City Council - Regular Meeting

Welcome everyone to Centerville City Council meeting being held on the earliest day of the month as possible. September 1st is following our Tuesday. We have a first and third. This is as early as we get it. So we welcome everybody here. We welcome staff. We welcome the public that might be with us in person or by Zoom. We welcome council members. And thank you for making the time. We're going to do the call to order part of the agenda. We'll do a roll call. We'll have a legislative thought from Council Member Heyman. We'll have a legislative prayer from myself. And then we'll have a pledge of allegiance led by Councilman Bangerter. So let's do a roll call starting with Councilwoman Mecham.

Mecham, present.

Bangerter, present.

Heyman, present. Hurst, present.

Plummer, present. All five council members present, thank you, council members, for being here this night. All right, so let's do a legislative thought from Council Member Heyman.

Thank you Mr. Mayor. I have always appreciated the opportunity that our mayor extends to council members to share legislative thoughts while I've been up here. I've heard a lot of different thoughts and I think that they're always really interesting. Today I want to address the elephant in the room and that's my pride flag. In the last few months, I've taken quite a bit of heat over this flag. I have been called narcissistic, childish. I've had people suggest that I should resign, that I should be removed from office, and that I should be thrown in jail, all for exercising my First Amendment right to display a little pride flag on this council dais, which the state auditor has now confirmed I have every right to do. But I want to say this. For every negative comment that I have received, I have received significantly more outpouring of support from residents, from former residents, from people all over the state. And these are people who have shared some of the most heartbreaking and heartwarming stories with me that have really touched my heart. People who have shared personal experiences that affirmed to me the importance of standing up for what I think is right. Now, I know that what I am doing makes some people uncomfortable. It makes some of the people sitting up here with me uncomfortable. And I would posit to you all that history is replete with examples of people whose exercise of First Amendment rights have made others uncomfortable. The women who took to the streets more than 100 years ago to march and advocate for their right to vote made a lot of men really uncomfortable. Black men and women who had the bravery to sit at restaurant lunch counters and who refused to leave, all advocating for the rights, the same rights as their white neighbors and friends, that made some people uncomfortable. I am not trying to equate my little pride flag with those important movements, but all of those movements share a common thread. Those actions made others uncomfortable. And I would suggest to us all that sometimes we need a little discomfort to effectuate meaningful change. HB 477 started as a law that was aimed at keeping pride flags like this out of schools and out of government buildings. And I think, and I've said on the record, I think it was wrong and offensive and unnecessary. But in an effort to prevent cities like ours from allowing pride flags to be in government buildings, the legislature cast their net wider. They cast it so broad that it's prohibited municipalities from displaying all kinds of flags. And I thought that you might be interested to know It's led to complaints with the state auditor, not just about my pride flag. People have raised a complaint, at least one person raised a complaint about a thin blue line flag that a Salt Lake City police detective put on his desk. State auditors received a complaint about flags that were part of the temporary set decoration at UVU that were put up by a faculty-led academic film project. Complaint was raised about a Granite School District employee who was displaying Salt Lake City's municipal Sagalilli flag in his classroom. A UDOT employee received a complaint because he had put up a Trump flag in a maintenance shed. The East High School resource officer was displaying a back the blue flag next to a framed photo of the president inside his office. East High School got a complaint about that. The SJ Quinney College of Law got a complaint that they were displaying, the complainant didn't even say what kind of flag, just a non-compliant flag. And I pointed out earlier, we had a gentleman here with a really lovely flag that was a circle with the 13 stars. And inside of it, it said 250th to celebrate our nation's 250th birthday. It was a really impressive looking flag. And the state law would prohibit our city from flying even that one. I have been asked politely by some people, Hey, council member Haman, haven't you made your point? Won't you take down your flag? I want to be really clear about something. I wish it wasn't necessary that I display my flag. I wish there wasn't a law on the books that dictates right now what flag cities can and can't put up in their own buildings. I wish our legislature didn't feel like they needed to tell cities like ours what we can and can't do in this regard. but the law is on the books and the legislature has chosen to exercise its power to force cities like ours to bow to its demands. So as long as the flag ban statute is still law, I am gonna tell you respectfully, no, I haven't made my point and I won't take down my flag. And that's true even if it makes some people uncomfortable. Thank you, Mr. Mayor.

I'll do the legislative prayer. Our Father in heaven, we're very grateful that we can be here this night. We're thankful for the freedoms that allow us to be here. We're mindful that we will discuss some things tonight that affect residents of our community. We ask that we be mindful of not only input that we have received from those that have reached out, but maybe others that don't pay attention to what's going on in the city or may be a little timid that we may be able to have a good pulse on what our community might be looking for. We ask that we may be civil in our comments. We are grateful for all the employees of the city that work so hard to provide a fun and a safe and a wholesome environment. We ask that thou may bless all those that are striving to serve our community, that they may be blessed in their efforts. And this we say in the name of our son, Jesus Christ, amen. Amen. Councilman Baker.

All arise and repeat the Pledge of Allegiance to the United States of America flag with me.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible,

All right, the next thing is the open session. This is a session that allows any member of the community to come and comment up front here at the podium. We ask that you keep your comments to three minutes and identify where you're from and what your name is. So we do have some public hearing matters, though, so I'm going to I'll tell you what those are. We've got the DADUs, the Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit. We have the Center for Fee Schedule Amendments. And it looks like I haven't missed any. Those are the public hearings. So we'll hear from you more on those. If you're here to comment on those, you don't need to comment here in the open session. You can comment on those at that point in time. But outside of that, just please keep your comments for three minutes. Identify who you are and where you're from.

Hello. I am Dr. Trent Larson from Centerville. My question, the first question is how do you make a small fortune with cryptocurrency? You start with a large fortune. But that being said, I do not please try and restrict crypto ATMs or cryptocurrency or other technologies. Qualifications, I have a computer science PhD from BYU. I also have a U of U degree, so I'm okay. I got a job working in cryptocurrency in 2014 for Medici Ventures. I wish I had invested, but I'm still hustling for money because my family didn't believe in it as much as me. Let's talk benefits. At my cryptocurrency job, we applied crypto for the benefit of third world countries like Rwanda. I visited Zambia to see their insecure land rights and discuss how we could use tech to help them. I've paid rotary dues with cryptocurrency. I've used it at the Bountiful Farmer's Market, the Plus 7 local store down here takes Bitcoin. A local voluntarist group that I attend near here every Saturday provides breakfast with cryptocurrency. You all are invited. Did you know that there are many uses of crypto tokens, including ones intended to directly support lower incomes, not even meant for some of the speculation and trading for money? Do you know it provides a type of security that not even banks provide? This is integral to our future. There are downsides. So I would never advise anyone to use a crypto ATM. The fees are too high. There are better ways. But I've used them because there were times when they were my best option. So almost all cryptocurrencies are scams. But as I've pointed out, there are many applications that are not available through any other means. ATMs are simply a tool, and taking them doesn't remove the underlying scam. Just move it. So solutions, the way to protect ourselves and our family and neighbors and friends is empowerment, education, communication, and even exposure without stigma. I'm sorry for those who have lost and been scammed. I'm part of that group. But the fixes for these crimes are the same as fixes for other finance crimes. education about patients, communication, curiosity, long-term thinking, the hard skills that involve interpersonal involvement and support. I hereby volunteer to help anyone understand more, including the risks, and even to help individuals and families with their own situation with free advice for voluntary efforts. I invite all listening to contact me, as I have no shortage of facts and strong opinions. Maybe we can even find ways to make Centerville more of a tech hub. Gina and the chief of police have my number. Don't ask why. So you want to hear a joke? Profits. Yeah, you may not get it, but I don't get it either. But please stop with ideas from the nanny state. Institutional force and stigma hurt more than they fix, causing ignorance, lost opportunity, and other unintended consequences. Tech restrictions hurt our future selves, old and young. Please do not use any city force to punish or limit technological and financial innovation and experimentation. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Mr. Mayor, can I ask a question?

Sure.

I'm just curious, with your background in cryptocurrency, I understand that there are a lot of ways that you can exchange and get cryptocurrency. Why protect kiosks and why aren't the other methods that are out there, why aren't those sufficient? Why are you advocating to keep kiosks specifically?

Good question. I was on my way to an event where I wanted to use some of the crypto and I didn't have the kind that I wanted. in that emergency situation, yes, I paid a premium for what I could get right there at the crypto ATM. Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Appreciate it, Trent.

Others? All right, see nobody online, right? See nobody else, we will move from the open session and we will go to our first business items. This is an item that we've had Mike Agate involved with and Councilwoman Hirsch has been quite involved with. So this is the South Davis Greenway feasibility study and report. And I'm grateful to those two that have been involved. And if I'm missing anybody, I apologize because it's been Something that is of great interest to me, but I haven't been able to find the time to be involved with it. So thank you, Mike and Gina. So we look forward to you giving us more background besides what we have in our material. Take it away, Mike.

Thanks, Mayor. As referenced in the packet, I provided a whole history of where we started and how we ended up where we are today. I felt like that that was relevant because maybe not all council members know the history, maybe not all council members know what some of the expenses or costs were when we started the project and what all has been involved in this. There's a lot. Yeah, you're welcome. So this endeavor, the shared endeavor between communities started in May of 2025. where we were approached by other neighboring South Davis communities. And we brought a request of grant monies that are available through the WFRC Transportation and Land Use Connection Program. to the council at that time. Each city concurrently did the same thing. There was a letter of concurrence and match agreement with WFRC signed and approved on July 5th. And the city's portion of contribution was only $7,500. That was for each of the four cities that were participating, which is us, North Salt Lake, Bountiful, and Farmington. And then the TLC grant funded $115,000 towards the entirety of the project. It was a planning study that was completely funded by these TLC grant monies, which was, I thought, a great thing Throughout the month of July and August, we worked through the selection committee process to screen applicants who had applied for it. We had four interested parties who applied. There were two finalists. We asked them to come back, did some interviews, and ultimately selected Kimberly Horn as the representative entity for the project. We did some amendments of their final scope of work document in August, and we went with Kimberly Horn as a group, in working forward on this project. The project actually started in mid-September of 2025, wherein we had a group steering committee of planning staff and WFRC representatives, and then obviously the Kimley Horn team. We met once a month at that time. From that time forward, we discussed ways to gather the city together, all the representatives of the city, and what would be in the best interest of having that reflected as part of this. And what was decided was about six members per city would be in the best interest to hear from all collective voices of each of the communities, as well as inviting UDOT and Davis County to be a part of it. And the reason for that is sometimes UDoc Davis County have ideas and opportunities for grant funding and other uh, for next steps as well as allowing their voice to be part of the process. And, and clearly we have a major project with UDOT that is affecting Centerville and other communities that, that made it even more pertinent to him and be part of this conversation. So, uh, the, the representation from Centerville city proper was as moved by the mayor, council member Hearst, uh, planning commissioner, Gary Woodward, uh, Kevin Campbell, myself, Sydney Deweese, and then Mitzi White from the trail committee. And the first project management team started on November 10th, 2025. And we met once, about once every two months. I said two weeks, that's a typo. It should be once every two months. So I apologize for that. And then the steering committee, we met once every month to connect forward with that program as we rolled it out. And there was a lot of discussions about what is the best route for each community? How do you connect to all the communities? What kind of utility impacts are there? What kind of residential impacts? What kind of residential benefits are provided? Are there ways to get UDOT funding to be in play? All sorts of things. What kind of grant opportunities will there be down the road? As you look at obviously the way up in the sky way up in space vision of what this might look like and so that would be the first phase of the project and one of the big key elements of that discussion clearly was the public involvement because there are there are residential properties and business properties along whatever route you select that will be either benefited or maybe even feel impacted depending on the perspective of each and every property owner throughout this process. So there were three public outreach efforts that were decided upon and selected as part of the processing. The first was in January of 2026. There was a large poster set up at the South Davis Recreation Center and there were ground decals set in front of key locations. Our two locations were Centerville Community Park, and then in front of the public library. There was also, I think, a poster posted in front of the public library for a while that directed people to go to the website, which is southdavisgreenway.org, as well as there were videos that were produced that had representatives from each community be a part of those videos, and they were posted on the website. If you remember back in, I think it was January, February, we shared a clip of that, and Council Member Hurst was our representative in that video. In mid-February we send out flyers to all the property owners that were along the trail greenway route to make sure they were fully notified and directed to go to the website. On the website there were opportunities to share comments and comments were starting to come in as well as our communications team did also direct people to the website who had just general interest from the community. And then as the As the study continued forward and we continue to have the meetings and we got closer and closer to completion of the feasibility study, the discussion was that there needed to be the final public event. And so public event flyers were sent out for an outdoor open house event, including, I guess you would call it a mock or an exemplar of what a Greenway area might look like. And that was held at the South Davis Recreation Center area slash Bountiful Park during a Bountiful Concert Night event. We did have, and that was held on June 26th of this year, we did have residents from Centerville show up. There was a large group of residents, which I had heard probably a week or two before, some concern that were along Chase Lane, that it indicated just, What are the impacts? How do we voice our opinions? Some strong feelings were directed and shared both prior and then during the event, as well as residents who were in support of it, not on Chase Lane. There were residents along the route itself that were actually in favor. There was a resident just off of the route in the historical district that had come, and he was a biker, and he was very supportive. So there was some mixed commentary, even in favor and against, and their comments were shared and left there. And then following that, Council Member Bucherf had had quite a bit of communication into the month of July with the residents along the route, and was seeking to hold a meeting We held a meeting with them on August 13th, which happened to be the same day that the final draft of the feasibility study was completed. And the meeting went very well. There were some misconceptions that were being established prior to that meeting that I think we clarified, as well as we heard the input and the route actually was moved from the south side impacting their properties to the north side in order to not impact their properties, which the residents were pretty favorable to. And so,

Mike, was that the only residence that showed was on the one road?

It was only the Chase Lane residence that I called. There might have been one from 400 West.

I think there was one that lived on 400 West, but for the most part, the people that have reached out to me from 400 West are There have been a couple of questions about it, but for the most part, very supportive.

Same with me.

How is it going to impact parking? One of the things about this is that it would limit parking on one side of the road. So that, I think, has been somewhat of the concern. And I think Chase Lane is... The mainly why we held the meeting as August is I wanted to make sure that sometimes this gets like this is a steady. There's no funding for it at the moment as we move towards potential funding. I just wanted their concerns documented. They were thoughtfully engaged in the process and they had a lot of really good questions and I didn't want that to get lost. I may not be on city council when it comes back to actually you know, become a project if it does. And so mainly we were trying to make sure that there we recorded the meeting so that Jennifer has that in the documentation. And I just want to make sure that they felt like they had that they hadn't made all this effort and then it just fell flat.

I will say this.

It is a study. So this is so conceptual. Like there are so much road to hoe before we would know exactly where an alignment could go for this trail. I think the frontage road is likely the, does it say that's phase zero? Yeah, it's on page, if you guys look on page 36,

Yeah, it's in the finding document itself.

It's on 38, I believe. Page 38, it shows you kind of the timing. And then the page just below it is the estimated probable construction cost. These are the types of information you need to have to go and start looking for funding. And there would have to be a pretty detailed engineering plan. that would identify right of way. And there's power poles that would have to be moved. There's a lot of things that need to still happen.

That's why I said this is from space level.

Yeah. So the way it started is we would go and meet together. And they'd meet with us for a few minutes. And then they would roll these big, long maps out that were the entire length of our city. And we would go in and identify. Kevin Campbell was there. Obviously, Mike and Sydney were there, and we just kind of were trying to figure out a really high level, you know, which side of the road should it go on. One of the reasons the frontage road was selected is because we knew that UDOT was going to be doing some improvements right there anyway, and that was a way to, you know, hopefully save some tax dollars to be used somewhere else at some point. And we weren't the only ones. Farmington jumped right on that, too. So it was interesting. We'd meet separately, and then we'd come back together and try to identify what worked best, especially where we connect with Farmington and Bountiful. So anyway, it's not a done deal. This doesn't mean that it's set for one side or the other. We just tried to look at it. But there's a lot to be done before an actual alignment would be completely set up.

Yeah, and to be clear, there's no funding, but the last document in the packet is the actual Greenway feasibility study letter of support. If the council were in favor of accepting the study, then that would authorize the mayor to sign that. That being signed is important because then we can provide it to the Utah State Utah Trail Network system and pursue grant funding. And that's a large pot of money. I can't remember, Nick, you might have to help me on this, but I think it's like $10 million a year.

Does that sound right?

50 million years, I'm way off. So 50 million a year, so it's quite a big bank.

