions on that one. Thank you. Then item 12, the minutes, A, B, and C. It's the 29th, the 6th, and the 8th meetings.

Speaker L: They all look good.

Speaker A: Uh, Resolution 13A is a resolution of Eagle Mountain City recognizing the Eagle Mountain Community Chaplain Program. I do know that there's a— that he will be here to introduce himself at, uh, and we'll do that right before the consent agenda. So, uh, in fact, where did we put that? Right before the, uh, public comment, right?

Speaker N: Yeah, I think you put it right before the, um, Consent agenda, actually. So we could probably take care of it right after the updates because that— and he just wants to show his face. I talked to him on the phone earlier. He just wants to show his face so there's a name to the face and just kind of give the council members what chaplain services provide.

Speaker A: So we'll do a brief introduction and then before we get to this item, just so that you guys Can meet him. And you've read the resolution, no questions there. Uh, 13B is a resolution of Eagle Mountain City approving a license agreement for encroachment with Pony Express Land Development.

Speaker J: Yeah, this came before the council. This is in relation to the project that is across the Porter's Crossing from the, uh, Ridley's shopping complex. Um, so they came and presented on the sign that council was The council was positively disposed towards it, and now we bring it back for approval.

Speaker A: Uh, 13C is a resolution, Eagle Mountain City, Utah, approving the reimbursement agreement with Willpower. Is there any questions, or do you have anything to add for us, Vince?

Speaker B: This is just for the lift station that's down by Meta.

Speaker A: We're expanding that so that Williams can connect Okay, and then 13B is a resolution of Eagle Mountain City approving the Quicksilver Solar Community Reinvestment Project Area Interlocal Agreement. I know that we've been talking about this one just a little bit ago. Abby has this item if there's some questions. Seeing none— man, you guys make this way too easy. We used to have to talk about all of these. Okay, thank you.

Speaker H: Good work.

Speaker A: Don't jinx us. The scheduled items are the 14A, the Corrigan Farms, which we just had a discussion about a minute ago. Are we okay leaving that on as a scheduled item? Does anybody have any issues with that? Okay. And then obviously the Master Development Agreement and the rezone. Then the last one is the 15A, or the next one I should say, Resolution of Eagle Mountain City authorizing the land Disposal process. This will be a land disposal process. Is there any questions, or do you— would you like to— this is Lacey.

Speaker E: I think we should save discussion on that one till the meeting.

Speaker O: Okay.

Speaker A: And same with the, uh, we have a public hearing for the code change. Is there anything there? Nothing. Okay, then since we have time We got through that quick. I am going to ask one of the questions that I had— I was going to save for the end of the meeting, but we can address now if I can find my notes. Um, Brad and I met today with Zach and, and others with Hales Engineering about the study results from the speed study, and we— I've called a few of you to try to schedule a meeting working with their schedule and what we found was 5 o'clock the 10th. That's the Planning Commission Tuesday. So 10 o'clock— sorry, the 10th at 5 o'clock PM, and we meet in— and this is the other thing— meet at the Public Works building. The conference room there is much larger.

Speaker L: Mm-hmm.

Speaker A: It'll accommodate a few more people. We can have a workspace down there. In talking with a few people, that Planning Commission Tuesday is what they liked. Anytime after 5. Does anybody have a conflict?

Speaker H: Will that work?

Speaker B: Tuesday next week?

Speaker A: November 10th. If that day doesn't work, they gave us a different option. I don't think it's as good, but you're good there, Zach? Do you think that's 5 o'clock PM?

Speaker F: Yeah, we have something potentially scheduled on the 9th and 10th, but for the city, I'm assuming we'll be okay by 5.

Speaker B: I thought I looked.

Speaker A: I don't remember what it was.

Speaker F: Marcus, you tell me. Am I okay?

Speaker J: These things are fluid, so we'll see.

Speaker L: All right.

Speaker A: Not on the 10th, I hope.

Speaker J: I mean, it obviously depends on how it goes on the 9th. whether or not it goes on to the 10th and how long it takes.

Speaker F: Then I'm probably fine.

Speaker A: Okay, so 5 PM at the public— so Lacey, if you don't— if you'd add that to our calendar and then put the public notice out there. Do we need to make any kind of a motion or anything for that as far as calendars or meetings or—

Speaker I: You're the mayor, you can—

Speaker J: To schedule a special meeting? Yeah, I mean, typically we would just notice it as a special meeting. It's when you're adopting the regular meetings is when you do it in council.

Speaker A: Okay, then that's— then we'll just put that on a notice of the special meeting and the location obviously down there, and we should have that covered.

Speaker B: We're good.

Speaker A: Okay, then was there any other items, Brad? We have a few minutes. We're plenty— we do have a couple closed session items that we can get to, but was there anything else we could knock out now?

Speaker N: No, the only other updates I have is just the upcoming events, so I don't have anything else.

Speaker A: Okay, we can wait for those. And then online, I don't know if he's going to be close to his mute button, but Ben, was there anything else that we've missed that you need to weigh in on?

Speaker G: No, I think we're good.

Speaker A: Thanks, Brad, for covering. Okay, perfect. If that's the case, then I think we got through that. We can Take care of some of our other items.

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

Speaker H: Second.

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

Speaker I: Yes.

Speaker A: Council Member Wright.

Speaker B: Yes.

Speaker A: Council Member Whiting.

Speaker E: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Wood?

Speaker G: Yes.

Speaker A: And Councilmember Herish?

Speaker F: Yes.

Speaker A: That passes. And at 5:17, we'll adjourn to closed session. All right. Welcome, everybody, to the policy session. Before we get started, I've asked Councilmember Clark to say a word of prayer.

Speaker I: Our dear Father in heaven, we're grateful for this opportunity to come together as neighbors and friends and to make decisions about what's going to happen in our city. We're grateful for all of the hands that make this city run. We're grateful for our first responders and those who are serving in our military. We ask a special blessing on the kids growing up here, that they might know that they're capable of a lot of things and that they can do awesome things to make our community better. And we ask that thou would give us open minds and open hearts that we can make the decisions that need to be made here. And we say these things in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

Speaker A: All right, thank you. We will now call this meeting to order. It's October 20th at 7:04, and we will first mention, I believe Ben is online, correct?

Speaker P: Yes, and also Steve Mumford.

Speaker A: Ben and Steve, both our city manager and assistant manager, are online, and filling in is Brad Hickman as the acting city manager today. So we appreciate Brad being on the stand, and we will start with the Pledge of Allegiance, and Brad's gonna lead us.

Speaker C: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands.

Speaker A: All right, thank you. We will start with some communication items and upcoming events with Mr. Hickman.

Speaker N: Yeah, thank you, Mayor. Um, so some upcoming events that we have, uh, going on here in the city is I got a list here, so there's a few of them, so I'll just run down through them. But the Bag the Leaf program, it begins today and it'll run through December 18th. We have dumpsters that will be available at the Silver Lake Amphitheater and at the Pony Express Rodeo Grounds. The Eagle Mountain City Youth Council is hosting a teen trunk or treat for ages 14 through 18 on Thursday, October 27th. on Thursday, October 22nd, from 6:30 to 8:30 PM. And it sounds like it's at Council Member Whiting's home.

Speaker J: Is that correct?

Speaker D: Yes.

Speaker J: Okay.

Speaker N: And then the city will be having a groundbreaking ceremony for the MBR wastewater treatment plant this Friday at 10:00 AM, just at the treatment plant. So if you're around, you're welcome to show up to that. There will be a senior chili cook-off on Monday, October 26th, from 5:00 to 7:00 PM. at the Eagle Mountain Senior Center. There's a mobile mammography Tuesday, October 27th from 7:30 AM to 5:30 PM at the Eagle Mountain Senior Center. Then following that, there is the Election Day, which is Tuesday, November 3rd from 7:00 AM to 8:00 PM, and the location for our area is at the Overland Barn. And go ahead.

Speaker A: I don't know if this is on your list, but just a reminder, especially for the public in this one, because it's Election Day, our regularly scheduled— that would normally be a First Tuesday. So our council meeting is going to be on Wednesday because of the election.

Speaker J: Yep.

Speaker N: That was my next note.

Speaker G: Okay.

Speaker A: I was just making sure.

Speaker N: Thanks. Thanks for covering it, Mayor. So yeah, that'll be Wednesday that week. Work session will be at 4:00 PM and the policy session will be at 7:00 PM. And then we have a veterans breakfast on Saturday, November 7th, from 6 to 8 AM at the Overland Barn as well. And then the last item that I have on the list to update today is the Turkey Trot that takes place on every Thanksgiving. So that'll be November 26th from 8 AM to 10 AM at the Cory B. Ryde Memorial Park. So that's everything that I have for now, Mayor.

Speaker A: Thank you. Now that I've been to that Turkey Trot, a number of years. It's— you have to come early to get the socks. I'm just going to throw that out there. Anybody that's ever had those socks, you, you want the socks. So, uh, super fun event. We appreciate our staff for, uh, doing that. All right, next thing, uh, on our consent agenda, we have one item that, uh, implementing chaplain services. And at this time, I just wanted to bring up our chaplains. It's Lyman Gifford and his wife, if you want to come up as a brief introduction, and then allow you guys to introduce yourselves to the council. I know we've had multiple meetings and you've met with a lot of the council as well.

