City Council - Regular Meeting

You've got to hurry. We worry about.

So.

Right.

We go to leisure. All right. Welcome everybody we're glad to see you're all here and we will call this meeting to order this is the rescheduled regular.

This is not rescheduled.

This is not. Sorry. This is a regular meeting of the Grantsville City Council. For the record, today's date is June 2nd and the time, 3rd, and the time is 6.30 p.m. This meeting is... I have the wrong script. I'm very sorry, everyone. It is 7. It is June 3rd, and this is not rescheduled. So this meeting is being held at the Grantsville City Council Chambers, located at 429 East Main Street, Grantsville, Utah, as well as electronically via Zoom. I am Mayor Heidi Hammond, and I will conduct a roll call. Council Member Thomas?

Here.

Williams?

Here.

Butler?

Here.

Dalton?

Here.

Skinner? Here. Thank you. And I have asked Les Peterson if he would lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. Thank you, Les.

When the command is given, will you please render the proper salute to our flag? Present arms. Will you please follow me in the Pledge of Allegiance?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

Thank you, Les.

All right, our first agenda item is item number one, public comment. And I would like to point out, if your comments are in regard to agenda items number five through nine, those are public hearing items. So we will address public comments during the presentations of those items. So if you have any other comments besides things that are related to items five through nine, we would invite you to share your comments. And the floor is open to bring your concerns to the council. You don't have anything to say, Shelby? Okay. Is there anyone online, Alicia? If you are online and would like to make a comment, please raise your hand. All right, we will close that item. Thank you. Our next item is summary action items, the approval of minutes from the May 18th, 2026 City Council regular meeting. Does anybody have any corrections or concerns with the minutes?

Mayor, make a motion that we approve the May 18th City Council meeting minutes.

We have a motion. Is there a second?

Second.

We have a motion by Councilmember Butler and a second by Councilmember Williams. All in favor?

Aye.

Thank you. Next is the approval of the bills. Does anybody have any questions or concerns with the bills?

Mayor, I'll make a motion. We approve the bills as is.

We have a motion by Councilmember Dalton. Is there a second? Second by council member Skinner. All in favor?

Aye.

All right. Our next agenda item, number three, is an update from the victim advocate.

All right.

Mayor, council, thanks for letting us do this, take a short period of time. But we are funded through VOCA partially, and we are required to give two updates to council annually. The last one was the annual report, and that was a written notice. We had a section in there. And this one will just take some time, and I want to go over some stats and then let Delia say some things and introduce some interns that we've picked up. So just some numbers. In 2025, they serve 465 individuals. and provided 2,982 services. So far in five months, in 2026, we served 495 individuals and provided 2,148 services. So then what we did is the last time we were here, and Delia is gonna speak with this, we had a part-time that we picked up on the VOCA and we needed that full-time, but the funding wasn't there. So we did have an office of 21 officers slotted. So we took one of those positions And we had deficiencies. We have deficiencies all around the police department, like much of the city staff, you know, other departments do. And we divided that up and moved Vanessa to full time. And that's why you see the work was there. And that's what I saw. And that's what Delia was talking about, because we've surpassed their numbers in five months since last year. And then we had our records clerk move from part time to full time to help with that management. And then we assisted some other departments with a part time mechanic and things like that. But exciting news from Delia, but I wanted to introduce from BYU, we have two interns this year, Sarah and Jenny. And Jenny's on the left and Sarah's on the right. And they've passed a background, 40 hours of training, and they're starting to serve victims. And our other is from USU, and her name is Melissa, and she'll be coming in the fall. But Delia, she's a coordinator. And she's identified some gaps within the county, not only our victim service program, but the county. And we're using the interns to fill those gaps. So our program is expanding and helping the entire county.

Yeah, last time I was here, I was alone trying to on-call, trying to take a bunch of calls throughout the county. People were referring to me. And so I was kind of getting close to that burnout stage. But now we've been able to get some help with Vanessa, our full-time advocate there. That's Vanessa Knickerbocker. You'll see her around. So our interns here are helping with the county justice court. They do have an advocate there with the city for Tooele City Department and then up that district. But anybody outside of Tooele City has no advocacy at the court. And so the judge and the prosecutor said that they could use our help. So now we're making an effort to go out there and help with protective orders and notifications, which is in the victim's rights. So it's in the statute by law that they need to be knowing, you know, what's going on in their options within their justice system process. And so Sarah will be over there helping with that. And she's excited and we're excited and we're starting to work towards that. And so victim services is growing and it's needed. So

No, you're doing a great job.

Thank you, Delia. And thank you to the interns. And Vanessa, thank you. Thank you all for the service you're providing, not only to our city, but to the county as well, it sounds like. So we appreciate your efforts.

Any questions? Any questions? Okay, thank you.

OK item number 4 consideration of resolution 2026 dash 40 authorizing the addition of a solar energy component to the wastewater treatment plant. Capital projects and authorizing the use of bond proceeds for solar development. This is just exploring one of the ways to reduce the operating costs of our of our wastewater treatment plant. We will, the introduction will be given by our city manager, Michael Roser, and then we will have a presentation by Bill Kamm, a solar consultant.

So it's Bill Como. Oh, sorry. I think we had it written on there wrong. He used to work for Rocky Mountain Power over their Blue Sky grants. And so he is very familiar with those. And Nick Jenkins is the one that's actually put us in touch with Bill to try and work out this option. Because we were talking about costs. And council's been really concerned, as the staff is, about the cost of the nursery retreatment plan. And so there's two factors to that cost. There's the bond amount that we have to pay back, and then there's the operating costs. So those are the two factors that we can try and reduce so that we can reduce rates. So this one would be more concentrated on the operating costs right now. So the projection, and Bill will get more into that, is the cost when the plant comes fully online is going to be around $500,000 a year in electrical costs. So a very large amount of that is what the residents will have to bear. And so the idea is to try and reduce that significantly. Right now, the city has an opportunity to get a grant as well as try and secure a solar tax rebate from the IRS to help offset costs. If we follow through, because right now, tonight, there's no commitment for the city to use the funds or to... to commit to putting solar in there now. Tonight would just be us looking at the opportunity, applying for the grant to see if we would be accepted into doing that and really just securing the option to get and apply for the solar tax credits because those are going to expire soon and we have a deadline for July 4th to secure the right to go after those funds, not that we're actually going to do that. So there's no commitment tonight, except for the fact that we're going to look into that. And there's specific requirements that we have under the resolution to do that. And so a lot of those questions, Bill will kind of walk us through, and I definitely recommend asking him any questions and he'll walk through the different options because I asked him to provide different options of solar. And there's a component of solar and a battery here. Well, that will reduce the actual operating costs of the plant with a solar set. So that way the cost drops, we can then utilize those funds to either reduce the rates or make a change in that. And he'll explain kind of the amounts of that.

And so, Bill, I'll turn it over to you. Thanks.