Which is kind of what precipitated that it was talked about doing this regional type urban trail. This is to help people... that maybe don't drive, but need to get to, you know, very specifically locations were picked throughout cities that included parks, the library, like you'll notice, yeah, but it really is a backbone too. It's not meant to go through the whole city. It's just meant to be a spine that then we can add, you know, I'm thinking of the little path that we just got approved with county funding um porter lane yeah that's good yeah that's already one leg off of this potential um anyway i've had a lot of people reach out and be supportive and i think we you know in addition to that which was surprising to me at this early stage but also in addition we did try to make sure that we

ran a fairly aggressive make sure we collect and document concerns for future and their comments again on chase lane did affect what ultimate alignment was selected for chase lane so there was public commentary that guided a change an alteration that was accepted and became part of the final draft you have in their packet were any of the people on the other side of the road at the meeting

There's one gentleman that was there that lives on the north side. He did not say a whole lot, and I'm not sure who he was. He came in late. I don't think we ended up catching his name.

Yeah, I don't know if he said north.

and the reason i know he lives on the other side of the street is i've walked past and seen him in his yard so that's how i know he's on the other side but the others were on the south side of the street there are four homes on the north side and 10 or 11 homes on the south side too so

But I know the resident that was kind of taking up the charge of informing did inform pretty much everybody up and down Chase Lane.

And quite a bit of 400 West. I mean, I don't know how far she went along 400 West, but I suspect she said she had sent the flyer out to several people.

Mike, I am supportive of this, and I really appreciate cities for being proactive from a planning perspective. This is exactly what I want cities to do when thinking about planning. This is and this is going to be off a little ways. I just I was honestly curious as I was looking at the PowerPoint presentation and it was breaking down the cost by phase and jurisdiction. it's slated that it would cost in 20, $26, right? Centerville about 10 million, North Salt Lake 9 million, Bountiful 22 million and Farmington 1.3 million. Why are they so much?

Because their route is very non-impactful. They actually go along the street into a trail system they already have. That's off of, I don't know what the North or the East West road is there. But when you go past the junior high and you go to the intersection, Their trail would continue north down to a river trail that's already there. And then go along the front of Lagoon and work its way over to Smith's along unimproved areas.

But was this, while we're on that, were you done? I'm sorry.

Yes, I'm good.

I don't want to cut in your presentation. Did you have more?

I was just going to say, I know we have a presenter, so I think I provided all I need to, Mayor.

Oh, okay. Oh, I'm sorry if I cut before. No, it's okay.

So do we have a presenter?

Yeah, Mr. Nick Parks with Kimley Horn is actually here for the slide show. And I might have covered a lot of what he would have covered.

I probably did too.

I wanted to be very comprehensive because I think there's a lot here to unpack. So I appreciate you indulging me. But if you're open to it, Mayor, I'd have Mr. Parks take over.

Nobody with ties gets respects anymore. Thanks for coming. Go ahead and take it away.

Thanks for having me. I'm Nick Parks. I'm a civil engineer, and I had the privilege of working on this project throughout it since last September. I work for Kimley Horn. So I wanted to give an overview of the project. I know Mike did a great job running through it. There's a lot of collaboration, obviously, between the four cities. We have the Legacy Parkway Trail to the west of I-15. So this was filling a gap on the east side of I-15. And we really wanted to establish a route, an alignment, cost estimate, and to set it up for the Utah Trail Network funding and your acceptance of that. Many of you all might know by now, a greenway, another name for a shore use path, popular for recreating, commuting, improving quality of life in your local community. It's supposed to be low stress, high comfort facility. That was the goal, separated from traffic. We aimed to have a four to six foot buffer pretty much along the entire stretch, unless it was a really constrained area. These are two examples, the Nine Line in Salt Lake City, if you're familiar, and then in Provo along State Street. And I like these examples because, for example, lots of driveways along it. And that is something that comes up through Centerville, through Bountiful, really the whole way up to Farmington. And Nine Line is kind of a demonstration of it does work. And then on State Street in Provo, with all the utility lines and dodging utilities down State Street, I think is another example of being able to make a shared use path like this work.

Do you take any private property to do this?

We tried to avoid private property throughout the corridor. There were no right-of-way impacts through Centerville.

There are two potential, well, they would be private property impacts to Chipotle. And I can't think of.

Oh, there's a quick black.

and then colonial lumber, or there could be slight frontage impacts. And the reason for that is we originally had it on the west side, but because of just the brand new widening project, it didn't make sense to then go and take back the real estate that we had expanded for the fourth west parish lane, I guess, I don't wanna call interchange, what's a transition anyway, And so Kevin actually recommended that we move it to the east on that side and try to not impact those properties as much as possible and then go to the crosswalk towards the theater so that we don't impact the intersection, all those improvements that had been done just recently. So.

Continue, Nick. I want you to be able to get through your presentation.

Sorry. Yes. And we cross back. So yeah, we're along the east side and cross back. I think there's a pedestrian hybrid beacon. There is. There.

Cross back to the west side. But I want questions of counsel, but I want to be able to get through this as well, too.

Carrying on, this is the alignment the entire way from North Salt Lake to Farmington. And you can see the Centerville segment is about 3.2 miles, but a good portion of that is part of the I-15 widening. It'll be taken care of, in theory, as part of that project, which would be very nice for all the pocketbooks and the funding. If you haven't been to the website, I know Mike also plugged it. It's a nice spot to check out with Ariel, kind of which side of the road and where the crossings are, if you're curious. This is the widening project that we've addressed. I think I'll move on. There are two cross sections mainly, and I know this is something that came up at our public involvement events, is parking. And so one of the cross sections we have to the north and the very south of our Centerville segment is two lanes with on-street parking on one side of the road. And then on the opposite side of the road would be the trail that's buffered from the roadway. And I think it's important to note that we're only trying to impact one side of the roadway, just to limit impact. So one side would stay as existing, and the other side would be improved by this greenway. The other cross section, like we were just talking about with Mike, is 400 south to Parrish. This is where we have three lanes and there's quite a bit of center two way left turn lane throughout this section with no parking. This is a nice visual, gives you an idea as to what it could potentially look like. We had a few of these at the public open house. One of the main considerations through Centerville are all the utility poles. So there'd have to be relocations or undergrounding is what we accounted for in the cost estimates. And so those are all those teal, sorry, magenta dots. And then all the teal dots are driveway tie-ins. And there are a lot of driveways along the corridor. I also didn't, we didn't draw in all the minor streets. So the dark blue dots that you see in the plans are all the minor street tie-ins. It passes the community library, parks. That was the idea of the alignment being on certain side of the road to address access to these destinations. This is where we have the right-of-way impacts to Chipotle and to Kwik Kwak. And then, yes, the colonial building sign. some more driveways, and then this is where to the north side of Chase Lane is where the trail got relocated to, we talked about earlier. And then we connect to the I-15 widening project. talked about earlier, public outreach was a big part of this project and getting the thoughts and comments back from the public and giving them a sense of what it could feel like. So getting them out there, seeing the buffer, seeing how much space there would be with a 12-foot trail out there and the comfort that would provide them. And then phasing. So yeah, the I-15 widening project would be part of phase zero. and followed up by the phase one in North Salt Lake and then phase two would be your section in Centerville before finishing out phase three in Bountiful.

How's that order determined?

It was determined, we started with the I-15 widening as kind of like the base. And then they're also doing a Beck Street trail that's connecting from North Salt Lake to Salt Lake City. So that's all the way to the south. And so the idea there was to pick up from that new Beck Street trail and continue it north. And then tie into the I-15 widening project and carry it south. So basically work our way off of the widening project to either end, if that makes sense. Also from a standpoint of future funding and implementation, if you leave a gap like that, it's very necessary to close the gap. So I think it helps the argument to work kind of from either end and work your way towards the middle. The cost, yeah, $10 million, but not out of Centerville's pocket. So there's funding opportunities for that and not to get sticker shock by the 10 million. That would come all in one phase.

And you said that included some of the utilities being placed underground, that number right there? Yeah, that would include undergrounding. Thoughts that you had on 400 West?

Yeah. And any drainage improvements, new inlets, bringing manholes, everything to grade? Lighting? Lighting. This is also a design and construction cost, so combined. Funding sources, like we talked about, Utah Trail Network is really the goal here. The rest of these are secondary sources and definitely feasible options to pursue if we don't get Utah Trail Network funding. But that is the priority and what we're seeking today. And yeah. Acceptance is not a commitment of funds. That is very important. So just want to provide options for the future. Thank you.

Thank you. Can we ask questions yet? I know. A little bit. Huh? No, can we? Are you guys done presenting? Oh, yes, that is now. Okay, a couple things. I saw 10.1 million and I last saw 11.8 million five years later. Is there two phases of this? It accounts for inflation. Okay. Well, I guess maybe if Councilman Plummer asked that question, putting things underground, because I can't imagine pavement costing that much, you know, I mean, or we're projecting some serious inflation. Okay, so maybe that answers the question there, more than just pavement.

Yeah, the utilities are a big portion of the cost for Centerville.

So, having traveled a bit recently, walking, biking paths are pretty critical, especially as our city's grown, so. So I think this is definitely something we need, because I don't know where we're going to put more roads. So you've got to have this. But I do ask you this. Is there any projections on use on this? Because as Utahns, we won't give up our cars, I'll tell you. But maybe we'll have to. We'll be down to one-car families finally. at some point in time. Is there any projections? Just out of curiosity. I do not have projections.

Can I ask, maybe going along with projections, what are the types of vehicles that are allowed on this trail? Obviously people can ride bikes or walk. Do the other cities limit those Other bikes, too. Can e-bikes go on it? Can golf carts go on it?

I think what he's asking there is what's rolling to find us. Because it says walking, biking, and rolling. There you go.

I'll share what I think we've talked about. That is undetermined at this time. It's indeterminate. And that's because no policies have been established. We're not quite to that point. But that clearly could be a policy discussion. if the council were to accept this then i would continue participating in these committees with the other cities to have those very conversations and if i've got feedback from the council it says hey my council does not want motorized vehicles in these corridors i can bring that to the table to represent centerville's interest for that if that's the desire so those conversations still need to be had let's put it that way so what do we say in rolling is Rolling would be like strollers, wagons, I guess. Rollerblades. Roller skates, I guess. Scooters. With wheels. I did have, sorry, I didn't mean to cut you off. I just was going to add to that. I did have one resident in particular on 4th West that was really excited about the idea of it, even in front of their house, because they have young children and they like the idea of being able to have their kids go outside and feel safe rolling back and forth between friends' house and just being able to recreate.

can i piggyback on mayor's question with regard to the cost so some of it would be burying underground lines but i want to look at this example that you have up on this board right now because currently this where this trail is it's just grass right but in this picture i see lovely trees and landscaping there on the left hand side would the 10 million also go to aesthetically beautifying this area as well adding trees and such

Yeah, and that's another indeterminate discussion that came up relative to landscaping just because it shows this. Obviously, if we feel like maintenance of trees or other things in the park strip area are difficult to achieve, it can be definitely more drought tolerant. plantings, it could be different kinds of mulches or other things. That's another thing that would be discussed with future discussion between the cities as far as what could be a design or an aesthetic. And each city can have its own independent aesthetic as well. So you kind of know when you're going from one community to another if you want your own unique identity. If you want to kind of have some meaning. Or you could have Cohesion. Seamless cohesion too. Maybe you have similar colorations on the actual path, but then the partnership plantings are a little bit unique and different with some welcome to Centerville type signage or whatever, right? You could do different things that kind of might be fun and unique. So those conversations have not happened yet. That's coming out of space and coming more into the atmosphere with those kinds of conversations.

And here's a unique question, and I don't know if Councilwoman Hirsch thought of it, but five years ago I was talking an awful lot with UTA about BRT going through our roads where our businesses are. Well, 400 West, where your route is, I mean, does it affect, I don't know that UTA would ever go there. I mean, they said they'd entertain it, but Would it affect the BRT going there rather than on Main Street?

It could. It's probably more of a Kevin question, but I can tell you from my perspective and even as we've talked about some of the general plan discussions and stuff, yes, because the way the BRT works, it becomes an added lane in the middle. It has to have the park islands where people can go and safely wait. So this could impact that route for meetings for BRT.

Of course, those are our roads, right? You can dig and do what they want, but we've always said Main Street is really not our road. Just curiosity. That's a fair question. I am so thrilled personally that you all have been working on it so hard. Like I said, I would have liked to have been there as well, too, but I wasn't. So thank you, thank you for all that you've been doing. That's the questions I have right now. Council, any? I have a couple, please.

And I'd like the idea, too. I think it's a great enhancement and would be very utilized. But a couple of things. I'm a little worried about those three businesses, Colonial Lumber, Quick Quack. And have they specifically weighed in on this? Where are they at with this?

We sent them the notification like we did any other property owner along 400 West, but we have not heard anything from them. At least I haven't. I don't know if you're familiar.

I didn't hear anything from them.

That particularly concerns me because I think of that situation, quick quack is such a tight for them to give up any frontage there. We already have a traffic issue with the amount of traffic coming out of there. And I would be shocked if they're pleased with this. Colonial might have a little more latitude there. And we did have the option on the other side of the road.

The original alignment was crossing to the west, but City Engineer felt like that that would be impactful and asked to go to the east.

impactful for other reasons, but they both have their impacts. That concerns me.

I think that's a good point that you bring up. And definitely if this gets to the stage where there's going to be plans drawn up, of course you'd have to have some discussions with them, right? I think, you know, the reason I said, hey, we laid this out, I just wanted you to know, like, we tried to pick what we thought might be a good alignment. That doesn't mean we caught the right alignment. So I do think, you know, if that is problematic and it makes it so a business can't actually function as a business, then we have to look at it and say, well, can we put it to the other side, right?

Yeah, I think acceptance of the alignment is saying that we think we're there but again it also allows the community to keep meaning to talk about it and to your point uh council member bangador if there's an evaluation as we get deeper and more coming down closer to to land on this we look at the cost we look at the impacts and we determine hey the west side still is the better option that plan can be

I think one more thing to think about is you're looking at this picture and it's a 12 12 foot wide path, correct? It's a 12 foot wide path and a four to six foot wide park strip. That could potentially also be narrowed a little where it's maybe, you know, I mean, I think we're talking about a choke point, which is why it could impact those three businesses because that right of way is a little bit tighter.

In a lot of cases, we kind of showed

worst case most amount of conflict worst case scenario and so yeah so it could also maybe be narrowed a little right there and it would be fine i think there's that's why i say i think there's a lot that has to be looked at before you finalize that actual plan and that's good to hear i appreciate that because that leads into my next question which was i i would be

SHOCKED, ACTUALLY, THE FORTHWEST PORTION, THAT WHEN PEOPLE REALLY REALIZE THAT IF THEY'RE ON THAT SIDE OF THE ROAD, GRANDMA AND GRANDPA, YOUR SON'S NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO PARK IN FRONT OF YOUR HOUSE ANYMORE. AND THAT'S A BIG IMPACT. AND TO THE MAYOR'S POINT, CENTRAL RESIDENTS AREN'T GOING TO GIVE UP THEIR CARS. WELL, WE'RE GIVING UP A LOT OF PARKING FOR THIS. SO I JUST WONDER ALIGNMENT-WISE. Like Chase Lake. Enough residents had an issue with it being on that side. You guys have moved it, which is great. But if that comes up later with 4th West, if when people really... They could, right? And so maybe we could move it to the other side. And I know we don't want to be jumping back and forth. That didn't work.

I will say, interestingly enough, so that is right by where I live. It happens to be... The Chase Lane part. No, Chase Lane is not, I mean, the 400 West between Chase Lane and that red brick church house on 400 West, that happens to just be my, I know all those people. That used to be, some of that used to be my ward, some of it still currently is my ward. So I've actually talked to several of those people, and I think... And I'm not so sure we're not seeing some of that coming around with Chase Lane a little bit, but these are really wide roads, and there's a lot of speeding that happens when you're on a wider road. These will narrow those roads down, and it will provide a natural... Just in your mind when you're driving on a narrow road, you tend to drive slower. So I've actually had... several of those residents say to me, I'm very excited about this because it will slow the traffic down. So there's pros and cons. I'm not disagreeing with you. And I think that sometimes it's really hard to get the word out. They got a letter. I asked a few of them, anyone I saw, I was asking how they felt about it. But sometimes things don't always settle in and register until they've heard about it two or three times. And so it could, you're right, there could be more concerns for sure.

Well, I love this, it's beautiful. And there were so many e-bikes and e-skippers and we just keep hearing about more accidents. So to get them off the road, I think is great. If it saves one person's life, I think that's great. I am a little concerned about the mayor's question. I would hate to see that this would make the impact of us having to have BRT up on Main Street rather than down 4th West after we'd worked so hard to try to talk them into looking. I mean, we'd go and we'd say, please, 4th West, you've been there. I was there. Spencer was there. We all told them we thought 4th West was a better alternative. And now they come back and maybe offer that to us. And we say, oh, oops, we went a different direction. I don't know either. I was going to say, I don't know that thing.

