City Council - Regular Meeting

Yes.

Yes. Hello. I know who you are. You're always Yes.

There's three of us.

This is Okay, we'd like to welcome everybody out to the uh Roy City Council meeting for November 18th, 2025. Time is now 5:30. I want to recognize that we have Council Member Saxton, Council Member Scadden, Council Member Wilson, and Council Member Paul. We've excused Council Member Jackson. So, she is not with us tonight. We've asked Council Member Paul if she would go ahead and lead us in a moment of silence and the pledge of allegiance. Sophie, please join me in a moment of silence.

Thank you. Please join me in the pledge. 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. Thank you, Sophie. Council, we have uh some consent items, specifically September 16th uh and October 7th city council meeting minutes. Was there any comments, questions, changes that we need to provide on those? I've submitted a few uh small changes to Britney. Did they come through? Yes, I have.

Okay, great. Perfect. Thank you, Diane. Uh I will ask uh Matt if you can help us. As I mentioned, um there's an element inside that talking about surplus vehicles. Um there was some conversation taking place that says these are 2025 GMC's. They're pretty new. Uh maybe if you can help us kind of alone understand exactly how this this exchange process works and and how it's a great benefit to Roy City. Matt.

Yeah. No, I'd be happy to do so. Over the last, I don't know, five or so years, we've been doing this. So, essentially, because of state bidding, we get a really good price on these vehicles. And so, because of the discounts, we can retain these vehicles for roughly about a year. We pay for oil changes. We don't pay for new tires. We don't pay for any of that stuff. And then we can sell them. And in the past, we have made a little bit of money off of these vehicles. Um, as you probably know, the auto market is cooling. We're hoping to break even. if not just pay a little bit out. But essentially, it's it's just financial savings for the city of doing it that way.

Okay. Thank you for that. I think the clarification is important. Um if for no other reason, the bottom line would be is that we get these vehicles virtually for nothing and operate them for a year and then basically sell them to the public, which is good for us. Um council, uh you may have some of the comments. Let me just cover a couple that I've asked. Uh, I sent some questions uh on the financial statements to the staff to help help me and maybe help you in terms of understanding the financial statement that's in the packet. Uh, Matt, would you mind just maybe give us a little bit of a rundown in terms of the 81% year-to date that we've actually seen an increase versus that we're 25% through the year and we got an 81% increase on revenue on that particular line item. And then maybe a little bit about the risk management uh expense. Yeah. So, the the line item that the mayor is talking about is uh miscellaneous revenue. Um the big driver in that is the sale of assets and primarily because of Chief Williams, he sold out the old radios from the fire department. If you take those assets away, we're about 28% of revenue in that account. But it's all cell affixed assets of why that increase is there. So, that's money that we can rebudget and use. As for the risk management fund, um we have depleted most of that fund and the reason why is because you know we insure ourselves through the Utah local government's trusts and the insurance premiums for the year is due on July 1st. So we we spend that money on those premiums. And as you tell by the uh the documentation that Amber provided to his council, there were some spikes. And it's those spikes that Matt just talked about that help us better understanding why they happen. Okay, that's was my question and hopefully that's some value to you as well. Okay, any other comments or questions relative to the consent

items? Council. Okay, hearing none, then do I have a motion then to approve the consent items? So moved. Thank you, Randy. Do I have a second? I'll second it. Thank you, D. Changes with the changes that you forwarded to Britney. Thank you. Um, all in favor say I. I. I.

Any oppose? Hearing? None. The consent items are approved. Thank you. Okay, this is our public comment period. Um, we certainly invite you to uh step up to the mic, give us your name and your address and share whatever thoughts you might have relative to uh Roy City or otherwise. So, please do that. just name and address. Thank you. Uh Dennis Brown, 2119 West, 6000 South. I just have a couple of comments. One concerning the retention pond on 6000 South. I sent you the photos of the water coming up the within two feet of the top during our two October rainfalls. I've walked up and talked to the construction people twice this week that are up there right now. Is there anything going to be done to help get that drain down? So, I'm afraid I I live down healed from that pond and uh afraid that uh we may get flooded if that doesn't drain out and the water doesn't drain out of that retention pond at all. And this spring is going to be like a swamp if something doesn't get done about it. So if someone could talk to you do about that problem, but it's not draining or if it does drain, it drains very very slowly. Um, so that's the one thing concerning the 28% property tax we had uh voted for a month or so ago. I was out of town at the time, but I did watch it online and I know it didn't come on my property taxes notice this last time. So, I'd like to have someone answer what's what's the go forward process right now? Are we waiting for something to get approved? Has it been declined by the state tax commission? What's happening there? I I don't have an and I've looked

on the paper. I I haven't seen any answer on something like that. And Mayor Dan Doy, Brian, I do commend you for trying very hard to stop a 28% tax increase from going through. I really appreciate all your efforts in in doing that in watching what you try to do. I I really do appreciate that. Um, concerning the budget for this next year, I'm just asking the council that, you know, we as you asked for a 28% tax increase this last year, and I don't know what's going to happen now, but in the future when someone pro proposes to you to do something to approve something, I'd like to have the council know what the dollars and cents are going to be before you approve it. Are we going to put a crosswalk in here? Are we going to put a roundabout in here? What's the financial cost going to be? And is the cost going to be exceed the the benefit? I mean, sometimes like for 6,000 South for example, we put a roundabout down the street and it took a month or more to do that. And I have no idea what that cost, but I think that's probably on the city's ticket. Is that something that was actually necessary? I've lived on 6,000 South since 78. I didn't think that was necessary, but it looked it's very nice. It's very nice, but what's the cost going to be to the city before you decide on a to go ahead with something? If the cost going to be too much, I'm saying you scrap it. You don't vote for it. And um that's all I have. Thank you. If you could comment about the retention pond and about the 28% tax, how do we go forward from there? I'd appreciate it. I'll sit down and listen.

Okay. Thank you, Dennis. Okay. Anybody else like to share a thought? This is your moment. So, please uh give us your name and address, please. Mindy Turpin, 3908 South, 2525 West. Can you get that? push the mic a little closer to you. We'd love to hear what you have to say.

Okay. Um my comment is regarding the development just north of 4,000 South about 2400 West. Um my concern is with the access point that cuts directly through the neighborhood into the neighborhood at about 3924 west. Um and with that cutting into that neighborhood, um the concern with increased traffic flowing into that extremely quiet neighborhood. So possibly uh another access point could be considered. Thank you. Thank you.

Anybody else like to share a thought?

I'm Tony Kent. My address is 5987 South, 2200 West in Roy. We're wanting to be able to come and kind of plead our case for a change or something we can do for a crosswalk on 2200 West and 6,000 South. Um, we've always joked about that corner being a terrible one. I've always been understanding at night when I go walk my dogs or anything, people aren't going to see me and really stop very well. Halloween though was for the first time we saw a real issue with it. I put on a a high viz vest and I was helping children walk across that crosswalk and with me waving, yelling, hollering, no one would stop. It was almost impossible to get anybody to stop. I had one guy go fly through past me, but he had enough time to stop and roll down his window and yell, "I didn't see you." Well, I'm in a high viz vest. I don't know how you didn't see me. It just We can't We were struggling, of course, with our current um technology of being able to pay attention. I get it. It's hard and uh we just want to look at really all op options. We don't have to we don't want a specific one any kind of science-based either the flashing lights. I know they're they're going to be kind of expensive close to $10,000. It's hard to pull that from when we just had tax budget discussions. Um but if there's any other ones we could look at as well, we'd be more than willing just to even crosswalk stings. We just be we'd really love that opportunity. Also want to put my comment on for council council member Wilson for the chickens that you're you're trying to propose to kind of change the ordinances. We are very for that. Thank you so much for bringing it up. Um we're huge farmers. We actually have a farm out in in uh Taylor, Utah. Um and so we love to be able to see people to be able to do their own food, be able to take care of their own selves, and to learn that where their food comes from their children to know. And so thank you so much for bringing this up and having that opportunity for people who normally wouldn't be able to by reasoning. So thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Tony. Okay. Anybody else like to share a thought? Name and address, please.

Eric Codle. Uh 6061 South, 2225 West. Um concerning the same thing, uh Tony Kent just talked about that, uh intersection at 6,000 and 2200 West. Um I've stood there um in a high viz shirt, orange shorts. I know that's a not a very good dress dressing situation, but um I know that I stood there for like 10 minutes waiting to cross the the street and I had a guy drive down 6,000 and he threw his hands up in the air looking at me like I was at fault for standing there. So, um it's a major issue. It's hard to get across 6,000. Um and I really think we need to do something about that intersection. Thank you.

Thank you, Eric. Okay. Anybody else like to share a thought? Name and address, please. If you can give us both of you, that'd be perfect.

Dave and Brenda Griggs, 2009 West, 4350 South. So, we're here tonight to support the discussion about changing the city code for the off- streetet additional parking in Roy for the residents. We're grateful for Roy City and their willingness to see an issue in their city and find ways to make it right. We have a nice home with a trailer on the opposite side of our house from our driveway. We were asked to move it about a year and a half ago since it was against code, but we as all residents of Roy City hadn't dealt this was a code violation. We did our research throughout the city. We found residents that have different ways to park their vehicles and recreation toys on their property. The majority we found were similar to ours, well-kept and pleasing to the eye. We felt that if we had to move our trailer and remove our trailer pad, so should everyone else. So last year we did a presentation here in the city council and after that they looked into ways of changing the current code to make it benefit all residents of Roy City. They understand things have changed over the past few decades when the original code was written. There is a big need for more parking for the multiple families that live together in one home and for families that have recreational toys for their family enjoyment. This presentation last year was not about us and our parking issue. We want to make Roy a better, more desirable place to call home for all Roy City residents and to be a desirable place for new residents to want to make this their new home city. We notice in our research that this is an issue that is not just in Roy, but all across the county. We appreciate the time and effort that Roy City Code Enforcer, City Manager, Mayor, City Council, and Planning Commission have put forth to

solve this issue. Thank you to all. We really appreciate each one of you. Thank you. Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Anybody else like to share a thought? Please name and address. Just pull that mic down to you. There you go. Wally Wally Rogers, 4376 South, 2675 West. I'd like to kind of uh say ditto to the last comments there. Um we I've been in in Roy for about a little over 20 years now. Uh I have five children. Um, two of them still live with me, uh, over the age of 20. I have two grandchildren and my my oldest son and and and daughter live with us. We have a nice uh double G or double wide driveway, but even with that, we still don't have sufficient amount of parking for our vehicles, let alone, you know, the nice things like like the were talking about having an opportunity to have recreational vehicles. Um, I do like that the fact that we you've made some arrangements where in the winter time we can still park in the on the streets as long as it doesn't snow, but having that ability to have uh parking off opposite of the driveway. Um, I don't have the ability to have additional parking on my driveway side. um and be able to have that to where uh my kids can continue to stay and save to where they can get into a home one day. My one my oldest son and and grandchildren are thinking about moving out of the state because of that ability of being able they can get find better housing and things of that nature. But if they can stay here because we we're not giving them tickets because they're parked on the street or or what have you. It just allows us to have a little bit more freedom within

our home. So, I appreciate you guys looking at that and considering options that allow uh families that have multiple families living in the same home the opportunity to continue with that. Thanks. Okay. Well, I thank you. Cindy, please. Name and address.

Cindy Win, 4152 South Lily Drive. Um, I am aware of the You are too of the new construction that's going in on the north side of 4000 down below the railroad tracks. 200 more town homes and that means 400 more cars and then behind me as I have been driving through that new construction that started out as 120 town homes then turned into 281 apartments as I was driving through last week two more slabs are laid and the last and the slabs don't have anything on them yet but the very end number I saw on the ones that were being constructed was 322 so add to that whatever the new ones are, we're looking at 340 to 350. That's 700 more cars. Now, the only egress that's legal is supposed to be on 4,800, but I'm already watching them. And as you know, it's already been paved by the city, and your lovely calming humps have already been put in. So, it is known by the people who have put in the paved road. It was already known it was going to be used as an ingress and egress, though not legal because it's a private road, by those 340 people because 4,800 is already packed and jammed. So you add the other 200 town homes or apartments, 400 cars. So, we've got now 700 and 400, 1100 cars going to go in and out on 4,000 right at below the railroad tracks on that hill. I have already emailed and and talked to and got a lovely response and I do appreciate the response from a Mr. Flint that it is a private road, but my response is what are you going to do to

make that safe? Is it going to take somebody or someone's child getting killed? And I can guar guarantee you with,00 more cars going in and out on that road, something's going to happen either with the train or the walking track. It's extraordinarily dangerous to be having that sort of an increase on 4,000. I have seen a lot of charts. Uh be glad to share my chart with you. shows the housing in the state of Utah. And the comment made and it was by the FRED housing inventory um median listing price in Utah is that the number of houses on the market is excessive to the number of homes being sought and looked at. So, we have more homes for sale than people looking for homes. And the the the response was, it's not that there aren't enough homes, it's they're outpriced. people can't afford a home. And so I'm sure that's where all these apartments and condos are coming in rather than accommodate Governor Cox's desire to bring in the projects because that's all they are. They are the projects. And we know from all major cities across the nation, the outcome of the projects is slums, high increase in crime, traffic, and it also creates a culture shift which is now becoming will be everything you do is high density. The culture shift is going to be noted within the next five years. And for those of us who were born and raised in Roy, we're very saddened by it. Thank you.

Okay, Cindy. Thank you. Okay. Anybody else like to share a thought? Okay. Name and address, please.

Mike Van Alfen, 5353 South, 3750 West. I'd just like to add to her comment that um we got a lot of developers that just want to put some uh buildings in the city. Um it saddens me to see these guys, they they just present themselves and say, you know, we want to make our uh we want to make Roy City beautiful. They don't care. Once they build them them buildings, they're out. They don't care about what's going on in the city. They don't have to deal with the traffic. They don't have to deal with the people. I just want to remind everybody on the uh city council that everybody works for the city. Uh I I highly recommend you talk to constituents and see what's best for the people and the city, not what you yourselves want. It's extremely important to all of us to have that. I hope this is uh I hope you understand what I'm saying, you know, because it seems like there's so many people that just uh vote for their uh you know, what I want. I I you know, it's it should never be I. It should be what we and that's all I have to say.

Okay. Thank you, Mike. Anybody else like to share a thought? name and address, please.

Tara Codle, 6061 South, 2225 West. Um, I've lived here in Roy for about 12 years and at my current address for 8. Um, and I would have to say I have a couple things to say. One being that crosswalk. It is very dangerous. Um, and like, oh, um, Tony said, I don't care what the outcome is, like what you guys decide to do, stings, flashing lights, something, it just has to be done. Um, I was walking to activity days a couple weeks ago and um, there was a couple kids that I saw almost get hit and it is terrifying to think that it's such a safety issue. Um, I I know that there's quite a few kids walk across 6,000 to go to municipal. Um, I do know that there's crossuards at that time, but you know, going down to the park any other time, it is it's dangerous. And so, um, I would like to see something something done. Um, I'll volunteer my time to go and help with the sting if if necessary because I I do feel really strongly about it. um we walk um our dogs and we do have to wait there for a while during the sunset during that part. There are cars that cannot see us and so I do get that part of that problem is you know sunrise sunset that sun sun going down but so having something flashy would be helpful to be honest but um anything would be helpful. Um the second thing is um

a little bit of the beautifification um of our downtown area. Um, I always drive down and I look at these buildings that are run down and I I would hope that we would want our city to take a look at um rundown locations, make them a little bit nice and more nice appear appearances um instead of just building new new. Um, I think that if we took better care of our city, of what we have, then we wouldn't have to put so much money into new buildings. Let's use the old buildings. If they're not usable, let's get rid of them instead of building on um lots that are farmland or something that we could utilize in a better a better way. Um, there has been one store in the past that I walked in and I literally tripped over the aisles. It was such a hazard, a fire hazard that I was appalled that it was in our downtown area. Um, and I have never been back there because it was disgusting in my opinion. Um, but just taking care of weeds, having having people that take care of their lots is a big thing. Just just that. Anyway, thank you for your time.

