City Council - Regular Meeting

Some budget amendments forward to you. Right now in the budget under the EDA, there's budgeted in here some payback agreements that are already associated with projects that are already underway and going and so forth up there. Those amounts are in there, or estimated amounts, I should say. And so we'll just keep a close eye on that, and if it needs to be increased throughout the year, then we'll bring that back to you. But other than that, I don't know if there, do you have any questions related to the RDA budget?

I just had a question. Can you go back to going down a couple of pages? On the EVA budget? And I guess similar to the one you just showed. So in previous years we didn't have that operations expense and I just wanted to remember what we started that for and why we hadn't had that in years past. that piece for operations that we didn't have in there before?

You know, right off the top of my head, I don't remember what that number is, so I need to...

Okay, I just, I know, it makes sense to have it, but we hadn't had it the previous three years, and then we started putting it in last year, and I just couldn't recall what that was for.

I don't think we've had, I know QMAC's agreement didn't have an administration allowance. Okay. jails does now. I think some of the new ones have that, and that might be why we have some of the expenses.

That makes sense, because the other one, I think it was, yeah.

I can look that up and let you know what it is. Any other questions?

I think my only other question was just that in 2029 you have estimated the property tax that more than doubles starting 2029 and then just stays. What do you use to determine that, like to come up with that estimate, the property tax line?

In which one?

Can you scroll down? I think it was one of the later pages.

sorry i didn't get down i forgot to wear my hearing aids that i'm going to apologize and i'm serious i forgot

which one are we looking at again she's referencing 2029 mm-hmm it was in the packet the proposed projected tax um increment that we received okay and it went all the way out to 2029 but once 2029 started it was like more than double what the other is that in the jail

Yeah, I think that's the JL thing. Yeah. I've only looked out to this next year. Because I did see that.

You'd see it because it started out at one and then jumped up to two.

That's their projection.

That's their projected construction. They're supposed to be, well, at the time, completed by 2029 with the buildings that were planned and that value. Actually, as of today, it's already doubled the EDA property value, but it might about droop more by then.

Okay, so that's just based on when they finish completing all of their buildings. So at that point, buildings are done, and so property value skyrockets because they're all complete. Okay, thank you.

Anything else? Okay. All right.

With that, I just, when we get to that point, recommend we adopt Resolution 2602, adopting the budget for the redevelopment agency.

Thank you.

Okay, Long, now you get up. Now do you get the present?

Yes.

Okay, Madam Chair, members of the board, tonight we have a resolution Party Resolution 2603, which is an agreement for the development of land between the redevelopment agency and J.I. Properties Utah, otherwise known as Janicky Industries, Properties Utah LLC. For those who do not know what Janicky does, I thought I'd pull some snippets. They're in aerospace. A lot of their work is related to the F-35 and space, which we actually made the nose cone for the Webb Space Telescope. They've been involved for a while. They do a lot of great things, and we have a great employer right here in Layton. They recently proposed to expand, and this number is somewhere between 70 and 80. I have five different documents, so it moves a little bit. We have Marshall Hagan here from Janaki to answer any questions as well. In case we have any questions. So we know that they're projected to add about $20 million in value to their existing building. and they're going to add eight more employees over the next couple of years for that purpose. Right now, Janaki is the only aerospace and defense employer in Eastgate that does not have any incentive or tax increment agreement related to them. As they started to plan this project there are some pretty significant expenses as we know with the other employers related to grading storm drains and things like that and they reached out and asked if we would consider which I have in front of me. Here are some of those costs. Again, soil retention is a big one, basically retaining walls on the west side of the property that abuts the JL project. and some other storm drain system costs and things like that. Pretty substantial. And so, here are the highlights of the agreement that you have in front of you. This is what they're proposing. The agreement allows for 96% of the increment based on the matrix that we've used for several years now with the other employers. It's actually 100% and we're attaining 4% for the administration. until the EDA closes, which is in 2035. So with that, if you have any questions, I'm more than happy to answer them. Staff recommends that the board consider approving this and adopting Resolution 2603.

Any questions?

Maybe this is... idea of doubling the workforce? What does that workforce look like? Is it actually in Utah? Are these virtual employees? Are these H1B1? Who are these people that are getting new jobs?

He provided me a list, and I'm happy to turn it over to him to answer those questions, but yes, they're all employees in Utah, and they're spread between administration and workers.

Yeah, I can add a little bit of commentary to that. The 80 jobs are going to be a mix between production, engineering, and non-touch support staff. Right now, that average mix is about 70% of the per capita income for Leighton City. And that'd be all local hires for permanent staff at that site. Thank you. Very good.

OK. That's it then, huh?

That is.

and so um you need to take action in here this is part of the other budget out there for both right yeah it should be taking action here on both of them okay all right let's go ahead and deal with item number two then as far as the budget um resolution 26-02 A motion on that, please.

I move that we adopt RDA Resolution 26-02. Second.

All in favor say aye. Aye. All right, let's do item number three then, which is actually the agreement with J.I. Properties, Resolution 26-03.

A motion to approve RDA Resolution 26-03. Second. Second.

It's been moved and seconded, so all in favor please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, thank you. Very good. Okay, that takes care of all three items on our redevelopment agency meeting, so I'll entertain a motion to adjourn. And go into our regular scheduled work meeting. So moved. All right. Okay. Second? Second. Okay. All in favor? Aye. Okay.

Thank you very much. Okay. We'll give Kim a minute to bring up her board meeting, I guess, recording, and then we'll get started.

We're good? Okay, I'm going to welcome everyone out to our Layton City work meeting for June 18th. We'll start out with our reports and I'm in first and I don't have a thing to report on. I really don't. I mean, I've shared with you guys everything I know so far, so...

Well, I went to the prevention conference, the Utah Prevention Coalition conference in Bryce Canyon last week. And we had, I think, how many latent CTC folks were there? five of us total and then also we were there with the other Davis County coalitions so we all were there together with everybody else across the state it was a good conference they were continuing to focus on prevention I'm trying to remember my specific numbers but For Utah, our alcohol numbers, if I remember correctly, have gone down. So of youth using alcohol, which is good because it takes a long time to see the effects of prevention data. And that's been kind of a struggle with getting prevention money at the legislature because Most of the money that they allocate is tied to some measure that they want to see the next year or in two years and it just takes a long time. So we're starting to see those numbers and it's looking really good with the work that everybody across the state is doing for youth prevention of substances and family connection and all of those things. So I'll have some more solid numbers. I just literally got back from out of town like an hour ago. So I don't have all of my stuff in front of me. But I did also want to remind us and also parents, I'll say it out there, that we do have a parent survey that is still live. And many of you know we do the sharp survey in our school districts. to kind of get our hand on the pulse of what's going on with the youth and what they're seeing, what they're experiencing. And so we have a parent survey as well. And we want to get the same perspective from parents, what they think is happening, what's going on. And we take that data and work with that together to make sure that our programs are meeting the needs of our community. That parent survey is still active. We have a lot of things going on. The CTC is going to have a really cool float in the parade. This is Shunting Families Month, and I know we have a presentation during the the council meeting that our float is going to have. There's a couch that is kind of going across the state. It's like this family connection couch. And we'll have a family on the float. And it's just representing those conversations that you have, that you should be having. at the table or wherever in your family and so anyways we've got a lot of people working on a lot of things so i'm pretty excited about all of that yeah that's good yeah that's all i have for now um i i just want to read a letter this is from the executive director roger so this i'm happy

address to the mayor. We are pleased to inform you that we have remitted $841,623 to Layton City as repayment of sales tax pledges from Utopia. The Utopia Board approved this repayment a few weeks ago. This repayment is based upon available funds generated from the operations of Utopia and UIA. UIA and Utopia are performing well financially. The network has service available to over 265,000 addresses with approximately 84,000 active subscribers. We are continuing to grow revenues by adding approximately 640 new net residential subscribers each month, as well as through business revenue and various operating partnerships. UIA and Utopia continue to contract with additional cities that are willing to finance themselves or themselves, tax slash franchise fees, revenue to backstop financing for network in their cities. Construction in West Haven and Bountiful were completed recently. Utopia continues to support the build-out of the Yellowstone Fiber, which is in Bozeman. And they're also in the discussion with several other cities, including some big provider counties in California. The UIA and Utopia boards are committed to distributing excess revenue each year to help offset our debt service pledge. I think I'll add to Roger's message was that as part of the proposed budget in 2027, there's an increase from $841,623 to $914,498. So this is an idea that we're trying to ramp up the payments back to the cities to maybe not just cover the debt payment itself, but maybe cover additional costs that may be involved. provide additional revenue back to the city in addition to just what's required in the sales tax budget. So I'm happy to share that information with you, but I thought it was a good recap of kind of what's been going on at Utopia and UIA and where we are in terms of getting our debt service payments. So that's what I have.

Good. Okay.

I'd like to go ahead.

All right. Well, then... I didn't really see that yet, but I'm sure it will come. Let's go ahead then and go down to item number three, which is the presentation on our victims of crime, or a bulk of crime. And my first one's going to present this.

Hi.

