[0:00] Okay, Travis says we're ready to go.

[0:02] Thanks everybody for joining us in

[0:04] Spanish Fork City Council meeting April

[0:05] 21st, 2026

[0:08] here in our beautiful Council Chambers

[0:10] connected to the library. We appreciate it.

[0:15] What's the old mayor doing here? This is

[0:17] not a This is starting off on the wrong

[0:19] foot.

[0:20] I like [clears throat] it in here.

[0:21] >> old mayor, not former.

[0:23] >> Well, the former [laughter] mayor.

[0:24] Yeah, no, it's not an old mayor. Former

[0:26] mayor. And

[0:27] we also have a competing council member

[0:30] in here from our sister city. So,

[0:32] what to do? He might be on a

[0:34] reconnaissance mission mission. What to

[0:36] do?

[0:38] Good to see everybody. Thanks for being

[0:39] here in person and thanks everybody for

[0:41] joining us online. We'll get started

[0:43] like we always do here with a motivational message and prayer

[0:46] followed by the pledge. I'm not sure who

[0:48] has the pledge tonight.

[0:50] I think I do.

[0:51] Councilman Oyler has the pledge. We'll

[0:53] give it to Councilman Took for his his

[0:56] guest with the motivational thought and

[0:58] prayer.

[0:58] >> Okay. Thank you, Mayor. So, this evening

[1:00] I've asked someone special to me,

[1:02] someone who I've grown up with my entire

[1:04] life. I'm sure all of you know this

[1:06] individual, Coach David Boyack. He and

[1:08] his wife Michelle, they I remember back

[1:11] a couple years ago when I was in high

[1:12] school and

[1:13] you know, he encouraged me to get

[1:15] involved with track. Probably doesn't

[1:17] remember this. And I was kind of a

[1:18] little bit hesitant. I

[1:20] decided to try it. I didn't do it with

[1:22] my full heart though, but I still went

[1:23] to some of the events and tried and he

[1:25] saw potential in me and even though that

[1:27] wasn't a big success for me, I enjoyed

[1:29] my time. But he's transformed the lives

[1:31] of I don't know, many many probably

[1:32] hundreds if not thousands of

[1:35] kids that have gone through the school

[1:36] system here in Spanish Fork.

[1:38] His impact overall incredible. And so, I

[1:40] just I'm really, you know, I feel

[1:42] grateful to to have been a part of to go

[1:45] through and his his, you know, his time

[1:48] here in the city and his wife. I

[1:49] remember teaching my friends drill team

[1:52] and and dancing and all the things that

[1:54] they just really impacted our community

[1:55] in a great way and

[1:57] I feel like they're truly pillars of

[1:58] Spanish Fork City and so, I've asked um

[2:01] Dave, Coach Dave to come share a thought

[2:03] and prayer in whatever order you'd like

[2:05] tonight. Dave, thanks for taking a

[2:07] couple minutes to come be with us and

[2:09] the floor is yours.

[2:14] Yes.

[2:16] Millions of people watching. You stand

[2:19] Well, but they'll see it on television

[2:20] and

[2:23] You need to be right there. Yep. Yep.

[2:25] Sorry, folks. Yeah.

[2:26] They'll run out to get the front of

[2:28] their TVs. Okay. So, uh

[2:31] As Lance said, uh

[2:34] I'm sorry.

[2:39] I get a little emotional because of some

[2:41] things that have happened

[2:43] lately.

[2:44] But he asked me to say a couple things

[2:45] about service.

[2:47] And uh

[2:48] I and he and he said you can mention

[2:50] Michelle, my wife,

[2:52] and Stacy, you

[2:54] one of our special ones.

[2:56] But uh

[2:57] service has been really important to our

[2:59] family.

[3:00] I feel like my wife and I, she was a

[3:01] teacher at Spanish Fork High for almost

[3:04] 30 years. I I was a track coach down

[3:06] there for

[3:08] 30 years,

[3:09] 29. And then I went the dark route.

[3:13] I went to Maple Mountain, but that is a

[3:15] Spanish Fork City school. I like to

[3:18] remind people.

[3:19] Even though it says Maple, I wish they'd

[3:21] have done something like Windmill High

[3:22] School would have been better probably.

[3:24] Or Canyon View High School, but I spent

[3:26] 15 years there as the athletic director

[3:28] and had some really cool experiences

[3:29] with service. I retired 2 years ago.

[3:32] Thought we were really going to have a

[3:33] great retirement, my wife and I, but

[3:36] in September of this year, she was

[3:41] on the freeway

[3:42] and she was hit by a diesel that come

[3:45] pretty fast, I guess, from behind. It

[3:46] must I don't know if it didn't see her,

[3:48] but

[3:49] long story short, she was paralyzed

[3:51] from the from about here down, from

[3:53] about the thoracic area down and

[3:56] since her accident, she's of course in a

[3:58] wheelchair. She'll never walk again, but

[3:59] the service we have had

[4:02] in our family. I mean, I get multiple

[4:04] texts a day saying, "What can I do to

[4:06] help?" And most of this is just pray.

[4:08] And

[4:09] you know, for those of you who are LDS,

[4:10] you understand what the temple rolls

[4:11] are. And she's had her name on those

[4:13] temple rolls from all over the country,

[4:15] from Florida to Nebraska to Utah to

[4:18] California.

[4:19] And the service provided to my wife has

[4:21] been amazing.

[4:22] And so, I'm kind of a full-time

[4:23] caregiver right now, but and but it's

[4:26] helped us grow closer together.

[4:28] And it's a service that I really love

[4:29] doing for her, but some other thoughts

[4:31] of service that that come to mind for me

[4:33] is

[4:35] I've been on the city

[4:38] recreation committee

[4:39] and also the RAP tax committee. So, I I

[4:41] get kind of I got kind of a first-hand

[4:43] view of some of the things going on here

[4:45] in the city. And the thing that I'm

[4:46] really impressed with was when that

[4:47] first bond didn't go through, this

[4:50] community stood stepped up. And that's

[4:52] now why we call it Drive something

[4:54] Drive. Volunteer Volunteer Drive. And

[4:56] I'm really impressed with the way the

[4:57] Spanish Fork City people step up and

[4:59] serve.

[5:00] People laying sod and donating materials

[5:03] and just working hours and hours to make

[5:05] sure that that finally happened. And

[5:07] that's a jewel down there now. And of

[5:08] course, now that the Fit City Center's

[5:10] right there by it, it's just something I

[5:11] have a lot of pride in. And just I'm

[5:14] proud to tell people that I I live in a

[5:16] city where it should be not just pride

[5:18] and progress, but pride, progress, and

[5:20] service. So, let's change that now. The

[5:22] pride, progress, and service.

[5:28] Steve Leisanback here.

[5:30] I had breakfast with him this morning

[5:31] and I mentioned I was doing this and I

[5:33] guess that's why he's here. I'm not sure

[5:34] unless he has something else to do, but

[5:36] he's here to support and he's really

[5:37] close friend. And as you mentioned,

[5:39] former mayor.

[5:40] Uh

[5:41] one of my former students. I've got a

[5:43] few former students in here. They're all

[5:44] over the place, but uh

[5:46] Yeah, I I I I I I worked for Nebo for 44

[5:49] years and and it was an act of service,

[5:52] but it was an act of love to me cuz I

[5:54] loved every minute. That's probably why

[5:55] I went so long is because I loved every

[5:57] year that I that I was able to teach and

[5:59] coach. And uh

[6:01] so, you know, another thing I just want

[6:03] to mention real briefly that's that's

[6:05] been neat for me to see is when I went

[6:07] up to Maple Mountain, a guy named Dustin

[6:09] Smith, who a lot of you know, he started

[6:11] a program called Especially for

[6:13] Athletes. Now, just tell me or raise

[6:14] your hand if you've had kids or you know

[6:15] anything about Especially for Athletes.

[6:18] There we go. Lots of you. It's a program

[6:20] where we get the student athletes in the

[6:22] high schools. We get a leadership

[6:23] council of about 20 kids, the best kids

[6:26] in the high school in in my eyes, that

[6:27] we know will help get out and serve and

[6:29] lead other kids in the school to serve.

[6:32] And one of the thing one of the projects

[6:33] we did with Spanish Fork High is the the

[6:35] athletes at Maple Mountain would meet

[6:36] down at Spanish Fork High School in the

[6:37] first part of December. Bill at Macy's,

[6:41] Summers Summers Summers?

[6:43] He would donate the food at cost and

[6:45] that's a the big savings. Then the kids

[6:47] would go out and raise money.

[6:49] And they would raise a lot of money,

[6:50] these kids. They'd go out and get money

[6:51] and we'd match the money we we did with

[6:53] what he would donate.

[6:55] And every year, these kids would meet at

[6:57] Spanish Fork High School and fill the

[6:59] gym, okay? And then they would bag the

[7:02] food and then

[7:04] through the church, I think they were

[7:06] able to identify

[7:08] well over 100 families in the

[7:10] Mapleton-Spanish Fork area that could

[7:13] use a Christmas a nice Christmas dinner,

[7:16] okay? And so, they they put this food

[7:18] together, put it in sacks, and then they

[7:19] paired up like a Maple Mountain kid

[7:21] would pair up with a Spanish Fork High

[7:22] School kid. And then they'd go out and

[7:24] they'd knock on the door and these

[7:25] people had no idea that people that

[7:26] these kids were coming. They'd introduce

[7:28] themselves and say, "We're just here to

[7:30] provide you a really nice Christmas

[7:32] dinner."

[7:33] And these people would their eyes would

[7:34] just like, "Holy cow." And when the kids

[7:36] would come back 2 hours later, I'd say,

[7:37] "How'd it go?" And these kids were in

[7:39] tears.

[7:40] That's what our youth are up to. They're

[7:42] out providing service. And so,

[7:44] this wet shirt here says Especially for

[7:47] Athletes. That's the name of the

[7:48] organization.

[7:49] The kids wear a wristband. Who can tell

[7:51] me what the wristband says? Anybody

[7:52] know?

[7:53] It says, "Eyes up, do the work." Eyes

[7:55] up, do the work. That means they're

[7:56] looking for opportunities to serve. They

[7:58] look for kids in the school who who eat

[8:00] lunch alone. And you know, that's that's

[8:02] sad thing to see.

[8:04] They look for opportunities to serve.

[8:06] They they invite kids to come to the

[8:07] dances who wouldn't get asked otherwise.

[8:09] I mean, I've seen some amazing things

[8:11] that these high school age kids are

[8:13] doing to serve the community. So,

[8:15] anyway, that's pretty much it. Is there

[8:16] anything else

[8:17] any questions at all? None? Okay.

[8:20] I was also asked to say the prayer. So,

[8:22] we'll get that going right now.

[8:25] Our Father in Heaven, we're grateful to

[8:26] be here this evening in the City Council

[8:28] meeting.

[8:29] We are especially grateful for those in

[8:31] the city who serve our community.

[8:33] For all they do, we pray that thou would

[8:35] bless them.

[8:36] We pray that thou would bless those in

[8:37] the community who are in need at this

[8:39] time that their needs might be met and

[8:40] that we might be a tool to provide something that can bless the

[8:44] lives of those who we serve.

[8:46] Heavenly Father, we are

[8:48] grateful for this community,

[8:50] great community we live in. We feel

[8:52] fortunate and blessed. We pray that thou

[8:54] would bless the proceedings of this

[8:55] meeting tonight. And we say this in the

[8:57] name of Jesus Christ. Amen. Amen. Thank

[8:59] you, Dave.

[9:00] >> Thank you, Dave. Thanks, Coach. Please

[9:02] stand and join me in the pledge of

[9:03] allegiance.

[9:06] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the

[9:09] United States of America

[9:11] and to the republic for which it stands,

[9:14] one nation under God,

[9:16] indivisible, with liberty and justice

[9:19] for all.

[9:29] Thank you. Thanks for that

[9:31] thought, Coach, and and open us open up

[9:34] with a prayer. I I think um

[9:36] I think that's a a great point to make

[9:38] that is probably

[9:40] pertinent to every public meeting that

[9:42] we have is reminding

[9:44] that uh

[9:46] of what a blessing service is in our

[9:49] community and and community members

[9:51] serving

[9:52] each other. It's it's it truly is what makes us special here in Spanish

[9:57] Fork and and the Boyack family is no

[10:00] stranger to that for sure. So, thank you

[10:02] for that. Great way to open up our

[10:03] meeting.

[10:04] Item four on the agenda is the public

[10:06] comment section. So, anybody from the

[10:08] public that would like to come up and

[10:10] address the mayor and council. Doesn't

[10:11] have to be a topic on the agenda

[10:13] tonight. We do have some public hearings

[10:15] later. But this can be any general

[10:18] comment or question to the mayor and

[10:20] council. Please come up if you're here

[10:22] for public comment. Make sure to state

[10:24] your your name so Tara can get it in the

[10:27] record for us.

[10:35] Okay.

[10:36] Seeing none for public comment, so we'll

[10:38] go to the next section of the agenda,

[10:40] council comments. I don't know. I think

[10:42] I started over here last time, so I'm

[10:44] looking that way. Council member Tuck,

[10:46] if you're all right to go first and

[10:48] we'll go this way and to and to

[10:49] councilman Marshall. You bet. Thanks,

[10:51] mayor. I actually for the first time I

[10:53] do not have anything to comment on this

[10:55] evening, so I will

[10:56] pass the torch.

[10:59] First time.

[11:01] Well, you did well by getting a good spiritual thought today, so so

[11:05] great job, councilman Tuck. Appreciate

[11:07] you.

[11:07] >> Thank you.

[11:08] Councilman Carden.

[11:10] Mayor, thank you. I also don't have

[11:12] anything to report on today.

[11:14] Wow. Well, we got a trend. I'm better.

[11:17] You better pick it up. Councilman Oyler.

[11:19] >> [snorts]

[11:20] >> Um thank you, mayor. I do have something

[11:21] to share just briefly. This morning

[11:24] I had the chance to go on a little walk

[11:27] with [clears throat]

[11:28] one of my good friends who was also

[11:30] former council member. Got a few of them

[11:32] that we've talking about today, but

[11:34] Richard Davis

[11:36] and Richard and I spoke for a little bit

[11:39] and

[11:39] he shared something with me that he he

[11:41] asked that I would maybe

[11:43] bring up tonight. Richard and his wife

[11:45] Tamara are currently serving as what we

[11:48] call JustServe specialists.

[11:51] So, if anybody is not familiar with what

[11:54] the JustServe program is, it goes hand

[11:57] in hand with what what Dave shared

[11:58] tonight. So, your your thoughts were perfect with what I wanted to bring

[12:03] up tonight.

[12:04] JustServe is an opportunity for anybody

[12:07] in the community to go to the JustServe

[12:09] website

[12:10] and find service opportunities that are

[12:12] available

[12:14] in in the area. I'm looking at it right

[12:16] now and within 5 mi of Spanish Fork,

[12:18] there are 30 currently 38 service

[12:22] opportunities that are listed um from

[12:25] trail clean up to all sorts of

[12:27] volunteer activities and

[12:30] Richard just asked if I wouldn't remind

[12:32] the public tonight about those

[12:34] opportunities and

[12:36] he also suggested and wondered if

[12:38] there's a way as a council if we could

[12:41] try and find

[12:43] somehow a way to implement JustServe

[12:46] with some of the things that we do in

[12:48] our community with Spanish Fork. I know

[12:50] Stacy, you had mentioned in our last

[12:52] council meeting a little bit about code

[12:54] enforcement and I wonder if maybe we can

[12:57] before we go too far down the code

[12:59] enforcement route

[13:00] which is the you know, hard-handed side

[13:02] of maybe we can look at using JustServe

[13:06] as a community to identify individuals

[13:08] in our community that could use a little

[13:10] help It's a good idea.

[13:11] >> um with different things and we could

[13:13] organize it by neighborhood. Mhm. I

[13:15] don't know if maybe the city would be

[13:17] able to

[13:18] provide a dumpster for a day or for a

[13:20] weekend and we identify individuals in

[13:22] our communities that we can serve and

[13:24] that we can help.

[13:25] not only them, but help keep our

[13:27] community as well looking great and and

[13:29] looking clean. So, just just a thought

[13:32] that I wanted to share tonight. Maybe we

[13:34] can have further discussions on this

[13:36] later on, but grateful for Richard and

[13:38] Tamara and the work that they do to to

[13:40] serve Spanish Fork in the greater area

[13:44] surrounding Spanish Fork. So, that's all

[13:46] I've got there. Thank you, councilman

[13:47] Oyler. Councilwoman Beck.

[13:49] I also do not have anything tonight, but

[13:51] I I like your idea, councilman Oyler of

[13:55] implementing that to those areas that

[13:57] where people need it. Yeah. I think a

[13:58] lot of time when people's yard is out of

[14:00] control, it's usually for health issues,

[14:02] time restraints, um and money

[14:06] restraints. And so, I think whenever we

[14:07] can step in and help, it's a great idea.

[14:10] So, let's look at that.

[14:11] Yeah.

[14:13] Councilman Marshall.

[14:14] Yes, sir.

[14:15] Um in honor of the old former mayor,

[14:20] I do not have any comments either.

[14:22] >> [laughter]

[14:23] >> You don't have to give that.

[14:24] >> Give back to you. My gosh, you're this

[14:26] is going to go quick when you're here. I

[14:28] he's in my head saying Reader's Digest style, so we know not to

[14:34] talk.

[14:34] >> Yeah, yeah. He knew he knew how to start

[14:36] a meeting and end a meeting. That mayor

[14:39] did, so um yeah, I don't have I don't

[14:42] have a lot either besides just uh

[14:44] coach Boyack giving giving us that

[14:46] thought tonight and and maybe something

[14:48] that stuck out to me today just because

[14:50] it was today uh which I know I remember

[14:54] seeing you at as a as a kid and and and

[14:56] then all throughout my kids being there

[14:59] too was the the track meet. I don't know

[15:01] if we still call it the Hershey track

[15:02] meet. Is that what it's still called?