I was going to go that route anyway. That was on a napkin.

We actually put it on their maps and everything when we met with them. Gina and me and Spencer all put that on their maps.

I certainly don't want to kill over that all the time and effort that's been put put into this and what you come up with. This gets the ball rolling. I know that once you approve the feasibility study, I mean, the ball is rolling, but I also don't want to be the one we already are on the hill with our trails that, boom, all of a sudden the trail ends. I mean, we've got to be team players.

And this isn't going to cost us anything to go on to the feasibility study.

i mean you know i so i don't think we're being asked to commit to any funds because they're going to go try and do their very best to get it fully funded does that mean that we will never be asked i'm not going to promise that because i don't know but we're not committing to anything exactly exactly that would be a decision at that point so you know i think that they're confident that there are many opportunities out there can we be the ones that qualify i think there's a really good chance i mean i think kimley horn feels like there's a really good chance especially where is a more re it's multiple communities and this is going to tie into a trail that you know really if people want to ride their bike to work in downtown salt lake they'll be able to yeah i love it i love that stuff So I think there's lots to love about it. I think it's important to remember too, as you look at this picture, I'm not sure, like we put the people on it, right? This is a 12 foot wide path. That's a traffic lane and it's a wide traffic lane. We have lanes of traffic that are 11 feet. So this is a really big, nice path. And yes, to your point, Robin, I think it would give lots of opportunity you know, depending on how we decide on those rolling e-bikes and whatnot, I do think there's, I think there's going to have to be some considerations about what is, you know, how you share that space. But it's a really big, wide path. So it's really nice.

And I think to that point, the council will be involved on whatever next steps happen. In my mind, as I've talked about, and we've talked with the residents, it feels like there's still two or three more steps to this thing. There's still the design and the engineering, and then there's the implementation, the construction. So this is the first of probably a four-step or... plus project even to get to that point. So that's another thing that there will be plenty of conversation with the council to make sure if there's something wrong, where it feels off, or maybe even with the design engineering, it's like this part of the route is not working and here's why we need to look at it. So I think that it's a very evolutionary process anyway, even at where it is right now.

Can I ask if our police chief and Public safety officials have any take on this as far from a safety perspective and speed limits and traffic management on those routes? I'm just curious.

Yeah, Mike and I were just chatting about safety-wise. Yeah, I liked Councilwoman Hurst's comments about traffic calming through narrowing, not removing lanes, but narrowing things down. Right now it is kind of a wide open road that has a low speed limit, and so it does tend to drive speeds up. So I'm a fan of getting pedestrians and cyclists off the roadway, give them a little bit of a buffer. As we know from previous meetings, I'm a fan of sidewalks and, you know, Pathways off the roadway, so.

Specifically, Chief, what about all the residents who would be backing across this to leave, to get out, ingress and egress from their properties with two lanes to clear, bikes and pedestrians here, and then another clearing, I'm just, thoughts on that? Are we going to have more accidents? Are we going to have pedestrian accidents?

Less. I don't know how it would work and how it would line up with trees blocking line of sight. And so it's possible with the travel lane closer to the homes that they have a better sight of pedestrians and cyclists there rather than on the other side of the park strip where you've got trees and other things blocking it. I don't know if there anyone's yeah, I really don't have a professional Opinion on that.

Sorry you would hope that people knowing that those Passer there they would drive safer, right?

I do my concern though would be with Cyclists maybe going too fast on a sidewalk and not doing giving due care to to motors pulling in and out, which is, a lot of times we'll see that on crashes like that where it's this cyclist going really fast on a sidewalk and end up getting hit.

Is there a, perhaps a speed limit on those two examples that you showed us that you know of?

Like a... On the path itself?

Yeah.

We didn't establish a speed limit as part of this. It also goes back to enforcement. It's rather difficult to, I guess, enforce a speed on these shared use paths. And so I think that's something that would...

come a little bit later.

Oh, like posted on those? Not that I know of. Not on the nine line. I frequent that one.

And I'm sorry, and maybe I missed that part of the conversation about electronic devices on these e-bikes and stuff there.

Well, a regular bike can go about, what, 15 miles per hour if you're really pedaling. And then an e-bike, you said, could go upwards of?

20 to 28, depending on the class.

So that's kind of fast on a path like that. I'm actually in favor of this as well.

I'm just kind of looking at the concerns that I have. A note on the driveways as well. It's also existing right now, people are backing out, and you've got cyclists going down the shoulder.

But I think it's a- Yeah, so that did come up with the Chase Lane residents, of course. And that is one of the reasons that we moved it to the north side, because there's way, way, four driveways versus 11 or 12. It was a high number. And so, yeah, of course we want to look for ways to avoid potential conflicts. But as I was thinking about it and thinking about, you know, backing out of a driveway, I'm like, you're still on Chase Lane if you're backing out. It's a really wide road. You still got to watch the sidewalk when you're backing out. You still got to watch the shoulder, which has the bicyclists in it. And you still got to watch for traffic. So I'm not... I don't know. I don't understand professionally how that may impact to suddenly move everything into one 12-foot lane. But I think it is what the mayor said. We just have to be... If you're backing up into a sidewalk or a pathway, we always need to be careful.

It does concern me a little bit because I'm out there and I see these e-bikes. I'm not sure they don't go more than 28 miles an hour. That would be my concern is this seems like a straight shot. where on the shoulder they're kind of moving in and out, cars are pulling in and out. I think they'd be a little more, you know, I could get on that and think, hey, I could go to North Salt Lake with, you know, I'm going to put this out to full gear and on I go. I don't know either. I'm supportive of this. I could just want, as we're looking at it, those things to be taken into consideration. I don't want to put that much money into it and then have them say, ah, we can't have bicycles on it or we can't have e-bikes on it. Because that would be my concern is it does look like a straight shot. If you're 12 years old and you get your e-bike going down there 28 miles an hour, are you stopping or slowing down at each?

At each driveway. Well, we've had good discussion. We got a lot on our agenda. And so we probably are looking at some sort of, there's a couple sample motions in your packet where you can make up your own motion on this if anybody is so inclined to.

Gina, do you want to or do you want me to? This is kind of your baby, so I want to give you a first crack.

Well, I'm happy if someone else wants to make it. I'm very supportive of the project, just at least to provide the option for the future, right? Like, respectfully agree with all the things that have been stated, but I'd love to see this.

Then I will make a motion that the City Council accept the results of the South Davis Greenway Feasibility Study and associated completed documentation.

Second. Second. All right. Motion to second. Let's start with Councilman Banger. Go to the right. Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All right, that passes unanimously. Thank you, Mike. Thanks, Nick, for coming. Appreciate it. All right, let's go to one of our public hearing matters. So this is a public hearing related to DADU's, Detached Accessory Dwelling Units. And this has gone through Planning Commission, three sessions, and Mike will tell us some about that, as well as other things. that this is one of those deals, again, I believe, Mike, that we have legislators saying we need to submit something right by October 1st. That's correct.

Yeah. Thank you, Mayor, Council. So this is a little bit of a challenging discussion, I know, for everybody. As the Mayor said, per state code, let's see which one that was. It was... senate bill 284 that's what it was local land and water modifications which the governor signed on march 18th the state legislature approved this bill that codified detached accessory dwelling units as found in in utah state code 10-21-304 one of the requirements for this detached adu language is that each city have a code standard in place by October 1st in their communities to continue to be in compliance with state requirements. So we started after, I guess to give you a quick history on this, after the governor signed it and things rolled out, we started getting information as cities from the Utah League of Cities and Towns relative to how do you tackle the detached accessory dwelling requirements. and i participated in those sessions in april and even into may and got the guidance necessary regarding what you have to have in the detached accessory dwelling unit what you can have optionally in detached accessory dwelling unit code and what you can what are you basically are not allowed to regulate so there were three three three um things that had to be evaluated when looking at how you establish this code. And so it was a big animal. And there are not very many cities that I found through my research during May and June in Davis County that have detached accessory billing that's currently existing. And so I went and I did the research necessary looking at the ones that we had neighboring. Farmington, I don't think we wanted to reflect their code, so I didn't give it a lot of credence because they have kind of a more of a pioneering concept that I don't think is conducive to what Centerville is seeking. And Bountiful has one. They've had theirs in place since 2008. So I looked at them. I did look at North Salt Lake. And I kind of tried to look at comparable cities. I think I pulled in West Point and obviously I pulled in Mill Creek. I looked at Salt Lake County because I thought theirs had some unique features that matched some of the things we might be looking for and also seemed to match state compliance as well as even as far as Eagle Mountain. And the reason for that is, again, just to try to get a broad enough survey. But some of the other areas like Layton had one, but again, it wasn't conducive to the city. Anyway, so throughout the month of June, I did the survey and I had talked to the Planning Commission about the need to bring this forward in order to hit the timelines. Looking at the calendar, clearly to hit everything, it would require some time with the Planning Commission and public hearings that are required, as well as bringing it to the council. So we did have our first discussion with the Planning Commission on June 8th. I brought forward the first survey. I brought forward the state code requirements. I'm not sure if we had the one pager from the Utah League of Advanced Cities and Town available at that point. And I brought forward a first draft of a detached ADU ordinance that seemed to be a good starting point, which was the Mill Creek one. And what I did is I brought in code sections that we had already established in our internal ADU ordinance as well and pushed those things in that seemed to be things we already had wanted and are utilizing with the internal accessory dwelling unit in addition to the Mill Creek code to have that starting point. And then I got direction from the Planning Commission during the July 8th meeting, did some more investigation and revisions, further went and looked at things that were in other city codes that optionally could further be researched or evaluated by the Planning Commission and staff of ways to... if directed to do so or if I would do so adjust into the code that was the draft, those concepts. I did provide the state requirements from the Utah League of Cities and Towns in that packet and we discussed that at length and that was brought forward to the July 22nd meeting that I'm evidencing here in the packet. And we started to refine these concepts And then they set the public hearing for August 12th, and they still had additional questions that came as you priced on the packet, an email conversation and some responses to that email conversation, as well as they asked me to research from Bountiful City how many existing detached accessory dwelling unit permits they had. WHAT KIND OF REQUESTS THEY'RE GETTING, IS IT AN ACTIVE PROGRAM, AND YOU CAN SEE THE RESPONSES IN THERE, BUT WHAT WAS REALLY INTERESTING IS THEY STARTED THEIR PROGRAM IN 2008 AND THEY ONLY EVIDENCED 27 KNOWN APPLICATIONS THAT ARE PROCESSED AND EXISTING IN THEIR COMMUNITY. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THERE AREN'T OTHERS, BUT FOLLOWING THE CITY REQUIREMENTS THEY HAVE ON RECORD 27. SO THAT WAS AN INTERESTING FINDING. ONE THING I ALSO WANT TO NOTE that as we talked with the Planning Commission about key features and I'll come back quickly and go over what the state requirements are specifically but the Planning Commission had to evaluate things that the state code didn't drive, like what should be the setback for it? How tall should it be? Are there gonna be second stories allowed? Are there gonna be basements? What size of units? Those sorts of things were things that the state had no real commentary on. And so the Planning Commission had to evaluate those options. But anyway, Let me share with you, if you'll just indulge me, the statutory requirements. So this is per Utah Legacies and Towns, and this is found in 10-21-304 of the state code. To be compliant with state law, city daddus ordinance must allow daddus on lots larger than 11,000 square feet with single-family dwellings. Now, you can optionally go lower than that, but that's the starting point. You can't go half acre and say we're not accepting unless they're half acre. Require daddus to comply with all applicable building health and fire codes, so you must have language that says that. You must include a process for conversion of a legally constructed accessory structure to a daddu subject to dwelling accessory structure setback requirements. So if someone has a garage in the backyard, you need to provide an opportunity for them to be able to equip that garage into a potential daddy, as long as they still meet your setback requirements and your other requirements for that structure. So if someone's three feet from the property line, they still wouldn't qualify if your setback standard in your code is eight feet, for instance. So that's what the state said there. To be compliant with state law, your city's daddy's ordinance must not require a conditional use permit for a daddy proposed in a primarily residential zone, require more than one parking spot for a daddy less than 650 square feet or more than two parking spots for all daddies, and include design standards that conflict with 10-20-618, which says you can't regulate the exterior of a structure by telling what colors it must have and what materials it has to have and how the windows should be designed. The state code has said you can't require those kind of controls. But you can still... require, you can still optionally require daddys to have a consistent design with the single family dwelling in trade. So that's what they said there. Now these are the things that you can consider, but you don't have to. Prohibiting daddys in areas with inadequate access to utilities and or insufficient infrastructure capacity on a project and system level for sewer, water, electric storm water. Regulating size individually in relation to the single family dwelling. dimension, height, maximum lot coverage, and setback requirements, prohibiting daddies from being in front yards and public utility easements, prohibiting daddies from being rented for less than 90 consecutive days, requiring the owner to live in the single-family dwelling or the DADU, requiring replacement of on-site parking spaces when a garage is converted to a DADU, limiting a property owner from having both a DADU and an internal ADU on the same lot, giving the property owner the choice to have one or the other. They must still be permitted by city code, but the city code may require a property owner to choose either one or the other. And then you may require compliance with all of the land use ordinances of the city, including business licenses, utility meters, mailing addresses, and more. The reason I share all that with you is that helps to understand the mindset that the Planning Commission was dealing with when evaluating all the options that were on the table and what the state was saying you have to do. And one of the things that I will say staff was trying to say is, now look, the state of Utah says 11,000 square feet is the starting point. You don't have to go smaller. The Planning Commission did opt to go smaller, as evidenced in their minutes, for purposes that the minutes reflect. That was a decision that they recommended, as well as the size of the structure. Like I said, they're the ones that I think they picked I think it's 600 square feet or 500 square feet. I read it earlier, but I don't remember. Up to, I think it was 1,200 square feet. But one floor could only be a maximum of 800 square feet. And then obviously the other space could be that differential up to that 1,200. There were nuances there. The reason that the setback was set at eight feet was because existing single family residential dwellings in the side yard are set back at an eight feet minimum standard, combined to 10. And also your PUE is a seven foot PUE on the side yards and even the rear yard. And so the thought was eight foot was, a consistent application for DADU of that location to stay off the PUE and also match up with consistency of the single family dwelling. So I know I've said a lot. I just want to note that there are multiple documents in your packet that further I hopefully provide the full body of research and discussion and information that has been provided and brought forward over the months to get to this point. And I know it's not the best, most exciting place to be, but we do have to try to figure out what direction we want to go, at least for the October 1st deadline. That doesn't mean that we can't bring back other ideas and concepts that we want to explore further as a city, either given direction from the council and or in discussion with the planning commission to further refine things that are really desirable or need further refining within the code to make it more what the city wants to see. So I guess what I'm saying is we would have more time after to go and do that research and further refine the the the

code with whatever version might be be approved by october 1st so with that hopefully that gives you enough information and i appreciate your indulgence and patience with me showing that mayor and council thank you sure so this is public hearing but questions for mike before we do a public hearing on anything he said or what you have in your packet i appreciate council you got a big packet this time so appreciate uh all of you for reading every page but um So fire, if you have any questions for Mike before we do a public hearing.

Mike, I have a question for you. So Spencer Summerhays submitted to the city council in advance of this meeting some thoughts and it looks like he had a conversation with you in advance of the city council meeting. Are you prepared to address the comments today that he has submitted or would you propose that we pass the ordinance as proposed by the planning commission or as recommended by the planning commission and come back to us with more cogent responses to Spencer's suggestions?

I think when it comes to the second story, there's three points that very clearly states that second story development of an accessory building is not available for DDU use. I mean, if we needed to further clarify with his statement about attic, attic or Eve space, further defining what that means, that would not take much to do that if directed to do so by council. I don't know how to comment on the The Four Corners discussion, again, I mean, eight feet seems to be similar to a single family dwelling. Could four property owners all have a detached ADU? Certainly. I don't know if Bountiful statistics are a tell of how many people will employ in Centerville, but again, it's been in place in Bountiful for 18 years and there's 27 known accepted ADUs. So I guess what I'm getting at there is the likelihood of four neighbors doing what he proposes is probably unlikely, but not impossible. So I don't know how to comment on that other than that. I guess the only thing you could do in that scenario is you can make setbacks even more stringent, say 10 feet, or say if it's over 15 feet for every foot or two, it has to be set back even further inside 10 feet up to 12 feet or something. I suppose you could do something like that in response to his comment.

I guess that was my question, because he raises, I think, some interesting points, particularly in regard to urban shadows and things like that. But I just I was wondering, are we are we at a point where we could actually get in and make those changes to what's been proposed right now? Or is that something that we should certainly think about?