Speaker G: So, so I'm Lyman and this is Dee, and we've been chaplains for about 2 years and came out here and about a year and a half ago. So we are both interfaith and Latter-day Saint chaplains. And as they informed us as we went to our annual training with Latter-day Saints chaplains a couple weeks ago, they reminded us that we are interfaith, and that's our emphasis, is to incorporate and involve all faiths. So we appreciate being with you tonight. We want to— just wanted to take a minute and share with you our Foundation or framework and operating guidelines that we put together at the request of the outgoing or previous mayor and their current mayor. So we have that for you. And there's also— I know they need a copy for the records. There's also our business cards on there. So if you need to know how to get a hold of us or whatever, we're just excited to be able to work with the community and the staff of the city, police and fire and so forth. Our training has been through the Rocky Mountain Chaplains Association. We've been through basic training as well as advanced training, as well as through the FEMA program where we have been taking training on how to respond to disasters as chaplains and what our role is in terms of psychological first aid, they call it. And so, in fact, we're getting ready to take our second phase of that because we've been asked to be available to go to other disasters as they arise. So we just look forward to working with the city and being available wherever we can. And so thank you for your time. If you have any questions, we'd be happy to try and answer them.

Speaker A: And for the sake of the public, Marcus, I want to be careful on this, but Is it okay to have their numbers listed, like on the webpage, or where— so that people know where to contact them?

Speaker J: I'm just trying to— Yeah, if they want. You know, I think it makes sense to provide some sort of contact information for them.

Speaker K: Okay.

Speaker A: And for the general— sake of the general public, you know, I know a lot of people are not affiliated with a particular faith or interfaith beliefs, and if you need a resource, these guys are great to reach out to and somebody to counsel with. For those who, who are lacking that in their lives, they'd be great. So, uh, no further questions. We appreciate you guys being here.

Speaker G: Thank you.

Speaker A: Thanks for doing, doing what you do. All right, with that, we'll move on to our public comment portion of the meeting. Uh, 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 portion, please complete a comment form in the back and bring it to the city recorder up here. Council members will listen but not engage in 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. lawyer for further discussion. Lastly, public comment period is for items not associated with a scheduled public hearing. If your comments relate to a public hearing item, please wait until that item is called and you will have the opportunity to speak at that time. The public hearings tonight are item 16A, which is an ordinance of Eagle Mountain City amending the Municipal Code 1625.040 and 1710.030. 1760-040, which have to do with landscaping provisions. I will now open the public comment period at 7:12 and ask Lacey.

Speaker P: Yes, our office received 2 for last week. Jill Jones.

Speaker A: Is Jill— I don't see Jill here.

Speaker P: No, she did mention that she is requesting a swimming pool behind Anytime Fitness. I'll make sure to get this in the record and get you a copy of that. And then Jeff Lister.

Speaker A: Is Jeff here?

Speaker P: No, he just mentions Golden Eagle Sidewalk Widening Project and nothing. And that's all I have.

Speaker A: Okay, was there anyone else that did not have the opportunity to speak that would like to? Okay, seeing no one at 7:12, we will close the public comment period and bring it back to the council for an opportunity to make comment. And we'll start with Councilmember Clark.

Speaker I: I was taking notes there.

Speaker A: Sorry, I came quick.

Speaker I: It's all right. Um, it's good to see everyone here. It's fun to see familiar faces that I've gotten to know, know in other avenues in the city. And, um, I'm grateful that you're here to share your thoughts and just to keep us in line. Um, and I'm grateful for the, um, Chaplains and being available. I know a lot of fire departments and police departments have those available, and because we contract and do different things for our services, it's neat that we'll have those on site here for people that need them, especially when there's disasters and different things like that. I am reminded how important it is for us to show up for Election Day once every. So many years we end up having an election that doesn't have a statewide election, um, on the ballot, and it makes it way, way, way, way less voter turnout. And I really just want to encourage everyone to take some time to get to know the candidates and, um, get your ballot and drop it off at the box over behind City Hall over here. Um, those decisions are really important. They'll be making decisions about who's going to serve us on the state level and who serves us on a federal level. And we really need their help right now because this job that we do here in Eagle Mountain is not something that we can do on our own. So please go vote, and thank you for being here.

Speaker B: Welcome. It's good to see so many bright and smiling faces. It's not often that we have as many show up as are here tonight. I want to make sure that I extend a warm welcome to you. And I should say aloha because I've been goofing off for a few days in Hawaii. So I just got back yesterday. So that's what the glow is coming off me. It's that burnt skin that you're seeing. I'm just really grateful for the opportunities that we have in Eagle Mountain City, for the good people that live here, and for the decisions that are being made. And I want you to know that every decision that I have been involved in, I think deeply about this community and the long-term benefits and impacts of those decisions that we make. I've been here a little while now. This is my 5th year on council, and prior to that I served 4 years on the Planning Commission. I've learned a few things. We've gotten some things right and made some mistakes. Hopefully we've learned— hopefully I've learned from those. But I'm really grateful for the opportunity to serve. I always think my mother lives here. I was the first person in my family to move to Eagle Mountain. As a consequence of that, my sister and brother-in-law moved here. My mother now lives here and has for a number of years. My daughter bought a home and is making Eagle Mountain her home with 3 of my grandchildren. My son lives in a home here in Eagle Mountain and has 3 of my other grandchildren who are here. I wish my son who lives in California would get a clue and come and join us and enjoy it, but he lives in Santa Barbara. It's the coastline that drew him away, I'm afraid. I'm just really grateful to the people of Eagle Mountain and to those that live in this valley. And I'm grateful to those who sit here with me, who we arm wrestle. Anybody that thinks that we come to a decision or to an answer easily and that we're all on the same page, I'd love for you to just sit on my shoulder during some of the phone conversations that I've had with each of these individuals.

Speaker A: Thank you.

Speaker B: It's pretty rowdy. That's probably the best way I can describe it. We disagree quite often, but we temper one another and we try to educate one another. I'm really grateful for their input. Lastly, I just want to say I'm really grateful for our people that work here. I own a small business in Lehi, and I've said this often and I mean it. The backbone of my business is my people. My employees are, are, are, they are the glue and the mechanism that makes my company successful. And I truly believe that Eagle Mountain City, that each of those that you see seated here and around the periphery of this room, each of them are what hold this city together and make a difference in your daily lives, whether you recognize it or not. So thank you to each of them.

Speaker E: So I just wanted to add a little bit of additional information to the youth city council activity at my home this Thursday night. So it's for any youth in the city, and it will involve horseback riding and dancing, a costume contest, pumpkin carving contest. It's a free event. If you want to participate in the pumpkin carving contest, Bring your own pre-carved pumpkin, and we're gonna have a lot of fun. Mayor's gonna be there with me. Other city council members, if you wanna come join in, you're welcome to come to the house. But anyway, we're just— we're gonna have a lot of fun time with the youth, and encourage any youth you know to come. It's at 2441 East Cedar Drive this Thursday night.

Speaker C: Thank you.

Speaker L: I'm pleased to see people here. I hope you're here for some of the items that— I suspect I know what some of you are here for. And I'm grateful that you're engaging in the process. I've said this many times, I think that we are much better when we have more active people in the community to help us to see where some of our problem spots are. There's only 6 of us. I mean, we can't be everywhere and we can't see everything, and we, we rely heavily on our residents to let us know where some of our problem areas are. So when you come in and tell us, I can tell you that speaking for myself, I listen, and they, they've heard me say multiple times, how are we going to address that problem? Um, some of the comments that were even made on the, the public, uh, comments section, one of them about a sidewalk that we're currently widening right now. So I just— I want you to know that it's not falling on deaf ears, that we're looking for ways to pay for the things that need to be taken care of. And we have to prioritize most needful first, obviously. There's a lot of things that are needful, and we recognize that. And a lot of times for the residents, it's the one that you're facing within 300 feet of your house, usually. And And that's not lost on us either. So thank you for being here. Thank you for engaging in the process. I hope your experience here is one that is positive. My number is on our website. If you have any questions, I ask that you call me and engage with me. Work's been kind of nuts lately. Gentleman up here tried to get a hold of me, and it's been kind of nuts the last month. But generally, I try to call back and have a conversation with anybody who reaches out to me because I think I think it's better to talk than it is to try to engage over social media or by text. So that's there available to you.

Speaker A: Thanks.

Speaker F: I also want to welcome everyone that's out here tonight. These meetings are no fun when it's just empty seats. It's good to have people here that are engaged in their local city government. I've sat in those chairs before and addressed the City Council before with, with questions and concerns and issues that I've had. These are really exciting times. There's a lot going on in our city. We have a major facelift with our sewer that's happening. That's a couple hundred million dollars that, that we'll be building out. We have had some big changes to our property taxes, how those are applied. Now every dollar of your property tax goes 100% to safety is not commingled for any other projects. And I think there's a lot of residents that don't know about that change, and I think that's important to highlight. We have 2 wells being built. Those are major, major projects. To dig a well on Eagle Mountain, you have to go to about a 1,400-foot depth at about 26 inches. So that's a big hole in the ground, and those are not cheap to build, but the Major infrastructure happening. Pony Express, as you pulled in here, you probably saw the medians being pulled out to widen that road. The high-T intersections at SR 73 and Ranches Parkway. There's just a lot happening within our city. And as Councilmember Wood mentioned, there's a lot going on. There's a lot happening and a lot going through the dais. And I really try to prepare as much as I can. I spend probably 4 to 6 hours before every council meeting reviewing the agenda, reviewing each document, each development agreement that comes through here, and try to just give it my best effort as a representative for the residents of Eagle Mountain. I live here. My daughter is soon to be married and will be living here as well. My nephew just bought a property in City Center, and I'm trying to recruit all my family as well to move out here. It's a beautiful place to live. While we're doing this, the things that are top of mind— my mind is how do we keep our open space? How do we just avoid developing every inch? As you drive through Utah County and see that development happening, it's hard. It's difficult for cities to do that. And I feel like that's a priority for me, to make sure that we retain the character of Eagle Mountain as much as we possibly can. So I'm excited to have everyone here and look forward to our conversation tonight.

