City Council - Regular Meeting

Are you ready to go? I'll call this study session to order. We have a forum. We're going to move up the discussion on short-term animals. I want to tell you that I had in Harriman yesterday of the calendar, about 80% of the calendar was one rager party That was held at an airbnb all these kids came in and just had a raging giant party chairman PD, of course, like 25 of them miners, of course, but when I was making plea deals with the kids, I was talking to them and I said so. Would you like that to happen in your neighborhood? Would you like someone to throw a big rager in your neighborhood? And they all said no. And I said, well, what makes you think the people in that neighborhood liked it? Well, I guess they didn't.

On that note. So this is just something that we started discussing two weeks ago, so I hope you'll be okay if I just fast forward to where we left off. So we're proposing to allow short-term rentals in all residential districts. It could be in all or a portion of the residential units. It can be a detached accessory dwelling unit with a permit, but not on a property that has an internal accessory dwelling unit. We're talking about that because of the state law, and the intent of that was to provide housing. And that's the only regulation that we currently have, is that IABUs can't use commercial properties. Not in a tent, trailer, camper, RV, or other unattainable structure. Not in a unit of current long-term rental. And they cannot be used for commercial purposes.

The rager. Yes.

Or a wedding reception area, for instance. So for occupancy, we're allowing one short-term rental per residential unit, with one renter at a time.

Sorry, I can't do that. Could we switch it so it says not for events or commercial purposes? Because I feel like the way that's written, it makes it sound like commercial events are not OK, but that regular events. That's how I interpret it.

Commercials modify both.

It can't be held for events, is what you're trying to say.

Or commercial purposes.

But people have events. You can't say you can't have events.

But we were just talking about you can't have a wedding reception there, which would not be, that's not a commercial event. That's just an event, right?

We can have a wedding reception in your own house.

Yeah, we'll make that change. We'll run it past Spencer here in legal because I know some language you were proposing previously to bad events. Legal had some concerns on how it was written. So we'll adjust that then.

Because I think the goal of that is to not have these ragers and hikers and weddings, right?

Like you don't want a house in your neighborhood having a wedding every single weekend. Or a party, a graduation party. That's a one-off. With 40 people. Yeah.

I don't want that. We'll probably have to define events.

Right.

Right.

My party in Harriman was a birthday party.

still would have been legal in someone's own home. It's not because it was a short-term rental. It's because of the activities that were taking place.

It was a short-term rental that everybody converted on.

I just think, like, legally, there has to be.

It's the conduct.

Yeah. So we have the minimum stay being three consecutive nights, and the maximum is less than 30 consecutive days. And then we have occupancies based on the parking, which I'll get to on the next slide. And then we exempt hotels and RV parks. So for occupancy, it looks at the number of bedrooms or sleeping areas. So we're assuming two people per bedroom or sleeping area. That sleeping area has to have a minimum of 70 square feet. And then if the host wants to have additional occupancy, it has to have 50 additional square feet for each additional person. So that's how we'll set the maximum occupancy for each unit.

And that's based off building code?

Are small children exempt?

So the building code's looking at if you have a bedroom and a house, what that minimum square footage should be. So that's what we're .

You're thinking like a baby in a pack and play type of situation?

Well, I just think like, so I have a five bedroom house. Do I have four off street parking spots? I don't know. I have a garage and a driveway. So I guess that counts. So you have 10 people plus one. 11 people.

So yeah, parking will be two off-street spaces for short-term rental and one half for every bedroom exceeding two. And then you round up. We're proposing to have an urgent response hotline. The host has to be available by telephone 24-7 during the rental period. And then the host or decision-making individual must be available via the property within 30 minutes of a complaint. I like that.

Yeah, I like that too.

Once the permit is approved by the zoning administrator, we'll send a notice with that urgent response number to abutting property owners, to the fire and to the police so that they have that number. And the planning commission indicated that they want to make sure that abutting means it includes the people across the street as well. So we might be changing that text just a tiny bit to make sure that's... You could say abutting and adjacent. Yeah. For noise, we're just requiring that the host ensures renters are aware of our noise and noise ordinance. We're requiring that the host posts the short-term rental permit and business license inside the short-term rental, the urgent response hotline, all applicable rules, and then a good neighbor policy that is going to be on the next two pages. So these good neighbor guidelines are something that we saw in another city.

So I've seen at rentals where they have to put the number on the front door of the house. So if a neighbor comes to knock on the door and say you're too loud or you're blocking that car, there's a number for them to call.

So we're hoping that the notice would We can entertain that. I think at the previous meetings we had heard that we didn't want any type of signage on the exterior of the house, making it separate from the neighborhood. But...

Like, I wouldn't want my number on the exterior of the house.

Yeah, but I think if you're really mad at your neighbor and they've rented their house and there's 200 people there, are you going to be able to find that number? Like, there has to be some reason.

I think there's some responsibility for the neighbor. Like, if I get that notice in the mail, I'm going to keep it so that I can put it into my phone. I do think there's some responsibility from the neighbor. But they can also call the police and fire who have business. That's true. If you have a noise problem and you knock on the door and nothing happens, then you call the police.

But the number doesn't necessarily make a difference. Right, exactly. Because no one will answer. I mean, whoever is this property manager needs to know that they need to be accessible. I don't think that's too much to ask the property manager.

I don't think so either, but I'm putting my number out there. I think some people, like, this is a legitimate business that people can, like, I could buy the house next to mine and have an Airbnb and it could be just fine. Do you know what I mean? Like, we want good actors in this, right? Like, this is going to bring tax revenue. Like, I think it's fine as long as the problem is not Airbnbs. The problem is that actor Airbnb.

I just think it needs to be really clear, so people can follow it. I think there needs to be strong accountability.

We can look into that and see what other cities require as far as posting on the outside, if other cities do or not.

Is there any tax revenue we get from Airbnb? Yeah, so they tax on... We don't right now, right?

But we will?

Only if they're voluntarily doing that. But with this, they'd be getting a business license. We know that they're there.

Was this the fee for the business license?

I think it's $80 plus $7 of employee.

So again, we're proposing to have this short-term rental and community guidelines posted within the unit. It provides the non-emergency police number. It lets them know that there will be an urgent response number posted in the unit. There's a fire extinguisher in the unit. that they can't have commercial events in the unit, to make sure that they are aware of not disturbing the neighbors, especially between 10 and 7 a.m., consistent with our numbers ordinance, that they should be parking on site, not blocking anybody's driveways, sidewalks, not parking on the lawns, they shouldn't be exceeding the occupancy limits, their reservation, not picking up after themselves, make sure that their pets are under control and normally should be on the walks. Just a reminder to be good neighbors and citizens. Thank you for that.

I think that was great.

Thank you for pointing it out. For health and safety, they're required to have a fire extinguisher, smoke and carbon monoxide alarms for the fire code. If they have a fire sprinkler system, they'll have to have their annual In the online listing, we're going to require the short-term rental and business license number to be posted in that listing. And then just as a final item, inspections will be allowed as needed. And so that's what we're proposing. I'll probably bring it to you guys next week.

Is there a fine if you do one without getting a business license or not?

It would just be the code enforcement process. So yes, they could be fine citations.

Is there a criminal claim? I think it would have to be something that says violations are a contraction.

you were to enforce that i mean could we add something to our city code and make it enforceable you'd have to add it to you'd have to add it out of if you get if you're running if you're doing one of these throwing the raider and the neighbors call and coming on because i was getting quiet At some point, there should be no more license, right? And there's a whole application process for that.

I'm talking about people who just disregard it and do it.

Right.

Right now, we're just referencing standards. Can we set our own funding for it? Is there a maximum amount that you can charge for a misdemeanor?

So what are your misdemeanor levels?

I think a fraction is $1,000. No jail time. Class C is $750.

I think we should set it at $1,000.

Yeah. I mean, that's... I think you've got to have teeth. I don't want to make these easier.

If you make it a class C misdemeanor instead of a fraction, there's a way to do it. I'd rather do it. I'd like to see it. First offense is a fraction. Second offense is a C. It goes to a B. We could escalate it.

Let people see what the consequences can be.

I'm telling you, if your dog gets off the leash and bites someone, it's about $3,000. $1,800 plus a bunch of... It's a lot of money. People won't let it happen twice.

You just have to check the state code that has restrictions on criminal classification for municipal audiences.

I think it should be the max and the message.

We'll work with legal on... I'm looking at that.

And you're talking about the penalty for not having a license? Yeah, I think that's great.

Yeah, if you don't want to come to your thing. Yeah.

So you're trying to, I think that's a huge problem.

You get to ride the expensive pony.

Okay, thank you.

I don't want to be cold.

in Harriman, and that when you're talking about, was there any, like, is there any sort of, were they breaking any city code as far as the Airbnb, or it was just that they were breaking the law, like, minors?

It was all minor possession. Yeah. Interesting. I'm sure that never happened to me. I don't know where Harriman's at with their, with their, if they've got any of the places.

Is there an age on it? You have to be a certain age to rent?

That's a good question. I think Airbnb might have one.

I feel like Airbnb might have one. That's what I was thinking, yeah. Well, maybe we should look into that, too.

Because you don't really want to.

It might be 18, because my son and his friends rented one in California after they graduated. So it might just be that, unless one of their parents did it.

Is there an age you would recommend?

I think at least 18. 21.

How old do you have to be to be 21? I think you have to be 21.

Rent a car, you have to be 25.

Airbnb, you have to be 18 years old on Airbnb. So my son and his friends, I mean, they were 10 or 15 at one point.

The under 25 rule, in US, Canada, UK, France, Spain, guests under 25 face extra restrictions when trying to book.

I think an age would be good to put on. I'm fine with 21.

You die for your country at 18, but you can't drink at 21. I'm fine with 21. That cuts down on the teenagers.

You guys got that? So we also talked about the Zemmerman subdivision cut-up two weeks ago. So we talked about single-family residential. There weren't a lot of concerns, I think, about this one. It mostly stayed the same. But based on some feedback, we did make some changes for our proposed mixed residential. So what we're proposing, what we've revised is we've split the mixed residential zone into two separate zones. And so the new sort of proposed mixed residential one would have single family, twin homes, and cottage courts. And you can see here, our most dense single-family zone, which is R5, has 8,000 square foot lots, minimum lot size. So then the new mixed residential one would have a 6,000 square foot lot for single-family, 4,000 for . And 20,000 for a cottage court. And within a cottage court, it's 2,500 square feet for the individual lots. So then the other part of that is the second mixed residential two, which would have duplexes, three- and four-unit buildings and townhomes.

What's the difference between a shared home and a duplex?

So a town is on its own lot. A duplex is two units on one lot.

So they're just hooked up together, but each home has its own lot.

They can look the same, but the twin home has its own lot, so typically they're owned separately. So two units of the one ownership sometimes. The person's living in one side of it and rents out the other side. Sometimes they're both rents out.

So they can be the exact same model and floor plan and everything, but their use is different.

Currently, they're all grouped together under two family units, and so we've separated them and defined them. They are different.

So with the mixed residential one and the twin home, you're more likely to see owner-occupied units in those twin homes because they're buying property where the uh duplex they're more likely the lot's all one lot yes yeah so they're more likely to be right now

So again, we have duplex 3 and 4 units in town homes for the mixed residential 2, and in the multifamily, we have 3 and 4 units town homes in the multifamily. This next slide really is showing, so this is RM1 on the left, and RM2 are existing multifamily zones. um so we removed the single families and mixed residential one two family games we defined it as duplex duplex has made it into mixed residential two but not the multi-family thank you We've added the three and four units because it's somewhere, it's sort of a type that you're sort of missing at the moment. And then townhomes, they're sort of the same at the moment, so we've moved townhomes down to multifamily, but then provided a little bit larger lot of townhomes in the next presidential too. And then multifamily, we just, change the acreage there, sort of to match our consistent loss size. So then we looked at sort of two sample sites just to show what theoretical maximums could be put on it. So this is just south of the Edge development station. This is not something that's been proposed. We just picked a property to look at. It's currently a low median density residential RA1. It's four acres. If we looked at the mixed residential one zone, it could have 29 units of single family homes. That would be, again, this is a third of a maximum just based on dividing the square footage. Once they put the roads in and driveways and everything, these numbers would most likely be down. But it could be 29 units of single family, 43 units of twin homes, or 62 units of cottage core. Again, that's a maximum number just based on calculations. But once you have to provide driveways and access roads for all those units, I don't think you're going to get that number.

