City Council - Regular Meeting

kate i'd like to go ahead and get our late in city council meeting this uh... going this evening tonight it's august twentieth and our start time is seven p m i'd like to welcome everyone out that's here this evening that's joining us uh... we luckily tonight we only have a few items on our agenda but uh... as customary we do like to start every meeting with a CEREMONY OF A PRAYER AND A PLEDGE. WE TAKE TURNS UP HERE ON THIS DIAS AND TONIGHT I'M GOING TO TURN THE TIME OVER TO COUNCIL MEMBER MORRIS.

THANK YOU, MAYOR. I WILL OFFER OUR INVOCATION AND THEN AFTER WE CAN ALL STAND AND WE'LL RECITE THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. OUR FATHER IN HEAVEN, WE ARE THIS EVENING TO BE GATHERED HERE IN LAYTON CITY AS WE DISCUSS THE NEEDS OF THE CITY HERE IN OUR CITY COUNCIL MEETING. WE'RE GRATEFUL FOR ALL THE EMPLOYEES OF THIS GREAT CITY AND THEIR SERVICE TO EACH ONE OF US. WE ASK THAT THAT WOULD BLESS THEM AND THEIR FAMILIES AS THEY WORK TO MAKE OUR LIVES BETTER. WE'RE GRATEFUL FOR This governing body and the opportunity we do have to govern ourselves and the freedoms and the liberties that we enjoy. We ask that thou please bless us with wisdom as we contemplate and make decisions this evening that will do so and for the benefit of the residents of our city. And these things, Father, we do and pray do so in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen. Please rise.

of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you, Councilman Morris. Tonight I'd like to acknowledge the fact that we do have one of our youth council with us. We'd like to kind of allow them to really experience what it's like to be up here. They're a member of an extension basically of the city as well, but it gives the youth an opportunity to to engage in all of the functions that we try to do. And they have a great advisor. And tonight, we're very honored to have Emma Quidley with us. Emma is new to the council. So Emma, I'm just going to turn some time over to you, because I think it'd be wise for people to know a little bit about you. So go ahead.

Hi, I just moved here from Alamogordo, New Mexico. My dad is the new Air Base Wing Commander at Hill Air Force Base. This is only my third meeting tonight, but I'm very grateful to be here, so thank you for having me.

Thank you. We appreciate that. Okay. Council, before we go on with any additional business, we do have two sets of minutes that we need to take care of. So if there's no corrections, then I'd look for a motion to accept. And if you could, please read the date and what minutes they pertain to.

Madam Mayor, I move that we approve the minutes of the Latent City Council work meeting April 16th, 2026 and the minutes of the Latent City Council work meeting minutes May 7th, 2026. I'm second.

Okay, it's been moved and second that we accept the minutes as written. All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Thank you, council. Okay, we'll go on to municipal announcements. I know we've got a few of them here, so I'll turn the time over to the council members that are assigned the various organizations that they represent to report. Council Member Thomas.

Turn on mic. Here we go. August 21st and 28th is the last of the Leighton Fest. That's on Fridays over here in the park. Surf and swim winter hours start August 20th. Seems a little early, but I hope winter comes. Surf and swim will be closed September 13th through the 20th for bubble week. Museum has a new photography exhibit starting September 1st. And the Arts Council, along with Heritage Museum, will be hosting a multicultural arts festival. That's next Saturday at August 29th. And it's called We the People Multicultural Arts Festival at the Kenley Amphitheater. And you can go on the Arts Council's website and see where everything's at. But there'll be music, theater, dance, interactive art, workshops, community booths with artists, a chalk art festival, live painting event, food trucks, kids activities. And then when it's all done at 8 o'clock, starts at noon, But when it's all done at 8 o'clock, then they have a live performance from a Santana tribute band.

Correct.

Right? Yeah. So that's all I got.

A week from this Saturday.

Oh, I said that. 29th. Yep. That's evidently a week from this Saturday.

Okay. Very good. Thank you. Thanks, Mayor. I'd like to thank Dave for his comedic relief on tonight, and also wanted to say congratulations to all of the youth of Davis County for their first day of school today, and also to you parents. I just wanted to announce that on tomorrow night, across the street, Layton High School will be the Northridge versus Layton football game. Varsity plays at 7 p.m., and it's going to be a fun time. That's what I'd like to share. Thank you.

Madam Mayor, thank you.

Council Member, do you have a rooting interest in that football game?

As a sitting council member for Layton City, I support all sports in Layton. Thank you for asking. Thank you.

I support all sports, but I have two sons that coach at Layton. Three? No, two sons, one grandson. And then I have two sons. Great? No, grandson's playing. So I got five there. So no matter who I support, if I'm not there, I'm in trouble.

All right, that was fun. Okay, there you have it. Friday night football begins in the Layton High... uh... one of my football field yet rivalry begins yes cuts and that always makes a fun okay if there's no more present here and no more municipal event announcements i will then turn it over to our citizens uh... this is your opportunity that if you see something uh... that's not on the agenda or better clarify it that if it's something that's not part of the public hearing then you're more than welcome to stand up to either podium state your name and what city you're from and what your concerns are but just please keep in mind that we do not get into any dialogue or answering any questions but certainly you can convey all your concerns or what your questions are and then we'll make sure we get back to you so again that's for any item that's that you'd like to bring before this governing body so the time's yours

I am here because, okay, I live, I'm Gail Blaymeyers. Thank you. I live by East Layton Elementary, just up on Cherry Lane, below Highway 89. And I'm here because we have so many deer that live in our yards now. So they're not just migrating in and out, and we see them once in a while. They actually live and create families, and they live in our yards, and they eat everything. We took out our grape arbor in March, because why do all the work and get nothing? And Dale's brought some show and tale. So we've got some neighbors here. But there's so many. And Bountiful City. does have a program where they will, I don't know what the training is or how they do it, but there's a program where you can kill deer with archery, and I'm sure it's very regulated, and we haven't asked Bountiful City how it works, but my question is, can we look into Bountiful City's program and do it? That's my... They can see that the deer eat. Well, tell them how much they ate.

I have two acres up where I live. It's terrible. They just live there. And I've lived here in Layton for 56 years. I have two acres there. And every year I plant gardens and pumpkins there. And as a result, the deer just come in and eat my crops. And you can see it make you sick to walk up and down the rows and see what they eat. Let me give you an example. I have one row of Big Macs pumpkins. I have eight of them, and they have eaten seven. So I've already lost 300, you know, 300, $400 with just those. And you walk over to the other side, you walk down the row, and you see these pumpkins like this. They just go through and eat one after another. And so we have a giant problem here in Layton, and we need to take care of it seriously. I lose every year tremendous amounts of funds. I don't even know if I'll even have a crop this year. I even grow the little tiny ones, and they even come into our yard and eat these little tiny ones. Now, a solution for me, I have simply built eight-foot fences I crossed my yard in the front. It cost me $3,000 for that. I have built along the sides from Henderson's. My house down to Lynn's cost me another $1,000. So that's my only solution. Layton City needs to come up with a solution also. And I'm willing to work with you to do with that. And I hope you do. I know that Bountiful City has a solution. Any comments?