Okay, thank you for your input. Anybody else like to share a thought?

Okay. Well, thank you so much for the public comments. Let me just see if I can't add a couple of things uh to maybe help. Um we're going to have a conversation in terms of what took place with the with the referendum that will take place in a few minutes during the canvasing. Uh that may help on that part. My comment to you Dennis would be is check with Matt or myself or one of the councils. I can probably talk a little bit more detail uh exactly uh what happened with the state tax commission. That was an interesting thing that unfold. We never seen that, but 29 other different cities and districts were impacted by that decision. Uh we can help you understand that. Uh the crosswalk on 22 and 6000, that'll be a conversation that we'll have later in the meeting uh during one time. It's on your agenda where we talk about the city manager and council report. Uh so we'd like to bring that up there. Uh the parking conversation will take place, okay, as we go through some of the things that's been presented or will be on here. So we'll try to get as much as we can on that. Um certainly beautifification downtown is an important piece. U the best we can do, interesting enough, is to ensure that the people are compliant with the code, even though I would say in some cases the code probably needs to be stronger. Um and but that requires some input and certainly a K city council to change the what we call the nuisance law. And by doing that that can help us strengthen some things uh to do that. And u and so thank you for your input. There's some there's some good things. Hopefully we'll be able to answer many of your conversations uh your concerns in the meeting today if you're willing to stay with us, okay, as we go through this process. Okay. Well, real quick, the one you missed was the retention pond on 6,000.

Yeah. Um, by the way, Dennis, thanks for bringing that to our attention by your your notifying that, taking pictures. We turned that right over to you do you do went in there and immediately put that fence as you noticed around it. Uh, your point was well taken as it relates to we didn't want a children, a child to slip or anybody else for that matter slip into that pond. Uh they did what we asked, what you recommended, and now they'll start fixing that part. Uh to be honest with you, Brandon, I I I know there's an issue about drainage, and there were some heavy equipment that was in there today, uh trying to work that, so I'm making the assumption, but to your point, uh we are working that piece. From our perspective, it is a UD do contract. Okay. Matt, can you add anything to that conversation? Now, I know that they're going to be in there in the next couple of days doing some work on piping and things. That is obviously a temporary fence and when they get finished with that project, there'll be a permanent fence around as well.

And so, that'll help us fix that problem. But but the important thing I want to share with you in terms of that one and I can give you a handful of others when you see something much like the comments about the crosswalks certainly comments about the retention ponds certainly about street lights and what we take that seriously and and and and don't for one minute ever think that the mayor or a single in city council made something happen. You bring it to our attention. We put the resources on it to find out what the real issue is and the solution and and the changes are made. I can show you example after example after example where the things that were changed had nothing to do with the mayor and everything to do with the individual. The citizen says we got a problem and as a result of ask that notification just telling us says hey we got an issue here. I am telling you many changes that have occurred in this city have been because of the results of you. If you see it, tell us. Let us take a poke at it. If there's a way we can make it work, we'll do that. And to the conversation about the and I don't want to get a lot of detail, we can do that, but the conversation really with with the roundabout that just went in on 6,3100, uh, most of the expense was paid by the federal government or by the state. Um it was important I won't elaborate but there was a person lost their life at that intersection uh about a year or so ago and that should not have happened and so we made some changes and the changes ultimately got to the roundabout but to have 11 crashes at that location and have one of them a fatality was not the right thing in on that street. But that's exactly what happened that year and we took action on it and we fixed it. And to the comment that says, "Does it take that to

do it?" I I I'd like to say it doesn't, but be honest with you, you can count many times where in fact there had to be some serious injury before the before municipality moved. Uh it happens. That one was bad. We're fixing them as best we can, but we went after the money. We got the money and the change was made. So, I just want to tell you we do take what you say very seriously and we do try to make those improvements because you identified them. Continue. Okay. Okay. Thanks for that. Uh we do have a presentation we'd like to go, but before we do that, I wanted to make a comment uh specifically because uh a city planner uh sent a note in here and he requested me as mayor to make this comment at a public meeting and this is the time to do that. So I'm going to read it to you. Uh Dan Tanner Tanner basically said this. When we feel ill, we go to the doctor. The anticipation of what is that the doctor will diagnose the ailment based on education, research, experience, knowledge and patient medical history. It is also anticipated the doctor will recommend safe cure with knowledge through the same research experience and awareness of side effects, allergies or etc. In comparison, it is recommendation and he's speaking specifically about the parking. It appears to me that the incomplete research behind it is is for a cure. It is noted that the planning commission had difficulty knowing the direction to take. This is not totally accurate. There were several lengthy discussions with points of facts from research and experience to consider before rendering a recommendation. None of those discussion points are noted in this report and to for the council to consider. It is stated under concerns

the safety issues. This is what was pointed out in those discussions. Concerns of the line of sight, fire transference and obstacles and sidewalks ex etc. We have already made several concent concessions to allow for parking on the pro on the property including the use of backyards which is also not noted in the report. Also, the fact that the city has an ordinance that only follow allows fences to be a certain height from the front plane of the house to the sidewalk for line of sight safety reasons. In fact, many cities require require RVs, trailers, etc. to be behind the front plane of the house for the same reason we don't allow six-foot fences in the front yards. Safe line of sight. I believe it is reckless to proceed with re with the recommendation without fully vetting this issue out in favor of the safety issues noted. I encourage the council to table this issue and call for a combined work session. What he means combined is a meeting with the planning commission and the city council so that we can make more educated and safe decisions. I committed to Mr. Tanner that I would read that in his behalf and I just done that. that will be part of the record uh as we move forward on this topic. So with that council um let's go ahead and we'll move to the presentation portion and uh right now Steve you're going to introduce us to the state requirement that we have. So thank you. You can come. Okay. So good evening council. Um Tim will set up here for a second but I want to introduce a few things. Just as you know, uh, Senate Bill 110 in 2022 was passed that required every city to have a water usage and conservation element within

their general plan. Um, the unfortunate part is in 2021, we adopted a brand new general plan. So, this meant that we had to go back and to add this item in. In 2024 or 2023, I can't remember the years anymore. Uh we applied for a grant from Wasatch Front Regional Council. Um we did not receive the grant. However, the Wasatch Front Regional Council gave us technical assistance. So I got Tim and a couple other gentlemen from Wasatch Front Regional Council to help us out with this with this element. Um with that, we also went to a three-day conference uh called Water Smart Conference there in in 2024 up at USU. uh mayor, you were involved with that along with several others within the the city staff along with uh Roywater Conservancy District who invited to kind of be part of that conversation. Um so tonight we're going to kind of go through what we've got written thus far. Again, it's it's not complete just yet. This is a presentation to you guys just so you're in December, you're not just hit with it auto, you know, upfront without any any notice. uh the planning commission still needs to work through it at a work session and and next week and then a public hearing in the beginning of December. Um during that time the division of water resources also has to review this. So once they review it and give their approvals it's kind of we don't want to amend it too much because we if we do we have to send it back to them. Um so with that this is Tim Watkins who's with Wasatch Front Regional Council and I'll turn it over to him.

Thank you Steve. Welcome, Tim.

Thank you. Great to be with you, mayor and council, and Steve. Uh, it's been great working with Steve and others from the city. I'll take Steve as a boss anytime. He's been great to uh as a project manager and providing us with very valuable insights and information. So, what I'd like to do is uh well, first I'll just share I'm a a community planner with Wasadfront Regional Council. I've been there almost two years and uh we we have a function of the metropolitan planning organization coordination of the wasas choice vision. That is not my role here tonight. Tonight I and and on this project I am uh a regional planner providing technical assistance as Steve said to your city and uh that's more the function of the association of government role that we also uh provide at the at the Wasatch Front Regional Council. And it's been great to get to know Roy City and uh learn about some of your past, your planned future. And so I'll share some of what we've been studying. There's been a lot of study, a lot of work, and we're synthesizing all of this and putting it into a plan format now. So tonight, I'm just sharing with you an kind of an overview of that, not the plan itself, but it will guide the the uh final document, the final draft that will be presented. So just a little more information about the water use and preservation element that is required. It uh is to look at land use and water use projections. And so uh this element will refer to the land use element, the future land use map and adopted policies that the city already has regarding future potential land use. And then it will also refer to your recently adopted just one year ago uh the water conservation plan. And the uh element the state requires that it um provide water conservation policies and strategies not just for future development also recommendations

for existing development. And this is not to dictate how people will landscape their yards, but to provide options and um potential adaptations to uh future needs. There is a specific mention of reducing wasteful municipal water use and uh recommendations are specific to uh should be specific to reduced turf in public streets, park strips, which the city's made a lot of progress there. and any land use ordinant uh recommendations for land use ordinance updates. So I'll touch on some of these as I go through the the outline. And then other principles to consider in the state code suggest that there's a focus on reduction of turf grass overall again ex future and existing development, storm water runoff management and uh utilizing that storm water and perhaps more creative ways to to reduce uh irrigation demand. focus on drought tolerant trees and vegetation, eliminating and reducing water features, unnecessary water features that can be wasteful, and uh efficient irrigation. Steve mentioned that the city took part of a growing water smart workshop at USU. This was a great program that several communities were involved in. Uh great facilitation, great food, uh great to get to know the different departments and a lot of time working and talking together. And I'll share some of the the recommendations that came out of that workshop series. But it was great. It had uh parks, public works, planning, um pretty much every division that touches water was working together and conversing together. And then um one of the goals that was set was to adopt um and update the Roy Water Conservation Plan. That's an every five-year requirement. And that was done last

December. And then uh let's see landscape water. Oh um one of the reasons we're coming to you in the the month of November with uh just a month before the the adoption deadline which is the end of December is we have this incredible opportunity made possible by funding from the division of natural resources uh division of water right or water resources and I I have their logo up here as a a contributor. They provided some funding which made possible some uh study of how to conserve water in landscape design both for future landscapes and potential for um adapting existing landscapes. So, I'm going to share those with you briefly, and those have uh taken place over the summer and fall months, and they're they're wonderful and applicable to Roy, but a lot of other uh folks from other communities and and the state and others are quite interested in the outcome of those. So, excited to share those with you. And then we recently held a a public openhouse October 28th. I'll share with you the summary of what we heard at that meeting. And then tonight is an council info item to you and then we'll progress towards a potential public hearing December 16th where you may consider adopting the plan. All right. So in coordinating land use and future water use, we look first at a population projection. And uh population projection is not necessarily scientific but it is a uh an art and um a practical approach at looking at past growth. And I think the city's water conservation plan and general plan do a good job of projecting reasonable um continuation of the half percent growth rate that has been historic. And if we look at that continuing in the future, that little yellow area that you see represents

potential future growth. The the green area is the uh current population, excuse me. So uh the three targets that we're looking at in projecting water use include five years from now, 2030, we might see an additional 1,300 added to the current population of around 40,000 in the city. 2040 there might be an additional 3,400 new residents and an additional 5600 by 2050 for total population of 4600. And this is the population projection that's been included in your water conservation plan. So when we look to your general plan and current land use policies, uh this map reflects current land uses as well as potential areas of of change related to um mixeduse corridors, infill opportunities. And so what you see here are gray areas. um the printed map and the final map, you'll be able to distinguish between what is anticipated to be near-term, medium-term, or long-term development opportunities. Those include infill, they include potential redevelopment sites, again taken from the general plan. And then you'll see little white spaces throughout the community, and those represent vacant properties. They might be somebody's um currently used agriculturally and this plan doesn't say that they will infill develop with single family homes but they could and they would have that opportunity and that right to explore that as a proposal. And so you see at least in draft form what uh the approximation of those acres are. That single family infill counted around 56 acres. Now um this nearterm we see about

327 acres 200 acre 280 acres of medium-term 58 acres of long-term. Again this is uh intended to provide perspective for the future not necessarily an exact prediction but a reasonable projection. And so, uh, the general plan calls for or provides for, uh, opportunities for different housing types, different development types. I can go into more detail as to what those could be, but for the sake of time, I'm just showing a summary that within five years could reasonably anticipate 472 new housing units to meet that uh, 1300 increase in population. A 15-year increase of 3,400 residents would equate to about uh 1,260 dwelling units. And in 25 years, we might be looking at just over 2,000 dwelling units. And one of the things that your city staff provided for us was a look at uh samples of indoor water use and different projects throughout the community. And what was interesting is we found a range of indoor water use. And so here, for example, on the higher end of the range, 55 gallons per day per person for residential only use, we've multiplied that number by the number of new residents that are projected for the future. And you see the total projected water use in gallons per day as well as acre feet. On the lower end of the range, we found closer to 40 gallons per day and even lower than that. And uh that would look at the difference. It's really a 26% decrease if we went with the 55 higher average versus the 40 gallons per day lower average. And in coordinating with the conservation plan, there was a

suggestion to continually study uh efficiency and delivery of of portable water use, the culinary water use. And so we think that it would be a a consistent with that conservation plan to um project both a higher range and lower range and suggest that there be continued study of uh detecting leaks or uh looking at potential waste and working with um different areas and and uh projects. um homeowners associations or property management entities to look at ways to conserve that indoor water. So, we think that's been valuable insight and at least gives you a snapshot of what that uh future indoor water use estimate looks like. We've differentiated indoor from outdoor water because um as the conservation plan notes there's substantial opportunity for water conservation associated with outdoor water more so than uh water savings which are still achievable indoor but especially outdoor. And this is because the water uh applied to landscapes is absorbed into the atmosphere through evapot transanspiration. And um let's uh just take a look at some of the materials that we shared at the the public openhouse. You see on the left a high water use type of landscape. It's a turf dominant. There are trees planted in the turf grass and not necessarily turf grass is needed everywhere. It's just um not necessarily a a recreation space. Uh there's been past use of of turf grass in park strips u say less than 8t wide. A moderate water use has some turf grass reduction and replacement with planting beds uh more drip system

mulching and it's kind of a blend of turf grass with the uh the beds. Whereas the low water use really emphasizes turf grass only where it's needed, only where there's recreation opportunities and needs. And then a different type of landscape, whether it be beds as you see in some of these uh different landscape approaches or some natural grass. There's a passive trail system shown kind of in the lower right corner of these images that notes that it's not necessarily a turf field for soccer and other types of field sports, but it's more just a passive recreation. And so it's it's more of a a taller natural grass that uses much less water and is is maintained differently. So um when and and excuse me I mentioned the the studies that were done over this summer and fall with funding from the division of water resources. These were provided by landmark design and so you'll see a high moderate and low landscape design and also projection of the water use required. And you can see the difference, the reduction in water use is very substantial when turf grass is reduced and different types of landscapes are installed. And um so in this case, the 6,500 square f foot single family lot, this would be uh for some additional new development, but could also be an option for residents to consider adapting their landscapes as water resources might become um in some years, drought years, might reduce the availability of water resources. There could be pricing adjustments in the future. things that we don't know but we think could be beneficial uh to have options for the future. Here's a 9,000 square foot lot example. Similar treatment of a typical high

water use landscape, a moderate where there's reduction of turf grass and a low water use. Again, further reduction of of turf grass and more plant beds and and a larger lot, a halfacre lot. you see some some different options for reducing water use. And I will uh let's see, we also have town home water concepts. This is a little more of an urban town home design where very substantial water savings could be applied. Um this tends to have a smaller type of landscape activity area and relies more on nearby public parks for the outdoor recreation experience. Here's mixeduse commercial residential water use concept. It may not look too different from one version to the next, but there is a gradual reduction in turf grass and um taking the turf grass out of certain areas, replacing with beds and a multif family example. Okay, so uh just some estimates of outdoor water use applied to the future growth. Again, that 1300 target in five years, 3,400 in 15, and 5600 residents in 25 years. And here's the high estimate. I'll show these individually to the medium or the moderate to the low. And here they are together. And you can see quite a notable um change as you go left to right. For example, you see, excuse me, top to bottom. So high, moderate in the middle and low on the bottom row. And you can see that uh there's uh almost a a third of the water used comparing the low to the high uh water demand. So the water saving potential with beautiful landscapes that

