Transcript — Eagle Mountain Planning Commission, 27 October 2026

Speaker A: This is a—

Speaker B: yeah.

Speaker A: Oh man, 3 slides, Brandon, that's a lot. I know, probably that, but we're running out of—

Speaker B: yeah, 1 minute a slide, they say. That's all you get. You're like, that's all I want.

Speaker A: So I understand the temptation if you have this already sitting there, you have to make payroll, but Yeah. Okay, sorry, we are running out of you all. I think so. I think it might—

Speaker B: We roll into this meeting. Sorry, thanks everybody for hanging in there. A little difficult. Thanks for the support for helping us get figured out. The internet working for our favor. Okay, um, go ahead.

Speaker A: There we go.

Speaker B: Okay, sorry, sorry, I didn't even look over. Are you okay? You all set? Okay, sorry about that. Okay, um, welcome everybody to this evening's Planning Commission. Meaning we'll start our working session today here in just a minute. I'd like to excuse both Commissioner Brian Free, Commissioner DiCorsi, and Commissioner Jensen, who are all unavailable today. So you have 3 of us, so I guess that's sorry for you guys, or whoever's presenting. And no, I'm joking. We'll continue and do our best. But with that, we'll go ahead and our agenda item for the discussion Okay, the next item on our agenda for discussion today is a water rights code presented by Brandon. Okay, Brandon.

Speaker A: Okay, thank you, Chair. Tonight what I wanted to do is just introduce this water rights code to you, get your feedback. The plan is obviously to bring it to you tonight and then to bring it back to a policy session at our next meeting. Meeting, which I think is November 10th. So to kind of preface this, we've been— the city's been going through a lot of work behind the scenes addressing water from a lot of different angles. We've been working on a 40-year water study with Hanson Allen Luce. They've came and spoke to— I can't remember if they came to the council to this body, but I know they've talked with the council and shown a kind of a rough draft, a first kind of version of that 40-year water plan. And I know they're continuing to kind of work that document out and complete it. In addition to that, we've been working, we've had meetings, gone to workshops talking about things like water conservation. And so from— we had some of our senior staff go to a meeting, a water workshop at Midway, up in Midway earlier this summer. And from that, there were a number of items that we kind of decided needed to be addressed. And one of them, and again, I think it was generally related to water conservation, but it kind of from that sprung other things we needed to do. And one of those was kind of related to this water rights code. You're familiar with John Magnus, who's kind of our legislative analyst here at the city, and he does a lot for the city. But one of the important things he does is he's actually the one who's become kind of our water rights expert. He's looking at our— he's basically keeping track of all of our water rights. You know that there's state water rights, underground water rights, and then you're familiar with our Central Utah water that we get. He's managing our water rights database, becoming familiar with both the state water rights and the Central Utah water rights and keeping track of them. So we met in the summertime and have been fleshing this out for a little while. We've had a process for accepting dedications for water, but it's kind of been You know, a lot like with a lot of the rest of the city, it needed to grow up. And, and, you know, you had, you had one person who learned how to do all of this, and, and there was never anything really, um, set in place as it should have been, like codified. And, and, uh, there weren't really solid procedures in place. And so now we're going through that process. John laid out for me some pretty solid kind of policies he wanted to operate by. And he handed me those, and the idea was that I was supposed to take those policies and make a code based on those policies. So that's what this code is before you.

Speaker B: It's—

Speaker A: there's 10 parts to it because we have to hit lots of different sections of the code to make it work. But for instance, we had to dive into the public utilities title of the code in Title 13. We had to hit a few places in Title 16 related to development. Well, actually, most of this is in Title 16. So we've— so there's bits and pieces of code that are going to be tweaked in existing Sections, and then we created a whole new chapter just to deal with the dedication and acceptance of water rights. So, ten parts. We're working on trying to solidify our water water rights process and to codify it. Where this code would establish a kind of a position called a water rights analyst. And John Magnus is that person who's really playing that role right now. So one of the things it does is— some of the important things that this code does is it establishes the timing of when water will be dedicated. We've had some trial and error with water rights. We've had situations where It's we'll get to the building permit stage, and we still haven't tied down water rights. And and it's it's really been a kind of a trial by fire. And so we're like we don't want to go through that experience again. So what this code would do, as as as you've looked at it, is residential water rights would be established at either through the MDA process, and if there isn't an MDA involved. then it would be established at the preliminary plat process. So there, you're— the developer would, would go through the dedication process up front. Then if they're not— if it's not residential water, then, you know, for like, uh, say we just have this Costa Vida that's just opening up, uh, if, if that were to come in after this code, they would— the code would tell us clearly that you dedicate water at the time of the building permit. And so that'd be the same for commercial, industrial, anything like institutional use. We've been meeting with Wasatch Behavioral Health. That's an example of a— and they want to establish a presence here in the community. That's an institutional use that, um, that, uh, you know, isn't commercial or, or, uh, industrial. So this code gives us kind of the timing of dedication. It is— it also— we, we even tweaked the concept plan process to— or we're proposing to tweak the concept plan process to add a requirement for a will-serve letter. It gives Public Works, the city engineer, and the water rights analyst, John Magnus, an opportunity to kind of look conceptually at a proposed development and give us an opportunity to say, yep, we will serve your development. You give us some water rights to look at and let us Give us an infrastructure plan and we'll verify that yes, there's sufficient water and infrastructure to serve your development. So that's one of the things we've been trying to do up front for a lot of just development in general is to try to get in front of the application process, have pre-application meetings. We recently updated the concept plan requirements a few months ago to require developers to give us certain information that will help us to really look at water connections, road connections. And so that's— this will-serve letter is just kind of part of that process. Um, what the Water Rights Code, it, it, uh, one of the, the main things in, in that code is it, it says— and, and this was an addit— a more recent addition from a request from John Magnus, a proposal, was that proposal to require all owners of the land and water to be applicants to an application. And that makes perfect sense to me. We don't want to have a situation where, you know, you've got an applicant and all of a sudden a water right owner gets surprised or wasn't fully aware that, you know, of all the ins and outs of a land use proposal. So we want to just get rid of any possibility of someone getting a surprise. And I've seen that before. I've seen in a planning commission meeting a property owner say, hey, I didn't know my land was proposed for a rezone. And it does happen. So So, um, so is— and I'm kind of hitting some of the high points of this code, and I'll jump into it here in a second. But, um, for a— so when a building permit comes in, the code talks about a building permit comes in, and there is— we use a software program called OpenGov And if you looked in that program, it has like a laundry list of steps that an application needs to go through. So we added a step for our water rights analyst to— and we're doing some of this now, because we have to have some process for managing water rights. But we obviously need to codify it. So we have a process for our water rights analyst Building permit comes in for a new Costa Vida. And the way this is supposed to work is that, okay, city engineer, you've got a certain number of days. You get— I can't remember. I believe it's like 3 days to look at the water and determine how much water is needed for this use. And then the applicant has to come in and demonstrate that they have sufficient water to meet that calculation from the city engineer. So through the application process, if we're talking about like an MDA water right documentation, they have to submit— and we're talking about a well right— they have to submit A change application. A change application is, is an application used to change like the, the use of water or where it can be used. Um, sometimes we, we have water that, uh, maybe was— somebody's bought some water that was, you know, was pertinent to a piece of ground more on the southern end of the city. Now they want to use it more by Unity They have to go through a process to change the point of diversion, or where that water can be used. So they have to provide that type of documentation, ownership information, for the water rights analyst to review. There's a process, we spell out the process for banking water with the city. That, again, we've got our water rights analyst who's the one who manages the water, who these developers or owners will go to to work out those water right, those banking issues. We've gone through, we've spelled out the process for dedication and for keeping records of water that get banked. Banked and dedicated to the city. I'm going to dive into this in just one second, the code, but a couple of more quick points. When a developer— actually, I'm just going to go right to it because I think this will make— let's see. I'm going to go backwards. A little bit here. Let's go. So you'll see right here in 1667, water rights required a building permit for shell. So there, a water right—if you've got like a multi-tenant building like this. One that's just, you know, just to the northwest of us here with the Costa Vida and Papa Murphy's. The water is going to be— there's going to be water required at the Shell. It's— we need— we want to make sure that when that building is constructed that we're given a certain amount of water. Um, and then our code, uh, does provide for— our water rights analyst and our public, uh, public works director do want a provision for us to be able to require a future tenant to increase water, uh, to require additional water if there's an increased demand. If, you know, you had a, a game shop like we've got this game shop across the street, if that user left and all of a sudden you've got like a really heavy intensive use, we'd be able to require some additional water. So that's one thing I did want to point out. So I especially want to go through, just see if you have any questions on especially the brand new chapter, and kind of talk through this a little bit. I mentioned, you know, this section is just kind of the purpose statement explaining why we're— what the purpose of this new chapter is. And then applicability, it's telling you that master development, MDPs, and preliminary plats are when residential uses Or when your residential waters come in and it's applicable, obviously. It's also telling you that these requirements are applicable to a building permit when for non-residential uses. So mentioned the property ownership requirement already. Should probably have grabbed my— actually, I'm going to grab my So determination of water rights, I kind of explained this. This is the process when a new permit comes in and then the city engineer goes, gets 10 days to look at the— look at how much water is needed for use. Brandon, can I ask a question on that? Yeah.