With the cottage court being smaller units clustered around common open space.

It's a diagram there a little bit. It's a product that we looked at during the stationary planning process. We got some good feedback for it, so we're trying to include it so that it's something

So they would need a zone change out of RA1.

Again, we haven't finalized a name. I just picked Mixed Residential 1 or Mixed Residential 2 for now. But again, yes, this would be something that comes to the City Council for approval and to determine whether it's appropriate or not.

if there was a zone change and so it was mixed residential one or whatever it's called, then they would likely mix these things, right? Or like do some single family and some turn home or do they have that freedom within this potential zone?

Typically we see one product just because usually a builder specializes in that one type of product. Are there builders that are building cottage courts that you're aware of? Most of them are daybreak, I would say.

Yeah, there's, daybreak homes are probably a little too big to technically be a cottage court, but they've kind of modeled that design where they've got, you know, I think they call them homes on the green, where they've got homes surrounding a park. um that's kind of a similar situation where college courts is usually a smaller home um and you know your yard space is this park that you're you're fronting and your neighbors are fronting i think we do have a couple projects like in the region i'd have to look though

The, just off 138, is it Rockwell? That wouldn't count because they don't have like a, they're that size and those lots are that, those smaller sizes maybe, but they don't have a park in there. Do you know, is it called Rockwell?

Weedon Farm. Yeah, Weedon. Is Weedon the one you're talking about on the south side?

On the south side, yes.

Yeah, that's Whedon. Those would actually be more in the twin home category because they're actually connected. Oh, some of them are. Not all of them, but some of them, yeah. Most of them are connected on the garage, so technically they are twin homes. Twin homes. So that would be more of that category.

I see.

The cottage courts have, what, five or six units per building?

I think it was four to eight. is what our code is recommending. We're at eight units per- Oh, no, sorry. They're not- Units per- Court. Court. That one's just, sorry, that's just one I pulled up on the internet, but we're very attached to it. Oh, so, okay, so, and you would need 15 acres to have the- That's 15.4 groups of nine units per acre, and that they're ready to hold maximum policy.

So that's 62 in that four acres. He's saying they could get 62 of those in four acres.

But each building is one residential unit? Yes. And you get 62 of them?

I don't see the green space. Again, once you do the landscaping, the roads, everything like that, it's going to reduce that. This is just dividing the square footage to say what's the complete maximum.

But you realistically could probably have 12 units in one acre.

That's surprising to me because they seem less dense. I think it's because they share that.

Yeah, they're centered on this open space port, so you have that open field.

Right, I like them. Nobody ever seems to bring them to us. Even when we encourage them.

They're nice because they let themselves be more owner-occupied too. Right.

And they're nice for older people. I like the ones in Daybreak.

They seem bigger though.

Yeah, the homes are bigger than your standard cottage court. Yeah, those look like huge homes. The idea with the mixed residential one versus two is we're creating something that hopefully you guys would be comfortable with the reason without getting a development agreement and having to go through all those extra standards and steps to get something where we're saying, you know, they could do single family, they could do the cottage port. but we know it's going to be individual lots, individual units, or the twin homes, a little bit lower density than multifamily, where right now you have to come in and request a multifamily zone just to do small lot, single family.

Okay, so the residential one, sorry, this helps me understand more. The residential one, they would all be individually owned lots though, right? Yes. That's how that's different versus the residential two. Correct. Like a townhome or something would share.

Well, and townhomes are typically sold.

Duplex, excuse me.

Yeah. So, I mean, townhomes are typically.

They're individually sold.

Sold, but they don't have to be.

But they share the land.

And a multifamily, if you've got like condos, you know, this property is just south of where Edge is going. They've got their three, four story condos that will be sold, but they're selling airspace versus ground. Yeah. So that's one way to look at it. People are buying ground with this versus air sprays for multi-family.

Okay, I'm just, so I understand, if someone came to us and wanted to do this, would there be requirements in EMR 1 that would say you have to have a certain amount of green space, so do you have to have, are you telling us those now or that's coming later or...

So single family, the lot size I think was 6,000. So that, like any typical single family zone, they just need to meet that minimum lot size. College court would have a minimum amount of open space, how big that court needs to be. It's 2,500 square feet. 2,500 for the common area. So we already have them. We've put together some standards that are draft right now. We really want to get your feedback on the zones themselves before we really dive into those specific standards.

I think my concern is, will you go to the other one? Sorry. um okay yeah so if someone comes to us and they're like i want this thing and i am going to do cottage quartz and so i know because i came to this and was listening they can do 62 units and i've been told that with the roads and stuff that's not likely But I want to be sure they're actually not going to be able to do 62 units because there would be no green, right? That would be all concrete. And so I guess that's confusing to me.

Yeah, so there will be standards as far as the courtyard size, setbacks for the units, parking.

Right.

roads access that kind of thing and that will eat into the the acreage and what they get the other thing to take note catherine too is they might say they're going to do body to court but if we just rezone it with this new zone they could end up doing twin home or single families

Whatever they wanted.

Out of those options.

Okay. Which is fine, but you'd say, like, I just think about the Edge Homes one that just came in. When they came in, then they had to do a developer agreement, and they couldn't change any of those setbacks or anything without permission. Right. So these people going in here, if they get the zone, they can't change any of those things. They're going to have to meet the requirements. Okay. Yeah. Without asking for permission. Correct.

So the permission would be requesting the zone and then once they get that, they've got basically these three options for type of housing and the code will list their open space, their setbacks, their height to all of that.

I see. Okay, that's helpful. Thanks, sorry.

We'll move on to the next one. So this is Express Entry 2. Again, we've just picked a site. This is 700 East and So for this one, you get a duplex, three or four unit townhome. Luckily, the site is just an acre, so it could have five buildings, or 10 units of duplex, four buildings, or 12 to 16 units of three to four unit buildings, or up to 21 units of townhomes and four different buildings. Four buildings in an acre. Again, this is maximum. The more units you get, the more rows you're going to have to have in the drive web. Sorry, I don't have the skills to lay out everything to code, but I was just trying to do basic calculations just to get an idea of the theoretical maximum.

Can I ask one more semi-related question? If I'm a builder and I'm coming and I get this and I'm going to do townhomes, do I have to get permission from the city through a development agreement or in some way to do a private lane? Because I have a lot of people complaining about private lanes now, the trash situation. And I keep saying, that was your developer. I'm sorry. That's not the city. The developer didn't want to meet the city. So at what point in the process does a developer get To be a private lane.

They can just do a private lane with their development. There's no specific.

They don't have to ask for permission.

They don't have to ask for permission. Now our code has standards for width, improvements, that kind of thing. So any developer with multifamily or single family has the option. You either meet our public street standard.

Or you're in private. Totally. Thank you.

So right now the highest density we allow is what? 15 units a acre? What's the town center?

Town center goes up to 24. So this doesn't include town center because it's a commercial zone. So this is looking at our strictly residential zones. So town center, the standard town center zone, I think it goes up to 24 or 25 units per acre. But with stationary plan that has been modified for those specific properties outlined in the stationery.

But then have we increased? I guess we have, because we didn't have really a townhome zone, because it would be more than 12 per acre. Is that right?

We're just working with a consultant to put the maximum densities back in. So we do have the townhomes zones. See at the top there? But currently we don't have them.

Can you go back this slide?

One more maybe. Where's the one that had the units per acre?

Because currently we don't have the Mac that we have is 12, which wouldn't really fit down.

Yeah.

So the existing code for multifamily is 12 for townhomes. It's 12. as well, or eight, depending on which zone arm, one arm, two that you're in. And then the code for multifamily allows you to do whatever type of housing you want to do. With this new configuration, we're dialing more into what type of housing we're going to get. But we also need to take into account, you know, college courts, they are a bit higher density. They're a unique product, they're a different product because the homes are smaller, they are a higher density. So there are some trade-offs to get that type of development.

I mean, really, that 15 units per acre on the cottage home, you're just using that as an illustrative purpose. It wouldn't be possible to really do that because unless the roads were built outside of that, and if they're built outside of that, it's going to be more than just the 10 acres.

So as we work on the design standards that will be in the code, we can dive more into, okay, if you have a piece of property and you have the roads and you have the open space, what kind of density is actually realistic. And then we can put that into the paper.

Yeah. Let me make sure it's consistent with the general plan. Yeah, I think that's important. So then if I can talk about the affordable home ownership of all the things that we briefly sort of got into, but ran out of time. So as we discussed, the density bonus would provide certain affordable items. These were based on what the state provided us. So the qualifying conditions to get this would either be 60% owner-occupied for five years, 25% for the price, 25% under 1,600 square feet, or first-time buyers get 30 days first pick. And I know there was some discussion last time that started those.

We did go back and look at state law and it does say At least so it says, you know at least 60% of the you know owner-occupied So I think there's there's room for us to bump those numbers up if you want The PowerPoint didn't because we want to have a discussion of what do you what numbers would you like? That's kind of the minimum in state law.

I'd favor having a higher than 60% under occupied.

It's not just the 60%, it's the longevity of it. Because at five years, they could flip all of it, right?

Right. Which is a problem. Yeah. Then all of a sudden...

It's all rentals. Yeah. They could just hold it for five years.

What's the time frame with the edge homes? I feel like it needs to be at least that.

I mean, they can get 4% per year, so they could sell it in 10 years and get a 40%.

Which we are hearing.

I don't think they start with the new 50, but they just take it over. Yeah, it's $50 total. Actually, that's not bad, though. I mean, you can still sell it, but it has to go to another owner-occupied person.

Right, I don't see a problem with that. Why are people complaining about that? I think it's nice and nervous, 50 years.

And people also want to buy, they want to buy a cheap property that they can make a whole bunch of money on. Do you know what I mean? Like, it's a question, if we're looking for long-term affordability, then there needs to be something like this. And if they're looking to make money, then they gotta...

It's not home buyers. We don't want the investors to come in. Right. For five years, they could, like you said, just don't want to. Yeah, I agree. For five years. That's five years.

That needs to be longer. That's the minimum right now is five years?

Yeah. So it says at least 60% of the total single-family residential units will be deed-restricted to owner occupancy for at least five years.

But we're not even talking about market value there. We're just talking about owner occupancy. I don't know why you can't say that for, I mean, 100 years, a really long time, because they're still selling it. They're still able to make tons of money off of it, but we're just saying it's not a rental.

It seems like 30 at the minimum. I understand that 50. Now that makes sense. Mayor, what are you thinking?

I was thinking 15, but just somewhere in the middle. Just because it's been hard to get people to take it, because the trade-off, they worry that the longer... We don't want BlackRock buying that.

Right, that's a real concern.

I also think if we have more owner-occupied, if the percentage is higher, I think because the one that you guys are talking about, there's very few rent owners in that whole community. But if it's mostly owner-occupied, then I think we can increase it because that's what we're looking to develop that neighborhood as.

Yeah, 60% is too low. Increasing percentage and length of time.

So 85% owner occupied for 30 plus years. What about the affordable price?

25% affordable price, which is defined as 120%.

The affordable price is only for that first buyer, is that correct?

