City Council - Regular Meeting

I'm going to start lighting them up.

There goes the stupid low-rise speaker.

On Main Street.

That is. I know, I know some white guys.

Okay. Thank you. i don't

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. yeah just very vaguely like some of our reservoirs Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Awesome.

OK, welcome, everybody, to our council meeting today at May 19. I'd like to welcome Council Member Spahr, Council Member Saxton, Council Member Jackson, Council Member Wilson, and Council Member Hulbert. I will be leading the moment of silence in the prayer. So please join me in a moment of silence and think of Chief Williams and his family at this time. Can you please join me in the Pledge of Allegiance?

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the nation

Okay, we have one consent item tonight. Any questions about it?

I have a few small changes that I've already forwarded to Brittany, so I'm quite sure she probably already has those, but that's all I have. Okay, so we have a motion to approve? I'll move to approve the consent items with the changes as noted.

Do I have a second?

I second.

OK. OK, now we have public comment period. We got it. Oh, never mind. All in favor? All in favor, say aye. Aye. So now we'll go on to our public comment period. It's limited to three minutes. We want you to take up the whole three minutes. So we can't answer, talk back to you. We want you to be able to have that whole time. So come up to our microphone, and please just state your name.

My name is Jeff Cox. Let's talk about the Roy City Complex once again. Our Roy City Council has stuck in a financial cycle called sunk cost fallacy. It describes psychological tendency to continue investing in losing venture that will never be recovered. spending extravagantly on specific group with deliberate indifference so as not to lose face and let's not forget our administrative personnel they have a rep a vested reputation to counsel on what and how to push these decisions through admin there is no such words that you can't use like no we can't we have not done that here so no one here goes and skates Mayor Dandoye stated during the 5 August 2025 City Council, Royce City leaders have a sizable benefit package considering the national average for benefits. He suggested cutting the vehicle allowance benefits for some employees, considering the single expense costs the city over $25,000 annually. He also wanted the requirement for employees to file a receipt mileage claim for compensated travel. City manager vehicle allowance is $700 a month. The economic development director of city Attorney, management services director, and judge each receive an allowance of $350 per month, which comes to a total of $25,200. So let's break this down just for the five individuals. You take $25,200 in fuel, let's say, at $450 a gallon. That's 5,600 gallons times 12 miles per gallon. That's 67,200 miles driven by five people. or 13,400 per individual per year. Amazingly, it seems we are also paying for the personal everyday travel, including vacations and side trips. Please correct me if I'm wrong with any of these figures. All city employees must, be mandated not to use the city vehicles as their own private vehicle, car seats inside, shopping, personal trips outside the city, maintenance used equipment for personal home projects which have been noted, and that city vehicles be left at city hall and not at their homes unless needed for early morning immediate business use the day the next day otherwise face corrective actions. We know something that Bob Dandoy may have had his flaws, but he was spot on with this major issue, your spending habits with our tax money. And yet none of you took heed in his words except one councilman. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Hi, Blaine Esplin, Trailside Drive in Roy. I'd like to speak about the proposed rezoning on 2700 West and 4800 South. I can't blame a person for wanting to make some money off their property, but this just isn't the place to do it. Monica gave a great presentation last week at the planning commission meeting. I would just like to ask the city to do their due diligence and tell me where the ingress and the egress are. is gonna be for these proposed 20 homes, town homes. Where can you do that safely? I'm not a pro, I'm just an amateur. I'd love to see the city street department, fire department, police, whatever. Tell me where you can get in and out of that safely. The only way I can see, and I wish I had time to pull it up on a map, but I don't, 2700 West going South. You could ingress there, you could egress there. The problem is if somebody leaves out of that, all they're gonna do is a U-turn, go North on 2700 to get on 4800. It doesn't solve the problem. I just don't see how this can be done safely. Monica touted, hey, it's near busy streets, that's good. However, being on a corner is the worst place you could possibly be. You're either in a turn lane or you're turning left across traffic. where there's the railroad tracks there, where there's a limited site, limited visibility. In addition, my understanding is they're going to rip up those train tracks soon, the end of this year, beginning of next. If you go to that project site, it shows it ending before it gets to 4,800, but the whole idea is to put four sets of tracks in. Unless I'm a really bad counter or that bad at calculus, there's only three sets there now. So pretty much guaranteed this will be ripped up for the next three to four years. I would highly recommend tabling this discussion of rezoning until that project's done. I haven't seen a traffic study since 2019. Railrunner that went in just north of us, great new neighbors, I still hold the city council and the developer responsible for all that traffic. There were supposed to be three, and again this is my understanding, there were supposed to be three egresses and ingresses into Railrunner. We now have 1.25. I won't go into the .25, but the fact of the matter is almost all the traffic goes through our neighborhood, through the West Park neighborhood. That's currently 127 units, or excuse me, 167, 67 from our neighborhood and 100 from the apartments that have been rented, soon to be 367. You add all that traffic, go drive it, do your homework, go drive that vehicle. Roy High School, I think, will be in session for a few more days. Go drive it at 725 to 740 in the morning. It backs up past Midland Elementary. It backs up almost to Windegger's. You get a freight train in there, it's terrible. There just isn't a safe way to do this. Besides the fact of the neighbors and the look and feel of it, it's just not safe. Please do not approve this zoning. Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Don, and I live precisely four doors down from the property in question. I apologize for my voice. It doesn't get any better.

