So maybe we'll get us a year and have to go.

I don't think I've seen an agenda of this many text amendments.

And it's because we're trying to like implement all of these like legal changes that we've got to do.

We have our our we have no reason for a closed meeting tonight, so we'll go to um our report from Jordan Valley Water Water Cons Conservancy District.

Take it away.

Well, this is myself really quick.

I'm John Richardson or Upsonny Draper and Water Pro and Resident Draper for quite a while now, and thank you for taking some time and uh want to introduce Giselle Terry.

She's chief operating officer now.

Um reappointed and really I guess we want to talk about just briefly capital projects at Jordan Valley.

There's a lot of water and exciting things going on as well, and water budget policy and then I see if we can get a question answered, but Chiselle take it away.

Yeah.

Um so yeah, just a couple of things that um we kind of want to talk about in terms of construction projects that you may or may not be aware of.

So right now we're doing two pretty um big uh vault um projects on 114th South.

We're doing one at State Street and then um one at 110 east.

So the uh State Street one is basically just corrosion issues, so we're just doing redoing the piping and the valving in there, but it will it's currently um scheduled to start in March.

It will require a brief shutdown.

Um and our operations folks are currently coordinating with your operations folks to make sure that we can keep everybody in water.

The other one um is currently under design that will be a little bit more involved because it's relocating the vault from outside of the middle of the street um so that we can get to it.

It's it's one of those dangerous faults, it's hard for us to do any work in um just because then we have to shut down the street and all that sort of thing.

So we'll actually be relocating that vault.

And that will be a little bit more involved um in terms of the work that needs to be done there.

So that is still under design.

We're probably looking at still another um nine, ten months before that one um construction gets underway.

Um couple other things are happening.

We are uh doing a uh increasing the capacity of our Jordan Valley water turtle plant.

I don't know if any of you have been there.

It is our largest.

Yeah, if you're on uh Mountain View corridor, you can't help but see it there.

Um that plant is currently a hundred and eighty MGD plants, largest in the state, but we are um doing phase one of a 75 million yellow pay um expansion.

So the first phase we'll look at um expanding the 3540 MG.

And we're just doing that because of demand.

Um and that will um benefit all of our member agencies.

Uh that we're about six months into a four-year project.

Um to do that.

We're rebuilding filters, we're doing sedimentation bases and upgrading all the key there.

And that's basically so that we can treat what we call our ULS water, which is our uh the last portion of the Central Utah project.

Um where we're bringing strawberry water across um down Spencer Canyon and into the Salt Lake Valley.

So uh we've got to strawberry flavor, right?

Strawberry reservoir, good clarification.

We do.

And we've got about 16,000 acre feet of that water that we'll be looking to treat with this expansion.

So those are some of the big projects we're we have going on right now that that are um that will directly affect Draper um in the middle.

Another thing that we kind of wanted to talk about was a water budget policy.

And throughout the last, I would say year and a half, we've really been wrestling with, you know, everybody knows that we're in a drought, we've got a certain amount of water, there's a lot of growth still going on in the state, and we're really kind of wrestling with, you know, how do we manage that?

How do we how do we make sure that we have enough water you know for developments that are happening now, but that that doesn't use up what's left for developments that might be happening later.

So we went through an analysis of population, demand, um, developable land, which we considered anything that was uh less than a 30% slope in our service area, and based upon that, we've came up with what we are calling a water budget for the rest of our service area, which is 1.35 acre feet of water per acre of land.

So that's what we're kind of broadcasted out there for all future development if within our service area, and we put a policy in place that significant developments greater than 50 uh acres, we would have a policy that they would have to meet those requirements if they did feel like their development could meet that 1.35 acre feet of water per acre, they could come with additional water, or they could come with a speech in lieu of water and say and and meet that requirement.

So we had a policy in place, we've implemented that in a couple ways.

We're currently still negotiating with the point, but we've um under that premise, and then we also some of you might be aware of the Olympia development in Carmen, and we did a development agreement with that for them to meet those requirements.

We're now looking, our board is looking at the next phase, which would be looking at um how do we implement because you know there's a lot of development that's gonna go in that's not greater than 50 acres, and so you know you get infilling different things, but we've still got to meet collectively through that service um our service area that 1.35.

So we're currently working through that with our board.

We um are looking at kind of a very flexible three phase of kind of a decision tree.

If we feel like it's warranted, we can still do a direct development uh agreement with the developer, um, similar to what we've done with Harriman and what we're kind of working through at the point.

We can also what we've been looking at is working with the member agencies depending on the hyper reference.

We have some options where we can piggyback on the development agreement that the member agency has with the developer, and we allow the member agency to basically ensure that they'll meet that requirement and also collect any water or fee in lieu of on our behalf, um, and then at some point in time they can either transfer that water to us or we can put it in the calculation for their water budget.

The other option, and in that case, we would ask that the member agency withhold any occupancy you know permits until we can ensure that they're gonna meet that requirement.

The other option is that we can basically give the member agency and say, this is what based upon this developable land in your in your service area, you've got X amount of water.

We're gonna leave it up to you to how you implement that with development, but that's it.

So if for some reason, you know, one development that comes in early, like way overspends their water budget, then it's gonna be up to you to figure out how to implement that with later developments.

Can you help put this in perspective?

Sure, this could maybe in a not very educated question, but can you put a perspective like for 1.35 acre feet of water per acre?

What's like the average for like a half acre lot?

How much water right now on average is a half acre lot used?

Yeah, so I mean it really varies depending on.

Just help me understand like how much conservation you stay.

How much conservation is high density or lowness over here?

Yeah, so when you're looking at single family homes and you're looking at like you know, your typical um, you know, maybe quarter acre lot type thing, you're looking at if I remember my numbers correctly, like 0.22 um acre feet.

Um the interesting thing is we so when we were looking at what the current use is for our entire service area for Salt Lake County, what currently is, I think our current use was like one I want to say like 1.85 per acre per acre.

What's like if you put everything in Salt Lake County in our service area together, that's what it's around.

So that's where we need to reduce it to 1.35, yeah.

So I think if you look at daybreak and that kind of development, I think they're at like 1.56 acre feet per acre.

So to kind of give you some frame of reference.

And Chiselle, correct me if I'm wrong.

I mean, when you talk about developments like the point, if they're short on that, right?

They're getting their own water rights from others, right?

So that is I don't know, you guys probably knew all that, but so someone could so the developer could say, yeah, we don't think we want to have landscaping or density that will allow us to meet that 1.35.

We think 1.5 is reasonable.

So we're gonna bring X amount of water either from their own sources or they can go out and purchase that, and then we can say, okay, you're gonna get 1.35 from us, and then that developer will provide.

The problem with that though is that's just intaking water from somewhere else.

Yep.

So I mean that doesn't really solve the long time.

Now that 1.35 is just based upon our water sources and what we see.

So that doesn't take into account you know, water rights or shares that say Kennicott has, or you know, other places have so there is water out there, um, but it is getting harder and more expensive to find or treat.

Our trees.

Yeah, yep, all the easy cheap water to treat is done, and future sources are getting more costly to treat for sure.

How are you looking for the summer?

Yeah, snow.

Perfect segue into my next.

So the other thing I want to talk just a little bit about everybody knows that we are in record drought.

I mean, this is like the worst snow pack is statewide that we've ever had.

And um but we got this weekend coming.

Yeah, we're gonna take whatever we can get.

That's right, snow as much as we can get this weekend.

So we are, we're in record territory, and it's a little bit scary.

Um, currently, most of our reservoirs got feed Salt Lake County.

This isn't true statewide, but most of our resource are about 10% below where they were this time last year, which doesn't sound too bad until you see realize that the expected runoff this year is expected to be somewhere between 40 and 50 percent of normal.

So there's not going to be water to fill them up all the way.

So we're gonna be we're starting a little bit deficit, and we're not gonna be able to fill them.

Um we have a drought uh monitoring committee that we have one voting member from each agency.

We're convening that in um the next three weeks, and we get together and what we look at is what's our seat, a C UP, which is Central Utah project allocation, and that provides about half of our water supply.

Um we look and see are they gonna be able to deliver us our full 100% allocation?

Are they gonna like say, yeah, you only get 90% or something?

The other thing we consider is our river um creek storage allocation.

And same thing.

We look at what they're gonna give people guessing this year that they they're looking at probably and a 60 to 80 percent allocation this year, and then we looked at what groundwater supplies we have and how hard we've been pumping those in the past years.

The nice thing is is we've had the luxury of not pumping our groundwater hard, so we have a little extra in the bank as far as groundwater goes.

The real issue is um, you know, even if we we're gonna be okay this year, problem is nobody knows what's going to be subject to.

Um, and it's gonna take several years of normal to kind of get us where we're feeling good.

Um, you know, the last time we had a similar drought, um, we got that record snowfall the following year, which was just fantastic, but who knows?

We may have another year like this, and then we're gonna be in in real trouble.

So, part of that drought um monitoring committees, we vote we have five levels of drought, and so zero is considered full availability, we have a level one, which we start asking for five to ten percent voluntary reduction, a level two, we're looking at more of a mandatory reduction around the 15%.

So we're gonna see kind of where our member agencies are feeling when we make a recommendation to our board, and then our board and our info board meeting will um decide what level they will implement for the year, and that may change mid-year.

We might implement a two, and if things aren't going well and people aren't conserving, we get into July, August, and we're like, no, we gotta we gotta rotture that up.

So one of the things that we're doing is we really know that it's gonna be important to be consistent with messaging.

