[0:07] [clears throat]
[0:09] » Welcome. It's Wednesday, September 2nd,
[0:12] 2026. The time is 5:30 p.m. The Tooele
[0:15] City Council and the Redevelopment
[0:16] Agency of Tooele City are meeting in a
[0:18] work meeting. This meeting is being held
[0:20] at Tooele City Hall in the Council
[0:22] Chambers located at 90 North Main Street
[0:24] in Tooele, Utah.
[0:25] We are also streaming this
[0:26] electronically on the Tooele City
[0:28] YouTube channel.
[0:29] We will start with the roll call.
[0:31] Councilman Gossett.
[0:32] >> Present.
[0:33] >> Councilman Hansen.
[0:33] >> Present.
[0:34] >> Councilman McCall.
[0:35] >> Present.
[0:36] >> And Councilman Brady, and I'm present.
[0:37] And Councilwoman Gochis has asked to be
[0:39] excused tonight.
[0:41] Item three is the mayor's report.
[0:43] >> Thank you, Council. I have a couple of
[0:45] things tonight. Um, first of all, I we
[0:48] um
[0:48] Councilman McCall and I attended the
[0:50] change of command today for
[0:52] um the West Desert Test Range at Dugway
[0:54] Proving Ground. So, we would like to
[0:56] welcome Lieutenant Colonel Colonel
[0:57] Player
[0:58] to that. It's been managed by a civilian
[1:01] for the last 15 years. So, it's moving
[1:03] back into military leadership.
[1:06] And he sounds like a great guy. Um we
[1:09] also [snorts] received a donation from
[1:11] the Mini Squeezes Lemonade Stand. Some
[1:14] kids who have a lemon lemonade stand
[1:16] every year, and they decide they use the
[1:18] money to buy school clothes, but they
[1:19] donate half to a cause. So, they just
[1:21] donated $437 to our animal shelter.
[1:25] So, I'd like to thank them for
[1:27] their efforts and their donation.
[1:30] And then I would like to um just
[1:34] be um
[1:35] remind everybody about our 9/11 walk.
[1:39] It's the 25th anniversary of the 9/11
[1:43] tragedy, and the fire department is
[1:45] hosting their annual walk on September
[1:48] 12th at 8:00 a.m. So, wait, I would
[1:51] invite you all to come join me and walk
[1:53] that walk.
[1:54] Um our driving range is repaired, so
[1:58] that's an exciting thing and I think
[1:59] we're still going to have some good
[2:00] weather for golf
[2:02] for the next little bit.
[2:04] Um, I would like to thank our public
[2:06] works and streets department. We had the
[2:08] water leak on 700 South that caused a
[2:10] little sinkhole and it was all fixed the
[2:12] same day. So, they crews got right out
[2:15] there and got it fixed emergency repair,
[2:17] so it's looking good.
[2:20] And then, the last thing I would um,
[2:22] just like to say is I received a an
[2:24] awesome text from um, somebody who lives
[2:26] in my neighborhood who said, "For the
[2:29] first time ever, she was able to
[2:31] complete all of her school clothes
[2:33] shopping for her children in Tooele
[2:35] without going to Salt Lake." So, that is
[2:37] pretty exciting news for
[2:39] >> [clears throat]
[2:39] >> Tooele, for our sales tax and all all
[2:43] that. So, pretty exciting. That's all I
[2:45] have to report tonight. Thanks.
[2:47] >> Thank you. We'll move on to item four,
[2:49] the council members report. We'll start
[2:51] with Councilman McCall.
[2:54] >> I'd be glad to.
[2:55] Um, as the mayor mentioned, I attended
[2:56] the change of command, not change of
[2:58] command here.
[2:59] Appointment of of the new West Desert
[3:02] Test Center commander.
[3:05] And that was interesting. Um,
[3:08] I have to get better writing down all
[3:10] the events that I attend, but I did
[3:11] attend some more.
[3:13] And I didn't write them down, so it was
[3:15] gone.
[3:16] So, that concludes my report. Sorry.
[3:19] >> Thank you, Councilman Hansen.
[3:21] >> Um,
[3:23] it was fun to see the kids who had
[3:25] raised the money for the lemonade stand.
[3:26] I mean, myself and Chairman Brady were
[3:28] there at the mayor's office when they
[3:29] showed up and I thought that was really
[3:31] cool that they did something like that.
[3:32] So, that was fun to see them.
[3:36] Attended some planning commission
[3:37] meetings and uh,
[3:39] had lots of good discussion at them.
[3:42] Um,
[3:42] me and Councilman Gossett met with some
[3:45] Republican party people last night and
[3:48] talked about data centers and other
[3:50] things like that that are happening in
[3:51] the county. They
[3:53] had some thoughts about that.
[3:55] I do have to say about the shopping
[3:57] thing. It just made me think of my wife
[3:58] and shopping cuz it's like her favorite
[4:00] sport and uh
[4:02] so I'm not sure if I'm saving money or
[4:04] not cuz she doesn't drive to Salt Lake
[4:05] herself.
[4:07] And so now she goes shopping every day
[4:09] in Tooele, which
[4:10] she doesn't have to go to Salt Lake,
[4:11] either, I don't think.
[4:12] >> At least we're collecting your money.
[4:14] >> That's right. [laughter] Yeah.
[4:15] it's my tax money's going to
[4:17] Tooele. Yep.
[4:19] Anyway, that's
[4:20] >> my report.
[4:21] >> Thank you. Councilman Cossey.
[4:23] >> Well, uh Councilman Hansen, your wife
[4:26] came to my store and she spent some
[4:27] money, so
[4:28] I appreciated it. Um
[4:31] yeah, we had a meeting with uh the GOP
[4:34] and uh talked about data centers and
[4:37] seems [clears throat] to be a hot topic
[4:38] with everybody, so it was kind of good
[4:40] to have that discussion and learn a
[4:41] little bit more and uh
[4:44] and like Dave, I I had it written down
[4:47] what I did and I cannot figure out where
[4:49] I wrote it. So,
[4:51] I know I attended some other things,
[4:52] planning and commission, of course, and
[4:54] everything like that, but I I'm drawing
[4:56] a blank.
[4:58] >> Okay.
[4:58] >> It's all right. I feel the same way
[5:00] about my report, so
[5:02] I know, I think it was last week, the
[5:04] North Tooele Special Service District
[5:06] had [clears throat] their truth in
[5:07] taxation. That was approved
[5:10] by them.
[5:12] And then just the weekly staff meeting
[5:13] that I attend. There's always a lot of
[5:16] great things going on in the community
[5:18] and shopping is just one of the great
[5:20] things and there's always a lot of
[5:21] behind-the-scene
[5:22] meet or uh not meetings, things that
[5:24] take place and thank you to the staff
[5:27] for all that you do.
[5:28] We will move on to our
[5:30] discussion items. Our first discussion
[5:32] item is a discussion on a sewer bond.
[5:35] This is presented by Jason Burning Ham
[5:37] with LRB Public Finance Advisors.
[5:45] » Good evening,
[5:46] um members of the council and mayor
[5:49] [clears throat] and and others. Uh it's
[5:50] a pleasure to be here.
[5:52] My name is Jason Burningham, as
[5:53] mentioned. I'm with LRB Public Finance
[5:55] Advisors, uh principal and owner.
[5:58] Uh the purpose tonight, um I think in
[6:01] this work session, is to provide uh some
[6:03] background. I prepared a
[6:05] uh slide presentation to just quickly go
[6:08] through this. Um
[6:10] feel free as we go through this, if
[6:12] there are any questions, don't hesitate
[6:14] to
[6:15] you know, just raise your hand and uh let's see if we can address it at
[6:19] that point. But,
[6:21] um for your consideration this evening,
[6:23] we've got the uh plan of finance for the
[6:26] sewer improvements uh that the city has
[6:28] been working on for for some time. Uh
[6:30] that would be expansion to the
[6:32] wastewater treatment facility and some other upgrades to that
[6:36] facility.