Yes.

Well, technically, Dave, we don't because we would need to investigate and then kind of find out our city policy or...

So, yeah, to protect yourself. Yeah, if you could, again, state your name.

And if I can just, maybe I can just make it a little bit easier just to explain. Everything that our city council has to, that they meet about has to be publicly on the agenda. So where the public can make comment, THAT'S FINE, THAT'S WHAT THE PUBLIC COMMENT IS FOR, BUT BECAUSE IT'S NOT A NOTICED ITEM, THE COUNCIL DOESN'T HAVE DISCUSSIONS. SO THAT'S WHAT THE MAYOR IS REFERRING TO.

Okay, I just, Don Erickson. I've lived here for not quite 50, 45 years or so, but anyway, love the city, love everything about it. In 2013, Layton City had a program where anybody that wanted to could take a test offered by the Utah Fish and Game. You passed that and they were permitted to use bow and arrows throughout the city and it was quite successful. uh... during that time and i'd recommend that we look into that and consider it because again not to mention how many they're trying to give across in the eighty nine i can see every day if new deer being uh... killed and it's really damage to the cars and everything else uh... we all live right close to each other so we get to see all the dear born on our yard and all the deer eating the food. But anyway, that's really where we are. And I think we should really seriously consider reinstituting it. And it should be in the notes from back in 2013 to see how you did it. OK?

Thank you. That's good information.

Just the last thing I'll say is I called Tuesday to get on the agenda, and they said just come.

And that's the purpose of our public comment. So, yeah, we appreciate you bringing this to our attention, so we'll take a look at it.

Thank you.

I know it's a problem throughout the entire city. We've got problems on the west side, too. Okay, is there anyone else that has anything they'd like to bring before us? Okay, seeing that there's none, let's go ahead and move down then to our consent items. We have two items tonight. The first one is a text amendment regarding our recreation arts museum and park, or otherwise known as our ramp tax. And Mr. Dave Price and Joellen Grandy will be presenting this, actually both items A and B.

Thank you, Mayor. It's a pleasure to introduce Ordinance 2626, which, if approved, will adopt amendments to Title III of the Latent Municipal Code, Chapter 3.21, Recreation Arts Museum and Parks, or RAMP, Tax Ordinance. The voters of Layton City in November 2015 general election approved imposing a ramp tax in the city by a margin of 63-37%. The council adopted ordinance 1609 at that time, which allowed for the collection and use of ramp funds. In November of 2025, a general election was held and voters of Layton City approved renewing and imposing the ramp tax in the city by an overwhelming margin of 75% to 24%. Ordinance 26 is an amendment to Title III, Chapter 3.2. and to update the use of revenue standards and applications definitions of operating expense, the calendaring, and the financial reporting. The amendments are intended to provide continued implementation of the RAMP program consistent with voter authorization, applicable state law, and the city's established purpose for supporting recreation, arts, museum, and parks. within the community. The proposed changes to Ordinance 2626 mainly consist of the following. First, they are definitional changes to help clarify the ordinance. And so we have included definitions of what organizations are eligible to receive RAMP funding. We've included and strengthened the definition of what type of expenditures are eligible to receive RAMP funding. And we've included definitions that help or that define what type of expenses are considered operating expenses and two very specific operational expense exceptions. And then fourth, we provided a new definition of a funding period that changes from 18 months to 12 months. So those applicants that receive funding will have 12 months to use it. Or I'm sorry, 18 instead of 12. Thank you, Dave. Ordinance 2626 also provides parameters for rejecting an application and specifies how the RAMP Commission may permit an applicant to correct minor clerical errors, provide omitted information, and clarify responses. Ordinance 2626 also changes the Tier 2 grant funding amount. an application current applicant can applied for from one-fourth of the applicants annual operating budget as averaged over three years to one-fourth of the applicants prior annual operating budget We did that to provide smaller and newer organizations the opportunity to apply for that funding. So it expands the number of organizations that can apply. Mr. Thomas.

You said Tier 2.

Yes.

Right, and Tier 2 goes... From $500 to... Oh, it goes from $500.

Yeah, that's the bottom of the amount up to...

I thought it was like $5,000. So that would include the little ones that only need $500 or $750 or $1,000.

Yeah, and examples of that are our community orchestras and those type of community events and bands.

That was one of my questions, and that's... I like that.

Very good. Ordinance 2626 also clarifies the nonprofit board members' residence. I'm sorry. Let me try that again. Ordinance 2626 clarifies the nonprofit board members' residency. And it requires the majority of nonprofit board members must be Utah residents. Ordinance 2626 also requires RAMP applicants that receive more than $25,000 to follow the financial reporting standards set forth by Utah State Code and our city. The staff recommends the council adopt Ordinance 2626. adopting amendments to Title III of the Layton Municipal Code, Chapter 3.21, Ramp Tax Ordinance, amending the Layton Municipal Code and authorize the mayor to sign necessary documents. Questions?

Utah residents for what?

For the... At large or... This would be for non-profit boards... or non-profit organizations, their governing board has to have a majority of members. Not ours, theirs.

That makes sense.

That's good.

Yeah, I appreciate that clarification as well. Okay, Councilman Bloxham.

Sure. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Dave, I had a question on that same thing. Can you tell me about some of the reasoning behind the locale prohibition? If you've had experience with other outside entities kind of taken over, or what's the purpose behind that suggestion?

As we've kept an eye on different RAMP organizations throughout the state, this has never affected us, but there have been other larger RAMP organizations where out-of-state entities would like to come in and acquire some of that money. They typically use it to complete a program in the state, But it still funnels a lot of money away from the local residents, which we believe our ramp tax was created for.

So the idea is that the ramp tax is to help organizations who are Utahns, as well as the residents who are receiving those programs. Do you think that limiting it to not allowing some outside PEOPLE TO COME IN WOULD, ARE WE AT A LOSS FOR PEOPLE TO COME IN? WE HAVE QUITE A FEW PEOPLE WHO ASK FOR MONEY, RIGHT? AND SO EVEN THEN OUTSIDE ENTITIES COME IN, THEY'RE NOT GUARANTEED THAT THEY WOULD BE FUNDED BY EITHER THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMISSION OR OUR APPROVAL ON THE CITY COUNCIL. SO I GUESS THAT'S WHAT MY QUESTION IS, IF WE THINK IT'S UNNECESSARILY PREVENTING MAYBE WHAT WOULD BE SOME PRETTY GOOD opportunities for the residents to experience some pretty cool art programs. They just might not be from people who are from Utah. Just my question.

