Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Item one on the agenda today,

approval of the agenda. I will accept motions to amend the agenda as well at this stage. Um, we've had times in past where we're amending the agenda in public hearings, especially those that are well attended, uh, to move public comments, for example, to after the panel's discussion because then you'll have a public hearing, able to receive the input and then have the new business where we discuss whatever item is on the table and then afterward again have a place for public comment based on the discussion. So whatever whatever you guys would like to do.

I motioned to approve the agenda as it stands. Okay, I'll second that. It's been moved and seconded that we approve the agenda as as it stands. All those in favor say yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Those opposed say no. No. But the motion passes. So we will approve the agenda. Uh declaration of conflict of interest. Does anyone have a conflict of interest concerning the business today? And just so you know, the city council approved the conflict of interest statement on the last meeting as it was already um amended.

It's a little bit amended. It simply says that a conflict of interest exists if it's a direct benefit to you financially to you or anyone in your household. Okay. Okay. And if it is then you need to recluse yourself which clarifies the family word I think. So they have to live with you. Okay. Makes sense. So with that now anyone in your household or you have a conflict of interest on the business today? No. Okay. Then we will move to point three. The approval of minutes October 14th, 2025.

Accept a motion. I'll make a motion to accept the minutes of October 14th, 2025. I'll second it. It's been moved and seconded that we approve the minutes of October 14th meeting. All those in favor say yes. Yes. Yes. And all opposed say no. Thank you. Moving on to point four. Presentation of the annexation policy plan. Mr. Jeff. Nice. It was a lengthy presentation. It's not.

Okay. Um so uh the annexation policy plans is simply is just guiding document for the council. Um I think the first one the city adopted was back in 2000 early 2000s. We've amended it a couple times since then. Um but with some of the discussions I've had with land owners in recent it's like six months or so um I felt it was need to to amend it. um more of the map than the actual contents of the plan. So, uh to introduce it a little bit, the the plan itself is governed a lot by the state code uh which the sections up there. Um anyone trying to solve sleeping issues tonight can go read through that whole section. It's a blistering read. Plot twist at the end will get you. Um and so right now we're in following section 10 to 803 um 3 and 4 which discuss which outlines how the planning commission has to review and amend the plan. This really is a plan that the planning commission um oversees and and pres recommends to the council. And so it in context this is more of a plan that I've I've amended and bringing to you guys because it's more of your plan. So um next one Tim um so some changes that we made uh I'm a general proponent of following some natural boundaries with this. So the blue area on the west side is removing what was in our what is currently in our annexation boundary that is west of Salt Creek. Um due to the small I mean it's a still a sizable sliver but being on the other side of Salt Creek servicing it as a municipality would be difficult in terms of getting utilities over on that side.

Um, so I I I proposed the changing it that Salt like everything east of Salt Creek could be under cons future consideration for annexation. Um, two larger areas that you can see are Radio Hill. Um, with discussions I've had with property owners up there, uh, it's it's likely we see an annexation from petition from some of those property owners probably in the next year or so. um they're trying to do their due diligence, but um so we're adding that in. I think it's an area that Tmont can really work towards master planning in terms of some utility infrastructure as well as um really a very significant master plan community that could bring a lot to uh this area in terms of outdoor recreation. um the south uh yellow area that um that I think uh that's an area that I I feel for the most part can be well serviced by Treemont in terms of being able to gravity into our existing infrastructure. Um it's kind of a mirrored area along so right there where the actual text is that says area added is Rocket Road. And so a lot of that can go back to where our wastewater treatment plant is. Um they're kind of in that dip. Um and then the part out uh

yes where is Lwood? So Lwood is generally a lot of that yellow area right now.

Um but we um I thought I drew that in but I may have gotten a little rushed in the slide. We tried to to accommodate where they have infrastructure now versus where they don't have sewer or the ability to sewer um without a lift station or some other of form of of resolve. Um, and then the the east one they're kind of sandwiched to the middle was an adjustment to an area where we've had a lot of of conversations with property owners up there of what they can do because part of their property is in the city boundary and part of it isn't. So, after straightening that boundary out to just follow 1,00 north until you get to the bare river um, and then have just that kind of plateau. Um I don't I don't think it'll be in any of our lifetimes really that that becomes a developed area, but you never know. So um if you don't mind going on to the next slide, Tiff. Um so some common misconceptions about this plan. This plan is not adopting this plan tonight is not an annexation for the entire boundary to now be in part of Tmont City. Um this is just a document to allow the planning commission and the council to review how annexations take place through in the city. Um another one and andrea brought this up. We cannot annex something that is in a municipality now. Um they would have to leave that municipality and go into unincorporated county and then come into the city by approval of the council. So um um and then the last one is the council annexation is a process that land owners initiate. It is not one that the city

does. Um and they have to fill out a petition that meets state code in those sections uh before the council will look at it. So, I help that I help land owners fill out petitions when they come in and ask for annexations because it's um it's a healthy chunk of code they have to follow in terms of signatures and meeting um some ownership quotas. So, that's that's my presentation. Jeeoff, if I can add to that. What you told me is two cities can have their plan go into each other and and that's normal and okay. Yes, that's my understanding.

So like if Lwood's having issues with their say sewer system, they could potentially Yes. ask to be annexed into Tmont to receive that. Yes. Okay, that makes sense. And same thing if they like with overlap with Garland that if depending on how the land owners feel either municipality could service them. This just shows that the council and the planning commission realize that there are parts where there those overlaps exist and we think that that area that I've adjusted it to is something we'd be okay um annexing in the future. So they have to want to be annexed. Yes. It's

like their choice. But there's benefits to being in the city. Yeah. Yes. So there's nothing in adopting this plan that says that people have to come to Tremont over Garland or Elwood or even if they have to come in at all if they choose to develop to county standards. This is just us identifying what area around our perimeter we feel we could service as a municipality if they met all of our other code requirements. Gotcha.

Guess one other question I would have for you is, you know, like on the very east end where we have some of the Lwood overlap, if a property owner were to come in and say, I would like to be annexed into Lwood, they would have the right to do that and to go to Lwood and ask to have that done.

Yep. And we would be notified that that petition is happening. And if we feel like for whatever reason that's not in the best interest of Tmont and we could write a formal um just a a formal protest against it. And then if the um if the land if the county feels like that protest is legitimate, then the county creates what's called the boundary commission to kind of decide. Um, and most of the time they lean heavy into what the land owner wishes. Um, because it's really the landowner that initiates this process. Other questions before we move on? Okay, then uh we'll close point four and move to point five. I have a public hearing point A to receive public input on the proposed annexation policy plan. The floor is open to the public to come and see what they would like.

Do you want me to time? Uh yes, if you would. We'll give you three minutes. Please state your name and where you're from.

