City Council - Regular Meeting

they have chosen to do through the years and well May 15th is the overall date that all the lines will be charged. So yeah, that's just around here late and that's when it is. Yeah. Is it is it useful for us to do um another PSA like we did before? I mean I know we're not in extreme but it's still not great. Yeah. So I mean I think that worked last time. Yeah, just us encouraging folks to conserve. Do you guys want to do a collective one like we did before? All of us. I mean, I know who doesn't want to do one

collectively. Rest of us. I'm just saying if there's a message from or do you want just this just a message on behalf of the mayor and council to go on the Facebook? I mean depending when I mean we have to put the car before the horse but we do have the potential for that water-wise ordinance that we could pass that might be a good way to say we pass this as a city we did our part kind of thing like what you guys are doing as well

the one thing I think I'm going to mention hopefully we're not in the same situation next year but if we are we're going to be in higher situation. So I think I think we start educating our public rest now because then next year there'll be even harsher measures on everyone. Well, I felt like you know we did a great job last time really did and you know approved to be successful. So I think maybe just a reminder would probably be more more of approach now as well as announcement of the whatever we do tonight

to to Mike's point the St. George to the ULCT conference, every city caucus went through the same water class with Brian Steve. Um, and to to Mike's point, this year, next year is going to be really bad if we don't get anymore. So, depends on how quick we can charge the dates out late. No, I'm being a smart out. Sorry. Okay. Yeah. Any any So that's good. Mike I got Did you have anything? That was just the water.

Okay. Water reports.

Yep. I'll have some announcements um about CTC. Just some different things that are happening. Um one is we're doing a snack drive for the summer school programs that we're that we support in Leighton. Um, it's actually for all of the Davis CTC's, but we have three sites here in Leighton. And so we're collecting snacks from the public, anybody who wants to donate, and they are in the parks and rec. So we have a bin there that we'll be collecting just through the month of May. Um, and then there's a parent survey, I think I mentioned early last month. That survey is now out. Um, I think it's posted on socials. There's a QR code and I'm trying to think if there's a link, but I asked for them to create a small link and maybe put that on the website so we can get some parent information. Um, I think that's it for now. The prevention conference is coming up. That will be in June. That's in Bryce Canyon. Um, so that will be happening June 10th through the 12th. Okay. Well, that's our reports unless you guys want to chime in.

Um, let's go ahead then move on to item number three, which is uh the tenative budget. I know Tracy, I'll turn the time over to you to kind of go through that.

So, I'll go over this in the regular council meeting just so it's on the public record as well, but just a summary of what we've been working on since December. um the general fund budget just over 49.8 8 million. That's about a 2.7% increase from the prior year. Um most of that I would say is cost of living, merit, market adjustments in personnel. Uh there's a few other minor things there. Projects actually decreased that are being paid for by the general fund. Although overall projects increased quite a bit and that most of that's utilities and so forth. You can see down a few lines, 26 million in capital projects, which is utilities. There's about 5 million in streets projects for Angel. And then an East uh I think it's East Gentile project, both being paid for some money coming in from Davis County Prop One and Davis uh Davis County CO. And so, you know, those two add into that a significant amount. We're anticipating that if sales tax just continues along the way that it is in this current year that it'll be up slightly, maybe two to 3%. And so that'll help us cover some of the the additional costs. Capital equipment up a little bit, 3.3 million this year. So that's that's probably one of the bigger capital equipment budgets that I've seen in a while. Some of that's related to our partial funding of the fire ladder truck. It's a pretty big expense about 600,000 three years in a row. So 1.6 to 1.8 million somewhere right in there. Uh we got parks projects that are city and ramp funded. I already mentioned streets and utilities. So that's kind of the summary of what's out there. If we'd like to look at that graphically, we can

see that on the revenue side, the charges for services. I mean, the reason that's a big percent is the utility side, right? You got the water, sewer, storm, street light, refues. Those all add into that. So, it makes the sales tax and property tax look like a smaller portion of the pie. A couple of slides down, I'll I'll show you a different one. If we look at how that's divided up citywide, you've got compensation at 44%, operations at 30%, keep in mind in this uh piece of the pie, you've got Wasatch Integrated that we pay and North Davis Sewward that we pay a large amount of money to process that. You have Waste Management that we pay and we have Weber Basin Water that we pay. And all of those are multi-million dollar bills that we pay to those other entities to process all of that uh waste and so forth. So, you know, it's not that we're spending 30% of the budget on salt and sand and parts for our vehicles, right? It's mostly outside contracts. If we look at it from the general fund side, then you've got sales tax at 55.5, property tax at 21.9, and then our uh energy, municipal energy that makes up 11.2. That's gas and electric. The tax on those, those are the three big players in our general fund revenue. And on the expense side, you can see that public safety makes up about 49%. If we had EMS in here, you know, the ambulance side of it, it would make up even more of where our general our general fund dollars go 49% of it is police and fire. Uh you do have the general fund side of public works which means anything that's not utility related. So street shop and 25% of

engineering is paid for with general funds. CD parks and wreck pretty much all paid for with general funds. And then you have your administrative areas as well. So that's where our general fund dollars go. As a reminder, in this budget, um there's a $3 increase that's been put in here on the sewer side, raising that up to, sorry, I can't find my mouse, total of 40. And then next year, North Davis Sewer has programmed in another, you know, the second of their increases. They had one in the current fiscal year and then they skipped a year and then they'll come back in 2028. So after that 3 years of rate increases between us and them and we'll end up at about 43 a little over $43 a month on sewer. Um that's I didn't put in the slide that shows where we compare with others but that's still nowhere near the top. It probably puts us more in the middle of the range as far as Weber Davis Salt Lake County if we compare all the entities that charge for sewer across those counties. And then refuse also there's a proposed rate increase uh $2.35 on the first can $1.75 on the second and 50 cents on recycling. uh note that Wasatch Integrated like the mayor mentioned they're in the process of evaluating their budget and part of that already went into effect on January 1st and so some of our side of the increase had to make up for this last 6 months when we put their rate into effect January 1st but we didn't increase our rate to the citizens so that's been eating at our reserve in the refuge fund a little bit uh we had enough in that fund to cover that so it

wasn't wasn't an issue, but that's a dollar of the 235 was just passed on to us. And then it it's been a number of years since we increased due to our waste management increases. Every year we get a CPI increase from them. That's, you know, sometimes on the low end, but the last few years because of inflation in the market in general, it's been a little bit higher, you know, four or 5%. And we've been absorbing that. And so now we need to catch back up and then I would anticipate that it'll be a few years that we'll be able to float this rate until we can until we have to do another increase. That would also depend on what was integrated decides to do. You know, if they decide to do like annual increases over the next few years, then we'll have to pass those on.

Any fuel search charge from waste management? um currently fuel search energy. I don't that they may end up with one just because of what's happened the last few months, right? They haven't said anything to me about it yet,

right? So hopefully this will cover that for a while and maybe that'll calm down and and we'll be good. But with the reserve that we have in this fund and then this rate increase, we'll we'll be good for a little while. So, and that is basically my short presentation summarized of there haven't been any any major changes since our all day budget meeting. I mean, a few little minor tweaks here and there to it, but nothing, you know, nothing that would really draw attention to anything. So, uh, can you go back to the sewer one fast? The sewer. Sure. I just wanted to make sure I sew.

I understood. Um, so our $3 rate increase, so when it says uh Leighton City, oh, sorry, there we go. 8%, but that's 8% of the total rate including North Davis. So our rate increase is actually what, like closer to like 18 20%. Ours is a little less than what it says there, right? So we're our cuz we're the one raising it this year. They're raising it next year and we have a small increase, but we're going from um 13 to 16, right? Okay.