are different type of landscape than what we've traditionally relied upon or applied in the past points to very substantial water savings and and um with the use of outdoor water. So this has been very informative and educational. This is a combining of the indoor and outdoor water use estimate. So when we add up indoor plus outdoor we have uh projections for uh the the 5-year 15 and 25 year. So, if we look at the 25-y year, there's a spread of of sorry, I think this this percentage is not correct here in terms of the the difference in water use, but um you're looking at 505 acre feet in 25 years or as low as 409 acre feet when you combine those together. And the good news is when we look at your water conservation plan, you have definitely available supply for that amount of water. And I think that's good news. I think the city is uh being very prudent in its water planning and water servicing and delivery. So we'll provide more detail and and um further coordination to be done there. Like to just briefly touch on the public feedback that we received on October 28th. Some very very uh insightful and helpful feedback. One was an observation in some of the design concepts that I just shared with you briefly. Um they suggest or some members of the public suggested that u or asked is it really necessary to reduce trees to save water because they noticed that in the high water use there were more trees moderate and lower water use plans showed fewer trees. And uh what we're finding as we went back to the landscape architect and discussed that is in fact that we'd probably uh we hope that we can touch those graphics up and show more trees in

the moderate and lower because there's in fact a um effect of providing more shade that can reduce the evapo transpiration of plants on the understory and then provide the benefits of cooling. Your landscape ordinance references landscaping to reduce the urban heat island effect and that's certainly accomplished with trees. So, we think those that came to our workshop and provided that comment, that's going to make this plan a better one and a a likely recommendation that a certain amount of shade be provided in for landscape sites uh for future development projects. And that could be a recommendation for um updating the ordinance to focus on specific shade, minimum shade area. Um suggestion to demonstrate water-wise landscaping on public projects. That's consistent with some of what we learned in the the um Utah State growing water smart workshops. Thoughts to um use storm water efficiently, absorb it and maybe reduce the size of detention basins that all kind of require their own set of landscaping and that that water could be captured and utilized in the landscape. That's kind of the next commonest rainfall capture. uh suggestion that there be plant lists and plant qualities that are considered for not just drought resistancy but hardiness, microclimates, pollinators, looking at the most beneficial plants that are well suited for this part of our state. uh items or or new species of lower water used turf grass and then coordinating this with some of the great information that is available through the Weber Basin Water Conservancy District, Master Gardener and Demonstration Gardens, Utah State Extension. And then some question about what are appropriate locations for natural landscapes. It's it's different. it's uh less familiar and questions of whether

that's appropriate for residential areas or not. So um some some further thought and study could be beneficial there. uh a lot of comments related to invasive species awareness and abatement, Siberian elm, Russian olive and um that those can consume unnecessary amounts of water especially along rivers, canals, reservoirs and that uh they can also damage water infrastructures. The roots kind of trace to where the where the water leaks are and choke the pipes and so forth. um potential for smart controller rebates and questions about future watering rates and what the metering and the uh 2030 looks like. So, that's a summary of what we've heard. We're working to incorporate this and strengthen the plan and uh respond to these great public comments and okay, so here is uh some of the goals that came out of the the city's work sessions in 2024. And I think these are excellent and right on target that um working to define non-functional turf on city-owned properties will take some study and some effort and would require collecting data to understand the potential for conversion of uh non-functional turf areas. So defining what non-functional means and then understanding what areas have potential for landscape conversion. Perhaps applying for some technical assistance to map such non-functional turf areas and then develop a property conversion plan that uh does require effort and funding. And so understanding what those priorities would be, what the cost might be, that's uh basically a a a good sequence of actions and progressive steps towards better understanding the

um potential reduction of water use and landscape conversion. And there's also potential to explore lower water use turf varieties that um Utah State Extension for examples has been working with other extensions in other states in semi-arid climates to to come up with turf grass varieties that can use less less water even by as much as 40%. Uh this also relates to efficient irrigation. That's essential for wise water use especially with turf grass. And so, uh, working to, uh, provide necessary training or recurring training on irrigation checks and exploring potential, uh, for the smart controller rebates. So, some great recommendations from your city staff here that we believe would be very appropriate in the this water element plan. And then a focus on communications with the community and the public to encourage water conservation. And that could range from providing landscape options and alternatives for conserving water that be for uh people of their existing landscapes to consider and then increased communication with residents including online engagement and maybe community events such as Roy Day's um launching a new Roy City water conservation web page and informal flyers and coordinating this uh communication and best practices with the the great resources we have with Weber Basin Water Conservancy District. district and Roy Water Conservancy District education programs. And last on this list of kind of preliminary recommendations that are forming is to continue coordination with the water conservation plan. This plan is updated as I mentioned every 5 years. And so um coordinating with the the recommendations of that plan and u being informed by what is learned could lead to recommendations and updates in the

next five years for that plan. And then to review this this next item came out of the growing water smart studies the weaver basin water conservancy drought response plan. Um, this could be adopted by Roy City or a Roy City specific drought resistance plan could be created and adopted. And then finally, potential landscape ordinance updates looking at additional zones where um well, you've already I checked your box on no turf grass allowed in park strips. That's a a recent landscape ordinance update, but there uh still could be some exploration of uh turf grass maximums. Right now, it applies to the mixed use. zone and it could apply to other zones. I mentioned earlier minimum tree shade coverage provision or requirement maybe um plants that cover a certain percentage of the beds. Again, that cooling effect and the aesthetic effect and still achieving a substantial water savings, street trees, plant lists, and so forth. So, more research to be done and um more specific findings to bring back to you later. But that's my report today. I hope I went quickly enough and didn't take too much time and happy to respond any questions.

Okay, Tim. Thank you. Council, any comments, questions for Tim? Hello. I was wondering if you could possibly add uh couple of ideas in regards to some of maybe a a tiered pricing system. I know you don't know exactly what the numbers are, but I think a lot of times people relate to dollars better than they relate to gallons and so maybe you could do an example. So when people look at high, medium, low usage, maybe you could do it in a dollar format. I thought that might be very helpful. Or, you know, or an example of a tiered pricing system or or something like that just because I think that might relate better. Great suggestion. Thank you.

Thanks, Diane. Sophie, did you have a comment? No, I just um really quick your presentations. I I thoroughly enjoyed the last two weeks ago when we were down in the basement. Thank you for the education. Thank you for the time you put into that. So, yeah. Thank you. Appreciate that. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you, Sophie. Uh the only comment I would have, Tim, uh Steve, um this one's on a fast track. Uh we have got roughly two more meetings. Certainly on the 2nd of December, you'll be working this one around that time through the planning commission because it's a land use issue. And then immediately upon that, okay, you're going to probably present at the city council on the 16th. Uh the council then has to either approve it or we get to call another special meeting between then and the end of the year because the law says it's got to be done by January 1st. uh if there's any way in that course of that process you can give us a copy of a draft element and get that to the council so they have at least some opportunity to go through it. These can be very complex detailed. My comment to you would be is it allow them now to work through it and come ready on the 16th okay to provide it. Getting it on Friday and expect to have a response okay ready for Tuesday meeting may be a little ambitious. So, uh, help us if you can get it to the city council as quick as you can so they can read through it, come ready, and maybe if we everything works out right, we can get you a vote that we need on the 16th of December. That sounds great. And it it may result in u sending out something that's a little more raw and rough than normally would be provided, but that's probably better than getting something more refined last minute.

Exactly. and it helps them to start setting the stage the conversation so they can ask the right questions, make those adjustments, and be ready to be able to print. Our key would be is to get you a vote. Uh, this is a mandate. Let's figure out how we can get that mandate from this council. Okay, great. Okay. I have a question for Steve in that regard. You mentioned that the plan would be put forward to a committee to see if they approve it. When does that happen? And do we have a chance to maybe look at this, make changes before it goes to that so we're not having to go back maybe a second time or something?

Uhhuh. Um, as far as I know, the state statute says they need to review it and provide comments. They don't have to approve it, but the concern comes always if a state division needs to review things. If we change it, they're going to send it back. So, we're going to try to get it to them as quick as we can. Um, we're going to wait for next week with the planning commission to get their kind of their comments, questions like you tonight, start formalizing it, and then the 9th of December have that public hearing. My my thought is Wednesday morning, I email it to you just so you have a draft copy that the planning commission hopefully at that time we've gotten comments back from the Division of Water Resources. Um, I, you know, I don't know how quickly they can turn things around. Haley's been great to work with, but I just don't know what their time frame is.

Okay. And the public hearing will take place in council or the planning commission? Planning Commission. Okay. Yeah. And uh Steve alluded to our communication with Division of Water Resources. They've they're really interested in the methodology that's being applied here. Royy's quite unique in that it's a largely built out community and so we've had to look at infill and potential redevelopment areas and they uh they're really supportive and uh appreciate the approach that's being taken. So, okay, thank you. Uh any other comments questions?

Steve, Tim, thank you. Okay, we appreciate this. We'll look forward to having the information. Uh we do have an action item uh we need to start with. This is the approval of the 2025 general election canvas. So Britney, if you'll go ahead and lead us in the conversation on that.

Absolutely. Thank you, Mayor. Um, so for our canvas results, we have the offices that um appeared on the ballot were for Roy City Mayor, which was a fouryear term. Roy City Council at large, there were two seats for a fouryear term. and then Roy City Council at large there was one seat for a twoyear term. The names of the candidates as they appeared on the ballot were for Roy City Mayor was Ann Miranda Jackson and Mike J. Van Alfen. For Roy City Council at large, the four-year term um we had Janelle Halbert, Diane Wilson, Jason Evans Spar, and Anthony W. for the Roy City Council at large. Do you want me to get closer? Sorry. For the Roy City Council at large two-year position, um we had Alexis Jackson and Randy R. Scatteren. We did have one ballot proposition that appeared on the ballot. Um that was for ballot proposition number 15 in reference to a referendum for the tax rate um for the fiscal year 2026. However, due to not receiving enough signatures in the referendum process, votes for or against this proposition were not counted. The total number of ballots that were mailed were 17,799. 376 of those ballots were undeliverable. Um leaving 11,931 ballots that were not returned by the voters. The total number of votes that were cast were 5,868. um also resulting in the total number of ballots being counted still at the

5,868. There were 46 ballots that were rejected. Um those make up provisional ballots um that were cast. There were six of them. Five that were counted. One was not counted, however, due to insufficient ID. Um the total number of ballots that were returned but not counted, there were 32 returned past the deadline, three where the signatures did not match the voter record, seven that were returned unsigned, one was returned with an empty envelope, and two were signed by someone other than the voter. Then we have our official results. Um, out of the 5,868 ballots that were cast, Anne Jackson received 3,08 votes. Mike Van Alfin received 2,730 votes. Janelle Halbert received 3,66 votes. Diane Wilson received 2,539 votes. Jason Spar received 2,319 votes. Anthony Dick received 2,87 votes. Alexis Jackson received 3,397 votes. And Randy Scatteren received 2,234 votes. And um with that, we have the board of canvas certification for the 2025 general election um for everyone to sign that. I will pass around in order to turn back into the LG's office to make your election results official if anybody has any questions.

Okay. Any questions for Britney? She's a city recorder. Okay, Britney, I think we're good. Okay. U I do need to have a vote. I'll wait for after the signature or should uh Matt, should I go ahead and uh and call for approval of the canvas? Yeah, just by just by signing it. That's the vote, the official. Yes. That's certifying that the information is correct and accurate.

So, we don't have to take a verbal vote. We just have to sign the document and that will give us what we need. You can take a verbal vote if you'd like. That's That's Sophie's pen, by the way. Just just to establish ownership. Come back. Yes. Right.

That's right. Thank you. Okay, this is certified based on the signatures. Let me just make a real quick comment and then we'll move on. We've got a lot of things we want to talk about tonight. Public engagement is one of the most important things you can do. Be involved. And certainly running for office is a relatively big commitment. And I think it really says a lot about the caliber of the individuals who's willing to step up and try it. It isn't always easy, but it's certainly important. And so I encourage you and I encourage your children, okay, to think about becoming engaged in what we do. The future of this city has everything to do with what you want done. And if it's important to you, then step up. I will tell you, no matter what the federal government does, no matter what the state does, there is no part of government that has more influence on your life than what happens in this room. Whether it's the number of dogs that you can own, whether it's chickens we're going to talk about here shortly, naming a street, okay, or basically determining on most of the streets here how fast you can drive. All of that happens in this room and it can be changed, adjusted and made to be better. But it needs people who are dedicated to step up and help us make it better. If you honestly believe that anybody sitting up here has all full knowledge of everything, that's sadly mistaken. We don't. But we become smarter if you share what you think is important and more importantly if you're willing to step up and run for office. Help us.

Lots of opportunities. I think getting new ideas, new new feelings on things, different perspectives is a powerful way by which we can make the appropriate changes we need to move forward whatever that may be. So thank you for those who stepped up. We had a lot of candidates who who basically stepped up and help us. Please continue doing that. I think that's important. So with that, thank you Britney. Okay, obviously that was important to uh to get that canvasing and congratulations to all those who not only participated but certainly for those who in fact have uh been selected now by our peers and it's now going to be starting on January I'd like to say the second orabouts uh will be sworn in and they will then be asked to lead uh this great city. So, I'm not going to go for a vote. Okay, we got the signatures. That's what we needed. Thank you so much. We do have now proclamation 20-25-1. This is honoring the impact of a 100red years of PTA service by proclaiming October. Now, I apologize. It's October. uh we got uh they got this thing moving a little bit late and so we're going to put this proclamation or hope to get this proclamation done uh recognized in October as PTA month for the city of Roy. So with that um VA I'm going to ask you if you would um she is in fact the Roy Council PTA president. Uh, I'd like if you don't mind if you'd like to make a couple of comments before I ask the city council uh to consider the proclamation, sit before them and ask for a vote. So, please

and please introduce, if you don't mind, the individuals you've brought with you.

I have my posy here now. Um, I'm Farah Muhammad. Um, this is Cammy Richard. She is the presidentele of the Utah PJ, the Utah State Board. This is Nicole Williams. She is the Roy Elementary PTA president. I have Bri. I have Alli. I'm so sorry. I don't know what don't remember their last name, but they're all from Roy Elementary, one of the best elementaryaries. As I said, it's the best after my PTA unit, which is Roy Jr. So, and we have Janelle Halbert. She's been very involved with the PTA um ever since I've known her and we are lucky enough to get her elected to the city council for next year.

Two years, four years.

So, um as said, uh Utah PTA is celebrating 100 years of advocacy and parent engagement and that's a big milestone. But our story began um even earlier long before our official charter with national PTA in 1925. Utah parents were already organizing, engaging and working together to support their schools. In fact, Utah sent three women to Washington DC for the very first national PTA convention in 1897. From the moment schools were established after the pioneers settled, parents in Utah have partnered with educators to ensure that every child receives the best education possible. That spirit of collaboration is still alive today. Many of you have benefited from PTA programs, family nights, safety initiatives, leadership trainings, others without even realizing that PTA was behind them. PTA is also known for its powerful advocacy. We helped bring warm lunches to children in 1935, promoted youth mental health supports starting in the 1960s, protected public school funds by helping defeat vultures in 2007. And in 2018, Utah led the nation as the first state to adopt a resolution supporting high expectations for students with special needs. And one of our most inspiring stories is how a single Utah PTA mom helped transform the Utah Trust Lands program, ensuring greater funding for today's students while safeguarding resources for generations to come. Our

strength, our longevity comes from people like this. Everyday volunteers who do so much often quietly PTA is not a hierarchy. It's a network. Every member, every leader at every level helps build the legacy and celebrate today. For centuries, for a century, UTP had be has been a steadfast advocate for children, families, and education, shaping policies and lifting communities across our state. As we honor 100 years of education, we also honor the countless volunteers and leaders who have championed student success, safety, and well-being. For your information, in 2024, the nine schools in Roy under the Roy Council, PTA Council, we volunteered $8,239 hours, which equates to about 286,634 um at 34.79 volunteer per hour. So, that's how much we've volunteered in Roy. So, thank you to the council and thank you to Roy City for supporting PTA membership as we continue strengthening our communities. Please join us in this celebratory year and consider joining a local PTA. Together, we can build the next century of impact. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Great words. Okay. Thank you. So, with that, okay, let's make this official. Um, do I have a motion then to approve proclamation number 2025-1 honoring the impact of a 100 years of PTA service by proclaiming October as the PTA month for the city of Roy City Sophie? Yes. Thank you. Do I have a second? I'll second. Thank you, Randy. I was getting a little nervous. Okay. All in favor say I.