That would be, yeah, for the first sale.

You gotta have a give and take here. If we're gonna require that much to be owner-occupied and extend the years, maybe... Well, but then we have to pick one of those, correct?

Well, the developer or the applicant would request one of them.

Oh. That's what I'm saying. So they're not all... Okay. Right. Yeah.

They don't have to do them all. I mean, they could do more than one, but they have to do at least one. One thing to keep in mind is they're getting higher density. They're getting higher density. And the thought is the higher density makes the project pencil. With Draper's high property values, the multifamily extra density probably helps that project pencil. The single family may not. But really the question is, is 25% affordable versus 75% market rate in a development? Is that what you guys want? Do you want to see more affordable, 30, 70? Yeah, I think that.

I want them to pick the under-occupied one.

Make that one mandatory. But that's why maybe. But then it doesn't have to be affordable, right? If it's owner-occupied. Correct.

Right.

Yeah.

Maybe that's why we have to be considerate of maybe we don't go too high of a percentage to discourage that. But, I don't know, 80% owner-occupied?

I'm mostly worried about the five-year part of that. Because I really think someone would just hold on to that.

Yeah, but I think you see 40% of them that could be rented. Yeah. I'm sorry.

I think we've seen that even in the carriage house neighborhood where we had a bunch of people come in and buy them a starter home. And then rather than selling them, they've kept them as short-term rentals, long-term rentals. So now it's completely a rented neighborhood. And we've seen a lot of problems with that. So I think whatever we can do to keep these neighborhoods mostly owner-occupied, I think should be a goal.

I'm surprised sometimes by how many of the neighborhoods are which is held by one or two people and they own 15 homes within that neighborhood. And that land above where that hospital project was gonna go, the Ralph Johnson project, remember all of those little townhomes? And we had one guy who owned like 25 of them. And those should have been affordable housing.

It's not even affordable rent.

Right.

The government can't fix everything? No. What's the 25% under 1,600 square feet? Is that the dwelling is under 1,600 square feet?

Yeah, that's the states per unit. That's the states. That's a tiny first time.

No, they can, that's at least 25%.

That's interesting that first-time ironers get 30 days first pick, but that's one of their conditions.

because it seems like if you can't afford them, it's just making more expensive than you can. And I don't know how opening it just a first date, to first time home buyers helps.

It's like a throw away one. Do we have to have all of them?

Do we have to have that?

this is not mandatory it's not mandatory it's an option the state set up um so it's it's an optional zone the state set up in order to get more affordable housing and first-time uh homeowners but that does not help affordability just because you get to be the first time buyer you get to pick get the first pick

That's really strange.

The government is not that good at all this stuff. I'm curious as to who wrote that code for the legislature, where they got the ideas from, because my whole thought during this, is this something that any developers ever even used?

Right, that's what I'm thinking too. Does it even fit anywhere?

I did send out an email to contact with Ivory Edge and Wasatch Residential. to get their feedback on the zone. And I haven't get to her back, but I just barely sent it.

Well, I think that's a good idea because if a developer looks at this and says, this doesn't work at all.

I was in this realtor's work group meeting last week with Paxton Guyman. He and I were sitting by each other. Paxton said the one eternal truth. The only way government can make housing affordable is subsidizing. There's no other way. So we either give people money to lower their costs or whatever, but that's it. And that's the only thing that really works, is buying down their interest rate, buying down their mortgage, giving them a down payment. But there's been times in Republican history where that's not been... the republican way but now we're talking about subsidizing i mean it's the only thing that works there's nothing else that works because they won't do this they'll just be like oh but like what we're doing with the edge and ivory where we're taking the cbd money and giving people money to help lower their get in cost that's what works yeah because even that they subsidize it i think that just is going to increase the price of the home and the government's not that good at it But I think the most effective thing to get people to be able to afford to buy a house is the subsidy that gets them to buy it, and we restrict the time they can sell it.

What is it? The definition of affordable housing, the number two, offered for rent at a rental price affordable to a household with a gross income of no more than 80% of the area median income. So it's saying that Someone can buy one of those homes and then rent it. No, this one's for the multi-family.

Bonus. This one would be for the single family.

OK. So the 25% affordable price, the state law is setting what that affordability amount is.

So they have to rent out 25% of them at an affordable?

Yes, at that 80%. OK. Or if it's a for-sale product,

And that changes the mix of apartments, right? Like instead of all market rate.

All of a sudden that changes if you really, how high of a percent do you want that to be then? I don't know, that changes my view.

But that's different than the owner, those are different points, right? They're choosing either 60% or 25, so they're not mixing.

Yeah, they have to choose one, 60 to 25, 25 under 1600, or for time buyers.

Why don't we get the input from those you've reached out to and then bring it back to see what the market right now is for this type of thing.

The other truth Paxton preached was that Everybody that sells land will sell it for the absolute highest price they can get for it. I said, amen. The second preaching that he did was that every home builder will sell their home for the absolute highest price they can sell it for.

Every home owner, right? Everybody.

So then you put all that in this context.

And all you've done is just raised everything up. Right.

I mean, like we talked about last time, this just might be something we put into the code and no one ever uses because it just doesn't apply in Draper at all.

Because you can't get past the price of that agent.

You can't get past the price of land.

Yep. You've got that input right there. No, but you can have first time buyer can have the first choice. First pick. You know. And then they get your identity again.

So I want to move on to the incentives so that Scott has enough time to come to this. So part of that was then they pick the affordable sort of component, and then we were going to provide some extra incentives. And this sort of goes into the theoretical density. We can always say they can have more density, but sometimes we need to reduce some of the standards to actually get them to that density. And so that's what this is sort of trying to get to, is reducing lock coverage or increasing lock coverage. instead of keeping the standard that we have, so that they can get to that bonus density. So we proposed lot coverage increase for single family, lot size reduced, setbacks reduced, or fast travel approval for multi-family, reducing open space, parking, And that's your story or fast track approval.

Do we have to have these or can we take some of these?

No.

Okay, I don't like the parking lot. Yeah, because we want to know what you like and what you don't like.

The parking is going to be the next target, next legislative session.

The problem is when you don't have enough parking on this one, you just push it out into the street.

I know, but the builders are going after the parking there. It came up in this work group. It's crazy. The parking is costing too much. So they're going to run it to the state to reduce the parking.

I mean, we've seen this in the neighborhood by the amphitheater. It just becomes a parking mess when they're not on it.

Right. But it was a big topic of these developers. They were like, oh, parking is a big issue.

One space per unit. How many people are living in a unit?

Yeah, exactly. There was one of them that said there should be no parking requirements at all.

That's a builder. Remember the money conversation? Yeah, but that's what I'm telling you. The Home Builders Association is going to go out and park at the end of the session.

Right, but I still don't think that we need to put it on there.

Tell Cal to be the, we need a parking champion.

I think Max and C, are those set in stone, those numbers? Like the three or four unit, or does it go from 10 to 20?

Yeah, the state code says that anything under a certain limit. density has to go to six. And then for multifamily, if you're under a certain density, it has to go to 20.

Yeah, so it's...

It's a little weird.

You know, that's... Yeah, if it's under six, it has to go to at least six. And if it's six or more, it needs approval of density of... 1.5 residential units per acre greater.

That's for a single family?

Yeah, that's for a single family. And then multi-family, it's 20.

So we heard parking is not a good option. Is there anything else that you can think of that we could offer, or?

10-21-401.

The setbacks, excuse me, is a concern too, and a lot.

Yeah, because then they make driveways that can't fit a truck.

Yeah, it came up too.

So we do have our... I think the driveway might be... I don't know if the driveways are going to be within the setback standards or not. And I thought of you ladies when it came up. So we might require the 20 feet still for the driveway, but the other part of the home could be reduced by 10%. So if that's a 20 foot setback, that's...

What is a fast track approval?

That's something we're putting together. We haven't gotten to that section in the code yet.

Yeah, so it would be basically getting through the process a little faster, basically cutting ahead in line for your reviews, that kind of thing, not shortening what's reviewed and necessarily what's required for reviews. not just eliminating standards to get them through, but just getting them through the process.

And their big argument on this is that times money, every time they have to wait three more weeks, it takes them six weeks to get their, they're carrying the cost, the interest carrying cost, all that makes the cost of housing go up. And that's why they have the ear of the legislature. They want to compress the review times to get it out quicker because it makes the house, they can, theoretically pass on the savings to the diet. Oh, right.

Yeah.

The other truth was that I don't know if they pass on any savings. All said savings.

That's what should be in the code then. That they have to pass it on.

Yeah, try to enforce that. There's principles of government. They won't cross. Yes, that's one of them. All right.

I think that we're we're gonna go ahead and make some changes our kind of main goal I think is to we'll make changes based on your feedback but at this point we kind of want some public feedback on just the general chapters that we sent you or that we've reviewed, just make sure we're getting feedback from the public. So we'll do that, but we'll open that up after we've addressed your comments.

Thanks, you guys.

Yes.

Just waiting for the green light. So talking about parking, this is exactly the topic that we're going to be on for this discussion. So a few years ago, the traffic committee discussed this at length with police, fire, everyone, council. I took it to the council. The council decided that we should go ahead and sign these roads in this area these that we're looking at here this south mountain area these are the areas where there's alleyways there's homes and then they have that a detached living space or detached garage that could

Well, this wasn't so much council driven as the residents were mad about the no parking signs.

Well, so what happened is because there was so much parking on the streets, fire, especially fire, wanted us to limit parking on one side of the road. So we did that. It was not popular.

It was a loud outcry.

It was not a great experience, but we lived through it. Scott's an optimist and we lived through it. We're here to tell the tale that those signs are still up, but they are not being enforced. So that's the problem. It's really kind of an issue of enforcement and we intentionally police

there's not enough parking up there because a lot of them have been turned into duplexes and triplexes and quadplexes illegally i might add so we were kind of hoping that it would resolve itself remember this that when we crack down on those there would be

reduction in the number of the cars parking and there's not this is how i drive home because i just live like a little bit off of this map and just today when i drove up director view that entire right side going you know going south was just lined with little trucks right probably fit in the driveway. So there wasn't anybody parked on the no parking side, though. But yeah, it's everywhere. And there's commercial vehicles all up and down vestry, just when I was coming to the Capitol, right? I mean, RVs and- That are parked?

Yes. So this discussion does not include vestry because it's not really part of this alleyway system. So what we have, since we have...

This is like the state's current vision.

Yes, and it's not a great one. It sucks.

It's one thing to reflect. Less the no parking spaces.

But I think this does impact vestry because people can't, there's not enough parking in there. So now they've started to move, because it wasn't like that when we moved in.

But how has it gotten worse? It's gotten worse.

There are more rentals than there were when I moved in.

But more subdividing? This is what they want us to do everywhere. Just fewer homes that are over-occupied.

Right, but how's that more? Theoretically, it shouldn't necessarily be more cars.

Because there's more families. There are people in this. neighborhood that have divided those homes into three things.

So you can have four.

You can have four dwellings in one month. But that's what they've done.

That's what they've done.

And I'll add, as we've worked on enforcement, there's been several landlords that are just renting out as one rental, but now you have you know, a six-bedroom house, so you have larger families, more vehicles still, you know, there because you've got a larger family.

Or they're sub-renting too, aren't they?

Potentially. That I'm not sure because we're working with the property owner itself.

So there's two questions here. One is, we do not have to resolve this issue here today. The main purpose for this discussion is to know if the council wants us to leave the signs up without enforcement, which doesn't really make sense to us, or if we should remove the signs because we're not enforced. Or, I mean, those are really the two decisions. The other is we can kick this can down the road and just say, we're gonna decide on a final determination of what to do later. Spencer has prepared an ordinance that will satisfy fire requirements for fire entities really for emergency access in alleyways which will allow parking on both sides of the street. Really the only requirement for that is that they have to put house numbers on the back so that You know, emergency responders know which house they're going to, and since that's their main point of access.