[15:04] >> call it that. So, um that was down at

[15:06] the high school today for the third

[15:09] graders. Um you know, that's

[15:11] watching Dale's department um you know,

[15:14] round up third graders and get them

[15:16] ready to run races and throw javelins

[15:19] and everything else is a little bit of a

[15:21] scene like herding cats um on a on a

[15:24] football field, but they did a fantastic

[15:27] job. Um they were working their tails

[15:29] off and and again

[15:32] to point out to the the youth and and in

[15:34] our community

[15:36] of the loudest cheers that you hear down

[15:39] there is is fun to see that there's fast kids, there's normal kids

[15:44] and coach always knew I was not normal.

[15:47] I was even slower than the normal kids

[15:49] and so, he he wouldn't ask me to come

[15:51] out and run track, but uh That was

[15:54] Corey. Yeah, Corey was slower. That's

[15:55] true.

[15:56] But he made up for it in

[15:58] the music department.

[16:00] Um

[16:01] the uh

[16:03] cute cute stuff that that these special

[16:06] needs kids in our elementary schools get

[16:09] on that track too.

[16:10] Um and and one kid, you know, wheel in

[16:13] his his wheelchair down the track and the just the loudest cheers from his friends uh from his classmates

[16:19] and and from the stands and just again,

[16:22] Dale, you guys you guys always pull it off and you pulled it off again

[16:27] today and everybody that was down there

[16:29] enjoyed a mid-morning at at the high

[16:32] school. So, thank you in partnership to

[16:33] the school district and the city for

[16:35] putting that on. As soon as you hear

[16:37] about it, you're like

[16:38] okay, I got to go down there and

[16:41] my kid run for just a hot minute, but it

[16:43] ends up being a real good community

[16:45] thing that you see each other and and

[16:46] hang out, which is a cool thing about

[16:48] Spanish Fork. Intentional places

[16:50] to hang out with each other is always a

[16:52] good thing and that was the case with

[16:54] the Hershey track meet today. So, thanks

[16:56] for everybody putting it on. Um

[16:58] councilman um

[16:59] uh Tuck asked me to make sure our our Chamber of Commerce is here.

[17:03] Kathleen, if you'd come up and and give

[17:04] us an update of how

[17:07] the the chamber's doing and and

[17:08] businesses are doing in our community

[17:09] and let us know what's coming up on the

[17:11] calendar, that would be great.

[17:12] Fantastic. Thank you so much. I greatly

[17:15] appreciate it. Um yeah, we're very busy

[17:18] at the Chamber of Commerce as usual,

[17:20] which we're very excited about. Um just

[17:23] a few upcoming events. On Friday, this

[17:26] Friday the 24th, we're actually going to

[17:28] be cutting a ribbon for a member who's been a member for a

[17:33] really long time, the Fossil Shack, but

[17:35] he's recently moved. Although it is in

[17:37] Payson and we're sad about that, we do

[17:39] still very much want to support him and

[17:41] make sure that his business is

[17:42] successful at his new location. So,

[17:45] that's April 24th at noon at the Fossil

[17:48] Shack and he's running a two-day event.

[17:51] So, if you can't make it for noon, all

[17:53] day on the 24th and the 25th will be an

[17:56] open house to go and see what he's built

[17:58] there. Um I I can't wait to see it.

[18:01] Then May 7th, we have our Business After

[18:05] Hours event. We'll be touring the

[18:07] Business Innovation Center that they

[18:09] built at the MTech campus in in Payson

[18:13] as well, actually.

[18:15] Um but I went to go see it the other

[18:16] day. They've recently opened it up. It's

[18:18] available to entrepreneurs all over

[18:20] Southern Utah County. It's not just for,

[18:24] you know, Payson exclusively. So, we

[18:25] really want to get the word out about

[18:27] what's available there to our

[18:29] entrepreneurs. They have anything you

[18:31] could imagine for branding, for

[18:33] printing. Um they have office space

[18:35] that's available for lease for very low

[18:37] cost. So, it's just they have a podcast

[18:39] studio. Lots of really low cost

[18:41] resources to help businesses kind of

[18:44] branch into that next level. So, that

[18:46] will be um May 7th from 5:00 to 7:00

[18:49] p.m. We'll be there Chamber of Commerce

[18:52] open house for us.

[18:54] Um and then the Chamber Rotary Golf

[18:57] Tournament is coming up on May 13th. We

[18:59] are getting very close to a full field

[19:02] tournament, we which will be super

[19:04] exciting to finally meet that. Um we

[19:07] have very limited space available, but

[19:08] there are still a few spaces. So, if you

[19:11] know anyone that was hoping to golf or

[19:13] sponsor a hole, we do still have a

[19:15] couple of openings, but it's going to be

[19:17] a wonderfully full day on May 13th.

[19:21] Uh new networking for May, our next one

[19:25] is May 21st at noon. And then just

[19:29] something to put on your calendars to

[19:30] know what's happening, our next Women in

[19:33] Business event is Bows and Bingo on June

[19:37] 10th at 10:00 a.m. We're going to be

[19:39] going to the Legacy House of Spanish

[19:41] Fork and playing bingo with their

[19:43] residents there.

[19:45] Uh the Women in Business have created it

[19:46] into a service project, so we're very

[19:48] much looking forward to that. And that's

[19:50] all I've got for you guys.

[19:51] Thanks. Thanks, Kathleen. Thanks,

[19:52] Kathleen.

[19:53] >> Thank you, Kathleen. Appreciate it.

[19:56] Okay, that's all for council comments.

[19:57] Anybody else have anything before we

[19:59] move on?

[20:01] Okay, we'll go to staff reports. Any

[20:03] staff reports we want to update? We

[20:06] I don't believe we have any.

[20:07] >> Nothing? Okay. No updates there. We

[20:09] should make note we have not lost Tyler

[20:11] Jacobson and Seth Parents to

[20:14] somewhere else or some illness or

[20:16] something. They're at a conference

[20:19] at city managers conference. So, we're

[20:23] excusing them today.

[20:25] Um, okay, Spanish 401 is a water outlook

[20:29] and conservation report

[20:31] and highlights

[20:33] kind of an important thing that's on a

[20:35] few people's

[20:36] mind, Mr. Corey Pierce. I switched seats

[20:39] to confusion. Keep you on your toes.

[20:42] And then help Jordan out so he felt not

[20:44] so lonely running the computer.

[20:46] >> I like it. Um,

[20:48] Paul Taylor and and Jed are going to

[20:51] share some information with us. So, come

[20:53] on up.

[21:01] How do council meetings go in Salem?

[21:03] We're usually out by now.

[21:04] >> Oh, you're done by now. Okay, well.

[21:07] We got started a little quicker. We got

[21:09] business down here.

[21:11] No. I'll keep this kind of short and

[21:14] sweet. But yeah, we've been asked to

[21:16] provide a brief update on our water

[21:17] outlook for this up upcoming irrigation

[21:20] season.

[21:21] Um, and some conservation ideas to help

[21:23] educate our our residents as well as

[21:26] what the city's been doing the past

[21:27] couple years to help with conservation.

[21:30] Um, this is obviously due to the

[21:32] significant significantly below average

[21:35] snowpack that we've experienced this

[21:36] past winter.

[21:39] Um,

[21:40] >> [clears throat]

[21:41] >> just to kind of break it up with the

[21:42] drinking water,

[21:44] um, our drinking water currently comes

[21:47] from four springs and two wells.

[21:50] We are currently utilizing only the

[21:51] springs to meet our drinking water

[21:53] needs, reserving the two wells for use

[21:56] as backup supply when necessary.

[21:58] Our normal operating procedure is being

[22:00] maintained this year as our springs are

[22:03] currently keeping pace with the demand

[22:05] with little to no flow over reduction.

[22:08] Um, consumption in our drinking water

[22:10] system typically rises during the summer

[22:13] but doesn't experience extreme

[22:16] or excessive spikes.

[22:19] We are

[22:21] little side note, we do observe

[22:24] um, an approximately a 3% increase in

[22:27] water consumption

[22:29] as a result of growth each year. So,

[22:31] overall,

[22:32] I don't anticipate any concerns

[22:34] regarding our drinking water supply for

[22:36] this current year.

[22:38] Uh, on to pressurized irrigation,

[22:42] it draws its

[22:44] this draws water from a variety of

[22:46] sources

[22:48] including river water, wells, and

[22:50] Strawberry Reservoir.

[22:52] Uh, typically this time of year we

[22:53] utilize river water because the warming

[22:55] temperature causes snowpack runoff.

[22:58] Currently this year's river flow is

[23:00] approximately 33%

[23:02] of its normal capacity.

[23:05] When limited water supply is divided

[23:07] among seven other irrigation companies,

[23:10] the resulting allocation for each party

[23:13] is is very

[23:14] small.

[23:16] Uh, so when this happens,

[23:18] the river needs to be supplemented with

[23:21] Strawberry Reservoir to help meet those

[23:23] irrigation demands as well as ours.

[23:29] The positive outlook is that Strawberry

[23:31] Reservoir is currently sitting at 85%

[23:33] full.

[23:35] This is a level that will help sustain

[23:36] our water demand throughout this year.

[23:40] Uh, to meet our peak water demands

[23:42] during July and August,

[23:44] we will utilize a couple of our wells.

[23:47] Um, this strategy will also

[23:49] allow us to conserve some of that water

[23:51] in the Strawberry Reservoir for future

[23:53] years,

[23:54] following years.

[23:56] So, just a quick summary of that, our

[23:58] water supply is not a major concern this

[24:01] year.

[24:02] Um, but the water outlook will change

[24:04] significantly

[24:06] next year if we experience another

[24:07] winter similar to the one we just had.

[24:13] Um,

[24:15] so kind of our plan for this year,

[24:18] we as a water department, public works,

[24:20] we would like to

[24:22] our plan is to fully implement a

[24:24] practical water conservation methods

[24:27] while maintaining a voluntary approach.

[24:30] Our hope is to see that our residents

[24:32] accept this voluntary approach so we

[24:34] don't have to enforce restrictions in

[24:36] the future whenever that might be.

[24:39] Um, before I turn the time over to Jed

[24:42] on some conservation methods that were wanting to implement, I have a

[24:46] couple questions that I want to answer

[24:48] that we typically get asked.

[24:51] Um,

[24:52] as well as a couple of facts that would

[24:54] be good to maybe bring to your guys'

[24:55] attention as well.

[24:57] But one of the questions we typically

[24:59] get asked and we got with Bart and

[25:01] Dallen and Ryan Reese with the golf

[25:03] course,

[25:04] but why are parks irrigated during the

[25:07] day instead of at night?

[25:10] Um,

[25:13] never really thought about this.

[25:15] We just kind of

[25:17] let it go. But Mar- Bart answered this

[25:19] for us.

[25:20] Um, their systems are larger, requiring

[25:23] more more flow than the standard

[25:24] residential sprinkler system.

[25:27] Watering at night can drastic-

[25:29] drastically lower the pressure and

[25:30] efficient

[25:32] water and efficiency of not only the

[25:34] city sprinkling system but the adjacent

[25:36] properties that are generally located

[25:39] within the residential neighborhoods.

[25:41] So, this really helps balance out our

[25:43] overall system

[25:44] um, with pressure and volume

[25:47] throughout night and day.

[25:50] Another question we get asked is why

[25:51] does the city water during a rainstorm?

[25:55] Um, this is something I learned from

[25:57] Bart that was really good.

[25:59] Uh, with the larger parks,

[26:01] the water is is based on a evapo-

[26:04] evapotray

[26:05] transporation transpiration.

[26:08] Yeah, it's really big word.

[26:11] Anyway, this is calculated daily and

[26:13] runs and run times are adjusted based on

[26:16] watering needs.

[26:18] Um, the sprinklers may run during a

[26:19] rainstorm but the system will account

[26:22] for that rain during the next watering

[26:24] cycle and only water what is needed. So,

[26:26] it kind of

[26:27] calculates how much water's been put

[26:29] down during a week or the day and

[26:31] humidity humidity plays into a big part

[26:34] of that as well.

[26:36] Um,

[26:39] kind of going on, the parks department

[26:41] uses a Cal Sense control system

[26:44] um, to help manage their watering parks.

[26:46] Some of their benefits that they they

[26:48] see with this is they can manage the

[26:50] watering from a computer or cell phone.

[26:54] Um, the system will shut off when it

[26:55] dictate when it detects a flow rate

[26:58] above the set parameters.

[27:01] They receive alerts when the sprinkling

[27:02] system waters incorrectly, whether it's

[27:05] a low flow, high flow,

[27:07] whether it's shut off or etc. So, they

[27:09] get a lot of alerts.

[27:11] And when using Cal Sense sys- Cal Sense

[27:14] system effectively, you can save up to

[27:16] 40% of the their water use.

[27:19] So,

[27:20] they're uh they're using that each day.

[27:23] And then my last little fact kind of

[27:25] just to help, the golf course installed

[27:26] a new sprinkling system back in '21. It

[27:29] was fully operational in 2022.

[27:32] Um, with this new system,

[27:34] they've been able to reduce their usage

[27:36] with an average of 30% over the 3 to 4

[27:40] years. So,

[27:41] the city's taken a very good proactive

[27:43] approach on conservation on some of our

[27:45] larger scale things. Um, we'd really

[27:48] encourage the residents to do the same.

[27:51] So, I'll turn the time over to Jed. He's

[27:53] got some good water conservation methods

[27:56] that he wants to talk about, too.

[27:58] Thanks, Paul. Okay. Thanks, Paul.

[28:01] Hello.

[28:02] Mr. Olsen.

[28:04] Um,

[28:06] biggest thing that I would like to point

[28:08] out is

[28:10] our water conservation page

[28:13] because there's there's a lot of

[28:14] detailed information, different programs

[28:16] that we're operating, um, some

[28:18] historical stuff kind of going back into

[28:21] when we were implementing the sprinkler

[28:23] clock program. Um,

[28:26] but the big big point is is is the

[28:28] resources that are available through

[28:30] partnerships that we have

[28:32] with like Central Utah Water, Savers, different

[28:37] you know, slow the flow programs

[28:39] throughout the state that offer, you

[28:40] know, different resources, rebates,

[28:43] grants, and classes that are available.

[28:46] Um,

[28:49] a a big one, you know, to talk about

[28:52] that is located on the water

[28:54] conservation page is when should I

[28:55] water? You know, as as a resident, when

[28:57] should I have my sprinkling system

[28:58] going?

[28:59] And just to reit- reiterate what Paul

[29:02] had kind of mentioned is

[29:05] we take the approach of of information.

[29:09] You know,

[29:10] it can be much more effective if people

[29:13] are informed and they're they're

[29:14] voluntarily voluntarily,

[29:17] um, you know, taking it upon themselves

[29:19] to take ownership of the water that

[29:21] they're using.

[29:23] Um, so, you know, big question that gets

[29:26] brought up is, you know,

[29:28] alternating times. Well, the city has

[29:31] a schedule that's on on this water page

[29:34] that discusses that and it it

[29:38] you know, shows residents based on their address and the area of town that

[29:43] they're in, you know, when when should I

[29:45] be watering?

[29:46] You know, that brings into account the

[29:48] wind cuz that's a big thing that that's

[29:50] talked about is well, we've been told

[29:52] for years never water during the day.

[29:55] Well, Spanish Fork has something that's

[29:57] unique to our city and that is the big

[29:59] wind tunnel that's

[30:01] coming out of the canyon.

[30:03] You know, and and

[30:05] when implementing that sprinkler

[30:07] program, there was a lot of research

[30:09] done. When should we be watering? You

[30:11] know, that not only helps

[30:14] you know, the the wind evaporation that

[30:16] happens. I mean, if

[30:17] you could potentially

[30:19] lose up to 50% of your water if the wind

[30:21] is blowing hard enough.

[30:23] You know, and and that

[30:25] you know, can really affect people's

[30:26] landscaping and that. So, that's that's

[30:28] a big thing

[30:29] to to remember and to you know, get out

[30:33] of the public is you know,

[30:36] kind of

[30:37] abiding by that recommended you know,

[30:39] spring sprinkler schedule.

[30:42] Um something that kind of goes along

[30:44] with that. We wanted to kind of show a

[30:46] comparison

[30:47] and [clears throat] and just show how

[30:49] dramatic it is. People really don't

[30:51] understand how much water they're using.

[30:54] You know, and so I picked picked a

[30:55] couple of

[30:56] >> [clears throat]

[30:57] >> uh random homes that were on the

[30:59] opposite ends of the scale. Kind of what

[31:01] our typical use you know, closer to the 25,000 24,000 gallons that we would

[31:08] expect to see on a typical residential

[31:10] lot and then the extreme.

[31:13] They [snorts] had the similar square

[31:15] footage

[31:16] and one home was used in the month of

[31:18] July last year used 217,000

[31:22] gallons of water on their lawn.

[31:25] That was only outdoor use.

[31:30] The

[31:31] uh another home which is more

[31:33] comparable, they still used 49,000

[31:36] gallons in the in the month of July. And

[31:39] just to show what that is

[31:41] it's recommended that you apply a an

[31:43] inch to a inch and a half

[31:45] of water on your on your turf grass.

[31:48] Well, the the home that used the 217,000

[31:53] gallons used 13 inches of water in one

[31:56] week.

[31:58] So, that that that's a drama dramatic

[32:03] water.

[32:06] There was no leak no leak with that

[32:08] home, right? That was that was actual

[32:10] use.

[32:10] >> Yeah, that's actual use. I looked at the

[32:12] meter usage. It was in the gallon and

[32:15] that's every time their sprinkling

[32:16] system turned on, I could see their

[32:18] usage.

[32:20] So, that and that's that's like I said,

[32:23] there's a wide variety of of

[32:26] um

[32:27] you know, population in the city that

[32:29] you know, it uses anywhere. That's just

[32:31] extreme versus probably more of your

[32:34] typical. I have a question on that.

