[0:10] Welcome everyone to a Centerville City

[0:12] Council meeting being held on the

[0:14] earliest day of the month as possible

[0:16] since September 1st is calling on

[0:18] Tuesday. We have a first and third. This

[0:21] is as early as we get it. So, we welcome

[0:24] everybody here. Um we welcome staff. We

[0:27] welcome uh the public that might be with

[0:29] us in person or by Zoom. Uh we welcome

[0:34] council members. Um and thank you for

[0:37] making the time. Uh we're going to do uh the call to order uh part of the

[0:45] agenda. We'll do a roll call. We'll have

[0:47] a legislative thought from Council

[0:49] Member Haymon. We'll have legislative

[0:51] prayer from myself. And then we'll have

[0:52] a pledge of allegiance led by Councilman

[0:55] Bangader. So, let's do a roll call

[0:58] starting with Councilwoman Mikum.

[1:00] >> Mikum present.

[1:01] >> Vangar present.

[1:02] >> Heman present. Hurst present.

[1:05] >> Plumber present.

[1:06] >> All five council members present. Uh

[1:08] thank you council members for being here

[1:11] this night. All right. So, let's do a

[1:13] legislative thought from Council Member

[1:15] Haymon.

[1:16] >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor. Um, I have always

[1:20] appreciated the opportunity that our

[1:22] mayor extends to council members to

[1:24] share legislative thoughts while I've

[1:26] been up here. Um, I've heard a lot of

[1:29] different thoughts and I think that

[1:31] they're always really interesting.

[1:33] Today, I want to address the elephant in

[1:35] the room and that's my pride flag. In

[1:38] the last few months, I've taken quite a

[1:40] bit of heat over this flag. I have been

[1:44] called narcissistic,

[1:45] childish. I've had people suggest that I

[1:48] should resign, that I should be removed

[1:51] from office, and that I should be thrown

[1:53] in jail.

[1:54] All for exercising my first amendment

[1:56] right to display a little pride flag on

[1:58] this council dis which the state auditor

[2:01] has now confirmed I have every right to

[2:02] do. But I want to say this.

[2:06] For every negative comment that I have

[2:08] received, I have received significantly

[2:10] more outpouring of support from

[2:13] residents, from former residents, from

[2:16] people all over the state. And these are

[2:19] people who have shared some of the most

[2:21] heartbreaking and heartwarming stories

[2:24] with me that have really touched my

[2:26] heart. people who have shared personal

[2:27] experiences that affirm to me the

[2:30] importance for standing up for what I

[2:32] think is right. Now I know that what I

[2:36] am doing makes some people

[2:37] uncomfortable. It makes some of the

[2:40] people sitting up here with me

[2:41] uncomfortable and I would posit to you

[2:44] all that history is replete with

[2:47] examples of people whose exercise of

[2:49] first amendment rights have made others

[2:51] uncomfortable. The women who took to the

[2:53] streets more than a hundred years ago to

[2:55] march and advocate for their right to

[2:57] vote made a lot of men really

[2:59] uncomfortable.

[3:00] Black men and women who had the bravery

[3:03] to sit at restaurant lunch counters and

[3:05] who refused to leave, all advocating for

[3:07] the rights, the same rights as their

[3:09] white neighbors and friends. That made

[3:11] some people uncomfortable.

[3:13] I am not trying to equate my little

[3:15] pride flag with those important

[3:17] movements. But all of those movements

[3:19] share a common thread. Those actions

[3:22] made others uncomfortable.

[3:24] And I I would suggest to us all that

[3:26] sometimes we need a little discomfort to

[3:30] effectuate meaningful change.

[3:33] HB477

[3:35] started as a law that was aimed at

[3:37] keeping pride flags like this out of

[3:39] schools and out of government buildings.

[3:41] And I think and I've said on the record,

[3:42] I think it was wrong and offensive and

[3:44] unnecessary.

[3:46] that in an effort to prevent cities like

[3:49] ours from allowing pride flags to be in

[3:51] government buildings, the legislature

[3:53] cast their net wider. They cast it so

[3:56] broad that it's prohibited

[3:57] municipalities from displaying all kinds

[3:59] of flags. And I thought that you might

[4:01] be interested to know. It's led to

[4:03] complaints with the state auditor, not

[4:05] just about my pride flag.

[4:08] People have raised a complaint, at least

[4:09] one person raised a complaint about a

[4:11] thin blue line flag that a Salt Lake

[4:13] City police detective put on his desk.

[4:16] State auditors received a complaint

[4:18] about flags that were part of a

[4:19] temporary set decoration at UVU that

[4:22] were put up by a faculty-led academic

[4:24] film project. Complaint was raised about

[4:27] a Granite School District employee who

[4:29] was displaying Salt Lake City's

[4:30] municipal sealilly flag in his

[4:33] classroom. A U DOT employee received a

[4:36] complaint because he had put up a Trump

[4:37] flag in a maintenance shed.

[4:40] The East High School resource officer

[4:42] was displaying a back the blue flag next

[4:45] to a framed photo of the president

[4:46] inside his office. East High School got

[4:49] a complaint about that. The SJ Quinny

[4:52] College of Law got a complaint that they

[4:53] were displaying complainant didn't even

[4:55] say what kind of flag, just a

[4:57] non-compliant flag.

[5:00] And I pointed out earlier, we had a

[5:03] gentleman here with a really lovely um

[5:06] flag that was a circle with the 13 stars

[5:10] and inside of it, it said 250th to

[5:13] celebrate our nation's 250th birthday.

[5:16] It was a really impressive looking flag.

[5:18] And the state law would prohibit our

[5:20] city from flying even that one.

[5:23] I have been asked politely by some

[5:26] people, "Hey, Council Member Haymon,

[5:28] haven't you made your point? Won't you

[5:30] take down your flag?" I want to be

[5:32] really clear about something. I wish it

[5:35] wasn't necessary that I display my flag.

[5:38] I wish there wasn't a law on the books

[5:40] that dictates right now what flag cities

[5:43] can and can't put up in their own

[5:45] buildings. I wish our legislature didn't

[5:47] feel like they needed to tell cities

[5:49] like ours what we can and can't do in

[5:52] this regard. But the law is on the books

[5:55] and the legislature has chosen to

[5:57] exercise its power to force cities like

[5:59] ours to bow to its demands. So as long

[6:02] as the flag ban statute is still law, I

[6:05] am going to tell you respectfully no. I

[6:07] haven't made my point and I won't take

[6:09] down my flag. And that's true even if it

[6:12] makes some people uncomfortable.

[6:15] Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

[6:19] [clears throat]

[6:19] >> I'll do a legislative prayer. Our father

[6:22] in heaven, we're very grateful that we

[6:24] can be here this night. We're thankful

[6:25] for the freedoms that allow us to be

[6:27] here. We're mindful that we will discuss

[6:30] some things tonight that affect

[6:32] residents of our community. We ask that

[6:35] we be mindful of not only input that we

[6:38] have received from those that have

[6:40] reached out but maybe others that uh

[6:43] don't pay attention to what's going in

[6:45] the city or may be a little timid that

[6:48] we may be able to have a good pulse on

[6:51] what our community might be looking for.

[6:53] Uh we ask that we may be civil in our

[6:56] comments. We are grateful for uh all the

[7:00] employees of the uh the city that work

[7:04] so hard to uh provide a fun and a safe

[7:09] uh and a wholesome environment. We ask

[7:12] that thou may bless uh all those that

[7:16] are are striving to

[7:20] um serve uh our community that they may

[7:23] be blessed in their efforts. And uh this

[7:26] we say in the name of thy son Jesus

[7:28] Christ. Amen.

[7:29] >> Amen.

[7:29] >> Councilman Vagger,

[7:31] >> I'll repeat the pledge of allegiance to

[7:34] the United States of America flag with

[7:36] me.

[7:37] >> I pledge algiance to the flag of the

[7:41] United States of America and to the

[7:44] republic for which it stands. One nation

[7:47] under God, indivisible, with liberty and

[7:51] justice for all.

[7:52] >> Thank you.

[7:57] All right, the next thing is the open

[7:59] session. Uh this is a session that

[8:01] allows uh any member of the uh community

[8:05] uh that to come and comment uh up up

[8:09] front here at the podium. I ask you to

[8:12] keep your comments to three minutes um

[8:14] and identify where you're from uh and um

[8:20] uh what your name is. So, we do have

[8:23] some public hearing matters, though. So,

[8:25] I'm going to uh tell you what those are.

[8:29] We got the DADUs, the detached accessory

[8:32] dwelling unit. We have the S of a fee

[8:35] schedule amendments.

[8:37] Um, and it looks like uh I haven't

[8:40] missed any that that those are the

[8:42] public hearing. So, we'll hear from you

[8:44] more on those. If you're here to comment

[8:46] on those, you don't need to comment uh

[8:48] here in the uh open session. you could

[8:51] comment on those at that point in time.

[8:53] But outside of that, uh just please uh

[8:56] keep your comments three minutes,

[8:57] identify who you are, where you're from,

[9:08] microphone. Okay. Hello, [clears throat]

[9:10] I am Dr. Trent Larson from Centerville.

[9:14] Uh my question, first question is uh how

[9:17] do you make a small fortune with

[9:19] cryptocurrency?

[9:20] you start with a large fortune.

[9:24] But that being said, I do not please try

[9:28] and restrict crypto ATMs or

[9:31] cryptocurrency or other technologies

[9:33] qualifications. I have a computer

[9:34] science PhD from BYU. I also have a U of

[9:37] degree, so that I'm okay. I got a job

[9:40] working in cryptocurrency in 2014 for

[9:42] Medici Ventures. I wish I'd invested,

[9:45] but I'm still hustling for money because

[9:46] my family didn't believe in it as much

[9:48] as me. Let's talk benefits. At my

[9:51] cryptocurrency job, we applied crypto

[9:53] for the benefit of third world countries

[9:55] like Rwanda. I visited Zambia to see

[9:58] their insecure land rights and discuss

[10:00] how we could use tech to help them. I've

[10:02] paid rotary dues with cryptocurrency.

[10:05] I've used it at the bountiful farmers

[10:07] market. The plus seven local store down

[10:09] here takes Bitcoin. A local voluntarist

[10:12] group that I attend near here every

[10:14] Saturday provides breakfast with

[10:16] cryptocurrency. You all are invited.

[10:21] Did you know that there are many uses of

[10:23] crypto tokens, including ones intended

[10:25] to directly support lower incomes, not

[10:27] even meant for some of the speculation

[10:29] and trading for money? Do you know it

[10:32] provides a type of security that not

[10:33] even banks provide? This is integral to

[10:36] our future. There are downsides. So, I

[10:39] would never advise anyone to use a

[10:40] crypto ATM. The fees are too high. There

[10:42] are better ways. But I've used them

[10:44] because there were times when they were

[10:46] my best option. So almost all

[10:48] cryptocurrencies are scams. But as I've

[10:51] pointed out, there are many applications

[10:52] that are not available through any other

[10:54] means. ATMs simply a tool. And taking

[10:57] them doesn't remove the underlying scam,

[11:00] just moves it. So solutions. The way to

[11:03] protect ourselves and our family and

[11:05] neighbors and friends is empowerment,

[11:07] education, communication, and even

[11:09] exposure without stigma. I'm sorry for

[11:12] those who have lost and been scammed.

[11:14] I'm part of that group. But the fixes

[11:16] for these crimes are the same as fixes

[11:18] for other finance crimes. Education

[11:21] about patience, communication,

[11:22] curiosity, long-term thinking, the hard

[11:25] skills that involve interpersonal

[11:27] involvement and support. I hereby

[11:30] volunteer to help anyone understand

[11:31] more, including the risks, and even to

[11:34] help individuals and families with their

[11:35] own situation with free advice for

[11:37] voluntary efforts. I invite all

[11:39] listening to contact me as I have no

[11:41] shortage of facts and strong opinions.

[11:44] Maybe we can even find ways to make

[11:46] Centerville more of a tech hub. Uh Gina

[11:48] and the chief of police have my number.

[11:51] Don't ask why.

[11:53] So, you want to hear a joke? [sighs]

[11:55] Profits.

[11:57] Yeah, you may not get it, but I I don't

[11:59] get it either.

[12:01] Um but please stop with ideas from the

[12:05] nanny state. Uh, institutional force and

[12:07] stigma hurt more than they fix, causing

[12:09] ignorance, lost opportunity, and other

[12:12] unintended consequences. Tech

[12:14] restrictions hurt our future selves, old

[12:17] and young. Please do not use any city

[12:19] force to punish or limit technological

[12:21] and financial innovation and

[12:24] experimentation. Thank you very much.

[12:26] >> Thank you, Jan.

[12:27] >> Mr. Mayor, can I ask a question?

[12:29] >> Sure. is that I'm just curious with your

[12:32] background in cryptocurrency. I I

[12:33] understand that there are a lot of ways

[12:35] that you can exchange and and get

[12:37] cryptocurrency. Why protect kiosks and

[12:39] why aren't the other methods that are

[12:41] out there, why aren't those sufficient?

[12:43] Why are you advocating to to keep kiosks

[12:45] specifically?

[12:46] >> Good question. I was on my way to an

[12:47] event where I wanted to use some of the

[12:50] crypto and I didn't have the kind that I

[12:52] wanted. And so in that emergency

[12:54] situation, yes, I paid a premium for

[12:57] what I could get right there at the

[12:59] crypto ATM.

[13:03] >> Thank you.

[13:04] >> Okay. Thank you.

[13:05] >> Appreciate it, Trent. Others.

[13:12] » All right. See nobody, nobody online,

[13:14] right? See nobody else, we will uh move

[13:18] from the open session and we will go to

[13:21] our first business items. Uh this is an

[13:24] item uh uh that's um we've had uh Mike

[13:31] Egget involved with and Councilwoman

[13:34] Hirs has been quite involved with. So

[13:36] this is the South Davis Greenway

[13:39] feasibil feasibility study and report

[13:42] and I am grateful to those two that have

[13:45] been involved and if I'm missing anybody

[13:48] I apologize because it's been uh

[13:51] something uh that is of great interest

[13:53] to me but uh I haven't been able to find

[13:57] the time to be involved with it. So

[13:59] thank you Mike and Gina. So, we look

[14:02] forward to you give us more background

[14:04] besides what we have in our material.

[14:07] >> Yeah.

[14:07] >> Take it away, Mike.

[14:08] >> Thanks, Mayor. So, uh, as u, as

[14:12] referenced in the packet, I provided a

[14:15] whole history of where we started and

[14:17] how we ended up where we are today. I

[14:19] felt like that that was relevant because

[14:21] maybe not all council members know the

[14:24] history. Maybe not all council members

[14:25] know what some of the expenses or costs

[14:27] were when we started the project and

[14:29] what all has been involved in this. Um

[14:32] there's a lot. Yeah, you're welcome. Um

[14:35] so this this endeavor, the shared

[14:38] endeavor between communities started in

[14:39] May of 2025.

[14:42] um where we were approached by other

[14:43] neighboring South Davis communities and

[14:46] we brought uh a request of grant monies

[14:50] that are available through the WFRC

[14:52] transportation and land use connection

[14:54] um program to the council at that time.

[14:57] Each city concurrently did the same

[14:58] thing. Um there was a letter of

[15:00] concurrence and match agreement with

[15:02] WFRC uh uh signed and approved on July

[15:05] 5th. Um, and the city's portion of

[15:08] contribution was was only $7,500. That

[15:10] was per each of the four cities that

[15:12] were participating, which is us, North

[15:14] Salt Lake, Bountiful, and Farmington.

[15:16] And then the TLC grant funded 115,000

[15:19] towards the entirety of the project. So,

[15:21] uh, it was a planning study that was,

[15:23] uh, fully almost completely funded by

[15:26] these TLC grant monies, which was, I

[15:29] thought, a great thing. Um throughout

[15:31] the month of of July and August, we

[15:34] worked through the selection committee

[15:36] process to screen applicants who had

[15:38] applied for it. We had four interested

[15:40] parties who applied. Um there were two

[15:43] finalists. We asked them to come back,

[15:44] did some interviews and ultimately

[15:47] selected Kimberly Horn as the

[15:49] representative entity for the project.

[15:51] Um we did some amendments of their final

[15:54] um scope of work document in August and

[15:57] we went with Kimly Horn as a group in in

[16:01] working forward on this project. Um the

[16:03] project actually started in midepptember

[16:05] of 2025 wherein we had a um group

[16:10] steering committee of planning staff and

[16:13] WFRC representatives and then obviously

[16:15] the Kimley Horn team and we met once a

[16:17] month at that time. Um, from that time

[16:19] forward, we um discussed ways to gather

[16:23] the city together, all the

[16:25] representatives of the city, and what

[16:27] would be in the best interest of having

[16:29] that reflected as part of this. And and

[16:31] what was decided was about six members

[16:33] per city would be in the best interest

[16:35] to to hear from all collective voices of

[16:38] each of the communities as well as

[16:40] inviting uh UD do and um Davis County to

[16:45] be a part of it. And the reason for that

[16:47] is sometimes you do Davis County have

[16:49] ideas and opportunities for grant

[16:51] funding and other partnershiping uh for

[16:54] next steps as well as aligning their

[16:56] voice to be part of the process and and

[16:58] clearly we have a major project with UD

[17:01] do that is affecting Centerville and

[17:03] other communities that that made it even

[17:04] more pertinent to have be part of this

[17:06] conversation. So, uh, the the

[17:09] representation from Centerville City

[17:11] proper was as noted by the mayor,

[17:13] Council Member Hurst, uh, planning

[17:15] commissioner Gary Woodward, uh, Kevin

[17:18] Campbell, myself, Sydney Dwise, and then

[17:20] Mitsy White from the trail committee.

[17:22] Um, and that the first project

[17:25] management team started on November

[17:26] 10th, 2025. And we met once about once

[17:30] every two months. I said two weeks,

[17:32] that's a typo. It should be once every

[17:33] two months. So, I apologize for that.

[17:35] And then the steering committee we met

[17:37] once every month u to can you forward

[17:39] with that program as we rolled it out

[17:41] and there was a lot of discussions about

[17:43] what is the best route for each

[17:44] community. How do you connect to all the

[17:46] communities? What kind of utility

[17:48] impacts are there? What kind of

[17:49] residential impacts? What kind of

[17:50] residential benefits are provided? Are

[17:52] there ways to get uh UD do funding to be

[17:54] in play? All sorts of things. What kind

[17:56] of grant opportunities will there be

[17:58] down the road? as you look at obviously

[18:00] the the way up in the sky, way up in

[18:03] space vision of what this might look

[18:05] like. Um, and so that would be the first

[18:07] phase of the project. And one of the big

[18:10] key elements of that discussion clearly

[18:12] was the public involvement because there are residential properties and

[18:16] business properties along whatever route

[18:18] you select that will be either benefited

[18:20] or maybe even feel impacted depending on

[18:22] the perspective of each and every

[18:24] property owner throughout this process.

[18:26] So, um there were three uh public

[18:29] outreach efforts that were um decided

[18:31] upon and and selected as part of the the

[18:34] processing. The first was in January of

[18:36] 2026. There were was uh large poster set

[18:40] up at the South Davis Recreation Center

[18:42] and there were ground decals set um in

[18:44] front of key locations. Our two

[18:46] locations were Centerville Community

[18:48] Park and then um in front of the public

[18:51] library. There was also, I think, a

[18:53] poster post in front of the public

[18:54] library for a while that directed people

[18:56] to go to the the website which is south

[18:59] daves greenway.org as well as there were

[19:01] videos that were produced that had

[19:03] represents from each community be a part

[19:05] of those videos and they were posted on

[19:06] the website if you remember back in I

[19:08] think it was January February we we

[19:10] shared a clip of that and council member

[19:13] Hurst was our representative in that

[19:14] video. Um, in midFebruary, we sent out

[19:18] flyers to all the property owners that

[19:20] were along the trail greenway route to

[19:22] make sure they were fully notified and

[19:24] directed to go to the website. On the

[19:26] website, there were um opportunities to

[19:28] share comments and comments were

[19:30] starting to come in as well as our

[19:32] communications team did also direct

[19:35] people to the website who had just

[19:36] general interest from the community. Um

[19:39] and then as the um as the study

[19:43] continued forward and we contin have the

[19:45] meetings and um we got closer and closer

[19:48] to completion of the feasibility study,

[19:50] the discussion was that there needed to

[19:52] be the final public event. And so public

[19:54] event flyers were were sent out for an

[19:56] outdoor openhouse event including a I

[20:00] guess you would call it a a mock or an

[20:01] exemplar of what a greenway area might

[20:04] look like. and that was held at the

[20:06] South Davis Recreation Center area

[20:09] park during the Bountiful concert night

[20:11] event. Um, we did have and that was held

[20:14] on June 26th of this year. We did have

[20:17] residents from Centerville show up. Uh,

[20:20] there was a large group of residents

[20:21] which I had heard probably a week or two

[20:23] before some concern that were along

[20:26] Chase Lane that it indicated just what

[20:30] are the impacts? How do we voice our

[20:31] opinions? um some strong feelings were

[20:35] directed um and shared and uh both prior

[20:38] and then during the event as well as

[20:40] residents who were in support of it not

[20:42] on Chase Lane. There were residents

[20:43] along the route itself that were

[20:44] actually in favor. There was a a

[20:46] resident just off of the route um in um

[20:51] the the historical district that had

[20:52] come and and he was a biker and he was

[20:55] very supportive. So there was there was

[20:57] some mixed commentary even in favor and

[20:59] against um and their comments were

[21:01] shared and and left there. And then

[21:04] following that um council member Hurst

[21:06] had had quite a bit of communication

[21:09] into uh the month of July with the

[21:12] residents along the route um and was

[21:14] seeking to hold a meeting. Um we we held

[21:17] a meeting with them on August 13th which

[21:19] happened to be the same day that the

[21:20] final draft of the feasibility study was

[21:22] completed and the meeting went very

[21:25] well. There were some misconceptions

[21:26] that were being established prior to

[21:28] that meeting that I think we we

[21:30] clarified as well as we heard the input

[21:33] and and the route actually was moved

[21:35] from the south side impacting their

[21:37] properties to the north side um in order

[21:40] to not impact their properties which the

[21:41] residents were pretty pretty favorable

[21:43] to. And so

[21:45] >> Mike, was that the only residence that

[21:47] showed was on the one road?

[21:49] >> It was only the Chase Bank residence

[21:50] that I I called. There might have been

[21:52] one one from 400 West. I think there was

[21:54] one that lived on 400 West, but

[21:57] >> I think she

[21:57] >> for the most part, the people that have

[21:59] reached out to me from 400 West are

[22:03] >> there there have been a couple of

[22:05] questions about it, but for the most

[22:07] part very supportive.

[22:08] >> Same with me.

[22:09] >> You know, how is it going to impact

[22:10] park? One of the things about this is

[22:13] that it would limit parking on one side

[22:15] of the road.

[22:16] >> So,

[22:17] >> that I think has been somewhat of the

[22:20] concern. Um, and I think I think Chase

[22:24] Lane is um they mainly why we held the

[22:28] meeting as August is I wanted to make

[22:31] sure that sometimes this gets like this

[22:34] is a study. There's no funding for it at

[22:37] the moment. As we move towards potential

[22:39] funding, I just wanted their concerns

[22:42] documented. They were thoughtfully

[22:44] engaged in the process and they had a

[22:46] lot of really good questions

[22:48] >> and I didn't want that to get lost. I

[22:50] may not be on city council when it comes

[22:52] back to actually, you know, become a a

[22:55] project if it does. And so mainly we

[22:58] were trying to make sure that they're we

[23:00] recorded the meeting so that Jennifer

[23:03] has that in the documentation and I just

[23:06] wanted to make sure that they felt like

[23:07] they had that they hadn't made all this

[23:10] effort and then it just fell flat. I

[23:13] will say this, it is a study. So this is

[23:17] so conceptual like there are so much

[23:19] road to ho before

[23:22] um we would know exactly where an

[23:24] alignment could go for this trail. I

[23:27] think um I think the frontage road is

[23:30] likely the does it say that's phase

[23:33] zero?

[23:34] >> It it's in the it's

[23:35] >> Yeah, it's on page if you guys look on

[23:37] page 3.

[23:39] >> Yeah, it's in the finding document

[23:40] itself. It's on 38, I believe. Page 38,

[23:44] it shows you kind of the kind of the

[23:47] timing of and um and then the page just

[23:50] below it is the estimated probable

[23:52] construction cost. These are the types

[23:54] of information you need to have to go

[23:57] and start looking for funding and and

[24:00] you know, there would have to be a

[24:01] pretty detailed engineering plan that

[24:04] would, you know, identify right of way

[24:06] and there's power poles that would have

[24:08] to be moved. It's there's a there's a

[24:10] lot of things that need to still happen.

[24:12] So

[24:13] >> that's why the said this is from space

[24:14] level.

[24:15] >> Yeah. So, so the way it started is is we

[24:18] would go and meet together and they

[24:21] they'd meet with us for a few minutes

[24:22] and then they would roll these big long

[24:24] maps out that were, you know, entire

[24:26] length of our city and we would go in

[24:29] and identify, you know, Kevin Campbell

[24:32] was there. Obviously, Mike and Sydney

[24:34] were there and we just kind of were

[24:36] trying to figure out a really high

[24:40] level, you know, which side of the road

[24:42] should it go on. Um, one of the reasons

[24:44] the frontage road was selected is

[24:46] because, um, we knew that UD do was

[24:48] going to be doing some

[24:51] improvements right there anyway, and

[24:53] that's was a way to, you know, hopefully

[24:56] save some tax dollars for to be used

[24:58] somewhere else at some point. Um, and we

[25:02] weren't the only ones. Farmington jumped

[25:04] right on that, too. So, it was

[25:05] interesting. We'd meet separately and

[25:06] then we'd come back together and try to

[25:09] identify what worked best. um especially

[25:13] where we connect with Farmington and

[25:15] Bountiful. So anyway, it's not it's not

[25:18] a done deal. This doesn't mean that it's

[25:20] set for one side or the other. We just

[25:22] tried to look at it, but there's a lot

[25:25] to be done before an actual alignment

[25:28] would be completely set up. And

[25:31] >> yeah, and to be clear, there's no

[25:32] funding, but this the the last document

[25:35] in the packet is the actual Greenway

[25:37] feasibility study letter of support. If

[25:39] the council were in favor of accepting

[25:41] the study, then that would authorize the

[25:43] mayor to sign that. That being signed is

[25:46] important because then we can provide it

[25:47] to the Utah State Utah Trail Network

[25:49] system and pursue grant grant funding.

[25:52] And that's a large pod of money. I can't

[25:54] remember. Nick, you might have to help

[25:56] me on this, but I think it's like 10

[25:57] million a year. That sound right?

[26:00] >> 50 million.

[26:00] a year.

[26:02] >> I say I thought it was

[26:03] >> 50 million a year. So, it's quite a big

[26:04] bank. Yeah. which is kind of what

[26:06] precipitated that it was talked about

[26:09] doing this regional type urban trail.

[26:12] This is this is to help people

[26:15] um that maybe don't drive but need to

[26:18] get to, you know, very specifically

[26:21] locations were picked throughout cities

[26:23] that included parks, um the library,

[26:27] like you'll notice

[26:28] >> schools.

[26:29] >> Yeah. But it really is a backbone, too.

[26:31] It's not meant to go through the whole

[26:33] city. It's just meant to be a spine

[26:37] that then we can add. You know, I'm

[26:39] thinking of the little path that we just

[26:42] got approved with county funding. Um,

[26:44] Porter Lane.

[26:45] >> Yeah, that's a good Yeah, West.

[26:46] >> That's already one leg off of this

[26:49] potential.

[26:51] Um anyway, I've had a lot of people

[26:53] reach out and be supportive and I think

[26:56] we, you know, in addition to that, which

[26:58] was surprising to me at this early

[27:00] stage, but also in addition, we did try

[27:02] to make sure that we ran a fairly

[27:05] aggressive make sure we collect and

[27:06] document concerns for future

[27:09] >> and their comments again on Chase Lane

[27:11] did affect what alternate alignment was

[27:13] selected for Chase Lane. So the there

[27:16] was public commentary that guided a

[27:18] change, an alteration that was accepted

[27:20] and and became part of the final draft

[27:22] you have in your packet.

[27:23] >> Were any of the people on the other side

[27:24] of the road at the meeting?

[27:26] >> There was only there only

[27:28] >> there's one gentleman that was there

[27:29] that lives on the north side. He did not

[27:32] say a whole lot. So I and I'm not sure

[27:34] who he was. He didn't he came in late. I

[27:37] don't think we ended up catching his

[27:39] name. And then

[27:40] >> I don't know. He said

[27:41] >> um and the and the reason I know he

[27:43] lives on the other side of the street is

[27:44] I've walked past and seen him in his

[27:46] yard. So that's how I know he's on the

[27:48] other side. But the others were on the

[27:50] south side of the street.

[27:52] >> There are four homes on the north side

[27:54] and 10 or 11 homes on the south side,

[27:57] too. So

[27:59] >> um but I know uh the resident that was

[28:01] kind of taking up the charge of

[28:02] informing did inform pretty much

[28:04] everybody up and down Chase Lane and

[28:06] >> and quite a bit of 400 West. Yeah, she

[28:08] did. I mean, I don't I don't know how

[28:09] far she went along 400 West, but I

[28:12] suspect she said she had sent the flyer

[28:15] out to several people.

[28:17] >> Mike, I am supportive of this and I

[28:19] really appreciate cities for being

[28:20] proactive from a planning perspective.

[28:22] This is exactly what I want cities to do

[28:25] when thinking about planning. This is,

[28:27] and this is like going to be off a

[28:30] little ways. I just I was honestly

[28:32] curious as I was looking at the

[28:33] PowerPoint presentation and it was

[28:34] breaking down the cost by phase and

[28:36] jurisdiction. It it's slated that it

[28:38] would cost in 2026 dollars, right?

[28:40] Centerville about 10 million, North Salt

[28:42] Lake 9 million, Bountiful 22 million,

[28:44] and Farmington 1.3 million. Why are they

[28:47] so much?

[28:48] >> Because their their route is very

[28:51] non-impactful. They they actually go

[28:54] along a street into a trail system they

[28:56] already have.

[28:57] >> That's off of I don't know what the

[28:59] north or the east west road is there,

[29:01] but when you go past the junior high and

[29:03] you go to the intersection, their trail

[29:05] would continue north down to a river

[29:07] trail that's already there. Continue

[29:09] along and then go along the front of of

[29:11] Lagoon and work its way over to Smith

[29:14] along unimproved areas.

