City Council - Regular Meeting

Stop there. You don't have to stop talking. I got one more minute. Okay.

Are we good, Alicia? Welcome everybody. This is a regular meeting of the Grantsville City Council. For the record, today's date is Wednesday, February 4th, 2026, and the time is 7 p.m. This meeting is being held at the Grantsville City Council Chambers located at 429 East Main Street, Grantsville, Utah, as well as electronically via Zoom. I am Mayor Heidi Hammond, and I will conduct a roll call for the record. Council member Butler here. Dalton here. Skinner here. Thomas here. Williams here. Thank you. And I've asked Les Peterson to lead us in the pledge of allegiance. Do you all please rise?

On the proper command is given. Will you please uh render the proper uh respect to the flag? Present arms. Would you please follow me in the pledge of allegiance? I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Two. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Peterson. Our first um agenda item tonight is public comment. Uh the floor is now open to the public to bring their concerns to the council. And just a statement that we are not really able to interact with you or give answers or to questions, but we will hear your concerns and address them as the evening goes on. If there's anyone who would like to make a public comment, please come forward. Or if you are on Zoom and would like to make a comment, please raise your hand. Nobody on Zoom, Alicia. Okay, we'll close that item. Item number two, summary action items. Uh number one, approval of minutes from the January 22nd, 2026 city council regular meeting and the January 26, 2026 special meeting. Does anybody have any comments on the minutes or questions?

Mayor, I make a motion to approve the minutes from the January 22nd, 2026 city council meeting, regular meeting. Regular meeting. Okay. Is there a second? I'll second the motion. All in favor? I Okay. Thank you. Any comments on the special meeting? Was that the regular meeting, Rat, that you Yeah, I wasn't at the special meeting, so I'm Okay. Would anybody like to make a motion for the special meeting? I'll make a motion we approve the minutes for the January 20 26, 2026 special meeting. Is there a second?

I second it. So, we have a um a motion by Council Member Dalton and a second by Council Member Williams. Uh, all in favor? I. Okay. The next item is the bills. The approval of the bills. Does anybody have any comments or questions on the bills? Make a motion we approve the bills. Have a motion by Council Member Butler. Is there a second? A second. Second by Council Member Thomas. Any other questions or comments? If not, um, uh, all in favor?

I, right, we'll pass that item. Agenda item three, consideration of approving resolution 2026-02 authorizing the issuance and sale of not more than $50 million aggregate principal amount of SE sewer revenue bonds series 2026 and related matters. And I believe that we have Aspen Kle and Alex Burton here from Zans's Bank to present that for us tonight.

Good evening, council. This is in regards to being able to bond for our wastewater treatment plant that we are starting to get close to being ready to begin building. So, this would allow us to go out to B uh to bid, excuse me, in order to be able to get a bond for the wastewater treatment plant.

Good evening. Um I'm Alex Buckston from Zans's Bank Public Finance. It's great to be with you. Um I've been here many times before. Um and this process, as Aspen uh pointed out, is the start of the bonding process. Uh the action that the council may take tonight does not lock the uh city into any bonds, but it does allow us the opportunity to move forward in the process to issue those sewer revenue bonds. Um we've got a we've got a what's called a parameters resolution um that calls for a uh public hearing that we've got scheduled on April 1st. Uh it also designates the mayor and the city uh manager and the city finance director as designated officers that would allow them to uh move forward with the issuances uh issuance of the bonds assuming we stay within the parameters set forth. Um those current parameters uh are 50 million uh in the par amount um 34 years in the maturity uh the length of term of the bonds and 6% coupon or interest rate. Um those are outside parameters. However, uh I want to emphasize that the city has already received uh at a minimum of $16 million at a 75% interest rate uh over 30 years, which is substantially lower than what current market interest rates are. Um, so kudos to city, the city staff that uh helped

uh secure that $16 million um 75% 30-year loan through the uh state of Utah's water quality board. Um now in my meetings as your uh city's financial adviser or municipal adviser and meeting with uh city manager and finance director, it's very important to them that we try to get the lowest interest rate of course we can for the remaining amount of bonds that would need to be issued for this project. And so under their direction, uh we've reached back out to the state of Utah's uh uh sewer or water quality board to request additional uh subsidized funding in addition to that 16 million. Um we haven't heard back whether or not we're going to be able to get anything more uh in that regard, but we're certainly going to uh pursue all options to try to get that lowest interest rate possible. Obviously, the project itself has uh grown a little bit as far as the uh amount needed to complete the project since we went to the state a year a year and a half ago. And so we're trying to get them to understand that the costs are higher and so we need more money at that low subsidized rate. But at the very least, we're going to have 16 million at that 75% subsidized rate. Um so this this bond will eventually uh as we move ahead will eventually become two separate bonds. We'll do one with the state of Utah uh water quality board and whatever we need in addition to what we can get from them, we'll do uh through a um most likely a a private placement bond where we would send out a uh request for bids to all interested banks and

financial institutions that would buy the these bonds and we'd take the lowest interest rate we could get. So they would compete with one another and we'd uh work with city and and the city and determine who the the low bid on on that is. So anyway, that's that's just kind of an overview of kind of what's to come. But uh with respect to to what's happening tonight, this just kind of gets us started off in that direction with the parameters and uh puts us in a position to where we can move ahead once we're ready to issue the bonds. Um, but uh I'm happy to answer any questions that you have. I know Aspen um has been working hard on this as well and so she knows about as much as I do at this point. So, uh feel free to ask us any questions that you might have.

I have a question. Do we have any type of a time frame as to when we would hear back from the state on additional funds?

Yeah. Um that's a great question. Um, a couple of weeks ago we did make some communication with the the main person that's that's managing those funds and he came back and asked us some questions and Aspen immediately responded and and uh and gave him the information he needed and and we hadn't heard back and then I reached out on Friday and got a notification that he would be gone until the 9th of February. So, he must be out of town. So, um, you know, we're hoping as soon as he's back in town that we can follow up again with him and, uh, again, do everything we can.

He did he did indicate in the in a, um, email that funds are pretty tight with water quality as far as uh, what's available and applicants that already uh, have money from them or are getting money from them. But there potentially was about a $3.5 million amount. I think he said that, you know, potentially we could look at. So, you know, we're cautious cautiously optimistic. We know we won't be able to get a whole lot more than what we've already received from them. It's rare that applicants can come back and get more money than what they were already authorized, and we're certainly grateful for what they already gave us. But, you know, we'll we'll certainly do everything we can to try to get that additional 3.5 million if that if that's the number that's available. Um, but uh we're hoping in the in the next few weeks we'll know uh you know what we might be able to get from them and then we'll get a better idea of what the that second series of bond amount will need to be that we go out and sell out in the market.

Thank you. Sure. I have just a quick numbers question for you. So in the packet in exhibit B, in fact B-2, it talks about the total estimated cost of the bonds. Is that number that was provided is that um uh the estimated amount um as with the 6% with the total of $50 million. So that's not including the 16 million that we have at the at the 75%. Yeah. So so that number uh is the the sum of the 16 million

at 75%. But then the remaining uh what 34 million at the highest parameter we have which is 6%. Now the numbers that we've been running based on where the current market is uh we assume that we would get a rate closer to 4%. So about a third less than what that 6% number is. But you know we always have to estimate high on the parameters as well as the total cost. Um, and the only reason why we have that that coupon or that parameter at 6% is that sometimes biders on the bonds will serialize the maturities in that they might um charge more for a longer bond and less for a shorter bond. And the the kind of the average of both would give us what our true interest cost is. We call it the tick. And that tick we estimate to be at 4%. Or or roughly thereabouts. I mean, we don't know until we get our bids back. And currently, we're in an interest rate environment where interest rates are going down. So, it's we're in a we're in a great position to, you know, as as time moves along, we might even get a better and better rate. you you never know where rates are going to be. But um but that's why we put that parameter up at six is just in case of um you know somebody decides to serialize that bid. Uh a lot of biders will just give a set rate top to bottom. But that uh anyway again we assume right now that that uh that separate bond from the state bond is going to be right in that 4% range give or take. So that's a that's a that's a very very conservative number that you're looking at there.

Okay. Good. We we always like to the the goal I think is always to you know underpromise and overd deliver when it comes to the cost of these bonds. So just want to know your approach. Yeah. Okay. The great question though. I understand. So you're you're and we trust that you'll go to bat for us. Absolutely. Would it? Yeah, absolutely. Every every every basis's point counts, right?

Absolutely. Well, and like I mentioned earlier in my in my last meeting with Michael and with Aspen, I mean, that was that was their focus is, hey, we need to we need to make sure we don't leave any rock and you know, turned and and whether it be more money from the state or, you know, trying to get the best bid we can with this private placement bond, we'll absolutely uh work hard for you on that. So, with their help, so great. Any other questions on the financing side or the calendar side timing? Um if if not I my recommendation would be to proceed ahead with the adoption of the parameters and then uh we'll you know get to work on it.

I did have one quick question and maybe this isn't something you can answer but maybe Alexis. So, with the the meeting being on April 1st, that means that we can't enter into a contract as we receive bids back from from the contractor because the RFQ is out, right? Or will be out for I think it's project. Yeah. Do you want to help me with the timing on that? That's in in March, right? Process.

It is out right now. The bid for the construction of the plant, it closes right now, I believe, on March 11th, Christy. So, um, that the way we have it set up now is just a little bit of insurance to allow because right now we're going off engineers estimates for the cost of the plant. We don't have numbers from contractors of actual I'll build it for this. So, this allows us to open a bid and start moving forward with a contractor and knowing exactly how much we need to bond for with that being a couple weeks later in April. Okay. Yeah. Just just curious on the timing. Yeah, that sounds like we got our ducks in the real. Okay.

All right. Anyone else have any questions? We want to make a motion. This will the single largest uh investment the Grantsville City will will make to date. and may not make another one larger than this for a long time coming. Right. Well, I hope not.

So, with that in mind, I mean, I'll I'll make a motion to approve resolution 2026-02 authorizing the issuance and sale of not more than $50 million of aggregate principal amount of sewer revenue bonds series 2026 and related matters. So, have a motion by council member Butler. Is there a second? I'll second the motion. We have a second by council member Skinner. All in favor? I. Any opposed? I didn't hear Jake. Sorry. I said I Okay. Sorry. All right. It's Thank you and thanks for your information and all your work, both of you. Thank you.

Take that. Thank you. Okay. Item number four, consideration of approving resolution 2026-05 appointing Gary Merrill as a regular planning commission member. And Gary is unable to attend in person tonight. He was hoping to join online. Is he available, Alicia? Um, I'm here.

Yep. Okay, thank you. Does anyone have any questions for Gary? Obviously, we uh got to be a little more acquainted with him two weeks ago. So, does anyone have any concerns or questions you'd like to ask Gary at this time? No concerns, but just appreciate him being willing to to sit on that that um that commission. and it is it is unpaid and so um we appreciate your uh wanting to volunteer for that. So, thanks Gary. Thank you, Gary. We do appreciate you being willing to accept this appointment. So, you bet. Do we have a motion?

I'll I'll make a motion that we approve resolution 2026-05 appointing Gary Merrill as a regular planning commission member. All right, we have a motion by council member Dalton. Do we have a second? A second it. A second by council member Williams. All in favor? Okay. Motion passes. Thank you. Item number five, consideration of approving resolution 2026-10 appointing Cameron Bolton as a regular planning commission member. Cameron, do you mind coming up for just a minute? All right. We also got to get to know Cameron as well. Um, does anybody have any questions for Cameron?

Just the same sentiment. Thank you. So, got to meet you. Was it two weeks ago? Yeah. Yep. So, yeah. Um, can I just say something real quick? So after you interviewed last week and and Gary too and then after last night at the planning commission meeting and seeing John and I really think that the planning commission's in good hands now like I think they're absolutely the best that we've been in in a long time. So we're very grateful. So thank you. Yep. It's a v it's a very vital part of how we operate. So thank you for I I think we're in great hands. So all right. Does anyone want to make a motion?