But maybe, yeah, it's probably it's probably the latter, with the exception, again, of attic and e-space. That would not be hard to add.

but i think the other conversations are are definitely much so i always get afraid of bringing in comments of somebody that's emailed or something uh if if all members of council haven't seen that i have seen it it was sent out to everyone i think and i i appreciated what he sent so i appreciate uh council member hayman bringing it up because

I think it was important.

Can I ask another clarifying question? So I did reach out. I reached out to who I could quickly on some of those emails. I did miss one person. But he mentioned the 20 foot height. It says a maximum of 20 feet. Is that, I know when we take a height for a building, we go from the bottom of the curb Yeah, and then we go something like the ring, like there's an average going on. Is this 20 feet to the peak of the roof?

No, it's measured. It can be significantly higher. So the average would be here.

Planning Commission did discuss that and staff's recommendation is that if we already have a measurement or a provision in our code that we stick with that because we don't want separate calculations if you need to look at your height calculation in general. But I did want to say that just for the record we did receive two written public comments and i think most of those went to the city council they will be or should be included as part of the record whether those people speak in this public hearing or not it's written public comment that will be part of the record so that's what i was going to say we can we get that's got to be in front of the public as well too if you're talking about something here the public hasn't seen right and i do want to say are they included in the packet i know i got that they were not because they came in later okay okay yeah so we maybe need to table and right you can certainly table um but i just wanted to make a comment as well i think mike has done a good job you know seeing what other cities that have these ordinances in place and also trying to address you know the unique circumstances of centerville staff's recommendation at the planning commission level was just go with the state requirements. We don't need to get creative at this level. This is a new, um, you know, type of structure in our city. And so, you know, trying to start out conservative rather than, you know, getting creative. And so the two areas that I see the planning commission went less restrictive than state law is the size of a lot. So they're recommending 8,500 and above state law only requires you to do 11,000 square feet and above. to allow these types of units. And I also think that there was some discussion, and the Planning Commission recommended allowing basements, and other cities do not allow basements for these. Now, we haven't done the research on that, Basements do create additional issues here in center with groundwater and other, you know, concerns and maybe building codes, et cetera. It also makes it a bigger structure. So those were the two things in re reviewing the ordinance today that I think the planning commission's recommendation is slightly more lenient than what the state code requires. There may be other provisions, but those came to mind. So I wanted to highlight that as well as just understanding you can certainly table this, take the public comment. We have one more meeting. This has been calendared out so that we could meet this, but It is a lengthy ordinance, but I think most of the additional regulations are trying to tighten it and address these discretionary issues that the state allows municipalities to address.

I have a number of comments to address, but I think we need to have public hearing. Is there anybody online?

Well, I'll go to public hearing. Generally, following the process we use, we ask questions of staff. If you're done with staff, then we go to public hearing. You can come back and ask more questions, too. Anything from the public hearing or anything from the staff.

Just one clarification, at least. I did check with Bountiful. They do allow basements and DAs, just for clarification.

Okay, then. Some of this is addressed to staff. Let me go there. First of all, I'll just identify that... This council member is very amenable to ADUs and specifically detached ADUs. And I've recently been through an election where it was brought up repeatedly. And I am confident that a vast number of our residents support this idea as a way to provide some more affordable, moderate housing for residents in need that's been identified extensively as we've been looking at general plan stuff. So I'm pleased the state's taken some action. I'm a little concerned and I want to understand what is the penalty, and I want to be ready before October 1st, but what's the penalty if we weren't? What would that mean?

I would think somebody could probably do it without, we don't have any ordinance in place and it becomes legal on October 1st. So we would lose our rights of saying, you can only be this high, you can do this, you can do that. We have to have that in place. Because on October 1st, it's going to be the state. Am I wrong?

Yeah. Okay.

That's the risk. That would be my fear is that we'd have somebody come in and do. We would just be subject to the state law mandates.

Okay, that helps. And it seems like we're right down to the wire. And I understand, staff, you've been overburdened. And it has been cumbersome to know what the league was going to suggest, all those things. I totally get that. I think Planning Commission identified that. I do want to identify. that I listened intently from Alaska to that planning commission meeting. I was all ears. And it was clear that there was some public comment brought forward to them by the Riley's and other gal there. And we've had other public comments since then in writing. We gave a fair amount of attention just now to Mr. Summerhays' comments and probably ought to be equally dispersed. But that's just something I wanted to point out. And I do want to point out, it wasn't addressed in the draft minutes that are in our packet from the Planning Commission. Commission chair, Mason Kerr, and I need to quote this, because if you haven't listened to that, I think this is critical to our timing here. He said, after thanking staff profusely for the hard work, appropriately so, to get to this point, he said, I'm going to say this. THAT I WOULD LIKE US TO WORK ON MODIFYING THE CODE I JUST MOVED TO AUTHORIZE, WHICH GOT A UNANIMOUS APPROVAL, WITH POSITIVE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE ADDRESS THESE SITUATIONS, THE PUBLIC COMMENT, WHERE IT SEEMS LIKE TO MEET THE SPIRIT AND INTENT OF THE DADDUS WOULD BE TO ALLOW A DADDU IN THESE SITUATIONS IN A FRONT YARD. That would make a lot of sense to me at least that would be the underlying policy I'm quoting him directly behind why we would want a dad who code to address these situations these few that that created a challenge But I want to do it in a way that makes a lot of sense yeah I don't know what that looks like yet, but it makes sense for everybody with that direct but doesn't make sense forever are you open to other alternative uh... land use discussions by commissions that totally in my degree totally uh... appropriately and then he says uh... Yeah, I would like that. Sorry to saddle the staff with more workload, but I feel quite strongly that that is something we should address in the near future. And it seems like residents are waiting that, wanting that, as the state does. Okay, so. the planning commission was was really strong on that it didn't reflect in the minutes that they they agreed there were some exceptions here that those those people identified and we're under a timeline but but let's do it quickly i i suggest you know we have a month Well, we have two weeks until our next council meeting. So obviously, I'm going to be motioning to table this. But in that time, there's another planning commission meeting. If we give them some specific direction, I would love to hear some planning commission members' feedback on some of the issues raised by these public comments, by Mr. Summerhays, by others, and my staff's feedback on that. And then let's not say, OK, we're to this point. It's pretty good. And it is pretty good, really good. But we're in the process. We're doing the citizens' work now. The Riley's, for example, they presented to this city council in a very professional, concise, in an understandable way that I think all of us, I can't speak for all of us, but everybody was impressed. That was February. They've been waiting since then. Now we're at the point, they've suggested that here you are, President, doing a resolution or an ordinance changing code LET'S INCLUDE THESE THINGS. LET'S GET SOME DIRECTION. AND I AGREE. WE CAN SPEND A LITTLE LATER TONIGHT OR NEXT WEEK IN PLANNING COMMISSION OR THE NEXT MEETING. LET'S NOT JUST SAY THAT WE'VE DONE GOOD TO HERE, THAT'S GOOD ENOUGH, AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO ADDRESS IT SOON. That's frustrating to residents. And I think we can do better. And so that's my plea. I think it's important. I think there's some excellent issues brought up by this additional public comment we've received. I would like to be able to address some of that. I don't think we're going to get all of it done. But I think we can get a substantial amount of it agreed upon and voted upon yet this month and be in compliance.

The challenge with that is, Council Member Bangerter, is you do have to have a public hearing for new code, and that's where we'll run into timing issues with that idea. I'm fine with that idea, but it would put us to a point where we would be on the October 1st deadline and bring it back to the council.

Why can't we notice a public hearing for our next meeting?

We don't have enough time for Planning Commission to review and have the appropriate notification for public hearings.

It puts our back up against, well, I'm not really pleased about that, but... I'm with you, let's table this now. I have some concerns about the way it's written right now. I feel like we're cutting it off rather arbitrarily at 8,500. been in places in st george where they have lots that are a tenth of an acre and have a casita detached adu in the backyard a tenth of an acre a tenth of an acre wow so it is possible to have uh these 500 square feet that is correct that would be okay

That's going to be tight.

I don't know.

I'll show you the pictures on that. I was in Yuma.

We had them too. There are pictures.

And they are very nice.

I did think that would be helpful.

I went to a small home manufacturer in St. George. Beautiful place. Went out to five subdivisions that they do.

Very nice place. I think we can have a really good... product for people with all size lots. We shouldn't limit it to just the upper sized lots and that corners really do need to be looked at a little bit more carefully as we talk about these So supportive of putting it off for a couple weeks.

I need to understand, though, the public hearing part. Can we extend the public hearing today?

It's not our public hearing. It's the Planning Commission's public hearing. There's not enough notification time between now and their next meeting. That's what the issue is. I don't disagree with anything you're saying. I'm not sure that I totally agree that i mean by i i'm concerned about the setbacks when you talk about moving the adu to the front yard then you're building potentially a larger home behind and if you have an eight foot setback that concerns me that that maybe isn't the same like the idea is to keep the single family residential neighborhoods to fill like single family residential neighborhoods so i think that the setbacks are potentially different if you're saying we're going to let that be flopped in my mind it would be would be different on a corner a corner lot but A corner lot might be different, but a regular lot would be... A regular lot, I just think we need to consider... You know, right now, you can have a home and have a 10-foot side, correct?

And an 8-foot... 8-foot minimum and 10, yeah. 8 and 10.

So you've got to have 18 feet. That's correct. And then what's the backyard? On just not...

The yard is 25.

Okay. I mean, could it be less than that? I don't know. I want to see how these heights impact... You know, because there is, I'm a firm believer in private property rights, but it's not just the homeowner with the ADU, it's the home next to the ADU, and I want to make sure we get that right, so that we are not harming neighbors. So I don't disagree with you, I absolutely, but I think the definition might be slightly, to me that seems like a flag lot, and that if you differentiated the two, it gives homeowners more options you know, to do the right thing for their particular situation.

Let me just remind you, though, that the entirety of the planning commission, seven members who we give a lot of credit and confidence and appreciation to.

Yeah, for sure.

They agreed that we need to look at some of these specific exceptions. I'm not saying we don't. And so I just, okay.

I'm in agreement with you, but I don't know that I'm comfortable with an eight-foot setback If it's, now the way it's written right now, you can't do a two-story. So then maybe it's okay. Maybe it works.

And the windows, they did talk about if they're within 15 feet of the dwelling, they have to be translucent, which basically means opaque.

There was just an article in, I think it was the Desert News. I was going to go back and find it and I didn't. But there was an article, there has been some issues down in Utah County. I believe it was American Fork and Pleasant Grove where the residents were very unhappy with larger ADUs being built in the backyards. I 100% think that somebody that's got a yard that they can fit, if they can build a bigger home back there, I want to figure out how to help them do it and make it happen. I'm not in disagreement with you at all. But I'm not going to rush through it and make a mistake that impacts all the neighbors around them either.

And lot coverage still comes into play as well, which is 60% maximum on any lot, regardless of size. So lot coverage is clearly the total impervious coverage of the home, all your impervious surfaces, so your driveways, your concrete patios, and any accessory structures you have. So that lot coverage still is in full force and effect in this scenario as well. So I don't know if that's good or bad or something. Again, we want to unpack more in the near future. We may not be able to do it by October 1st, but there are still other things that we're looking at.

And I'm supportive of getting this done quickly. I just think October 1st is going to be a little tight.

Well, we're going to have to do our best by October 1st because, like I said, otherwise you're opening the door and they can do whatever they want.

Well, we've got to pass something, but I'm just saying I'm comfortable with saying let's get the ADU ordinance passed and let's do... as much as we can but i'm i think when you start talking about flopping the you know flopping what's in front what's behind i just i just had you know ai produce a little drawing so i could get a feel for you know an 8 000 square foot lot with uh with a i said a 2 000 square foot home because that's i mean that's a pretty big home but you know let's just say it's a big home and then i said and then give me the maximum that you had said the 60 60 no not that um

The 1,200 square feet.

I said the casita's got to be 1,200 square feet. It needs to be eight foot setbacks. And this is the width of the lot and the depth. I did something similar to what I had. And it looks fine. It looks okay. But I would want to start looking at some scenarios because I want to make sure that we're just not... I mean, we can't figure out every situation we'll see, but that's the conundrum with ordinances. We never, it's what didn't we think about? And then it impacts another homeowner.

Okay, so I have a couple of things. I'm all in favor of tabling this too, but I think some ideas, we kind of need to know where each council member's ideas are so that we can go home and do our homework and figure out, you know, I've had things said to me today that's changed my mind. I'm very supportive of it. I think 20 feet is too high. You can actually get a two-story. Now here, I know of... something that was built here in Centerville. They put a little walkway through so they could say it was an addition. But I know, and it was before Mike came, the planning commission, the building inspectors were like, we can't do anything on it because they're telling us one thing, but the minute they close, we know they're gonna do this. And you can't do that. If you're giving them 20 feet, they're gonna say, oh, that's just the attic. And then the minute our building inspector leaves, they move the upstairs. 20 feet is too high. You could actually have a 12-foot. Now, I think to go 15 feet would probably be, that's going to make it to where you could have a really nice one-story, but you're not going to go two stories because we've talked about the roof, and so it is not measured the same. It is actually higher than that. I actually have been sent a picture here It's very interesting of one that's going on in Kaysville. We wanted to, I could send it to Brant and he could give it to Jennifer to put out there. But that's one of my concerns. Another concern is the meters. The state was suggesting that we let them use the same meters. So when we're saying we want to not go more restrictive, I don't want to have separate meters for the reasoning that we've got a neighboring city here who after two years of having a ADU they can sell the ADU. Now I can't bind further councils by saying you can have an ADU but you can't ever sell it. But if it doesn't have its own meter it's going to be a whole lot harder to sell. And so for that reason I don't think our citizens would be really I mean, you're doubling the size. Now, you know, you've got to decide what the value of privacy in people's backyards is as we're looking at the height. If we're saying that on a home right now it's 10 feet on one side and 8 on the other, maybe we're going to want 10 on both sides so that, I mean, right now you've got to have 10 on one of them on a regular house, and now we're putting something in someone's backyard, like Spencer said, you could have two or three. So I do know of a, there's been several projects, especially down in St. George, they're building whole subdivisions of homes with ADUs. We have had a property here in Centerville that has been zoned for single family homes that the neighbors have been told that they held off building because they want to build it that way. So we wanna be careful because if we say, well, we're gonna just do this preliminary and then they could come in before we get it to where we want it, So I think we need to be careful. We need to go lower on our heights and things like that. And then if we want to bring them back up, great. But I want to be careful because I do think there is possibly people watching us right now waiting to build... not something in somebody's backyard, but new homes with ADUs, which is great. I mean, I think that may help people be able to get into a house if you can put an ADU back there and do that. But I think we need to definitely think about it. Another thing while I've been on the council, we had a, what's it called? But it was basically an ADU built up in North Centerville. because you can only have it a percentage of the ground, but they own the whole hill behind them. They were able to count that as their property. So literally, they built a building that took their whole backyard, shaded other people's homes, looked into other people's windows. I was up there several times as a council member. Our planning commission, I don't know if you know which one it was. But so it created, I think we need to be careful and say that anything with more than a 30% slope cannot be counted. into that amount of property because if you have your home and this little tiny backyard and then a hill that goes like this it's really not good for anything you could take that whole backyard and they did do that so i think that's something else that we need to we need to do like i said i feel very strongly that i would like them to share utilities we're trying to give people more for their property. So right now they can't have anything. Now we're giving them an ADU. So I don't have a problem with putting some restrictions on it. It's not like they bought it with the idea they could build the ADU and then all of a sudden we bring these restrictions in. But like I said, I would definitely want to bring the height down to at least 15.

Yeah, I'm supportive of that utilities. An accessory is to be part of the main. Right. And if we're giving and separating those utilities, it really feels like it's a separate animal. Right.

So I only want to push back on one thing on that, and it's this. At some point in time, I built my house 25 years ago, and then eventually somebody else came and built another home in my neighborhood. And he one day just in passing said, hey- Did they make you put in a one-inch connection on your house? And I was like, no, it's a three-quarter inch. His house doesn't really look that much bigger than my house, but because of the number of fixtures, suddenly three quarters wasn't enough. One of the concerns I would have with swapping the front and the back ADU and not having a separate meter is that there's a very high likelihood if that house is bigger than the house in front and the house in front's not... 1200 square feet total um that you may not have enough water pressure you get you lose as it is the longer the pipe goes and the smaller it is there's more friction and you lose so i'm a little concerned about that so i talked to our water department about that today

they seem to want the water department well they want separate meters no they were okay i think they were okay after i talked to them we can talk to them but so the concern would be is if you have more fixtures you're going to have to put in a one inch line i mean that's what it is you're going to put this in it gives you more fixed more fixtures you're going to have to it's going to be more expensive you're going to put the one thing sewer i checked with them they said that they're great with no they're not

I pass the ordinance. The sewer is required. If you have a detached ADU, it is a separate connection. I don't think so. Well, I just texted Matt Myers before this meeting. If he doesn't know, I don't know who else would know.