Speaker A: All right, thank you. I just add to everyone else's great comments, and I appreciate everyone being here. I have a special appreciation today for all the residents and, and staff. It takes good people doing good things to make this a great place to live, and I think that's what That I mean, to see Craig, he's the liaison for the— it's Councilmember Whiting, I'm sorry— for the Youth Council. And what does he do? Invites him right into his home. And I see our staff doing some amazing things that are Herculean efforts of projects that we have right now that not very many people would take on. And our staff says, we can do that in-house. And it's pretty amazing. So we appreciate everybody that has things that contributes to our quality of life.

Speaker G: Thank you.

Speaker A: Eagle Mountain. I just— all of it across the board, including our contract personnel with the sheriffs and UFA and everybody else. Just a great place to live. So thank you for all that you do. With that, we can get started with our consent agenda. I know there's a couple items that have to come off that we're going to just vote on separately, so there'll be 2 votes, 2 motions.

Speaker B: Mayor, I'll make the motion, but I have a question, Marcus, about how to do this with the 3 items that I need to recuse myself from, do we just set those aside and leave them on the consent agenda just separately?

Speaker J: Yeah, so it depends on how you make the motion.

Speaker B: That's what I'm asking specifically.

Speaker J: So somebody would make the motion to approve the consent agenda removing those 3 to be voted on separately.

Speaker B: Perfect.

Speaker A: That's what we have.

Speaker B: Then I will make that motion, Mayor. I move that we approve the consent agenda removing item 10B, 10C, and 10D to be voted on separately because I want to declare that I, I may have a potential conflict of interest where I own a rental home in Firefly.

Speaker I: Second.

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

Speaker L: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Whiting.

Speaker F: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Wood.

Speaker N: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Hewish.

Speaker F: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Clark.

Speaker J: Yes.

Speaker A: Okay, we have 3 items left on the consent agenda.

Speaker I: Mayor, I move that the council approve items 10B, 10C, and 10D of the consent agenda.

Speaker E: Second.

Speaker A: Okay, we have a motion by Council Member Clark and a second by Council Member Whiting, with Council Member Wright, uh, abstaining from this vote. And we'll start with Council Member Whiting.

Speaker E: Yes.

Speaker A: Council Member Wood.

Speaker L: Yes.

Speaker A: Council Member Hewish.

Speaker F: Yes.

Speaker A: And Council Member Clark.

Speaker J: Yes.

Speaker A: And both Both motions pass. Thank you. All right, moving to items 14A, which is our first scheduled item. It's an ordinance of Eagle Mountain City rezoning certain loan— certain lands known as Corrigan Farms. Um, David has a presentation on this one. We, we did talk about this one in the work session a little bit, and we also saw this last meeting 2 weeks ago? Was that from last weekend, David? I'm just—

Speaker O: No, that was a year ago.

Speaker G: Okay.

Speaker O: We're still buckless this year.

Speaker A: I was going to say congratulations. You know, I wasn't successful.

Speaker O: We're still looking. Okay, Mayor and Council, this item you did have a public hearing on the previous meeting, October 6th, is for a rezone for the property known as Corrigan Farms. And just to brief you again, the property you see there in the red box, that is the property we're looking at tonight, used by QTS adjacent to the QTS subdivision, their property as well. Uh, look at the map first on the right. That is the property again there in the green square. The northeast and the south property is already zoned RTI, so the applicant is requesting the same overlay zone, the RTI overlay zone. Property to the west is Utah County, and again, there's approximately 41 acres. There's various uses that are approved, obviously. in the RTI zone, as well as some permitted accessory uses enumerated there on the screen. Again, you did have the public hearing on this previous meeting, and so the applicant requests the council consider this, and the Planning Commission does recommend approval of the rezone request.

Speaker A: Is there any questions or comments from the council?

Speaker J: Just to clarify, the property to the west is actually Fairfield Town, not—

Speaker A: I was going to ask that.

Speaker O: Yeah, it's what?

Speaker J: Fairfield.

Speaker O: Oh, it's Fair— oh, my apologies.

Speaker B: We knew that.

Speaker A: That's what I thought. So, but it's insignificant to this decision. So questions?

Speaker E: The, uh, I mean, the staff report indicates, uh, the rezone would allow a potential develop— development of a data center with a natural gas power plant. And I think that latter, with the natural gas power plant stricken, I believe, given that the next agenda item—

Speaker O: Yeah, that would be on the next slide, whatever Mark says.

Speaker J: That would come through a separate application at a later date. That's their current intentions. Obviously, those could change over time. They wouldn't be getting any vesting in relation to any power plants on site.

Speaker B: Councilmember Whiting, are you just asking that the That where it's written into the— on the agenda under the ordinance where it says with a natural gas plant, I mean, that that be stricken? Is that what you're saying?

Speaker E: Well, I was just stating that it was— even though that was on the report, I think that was a carryover from the prior discussion. And I was just saying this more for the public benefit.

Speaker B: Just don't— and you don't want to see that create some confusion?

Speaker E: Correct. For the public's understanding of that.

Speaker A: Yeah, this, this item's strictly the rezone.

Speaker J: Yeah, just to clarify, the RTI zone doesn't have power plants as a permitted use. That was something that was being considered as part of the development agreement, and that is no longer in the development agreement.

Speaker H: Got it.

Speaker A: Okay, is there any other questions? If not, I'll call for a motion.

Speaker O: And just to clear— yeah, just to clarify, yeah, we do not have any idea of anything, any future uses potentially.

Speaker A: That could obviously go there with the RTI or It's just whatever's in the code as far as the overlay zone.

Speaker I: Well, I think it's really important too for the residents that are listening. The RTI zone is very prescriptive. Like, you have to have X amount of square feet in your building, X amount of jobs have to be brought. Like, you can't have vapors or smells or all sorts of things. The city council that created that several years ago— I wasn't around then, but they put into it very specific things to protect our city from things that the people didn't want, period. So I think that's an important thing. It's not just a free pass. It's restrictive.

Speaker B: I'll make the motion, Mayor. I move that the Eagle Mountain City Council approve the rezoning certain lands known as Corrigan Farms to— with the RTI overlay zone.

Speaker A: We have a motion by Councilmember Wright.

Speaker F: Second.

Speaker A: Second by Councilmember Hewish. Any questions? Okay, we'll start the vote with Councilmember Wood.

Speaker L: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Hewish.

Speaker F: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Clark.

Speaker I: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Wright.

Speaker L: Yes.

Speaker A: And Councilmember Whiting.

Speaker E: Yes.

Speaker A: Okay, that motion passes and we can go on to the next item. It's, uh, Ordinance Eagle Mountain City, approving the Corrigan Farms Development Agreement.

Speaker J: Okay, so this would be the development agreement that goes along with the Corrigan Farms rezone. As stated earlier, this was brought before the council 2 weeks ago. There are certain feedback that was received from the council at that meeting, specifically regarding bringing any sort of power production through a separate application through the Alternative Energy Overlay Zone and associated development agreement associated with that. And that would be heard at some later date and decided on the merits of that alone. This is strictly for a data center use as being the primary use on the property in accordance with the RTI Overlay Zone. Additional changes from the prior agreement, again, anything— any reference to energy has been stricken. It's been reduced to a 10-year agreement. It addresses some of the concerns related to lift station operational costs, as those— the company or landowner of the property who inherits the development agreement would be responsible for any operational or maintenance costs associated with any lift station they might connect to that are attributable to their project. And yeah, removed any permission on site to do overhead power lines as an accessory use. Other than that, everything is the same other than some minor grammatical corrections.

Speaker A: All right. This is listed as— okay. Just making sure.

Speaker D: Yep, yep, we're good.

Speaker A: Any questions, comments, concerns?

Speaker E: I just think a quick comment for the public who are here. You might think, why did we just blaze through that last agenda item in like seconds? You'd think we would debate it. 2 weeks ago we debated it very thoroughly and there was a lengthy discussion along with this agenda item that we're now considering, 14B. We discussed this at length. There were numerous changes the applicant made that the city council had requested. And so if you think that we went through that last one quickly, I don't know how long this discussion might last. It might be quick as well. It's because we had a really, really lengthy discussion 2 weeks ago, and if you want to go look at that discussion and the holes that we poked through that development, you know, agreement, you could— you can see that.

Speaker F: I think it'd be good maybe just to highlight those again, the changes from the agreement from 2 weeks ago to today. So one of the items that I had issues with is granting the ability to bring in natural gas, and that was something that was asked to be removed from the development agreement, which it was. So at some point in the future, if this ever comes to fruition, the energy question will need to be addressed at that time in the future. So this— correct, Marcus?

Speaker J: Correct. And it could come as a natural gas application. It could come as some other form of power.

Speaker F: Geothermal.

Speaker J: Or not at all. Maybe Rocky Mountain Power gets their act together and they start developing new power sources and they don't need to do separate onsite power.

Speaker F: And I, yeah, and I think that's important to understand that Rocky Mountain Power for the most part is at capacity today.

Speaker J: Right, to take on these big industrial projects. They're really not taking on, I mean, they have capacity for residential but not for these big industrial projects.

Speaker D: That's right.