Mayor, I make a motion. We move to approve resolution 2026-10 appointing Cameron Molton to as a regular planning commission member. All right, we have a motion by council member Thomas. Is there a second? Second. Second by council member Butler. All in favor? I.

All right, motion passes and thank you very much. All right. Item number six is a discussion and a consideration of ordinance 2026-06 approving a general plan amendment to change the land use designation for the Apple Street town home subdivision. Um, and I'm just going to state the parcels that are listed on on the screen as presented. When we make a motion for this, those numbers will need to be listed out that one time. So, for right now, the parcel numbers are listed on the screen and are on the agenda. Um, from single family density to mixeduse density located at approximately Cherry Blossom Lane and Apple Street.

And is that you, Bill? It's me. Please come up. We can't wait to hear what

adept as Shelby, so I won't even pretend. but um she's not feeling well and so we'll excuse her and and uh ask uh you indulge me in in my conversation tonight. Um so a couple of things to keep in mind um when we discuss general plan amendments and we have two on the agenda tonight. So, I'll go into just a little bit of depth for this first one with the understanding that when we get to the second uh consideration um that we will it'll be the same type of understanding. So, I won't have to do the whole uh song and dance for that second one as well. Um the general plan is uh a reflection of the will of the people. It anticipates what the city wants to look like for the next 20 years. It's meant to be aspirational and provide guidance for making decisions about zoning and other land use regulations. And uh it's it's only to be altered or amended um under a couple of different very serious and kind of unique situations. It's not meant as a reflection of the will of the people. It's not meant to be just casually uh tampered with or um amended. So early on in my career, I learned that there are basically three situations in which we would want to consider amending a general plan uh or a future land use map of the general plan. And one of those obviously is if there was a mistake made um a clerical error or something that happened so that it didn't really reflect what was anticipated. The second one would be if the morals of the community have changed. If the desires of the community have changed in the interim such that um I I don't know suddenly we decided that one area that had been set aside for agricultural use now was desirable for

industrial use and that kind of thing does happen. Um, and that's again meant to be a reflection of the will of the people in that regard, not necessarily just because we felt like it was the right thing to do. The third thing is um, and this is what's in front of you tonight, is if there uh, is a new property owner and it's a very limited kind of change that uh, better fits with what the goals and and objectives of the general plan are. In those circumstances, the property owner would come to the city and say, you know, I want to do I want to pursue this kind of use on the property and the general plan doesn't really reflect that desire. It's uh it's much more limited in scope to a particular property and a particular property owner's desire rather than a larger area that uh may be under consideration. So, that's what we're looking at tonight. In both of these instances, we're looking at a property owner who has looked at the way the general plan is right now and said, "This doesn't really fit with both the character of the neighborhood, the direction that uh we feel like we want the neighborhood to go." And so they petitioned the the city to make these amendments to the general plan and to the future land use map of the general plan. Um this is for good reason uh in that the the desire further then is to change the zoning that is related to the future land use map. And uh one of the reasons why you would uh allow or disallow a u amendment to the zoning map of the city is based on the general plan. So, if the general plan doesn't support the requested zone change, that would be a a reasonable reason for denial. And um just to make everything

clear and to make sure that everybody is is uh on the same page when it comes to what's being supported, what's being anticipated, and what's being asked for. uh staff encourages people to get a future land use map amendment first and then seek the uh zone change that um follows along the uh associated general plan amendment. So that's why there's two separate items. The first is a a future land use map amendment. It doesn't change the general plan except the the use uh the anticipated use in the future land use map on this property. Um, it's changing it from um, what are we looking at? Single family to mixed use um, designation on the future land use map. And that's what's being signed tonight by by the applicants. Okay. Thank you. Does anybody have any questions for Bill or questions on the information in the packet? because I do what what do we know what the land owner wants out of it I guess and what what are their intentions?

Um we do have some idea. We're um a little bit constrained on what we can ask for developer and this is it's a good question uh with regard to this particular item as well as the one that's to come um which obviously is a much bigger um piece of land and a much bigger kind of thing. um we're limited as to what we can require or even ask for from the developer with regard to a certain kind of financial investment and and doing a a a layout. Last night, for example, they talked about a traffic study that could and should be a part of uh uh any further development of the the property. Those kinds of things involve a a significant financial investment towards a desired outcome from the city council that could be looked at and has been looked at in the past depending on other kinds of things as um a financial investment in the property and in a decision by the city council. So we can ask what their general thoughts are and what their general ideas are. But the assumption has to be and always should be when it comes to um not future land use map but the actual zoning uh entitlements. You have to assume that whatever is allowed in the code is what will go on the property. So the developer could come in and say, "Well, I just want to do a a TP and a taco stand." And if the code allows it, then you would say yes. But then the code also allows for all kinds of other things as well that the developer may then do with the property. So really the question isn't what is their plan. The question is what does the code allow for because that's what we'll go on the property. And I used to say you have to think the worst case scenario. There shouldn't be a worst case scenario. the code should just say

this is what's allowed and it's if it's worse or or bad we should not allow it in the code. Um so what's being sought tonight is the an amendment to the future land use map to support a zone change and then the zone change to support the uses that are desired on the property. Um the short answer to your question though is that we have uh been given um some or have seen some plans for some potential multifamily uh dwellings on the property and then some businesses on the on the on the area of the land that's closest to uh Main Street. So, um, as you know, this property has sat largely vacant for quite a while and has been in need of some investment and some rehabilitation and a lot of that is um is currently actually even going on. Um, there there've been inspections and other things out on the property that I'm aware of. So the financial investment is being made and they are looking at how to best uh develop the property in a way that makes sense. So

that's the that's what we're looking at. So this piece of property has structures that were built according to what was originally designed for that area approved at one point in time. Yes. And so I I think it is kind of fair to ask. Yeah. the are those buildings going to be torn down? Like there's there's there's, you know, so I I think that is is valid in that situation because we're looking at a piece of property that sat for 20 years. How how long has it been sitting there vacant? 2025.

Yeah, it's been a it's been a minute. Um the uh I know that the the the developer and I'm I'm hedging. If you see me stuttering, it's because I'm hedging a little bit because uh again, the developer has given us information that may or may not come to fruition. And so, subject to change.

It's always subject to change and it's again based on what the zoning will allow. So they have indicated that they want to push down the garages that have been built but to rehabilitate the uh clubhouse the whatever that that facility is into something that will be useful for uh residents and of um whatever multif family project or or development goes in there. So bill question. So, so on the next one too, we're talking about we're going to reszone it to RM15 with commercial 0.95 5 acres. I'm assuming that's part of Main Street. Correct.

So, instead of changing the general plan to mixed use, wouldn't it make more sense to change it to the RM15 where those houses are back there and then the front to a commercial zoning? So, because mixed use is the kind of a not the best zoning. I don't know if we want that to be there. Instead, just do the RM15 to let them get the density that they want or what their plan might be and then the commercial upfront on Main Street. Change that to a commercial zoning. I don't know. Just I don't know what the process was to get the multi-use instead of doing it that way. If you could explain. Yeah. So, um

the uh I mean I could maybe talk talk to if you don't mind from I just

so um really with the general plan um there isn't an RM15 designation. There's a commercial designation. There's a mixeduse designation. There's a high single family dwelling or density residential. and then there's a medium and then there's a low and then it goes to rural and so on and so forth. So the um I think what we're trying to accomplish here is is just for the future land use plan. We're trying to designate that that area in in the plan where it's mixed use on the top end facing 138

and that that that parcel those parcels the the plan will turn purple essentially instead of orange for those part parcels right there. So it's adjacent to mixed use and mixed use we know can be commercial as well. It's yeah you see right there.

So I mean that's the the highest in the future land use plan the highest really mixed use is the highest right but that that one just below it is high single family density residential. There's no RM50 is am I speaking out of turn? You're absolutely right and that's what I was going to say is that um what is being sought is really not much different from what is already kind of down the street just a little bit further to the east where it drops down to Apple Street and it's all mixed use along that area. So, um the the future land use map designation being sought is the mixed use and then that would support commercial along Main Street as well as a higher density and mix of uses on the southerntherly portion of the property.

You know, it's interesting because agenda item number seven, then we're reszoning it and changing it from, interestingly enough, A10, which doesn't match what the future land use is right now, but that's what it was for years. And then we're we're changing the A10 and the R112 to RM15. We're not even changing it to mixed use. Mhm. It's just on the general plan. We're changing it to what this says in the future land use plan is mixed use density. So I just have a historical question. Um if this project was already being built uh in 20 2005, is that what we said?

Same question. So, if if this was already being built and obviously there's structures already placed on this property that have been sitting there for 20 something years and I'm just confused about why is the zoning still inappropriate for what was planned then? Like why are we here? It's it's a good question. I don't know that I have an answer to that necessarily except to say that there must have been some sort of understanding about how the property was zoned and to be developed. I don't know if that was a PUD or if it was a a lapsed kind of agreement with the city with a a development agreement or something like that that has since been dissolved or gone away because the property has changed hands or who knows what.

Yeah, because the A10 parcel isn't even 10 acres, right? Right. It's like three or something. So, and how how is it still in an A10 zone? I don't I don't understand. I couldn't see anything in the notes or or any of that. I I mean it was 2005 was 20 years ago, right? I mean processes have changed. I don't know if zoning's changed that much, but you would think that they would have

taken care of that prior, but I mean neither here nor there. We're right here now. Here we are. So, needs to be done. And that's one of the nice things about having this go through the way it is is that it brings the full development into the light of day and uh will demonstrate and and and have to meet the compliance and strictures of our current codes. So uh this is a net positive for the city in a lot of different ways. Well, I mean right now it's a it's an eyesore. I think it's an attractive nuisance for sure.

Called it the debacle on Apple for years. So yeah, it's unfortunate that it didn't, you know, finish up the way it should have. So well, here's our chance to help make it right. Here we go. Are there any other concerns regarding this property? If not, I would I need a motion. And I just want to state again that those parcel numbers will need to be listed on the motion.

Wow. I know. Nobody's going to do it because they don't. It's what I was told. Really, Tyson? It was Alicia that told me. Can't they have the motion as stated on the agenda? It's all good. Yeah,

I'll I'll make I'll make a motion. Make a motion, mayor. Make a motion we approve ordinance 2026-06 approving a general plan amendment to change the land use designation for the Apple Street town home subdivision parcels 01-066-00006 and 23-001- 0-00A and 01-112- 0-0012 and 01-1 112-0-000011 from single family density to mixed use density located at approximately Cherry Blossom Lane and Apple Street.

We have a motion by Council Member Butler. Is there a second? I'll second the motion. Second by Council Member Skinner. All in favor? I I

Okay, that item passes. We will move on to the second half of this um discussion area. So item number seven, a discussion and consideration of ordinance 2026-05 approving a reszone from the A10 and R112 to the RM15 multiple residential district for the Apple Street town home subdivision um on the parcels that have pres previously been listed. I'm assuming, Bill, you're going to take the lead on this as well.

Yes. And I don't have much more to add that I think the discussion has been positive and and informative and helpful. The only thing I would add to this, um, just to reiterate that you have to assume that whatever the code currently allows on the property or if we change the zone, whatever the zoning allows in the change zone is going to be on the property. So the question that we ask ourselves is always when it comes to this kind of decision, is this the right time and is this the right place? We just looked at the future land use map and decided that yeah, this is probably the right place, but the question could be because it's a follow-up question. Is this the right place or the right time? And uh there are a number of reasons why it could or could not be. That's for the council to decide. But u um that's the question. Those are the two questions you really ask yourselves when it comes to this kind of zone change.