Right. Well, thank you. Appreciate it. Are there slides? Are they showing? That's up to you, as long as you all can see them. Oh, there we go. Perfect. Okay. So I was asked to do a feasibility analysis for a solar and battery project specifically to see if it would be feasible to have significant cost savings for the city. I did a high-level analysis, and what we found is your annual baseline bill after the project is up and running, your wastewater treatment plant is around $540,000. which has a peak demand of 1,071. A project with the solar battery has the potential to save, has a 20-year savings range of around 5.5 million if you can take advantage of some of the IRS tax credits and the grants that are available. What I'm going to cover today, and just for brevity, I'll go fairly quick. So please slow me down if there's areas you want me to cover in more detail. A lot of materials are really here in the slide. So what I have here for the agenda piece is that, you know, go quickly through the federal tax credit opportunity, the financial analysis, the preliminary one that was done that shows that that may be a good economic opportunity for the city. Talk about a decision framework. There's really three go-no-go decisions all the way until the last one, fourth, that takes you sequentially to get closer to make an informed decision It even takes you through engineering. The first phase that we're in now is no cost. It's just about going after the grants and seeing what the opportunities are. The federal tax credit. How that works is it was part of tax legislation a few years ago. And what it allows, one of the gaps that was identified was that nonprofits and governmental entities couldn't take advantage of the tax credit opportunities. That was changed. So now cities are able to receive 30% tax benefits. It's a direct pay, not even considered a credit. It's a direct pay. And how it works for municipalities is that it's straightforward. Basically, the city files a standard tax return and receives a check from the IRS, just like a tax refund. There are some requirements that the city must reach, which is really the timing for today. Part of that is that if a solar and battery project isn't isn't part of a project that has already started prior to July 4th of 2026, you will not know nobody will qualify for it. So this just gives you the opportunity if you move forward to be able to qualify for a 30% direct pay from the from the IRS. The Different sizing scenarios that we looked at was a solar as low as a half a megawatt, and then we went as high as a one megawatt. We kept the solar in the big scheme of things. That's actually a fairly small project. Your usage could go larger, but the economics really pushed it out, where I'm not sure it didn't really make sense. Paired with the battery, It reduces your peak demand significantly. And so really, depending on which scenario that you end up looking at and reviewing after we see what we can get for the grant is a net deployed range after savings of $1.1 million to $1.52 million for The scenario A, which provides a total year one savings of $157,000. And then that savings would actually go along for 20 years, along with some escalators associated with it. Then all the way down to scenario F, which is one megawatt solar with the one megawatt four hour duration, the four megawatt hour, which takes it to 2.9 to 3.6. And then a total year one savings of $285,000. What that's made up of is really the demand savings, which is the big part, really the peak piece that you're reducing from your energy usage. There's an energy arbitrage piece where you're charging the battery during off-peak periods, so lower energy costs, and then you're discharging it during expensive periods. So that's what the energy arbitrage piece is. And then the solar energy offset per year, that's where the total savings come from. Any questions on that before I move on?

The net deployed range is the cost of the solar, right?

And the battery. That's the total project. Yep. And the financial analysis that was performed, it used mid-range pricing. There's low, medium, high. When we looked at it, it looked like mid-range would be a good starting point for the desktop exercise. And the assumptions that went into this, I'm going to go through them really quick. So the battery pricing used national NREL. GATUS, SEA, and Wood Mackenzie. The solar pricing, NREL and Lazard, it's established. Federal ITC, the direct pay was 30% on the gross minus the grant. The tax credit only is for the amount after the grant, so what the difference is. The utility grant of $1 million. Demand response incentive a year, $80,000. The demand response program has been around over 20 years. And there's just more need going for the future for demand. So that's a big piece of the savings there. You have the electricity escalation. Battery O&M is in it. We have solar O&M. As a part of it, the solar production was about 2000 megawatt hours a year. And then dispatch model is that basically what you're doing is you're utilizing the battery every day, charging it during off peak and discharging it to reduce your peak periods, which is where your biggest charge on your energy is, and then doing that energy arbitrage. And then the analysis horizon is 20 years. I did a little bit more research after our first meeting. The conservative life for solar is 25 to 30 years. It does have a degradation curve, but about 25 to 30 years, it should still be reducing about 70% with the right maintenance in it. But we have maintenance costs in here. And then also with the battery, they're expecting the batteries to last 20 to 25 years with proper O&M, which is part of the analysis. Any questions on that? That was important before I got to the financial results slide, which is next. So the financial results, you saw some of these numbers from before with the same scenarios. The cost range is here. So for scenario A, it's about $2.6 to $3.1 million. You see the tax credit. range there you see the utility grant of 1 million so it gets us to the net deployed and it gets to a payback of about 5.2 years with a 20-year savings about five and a half million and a 20-year return of 419 percent and then the scenarios all the way down to F it all really depends on if you're looking more for you know a higher bill offset higher return, lower capital. There's different scenarios that you can go with there. I will say that it is important. This analysis, desktop analysis, the next step would be once you, if you decided to move forward and go after the utility grant, then you would go into doing advanced engineering, and then there's a cost with that, but then that will tell you, that'll tighten up the numbers, and they could be I was pretty conservative. So there's a good chance that could even be less. So the payback could be better. The decision framework is really that phase one today is just whether or not you're interested in applying for the utility grant and securing the ITC eligibility. Phase two is that once the grant goes through and if you're given one from Rocky Mountain Power, redo the analysis based upon the amount. And then you have a go, no go after that, which is to fund an engineering study that will really determine what the help with the project cost to get it to more refined. And then the phase three is where you do the advanced engineering and you do update the analysis. And then after that, you can choose to go or no go. And if you like it, you move to phase four. If you don't, You just stop at phase three and then phase four is just full project approval and construction where you start, you order long lead time items and move forward with the project. These types of projects, probably typically a year to two years is how long they take. If a decision, if engineering, once engineering is done, it's usually about a year and it's usually because of long lead time materials. And that's the majority. That's what I have. Any questions?

My concern would be space down there and where would we put it and how far away from the plant it would be. That would be one of my first concerns. About how many acres would a meg solar array, how much would that take?

Approximately five acres. A half megawatt would be about half of that.

And that would be on the north side of the property there. We have found a spot that not so much north of the lake yeah directly north of the plant yes so that would probably be north to the right of it because there's that area there that's right there the biggest concern is there's a lot of wetlands in that area we do own a very large portion of that parcel because directly north of the plant is not our parcel but to the right of the current ponds i guess i consider that part of the plant is is as our parcel there that north side of that goes on that It has enough area where we can put some of the solar right there.

Would that create any issues with any future expansions we would need with the sewer treatment facility? The sewer treatment facility is going to go to the

The extension will go west, so no.

It's west of the ponds, but it's running north and south. So where you're talking about putting this is north of the ponds. Correct. Which does create length. Yeah, it would have to run the cables from that. Yes, that would be a factor. It could increase those costs by quite a bit. Yes.

Yep, the longer the conduit, that's an increased cost.

Yeah. I don't think it would hurt to see if we get the bond. I mean, you know, the federal government paying for 30% of this, albeit there are requirements and you had it up on your board there. I mean, it would be a project that needs to be done with Davis Banking Wages. There were certain requirements they had to meet. So, federally, which increased the cost of the project itself. But,

My understanding, phase one and two don't require us to put out any money. It's not until we get to the actual engineering that we would have to put the money. So one right now, we're just seeing if we could get it. And then we would actually go back and decide if we wanted to.

Yes, we would bring it back to council and say we've got the grant, we secured that, how does council want to proceed?

And then, yeah, but I guess it's into phase three where we actually find more, I guess, actual numbers of what it was like. I don't think there's any harm in applying for it. It sounds like a savings overall. It sounds like electricity is going to be a big cost for the plant.

If you go back to the other page, this would cost you $2 million and you wouldn't get that back right away. Depending on which one the council decided to pick, it would be the return on that investment. But at that point, then it would offset that power bill. So then the operating costs would be reduced. And then at that point, we could look at reducing the rates for that amount. I think using the $2 million there might go a lot further than putting it toward maybe a bond, at least that amount for the interest rate kind of thing. Because the return on investment here, you get that plus all the other reductions over the years. force of the operating policy.

Assuming we were to get the grant, what is the estimated savings per household that we would experience once we have paid that off? Do we have any type of a number on that?

We'd have to do some math. We could do it real quick. So I think you're just asking for a simple...

Yes, I am.

Yeah. So it would be whichever total your savings, approximately how many residents?

Her households 4,500, 4,500.

So divide by one 57. So I'm just doing rough math in my head here. You're talking 40, 45,000 households, 45, 4,500, 40, 4,500. Okay. Yeah. So that's approximately 40 to $50 per household. That's rough math.

Yeah.

Right. Okay. Anybody want to?

Yeah, I mean, I think we put in, I think it doesn't hurt to see what it looks like.

I agree.

And if overall it's going to eventually reduce the sewer rates for the city, then I think it's good.

Mayor, I'll make a motion to approve Resolution 2026-40, authorizing the addition of the solar energy component to the wastewater treatment plant capital project.

We have a motion by Councilmember Butler. Is there a second?