Uh my name is Jonathan Gardner. I'm a land owner east of 8400 West. That is just east of uh the Salt Creek area. Um while I agree with removing the area west of Salt Creek, I further move that the area west of I84 also be removed. I'm here on behalf of myself and my neighbors who will be affected by the proposed annexation policy changes. We respectfully oppose expanding the city's future annexation area to include our properties and therefore wish to have our properties removed from the plan. First, I want to say I want to be clear. None of us in this in this area receive any city services. We do not receive treaty Tmont city water, sewage, garbage pickup, gas, fire hydrant access, road maintenance, and we are not requesting those services. Our area is already fully supported by county level and private systems that function well without the city. Under Utah code, an annexation policy plan must demonstrate the future annexation areas are logical and orderly, feasible for service delivery, economically efficient and non-burdensome, and consistent with the long-term health, safety, and welfare of both current and future residents. The proposed expansion um and future areas does not meet these criteria, and so we want to be removed from this plan. The city cannot logically or economically provide services to our area. To comply with the state law, an A must identify how municipal services could provided be could be provided and financed. But extending water, sewer, roads, police jurisdiction, and utilities east of U. I or west of I84 would require new utility trunk lines and pumping systems, additional road infrastructure, expanded fire and police coverage, large capital investment, and long-term operational costs. under Utah code uh and I did read that code the um and didn't put me to sleep but it is pretty thick. The city must show that service provision is practical and economically feasible at this time. No plan exists. Fremont city is already running on a tight budget and is not economically feasible to fund

this expans expansion. Placing our land inside the A now without a service plan does not meet the statutory requirement. Um there is no feasible or economic service plan in the area without such plan. Um this cannot be legally justified. Uh the use of the land um west of I84 um is rural. Our properties are rural agricultural and low densities. Some of the proposed land is uh in APA or an agricultural protection area. Um, and under Utah code, EPA's require cities to avoid annexing land that would inter interfere with agricultural operations, avoid imposing incompatible zoning or urban service obligations, and so planning for annexation of agricultural land knowing that an APA is in place is inconsistent with state policy and creates unnecessary conflict between the city and county planning goals. The purpose of an APA is to protect agriculture, preserve rural character, and maintain agricultural operations. The Golden Spike Inland Port Authorities Harwood Zone proposes turning some of the same um APA land into an industrial inland port with freight logistics, warehousing, and heavy truck traffic. The APA update um is um uh being used as well to uh to as a framework of that shift. This contra contradicts the purpose of uh proposed APAs under Utah law um and Boxelders County counties agricultural land use plans. Um, and you cannot meaningfully protect agricultural land while simultaneously planning to convert it into an industrial inland import zone later on.

Thank you. So, get us out of the area. Thank you.

I would like to pick your brain about that read later.

I have much more to say as well. You like what? My name is Darwin Thompson. I live on Harley Drive. And I I just want to say right off the bat that I have no idea where any of this is on the map. I read drawings every day. I uh am in construction and I I would like you to explain exactly where each one of these are. I mean a bigger map something. I I have no idea where they are. Um, secondly, I've reviewed the Tmont City annexation policy very well over the last month and um, personally would just like to say that I don't think it was followed in the last annexation that just happened. Um, I didn't follow it detail by detail by detail, but I did watch I watched the the council meetings that were happened because of it. There's many steps that need to be followed by the city for an annexation to happen. I didn't see an awful lot of them happen. Um, I think that's something that we possibly all should review and make sure that happens, including the most important one, documents need to be signed from the developer of exactly what he's going to provide. In the last meeting uh that this annexation happened up on I don't know far radio hill if you want to call it radio hill there was many things that were said that the planners the

developers yeah we'll look at that we'll do this we'll do that there was nothing that I know if unless you can show me of anything that was signed by them that is exactly what they would do would they provide water would they provide the sewer Would they provide the secondary water? All of it was just stated. Yeah, we'll look at that. When annexations happen, according to your policy, there is contracts that need to be written up of exactly what they do. And I think that perhaps that's some of us as homeowners that are a little bit afraid of. I mean, we hear a lot of different things that happen when an annexation takes place. Perhaps we would be a little bit happier about it if we actually had something signed to know exactly what the developers were going to do. That's a big thing. There's certain time requirements in this annexation policy. There's certain letters that need to be written. There's an opportunity to protest. All those things, I think that's something that we all need to review. And the contracts need to be signed as well as and you guys aren't the city council and I understand that the city council as well as you guys are here to protect the citizens of Tmont and to protect the city of Tmont from people that want to come in and take advantage of us.

Thank you. My name is Lane Wilding and I live next to Darwin Thompson up on Radio Hill or Harley Drive. I have a concern about the zoning and how zoning takes place. I've been hunting and I've yet to find anywhere that describes when some property is going to get annexed. What is the process for determining what the zoning is going to be? I've been hearing rumors about what might happen behind my house of putting an industrial area behind my house. I've got an industrial area in front of my house, which I'm not really excited about. I much prefer to have soaked trucking there versus a Lo's gas station, but I'm not really excited about having that kind of industry behind my house. I would like to know where and how we establish when some property is going to be annexed. What is the zoning going to be behind us or around us? What is that process? Where can I find it? I've hunted for it. I've yet to find it. Right now, I understand the property behind my house is zone zero. I have no idea what that means other than the person who builds on it can build whatever he would like. if he wants to be annexed by this city, the city then gets the opportunity to say, "Well, we want to have this because you're bringing stuff in and you're we want you want this infrastructure." So, I would like to see a little more visibility on what and how zoning takes place and do I as a resident I'm not a resident of Tmont yet, but will I when I get annexed into into the city, will I get a voice in the zoning that happens around me?

Thank you. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Jamie Gardner and we live um over in like we just moved. I live with him. We're over on 8400. So 10 922 north 8300 west. So, we're over in the area that when we built our home, it's Boxelder County and we were told that we have everything not connected to Tremont City cuz we used to live up Radio Hill. Tons of issues with water, tons of issues with trying to get things up there. People are still struggling to get water. So, it worries me that we're continuing to build when there's so many issues there already. Um, but anyway, no property owners west of I84. We're seeking annexation. We really love where we live. We're totally fine without Tremont City coming in. Um, no one's requested city water. No one's requested sewer. No one's requested utilities. We're all sufficient with what we have. And then all the neighbors um connected, they're all opposed to us joining Tmont just because we're surviving and thriving how we are. So, we would just love not to have that part of us, but um I know that you guys have a job to do, but there's there's a huge issue with water all throughout Tmont City. And um we're just happy with what we have. And hopefully other people will speak up, but we have like when I say a bunch of people, I'm like speaking for like 20 that I live by that can't be here. So hopefully you guys take that into consideration and um it'll definitely it says planning for the future annexation of unwilling land owners contradicts the core requirement the annexation be a public interest. So,

thank you.