[29:16] >> But well, since we're while we're on

[29:18] that, Were you done? I'm sorry.

[29:20] >> Yes, I'm good. I I don't want to cut in

[29:22] your presentation to Are you Did you

[29:24] have more?

[29:24] >> I was just going to say I I I know we

[29:26] have a presenter. So, I think I provided

[29:28] all I need to, Mayor.

[29:29] >> Oh, okay.

[29:30] >> Oh, I'm sorry if I put carpet.

[29:32] >> No, it's okay.

[29:33] >> So, uh do do we have a presenter

[29:37] parks with Kimney Horn is actually here

[29:39] for the slide show and I might have

[29:41] covered a lot of what he would have

[29:42] covered, but I

[29:43] >> I probably did, too. So,

[29:45] >> I wanted to be very comprehensive

[29:46] because I think there's a lot here to

[29:48] unpack. So, I appreciate you indulging

[29:50] me, but if you're welcome or if you're

[29:52] open to it, mayor, I'd have Mr. Parks

[29:53] take over.

[29:54] >> Nobody get with ties gets respects

[29:56] anymore, you know. Thanks for coming.

[29:59] >> Go, take it away.

[30:01] >> Thanks for having me.

[30:06] » So, I'm I'm Nick Parks. I'm a civil

[30:09] engineer and I had the privilege of

[30:10] working on this project throughout it

[30:12] since last September. Um I work for

[30:14] Kimley Horn and um yeah so I wanted to

[30:18] give an overview of the project. I know

[30:20] Mike did a great job going through

[30:26] um there's a lot of collaboration

[30:27] obviously between the the four cities

[30:31] and um we have the legacy parkway trail

[30:34] to the west of I15. So, this was filling

[30:36] a gap on the east side of I-15.

[30:40] [clears throat] And we really wanted to

[30:42] establish a route, an alignment, cost

[30:44] estimate, and to set it up for the Utah

[30:46] Trail Network funding um and your

[30:49] acceptance of that.

[30:55] » Many of you all might know by now a

[30:57] greenway, another name for a shared use

[31:00] path. um popular for recreating,

[31:03] commuting, um improving quality of life

[31:06] in your in your local community. It's

[31:08] supposed to be low stress, high comfort

[31:11] facility. That was the goal. Separated

[31:14] from traffic, we aimed to have a four to six foot buffer pretty much

[31:20] along the entire stretch. Um unless it

[31:23] was a really constrained area.

[31:29] These are two examples. The nine line in

[31:31] Salt Lake City if you're familiar and

[31:32] then in Provo um along State Street. And

[31:36] I like these examples because

[31:39] for example, lots of driveways along it.

[31:42] And that is something that comes up um

[31:44] through Centerville, through Bountiful,

[31:46] really the whole the whole way up to

[31:48] Farmington. And um Neline is kind of a

[31:52] demonstration of it. It does work. And

[31:56] then in on State Street in Provo with

[31:59] all the utility lines and dodging

[32:03] utilities down State Street, I think is

[32:05] another example of of being able to make

[32:07] a shared use path like this work.

[32:11] >> Do you take any private property to do

[32:13] this?

[32:14] >> Um, we tried to avoid private property

[32:18] throughout the corridor. Um, so there

[32:22] were no right-of-way impacts uh through

[32:24] Centerville. There there are two two

[32:27] potential well they would be private

[32:29] property uh impacts to um Chipotle and

[32:33] um I can't think of

[32:35] >> oh there's a quick

[32:37] >> quick and then colonial lumber or be

[32:41] there could be slight frontage impacts

[32:43] and the reason for that is we originally

[32:44] had it on the west side but because of

[32:48] the just the wid brand new widening

[32:50] project it didn't make sense to then go

[32:52] and take back the real estate that that

[32:54] we had expanded for the fourth west uh

[32:58] parish lane

[33:00] I guess I don't want to call interchange

[33:02] what's a transition anyway and so Kevin

[33:06] actually recommended that we move it to

[33:08] the east on that side and try to not

[33:11] impact those properties as much as

[33:12] possible and then go to the crosswalk

[33:14] towards the the theater um so that we

[33:19] don't impact the intersection all those

[33:20] improvements that had been done just

[33:22] recently

[33:24] So

[33:27] » continue, Nick. I want uh

[33:29] >> I want you to be able to get through

[33:30] your presence.

[33:31] >> Sorry.

[33:31] >> Yes. And we cross back. So yeah, we're

[33:34] along the east side and cross back. I

[33:35] think there's a pedestrian hybrid

[33:37] beacon. There is there cross back to the

[33:39] west side,

[33:40] >> but I want qu question from council, but

[33:43] I want him to be able to get through

[33:44] this as well, too. So

[33:48] >> carrying on, this is the alignment the

[33:50] entire way um from North Salt Lake to

[33:52] Farmington. And you can see the

[33:54] Centerville segment is about 3.2 miles,

[33:57] but a good portion of that is part of

[34:00] the I-15 widening. Um it'll be taken

[34:03] care of in theory as part of that

[34:05] project, which would be very nice. Um

[34:07] for pocketbooks and uh the funding, if

[34:11] you haven't been to the website, I know

[34:13] Mike also plugged it. Um it's it's a

[34:16] nice spot to check out um with Ariel

[34:18] kind of which side of the road and where

[34:20] the crossings are. Um if you're curious,

[34:26] this is the widening project that we've

[34:28] addressed. Um

[34:32] I think I'll I'll move on.

[34:34] There are two cross sections mainly and

[34:38] I know this is something that came up at

[34:40] our public involvement events is

[34:41] parking. And so one of the crosssections

[34:44] we have um to the north and the very um

[34:48] south of our our centerville segment is

[34:52] two lanes with on street parking on one

[34:54] side of the road and then on the

[34:56] opposite side of the road would be the

[34:57] trail um that's buffered from the

[34:59] roadway. And I think it's important to

[35:02] note that um we're only trying to impact

[35:05] one side of the roadway just to limit

[35:08] impact. So, one side would stay as

[35:10] existing and the other side would be

[35:12] improved by this greenway.

[35:18] The other cross-section

[35:20] um like we were just talking about with

[35:21] Mike is 400 South to Parish. Um

[35:25] this is where we have three lanes and there's quite a bit of center

[35:29] two-way left turn lane throughout this

[35:31] section um with no parking.

[35:38] This is a nice visual. Gives you an idea

[35:40] as to what they could potentially look

[35:42] like. We had a few of these at the

[35:46] public open house.

[35:51] One of the main considerations through

[35:53] Centerville are all the utility poles.

[35:56] Um so there would be have to be

[35:57] relocations or undergrounding is what we

[35:59] accounted for in the cost estimates. And

[36:02] so those are all those um teal

[36:06] uh sorry magenta dots

[36:09] >> and then all the teal dots are driveway

[36:12] tie-ins. Um and there are a lot of

[36:14] driveways along the corridor.

[36:17] I also didn't we didn't draw in all the

[36:19] minor streets. So the dark blue dots

[36:21] that you see in the plans are all the

[36:23] minor street tieins.

[36:29] Passes the community library. Um parks.

[36:33] That was the idea of the alignment being

[36:35] um on certain side of the road to

[36:36] address, you know, access to these

[36:39] destinations.

[36:43] This is where we have the right ofway

[36:45] impacts to Chipotle and Quickquack.

[36:49] And then yes, the colonial building

[36:51] sign,

[36:57] some more driveways. And then this is

[37:00] where um to the north side of Chase Lane

[37:04] is where the trail got relocated to we

[37:07] talked about earlier. And then we

[37:08] connect to the I-15 widening project.

[37:20] talked about earlier, public outreach

[37:22] was a big part of this project and

[37:24] getting the thoughts and comments back

[37:26] from the public and giving them a sense

[37:28] of what it it could feel like. Um, so

[37:31] getting them out there, seeing the

[37:33] buffer, seeing how much space there

[37:36] would be with a with a 12oot trail out

[37:38] there and the comfort that would provide

[37:39] them.

[37:44] And then phasing. So yeah, the I215 or

[37:47] I-15 widening project would be part of

[37:49] phase zero and um followed up by the

[37:54] phase one in North Salt Lake and then

[37:57] phase two would be um your section in

[38:00] Centerville before finishing out phase

[38:03] three um in DAL.

[38:06] >> How's that order determined?

[38:09] It was determined we we started with the

[38:12] I-15 widening as kind of like the base

[38:15] and then um they're also doing a Beck

[38:19] Street trail that's connecting from

[38:21] North Salt Lake to Salt Lake City. Um so

[38:25] that's all the way to the south. And so

[38:27] the idea there was to pick up from that

[38:29] new Beck Street Trail and continue it

[38:32] north

[38:34] and then um

[38:37] tie into the I-15 widening project and

[38:41] carry it south. Um so basically work our

[38:45] way off of the widening project to

[38:47] either end. Make sense?

[38:52] Also from a standpoint of future funding and

[38:56] implementation,

[38:59] if you leave a gap like that, you know,

[39:02] it's very necessary to close the gap.

[39:04] So, um I I think it helps the argument

[39:07] to work kind of from either end and work

[39:09] your way towards the middle. Yeah.

[39:15] The cost um yeah, $10 million, but not

[39:20] out of Centerville's pocket. Um, so

[39:22] there's funding opportunities for that

[39:25] and and not to get sticker shock by the

[39:27] 10 million. That would come all in one

[39:30] phase.

[39:32] >> And you said that included some of the

[39:34] utilities uh being placed underground.

[39:36] That number right there.

[39:38] >> Yeah, that would include undergrounding

[39:41] >> thoughts [clears throat] that you had on

[39:42] 400 West.

[39:43] >> Yeah. and any drainage improvements,

[39:47] um new inlets, bringing manholes,

[39:51] everything to grade, lighting, um

[39:54] lighting

[39:56] considered this is also a design and

[39:58] construction cost. So combined

[40:08] funding sources like we talked about

[40:10] Utah trail network is really really the

[40:13] goal here. Um the rest of these are

[40:16] secondary sources and definitely

[40:19] feasible options to pursue if we don't

[40:22] get Utah trail network funding. Um but

[40:25] that is the priority priority and uh

[40:28] what we're seeking today

[40:35] and yeah

[40:39] acceptance is not a commitment of funds

[40:41] that is very important. So um just want

[40:44] to provide options for the future that's

[40:48] thank you.

[40:49] >> Thank you. Can we ask questions yet?

[40:52] >> You guys,

[40:53] >> huh? a little but

[40:55] >> no can can we are you guys done

[40:58] presenting

[40:59] >> oh yes that is the good

[41:01] >> uh okay a couple things I saw 10.1

[41:04] million on I left 11.8 8 million 5 years

[41:07] later. Is there two phases of this?

[41:10] >> Uh it accounts for inflation.

[41:13] >> Okay. And uh

[41:18] well, I guess maybe Councilman Plamer

[41:20] asked that question that putting things

[41:23] underground because I can't imagine

[41:24] pavement costing that much, you know? I

[41:26] mean, uh or we're projecting some

[41:30] serious inflation. Okay. So, maybe maybe

[41:32] that answers the question. There's more

[41:33] than just pay. Yeah, the utilities are a

[41:35] big portion of the cost for Centerville.

[41:37] >> So, uh h having traveled a bit recently,

[41:41] uh walking, biking, uh pass are pretty

[41:45] critical, especially as our city's

[41:46] grown. So, so uh I I think this is this

[41:50] is definitely something we need because

[41:52] um uh I don't know where we're going to

[41:55] put more more roads. So,

[41:59] you you got to have you got to have

[42:01] this. But I do do ask you this. Do we do

[42:05] is there any projections on use on this?

[42:07] Because as Utons, we won't give up our

[42:10] cars, I'll tell you. But maybe we'll

[42:11] have to, you know, we'll be down to one

[42:14] car families finally, you know, at some

[42:16] point in time. But is there any

[42:19] projections? Just out of curiosity.

[42:21] >> I do not have projections.

[42:23] We talked about that. Can I ask with

[42:26] maybe going along with projections, what

[42:28] are the types of um

[42:32] vehicles or that are allowed on this

[42:35] trail? I mean, obviously people can ride

[42:38] bikes or walk. Uh do the other cities

[42:42] limit those um

[42:46] >> other bikes to Can ebikes go on it? Can

[42:50] golf carts go on it? I think what he's

[42:52] asking there is what roll what's rolling

[42:55] defined as because it says walking,

[42:57] biking, and rolling.

[42:58] >> There you go. So, what's rolling?

[43:00] >> I'll share what I think we've talked

[43:02] about that that is

[43:03] >> undetermined at this time. It's

[43:05] indeterminate. Um, and that's because no

[43:08] policies have been established. We're

[43:09] not quite to that point, but that

[43:11] clearly could be a policy discussion. If

[43:14] the council were to accept this, then I

[43:15] would continue participating in these

[43:17] committees with the other cities to have

[43:18] those very conversations. And if I got

[43:21] feedback from the council that says,

[43:22] "Hey, my council does not want motorized

[43:26] vehicles in these corridors, I can bring

[43:28] that to the table to represent

[43:29] Centerville's interest for that if

[43:30] that's the the desire." So those

[43:32] conversations still need to be had.

[43:34] Let's put it that way.

[43:35] >> So what are we saying? Rolling is

[43:36] >> rolling would be like strollers, wagons,

[43:39] I guess, you know,

[43:40] >> roller blading,

[43:41] >> roller blades,

[43:42] >> roller skates, I mean to me it could be

[43:44] scooters

[43:45] >> with wheels, you know. So,

[43:48] >> and I did I did have Sorry, I didn't

[43:50] mean to cut you out. I just was going to

[43:51] add to that. I did have one resident in

[43:53] particular on Northwest that was really

[43:55] excited about the idea of it even in

[43:56] front of their house because they have

[43:58] young children and they like the idea of

[43:59] being able to have their kids go outside

[44:01] and feel safe rolling back and forth

[44:04] between friends house and just being

[44:05] able to recreate. So,

[44:07] >> can I piggyback on mayor's question with

[44:09] regard to the cost? So some of it would

[44:11] be burying underground lines, but I want

[44:12] to look at this example that you have up

[44:14] on this board right now because

[44:15] currently this where this trail is, it's

[44:18] just grass, right? But in this picture,

[44:20] I see lovely trees and landscaping there

[44:22] on the left hand side. Would the 10

[44:24] million also go to aesthetically

[44:27] beautifying this area as well, adding

[44:29] trees and such.

[44:30] >> I love trees. And that's another

[44:32] indeterminate discussion um that came up

[44:35] relative to landscaping just because it

[44:37] shows this obviously if we feel like

[44:40] maintenance of trees or other things in

[44:42] the parkrip area are difficult to

[44:44] achieve. It can be definitely more

[44:46] drought tolerant plantings. Um it can be

[44:50] different kinds of mulches or other

[44:51] things. That's another thing that would

[44:53] be discussed with future discussion

[44:55] between the cities as far as what could

[44:58] be a design or an aesthetic. And each

[45:00] city can have its own independent

[45:01] aesthetic as well. So you kind of know

[45:03] when you're going from one community to

[45:05] another if you want your own unique

[45:06] identity, if you want to kind of have

[45:08] some unique or you could have

[45:10] >> cohesion,

[45:11] >> seamless cohesion, too. Maybe you have

[45:13] similar colorations on the actual path,

[45:15] but then the park strip plantings are a

[45:17] little bit unique and different with

[45:18] some welcome to Centerville type signage

[45:21] or whatever, right? You could do

[45:23] different things that kind might be fun

[45:24] and unique. So those conversations have

[45:26] not happened yet. That's that's coming

[45:28] out of space and coming more into the

[45:29] atmosphere with those kind of

[45:30] conversations.

[45:31] >> Yeah.

[45:33] >> And here's a unique question and I don't

[45:35] know if Councilwoman Hurst thought of

[45:37] it, but five years ago I was talking an

[45:40] awful lot with UTA about BRT going

[45:43] through our uh roads where our

[45:46] businesses are. Well, 400 West does uh

[45:50] where your your route is. I mean, is

[45:52] does it affect I don't know that UTA

[45:55] would ever go there. I mean, they said

[45:56] they'd entertain it, but would it affect

[45:58] the BRT going there rather than on Main

[46:00] Street? It

[46:01] >> it could that's probably more of a coven

[46:02] question, but I can tell you from from

[46:04] my perspective and even as we've talked

[46:06] about like some of the general plan

[46:07] discussions and stuff, yes, because

[46:10] [snorts] the way the BRT works, it

[46:11] becomes an added lane in the middle, has

[46:13] to have the park islands where people

[46:15] can go and safely wait. So, this could

[46:18] impact that route for being used for

[46:20] BRT.

[46:22] >> But, uh, of course, those are our roads,

[46:24] right? I mean, you could dig and do what

[46:26] they want, but we've always said

[46:28] >> Main Street's really not our road. So,

[46:30] just just curiosity. So,

[46:31] >> yeah, that's a fair question.

[46:33] >> I mean, it's it's it's I am so thrilled

[46:36] that personally that that uh you all

[46:40] have been working on it so hard, you

[46:41] know, and like I said, I would have

[46:42] liked to been there as well, too, but I wasn't. But, so, thank you. Thank you

[46:46] for all that you've been doing. That's

[46:48] the questions I have uh right now.

[46:50] Council, any

[46:51] >> I have a couple, please. and and I I'd

[46:53] like the idea too. I think it's a great

[46:56] enhancement and would be very utilized,

[46:59] but uh couple of things. I'm a little

[47:02] worried about those three businesses,

[47:04] Colonial Lumber, Quickquack, and and

[47:07] have they specifically weighed in on

[47:09] this? Where are they at with this?

[47:10] >> We we sent them the notification like we

[47:12] did any other property owner along 400

[47:14] West, but we have not heard anything

[47:15] from At least I haven't. I don't know if

[47:17] you're

[47:18] >> I didn't hear I didn't hear anything

[47:20] from

[47:20] >> that. particularly concerns me because I I think of that situation quick is

[47:25] such a tight to for them to give up any

[47:27] frontage there. We already have a

[47:28] traffic issue with the amount of traffic

[47:31] coming out of there and I I would be I'd

[47:35] be shocked if they're pleased with this.

[47:39] Colonial might have a little more

[47:40] latitude there. Uh but and and we did

[47:44] have the option on the other side of the

[47:45] road. The original alignment was

[47:47] crossing to the west, but city engineer

[47:49] felt like that that would be impactful

[47:51] and has to go to the east and

[47:52] >> impactful for other reasons, but but uh

[47:55] they both have their impacts. I just

[47:57] that concerns me.

[47:58] >> I I think that's a good point that you

[48:00] bring up and definitely if this gets to

[48:02] the stage where there's going to be

[48:04] plans drawn up, of course, you'd have to

[48:06] have some discussions with them, right?

[48:08] And I I think you know what the reason I

[48:11] said, "Hey, we laid this out. I just

[48:13] wanted you to know like we tried to pick

[48:15] what we thought might be a good

[48:17] alignment." That doesn't mean we caught

[48:18] the right alignment. So I do I do think

[48:21] you know if that is problematic and it

[48:23] makes it so a business can't actually

[48:26] function as a business. Then we have to

[48:27] look at and say, "Well, can we put it to

[48:29] the other side?" Right.

[48:30] >> Yeah. I think I think acceptance of the

[48:32] alignment is saying that we think we're

[48:35] there, but again, it also allows the

[48:37] committee to keep meeting to talk about

[48:39] it. And to your point, uh, Council

[48:41] Member Banger, if there's an evaluation

[48:44] as we get deeper and more coming down

[48:46] closer to to land on this, we look at

[48:50] the cost, we look at the impacts, and we

[48:51] determine, hey, the Westside still is

[48:53] the better option. That plan can be

[48:57] revised to match that out. I think one

[49:00] more thing to think about is you're

[49:02] looking at this picture and it's a 12 12

[49:05] foot wide path. Correct. It's a 12 foot

[49:08] wide path and a 4 to 6 foot wide park

[49:11] strip that could potentially also be

[49:14] narrowed a little where it's maybe you

[49:15] know I mean I think we're talking about

[49:17] a choke point which is why it could

[49:19] impact

[49:20] >> those three businesses because that

[49:22] right of way is a little bit tighter.

[49:24] Um,

[49:25] >> in a lot of cases we kind of showed

[49:27] worst case most amount of conflict,

[49:30] worst case scenario. So,

[49:31] >> yeah. So, it could also maybe be

[49:33] narrowed a little right there and it

[49:35] would be fine. I think there's that's

[49:37] why I say I think there's a lot that has

[49:39] to be looked at before you finalize that

[49:42] actual plan.

[49:43] >> And that's good to hear. I appreciate

[49:44] that because that leads into my next

[49:46] question which was I [clears throat] I

[49:49] would be shocked actually that the

[49:52] fourth west portion that when people

[49:55] really realize that if they're on that

[49:57] side of the road, grandma and grandpa,

[50:00] your son's not going to be able to park

[50:01] in front of your house anymore.

[50:03] >> And and that's a big impact. And to the

[50:05] mayor's point,

[50:07] center residents aren't going to give up

[50:09] their cars. Well, we're giving up a lot

[50:11] of parking and that for this, but you

[50:14] know, so I so I just wonder alignment

[50:16] wise. So like like Chase Light enough

[50:19] residents had an issue with it being on

[50:21] that side. you guys have moved it which

[50:23] great but if that comes up later with

[50:26] fourth west if if when people really

[50:30] and so maybe we could move it to the

[50:32] other side and I know we don't want to

[50:34] be jumping back and forth that didn't

[50:35] work

[50:36] >> I will say interestingly enough so that

[50:38] is right by where I live happens to be

[50:42] >> the chase lane part

[50:43] >> well have no cha chase lane is not I

[50:47] mean the 400 west between Chase Lane and

[50:49] that um red brick church house on 400

[50:52] West.

[50:53] >> Okay,

[50:54] >> that happens to just be my I know all

[50:56] those people that used to be some of

[50:58] that used to be my word. Some of it

[50:59] still currently is my ward. So, I've

[51:02] actually talked to several of those

[51:03] people and I think um and I'm not so

[51:07] sure we're not seeing some of that

[51:08] coming around with Chase Lane a little

[51:11] bit, but these are really wide roads and

[51:13] there's a lot of speeding that happens

[51:14] when you're on a wider road. These will

[51:16] narrow those roads down and it will

[51:18] provide a natural

[51:20] just in your mind when you're driving on

[51:22] a narrow road, you tend to drive slower.

[51:24] So, I've actually had several of those

[51:27] residents say to me, "I'm very excited

[51:29] about this because it will slow the

[51:32] traffic down." So, I there's there's

[51:34] pros and cons. I'm not disagreeing with

[51:36] you. And I think that sometimes it's

[51:39] really hard to get the word out. They

[51:41] got a letter.

[51:43] I asked a few of them, you know, anyone

[51:45] I saw I was asking, you know, how they

[51:47] felt about it, but sometimes things

[51:50] don't always settle in and register

[51:52] until they've heard about it two or

[51:54] three times. And so it could, you're

[51:56] right, there could be more concerns for

[51:58] sure. Well, I love this. It's beautiful.

[52:01] And there were so many ebikes and esers

[52:03] and I mean, we just keep hearing about

[52:05] more accidents. So to get them off the

[52:07] road, I think is great. If it saves one

[52:10] person's life, I think that's great. I

[52:12] am a little concerned about the mayor's

[52:14] question. I would hate to see that this

[52:17] would make the impact of us having to

[52:19] have BRT up on Main Street rather than

[52:21] down Northwest after we'd worked so hard

[52:23] to try to talk them into looking at I

[52:25] mean we go and we say please West you've

[52:28] been there. I was there. Spencer was

[52:30] there. We all told them we thought

[52:31] Northwest was a better

[52:35] alternative. And now they come back and

[52:37] maybe offer that to us and we say, "Oh,

[52:39] whoops. We we went a different

[52:41] direction.

[52:47] » I don't know that uh you

[52:50] >> I don't know either. I just

[52:51] >> I was going to say I don't know.

[52:53] >> I was going to go that route anyway. You

[52:55] know that that was on a napkin at uh uh

[52:59] that

[53:00] >> we actually put it on their maps and

[53:02] everything up in when we met with them.

[53:04] Gina and me and Spencer all put that on

[53:06] their on their maps. I certainly don't

[53:09] want to kill over that all this the time

[53:12] and effort that's been put put into this

[53:15] and what you come up with. So, you know,

[53:17] uh this gets the ball rolling. I I know

[53:20] that once you approve even a phys v

[53:21] physibility study, I mean the ball is

[53:24] rolling, but uh uh I also don't want to

[53:27] be

[53:28] uh the one we already are on the hill

[53:31] with our trails that that boom, all of a

[53:34] sudden the trail ends. I mean, uh, we

[53:36] got to be team players and conduct

[53:38] >> and this isn't going to cost us anything

[53:40] >> to go onto the feasibility study.

[53:44] >> I mean, you know, I So, I don't think

[53:47] we're being asked to commit to any funds

[53:49] because they're going to go try and do

[53:50] their very best to get it fully funded.

[53:52] Does that mean that we will never be

[53:53] asked? I'm not going to promise that

[53:55] because I don't know.

[53:56] >> But we're not committing to anything.

[53:58] >> Exactly. Exactly. That would be a

[54:00] decision at that point. So, you know, I

[54:03] think that they're confident that there

[54:05] are many opportunities out there. Can we

[54:07] be the ones that qualify? I think

[54:09] there's a really good chance. I mean, I

[54:12] think Kimley Horn feels like there's a

[54:14] really good chance, especially where is

[54:15] a more re it's multiple communities and

[54:19] this is going to tie into a trail that,

[54:21] you know, really if people want to ride

[54:23] their bike to work in downtown Salt

[54:25] Lake, they'll be able to.

[54:26] >> Yeah, I love it. I love that stuff. So,

[54:29] I think there's lots to love about it.

[54:31] Um, I think it's important to remember,

[54:33] too, as you look at this picture, I'm

[54:35] not sure like we put the people on it,

[54:38] right? I This is a 12 foot wide path.

[54:41] That's a traffic lane and it's a wide

[54:44] traffic lane. We have we have lanes of

[54:47] traffic that are 11 ft. So,

[54:50] >> this is a really big nice path. And yes,

[54:52] to your point, Robin, I think it would,

[54:55] you know, give lots of opportunity for,

[54:57] you know, depending on how we decide on those rolling ebikes and whatnot. I

[55:02] do think there's I think there's going

[55:04] to have to be some considerations about

[55:05] what is

[55:06] >> there will,

[55:07] >> you know, how you how you share that

[55:09] space, but it's a really big wide path.

[55:11] So, it's it's really nice.

[55:13] >> And and I think to that point, the

[55:15] council will be involved on whatever

[55:17] next steps happen. In my mind, as I've

[55:19] talked about and we talked to the

[55:20] residents, it feels like there's still

[55:22] two or three more steps to this thing,

[55:24] you know, there's still the the design

[55:26] and the engineering and then there's the implementation, the construction.

[55:29] So, this is the first of probably a four

[55:32] step or plus project um even to get to

[55:35] that point. So

[55:37] >> that's another thing that there will be

[55:38] plenty of conversation with the council

[55:40] to make sure if there's something wrong

[55:42] or it feels off or maybe even with the

[55:44] designer engineering it's like this part

[55:45] of the route is not working and here's

[55:47] why we need to look at it. So I think

[55:49] that it's a very evolutionary process

[55:50] anyway even even at where it is right

[55:52] now. Mhm.

[55:54] >> Can I ask if our our police chief and

[55:58] public safety officials have any take on

[56:01] this as far from a safety perspective

[56:03] and speed limits and traffic management

[56:06] on those routes? I just curious.

[56:11] » Yeah, Mike and I were just chatting

[56:13] about

[56:15] safety wise.

[56:20] Yeah, I I liked uh Councilwoman Hurst's

[56:23] comments about uh traffic calming

[56:25] through narrowing not removing lanes but

[56:29] narrowing things down. Uh right now it

[56:31] is kind of a wide open

[56:35] uh road that has a low speed limit and

[56:37] so it does tend to drive speeds up.

[56:41] Um so I I'm a fan of getting pedestrians

[56:46] and cyclists off the roadway. give them

[56:48] a little bit of a buffer. As we know

[56:50] from previous

[56:52] uh meetings, I'm a fan of sidewalks and

[56:54] you know, pathways off the roadway. So,

[56:59] specifically, Chief, what about all the

[57:01] residents who would be backing across

[57:03] this to to leave to get out ingress and

[57:06] egress from their properties with two lanes to clear bikes and pedestrians

[57:11] here and then another clearing? I'm just

[57:14] thoughts on that.

[57:16] We gonna have more accidents. We going

[57:18] to have pedestrian accidents less.

[57:21] >> I I don't know. I I don't know how that

[57:24] it would work and how it line up with,

[57:27] you know, trees blocking sign. You know,

[57:29] you have line of sight. And so it's it's

[57:32] possible with the travel lane closer to

[57:35] the the homes that they have a better

[57:38] side of pedestrians and cyclists there

[57:41] rather than on the other side of the

[57:43] park strip where you got trees and other

[57:45] things blocking it. Um I don't know if

[57:48] there anyone's Yeah, I I really don't

[57:50] have a professional opinion on that.

[57:53] Sorry.

[57:54] >> You would hope that uh people knowing

[57:57] that those

[57:59] paths are there, they would drive safer,

[58:01] >> right? My my concern though would be

[58:04] with

[58:05] >> cyclists maybe going too fast

[58:08] >> on a sidewalk and not doing giving due

[58:11] uh care to motors pulling in and out

[58:14] which is a lot of times we we'll see

[58:16] that on crashes like that where it's

[58:18] this cyclist going really fast on a

[58:21] sidewalk and end up getting getting hit.

[58:24] Is there a perhaps a a speed limit on

[58:28] those two examples that you showed us

[58:32] that you know of like a

[58:34] >> on the on the path itself?

[58:36] >> Yeah.

[58:37] >> Um we didn't establish a speed limit as

[58:39] part of this. Um and also goes back to

[58:42] enforcement. It's rather difficult to I

[58:46] guess enforce the speed on these shared

[58:48] use paths. Um, and so I think that's

[58:51] something that would

[58:53] >> come a little bit later. Um,

[58:55] >> do you know of one though?

[58:59] >> Oh, like posted on those. Um, not that I

[59:02] know of. Not on the nine line. Um, I

[59:04] frequent that one.

[59:06] >> And I'm sorry. And maybe I missed that

[59:07] part of conversation about electronic

[59:09] devices on these

[59:11] >> these bikes ebikes and stuff there.