Do we have the applicant here? Is the owner here? No, I don't

I don't see a representative from folks. We we've had extensive meetings with uh the property owners and developers. So, if you have questions for them, uh we as staff are are happy to field them as best we can. And if you would prefer to table until the can be here, that would be acceptable as well. If that's if that's the direction you need to go on it. I mean, I don't know what the other council members think. Um, and maybe we'll table this, but I do have a question um specifically about the 0.95 acres of commercial use. Which lot number, parcel number, excuse me, which parcel number is divided up partially as RM15 and commercial um commercial use. And I mean, I think it's a little easier to see on the map. I know Alicia is trying to pull that up.

There is a parcel number that is closest to Main Street. It's 11. I think the one at 11. Yeah. Okay. So, it's the last one. And how big is the parcel 11? I believe that's the 0.95 acres. So, it is exactly 0.95 acres. That's my understanding.

Okay. So, why are we not changing that particular parcel to exactly what the designation needs to be? Why is it wrapped up into this RM15 motion and and and not specifically um designated as a commercial either CG or CN or whatever we decide. I mean, it just seems like to me that um if we're going to make a motion and truly change um what the zoning of of these parcels are, um I I would prefer that we we had that um little with a little more specificity.

Yeah, it's actually 1.7 acres, so it's it's quite a bit bigger than the one acre that they wanted up front for that. Um Okay. I mean, you see what I'm saying though? I mean, to make it clean, I mean, you could do because they own them all, they could do a lot line adjustment and and carve out that 0.95 acres and then we could designate that um for this purpose. We could we could approve the other ones if we so choose and leave that one completely out and it stays it stays whatever the current

current zoning is. I think that was the ultimate desire of this was to leave that uh northerly portion alone and with the zoning that it has because I if I'm not mistaken and um you see what I'm saying though because we just we just dealt with the quandry of what happened 20 years ago, right? And and what if and I I think that they'll go through with this but what if this goes defunct, right? What if something happens? Sure. And we didn't do our due diligence. We didn't do it right the first time. And so I just Alicia, could you pull up that map that looks I agree.

It's the zoning map. It is. Keep going. It's further up. I think it's up. No, it's a good There it is. It's that one right there. It's just messy. So the the purple in this is the commercial. Yeah. And the white is the A10 that half of that and it does split that parcel in half parcel in half the zoning. So what happens is in that case well that's is that the general land use plan? This is current zoning parcel and that's because it's adjacent to Main Street SR138,

right? And what they decided was that the first 200 feet away from or south of Main Street should be commercial. And beyond that, they just put A10. And A10, as we all know, is the kind of placeholder. We don't know what to zone it. We have to zone it something. It's A10.

But it doesn't comply with any A10 zoning requirements as far as lot size, stepbacks, any of that. And maybe a good compromise would be to put a condition on this that states that the that the owner will do a lot lighting adjustment and designate the commercial lot because it very well may be that they may not utilize that in their development. They may just want to want to do that eventually anyways, right? It's going to need to be its own standalone law. So, I mean, but I I really do think, and this is based on conversations I've had with the the property owner, they want this entire parcel

in a commercial/mixeduse kind of setup so that they've got commercial on the first floor and then residential above or residential units behind. So, does RM15 give them that flexibility? I think so. Well, there's no thinking about it. Does it or does it not? because it seems like to me the mixeduse designation would, but RM15, I don't know if it will or not. Yeah. Well, RM15 does allow for higher density. Yes. But does it allow for commercial? No. Okay.

So, well, I just I mean I I want to do it right. So, I mean, I think we should table this until we can just really nail it down. I think we I think we hit the nail on the head with what we wanted to do with the general plan amendment. I think we're okay there. Yeah. And I think we're okay with Well, I think I am. It shouldn't speak for all of us. Um but I think we're okay with working with them and making, you know, this something that it isn't right now, right? But we should do, right? So, are you saying like you want to just do one portion that is only commercial and not do the mixed use and then the rest we would do? Is that kind of

Well, they're not asking for mixed use. They're they're 15. It's not mixed use. It's I'm saying commercial. The the I guess the front law you're saying should just be commercial. Yeah. I I would think that that's that's what they should do. I mean, yeah. And if not, we ought to get a legal description that defines exactly where that changes from commercial to the mixed use to the south.

Yeah, it would make sense to me. At least we'd have that legal description, you know, in the in the motion and in the minutes and we'd have some sort of legal standing in case something did go defunct and they sold it to someone else down the road. And and also like the way this is written, I feel like they could come back and be like, "Well, 0.95 acres for commercial. We can slap that wherever we want those parcels." And you know, it's it's kind of understood that that's going to be along Main Street, but you're right. There's no legal guarantee or anything locked in there. If I were gonna make if I were going to make a motion, I I would have said that that 0.95 acres is specific to that parcel, but

the most most northern part of the project. But if their intention is to put commercial mixed in with the homes that would be for the remainder of the parcels, then um what they've applied for here doesn't make sense. So either they didn't understand what they were pointing for or we may have given them some misinformation. So maybe we should go back to them and just say, "Hey, we want to make sure that we we we nail this down." I'm absolutely comfortable with that. Okay. Um I guess the the question is and would remain would if if we if we if we pivoted would this come back to us or would it go back through planning and zoning? It

would come back to you guys. the planning commission has made a recommendation. Um then we can take that and run with it.

Even though the the necessary public hearing and and all that would um essentially change from what it was initially from RM15 to mixed use. I I think we should think about that. Yeah. And maybe that's a a matter of a process and procedure, but I think we probably should be careful. That's fair. So, all right. Sorry, I was I guess I I really didn't want to list all those numbers out again.

Someone's going to have to eventually.

Would anybody like to make a motion? I'll make a motion that we table um ordinance 2026-05 approving the reszone from the A10 and R-1-12 to RM15 multiple residential districts for the Apple Street town homes partial 01-066-00006 partial 23-001-00A partial 01-112 2- 0-000012 and parcel 01-112- 0-000011 located approximately Cherry Blossom Lane and Apple Street um excluding the 95.95 acres of for commercial use.

We have a motion to table this item by council member Dalton. Do we have a second? I second. A second by council member Thomas. All in favor? I I Okay, we will table that item. Item number eight, discussion and consideration of ordinance 2026-11 amending the Utah Inland Port Authority project area within Grantsville City.

Right. Thank you again, Mayor. This is an item that is looking to amend by resolution or we're actually making a recommendation that the inland port amend uh the project area for 20 wells to include the the property um just to the west of the uh motorsports park and south of the um Romney Group property which was to the north. So, um it's about 154 acres and it um will it's for discussion in the next couple of items for a future land use map amendment and a zone change as well. So, um this would enable the folks that own the property to seek uh infrastructure cost um not not cost sharing but uh some funding through the inland port to help with infrastructure costs. And so we do have a representative from the inland board here and um Stephanie I know is anxious to speak to you about uh the lovely inland board and and how this might benefit the the property owners and the city.

Yes. Wonderful to see you all again and thanks for giving me the opportunity to speak on this item. Um, our amendment process is fairly simple, but it all starts with a resolution passed by the uh, local community. We really, uh, want these types of developments and these amendments to be driven by the legislative body for this community. And so, uh, we will work closely with the land owners on the needs, uh, that come from the development that they're proposing. uh we'll use the same mechanisms that we use in the other parts of the project area though we will seek to isolate the increment generated in this project um and reinvest it into this project um and similarly with the other developments that have been amended into the project area. This will be our second amendment to the project area. Um, and we will we anticipate uh this assuming this gets uh approved today by the city council um we can have this in front of our board as early as our March board meeting um which will be held on March 16th. any questions that I can answer on the mechanism um and on the the opportunities afforded to the city to help with this development.

I have a question. Yeah. Um it's in regards to the um the taxes generated from the sides and how those are allocated and divided up amongst the the city and and your entity. Um can you explain and just make sure that all five of us voting on this understand fully um the implement implementation but the implications sorry of potentially and and and we're just looking at a a conceptual design

um you know we have some industrial flex space and grocery store and potential hotel is what I see on here some retail space um you know and those are tax generating businesses that would in in in a in another piece of land or a land that may not be tied to this may flow differently to us than what they flow with your um with this particular um designation so to speak. So could you explain that to to us?

Absolutely. So we the structure we use is a tax increment financing structure. we will freeze the existing uh tax base that is currently being uh the revenue that's currently being generated on this particular site um in perpetuity. So the the taxing entities will continue to receive the existing tax base that it's generating today um which is nothing

which is not much uh being being an empty site and so uh we will then use the increment to help finance infrastructure to this area. Um the the great thing about our tool is that it's there's a flexibility element that I want to reiterate. Um we we can trigger parcel by parcel and so that means uh we can um you know it it this is just a conceptual plan. Um it it looks like this will change and morph as the development matures. Um, and so if there's an instance where it doesn't make sense to trigger a specific portion of this, uh, the the city can opt to not trigger that portion and you'll receive that tax increment as needed. Um, but the idea is that, you know, this area doesn't have a lot of infrastructure to it. Um the this mechanism allows us to leverage that tax increment to invest in things like roads, sewer lines, water lines. Um similarly to the bonds you're issuing um with that on that sewer project uh we could issue bonds on this project as well uh to get some of that horizontal infrastructure in place um infrastructure that the the city is going to be owning and maintaining in perpetuity anyway. So it it just allows us to capture that future revenue that we don't have yet to uh create a development that can generate that revenue later. And so um we our project area term is a 25-year term and the way the uh the split between the project area and the taxing entities is a 7525%

split. So, um, the taxing entities will continue to receive 25% of that increment over the life of that 25 years. That's in our statute. Uh, it's a a flat rate non-negotiable and then 75% uh will go into the project area. The Utah and Limp Port Authority captures 5% of that 75% for an admin fee. Uh but that funds me being able to come into your community and and support this project area and support this tool. Um and then the remainder uh remains here in the city to be put towards things like the infrastructure that I just outlined. Uh we also have an incentive program that you can use it for as well. If there's a specific type of development that you want to incentivize, uh, we can structure that using this tool. That's a post-performance tax rebate. That's how the that incentive works. And so, um, it's great for the city because it's post-p performance. That company will need to come in and pay their taxes in order to get a rebate back. And so, um, you don't have to pay them anything up front. Um, those those are a couple of the tools and how the tool functions. I think that's a great question. Um, and that's how that financial piece is is structured. In the instance where, you know, all there's no debt service any longer, you know, we've paid off any uh debts on the property, um, we've paid back any bonds, uh, we can terminate the project area early. Um, in an instance where, you know, nothing gets developed, um, the city can dissolve the project area. um and you know it and nothing happens. So there this really is a a

tool that the city drives and uh you guide what that increment goes toward.

Um one more thing on the fact that this is a mixeduse development. There's some residential here. There's potential for commercial. Our project area does capture sales tax. Um with other most of our project areas are largely commercial well industrial areas. Those don't generate a ton of sales tax. So it hasn't been an issue um with some of our project areas. There have been some where there is some sales tax generated. In those instances we create um a an interlocal agreement. uh we've actually shifted that to a a simplified uh memorandum of understanding that we'll draft with the city where we can pass through the sales tax revenue. Um so we just capture the property tax revenues on those developments. So you'll still get the benefit of that sales tax revenue. Um and you know we'll just use the property tax revenues for the purposes of you know paying for infrastructure. So that that was the reason why I wanted to to get to that point.

Oh to the sales tax piece. Yeah. So I mean let's just say for instance see that grocery store. Let's say that that is like a cost, right? And I mean that that's a big sales tax revenue base for for the city. And um yeah to to to lose out on that would be would be massive, right?

So um so if we can have that memorandum of understanding and parcel by parcel, you know, decide, you know, how things flow to us either through the property tax and also the sales tax, then I think that's that's great. M so just want to make sure that there was no unintended consequences that happened from from us um annexing this into the inland court.