I second.

A second by Councilmember Thomas. All in favor?

Aye. Aye. Aye. Right. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Okay, moving on to agenda item number five. This is a public hearing item, but before we ask for comments from the public, we will have a presentation by Shelby Moore, our planning and zoning administrator, and then we will open it up to comments. But this item specifically is a consideration of ordinance 2026-22, approving a general plan amendment for parcels 01-065-0-0074 and 01-065-0-0014 located approximately near Mack Canyon Road and SR 138 amending the future land use map from the mixed use density high single family density residential and low density residential to medium density residential for the Mack Canyon subdivision.

Perfect. Thank you. So the medium density residential allows up to four dwelling units per acre, according to the future land use plan. The purpose of this amendment is to align the general plan designation with the proposed Mack Canyon subdivision, which is planned as a master plan residential neighborhood with supporting open space and limited commercial components. And so if you do the math on net density, it is 3.7 billion units per acre. And if you do it with a gross density, it's 1.5. And I am going to jump back and forth in between the MDA and this general plan amendment. So currently there's 113 acres, 2.78 is commercial, and 44... acres sorry 41.87 acres is for commercial or open space and there's 2 miles of trail network. There's a layout in the MDA and I know this isn't the MDA but in the MDA we lay out the requirements that the developers to give us so they need to build out the collector road that is on the West side by phase for phase 5. Completely they need to dedicate and build out their half of Matt Canyon Road or paying to the reimbursement for that there to provide amenities to be constructed and dedicated in the open space by the 121st dwelling unit. There's a total of 170. And then they shall rezone and build out the commercial at the 101st residential building permit. And then they shall adhere to the plan unit counts, general layout and depiction upon the approval of the agreement so that they can't go in and say, okay, I have 170 units. Now I'm going to change the layout. It has to be this specific layout. So with the general plan as the mayor said we're changing it from mixed use density which allows 8 to 10 dwelling units in high single family which allows up to 7 and low density which is 2 dwelling units per acre to medium density residential. It is a PUD development concept and they are also proposing a rezone to R1-12 from R1-21. with a master development agreement and it's a cohesive residential neighborhood. Um, it has the characteristics of medium density, single family along phase two, we are doing half acre lots, um, on the east side of that road. That way it provides a buffer as well. As you can see, there's attention basins and open space surrounding the existing homes. And then to the north, um, it's high density multifamily housing into the south. Um, half acre lots just to the south of it.

Any questions?

How small is the smallest lot in here?

It would be 12,000 square foot. So the lots are 70 feet wide to 80 feet wide, the frontage.

And are they all currently zoned for half acre?

Currently, yes. So both parcels that are mentioned And in this 0, 7, 4, and 0, 1, 4, are both zone correct or 1, 2, 1, yes, sir.

And if we talk about the zoning to the north of it is RM 7 and to the north south is a mixed use. But the both of those parcels have a podium.

Do we have any additional questions for Shelby? Should we move to the public comment on this item, and then if we have additional questions, we can bring her back up? Thanks, Shelby. All right, so this is a public hearing item. For the record, we received a letter from Julie Mackley that is included in the meeting materials that the council members have had a chance to review. And if there's any other members of the public who would like to speak on this item, the floor is open. And if you're online and would like to make a comment, you're also able to do that by raising your hand. And when you're called on, you can speak as well.

I've been elected.

Please state your name for the record. I'm Julie Mackley. There's Julie. All right. Thank you.

He received my letter. I'm confused about Shelby saying that to the south of it is a mixed use. That's actually half acres. And in the square, that's actually five acre lots. And into the south, I guess that would be east. Those are all half acre lots also. And then to the west, those are all five-acre lots. So I believe Mack Canyon would be a perfect buffer to stay half acres and change. I mean, we can't do anything about the RM7. It's already there and it's already approved. The planning and zoning meeting said that we needed more parks, which... The subdivision above this that's already approved has parks. It also has commercial, which they said we needed a commercial to buffer the residents from the highway. And all of us half acre lot people are already sitting on the highway. So unless you tear down our houses, that's not going to really buffer us from that highway. Changing the general plan. I guess this is just about the general plan. So changing the general plan. to align with a subdivision. Because there's three different zones, I guess on the on the master plan, but they're not zoned that way. They're already zoned half acres. So even though it says on the master plan, this is commercial, and this is high density, they're not zoned that way. And there's already houses there. So they can't be changed. So I guess I'm asking for the master plan to stay as it's already consistent with what it's already zoned for. And I guess I'll just address the zoning on the zoning part.

Thank you. Any other comments? Is there anyone online, Alicia?

So I'm right here in the middle.

Can you state your name, please?

My name is Joseph Kempe. I live right here in that big square. And we've been talking about this for a long time. And I just am very discouraged on what's going on here. I don't know what our plan is. And a lot of people I know in my neighborhood, Julie Mackley and other neighbors, they are concerned about how we're We get a plan. You know, I bought my house after we had a plan. Everything's supposed to be half acre, so it'd be a great place to live. You know, I have a piece of land surrounded by half acre lots. And now it's, we're changing it and I'm spending, I don't know how Julie Mack is able to find as much information as she did, but she is absolutely amazing as far as trying to figure out what's going on. I was just very confused about what we're doing here. It seems like we're one way than another. I'm just not real happy with the whole way we seem to be going about things. Pick a plan, go with it. I mean, that's kind of where I've developed my life on is based upon the original plan from 10 years ago. And I don't think it's going to change, but I mean, it's just like, I shouldn't have to come to every single town council meeting and just say, no, please don't make these teeny houses. I know it makes the developers a lot more money. It helps bring houses in that are cheaper. But we end up with, you know, I drove through Daybreak a few years ago, and that is a horrible place to live. I would never want to live in any place similar to that. I'd rather live downtown New York than someplace as crowded as that is. And it seems like that's the way we're heading. Small streets, people are trapped in there. You've got to get to work. There's five people on the road, but it's a traffic jam. We don't need that kind of stuff. And that's not the way it was owned when I moved in here. And I'd like just to keep things the way they are, build half acre lots. stop changing plans so frequently. And if we want to build parks, let's buy the land from the developers and build a park. Don't have them put in something shoddy and raise the taxes for everybody that already lives in the neighborhood. Let's decide what we want to do and let's make it happen. Don't just have the developers always telling us what they want to do. Anyway, no, I'm rambling, but, uh, I'm just really confused of what's going on here. So that's all I have to say.

Thank you. Any other comments? Is there anyone online, Alicia? Okay.

Hello, Rick Marchers here.

Um, Property rights were originally designed to prevent encroachment. The people that live in an area have a right to know what's going to be next to them. That's what property rights were designed for. I know that developers have kind of turned that around and put it on its head, but that is what they were originally designed for. I know we've had a lot of discourse about the size of the lots in that specific area and what people expect. If you're going to vary from the general land use plan and go against what the people have already said that live in that area, you're braver than me. What it is next to, what's a half a mile away, what store you can walk to, RM7's over here and this and that's in the other place. That doesn't matter. The general land use plan is what stands supreme in the eye of the people. The people have put a lot of effort into that. There have been a lot of people, attended a lot of meetings to create the plan that we currently have now. So one other point. If you change the zoning, if you change the zoning and this developer decides he wants to do something else, like sell it, you're stuck with whatever you get it zoned to. So that's kind of what happened with this development over here on work. I can remember sitting in the... planning and zoning meeting and discussing the houses that were going in there on half acre lots, going over the plans. And guess what? Another developer wants to do something else. So he's trying to get the zoning changed. Well, if this zoning is changed and there's another developer, guess what? You're stuck with whatever you zone it to. So if you're going to do it, I would do it PUD. I would not change the zoning. I would do it begin with anyway. Thank you very much.

Thanks, Rick. Any other comments, Alicia?

We do have Ed Borola on the line if he wants to comment.

Ed, if you can hear me, if you'd like to speak, you're free to speak.

Well, if you're OK with it, Mayor, maybe we can wait and then meet and move on.