Okay.

He's the general manager of the sewer district. So I'm telling you that's a fairly new thing, but it is a separate connection.

Another reason we need to readdress it and table this. But I also am supportive of giving people who decide to do that the option to have it within legal limits. If the sewer district requires it, that'd be part of your caution to have to do it. But there may be circumstances. I don't think we ought to require meters or separate connections. unless the homeowner finds it necessary to get his building permit to do it. But I mean, that's my take. That's got to be addressed with further information before we meet again.

So it sounds like we're headed to tabling. The dilemma I have with just tabling... without getting some of this out. That's why I was letting Councilwoman Meek from go and Councilwoman Hirsch is, is if we just come back the next week, then we're doing this the next week. We're not going to be any closer, right? We've got to come back two weeks to have something that we're ready to vote on.

And I want this out so the public that's interested could hear and know how we feel and what we're talking about so they can contact us and say, hey, I agree. Sure. I do want meters or no meters. Hey, I don't want it. You know, I'm great with ADUs, but I don't want it that high. I mean, like I said, I've been sent a picture of one from Kaysville, and it's literally going to affect the lighting in the neighborhood of three homes. And it's only 20 feet high than the roof. So I don't want to affect people. You know, you've got a garden. You get one of those next to it, you're going to be in trouble. And I appreciate what Spencer says, where you could get two, three. Especially if you do have a builder that comes in and is going to build...

like you have a little bigger parcel and they build four homes.

Well, yeah, but they're built, I mean, we have an acre property now that could put four in, but they could put a ADU on all four of those.

Mayor, I appreciate your concern, but I believe that it's obvious, the sentiment here, this council wants to pass something before October 1st. So I think in two weeks, we'll be passing something. My point is, I think we can get it a little closer to what we think it is in those two weeks. And by tabling, it makes some adjustments to some of the things the Planning Commission has recommended. And we can have a document. I'm committed to do that.

But we have council members recommending things. How do we get that on? But that's what we're talking to Mike, I think. If we don't talk about it right now.

Right, we need to talk about it now. And we need to say to Mike,

would we maybe when you bring it back we want it shorter 20 is way too high i mean i think each council member needs to say to mike you know that's fine we have planning commission members but uh well they're not going to see council members will want to have input as well too the for the ordinance that comes back to us right

Lisa, does it have to go back to Planning Commission to change anything in the resolution or the ordinance before us? No. So we can do that, Mayor, in two weeks. we can check week like a brick but we have planning commission comments in front of us there's more than planning commission how do you propose we get council members comments in front of us unless we have this discussion unless you we have to say hey everybody's to submit some things in the next few days we continue this debate in two weeks and then we vote but we've we've got an ordinance before us and we say maybe uh we're going to change to requiring meters, separate meters, to allow either separate meter or...

But what Robin just said, yeah, because that was brought up, separate meters. If it hadn't been brought up tonight, we wouldn't have known that was there. And it gives you guys two weeks to say, hey, are we okay going on a lower footage as far as how high it is and that sort of thing. I mean... Yeah, I don't want to continue until midnight tonight, but we need to get the ideas out there. No, we don't have to debate them. I'll agree with you on that, but throw out the ideas so people can think about it.

I'm even happy with some debate. I'm here to get the business done, and the business is that people have been waiting for this ordinance for quite some time. So I'm fine to have the discussion tonight, and I'm fine to table it and have it again in two weeks, but It's helpful for me to have just heard what Robin's concerns are. I still am hanging on to an answer from Mike about metering. Just because you brought that up, I would like to get a little more information.

We have no code, basically, to be totally honest. A couple things that you have to remember is this. Our park shifts are full. So if you have, say, that you allow it and they put a separate driveway in, where are you going to put the meters Out of the way, basically. So that's one of the problems. The good thing about that is if the back unit is out of water, the front unit's not. If, say, I have to shut it off for some reason, non-payment or what have you, or if you do have non-payment, it's one meter and it is non-payment, you're shutting off both homes. It's kind of a problem that can occur. So as I was explaining too, you have 32 fixture counts that you can have. So Just an example, if you have two hose bibs, that's two and a half, so that's five of your fixture counts right there. So that's five gone. So when you start adding your toilets and everything else, so there's a good chance that you're going to have to go back out in the road, dig down in the road, put a one-inch service line coming in. And then you got to come up with the dilemma. Do you tie onto the back of the house? So basically you have the water meter. It comes into the house. You have a pressure reducing valve inside the house. So plumbing code requires that you have to have a one inch line from the pressure regulator to the water heater. So now if you have one more water heater out in the back unit, do we make them run a one inch line? There's a lot of questions in that. That's a plumbing code question. Once it gets inside the house, I'm out of it. But plumbing code does require a one-inch line to a water heater. So there's plumbing demographics and everything. Does one size fit all? I don't think so. In some cases, one service line would probably work out fine depending on how big the unit is. But my feeling is most houses, when you add another unit, they're going to be digging up the road putting a one-inch service in. So they're going to pay impact fees. Then they're going to pay for a bigger meter size. ongoing one inch line meter base rate plus water usage So I mean there's a lot when you start talking about it. So I talked in down at the sewer district, too maybe we need to get back with Matt on that because I Got told by Brandon that it comes if it the main line from the street out to the main line So the service line to the main line they're allowed to connect on to so you have the two services connecting on then when it gets to to the back of the sidewalk, it can go to one. That's what I got told today in checking it out.

I trust Matt. I mean, and maybe what he thought I was asking him was, will there be two bills? You know, they don't actually need your sewer. So that may be what there may be. That may be.

That's probably what they're getting to build.

It's not really measuring like the sewer is not getting measured by a meter.

It's not. But that's how they collect their usage is. They would have, that lot would get charged two.

They get charged for two. And I think it's just, you know, it just goes to whatever the address is.

So, I mean, I guess what I'm trying to say, I kind of feel like I'm caught in the middle a little bit, but the bottom line is there's pros and cons both ways. I didn't mean to catch you in the middle. I can see, yeah, I'm very good at dancing in the middle. So, I can see the one line being okay, but I can see the two lines being okay, too. But it's just like... you know, where do you go, what do you do? There's really not a code that you can really go to.

I will say this, in the case of a pressurized water line and, you know, like you said, you get in the house and then you've got to go out to the backyard, I am worried about flow rate with that. Sewer line's a little different because it's gravity flow.

So it's a different... Well, so let's just use it as a quick example because I know we're in a hurry tonight, but You have, say there is a little bit of an elevation difference. So the water line comes in, they reduce it to say 60 pounds because most houses go from 60 to 75 pounds so you're not blowing your plumbing fixtures apart. So if you're going out and coming back out a little bit further, you are having pressure problems because the further you go, the less pressure you get. It's kind of like Island View Tank and Oak Ridge Tank. Oak Ridge tank's going to take us a lot longer to fill up because we have all the head loss from Weaver Basin all the way to that point. So it's a similar deal, and it's not a real easy decision on what way to go. For me, having one meter in a park strip for one lot is desirable, especially if you add another driveway. Because we run into it all the time. Yeah, you could make them dig down and put a dual meter in and run off one to each one and be coupled there. I mean, there are alternatives, but what's the right way to go? is what you guys give to the site. I just get a council with you.

I'm not saying I have an opinion. Just because I'm only pushing back because I have some concerns about the actual operation.

Well, and I was going to say, maybe it'll be different on each playhouse, and maybe we need to give them both options. But I just don't want to take that totally off the table because I really do worry that I do think the state's going to take things over someday, and I don't want them to come out and say we have to allow all of our ADUs to be sold if they want to.

What other ideas for council members to think about besides meters and height?

The size of the lot, the corner lots, and utilities.

So, Brian, you're saying, hey, we should look at smaller lots than 8,500. Absolutely. Okay.

Absolutely. For the sake of debate, the internal ADUs allow 6,000 square feet minimum lot size for an internal ADU.

Okay.

Correct. And I also think that we should take that into consideration as well, is that if you want, you can have an ADU and a DADU. So I think that, again, yes, you can qualify, but I'm looking, yeah, you can fit these little residences on a small lot, and it looks very nice. It does. And it provides that exactly what we're talking about, which is the moderate income housing for family members that I think is only going to grow in demand that... All of the expenses, all the costs that you just mentioned about the connections, these are all less than a new house currently. So I think that's to be considered.

And on a smaller lot, you are going to restrict somewhat of it because of the permeable surface. It can only be 60%. So if you have a tiny lot in a pretty good-sized house, there's no way you could ever put on...

larger building but if you had a little top lot and a little house then you could maybe get on a little house again another little house yes because we do have that as a backup and some of that is the beauty of the way that this ordinance has been done is that it does provide the freedom for someone to look into that but then you know they still have to meet all of the like the The 60% impervious surface protects everyone, right? It's not running into somebody else's yard.

Is there other things? The side yard, the setbacks.

Okay, Councilman Banger. Okay, in addition to those that have been mentioned, I hope somebody's got notes here.

I would like to look at size allowed for the...

accessory dwelling unit, proportional to lot size to some degree. It doesn't need to be limited to 1,250 square feet if they're on a big lot. That's something I think we need to look at specifically. Also, I have no problem, it's limited right now if you have one ADU, you may not have another. I don't think, that doesn't make sense to me. If you've got an internal ADU for grandma, and it's very slightly impactful, what's the dilemma to have a nicer, larger ADU in the backyard as well, or wherever works on the property, to increase our affordable housing to make it FEASIBLE FOR A PROPERTY OWNER TO MAKE THESE IMPROVEMENTS, TO BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE THE KIDS IN THE BACKYARD WHO JUST GOT MARRIED WITH GRANDMA IN THE BASEMENT. SO I WANT TO LOOK SPECIFICALLY AT THAT. I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD HAVE TWO ADUs ON A PROPERTY. I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD HAVE TWO INTERNAL. BUT I THINK LIMITING IT TO ONE OR THE OTHER, I DON'T AGREE WITH. WE COULD GIVE THE ALLOWANCE OF ONE OF EACH.

But if you had a basement, your whole basement, you could be renting to a family with five children.

That's a pretty restrictive scenario. You could have your daughter and husband with two kids in the basement and then the same thing outside. So you now have potentially eight to 10 people on that property and the impact it has.

Okay, that's something that needs to be debated into.

So that's what I'm saying.

You took one good scenario, but there's- Love to hear the pros and cons.

That's how we'll best address- And again, some of these elements don't have to be decided right then. We could take it back in a month or two later. and get those things aggressively.

I do want to bring up an example that was, this would never work in Centerville because we're not heading that way and this isn't our exact situation, but my son, when he first got married, lived in an ADU. It was over a garage, an accessory garage. So this home had an ADU above its garage for the house. It had an ADU in the basement. It had an ADU over a detached garage, and they had a swimming pool. And it was a beautiful neighborhood, and several of the homes in that area had ADUs.

And I can agree with that, but if I was her neighbor and I spent a lot of money, and now I'm living next to a fourplex or a fiveplex in a single-family home.

I'm not saying that that is appropriate for Centerville. What I'm saying is I sort of agree with what you're saying, Councilman Bangerter, that I mean, I think you can have more than one. And if you can provide the parking, then, I mean, I agree. You've got to have the, there's got to be rules.

It needs to have its requirements to qualify, but yeah.

But I think there's some options that it works. And you're right. Grandma's in one part and, you know, and some...

But you can't do it on that. You've got to be all right with a family of five, not grandma. I'm not against it. I'm just saying.

They were empty nesters. So I don't know that there was more than about six people on that property.

But if you're going to open it up, you've got to know that a whole basement could be rented out to a family of five. My only other thing is, and this could be looked at later, but I'd like to consider it in the historic area of Centerville. I know of three or four historic buildings that would probably, they're not in people's backyards. I think they're all on corner lots. But I would like to see those preserved. The old post office, which is where I started going to the post office, those would make really cute ADUs. And so maybe if it's a historic building, it's not going to affect the neighborhood. You're not building anything if they don't want to change the footprint of it. But I would like to consider letting maybe some of those have ADUs preserved.

And in that situation, it might not require that the facade of the historic building that's 380 you match the primary building that's applying.

Yeah.

Historic sites was not considered in this ordinance at all. That's a good thought. And I think some public comment made some good argument that it should be. I agree.

Right. The old post office is white clapboard and the home, I think, is stucco. meaning it's very old, too, but they're not the same. But like I said, it wouldn't affect the neighborhood because it's already there. I wouldn't want to change that.

No, I agree. Maybe that does need to be addressed, that we need to have a little historic paragraph that... Any other concepts, Councilman Banger, that you have?

I just want to make sure we get Councilman Plummer mentioned the corner lots. That needs to be addressed.

It does. Okay. What other concepts? So council members, did you cover what's on?

I just want to add in, I am concerned about height as well. I mean, we're trying to match a roof line, right? And so I just want to make sure that I, the reason I did the AI is because I was having a hard time envisioning that 20 foot height. I just want to, I obviously the planning commission spent significant amounts of time. I think they did a great job. I think they made some really good decisions and I'm supportive of it. I'm also fine to go, you know, look at these other things.

I think these are all one city that has 16 feet. So when you said 15 feet, Councilmember Mekong is matching another city's height at 16 feet.

Can I add to, with regard to the height, I mean, I am concerned about this idea of urban shadows, right? Building a huge structure that's going to overlook a nearby area. And I don't necessarily have a problem with 20 feet per se, because you might have a big enough lot that it would support it. but this concept that's been floated about maybe the higher it is, the more of the setback has to be, I would just love for you guys to look to like give some, some thought to that idea. The other thing was Lisa had brought up that our ordinance does something that state law doesn't fire and that's allowed for basements. And I don't necessarily have a problem with basements, but if it's a 350 foot square print and we have a basement in that, I mean that feels like a super tiny little basement to me is that really, what we want and do you have any concerns with regards to basements at all? I mean, even in like a little 350 square foot.

I think the minimum was 500 square feet. So it wouldn't be that small or 600 square feet, but, uh, I mean, I look at building code, but again, groundwater. I mean, we would require them to do geotech. They'd have to go through a permitted use review anyway, so that would be evaluated. So I think just if they went through the process, the site would determine whether or not they could even qualify for a basement based on geotech strata.

Fair. And I'm generally supportive if it's safe and whatever. That's it for me.

All right, I'm going to do a public hearing because we did agenda it, and I don't want anybody coming back saying we didn't do a public hearing. So this is a public hearing on zoning code amendments in regards to detached accessory dwelling units. Anybody that wants to comment, just state your name and where you're from. That public hearing is now open. Anybody online? Okay, that public hearing is now closed. Now I would counsel, this is kind of a unique situation because we had more public hearing in the planning commission than we did at council meeting, usually it's not that way. So if you want some more public hearing comments in addition to the two comments you've received in the last 24 hours, you might want to go back and look at some of the public hearing comments from the Planning Commission meeting. What else was I going to say? I think that's it. So do I have any type of motion?

Are we going to accept further public comment until we meet in two weeks by mail?

I think we should. I think we should.

I think that's a great idea. Do you want me to make a motion? Sure. I'll make a motion that we table the detached accessory dwelling unit discussion Centerville zoning code twelve dot five eight Until two weeks from tonight We'll leave the public hearing open residents may comment through email Or they may be here at the next meeting to provide comment Second most of the second Councilman, hey, I

»» Aye. »» Aye. »» Aye. »» Thank you. So be ready in two weeks. We'll convene at noon because it's going to be a 12-hour discussion. All right. So we do have a couple of things left. We've discussed three of them previously. So hopefully we don't have to go into too much on that. So let's go to item number 3, Centerville fee schedule amendments. This is a public hearing. Resolution 2026-04. And Haley, I kept looking back there. Were you hiding behind Mike?

A little bit.

Okay. Thank you. Haley, take it away.

Okay. Fee schedules. So, yeah, this is what I, we did have a work session on this. It seemed like we had some positive feedback and support for that. We haven't changed any of the numbers since we last,

met you guys have questions for me any questions we had that contract with uh youth football do we have when that contract is not in place is there an ability to have a fee utilize that space to do the same thing they're doing?

Concessions?

Yes.

We don't have anything outlined.

I wonder if that would be something we could talk about at another time.

Yeah, with it being a building where we have a lot of our own amenities in there. I would never just want to have a blank fee for people to come in. It's something I would always want to have an agreement with because of our own amenities that we've used city funding to provide. So if there was another interested group, we have put it out to RFP before. So that's the same kind of process we would do to lease that space.

This is all field use fee in this resolution, though, right, or ordinance?

Correct, yeah. Field use fee specific. Nothing with pavilions or our buildings.

Okay. They're all there in front of you. I think you guys discussed it before as well, too. Any more questions? Motion? Can I ask you a question, Mayor?