Yeah. We'd like it to be flexible for the city and so and we'd like it to be driven by the city. So you you tell us where you want that money to go and and that's where we'll put it. And it's and and it's not going anywhere. You know, we we can't take it outside of the project area. Um, and so anything that gets generated here will stay here. And logistically, this area is carved out, right? Essentially carved out of the port, this 154 acres. It's not currently in the It's not currently in the project. It's essentially carved out because doesn't the port go all the way around it? It's it's to the north and west. It's the to the east is the motorports park and it's not involved. And it doesn't have to be

um next to each other because we have another port area up on Burmeister. Burmester. Not Bster, but the Broken Arrow. Oh, broken arrow. It joins it on the north. Correct. The Romney's portion of it. It does. Yes. To the west of it. There's there's a portion as well, right? Just just a little portion. The Romney actually home development isn't for another couple parcels down the Right. And they also have the residential in their portion as well. Yeah. Well, they do, don't they? I remember that. Yep. So, that's all a part of the Utah port,

right? So, they have the same thing of a commercial as well as a residential factor. And I think they also have a commercial. I think there's a part of that land is commercial or retail area. So, I think they would have all three components like they're requesting on this parcel as well. And just to make it clear, Rhett's comment about the Costco was not an announcement. No, but I just hypothetically I didn't want us to, you know, I want us to weigh out any potential unintended consequences. Make sure we understand that our intention is not to to to lose out on any of that revenue, right? That is

right. And like she was saying, as you take it down once they get a final platter or partial area, you don't have to take down those partials or ever do that. And so you could do certain ones and exclude the ones you don't ever want to take down in the air area. Or we can structure it where, you know, we send you that sales tax revenue and we just isolate that property tax if we need it for bonding. You know, because I, you know, we we we our municipal adviser is Z's public finance as well. And uh we work really closely with their team. So, you know, if we take a look at this site and we calculate how much it's going to cost us to get infrastructure out there and oh, you know, it'd be really really nice if we had, you know, more bonding capacity based off of the differential that's going to be generated. Um, then, you know, that's might be something we need to discuss on how we can afford that. And you know, there's a there's certainly a scenario where the tax increment isn't going to cover everything. Um, and in that instance, you know, it'll be a traditional development where the developer will have to come in and and kind of bridge that gap. Um, and so again, it's it's up to the the city how we want to structure this and how we want to make that happen. Um, in an instance where the property tax generated just by that industrial piece is, you know, plenty of bonding capacity to get infrastructure to that whole area, great. You know, then we don't need to include some of those other pieces and and that can just be revenue that flows to the city.

I I have a question. Maybe it's I don't know. So, we have inland port funds on two sides of this property, right? Mhm.

Um and they're they're putting in infrastructure. So, let's just say the Romney Group or um Lake View Business Park is putting in um a considerable sewer line or water line or something using the funds generated from the inland port. So, it seems to me like the cost to put in infrastructure for this project is going to be much less because an adjoining property owner is already using inland port funds. So, how does that work where there's two together and then do we get an a situation where they're both wanting somebody else to pay for something even though they're both getting funds from from this? Is that a valid question?

No, no, it's a great question. Um, you know, typically when uh a developer that's first in is, you know, bringing out a lot of infrastructure that's going to benefit other neighboring developments. Um, they'll often structure something like a pioneering agreement where, you know, hey, we're first in, we footed the bill, we'd like to be reimbursed for those investments that we put in that are going to benefit you down the line, right? Um that way it kind of shares the burden of that infrastructure uh across the developers,

right? And now they now they get money from this. So one group gets money from the other group because they had the pioneering agreement and now that money just goes into their pocket, not back to you or not back to us. So the the way we're structuring it with um multiple developers within our project areas is if public dollars are financing the infrastructure, there's no need to reimburse the developer for those funds, right? And so the idea is that neither of those developers are paying those costs. It's the new tax revenue generated. it's it's the public uh tax revenues that are paying for that infrastructure. So in that instance, it wouldn't be a scenario where, you know, one developer is essentially double dipping into into that tax revenue. Um you know, they just get the benefit of getting that

those costs covered up front. and and same with any developer down the line, they don't have to make those same investments. So that potentially could mean that the project is paid for sooner and then that means that the tax increment funding would have would could end sooner and the property tax values could then come back to the city sooner

where we're kind of double using this area infrastructure. And one mechanism we could use, especially if there's enough synergistic infrastructure that needs to go in here, you know, say a a sewer lift station or, you know, a a water pipeline that's going to service both developments. Uh we can create a public infrastructure district that is going to, you know, serve this whole region. They're in charge of going through and paying for that infrastructure buildout, turning it over to the city. That way, you know, those land owners don't have to, you know, do that all themselves. You know, it they just leave it up to the public infrastructure district to put all that infrastructure in on behalf of both of those developments. And so um and that way they can also use both of the you know increment revenues that are going to be generated in each of these areas um simultaneously to get that regional infrastructure built. And so that could be a really great way of you know essentially taking out two birds with one stone. Um and that's a mechanism that the inland port can sponsor. you know, we can sponsor a a public infrastructure district, but the city can also sponsor a public infrastructure district. Um, there would need to be some collaboration between the developers, and I think that's something we can facilitate, especially if, you know, they're not going to be paying for that infrastructure that's going to be benefiting their development. Um, I I hope they would be willing to collaborate on that. and um we can that can help us kind of beef up our bonding capacity for some of those bigger infrastructure lifts.

Thank you. Good questions. So, do we do we need this memorandum of understanding in place before we vote tonight?

Um not necessarily since we're we haven't triggered anything yet. um before I would say we can put that in place before we trigger any of the project areas in Grantsville City. And when a project area is ready to be triggered, that's another thing we bring to the city council. So you you tell us when you're ready to trigger. Um and you know, obviously we'll we'll come and and bring an item to the city council to consider. Um but that's another piece that that we're going to work with you on. So, um, today no, uh, taxes are being collected in the project areas right now. Um, and we can get that memorandum of understanding created, uh, pretty quickly. And so, if the city council would like us to get moving on that, we can.

The other thing to keep in mind, I'm sorry. No, go ahead. The other thing to keep in mind is that we don't know if there will be any sales tax generated on the property right now. It's all these are what you're seeing on the screen is not necessarily what will go in. I mean, we want it to and that's what we hope for, but it could just be a bunch of office spaces and there are no sales on the property. So,

um that's that's a big question mark as well. We would want to hold off on thatou until we get a better idea of what's coming in and if they have retail type things going in on the property. So I think just to go off Jeff's question before you do anything then you will bring it to us and then we'll have that we'll get the memorandum of understanding at that time.

Yeah. So these these boundaries have been established we've recorded them with the county. Um no tax flow happens until we trigger the project area. And so um you know the best time to trigger is when an improvement has happened right um when you know a significant amount of infrastructure has come that's changed the value of the par the parcel uh or if a building has been built that changes the value of the parcel that's probably the time we want to trigger. Um and so we're not quite there yet. That could happen soon. Um especially with you know these developers kind of ready to go. Um but we'll bring that to the city council to say yes, trigger these parcels um for this tax year. We'll do that usually the fall before the tax year that we want to trigger. So 2027 as an example, we would bring you a trigger resolution um probably that fall of 2026 to say, "Hey, trigger these parcels for the 2027 tax year. So, can you tell me what are the what's the biggest benefit of us putting this into an inland port project area compared to going the tra the traditional route where the developer comes in does it the old way they you know do the infrastructure and we reap the tax benefits 100% from day one. I I think it's it's a a matter of you know can the developer finance the infrastructure lift and if the developer can't finance the infrastructure lift then the development doesn't happen. So this is just an opportunity for the city to help support development that you want to see um through the mechanism of

of paying for that that infrastructure upfront and you know it's a a a low-risk way of financing that infrastructure since the growth is paying for the growth. The other thing that's nice and it's a benefit fit for the city is that the inland port manages and and takes care of all of these other financial transactions. And so that relieves some of the burden on city staff. Um if we were a large city that had a significant number of staff to handle things like RDAs and CRAAS and all of these other um tax increment financing areas, it would be less of a concern. But when it's just us trying to figure the the things out and and try to manage and maintain and and wrangle funding and and it it becomes burdensome and to have a partner with the inland port is is really beneficial. The other thing is that it's a 2575 split. The the inland port takes 75% but 25% stays local. In a lot of RDAs, you give all of 100% of the tax increment goes to the RDA

and we don't get any of that. So, it's structured in such a way that it's attractive for the city. It's attractive for property owners who need uh help with the financing and uh it's it's a very powerful tool. I I do share the concern and I think it's a valid concern. I'm not trying to disregard that at all. Um but it's uh something that um can be a very useful tool in the right place and and the question in front of you tonight is is this the right place? I

I think another thing to consider, especially with an area as large as this that requires a a significant amount of infrastructure based off of what's being planned out here. Um it's just a way for the city to rightsize the infrastructure for the development instead of kind of peacemealing it based on what the developer can afford. Um, in most instances, a developer is only going to build, you know, the bare minimum of what they need for their development. And they they, you know, in some instances, the city can go in a developer agreement, you know, request that they, you know, upsize some of that stuff for future development. But in this instance, it it allows the city to plan for that future growth and, you know, make sure that the infrastructure that we're putting in today, you know, can can really support what's going to come in in the next 20 years.

So, Bill, just educate me. Um, so you said sometimes, you know, it goes through the RDA. We don't see any of that. Can you explain that process to me? Like how long is it forever? And who's the where does that who's the RDA in our in this situation? So we don't this area isn't covered by an RDA that I'm aware of, but no. So this is just covered by the port the Romney's portion. Uh above that is an RDA. It's split between an RDA and the port on that. So we do have an RDA in Grantsville in that regard. Um but other places I've been um the RDA is a separate organization. It's it's really just the city council that functions in the role of the RDA and they collect

Can I interrupt you for a second just for the public's knowledge? Can you explain what an or just not use the acronym for a redevelopment agency? Thank you. So that everybody understands

they've changed it the meantime. That's the one everyone's most familiar with. I think it's a CRA now. Feel like they change it every six months or something. It's a CRA. It's a community reinvestment area or something like that. Anyway, u these these alphabet suit what what it means is that there is a separate entity that is still the city council but you're functioning in the role of the redevelopment agency and you collect funding that is the increment funding and uh what you start out with is a base year. Right now the property is it's a field. You start with that base year that establishes a tax value. we the city continues to get that value whatever that is. It's not going to be much maybe I don't know $6,000 a year. I'm just pulling that out of the air but that 6,000 will keep coming to the city. Any improvement on the property increases the value of the property and that increases the taxes the county assesses against the property. That doesn't go to the city. it goes to the redevelopment agency and the restrictions are that the those funds can only be used for infrastructure on the property or improvements on the property as outlined in the um redevelopment agency uh agreement and the establishing documents. So if if there were infrastruct specific infrastructure uh requirements that the city has, for example, roads, water, sewer, um drainage, any of those kinds of things can be paid for through the redevelopment agency's funding. Okay? Essentially, that's all uh uh the inland port is doing. They're acting in the role of the redevelopment agency. So it's not the city that's getting the funding, it's the inland port. But to answer the

the one part of your question, there is a time limit on it. It's not indefinite. Yeah, it's 20 years. 25 years for the port. And that's typical for a redevelopment agency as well is a 25 year lifespan. Now, if the infrastructure gets paid back early, I don't know how it works. Do we just stop at that point with inland port? with the inland port. Um it would be a resolution from the city council to dissolve approval from our board.

So if if the value of the property increases to the point where it's paid off early, we can get out of uh that obligation and then the city gets 100% at that point. Other places that I've been, if you pay it off early, the redevelopment agency stays in for a couple of years and uses those funds to help with other projects that weren't initially anticipated in the area. So you can keep using those funds in the area until um the the expiration of the uh redevelopment agency. Our our statute does allow us to extend up to 40 years in the instance where that might be necessary if we haven't paid back.