Christy Bokeut and I know I'm supposed to wear beige and be quiet, but that's not my I was voted by the people and I will stand up for the people. I ask you to really listen to what the residents are saying. This does affects their lifestyle. The last annexation residents were not they didn't get heard. It was pushed through and they're very very upset. Um until we get everything in place. We know there's water, which I we are close to not having water, especially during the summer. There are so many things. This is this is a life-changing thing that you guys are this decision you will pass on to the city council. I just ask that you really step back and realize that you're here for the people, not for a developer. Developers need to learn to conform to Tmont, not Treemont conforming to a developer. There's not one development that's come into Tree Mountain since 2018 since I've been involved that the citizens have not paid royally to get that development in. So, I've taken the time to start calling municipalities. They don't pay. If there's an upsize, the developer pays for it. Residents don't. We do in Tmont. Roadways going in, there's one going out west. the residents are paying for those roads to go into a development out of our pockets should not happen. I know that's not true, but these are the questions you need to start asking before you even think about annexation or giving a development the okay because there's many things that needs to be asked that's not really being asked right now. I just ask that you really if you have to turn the hearing aids up, I recommend

that. listen to our residents because it's their livelihood. I grew up in the county all my life. Not this and way northern Boxelder County loved it. I didn't have anything pushed on. We didn't have anything pushed on us. Grew up with a septic system. No, it didn't fail. Grew up with a water a whale. No, it didn't fail. We love that lifestyle. when you impose judgment um you're changing their lifestyle and just take that into consideration. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Tyler Thompson. I live on Harley Drive as well. So, um I just want you to kind of want to second what Christy said a little bit with what is being considered here. It is changing lives. Um it's not just a matter of are we going to allow a developer to do one thing or another, but it it really is changing lives. A lot of the reason why a lot of us are here is because it's going to it would affect and change our lives, our lifestyle. And I understand that not everybody lives in the county and not everybody gets to enjoy the the freedom, if you will, of being in the county. Um, I love being on a septic tank. I love being having a well. Um, I love the freedoms that I enjoy. Um, there's a lot that uh goes into determining where you want to raise a family. And there's a reason why some of us live where we live. I've got nothing against Tmont City. I've got nothing against Garland City. Um, you know, as far as I'm concerned, you're all great people. Um, you know, and I just really want to say that think about our families as well. Um, there's things that we can do outside of city limits that we can't do inside city limits. There's documentation, there's facts that prove that. Um, yeah, there might be some advantages. Water obviously isn't one of them. Up on Radio Hill, um, everybody I talk, you talk to anybody in agriculture, they'll tell you we lack

water. Where are all these people going to get water? It doesn't matter what where the land is. It doesn't matter how fancy the subdivision is. It's where are they going to get the water? Okay, that's fine. Let's build this huge beautiful whatever, but how are we going to get water for it? And how are the citizens that currently have some water, maybe lack water, how's that going to affect them? Um, the recent resoning that just happened that Darwin referred to, um, there's a lot more homes going in there. We realize that people love Tmont. We love Tmont as well. We love this area and we're still here for the reason that it's a a rural area and that's why people want to come here. They're tired of what Tmont is attempting to become. They're going to move here. They're going to get tired of it. We got Californians moving this way, wherever they might be. And Idaho is already trying to lock the gates and saying, "We don't want Utons coming up here because we're the we're the Californians to them." Okay? And we love Tmont the way it is. Are we going to stop growth? No, we're not. there's going to be some growth and that's healthy to have some growth, but of this substantial amount, that's a lot. Um, one of the things that it says in Tremont's um community development annexation plan,

all right, is that Tmont City number six, it is not Tree Mountain City's intent to annex territory for a sole purpose of acquiring revenue. Thank you. So, I ask what is this doing? Is that with the sole intent of acquiring revenue or is that literally trying to help us that don't want to be forced into it? Thank you. Thank you, Jeff. When was the first map when was the current map put in place? That's that I couldn't find it online since I was here.

I'm Natalie Thompson. I'm Tyler's wife and I live on Harley Drive as well. I believe strongly in lots of things and two of those things are that people are more important than things and quality is more important than quantity. I'm concerned with some of the decisions that Tmont City is making right now. Money is a tool and a vehicle to help people to improve their lives and to take care of people. But I see the dollar signs taking charge of people instead of people taking care of the dollar signs. I lived in a Tremont city subdivision and we moved our family into the county because we wanted a different way of life and now that's trying that's people are trying to take that away from us. I'm asking you to put the dollar signs in their place and to put people first to think before we just act for money because people are more important than things. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else feel like it's testimony meeting? Um, no. I live up on on Harley Drive as well. Um, we bought there in 2021. We moved up there and Say your name real quick.

Oh, sorry. My name is Colton Hair for the record. Uh, like a rabbit. H A R E. Uh, and I, you know, I've been getting involved a lot more in the city councils and stuff the last month and a half, two months. Something I never thought I would do. I listened to my mom complain about city councils meetings for years of my life down in Richfield. And uh, so I kind of always avoided them to be honest. But as I started coming, it was fun to see how you could get involved um in the the things that are going on and have a voice in those things. Um but as I've been listening to all the decisions that have been being made about developments and annexations and those kinds of things, I've had to take a step back and really just ask myself the big question of why. Um, you know, I feel like sometimes we get caught up so much in in the dollar signs or in the, you know, excitement of moving forward and and stepping forward and hey, you know, we already have this annexation plan. I mean, we're my my house is already involved in the the future use plan of Tmont City. Um, this yellow area is expanding even beyond that. Um, so now, you know, we already have a plan for this much and okay, let's move on to the next thing and get the next, you know, chunk. You know, we might as well do that now while we're doing this other stuff. Um, and sometimes we have to take a step back and just ask ourselves why. Why are we pushing so hard? And I understand a lot of that as developers. You know, they're buying the land. They're the ones who push for the annexation. And I feel like sometimes we as a city think, well, what are we going to do? you know, they want to annex or they want to change the zone, like what choice do we have? Well, if you didn't have a say in it or a purpose behind it, then why would you have a city council in the first place? Um, you know, in the last meeting, I heard a lot of, "Well, we don't have any

leverage if we don't let them change the zone." That sounds kind of like enttrapment to me. Yeah. If you don't let us change the zone, we're just going to do whatever we want on the zone that's currently there. Well, now it's changed. So now they're just going to do whatever they want on the current zone. I think that we have to take a step back and think about these things and ask ourselves that big question of why. Why are we pushing so hard to grow so quickly? Growth is going to happen. I understand that. But do we really need to triple or quadruple our population in the next 10 to 15 years? I think we have a say in that. I think the city has a say in that. So that's all. Thanks.

Thank you. Happy to continue if anybody's still interested. Something that hasn't been mentioned that you'd like to bring up. Jamie Pleton. I'm a Tmont resident. I want to echo what somebody said earlier about is it possible to take a step back after public comment and say what these boundaries are because looking at it like they've said it's hard to tell what streets and areas and roads these are. So, I don't know if that's possibly something we can make a motion on. go back, explain exactly what these yellow boundaries are, where they're at, and possibly whether or not there's even plans right now for a developer to come in and take these over. So, we're going to annex them now. I'm not quite sure. To me, it feels like there's some information that could possibly mission from this drawing, and that's all. If we could go back and do that, that would be great. Thank you.