It's really not just a problem for emergency responders.

I can barely get in a car up some of these streets. They turn into one-way roads, but they're not one-way.

Right, my friend lives on Candy Pole, and I hate going to her house because I cannot get up and down her street.

Why can't we enforce it? I know you said that, but that wasn't one of the options. Why is that?

Okay, so we were, we did, we posted the signs and we started enforcement. People hated it. Well, it was about a 50-50 group, I would say. 50% of the people... want the signs up and they want us to enforce, and 50% want us to take the signs down and let parking go.

But to Bryn's point, some people are abiding by it. During the day, especially. If we pull them all down, I feel like it's just going to be a free-for-all.

Have we thought about doing permitted parking in some neighborhoods like this that are so dense? I liked green. That was something we thought we should do up here.

We haven't really considered that because I mean it's not that we can't. We certainly could. We just don't have anything like that in the city. It would be a whole new aspect of A different kind of enforcement.

You'd have to enforce it.

Right. But you could contract it, right? You could contract it. I think senior, so that senior band row, those townhomes, I think they have contracted out now to a towing company.

So we do enforce, well, we're supposed to be enforcing senior band. I don't know. For sure. The only, because it doesn't have the alleyways, the only roads that we're supposedly not enforcing are the ones that have the alleyways. This one, this one, not that one. This one over here.

There are no parking signs on Molasses Mill and Adobe School. So that's how I go to take my kids to school. And there are often people, I mean, like the bus comes and you're coming. It's scary almost every day. I don't think it's safe. And there's kids that walk through there too. So I do think like on Molasses Mill and Adobe, when some, I'm just going to say it, loser parks on Adobe School Drive, they screw up the entire park. already tough carpal situation right it and it says very clearly no parking and I think that that is enforced because it doesn't happen as often yeah but molasses mill and that turn into adobe they're they're pretty intense pretty scary and I don't know if that's

Well, you can kind of even see it. It must be like 3.15 when that picture was taken because you can see the line of cars all around the parking lot at O'Collo.

Oh, yeah, yeah, yeah. There you go. That's right before it gets bad. That's not bad.

Well, but you can see the cars on Park School. And I mean, so I was the chair of the community council for O'Collo, and I want to say that we were kind of influential in getting this done. signs because it was such, we were seeing so many cars and parking, and I think it made a big difference.

So around the intersection, we have no parking on both sides. That's my recollection, just for sightseeing.

Right here, there is parking along, and right here there is parking. This is where, so the buses come out here and they come down and people are coming in here. There's a whole bunch of parking here. And so this is very exciting around this corner. So this would be no parking here.

Has that been removed? Because people sometimes remove ourselves.

No parking where, sorry?

Right here.

I don't think there is on that side. But this right here on Adobe at the bottom, there are like six cars. In fact, on the last day of school, I thought, do those people ever move their cars? Because it's the same six cars walking in front of us every day.

I don't think there are signs on Molasses Mill on the north side of Molasses Mill because that's how I drive down Senior Band to go to Highland. And it's tricky to see because you've got so many cars there that you can't see people coming east on Molasses Mill because there's so many cars parked there.

But we don't need parking.

The state says do away with parking.

Builders. There's absolutely a problem. We know that. So this is not a discussion about the problem. It's just a matter today of do you want us to enforce the parking, no parking signs. Or should we remove the no parking signs? Or should we just leave them up and not enforce them? That's really...

I think it's a free-for-all if you remove those signs. Yeah.

At least some people are not parking because of the signs.

I think it needs to be enforced. Like I said, I mean, I drive through this every single day, and it's gotten worse and worse over the years.

The problem is if we go to enforce it, then all those residents are going to come back in.

That's okay. They can come meet with me. I'll talk to them. Well, I guess the problem is...

I think they've been calling for us to enforce it, though. That's exactly the point. When we start to enforce, there is no place for them to go.

How about to Vestry, I guess?

They already are on Vestry.

There's too many people in this neighborhood.

I think it's that we need to be enforcing better the number of people in those houses and the multi-unit rentals.

That's what the intent was. That was our thoughts and prayers.

Well, they need to clean out their garages. That's another thing. It's storage, so...

Well, I mean, maybe we need to look at the parking permits.

Each house gets four parking permits or whatever. Or two. In big cities, you get two.

Because you have your driveway and you have your garage. These don't have driveways.

I literally took a... I will find my picture.

So, Scott, right now, like the Senior Band Lane or Orgel Band Road, there's no parking on one side of those streets?

Senior Band... I thought we weren't. and director view lane senior band is being enforced it was already there so the only thing that we're not enforcing are the new no parking signs new thing as of what three years ago like radio lane and peppy band and winfield scotway like orgel i mean and this problem goes farther back than what you see because candy pole is a mess and it's like which is surprising farther down the way

Well, it's because people are parked on both sides of the street with SUVs.

Everything that was signed before we made that change is my understanding we're enforcing that. Now, I haven't verified that, but that's my understanding.

Is that tow company enforced or Rich Ferguson enforced? It's police.

I don't think they towed it. It's possible they do during the winter, but we'll tell if it's walking a driveway or if it's too close to the intersection.

That's what those alleyways look like. I think he's off the street. I say give that guy a medal.

It's an alleyway, too.

It's an alleyway. Because the driveway, you can't even fit your little Geo car on there. Wow.

Good for him. It's a ton. Good choice of trucks.

So trashy looking, though, guys. I support looking into permitting. I mean, I don't know what the cost is. I want that bet. And not even just the truck, but like...

So, I'm not sure that for me it's going to resolve the issue. You still have the same number of vehicles that need to park there. It turns into a revenue source for the city, but I don't know that it goes to resolve the issue of too many vehicles for not enough space.

How are we doing with the enforcement on these houses that have been subdivided into...

It's been hit or miss. Some have come into compliance, some we've taken to court.

What happens when it goes to court? Does it get resolved eventually?

That's the hope.

We're still working on it. Yeah, we're still working through that.

That's really the answer. That's really the answer.

Well, here's my plea for the permit parking one more time. I think if, like we said, if everyone had, you know, two permits, we know that they can't fit in their driveway. They might have to get out, you know, clear out their garages to be able to abide by that. Because right now they can just park wherever and they just go further and, you know, they go up to Vestry or they go to Canyonpole or whatever. But if it's permitted, you can't park there.

Or you park on vestry over by the rec center and you walk a mile if you're not willing to clean out your garage. Do you know what I mean? Like, there is parking. It's farther and farther away, and I hope that they don't park on the street. But there are places to go if they, you know, if we were enforcing it.

It's also going to convince some families not to have six cars. You know, if you have to pay $500 for a permit. Yeah.

Well, and my other thought, too, is that then we know this is the capacity that that area has. And so we issue the number of permits for that capacity. Because right now, people are just parking whatever vehicle they want wherever they want. Right.

Are you saying on both sides of the street or only on one?

I think it still needs to just be one. Because I think people coming in and out, you can only fit one car when there's two cars.

So you want to do permitted parking and keep no parking on one side of the street?

Mm-hmm. The state is going to hate you, Brian. That's OK. The state.

But the police and fire are going to want to .

They just need to clean out their garages. So you're seeing that as a reduction. You're seeing that as people reducing the amount of vehicles.

I think it could.

She thinks it'll push them into their garage. You think there's so many in the garage.

Yeah, one way or another, either reducing the vehicle or parking it in their garage.

Or getting rid of the car that you've had for 25 years and doesn't really work that well, but we'll just keep it because you can. That's my neighbors.

So how about we take this to the traffic committee and discuss this. Every time, I can just assure you, every time we notice a problem, we create problems as well. So sometimes we can predict those, and sometimes we can't.

Well, I still go back to the solution has to be that these are single-family homes that are not subdivided into blocks. I agree. That's where the enforcement. So where are we with this, really? How many of them have we cracked down on?

I can pull some numbers. to see exactly where we're at. Because I know we have been working on it and some have sold. Yeah. Because they didn't want to come into class, they just sold the unit. Right. Some are renting as a single family house now. Some have gotten cited or we've taken them to court. But I'd have to pull some data.

They're going to court to fight us. And since then, what's happened in court? Does it eventually come down on our side and they have to fix it?

I believe we're still working through one of the lawsuits, so that might be more appropriate for closed.

Okay.

We have yet to really go through the whole cycle. We're not all the way done with it, yeah.

My hope is that if we end up on top in a lawsuit, that we'll get out.

Yes.

That we're not playing around, and that Other people will just voluntarily come into the clients.

Right. Because I know at one point there was a list of like 20 homes that had been subdivided into three or three that we knew of.

Yeah. There's that one gentleman that would come periodically with a list.

Right. And I still have that list. And we did give that to code enforcement as well.

20 homes is not a small number. Really? And that's what we know of.

There's others that we don't even know of because they're under the radar.

Like if you fixed those 20 homes, it might alleviate some of that.

Think of 20 less cars.

Right.

40 less cars. 40. Because that's 60 dwelling units. That could even be more than 20. But I'm just saying just 20.

And a two-piece that, yeah. 40. Yeah. There's the impact.

It's so easy to get to this place because right now I have three teenagers. We're very soon going to have five cars. Like right now we have, it's so many cars.

So many cars. Parking in your driveway. I can't get out. I can't find it.

If I'm hearing you right, the status quo for now, we'll take a look at paid parking. parking passes, whatever. And we'll all get with Spencer on the timing of this. And we'll see when we bring this back to you.

Thank you, Mr. Cooley. I do think the enforcement, though, is something that just needs to continue.

not on the parking but on the yeah we'll continue working on that that gives us about 10 minutes before the meetings anybody got anything else you want to take a break before the meeting can i have something really quick we have a okay so there's this um referee in girls softball her name is gator she's the loft i all the softball, like it's third, fourth, fifth, and sixth grade girls. And like literally, I've never seen anything like it. And we would like to, I'd like to recognize her. And I will make a certificate and give it to her. And I was wondering if I could do it in the next, on the 9th. I talked to Red about it. He hired her 12 years ago. He is 100% on board. He's like, that would be so wonderful. But I just need.

Yes, we can. We can make a certificate for her.

OK, great. I think we'll have a bunch of girls softball players who will come and just stand up and not cheer. Because I don't think we're allowed to cheer, but maybe we will. And I have a couple pictures.

We'll have to cheer for the recognition. OK, great. Anything else before we take a little break? No, let's take a break.

We haven't had seven minutes before a meeting in months.

Testing 1, 2, 3.

Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to welcome you to our city council meeting this evening. We'd like to get started if we can. So I'm calling our meeting to order. The next item on our agenda is to engage in the Pledge of Allegiance. And Councilmember Johnson is going to lead us in that this evening. Thank you for the pledge. The next item on our agenda, item number three, is an opportunity for the public to make a general public comment to the council. We do have a few. We do have some items that are set for public hearing. If you're here for one of the public hearing items, wait for that opportunity so we can keep our record clear. But if you have a general public comment, is there anyone that would like to make a general public comment? Come on up. And you know the drill. Mr. Dibby, give us your name and address.

My name is Reed Dibby. I live at 667 Mandalay Lane. It used to be Suncrest, but I've got too old for the snow and to take care of the yard. So we don't. We don't have any backyard, it's turf. Anyway, we're celebrating our 250th anniversary of the independence and constitution. And sometimes I get a little bit concerned that some people don't think that the constitution is very good because a lot of the people that developed it were slave owners. But I think that at that time, the primary sources of energy was wood, water, wind, animals, and human slavery. It had been that way about over 5,000 years. But then, within about 100 years, by the early 1900s, by and large, slavery was on its way out. because we had another source of energy, fossil fuels. And with the Industrial Revolution, machines can do a lot of the manual labor. And now we have things doing our mental work now as well. But I think it's very disingenuous for people to make the claim that our Constitution is flawed because slave owners helped develop it. Anyway, thank you for your time. And I'm going to come back on the budget.