[6:37] Um
[6:38] we're going to talk about a resolution,
[6:41] which is what will be before you uh this
[6:43] evening, and I'm going to go into just a
[6:44] little bit of detail on that, um as well
[6:48] as identifying some next steps. So,
[6:50] steps that we would take from this
[6:51] point, um to put forth our effort to get
[6:55] these financed, so that you've got the
[6:57] project to to move forward. If we can
[6:59] advance that, thank you. Here, so good.
[7:03] Um
[7:05] so, [clears throat]
[7:06] really the requested action for you to
[7:07] consider tonight is adopting a
[7:09] parameters resolution.
[7:11] Um that's one component of it, uh but in
[7:15] that parameters resolution is
[7:17] authorizing the notice of intent to
[7:20] issue bonds. And that's a statutory uh
[7:23] required uh notice that goes um published on the
[7:28] Utah Public Notice website. It's also
[7:30] published on your website. And it starts
[7:34] a 30-day contest period. So, it it gives
[7:37] opportunity for residents and others
[7:39] [clears throat] to
[7:41] uh voice um
[7:43] their thoughts, suggestions, commentary
[7:46] as it relates to the bond issue.
[7:49] Importantly, this resolution tonight
[7:52] also will set a public hearing, um which
[7:54] is contemplated now to be held on
[7:57] your next meeting, September 16th, I
[7:59] believe.
[8:01] Um
[8:02] wherein you would uh field public
[8:04] comment and uh provide an opportunity
[8:07] for the public to uh really comment and
[8:11] uh I guess again provide their input uh
[8:14] relative to this project.
[8:16] Uh
[8:17] I wanted to summarize, however, that um
[8:20] tonight's actions do not lock in final
[8:23] interest rates, nor do they necessarily
[8:26] uh confirm what the bond size, maturity
[8:29] schedule, or any of those specifics.
[8:31] This is merely a introductory
[8:34] uh initi- initiatory
[8:37] element that you would go through in
[8:38] order to to issue bonds.
[8:41] I also failed to or neglected um to
[8:45] recognize Brandon Johnson with
[8:47] Farnsworth uh and Johnson. He's bond
[8:49] counsel on this transaction, and uh
[8:52] he'll be working closely with um with
[8:55] legal counsel Matt and and uh his group
[8:58] uh as we move this forward.
[9:00] We can advance the slide. Thank you.
[9:03] So, we often get questions on well, what
[9:06] does this resolution really do or what
[9:09] doesn't it do? Um
[9:11] So, I kind of uh
[9:13] put this together just as a a quick
[9:15] summary of what it does do.
[9:18] It sets the maximum parameters under
[9:21] which, if the city elects to move
[9:23] forward and issue bonds,
[9:25] it's a parameters under which you have
[9:27] to maintain or your issuance has to be
[9:30] within those parameters. So, it can't go
[9:32] above them. Um that's more of just some
[9:35] guidepost that we would set out. It
[9:38] also, uh uh, importantly, delegates
[9:40] authority, uh, in order to complete the
[9:42] sale of the bonds. And typically and
[9:45] historically, that's been done in
[9:48] Tooele's form of government through, uh,
[9:50] the mayor's authorization or mayor pro
[9:52] tem.
[9:53] Um, with, uh, advice from us as the
[9:56] financial advisor and, uh, your finance
[9:59] director, uh, Shannon Wimmer.
[10:02] Um, it also authorizes, I mentioned that
[10:04] notice of intent that goes in the paper
[10:07] and also the public hearing.
[10:09] Um, and it allows us, uh, to really
[10:11] proceed towards, uh, getting this
[10:13] project completed.
[10:16] What it doesn't do, and, uh, I think this is important
[10:20] distinction, is it doesn't approve the
[10:22] final pricing tonight, which means it
[10:24] doesn't issue,
[10:26] uh, any bonds. Uh, it simply simply
[10:29] provides a not to exceed maximum amount,
[10:33] a not to exceed maximum time over which
[10:37] the bonds may mature,
[10:39] and maximum interest rate, and those
[10:41] types of things.
[10:43] I think it's also important for the
[10:44] public to recognize that this doesn't
[10:46] create a general obligation. This is not
[10:48] a, uh, a property tax pledge. This is a
[10:51] utility,
[10:53] uh, revenue bond. And so, the net
[10:55] revenues of the sewer system are what
[10:57] ultimately are pledged for this
[10:59] financing. And that's how the bonds are
[11:01] secured.
[11:03] Um, there are some other nuances, but
[11:07] potentially, depending on where the bond
[11:09] rating is when we receive it, we may or
[11:13] may not, uh, apply for bond insurance,
[11:15] which is a credit enhancement. But based
[11:18] on our current thoughts of where the
[11:21] credit of the city is, and in particular
[11:23] the sewer utility,
[11:25] uh, we think that, um,
[11:27] your stand-alone credit rating is
[11:29] probably going to be more beneficial
[11:31] than even what a municipal bond insurer
[11:33] could provide.
[11:36] So, if we can go to the next, thank you.
[11:38] >> [clears throat]
[11:38] >> Um
[11:39] I'm sure this will be provided in more
[11:41] detail, but I wanted to provide an
[11:44] estimate of the total cost of this
[11:46] project, just under $17 million.
[11:49] Uh as you know, the city has been
[11:51] collecting uh specifically for this type
[11:53] of expansion impact fees. And so, new
[11:56] development activity has been paying a
[11:58] portion of this. So, even though the
[12:01] total amount of this project is almost
[12:03] $17 million, there are $5 million
[12:07] of impact fees that have already been
[12:09] collected, which we'll be using towards
[12:12] this. So, it's almost kind of like your
[12:14] equity investment into this.
[12:17] Uh that leaves 11.7
[12:20] almost 7.2 million dollars there, of
[12:24] which we are proposing to finance a par
[12:26] amount of bonds of $11.1 million.
[12:30] The difference there is there's some uh
[12:32] issuance premium. The market will pay a
[12:35] little more in order to get the the
[12:37] bonds at attractive rates.
[12:40] So, again, this shows you really what
[12:42] our plan of finance is right now. So,
[12:44] even though you'll notice in the
[12:46] resolution that we have maximum of 14
[12:48] million,
[12:50] we really don't anticipate that we would
[12:52] you we would use or need that capacity.
[12:55] So, that's just more of a
[12:57] out outlier of you know, if project
[13:00] costs came in higher or we decided not
[13:03] to put in as much impact fees
[13:05] and more debt finance, that would give
[13:07] us some flexibility there.
[13:10] Thanks.
[13:11] Uh
[13:12] so,
[13:13] again, I think this is just a summary of
[13:15] what are the parameters versus what our
[13:17] current planning is. So, I've already
[13:19] mentioned the not to exceed 14 million,
[13:22] and our expected sale is about 11
[13:25] million and change.
[13:27] Uh are not to exceed maximum maturity is
[13:31] 25 years. Um but right now we're running
[13:34] all of the debt schedules based on a
[13:35] 20-year amortization.
[13:38] The coupon rate is a not to exceed 5 and
[13:40] 1/2%. Right now our current uh interest
[13:44] rate that we're uh anticipating is about
[13:47] 4.5%
[13:49] uh percent on a 20-year basis.
[13:52] And then the purchase price um
[13:55] the premium structure is what we expect,
[13:57] but we put a minimum of 98% of par. So,
[14:01] when we offer these bonds to the market,
[14:04] we're in essence saying
[14:05] a good bid a bad bid would be less than
[14:08] 98%. You'd have to at least give us 98
[14:11] cents on the dollar uh to purchase
[14:13] these. We expect that we're going to get
[14:15] more like 102, 103%.
[14:18] Thanks.
[14:20] Uh so, just a reminder of the security
[14:22] of these bonds, we're talking about
[14:24] sewer revenue bonds, not general
[14:25] obligation bonds. So, it's it's simply
[14:28] the sewer system revenues, which would
[14:30] be the rates,
[14:32] impact fees, connection fees, other
[14:34] revenues that would come to the system,
[14:36] less your operational and maintenance
[14:39] expenses.
[14:40] That is really what's deemed net
[14:42] revenues that are pledged. And so,
[14:44] that's your security pledge that bond
[14:47] holders then have a direct interest in.
