[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.