Thank you. We have our discussion planned already, right? Yes. Okay. So, we will be talking about that after. Okay. All right. I think we're going to close the public hearing portion of the meeting and I think it's finally this is why I say to move the public comments because I'm seeing it

it's ridiculously unredundant. Would you also like to have public comments? I guess what's the point of having public comment after we discuss it? Well, yeah, because we have a we probably need to move six down to underneath seven. We'll definitely be bringing up questions and discussion I'm sure especially from people who are present or even people who are watching so that then they have an opportunity to actually comment on the things that we've discussed. That makes sense. So can we just like ask questions for a little bit as part of our discussion? Yeah. And in this particular order and then the approval of the agenda. That is why I say moving those items are so important. Well,

yeah. And I think like on seven on seven new business, I think you have your discussion, then you have a 7B and that's a a hearing. You know, you listen to the people at that point, right? And so I think that's where that belongs is right after you've had your discussion and and then get them involved. So So Nick's six and AD B to seven. Is that what we're saying? In the future. In the future. Yeah. Yes. at the at the approval of agenda step. Yeah.

Because that's why Yeah. doing that. Approving the agenda means it's recorded as this and then we move forward that way. But we have the opportunity to manage the agenda at that stage. Is it always in this order? Is it always in this order? We can set whatever order we want. Yeah. as long as it falls if it would if it's possible to just put that in the the running notes if that would be possible. Look into it because it's supposed to be discussion and consideration. So I need to look at okay if we can break that up. So I'm not sure I'll find out. But spec specifically for the public comment section. Is there something written that that okay if we vote

let's let's make let's make that doesn't that public comment section for public comments on other issues or general issues not particularly the the annexation either way it would fit better together if I'm imagining it as efficiently as possible as long as we have a spot there for general public comment

not associated with the particular public hearing. Yeah. So, any other public comments? We'll continue that about anything else going on. I'm assuming that's the that's the only real differentiation there. Can we get three more minutes? I don't need a ton. Public public comment is yours. Appreciate it. It's specifically in the agenda, sir. So, okay. Darwin Thompson again. It's the same three minutes just so you

Oh, thank you. So, there's been a lot of said about water, about sewer, about this, about that. I do a lot of work for well, my company and my son's company. We do a lot of work for Tmont City on their sewer systems, on their water systems, on their secondary water systems, the culinary water systems. We do a lot. We're in trouble. I'm just here to tell you, you know, I know you hear it from everybody. Where's our water coming from right now? I got to hurry because I only got three minutes. And I'm only going to talk about the water, okay? Cuz the sewer system could take a long time, too. Water. You have five pumps, okay? Three of those pumps are dead in the water right now. They're not running. They're broke down. You have two pumps pumping water. Yes, we're working on getting the other three up and running, and we probably will have them up and running by spring, but it's it's a situation it takes tons of money to keep them going, to keep them in in operation. And two of those pumps are your main pumps, your 100 horsepower pumps. Two of them are down. You have a fish pump, a little teeny one, 25 horsepower pump. It's in a shack about 10 by 10, a wooden shack. I have to get the rats out of there and the snakes out of there before I'll go in and work on them. And you might say that's exaggeration. Well, it's not. I can show you pictures. And then you have another small pump that pumps Garland's overflow. Well, yeah, they have overflow in the winter. You get water, but Garland

doesn't have much if any overflow in the summertime. So, that pump's no good when you really need it. That's the two pumps that are running. And then one other little pump that's in the main building. But two of those pumps right now are down dead in the water. It's just not. And I could I don't I don't bring them up as an issue. I I love working with the guys and the guys are really working hard, believe me, trying to keep this stuff up and running, but that's the situation right now with your with your water. And I could go on and on about the sewer and the waste waste treatment plant, too, but I don't have another three minutes. So anyway, you just need to be aware of this that it's an issue. So thanks for your time.

Thank you. Can I get another three as well? Perfect. Use the rule to your advantage, sir. That's what I say.

So Jonathan Gardner again, uh I'm on 8300 West. So annexation interest is one-sided and unwanted. Annexation policy plans must reflect community preferences. And in this case, no property owners west of I84 are seeking annexation that I'm aware of and that I've talked to. Uh, no one has requested city water, sewer, or utilities, and all neighbors contacted are opposed to becoming part of Tmont. Planning for future annexation of unwilling land owners contradicts the core requirement that annexation be in the public interest, not just the city's interest. This expansion um and expansion into west of of I84 is not consistent with Troubon's purpose or capacity. Cities should grow where growth is already occurring. Uh so east of I84 near existing water and sewer systems along established transportation corridors. Expanding the A into rural county lands rather uh runs uh counter to the orderly growth principles in state code and places unnecessary administrative and political burdens on the city. So, in conclusion, um the proposed expansion um and inclusion of the area west of I 84 uh lacks a feasible and economical service plan, conflicts with existing and future agricultural protections, does not reflect land order support or community need, creates unnecessary tension between city and county, and does not meet the legal standards under Utah code for orderly, logical future annexation. For these reasons, we respectfully request the planning commission remove all properties east of the um east of Salt Creek uh to I84 from the annexation policy plan update as well as keep the area removed um as you have currently standing. Thank you for your time, your service to our community, and for hearing us out. Thank you.

Yeah. Okay. You've done research on this. Can you figure out when it was actually put into the annexation policy? I can look cuz like I can't find the map like the the oldest or the last map the last like policy that we did was 2002. Yeah. So I So like if this was like I'm just trying to find out if you like knew when it your area was added to it. Does that make sense?

I don't know when it was. I know that they're like the hardwood zone that they're trying to do for the inland port. They've been having that on. They've talked about getting that annex into Tremont for a long time and that is a frustrating area because it's an APA, you know, it's an agriculture protection area. You should not be looking at that for an inland port industrial area. So, when it was added in to the plan, I have no clue. I I definitely want I can look into that as much as I can. Yeah. Thank you.

Okay. Any further public comments? Might as well.

I don't need I don't need three minutes. I just thought of something while everybody else was talking um sitting in the other city council meetings and stuff. I'd really like to see some detailed projections of like water usage uh in the area that I feel like you know we've seen some some m or not maps some graphs of what's been used and like projections on you know we implemented secondary water and this improved our you know culinary water by this much and so forth. Do do we have projection numbers based on the amount of homes that would be going into these annexation areas and how that would affect the water in the area because I feel like that number would be important to know and there was a small small mention of it by the uh I don't know he's he's on the in the last meeting he mentioned something about being able to sustain 200 and something more homes under the current setup. Um, and we'd have to expand beyond that in order to to add any more homes than that. And that's the first time I've heard any kind of projection. Um, but there, you know, I I live in the business world and AI has come a long way and there's a lot of stuff that you can do with projections and I'm sure somebody could find a number of we can add this many homes before our water's going to be topped out unless we do something else. So the county

just a thought the county had something from the last conference that we had

and in the future we hope to provide something too. So, I'm Larry Thompson and I just have a question on 1000 North. That road when we moved out there 30 years ago had h hardly any houses on it. And now there's the subdivision. There's, you know, all to the west of us up on that hill heading from I-15 out to 84. And when you get off the freeway now, you sit there and you wait to get across 1,00 north just to go up to 2300 west and turn.