Um, and you know, um, that we're sending out a consistent message and also consistency in to some extent.

We realize every member agency is a little bit different, but the more that we can be consistent in messaging and also our responses, the better uh response we'll get from the public.

So one of the things we've asked each of our member agencies to do is put together a drought response plan which lists basically actions for each of those levels that kind of says okay if we're asked to reduce you know five or ten percent um voluntary, what are some things that we can put into place to try to get that?

And then you know responses for each level.

Um so when we have our go ahead.

When do you start implementing though?

Is it when do you want when would the messaging?

Yeah.

So typically, you know, we'll start messaging pretty heavily.

I mean, we try and start messaging conservation all the time, but we really kind of start um late March, early April this year.

I think we're gonna get started earlier, and we're gonna have to hit it harder just so that we because really the places that we have the best opportunity to conserve is waiting to turn on our sprinklers in the spring and turning them off early in the fall.

That's where we get the biggest thing for a buck on conservation.

Um sorry, when when do you think that the public actually starts to like pay attention to the messaging?

Um I mean, we got a really good response with the last route.

So the fact that it's been people it's been on the news, it's been you know constantly.

I think people are already tuned into that, they can look outside and see there's no snow on the mountains.

So I think we're gonna get a good response that way, but it'll be really interesting to see.

Um if we you know it has to hurt a little bit more than it did last time, which I think it will, what kind of response will be.

But but I'm pretty confident that we'll be able to, like I think.

So I think we're gonna be fine this year.

Next year's gonna be really interesting.

So in practicality, does this mean that residents will get a certain amount of water at one rate and then they go over that rate of water costs more money?

So we have tiers, a tiered water rate for our retail.

Um, about 10% of our deliveries are retail, about 90% are wholesale.

So we obviously don't have as much um you know control over our wholesale, and we don't have wholesale conservation rates in place.

They're based upon pumping rates and just the cost of water.

But for our retail system, we do have four tiers, and we kind of set those bottom tiers for what we consider um you know judicious use, and then if you get into those, then there's a higher use until three and four.

Now we are currently doing a rate study, and we are looking at adding perhaps a surcharge because with the past legislature legislature, they passed a bill that said we could actually collect fees above the cost of water, which we could not do before, as long as we use that money towards conservation projects and messaging.

So we're in the process of figuring out what those should be in terms of like a surcharge.

Yeah, any other questions along those lines?

Thank you.

Okay.

Very nice.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next up, do we have more mic or your legislative updates?

Let's put in the skip up for a second.

I'm gonna skip over that and go to short-term rentals, Jen.

Okay, thank you guys.

All right, okay, yeah.

Thank you.

Okay, that works.

The clickers out there to make sure.

Oh, okay.

Thanks.

Okay, so you guys asked for um just uh update on short-term rentals.

Staff has been working on this.

I know you guys have been waiting for a while for this.

Um we've been playing catch up with state law changes.

So we're as of tonight, we'll be caught up for last year's co-changes for state law.

Um, so we've had a little bit more bandwidth to continue working on short-term rentals.

So we do have a graphic ordinance that is being reviewed internally right now.

So hopefully we'll have something to you guys shortly.

Um there is two questions that I did want to kind of get your guys' feedback on.

Um, and then I can kind of go over how we're setting up the ordinance and what we're what we're looking at.

Um, the first one is where should short-term rentals be allowed.

We allow them in all residential units.

Should we limit them?

Um we are proposing you know, single family townhomes, condos, and detached ADUs.

We're not proposing internal ADUs.

Um, and then the question of apartments has come up, and whether we want to allow short-term rentals for apartments.

Some um apartment complexes themselves do short-term rentals.

They have some units that are long-term, some units that are short-term.

So, from um business standpoint for apartments, that it's something that we do have in the city and we do see.

Um, and I do believe there are people that do sub-lease their apartments, that's something we would like to allow or not.

Talking to um PD Todd Taylor about with a couple uh individuals in PD and they did have some concerns with short-term rentals and apartments.

So my recommendation would be that we allow for the overall complex to allow short-term rental, but not sub-lease apartments, that kind of thing.

Because when you have a management company, they're they're um making sure we're all gonna follow things like that versus somebody who's sub-leasing.

But I want to get feedback and whether it's how they thought so not.

So, Jen, you're suggesting if you let the owners of the apartment complexes do short-term rentals, like they could for their excess units, like they're vacant, help them stay profitable and they're controlling it, they've got an incentive to stay compliant with city laws.

Yes.

Okay.

So you use the more comfortable saying apartment owners can do short-term rentals of their exponential.

But the like tenants could not sub lease.

Yes.

Okay.

And that's what that um mean.

So I know a lot of people, let's say I have a year lease and I am moving after three months.

So I said, somehow it's for nine months.

So you're saying not allow that or not just short term.

That would be yeah, that would be a long-term rental.

So anything over 30 days is considered long-term.

Oh, okay.

So when we're talking short term, it's 30 days or less.

Got it.

Thanks.

I think a two-night minimum's pretty small.

You want to large.

I don't know.

I just wonder if maybe some places they require you to rent at least five nights or something.

Yeah.

Or a week, yeah.

Yeah.

The idea of that having a minimum stay requirement is you don't have somebody coming in renting for a night, throwing a big party and leaving the next day.

Which we have so which we have.

Yes.

I think that they have found in places where they do it tonight, and then there's less of that, but go up to three.

I think three might be three.

Are you okay with three from?

Yeah.

I think it's gonna be a lot more expensive for this one night, so it's gonna keep out some of those people, but they're just trying to have a lot of things.

I like the idea that they can't sub-lease short term.

Yeah, okay.

Okay, we'll we'll include those two items in our in our code.

Um, I don't know if you guys want me to take some time to go over what we're simply looking at in our draft, or if you just want us to bring that back to you to take a look at in its entirety.

Just go over it a little bit.

Okay.

Were you looking at also limiting it to certain areas?

That was good, or keep going again.

Yeah, we weren't looking at geographical areas.

Um, so more the question is are there certain types of housing we maybe don't want to allow them in?

Um like the apartments, an internal ADUs, um, given the uh internal ADUs under stay law really is to try to get affordable housing, so we're not gonna allow those to be short-term rentals.

Um, so you know, our our process, you know, our our application, we'd be looking for obviously uh owner information, an urgent response contact, which I'll go over a little bit more floor plans.

They have to actually show us what rooms, sleeping areas there are um what parking there is, their maximum occupancy, that kind of thing from a process standpoint it'd be approved to the zoning administrator, so that's me.

So we've done all administratively through staff with an annual renewal, and then uh through the business license, we can ensure that we're collecting our tax or trendy room tax.

So standards you get one uh short-term rental per unit, um limit it to one renter at a time, and that you can't divide it up into multiple rentals if you have a house you're renting out the house, um prohibit uh parties and commercial events, um, again require that uh permit prohibit trailers, campers, things like that from being used for short-term rentals, but we also be attempting RV parks, uh, mobile home parks, bed and breakfast, that kind of thing, or they're they often do have short-term uh tenants, um, occupycy, and this is based off building code, but looking setting a minimum square footage amount based on the occupants and the room sizes, so that they're not just cramming in as many bedrooms and people as they possibly can, and then setting a minimum parking with the parking amounts going up based on the number of bedrooms, and then having an urgent response person, so the host has to provide us a telephone number and contact where we can reach somebody 24-7 in case there is an issue.

We would provide that information to PD as well.

Um they also are right here, but they're we're also looking at a requirement that yeah, buddy neighbors that they're actually providing that contact to the adjacent property owners, just so those ones that are directly a buddy.

Just so those ones that are directly a buddy, so if there is a problem, they can contact that host versus say calling the police.

I think an hour is maybe a little long.

Could we make it a half an hour?

Or oh for uh yeah to be at the property.

Yeah, because an hour, if there's something terrible going on, you need someone to respond sooner than an hour.

I feel like an hour might really be two hours.

Depending on how terrible, yes.

Yeah, I mean we had some bad ones.

We've had some bad ones.

Yeah.

So would it be the host or their representative, right?

Yeah.

Yeah.

So the idea is if something's happening, you know, PD get the call, they can contact the host or the neighbors can contact the host rather than contacting the city, and the host can come take care of the situation.

On the really good ones, you get the paramedics and the police local at the same time.

But we can look at uh that that response time.

Should that also the provided to should it also be provided to the fire department?

Not only the district replay this but the responsible party is.

Yeah, um prohibiting outdoor activities between quiet hours, 10 p.m.

to 7 a.m.

And then um inside the short-term rental requiring that they're actually posting information, um, the permit information as well as that uh post uh response and the rules that have to be followed, so that those are right those who are renting actually know what rules they have to follow.

Um prohibiting exterior signage, um that way they're not advertising that they're doing something commercial on the property, um health safety, um that there's fire extinguishers, smoke and carbon monoxide um detectors if it's there's a fire sprinkler system, making sure we're getting copies of their annual inspections on those sprinkler systems, and then the visible house uh units so emergency response can find them.

Um it's just making sure that they're maintaining their property for our code, um, require any online listing to actually list their business license and short-term rental permit numbers so that those who are renting can actually see they have they have their proper permits, and then if we need it to do inspections allowing inspections, Jen.

I'm assuming like when they apply for their license or whatever, they'll have to fill out that same fire code form that we require all the businesses to fill fill out each year when you redo your business license.

Yes, I'm talking about have one that's modified for residential.

Yeah, we'll work with the fire marshal to get uh the form of what exactly what he needs.