Speaker C: So are we doing the initial calculations? So they submit the development to us, and then the city engineer has to look through it, and they will say, like, this is how much you need, versus putting that responsibility on them at the beginning?

Speaker A: Well, let's take a look at that. It's been— the responsibility is upon the developer, and that's what the Public Works— and if you don't think we've got the right language, we can always modify that. So I guess that's part of the reason we're here, that the intent was for— because I actually changed a couple of words in here.

Speaker C: Okay, yeah, because the one I'm looking at, the one in the packet, it kind of makes it seem like the city engineer will do it, especially like in— let's see, review the quantity of water rights required to serve, and then B, it says shall identify the required water dedication amount and provide any supporting calculations upon request. It almost seems like the city engineer has to— now again, there's pros and cons to both, right? Like, it'd be nice to make them do it so we're not wasting city time, but we also have to make sure they're using the same calculations. So when the city engineer's looking, it's always apples to apples.

Speaker A: Otherwise it'd get kind of confusing. That one, and I totally know what you're saying on that because I did go in here and change some of the wording. I'm trying to find an example of where I did it. Um, like we used We got rid of the word determine. I think there was— we used the word determine in this section, this particular section, a couple times, and we replaced it with review. I think it used to say determine the quantity of water rights required to serve the proposed development and use, and I changed it to review to kind of hit home that point, but perhaps it doesn't go far enough to do that. And at the same time, like, I guess we want to, in my mind, I'm like, we want to be careful to give the city engineer the ability to say, no, you don't have enough, you know, based on our calculations, you did, you know, the information you've submitted, you haven't, we don't think you've submitted enough water or you're proposing enough water. So—

Speaker C: So are there standard, like, calculations out there? Again, I'm not a water engineer, but that they would usually use like, hey, a home uses X number of water, like gallons per day or acre-feet per year or whatever. And then that's kind of standard across the board so it's faster for the city engineer. Or do we just need to say, hey developer, here's the calculations we're gonna be using? 'Cause we wanna make sure they're being held to our standard, right?

Speaker A: For our water.

Speaker C: So it's again, apples to apples.

Speaker A: And when I've talked with the public works, I think you've met Bryce, Bryce at Public Works, Bryce McCray. He is kind of the guy who does those calculations. He's the person responsible for doing those calculations. For residential, it's spelled out very well what water's required. When I've talked to him about commercial and other uses, it's gonna take some time. He's developing a spreadsheet or a database where basically it's like, okay, the Costa Vida required this much water. Eventually there's gonna be a database to say, okay, we did a Costa Vida here and there's a Cafe Rio coming in up north. We know that essentially we needed such a, you know, they'll know, have a better idea of how much water to require. But I'm not totally familiar Aware that there there is like a really. I know Bryce would probably be able to answer that question better than I would, but I from what I've heard, it still seems like there's still some data that we have to to grow into and develop before we're super strong. Like like I said, residential we can do that. Commercial still kind of a work in progress is what I.

Speaker D: Here.

Speaker A: So, um, and, and so, but Brad, um, Brad Hickman, our Public Works director, again, if you don't feel like we're meeting that, Brad wanted— he asked me to make a couple of changes to this, and I made them right before I gave this to you. The idea was for us to review and to put the onus on the, the, on, on the, uh, developer and the applicant to provide that data. So, um, for instance, I can be— if, if you feel like the city shall identify, um, the required dedication amount, um, yeah, you might— you could say—

Speaker B: sorry, I can kind of see where that, from a tone or the language perspective, the city the city shall confirm the required water right proposed by the applicant, because in the definitions, Yeah. 1710.30, it's very clear that the water rights analyst means an employee, contractor, individual, or firm, Right. responsible to dedicate the water to the city. So that's the equation from the applicant, right? Hey, they are doing that. They're providing it at this new, clarified process at either as part of building permit or MDA.