And when I come up 2,000 west, I sit there and wait for people coming off the freeway and then plus people coming from town heading west to just the development that is there now. I can only imagine the traffic that is going to be there because of the subdivision that was approved last week. And that road when you guys widened that road that was a well it only went up to two one intersection, two intersections. It needed to go all the way out there. It is ridiculous how narrow that road is. And what are you going to do with all them people that built those houses that get in there? They're not going to jump on 84 and come down to Tmont. They're going to come down that road and that road needs to be widened so that we can drive on that road and so we can get across. Are you going to put stop lights out there? What are you going to do? I don't know. That's That road's ridiculous.

Thank you. Just as well, right? Do it. I hope hope it's hope it's productive. That's the other thing. I'm I'm trying.

Well, I mean, you're here to listen to us, too, right? So, it's all productive. So, appreciate your consideration and hearing us poor people. Um, my biggest thing as well is also the current state of Tremont City. Like has been mentioned, there's a lot that we can do with what we have now, right? I shouldn't say we cuz I'm technically not in Tremont City, but I claim Tmont City is my own as well, right? I've grown up here, played football here, done everything here my whole life. Um but right now like my mom said um there's a lot of areas you get you hit certain areas when Northrup gets out right 5:00 you'll sit for 10 15 minutes at a stop sign trying to get onto the main street or onto Thousand North right so I take Thousand North a lot because that's where I go from home to work. Um, people just fly through that stop sign half the time. They come off the interstate, they roll through there as well. Uh, your law enforcement has done a good job. They're typically there. But unfortunately, it's like when they're not there, that's when things happen. But there's also about five or six potholes that I've been hitting for about the last five or six years in a onem span that I take to work in Tmont City that's also not getting repaired. So, I just feel like we're grasping for a lot of area that we can't facilitate, we can't take care of because there's so much that we need to take care of here. It's the same thing I tell my 16-year-old all the time. When you can take care of this, we'll look at that, okay? And we want to get there, okay? I want to get there with my 16-year-old. But until he can take care of what he already has and already has committed to, I can't take him there because this will just continue to go to pot. Tmont and City is a great place. There's a lot of downtown stuff that

should be happening that unfortunately is not. Um, you know, the new Midland Square that sure looks really nice. You know, did it necessarily need all that? I don't know cuz I don't I'm not near chairs, right? But all I hear is we don't have money to go here. We don't have money to do this. Obviously, we don't have money to fit all the fill all the potholes. Um, and so are we spending our money wisely? Okay. Yeah, these areas maybe down the road once this is all taken care of and working like a welloiled machine, maybe those areas are worth looking into. But right now, there's so much that's going ungreased, unoiled that we're having so many breakdowns in that area that it's going to become a machine that can't move anymore at some point. We need to grow responsibly. We need to grow slowly so we don't have major growing pains, right, for all of us. So, thank you.

Thank you. Let's go for seven. We everybody good public comment period. Okay, we'll close uh the public comments this time. Move to point 7, new business, discussion and consideration of annexation policy plan. Can can we take a minute and just point out on the map where these are at? Absolutely.

Asking for that. Where's your little pointer at? Maybe Jeff can show Jeff, are you okay showing them where they're at? How? How? It's just hard cuz like if I point to these Well, that's what I'm worried about. Just do this. Just do that one. I think everyone here. Yeah, we know where we're at. Okay. Descriptive.

Um, so here this is I5 right away. So this is for and then that's 100 north there. This area is at the top working his way down. So this area is um from there's not even a great description. Um the BR is, if my memory serves me correctly, generally in about this area. So you're looking from where the existing homes are on a thousand north coming up to the hill to where the current boundary has been and then pushing that up to um the VR area. Uh this is Yeah, that's McGarland water tanks.

Yeah. So McGarland water tanks are right there. Yeah. North come down. I might just come down. I need It's in their annexation. True. I just talked to Linda about that. You probably did. And that's that was something that we talked about was that that's an that's okay because we're not really annexing all of this stuff right now. No, it's just hypothetical. I get it. I just um So this I'm not great with the system. Excuse me. You can't annex that. According to your plan, we're not annexing. We're not annexing it. It's proposed. I mean, why is it even proposed?

Because I've talked to the guy that owns all of those yellow parcels. Anyone annexed into? Yes. Okay. Um, so the blue area, I'm not great with the county grid system, but that is a road. And this is the salt creek. I don't know what road number that is, but my guess is 9600. I don't know. It's not even a road, too. It comes off the hill. Well, I think that's the old the eagle pond. Maybe pond. I'm trying to think.

Um, so ice skate on. But anyway, that's Salt Creek 2 where the first east west section line road is being removed. Um, this area down here in the south down over here, guys. Uh, this is Rocket Road. Um, just continuing all the way up and then that's the Bear River. Um, and then this is the railroad tracks and 9600 south. Like all the way out to the Bear River as in clear east. All the way to the Bear River. All the way to the Bear River. All the way to the bottom of the dip. Uh, east of Yes. Clear out there.

Um, and then same thing here. Follow just everything from the Bear River over to I think it's 8400 West. Um, and adding that in just to have the natural barrier or the bear river like these are is that river bottom property? Um, no. I stopped before the river b I just I follow the parcel lines with where the current parcels are now. So if they go into the river bottoms it's because of that. Is that the Well, is that the junior high road that go straight east? Yes. East. So that's out by Selman. Not quite that far. Yes.

All the way to Z. So everything from the pop farm east south south. Sorry that's just where I work. So I say pop farm because I know that's that's the boundary.

So and to annex any of these areas that are not currently incorporated. It would take the land owners petitioning to the city to annex them. And so there is no

there is nothing that the city council would come out and put the annexation together for unwilling land owners. So, this is just um the policy uh adjusting the map to areas where I've talked with some land owners about becoming part of Tremont City because they um and then just squaring up is spots where I feel like we have some some um struggles in terms of of getting either utilities or other reasons. the land owners that have approached you?

Yes. And there are land owners that have approached me um for the most part primarily um in these two areas here or here. Thanks, Jim. Good point. Rocket Road, just so I'm aware, I'm thinking Rocket Road is the top of that yellow area or the middle of it. Oh, and then through the middle of it. Okay. Yeah. So, the Rocket Road is right here. Okay. Mhm. And then this is highway 13 there. So, Gotcha. Um I've t a few land owners have approached me in this area about um being in Fremont

and having understood Elwood's current utility issues. Um makes sense. JC is to answer probably about right thereish. So, it's clear east all the way to Hansen Park. Um, all of that. So, is that the Lwood boundary then where the yellow ends? Um, I may have uh Yes, there may have Make sure because we So, like where would Maverick be? Maverick would be in the white, right?

Maverick's right there. So handsome park wouldn't be in it but no Peterson Ederson would like Nelson's and M and Carolyn Freeman's and all of that is in that yellow. Correct. Sure. Don't have to though. No one has to. But we're not forcing anything on them. No, I understand. She's going to reach out to Jeff tomorrow because I I reached out to her tonight about this meeting and she's a heroin and so she's going to watch it and reach out to Jeff tomorrow. Yeah. Because and we understand it's not a done deal. It's just a proposed thing. Correct.