Could you just go back to the Catherine or do so we have nothing right now, right?

Do we have a lot of problems?

Because this seems like we're going pretty heavy-handed on this, and I wonder like do any of the cities around us have anything?

Do we have a lot of problems?

I remember when there was like a murder a couple years ago.

It was a while ago though, right?

But there are two in my neighborhood that you know there are some annoying things, but we haven't had any problems.

I wonder if like people because it does seem like we're going pretty heavy-handed on the service.

There are problems in your neighborhood.

The people who live next to them hate.

Yeah, yeah.

So we have problems though with lots with with rental, uh, like people the short-term.

Yeah, short-term form.

So the idea is to not be too heavy-handed with this to provide guidelines and making sure that they're coming in for permits so that we know that they're operating, they know what the rules are.

Those who are renting know what the rules are.

Um, but this is actually not as strict as some other cities, and most cities around us have some form of short-term rental regulations.

We are pretty standard, like when you rent a place in St.

George or wherever, this is pretty normal.

Yeah, I think we need to get have something like this.

Now, the other if it's just the home, not an apartment, we're saying minimum of two nights.

We're thinking we'll stay with that for the home.

Well, I think we were thinking the same minimum amount regardless of type.

So we go to three for that, yeah.

Yeah.

It was like if they aren't meeting these requirements, can we revoke the permit?

Yes.

So we'll we'll have to add that into our um in into the code, but there's a you know the co code enforcement process.

If they're a violation, we can revoke their permit.

Or if someone doesn't have a permit, and what's the so then it's code enforcement process to get them in compliance?

So the the first step would be a notice, the non-compliance, giving them an opportunity to come in and actually make that application and bring the property into compliance.

If they don't, then they can be cited.

So how's our capacity to do enforcement?

That's the challenge, right?

Yeah.

We we are failing under that mask.

I saw our eyes change.

I mean, we are uh enforcement based, complaint-based enforcement.

Um right now we have one co-enforcement officer.

Um but we do respond to you know the the complaints that we get.

We do something something like this, we would give them time to come in and make that application.

Um so it would just be an immediate you're you're getting that fine, you're getting that citation when you try to work with people.

Do you get frequent calls about these?

Um it kind of changed ebbs and flows as this the season goes.

There's definitely certain neighborhoods that have a lot more than others, and we do hear from those neighbors.

Um there's definitely we care about the same ones.

Interesting.

Um at this point when you hear about the same words, what do we do?

Because there's nothing, we do nothing, or we well it depend I mean it depends on what the complaint is.

Um sometimes there are things that you can do, and other times they're just aren't.

Yeah.

Um depends on the specific complaint, but we do hear about the same ones.

So whether it's that host is acting in bad faith and doing parties and you know, allowing parties and things like that, or it's that neighbor is upset about the rental.

Um there are a couple different reasons why we hear.

But do you hear the same complaints or um the same number as police?

Like would police also be receiving separate complaints.

My guess is they hear it more.

But I haven't had that conversation.

We we hear about the parties.

Yeah, and then and I don't know if you can limit the occupancy to these, but that would help us if they start having these big house parties that gets out of control for us.

Yeah.

Well, they're not allowed to have parties.

Yeah, so the so the code wouldn't allow parties or commercial use.

I think having multiple dang stays would help with that.

Um, but then also um it does talk about what's having minimum size standards, so they're not just cramming people in.

Did you already say is there a state law at all or any state?

Anything.

Nothing.

Not yet.

Wildlands.

Yeah, every year we think there may be a bill, but then nothing really comes down like that.

How do you enforce a party though?

I mean, as far as I think it's annoying, defining it though as a party.

No, I we just had some family over, yeah.

Well, some friends, and I think we know it's a party, but it's I I think that's gonna come down to neighbors calling, letting us know.

Um juveniles at alcohol and juveniles, racing up and down the street, overwhelming the neighbors and that we need it.

Yeah.

And that's what the um having a contact that we can call to say, hey, you've got a fun deal with your your tenant.

Also would be the number of guests that happen to be on site versus the occupancy.

If you're exceeding that you're not sure having a party.

And if you are like a family for and you're sitting there and you have family in the area and you have them all for dinner, even though you're if you're exceeding it in a calm way, you're probably not gonna have to do that.

Yeah, we can look at it that way too.

Gathering above the occupancy level.

Yeah.

Okay.

No, I appreciate you looking at it and starting to get us something.

Yeah.

I think it's important.

Are we skipping the next one?

We're skipping that one.

Sorry.

Did you want to go back to your landlord about that?

Yeah.

Um well I heard when I came in, I heard you were talking about so you may be aware that already there's 951 bills as of earlier today.

No today.

Yeah.

So we'll definitely exceed a thousand.

Um kind of we've been watching the the tax, the property tax bills closely, and you you met with Senator McKay.

I don't know if you want to last week and today.

Um so Senator McKay's really not trying to blow our property tax system away.

He really does actually appreciate.

If you look across the country, most property tax systems that cities and states that still have them, they don't uh they don't guarantee a municipality the same amount of money the next year, so they don't have what we have.

What we have is actually really workable because we can count on getting our same amount the next year over year.

It's not the case across the country.

There is a ton of pressure from outside groups, if you will, um, that are also inside groups.

Um I met I met with Dan for like an hour and a half, and then when I walked out of his office, I was almost in my car.

That was when President Trump tweeted last week that we need to abolish all property taxes.

And Dan and I talked about that with respect to now the referendum, you know, they're worried that there'll be a referendum from people that want to eliminate property tax.

And I you know, there's a certain group that hears the call, if you will, and the call went out last week from the top of the call chain to abolish property tax.

So that's a real pressure that they feel.

Dan also feels like there's got to be some kind of you know, I guess some modifications, if you will.

Um I think they're we're heading in the right direction.

They're gonna tweak most likely our fund balance going down from 35% maximum, you know, that we can hold in the fund balance back to 25%.

It's what it was six years ago.

That's one thing they've talked about.

They talked about getting rid of so what what's the reasoning on that one, Mayor?

They they think that there's all this money sitting in PTF accounts and in bank accounts, we're not spending it.

We're raising taxes on people, but we have this big reserve that we're not spending.

So does he not understand the concept of the rainy day fund?

No, he totally does.

He 100% gets it.

He's not he's not a he's but but we're talking about political wins and you know, making it all work.

Um, one of the things that they're they're also talking about is getting rid of the ability for us to do capital projects out of our reserve funds.

So in other words, if you want to build a building, you got a bond for it and have the taxpayer pay specifically for that capital project.

A lot of cities save money like we even do and then spend it on capital projects.

That's one of the things they're looking for.

They want to prevent us from doing that.

They want to prevent us from doing that.

It's one of things we're doing.

All right.

Is it so get more resolution?

It goes back to the concept of more transparency.

You know, you're you have this money in your reserve account that you're not spending.

Some cities don't like spend it at ever, like they never tap into it unless there's a serious major emergency.

They don't so they some of these cities have big funds of it, and they they they and they save for all these capital projects, but they can't identify any of the capital projects that they're saving for.

Well, we're saving all this money for capital projects.

Okay, which ones are they?

They can't come up with.

So it's like they're worried that the taxpayer says, You're gonna raise my taxes this year, but you have all this money in the bank.

Right.

You know, and Senator McKay gets it.

He knows that we I told him about our storm that was you know $3.6 million dollars when it was all said and done.

22 minutes of rain.

Um, so those are things we're talking about.

The caps are gone, the concept of changing your residential exemption and lowering it and making the business one higher.

I think those have gone away.

Now we're looking at tweaking the one thing that is interesting is trying to make the tax notice more usable.

Umkay has these are great data, like the the actual economic impact of property tax on us for 25 years as a percentage of our income is one and a half percent.

And it has been that way for 25 years, it has really never gone up.

So all the taxpayers, our constituents get mad because they see school districts, counties, and they feel like their tax bills just soared through the roof.

But as a percentage of your income, because your income's gone up, your values have gone up, all that.

So they're looking at maybe I don't know how this notice thing will work out, but like showing a taxpayer, hey, this is how much you're paying in property tax, this is how much you're paying in sales tax, this is how much you're paying in energy tax, etc.

etc.

So that's one of the areas.

Um I would say that they're gonna be something like that come out of it.

I think that's the ultimate word the tax bills come down.

So we'll probably have the lower percentage.

Um in a way I kind of like the bonding thing because it puts it back on the residents, you know.

It does.

Do you want a community center?

If we do vote for the bond, and they're you want your road redone.

If you do, vote for the bond.

And Senator McKay's point is is like if you're gonna have a whole bunch of money in a reserve account, you could be spending it on city services that you provide as saving it for capital projects, which you can go to the voter to get the funded.

Yeah, the transparency on that's good.

Right.

And then of course they're trying to they also are gonna produce some videos and some training material to do what we did in our truth in taxation last year, where we explained to their our our constituents that we don't get the increase in your property value.

Everybody thinks that as your property value goes up, we continue to go up, but we don't.

I mean, we are if it was like that, they'd never we'd never see it.

Um but of course they that that's a fundamental problem across the state, people don't understand how it works.

So it's odd because the the they're gonna treat the truth and taxation timelines too, like uh you might have to do a pre-truth of taxation, I guess like a pre-truth and taxation hearing in July.

Clear it, yeah, and then do it in August, and they're trying to fix some of the traps that we missed, you know, the those things.

Um how about just eliminate the traps, right?

Right.

Yeah, they're trying to make the traps clearer so you won't step in them, but they're still gonna be there.

Um that's it on tax policy.