All right, so I just want to make note real quick. My contact information has changed a bit. So if you guys want to update that, you can take a picture or whatever. but I know we have a new face here. So I just wanted to kind of give like a background, a recap, reintroduction of myself and the program that we have. So I'm the victim service coordinator and then Kelly is my coworker. He's the housing and victim advocate. So we work out of the prosecutor's office and we handle mostly criminal misdemeanor cases. but sometimes we'll work with the police department there's often cases that end up that there's a victim in a case but for whatever reason it doesn't end up in the criminal justice system so we help with those cases as well we are partially funded by the voca grant which is the victims of crime act and then the city covers the rest of our funds so from july 2025 to june 2026 we received approximately $114,000 in VOCA funding. This covers partial employee salary, partial employee benefits, and then it funds our housing and emergency funds program. And then as part of the VOCA funds, we have to meet certain requirements each year. One of those is reporting to the city council two times a year We're required to collaborate with other agencies. A lot of these are like Safe Harbor, the domestic violence shelter. We do other agencies. Clearfield has a victim advocate agency that we collaborate with. And then also Davis County Attorney's Office are three big ones. And then we have to report our statistics quarterly to VOCA. And then we have to just attend regular trainings and collaboration meetings. Some of those services we offer to victims are protective orders. Certain victims aren't able to obtain protective orders, so we can offer safety planning instead, help them find ways to remain safe without obtaining a protective order. We accompany victims to court hearings, prosecutor interviews, law enforcement interviews, anything like that. We provide assistance and support while victims write their victim impact statement. We provide information about the criminal justice system, so this could be dates of hearings, the court process, their role in the system, my role in the system, all that kind of stuff. We also provide assistance with restitution requests, so if there was property damage, we can request for funding for the victim. We also provide referrals to other victims and non-victim resources. So this could be state funding assistance, such as like daycare assistance, jobs, therapy, all kinds of stuff like that. And then we also have our emergency financial aid program. So the biggest things that we cover with that is like security cameras or if like a door lock was broken or a door We can pay to replace that. And then we can cover rent and utilities as well. The different crime victims that we serve, our main portion of victims is domestic violence victims. So this can be assault, harassment, property damage. Those are kind of our main ones. And then we also do all of those things but non-domestic violence. We also do some thefts, some sex-related offenses, child abuse, and criminal trespass. So sometimes, I mentioned it a little bit earlier, sometimes people, like victims, aren't able to get criminal protective orders. Their case doesn't go to prosecution for whatever reason. So there's other ways that they can get a protective order. It's through the civil court system. But unfortunately, the civil court system can be kind of tricky to navigate. They do have the ability to represent themselves in the court system, but that is a very complicated process. And they have the ability to hire an attorney, which can be very expensive. And most of our victims don't have the extra funds to hire an attorney. So Utah was really good and they recognized that there was a gap in the legal services and they decided to do something about it. So Timpanogos Legal Center created a program. It's called the Community Justice Advocates of Utah. This program allows victim advocates to participate in a specialized training that allows them to offer limited legal representation in protective order cases. I have gone through the training process and I am now certified so I can now help people. I can help write an application for a protective order and then I can help them review the evidence that they have and help them submit that to the courts and then help them prepare for their court hearing. And then I can sit next to them at the table during their hearing. So I can't fully represent them, but I can sit there and support them and give them quiet prompts on what to do. And then I just wanted to share a success story we recently had in our office. So this was an unlawful distribution of an intimate image and voyeurism case. They were a male and a female roommate. Um, our office received this case at the end of December of 2025. And so for the past six months, our victim service team has spent many, many hours on the phone in person and behind the scenes, helping to ensure the victim felt heard in the justice system and that she received justice for the suffering that the defendant caused not only to her, but to the community of people surrounding her. So a couple things that we helped her with, we were able to assist her in getting out of her lease early since they were roommates. We assisted her in getting a protective order so that she could have a little bit sense of safety. We gave her plenty of information about the court process, the rights that she had and how she could utilize those rights. We attended many court hearings with her throughout the process and We provided emotional support while she navigated the justice system, the trauma she's experienced, all that stuff. So we worked closely with the prosecutor assigned to the case to find a fair resolution for everyone. Ultimately, the defendant ended up pleading guilty to a couple of charges, and he was asked to get an evaluation done by adult probation and parole. This evaluation that they do, it goes into a deep dive of their history. It looks at their criminal history, their family history, their likelihood to re-offend, all of this stuff. And then they make a recommendation to the judge on what the sentence should be. In this particular case, APMP recommended zero days in jail, which the victim did not feel like was sufficient justice for her. and for all the pain that she experienced. So the prosecutor, the victim service team, and then the victim and her family worked together really hard to find something that worked well for everybody. And we were able to ask the judge for 90 days of jail. We weren't confident that we would get that, but we ended up getting the full 90 days in jail, a lifetime protective order for her, probation with intense monitoring, and then some classes to address the mental health of the defendant. Not every case is like this though, unfortunately. We have a lot of cases that don't see this level of justice, but every case sees the same amount of behind the scenes work, phone calls, in person meetings, collaboration with other agencies, and our team here with the legal department and just to make sure that the victim's rights are upheld and they live in a community where they feel safe. Oh, that's not everything I have. Does anyone have any questions? That's a lot to take on. It goes to you. I'm sticking with it. Thank you. I love my job.

Can you put your first slide up? Yes, I can.

Let's see. There it is.

And congratulations on finishing. Thank you.

Question.

Yeah.

You probably told us the last four times. The amount of money that we get from the VOCA grant, is it based on population? What's it based on?

There's a few things. They do take into account population. And then they take into account previous years of who we've served, like how many people we've served, how many services we've done, and all of that goes into account.

Have you seen an escalation or a de-escalation? What's it looking like? Did we see last year? Well, in funding we had. And also in cases.

In cases, I think we're out. Yeah, I track them. I don't track them by... her VOCA year, but I track them by just the calendar year for the annual report that you guys get. It was up pretty significantly last year, actually. About 200 cases.

Wow. Yeah, but funds were down pretty significantly too, so. So yeah, hopefully that changes.

Is it mainly because people are more aware of the program now? Sorry, I was talking about prosecution cases. Unfortunately, we don't have a lot of control over how many crimes are committed. We try to have some control of that, but not much. So it just must be something in the water or something. It's steadily been increasing over the last three or four years.

With domestic violence cases, though, we can kind of help. I mean, sometimes we see an increase of those numbers just because of awareness and more people reporting these crimes because these crimes are way underreported, so they're not even a real statistic of it.

I was wondering if you keep track of those domestic violence ones year over year so you kind of see. Yeah. As our population grows, obviously it's natural to go up, but is there a significant increase? And I have all those numbers. I can look them up and I can get them to you.

And we break them down in the annual report. I can pull it up. The domestic violence cases were up last year as well. I just don't remember the exact number for those.

Okay. Do you guys have any other questions?

Thank you. Awesome. Thank you for all you do.

Thank you. Okay. Mr. Price, I think you and Joellen are up on the next one, the parks ordinance discussion. Sorry, I said parks, but ramp.

Well, thank you for letting us take a few minutes of your evening. As you're aware, we... consistently tried to improve the rent process over the last 10 years two three years ago we made a significant change in the process and we felt that that's been very well received as we moved into this new 10-year cycle we again with the mayor's help at a listening session with the people who receive this money we listen and we have been discussing some of the things that might help our applicants be able to navigate this process a little easier and so the ramp commission has been discussing these things but before we take any final steps or bring you ordinance changes things like that we simply wanted to sit down with you and have a discussion let you know what the ramp commission is doing But more importantly, we would like to understand if there is anything that you believe we should be looking at. So if you don't mind, I'll just dive into it. So the commission has been having a robust discussion about these things. We're going to bring you the ones that we had an affirmative vote by the commission, and most of these were unanimous when it was approved. There are some that were also unanimous, but we chose not to make any changes to the ordinance. And so the first one that we looked at is that we felt that we should look at changing the city's ordinance to include the language that is in the state code that identifies that an organization's primary purpose shall be the advancement and preservation of ramp, arts, museums, and parks. And we felt as a commission that there was a clear distinction between those organizations with a primary purpose of rent and those organizations whose uses are recreation parks to advance their primary purpose, which is not that, whether it be a car dealership or some other type of social organization. It simply is to clarify where this money should go. And so if it's supported by the city council, we'll bring back language that tries to clarify that.

I like that one.

That's a good one. The second one is that, and this is to comply with State Code, Utah Code 51-2A-201.5, that code requires organizations that receive financial aid from cities and states of certain dollar amounts, they must go through financial reporting requirements. We have not had that in our ordinance in the past. And so any organization that has over $25,000 in annual grants should be doing this. And we would simply like to put that in our ordinance so they're aware of that state requirement and we make sure that they and us are complying with state code.

And that's a dollar figure for them receiving it from any organization? Any public entity, or is it 50,000 from us?

I believe it's from us, but that's a great question.

Yeah, it's a combination of, or... We'll look into that.

And that's a financial...

statement or whatever yeah they may need to to give to the rent so the state code breaks it down into four qualifying um sections depending on money i assume yes yeah if it's a hundred thousand then the report should be done by a certified cpa it doesn't have to be an audit at that point but it does have to be done by a certified cpa So we just like say we're again coming to you to let you know which directions kind of we're headed in and we think this is important. The next one is that we would like, or the Commission would like to recommend after listening to the applicants that we change the amount of time the applicant has to spend the money from one year to 18 months. What that does is it allows, especially our arts organizations, to have an entire season in one grant application. So right now, July 1 splits all those summer programs for all of the arts organizations into two years. And that's just a burden for them. And we see no problem with that from the city side.

Is there a requirement just for the 18 months or can we extend that? we you guys make the rules because the one thing I'm seeing with a lot of state funding on grants they've gone from the one year to three years that they have a three year window to disperse that those funds and it's based on how complex the project is so if you have to hire an architect and an engineer you can't start spending those funds until the agreements the grant agreements sign and then By the time they do the design and then construction windows, the work can only be so. I would really look into expanding it to a three-year window to spend those funds. Tracy just looked at me. Let's see if I have hard burn on that.

Well, most of these are entertainment, though. What's that? Most of this is entertainment.

This is really hard construction. We don't build with ramp, do they? Oh, they do? It wasn't ramp funding the... East Ridge Nature Park, correct? Grant funds a lot of construction projects. So I'm thinking that too, that you could, it would make it easier for the city to disperse those funds.

Yeah, that's a great question. In the language right now, in our city ordinance, we have the ability to ask for an extension. If it is a capital project that takes longer, we can authorize that. as a city agency, as council. This is geared towards those repetitive acts year after year. So Davis Arts Council has a summer free Friday night film series. They do that every year. This will just allow them to tie a single grant to a single period. And then those that take longer, like the bubble over the pool, which you guys authorized funding for, that one will take some time. So we will ask for it and extend that construction period.

So we don't have a date because you have the ability to extend?

To extend. When would it make your life? By 18 months, you cover... cycles for the year yeah again this change is intended to assist the arts organizations not only the Davis Arts NOPA but the orchestra would there be a there be an issue with having it be extended period of time or they could potentially get two years of funding and not have done anything with it

if it was a three-year, because they have three years to spend it, so they can go in and get the funding for that year. Then the next budget year, they come in and they can get funding again. And theoretically, they wouldn't have to even spend any of the money at all, because they have three years to spend it. I guess my question is, is that we want them to use the money and spend the money so we can actually see what's going on with the funds that we allotted them. maybe that three-year period is too long i don't like that because we're asking for proof of performance as well right right and that helps to determine the next year yeah hud actually does that with their federal funding they have they'll allocate it and then they have three years to spend that and i think that that makes sense in certain industries i guess i would just say for the arts i i don't understand i'm not sure why we would extend it unless i mean i think the 18 months is a good extension for the reasons that you mentioned, so they don't feel constrained in splitting their seasons. But I don't know if I could anticipate anything that an arts organization would do that would take longer than 18 months.

unless they are only given 18 months and during that process we have the ability to ask for progress reports most of them will do that without us asking because remember this is a reimbursement if they don't do anything they don't get anything yeah right and that but at 18 months if they just run to whatever like if you're building something

then you can say hey we're at this stage we're at two-thirds give us another year at 18 months they either need to have a pretty good reason why it's taking longer or they simply say we didn't do it we're not going to ask for that one yeah but you have the ability to extend

As a city. As a city. We're funding programming for the arts, typically. We're not funding capital construction. So those are all city-initiated, city-sponsored projects. All capital. So we don't, I think we prohibit, don't we? We don't allow an arts organization to take revenue and build a new... Because it has to be on city property.

Yeah.

All by the city.

Yeah.

That's correct. Thank you.

Dave, what's the state code that you're referencing?

51-2A-201.5. Let me double check. I've got a hard copy of that. It's accounting reporting requirement. And as you can see, when you get to the second section, that's where it breaks it down into those four categories.

Is that all that you have or is there more?

There's a couple more.

Okay, I'll wait through them.

Let's see. These are recommendations for the bylaws, not the ordinance. The commission simply challenged us to try to come up with a definition of operating expenses because it's been a struggle for them. And also a definition of capital expenses And that's important to them. I feel like our existing is good. We can define that ourselves. But they felt that that guidance would provide them some structure to evaluate the costs as they're outlined in the budget spreadsheet. And the one in particular that they're concerned with is marketing. They felt that marketing is under operating expenses and it prohibits marketing. But we feel that overall organizational marketing is not the proper place to spend rent money. But we do feel that if we're going to fund a project or a program, that we should be able to fund that specific marketing.

Like as a whole, the project?

Yeah, promotional. That makes sense. So if it's, yeah, kind of like a puppet show. Yeah, kind of like a puppet show.