Yeah, it's a wonderful question. Again, as we've looked to other cities, larger cities that have faced this dilemma, most of the experiences, I should qualify this, Most of the experiences when we deal with local organizations and local people, they have had much better success. When those organizations come from outside Layton, sometimes there's just a disconnect.

Okay, that's fair enough. And I wanted just some more color on that. I appreciate it. We definitely want to make sure that we have an ability for our local organizations to have a foot in the door. I just wanted some clarification on preventing outside money from coming in. So thank you, Dave.

And the commission had quite a discussion about this as well. We looked at should the language, and the language was Utah before, should it be reduced to Layton? And we felt that we might miss out on a lot of great programs. One would be JAX, which once a year they come up here and they do a wonderful arts presentation. And if we said all of their or a majority of their members had to be from Layton, they would probably not qualify. But because they're all from Utah, it allows us to move ahead with that.

Dave, that poses some more clarifying questions I think I have. So the ordinance reads that the majority of the board members of whatever the organization is, have to be residents of Utah. But now you're speaking about the majority of participants who are performing. And you were saying that the discussion that was held in the commission meeting was that if we were to reduce that language to being latent, And the example you used with Jax meant that perhaps we wouldn't be able to have programs like that because the majority of their folks live outside of Layton. Was that a misspeak on the example? Because I think you were talking about just the board, not the participants, correct? Correct.

I apologize if I misspoke there. What we're looking at, and as we looked at the difference between Utah and Layton, we were always looking at the board members of the organization, not the participants.

Okay, yeah, that's good. But Council Member Bloxham's question did kind of pose something in my mind that maybe... itemizing it in the ordinance does prevent us from maybe having options. And it could be a little restrictive, but could it be an item of criteria that the commission can look at? So to Councilmember Bloxham's point, if there's an applicant, MAYBE THERE'S TWO APPLICANTS AND YOU ONLY HAVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF MONEY LEFT, THEN YOU COULD GET, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD LOOK AT SOMETHING LIKE THAT, BUT NOT MAKING IT BE A REQUIREMENT BECAUSE THAT COULD JUST BE RESTRICTIVE FOR NO REASON WHEN IT HASN'T AFFECTED US NECESSARILY. I'M ASSUMING CERTAIN, A COUPLE OF CITIES IN MY HEAD THAT HE MIGHT BE THINKING IT HAS AFFECTED AND IT HASN'T AFFECTED US YET, BUT JUST WONDERING IF WE NEED TO MAKE IT THAT PRESCRIPTIVE AND THAT COULD BE SOMETHING OF A TIE BREAKER OF SORTS WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE DECISIONS WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO THE ACTUAL AWARDING OF FUNDS AS OPPOSED TO COMPLETELY WRITING OFF AN ORGANIZATION WHO MAY HAVE MEMBERS THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF THE STATE. I DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE A FEELING ABOUT IT ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, BUT DON'T WANT TO PREVENT, YOU KNOW, SOME GOOD PROGRAMS, SOME GOOD ARTS AND WHATNOT FROM COMING HERE WITH THAT BEING THE ONLY ISSUE.

You know, this is your ordinance. You can do what you would like. Our recommendation, based on what we've seen in other areas, is that this is helpful. That it allows, it gives some parameters to help keep the funding that is raised by Utahns in Utah's environment. But if you choose to go in a different direction, that would be fine.

Well, I haven't already. We've had more applicants than funding. I mean, we're trending that way anyway, correct?

That is correct.

So, I mean, that just kind of helps the commission. It gives them, I guess, another qualifier to kind of look at. Because, I mean, realistically, the intent is for local, for the state of Utah. Because, I mean, it's an opportunity for people to develop their talents or to maybe get that first break. here for other organizations to take a look at them as well.

Yeah, and I think we can offer that as a part of it, but ultimately the ramp tax is to provide services to our residents. So who's providing those services I don't think is not as important as the service that's actually being rendered and that our residents are getting. enjoying whatever is being brought here that they're feeling like oh yeah this is something that maybe I haven't seen before or this is something that I have seen and I really enjoy it so I think more about what's actually being provided to them and so you know like I said it doesn't in my opinion I don't think it's as crucial that piece I think it could be a again a tiebreaker of sorts and If we only had a little bit left and it was like, well, there's a local group versus a group that has more outside, then yeah, sure, go with the local. But to put it in as a restrictive, I mean, I could take it or leave it. But I appreciate the suggestions and the reasoning behind it.

Mr. Thomas.

Speak. You were talking about the same thing, but now... My question is, I'm an organization, I meet all the criteria, okay, and you as a grant board member, or actually you run it, you say, yeah, we would like to approve it, okay, but then it comes to council, and council could say no. Is that right? That is correct. Okay, even though they meet all the criteria that is in our, okay.

The council could also say yes.

Well, yeah, I would hope they would, because you put in a lot of time and effort. But yeah, I'm just saying, in the same respect, with what knowledge we have, if we felt like something was detrimental, for whatever reason, we could say no.

Always.

Okay. Any other questions on item A? I have one more thing, and I'll stop. Dave's on a roll, so he got me on a roll today. But to that same point, if there's an applicant that is denied flat out, we're not going to know. And so we wouldn't have the opportunity to say, well, you know what, that program actually could benefit our residents. And so I'm just going to set that there. What I'm saying is we wouldn't know because they were disqualified.

So, I'm just going to speak to that. I mean, we have these commissions, and it's not just the ramp commission. We look at it again for, like, our parks and rec commission. We've got it for our planning commission. I mean, they're kind of our gatekeeper. They're the extension. I mean, really, those guys are doing the heavy lifting for us. So, I think we've got to recognize the fact that we've empowered them in that regards. And so, I mean, I respect what they do. send on up to this level on all of those commissions. And I think that's something that, you know, a takeaway that I'd like to kind of, you know, embed there is kind of just remember that's the purpose of these commissions. So.

And hopefully to add to your comments, you see every applicant that we see, you see a recommendation to either approve or to not fund it. Um, And we usually try to include the reason why if we are recommending not funding. The only time you would not see something is if an outside agency saw that and failed to put in an application.

Yeah, and that's the point. If it's on the application criteria, then they wouldn't apply. You would expect them to not apply. That's all I'm saying.

Thank you. OK. Is that it for item A?

That's very good.

Okay, please continue with item B then.