Speaker F: And as a city council member, I feel like it's important for us, we do have an alternative energy overlay zone that allows for geothermal, nuclear, some types limited natural gas and different sources of energy power. But in this specific development agreement, that has been removed from the agreement. So I'm—

Speaker D: oh, go ahead.

Speaker J: Right, that would just be deferred. That is gonna be deferred to a later date.

Speaker F: Deferred to a later date, which at that point, again, they can, if Rocky Mountain Power has capacity to do it, then great.

Speaker A: Any concerns?

Speaker L: Yeah, there's a bunch of things that I had concerns with, but just to hit a couple of the things that Zach didn't. I wasn't comfortable with the term for 20 years. We had that changed to 10 years. For me, it's a little long still, but 10 is better than 20. We also made sure, I believe this was Brett, that if they connected to a lift station that they were required required to be responsible for the ongoing maintenance and operational costs. So the city citizens are not paying for that. That's an important part of that.

Speaker H: There was one other thing in here. At the very top?

Speaker L: It was the power. I think that was it. For me personally, I mean, I've been— I've said this since I was on the Planning Commission. I'm not really interested in continuing to encourage developers to turn our land into brokerage deals that they sit on for 10, 20 years. They did that before. And so when they come to use those entitlements, generally speaking, they're far outdated and they're things that we would never want to come at the time that they come. So for this, on principle, I feel like I'm in that same place again. The intention is for it to be for future use of a data center, which I'm not against data centers. I need to make sure and say that. But without their having a user to it, I'm not really warm and fuzzy about taking away any opportunity for negotiation by doing an early development agreement. So I'm not against the landowners. I hope that they can use their land. I'm all for property rights. That's why I voted yes for the RTIs. There's plenty of opportunity. opportunities for them to be able to develop that. That's the best use of that land being surrounded on 3 sides by RTI. I'm just not comfortable with doing a development agreement without a user specific to a data center.

Speaker A: All right, there's no other comments or questions. I'll entertain a motion.

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

Speaker A: All right, nobody else wants to?

Speaker B: If we're going to move through the agenda, uh, I move that the Eagle Mountain City Council approve the Corrigan Farms Development Agreement.

Speaker I: Second.

Speaker A: Okay, we have a motion by Councilmember Wright and a second by Councilmember Clark, and we're to Councilmember Hewish.

Speaker F: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Clark.

Speaker I: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Wright.

Speaker O: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Whiting.

Speaker F: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Wood.

Speaker C: No.

Speaker A: Okay, do you want to talk about that, or you get—

Speaker G: No.

Speaker A: Okay, just making sure. Um, item 15, uh, resolution of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, authorizing land disposal application proceed and directing staff to begin the notice public hearing process for parcel numbers 3825701 A significant real property pursuant to the Eagle Mountain Municipal Code 3.30060.

Speaker P: Good afternoon, evening, Council. This land disposal is in Eagle Park Phase 1. As stated in the staff report, staff is generally neutral regarding this proposed property disposal. Staff has reviewed it. The applicants are flexible in regarding the amount of property disposed. to match the other side of the trail fence. I can pull up a map here, and the residents are here to answer any questions. There is, I will make note too, there is one homeowner who is unable to purchase the property. It's right about in the middle of the line of houses. All the other neighbors did sign off on this application. One person cannot do it right now, but the neighbor said that they can purchase it at this time.

Speaker C: Thank you.

Speaker P: for that. So let me pull up the map for us. Just let us know if you have any questions.

Speaker A: And this is not the— obviously the sale, but it just starts the process and designates it as significant real property?

Speaker J: It's already significant real property. What this would do is authorize Yeah. Starting the process.

Speaker A: For disposal.

Speaker J: Before it could be approved, there'd have to be an agreement drafted, and that would— then there would be a public hearing associated with that. And there are several other requirements that are required by state statute.

Speaker B: Right.

Speaker A: Questions, comments?

Speaker L: So I have a question. I don't know what was offered to the applicants, but I know one of the things we initially talked about is the opportunity to do like a silent second where they could hold that amount on the mortgage, and then when the house is sold, it's paid off from the sale of the house. Did we not go forward with that plan?

Speaker J: That's not anything that we're at. Not at that stage yet.

Speaker B: Okay.

Speaker G: I just—

Speaker L: with them saying that they can't afford it, It sounds like they don't know what their options are.

Speaker H: That's why I'm asking.

Speaker B: But isn't, isn't this question just whether or not the city council is willing to dispose of the property?

Speaker F: Yes.

Speaker B: So I mean, what happens to it at that point in time is still open to interpretation should we come to a decision to allow this to be disposed, right?

Speaker L: I just think that they need to know what their options are. up front though. If they're going to come and ask in an application, they need to know what's possible instead of waiting for us to make a decision or not make a decision and they don't even know if they can or can't. I think if we're going to entertain doing these types of things in the city, let's lay out what options are available to them so they can make an informed decision of whether they want to even do an application for it.

Speaker B: Well, I guess my point is that, that until the city council evaluates it after we've chosen dispose of it, should we choose to do so, then we look at the remedies or the means by which we're willing to dispose of it. So would you do—

Speaker L: would you do an application for something that wasn't for sale?

Speaker B: This isn't for sale.

Speaker L: That's what I'm saying. They're asking if it can be for sale, and if it is for sale, then they want to know under what circumstances they would be able to buy it. So you would have to go through that process yourself. All I'm saying is giving an option of what might be possible when they ask for the application process does not hurt us. No, it doesn't interfere with our ability to determine whether or not we say yes or no for a disposal. That's all I'm saying.

Speaker B: Yeah, as long as it does— I mean, you can't bind a future decision. I think that's really what it comes down to, because I don't know what it would sell for if this is disposed, square foot. And we have some precedents in the past, but is it current? And does it—

Speaker L: I don't think we have to get to that level.

Speaker B: I just don't either. That's my point, is 'Cause I just, I think it's a matter of are we willing to dispose of this or not? And I gotta tell you, I have some ambiguous feelings about this one and maybe we can talk about that in a minute. Does this have a public hearing, Mayor?

Speaker L: It will.

Speaker H: That's part of the process.

Speaker J: Only if you approve the disposal, then the public hearing would come at the end when you approve the agreement.

Speaker B: So one of the questions I have is what, why the portion on the upper page of this map That runs on the side yard of the house.

Speaker A: I believe that is the applicant's home, correct? And I'm happy to have them come on.

Speaker B: So can they—

Speaker M: you want to come?

Speaker B: Is that okay? Let's let them come speak to it. I'd like to just understand why that strip, because to me that seems to make it smaller on your side than the other side if we're going to maintain a corridor through there.

Speaker D: That's— I would say is fine if we didn't. I just did that just— we have— there's a big tree there and other things that I just Probably clear out. Um, that's— that I don't know how long that's been there. We bought the— we brought the property with the fence and everything as, as you see in, in the—

Speaker B: So are you looking to just kind of clean up some encroachment? I mean, what's—

Speaker D: We just— yeah, a little bit of that. There is— because there is some encroachment on that north end where there is a fence, as you can kind of see in the orange there a little bit. So it's just to clean that up so that that Wasn't encroaching there, and honestly, that could go. I mean, if that's part of a question, I would. I would. I mean, we just go. I wouldn't mind just keeping that or just taking that out of the equation if that's a concern. Because because ultimately, I think all of us here, all our neighbors, we just that land just it just sits there, and yeah, and I know I would treat it as an extension of my own as well as our neighbors. It would extend backyards for play for kids.

Speaker B: And, um, I'm a land guy. If I could expand, extend my backyard, I would do it. And I'm on 4.5 acres, so, so I understand. So you don't have to explain it to me.

Speaker D: So only that was really just to clean that up there. And, and honestly, if that's, if that's a concern there, we could, we could address that because it doesn't really affect anything but just our, a little portion of our Okay, thank you.

Speaker B: That's helpful context. I wondered why.

Speaker D: Yeah, that's the only reason. So if that's, again, any issue with that, we can eliminate that. It's more behind us is what we would, you know, take and use. Is there any other questions?

Speaker F: I don't have a question for the applicant, but I have a question. Is it appropriate for us in this meeting to talk about the price that it's being sold for, or is that to come later?

Speaker A: Not yet. Not yet, it just starts the process.

Speaker J: Yeah, I mean, if you're of a mind to dispose of it, then yes, price is obviously something that you could give direction on today.

Speaker A: Okay.

Speaker J: Yeah, so you wouldn't approve anything until you approved an agreement, but that is something.

Speaker E: This is one where I've got it. Look, if I, if I bordered— if I was one of those homes, I would also want to execute a purchase. I, I mean, I think— and so in other words, I, I agree that you've brought the application forward. I think that's, I think that's the exact thing that should happen. What this application I think should spur among— in a discussion among the council is, what is the city's plan with this land? And so, because we'll have an obligation to try to figure out, does the city have a greater plan with this land, and if so, what is that? And if there's no plan with the land, then we should not be holding on to it. But if there is a plan, how much of that land do we actually need to execute the plan? So part of, I think, the question for the council is, what is the plan? And I almost think we need to get the Community Services Board involved to study this and come back with a recommendation. Because the Community Services Board can dive in into like sort of a larger scheme of what's going on in that area, what that could be, and come up with an idea. And maybe their idea needs all of the space the city currently has. Maybe their idea is, is no, we don't need that space. For me as a city council member, I think that at least for me, we would have done our due diligence On the city side to know whether that the city needs to be holding on to this land or not.