Speaker A: Right.

Speaker B: And they're saying, hey, here's our calculations. And so, it could just be, you're not, you're confirming, the city's gonna confirm, you know? And I'm guessing somewhere, I don't know if the state has, if the Division of Water Rights has a table of water per use. Because you're right, from a residential, it's like, well, it's a quarter-acre lot, half-acre lot, you know, whole-acre lot. But then you get into commercial, you got a game store, and you got a dog grooming, a pet grooming store that's gonna use a lot more water, right?

Speaker C: Right.

Speaker B: So commercial doesn't fit all, but if, and I suspect that Whether the city has determined those uses or they're using the state's, you know.

Speaker A: And we've had conversations about this. I can double-check with them. I mean, we've actually been working on this for months, but I will double-check and see if there are calculations. When I think we've talked about this in the past, I think the idea was that there weren't really good calculations to borrow from other places. I'm pretty sure we've— I'll double-check, but I'm pretty sure we addressed that question.

Speaker B: Okay.

Speaker A: But I will definitely bring that up, and I really like the idea of, like, confirmed steps.

Speaker B: Yeah, yeah, that would be part of it. But like anything else, as we get applicants that come in there, they're doing the work that meets the code, and our good staff is reviewing it, and they're saying, oh hey, this meets all the code for this one spot. They didn't put a screen around their air conditioning unit.

Speaker A: Yeah, we're not—

Speaker B: Right, you're not— they're not doing it. They're just confirming it. But I guess the question is, if the city has volumes of water per use somewhere, like whether it's a commercial use or maybe, of course, into that category you get Subcategories of type of commercial use. So somewhere the city is going to say, okay, here's here's what we calculate based on either acreage or use type. Are those known so that the applicant what what is the applicant? Because in theory, like if I was an applicant, I would say, hey, I'm doing a dog grooming business. How much water am I supposed to do, and I would suspect they reach out to the correct individual at the city and they say, oh hey, this is our chart.

Speaker A: Right.

Speaker B: Is that available to applicants so that they know exactly, oh, okay?

Speaker A: There is some of that available, but like I was explaining, it sounds like it's a work in progress.

Speaker B: So they would have to do some research beyond city code requirement that says, oh, my, pet grooming business, I looked around and people use this amount of— this much water.

Speaker A: Right.

Speaker B: So they would have to— they'd have to figure out, like everything else, I mean, they, they need to do their due diligence.

Speaker A: Yes, I think they'd have to rely on their engineer. I'll give you an example. I mean, this is way bigger than like, um, a dog grooming business, but we've been having discussions with QTS about their, their expansion north of their current— of where the buildings are currently constructed. And we asked them for a report showing how much water they think they'll need to— for that, for those new 7 buildings. And so we threw out the idea like, well, you have other facilities in the western United States, like in Arizona, how much water did it take to run those buildings there? And it wasn't that straightforward.

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker A: But for them to provide that data. But yeah, we, in a lot of cases— and that's one case where we had to just basically ask, hey, we're not sure, can you show us? We need an engineer, we need something from your engineer showing is how much water is going to be required for this use.

Speaker B: Well, I guess on the flip side, from the city's side, the city, if they don't know the exact, you know, if it's a commercial use or industrial use, right? If our, the water rights analyst or the city engineer is like, we've never done this kind of commercial, you know? So they would, we would be doing something similar. If not, if there hasn't been a, And I guess it doesn't have to be codified in the code, but if there hasn't been developed that framework to say, okay, we know where we stand.

Speaker D: Right.

Speaker B: This isn't necessarily— the applicant needs to justify theirs separately, 'cause it could be very unique to their particular size of development or business. And then, but somewhere you're either going to You know, take what they give, make an estimation. But maybe internally we have, okay, these are the ranges.

Speaker A: Yeah, and we're working on that.

Speaker B: It sounds like you have something like that already in the works or already documented.

Speaker A: Bryce is working on it. I've seen his spreadsheets.

Speaker B: Gotcha.

Speaker A: And we've talked through this idea of, boy, as time goes on, it's really, It's interesting being here when we're really kind of like toddlers in commercial development. And so it's, you know, as time goes on, we're going to have a lot more data to work with.

Speaker B: Yeah, you'll know.

Speaker A: But I mean, but at the same time, you know, there might be holes in our data. But what we do at that point is like we have JWO Engineering as a water consultant that we've used a lot. We can consult with them. We can go and talk with other cities. Oh, okay, yeah. You know, like, I believe we—

Speaker B: To confirm the volume.

Speaker A: Yeah, exactly. We'll go and ask, hey, Saratoga, how much water did you use for your Costa Vida?

Speaker B: Okay.

Speaker A: So that's— those are the kind of things that we're doing that we can do to kind of fill in some of that gap of information. What, from a city standpoint, what repercussions Do we have if, you know, we take their word for a car wash and we don't know for sure, they get in and obviously they start using a lot more water than what they had proposed? Or can we come back and say, hey, look, you got to get more shares of water, you got to do something? Or, or are we stuck with it? Do we own it once that we say yes? Yeah, I mean, I know that when there is a provision in the code to when a new development turns over, when we— and you've got a new use. But as far as requiring more water just because it's using more, there's nothing in this code. And I'm trying to think, I know that we monitor water rights, and we monitor water rights like I know we're monitoring the uses is how much water is being used at these commercial facilities here close by. I'm not familiar with the code. There are other codes in our— there's other requirements in our city code that probably address that. I'm not sure.

Speaker D: The short answer to your question is no. So, you know, us requiring somebody to dedicate water rights is what's called an exaction. And so anytime you do a development exaction, you're essentially saying, because of your new development activity, we're requiring you to give us something in exchange to offset the impact of your new activity. So, you know, one type of exaction is an impact fee. Another type of exaction is you have to dedicate land for a road, things like that. So water rights are along that same type of thing. So when the new development is coming in, it is okay to exact less than the actual impact. It is not okay to exact more than the actual impact. So typically these things are a little bit conservative, and so they tend— they don't have to be like every single development application has to be exactly the right amount of water. It can be averaged out over similar types, so we don't have to say, well, every particular house is gonna use exactly 0.75 acre-feet of water. You can say, homes in general of this size with this big of a lot are gonna use this amount of water for outdoor, indoor use. And so we can do that, we can average that out. But generally speaking, you tend to be a little bit conservative with that, 'cause you don't wanna over-exact, and then you run into takings claims. So if you have an ordinance that says, yeah, and we make calculations, and we don't exact We're kind of stuck with that. The way you regulate that, of course, is through how much you charge for using water. That's the best way to regulate it after the fact, water use. And so there's various ways that you can do that, but currently we have, you know, certain fees that are adopted in our consolidated fee schedule that regulate, you know, commercial users and how much they're charged for how much water they use.