So, our our rate is actually our percentage increase actually higher than 80%. Our personal rate. That's true. Yeah, you're right. I just wanted to make sure I was reading it correctly. Yeah. This is of the overall rate, our side of it, if we looked at it that way, would be more than that. Yes. Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Okay. Okay. All right. Great.

Thank you, Tracy. Appreciate that. Okay. Next up, uh Mr. Jackson is going to present on the water extraction credit. Okay. find. Um so tonight for your consideration is this resolution 2624. It's a water exaction credit and land conveyance agreement. Um so Komac, if you're all familiar with the location of Komax facility up at the north end of Fairfield Road, um they're proposing to build a new uh facility on lot five of their subdivision. So this was their existing building. If you left is north. So, um their existing buildings on lot four. They they need to build or they want to build a new building on lot five. It's roughly 5 acres. Um in communications with them and discussions with them, we've been working on a project to extend Fairfield Road with the roundabout here at the uh north end and come across some a portion of their property. It's currently hillside right now. Um, and so this is the concept of that that roundabout. And so this area outlined in black is an area of property that we need to purchase from Komac in order to build this road in the future. Um, in conversations with them, they need some water uh, exaction credit to be able to build this building. Um, we need the ground. They're roughly the same value. uh Komac was interested in in basically committing the ground to us in exchange for that water exaction credit. And so that's what this agreement um does. Uh they would propose to or they would convey this property. it's41 acres. Uh that would allow us to build this Fairfield Road and then um the credit up to 12 acre feet for their new facility would come from um the city's current

water rights that we own and and hold for our own purposes. And so that's basically in a nutshell what this this uh agreement does. They've been great to work with, very accommodating and understanding of our needs for the roadway. And so we felt like this was a really good way to get both things taken care of. So are there any questions I can answer?

Love the love. Uh want to make sure we keep a good relationship with him. I guess one my question was is are our water rights more important than the dollar figure that it would cost us to purchase it? If the dollar figures match up, that makes sense. But is are the wershed actually worth more? Uh, I wouldn't say not necessarily. I mean, we we we hold them so that we can use them for purposes that we need to. We feel like this is a good purpose for that. And um, you know, looking at it, I think for for their standpoint is the water rights are more important to them than any money or any of the ground because they can build something that's good for the community and their business as well. So,

let me let me do Steve. Is it water rights or water shares? So, so it's it's it's a it's a water exaction credit. So, we actually hold shares and we hold water rights and we can use either of those two to assign those 12 acre feet to that property. And the the water shares don't actually go to them. We still hold the shares and the rights. We're just agreeing that those will be allotted to them for use. Is it for the manufacturing facility? It's not not for landscape watering.

Yeah, not really for I mean it will be for some outdoor water, but but you can see their current their current facility doesn't have a whole lot of landscaping. It meets our current current ordinances, but they're they're also, you know, very water-wise on the outdoor landscaping that they're doing and things. So, I I don't most of it is their manufacturing process that will be there. This was initiated by them or

uh actually both of us. We we actually started talking to them about this property uh before they had indicated they wanted to build the building and then as we got into the discussions with them on that the building came up and they said hey we let's let's talk and take care of it. So it's kind of mutually beneficial for both of us to have those conversations. Mhm.

I guess it just speaks to the um the question that folks have about development and having enough water to do what it is they are wanting to do prior, you know, prior to the development taking place. So, um is there a way that we could have mitigated that in the beginning like knowing that they maybe didn't have enough water rates or whatever they needed to do what they're trying to do? uh as far as they they were out looking for water at the time and so I don't know that there would be any anything we could have really mitigated. It was more as they came in to develop. They um they had already purchased the prop or they'd own the property. they they plan on the building and it was more of a you know they they went looking for water shares, water rights and and then when we approached them about this as well. It was just kind of like well we want the water or we need this credit and you need the land. Let's let's see if there's a mutually beneficial decision. But but they would have gone out and found the water had they needed to. It would have just probably taken them a little bit longer than what they had hoped for their

ac. Uh so right now they're proposing a 2 in meter which requires 12 acre feet of water for the per year. Yeah. For the property per calendar year. Personally, I think it's a win-win for us. I mean, considering what they do for the industry as well as, you know, job creation and and not only that, a partner that's been there with us and who's been very supportive of the city. Do you know in their process is it going to be the water going to be recycled at all? Do you know anything?

Uh yeah, the majority of their stuff is recycled and and so it does from from the times I've been in their plants, they are very very efficient with the water that they use for use. There's an aeros aerospace aerospace manufacturing. Yeah.

Like I said, They've done a great job. And I don't know if you guys are aware that there's been a big conference going on up at the Eckles um uh convention center up in Ogden. And it's basically about all the heel industry um partners, bringing them all together and really kind of growing Utah and making sure that there's support statewide. You know, obviously Leightton's been, you know, first and foremost their eyes on that and they they actually had me be on a panel yesterday doing this. So, it was good. So it gave us an opportunity to really showcase what we've done at Hill or not at Hill at Eastgate, but then also the opportunity to let all of those suppliers know that, you know, we're forward thinking, meaning, you know, you guys plan in our general plan planning for the um West Business Park right off the

legacy. So great. Thank you. Thanks, All righty. Um, item number five, Weston. Who? Look at that. On the spot. You're there. Thank you. Thank you.

So, um, obviously there's been some conversations in a number of council meetings uh, regarding the PE ordinance. Uh, wanted to talk about that for a couple minutes. Talk about uh, the water wise landscaping briefly as well. Um, this is intended to come from a perspective of a couple different points of view. One, um, just information that staff has learned as we've been working with this, um, you know, I'll say newer plans, uh, P ordinance, although it's been several years since we've had it, but we've had a few goes at it and we we've had some good lessons learned and I'll kind of point out some things we feel like could change. Um, and also some feedback from some developers um, that that we feel like could also be addressed. Um, we view the PD as a tool, right, that it's really intended to create flexible development that that has measurable benefits and not just benefits for the developer, right? That for it to really function, it needs to be a community benefit.

And I'm going to just interject. Sorry. Sorry. Yeah. No, please.

Yes. Just so the context is we're not being trying to be presumptuous in in terms of we're addressing all the concerns that the individual council members may have. But we thought that that what we what we see as staff some of the changes might be would be well given our experience would be the kind of the seed that then would from there we could go to additional things that you guys may have that we want to look at. Right? Does that make sense? So rather than coming with a blank slate, say these are the things that we think would make some sense to at least look at and consider and then you add to that and we're happy to take all of those forward. So just want to make sure we're clear on that. We don't think we've solved the the issue here maybe with PUBS, but is this place to start?

No, no, no. Thank you. That Yeah, very very well said. Um so it really is intended to function as as a a benefit for the community, right? Um, and there's a lot that we get out of uh the PUDS. These are, and I'll go through each of these, and I'll kind of jump around a little bit, so bear with me as I go through this. But these are generally the things that we've identified as we've gone through the PD that we feel like could be uh updated or amended. So, first of all, our density bonuses. Right out the gate, they there's a density bonus, a 10% density bonus for two-car garages they're building anyway, and a 5% um density bonus for perimeter fencing, which really should just be a part of the ordinance anyway. So, we're offering density bonuses, but that really shouldn't that shouldn't be the baseline, right? And so, that that kind of ties into number two, which is updating baseline design requirements that there are specific design criteria that we either have throughout the ordinance that maybe isn't as clear or that we can strengthen it. If you're going to have a V P, you you should come to the to the table prepared to have a little bit of a higher design quality product and then we can go from there. Um, just to give you an example of this, um, one of the design criterias is porches. So, we require a 7x7 porch and so the developer will come in and you can see the yellow line here and they'll say, "Okay, great. Here's your 7x7 porch." And we've said, "Well, that doesn't really do anybody any good. That's not really a porch, right?" Um, and so we've then put into the development agreements, um, and we've started to put in and say, well, that 7 by7 needs to be on the side. It needs to be functional. It needs to be usable, right? And so there's components like that that we can clarify within the code. Um, as a part of that, um, creating a a density bonus point system. I'll show you what that looks like, but right now we have specific categories that are granted density bonuses. And the way it's written is the developers can have up to that density bonus for um their open space for their amenities