I. Any oppose? It is approved. So, thank you so much. Council, if you don't mind, we'd like to just take one picture if we can. So, if we can just kind of roll right down in front here. We just like a picture with uh with this group. Thank you. over there. It's not Yes, appreciate it. Can I make a quick comment when we're while we're finished? So, just um

the involvement and the what the PTA brings to the schools and to the to the community is amazing. So, shout out to all of you that spend time volunteering and putting your time out there for usually other people's kids. So, hats off to you all and proud proud proud to be a part of that. So, good job, guys. Good job. Yeah. Thank you, Sophie. Great. Yeah. You want to find a little army right there. Any other comments before we uh move on? Thank you. Thanks for your efforts.

Yeah, great work. Okay, council, we have consideration of resolution 25-27, a resolution of the Roy City Council establishing 2026 city council meeting dates. As you know, we're required to do that at this time of the year. So, with that, I'll turn the time over to Matt. Yes. Thank you, Mayor. As you know, in your packet, resolution 25-27 has all the meeting dates for next year. This is a requirement by the state of Utah and as part of Royce City Code as well. Um, nothing has changed. 1st and 3rd Tuesday 5:30 p.m. start times. There's no conflicts with holidays as well. Okay. Any comments or questions? I I contemplated shifting it to Saturday, but I figure, you know, I'm Yeah, that that would be popular.

Oh, that's good, Randy. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay. Uh then with that then do I have a motion then to approve consider approve resolution 25-27 a resolution for the Roy City Council established in 2026 city council meeting dates. So moved. Thank you Diane. Do I have a second? Second. Thank you Brian. This is a roll call vote. Brittany. Council member Scott I. Council member Saxton I. Council member Wilson I. Council member Hall. I.

Okay. Then resolution 25-24 is in fact approved. Thank you, council. Okay. We're going to go to consideration of ordinance 25-16. I think we're going to turn the time over to uh Brody and Matt. I think it's going to be a little tag team. Uh this is the ordinance an ordinance Roy City Council approving a development agreement for a residential development within the station area plan located approximately 20 400 west 4,000 south and providing an effective date. So with that Brody if you'd like to lead the conversation.

Yes. Thank you mayor councel. Um yes before you is uh quite frankly a couple different things but to start out the ordinance is specifically for an approval of a development agreement. Uh this is for the the area of 2400 West on 4,000 South. Um this we've had conversations about this before. We've actually had um this in planning commission, but this is the effectively called the Hansen property. Um it's a little over uh 29 acres in total that we'll be talking about. Uh eight of which belongs to Roy City. um this development agreement essentially and I should say the developer is here and he will present I believe he has some uh kind of a presentation he would like to present to talk about the project and the overall idea um but this development agreement essentially is an ask from the developer to extend the height ranges so the way the height is described in that area is that it's a 60-oot height that starts essentially at Hinkley Drive and as you move south within in this property and within the station area plan the height lowers. Um he'll uh Brad Brown with Steuart Land Company will be here. He'll pres present it a little better, but they're essentially asking to make the 60 foot across where their property will be. Um and essentially what it is is the way it is right now is the the change from the 50 to 60 foot will be in the middle of their apartment building. So, they're asking for uh a 60 foot height across that prop. That is the development agreement. That is what they're asking for. Um I know there's a lot of questions and things we'll get into. Um but I think kind of procedurally I think we should let the developer present uh his slides to the council, talk about his project, talk about any details you can ask him questions. both myself and Matt will be

there and and I think after that then we can get into the questions of not only the development agreement but a discussion about uh the land swap which is only for discussion tonight. So we'll go to maybe to there.

Okay. Thank you Bernie. Thank you councel. My name is Brad Brown and I'm with a Steuart Land Company. Um we're a local uh land development company here in Ogden. Um there's about 10 of us right now and we're we're trying to grow. Uh I live just down the street in Riverdale and so this is uh close to home for me. Um up on the screen. Could you put your right next to the mic for us? Yes. There you go.

Not as tall as Brody. Um I this light here shows a couple of projects that we've done and uh we we do try and pride ourselves in um creating communities that we can be proud of and so we're excited about this. Um so this project we came in and approached the city about the uh the detention basin and um we're uh if you go to the next one we're requesting a um right now is just the development agreement. Um but the the project includes some of the city's land and just to see what what's uh to kind of illustrate what we're talking about. the city land right there in the red is the majority of it's at that detention basin. Um and so what we're proposing is that that becomes part of our project. Um we do a development that is a to development kind of what's been uh established as as what is wanted in that station area north um with some apartments and some town homes. And then the city will receive um the portion the green which will be potentially for a cemetery. Um we don't want to try and impose anything but that's the was expressed with the the city's wanting and and so now the city will have full control of that. So what the city gets is um one they they'll be relieved of the maintenance um and control a uh a gentleman was mentioning the uh it was Dennis was mentioning the um uh the detention basin. Um that will now would now become our responsibility. Um also this this area is uh

you know um kind of set apart for uh development in the in the future land use but it's landlocked. So this would kind of unlock uh the potential of that land. Um we put in the infrastructure all the the streets and everything to get to the cemetery and then the city you know has that option of the cemetery or to do whatever they decide. uh we get uh an access point and we're able to complete our project um and we take on the responsibility for that basin. So, we think this is a uh a great project. We're excited about it. Um in talking with staff and and some of the elected officials, it it seems in line with the goals of the city and we're that's which is important to us. We want to uh be good good neighbors. Um so the the request on the development agreement is um basically for flexibility. Um we've had several different uh um site plans. Um, and as Diane pointed out, this this particular one, if you look at it, the portion in in blue or purple is,00 ft south of um, Hinckley Drive. So, that's where we could have uh, 60 ft and then it steps down to 50 ft. Um, we've had plans where that cuts our building in half. This one particular doesn't show that, but um our hope is to have the flexibility in architectural design and and layout and not have to to have that. So, we felt like that's still in line with the intent of this area and uh staff has told us they didn't think that was that big of a concern. So, um we're we're hoping overall that this is um kind of can take um something

that's not necessarily uh you know a bright spot in the community to a brand new community that can really help the um help the city. It's a to focus. Um and I seeing what's been done in other cities, you guys are kind of a step ahead and a poster child for um good um planning for um TOD or transit oriented development. Um but um we'll have right now the the plan is about 200 apartments and 200 town homes. Um here's some examples of of what to expect. These are some projects that we or partners have done. Um some two-story town homes is is the intent. Um and the next one shows some apartments that we've done. And so, um, we hope that it, you know, and we're open to, um, working with the city to make sure this, um, you know, the design and everything kind of flows with with the nature and character of the city. So, we also will, you know, we want this to be good where people want to live. And so, in the the next one, you'll see some amenities. There'll be amenities. Um likely we will landscape and reformat the the detention basin so it looks nice. Um you know and is is a community. Um this we we've done this before. This this is an example that Stuart did in South Ogden. So the picture on the right or I mean on the left is a an old detention basin and and we approached the city and and uh you know w with a plan to to make what what ended up being there on the right some apartments and we ended up burying that uh

um detention underground. But the city was very happy that you know it added to the community and was in line with the goals that South Ogden was trying to to accomplish. Um so just to emphasize a few of the benefits to the city. I mean obviously more people brings more t tax tax revenue um impact fees uh job creation both you know those in construction but also long-term with new residents um and you know support local business um we're hoping community means a lot to us at Steuart and so we're hoping this provides a good community and it have you know good amenities close to the to um and then Um what one thing that we consider when this project I know sometimes infill projects are uh um have high impact to the city. This is a we feel like a great uh unique property where uh it's big enough that it can develop its own sense of community um without uh overtaking or changing the fabric of an a neighboring community. Um and uh you know because a lot of times you know if it's right in there and and it changes things but this will have its own sense of identity. Um there will be you know some traffic impact and some some impact that uh that will occur but we feel like this is a great spot for this and and what is kind of the goal of transit oriented development. um we're trying to proactively address concerns. I mean, we're still in the the um you know, development agreement

stage, but um I mentioned the the impact um and the traffic um I believe uh one of the residents was talking about uh traffic and safety and that is important to us. I've spent a lot of time with the city engineer um the city um consultant with my engineer and it's important to us that that that intersection is safe and we have a good plan um some good options with with Brody and with with John Beerard the the engineer um to make sure that that that is safe and taken care of. Um so essentially um that's our project. We're excited about it. We we feel like uh Roy is a great place. Roy has something special and we hope to contribute to that and and and be a part of that and that this project, you know, adds adds to. So the hope today is that we can move forward on the development agreement and and I also want to answer any questions you may have regarding the the overall project. So

well, thank you. Um council, it's time now to basically dig in. Uh make sure you feel comfortable with this. I there certainly will be an opportunity for a vote. Um so if you have some comments, I certainly do. I have some questions, I'm certainly willing to lead out on that, but you may also have some. So please ask uh your questions. Let's see if we can get some of the answers. So anybody like to lead before I take a shot? Go ahead.

Okay. Maybe some of the questions I will ask will help some of yours. And Brody, we probably have to team this one between the both of you. So if you can help work this out. Um, just right off the top, just make sure everyone understand, we're really talking about changing the height element associated with this. It was, as you well know, and this was approved when we actually went back to the original uh, zoning of this area, 60 feet, and then drops to 50 feet uh, as you get closer. The recommendation is to go to 60 feet across the entire development. Okay. When I read through all the packaged information, there seemed to be some confusion in terms of how many acres are involved. Certainly, there's 8.27 acres of Roy City-owned property. That was pretty easy for us to define that. U but the calculations coming out of the planning commission indicated the total acreage was 27.31. I I'm not sure that's accurate because it that those numbers don't add up. Can you offer any enlightenment of whether or not the 27.31 acres is the total or if there in fact uh acreage that is not accounted for here?

Yeah, there is acreage that's unaccounted for and essentially what happened is in the planning commission uh we relied on the county's parcel descriptions and their measurements. Um we've been going back, this leads into maybe another conversation that's farther way farther down the road. Um, part of these parcels, there's a sliver of this parcel that is actually still not in Roy City. It doesn't affect this project, but part of it will be to annex that parcel. So, Brad actually has had his surveyor out and working with the county to try and clarify. And this total piece, which is the triangle, um there's a total of just over 29 acres. and and we just for reference there there has been quite a bit of confusion. If you look right now at the plat map or the the recorders uh online map, there's there's mistakes on there. And so I checked just today, we've got an alta survey in the last month and they've measured and so we have the accurate numbers now and we're making sure that title company and county all rectify to the right numbers. But the important thing is is you know the for the city the the contribution for the cemetery will be locked in that in no way will be compromised and so

yeah I think and you'll see probably one of the questions the the question I certainly have would be is what is that number that will be finalized and if this agreement is actually approved and just understanding if that is in fact a number that we now can do something with um my impression would be is the number the from the calculations based on a 27.31 would be a 3.9 uh acre. Uh that might be good if in fact that's what's left from all of this and then we assume that in fact maybe there might be a donation of land in the future. But but at the end of the day, uh trying to build a park or build a a cemetery on 3.9 acres may be pretty difficult. And so it was just helping us to understand. And the reason why I share that with you, and Matt and I have been working this particular piece of property for six and a half, seven years trying to find the right solution. Um and the the premise of that was really because we were asked by so many people council, you know this because people have asked you where are we going to get our new f new cemetery? How can we make it? And we says we think we have a solution here. So I think if there's a way we can lock down in terms of what that number might be at least closer than what we know or what the calculation is, the better I think it will be in the long run for us to be able to work from that.

Yeah. And and that's certainly part of this transaction. A lot of that will come into the discussion item of the land the land transfer agreement. Okay. uh because we're essentially talking about the project in whole and we're talking about step one of of about 15. Yeah. Right. But the ultimate is and I've told this to Brad and he knows me well enough. The minimum is that Roy City will have a 6 and a half acre parcel to do a cemetery. Otherwise, me and Brad will have a different conversation when the next steps. Right. Uh thank you. Uh that's the kind of information we need to figure out how we can move forward in this process because Roy City is in the next conversation is going to be considering donating some public property

and we need to see how that's going to be in the best interest to all the parties. So thank you for that. You alluded to this in your conversation. The county owns a a strip of that next to the DNRG. So the county doesn't own it. Excuse me. Inor it's owned by the persons that um Brad and his company are working at. It just is like a sliver and for whatever reason it just has never been annexed into Royce City. That's correct. So there's an application waiting it. We're race basically waiting for clarification to just make sure that that sliver is back into Roy City.

Okay. That was certainly one of my questions I had. Uh the ordinance states uh and and help me a little bit in terms of the public hearing. Uh and I only want to make sure we understand. Yeah. uh I there there was no information from the planning uh planning commission in terms of the discussion. So we got nothing in writing and so I sat down and watched the meeting itself and at least from the two or three people that made comments in there really only comments would be is they just didn't have enough information. Okay, probably to even ask questions. U and that was the public hearing. Okay, interesting enough. Um I I I guess is there anything that's coming forward on this that's going to at least have allow the public to have some if they have a voice in this besides public comment period on this discussion.

Yeah. So the public hearing in planning commission was specifically for the development agreement and the issue of the 10 feet. That's the only thing they were talking about in planning commission

and that's what this is a big project but the development agreement quite frankly you were not going to find a more simple one. the development agreement is giving them the 10 additional feet. Other than that, they're complying with our current zone. So, there isn't a lot of detail or or things to to opine upon in the development agreement stage, but as we talk and again, I I want to answer the questions, but again, we're talking step one of 15 here. The next discussion item, if we go forward with the land swap, that is subject to notice. That will be subject to a public hearing. Everything will be out there. Um, you know, there's going to be steps in planning commission as they go for development. We talk about traffic that's going to be approved in public meeting. Access points are going to be approved through the development, whether it's in city council or planning commission. Again, there's still lot of stages of public comment and input regarding how this this goes.

Perfect. So, and I guess my com next comment would be to kind of help clarify this. Uh we've looked at your preliminary design and I appreciate you providing that because it helps us to make sure uh the road going into and to the back of the property as it such right now. Will that be private or public?

The the plan and the discussion we've had is that the cemetery will need a public road for sure to to go to it. So clearly defined that that road getting back to a cemetery if the city council approves in the future that's what they want to put in there then the bottom line would be is that will be a public access road. Perfect. Okay. Uh just a couple of other things. Um okay I got the 60. I appreciate that. I wanted to make sure I understood that piece. You stated that

um you indicated we'll get clarity in terms of how much total acreage is involved, but I just heard that says we're looking at somewhere six plus acres that will in fact be involved Roy City. Perfect. Work through all that. That's important. And um because it's part of exhibit B in the the proposed development um uh document, uh it shows that access from the north will come through the Hansen's property. Have we got some assurance this is emergency access in case the fire department needs to come in from the north side? is those that does that dialogue seem to think that that's going to work. The Hansen's agreed to allow access.

Yeah. And that's that'll be again part of the closing transaction on the real estate not only with Brad but the city. Um and essentially the access points are going to be there will be an emergency on the north and then the the two that we've talked about uh that are in the documents. So yes. Okay. it just that from my understanding as I read through this, this development agreement, if it's approved tonight, basically is locking in. It's going to give us some clear direction of where this thing's going to go. So, yeah, you're locking in the height change. All of the additional documents are still subject to review and approval. Okay. Yeah.