Thank you, sir. Is there anyone else who would like to make a general public comment to the council? All right. Seeing no further general public comment, we'll go to item number four. Item number four is items for consent. And we have one, item 4A, which is the approval of the May 19, 2026 city council meeting minutes. Is there a motion?

I make a motion that we approve the meeting minutes from May.

All right, we have a motion by Catherine to approve the minutes. Is there a second?

I'll second.

Second by Brynn. Is there any further discussion? Hearing none, Catherine, how do you vote? Aye. Brynn?

Yes.

Fred?

Yes.

Sasha? Yes. Items approved unanimously, four to zero. Item five is next, and this is the disclosure and action items. 5A. This is an opportunity for the budget officer intending to state that the fiscal year 2026-2027 tentative budget includes a proposed property tax rate increase. Item 5B. I guess, John, is that the statement then thus made? That is a statement that needs to be made. All right. I'm making as the budget officer that the 2026-27 tentative budget will include or does include a proposed property tax rate increase.

And I'll read the full statement so that we are compliant with the law. Let me get it up here. So Draper City is considering levying a tax rate that exceeds the city's certified tax rate, the proposed tax rate is estimated to increase the current tax rate from .000936 to .001170. The proposed tax rate increase would generate approximately $2,696,000. of additional ad valorem tax revenue to be used to pay for operational and compensation costs. The proposed tax rate increase would increase the city's ad valorem tax rate revenue by approximately 25%. If the city proceeds with the proposed tax rate increase, the city will provide notice and conduct a public hearing as required by Utah Code Section 59-2-919-4C. Current Draper City property tax rate is .000936. Current Draper City property tax revenue is 10,186,000. The proposed Draper property tax rate with the tax increase would be .001170. The proposed Draper property tax revenue with the tax increase would be 12,882,000. The proposed new property tax revenue would be $2,696,000. Estimated increase to a primary residence valued at $807,000, the median home value in Draper, would be $866 per month, $103.86 annually, and would represent a 25% increase. The estimated increase to a business valued at $1 million would be $19.50 monthly or $234 annually, also representing a 25% increase. All right, thank you. And that covers item 5B. We've got to do 5B as well. You've covered that. So that was 5B. And now, so we can move to 5C at this point.

All right. So 5C is a presentation, property tax impact schedule. The budget officer presents and makes available to the public a property tax impact schedule as a separate document from all other budget documents as required by Utah code section 59-2-924 and 59-2-919 sub 4 sub small a.

I have the property tax impact schedule on the on the Display here and that property tax impact schedule is required to show what the property What the budget would be with the tax increase what the proposed budget would be with? out the property tax Without the property tax increase with the property tax increase and what that change would represent for the majority of that Draper would have the same property, the same budget, whether we have a tax increase or whether we do not. The difference would be that Draper will fund the difference from either fund balance, meaning we draw from our rainy day funds, or we have a little extra and we don't have to draw that money from fund balance and we're able to leave that money in the current fund balance for a rainy day. The difference being $2,461,000 difference in that draw from the fund balance. And the statement does say impact of the tax increase. With the property tax increase, Draper will reduce its reliance on fund balance to meet the ongoing operational needs of the city. Now there are two more pieces to the impact schedule. I'll read each of those as well. Next, within the fire department, the city is proposing a 250, the budget without the tax increase of firefighter overtime would be 250,000 and the budget with The proposed budget would be $415,000, a difference of $165,000. And this is fire department overtime as well as staffing costs. And so within the budget, we're proposing three additional firefighters with a reduction in overtime to fund a portion of those firefighters. Now the impact of the tax increase is the city will fund three new firefighter positions reducing the reliance on overtime to meet staffing levels, and reducing firefighter fatigue. So that's what will happen if the proposed tax increase happens. And lastly, within the Parks Department, we currently have a budget of $130,000 for playground maintenance. Within the proposed budget, with the property tax increase, we have increased that amount to $200,000, a change of $70,000. And the impact is the city will have the necessary funding to continue annual playground replacements at the recommended level in order to I'm trying to remember what that says. I'll minimize it and then I can read it. Maintain compliance with risk and insurance mandates. So every year we replace a certain number of playgrounds to be able to make sure that we are in compliance with those required statutes and things. The cost to do that has risen, and so that's the need for the additional $70,000. If the property tax is not increased, then we would live with 130,000, but we would not be able to do as many playgrounds. So that is the property tax impact schedule that we are required to do by state statute. All right.

That takes us.

Thank you, John.

Yep. That takes us to item six. Item six includes public hearing items and an action item towards the end. Item 6A is a public hearing on the fiscal year 26-27 interim budget. This is an opportunity for the public to comment on the fiscal year 2026-27 interim budget prior to its adoption.

I don't know if you want to make comments prior to the public hearing or not, Mayor, but.

Council members, do you want to do the public hearing first or? We'll do the public hearing first. All right. Ladies and gentlemen, if you're here and would like to make a public comment on Item 6A, how many of you would like to? All right, I'll just take you in who can race to the dais the fastest. Just let me go over our meeting rules if I could. Everyone gets three minutes, so when you come up to the microphone, if you'll give us your name and your address, that will start the timer, which is to my right. We're fair. Everyone gets three minutes. You don't get more, so if you're in the middle of your sentence at the end, we treat everyone the same. You don't have to use all three minutes, but you certainly can. I don't have any cards, but whoever would like to be first, come on up. Give us your name and address.

I don't know what...

All right, it's time for public hearing. If you'd like to make a public comment, come on up and we'll start with public hearing. Who'd like to be first? Dan, come on.

I know some of you from quite a few years.

Reed, give us your name and address again. Sorry.

Reed Gibby, 667 Vandelay Lane in Draper. By the way, I liked your speech last Wednesday. at the graduation. Thank you.

It was short.

It was short, but it had a lot of punch to it. Thank you. Anyway, 25% sounds like a big jump, but you haven't had a raise for a long time. And being down here and seeing some of the streets and so forth and so on, I'm not overly concerned about the increase you're proposing because when I look at the total property taxes, Paper does not merit much attention in terms of the volume of money that some other organizations take. And so I trust that you're doing the best that you can under the circumstances. And so I do not oppose what you're proposing.

Thank you, sir. Who would like to be next? Come on up, sir.

Tyler Ashby, 116 East, 13200 South. I'm actually okay with increase of taxes, benefit of citizens. My question is, how much money is going to go to the planning department? How much money is going to go to the department that holds developers accountable that are taking advantage of our property and making money for their own benefit and not benefiting the citizens? I have several open issues before the city related to a developer who has made millions of dollars absent following city processes. I brought this up in 2021. I lived in the Philippines for 17 years. I use the internet. I am not a trained lawyer. I am not a trained planning department lobbyist. I am in favor of increasing our taxes should those taxes benefit the citizens, not the millionaire developers who are willing to cut corners on the very, very few acres we have left. Ogden, most number of acres are developable. lowest common acre price draper lowest number of acres developer highest acre price and you have developers that are cheating citizens the city And it took me four minutes and 31 seconds of a bike ride to prove that you have a developer funded by Dwayne Shaw. Yes, that Dwayne Shaw, who is funding incompatible developments or making money off of avoiding Draper City policies. I am in favour of taxes. I will pay double. Protect me.

Thank you. Who would like to be next? Come on up.

My name is Penny Rasmussen. I'm on 128-27-30. The gentleman who just spoke is so correct. I've lived here for 30 years. I have watched the development come into this city, and it has literally been sickening. I and my husband wanted to subdivide our property. It took us five years from this city. They lost the plans, made us pay for new plans, and it cost us thousands and thousands of dollars. We had to separate our garage from our house. We can't even go into our garage from our house now because of one foot. And now we sit and watch all these developers come in, build within the measurements that we were criticized for, but it's okay because money buys happiness. But for those of us who don't have it, we're screwed. I watch roundabout weeds grow high. We watch trees lay on the road forever. And it just, to up our taxes, I watch someone on company time in the city buy stuff for the city and then buy their own stuff while they're on company time. And we have seen tons of things that is so wrong with the way the city is ran. And it breaks our heart, but we have been a victim of it.

Who would like to be next? Come on up.

Hello, my name is Terry Rasmussen. I live at 12827 South 300 East. And we've been residents there for 30 years. And some of the things that I just observed, it's really nice that I've been able to come and spend some time with you guys. I'm going to propose, or I'm going to say that I'm against the proposed tax. 25% is ridiculous. I see that happening in other cities. But I have to ask the question, where's the money? Where's the money going? We talk about, you know, let's raise it because you mentioned two things up there that you were going to be using the money for. However, my question is, we have new development going on in this city. We have new buildings. We have new businesses. We have new homes. How is that not offset? How are the taxes not offset by the new businesses and new homes coming in? That would be a question. The playground stuff. I appreciate the fact that we get new playground stuff here and there. I don't know too many. You know, 30 years here in Redford, you'd think I'd know all the parks that we put the playground stuff in. I think that's a very high price. I don't know how that money is being spent from year to year, just for maintenance. What was it, $130,000, $170,000, something like that? I think that's just about it. We see a bunch of stuff that just doesn't seem right. Sidewalks. It's nice to see some of the sidewalks getting fixed around the neighborhood. If you walk around Draper, you're going to trip and fall. Just make a comment about that. Thanks.

Thank you. Who would like to be next? Anyone else? I can't believe Dan Portwood's not getting up here. Come on, come on. I'm calling you out of the audience, Dan.

This is going to be a positive moment, actually. Oh, is this somebody's phone? Did somebody forget their phone? Oh, is this your phone? Actually, I'm Dan Portwood. I live at 14112 South Epiband. And honestly, it was really good to see the information about the tax increase. And I'm a Chicago boy, and so property taxes here are really low. I mean, really low. And yet I'm finding that people in Utah think that a little bit of property tax is too high. And I honestly think that if you want to have a premium city, you have to pay a little extra for it. And so even though some people are crimped by it, it's actually a pretty small amount when you look at really what the property taxes are. So I just want you to know that I actually think it's a good idea. And the parks, you know, I see the little thing about adding little money to the parks and recreation areas. I think Draper is probably one of the best places to live in Utah. My wife and I lived in Park City for about 25 years before we moved to Draper. And so we know what premium living is like. And the thing about Draper is literally the last bastion great city left in Utah. And I think to add a little extra money to make it stay that way is a really wise investment. Thank you.

Thank you, Dan. Is there anyone else?