Um did you say that the like five percent per year maximum they don't know?

Yeah, that's not that's not floating around anymore.

Um that that doesn't they didn't get enough steam on that from various places.

Um, like I said, Senator McKay thinks the truth of the taxation system is pretty good.

Um does not want to destroy it.

The other part of it is is it it depends on who the legislator is who's kind of got this space.

And right now, Senator McKay is like sitting on the chariot running the space.

I mean, like it or lump it, he's he's the one that's been there long enough, cares enough about it that his colleagues are letting him kind of be the the gatekeeper.

Is he kind of the the self-appointed chair of the of this, or is he I don't mean it that way, self-appointed well just I I think his Senate colleague just said, hey Dan, you seem to have a good policy head on this, do it.

We're gonna you're gonna be and and to his credit, he in in coming up with his ideas, he brought in all the smart minds on tax.

He even brought Roger too, who's a our league general counsel, um, who kind of Roger's been around since Moses almost maybe longer got most of the staff.

He does, he has a couple of them.

But Roger was there when the when the whole thing got set up and the residential exemption, one of the things McKay said that I thought was pretty damn good, actually.

He said, you know, we give this big residential exemption to the residents, but they're the ones that call the police and the fire department.

So we'll give them a big huge exemption, but they're the ones that use all the services, and then we you know shift it to somewhere that doesn't use services, like you know, Coles is not calling the cops all the time or fireman.

It was interesting conversation.

Not like not at the level of you know, anyway, that was his point.

I don't think he's gonna tweak that, but there's this inherent belief that we have this residential exemption, but it's rooted in weird politics from years gone by, but he didn't he didn't incorporate all the smart minds on his property tax policy, so I think he's done a good job trying to thread it.

But he's got a pressure group over here that wants to do away with it.

So if you eliminate property tax, where do you how do you collect your the rent?

Yeah, well what I said to that was the city.

What I said to him is I said, you know, the government sucks at almost everything it does.

It's not good at most things, but we will get a paramedic to your happy house in four minutes and save you from your coronary if we have one that we can send.

We'll get a police officer to your house in four minutes to stop your domestic violence from turning into murder in four minutes.

Those are the things we're really good at, but they cost the most.

So you eliminate our ability to pay for that, you won't have it.

Good luck.

They have it all over Europe.

You know, you don't call a paramedic in a lot of places and get any help.

I think that was my point to him.

Is like, look, we don't it's not that we take this money and go on trips.

I mean, almost all of it goes into public safety roads.

So I mean he gets that.

So you did away with property tax, how would you fund those things?

Well, they're doing it in some states and they just they ship it to business.

They sh they ship shift it to business and they tax the businesses more, raise sales tax.

I don't, you know, I don't know.

You're still gonna pay for it.

Right.

And the money has to come from somewhere.

Unless you privatize emergency services.

Right.

Well I don't think you could privatize it and get it faster than you.

It's like it's one thing we're really good at.

It's the best thing we do, really.

Probably the fastest best service we provide is that, which is what people care about the most too.

I mean, you know, at the end of the day.

Well, if you privatize, I'm sorry, how do you pay for it?

I guess you just charge a feed every resident.

ADT sends me a bill, basically.

Right.

Like a lot of the more uh I don't know how to say this is up around the recording.

A lot of folks that might think Florida's doing a really good job at it, or some of these other states, um they you know, Senator McKay acknowledged to you, they're they're really a disaster.

It's not working there.

It's not it's not the success story that they say in Florida, for example.

Like, but that's not you know, we're in an era like never before where certain people can tweet stuff and then large swaths of people seem to think it is gospel truth, and that then some action needs to be done on something that was said that has no basis in reality, but if you don't act on it, then you're now then if you don't then you're on the other side of the the great tweetings and you're not smart enough to know the tweetings were really the smart things and you're the in the uh tweeting.

Is that diplomatic enough?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

Anyway, I also did hear a little bit about the gas tax situations, which is interesting.

When it's all said and done, um we're gonna get a six-month uh gas tax reprieve that will amount to about six cents a gallon.

So fix that.

Um trying to think what else I for six months.

Or six months.

And then it goes back to the case.

And then we're gonna now be 12 cents more than that.

Well, it goes back to whatever it goes back.

Yeah, stations just keep it.

I was in a land use to make it the land use task force meeting.

I went to that today.

Um sure, thank you.

That's the big Ludmud bill that all the developers are on one side of the table, and all of us on the other side of the table, and they're all you know, everybody's there at the trough trying to get because now there's all this new funding for this, you know, because the developers have been telling everyone, not that this isn't 100% true, but they've been telling everyone that the reason there's not all these houses are getting built, all these units that we have entitled, the 138,000.

The reason is is because the infrastructure is too expensive to build.

They can't make money if they don't have you know infrastructure, water tanks, all that business.

It's not that's the true reason why if they're not getting built.

That's what they're telling everybody.

So some of our legislators, our representative Calvin is calling them on their bluff, and he's created this bill that's actually amazing, um, that is gonna give infrastructure loans, and now cities are gonna be able to say, okay, you got you know, Olympia Hills you want to build here, but we're gonna do a loan, and it'll here's your infrastructure.

We'll see how they do on building these units.

I suspect myself that they build the number of units they can make money at that they can sell at any given time, and it has not a damn thing to do with anything else.

I could be wrong on that, but that's my two cents.

So we spent a lot of time in that meeting today talking about all that.

Calvin, do you get a another additional loan going to the point, 18 million to finish the infrastructure?

It's a loan though, not a grant.

That's always a loan, yeah.

The government loans its government subdivisions money.

But the innovation center for Canyon School District got a 17.1 million dollar grant last week, I understand, from the legislature.

There you go.

I just found out about that.

But anyway, that's kind of big stuff.

Um Gray Ward has a bill that's still trying to get out of committee that is just insane and stupid in every regard.

But um, you know, it's essentially a one part of it is if if a developer brought in a sketch on a partial piece of property, like you sketched it out, and we didn't act on it.

I think it was 30 days, wasn't it?

Whatever it was.

How much?

30 days.

30 days.

If we didn't, if our planning department or the government didn't, you know, get the process called that the sketch would become what they could do.

The sketch, literally.

And it be it became basically a zoning entitlement.

Yeah, the sketch, whatever you you know, you could have your fifth grader sketching some stuff out.

That's still been held in community.

Yeah, that's that's literally that could be it.

Um or you've seen the one where the kid draws a giraffe and the other kid draws a dog and they look the same.

Uh that was actually used in the committee talking about you know how how do you know what the sketch is.

I mean, it's just it's to build on on like really small lots.

Yeah, it's just it would work great out there on edge home sites and stuff, then wouldn't it?

Oh, yeah, they can just sketch it right out.

Um that bill's in the committee, but he got some amendments that are kind of camera thinks are on the fringe of not really dealing with the real bill, but he thinks that the little amendments are going to get it out of committee, so I don't know.

You know, there's there's still the the belief that the cities are holding up all the all the housing development.

I mean, they they've been very successful at that narrative.

It's the developers.

Developers have been successful at it, yeah.

Um the House isn't necessarily with them on there's not any big real Ray Ward's bill, though, one thing it does do why we we're gonna be on there's gonna be a call to action from the league is because it does erode our land use authority in in a bunch of spots.

So you're gonna get an email, make sure you you know act like the league army on that one.

That's probably the worst bill that's in there right now.

Yeah, so um trying to think if there's anything.

What's the details of that bill again?

Ray Ward's bill.

It's it's called a preferred land use regulation.

Meaning you can build on a 5,000 square foot lot if you submit a sketch.

Your sketch?

Oh yeah, that's where this all came from is literally he had some family in his in his board in his neighborhood that wanted to rent their basement out to the missionaries, and there was an ordinance against it.

This is what spurred the whole Ray Ward saga, literally, and it's gone from that to buy right 80 is to sketch artists work, all of it.

I killed his bill last year in the committee, but this year he's got more.

You know, and this is the time of the silly season of the legislature, right?

Because they're all horse trading with each other on all the dumb stuff.

So there's some dumb stuff that's gonna keep moving along because the other people got some other dumb stuff over here, they want to get passed, so all the dumb stuff just kind of walks along and then some really dumb stuff falls away, and the other dumb stuff gets passed.

All put together in one bill.

There's much horse trading afoot right now.

It didn't get how much time are we ever?

We're at the middle.

Last Wednesday.

All right.

So you told the UTA bill is the last amount.

Okay.

UTA bill is um the league, although hence my better judgment, um, wanted to get more involved in this than I thought we needed to, but um the way the UTA is going to get restructured if it all passes.

This is uh Wayne Harper's bill.

Instead of having three commissioners, one from each of the counties, uh, you know, as the getting paid to do whatever they do, along with the general manager that they hired to run UTA.

So you have the three commissioners, a general manager that's running UTA, um, and then they the local advisory council, which I've been on for all the whole time it's been around, which has no actual power to do anything.

Um so Harper reconstructed it to be so if you haven't paid attention to this, but now those three trustees are are gone as of June 1st, and then they'll they'll form a seven-member commission, very similar to how it was way back in the original board I was on, except being 15 members will be seven.

Um those seven board members will be it'll be a transfer transit commission.

Um those seven board members will then be the be the governing board, and then they'll have a general manager running UTA.

Now I know it sounds exactly like it was before because it freaking is.

Um but you know, we've gone over the mountains.

Now we're back to the valley.

Um, but this seven-member commission where all the fight is now, because about 60, I think maybe it's 44% of all UTA dollars are locally generated, that local option sales tax that we all agree to implement.

