City Council - Regular Meeting

Don't think I've seen an agenda of this many text amendments. It's just in terms of Yeah.

Chief operator

And it's because we're

trying to, like, implement all of these, like, legal changes.

Alright, everyone. Welcome to our meeting this evening. Let's get underway. We have our our we have no reason for a closing tonight, so we'll go to our report in Jordan Valley Water Water Conservancy District. Shazelle and John, take it away.

You guys can

do you wanna come here? Or you Well,

I'll just introduce myself really quick. I'm John Richardson. I'm representing Draper and Waterprobe. I've been president of Draper for quite a while now, and thank you for taking some time. And I wanna introduce Chazelle Terry. She's

chief operating officer now. She'll be newly

appointed. And and, really, I guess we wanna talk about just briefly capital projects at Jordan Valley. There's a lot of water and exciting things going on as well as the water budget policy. And then I see if there's any other questions you can So,

yeah, just a couple of things that we kinda wanna talk about in terms of construction projects that you may or may not be aware of. So right now, we're doing two pretty big vault projects on 114 South. We're doing one at State Street and then one at 110 East. So the State Street one is basically just corrosion issues, so we're just doing redoing the piping and the valving in there. But it will it's currently scheduled to start in March.

It will require a brief shutdown, and our operations folks are currently coordinating with your operations folks to make sure that we can keep everybody in water. The other one is currently under design. That one will be a little bit more involved because it's relocating the vault from outside of the middle of the street so that we can get to it. It's it's one of those dangerous vaults. It's hard for us to do any work in just because then we have to shut down the street and all that sort of thing.

So we'll actually be relocating that vault, and that will be a little bit more involved in terms of the work that needs to be done there. So that is still a redesign. We're probably looking at still another nine, ten months before that one construction gets underway. Couple other things are happening. We are doing a increasing the capacity of our Jordan Valley Water treatment plant. I don't know if any of you have been there. It is our largest treatment plant.

So what in Herriman? Don't if

you guys have seen that.

Herriman, if you're

It's a big one.

Yeah. If you're on Mountain View Corridor, you can't help but see it there. That

plant is currently a 180

MGD plants, the largest in the state, but we are doing phase one of a $75,000,000 day expansion. So the first phase will look at expanding that to the thirty five forty MGD, and we're just doing that because of demand. And that will benefit all of our member agencies. For about six months into a four year project. To do that, we're rebuilding filters.

We're doing sanitation bases and upgrading all the heat there. And that's basically so that we can treat what we call our ULS water, which is our the last portion of the Central Utah project where we're bringing strawberry water across down Spanish Fort Canyon and into the Salt Lake Valley. So we've got

Not strawberry flavor. Right?

Yes. Sounds delicious. Strawberry Strawberry reservoir. Strawberry reservoir. Good clarification. Joke about

that. We do. And

we've got about 16,000 acre feet of that water that we'll be looking to treat with this expansion. So those are some of the big projects we're we have going on right now that that are that will directly affect Draper in the. Another thing that we kinda wanted to talk about was a water budget policy. And about the last, I would say, year and a half, we've really been wrestling with you know, everybody knows that we're in a drought. We've got a certain amount of water.

There's a lot of growth still going on in the state, and we're really kinda wrestling with, you know, how do we manage that? How do we how do we make sure that we have enough water, know, for developments that are happening now, but that doesn't use up what's left for developments that might be happening later? So we went through an analysis of population, demand, developable land, which we considered anything that was less than a 30 slope in our service area. And based upon that, we came up with what we are calling a water budget for the rest of our service area, which is 1.35 acre feet of water per acre of land. So that's what we're kind of broadcasting out there for all future development if within our service area, and we put a policy in that significant development is greater than 50 acres.

We would have a policy that they would have to meet those requirements if they did feel like their development could meet that 1.35 acre feet of water per acre. They could come with additional water, or they could come with a feeding lieu of water and say and and meet that requirement. So we had a policy in place. We've implemented that in a couple ways. We're currently still negotiating with the point, but we've under that premise. And then we also some of you might be aware of the Olympian development impairment, and we did a development agreement with that for them to meet those requirements. We're now looking our board is looking at the next phase, which would be looking at how

do we implement because, you

know, there's a lot of development that's gonna go

in that's not greater than 50 acres. And so, you

know, you get infill and different things, but we still gotta meet collectively through that service our service area, that 1.35. So we're currently working through that with our board. We are looking at kind of a very flexible three phase of kind of a decision tree. If we feel like it's warranted, we can still do a direct development agreement with the developer similar to what we've done with Harriman and what we're kind of working through at this point. We can also what we've been looking at is working with the member agencies depending on the type of reference.

We have some options where we can piggyback on the agreement that the member agency has with the developer, and we allow the member agency to basically ensure that they'll meet that requirement and also collect any water or fee in lieu of on our behalf.

And then at some point in time,

they can either transfer that water to us or we can put it in the calculation for their water budget. The other option and in that case, we would ask that the member agency withhold any occupancy, you know, permits until we can ensure that they're gonna meet that requirement. The other option is that we can basically give the member agency and say, this is what based upon this developable land in your in your service area, you got x amount of water. We're gonna give you a update on how you implement that with development, but that's it. So if for some reason, you know, one development that comes in early, like, way overspends their water budget, then it's gonna be up to you to figure out how to implement that with greater development.

Can you help put this in perspective? Sure.

This is maybe gonna sound like it's not very educated question, but can you put in perspective, like, for 1.35 acre feet of water per acre. Mhmm. What's, like, the average for, like, a half acre lot? How much water right now on average does a half acre lot use?

Yeah. So, I mean, it

really varies depending Just help me understand, like, how much conservation is How much conservation is it happening?

High density or low density or

Yeah. So when you're looking at single family homes and you're looking at, like, you know, your typical, you know, maybe quarter acre lot type thing, you're looking at, if I remember my numbers correctly, like, point two two acre feet. The interesting thing is we so when we were looking at what the current use is for our entire service area for Lake County, what currently is, I think our current use was, like, one I wanna say, like, 1.85. Per acre? Per acre. What's like, if you put everything in Salt Lake County in our service area together, that's what it's That's where you

wanna reduce it to one

point to point three five. Yep. So I think if you look at Daybreak and that kind of development, I think they're at, like, 1.56 acre feet per acre. So to kinda give you some frame of reference.

And and, Shazelle, correct me if I'm wrong. I mean, when you talk about developments like this point, if they're short on that, right, they're getting their own water rights from others. Yes. Right? So so that is I

don't You guys probably know all that. But

So someone could so so the developer could say, yeah. We don't think we want to have landscaping or density that will allow us to meet that 1.35. We think 1.5 is reasonable. So we're gonna bring x amount of water either from their own sources or they can go out and and purchase that. And then we can say, okay. You're gonna get 1.35 from us,

and then that developer will provide the problem with that, though, is that's just then taking water from somewhere else. Yep. So, I mean, that doesn't

really solve the long term.