[59:13] >> Well, a regular bike can go about what

[59:16] 15 miles per hour if you're really

[59:18] pedaling. And then an ebike we you said

[59:21] could go upwards of

[59:22] >> uh 20 to 28

[59:24] >> depending on the class.

[59:26] >> So that's kind of fast on

[59:28] >> Yeah.

[59:30] >> Half like that.

[59:34] » I'm actually in favor of this as well. I

[59:36] just

[59:37] >> kind of looking at

[59:38] >> the concerns that I have.

[59:40] >> And a note on the driveways as well.

[59:44] It's also like existing right now.

[59:46] people are backing out and you've got

[59:48] cyclists going down the shoulder. But I

[59:51] think it's a

[59:52] >> Yeah, I So that did come up with the

[59:54] chase lane residence of course and that

[59:56] was and that is one of the reasons that

[59:58] we moved it to the north side because

[1:00:00] there's way way like four driveways

[1:00:04] versus like 11 or 12. It was it was a

[1:00:07] high number. Um, and so yeah, of course

[1:00:10] we want to look for ways to avoid

[1:00:12] potential conflicts. But as I was

[1:00:15] thinking about it and thinking about,

[1:00:17] you know, backing out of a driveway, I'm

[1:00:19] like, you're still on Chase Lane. If

[1:00:21] you're backing out, it's a really wide

[1:00:23] road. You're still you still got to

[1:00:25] watch the sidewalk when you're backing

[1:00:27] out. You still got to watch the

[1:00:28] shoulder, which has the bicyclists in

[1:00:30] it, and you still got to watch for

[1:00:31] traffic. And so I'm not I I don't know.

[1:00:35] I don't I don't understand

[1:00:36] professionally how that may, you know,

[1:00:38] impact to suddenly move everything into

[1:00:40] one 12T lane. But I I think it is what

[1:00:43] the mayor said. We just have to be

[1:00:46] if you're backing up into a sidewalk or

[1:00:49] a pathway, we always need to be careful.

[1:00:52] >> It does concern me a little bit because

[1:00:54] I'm out there and I see these ebikes.

[1:00:57] Not sure they don't more go more than 28

[1:00:59] miles an hour. That would be my concern

[1:01:02] is this seems like a straight shot where

[1:01:05] on the shoulder they're kind of moving

[1:01:07] in and out, cars are pulling in and out.

[1:01:09] I think they'd be a little more I mean,

[1:01:11] I could get on that and think, hey, I go

[1:01:13] to North Salt Lake with, you know, I'm

[1:01:16] going to put this out to full gear and

[1:01:17] on I go. I I don't know either. I'm

[1:01:20] supportive of this. I could just want as

[1:01:22] we're looking at it those things to be

[1:01:24] taken into consideration. I don't want

[1:01:26] to put that much money into it and then

[1:01:28] have them say, "Ah, we can't have

[1:01:30] bicycles on it or we can't have ebikes

[1:01:32] on it." Because that it'd be my concern

[1:01:35] is it does look like a straight shot. If

[1:01:37] you, you know, if you're 12 years old

[1:01:39] and you get your ebike going down there

[1:01:41] 28 miles an hour,

[1:01:43] >> are you stopping or slowing down at each

[1:01:46] >> at each driveway?

[1:01:49] >> Well, we've had good discussion. We got

[1:01:51] a lot on our agenda. Uh and and uh so we

[1:01:54] pro probably are looking at some sort of

[1:01:56] there there's a couple sample motions in

[1:01:58] your packet or you can make up your own

[1:02:00] motion uh on this uh if anybody is so

[1:02:04] inclined to

[1:02:05] >> Gina. Do you want to or this is your b

[1:02:08] this is kind of your baby so I want to

[1:02:10] give you

[1:02:10] >> well I'm I'm happy if someone else wants

[1:02:12] to make it. very supportive of the

[1:02:14] project. Um, just at least to provide

[1:02:17] the option for the future, right? Like

[1:02:20] respectfully agree with all the things

[1:02:22] that have been stated, but I'd love to

[1:02:24] see this.

[1:02:24] >> And I will make a motion that the city

[1:02:26] council accept the results of the South

[1:02:29] Davis Greenway feasibility study and

[1:02:30] associated completed documentation.

[1:02:37] » Have a second.

[1:02:38] >> Second.

[1:02:40] >> All right. Got a motion and a second.

[1:02:42] We'll start with Councilman Banger going

[1:02:44] to the right.

[1:02:45] >> I I

[1:02:47] >> I

[1:02:48] >> All right, that pass unanimously. Thank

[1:02:50] you, Mike. Thanks, Dick, for coming.

[1:02:52] Appreciate it. All right, let's go to

[1:02:54] our uh one of our public hearing

[1:02:56] matters. This is a public hearing uh

[1:03:00] related to DATUS detached access

[1:03:04] accessory dwelling units and this has

[1:03:07] gone through planning commission uh

[1:03:10] three sessions and Mike will tell us

[1:03:13] some [snorts] about that as well as uh

[1:03:15] other things

[1:03:18] that uh this is one of those deals again

[1:03:21] I believe Mike that we have legislators

[1:03:24] saying saying we need to submit

[1:03:26] something right by October 1.

[1:03:28] >> Correct.

[1:03:29] >> Yeah. Um, [clears throat] thank you,

[1:03:31] Mayor, Council. Um, so this is Yeah,

[1:03:34] this is a a little bit of a a

[1:03:37] challenging discussion, I know, for

[1:03:38] everybody. Uh, as the mayor said, um,

[1:03:41] per state code,

[1:03:44] let's see which one it was. It was

[1:03:49] Senate Bill 284. That's what it was.

[1:03:51] Local land and water modifications,

[1:03:53] which the governor signed on March 18th.

[1:03:56] The state legislature approved this bill

[1:03:59] that codified um detach accessory

[1:04:02] dwelling units as found in in Utah state

[1:04:05] code 10-21-304.

[1:04:07] Um one of the requirements for this

[1:04:10] detached ADU language is that each city

[1:04:14] have the a code standard in place by

[1:04:18] October 1st in their communities to

[1:04:20] continue to be in compliance with state

[1:04:22] requirements. Um, so we started after I

[1:04:28] guess to give you a quick history on

[1:04:29] this after the governor signed it and

[1:04:31] things rolled out. Um, we started to get

[1:04:34] information as cities from the Utah

[1:04:36] League of Cities and towns relative to

[1:04:38] how do you tackle the detached accessory

[1:04:40] dwelling requirements? and I

[1:04:42] participated in those sessions in April

[1:04:45] and even into May um and got the

[1:04:48] guidance necessary regarding

[1:04:50] what you have to have in a detached

[1:04:52] accessory dwelling unit, what you can

[1:04:54] have optionally in detach accessory

[1:04:56] dwelling unit code um and what you can

[1:04:58] what are you you basically are not

[1:05:00] allowed to regulate. So there were three um things that had to be evaluated

[1:05:08] when looking at how you establish this

[1:05:10] code. And so it was a big animal and

[1:05:14] there are not there are not very many

[1:05:16] cities that I found through my research

[1:05:18] during May and June in Davis County that

[1:05:22] have detached accessory growing and it's

[1:05:23] currently existing. And so

[1:05:26] um I went and I did uh the research

[1:05:29] necessary looking at the ones that we

[1:05:33] had neighboring um Farmington. I don't

[1:05:36] think we wanted to reflect their codes.

[1:05:37] I didn't give it a lot of credence

[1:05:39] because they have kind of a more of a

[1:05:40] pioneering concept that I don't think is

[1:05:42] conducive to what Centerville is

[1:05:43] seeking. Um, and Bountiful has one.

[1:05:46] They've had theirs in place since 2008.

[1:05:48] So, I looked to them. Uh, I did look at

[1:05:50] North Salt Lake. And I kind of tried to

[1:05:52] look at comparable cities. I think I

[1:05:54] pulled in West Point and uh, obviously I

[1:05:57] pulled in Mil Creek. Um, I looked at

[1:05:59] South Salt Lake or Salt Lake County

[1:06:00] because I thought theirs was had some

[1:06:02] unique features that match some of the

[1:06:04] things we might be looking for and also

[1:06:06] seem to match state compliance as well

[1:06:08] as even as far as Eagle Mountain and and

[1:06:10] the reason for that is again just to try

[1:06:12] to get a broad enough survey but uh some

[1:06:14] of the other areas like Leighton had one

[1:06:16] but again it wasn't conducive to the

[1:06:18] city. Anyway, so throughout the month of

[1:06:20] June, I did the survey and I had talked

[1:06:22] to the planning commission about the

[1:06:23] need to bring this forward in order to

[1:06:25] hit the timelines. Looking at calendar

[1:06:26] clearly to hit everything, it would

[1:06:28] require some time with the planning

[1:06:29] commission and uh public hearings that

[1:06:32] are required as well as bring it to the

[1:06:33] council. So, we did have um our first

[1:06:36] discussion with the planning commission

[1:06:37] on June 8th. I brought forward the first

[1:06:39] survey. I brought forward state code

[1:06:41] requirements. I'm not sure if we had the

[1:06:44] one pager from the Utah and cities and

[1:06:46] town available at that point. Um but and

[1:06:49] I brought forward uh a first draft of a

[1:06:54] detached ADU ordinance that seemed to be

[1:06:57] a good starting point which was the Mil

[1:06:58] Creek one. And what I did is I brought

[1:07:01] in code sections that we had already

[1:07:03] established in our internal ADU

[1:07:05] ordinance as well and pushed those

[1:07:07] things in that seem to think be things

[1:07:08] we already had wanted and are utilizing

[1:07:10] with the internal accessory drawing unit

[1:07:13] in addition to the new creek code to to

[1:07:16] have that starting point. And then I got

[1:07:18] direction from the planning commission

[1:07:19] during the July 8th meeting. Um did some

[1:07:22] more investigation and revisions.

[1:07:24] further went and looked at um things

[1:07:26] that were in other city codes that

[1:07:29] optionally could further be researched

[1:07:32] or evaluated by the planning commission

[1:07:34] um and staff of ways to um

[1:07:38] if if directed to do so or evaluated to

[1:07:41] do so adjust into the code um that was

[1:07:44] the draft those concepts. Um, I did

[1:07:47] provide the the state requirements from

[1:07:50] the Utah League of Cities and Towns in

[1:07:52] that packet and we discussed that at

[1:07:54] length. Um, and that was brought forward

[1:07:56] to the July 22nd meeting that I'm

[1:07:58] evidencing here in the packet. um and we

[1:08:01] started to refine these concepts and

[1:08:04] then um they set the public hearing for

[1:08:06] August 12th and they still had

[1:08:09] additional questions that came as you probably saw in the packet an email

[1:08:12] conversation and some responses to that

[1:08:14] email conversation as well as they asked

[1:08:16] me to research from Bountiful City um

[1:08:19] how many existing detached accessory

[1:08:21] dwelling unit permits they had what kind

[1:08:23] of um requests they're getting is it is

[1:08:26] it an active program and you can see the

[1:08:28] responses in there but what was really

[1:08:30] interesting is they started their

[1:08:31] program in 2008 and they only evidenced

[1:08:34] 27 uh known

[1:08:37] uh applications that are are processed

[1:08:39] and existing in their community. That

[1:08:41] doesn't mean there aren't others, but

[1:08:43] following the city requirements, they

[1:08:44] have on record 27. So, that was an

[1:08:46] interesting finding. Um, one thing I I

[1:08:50] also want to note, um, is that as we

[1:08:53] talked with the planning commission

[1:08:54] about key features and and I'll come

[1:08:57] back quickly um, and go over what state

[1:09:00] requirements are specifically, but um,

[1:09:05] the planning commission had to evaluate

[1:09:08] things that the state code didn't drive

[1:09:09] like what is what should be the setback

[1:09:11] for it, how tall should it be, are there

[1:09:14] going to be second stories allowed, are

[1:09:15] there going to be basements? um what

[1:09:18] size of units um those sorts of things

[1:09:21] were things that the state had no real

[1:09:24] commentary on and so the the planning

[1:09:27] commission had to evaluate those options

[1:09:29] but anyway let me share with you if if

[1:09:32] you'll just indulge me uh the statutory

[1:09:34] requirements so um this is per Utah

[1:09:37] legacies and towns and this is found in

[1:09:39] 10-21-304

[1:09:40] of the state code um to be compliant

[1:09:43] with state law city data's ordinance

[1:09:45] must have must allow

[1:09:47] dad who's on lots larger than 11,000

[1:09:49] square ft with single family dwellings.

[1:09:51] Now, you can optionally go lower than

[1:09:52] that, but that's the starting point. You

[1:09:54] can't make them any you can't go half

[1:09:56] acre and say we're not accepting unless

[1:09:57] they're halfacre. Require DADUs to

[1:10:00] comply with all applicable building

[1:10:01] health and fire codes. So, you must have

[1:10:03] language that says that you must include

[1:10:05] a process for conversion of a legally

[1:10:07] constructed accessory structure to a

[1:10:09] DATU subject to dwelling accessory

[1:10:10] structure setback requirements. So, if

[1:10:13] someone has a garage in the backyard,

[1:10:17] you need to provide an opportunity for

[1:10:18] them to be able to equip that garage

[1:10:20] into potential daddy. As long as they

[1:10:22] still meet your your setback

[1:10:24] requirements and your other requirements

[1:10:26] for that structure. So, if someone's 3

[1:10:28] ft from the property line, they will

[1:10:30] still qualify if your setback standard

[1:10:33] and your code is 8 feet, for instance.

[1:10:35] So, that that's what the state said

[1:10:38] there. Um,

[1:10:40] to be compliant with state law, your

[1:10:41] city da city city's data's ordinance

[1:10:43] must not require a conditional use

[1:10:45] permit for a daddy proposed in the

[1:10:46] primarily residential zone, require more

[1:10:49] than one parking spot for a daddy less

[1:10:51] than 650 ft or more than two parking

[1:10:53] spots for all daddies, and include

[1:10:55] design standards that conflict with

[1:10:57] 10-20-618,

[1:10:58] which says you can't regulate the

[1:11:01] exterior of a structure by telling what

[1:11:03] colors it must have and what materials

[1:11:04] it has to have and how the windows

[1:11:06] should be designed. that that the state

[1:11:08] code has said you can't require those

[1:11:10] kind of of controls but but you can

[1:11:14] still require you can still optionally

[1:11:18] um require datadus to have a consistent

[1:11:20] design with the single family dwelling

[1:11:22] in trade. So that's what they said

[1:11:24] there. Now these are the things that you

[1:11:26] can consider but you don't have to. Um

[1:11:29] prohibiting datadus in areas with

[1:11:30] inadequate access to utilities and or

[1:11:33] insufficient infrastructure capacity on

[1:11:34] a project and system level for sewer,

[1:11:36] water, electric, storm water. Regulating

[1:11:40] size um individually in relation to the

[1:11:42] single family dwelling dimension height,

[1:11:44] maximum lot coverage, and setback

[1:11:45] requirements. Prohibiting daddies from

[1:11:48] being in front yards and public utility

[1:11:49] easements. Prohibiting daddies from

[1:11:51] being rented for less than 90

[1:11:52] consecutive days. requiring the owner to

[1:11:55] live in the single family dwelling or

[1:11:56] the D-ADU. Requiring replacement of

[1:11:58] on-site parking spaces when a garage is

[1:12:00] converted to a DADU. Uh limiting a

[1:12:03] property owner from having both a DADU

[1:12:05] and an internal ADU on the same lot,

[1:12:06] giving the property owner the choice to

[1:12:08] have one or the other. Um they they must

[1:12:11] still be permitted by city code, but the

[1:12:13] city code may require property owner to

[1:12:14] choose either one or the other. And then

[1:12:17] you may require compliance with all

[1:12:18] other the land use ordinances of the

[1:12:20] city, including business licenses,

[1:12:21] utility meters, mailing addresses, and

[1:12:23] more. The reason I share all that with

[1:12:24] you is that helps to understand the the

[1:12:28] mindset the planning commission was

[1:12:29] dealing with when evaluating all the

[1:12:32] options that were on the table and what

[1:12:33] the state was saying you have to do. And

[1:12:36] one of the things that I will say staff

[1:12:39] was trying to say is now look the state

[1:12:42] of Utah says 11,000 ft is a starting

[1:12:44] point. You don't have to go smaller. the

[1:12:46] planning commission did opt to go

[1:12:47] smaller as evidenced in their minutes um

[1:12:50] for purposes that the minutes reflect um

[1:12:53] that was a decision that they they

[1:12:55] recommended as well as the size of the

[1:12:57] structure like I said um they're the

[1:12:59] ones that I think they picked I think it

[1:13:02] it's 600 f feet or 500 feet I read it

[1:13:04] earlier but I don't remember up to I

[1:13:06] think it was 1,200 square ft um but one

[1:13:10] floor could only be a maximum of 800

[1:13:11] square f feet um and then obviously the

[1:13:13] other space could be that differential

[1:13:15] up to that 1,200. So anyway, there were nuances there. The reason

[1:13:19] that um the setback was set at 8 ft was

[1:13:23] because existing uh single family

[1:13:25] residential dwellings in the sideyard

[1:13:27] are set back at a 8 ft minimum standard

[1:13:30] combined 10. And also your P your POE is

[1:13:34] a 7 foot pee on the sideyards and even

[1:13:36] the rear yard. And so the thought was 8

[1:13:39] foot was a consistent application for

[1:13:42] DADU of that location to stay off the

[1:13:44] pee and also match up with uh

[1:13:47] consistency with the single family

[1:13:48] dwelling. So I know I've said a lot. Um

[1:13:51] I just want to note that there are

[1:13:53] multiple documents in your packet that

[1:13:56] further I hopefully hopefully provide

[1:13:59] the full body of of research and

[1:14:01] discussion and information that has been

[1:14:03] provided and and brought forward over

[1:14:05] the months to get to this point. And I

[1:14:07] know it's not the the best most exciting

[1:14:09] place to be, but we do have to try to

[1:14:12] figure out what direction we want to go

[1:14:13] at least for the October 1st deadline.

[1:14:16] That doesn't mean that we can't bring

[1:14:18] back other ideas and concepts that we

[1:14:20] want to explore further as a city um

[1:14:23] either given direction from the council

[1:14:25] andor in discussion with the planning

[1:14:27] commission to further refine things that

[1:14:29] are really desirable or need further

[1:14:31] refining within the code to make it more

[1:14:34] what the city wants to see. Um, so I

[1:14:37] guess what I'm saying is we would have

[1:14:38] more time after to go and do that

[1:14:41] research and further refine the the the

[1:14:44] um code with whatever version might be approved by October 1st. So with

[1:14:51] that, hopefully that gives you enough

[1:14:52] information and and I appreciate your

[1:14:54] indulgence and patience with me sharing

[1:14:55] that, mayor and council. Thank you.

[1:14:58] >> Sure. So this is public hearing but

[1:15:00] questions for Mike before we do a public

[1:15:02] hearing on anything he said or what you

[1:15:04] have in your packet. I appreciate

[1:15:06] council. You got a big packet this time.

[1:15:08] So appreciate uh all of you for reading

[1:15:11] every page. But um so fire if you have

[1:15:15] any questions for Mike before we do a

[1:15:17] public hearing. If I got Mario, so

[1:15:19] Spencer Summer Hayes submitted to the

[1:15:22] city council in advance of this meeting

[1:15:23] some thoughts and it looks like he had a

[1:15:25] conversation with you um in advance of

[1:15:27] the city council meeting. Are are you

[1:15:30] prepared to address the comments today

[1:15:33] that he has submitted or would you

[1:15:34] propose that we pass the ordinance as

[1:15:37] proposed by the planning commission or

[1:15:40] as recommended by the planning

[1:15:41] commission and come back to us with more

[1:15:44] cogent responses to Spencer's

[1:15:46] suggestions? I I think when it comes to

[1:15:49] the second story, there's three points

[1:15:51] that very clearly states that second

[1:15:53] story development of of an accessory

[1:15:57] building is not available for DDU uh

[1:15:59] use. I mean, if we needed to further

[1:16:02] clarify with his statement about attic or eaves, further defining what

[1:16:07] that means, that would not take much to

[1:16:09] do that if if directed to do so by

[1:16:11] council. Um, I don't know how to comment

[1:16:14] on the the four corners discussion.

[1:16:17] Again, I mean, eight feet seems to be

[1:16:20] similar to a single family dwelling.

[1:16:21] Could Could four property owners all

[1:16:23] have a detached ADU? Certainly. I don't

[1:16:27] know if if Bountiful statistics are tell

[1:16:29] of how many people will employ in

[1:16:31] Centerville, but again, it's been in

[1:16:33] place in in Bountiful for 18 years and

[1:16:36] there's 27 known accepted DADU. So I

[1:16:40] guess what I'm getting at there is the

[1:16:42] likelihood of four neighbors doing what

[1:16:45] he he proposes is probably

[1:16:48] unlikely unlikely but not impossible. Um

[1:16:52] so I don't know how to comment on that

[1:16:53] other than that. I guess the only thing

[1:16:55] you could do in that scenario is you can

[1:16:57] make setbacks even more stringent. Say

[1:17:00] 10 feet or say if it's over 15 feet for

[1:17:04] every foot or two it it has to be set

[1:17:07] back even further inside 10 ft up to 12

[1:17:09] feet or something. I suppose you could

[1:17:10] do something like that in response to

[1:17:12] his comment. But I

[1:17:13] >> I guess that was my question because he

[1:17:15] raises I think some interesting points

[1:17:17] particularly with regard to urban

[1:17:18] shadows and things like that. But I just

[1:17:20] I was wondering are we are we at a point

[1:17:22] where we could actually like get in and

[1:17:24] make those changes to what's been

[1:17:25] proposed right now or is that something

[1:17:26] that we should certainly think about but

[1:17:28] maybe in a

[1:17:30] >> it's probably the latter with the

[1:17:32] exception again of of attic and eface

[1:17:34] that would not be hard to add but I

[1:17:35] think the other conversations are are

[1:17:37] definitely much

[1:17:38] >> so I always get afraid of bringing in

[1:17:39] comments so somebody that's emailed us

[1:17:41] something uh if if all members of

[1:17:44] council haven't seen

[1:17:45] >> I have seen it

[1:17:46] >> it was sent out to everyone I think

[1:17:48] >> and I I appreciated what he sent. So, I

[1:17:50] appreciate uh Council Member Haymon

[1:17:52] bringing it up because I think it was

[1:17:54] important.

[1:17:55] >> Can I can I ask another clarifying

[1:17:57] question? So, I did I did reach out I

[1:17:59] reached out to who I could quickly on

[1:18:01] some of those emails. I I did miss one

[1:18:03] person, but he mentioned the 20 foot

[1:18:06] height. It says a maximum of 20 feet. Is

[1:18:09] that I know when we take a height for a

[1:18:13] building, we go from the bottom of the

[1:18:15] curb that they Yeah.

[1:18:18] >> Yeah. And then we go something like the

[1:18:20] rain like there's there's an average

[1:18:24] going on. Is this 20 ft to the peak of

[1:18:27] the roof?

[1:18:27] >> No.

[1:18:28] It's measured. It could be

[1:18:29] significantly.

[1:18:31] >> So So the average would be here.

[1:18:34] [laughter]

[1:18:34] >> Planning Commission did discuss that and

[1:18:36] staff's recommendation is that if we

[1:18:38] already have a measurement or a

[1:18:40] provision in our code that we stick with

[1:18:42] that because we don't want separate, you

[1:18:44] know, calculations.

[1:18:46] um if you need to look at your height

[1:18:48] calculation in general. Um yeah, but I

[1:18:51] did want to say that

[1:18:52] >> just for the record, we did receive two

[1:18:54] written public comments and um I think

[1:18:57] most of those went to the city council.

[1:18:59] They will be or should be included as

[1:19:01] part of the record. Um whether those

[1:19:04] people speak in this public hearing or

[1:19:05] not, it's written public comment that

[1:19:07] will be part of the record. So

[1:19:09] >> that's what I was going to say. We can

[1:19:10] we that's got to be in front of the

[1:19:12] public as well too. if you're talking

[1:19:14] about something here the public hasn't

[1:19:16] seen.

[1:19:16] >> Right. And I do want to say

[1:19:18] >> are those in the are they included in

[1:19:20] the packet? I know I got the email.

[1:19:21] >> They were not because they came in

[1:19:22] later.

[1:19:24] >> Absolutely.

[1:19:24] >> I think today so we maybe need to table

[1:19:26] and

[1:19:27] >> Right. You can certainly table. Um but I

[1:19:29] just wanted to make a comment as well. I

[1:19:31] think Mike has done a good job, you

[1:19:33] know, seeing what other cities that have

[1:19:34] these ordinances in place and also

[1:19:36] trying to address, you know, the ne

[1:19:37] unique circumstances of Centerville. Um

[1:19:40] staff's recommendation at the planning

[1:19:42] commission level was just go with the

[1:19:45] state requirements. We don't need to get

[1:19:47] creative at this level. This is a new um

[1:19:52] you know type of structure in our city.

[1:19:54] And so you know trying to start out

[1:19:57] conservative rather than you know

[1:19:59] getting creative. And so the two areas

[1:20:01] that I see the planning commission went

[1:20:03] less restrictive than state law is the

[1:20:05] size of the lot. So they're recommending

[1:20:07] 8,500 and above. state law only requires

[1:20:10] you to do 11,000 square feet and above

[1:20:12] to allow these types um of units. And I

[1:20:16] also think that there was some

[1:20:17] discussion and the planning commission

[1:20:19] recommended allowing basements and other

[1:20:22] cities do not allow a basement for

[1:20:25] these. Now, we haven't done the research

[1:20:27] on that, but basement do create

[1:20:29] additional issues here in Centerville

[1:20:31] with groundwater and and other, you

[1:20:33] know, concerns and maybe building codes,

[1:20:36] etc. It also makes it a bigger

[1:20:38] structure. So, those were the two things

[1:20:40] in re-reviewing the the ordinance today

[1:20:43] that I think the planning commission's

[1:20:46] recommendation is slightly more lenient

[1:20:48] than what the state code requires. There

[1:20:50] may be other provisions, but those came

[1:20:52] to mind. So, I wanted to highlight that.

[1:20:55] Um, as well as

[1:20:57] just yeah, understanding you can

[1:20:59] certainly table this, take the public

[1:21:01] comment. We have one more meeting. This

[1:21:03] has been calendared out so that we can

[1:21:05] meet this. But um it is a lengthy

[1:21:09] ordinance but I think most of the

[1:21:11] additional regulations are trying to you

[1:21:13] know tighten it and address these these

[1:21:16] discretionary issues that the state

[1:21:18] allows municipalities to address. So um

[1:21:23] >> I I have a number of comments to address

[1:21:26] but I think we need to have the public

[1:21:28] hearing. Is there anybody online?

[1:21:31] Well, we'll I'll go to public hearing

[1:21:33] generally in following the process we

[1:21:35] use. We ask questions of staff. If

[1:21:37] you're done with staff, then we go to

[1:21:39] public hearing. You can come back and

[1:21:41] ask more questions too. Anything from

[1:21:43] the public hearing that or anything from

[1:21:45] the staff.

[1:21:46] >> Just one clarification, Lisa. I did

[1:21:47] check with Bountiful. They do allow

[1:21:49] basement in and D just for

[1:21:51] clarification.

[1:21:52] >> Okay. Some of this is addressed to

[1:21:54] staff. Let me let me go there. Uh, first

[1:21:57] [clears throat] of all, I'll I'll just

[1:21:58] identify that that this council member

[1:22:01] is very amanable to ADUs and

[1:22:04] specifically detached ADUs. And I've

[1:22:08] recently been through an election where

[1:22:10] it was brought up repeatedly. And I am

[1:22:13] confident that a vast number of our

[1:22:17] residents support this idea as a way to

[1:22:20] provide some more affordable moderate

[1:22:23] housing for residents in need. That's

[1:22:26] been identified extensively as we've

[1:22:28] been looking at general plan stuff. So, I'm I'm I'm pleased the state's taken

[1:22:33] some action. I'm a little concerned and

[1:22:37] I want to understand what is the penalty

[1:22:39] and I want to be ready before October

[1:22:41] 1st. But what's the penalty if we

[1:22:43] weren't what what would that mean?

[1:22:48] » I would think somebody could probably do

[1:22:49] it without

[1:22:51] >> we don't have any ordinance in place and

[1:22:53] it becomes legal on October 1st. So we

[1:22:56] would lose our rights of saying you can

[1:22:58] only be this high, you can do this, you

[1:23:00] can do that. We have to have that in

[1:23:02] place because on se on October 1st it's

[1:23:05] going to be the state. Am I wrong?

[1:23:07] >> Yeah.

[1:23:07] >> Okay.

[1:23:08] >> That's the risk.

[1:23:09] >> That would that would be my my fear is

[1:23:11] that we'd have somebody come in and do

[1:23:14] um

[1:23:14] >> we would just be subject to the state

[1:23:16] law mandates.

[1:23:18] >> Okay. That helps. And it it it seems

[1:23:19] like we're right down to the wire. And I

[1:23:22] understand staff, you've been

[1:23:23] overburdened and and it has been

[1:23:26] cumbersome to know what the league was

[1:23:28] going to suggest all those things. I

[1:23:30] totally get that. I think planning

[1:23:31] commission identified that. Uh I I do

[1:23:34] want to identify that uh I listened

[1:23:38] intently from Alaska to that planning

[1:23:40] commission meeting. I was all ears and

[1:23:43] uh uh it was clear that there was some

[1:23:47] public comment brought forward to them

[1:23:50] by the Riley's and other gal there and we've had other public comments

[1:23:55] since then in writing. We gave a fair

[1:23:57] amount of attention just now to Mr.

[1:23:59] Summer Haz's comments and probably ought

[1:24:02] to be equally dispersed in what but but that's that's just something I

[1:24:06] wanted to point out and I do want to point out it wasn't addressed in

[1:24:10] the draft minutes that are in our packet

[1:24:11] from the planning commission but but uh

[1:24:16] commission

[1:24:17] chair ma mason care and I need to quote

[1:24:21] this because because if you didn't if

[1:24:23] you haven't listened to that I think

[1:24:24] this is critical to our our timing here.