that they provide, but technically the staff and the design review committee um could recommend a smaller density bonus for those things, right? It becomes a little arbitrary of how that ends up getting worked out. And so I'll show you how that might um be solved by those components in a minute. um removing the design review committee. We're really grateful for the work they've done, but a as we tighten down what the PR really does, how it functions. Um removing that step just adds one more way that we can speed up the process. Um and we feel like that it wouldn't necessarily be a negative impact to the PED. Um require developers to install the park strip and front yards. This is a pined on in the PED and this is how it's been administered. However, it doesn't specifically call it out and so we'd like to clarify it because we've had developers start to push back on it. Um, so there's there's components and language that we can add to that. Um, strengthening language for the usable open space. One of the things that the developers have pushed back on us is that it just takes too long to get to planning commission and city council and sometimes those are because the discussions that we have back and forth. One of those discussions is what's usable open space? How do we define that? There are some criteria within the code where it calls out 18 ft. Open space needs to be at least 18 ft wide with a trail running through it. Well, you can't have a trail running through everything, right? So, how do we define usable open space? And so, there's there's judgments and criteria that we we kind of play uh into it as we're looking at it. And so, that creates a lot of back and forth between us and the developer and can slow the process down. So, we'd like to get a little bit more clear on what we're asking of the developers. Um, adding criteria for front-loaded town homes. This one's a little bit of a hot button. It's a question that we always get from developers. There's a very specific reason I'll cover it in a minute of of why we're pushing a rear loaded product. Um, but I think there's still room for a potential front-loaded option as well. Um, and there's some

just general code cleanup. There's some design criteria that is kind of spread throughout the ordinance. We can move to the right place. We can remove redundant and unnecessary requirements. For example, there's one requirement in the Pure ED that that requires the developer to provide us a um a estimated calculation of how many people they feel like will be using their open space. Well, we know what the density is, right? We generally know the family size of people that are coming into this area. I'm not really sure what that benefits us and how it benefits us, right? So, there's components like that that maybe had some initial good thoughts but really don't service any purposes. So, we can clean that up a little bit. Those are kind of the general caveats or the lists of things that we feel like we can do. Um I just want to talk about for a second um how the PR is beneficial and how we view it as a tool. Um and I want to give us a comparison. So as we look at the PRED, this is the general chart. Sorry that font's just a little small, but when we look at the R110, the base density is 3.5 units per acre with a potential on a PED up to 4.9 units per acre. Now, often times when Perees come up at the table, we get these four questions or four comments. It's too dense. How will the PR affect the schools? How will it affect traffic? And who's really going to live there? Right? Those those are a lot of the concerns that we end up um seeing. So, I wanted to just briefly talk about that density. Really, we're talking about 1.4 units per acre in addition to what the base is. So, it's really not increasing that much more. as a part of that when we look at what it's adding to the school system. Now, um bear with me in this because this is not a um this in front of you is a very static set of numbers. This is a very dynamic issue, right? So I I understand that um there's a lot more complexity to this, but to give you just a simple snapshot, the school district has provided us some general numbers to say

for single family homes, we should account for8 students per household. As we look at that and we say, well, if that's the case on an R110, you're going to get 101 students. In a Ped, you're going to get 141. So we're talking about an additional 40 students across across 12 grades, right? the the assumption is they're they're obviously looking at, you know, taking out qualifications for there's potential homeschool and and charter school children that are also doing those things. Um, but holistically, we're talking about 3 to four additional children per grade. Obviously, very statically, I'm dividing that across. you're going to have a subdivision come in and you might have a lot of younger children and they may take more of the elementary school's time, but again, because it's dynamic and you might have surrounding older neighborhoods, they're also children that are aging out of elementary, too. So, anyway, again, just a snapshot to give you kind of context of the population that's really coming with a PE versus an R1. Um, in uh in the world of traffic, so this is obviously kind of a heightened concern. there's especially when we see the town homes, right? That it seems like that density is kind of intense and that there's going to add a lot more traffic. What we're really looking at here is an additional between the two 192 trips um average daily trips. Now, that's an average daily trip. That's over a 24-h hour period. But if you just look at it within a 12-h hour period, because we know that's when most the trips are really occurring. um within a 12-h hour period. That's one vehicle every 3 to 4 minutes. And that that's not on one additional road. That's one vehicle every 3 to 4 minutes within a 36 acre exampled site subdivision where you might have five or six roads. So the impact the overall impact of a R110 P versus an R110 is not overly

impactful for all these individual components. That can can feel overwhelming initially. Um but when we really look at what it's bringing, it's not increasing that much more. Who's going to live there? Um we all know housing prices are crazy. Um this kind of blew me away. So in an R110, I took um this information from Red Fin. I took a 100 homes from both an R110 and an R110 PU subdivisions in West Leightton. Um, and I averaged the home prices of what was listed. So, in an R110, $839,000 for a for an average PR or excuse me, for an average R110 lot. In the PD, 589. Now, just to give you some reference to that, um the ivory development for Jenkins off of 3200, they're listing their homes at starting at 550. So, it gives you kind of a range, right?

Um but that being said, the the income to afford an R110, you need $250,000 annually. For a period, 165. The the median household income for Leighton is 102480. Right? So, if if you were a median household income earnner and you wanted to afford either one of those, you'd either need be needed be putting down $540,000 to get into an R110 or $240 to get into an R110 PD. Now, this doesn't necessarily speak to the quality of the people that that are necessarily going to be living there. We love the people of late and they're they're already a good quality people, but it does speak to how difficult it is to get to housing. And it speaks to that the people that would be buying these are generally people that have access to the funds to to get into these types of developments.

Hey, Weston. Yes. Before you move past that, um are folks actually asking you that final question about who's going to live here? Um it it comes up as a more of a negative of who are these people, right? Right. Um, and there's a little bit of a negative connotation of smaller homes are going to bring maybe a less desirable um, type of individual, which, you know, we've been kicking against that for a while and hopefully hopefully we can eventually not have that as a component, but it does come up.

Yeah, I would hope that residents are um, a little less I hate to say judgmental, but that's what it sounds like. um and that this type of analysis would help folks to understand um that many of the new homes in our city and across the state, some of us who are in our current homes probably couldn't afford this. Yeah.

And so when people say things like, "Oh, well, you know, it's going to be high density." And basically what they're saying is they don't want lowinccome people moving in. Um and frankly, they probably couldn't afford the new homes either. So, I think this is really hopefully eye opening to folks um who may have, you know, some of those sentiments because housing prices are crazy for everybody right now.

Absolutely. And also sometimes people presume that people that are buying in the purely and the smaller lots don't have any other choices. But the market is clearly shifted to the young generation now. They're not interested in mowing halfacre of grass, right? They want somebody to take care of an HOA to take care of it. They want to spend time recreating or playing or doing other kinds of things. So it's it's it's not that people are just going into pure use because they have to. They're doing it because they choose to. And you see that probably on the on the younger end and on the older end of that, but it's just a a difference in society, different product. Yeah.