Now that 1.35 is just based upon our water sources and what we see. So that doesn't take into account, you know, water rights or shares that, say, has or, you know, other places have. So there is water out there, but it is getting harder and more expensive to find. Yeah. For the

Or treat. Our treats. Yeah.

Yep. All the easy, cheap water to treat is done, and future sources are getting more costly

to treat for sure.

How are you looking for the summer? Snow.

Perfect segue into my next So the other thing I wanna talk just a little bit about, everybody knows that we are in record drought. I mean, this is, like, the worst snowpack that's statewide that we've ever had. And

But we got this weekend coming.

Yeah. We're gonna take whatever we can get. That's right. Snow as much as we can get this weekend. So we are.

We're in record territory, and it's a little bit scary. Currently, most of our reservoirs that feed Salt Lake County this isn't true statewide, but most of our reservoirs are about 10% below where they were this time last year, which doesn't sound too bad until you see realize that the expected runoff this year is expected to be somewhere between 4050% of normal. So there's not gonna be water to fill them up all the way. So we're gonna be we're starting a little bit deficit, and we're not gonna be able to fill them. So we have a drought monitoring committee that we have one voting member from each agency.

We're convening that in the next three weeks. And we get together, and what we look at is what's our c CUP, which is Central Utah Project allocation, and that provides about half of our water supply.

We look and see, are they gonna be able

to deliver us our full 100% allocation? Are they gonna, like, say, yeah, you'll get 90% or something? The other thing we consider is our Provo River, Deer Creek storage allocation.

And same thing. We look at

what they're gonna give us. We're guessing this year that they they're looking at probably in a 60 to 80% allocation this year. And then we looked at what groundwater supplies we have and how hard we've been pumping those in the past years. The nice thing is is we've had the luxury of not pumping our groundwater cars, so we have a little extra in the bank as far as groundwater goes. The real issue is, you know, even if we we're gonna be okay this year, problem is nobody knows what's gonna come back

to this

And it's gonna take several years of normal to kinda get us where we're feeling good. You know, the last time we had a similar drought, we got that record snowfall following year, which was just fantastic. But who knows? We may have another year like this, and then we're gonna be in in real trouble. So part of that drought monitoring committees, we vote.

We have five levels of drought, and so zero is considered full availability. We have a level one, which we start asking for five to 10% voluntary reduction. A level two, we're looking at more of a mandatory reduction around the 15%. So we're gonna see kind of where our member agencies are feeling when we make a recommendation to our board, and then our board and our info board meeting will decide what level they will implement for the year, and that may change midyear. We might implement a two.

And if things aren't going well, people aren't conserving, we get into July, August, and we're like, no. We gotta we gotta ratchet that up. So one of the things that we're doing is we really know that it's gonna be important to be consistent with messaging and, you know, that we're sending out a consistent message and also consistency in to some extent, we realize every member agency is a little bit different. But the more that we can be consistent in the messaging and also our responses, the better response we'll get from the public. So one of the things we've asked each of our member agencies to do is put together a drought response plan, which was basically actions for each of those levels that kind of says, if we're asked to reduce, you know, five or 10% on voluntary.

What are some things that we can put into place to try and get that? And then, you know, responses for each level. When we have our go ahead.

I was just like, when do you start implementing those? Like, when do you want when would the messaging do this?

So, typically, you know, we'll start messaging pretty heavily. I mean, we try and start messaging conservation all the time, but we really kinda start late March, early April. This year, I think we're gonna get started earlier, and we're gonna have to hit it harder just so that we because, really, the places that we have the best opportunity to conserve is waiting to turn on our sprinklers in the spring and turning them off early in the fall. That's where we get the biggest bang for

our buck on conservation. I'm sorry. When when when do you think that the public actually starts to, like, pay attention to the messaging?

I mean, we got a really good response with the last route. So the fact that it's been people it's been on the news. It's been, you know, constantly. I think people are already tuned into that. They can look outside and There's no snow on the mountains.

So I think we're gonna get

a good response that way, but it'll be really interesting to see if we you know, it has to hurt a little bit more than it did last time, which I think it will, what kind of response will be. But but I'm pretty confident that we'll be able to do I think we're gonna be fine this year. Next year's gonna be really interesting.

So in practicality, does this mean that residents will get a certain amount of

water at one rate, and then

if they go over that rate, the water costs more money?

So we have tiers, a tiered water rate for our retail. About 10% of our deliveries are retail, about 90% are wholesale. So we obviously don't have as much, you know, control over our wholesale, and we don't have wholesale conservation rates in place. They're based upon pumping rates and just the cost of water. But for our retail system, we do have four tiers, and we kinda set those bottom tiers for what we consider, you know, judicious use.

And then if you get into those, then there's a higher use in tilt three and four. Yeah. We are currently doing a rate study, and we are looking at adding perhaps a surcharge because of the past legislation legislature, they passed a bill that said we could actually collect fees above the cost of water, which we could not do before, as long as we use that money towards conservation projects and messaging. So we're in the process of figuring out

what those should be in

terms of, like, a a surcharge. Yeah. Any other questions along

those lines?

Thank you. K. Very nice one.

Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you.

Next, actually, we have Mike, are you gonna do your legislative update? Thank you. Let's put in skip that for a second. I'm gonna skip over that and go to short term rentals, Jan.

You.

You guys asked for just a update on short term rentals. Staff has been working on this. I know you guys have been waiting for a while for this. We've been playing catch up with state law changes. So we're as of tonight, we'll be caught up for last year's code changes through state law.

So we've had a little bit more bandwidth to continue working on short term rentals. So we do have a draft ordinance that is being reviewed internally right now. So, hopefully, we'll have something to you guys shortly. There is two questions that I did wanna kinda get your guys' feedback on, and then I can kinda go over how we're setting up the ordinance and what we're what we're looking at. So the first one is where should short term rentals be allowed?

We allow them in all residential units. Should we limit them? We are proposing, you know, single family townhomes, condos, and detached ADUs. We're not proposing internally to use. And then the question of apartments has come up and whether we want to allow short term rentals for apartments.

Some apartment complexes themselves do short term rentals. They have some units that are long term, some units that are short term. So from a business standpoint for apartments, that is something that we do have in the city and we do see. And I do believe there are people that do sublease their apartments. That's something we would like to allow or not.

Talking to PD, Todd Taylor got with couple couple individuals in PD, and they did have some concerns with short term rentals and apartments. So my recommendation would be that we allow for the overall complex to allow short term rentals, but not sublease apartments, that kind of thing. Because when you have a management company, they're they're making sure rules are followed, things like that versus somebody who's sublease. But I wanna get feedback and then I saw any thoughts on that.