What is your name again, sir?

Don McGrath.

Don McGrath.

I did teach junior high school, so I can talk really loud. My wife and I bought our property, one acre, five years ago with the desire to farm our property, raise animals, teach our grandchildren and great-grandchildren what it means to stick your hands in the dirt and see the magic flow, to raise animals, to know where their food comes from. My ancestors and probably your ancestors did this as a form of survival. Then it became an occupation. Then it became an art. That art is dying. I grew up in Northern California, moved out here 30 years ago. I cannot recognize the town that I lived in, nor can I navigate it. There's strip malls all the way across the state. And I see that happening here. We call it Californication. It's here. All of the towns along I-15 have a specific character. Roy has a very specific character. And when you add things like this, high occupancy housing, strip malls, That's what you turn it into. You turn it into Glendale, Glendale, Glendale, Glendale, and there's no character left anymore. I suspect the decision was already made, the die is cast. This will happen at some point, but I would ask for two proviso considerations. Most of our properties back up to the rail trail, the walking path, and we already see our fair share of crime right now. Grow the population. What's gonna happen? It gets worse. Pretty soon my animals start dying. What happens after my animals die? We die. First proviso would be at least for the one acre parcels, a better barrier of some sort. I want people to walk the trail and see my farm and see my animals and have that experience. but I don't want them to be able to damage it or harm it in any way, okay? The second proviso would be a minimum of 15 year moratorium on actions from the city relative to complaints from tenants of this and other high occupancy places. Farms smell, farms They make sounds. My rooster gets up before the sun comes up, and he's going to tell you about it for the next six hours. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Mike Van Alphen. I kind of just wrote some stuff down here, so it's a little bit messed up, and I'm going to calm it down a little bit. But, you know, We've all talked about people getting engaged in the community, but it seems like a lot of times when the people get engaged, we're not listened to. That's pretty upsetting as far as I'm concerned, and I hope that you would think the same thing. I have just a couple things. One of them is the taxes. I mean, we're still working on the taxes. Brian, I appreciate what I've seen today. You proposed a lot lesser tax. I really commend you for that. If the city's run so well, why are we doing this? There's a lot of tax cuts that can be made, and these things seem to happen. We don't need to sit here and tax the people, tax the people, tax the people. There's a lot of people in the city that make three times the amount of money that I make, and you want to take more from me or these people? That doesn't seem right. Like I said, if the city was ran well, if I had to do my household the way things were ran here, I wouldn't be here. I just wanted everybody to remember that you was all voted here to represent the people. So represent the people. Listen to what they have to say. This isn't about you. This is about the people. So you need to listen to what the people do or what the people have to say. And do what's best for the people and what's best for the city, regardless of what you want. Because I know that there's a lot of talk about, let's just say the complex, for instance. You know, certain people want the complex to stay open. Well, it doesn't matter what you want. It's what's best for the city and what the people want. That's what you was elected for. As far as this housing goes, just to add to what other people have said, we don't have the infrastructure. Enough is enough. We are limited on our water already. We can water our yards one time a day or a week, whatever it is. The whole state's suffering. Why doesn't Royce City step up and say, hey, we're going to show the rest of the county to start with what we can do to help save water and the traffic by not building more housing. This is not affordable. We all know this. Enough is enough. We can't sustain this. We don't have the water. We don't have the roadways. So I beg of you to listen to what the Planning Commission says and deny these things.

Thank you.