I just want to make sure, council, we understood that. Yeah. because there's a lot in this document that really adds a lot of credibility that there's some things moving parts

and that's another piece is um we drafted it such that the development agreement is contingent upon all the other things happening. So approval of traffic approval approval of access. So if you know later on we get down the road to step four and it doesn't work for whatever reason the development agreement essentially is null and void because it's contingent on those important factors. Okay. And and with that then because that'll answer my last question. Will the city council then be involved in the remaining steps in this process? So yes, certainly the the big ones coming up via the uh on the second

on the second the discussion and and decision on the land transfer agreement uh you'll be part of uh traffic and some of that once it gets into the development stage then that will go through planning commission but these initial steps and the kind of what I would call the big pieces to this piece being going forward it will all be done in the city council.

Okay. And then I also want to to say this and I have to be careful when I'm saying it. Um there are going to be additional meetings uh with the city council on traffic because we actually have a couple of different plans. We kind of have the one that's put forth now. We have actually have what I would call a more exciting plan, but that would require some closed door meetings uh talking about real estate in that area. So we have additional ideas about traffic as well. Okay, council. Reason for my question would be is is that this a moving target

and the bottom line is is that if we're not getting all the answers that we need for you to basic major says just know that there are other meetings coming where you'll be involved, okay, as this project moves forward. And that's important to understand that. Otherwise, uh my concern would be is we're locking in on a development agreement uh that may be more than just the agreement. It could it could be a living document, but your involvement after it's approved may not be much. I think I just heard the fact is is that you're going to have continued involvement as the city council as this thing moves forward. I wanted to make sure that was pretty clear. I don't have any other comments. Thank you. Anybody else? Diane, go ahead.

So, just to clarify, height only. And if we wanted to talk about donation, totals of Roy land, all that, that would come in our next conversation, not today. Yeah. Well, so we'll have a discussion on that. We just can't have any vote on that because that requires a 14-day uh notice in a public hearing. Okay. But it kind of goes to and it's I I told the mayor this earlier. I maybe I'm just not smart enough. I don't know how to talk about all these things that we want to talk about without kind of step one.

We need to know whether or not this is feasible with the height difference before we start rolling down these other issues. And then the next clarification is if this doesn't go forward then this 10-ft height would go back down to 50 foot because it's a specific zoning change for this specific development. Is that correct? Yeah. It doesn't it does not run with the land. It runs specific to this agreement within this agreement. Exactly. Thank you. Appreciate that. Okay. Other questions, comments, council? My only other one too is I mean we have been chasing the tail of this cemetery for how many years now Bob?

And and that's the thing is just I just want to clarify something. The city owns no available real estate that we could put a cemetery on. This puts in motion that and makes it a potential like realistic thing. Now that's correct. So yeah, great comment because because that's the thing is there was some comment online that, oh yeah, the city already has land and no, we don't have anything for a cemetery. No.

So you're right, unless we take a public park and a city council basis and flip it. But other than that, there is nothing out there. This is this is uh uh this is certainly one option in front of the city council to consider as we move forward. And that's the reason why the emphasis to say make sure that Roy City uh is able to capitalize in in terms of land to be able to make that happen. So, you know, my gut feeling would be and and Brandon, I'm going to put you on the spot, but nothing would make my day better if somebody could tell me if they done a perk test on this property and tell me how deep the water is. And

uh I I don't have that information on the tip of my tongue, but we we do have a a geotechnical study and I I could get it for you. You would make my day. Okay. Okay. That may seem odd, but I have a reason for asking the question. But uh yeah, if there's any opportunity there, that would be very very helpful. Thank you. Five deep instead of two. Well, as I say, I'm like we we go high density, you know, cemetery versus low density. Sorry. That's part of the to right. Yes. Sorry.

Interesting. Well, the council just just not to elaborate basically bu is is you're talking about um you're able to get uh in a typical acre acre you can probably get 1,250 graves. You you stack them because the water is 17 feet deep. Um you can get a potential 2400 on an acre. Yep. Uh that is a a lot and and trust me being in this office as long as I have we have certainly heard a lot of the public okay have openly come out and said when are we going to get a new cemetery the one we have is full

and so it's been foremost on our mind we've been working it for years and years u I think that needs to be considered as part of that and honestly a cemetery owned by the city uh can provide plots okay oftenimes a cheaper you can than get it from a private sector. So, um it gives some options and and it's important. So, it's something we should consider in this process. So, thank you. Uh I don't have any other questions. Anything else from the council? Please. Brian,

just to clarify, um 400 units, 200 of those would be owner occupied town homes. That that's the plan right now roughly. I I mean we're obviously we're still in those early stages with that. Okay. Okay. Other questions council?

Okay. With that then uh let me just pull back if you don't mind and just ask u let me pull the sheet. I want to make sure I get the uh I get the right ordinance number and that is 25-16. So, council, do I have a motion then to approve ordinance 25-16, an ordinance of the Roy City Council approving a development agreement for a residential development within the station area plan located approximately 2400 West, 4,000 South and uh with other information obviously it's going to be forthcoming. Do I have a motion for that resol ordinance 25-16? So moved.

Okay, Randy, I got a motion. Do I have a second? Second. Thank you, Brian. This is a roll call vote. Brittney, Council Member Wilson. I, Council Member Saxton, I. Council member Paul, I. Council member Scatteren, I. Okay, that resolution is approved. Thank you. Now, we're going to have a discussion. And it's important council you understand this is simply a discussion. There will be no vote taken. Uh this is a discussion based on a resolution forthcoming that talks about Roy City Council authorizing a land exchange. So with that

Brody will go ahead and turn the conversation over to you. Thank you mayor. So yeah can you just pull up that chart of his that shows the just the land there?

Just the land. So yeah, with this and we've already alluded to this discussion um but this is essentially the red property which would be on the southern part of this acreage here. This is the land that abuts 4,000 south is owned by Roy City. That's the 8.27 acres. The green which is on the north end of the property right up abuing Hinkley is essentially what the land transfer agreement uh is envisioned to essentially swap. Uh as mentioned the Steward Land Development will use Roy City's property to essentially redesign uh the retention basin and then use that property not only for the access and the road back to Roy City's property uh but for some of their development as well. Um, and that is what is envisioned. That is a there is not a amount of money that is being transferred. It's essentially a a straight up swap for our piece by 4,000 for what will be the piece in the back. I want to make it clear that the Steward Development Company and our agreements with them is a is a contingent for four acres. The additional two and a half acres that we have talked about for the cemetery has been part of the original property owner's agreement to sell is that two and a half acres would be donated to the city for the use of a cemetery. Uh so when we say the six and a half acres that is how that is how my arithmetic is working there. Questions about that and I know we have talked about this. So in essence, we're talking about 8.7 acres Roy plus 2.5 that would be donated

and right. Is that correct? No. No. So the it's 8.2 acres. 8.27. Yep. Oh, 8.27. And so we're essentially exchanging that for four. Uh and the the reason for that, yes, is

the 8.27 27 is essentially a big chunk of that is the retention basin uh along 4,000. Everyone knows what that is. And the uh there is a broker price of opinion. Uh we have a third party that looked at this and basically said uh if you calculate the value uh essentially Roy City's actually getting a pretty good deal. the the four acres on the north end would be more than double the value of the one with the retention basin on it, which makes sense because you can't do a whole lot

uh around the retention basin without significant cost. So the there's a lot of cost to make the property near 4,000 uh usable for a development like this. the the two and a half acres is a third party that is donating it subject to this agreement so that we have sufficient acres for the cemetery. Everybody understand that? Okay with that?

So in essence because the four acres um is kind of double the value that's going to be equal to the value of the eight acres. And so that pretty much comes out if you were going to look at just monetary value. Yeah, I don't want to say this with Brad in the room, but I actually think if you use that broker uh broker price opinion, uh Roy City is probably getting more value in this in this exchange. Too late. He's he's listening. He's here. It's not a secret. We know. But okay,

council, any other questions? Uh maybe you can explain the timeline of what needs to happen in terms of this next step. Yeah. So there um the official notice is uh is out. Um there is a a notice and public comment public hearing period. On December 2nd we would meet again. Uh we have a draft agreement that's already in your packet. Um wanted to put this out there early. Uh essentially we are required by state law anytime we dispose of a significant uh amount a significant partial or significant amount of real estate to have the noticing and a public hearing specific to that issue. So not only would we have public comment but we'll have a a public hearing specific to this uh which uh would be uh done by resolution another one uh to take public hearing and then we'd have talk about it and then a vote to approve or disapprove that agreement. Okay. Okay. Brody, thank you so much. Uh let me just make the comment uh publicly. Uh this is where in a public hearing if you have an issue or you have a comment, please come to the public hearing and provide that. Uh this is Roy City property and and the public owns this property and oh by the way, you're the public. And so as we move forward in terms of addressing this, look at the issues, ask the questions. this evening, but a public hearing is an important part for us to determine whether or not uh this is the right thing for us. So, that'll take place right now. We believe that'll happen on the 2nd of December. Uh we'll let the process run that way. Okay. Council, thanks. We do have consideration of ordinance 25-17, an ordinance by Roy City Council approving a development agreement for a mixeduse development located approximately 2718 West, 4,000 South, and it's going to provide then some effective. So, Brody, we'll turn it back over to you and Matt. And I when I say Matt, I want to speak to Matt Wilson's

because he'll provide some legal insight to that. Yeah. Thank you, Mayor. So, go ahead, Brody.

Mayor Council again. Thank you. Uh uh very similar uh discussion. So, this uh this property involves uh essentially five different parcels, but it's uh on 4,000 South, essentially at the corner of Midland, just before the corner, there's uh some houses and then some pieces that go up. One of which is our retention basin that's right on Midland Drive right there. Um so, again, we have a a project that will take a couple different events. We're talking about step one of of multiple steps here. Um this is for the development agreement. This development agreement again went before planning commission. Um and it it's similar. There are two I guess changes that the developer is asking for in this development agreement. Uh one is similar. They're asking uh and it'll be better when you see his project, but essentially he's asking for a height extension in the middle of his uh essentially project his apartment buildings. They would on the sides closest to the neighbors, it would still be the 40 ft, but in the middle they want essentially to put uh an extension and have another unit of apartments in the middle. Um, and so they're asking for a variance for that, an additional 10 ft. Um, the other variance that they're asking for is to wave the commercial requirement along 4,000 South. Um, under our urban corridor zone, the first 30 feet within the urban corridor, the first 30t needs to be a commercial space. You could have a mixeduse or residential above it, but the main floor has to be an office, uh, retail, uh, a commercial space. We've all seen that. So, essentially what

they're asking is to allow the space on 4,000 to be used for their residential project. And then kind of the agreement side of that is they have an agreement with UD do and potentially with us to take our retention basin and they're going to cover it entirely. Well, they're going to upsize it, cover it entirely and make those parcels up on Midland uh pure commercial um commercial space, commercial property. Um and Bob will have the the numbers in his presentation for you. Uh but essentially they ask again that we're talking about in the development green is height only for the middle portion of the building and then to wave that requirement. And I say wave. Essentially what you're doing is as I think about it is if this development agreement and these projects all get approved, you're taking what I would call less than stellar commercial property on 4,000 and you're moving it to get bigger, more commercial property on Midland. Uh so with that, Bob Bob Barnes is here. Um he has a presentation. and I think we'll just let him introduce his project and then we'll jump up and go through questions again.

Thanks Brody. Thank you for sitting through such a long meeting and I'm sorry to add to that. Okay, I'll just run you through some of the stuff that Brody talked about and give some context as well. Hopefully that's helpful. Let me know if you can't hear me. I tend to sit back too much. Um, so we're mainline. I'll tell you a little bit about this project. Um, we've been working on it for about a year and a half. Um, it starts with uh a couple of acres that I currently own on 4,000 South, three different parcels. Um, two that have uh one of which has been uh kind of a really close family friend for a long time. Uh, and she will actually continue to reside on on the in the new project um after it's built, which is really cool. um they've been there for 30 plus years. So, uh with with the the total package of of all the parcels, including what Brody talked about, the the UD do and the the Roy City um detention retention pond um parcel, we would have four total acres. Um, we would be, as Brody indicated, making a a very sizable contribution to the uh, city infrastructure in terms of a detention pond that is currently uh, massively under sized. I'll show you more about that. Um, but it is not sufficient for um, the amount of acreage of uh, homes that it's currently supposed to support. Um, something we

discovered accidentally. Um, fairly expensive project to do. Um, again, he he mentioned swapping some commercial square footage that we would be building on 4,000 to meet the obligations of the uh urban corridor zoning. Um, which again is not ideal uh commercial space. Um, we're happy to comply with it, but we think there's a much better opportunity on on Midland. Um I think it's important to to note here that um we recognize that there's a need for multiple different um types of housing in um in every city especially as Roy expands and um you know our objective is to provide a mix of those and um some of that would be moderate income housing and some of it would be um a little bit more upscale housing that's intended to target um and attract um you know higher a little bit higher income uh uh well educated defense um and aerospace contractor employees. Um we know there's a shortage of housing there and there's a um a significant um desire for these companies to bring people in um and they're having trouble finding housing for them. Um here are the initial three parcels that we currently have. Um, so there's two that are that front 4,000 South. Um, there's one behind it that's actually totally landlocked. Um, that used to be part of the Royal development where um, that's Autozone. Um, there along Midland. There's, uh, AutoZone, Starbucks, 7-Eleven. Um, this is where we would have put our 6,000 square ft or um, if this agreement doesn't work for the city, then we will be building that 6,000 square ft. Um,

however, if we're successful at kind of trading that space, um, we will build somewhere between 16,000 and 32,000 square ft um, of mixed kind of a flex warehouse space. So it could be retail um it could be warehouse uh kind of a small manufacturing of like a um you know a web business or or whatever small product um maybe a showcase uh retail showcase in the front. Um I'm sure you're familiar with the product. It's massively successful. Um I think it's a great opportunity to drive revenue for the city and obviously for us. Um and we couldn't do it if it wasn't a good product. So, uh, we have a lot of confidence in that. Um, so that would that would be housed on the current, uh, parcel 4 that Roy City owns and parcel five, which I have, um, a contract with U DOT to acquire. Um, if we, you know, finish this agreement up. Um, this is just kind of a fairly small. Maybe I can zoom in. No, cannot. Um, but this is kind of what the project looks like. on the bottom uh 3 acres 2 and a half acres you have uh residential units um with access on 4,000. So most of kind of the residential has access through 4,000. There's underground parking um and uh commercial is taking up that triangle at the top approximately 15 units is what we're looking at. Um and then on on on the commercial side, uh a probably around 300 on the on the residential side, uh the Royce City parcel um is a detention pond that is meant for overflow of storm water. Um a collection basin for storm water. That is that whole part that whole development that happened a few years ago. Um it's 30

plus acres. Uh, it should be, as we found, um, it should be able to support approximately 55,000 cubic feet of storm water, but it was only engineered to handle 27,000 cubic feet of storm water. Um, we've had three different engineering firms confirm this. Um, so we're very confident in those numbers. Uh, what we will be building is about 58,000 gall cubic cubic feet worth of um, storage. Um, this is what it would look like. So, this is all be underground storage. It's great. You can drive on top of it. You can you've probably seen it. It's really fantastic product. There's a number of products out there. Um, it's it's great in many many different ways. Um, but it's very expensive. Uh, so it will be a sizable investment anywhere from 900,000 up to 1.3 1.4 million to to get that put in place. It will actually it will actually outflow into the existing um system. So, it's really the only difference is that we're condensing it and putting it underground so we can utilize the space up above. Um, we have obviously some some really really great surface parking for uh commercial. They also have access to all the underground parking um that um is for all the residential. There's a a a drive between these two. You can kind of see it um on the north end of that building on the east uh the residential unit. So, all that goes underground. Um, and that's how you access it. It's accessible to the commercial and the residential. This is kind of a view coming in from the north on Midland Drive heading south as you approach this uh property on the left. So, where you see the the second building there is where the detention pond currently is and the first building is where the U DOT uh remnant parcel is. Um, combining those two, we get

fantastic amount of of commercial space. Um, and I think a really nice view of kind of the entrance to Roy, um, which is currently just raw land. This is a kind of an aerial view. Um, as I mentioned before, we have about five times theap commercial capacity um, than we would have on 4,000 South and obviously much better frontage. Um uh this is looking into that uh the ramp that goes into the on to the underground parking and the residential space. Another aerial view showing um you'll see on the on each of these units on the on the right hand side. This is what Brody was talking about where the height from the res the height from the rest of the of the um neighborhoods to the east is not really visible. We're actually exceeding the the setback requirements here. And um on each of these these um all across this east side, we have some really fantastic um kind of outdoor patio space that's um totally private, has fantastic views, and and we think it's going to be really attractive to some of those um higher earning um owners or tenants depending upon how this goes. This is a uh the entrance uh elevation on 4,000 South. Um down the middle is a greenway. Um it's it's emergency access, but it's gated so that um it's only accessible for emergency vehicles that creates a really nice greenway for pedestrian use. Um it opens up the space quite a bit. Uh and then you can see underground parking access on on either side. That's a view of the greenway. Um really fantastic amenities um with a pool, some pickle ball and um can't have enough pickle ball and uh a really nice gym there on on the top floor there. Uh so

this is kind of the the concept plan. We think we'll have about three 300 plus units there um of varying different um price points, but the bulk of them kind of within the moderate income uh housing requirements or targets. and uh and then some really fantastic units on the top. Um again, I think we're aware of the Roy strategic priorities. Um you can make your own determination about what how this fits that, but I think that it it touches quite a few of them. Um anyway, thank you so much. Any any questions for me?