So, Jen, you're suggesting if you let the owners of the apartment complexes do short term rentals, like, could for their excess units, like,

that are vacant, help them stay profitable,

and they're controlling it. They've got an incentive Mhmm. To stay compliant with city laws. Yes. Okay. So you feel more comfortable saying apartment owners could do short term rentals after ex tenant Yes. But the, like, tenants could not sell these? Yes. Okay.

That's what mean so I know a lot of people would say I have a year lease Mhmm. And I am moving after three months. So I sublease it for nine months. So you're saying not allow that or not allowed to short term? That would be, yeah, that would be a long term revenue. So anything over thirty days is considered long term. Oh, okay. So when we're talking short term, it's thirty days or less. Got it. Thanks.

I think a two night minimum is pretty small.

You want a large I don't know.

I just wonder if maybe

Well, like

Some places, they require you to rent at least five nights or something

Yeah. For seven

or week. Yeah.

Yeah. The idea of that having a minimum stay requirement is, you know, having somebody coming in renting for a night, throwing a big party, and leaving the next day.

Which we have. So

which we have. Yes. Think that they have found this is where they do

it two nights, there's less of that probably. Yeah.

They can go up to three?

I think three might be. Three? Are you okay with three, Brad?

Yeah. I

It's gonna be a lot more expensive. Right. One night.

So I'm trying

to keep out some of those

people that they're just trying to help.

The three

would probably help. They could

get a of your Yeah.

No. I like the idea that they can't sublease short term. Mhmm. Yeah. K. Okay.

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

Just go over it a little bit. Okay.

Were you looking at also limiting it to certain areas that was terrible? Or

We weren't looking going down

the road. Looking at geographical areas. So more of the question is, are there certain types of housing we maybe don't want a lot them in? Okay. Like the apartments, internal ADUs, given the internal ADUs under state law really is trying to get affordable housing.

So we're not gonna allow those to be short term rentals. So, know, our our process, you know, our our application, we'd be looking for, obviously, owner information and urgent response contact, which I'll go over a little bit more. Floor plans, they have to actually show us what rooms, sleeping areas there are, what parking there is, their maximum occupancy, that kind of thing. From a process standpoint, it'd be approved to the zoning administrator, so that's me. So we've done all administratively through staff with an annual renewal.

And then through the business license, we can ensure that we're collecting our tax, our current rate room tax. So, you get one short term rental per unit. Limited to one renter at a time, and that you can't divide it up into multiple rentals. If you have a house, you're renting out the house. Prohibit parties and commercial events, again, require that permit, prohibit trailers, campers, things like that from being used for short term rentals, but we'd also be exempting RV parks, mobile home parks, bed and breakfast, that kind of thing for their they often do have short term tenants.

Occupancy, and this is based off building code, but looking setting a minimum square footage amount based on the occupants and the room sizes so that they're not just cramming in as many bedrooms and people as possibly can. And then setting a minimum parking with the parking amounts going up based on the number of bedrooms. And then having an urgent response person. So the host has to provide us a telephone number and contact where we can reach somebody 247 in case there is an issue. We would provide that information to PD as well.

And they also not sure if it says right here, but they're we're also looking at a requirement that, yeah, a buddy neighbor that they're actually providing that contact to adjacent property owners. Just so those ones that are directly a buddy. So if there is a problem, they can contact that host versus, say, calling the police. I think an hour is maybe a

little long.

We can make it a half

an hour.

Maybe thirty minutes. Oh, for yeah. To be at the property.

Because an hour if

there's something terrible going on, you need someone to respond sooner than an hour. I feel hour

might really be two hours.

You know how terrible. Yes. Yeah. I mean,

we've had some bad we've had some bad ones.

We have.

We have.

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

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

On the really good ones, you get the paramedics and the police. Yes.

Then it's party.

So we we can look at that that response time.

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

Not only the district or police. That's fine. Yeah. The responsible party is. Yep. Yeah.

Prohibiting also work activities between quiet hours, 10PM to 7AM. And then inside the short term rental requiring that they're actually posting information, the permit information as well as that post response and the rules that have to be followed so that those are rent those who are renting actually know what rules they have to follow. For Prohibiting exterior signage, that way they're not advertising that they're doing something commercial on the property. Health safety, making sure that there's fire extinguishers, smoke, carbon monoxide detectors. If it's there's a fire sprinkler system, making sure we're getting copies of their annual inspections on those sprinkler systems, and then the visible house units so emergency response can find them.

Maintenance just making sure that they're maintaining their property per our code, requiring any online listing to actually list their business license and short term rental permit numbers so that those who are renting can actually see they they have their proper permits. And then if we need to do inspections, allowing inspections.

Jen, I'm assuming, like, when they apply for their license or whatever Mhmm. They'll have to fill out that

same fire code form that we require all the businesses to fill

fill out each year when you

renew your business license. Yes.

Do know what I'm talking about? Yeah. We'll have to that's modified for residential. Yeah. We'll work with the fire marshal to get the form of exactly what he needs.

Could you just go back to the bathroom side?

Do so we have nothing right now. Right? Do we have a lot of problems? Because this seems like we're going pretty heavy handed on this. And I wondered, like, do any of the cities around us have anything? Do we have a lot of problems? I remember when there was, like, a murder a couple years it was a while ago, though. Right? Yeah. But but there are two in my neighborhood that, you know, there are some annoying things, but but we haven't had any problems. I wonder if, like, people because because it does seem like we're going pretty Yeah. Heavy handed on the service.

There are problems in your neighborhood.

The people who live next to them hate.

Yeah. Yeah. So we have problems, though, with with rental, like, people You know, the short term. Yeah. With ADUs and short term. The idea is to not be too heavy handed with this to provide guidelines and making sure that they're coming in for permits so that we know that they're operating. They know what the rules are. Those who are renting know what the rules are. But this is actually not as strict as some other cities, and most cities around us have have some form of short term rental regulations.

Yeah. Pretty standard. Like, when

you rent a place in Saint George or wherever, this is pretty normal. Yeah.

I think we need to get

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

Mhmm. Are we thinking we'll stay with that for the home?

Well, I think we were thinking the same minimum amount for both the time.

So we go to three for that too. Yeah.

Rina brought up an issue the other day about what was it? It was like, if they aren't meeting these requirements, can we

revoke the permit? Yes. So we'll we'll have to add that into our in into the code, but there's a you know, the code enforcement process, if they're in violation, we can revoke their permit. Or if someone doesn't have a permit, then what's the So then it's code enforcement process to get them in compliance. So the the first step would be a notice of noncompliance, giving them an opportunity to come in and actually make that application and bring the property into compliance. If they don't, then they can be cited. So

how's our capacity to do enforcement?