My name is Teresa Hislip, and I am a resident of Roy. I'm addressing the proposed, the rezone proposal for the corner lot of 4800 and 27, 4800 South, 2700 West. And I have a lot of things to say, so I'm going to talk really fast. First of all, I want to thank you. I've emailed most of you and received very considerate responses that are reasoned and thoughtful, and I appreciate you. I know what you do is a thankless job, and I'm thankful for the job that you do. I'm against this proposed rezone. I will share three reasons why I think it's a very bad idea and a plea with you to honor the Planning Commission's recommendation to deny this rezone petition. First, the issue of supply and demand. As of 4.28 p.m. today for rent in Roy, now I'm going to use some visuals because I'm an auditory learner, I mean a visual learner, and so those of you who are Visual learners like me, I'm visual. Anyway, there you go. As of 4-28 today for rent in Roy, there were 110 apartments on Zillow and 68 on Reloader.com and who knows how many privately. So right now in Roy, there's 176 apartments for rent. According to the standard examiner that cited Roy City records, there are 238 townhomes currently under construction in Roy. 221 in the Rail Runner townhomes. subdivision and 17 in the Hazel. So when you do 166 and 238, we have a lot of townhomes and apartments for rent in Roy. We do not need any more. We don't need this development. Second, water savings. When the proposal was put before the Planning Commission, one of the reasons that was cited as reason to approve the reason proposal is that the town homes would use significantly less water than watering pasture and so i dug deep into that and and this is what i found so my allotment for i live on a one acre parcel my allotment for water is 7,447,841 gallons in the summer. So if you take the proposal, it has about 1.6 acres. So if you just times mine times 1.6, you come up with a million, about 1,200,000 acres of water. I mean gallons of water that's used annually. So I found three to four sites, EPA geological survey that says a typical person indoors use 50 to 150 gallons per day. So if you take 100 gallons, that's halfway between 50 and 150, and you times it by three people, which shows how many people are currently living on that lot, you get about 300 gallons a day. So 300 gallons a day times 365 days a year gives you 109,000 gallons and 109,500 gallons. Okay, I have more. Thank you.

Hello. Amy Buckway, and I live at 4863 South 2700 West. So I live directly south of the property in question. So as I stated to the Planning Commission, my husband and I bought our property directly south of the property in question 10 years ago with a dream to work on being more self-sustainable and practice permaculture. Roy has been a great city to live in, and we've loved our neighbors. Green spaces in Roy and surrounding areas are becoming less and less as we build row after row of apartments and townhouses. And so as I was reviewing the 2023 general plan for Roy, I saw mention of maintaining green spaces and the importance of encouraging neighborhoods. So principle six states that we want to encourage neighborhood identity and expression. Currently, we do not identify with townhouses and apartments. Principle 7 wants a unified city of distinct neighborhoods, and I would like to see our distinct farm-like quality remain intact. We and several of our neighbors have offered Monica fair market value to purchase her property in order to preserve it as is. and we're not opposed we understand that it's her property and she can do what she wants and we're not opposed to more single-family homes there we're just opposed to like apartments or townhouses the high density is actually what we're opposed to um and as i looked at the the plan the current 2023 use plan planning commission thing It's zoned for single family homes. So if she did more single family homes, it would still be in line with the current plan. So using permaculture on our property, we've seen monarch butterflies, a multitude of bird species, so many things. And we would like to save a small pocket of green space for families to enjoy the animals and for wildlife to have a safe sanctuary. And we'd also like to maintain the farming history of the Malin family from the early 1900s in our little area there. So anyway, that's all I have to say. Thank you.

Thank you.

My wife, Lance Hislop, my wife gave me her paper she didn't get to. I'm not as good as what she was on going through it. Basically, when she did all the math, it wasn't gonna save water. Her third thing that she had was one of the main things I wanted to mention, and that is that The area between 4800 and 5600, when we first moved in there, I always joked that we lived on the wrong side of the tracks because the tracks were on both side of us. Now we have the trails. It is a distinct area where we still have agriculture, and it definitely has a different flavor. Saying that the high density housing that's approved that is across the road from 4800, when you consider how busy 4800 is, you consider the cement barrier that runs down there, and then you consider the stuff that actually is different And we don't, it's not actually contiguous if you look at the map, it doesn't actually touch. So if you were to bring in the high density housing, honestly it would change the flavor and it would change the neighborhood. One last thing, I'm a bit of a personal rights person and it's my land and I'd like to be able to do what I want. And I think it should be the same for them. It's their land and they should be what they want. But if I wanted to sell my land, the way I could get the most money would be to sell it as a nuclear waste dump. And I would certainly hope none of you would allow that to happen because, yeah, I'd allow me to sell my land for a lot more, but it would destroy the flavor of everything around. And I feel the same type of thing would be happening right now.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Robert Malin. I actually live at 2777 West, 4800 South. As one of, I'm sorry to say this, oldest residents, living residents of Royce City, who we can date back to before Royce City even started. This last 20 years, the city has literally dropped the ball. I grew up where our neighbors were our family members. We could leave our doors unlocked. We could leave stuff sitting out on our property. And when I say we dropped the ball, we're cramming so many people into Roy's city that graffitis went up, theft, traffic, Everything came up. I know the police department's filling it, fire department, city workers. Everybody's filling this congestion. This is not a city anymore. This is more of a China. How we are so dense that it literally took me, I just literally got off work. 45 minutes from South Ogden into my shop to get out of work and fight from down by impact guns, I don't know, down on 1900 to get up here because the traffic is so bad. Now we're talking about putting more buildings in, more houses, apartments. We shouldn't. We, the community, Everybody should stand up and say we've had enough. And people who want to sell and build all this, we shouldn't allow this. These are people who don't care about Roy City. They only care about their bank accounts. We should literally put a stop to apartments and all this stuff and go back to the way it used to be. where we can live not in fear. That's all I have to say.