Okay, Brody, if you come back up. Uh, council. Um, any questions as we uh as we discuss based on what you've seen and what uh you've read in the packet that we have? My I have just a couple. Maybe I can lead out. Uh maybe you can help me with that. You've obviously answered with everything that I have and I got a few pages of information. I appreciate that. Brandon, I'm going to turn to you for a second. There's always an issue about capacity. I'm talking about water capacity, sewage capacity. Do do you see any issues in terms of the existing capacity at this location to impact Roy City? So that feeds into North Davis's line.

So it's got a it's got a vertical right into the trunk there. I don't I don't know necessarily there. It actually transacts the property. Oh, interesting. Okay. You have to kind of factor that in there. Yeah. Yeah. It actually is designed around that. So Okay. So capacity is not for us, right?

Yeah. Well, I it's always about capacity and utilities and you're and the agreement that were being considered would be is if the developer has to basically enhance that capacity, then it specifically states in the agreement and I can certainly read that to you. It says, "The city shall not require the applicant to upsize any public infrastructure, install any system improvements as defined in the Utah impact fees unless the parties enter into a mutual acceptable reimbursement agreement approved by the city council, which allows the applicant to recover all costs incurred in the connection of the upsizing." And I understand that makes sense, particularly if the upsizing then is going to be on public property and we have to basically do that to be able to accommodate the need. Hence my question. U if if we believe there is capacity there even though it's under maybe the North Davis sewer trunk then then I don't think we'll see too much of an issue here.

No. Yeah. And and the the specific to sewer, right? The city couldn't mandate that. Yeah. So that paragraph doesn't go to sewer. Okay. So essentially it's it's a paragraph that makes Mr. Water. I just read what you basically presented. So I have to ask the hard question. So yeah, but the paragraph I mean the paragraph is about what the city requires. Yeah. So if North Davis requires it, that's between him and North D. That's between them. Okay. That's not a part of our agreement.

I understand the we do have laterals that tie into city-owned that tie into the North Davis. I just want to make sure that our capacity on our side is compatible to that. And if you're saying we think it is, then I'm okay.

Right into a truck. Okay. Uh it's just that the city is obligated if it does needs some improvements to come up with the money. And I just want to make sure we understood that. And then my last question, I had a few of them, but you've answered those because you provided site uh information plans. And thank you, Brody, because I think what you've done is that you've helped me understand a little better, but I want to make sure for the at least for the record. Uh there's a provision within the within the urban corridor that talks about a setback, and Brody alluded to that, and I want to make sure we fully understand what that means. It says that if in fact a mixeduse development decides to go all residential, that's what we're talking about here, then the front set back off 4,000 has to step back 125 ft, not the traditional 20 feet or 30 feet or what we have downtown which is 20 or 30 feet. It requires to go back 125 ft.

Is just to be clear, is that are you saying that that's what the commercial that that space needs to be commercial? I think that no I I just want to make sure they clarify that it's not if it's commercial it doesn't have setback but just the normal but if you read at the bottom of a stoop building and it's in the stoop building and that's what we're talking about here in the chapter 13 it specifically says under the urban corridor that if in fact it's pure residential if you make it pure residential there's 125 foot setback but Brody for the record you're saying is because we have now shifted that requirement to go to the north. Your words

that we're really saying is it doesn't have that requirement anymore. And that's what the developing or that's kind of this the part two of the development agreement is if you're going to do a pure residential, you do have to move back 125 ft. But if you build up against the road, which we want commercial enterprise there, the first 30 feet of depth has to be a commercial requirement on the main floor. Right. That's you can go residential above it. We're essentially saying we're going to allow him to put residential all the way down because we're moving the commercial to the what should be the bigger parcels that is straight commercial on the north end.

That's correct. And that's how you explained it to me and I want to make sure that's clear. I I would feel so much better if in fact that was somewhere in this agreement. But I'll leave it Matt to you to see if in fact that's necessary o only from the standpoint. But it clearly says in the agreement that in fact we're switching by not having the commercial requirement on a mixeduse development on this first floor, which is what the ordinance says. Under this agreement, we're shifting that responsibility up north. Now, you know, just for the record, council, let me just make this clear. If you look at mixed use, there are virtually two types of mixeduse developments in my opinion. And Brody, we talked about this. We have what's called a horizontal mixuse and we have a vertical mixeduse. And so we didn't clarify that very well in terms of the in my opinion the chapter 13. But understanding mixeduse, you can have a mixeduse property and that property can have both commercial and residential at that location. And whether you choose to move a piece of it horizontally or whether you basically put the first floor to be commercial, those are options. Brian, when we were working this issue with a piece of property not too far from there, you remember the conversation. We authorized the town houses, but the front portion of that that was going to be closer to Midland, we wanted that to be zoned commercial

and that fet fit the requirement of a mixeduse development. I'm just telling you what we did. If I may, so this is not reszoning anything. It's in imbuing certain development rights and those development rights are you can do residential to that ground floor. So it doesn't change the property. Yeah. Zoning. It's just saying instead of that commercial, you're allowed to do the residential. So it doesn't then imply that that's correct. That next code section of 130 ft back. He can he just complies with what the res what the commercial code is. Even though it is all residential, it's just allowing you to do residential instead of the commercial on that floor.

Yeah, Matt. And and that's where it got a little confusing because what you're saying is actually true. This is really about trying to swap a placement of a the first floor that says let it be let it be residential because we're moving the commercial up there. Yeah. But it's not reszoning it or changing. That's correct. Not a resone. It was just the component on there. It's it's item number 12 under the stoop that says that in fact if it's in the urban corridor and you want to make the whole thing totally residential you have to set back 25 ft but this agreement controls unless it's not addressed and and it is addressed just saying you're allowed to do the residential in place of the commercial

because the you're saying is because this particular document is authorizing that yes you don't believe it requires any more any more clarification and we can add that in there but no I don't okay well and that was really my only concern would be is because it states in the ordinance very clearly should that comment then just to clarify that be added and I think from our attorney he's saying is it's not necessary that was my concern

okay council those were my comments anything you want to add or anything you have a concern with with this proposal I had uh a couple of questions. So in regards to the 10 foot height that's only in the center area and and then otherwise it's 40 foot. Does that have and the description I believe is that description setting in place a specific design element or does it allow you to change the design element? So whatever you decide the internal uh buildings to be you you would still get that 10-ft height and maybe bro

yeah I mean it you saw his thought but no it does not require him to build exactly the picture that he's presented. It's just we're saying that if approved as written, the middle portion has that extra space if he wants to do it for uh for whatever that is. So whether the 40 foot might be a 20 foot deep in and the 50 foot might be really big or it might be 30 foot in deep for 40 foot.

I I understand what you're saying with the depth. Um, and I I think we could, if we haven't, we would essentially limit that to a percentage of the the rooftop and we could do that pretty easily. So it, you know, it's essentially 50% or or whatever 60%. So it would I think that the objective would be to to make sure that from any of the residential neighborhood side we're we're we're meeting and exceeding the setback requirements as written in the current in the current code. Thanks. And and that's the goal with that that language.

Yeah. And I heard you say that because as you indicated the code said 40 feet and you're saying we're exceeding that. So, as long as it fits within the chapter 13 40 foot plus should be okay. Thank you. And then I was wondering so in kind of a summary for me it looks like in that four acres about one acre will be the commercial and then you'll have about three acres in if you're just roughly dividing it up a little bit more like one and a half acres would be commercial. Okay. Yeah. So then you'll have about like 120 units per acre by doing it this way. If you're thinking about 300 acres, I mean 300 units. If we had 300 acres, that would be really Yeah. When that was cool. Yeah. Units. Acres. You could build a pretty good cemetery. Yeah.

Yeah. So, so that's kind of where that density comes in is you're you're going to get about 100 plus 120 units per acre. And then when you were talking about meeting the need of different um you know income level families and stuff I I wasn't sure if that meant you were alluding to these are for sale or for rent or if that's something we can even ask but just for your intention there. She's learning. Yeah. Okay. I'll try to answer without answering if possible.

We are politicians so we do that. Um, yeah, I mean some of them some of them could be platted for sale, but that's not our intention on the bulk of these units. I think is to create a community that's, you know, well-managed and um that meets the needs of a variety of different income levels. And then just to clarify, if that doesn't go through, of course, then that zoning again would go back to whatever is there naturally and regularly there. All right. Okay. I think those were my questions. Thank you, D. Any other questions?

Yeah. Is this a time to ask the question on the parking and coming in or is that not um when it's underground and they're coming in and parking from 4,000? Is it a go in and like one way kind of in and out or is it Yeah, there's a natural flow there. So, there's an entrance on 4,000. There's two entrances to underground. one goes to the lower level and one goes to the second level and then obviously there's there's flow between those levels. Um and then there's an additional um ramp on the north end that goes into the kind of the commercial side of things large enough for like emergency vehicles.

The emergency vehicles would go right through the center of the property as the road that bisects that bisects the entire development is is uh is emergency access. Okay. Thank you. And to clarify, what we're actually voting for on this particular ordinance is only the variation in height, but not the land swap or just like the previous just that is the variance in the height and then the the moving of the commercial requirement those two items up to the I'm calling it the Midland section, but yeah. Okay. All right. Thank you.

Other questions, council? Okay. With that then? Um, do I have a motion then to approve ordinance 25-17, the ordinance of the Roy City Council approving development agreement for a mixeduse development located approximately 2718 West, 4,000 South? So moved. Gee, second. Thank you. Okay. Uh, this is a roll call vote. Brittney. Council member Saxton. I. Council member Paul. I. Council member Wilson. I. Council member Scatter.

I. Okay. That ordinance is approved. Thank you, council. Uh, now we're going to just continue the next conversation dealing with the land swap. Uh, just a discussion. No intended for votes. Brody.

Yeah. Again, this isn't for a vote, simply for discussion. uh you all understand the the project now. So there's essentially this commercial space on Midland that uh we're attempting to create. It's going to be partially the property that he that uh Mr. Barnes currently owns, but then there's a piece that's owned by UD do right on Midland. And then there's our piece which is the retention basin. Um UD dot essenti Mr. Barnes and UD do have an agreement that subject to us allowing him to take ownership of that and improve the retention and make it a usable parcel, they will sell him the adjacent piece which is the one and a half acres. That's what creates the one and a half acres of commercial space on that Midland. Um and essentially this would work uh similar the property uh is a as it's envisioned currently is it is a transaction which the city is transferring the land title to Mr. Barnes uh subject to the conditions that he create and improve the retention basin underground cover it and use it for that commercial space. um his engineer's current dress best effort is it's uh a $950,000 project. That's the conservative. It's probably more than that. So, the city is not receiving a check from Mr. Barnes, but we're receiving uh what essentially would be an upgrade to that retention basin as well as the use in a commercial setting of of that retention basin space. That's how this transaction is envisioned right now. Okay, questions

similar to what we just heard. And so there's no confusion, council, if you remember, uh back in January, uh the council was also considering uh this idea about what to do with that basin. Uh it was part of our work session. Uh we knew we owned it. We knew it was next to a UDOT piece of property that was not being used. Uh certainly Roy City is gaining no value out of that except we have to maintain it. Uh and so it was kind of a conversation we had as a council to figure out exactly whether or not we could do something with that. It was similar to the piece of property we owned over in the train station. So uh this is just an extension to that. U actually it's the movement of that idea that come back in January. So uh anything else for Brody?

Okay, Brody. Thank you. Okay. We appreciate all the input. I would just say we are planning on to have that noticing and public comment period and then we'll have a public hearing as well on the second for that. Perfect. Okay. Uh council, we do have a couple of discussion items. Uh Diane, you're going to lead the conversation relative to single family residential chicken allowance. So, please

Okay. Well, thank you to an email that we all received. There uh came uh a concern that even though a single family home had sufficient square footage to meet all the remaining requirements to have chickens, it was not exactly in the list of zoning. And so in speaking with staff, um it looks like it would be very appropriate just to allow any single family residential property that has the minimum of 6,000 square feet to allow them to have chickens. And so we would just omit, as you might notice in that one excerpt, just omit the the log the of different zones. And it just whoever has that is able to proceed. And so if you feel good about that, then we would just need to um send that forward to the planning commission to see if they feel good about it as I understand and and kind of go from there. So any other discussion or concerns that you might have in that?

No. Okay. Everybody understand? We're talking about an R2, R3, R4? Yep. There's a single families inside those particular things. All the R16s, R17s are already covered. It's just this particular ones that we do have single family residentials that in there that have a 6,000 foot. Yeah. Take the list out. Okay. Makes sense. So, I guess we just let Matt or Matt know. And first, everybody okay with that? Yeah. Okay. I'm not a chicken.

No, they have to they still have to follow the rules under what the chicken ordinance states in terms of quantities and size and noncrowing and all that. No roosters. All that's still applicable. just opening up the opportunity for some residents that don't have it today, even though they live on a 6,000 square foot I lot. Okay. Okay. We'll we'll go easy that idea that we got kind of a head nod that simply says let's go ahead and we'll push it to this planning commission for a recommendation. Okay. Okay, Diane, let's go ahead and talk about off streetet parking.