I think it's 44%.

I can't remember the number.

Either 40 or 60 percent of the money is local generated sales tax.

So the way the way the commission's gonna be appointed right now, if nothing changes, two from the house, two from the Senate, three from the governor.

Um did that is that up to seven.

Yes.

Okay.

They'll be they'll be part of the UT.

That'll consider the.

That will be the new transit commission.

Um, the two house members that the the how the speaker appoints to, the Senate president points to the governor appoints three.

What the league's trying to do is is get it so there's some local in input in the appointees, being that one of the Senate, maybe one of the house would be a recommendation to the Senate and House from the COGS, and then the governor would have some recommendations come from the COGs.

The government would still make the appointments, but they would he'd getting his people's nominations from the county, Davis County, you know, our our our service area.

Um right now it's not that right now.

Right now, no elected official can serve on the uh commission.

Um that's primarily about keeping legislators off the commission.

Um but the league is is talked about.

Well, let's not exclude local elected officials from being able to serve.

Maybe they're the best person to be on that.

No, let's not hamper that.

Um I I don't know where that's gonna go.

I think that was a harder sell than the than the governor getting and the bodies getting appointments from the COGs, but that's what we're working on that part of the language.

So what's the reason of going back to the old way?

That's a good question.

Um, because it never should have got away from the old way.

Um, right now you're paying three executives the Davis County, the Sully County, and the Utah County.

You're paying them full till full steam for their statutory pay, which is now you know, north of I think 180 or whatever, plus benefits.

Um, you're also paying Jay Fox, who is a professional manager.

Um, so you're really paying three people to do one job, one job.

Three people weren't really trained in that industry.

Well, they don't, and you know, they're not really they're accountable to their appointing authority, which is the governor, but through the cocks, but they don't really report to you know, it's just it's it's I think it's a bad governance model.

Yeah, I agree.

I just wanted to know the other part of it is the isn't UDOT now part of the next my next part.

The the biggest part of it is with the state having the appointments and more of the appointments on the trans on the transit commission, the seven-member group.

The state obviously owns it more and therefore needs to put more state resources into transit.

And what I've been telling the league and people is right now we have this local option that's funding what we have, and all it is is funding what we have.

There's no money to fund any more.

The only way you grow transit in Utah is one, you add more local option sales tax, which I don't think that's happening.

Number two, the state starts to invest more money in transit.

And the state's not going to invest money in transit in an entity it doesn't control.

That's the message I've been trying to tell him.

Is that this is good for us.

You know, Andrew Gruber from Washington, he agrees.

I mean, this is unprecedented.

Carlos Piseris at the uh at the committee meeting I testified at, he made this comment, which I thought told the whole story.

Carlos said after I got done talking, he got up and said, I've been a transit person my whole life, uh road guy.

Well, I'm a road guy, been a road guy my whole my whole career.

He's almost ready to retire.

He said, now I'm a road guy and a transit guy.

And I looked at Groomer and I said, That's it, right there.

That's the change.

That I mean, we need more transit.

Where we're gonna where you fund them together and have it all as one committee or entity, right?

Right, right.

And and Calvin's got a bill, or he's working on trying to get some extra money into it out of a state new state fund they're gonna create that will build it on a capital project.

But if but if you dot's you know in charge of it, which it is, and if you and if the state legislature and governor appoint the governing board, you you've got more state hands on it, therefore more state interest, therefore, hopefully more state money.

I mean, you know, you look at UDOT's budget annually, I don't know what it is.

Anybody know off the top of their head?

I always say it this way.

It's a billion dollars a year, um, rain or shine, Christmas or not.

It's like I told Carlos said you don't even need to finish that keg or um, you need to get another one next year.

I mean he does, he just has a constant.

If there's one entity in this state that is funded to the T, it's UDOT.

But the thing about Carlos is he understands transit too now in the courts of it.

I think you're gonna see a better mix.

The state's already putting 300 million of state funds into front runner um double tracking.

So the state has already stepped in in a huge way, which is gonna make a major difference in front runners.

Once front runner is 15 minute headways, then it should be real game changer for that difference.

Yeah, but we need more vehicles and more lines and all that.

So I I'm excited about that.

I think this restructure of UTA streamlines it, puts it in the right posture for future transit expansion.

We have the Olympics coming up, all that kind of stuff.

So but the part that we're that's still trying to be tweaked is when the governor gets his you know his three people to appoint, where is he getting the names?

The league wants it to come from the COGs.

They want they want that influence.

I I don't know where it shakes out.

I think Harper can pass this bill just exactly how it's written.

Um the Utah County last week riled up all their mayors to try and kill it, but I don't you know, I don't think that's gonna happen.

But anyway, I'm trying to think if there's anything else.

I think that's it.

There's the big ones.

Yeah.

Well, you covered 10 of the 900 and so many other ones, yeah.

Um the other ones.

Did we talk about the commissions and committees?

I don't know what that one was.

That'd be the uh do you want to go to that next?

Anybody have any legislative questions?

I will tell I I'll tell you I think Calvin's done uh remarkably good job on the stuff that he's done.

Some of the stuff directs us, there's infrastructure banks, those studies come up with sort of good stuff.

Um it's new money to come into infrastructure that's never been there.

Um he's done a really good job threading the needle with all the bills he's got now.

You know, he was tasked with the gas tax bill, so to the extent that it kind of fizzled, it's not really Calvin's fault.

It it was a it was a task uh, you know, it was a mountain that was very not ready to be climbed, I guess maybe well wasn't there a strong constituent that was wanting him to sponsor a bill like that.

There was indeed, yeah.

But it didn't they ran into all kinds of I think opposition and things that ran into Idaho.

They didn't even add but on a lot of the bills, Calvin's been great.

He did a good, he's done a good job for us on, you know, he's smart and he's been trying to do it.

He's been I texted him last night about a random bill and got back to me right away.

I was super impressed.

Yeah, yeah.

And you know, Senator Colomore's also been responsive whenever I've been to talk to him.

He's busier, of course.

But um, and I had like I said, I had great we've had great meetings with Dan.

And you know, Dan's the tax policy guy, so it's one we've got to work with.

I mean, most of them don't want to touch it.

It's just complex, try to figure it out, you know, and everybody hates taxes, and but yeah.

Well, of course, we all do, but we also love the result that we get out of it.

Right, we get something.

I thought people don't want taxes, but they do want drivable roads and they do want an EMD.

But but don't underestimate just the the raw tweeting power and the what it generates, like the whole the whole process because it it's bizarre how much influence some of the tweet receptors are for yeah.

How is their budget this year?

Do they have a bunch of money or not?

No, I mean they don't have any money this year.

So is it possible they'll pass some bills that end up unfunded?

I think so.

There's a well uh Cam thinks that of these nine soon to be a thousand bills, hope most of them are gonna die.

They're not on track to pass as many as they did last year.

Okay, so there's a lot dying committee.

But what a waste of time.

Yeah, but also that's not many, but maybe that's a beauty of the government.

I think that's the beauty of the government.

Yeah, we like whittle it down to what actually should move on.

Yeah.

But you would hope that there's some common sense though of what to do.

There's so much ego involved in it though.

Yeah.

That's true.

They'll still pass like 200 bills in last week.

Oh, yeah.

I mean, they'll pass way too many.

Yeah, hopefully it's less than last year, but I'm not saying they won't make some read their own.

Last week's it gets really dangerous.

It just cracks me up because we're the small government plug can say in the union.

I mean, we're like the younger ones.

All those for your you vote for nine, and I was at a chamber event, this young kid asked a question of us mayors.

He goes, like, hey, I just learned that the legislative session is only 45 days.

What do you think of that?

And they all give their hand with God to me.

I said, Whatever God you believe in, you should pray to that guy tonight and thank him.

That they only meet for 45 minutes.

Yeah.

That's what you should do, whichever it is.

Tonight, you think that's because it could be worse.

It could be all year, right?

Well, there's other legislatures that meet every other year.

Yeah, like Nevada, they do it every other.

Yeah, my town does too.

Yeah, we should have great.

They could read so many bills on the bills.

But anyway, that's my report.

Good job.

I'll have more next week, next time.

Okay.

Okay, next is uh commissions and committees.

Yeah, so this this came out of the um the retreat from last week.

It was uh discussion about the ground.

The tree committee and then the parks, trails, and recreation committee, and are there areas of overlap or are there areas that they could swap, maybe swap duties, that type of thing.

So uh on the screen in front of you are the the duties of the uh the current duties of the treaty committee of our code.

Um so there's a you'll see the word recommend a lot.

So they they are a recommending body to the city council.

Um and and they do recommend on some important things.

Um take number three with um they just demanded the the street tree guide, which I think is very helpful for the community at large to know what trees are best to plant in in what areas in um you know street trees.

Um so like I said, a lot of a lot of it relies on their expertise in tree experts.

Um so I mean is there anything up there that causes concern or are there are there gaps that that you ought to be involved in?

Um and I don't you go to the meetings on a regular basis, Ren, you go to the meetings.

I don't know if you've got any I just feel like it really is greater than just trees.

I really feel like it's trees and landscaping.

Because they're making a lot of recommendations to residents about waterwise landscaping and planting.

Well, we were calling it beautification, right?

Right, right.

But all of these specifically call out trees, and I don't think that is that's too limiting.

That's so limiting because it's really I mean burden of the person, but it's really more than just trees and shrubbery.

Yeah, well, and I mean I think we talked about this too.