Thank you. Hi, my name is Tammy Davis. Do I need to give you my address or? Okay. I wasn't really prepared to talk tonight, but a couple things that's come up that just really made me decide I need to stand up here and to bring it to your attention. First off, I don't know the exact address, but it's along 3500 close to 5600. There's been a water leak there for, I don't know how long. It reminds me of a year ago when I had a water leak and three times they were called out to look at it. And every time they would come and tell me it's groundwater. That's just groundwater coming up in the middle of the street. I knew better. I knew better than that. So we just called and called, bugged them over and over until they finally came and fixed it after digging it up three times. So back to the 3500, 5600, the water leak there. I'm driving by there a couple days ago. There's so much water in the gutter that there are actually wild ducks swimming in the gutter. To me, that's a pretty substantial amount of water to have in your gutter. So somebody needs to look into that. um and i think this is where some of our frustration comes that we see these things and nothing's being done about it and everybody wants a raise it's never ending but i say to myself what are they doing for it so uh the next thing is someone brought up the about you know seeing monarch butterflies and And I remember this time of year when I was a child, I was so excited because the monarch eggs were gonna be hatching. And so soon we would see the caterpillars and we'd go catch the caterpillars and watch them turn into a cocoon and watch that whole life cycle of the butterflies. I can't tell you the last time I saw a monarch butterfly. I can't even tell you that I see milkweed anywhere because it's just not there. We're plowing it all in to build buildings. There's people that are buying milkweed and hatching their own butterflies because that's how bad it is. And I guess that's why we're going to have to teach our kids. Instead of going out and being able to look for them in the milkweed. Thank you.

Thank you.

Shelly Polston. Thank you, Brian. Thank you, Diane. And thank you, Janelle, for acknowledging my email and getting a response. I'm waiting for yours. You said you were busy. A few things are going on. I understand that you have a mandate from the state to build affordable housing. or funds will be withheld from Royce City. You're not building affordable housing. You're not. I went over and paid a visit to whatever's over by the front runner. I've dubbed it Gotham City. If there's ever a fire over there, you will have dead. people in the city of Roy. You cannot cram people together like they're doing over there. And I don't know if they have to allot so many affordable houses or not. But you're not providing affordable housing. You're ruining the look of Roy City. This other property that everybody's hollering about, which I think is not that far from my house, They wanna put 43 houses on this small piece of land that would be like five houses sitting on my property. And then they're gonna have to turn it into an HOA because the city's not gonna take care of the streets. This is absolutely ridiculous. I think it's high time for common sense to come back and visit everybody With a vengeance. And the other thing that I would like to say is I appreciate your work, Brian, and your shock at what was initially proposed as a tax increase. However, even if you trim that down, It's inappropriate because you have yet to show that you are willing to cut $1 from the current budget. And we all know government, there's pork. You're top heavy in your administration. You got too many chiefs and not enough Indians. You're not willing to cut out one thing. I understand I had a conversation with Diane about the complex, the parks, and the aquatic center. However, between the aquatic center and the complex, you're going in the hole, and this is a million dollars a year.

Melissa Conkling, I moved here 25 years ago. It was a beautiful community. Green spaces, little farms, fields. Where are they at? There's like three farms. I walk and I looked at the little baby goats or the chickens and the roosters. And I'd like to see those continue because they're beautiful. And I walk those trails every day. Once a week at least, I go all the way. You all did a great job on 5600, but that was before you guys. That was approved before you. And that is a good thing. It's a good thing. It makes the traffic better. But what you're trying to do is cram more houses in. We don't need them. Like the one lady said, there's plenty of rentals. My kids who live in Roy, they are living in, one lives in an apartment, the other is paying rent, $1,900 a month. That's not affordable. Do you know how much you have to work Long hours to get to afford that when you're a young couple making not that much money, it's a lot. My other child lives in West Haven. $2,000 a month rent. This is not affordable housing. And your little apartments that you want to put up, I can tell you right now, those aren't going to be affordable for anybody. And our traffic is going to hurt because of it. So please, I beg you not to do this thing. You know it's wrong. You're hurting everybody. Everybody in this room, probably more than me, is asking for you to reconsider and not do this thing. You don't need it. Cut your pork, because I know y'all have some pork you can cut. And thank you for Byron. Lowering the taxes, the tax increase is ridiculous. It's criminal. We're senior citizens. We don't have more money to give you. So please, please, I beg you, reconsider. Keep Roy.

Thank you.