Yep, that'd be fine. OK. All right, so that will conclude the public hearing portion of item number five. And now we will go back to a discussion with the council. Does the council have any questions, or does the developer have anything that he would like to add?

Thank you for letting me come tonight. First of all, when we came here last time, we did come up with we are zoned half acre. The 170 units that we're asking right now is what I would get with half acre. My density isn't any more than I would get with that. The difference that the city is getting is two miles of trails. You're getting three ball fields that we're paying for. You're getting open space where the kids can play. There'll be restrictions on how the lots are taken care of. So if you look at the other lots around here, there's a lot of problems with yards not having quite the latest of even taking care of their property. So what we did is we decided we'd come up with an area thing where we would have the exact same number of lots if it was half bigger. If you tell us tonight that you don't want this, we're okay. What we were trying to do in talking to the last mayor and talking to the last city council, they said, Well, the concern with the people are density. If you want me to go half acre lots, I'll do that. The difference is you don't have any open space except what you're requiring me to do, which will be as little as I can possibly do.

If I can put a line. Do you mind holding for just a moment? Okay. Go ahead if you'd like to speak.

Ed, we can hear you. Would you like to make a comment on this item?

Well, I would like to... put my input to let you know that the lots that we have now should not be changed. The rezoning should not change. It should all be exactly like we have it now. And we would like something nicer behind our homes not condensed, but usable. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Also, when I'm talking to Joseph and the others, if you notice around the other properties that are adjacent, we have gone half acre lots anyway. So if you look at the properties and you look at everything there, we went half acre. The council asked us to do that. So around all the Kempies, that's what Joseph asked us to do. So all we're saying is, is if you want three football fields or soccer fields, if you want two miles of trails, if you want open space, this is what we're offering with no extra cost to the city. There's no more roads. There's no more traffic. There's no more need for schools. There's no more need of all the other things that people have said they're concerned about with high density. So what we did is we came up with this. Now, people are saying, well, isn't quarter acre lots going to be less money? They're going to be a little bit less money. But we were betting on the fact that because the subdivisions will be nicer, in three or four years because of the restrictions of the landscaping. On every one of these homes, the front yards have to be done as part of the development agreement. The people don't put their own development, their own front yards in. The developer does, or the home builder. And there'll be restrictions on what, in the development agreement, there'll be restrictions on exactly what we have to put in there. Again, if you'll go to Google and you'll do a search from the air and you look at the yards and where they're at right now and the way they look at today, you'll find that not any more than 35% of the lots, the front yards are really taken care of to the point where if you go further to the southeast where there's irrigation water, there's no irrigation water out here. So if you go to the southeast where there is irrigation water, people can afford to do it. But to spend culinary water on a half acre is, well, there's only five people in the whole area that have their backyards completely lawned, or 80%. Because who can afford it? So what we thought we'd do is come up with a novel idea. And if you tell us no, we're fine with that. I don't care. We just thought it would be pretty nice for the city. We'll just do half acre lots and everybody's going to be looking at what you have right now without, and we're fine with that. We'll make just as much money as if we did that. We're just trying to frankly do something that people would rather have. I'd rather have in my backyard, a place for my kids to go play than to not have anything at all. my backyard. That's not that I don't have to take care of my backyard. So that's, but when talking in the past, half acre lots next to all existing subdivisions, okay, no more traffic, no more density. And the reason why we're doing this is right now it's an eight month situation to do a PUD by the time we do it. Tonight, if you rezone this, There's a development agreement you're going to pass on in just a minute, hopefully. And if you do that, I can't, anyone that buys it after this or anything else can't do anything different than this plan. They can't change it without coming to you. They can't put any more units in unless they come to you. So I appreciate you listening to me. If you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer anything.

I know somebody mentioned storm drain management was going to be an issue, is that?

If you notice that we have probably 50% more storm area, and because it's open space, we don't have to put the deep holes in. And the areas there north of where you see the ball fields there, and down here you see the open space there north of the Kempies, those are all open spaces. And instead of being big holes, they'll be indentations. But they'll only be indentations if there's a 15, 20, 30-year storm. Then it will dry out. Everyone will go back to normal. Not the big holes.

And through phase five, the majority of that is the riverine that you can see. And so that's where the open space is. And I mean, that's where that water is going to be captured. And you can see there's five retention, detention basins on this entire project.

I know traffic was on, you already talked about it, but you're saying it's the same number. Same number. Same number of lots.

Either way, same numbers. We now have to put the road into the West, which is for us, it's about 2 million bucks. We've done that because we can, and we'll still have to do it, it's your requirement. But again, if we put, if we do it this way, I can do what I'm saying I can do. If you don't want me to do this, you'll say no tonight. And then in the next three weeks, you'll have, we have plans. And the next three weeks, you'll have half acre lot plans without parks, without, and without the open space. And I don't care. I care because I think this will sell better. I think it'll look a lot better if you look at what's out there now. So.

thank you shelby i'm sorry can you tell us again what two parks the soccer fields what else did you say what's going to be in there so there's 41 acres of open space with two acres of trails so you have um you have the three soccer fields and then you can see in these yellow areas you're going to have like tot lots and and things like that okay um and he'll have to provide us like a park layout so that we can look at and it has to be equal to the value of the park impact fees So if he comes in short, then he'll have to adjust the remaining amount and pay the park impact fees. And then I do want to point out the collector road on the west side, which is 94 feet. Paul is dedicating all of that land and building it entirely out if he is not required to. And so he could dedicate his half and then either a developer on the other side, which backslots, or the city would need to come in and finish building that up.

Literally, this is everything that in our last four years that you've said this is what you want. Everything. You wanted parks. You wanted less density. You wanted better luck in. You want to use less water. You want to do all this stuff. And this is it. Half acre lots next to the campies and next to anybody that has it, which they're going to get whether we do it or not. Whether it's a half acre or quarter acre lot.

And all the roads are 66 foot wide. Yes. Except for the bigger ones.

So we really try to give the best of everything.

The road to the west, what is that technically? That is a collector road. Is that Nygreen? No.

We, in our office, call it the road to nowhere. Okay. I'm joking. Bill and I have kind of a joke about this.

So what it does is it connects through Highlands, the Highlands Boulevard, and then it'll come down. It will eventually connect into Nygreen, but it'll go through Sun Sage Terrace, which is to the south, and then as that develops out, by like cherry wood and cherry grove.

Shelby, can you update us on planning, or Shelby or Rhett? If I missed it, I'm sorry, I looked for it. Can you just update us on planning and zoning's comments? And then maybe show us the future land map for this area, what it is right now.

Yeah, do you want to scroll to the future land use? So this did come with a positive recommendation from Planning Commission. There were concerns because there is no irrigation, how to reduce the water and how we can save water. There were comments about the traffic and they questioned, you know, if there would be increased traffic or not. But with the explanation, he's not getting any additional density. It's going to be the same amount of traffic. And I don't know if Derek or Brett was there.

Derek was there.

Yeah.

So I don't think it was, I don't think it was unanimous, right? I think it was split three, two. It was split.

I don't think it was, it wasn't unanimous. There were only three people there. One thing too, though, that got presented with the city council or planning commission was there was a clause in there that if they didn't meet, if they didn't, if they decided not to build or they didn't meet something, then the land would revert back to the half-acre zoning. I didn't see that in any of this. Was that still on there, or is that off the table now?

Well, that's because we're doing the general plan first, and the MDA will be last now.

That's in the MDA?

Well, it was asked to be removed, so we'd remove that clause. Okay. So I believe you had asked us to remove that.

I wasn't on client commission when that happened.

Well, no, but they had asked for your comment, and it wasn't a liked thing, so we removed it.

So one thing that I do have to say is, you know, it's said that it's the same, regardless if it's half acre or we rezone it, they're going to get the same amount of lots. I find that kind of hard to believe just because of the terrain of this land and the drainage and everything. So I don't think you're going to quite get the same amount of lots. I think that's why this development came this way. In theory, they could. If the land was perfect and everything, that's how many lots they could get. But I don't think with this land that you could get that many houses on this if they went to half-acre lots.