Yeah. Good point. Thank you. Um again, it we view it as a tool. So just kind of breaking down the benefits of the PRV, it definitely provides for on the developer side, increased density, um flexibility, flexibility and setbacks to provide that types of density, housing variety, ability to cluster homes, and a market shift with which is what Alex just spoke to, right? It it allows that individual who has a lower maintenance lifestyle to be able to find a home that fits them a little bit easier. on the city side, and I'll talk a little bit about this in a minute, but um there's a number of subdivisions that have come up and our Perees are are designed and fit for this where we actually get parks, city parks and city trails as a part of the subdivision. Um connections to trails is the next big one down. Trailside is a good example of this. Trailside added three different connections uh to the DNG D&G DNRG trail. Um Seavoya added one connection as well. And so those are just valuable options to create connections throughout the whole neighborhood to access those regional amenities. Um clustering developments. This is a critical one as you guys are already very well aware, especially on our east side where we're dealing with sensitive land developments. That clustering allows us to get the homes off of that sensitive land area. Housing variety. It's critical for us to have a variety of of large lots of small lots of and everything in the middle so we can provide um options and resources for all of our community to come and and live in in in Leightton. Um recreational open space. This is a benefit um when even if it's just privatized recreational open space for a couple different things. One, it creates beautiful neighborhoods for our communities. It also depending on the amenities amenities that they add, they also can be taking a little bit of resources um away from us having to um maintain our parks as much because they're using their own parks. Um internal trails that benefit the

neighborhood. Um again, it goes back to the just the benefit of the community in and of itself. So, I don't want to want to necessarily say that it's walkable, right? We we use walkable maybe too much. It's a little bit of a buzz word. I'm not walking to the market. I'm not walking to the library, right? But what I might be doing is having a decent walk around my neighborhood and having an enjoyable connection throughout the neighborhood. And so, um, that's an important part of the period, increasing quality uh, of the the building materials and site design. So, those are two things that we heavily look at when we're um, looking at per. And then again, that market shifts. And so we want to make sure that we're accommodating that market shift for the the the residents that want to come in to move into these developments. I just wanted to give you an example of some of the subdivisions that we've seen where we've benefited greatly from this. Obviously, Harmony Place, that's a great park that's there. Um and and a great subdivision. I think it even though this is tied to the old PED ordinance, um it's it's been a good example of of um getting a a city park out of a PR. Eastridge Park obviously um that's being looked at as a potential future dog park um and a trail system that's connected to it. Great connection for a PD to have that. Cage Creek, our first PR came with this park and a trail system as well as we get further up into this bit which is Hill Farms. Um all of these sections came in through the PR ordinance. Um

can we back up on that one? Yeah, sure. So, the the park hasn't been developed yet, and that's because it's the city's responsibility.

So, this is something kind of as we go down, this is something I want to look at is how we can actually provide a density bonus for these developers, but the funds aren't necessary. The open space actually isn't necessary to the development itself. that it actually could be used to actually build like this park and complete it so it can be used uh by the public. So I'm I'm planting that seed right now so to speak of what I would kind of like to see because this I went to Dave was there um presenting to the neighbors. this is precoid and the neighbors there are thinking hey we're going to get a park here pretty soon and and it's been 10 years or you know type

so so it's kind of kind of what I'm trying to think is how can we use the PUD ordinance to help fund some completions of some of the open space that we already own and so I'm planting that seed now just so we can

yeah and the context on that one was the first period was said was that that that open space did belong to the city issue. It was privately open. They have a a a sewer lift station that they had an obligation to pay the maintenance and costs of it. They failed to do that. So they they ended up in a significant interers and when the city approached them about making that current their solution was can we you we don't want to pay the cash can we can we give you the ground for the the park. So that's how the city ended up with the park was at their request. We we thought it was good as as well, but we've uh and this doesn't take away from what you said, but the city has been uh pretty aggressive in when there's opportunities to obtain parks, even if the prioritization is down the road because there's other parks that have been acquired that are have a bigger bang for the buck

or something or there's more housing around them, we always try to take advantage of those things. up front there may be some who don't remember that but that was exactly the discussion there is that there's no shouldn't be any expectation of how quickly this will be built but that it just depend on the what the council you know council's then council's future set in terms of the priorities so but there is a lot of interest down there in people uh wanting that which is especially now you have the highway set you know it's becoming very ripe you know because of the activity and the building around it but that's just a little bit of the context of that.

Side note, did you do sell the property to the Have you even been It's actually would be considered Cavesville, but to the south of it, surplus property. I believe it was on an auction. It's on the auction. I think all of those went up at the same time. Yeah, I think I don't know.

Sorry, that Yeah. Um just contextual information on the rear loaded product. Um there's some planning components to a rear load that um it it creates um better quality neighborhoods in in the in the fact that you're having less conflict with the vehicles as pedestrians are going on along the sidewalks. It can also create um a more attractive um component to or or a very place, you know, placemaking opportunity. setting those aside. I think those are valuable things, but setting those aside, one of the issues that we end up having with a front-loaded product is as we start shrinking it and and this is what the ask is. It's not just we want a front-loaded product, we want a frontload and very narrow product, right? Both single family homes and town homes. What we end up having is a conflict with utilities. So, frankly, we the biggest two things are our water and our sewer. They're required to be 10 ft apart. And this this is just a crude example, but this gives you a single family home. You have a 5ft utility easement on both sides of the lot. It's a 50ft lot. And then you get a 20ft driveway, so you have 20 ft of of area where you can put your you put your water lines, your water line and sewer. So you put them on either side and that's all you get. If we start shrinking that, we will have utility lines within concrete, right? which makes it obviously a lot more difficult to service and things that we don't necessarily want to be providing. And so we start going to lots that are smaller than 50 ft and we right now the ordinance says if the lot is more narrow than 50 ft then it automatically pushes it to a rear loaded product. Now that being said I think there's some options for us to do a front-loaded um town home and a front-loaded um home product. We have the front-loaded home product. It will just take working with engineering

and identifying how those utilities can be served serviced and obviously there would be a threshold where we'd say it just can't be smaller than X whatever that ends up being right um so I think there's some options

we think that would I ask question the question is this is the concern about front versus rear or vice versa being driven mostly by potential buyers they have a preference or the development community and I I in my own mind held wrong, you know, surmise that was by people buying uh they wanted a more traditional approach, but actually there's it's both. There's a lot of developers who who would prefer to build even with a little bit wider frontage and maybe less units, the single family because they they have a they have a clientele that's developed over time that that likes those. Right. So his his point which he made better than I would but is essentially we think there's room in the ordinance to provide for both. I just will have different width standards and you and then the developer has the option and the public has the option uh to buy it. Now I think what we did in the past we've restricted that a little bit and it's it's really cramped some of the developers that think they have a market for the the front loads have not been able to to do it. So if that makes sense.

Yeah. Just let the market dictate a little. Give them the options and then the market can do and the developer can dictate what what we're trying to accomplish.

Yeah. They just have to understand they need to have 55 or 60 whatever that number is. But but build them. But you can't do it at 50 because of the the utility limitations. that I think there's been a misunderstanding out there, maybe misrepresentation on us, our part unintentionally that that it wasn't didn't have to do with the the logistics or the geography on the ground. It was a principal thing that people maybe couldn't wrap their head around is well, it doesn't make any sense. Why can't we have other choices? Well, I think we that's my sense, but we we can address that simply. So, everybody has choice. Well, I I think this helps answer my concern because in the past I felt like we were just pushing way too hard on all rear entry, rear entry, rear entry. Sure. So, I love the fact that now we have an option.

Yeah. And that they depended on geographical area they're building with and what all the dynamics that go into it. But at least this way there's an option.

Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. And and you know, if if we were looking at a front-loaded town home product, because we pushed strong to have a a front lo or a front porch on these rear-loaded town homes, we would flip that. We would say on a front-loaded product, we want you to have a fenced in backyard, a little private space, right? So that um regardless of the type of unit you have, there is some outdoor environmental space that you can have for those units, right? So we we can work through that. Um this goes to that uh density bonus option I was talking about. Now, um, don't hold hard and fast to the points that are listed here. This is just kind of an example to give you context of what I'm talking about. But when someone comes in and says, "Okay, we're going to build," and I'll jump over to the some of more of the amenities. We're going to build a a community and I'm going to put in um some bike repair stations and um a horse pit, a horseshoe pit, right? are those amenities that are equal to and and comparable to pavilions and pickleball courts and you know should we be calling some of those out? We need x amount of larger amenities. Um and so the intent here is to come out and say look there's there's a ranking here. There's there's not one amenity that's equal to others. And so can we can we look at it and say if you want to build out your density you can do it through this right? Um, and then we take those points and we add it up and say here's your your 40 40% or your your 40 points or 40% density, however that ends up playing out. Um, now there could be caveats that we want to tie to that. For example, I was looking at um the Jenkins subdivision had like 26 benches put into the development, right? And right here I put in four benches distributed throughout the development. Would we really give them points for all 26 benches, right? we'd probably want to cap that so that they don't get all their density because they put in a 100 benches, right?

Yeah. So, there's there's some thoughtfulness that would need to occur. Um, we'd probably some put some requirements that we'd need to pull from certain categories, but this is generally the idea that we'd and one of the benefits that would pull away from having to um have maybe some more arbitrary decisions. It would tighten it down and say, well, this is what it is. Um, so that's that's generally what we've looked at. I I um I could be brief on the water wise and go through it pretty quick. Um

question before you move to that. Um was there any thought put into the egg overlay discussion that we had? Um because I know that that was something that I think a lot of people just misinterpret just because of the title. Um, and so, um, all of this I think is great and I agree with putting sections like on the density piece, but maybe having some kind of, um, parameters or expectations around what a overl overlay is, what it means, what the expectation is because I know that that's been a topic of discussion.

Yeah. And we we would look to the council for feedback on that because I think we could look at it and say this is a naming issue. we call it a heritage and we're not necessarily although it's allowed we're not necessarily always getting that and so we need to rename that so that it's a little bit more clear or the option is no we're looking for a heritage well what does that mean and we need to be asking for that so it's a good question and we we definitely be u open to feedback from the council on how you'd like to move forward with that probably yeah I wasn't here when it when it was put into place so I didn't I didn't necessarily know what all of that meant but I know that Just hearing it invokes something in your head, right? Sure. So, I think maybe that's something we probably need to discuss.

Well, not that I'm beating a dead horse, but honestly, when we did that survey and really had the entire city weigh in on it, a heritage was the number two concern.

Basically, yeah, I was kind of involved in that. Basically, it was trying to to really protect traditional farm ground in West Leon was was the whole idea, which transfer development rights would have been the best way to do that at that time. Um to my surprise, what the MA family has done uh with roughly 7 10 acres um of an urban farm setting actually, but then we are looking at bigger chunks. So like the Stevenson property um I'm sorry I can't remember is what the name of it actually is

that got the there's bonus points for that because it's in that a heritage but there's really no real urban farm setting or anything like that that so that's what I think the citizens at the time really wanted is how can we protect our traditional a area and moving away from that how can we provide an urban farm setting similar to what the Ma family has done with their property. The MAS is a really good example um because they explored it for years. I did

um and how they ended up because they wanted to include their a heritage component into their farm into the subdivision and how they ended up doing it is saying we can't make it work. There's not a developer that will put in that ACT heritage and the subdivision whether it was liability or maintenance or burden of the maintenance for the the HOA. There was so many components tied to it. So, they just said we'll carve it out. We'll do micro farming on it. Um anyway, I um that that's a kind of that's a good component, but I can jump through the rest of this. Um really what it comes down to here. Yep. Really what it comes down to here is two points. We need to update our ordinance. Uh if we want to be compliant with we race and water lawn exchange, we've got two things. One, 35% of the front and side yards um can't exceed grass in that 35%. That's your max, right? And then no turf in your park strips or anything less than 8 ft. There's a couple other criterias, but we already meet those. Um so we're at the 120 or the$125 right now. It would bump us to the 250 if we brought those two standards in. And this is for new development.

This would be for new development. It would not single family. Yep. For single family. It would not affect the PD because the P has already got this criteria. Um and the commercials already got the criteria that it needs as well. Would it affect individuals that are remodeling the home? No. Okay. That's where I think some of you have heard the most is from folks that are currently have their landscape in and want to pull it out and try to get the full picture.

Um, and there there's some additional things that we could look at for water wise stuff that we can bring to you at another time that we can go through just so that we have time to obviously cover things. So, so generally uh is the desire of the council collectively to move in this direction to to apply that same standard we do with the PRDS to the new single family. I'm not asking for a commitment that help us. We can we can craft more details around that. It it allows the citizens to take advantage of it, but also doesn't the staff, you know, doesn't feel like it penalizes existing people and forces them to

to tear out and and redo. But uh given the water conditions, we're it's probably not going to change, right? We should presume it's going to change uh somehow come back to the good old days. But okay, what are those? Okay. No, I I'm I'm on board of

And uh on the previous one, thanks Wes. That was awesome presentation. I love all the the data and that that really helps kind of understand some of the other components of P and the list is really good. I like a lot of the things and I particularly like that it's like trying to find a solution that's not just based on one thing. It's not just one thing we got to fix. It's like well, you know, we think that the citizens are actually kind of right on this. We think the development community is kind of right on this and maybe we missed the mark on this. I just think that's that's just a very effective way of doing it. So, I mean, I don't know if I could have come up with a better list than that. So, gives us a lot to think about and it gives us maybe things that we can add to it. But I appreciate the expertise because it I mean someone asked me like I I Alex and I were talking about this and I'm like, you know, I just I'm not necessarily saying it's bad. I just wanted to see like where it can maybe fix and be changed and this is like a very good starting point. So, just thank you.

Yeah, you bet. Another thing on that labor we've talked about internally and we we haven't worked through it yet but is it doesn't have to be a a P versus standard subdivision and if we're looking at this side you know we have some ideas about change when we challenged ourselves internally to say independent of the P let's look and see are we have we created unintentionally through the years some barriers to a developer who really would like to do a single family subdivision that we've got barriers that don't allow them to do that. So we we need to the second piece is to look at that other side and say doesn't mean you add something or take away from the Ped to benefit the single family, but just on its own say is there something we could do that if it's really close for a developer that prefer to do this. The economics are not so disperate that they're they're always going to leave because of the economics to do P when they really would like to do a single family and there's a market for it. Does that make sense?

Yeah. and that may promote more more of those. But we think a lot of it's the e economics and and the flexibility they they get. So we don't know what will come out of that. We want you know we're trying to take a holistic look and promote them both. Uh not one versus another. It has to be a contest. It's you have choice. They can both function. Joey looked at the clock but I do have questions. come just

so um on on the PRD ordinance, have we looked at I know sensitive lands is one area that we focused on. Have we looked at how many acres actually within the city fall under sensitive that are developable and same with what property what ground is still available um how many acres there are. Um so we have an idea how many PRDs we might be looking at in the future. Um, we do have the number and I don't have it in front of me, but yeah, we looked at the acreage on um out west, not in sensitive lands because that one's a a dynamic issue because sensitive lands can range. Um, but we have looked out west and we do have that number that we can provide to council at other times.

Okay. Any other questions? Are you finished, right? I'm good. Yeah. Okay. You guys good for now? Okay. All right. Good. Okay. That's our last item as far as u discussion. However, we do need to go into a closed door session to discuss a few things. So, um I would entertain a motion. I move that we enter a closed door session.

like to Oh, Kim, are you on? Sorry, I should have asked. You're good. Okay. I'd like to welcome everyone out to our Leighton City Council meeting this evening, um May 7th. And I appreciate your patience here. Our start time is 7:06. And uh with our tradition, I do want to turn the time over to Council Member Bloxom for our opening ceremony portion. So, Council Member Bloxom.