If we felt the puppet show was worth it. Yeah, okay, never mind. That's a great example. We wouldn't fund the larger organization's operations, but we would want to fund that program. Because that's where we're spending money. We want it to be successful.

The one I was actually asking about was the one that you mentioned earlier, where you were talking about the purpose of the organization being in the RAMP. And the only reason I ask is because, as I was looking at it, outlines for county wrap and it broke it out a little bit differently than what you described so i'm just looking for the one that you're referencing we are not for the reporting but for the the definition definition the purpose of the organization yeah yeah so it's we we are not governed by the county we take our guidance from the state code right what i'm saying is what i found in here when i was looking for it in the state code it referenced county rap and then outlined all of these things but i didn't see the ones specifically you were referencing so that's the code i want yeah i would have to find out we we noticed that it was um

They use that same language multiple times throughout the different sections, but we referenced Utah Code 5912, 702, or 701, 702, and 703. And I can find that information for you, Latina.

Yeah, I'm fine with what we do and it being in one state code. I just want to make sure that the language is the same because what i see here on 59 chapter 12 is talking about funding for botanical cultural recreational and zoological organizations or facilities and it breaks all of those out but it talks about any of those organizations so i was looking for the specific one that that we're wanting to reference because i think in the past there have been some some situations, and we want to make sure that what we're referencing is in line with what we're saying we're referencing. So if you could find that, I would really appreciate it.

We will try to do that. We do feel that the general spirit of what the ordinance or the state code says is what we're trying to follow. And as a city organization, we can set those parameters as we see fit.

Can you center on that topic? Can you redefine that? Did we include special interests? Because I know that that's been a topic too, but we don't really necessarily fund those. Is that defined that we do not?

Special interests.

Bettina, I think it's section 14 of that same code.

And it says city or town option funding for botanical, cultural, recreational, and zoological organizations or facilities. So the reason I'm pressing is because when we say we're going to use the definition that state code has, if state code's definition is broader than what we're using, then we don't want to say we're using the state code definition. We want to say this is what we are using for rent funds, but state code is actually broader. And so if you could find a specific one that says in the state code it's only for recreation arts museum park organizations then I think we cover all of our bases but if we don't have that in there and if people go look for state code and they say you know the example that we all know that we're not talking about was a cultural type organization And so if state code is saying that RAP money can be used to fund these types of organizations, but we're saying we're following state code and it says this, but it really says that, that's when we run into problems. So we just got to be real specific about what the RAP funding, you know, what the intent was or the purpose was. And if that's different than what state code says, that's fine. We'll just have our definition be what it is. But if we're going to reference state code, then we've got to make sure we're referencing state code.

Thank you. This is exactly why we wanted to have this conversation. It's a lot easier to get these questions now so that we can try to bring you back to some intelligible language.

Take that. That would be an option, too, though.

It gives the definitions. Yeah, I think we've got to make sure that that definition is very specific. Because that's where we ran into some issues with various organizations.

And again, it comes down to what this city council wants to do.

Yeah. So do you guys agree on that?

That was the intention is we've been talking about language is sufficiently to be our standard, your standard, and not just rely on the state code. But we didn't want to be presumptuous about That and the crafts and language and show it to you tonight who are dead of this discussion But as well as any other questions so we can look at comprehensively, but we concur exactly with What you're saying is we make sure that it's like our definition of sets the standards that you want to have set here Stretcher torture

I pretty much folded it into that. I was on that same wavelength.

Maybe this is more of a bylaw question, and it's actually not rhetorical. So I wanted you to just give me your opinion, because I'm not in these meetings. But I have heard they go a long time. I heard that there's just a lot of discussion and just keep drawing on. And I guess my only worry would be that people have a pretty finite time to spend volunteering. And I don't know if there's anything within the bylaws that we can maybe limit meeting time or have deadlines where you don't just talk about the same thing consistently. And I don't know if that's an issue. I have had a couple of conversations and i just want to make sure that if i'm off base just tell me i just want to make sure that we're not burning them in idle for a recommendation that they're going to give us. When in the end, we love the work they're doing, but it's still just a recommendation, and we don't need to have a five-hour meeting.

We do that on ours, too.

Well, speaking of that, I'm looking at the time, and we do have one, two, three, four more items to go.

I'm not trying to limit them discussing, but I just want to make sure that people's time is well spent.

We appreciate that. One last thing, then we'll get out of your business here this evening. We would like to also look at extending the time that we review the applicants. Right now we have a short two-month window. We would like to change that to four months. That gives us a little more time to be able to consider these carefully, but yet not have to spend three hours.

So you've got to move up their application window then?

The application window would be...

I remember this part of the conversation.

So the applications will be available from September 1 to November 1 for them to work on. And then we would review it from November 1 to March 1.

And currently their application period is what? October?

Yeah, until January 1.

That starts in October? Yes. So could we move it back to still give them like the three month time? I mean, it just... But we're moving it a month. Well, but from September to, did you say October? Yeah, we... Or September 1 to November 1? The January.

So they would have a bigger window to create the applications?

well yeah i'm just saying like we're going to move the time to give the rent commission more time we shouldn't shorten the amount of time that applicants have to get their packages together so if we're going to move that time up then maybe give them an extra month you know like open the application sooner so it could be like august to november or whatever instead of september because that's literally just two months yeah we

We can certainly look at that. We don't feel it's necessary. We've talked with the applicants and most of them don't even start until one month before.

Okay. Well, is there anything else? And the only other thing I had was, and I know we've talked about this in the past, which we don't necessarily have a lot of time to talk about it today, but just the makeup of the board and who votes versus who doesn't vote. And I know a number of voting numbers on our rent commission are actually to city employees, and that's some kind of... Yeah, it can seem a little... I don't want to say biased. I mean, it's our program. But, you know, when the city is getting more of the money than maybe some of the programs or the services that we say we want to provide and want to fund. And so I just think that maybe looking at the makeup of the voting members of the board is also something we can look into.

We certainly can. It was never set up to be a... completely disassociated board. It was always intended to have those four members that were staff members or members or a person of experience and excellence in that field of ours to provide continue to see through the time the 10 years or further that's how it was set up originally and also to protect the city's interest in this and we we are the one that uses it for capital projects and we believe that we need to have that say in that process

thank you good all right let's uh thank you guys bring that forward okay let's move on to item number five storm drain agreement so mr jackson you're up

So I know it's been a little while, but we're bringing back Midtown Crossing to Tension Basin agreement tonight. So to refresh, I guess, most of you and maybe to fill our newest council member in, Layton City owns this parcel that's in purple down here off Midtown Crossing. It's 0.89 acres. It was purchased with the construction of the Midtown Crossing project that UDOT did and then turned over to the city. There's a detention basin that you can see underneath these colors. The majority is on the city parcel, but there is a portion here on this property of the east. 840 Elm is a... I don't know what the right business term is. It's a conglomerate of some investment groups in the Young Automotive Group. They have come to the city and approached the city and asked to purchase that property so that they can expand the parking, put this... attention basin underground and then use this site for parking for their auto dealership while they do some other renovations to the site some of the challenges that we've run into over the year a couple years we've been working on this is that all of this area that's in color is the area that drains into that attention basin so it's important for the city to maintain some kind of control and ensure that all the water that's in this area goes to that place and is taken care of properly so we work diligently with 840 Elm to be able to come to an agreement on this per the direction that the council gave in the past and so as we're looking into this the 840 Elm needs to purchase the property in order to be able to convert it into that underground detention basin based on the standards that we have. We don't want to own this underground detention facility. The purchase price has been agreed on as $205,000 with 840L doing all the construction and all the costs to convert this to an underground facility. Because the property is encumbered with a permanent easement for the storm drain or storm water and the utilities that are on that roadway, there's no permanent structure that can really be built. So the you know the only other use besides the detention basin is apartment law basically so um and because of that the city council determined that the property was not a submitting a parcel of real property under municipal code uh the reference there and the Utah code so um Some of the things in the agreement, there's four documents, they're pretty lengthy, but basically it'll maintain the minimum 1.87 acre feet of capacity. That ensures that all of the water currently going into the site from I-15, from Coles, from the street that city owns, Midtown Crossing, that will all be taken care of. And then any additional storm water that would be generated from the parking lot is also taken into account in that capacity. The city will own and maintain the storm drain system that's in 1400 North and Midtown Crossing right of way. All the private owners will own and maintain the storm drain systems on their respective parcels. And then UDOT would own and maintain the storm drain system that's in I-15 right of way until it gets to the connection in the Coles parking lot. and then 840 Elm has got a lot more undertakings here. They need to maintain the cross-access easement that's on the property for the storm drain the roadway. They're accepting the obligation to receive all the storm drain in perpetuity and then they also have to maintain and take care of the storm drain system on their property as well as this underground detention basin facility and in order to ensure that there's adequate maintenance we have inspection responsibilities as the city anyway for these types of facilities so we have the right to go and inspect it have them fix things we've asked them to post a 25 000 surety bond to ensure that any major repairs or maintenance are are taken care of promptly and if they aren't then the city can use that money to take care of it and then they have to refresh that bond in there. They have to maintain adequate liability insurance for the facility as well and there's the requirements from the EPA Clean Water Act and Long Term Stormwater Maintenance Agreement and Long Term Stormwater Maintenance Plan. That's really all I have, but Dave, it looks like you had a question.

Who are we making this agreement with?

So 840 ELM, R-E-L-L-C, is the business entity. That is a combination of a group called Stokes-Stevenson, which is an investment group, but it's also Young Automotive Investment Group. and they've got this really complex business relationship that they've got in there. But ultimately it's the young automotive group that is the one that we're making this agreement with just through this other business entity.

So the bond replenishment figure, I mean, it's in there, but can you tell me how you got to that specific? Because it seems to me if there was something that went wrong, it would need more than that.

uh potentially this this is really to make sure that there was an incentive for them to fix something that we we needed to do immediately and we felt like 25 000 would would get us started to get something back and functional if there was something major we could at least get in there and get it started and then we would have to work with them as we went forward we anticipate though that they're I mean, it's their parking lot. They have other facilities that are like this, and so they don't want it to, because it will interrupt their business operations if something goes catastrophically wrong with this, obviously.

Yeah, I like that when I was reading through it, the no obligation for us to maintain repair, which, you know, we're buying it. That's great. But I did appreciate the emergency action. portion because it still is infrastructure that we want to make sure is taken care of. And we've had lots of discussions about why that was important. So I just appreciate putting that in there because it makes me feel a little bit better about preventing it.

Yeah. I like the way that, yeah.

Anything else? Maybe I'm having a brain lapse.

Let me help you.

but I'm just trying to understand if something changed from the last time we have those conversations or not because I remember a lot of discussion about encumbrance and if we were even allowed to sell it we just made that decision because As you mentioned, nothing else could go on there except for perhaps a parking lot. But if we were not thinking about that as a piece of land that could be sold, we probably wouldn't even be thinking about it as a parking lot or a detention basement. It's got to be a detention basement.