Speaker F: I'm amenable to selling the land. We have a lot of these spaces, and that is a big gap. There's a trail through there. I'm not sure what you could do within that space. I think it's important to maintain ample open space, which there is through there. We have a lot of areas like this in the city. I don't know that it shaves off so much that it becomes a concern to me as long as we get a fair market value price for the land.

Speaker D: Yeah, and I did draw that line to kind of just even it out because like you said, it's really lopsided right now as you can see in terms of how much is available.

Speaker K: there.

Speaker D: Yeah, where that pathway goes through.

Speaker I: Uh, Council Member Wright had a question, and then when he's done, I have a question.

Speaker B: I just wanted to ask Mr. Hickman if he'll just give us some idea of what— what— is there some sort of a future plan for this area that you're aware of?

Speaker N: I've seen, um, City Center master plans in the past, but I don't think it took into account this particular area, so I can't say that there were has ever been a plan particular to this area. I think some additional history with some of these land acquisitions that are coming through is part of it is I think some of these fence lines are outside of their boundary footprint. And so I think that that's probably played into some of this as well. And so it's a determination. Are we going to make them go back to their lot line? Are we going to— are we willing and open to sell it. And do we need these long corridors? I don't think we need all of it long-term. But I do agree that we need to— if we are going to hang on to this property, we need to come up with a mechanism and a plan on how we're going to develop it. I do agree with that.

Speaker O: Okay.

Speaker F: And we're probably not going to fill it with grass and sprinklers, is my guess. And so we're left with just a dirt Yeah, I think that's the tough point, right?

Speaker N: It's, uh, we know, yeah, we're not going to be able to fill it with turf. We know we're not going to be able to irrigate it. We know we're not going to be able to keep up with those maintenance costs. So what does it turn into? Is it, is it a corridor with amenities in it? Is it, is there a bunch of xeriscape in it? Is it just a trail and we need to slim them down? But yeah, I do agree that we need to look at a bigger master plan.

Speaker J: Thank Mr.

Speaker B: you.

Speaker F: Plummer. And I think there's an opportunity here to where we can achieve— I think for the most part this council is in favor of big lots within our city, is in favor of big lots within our city, so it achieves that, but it also narrows that space down to where it's not so big and unmanageable. I just don't know what you do with that space. It's not big enough for a frisbee golf course, but you want to keep it wide enough that you could come in and have an appetite to xeriscape it and make it nice. Today it feels pretty wide. Like, that's a lot of dirt space that we just haven't done anything, probably because it's not a project that we've been willing to tackle.

Speaker I: Mayor, is it okay if I say something? I agree with the stuff that's been said. I think we do need to take a long, hard look at all of the trails and all of the open space in our city. And it's been a continuous process. I like the idea of having the Community Services Board take a look at it. They have already been kind of discussing some of these things when we were talking about trails. But I also think that we should consider selling this piece of land because it's a pretty expansive piece, as Council Member Hewish said. And the fact is, is if we're going to have finished or improved trails, we have to pay for them somehow. And we want to be fiscally conservative. We don't want to, you know, go crazy with our spending. So one of the ways that we can do this, because it's not impact fee eligible, is for us to sell some of that land and put it into Fixing up the areas around it. We can still have epic trails throughout our entire city, but what they're asking to take on here isn't a ton, and it still preserves a really good chunk of land to be an improved trail space.

Speaker F: Question, the, the proceeds from these sales, can they be restricted to improve the area around that path, or does it just drop into the general fund.

Speaker A: I think the previous ones we said specifically went to parks in some cases, but it's a— that's council. I mean, it's a budget issue, so if you wanted to restrict them, you could.

Speaker O: Okay.

Speaker A: I think everybody's mostly spoke, and I don't get a vote on this. I was trying to keep my mouth shut, but I want to weigh in anyway just for some context because of some of this. And first of all, I love teasing you, and it's mostly because we get along. You literally opened the meeting with your whole goal is to preserve open space, and now you're open, willing to— at least you sound like maybe willing to sell this.

Speaker B: So—

Speaker F: Well, yes, we— there is plenty of open space in this corridor. I mean, we're looking at a very specific area, and it's been here how long? When was your home built?

Speaker D: In '99.

Speaker F: In 1999.

Speaker D: Have you seen any No, and we moved in in 2012.

Speaker F: And when it gets windy, you get a lot of dirt.

Speaker D: Yeah.

Speaker F: And dust.

Speaker D: Exactly.

Speaker F: And you're asking yourself, when are they going to improve this freaking area?

Speaker H: I'll bet.

Speaker F: There's— these exist all throughout the city. So I'm trying to find it, strike a balance between having a nice xeriscape open space and improve large lots. That's my thought. How do we find balance in this situation?

Speaker D: And also give you space, there's about 40 feet that would be left on each side of that path.

Speaker A: So 40 feet of left, of open space. Now I wanna bring this in.

Speaker E: On this side, 80 feet.

Speaker A: Yeah, 80 total, which is why I wanted to weigh in because there's only been one other time that we've approved a sale and it was for somewhere between 7 and 10 feet to the largest one being 20 feet. Only because it was a straight line and only because of encroachments. This one right here, the distance is twice or 3 times bigger. If we measured this the other day in a meeting, is it 40 feet?

Speaker L: Is that what you're asking?

Speaker D: Yeah, it's like 40 feet from the path to that orange line.

Speaker A: I'm talking about from your property line to the— how much are you asking for? It's 40 feet.

Speaker D: About the same.

Speaker A: And the other one we did 10. So that's a way bigger ask than what we've done on the other trails, and they wanted more and we didn't allow it. So really what my comment is, is I'm not 100— I have taken a stand that I'm against selling our open space, and I'm going to stay consistent with that. I'm not completely against this. My issue is until we decide what the rest of it's going to be How do we know what we need? So my preference would be, tell me what we're going to do with all these open spaces, because we haven't been able to say that. Then let's sell what's left. If we sell this first, then we're then we're boxing ourselves in. And I don't know why it's it's okay to give forty feet on this side and nothing to the other side. If we're going to do that, I'd say twenty and twenty. I mean, so to me, it's a little bit unfair, especially at forty.

Speaker J: feet.

Speaker A: If, if it's to true up a, uh, an encroachment, then do 5 feet all the way so that we can just true up some encroachment. That's really what Todd years ago was trying to, to, uh, clean up. So that, that to me is— this seems like it's just a lot to— until we know what we're doing.

Speaker L: I'm just going to say that that's an arbitrary argument. There's, there's no, there's no data to even To back up what you just said. It's an— it's a personal opinion of you can't have this much.

Speaker A: It might— it had nothing to do with how much. I said, what are we going to do with it?

Speaker L: No, you said you get 40 and the other got 7 or 10. That's your words. What does that have to do with that? This is a separate application. They're not connected.

Speaker A: Okay, finish your statement, because what I said— or let me clarify what I said then so that you can hear it. What I said is until we know what we're doing with that, I don't know how much we can sell.

Speaker L: The rest of my comment is this: how many times are we going to have this discussion and do nothing? I've been here for 2 and a half years. We've had this discussion 4 or 5 times. So who is it that's going to magically decide what we're going to do with these open spaces between houses while the residents continue to have to deal with the fire hazards behind them? They have to deal with the thistles behind them, and it's their path that they're walking through, that their kids are walking to their houses. Where's the compassion there? And they're offering money to solve part of that problem, not come take the whole thing. 40 feet on either side is still 80 feet we can't take care of. So what's the consternation about this? They want to improve their lots by adding an additional 40 feet to the back side of it. They're going to pay us for it, and that's land we no longer have to take care of that we don't have the money to take care of.

Speaker A: So I want to ask one question. Are you willing to give 40 feet to the other side as well?

Speaker L: They're not asking for it.

Speaker A: I think they would if they had the opportunity.

Speaker L: They're not asking for it, so we don't make up scenarios when there isn't another scenario to, to look at.

Speaker E: But it opens up a discussion though.

Speaker L: So let them come ask.

Speaker E: Well, and that's, and that's where I think At least my opinion is that's why I'd like to see the Community Services Board go in there and say we're going to use this or we're not going to use this, and if we're not going to use it, how much are we willing to give up? And do a nice little plan that incorporates like looking at that whole thing and come back with a recommendation, which may be to sell. So I'm not saying I'm not against selling it; I'm just saying I want them to create come create a plan, and then we can we can say okay this this is the land we're willing to give up, and then and then if the neighbors want to come. forward and say, yeah, yep, we're good, we'll come together and we'll buy this. And because otherwise— so for instance, if we go forward with this one, if you— as you proceed north, now it's misaligned with the corridor to the north. Um, and, and so it, it's not the same width.

Speaker D: So the north, you have— we have one home, and then there's Harrier Street that goes up straight through into the new neighborhood. So it's kind of boxed in somewhat. But then on the north side of Harrier is again at the same corridor that opens up to the field between the high school and our neighborhood.

Speaker E: Yeah. No, so anyway, to everyone's points here, like, the city's done nothing about this for decades. And I think, at least my opinion, and I could get overruled, you know, by— overvoted, I think the Community Services Board should take a handful of weeks, study it, come up with a plan, and their plan may be sell it. Or their plan may be—

Speaker L: Let's say they come up with a plan. How are you going to pay for that, though? I mean, the reality of it is, is we're not talking about 16 feet.

Speaker E: It depends on what their plan is. And their plan may— it just depends on what they come back with. I'm sure they're not going to put a theme park in there. You know, it's going to be something simpler. But what they recommend is probably going to be less than what we've got. I can't imagine they're going to use every foot of that. I do foresee this being able to sell. I just want to say that—

Speaker A: I just want to see a plan.