[1:24:28] He said after thanking staff profu

[1:24:31] profusely for the hard work

[1:24:33] appropriately so to set this to get to

[1:24:35] this point he said I'm going to say this

[1:24:39] that I would like us to work on

[1:24:40] modifying the code I just moved to

[1:24:43] authorize which got a unanimous approval

[1:24:46] with positive recommendation that we

[1:24:48] address these situations the public

[1:24:50] comment uh where it seems like to meet

[1:24:54] the spirit and intent of the datadus

[1:24:57] would be to allow allow a dad in these

[1:24:59] situations in a front yard. Uh that

[1:25:02] would make a lot of sense to me. At

[1:25:05] least that would be the underlying

[1:25:07] policy, I'm quoting him directly, behind

[1:25:09] why we would want a DAU code to address

[1:25:12] these situations, these few that that

[1:25:15] created a challenge, but I want to do it

[1:25:18] in a way that makes a lot of sense.

[1:25:19] Yeah. I don't know what that looks like

[1:25:22] yet, but it makes sense for everybody

[1:25:25] with that direction. But does it make

[1:25:26] sense for everybody? are you open to

[1:25:28] other alternative

[1:25:30] uh land use discussions? The the

[1:25:34] planning commission said totally and

[1:25:35] Mike agreed totally appropriately. And

[1:25:38] then he says uh yeah, I would like that.

[1:25:41] Sorry to saddle the staff with more

[1:25:43] workload, but I feel quite strongly that is something we should address in

[1:25:48] the near future. And it seems like

[1:25:50] residents are waiting that wanting that

[1:25:53] as the state does. Okay. So the planning

[1:25:58] commission was was really strong on

[1:26:00] that. It didn't reflect in the minutes

[1:26:02] that they they agreed there were some

[1:26:04] exceptions here that those those people

[1:26:07] identified

[1:26:08] >> and we're under a timeline, but but

[1:26:10] let's do it quickly. I I suggest, you

[1:26:14] know, we have a month. Well, we have two

[1:26:18] weeks until our our next council

[1:26:20] meeting. Uh so obviously I'm going to be

[1:26:23] motioning to table this but in that time

[1:26:26] there's another planning commission

[1:26:28] meeting they can if we give them some

[1:26:30] specific direction I would love to hear

[1:26:32] seven planning commission members

[1:26:34] feedback on some of the issues raised by

[1:26:36] these public comments by Mr. summarized

[1:26:38] by others and Mike staff's feedback on

[1:26:41] that and then let's not say okay we're

[1:26:45] to this point it's pretty good and it is

[1:26:47] pretty good really good but but we're in

[1:26:50] the process we're doing the public the

[1:26:53] citizens work now the Riley's for

[1:26:56] example they've they presented to this

[1:26:58] city council in a very professional

[1:27:02] concise

[1:27:04] understandable way that I think all of

[1:27:06] us I can't speak for all of us but

[1:27:07] Everybody was impress that was February.

[1:27:10] They've been waiting since now we're at

[1:27:13] the point they've suggested that here

[1:27:15] you are president doing a resolution or

[1:27:18] an ordinance changing code. Let's

[1:27:20] include these things. Let's get some

[1:27:22] direction. And I agree we we can spend a

[1:27:26] little later tonight or next week in

[1:27:28] planning commission or the next meeting.

[1:27:30] Let's not just say that that we've we've

[1:27:33] done good to here. that's good enough

[1:27:34] and then we're going to address it soon

[1:27:36] because

[1:27:38] that's frustrating to residents and and

[1:27:40] I I think we can do better. And so

[1:27:42] that's my plea. I I think it's

[1:27:44] important. I think there's some

[1:27:45] excellent issues brought up by this

[1:27:48] additional public comment we've

[1:27:49] received. I would like to be able to

[1:27:51] address some of that. I don't think

[1:27:54] we're going to get all of it done, but I

[1:27:56] think we can get a substantial amount of

[1:27:58] it agreed upon and voted upon uh yet

[1:28:02] this month and be in compliance.

[1:28:05] >> The the challenge with that is council

[1:28:07] member Banger is you do have to have a

[1:28:08] public hearing for new code and that's

[1:28:11] where we'll run into timing issues with

[1:28:13] that idea. I'm fine with that idea, but

[1:28:16] it would it would put us to a point

[1:28:18] where we would be on the October 1st

[1:28:19] deadline and bring it back to the

[1:28:21] council with

[1:28:21] >> why can't we notice a public hearing

[1:28:24] enough time for planning commission to

[1:28:26] review and have the appropriate

[1:28:28] notification public hearings

[1:28:30] >> puts our back up against the wall. I'm

[1:28:32] not really pleased about that, but I'm

[1:28:35] with you. Let's table this now. I have

[1:28:38] some concerns about the uh way it's

[1:28:41] written right now. I feel like we're we're cutting it off rather

[1:28:45] arbitrarily at 8,500. I've uh been in

[1:28:49] places in St. George where they have

[1:28:52] lots that are a tenth of an acre and

[1:28:55] have a cassita detached ADU in the

[1:28:58] backyard.

[1:28:59] >> A tenth of an acre.

[1:29:01] Wow.

[1:29:02] >> So, it is possible to have uh these

[1:29:05] >> 4,500 ft.

[1:29:07] >> That is correct.

[1:29:07] >> That would be

[1:29:08] >> okay. I I don't [laughter] that's going

[1:29:12] to be tied. I don't know.

[1:29:14] >> I I'll show you the pictures on that on

[1:29:17] that. There are pictures.

[1:29:18] >> I was in Yuma. We had them, too. So, I'm

[1:29:19] not disagreeing.

[1:29:19] >> There are pictures and I and they are

[1:29:22] very

[1:29:22] >> I do think that would be helpful.

[1:29:24] >> I went to a small home manufacturer in

[1:29:26] St. George. Beautiful place and went out

[1:29:29] to five subdivisions that uh they do.

[1:29:32] Very nice places. I think we can have a

[1:29:35] really good uh product for people with

[1:29:39] all size lots. We shouldn't limit it to

[1:29:41] just the upper uh sized lots and that

[1:29:45] corners really do need to be looked at a

[1:29:47] little bit more carefully

[1:29:50] as we uh talk about uh these um datadus.

[1:29:55] So I supportive of putting it off for a

[1:29:59] couple weeks. But I I I need to

[1:30:01] understand though the public hearing

[1:30:03] part. Can we can we extend the public

[1:30:06] hearing today so that we're we

[1:30:08] >> it's not our public hearing. It's the

[1:30:10] planning commission's public hearing.

[1:30:12] You there's not enough notification time

[1:30:14] between now and their next meeting.

[1:30:17] >> That's that's what the issue is.

[1:30:19] >> Yeah.

[1:30:20] >> Um I I don't disagree with anything

[1:30:23] you're saying. I'm not sure that I

[1:30:25] totally agree that I mean by I I'm

[1:30:31] concerned about the setbacks. When you

[1:30:33] talk about moving the ADU to the front

[1:30:35] yard, then you're building potentially a

[1:30:38] larger home behind

[1:30:41] >> and if you have an 8ft setback, that

[1:30:44] concerns me that that maybe isn't the

[1:30:46] same. Like the idea is to keep the

[1:30:49] single family residential neighborhoods

[1:30:51] to feel like single family residential

[1:30:54] neighborhoods. So, I think that the

[1:30:56] setbacks are potentially different if

[1:30:59] you're saying we're going to let that be

[1:31:01] flopped. In my mind, it would be

[1:31:04] >> would be different on a corner a corner

[1:31:06] lot, but a corner lot might be

[1:31:09] different, but a regular lot would be

[1:31:11] >> a regular lot. I just think we need to

[1:31:13] consider, you know, right now you can

[1:31:16] have a home and have a 10 foot a 10ft

[1:31:19] side, correct? And an 8t minimum and 10.

[1:31:21] Yeah.

[1:31:22] >> Eight and 10. You've got to have 18 ft.

[1:31:24] Correct. And then what's the backyard on

[1:31:26] just

[1:31:27] >> is 25.

[1:31:28] >> Okay. I mean, could it be less than

[1:31:30] that? I don't know. I want to see how

[1:31:33] these heights impact, you know, because

[1:31:36] there is I'm a firm believer in private

[1:31:38] property rights, but it's not just the

[1:31:41] homeowner with the ADU. It's the home

[1:31:43] next to the ADU. And I want to make sure

[1:31:46] we get that right so that we are not

[1:31:48] harming neighbors. So, I don't disagree

[1:31:51] with you. I absolutely but I think the

[1:31:54] definition might be slightly to me that

[1:31:56] seems like a flag lot and that if you

[1:32:00] differentiated the two it gives

[1:32:02] homeowners more options

[1:32:06] you know to to do the right thing for

[1:32:09] their particular situation. Let let me just remind you though that the

[1:32:14] entirety of the planning commission,

[1:32:16] seven members who we give a lot of

[1:32:18] credit and confidence and appreciation

[1:32:20] to

[1:32:20] >> for sure,

[1:32:21] >> they agreed that we need to look at some

[1:32:23] of these specific

[1:32:24] >> I'm not saying we don't.

[1:32:26] >> And so I just Okay,

[1:32:28] >> I'm in agreement with you, but I'm not I

[1:32:30] don't know that I'm comfortable with an

[1:32:32] 8 foot setback

[1:32:34] if it's now now the way it's written

[1:32:37] right now, you can't do a twotory. So

[1:32:39] then maybe it's okay.

[1:32:41] And the windows they did talk about if

[1:32:42] they're within 15 ft of a dwelling they

[1:32:44] have to be translucent which basically

[1:32:45] means opaque.

[1:32:47] >> I we there was just an article in

[1:32:51] a I think it was the Desert News. I I

[1:32:53] was going to go back and find it and I

[1:32:55] didn't but there was an article there

[1:32:56] has been some issues down in Utah

[1:32:58] County. I believe it was American Fork

[1:33:01] and Pleasant Grove where they were very

[1:33:03] unhap the residents were very unhappy

[1:33:04] with larger

[1:33:06] ADUs being built in the backyards.

[1:33:10] I 100% think that somebody that's got a

[1:33:13] yard that they can fit if they can build

[1:33:15] a bigger home back there. I I want to

[1:33:17] figure out how to help them do it and

[1:33:19] make it happen. I'm not in disagreement

[1:33:21] with you at all, but I'm not going to

[1:33:23] rush through it and make a mistake that

[1:33:25] impacts all the neighbors around them

[1:33:28] either. And lot coverage still comes

[1:33:29] into play as well, which is 60% maximum

[1:33:33] on any lot regardless of size. So lot

[1:33:36] coverage is clearly it's the the total

[1:33:38] impervious coverage of the home, all

[1:33:40] your impervious surfaces, so your

[1:33:42] driveways, your concrete patios, and any

[1:33:44] accessory structures you have. So that

[1:33:46] lot coverage still is in full force and

[1:33:48] effect in this scenario as well. So I

[1:33:52] don't know if that's good or bad or

[1:33:54] something. Again, we want to unpack more

[1:33:57] uh in the near future. We may not be

[1:33:59] able to do it by October 1st, but there

[1:34:01] are still other things that that we're

[1:34:04] looking at.

[1:34:04] >> And I and I'm supportive of getting this

[1:34:06] done quickly. I just think October 1st

[1:34:08] is going to be a little a little tight.

[1:34:12] >> Well, we're going to have we're going to

[1:34:13] have to do our best by October first

[1:34:15] because like I said, otherwise you're

[1:34:16] opening the door and they can do

[1:34:17] whatever they

[1:34:18] >> got to pass something. But I'm just

[1:34:19] saying I'm comfortable with saying let's

[1:34:21] get the ADU ordinance passed and let's

[1:34:23] do

[1:34:24] >> as much as we can. But I'm I think when

[1:34:27] you start talking about flopping the you

[1:34:29] know flopping what's in front and what's

[1:34:31] behind

[1:34:32] >> I just I just had you know AI produce a

[1:34:35] little drawing so I could get a feel for

[1:34:38] you know an 8,000 foot lot with a with a

[1:34:41] I said a 2,000T home cuz that's I mean

[1:34:44] that's a pretty big home but you know

[1:34:46] let's just say it's a big home. And then

[1:34:47] I said, "And then give me the maximum

[1:34:50] that you had said the

[1:34:51] >> 60%

[1:34:52] >> six." No, not that. Um

[1:34:54] >> 1,200

[1:34:55] >> the,200 square feet. I said the eight

[1:34:57] the cassita's got to be 1,200 square

[1:34:59] feet. It needs to be 8 foot setbacks

[1:35:02] >> and and this is the width of the lot and

[1:35:04] the depth. I did something similar to

[1:35:07] what I had and it I mean it looks fine.

[1:35:10] It looks okay, but I would want to start

[1:35:14] looking at some scenarios because I want

[1:35:16] to make sure that we're just not I mean,

[1:35:19] we can't figure out every situation.

[1:35:22] We'll see. But that's the that's the

[1:35:24] conundrum with ordinances. We never It's

[1:35:27] what didn't we think about and then it

[1:35:29] impacts another homeowner.

[1:35:31] >> Okay. So, I have a I have a couple of

[1:35:33] things. I'm all in favor of tableabling

[1:35:35] this, too, but I think some ideas. We

[1:35:38] kind of need to know where each council

[1:35:39] member's ideas are so that we can go

[1:35:42] home and do our homework and and figure

[1:35:44] out, you know, I've had things said to

[1:35:47] me today that's changed my mind. I'm

[1:35:49] very supportive of it. Um I think 20T is

[1:35:53] too high. You can actually get a

[1:35:55] twotory. Now here I know of of uh

[1:36:00] something that was built here in

[1:36:01] Centerville. They put a little walkway

[1:36:04] through so they could say it was an

[1:36:05] addition. But I know, and it was before

[1:36:08] Mike came, the planning commission, the

[1:36:11] building inspectors were like, "We can't

[1:36:14] do anything on it because they're

[1:36:17] telling us one thing, but the minute

[1:36:19] they close, we know they're going to do

[1:36:20] this." And you can't do that. If you're

[1:36:23] giving them 20 ft, they're going to say,

[1:36:25] "Oh, that's just the attic." And then

[1:36:27] the minute our building inspector

[1:36:29] leaves, they move the upstairs. 20 feet

[1:36:33] is is too high. You could actually I

[1:36:36] mean you can actually have a 12 foot.

[1:36:39] Now I think to go 15 feet would probably

[1:36:41] be that's going to make it to where you

[1:36:43] could have a really nice onetory but

[1:36:46] you're not going to go two stories

[1:36:49] because we've talked about the roof and

[1:36:51] so it is not measured the same. It is

[1:36:54] actually higher than that. I actually

[1:36:56] have been sent a picture here. It's very

[1:36:59] interesting of one that's going on in

[1:37:00] Cisville. I don't we wanted to I could

[1:37:02] send it to Brandt. He could give it to

[1:37:04] Jennifer to put out there. But that's

[1:37:06] one of my concerns. Uh another concern

[1:37:09] is the meters. Uh the state was

[1:37:12] suggesting that we let them use the same

[1:37:15] meters. So when we're saying we want to,

[1:37:21] you know, not not go more restrictive,

[1:37:24] I don't want to have separate meters for

[1:37:26] the reasoning that we've got a

[1:37:28] neighboring city here who after two

[1:37:31] years of having a ADU, they can sell the

[1:37:35] ADU.

[1:37:36] Now, I can't bind further councils by

[1:37:39] saying you can have an ADU, but you

[1:37:41] can't ever sell it. But if it doesn't

[1:37:43] have its own meter, it's going to be a

[1:37:44] whole lot harder to sell. And so for

[1:37:47] that reason, I don't think our citizens

[1:37:50] would be really

[1:37:52] I mean, you're doubling the size now.

[1:37:55] Um,

[1:37:57] you know, you've got to decide uh what

[1:38:00] the value of privacy in people's

[1:38:02] backyards is as we're looking as at the

[1:38:04] height. Um, if we're saying that on a

[1:38:07] home right now it's 10 feet on one side

[1:38:09] and eight on the other, maybe we're

[1:38:11] going to want 10 on both sides. it. I

[1:38:14] mean, right now you've got to have 10 on

[1:38:17] one of them on a regular house. And now

[1:38:19] we're putting something in someone's

[1:38:20] backyard. Like Spencer said, you could

[1:38:22] have two or three. So, I do know of a

[1:38:27] there's been several projects that

[1:38:28] especially down in St. George. They're

[1:38:30] building whole subdivisions

[1:38:33] of homes with ADUs.

[1:38:36] We have had a property here in

[1:38:38] Centerville that has been zoned for

[1:38:41] single family homes that the neighbors

[1:38:44] have been told that they held off

[1:38:46] building because they want to build it

[1:38:49] that way. So, we want to be careful

[1:38:51] because if we say, "Well, we're going to

[1:38:53] just do this preliminary and then they

[1:38:56] could come in before we get it to where

[1:38:58] we want it." So, I think we need to be

[1:39:01] careful. We need to go lower on our

[1:39:03] heights and things like that. Then if we

[1:39:04] want to bring them back up, great. But I

[1:39:07] want to be careful because I do think

[1:39:08] there is possibly people watching us

[1:39:10] right now waiting to build

[1:39:14] not something in somebody's backyard,

[1:39:16] but new homes with ADUs, which is great.

[1:39:19] I mean, I think, you know, that may help

[1:39:22] people be able to get into a house if

[1:39:24] you can put an ADU back there and and do

[1:39:27] that. But I think we need to definitely

[1:39:30] think about it. Um, another thing while

[1:39:32] I've been on the council, we had a

[1:39:36] was it called a but it was basically an

[1:39:39] ADU built up in North Centerville

[1:39:43] because you can only have it a

[1:39:45] percentage of the ground, but they owned

[1:39:47] the whole hill behind them.

[1:39:50] They were able to count that as their

[1:39:53] property. So literally they built a

[1:39:56] building that took their whole backyard,

[1:39:58] shaded other people's homes, looked into

[1:40:00] other people's windows. I was up there

[1:40:03] several times as a council member, our

[1:40:05] planning commission. I don't know if you

[1:40:07] know which one it was, but so it created

[1:40:10] I think we need to be careful and say

[1:40:12] that anything with more than a 30% slope

[1:40:15] cannot be counted into that amount of

[1:40:18] property. cuz if you have your home and

[1:40:22] this little tiny backyard and then a

[1:40:24] hill that goes like this, it's really

[1:40:25] not good for anything. You could take

[1:40:27] that whole backyard and they did do

[1:40:29] that. Um, so I think that's something

[1:40:32] else that we need to do. Like I said, I feel very

[1:40:37] strongly that I would like them to share

[1:40:39] utilities. We're trying to give people

[1:40:42] more for their property. So I right now

[1:40:46] they can't have anything. Now we're

[1:40:48] giving him an ADU. So I don't have a

[1:40:50] problem with putting some restrictions

[1:40:52] on it. It's not like they bought it with

[1:40:54] the idea they could build the ADU and

[1:40:56] then all of a sudden we bring these

[1:40:57] restrictions in. But like I said, I'm I

[1:41:01] would definitely want to bring the the

[1:41:04] height down to at least 15. Um

[1:41:14] » yeah, I'm supportive of that utilities.

[1:41:16] Uh the an accessory is to be part of the

[1:41:21] main, right?

[1:41:22] >> If we're giving and separating those

[1:41:24] utilities, it really feels like it's a

[1:41:27] separate animal. So,

[1:41:28] >> right. So, the I I only want to push

[1:41:30] back on one thing on that and and it's

[1:41:32] this. at at some point in time. I built

[1:41:34] my house 25 years ago and then

[1:41:36] eventually somebody else came and built

[1:41:38] another home in my neighborhood and he

[1:41:40] one day just in passing said, "Hey,

[1:41:44] do you did they make you put in a 1-in

[1:41:47] connection on your house?" And I was

[1:41:48] like, "No, it's a 3/4 in." And and

[1:41:52] his house doesn't really look that much

[1:41:54] bigger than my house, but because of the

[1:41:57] number of fixtures,

[1:41:59] >> suddenly it 3/4 wasn't enough. I one of

[1:42:02] the concerns I would have with swapping

[1:42:04] the front and the back ADU and not

[1:42:07] having a separate meter is that there's

[1:42:10] a very high likelihood if that house is

[1:42:12] bigger than the house in front and the

[1:42:14] house in front's not 1,200 square f feet

[1:42:17] total um that you may not have enough

[1:42:20] water pressure you get you lose as it is

[1:42:23] the longer the pipe goes and the smaller

[1:42:25] it is there's more friction and you lose

[1:42:28] so I'm a little concerned about

[1:42:31] that.

[1:42:32] >> Well, I talked to our water department

[1:42:33] about that today.

[1:42:34] >> Well, they seem to want the water

[1:42:36] department seems to want separate

[1:42:38] meters.

[1:42:38] >> No, they were I think they were okay

[1:42:40] after I talked to them. We can talk to

[1:42:41] them.

[1:42:42] >> But so the concern would be is if you

[1:42:45] have more fixtures, you're going to have

[1:42:46] to put in a 1inch line.

[1:42:49] >> I mean, that's what it is. You're going

[1:42:50] to put this in. It gives you more fix

[1:42:52] more fixtures. You're going to have to

[1:42:54] It's going to be more expensive. You're

[1:42:56] going to put the one in line. Sewer. I

[1:42:58] checked with them. They said that

[1:43:00] they're great with

[1:43:01] >> No, they're not. I'm on I'm I I passed I

[1:43:04] passed or the

[1:43:05] >> think

[1:43:06] >> the sewer is required. If you have a

[1:43:09] detached ADU, it is a separate

[1:43:11] connection.

[1:43:12] >> I don't think so.

[1:43:14] >> Well, I just texted Matt Myers before

[1:43:16] this meeting. If he doesn't know, I

[1:43:17] don't know who else would know.

[1:43:18] >> Okay.

[1:43:19] >> He's the general manager of the sewer

[1:43:21] district.

[1:43:23] So I I'm telling you that's a fairly new

[1:43:26] thing, but it is a separate connection.

[1:43:30] Another reason we need to readress it

[1:43:31] and table this, but I I also

[1:43:34] >> am supportive of giving people who

[1:43:37] decide to do that the option to have

[1:43:40] within legal limits. If the sewer

[1:43:42] district requires it, that'd be part of

[1:43:44] your cost. You'd have to do it. But

[1:43:46] there may be circumstance. I don't think

[1:43:47] we ought to require meters or separate

[1:43:50] connections unless the homeowner finds

[1:43:53] it necessary to get his building permit

[1:43:55] to do it. But I I mean that's my take

[1:43:58] that's got to be addressed with further

[1:43:59] information before we meet again.

[1:44:01] >> So it sounds like we're headed to to

[1:44:04] tableabling. But the dilemma I have with

[1:44:07] just tableabling

[1:44:09] uh without getting some of this out.

[1:44:11] That's why I was letting Councilwoman

[1:44:12] Meek go and Councilwoman Hir is is if we

[1:44:15] just come back the next week, then we're

[1:44:18] doing this the next week. We're not

[1:44:19] going to be full.

[1:44:20] >> We got to come back two weeks to have

[1:44:22] something that we're

[1:44:23] >> and I want this out so the public

[1:44:25] interested could hear and know how we

[1:44:27] feel and what we're talking about so

[1:44:29] they can contact us and say, "Hey, I

[1:44:31] agree. I do want meters or no meters.

[1:44:34] Hey, I don't want it, you know, I'm

[1:44:36] great with ADUs, but I don't want it

[1:44:38] that high." I mean, like I said, I've

[1:44:40] been sent a picture of one from Kisville

[1:44:42] and it's literally going to affect the

[1:44:44] lighting in the neighborhood of three

[1:44:46] homes and it's only 20 ft high than the

[1:44:49] roof. So, I don't want to affect people.

[1:44:52] You know, you've got a garden, you get

[1:44:55] one of those next to it, you're going to

[1:44:56] be in trouble. So, and I appreciate what

[1:45:00] Spencer says where you could get two,

[1:45:01] three,

[1:45:03] >> all especially if you do have a builder

[1:45:05] that comes in and is going to build

[1:45:08] >> like you have a little bigger personal

[1:45:09] and they build four homes.

[1:45:11] >> Well, yeah, but they're built. I mean,

[1:45:12] we have an acre property now that could

[1:45:15] put four in, but they could put a ADU on

[1:45:18] all four prop on all four of those.

[1:45:20] >> Mayor, I I appreciate your concern, but

[1:45:23] I I believe that it's obvious the

[1:45:25] sentiment here. This council wants to

[1:45:27] pass something before October 1st. So, I

[1:45:29] think in two weeks we'll be passing

[1:45:31] something. My my point is I think we can

[1:45:34] get it a little closer to what we think

[1:45:37] it is in those two weeks by tableabling

[1:45:40] it, make some adjustments to some of the

[1:45:42] things the planning commission has

[1:45:43] recommended and we can have a document.

[1:45:46] I'm committed to do that.

[1:45:48] >> But we have council members recommending

[1:45:49] things. How do we get that that

[1:45:51] >> but that's what we're talking to Mike if

[1:45:54] we don't talk about it right now.

[1:45:55] >> Right. We need to talk about it now and

[1:45:56] we need to say to Mike, we we maybe when

[1:45:59] you bring it back, we want it shorter.

[1:46:02] 20 is way too high. I mean, I think each

[1:46:04] council member needs to say to Mike,

[1:46:07] >> you know,

[1:46:08] >> that's fine. We have planning commission

[1:46:10] members, but uh

[1:46:12] >> well, they're not going to see

[1:46:13] >> council members will want to have input

[1:46:14] as well too for for the ordinance that

[1:46:17] comes back to us,

[1:46:18] >> right? Lisa, does it have to go back to

[1:46:21] planning commission to change anything

[1:46:22] in the resolution or the ordinance

[1:46:24] before us?

[1:46:25] >> No.

[1:46:26] >> So, so we can we can do that, mayor, in

[1:46:29] two weeks. We can sh We can

[1:46:31] >> I get it, Rick. But we have planning

[1:46:33] commission comments in front of us.

[1:46:35] There's more than planning commission.

[1:46:37] How do you propose we get council

[1:46:38] members comments in front of us? Unless

[1:46:40] we have this discussion, unless you

[1:46:42] unless we say, "Hey, every everybody

[1:46:44] submit some things in the next few

[1:46:46] days." We continue this debate in two

[1:46:49] weeks and then we vote and we've we've

[1:46:51] got an ordinance before us and we say

[1:46:54] maybe uh we're going to change to

[1:46:57] requiring meters separate meters to

[1:47:01] allow either separate meter.

[1:47:03] >> But what Robin just said G Yeah. Because

[1:47:06] that was brought up speech separate

[1:47:08] meters. If it hadn't been brought up

[1:47:10] tonight, we wouldn't have known that was

[1:47:12] there. and and and it gives you guys two

[1:47:14] weeks to say, "Hey, are we okay going uh on a lower footage as far as how high

[1:47:21] it is and that sort of thing." I mean,

[1:47:24] >> yeah, I don't want to continue it till

[1:47:25] midnight tonight, but uh

[1:47:26] >> No, I do.

[1:47:28] >> We need to get the ideas out there. No,

[1:47:30] we don't have to debate them. I'll agree

[1:47:31] with you that, but throw out the ideas

[1:47:33] so people can think about it.

[1:47:35] >> I'm even with some debate. I'm here to

[1:47:37] get the business done. And the business

[1:47:39] is is that people have been waiting for

[1:47:41] this ordinance for quite some time. So,

[1:47:44] I'm fine to have the discussion tonight

[1:47:46] and I'm fine to table it and have it

[1:47:47] again in two weeks, but like it's

[1:47:49] helpful for me to have just heard what

[1:47:51] Robin's concerns are. Um, can I I still

[1:47:54] am like hanging on to an answer from

[1:47:56] Mike about metering.

[1:47:59] Can like can we just because you brought

[1:48:01] that up, I would like to get a little

[1:48:03] more information.

[1:48:04] >> We have no code basically to be totally

[1:48:07] honest. A couple things that you have to

[1:48:08] remember is this. Our park shifts are

[1:48:11] full. So if you have say that you allow

[1:48:14] it and they put a separate driveway in,

[1:48:16] where are you going to put the meters?

[1:48:19] >> Okay.

[1:48:19] >> Out of the way basically. So that's one

[1:48:23] of the problems. The good thing about

[1:48:25] that is if the back unit is out of

[1:48:28] water, the front unit's not. If say I

[1:48:30] have to shut it off for some reason,

[1:48:32] non-payment or what have you. Or if you

[1:48:35] do have non-payment, it's one meter and

[1:48:37] it is non-payment, you're shutting off

[1:48:38] both homes,

[1:48:40] >> it's kind of a problem that can occur.

[1:48:42] So, as I was explaining to you, you have

[1:48:45] 32 fixture counts that you can have. So,

[1:48:48] just an example, if you have a two hose

[1:48:50] bibs, that's two and a half. So, that's

[1:48:52] five of your fixture counts right there.

[1:48:56] So, that's five gone. So, when you start

[1:48:57] adding your toilets and everything else,

[1:48:59] so there's a good chance that you're

[1:49:01] going to have to go back out in the

[1:49:02] road, dig down in the road, put a 1-in

[1:49:04] service line coming in, and then you got

[1:49:07] to come up with the dilemma. Do you tie

[1:49:09] onto the back of the house? So,

[1:49:11] basically, you have the water meter, it

[1:49:13] comes into the house, you have a

[1:49:14] pressure reducing valve inside the

[1:49:17] house. So, plumbing code requires that

[1:49:19] you have to have a 1 in line from the

[1:49:22] pressure regulator to the water heater.

[1:49:25] So now if you have one more water heater

[1:49:28] out in the back unit, do we make them

[1:49:30] run a 1-in line? There's a lot of

[1:49:32] questions in that. That's a plumbing

[1:49:33] code question. You know, once it gets

[1:49:35] inside the house, I'm out of it. But

[1:49:37] plumbing code does require a 1-in line

[1:49:40] to a water heater. So there's plumbing

[1:49:43] demographics and everything. You know,

[1:49:45] if this one size fit all, I don't think

[1:49:47] so. You know, in some cases, one service

[1:49:50] line would probably work out fine

[1:49:52] depending on how big the unit is. But my

[1:49:55] feeling is is most houses when you add

[1:49:57] another unit, they're going to be

[1:49:58] digging up the road, putting a 1-in

[1:49:59] service in. So they're going to pay

[1:50:01] impact fees, then they're going to pay

[1:50:03] for a bigger meter size, an ongoing 1 in

[1:50:06] line, meter base rate plus water usage.

[1:50:09] So I mean, there's a lot when you start

[1:50:11] talking about it. So I talked down at

[1:50:14] the sewer district, too. Maybe we need

[1:50:16] to get back with Matt on that because I

[1:50:19] got told by Brandon that it comes if it

[1:50:22] the main line from the street out to the main line. So the service line to

[1:50:27] the main line they're allowed to connect

[1:50:30] onto. So you have the two services

[1:50:32] connecting on. Then when it gets to the

[1:50:34] back of the sidewalk it can go to one.