Sherrod Harper, 12811 South Whisper Ridge Road. As far as these property tax increases and what have you, I'm totally against them, despite what the previous gentleman just said. We are one of the highest taxed states in the country, so we can make comparisons to all kinds of cities and states and all that kind of stuff, but bottom line is we pay a lot of taxes here. As far as the budget taxes, correct me if I'm wrong. I was trying to dig around on your website and whatnot, but we have a $168 million total annual budget. You're just discussing just simply the property taxes. There's obviously lots more other revenue and so forth that comes in. The thing I find that... Government at all level, I don't care city, state, county, whatever, federal government is, nobody ever has the stomach to cut budgets or look into separating what are the wants versus the needs. And in tough times, tight times, you've got to make a distinction between those. You know, there's things that are nice to have, but are they absolutely necessary? And with people's budgets being squeezed every which way we turn, you know, everybody's going, well, we need more money. We need more money. Well, the fact of the matter is, and the other part I don't like is it's always thrown in our faces here in Draper is, oh, we need to hire more police. We need to hire more firefighters. No disrespect to you guys, by the way. I admire everything you guys do. And if it were up to me, you guys all get raises, all that kind of stuff. You guys are an important part of our community. And I want to make that clear. But you guys spend money in other areas that are totally unnecessary. I would rather that money go to these gentlemen and to those professions. And so, you know, I mean, I just, my simple observations is government never wants to look at where can we cut budgets? Where's the unnecessary spend? I mean, things that I've, I just, personal observation, you know, which I didn't see on the website today, but like Draper days, we used to have fireworks. That was the Saturday evening and the whole show. Now that goes to, now we're doing fireworks two nights. unnecessary. Now it's moved to a drone show one night, fireworks the other night, but either way, I don't think we need both of those things. Other simple things is, as an example, last summer, some city workers show up in front of my house and start digging up my sidewalk. I walk out there and go, what are you guys doing? Well, we're replacing these sections of these two squares of concrete. For what? Well, there was a little crack on the corner of this one. Really? I mean, concrete cracks. It wasn't even a major crack. It wasn't uneven. It was a little corner, but we're ripping out two things. These guys spent a day and a half just prepping the area for concrete. So I don't know that that was even necessary at all. Secondly, Totally inefficient that it takes these guys that long to do that. Now, it didn't even include another whole day of messing around, pouring it and smoothing it and all that kind of stuff. I don't know if it's just keep them busy kind of work. Again, maybe that's just an inefficient way. We need to make some cutbacks there. Maybe we should be outsourcing that stuff. I mean, a concrete company is going to come in and pour two squares. They're going to pull it, rip it up, prep it, pour it probably within the morning, not all that time. So we need to be considerate.

Thank you. Does anyone else would like to address the council? All right, seeing no further public comment, we'll close the public hearing on item 6A. Next item. If you want to move, I guess we can after all the public hearings. Item 6B, this is a public hearing as well. This is municipal water rates. This is an opportunity for the public to comment on proposed changes to municipal water rates for customers serviced by Draper City. Mr. Veidt, go ahead, sir.

Sorry, I closed my slide. So we, within the Water Fund, we are proposing a rate increase. This year, Jordan Valley Water increased the rate that Draper City pays to buy water. And so we have proposed to pass that same increase on to the residents through their variable rates, which are divided into the zones. What that looks like is in FY26, you can see the rates on top in the gray. The proposed increases are, again, 4.5% above what the rates were in FY26. So you can see those new rates in the green. What does that mean for an average resident? Well, if I can... So an average resident falls within this 29% range, which is between 50,000 and 149,000 gallons. The other one that is higher is the one right below that. That is the up to 50,000 gallons. An average resident in Zone 1 would see an increase of $6.50 to $13 a month. Average resident in Zone 2 would see an increase of between $7 and $14. And an average resident in Zone 3 would see one from there to $20.5, whatever that number is behind. Really fast I can pull that up so from $10 to $20 rate increase Wait I that was the resident that was not the residential that was the commercial rates, so Sorry, let me back up. This is the residential rate again the The average falls within the 10 to 20,000 gallon or between the $5,000 and $10,000 range. So those rate increases would be for Zone 1, $1.40 to $3.30. For Zone 2, $1.50 to $3.50. And in Zone 3, $2.15 up to $4.85. And so the one that I had originally showed was for the commercial rate, not for the... residential rate. So that is the proposal and this is a public hearing so I don't know if you want to comment prior to or just go to the public hearing.

Can I ask a quick question? Go ahead. So the rate increase is coming from Draper City or that's the rate increase from Jordan Valley that then...

So Draper City will have to adopt an ordinance to increase our rates. So we have a rate that we establish, but we are simply passing on the rate increase that we've seen from Jordan Valley. So we purchased water through a contract with Jordan Valley Water, and they have raised the rates that we will be charged, and we are simply passing that rate increase along to residents. I'll go back to the first slide. every year Jordan Valley continually increases those rates and there have been a number of years where we did not increase the rates and keep up with what Jordan Valley has done this year and moving forward kind of the plan is to pass that that increase along to the residents just at the rate that Jordan Valley does in theory at least at least that I mean depending on whether the cost

influences we may have but yes that is the biggest cost that we have is purchasing water so on the commercial slide can you go to that one it did look like the zone three jump was more significant can you speak to that

Well, Zone 3, the difference between the zones is the number of pumps that the water has to go through to be able to reach that area. And so in Zone 3, that is typically on top of the mountain. So it has to go through three different sets of pumps to be able to get there. So it's a much more costly delivery for that. Now, we don't have very many businesses that reside in Zone 3. If any.

Any other questions?

Yeah, I have one real quick, Mayor, if that's okay. You go back to that schedule of where, if you would please, John, where we're showing the rate increase, the rate history, where we didn't raise rates for so many years, we end up subsidizing. That is correct.

And really, we've raised rates the last few years in order to try to make up some of that and to get ourselves in a place where we can have the water fund be solvent. And we feel good about where we're at, but we need to be able to continue that moving forward. Thank you.

Anybody else? All right, thanks, John. This is the public hearing, item 6B, municipal water rates. Would anyone like to make a comment to the council regarding the municipal water rates? Any hands? Come on up.

Well, thank you again for hearing me. Name and address again, if you will, please. Terry Rasmussen, 12827 South, 300 East. So again, we've lived here for just about 30 years. We moved here when it was more of a rural town. It was very nice, very quiet, and we've seen a lot of change, obviously. One of the changes that we've seen big time has been in this water now. We used to water just about an acre and a half for about $6 a month. So think about that. Right now it costs me probably, and we've cut that in half because we did subdivide it. And right now, just to keep my little over half acre, nice and green and beautiful, runs me almost $400 a month. That includes my culinary. So the question is, when we pressurized, The irrigation and now everybody else has to pay on top there's a lot of money being made somewhere and Does that not help out and if it does where is it?

It's my questions Thank you anyone else Come on

Tyler Ashby, 1116 East, 132nd South. Water increases are great. My question is, does the cost that we put into the East Jordan Canal impact our water rates? Does the way our developers develop impact our water rates? Does the way our developers fill out their plat applications and their water use forms, whether it be single subdivision or multiple subdivision or several houses hiding as one house, does that like all culminate into the cost that we pay? I'm also a bit concerned that the person describing the cost we have to increase couldn't read the table. I'm also concerned that the person increasing the cost said we couldn't have as many parks. These are not financial instruments. These are not things that the public can comment on. If he misreads a table, I don't understand. If he says we can't have as many parks, I don't know what that means. This is not finance manager presentation enough for me as a citizen to comment on.

Anyone else?

Reed Gibby, 667 Bendalay Lane. I think I'd be good to point out that the rate increase for the Water District will have a public hearing in August. And so those people that might be concerned about the increase might want to attend that.

Thank you, sir. Anyone else? On item 6B, municipal water rates. All right, seeing no further public comment, I'll close that item. Item C is next. This is a public hearing, statutory officer compensation. This is an opportunity for the public to comment on the proposed changes to statutory officer compensation associated with the fiscal year 26-27 interim budget prior to adoption. Mr. Veidt, go ahead, sir.

So again, this is a public hearing. We have two separate public hearings. I'm not sure which one is first on the agenda. But we have a public hearing for the executive officer compensation as well as a public hearing for the statutory officer compensation. The compensation changes within the city are 5%, and so we are listing out the executive officers as well as the statutory officers. There are two statutory officers, the city recorder as well as the city treasurer, and we're just by state statute showing what we are proposing for each of those compensation changes.

All right, this is a statutory public hearing, or I'm sorry, item 6C, public hearing, statutory officer compensation. Is there anyone that would like to address the council on this item?

Jared Harper, 12811 South, Whisper Ridge Road. In regards to these increases, don't have a problem with the increases themselves, but going back to the city budget, maybe with increased wages and so forth, maybe part of their job needs to include, where can we make cuts? Give them a number, go through, audit your budgets, figure out where you're going to cut to impact the overall budget to bring the money we're spending down. Thanks.

Is there anyone else?

Tyler Ashby, 116 East, 132nd South. I think that everybody deserves more than 5% increase. The cost of living increase in America over the last five years is more than that. With the exception of people who have not done their jobs. The planning department has not done their jobs. I'm an idiot. I use the internet. And I can prove that they did not protect me, my family, or the citizens, or the financial... sanctity of Draper City. So everybody except maybe the planning department, yeah, they deserve an increase.

All right, so anyone else would like to address the council on item 6C? All right, seeing no further public comment, I will close the public hearing on item 6C. Item 6D is up next. It's also a public hearing item. It is executive municipal officer compensation. This is an opportunity for the public to comment on proposed changes to the executive municipal offer compensation associated with the fiscal year 2026-27 interim budget prior to adoption. I think you could stay. I think this slide up here, the statutory ones were the treasurer and the city recorder. and they're denoted with a little arrow into the right. So everyone else, other than the up, I don't know, what do you call that, an up arrow or up, an up greater than? I'm gonna go back to elementary school. The treasurer and the city recorder were addressed in the statutory officer hearing just a minute ago. This is for everyone else on that list. Is there anyone that would like to address the council on item 6D, executive municipal officer compensation? All right, seeing no one interested in public comment, I'll close the public hearing on 6D. That takes us to item 6E. This is also a public hearing. It is a resolution, 2625. It's a resolution amending the adopted budget of Draper City for fiscal year 2025-26.

We have a few items that we are proposing some amendments for within the current fiscal year budget. So I will address each of those items. So first we have some housekeeping items. We received some requests for some equipment that for next fiscal year that we felt like we could fund out of the current fiscal year, or we had some other sources that we could use to fund some of that. And so we are proposing taking care of that within the current fiscal year. Fire asked for some additional funding for radio replacements. Police asked for a ferro scanner. Within their current budgets, they have enough money to be able to do that. So we were proposing that we APPROVE THE PURCHASE OF THOSE CIP ITEMS AS WELL AS TRANSFER THAT MONEY INTO THE CIP FUND SO THAT WE CAN BE ABLE TO PURCHASE THOSE THROUGH THE CIP FUND. SPIDA IS A FINANCING MECHANISM THAT WE ARE REQUIRED TO USE WHERE WE IF WE SIGN A LEASE WE ARE REQUIRED TO EXPENSE THE FULL ITEM up front and then we expense each year the actual cost that goes out the door. And so this is really just an in and out. So it's just making sure that we have sufficient within our budget to expense that and capitalize that equipment during the current fiscal year. Within the fleet fund, we are proposing a purchase of one new police vehicle, a golf cart for community events, upgrading unit number 702 within the fire department slightly at a rate of $15,000, and then adding a plow wing, which is an extra extension of the plow. to one of their units at a cost of $50,000. And we are proposing to fund that from fund balance within the fleet fund. And I'll talk about at the end where we're going to get that money. And then the ambulance fund, we are proposing purchasing some CPR assist devices as well as EKG monitors from the ambulance fund fund balance. Second item is we had a pump overheat in pump station number two. And so we need to be able to go in and replace some of the motors and valves. That cost is budgeted at $750,000. And we are going to pull that funding from Water Fund fund balance. We have begun some upgrades at pump station number three to be able to help with the capacity. And we've had some cost overruns and some other things that have happened to be able to drive the cost up. And so there's an additional $350,000 needed there that will be funded again through Water Fund fund balance. That will up the total project cost of the pump station three capacity improvements to $2.4 million. The next item, we've done a couple of traffic studies. One is at 300 East and 138 South. And there's a proposal to be able to put in a traffic signal at that intersection. That will be a cost of $450,000. That does sit on the boundary of the East Bangor CRA, and currently we are proposing to fund that through CRA funds. And we also have a proposal to do a high T intersection traffic light at the intersection between Highland Drive and Rambling Road. And so we're gonna, we have looked at using TRANSPORTATION, WELL, WE ORIGINALLY TALKED ABOUT TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE. WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT WE CAN USE THAT, SO WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO PULL THAT FROM A DIFFERENT FUND CLASS, FUND CLASS 240, WHICH IS OUR BNC ROAD FUND. SO AS YOU ADOPT THAT, IF YOU CAN NOTE THAT WE'LL FUND THAT THROUGH BNC ROADS INSTEAD OF THROUGH TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES. Within the stormwater fund, they have requirements to be able to go in and clean out the stormwater drain systems that run through the golf course. They don't have really a vehicle capable of doing that, and they have asked for a trailer with a storm line JETTER ON THE BACK AND THAT IS $100,000 AND WE'LL FUND THAT THROUGH FUND BALANCE AND WE'RE ALSO LOOKING TO UPGRADE OUR STORM WATER MASTER PLAN THAT HASN'T BEEN DONE SINCE 2012 AND WE'LL AGAIN FUND THAT ITEM THROUGH THE STORM WATER FUND BALANCE. We're also upgrading our transportation master plan. We have that within the current CIP budget, but we have since received a grant to be able to fund that. And so we're just recognizing that grant revenue and transferring the funding source to the grant revenue. And each year we do sidewalk gap replacement. We have $120,000 remaining in there, but projects totaling $170,000. And so we're going to fund that additional $50,000 from Fund Class 241, which allows us to use it on sidewalk replacements. We have a bridge at 1300 East. This is a bridge for the trail at 1300 East and we are. We went out to bid, as we got the bids back in, the cost came in $30,000 over what we had originally budgeted. And we had originally budgeted to fund that through park impact fees. So we're going to fund the additional $30,000 required through park impact fees, raising that total project cost from 150,000 to $180,000. We're proposing adding a city beautification project within our capital projects. And we're proposing setting aside $710,675 for citywide beautification projects. And then lastly, a transfer of $500,000 to the water fund for future water CIP. As I mentioned, we have a funding source. We received a reimbursement of $2.9 million. And so we have, this is just at the bottom, we are showing you where we are putting that 2.9 million to be able to fund a lot of the projects that we talked about within this budget amendment. So this is a public hearing. So I don't know if you have questions for me before the public hearing, or if you want to just go to the public hearing.