My name is Trevor Foise and I live over by the property that we're talking about, what is it, 26-4. I've got a lot to say, but I'm going to send an email with the rest of what I got to say, but just want to bring up a few points. I've been in the building industry for many years. I understand what's going on with the development, but I don't understand the 43 homes in the property. It doesn't make sense to me. The builder's suggesting that we do, or the developer's suggesting we do 25 square foot homes. That's 15 feet rear setbacks, 20 front setbacks, and five foot setbacks on both sides of the home. I don't understand how that's even possible. I don't know how that's even gonna be passed. in the building codes it doesn't make sense to me but i'm not opposed to building it that's not what i'm standing here before i think it's great go ahead and build on it i just barely moved in about a year and a half ago i know kids love to play on it i wish it was a park but i get it it can't be a park so so be it let it be some homes but i'm just asking to keep it the zone the way that it's already zoned That's like 18, 19 homes. I'm fine with that. I'm not opposed to it. The biggest concern I have with the 43 homes though is the congestion of traffic. I mean, you put 43 homes in there, that's 80 plus cars that are coming through both roads, 3900 and then my road right in front of my house. It doesn't make a lot of sense. My kids love to play out front. My kids love to walk to school. My kids, families, we see families outside all the time. Like that's dangerous. Like that is insanely dangerous to have 80 plus cars coming through those streets. I don't live on 3900. I know that few of the people here do. And that's insane. That road already is a long road that people fly down. I've walked it. I went door to door, just kind of just talking to people about what their thoughts were about it. And people are flying down that road. And I mean, again, I don't live on that road, but how insanely dangerous is that to have those type of cars go through? I mean, that's increased risk for children and pedestrians, more speeding, more congestion, more street parking, overflow, reduced visibility and safety around intersections, driveways, increased strain on the roads that aren't designed for that high density type of neighborhood. I don't understand how you can even build on it. There's tons of water there. I walked the south end of that property. There's water there. According to all the other neighbors, water stays there year-round, so I'm not sure how it's even buildable. I think the city needs to do some required tests on it, full drainage, stormwater studies, a geotech study, just clarifications on the wetland and much more. I have just one big question is where are you guys going to put all these cars when people come over? When are they going to park? Our streets are going to be congested with parking. I mean, that's insane. 43 homes. They're going to be 35-foot tall homes, 2,500 square foot, like I mentioned. That just doesn't make sense to me. So I'm just asking the council to reconsider and keep it the way it's already zoned. Thank you.

Thank you. All right.

My name is Clay Crabtree. I've come to give my thoughts on Ordinance 26-4 just like he did. My house borders the north side of this property. About two or three years ago, we did a big remodel on our house. And we went through and was like, yeah, we want to go this way and do this. I would have loved to go an extra foot to two foot and make my garage bigger. Why didn't I? Because the rules were set for the R18 zoning that I was in. And so we didn't, and I'm not sad about it because I don't want to encroach that much on my neighbors and be right on top of them. But if this proposal goes along with the 43 houses or anything close to that, that would put three houses along my back fence. which is a little bit absurd compared to what the neighborhood is. This is a neighborhood that's been around for 20 to 30 years. It sits in the middle. This land has never been developed. It was a big dispute over things. This land has come A COUPLE TIMES TO THE CITY COUNCIL, AND I'VE BEEN TO AT LEAST ONE TO TWO OF THOSE, AND THEY'VE TRIED TO ALWAYS SHRINK IT. BUT, YOU KNOW, TRY TO CRAM MORE STUFF INTO THIS PROPERTY. I'M OKAY WITH HAVING HOUSES THERE. THAT'S THEIR RIGHT, IS THE LANDOWNERS. to build and do that, but the rules that was set to an R18 zoning to match the rest of the neighborhood. The rest of the neighborhood has followed those guidelines for the last 20 years. I don't see why they can come in and change the rules that our neighborhood has set for the last 20, 30 years. There's a lot of other things that go with that, but For the most part, I ask you to honor what the last city council did and hold it to an R18. The houses that they plan on building there, they say that we're going to match what's up by Bridge Elementary. They try to clarify that they're going to be affordable homes. If they're going to match what's up by Bridge Elementary, those are $400,000 to $500,000 houses that they're selling for right now. That is not affordable housing in my mind. If it isn't yours, then let it be. But we just ask that we keep the zoning. It's R18. They can build houses there. People will buy houses at that price, whatever they can. But that was the rules that were set. And they knew that when they bought the land. And we ask you to leave it there. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Cody Marks. I'm born and raised in Roy. Back in 2013, I left and I joined the military, disappeared for about eight years. And when I left, we had fields. We had kids playing out front. We had good neighbors. Like I said, they were families. I still remember all my neighbors come over, borrow stuff. We borrow stuff from them. It was a great time. Came back in 2021. Fields are all gone. Traffic's horrible. I was lucky enough to get a job back on Hill, and I was like, oh, I'm going to live back in Roy. Down 5600, it takes me about 35 minutes to get up the road. I can probably make it faster on a bike, but I'm not going to lie, I'm lazy. So I drive. All right, now I'm going to talk to you about this. The 43 homes on this lot, all right, my parents live on 6000 right next to the railroad tracks. Y'all tore out that house and are building apartments in there. I don't know if you've gone past it. It don't look right. They got rid of that pond. My mom called me, asked me if I could come get the ducks because the ducks were walking around everybody's yard because they just lost everything. All right, now you're trying to put 43 houses on this small stretch of land. And like everybody's saying, what are you going to do with the cars? Like, I looked at the plans. You can't afford a home there without having at least two people living there. That's two cars, a house. And they're saying affordable? These houses that are up by the elementary school on 4800, look on Zillow right now, there's two for sale, they're $480,000. All right, I don't know who can afford that with interest rates right now. That's a mortgage of $3,400 a month. Before the HOA fees, before the property tax increase, before all this stuff. That's not affordable. I bought my house two years ago. I'm two blocks away from that. I paid $430,000. I'm a single man. I struggle every month to make that mortgage payment. And that's $430,000. And I got a backyard and I can walk out of my house and I don't touch my neighbor's house. These people, they won't be able to walk out of their house without running into their neighbor. So I just got to, you know, think about it. Is that what you want Roy to start turning into? Because I'm going to lie to you, the top of Roy is kind of turned into that. It's not as nice as it once was. I'm sure you might have heard, people call us Ogden now. Because Ogden got nice and everybody that pulled out Ogden moved to Roy. No one wants that. I know we can't fix what's been done, but we can try not to add more to it. So, yeah, build on it. I hope you guys do. You know, we need places for people to move into. Don't build 43 houses. Keep the zone the way it is. All right? People will move in. If they want to live so close together and pay $500,000 for a home, they probably shouldn't be looking at Roy. Go someplace where there's actually stuff to do. This is a family town.