But the the the beauty of this project like the beauty of this tool is to really generate more revenue for the city. At the end of the day, that's the point is to help create more tax revenue um through the investment of infrastructure. And so, um you know, once the infrastructure is built and the debt's been paid, you know, take all of that in that revenue back.

The the other benefit is right now, um we only get 13% of the the property taxes. The rest of it goes to the school and the county. And so if you do put it in here, that money doesn't go to the county or the school district. It would go to the property. So technically it would benefit grants. So more so than it would if you didn't have an RDA or a port.

And and that's the biggest difference between an RDA and a port project area is an RDA you need to go through the process of um establishing interlocal agreements with all of those taxing entities. Um this establishes a a statutory project area 75 25% split without the need of an interlocal agreement. So the 25% that we would get our doesn't go towards school district anything any of that or is that so yeah the 25% would be split up but the 75% would be directly to the area.

That's my other concern. There's a bit biggest taxing entity. They raise our our property taxes and it looks like we do it. We've talked about this. We haven't done it for years. If they're going to get a 25% split, we're going to get pennies on the dollar on that for 30 years. I I'm I'm worried property tax will go up more this because of this project. If there's lots of residential, more population, schools, it's just going to keep going up. So you got to look at that aspect of it too because they're going to want they're not going to want to wait 30 years to get their property their full value property tax like the the school district.

Yeah, that's what's unique about this is you don't have to go ask their permission to do that. Uh this will the port with the way the state legislature set them up is that you can do it without their permission. If you went through an RDA, you'd have to go to those entities and request their permission to allow them to do that in those I I don't get I get that we don't need their permission, but I'm saying they're going to have a deficit now if there's resident residential units here. So, I'm just looking outside the box like what other ramifications could there be from from going this route. So, yeah, that's that's why I'm just trying to to look at the whole thing and not just keep ourselves in this box, right? So,

and there are opportunities for us to to carve out the residential as well if it doesn't make sense. I do have a question. I've I've looked it up and I know that like you guys it's a 7525 split. I thought that I read that you guys there was a negotiation with like Salt Lake City on some stuff to get that split different.

Is that something you guys do with open with other projects or is that just something special with Salt Lake is the revenue is higher tax revenue is higher than what we we have? No, it's an opportunity that we can look at um especially the way it works with Salt Lake City is we have an interlocal agreement with Salt Lake City. And so um in an instance where you know you have you have specific needs I you know I think um with the the residential I think that's a great example. So in an instance where you have a lot of residential it's bringing in a lot of kids. We want to support the school district. We can create an interlocal agreement between the city, between the school district to pass through their portion of that revenue on the residential piece. Um, so they can have the revenues they need to support the residential that's coming into that area. So that that's an example of a way we can carve out those that tax differential. you know, we're still covering our infrastructure costs that we issued to build this area out. Um, but, you know, we can utilize some of that to go back to the the school district in that instance. So, there's a couple of options we can look at.

The only thing I would caution on that is that it's there's no free lunch. So if we're deferring some of the percentage because we need it or want it now for whatever reason, schools or whatever, it doesn't reduce the amount that we have to pay back to the developer for their infrastructure cost. So if it's 10 million to put the new infrastructure in whether we pay that at 60% or at 75%, it's still it's going to have to be $10 million. And so we're either on the hook for 25 years or 20 years under one scheme, but we'd be on for 40 years the other. It's like when the bank says you can skip December's payment, you're not skipping nothing. They're just putting that on the end, right?

Yeah. It's a it's a it's a good thought, but and and you know, there's there's a a scenario where um you know, this goes way better than we imagined. you know, we're we're paying off our our bond payments just fine and we have additional revenues coming in that, you know, we we don't have a direct use for, right? And so if there's anything extra, um, you know, we'll work with you on figuring out beneficial uh projects that we can put that revenue towards. Um, obviously the obvious choice, at least on the onset, is, you know, pay off those bonds. Um, but once those bonds are paid off, you know, we're still getting revenue in, everybody else is covered. Um, you know, there's opportunities for us to to see where we can put those dollars for beneficial use. So,

that's where it gets fun, actually. It it's really exciting. Fun money

with with Salt Lake City, for example. Um, you know, we just we just commissioned $2 million to go to their law enforcement and that's an ongoing 2 million every year uh based off of the tax revenues that are generated in the project area. And um and so you know that's that's really exciting and and it's great for Salt Lake City um because instead of that going into the general fund kind of going into the normal places where it typically goes when it just gets directly uh dispersed to the city. Uh they can kind of say okay where is the biggest need in the city? Um you know let's let's look at some special projects that are going to make a big difference. So yeah, that is where it gets fun. We've done the same thing with uh wetland projects and that's something we'd like to partner with Grantsville on. Um we have, you know, because of your proximity to the lake, uh we'd like to set aside and and in our governing documents when we first created it, we've set aside 1% to go towards wetlands projects. Um and so we'll be working with the city on on um making sure that you know we're good stewards of those sensitive areas within the project area boundaries.

A lot of those areas are not part of Grantsville City yet the discussion that was had yesterday. Can I just make sure something else is clear in my head? I've been trying to think how to summarize this question. Just quality of work. Quality of work on this infrastructure. It's a good question. Help me follow it up. Just who's responsible? Is there gu who's who's ensuring the quality of work in the roads, the infrastructure? Who's responsible for that? That's a great question. I mean, one of the frustrations is redoing new roads,

right? uh you could go a million different ways with that. So, who's who's in charge?

That's a great question. Um in the instance where, you know, there there's a couple of ways that I've seen it done. One, the developer is responsible for uh building that infrastructure and then they pass that over to the city once it's completed. That's typically how development goes. Um in that instance we would use these funds generated to you know reimburse the developer for those qualifying expenses. Um qualify being you know it's regional in scope, it's public infrastructure etc. Um we can also structure it with a public infrastructure district. the public infrastructure district can be the entity in charge of you know financing planning for building that infrastructure turning it over to the city to the public utilities um for for ongoing maintenance of of those assets. Um I you know if there's issues with uh the quality of that infrastructure going in um I think that's something that you know we we'd like to work with the city on ensuring gets built right and gets built right the first time. Um you know with the access to capital that we have with these mechanisms um hopefully it makes it a little bit easier for us to afford that quality work. um and work with the the developers on on getting those those right entities in place. A public infrastructure district could be a good way to go since they're technically a public entity. They have to go through the uh procurement process to get that work done. Um so they have to get a number of bids you know they have to you know issue it to the the the right bidder and you know based on price

and based on um their fitness to executing that work. Um so that's that's a way you can assure some quality. Um whereas a a private developer can kind of go with uh whatever builder or or construction firm they want to. So, um, uh, creating a public infrastructure district can give you just that much more oversight.

So, then just thinking that through. So, if you run, maybe you're probably not old enough for this, but if you run into you get we're delaying this income for for 25 years. you get 20 years into this and roads need to be widened, traffic lights need to be added and there's no money coming to the city yet like who how does that happen at that particular point?

So assuming 20 years in we still haven't finished paying off bonds um you know the the options become pretty limited until those bonds get paid. Um, there is an option to extend the life of the project area and pay for those upgrades utilizing those added years. Okay,

these are great questions. Yeah, very good questions. Did Salt Lake City Grillia like this? So, so there's there's some history there. Well, I'm sure I do have just I I I think we probably need to move on, but I just have one more question. How unique is a I mean, I'm just thinking of the Utah Inland Port Authority. How unique is a mixeduse type development like this in the grand scheme of things with all the different locations you have across the state? Yeah. Do do you have other ones that are that are like this or is this a unicorn? Is this unique? So, uh, we we do have other mixeduse developments. Uh, most of them are in rural Utah.

Okay. And, um, so, you know, I think for the reasons we've talked about, you know, there's pros and cons to adding things like residential to these project areas. Um, you know, in an instance where there's a big infrastructure lift, you know, it it can pay off. Uh but often, you know, residential doesn't generate as much in property tax revenue as something like uh commercial or industrial does. So, you know, in that instance, it's it's it's rare to include things like housing in a project area like this. It's not unprecedented.

Okay. Just didn't want us to be the only one. Mhm. Mhm. And you know, one thing that we can do um with members of the uh city council or with staff is we can connect you with our other project areas that are doing similar developments and and you know how they're managing um their project areas. In fact, uh we've invited staff uh to come um and Mayor Hammond to come to uh an event we're hosting next month, which is exactly that. It's a um we're calling it our congress of ports where we bring all of our project area stakeholders together from across the state um to talk about you know unique aspects of each project area. Each one is unique. Each one is asking for uh different types of infrastructure, different amounts of money. Um some of them are really really massive, some of them are really really small. Um and so it's just an opportunity for everyone to kind of educate on okay how are you using the tool? How are you implementing it? um what should we be thinking about and um we we anticipate that that'll add a lot of value to the stakeholders that are involved in our project areas. So that's a good question.

How did I do? So good. Great as always. Thank you. Thanks, city council. Appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. So, are we supposed to vote on this tonight or just are we discussing? We're discussing hand voting consideration. I wish we could have done this after so we could kind of get an idea of maybe what might go here after what the next two items are

they do all kind of go together. I mean they do go together. Thank you.

All right. I'll I'll make a motion that we approve ordinance 2026-1 11-11 amending the Utah Inland Port Authority project area within Grantsville City. We have a motion by Council Member Butler. Is there a second? I'll second the motion. A second by council member Skinner. All in favor? I. All opposed? Nay. Nay. Okay. Motion passes. I You need me to do a roll call on that? Uh Rick, yay. Jake, yay. Derek, nay. Um Britney, yay.

Jeff, nay. Did you get that, Alicia? Okay. Thank you. All right. Agenda item number nine, discussion and consideration of ordinance 2026-10 approving a general plan amendment to change the land use designation from rural residential 2 to mixed use density for certain properties known as the crossing at Willow Creek subdivision. Um, as stated in the agenda and I'm not sure who is presenting that. Is that you as well, Bill? Boy, you're good. It's nice like this. I really miss Shelby. Shelby, if you're listening, I hope you get feeling better soon.

Purely selfish reasons.

Um, no, we I do hope she gets feeling better. Um, so, uh, this is property that we've just looked at with regard to the inland port. Um again the same kind of discussion and understanding with this as with the other future land use map amendment that we uh discussed about how to um amend the general plan and the question again is is this the right time and is this the right place. Um so don't have much more to add to that than this that um this property is is larger obviously than the um the one at the end of Apple and that um this is represents a mix of uses. The other thing I would caution you and again these these folks have given us a lot more detail as far as uh potential site layout and uses and things like that. Don't get too bogged down into that because like last night when we discussed this uh one of the questions was what are we going to do with the traffic? Well, we don't know because we don't know what it's going to look like yet. Um there has been some um study done on that and we're working with you do to put a light down on 121 or excuse me 112. And um so we'll uh we'll we'll work with that and through that when that when that comes online. Um but the rest of the site layout, the configuration of the buildings, the parking, the trees, don't don't get too fixated on any particular item that way because it's TBD.

That all be nailed down in the MDA. Correct. That'll be nailed down in the MDA and you'll have a look at that before it passes as well. So, um, we do have representatives from the developers and property owners here if you'd like to ask them any questions about any aspects of the the proposal or the application. And, uh, otherwise um, you the planning commission saw this last night and and voted to recommend approval.

Would anybody like to speak with those who are here developing it or do we have any questions or is somebody ready to make a motion? Is our general plan does it currently cover this there? I don't The other one was so clear. Does it our general plan cover this area currently? It does. And has it as rural residential two? That's the That's the blue, I assume.

That's That's the zoning. That's the zoning. That's the one just in there. Yep. So, just explain that map to me quickly to make sure I understand. This is our current plan. has and the blue is our property area. Correct. So green is it's the desert peak planning area but it is covered by a a rural residential type um designation out there which again may not fit with the the whole designation of the Romney Group Industrial around all around this whole area.