That's the challenge.

Right? Yeah.

We we are smiling under

that mask. Yeah. I know.

I saw our eyes I saw our eyes change. We're it's I

mean, we are enforcement based, complaint based enforcement. Right now, we have one code enforcement officer, but we do respond to, you know, the the complaints that we get. Now we do some something like this, we would give them time to come in and make that application. So it would just be an immediate you're you're getting that fine. You're getting that citation when you try to work with people.

Do you get frequent calls about these? It kinda chain ebbs and flows as the the season goes. There's definitely certain neighborhoods that have a lot more than others, and we do hear from those neighbors. There's definitely we hear about the same ones. Interesting. And so this point, when you hear about the same ones, what do we do? Because there's nothing, we do nothing? Or we Well,

it depend I mean, it

depends on what the complaint is. Because sometimes there are things that you can do, and other times, they're just yeah. Depends on the specific complaint, but we do hear about the same ones. So whether it's that host is acting in bad faith and doing parties and, you know, allowing parties and things like that, or that neighbor is upset about the rental. There's a couple different reasons why we hear.

But do you hear the same complaints or the same number as police? Like, would police also be receiving separate complaints? My guess is they hear

it more every time. But I haven't had that conversation with police.

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

Well, they're not allowed to have parties.

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

I think

having multiple day stays would help with that. But then, also, it does talk about having minimum size standards. They're not just cramming people in. Did you already say is there

a state law at all or any state? Anything? Uh-huh.

Not yet. Wild West.

Haven't heard haven't

heard of a bill yet either.

Yeah. I believe you think there may be a bill, but then nothing really comes down.

How do you enforce a party, though? I mean, as far as I think it's annoying. That was a party.

Yeah. They'll know who win over

the past. No. I we

just had some family over, you know, with some friends. And I We know it's a party,

but it's I I think that's gonna come down to neighbors calling, letting us know.

We get called juveniles at alcohol and juveniles racing up and down the street. Overwhelming the neighbors. Yeah. Exceeding it, you're at the It's a party. Having a party.

And if if

you are, like, a family of four and you're staying there and you have family in the area and you have them over for dinner, even though you're if you're exceeding it in a calm way, you're probably not gonna have to Yeah. Can find it as a gathering exceeding the occupancy. Okay. Yeah. We can look at it that way too.

Gathering above the occupancy level. Yeah.

No. I appreciate you looking at it and starting to get us something. Yeah. I think it's important

to do. Do I think, Jen? Are we skipping the next

one? We yeah.

Skipping that one. Right? Sorry.

Did you wanna go back to your landlord about that?

Yeah. Well, I heard when I came in, I heard you were talking about so you may be aware that already there's 951 bills as of earlier today. Yeah. I knew them today. Yeah. So we'll definitely exceed a thousand. We've kind of we've been watching the the tax the property tax bills closely, and you you've met with senator McKay. I don't know if you wanna

Yeah. I know it was him last week and today. So senator McKay is really not trying to blow our property tax system away. He really does actually appreciate if you look across the country, most property tax systems in The States states that still have them, they don't they don't guarantee a municipality the same amount of money the next year. So they don't have what we have.

What we have is actually really workable because we can count on getting our same amount the next year over year. It's not the case across the country. There is a ton of pressure from outside groups, if you will, that are also inside groups. I met I met with Dan for, like, an hour and a half, and then when I walked out of his office, was almost in my car. That was when president Trump tweeted last week that we need to abolish all property taxes.

And Dan and I talked about that with respect to now the referendum, you know, they're worried that there'll be a referendum from people that wanna eliminate property tax. And I you know, there's a certain group that hears the call, if you will, and the call went out last week from the top of the call chain to abolish property tax. So that's a real pressure that they feel. Dan also feels like there's gotta be some kind of, you know, I guess, some modifications, if you will. I think they're we're headed in the right direction.

They're gonna tweak most likely our fund balance going down from 35 percent maximum, you know, that we can hold the fund balance back to 25%. It's what it was six years ago. That's one thing they've talked about. They talked about getting rid of

So what what's the reasoning on that one, there?

They they think that there's all this money sitting in PTF accounts and in bank accounts, and we're not spending it. We're raising taxes on people, but we have this big reserve that we're not spending.

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

No. He totally does. He hopefully, he gets it. He's not he's not a he's but but we're talking about political wins and, you know, making it all work. One of the things that they're they're also talking about is getting rid of the ability for us to do capital projects out of our reserve funds. So in other words, you wanna build a building, you gotta bond for it and have the taxpayer pay specifically for that capital project. Lot of cities save money like we even do and then spend it on capital projects. That's one of the things they're looking They wanna prevent us from doing that. They wanna prevent us from doing that. It's one

the things they're doing. I

don't understand. Is it to

get more It

goes back to the concept of more transparency. You know, you're you have this money in your reserve account that you're not spending. Some cities don't, like, spend it ever. Like, they never tap into it unless there's a serious major emergency. They don't So they some of these states have big funds on it, and they they they and they save for all these capital projects, but they can't identify any of the capital projects that they're saving for. Well, we're saving all this money for capital projects. Okay. Which ones are they? They can't come up with it. So it's like they're worried that the taxpayer says, you're gonna raise my taxes this year, but you have all this money in the bank.

Right. You know? And senator McCabe gets it. He knows that we I told him about our storm that was, you know, $3,600,000 when it's all said and done. Twenty two minutes of rain. So those are things we're talking about. The caps are gone. The concept of changing your residential exemption and lowering it and making the business one higher. I think those have gone away. Now we're looking at tweaking the one thing is interesting is trying to make the tax notice more usable.

And one of the things senator McKay has this is a great data. Like, the the actual economic impact of property tax on us for twenty five years as a percentage of our income is one and a half percent. And it has been that way for twenty five years. It has really never gone up. So all the taxpayers, our constituents get mad because they see school districts, counties, and they feel like their tax bills just soared through the roof. But as a percentage of your income, because your income's gone up, your values have gone up, all that. So they're looking at maybe I don't know how this notice thing will work out, but, like, showing a taxpayer, hey. This is how much you're paying in brother's taxes. This is how much you're paying in sales tax. This is how much you're paying in energy tax, etcetera, etcetera.

So that's one of the areas. Yeah. I would say that there are gonna be something like that come out of it. I think that's the ultimate where the tax bills come down. So we'll probably have a lower percentage.

In a way, I kind of like the bonding thing because it puts it back on the residents. You know?

It does.

Do you want a community center if

you do

vote for the bond?

And there

Do you want your road redone?

If you do, vote for the bond.

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

Yeah. The

transparency on that's good. Yeah. Right.