[32:36] Would it be inappropriate of like

[32:38] someone in your department to call them

[32:40] and just to educate them? Like when

[32:42] we're just talking about ordinances, we

[32:44] want people to have a nice front yard

[32:46] and we're going to go approach them

[32:48] about maybe weed control or

[32:50] vehicles parked on their lawn that

[32:52] shouldn't be there. Would it be like,

[32:53] "Hey, I don't know if you knew, but you

[32:54] only need an inch and a half of water,

[32:56] not 13."

[32:56] >> I don't think it'd be inappropriate, but

[32:58] there's definitely a mountain to climb

[33:00] with that. Really? So, it's an excessive

[33:03] >> Yeah, you got to figure the the time.

[33:05] Yeah. Okay.

[33:09] You sound great. You're doing great.

[33:11] >> [laughter]

[33:12] >> Thank you. I appreciate it.

[33:13] >> for you. Yeah, thanks, Charles.

[33:16] Um so, yeah, it it

[33:18] when you're looking at the scale of of

[33:21] time and effort that that would take

[33:25] it would just be a mountain. Not

[33:27] impossible,

[33:28] but it the resources that the the staff

[33:31] time that it would take to put into that

[33:34] you know, and that

[33:35] >> out ways to educate them. Yeah, and that

[33:37] that's I mean, the the the next thing

[33:39] that I want to talk about gives them

[33:41] that ability which is the utility usage

[33:44] portal.

[33:45] Um you know, Alpine you know, got on the

[33:48] map a couple weeks ago or you know,

[33:50] about a month and a half ago about

[33:52] supposedly having one of the first

[33:54] utility usage portals showing conser you

[33:56] know, usage and consumption you know,

[33:58] for for customers in the state, but

[34:00] we've had ours since about 2019.

[34:03] You know, so that's something that's

[34:05] another resource that the city has that

[34:08] residents and businesses can take

[34:10] advantage of to see what their actual

[34:12] usage is because trying to do that just

[34:14] based off your monthly bill, that'd be you know, kind of a hard thing

[34:19] to to accomplish, but you know, being

[34:22] able to see that utility usage portal

[34:24] and see what their usage is daily or

[34:27] hourly,

[34:28] you know, it as the information comes

[34:30] in, you know, it it would be very

[34:33] helpful. Right now, currently, only

[34:35] about 5% of our utility customers

[34:37] actually take advantage of that.

[34:40] You know, so that's definitely something

[34:41] that could be you know, promoted a lot

[34:44] more and taken advantage of a lot more.

[34:47] Anytime that I'm on a water leak or

[34:48] somebody that has a concern about their

[34:49] high consumption, I always bring this

[34:51] up.

[34:53] You know, so that like I said, that goes

[34:55] back to what I mentioned at the

[34:56] beginning. People just really don't

[34:58] understand what they're using.

[35:00] Right. So, if if you you know, are

[35:03] conscious and and want to you know,

[35:05] serve the community like has been

[35:07] brought up in the beginning of the

[35:09] meeting, that's a big way that that

[35:12] residents can make the most impact. When

[35:14] you refer back to our water conservation

[35:16] plan that we got approved um you know,

[35:18] about a year and a half ago

[35:20] it we found out that about 72% of our

[35:23] residents are the the main user of our

[35:25] water.

[35:27] You know, commercial and industrial and institutional is a very small

[35:31] population when you start to look at

[35:32] that.

[35:34] You know, so that that the residents can

[35:36] make the biggest impact.

[35:39] So,

[35:40] um

[35:42] another

[35:44] uh thing I wanted to make sure I'm

[35:46] bringing up is we do have some events

[35:48] that are going on this year. Another big

[35:51] one that the that is being made

[35:52] available to the residents uh through

[35:56] Central Utah Water is they're putting on

[35:58] a landscaping class.

[36:00] It's a three three-week course one night

[36:02] a week that's going to be be actually

[36:04] here at the library in the average room.

[36:07] And that's going to be going on uh

[36:09] the

[36:10] first part of of June.

[36:13] You know, so that's another big thing

[36:15] that that you know, they're making

[36:16] available and they have those classes

[36:18] all season long. You know, so not just

[36:21] here, but they

[36:22] reached out and wanted to put something

[36:24] on for our community.

[36:26] You know, so

[36:28] um

[36:29] Yeah.

[36:30] Any other questions?

[36:33] for Mr. Addison?

[36:34] >> Yes. Jed, we get a

[36:37] uh in our gas bill, we get a notice that

[36:40] shows how we compare with our neighbors.

[36:42] >> Mhm. Is there any way with what what

[36:44] we've got in our tool to be able to do

[36:46] that?

[36:46] >> doesn't offer that specifically, but you

[36:49] can compare your own

[36:51] and then like I said, if if you're

[36:53] looking at our tiered rates, those are

[36:54] designed to be able to fit that need

[36:58] because our tiered rates go from zero to

[37:00] 24,000

[37:02] and then 24,000

[37:05] no, 25,000 and then 25,000 plus.

[37:09] You know, so

[37:10] if they're able to compare what their

[37:13] typical usage is, look at it's a 15th of

[37:17] an acre

[37:18] you know, 0.15 acre and so if they're

[37:22] able to compare and say, "Okay, this is

[37:24] the amount of green space I have, I

[37:26] should be using about 24,000 gallons."

[37:29] You know, if you there's a lot of

[37:31] calculations that go into that, but you

[37:33] know, soil composition and how much

[37:35] precipitation we're we're using or we're

[37:38] receiving

[37:39] >> [snorts]

[37:39] >> because that's the thing. The inch to

[37:42] inch and a half, that's to take into

[37:44] account the precipitation we're using as

[37:46] well.

[37:47] So, if we get a bunch of rain storms and

[37:49] people don't pull back or they don't

[37:51] have a smart controller that pulls back

[37:53] that consumption then that you know,

[37:56] they're using an excess.

[37:59] So,

[38:00] but that that's what I would recommend

[38:02] is compete with yourself.

[38:04] You know, shoot for that target and and

[38:07] you'll make a difference.

[38:11] So, Do Do we have any idea currently

[38:14] about how many residents do not have

[38:15] smart controllers in the city?

[38:17] [clears throat] So, when we wrapped up

[38:19] the program, it was about 2020 2021 is

[38:24] when we kind of finished that up. We had

[38:27] distributed over 3,000.

[38:29] You know, so if you take into account

[38:32] 3,000

[38:33] you know, residents that took advantage

[38:35] cuz you had to live in the city. Not to

[38:37] say that some probably haven't

[38:39] disappeared since, you know, when people

[38:42] move and sell their property, but

[38:45] right now, we have about 12,000

[38:48] um connections in pressurized

[38:51] irrigation.

[38:52] So, we roughly hit you know, close to a

[38:54] quarter of our our PI usage our PI

[38:57] connections. Okay. So,

[39:01] and it it did flatten out. I mean,

[39:02] that's the thing. You look at the the

[39:04] peak demand

[39:05] um when that program got implemented, it

[39:07] was running hard from midnight until

[39:10] about 6:00 a.m.

[39:12] Once that program really was was spread

[39:15] out and and utilized, we now took it

[39:18] back to around 10:00 p.m. to about 10:00

[39:20] a.m. So, we flattened out that peak

[39:23] demand

[39:24] you know, quite extremely. Yeah. So,

[39:27] >> It's good.

[39:30] stuff. Okay. Thank you, Mr.

[39:32] Addison. Thank you, Jed. Thank you.

[39:35] I see Mr. Waters back there. Is Mr.

[39:37] Waters going to talk about water or I'm

[39:40] supporting my You're supporting. Okay.

[39:43] Perfect.

[39:44] Great information. Great timely

[39:45] information. Thank you guys. It's a good avenue to to give us that update. I

[39:50] I'd be remiss if

[39:52] I know it's kind of a broken record that

[39:53] I say this when I when I say it, but

[39:55] every time we talk about water, remember

[39:57] the city you live in if you're a

[39:58] resident here

[40:00] has been a leader in the state

[40:02] for for 25 years plus in water. I I see

[40:07] our superintendent in the back there.

[40:09] Thinking of how much uh you know, how much grass is in our

[40:14] schools and and and how much it's

[40:15] utilized not just in when we're in

[40:17] session

[40:18] for schools, but practices and our

[40:20] partnership again. But for 25 plus

[40:23] years, Spanish Fork has had a secondary

[40:26] water system, pressurized irrigation

[40:28] system

[40:29] where you're not watering with your

[40:31] culinary water. Now that's coming the

[40:33] state's on board and saying other cities

[40:35] have to to do that to try to conserve

[40:38] water, but Spanish Fork's seriously a

[40:40] pioneer in that in that way and and so

[40:44] you should be proud um for those times

[40:47] that you see some some sprinklers maybe

[40:49] on during a rainstorm or whatever it may

[40:50] be and and and questioning that, just

[40:52] know um this is a very water conscious

[40:55] uh city and and has been for a long time

[40:57] and our partners that they use that

[40:59] water too or or that way as well. So um

[41:03] thank you thank you for that

[41:04] presentation and and and and keeping

[41:06] that good tradition alive of of

[41:09] conserving water in Spanish Fork and

[41:12] I I concur with what's been said. This

[41:14] is the year to do it.

[41:16] I hope I hope we get get some snow next

[41:19] year. We didn't get any this year and uh

[41:21] there's some scary charts that uh could

[41:23] show you the snowpack levels

[41:25] and then the averages and how we were

[41:27] terribly below that average and uh you

[41:30] can go down and see the river right now.

[41:32] Yeah. This is usually when we're warning

[41:34] kids to

[41:35] stay out of the river and uh there is

[41:37] virtually no flow in that river right

[41:39] now. So so tough tough times to do what

[41:41] you can uh

[41:43] individually on your on your own on your

[41:45] own yard and and be conscientious of it

[41:47] and we can all help each other out like

[41:49] we do in a community. So

[41:51] thank you guys. Appreciate that update.

[41:54] Okay, takes us to item eight, consent

[41:55] items.

[41:57] Uh we have items A through D on the

[41:59] consent items. Any questions on those

[42:02] consent items?

[42:04] If not, I'd entertain a motion for the

[42:06] consent items.

[42:09] I move to approve the consent items A,

[42:11] B, C, and D. Motion made by Councilman

[42:13] Carden.

[42:15] Second. Second by Councilman Took. All

[42:17] in favor, say yes. Yes.

[42:19] >> Yes. Consent items are approved. And

[42:21] before we move out out of consent items,

[42:23] there's some real estate purchase

[42:25] agreements in there that you can see to

[42:27] executed, but I think the Spanish Fork

[42:29] airport taxiway Bravo is pretty cool one

[42:33] to have on there. So good work

[42:35] everybody. Um if the citizens don't

[42:37] know, it's an important piece of the

[42:39] airport uh down there and getting that

[42:42] rolling uh makes the airport function a

[42:44] lot safer.

[42:46] Um you have Alpha, you have Bravo, and

[42:48] now we have we're going to have two

[42:50] taxiways so planes don't have to cross

[42:52] the runway to to take off and land. So

[42:56] some really good stuff happening down at

[42:57] the airport.

[42:59] people want to talk any more

[43:01] about it? I feel like I'm talking a lot.

[43:02] You guys are I think that you said it

[43:04] best and it's going to continue to

[43:05] happen, right? It's only building this

[43:07] portion is only building part of it. So

[43:09] there's still more that's going to be

[43:10] happening. So it's still got a little bit to go. We're not

[43:13] going to take Delta and Allegiant and

[43:15] Breeze flights out of Spanish Fork

[43:16] airport, right? But still still the

[43:19] busiest general aviation airport in the

[43:22] state. So

[43:23] Very good. Okay.

[43:25] public hearing items A through D.

[43:28] Uh we have um

[43:30] four of these items. The first one is an

[43:32] ordinance to approve title 15 amendment

[43:35] for religious structures. Mr.

[43:38] David G. Anderson.

[43:42] Mr. Mayor, thank you.

[43:46] There are a couple different parts to

[43:47] this proposal.

[43:49] First of all, the proposal would

[43:54] Come on. Come on. It would uh define

[43:59] large religious structures.

[44:03] We tend to try to keep things pretty

[44:04] simple. I think calling them churches

[44:06] taller than 35 ft is about as simple of

[44:09] a way to do that as we can.

[44:11] Um that is what we're talking about um

[44:15] in relative to how our code defines

[44:19] churches. Really any type of

[44:20] >> [snorts]

[44:21] >> house of worship or religious

[44:22] institution would fit under that title.

[44:26] The second part of the proposal involves

[44:28] creating some criteria that if met would

[44:31] allow

[44:32] for

[44:34] um such facilities to be approved

[44:37] administratively.

[44:39] Uh those criteria include

[44:41] uh quantifiable, measurable

[44:44] um

[44:46] criteria.

[44:48] I for example, in order to be approved

[44:52] um in residential zones, a site would

[44:54] have to be at least 8 acres in size. The

[44:56] structure still would have an overall

[44:58] square footage limitation of 65,000 sq

[45:00] ft.

[45:02] The height of the bulk of the building

[45:03] would still be limited

[45:05] to 80 ft

[45:07] and

[45:09] I the height of anything that would

[45:11] extend above the roofline of a building

[45:13] such as a tower, steeple, or that type

[45:15] of thing would be limited to

[45:18] uh 80 ft as well unless that portion of

[45:21] the structure were built of materials

[45:23] that would not combust.

[45:25] If they were constructed that way, then

[45:27] they could be as tall as 200 ft.

[45:29] Um lastly,

[45:31] uh and this is a variation of what was

[45:33] presented at the planning commission a

[45:34] couple of weeks ago.

[45:36] I we have suggested that an additional

[45:39] criteria be included

[45:41] which involves how far

[45:43] a structure of this type would have to

[45:45] be from any

[45:48] residential property.

[45:49] I just say any property that has a home

[45:51] on it

[45:52] uh would have to be set back at least

[45:53] 200 ft. Uh it's actually probably better

[45:56] to say that the the structure that we're

[45:58] talking about would have to be set back

[46:01] at least 200 ft from a property with a

[46:03] home on it.

[46:06] The intent of Yeah.

[46:07] >> They've not the home itself, but the

[46:09] property lines, right? To the property

[46:11] line. Yes. And I think that's an

[46:13] important distinction because

[46:14] occasionally

[46:16] homes move, additions get made, and

[46:17] different things like that. So this

[46:19] would afford still

[46:20] I a property owner on the residential

[46:24] side to be able to do that

[46:25] without impacting the conformity of the

[46:29] adjoining structure with our our

[46:31] requirements that we have here. Dave,

[46:34] can you

[46:35] Sorry if we're interrupting you. No,

[46:36] please. Kevin started it. Um

[46:39] the 200 ft is that just for light is

[46:41] that the purpose for that or what is the

[46:43] reason for 200 ft? I I think the 200

[46:46] ft's for a lot of different reasons. Um

[46:48] city manager and I were talking about

[46:49] it. Maybe it's just as simple as

[46:51] you have a fall zone. Okay.

[46:54] That makes sense.

[46:54] >> Um I think more practically

[46:57] I having a one-to-one distance in terms

[47:00] of how tall something is relative to

[47:02] where something maybe exists on an

[47:04] adjacent property.

[47:06] Light and air, it's kind of classic

[47:08] purpose for setbacks.

[47:10] Um is one reason. Maybe just aesthetics,

[47:12] not having something be quite as

[47:13] imposing because of its proximity

[47:16] to a different use, different things

[47:18] like that. Makes sense. Thank you.

[47:19] >> Incidentally, I think that's a criteria

[47:21] probably that um

[47:25] could be increased if that was something

[47:26] that that the city council felt

[47:29] um would be helpful. I I would certainly

[47:33] say that a minimum of a one-to-one

[47:35] setback is uh very appropriate and

[47:38] important.

[47:39] But even a one in terms of height to maybe one

[47:43] and a half

[47:44] would also be appropriate. And uh

[47:48] and I don't mean to be coy at all, but

[47:50] these proposals or this proposal is

[47:52] before the council because

[47:54] the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day

[47:55] Saints has announced plans to build a

[47:58] structure that would be taller than the

[48:00] typical church is in Spanish Fork.

[48:03] And uh this proposal is

[48:06] uh really put together

[48:10] again, I would say in as simple of a way

[48:11] as we could conceive it,

[48:13] but thoughtfully so as to bring our

[48:16] review and approval process into

[48:17] conformity as much as anything with

[48:19] federal law.

[48:20] I appreciate the work that Mr. Pakel put

[48:22] into providing a brief for the council.

[48:25] Um it's helpful for me to get that to

[48:27] better understand exactly what we're

[48:28] talking about in terms of of that

[48:30] balance that we're trying to strike

[48:32] between um using reasonable criteria to protect a neighborhood

[48:38] from just some fundamental impacts that

[48:39] could result um with a with a religious

[48:43] structure being built in a certain way

[48:45] while also protecting people's right to

[48:47] worship as is defined in federal law and

[48:51] the courts. So

[48:52] um

[48:54] I'll I'll add to that and this is where

[48:56] this proposal

[48:58] um didn't align with the planning

[48:59] commission's recommendation. I think an

[49:00] important part of this is not allowing this to become

[49:03] subjective. Again, having measurable

[49:07] quantifiable

[49:09] criteria that if they are met I assume

[49:11] that if they are met

[49:13] an applicant would receive a permit and

[49:16] they could move forward

[49:17] versus maybe creating an environment

[49:19] that um

[49:21] you know, perhaps with very good

[49:22] intentions

[49:24] uh but yet ultimately because of

[49:27] uh

[49:28] the federal statute that that we do

[49:30] abide by and and uh we certainly work to

[49:33] have our ordinances conform with

[49:35] um really doesn't afford an opportunity

[49:38] for neighbors to weigh in much in the

[49:41] define how it is that that um somebody

[49:44] chooses to build a structure of this

[49:46] type and express their uh religion and that type of

[49:50] thing.