Right. All right. So, it almost makes sense that we do change the general plan to make match more of what's already been approved and what's already been kind of platted out and assigned with the Romney group kind of thing. So, this may be fixing an issue because you you necessarily don't want a a house or a farm out there surrounded by massive industrial buildings per say like they're just not compatible uses. But yet that's what's being proposed is residential right in the middle of industrial

different kind of residential in that regard because um this is more of a they and they'd be expecting that kind of a thing because if you had like the racetrack with other things there because if you have industrial but or high density housing type thing then moving there they may be moving there because of the track or other amenities that are there uh to have that ability. And so again, it creates a unique island that I think Grantsville might be able to take advantage of is because it is surrounded by that industrial area. And in some of those industrial areas, you don't normally see um the smaller houses. You usually see more of a a higher density type thing. And so is lacking that in our city right now. But again, in this area, it kind of makes sense. it will be buffered by the Romney's group and the track and so really won't feel like a big change once all that buildout of the Romney group is there.

So educate me on what the desert peak planning area is. So the desert desireette peak planning area is just an area that is surrounding the desireette peak complex down there and it uh is indicated on the uh future land use map as being a a things that are anticipated to be in the area and to kind of grow up and develop with and support that. So, um, again, I'm not sure when this, uh, planning area was designated and when it came online. Um, as as mentioned earlier, the only time that you would want to change a future land use map like this is when the area has all changed around it and it's time to look at it and say, do we really want 2 acre halfacre little ranchets out there in the midst of the uh motorsports park and the Romney Group rail lines and industrial areas? Does that make sense? or does something like this where it's a a a more close compatible and complementaryary not complementaryary but complementaryary use on the site. Is this a higher better use of land? And that's the question that we we're looking at tonight. And isn't a large portion of this land on A10? Uh

I think it's all A10. all the way 10. If you look on the zoning map on the next page, it's all It is the designation. Yeah. 10 and 11 are all 10. This may be a dumb question, but is this the same map we were looking It's the same area we're talking about that we were talking about in the Not a dumb question and yes. Oh my god, this map is in both of my the one I want to make sure I'm looking. So, we really need to zone this differently to get this project done. Definitely. Right. Okay. And there are no dumb questions the same. No, I'm like I'm not great with

just so everyone understands rural residential-2 because we don't have this in the back end um necessarily underneath this agenda item is residential use with applicable rural land uses allowing one dwelling unit per 5 to 10 acres. That's what rural residential two stands for in our in our future land use map zoning. So it's somewhere between an A10 zone and a five. Yeah. Yeah. On R5.

So I mean there's there there's something pretty I mean for me uh with the map you just showed us which is the page before in page seven that we need to address is is that we're just talking about the blue area today. But the other green area to the northwest is all part of the Bron Group as well, which is all a part of this inland port, which is part of their industrial. And it is not designated from what I can tell. It's not designated um for that particular use. It's not gray, so to speak. Yeah, that's that's a great point.

And and then further down the road is the other aspect of Right. I think am I thinking about that wrong? No, you're right. I think as Bill pointed out, we did put in for a grant to redo our general plan and that's what would help fix some of these issues there because I don't think we've updated our general plan a little bit a while. So, this would help would target those areas and kind of make them align with what's currently there or in the plans of being there. And to be clear, the the designations on the future land use map or the in the general plan are not legally binding.

No entitlements are associated with it. They're aspirational and they are projections that go out 20 years. Um 20 a lot can change in 20 years. So if this map was adopted 20 years ago, we're in a very very different place in 2026 than we were in 2006 in a lot of different ways. The the the other thing to keep in mind is that the zoning does not have to necessarily meet exactly in every case what the underlying f future land use map indicates should be there. So, um just the fact that this is indicated as a green area and not a gray area doesn't necessarily mean that there's something legally wrong or challengeable about our zoning map. um it just doesn't match up

and I think we understand that. I mean this is something that I mean I'll be honest we we really didn't address and do prior to you coming. So um yeah I think it's good to to amend it and to make it match what it zoning is is potentially going to be. Right. And it could be that I I I don't foresee this being a reality, but it could be that in in not in this instance, but in a different instance, you want to keep the future land use map the same, but you can change the zoning.

Legislative decisions are not based on a significant burden of proof. You can just it's the reasonable person test. If a reasonable person look at the decision that was made and say that it was a reasonable decision based on the information that was given, that's fair enough. There's no prepoundonderance of evidence that's required. There's no, you know, there's no record or anything. It's it's a legislative decision. So very broad discretion is given to city councils and to planning commissions to make these kind of decisions. Um, and uh, that's would be weird, but it's certainly something that could be possible that you make a decision not to change the future land use map, but to in fact change the the zoning designation of a property. Does anyone have any additional questions or do you have anything you would like to ask the developers?

So, I'm just putting you two on the spot. So, both of you feel like this is a good thing for us to mention the general plan. I do. I I feel like with the the the Romney group that's already there, I think it would have matched the area a whole lot better. In your opinion, correct?

I I concur. Of course, wholeheartedly. No, I I think this is a planning decisions always come down to what is the highest and best use of the land. And frankly, uh five acre ranchets, 10acre ranchets down on this 150 acres is not necessarily the highest and best use of the land. Now, you're the you're the legislative body. If you make a decision that says no, we want it to stay, then that's the way that's the instructions we have from you. But, uh, since you've asked our opinion, that's I don't I don't I agree with Michael that this is not the highest and best use of the land as it's currently designated. You both realize I'm a farmer, right? Well,

I'm just kidding. Answer that. The ground's never been farmed, right? Ever track and an industrial space. I don't know if you're going to want to have a bunch of cows in between. They're probably pretty good at growing rattlesnakes, I guess. I make a motion.

Okay. Mayor make a motion. We move to approve ordinance 202610 approving the general plan amendment to change the land use designation from rural R2 mixed use d two excuse me mixed use density for certain properties known at the known as the crossings at willer street subdivision partial 011310 002 01 1 1300 0 009 01 1 130 0 08 and 01 130- 0-000016 and 01-130- 014 approximately 154 acres and that is a tongue twister.

We have a motion by council member Thomas. Is there a second? I'll second the motion. A second by council member Skinner. All in favor? I I

passes unanimously. Uh we'll move on to item number 10, a discussion and consideration of ordinance 2026-09 approving a reszone of the parcels listed on the agenda um from A10 Agricultural to the mixeduse district for crossing at Willow Creek subdivision resulting in approximately 102.4 acres being zoned MU. Bill,

again, don't have much more to add to the conversation. I I think it's been really, really good. Um, I I love the questions you guys are thinking and you're thinking the right way about these things and uh please do just continue to think about this. One of the things that was brought up last night was that we don't have a good description for where these parcels want to be parcled out with regard to the zone. And so it was um brought up that we could potentially uh have a motion to approve the zone changes with the stipulation that um before it gets recorded that they provide us with a legal description of the property they want to be in each zone. Um if you feel comfortable with that staff can follow that follow up on that for you and with you um and uh we can take care of that. or if you would prefer to um table that's um something that's in your in your uh purview as well. So um whatever you'd like to do with that that we do have again the developers here uh part of the problem with the meets and bounds description that they're looking at is that they're not sure exactly either where they want things to go at this point. So, um they're pushing this through with the land use um with the zone change uh in an effort to secure some funding and to help get um some investors and um other folks that have access to uh events and and um arenas and other kinds of fun things that uh could be coming online. And they have to be time is of the essence on some of those things. And so they're hoping for a decision tonight if uh if we can get to a good place with it and um then they can go start farming this thing out a little bit more hard.

Would anyone feel more comfortable with the reason um hearing an explanation from the developers or you have a pretty good idea from what we have been presented? Derek and I listened to it all yesterday. So I mean I I have a question if they want to come up. I I do have a question that that can clear things up for me. So um just on the I know they need to state their name. Sorry. Yeah. State your name please. Troy Darger. Kevin Huns Win Rasband.

Okay. So on on this item, we're talking about the mixed use zone and I know you're in the very beginning of it, but do you have a ballpark or an idea of how many acres of that MU you plan on doing commercial? Yeah, let me grab my paper real quick.

So this is uh preliminary. Um we've been in discussions with uh Inland Port with many within Granville City as well. So currently as it's drawn and again this is in flux um we do have certain concerns and one of those concerns is you know truck access where that's going is it going in front of multif family would rather not go there but we're still trying to work through that plan and how those trucks enter into an ecrest from that site without disturbing uh the residential component of that. Um, but right now I can hand out some copies of these. Um, these are the square footages and the an acreages uh of the parcel as it's currently shown. Again, this is um preliminary. Um um as we were speaking with Bill about the uh meets and downs um ultimately we need to

Could you give one to Alicia actually?

Yes. Um ultimately um we are very flexible and want to work with Transville City so that they are achieving the ultimate goal of of this property as well as um you know any investment with Inland Port or any other investors that come along that that we're giving them uh the proper attention. So there have been things that we have discussed with um the city already um such as access to the desert desert peak complex um trails over there um shuffling around whether it's a hotel component a grocery component um multifamily uh we've talked about you know an ice rink potentially uh we've been in contact with all of those individuals and companies and now we're just trying to determine how that all fits. So, we're just kind of looking at it as a puzzle piece and trying to determine what fits best where. And so, that is one of the the leading criteria is that access, that truck access to um those uh you know, mixeduse buildings behind, you know, their small storage units. They're not competing with Romney. They're more um they're accentuating uh Romney's property and ultimately the you know, the the Desert Peak complex there. So, that's really our biggest goal right now is to try to make that all work and there's going to be some shuffling uh at this point still um to make sure that we're um giving the proper attention to all the components.

So, on this that you handed out flex one, flex two, am I can I assume that that's going to be in the MG zone for the next one? Yeah. So, that's all in the back right there on the north side.

Yeah. So just the reason why I asked about the mu zone our ordinance right now it says that you know all properties over one acre or greater shall include at least 50% of the land area is commercial. So that's why I was getting at how much of that area is going to be commercial. Um it does say fronting the major street but it says 50% of the land area. So that's why I was asking if you were aware of that in our ordinance because that's that's a lot. me personally. No, but um I'll work with Bill and our other owners and make sure that we're accommodating that. Those things will be worked out in the MDA when it gets to that point.

I just want to ask they're aware they knew knew that. So I don't there'll be lots of talks between now and then, but just get out there. So okay. So currently right now this is agriculture like the other one was the but what 10 acres or whatever you said A10. Yeah like yeah. Okay.

You know this this looks really familiar to the discussions we had with um the Desireette development. I mean this this looks a lot like an overlay district. I mean and that was also mixed use up there the whole the whole thing and then they came and and they're an overlay district albeit you know this is smaller than what that that was or is. Um so that certainly may be a possibility. We could look at that as another tool of flexibility and and uh additional regulation, I guess, on the property if that's the way that it feels like it's the best way for the property owners and the city to go with it. U an overlay district is is really helpful in locking in what everyone's expectations are on the property. uh you start with a base zoning which would be a mixeduse or a a manufacturing type thing and then you kind of expand on it from there. They get something, we get something, everyone's equally disappointed with the outcome. So that's

come on. Are we uh is you do limited to the location the signal location? I know you signed your order agreement the last time we signed that. So that solidified where those lights are going to be. That's almost exactly where it's located. I mean, it looks like to me that's where it's located at what they gave us. Yeah. Take into account the U dot study and those were those were added in the location. I was just trying to see if there's an opportunity to mitigate, you know, if you could put if you could put trucks that are going to the back to your flex area on the end of the property so you could bypass

on the west end. Yeah. Yeah, that's kind of what I was The nice thing isn't the goal or the hope right there go through Romney. Yes, there would be some interconnection between this property between this property and the join the north. So So they could technically access from Sheep Lane. Is that correct? Or they got access from just outside the west end of where the the sheet shows. There is another light there that UD do has designated just that that goes in there. We'll work through all all of those things. The interconnectivity is a it's a big deal for me personally. So yeah,

I guess is that your bedtime? I wish I don't sleep. You're definitely not going to sleep after tonight,

I guess. Um, do we really need to zone this? I mean, the next item is is to zone the same parcels that we have that we're going to zone in. You It goes back to our other discussion earlier today, right? You kind of brought it up. you you you you you approach the elephant in the room, but do we even need to zone at MU if the intention and I hate to use that word if the intention is is to place overlay district over the top of it? Could we could we make it so that I'll just throw this out here. I mean, I don't really want to zone this MU and then you guys turn around and say, "Well, yay. We we we've got the inland port now. It's all zoned MU and and we're going to sell it tomorrow. Um and and I don't know if we can put some stipulations on it that that state that you know we we would like to see this um conceptually what what we have here um not to to the tea but um that the intention is is that we we have an overlay district here. So, I don't

I think I think that's exactly I think that's exactly what you're saying to the property owners is that by changing the zone to a mixeduse zone, the intention is on both parts is to proceed forward with either an overlay zone or a development agreement or both that governs the the ultimate disposition of this property. Yeah. So, to my point, why do we need to approach um item number 11? Well, it's at all other than discussed.