So I also have the pleasure of introducing Resolution 2638, which is, if approved, will amend the Recreation Arts Museum and Parks or Ramp Advisory Commission's bylaws and rules of procedure. If amended, the existing bylaws and rules of procedures would update the procedural framework governing the commission in performing its duties and responsibilities under Chapter 321.070 of the Layton Municipal Code. So the changes that were outlined in the ordinance are also carried into the bylaws. AND SO I WON'T GO THROUGH EACH OF THOSE AGAIN, BUT THERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATIONS AND DEFINITIONS. THE BYLAWS ALSO INCLUDE IN ARTICLE TWO A CLARIFICATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND COMMISSION'S FUNCTIONS. THEY HAVE DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT ROLES AND WE'VE TRIED TO BE VERY CLEAR ABOUT THAT IN THE BYLAWS. IN ARTICLE THREE, we tried to clarify the city staffs duties and the commission's duties and so how and what each of us are responsible for more fully outlined with these changes in article four we've included uh... clarification changes to the definition of members and standing members of the commission and so it reflects uh... those differences between an at-large member and a standing member of the Commission. Resolution 3638 also includes a new article, Article 8, which is conflicts of interest and ethics. And this was recommended by our city attorney. And it helps clarify and make us more consistent with state statutes. And in Resolution 2638, we amend and clarify in Article 9 the meeting and voting standards that need to take place when a commission has a full quorum, when they can vote and they can't, when members or alternates can step in, things like that. And so we feel that these are good changes to the bylaws. It will provide the commissioners with a little more guidance as to how to go about doing their duty. Any questions on this?

Any questions? Council Member Morris?

Yeah, Mayor. I've got a question on Article 3. that mentioned city staff and my question maybe for Mr. Drake, should that be more descriptive of your group, the Parks and Rec staff or appropriate city staff? That's my question. Or city staff? Okay, the term.

And if I may, the reason that I support keeping it as city staff is because all of these things are very collaborative with our staff. All of these changes, we've worked closely with the commission. We've worked closely with Tracy, our finance director, and with our legal team to make sure that all of these ideas are fully vetted before we bring them to you. And so to narrow it down to one organization or one department I think would do us a disservice.

is the same as standing members, right?

When it refers to staff, it's city staff.

Right, the standing members is city staff.

And an arts member. Correct.

They're the specialist. Think of them as the specialist for that particular entity, whether it be the recreation arts museum or park.

But the staff also includes Joellen, who has specifically been tasked with organizing and operating this commission so that I can act as a member. It also includes Casey, who does all of our minutes. They don't have a vote, but they are very actively involved in the process.

COUNCIL MEMBER MORRIS.

SO THANK YOU. MY NEXT THOUGHT IS, AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE GOT INTO THIS IN THE MEETING, AND MAYBE I WAS asleep i don't know um the the article eight conflicts of interest and ethics that will that's going to make for a different way of doing things um with four standing members all having applications in during the process um so i'm just not saying that i mean i like that it's there because that was one of the One of the issues that have come up with all of the applicants that have, you know, they're just like, wait a minute, I've got an arts project or a grant application in and I'm competing against the Davis Arts Council and they're one of the standing members. And so, as an example. So this is good. It's just going to make for maybe a different way of doing things as far as the discussions go and the voting and scoring and if just a

we hope that it doesn't so much make it different more fully clarifies our roles and so in that section it defines uh... where you talk about the standing members it clearly defines the difference between at-large members and standing members at-large members because we don't always know where their backgrounds are when they're put on the commission. They would be asked to recluse themselves if they're involved in an organization in some way. Standing members are there to provide a longevity to the organization and they are the subject experts for the city. The reason the Davis Arts Council a member was chosen is because the Davis Arts Council is the only organization that has a standing agreement with the city to provide arts. And so 10 years ago when we originally crafted this, we felt that that was the best individual to have that long-standing place at the table.

May I, Mayor? Sure. I'm just so, a bit of confusion helped me through this. So we're dividing it between commission members in number one and standing members in number two. And a standing member, so let's go back to, it mentions in number one that even the standing members that are city employees have an organizational, could have an organizational conflict of interest. But then in number two, it says participation in the review, evaluation, recommendation of city-sponsored projects and the performance of their official duties shall not by itself constitute a conflict of interest. Help me understand how that's not a, I'm confused with that, those two concepts.

I appreciate that. And as I look through it now, the intention, and Clint can weigh in this if he sees that I'm getting in the mud too far, is that number one refers to our at-large members. And if we need to provide a clarification there, we could do so. Number two would be the standing representatives appointed by the city. And so it defines a different criteria for those two types of commissioners.

CONFUSED? I'M NOT CONFUSED. IT'S WHAT YOU THINK IT IS. AND I HAD THOSE SAME TWO QUESTIONS WITH REGARD TO ARTICLE 3 AND 8. AND WITH ARTICLE 3, SPECIFICALLY ASKING I THINK WHAT DAVE MENTIONED WAS um the city staff my question was since there are city staff who are also members of the commission are those staff duties carried out by someone else and i think you kind of said they could be maybe they are maybe they are not but it sounded like you did say for example that joellen is doing some of those staff duties so that you as a member of the commission and as a city rep could participate as a commission member with the vote. And so are you saying that for Article 3, the city staff are not the same as the standing members of the ramp commission that are also city staff?

So I think... We have staff members that are our standing members on the commission, like myself, and we have staff members who are not members of the commission. We all play a role in creating and administrating the procedures that have to go through the creating the applications, getting the trainings out to people, making sure that all the back of house kind of stuff is done. I think in my mind there is a difference between that type of administrative duties that we all assist with and the duties that I may take on when I am actually voting as a commission member.

Okay, so that definition there and that delineation is just to help identify that city staff is responsible for basically carrying out the process of getting applications out there and that type of thing, but it is separate from what the commission itself is doing.

CORRECT.

OKAY. SO I'M COOL ON ARTICLE 3. AND THEN ON ARTICLE 8, I THINK MAYBE WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER MORRIS IS STRUGGLING WITH IS THE IDEA THAT YOU HAVE AT LARGE MEMBERS, SO FIVE MEMBERS WHO ARE LATENT RESIDENTS WHO HAVE BEEN APPOINTED TO THE COMMISSION, THEY MAY BE A PART OF AN ORGANIZATION THAT IS RAMP RELATED, BUT THEY MAY NOT BE. AND IN ITEM ONE, YOU'RE BASICALLY SAYING IF THERE'S AN APPLICATION THAT THAT AT LARGE MEMBER HAS SOME TYPE OF STANDING WITH, THEN THEY NEED TO DISCLOSE THAT AND THEN THEY SHOULD RECUSE THEMSELVES FROM A VOTE. BUT THEN IN ITEM TWO, YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE STANDING MEMBERS, WHICH THREE OF THEM ARE CITY STAFF, And then one is the city's art representative that they, by virtue of their role and their relationship with the city, do not have to recuse themselves. They don't have to state it's a conflict of interest because we already know that they're there as city staff and a city representative on behalf of Davis Arts Council. SO WHEN AN APPLICATION COMES IN, THOSE FOUR STANDING COMMITTEE MEMBERS ARE NOT, BY VIRTUE OF THEIR ROLE, THEY DON'T HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST. BUT I THINK WHAT COUNCILMEMBER MORRIS MIGHT BE QUESTIONING IS, IS THAT FAIR? IS THAT OKAY? I KNOW WHEN WE SIT ON BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS, WE ARE NON-VOTING MEMBERS. WE GIVE INPUT. WE PARTICIPATE IN THE DISCUSSION JUST AS THOUGH WE WERE A BOARD MEMBER, A VOTING BOARD MEMBER, BUT WE DON'T VOTE. SO I'M WONDERING IF THAT IS KIND OF WHAT YOU'RE WONDERING ABOUT.