Speaker B: Right.

Speaker A: But that's why it's critical that we look for this stuff stuff up front. Like, for instance, I know that we've got this new Kroger development coming in, and, and one of the proposed uses is potentially a car wash. And so we've been looking at, uh, tables that, that the developers provided showing like, hey, if there's 30— there's roughly 30 pads on that site. And, and so they gave us a spreadsheet, and it's like, okay, here what we're proposing like probably a, you know, a retail, walk-in retail store, like an AT&T or T-Mobile type of facility, low water use. And then all of a sudden we get one that says 23 acre-feet of water a year and for a car wash. And so we're— That's why we're working hard to codify these things so that we have tools to really to hold developers accountable, especially at the front, obviously at the front of the process, according to what Marcus said. We have to be careful about what we exact. So 65, or excuse me, 164250 talks about water right documentation. It identifies the documentation that an applicant types of, documentation that an applicant might have to submit. And along with that, one of the things we kind of spelled out here as well is like if there's a new water right that's not in our database, we're telling them they've got to go through that change application process with the state. That's when you're dealing with like an underground well right. So that's usually like a 3 to 4 month process to go through that. Um, there's even a protest period involved. Someone, an adjacent user, could protest your, your, uh, change application because they, they may claim that there's some type of, uh, negative effect that could— that they could incur through that change application. So we're just telling them, yeah, applicant, you got to, you know, before we accept this, you've got to go through and change all the water. One of the important things that happens is you'll get a water right, and, you know, say it's— a lot of times it'll be, you know, water that's been used for agriculture, it's been irrigation water for agriculture, and now they, they want to use it for the city. So they've got to go through the process of changing the use to municipal, municipal use. They've got to change it in favor of Eagle Mountain city, change it to line up with one of our wellheads. And so it's, it's kind of a process. So before they need to go and hammer those things out with the state before, you know, we start processing their application. So, um, and again, we've kind of hit this home, it's kind of a belt and suspenders type thing. I think we say this in multiple spots in our overall city code. But, you know, just the idea that water can be purchased from the city if it's not residential use, for non— Yeah, for non-residential use. Then we have a section here about the water rights analyst. And this is another one of those sections where we changed it. words like determined to review. So if you see anything here where we're still, you know, making determinations or you go— if we're doing anything less than reviewing and confirming, then those are things we're going to want to check.

Speaker D: But—

Speaker A: Can you confirm the water range?

Speaker B: Maybe I misread this definition. So this is an employee, contractor, individual, or firm really representing the city?

Speaker A: Yeah, right.

Speaker B: It's, it's the, it's the city individual tasked?

Speaker A: Yep.

Speaker B: Okay, so it's not— there isn't an applicant water rights analysis?

Speaker A: No, no, it's someone—

Speaker B: water rights analysis means it's, in this case, it's Sounds like a city employee.

Speaker A: Yep.

Speaker B: Right, but the city could determine other means and method.

Speaker A: Right.

Speaker B: Reviewing it from the city's perspective to ensure that it meets— okay.

Speaker A: Exactly.

Speaker B: All right, I misread that.

Speaker A: Yep, sorry. Yeah, like I mentioned, like John Magnus is essentially functioning as our water rights analyst now. So if for some reason, I don't foresee this happening with the growth of the city, You know, smaller cities will contract out work like that.

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker A: So, yeah. Banked water rights. This lays out kind of the process for banking water rights with the city. Has to obviously meet other sections of our code. They have to go through— there's a process for transferring banked water rights from one owner to another. The water rights analyst is going to review all of that, keep records of it. And a lot of this is talking about the water rights analyst keeping track of our database. Water rights dedication. This is when water is actually, yeah, dedicated to the city. And they, they go through, through a process. Um, there's a process of, of de— of it is actually being conform— or conveyed to the city. And so there may need to be things like, like it says in there in that list, like title insurance and and deeds and so forth. So because it's actually being transferred to the city at that point, um, and, and there's, uh, obviously a process with, uh, there may need to be work with the record— recording with the, with the, the county as well. So, um, and, and, and kind of in the spirit of like view of the city just being a reviewer. Like, you look at subsection F there, and it talks about the applicant being responsible for the costs. Kind of getting towards the end of this chapter, acceptance of the water rights. City— you can't just dedicate water to the city. Actually, the city actually has to accept it. There may be a situation where we don't want somebody's water. So there has to be an actual acceptance. And one of the things that I guess I didn't point out, that this code, as you review it, there can be— there's provisions for a lot of people being involved in this process, like the city engineer, city attorney, Frankly, our office probably gets involved quite a bit in— there's a lot of back and forth between us and the city engineer about how to manage the application. And so there's a lot of people. We also have a water rights attorney that we consult with. And so we— that's probably somebody that will get involved quite a bit in this process. process. So, um, but that's, that's essentially it. Um, we had to— these last few sections, we're kind of tucking in some of these. Some of these requirements are repeated repeats, but they're, they're put in another, in a, another place. Like, uh, this section right here, uh, Part X, is our building permit section. And sometimes it's helpful for staff Like, you know, they may forget to look in the water rights section, but they'll see, oh, okay, we're processing a building permit and we need to make sure that we're requiring water at the time of a shell permit. So both of those I think are probably repeats from— just to make sure they're kind of caught at the right time while we're reviewing applications. So some things that I'll just touch on these because I don't think I need to dive too much into these, but like we dealt a little bit, had to add some language into like the sections related to master development plans. One thing that I like this right here because it This section tells you, okay, you got to give us residential water at the MDP stage, but we're going through master development, we're going through master planning phase, so we need you to also submit information. You need to demonstrate that you have sufficient water for your commercial and your industrial that you're proposing in your master development plan. And so we've tried— we're really trying to make sure that we're looking for these things up front so we don't get surprises in the middle of the process. But that's— I think I've hit the highlights, the main points. Well, one other thing. We tried to look at other little nuances here, other things that could become an issue. Like an MDP expires, the approval expires in 6 months if you haven't done everything necessary to kind of consummate that approval. And so in order to give time for people to do a change application, we added a provision for 9 months for those that are are doing a change application so they have time to do those. So, because again, 3 to 4 month time period to get those done.