That what kind of what Mike said is that we've got people who are very qualified to be on that committee, and so they're noticing things um, you know, different maybe even businesses who you know the park strip is dying and those kinds of things.

So you know, kind of what Tosha's saying, I think if we have these people who have these ski the skill set that we should putting them, you know, to something that's useful to us, which I think the water wise is an important thing that you know we just heard from the conservancy district that you know that's something I think residents will want to do as well, and how do we do that?

Just this weekend I heard about an organization that's redoing their park strips, and we're like, yeah, we're just putting in gravel, and I was like, what?

You know, and so um it's having them be involved in things like that, helping us get the message out of what the standards are, you know, that they have a good relationship with some of these other organizations.

So it just think that should be reflected in this somehow.

Because we are doing yeah it's almost kind of assumed, but it's not yeah, I agree.

Red Red, do you have any observations based on your working with the tree committee?

I agree, I think education should be number one priority on our forefront on a volunteer committee like that.

That's really what in my opinion is helpful to staff and helpful to all the residents is just education giving that out.

Some of these other things can look at number five or number six.

Sometimes it gets hard.

We try and get the right people in the right positions for staff, we train them, you know, either be a certified arborist or get certified pesticides and fertilizers and stuff, and so that we don't have to take direction from a tree committee where we can just go do our job.

So I think it'd be really focused in on what their role was maybe add things like education, which I think would be very valuable.

And there are some of the stuff.

They're doing it, but it's not necessarily within the scope.

I think the problem is they're doing it, but we don't list it as their jobs.

Okay.

Well, an eight and nine, I feel like Rhett sometimes is been one that this guy got caught in the crosshairs too.

Where they discovered where the planting of trees and some of the new developments or something that isn't yeah, that's what isn't in accordance and they have saved us on a couple of them, but but then I'm thinking of like on 13th east when all those trees die on what 130 or third south.

Yeah, no, 130 things.

Probably.

What if it were draper city trees, landscapes?

You know, the west side wouldn't find it.

Like education and I think I think the residents would appreciate that.

And maybe they they can help us make the code be more you know, user-friendly.

So if you're looking to do something, you know where to go and stand what the standards are.

I like that education component for sure.

They did the the that was the tree committee that did the tree talk last fall, right?

Yeah, or summer.

Yeah, I went to that house, right?

They do a little bit.

Because they like the relationships with these different organizations.

Yeah, right.

And I think that's really I think as we move forward.

I think I would love to see them create these welcomed drapery things, right?

Our our parks yeah yeah and if we want to almost unusable grass.

So would we want to almost insert when we're inserting landscaping things to be specific on like water wise right standards and things like that.

I mean we would assume they would yeah that part isn't in our code I think it's just undefined but maybe put that as part of the code but it's not in your committee description.

It's not in the yeah it's not in the committee description and I think they're aware of what other organizations and municipalities are doing because they're it the industry that they're in right and so I think they you know again to advise to educate even educating does say water protection at number one that's a pretty broad scope just number one by itself it was a lot of things that they can set that's weather protection beautification it does mention water anymore there's not just to Tasha's point though it's not just trees for beautiful it's appropriate shrubbery and right I love the idea if we do society like welcome to Draper to have the tree committee like helping you know to have a buy in from somebody from a committee I think that's great we were talking about beautification is one of the words with the you want to look at the what's parks trails and recreation landscaping idea.

The equivalent here I don't I just read three I mean why don't you where did I this so their their duties are actually quite limited.

So switching over to the parks trails and recreation committee and once again right you're involved with that on an intimate basis so um but they they I mean they spend mo most of their time dealing with trails correct probably eighty five ninety percent we try and stand but a few other things but they don't they don't bring it what about moving them to be more draper city trails and open space.

They seem most invested in the trails in the open space.

Oh sure so again I feel like their title doesn't describe what they're actually doing.

Okay.

And then you could put the trees with parks and trees or just not have parks I mean do we need a committee looking at actually like playgrounds or really I don't think so but they kind of come packaged right and we vote like Lisbon have gotten new parks when you're doing new parks is the parks trails and rec committee are they advising it all or a part of that process?

We always try and take the plans to like can we have that looks great but there are then giving them to the tr tree committee commission giving it to them to make suggestions on what trees and stuff to plant right that is a weird discussion so that's where that would fit.

Right.

Like even when we did the bold star memorial it would have made sense for the tree committee to weigh in on those plantings right I would think that's right.

I think I think the trails committee would have a problem with the parks being removed from that.

That's actually something we have discussed for years and we wouldn't be new to any of these right they always like say they don't want that but then I don't know that they actually want it.

Yeah I don't I don't think that would be a big harp if it was taken from the title committee I mean we've got the largest amount of trails of any city probably in the country.

I haven't found a municipality that has more trails in the city proper than we do so I mean it's a huge scope.

Yeah so just to have a trails committee alone is not and open space I think a lot goes into open space management frankly so some of this could be rewritten too because the master plan is how often do we update that wrap and that's uh supposed to be twelve to fifteen years.

Yeah we just did it 2003 so we're it's due for uh 2003 2023.

Oh twenty two okay two thousand eight right when I first started and then not again till twenty three I just don't know if this is really what they're doing though.

Right.

The establishment of facilities programs and policies to meet recreational and aesthetic means that's not what that committee does.

Right.

Right?

Like that's totally not correct.

Which one are you looking at?

A okay there we go.

I think it's the very first one I was on B smart no it's it's it's not right that needs to be weird totally reworded regarding the trails and open space.

Right city possesses an abundance of open space the job we can to monitor the establishment of facilities meet the recreational I don't think they ever advise on rec program.

Never in the years I was there were they talking about well I mean twice is all I could think of 17 years though.

Twice at 13 years.

But those are good times right well that was like stuff from a recadization like somebody telling us suspension or something program we do talk about if we're recreation going on on the trailer right which we're planning on the half another problem or something like that budget.

But that all falls under what why don't we as staff come back to you with some ideas on on how to focus in on on what they do independently but see if there are duties that ought to be swap to the very least I think we should make sure their descriptions are accurate of what's happening.

Absolutely is it dangerous to s seek out some of the members of the trail committee's input on what they would see specifically outlined in this I think fascinating to not show them this and say okay guys let's have a discussion about what our top five jobs are what are the top five priorities of the trade commission what are the top five priorities of the trails commission.

I don't think they would say most of these things that's why I'm that's why I think it'd be kind of interest I was gonna say nice but interesting to see what they would put as their priorities.

Because I don't think we question any of the members on any either of the committees their desire of wanting to improve the city and do things that are best for both both committees are so committed.

Right.

And kind of going on with what part of the truth committee meets before we meet again so should I you know ask we have a discussion about what do you think your respon your role is with the city should I mention that we're thinking about changing I'd be interesting to see just making sure to avoid giving committees any power they don't legislatively or executively haven't we've had this happen before I've said before there was a time and that tree committee somehow I don't know how male they did it but they got themselves in the plat map business.

Yeah I don't see that remember that right oh I don't yeah I remember great time but I don't I don't see that with this current committee.

But but again they're not you know spending right then demand staff to be at their meetings any of that costs us money and they're not in charge of staff.

Or even monitor I don't know if they even are really in charge of MO I might take monitor out.

Right.

Where are you seeing that oh monitor the stage monitor the establishment of the city yeah that's kind of scary also I wonder is is there monitor out.

Is there a city is there a committee that is giving input on recreation programs and things like that.

That's not something they're really doing but it was all under this committee but they in theory that's not very interesting.

I wonder because I do think that that is helpful to have input from people on that stuff but I don't know where it ends.

Is this review business slow during process number two?

No I don't think so I think they're the ones that make a lot of the recommendations to the treasure I mean the reviewing is not like slowing down something we have to give them a special review every year.

Carry out projects I don't know about that.

Well as directed by the city council but are they carrying out projects?

No, but they haven't really been directed by city council.

Yeah.

You want to direct them to get a shovel on around the back of it?

I prefer to.

We would have a lot of returnals done by the following week.

Um my only issue with that is if you have I mean, if you're if you're if they're going out to the private sector to get donations, it ought to be coordinated with what the council.

I mean, absolutely.

I see a bunch of problems with that five.

Would they really initiate it?

Well, you do have a you do have a foundation that provides a lot of financial support in the improvement of our trails.

We do we have that committee members will have solicited donations from the private resident.

We have the several trails on that budget.

So there are one or two of them that they do that.

And I think it's good that they initially just add with the approval of the city council.

Or directed by the city council.

Well, the way they do it is they'll funnel the donations through Corner County Trails Foundation.

And we work with the foundation.

But I think it ought to just say with the approval of the city council.

So we're sure.

Yeah, I agree.

I might as you can see a problem coming up where someone's wanting to raise money that you guys might not want it to do something, right?

They raise money to build one of those tunnels that we heard about, right?

And we don't want it done.

Yeah.

We still will never do a project without your approval first, regardless of where the money comes from.

That probably should be outlined though, so it's not just assumed, right?

I think so.

Yeah.

Absolutely.

And to go back to the tree committee, they don't have that number for carry out projects, and they've been the one that has been doing the Herbert Day, right?

Um there's some momentum there.

Then maybe you have it consistent with the other committees.

The number four does make recommendations, but it doesn't take care of that they're the ones doing it.

Like this one.

Well, we will come back with some more thoughts.

It might be nice to have this little paragraph printed out for each of the committees.

Because like we're in the same, shouldn't each committee have four, maybe.

That's what I'm saying.

Maybe you have number four.

Having that consistently, right?