[14:50] And then they compare that to the bond
[14:52] debt service that we would have. So,
[14:54] uh net revenues are what are used here.
[14:57] We've used it before. That's how the
[14:59] original treatment facility was
[15:01] financed. Um
[15:03] it's what we've done for most of the
[15:05] water improvements uh as well on a water
[15:08] revenue pledge. So, this is a very
[15:11] traditional utility type of a structure.
[15:15] You can't read any of this, but
[15:18] um
[15:19] this is kind of a compilation of what
[15:21] the financial uh metrics look like for
[15:24] the city.
[15:25] Uh what I've kind of blown up on the I
[15:27] guess it would be your right as you're
[15:29] looking at it is uh is a debt service
[15:31] coverage. This is really what
[15:33] bondholders, investors, rating agencies
[15:36] are looking at and uh even if you take
[15:39] out impact fees and you've had a a
[15:42] fairly steady
[15:44] uh
[15:45] receipt of impact fees, but even if you
[15:47] completely strip that out, um you'd have
[15:50] 2.23 times coverage. And so a good
[15:55] rating
[15:56] area, at least in terms of this metric,
[15:58] would be 1.6 times or higher. So at 2.23
[16:02] times, we're thinking that's a very
[16:05] um
[16:07] very solid credit. Obviously speaks to
[16:10] uh the financial planning of the city.
[16:12] So
[16:13] uh we'll get into more detail as we
[16:15] visit with the rating agencies and and
[16:17] others, but uh that's a great metric.
[16:20] That's why we're very uh excited for
[16:23] this to go to the market.
[16:26] So this is I think the last element is
[16:29] just where are we in terms of uh the
[16:31] calendar. Um tonight being that
[16:34] resolution, um
[16:36] starting uh tomorrow we begin that
[16:38] 30-day contest period.
[16:40] Uh
[16:41] we've got flexibility right now. This is
[16:43] kind of a a date, September 14th
[16:46] through, let's say, the end of September
[16:48] would be the rating presentation and
[16:51] receiving that rating back.
[16:53] The 16th is scheduled and that's a firm
[16:56] date. That would be the public hearing.
[16:58] And then we expect to receive the
[17:00] rating, if we met [snorts]
[17:02] with them on the 14th, then by the 25th.
[17:05] If that gets pushed out a couple of
[17:06] weeks, then that rating receipt would
[17:09] also be pushed out. And then right now
[17:12] we're contemplating pricing the bonds on
[17:14] October 7th and closing on October 15th.
[17:18] Recognizing 2 weeks here or there of
[17:22] some flexibility if we need a little
[17:24] longer process, but
[17:26] um that's the intent and this is this
[17:28] resolution that you'd be considering
[17:30] tonight is what puts all of this in
[17:32] motion. So that's where we would hope to lead this.
[17:37] Um so next steps, we're going to final
[17:39] the draft finalize the draft bond
[17:41] documents. We're in the process of
[17:43] preparing all the rating materials of
[17:45] which the city will then present that
[17:48] information to Standard & Poor's,
[17:51] Moody's, Fitch.
[17:52] We hold the public hearing which will be
[17:54] under your direction on the 16th
[17:58] and then receive that rating, conduct
[18:00] the bond sale and and then deliver the
[18:03] bond proceeds so that project can be
[18:05] constructed. So with that I'm
[18:08] uh here and available and be happy to
[18:10] answer any questions if you have them. I
[18:12] know I covered a lot of information in a brief period of time, but I hope you wouldn't hesitate if you had
[18:20] any questions.
[18:22] >> Are there any questions or comments?
[18:24] >> I think the only thing I'm trying to
[18:26] remember is what was
[18:27] getting the bond it's at the sewer
[18:29] plant, but what are we building here?
[18:30] What are we doing?
[18:31] >> Of the project itself?
[18:32] >> What's the project? Yeah. That'd be a
[18:34] Nathan thing I think rather than you.
[18:36] >> I'd Nathan to come up on
[18:37] >> me what that project is. I'm sure we've
[18:39] talked about it, but
[18:40] >> Just call me Daddy Warbucks, right?
[18:42] >> Um
[18:43] >> [laughter]
[18:43] >> Sorry.
[18:44] Uh so this is going to be playing for
[18:46] our biosolids uh greenhouse upgrade uh with our two
[18:51] new turners and heated floors. It's
[18:54] going to be the majority of the project.
[18:55] We've got um other things that
[18:58] um we need to get done down there as
[19:01] well and then there's two
[19:03] uh sewer lines that need to be in my on the right track? Thank you. So
[19:07] those are the main projects that are
[19:09] going to be done.
[19:10] So.
[19:10] >> Okay.
[19:11] All right.
[19:12] >> So
[19:13] a few projects
[19:14] >> and the sorry, the UV uh disinfection
[19:16] building will be upgraded as well.
[19:18] >> So, there's there's a few projects that
[19:19] >> Yeah, we're going to be getting quite a
[19:20] bit of stuff done.
[19:21] >> of everything you need then.
[19:22] >> Yeah, okay. Well, I mean, for now we're
[19:24] good.
[19:25] >> for now, [laughter] for now, for now.
[19:28] >> Thank you.
[19:29] >> I would I would just add to that that
[19:32] it you know, the city has compiled a capital
[19:35] facilities plan. And so, over the next
[19:38] several years, this is
[19:40] you know,
[19:42] a few of several projects that will be
[19:44] financed, but based on the on the
[19:46] finance plan,
[19:48] this bond issue would finance,
[19:50] you know, some big projects, but the
[19:52] rest of it would be anticipated to be
[19:53] pay as you go, not debt financed. It
[19:56] would just come out of,
[19:57] you know, capital reserves and um and
[20:00] net revenues that would help pay for
[20:02] those future capital improvements.
[20:06] >> Okay.
[20:07] Any other questions or comments?
[20:10] All right, thank you. That was a good
[20:11] presentation.
[20:12] >> Okay, well, thank you. Good luck.
[20:14] >> Thanks.
[20:16] >> All right, our next discussion item is a
[20:18] discussion on the history of the IS
[20:20] Industrial Service Zoning District and
[20:22] possible amendments [clears throat] to
[20:23] the industrial, light industrial, and
[20:25] industrial service zoning districts
[20:27] regarding land uses permitted within
[20:29] each permitted within each zone.
[20:32] Presented by Andrew Agard, the Community
[20:34] Development Director. Thank you,
[20:36] Council.
[20:37] You probably [clears throat] recall that
[20:39] a few weeks ago I did a presentation and
[20:41] presented some findings on the various uses that are included in
[20:45] our industrial zoning districts. We have
[20:47] three of them. We have the industrial,
[20:48] we have the light industrial, and we
[20:49] have the industrial service.
[20:52] The industrial zone is the heavy
[20:54] industrial zone. That is primarily the
[20:55] PID
[20:57] area. There's also more some more
[20:59] industrial uh located north of
[21:01] SR 112 on the west side of the city. The
[21:03] light industrial, of course, is our
[21:05] lighter industrial area. And the
[21:06] industrial service
[21:08] is kind of a hybrid between the two zones. In our
[21:11] last meeting, we weren't entirely sure
[21:13] as to how the industrial zone came
[21:15] about.
[21:16] And so, I was tasked with doing a little
[21:18] research
[21:19] in regards to the legislative intent
[21:21] behind the industrial service zone, and
[21:23] I wanted to present the findings to you
[21:26] and get your feedback as to how you'd
[21:27] like to proceed.
[21:29] So, the ordinance creating the
[21:30] industrial service zone was approved on
[21:32] October 7th, 2020, in conjunction with a
[21:35] zoning map amendment of 130 acres of
[21:37] property to the industrial service zone.
[21:41] The intent was to create a zone that
[21:42] permitted land uses of intensity between
[21:44] the light industrial and the industrial
[21:46] service zoning district.
[21:49] The the
[21:51] catalyst behind this was there was a
[21:53] gentleman who wanted to do a use
[21:56] in the northern in the area up near the
[21:59] North Point Medical Center.