So they are providing 41 acres of open space. If they go to half acre lots, they only need to provide 11 acres of open space.

I know, but if you pull the map with all the green, that's about 11 acres is all through. The rest of it's drainage and not improved open space.

We'll just dig the holes deeper in the ravines. So instead of having it all open... Everything will just go smaller, but we can do that. I'm not upset.

You got to understand. I'm not upset at all. My wife's going to tell me tonight that I was too loud.

I'm just normally loud. I'm really okay with whatever you said. When you said what you said last time, we made the change. It's okay. Density is the same. This is everything that the council asked us to do. And like I say, we can do it. We've already drawn it out. We can do it. It's just that we're just going to dig the holes deeper. Instead of being open and nice, we'll just put a deep groove in. We can do that. That's what everyone else does. We're trying to be a little bit gentler because that's what I am. I'm gentle. I'm teasing.

I just pointing out there's 31 that leaves 30 acres that is now no longer open space that they can put homes on so I'm doing the math if we take away. All of the open space and roads and everything else that leaves 85 acres times up by 2 dwelling units breaker that still a 170 lots.

Shall we educate me on something? I just want to be educated on this. In the last few months, we've relied pretty heavily on this general plan. The general plan, if this area is zoned half acre lots, why wouldn't our general plan have this as half acre lots? Why wouldn't our general plan match the zoning? It does.

So if you actually look to the north, if you want to pull that map to the east north, the map that you're on, just pull it to the east. Anyways.

This area here, I can ask you the same question. Why did you guys stop planning over here? Or why did you guys stop planning over here and down here? Because it's half a trip once.

Because 10 years ago, we probably weren't thinking that far, which is why a general plan needs to be redone every 10 years or less. So, yeah, I think, I mean, this is kind of, I appreciate Councilman Williams addressing this because it is, you know, the will of the people is what was 10 years ago. And that will has changed. in certain areas, but I think those, those that have lived in those areas, they understood it to be, that's what it's going to be. So I think that's, that's, I think where you were going, Jeff, maybe, maybe not. Right.

But I, sorry, you know, you were right. Council member Thomas, go down to the yellow one. There you go. So you can see like, This is behind where we're lacking planning, but you can see to the north of it, we wanted high density. And then right behind the high density, we wanted all that to be commercial. But then we have our purple where we wanted it to be mixed use. And so the future land use map and the general plan, they don't match anymore because they've been amended and they don't match the zoning map. And you'll see that there are discrepancies because We haven't done a general plan amendment in so long.

I would actually argue with you to the north. We didn't necessarily want that to be high density. It was just made high density. Was it made high density to the Walmart? Well, yes. And so was the lot to the north of it. So, I mean, that was all things that happened 25 years ago. So the reason why this... zoned, right?

Yeah, zoned RM7. Yeah, not you guys necessarily, but the community or whoever did this.

I think I can understand the flow of you got the commercial to the higher density and then to the low density and what they were trying to do from Main Street, moving from east to west, but it still doesn't change the fact that the developer who owns the property, correct? You own the property. Yes. You bought it as half acre.

We bought it as half acre.

Yeah.

It's our 121. We just thought this was a better way of doing it. It very well may be.

Thank you, that helps. I just wanted to make sure I understood. So this is a new area. In the general plan, there's actually three designations that it flows. Right. Now, albeit, there's an ever so small portion of it That is commercial, right? Or mixed use?

So the purple's mixed use? Yep. And then the red up to the north was all commercial. That's been now amended to mixed use for the Deseret PUD.

Well, that's not a PUD. That's an overlay.

An overlay, yeah.

And this layout has a gas station in commercial areas that meet that criteria, essentially, as it was designed.

Correct.

I think the heartburn I have with this, and it has to do with decisions that we've made in the recent past with really the development to the south of it. We've seen iterations of that come before us in the past. And we somewhat told the line of half acre. And this is just directly to the north of it. It's sown half acre as well. And that's just my thought. I think we need to be careful.

I guess my question in discussion is what's the benefit of leaving a half acre? Just saying, yep, it's half acre. That's what we said it has to be as opposed to this, but we're saying we get some parts, same density. So I'm just trying to say, what's the benefit of saying you have to stay half acre because that's what our general plan is, as opposed to we're getting more open space, we're getting parks. What's the benefit to the city? I mean, or to even people in the community. I mean, I was concerned, too, about traffic and all of that. But when you're telling me it's the same, same amount of lots, they're going to do a road, they're going to do parks. I mean, it does sound like a nicer community than just, hey, half acre. So I guess my question, I mean, just as a discussion, what's the benefit of saying stay half acre?

Well, it's the precedence too, because there's a property that's joining this that wanted higher density that we turned, or you guys, I wasn't on there yet, but I was on planning and zoning, that you guys denied it and kept it at half acres.

And I guess why? Were they not doing something that they wanted to do? I mean, I think we can't say like, oh, we're going to have a bad precedent. I mean, to me, this looks good. I mean, I'm just like, maybe I need feedback from the planning and people who've been there. So like, what is the problem with saying, yeah, we like this as opposed to no, no, just go straight half acre.

I mean, from my perspective, one of the thoughts is we have plenty of it. We have plenty of higher density directly to the north.

I mean, I guess what about the parks and the roads, all the benefits that we're getting with this?

We'll have parks and we'll have open space. And they'll pay fees that will be able to develop the acreage that they'll be giving us, which will be 10 acres, which is half as big as the city park is right now, to put that into perspective. I mean, he is proposing... 41, you said, acres? Now, granted, much of that is ravines, right? And open space that we can certainly leverage for nice walking areas and parks. And that may benefit the individuals in that community and the community as a whole. 41 acres is a lot. That's a lot of space. But it's also a lot of space to take care of, too.

Right. And that's what we're saying. There's not a lot of irrigation over there.

And I mean... It may just stay kind of the way it is right now to a certain extent that 41 acres, I would imagine. But the ravines in there. We would that be a concern from parks and rec Christie and how we take care of that. Would that be a liability to even Have that Just as dry grounds next to home. Well, I mean, he is going to develop it somewhat with

too right that creates a yeah there would be maintenance on that absolutely what rattlesnake so the other piece that we kept half acre lots just i was here so i'll just come off main street there was townhomes as you worked up towards the mountain and then this might not, I'll call it third acre lots. And then it flowed into half an acre lot or quarter acre and then half an acre. But as you got up there, it was our bench. It was beautiful. It overlooked the valley. And so our thinking was, my thinking was, is you didn't want to go town homes, third acre, quarter acre, half back to town homes. on on our bench it should have been beautiful homes overlooking this valley and so that's that that's neither here nor there for this really i mean that was a different piece of property although i think this kind of but it relates kind of works up right to our bench absolutely and so it's i mean it's a it's a you asked i'm trying to just get a perspective i appreciate it because i wasn't of kind of what we were what I was seeing sorry at when that decision was made so.

Yeah, I think I have the same you know I've seen concern really deviating from The design, yeah, it would be a net of 30 additional acres of open space, which I think would really benefit the feel of that area in some settings. I do share the concern with the water and having to maintain those larger ones, but I don't have the concern of going against the precedent of what we've what we've established that area to be. And I do appreciate that you've put time in and gone through this design and your approach. I do appreciate that. And we want these areas to be one of the things that we've tasked our planner with is to have area walking areas within an interconnectivity between your space and hopefully the ones next to you. it would be nice to be able to go across that entire bench up there on a trail system from one place to another. That is, that is the desire that I would like to, to see those, those areas. Cause I know we've had a lot of residents, uh, mentioned that that is something that, um, that they would desire that they would use. So, so yeah, there's, there's kind of these, you know, things that you fight with. Um, but I, getting outside of what it was originally designed to be. I have to respect that those citizens years ago came in and said, hey, this is kind of how we envisioned this area. And I do know that we do need to go back and I'm sure this is going to even further stem the desire to go back and reevaluate our master plan.

Because there's probably areas that on the east side that aren't even in there either.