[1:50:36] That's what I got told today and

[1:50:38] checking it out. So

[1:50:40] >> I as far as I I mean and maybe and maybe

[1:50:44] what he thought I was asking him was

[1:50:47] will there be two bills?

[1:50:49] >> You know they don't actually need

[1:50:53] >> that may

[1:50:56] there may be that may

[1:50:57] >> that's probably what it is

[1:50:58] >> that they're getting two bills because

[1:50:59] you're not really measuring

[1:51:01] >> like the sewer is not getting measured

[1:51:03] by a meter. No, it's not. But that's how

[1:51:06] they collect their usage is they would

[1:51:08] have they that lot would get charged two

[1:51:11] >> they get charged for two and they and I think it's just you know it just

[1:51:15] goes to whatever the address is.

[1:51:16] >> So I mean I guess what I'm trying to say

[1:51:18] I'm kind of feel like I'm caught in the

[1:51:19] middle a little bit. But the bottom line

[1:51:21] is there's pros and cons.

[1:51:22] >> I didn't mean to catch you in the

[1:51:24] middle.

[1:51:24] >> I can see I can Yeah, I'm very good at

[1:51:27] dancing in the middle.

[1:51:28] >> So I can see the one line being okay,

[1:51:31] but I can see the two lines being okay,

[1:51:33] too. But it's just like, you know, where

[1:51:35] do you go? What do you do? There there's

[1:51:36] really not a code uh that you can really

[1:51:40] go to.

[1:51:40] >> I will say this, in the case of a

[1:51:43] pressurized water line and you know,

[1:51:46] like you said, you get in the house and

[1:51:48] then you've got to go out to the

[1:51:49] backyard. I am worried about flow rate

[1:51:52] with that. A sewer line's a little

[1:51:54] different because it's gravity

[1:51:56] >> flow. So, it's a different

[1:51:58] >> Well, so let's just use as

[1:52:02] quick example because I know we're in a

[1:52:03] hurry tonight, but you have say there is

[1:52:06] a little bit of an elevation difference.

[1:52:07] So, the water line comes in, they reduce

[1:52:10] it to say 60 lb cuz that's most houses

[1:52:14] go from 60 to 75 lbs. So, you're not

[1:52:16] blowing your plumbing fixtures apart. So

[1:52:18] if you're going out and coming back out

[1:52:21] a little bit further, you are having,

[1:52:24] you know, pressure problems because the

[1:52:26] further you go, the less pressure you

[1:52:27] get.

[1:52:28] >> You know, it's kind of like Island View.

[1:52:30] Yeah. Island View Tank and Oakidge tank.

[1:52:32] Oakidge tank's going to take us a lot

[1:52:34] longer to fill up because we have all

[1:52:36] the head loss from Weaver Basin all the

[1:52:38] way to that point. So it's a similar

[1:52:40] deal. And you know, I it's not a real

[1:52:43] easy decision on you know what way to

[1:52:45] go. You know, for me, having one meter

[1:52:48] in a park strip for one lot is

[1:52:51] desirable, especially if you add another

[1:52:53] driveway, you know, because our drive

[1:52:56] our you run into it all the time, you

[1:52:59] know. Yeah, you could make them dig down

[1:53:00] and put a dual meter in and run off one

[1:53:03] to each one and be coupled there. I

[1:53:06] mean, there are alternatives, but you

[1:53:08] know, what's the right way to go is what

[1:53:10] you guys get to decide. I just get a

[1:53:12] counsel with you.

[1:53:12] >> I I'm not and I'm not saying I have an

[1:53:14] opinion. I just because I'm I'm only

[1:53:16] pushing back because I have some

[1:53:18] concerns about

[1:53:19] >> Well, I was gonna say maybe it'll be

[1:53:21] different on each plate of housing.

[1:53:22] Maybe we need to give them both options.

[1:53:25] But I just don't want to take that

[1:53:27] totally off the table because I really

[1:53:29] do worry that I do think the state's

[1:53:32] going to take things over someday. And I

[1:53:33] don't want them to come out and say we

[1:53:35] have to allow all of our ADUs to be sold

[1:53:38] if they want to. What other ideas for

[1:53:40] council members to think about besides

[1:53:42] meters and height that we just the size

[1:53:45] of the lot, the corner lots and um

[1:53:50] uh

[1:53:53] >> so Brian you you're con you're saying

[1:53:55] hey we should look at smaller lots than

[1:53:57] 8500. Okay

[1:53:58] >> absolutely for the sake of debate the

[1:54:00] internal ADUs allow 6,000 ft minimum lot

[1:54:03] size for an internal ADU.

[1:54:05] >> Okay.

[1:54:05] >> Correct. And I also think that we should

[1:54:07] take that into consideration as well is

[1:54:09] that if you want you can have an ADU and

[1:54:14] a DADU.

[1:54:16] >> So I think that that again yes you can

[1:54:19] qualify but I'm looking Yeah, you can fit these little uh residences

[1:54:26] on a small lot and it looks very nice.

[1:54:30] It does

[1:54:30] >> and it provides uh that exactly what

[1:54:33] we're talking about which is the

[1:54:35] moderate income housing for family

[1:54:37] members that uh I think is only going to

[1:54:42] grow in demand that

[1:54:45] and all of the the expenses all the

[1:54:48] costs that you just mentioned about the

[1:54:50] all the connections these are all less

[1:54:52] than a new house currently. So I think

[1:54:56] that's to be considered

[1:54:58] >> and and on a smaller lot you are going

[1:55:00] to restrict somewhat of it because of

[1:55:02] the permeable surface it can only be

[1:55:04] 60%. So if you have a tiny lot and a

[1:55:07] pretty goodiz house there's no way you

[1:55:09] could ever put on

[1:55:11] >> a larger building.

[1:55:13] >> But if you had a a little top lot and a

[1:55:15] little house then you could maybe get on

[1:55:17] a little house again another little

[1:55:19] house. Yes

[1:55:20] >> because we do have that as a backup. And

[1:55:22] some of that is the beauty of the way

[1:55:24] that this ordinance has been done is

[1:55:26] that it does provide the freedom for

[1:55:29] someone to look into that. But then, you

[1:55:31] know, they still have to meet all of the

[1:55:34] like the the 60% impervious surface

[1:55:37] protects everyone, right? It's not

[1:55:39] running into somebody else's yard. So, I

[1:55:42] do

[1:55:42] >> there other is there other things that

[1:55:45] so

[1:55:46] >> the side this the setbacks.

[1:55:48] >> Okay. Councilman Banger.

[1:55:49] >> Okay. In addition to those that have

[1:55:51] been mentioned, I hope somebody's got

[1:55:52] notes here. I just pull them off. Okay.

[1:55:56] >> Uh I I would like to look at size

[1:55:59] allowed for the for the

[1:56:02] accessory dwelling unit proportional to

[1:56:04] lot size to some degree. It doesn't need

[1:56:06] to be limited to,50 square feet if if

[1:56:11] they're on a big lot. That that's

[1:56:13] something I think we need to look at

[1:56:15] specifically. Also, I have no problem uh

[1:56:18] it's limited right now if you have one

[1:56:20] ADU may may not have another. I don't

[1:56:23] think that that doesn't make sense to

[1:56:25] me. If you've got an internal ADU for

[1:56:27] grandma and and it's very slightly

[1:56:30] impactful, what's the what's the dilemma

[1:56:34] to have a nicer larger ADU in the

[1:56:38] backyard as well or wherever works on

[1:56:40] the the property to increase our

[1:56:43] affordable housing to make it to make it

[1:56:46] uh feasible for a property owner to make

[1:56:50] these improvements to to to be able to

[1:56:53] accommodate the kids in the backyard who

[1:56:56] have just got married with grandma in

[1:56:57] the basement. So, I want to look

[1:56:59] specifically at that. I don't think I I

[1:57:01] don't think we should have two ADUs on a

[1:57:03] property. I don't think we should have

[1:57:05] two in internal, but I think limiting it

[1:57:08] to one or the other, I don't agree with

[1:57:11] it. It should we could give the

[1:57:13] allowance of one of each.

[1:57:16] >> But if you had a basement, your whole

[1:57:18] basement, you could be renting to a

[1:57:20] family with five children.

[1:57:21] >> That's a pretty restrictive scenario.

[1:57:23] You could have your your daughter and

[1:57:26] husband with two kids in the basement

[1:57:27] and then the same thing outside. So

[1:57:29] >> you now have potentially eight to 10

[1:57:32] people on that property and the impact

[1:57:33] it had.

[1:57:33] >> Okay, that's something that needs to be

[1:57:35] debated into.

[1:57:36] >> So that's what I'm saying. You took one

[1:57:37] good scenario, but there's

[1:57:38] >> love to hear the pros and cons. That's

[1:57:40] how we'll best

[1:57:40] >> and again some of these elements don't

[1:57:41] have to be decided right then. We could

[1:57:43] take it back even a month or two later

[1:57:45] and get those things right now

[1:57:47] >> aggressively if we need. I do I do want

[1:57:49] to bring up an example that was I this

[1:57:52] would never work in Centerville because

[1:57:54] we're not heading that way and this

[1:57:55] isn't our um exact situation, but my son

[1:57:58] when he first got married lived in an

[1:58:00] ADU. It was over a garage, an accessory

[1:58:03] garage. So, this home had an ADU above

[1:58:07] its garage for the house. It had an ADU

[1:58:10] in the basement. It had an ADU over a

[1:58:13] detached garage. And they had a swimming

[1:58:16] pool. And it was a beautiful

[1:58:19] neighborhood and several of the homes in

[1:58:21] that area had 80 use

[1:58:23] >> and and I can agree with that. But yet

[1:58:25] if I was neighbor and I spent a lot of

[1:58:28] money

[1:58:28] >> and now I'm living next to a forplex or

[1:58:31] a fiveplex in a single family home.

[1:58:33] >> I'm not saying that that was is

[1:58:35] appropriate for Centerville. What I'm

[1:58:37] saying is is I sort of agree with what

[1:58:39] you're saying, Councilman Bangader, that

[1:58:42] I mean I think you can have more than

[1:58:44] one and if you can provide the parking,

[1:58:47] >> right,

[1:58:48] >> then I mean I agree you've got to have

[1:58:50] the there's got to be rules

[1:58:51] >> requirements to qualify. But yeah,

[1:58:53] >> but but I think there's some options

[1:58:55] that it works and you're right,

[1:58:57] grandma's in one part and you know then

[1:59:00] and some

[1:59:02] >> but you can't do it on that. You've got

[1:59:04] to be all right with a family of five.

[1:59:06] Not grandma. I'm not against it. I'm

[1:59:08] just saying

[1:59:09] >> but they were empty nesters. So know

[1:59:11] that there was more than about six

[1:59:13] people on that.

[1:59:14] >> But but if you're going to open it up,

[1:59:16] you've got to know that a whole basement

[1:59:18] could be rented out to a family of five.

[1:59:21] Um my only other thing is and this could

[1:59:24] be looked at later, but I'd like to

[1:59:26] consider it in the historic area of

[1:59:28] Centerville. I know of three or four

[1:59:31] historic buildings that would probably

[1:59:34] they're not in people's backyards.

[1:59:37] I think they're all on corner lots,

[1:59:40] but I would like to see those preserved.

[1:59:43] The old post office, which is where I

[1:59:46] started going to the post office.

[1:59:48] >> Those would make really cute ADUs. And

[1:59:51] so maybe if it's a historic building,

[1:59:55] it's not going to affect the

[1:59:56] neighborhood. you're not building

[1:59:57] anything if they don't want to change

[1:59:59] the footprint of it

[2:00:01] >> that I would like to consider letting

[2:00:03] maybe some of those have

[2:00:04] >> ADUs

[2:00:05] >> and in that situation it might not

[2:00:07] require that the facade of the historic

[2:00:11] building histori match the primary

[2:00:14] building that's applying

[2:00:16] >> historic sites was not considered in

[2:00:19] this ordinance at all and I think some

[2:00:22] public comment made some good argument

[2:00:23] that it should be I agree

[2:00:25] >> right the old post office is white

[2:00:27] clapboard and the home I think is

[2:00:29] stucco. I mean, it's very old, too, but

[2:00:31] they're not the same. But like I said,

[2:00:33] it wouldn't affect the neighborhood cuz

[2:00:35] it's already there. I wouldn't want to

[2:00:37] change that.

[2:00:37] >> No, I agree. Maybe that does need to be

[2:00:40] addressed that we need to have a little

[2:00:41] historic paragraph that

[2:00:44] >> any other concepts, Councilman Banger,

[2:00:47] that you have.

[2:00:47] >> I just want to make sure we get

[2:00:49] Councilman Plameumber mentioned the uh the corner lots that that needs to be

[2:00:55] addressed. It does.

[2:00:56] >> Okay.

[2:00:57] What other concepts? So, council

[2:01:00] members or do we did you cover what's on

[2:01:02] >> I I just want to add in I am concerned

[2:01:04] about height as well. I mean, we're

[2:01:07] trying to match a roof line, right? And

[2:01:09] so, I just want to make sure that I I

[2:01:12] the reason I did the AI is because I was

[2:01:14] having a hard time envisioning that 20

[2:01:16] foot height. I I just wanted I obviously

[2:01:20] the planning commission spent

[2:01:21] significant amounts of time. I think

[2:01:23] they did a great job. I think they made

[2:01:25] some really good decisions and I'm

[2:01:28] supportive of it. I'm also fine to go,

[2:01:30] you know, look at these other things. I

[2:01:31] think these are all

[2:01:33] >> one city did have 16 ft. So when you

[2:01:35] said 15 ft, council member was matching

[2:01:38] another city's height at 16 ft.

[2:01:40] >> My can I add too I with regard to the

[2:01:43] height I mean I am concerned about this

[2:01:44] idea of urban shadows, right? um

[2:01:46] building a huge structure that's going

[2:01:49] to overlook a nearby area and I don't

[2:01:51] necessarily have a problem with 20 feet

[2:01:53] per se because you might have a big

[2:01:55] enough lot that it would support it but

[2:01:56] this concept that's been floated about

[2:01:58] maybe the higher it is the more the

[2:02:00] setback has to be I would just love for

[2:02:02] you guys to look to like give some some

[2:02:04] thought to that idea the other thing was

[2:02:07] Lisa had brought up that our ordinance

[2:02:09] does something that state law doesn't

[2:02:11] require and that's allow for basements

[2:02:13] and I don't necessarily have a problem

[2:02:15] with basements But if it's a 350 foot

[2:02:18] square print and we have a a basement in

[2:02:20] that I mean that feels like a super tiny

[2:02:22] little basement to me. Is that really

[2:02:25] what we want? And do you have any

[2:02:27] concerns with regard to basement at all?

[2:02:30] I mean even in like a little 350

[2:02:31] [clears throat] square foot

[2:02:33] >> I think the minimum was 500 square ft.

[2:02:35] So it wouldn't be that smaller or 600

[2:02:37] square ft. But uh I mean I look at

[2:02:39] building but again groundwater I mean

[2:02:41] that's that but we would require them to

[2:02:42] do a geotech. they'd have to go through

[2:02:44] a permitted use review anyway. So that

[2:02:46] would be evaluated. So I think I think

[2:02:48] just if they went through the process,

[2:02:50] the site would determine whether or not

[2:02:52] they could even qualify for a basement

[2:02:54] based on geotech strata

[2:02:55] >> there. I and I'm generally supportive if

[2:02:57] it will if it's safe and whatever.

[2:03:01] That's it for me.

[2:03:03] >> All right. I'm going to do a public

[2:03:04] hearing because we uh did agenda it and

[2:03:08] I don't want anybody's coming back

[2:03:09] saying uh we didn't do a public hearing.

[2:03:12] So, this is a public hearing on zoning

[2:03:14] cone amendments uh regards to uh

[2:03:17] detached uh accessory dwelling units.

[2:03:20] Anybody that wants to comment, just

[2:03:22] state your name and um where you're

[2:03:25] from. That public hearing is now open.

[2:03:33] » Anybody online?

[2:03:35] Okay, that uh public hearing is now

[2:03:37] closed. Now, I would uh um I would

[2:03:40] council uh this is kind of a unique

[2:03:43] situation because we had more public

[2:03:44] hearing of the planning commission than

[2:03:46] we did a council meeting. Usually, it's

[2:03:48] not that way. So, so if you want some

[2:03:50] more public hearing comments in addition

[2:03:52] to the two comments uh you've re

[2:03:54] received in the last 24 hours, you might

[2:03:57] want to go back and look at some of the

[2:03:59] public hearing comments uh uh from the the planning commission meeting. Um,

[2:04:06] what else was I going to say? I think

[2:04:08] that's it. So, do do I have any type of

[2:04:11] uh motion?

[2:04:12] >> Are we going to accept further public

[2:04:14] comment until we meet in two weeks?

[2:04:17] >> Uh,

[2:04:17] >> by mail.

[2:04:18] >> I think we should. I think we should.

[2:04:19] >> I do.

[2:04:20] >> What's wrong? I think that's a great

[2:04:21] idea. That's a great idea.

[2:04:23] >> Do you want me to make a motion?

[2:04:24] >> Sure. I'll make a motion that we table

[2:04:27] um the detached accessory dwelling unit

[2:04:31] discussion Centerville zoning code 12.58

[2:04:35] um until two weeks from tonight. Uh

[2:04:38] we'll leave the public hearing open.

[2:04:40] Residents may comment through email

[2:04:44] um

[2:04:45] or they may be here at the next meeting

[2:04:47] to provide comment.

[2:04:51] >> Second.

[2:04:52] >> Motion to second. Uh, Councilwoman

[2:04:55] Haymon, going to my right.

[2:04:56] >> I

[2:05:00] >> All right. Thank you. So, uh, be ready

[2:05:02] in two weeks. Uh, we'll convene at noon

[2:05:05] because it's going to be a 12-hour

[2:05:07] discussion. [laughter]

[2:05:13] » All right. So, uh, we do have of our

[2:05:16] things left. We've discussed three of

[2:05:18] them previously, so hopefully we don't

[2:05:19] have to go into too much on that. So,

[2:05:21] let's go to item number three. Uh,

[2:05:23] Centerville fee schedule amendments.

[2:05:25] This is a public hearing resolution

[2:05:28] 2026-04.

[2:05:30] And Haley, I was kept looking back

[2:05:33] there. You were Were you hiding behind

[2:05:35] Mike

[2:05:37] little bit?

[2:05:38] >> Okay, thank you. Haley, take it away.

[2:05:42] >> Okay. Uh, fee schedules. Um, so yeah,

[2:05:46] this is what I uh we did have a work

[2:05:48] session on this. Um, seemed like we had

[2:05:51] some positive feedback and support for

[2:05:53] that. We haven't changed any of the

[2:05:55] numbers since we last met.

[2:05:58] You guys have questions for me?

[2:06:06] » Any questions or anything?

[2:06:10] >> Do we have

[2:06:13] we had that contract with uh youth

[2:06:16] football? Mhm.

[2:06:17] >> Do we have when that contract is not in

[2:06:20] place, is there an ability to have a fee

[2:06:24] utilize that space to

[2:06:27] do the same thing they're doing? Is that

[2:06:30] >> concessions?

[2:06:31] >> Yes.

[2:06:32] >> We don't have anything outlined.

[2:06:36] » I wonder if that would be

[2:06:39] >> something we could talk about at another

[2:06:41] time. But um

[2:06:42] >> yeah, with it being

[2:06:45] a building where we have a lot of our

[2:06:47] own amenities in there,

[2:06:50] >> I would never just want to like have a

[2:06:53] blank fee for people to come in. It's

[2:06:55] something I would always want to have an

[2:06:56] agreement with because of our own

[2:06:57] amenities that we've used city funding

[2:07:00] to provide. Um so if there was another

[2:07:03] interested group, um we have put it out

[2:07:05] to RFP before. Um, so that's the same

[2:07:08] kind of process we would do to lease

[2:07:10] that space.

[2:07:12] >> Okay.

[2:07:12] >> This is all field use fee in this uh

[2:07:16] resolution though, right? Or ordinance,

[2:07:17] >> correct? Yeah. Field use fee specific.

[2:07:19] Nothing with pavilions or our buildings.

[2:07:23] >> Okay. They're all there in front of you.

[2:07:25] Um, I think you guys have discussed it

[2:07:28] before as well too. So,

[2:07:31] um, any more questions? Motion.

[2:07:34] >> Can I ask you a question, mayor? Uh

[2:07:37] well, when I you asked for a list when

[2:07:40] we f when first of the year of things, I

[2:07:44] suggested one item on that list be that

[2:07:46] we not raise any fees not without having

[2:07:51] a public hearing and uh and I uh I know

[2:07:55] we are required to do that for taxation

[2:07:58] and we had our public hearing. I just I

[2:08:02] don't have a problem with this. I'm

[2:08:04] totally supportive. I understand that.

[2:08:07] But I would like to conform to a strong

[2:08:11] feeling I have that uh fees should not

[2:08:14] be released raised in the city, water,

[2:08:18] storm drain, anything without a public

[2:08:20] hearing. And so I would I'd like to

[2:08:22] suggest that we include that. And I'm

[2:08:25] sorry.

[2:08:25] >> This is a public hearing.

[2:08:28] >> It is a public hearing.

[2:08:29] >> We are doing public hearing on this.

[2:08:31] >> I'm sorry.

[2:08:32] >> Okay, you're good. All right. So uh we

[2:08:35] will go to

[2:08:36] >> we liked your suggestion.

[2:08:37] >> I was in total [laughter] support.

[2:08:40] >> We will go to the public hearing portion

[2:08:42] then seeing no further comment. So this

[2:08:44] is a public hearing uh regarding the

[2:08:47] centerville fee schedule amendments.

[2:08:48] It's resolution number 2026-4.

[2:08:52] Any uhbody from the public can comment.

[2:08:54] Just state your name and where you're

[2:08:56] from. That public hearing is now open.

[2:09:02] Anybody online? Seeing no comments, we

[2:09:05] will close that public hearing and come

[2:09:07] back to uh if there's any uh quick

[2:09:11] questions. Otherwise, I'll look for a

[2:09:13] motion.

[2:09:14] >> I'll move that we approve resolution

[2:09:15] number 2026-04 amending the Centerville

[2:09:18] fees schedule to increase field use fees

[2:09:20] as set forth in section 15.030.

[2:09:23] The one um amendment that I would make

[2:09:25] is I think this was just a carryover. Uh

[2:09:28] the proposed packet resolution says

[2:09:30] adopted on the 18th day of August. I

[2:09:33] would just update that to September 1st.

[2:09:37] >> Okay. Do I have a second to that?

[2:09:40] >> Second.

[2:09:40] >> I have a second. Councilman Hurst going

[2:09:42] to the right.

[2:09:43] >> I

[2:09:46] >> That passes unanimously. Thank you. Item

[2:09:48] number four. This is field use prior uh

[2:09:51] field use priority of use and uh PE

[2:09:54] policy discussion. Hey. Yes. Um so we

[2:09:58] also discussed this when we were

[2:10:00] discussing the increase for use of the

[2:10:03] fields. Um just to create a priority use

[2:10:07] um so as user groups are looking to our

[2:10:10] facilities, we can take them in a

[2:10:13] priority listed option here. Um

[2:10:16] obviously creating our own programs and

[2:10:19] events come first, then our partnerships

[2:10:21] and then everybody else just so we are

[2:10:23] treating people the same.

[2:10:27] Um so yeah,

[2:10:29] with this um priority usage, it does

[2:10:33] just help us clarify

[2:10:35] how we take rentals. Um we don't have

[2:10:40] a we're not overrun with requests in

[2:10:43] terms of our rentals. Like we have three

[2:10:48] big user groups. South Davis Recreation

[2:10:50] District, their soccer program, the U

[2:10:53] Conference Tackle Football. We also have

[2:10:55] an allability soccer program that we

[2:10:58] lease to. Um I did discuss the um

[2:11:02] subsidies fees with this new amended fee

[2:11:05] schedule, how that would impact them um

[2:11:07] because that was something council

[2:11:08] wanted me to address. So I did reach out

[2:11:11] to our big user groups on that. Um they

[2:11:14] do there would be some fees passed on to

[2:11:17] users, but they also do have ways to um

[2:11:21] subsidize it themselves as well.

[2:11:25] So, I thought that was kind of an

[2:11:26] important touch note. I know that, Gina,

[2:11:28] that was something you were concerned

[2:11:30] about. So, I did reach out to them. Um,

[2:11:32] and then our other users outside of

[2:11:34] those big groups are really um teams

[2:11:38] coming in for a practice. And it's

[2:11:40] nothing as regular or as organized as

[2:11:44] our community partners are. It's, you

[2:11:47] know, a football team who wants three

[2:11:49] nights committed and so they want to

[2:11:50] have that reserve so they can come in

[2:11:52] and practice. Um, so this new priority

[2:11:55] usage really helps

[2:11:58] people kind of know where they stand

[2:11:59] when they're looking for field space.

[2:12:03] >> So, uh, you I don't see anywhere that

[2:12:06] we're approving anything. Are we just

[2:12:08] discussing this or do we want to do some

[2:12:11] approval on this or

[2:12:15] >> just discussing and getting feedback,

[2:12:16] mayor?

[2:12:17] >> Yeah,

[2:12:17] >> that's the intent of this

[2:12:18] >> suggestions for Haley on uh Haley on

[2:12:21] this uh number background one proposed

[2:12:24] rental priority or subsidy levels.

[2:12:27] >> I'm just curious if if there's a local

[2:12:30] group that's from Centerville and wants

[2:12:32] to use it as opposed to, you know, a

[2:12:36] church group or a

[2:12:38] boys club or

[2:12:40] are they would they have priority over

[2:12:42] somebody from outside the city?

[2:12:45] Um, right now as it is spelled out, no.

[2:12:49] Unless they are our community partner

[2:12:51] like with South Davis Recreation

[2:12:52] District or the Ute Conference. Um, we do partner with them because they

[2:12:57] provide programming. We don't. Um, so

[2:12:59] for them to get priority usage over

[2:13:03] another group, we would have to find an

[2:13:05] agreement with them.

[2:13:06] >> But those groups have an agreement with

[2:13:09] this.

[2:13:10] >> Correct. So

[2:13:12] they would have they should have prior

[2:13:14] usage over anybody that doesn't have an

[2:13:16] agreement with this, right?

[2:13:18] >> Yes. Um obviously they can't take it if

[2:13:21] you have it booked all fall for you

[2:13:23] conference football or

[2:13:24] >> right soccer fields are booked.

[2:13:27] >> Yeah. And right now, I think what's kind

[2:13:28] of prompted on the priority usage for me

[2:13:30] is that um our own interlocal agreement

[2:13:34] with South Davis expired um a couple

[2:13:36] years ago when they paid off their their

[2:13:39] lease from us to to finish the soccer

[2:13:42] fields. Um so it's really a a benefit

[2:13:44] for them that they can reserve it for

[2:13:47] their league who serves our citizens as

[2:13:49] well. Um, so there to I guess back to

[2:13:52] your point, mayor, is we don't currently

[2:13:55] have an agreement with them and we were

[2:13:58] kind of waiting to put something into

[2:14:00] place because we don't want to enter

[2:14:01] into another multi-year agreement. We

[2:14:03] want to be able to take it yearbyear,

[2:14:05] but by having something outlined as

[2:14:07] priority usage, it's well, we're not

[2:14:09] going to rent it to a private soccer

[2:14:11] club over the recck district that serves

[2:14:15] our community.

[2:14:17] You would be still able to rent it as a

[2:14:20] soccer club. You would just be in the

[2:14:22] third priority versus the second

[2:14:24] priority.

[2:14:25] >> Exactly. Yeah. And leaving the subsidy

[2:14:28] up to council to decide on how much are

[2:14:30] we able to support this program with the

[2:14:32] subsidy.

[2:14:34] And Haley, I I assume the priority means

[2:14:38] scheduling like like if a third priority

[2:14:40] group gets the 15th of September scheduled, a

[2:14:45] first priority group later decides they

[2:14:48] want that, they can't bump that third

[2:14:50] priority group who already had it

[2:14:51] scheduled, right? Or can they?

[2:14:53] >> Um, so we kind of schedule out for a

[2:14:56] year a calendar year block at a time. Um

[2:14:59] so they that first priority that or that

[2:15:02] second priority user group they would

[2:15:04] come first. Um so if you're in that

[2:15:06] group and you wanted time then we would

[2:15:08] look at that at the calendar for when

[2:15:10] it's available and you you give be given

[2:15:13] that time but that's within our control

[2:15:16] over who we choose to partner with. But

[2:15:18] I think what he's saying is, okay, you

[2:15:20] put your calendar out and these people

[2:15:22] have taken this, these people have taken

[2:15:24] this and you've got

[2:15:25] >> two weeks right here that's open and I

[2:15:27] decide I want it and so I'm third, but I

[2:15:30] take that because everybody else has

[2:15:32] chose. Then number one or number two

[2:15:34] couldn't decide they want that and bump

[2:15:36] me.

[2:15:37] >> Correct.

[2:15:37] >> Okay, that's that was that was

[2:15:40] >> Yeah. Thank you.

[2:15:46] » Okay. Uh you you like it. Do you have

[2:15:50] good other ideas to add to her?

[2:15:56] » There's one more thing that I would like

[2:15:59] to add in here which I neglected to put

[2:16:01] in there which was the school district.

[2:16:03] Um historically in the past we we have

[2:16:06] not charged them anything for a rental.

[2:16:08] I think that that should continue. Um,

[2:16:10] so they would kind of be that one a if

[2:16:13] you will in this priority usage of they

[2:16:16] kind of come next to just behind our

[2:16:18] city events. Um, and I when I was

[2:16:21] looking over this I had completely

[2:16:23] neglected to include them in this. So I

[2:16:25] think that would be a good thing to add

[2:16:26] in there.

[2:16:28] >> School district.

[2:16:28] >> Yeah. What's an example? Um example is

[2:16:32] for example this summer the soccer field

[2:16:34] was being renovated and so they used our

[2:16:36] soccer fields in the morning for an hour

[2:16:38] for it was about eight weeks. So being

[2:16:41] able to accommodate them and support

[2:16:42] them in that I feel is important. Um or

[2:16:46] we'll have you know football team wants

[2:16:49] to use our pavilion. We're not going to

[2:16:50] charge them for that. Um because our

[2:16:53] taxes kind of go to both places right?

[2:16:57] >> No they get a lot more than we do.