And then, course, they're trying to they also are gonna produce some videos and some training material to do what we did in our truth of taxation last year where we explained to the our our constituents that we don't get the increase in your property value. Everybody thinks that as your property value goes up, we continue to go up, but we don't. I mean, we are if it was like that, they never we never see it. But, of course, they that that's a fundamental problem across the state. People don't understand how it works.

So it's odd because the the they're gonna treat the truth and taxation timelines too, like a you might have to do a pretruth and taxation, I guess, like a pretruth and taxation hearing in July Clear it. Yeah. And then do it in August, and they're trying to fix some of the traps that we missed, you know, the those things. How about just

eliminate the traps. Right? Right.

Yeah. Trying to make the traps clearer so you won't step in them, but they're still gonna be there. And that's an untaxed policy.

Did you say that the, like, 5% per year maximum they've done away

from that? That's that's not floating around anymore. That that doesn't they didn't get enough steam on that from various places. Like I said, senator McKay thinks the truth. The taxation system is pretty good. Does not wanna destroy it. The other part of it is is it depends on who the legislator is, who's kinda got this space. And right now, senator McKay is like sitting on the chariot running the space. I mean, like it or lump it, he's he's the one that's been there long enough, cares enough about it that his colleagues are letting him kinda be the the gatekeeper.

Kind of the the self appointed chair of the of this, or is he I don't mean it that way. Self appointed

Well, just I I think his senate colleague just said, hey, man. You seem to have a good policy head on this. Do it. We're we're gonna you're gonna be and and to his credit, he in in coming up with his ideas, he brought in all the smart minds on tax. He even brought Roger too, who's our lead general counsel, who kind of Roger's been around since Moses almost, maybe longer. He's got Moses' staff. He does. He has a couple of them. But Roger was there when the when when the whole thing got set up in the residential exemption. One of the things McKay said that I thought was pretty damn good, actually, he said, you know, we give this big residential exemption to the residents, but they're the ones that call the police and the fire department.

So we give them a big huge exemption, but they're the ones that use all the services. And then we, you know, shift it to somewhere that doesn't use services like, you know, Kohl's is not calling the cops all time or environment. It was interesting. Kohl's is calling the cops. That's it. Not like not at the level of them. You know? Anyway, that was his point. I don't think he's gonna tweak that, but there's this inherent belief that we have this residential exemption, but it's rooted in weird politics from years gone by. But he didn't he didn't incorporate all the smart minds on property tax policy. So I think he's done a good job trying to thread it, but he's got a pressure group over here that wants to do away with it.

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

Yeah. Well, what I said to that was or the city. What I said to him is I said, you know, the government sucks at almost everything it does. It's not good at most things. But we will get a paramedic to your happy house in four minutes and save you from your coronary if we have one that we can send. We'll get a police officer to your house in four minutes to stop your domestic violence from turning into murder in four minutes. Those are the things we're really good at, but they cost the most. So you eliminate our ability to pay for that, you won't have it. Good luck. They have it all over Europe. You know, you don't call a paramedic in a lot of places and get any help. I hate that was my point too. It was like, look. We we don't it's something we take this money and go on trips. I mean, almost all of it goes in public safety roads. So, I mean, you can't

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

Well, they're doing it in some states. They just

they shifted the business. Season it to these things?

They they ship ship it to business, and they tax the businesses more, raise sales tax. I don't, you know, I don't know.

You're still gonna pay

for it.

Right. I mean, money has to come from somewhere.

Unless you privatize emergency

services. Right. Well, I don't think you could privatize it and get it faster than you It's like it's one thing we're gonna do.

Right. Usually, that's more expensive.

It's the best thing we do, really. Probably the fastest, the best service we provide is that, which is what people care about the most too, I mean, you know, at the end of the day.

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

I get it. I I guess you just charge a fee to to every resident. You gotta get

So whoever's privatizing it sends you

ADT sends me a bill, basically. Right.

But, you know

peak along.

Like, a lot of the more I don't know how to say this. I'm around the accordion. A lot of folks that might think Florida's doing a really good job at it or some of these other states, they you know, senator McHale acknowledged to you they're they're really a disaster. It's not working there. It's not it's not the success story that they say in Florida, for example. Like but that's not you know, we're in an era like never before where certain people can tweet stuff and then large swaths of people seem to think it is gospel truth. And that then some action needs to be done on something that was said that has no basis in reality. But

And if you don't act on it, then you are now

Then if you don't, then you're on the other side of the the great tweetings, and you're not smart enough to know that tweetings were really the smart things, and you're the idiot. Is that diplomatic enough? No. I have no idea what you're talking about. Anyway, I also did hear a little bit about the gas tax Yeah. Situations, which is interesting. When it's all said and done, we're gonna get a six month gas tax reprieve that will amount to about 6¢ a gallon.

So Okay.

Quick snack.

I'm trying to think what else.

For six months.

For six months.

And then

Then it goes back.

And then

we're gonna now be 12¢ more.

But it goes back to whatever goes back. Don't know. Yeah.

Probably And practice.

I was in a land use the land use task force meeting. Went to Bathway. Let me take your. Oh, sure. Thank you. That's the big LUDMA bill that all the developers are on one side of the table and all of us on the other side of the table, and they're all you know everybody's there at the trough trying to get because now there's all this new funding for this you know, because the developers have been telling everyone, not that this isn't a 100% true, they've been telling everyone that the reason there's not all these houses are getting built, all these units that we have entitled, the 138,000. The reason is is because the infrastructure is too expensive to build. They can't make money if they don't have, you know, infrastructure, water tanks, all that business. It's not. That's the true reason why they're not getting built.

That's what they're telling everybody. So some of our legislators, our representative Calvin, is calling him on their bluff, and he's created this bill that's actually amazing that is gonna give infrastructure loans. And now cities gonna be able to say, okay. You got, you know, Olympia Hills you wanna build here. Well, we're gonna do a loan, and it'll here's your infrastructure. We'll see how they do on building these units. I suspect myself that they build the number of units they can make money at that they can sell at any given time, and it has not a damn thing to do with anything else. I could be wrong

on that, but that's

my my 2¢. So we spent a lot of time in that meeting today talking about all that. Calvin did get another additional loan going to 180,000.00

to finish the infrastructure? It's a loan, though, not a grant.

That's always a loan. Yeah. The government loans its government subdivision's money.

But the Innovation Center for Canyon School District got a $17,100,000

grant last week, I understand, in the legislature. There you go. Did you know that? Yeah.

I just found out about that.

But, anyway, that's kinda That's a lot. That's a lot. Stuff. Their Brave Ward has a bill that's still trying to get out of committee that is just insane and stupid in every regard. But, you know, it's essentially a one part of it is if if a developer brought in a sketch on a partial piece of property, like you sketched it out, and we didn't act on it. I think it was thirty days or whatever it was.