Okay. Off- streetet parking has certainly been a big concern and has been brought up several times over the last few years. And the consensus in talking with people, council, staff is when an item comes up so often that we probably need to proceed with something different, it probably means that there are more needs that we aren't meeting. And so, one of the most recent parking concerns was brought up um a year ago actually by the Griggs. We appreciate their presentation. They had done a lot of work. They had um taken photos, a lot of different examples, had talked to people as I think all of us have talked to people and they had no idea that it was illegal for them to park on the side of the home opposite to the garage. And several other uh issues were brought up, safety issues. Um, as has been brought up in the comments today, we have now homes with multiple families living in them because children have to live in their parents' home even though they're married. And it kind of just has been really increasing the the challenges in regards to that. This a year ago was sent to planning commission and I know they've made some discussions but due to the extent of time and because we kind of agreed as a council to move forward with this it it seemed like it would really merit getting something done by the end of this year while we still had this current council done. And so this is some of the other information that as we look at this we see some of the problems. Uh one of the things is a safety concern. In fact, that probably is the biggest concern. We have some possible safety concerns that have been discussed in the planning commission, but the citizens that present the safety concerns are as we drive through neighborhoods, we have streets that are

lined up on both sides with cars being parked on the street. And it thereby turns that street into a single lane instead of being able to have uh two lanes of traffic. And now that we are having extra families living in those homes, we now have more children that are running and darting in and out of that. That's been a big concern. The other is that as people are backing out of their driveway, they often now will have a car right there that they can't back all the way out that they'd like to. And then there's also some uh some visual problems there. We've had some discussion earlier on what some of that those visual concerns are. Certainly there's a mix, but I believe the consensus has been um that portion of the safety has been very concerning for people. And then we have the society and cultural changes. You know, we've talked about a little bit, you know, in regards to we don't really have a lot of onecar families anymore. Most people have at least one or more cars per driving adult or or youth. I guess you know, you get to drive even when you're 16. And it's also, as we mentioned just a moment ago, the norm is no longer one family in a single family residence. And so that gives a lot of housing challenges as we try to help the younger generation be able to save enough so they can actually get their own home. The other concern that has been brought up in past times and was brought up a couple of years ago was the city ordinance that prohibits street parking during snow. Now, we had a great benefit because it used to be no parking from 11 to 7, 11:00 p.m. to 7:00. And so, the change was very beneficial, but we still now have that same problem. What do you do when it's snowing and you can't park on the street? And that has been a real concern for a lot of families. Also, the sizes

and types of vehicles have been evolving. There are fewer cars. We now have SUVs and trucks and a full-sized SUV and a full-size truck. We have often 8 to 8 and 1/2t width. And so with that, that changes a lot of the parking area that you need because you probably need around 12t width to accommodate that. And a lot of the homes where I have received concerns about this are some of the older homes that have single driveway with a single carport, single garage. And so they aren't able to plan park two side by side. And so that's been uh quite a concern there. So with that um discussion, you know, we also have people unable to buy bigger homes, but they still want to be able to recreate. They want to still be able to have uh a side by side or have an RV and for them to already feel at a great disadvantage that they can't buy the larger home they would like that the youth can't newlyweds and young families can't buy them. They still want to be able to enjoy some life which requires extra parking for some of the vehicles that they'd like to have to be able to to um to do that. And so as we talked to several people and staff and counsel, it kind of came down to three options. So hopefully we can talk about those three options. Um there was uh I did uh do some really fine renderings that are high-tech and it kind of gives you an idea of the three options. So the first option that was brought up was Oh, and let me just back up. As we checked other cities, there are several cities across the nation, but also several cities in Utah that it's very uh part of their policy that it's perfectly fine to have

two driveways or two curb cuts as if your uh width of lot is 100 ft or less. If you want three, then you have to have it over 100 ft. So that meets, I think, our criteria and what we're discussing here. So it's not like we're completely out of the box of what other cities are doing. So the first option talks about only allowing a drive from the property line to the side of the home. Now 8 foot side setback is pretty common. And so if we only allow that, that means that the people that have trucks probably wouldn't be able to get back there past their home or along that drive at all where we now have 8 and 1/2t as a pretty average width of full-size trucks. So it certainly might allow some benefit for a few people, but may not allow benefit for very many people. Option two talks about allowing at least six foot in front of the home. So that driveway could be from the prop property line over to 6 foot in front of the home. And so if you have an 8 foot sideyard plus 6 foot, that would give you 14 ft. And if that person has that 8 and 1/2t large vehicle that gives them enough space to kind of get in and out or if they have an RV because if you have a fence along that property line it would be difficult for them to be at the 12T which we normally think of because uh usually 12Ts have a little bit of open space on both sides. So that 6 foot allows a pretty uh good option. So it could be very helpful if you had little cars they could squeeze in that little 8ft. But if you've got the RVs and trucks and and things like that and trailers, then you probably need that. I actually had

several people um bring up option three to me. And option three is allowing a second cut that would still be like option two. It would go up that possibly, you know, 14 or six foot into the into the home, but then come straight across in front of the porch 12T. So then they could actually have a U drive if they want or they could have uh just a front park like an extra big uh hammerhead. So they could come if they choose not to have the second cut. A lot of the people I spoke with said, "Well, I have trees or landscaping or gardens, but what I could really do is if I could have that come across there, then um it would allow that extra." So that's kind of the third option. I mean certainly there are a lot of combinations options. There are numerous amounts of options, but we kind of narrowed it down to that. So, we could start a discussion and maybe people that have ideas, we could kind of go from there because what we need to do as my understanding is from this meeting just give staff a general direction of which way to go ahead and you know create the changes that we think would be appropriate to help the needs of the citizens.

Okay, Diane, thank you. Council, uh, you've obviously heard an idea. Let me just summarize a couple things. Traditionally, what we would expect would be the planning commission would forward. This is a land use issue and the and the planning commission would make a recommendation. U, although she was very polite, the bottom line would be is it's been work for a year. We still have not seen any recommendation to come from that. Uh, that concerns me a little bit in large part because it's always important the planning commission have that. But in a conversation I had with Brody and Matt, the fact of the matter is the law has been changed. It simply says, and Brody, please step up. I want to make sure you help us define exactly what the law is now saying as it relates in terms of this kind of circumventing the planning commission's authority.

Yeah. So, I believe it was in 2020 three or four uh Utah code changed specific to uh the powers of the city council than land use. It was a wholesale change. One of the changes they made was a specific item that just said for land use issues that go to planning commission. The city council may consider a failure to make a timely recommendation to the city council as a negative recommendation from the planning commission. So essentially this body has the authority to take this on if it so chooses. You just essentially are taking the lack of recommendation as a negative recommendation from the planning commission.

Thank you Brody. It was important you understand that because tradition would have said this goes through the planning commission. Get the planning commission to provide the response in a timely manner. Now you have a recommendation and also public input before you make this decision. What we just heard was is that the law has been changed allowing you to simply says in light of the fact that you have not heard anything that's considered to be a negative response which they certainly have a right to do that and we haven't seen that. And now the option would be is you get to choose. Uh the only difference is the only part you got input was is in a public comment period. Um general statements had it gone through the planning commission process. It may have been much more formalized may even more synced in terms of that and then you could have read those recommendations. So Diane has basically provided you some ideas. Okay. She's looking for a conversation. uh let's see if we can't provide some uh conversation to this and as a result of that if and so choose we direct then if the majority of you agree there has to be some changes then we would direct Matt to go ahead and get something drafted up as an ordinance change and she made a comment just summarizing we'd like to get that done before the end of the year okay in light of the fact this is our problem and as a council we owe it to this the group to basically provide an answer so with that any comments is set. Go. Nope. Nope. Nobody jumped. Fine. Fine. So, interestingly enough, when I ran for city council the first time, um this concept of like a horseshoe driveway was one of the things that actually like got me really intrigued. Uh and I didn't realize the again I'm I'm fairly libertarian when it comes to like land use. And so, I saw somebody put in a horseshoe driveway, interestingly enough, on 3100, which I'll address that aspect here shortly. Um, and I looked at it and I said, "God, that's actually really tasteful. Why is

that against city ordinance? Um, and it came down to just the width requirement. It is a width requirement uh between the the cuts in the driveway is is effectively what it comes down to." Fast forward to um the planning commission as well as I think I think council member Wilson as well as the mayor. We sat in and we actually had a an entire like session with the planning commission with some people from the public where we we tried to go through and address um you know parking on on on front lawns and and trying to address these types of things. And the the planning commission did come back and they did give us like uh hammerhead driveways, right? But the the the issue with the hammerhead driveway is it can only be used as an emergency ingress egress. You can't park there. So it kind of and again it it this is my interpretation. It was more of an implied um you know we we the planning commission felt they actually addressed it whereas they didn't go through and explicitly go through and and address it. And I think that's fundamentally like what we're trying to address here today is we just want to have resolution and have a path forward that we can go through and direct staff. And so under under that opus personally I'm in favor of option three because that gives the broadest options that are actually available. Um and again I think hammerhead driveways or whatever we're yeah what's that

circular driveways are actually very I don't know tasteful. I mean, I don't I don't have a problem with them. Um, and and again, I in my own particular neighborhood, I'm consistently backing out of my driveway and I'm having to take another look back because there's a car that's maybe parked across the street or I don't have, you know, uh, line of sight as I'm taking and pulling out because they're going through and parking on the street, which we did also go through an update. It used to be you could only park on the street for 48 hours. Now it's 72 hours. And and again, I was kind of the one behind that that said, "Well, if you come and, you know, 72 hours is good enough because if you go on a trip or something of that nature, you need time to clear out your um your your your trailer." And so, let's give it, you know, a little bit more time. And then we also turned around and I think it was even before I got on council where we we removed the the whole aspect of, you know, parking on the streets um during uh what was it, November, October, I can't remember, whenever snow started to hit.

Yeah. October,

right? And so, yeah, like I said, fundamentally what we're trying to address is the the now more modern needs of of what like the citizens are after. Um, and modernizing, I think, some of our approach. And again, interestingly enough, when I went through and did some of my own research, um, again, I heard the argument that, oh, you can't have like two, you know, cut driveways so close to each other. Interesting enough, uh, like Syracuse City allows it. Um, there was a bunch of just like local municipalities that did actually allow it. So, this isn't like something that's, you know, crazy wild out there. Um, and again, I'm I'm all about it's your land, you do what you want with it. Um, and and as long as it's not, you know, harming anybody, cool. You know, we we can all live in a world of what if. And again, 100% there's safety concerns, 100% there's line of sight. Um, but you know, if if if you live in a world of what if, you shouldn't roll out of bed every morning because you should just lay there because what if you roll out of bed and you throw your back out or you roll out of bed or or do whatever you're going to do. So, I don't know. That's why I think option three, in my opinion, is probably the most fair to um property owners in terms of like broad land use. So,

thank you, Randy. Uh, what's your what were you saying with the the horseshoe? What was the I don't have. It would be 12 foot. It would be 12 foot. That just allows It would be a single Yeah. single car. 12 foot. Yeah. Yeah. And remember, I think what your research showed would be is is that typically the lots that are 100 feet where they have 100 feet in the front. The having a circular would be today would be not would not be allowed because it's because the restriction in terms of that 100 ft. If it's 120 130, you can ask for a recommendation. And and by the way, the record does show that the ordinance says that if it's a UD do road,

yes, sorry. Yeah, I didn't address that. Like 3100, we actually went through and readressed and main main arteries within the city, the planning commission did come back and say yes, horseshoe driveways, rounded driveways are now allowed. And UD do UDOT was always you could always do that at your discretion and particularly on UD roads, they have the authority already to make that decision. And you've seen residents in Roywood that allows those to happen. So Sophie, please. No, that was my question was just the feet on the feet on the front on the front and then it had to be over 120 or are we gonna are we talking to to not do the feet? Right. Right. Okay. That's correct. If you have

less than Right. If you have less than 100 feet frontage width, you can have two two drives. Less than Okay. Mhm. So that Yeah. Brian, you have a comment.

Yeah. Um when we discussed this, um my biggest concern was allowing the people to park their vehicles on their properties. because of the safety issue of those vehicles being parked on the road. And my first concern is always with if you live in a I live on a really quiet street, so everybody parks on the street, but it narrows the width of the travel of that road and it can get scary when the kids are riding their bikes down that street because the car comes around the corner, it's only going to be going one direction. And so to me, it was all about public safety. And bringing all those cars off the property and onto the street seems like that would create a real nuisance for a lot of people and a lot of danger. for our youth or anybody that decided to pop out between two-part cars or two parked recreational vehicles. So to me it was a matter of public safety and so I would go with option three.

Okay. Thank you councel. I think we have some direction here. Uh here's my point. You certainly have a right and should choose in terms of how you want to do that. That's certainly within your authority. And if we believe that using that half circle going into the property is the best option, allow those who want to choose that to do that. That's yours. And and I'm sensing unless you tell me otherwise, the majority of you believe that we should basically allow that change to take place. I Yeah, I feel good about it.

So Matt, to that point, I think we have some direction. Uh let's see if we can get that. But on a broader conversation, this is a land use discussion and we put the planning commission in a position to be able to deal with this kind of thing. We need to have some process and Brody, it may very well be it has to come through Steve into this or or Matt, it has to come from our lawyer Pat in this to just find a way by which these kinds of issues and this has been simmering now for at least a year on this one and and other issues that we really need to have a vote, a decision made, a recommendation. Uh we're certainly resulting or leveraging on a TW 2023 policy change that I can't help but think that probably the similar situation came up in some other cities and they simply says we'll fix it. But that's not what land use authorities are. The planning commission has a critical requirement in this. So please as we go from this that we find some way by which we can ensure that the planning commission takes these issues on. I know they talked about it. It's a difficult conversation. I've read Steve's notes. It's been in work for months. But we need an outcome and that outcome is a decision. And if the decision is because there is a majority uh and it has to be based on a majority to go one way or the other, that's the reason why we put seven planning commission in there. Take the vote. Take the vote. And if and if the majority basically says we support it or majority says we don't support it, that's a decision. That's what we need. Then the rec then the re city council in these kind of situations can say we've taken the public input. We certainly have basically got the recommendation coming and we can make what appears to be an informed decision. This is the

second time this has happened. I'm only saying to you this, okay, Matt Brody, and it really comes down to where we have to do this. help the planning commission to get to a closure on important issues like this because they really need to and and to be honest with you and you know this better than I do. They have voted against things to only have the city council overturn that and chose a different path. That's the right of the city council. That's certainly the right of the planning commission and nobody should feel offended by that. That's the process. But we need that vote. We need that vote. And tonight I'm saying to you, for all practical purpose, the city council has now overruled anything that the planning commission may or may not have thought about and have made a decision. And Matt, what we need to do is we need to basically draft up an ordinance accommodates what we just heard. So, if you can help us do that between now and the end of the year, uh, then we'll hopefully get this issue to close. Okay. Any other comments? Okay, Diane, thank you for taking the time on both these issues. This is where you dip into the details and you help bring about positive change and that's very very important in our business. So thank you and as you all have done and I commend you for this. You're listening to the public. You're bringing these ideas to us and with that we're making some great changes that are necessary. Why? Because the public has asked for those changes and we're listening. So please continue doing that. We now have the city managers and council report. We got a number of things. Please have your pens and papers out because we're going to talk some things that's important. Let's go ahead and start off if we can. Matt.

Yes. I wanted to start out with a little bit of good news out of Maida. If you don't know what MIDIA is, it's the Military Installation Development Authority. Um that is the authority that is doing Falcon Hill up by Hill Air Force Base. Basically, in 2007, they developed a municipal services fund to help develop that area. And they made a statement back then if they get the money in in excess in that fund that they were going to give it back to the city. At the time, nobody thought that would ever be possible. But on in yesterday's board of meeting, they announced that they're going to give Roy City $50,000. So that would be they I guess they're just going to send us a check. Um but they voted on that yesterday in their board meeting. So that's a little bit of good news. Um wanted a couple of save your dates. Uh holiday lighting is on November 24th from 4:30 to 7:00. Along with that is the ginger gingerbread house contest as well. So hopefully we see you all out there. Another save the date for next week is November 26th at 11:30 we have the opportunity to feed the seniors at the hope center. Um please come out and support that. And then also for um we have a you know a busy December. Along with that, we have our audit report presentation coming hopefully the first meeting in December. So, look out for that.

Perfect. Okay. Anything else, Matt? Nope.