Yeah. You asked for a list of first of the year things. I suggested one item on that list be that we not raise any fees without having a public hearing. And I know we are required to do that for taxation. and we had our public hearing. I just, I don't have a problem with this. I'm totally supportive, I understand that. But I would like to conform to a strong feeling I have that fees should not be raised in the city water, storm drain, anything without a public hearing. And so I'd like to suggest that we include that. I'm sorry.

This is a public hearing. This is a public hearing.

It is the public public hearing. I'm sorry. Okay, you're good. All right. So we liked your suggestion.

I was in total support.

We'll go to the public hearing portion then. So, you know, for the comment. So this is a public hearing regarding the center of a fee schedule amendments. It's resolution number 2026-4. Anybody from the public can comment, just state your name and where you're from. That public hearing is now open. Anybody online? Seeing no comments, we will close that public hearing and come back to if there's any quick questions. Otherwise, I'll look for a motion.

I'll move that we approve resolution number 2026-04 amending the Centerville fees scheduled to increase field use fees as set forth in section 15.030. The one amendment that I would make is I think this was just a carryover. The proposed packet resolutions as adopted on the 18th day of August. I would just update that to September 1st.

Okay. Do I have a second to that? Second. I have a second. Councilwoman Hirsch, go to the right.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

That passes unanimously. Thank you. Item number four, this is field use priority of use and fee policy discussion. Hayden?

Yes, so we also discussed this when we were discussing the increase for use of the fields, just to create a priority use. So as user groups are looking to our facilities, we can take them in a priority listed option here. Obviously, creating our own programs and events come first, then our partnerships, and then everybody else, just so we are treating people the same. And so yeah, with this priority usage, it does just help us clarify how we take rentals. We don't have a, we're not overrun with requests in terms of our rentals. Like we have three big user groups, South Davis recreation district, their soccer program, the U conference tackle football. We also have an all ability soccer program that we lease to. I did discuss the subsidies fees with this new amended fee schedule, how that would impact them, because that was something council wanted me to address. So I did reach out to our big user groups on that. There would be some fees passed on to users, but they also do have ways to subsidize it themselves as well. So I thought that was kind of an important touch note. I know that Gina, that was something you were concerned about. So I did reach out to them. And then our other users outside of those big groups are really teams coming in for a practice. And it's nothing as regular or as organized as our community partners are. It's a football team who wants three nights committed. And so they want to have that reserve so they can come in and practice. So this new priority usage really helps people kind of know where they stand when they're looking for field space.

So I don't see anywhere that we're approving anything. Are we just discussing this, or do we want to do some approval on?

Just discussing and getting feedback, Mayor. Yeah. That's the intent of this.

Suggestions for Haley on this background, one proposed rental priority or subsidy levels?

I'm just curious if there's a local group that's from Centerville and wants to use it as opposed to a church group or a boys club. Would they have priority over somebody from outside the city?

Right now, as it is spelled out, no, unless they are a community partner, like with South Davis Recreation District or the Ute Conference. We do partner with them because they provide programming. We don't. So for them to get priority usage over another group, we would have to find an agreement with them.

But those groups have an agreement with this?

Correct.

So they would have they should have prior usage over anybody that doesn't have an agreement with. Yes. And obviously they can't take it. If you have a book, they'll fall for your conference football or.

Right.

And soccer fields. Yeah.

And right now, I think what's kind of prompted on the priority usage for me is that our owner local agreement with South Davis expired. a couple of years ago when they paid off their lease from us to finish the soccer fields. So it's really a benefit for them that they can reserve it for their league who serves our citizens as well. So I guess back to your point, Mayor, is we don't currently have an agreement with them and we were kind of waiting to put something into place because we don't want to enter into another multi-year agreement. We want to be able to take it year by year. But by having something outlined as priority usage, it's, well, we're not going to rent it to a private soccer club over the rec district that serves our community.

You would be still able to rent it as a soccer club. You would just be in the third priority versus the second priority.

Exactly, yeah. And leaving the subsidy up to council to decide on how much are we able to support this program with the subsidy.

I assume the priority means scheduling, like if a third priority group gets the 15th of September scheduled, a first priority group later decides they want that, they can't bump that third priority group who already had it scheduled, right? Or can they?

And so we kind of schedule out for a calendar year block at a time. So that second priority user group, they would come first. So if you're in that group and you wanted time, then we would look at that at the calendar for when it's available, and you'd be given that time. but that's within our control over who we choose to partner with.

I think what he's saying is, okay, you put your calendar out, and this people have taken this, these people have taken this, and you've got two weeks right here that's open, and I decide I want it. And so I'm third, but I take that because everybody else has chose. Then number one or number two couldn't decide they want that and bump me. Correct.

Okay, that was mine.

Yeah, thank you.

Okay, you like it? Do you have some other ideas to add to it?

There's one more thing that I would like to add in here, which I neglected to put in there, which was the school district. Historically in the past, we have not charged them anything for a rental. I think that that should continue. So they would kind of be that 1A, if you will, in this priority usage of they kind of come next to, just behind our city events. And when I was looking over this, I had completely neglected to include them in this. So I think that would be a good thing to add in there. What's an example? Example is, for example, this summer the soccer field was being renovated. And so they used our soccer fields in the morning for an hour for, it was about eight weeks. So being able to accommodate them and support them in that. I feel is important where we'll have, you know, football team wants to use our pavilion. We're not gonna charge them for that because our taxes kind of go to both places, right?

No, they get a lot more than we do.

Right, but we don't wanna double charge them.

Do you know, do other cities do the same? They provide facilities to school districts without charge?

Yes. It's interesting just because the rec district is not able to do that, obviously, with the pool time and ice time.

They exchange gym space for pool space. So the schools support their junior jazz program, and then they support all the schools with their pool space.

It's slightly changing, though, and there is, because of the amount of students using the pool, there are fees now being charged. Like, they're paying...

And we could include them in our tier two and require them to pay whatever percentage.

I'm not I'm not saying we should. I'm just just pointing out that that has changed at the rec district.

Out of sheer curiosity, does it work both ways? If we need to borrow school property, do they allow us to use their facilities for free?

Yes, but it doesn't come up very often for us. But for example, if we wanted indoor space, we don't have anything in Centerville that can accommodate us indoor. And I'm happy to say, hey, we're looking at this agreement. We want to make sure it's a partnership and not one way, one sided.

It used to come up. I can think of one instance when the quilt show was held in this elementary school over here, and I'm assuming they allowed us to use it for free back then.

What about another thing? I'm not sure how this works right now, but Centerville has a day of service, which is community-wide, and they do most of that at the junior high. Maybe they allow the building to be used for free and they pay for some...

Yeah, I know when we've done our Arbor Day art with the tree board, we've always used Centerville Elementary for that, and it has been free space, so we do have a history of that. Okay.

All right. Great. Thank you, Haley. Appreciate you. All right, let's go back to the Center for the Municipal Code Amendments Virtual Currency Kiosk, Orders 2026-19. Do we need further discussion on this for the public? We probably should have a little bit. So you have in there, the public has in front of them the packet that's been put out by the Chief of Police and Sergeant Dingman. uh anything else a quick summary since uh in addition to the packet we do need a presentation for the record yes that's why i'm asking them to bring something up yeah yeah would you like to go through your quick presentation sure i hope you can go through it in five minutes or less

Okay, so we'll, this isn't very long, so I should be able to get through. Virtual currency kiosks. You'll hear them by Bitcoin ATMs, crypto ATMs, you name it, there's a bunch of different names for them. They're all synonymous, but the way the codes and some of the statutes that are being written are actually calling them and referring to them as the virtual currency kiosks. So what is crypto currency? really really basic overview digital currency it's a digital asset that people can buy all online all in their own ecosystem through the blockchain the Bitcoin ATMs are kind of a point-of-sale kiosks where people can purchase different types there's a whole bunch of different types of cryptocurrency, not just Bitcoin. That's kind of the big one that everybody hears. When currency is purchased, it enters into a wallet, There is an exchange in there also when they're moving the cryptocurrency between wallets. The reason I kind of threw the freeze in there for the preservation orders for us, that's the best place that we can catch that. If it hits the exchange and it's still there, that is where we can get preservation orders and get holds on some of those things. If it's gone into a wallet, it's almost impossible for us to get. So anytime we have a fraud and not just with ATMs, but that's what we're focused on. Any crypto frauds, if we don't get on them extremely quickly, tracing them and being able to put freezes on any money is extremely difficult. So this is another reason why we're looking at this, the kiosks. Virtual currency kiosks are again, they act kind of like an ATM. It's more of a, you put money in and you get your digital currency in your digital wallet. You don't get the money out of it physically. Down at the bottom there, the crypto counter service, there is an option where you don't have to use the ATM. Some gas stations and other places have point of sale set up where you can actually buy it right at the counter. So we're kind of looking at the kiosks more than anything. Currently right now, Centerville has two. One is currently out of service because the Bitcoin Depot has gone under. So we have that one that is still there, and the second one is at the top stop right on the front edge row. We had starting to see a lot of the crimes and the different frauds that we were seeing. We put up warnings attached to each of those. You can actually see them still taped to those, trying to get anybody coming in here. Let's take a second, read it first before you start putting your money in it, because odds are if you're the phone with somebody there's a lot of urgency they're telling you to do this it's a fraud so we tried our best since 2024 with those on those ATMs these are just a list of some of the frauds that we have seen specifically connected to the kiosks the big ones were the jury duties warrants get phone call from somebody saying hey I'm Sergeant so-and-so from Davis County, you have a warrant for your arrest, you need to go pay the fine through Bitcoin. That's a big one. Romance scams, also a big one. Hey, I love you, but I'm in the Czech Republic, will you send me Bitcoin? Sure, and people fall for it and they do it. Tech help, sextortion, we've had a lot of these, but these are just some of the ones that we know for sure that have affected citizens of Centerville at the kiosks specifically. Fraud is going up. We started tracking these 2021 from 2024 just to 2025. Massive increase and this is coming from the FTC, the FBI, the IC3. Documents I believe are in the packet has a lot of these same numbers showing that they've gone 13,000, 13,400 complaints just in 2025. contributed just to these ATMs. 58% increase just over one year. So these are continuing to go up. Big one for us and our numbers kind of coincide with the national trends of who is being affected most by these. Older adults are taking the brunt of this. A lot of that is because they're naive to what crypto is, how they use it, why they use it. They're kind of the target that a lot of these guys go after. 68% were people over 50 of ours, I believe. of the ones that are here in just a minute when I get to the list of all of our cases. Only one of them was under 40 years old. Everybody else is over 40. Most of them are well over 50, 60. I think our oldest was 85, I believe. These are our specific cases that we have. Shows our total loss there of almost $95,000. I personally think, and I have a very strong feeling that that's low. We have a lot of these frauds that are also tied into other types of frauds. So they went under different classifications, but specifically ours that I could pull out just from crypto ATMs and nothing else was at least the 94.9. We've only been able to stop a small handful of these in process. The three case numbers we have up there were ones that we actually had victims that were willing to talk to us. We've had several, we've had people walk in here and say, hey, this is what's going on. This is what I had. And say, OK, it's a fraud. And they say, I don't want to do anything. Wouldn't leave names, no amounts, nothing. So we don't even have documentation of some of those. One gentleman there.

They stopped them before they used the key. Correct.

Correct. The two there, the 14,000 each on the right side, Those two were from the teller at the gas station calling us saying, we've got a guy here. He won't listen to us. Come talk to him. So we walk in, finally get him to convince, hang up the phone. It's not your grandson. Please hang up the phone. Talk to us. And we were able to stop those two, but that's rare. Yep. Yeah, we did have one gentleman that, you know, the $6,700 loss doesn't seem like a lot, but. To him, he's a 71-year-old gentleman. That impacted him with his family. Drove to one of our churches and decided to make his own life. not just money loss that we're looking at.

Can I ask you to clarify with regard to that last slide? Sure. Almost $100,000 lost just between those two crypto kiosks that are existing now. That's the only two that we've had. Because one of them is out of order and I don't know how long it's been out of order, but that's just from two kiosks.

Yes, that is correct, yep. This is not just a Centerville issue, Davis County also, across the board just from 21 to 25, 162 plus cases and that's only increased since these last stats were pulled in 25. Layton City alone had 74 with a cost of 1.8 million. They were the first to actually take the stance of trying to ban these and were successful and they passed their own ordinances to get theirs banned. Since then, Provo, Brigham City, Heber and I believe Tremont as well has jumped on board. And they're also looking the same route, passing the same type of things to go forward. So that's kind of where that part of that presentation ends. So if you have any other questions on there, I can go back through them. I know I blew through that really quick, but I know it's in your packet too.

Excellent and helpful presentation. Can I just ask you, I believe you were here when we had a public commenter about this, Mr. Trent Larson. Trent Larson. Yes. Do you have any comment, feedback from things he presented that you'd like to?

He absolutely hit the nail on the head. There are legit uses for these. I think even in my slide, I'm not saying there isn't. That's not our stance whatsoever. However, from our stance, just me as the one that has to investigate a lot of these, I see a massive disproportionate from legitimate use to things that are affecting our citizens. But yeah, I 100% agree with all the stuff you talked about.

I picture when he's talking, I'm sitting there thinking, okay, I've been... When I'm out of the country or when I'm in an ATM that's not my bank, I go to them, they charge you an exorbitant fee sometimes. At least you're getting cash, so you're not transferred to somebody else's wallet, but he's obviously one that started using virtual currency. I don't want to speak for him, but he's afraid that the dollar system's not going to hold up, or what it is, but some people are that way. They use virtual currency. He said he paid with virtual currency as rotary dues. He stopped by to put money in because he needed to pay a bill with virtual currency. That's what he does. Councilman Baker, that's a great question. That got me thinking as well, too. That's the form of currency that he's using.

It's not going away, that's for sure. We're seeing more and more use of it across the board.

But it's a lot more easier to commit fraud with that because you transfer it to somebody's wallet and it's gone. Versus somebody talking into, hey, we have your grandson kidnapped and transfer this money to this bank account, right?

Yes, correct. Of all of our cases, like I said, we have not been able to seize any of all of our losses. We have not been able to catch them fast enough. Trying to get the trace done fast enough, by the time we get the trace back or we can figure out which exchange it hit, it's gone out of that exchange to four or five or 20 different wallets and then onto another exchange, more wallets, like it's We have not been able to seize any of them. We've been lucky, and we've been able to catch the handful, but we've been able to stop them in the process. But trying to actually get them back, that's the next step that we're hoping to start being able to snag some of that when we can get on them. But if we don't get the report immediately, us trying to get, we're way behind trying to catch up.

So the state took a stance, because on the last slide here that you didn't go over, we have HB 72. Yes, they did. They put transaction limits. So they must feel okay about them, but they're not doing anything firmer.

Yeah, I think the state took a realization that they are an issue, so had to come in with some sort of a legislation to put down on it. A lot of that, it has the same restrictions that we were trying, has warnings put on them. We tried that from 2024, and we didn't see a change. The one thing that we also have some more with that same hospital that went through, we have restrictions on us, things that we need to also report back to the state. Every crypto case that we're doing quarterly, we report back to them. I think it is a trying to dig for more information to get more details to see if there is more legislation they need to do. I don't, I'm not trying to think for them, but that's where my head was of why those restrictions were. So we had the cap in the state law. Correct.

Is that a cap on a machine or is that a cap on the transfer for a daily transfer? You can't go from machine to machine, to machine, to machine and do 2000 in every machine or is it, And how do they track that for 2,000 if it is for the day?

That's a lot of the same questions we have, too. How are you tracking that? Because, yeah, you put the restrictions on there. So you can only go pull 2,000 out today, 2,000 out tomorrow. My understanding is per machine. So they could bounce around. I could be wrong, but that is my understanding. They could bounce around, send them from here to West Bountiful to Syracuse to wherever, bouncing around. But it's 2,000 per person per day. And then the next day, $2,000, the next day, $2,000, and then after that, a bunch to $5,000. So that's the current ones that they've put in place so far.

How long has that been in place?

When was that? Past May.

May, so fairly recent. I was going to say, obviously, there's not a report on here that is less than $2,000. So these are all A, prior to that, or B, they're not following that rule.

We only had one that was under $1,000. Yeah. Several thousand.

Yeah.

So there's other ways besides kiosks to transfer money to your wallet or somebody else's while you're at the computer. Absolutely. Sitting in your home. Are those easier to track than through the kiosk?

No. Unless I have the keys to your wallet, no. we could we could have somebody being defrauded and have cases that coming out our ears on something like that and they do i mean like i said this is very focused just on these crypto atms i have yes a lot of other cases that are involving other types of crypto fraud not crypto atms this is very specific to this yes

With regard to the warnings, you had a picture of the warning that looks like we as Centerville Police put on the ATM and it sounds like we were proactive in getting out ahead of putting warnings on machines before the state mandated these disclosures listed in HB 72. With regard to people who were defrauded, do we know at the time that they put their money into it that the sign was still up, like our little, our voluntary sign? Or is it possible that at the time that they put their money in, our sign had been removed by the owner or by somebody else, right? Because it's not state mandated. It's just something we had voluntarily done.