I DON'T KNOW ABOUT FAIR OR BECAUSE THESE FUNDS ARE FOR LAYTON CITY. THEY'RE FOR LAYTON CITY. WHETHER WE HAVE ALL THE CITY STAFF MEMBERS ON THE BOARD OR NOT, MY CONCERN IS THAT IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A LOOP HERE THAT wait a minute, the city staff members are going to, yeah, we're going to vote for city stuff because that's what they do. But they're not, the fact that that's not a conflict of interest when above we're saying that financial, fiduciary, organizational, those are conflicts of interest. So I just, maybe it's just the way it's written that It has me confused. I don't know if, Mr. Drake, you wrote this. Someone did. Can you clarify? Maybe I'll be quiet.

I'm happy to clarify, but I'm not sure I understand the point.

That's good. That means I need more clarification.

Go ahead, Councilman Blotsom.

I actually agree with how it's written. I think their city funds, their design for city projects, we have four standing members who are doing the work of us, basically, on the commission, and the conflict of interest is waived because they're city staff members that we put on the commission. There is going to be a difference between IN HOW THOSE FOUR STANDING MEMBERS, THEIR CONFLICT OF INTEREST IS WAIVED BECAUSE THEY OBVIOUSLY HAVE ONE. THEY ARE MEMBERS OF LATENT CITY STAFF. SOMEBODY ELSE IN THOSE OTHER FIVE AT LARGE SEATS ARE IN A DIFFERENT ORGANIZATION THAT IS NOT LATENT CITY. AND SO THEY ARE HELD TO A DIFFERENT STANDARD WHERE THEY HAVE TO DISCLOSE THEIR CONFLICT AND POTENTIALLY RECUSE THEMSELVES. AND THAT'S, I THINK, TO PROTECT idea of the count, the commission, moving on issues that maybe are being driven by non-latent forces. And I don't mean that in a mean way, just that if you're going to drive something and you get it in front of the commission and you have a conflict of interest, you have to recuse yourself so it can carry its vote without you present. We don't require that same standard for A LATENT STANDING MEMBER FROM THE CITY. AND SO I UNDERSTAND MAYBE SOME OF THE CONCERN, BUT I THINK THAT IT'S WRITTEN IN A WAY THAT SHOWS THAT LATENT CITY STAFF DON'T HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST WHEN THEY'RE VOTING ON PROJECTS THAT INVOLVE LATENT CITY, WHEREAS AN OUTSIDE GROUP WOULD HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST THAT WOULD REQUIRE NOTICE AND RECUSAL IF THEY WERE VOTING ON A POSITION OF AN INTEREST THAT THEY ACTUALLY ARE A PART OF.

SO IT'S JUST FACE VALUE. IT'S JUST WHAT IT IS. IT'S JUST WRITTEN JUST LIKE THAT. YEAH, THAT'S HOW IT IS. I JUST WANTED A CLARIFICATION.

YEAH, JUST A LITTLE BACKGROUND. IF WE TAKE THAT WHOLE ARTICLE 8 AS A WHOLE, THE NUMBER ONE IS JUST BASICALLY REFLECTING THE CONFLICTS OF INTEREST LAWS IN THE STATE OF UTAH. AND JUST A REMINDER AS WELL, AND WE TALK ABOUT THIS AT LEAST ONCE A YEAR WHEN WE DO OUR TRAINING, IF NOT MORE, SIMPLY STATING THAT THERE MAY BE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST DOES NOT REQUIRE RECUSAL. THERE'S A DIFFERENT ANALYSIS FOR THAT. SO JUST A REMINDER ABOUT THAT. AND THEN THE SECOND ONE IS, THE SECOND PARAGRAPH IS SIMPLY THE INTENT WAS JUST TO CLARIFY OR ALLEVIATE ANY CONCERNS THAT A STAFF MEMBER OR MIGHT HAVE ABOUT, WELL, YOU KNOW, I WORK FOR THE CITY, SO IT WAS JUST TO BE VERY CLEAR AND VERY TRANSPARENT. The city is RAMP, and RAMP is the city, and we need the professional expertise of these people, which is why it's described as their positions provide professional expertise and institutional knowledge regarding recreation arts museum park programs. We didn't want anybody to feel like they couldn't participate when that's the whole point of why they need to participate. So just clearly identifying that, we thought, was a very clear and transparent way of showing yes, these people that serve in these capacities work for the city and know it's not a conflict of interest by itself. Now, there may be another reason why it's a conflict of interest. For example, you might have a city employee that's looking at this and, well, I'm a city employee and that's not a conflict of interest. However, this applicant is my brother and this is my brother's organization. That's a different story. And so that analysis has to always happen as well. But it was really just intended to be... A WAY FOR STAFF MEMBERS TO NOT FEEL LIKE, TO GIVE THEM CLEAR DIRECTION AS TO WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO DO AND FOR THE PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND AND KNOW THAT THAT'S EXACTLY AS IT'S INTENDED. DOES THAT HELP?

YEAH, IT HELPS. I GUESS THE ONLY STICKY PART IN WHAT DAVE MENTIONED, MR. PRICE MENTIONED, EXCUSE ME, WAS THAT THE DAVIS ARTS COUNCIL, AS HE CONTRACTED ARTS

ORGANIZATION.

YEAH, A MEMBER OF RAMP. NOW, THAT COULD BE STICKY, AND IT KIND OF HAS BEEN A LITTLE STICKY IN THAT YOU HAVE THE ARTS ORGANIZATION THAT RECEIVES FUNDS AND THAT WE NEED TO BE OKAY WITH FOR THEM TO RUN THEIR ORGANIZATION, BUT ALSO BE THE CONTRACTED MEMBER FOR LAYTON CITY. Yeah, I understand now, and that makes sense. I just think there's a little bit, just the sticky part of the Davis Arts Council with the arts spot.

I think this has long legs. I remember 12 years ago we sat down and talked about this in great detail. The way we look at it as staff is we are no different then council we are here to fulfill your direction that you give us and and for the city by having a standing member in one of these disciplines you have the ability to throughout the year talk about projects that are important to you And by having that standing member on that commission, we understand the direction you're headed as a city council. And hopefully we can reflect that in our budgetary requests. And that often takes a long time to bring to fruition. And that's why it's important that we have that standing position, I believe. And for the Davis Arts Council, it comes back to the same thing. This is the organization that the city put their faith in and continues to put their faith in. And they are the organization that we really rely on to understand arts. and be able to vote not only on their projects but on others. And I can tell you that over the years, many organizations other than the Davis Arts Council have received funding with the full blessing and support of our Davis Arts Council's representative.