[2:16:59] [laughter] Right. But we don't want to

[2:17:01] double charge them.

[2:17:02] >> Do you know do other cities do the same?

[2:17:04] They provide facilities to school

[2:17:06] districts without charge.

[2:17:07] >> Yes.

[2:17:08] >> It's interesting just because the um

[2:17:11] recreck district is not able to do that

[2:17:14] obviously with the pool time and and ice

[2:17:16] time. There are

[2:17:17] >> they exchange gym space for pool space.

[2:17:20] So the schools support their junior jazz

[2:17:22] program and then they support all the

[2:17:24] schools with their pool space. slightly

[2:17:26] changing though and there is because of

[2:17:28] the the amount of students using the

[2:17:31] pool there is there are fees now being

[2:17:33] charged like they're paying

[2:17:35] >> and we could include them in our tier 2

[2:17:38] and require them to pay whatever

[2:17:40] percentage

[2:17:40] >> I'm not I'm not saying we should I'm

[2:17:42] just um just pointing out that that has

[2:17:45] changed at the rec district a little bit

[2:17:48] >> out of sheer curiosity does it work both

[2:17:50] ways if we need to borrow school

[2:17:52] property do they allow us to use their

[2:17:54] facilities for free.

[2:17:56] >> Yes, but it doesn't come up very often

[2:17:59] for us, but for example, if we wanted

[2:18:01] indoor space, um we don't have anything

[2:18:04] in Centerville that can accommodate us

[2:18:06] indoor. Um and we I I'm happy to say,

[2:18:09] hey, we're looking at this agreement. We

[2:18:12] want to make sure it's a partnership and

[2:18:14] not one way, one-sided.

[2:18:16] >> It used to come up. I can think of one

[2:18:19] instance uh when the quilt show was held

[2:18:21] in this elementary school over here. And

[2:18:23] I'm assuming they allowed us to use it

[2:18:25] for free back then.

[2:18:28] >> What about another thing I think that I

[2:18:30] I'm not sure how this works right now,

[2:18:32] but Centerville has a day of service

[2:18:34] which is communitywide and they do that

[2:18:37] most of that at the junior high. Do they

[2:18:40] maybe they allow the building to be used

[2:18:41] for free and they pay for some

[2:18:45] >> um

[2:18:46] >> but that's not the city custodial.

[2:18:48] >> Yeah.

[2:18:48] I know when we've done like our

[2:18:50] Arbor Day art with the treeboard, um

[2:18:53] we've always used Centerville Elementary

[2:18:55] for that and it has been free space. So,

[2:18:58] okay.

[2:18:58] >> We do have a history of of that.

[2:19:01] >> Okay.

[2:19:04] » All right. Great. Thank you, Haley.

[2:19:08] >> Appreciate you.

[2:19:09] >> Thanks.

[2:19:10] >> All right. Let's go back to center of

[2:19:13] municipal code amendments virtual

[2:19:15] currency kiosk ordinance 2026-9.

[2:19:21] Um

[2:19:22] do u we need further discussion on this

[2:19:26] for the public. We probably should have

[2:19:28] a little bit. Uh so you have in the

[2:19:31] public has in front of them the packet

[2:19:33] that's been put out by uh chief of

[2:19:37] police and Sergeant Dingman. But um uh

[2:19:43] anything else a quick summary since

[2:19:46] uh in addition to the packet?

[2:19:50] >> We do need a presentation for the

[2:19:52] record.

[2:19:52] >> Yes. That's why I'm asking them to bring

[2:19:55] something up.

[2:19:55] >> Yeah.

[2:19:56] >> You like to go through your quick

[2:19:58] presentation? You can go through it in

[2:20:01] >> five minutes or less.

[2:20:03] >> Yeah.

[2:20:11] Okay. Um, so we'll This isn't very long,

[2:20:14] so I should be able to get through

[2:20:16] quickly. Uh, virtual currency kiosks,

[2:20:19] you'll hear them by Bitcoin ATMs, crypto

[2:20:22] ATMs, you name it. There's a bunch of

[2:20:24] different names for them. They're all

[2:20:25] synonymous, but the way the codes and

[2:20:28] some of the statutes that are being

[2:20:29] written are actually calling them and

[2:20:31] referring them to them as the virtual

[2:20:33] currency kiosks. So what is crypto

[2:20:38] currency? Really really basic overview.

[2:20:41] Uh digital currency uh it's a digital

[2:20:44] asset that people can buy uh all online

[2:20:48] all in their own ecosystem through the

[2:20:51] blockchain. Uh the Bitcoin ATMs are kind

[2:20:55] of a point of sale

[2:20:57] um kiosks where people can purchase

[2:21:00] different types. There is a whole bunch

[2:21:02] of different types of uh cryptocurrency,

[2:21:04] not just Bitcoin. That's kind of the big

[2:21:06] one that everybody hears. Uh when

[2:21:09] currency is purchased, it enters into a

[2:21:12] wallet. Uh there is an exchange in there

[2:21:15] also when they're moving the

[2:21:17] cryptocurrency between wallets. Um the

[2:21:20] reason I kind of threw the freeze in

[2:21:21] there for the preservation orders for

[2:21:23] us, that's the best place that we can

[2:21:26] catch that. If it hits the exchange and

[2:21:29] it's still there, that is where we can

[2:21:31] get preservation orders and get holds on

[2:21:33] some of those things. Um, if it's gone

[2:21:35] into a wallet, it's almost impossible

[2:21:38] for us to get. So, anytime we have a

[2:21:41] fraud, and not just with ATMs, but

[2:21:43] that's what we're focused on. Any crypto

[2:21:45] frauds, if we don't get on them

[2:21:48] extremely quickly, tracing them and

[2:21:50] being able to put freezes on any money

[2:21:52] is extremely difficult. So that's

[2:21:54] another reason why we're looking at this

[2:21:58] uh the kiosks.

[2:22:00] Uh virtual currency kiosks are again

[2:22:02] they act kind of like an ATM. Um it's

[2:22:05] more of a you put money in and you get

[2:22:07] your digital currency in your digital

[2:22:09] wallet. You don't get the money out of

[2:22:11] it physically. Um

[2:22:14] down at the bottom there uh the crypto

[2:22:16] counter service. There is an option

[2:22:18] where you don't have to use the ATM.

[2:22:20] Some um gas stations and other places

[2:22:23] have point of sale setup where you can

[2:22:25] actually buy it right at the counter.

[2:22:27] So, we're kind of looking at the kiosks

[2:22:29] more than anything. Currently, right

[2:22:31] now, Centerville has two. One is

[2:22:34] currently out of service because the uh

[2:22:36] Bitcoin depot has gone under.

[2:22:39] So, we have that one that is still there

[2:22:42] and the second one is at the top stop uh

[2:22:45] right on the frontage road. uh we had

[2:22:49] starting to see a lot of the uh crimes

[2:22:51] and the different frauds that we were

[2:22:53] seeing. We put up warnings attached to

[2:22:55] each of those. You can actually see them

[2:22:57] still taped to those. Uh trying to get

[2:23:00] anybody coming in here, take a second,

[2:23:03] read it first before you start putting

[2:23:04] your money in it because odds are if

[2:23:06] you're on the phone with somebody,

[2:23:08] there's a lot of urgency. They're

[2:23:09] telling you to do this. It's a fraud.

[2:23:11] So, we tried our best uh since 2024

[2:23:15] with those on those ATMs.

[2:23:18] Um these are just a list of some of the

[2:23:21] frauds that we have seen specifically

[2:23:24] connected to the kiosks. The big ones

[2:23:28] were the jury duties, warrants. Get

[2:23:31] phone call from somebody saying, "Hey,

[2:23:33] I'm Sergeant so and so from Davis

[2:23:36] County. You have a warrant for your

[2:23:37] arrest. You need to go pay the fine

[2:23:39] through Bitcoin. That's a big one. Um,

[2:23:42] romance scam is also a big one. Hey, I

[2:23:44] love you, but I'm in the Czech Republic.

[2:23:46] Will you send me Bitcoin? Sure. And

[2:23:48] people fall for it and they do it. Um,

[2:23:51] tech help, Sextorion. Uh, we've had a

[2:23:54] lot of these, but these are just some of

[2:23:56] the ones that we know for sure that have

[2:23:58] affected

[2:23:59] citizens of Centerville at the kiosk

[2:24:02] specifically. [snorts]

[2:24:04] Um, fraud is going up. Um we started

[2:24:09] tracking these 2021

[2:24:11] from 2024 just to 2025 massive increase

[2:24:15] and this is uh coming from the FDC the

[2:24:18] FBI the IC3

[2:24:21] uh documents I believe that are in the

[2:24:22] packet has a lot of these same numbers

[2:24:25] showing that uh they've gone 13,000 134

[2:24:29] thou 13,400 complaints just in 2025

[2:24:33] contributed just to these ATMs.

[2:24:37] um 58% increase just over one year. So

[2:24:41] these are continuing to go up. Big one

[2:24:44] for us and our numbers kind of coincide

[2:24:47] with the national trends of who is being

[2:24:49] affected most by these. Um older adults

[2:24:53] are taking the brunt of this. A lot of

[2:24:56] that is because the the naive to what

[2:24:58] crypto is, how they use it, why they use

[2:25:00] it. They're kind of the target that a

[2:25:03] lot of these guys go after. Um 68% were

[2:25:08] people of over 50 of ours. I believe of

[2:25:11] the ones that here in just a minute when

[2:25:12] I get to the list of all of our cases,

[2:25:15] uh only one of them was under 40 years

[2:25:17] old. Everybody else is over 40. Most of

[2:25:19] them are well over 50, 60. I think our

[2:25:22] oldest was 85, I believe.

[2:25:26] Um these are our specific cases that we

[2:25:29] have. um shows our our total loss there

[2:25:32] of you know almost $95,000

[2:25:35] I personally think and I have a very

[2:25:37] strong feeling that that's low. We have

[2:25:40] a lot of these frauds that are also tied

[2:25:41] into other types of frauds. So they went

[2:25:44] under different classifications but

[2:25:47] specifically ours that I could uh pull

[2:25:50] out just from crypto ATMs and nothing

[2:25:52] else was at least the 949.

[2:25:56] Uh we've only been able to stop a small

[2:25:58] handful of these in process. The three

[2:26:01] case numbers we have up there were ones

[2:26:03] that we actually had victims that were

[2:26:05] willing to talk to us. We've had several

[2:26:06] We've had people walk in here and say,

[2:26:09] "Hey, this is what's going on. This what

[2:26:11] I had." And say, "Okay, it's a fraud."

[2:26:13] And they say, "I don't want to do

[2:26:14] anything. Wouldn't leave names, no

[2:26:16] amounts, nothing." So, we don't even

[2:26:17] have documentation of some of those.

[2:26:20] >> Um the one gentleman,

[2:26:21] >> you stopped him before they used the

[2:26:23] key.

[2:26:23] >> Correct.

[2:26:24] The two there, the 14,000 each

[2:26:26] on the right side.

[2:26:28] >> Those two were from the teller at the

[2:26:32] gas station calling us saying, "We've

[2:26:34] got a guy here. He won't listen to us.

[2:26:36] We come talk to him." So, we walk in,

[2:26:38] finally get him to convince. Hang up the

[2:26:40] phone. It's not your grandson. Please

[2:26:42] hang up the phone. Talk to us. And we

[2:26:44] were able to stop those two, but that's

[2:26:46] rare. [clears throat] So, yep. Um, yeah,

[2:26:50] we did have one gentleman that uh, you

[2:26:52] know, the $6,700 loss doesn't seem like

[2:26:55] a lot, but to him that was a he's a 71y

[2:26:58] old gentleman. Um, that impacted him

[2:27:02] with his family, drove to one of our

[2:27:04] churches and decided to take his own

[2:27:06] life. So,

[2:27:08] not just money loss that we're looking

[2:27:10] at. Um,

[2:27:11] >> can I ask you to clarify with regard to

[2:27:13] that last slide? Sure. almost $100,000

[2:27:15] lost just between those two

[2:27:18] >> crypto kiosks that are existing now. One

[2:27:22] of them is out of order and I don't know

[2:27:23] how long it's been out of order, but

[2:27:25] that's just from two kiosks.

[2:27:27] >> Yes, that is correct. Yep.

[2:27:30] Um this is not just a Centerville issue.

[2:27:33] Davis County uh also across the board

[2:27:37] just from 21 to 25 162 plus cases and

[2:27:40] that's only increased since these last

[2:27:42] stats were pulled in 25. Uh Leighton

[2:27:45] City alone had 74 with a cost of 1.8

[2:27:49] million. Uh they were the first to

[2:27:52] actually take the stance of trying to

[2:27:54] ban these and were successful and they

[2:27:56] passed their own

[2:27:59] u ordinances to get theirs banned. Since

[2:28:02] then, Provo, Brigham City, Heber, and I

[2:28:05] believe Tremont as well has jumped on

[2:28:08] board and they're also looking the same

[2:28:09] route, passing the same type of um

[2:28:13] things to go forward. So, that's kind of

[2:28:16] where that part of that presentation

[2:28:18] ends. So, if you're if you have any

[2:28:20] other questions on there, I can go back

[2:28:21] through them. I know I blew through that

[2:28:23] really quick, but I know it's in your

[2:28:24] packet, too.

[2:28:26] >> Excellent and helpful presentation. Uh,

[2:28:30] can I just ask you? Sure.

[2:28:31] >> I I believe you were here when we had a

[2:28:33] public commenter about this. Mr.

[2:28:37] >> Trent Larson.

[2:28:39] >> Yes.

[2:28:39] >> Do you have any uh comment feedback from

[2:28:44] things he presented? Would you like to

[2:28:45] >> He absolutely hit the nail on the head.

[2:28:48] This there are legit uses for these. I

[2:28:51] there's I think even in my slide, I'm

[2:28:54] not saying there isn't. I that's not our

[2:28:56] stance whatsoever. Um, however, from our

[2:28:59] stance, just me as the one that has to

[2:29:01] investigate a lot of these, I see a

[2:29:03] massive disproportionate from legitimate

[2:29:06] use to things that are affecting our

[2:29:08] citizens.

[2:29:10] But yeah, I 100% agree with all the

[2:29:12] stuff he's talking.

[2:29:13] >> I pictured when he's talking, I'm

[2:29:14] sitting there thinking, okay, uh, I've

[2:29:18] been

[2:29:20] when I'm out of the country or when I'm

[2:29:22] in ATM that's not my bank, I go to them.

[2:29:24] They charge you exorbitant fees

[2:29:26] sometimes. Yes.

[2:29:27] >> Uh at least you're getting cash so

[2:29:30] you're not transferred to somebody

[2:29:31] else's wallet. But he's obviously one

[2:29:34] that started using virtual currency. I

[2:29:37] don't want to speak for him, but he's

[2:29:39] afraid that the dollar system's not

[2:29:41] going to hold up or what it is, but some

[2:29:42] people are that way. So they use virtual

[2:29:45] currency. He said he paid ver with

[2:29:46] virtual currency his rotary dues. And so

[2:29:49] he stopped by to put money in cuz he

[2:29:51] needed to pay a bill with virtual

[2:29:53] currency. That's what he does. And so

[2:29:57] Councilman [clears throat] Banger asked

[2:29:58] a great question. That got me thinking

[2:29:59] as well, too. That's the form of

[2:30:01] currency that he's using.

[2:30:03] >> Sure.

[2:30:03] >> You know,

[2:30:04] >> so

[2:30:05] >> yeah, it's not going away. That's for

[2:30:07] sure. It's we're seeing more and more

[2:30:08] use of it across the

[2:30:10] >> But it's a lot easier to commit fraud

[2:30:12] with that be uh because you transfer

[2:30:14] somebody's wallet and then it's gone,

[2:30:16] you know.

[2:30:18] I

[2:30:18] >> versus somebody talking into, hey, your

[2:30:20] we have your grandkid son kidnapped and

[2:30:23] transfer this money to this bank

[2:30:25] account, right?

[2:30:27] >> Oh, yes. Correct. Of all of our cases,

[2:30:28] like I said, we have not been able to

[2:30:30] seize any of of all of our losses, we

[2:30:33] have not been able to catch them fast

[2:30:35] enough. trying to get the trace done

[2:30:37] fast enough

[2:30:39] by the time we get the trace back where

[2:30:41] we can figure out which exchange it hit,

[2:30:43] it's gone out of that exchange to four

[2:30:46] or five or 20 different wallets and then

[2:30:48] onto another exchange more wallets. Like

[2:30:50] it's

[2:30:52] we have not been able to seize any of

[2:30:53] them. We've been lucky and we've been

[2:30:55] able to catch the handful that we've

[2:30:57] been able to stop them in the process.

[2:30:59] But trying to actually get them back is

[2:31:02] that's the next step that we're hoping

[2:31:03] to start being able to snag some of that

[2:31:06] when we can get on them. But if we don't

[2:31:08] get the report immediately,

[2:31:11] us trying to get we're we're way behind

[2:31:14] trying to catch up. So

[2:31:15] >> So the state took a stance because you

[2:31:18] on the last uh slide here that you

[2:31:20] didn't go over, we have HB72. They put

[2:31:22] transition transaction limits. So they must feel okay about them, but

[2:31:28] they're not doing anything firmer.

[2:31:30] >> Yeah, I think the state took a

[2:31:32] realization that they are an issue, so

[2:31:34] had to come in with some sort of a

[2:31:36] legislation to put down on it. Um, a lot

[2:31:39] of that it has the same restrictions

[2:31:41] that we were trying has warnings put on

[2:31:44] them. We tried that from 2024 and we

[2:31:48] didn't see a change. Um the one thing

[2:31:51] that we we also have some more with that

[2:31:54] same hospital that went through we have

[2:31:56] restrictions on us things that we need

[2:31:58] to also report back to the state. Every

[2:32:01] crypto case that we're doing quarterly

[2:32:03] we report back to them. I think it is a

[2:32:06] trying to dig for more information to

[2:32:08] get more details to see if there is more

[2:32:11] legislation they need to do. I don't I'm

[2:32:12] not trying to think for them but that's

[2:32:14] where my head was of why those

[2:32:16] restrictions were. So we had the cap in

[2:32:19] the state law,

[2:32:19] >> correct?

[2:32:21] >> Is that a cap on a machine or is that a

[2:32:24] cap on the transfer for a daily

[2:32:26] transfer? You can't go from machine to machine to machine and do

[2:32:31] 2,000 in every machine or is and how do

[2:32:34] they track that for 2,000 if it is for

[2:32:37] the day?

[2:32:38] >> That's the a lot of the same questions

[2:32:39] we have too of how are you tracking that

[2:32:42] because yeah, you put the restrictions

[2:32:43] on there. say you can only go pull 2,000

[2:32:45] out today, 2,000 out tomorrow. My

[2:32:47] understanding is per machine.

[2:32:50] >> So they could bounce around. I could be

[2:32:52] wrong, but that is my understanding of

[2:32:53] they could bounce around, send them from

[2:32:55] here to West Battle to Syracuse to

[2:32:59] wherever bouncing around, but it's 2,000

[2:33:02] per person per day and then the next day

[2:33:05] 2,000, the next day 2,000, then after

[2:33:06] that it bumps to five. So that's the

[2:33:09] current ones that they've put in place

[2:33:10] so far. How long has that been in place?

[2:33:14] >> When was that? Past

[2:33:15] >> May. So, fairly recent. I was going to

[2:33:17] say obviously there's not a report on

[2:33:19] here that is less than 2000. So, these

[2:33:22] are all

[2:33:23] >> a prior to that or B they're not

[2:33:25] following that.

[2:33:26] >> There's only there's I think we only had

[2:33:28] one that was under $1,000 like

[2:33:30] >> Yeah.

[2:33:32] >> thousand.

[2:33:33] >> Yeah. So there's other ways besides

[2:33:35] kiosk to transfer you could transfer

[2:33:38] money uh to to to your wallet or

[2:33:41] somebody else wallet do at the computer.

[2:33:43] >> Absolutely.

[2:33:43] >> Uh sitting in your home. Uh

[2:33:46] >> are those easier to track than through

[2:33:48] the kiosk?

[2:33:48] >> No.

[2:33:50] >> So we could have

[2:33:51] >> unless I have the keys to your wallet.

[2:33:53] No.

[2:33:54] >> We could we could have somebody being

[2:33:56] defrauded and have cases that coming out

[2:34:00] our ears on something like that.

[2:34:02] >> And they do. I mean, like I said, this

[2:34:04] is very focused just on these crypto

[2:34:07] ATMs.

[2:34:08] >> I have Yes. a lot of other cases that

[2:34:10] are involving other types of crypto

[2:34:12] fraud, not crypto ATMs. This is very

[2:34:15] specific to this.

[2:34:16] >> Yes.

[2:34:18] >> With Go ahead.

[2:34:20] >> Go ahead. With regard to the warnings,

[2:34:21] you had a picture of the warning that

[2:34:23] looks like we as Centerbell Police put

[2:34:25] on the ATM and it sounds like we were

[2:34:28] proactive in getting out ahead of

[2:34:30] putting warnings on machines before the

[2:34:32] state mandated these disclosures listed

[2:34:34] in HB72. Yes. With regard to people who

[2:34:38] were defrauded, do we know at the time

[2:34:40] that they put their money into it that

[2:34:42] the sign was still up like our little

[2:34:44] our voluntary sign or is it possible

[2:34:47] that at the time that they put their

[2:34:48] money in our sign had been removed by

[2:34:50] the owner or by somebody else? Right.

[2:34:52] Because it's not statemandated. It's

[2:34:54] just something we had voluntarily done.

[2:34:55] >> Yes. Um I can get I don't have the exact

[2:34:58] numbers but I know for a fact there were

[2:35:01] multiple times at least with one of the

[2:35:03] um kiosks where the owners the actual

[2:35:07] owner of the kiosk not the business

[2:35:08] owner that houses it the owner of the

[2:35:10] kiosk removed our warnings. One of those

[2:35:14] was the gentleman that committed

[2:35:15] suicide. It had been taken down two

[2:35:17] weeks prior.

[2:35:20] >> Do we know do we know as to the others?

[2:35:22] I guess my question for you is is our

[2:35:25] warning working when it's up and people

[2:35:27] are being defrauded when the sign gets

[2:35:29] taken down because now of course the

[2:35:30] state mandates that these warnings are

[2:35:33] up there and so I'm trying to get a

[2:35:34] census to if we know if do we have

[2:35:37] evidence either way. I would have to go

[2:35:39] back and look through the some of the

[2:35:41] reports to get the full number of those,

[2:35:42] but I know and I could speak with pretty

[2:35:45] good confidence that there were several

[2:35:48] where they were sitting right there when

[2:35:50] the officers went in there to get the

[2:35:51] receipt from them that was right there.

[2:35:53] >> Shayen, we've actually had police

[2:35:55] officers on site not be able to stop the

[2:35:58] people from doing it. Sitting right here

[2:36:00] saying, "Shayen, this is a scam. Don't

[2:36:03] put your money in." And them going, "I

[2:36:05] have to.

[2:36:10] And can I ask you, do do would somebody

[2:36:14] in Centerville have an option close by

[2:36:19] from neighboring cities? Do do we know

[2:36:21] do neighboring cities have some of these

[2:36:24] close by? And and to what quantity do

[2:36:27] some of our neighbors allow some of

[2:36:28] these or [sighs]

[2:36:30] >> I can't give you the full numbers. I

[2:36:32] there is a website you can pull up and

[2:36:33] it'll show you exactly where every one

[2:36:35] of them is. Uh that's how a lot of them

[2:36:38] at least the when they perpetrate the

[2:36:39] fraud that's how a lot of them are doing

[2:36:41] it. They'll call them and they'll

[2:36:42] already have go to this address and

[2:36:44] there's an ATM right here and use that

[2:36:45] one. Um yeah we have several of them in

[2:36:48] surrounding agencies um different cities

[2:36:51] around us. Um I think in the one of the

[2:36:54] slides I had several of the cities that

[2:36:55] were listed on there that pulled all of

[2:36:57] their stats. Um I can find it for you

[2:37:00] right now. Yes, there are several around

[2:37:02] us that are still operational. And

[2:37:04] that's with Leighton's

[2:37:08] with their decision to do what they did.

[2:37:10] That's been a discussion that we've had

[2:37:12] as investigators of are we going to now

[2:37:15] start seeing these popping up in our

[2:37:16] cities that are being moved out of

[2:37:18] Leighton to come to us.

[2:37:20] >> So, that's that's something that we've

[2:37:22] been asking all of our surrounding

[2:37:24] agencies. We meet once a week and talk

[2:37:25] to other investigators and say, "Go

[2:37:27] check your stores and if they're popping

[2:37:28] up, let us know because some of our

[2:37:30] victims are probably going to end up in

[2:37:32] your city, too." But I don't have the

[2:37:34] exact numbers, but yes, there are quite

[2:37:36] a few around us. And coupled on that, I

[2:37:40] this may be just rhetorical in the sense

[2:37:42] that you may not know, but I would be

[2:37:45] curious as to know how many

[2:37:48] users go to the ATM, the crypto ATM

[2:37:52] every day. Is what is this the demand to

[2:37:55] that? I can see that cutting down the

[2:37:58] supply in one city would push the demand

[2:38:01] someplace else, but what is that demand?

[2:38:04] Is it

[2:38:05] >> uh I haven't been able to pull the full

[2:38:07] numbers of every single transactions

[2:38:10] gone through our two ATMs. So that's a

[2:38:12] question I don't have a 100% answer for.

[2:38:15] Um I will I think the only thing I can

[2:38:19] show is our numbers of the times we do

[2:38:20] get called. But that's again I think

[2:38:22] it's way under represented from what's

[2:38:24] actually going on. But I don't have the

[2:38:27] full numbers in front of me. I don't

[2:38:28] >> I mean you had like 10 incidents there.

[2:38:31] if you had 20 uses, you know, that's

[2:38:33] half. But I I think if we had the full

[2:38:37] scope of how many people were using

[2:38:39] this, I I wonder if it's not just a very

[2:38:41] small percentage, albeit that we may not

[2:38:44] be getting all of the the reports.

[2:38:46] >> I Yeah, it very well could be. Sure.

[2:38:50] >> Yeah. I think this um

[2:38:54] yeah the the numbers I've seen is

[2:38:55] anywhere between 90 here in Utah like

[2:38:58] 90% of the transactions are are based on

[2:39:01] frauds

[2:39:02] >> and Iowa did a study and theirs was 98%.

[2:39:08] » So I'm still curious about this uh this

[2:39:12] model that 71 does. Is that something

[2:39:15] that is

[2:39:16] >> prominent in a lot of symbol? I haven't

[2:39:19] I guess I haven't gone to a 7-Eleven

[2:39:21] recently.

[2:39:22] >> That was that was something that was new

[2:39:23] to me as well cuz I hadn't heard of

[2:39:25] that. One of our officers says, "Hey, I

[2:39:27] think 7-Eleven allows you to do it." So,

[2:39:29] I walked in and talked to the owner

[2:39:30] said, "Hey, is this something you do?"

[2:39:31] And he said, "We're not set up for it,

[2:39:33] >> but there are other 7-Elevens around in

[2:39:36] other cities." Okay. But yes, they will

[2:39:37] absolutely take that right over the

[2:39:39] counter. I I was sitting back doing some

[2:39:41] research uh earlier during the

[2:39:44] >> looked like uh there's a lot of places

[2:39:45] kind of like money gram those kind of

[2:39:47] places that were also that also allow

[2:39:48] you to do it in person. I believe I was

[2:39:51] reading Walmart can do it too but

[2:39:53] they're you know there little check

[2:39:56] cashing area where they do those

[2:39:57] financial transactions.

[2:39:59] >> You can you can do those things in

[2:40:01] person.

[2:40:01] >> Now I wonder if the the state

[2:40:04] legislature wouldn't want to cap those

[2:40:06] as well though. That to me is

[2:40:09] >> yeah, you know, and but the thing is I

[2:40:11] don't think we've taken any cases that

[2:40:13] have originated from one of those

[2:40:16] in-person transaction. It's all based on

[2:40:18] the teller and and and to your point,

[2:40:22] mayor, um when we were talking, you

[2:40:23] know, about Trent Larson's

[2:40:26] concerns and and I fully appreciate that

[2:40:28] and uh Trent and I had a conversation

[2:40:31] before the meeting quite extensively

[2:40:33] about it. Again, I I think the problem I

[2:40:37] have with these machines is they're

[2:40:40] almost solely being used for

[2:40:43] perpetrator fraud and to transfer money

[2:40:47] from a victim to a perpetrator. And

[2:40:50] there are a few select there are some circumstances where you got

[2:40:55] legitimate use, but I think they're

[2:40:57] really kind of far and few between. And

[2:40:59] any um real user of crypto

[2:41:03] probably has better ways to get their

[2:41:05] money into crypto than through an ATM

[2:41:08] that charges the exorbitant fees and but

[2:41:14] we do recognize there are legitimate

[2:41:15] uses and this is a trade-off, right? We

[2:41:17] do realize there there could be c could

[2:41:19] be circumstances where we could be

[2:41:20] limiting some of our residents ability

[2:41:23] to turn cash into crypto

[2:41:26] in exchange for protecting the more

[2:41:29] vulnerable part of our population.

[2:41:32] So it's kind of a trade-off.

[2:41:34] >> Chief, you say that it's mostly being

[2:41:36] these kiosks are mostly being used to

[2:41:39] perpetrate fraud. So I'm going to push

[2:41:40] you a little bit. What evidence are you

[2:41:43] basing that opinion on? uh the

[2:41:46] >> those two legitimate uses.

[2:41:48] >> Sure.

[2:41:48] >> Right.

[2:41:50] Um I know there's studies by the

[2:41:54] and by Iowa.

[2:41:55] >> Yeah. I'm trying to find a couple of

[2:41:57] them that we included.

[2:41:58] >> I think we had some in the stats in the packet.

[2:42:01] >> Yeah, there is some in the packet that

[2:42:02] was I believe that came through that has

[2:42:05] the number

[2:42:13] one

[2:42:21] Chief, is this what you're looking for?

[2:42:22] What's on the screen?

[2:42:25] >> That's one of them. There's one of them

[2:42:27] from Iowa.

[2:42:30] Is that the crypto statistics?

[2:42:32] >> Yes.

[2:42:35] >> That the FBI one.

[2:42:37] >> There's both

[2:42:40] the other one had the 98%.

[2:42:41] >> Yeah. The Iowa said ones that said 98%

[2:42:43] on the right hand side.

[2:42:44] >> Yeah. Go back to the other one.

[2:42:49] » Oh, and there's there's a lot more that

[2:42:50] are it's not just frauds.