How much? Thirty days.

Thirty days? If we didn't if our planning department or the government didn't, you know, get the process going, that the sketch would become what they could do. The sketch, literally.

And it be became basically a zoning entitlement.

Yeah. The sketch, whatever you you know, you could have your fifth grader sketching stuff out. That's still being held in Video? Yeah. That's that's little of that could be edited. There's your sketch. Or you've seen the one where the kid draws a giraffe and the other kid draws a dog and they look the same? That was actually used in the committee talking about, you know, how how do you know what the sketch is.

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

Yeah. It's just that It'd work

great up there on edge home sites and stuff then, wouldn't it?

Oh, yeah. They can just sketch it right out. That bill's in the committee, but he got some amendments that are kind of camera thinks they're on the fringe of not really dealing with the real bill. But he thinks that the little amendments are gonna get it out of committee, so I don't know. You know, there's there's still the the the belief that the cities are holding up all the all the housing development. I mean, they they've been very successful at that narrative. And it's

And that's the developers.

Developers have been successful at it. Yeah. Now the house isn't necessarily with them on there's not any big real Ray Ward's bill, though, one thing it does do why we we're gonna be at there's gonna be a call to action from the league is because it does erode our land use authority in in a bunch of spots. So you're gonna get an email. Make sure you, you know, act like the league army on that one. That's probably the worst bill that's in there right now. Yeah. I'd say so. Yeah.

Trying to think if there's anything What's the details of that bill again?

Ray Ward's bill. It's It's

called a land use regulation, meaning you can build on a 5,000 square foot lot if you submit a sketch.

Your sketch?

Oh, yeah. It's

Where this all came from is literally he had some family in his in his ward, in his neighborhood that wanted to rent their basement out to the missionaries, and there was an ordinance against it. This is what spurred the whole Ray Ward saga, literally. And it's gone from that to buy write ADUs to sketch artist work, all of it. I killed his bill last year the committee, but this year, he's got more. You know?

And this is the time of the silly season of the legislature. Right? Because they're all horse trading with each other on all the dumb stuff. So there's some dumb stuff that's gonna keep moving along because the other people got some other dumb stuff over here they wanna get past. So all the dumb stuff just kinda walks along, and then some really dumb stuff falls away, and the other dumb stuff gets passed.

Gets it all put together in one bill.

There's much horse trading afoot right now. I didn't get it.

How much time do we have left?

It's mid we're at the middle.

Last Wednesday was Trade week. Yeah. Alright.

The u oh, the UTA bill is the last one. Okay. UTA bill is the league, although it's my better judgment, wanted to get more involved in this, and I thought we needed to. But the way that UTA is gonna get restructured if if it all passes, this is Wayne Harpersville. Instead of having three commissioners, one from each of the counties, you know, as the getting paid to do whatever they do along with the general manager that they hired to run UTA. So you have the three commissioners, a general manager that's running UTA, and then the the local advisory council, which I've been on for

the whole time

it's been around, which has no actual power to do anything. So Harper reconstructed it to be so now if you haven't paid attention to this, but now those three trustees are are gone as of June 1. And then they'll they'll form a seven member commission, very similar to how it was way back in the original board I was on, except being 15 members will be seven. Those seven board members will be it'll be a transfer transit commission. Those seven board members will then be the be the governing board, and then they'll have a general manager running UTA.

Now I know it sounds exactly like it was before because it freaking is. But, you know, we've gone over the mountains. Now we're back to the valley. But this seven member commission where all the fight is now, because about 60 I think maybe it's 44% of all UTA dollars are locally generated. That local option sales tax that we all agree to implement, I think it's 44%. I I

can't remember the number.

Either 40 or 60% of the money is local generated sales tax. So the way the way the commission's gonna be appointed right now if nothing changes, two from the house, two from the senate, three from the governor. To did that is that up

to

seven?

Yes. Okay. They'll be they'll be part of the UTP.

That'll consist That will be the new transit commission. Now the the two house members the the speaker appoints two, the senate president appoints two, the governor appoints three. What the league's trying to do is is get it so there's some local input in the appointees being that one of the senate, maybe one of the house would would be a recommendation to the house from the cogs, and then the governor would have some recommendations come from the cogs. The governor would still make the appointments, but they would be getting his people, his nominations from the county Davis County, you know, our our our service area. Right now, it's not that.

Right now right now, no elected official can serve on the commission. That's primarily about keeping legislators off the commission. But the league has has talked about, well, let's not exclude local elected officials for being able to serve. Maybe they're the best person to be on that. Don't let's not hamper that. I I don't know where that's gonna go. I I think that was a harder sell than than the than the governor getting and the body's getting appointments for the cogs. But that's what we're working on, that part of the language. So So

what's the reason of going back

to the old way?

That's a good question. Because it never should've got away from the old way. Well, right now, you're paying three executives, the Davis County, the Sully County, and the Utah County. You're paying them full till full steam for their statutory pay, which is now, you know, north of, I think, January or whatever plus benefits. You're also paying Jay Fox, who is a professional manager. So you're really paying three people to do

One job.

One job. Three people weren't really

trained in that industry.

Well, they don't and, you know, they're not really they're accountable to their appointing authority, which is the governor but through the Cox, but they don't really report part of it is with the state having the appointments and more of the appointments on the on the trans on the transit commission, the seven member group, the state obviously owns it more and therefore needs to put more state resources into transit. And what I've been telling the league and people is, right now, we have this local option that's funding what we have, and all it is is funding what we have. There's no money to fund anymore. The only way you grow transit in Utah is one, you add more global option sales tax, which I don't think that's happening. Number two, the state starts to invest more money in transit.

And the state's not gonna invest money in transit in an entity it doesn't control. That's the message I've been trying to tell them is this is good for us. You know, Andrew Gerber from Washington Front, he agrees. I mean, this is unprecedented. Carlos Baceras at the at the committee meeting I testified at, he made this comment, which I thought told the whole story. Carlos said, after I got done talking, he got up and said, I've been a transit person my whole life, road guy. Well, I'm a road guy. Been a road guy my whole my whole career. He's almost ready to retire. He said, now I'm a road guy and a transit guy. And I looked at Gruber, and I said, that's it right there. That's the change. I mean, we need more transit So where we're gonna

where you can fund them together and have it all as one one committee or entity. Right?

Right. Right. And and Calvin's got a bill that's working on trying to get some extra money into it out of a state new state fund they're gonna create that will build it on a capital project. But if but if UDOT's, you know, in charge of it, which it is, and if and if the state legislature and governor appoint the governing board, you you've got more state hands on it. Therefore, more state interest. Therefore, hopefully, more state money. I mean, you know, you look at UDOT's budget annually. I don't know what it is. Anybody know off the top of their head? I always say it this way.