It's not even proposed. Like it's just the plan. These these are these are preliminary before anything is even achieved. From what I understand, the map without the yellow and blue parts, actually with the blue part, that's been around since, from what I can find, 2002. 2002, not 2022. No, but not the new yellow below. It's been on the master plan. It's been on the annexation plan. So, it's in the future, in the next 20, 50 years, it could hypothetically be annexed into Trmon. That's all this is. doesn't want it

unless the owner doesn't want it. Yeah. That's all this is. That's all this meeting is. It's just for us to say, "Oh, this was in our annexation plan." So, if this landowner comes to us and says they want to do this, then we could consider it because it's in the annexation plan. So, so this goes on the annexation plan obviously because of what's in your your annexation policy plan that it can't be annexed unless it's on the plan. So that's why you're putting it in the plan, right? Correct. For the next the land owner in the middle of the yellow that doesn't want to be are they forced to be because it will create an island if not that comes down to if the if the boundary in the if it meets state code. So in

she's got one in so in the state code you have to any boundary you have to have support of um I believe it's half of the acreage has to support it and onethird of the land value has to support it. Yeah that's what it says. If the if the boundary itself has enough support then and meets those quotas then by state code the annexation can be brought in even if another half doesn't support it. But if you and your 20 neighbors don't support it then that shouldn't be an issue. You have to have everybody not support it.

No, you just have to have enough you just have to have enough people that the petition doesn't meet state code to support it. So um which is one of the things that I I help people land owners that come and want to be annexed in. Then I work with them to say okay what makes sense from the city standpoint in terms of annexing because we don't want to have to deal with more capital infrastructure than is necessary. And so that's when we start the discussion and start meeting with people who may be affected by the annexation of saying okay what are concerns you have in this area that I may not know about and what um you know how what does the situation look like? How what is the bar to meet state code standards in terms of do talking about this? But um each annexation is kind of its own creature in that sense of you have to go through the state code procedures in chapter or in um part eight of title 10 chapter two um to get an annexation petition that meets state code. And so it's uh it's one of those processes that becomes a little bit staff heavy for the amount of of outreach and and requirements we have to show that we meet. Do you want them to know about the state's requirement municipalities to have the annexation policy plan?

Sure. Oh yeah, that one I didn't. So that's like that's the point. The point of this plan is to show where our city boundaries will could extend in the future. And it's nothing about saying like right now in this room we are going to fill out the city boundary all the way to the bay river and to the top of the DR. This is just setting the boundary or adjusting the boundary really in terms of where do we feel where does the planning commission where does the city council think that our future boundary should be set because right now it hasn't been set that far out. No, it's been well it's been it has been it hasn't been.

Yeah, it's been both. So like we've said and that's one of the things that's confused me is like right now in our current boundary it says like this portion which I don't know who owns that is part of the boundary but then like right here isn't a part of the boundary which confuses me because that's further away like that is one of those so in doing this I said to me like I'm not sure how we would service it and we we figure that out but the bear river obviously is a very large natural barrier

and and so to me it Like if our development randomly stopped right here and then the county started developing over here, it's like we already have services in 40 like down the road. Okay. Well, we already service this side of the road, so why wouldn't we service the other side of the road? Well, and we have property along the Bear River on the border of Garland where Tmont stops.

And that's where we just wanted to make sure in attending this that me and my brother with the property we have there, we don't want to be annexed into Tmont. We absolutely it's we we run cows on it. It's 30 acres. It's agricultural and so we just kind of wanted to I wanted to know where that border was and I understand it's a future thing echoing what Andrea was saying. We're we're not to the point to where this is anything set in stone. I appreciate this knowledge of how far east it goes because that does affect certain people and forces issues I think on some people in the middle. So it doesn't end up creating an island if there is issues with some people wanting annexed and some people not. We've already had that with River's Edge, I believe.

So older maps showed it going correct east of Bear River, right? And so this is dialing it back on the other side of that. Perfect. Thank you. And if I can, I think anything that's under act protection stays under act protection and cannot be brought into the city unless the landowner asks for it. Right. period. There's just no way. Well, and there's a whole section in in the annexation says if

if there is an a protection land in or near the annexation boundary, like there's a there's a whole list of items that they have to go through. So, like I've tried to keep up on what areas have been a part of the act protection zone is they've been um is the county's adopted each of them. Um, and so if if it comes down to it that you get to the point that you're like, "Okay, we're going to be annexing this area and one of the parcels and egg protections on." Okay, we like we cross that bridge as it comes. This is a slight change, but it's a change based on what's taken place in over 20 years, but we're required by the state to have the maps,

but another requirement of the state is to show an economic plan that is economically feasible. Correct. To have this plan. That's correct. So just throwing them out saying this is a theoretical thing. Well, if we don't have an economic plan to be able to do so legally, you can't put it out. That's what the code is. I'm going by the code. If you got I'll get with you here in a little while when we're finished with the meeting. And he's our code enforcer. He's got the code down. Um are we discussing now? Is this part of our discussion? Um,

also the end point if you got to it would be recommending it to the council as well. Like you don't adopt the plan, you recommend it to the council. Yeah. Just clarifying. So from what I understand, our responsibility as the planning commission is to look at this, decide if it would be in Tmont's best interest, right? To add those places up there and those places down there, right? Correct. and remove the west which to me means it's amending the current

future annexation boundaries right Jeeoff is that the yellow is additional correct case the hashmark areas they're not colored they're already in the plan right correct yeah so that includes the area you were talking about it's already in the plan. Um, and that you something you brought up earlier too, the inland port area is in that plan area as well. And that was an area that the land owner had approached us, right? The city to consider that as an inland port area. Is that correct?

No. So, the the inland port is a state Yeah. entity. Um, and I'm going to say that's with an asterisk. doesn't operate under the guidance of the actual municipal body of the state of Utah, but it's an authority um empowered by the actual state of um and so they've adopted that area already and have brought it into their

um boundaries is an inland port. The county also has recognized it. And so what would happen in the future is if some industrial body comes in and they choose that area to come build and they um through the financial tool that the inland port offers that the city then would likely

would most likely be on providing municipal services to that industrial um development. And so the Inland Port Authority came up with that area because someone approached them and said, "We would like to get you to consider that to be part of the the state plan." Where is it? It is honestly just on the other the west side of the McDonald's interchange. It's right behind my house. So it's 258. I mean, I can show you what the point.

So it's So the inland port area. So there's McDonald's and that's the I84 on ramp off ramp. It's generally kind of this area here. Okay. Thank you. You want to show the audience too where you're

um so the inland port area the the county and the port adopted is generally in this area. I don't know if it exactly follows parcel lines and then I believe as well this parcel got included. Um so it's it's out here behind um the residential development on 8400.

Is there other inland port land? I know there was talk of it in like Lwood. So the the part of so Lake Shore um there are a few of these parcels that are undeveloped that are part of the box the Golden Spike area but the Golden Spike area covers um all of Boxelder County like the they kind of go county by county with their project areas. Yeah.