Yeah, so I think there was a lot of back and forth on that. Clint maybe has to jump in on this one but I believe that the ultimate decision was that because this was determined not to be a significant parcel of real property because it does have those encumbrances as long as the city maintained the easements and all of the functionality of that storm drain that could be sold to them in order for them to convert it and then we essentially instead of being the property owner we become the easement holder and they get to use the top when we use the stuff underneath. Is that

I remember all that. I also remember if we were going to have, if we were going to consider it non-significant or surplus, then we also had to offer it to the people around it. So I just was wondering where all that came from. Honestly, I was just surprised to see it back on the, not that I, again, if it's something that we aren't going to be using in any other reason besides the detention center and they can make that happen, fine with that, but It sounded like there were some other things that needed to be done in order for that to be the case. So I'm just wondering, do we get around that? Do we need to get around that? they came to us and said hey i want to purchase this did we have to also offer it to you know whoever wants to wants to jump in like what are the legal requirements for that you all have to have the answer that steve just gave it because it's not a significant parcel of land we don't need to do that and that happens periodically you've got another one coming up here pretty soon that you'll see again where it's not a significant parcel of land and so you don't need to offer it to to

out to the general public and generally it's usually only one property owner that would be interested in it at all if they are at all we do that fairly often go ahead i was going to say in this case it could actually help our tax base so you know to me it's kind of a it's good use of the detention so what you're saying plant is per state code with surplus property happen to be advertised to the public you feel that we're covered yes in this yeah the way that the state code in our ordinance works they work together that allows us to do this now i think steve said or somebody said if this did not have those encumbrances on it it was just raw ground it would be a different story

And I just wanted to clarify on what you said, this happens fairly frequently when that does happen. Is it the folks who want to purchase the land that are approaching us, or are we saying, hey, we don't need this, would you like to?

Almost always they're approaching us. It doesn't hurt for us to have a random parcel land somewhere. I don't want to say always, because I'm sure there may be some sort of exception, but

everyone that i can think of it's it's the abutting property owner that has approached us all right thank you any other questions okay good thank you okay item number six tracy europe six and seven

While I'm pulling this up, I'll just ask if there are any particular questions about the... Can I see it?

I can't see it from here.

Just pulling up the changes to the consolidated fee schedule. The ones that I think would be of particular interest to the citizens would be the sewer rate increase from $37 to $40, and then the... garbage and recycling rate increases that are included in there. And we can get to those. There are some others in here. Fire has a pretty good list of things that they updated. some of these are charges for reports that went up a little bit they just figured out how much time they're spending doing that and the fact that they're getting more reports and so they felt that it was appropriate to increase that some of this for example this line gets eliminated because it was already down here in part of this wording and so they're just trying to combine some things and update these fees a little bit the main thing being that this The fee used to be .005 and they felt it would be more appropriate to be .5, so that's where that one is. Some of these others that they had in here, this group here, this group of businesses all require annual inspections in order to maintain their facility. And so the fire department felt like, well, every year we're going out and we're doing an inspection. And on some of these larger facilities, it could be two people for half a day. that are out there doing that, when really after their initial inspection, when this business goes in, they're just paying a business license every year and this inspection process hasn't been part of that business license. So they felt like this was an area where we should capture a fee from these businesses for having to send our inspectors out there every year. Whereas most businesses, they just require an initial inspection and then they're good. So that's the purpose of those right there.

I just had a question on those. You may know where I'm going because I keep doing this, but they're all the same cost. Is there a benefit to itemizing what those businesses are? Like if there happens to be some other business that pops up that needs an annual inspection, are we going to have to go in and add that?

I think they listed them because these particular businesses require the annual inspection and so they wanted to list them out. They may have also listed them out because hospital is going to be, granted they didn't put a larger number on there, but they're going to go spend an entire day at the hospital and inspect it with a couple of two or three people. And so the cost is going to be significantly more, but you're right. You probably could have listed it as a one-liner with commas and have one fee over here instead of a vertical list, right?

Annual fire inspection. So it's like every year you're doing this.

Yeah, anybody who requires one. Yeah. Yeah, that's true.

Anywho.

that's all it's on ramp but not so specific here well it's they're all specific so if you missed one that's what I'm saying like if you missed a particular business that had to have an annual one then they could say oh we're not supposed to because we're not on that list so that was my only thing is like It's the same fee. It's $50 per hour per inspector. So if you've got three inspectors and you're there all day, then that's, you know, the calculation is the same. But yeah, that was my only question.

For Alex and Clint, it probably would be a bad idea to add that comment in when we adopt it. Something to the effect of any business that requires an annual inspection falls under this category.

Yeah, that was my only thing. Because these are all like, I mean the group home and the daycare, but everything else is still a health care type of facility. they have to have annual inspections because of the nature of the work they do and there may be others that are like that like i don't know if the infusion centers have to have one i would imagine they probably do but they're not necessarily listed here and we do have infusion centers in our city so okay uh some of these others related to the fire training towers

These two of these were already here and they just redefined them. The main thing that they wanted to change here is evidently there's some entities, mostly other cities, fire districts, whatever, that want to use our grounds around the fire training facility, but they don't necessarily hook up to a fire hydrant. They don't use our building. They just more need a place that's appropriate to be able to run drills and things. and so they felt like it would be better to charge a little bit lower fee where they're not using our water and they're not you know putting wear and tear on our actual building and facilities so that's the main thing that they changed here one this other one's still just without live fire and with live fire there's a significant difference on the personnel that needs to be available if they have an actual fire going there so that was that one This piece of it, firefighter air replenishment system, that actually got taken out of our building code, and so they felt like these fees, they don't belong anymore because it's not a requirement of the building code to provide one of these air systems within a commercial building. So they took that out. And then this last section, they added, because they were reviewing the international fire code, the international fire code actually allows for civil penalties if you don't meet some of these different requirements when you're building so if you don't have maintain a proper egress on your prop within your building so if you stack boxes in front of the doors and now the fire inspector goes over and looks at your building and there's no way for people to get out because all the building windows are blocked or doors are blocked or whatever They give a warning. He said there's like a 10-day warning and some other warning that they give. But what they found is that people have just in general, yeah, we'll get to that. Okay, well, if we've warned you a few different times, they wanted to put something in our code here that says, well, we can hit you with a $500 fee if you're not going to... If we've played nice for long enough, then... We have to have some teeth to be able to actually fine people for not complying. So that's the purpose of this entire section right here, was to update our code so that there's a place they can point that said, yes, if you don't comply, then we're allowed to fine you for not complying.

But there's no time.

That's just how we feel. Well, he didn't put it in here. He told me that there's some warnings, like a

i know he mentioned a 10-day yeah yeah and so there is a i thought there was an absolute they didn't put it in here that they actually yeah they'll come back and check you and then if you're not in compliance then yeah i know but right there it doesn't say that but this gives them the opportunity so we're taken care of in that respect right okay they give a warning unless it's a immediate

well safety issue and there's no warning right and then after they've given the warning and they don't do it and they have to come and they come back again there's not a warning again what about any signage because i know signing is always important in buildings for people to know that is that they don't properly sign it so people know how to get out well that might be under this failure to maintain safeguards so if you don't have the proper signage or

you know whatever you know okay yeah that was pretty broad that's signage that's um extinguishers ventilation things like that right yeah let's see uh there's meter fees these are just based on the cost of meters so those thing went out under the water exaction fee in lieu of water shares So they used to have this broken out in some smaller increments based on meter sizes. And what it comes down to is basically if someone wants to do a development and they can't provide shares, then they have to go out and buy enough shares for their development and the rate that generally gets paid is the weaver basin water rate per acre foot and engineering has determined that it should be that cost plus 10 percent so that's what this 24,645 is Now, Steve might jump in here, but if their need was based on something less than an acre foot, then they're going to do the calculation and determine what that fee needs to be. But it seemed more appropriate just to base it on this is Weber Basin's price per acre foot, and so that's what our fee's going to be per acre foot.

So that's Weber Basin's acre foot fee. That caught my attention. I knew it was. Because I'm using, like, davis and weaver share or something like that which would put that fee um what i'm aware of anywhere between ten and twenty thousand dollars an acre actually one that i know for sure would be ten thousand dollars an acre foot instead of 24. and then i looked at the ordinance where they could My understanding, we have an ordinance that says it's kind of a hardship. It's not that they can just pay the fee. They actually have to. The ordinance is 1923.0. And reading that, it's really kind of a hardship type thing, which I'm going to walk there. So you're saying you took Weaver Basin's number that we could verify it.

and came up with that so and it says it in the ordinance says it needs to be based on their number plus ten percent okay so their number is actually like four or five and this is that number plus ten percent okay But you're absolutely right. It has to be a hardship. They have to prove that there's no other water available and there's a lot of very specific things. So this doesn't get used at all. But we wanted to get it updated because when we were basing updated their fees and their impact fees.

So if I give Weber Basin, they could say, actually, I think there was a link. I just didn't have enough time to go to Weber Basin's.

uh to look up the number how you came up with the 24 yeah it's their impact fee number that they charge per acre foot in order to to provide the water and we did verify that we would basically make sure okay tracy just before the water profession um there was a date i think for these meters it says effective july 1 2024. Is that the correct date for these new fees? Yeah.

That's really good. We should probably just reboot that.

Do you want it deleted? Just delete that whole thing because the whole consolidated fee schedule is effective July 1st.

So you could actually eliminate that?

Yeah, that affected my wife. I believe that was when we took over the secondary system and had secondary fees that needed to be updated.

So would that need to be included in the motion?

Yeah, he wouldn't mind to eliminate that worry.

I told you to it, but you're making it. Because usually I sit there.

I mentioned the sanitary sewer fees and the garbage and recycling fee. Already we've talked about those. There's an update to the cost of street lights, those fees that are in there, and the power connection onto those street lights. That's all we have as far as that goes.

Can I go back to the water thing? Why even have the hardship in our coordinates? I'm looking at Steve.

There's internal discussions with staff about revising that entire ordinance. Mike, you're absolutely right. We should probably be considering that. If there's no water available that they can't buy, why are we saying pay us a fee? Because we're not going to be able to buy that water. So we're talking, Alex and I have had some conversations about potentially bringing something back to the council. For now, we just want to make sure.

I look at a hardship. It has to be something that the council. Say you... you're constructing something that's really for the best of the public. And we could elect to say, yeah, don't pay that fee because of what the organization is doing. But I can't see a justification for hardship. Reading through the ordinance, I'm just going, well, it doesn't really exist.

But what if no one's willing to sell what shares they currently own?

Then that's even a bigger problem. that's but then that's we're desperate if it comes to water that way which actually could become that's gonna say yeah it could really yeah I'm into that enough it could become a really really big issue

We've got to watch our time.

You guys, I can see right now we're not going to make it to our closed doors. Just based on what we've got left. Okay.

The last item for the budget that we needed to just... more or less have a yes or no I think would be the executive compensation we touched on a little bit last time we left the public hearing open and so it'll come up again in the public hearing so then we just need to know if that's an adjustment that needs to happen right now there's no increase for the mayor and council projected in the budget but the discussion was the market set survey came out and increased particularly the council's wage um i think the number was 240 something a pay period so i just needed to know where we're at on that so that we adopt the budget appropriately and that we can handle that in that public hearing i i personally i'll comment on this for you guys the longer we go without making that adjustment the harder it is for anybody down the road

make any type of adjustment because then it always looks like, and I know you hate it because it looks like a container, but really we're not.

I know and that's what I'm saying. But I like the idea of, I think the market adjustment makes sense, but I do like the idea of not making the market adjustment the reason we do it every year I think Clint had a good point about market adjustment maybe you know five years or so see where everything's at but we don't make decisions on a year-on-year basis based on what other cities are doing for that particular year I believe we talked about doing a COLA I think yeah and just like whatever the city yeah Get it to where we are now, make it right, and then just have it be associated with whatever the rest of the city is doing.

And I think that's the language that you have in there, which as I was reading that, I was like, oh yeah, that sounds...

I'm for it.