It's a

billion dollars a year, rain or shine, Christmas or not. It's like I told Carlos that you don't even need to finish that keggera. Mean, can get another one next year. I mean, he does. He just has constant if there's one entity in this state that is funded to the team, it's UDOT. But the thing about Carlos is he understands transit too now in reports of it. I think you're gonna see a better mix. The state's already putting 300,000,000 of state funds into FrontRunner double tracking. So the state has already stepped in in a huge way, which is gonna make a major difference in FrontRunners. Once frontrunners is fifteen minute headways, then it's just real game changer for that. Yes. Oh, yeah. But we need more vehicles and more lines and all that. Yeah. So I I'm excited about that.

I think this restructure of UTA streamlines it, puts it in the right posture for future transit expansion. We have the Olympics coming up, all that kind of stuff. So but the part that we're that's still trying to be tweaked is when the governor gets his, you know, his three people to a point, where does he get the names? The league wants it to come from the cogs. They want they want that influence. I I don't know where it shakes out. I think Harper can pass this bill just exactly how it's written. The Utah County last week riled up all their mayors to try and kill it, but I

don't, you

know, I don't think that's gonna happen. But, anyway, trying to think if there's anything else. I

think that's it.

Was the big ones. Yeah.

Well, you covered 10 of the 900. So

many other ones.

Can we talk about the

commissions and committees? I don't know what that was.

That'd be the Do you wanna go to that next? Anybody have any legislative questions? I will tell I I'm I'll tell you, think Calvin has done remarkably good job on the stuff that he's done. Some of the stuff directs us is infrastructure banks, all the stuff he's come up with. It's really good stuff. It's new money to come into infrastructure that's never been there. He's done a really good job threading the needle with all the bills he's got. Now, you know, he he was tasked with the gas tax bill. So to to the extent that it kind of fizzled is not really Calvin's fault. It it was a it was a task you know, it was a mountain that was ready not ready to be climbed, I guess, maybe.

Well, wasn't there a strong

constituent that was wanting him to sponsor

a bill like that?

It was indeed. Yeah. But it didn't they ran into all kinds of, I think, opposition things. They into Idaho. They didn't even they had each letter. But on a lot of the bills, Calvin's been great. He did

a good he's done a

good job for us on you know, he's smart. He's been trying to He's

been I texted him last night about

a random bill and got back to

me right away. I was super impressed.

Yeah. Yeah.

You know, senator Cullimore has also been responsive whenever I need to talk to him. He's busier, of course. But and I had like I said, I had great we've had great meetings with Dan. And, you know, Dan's a tax policy guy, so he's the one we gotta work with. I mean, most of them don't wanna touch it. It's just complex. Try to figure it out. Yeah. You know? And everybody hates taxes and

but yeah.

Well, of course, we all do. We we also love the result that we get out of this.

We get something. Mean, that's people don't want taxes, but they do want drivable roads and they do want an EMG.

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

About their budget this year? Do they have a bunch of money or not? They don't

have any

They don't have any

money this year. So is it possible they'll pass some bills that end up unfunded?

I think so. There's a well, Cam thinks that of these nine soon to be a thousand bills, most of them are gonna die. Okay. And they do. They're not on track to pass as many as they did last year. Okay. So there's a lot

of dining committees. But what a waste of time. Yeah. But, also, that's kind of

But maybe that's a beauty of the government. That's the beauty

of the government. Yeah.

I mean, like, whittle it down to

what actually should move on. Yeah. Be worse to pass stuff than

But you would hope that there's some common sense, though, of what

suits There's so much ego involved in

it. Yeah.

That's true.

They'll still passed, like, 200 bills in the last week.

Oh, yeah.

I mean, they'll pass way too many. Yeah.

Hopefully, it's less than last year. But

I'm not saying they won't mix. We read their

last year's weeks, it gets really dangerous.

It just cracks me up because we're the small government pumpkins here in the union. I mean, we're,

like, the number ones here. All vote for yours

if you vote for mine.

I was at a chamber event. This young kid asked a question about some mayors. He goes like, hey. I just learned that the legislative session is only forty five days. What do think of that? They all gave their hand and got to me. I said, whatever god you believe in, you should pray to that god tonight and thank him that they only meet for forty five days. Yeah. That's what you should do. Whichever it is.

Tonight, you think that's But, anyway, that's my report. Good job. I'll have more next week. But next time. K. Okay. Next is commissions and committees.

Yeah. So this this came out of the the retreat last week. It was a discussion about ground running. Retreat committee and then the parks, trails, and recreation committee, and and are there areas of overlap, or are there areas that they could swap, maybe swap duties, that type of thing. So on the screen in front of you are the the duties of the the current duties of the treat committee out of our code. So you'll see the word recommend a lot. So they they are a recommending body to the city council,

and and

they do recommend on on some important things. Tip number three with they just demanded the the street tree guide, which I think is very helpful Mhmm. For the community at large to know what trees are best to plant in in what areas in in, you know, street trees. So like I said, a lot of a lot of it relies on their expertise tree Experts in Experts in yeah. In their field. So, I mean, is is there anything up there that causes concern, or are there are there gaps that that ought to be involved in?

And and I don't

right. You go to the meetings on a regular basis. When you go to the meetings, I don't know if you've got any

I just feel like it really is greater than just trees. I really feel like it's trees and landscaping Because they're making a lot of recommendations to residents about water wise landscaping and planting.

Well, we weren't calling it beautification. Right?

Right. But all of

these specifically call out trees, and I don't

think that is

You think that's too limiting?

That's so limiting. Because it's really

I mean, right near the person, but it's

really more than just trees and shrubbery.

Yeah. Well and, I mean, I

think we talked about this too that kinda what Mike said is that we've got people who are very qualified to be on that committee, and so they're noticing things, you know, different, maybe even businesses who who you know, the Park strip is dying and some of those kinds of things. So, you know, kinda what Tasha's saying, I think if we have these people who have these the skill set that we should bring them, you know, to to something that's useful to us, which I think the water wise is an important thing that, you know, we just heard from the Conservancy District that, you know, that's something I think residents will want to do as well. And how do we do that? Just this weekend, I heard about an organization that's redoing their park strips.

And they're like, yeah, we're just putting

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

I just think that should be reflected in this somehow because we are doing it. Yeah.

It's almost kind of assumed, but it's Right. Yeah. I agree.

Of these other things, you you can look at number five or number six. It gets hard. We try and get the right people in the right positions for staff, train them, either you be a certified arborist or get certified pesticides and fertilizers and stuff so that we don't have to take direction from the tree community.