[49:52] Um, so to mention just a little bit more

[49:55] about the planning commission's

[49:56] recommendation, you know that it's rare

[49:57] that we as staff present something

[49:59] that uh ultimately gets to the city

[50:02] council with a recommendation for denial

[50:04] from the planning commission. I'll

[50:06] reiterate that I absolutely believe that

[50:09] they have great intentions

[50:11] um by way of wanting to

[50:14] make sure that there is a process set up

[50:17] that as much as anything as I understood

[50:20] the comments that they offered in their

[50:21] meeting

[50:23] provides the public with an opportunity

[50:25] to to weigh in and to comment. Um, of

[50:28] course, right? That's

[50:30] We think of that as being an important

[50:32] part of our processes and community

[50:35] engagement and that sort of a thing.

[50:38] But also

[50:40] if you look at many different aspects of

[50:42] how our zoning code

[50:45] is put together

[50:47] uh indeed there are a number of

[50:49] different instances where

[50:51] uh very consciously um

[50:54] opportunities for people to maybe

[50:56] participate via public hearing

[50:59] or that type of a thing have been

[51:00] limited and it's simply because the

[51:02] city's hands are tied.

[51:05] So the idea of inviting people to come

[51:07] to offer comment on a particular

[51:10] proposal or application

[51:12] when the outcome is certain

[51:14] because of one reason or another and

[51:17] frankly most often

[51:19] it's because an application

[51:22] satisfies the city's requirements.

[51:24] And when that happens often times the

[51:27] city's obligated to approve it. I mean

[51:29] certain rights involved that applicants

[51:32] have.

[51:33] In this case it's a little bit

[51:34] different.

[51:35] Um, it's law that has dictated what can

[51:37] happen and the role that local

[51:39] government can play

[51:41] in defining what somebody can construct.

[51:45] So

[51:46] trying to not create that situation

[51:48] where

[51:49] there's that forum

[51:51] and maybe that misperception about being

[51:53] able to influence the outcome.

[51:55] That's where we as staff are coming from

[51:57] and trying to make this what what I

[51:59] would call an administrative action

[52:01] versus anything that might bring some

[52:03] subjectivity

[52:05] into play.

[52:06] But again, I certainly appreciate

[52:08] uh the planning commission's

[52:09] perspective. Um, we as staff have a

[52:11] different recommendation relative to to

[52:14] this proposal and we recommend that it

[52:15] be approved. Um, and I'll note again

[52:18] that with the planning commission, not

[52:20] that this would have changed their

[52:22] recommendation, but the additional

[52:24] criteria there of this setback. Um, that

[52:26] actually came out of some comments that

[52:28] the chairman of the planning commission

[52:29] made. Um, I think that was a great

[52:31] thought and and we've added that

[52:33] criteria E

[52:35] as a result of that.

[52:37] Um,

[52:37] anyway.

[52:39] That's my best job of trying to provide

[52:43] a succinct review of what we talked

[52:45] about with the planning commission and

[52:47] kind of the origin of this proposal.

[52:49] Good summary. Any questions for Dave

[52:51] before public hearing about this?

[52:53] Thank you, Dave.

[52:55] Thank you. I'll entertain a motion to go

[52:56] into public hearing for item A.

[52:58] So moved. Second. Motion made by

[53:00] Councilman Oyler, second by Councilwoman

[53:02] Beck. All in favor say yes.

[53:04] >> Yes. We're in public hearing for item A.

[53:06] Anybody from the public that would like

[53:08] to come up and speak to this amendment

[53:09] of title 15?

[53:11] Please come up and

[53:12] state your name so

[53:15] Tara can get it on the record and uh

[53:17] we'll give you a 3-minute clock.

[53:22] Nobody wants the 3 minutes today.

[53:24] Okay, uh seeing none I'll entertain a

[53:26] motion to go out of public hearing. So

[53:27] moved.

[53:28] Motion made by Councilman Carton Okay.

[53:31] seconded by Councilman Took. All in

[53:32] favor say yes. Yes. Discussion back up

[53:35] here. Any other questions or further

[53:37] comments

[53:39] about uh item A? Dave.

[53:41] Today if a church is built on I think as

[53:44] I read it any of our residential

[53:47] codes as long as they meet staff

[53:50] requirements there's no public hearing

[53:51] or anything like that at this point,

[53:53] right? That's correct. Okay. That's how

[53:55] I read it, but I just wanted to make

[53:56] sure I was reading that correct. Yep.

[53:57] Okay.

[53:59] No, I think one thing mayor just to

[54:01] mention I I was able to watch the

[54:02] planning commission. They had a lot they

[54:03] had a lengthy discussion and they said

[54:05] that it'll probably take us 2 minutes.

[54:07] So they they laughed a little bit about

[54:09] that, but I think that they talked about

[54:10] a lot of good things, but one of the

[54:12] things that I think city staff talked

[54:14] really well about in that meeting and

[54:16] then um I think Mr. Anderson did a good

[54:18] job here doing in the same thing is

[54:21] making sure that we're not just having

[54:23] um

[54:24] public hearings just to have public

[54:25] hearings, but that we there's something

[54:27] that we can actually do about it cuz

[54:28] when we do that I think it frustrates

[54:30] everybody involved. Mhm. Um, those that

[54:33] are coming to talk to us us because our

[54:35] hands are tied. Like there's nothing we

[54:37] can do. So I think that I think this is

[54:39] a great move to try to set parameters

[54:41] that make sense that are trying to be

[54:43] forward we're thinking forward, not

[54:45] trying to think after the thought and

[54:46] trying to make this a succinct process

[54:48] for everybody involved. So thank you to

[54:50] city staff that's probably put in a lot

[54:51] of

[54:52] hours

[54:53] days probably to make this happen, but

[54:57] in making it easy for for us to kind of

[54:59] move forward and make it make it work in

[55:01] a good way.

[55:02] I agree. Thanks, Jesse.

[55:05] I guess my extension of that Councilman

[55:07] Carton good good comment there is

[55:09] nothing we can do about something sounds

[55:11] a little bit

[55:13] desperate like something's

[55:15] being forced on us. Our history and

[55:16] heritage here in this area

[55:19] uh speaks to religious freedom

[55:21] quite a bit and so does our country that

[55:23] we're that we're celebrating 250 years

[55:25] of and so

[55:26] um even though you you know this this

[55:29] would make an administrative act happen

[55:32] to construct this church. It's a church.

[55:35] Yeah, it's a it's a it's a temple where

[55:37] people are going to be together and

[55:39] worship and think about something other

[55:40] than themselves and how they can serve

[55:42] other people. So that's a root uh in our

[55:45] community and so

[55:48] even though it's you know maybe

[55:49] frustrating that you have a public

[55:50] hearing you can't do anything about, I

[55:52] think it's rooted well in law that we

[55:54] shouldn't discriminate on on people's

[55:56] religious ability to get together. I

[55:58] appreciate And and this will this will

[56:00] make that happen and hopefully

[56:02] have this flow and and uh

[56:05] and this structure be built tomorrow. So

[56:08] um

[56:09] it's going to take a little bit longer

[56:10] than that. 65,000 square feet maybe.

[56:12] Yeah.

[56:14] But uh

[56:16] Any other just questions about this?

[56:17] Just one for Dave. Um

[56:19] >> [clears throat]

[56:19] >> I understand the desire not to want to have a public

[56:23] hearing. That makes a ton of sense. I

[56:24] don't want to have to tell people thanks

[56:26] for your comment, there's nothing we can

[56:27] do about it. That's that's not good

[56:29] policy.

[56:30] Um, but each one of these five have some

[56:34] Well, if I just read them today they

[56:35] look arbitrary. I'm sure that they're

[56:37] not. They have some reasoning behind all

[56:38] of them.

[56:39] Why eight not seven acres? Why not five

[56:42] acres? Why not 5.5 acres? Why 65,000

[56:45] square feet? Um

[56:47] What's sacred about 200 versus 250?

[56:52] Um, so my ask is not for today.

[56:56] It's just send me the justification

[56:58] behind it. We're going to have to do

[57:00] justify it anyway at some point. We're

[57:02] going to put that on paper.

[57:03] I'm just curious where these came up

[57:04] with. I'm sure there's some good logic

[57:06] behind it, but

[57:07] there's no way for me to see that today.

[57:10] I appreciate that and to be honest I

[57:12] think there is some latitude definitely.

[57:14] I wouldn't say

[57:16] um indeed that

[57:19] Thanks, Jordan.

[57:21] So for example, I'll just go through a

[57:22] few different images that kind of set

[57:23] the stage for how we looked at

[57:25] what the numbers should be

[57:29] um and honestly we received a little bit

[57:31] of help from the property owner in this

[57:33] case Sure. to put these together.

[57:35] Um, so in terms of height, you know,

[57:38] understanding

[57:40] uh how this proposal relates for example

[57:43] to a similar type facility that's in

[57:45] Payson and there are being maybe just I

[57:47] think we have four all together.

[57:49] Um, so I think most of these you go to

[57:51] the next one

[57:53] if you don't mind.

[57:56] It's Orem. Uh

[57:58] so just to take a quick moment.

[58:00] Um, it's our understanding that the

[58:01] intent uh for what would be constructed

[58:04] in Spanish Fork wouldn't be quite as

[58:06] large in terms of square footage as what

[58:07] we're

[58:08] uh aware of exists in Payson and Orem.

[58:12] Uh height likewise a little bit less.

[58:15] Uh so there is a little bit

[58:17] of comparing with some of these other

[58:19] facilities and fine-tuning relative to

[58:22] what's been represented that the idea is

[58:24] for Spanish Fork. Um

[58:27] I think there are two more.

[58:30] So this is one that I think is a little

[58:32] bit interesting as well.

[58:34] And I think you know this suggests that

[58:36] you know should uh we receive an

[58:39] application in the future

[58:41] you know, maybe for something that is uh

[58:44] like

[58:45] what we're talking about in terms of how

[58:47] it would be defined, but maybe different

[58:49] in form

[58:51] we might be well served to revisit some

[58:53] of these criteria to account for that.

[58:56] Uh this particular facility not quite as

[58:58] large in terms of square footage

[59:01] as what we call for here in this code

[59:03] but in terms of for example tower

[59:05] height. But all of that could fit on

[59:07] within our ordinance.

[59:08] Uh it was with respect to what's

[59:10] proposed, the building square footage

[59:16] uh what's proposed would require at

[59:17] least 65,000 or at least at 65. Yeah,

[59:21] not

[59:22] I thought that was the max. Okay.

[59:24] >> So yeah, that is that's a distinction

[59:26] then

[59:27] from what uh from what we'd have and uh

[59:32] I think that would be a very reasonable

[59:35] pragmatic approach

[59:37] with the idea that if a faith wants to

[59:40] build something like what we're talking

[59:41] about here, the role we would play would

[59:44] be to accommodate that and you know, to

[59:46] think about public good and and for

[59:48] example public safety and different

[59:49] things like that just practically what

[59:51] we could um

[59:53] consider.

[59:54] >> I I I guess if if that logic applies

[59:56] then why have a square footage at all?

[1:00:00] If we know in the future if another

[1:00:02] faith came and said I want to do this,

[1:00:03] we would change the

[1:00:05] ordinance to accommodate them.

[1:00:07] I think that's a great question and you

[1:00:09] know, maybe that is something that that

[1:00:11] should be further thought through.

[1:00:13] Um

[1:00:15] by way of maybe [snorts] trying to

[1:00:16] create that balance is it just my

[1:00:18] thought.

[1:00:19] And I'd look to Von or anybody else that might want to want to share

[1:00:23] thoughts.

[1:00:24] Without a doubt

[1:00:26] we're trying to

[1:00:28] craft something here

[1:00:30] that has some kind of unique guardrails

[1:00:33] to it. Sure. So that

[1:00:36] um

[1:00:37] it would be used in cases where

[1:00:40] it's necessary by way of again allowing

[1:00:43] somebody to to worship as they please

[1:00:46] but also not allowing folks maybe that

[1:00:48] aren't aren't quite as intent on that to somehow fit into the narrow kind of corridor that that

[1:00:56] we're trying to create for this to be

[1:00:57] approvable.

[1:00:59] I don't know if that's that's a great

[1:01:00] answer but but probably but like besides

[1:01:03] the property

[1:01:04] >> I I I get it. I mean I

[1:01:07] There's folks out there going man Shane

[1:01:09] doesn't want a template. That's not it

[1:01:10] at all. Um

[1:01:13] I I want to be consistent as much as

[1:01:16] possible. Right?

[1:01:19] Accommodating as much as possible.

[1:01:21] Um

[1:01:22] the

[1:01:24] when when we had the discussion about

[1:01:26] what we can and cannot do in terms of

[1:01:28] freedom of religion it was impose

[1:01:31] something on

[1:01:32] the religion. Right? That was I can't

[1:01:35] remember the exact words Von Substantial

[1:01:37] burden

[1:01:38] >> Substantial burden on them.

[1:01:40] Thank you Von.

[1:01:41] Um and I think we've done that by a

[1:01:43] large.

[1:01:44] But if challenged by whomever

[1:01:47] we better have some reasons for the

[1:01:49] numbers we put in there.

[1:01:51] Um because someone could come and say

[1:01:53] it's a substantial burden to to build a

[1:01:55] 85,000 square foot building instead of a

[1:01:58] 45,000 square foot building. So

[1:02:01] I'm not opposed at all. I just want to

[1:02:02] make sure that we're protected

[1:02:04] when the next thing comes. So

[1:02:07] I'm just asking some due diligence

[1:02:08] questions. I appreciate it. Try to

[1:02:10] answer them. It's It's a difficult spot.

[1:02:13] And I'd mention as well that I think

[1:02:14] there are facilities like what we're

[1:02:15] talking about that probably are in sites

[1:02:16] that are smaller than eight eight acres

[1:02:18] someplace. So Yeah, I I I don't the

[1:02:21] Cathedral Madeleine downtown? Right,

[1:02:23] that's exactly what comes to mind.

[1:02:24] >> 185 foot towers twin towers? Yeah. On a

[1:02:28] much smaller footprint, right? Yeah.

[1:02:31] So

[1:02:32] again, I don't want to mean it as a cop

[1:02:34] out or anything but just trying to balance what we know today and

[1:02:38] understanding that in the future there

[1:02:39] might be a reason to change. Okay.

[1:02:43] There was also no public comments. So

[1:02:46] Good questions Shane.

[1:02:47] >> Good question. Kind of the applicant you

[1:02:49] have in front of you right now.

[1:02:50] Appreciate working with that. Yeah.

[1:02:53] Okay, if there's no other questions for

[1:02:55] staff on this, I'd entertain a motion to

[1:02:57] approve item A.

[1:03:00] >> [clears throat]

[1:03:01] >> I move to approve the ordinance to

[1:03:02] modify the development standards for

[1:03:04] churches that meet certain criteria

[1:03:06] based on the findings in the staff

[1:03:08] report.

[1:03:10] You want those findings read Von or you

[1:03:12] all right with They're part of the

[1:03:13] record. Perfect. I don't know

[1:03:15] motion made by Councilman Oyler. Do I

[1:03:17] have a second? Second by Councilwoman

[1:03:19] Cardenas a roll call vote. Councilman

[1:03:21] Took. Councilman Carden. Councilman

[1:03:23] Oyler. Councilwoman Beck and Councilman

[1:03:26] Marshall.

[1:03:28] Yes. I was going to say Shane.

[1:03:31] says

[1:03:32] >> Shane says yes.

[1:03:33] >> Yes. Shane equals yes.

[1:03:35] >> votes yes.

[1:03:36] Perfect. Item A passes. Appreciate that

[1:03:39] input. Thank you.

[1:03:41] Uh

[1:03:44] Now Now that mayor right there has

[1:03:46] hauled people out for clapping.

[1:03:48] >> [laughter]

[1:03:49] >> Right there. Don't

[1:03:50] See? You're welcome to leave if you're

[1:03:52] going to clap.

[1:03:53] >> [laughter]

[1:03:57] » Okay, next public hearing item on the

[1:04:00] agenda is an ordinance to approve the

[1:04:01] Hales two lot zone change. Mr. David

[1:04:04] Anderson. Mr. Mayor, thank you. I want

[1:04:06] to ask real quick, is anybody here?

[1:04:08] That's what I thought. Great.

[1:04:10] So I'm going to let you explain some of

[1:04:12] the reasoning maybe in just a quick

[1:04:14] second. I'll set the stage. And I

[1:04:17] um

[1:04:19] I love this proposal.

[1:04:21] And I love it partly because of the

[1:04:23] history.

[1:04:24] I have to go back a couple of years to

[1:04:26] when the applicant applied to build a

[1:04:29] four unit town home building on the

[1:04:31] subject property.

[1:04:32] And today they're presenting on the

[1:04:34] corner of 200 North and 600 East

[1:04:38] to build just two single family homes.

[1:04:41] There's an existing home on the subject

[1:04:42] property.

[1:04:44] They're on the northeast corner

[1:04:46] of what we're talking about. That home

[1:04:47] would be raised to make room for two

[1:04:50] different lots and like I said two

[1:04:51] different homes.

[1:04:53] Um the proposal is really that simple.

[1:04:55] Um I'll mention this really quickly. The

[1:04:59] development review committee and the

[1:05:00] planning commission have both

[1:05:00] recommended that it be approved. This is

[1:05:02] before

[1:05:04] you as a city council for infill overlay

[1:05:07] approval because that's necessary

[1:05:10] given

[1:05:12] what the setbacks need to be. They need

[1:05:14] to be reduced a little bit in order to

[1:05:16] accommodate the two single family homes

[1:05:18] here. So

[1:05:20] those changes involve

[1:05:22] on one side reducing the setback

[1:05:26] to 20 feet

[1:05:28] from what would otherwise have been 25

[1:05:30] feet.

[1:05:32] Um on a rear side reducing the setback

[1:05:34] from 25 feet down to 16 feet.

[1:05:37] Um the five foot side yard setback

[1:05:40] um on one side

[1:05:43] uh and that sort of a thing.

[1:05:46] Pretty minor

[1:05:48] variations from what our code typically

[1:05:50] would require.

[1:05:52] And

[1:05:53] by way of one last plug uh the idea that this is going to provide two

[1:06:00] different opportunities for people to

[1:06:01] buy single family homes on individual

[1:06:04] lots

[1:06:06] which I I do think that's the American

[1:06:07] dream. I think that's what people

[1:06:09] ultimately aspire to to have.