We're good, and then we know that's what's going forward. I don't know, but one thing...

looking down the road and with the other information so just make sure we're clear so you're saying right I think you're saying I want to make sure is that you want to raise it based on the market is to what the this time and then going forward not look at the market per se but look at the COLA right so you're saying yeah okay and then then maybe have some this point is they want at least

It's not just. COLA would help it keep up. Right. If you did do a market survey, then yeah. I mean, that's what we're doing with the employees.

And that's the way you have it worded, which I think is what we were thinking to do some years ago anyway, just to make it so that it was not a political thing, but it was literally just to stay in line with where people are. That sounds fine to me. And if Dave's on board, then I guess.

If Dave's on board after what he said, then there's a big change. So I mean, yes, for those down the road.

So I have eight minutes. Are we good on that? Do you want to go ahead and try to cover it? Let's jump in, you guys. If you want, let's go ahead and I'll entertain a motion to go into a closed-door session for the balance of our time.

And then second.

I'd like to go ahead and welcome everyone out to our Layton City Council meeting this evening, which is June 18th. As you, some of you, most of you who are here tonight know that as a governing body, we do like to open up our meeting with a prayer and a pledge. And with that, I'll go ahead and turn our time over to Dignitary Thomas, who is dressed for the occasion tonight.

I wanted to be like Paul Apolloni, so that's why I wore my tie. We're gonna have an opening prayer, and then we'll have a Pledge of Allegiance after, and I'll do both. Okay. Our Father in heaven, we're grateful to be gathered in this meeting tonight, especially to be able to take care of situations in the city. We pray that we might have thy spirit, that we may make decisions that are good, worthy of Layton City. And we pray that we may be able to influence what needs to be influenced to make this a better city. We're thankful for our freedom. We're thankful for what we have and how we are allowed to act. And we're just grateful. And I pray in the name of Jesus Christ, amen.

Amen. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for Okay, I'd now like to turn the time over to the council for any municipal announcements that they may have.

Yeah.

Okay, take it away. You bet.

July 4th's coming up, so we got all kinds of stuff happening. Sunday, June 28th, that would be two weeks, right?

No, a week from Sunday.

A week from Sunday, that's two weeks. Anyway, Voices of Liberty. And we're having a patriotic concert at 7 o'clock, and we'll also announce our hometown heroes. And this year, we're doing something we've never done, and that's our hometown heroes are younger. They're not old people like me, okay, just because you live younger. few thousand years you know now but they and going to the homes yeah you miss something if you weren't there it was pretty neat to see what some of these kids are doing and And so anyway, that's Sunday, 7 o'clock. Then Monday on the 29th is Threads of Honor presentation at the Ed Kinley Amphitheater. Gates open at 7.15 for that. Friday, which is a big day, day before the 4th. 5 o'clock, there's the Star Spangled Splash, which is a pool party at Surf and Swim. Two bucks or five bucks at the door. At 5.30... is probably the greatest thing that's ever, no nevermind. It's America's 250th birthday puppet show in the amphitheater. If you've got kids or grandkids, these puppets aren't little hand puppets, they're like the Muppets on TV. I should say more but I won't. And then at 5.30, for those of you that are baseball fans, me being one of them but I won't be there this time, down at Ellison Park they have the all-star games and Nothing better than an all-star game in there somebody announced and kids are playing. It's kind of neat Saturday, I'm not going to go through everything starts at 630 if you want to run if you want to eat it starts at 7 goes through the whole day and Then at the end of the day we have fireworks and We have a parade that starts at 10 o'clock or 10.15 it looks like, or 10.30, I'm sorry.

A special treat at 10.15.

Oh, did I miss something? They didn't put that in there, but yes, there is a special treat. And I'd tell you what it is, but then the mayor would swear at me, so I'm not going to do it. So you need to come to the parade just for the treat, and I'm not joking on that. And I think... Oh, wait a minute. Saturday, July 18th. Pancakes and patriotism, however they go together, at Layton Commons Park. Five bucks for an individual, 20 for a family. Eight to 12. Okay.

Very good. And if you can't remember all of that, there's a good video online that this entire council presented. So, anyway. Okay. More announcements?

I have one announcement, not just in honor of my Layton CTC friends who are in the audience, but for all parents in Davis County, if you have kids who are under the age of 18 who go to school in the county, any school, We have a parent survey. It's our Davis Community Survey. It's not just our CTC, but all of the Davis County Communities That Care coalitions. We want to hear from you. We have programming for families, family connections, and also helping our youth stay drug and alcohol free, and also helping them to refrain from suicide. And so we want to hear from the parents what you're thinking, what you're seeing. And that survey, we do have a QR code for it, which I can't show you right now. But I will give you a website that you can go to to take this survey. It's tinyurl.com. forward slash North Davis parents and that's just a quick URL you can go to and fill that survey out. We want to hear from you. Make sure the programming that we're doing is helping to support all of our young people and the families that we serve. So thanks.

Okay. Anyone else? Very good. Well, we'll now move on to our verbal petition. So speaking of families, tonight we're going to do a proclamation on family strengthening because this entire month has been the family strengthening your family. So with that, I'll go ahead and read the proclamation. Proclamation. It says, whereas the family is a foundation building block of a strong, vibrant, and resilient community, serving as the primary source of love, nurturing, guidance, and support for the citizens of Layton City. And whereas building strong families requires a community-wide commitment to fostering protective factors including parental resilience, robust society connection, concrete support in times of need, and a deep understanding of child and family development. And whereas scientific research demonstrates that positive childhood experiences, such as feeling safe and support at home, EXPERIENCE A SENSE OF BELONGING IN SCHOOL AND THE COMMUNITY AND HAVE TRUSTED RELATIONSHIPS WITH ADULTS SERVES AS A POWERFUL BUFFER AGAINST ADVERSITY AND ARE FOUNDATIONAL TO BUILDING A LIFELONG RESILIENCE. AND WHEREAS, Intentionally cultivating these positive childhood experiences within our family and neighborhoods equipped our youth with the emotional and social tools necessary to thrive, ultimately strengthening the collective health of the future of our municipality. And whereas the period spanning from Mother's Day into May well past Father's Day in June naturally highlights the inevitable contribution of parents, caregivers, and mentors serving as an ideal window to focus on the bounds of experience that unite our households and whereas Layton City recognizes that community resilience is built from the inside out and that investing in the health connection and stability of our families directly contributes to the safety, economic vitality, and overall well-being of the city. Now, therefore, be it resolved, I, Joy Petro, the mayor of Layton, in the state of Utah, along with the Layton City Council, do hereby proclaim June of 2026 as Family Strengthening Month and call upon our citizens, schools, businesses, and faith community partners to promote positive childhood experience and celebrate support and strengthening the family within our community, ensuring that Layton City remains safe welcome, and a thriving place for generations to come. So with that, I do have the proclamation here that I would like to present. So ladies, if you wouldn't mind standing up. I think you need to come.

So I would like for you to present this to you. You guys can decide where you're going to put it. At the same time, you're welcome to go ahead and make a comment. So please do. But make sure you state your name.

Debbie Comstock. And I'm not here alone. I'm here with several of my partners because we don't do this alone. This represents a number of coalitions and efforts in Layton collectively feeling this way. So thank you very much, Mayor Petro. Appreciate it. And Council.

Well, thank you. Thank you for all you do and especially Communities That Cares. We've got a lot of good partners out there that really has taken hold and, you know, just building that extra security that we need with our future. Okay, I'll now go on to our citizens' comment portion of our meeting. The citizens' comment portion is a time for our residents to come up and address this governing body. You're welcome to come up to either side, state your name, what city you're from, and if you could, kind of keep your comments brief. And certainly if there are comments that we've heard in the past, just please, again, understand we do know and understand. and want to give you assurance that these items are being addressed, but if we've been negligent, then go ahead and bring it to our attention. So the time is now yours.

Shari Wade, and I'm from Layton. I just want to reiterate a few things, and I know this is going to sound weird because I was here last time about saying that I'm against the dog park in Eastridge. I will still state that. But at the same time, I'm also for a dog park in the right area. With that being said, you guys said that this had been on the agenda since, for about six years, five, six years. Yet your own parks rec guide last week said that even with the ramp funding, it would be another four to five years before a dog park would be put in, if it was put in at Eastridge. To me, you guys worked faster for the pickleball courts. I think 10 years to ask dog owners to wait for a dog park is a little bit too much. With Andy Adams, one of the things that I have noticed after the last few weeks that I've been driving by, and I've driven by that place now for a year and a half, looking at it, realizing you guys have two parking lots there. It's on a connector route. It's a wider area of the street right there on Emerald. There's a church across the street, and there's a sod farm next door. You're not going to have the family as much as concerned. One of the reasons I am concerned about Eastridge is if you even have a car parked on the other side of the street, you can't drive two cars down that street. So the roads are more narrow in that area. So that's my concern. So I would just like to say that I would like to see a dog park go in, if possible, within the next year to help all dog owners have a safe place that's fenced to take their dogs. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else?

Jennifer Shepard Layton. Seems like there's been, to me, a little bit of amnesia. amongst you all for the past year, so I just wanted to refresh your memory. It was a year ago, June of 2025, that the Eastridge Park was first proposed as a potential off-leash dog area at your request, specifically for a trail, a nature trail type park. That was your specific request, and And that was in June of 2025. And then in November, on November 6 of 2025, you all advocated in the work meeting for application of ramp funds to hasten THE COMPLETION OF EAST RIDGE NATURE PARK FOR THE PURPOSE OF USING PART OF IT AS AN OFF-LEASH DOG PARK, WHICH WAS DONE, WHICH WAS APPROVED FOR $800,000. YOU ALL KIND OF STATED YOUR POSITION LAST WEEK ON WHERE YOU STOOD WITH DOG PARKS. MIKE, YOU KIND OF DEFERRED TO THE REST OF THE CITY COUNCIL. But I wanna help you remember that at least to one constituent before the election, you said, quote, yes, I believe Layton needs a dog park. And if elected, I will work in finding and funding at least one dog park. So I'm asking you to stand up and lead that and be true to your promise because people voted for you, including me for this reason. And then on March 5th of this year, in response to a work meeting where the agenda was to discuss priorities of Layton, a dog park was not mentioned as a priority. And so myself and two other people came and basically called you to task on that. AS WE WERE WALKING OUT AFTER PUBLIC COMMENTS, WE WERE PHYSICALLY HAILED TO COME BACK IN HERE AND GET AN UPDATE ON WHERE THAT STOOD. AND DAVID PRICE CAME AND DID HIS UPDATE AND LET US KNOW THAT RAMP FUNDS HAD BEEN APPLIED FOR. The conversation continued out into the hallway where he told us that the reason it wasn't mentioned amongst you all as a priority was because it was a done deal. It was in progress. It was done. And he even said it would be finished by... Time's up.

You can finish your statement. Go ahead.

He told us that construction would start this year and we would be having our dogs there by next summer.

Very good. Thank you.

SO I THINK THOSE FUNDS OUGHT TO GO TO A DIFFERENT AREA IF YOU SO CHOOSE.

THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE?