And so even spots down like PNG and Walmart and then out by New Plan and Bergam City those are all part of the Golden Spike inland port area. And when you're talking about inland port, it's important to understand that a county functions as a finger of the state. So as the state puts these things together and they're going to the different counties, they find so unlike a municipality, we're class as a municipality. So there's your difference when Well, I was only asking for clarification because it was mentioned earlier and I wasn't sure if they knew exactly where that was or how it came to be. So that was a decision by the county and the state,

right? and not in our but but it happens to fall within our annexation and if we decided not to annex it the county could still go for they could still do it as a county but there's good things about it if we annex it don't we get benefits like yeah like they came and talked to us about it and not only that and Jeff has mentioned this before but you can set the rules of that if you annex it in you can set the rules and say these are the kind of industries we want instead of waiting for county to decide versus the county may set a different standard.

And I think I I wanted to say too because it was mentioned about the developers. If if I understand it correctly, before it even gets to the point of being developed and contracts being signed, there has to be an agreement between the city and the developer of exactly what it will entail. And so we're a long ways away from that. We've we've we've we've said, "Okay, we're considering that Radio Hill area as a zone change so that the developer could develop it." Now, we're waiting to to get to the next step, which includes making all those detailed plans and agreements and contracts of what exactly it will contain. This is just the state requires us to put this together to show what Tmont could look like 10, 20, 30 years down the road and to to keep updating this as as things change.

Yeah. Yeah. And so I jumped ahead because of the the developer was mentioned earlier, but I think we're a long ways away too from that developer to the point of making those contractual agreements and and agreeing to what they're going to do and what we're going to require them to do as far as infrastructure. So I I hope that that's true, but I'm not sure that it is. The the zone change is is just the first step. I I understood that once you reszone that, they had a plan there with what they wanted to do, you reszoned it, which gave them the okay to do it.

Yeah, we recommended that the city the city council consider that. I don't know. Did the city council agree? So, um, we recommended that they consider it because of what the developer said that they were willing to do if we made that zoning change, what they were willing to do to support the infrastructure and everything else that was going to go up on that hill. Uh, which included secondary water, a large water tank facility, uh, to help alleviate some of the problems that are already occurring up on Radio Hill. But nobody signed on the line. Pardon me? Nobody signed on the line. That contract hasn't gone into place. Well, it hasn't gotten to that point yet.

How do we know that it's going to actually happen? Well, because say they're going to do what they say that they're going to do. They'll have our city planner and our city council have an understanding that what they will what they want and and the developer has will have to agree with that or not. But we're not even close to that point yet for this particular thing. This is a different these are different parcels than the one you're talking about. Right. So I think it's really good to know about this too as we move forward with buttoning up our general plan and and doing land use and all that.

Now we can hit these areas and say, "Okay, this is the kind of zoning we would want in that area." then we can have public discussions and we can say y okay this is what we want the city to look like in the future without this on there we can't really establish what kind of zoning or what kind of housing we want in that area so this helps us so that we can do that which again becomes a framework for the plan right just the framework one of the questions that was asked was kind of explain why these particular areas were being selected. I think one was talking on radio h that land owner approached them.

I assume that's because there's a developer there that wants to develop already but we haven't heard on the other

I think Jeff hit that with talking about just the natural boundary of the river. um it would make sense with this yellow spot on the east side um for our city to to be the utilities for that, right? Rather than having Lwood or someone else come around the river or Deweyville, yeah, come on the other side of the river to do that. So, that's where that natural boundary comes in. Um and I think that is just the logical um future plan when you're looking at the map saying, "Okay, where would where would we get utilities from for these things?" Um, and I think that's just planning for the future. I mean, again, this has been around since for a long time.

I understand somebody's already after certain areas on there start developing soon. This is where it comes down to being smart about our growth. You know, do we allow them to say yes, we'll we'll allow you to do that. Make this annexation happen so they have more ability to increase that many more homes. We're not even at that point though. And close to that, right? Like again, there's the US. But like even like that's not what we're voting on tonight. Does that make sense? Like Well, and I at this point we need to stay Yeah. We got to move forward. Yeah. We need to be able to comment just among ourselves without

Yeah. this at this point. So um are we ready for our discussion and consideration? Yeah, I want to discuss some things. I I am I am ready to discuss. Yes.

So I think personally I think there's no better place. I I think probably Tmont should have been going uphill for a very long time for two reasons. It's unusable land for agriculture and two you don't take up agricultural land by doing it. It's the most efficient living area that doesn't use a and you know potential like commerce land. I don't know what to how do you call how you even phrase that but commercial property. It has its own inherent challenges. Absolutely. CL absolutely elevation. So absolutely we're not taking public comment anymore.

Good.

Have to bring in water from outer space. I heard I heard it's good to build a house on a rock somewhere. That's I don't know. That's my my thinking. But uh and then there's the obvious part where the city does already exist. In 50 years when I'm dead and gone, I will not be needing to worry about it. But if I have the ability to make the city better half a century in advance, what would I do? What foundation stones would I set? That's that's my thinking. And it was obviously where we would, you know, who knows? Brigham didn't know how wide the streets were going to actually be, but he did quite a bit to make sure that they were ready regardless, right? What would Brigham do? I don't know. But I think including those areas that lead up to the river makes sense as a projection for city boundaries. I don't I don't know if I necessarily agree that we should annex them,

but it makes sense. But it makes logical sense the way that geography that it exists that these be added to that in my opinion. I have a question. Yeah. Um do any of you make money off of being on the planning commission? Are dollar signs in any of your eyes right now when discussing this? I don't ever make decisions based on feeling like money is pushing me. Okay. I just want to make sure for the record, none of us are doing this for money, right? Talking about compensation or even money for the city to be better. Like even money for the city to be better. I don't we aren't looking at this.

I'd rather have the conflict of interest. That was point 2. I I'm just saying like this isn't like there was comments made that we were doing things for money and I just want to make sure we are all on the record. that was directed at us specifically that we're not specifically doing this to make them city money or anything. This is literally just looking at the best interest with geography. Right.

Correct. Any other thoughts? So, the one thing I was going to ask and now I guess the point might be moot, but when we talk about area removed and somebody brought up there might be other areas to be removed. I don't know that that really matters at this point because as long as somebody doesn't want to be annexed, we don't need to remove anything. But what Jeff is bringing up with the blue part is that we really couldn't access that well anyway. So, we might as well re remove it. Um, so that was just what I was going to say. We probably don't need to remove anything else.

Well, it's also an example of at some point this conversation was had before where that was added and it's been so long and we've gained enough information up to this point it sounds like that we've even removed it. Right. So, we can't even go I can't even go into like like you said, I can't even really go into detail really to investigate whether or not these would be annexable. Well, we've got more to go on now from when the plan was put forward, you know, years ago when they first illustrated the plan. Yeah. So that's why they have you go through and you know update it better understanding of the challenges

exactly that we face trying to fulfill the needs for the infrastructure. Exactly. I think is as far as a framework goes I I think it's a good plan. What's that little sliver doing uh along the road? Well, that's my personal favorite part of our current anization boundary is that's about 200 ft or our our current annexation boundary stops two about 200 ft short of 1,000 north. Oh, why do you think you zoom that in and look at it? You'll see the little def. So, is that why Garland can give me a ticket right there? I don't know why you're speeding. I really thought it was the same as Main Street.