Thank you, Madame Mayor. I first like to invite Evelyn Bloxom up to the microphone and she's going to help us say the prayer to open our meeting. Okay. Can you say it into that microphone? Okay. Here you do it. You want me to do it? No, you do it. You can do it.

Okay. Okay. You just fold your arms in. Hold your arms. Our heavenly father, we're grateful for all of our many blessings. We're grateful to meet together as a city to discuss the needs of our um residents. and we ask you to please bless us with thy spirit as we discuss these issues that we can um have the guidance that we uh are in need of. We're grateful for this great city we have. We're grateful for the um first responders and and for those in uh public works and all those who help make sure the city continues to to function and we are grateful for their sacrifice for the city. We are grateful for all that we have, especially the freedoms we enjoy here and the great city that we have. And we say this in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.

You want to stay up here? Okay. Okay. And then I'm going to invite Andrew Bloxom up to lead us in the pledge.

Okay. You just say lead us in the pledge, buddy. I pledge algiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

I love it. I love the variety that we get to have here when we each take a turn at uh doing the opening ceremony. And Andrew, you look very nice in your tie tonight. So, thank you. Okay. Um, council, uh, I've called the meeting to order and I know we have several sets of minutes, but before we do that, I think I'd like to acknowledge the fact that we have a special guest with us here tonight from the youth council. So, I've got Addison Hexbath and um, she's been on the council. Why don't you tell us how long you've been on the council, but then also perhaps I'm going to ask you a special question tonight which I'll ask you now and then you can answer them both and that is uh why don't you kind of explain the tour that you guys were able to take tonight.

Perfect. Well, I haven't been on the council actually too long. This is my first year on it. But tonight we got the opportunity to take a tour over to the police department and we got to kind of see what a day in their life is like and look and see how they keep us safe basically.

Okay. Very good. I love it because like I said that's what this youth council is all about. It's really understanding how the city works and functions. So thank you and I appreciate you being here with us. So council I'll go ahead and bring it back to um our minutes. Like I said, we have several sets of minutes and um if there's no corrections, then I would look for just so I'm not repeating them, I'll allow whoever's going to make the motion to go ahead and uh state the date and what the meeting was about.

Madame Mayor, I move that we approve the minutes of Leighton City Council work meeting on February 19th, 2026. The Leighton City Council meeting on February 19th, 2026. The minutes of the Leighton City Council work meeting March 5th, 2026. And the minutes of the Leighton City Council meeting, March 5th, 2026. The minutes of Leighton City Council meeting March 19th, 2026. And the minutes of the Leighton City Council meeting on April 2nd, 2026. Okay. Do I have a second? I'll second. Okay. Thank you. It's been moved and second. All in favor say I. I.

Any oppose? Thank you very much. Also, I failed to acknowledge the fact that uh uh Council Member Thomas was not with us tonight. He's asked to be excused. Okay, we'll now go on to our municipal announcements. So, anyone who has any updates on uh events going on with this city, I'd appreciate you speaking up.

Thank you, mayor. Um, I just wanted to announce for the Leighton um, CTC, that's our communities that care coalition, we are hosting a snack drive and that is happening now through the rest of the month of May. You can donate snacks for our summer school program or excuse me, our summer camp program. We host summer camp in three schools here in Leighton City. And you can drop off donations of any type of packaged snacks to the parks and recck department, which is just right off of Surf and Surf and Swim here on the city campus. And then also, we do have a parent survey that went live. Um I believe you can look at the Facebook page or Instagram for the Leighton CTC or Communities that Care. scan that QR code and we'd love to hear from all of our parents in the city about things that are important to you as we move forward in CTC. Thanks. Okay, very good. Um, also I'd like to go ahead and uh cover for u Mr. Thomas who is our liaison to the parks and reccks department. But we do have an event tomorrow night, Friday night, and that is game night. Um it will start at 5:30 here in the amphitheater or the uh Bowery just west south of us here. So all of you who want to come out and have fun with the games, just so you know, this is tied into America 250, our celebration. So a lot of the games will be based around that themes, kind of some oldfashioned ones as well as uh just some good old family traditions. So anyway, come out tomorrow night, 5:30. Um, we usually don't do that, but if you'd like to, go ahead.

That's fine if you'd like to. I'm going to call you out. Okay. So, uh, Council Member Clender, go ahead and acknowledge what you'd like to because that is a an icon in the city. Um, I heard that Coach Carter, uh, which was one of my football coaches in high school, recently passed away. Um, so just he served he worked for the city if I remember correctly for a period of time. Coached a lot of our youth uh at Leighton High. So just kind of um remembering his memory a little bit of him yelling at me uh type thing. Uh so I liked you guys.

Yep. So that's all coach.

Okay. Yep. Rest in peace. Thank you. Okay. Anyone else? Okay. If not, then let's go ahead and move down to our uh citizens comment portion of our meeting. If there's anyone in the audience that wish to address us, please step up to the mic. Go ahead and state your name and what city you're from and uh um just know that we prefer that you keep it to a minimum of three minutes, but go ahead. Uh my name is Marilyn Hilton and I'm from Leighton, but originally I'm from Southern California. Moved here 5 years ago. And while this has been the absolute best move my family has made, the one thing that I really find missing here that was in my old hometown is a dog park. And I know there's talk about making a trail and off leash area. And I have a small dog. And to me, that scares me because big dogs are big and they're intimidating to our small dogs. And our small dogs need a place, a fenced in area where they can roam and be free and have fun and not have to worry about the intimidation of the large dogs. So, I would I'm here to advocate for a dog park and specifically an area that's designated for small dogs. Thank you for your time. Okay. Thank you. I appreciate that comment. Okay. Anyone else? Being that there just none, then I'm going to go ahead and move down to our consent items tonight. We do have uh four items on the consent and um just so you're all aware of it. I mean the council can make one single motion as regarding all of the consent items. So we'll go ahead and hear them presented. To start out with, we'll uh Mr. Tracy Probert will be uh presenting

our tenative budget for the fiscal year 2026-27.

Good evening, mayor, members of the council. Let's see. Turn this on. Is it on? Oh, it's on. Okay. Uh tonight I have for you resolution 26-25 approving the tenative budget for fiscal year 2026 2027. uh some summary points from that budget that we've been working on since December as a council and as departments within the city. Uh the general fund just over $49 million almost 50 million. Um that's up 2.7% from the prior year. Uh big majority of that is colamera and market increases for personnel. And then there's also uh to be noted that general fund supported projects actually decreased in this budget. uh just to keep the budget in line with the reserves that we have and so forth. Citywide the total budget including utility funds 140 and a half million. Uh that's up 11% from the prior year. About 5 million of that related to road projects that are funded by outside sources, particularly Davis County, and then a large majority for utility projects. 3.3 million in capital equipment, 26 million in capital projects. It's anticipated that sales tax revenue will be slightly higher than this current year that we're in. Uh we're estimating 2 to 3% and so that will help us cover some of these increases that we see. Some of the major projects to point out, uh our second payment on a fire ladder truck. So that's a three-year process. We're on the second payment in that. ambulance, parks projects, street maintenance, and other projects there as well that I've already mentioned. And then utility projects, including secondary waterline projects that are partially funded by grants. So, those are some of the highlights. Citywide, if we look at that, we can see