And we have plans for what's going to happen on the east side too. And we want to make sure that we approach it in the right fashion. So we plan smart. But yeah, I'm kind of rambling here, but I would like to see some interconnectivity. If we're going to lose that in going to halves, then in my opinion, we lose it. My perspective.

Anybody else have any comments. Discussion points.

I'd like I'd like to make a motion that we deny ordinance 2026 as 22. As stated on the agenda.

Okay, we have a motion by Council Member Butler to deny this ordinance. Is there a second?

I'll second.

A second by Council Member Dalton. All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed?

Nay. I'm not opposed. Okay.

Let's do a roll call. Council Member Butler? Nay. Thomas?

Nay.

Dalton?

Nay.

Skinner?

Nay.

Williams, yeah. Thank you.

We need to do 6 and 7.

Yeah, how does that work. I don't think 6 and 7 then.

We don't really don't you don't need to do it.

OK people.

Can we make a motion we table ordinance 2026 dash 23 state on the agenda.

OK, we have a motion that is there a second sorry what we're tabling.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Or like later?

No, they're just not necessary now, right? I just think we should deny it, personally. I'd like to make a motion. Do we deny Ordinance 2026-23?

Okay, we have a motion by Councilmember Butler to deny 2026-23. Is there a second? Second. A second by Councilmember Dalton. All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed? Nay. Do you need us to do a roll call, Alicia, on that, or you've got Yeah. Okay. Okay. Council member Butler. Yay. Thomas. Yay. Dalton.

Yeah.

Skinner.

Nay.

Williams. Yay.

Okay.

Make a motion we deny Ordinance 2026-24, approving the MDA for the Mack Canyon subdivision.

Okay, we have a motion to deny Ordinance 2026-24 by Councilmember Butler. Is there a second?

I'll second.

A second by Councilmember Dalton. All in favor?

Aye. Aye.

All opposed?

Nay.

Roll call. Councilmember Butler?

Nay.

Thomas?

Nay.

Dalton? Nay. Skinner?

Nay.

And Williams. Okay, item number eight. This is also a public hearing item. So we will have an opportunity for comment. But first, we will have a presentation by Shelby Moore, Planning and Zoning Administrator. So this item is a consideration of Ordinance 2026-25, amending Section 4.5 of the Grantsville Land Use Management Code regarding lot standards and street frontage, amending the applicability of the lot proportion requirement.

Hi. So if we go through this, it said that a lot can't be three times longer than it is wide for a half acre or less. But if you do the math... That's 14,700 square feet. And well, a half acre is 21,780 square feet. So to correct it, we reduced it. I believe I proposed with 14,000 square feet or less plot. So essentially R1-12 or less would need to maintain the 70 by 210 that it could be.

Makes sense. Sounds like we're just correcting it to make it actually work.

Okay. So at this point we need to have a public hearing, correct? Yes.

Unless you guys had questions.

Okay. Do you have any questions for Shelby before she sits down? Planning commission met on this and approved it or sent it to us for approval with positive recommendation. Not yesterday, but it was a few, few meetings ago. Perfect.

Thank you.

So this is a public hearing item. If there's any members of the public who are either in person or on Zoom that would like to comment, the floor is open. Is there anyone online? Yes. OK. Go ahead, Rick.

Hello, Rick Burgers again. I see the dilemma. That confusing word, minimum width of 70 feet, another approach would be to simply expand the minimum width so that that word minimum isn't so confusing to a developer. But it really doesn't matter that much to me. That's up for you guys to decide, not me. I would suggest that you take the last part off where it says... what's acceptable access. In other words, it must be off of a public or private street or whatever the Planning Commission deems acceptable. I would take that part off. I mean, here's the problem. Councilmember Dalton and Butler were both in the meetings and we talked about and participated in why acceptable access must be a public or private street. I believe that it was Councilman Williams that asked if a project that had townhomes on it in President's Park recently that was presented, if it could be built as it was presented and follow code. Well, it couldn't be. The developer said, yes, it could be built, but it couldn't be because It didn't have public or private street to access all of those town homes if they're divided into lots. Definition of a lot, if you look it up in the definitions, unless it's changed in the last five months, definition of a lot says it includes any way that it must affront a public or private street, right? So the part in there where it says, you know, essentially allows access to be determined acceptable by the planning commission is kind of contradictory to our definition of what a lot is. We're not trying to be like everyone else and a minimum width if it's confusing because it looks like somewhere it doesn't look the same as some other town. Well, hopefully Grantsville doesn't look like some other town to people driving through. And I would assume that it stayed that way. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Rick. Any other comments? Online, Felicia? No? Okay. We'll close the public hearing and continue with the discussion with the council.

Hasn't been there to just walk me through the processes that I need. Three of my children have moved out here. All adult children. We all have relocated here.

Actually, we've got it down a lot. I mean, I know 84 was our max. We were hoping never to get that.

But now we're at 5%, which is a lot more boring of a news article. Why are we not saying in here the 5% amount?

So it'll be in the... What's that?

I said because it's in the budget. I mean, if we approve the interim budget, it's as per 5%. She's got that all spelled out in there.

I just want the public to know it's 5%, not 84%.

To be sure, you guys actually never approved a budget that had the 84% increase in it. We talked about it, and I said 84%, and that was what our property tax impact schedule reflected, but you guys have yet to actually adopt or adopt a budget that includes a tax increase, so you guys actually have never adopted a budget that included an 84% increase. So just to clarify for yourselves and the public, like no one on city council approved a budget that had the 84% increase in it.

It was just proposed. Yes. And we slaughtered it.

I mean, you know, we're down 79%. So, yeah. So that's what's being proposed tonight would be approval of attendance budget that includes a 5%.

Our police are driving three-wheeled vehicles right now. So, whatever we got to do. No, I appreciate all departments and their approach to this. And I said this before, I'll say it again. As they've looked through this to try to find areas, I do agree with what was shared. by some of our residents tonight is looking internally, how do we look at our, you know, how do we look within and find areas, you know, sometimes technology costs money, you know, how can we find more ways to be efficient? And I appreciate our departments as they looked into areas to find ways to help us, you know, lessen the burden. I think our, you know, it could be a double-edged sword. As you look for ways to lessen the burden, sometimes it creates more of a burden on our employees. And so I appreciate the comment that was given tonight regarding our employees. They are important. And, you know, my first thought on the study was to, you know, I didn't feel like I felt it was a waste of time. of money, uh, when a market can kind of dictate what, when a market dictates what those, you know, what those positions can, can be. Obviously a person wouldn't take that position if the market wasn't good for them. Right. And so, um, but I don't know, I, my feelings changed a little bit on that to see things. I do feel like maybe we do need to, you know, um, would someone prove $30,000 more to have a study that indicates where our individuals should be? So I'm a little open on that more maybe than I was closed at the start, or if we could find maybe a better avenue or different source or a cost to review that. But I'm speaking in a circle here. I do, yeah, I just want our employees to know they're appreciated. I think they do get some great benefits. I know municipalities give them more benefits than we probably do in the private sector. And so not as many holidays. And so there are some things that can come with that. But I do hope they know they're appreciated. I do appreciate that we put in the... cola increase because i do think from a from a percentage of inflation from year to year you have you have that it's not a raise it's a cost of living and so um i appreciate that being put in um yeah and i think we've talked to numbers i don't have any more questions regarding the budget i don't so thank you

Any other questions or comments? Is there someone that would like to make a motion?

Could I just just partly off of what he just said? In regards to the study or a study or budgeting for a study, we could insert that back in here tonight if we wanted to, correct? And just keep it at 5% and pull that potentially from the fund balance. That's right. Yeah. Where would that, I can't, I mean, where would that go on this?

It would probably go in the general government account under professional services. It would be a professional service to have this study. Yeah.