Anyway, declare guilty. It's Martin police. the the sliver there at least east of of Highway 13, which is like the road JC's and Artic Circle is on, that boundary is is just short. And so we've had I don't know how many conversations I've had with land owners that are out there that are like building and want to get used because our city water line goes down a thousand north as it comes out over from Deweyville and they're like, "Hey, what would it take to be in city water?" And I'm like, you have to annex this like small little square piece of land into the city so that you actually access the water line. And like I've had that

like the water line's in the road. And so like they just have to finish getting to the road. And I have no idea why the boundary was set not at a roadway. Um, and like there's a house back there that just to get get a house just to get city water, they actually built this long driveway all the way back to get into the city boundary so they could have a water line. And so that's me correcting one of the things that has somewhat driven me nuts in the past to probably the same people who drew the lines for our stake. And once that's put into the framework, are they interested in having it zoned or annexed? What? not yourself. If we put it in the framework, are they interested in having it annexed?

Well, most of them are. Like, they come in and approach me of like, how could we, you know, I' I'd like to, you know, split my parcel out here and build two lots, which is fine. And and with that, they they're able to, you know, access city water, but the issue is most of them just need to get up to there. And so it's been it's it's weird to tell them like yeah annex annex out of our our current city boundary line because we aren't are like the boundary itself is is like 200 feet off the road and so there's no logistical way to access the utilities in a thousand north because and so I've adjusted that just to get to the south side of of a thousand north. So that

that mean they're currently county. No, most of them end up building far enough back off of the road to be part of the city or they annex something that is adjacent to our boundary but wasn't actually a part of the boundary. But what is that piece now? Is it considered it's county for the most part? Kind of crazy. It hasn't been fixed sooner. I know. You know that's interesting. We have a few slippers like that we've had to deal with. So that's the thing is is I was trying

that just rectifies that cons situation. So as I was altering this, I was really trying to follow parcel lines, follow roadways, and follow natural boundaries that generally may like when the city fills out, it's a little bit easier to describe like what is our city boundary. So then any other discussion? Any other questions? Okay, I will accept a motion. This is for the What's that word? I always mess it up.

Recommendation. Recommendation. Thank you. the recommendation to the city council that we add add the yellow areas and remove the blue area on the You can just recommend the map as presented if you want or map as presented. Sounds great. I'll make a motion. All those Yeah, sorry. I didn't Yeah, please make a motion. I'll make a motion to uh recommend the proposed annexation policy plan map. Future, right? Future policy plan.

Second. Second. All those in favor say yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Oppose. I'm non voting. So, oh, non voting. She said I was non voting tonight. So yeah, too many. Anyway, we have we have the quorum without him is what that means. Okay. One. No. Yes. I mean, Tiffany's got it. She's got it. Got it.

Okay. Number eight, planning commission comments and reports. I feel like there was a lot brought up tonight that doesn't have to do with this decision tonight. um stuff that we need to discuss as a planning commission like like just the ideas of water and things like that that will play into our future decisions. Um and probably things that we don't need to discuss tonight, but also similar things that we probably need to study up on. Like I read in the news that um Governor Cox might override some of the decisions that we make as a city council or as a planning commission just because he wants to put certain developments wherever he wants to put them. Um and I think we just need to be prepared to understand what that might entail um but not necessarily discuss it tonight. So anyway,

they have a good list too from tonight. I think as we move forward with this general plan that's going to grab a lot of these issues as we move forward and we'll be able to have those discussion points. Okay. So this is and just so we're just saying the same thing. This is like an amendment to the general land use plan, the annexation plan. Annexation plan.

I'm I'm imagining that the pages in the land use plan though where they have the different maps and they talk about the future. So now with this, if the council adopts this way it is, it'll really I mean add just another large feather in the cap of why to go update the integrated land use plan and get the community engaged because we've altered the boundary of where we anticipate the city growing to. And so we'll we'll as we go through the general plan and as we update the integrated land use plan here in the next 12ish months, um we will cover a lot of those bases. So, and you will be very involved with that process. Cool. Okay. And so will everyone in this room.

Okay. Okay. I think this evening has been a good uh example of why we amend the agenda. Yes. Sorry. Well, I appreciate the discussion you guys had with the with them. That was awesome. Thank you. We're trying. All right. Before you go on, I just want to make one comment. Okay.

Sure. So, uh, in light of some of the things you brought up about the water situation, I'm very curious about what the plan is to I mean, it sounds like we're working on improving those pumps, but um, I want to know if I'm going to have to start boiling my surface well water uh, to for culinary use at some point, you know. So, how is our what is can we get a report somehow on what the status is of some of those things like the water, the sewer capacity and those kinds of things as we move forward discussing annexations.

That brings up a point that I was wondering as well. We know I know is it the city manager that goes to the city council meetings? Mhm. Is there anyone from the city that is meant to be in this meeting besides Jeff? Jeff. Besides besides Jeff, he's here every every week. He is the one that's supposed to be here. So, but I mean as so as far as like, you know, the water treatment plant, the you guys discussing something like that, then Jeff would more than likely bring someone to help. Okay. I actually think they would bring a good level of expertise

expertise to the conversation. Whenever we have the the meetings, public hearings, anytime there's going to be a lot of questions asked, it would be really good resource to have that guy sitting in that chair going this is actually how much water we're using. This is how much output is is there. This is how much we need in order to make this unit system work and etc etc. I would could I suggest that we make a plan for future meetings to work our way through those various departments so that maybe if not the next one maybe the one after that bring our water department people in or someone that could talk about that and then sewer treatment and so forth people with intimate

subsequent meetings maybe one subject per meeting over time we could get through it and I I guess I'm going back to to the general plan. You'll hit each one of those areas as you're working on that plan. That may be a good guide to say, "Oh, we're going to be discussing water this." Bring them in. Then bring them in and have that discussion so that we'll have that. Well, I I think a public hearing scenario is perfect, too, though, because there's going to be there be all over, you know, 180°ree questions that we're not going to have intimate knowledge of and the city guy is going to be right in front of it every day. So it would be nice to have that put out beforehand like you know a month beforehand to

allow the our citizens to have the opportunity to see that then they can you know write their questions or you know and have it then that way it gives us enough time to get the answers that you all want because I understand it's it's frustrating on your end and it's frustrating on our end too to come up with what we what we would like to see as a community and how to grow.

Okay. Thank you. Uh we'll close point A unless you're ready. No, I was trying to for you to do a drink. Go. Um I had one thing from Go. He just needs a head count. I'm going Jordan and I will be there for me. December 3rd. Is that what you're talking about? Yeah. Yeah. We will have two people. Jordan and I'll be there. Wait. Craig's going to go. I can't say that. Never mind. Cancel me. What? I know. I also cannot attend recital unless

that's all. Okay. Goodness. I just needed a Thank you. I just needed to verify. I appreciate that. Appreciate that. Don't need a table for 20. If eight of you are going to show up there, it's not co anymore. We can't. All right. I You won't be there either. Accept a motion to adjurnn. Nobody's going to be there. Did you say that? Oh, I'll make a motion. I'll make a move. Seconded. All in favor? Yes. Yes. oppose.