My name is Trevor Dearden. I live on 3900, so I'll be speaking on the project there on 3925 West. It's simply put, that field is not built or does not fit 43 more homes in any way, shape, or form. It's not fit for townhomes, nor homes that we can reach out and touch our neighbor's windows. There's a lot of newly developed homes by bridge, as you're aware. That space is slightly bigger than this field, and as I drove through there, dropping my daughter off at school and picking her up, one thing was consistent with all of those homes. If the home had more than one vehicle, at least one vehicle was outside. Those those double car garages are not built for two cars. If you put a if you have a crossover, you can fit that crossover and nothing else. And As previously addressed, if there are any kind of gatherings, parties, et cetera, in that area where the additional car is going to park. Now, excuse me. If there is, excuse me, sorry, the building rep last week said he talked to the police chief about the field and how the police chief had said that he is tired of getting noise complaints for that. I put into question talking with my neighbors. And from the time that I've been there, we've seen one cop there and he lives there. And so if the police chief is interested in more calls, yeah, let's put in 43 more homes. That would add excitement for him. We we were against townhomes and We are against 43 homes because simply there's not enough room. The street of 3900 West is a long straight road. There are approximately 75 kids within the area, ride bikes. Bikes don't belong on sidewalks, that's where pedestrians are. And so riding bikes, playing in yards, that only adds danger. We see posts and reports of children being hit by cars crossing main roads while they are legally able to, and it's only rising. Imagine what will happen if there is a street with no stop signs on a road like this, on a small side street of how that . Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm Ty Chasten. I'm going to ask for some homework here. First is, what is a bias wage study? Exactly what you provided, Janelle, Diane, Ann, Matt, Kelly. It's bias. It's false information, 2024. It does not compare to Clearfield, which we should be compared to. Nothing else. It's the closest thing to us. We need to restructure Public Works. We need to restructure the complex. The complex, just give it to the school district. That's their problem, not ours. We don't need it. Save the taxpayer dollars. Next, let's understand what a general plan is. Jason, when you have a moment, explain what the general plan is, what it means, because you're destroying the city. The general plan is in place, and we are not listening to it. We're not adhering to it, and we'll let the developers walk all over it. Don't listen to their crap. It's very greedy. It's not following the general plan. You're not supporting us. You're not representing the people. You're not representing the Constitution. The general plan was here for something, started hearing to it, listened to the people, and followed the general plan, quit changing it. Next, I want to hear what that 30% is, not what Parkinson said, 80%. What's the AMI? Diane, tell us what the AMI is, what that average income of Roy City is. I want to hear more like 90,000. I want to hear the math behind it that says that the rent or the payment on a $400,000 home is not affordable. That's available, not affordable. We have too much availability. The apartments are not full. They're competing with what's out there. Go up and down Ogden. Go up and down Layton. Go up and down Clearfield. Three months free of rent just to get people in and they're not even full. I know this. I manage over 250 apartments. I know what people are coming in and what they can and can't afford. And they're not full. People are looking for affordability, not availability. That's what we're producing. I wanna know what the deficit is on the Roy Complex today, because we might have more coming in, but the cost is still going down. Why are we spending money on what I believe Dan Doyle said was 80 employees at the complex? Do we really need 80 employees? It could probably function maybe on less than 20 employees. And then what was it, another 70 employees at the Aquatic Center? Holy cow, then I got a grammar request, the organizational charts just to find out how many employees are we really employing that we don't need. People are saying trim the flat. Where's the transparency? Transparency means I don't need a grammar request, give it to me.