We We can can

just just go go do do our our job. Job. Mhmm. So I

think if we're really focused in on what their role was, we can maybe add things like education, which

can be very valuable.

And they're already doing it. They're already having They're

doing it, but it's not

necessarily within their scope. I think the problem is they're doing it, but we

don't list it as

their job. Their jobs. Okay.

Well, in August, I feel like Rhett sometimes has

been one that this guy that got caught in the crosshairs to

where they discovered where the planting of trees

and some of the new developments or something that isn't Yeah. That's what Isn't in accordance. And

they have saved us on a couple of them, but but then I'm thinking of, like,

on 13th East when all those trees died on, what,

a 130

on 3rd South. Yeah. No. A Hundred And 30

3rd South,

probably. What if it were Draper City, trees, landscapes, and beautification? In our

be more, you know, user friendly. So if you're looking to do something, you know where to go and Mhmm.

What stand what the standards are. Like that education component for sure. They did the that

was the tree when they did the tree talk last fall. Right? Yeah. Yeah. Or summer. Yeah. I went to a house radio.

They do a really good job. Because they have current you know, like, the

relationships with these different organizations. Right. And I think that's really

I think as we move forward, I think I would love to see them create these welcome to Draper things. Right? That's part of beautification. And I also think that as we look at these summers with no water, we need to take a look at some of our landscaping and our parks and really talk seriously about what can

come out. Our our parks.

Yeah. Yeah. So so would we wanna almost

unmuseable grass.

So would we wanna almost insert when we're inserting landscaping to be specific on, like, Waterwise

Right.

Standards and things like that.

I mean, we would assume they would.

But then that's in in our code, I think it's just predefined.

But maybe put that as

part of the committee. Not in your committee description.

It's not in the, yeah, it's not in the committee description. And I think they're aware of what other organizations and municipalities are doing because they're the industry that they're in. Right. And so I think they, you know, again, to advise, to educate, even educating

It does say water protection is number one. That's a pretty broad scope, just number one by itself. It was a lot of

It's appropriate shrubbery. And

Right. I love the idea if we do the science. Like, welcome

to Draper to have the tree community, like, helping you know, to

help everybody in from something from a committee, I think.

Well, that goes on. We were talking about beautification. It's one of the words with it. Right.

Do you

wanna look at the the What's Forest Trails and Recreation?

And this so

their their duties are actually quite limited. So switching over to the parks, trails, recreation committee. And once again, right, you're involved with that on an intimate basis. So Yep. But they they I mean, they spend most of their time dealing with trails. Correct? Probably 85, 90%. Yeah.

95.

Yeah. 99. 99.

And we

try and steer them, but a few other things,

but they don't they don't really.

What about moving

them to be

more Draper City trails and open space? They seem most invested in the trails and open space.

Oh, sure. Yeah. So,

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

K. And then you could put the trees with parks and trees. Or

Or just not have parks. I mean, do we need a committee looking at actually, like, at playgrounds or really

I don't

But they kind

of come packaged. Right? Mhmm. We've been on the playground. When we have gotten new parks when you're doing new parks, is the parks, trails, and rec committee, are they advising at all or a part of that process?

We always try to take the plants to because But they're, like, trees up there. Tree. Yeah. We really want

to talk about trees. Yeah. But they are then giving them to the tree community. Community. Give it to them to make suggestions on what trees and stuff to plant.

Right. That is a weird discrepancy.

Where that would fit.

Right. Like, even when we did the Gold Star Memorial, it would have made sense for the tree committee to weigh in on those replantings. Right? I would think. Yeah. But I think

it's If they're they're right in the situation. Right.

Think, you

see, I think the trails committee would have a problem with the parks

being removed from that. That's actually something

I mean, we've got the

largest amount of trails of any

city, probably in the country. I haven't found a municipality that has more trails than the city proper. So, I

mean, it's They have a

huge scope.

Yeah. So just to have a trails committee

Right. Alone does not

And open space. I think a lot goes into open space management, frankly. So

some of this could be rewritten too because the the master plan is how often do we update that rep? And that's supposed to be twelve to fifteen years. Yeah. We just did it 2003, so it's due for a 2003? 2023.

Oh, '23. Okay.

They're doing. Right. The establishment of facilities, programs, and policies to meet recreational and aesthetic needs. That's not what that committee does.

Right. Right?

Like, that's totally not correct.

Which one are you

looking at?

A. Oh, a. Okay. There we go. I think it's the very first one. Yeah. Yeah. I was on on b. Come on. No. It's it's it's

not. Right.

That needs to be Weird. Totally reworded Right. Regarding the trails and open space.

Right. Draper, he possesses an abundance of open space. Yeah. The job

To monitor the establishment of facilities Right. Programs, meet the recreational

I don't think they ever advised on rec programs. Never in years I was there. They're talking about rec I think well,

I mean, twice is all I can think of. Seventeen years.

Twice in seventeen years. But those

planning the half marathon or something

like that, we're gonna budget.

But that all falls under.

What what are we as staff

come back to you with

some ideas on on how to focus in on on what they do independently, but see if there are duties that ought to be

swamped to work. Least, I think we should make sure their descriptions are accurate, what's happening. Absolutely.

Is it dangerous to seek out some of the members of

the trail committee's input on what they would see specifically

outlined in this? I think Or would or should we not

fascinating to

not show them this and say, okay, guys. Let's have a discussion about what our top five jobs are. What are the top five priorities of the trade commission? What are the top five priorities of the trails commission? I don't think they would say most of

these then.

That's why I'm that's why it's

bit it'd be kinda interest

I was gonna say nice, but interesting to see

Yeah. What they would put as their priorities. Think they're because I don't think we question any of the members on any either of the committees, their desire of wanting to improve the city and do things

that are best.

But both

both committees are still committed.

Right. And

kinda going along with what for

the the truth committee meets before we meet again. So should I, you know, ask

do we have a discussion

about what do you think your your role is with the city? Should I mention that we're thinking about changing Like, education. That'd be interesting.

Just making sure to avoid giving committees any power they don't legislatively or executively have. We've had this happen before. I've said before. There was a time in that jury committee somehow, I don't know how well they did it, but they got themselves in the flat map business.

Yeah. I don't see that.

Remember that, Rhett? Oh, I don't yeah.

I remember Great time. Yeah.

But I don't I don't see

that with this current committee.

But but, again, they're not, you know, spending They're advisory. Right. They're not They don't get the demand staff to be at their meetings, any of that business. Because that costs us money, and they're not in charge of staff.

Well, even the monitor. I don't know if they even are really in charge of mom. I might take monitor out. Right.

Where are you

seeing that? Oh, the a.

She's Monitor the establishment. I'm still on it.

She's saying okay. Yeah. Monitor the establishment of

the yeah. That's kind of scary.

Also, wonder, is is there