Okay. Council, I have a couple of things, then I'll turn it over to you if you don't mind. Uh, first thing is is that uh uh I'm going to let Brian take uh the lead in the conversation about one of these. Uh so, I'll re allow that. In your packet in October, we asked you to take a look at as a council and look at cal traffic calming devices. Uh it was just a format if you will uh in large part because it provided input from Brandon and his team that says hey when we get these requests this is a process by to do that. I'd ask you as we move forward, doesn't have to happen this year, but certainly as you go into the new year, uh, if you would please at least consider establishing a policy by which we can address traffic calming devices so that Brandon knows exactly what he needs to do to get our himself prepared for that. We're going to see more of them. There's certainly something about that uh that's important and I think the policy we drafted up and allow you to read if you go back to that that will be helpful. Uh there was a conversation a while ago about citywide survey. Uh you remember that conversation? Uh it happened in the in the summer. Um I'd ask you then going forward to simply reconsider the citywide. We certainly had a visit a visit from Weber State University who's willing to help execute that. But to do that it needs to be more than just four or five questions. If you believe there is something important that you need to ask the public then these citywide surveys can be very valuable. Um, I don't think it's going to cost us a lot of money. It'll take time. But without public input, we run blind. And here's a survey that's allow you to see things and ask questions and get an input so that you can make better informed decisions. Please, as you go forward, consider that. One other thing, um, I'll let Brian talk about, he wants to talk about a beacons. Um, and this is a piece of the conversation. Council, you're aware that we have to make a decision. the count the countyy's asking of a decision and a

recommendation to do some modifications to existing contract dealing with the the county's transfer stations. So when we put the solid waste in there, they're asking some modifications that today the contract reads six months, it basically they're asking to extend that to two years. Uh Matt had a great conversation on that, him and I, and his recommendation was maybe we just before we do anything on that, we'll kind of look at it, but he's going to do some he's going to find out what other cities are doing as we address this. Is that okay, Matt, with the way I explain that uh before he puts something in front of us before the end of the year that talks about whether or not you support a an extension from six months to two years under that contract. And what he's really talking about is opting out. opting out meaning is is that today we can opt out of that contract with the transportation in six months. County wants us to do that in two years. Extend that to two years. Makes it much more effective for them to make some decisions. Matt wants to find a little bit more details. He can bring come back to city council before he makes a recommendation to the council to approve a modification of that contract. Are we okay with that? Keep that on your radar. County is going to be asking a lot of questions. Okay. Um, last I'm not going to worry about the issue about uh uh the vacant. We'll talk about that a little sooner. Brian, you had two issues you'd like to bring to the table. Please go ahead and uh begin your conversation real quickly about what you're thinking.

I'll I'll be quick. It's Br.

It's It's been a long meeting, so I'll be quick. Um, regarding 6,000 south, 2200 west, is there a way that we could get a warning beacon for 6,000 South? We've put in a roundabout at the bottom of 6,000 South. That's only increased traffic volume for that road. And you've heard from residents, the cost would be about 8,000, right, Brandon? To get a warning beacon installed. Uh, but I need your guys's support for this project and the sooner the better. Um, we've got them at,900 west, 4,000 south, 4,300 west. It's it it's probably due time to look at 6,000. And uh Brandon told me uh in a conversation that they're effective and they've proved to be effective. So I'm asking you guys for your help.

In the past, have we had like traffic study type things done for this or we counted done our own counting? Yeah. In the past with those flasher ones. Yeah. In the past, a long time ago, we used to do traffic studies for them. Well, weren't we standards? Yeah, we were required. They changed those standards and that's when we put in the 4,300 West. I think most residents would like to stop at a crosswalk. However, like our residents had said today, they just don't see for whatever reason people standing there. And so, like the one on 4300 West, I'm always down there and it's very effective. Mhm.

And as well as the one that's put on 4,000 right across the library at the same time and we're seeing really good success from that.

I think therefore Brian's comment would be is is that we're hearing testimony from the from the residents says we got a problem on 6000 at 2200 West and and and I hate to say this but but it's been said many times. It's hard to go up there and say that the reason why we took an action to to solve a problem is because it hits some kid gets hit or some adult gets hit. That's that's the last thing we want to happen. And so the question the council and all we need is some head nod is that he's asking that we consider investing a couple of these same beacons, okay, and put them there at that that crosswalk right there. And by the way, so there's no confusion, we do have a guard there during school time

and and I don't think there's any question about making sure they're safe there is when there's no guard there, those kids and and people walking across there creates a problem and I think Brian's making that pretty clear. So, uh, any thoughts, any conversation about that? I don't have an issue with it. It makes sense. So, it's okay. Yeah, we know thousands getting busier all the time and Yeah.

Okay. Um Matt Brandon, if you can go ahead and see what we can do to help move towards that, I think that'll be a great addition at that location and and and who knows, to be honest with you, I think we'll save some lives because it is really getting congested down there. Okay. Thank you. Um I think Brian, you had one or you have one more conversation you'd like to carry.

I do. Wow. And and and if I get this wrong, Matt, just like I said, raise your hand and Okay. But I am proposing that the council pull 250,000 dollars out of the reserve fund and use it to provide the Roy City staff employees a cola increase for the coming year. It would amount to a payback over a 2-year period of 2.5% increase in the rate. That's if we paid it back. We're not obligated to pay it back. I know you guys have been reluctant with pulling money out of reserve, but I'm telling you, it would be a nice thing to do for every city employee. And I'm not one for increasing taxes, but with the state stepping in and saying, "No, this is the least we could do. After all, it is Christmas." Any

where do you got your stand? Well, that would be equivalent to a 5% tax increase that would ought to be automatic next year. Next year. And so maybe maybe, you know, maybe there are some other options that we can do that aren't because I think the concern is using onetime money for ongoing expenses. So maybe there's a variation we could do onetime money for one time expense or something. But that's my big concern. Sure. And and again, we we would extend the payback to two years. So it would not be how a five how how

we can pay that back through increased sales tax revenues as a result of the projects going in. We don't need to.

We we we we did that. We fundamentally did that. Let me let me just paint a picture. When I moved to Roy and when you originally came to Roy, nothing existed below 3100. We turned around and developed the policy that we're in today. Again, I'm not against like this. Again, I'm I'm in my lame duck aspect of my city council. I cannot in good conscience turn around and put this burden. I I would say table it until you have a new council sitting here in in January or February. Let them do that because then are you so let me understand what you're saying. You would take 250,000, right? You would turn around and that would be for the cola cola

cola. And so then we would turn around and again is the cola retroactive back to when it should have gone into effect. It would or from that point forward?

That point forward. So, because that's the thing is again I I I I just I can't I personally I I I know what you're doing and I 100% respect it and I mean the city employees know that you know I I'm I'm 100% in favor of of taking care of them. that this is something that I don't feel that I as a council member should be making the decision because this is going to be the gift that potentially keeps on giving even if you go back and say that you're going to take and pay for it with impact fees because but that's that's shortsighted. Those impact fees are going to have to be paid by a future council down over the horizon. Yeah.

Quick question. Can we use that 50,000 we just got for some sort of a bonus and not call it cola, not call it merit, not something that where we are continually next year having to come up with that money. Then there's no tax increase, but that money goes straight to them. I like that. So yes, if you use the word bonus, it would imply one time. One time just like the one time bonus. I don't like Yeah. Well, Diane, I I think one time money for one time events makes me feel much more comfortable. I feel that's better fiscal responsibility. Yes. So, I think that's a great consideration. What do you think about that, Brian?

You know, that way we take that one time money. You know what? I that would be fine. The only thing that confuses me a little is that this very council that I'm a part of put $100,000 aside in urgent money for ongoing expenses. No, actually it was one time one time. one time money, but it was a h 100,000. I'm just It's hard to go

and ask of your workers and not provide them something. And I'm against taxes. Everyone knows that. I voted against it. But we got swatted down by the state and that left with no cola. That's what happened. You You swatted it down. And again, this is not a swatted down. You voted against it. I don't care. We as a council voted for it. The council lost. The city lost. Yeah. No.

So So So four of the five council members voted for it. You voted against it. And again, and I I'm 100% I get what you're trying to do, Brian, and we're trying to find the happy medium. I That's the thing is I am not going to be on council next year. Sophie is not going to be on council. I will not vote for this. I I use of one time. The one thing that I learned from my first night in council is the use of one-time funds is incredibly incredibly sacred because it's the gift that keeps on giving for councils forever. Forever. It's an it's an in perpetuity thing in perpetuity thing. It's not just now. It's going to be something that is going to have to be made up over the horizon.

That's why if we use the 50,000, you don't have to make up year after year. you can do a a bonus. Is there any stipulations on that money that you cannot use it for personnel? Yeah. Are there there's no strings attached? Okay. And just Brian, just to clarify, the 100,000 of one-time money was for a one-time emergoing project. Just so you're aware. And I understand. I'm sorry. Okay. Okay. Okay. Pulling mola out from underneath all the city employees. That's tough. 162

and say, "Well, too bad we got swatted down as a council, but we're not going to try and make this work." I'm sorry. I mean, I got picked on all during the election because I voted against the tax increase. I got picked on by council members wasn't this one.

And my point is is this is something we can do. We can we can do something good for a lot of people that do good for us. And the money is there. The reserve is there. What good is having the additional money in some Swiss bank account? That's illegal. So, um I'm just saying. But to to illustrate what reserve funds are for, there was just recently in the last week, there was an explosion that happened down in Salt Lake City. Uh that there was some type of gas buildup that took out a bunch of infrastructure. That's what our our reserve fund is for is when something catastrophic happens or we have economic calamity that comes through and and and makes it so we have to take and front some money because our residents don't have the capability to go through and pay their bills. That's what the the the emergency fund reserve is for. Ongoing costs is not a fiscally responsible thing to do. I I I applaud you for looking at it in in terms of taking, you know, care of our employees, but I can't in good conscience back this as someone who is not going to be sitting in this seat post J December 31st. So I I would say table this and have this discussion when the new incoming council is here and see if if it's something that they want to because they will be the ones that will have to bear the burden of how to go through and account for it over the horizon in the years to come.

Yep. They'll have to do that 5% additional tax increase stuff. Yes. I mean that's thing you're trying to you're trying to dollar cost average it out over multiple years but that is not how the budget works. We have to budget for what we have in that particular year. And so if you were to come to me and say I will Randy I will turn around and I will say as Brian Saxton next year if you give me the 250,000 now I will guarantee that Brian Saxton will say I am in favor of a minimum a minimum of a 5% tax increase then we could have an actual a conversation. Okay,

that's where I'm at. I I can't in good conscience as someone who is not going to be part of whatever comes of this to to I can't I I can't put that burden on on the next council or the next council after that or the next council after that.

Well, uh good dialogue, Brian. I think your point's well taken. Uh we certainly and so for those public who want to understand really the issue when the budget was approved and you approved it uh it was missing $450,000. That $450,000 that was needed was a property tax increase initially that equated to an 8 8.77 uh rounded up to 9%. Uh had that been approved recognizing what then it would have paid for the cola. That was its intent. We were short. But in Brian's defense, just a couple years ago, $1.5 million was pulled out of the fund balance and it paid salaries.

Yeah.

And so that was a decision that was made by a council. Brian's simply saying, "If we can do it then, you certainly can do it now." But but the bottom line is is that I think the council is in fact reluctant uh to do anything with that. I still don't and Matt, this is a conversation we're probably better served to have when we get the audit, which will be next time. Carryover money that comes out of last year, what carryover money may or may not have occurred as a result of the audit, we found more money. But what we do know is today or soon to be $50,000 came to this city council with no strings attached. You as a council need to decide how you want to spend that. If the information

burning a hole in our pocket

that the information basically says that we are in fact there's additional money that may be available then you certainly have the authority okay to address the issue. Cola did not get paid and will not get paid to the employees as it sits right now unless you choose to change that. And if your position would be is is and I and I see both sides, Brian simply says we created that we this council he would certainly like to basically finish and solve what he what he was part of that creation. But I understand Sophie and and Randy your position would be is it's a it's a decision better served by the next council which oh by the way Brian will be on that

correct and and he will be in a position where he can influence uh the outcome of that decision whatever the amount of money that's available

but but at the end of the day and and I am not going to speak for department heads I'm not going to speak for you but I've said before and I'll say it until I'm out of office. You've got to find a way to fix the problem. And I provided the fix in my opinion to you. Whether you choose to use it next year or whatever, you need to consider that so that we can provide the fair pay for our employees. Otherwise, has been testified over and over again, then the fire department is going to be a training ground for other departments and they will suck you dry. And Brandon, as I stated, both of you stated in the in the budget over the last three years, you've lost 70% of your employees. 70% of your employees. And I told you, as I said in the meetings, that why that's happening. You cannot bring a person into this organization at $17.17 an hour when I can get the same pay, in fact, a little bit more, if I basically work at McDonald's. You have to address that and council. You have got to make that happen. Whether you choose to make it happen now or you choose to make it happen later, you have got to come up with a plan with the senior staff to fix that problem or you will be a training ground. Nothing will change. So fix it. And by the way, Chief, and I'll just say this for the record, I have read I was sitting in your office. I looked at your proposal in terms of how to fix it and it made sense and that was the recommendation I took to the council. If you want to fix the public safety side of this business, then you got to change the system or you will never let me repeat this. You will never be successful. The competition is too great. And until you go up there,

Brandon, and I can speak to Amber if she was here, and I certainly gonna speak to you, Michelle, if you don't fix the step process under the general employees and stop using it as a step to the height and do what everybody else is doing. You start and pay the percentage high and then you lower it as the person gets more senior. If you don't fix that, then I'm here to tell you is is you're going to lose critical resources. Now, not one of you are going to put anybody into a position in your organization that is not going to meet the skills. You would never do that. But the bottom line is you certainly don't want to be a training ground where you're spending a whole lot more money training more people coming in. You've got to find a solution. The council cannot fix this alone. They need your expertise. They need your understanding. And you've got to be part of the solution. And whatever in my opinion the cost to bring stability to this process, then you got to be know what that issue is and you've got to find a way to solve it. You have no choice. Otherwise, you're going to be dreaming the same dream we have faced year after year after year since I've been in city council. This conversation, the issues about property tax increase, the issue about pay has never left me in the last 10 years. And in my opinion, it's because the system is broke. Fix it. Fix it. Find out what the impact's going to be and then find a way to do it. And if it takes you a couple of years to find a solution, so be it. But at least you know you have to fix it. And this is what it's going to take to make it work. I'm not going to dwell anymore on it. I think I've I've made my comments. Brian, thank you for your comments. It looks like what you got out of this is we're going to get ourselves moving forward on a beacon. That's going to bring some great safety. Thank you your contribution on that. And I think in my opinion, since I do not have a majority

of the city council willing to go ahead and address it this fiscal year, then I would indicate to you is is that you will be on the council going into January. I'd recommend as you take this issue because it is about our employees, you find a way to basically put that in there. I am hoping Matt and I next month when we get you an audit, we'll have some hopefully some stability in terms of what's coming and hopefully find a way by which if there's money available, you can fix this problem because in all fairness, none of our employees, including you, which you volunteered, got a cola. And by the way, just for the record, since I've been a city council member and a mayor, not one time has any council member or mayor ever got a cola because the first thing they have always done when we walked into the budget year says, "I am not going to take a cola. Take that money and give it to the employees year after year after year." And that's how we've done it. Your heart's into it. It's about taking care of the employees. My recommendation is fix the problem and I think we can get this thing resolved. That's your challenge, Brian. That's your challenge, Diane, because you're going to carry this message hopefully into the next year. Council, any other comments or questions? I just have a quick um

a brief um I won't even call it an announcement, but a update from the North Davis sewer recently brought um bought land in Snowville and they're going to use this land to safely recycle treated bioolids after losing their previous disposal site. The bioolids will be used as um fertilizer. And so they have sold it to a they've bought land from a farmer and he is currently farming the land and it is producing a lot of um anyway his his land his production is growing which in turn brings it back to us. And so they are continuing to treat water and serve 242,000 um residents, which we are part of that. And so we're I'm grateful for the the budgets they've had and for the money that they've been able to set aside and not to increase not one dime for this land. So that was exciting to watch them buy that and not have to give us the fees in turn. So

perfect. Thank you, Sophie. It's always good to end on a positive note. Anything else, council, before I go for a motion. It was based on solids. It was based on solids. Solid waste. Yep. Okay. With that then, do I have a motion then to adjurnn? So moved. Thank you, Randy. Do I have a second? Second. Thank you, Sophie. All in favor say I. I. I. Any oppose say nay. We are adjourned. Thanks, council. We got a lot of things done tonight. I know.