Speaker B: So in these cases, for example, if residential through the master development agreement process or, or another type of applicant that isn't that, you know, a preliminary plat, yeah, are the water rights that are Reviewed, you know, ultimately dedicated and accepted. Are those required prior to the issuance of said agreements, or are the acceptance of the water rights a condition of the math? Like the master development agreement would say, "Hey, this agreement is conditioned on within nine months you've provided X water rights," and the opposite for the building permit say, "Hey." So, is it this building permit is issued with a condition, you know, that you have X number of days to dedicate, or are the— is it the dedication and the acceptance process required prior to even issuing those building permits?

Speaker A: Prior to issuing the building.

Speaker E: Prior to.

Speaker A: Yeah, we wouldn't want to issue the building permit.

Speaker B: Okay, so for building permit, but MDA would— because for the Master Development Agreement, would those be a condition? Like you allow them time, you know, certain time to work on it? Like, it sounds like that's what that 6 was, is that you'd have—

Speaker D: anyway.

Speaker A: Yeah, they are— the intent is for those 2, the water issues to be ironed out by at least by the MDA, the Master Development Agreement.

Speaker C: So—

Speaker D: Okay.

Speaker A: And I'm just looking at this really quick to make sure that we— it says here water for the residential use shall be required through the master development plan and agreement application process. As we— I think as we talked, and maybe Marcus, you might remember this, but I felt like we had talked about the idea of that water being nailed down by no later than the master development agreement. It would be done by at least that time.

Speaker D: Yeah, kind of the discussion is essentially that, you know, what we've encountered in our history as a city is that applicants will come in, They'll get vesting and have really no, like, and then just sell it and get out of them and get out, right? Because the biggest increase in the value of the property comes with the vesting.

Speaker C: Yeah.

Speaker D: So, what happens is there's no actual plan as to how to develop the property. There has, in a lot of cases historically, there was no actual plan on how to develop the property at the time that they got vesting. They're like, great. We have this vesting. It's going to get, you know, in the older history of the city, it was like we're going to be entitled to X number of units, and there's going to have the zoning. And so it's not totally without a plan. But how we're going to, you know, bring water to the property or any of the utilities, how, you know, we're going to, you know, dedicate the water, that's all just going to be figured out later. That's kind of been the approach. And what we have is a situation where we have, you know, 20,000 plus units that are vested, quote unquote, in our city, and the majority of them have no water associated with them and no way to develop. And it just creates a situation where you have these properties who are just sitting there that, you know, can't be developed realistically. And it just doesn't make any sense for anybody involved for a property to be vested. So the periods, you know, in a situation where someone is applying for a master development plan, then it's going to be at the time that the MDP is approved and then the subsequent master development agreement is approved and executed. That's when the vesting occurs. The master development plan approval is always contingent on the execution of the agreement. And if that agreement never gets executed, then the approval is void. So that's really the period where vesting occurs, when that master development agreement is approved and executed. So it makes sense that the water rights then be conveyed at that time when vesting occurs. On the flip side, you know, when there is no master development plan, would be typically a smaller development of less than 50 acres, or, you know, somebody applies for a master development plan waiver in accordance with our ordinance and it's granted, then it would be preliminary plat is basically when you're vesting, you know, the sort of density of the property, and that would be the time where it would make the most sense, at least certainly in a residential context, for delivering water rights so that, hey, we know this property can actually be developed, as opposed to we have this vesting and it's just going to sit there idle for, in some cases, you know, decades.

Speaker B: All right.

Speaker D: Okay.

Speaker A: I'm wondering, as I'm looking at this language, and you bring up— I'm glad you pointed this out or put my eyes on this section. Um, I'm wondering if we could say something to the effect that, uh, water, water for residential use shall be required not through the master development, but maybe say something that would say it has to be— should we say something like dedicated by no later than development agreement?

Speaker B: I mean, logically, from a city's perspective, you would say, hey, you've gone through this process, right? You're going to develop this, we've approved it. That you would say— you wouldn't see the MDA and tell, hey, they've dedicated, we've accepted the water rights. Right.

Speaker D: Yeah. And in cases where— so are you referencing just—

Speaker A: Kind of right where I highlighted.

Speaker D: It's a little— so yeah. Should be required. So I mean, so you're—

Speaker A: Oh, sorry.

Speaker D: So is the suggestion that it should be, you know, while only water for residential use, should be required to be dedicated or something to that effect?

Speaker A: Yeah.

Speaker D: Is that what you're suggesting? I think that does make a lot of sense to— Kind of tweak the language that way to clarify what's required.

Speaker A: Yeah, because it's saying at the master development plan stage, not through it, but at. I mean, I'd just be a little more precise with that language.

Speaker B: Yeah. Now, I would suspect applicants may wish to not do that.

Speaker A: Right.

Speaker B: Right? Maybe through their development they have, you know, they're going to be working on it, and we would step in, the city would step in and say, nope, That might have been how it was done. We're changing that. If you are insistent on proceeding with the MDA, we support it. You now have to go now to do the water right dedication process before we even sign the agreement for full vested rights.

Speaker A: Right. I'm thinking right here it says shall be required through the MDA. I just think we Maybe we should say something like required at the time of MDA.

Speaker B: Yeah, that would be—

Speaker A: Approval of MDA.

Speaker D: Again, I would clarify, require the dedication of the water is required.

Speaker A: Yeah, exactly.

Speaker B: Yep. That would be— so behind the scenes, Brandon, what do you think applicants that have been working in the city for years, how will they take some— I mean, because this has been something that the city's been working on You know, for some time to clarify the process, to making sure that now this is dedicated earlier, clarified. Are the applicants going to be on board, or are they going to find ways to dislike the new established process?

Speaker A: Yeah, well, I'm sure they're going to have a little—

Speaker B: Which is fair. Yeah, it's fair. For everybody.

Speaker A: But I feel like our city has had some learning lessons over the years with water, and it's becoming such a, like, you know, like a resource that's— we're struggling so much with water. We really need to be careful with it, and the city's getting really smart with it. I think this is just an example of that. We're really working hard to be really wise stewards. The development community is probably going to be a little frustrated. I mean, they were frustrated when we stopped selling water for residential use, and we'll see some fallout from this. But I just think we've got to be really smart with the water. We're going to end up really sorry in the future if not.