We may not. So, if you if your if your goal is to change everything to a mixeduse zone and then do an overlay over the top of it that that helps to define where the um in industrial light industrial areas are going to go. We can deal with that. And I think that you guys could understand that. And the development agreement would govern all of that anyway because a a development agreement can and usually does govern what uses go on in the property and where. So that would be something that we could negotiate even further. Um this was the request was to have the 50 acres be in the in the manufacturing and then the other 100 acres in the in the mixed use. Um that's just based on the the rough portions of what the applicant has given to this to the city to look at. So um it's it's completely up to your discretion.

Is that client interest driven or is that that 50 acres is that I mean it or the f the flex areas are those are those driven are those driven by interest? I'm just trying to determine like is that is that yeah I think fixed or drawn or can it be you know I I think they've got people in line for occupying these spaces there is interest um it is not I have an issue with it is a component as well with the inland port to get that flexibility yeah you know funding um but it does accentuate if you look at the Romney property all those are they're million square foot warehouse spaces yeah it does

and these are much smaller that you know you can ultimately have a, you know, last night there was discussion about businesses growing and ultimately having a small warehouse and a storefront and that's what these could potentially be um and we've had people approach us already um on either building or renting um those spaces back there. So there is interest but it does fit in with kind of the overall scheme and plan of of the area.

Yeah. So the the function of zoning these as what they are though would be to set a rough proportionality between uh the different kinds of uses and establish a baseline to say as you move forward into the MDA, let's look at this property developing out as roughly one-third or 50 acres in a manufacturing type use and then the other uh 100 acres in um the retail and the residential areas. with the stipulation that the manufacturing in the north portion of the property.

Correct. Okay. I don't know if I like that because then you know we're make a disagreement with you but if you know something changes hands and we zone it to this whatever then who's you know say that they're going to follow what you know what we want to do or

I mean I don't I'm not saying you guys will but we've seen it happen before and so we hope hope it doesn't Are aren't we trying to match this with what's around it? That's what we're saying is is the or we want to keep it as the culture. I mean, conceptually I I like this. My concern is is you know we we go mu and then it all becomes multifamily like obviously obviously it's got to be written in the code. It's written in they have plenty there. Yeah. And I I like I say, I like like

the way that it's laid out like the hotel, like a hotel on that roadway, rec center in that area, grocery in that area along that roadway that's going to widen and become two lanes. It makes perfect gas station. I just wouldn't want to sacrifice that. And over overlay district would allow us to go through that approval process, correct? To ensure that that's so Yeah, we did. We added the housing at the city's request.

Yeah, I think people very interested in it. I think it's I think it's a good place for town loans. We don't have any We don't have a lot of homes in the It would be cool. One of the things we talked about was if you got a a Lamborghini or something and you park it in your garage here and then you have a direct connection out to the track and so you just go do track day right there. Just try my Lamborghini. I'll just do that as well. Yeah. Which the track I was very interested in. The struggle is which Lamborghini do you bring? Right. Bring the red one or the black one. What do we got?

There's going to be no one that owns a Lamborghini. It's going to have a spot there. Come on. They're not going to have a condo. They're going to be in Park City. They're gonna drive it down here and race around the track. Just their own. Okay. It's possible. Just once again I just question whether you know our approach is I I'll ask you guys a specific question. Was this this approach was this your idea or was this staff that that proposed to you this is the way we should go go about this?

We've been through several different um I guess city groups. Um we've we've owned the property at least part yeah part of the property since 2007.

Um so we've been through multiple rounds of talking with the city negotiating and and new people have come and gone. Um, ultimately we came uh with a plan and just kind of sat down with um Shelby and I'm not sure if you were involved at that at that point, but we sat down with Shelby and some of the city people and ultimately kind of pushed a plan in front and said, "What do you think?" And so there was um some back and forth and compromise and it was it it really is we're we're very open book and it really is we're trying to do the very best thing for Grantsville City um and have a project that Grantsville is excited about and we're excited about and other people could be as they come in and purchase components of the property or can use uh the facilities whether that be complimentary to Desert Peak or to the city itself. So it really was um you know sitting down and and saying what is best for Grantsville. And so we've made changes based upon those conversations um so that you know again um the city is happy with what ultimately is going to go go in. As as Troy was saying, initially we did not have multif family in um we were just concerned about the racetrack, but um there are, you know, construction methods to mitigate some of that noise and make it more quiet. Um um Mr. Williams, to address one of your previous questions about quality, um I'm in the construction industry. I've been in it since 2000. Um, and very typical in a situation like this is we're going to get city and county standards and the owner or developer is going to pay for a third party testing agency to come out. So, it will be built to the city or county standards and that third party tester who we will pay for will make sure that it's built to those standards. And so, it's it it should be integral and seamless to what's already there.

But it's it's in its infancy. So, I mean, it's I'm just curious, Tyson, is there any way we could tie some sort of time frame to the approval? Well, I mean, I'm just just thinking outside the box here that we we come into some sort of agreement with an overlay district and an MDA within a certain time frame and if not then it reverts back to U10. Is that is that even a possibility? Just that doesn't strike me as something that I've seen happen. It doesn't mean it's not possible. It's if it's within our code, we probably would need to make an amendment to our to our own land use code in order to affect that. Um, if we had that mechanism built into our code, then I believe we could. Right now, we don't have that provision. It's something that could be built into an NDA. Of course, that's what we're trying to enter into.

I can speak to that just a little bit. I have seen it other places and it's been tried and the enforcement on the other side is extremely difficult. I'm sure and not really worth a whole lot. So I just I mean the world's full of good intentions, right? But we could I pass this tonight. It could be partial MU, partial MG and things could fall apart some, right? There is there is a Yeah. I mean, there's a cautionary tale. When I was in Pleasant View, there were some folks that showed up and and they were doing lowincome housing

and they were they promised that along Highway 89 there in Pleasant View that they would put in some commercial and um the MDA that they signed between the developer and the property owner and the city never explicitly said that the commercial would ever go in or what it would look like. So when the city said, "Hey, you're getting to 70 75% done. When are you going to do the commercial?" And the developers like, "Oh, we're not going to do any." And they went back to the development agreement. And it didn't say you have to do it. Even though everyone understood and was promised in meetings and all these things, but because it wasn't written down when we got to the other side, we didn't get any commercial. They and they went to the courts and the courts said, "Nope, you didn't say it. You didn't do it. It's not in writing. It's no good." So

we I think we've done a good job at least since I've been in to to vet those things. So that's the cautionary table. Absolutely. Under the zoning hill there is required commercial under the mixed use right. Yes. So that would take care 50% along all major streets which well we debated that in planning commission it says R138 or is it secondary and the primary road it also says just the land yeah the land area. So

yeah it's that's I don't like the MU. Well, again, that the power is that it establishes a baseline that we can then work off of to flush out in an MDA that would be um beneficial for everybody. Okay. Anybody like to make a motion?

One thing before we we keep going. So, if I reme correct me if I'm wrong because we've gone through this MU a lot of a lot with planning commission and changed a lot of things and I'm trying to see if I can find it, but if I remember correctly, apartments weren't permitted in MU. It was only town homes. Am I remembering that wrong? Well, I don't remember just off the top. I'm sure the code, but because it it just references single family and twin homes in here. But if they came back and did an overlay district, then that that that changes it. Yeah.

If if they went that route, but that would be the best. It's just MU. I mean, I could be wrong because like I said, we changed this so many times and this would be the mixeduse district. Yeah, it's chapter 19 19A. I mean, it does say in there many different housing styles, but then when you go down to look at like loss sizes and setbacks, all it references is single family homes and and twin twin homes.

Yeah. And it does say in permitted uses 198.2 permitted uses, this district shall allow single family and town home residential developments. It doesn't say apartments. So that that makes us want to use do the public o or the overlay district. Yeah. To get those because they are which they can come back and do that after it's own. Yeah. I just I remembered that so I wanted to bring that up.

Thanks for your patience. Oh, absolutely. Thank you for uh maintaining it. All right. Any more questions? Someone else does.

Yeah. If anyone If there's no more questions, would anyone like to make them up? Thank you. So, if we make this motion, this only includes 102 acres, and you thought maybe not do the MG motion. Is that right? Or I was actually debating on whether or not to make one motion, both ordinances so that they're both tied together. Yeah, because I was going to say if we leave that out, then there's 56 51.6 acres hanging out there. Yeah,

it's still A10. I mean, I guess it's a matter of

Is there any reason why we can't um make a motion to approve or deny ordain two ordinances in one loop? No. As long as you describe it with the uh accurate descriptions on the agenda. Does everyone both I I would like to have them all tied together. Yeah, I can see the value in that.

It might just it might be semantics, but I think together. So, mayor, I make a motion we approve ordinance 2026-09, approving a reszone of parcels 01-131-002 and 01-130-9 and 01-130-00008 and 01-130-0016 and 01-130-0014 for from the A10 agricultural designation to the mixeduse MU for the crossings of Willow Creek subdivision resulting in approximately 102 acres being zoned M2 MU and also tied to this uh motion approve ordinance 2026-08 approving a reason of partials 01-130-00008 01 1-130--0016 and 01-130-0014 from the A10 agricultural designation to the general manufacturing MG district resulting in approximately 51.6 acres being zoned MG. noting that um these parcels have um multiple zoning designations tied to them. And um that is my my motion.

Okay, we have a motion by Council Member Butler. Is there a second? I'll second the motion. Second by Council Member Skinner. All in favor? I I I All all opposed. Or are you still thinking? No, I thought we were going to have a discussion after the the motion. I just don't like to lump I don't like to just say 51.6 acres is going to BMG without knowing where those acres are are going to be located

in my mind in in our minds and they where it's going to be where they show us. But like I said, who knows if this passes hands and then we've got this open approval that the next person can come in and put it wherever they'd like because it's zoned both. In my mind, the 51.6 acres that are tied to the parcels that my motion just in included, the designation is there for that that portion of of those of those um parcels. So, so two and nine are left out. So, it can't be two and nine are designated mixed use. Mixed use,

but the others are partially mixed use or maybe even majority mixed use and partially MG. Okay, I just looked at those partials. Okay, yay. Okay, and that passes unanimously. Thank you. So, we have now We'll now skip to item agenda item number 11. A discussion and consideration of I actually already took care of I I just took care of a 10 and 11 both at the same time. Right. So I was skipping to 12. Oh, okay. Yeah. You said 11 though.