Speaker L: Let's say that they decide they're going to do the 40 feet on the other side. What's lost? 40 feet on the side that they're proposing, 40 feet on the other side. You still have 40 feet to take care of that we can't take care of. And if you want to, you know, take out your shovel and make a new line with the path up there. Now you put 20 feet on either side of it. We'll use an 8-foot path just for kicks and giggles. You still have 14 feet that we can't take care of. And we— people come and say to us, what's your solution to this? How are you going to solve this problem? Oh, well, we're going to pass it off to somebody that's not going to do anything with it. We've done that for 2 and a half years. The same thing happened when I was on the Planning Commission. I'm asking the same question. It's very easy to Oh, well, we're going to come up with a plan. We're going to, you know, we don't like your plan. We don't have a plan, but we don't like yours. And I just feel like—

Speaker B: Sorry.

Speaker L: At some point, we have to say we have to sell some of this land because we don't have the capability of taking care of it behind houses. Now, I'm not saying that we sell all of our open space. It doesn't get rid of the path. We're getting rid of a huge expanse of land we can't take care of.

Speaker F: I—

Speaker I: so I hear the request for a plan, but the reality of it is, is even if the Community Services Board spent 6 months coming up with a plan, we're decades away from being able to pay to do what the plan would be. There's probably 200 of these strips in City Center that the same problem is, and if it costs us what, $50,000? Like, for every single one? That's an exorbitant amount of money that, that we just aren't prepared to do. And I don't see a city council anytime soon saying we're going to fix up all these paths at the peril of something else in the city budget. So I'm at the point where I'm in agreeance with Council Member Wood that I think we should initiate this process. I think we should come up with the options of a standardized option, so when people come, here are your options for paying for it and dealing with it. And I think that it should be very specific. Look at what's there. If there's enough remaining land, then I think we should move forward with the sale, because we can use that money to help pay for improvements and No one else has said this, but as each of those lots increase in size, they also increase in the amount of property tax that comes into our city. And not that I expect each little homeowner to be able to do that, but it's better to have bigger lots and additional size and money coming into the coffers so that we can pay for those services that we've been struggling with all year to pay for. So like, I hear everything, but again, This agenda item is just initiating the process of whether or not we'll make the decision.

Speaker E: So I'd like to hear an explanation. How do you feel it's fair to sell 40 feet here? Because the mayor brought up this question. On the last land disposal that was along this, you know, in this similar area, there was much less. So why was that— why were those citizens not afforded the opportunity to have more?

Speaker I: Why was the city council so tight on how much was I, I think it's less about what the city council did and what was requested, and it doesn't mean that they can't come in and get something else. The other piece is, in my neighborhood, there's no paths down the back of houses. Our yards just butt up against each other. Should I be mad that the city council in 2001 didn't plan ahead and require a path behind my house?

Speaker A: Can I answer that? Because you got a park, and this does not have a path. developer didn't finish their park. That's what that is.

Speaker I: That is a poor excuse for a park, and we're an embarrassment as a city that we're considering that open space and doing absolutely nothing with it. And you know what's crazy is I'm turning into Rich Wood right now.

Speaker A: I'm just—

Speaker I: so I just think that, please, I'm asking my fellow council members to Say yes, let's initiate this process. Simultaneous to that, let's request that the Community Services Board take a look at it and come back and give us some suggestions. And let's start moving forward with this and bring in the money we need to fix things up.

Speaker F: Yeah, I think it, in a budget-neutral way, if we could take the sales proceeds, dedicate them to that, the rest of that space, whether it's Xeriscape or trees or natural, just something that looks better than what exists today. We could probably do that in a budget-neutral way, increase the lot size and not have any impact. It would beautify our city, increase home values. I see that as a, as a positive.

Speaker B: But you do— I mean, the downside to that, Councilmember Hewish, is that you're going to create some maintenance costs for the city. We're going to have to take care of it. We're not taking care of it. taking care of it right now, let's be honest. So, and I'm not saying that I would be opposed to that. I'm just simply saying that there are other consequences of those actions. One of the questions that I have is I don't know what it looks like is if I, if I take your little orange line and I go to the right of the drawing, I don't know what that looks like. And I don't know if there are homes there that have encroached into that open space. And if we're going to be looking at an application from the homes that come there. Yeah, going that way.

Speaker D: Yeah.

Speaker B: And so my, my concern with that specific portion of it is what, what is it going to look like?

Speaker D: Yeah, it doesn't look good. So yeah, so we can, like you said, on the north end, I'm, I'm okay with. We can leave—

Speaker B: There's not any encroachment in those other houses to the park, you know.

Speaker O: Oh, they—

Speaker I: wait, they have a park in that neighborhood?

Speaker D: Yeah, that leads to a park. That's equal.

Speaker I: And a trail. I'm really mad at the city council of 2001.

Speaker D: We have—

Speaker B: yeah, that's funny.

Speaker D: So, and like I said, then you got the area—

Speaker A: That doesn't change the fact that that was a developer-required open space, and that's why it's there, and it was never improved. That's the answer to your question.

Speaker N: But the—

Speaker I: my point is, is if we don't do something about it, it's never going to be improved. So if we're okay with open space that collects dirt, sagebrush, brush, all of that stuff, and just stays there in between homes when it was promised to be something else, then you're right, we should just say, sorry, you guys, we're not interested in selling, we want to have a sagebrush tunnel in every neighborhood, everyone deserves one, and then move on.

Speaker F: I'm okay if we have this go through our Community Services Board and have them give a recommendation. I think I know probably where I'm going to land. And maybe that's our process to institutionalize how we deal with these on a case-by-case basis before they come to the council. So I think Craig, or Councilmember Whiting, brings up a good point to maybe they do have some suggestions and ideas as a process. We should probably do that as a first step before it comes to the council.

Speaker L: If that's the process, then we do it all.

Speaker B: Okay.

Speaker L: So lay out every single neighborhood that has open space between the houses with a path. Let's get it all in the same conversation, and then let's make a plan. But I'm gonna say this also, unless there's this money tree that we're not aware of, still has to be paid for. Even if you do the most basic minimum things, we don't have that money. And so I— that's why I'm confused why we keep fighting this fight. What is it that you're holding on to? If they want to give us money for it, that we could do exactly as Zach suggested and fix the rest of the area that's adjacent to that, money that we don't have to spend to take care of that piece of land that we don't have money to do, why would we be against that? It beautifies the area. And it's going to increase the value of those homes, by the way. Not just the ones that bought that, but the ones that are adjacent to it and all the properties that now benefit from that path being improved. Whereas right now, it's not. It's a blight.

Speaker N: Can I just add one more piece? I mean, I know that we said— we say there's not a plan today, but if I was going to start off and I was going to try to think of a way to facilitate a plan with this, The first check for me would be, is there a regional trail or is there a trail connectivity issue in this property that we need to address? That should be one of the first checks, right? The trail's there, that's a check, it exists. But that's the first thing that I would value or evaluate if I was looking at the disposal of a property and we were looking to improve it, is the connectivity issue and making sure that we have connectivity. Then if it's not needed for connectivity, then maybe we don't have as big of an appetite to improve it or do something else with it.

Speaker G: That's—

Speaker N: I know we don't have a physical plan sitting in front of us today, but that's probably the first step in the criteria that I would look at as I evaluate this.

Speaker I: And I think that's a good thing to make sure that's always a part of the LAN, disposal question. We should be looking at whether or not it's taking away connectivity, trail, that kind of stuff.

Speaker E: I just want the solution to be fair to all the residents that are there. If these residents are given the opportunity to buy a certain amount, we should probably be giving that option to a lot of people there. I'm also concerned if we give 40 feet here and the last group that came we gave 10 or whatever the number is, and those people, we say, fine, we'll go back and sell them additional. What if they already put in fences? Like, there's cost. Now there's extra cost. In fact, it will cost you guys more to fence it than to buy the land. And the amount of money that will come in on these land sales is not— I'll show you the math. There's not much money.

Speaker J: There's not—

Speaker E: it's not like we're going to get a grundle of money that we can go do stuff with. It's not very much money in the big scheme of things.

Speaker L: So give an alternate plan. How are you going to take care of that property?

Speaker E: Well, so my plan was this: to have the Community Services Board not take a long time, take a few weeks, maybe 8, and look at all of that network and make— and help make a recommendation to the City Council saying, this is what we think you should do or not do. And if they say, Trail is all we need there. Then let's then let's figure out how we can start selling this land off to those who are adjacent in a fair way, where it's equalizing the space as much as possible, so everybody has a pretty similar opportunity. And let's get it sold and move on. But we're going to piecemeal it if we if we just approve this one now. Then I promise you there's going to be additional. Like, requests, and how are we going to judge those requests one by one when this is sort of a network in that one area? This isn't like a one-off. It's a network of numerous landowners that border these corridors. So we have a lot of people that fit into this bucket here, not just this row of homes. And I would like to see a plan so it's fair. That's all. I'm not saying I'm not opposed to selling it. And so I'm not against that idea. But I just want a plan that makes sense. And then we pull the trigger on that plan. And then we're done forever. Because we've been discussing this— at least it's been sitting for decades. Let's be the council that figures it out. And this is the solution. This is what we're doing.

Speaker L: Marcus, if we decide that that's what we want to do, do we table this? So we can come back and talk about it after we—

Speaker J: That would be my recommendation.

Speaker K: Yeah.