Hi, my name is Sarah Ferriola, and I live right at the exit of the proposed project at 3925 West, 4965 South. The exit faces my home. I echo what has already been said that I'm concerned about the density of 43 homes in that area and what it will do to the safety of my road which is 3900 West. I appreciate that the land should be developed and I support that, but I would ask that the Council would reconsider this agreement so that we can find a happy medium where the land can be developed, there can be housing that goes in there, but that we take into consideration the impact on the surrounding area and on the surrounding neighbourhood. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Teresa Ibarra. I live right on the corner of 3900 and 4800 South. So the ordinance 26-4 directly affects me. I came to the planning commission and I spoke up and I told them, why are we not doing a traffic study? on the impact that it would cost on 3900 West. The planning commissioner said that he wouldn't ask for a traffic impact study because nothing has been developed. I think that it should be the opposite. You guys should be requesting the developer to do that because he's asking for 43 homes to be built. And all the homes, it makes more sense to exit out of 3900 West. That will be 86 vehicles at least. That will be going through 3900. And I'm a mom, so I'm concerned about my kids. So my daughter playing with the neighbors in front of us, crossing traffic. The planning commissioner commented that kids should not be, kids don't belong in the road, but that's what makes a neighborhood a neighborhood. So my concern is not just that it's going to be inconvenient, but it's safety. We should be requesting for those traffic impact reports. It's going to increase a longer wait time at the intersection of 4800 and people are already speeding over 35 miles per hour that it's supposed to be. It's going to create more turning conflicts, reduce visibility, and it's going to increase the risk for pedestrians and children that live on 3900. And then it's just gonna create greater problems for the infrastructure for 3900 West, which the developer doesn't even account for. He's only talking about the developer will say to the HOA to pay for the infrastructure of the roads that are built on those 43 lots, but nothing is being talked about the infrastructure that would be impacted outside of those 43 lots. So whether it be 31 lots, 43 lots, that's too much. Keep it at 31, sorry, the current zone that it's already at. And don't try to find a little loophole to try and cram this many homes into that little space. Thank you.

My name is Amanda Day. I'm here with my husband and two other families from our neighborhood. We live near the consideration of Ordinance 26-4 with the insane idea of including 43 single-family detached homes into 4.74 acres. When we do the math, that works out to .11 acre. The rest of our houses are on .25 acres. I've lived in Roy since 2007, and I no longer recognize this town. The Planning Commission has already discouraged this rezoning, leaving the final decision in your hands, and we're asking you to leave our beautiful, close-knit neighborhood alone. I support developing regular size houses, but increasing the traffic in our neighborhood where our kids all play together. The families that are here, our boys grew up together. They're now teenagers. They were crossing the street. They weren't in the street, but these people speeding in and out at insane speeds has already increased over the last few years, adding that many more residents to a town where an area where the roads don't all lead out to 4800. They all wind around and around and around. and I feel for the the people living on 3900 the construction vehicles coming in and out of that neighborhood with small streets where we're all parked on the street we have many different people in and out with the children playing construction vehicles are a logistical nightmare for our residents and providing safety concerns also with fire accessibility. There are only there's only one road on each side of these plots, and I really have big concerns about dense housing having inaccessibility to those vehicles and fire vehicles, police coming in and out of those areas. There's also drainage concerns. on that area our streets already have our sump pumps going and um the adding the uh drainage pond that is recommended by the planning council will also cause some concerns um thank you for your time and listening to our neighbors and our concerns thank you thank you