[22:01] And the use that he wanted to do was
[22:04] permissible
[22:06] in the industrial zone,
[22:09] but not in the light industrial zone.
[22:11] And
[22:13] the council at the time did not want to
[22:16] rezone the property to industrial,
[22:18] and they did not want to rezone the
[22:20] property to light industrial because the
[22:22] light industrial zone permits light
[22:24] manufacturing and assembly.
[22:27] So, at that time, the city council
[22:29] decided, "Well, let's look at doing a
[22:31] zone that kind of falls in between the
[22:33] two of them."
[22:34] And that's where the industrial service
[22:36] zone was created.
[22:38] Now, the only difference currently
[22:39] between the light industrial zone and
[22:41] the industrial service zone is that use
[22:43] right there, light manufacturing and
[22:45] assembly.
[22:47] Now, light manufacturing and assembly is
[22:48] a very broad
[22:50] industrial use. Yeah, you can do a lot
[22:53] of stuff under that category.
[22:55] Uh hopefully, you can read that. If not,
[22:57] I'll just read really quick the first
[22:58] part of it.
[22:59] A The manufacturing and assembly is an
[23:02] establishment engaged in the
[23:03] manufacture, predominantly from
[23:05] previously prepared materials, of
[23:07] finished products or parts,
[23:09] including processing, fabrication,
[23:11] assembly, treatment, and packaging of
[23:13] such products and incidental storage,
[23:15] sales, and distribution.
[23:18] That covers a lot of stuff.
[23:20] And I believe the council's intent at
[23:22] that time was they wanted to keep this manufacturing out of certain parts
[23:27] of the city, and so they ratified the
[23:29] industrial service zone to just cover
[23:31] specific uses and keep this vague use
[23:34] out of there.
[23:36] So, that's what I found out in regards
[23:38] to reading the
[23:39] uh the minutes and so forth. And thanks
[23:40] to Shiloh for getting those for me. She
[23:42] found those that information for me.
[23:45] So, back to the
[23:46] >> [sighs]
[23:48] >> What should we do?
[23:49] Uh I need the council's direction here
[23:51] on this.
[23:52] Uh number one, we could look at
[23:53] eliminating the industrial service zone.
[23:56] Uh that would require probably a
[23:58] city-initiated zoning map amendment to
[24:01] the light industrial zone.
[24:03] It wouldn't be any detrimental impact to
[24:05] those properties that currently have the
[24:07] IS zone because actually they're getting
[24:09] that now the light manufacturing. So,
[24:11] it'd be a benefit to them.
[24:13] Uh the other option is to leave the IS
[24:15] zone and the situation as it is. Uh the
[24:18] IS zone doesn't really cause us any
[24:20] problems
[24:22] other than maybe a little bit of
[24:23] confusion when people ask for the
[24:24] difference between the two zones.
[24:26] Uh but really it doesn't have any detrimental impacts
[24:30] on us.
[24:31] And the other option would be to
[24:32] continue to attempt to separate the
[24:35] uses.
[24:36] Uh that one's a little problematic for
[24:38] me as staff because there's no baseline that I can use to
[24:43] judge medium [clears throat] industrial
[24:45] versus light industrial. So, it'd be
[24:47] kind of arbitrary in regards to choosing
[24:49] uses that could go in the light
[24:51] industrial versus uses that go in the
[24:52] industrial service. However, I am happy
[24:55] to try to do that if that's the
[24:56] direction the city council would like to
[24:58] go.
[24:59] So, at this point, I'm just looking for
[25:01] some direction from the council and how
[25:02] do you want me to proceed?
[25:04] Happy to Happy to answer any questions
[25:05] you might have for it.
[25:07] >> Are there any questions or comments?
[25:09] >> I guess my question is is why why is it
[25:11] brought what brought it up?
[25:13] >> Just we just
[25:15] we didn't really understand what we what
[25:17] the purpose of the industrial service
[25:18] zone was.
[25:20] Cuz it's so similar to the light
[25:21] industrial.
[25:22] >> We were here and I remember there was
[25:23] something
[25:25] that we thought could be so certain
[25:26] place but it wouldn't wasn't allowed.
[25:28] >> Yeah, I can't remember what the business
[25:30] was that
[25:31] not the name of the business but what
[25:33] type of business.
[25:34] >> Yeah, we were here. We were newer at the
[25:36] time but
[25:37] >> I believe it was that industrial that uh Empire Storage.
[25:43] >> Okay. [clears throat]
[25:44] I just remember there was a pretty good
[25:46] discussion about we didn't want it like
[25:49] you had said to be an industrial area
[25:51] but we still felt like the the business
[25:53] itself was fine and
[25:55] I think that's why we ended up changing
[25:57] it or creating a zone is cuz
[25:59] we wanted that business in Tooele but
[26:02] not necessarily rezoning everything so
[26:05] >> Yeah, it was it was that Empire Storage
[26:06] facility on the north end. That was the
[26:08] catalyst. Once you had established the
[26:10] industrial service, you went through a a
[26:12] very large zoning map amendment and you
[26:14] took
[26:15] maybe 70 acres on the north end and you
[26:17] took about 70 acres
[26:19] out on 1200 West and you rezoned those
[26:21] portions to I industrial service.
[26:24] But it was based upon that that storage
[26:26] facility.
[26:28] That's what got you thinking.
[26:30] >> Yeah. So, if it was uh put into place in
[26:33] 2020
[26:34] of that special district, how many
[26:38] applications have been fallen into that
[26:40] since 2020? Just that one?
[26:44] I mean, has it been used I guess?
[26:47] >> Maybe three. The the U-Haul facility
[26:49] falls into the industrial service.
[26:52] Um
[26:53] I think the uh
[26:57] No, the the the paint stores in the
[26:59] general commercial. Probably just the
[27:00] U-Haul facility.
[27:02] >> Would the U-Haul have been permitted in
[27:04] a light industrial, though?
[27:06] >> Yeah.
[27:06] >> Okay, so it
[27:08] >> Yeah, they're so similar in use that
[27:10] they're they're almost the same zone.
[27:12] So.
[27:13] That's why I brought it. I was
[27:14] attempting to
[27:16] separate the uses and create create kind
[27:19] of a a tangible difference between the
[27:21] two zoning districts and it it proved
[27:23] more difficult than I had anticipated to
[27:25] do that without being arbitrary. So, I
[27:27] wanted to bring it to you and
[27:29] get your thoughts.
[27:30] >> So, typically it'd just be the two.
[27:33] The light and then the
[27:34] >> Yeah, it'd be the it'd be the light
[27:35] industrial, the industrial service, then
[27:37] the heavy industrial.
[27:38] Uh the heavy industrial sitting out
[27:40] there on its own. We don't want to I
[27:41] don't want to mess around with that one.
[27:43] That one's fine.
[27:44] Uh it's just the light industrial and
[27:45] the industrial service.
[27:47] >> So, if we chose to remove the industrial
[27:49] service, we'd have to look at the map
[27:52] again and decide
[27:54] what that area becomes or does it
[27:56] automatically become a light industrial
[27:58] since we're kind of absorbing it into
[28:00] that?
[28:00] >> We could proceed in that regard however
[28:02] you'd like. We could just do a blanket
[28:04] rezone and change it all to light
[28:06] industrial, but if you wanted to look at
[28:07] maybe doing
[28:08] regional commercial or some other
[28:10] heavier commercial zone,
[28:12] we could consider that as well. It's our
[28:14] however like the council would like to
[28:15] proceed.
[28:17] >> Yeah. Well, like there was a couple
[28:19] other businesses that
[28:21] like I think I think it was like the
[28:22] towing yards that wanted to be up on our
[28:24] thing that it couldn't be there because of the
[28:27] way we had things zoned and
[28:29] we've had two or three things like that
[28:30] happen. I just don't know if we did eliminated, does it affect anything
[28:35] really?
[28:36] Or
[28:38] >> The the only effect
[28:40] >> to make it happen again, you know, cuz
[28:41] well, I wouldn't I wouldn't want to put
[28:43] something in the light industrial
[28:45] that probably should be in the heavy
[28:46] industrial.