[1:06:12] >> that?

[1:06:12] >> Buy two of them on single family lots or

[1:06:14] to buy a home?

[1:06:16] Well, maybe that's my dream. Okay, so

[1:06:18] no.

[1:06:19] Yeah, to have the opportunity for two

[1:06:20] different homeowners to buy their own

[1:06:23] single family home to live on its own

[1:06:26] lots.

[1:06:27] Um That is absolutely

[1:06:29] >> that's great. This is not something that

[1:06:30] we've seen a lot of, right? Most of the

[1:06:32] time when we're talking about infill

[1:06:33] overlay projects it is

[1:06:35] it's a town home, it's a triplex, it's

[1:06:37] something like that.

[1:06:39] Not that there's anything wrong with

[1:06:40] that but um I I I appreciate where we're

[1:06:44] at with this application and the

[1:06:45] applicant's willingness to uh put forth the project.

[1:06:49] Um I can pull up other imagery if you'd

[1:06:51] like but I'd probably rather hear from

[1:06:53] the applicant's daughter if that's good

[1:06:54] with you. Perfect. Absolutely. come on.

[1:07:01] Please get your name to Tara if you can.

[1:07:03] Perfect. My name is Haley Mangelson. Um

[1:07:07] my dad would be here but he's actually

[1:07:08] in the hospital. He's doing good.

[1:07:11] Um

[1:07:12] And then my husband was going to be here

[1:07:13] but he has a final today. So I have my

[1:07:15] amazing in-laws here supporting me. I

[1:07:18] was like the last resort. I asked all of

[1:07:19] them to come [laughter] up. So I'm like

[1:07:21] super nervous.

[1:07:23] But I think also to mention the history

[1:07:26] doesn't just go back to the fourplex.

[1:07:28] That was my great grandma's house and

[1:07:30] her parents' house. So I'd be fifth

[1:07:33] generation. I am fifth generation living

[1:07:35] there.

[1:07:36] Um and like he said, my dad really

[1:07:38] wanted to do a fourplex at first but he

[1:07:40] would drive up

[1:07:41] and he says this and he's like grandma

[1:07:44] would be so mad at me if I put a

[1:07:46] fourplex up there. It wouldn't fit in.

[1:07:48] It wouldn't match and it wouldn't

[1:07:50] resonate. Um so we decided to move it to

[1:07:53] that two home.

[1:07:54] Um

[1:07:55] and I feel like that is the all American

[1:07:57] dream. My middle name's Liberty so I

[1:07:59] feel like I can say that. I don't know.

[1:08:01] if that's fair but um super

[1:08:04] excited and yeah, I think that's all I

[1:08:07] have.

[1:08:08] Anything else? Questions for the

[1:08:09] applicant before public hearing?

[1:08:12] You did great. Perfect. Thank you.

[1:08:15] I'd entertain a motion go to public

[1:08:17] hearing for item B. So moved. Motion

[1:08:19] made by Councilman Took.

[1:08:21] Second. Second by Councilwoman Beck. All

[1:08:23] in favor say yes. Yes. Public hearing

[1:08:26] for item B the Hales two lot zone

[1:08:28] change. Anybody from the public that

[1:08:29] would like to speak to this item?

[1:08:42] My name is Jennifer Maughan m a u g h a

[1:08:45] n and I live directly west of the

[1:08:49] corner.

[1:08:50] And

[1:08:51] I would just like to it would only be

[1:08:53] two single family homes. Is that

[1:08:56] correct? Correct. That is what he's

[1:08:57] saying.

[1:08:58] >> Okay. Uh to the west of myself there is

[1:09:01] that four

[1:09:03] unit apartment building that Richard

[1:09:05] Davis has managed beautifully

[1:09:07] for many many many years.

[1:09:09] And I just

[1:09:11] would not like to have apartments on

[1:09:13] both sides.

[1:09:14] So it it saddens me. My grandfather grew

[1:09:18] up in that home.

[1:09:20] And then he built the house that I live

[1:09:22] in

[1:09:23] when he and his wife married. My father

[1:09:25] grew up in that house. My children grew

[1:09:27] up in that house.

[1:09:28] So, it it does sadden me, but

[1:09:31] pride in progress.

[1:09:33] People need a place to live. So,

[1:09:36] thank you. And the two family homes

[1:09:38] would be lovely.

[1:09:40] So, thank you.

[1:09:44] Anyone else?

[1:09:47] Seeing none, I'd entertain a motion to

[1:09:49] go out of public hearing for item B.

[1:09:51] So moved. Motion made by Councilman

[1:09:53] Carden.

[1:09:55] Second. Seconded by Councilman Took. All

[1:09:57] in favor, say yes. Yes. Discussion back

[1:10:00] up here. Any questions

[1:10:02] for the applicant or staff

[1:10:05] on this item?

[1:10:07] Oh, if they all were this easy.

[1:10:10] Right.

[1:10:11] For future reference, if anyone wants to

[1:10:13] zone something like this changed,

[1:10:15] as a father of daughters, take your

[1:10:18] daughter up there and have them put put

[1:10:19] their

[1:10:20] >> [laughter]

[1:10:20] >> It's way more impactful. So, nice job.

[1:10:23] Yeah.

[1:10:25] A very good job and and and I think it's

[1:10:27] not lost on what's already been said,

[1:10:29] but but yes, doing what we can to

[1:10:32] create uh

[1:10:33] great places for people to live and and

[1:10:35] enjoy our community just like

[1:10:37] generations have. It's pretty cool

[1:10:38] stories to hear hear of generations

[1:10:40] growing up here and there's going to be

[1:10:42] more generations growing up here. So,

[1:10:43] thank you for those comments and

[1:10:45] pointing that out.

[1:10:46] If there's no more discussion on item B,

[1:10:47] I'd entertain a motion for it.

[1:10:52] I move to approve the proposed ordinance

[1:10:55] Yeah.

[1:10:57] I move to approve the proposed ordinance

[1:10:59] for the house two lot infill overlay

[1:11:01] zone chain

[1:11:03] change based on the following on the

[1:11:05] findings in the staff report.

[1:11:08] Motion made by Councilwoman Beck.

[1:11:12] Do we need There is also some

[1:11:14] conditions. Yes. I shouldn't have made

[1:11:16] this.

[1:11:17] She's adjusting her motion. I'm

[1:11:19] adjusting the motion to have Shane

[1:11:21] Marshall do this.

[1:11:24] Subject to the following

[1:11:26] conditions in the staff report as well.

[1:11:29] See, you did better than me.

[1:11:32] I will second all of that.

[1:11:34] >> [laughter]

[1:11:37] » A motion and a second.

[1:11:39] Roll call vote here. Councilman

[1:11:40] Marshall. Councilwoman Beck. Councilman

[1:11:42] Euler. Councilman Carden. And Councilman

[1:11:44] Took. Yes. Item B is approved. Thank

[1:11:47] you. All the best to your dad. Hope he

[1:11:49] gets better.

[1:11:50] Thanks for coming.

[1:11:52] Okay, item C is a resolution authorizing

[1:11:54] the creation of the Stockman Flats

[1:11:57] Public Infrastructure District.

[1:12:06] Thank you, Jordan. Mayor and Council,

[1:12:08] this is a

[1:12:09] petition from property owners within the

[1:12:11] Stockman Flats subdivision.

[1:12:13] Not all of them, but the majority of

[1:12:15] them uh

[1:12:16] to have

[1:12:18] the creation of the three public

[1:12:19] infrastructure districts to apply to

[1:12:21] their property. The districts would be

[1:12:23] able to levy an additional property tax

[1:12:25] just on their property. Uh and it would

[1:12:28] allow them to access the public finance

[1:12:31] market by issuing public infrastructure

[1:12:34] bonds.

[1:12:35] Um the PID the three PIDs or districts

[1:12:38] would be separate and independent

[1:12:40] entities from Spanish City.

[1:12:42] Um

[1:12:43] They proposed a governing document and

[1:12:45] that's the key document that you'd be

[1:12:47] approving tonight as you adopt the

[1:12:48] resolution.

[1:12:50] One of the exhibits is the governing

[1:12:51] document, which just sets the guardrails

[1:12:53] that these infrastructure districts can

[1:12:55] operate within. So, they set a maximum

[1:12:58] mill levy, which is they've suggested be

[1:13:01] 5 mills.

[1:13:03] Um

[1:13:03] The document describes the public

[1:13:05] infrastructure that can be financed. And

[1:13:07] maybe I'll just pause right there. It's

[1:13:09] only for public infrastructure. Cannot

[1:13:11] be for any private improvements of uh

[1:13:14] that apply to that private property.

[1:13:15] It's for public publicly dedicated

[1:13:17] infrastructure.

[1:13:19] Um They would establish a board of

[1:13:20] directors of the districts and other

[1:13:23] important functions and and governing

[1:13:26] operations of the districts.

[1:13:29] Let's see if maybe you could advance one

[1:13:32] slide. There's the property within the

[1:13:34] Stockman Flats subdivision and and

[1:13:36] annexation. Excluded is the southwest

[1:13:38] corner, but the remainder would be in the three different districts.

[1:13:44] Um

[1:13:46] Are there any questions about what's

[1:13:48] being requested?

[1:13:50] I have two of them. Go for it. Does this

[1:13:52] follow the same

[1:13:54] I guess

[1:13:55] governing document and different things

[1:13:57] that we've done with the other PIDs that

[1:13:58] we have approved? Yeah, pretty much. The

[1:14:01] GLH

[1:14:02] infrastructure districts, there's two of

[1:14:04] those as well.

[1:14:06] They use the same they follow the our

[1:14:08] own policy, our PID policy and used our

[1:14:11] the same municipal advisor and the same

[1:14:14] bond council

[1:14:15] our financial advisor and legal advisors

[1:14:18] that we have.

[1:14:19] Um

[1:14:20] They've they follow our policy to a T

[1:14:23] basically. They may differ in who their

[1:14:24] board members are or what the the mill

[1:14:26] levy they suggested with was, but

[1:14:29] generally it's the same template.

[1:14:31] And then my second question is with the

[1:14:34] legislative acts state opening up PIDs,

[1:14:38] is this a legislative act or an

[1:14:39] administrative act?

[1:14:41] That's a good question.

[1:14:43] Um

[1:14:44] I would think that uh

[1:14:46] adopting the creation resolution would

[1:14:48] be a legislative act. Okay. That, you

[1:14:50] know, could be subject to referral.

[1:14:53] Um

[1:14:54] But once it's established, then it's a

[1:14:56] separate entity from the city. Right.

[1:14:59] And the reason why I asked that is

[1:15:00] because we we developed a policy a

[1:15:02] couple years ago that kind of governed

[1:15:04] what they could and couldn't do, how

[1:15:05] they did it and those type of things.

[1:15:06] So, in my in in my non-legal mind, so

[1:15:10] I'm not an engineer nor am I a lawyer.

[1:15:12] Um but

[1:15:14] my in my mind it seems like it would be

[1:15:16] an administrative act because of It's

[1:15:17] similar because we're following our

[1:15:19] policy, but I I think the actual

[1:15:20] [clears throat] act of adopting a

[1:15:22] resolution makes it more legislative.

[1:15:24] >> Got it. Thank you.

[1:15:27] Dave, question for you. Do we have Does

[1:15:29] Stockman Flats have any current tenants?

[1:15:31] Do you know?

[1:15:36] That part of it which is in the PID, I'm

[1:15:39] not aware of anybody that's made an

[1:15:41] official announcement there.

[1:15:43] They have gotten really close with one

[1:15:47] and I think a second as well, but um

[1:15:49] yeah, I I would say no that I know of.

[1:15:52] Based on that, Von, do you know or Dave

[1:15:55] if somebody does apply or does want to

[1:15:57] move in there,

[1:15:59] are they giving or required to receive

[1:16:01] any kind of a notice? Is there The

[1:16:03] statute requires them to get notices,

[1:16:05] absolutely.

[1:16:07] Yep.

[1:16:08] I think, Von, the notice is only given

[1:16:10] to a property owner though, right?

[1:16:11] >> Right. So, if they were to acquire

[1:16:13] property acquire it, but not necessarily

[1:16:15] the lease. Not a lease. Well, they're

[1:16:17] not paying the property Exactly. It's

[1:16:18] whoever pays the property tax. Okay.

[1:16:22] In situations like this, I think that's

[1:16:23] where we've discussed this as PIDs in in

[1:16:27] our industrial areas and commercial

[1:16:28] areas is

[1:16:29] the the owner of that property that

[1:16:32] leases it maybe or the landlord

[1:16:33] certainly knows the mill rate he's

[1:16:35] paying. So, he's he is charging that to

[1:16:37] a tenant, right? And that tenant can

[1:16:39] choose whether or not to lease that. At

[1:16:42] the initial setup, it requires the

[1:16:44] consent of all the property owners

[1:16:45] within the district. So,

[1:16:48] in this it's a unity of ownership.

[1:16:49] There's one owner, but

[1:16:51] if there were multiple owners, they

[1:16:52] would have to agree to be included in

[1:16:54] the PID. And that's probably why you see

[1:16:56] a corner excluded.

[1:16:58] But

[1:16:59] after that, they get the notice if they

[1:17:01] were to purchase the property and and

[1:17:02] then they can

[1:17:04] do their own math of whether this is a

[1:17:05] good deal for them or not. Yep.

[1:17:08] So, Von, when you started this, you said

[1:17:09] some, but not all.

[1:17:12] And that that referred to Stockman Flats

[1:17:14] the the at large.

[1:17:15] >> the whole annexation the whole sub Yeah.

[1:17:18] Within Stockman Flats subdivision, there

[1:17:20] are a few excluded and they those that

[1:17:23] chose not to will not They will not be

[1:17:25] in it. No. All right.

[1:17:27] So, it's only those that have choose to

[1:17:29] tax themselves higher.

[1:17:30] >> Exactly. Exactly.

[1:17:32] Okay. Which they'll pass on to whomever

[1:17:34] pay.

[1:17:35] But they're doing it in order to

[1:17:37] generate some revenue to help develop

[1:17:39] the infrastructure lift for that

[1:17:41] property. Yeah.

[1:17:43] Which takes the burden off of

[1:17:45] the rest of the taxpayers of Spanish

[1:17:47] Fork.

[1:17:48] Right. Shifts it to the people that are

[1:17:50] going to get the benefit that the the

[1:17:52] landowner right here instead of on the

[1:17:53] taxpayers, which I guess the public

[1:17:55] service announcement and and maybe this

[1:17:58] is for the public more than the council

[1:17:59] cuz we've discussed this. So, when you

[1:18:01] talk about PIDs,

[1:18:02] it is the public infrastructure. So, it

[1:18:04] is not infrastructure

[1:18:06] specifically for them, but it's the the

[1:18:08] It's public streets and utilities. It's

[1:18:11] utilities in the road. It's road.

[1:18:13] And this does not tie our hands in the nature of residential PIDs that

[1:18:18] we have not participated in. So far, our

[1:18:21] policy is to not allow residential PIDs.

[1:18:23] Which is a different animal and then

[1:18:25] than what we're talking about in these

[1:18:26] commercial

[1:18:27] uh discussions. So, maybe that's my

[1:18:29] public service announcement about PIDs

[1:18:31] for public infrastructure.

[1:18:36] Questions for Von before we go into

[1:18:37] public hearing about this?

[1:18:41] Thanks, Von. I'd entertain a motion

[1:18:43] going into public hearing for item C.

[1:18:45] So moved.

[1:18:46] Motion made by Councilman Euler.

[1:18:50] Second. Seconded by Councilman Took. All

[1:18:52] in favor, say yes. Yes. We're in public

[1:18:54] hearing for item C. Anybody would like

[1:18:57] to come up

[1:18:59] and speak uh about the resolution

[1:19:01] authorizing the creation of Stockman

[1:19:02] Flats PID public infrastructure

[1:19:05] district.

[1:19:08] Seeing none, I'd entertain a motion to

[1:19:09] go out of public hearing. So moved.

[1:19:11] Motion made by Councilman

[1:19:14] Carden.

[1:19:15] Second. Seconded by Councilman Euler.

[1:19:17] All in favor, say yes. Yes.

[1:19:19] >> Yes. Yes. Discussion back up here.

[1:19:21] Any further questions for Vaughn? No.

[1:19:26] Okay, I'd entertain a motion to approve

[1:19:27] item C.

[1:19:32] I move to approve the resolution

[1:19:33] authorizing the creation of the Sackman

[1:19:35] Flats Public Infrastructure Districts 1

[1:19:37] through 3

[1:19:39] finding that such will further the

[1:19:40] public health, safety, and general well

[1:19:42] general welfare.

[1:19:44] Motion made by Councilman Euler.

[1:19:48] Second.

[1:19:48] >> Seconded by Councilman Took. The roll

[1:19:50] call vote here. Councilman Euler.

[1:19:52] Councilman Carden. Councilman Took.

[1:19:54] Councilman Marshall. And Councilwoman

[1:19:56] Beck.

[1:19:56] >> Yes. Item C is approved. Takes us to D,

[1:19:59] the ordinance to approve the Andy Ridge

[1:20:01] zone change.

[1:20:05] Once again, thank you, Mr. Mayor.

[1:20:07] It's a 3-acre site

[1:20:09] located kind of right in the middle of

[1:20:11] lots that have been developed by Sunrock

[1:20:14] that I think we'll probably see homes

[1:20:15] start to be constructed on fairly soon.

[1:20:19] So, we're talking about the south end of

[1:20:20] the community. They're the old Clyde

[1:20:23] uh

[1:20:24] operation property there. I think they

[1:20:26] did a lot of different things there over

[1:20:27] the years. And again, now much of that's

[1:20:29] been developed and is nearly ready for

[1:20:33] the construction of homes. So,

[1:20:35] this is a different property. It's not

[1:20:36] tied to the Sunrock project.

[1:20:39] Um as proposed,

[1:20:42] the subdivision There we go.