Speaker B: We trust them so much. We want them to be a party to us. But hey, we have to look out for the future You know, beyond what they may be doing in the next 5, 10 years, right? You know, their business will be— at least a particular development may be constructed, their agreement will be done. City's still got to worry about the same issue.

Speaker A: Exactly.

Speaker B: Into the future.

Speaker A: Exactly. Just like Mark was talking about, people set these things up and they'll sell it off to somebody and like, hey, I just made it.

Speaker B: Like, great, you have $2,000 invested, right? Uh, you— but, but, you know, how are you gonna do that, right?

Speaker A: Right. Okay.

Speaker B: I—

Speaker A: that's, uh, what I've got for you. So if there's other questions you guys have, I'm glad to—

Speaker C: More of a comment. I think this is awesome. I can see there was so much thought and effort that went into it. I really think other cities will probably start looking at what we have and copying it, right? And so I think developers will get used to it. It might take some time, but I think more cities will pick up on it. And if we can create a database of commercial usage, you know, projected and actuals, we could even share that with other cities, right, and help them get further along. Because you're right, as a state, we need to be far better at water conservation. So I think, as in quite a few things, Eagle Mountain can really lead out in this, which is cool. So props to you and everyone working on this.

Speaker A: Yeah, absolutely. There's a lot of good work. I can't tell you, like, there's so many great people working here. Like, Marcus is amazing, but so is like Brad Hicks, Brad Hickman, and Bryce McRae, and all these, Mac. These guys are really smart, and they're putting in a ton of work behind the scenes to like try to put the city on as solid a foundation as they possibly can. So this is just, there's been— This document had input from everybody from Ben to, To Marcus, to— if there's mistakes, they're mine, they're not Ben's or whatever. But there's just been a lot of people. John Magnus put his mind in here, Brad Hickman, and so forth.

Speaker C: So yeah, and hopefully this will help ease the mind of the public, right? They're always worried about water rights. Well, hey, now we've got a very, like, listed out process, very detailed, and people can't build if they don't have the water. And so it's a very easy conversation to have with the public.

Speaker B: Yeah, absolutely. Just trying any, any other— okay, I'm good. Thanks, Brandon. Good conversation, good progress behind the scenes. Of course, we never know all the work that goes on there, but thanks to the presentation. Okay. All right, that is, um, it is, uh, 6:28. We'll go ahead and, um, in lieu of reviewing our agenda, commissioners, I'm going to skip that portion of our working session, if that's okay. And end— you guys, commissioners, okay with that? Okay. All right, we'll go ahead and end the working session at 6:28, and we'll begin in just a couple minutes for the policy session. Megan, you okay? All right, I'd like to welcome everybody to our policy session. for Planning Commission this evening. Just note the start time is 6:31 PM. I'd like to just point out that Commissioner Freeh, Commissioner DiCorsi, and Commissioner Jensen are all excused this evening. So there'll be 3 of us here representing a quorum. And if we'll call the meeting to order, please stand and join with me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Speaker A: I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Speaker B: Okay, next we'll do our declaration of conflicts. I'll begin. Commissioner Hess has none. Commissioner Strong?

Speaker C: None.

Speaker B: Commissioner Allen?

Speaker C: None.

Speaker B: Okay. Next are meeting minutes. And there is a note, and Marcus, if you'll clarify this, if this is correct or not. So there's 3 of us representing today as a quorum, and we want to consider minutes, to approve the minutes from last meeting's minute, last Planning Commission. Commissioner Allen was not in attendance.

Speaker D: He's still entitled to vote.

Speaker B: Okay, okay, perfect.

Speaker D: I mean, it's— I think it's been a practice where somebody not in attendance has abstained. I'm not aware of any legal requirement of that.

Speaker B: Okay, okay. So, um, with that said, just through the seer, are you okay to, you know— okay. I didn't, um— Commissioner Strong, did you see any comments? I didn't have— I reviewed the meeting minutes. I didn't have any No, I'm good.

Speaker C: Okay.

Speaker B: All right. Um, well, with that said, I'd like to proceed with a, a vote, and I make a motion to, uh, approve the October 13th, 2026 Planning Commission meeting minutes.

Speaker A: I'll second that.

Speaker B: Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Hess and a second by Commissioner Strong to approve the meeting minutes from last meeting. Um, and we'll proceed with our vote. Uh, Commissioner Strong?

Speaker E: Yes.

Speaker B: Commissioner Allen?

Speaker C: Yes.

Speaker B: And Commissioner Hess votes yes. Okay, thank you, Marcus, for clarifying that. Okay, keeping us on track is always good. Okay, um, a status report. Brandon, any— anything that you would like to share, um, with the— at this time?

Speaker A: Yeah, just a couple of quick things that, that went before the council last time. You may see this coming down, down the pike sooner than later. Obviously, the alternative energy overlay zone was adopted a while back, but there, there appear to be a few changes coming, a few tweaks, which isn't surprising. You know, you try something out and realize it needs to be tweaked here and there. So look for some tweaks the energy overlay coming here pretty soon. Um, the— Marcus, I'm drawing a blank on this, but I— if I recall correctly, I believe that the, uh, the Corrigan, uh, development agreement got approved.

Speaker D: Yes, that's correct.

Speaker A: And then, uh, the only other thing that we had on there, um, was, uh, Beth had presented a Uh, wildland urban interface code to you a while back, and that, that was adopted by the, the council. So those are the, the few items that, that were of, I guess, kind of pertinent to, to this body at the last council meeting.

Speaker B: Okay, great, Brandon. Thank you for that update. Um, next on our agenda is the action advisory items. We'll start with 7A, which is a public hearing for an ordinance to amend 17.20, 17.10 for public-private utilities in agriculture zones. And Brandon, you'll be presenting this?

Speaker C: Yes.

Speaker B: Okay, thank you.

Speaker A: I don't really like sitting presenting from that corner because you can't see me and I can't see you.

Speaker B: We can hear you though.

Speaker A: You can hear me?

Speaker B: We can always see you, but we can hear you. It just feels all double over. I think he's there. I can hear his voice.

Speaker A: Voice from heaven. Great. It's flipped on me again. Let's see if— If I can— trying to remember that button that—

Speaker B: F7.

Speaker A: Is it F7? That's why I keep— oh, it's doing spell check for me. I guess it depends on the laptop. Yeah, it's like it says if— let's try it. There we go.

Speaker B: So on the presentation, from your perspective, you, you have a second screen.

Speaker A: Yeah.

Speaker B: So if you go to present something, it either— it's going to show up on—

Speaker A: Yeah, that's what it's showing. It's like doing back— it's going backward.