HI, MY NAME IS IRENE HILL FROM LAYTON. ON THE AGENDA I SEE IN THE CONSENT ITEMS, some miscellaneous rates and fees and I don't know exactly what that's about because I just seen it when I walked in about the sewer garbage and recycling I'm a single mom and if it's raising them please don't do it or do something with the water because I don't use half of my water half of the time and I still have to pay the same amount every single month and that does not help people in Layton and I've talked to many people about it it does not help people save water in Layton because they want to use their max amount so they can use how much they're getting charged for So if it's to raise the rates, please don't do that. And we need to do something about the water rates. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, seeing that there's no other comments, I'm going to go ahead and move on then to our consent items, where we will be able to hear more detail about those rates. We're going to go ahead and start out with item number A, and Mr. Jackson's going to present a storm drain agreement and land purchase agreement for Layton City.

Thank you, Mayor, Council. It's good to be with you tonight. For your consideration is Resolution 2634, which is a storm drain agreement and land purchase agreement between Layton City and 840 Elm RELLC for the Midtown Crossing detention basin. JUST A LITTLE BACKGROUND ON THIS AGREEMENT AND WHAT THIS ENTAILS. THE PARCEL IN PURPLE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SCREEN IS OWNED BY LAYTON CITY. IT HOLDS A DETENTION BASIN THAT TAKES STORM WATER FROM ALL OF THE AREAS THAT ARE COLORED ON THE MAP HERE. AND AS PART OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF MIDTOWN CROSSING, THE ROADWAY, UDOT PURCHASED THAT PROPERTY, CHANGED IT INTO A LARGER DETENTION BASIN AND THEN gave that to the city in order to maintain and take care of. 840 Elm, R-E-L-L-C, has approached the city and asked if they could purchase this property in order to convert the detention basin that's partially on their property into an underground facility and then use that for parking for their current activities, their business operations. So as part of the agreement, the purchase price for the property would be $205,000, and all the costs to convert the detention base into an underground facility would be borne by 840MRE. The city property is encumbered with an easement for stormwater and utilities, which prohibits the construction of any structures on that property. And because of that, The City Council has determined that the property is not a significant parcel of real property under the Municipal Code and the Utah Code. And for that reason, this property can be sold to the adjoining property owner for the conversion of it to an underground system and then parking on top. The detention basin will maintain the minimum 1.87 acre feet of capacity, which will allow all of the stormwater currently draining into the property to remain going through that property. The city would maintain all the storm drainage in the street, 1400 North and the Mid-Down Crossing rights of way. Private property owners that are draining into that pond would maintain all of the systems on their respective parcels, and UDOT would maintain the storm drainage system in I-15. that is currently there. 840MRE would maintain the easement for the roadway and the private storm drain easement. They acknowledge and accept the obligation to receive all the storm water that drains into that pond currently from all the current users into perpetuity. They would have ownership and maintenance of the storm drain system on their property and all the underground facility as well. They will post a $25,000 surety bond for repair and maintenance of the pond to ensure that It's maintained properly into the future and then also have liability insurance for that underground facility. And then there's also a long-term stormwater maintenance agreement and long-term stormwater maintenance plan that is required for this facility that they've created and they will meet those requirements going into the future. So with that... Staff recommends that Council adopt Resolution 2634 and approve the Storm Brain Agreement and Land Purchase Agreement between Leyton City and 840 Elm R.E. LLC for the Midtown Crossing Detention Basin Facility and authorize the Mayor to sign the necessary documents. Are there any questions I can answer for the Council?

Council, do you have any additional questions?

I don't have a question. I just want to clarify something that I asked in the work meeting. Because the council determined that this is insignificant property, we didn't have to offer this like on an auction or the market for multiple folks to bid on. And that was something I wanted to clarify. Because if it were surplus property, we would have had to use that process. But because this is something that otherwise wouldn't be able to be sold necessarily, we were able to not offer it to this entity. But they approached us and were able to entertain their desire to purchase this property. And so I just wanted to make that clear that that was something that we talked about at length the first time this came before us. And then Steve was very gracious to give me all of the background again. So thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Madam Mayor, if I might to Clint. So this will be a separate property from, separate parcel from the one that they already own. And this agreement, the signees, the successors will, if they sold that area they currently own, this is a separate parcel. Correct. So this would still, they would still have obligations under the contract to ensure that this is done and whoever buys that has to

IT'S SUBJECT TO THAT AGREEMENT. IT'LL BE RECORDED ON THE PROPERTY.

VERY GOOD. OKAY.

THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. OKAY, WE GOT ONE MORE ITEM ON OUR CONSENT ITEMS. AND MR. PROBERT'S GOING TO COME UP AND PRESENT THOSE, WHICH WILL HELP ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS EARLIER.

Hello, Mayor, members of the council. Tonight I have ordinance 26-20, which does reference the consolidated fee schedule and the adjustment of several fees and rates within the city. In that schedule, There's a number of minor things, but one was addressed here at the pulpit already today. That's related to an increase in sewer rates, garbage rates, and recycling rates. And I think it would be important then, since there was a question, to explain that those rates generally, particularly with the sewer rate, is set based on a master plan and a rate study in order for us to be able to provide the system, maintain it adequately, and then also improve it as needed. And also we're in a partnership, I guess we would call it that, with North Davis Sewer District for the treatment of the waste that's transported through that system. And so a lot of times when we've raised rates over the years related to sewer, it's related to the treatment side of that. In this particular year, we found that as we reviewed the city's financial position for the sewer fund that it was necessary to read to raise the city side of the rate and so that's included in this particular year. When we look at garbage and recycling that's performed under a contract with waste management and every year they send us a cost of living adjustment that has to take place but we've tried to do the last few years or say let's say the last 10 years is every five years or so do an adjustment to that rate and where we possibly should have adjusted it last year there were other rate increases that occurred so out of respect for the citizens I would say pocketbook right we tried to not increase every rate on the bill within one year so while it is and as a payer of utility bills I can also empathize that we don' t like to see rates go up. I will say that Layton City is very conscientious about making sure that we only ask for what we need. We don' t go out and look at the rates, utility rates of all of the surrounding cities and say well we' re in the bottom third as far as what we' re charging and we want to be in the top half. you know we don't consider that I don't have a slide here tonight we have occasionally in a work meeting shown that to you as a council and to citizens if they were to come to the meeting you know kind of where we stand just so that we know we're being reasonable right but traditionally we've always fallen towards at least the bottom half of other providers of utilities in the county that's because we look at our financials and what we need in order to provide that service. Now we have had the question come up just to address the question briefly if that's appropriate of the amount of water used compared to what i pay and so we have a lot of people that call the utility office and say well i'm gone half the year or i live alone so why can't i get some kind of a reduced rate the base rate that we charge for water is to provide it to the home it's not you know we we add a usage piece to it but we could easily just say zero you have to pay the $20 and some odd sense for the base rate for water. And that's calculated into the rate study. to show that we have to have a certain amount of water of we have to have a certain level of rate just to be able to provide the water to all the citizens. Maybe I've said too much but hopefully that address some of the concerns that were brought up during citizens comments. Some of the other fees that are the those 3 would probably be in my mind the main concern of the citizens that affects all of them directly each month on their utility bill. some of the others that are uh... in here relate to uh... fire inspections plan reviews use of our fire training facility and then also some civil penalties for those that to comply with fire inspection recommendations or maybe at times they're not even recommendations they could be requirements and so if you fail to comply with for example you block all your window you know you block all the egress in your house or in your building we wouldn't be inspecting your house but you know in a commercial business then there's going to be a fine for that if you don't comply. Anyway, those are some of the fees that are changed others are just based on our costs related to the cost of water meters when contractors purchase those and streetlights when contractors are required to purchase those we needed to update our costs related to those were there any fees in particular that you changes that I didn't address that you'd like me to address. Yeah, could you address the the water extraction fee the increase on that and clarify what you told us or in the work meeting or what Steve actually told Steve Jackson and if I don't answer correctly then I'll ask Steve to come up but there is a fee in here that was kind of divided out based on meter size before and so if a developer is not able to provide water shares when they want to put in a development then there's a fee that's charged that's called an exaction fee and that's based on acre foot and what we've tied that to in the ordinance is weaver basin waters wholesale price for an acre foot of water. Now it seems that there's a number of things in that ordinance that would relate to hardships in providing water so someone goes out they can't they can't find water to purchase the way it was explained to me as we don't want to be in the business of providing exceptions okay you can find any so we'll give you an exception you don't have to provide any water for your development that doesn't make any sense right we can't build and not have water for the building that sick going to occur so in the case that you are unable to find water shares yourself we charge this fee and then the city goes out and buys those shares typically we would buy them from weaver basin water and that so that' s the reason for the reference price and now the development has water that comes with it. It would make sense to say that we don' t want development to occur within our city and not have enough water to provide for that development. I don' t know if that I guess, should I say, it makes sense to you. Was I clear? You were clear. Thank you, Tracy. Okay.

No, that helps explain to everyone. Okay. Anyone else on questions on this item?

I don't have any questions, but there were a few items that not necessarily would affect the everyday resident, as you mentioned earlier, that were in there. And I just had a suggestion about some consolidation of verbiage and whatnot. And that was specific to a fee for businesses that require an annual fire safety inspection. And so... IF I MAKE THE MOTION.

WHEN YOU MAKE THE MOTION.

WHEN I MAKE THE MOTION, I'LL INCLUDE THAT VERBAGE.

THAT WOULD BE APPRECIATED, YES. THANK YOU.

OKAY.

ANY... OKAY. NO, YOU'RE GOING TO.

THANK YOU.

OKAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. And the time is now yours, because that was the last item on our consent item. So now I'll turn the time back over to our council to go ahead and make a motion. Once again, since these items could be considered as routine, we can actually enact them in one single motion and vote upon them that way. So I need a motion from the council at this time.

Madam Mayor, I move that we adopt Resolution 26-34, the Storm Drain Agreement and Land Purchase, and also that we adopt Ordinance 26-20, which is the Latent City Municipal Code Consolidated Fee Schedule, with the following change. On page 4... ITEMIZED SPECIAL OCCUPANCY FOR BUSINESSES REQUIRING ANNUAL FIRE INSPECTIONS AND IN PARENTHESES LIST OUT DAY CARES, GROUP HOMES, ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY, SKILLED NURSING FACILITY, HEALTH CARE FACILITY, HOSPITAL, ETC. THAT WAY WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT ANY OTHER BUSINESSES THAT ARE REQUIRING AN ANNUAL INSPECTION ARE NOT LEFT OUT. AND ALSO ON PAGE 10 TO REMOVE THE REFERENCE OF EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2024. AS WAS MENTIONED IN THE WORK MEETING, THAT EFFECTIVE DATE IS ON THE TOP OF THAT ENTIRE CONSOLIDATED FEE SCHEDULE. SO WE DON'T NEED TO REFERENCE IT THERE AND IT WAS OUTDATED. PERFECT.

DO I HAVE A SECOND?

Okay.

There you have it. Okay. Council, all in favor of our consent items as presented, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, thank you very much. The consent items pass. We'll now move on to our public hearing portion of our meeting. And just so those in the audience know, we'll open and close each item as we address them. So we'll start out with item number A, which is a text amendment to the Layton City Municipal Code. And Mr. Longcrawl will be presenting this item to us.