[28:48] I don't know what that goes to cuz it
[28:49] seemed like there was some issues with
[28:51] that, too. But maybe there wasn't. Maybe
[28:52] I'm just Maybe my I'm thinking about
[28:54] >> like there was more than one applicant.
[28:56] >> Yeah, it does. Yeah.
[28:57] >> I can't remember the details.
[28:59] >> there was the the thing with the
[29:00] wrecking yards and
[29:01] >> Yeah.
[29:01] >> on over in the our industrial area over
[29:05] there. Yeah.
[29:05] >> Yeah. And there there there are some
[29:07] wrecking yards
[29:08] >> for that, too. And I can't remember what
[29:09] it was exactly, but
[29:11] >> There are some towing yards on 1200
[29:13] West.
[29:13] >> Yeah, that's the one.
[29:14] >> where the industrial service does exist
[29:15] as well. So.
[29:16] >> Yeah.
[29:17] I think they weren't allowed there
[29:18] without us changing something.
[29:20] >> Yeah.
[29:21] >> They had to be in the industrial.
[29:22] >> If we don't have that, that's the
[29:24] perfect example, that towing yard. If we
[29:27] didn't have the industrial service,
[29:29] could a towing yard have gone in that
[29:31] area?
[29:32] >> Not in a light industrial zone.
[29:33] >> See.
[29:34] >> That's the one I remember more.
[29:35] >> I think yeah.
[29:36] As we start thinking about it, I
[29:38] We were part of the storage unit, too. I
[29:40] remember that discussion. Yeah.
[29:42] >> Where would the towing industry fit in?
[29:45] >> The
[29:45] >> Without that service district, it would
[29:47] have been light or would it be
[29:48] >> Industrial.
[29:49] Okay.
[29:51] >> I think that was part of our discussion
[29:52] cuz we I I felt like they didn't have to
[29:54] be in industrial.
[29:56] But
[29:57] I don't know.
[29:58] >> Yeah, it's not causing us any problems
[30:01] having it in place. I mean, that's
[30:04] It's just an extra zone that's very
[30:05] similar to the light industrial, so.
[30:07] it really has its own little special
[30:10] >> It does.
[30:11] >> it can benefit, right? So, it keeps it
[30:13] >> it it prohibitly it prohibits that broad
[30:16] category of light manufacturing.
[30:18] >> Yeah.
[30:18] >> So, the the intent was to
[30:22] have it focusing on service type uses.
[30:25] So.
[30:26] >> I'm okay if we just keep it. If it's
[30:29] >> I think I am, too.
[30:30] >> It doesn't seem like it's creating a lot
[30:32] of confusion for applicants or your
[30:35] department.
[30:38] Maybe there will come another applicant
[30:40] who it serves with the purpose that we
[30:41] had intended like a towing yard or
[30:43] something, so
[30:45] that's my opinion.
[30:46] >> I'm happy to I'm happy to do that. We
[30:47] can always We can always look at it in
[30:50] the future if we need to. So, there's no
[30:51] problem.
[30:52] >> it creates a problem, then we didn't
[30:53] [clears throat] We don't want it to be a
[30:54] problem, either. So, yeah.
[30:57] And so, if you had anything that was a
[30:59] problem, but it doesn't sound like you
[31:00] do.
[31:01] >> No.
[31:02] >> Not really.
[31:02] >> Okay.
[31:04] Thanks, Andrew.
[31:05] >> Okay. Everyone good with that?
[31:07] >> Yeah.
[31:07] >> I'll just
[31:08] >> Excellent. Thank you, Council. Thank
[31:09] you.
[31:10] >> Our next discussion is a discussion on a
[31:11] proposed city code text amendment
[31:14] request by Perry Commercial to amend
[31:15] Tooele City Code 7-16A-3,
[31:19] residential special districts
[31:21] eligibility and size regarding the
[31:23] minimum land requirements necessary to
[31:25] qualify for a commercial special
[31:27] district and compliance with the land
[31:30] use map of the general plan presented by
[31:32] Andrew Ager at the Community Development
[31:33] Director.
[31:35] >> So, this item actually appears twice in
[31:37] your in your meetings tonight. It's also
[31:39] on the business meeting.
[31:41] Uh this is an application that was
[31:42] submitted by Perry Commercial.
[31:45] Uh they were the ones that requested
[31:46] this text amendment.
[31:48] It was going to be on a a past agenda,
[31:50] but they [clears throat] actually
[31:51] withdrew the item from your agenda
[31:53] because they wanted to make an
[31:54] additional change. And so, we made the
[31:56] additional change. We took it back to
[31:58] Planning Commission.
[32:00] And uh it's here tonight on both your
[32:02] work session and your business meeting.
[32:03] I wanted on your work session just so we
[32:05] could talk about it a little bit more.
[32:07] Uh let me explain exactly what is going
[32:10] on with this request.
[32:12] In order to qualify for a commercial
[32:14] special district under the ordinance,
[32:15] you have to meet three
[32:17] basic criteria. Number one, you have to
[32:20] have a commercial land use designation
[32:22] on the subject property.
[32:24] So, in our land use map, if it's not
[32:26] commercial, you have to go through the
[32:27] land use map amendment and change that
[32:29] to commercial in order to qualify for a
[32:31] commercial special district.
[32:33] You also have to have more than 50
[32:36] acres.
[32:37] And the properties need to be contiguous
[32:39] and developable. So, 50 acres all
[32:42] together, commercial land use
[32:44] designation.
[32:46] Now, Perry Commercial submitted a text
[32:48] amendment application and they have
[32:50] requested some changes in regards to the
[32:52] eligibility for a commercial special
[32:53] district. The first one relates to the
[32:56] land use map.
[32:58] What they are proposing is to combine
[33:00] the land use map amendment into the
[33:02] review process
[33:04] with a CSD. So, when we review the CSD,
[33:08] we also review the the land use map.
[33:12] Uh what this does is it reduces the
[33:13] number of applications the applicant has
[33:15] to submit and also reduces the amount of
[33:17] fees that have to be paid.
[33:19] Um it also states in the ordinance that
[33:22] if the CSD is adopted by the city
[33:27] council,
[33:28] uh the land use map would automatically
[33:30] be changed to a regional or to a
[33:32] commercial designation.
[33:34] So, obviously on on on the flip side, if
[33:36] the CSD is denied, the land use map
[33:38] would not be changed. Uh so, that's the
[33:40] first part of their request. They just
[33:42] want to combine two applications into
[33:43] one.
[33:45] And then the second part
[33:47] is regarding the size and uh con-
[33:51] continuity of the properties.
[33:53] Uh the blue language that you see there
[33:55] is the applicant's language. The green
[33:57] is some suggestions by the planning
[33:59] commission.
[34:00] So, what what it says is in the event
[34:03] the proposed size of the CSD is over 125
[34:06] acres
[34:07] and each parcel being larger than 30
[34:09] acres, the CSD does not need to be
[34:11] contiguous.
[34:12] And then it says if the CSD doesn't meet
[34:14] these qualifications, it would revert
[34:15] back to the original qualifications.
[34:18] You'll note that as well that I striked
[34:19] out
[34:21] um includes not more than three parcels.
[34:22] That's an error on my part. When I was
[34:24] putting the the ordinance together,
[34:25] [clears throat] I I did not remove that
[34:27] language. So,
[34:28] uh in your business meeting, I'll bring
[34:30] this up again, but uh
[34:31] we'll want to make sure if the council
[34:33] is inclined to approve this to
[34:35] uh
[34:36] not include that language, but
[34:38] that's what's being requested. This is
[34:40] an aerial map showing why they're
[34:42] requesting it.
[34:44] The CSD, which is also on your business
[34:46] meeting agenda tonight, includes all of
[34:49] that property you see highlighted in
[34:51] red. And they're not contiguous.
[34:54] Uh they are separate. If uh they had to
[34:56] go through the standard process, they'd
[34:57] be doing four applications for each CSD
[35:00] plus four applications for the land use
[35:02] map.
[35:03] Uh so that's the request. If you have
[35:05] any questions, I'd be happy to answer
[35:06] those for you.