[2:42:52] >> Yeah. Right there.

[2:42:54] >> So, in some of that supporting documents

[2:42:57] that you guys have also there's a lot of

[2:43:00] the cases are being used for human

[2:43:02] trafficking for

[2:43:04] um controlled substance sales. People

[2:43:07] don't want to drive around with a large

[2:43:08] amount of cash. So that's an easy stop

[2:43:10] off to buy crypto to get rid of the cash

[2:43:13] very quickly. That's been supported I

[2:43:16] think in the some of the FBI data, the

[2:43:17] IC3 data. So there's yeah, there's quite

[2:43:21] a bit in there.

[2:43:31] » Yeah, I'm looking for that. I read that

[2:43:32] 90% stat and I'm trying to find it right

[2:43:35] now. I apologize. Was that the other one

[2:43:38] that she put up, the federal one, or was

[2:43:40] that something else?

[2:43:42] >> Well, this this graph on the screen says

[2:43:45] that at least according to this Iowa

[2:43:47] investigation, the Bitcoin Depot kiosk,

[2:43:50] it was 98% of the transactions were scam

[2:43:53] and the coin flip kiosks, 94%

[2:43:57] were scams. That's a pretty significant

[2:44:01] >> number. I think that Bitcoin Depot, the

[2:44:03] one that they found that there, that

[2:44:05] 98%, there's the one that was in our

[2:44:07] city that is now defunct. I think that

[2:44:10] shows their business model.

[2:44:22] » Uh, he can continue to search for any

[2:44:25] other questions up. Well, they give you

[2:44:28] the

[2:44:30] >> Maybe we should include that as a

[2:44:32] whereas in the resolution

[2:44:36] » those statistics from Iowa

[2:44:44] » I'm just

[2:44:48] » I think it's a good idea.

[2:44:50] Well, certainly chief has indicated that

[2:44:52] here

[2:44:54] um that his his observations would be

[2:44:56] consistent with this study, right? You

[2:44:59] have no evidence to believe that our use

[2:45:02] of our kiosks would differ in any way

[2:45:04] from this in this Iowa investigative

[2:45:07] study.

[2:45:08] >> Correct.

[2:45:10] >> Thank you.

[2:45:11] I mean, there are other options for

[2:45:15] cash

[2:45:17] um users to transfer the cash into

[2:45:21] crypto.

[2:45:22] >> Yeah.

[2:45:22] >> Outside of the kiosks

[2:45:24] >> that would require a person,

[2:45:28] a teller, if you will,

[2:45:30] >> that would be able to hopefully identify

[2:45:35] an active fraud.

[2:45:38] that would be the reason to have a

[2:45:41] person a middleman.

[2:45:44] >> Well, I think it is also significant

[2:45:46] that it appears from the warning that

[2:45:49] you've included in your packet that the

[2:45:51] warning that we center have created is a

[2:45:54] more robust warning than what the

[2:45:56] state's warning is currently mandated.

[2:45:59] And even a more robust warning is not

[2:46:04] preventing the fraud. Right? people are

[2:46:06] even with that more robust warning, we

[2:46:08] still have residents who are being

[2:46:09] scammed to the tune of almost $100,000

[2:46:12] out of just two machines, one of which

[2:46:15] is out of business over a brief two-year

[2:46:18] period.

[2:46:20] >> Y

[2:46:21] >> yeah, we definitely have cases where the

[2:46:24] fraudsters are on the phone with them

[2:46:25] and they'll say, "Okay, go up this ATM

[2:46:27] here and you're going to see some

[2:46:28] warnings on there. They don't apply to

[2:46:30] you, right? This is a whole different

[2:46:32] it's for this is for fraud stuff. this

[2:46:34] isn't dealing with what you have in

[2:46:36] there. They are very convincing on the

[2:46:38] phone with with our victims and talking,

[2:46:42] you know, to the to what uh Council Me

[2:46:45] was saying where they won't even believe

[2:46:47] the police

[2:46:49] >> are right and we'll try and tell them

[2:46:51] it's a fraud and they won't believe us.

[2:46:54] >> Have them argue with our officers who

[2:46:56] are standing right there saying, "I

[2:46:58] promise you this is fraud. No, it's not.

[2:47:00] I have to do this or they're going to

[2:47:02] hurt my grandson or they're going to do

[2:47:03] whatever.

[2:47:05] >> So, yes, we've had that verbal

[2:47:07] altercations with people trying to

[2:47:09] convince them that they're being

[2:47:10] defrauded. And from what I've seen, it

[2:47:13] looks like kiosks are presenting a

[2:47:15] particular

[2:47:18] a particularly easy way for fraudsters

[2:47:21] to defraud our residents, which is not

[2:47:24] to say and which is not to what I'm

[2:47:26] suggesting is there are a lot of other

[2:47:27] ways that our residents could trade in

[2:47:30] cryptocurrency if they want to through

[2:47:32] more secure means, but that the kiosk is really pretty targeted at scams in

[2:47:38] particular. So, it's not really serving

[2:47:40] a purpose and in fact it's it's a

[2:47:42] detriment and a harm to our residents.

[2:47:45] >> It's definitely a much easier way for

[2:47:47] them to do that for sure. and and crypto

[2:47:49] is still something that's that's

[2:47:50] evolving and and changing and and um I

[2:47:54] suspect as time if crypto does stay on

[2:47:56] as a as a currency that they'll figure

[2:47:59] out better ways to to manage crypto and

[2:48:03] to do it more you know so less so it

[2:48:06] won't be used so much as a as a fraud

[2:48:08] technique because I I think the people

[2:48:10] who actually use crypto as a currency

[2:48:13] they probably don't like that their foreign currency

[2:48:18] and ATMs are being used to defraud so

[2:48:21] many people and getting such a bad name.

[2:48:23] And so I I suspect I suspect if the if

[2:48:26] the cryptocurrency

[2:48:30] kiosks, the manufacturers them wanted to

[2:48:33] stay in business and wanted more they

[2:48:35] would find ways to do it where it would

[2:48:37] be more difficult to be used as a tools

[2:48:41] of fraud. And right now I I believe that

[2:48:44] that's how they're making all their

[2:48:45] money.

[2:48:46] >> Right. As soon as the as soon as the

[2:48:49] state cracked down on uh daily

[2:48:51] transaction limits,

[2:48:54] um right after that, one of our kiosks

[2:48:55] went out of business.

[2:48:58] >> And there there isn't in in your view, I

[2:49:01] mean, is is there a place that we could

[2:49:04] put kiosks that would

[2:49:08] make residents less? It doesn't feel

[2:49:10] like to me that if we move a kiosk from

[2:49:12] currently gas stations and wherever else

[2:49:16] they're just gas stations right now. I

[2:49:18] mean, I can't think of any location

[2:49:20] restriction that would address the any

[2:49:24] of the concerns that you've raised.

[2:49:26] >> A big

[2:49:27] >> I like your idea of the police station,

[2:49:29] >> right? Yeah. Outside of putting it in

[2:49:31] the the lobby of the police department

[2:49:33] or

[2:49:33] >> which I don't think we could legally

[2:49:35] restrict. So I mean outside of that

[2:49:38] right I just I don't see a mechanism by

[2:49:41] which we could

[2:49:45] » impose some kind of a location

[2:49:47] restriction or or other you know hour

[2:49:50] restriction. I mean these people are

[2:49:52] going to call when they call and people

[2:49:53] are going to access machines and they

[2:49:55] access machines. What would happen if a

[2:49:59] there was a crypto bank that opened and

[2:50:01] wanted to open and put in kiosks or an

[2:50:05] ATM if you will that uh the crypto barn or some company

[2:50:11] that or Coinbase um Robin Hood these are

[2:50:16] companies that are uh have actual online

[2:50:20] websites that transfer Bitcoin.

[2:50:24] Can they come in and open a

[2:50:26] brickandmortar uh location and have Why

[2:50:30] wouldn't they be able to?

[2:50:32] >> Not if we say that they can't have them

[2:50:34] here in Centerville,

[2:50:35] >> right?

[2:50:36] >> Not not the way the ordinance is

[2:50:37] drafted.

[2:50:38] >> So that I think that would

[2:50:40] >> Are you talking non- kiosk, Councilman

[2:50:41] Clover?

[2:50:42] >> Uh

[2:50:44] I mean,

[2:50:45] >> yeah, my comment was only if they wanted

[2:50:46] to open up a kiosk. They can certainly

[2:50:48] we cannot restrict transfer of

[2:50:51] cryptocurrencies or holding a wallet or

[2:50:53] transacting. It's just the kiosks.

[2:50:56] >> Just the kiosks. Not necessarily a

[2:51:00] brickandmortar Coinbase bank, if you

[2:51:03] will, coming into Centerville, setting

[2:51:05] up shop, and putting in an ATM on their property.

[2:51:10] >> Well, I think they would not be able to

[2:51:11] put the ATM on their property. they

[2:51:13] wouldn't be able to do the kiosk, but

[2:51:15] they could do trading if they have some

[2:51:18] other way to do it.

[2:51:20] >> For for what it's worth, Council Member

[2:51:22] Plamer, I I get totally get where you're

[2:51:23] going with this. Um I think right now

[2:51:26] such kiosks don't exist. So I think for

[2:51:28] right now the the types of kiosks that

[2:51:30] we're dealing with according to the

[2:51:32] evidence that we have in front of us is

[2:51:34] that they're almost exclusively used for

[2:51:36] fraud. So certainly if this type of

[2:51:38] kiosk that you're envisioning starts to

[2:51:40] become of use, I think that we as a city

[2:51:43] council could certainly re-examine what

[2:51:46] you know the ordinance that we have. But

[2:51:47] given right now that the only kiosks

[2:51:49] that are sort of in existence that we're

[2:51:51] trying to address are these ones that

[2:51:53] are used predominantly almost

[2:51:55] exclusively for fraud, I think I'm I'm

[2:51:58] inclined to to to look at the ordinance

[2:52:01] with that

[2:52:03] sort of factual bound foundation right

[2:52:05] now. and you know we can look at

[2:52:06] something if if things change down the

[2:52:08] road.

[2:52:13] » All right. Uh anybody ready to make a

[2:52:16] motion?

[2:52:18] >> I did have some good comments from the

[2:52:20] council on potentially, you know,

[2:52:22] additional whereas clauses if you wanted

[2:52:25] to add them to a motion. One was a

[2:52:28] suggestion to add a whereas clause about

[2:52:29] the Iowa statistics on the 98% on

[2:52:34] Bitcoin depot machines and 94%

[2:52:37] um coin flip or scam transactions.

[2:52:40] um and that there are other alternatives

[2:52:42] for u converting cash to crypto um

[2:52:45] through businesses that may have teller

[2:52:47] transaction options and

[2:52:51] that Centerville City Police Department

[2:52:54] had put up warning sign on our kiosks uh

[2:52:57] that were more robust than the state

[2:52:59] requirements currently and it still

[2:53:01] didn't work over a two-year period um

[2:53:04] even considering that our signs were up

[2:53:06] before the state regulations went into

[2:53:08] effect and that there are other ways to

[2:53:11] trade uh cryptocurrency outside of kiosk

[2:53:14] and that the kiosks are a detriment and

[2:53:16] harm to our residents.

[2:53:18] >> Yeah. How would you feel about adding

[2:53:20] with regard to the Iowa study that our

[2:53:22] chief of police has indicated that based

[2:53:24] on his observations the use of our

[2:53:26] kiosks would be consistent with the iOS

[2:53:29] study?

[2:53:33] » Yes.

[2:53:51] Are you looking for a motion?

[2:53:54] >> Yeah, I was waiting.

[2:53:56] >> Yep.

[2:53:57] >> Waiting for an answer from her.

[2:53:59] >> You good, Lisa?

[2:53:59] >> Oh, yes.

[2:54:00] >> Yeah, I was just adding that. Then I am

[2:54:02] going to move that we approve ordinance

[2:54:04] number 2026-9

[2:54:05] enacting chapter 7-10 or 7.10 of the

[2:54:09] Centerville municipal code regarding

[2:54:11] virtual currency kiosks and prohibiting

[2:54:14] the operation placement and maintenance

[2:54:15] of virtual currency kiosks within the

[2:54:18] city as set forth in the proposed

[2:54:20] ordinance in the packet and the

[2:54:23] additional whereas clauses um that Lisa

[2:54:26] has just identified.

[2:54:29] >> Second. Got a motion, a second. Council

[2:54:32] Mikum.

[2:54:33] >> I

[2:54:38] » Councilman Palmer,

[2:54:39] >> uh can I ask what's going to happen to

[2:54:44] when this goes into place? What will

[2:54:46] happen to the existing is it uh the

[2:54:50] existing kiosk that's in operation at

[2:54:52] this time? Is it um are we giving it a

[2:54:56] period of time or is it needing to be

[2:54:58] shut down as soon as this is passed?

[2:55:00] >> 60 days. 60 days.

[2:55:03] >> The ordinance provides a 60-day

[2:55:05] transition

[2:55:06] >> and and the owner is aware this is

[2:55:08] potentially coming. They were actually

[2:55:09] offered an opportunity to come and speak

[2:55:12] on behalf if they wanted to the the

[2:55:15] owner of the the gas station. Okay.

[2:55:18] >> And they are they are anticipating this

[2:55:19] coming and ready to act. Okay. Great.

[2:55:23] Hi.

[2:55:25] >> All right. Four to zero. Thank you. All

[2:55:28] right. Thank you. Um, you guys ready to

[2:55:31] move on or anybody need a break?

[2:55:34] Keep going.

[2:55:36] You good to go? Okay. Let's go then to

[2:55:39] uh personnel.

[2:55:41] Yeah. Yeah. Personnel policies. CDL

[2:55:44] training and reimbursement resolution

[2:55:45] 2026

[2:55:48] uh-

[2:55:50] 27.

[2:55:52] uh just come quick give a quick summary.

[2:55:55] I know you gave one in work session to

[2:55:58] the public.

[2:56:01] Again, thank you for letting me take a

[2:56:03] second. So, this was just brought forth

[2:56:05] so that we could uh encourage our growth

[2:56:08] of our employees as we support them in

[2:56:11] obtaining the CDL, which is a mutual

[2:56:14] benefit for us as well as them. And so

[2:56:16] we're just looking for support that we

[2:56:19] can uh do this reimbursement program

[2:56:21] over the course of a 2-year period after

[2:56:23] they obtain the CDL and uh to help us

[2:56:27] with the retention and growth of those

[2:56:31] youngsters. So

[2:56:32] >> is your the is yours the only department

[2:56:34] that will use this?

[2:56:37] Uh, I think we are the only ones that do

[2:56:39] have equipment that would require this

[2:56:41] kind of

[2:56:42] >> license.

[2:56:47] » Oh, yes. Sorry. The parks department

[2:56:49] does as well. Yeah, they have operators

[2:56:52] currently because they utilize the dump

[2:56:53] trucks and that as well.

[2:56:56] >> So, are we limiting the opportunity to

[2:56:59] those departments? Because could a

[2:57:01] police officer say, "I'd like to get my

[2:57:03] CDL license." So, it is limited to those

[2:57:06] that it's uh as it's stated is limited

[2:57:08] to those that it's required by their job

[2:57:10] description.

[2:57:16] » Further questions?

[2:57:19] I would like to make a motion that we

[2:57:21] approve that resolution

[2:57:24] with the uh amendment

[2:57:28] that we reduce the amount to 80%

[2:57:33] of the cost incurred by an employee to so incur that lensure.

[2:57:42] Keeping the table the same as far as

[2:57:44] employment period.

[2:57:46] The six 0 to 6 6 to 12 to 18 24. Okay,

[2:57:50] >> I like that.

[2:57:53] >> Do we have a second of that motion?

[2:57:56] >> Sorry. 80% of what?

[2:58:00] >> So, you want

[2:58:00] >> I don't know how to word it. I'm sorry

[2:58:02] I'm so poor at that. But we're we're

[2:58:04] suggesting we'll pay 100% up to $4,000.

[2:58:07] I would say we pay 80% of the cost up to

[2:58:10] >> that they pay 20%.

[2:58:17] » So as it's written then

[2:58:20] right now it's written that we'll pay

[2:58:21] the upfront cost and they're doing a

[2:58:23] reimbursement. So we'd need to go back

[2:58:24] and rewrite what this looks like. Is

[2:58:27] that correct? because then we're asking

[2:58:29] for

[2:58:30] >> for upfront cash from those employees or

[2:58:34] else be saying we would only reimburse

[2:58:36] up to that percentage and they just have

[2:58:39] to know that they absorb the 20%.

[2:58:42] >> My argument is whenever we required in

[2:58:44] their job description we should be

[2:58:46] funding that and not putting it solely

[2:58:48] on the employee. So if it's a

[2:58:50] requirement of the job my argument is

[2:58:52] the city should be funding that

[2:58:54] requirement. Now,

[2:58:55] >> could be having all this further

[2:58:56] discussion before we get a second on the

[2:58:59] motion or not?

[2:59:02] >> Just just a question. It seems like to

[2:59:04] me that you you don't know necessarily

[2:59:07] go into further discussion. If if you

[2:59:09] don't get a second, then that motion

[2:59:11] fails. Then we'll get further

[2:59:12] discussion. If you get a second, then

[2:59:14] I'll give further discussion. You can

[2:59:15] discuss at that point in time.

[2:59:19] Is there any second?

[2:59:22] Not hearing any second. That motion

[2:59:24] fails. So we can have further discussion

[2:59:26] now.

[2:59:29] >> Well, I will just approve resolution

[2:59:30] number 2026-27

[2:59:33] um as proposed in staff report.

[2:59:36] >> I'll second that.

[2:59:38] >> Okay, we have a motion to second to

[2:59:40] that. Further discussion on that one.

[2:59:44] Okay. Uh

[2:59:47] Councilman Palmer, go on the right. I

[2:59:50] >> I

[2:59:52] >> nay simply because I would appreciate

[2:59:55] the employee having a little skin in the

[2:59:58] game.

[2:59:59] >> I

[3:00:04] » You want to vote or abstain?

[3:00:05] >> I'm going to abstain [clears throat]

[3:00:06] because I'm not even sure which item

[3:00:07] we're on and I apologize.

[3:00:10] >> That uh

[3:00:12] >> it was this

[3:00:13] >> we had

[3:00:13] >> it was the one I thought.

[3:00:15] >> Yeah.

[3:00:15] >> Oh, okay. I'm fine to say I on that.

[3:00:18] Sorry.

[3:00:18] >> Okay. So that motion pass is 4 to one.

[3:00:21] Thank you, Dave.

[3:00:22] >> Thank you.

[3:00:22] >> Appreciate it. All right. Uh let's go to

[3:00:30] probos probationary employment period

[3:00:33] resolution 2026-

[3:00:36] 26.

[3:00:40] Who wants to handle that?

[3:00:42] >> I'm happy to talk about that, mayor.

[3:00:44] >> Okay. Um, we have proposed amendments to

[3:00:48] our personnel policies before you

[3:00:50] regarding

[3:00:52] um, probationary periods. So, previously

[3:00:54] in our or our policies, we refer to this

[3:00:57] as your introductory period. It's a

[3:01:00] 12-month period when you're first hired

[3:01:02] on with the city um, to review your

[3:01:06] ability to do the job. And we had talked

[3:01:10] about reducing that amount of time, but

[3:01:12] a number of the departments actually

[3:01:14] need that. for instance, police

[3:01:15] department, um public works, sometimes

[3:01:18] it takes up to a year to re obtain these

[3:01:20] certifications.

[3:01:22] So, as staff, our recommendation is

[3:01:24] let's keep it at the um 12 months for

[3:01:28] the introductory period. We're also

[3:01:31] recommending that we change the name of

[3:01:33] that to probationary period because that

[3:01:35] is the language and the term that the

[3:01:37] state statute uses when defining um

[3:01:40] employees in 103105

[3:01:43] what we refer to as at will employees

[3:01:45] during their probationary period. So we

[3:01:47] wanted to be consistent with that. The

[3:01:50] next thing we wanted to address is that

[3:01:52] our current policy says that the first

[3:01:54] 12 months of employment with the city um

[3:01:57] in any position or a transfer to a new

[3:02:01] position or a promotion within the city,

[3:02:04] you're subject to another introductory

[3:02:06] period. Well, there are some legal

[3:02:09] concerns with saying you have been with

[3:02:11] the city for 18 years and you are now a

[3:02:15] merit employee, but if you're moving

[3:02:17] into this new position, we're going to

[3:02:20] make you be at will again for 12 months,

[3:02:24] up to 12 months. So, we're proposing

[3:02:27] that we distinguish between

[3:02:31] um a probationary new hire employee and

[3:02:35] a promotion. Um and I think this is also

[3:02:39] a um helpful to now call this the pro

[3:02:44] promotional evaluation period and having

[3:02:47] a distinction between these two things

[3:02:49] and trying to explain that in your

[3:02:52] promotional period if you're going from

[3:02:54] a merit employee meaning you hold your

[3:02:58] position without limitation of time that

[3:03:01] if you're going from merit position to

[3:03:03] merit position that you retain ain that

[3:03:07] merit. You don't have to do another at

[3:03:08] will. But if you get promoted from a

[3:03:11] merit position to an atill position,

[3:03:14] unfortunately you are now you're at

[3:03:16] will. It's not a probationary period.

[3:03:19] It's because under the law, you have now

[3:03:22] moved into an atill position. So, just

[3:03:24] to give you an example, when the police

[3:03:26] chief goes from lieutenant perhaps or to

[3:03:29] chief um or maybe someone moves into one

[3:03:32] of our director uh department head

[3:03:34] positions in a promotion, if they are

[3:03:36] going from merit to at will, then

[3:03:39] they're now at will in that new position

[3:03:42] and that is the voluntary decision that

[3:03:44] they're making um for that that

[3:03:47] promotion. So, also with this, I thought

[3:03:50] it would be helpful to try and define

[3:03:52] merit versus at will. And I went back

[3:03:55] and reviewed the Utah case law. Um, the

[3:03:58] Utah courts refer to this, as I'm

[3:04:01] saying, the title 103 1105 and 1106 as

[3:04:05] the merit protection statute. And so, I

[3:04:09] would like to try and describe for

[3:04:11] employees, you are a merit employee. And

[3:04:14] here's what it means. you know, once

[3:04:15] you've finished this 12-month in uh

[3:04:17] probationary period, you know, you now

[3:04:20] hold your position without limitation of

[3:04:22] time subject to, you know, some due

[3:04:25] process. Um, it doesn't mean we can't

[3:04:27] terminate those employees for cause. We

[3:04:29] certainly can. It's just that they have

[3:04:32] more due process in their job, which is

[3:04:34] different than private employment. This

[3:04:37] is just for uh government employees. Um

[3:04:40] and then also defining at will which

[3:04:43] means we can terminate you generally

[3:04:45] with or without cause and this is all of

[3:04:47] your department heads any um appointed

[3:04:50] position like the city treasurer um city

[3:04:54] manager etc. So um I don't know we're

[3:04:58] excited about this new direction and

[3:05:00] making it a lot hopefully clearer in our

[3:05:02] policies for employees and we'll we'll

[3:05:04] certainly have to do some explanation of

[3:05:07] these edits. Um we have reviewed these

[3:05:10] with our um department heads and um I

[3:05:15] think we're recommending approval of

[3:05:17] these um to bring our policies more in

[3:05:21] line I think with with state law and the

[3:05:24] case law development of merit and and at

[3:05:26] will employees

[3:05:27] >> and we reduced it from 12 months to six

[3:05:29] months.

[3:05:29] >> Right. And so for the pro uh probate for

[3:05:33] the um promotional evaluation period, we

[3:05:37] have reduced that from 12 months to 6

[3:05:39] months because we know you know this is

[3:05:42] has been an employee that's been with us

[3:05:44] and they may just be transferring or

[3:05:46] promoted and so the six months does make

[3:05:50] more sense in that situation.

[3:05:54] So

[3:05:57] any comments or questions?

[3:06:00] I'm supportive of Alisa, but I have a

[3:06:02] nerdy recommendation.

[3:06:03] >> Okay.

[3:06:04] >> In your definition of at will employee

[3:06:06] in subsection B, the last sentence

[3:06:08] indicates nothing here and authorizes

[3:06:10] termination of an at will employee

[3:06:12] unlawful reasons and then we proceed to

[3:06:15] list examples of unlawful reasons such

[3:06:18] as discrimination, retaliation, equal

[3:06:20] protection, etc. I don't like the

[3:06:22] inclusion of those examples for two

[3:06:25] reasons. one they're focusing really

[3:06:27] more on equal protection type protected

[3:06:31] status discrimination. And there are a

[3:06:33] lot of other unlawful reasons that you

[3:06:34] can terminate an employee. Wrongful

[3:06:35] termination and violation of religion

[3:06:37] policy,

[3:06:39] right? That for those who don't know,

[3:06:41] the Utah Public Protection and

[3:06:43] Employment Act. So I would and and I

[3:06:46] also don't like those terms because

[3:06:48] while they can be used in a legal sense,

[3:06:50] discrimination, retaliation, I can also

[3:06:53] discriminate and retaliate against

[3:06:55] people for perfectly lawful reasons that

[3:06:57] are not prohibited by law. So just to

[3:07:00] avoid any um Yeah. Like I can I can

[3:07:03] discriminate against somebody because

[3:07:04] they wear red socks and not blue socks.

[3:07:08] That's not unlawful, but it would be

[3:07:09] discrimination, right? So I would just

[3:07:12] change that because I am me. And I would

[3:07:15] just say nothing here and authorizes

[3:07:16] termination of an at will employee for

[3:07:18] reasons prohibited by law. Period.

[3:07:21] >> And not identify any examples. I know

[3:07:24] you were trying to be helpful, but it

[3:07:26] could create ambiguity.

[3:07:28] >> Okay,

[3:07:30] good suggestion. We know that

[3:07:34] >> for reasons prohibited by law.

[3:07:37] >> Yeah, it was a lot more difficult to

[3:07:40] define these than I thought, but

[3:07:44] >> that was my only comment.

[3:07:45] >> Okay,

[3:07:47] >> at least gave an exciting presentation.

[3:07:49] She was No, you did. You were

[3:07:52] passionate.

[3:07:53] >> So, do you have more questions for her

[3:07:56] for that passion?

[3:07:58] [laughter] Anybody

[3:08:00] else?

[3:08:03] >> I appreciate you doing it, Lisa. I think

[3:08:05] you've done a great job and I appreciate

[3:08:06] that a lot.

[3:08:07] >> And I and I do like that we are

[3:08:09] resolving this. That seems very common

[3:08:12] sense. So,

[3:08:13] >> we're going to see a theme. I mean, we

[3:08:15] really are looking into our personnel

[3:08:16] policy manual and Bryce and Lisa have

[3:08:19] done a really good job, but you're going

[3:08:20] to see probably maybe every meeting some

[3:08:23] tweak or change um that we need to do.

[3:08:25] So, anyway,

[3:08:26] >> appreciate the work.

[3:08:27] >> That's our goal. That's our goal.

[3:08:29] >> Okay. So,

[3:08:30] >> council a motion.

[3:08:32] >> Go ahead.

[3:08:33] >> I was going to say I'll make a motion

[3:08:34] that we approve resolution number

[3:08:36] 2026-26

[3:08:38] regarding personnel policy amendments

[3:08:40] for new employee probationary periods

[3:08:42] and promotional evaluation periods for

[3:08:44] existing employees who are internally

[3:08:46] promoted or transferred to a new

[3:08:48] position and other relevant amendments.

[3:08:51] >> Modification that I made. Yes, with the

[3:08:53] modification that Shayen made and

[3:08:57] I'm not going to try and repeat that,

[3:08:58] but I think we've got it right.

[3:09:00] >> I'll second it.

[3:09:03] [cough]

[3:09:04] >> A motion to second. Uh for discussion,

[3:09:07] Councilman Banger going to the right.

[3:09:10] >> I [clears throat]

[3:09:12] >> I motion passes 5. Thank you. Let's go

[3:09:17] to Utah Property Acquisitions along

[3:09:19] frontage road. Uh Brandt, do you want to

[3:09:21] give us a quick summary on that?

[3:09:23] >> Yes. Thanks, Mr. Mayor, Mayor and

[3:09:24] Council. So, as we we've discussed and

[3:09:26] we've been working on this for the last,

[3:09:28] I would say two years. Uh UD do as they

[3:09:32] are widening I-15 is needing to acquire

[3:09:34] property along our frontage road. That

[3:09:36] property primarily serves as our

[3:09:38] drainage. Most of the property primarily

[3:09:40] serves as retention or detention basins,

[3:09:43] drainage swells along the frontage road.

[3:09:46] So, we've they've been interested in

[3:09:48] acquiring this property. on to purchase

[3:09:50] it, but also to to uh do some temporary

[3:09:53] construction easements on that property.

[3:09:54] We've been negotiating with UD do and

[3:09:57] we've worked closely with them to find a

[3:09:59] fair balance. One of the biggest

[3:10:00] concerns and uh is making sure that our

[3:10:03] drainage infrastructure and our drainage

[3:10:05] system still operates properly. So, this

[3:10:08] has been delayed because we wanted to

[3:10:09] make sure we had that drainage agreement

[3:10:11] in place that was approved at the last

[3:10:12] meeting. UD [snorts] do has agreed to

[3:10:15] construct approximately $10 million

[3:10:16] worth of drainage infrastructure

[3:10:18] underneath the freeway, whether it's a

[3:10:20] new pipes, upgraded pipes to handle all

[3:10:23] of our flows to make it to the west side

[3:10:25] of the freeway and legacy. So with that

[3:10:27] before you are 10 contracts, uh 10

[3:10:31] parcels of land they're requiring

[3:10:33] interested in purchasing uh or

[3:10:36] purchasing easements on those

[3:10:38] properties. And those 10 contracts uh

[3:10:42] total $1,969,675,000.

[3:10:47] Again, as I shared have shared that it's

[3:10:49] important for us to actually retain and

[3:10:51] hold on to this funding that we're

[3:10:53] receiving because we'll also need to

[3:10:55] come back in and do the betterments and

[3:10:57] improve the properties once they leave.

[3:11:00] The cost that they're giving us does

[3:11:01] account for that. there might be

[3:11:03] opportunities for betterments or trails

[3:11:05] or any other open space we might be

[3:11:07] interested in, but also we might need to

[3:11:09] invest more into the drainage

[3:11:11] infrastructure uh on the west side of

[3:11:14] the freeway. So, the recommendation is

[3:11:16] to hold on to those funds for until the

[3:11:18] completion of the I-15 widening project

[3:11:21] and then we have discussions in the

[3:11:22] future of what to do with those funds.