John, do you mind explaining about that reimbursement?

So we had a storm. We had the big rainstorm on August 3rd of 2025, 23, 2023. And we reached out to the state and through different means, we've been able to secure 2.9 million of reimbursement for that storm that we had originally already paid for. So we're looking to use that funding to meet some of the various needs throughout the city.

Thank you.

Any other questions for John? Thank you, sir. Okay. All right, this is item 6E. It's a public hearing. It's resolution number 26-25. It's a resolution amending the 25-26 budget as presented. Is there anyone that would like to make public comment on 6E?

I'M GLAD TO SEE THE TWO NEW TRAFFIC SIGNALS. I DO GO THROUGH THOSE TWO AREAS, SO I APPRECIATE THAT. ONE SUGGESTION WOULD BE JUST NORTH OF THE CORNER CANYON CAMPUS, WHEN PEOPLE DRIVE THROUGH THERE, THEY LEAVE A a school zone in their subconscious. And it'd be good to put a 25 mile an hour speed limit just beyond there because there are some that are being cited at 30 miles an hour. One in particular hadn't had a traffic ticket in her whole life. Anyway, thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Jared Harper, 12811 South Whisper Ridge Road. A couple comments on this, going through a list of projects. There's some definitely needed things there. There's some nice to haves. I'm going to assume the beautification project for $710,000 is much like a lot of the other projects that beautify Draper and that we do them, but then we don't take care of them. We don't take care of our existing infrastructure, taking care of trimming trees and maintaining those things. We're always about just moving on to the next project and leaving those other items to just go into disrepair, get overgrown, all those kinds of things. So that to me is nice to have. this reimbursement funding. I think I just found your $3 million property taxes you're trying to increase. This is obviously money that got spent. It's gone. It's now coming back in through these reimbursement funds. So there's your $3 million gap. Thank you.

Is there anyone else?

Tyler Ashby, 116 East, 132nd South. Again, I struggle to follow exactly what he said. I run a $113 million company. Comparisons, none of them are there. Don't know what I'm looking at. Don't know if it's good. Don't know if it's bad. What I can tell you is the only thing I object to is the stormwater fund. The reason why I am against increasing the stormwater fund is because... The planning department has not done their job in holding developers accountable for doing their part in stormwater funds. You want me to pay for a millionaire to steal from residents? Everything else on that, I'm in. I'm double in. Just like the taxes, I'm double in. Do not take a single dollar of mine for stormwater funds. when for five years you've had developers ripping you off in things that I proved in four minutes and 31 seconds.

Anyone else?

Terry Rasmussen, 12827 South, 300 East. Everything looks great. With one exception, I just have a question. With the, I have a little bit of a traffic signal background, so I have to ask about this. It's important that we have that there. It's a very interesting intersection and it needs to be done. And putting up the traffic lights and so on is very expensive. I totally get that. What I'm wondering, though, is am I correct that we have a Smith's marketplace going in in that area? And if so, wouldn't we put it incumbent upon them to help us out with that? Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else?

Penny Rasmussen, 12827 South, 300 East. My question is just, we know that Draper likes trees and that residents are required to put trees in the parking strips to beautify. And this beautification project, I agree, let's work on beautifying what we already have. I come through, I call it the frontage road because it's always been the frontage road to me where Waffle Love is. And every night I come through that light right there at the crossing, there's just garbage sitting there every single day. And if you drive around the major streets, garbage just sitting there. So I think beautification is good, but let's try and beautify what we already have. And the point of the trees is, I don't think you would be repairing multiple sidewalks if you didn't require so many trees. My husband and I walk a lot, and tons of those broken sidewalks are from the branches of the trees that have lifted the sidewalks. And half the time, we have to go out on the road because the trees aren't trimmed. So I think we need to work on what we already have before we decide to add more.

Thank you. Is there anyone else? All right, seeing no further public comment, that ends the public hearing on item 6E. It is a resolution. Council members.

Can I respond to a couple of things that stuck out to me? I'm new, so I don't know. They'll tell you lots more things, but a couple of things. The light at 138th and 300th East and the new Smith development, you suggested maybe having the developer pay for that. that um so that intersection at 138 and 300 is already failing so the city is doing that independent and it needs to do that independent of any new development there so so that's why the city is paying for that because that smiths could be it is still a few years away but that um intersection is already failing and and there is there will be a they're doing a study for a crosswalk signal that the smith's developer will pay for um because that will be directly related to to that development so just something i've learned um i i do think also on the beautification a couple people mentioned that i agree and i And I think that the Parks Department agrees that we want to be maintaining what we have. From my understanding, it's not putting in new stuff. It's that beautifying what we have, taking care of what we have, but having the budget to do that. I'm sure there's more things, but that's all I'll say. Okay.

Anybody else have any other comments on this?

I just have one comment, Mayor, about the almost $3 million that's been found. That actually meant that we didn't need to increase our budget by $6 million instead of $3 because these are expenses that we've had to cover. And even with our existing budget, we're still going to be pulling from our general fund. We're just striving to be good stewards so that we don't continue to pull too much from the general fund so that we can be prepared for a rainy day such as the one we saw in 2023.

Anyone else? I would just echo what's been said, that a lot of these expenses are going towards public safety, which encompasses more than just police and fire. It's about adding traffic mitigation measures, updating our water system, and improving sidewalks are all safety issues. And that's something that is very important to me. I agree with those who have said, as we walk around the city, that you can sometimes see see problems such as overgrown shrubbery and sidewalk cracks that can make it difficult to walk safely. And so I think a lot of these revenue streams are going to those measures to mitigate those things. And just to clarify, just the city beautification, I think it will be a little bit of both. like we've seen, I've seen it as I walk around too, that we have so many parks, we have so many trails, we have so much public space that we need to maintain. We want our city to feel welcoming and part of that does have to do with the beautification of it.

Anyone else? I've got two comments on a couple items. One, just for everyone's point of reference, the 2023 storm that we had, it was about, if I remember, 24 minutes of about as intense a rain as I think I've ever seen. It did more than $2.9 million damage. It did $3.2 million damage to our infrastructure and to the tune of stormwater boxes that were lifted and blown away. Entire section of Bangor Extension completely washed away. There was a significant amount of damage that that storm did. Fortunately, we have been smart with our fund balance over the years, and we were able to immediately hire crews to get out there and make those repairs. And that's the one reason you have that fund balance. With respect to the stormwater master plan update and the transportation master plan update, the grant funding is funded in the transportation area. this is all the 26 budget too this is not the new budget we have coming up those beautification projects like they've said that seven hundred ten thousand dollars is not new projects it includes new and it includes a whole bunch of get it nicer make fix up what we have we we get that we want it to look good with respect to the um pump station and emergency repairs At $750,000, one of the things that most people don't realize about our community is we have two water companies or two water systems. We have, for everyone in the flatland, you are on WaterPro, and that is a private water company. For everyone above the flatland, you are Draper City Water. Again, you've learned tonight, we don't pump water. We don't have a well. We buy it from Jordan Valley, and then we take it through a series of four pump stations to lift the water to the top of the mountain. I think it might be the most complex city water system. It's definitely the most complex in Utah. There are some cities that lift water, but we lift it four times. There's a section of our pump on Pump Station 4 where that transmission line under the road is transmitting water at 400 PSI. There's no city around pumping water at that pressure. And so we need to have money in our rainy day fund, as you call it, our emergency, our fund balance to cover those kinds of contingencies, maybe a little higher than even some cities would have because the contingency of a water main rupture at that pressure, it'll cost a lot of money in a hurry. So part of that, and I think it's just really, it's interesting to be able to see these two pumps And this price, these pumps have gone up 100% in cost, in repair, and everything. So it's just an interesting thing to see it, one pump costing you, you know, almost a million dollars. But that's, without the pumps, no one has water above the flat land, so... Those things are all part of what we're trying to accomplish as far as keeping the city livable. The water fund transfer, that's money we're saving. That's $500,000 we're saving for that eventual water main issue or whatever we have down the road. So that money's going in the bank to be prepared for something in the future. Obviously, the equipment that we are buying public safety in this 26 budget, the CPR equipment, if you're ever so inclined to need it, that device will go around your chest and do CPR on you, keep you alive. The police radio improvements, all those things are all things that are making our public safety better. It's already high quality. We're making it even better. Those things being said, I think it's just amazing to see that pump at $750,000. I tell people that all the time. People look at me like, oh, it doesn't really cost that much. It does. All right. Is there a motion?

Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion to approve Item 6E, Resolution 2526. And I'd also like to amend, I think it was... Fiscal year 26-30 to specify that the funding will come from the BNC Road funds.

Okay. The motion is to approve the Resolution 2625, amending that the signal at 13800 South and 300 East will come out of BNC Road funds, but the expenditure is the same. That's your motion?

Yes.

All right.

A motion by Tasha. Is there a second?

I'll second.

All right. We have a second by Brent. Is there any further discussions? Tosh, how do you vote? Yes. Wren? Yes. Catherine? Yes. Fred? Yes. It takes us to our next item, 6F, is an action item. It's resolution number 2626. It's a resolution certifying the authorized individuals to access and or transfer business within the state of Utah public treasurer's investment funds and to execute any necessary forms in connection with such changes on behalf of Draper City. Mr. Veit, go ahead.

This is just an action item of a form that we are required to fill out.

All right. This is an action item for action. Council members, is there a motion?

Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve item 6F, resolution 26-26.

Motion by Brand to approve item 6F, resolution 26-26. Second? I'll second. Second by Tasha. Any further discussion? Hearing none, Brynn, how do you vote?

Yes.

Tasha?

Yep.

Fred?

Yes.