I think it's a good setup myself. I mean, yes, there was a lot of homework that went into setting these ordinances and bylaws in the beginning and what we're experiencing here tonight is tweaking of that based upon feedback that we've received as well as the fact that just clarification and I think that's really where we are as a governing body is understanding that this is just a clarification point AND CERTAINLY THOSE LONG NIGHTS OF DISCUSSION WITH THE COMMISSION HAS TAKEN PLACE. NUMEROUS NIGHTS ON THE SAME TOPIC FROM MY UNDERSTANDING. SO I'M GLAD THAT COUNCIL THAT YOU'RE QUESTIONING THE SAME THINGS AND AGAIN WE ARE HERE TO DECIDE DO WE WANT TO GO FORWARD. SO I KNOW YOU'VE BEEN DELIBERATING ON THIS FOR QUITE A WHILE BUT CERTAINLY you know me, I'm willing to give you the time so if there's more time you need then please take it or if you feel like we need to extend this to the next meeting I'd entertain that too.

I just have one question for Clint because I know that when we do our trainings you know as a legislative body that we disclose a conflict but we don't have to recuse ourself but this is very clearly saying that those commission members have to disclose it and they have to recuse themselves So is it that, I guess my question is, is it required to be that forceful in one, or are they just maybe provided the opportunity to disclose their conflict? Because in this situation, it says they shall not participate or vote.

Yeah, let me just read it real quick.

That's a good point.

And I'm fine with whatever we need to do to get in regard to state law, but if it's more restrictive than it has to be, we may be creating a little bit more.

As I read that, I think you're right, and it's not intended to be that restrictive. So we could clean up that language to reflect the code and what I just described.

Go ahead, Mr. Price. As we look for at-larger members to sit on this commission, we try to find members that are not directly associated or sit on boards of organizations. This language helps us keep that process honest. We have seen in the past couple years where organizations have tried to game that process and put members on this ramp commission for the sole purpose of supporting their organization. And this language, although it sounds like it's more restrictive than state law may require, helps us prevent that gaming of our system. I appreciate that. That manipulation of the board.

Thank you.

COUNCILMEMBER MORRIS.

IF THE LANGUAGE WAS LIKE THE STATE LAW, LIKE OUR RECUSAL, WHAT, CRITERIA, THEN I WOULDN'T HAVE HAD A QUESTION TONIGHT BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY BASED ON THE CITY EMPLOYEES WOULD HAVE A CONFLICT OF INTEREST ORGANIZATIONALLY JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE PART OF LATENT CITY. I WOULDN'T HAVE HAD A QUESTION. AGAIN, IT WAS YOU CAN'T VOTE, YOU CAN'T DISCUSS, YOU CAN'T SCORE, YOU CAN'T TOUCH THE APPLICATIONS. THAT WAS MY ORIGINAL THOUGHT WAS THAT'S GOING TO MAKE IT VERY DIFFICULT BECAUSE IF THAT WOULD BE THE CASE, IF YOU COULDN'T DO THOSE THINGS, THEN YOU HAVE ALMOST HALF OF THE ORGANIZATION NOT BEING ABLE TO vote or vet the applications. That's where I was coming from. But if it was the same as the state or as ours, then I wouldn't have had that concern with the language.

Just for the record, I just wanted to say that I did write down for Article 8 that it was well written and stated because I understood that you were trying to make a delineation between the standing members and helping other board members and also other, excuse me, commission members and also others who may be applicants or folks who just came in to listen in. on the commission meetings would understand why certain commissioners were a part of Layton City and specifically Davis Arts Council, which I agree with Council Member Morse. That's probably the only one that's a little sticky. But I think it does outline... WHAT THE ROLES ARE AND HELPS TO KIND OF CLEAR THAT UP AND TO HIS POINT, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT FAIR NECESSARILY IN THIS SENSE BECAUSE OF THE RELATIONSHIP THAT HAS BEEN WITH THE CITY ON BEHALF OF THAT ARTS ORGANIZATION. I WOULD SAY THAT I DON'T THINK THAT WE SHOULD CHARACTERIZE FOLKS WHO ARE APPLYING TO BE BOARD MEMBERS AS TRYING TO GAME THE SYSTEM. I WOULD SAY THAT SPECIFIC TO ARTS THAT THERE PROBABLY WAS A LACK OF DEFINITION LIKE WHAT WE HAVE NOW. AND SO IF THERE ARE OTHER ARTS ORGANIZATIONS WHO SAW DAVIS ARTS COUNCIL NOT BEING LAYTON CITY SITTING ON COMMISSIONS VOTING ON THEIR OWN PROJECTS THAT OTHER ARTS ORGANIZATIONS PROBABLY WERE LIKE WELL MAYBE WE NEED TO BE ON THE BOARD AS WELL. BUT I WOULDN'T CHARACTERIZE THAT AS A POTENTIAL GAMING.

poor choice of words on my part. Thank you. I apologize.

That's fine. Okay. Are you guys clear on how you want to proceed here? I mean, because it sounds like you just have just the declaration of conflict at question. So I'll bring it back around as far as taking action. I mean, Clint, or Mr. Attorney Drake... Could they go ahead and take action on this if in the motion they're stated that they want to verify that declaration of conflict of interest?

Yeah.

Or would you recommend that we reword it and bring it back to them?

I don't think we need to bring it back. I'm just working on it right here. Actually, I'm just going through the Utah code and trying to figure out how to make it match. If you just give me a second. I'm almost there. Okay. So... Well, maybe... How about... Yeah, if we can come back to it.

Sure. Here's what I'm going to do. I'm going to exercise then my ability to adjust the schedule or adjust the agenda items, knowing that both A and B are part of our consent items, and typically we vote on them in one single action. I'm going to recommend that we... JUST SIT TIGHT HERE FOR A MINUTE, BUT RATHER THAN WASTE TIME, I WANT TO GO AHEAD AND GO ON TO OUR PUBLIC HEARING PORTION OF OUR MEETING, AND THEN WE CAN COME BACK TO THIS CONSENT ITEM AND TAKE ACTION ON IT. IS EVERYONE IN AGREEANCE WITH THAT? Hey, I see my head nods. I'm good. So thank you, Mr. Price. Thank you. Please sit tight. And meanwhile, for those of you that are here for item number six, our public hearing, we are now going to go on to that item, which is a rezone request and development agreement for our Main Street area. And Mr. Weston Apolloni is going to present that item for us.