[35:08] >> Okay, any questions or comments? Just on
[35:10] that
[35:11] piece of property that's going uh on the
[35:13] west side going north and south, it
[35:16] doesn't have an acreage on that.
[35:20] » Oh, it do- it's
[35:22] I apologize for that. I should have had
[35:24] it on there. It's like 100 and
[35:26] it's like 120 or something like that.
[35:28] >> Okay.
[35:31] And all these are already zoned
[35:33] commercial.
[35:34] >> No, they're not.
[35:34] >> They're not.
[35:35] >> No.
[35:36] >> That's Okay, that's part of the change.
[35:38] >> on your next on the CSD business
[35:40] meeting.
[35:41] >> to change them so they can be changed to
[35:43] commercial.
[35:43] >> Correct.
[35:44] >> And so they want all of these to be
[35:45] commercial lots.
[35:46] >> Yes, sir.
[35:47] >> Okay.
[35:49] The wording that you had mentioned
[35:51] trying to find it in here.
[35:54] So it reverts it back to the
[35:57] if the proposed CSD does not meet these
[35:59] three criteria, the CSD must comply with
[36:01] the standard CSD qualification
[36:03] requirements.
[36:04] >> Right.
[36:05] >> So we're still keeping the standard
[36:08] CSD and then just adding this
[36:11] additional wording. Is that
[36:13] >> Yes. So if someone were to come in with
[36:15] a CSD application for one property, or
[36:18] let's say two properties that did not go over 125 acres,
[36:22] then they would be subject to the
[36:24] 50-acre continuity requirement.
[36:28] So this is just for properties that are
[36:30] much larger.
[36:32] >> And this was pretty much because of that
[36:34] 36-acre parcel, right?
[36:37] Because that that wasn't large enough to
[36:39] be in it, but we're taking all the
[36:40] others in.
[36:41] >> Yeah, the the 36-acre park parcel was
[36:44] not large enough to qualify for a C A D
[36:45] S A C S D by itself. That's correct. And
[36:48] so, they wanted to incorporate it with
[36:49] these other properties so that would it
[36:51] would qualify.
[36:53] >> I'm assuming that's better for your
[36:55] department if they don't have to review
[36:57] four different applications, right? It's
[36:59] just all in one.
[37:01] >> Yes.
[37:02] >> sounds like it's better for the
[37:04] applicant as well. They're not paying
[37:06] multiple times, so.
[37:07] >> And the land use map amendment fees
[37:10] when we do a zoning map, there's a limit
[37:12] on the fee. The
[37:13] highest we can go with a zoning map is
[37:15] $6,000.
[37:17] And that stops at 50 acres. With a land
[37:20] use map, it does not stop at 50 acres.
[37:22] So, when we calculated the fees for the
[37:24] land use map amendment, we were getting
[37:26] up into the I think it was like $23,000.
[37:29] So, that that's another reason why they
[37:31] submitted that application.
[37:34] >> I'd rather have a developer put money
[37:36] into their
[37:37] development than just fees, right? That
[37:40] we could
[37:41] That's a lot of money for them that they
[37:43] could be putting into infrastructure or
[37:45] things that benefit our community
[37:47] differently, so.
[37:48] >> Yes.
[37:50] » Okay, any other discussion?
[37:52] >> Um I'm good with it. I really am, so.
[37:55] >> Okay.
[37:56] >> Well, I'll I'll bring this back up again
[37:57] at your business meeting and
[37:59] so.
[38:00] >> Okay.
[38:02] >> Thanks again, Andrew.
[38:03] >> Okay. Thank you, Council. Appreciate it.
[38:05] >> Andrew.
[38:05] >> [clears throat]
[38:07] >> Item D is a water discussion regarding
[38:09] interior depletion. This is presented by
[38:11] Paul Hansen, the city engineer.
[38:20] » Thank you, Council.
[38:22] You've had We've had discussions in the
[38:23] past on water rights and discussions
[38:27] but for the benefit of the public, I
[38:29] would like to give a little bit of
[38:30] background with your permission to help provide a
[38:36] little bit of on this.
[38:38] >> [clears throat]
[38:38] >> Tooele City since 2006
[38:42] has Well, let me back up even further
[38:44] than that.
[38:45] Tooele City deals in water rights from a
[38:47] variety of uses and from a
[38:49] variety of sources.
[38:51] The state Division of Water Rights
[38:53] regulates water rights in terms of their
[38:56] diversion
[38:57] their depletion, meaning the portion of
[38:59] the water that's not returned to the
[39:01] hydrologic system and return flow, that
[39:04] water that either
[39:05] goes back into the groundwater or flows
[39:07] to a downstream user.
[39:10] And And there's some examples that we've
[39:11] discussed with you, but irrigation is a
[39:14] good example where if I pump 100
[39:16] acre-feet of water, the state assumes
[39:18] that 55 acre-feet of that water is gone.
[39:22] It's removed from the system either
[39:23] through evaporation or growth of the
[39:25] plant. It goes into the fruit. It goes
[39:27] into the product you're growing with
[39:30] remaining 45 acre-foot going back into
[39:34] the system. Again, just basic
[39:36] information.
[39:38] State Water Rights policy also regulates
[39:41] the nature of use, the point of
[39:43] diversion, the place of use, and the
[39:44] timing of use.
[39:46] And whenever we change a water right
[39:48] from irrigation use, we change the
[39:50] timing of use. We don't tell people in a
[39:52] home you can only shower April to
[39:55] October. We say you can do it all year
[39:56] long and we're thankful they shower all
[39:58] year long, right?
[40:00] But all of those items are changes that
[40:02] come into it.
[40:03] But the bottom line information to it is
[40:06] what is the depletion, and there's a
[40:08] variety of sources of depletion that you
[40:11] can look at, and just a few examples
[40:13] that are on your screen
[40:15] and for the public to look at.
[40:18] As I mentioned in 2006, Tooele City
[40:20] filed with the Division of Water Rights
[40:23] a reclamation effluent permit that would
[40:25] allow them to use water from the
[40:27] reclamation plant in a reuse
[40:30] application. Irrigation is is the source
[40:33] we're looking at.
[40:35] And that bulleted point reads that a
[40:36] condition of the state engineer approval
[40:38] is that you cannot enlarge either the
[40:40] diversion or the depletion of the
[40:43] underlying water rights.
[40:45] When this permit was filed, Tooele City
[40:47] was one of the first cities in the state
[40:50] that had a full use reclamation plant.
[40:53] We were the first operating one, if my
[40:56] rec- if my memory serves me right.
[40:59] And in talking with the state engineer
[41:01] at that time, the state engineer said,
[41:04] "Because this is such a new use, and
[41:07] because you are filling ponds that
[41:09] evaporate and doing other things,
[41:11] we recommend that you require 100%
[41:14] depletion in order to allow the water to
[41:17] be used a second time."
[41:19] So, that is the policy that the state
[41:21] has followed, and we've had subsequent
[41:23] discussions with the state engineer's
[41:24] office.
[41:26] With time, the state engineer's office
[41:29] has learned, and Tooele City has some
[41:31] additional information
[41:33] that allows us to consider backing off
[41:35] that 100% depletion requirement.
[41:37] [clears throat]
[41:38] One of those of of many that you could
[41:41] consider is that
[41:43] the lakes are now full or are accounted
[41:45] for being full, which maximizes the
[41:47] evaporation. So, we don't have to take
[41:49] as large a hit because of the 17 storage
[41:52] lakes at the golf course,
[41:54] but we still have other losses applying
[41:57] to it.
[41:59] Tooele City's current water right
[42:00] ordinance has two provisions relating
[42:03] interior use. One is that we require
[42:06] 0.25 acre feet of water per dwelling.
[42:11] That number used to be 0.45,
[42:15] but this council reduced that a couple
[42:16] of years ago based on information that
[42:19] the city had.
[42:21] The second provision was that the
[42:23] interior water rights, and this is the
[42:24] way the code reads, had to have a 100%
[42:27] depletion, and that's again for the
[42:29] reasons that we've talked about
[42:30] [clears throat] in general.