[3:11:25] Are there any questions from me?

[3:11:27] >> We think that'll be about Did you say 20

[3:11:30] 31 32?

[3:11:31] >> Yeah. Mike, what what was UD do

[3:11:33] anticipated the completion of the I-15

[3:11:35] winding? I want to say it was 2031 or

[3:11:37] 2032. Is that about right?

[3:11:39] >> I mean, the goal of course is prior to

[3:11:41] the Olympics, so definitely before 2034.

[3:11:45] If they don't, then we we've messed up

[3:11:47] big time.

[3:11:48] So

[3:11:50] yeah,

[3:11:53] » I was just going to mention that I do

[3:11:55] work for Horox, which they do have some

[3:11:58] involvement with um this freeway

[3:12:01] expansion project. So I I have no

[3:12:05] decision making on the process of right

[3:12:07] away within Horox or any advantage

[3:12:10] financially but I do want to state that

[3:12:12] I am an employee of Horox

[3:12:14] >> and I share we've been working with HDR

[3:12:16] as the consultant who's you know the

[3:12:18] consult to negotiate for our [snorts]

[3:12:21] parcels. So HDR is the firm.

[3:12:24] >> Sounds like you're not cancelled then.

[3:12:26] >> I'm not cancelled. I just want I just

[3:12:28] want to be very clear about that in any

[3:12:31] dot decisions at the moment. So,

[3:12:34] >> all right. Further discussions or

[3:12:36] further questions for Brent?

[3:12:39] >> A motion or sorry, it's not Yeah. Well,

[3:12:41] it is a motion. It's but it's not a

[3:12:44] resolution or ordinance. It's just uh

[3:12:48] allowing the mayor and appropriate city

[3:12:50] officials to execute contracts and

[3:12:52] associated closing documents subject to

[3:12:55] final review and non-material

[3:12:57] corrections or however you want to say

[3:12:59] it.

[3:12:59] >> [laughter]

[3:13:00] >> I'll move that we approve the U dot

[3:13:02] rightway contracts for the parcels

[3:13:03] identified in staff report for the total

[3:13:06] compensation identified in staff report

[3:13:08] and authorize the mayor and appropriate

[3:13:10] city officials to execute the contracts

[3:13:12] and associated closing documents subject

[3:13:14] to final legal review and non-materials.

[3:13:18] >> I'll second that.

[3:13:19] >> Got a motion to second. Uh Counciloman

[3:13:23] Haymon going to my right.

[3:13:24] >> I I

[3:13:25] >> I

[3:13:28] >> Thank you. That post is 50.

[3:13:31] All right, we've kept Bruce Caul up past

[3:13:34] 10:00 when his lights go off at the

[3:13:36] parks. That's your bedtime usually,

[3:13:38] right? When the lights go off at the

[3:13:40] pickle ball court and the tennis courts.

[3:13:42] But come on up here. Uh cuz we're we're

[3:13:44] talking about the the the Hot Wheels

[3:13:47] park discussion or the all wheels,

[3:13:49] excuse me.

[3:13:50] >> Hot Wheels. [laughter]

[3:13:53] » Just just can't help but think of my

[3:13:55] days of Hot Wheels and Matchboxes. This

[3:13:58] doesn't need to be a discussion. Just tell me what location.

[3:14:02] >> Oh, I just thought you might want to say

[3:14:04] that since we since we last met, unless

[3:14:07] you want me to read it.

[3:14:08] >> Oh, yeah.

[3:14:08] >> That that that you're uh you got to the

[3:14:12] trails committee got together,

[3:14:13] >> right? Oh, okay.

[3:14:14] >> I I didn't know or or she could say it.

[3:14:17] >> We were both there. Yeah.

[3:14:17] >> I didn't want to steal any thunder.

[3:14:19] >> Oh,

[3:14:20] >> okay. The trails committee met last

[3:14:22] Thursday evening and unanimous

[3:14:25] unanimously after uh some discussion uh

[3:14:29] decided to recommend to the city council

[3:14:32] that they have the design of the pump

[3:14:35] track be done for the Porter Walton Park

[3:14:38] location.

[3:14:40] >> All right. I could have read that, but

[3:14:42] uh [laughter] I thought maybe

[3:14:45] >> I I thought you did, but

[3:14:46] >> it was not a close call. I mean, it was

[3:14:49] such a unanimous decision and I don't

[3:14:51] think that they had really thought about

[3:14:52] it before we as a city council

[3:14:54] recommended it and they said, "Oh my

[3:14:56] gosh." Yeah, that makes perfect sense.

[3:14:57] So,

[3:14:58] >> yeah, with the greenway that they talked

[3:15:00] about earlier today running right past

[3:15:02] that park, uh the visibility, it's a

[3:15:05] safe route to school for junior high. Um

[3:15:08] it's a great location for our

[3:15:10] neighboring West Bountiful and Bountiful

[3:15:12] communities to be able to also enjoy the

[3:15:15] amenities. Uh there's there's lots of

[3:15:17] pluses for sure. There's there's it's a

[3:15:19] three acre parcel. Um and I think a a

[3:15:23] one acre of it would be very usable um

[3:15:26] for for design and uh still keeping a a

[3:15:30] green buffer around the perimeter and

[3:15:32] all of the park that's there um uh as

[3:15:36] far as basketball court, playground,

[3:15:38] pavilion, um those things. So I I I

[3:15:41] think there's a lot of pluses for that

[3:15:42] location. So, are you going to

[3:15:44] specifically recommend they only design

[3:15:47] for one particular acre of it?

[3:15:49] >> That that's what I would I've already

[3:15:51] actually Yeah, that's what I would

[3:15:53] recommend that they keep their design

[3:15:55] within that acre or so to not they could

[3:15:58] give other options if for you to look at

[3:16:00] and I I think I will recommend too, hey,

[3:16:02] why don't you give us a couple of

[3:16:04] different options for us to look at and

[3:16:06] pick and choose the things we like and

[3:16:08] dislike. But, uh yeah, there's a blank

[3:16:10] canvas easily of an acre. they could

[3:16:14] stretch that to an acre and a half at

[3:16:16] most probably and still keep what I

[3:16:18] think uh without having to take out it

[3:16:21] take away anything that the park already

[3:16:23] has.

[3:16:24] >> Yeah, I council to be aware I took a

[3:16:26] little drive by with Bruce and Bruce I

[3:16:28] liked that idea of maybe coming along

[3:16:31] the the where the parkway would be and

[3:16:33] having a stretch of that park being a

[3:16:35] little longer instead of so circular or

[3:16:38] something. We talked about that. I just

[3:16:41] >> Yeah.

[3:16:42] and and hopefully that'll be

[3:16:44] incorporated within maybe an acre. Maybe

[3:16:45] that' be a little bit more. But I that

[3:16:47] was my take.

[3:16:52] » That sounds good.

[3:16:54] >> Well, you like that uh

[3:16:59] um

[3:17:02] do you want to approve a preliminary

[3:17:04] design for that park that he brings back

[3:17:06] to us or what do you want to do?

[3:17:09] Or didn't you just need our go-ahhead to

[3:17:11] say, "Yep, go plan for that location."

[3:17:13] >> A location. Yeah. If you choose the

[3:17:15] location for them to design for that

[3:17:17] will give give them the opportunity to

[3:17:19] do specific design to that location. U

[3:17:23] knowing the grades and they can give

[3:17:24] much better cost estimates which I will

[3:17:27] use to then apply for a construction

[3:17:29] grant um early early next year that um

[3:17:33] could be a matching grant that pays for

[3:17:35] half the cost if we're if we're

[3:17:37] successful.

[3:17:38] >> Mr. Mr. Mayor, I if it's possible a

[3:17:40] motion would be awesome.

[3:17:41] >> I'll move that we approve a loc approve

[3:17:43] a location for the preliminary design

[3:17:45] for an alls park at Porter Walton Park.

[3:17:49] >> Second.

[3:17:50] >> All in favor? I

[3:17:51] >> I

[3:17:52] >> post

[3:17:54] unanimous. Thanks, Bruce. All right,

[3:17:56] let's go to

[3:17:59] uh bond reduction Porter Lane Estates.

[3:18:04] Uh this is on the summary action

[3:18:06] calendar.

[3:18:08] Uh

[3:18:10] there's a bond reduction um for Lane

[3:18:12] states amount of 40,773.

[3:18:15] Anybody have questions on that?

[3:18:23] » Okay. If not, uh motion to approve that.

[3:18:27] >> So moved.

[3:18:28] >> Second.

[3:18:30] >> A motion to second to Councilwoman Hurst

[3:18:33] going to my right.

[3:18:35] I

[3:18:36] >> I

[3:18:39] >> That passes unanimously. Thank you.

[3:18:41] Let's go to minutes review and approval.

[3:18:44] August 18th work session and August 18th

[3:18:47] city council minutes. Did you see

[3:18:51] anything of those minutes that you would

[3:18:53] like to uh make a change to?

[3:18:58] >> If not, so moved.

[3:19:03] >> All right. We have a motion to accept

[3:19:05] the minutes as written.

[3:19:07] >> Second.

[3:19:08] >> All in favor? I

[3:19:09] >> I

[3:19:10] >> posed.

[3:19:11] >> Thank you. All right, let's go to uh

[3:19:14] council member report. It uh it's it's

[3:19:16] count counciloman Gina Hurst tonight.

[3:19:19] >> I do not have a whole lot. Um

[3:19:23] our uh parks and recck committee is

[3:19:26] working on kind of um they've been

[3:19:29] working on the master plan and I think

[3:19:31] that's going to be a real drive over the

[3:19:34] next

[3:19:36] month or two. Brian, do you have any

[3:19:40] do you want to add anything to that

[3:19:42] since [clears throat] you kind of

[3:19:44] co-leas that with me? Yeah, that's uh

[3:19:47] it's really it's they're focused on

[3:19:51] getting that um that plan put together

[3:19:55] the report or their [clears throat]

[3:19:57] document, but I think they have

[3:19:59] requested to inquire about funding for

[3:20:03] that.

[3:20:03] >> Yeah. Yeah. They they may need a little

[3:20:07] bit of funding um just to kind of finish

[3:20:10] it off and get it into a nice looking

[3:20:13] format. I'm

[3:20:16] It's possible that city staff can help

[3:20:18] with that as well, but um

[3:20:20] >> we had allocated money for it.

[3:20:21] >> We had allocated money. It did not get

[3:20:23] spent in the last fiscal year and did

[3:20:25] not get pushed forward. So I the reason I think it's important to

[3:20:30] bring that up is just they you know

[3:20:33] these volunteer organizations I think

[3:20:35] that was above and beyond

[3:20:37] >> the call of the call of duty and they

[3:20:40] have done

[3:20:42] everything that I've seen so far like

[3:20:44] it's they have done a really good job.

[3:20:47] They've worked really hard to, you know,

[3:20:49] put that together and I'm I'm impressed

[3:20:53] and so and they they uh they're a really

[3:20:56] great group of people. They work well

[3:20:58] together. Just impressive. So, um I

[3:21:02] think that's all I have there. They're

[3:21:03] kind of wrapped up with movies in the

[3:21:05] park for the summer. um

[3:21:08] South Davis Recreation District. We are

[3:21:11] currently um in the next couple of

[3:21:13] weeks, we'll be holding interviews for

[3:21:15] the two at positions that are not

[3:21:19] elected officials in the community.

[3:21:21] They're the ones that apply and then

[3:21:24] they're interviewed. So I the two that

[3:21:28] are currently sitting on the board did

[3:21:31] reapply and then we've also got one

[3:21:33] resident from Centerville that applied.

[3:21:35] So anyway, I'll let you know how that

[3:21:37] goes when those interviews are.

[3:21:39] >> Did you mean at large?

[3:21:40] >> At large. Yeah. Not at will. Sorry.

[3:21:43] >> Like they're hiring new people.

[3:21:45] [laughter]

[3:21:45] >> Yeah. I

[3:21:46] >> just want to clarify. Okay.

[3:21:48] >> Thank you for the correction. [laughter]

[3:21:50] It's getting late and I'm tired, I

[3:21:52] guess.

[3:21:53] >> Didn't mean to.

[3:21:54] >> No, I'm glad you did. That didn't sound

[3:21:56] right. Um the the South Davis Sewer

[3:22:01] District, they continue to work on um

[3:22:04] the construction of the North plant. Um

[3:22:08] I'll be sitting down um in a couple of

[3:22:11] weeks uh to talk about all of the

[3:22:14] upcoming engineering projects. One would

[3:22:16] think that we would be done with

[3:22:18] infrastructure forever more on the sewer

[3:22:21] plan, but in fact, we will not be. many

[3:22:26] like it's time to start looking at what

[3:22:28] the future needs are as far as um

[3:22:31] updates. So I unfortunately I don't have

[3:22:33] a lot to tell you about that right now,

[3:22:35] but I'll get some more information and

[3:22:38] that's more of a long-term you know I

[3:22:40] will be good for a few years with the

[3:22:43] current changes. But I I do appreciate

[3:22:47] that they're looking ahead and making

[3:22:49] sure that we're ready for the next items that are needed to keep

[3:22:56] the the sewage flowing away from us. So,

[3:23:01] um I think that's everything. Mayor Oh,

[3:23:04] LPC started again. So, we're we're back

[3:23:07] to we're starting on monthly meetings

[3:23:09] right now and then we'll move into the

[3:23:12] weekly as soon as the session starts.

[3:23:14] So, [clears throat] before we know it,

[3:23:17] the legislative

[3:23:19] people are going to be back to work.

[3:23:22] >> Thanks, Council Member. And, uh, I'll

[3:23:24] follow up my report. I just have a

[3:23:25] couple things. LPC, we discussed uh,

[3:23:29] Florida actually has a bill out there to

[3:23:31] eliminate property tax. and they say

[3:23:33] it'll be decided by their state house

[3:23:36] and senate. I don't know they voted on

[3:23:37] it yet, but so they're seeing what's

[3:23:39] happening there. So they expect a lot of

[3:23:41] property tax bills here. Expect water

[3:23:44] bills. They expect uh obviously always

[3:23:48] building bills, right? And our own uh

[3:23:52] beloved representatives has introduced

[3:23:54] some bill defining MA and its terms and

[3:23:58] that sort of thing. Did you see that?

[3:24:00] >> Yeah. that uh um is is out there as well

[3:24:05] too. I just threw that out because Paul

[3:24:07] was working with the league and others

[3:24:10] on that. So um so that's some of the

[3:24:12] things that are coming up. Like uh Gina

[3:24:14] says, you'll start seeing bills coming

[3:24:17] out of committee. We didn't discuss a

[3:24:18] lot of specific bills, uh but we will at

[3:24:22] our next meetings. And then South Davis

[3:24:24] Metro Fire Service, they they scheduled

[3:24:26] a meeting off of the C

[3:24:30] off of our normal time. Uh yesterday I I

[3:24:33] had a business meeting in Denver and

[3:24:36] which I scheduled for three months right

[3:24:38] at that time. But um Brent listened in

[3:24:42] and uh the it's a discussion about how

[3:24:46] they what they if they keep the admin

[3:24:48] committee the same or if they do some

[3:24:50] other things with it. proposal

[3:24:53] thrown out there for two city managers

[3:24:56] to

[3:24:57] uh mayors and somebody from the county

[3:25:01] prank can maybe tell you more in his

[3:25:03] report but I met but no vote was taken

[3:25:06] so I guess we'll be uh taking that up

[3:25:08] more and I look forward to that

[3:25:10] discussion at our future meeting um I

[3:25:14] guess I'll be careful but I'm kind of

[3:25:16] perturbed at South As. So anyway, uh the

[3:25:21] we'll go to Brandt for his report.

[3:25:23] [snorts]

[3:25:23] >> Thanks, Mr. [clears throat] Mayor. So,

[3:25:24] yeah, I do have that on my list to give

[3:25:26] you an update on. I know we've been

[3:25:28] talking about South Davis Fire for the

[3:25:30] last, I don't know, 10 years, it feels

[3:25:32] like, um for the last little bit with

[3:25:35] the budget. Um this has been some

[3:25:38] challenging conversations. Uh since

[3:25:41] Chief Stewart's passing, um a couple of

[3:25:44] the mayors have conducted an

[3:25:46] investigation to understand why the

[3:25:48] potential passing of Chief Stew is the

[3:25:51] stress of the job. U but unfortunately

[3:25:54] the admin committee is being blamed as

[3:25:57] one of the reasons for the hire. Mayor,

[3:25:59] you could stop me if I'm saying too

[3:26:00] much. Um I'm I'm being very candid

[3:26:03] because

[3:26:04] >> No, I probably I would probably say it

[3:26:05] too. So I'll probably I'll probably pile

[3:26:08] on. go down together. So, [laughter] but

[3:26:11] ultimately the frustration is and yeah

[3:26:13] the working with the city managers the

[3:26:14] five city managers and a representative

[3:26:16] from the county is tough but we are the

[3:26:18] budget officer. So just so you know when

[3:26:20] this was formed when the area was formed

[3:26:24] the five city managers and

[3:26:25] representative from the county are the

[3:26:27] budget officers. So we manage the budget

[3:26:29] we present the budget and that was the

[3:26:31] agreement saying if we're going to do

[3:26:32] this this is how we want to do it. So,

[3:26:36] we are not necessarily we don't feel

[3:26:38] like we're hard on the board, but we do

[3:26:40] feel like we hold them accountable. I

[3:26:42] can't imagine what the property taxes

[3:26:43] would be if if we weren't there saying

[3:26:45] you can't have all your new toys because

[3:26:48] public safety likes their new toys. It's

[3:26:50] good thing he's distracted. So, there are those conversations [laughter]

[3:26:55] and it's and they're their toys are

[3:26:57] expensive. Fire engines are million

[3:26:59] dollars, right? So,

[3:27:01] >> Oh, yeah. But we've helped develop

[3:27:03] reserve policies to make sure they have

[3:27:05] enough cash on hand. Before they they

[3:27:06] didn't have any re minimums of what to

[3:27:09] have in savings. They they they were

[3:27:11] just spending. Um so we've done a lot of

[3:27:14] good to help them and the conversations

[3:27:15] are difficult because five cities have

[3:27:17] five different ways of doing their

[3:27:18] budget. So I can appreciate the stress

[3:27:20] that's going on there. but blowing up

[3:27:22] the admin committee saying let's just

[3:27:24] get rid of it or then you put all the

[3:27:28] budget authority in the hands of the

[3:27:30] mayors and and they get to decide you

[3:27:33] know how this works that what's being

[3:27:36] proposed is two city managers would

[3:27:37] serve a three-year term two mayors would

[3:27:39] serve a three-year term and then

[3:27:41] somebody from the county and you'd have

[3:27:42] staggering terms I'm just telling you

[3:27:44] that's not going to be in a very

[3:27:46] effective conversation with elected

[3:27:48] officials with administration and and

[3:27:50] trying to find that balance And um so I think some things need to happen. Um

[3:27:57] another city manager is convinced that

[3:27:59] if you change the bylaws to South Davis

[3:28:01] Fire that it needs to come before all

[3:28:03] five cities to redo those bylaws. I'm

[3:28:06] not sure from the legal standpoint if

[3:28:07] that's true or not, if that's required.

[3:28:10] But that's what I'm spending my time on

[3:28:11] right now is a deep dive into

[3:28:13] understanding the bylaws, the formation

[3:28:16] documents to see really what's the

[3:28:19] process it should take. Um, if you talk

[3:28:21] to Chief Larson or again, I'm not quite

[3:28:24] sure how they feel. I think they are

[3:28:26] frustrated with the admin committee, but

[3:28:28] it's because we hold them accountable.

[3:28:31] So, I think we're doing our job,

[3:28:33] >> but we don't want to lose that. So, what

[3:28:35] is it? We can do that now. Well, where I've perturbed uh going along with

[3:28:39] Grant uh I just threw that out at the

[3:28:41] end is that um uh they scheduled this

[3:28:46] meeting and uh I didn't didn't know

[3:28:49] about it. I found out last minute and so

[3:28:51] I went to sat down with Mayor Westergard

[3:28:53] who's the chair. I told him I'm

[3:28:55] definitely against getting rid of the

[3:28:57] admin committee and I want you to

[3:28:58] express that. Uh and I don't know that

[3:29:01] he did fully. Um, but I'm definitely

[3:29:04] against not removing the admin committee

[3:29:06] because uh of uh one probably the

[3:29:10] biggest reason is uh our assessment that

[3:29:14] we get of a million bucks right uh and um and and also my my CPA background

[3:29:22] always says you have checks and

[3:29:23] balances. They have uh one accounting

[3:29:26] staff and a second one uh that that ju

[3:29:30] just does some little bookkeeping. So,

[3:29:32] you're not going to have five mayors

[3:29:34] checking out uh in the detail that the

[3:29:38] admin committee does. Uh um and in all

[3:29:41] fairness to Chief Larson, uh love the

[3:29:44] man. I've known him since he was a

[3:29:46] teenager. Um uh he's not necessarily and

[3:29:50] he'll say it too, and none of them were

[3:29:52] are accountants. So they totally rely on

[3:29:55] the one staff person. And so where's the

[3:29:58] checks and balances? I mean, you always

[3:30:00] have to have checks and balances when it

[3:30:03] comes to accounting. And that's what we

[3:30:05] get with the city managers. Now, if you

[3:30:08] know all these five city managers,

[3:30:11] they're all pretty driven guys, but they

[3:30:14] don't necessarily always agree, but they

[3:30:16] all work together, like each other. But

[3:30:18] uh and uh um I and I like that. I I like

[3:30:22] that oversight that the that they bring

[3:30:25] in in addition to the mayors and I just think you'll you'll lose an awful

[3:30:30] lot if uh you went to this proposal they

[3:30:33] said or you did away with the adment

[3:30:35] committee. So

[3:30:36] >> who gets to vote who gets to decide that

[3:30:39] >> that's what he was just saying.

[3:30:41] >> Yeah. So the bylaw that's where it gets

[3:30:43] kind of interesting for sure. So

[3:30:45] Bountiful has had their own work session

[3:30:46] about this. Um, I haven't necessarily

[3:30:49] felt the need just yet, mayor. And I

[3:30:52] mean,

[3:30:54] I think we got to work on that way. So,

[3:30:55] who votes on it? This is the

[3:30:58] technicality of the whole thing is the

[3:31:00] board does. The mayor's vote on whether

[3:31:02] or not to change the bylaws. At least

[3:31:03] that's what's being recommended. The

[3:31:05] complication in this is any one of the

[3:31:09] mayors can invoke a weighted vote.

[3:31:12] And so you can see that the votes

[3:31:16] one city or has more votes and weight

[3:31:19] than another city and so that creates

[3:31:22] disproportionate. So we don't treat it

[3:31:24] that way but any mayor can invoke that.

[3:31:26] >> I don't know what that means.

[3:31:27] >> So Bountiful has more population so they

[3:31:29] have more votes. Woodscross has a

[3:31:32] smaller city so they have less votes.

[3:31:35] So, it's a weighted vote instead of just

[3:31:36] being one for one and a majority, you

[3:31:38] would take into account the essentially

[3:31:40] the assessment

[3:31:42] and who pays the most has that many

[3:31:44] votes. So, um it does create a

[3:31:46] complication if that was invoked, which

[3:31:48] any mayor can do that at any time

[3:31:50] without question. So, it it creates some

[3:31:54] challenges. So, this week admin

[3:31:56] committee has a meeting. I don't know if

[3:31:59] it's on the agenda just yet, but our

[3:32:00] hope is to actually discuss what's being

[3:32:02] proposed to the mayors so we can be

[3:32:05] constructive and come back with saying

[3:32:07] we recognize evolution needs to occur,

[3:32:09] but blowing it up is not the right

[3:32:11] approach to solving this. So, we'll get together and figure out a

[3:32:16] recommendation to the mayors because it

[3:32:18] is split. You have two mayors um three

[3:32:21] mayors that are pretty confident they'd

[3:32:23] like to see city managers stay. Uh, one

[3:32:26] mayor would like to see the change and

[3:32:28] another mayor I don't know how the other

[3:32:30] mayor feels. Mayor, I think they're they

[3:32:33] can go either way. So, it's kind of an

[3:32:36] interesting boat.

[3:32:37] >> Yeah, I was a little frustrated because

[3:32:39] uh the couple mayors that spoke spoke

[3:32:41] out about keeping as well, but I think

[3:32:44] uh with me being there could have helped

[3:32:46] as well too. Maybe I'm giving myself too

[3:32:48] much credit, but um but the way I look

[3:32:51] at it is uh we our department heads are

[3:32:54] great. They put their budgets together,

[3:32:56] but then they they work with uh um Brent

[3:33:00] and they they work with Nate and uh who have background in in in the finance

[3:33:06] area to help him out. And so great, I

[3:33:10] want Chief Larson to put his budget

[3:33:11] together, but uh we we need more than

[3:33:14] just uh Jessica

[3:33:17] uh look looking at that budget,

[3:33:20] especially when we're getting

[3:33:21] assessments,

[3:33:22] >> you know, for our cities.

[3:33:23] >> And Mayor Hor said it best. We really do

[3:33:26] have an a pretty awesome fire department

[3:33:28] that

[3:33:29] >> services our city, but Mayor Hor said it

[3:33:31] best. Instead of being an awesome

[3:33:33] department, maybe we're a great

[3:33:35] department, right? So, we're still

[3:33:37] awesome, but it's it's pretty expensive

[3:33:40] to to function these public safety

[3:33:42] organizations and and uh maybe we do

[3:33:44] need to cut back a little bit in certain

[3:33:46] areas. You can't have everything you

[3:33:48] want. Um and that's what we try to do as

[3:33:50] the city managers to be that gatekeeper

[3:33:52] and watch what the spending is. So,

[3:33:57] anyway, that's

[3:33:58] >> Anything else in your report?

[3:34:00] >> Well, uh I'll just throw it out there,

[3:34:01] Mayor. Uh, we need to get together and

[3:34:04] figure out a schedule for the general

[3:34:06] plan. I I know you don't I know we've

[3:34:09] forgotten about it because we're dealing

[3:34:10] with everything else, but yeah, we got

[3:34:11] to figure out the general.

[3:34:12] >> So, thank you for bringing [laughter]

[3:34:14] that up. So, are we still sitting to

[3:34:17] where we want to do a couple separate

[3:34:18] sessions?

[3:34:19] >> If we tenatively have booked the 22nd

[3:34:22] and the 29th of September for funsies,

[3:34:24] but we that's definitely not set in

[3:34:27] stone. But we do need some off nights so

[3:34:30] we can focus maybe three hours. I like

[3:34:33] the idea of focusing on, you know,

[3:34:35] chapter one or chapter two just on

[3:34:37] sessions and see where we go. Um I don't

[3:34:41] know how we coordinate that. Mayor, I

[3:34:42] don't know if we can solve that tonight.

[3:34:44] I I don't know if we have the brain

[3:34:45] capacity, the mental capacity to do that

[3:34:48] right now.

[3:34:49] >> Well, let me just throw up there. Do you

[3:34:51] like the idea of uh doing it similar

[3:34:55] like what we did with the budget session

[3:34:57] in in separate meetings rather than

[3:35:00] trying to do it in council meetings? I

[3:35:03] mean we're going to bring it to council

[3:35:05] meetings obviously.

[3:35:07] Uh I mean the separate meetings are open

[3:35:11] to the public as well too and we'll

[3:35:12] bring it to council meetings for a vote

[3:35:14] and that sort of thing. We don't do that

[3:35:16] in the in the work sessions obviously

[3:35:19] the but

[3:35:19] >> but they would be work sessions

[3:35:22] >> special sessions special

[3:35:23] >> work session

[3:35:25] >> and it'd be later like evening not early

[3:35:29] afternoon right

[3:35:30] >> correct

[3:35:32] >> I am going to identify that last week of

[3:35:34] September I will be out of town

[3:35:37] >> okay

[3:35:39] >> well [clears throat] mayor why don't um

[3:35:41] at our Thursday meeting we throw out

[3:35:43] some potential dates and Jennifer can

[3:35:44] help us coordinate

[3:35:46] Yeah, maybe we'll do a a poll or

[3:35:50] something. See, because we'd obviously

[3:35:52] would like to to have you all there.

[3:35:54] >> So, you're thinking very end of

[3:35:55] September, 1st of October.

[3:35:58] >> Well, Councilman Banger's gone that

[3:36:01] week, you said.

[3:36:02] >> So, probably into October before.

[3:36:04] >> Robin, are you okay with doing a deep

[3:36:06] dive? I think maybe I'm misremembering.

[3:36:08] I thought you wanted to do like little

[3:36:10] sections. I well I'm okay as long as we

[3:36:13] just go through it section by section. I

[3:36:15] mean

[3:36:16] >> I literally want to go through it page

[3:36:18] by page. Now that doesn't mean we've got

[3:36:20] something on every page, but I think

[3:36:22] it's I think it's important enough that

[3:36:24] we you know but I'm glad to do it all.

[3:36:28] >> So we're working the week of the 20 1st

[3:36:30] to the 25th of September. Councilman

[3:36:32] Bangers out the 28th to the uh 2nd. Uh

[3:36:36] so then then it would fall over into the 5th through the 9th of October. I

[3:36:43] guess we have a council on the 6th that

[3:36:45] night. So

[3:36:47] anyway, that's

[3:36:50] uh we'll we'll coordinate. But that's

[3:36:53] probably uh we we got to get going on

[3:36:55] that. So

[3:36:56] >> yeah, we do.

[3:36:57] >> Brent, sorry if I was taking your your

[3:37:00] steam there.

[3:37:02] [laughter]

[3:37:02] >> You're good, mate.

[3:37:05] Okay. All right. Uh any questions for uh

[3:37:10] or anything else to bring up? Okay. We

[3:37:13] have one last thing, but it's a close

[3:37:15] session. So, I need a motion.

[3:37:19] I'll make a motion that we um go into a

[3:37:22] close session uh to discuss the

[3:37:25] purchase, sale, exchange, or lease of

[3:37:27] real property is um according to the

[3:37:30] Utah code for the public for open and

[3:37:33] public meetings act with no intent to

[3:37:35] return to the public meeting.

[3:37:37] >> Second location

[3:37:40] and the location is city hall 250 North

[3:37:42] Main and Senator B.

[3:37:45] >> We have a second. It's a vote. Council

[3:37:47] >> second.

[3:37:48] >> I

[3:37:54] council J. Thank you.

[3:37:56] >> Need a quick breakfast.

City Council Meeting

Agenda

Transcript