Speaker L: Anybody have any— anything else they want to say about this? Mayor, will you entertain a motion?

Speaker A: Yep, go ahead.

Speaker L: I want to make sure I got the right one here.

Speaker A: 15A.

Speaker L: 15A. I move that the city council table item 15A, a resolution to be Eagle Mountain City, Utah, authorizing the land disposal application to proceed and directing staff to begin the notice and public hearing process for a portion of Utah County parcel number 382570108, designated as significant real property pursuant to Eagle Mountain Municipal Code 3.30060.

Speaker B: Second.

Speaker A: Okay, I was just going to say, did you want to give direction to the To follow Craig's plan or just table it for now and we'll take care of that later?

Speaker L: I don't— is that—

Speaker H: I think we need to move it to the Community Service.

Speaker A: That's what I'm asking is—

Speaker L: The question is, should the 2 be tied together? That's what we— Marcus, I'm asking you, should we— do we need to give an instruction to have the Community Service Board review all open space between houses as part of this application?

Speaker J: If that's what you want to do, you can do that, yeah, sure.

Speaker L: So moved.

Speaker E: So seconded. Okay, but the open space just in this, this particular area—

Speaker A: I was clear.

Speaker L: I said anytime that it goes between houses, let's have them evaluate it and give us a plan.

Speaker B: Okay, good.

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

Speaker F: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Clark.

Speaker I: Sorry, yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Wright?

Speaker B: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Whiting?

Speaker M: Yes.

Speaker O: Councilmember Wood?

Speaker L: Yes.

Speaker A: Okay, that passes. Thank you.

Speaker B: Mayor, can I, can I just ask a question and maybe make a suggestion?

Speaker A: Sure.

Speaker B: Can we— could we consider adopting or changing our code for the land disposal applications to include a recommendation from our Community Services Board so that before we ever see it, that comes to us with the application?

Speaker L: Sure.

Speaker B: That will clean up the process. We're not going to be telling you we're going to table it, we're going to get back to it. It will be part of the process to initiate it to come to us.

Speaker J: So I will say this, that while the majority of our land disposal applications come for this type of situation where it's open space, that's not 100% of them. And in some cases, it wouldn't make sense to have a recommendation from the Community Service Board. To use an example, the Kroger development where we sold a small piece of land that was not open space, was other land that the city owned to Smith's Food and Drug.

Speaker B: And maybe it's just that contain a trail or that part of a trail network. If you just look at that, Marcus, and help us clean that up so that when we get the information—

Speaker J: If it's existing open space, I think that it makes sense.

Speaker B: Okay, thank you.

Speaker L: So you're probably looking like, now what?

Speaker D: Say that again.

Speaker L: Are you looking at us like, now what does that mean?

Speaker D: Yeah, now what does that mean? Like, so what can I do to help?

Speaker L: Basically, we're going to take this back. We're going to let our Community Services Board go through all the land that's like this. Most of it's going to be in this area and give a recommendation of how that land should be used. Then they're going to come back and give us a recommendation, and we're going to make a decision on your application.

Speaker B: Got it.

Speaker F: And I can get you in touch with the chair of that board.

Speaker J: Okay.

Speaker F: So you can have open communication.

Speaker D: Any future, like, plans that we would have, because, like, if we had more, I would build a detached garage so I can actually park my cars in a garage.

Speaker F: Now you're asking for too much.

Speaker M: Okay.

Speaker D: My garage is—

Speaker I: No, you were singing the song of our people.

Speaker F: One thing at a time.

Speaker A: Keep going.

Speaker D: I can't use—

Speaker F: You'll have to follow the code, whatever, you know, if this all comes to fruition. So yeah, we'll start with the first step.

Speaker D: Yeah, I really appreciate your guys' time.

Speaker A: So really, just for all you guys' information who own property there, Zach is our liaison for the Community Services Board, as well as Melissa. You can stay in touch with them directly or through Lacey.

Speaker F: She handles—

Speaker D: I've been in contact with her.

Speaker A: So she'll keep you posted. It's gonna be— do they meet once a month or twice a month?

Speaker P: Once.

Speaker A: So I mean, this is— it's gonna take a couple of months.

Speaker F: Is that in I mean, it could go on the next agenda.

Speaker A: It could go on the next agenda, but I mean, they've got a lot of things they're already working on, so time—

Speaker I: There's also a map that was started when Todd was still here.

Speaker A: I was gonna—

Speaker I: I was just asking Brad about that. So like, I think there's a really good jumping-off point. It's not like they're gonna have to comb through the parcel map to find them. I think they're already probably highlighted, and they're just gonna have to make those determinations. If we could get them the map and the addresses, they could physically go see them on their own before they come to meet, and that would help them understand the area as well.

Speaker A: One of the other things as far as process that on this particular item at a broad scale, when Todd was making that map, it was the council had the opportunity to designate significant versus insignificant lands, which would have a different process and, and make some of them easier. So if we knew there were areas like this in the city that you wanted to designate as insignificant, then the process would be much cleaner. And it's just—

Speaker J: It's much simpler. It doesn't have the public hearing. It's processed administratively.

Speaker A: And so that's kind of where that was headed with the map. And if that's something you want to do, when we were able to identify that if it's all these areas and it's 10 feet or 20 or all of it, then just designate it insignificant. And then if people want it, it's easy. And that changes how that works.

Speaker L: My understanding is when we incorporated this board, that was the primary goal of this board, was to go take our open space, make sense of what is usable, unusable, and make recommendations to us. And I would like us to refocus back on that if we can, because I'm going to tell you, all of the other things are great. They're not as pressing as that is, in my opinion.

Speaker H: All right.

Speaker A: Appreciate it. We will move on to the next item, 16A, which is a public hearing. This is an ordinance of Eagle Mountain City amending the Municipal Code Section 1625.040 and 1710.030 definitions and 1760.040 60-040, General Landscape Provisions. And Miss Fuchs.

Speaker K: Good evening, Mayor and Council. This one's pretty straightforward. We've talked about it a few times before. It has kind of 2 parts. One part is we need to make some changes in our code due to changes made by the state legislature. And we also discussed if we wanted to do anything else with our code in-house. And so it's also adopting some changes requested by the council. So the first one with the state is that we need to make it so that we allow residents to remove landscaping if the purpose is to be able to create defensible space within a WUI zone. So that's the wildland urban interface for the benefit of the public. Those are areas that have higher wildfire dangers. And so this— what this does is we're also— we talked about the count to the council about if we wanted to do something as a city, and there were some recommendations by the fire officials, but there was some hesitancy to do something citywide and wanted to look at it more on a case-by-case basis. So what this does is we'll add a notation to final plat that the land is within the WUI to help the residents be able to identify that. We're going to make those state code changes. And then also we've made some internal process changes to let the council know when we bring a presentation— an application to you that's within the WUI area, to let you know that it's there so you can take that into consideration as you're making— as you're considering the request. And so this just goes through the actual code changes and the language on it. Let me know if you have any questions. And then I also added in some definitions just as we were doing this to support the code changes. And the Planning Commission recommended unanimously for approval and staff recommends approval. Do you have any questions?

Speaker B: I do, Beth. I have one quick question, Mayor. And the question is, whether or not the Planning Commission will be notified when there's WUI lots in a development plan that they're reviewing.

Speaker K: Yes, they'll be notified.

Speaker B: So is that part of the code, or is it just something that would happen?

Speaker K: We made an— we did an internal process. So in our software, in OpenGov, we check a box. And so when it goes forward, they'll know. But until I, you know, and—

Speaker B: So because it's going to notify us, it will automatically by default notify the Planning Commission.

Speaker K: By the Planning Commission, yeah.

Speaker B: Okay, that's what I wanted to know. Thank you.

Speaker K: It's part of the application. Any other questions?

Speaker A: Seeing none, thank you. We'll move on to our public hearing if there's no other questions. So at this time it is 8:18, and we will open up the public hearing on this item and ask Lacey, if she's heard. No one. Not a single person wants to talk about WUI?

Speaker J: WUI.

Speaker A: Is there anyone here that wants to talk about WUI that did not have the opportunity? Seeing no one, at 8:19, we will close the public hearing and come back to the council. Hey, at least I got UFA to look at me like, hey, that's super important stuff, right?

Speaker C: Yep.

Speaker A: So thank you for our wildlands. Any comments? Nothing more? Go ahead.

Speaker E: Mayor, I move the City Council approve an ordinance of Eagle Mountain City, Utah, amending Eagle Mountain Municipal Code Section 16.25.040, Application, 17.10.030, Definitions, and 17.60.040, General Landscape Provisions.

Speaker F: Second.

Speaker A: We have a motion by Councilmember Whiting, a second by Councilmember Hewish. We'll start the vote with Councilmember Clark.

Speaker I: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Wright.

Speaker H: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Whiting.

Speaker E: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Wood.

Speaker F: Yes.

Speaker A: Councilmember Hewish.

Speaker F: Yes.

Speaker A: All right, that takes care of that one. Um, legislative item 17A, Mr. Magnus.

Speaker L: Good evening, Mayor, council members.

Speaker N: I'm working on the Todd Black Memorial Wildlife Corridor, the renaming. We have 2 options.

Speaker L: So we have the map that has the wildlife corridor, and we can by resolution just change the name right now. But I'm talking to planning. They need to make some changes to the map and readopt it to change some of the borders on it. So they're going to bring that forward and we can do that at the same time, but that has to go to Planning Commission, then come back to you.

Speaker H: So what is your preference?

Speaker L: We could do our next meeting with a resolution, just change the map, and then let them go about their business updating the map later.