It would be nice to see what they each have, what's consistent across all of it?

Yeah, there's there's general rules for all committees.

Um that's more on on structure and operation, although a advisory only.

What we do a good good job using up all of our time, don't we?

Yeah, so there's not, yeah, a lot of this is procedural.

Yeah, yeah.

Psychologically, okay.

Some thoughts on that?

Did water recuperation or okay?

Now we have like five minutes, we take a break and then see you in there.

Everybody are we ready to go in the call?

Really do all right.

Everyone, welcome.

I'd like to call our city council meeting to order.

First item on the agenda is orders.

The Pledge of Allegiance, which will be offered by our police chief, Rid Ferguson.

Go ahead, sir.

Okay, so I can't say anything.

The address of allegiance.

Thank you, Chief.

Next item on our agenda is uh an opportunity for the public, which I see none of to make general public comment.

I'll ask once officially, is there anyone here that would like to make a general public comment to the city council?

Seeing none, we'll close the public comment period.

We get to item four, which is items for consent vote.

Item 4A is approval of the February 3rd, 2020 City Council meeting minutes.

4B is approval of resolution 2610.

It's a resolution reappointing Christine Green as an alter member of Draper Planning Commission.

Um item five item five A.

Oh, I'm sorry, that's it.

I guess we're there on the uh Mr.

Mayor, I'd like to move to approve the consent calendar.

All right, motion to approve by Ms.

Lowry.

Is there a second?

I'll second.

Second by Bryn.

Is there any further discussion?

Tasha, how do you vote?

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Catherine?

Yes.

All right.

Items approved and passed unanimously four to zero.

That takes us to item five, which are the beginning of much public hearing.

Um item 5A, public hearing ordinance number 1701.

It's an ordinance of the Draper City amending the text of titles 9, 11, and 17, the city municipal code in order to update references to Utah State Code, known as a city initiated Utah State Code reference update text amendment of the staff report by Todd.

And this this of course applies right now, which we'll change in two more weeks with some more likely updates.

Go ahead, sir.

Oh, thank you.

And I am filling in for Todd Taylor who wrote the staff report.

Um this first one tonight.

Actually, I'm gonna present very quickly.

It's uh uh not a whole lot to it other than when they reordered and renumbered all of the state uh ordinances and laws pertaining to uh land use uh middle of last year.

We just hadn't updated those references in the code.

So that's all these are uh references changing from uh title 10 chapter 9a to title 1020.

There's a few other chapters that they move some things in.

So that's all they are is just changing our code to update to the correct state title or code um in all of the different sections.

Are there any questions you have for me on that one?

And there's a lot of them.

Is that is that 1701?

So it'll be um this will this is uh title 10.

Uh it used to be 109A in state code for the most part.

Uh and then they've moved but I mean our agenda item you're talking about right now is 1701.

All that you're talking about.

Yep.

Okay, all right.

1701.

Just that one.

To improve all of these individually, or can we hear them all and then approve it?

Do it in mass if you want to just keep doing your if you would like, I would be more than happy.

Most of them are very similar.

Pull out of order.

All right, so the motion is to um is to have you report um 5A, B, C, and D.

And E.

Is that right?

No.

E is Mike.

Or do you want to do just two?

5A B C and D all together, and then we can have one public hearing on all the ordinances.

That's the motion.

Is there a second?

Second, second by Catherine.

Yeah, all right.

Motion by Tosh, second by Catherine.

Tosha, how do you vote?

Yeah.

Catherine?

Fred, yes.

Ren.

Yes.

Todd.

Fire away like you have a gatling gun of information.

Well, we'll wait.

Bad reference.

Go ahead, expound.

We'll we'll get it.

All right.

The second one up is the one for our uh variants and appeal officer.

Uh state doesn't really want us to have hearings there, so calling that individual the hearing officer.

Uh is a little bit uh off key there.

So basically, that's what we've done here.

Removes the word hearing from that.

Again, we've amended another section of the code to update it there.

And that's most of what that is.

Uh it just a little bit of clarification that they're gonna review and decide appeals and variances.

And that's most everything there on 5B.

5B, okay.

5C.

I can get back out to it here.

This is uh another section of the code, uh city initiated public access amenity zoning text amendment.

What this basically is if I can get that to go.

Uh another change in the state law where uh we were just prohibited from requiring private maintenance of public access amenities, uh, except for parkships, sidewalks amenities agreed to upon uh or through agreement.

Uh where we have a lot of places in the title where it talks about public open space.

We're just going to get rid of the public and call it open space.

Uh, but that was just basically things that were required of developers when they were uh doing amenities or other components of a development plan, and we're just clarifying uh that you know what is public, what is private, and what the uh maintenance is without running a foul of the state law.

So most of that was just some small changes there.

Took out the public use space definition, and then just more of the the different things, open spaces, plazas, social gathering areas, minor changes in there uh just to bring it in into compliance and uh better define that why do they want to take out that public term?

Uh I think there was some concern about uh and maybe Spencer or Tracy can weigh in here.

I think the concern had to do a little bit with uh liability and the question of if it's being privately maintained uh but then open to the public.

There's also some potential constitutional takings issues.

So I think that was what the state was thinking, from what I understand, and then we're just working the ordinance to comply that all 5C, and that's 5C if there's any other questions, and then I can do 5D.

And then this is just the residential parking.

Uh this one does have a little bit more complexity to it.

Uh basically the state redefined uh what we could and couldn't require as far as when it came to parking within a garage.

Uh specifically if it was a owner-occupied um affordable housing uh component, we could not require the parking to be in a garage.

Um there is a state definition for that.

I don't know how many of those we'll actually get just because uh it's kind of a convoluted definition to begin with from the state.

And so we just had to make the changes to our code to comply with that and make that work.

What it just basically does here.

Um we still require the garage uh for each single family dwelling, except if they come in and they can show that they comply with that definition of owner-occupied affordable housing.

At that point, we wouldn't be able to require it.

Uh the other thing that we do with this when we started going through that is this also kind of impacts our visitor parking for developments, and so we wanted to make sure that in this change we also define visitor parking, what it was, where it could be, what was required.

So this ordinance request uh to change is to make a few little additional tweaks to that to make it really clear when we are working with say uh larger multifamily developments, what that visitor parking is, where it can be.

There was another part of that that was it could have potentially been say on the driveway behind one of these homes, but then it would have to be available to any visitor, and then that would block potential uh residents of those homes from actually using the garage.

So we want to make sure that didn't happen.

Um again, yeah, just the tandem parking.

We made some updates to that.

And then just a little bit more on the visitor and the different development code sections where that shows up.

Any other questions you might have for me on that?

I have a question about the definition of affordable housing for not requiring a garage.

Um if that's something that just you know, we've we've been rezoning some of these parcels where a family member is gonna, you know, build a home on uh, you know, like their parents' land.

So if they were to come forward and say, I want to build an affordable, you know, a home within that affordable housing definition, then they would not have to build a garage on that property.

Correct.

Um looking kind of at the numbers, I don't know that you would get that in Draper just based on the cost of the land alone.

It drives that to a price point where even if it is essentially on parents' land that's being given to them, there'd be a question on whether it met it.

So they would calculate the uh the worth of that land towards the price of the home.

Yeah, okay.

We we would look at it that way.

Thank you.

I have one question.

Oh, yes.

I have one question on the last one, the one that had to do with parking.

Yes.

On one of those you said, or it said I'm not sure which one, but it said basically in a multi-family parking that they had to require or they had to provide parking available to everyone, basically, is what it said in the it was on your first slide the first site, I think.

Yeah, what next one?

This one, yeah.

Yeah, number seven.

Um so it says uh multifamily dwellings shall be located in a common area accessible um for intermittent short-term use of all visitors of properties.

Sometimes when I go to multi like an apartment or something, they say you can't park here unless you have a permit or something like that.

So does that make that not allowed, or that doesn't change that?

Um on our our side when we look at it and review the actual site plan, uh, we would be looking for where is your visitor parking?

We'd be looking to make sure that it is in a common area, not something that's restricted kind of to the residents only.

And that point it's not really visitor parking, it's it's additional parking for the resident themselves, maybe.

Um what this particular one came out of was that concern that the way the state law kind of worked with what was tandem parking and not tandem parking.

Um our concern was that if you were we we're still requiring a driveway, 20 feet depth behind the garage, that could be two tandem spaces behind each garage.

If a development came in and tried to say that's my visitor parking, it would need to be available to everyone.

So any visitor could park in behind your car that's in the garage and block you in.

And we did not want that to happen, so that's why number seven was put in.

But the or the um apartment or the town home could still have their own requirements for visitors.

They could put some requirements in there, whether they met ordinance or not, um, would be hard to say.

And then and if there was a complaint, we could potentially look at that from an enforcement side.

But our intent in in the way the code is set out is that that visitor parking is available for all visitors to the site.

Um there may be I don't know, some minor restrictions in there that uh the the uh apartment management sets themselves, but that may or may not even comply with this, and and if there was something that didn't comply, we may have to enforce on complaint.

Because I know there are some where they say, Oh, this is for my maintenance truck only, this is for my apartment management only.

Well, that's now not a visitor space.

Yeah, so thank you.

We'd have to we'd have to look at that.

It'd probably be case by case.

I must I'm assuming over time a lot of apartment complexes move away from whatever the approved plan was.

They don't always consult before they do that.

Any other questions?

Thank you.

All right, any any further questions?

All right, this is public hearing for ordinance number 1701, 1702, 1703, and 1704, which are uh items five A, B, C, and D um for council consideration anyone from the public that would like to address the council on either on any of those ordinances.