Thank you, Mayor and Council. Good to be with you tonight. THE PROPOSED PROPERTY FOR REZONE IS .61 ACRES. IT IS LOCATED AT 1596 NORTH MAINE, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS 1596 AVALON DRIVE, IS THE AREA IDENTIFIED IN RED HERE. LET'S GO TO ANOTHER MAP. This is zoomed out a little bit, but it doesn't show the coloring. Before you tonight is an application for a rezone. Seth Teagle, applicant, is here tonight if the council does want to ask questions to the applicant. The purpose of the rezone is to develop 11 townhome units, with three of the townhome units fronting Main Street and being live-work units, with the development having a commercial component on the ground floor. As we talked about in work session, visitors and commercial parking will be provided for the townhome units, which are identified as live-work units. the live work town homes will be three stories while the remaining town homes will be two stories. This is a site plan of the proposed area. It shows the building one on the corner. It's hard to control this with this mouse, so I apologize, but this section here is Main Street. So building one and two, front Main Street, and then this road here is Avalon Drive. So the access will be off of Avalon Drive. Building three will face the apartment complex behind the property, and then building two, the access point will be on the side. These are the proposed elevations. Again, this is building one with this section looking towards Main Street and having a commercial appearance to it on the ground floor and this facing Avalon Drive. This is building two. Again, the Main Street frontage looking very commercial oriented towards Main Street and then the residential side access along the southern property. And then building three, which these are two stories and will face the apartments to the back. The rezone is accompanied with a development agreement, which includes the following requirements to maintain the architectural design standards that you've just went through. A minimum 15-foot setback from the south property for the townhome units. A minimum interior depth of the live-work space to be at least 20 feet. This allows for a little bit more functional commercial space. requirement of a 1,200 square foot of live workspace on the main floor, a minimum of 75% glass to be incorporated along the front facades of the live work units, and requirement for pedestrian circulation throughout the development. The MU zone, as requested, the MU zone request, excuse me, is compliant with and consistent with the general plan, as it is in with the Main Street mixed-use corridor. On July 14, 2026, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward the recommendation of approval to the City Council for the rezone request from CH to MU. Staff supports the Planning Commission's recommendation. to approve ordinance 2625, rezoning the property to MU, and resolution 2637, approving the development agreement. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. And again, the developer is here for questions as well.

Okay. Council, do you have any additional questions before we open it up?

Just one.

Okay. Turn on mic. You keep saying two-story. Okay. I see three. What does this mean?

Yeah, we can have the developer address this. My understanding is that this is a facade, a fake window up here, but they can address this. But these are intended to be a two-story window or a two-story product.

So the windows mean you're in... Like it's a vaulted ceiling?

I'll defer to the developer to comment on that.

Yeah, they're dormers, which... Yeah, I can clarify that.

I'm the designer of the project, so these are actually two-and-a-half-story units, so those will be living spaces up on these units primarily.

So there will be living space. Yeah. When you say two and a half, you just mean part of the upstairs?

So two and a half story is a term where we use an attic truss or we essentially use truss space to be able to build living space into it. It still meets all building codes. But in this case, we're actually right up against the height restriction of the project. And so, you know, the bedroom count and the things that fit well within the community and what may work well for the developer.

Okay.

took advantage of that.

So it's still three stories though? No, you say two and a half, but a three-story building's the same height. Right? I mean, the peak is.

Correct. So currently the way latency defines their building height is to the top of the roof structure. Okay. And so, yes.

Okay. I just, when I kept looking, I'm thinking, wait a minute, there's something upstairs. You don't put windows into your attic. Well, not now. They used to, but... Okay.

Other questions? Yes, thank you. I have the questions that I had in the work meeting. So in the packet, it stated that these could be for sale. Just wanting to get clarity, are these townhomes going to be for sale or are they going to be rented? And if they are going to be for sale, is there any option for owner occupancy? Just kind of give some clarity on that, please.

Yeah, sure. Seth Teague. Yeah, so the intent is absolutely to sell it. I shared with the Planning Commission that I bought my first home, which was a townhome, right around the corner from there in the Coles parking lot. Oh, yeah. And, you know, a few houses later, that was kind of the thing that catapulted me into homeownership. And so, absolutely, that's the intent. We can't control market conditions. So, like, moving forward, if the economy collapsed and we had to sell the project and assign it out, you know, That would be a decision for somebody in the future, but our goal at this point is absolutely to sell it and have it be owner-occupied.

Okay. And then to Weston, I ask this also, but for the benefit of the public who's here now and who may be live streaming and didn't earlier, could you speak to the capacity or the need for townhomes in our city now? because we all, I'm sure, get emails and phone calls and people stopping us wherever we are asking about townhomes that are apparently everywhere. So if you could speak to that and what problem we're solving with having more townhomes. I know this is just 11, but the reason I bring it up is because of the other development prior, or that's close by that hasn't happened yet. So there still could be more to come. So if you could speak to that.

Thank you for the opportunity and I will say that townhomes are not allowed everywhere We're really thoughtful about where they do go and we try to make sure that they're in a place where it makes sense I think we're all aware of the the price of homes today For people to step into the ownership market is becoming more and more difficult townhomes townhomes are becoming more and more the norm for that to happen and And so we often will see starter homes be the townhome. I mean, there will still be smaller lots that will be created for smaller homes that will function as first-time homes, but townhomes are definitely falling into that niche, and it will be a trend that we'll see for a while.

And then the last thing I have is just about the parking, which we mentioned. And my first home that I purchased was also a townhome here in Leighton, so I concur and agree. I am happy to see that there is a two-car garage here and hoping that that would prevent folks from parking on the front of their homes on Main Street. just because that's a busy road. And whether engineering-wise it's safe or not for people to be able to see, it does pose just restrictions for folks who aren't used to seeing restrictions when you pull out on Main Street. So I'm hoping that folks will use their rear two-car garages to park if this is approved and not park on Main Street.

Can you give me a picture, the map, where I can see Avalon and the park? Yeah. There we go. Now, where's Avalon? So this is Avalon right here. And there's the park. Okay. And how far would you say Avalon is from that first intersection? That's a light there. That strip there, that's a school crossing. That is a school crossing. Yeah, okay. And so I would hate, again, to have cars blocking the road because kids are going to be... walking across the street and they knew they were going to go right or left.

It's significantly far enough away that it would not impact the school crossing area. And it's a fairly large right-of-way right there as well.

Okay. And then other... That section above the school crossing, the long, skinny one, isn't that already sold? I seem to see infrastructure going in there.

Yeah, that's right. There's townhomes in the back. There's a multifamily mixed-use building here. This section has not started yet, but it is sold. It's townhomes? This would be a mixed-use product as well, yes.

Okay.

When you say mixed use? Commercial on the ground floor, residential above. Okay.

Okay. Any additional questions before we open a public hearing?

I just want to clarify the same question I asked, that the bottom level that would be commercial retail space can also be residential space for those three units, correct?

Yes, and to broaden that, because Councilman Thomas asked this as well, just to connect that it wouldn't be a separate residential unit if they decided to have that one unit

Commercial or excuse me residential it would just be a one residential unit not two Okay Is that it for now because if so Remember we can continue the dialogue, but we do need to open up our public hearing So that anyone else in the audience that wishes to speak to this topic they may do so so

Yes, I am looking for a motion. Madam Mayor, I move that we open the public hearing to discuss Ordinance 26-25 and Resolution 26-37. Okay, thank you.