Thank you, Mayor and Council. Tonight we have before you ordinance number 2615, a request to amend part of our land use ordinance, which requires a public hearing. We currently have a code that requires a six-foot temporary fence to be put around what is called a pumpkin patch or a tree lot. In this code, it's a seasonal vendor. but that's what's defined under our ordinance. It requires a six-foot temporary fence. We've been told by the applicant. The applicant, you know, is Tyson Roberts, and on behalf of some of the other people in the city. We only have one pumpkin patch that operates each year and a handful of tree lots. But we've been told that the cost of this fencing has reached a point where requiring that fence would actually put the business out of business because they don't have a large enough margin with the products they sell. And so we took a look at our ordinance. and realized that the original purpose of that code was to reduce vandalism, possibly deter theft, really things that benefit the applicant more than the city. With that, our community development director reached out to the police chief and asked him if he had any records of of crimes over the past few years, incidents that could be affected by this code being removed. And he told us they haven't had any. And so with that, we also looked out the other cities in the county to see what their code required. And we found out that only Clinton required a fence around a use like this. And so it was just Layton City and Clinton. And so we decided to make a recommendation that this requirement be removed. With that, you can see that the ordinance, well, this one doesn't have all the language, but we still allow fencing if the applicant would like to put a fence around their sale area, but not require it. And that recommendation was taken to the Planning Commission. on May 26th and they made a positive recommendation unanimously to have that removed. So the code now will allow offense but not require it. And with that staff recommends that the council consider approving ordinance number It's not on here. 2615, amending Layton City Municipal Code 1921070 as recommended and proposed in the packet. Happy to answer any questions.

Council, do you have any questions on this? If not, then I'd go ahead and entertain a motion to open the public hearing at this time.

I'LL MAKE THE MOTION OPEN PUBLIC HERE.

MR. THOMAS, YOUR SECOND? YEAH, OKAY. THAT'S WHAT YOU NEED. YEAH, I DID. OKAY, I'LL ACKNOWLEDGE THAT. SO NOW THE TIME IS YOURS. IF ANYONE WISHES TO COMMENT ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM, YOU MAY DO SO. COME UP TO THE MIC, STATE YOUR NAME, MAYBE YOUR FORMER DUTY.

Tyson Roberts from Layton. I still carry a mug that says council member, so thanks. Carried in the tractor with me every day. No, I appreciate being here with you and the opportunity to hear this request. Appreciate Weston and Lon and I think Brad McElrath did a lot of work on this ordinance request. I won't reiterate too much what Lon said, but a friend of mine lives in Layton. Not as much acreage available in Layton, so he farms outside of Layton now, but I think the picture he showed was actually of a stand that they've ran at Cal Ranch in the past. I think... Because there's fewer farms, I think they do a service to our residents in bringing the farm to them, to the city. And yeah, profit margins are pretty small in Pumpkins. It's a real small season, maybe about three to four weeks max. And bringing that fence in is a pretty... It's an increased cost. And really, I think it looks more like a car repo lot than a farm or a pumpkin patch. So I do appreciate the city's work on helping us with this. I APPRECIATE BRAD ALSO LOOKING INTO THE TREE STANDS. I DON'T OPERATE A TREE FARM OR A TREE STAND, BUT I'VE WATCHED MORE HALLMARK MOVIES IN THE WINTERTIME THAT I CARE TO ADMIT, AND I THINK ALL OF THEM HAVE A CHRISTMAS TREE LOT IN THEM, AND NONE OF THEM HAD A FENCE AROUND THEM FROM WHAT I REMEMBER. SO I APPRECIATE THIS EFFORT TO BE FAIR TO ALL BUSINESSES. SO THANK YOU.

Excellent. Thank you. Anyone else wish to comment on this item? Okay. If not, I'll bring it back to the council to close the public hearing and take action on Ordinance 26-15.

Mayor, I move that we close the public meeting. and can you go and or do we have to vote on closing. No, no, and good close.

And now just clarification public hearing public hearing.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Well, I would close all meeting that I don't want to do that. Yeah, and I'd like to approve. My readers 2615. 26-15 resolution. I can't.

Ordinance.

Ordinance. Oh, there it is. 26-19. Am I on the right one?

No, it's 15. You do need your readers. Oh, I'm on the front.

Ordinance 26-19. I'm sorry. I get this. I only do this once every seven months.

Okay, there's been a motion to close the public hearing and adopt Ordinance 26-15 as presented. Being that this is a public hearing, I need to... Oh, I do need a second.

Excuse me.

Yeah, thank you. All right, we have a motion and a second. Being that this is a public hearing, I need to do a roll call vote. So I'll go ahead and start out with... Council Member Colonialis.

Aye.

Okay. Council Member Morris.

Aye.

Council Member Bloxham. Aye. Council Member Thomas.

Aye.

And Council Member Smith-Edmondson. Aye. Okay. There you have it. It passes. Thank you. Very good. We'll now go on to item number B. which is Mr. Probert will be back up to present the changes to the compensation of the executive municipal officers.

Correct. Thank you, Mayor, members of the council. On June 4th, a public hearing was held related to changes in compensation for executive municipal officers. And at that time during the public hearing, there weren't any public comments, but there was discussion about what changes should be made. And so as part of the public hearing tonight, we'll present these changes once again. The changes that are proposed for all executive municipal officers, with the exception of mayor and city council, is a 1% cost of living and a 3% merit increase. That would be equal to the increase proposed for all other municipal employees. For the mayor, it's proposed $37 per pay period increase, and for the city council, $247 PER PAY PERIOD INCREASE. THOSE WOULD BE THE CHANGES THAT ARE THERE, AND I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THOSE CHANGES.

OKAY. COUNCIL, ANY DISCUSSION? IF NOT, I NEED A MOTION TO GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME.

SO MOVED.

THANK YOU.

I MAKE A MOTION TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING.

You need to second it. Zach opened it.

Oh, Zach did. Oh, sorry, Zach. I second.

Thank you. OK, all in favor say aye. Aye. OK, the time is now yours for any type of public comment if you wish to make on this one particular item. OK, there is one. Once again, make sure you state your name for the record.

TYSON ROBERTS FROM LAYTON. I WASN'T GOING TO SPEAK, BUT I LISTENED TO THE WORK MEETING, AND I APPRECIATE CONSIDERING INCREASING THE CITY COUNCIL COMPENSATION. I APPLAUD THOSE OF YOU IN THE LAST MEETING THAT SAID YOU DON'T DO IT FOR THE MONEY, AND I DIDN'T AS WELL WHEN I SAT IN YOUR SEATS. But I think it would do a disservice to potential public servants from our city if that compensation doesn't somewhat compensate them for their time taken away from work, family, and so forth. So I appreciate you moving forward with it. I would say the increase, if you don't want it, I know there's a good sub for Santa in the city that would probably take that donation. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, anyone else wish to comment?

I thought we'd just give them another three minutes.

Okay, being that there's no other comments, let me bring it back to the council then to take action on this item and close the public hearing.

Madam Mayor, I have a question.

Absolutely.

Do they have to... The vote here is... So both executive municipal officers and city, the us?

Yes.

Would we consider splitting that?

It's all in how you present it.

I don't know that we're voting on it here. It's just part of the budget. And so we had to hold a public hearing to address publicly what the changes were. And so we've presented them. So then maybe if there's a contrary vote, I would say it's probably during the adoption of the budget.

Madam Mayor, I think what Clint's saying is to separate the executive and municipal officers from the elected officials, if that's a potential, even though they're under the same budget item or the same public hearing item.

Okay. Well, I guess then at this point, do we address it now or do we wait until we go into the actual budget?

There's no action on this. It's just, as you all know, two years ago there was a legislative change that requires this. So it's just accepting public comment and then it'll be part of the budget. So if there's going to be a motion, make the motion as part of that as the budget approval. Okay. There's that new law that was passed. There's no... ACTION REQUIREMENT OTHER THAN JUST MAKING IT PART OF THE BUDGET.

SO JUST, AND WE'VE DEALT WITH THIS BEFORE, COUNCILMENT MORRIS AND I, WE'VE ACTUALLY TALKED ABOUT THIS, THAT THE BUDGET IS AN UP AND DOWN YES OR NO. YOU EITHER AGREE WITH ALL THE BUDGET OR YOU DON'T. AND SO IF COUNCILMENT MORRIS WANTED TO MAKE THAT MOTION, HE COULD MAKE THE MOTION AND MAKE THAT DISTINCTION, AND THEN HE WOULD HAVE TO CARRY THREE VOTES. RIGHT. OKAY. THAT MAKES SENSE.

Okay, does anyone else want to weigh in on this particular item or wait until we go on to the next item? I would like to weigh in. Please do.

We've had lots of discussion about this in the work settings, and so then when we come here and it's just kind of a... here and now this is what we do i feel that's probably part of the hesitation for us to to make a motion or speak about what to do and so i think maybe council you can help us with this but in the work meeting today as well as the last meeting there was some discussion about a 1% COLA for the elected officials, that was the same as what city employees get, but not looking at any 3% or any of that. We do know that the HR looks at market to determine what the salary or, in our case, stipend would be for those positions, for all of the positions. And so how and in which motion would it be appropriate to say let's apply that method to get the elected officials up to where they need to be as far as market goes but then to just look at that one percent cola every year which is in line with what the city staff require or not require but receive As opposed to having to look at market every year. Because I don't think any of us are interested in that. And the other discussion piece for the public was that while none of us politically want to have this discussion ever... If we never make any moves, then it gets harder and harder for any other council down the road. And then you end up with folks that are grossly undercompensated for the time and effort that they're putting into this position, which is the main reason why we're even talking about it today.

Correct. Well, and also taking, and I agree with everything you said, and in addition to that, the inflationary issue that's gone on the past several years, and in particular right now with the gas, I mean, you would easily chew up any of that increase in the amount of activities we go to and attend. So go ahead, Councilman Block.

Thank you. And you can correct me if I'm wrong, Clint, but I think procedurally, I guess we would, the figures that you gave us today, just now, about what it would be for the budget for this year have included the market analysis, right?

So now that you've stated that, when we adopt the budget, as I present it in the next item, that budget does not include increases for the mayor and council and so part of your motion would be to include those in the budget going forward that would give you an opportunity to express either yes or no and why well yes or no based on including that or not including that.

And then in the future, next budget, then we have a discussion about this is during our initial budget meeting about this is what we are thinking when we saw all the merit and increases for the entire city staff that we would have a line item for mayor and city council where we would discuss if that's something we wanted to pursue with the budget in this next year.

Right. And it would be much easier to do it then because if we're talking about a COLA percentage, we would know what we're anticipating for all employees, whereas the survey side of it, that came out later, so it caused that issue.

May I?

Yeah, go ahead, Council Member Morris.

I guess you're in a tough spot when you've got a $140 million budget and you disagree with one of the line items and it's a yes or no vote. My consternation is I just don't disagree. I just don't agree. I disagree with the increase in that I feel like the... the case has been made that we are keeping people from running and we'll be keeping people from running into the future. And we've had very, very competitive elections. We've had primaries since the beginning of time in Leighton City. There's plenty of candidates. And so I don't, I just disagree. And I think we can. It's just difficult to, I want the city to run. And I want OUR MUNICIPAL OFFICERS TO BE TAKEN CARE OF, AND I WANT EVERY ONE OF OUR EMPLOYEES TO BE TAKEN CARE OF. THAT'S IMPORTANT TO ME. BUT TO BE ABLE TO SAY NO TO A BUDGET AND ALL OF THAT BECAUSE I DISAGREE WITH WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY IS A TOUGH SITUATION. AND SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY THE STATE LAWS, HOW IT IS TO HAVE A SEPARATE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS, BUT IT'S JUST WHERE I AM. Yeah, so that's the question about being able to do it without the elected officials involved, but it sounds like that's not a... can't do that.