All right, seeing no public comment, we'll close the public comment period, bring it back to the council.

Mr.

Mayor I make a a motion that we approve items 5A, 5B, and 5C and 5D ordinances 1701, 1702, 1703, and 1704.

All right, there's a motion to approve those ordinance or a second.

Oh, second.

Second by Miss Lowry.

Sorry, any further discussion on these exciting ordinances.

Yes.

Brian?

Yes, Catherine.

Yes.

Items approved unanimously four to zero.

Three yes, three yeses and four one yet.

That takes us to item uh D?

No E.

Five E on our agenda, which is a public hearing, it's ordinance seventeen oh five.

It's an ordinance adjusting the common boundaries between Draper City and Highland City.

Mr.

Barker, go ahead, sir.

Thank you, Mr.

Mayor.

Uh the uh more than 60 days ago, the uh council passed a resolution of intent to adjust the common boundary with Highland.

Uh tonight is to actually adopt an ordinance that would do that.

Um just to refresh your memories.

Um on the maps in front of you, Highland owns this narrow strip of land that's actually located in Draper.

And then uh AJV owns which owns the rest of the parcel to to the west located in Draper City, but they own this narrow strip of land that's actually in Highland City.

It's actually in Highland City.

So the idea is to put the Highland City property into Highland and reunite that strip of privately owned land back in Draper City where it belongs.

So any questions.

All right.

This is a public hearing.

Ordinance number 1705.

Is there anyone from the public would like to address the council on this item?

So you can go public, close the public hearing, bring it back to the council.

Mr.

Mayor.

Yes.

I move that we approve ordinance 1705.

All right, motion for approval by Brynn for 1705.

Is there a second?

Second.

Second by Catherine.

All right.

Any further discussion?

All right, seeing numbern, how do you vote?

Catherine?

Yes.

Yes.

Items approved four to zero.

Takes us to item 5F.

This is a public hearing as well.

It's resolution 26-11.

It's a resolution amending the adopted budget and staffing document of Draper City for fiscal year 2025-2026.

Our staff presentation by Mr.

John Bike.

Go ahead, sir.

There we go.

I'm good.

Yes.

I'm a little I'm fine.

It's big enough up on the screen.

But uh somebody over there had to borrow my glasses.

I don't know who we have a budget amendment uh to bring before you.

Uh there's a few items on here.

I'll talk about each of them individually.

If you have questions on any of them, go ahead and stop me during it.

Um the first item is a housekeeping item.

It's a it's a change of the budget from uh personnel from uh operating expenses into personnel expenses for our change that the council voted on uh to move our uh prosecution services in-house.

Now I actually noted that we were gonna change the staffing document, but as we adopted the staffing document with the final adopted budget, we made that change, and so we don't need to make a change to the staffing document based on that.

But we will be moving uh budget from an operations line item into a uh personnel item line item to cover those costs associated with the in-house uh staff.

Uh the second item is a a fire grant that we received.

Um we received a grant from the the state.

Uh that grant is for fire prevention and mitigation, and it is going to provide funds to purchase a truck and a chipper, and so we are uh seeking approval to be able to recognize the grant revenue, um transfer that into the general from the general fund into the fleet fund and make the purchase of those vehicles.

Uh item 26-12.

Um the police department has uh seen some high overtime costs um in meeting its demands and staffing uh for investigations and special operations, and so we are just um being proactive and bringing to you a budget amendment to increase their uh overtime uh by 250,000 dollars.

Now we'll continue to work with the police.

Um there are some funds that are going to come in as reimbursements that will help with some of this, um help lower the what we're projecting as their overtime costs, uh, but we wanted to make sure that we were covered in the case and that Chief Ferguson could continue with the operations as he uh would like to.

So item 2613 is uh open space purchase.

So the city is uh finalizing an agreement to purchase I think that number actually got updated from 76.02 to so there we're purchasing some acres of land from uh Corner Canyon LLC, and uh we're gonna receive a reimbursement uh for a portion of that, and then we are going to um we've we had originally uh noted that we were going to uh use funds from the general fund to be able to purchase uh that land, and so we're just recognizing the funds that we're using.

Item 2614.

Um this is uh CIP project for Pioneer Road from 700 east to 1300 east, and this will um work on this on some storm drain improvements.

We're going to use highway transportation improvement fund for 1.5 million and the stormwater fund from the fund balance there.

So the total project cost will be $3.5 million.

Item 2615 is also a capital project.

This project is on Fort Street from 132nd South to Pioneer Road.

So we are proposing to add funding for the city's matching portion of a federal grant to improve Fort Street from 132nd to Pioneer Road.

So this match that we are required to do is going to come from transportation impact fees.

Another CIP project is for Rocky Mountain Power LED street lights.

The city received a grant from Energy Efficiency Community Block Grant.

We have gone through and swapped out all of the lights that are city owned lights with LED lights.

Yes, they're expensive, but the energy savings is significant.

So I think it's like 19,000 a month we'd save in energy.

Wow.

You make back the 100 grand in 4.85 years.

Is that what you're saying?

Correct.

Yeah.

So we'll start saving money after this investment after less than five years.

Item 2618 is a stormwater management improvement in the Highland area.

So this project will reroute storm drain down Eagle Crest Drive to Eagle Stone Way.

This will prevent the system from draining to a problematic detention basin above the split on Suncrest Drive.

And then the rest of it will be used to repair and reconstruct other detention basins in the area.

That is coming from the stormwater fund balance.

Two more CIP projects.

It is only 150,000 coming from the water fund fund balance.

All right.

And this is going to add curb and gutter and sidewalk along the road from 115 south to 118 South.

There is also transportation impact fee funds that are scheduled to be used in that same area of almost a million dollars.

Oh, I thought those were the last two.

So close.

We have uh two more.

Oh, we got four more.

Sorry.

Uh so we got some more CIP projects.

Um these are Salt Lake County uh advanced traffic management systems uh that we need to use to help synchron synchronize and manage all of our traffic signals.

Um that is going to be sixty-five thousand dollars funded through the highway projects fund.

Item 2623 is 134 south connection um phase one.

This is project will compete a section of asphalt on 134 south.

Um that will allow us to have access from Fort Street to 1300 east along 134 south.

Certainly one that the police and fire department are in favor of item 2624 is uh signal upgrades, and this project is for uh pedestrian sick systems uh upgrading to LED uh and then improving the radar detection.

And this is going to be at 132nd, 13260 south and IKEA as well as 13490 south and 200 west.

That is also going to be funded out of the highway transportation improvement fund.

I think this is yes, this is the last one.

Uh last one is a uh city hall parking lot expansion, and so that is um some design work and putting in pavement on the east end of the parking lot and increasing the capacity both of where we're storing our uh waste containers uh as well as uh increasing parking within the parking lot here at City Hall.

So that's all the items that are currently listed on the budget amendment.

Uh one item has been brought to me that if the council wants to add as a council added item, uh you're certainly welcome to.

Uh we are going to request that you add a hundred thousand dollars from the transportation impact fee to do a transportation study.

Feasibility study, that's what we the official term is the transportation feasibility study.

So the reason for that is so we were assessing impact fees to the point, but the point land itself was never contemplated as part of our transportation impact fees.

So right now we're we are under state law, they can they can request a reduction in the impact fee, which they're gonna go through a study and and present that to us.

But in the meantime, we need to look at our impact or transportation impact fees and include the point in our study area.

So I I strongly recommend adoption of that.

So if you're going to adopt that, um you would want to say approve the budget as noted, including $100,000 for transportation uh feasibility study.

So that's everything from me.

Uh if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer.

All right, any questions for John on all of those amendments?

John, could you go back to the light part?

The LED street lights from Rocky Mountain Power.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

So on the police overtime, the request is for 250,000.

It is.

And that's Chief.

You're just working.

It's a that's a lot of different things that have come to our um we've had several investigations that have required overtime.

Um we've had some FMLAs that you know we we couldn't count on.

And um, and largely it's a good thing.

Um, our salaries have gone up.

We've we've started the career series, and we're keeping our officers here in Draper.

They're not going to another agency for more money.

Their salaries are going up, therefore my overtime is going up.

Thank you.

On the lights, did you have a question?

Oh no, I just wanted to see the number.

Thank you.

Oh, okay.

Any other questions?

All right.

Thank you, sir.

Yep.

This is a public hearing.

Resolution 261.

I see no members of the public here.

Any any members of the public like to address the council on these budget amendments?

All right, seeing none.

I'll close the public hearing.

Bring us back to the council.

It's right, 100,000 for the transportation impact study.

Oops.

Would be 2626.

Is that right, John?

Yes.

I don't have updated adjournment.

I don't even know if I have it right.

We want to add 100,000 to for a transportation impact study.

Mr.

Mayor, I make a motion that we approve resolution 26-11 with the addition that we also add a hundred thousand dollars for a transportation impact study.

At the point.

For the point.

All right, that's transport.

Transportation impact study for the point.

Is there is there a second?

I'll second.

I have a motion by Fred and second by Tasha.

Any further discussion?

All right, Fred, how do you vote?

Yes.

Tasha?

Catherine?

Yes.

Brent.

Yes.

All right.

And item passes unanimously.

That gets us to item six, unless there are other items any council members want to bring up or other staff members.

No, I don't want to.

All right.

Is there a motion to adjourn?

Motion by Tasha to adjourn.

Second.

I'll second.

Second by Brent.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Are there any opposed?

We are adjourned.