So what's the benefit of that? Because if we get the study and it comes back and it's like, you are overpaying people, then are we going to say, okay, well, we just got the study. Are we going to go slash?

people's pay because the studies came in too high or is it or vice versa yeah yeah because we have no way of increasing the salaries if if it does come back that they're i also see i mean there's just been a lot of talk about what our employees make compared to other people so it would be nice to actually have a third party instead of yeah you know but it is public information and you can get public information if you're getting it from the right sources right the problem is sometimes they show benefits and stuff in there so like their hourly wages like it's not really like what you're making per hour. It shows like the benefits you're getting, you know, over your time you're there. So it may be inflated.

And you can, you could see what other cities are doing as well. But like I said, the market, the market is usually what draws that. Like if we're not offering a wage, someone's not going to take that position. Someone is not going to take a, you know, accounting role without the proper experience that I'm going to be able to, you know, if we don't have that set at a rate where it should be.

So it's helpful to have a starting point. We've never done one at all.

Which was Heidi's point.

Yes.

well, maybe we should just go with what we have right here. We can always go back and amend. I mean, if someone wants to maybe take the task of maybe looking at maybe a little bit different approach to that and seeing if we can get something for a little bit less and maybe down the road we can adjust it. So I think I'm open to that. I don't know if anyone else is, but I would be.

The cost was really the sticker for me. And we go through, you know, usually on those, those studies we've been fortunate to get them for free you know from a grant setting and some of the other approaches that we've taken on with this traffic study or you know we've been able to not have to burden that on the taxpayers we were able to get it to free in a grant setting and so that's why maybe that one yeah we can look for sure potentially

You want to say something, Jeff? No.

Okay. I just, just some Jake said, I think in any business, your employees are your highest, your employees are your highest expense, right? I'm not thinking of the right word and it should be that way. I don't know of any business that is not as good as their employees. And we've got some great ones. We've added some great ones. Every department did a great job. We have for months gone through this. So I would thank our employees. I would thank our staff. And I appreciate the work that's been done on the budget. So that's it. I can't make the motion, though, because I'm adding 5%.

Well, if you won't make the motion, I will. Go for it. Mayor, I move to approve Resolution 2026-37, declaring intent to consider an increase in property tax revenue above the certified tax rate for the fiscal year 2027, publishing a property tax impact disclosure, adopting the fiscal year 2027 tentative budget to serve on an interim basis, and establishing the date, time, and place of the truth and taxation public hearing as August 5th, 2026 at 7 p.m. at Grantsville City Hall located at 429 East Main Street, Grantsville, Utah, as well as virtually via Zoom.

Okay, we have them motion by councilmember Butler is there a second. A second by councilmember Skinner all in favor.

Oh absolutely yeah, okay so item number 10 is the presentation of the property tax impact schedule.

So every time we discuss budget with the truth and taxation process, we do have to address our property tax and tax schedule. We have printouts here at every meeting as well for citizens to pick up as they attend. It's also available on our website. Just one of the main pages as well as on the finance page. But it just states that Grantsville City is considering an increase to the property tax rate from 0.001368 to 0.001368. which exceeds the estimated certified tax rate and is estimated to generate an additional $104,149 in property tax revenue. So you'll see the breakdown of the current property tax rate of 0.001368, which generates approximately $2,082,977. The increase would take us to $2,187,126, which is $104,149 of additional property tax revenue for Grantsville City at the new property tax rate, which is proposed to be 0.001436, which is a 5% increase rate. And then it breaks it down for that cost that we discussed earlier. So yeah, there's that. I just have to present it. So the next item.

Number 12 is a presentation of the annual fraud risk assessment.

Fraud.

Okay. So this is something that we're required by the state of Utah to complete every year. It's a progress assessment. It's basically just an assessment on risks that we may have for fraud to occur here at Grantsville City. Ultimately, you want a high score, which means you have low risk. So Um, we did, um, we came in at above 355, which means that we're considered very low risk level, which is great. Um, the only thing that we didn't receive points on was having a, in a formal internal audit function, which we do not have, we don't have the staff for an internal auditor. So we don't have a formal internal audit. But that's the only thing that we didn't receive points for. So overall, I think we're in pretty good shape. And then just, it is like a self-assessment, but it is reviewed by our external auditors every year as well, just to verify. So, but I do just have to present it for you guys. So this was for fiscal year 2026.

So to get a perfect score on this, we'd have to increase taxes.

And yeah, have an internal auditor. Yeah.

This goes through just ensuring like we have an employee that's taking funds and putting them into the system. We're having two, sorry, go ahead. I was just gonna say, no, elaborate, maybe just a little bit on this, because I think this is important to ensure that we have, as we grow as a city, that we make sure our policies, we have policies in place that protect us especially on this level with finances.

And one of the question part two of the assessment is specifically about policies and ensuring that we have the necessary policies in place to ensure we have processes for conflict of interest, procurement, ethical behavior, travel, credit card purchasing, as well as IT and computer security. And then, of course, cash receipting and deposits. which is where that separation of duties comes into play, which is a large portion of the points received on here. It's worth 200 points of the fraud risk assessment. And so it is a major portion, but it is ensuring that we have separate people performing the tasks so that someone's work is always checked as far as the transactions go. So the person taking the money is not the person that's preparing the deposit and then On top of that, the person that is doing the transfers for the deposit is not the person that does the bank rec at the end of the month. So at any point in time, if something were to occur of like, oh, this transaction, like, what was that for or whatever, it would be questioned by someone that was not the person doing the transaction. So it's also, it goes as far as ensuring that our credit cards are, like our credit card statements that some of the staff has are audited And we do have Olivia in our office does the credit card reconciliations each month. So she's reviewing the receipts and the purchases for everyone's department credit card to ensure that the purchases are legitimate and aren't going to something they shouldn't. And then it's also ensuring that the payroll process is conducted appropriately. So that way there's no additional pay being distributed to employees that's a little extra on top or anything like that. So we have someone that prepares it, someone that authorizes it to then be put out, and then someone that reviews it afterwards.

Did you, by chance, look at previous years and see if we improved our score at all, or have we held pretty steady at this number?

I didn't go back very far. I did look at last year's, and we're the same. as we were last year. So we've maintained, which is good, but I didn't go further back than that, but we definitely could. And it's also on the Transcurrency website, but yeah. We've at least maintained since last year. We haven't gone down.

Thank you.

Aspen, just a real quick question too. Number nine, it says, does the entity have a formal audit committee? Who is our audit committee?

yeah we do actually have an audit committee um councilman williams is on it as well as um hold on i have a list because i did because that was one thing that i was verifying to make sure that we did actually have these things let's see um yeah so the audit committee um let's see hold on i have the resolution it was resolution 2024-69 and it was The audit committee is composed of Mayor, Councilmember Williams, and myself. So that's the audit committee. And then there is an option as an alternate that Michael could actually designate an additional member of the audit committee if he was to choose to do so. He hasn't done that at this time, but that is an option that he could designate an additional person, whether that be someone from the public or

We have an external audit once every year.

Okay. Any other questions for Aspen on the fraud risk assessment? Thank you, Aspen. Okay, item number 12, discussion of proper usage of city property in regard to political signage.

So I'll kind of start this out, and I think

What you're saying on that is this all city properties are just property in front of the city.

All the requests have just been here in the city hall, but it would probably encompass all city properties.

So including park strips. So that rules orders and wait, I just can't be limited.

And so I was going to say we're not able to stay co gentlemen political signage in the park strips. to put a limitation on that there. Anytime we're talking about limitations to speech, we have to talk about whether there's any content that's being specifically limited.

And so the question is, do we want to limit at all any signage?

The state code states that if we allow any political signage on student property, with allowing political signage at all is it may give the appearance of an endorsement from the city, which is something that we would not want to do. Typically city funds aren't, they would prefer to remain neutral in their stance as to a political race. So that's sort of what we wanted to discuss today is particularly the city hall where we've had political signage. It wouldn't be permanent signage, but where people want to do a typical political sign for their campaign.

People have asked, can you put up a sign? If we allow one, we must allow all.