Any other comments? Okay, well, let's go ahead and proceed with our... BUDGET ITEM FOR TONIGHT, WHICH IS ALSO A PUBLIC HEARING. WE ARE ON ITEM NUMBER C, WHICH IS ADOPT THE BUDGET PROPER TOX RATE AND THE COMPENSATION SCHEDULE OR IN OTHER WORDS ORDINANCE 26-19. SO MR. PROBERT, PLEASE PROCEED.

OKAY. THANK YOU. So just a brief overview of the budget proposed that begins July 1, 2026 and goes through June 30th of 2027. Some highlights from that budget, the general fund budget is just short of $50 million. The citywide budget, which includes utility funds, which is why it jumps up so much, is just over $140 million. We've just talked about market cost of living and merit adjustments for officers and employees in the city. there's three point almost 4 million in capital equipment 26 million in capital projects most of which are related to utilities streets parks and completion of the dispatch center that's across the parking lot here. It's anticipated that our sales tax revenue will be slightly higher than the previous year. based on how things go with the news, who knows. But so far it's been fairly steady even through all of this news and media and things that's going on in the world. So we feel fairly confident about that. Some of the major projects that are included is a second year or partial funding for a fire ladder truck. the public knows I mean those cost about almost 2 million dollars so that's a very major expense for the city. Ambulance purchases parks projects that are funded with city and ramp funds street maintenance and projects related to streets and as I mentioned utility projects including secondary water line projects. most of which are or I should say which are partially funded by grant funds those secondary water projects. So that's the overview if we were to look at it graphically we can see that sales tax revenue makes up over half of the general fund revenue property tax just under 22% and then other revenue sources to help us fund the general operations general funded categories of the city. Expenditure on the expenditure side of that we can see that 35% of that is for police services fires number would be about double that if our ambulance service was included that' s accounted for in a separate fund and so but you know fire would also be around the 30% range in there so we can see police and fire make up a lot of what we spend our money on in out of the general fund. Citywide revenue, you see the charges for services here. That's all of our utility funds that make up those charges for services side of it. And citywide, if we were to look at it, we have compensation making up 44% and operations 30%. That's all the supplies and materials and things that we need in order to run those utilities that we have, so. with that that's a very brief overview I would make the recommendation that we open the public hearing I should also mention while we're talking about it that our property tax rate the council's decided to adopt the certified tax rate which is not an increase in property taxes for the citizens or businesses and so with that I would recommend that we open a public hearing related to the budget.

Okay, thank you for remembering the property tax thing as well. Okay, council, so we do need to open up the public hearing on our budget.

Madam Mayor, I move that we open up the public hearing for Ordinance 26-19 to adopt the budget.

Second.

Okay, all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Thank you. Okay, the time is now yours if anyone wishes to comment on our budget. Okay, seeing that there's no comment on this, I'll go ahead and bring it back to the council for additional discussion or action. And the action would include closing the public hearing and adopting Ordinance 26-19 with your decision on the merit. Make sure you include the compensation for the executive municipal officers as proposed in the budget.

Madam Mayor, I move to close the public hearing and to adopt the budget for 26-27, Ordinance 26-19, with the figures that we have discussed with regard to the executive municipal officers' compensation as proposed.

Okay. Okay, we have a motion and a second. So, once again, this is a public hearing, so I'll go ahead and take a roll call vote. I'll start down. Oh, Dave, Mr. Thomas, sorry. Okay, I'll go ahead and take a roll call vote. I'LL START WITH COUNCILMEMBER SACK.

THIS IS A LOT OF BUDGET ITEMS, $140 MILLION TOTAL. IT'S A LOT OF SERVICES BEING PROVIDED TO THE CITY AND THIS IS MY SEVENTH BUDGET. AND I DON'T THINK I'VE EVER AGREED WITH EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF A BUDGET BECAUSE THERE'S JUST THINGS THAT YOU WOULD PRIORITIZE MAYBE MORE OVER OTHER THINGS. BUT IT COMES TO A POINT WHERE DO YOU HAVE DISAGREEMENTS SO MUCH THAT YOU WOULD ACTUALLY NOT WANT TO MOVE FORWARD THE BUDGET. AND SO THAT'S KIND OF HOW the sausage gets made, right? That there are things that you love about a budget and there's things that you maybe don't like about a budget. I actually think that we do a great job here. I appreciate all the staff, all the efforts in giving us all the information so that we can make good decisions. I'm thankful for the residents who come and share their CONCERNS, SHARE THEIR ITEMS. THIS IS YOUR MONEY. IT'S OUR MONEY. THESE ARE OUR FEES THAT WE PAY AS RESIDENTS AS WELL AS YOU. SO WE ALL ARE IN THIS TOGETHER. SO I APPRECIATE THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE HERE SHARING YOUR VOICES. BUT WITH THAT, I VOTE YES.

OKAY. THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER THOMAS.

AYE.

OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER SMITH-EDMONSON. AYE. OKAY. COUNCIL MEMBER KALANDRANIS.

AYE.

And Council Member Morris. Aye. OK. Thank you. There you have it. It's unanimous. Thank you, you guys. I appreciate that. And you're right. That's tough to look at every item, and yet we know that we've got to look at the bigger picture, knowing that we can adjust it as we go, which is what our next item is going to be. So with that, I'll go ahead and turn the time back over to Mr. Probert to amend our budget for this year.

members of council ordinance twenty six dash eighteen is to amend the budget for the current fiscal year which runs through june thirtieth twenty twenty six provided uh... on the screen a summary of the items that are that of the amendments that are needed i will note before i go through that that i did need to make one adjustment and that is under the line that says swat a hundred thousand six forty four the transfer funding that needs to be corrected to say that it was from the general fund administration and patrol to the swap fund so that funding didn't go to the capital projects funding and even though I reviewed this countless times I still miss that until today so and it was too late to put it in your packet so when we set up the SWAT fund we took funding that was in police administration and patrol that was already earmarked in the budget for those types of activities and moved them to their own fund that way we also set up assessments to the cities that per that participate in the SWAT activities of the police department and so now we can account for the assessments from the cities and latent cities contribution into those activities in one place so that we know exactly what it's costing and what monies we have available for those activities. That's the purpose of that amendment there. That was probably the one that perhaps needed the most explanation. The rest of it is of these amendments additions to the budget appropriation of fund balance so use of reserve was for uh... mostly for my hometown project that was an originally budgeted budgeted for in this budget we also had uh... some personnel that were set to retire in the facilities division of the finance department but that retirement was delayed throughout this last fiscal year and so we hadn't originally budgeted to have an extra person on our staff but that person that was set to retire actually stayed throughout the entire year and is set to retire June thirtieth of this year. And so that is the reason for that additional funding. Also, the project related to the remodeling downstairs for the Davis Arts Council office was a little bit over budget, and so there's part of an amendment in there to cover that. and for our first responder mental health fund there was some funding that was from prior years that needed to be brought forward into the current year so that' s the The second line item in the summary $695,382 is for revenue that we've received and so we received revenue but we also have an associated expense. So we're not asking or we're not amending to spend money and we didn't have a revenue. We brought revenue in and we had most of the time over time for these different activities. And you can see that I've listed a few of them. Wildland Fire, Police and Fire Special Services. So when they go out and do some sort of a special event or service in the community and they're paid for those services, that comes into this category. The Fire Academy, we don't originally budget, we don't budget that in the original budget because we don't know how many times that payment's going to come in. And there's costs associated with it. And then other random miscellaneous donations. wonderful donations. I shouldn't say random, but they're great donations that come into the city, but we didn't count on those as part of our original budget. And then a very small grant revenue that was unanticipated at the first of the year. Some of the other areas that I've listed, Davis Metro Narcotic Strike Force, the 911 Dispatch Center, some grant revenue that was received there. that was intended to be in the original budget and somehow through the process was not included in there and so that needed to be brought up to date. There's a few different capital projects that needed to be updated that happened during the year. As we reviewed the Weber Basin water contract for water that we purchased, we found that our original estimate was under what they had indicated they were going to charge us, and so we needed to amend that budget. And then also the stormwater master plan and, as I mentioned, wildland fire, some state Medicaid assessment adjustments, and also costs for ambulances in our emergency medical fund. That's the summary. I don't know if any of you reviewed the details and have any specific questions related to those. I'd be happy to address those before we open a public hearing related to these amendments.

Okay. Council, do you have any questions?

Okay.

I'll entertain a motion then to open the public hearing amending our current year budget.

Madam Mayor, I move that we open the public hearing for the amendment of the budget for fiscal year 25-26. Okay.

The time is now yours if anyone wishes to speak to this item. Once again, make sure you state your name.

My name is Shari Wade and I'm from Layton. I have a question. Did you say there was an overage on the ramp funding? The ramp budget amount that was from this year?

So there was a project that was on the original list of projects for this current year that the funding for that I didn't have included in the budget and so I need to do this amendment in order to make sure that funding was included in the budget.

Okay, so that project was not done?

I believe the project was done, yes. OK.

I'm just checking. Sorry. I wanted to see. Because if there's extra ramp funding, then I'd like it put to that dog park. Thank you. Thank you.

OK. Anyone else? OK. Seeing that there's no other comment at this time, let me go ahead and bring it back to the council to take action. And once again, make sure you close the public hearing.

Madam Mayor, I make a motion to close public hearing and approve amendment, amend the budget for fiscal year 2025-2026, ordinance 26-18. Do I have a second?

I HAVE A SECOND. SO ONCE AGAIN, I HAVE TO DO A ROLL CALL VOTE ON THIS. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND START DOWN HERE WITH COUNCIL MEMBER MORRIS.

AYE.

COUNCIL MEMBER CLANDERANAS. AYE. COUNCIL MEMBER SMITH-EDMONSON. AYE. COUNCIL MEMBER THOMAS. AYE. AND COUNCIL MEMBER BLOXOM.

AYE.

Okay, there you have it. Okay, that concludes our agenda for this evening. That was the end of our public hearings. If anyone has any unfinished business, you're welcome to bring it before me at this time. I do have one myself. I do know that we had discussed about the fact that our meeting on July 2nd, if we'd like to have it or not. At this point, we do only have one item that does not need to take any immediate action. And just for kicks, I went ahead and checked with other cities that has the same schedule that we do regarding our council meetings. And they do not, which would be Kaysville, they are not going to have a council meeting. Clearfield is not having a council meeting, nor is South Weber. So if that would help, I think that might help make the decision, but we need to, I guess, decide now if we want to have that meeting or not so we can make sure our residents know. So any comments or give me a head nod if you're in favor of that?

I'm in favor of not having it. Okay, thank you. If that's politely said.

I'M ALWAYS FINE TO HAVE IT BECAUSE WE HAVE THURSDAYS BLOCKED OFF FOR RESIDENTS, BUT I'M ALSO OPEN IF THE COUNCIL'S PLEASURE IS TO NOT HAVE THAT MEETING, I'M FINE WITH THAT.

OKAY.

I AGREE WITH PATINA. WE SIGNED UP FOR THIS.

OKAY. WHAT'S YOUR TAKE THERE, MIKE? Okay, then that means it looks like we will have a council meeting on July 2nd. So we'll see you then. Once again, we'll be able to reiterate all of the fun activities we have coming up to celebrate July 4th and America's 250. So with that, I'd like to close and thank everyone for being here. And I love the fact that we have our young student back again. Thank you for coming. That's great. I love it. And having a former council member with us, Council Member Roberts, and a museum representative, Irene. So thank you, everyone, for being here. And have a good night.