Speaker C: Gotcha.

Speaker A: Like it was showing the presentation on my screen. I don't know what it's doing now. It's showing the presentation on my screen again. Maybe slideshow. There should be a button somewhere where you can flip the 2 screens. At the top, like the slideshow dropdown.

Speaker C: Oh, this—

Speaker A: It's like home, insert, draw, design. Yeah, I think there's a way to flip. Well, yeah, I can. Well, I'm just— there's not a ton here. I'll just— I'm going to blow this up.

Speaker B: Yeah, just increase your percentage there. You'll be good. Okay.

Speaker A: So— I'm going to come back here. I'll just talk through it. Okay. So what we've had happen here is we've had Rocky Mountain Power and their consultant come and talk to us. You're familiar with You can kind of see it there. That was supposed to— well, yeah, there we go. You're familiar with the Mercer sub— the Mercer— from Spanish Fork Canyon to Mercer transmission line project and how that's supposed to ultimately end up at our— at the Mercer substation by Meta. What we ran into was a situation where that the end of that line that's right here, it's running through our ag zone, and our ag zone doesn't allow for doesn't allow for utilities for public or private utilities anymore. In 2024, there was a proposed amendment to the code. To, um, what it was during the time we were trying to get rid of our conditional uses in the code. We brought the ag zone to you. We were cleaning up conditional uses and we were working, you know, that we've gone from conditional to special uses. And we were trying to clean up the ag zone and the special uses at the same time. What ended up happening, if you look at the ag zone currently, It just where it says public and private utilities, it's just not permitted. There, it doesn't say an S or a P. The my recollection of that that situation was it was an effort to try to stop transmission lines from going through the ag zone. But the the challenge is if if you look at the definition of utility. You, by prohibiting utilities, you pretty much prohibited everything from culinary water lines to just regular electrical lines, data transmission lines. It just, it didn't have the effect that it should have. What's more is when you look at the definition of utility in 1710 of our code, it It— the only reference it makes to, you know, power service or electrical power is it just says electrical power. It doesn't talk about— doesn't get more specific about like whether it allows for substations, transmission lines, distribution lines. So— And then if you look at like another section of the code, like you go into the business— The business office— I'm skipping or forgetting the right word here, but the collection of like business zones, like the LMD and the medical campus zone, that section of our code specifically calls out public utilities and it calls out public transmission or power transmission lines as 2 different uses. So I think there's been some intent by the city to differentiate those uses, at least at some point they have. So this code's pretty simple. It's just simple.

Speaker B: It's simply trying—

Speaker A: it's proposing to allow public and private utilities as a special use, and then power lines as a permitted use. And I'll explain why I did that. And And if we need to tweak that, that's fine. And I'll just tell you why. Because obviously the power transmission line is the heaviest use there. What I found when you go to Section 72, when you go to Chapter 1775, subsection 92, and you go look at the special requirements for Utilities, what you'll find is you will see requirements for general installation. You'll see requirements for substations and ground-mounted utility boxes. So there's really nothing in there about— no requirements for transmission lines except for The only thing that— there's a catch-all statement that says that any utility installation has to meet the requirements of Title 13 or a specific chapter in Title 13 related to public utility installation. So that's going to be the case anyway. So what I guess I'm getting at is there really isn't anything in there Related to power transmission lines that we're trying to catch. That there's nothing in 1775 that's going to— there's no special conditions related to them. So if we— we can add it as a special use, but there's no reason to. Public and private utilities, there is a reason because ground-mounted utility boxes is probably the biggest probably the biggest example there because there's requirements related to landscaping and location and so forth. And so it makes sense to attach a special use to that use so that we can take advantage of the location and landscaping requirements and so forth. So that was kind of the thought behind it. And a little history on this, and I felt to mention this at the first, But you'll remember when we went through this process of— I spoke a lot more with the council on this, but the council had asked us to create an overlay zone. So they're like, okay, we know that transmission lines are needed. We need power to our data centers, but we want to have the ability to— we want some say in where these utility lines go, these transmission lines. And so they're like, we want an overlay zone. We found out that Spanish Fork City had thought— had similar thoughts, and it had actually adopted an overlay zone. And then they realized that they shouldn't have, or that it wasn't really doing what it was needing to do. They realized that in Chapter 15, 5414 of the state code. It says that one of the first things it says is that you can't stop, you can't interfere with the utility's ability to provide cost-effective utility service. And so there's that, but it then says, okay, you can, You can place conditions on the use of utilities in your jurisdiction, but you're going to actually— you will have to pay, and it uses the term actual excess costs. So if your requirement causes the utility company to have to pay an excess cost for providing that service, city has to pay for it. So Spanish Fork's like, all right, well, we'll get out of this. And so that's— I shared that with our council, and that's kind of— they had the same reaction. They're like, well, we don't wanna pay for— if we wanna make the transmission lines look like pine trees, we're not paying for it. So they— They just— we basically decided just to come back here and just— we knew that there were limitations on what we could do with this. So that's what we're doing now is we still have to process these applications. They still have to go through a process, but we're basically saying, well, with a power transmission line, we're just gonna require it as a permitted use. So at least that's what staff's proposing there, because again, there's nothing in our current 1775 that is calling for any special requirements for transmission lines.

Speaker B: Okay.

Speaker A: So that's what I have for you, and I'm here to answer any questions that you might have. So—

Speaker B: Questions for Rick? So in here, and I may have— you may have spoken to this, Brandon, but in the table that's proposed, the change being recommended shows that the public-private utility structures or facilities, public.

Speaker A: Yep.

Speaker B: So that would be a special.

Speaker E: Yeah.

Speaker A: And the reason why I did that is So because the 1775 actually has special requirements for public and private utilities, namely the biggest one, well, for installation, for substations. And I will say this, I noticed that in the, like the LMD zone, it specifically called out public utilities, power transmission lines, and substations.

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker A: So they separated all those uses out. So notice that I didn't put anything about substations in here. So what I'm getting at is in our special uses, we have provisions, we have special requirements for substations, we have them for ground-mounted utility boxes and really nothing else. And so I was basically trying, by calling it out or proposing it as a special use, I'm tying the requirements for ground-mounted utility boxes to that use for like landscaping and location requirements. All right.

Speaker B: Okay. Thank you. This is a public hearing. And so, Let's confirm. Just to confirm, this is a public hearing, correct?

Speaker C: Yes.

Speaker B: Okay. It is 6:49 PM. We'll go ahead and open the public hearing. It looks like there was an email received. Meganette, is this something that we want to just acknowledge, or do we need to— should we be reading this that's in an email? What does What does staff recommend that we do with this email?