[1:20:47] Um

[1:20:49] would

[1:20:50] uh

[1:20:51] be as you see here, there's an existing

[1:20:54] home on the subject property. That home

[1:20:56] would remain on the large lot there on

[1:20:58] the southern end of the development. Um

[1:21:00] the configuration of a few different

[1:21:02] things

[1:21:03] with the development is unique because

[1:21:05] the property is a little bit unique. You

[1:21:07] have the new stub street coming in from

[1:21:09] the east,

[1:21:10] which sets things up really nicely

[1:21:12] for the cul-de-sac. And you have the

[1:21:14] existing home, which is accessed via I

[1:21:17] believe it's Quail Run Drive, um what's

[1:21:21] essentially a private lane that then

[1:21:23] ties into Wooden Hills Drive further to

[1:21:25] the west. Um

[1:21:28] as designed, that existing home would

[1:21:30] continue

[1:21:32] to use Quail Run

[1:21:34] for its access. All of the other lots

[1:21:37] would be accessed via the adjacent

[1:21:40] subdivision.

[1:21:42] This is pretty straightforward. This is

[1:21:44] straightforward even to the extent that

[1:21:45] um

[1:21:46] uh this is not a master planned

[1:21:48] development as proposed. There's a

[1:21:50] little bit of a nuance there.

[1:21:52] Um most of the time when you see a zone

[1:21:54] change, you're also seeing a preliminary

[1:21:57] plat with the zone change because

[1:21:59] it's a unique kind of approval for a

[1:22:02] subdivision. We call it a master planned

[1:22:04] development. Maybe it's not that unique.

[1:22:06] Most of what you see is that way. It's a

[1:22:08] special

[1:22:09] type of applying for subdivision

[1:22:11] approval. In this case, all of the lots

[1:22:13] in the subdivision meet our criteria for

[1:22:16] subdivisions in the R112 zone. Sweet.

[1:22:19] Therefore, it's not a master planned

[1:22:21] it's a standard subdivision. And the

[1:22:23] planning commission has approved the

[1:22:25] preliminary plat because they're the

[1:22:27] land use authority

[1:22:28] for standard subdivisions. I think even

[1:22:30] by state code today,

[1:22:32] that can't be the city council that

[1:22:34] approves preliminary plats any longer.

[1:22:36] So,

[1:22:37] we conform to state code.

[1:22:39] Um so, the only thing that's before the

[1:22:42] council tonight, and this is still

[1:22:44] the important thing, is a zone change.

[1:22:47] So, the planning commission approved the

[1:22:49] preliminary plat subject to the city

[1:22:51] council approving the zone change.

[1:22:54] Um that would have it be zoned R112 and

[1:22:56] therefore have the lots conform. Um

[1:23:00] and in that regard, this is a little bit

[1:23:03] more straightforward than what you see

[1:23:04] sometimes.

[1:23:06] I think everything still is within the

[1:23:08] city council's purview in terms of how

[1:23:10] the project is designed and different

[1:23:12] things like that because

[1:23:13] it's still a legislative act to approve

[1:23:15] the zone change. Um

[1:23:18] but uh maybe before I touch on one last

[1:23:21] issue, do you guys have any questions

[1:23:22] about any of that?

[1:23:26] Nope. Didn't necessarily think so.

[1:23:28] Um

[1:23:29] I'm going to go right down to here.

[1:23:32] I've got a little bit of correspondence

[1:23:33] with a neighbor that owns property just

[1:23:35] to the west of the subject property.

[1:23:37] They have a nice uh arena

[1:23:40] that they use for horse riding,

[1:23:43] maybe some training and that type of a

[1:23:45] thing there.

[1:23:46] You know, what you do with arenas.

[1:23:48] Um and they're concerned about having a

[1:23:50] new home

[1:23:51] on one particular lot in the

[1:23:52] development. I think it's lot four.

[1:23:55] Um as close to the arena, at least their

[1:23:58] backyard backing up right next to the

[1:24:01] arena,

[1:24:02] um without having

[1:24:05] uh some additional kind of separation.

[1:24:08] So, it'd be this property line right

[1:24:09] here,

[1:24:10] the rear lot line

[1:24:12] of that lot number four there.

[1:24:15] And that property owner has simply

[1:24:18] requested that a fence be constructed

[1:24:20] there

[1:24:21] to provide

[1:24:23] some kind of screening and to make it

[1:24:25] less likely that whoever moves into a

[1:24:27] new home on lot four

[1:24:29] um be happy living next to an arena that

[1:24:32] occasionally gets a little bit dusty and

[1:24:34] you know, maybe it's a little bit loud

[1:24:35] from time to time or

[1:24:37] the lights are are on and that sort of a

[1:24:39] thing.

[1:24:40] And of course, a fence only does so

[1:24:41] much, but that's the ask. I've talked to

[1:24:44] the applicant about that.

[1:24:46] And

[1:24:47] uh he's comfortable with that condition

[1:24:50] that we just added to the presentation

[1:24:52] today. So, what's what's here is a

[1:24:54] little bit different than what we had in

[1:24:55] the staff report.

[1:24:57] That condition simply reads that a note

[1:24:58] be added to the final plat requiring the

[1:25:01] construction of a 6-ft tall privacy

[1:25:03] fence along the rear lot line of lot

[1:25:05] four prior to a certificate of occupancy

[1:25:08] being issued for a home on that lot.

[1:25:12] And I think everybody is in agreement

[1:25:14] that's that would be a good thing,

[1:25:15] including the neighbor.

[1:25:17] I mean, to speak for Mr. Christensen,

[1:25:18] still will

[1:25:20] well, quickly. I mean, I can't entirely

[1:25:22] speak for you.

[1:25:23] Um but I he would like the homeowner to

[1:25:27] be able to decide what that fence looks

[1:25:28] like and what it's built out of and that

[1:25:30] type of a thing. And that's why we've um

[1:25:34] stipulated at least with what's

[1:25:36] proposed, that that fence be constructed

[1:25:39] with the construction of the home on the

[1:25:40] lot rather than just have him go put up

[1:25:43] a white vinyl fence now. So,

[1:25:46] Better. I get it.

[1:25:48] That's better.

[1:25:49] Hoping to avoid the last issue that we

[1:25:52] had, right? [laughter] Oh, that's Dave.

[1:25:54] Well done.

[1:25:55] We've seen even down in our neighborhood

[1:25:59] where you've had

[1:26:01] a fence that's been put up with the

[1:26:04] trail that leads back to the river

[1:26:05] trail, but no properties or homes on

[1:26:08] either side. But for whatever reason,

[1:26:11] the fence was put in first. And over the

[1:26:13] years, because no homes were built, that

[1:26:14] fence got demolished. And so, I think

[1:26:17] doing it this way is a much better way.

[1:26:20] Great. Is that

[1:26:22] the Euler kids to blame for that

[1:26:23] demolished fence?

[1:26:24] >> been. I hope not, but I'm not going to

[1:26:27] Don't dig too deep.

[1:26:31] Thank you, Dave. Any questions for Dave

[1:26:33] before public hearing on this item?

[1:26:36] I'd entertain a motion to go in a public

[1:26:38] hearing for item D.

[1:26:40] So moved. Motion made by Councilwoman

[1:26:42] Beck. Second.

[1:26:44] >> Seconded by Councilman Marshall. All in

[1:26:45] favor, say yes.

[1:26:47] We're in public hearing. The applicant's

[1:26:49] here. I don't know if the applicant

[1:26:50] would like to speak. You don't have to

[1:26:52] necessarily, but uh

[1:26:54] Did he Okay.

[1:26:56] perfect. Thank you, Mr. Christian.

[1:26:58] Christensen, is it? Okay.

[1:27:00] Uh Anybody else from the public would

[1:27:02] like to speak to this item?

[1:27:04] Seeing none, I'd entertain a motion to

[1:27:06] go out of public hearing.

[1:27:07] So moved. Motion made by Councilman

[1:27:09] Took. Second.

[1:27:10] >> Seconded by Councilman Carden. All in

[1:27:12] favor, say yes. Yes.

[1:27:14] Discussion back up here. Anything else

[1:27:16] to add to what Dave's laid out?

[1:27:20] Another easy one. Okay.

[1:27:22] I'd entertain a motion for item D. I

[1:27:24] move to approve the proposed ordinance

[1:27:26] for the zone change of the Andy Ridge

[1:27:28] subdivision

[1:27:29] based on the findings listed in the

[1:27:31] staff report.

[1:27:33] And that finding about the fence is

[1:27:35] listed there, right? Um it's

[1:27:37] >> And adding the condition about adding a

[1:27:39] fence to property or lot number four.

[1:27:43] Perfect.

[1:27:44] Okay. Motion made and edited by

[1:27:47] Councilman Carden. Do I have a second?

[1:27:50] >> Second. Seconded by Councilman Took. A

[1:27:51] roll call vote here. Councilwoman Beck.

[1:27:53] Councilman Marshall. Councilman Took.

[1:27:56] Councilman Carden. And Councilman Euler.

[1:27:58] Yes.

[1:27:59] D is approved. Thank you. Appreciate it.

[1:28:03] Okay, now we're on to new business item

[1:28:06] of our agenda, the Dennis McGraw fence

[1:28:08] height approval request. I think these

[1:28:11] are some of Shane's favorite approvals.

[1:28:14] They are my favorite.

[1:28:15] >> We have We have definitely been elected

[1:28:17] to talk about fences every You know, the

[1:28:19] shorts of counts, the summary updates of

[1:28:22] council meetings where he says, "And

[1:28:24] then we talked about fencing some more."

[1:28:28] They're pretty good.

[1:28:32] I don't know where that's coming from.

[1:28:34] I signed and not tied to fences.

[1:28:36] It It started

[1:28:37] >> No, let's talk about fences.

[1:28:38] >> It started when Jordan started talking

[1:28:40] earlier. I think it's Jordan.

[1:28:45] I can't.

[1:28:47] I I I want to circle back to the concept

[1:28:50] of the council being involved in this. I

[1:28:53] You're trying to I'm pushing the

[1:28:55] discussion that way, but

[1:28:58] Yes. But for me, this is a

[1:29:00] the idea that

[1:29:02] a city council would hear this.

[1:29:06] says a lot about what Spanish Fork

[1:29:09] was like 30 years

[1:29:10] when this criteria like

[1:29:12] You know what I mean?

[1:29:13] Small community when the council wanted

[1:29:16] to have

[1:29:17] Pardon This was already done back when

[1:29:19] you were here. This was in place 20

[1:29:21] years ago and it wasn't new then.

[1:29:25] I'm guessing at 30, it might be 40.

[1:29:27] Shane makes a motion that we no longer

[1:29:29] do that.

[1:29:30] But we we changed with the industrial

[1:29:33] zones

[1:29:35] to where

[1:29:36] those no longer come before the council.

[1:29:38] Uh so it's a matter of would you be

[1:29:40] concerned if somebody put up a fence

[1:29:42] that's taller than 6 ft? I don't think

[1:29:43] we brought

[1:29:45] anything to the council for approval

[1:29:47] in a residential zone that's been taller

[1:29:49] than 8 ft.

[1:29:50] I take that back. There once was a fence

[1:29:52] next to a sports court that somebody

[1:29:54] wanted to put up at like 16 ft or

[1:29:56] something like that.

[1:29:57] It's almost more like netting than

[1:29:58] fencing, but

[1:29:59] >> I can't believe people ask. But I think

[1:30:01] it's something that the if they do ask,

[1:30:03] right? DRC would be more equipped to

[1:30:06] answer this question, in my opinion.

[1:30:09] Is it the question to get the permit to

[1:30:10] put the fence up like if you're hiring

[1:30:12] somebody and they say, "Well, you

[1:30:13] >> That's probably what happens. The

[1:30:14] contractor says, Yeah. Yeah. Can I

[1:30:16] legally do this? They're like, "Sure you

[1:30:17] can."

[1:30:22] Anyway, let's This is what happens in

[1:30:23] the city. Hey Jordan, here. Yeah.

[1:30:25] Do you have that presentation still?

[1:30:27] You put a presentation together for a

[1:30:29] fence?

[1:30:30] >> One more slide.

[1:30:30] >> on it's in the minutes. Yeah, we've got

[1:30:32] it here. Not that we necessarily need

[1:30:34] it.

[1:30:36] There is a property line.

[1:30:40] Of course.

[1:30:43] It is. Yes.

[1:30:45] But where do I go to see

[1:30:46] It's Click to add title. That's it.

[1:30:49] Right there.

[1:30:49] >> [laughter]

[1:30:50] >> Click the one above.

[1:30:52] What's third

[1:30:53] >> There you go. Okay, cool. Make that as

[1:30:55] big as you can real quick. Thanks. See,

[1:30:57] this speaks for itself.

[1:30:59] They're next to the swimming pool, the

[1:31:00] property owner

[1:31:02] next to the lot

[1:31:04] that has a swimming

[1:31:07] pool.

[1:31:08] Um so it's not the folks that have the

[1:31:11] pool that want the 8-ft fence, but the

[1:31:12] ones next to them.

[1:31:14] They want to put up an 8-ft fence on a

[1:31:16] portion of that side yard property line,

[1:31:19] not the whole way,

[1:31:20] uh but a portion of the side yard

[1:31:22] property line that runs closest to the

[1:31:24] swimming pool.

[1:31:25] The rest would be a chain link fence.

[1:31:27] The 8-ft fence actually would be a

[1:31:29] masonry wall. There images of that uh

[1:31:32] included with what was delivered with

[1:31:34] the agenda.

[1:31:36] I

[1:31:38] Any concerns about that? No, that's That

[1:31:40] looks great.

[1:31:41] Okay. So, today

[1:31:44] the code would require the city council

[1:31:46] to approve this before we would issue a

[1:31:49] fence permit.

[1:31:51] If you'd like to see that changed, Yes.

[1:31:54] tell me now, tell me later.

[1:31:55] >> Yes. Yes. Yeah. Okay. I Yeah, I think

[1:31:57] staff can handle Yeah, they're good

[1:32:00] enough. You

[1:32:01] use your discretion to Yeah.

[1:32:04] Make good decisions. Growing up, that's

[1:32:06] how I got it. Really, that's [laughter]

[1:32:08] I like Kevin. I think staff could handle

[1:32:10] this one.

[1:32:11] >> I think they can.

[1:32:13] So, does this

[1:32:14] require a motion

[1:32:17] Does this have a motion that needs to be

[1:32:19] made or is this

[1:32:20] It does. Okay, so tonight I apologize.

[1:32:22] It would be just to approve the Tonight

[1:32:24] there is a a motion that needs to be

[1:32:26] made to to approve this request.

[1:32:30] It might be the last time you're making

[1:32:31] it. It'll be your last time ever. Take

[1:32:33] it, Shane. You know you want it. I'm not

[1:32:35] doing it. I'll do it. Out of principle.

[1:32:37] I move that we approve

[1:32:40] the adjustments for the 8-ft fence for

[1:32:43] the

[1:32:45] Dennis McGraw property. Motion made by

[1:32:47] Councilman Oyler. Second.

[1:32:50] >> Seconded by Councilwoman Beck. Roll call

[1:32:52] vote here. Councilwoman Beck. Yes.

[1:32:54] Councilman Marshall. Yes. In protest. He

[1:32:57] said that. Councilman Duke.

[1:32:59] >> Yes. Councilman Carden.

[1:33:00] >> Yes. And Councilman Oyler. Yes.

[1:33:01] >> [clears throat]

[1:33:02] >> It is approved for Tim McGraw's niece.

[1:33:06] That would have been better.

[1:33:07] Yeah.

[1:33:09] It's not Tim.

[1:33:09] >> Ask Dennis. Maybe they're related.

[1:33:12] Or yeah.

[1:33:15] Okay. Two discussion items here. The

[1:33:18] transportation utility fee.

[1:33:21] Mr. Corey Pierce.

[1:33:22] And then project signage plans as well,

[1:33:25] but let's start with A.

[1:33:28] Thank you, Mayor, Council.

[1:33:30] Um tonight we wanted just bring in front

[1:33:33] of you some updates. We've been talking

[1:33:36] for I think a few years

[1:33:38] about the idea of a transportation

[1:33:40] utility fee.

[1:33:42] Um

[1:33:43] on the state level, they've been looking

[1:33:45] at it for a few years

[1:33:48] and now have passed some legislation.

[1:33:49] So, uh we wanted to talk about it in a

[1:33:52] discussion

[1:33:54] uh what Spanish Fork's looking looking

[1:33:56] to do and and what the requirements are.

[1:33:59] Um one of the challenges with roadways,

[1:34:02] streets,

[1:34:04] um in funding them is it's really

[1:34:06] difficult to tie it to users.

[1:34:09] Um

[1:34:11] in [clears throat] the water fund, we

[1:34:13] track and can measure the amount of

[1:34:14] gallons that people use and we can apply

[1:34:16] a cost and and be able to

[1:34:19] uh

[1:34:19] share the appropriate cost with them.

[1:34:22] With streets, businesses use them,

[1:34:25] people coming in town to businesses use

[1:34:26] them, residents use them.

[1:34:28] Um so traditionally,

[1:34:31] that has been taken care of by a gas

[1:34:33] tax. Um and we'll talk a little bit more

[1:34:36] about that, why that's becoming more of

[1:34:38] a problem

[1:34:39] statewide across many cities and and how

[1:34:42] we fund

[1:34:43] one of the most critical infrastructure

[1:34:45] we have. It's the most visible. It's the

[1:34:47] most

[1:34:49] uh number one complaint, whether it be

[1:34:51] traffic or whether it be potholes or or

[1:34:54] different things in the roadway. Um it's

[1:34:56] high visibility uh

[1:34:59] and really a huge asset for how we

[1:35:02] operate.

[1:35:04] So, the state's been looking at at this

[1:35:07] for a while. This year,

[1:35:09] um

[1:35:10] Representative Peterson

[1:35:12] uh introduced House Bill 425 that got

[1:35:16] approved this year. Um I think it's a

[1:35:18] great thing that has been worked on by a

[1:35:21] lot of people for a long time. One of

[1:35:23] the biggest challenges was defining a

[1:35:25] fee versus a tax

[1:35:28] and the desire that this uh a

[1:35:30] transportation utility fee

[1:35:33] not operate, feel like, or look like a

[1:35:36] property tax.