If there is an important governmental interest that is promoted by prohibiting all political signs and we don't have any any limitation that's on the content of the sign other than we don't want signs here. We want to limit the signage on City Hall to be specifically to promote city events. I think that's probably the safest step to limit any sort of signage that may clutter up what City Hall is intended to be. City is promoting that are seeing sponsored events. If we'd like to get a little bit more specific to political signage, we can simply put a ban on all political signage at City Hall so long as it in political races, we don't want to appear as though we've chosen a side in a political race, then that would also be an important governmental interest as well. So we just wanted to have a discussion today whether we should adopt any sort of policy going into the future. There's no action to be taken, just a discussion about how council feels about this particular topic. I'm happy to answer any questions.

You're asking me how I feel about signage? That one's a bad one. Take them all down, all of them.

My question is, like, if we open it to political signage, then do we have to open it for other things too, other events, other people? I'm afraid if we say, yeah, we can do, I guess we could say only political signs. I'm kind of, I think that we should keep it to city events only for the city hall. I think it could become a clutter of everybody. Yeah. Again, and then we may open ourselves up to other people wanting other events, other things, other signage put up there.

Well, that's something that's requested all the time, actually. And that's what I'm afraid of. That's the issue.

I'm afraid we're opening the door. So you think of exports, things that are not city-sponsored.

If it's a city-sponsored event, I'm sure.

But if there are other things going on, other organizations that are not related to the city... council member skinner said if we are to allow some of these organizations that um generally they're you know the the content of the sign is one of the city favors this is a ban not on content it's a general ban on signage in general so it doesn't matter how well good or or virtuous the the content may be we would still be prohibiting it

So in terms of, my mind's going to the sociable. Yes. And so if we were just to allow city events and the sociable, that could be misconstrued as well because it's not really a city-sponsored event, albeit we help. So could that be considered sponsored?

Yes. If we do put in money, that could be city-sponsored. That's good. If we donate, we could be considered a sponsor.

Yeah.

And mine is not to the content. I mean, I think it's nice to know all these things. I'm just afraid you're going to get, the city hall is going to be full of signs.

Yeah.

If you allow one, you have to allow all of them.

If you want to stay neutral. Especially politically, if you want to stay neutral.

Yeah, I agree. There's enough park strips in this town to put up your signs. And they get full. Well, then they stay there.

I'm sorry if my comment came off.

Once I know. Governor Cox still has a sign up on the corner. He's been there for two years. He still has enough signs. I don't think we need signs in City Hall or political signs.

Can we make an ordinance that charges a fee if people don't take them down? Generate some revenue.

That's right.

Maybe $100,000 or so.

Yeah.

I'm just kidding. Probably lose that in enforcement. Probably.

Okay.

So will we adopt an official stance or an official ordinance or what's your proposal?

So we would bring forth some council action at a later date to pass to have further discussion and at that point we would establish an official policy. Right now we sort of have An idea as to whether if you were to get a request for this type of thing, you would know kind of what direction to guide that individual.

So what if like a candidate's running and they're doing a meet and greet at like the library and they want to post one of their signs during that event? Is that going to prohibit something like that?

That's a good question.

Yeah. Well, I think it's the signage. So you're talking to me like they have a folding table.

Yes, because we do that for every, yeah, yeah. I think that would be different than actually.

We did, we did. We had it out front, which I was shocked.

Yeah, when we had it.

When I walked up, I was like, what's science doing in front of it? I thought we should be neutral, but anyways. And maybe we could have something in there where it's, for a period of no more than 24 hours if they're having an event.

Or if they're attending, if they're there, if they're in person with a sign. You know what I'm saying? I think that we don't want people just leaving signs. But if you have an event, I think we could clarify in our ordinance to say, to specify.

And it wouldn't limit picketing, right? So if someone's holding a sign. Sure, yeah. That's what I'm saying.

If somebody's in person with a sign standing there, it would be, I don't think we can.

Holding a sign is different than placing one into the ground and mounting it there and walking away than someone else has to do with the sign.

So on the day of an election, a particular hopeful elected individual could stand out in front on the sidewalk and hold up their sign is what you're saying. And they could do that.

There will probably be some instruction as to where a reasonable place to do that within the city property would be. So they're not obstructing traffic, not being a distraction to people that are coming into the building and And taking away from the free and open access to the public facility. But yeah, certainly on public property, someone can stand with a sign and express themselves. Absolutely.

As long as it's 100 Okay.

Anything else anyone wants to add on that before we Close that? Nope. Okay. The next item is a closed session. If we could get a motion.

We need to talk about July.

Oh, okay. While we're here, yes. We do need to discuss the July council meeting.

July 1st was something we had some time.

On July 1st, we have city-sponsored 4th of July activities.

Well, every night that week. Because we're doing something every night.

We are. We're doing something every night that week and a couple of nights the week before.

Can you remind me what's on the first?

It's the flag football. So we'll be serving hot dogs and

That kind of stuff. And just cancel the meeting?

Just cancel the meeting and just double up on the third, which would be the 17th.

Yeah, I was going to say, we can't move it to the 8th. No, the following week is a problem as well.

It's the moratorium.

It's the moratorium, yes. We could actually move it to the end of June, as long as we have one council meeting per month. So the second of July would be the one. You're thinking we could go the 17th and the 24th?

No, it'd be the 15th. Are you looking at June?

June 17th.

Oh.

And then like June 24th.

I think I'm kind of with with uh Jeff if there's I mean unless we have just we know we have tons of stuff I mean this we have a big commitment for the council the following week or even that week starting on the 25th is the first event of the 4th of July and that flyer will be um hopefully live tomorrow in the signups so We have events every. Yeah.

So in July, we would just have the 15th then.

And then if it got bad, I mean, if we needed to, if we needed to adjust things, we could always do one on the 29th. Exactly. And I think we could have some flexibility there on the back end of July rather than on the.

On the end of June. You just shut the doors and we're not going to do this baby.

Hey, good enough.

I like that idea. 29th can be a flex. It could be a flex if we need it. So do it on the 15th.

Cancel the first. If we need to, we'll add on the 29th.

As far as the 4th of July, we'll be sending out sign-up sheets for volunteering to serve hot dogs soon.

That's on the Wednesday night.

Oh, no.

Hot dogs every day? Every day. 8,000 hot dogs.

8,000 hot dogs.

My first year, I did not understand the magnitude of a hot dog. I did not understand a hot dog. A hot dog is an every night thing. Jif? Jif is a master chef. I had to make up for the first year.

Okay, now I have to go to the hot dog. So I will be at every hot dog service.

We had a system going.

Yes. It is a great, I feel like it's a great way to connect with the community and to just be. That's great. be there, and anyway. They're pretty good free hot dogs. It's, you know, it's by the fifth night in a row that they became hot dogs.

You do have to have your food knowledge permit if you are planning on serving hot dogs. They're good for three years. Jake has taken his, Brett has his so if the three of you knew it and they are yes yet if they're at least you can send us yeah i did send it the other day you did i thought i did mine too but maybe it didn't i probably messed something up i probably just didn't understand the magnitude of the hot so it doesn't show me because i set a world record were they safe though the compliments were off the charts

Yeah, we actually only need one person there. Yes.

One person that has the food. That's, that's actually how I did it last year because he cooked them. And I think I just distributed them was the

I have a permit. I just got to check the date if it's still good.

If not, I'll log in and take it. Is there anybody that has any suggestions after doing it last year? Do you have any suggestions of how to make that any better of a process?

Buy cheaper mustard.

Hot dogs, hot dogs. I mean, just go to them.

Was it like slow last year? Were people waiting like a long time?

No, no. It just depends on the activity.

I'm weird with hot dogs. I'm not going to lie. Like just hot dog with mustard and mayonnaise is not much at all.

Yeah.

Yeah, we got to do something.

Okay, no decisions allowed on the hot dogs. If you have any suggestions or comments, let me know.

Mayor, I make a motion to go into a closed session.

Okay.

I'll second the motion.

Okay, we are in a closed session.

No, again, just one second.

We're not, okay.

We announced the purpose.

Yes, I will.

Would you like me to announce the purpose?

Negotiation and litigation.

Okay. I make a motion we're going to close session for negotiations and litigation. I'll second the motion.