Speaker A: I can just let you know who sent it. It came in tonight from Brianne Salazar, and she just voiced concerns on voltage levels, how close they will be to homes, fire risks, health risks, and that's basically it. Yeah.

Speaker B: Okay. Thank you, Megan, for that. Thanks, Brianna, for sending that in.

Speaker E: Any—

Speaker B: those were the— was there any other comments received online? Anybody in the audience that would like to make a comment? Please come forward. Fanula Cofen.

Speaker A: And I'm just I'm just here to speak in favor of the transmission lines as a permitted use.

Speaker B: They're compatible in agricultural areas and standards can be put in place to protect ongoing ag production. And the transmission lines will provide for necessary infrastructure.

Speaker A: And I don't foresee any issues with it.

Speaker B: So just as a resident and looking at this, I think it's a, it's a good thing.

Speaker C: Thank you.

Speaker B: Okay. Thank you.

Speaker A: Okay.

Speaker B: Any other comments? I don't see any.

Speaker D: Okay.

Speaker C: Thank you.

Speaker B: We'll go ahead and end the public hearing at 6:51. Any discussion amongst the commission? Commissioner?

Speaker C: I think just addressing Brian Salazar's email there.

Speaker D: So it's—

Speaker C: I mean, there's a lot of code already in there about setbacks and all that stuff. That Brandon was hinting at there in chapters— well, I guess not hinting, you were just explicitly saying chapter 17, chapter 13. A lot of that's in there. So it's not like we're just gonna throw the transmission lines wherever. They're gonna be thought out carefully. And these distribution companies also wanna be good stewards, right, as they come through our city. So, but I appreciate, yeah, a citizen who's reaching out about these concerns. And I think it's always good to double-check them and just make sure. But yeah, I appreciate her sending that in. Thank you.

Speaker B: Any other discussion?

Speaker A: Okay.

Speaker B: Hearing no further discussion, I'll entertain a motion on this agenda item.

Speaker A: I'd like to make a motion to submit a positive recommendation to council for item 7A.

Speaker C: Second.

Speaker B: Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Strong followed by a second, a second by Commissioner Allen to forward a positive recommendation on this agenda item. Any need for final discussion? Okay, we'll proceed with our voting. We'll begin with Commissioner Allen.

Speaker C: Yes.

Speaker B: Commissioner Hess votes yes. Commissioner Strong.

Speaker C: Yes.

Speaker B: Okay, that vote passes with 3 votes. Um, thanks for the presentation, Brandon, and the discussion. And we will move to our next action item, 7B, which is a public hearing to amend Municipal Code 176580, Greenhouse Farm Products. And this will be presented by Stephen.

Speaker A: All right, thank you.

Speaker E: Uh, so almost a couple months ago, the council had a discussion, uh, because staff had received an application, uh, that didn't quite fit what our standards were, and some council members had expressed an interest to look into these standards and see if there's something that we want to adjust to be able to help not just this applicant but future applicants. So this is the product of that. It's really— it's not a huge change. It does allow a few more uses. It defines what farm products are, what floricultural products are, and expands what greenhouse products are. So it's kind of all that grouped together. One of the biggest things is that we had to keep that to be a home business, all those products had to be grown, produced, made on the site. They can't be brought in from somewhere else and then just sold. So we're trying not to keep— so anything retail, we didn't want that. All the other standards are staying the same. So traffic counts have to stay the same. They have to stay under those. Parking can't be overwhelming for the properties. So as much as we open this up to a lot more ability for people to do stuff, there's still— there's going to be so many factors based on people's lot size, they're just not going to be able to do as much because they're not going to be able to have animals, or they're just not going to have enough room to have a greenhouse. And that's just something that we can't control, but it just kind of is when you have property that's smaller. You can't always do everything that you want with it. It's not going to change anything about how animals are kept, so our animal code will still apply with how they're housed, where they're kept, the size of their living areas.

Speaker A: All that stays the same.

Speaker E: And then as far as processing, especially with processing animals and slaughtering of that, we just wanted to prohibit it as much as we could except for what the state already allows. So that's why that, that last line is in there.

Speaker A: But that's about it.

Speaker E: I don't want to go bore you with reading all of it. It's not very exhaustive, but I'm happy to answer any questions you have.

Speaker B: Questions from the commissioner— commissioners? Okay. All right. Thank you, Steven. Okay. This also is a public hearing. And we'll open the public hearing at 6:55. And let's check our email. We see if we got an email on this one. I don't think we did unless I'm— did you receive anything, Megan, by chance?

Speaker A: No.

Speaker B: No. Okay. All right. Any comments wish to be made? All right. 2 thumbs up. Okay. Hearing no— seeing no public comments during— or no comments during the hearing, we'll go ahead and end at 6:57. And entertain a discussion. Commissioners, any discussion or questions on this item?

Speaker D: Thanks, Commissioner.

Speaker B: Okay. All right, I will entertain— I will propose— I will motion. I motion to forward a positive recommendation to council on this code amendment as presented.

Speaker A: I'll second that.

Speaker B: Okay, we have a motion by Commissioner Hess followed by a second from Commissioner Strong to forward a positive recommendation to City Council. Any final questions? Okay, we'll start with voting. I will start again the voting with myself. Commissioner Hess votes yes. Commissioner Strong?

Speaker A: Yes.

Speaker B: And Commissioner Allen?

Speaker C: Yes.

Speaker B: All right, that vote or that motion passes with 3 positive votes. That concludes our policy session. Let's make sure. Yep, okay. And the next, let's see, let's take a look at the meeting. Okay, our next meeting agenda, we're gonna skip to agenda item number 10. Our next meeting is November 10th.

Speaker C: Okay.

Speaker B: I have a motion. Commissioner Strong will be out of town on November 10th. Will you be attending? Can you lead the meeting?

Speaker D: Sure.

Speaker B: Okay, perfect. Any idea, Commissioner Allen, you guys will be here? Okay, perfect. I'll reach out to the other commissioners who are not here and just to make sure that for November 10th.

Speaker D: Okay.

Speaker B: All right, I will entertain a motion for adjournment.

Speaker C: Move that we adjourn.

Speaker B: Okay.

Speaker E: Second.

Speaker B: Okay, a motion by Commissioner Allen, a second by Commissioner Strong to adjourn. All in favor?

Speaker D: Aye.

Speaker B: Aye. Okay, meeting is adjourned at 6:58.