Yes. I don't have the exact numbers, but I know for a fact there were multiple times, at least with one of the kiosks, where the actual owner of the kiosk, not the business owner that houses it, the owner of the kiosk removed our warnings. One of those was the gentleman that committed suicide. He had been taken down two weeks prior.

Do we know as to the others? I guess my question for you is, is our warning working when it's up and people are being defrauded when the sign gets taken down? Because now, of course, the state mandates that these warnings are up there, and so I'm trying to get a census, too, if we know. Do we have evidence either way?

I would have to go back and look through some of the reports to get the full number of those, but I know and I can speak with pretty good confidence that there were several where they were sitting right there. When the officers went in there to get the receipt from them, it was right there.

Shaylin, we've actually had police officers on site not be able to stop the people from doing it. Sitting right here saying, Shaylin, this is a scam. Don't put your money in. And them going, I have to.

And can I ask you, would somebody in Centerville have an option close by?

from neighboring cities.

Do we know, do neighboring cities have some of these close by? And to what quantity do some of our neighbors allow some of these?

I can't give you the full numbers. There is a website you can pull up, and it'll show you exactly where every one of them is. That's how a lot of them, at least when they perpetrate the fraud, that's how a lot of them are doing it. They'll call them, and they'll already have go to this address, and there's an ATM right here, and use that one. We have several of them in surrounding agencies, different cities around us. I think in one of the slides, I had several of the cities that were listed on there that pulled all of their stats. I could find it for you right now. Yes, there are several around us that are still operational, and that's with Layton's, with their decision to do what they did, That's been a discussion that we've had with investigators. Are we going to now start seeing these popping up in our cities that are being moved out of Layton to come to us? So that's something that we've been asking all of our surrounding agencies. We meet once a week and talk to other investigators and say, go check your stores. And if they're popping up, let us know. Because some of our victims are probably going to end up in your city too. But I don't have the exact numbers. But yes, there are quite a few around us.

Coupled on that, this may be just rhetorical in the sense that you may not know, but I would be curious as to know how many users go to the ATM, the crypto ATM, every day. What is the demand to that? I can see that cutting down the supply in one city would push the demand someplace else, but what is that demand?

I haven't been able to pull the full numbers of every single transaction that's gone through our two ATMs, so that's a question I don't have a 100% answer for. I will, I think the only thing I can show is our numbers of the times we do get called, but that's again, I think it's way underrepresented from what's actually going on, but I don't have the full numbers in front of me. I don't.

I mean, you had like 10 incidents there. If you had 20 uses, you know, that's half, but I think if we had the full scope of how many people are using this, I wonder if it's not just a very small percentage, albeit that we may not be getting all of the reports. It very well could be. Sure.

Yeah, I think the numbers I've seen is anywhere between 90 here in Utah, like 90% of the transactions are based on frauds. And Iowa did a study and theirs was 98%.

So I'm still curious about this model that 7-Eleven does. Is that something that is prominent in a lot of symbols? I guess I haven't gone to a 7-Eleven recently.

That was something that was new to me as well because I hadn't heard of that. One of our officers says, hey, I think 7-Eleven allows you to do it. So I walked in and talked to the owner and said, hey, is this something you do? And he said, we're not set up for it. but there are other 7-Elevens around in other cities. Yes, they will absolutely take that right over the counter.

I was sitting back doing some research earlier. It looked like there's a lot of places, kind of like MoneyGram, those kind of places that also allow you to do it in person. I believe I was reading Walmart can do it too up there. you know, they're, they're the little check cashing area where they do those financial transactions. You can, you can do those things in person.

Now I wonder if it's the state legislature wouldn't want to cap those as well though. That to me is, yeah.

You know, and, but the thing is, I don't think we've taken any cases that have originated from one of those in person transactions, all based on the teller. And to your point, Mayor, when you were talking about Trent Larson's concerns, and I fully appreciate that. And Trent and I had a conversation before the meeting quite extensively about it. And I think the problem I have with these machines is they're almost solely being used for perpetrating fraud and to transfer money from a victim to a perpetrator, and there are some circumstances where you got legitimate use, but I think they're really kind of far and few between. And any real user of crypto probably has better ways to get their money into crypto than through an ATM that charges the exorbitant fees. But we do recognize there are legitimate uses and this is a trade-off, right? We do realize there could be circumstances where we could be limiting some of our residents' ability to turn cash into crypto in exchange for protecting the more vulnerable part of our population. So it's kind of a trade-off.

Chief, you say that it's mostly being, these kiosks are mostly being used to perpetrate fraud, so I'm going to push you a little bit. What evidence are you basing that opinion on? Those two legitimate uses.

Sure. Right. I know there's studies by the... And by the Iowa. Yeah, we're trying to find a couple of them that were included. I think we had some in the stats in the packet. Yeah, there is some in the packet that came through that has the number.

Chief, is this what you're looking for? What's on the screen? That's one of them.

There's one of them from Iowa. Is that the correct statistics? Yes.

Is that the FBI one?

Yeah, there's both. I think the other one had the 98%.

Yeah, the Iowa one's at 98% on the right hand side.

Yeah, go back to the other one. There's a lot more that are, it's not just frauds. Yeah, right there. In some of that supporting documents that you guys have, also there's a lot of the cases being used for human trafficking for controlled substance sales. People don't want to drive around with a large amount of cash, so that's an easy stop off to buy crypto to get rid of the cash very quickly. That's been supported, I think, in some of the FBI data, the IC3 data. So there's quite a bit in there.

Yeah, I'm looking for that. I read that 90% stat, and I'm trying to find it right now. I apologize.

Was that the other one that she put up, the federal one, or was that something else?

Well, this graph on the screen says that, at least according to this Iowa investigation, the Bitcoin Depot kiosk, it was 98% of the transactions were scam, and the coin flip kiosks, 94%.

Scams that's a pretty significant Number I think that Bitcoin Depot the one that they found that there that 98% There's the one that was in our city that is now defunct.

I think that shows their business model You can continue to search for any other questions Oh

Maybe we should include that as a whereas in the resolution.

Those statistics from Iowa?

I think it's a good idea.

Well, certainly Chief has indicated that here, that his observations would be consistent with this study, right? You have no evidence to believe that our use of our kiosks would differ in any way from this Iowa investigative study.

Correct. Thank you.

And there are other options for cash of users to transfer the cash into crypto outside of the kiosks. That would require a person, a teller if you will, that would be able to hopefully identify an active fraud. That would be the reason to have a person, a middleman.

Well, I think it is also significant that it appears from the warning that you've included in your pocket that the warning that we, Centerville, have created is a more robust warning than what the state's warning is currently mandated. And even our more robust warning is not preventing the fraud, right? People are even without more robust warning. We still have residents who are being scammed the tune of almost $100,000 out of just two machines, one of which is out of business over a brief two year period.

We definitely have cases where the fraudsters are on the phone with them and they'll say, okay, go up this ATM here and you're going to see some warnings on there. They don't apply to you, right? This is a whole different, it's just for fraud stuff. This isn't dealing with what you have in there. They are very convincing on the phone with, uh, with our victims and talking, you know, to the, to what, uh, council and Meakin was saying where they won't even believe the police are right.

But we'll try and tell them what's a fraud and they won't believe us. Let them argue with our officers who are standing right there saying, I promise you this is fraud. No, it's not. I have to do this or they're going to hurt my grandson or they're going to do whatever. So yes, we've had that verbal altercations with people trying to convince them that they're being defrauded.

And from what I've seen, it looks like kiosks are presenting a particular a particularly easy way for fraudsters to defraud our residents, which is not to say, which is not to, what I'm suggesting is there are a lot of other ways that our residents could trade in cryptocurrency if they want to through more secure means, but that the kiosk is really pretty targeted at scams in particular, so it's not really serving a purpose and in fact it's a detriment and a harm to our residents.

It's definitely a much easier way for them to do that, for sure.

And crypto is still something that's evolving and changing. And I suspect this time, if crypto does stay on as a currency, that they'll figure out better ways to manage crypto and to do it more, you know, so it won't be used so much as a fraud technique. Because I think the people who actually use crypto as a currency They probably don't like that their form of currency and ATMs are being used to fraud so many people and getting such a bad name. And so I suspect if the cryptocurrency kiosks, the manufacturers of them wanted to stay in business and wanted to perform, they would find ways to do it where it would be more difficult to be used as a tool to fraud. And right now, believe that that's how they're making all their money right as soon as the as soon as the state cracked down on daily transaction limits right after that one of our kiosks went out of business and there there isn't in in your view i mean is is there a place that we could put kiosks that would

make residents less it doesn't feel like to me that if we move a kiosk from currently gas stations and wherever else though they're just gas stations right now I mean I can't think of any location restriction that would address the any of the concerns that you've raised I like your idea of the police station yeah outside of putting it in the lobby of the police department or which I don't think we could legally restrict. I mean, outside of that, right? I just, I don't see a mechanism by which we could impose some kind of a location restriction or other, you know, our restriction. I mean, these people are gonna call when they call and people are gonna access machines and they access machines.

What would happen if there was a crypto bank that opened and wanted to open and put in kiosks or an ATM, if you will, that the crypto barn or some company that, or Coinbase, Robinhood. These are companies that have actual online websites that transfer Bitcoin. Can they come in and open a brick and mortar

location and have Why can't they be able to not if we say that they can't have them here in Centerville?

Not as not the way the ordinance is drafted So that I think that we're talking non kiosk.

Oh Yeah, my comment was only if they wanted to open up a kiosk they can certainly we cannot restrict the transfer of cryptocurrencies or holding a wallet or Transacting it's just the kiosks

Just the kiosks, not necessarily a brick-and-mortar, coin-based bank, if you will, coming into Centerville, setting up shop, and putting in an ATM on their property.

Well, I think they would not be able to put the ATM on their property.

They wouldn't be able to do the kiosks, but they could do trading if this has some other way to do it.

For what it's worth, Council Member Plummer, I totally get where you're going with this. I think right now such kiosks don't exist, so I think for right now the types of kiosks that we're dealing with, according to the evidence that we have in front of us, is that they're almost exclusively used for fraud. So certainly if this type of kiosk that you're envisioning starts to become use I think that we as a City Council could certainly re-examine what you know the ordinance that we have but given right now that the only kiosks that are sort of in existence that we're trying to address are these ones that are used predominantly almost exclusively for fraud I think I'm inclined to look at the ordinance with that sort of factual foundation right now and you know we can look at something if things change down the road

All right, anybody, somebody ready to make a motion?

I did have some good comments from the council on potentially additional whereas clauses if you wanted to add them to a motion. One was a suggestion to add a whereas clause about the Iowa statistics on the 98% on Bitcoin Depot machines and 94% on coin flip or scam transactions. and that there are other alternatives for converting cash to crypto through businesses that may have teller transaction options. Centerville City Police Department had put up warning signs on our kiosks that were more robust than the state requirements currently, and it still didn't work over a two-year period, even considering that our signs were up before the state regulations went into effect and that there are other ways to trade cryptocurrency outside of kiosks and that the kiosks are a detriment and harm to our residents.

yeah how would you feel about adding with regard to the ios study that our chief of police has indicated that based on his observations the use of our kiosks would be consistent with the ios study yes Are you looking for a motion?

Yeah, I was waiting.

Yeah.

Waiting for an answer from her.

You got Lisa. Oh, yes. Yeah, I was doing that. Then I am going to move that we approve ordinance number 2026 dash 19, enacting Chapter seven dash ten or seven point one out of the center of the municipal code regarding virtual currency kiosks and prohibiting the operation, placement and maintenance of virtual currency kiosks within the city as set forth in the proposed ordinance. in the packet and the additional whereas clauses that Lisa has just identified.

Second. A motion and a second. Councilman Meacham. Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Councilman Palmer. Can I ask what's going to happen to when this goes into place what will happen to the existing Is it the existing kiosk that's in operation at this time? Are we giving it a period of time, or is it needing to be shut down as soon as this is passed? 60 days. 60 days.

The ordinance provides a 60-day transition period.

And the owner is aware this is potentially coming. They were actually offered an opportunity to come and speak on behalf if they wanted to, the owner of the gas station. And they are anticipating this coming and ready to act. Okay, great. Aye.

All right, 4-0. Thank you. All right, thank you. You guys ready to move on? Anybody need a break? Keep going. You good to go? Okay, let's go then to personnel policies. CDL training and reimbursement resolution 2026-27. Just kind of give a quick summary. I know you gave one in work session to the public.

Again, thank you for letting me take a second. So this is just brought forth so that we could encourage our growth of our employees as we support them in obtaining the CDL, which is a mutual benefit for us as well as them. And so we're just looking for support that we can do this reimbursement program over the course of a two-year period after they obtain the CDL and to help us with the retention and growth of those employees. youngsters is sure the is yours the only department that will use this uh i think we are the only ones that do have equipment that would require this kind of license oh yes sorry the parks department does as well yeah they have operators currently because they utilize the dump trucks and that as well so are we limiting

The opportunity to those departments because could a police officer say I'd like to get my CDL license So it is limited to those that it's as it stated is limited to those that it's required by their job description The questions I would like to make a motion that we approve that resolution with the amendment that we reduce the amount to 80% of the cost incurred by an employee to so incur that licensure.

Keeping the table the same as far as employment period? Yes. 0 to 6, 6 to 12, 12 to 18, 18 to 24, okay. I like that. Do we have a second to that motion?

Sorry, 80% of what?

I don't know how to word it. I'm sorry I'm so poor at that, but we're suggesting we'll pay 100% up to $4,000. I would say we pay 80% of the cost up to... Did they pay 20%? Did they pay 20%?

As it's written, then... Right now it's written that we'll pay the upfront cost, and they're doing a reimbursement, so we'd need to go back and... rewrite what this looks like, is that correct? Because then we're asking for upfront cash from those employees or else we'd be saying we would only reimburse up to that percentage and they just have to know that they absorb the 20%.

My argument is whenever we required in their job description, we should be funding that and not putting it solely on the employee. So if it's a requirement of the job, my argument is the city should be funding that requirement.

Do we have another further discussion before we get a second on the motion or not? Just a question. It seems like to me that you don't necessarily go into further discussion. If you don't get a second and the motion fails, then we'll get a further discussion. If you get a second, then I'll give further discussion that you can discuss at that point in time. Is there any second? I second that motion fails, so we can have further discussion now.

Well, I will just approve resolution number 2026-27 as proposed in staff report.

I'll second that.

Okay, we have a motion to second that. Further discussion on that one? Okay. Councilman Plummer, go to the right. Aye. Aye.

May simply because I would appreciate the employee having a little skin in the game.

Aye.

You want to vote or abstain?

I'm going to abstain because I'm not even sure which item we're on. I apologize.

It was this one.

It was the one I thought.

Yeah.

Oh, okay. I'm fine to say aye on that. Sorry.

Okay. So let me ask this 4-1. Thank you, Dave. Thank you. Appreciate it. All right. Let's go to promotion. Probationary employment period, resolution 2026-26. Who wants to handle that?

I'm happy to talk about that, Mayor. We have proposed amendments to our personnel policies before you regarding probationary periods. So previously in our policies we referred to this as your introductory period. That's a 12-month period when you're first hired on with the city to review your ability to do the job. And we had talked about reducing that amount of time, but a number of the departments actually need that. For instance, police department, public works, sometimes it takes up to a year to obtain these certifications. So as staff, our recommendation is let's keep it at the 12 months for the introductory period. We're also recommending that we change the name of that to probationary period, because that is the language that state statute uses when defining employees in 10.3.1105, what we refer to as at-will employees during their probationary period. So we wanted to be consistent with that. The next thing we wanted to address is that our current policy says that the first 12 months of employment with the city in any position or a transfer to a new position or a promotion within the city you're subject to another introductory period. Well, there are some legal concerns with saying you have been with the city for 18 years and you are now a merit employee. But if you're moving into this new position, we're going to make you be at will again for 12 months, up to 12 months. So we're proposing that we distinguish between, um, a probationary new hire employee, AND A PROMOTION. AND I THINK THIS IS ALSO HELPFUL TO NOW CALL THIS THE PROMOTIONAL EVALUATION PERIOD AND HAVING A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THESE TWO THINGS AND TRYING TO EXPLAIN THAT IN YOUR PROMOTIONAL PERIOD, IF YOU'RE GOING FROM A MERIT EMPLOYEE, MEANING YOU HOLD YOUR POSITION WITHOUT LIMITATION OF TIME, THAT IF YOU'RE GOING FROM MERIT POSITION TO MERIT POSITION, THAT You retain that merit. You don't have to do another at will, but if you get promoted from a merit position to an at-will position, unfortunately you are now you're at will. It's not a probationary period. It's because under the law, you have now moved into an at-will position. So just to give you an example, when the police chief. Goes from Lieutenant perhaps, or to chief, um, or maybe someone moves into one of our director, uh, department head positions. in a promotion if they are going from merit to at will then they're now at will in that new position. And that is the voluntary decision that they're making for that promotion. So also with this, I thought it would be helpful to try and define merit versus at will. And I went back and reviewed the Utah case law. The Utah courts refer to this, as I'm saying, the Title 10, 3, 1105 and 1106 as the merit protection statute. And so I would like to try and describe for employees, you are a merit employee, and here's what it means. Once you've finished this 12-month probationary period, you now hold your position without limitation of time, subject to some due process. It doesn't mean we can't terminate those employees for cause. We certainly can. It's just that they have more due process in their job, which is different than private employment. This is just for government employees. And then also defining at will, which means we can terminate you generally with or without cause. And this is all of your department heads, any appointed position like the city treasurer, city manager, etc. I don't know, we're excited about this new direction and making it a lot hopefully clearer in our policies for employees and we'll certainly have to do some explanation of these edits. We have reviewed these with our department heads and I think we're recommending approval of these to bring our policies more in line, I think, with state law and the case law development of merit and at-will employees.