Speaker F: Do you, do you have a preference? Is one easier than the other?

Speaker B: Is one more or less impactful?

Speaker L: One, we would change the name now, and the other one, we would change it as the map moves through. Because as the other one, to approve the map, you have to go to the Planning and Housing and Development.

Speaker H: Is there— Turned off on me.

Speaker F: I just learned from Brad a couple weeks ago that we have a more updated— we have more updated map data on the boundary on the corridor than I was aware of.

Speaker H: And so because we have that, we should probably update it on our map.

Speaker F: And so I guess the question is, are you gonna ultimately have any—

Speaker H: I guess the thing that could kind of hold up the process is if you have any concerns about the change from what's on the map now to what's actually what we've mapped since the time it was originally mapped.

Speaker A: So—

Speaker N: And just to add some additional context to that, so we had the broad footprint of the corridor that was there that existed. And so what Todd had been working on is he'd been working with the Alliance and whatnot to narrow that down. And really it showed 2 really large corridors, the one that headed to the south through the Ochre Mountain area, and then also one up kind of south of Cedar Pass, and it was really showing that there was 2 access points. What we were trying to solidify by working through that was the alignment through the Ochre Ranch subdivision.

Speaker L: That would be—

Speaker N: that is the main corridor. And so we were really trying to narrow that down and get it more specific to what we need versus just having this large footprint.

Speaker H: I think the new boundaries are less impactful on people, on residents' properties, I think is the biggest thing you'll probably notice.

Speaker B: Is there an issue with just bringing a resolution forward to get the name change done and then bringing the map forward at a future date when you're ready with it?

Speaker F: Not at all.

Speaker B: That's what I'd recommend we do to just get it done sooner rather than later.

Speaker L: Okay, I'll bring it for the next meeting. And that's all I have because They discussed the road. I was sick last time. They discussed the, the, the road safety studies, if my understanding. So, and then I'm working on an audit of some of the water right now, and as soon as that's done, I will make the presentation about our water.

Speaker A: Okay, thank you, John. Any questions? Any other, uh, council updates for legislative items? Anything you guys wanted to add, or—

Speaker B: okay.

Speaker A: Thank you. If there's not, we'll move on to item 18, which is just the liaison reports and any other council or mayor business. Go ahead.

Speaker B: I'd like to see by a hand— a vote of hands individually who's coming on Monday for the seniors chili cook-off.

Speaker P: I am.

Speaker B: It's at 5 o'clock at the Senior Citizen Center. You're coming?

Speaker D: Yeah.

Speaker B: Craig will be there?

Speaker A: Planning on it.

Speaker B: I'm just curious about Councilmember Wood and Councilmember Pearson. And the reason I'm asking is we're— there's— you saw the email that came from Don, and there's going to be somewhere— we're supposed to plan on somewhere around 30 people-ish. So come prepared to have a contest, because I'm ready to kick your tails. I'm going to win. I'm going to win the first annual Eagle Mountain Chili Cook-off contest.

Speaker E: There's certain contests I would definitely like winning, like pretty much, you know, Settlers of Catan and And things like that. I'm okay if I take second on this one or third, but I'll try.

Speaker B: I'll try. So at least, at least 4 of us will be there. You 2, if you just let me know, the seniors just want to know, and I understand that, that, that, that may not be a time that works for you, and they'll certainly excuse you. We just need to know as far as volume how much food to make for those folks.

Speaker F: Okay, I'll check with the boss.

Speaker B: Um, and then, Mayor, I know, uh, I, I, I was unable to, uh, to attend ULCC on Monday, and hopefully Zach was there and he can give us a little report maybe. I mean, I did get kind of an after-action report on that. Maybe you have something you can share.

Speaker A: Were you in the meeting?

Speaker F: I wasn't able to attend.

Speaker A: Yeah, and I was called in. I was trying to get a substitute as well. I kind of got some of the reports of what's coming, but I didn't participate in the conversation much, and so—

Speaker B: I'll follow up with them. And just make sure that we get the agenda, and I'll ask some questions.

Speaker A: Yeah, that's, uh, and then just a question on the chili cook-off. On some of these, being a dinner like that, do you know, did they say anything about bringing a wife or plus one?

Speaker B: Oh yeah, you can bring, you can bring your plus one, whoever that is, and bring, bring your kids if you want. I mean, it's just going to be fun, and you can come in a costume. You're invited to come in a costume. It's going to be kind of a Halloween bash. I'm afraid they're going to put us on the spot. I don't know what with, but they will. That's the way they— that's their— the way that they operate. So come prepared to get roasted in some way.

Speaker A: So when you ask for permission, tell her she's invited.

Speaker B: Oh yeah, for sure. Well, my wife's coming because otherwise we're not going to have any chili.

Speaker A: Wait, you're not going to win then.

Speaker N: She is.

Speaker M: Well, that's okay.

Speaker B: She'll take the win for the team. But we, I mean, remember that you have to prepare it in the senior center. There are some pretty specific rules about where you can prep that food. It needs to happen in a commercial kitchen. Don sent that information. I just want to make sure you guys reviewed it.

Speaker O: Okay, thanks.

Speaker A: Any other reports?

Speaker I: I, at the Planning Commission, I've noticed that recently there's been a lot of questions about why did the City Council do this, or What was the thought process behind that? And I'm just wondering if there's any more depth that could be added, any more historical context. There were a few different items, and I can't even think off the top of my head which one it was, but I remember sitting there at the most recent Planning Commission going, it would be really cool if they had just a little bit more information, because the lion's share of their questions— I would say probably 80% of their questions— were all related to, I wonder what the city council was thinking with this. And I know it's like super taboo for city council who's just there to observe to get up and give insights, but I am almost wondering if some of that stuff could get included in a staff report. So just something to think about.

Speaker K: Absolutely.

Speaker F: Thank you for the suggestion. We'll work on that.

Speaker P: Awesome.

Speaker I: You're the best. And then our Community Services Board is killing it. I think that they did a really great job with supporting the 250th celebration and just moving things along. I think it's really neat that they're both looking at like the trail plans, but they're also helping to facilitate the suicide prevention walk. I think they really are kind of a sweet spot of bringing all of those boards together that we dissolved earlier this year. And I am just grateful for all the time that they're putting into things. So that's pretty much my report, Mayor.

Speaker F: Chamber had its annual retreat.

Speaker E: Did you call it a retreat? It is a retreat.

Speaker I: Really long meeting.

Speaker D: Really.

Speaker E: And there's— I just— there's a lot of energy there. The board's very engaged. I'm really excited about the vision that they, they put together. So there's a lot of positive stuff happening there. A lot of energy happening with the Youth Council. I visited their booth at Halloween Town. Halloween Town was awesome, by the way. Hopefully you as residents had a chance to go to that. And the Youth City Council had a lot of energy there. I'm looking forward to the activity on Thursday night.

Speaker A: I should probably— I think it's okay to talk about what I've been working on at MAG that's significant, especially for public interest. You know what that is. I should report on that.

Speaker B: Just don't get us in trouble.

Speaker A: Last year in our transportation asks, I asked for— we had a couple roads on there. One was Ranches Parkway and one was the Wildflower Connection. Ranches Parkway did get approved for funding. The Wildflower Connection did not, which was hard. I took a lot of lumps fighting for that. And I Just to report that I think we've got a little bit of a plan that's still in the works, of a way to actually get that back up the list and approved outside of the TIP process, and still get funding for that. So that's something I'm working on that I've told a few of you about that I think is that's going to be a huge, huge win for us and for MAG. They're going to get it cheaper. We're going to get it moved forward, and it. doesn't remove anything off the list. So it really added a project by being creative, and it gives us another road. So no— at no cost to us, all by MAG funds. So it's, uh, that's a huge win. Also, our UFA and UFSA board meetings were this morning. I started early up there, and, uh, it was a pretty short meeting this time of year. Uh, a lot of the budget stuff It's starting to come up again next year, same as us. But that's, you know, we're just getting ready for budget season and looking at where we're at. Their budget's actually the fiscal year, so looking at some of the year-end reports, and I don't know that there's anything significant to report on any of that stuff, just the same moving forward with everything that we're moving forward with. And we talked a little bit about the UFSA and and UFA agreement for Eagle Mountain, and everybody feels like it's good for everybody.

Speaker L: So, yeah.

Speaker F: Could I just add one? This isn't a liaison report, but it's a meeting that I had with Representative Griechus and the state tax representative. I thought this would be maybe helpful for the council, but a question I've had since we embarked on this whole property tax conversation is, Why don't cities have the ability to bifurcate a tax rate for businesses and a tax rate for residents, or for commercial? And to change that, today businesses or commercial, they pay the full property tax rate. There's a discount for residential that exists across the entire state. And to change that would require a constitutional amendment at the state level. So it is a very heavy task and there would need to be a desire at the legislature. So it at least answered that question for me. I've put that out of my mind. It's something that if residents would like to see that, talk to Representative Grecious and whoever our next representative is going to be. So I thought that was kind of an interesting insight from the tax advisor that she brought to our meeting.

Speaker K: Thank you.

Speaker A: All right, nothing else for the liaison reports, um, and communication items that we've already gone over. So if there's nothing else, I will entertain a motion.

Speaker B: Motion to adjourn.

Speaker F: Second.

Speaker A: Always hurry for that one. All right, Council Member Wright has made the motion and Council Member Hewish with the second. All in favor?

Speaker G: Aye.

Speaker A: At 8:32, we We will adjourn the meeting. Thank you. You didn't read the triple.