our revenue sources. Uh sales tax not quite 26%, charges for services 42%. Of course, that category includes all of our utilities, which make up a large portion of that. Um, city-wide expenditures compensation around 44%, operations at just under 30%. It'd be good for the public to know that that number is where it is because we pay North Davis Sewer for sewer processing, waste management, and Wasatch Integrated Contracts for garbage processing. And then we have Weaper Basin Water that we purchase water from as well. So those large contracts that we have make up a very significant portion of that operational expense. On the general fund side, we can see that our revenues come in 55 12% from sales tax, 21.9 from property tax, and 11.2 from municipal energy tax, which is gas and electric. and then some other minor uh taxes and fees that are in there that make up the difference, but the bulk from those three categories. And where does that money go? In the general fund, which is the tax dollars, around 49% of that is public safety. So between police and fire service, uh we spend about half the budget. Uh we have some in community development, public works, parks and recreation, then our administrative departments of admin, finance, and legal. and then a couple other small categories. Um, it would be good to note that the ambulance operation of the fire department is not part of the general fund. That's paid for in a separate enterprise fund. So, if it were to be included here, it's I think it's good for the citizens to know that a a large portion of the money that gets put into our budget is for public safety, you know, directly benefiting them and then 10% for parks and recreation. So,

uh, in this budget, it is proposed a sewer rate increase of $3. That will bring the city sewer rate to $40 a month. Um, also next year in the budget, North Davis Sewer District is proposing a $2.50 increase. So, we had an increase in this current year for this next year and the following year. After those three increases, the proposed sewer rate will be around $43. Also in this budget, there's a proposed increase for garbage services, garbage and recycling. Uh some of that is a pass through from Wasatch Integrated where the city takes all of their garbage for disposal and the remainder part is part of a contract with waste management and their services to collect the garbage. So the first can is proposed to increase $2.35. The second can $1.75, recycling can 50. So the rates on the first can would go from $1365 to $16. That's my summary for the budget. Um, with the adoption of resolution 26-25, it's also important to note that we'll be setting a public hearing on this budget for June 4th, 2026 at 7:00 p.m. That hearing will most likely get continued to June 18th when we would propose to make any changes and adopt the final budget. Another important item to note in this budget for Leighton City is that it does not propose a property tax increase. So, there's not a property tax increase in this budget. Uh, with that, are there any questions?

Council, do you have any questions? I will make just one quick comment in regards to that ladder truck. Um, I've had the opportunity to, you know, go out on several different fires and I, in particular, the one that we had last week with the uh, Dairy Queen, we desperately need that ladder truck because we have to rely on Hill Air Force Base. Even though it's great partnership and it's good training, good for them and shows that symbiotic relationship, it just definitely bodess to the fact that this is something that our department needs. So, thank you. Yeah.

Okay. If there's no other questions. Oh, sorry. Yeah. Just thank you, Madam Mayor. I the the final sentence that you had, I think it's important just for our residents to know like another year with no property tax increase in the city. So this is Clinton my seventh uh time here as in the council and we haven't had one.

That's not done by accident. It's not done by chance, right? And so I just thank you to the the staff who put together this the finances and the I think the good decisions that we've made over the course of the time all of us have been up here making decisions because uh we don't want to raise taxes and seven years in a row haven't done that. And I don't say that as self- congratulatory. It's just I think that's the way we should be doing things. So, I appreciate all the work you do. Thank you. Yep. Yep. Very well stated. Thank you. Okay. Thank you, Tracy. Okay. Let's go ahead and go on to item number B, which is a bid award with Gladwell Construction and Miss Joelyn Grandandy will be presenting that to us.

Well, good evening, Madame Mayor and City Council members. It's a pleasure to be here this evening. Um, I come before you to represent resolution 2622, which is to authorize the execution of an agreement between Leighton City and Gladwell Construction for the Andy Adams Park Improvements, Parks, and Recreation Project 252, which is to be located at 1713 East 1000 North. The project includes the installation of a new restroom facility, concrete pathways, asphalt trail, new parking lot light poles, and the installation of new irrigation landscaping improvements. I do have a a a map here that just helps for everyone to know where this is located. The area that's highlighted in red is the project improvements and this is a image that demonstrates the site plan for the area. Um, we had an open and advertised bidding process that was posted on March 4th of 2026 and we had 10 contractors that submitted contractor qualification statements. Of those, eight were um qualified to bid on the project. And then on April 14th, we received seven bids um with Gladwell Construction LLC submitting the lowest responsive responsible bid in the amount of $379,819. Tonight, staff recommends the council adopt resolution 2622 authorizing the city manager to conduct negotiations and execute the agreement between Leighton City and Gladwell Construction LLC for construction of the Andy Adams Park Improvements Parks and Recreation Project 252. Are there any questions? Okay, council, any questions or comments? I see that logo down there. That's why I'm looking at you.

Oh, no. I I Yeah. So, I did have a couple of questions. Um the Yeah, the ramp logo there. I I the actual project Oh, here we go. You were supposed to help me, Mike, with my mic. Uh I know the ramp logo there. The this project, the entirety, I think the project that we had approved was $700,000. Yes, that was the amount that was approved through ramp. This is a little more than I mean half is. So that's Yeah, there's also additional costs that are included with the consultant fees. Okay.

Um and then we have um water extraction fees to pay. Um and we are purchasing the light poles separately through the city. So there are also security cameras. But yeah, we we did come in. There was, as you can see from the bids that were submitted, we had on the high end $652,000 and then on the low end $379. So, we had quite the the variation between numbers that were submitted. Um, we're just pleased that we were able to come in with a low number and a good company too as well. So, we're excited to work with them if you approve it.

Thank you. Uh, one other question. the play, what do we call it? The big toy there, kid from the 80s. The playground equipment for the kiddos. How much life span is left in those for Andy Adams playground? Um, it's still we recently replaced a lot of the equipment. I believe just last year we had a lot of pieces of the equipment that needed to be repaired. So hopefully that will carry us through a few more seasons. but it is on our list within the five years to update the playground, too. So, we're looking to rejuvenate all of our existing parks as we can. Okay, thank you. Anyone else?

This looks great. I appreciate the slides. I know it's Joel in the slides cuz look at these things. They just look amazing. And congratulations on your new uh position with the city. So, we're all so happy to see that you accepted that and that you're still with us. So, that was all I needed to say. Thank you. Yep. That was going to be my my my last thoughts had none of you ever had not mentioned it. But yes, congratulations and we're very pleased and tonight's performance is exactly why you're here. So, thank you. Thank you. And and I I do want to just recognize that we're grateful for um this being a ramp project that would probably not be happening if it had not been approved. So, thank you to you all.

Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. We'll now go on to item number C uh which is um to adopt the 2025 Leighton City Municipal Wastewater Plan and um Mr. Steve Jackson will present that to us.

Thank you, Mayor, Council. It's good to be with you tonight. Uh as mentioned, for your consideration is the adoption of the 2025 Leighton City Municipal Wastewater Planning Program annual report. Um, this report is required by the state of Utah, Department of Environmental Quality. Um, it requires us to complete the report every year and then adopt it by resolution. Um, so as as we go forward, there's there's three parts to the um the questionnaire that they send out every year. There's a financial evaluation, uh, collection system evaluation, and there's also treatment facilities. you'll see a big gap in that report that we don't fill out because we don't have treatment facilities, but North Davis Sewer District takes care of all that very well for us. Um, as far as the financial evaluation goes, the the system replacement cost is estimated at $400 million. Uh, the average monthly user charge for 2025 was $38.7. Um, our capital facilities plan was updated in 2024 with the the latest wastewater master plan that we um completed then um over 20 years. We have $24 million worth of projected capital improvement costs that uh are in that that capital facility plan. And then our operating revenues and reserves are in line with our system requirements and projected revenues uh that you can see in that report. Uh, as far as the collection system goes, we're up to 255 miles of pipe. Um, thankfully there's only 04 miles of pressurized line in the city, so we don't have to deal with a lot of that. But, um, the largest diameter is 18 in. Um, it's, uh, average of 9 ft deep. And the oldest pipe is that 18in pipe that was installed back in 1956. So, we watch that one and someday it'll get replaced, but right now it's still in good shape. So, uh, we do have one lift station out on the west side of town that pumps 255 gallons a minute. We do have seven grade four

operators, uh, collection system operators. That's the highest grade that you can you can be here in the state of Utah. Um, and we did have, uh, we we didn't have any reportable sanitary sewer overflows for the 2025 year. Um, so with that, that's that's the the summary of the report. Staff recommends the council adopt resolution 2623 and authorize the adoption of the 2025 Leighton City Municipal Wastewater Plan annual planning program annual report and authorize the mayor to sign the necessary documents. Are there any questions that I can answer for you guys? Any questions? Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you for staying there because you're up next on the item D.