Oh, I'm sorry. I meant 12. I'm reading 12, but I'm I said 11. I'm sorry. Okay. So, Groundhog Day was much. Don't do that last 25 minutes. No. Agenda item number 12, discussion and consideration of ordinance 2026-07 amending chapter 8 of the Grantsville City Code to add micro entrepreneurship as a condition. All right. Again, I really miss Shelby on my side tonight. Um, she does such a good job. She really just called in sick because she knew what was coming,

right? um uh she really does such a good job and I I miss her especially on nights like tonight. So um this is an item that would change the uh zoning code for the city to allow for a new use. This is called micro entrepreneur and it would allow micro business. It allows for um something that lies between a home occupation and a a regular retail type establishment. So the function of a home occupation is that it's in an existing residential area and you it flies below the radar to the extent that you would never really know that that home occupation was going. They don't get any extra businesses or uh deliveries. they don't do uh they don't get customers on a regular basis that come to the place. Um it's it's just something that um the the example I like to use is my sweetmother who has a a quilting long art machine and she does quilts for people and they show up and bring her uh the fabric and she works on it for a couple days and she calls them up says come get it. They arrive, they pay her, and she, you know, uh, they drive away happy. Um, you would never know that my mother was in, uh, her little in-law apartment basement doing these beautiful quilts. That's a home occupation, a a regular business, I think we all know. So, this lies somewhere in between in that uh, it's it's something that will have an impact on the neighborhood, but it's an impact that we're hoping is actually a positive thing. It encourages this kind of microenterprise and uh allows people to have businesses and and do a retail kind of business in a residential area. Now, the um staff has worked with uh the planning

commission and with the the property owners in question who are here tonight. Thank you. I don't know. It's been long. I appreciate

um they uh they've been very gracious in working with us and and helping us to get to a place with um this ordinance where it it accommodates them and their desires for the property as well as protecting the adjacent property owners from having something that would be too much. And um so with the restrictions that you see in the in the proposed ordinance change um we feel like that this is strikes that balance and um the planning commission voted last night to recommend approval of this and so that's what you have in front of you. first.

Uh yeah. Well, so I mean I was on planning commission when we talked about this and we didn't think it fit with the home occupation because like Bill said, you don't want you shouldn't know what's going on. That's a home occupation. And we asked the applicants to to work with staff to try to change change this or get do another find another avenue because we we thought it was a good idea. We liked it, but it didn't fit what they were applying for. So I think this is great that we we've found something for them. Um the only a couple questions. Um so like on one of them um activities conducted primarily indoors. So we know that this applicant all their stuff's outside, right? So are we going to since it says primarily I mean are we going to have any issues with that with that verbiage in here? So the the activity that would go on indoors is the production of things that they're then selling out on the property. So the on-site sales that's indicated there under allowed or activities. Um and we we're we're drawing a distinction between uses and activities by the way because use is a legal term that applies to what things the zoning would allow. The use is the microenterprise, but the activity that would go on inside of that are these on-site and online sales incidental to production or services that are going on inside the house. So, that's what the understanding is that you're producing the things inside, you're making your delicious jams and jellies, and then you're taking them outside to sell them to people that show up one or two an hour deep. I guess my question is how do you regulate that? Like the

we don't know honestly. It's a good question. This because this is a new zoning type question um a new zoning type use then um we haven't had experience with regulating this kind of thing. So right now the only uh enforcement is to go in and say I'm sorry you can't do this. they uh have noted that there could be a need or a desire for this kind of use in this area in this particular zone and um a a good zoning ordinance would look for ways to try to accommodate those kinds of desirable uses. So that's what we're trying to do. Now enforcement is going to be largely complaint driven like most of the enforcement in the city. So, if there's any kind of complaint about it's just getting to be too much or there um you know there's noises or other kinds of things going on, then we're going to go in and say you you need to stop doing that. You need to stick by what you agreed to do and and the requirements to code and um you know, we have ways of doing that just the same way that we have ways of enforcing all of the other zoning restrictions. Brett, you look like you have something to say.

Oh, thank you. You're welcome. I'm sorry. And I was here for those discussions as well, planning and zoning for for multiple um sessions of that. Um even when and these guys the these the individuals the citizens are here are not the applicants. This is just something to help really tailor made to help them be able to comply with with what with what we may have in place right if we adopt this. Correct.

Correct. So, and and we kind of have a little we did give him direction planning zone gave the direction to do that. Um, I guess my only thing with it is like it it it's so tailor made. I mean, even that we changed it from 200 of frontage to 150 feet of frontage and and I I hold my hands up is because they're on the corner lot, right? The corner of Clark and Hell, right? And I just I just think of other individuals or other places with inside of our town where having that would would really limit this. Now, while I agree that maybe a a home that has 70 feet of frontage, it may not fit that, but would a home in a culde-sac that may be an acre lot or a halfacre lot, but yet it's pinned down against a culde-sac and you only have

100 feet of frontage. what what's you know what's why is it us to say that you know that that they're not able to have this um and and these guys are so I guess my beef has always been I've never voiced it has always been about the frontage and that's that's a fair question we we were looking as staff I'm speaking for staff because we're the ones that came up with these restrictions um we were looking for ways to limit it from being just everywhere and Um because if we did allow it just everywhere, we should just change the zone and and be allowed. Yeah.

Um but uh and it had had to do with parking and access and and um the display of what's going on and things like that. Um we wanted people to feel like this is a special and kind of unique thing that can happen in some areas but just not generally. Yeah. And I guess I mean more towards the tailor portion of this is this the RM7 zone too because because the home that that that this is tailored around is is not necessarily a typical RM7 lot lot right

and so it's more like a it's more like a third of an acre home essentially. So I I just mean there are so many homes really from really from West Street to Willow and from Dery Street to Clark that are really that designation um and NRM7. Yeah. And so anything outside of that we really don't have a lot of RM7. It's true. and and um obviously the reason why we're looking at it for this zone is because that's where

right that's where it's being considered. My thought would be first off with regard to the frontage if it works well it could be a model that we extend to other zones. If it doesn't work well then we could say well I'm glad we didn't extend it to other zones. The other thought is if it works well then uh we can change the frontage restrictions. we could expand it to uh whatever. And and um so the the idea would be let's put these kinds of things in place and see how it goes. And it could be one of those things uh that's a lesson learned and you know we either like it or we don't.

Okay. Jake, um, Jeff, Britney, do either any of you have any concerns with this or questions? I don't I guess I just have there's a lot of limitations here that I feel like are going to be hard to enforce and it's it's just a lot. I mean, I'm thinking is me as my neighbor. Not that I'm I don't know. I mean, yeah, we could say, "Yeah, you can't do that anymore." And then it stops and then it happens again and you know, I don't know. It seems kind of I like I like that it's we're trying to like really nail it down like this is what it is. But I I just feel like enforcibility may be an issue.

I don't know. Maybe I need more information. It sounds like you guys have more like the planning commission. I think a little bit more discussed this. Okay. But that's I feel like maybe this is just my first time hearing it. Maybe I just need a little bit more context. Yeah. I don't know. So

So I'll give you a little context. So the reason why this won't work with for a home occupation is because they have these sheds in their front yard that they sell their products out of. And in in the the for home occupation that doesn't work because it's not supposed to look like any business is going there. Also, another thing we had was um I believe they can't have their you can't have sheds in the front yard was another hurdle we were trying to get around.

Um you can't have any outuildings or utility buildings in the front yard and they are on a corner lot. I mean they've got a sideyard but and we talked about that like can you move everything to the side but then that's yeah I mean we we tried to go through a lot but that those were those were the hurdles we were trying to get through was doesn't fit home occupation and then the utility sheds in the front that's not permitted in I don't think any zoning.

Yeah. The other context that I would give is that uh there was an effort to try to understand that remember that these are residential areas. This is not a business area where we want to have people go and come and and shop and peruse and do all these things because that affects the quality of life of the neighbors in the neighborhood. So, uh it was uh we were trying to put reasonable strictures on what could and is allowed to be on the property and uh still allow the the microenterprise to grow. Um it was brought up last night that you know what if they do have more customers than this and what if they do have the business grows to the point where it's this thriving thing and I said well great that means that there time maybe to move into a a real storefront kind of opportunity and or a quilted bear kind of a situation where you know this is it's getting enough traffic and traction that it's it's its own thing now. Great. Fantastic. but then that would grow outside of the the parameters of what we're anticipating here with this code and grow into something different.

It's a step between step between. It's a step between Yes. This would be the step between a strict home occupation and a full-blown retail, right? Did we have we seen this done elsewhere or did we look? As far as I know, this is unique. Is it okay?

Yeah. And it's kind of fun to actually be uh a part of something like this. I think it's it's the kind of message that we want to send about Grantsville is that we're a small town. we're willing to work with people on on coming up with creative solutions to interesting problems and that we um can be on the forefront of of things like this where it's a benefit for the community, it's a benefit for the property owners and uh it's a nice thing to have. I think another thing is and and we talked about this yesterday in planning on zoning is is is that this is a conditional use permit and it needs to be approved by the planning commission with reasonable conditions tied to it. So if anyone else wants to run off of this micro entrepreneurship um then they'll have to come before it only

as will as will these folks back here once this becomes a conditional use approval they're going to have to come get a permit too. So but we all know with conditional uses I mean you know they if they don't meet the standards that we have in here then they can deny it but if they can meet all the standards then um It would be tough to to deny. So, right, Tyson, the burden is on the city. Yeah. For the house, that's all the presumption is that the permitted use would go forward. And those are decisions that would never come to us. It just planning and zoning and it would be that body that would approve

those those conditions and that use permit. I like it. and thanks for working with the citizens. Can we make a motion? You absolutely can. Jeff is ready to go home. I think we uh He wants his eggs. Just uh let's go. I make a motion we approve ordinance 2026-07 amending chapter 8 of the Grantsville City Code to add micro entrepreneurship as a conditional use. We have a motion by council member Williams. Is there a second? I second. Second by council member Thomas. All in favor? I.

Okay. Roll call. I I I Did you get all that, Alicia? Perfect. All right. Item number 12. Rostoff. Actually 13. 13.

Well, I guess it is now 13. Yeah. So, um, just before we adjourn, we won't go through council reports or all any of those things tonight because we're still adjusting, um, council assignments, but I do want to ask if anybody is available for groundbreaking for Scenic Slopes Park. We had the precon meeting today and we are ready to get going. So, we'd like to have a groundbreaking for the park. Is there a day next week that anyone is available? Let's just say this. Is anybody available on Monday evening? Monday to Wednesday are my best days. Yes. Yes. I'm out Monday. Okay. If we can get four, three or four, we'll look good. Yeah.

You could work that out. I can work it out. Yeah. Okay. We will plan I will arrange that then for Monday evening. Thank you. You'll post that. Yes. And Alicia will make sure that we are in compliance. Christie, is that okay with you? Yeah. Just thinking you don't want to go too late. It'll be dark. You said evening. I did say evening. I don't think daytime is going to work though for the majority. What What's the earliest time that anyone is available? After three. Five. Yeah. Three, four, five. Three, four, or five. Four. Four. Four. Yeah. Do five o'clock, Jeff. Yeah. I'll use you to get out of work. Thank you. You're welcome. I Okay,

let's say four. Let's say four o'clock. Does that work, Christie? Perfect. We'll plan on Monday at 4 um for groundbreaking for the park. Okay. Uh I need a motion to adjourn. Did I miss something? What was a meeting with the school district on Monday? Is that at the same time? It's a three. It's a Tuesday. No, it's a Tuesday. Sorry. Okay. Okay. I think I I think there's irrigation meeting. It's on the 11th. And is that I'll go. So tell me

Sorry, I saw something, but I didn't remind me the day. Wednesday, it's Wednesday. I think it's at 7 if I'm not mistaken. I'll get you the exact time. It's Tuesday. We're good for Monday. Okay, we'll plan for Monday. Just need a motion to Here I make a motion to stay here by council member Thomas and a second by council member Skinner. All in favor I don't have a card on there's some out there in the hallway. It should be