[1:35:37] So, a fee in a transportation utility

[1:35:40] fee um is a fee for using the roads and

[1:35:43] it should be assessed to people who use

[1:35:45] the roads versus a property tax that is

[1:35:48] general by everyone

[1:35:50] um as you guys well understand.

[1:35:53] So, what does House Bill 425 do?

[1:35:56] Um

[1:35:57] it really just provides the process to

[1:36:00] implement a transportation utility fee,

[1:36:03] provides those guardrails to make sure

[1:36:05] they're implemented correctly,

[1:36:07] um that they're fair,

[1:36:09] um and it creates a dedicated fund for

[1:36:12] managing streets that is controlled by

[1:36:15] the city that's funding the streets.

[1:36:18] Um so again, it's user-based and it has

[1:36:21] to be tied to the use.

[1:36:24] That's really important. Um the funds

[1:36:27] can be used for planning, construction,

[1:36:28] maintenance, a lot of things to take care of existing roadways. The

[1:36:33] intent isn't to expand out into areas or

[1:36:36] expand there, but to help manage the

[1:36:39] roadways that are currently

[1:36:41] being used.

[1:36:42] Um some of the key requirements and

[1:36:45] there's a lot in it if you read the full

[1:36:47] bill, but some of the ones I wanted to

[1:36:49] highlight, the fee has to match or we

[1:36:52] have to show

[1:36:53] that it matches the service or the

[1:36:55] benefit that someone's receiving. So,

[1:36:58] there's a few ways to do that um that

[1:37:00] we'll talk about in a minute. Um it can

[1:37:03] fund multiple streets. It It's not like

[1:37:05] one that is funded to take care of Main

[1:37:07] Street, but nothing else. It can fund

[1:37:10] multiple facilities or streets in the

[1:37:11] city.

[1:37:13] And it's important because it creates

[1:37:15] stable, reliable funding

[1:37:17] um so that we can plan and maintain our

[1:37:19] streets correctly.

[1:37:21] Um and it also creates a fairness

[1:37:25] that is really hard to create otherwise.

[1:37:30] Um so, to implement one, a study has to

[1:37:34] be done and there's some specific uh

[1:37:37] requirements for that study.

[1:37:39] Um it has to be adopted by ordinance

[1:37:42] um and there has to be a tracking system

[1:37:45] and quite a bit to ensure that it's done

[1:37:46] correctly.

[1:37:48] As we look into what this study must

[1:37:50] look like and the process to go through,

[1:37:52] the study has to determine a reasonable

[1:37:55] estimate of the needs for the new fee.

[1:37:58] Um it has to identify existing funding

[1:38:01] sour- funding sources and why they're

[1:38:03] not adequate to continue to maintain the

[1:38:05] system.

[1:38:06] So, it's to fill that shortfall of

[1:38:08] funding.

[1:38:09] Um

[1:38:11] and it needs to determine whether and

[1:38:14] explain how the tough is reasonably

[1:38:17] related to the services provided.

[1:38:20] So, the study has to show how a

[1:38:22] residential home, how that fee is

[1:38:24] assessed versus a business and otherwise

[1:38:26] tied to

[1:38:27] uh transportation.

[1:38:30] Uh the study,

[1:38:32] once it's approved

[1:38:34] um by resolution, should the city

[1:38:36] council do that, it has to be posted on

[1:38:38] the city's website

[1:38:40] and then there's some annual

[1:38:42] requirements to review how it's doing

[1:38:45] and submit that to the state auditor.

[1:38:48] So, I know Jordan's looked into this a

[1:38:49] little bit and how we might create a

[1:38:52] fund that's tracked separately and

[1:38:54] clearly that will make that reporting

[1:38:57] uh

[1:38:58] clear to the auditor and meet the the

[1:39:01] House Bill.

[1:39:04] Feel free to ask me questions as we go

[1:39:06] along if you have any. Um just a few

[1:39:08] other things to pull out. Uh it requires

[1:39:11] that rates

[1:39:13] use different classifications, at a

[1:39:16] minimum separate residential

[1:39:18] from commercial.

[1:39:20] So, that we're looking at those and it's

[1:39:21] just not a city-wide

[1:39:23] uh, fee for each user, but we're

[1:39:26] actually looking at different

[1:39:28] classifications and how the roads are

[1:39:29] used.

[1:39:31] Um,

[1:39:33] there's a public hearing requirement.

[1:39:35] That's something we'll look to bond help

[1:39:37] make sure we meet correctly, but it's

[1:39:39] similar to the process of

[1:39:41] the budget that you see every year.

[1:39:44] It also asked to

[1:39:46] establish a way for users to appeal

[1:39:50] or challenge the classification that

[1:39:54] they're put into.

[1:39:56] And so, if if our studies say that they

[1:39:59] should be in this category of 500 trips

[1:40:02] a day and they can

[1:40:03] go through an appeal process to show

[1:40:05] that they're 100 trips a day,

[1:40:08] uh, has to be able to provide that

[1:40:10] process.

[1:40:12] Um, again, it has to be in a dedicated

[1:40:15] revenue,

[1:40:16] uh,

[1:40:17] dedicated, uh, fund

[1:40:19] to deposit and pay things out of so you

[1:40:22] can make sure it's being used correctly.

[1:40:25] Uh, and then the annual review to the

[1:40:28] state auditor. And then also,

[1:40:31] it will expire in 10 years. Now, I

[1:40:33] expect we will be reviewing this every

[1:40:35] year or two or in the annual review if

[1:40:39] there needs to change

[1:40:41] or if we find that it's funding more

[1:40:43] than we thought or less than we thought,

[1:40:46] we would update the study and bring that

[1:40:48] back and renew that uh,

[1:40:51] approval.

[1:40:54] Um, any questions on the house bill or

[1:40:57] what the study requires? I think you

[1:40:59] probably have all been following it as

[1:41:01] it's worked through the years. Uh, just

[1:41:03] a few thoughts on why it's needed and

[1:41:05] why we are considering this in Spanish

[1:41:07] Fork and staff will propose this to the

[1:41:10] council.

[1:41:12] I think streets and traffic

[1:41:14] and all things that go with that are the

[1:41:16] number one concern of our residents.

[1:41:19] Um, and it's getting harder and harder

[1:41:20] to fund and maintain the roads in the

[1:41:22] way that we enjoy today.

[1:41:24] Um,

[1:41:28] today we spend just in maintaining the

[1:41:30] roads just shy of $2 million.

[1:41:34] Um, and that is continually growing.

[1:41:37] Not only with inflation and construction

[1:41:39] costs, but also each development's

[1:41:41] approved, there's another section of

[1:41:44] road that has to be maintained.

[1:41:46] Um,

[1:41:48] and that cost is just continuing to go

[1:41:50] up.

[1:41:51] Today, a lot of costs in a lot of

[1:41:53] cities, including our ours, is

[1:41:55] subsidized by other funds or different

[1:41:57] ways, um,

[1:41:59] to be able to help fund the roads.

[1:42:01] Um, and the tough

[1:42:03] gives us the ability to have streets and

[1:42:06] the street utility pay for it and create

[1:42:09] that fairness that is important.

[1:42:13] Um,

[1:42:15] one of the aspect of the funding not

[1:42:17] growing as quick as the the cost to

[1:42:21] maintain

[1:42:22] is the way we are using the roads and

[1:42:25] the vehicles we're using today.

[1:42:27] Um,

[1:42:28] over the last 20 to 30 years, we are not

[1:42:31] purchasing as much fuel.

[1:42:33] Certainly, our cars are getting more

[1:42:35] efficient or even turning to

[1:42:36] electricity.

[1:42:38] Um,

[1:42:40] however,

[1:42:41] the roadway costs have continued to go

[1:42:43] up and we've continued to expand

[1:42:47] and the fuel tax isn't increasing with

[1:42:49] that. The fuel tax is staying flat,

[1:42:52] costs are going up and we're buying less

[1:42:54] fuel and it it just really has created a

[1:42:56] problem for cities to maintain,

[1:42:59] including ours.

[1:43:01] Um, so we've been working on this,

[1:43:03] watching the legislation for a while.

[1:43:06] We've been developing a framework that

[1:43:07] we feel

[1:43:09] would be appropriate for a

[1:43:10] transportation utility fee.

[1:43:12] Um, we're ensuring it matches House Bill

[1:43:15] 425.

[1:43:17] We've identified some priorities and

[1:43:20] we'll be bringing that to you in a study

[1:43:21] in the future.

[1:43:23] Um,

[1:43:25] and we really like

[1:43:28] the idea of proposing to reduce reliance

[1:43:30] on subsidies from other utilities to be

[1:43:32] able to clearly show

[1:43:34] what our streets cost us and how they're

[1:43:36] being paid for in a transparent manner.

[1:43:40] Um,

[1:43:41] we're still honing in on the details and

[1:43:43] we've been discussing with with council.

[1:43:45] You know, we feel like

[1:43:47] we need to be somewhere in the range of

[1:43:49] a million dollars to 1.5 million dollars

[1:43:52] uh, once this is fully implemented for a

[1:43:54] year.

[1:43:55] Uh,

[1:43:57] at this point where it's looking like

[1:43:59] these

[1:44:00] AADT buckets or this range of,

[1:44:04] uh, trips per day is what we may target

[1:44:08] um, or propose.

[1:44:10] You can see how many units, residential,

[1:44:12] churches and schools, and then

[1:44:13] commercial are in each of those

[1:44:15] categories

[1:44:17] and they're to the right what that

[1:44:19] annual and monthly cost might look like

[1:44:23] in our town based on the users that are

[1:44:25] here

[1:44:26] today.

[1:44:28] Um, this this data is from about a year

[1:44:30] ago. So, as we update the study

[1:44:33] and review it, that may change a little

[1:44:36] bit with the number of users and

[1:44:38] therefore trickle down to

[1:44:40] cost, but this is pretty close to the

[1:44:42] numbers we've been seeing in the various

[1:44:44] studies.

[1:44:45] Um,

[1:44:46] so that's that's what I've prepared

[1:44:48] today to kind of

[1:44:50] talk about House Bill 425 and the need

[1:44:53] and the potential impact here in Spanish

[1:44:56] Fork City. So,

[1:44:58] any questions or guidance you'd like to

[1:45:02] pass on as we try to put a study

[1:45:04] together, anything you'd like us to

[1:45:06] watch

[1:45:07] closely for and implement in there to

[1:45:09] make sure we

[1:45:11] cover all the needs. Or you just

[1:45:13] mentioned it expires after 10 years,

[1:45:16] what's the process for that to be

[1:45:17] renewed? Um,

[1:45:20] it would just be another study that's

[1:45:22] approved by ordinance. That's

[1:45:25] perhaps my assumption, Bond,

[1:45:27] but I I picture us talking about this

[1:45:30] well before 10 years. I think the idea

[1:45:33] is

[1:45:34] these fees as the city grows, it can't

[1:45:37] be a never-ending just growing source if

[1:45:41] you still have to go back and show a

[1:45:42] need

[1:45:44] and

[1:45:44] >> So, if 5 years down the road, we do

[1:45:47] another study and then adjustment, does

[1:45:48] that then bump it an additional 10 years

[1:45:51] before we require

[1:45:51] >> Yes. I think each ordinance would

[1:45:54] authorize the 10 years.

[1:45:57] Yep.

[1:45:58] >> [clears throat]

[1:46:00] >> Good question. You have to

[1:46:03] fix the user cost

[1:46:05] one time for 10 years or can you do it

[1:46:09] every year?

[1:46:10] I'll have to read it with that. I don't

[1:46:12] think so. I think the study can show

[1:46:14] that and show the growth, but in our

[1:46:16] annual review, we'll have to do that. I

[1:46:19] don't know, Bond, if you have any

[1:46:20] thoughts on that. I I think as long as

[1:46:23] the study's justified and shown,

[1:46:25] I think the city council will have

[1:46:28] plenty of

[1:46:30] leeway to implement it in the way you

[1:46:32] choose.

[1:46:32] >> On an annual basis if we wanted to. On

[1:46:34] an annual basis if you wanted to.

[1:46:36] >> Okay.

[1:46:38] I think it's important and maybe you

[1:46:39] said this, but just to bring it out

[1:46:41] further, we're spending money on our

[1:46:43] roads today.

[1:46:45] And I think

[1:46:46] the way we go about getting that money

[1:46:48] is a little bit disconnected to the user

[1:46:51] that uses that facility. I think this is

[1:46:53] a great policy in that it more directly

[1:46:58] those that are using the the system pay

[1:46:59] for it. Yeah. I think that's a that's

[1:47:02] good policy to make. It is, I mean, the

[1:47:05] argument you can make the argument that

[1:47:06] my house is

[1:47:07] not 100 ADT or it's

[1:47:10] you know, small fraction of it, but you

[1:47:12] have to have some bands in there and I

[1:47:13] think this makes sense. I like the

[1:47:15] concept a lot. Um,

[1:47:18] it's an

[1:47:21] be just an opportunity to just take what

[1:47:24] we're spending and be very deliberate

[1:47:25] about why we're spending and where we

[1:47:27] spend. So,

[1:47:29] um, lot of opportunities, but we your

[1:47:31] number your first slide was spot on. The

[1:47:33] number one complaint we get is

[1:47:34] roads and traffic.

[1:47:36] And this could have an impact on meeting

[1:47:38] that need. Yep.

[1:47:41] I think the discussions that have

[1:47:42] happened for

[1:47:43] a while in legislation of this is just what you pointed out and just

[1:47:47] what's been mentioned, the

[1:47:49] trying to line up the user with the fee

[1:47:51] and there's

[1:47:52] users that drive roads uh, in every

[1:47:56] city, including ours, that don't pay

[1:47:59] you know, property tax, let's say, or

[1:48:01] don't don't pay different fees like we

[1:48:03] do. And so, now this is trying to line

[1:48:05] that up and say, "Here's a cost

[1:48:07] uh, that that you need to pay, so it's

[1:48:09] not just a a burden on the residential property taxpayers."

[1:48:14] >> And while it's hard, you know, this is

[1:48:16] within town and property owners in town

[1:48:19] that have utility services, right? Um,

[1:48:22] but looking at that higher tier, the 601

[1:48:27] plus, those are big users that are

[1:48:29] attracting people

[1:48:32] potentially from all over the valley,

[1:48:34] um, and further.

[1:48:35] Uh, that is a higher cost because

[1:48:38] they're driving more

[1:48:39] uh,

[1:48:40] traffic.

[1:48:41] And I expect some of that cost may be

[1:48:43] passed on to those who visit those

[1:48:46] facilities.

[1:48:48] And what I like about that and the

[1:48:50] reason I mention is if someone comes

[1:48:52] from a neighboring town or a neighboring

[1:48:53] city

[1:48:55] and spends their money in a facility

[1:48:57] that's there and those costs are getting

[1:48:59] passed on, it's a way of gathering money

[1:49:02] from those who aren't living here,

[1:49:04] accounting in some way

[1:49:06] for those using the roads. It's not a

[1:49:08] direct to that person driving, but

[1:49:11] I think there is a trickle-down effect.

[1:49:13] Um in the same sense,

[1:49:15] if I am a constant user, I live in town,

[1:49:18] and I have my fee,

[1:49:20] but I shop at some of the places that

[1:49:22] are very high, and my neighbor may not.

[1:49:25] Again, that creates a little more

[1:49:26] fairness even within town. So, I it's better today with

[1:49:32] um other funds helping.

[1:49:35] Uh water fund helps maintain the roads

[1:49:37] because they're tearing them up all the

[1:49:39] time. Um and that's an an appropriate

[1:49:41] thing to do,

[1:49:43] but as that gets passed on to water

[1:49:45] users,

[1:49:46] the way people use water may not match

[1:49:48] the way they drive down the streets.

[1:49:51] And so, that could create where

[1:49:54] some users are subsidizing others

[1:49:56] because of the way they drive

[1:49:59] and create traffic. So,

[1:50:01] it it just really is a more transparent,

[1:50:03] fair way

[1:50:06] to assess the streets fund.

[1:50:11] Any other questions from Mr. Pierce on

[1:50:13] this as he continues to study it, and we

[1:50:16] have public hearings on this coming up

[1:50:19] as the studies come out.

[1:50:22] I had one thought. I don't know if I can

[1:50:23] articulate it, but I'm just thinking

[1:50:25] like parks, um

[1:50:27] public facilities,

[1:50:29] the cities are not paying anything into

[1:50:31] this. The so, the residential and

[1:50:34] commercial will just cover the need for

[1:50:36] those street repairs in front of those

[1:50:38] areas, I'm assuming.

[1:50:41] Yes, because they're used by all the

[1:50:42] city. However,

[1:50:44] a facility like we're standing in today

[1:50:47] can be assessed, and I expect will be

[1:50:49] with their utility bill. Just like we

[1:50:52] pay a water bill for the water used in

[1:50:53] this facility,

[1:50:55] I would expect the same.

[1:50:57] Um a park is a little harder to direct

[1:51:00] that to. Yeah, I was just curious to see

[1:51:03] how

[1:51:04] that's

[1:51:05] Yeah, and it and it would be like having

[1:51:08] yeah, taking one out of one pocket and

[1:51:10] pocketing it into the other. It's That's

[1:51:12] a difficult one. I'm

[1:51:13] not sure we've addressed that, but we'll

[1:51:15] certainly look at that as we study and

[1:51:17] ask that question to the consultants.

[1:51:20] It's a great question. Question.

[1:51:24] Okay.

[1:51:25] Nothing else from Mr. Pierce.

[1:51:27] Thanks, Corey. Good information. We'll

[1:51:29] look forward to more of it.

[1:51:32] Item B, before we go into adjourned to

[1:51:33] close session, project signage plans,

[1:51:36] Mr. David Anderson.