[42:33] The schematic represents how our water
[42:35] moves through our plant. Again, we're
[42:36] still a unique system to a city that
[42:38] uses lagoons or traditional treatment
[42:41] and releases that are water offsite.
[42:43] The interior water goes through town,
[42:46] goes to the reclamation facility,
[42:48] goes into the rec- reclamation storage,
[42:51] and then ultimately onto a reuse type
[42:53] application.
[42:55] What we're talking about with this
[42:57] reduction in depletion is
[43:00] do we know better what that depletion is
[43:03] between those two red lines
[43:05] once we enter the plant and once we
[43:08] leave the water reclamation facilities?
[43:11] And basically the depletion, we have
[43:14] that list that talked about different
[43:15] types of depletion, are limited to two
[43:18] or three primary items.
[43:20] One is the evaporation from the
[43:22] oxidation ditches, clarifiers, and ponds
[43:24] is still there,
[43:26] but there's also in that number two
[43:28] slit, I apologize,
[43:29] but we also lose water in the production
[43:32] of our biosolids
[43:33] through either evaporation,
[43:36] through the dryers, which was a project
[43:38] that was discussed with you earlier for an upcoming improvement,
[43:44] and as well as the offsite disposal of
[43:46] biosolids.
[43:48] Now, sometimes the city sends those
[43:49] biosolids in a wet form to the landfill.
[43:53] If we can dry them to a certain point to
[43:55] make them available to the public, we'll
[43:56] release them to the public. They still
[43:58] have varying degrees of water, but that
[44:01] water, thankfully, is not going back
[44:03] into the ground.
[44:04] It's water that's lost to the system as
[44:06] we talk about it.
[44:09] In looking at that loss, as best we can
[44:11] tell, we estimate that the depletion in
[44:13] the plant is about 5%
[44:16] of the water that comes through that
[44:18] process.
[44:20] We have the end use where we still need
[44:22] 55%
[44:24] for sod and lawns and and uses that way.
[44:28] And keeping in mind that state mandate
[44:30] where they say you cannot enlarge either
[44:33] the diversion or depletion,
[44:35] you end up with a 60%. The 5% in that
[44:38] process, the 55% at the end being that
[44:41] 60%.
[44:44] So, our proposal would be to change
[44:48] one word in that paragraph.
[44:51] And it would be changing the number 100
[44:54] to 60.
[44:55] Depletion on that on that final point.
[44:59] We feel comfortable with that.
[45:01] We believe it still protects the city.
[45:03] It still allows us to use the
[45:05] reclamation plan for its intended use,
[45:08] but it's also beneficial to developers
[45:10] as we move forward and look and see in
[45:12] what can happen.
[45:14] Now, the next step would be that because
[45:16] this is in title seven, it would need to
[45:18] go back to the planning commission. It
[45:20] falls under their purview to review
[45:23] and to provide you a recommendation.
[45:27] It's our intent to take that to the next
[45:29] available planning commission meeting.
[45:30] It would be later in September
[45:31] potentially.
[45:33] Following that meeting, we'll bring it
[45:35] back to the city council for your final
[45:37] consideration.
[45:39] Um there will be public hearings
[45:41] involved with that. Again, because it's
[45:43] title seven and that's why we can't just
[45:45] do it next Wednesday and the following.
[45:47] It takes a little bit of time.
[45:50] There's one item of consideration that
[45:52] you'll want to be taking in
[45:54] or thinking about, and it does not have
[45:55] to be decided tonight.
[45:58] But with every ordinance like this, the
[46:00] council is asked to establish an
[46:02] effective date for implementation.
[46:05] So, what happens with legislation is it
[46:06] becomes effective on
[46:08] this date.
[46:10] As I understand it, it is possible to
[46:12] backdate,
[46:13] but I don't know that that's essential
[46:15] or something you're thinking about
[46:16] doing.
[46:17] Um if you were to backdate, I wouldn't
[46:20] certainly do it any earlier than
[46:21] tonight.
[46:22] Um
[46:23] but again, you don't have to decide that
[46:25] tonight. That's something you can think
[46:27] about and Matt may have additional
[46:29] information if you've got questions on
[46:31] that. He can best answer that part.
[46:35] But that's
[46:37] basically what we're intending to do as
[46:39] we move it through the process and
[46:41] following upon the discussions we've
[46:42] had.
[46:44] Do you have any questions for me?
[46:46] >> What what would be the reason we'd
[46:47] backdate it?
[46:48] >> Well, the question would be as if
[46:49] somebody provides their water rights
[46:52] tomorrow or if they provide their ordi-
[46:54] or water rights next week, you know,
[46:56] would you want to consider making them
[46:58] aware? The other thing we could simply
[47:00] do is say, "You know what? Hold on to
[47:02] your water rights for a week or two or
[47:03] three.
[47:04] Let's let's see where the ordinance
[47:05] goes."
[47:07] At the end of the day, we want to do the
[47:08] right thing.
[47:09] >> Sure.
[47:10] >> You know, we don't want to be punitive
[47:11] in any stretch, but that would be the
[47:13] only reason, Councilman. [clears throat]
[47:15] >> I think it's easiest to say today is the
[47:18] start.
[47:19] >> Yeah.
[47:19] >> Just because it's we've talked about it
[47:21] publicly.
[47:22] Uh so, you're backdating it to the day
[47:25] that it was public information, right?
[47:27] And
[47:28] >> Matt, is that Is there any problem with
[47:30] that?
[47:31] >> No.
[47:33] Where we [clears throat] would have to
[47:33] worry is if we were um
[47:36] uh
[47:37] making more of an imposition on on
[47:40] private vested property rights. This is
[47:42] the opposite. So, uh we can do that
[47:44] without um hurting any In fact, this is
[47:47] a a benefit to to developers and other people who um
[47:53] would submit these applications. So, it
[47:55] to backdate it actually is beneficial,
[47:57] and and we're not in impeding on
[48:00] anyone's right.
[48:01] >> Backdating it would mean if you get an
[48:03] application from today until we
[48:05] officially approve it or vote on it,
[48:08] anyone in that window, right?
[48:09] >> We could make them aware that it's a
[48:11] potential ordinance change
[48:13] and
[48:14] >> Talk to them about timing. Yeah.
[48:17] >> I would say today.
[48:19] >> Yeah, I'm okay with today.
[48:22] >> Talked about it.
[48:22] >> Again, this doesn't take effect till it
[48:24] comes back to
[48:25] >> as as a formal council action, but just for your thoughts and for
[48:28] discussion.
[48:30] >> I have a question about So, earlier in
[48:32] the slide you had said we require 0.25
[48:35] acre-feet.
[48:36] >> Mhm.
[48:37] >> If our depletion goes to 60%, do we have
[48:40] do we require less?
[48:41] >> You'd require more.
[48:43] So, you would you would left my
[48:45] calculator back on my my desk, but
[48:47] instead of the 0.25, it would be um a
[48:51] little bit more than that. It'd be less
[48:53] than 0.3.
[48:54] >> Okay.
[48:54] >> But, it would add just a little bit of
[48:55] additional diversion. And what that
[48:57] really means is [clears throat] is that
[48:59] we leave that water in the ground.
[49:01] We're not asking people to use more
[49:03] water,
[49:04] but in terms of that bank account with
[49:06] the debit note, you can't increase. We
[49:09] would actually account that water being
[49:11] left in the ground and not adversely
[49:13] expanding our water right.
[49:15] >> Okay.
[49:17] So, does that benefit the developer if
[49:19] they have to bring more water rights?
[49:21] >> It benefits them in that they no longer
[49:23] have to provide 100% depletion. They
[49:26] only have to provide 60%. In other
[49:28] words, at 100% depletion,
[49:31] you you'd have to go from um 0.25 to
[49:35] 0.46 or something like that.
[49:37] >> Okay.
[49:38] >> So, it it does save the amount of water
[49:40] right that they have to provide to the
[49:41] city.
[49:43] Significantly.
[49:46] » Okay, are there any other questions,
[49:47] comments?