Do I have a second?

Second.

Okay. All in favor say aye. Aye. Okay, there you have it. Our public hearing is now open, so if there's anyone in the audience that wishes to address this singular item, you're more than happy to stand up to the mic and once again state your name, what city you're from, and voice your opinion. Okay, seeing that there's none, I will go ahead and bring it back to the council then to either continue their deliberation or close the public hearing and take action on this rezone request.

Turn on mic.

I make a motion that we close the public hearing. Okay. And that we accept Ordinance 2625 and Resolution 2637. Okay.

Do I have a second on that?

I'll second that.

Okay. It's been moved that we approve the rezone request. And being that it's a public hearing, we'll go ahead and do a roll call vote on this. So I'll start down here with Council Member Bloxham.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I appreciate the development agreement from the staff and from the developers. I think it adds a lot of good things, particularly the windows. I think that will be nice on the frontage of Main Street. So I appreciate the ability and decision to be able to come to that agreement. So I vote yes.

Thank you. Council Member Thomas?

Yes.

Council Member Smith-Edmondson.

Madam Mayor, I will vote aye as well, and I agree that having the development agreement makes this an easier vote, and also that it's only 11 units. Thank you for being here.

Okay. Council Member Calendron.

Aye.

And Council Member Morris.

Aye.

Okay. There you have it. It's unanimous. Okay. Thank you, Council, for taking action there on our public hearing item. We'll now move back to our consent items. And I know that we had quite a bit of deliberation there. I should have verified with our attorney. Do you feel comfortable now at this point on your recommendation? Okay. Then why don't I go ahead and turn the time over to you, Mr. Drake, and you can kind of maybe give the council your recommendation.

Okay.

So... looking at utah code looking at the provisions of the municipal utah municipal officers and employees ethics act specifically utah codes 10-3-1306 and 1307. I think I've crafted some language here that accurately reflects both the law and the intent and the discussion that's taking place tonight. So I'm going to read it to you. And it's a little wordy. I'm a lawyer. But I think it's important. And so if I need to read it again, let me know. Sometimes it helps if it's on the board, but we won't be able to do that. And if it's satisfactory, then when you make a vote, then just say with this language and I'll make sure that Kim and the Parks Department has it so they can accurately reflect it in the minutes and the documents. SO IT WOULD NOW SAY, A COMMISSION MEMBER WHO HAS A POTENTIAL OR ACTUAL, SORRY, I THINK I TOOK, I MEANT TO TAKE THAT PART OUT. A COMMISSION MEMBER WHO HAS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST, A POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST WITH RESPECT TO A GRANT APPLICATION SHALL DISCLOSE THE CONFLICT IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE UTAH LAW AND CITY ORDINANCE. A MEMBER SHALL RECUSE THEMSELVES FROM PARTICIPATION when required by applicable law or city ordinance, or when the member determines that a personal, financial, fiduciary, or other interest or relationship prevents the member from fairly and impartially evaluating the application.

That's a very good definition.

Does that work?

Because I think you really get the personal side of it, which I think is what Council Member Bloxham was trying to drive at as well as Council Member Morris.

Does anybody need me to read it again or are we good?

Yeah. Do you guys need it again?

Are you?

Sorry, Madam Mayor, may I?

Sure.

Are you combining the two?

No, and then the paragraph two would still stand alone, and that makes that distinction and clarification, but I think it goes well together. There's still those same obligations for personal conflicts of interest with regard to paragraph two and city employees and Davis Arts members, but not with regard to their positions as staff of those organizations.

Can you read it one more time then, please? Yep.

I can read them both if you'd like, together. But yeah, I'll do the first one. A commission member who has a potential conflict of interest with respect to a grant application shall disclose the conflict in accordance with applicable Utah law or city ordinance. A member shall recuse themselves from participation when required by applicable law or city ordinance or when the, and this is the real.

Meet.

Or when the member determines that a personal, financial, fiduciary, or other interest or relationship prevents the member from fairly and impartially evaluating the application. GOOD.

OKAY, THANK YOU. WE APPRECIATE YOU TAKING THE TIME AND KIND OF CLARIFYING THAT BASED UPON THE RESPONSE WE'VE HAD HERE OR DISCUSSION TONIGHT. OKAY, SO COUNCIL THEN. LET'S GO AHEAD AND COME BACK TO OUR CONSENT ITEMS. WE HAVE BOTH A AND B, BOTH OF WHICH DO PERTAIN TO THE RAMP TAX. SO I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION IF YOU COULD TO INCLUDE Language as per recommended by our city attorney. Oh, okay. Before I entertain a motion, let me go ahead and allow Council Member Smith-Edmondson to ask one more question there.

Thank you. My question, Mr. Drake, is do our commissions, not just RAMP, but even Planning Commission, Parks and Rec, do our commissions go through the conflict of interest training that you have the Council and Mayor go through as well?

Yes.

Okay.

Yeah.

Good. I just wanted to make sure that there is no room for someone to be like, oh, I don't know what that code says. And then they wouldn't disclose appropriately. But if they're required to go through the same training that we go through every year, then we're good.

The Planning Commission does it in a little bit different schedule than us. They have regular trainings that are ongoing because there's laws that require that. And so sometimes that happens right away in January like we usually do. I like to just get it done at the first of every year. BUT I THINK THE PLANNING COMMISSION THIS YEAR WAS SOMEWHERE IN MAY OR JUNE WHEN THEY DID IT. BUT YES, THEY GET IT EVERY YEAR. AND THEN WE HIT ALL THE OTHER BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS AT DIFFERENT TIMES. THANK YOU. OKAY.

IS EVERYONE ELSE OKAY WITH IT AT THIS POINT? IF SO, THEN I'LL GO AHEAD AND ENTERTAIN A MOTION. YES, PLEASE.

Madam Mayor, I move that we approve our consent items, Ordinance 26-26 and Resolution 26-38 with Mr. Drake's language on conflict of interest in Section 8, Sentence 1. Is that what it was?

OK, very good. Do I have a second? OK, it's been moved and seconded that we approve as stated. All in favor, please say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay, very good. Thank you, council. I appreciate the patience here, appreciate the advice as well from Mr. Drake. I mean, that's why we have you here, and we needed you tonight. And also we appreciate Mr. Probert filling in for our city manager, Alex Jensen, who did ask to be relieved tonight, so I appreciate that. So anyway, with that, I'll go ahead and entertain a motion to adjourn.

One item prior to motion to adjourn. Sure. I have a question for Councilman Bettina. Which side of the stadium are you going to be sitting at tomorrow night?

Ask her what color she'll be wearing.

Madam Mayor, I make a motion to adjourn this meeting.

Okay, thank you. I'll acknowledge that. Again, thanks everyone for being here tonight. And again, thank you for your patience.