[1:51:43] On project signage plans, really it's

[1:51:44] just kind of a heads-up.

[1:51:46] I think that's why city manager asked me

[1:51:48] to take a minute tonight to talk about

[1:51:50] that.

[1:51:51] But before that, I I wanted to mention

[1:51:54] that

[1:51:56] there is a joint

[1:51:58] planning commission city council meeting

[1:52:01] scheduled for the 12th of May.

[1:52:05] The agenda looks outstanding.

[1:52:08] I bet it

[1:52:08] >> So, I wanted to make sure that everybody

[1:52:09] got a chance to put it on your calendar

[1:52:11] soon, early. Uh that's one of two joint

[1:52:14] meetings that we have calendared for

[1:52:15] 2026.

[1:52:17] I hope y'all can make it. If you can't,

[1:52:19] I'd be happy to go through like a very, thorough, full debrief afterwards.

[1:52:23] So,

[1:52:24] um anyway,

[1:52:26] 5:30 on the 12th of May,

[1:52:29] right next door.

[1:52:30] Project signage plans.

[1:52:33] We have requirements that limit signs to

[1:52:36] a certain height, that limit properties

[1:52:39] to only be able to have a certain number

[1:52:41] of signs. Like Like for example, at

[1:52:43] McDonald's,

[1:52:44] they might have a big, tall pole sign um

[1:52:48] on one street that they front, and maybe

[1:52:51] along another street, they might have a

[1:52:53] smaller monument type of a sign. And we

[1:52:56] have criteria that define what people

[1:52:58] can have in terms of the numbers of

[1:53:00] signs and how big they can be.

[1:53:03] We have been working with a couple of

[1:53:04] different

[1:53:06] businesses,

[1:53:08] one of which is in Spanish Fork today,

[1:53:10] the other

[1:53:11] is also, but they they're not at the

[1:53:13] location that we're talking about. And

[1:53:15] this is really weird for me. I apologize

[1:53:19] that I'm not using the names. It makes

[1:53:22] this really awkward.

[1:53:24] Um I'm afraid it makes it maybe

[1:53:26] meaningless for you, but um

[1:53:29] we're working hard to keep an existing

[1:53:31] company in Spanish Fork.

[1:53:33] And in order for them to stay in Spanish

[1:53:35] Fork, they need to be able to expand,

[1:53:36] which means they have to move. They

[1:53:38] don't have room on their site to do what they need to do to stay

[1:53:42] operating.

[1:53:44] They found a site that they want to move

[1:53:45] on, and there's a company that would

[1:53:47] backfill, so to speak, their location.

[1:53:49] Um and therefore, it's kind of a

[1:53:52] two-party deal that would make

[1:53:54] everything work. It's very, very

[1:53:55] time-sensitive.

[1:53:58] So, we have to have

[1:54:00] um approvals in place by the first week

[1:54:03] in June

[1:54:04] for both

[1:54:06] the new site that the existing business

[1:54:09] would locate on,

[1:54:10] and the site

[1:54:12] that will be backfilled by a different

[1:54:13] company.

[1:54:14] And the short version is that even

[1:54:16] though we have

[1:54:17] really explicit signage criteria,

[1:54:19] there's something something that um

[1:54:21] council quite a while ago approved,

[1:54:24] which allows

[1:54:26] councils to

[1:54:28] um

[1:54:30] approve project signage plans, we call

[1:54:32] them, which allow businesses to have

[1:54:34] more signs than they otherwise could

[1:54:36] have. And the two cases that we're

[1:54:38] talking about, both signs are along the

[1:54:40] freeway.

[1:54:42] And each company, they want signs that

[1:54:44] are akin to what's at Canyon Creek that

[1:54:46] people can see from a long distance

[1:54:48] when they're on the freeway.

[1:54:50] And

[1:54:51] I in order for one of the two

[1:54:56] sites

[1:54:57] to ask the council for project signage

[1:54:59] plan approval,

[1:55:01] we have to change one of the standards

[1:55:03] um relative to the amount of square

[1:55:05] footage in

[1:55:08] development

[1:55:09] for them to be able to make application.

[1:55:10] Right now, the threshold's 50,000 square

[1:55:12] feet of square footage.

[1:55:14] That would need to be dropped to maybe

[1:55:16] 30,000 square feet of square footage or

[1:55:18] something like that.

[1:55:20] That's what we anticipate having on your

[1:55:21] agenda

[1:55:22] in a couple of weeks. And if the

[1:55:25] council, by chance,

[1:55:27] were to approve that change, then the

[1:55:30] next day

[1:55:31] in the planning commission meeting,

[1:55:34] we'd present

[1:55:35] two different project signage plans, one

[1:55:37] for each of these two sites for them to

[1:55:39] consider.

[1:55:40] And then thir- date 13 days after that

[1:55:43] in your second meeting in May,

[1:55:45] we'd present the project signage plans

[1:55:47] to you, and you'd have all the

[1:55:49] discretion in the world

[1:55:50] as a council as to whether or not you

[1:55:51] wanted to approve that or not.

[1:55:54] But the the timing's kind of tight.

[1:55:56] Therefore, wanted to give you a little

[1:55:57] bit of a heads-up.

[1:55:58] Um feel a lot more comfortable talking

[1:56:00] offline if anybody wants to about

[1:56:02] things. Not that trying to be secretive

[1:56:04] or anything, but we are definitely

[1:56:07] respectful of the the situation that

[1:56:09] these two businesses are in.

[1:56:11] And therefore, uh

[1:56:13] I'll leave it at that. Any questions?

[1:56:15] That's Yeah.

[1:56:16] >> Yeah, please.

[1:56:17] >> one. Would So, it this move totally is

[1:56:20] dependent on our approval of this sign?

[1:56:27] And I kind of like not doing

[1:56:28] >> I absolutely think so. Yeah. Yeah, I

[1:56:31] don't think the companies, either of

[1:56:33] them,

[1:56:34] would uh

[1:56:37] be able to

[1:56:39] function.

[1:56:40] It It functions is not the right way to

[1:56:41] put it. Uh they would not

[1:56:44] They wouldn't do the deal

[1:56:45] if they couldn't get the kind of signage

[1:56:47] that they're talking about. And you're

[1:56:49] talking about a sign as big as Canyon

[1:56:52] Creek. Probably in terms of height, not

[1:56:55] like overall bulk.

[1:56:57] Do we Do we have anything, Dave, in code

[1:56:59] that talks about distance from I-15?

[1:57:02] Like with our signs, if it's within so many feet of I-15, then we allow this

[1:57:07] size or that size? We don't. Rather, it

[1:57:11] really has been the project signage plan

[1:57:14] kind of an approach. We thought about

[1:57:15] that with

[1:57:16] Canyon Creek way back in Might have been

[1:57:18] 2011

[1:57:20] when kind of the scheme was originally

[1:57:22] hatched to to create a mechanism that

[1:57:24] people could have bigger signs.

[1:57:26] And in lieu of creating specific

[1:57:29] criteria like that,

[1:57:31] we just said, "Hey, we're going to give

[1:57:33] people the opportunity to put a package

[1:57:35] together and talk to the council about

[1:57:36] it."

[1:57:40] Little different than an 8-ft fence.

[1:57:43] I'm a little tired of the 8-ft fence,

[1:57:45] but I do remember the discussions of uh

[1:57:48] Canyon Creek signage.

[1:57:50] And it was probably early

[1:57:53] Councilman Mendenhall days. Early in my

[1:57:55] tenure.

[1:57:56] And uh

[1:57:57] Councilman Davis, since you brought him

[1:57:59] up, was a little worried that

[1:58:01] uh

[1:58:02] our parameters

[1:58:04] were maybe uh

[1:58:06] go- going to make it available to look

[1:58:09] like you were pulling into Las Vegas

[1:58:11] uh [laughter]

[1:58:12] with the size of signs and and the

[1:58:14] ability that they could swap it out and

[1:58:17] do some LED stuff if necessary.

[1:58:20] Uh it's not really the It's not a good

[1:58:21] concern.

[1:58:21] >> No, it was a good concern. It's a valid

[1:58:23] concern. It's like Yeah. It's like the

[1:58:25] applicants like, "Well, we're really not

[1:58:27] going for the Vegas look in Spanish

[1:58:28] Fork."

[1:58:30] Well, they ended up not doing what

[1:58:31] they're proposing to.

[1:58:32] They didn't put

[1:58:33] favorable messages up on Exactly. Yeah.

[1:58:36] They backed away significantly from it.

[1:58:39] They still have approval to do it. There

[1:58:40] you go. Exactly. They just haven't done

[1:58:42] it. So, I don't think I would say that

[1:58:44] approval's there. That's the only time

[1:58:45] in the history of my life that I jumped

[1:58:47] out of bed and ran to a city council

[1:58:48] meeting to give a That's right. comment.

[1:58:50] >> Yeah, you did. My hair wasn't even done.

[1:58:52] It wasn't. It was sticking straight up.

[1:58:53] I had socks on, one shoe off. I don't

[1:58:56] know. I was

[1:58:58] That's a normal Tuesday for you.

[1:58:59] >> you come down here to agree with him

[1:59:01] Yeah.

[1:59:01] >> With Richard, I did, yes. Okay. Yes.

[1:59:04] The one thing Richard and I agree on.

[1:59:06] >> [laughter]

[1:59:08] » Our walks would be different.

[1:59:12] Unless the hospital starts starts

[1:59:14] advertising a if you break two arms, you

[1:59:17] get a two for one at the hospital today

[1:59:19] or something. But hasn't happened yet.

[1:59:21] And and yeah, I I

[1:59:23] obviously we can't you know

[1:59:25] being um

[1:59:29] what respectful of of the nature of

[1:59:32] these private companies and stuff.

[1:59:34] Uh

[1:59:35] worthy discussion and and questions to

[1:59:37] have about it. I

[1:59:39] But what I know of it, neither of these

[1:59:41] are

[1:59:42] the Vegas uh type uh welcome to Spanish

[1:59:44] Fork either.

[1:59:46] So

[1:59:48] it would be keeping within the character

[1:59:49] of of our area of town that we're

[1:59:52] talking about.

[1:59:54] Yeah, my anticipation is that in two

[1:59:56] weeks everything's going to be

[1:59:57] on the table and there won't be any discretion. Okay.

[2:00:03] Thanks. Any questions for Dave further

[2:00:05] on that? No. Nope. But while he's up

[2:00:07] here, I have a question for him.

[2:00:09] We're not leaving.

[2:00:10] We are like Just sit down. Just kidding.

[2:00:12] I have one just one brief thing.

[2:00:14] >> There's nothing on the agenda. You don't

[2:00:15] have any General plan's not on the

[2:00:16] agenda. No, your your question's not. So

[2:00:18] you'll have to wait until next week.

[2:00:21] I won't be here. Just

[2:00:22] Soccer. Can I ask you a question, Mayor?

[2:00:24] Sure. Okay. Thank you. So general plan's

[2:00:27] not on the on the agenda. Perfectly

[2:00:29] fine. I think we all needed a little

[2:00:31] breather. Um

[2:00:33] I think part of the reason it's not

[2:00:34] here, I doubt you have any comments

[2:00:36] after that meeting

[2:00:38] from the yahoos that are up here. I

[2:00:41] talked to the city manager about it

[2:00:42] yesterday and he had not received any.

[2:00:45] Um he said that to me yesterday. I just

[2:00:47] want to point out that you you all have

[2:00:49] received comments Got it. two weeks

[2:00:50] before. Correct.

[2:00:52] When you have a chance, take a look at

[2:00:54] those, respond to them. Um if you want

[2:00:57] to sit down and talk about them, I'm

[2:00:57] game to do that too. But you have some.

[2:01:00] Um so let's let's not pause

[2:01:02] indefinitely. Let's keep the ball moving

[2:01:03] and I think that

[2:01:04] I owe it to these guys after saying,

[2:01:07] "You know what we should do?"

[2:01:08] Um I should probably send them my

[2:01:09] comments. So they're coming.

[2:01:11] But

[2:01:13] I got busy. So

[2:01:15] um that's all I was going to say is that

[2:01:17] for those that expected the general plan

[2:01:19] to be on the on the agenda, it's not. Um

[2:01:21] but it'll come back.

[2:01:23] And we have some work to do.

[2:01:25] And it might be that we pass something

[2:01:26] and we still have work to do.

[2:01:29] I would say that's not a might. I'd say

[2:01:31] that's a that's that's that's a for

[2:01:33] sure. I think we're going to pass

[2:01:34] something that Regardless. that does

[2:01:37] have It's a working document. Yeah, it's

[2:01:39] a working document. The

[2:01:40] reason why it's general is cuz it's a

[2:01:42] general plan. And then there will be

[2:01:44] updates, amendments, request

[2:01:47] to that general plan as it goes forward.

[2:01:48] I I I appreciate you bringing that up. I

[2:01:50] think I think we need to put some uh some some timelines to it. I'm I'm

[2:01:56] not opposed and and don't know that this

[2:01:58] is coming up in a motion or that we

[2:02:00] could make it. But Dave, I I think

[2:02:03] with the the comments, the questions you you have and and you might still get

[2:02:08] from now to then, I I'd entertain let's

[2:02:11] get this on the agenda in two weeks and let's uh you know, either have some

[2:02:16] adjustments in the language or no

[2:02:17] adjustments in the language

[2:02:19] and let's uh

[2:02:21] adopt general plan so people can get on

[2:02:24] their way and and and get amendments in

[2:02:26] the pipeline if they need to or want to.

[2:02:29] Um I feel like the the longer now

[2:02:32] that we take on adopting a general plan

[2:02:36] is a little bit of of kicking it down

[2:02:38] the road that

[2:02:39] could just end up to be a longer road

[2:02:42] than it needs to be.

[2:02:43] So

[2:02:45] if anybody has any feelings about that

[2:02:47] direction,

[2:02:50] feel free to speak. Yeah, we could

[2:02:52] like we said before we adopt anything,

[2:02:54] we could have a five-hour discussion

[2:02:55] before we actually adopt something and

[2:02:57] we can make changes to what we actually

[2:02:59] adopt based on those discussions. So

[2:03:02] there's no reason to delay it. We can have that discussion

[2:03:06] and we could even get to the point where

[2:03:08] we decide, "Yeah, we're not ready

[2:03:09] tonight to adopt it." And you could

[2:03:11] always

[2:03:13] table it or or wait even longer. So

[2:03:16] I don't have any concern. Policies like

[2:03:17] that can start to get in the in the

[2:03:19] phase of where you you get

[2:03:22] uh

[2:03:24] you get beat up

[2:03:26] so so long on the interest on the

[2:03:28] details of it and everything else

[2:03:31] that you're

[2:03:32] and then you get beat up for being

[2:03:34] bloody. Um so it it starts to feel like

[2:03:37] it starts to perpetuate itself. And uh

[2:03:40] and so

[2:03:41] I think I think getting some

[2:03:45] somewhere where it's an adopted but you

[2:03:47] know, an adopted uh

[2:03:49] document is then, "Okay, now we know

[2:03:52] what this is.

[2:03:53] Let's make amendments to it as and and

[2:03:56] these the one-offs, the specifics,

[2:03:59] this general plan covers this whole city

[2:04:02] and the specific places, specific

[2:04:04] projects that come up,

[2:04:06] I feel like they need their they need

[2:04:08] their time to be able to get up and talk

[2:04:10] specific about that. And micro run it

[2:04:12] through the process.

[2:04:13] Yeah, and say, "Here's why in this

[2:04:15] area." instead of

[2:04:18] we're having a general plan and we're

[2:04:19] talking about this specific area on the

[2:04:21] general plan. You know, and and come up

[2:04:23] and make their case for that too. I

[2:04:25] think that's a

[2:04:27] good exercise to have.

[2:04:30] So unless unless I hear a lot, I think

[2:04:33] Dave's office will try to prepare that

[2:04:35] for maybe two weeks. I guess in that

[2:04:36] vein too, thank you to your office, your planners and and and the people

[2:04:41] participating in this to put it together

[2:04:43] and and the public and and and all of

[2:04:45] you up here for all the input there.

[2:04:47] It's been a process. But your

[2:04:48] department's been good as well, Dave, to

[2:04:51] uh to be responsive to it and and try to

[2:04:54] be professionals in in making up a

[2:04:55] professional document like that. So

[2:04:57] appreciate it.

[2:04:58] We've had a lot of help. I mean that. I

[2:05:00] appreciate it.

[2:05:02] Okay.

[2:05:04] Anything else before close session item?

[2:05:08] Okay.

[2:05:09] I'd entertain

[2:05:10] uh motion to adjourn to close session

[2:05:12] for what's on there. I move to adjourn

[2:05:15] to close meeting for a strategy sessions

[2:05:16] to discuss purchase, exchange, or lease

[2:05:18] of real property including any form of

[2:05:20] water rights or water shares or to

[2:05:21] discuss a proposed development agreement

[2:05:23] or project proposal in the explorer room

[2:05:25] provided by Utah code 52-4-205.

[2:05:29] Motion made by Councilman Carden. Uh

[2:05:31] Von's got something for us.

[2:05:32] I'm not sure that that's a real item. I

[2:05:34] think that was on the agenda last time

[2:05:36] and that that transaction was actually

[2:05:38] approved on the consent agenda tonight.

[2:05:41] For the close session? Yes.

[2:05:44] There's a there's a There is a separate

[2:05:46] item?

[2:05:46] Okay.

[2:05:47] All right, never mind. Forget what I

[2:05:49] said.

[2:05:50] Dang it. We got a twist. Twist on Second

[2:05:52] in Von's motion. Uh so motion's out,

[2:05:55] right? Did we

[2:05:57] Motion made still made by Councilman

[2:05:59] Carden. Second. Second by Councilman

[2:06:01] Took. A roll call vote. Councilman Took.

[2:06:04] Councilman Carden. Councilman Oyler.

[2:06:06] Councilwoman Beck and Councilman

[2:06:07] Marshall. Yes. We're adjourned to close

[2:06:09] session. Thank you, everybody.

Spanish Fork City Council | April 21, 2026

Transcript