All right. for your consideration is resolution 2624 which is the approval of a water exaction credit and land conveyance agreement. Um this agreement will authorize uh the execution of this agreement between Leighton City and Komac. Uh Komac owns real property located approximately 3700 North Fairfield Road which they intend to develop. It's identified on the screen as the lot number five. Their existing facilities are on lot number four at the north end of Fairfield Road. Um they also intend or with that uh expansion they need to provide a water exection of 12 acre feet of water. The city also is planning to pro build a roundabout at the top of north end of Fairfield Road. Um highlighted in black is the area that is required for that roadway that Komac owns. Um, so the city uh feels like it it would be beneficial to both parties to to uh receive that property. Komac would convey that property to the city in exchange for the city crediting 12 acre feet of water to this development that Komac is is building. Um they've we've city excuse me and Komac have agreed to satisfy that water exaction requirement through the conveyance of that property. Um and so the the agreement is that 041 acres of property would be conveyed from KOMAC and the city will credit that 12 acre feet to the development when the uh development is completed. So staff recommends council adopt resolution 24624 approving the water exaction credit and land conveyance agreement between the city and Komac and authorize the mayor to sign the necessary documents. Are there any questions that I can answer for any of the council?

Any questions? I've already asked you this question, but I think it'd be good. Uh, it's your understanding that the they reclaim uh the majority of their water in the process. Is that correct, Steve? Yeah, as I' as I've toured their existing facility, they do have very water efficient um processes up there. They they don't um they don't use a lot of water for for the size of their facilities, but they do have um different parts of the process that they do reclaim that water as they put it to use. Anything else? Okay. Um, and I asked this question in the work meeting also, but I'll just bring it up here. Um, for the benefit of the public,

my question was if this was initiated by KOMAC or by the city. Um, and so if you could just speak to that and the mutual agreement. Yeah. Yeah. So, so we had initiated the discussions about the property and the roadway with Komac. And then, um, throughout that that discussion, they they actually brought up their intention to build this warehouse that they're they're proposing. Um, and so then it became kind of a mutually beneficial discussion that that we need this ground. We need to pay for it. And they they really didn't necessarily want the cash. They needed to to build their facility. And so, um, at that point, it was kind of a a great option to to say, "Hey, let's let's work together and benefit the city and this development as we move forward." So,

thank you. Okay. Thank you. Anyone else? Go ahead. Thank you, Madam Mayor. How what do you contemplate the Fairfield Road to the east? Is it going to loop eventually or what what's the idea? Uh yeah, eventually it will it will extend to the east all the way around the the north end of the golf course and then back down into Church Street and that 1700 East area by the the the waste management facilities. Do we have that property or

No, that property is actually owned by the Sun Hills Golf Course and and so as future developments occur, that's when we would anticipate that road would extend all the way past the the end of this property line. Well, alls I can say is I appreciate the forward thinking here and really reacting now and and when the opportunity advised itself. So, thanks for doing that.

Okay, there's no other questions then. Council, I'll go ahead and bring the consent items back to you for action. Well, Mater, Madame Mayor, I move that we adopt resolution 26-25, which is the tenative budget for fiscal year 2627, and set a date for a public hearing on June 4th, 2026. Um, that we adopt resolution 26-22, a bid award for Andy Adamus Park Improvements. Adopt resolution 26-23 which is the 2025 Leon City Municipal Water Waste Wastewater Planning Program annual report and adopt resolution 26-24 which is the approval of a water exaction credit and land conveyance between the city and Komac.

Excellent. Is there a second? Second. Okay. Thank you very much. Um all in favor please say I. I.

Any opposed? Okay. Thank you very much. That concludes our consent items. We'll now move on to our public hearing portion of our meeting. So, I'll turn the time now over to Mr. West and Appaloney regarding a re uh reszone request. Thank you, Mayor and Council. Good to be with you tonight. Uh the property owner and applicant, Steve Clinger, is requesting a reszone for 8,961 square ft located in the rear portion of the subject's property. As you can see in the map here, it's the area identified in red. Uh the applicant owns both properties, the piece that is being reszoned as well as the the neighborhood. Um if you look at the laser behind you, he owns this home as well. Um the the purpose of the reszone to R18 is to for him to incorporate this portion of the sub of of this home's law into this home. Um and so it's his intention is to reszone to the R18 zone to match the homes um zoning. Um the on April 14th, the planning commission voted unanimously unanimously to recommend that the council approve ordinance 2609 to approve this reszone request from RS to R18. Um subject to meeting all requirements in the staff memorandum. staff supports the recommendation of the planning commission. Be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Okay. Council, do you have any questions? If not, then I'll entertain a motion to open the public hearing at this time. Madame Mayor, I'll make the motion to open public hearing. Thank you very much. Okay. So, this is a public hearing. So, if there's anyone who wishes to speak regarding the reszone request, you're more than welcome to. Once again, come up to the mic. state your name and what city you're from. Okay, seeing that there's no public comment, I'll go ahead and bring it back to the council to take action and close the public hearing.

Madame Mayor, I'll make the motion to close public hearing. Is there someone that would like to uh take action regarding ordinance 26-09? Do you mind if I ask a question, Weston? Sorry, I didn't mean to to have you stand up. Um, sorry if this is reductive, but can you give me a reason why like the purpose behind this?

Yeah, absolutely. So, the biggest reason is there's a component we we do try to keep the zoning the same on the parcels. Um however the the biggest reason is there is different height requirements for or allowances for accessory structures in rare yards. And so if they build a accessory structure that straddles that property, how do we manage that? Right? So all this really is doing is is keeping the standards in a in an easy way to to comprehend for for the city and for the resident. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Before you step away, do you have any other comments? Otherwise, I'll entertain um action regarding the reszone request.

I do have one. Um so, when you had the pointer up, you were identifying the project area which is in red, but then you also mentioned, did you mention this other property here as well? Yeah, the prop. Yeah, the the applicant owns this property as well as this home as well. So, this is one lot below here. This is all one lot. And it and once this reszone goes through, if it goes through, um they would come in with a subdivision amendment to incorporate this into a full subdivision lot. Okay. And that's to make the backyard bigger essentially so that they Okay. Got it. Thank you. Yep.

Okay. Before you take any action, if there's one last question, you're welcome to. Otherwise, I need some action taken here. I need a motion. Yes. Madame Mayor, I make the motion to adopt ordinance. Um, it's already done. 26-09. Do you need more than that?

Okay. Being that this is a public hearing, uh, there is a motion to go ahead and adopt uh, ordinance 2609. So, I'll do a roll call vote on this. I'll go ahead and start. Oh, excuse me. Yes, I do need a second. I'll second. Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. So, I'll go ahead and do a roll call vote on this. I'll start down here with Council Member Moore. Hi, Council Member Clender. Hi, Council Member Smith Edmonson. I council member Bloxom. Hi.

Okay. Thank you very much. It is a unanimous vote, so we appreciate that. Um, and that is actually the last item on our agenda for this evening. So, if there's no other unfinished business, I'll entertain a motion to close. So moved. Okay. Thank you very much. I appreciate everyone here. I'll go ahead and acknowledge that and uh hope you have a good evening and be safe. Thank you.