[49:50] We feel comfortable sending this through
[49:51] the process of good planning commission
[49:53] and then come back to us.
[49:55] >> Okay.
[49:55] sounds pretty good. We'll move it
[49:57] forward. Thank you.
[49:58] >> Thanks, Paul.
[50:00] >> Okay, our last discussion item is a
[50:02] discussion on the proposed Broadway RDA
[50:04] presented by John Perez, the economic
[50:07] development director.
[50:12] » Good evening, Council. I There should be
[50:15] Yeah, there you go. The map It should be
[50:16] in your packet as well.
[50:18] So, you'll see this kind of Broadway
[50:20] corridor area goes from Utah Avenue down
[50:23] to Vine Street and then two blocks east
[50:25] and west. It includes the museum area
[50:29] and it also includes the armory property
[50:32] right there at the southwest corner off
[50:35] of Vine. Um
[50:37] we, as you know, and you know,
[50:40] Councilman McColl, he's on the RDA board
[50:44] and then the mayor and I, we meet
[50:45] bi-weekly
[50:47] to discuss
[50:49] RDA priorities. And we've met
[50:52] with a developer
[50:55] and he has requested that this be
[50:57] brought to your attention. And he
[51:00] specifically said,
[51:02] um we're not looking for tax increment
[51:05] at this time, but it would be beneficial
[51:09] uh for his efforts and for developers
[51:12] for it to be deemed an RDA, if that
[51:15] makes sense.
[51:17] But I don't have any plans or anything
[51:19] else for you at the moment.
[51:21] >> How were the bound- the boundaries
[51:23] decided?
[51:25] >> That was what he requested.
[51:26] >> Okay.
[51:27] >> Yeah.
[51:27] >> I just wondered on the the Tooele City
[51:29] property that there's that building
[51:31] across
[51:31] >> Yeah.
[51:32] >> why that's not included cuz it seems
[51:34] like
[51:34] >> Where Where are you Where are you
[51:35] talking about?
[51:35] >> It's uh just north of the armory board.
[51:38] >> Oh, that's not I don't believe that's
[51:41] city property. The The one on the west?
[51:44] I don't I it is.
[51:45] >> Perry Plumbing. Okay. Can you include
[51:47] something that's not
[51:49] >> his old building. government property?
[51:50] Cuz all that other land isn't.
[51:53] You could.
[51:56] Yeah, you can.
[51:58] Okay.
[52:00] Just knowing that building, I think you
[52:03] that area could be utilized differently.
[52:05] Yeah. So.
[52:08] Okay, I'm just curious how they came up
[52:10] with
[52:11] the boundary.
[52:12] >> And the developer wants it to be an RDA
[52:15] to get some participation.
[52:17] >> Not at this time. Not tax increment
[52:20] part- participation at this time.
[52:22] >> But he hasn't started anything yet.
[52:24] >> No.
[52:24] >> Right.
[52:24] >> Council, they believe it will help them
[52:26] get some federal funding and some grant
[52:30] >> Okay.
[52:30] >> It makes it easier for certain grants.
[52:32] >> That's what I was wondering if that's
[52:33] >> requesting tax increment financing ever,
[52:36] not just at this time.
[52:37] >> Okay.
[52:38] >> Ever.
[52:38] >> But then if they do request that, it
[52:40] goes through the different entities,
[52:41] too, right? Does it have to go to the
[52:42] school board and the county and Yeah.
[52:45] But see, and I didn't say ever because,
[52:48] you know, who knows, right?
[52:49] >> [laughter]
[52:50] >> I'm saying ever.
[52:53] » That's what was my concern cuz I agree. I didn't really want it to
[52:57] happen.
[52:57] >> Right. Right.
[52:58] >> But if it allows them other money
[53:00] >> Yeah, for
[53:00] >> I wasn't sure why, you know, so yeah.
[53:02] >> There's certain grants, yeah, that can
[53:04] make it easier and that kind of thing.
[53:06] >> Okay. I'm okay with it then. But this
[53:08] could be the only way this area ever
[53:10] gets developed.
[53:11] >> Developed, right? It's a challenging
[53:13] area to develop and
[53:15] >> But so much potential.
[53:16] >> It does have potential, yeah.
[53:20] Okay. Any questions?
[53:23] Concerns? Comments?
[53:25] >> So, the next step, um, it we we would
[53:29] bring this back kind of to the RDA. We
[53:32] would meet with this developer again,
[53:34] and then there would sort of be like a
[53:37] developer agreement, and we can contract
[53:40] the developer can contract that out with
[53:42] an attorney and he can put that together
[53:44] and then Matt would be able to review it
[53:46] but there would there would be certain
[53:48] stipulations in the agreement like we
[53:50] would want to see this percentage
[53:52] developed. We would want to see exactly
[53:54] this type of activity in this piece or
[53:56] this parcel. So that's all thing or you
[53:59] know kind of like an MOU. That's all
[54:01] stuff that would still be ironed out. We
[54:03] don't have any of that at this time.
[54:06] >> But in that MOU does it talk about tax
[54:10] increment?
[54:10] >> Well no cuz we don't have Well yeah
[54:12] Well we would make sure that it doesn't,
[54:15] right? Yeah.
[54:16] >> And then if they wanted to in the future
[54:18] they would have to create a a new MOU or
[54:21] go before each entity tax entity.
[54:24] >> Mhm.
[54:25] >> There's a whole process for that. So it
[54:27] would be a thing. Yeah.
[54:29] >> The chances are that wouldn't happen in
[54:31] the short term.
[54:31] >> Right.
[54:32] >> They don't want to do another RDA.
[54:34] >> Right.
[54:35] >> You know what I mean?
[54:36] With money.
[54:37] >> But never say never, right? Because
[54:40] >> True.
[54:41] >> People change.
[54:42] >> We've learned that We've learned that from
[54:44] >> Elected officials change.
[54:46] >> Yeah.
[54:47] Yeah.
[54:48] >> Okay. All right. Any other questions?
[54:51] >> And I think everybody it's is not
[54:53] surprised by this, right? Yeah.
[54:57] >> I mean I hope it does help them get
[54:59] funding to revitalize
[55:00] >> to see this
[55:02] main area get developed into something
[55:03] really nice.
[55:04] >> Oh yeah. That'd be great.
[55:05] >> Well and just remember that Tooele City
[55:07] owns several properties on Broadway now.
[55:09] >> Right.
[55:10] >> So in the MOU we could work out some
[55:12] sort of dealer sharing where they, you
[55:14] know, develop and we lease land or
[55:16] something like that So there are a lot
[55:18] of possibilities.
[55:19] >> Yeah, she's exactly right. There could
[55:21] be The mayor's exactly right. Where
[55:23] could be, you know, it could be a lease
[55:24] thing. Could be a purchase thing. It
[55:26] could be maybe a lease with option to
[55:27] purchase after a certain date or after
[55:30] what's developed percentage-wise, that
[55:31] kind of thing, too.
[55:33] >> It opens up a lot more possibilities.
[55:35] >> Yeah.
[55:36] >> Good.
[55:38] Okay. Thanks, John.
[55:39] >> Thank you.
[55:39] >> Great job.
[55:41] >> Our last item is a closed meeting. We do
[55:43] have a closed meeting to discuss
[55:44] litigation and or property acquisition.
[55:47] I will entertain a motion
[55:49] to move to a closed meeting.
[55:51] >> Mr. Chairman, I make a motion we move to
[55:53] a closed meeting.
[55:55] >> I'll second.
[55:55] >> We have a motion from Councilman Hansen
[55:57] and a second from Councilman McCall.
[55:59] We'll take it to a vote. Councilman
[56:00] Gossett.
[56:01] >> Aye.
[56:01] >> Councilman Hansen.
[56:02] >> Aye.
[56:02] >> Councilman McCall.
[56:03] >> Aye.
[56:04] >> And Councilman Frey.
[56:05] >> Aye.
[56:05] >> And I vote
[56:06] that passes 4-0.
[56:08] It is 6:25, 6:26 p.m. now. We will
[56:12] recess here and reconvene in the large
[56:14] conference room for a closed meeting.