And we reduced it from 12 months to six months.

Right. And so for the promotional evaluation period, we have reduced that from 12 months to six months because we know, you know, this has been an employee that's been with us. And they may just be transferring or promoted. And so the six months does make more sense in that situation. So. Any comments or questions?

I'm supportive of Elisa, but I have a nerdy recommendation.

Okay.

In your definition of at will employee and subsection B, the last sentence indicates nothing here and authorizes termination of an at will employee for unlawful reasons. And then we proceed to list examples of unlawful reasons such as discrimination, retaliation, equal protection, et cetera. We don't like the inclusion of those examples for two reasons. One, they're focusing really more on equal protection type protected status discrimination, there are a lot of other unlawful reasons that you can terminate an employee, wrongful termination, a violation of public policy, for those who don't know, the Utah Public Protection and Employment Act. So I would, and I also don't like those terms because while they can be used in a legal sense, discrimination, retaliation, I can also discriminate and retaliate against people for perfectly lawful reasons that are not prohibited by law. So just to avoid any, um, yeah, like I can, I can discriminate against somebody because they wear red socks and not blue socks. That's not unlawful, but it would be discrimination. Right. So, I would just change that because I am me. And I would just say nothing herein authorizes termination of an at-will employee for reasons prohibited by law, period. And not identify any examples. I know you were trying to be helpful, but it could create ambiguity.

Okay. Good suggestion.

We know that.

For reasons prohibited by law. Yeah. It was a lot more difficult to define these than I thought.

That was my only comment. Okay.

Lisa gave an exciting presentation. No, you did. You were passionate. So do you have more questions for her for that passion? Anybody else?

I appreciate you doing it, Lisa. You've done a great job, and I appreciate that a lot.

And I do like that we are resolving this. That seems very common sense.

We're going to see a theme. I mean, we really are looking into our personnel policy manual, and Bryce and Lisa have done a really good job. But you're going to see probably maybe every meeting some tweak or change that we need to do. So anyway, appreciate the work of Lisa.

That's our goal.

That's our goal.

Thank you. I'll make a motion that we approve resolution number 2026-26 regarding personnel policy amendments for new employee probationary periods and promotional evaluation periods for existing employees who are internally promoted or transferred to a new position and other relevant amendments. Yes, with the modification that Shaylin made and I'm not going to try and repeat that, but I think we've got it right. I'll second it.

Motion to second for discussion. Councilman Banger going to the right. Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

That motion passes 5-0. Thank you. Let's go to Utah Property Acquisitions on Frontage Road.

uh... religious quick summer yes thanks mister mayor mayor council so as we we've discussed and we've been working on this for the last i would say two years you dot as they are widening a fifteen is needing to acquire property along our furniture road that property primarily serves as our drainage close the property primary services retention retention basins uh... drainage swells along the front row so we've they've been interested in acquiring this property one to purchase it but also to to do some temporary construction events on that property we've been negotiating with udot and we've worked closely with them to find a fair balance one of the biggest concerns and is making sure that our drainage infrastructure and our drainage system still operates properly so this has been delayed because we wanted to make sure we had that drainage agreement in place that was approved at the last meeting UDOT has agreed to construct approximately $10 million worth of drainage infrastructure underneath the freeway, whether it's new pipes, upgraded pipes, to handle all of our flows to make it to the west side of the freeway and legacy. So with that before you are 10 contracts, 10 parcels of land they're interested in purchasing or purchasing easements on those properties. and those 10 contracts total one million nine hundred sixty nine thousand six hundred seventy five thousand dollars again as i shared i've shared that it's important for us to actually retain and hold on to this funding that we're receiving because we'll also need to come back in and do the betterments and improve the properties once they leave the cost that they're giving us does account for that There might be opportunities for betterments or trails or any other open space we might be interested in, but also we might need to invest more into the drainage infrastructure on the west side of the freeway. So the recommendation is to hold on to those funds until the completion of the I-15 widening project, and then we have discussions in the future of what to do with those funds. Are there any questions from me?

We think that'll be about, did you say 2031, 32?

Yeah, Mike, what has UDOT anticipated the completion of the I-15 winding? I want to say it was 2031 or 2032. Is that about right? I mean, the goal, of course, is prior to the Olympics, so definitely before 2034. If they don't, then we've messed up big time. So, yeah. All right.

I was just going to mention that I do work for Horrocks, which they do have some involvement with this freeway expansion project. So I have no decision making on the process of right of way within Horrocks or any advantage financially, but I do want to state that I am an employee of Horrocks.

And I'm sure we've been working with HDR as the consultant to negotiate for our parcels. So HDR is the firm.

Sounds like you're not canceled then.

I'm not canceled. I just want to be very clear about that in any UDOT decisions at the moment.

All right. Further questions for Brent? motion or sorry it's not you know it is a motion it's but it's not a resolution or ordinance It's just allowing the mayor and appropriate city officials to execute contracts and associated closing documents subject to final review and non-material corrections or however you want to say it.

I'll move that we approve the UDOT right-of-way contracts for the parcels identified in staff report for the total compensation identified in staff report and authorize the mayor and appropriate city officials to execute the contracts and associated closing documents subject to final legal review and non-material.

I'll second that.

Motion to second. Councilman Hayman, go to my right. Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Thank you. That post is 5-0. All right. We've kept Bruce Koch up past 10 o'clock when his lights go off at the parks. That's your bedtime usually, right? When the lights go off at the pickleball court and the tennis courts. But come on up here, because we're talking about the Hot Wheels Park discussion, or the All Wheels, excuse me. Just can't help but think of my days of Hot Wheels and Matchboxes.

This doesn't need to be a discussion. Just tell me what location.

Oh, I just thought you might want to say that since we last met, unless you want me to read it, that the Trails Committee got together. Right.

Oh, OK.

I didn't know. Or she could say it. We were both there, yeah. I didn't want to steal any thunder.

Oh. OK. The Trails Committee met last Thursday evening, and unanimously after some discussion, decided to recommend to the city council that they have the design of the pump track be done for the Porter Walton Park location.

right i could have read that but uh i thought maybe i thought you did it was not a close call i mean it was such a unanimous decision and i don't think that they had really thought about it before we as a city council recommended it and they said oh my gosh yeah that makes perfect sense yeah with the greenway that they talked about earlier today running right past that park the visibility it's a safe route to school for junior high

It's a great location for our neighboring West Bountiful and Bountiful communities to be able to also enjoy the amenities. There's there's lots of pluses for sure. There's there's it's a three acre parcel and I think One acre of it. It would be very usable for for design and still keeping a green Buffer around the perimeter and all of the park that's there As far as basketball court playground pavilion Those things so I I think there's a lot of pluses for that location So are you gonna specifically recommend they only design for one particular acre of it?

I

That's what I would, I've already actually, yeah, that's what I would recommend is that they keep their design within that acre or so to not, they could give other options for you to look at. And I think I will recommend too, hey, why don't you give us a couple of different options for us to look at and pick and choose the things we like and dislike. But yeah, there's a blank canvas easily of an acre they could Stretch that to an acre and a half at most probably and still keep what I think Without having to take out it take away anything that the park already has yeah Council be aware.

I took a little drive-by with Bruce and Bruce I liked that idea of maybe coming along but where the parkway would be and having a stretch of that part being a little Longer instead of so circular or something we talked about that. I just yeah, I And hopefully that'll be incorporated within maybe an acre.

Maybe that'd be a little bit more, but I that was my take That sounds good you like that You want to approve a preliminary design for that part that he brings back to us or what he wanted to I

Didn't you just need our go-ahead to say, yep, go plan for that location?

A location, yeah. If you choose the location for them to design for, that will give them the opportunity to do specific design to that location, knowing the grades. And they can give much better cost estimates, which I will use to then apply for a construction grant early next year that could be a matching grant that pays for half the cost if we're successful.

Mr. Mayor, if it's possible, a motion would be awesome.

I'll move that we approve the location for the preliminary design for an all-rules park at Porter Walton Park.

Second. All in favor, aye. Aye. Opposed? There's unanimous. Thanks, Bruce. All right, let's go to bond reduction, Porter Lane Estates. This is on the summary action calendar. There's a bond reduction, Fort Lauderdale State's amount of $40,773. Anybody have questions on that? Okay, if not, a motion to approve that.

So moved.

Second.

The motion is second. Councilwoman Hirsch, go to my right.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

That passes unanimously. Thank you. Let's go to minutes review and approval. August 18th work session and August 18th city council minutes. Did you see anything in those minutes that you would like to make a change to?

If not, so moved.

All right, we have a motion to accept the minutes as written.

Second.

All in favor, aye. Aye. Opposed? Thank you. All right, let's go to Councilmember Report. It's Councilmember Gina Hurst tonight.

I do not have a whole lot. Our Parks and Rec committee is working on kind of, they've been working on the master plan, and I think that's going to be a real drive over the next month or two. Brian, do you have any, do you want to add anything to that since you kind of co-liaisoned that with me?

Yeah, it's really, they're focused on getting that done. that plan put together, the report or their document, but I think they have requested to inquire about funding for that. Yeah.

Yeah, they may need a little bit of funding just to kind of finish it off and get it into a nice looking format. It's possible that city staff can help with that as well.

We had allocated money for it.

We had allocated money. It did not get spent in the last fiscal year and did not get pushed forward. So the reason I think it's important to bring that up is just these volunteer organizations, I think that was above and beyond the call of duty. And they have done... Everything that I've seen so far, they have done a really good job. They've worked really hard to put that together and I'm impressed. They're a really great group of people. They work well together. Just impressive. I think that's all I have there. They're kind of wrapped up with movies in the park for the summer. South Davis Recreation District, we are currently, in the next couple of weeks, we'll be holding interviews for the two at-will positions that are not elected officials in the community. They're the ones that apply and then they're interviewed. The two that are currently sitting on the board did reapply, and then we've also got one resident from Centerville that applied. So anyway, I'll let you know how that goes when those interviews are done.

Did you mean at large?

At large, yeah, not at will, sorry.

Like they're hiring new people?

Yeah, I'm sorry. Thank you for the correction. It's getting late and I'm tired, I guess.

Sorry, didn't mean to.

No, I'm glad you did. That didn't sound right. The South Davis Sewer District, they continue to work on the construction of the north plant. I'll be sitting down in a couple of weeks to talk about all of the upcoming engineering projects. One would think that we would be done with infrastructure forever more on the sewer plant. In fact, we will not be. It's time to start looking at what the future needs are as far as updates. So unfortunately, I don't have a lot to tell you about that right now. But I'll get some more information. And that's more of a long term. It will be good for a few years with the current changes. But I do appreciate that they're looking ahead and making sure that we're ready for the next. the next items that are needed to keep the sewage flowing away from us. I think that's everything, Mayor. Oh, LPC started again, so we're back to, we're starting on monthly meetings right now, and then we'll move into the weekly as soon as the session starts. So before we know it, the legislative people are gonna be back to work.

Thanks, council member. And I'll follow up my report. I just have a couple of things. LPC, we discussed. Florida actually has a bill out there to eliminate property tax. They say it will be decided by their state house. I don't know if they voted on it yet. So they're seeing what's happened there. So they expect a lot of property tax bills here. They expect water bills. They expect, obviously, always building bills, right? and our own uh beloved uh representatives has introduced some bill defining mita and its terms and that sort of thing did you see that yeah that uh um is uh out there as well too i just threw that out because paul was working with the league and others on that so um so that's some of the things that are coming up like uh judah says you'll start seeing Bill's coming out of committee. We didn't discuss a lot of specific bills, but we will at our next meetings. And then South Davis Metro Fire Service, they scheduled a meeting off of our normal time yesterday. I had a business meeting in Denver, which I scheduled for three months right at that time, but Brent listened in, and it's a discussion about How they what they if they keep the admin committee the same or if they do some other things with it also thrown out there for two city managers to Mayors and somebody from the county the Pratt can maybe tell you more on his own report, but no vote was taken, so I guess we'll be taking that up more. I look forward to that discussion at our future meeting. I guess I'll be careful, but I've kind of perturbed it. So anyway, we'll go to Brant for his report.

Thanks, Mr. Mayor. I do have that on my list to give you an update on. I know we've been talking about South Davis fire for the last I don't know, 10 years it feels like for the last little bit with the budget. This has been some challenging conversations since Chief Stewart's passing. A couple of the mayors have conducted an investigation to understand why the potential passing of Chief Stewart is the stress of the job, but unfortunately the admin committee is being blamed as one of the reasons for the higher, Mayor, you can stop me if I'm saying too much. I'm being very candid because... No, I would probably say it too, so I'll probably pile on. We'll go down together. But ultimately, the frustration is, and yeah, working with the city managers, the five city managers, and a representative from the county is tough, but we are the budget officers. So just so you know, when this was formed, when the area was formed, the five city managers and a representative from the county are the budget officers. So we manage the budget, we present the budget, and that was the agreement saying if we're going to do this this is how we want to do it so We are not necessarily, we don't feel like we're hard on the board, but we do feel like we hold them accountable. I can't imagine what the property taxes would be if we weren't there saying you can't have all your new toys because public safety likes their new toys. It's a good thing he's distracted. So there are those conversations. And their toys are expensive. Fire engines are a million dollars, right? Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. but we've helped develop reserve policies to make sure they have enough cash on hand before they they didn't have any minimums of what to have in savings they they were just spending so we've done a lot of good to help them and the conversations are difficult because five cities have five different ways of doing their budget so i can appreciate the stress that's going on there but blowing up the admin committee saying let's just get rid of it or then you put up all the budget authority in the hands of the mayors. And they get to decide how this works. What's being proposed is two city managers would serve a three-year term, two mayors would serve a three-year term, and then somebody from the county. And you'd have staggering terms. I'm just telling you that's not going to be in a very effective conversation with elected officials, with administration, and trying to find that balance. So I think some things need to happen. Another city manager is convinced that if you change the bylaws to South Davis Fire, that it needs to come before all five cities to redo those bylaws. I'm not sure from the legal standpoint if that's true or not, if that's required, but that's what I'm spending my time on right now is a deep dive into understanding the bylaws, the formation documents, to see really what's the process it should take. If you talk to Chief Larson or, again, I'm not quite sure how they feel. I think they are frustrated with the admin committee, but it's because we hold them accountable. So I think we're doing our job.

But we don't want to lose that. So what is it we can do now?

Where I'm perturbed, going along with Brent, I just threw that at the end, is that they scheduled this meeting. Didn't didn't know about I found out last minute and so I went to sat down with Mayor Westergaard He's the chair. I told him I'm definitely against getting rid of the admin committee and I want you to express that And I don't know they did fully but I'm definitely against not removing the admin committee because of One probably the biggest reason is I our assessment that we get of a million bucks, right? And also my CPA background always says you have checks and balances. They have one accounting staff and a second one that just does some little bookkeeping. So you're not going to have five mayors checking out in the detail that the admin committee does. And in all fairness to Chief Larson, love the man, I've known him since he was a teenager. He's not necessarily, and he'll say it too, and none of them are accountants. So they totally rely on the one staff person. And so where's the checks and balances? I mean, you always have to have checks and balances. when it comes to accounting. And that's what we get with the city managers. Now, if you know all these five city managers, they're all pretty driven guys, but they don't necessarily always agree, but they all work together like each other. And I like that. I like that oversight that they bring in addition to the mayors. And I just think you'll lose an awful lot if you went to this proposal they said or you did away with the ad committee.