Catherine? Yes. Items approved unanimously, four to zero. Item 6G is next. This is an action item as well. It's Resolution 2627. It's a resolution setting the date of August the 12th, 2026, as a truth and taxation hearing for Draper City.

Mr. Mayor, I move that we approve item 6.G, resolution 26-27. All right.

Motion by Brenda. Approve 6G, resolution 26-27. Second. Second. Second by Tasha. Is there further discussion?

Can I just say, I'm glad that we're having this. I really appreciate the truth in taxation process, and I appreciate you coming out tonight and sharing your thoughts as I have looked through this budget, and this is my first time going through the budget process as a council member. And I do think it's really interesting to look at where our city is right now and the shortages, the places where we are just trying to get where we need to be, the cost increase. I've looked and all the information is public on our website. There's a lot of information about the increases in spending over the last five years. There have been greater increases in spending than there have been in revenue and a lot of that. is in public safety the mayor last month when we were starting to talk about the budget talked about the difference in the cost of like a fire truck over five years ago and um and if you look at where the largest budget increases have happened they are all in public safety and police and fire and which I've asked lots of questions I'm sure I've made people frustrated because I've asked lots of questions about why it's increasing so much and why and but if you look at things like the crime statistics in Draper over the last five years as we have come to a place where we are full we have a fully staffed police department our We live in a safer place, right? We live in a much safer place. Like burglaries, car break-ins, accidents, those things are all coming down because of that investment. And I am... I would definitely call myself a – I don't want to raise taxes, but I can see why the Utah Taxpayers Association says that because of our tax structure and how it is inflation-proof, our taxes don't go up with the inflation with the increase in prices of our homes, and so they – support modest tax increases in municipalities every five to seven years or something like this. But I can see the definite benefits of the same thing with our fire this year, looking for three more fire people. We have to have... enough people to keep our insurance rates down so that our home insurance, because our fire department is highly rated because they get to our homes quickly. And so I do think that that investment, some of this, as I'm learning about it and trying to decide where we go, I appreciate the input and also appreciate the things that I'm learning about where and why this money is being spent.

And I would like to thank you for coming up and letting us know about the truth in taxation for the Water Board. I think that was really helpful information. And I'd also like to say to those of you that said that there are sidewalk issues and tree trimming issues, you are our eyes and ears. So let us know when you find those things so that we can address them.

sure we don't we don't talk out of the crowd that's not that's not how we do it you got your chance so please don't burst out um is there anyone else wants to make a comment i wouldn't mind making a few if i could on the budget if you don't mind john could you go to my slide deck for a second um i i'd like to make just a couple of comments about it because i'm i'm the budget officer and it's I've spent the time this year with our staff looking at this budget. I've also been elected the longest of anyone on the council. And so I've been around a long time. I spent six years as a council member, and I've been the mayor for 12. And we've done one tax increase in that entire time that I've been elected. And it was a 20% tax increase in 2024. Now, I've always been of the opinion that we shouldn't take your money unless we need it. And we have had a lot of years over the last few years, well, up until about four years ago, where one of the things we do really, really well as a city is our sales tax collection. It's heavyweight fighter level. I mean, we, for a city our size, we collect more. Could you find my, there, you got it right there. Where's the sales tax collection? I mean, Sandy, which is substantially larger than us at $30 million. We're $22.4 million. I mean, look at South Jordan, which is 100,000 people compared to what we've got. We are a blended budget. So we are a budget of we take our property tax, which is about $10,100,000. And we take our sales tax at $22.4 million. And then we have some other taxes, franchise taxes. But we blend that money and we pay our bills. There are two cities that we share a SWAT team with. I will just give you. Riverton and Harriman. They're part of our joint SWAT team. What they do that's different than what we do is Riverton city council member can look you in the eye and say, we have no city property tax. They can't because they don't. What they do is they take public safety and they split police and fire into two special service districts. And they fund police and fire in their entirety out of those two public services. So those two public service districts, a police and a fire one, tax those citizens to cover the entire cost of public safety. If you look at the rate that they pay as opposed to what we pay, it's significantly higher. Now, there are some that would argue that's the way to do it. It might make sense to do it that way. Public safety protects property. The firefighters obviously protect it. Police officers protect it. Those two cities have gone that direction, and they've done it for a number of years. And their rates are significantly higher, but they cover their entire public safety costs in those service districts. And then what they do to fund the rest of their city operations is they live off their sales tax collection. If you look at the rates, and I think this is telltale for everyone to look at, Bluffdale is the only city right now below us is Bluffdale. And they're barely below Draper. And even after the increase, you can see over here to the right where we go, we really go up. I think the key thing is, for our citizens, is this blended budget. You're having an opportunity to see all of our revenue stream, and we pay all our bills out of that stream. Whereas these other cities split it. So you can feel really good if you live in Riverton and Harriman. You can say, well, I don't pay any general fund property tax. You don't. But you're paying a lot of property tax to fund your public safety. That's one way to do it. It's a thing I'm actually interested in exploring because I think it gives everyone a clear view of what public safety costs. The next thing I want to say is in the 18 years that I've been here, I have never seen cost increases like we have had in this last, since really the COVID pandemic. This chart, you know, I don't know what you do. We bought some fire trucks because we started a fire department about eight years ago, and these costs are legitimate. We went back and bought fire trucks when we started our fire department, and you could walk into this fire truck store, Pierce Manufacturing. The coolest thing I've ever done as elected official was go to the fire truck store. But a production facility, handmade trucks, Pierce, you could walk in and buy a fire truck at $500,000, and you could get it back here in about a month and then fix it. Today, that same truck is $2 million, and you don't get it. You don't get to go to the store and get it. You give them a million bucks, and then you wait two years, and then hopefully they haven't raised the price. That's so bad that the United States Congress drug these manufacturers in front of them last year and said, tell us why. And I don't know why. I don't understand it. Garbage trucks, I mean, look at police vehicles. We have a, one of the things we've implemented in the last, well, since Mr. Cooley came on as our public works director, is we have a, we've figured out what the best way to buy the car, how many years, how many miles to drive it, and then when to trade it in, so we get the Best bang for the buck. But if you've bought a car lately, you know this is not fake. $75,000. That's a fully equipped police vehicle. The snow plows now, arguably, they didn't plow a lot of snow last year. I sure hope they start plowing more. But you can see the cost. Just in road, just some other data just for you. Just for example, we just widened 138th from 13th East to Bangor Extension. Well, not quite, but to 3rd East. That right-of-way acquisition, just to give you an example of what it was, it was about $16 a foot when we started, and when we got done, it was over $36 a foot just to acquire right-of-way. I mean, that's a doubling in price. That whole length of asphalt, Scott, I can't find the number. How much was the asphalt? Now, I know we had utilities, but... Look, the Trump gas is affecting everything. I mean, we have asphalt, slurry, rock, reinforced concrete, a box for stormwater. Just a stormwater box has gone up over 100% in... in cost granular borrow is a hundred seven percent more in the last two years uh... everything is gone up manhole covers every single thing has gone through the roof and i know you all feel cuz we feel it uh... but we still have to operate we still have to provide you the service that you expect we've we function uh... primarily as a as a public safety budget i look at this budget in it's all people it's people and their equipment that it takes to do their jobs primarily to the to the comments that were made about we should cut we should cut i want to tell you what we did do at the beginning of this process we told every single department just like the governor said cut five percent find five percent that you can cut and i would say i think every department did it with the exception of public safety um we didn't have an increase in parks we didn't have an increase in in most of the departments. But we got people. We got a pair of people. They're good people. They work hard. They do a good job. We need equipment. Obviously, we have to operate. One of the things we have with our public safety at the current level, we have an actual SWAT team. When Chief Ferguson took over, he pulled me aside one day and said, Mayor, we got to talk about the SWAT team. I was like, okay, cool. He said, yeah, we don't actually have a SWAT team. I said, I thought we did. And he said, well, nine officers is not a SWAT team. And so I learned about SWAT teams. But we have a joint SWAT team with Harriman and Riverton and South Jordan. And it's an actual functioning, high-speed law enforcement group. We have a major crimes task force that we run with those cities. And they have taken fentanyl, heroin, cocaine, human trafficking, you name the crime, this group has pulled it off the streets this year. And last year, we stopped a famed bank robbery group that was going around the Mountain West, and they would glue their ATM card in the ATM machine. And then the bank would have to call a service tech to come open the ATM machine. Then these dudes would jump them and then take the money out of the ATM machine. You might be interested to know that there's about $300,000 in an ATM machine, a lot more than at the teller. So these guys were knocking banks off right and left, and we caught them in Draper. Our team did. That's the kind of law enforcement that we have going on. It's fantastic. Again, the nice-to-haves, I looked through that budget, and the nice-to-haves, maybe you don't like Draper days, but I'm going to tell you most people do. Maybe you don't like the events that we have. If you went through our budget and cut everything out that was extra, you would still... you would still need a tax increase to balance it because the cost of human beings, specifically firefighters, police officers, and their equipment has gone up. The cost of roads and all that's gone up. We function at a level of employment. Our full-time employees are less than, I think it's 251. We're under 300 total employees in the city of Draper. We have people doing multiple jobs. They don't like me to say it, but they're working hard, and they do a good job for the number of people we have. We provide really high-quality parks. I can't think of a city that has better parks. Can we do a better job beautifying them? Yes. We can, and we're trying to. Those kind of things are important to us. The comment Jerry, I think, made was why, and we get this comment the only time we've ever done this one other time. Well, we tried a tax increase last year. That's the other point I want to make. It was about 10%. It was a bond that you were already paying for that rolled off. We had our truth in taxation, went through it, and we screwed up. And we didn't do one little thing on the checklist. It wasn't on the checklist. Now, I'm not making an excuse, but there was a checklist for what to do, and the thing we didn't do wasn't on the checklist. I'm a pilot. When you fly retractable gear airplanes, there's one thing. The last thing on the checklist is gear down. Well, they didn't have that on. But we didn't get that 10%, so it would have been even lower. But if you look at our budget, we need to get ourselves to where we're covering the true cost of public safety, and we're going to do it. 25% this year, we're still taking $3.6 million out of our fund balance. It's not balanced. We're going to need a little bit more as we go along. Now, part of the reason I'm okay with the 25% now, our sales tax is going up. Someone brought up some of the retail issues. The potential store over on 138. There's a bunch of retail projects that we're trying to land that will increase our revenue. But one of the key points that Jerry raised is everybody's property value has gone up. People argue with me and tell me that if you do this over here, it'll ruin my property values. It ain't so. The property values have just gone up in this town. Highest median home value in the county, $990,000 is the median home price in Draper, Utah. Highest in Salt Lake County. Because of that, you would think that as it goes up, we would just get the increase. And if we did, we would never talk to you about raising your taxes. We would just take the increase and we would go. But the beautiful thing about our property tax system, if it's beautiful, I think it is actually a very good system. is that we know year to year how much we're going to get. We're going to get the same amount this year or last year. We're going to get the same amount this year. We don't get the increase. The only way we can increase taxes is only one way, is to have a truth in taxation hearing. There's no other way. So we don't get the natural growth. If we did, we would never have this conversation. we don't but the beautiful thing about our property tax system is we can budget because we actually know how much money we'll get year to year and if we need more we can come to you and say hey this is why we need more i appreciate the council members they've They've all spent a significant amount of time with me, with Mr. Veik, with Mr. Barker on this budget. There is an accounts member up here that hasn't dug in, and I mean they dug in. They were, every one of them, to a T. Catherine asked a lot of questions, but she's new. But all of her questions were good, well, most of them. No, I'm just kidding. But your council members, they own this. There's nobody sitting here that didn't look at it, didn't add it up, and didn't say, yeah, this is what we think. We think that you as Draper citizens like the level of service we're providing. We want to maintain that, and that's kind of where we're going. I've probably rambled on too long.