[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.

Tooele City Council Work Meeting – September 2, 2026

Transcript