I'm Dr. Melanie Swartz, I live on 2700 and I'm actually concerned with ordinances 26-2 and 26-3 as it would affect my property and the properties all along there. You already know the Planning Commission has decided unanimously against it, and I would like you to heed that for several reasons. It is not consistent with the future land use map. Although the West Park Division was zoned R3, it was built out closer to R16, and 4800, and especially the concrete barrier, has led it to be a separate neighborhood from the area we are backing up on the rail trail. That intersection of 2700 and 4800 was noted to be in a transportation study in 2002 to be a dangerous intersection for school children. With the upcoming railroad work, this is going to be a problem, especially if we have high density housing right there. WE HAVE NOW STARTED IN ROY TO PLAN DISTINCT TOWN CENTERS, THE DOWNTOWN CENTER, THE RAIL RUNNER AREA, TO BUILD IN THIS HIGH-DENSITY INFILL. BUT WE ALSO NOTED IN FOCUS ROY AND IN THE GENERAL PLAN IN 2023 THAT OUR FEW GREEN BELT AND AGRICULTURAL AREAS DO NEED TO BE PRESERVED. I came before a city council in 2013 to rezone my house from light manufacturing to save one of the last original farmhouses, the Nielsen House, on 2700. And I've paid it off, and I sit on a couple acres. I know people that come down the rail trail, and they shout, how's your horses today, Mel? It is a neighborhood that when we moved in, the neighbors threw a party for us without even knowing who we would be. We shovel the snow, we mow each other's lawns, we look out for one another. This is not what's going to happen in an apartment complex. Can I pull out a bunch of things, pages on everything we have on the general plan as to why this is a bad idea, especially in the future land use map? I sure can. But more importantly, let me give you something ephemeral that we can't count for housing. But it came on social media on a Roy page. Today is the day. The sun is shining. There's baby sheep, baby sheep. There's baby sheep. I've been waiting for this day. My house is just on the opposite side of the trail and I see all the pregnant sheep and every morning I go out and bleed at them. There's a baby sheep and I'm way too excited about this. More importantly, thank you for sharing this definitely inviting all the neighborhood families for a group walk we're not going to get that with high density housing in our neighborhood, this is the last vestige people can walk along it is essentially. a private greenbelt we are maintaining that public can access along the rail trail let's keep those small parcels from 4 800 and i would even propose down to 6 000 in the re20 thank you

Hi, my name is Tom Spencer. I also live on 2700. Kind of piggybacking on the trails, the general plan says a set of north-south off-street trails are proposed to follow the alignments of the Rocky Mountain Power Corridor, Layton Canal, and Howard Slough. However, right now we only have one trail, and that's the Denver and Rio Grande. Future trails are great, but what we have is what we have. Let's not Let's not try to cram more people into there. Like my wife said, it's nice seeing people walking down, saying hi to the horses, but when you walk down and you see apartments, it's like the trail becomes a way to get somewhere, not something to enjoy. With more people comes more crime. We already have gang graffiti on the trail between 6,000 all the way up at least until 48. I haven't been up the other way more. And 17 days ago, we had six shots fired right behind our house. Considering that I can see the muzzle flashes on the camera, that meant it was pointed toward our house. That is obviously definitely a concern. More concerning, though, is in the intro to the Planning Commission, and it's also in here, Mrs. Laws said, we are your neighbors, not outside developers. However, when you read the narrative, it says, by transitioning these large and underutilized residential lots into high density apartments, lots, plural. Paragraph 2, by moving away from oversized and isolated lots toward a cohesive, close-knit community. Again, plural lots. And as my wife said, we already have a close-knit community. We get eggs. We have races to see who can clear the sidewalk first. This property represents some of the last remaining large lot assemblages in the area. And there's also potential to expand the zoning changes to the surrounding homes by 2700 to create incredible housing development for our citizens. Reading this, this does not read like we are a family trying to move away. This reads like a developer's trying to come in and not only establish a foothold at the corner, but then use that as precedent to say, now I want this lot further south to be rezoned at high density apartments. and then so on and so forth. So we have that creep going down and down and then we would end up losing that agricultural zone that we have right there. Thank you.

although I live on, Connie Edmondson, I'm sorry, although I live on 3900 West, the development on 2700 West is gonna affect me and a lot of citizens of Roy that do not know how bad the traffic is going to get on 4800. I spend half my time right in the middle between 27 and 39. I work at Weinergers. How many people in Royce City come through to buy groceries and ask me every day, at least four or five people, what's getting built next door to you? A 22 unit strip mall. And what you see in the front is what goes on in the back goes twice that past our receiving. 22 stores. How are we supposed to get out on 4,800? We don't. We don't. I'm lucky enough that my shift is from 6 in the morning till 2 in the afternoon. 3 o'clock, I don't leave my home because 4,800 is a joke. The employees call it Nightmare on 48th Street because we cannot. If I pull a shift for somebody, I have to go past Midland north to 40 to 4000 to hit the light go down to 47 and back that's the only way i can get home from work i'm just begging you as council members please do not add another episode to nightmare on 4800 street because that's exactly what it is thank you thank you

My name is Jackie Powell. I want to talk about the 43 lots. I know the gentleman that owns part of the parcel back there. I contacted him after last Tuesday's meeting and asked him why he would sell to put in 43 homes. There's two owners, I know that. This is one. He said, let me read it to you. Whoops, just a second. um he said i agreed to sell the land but i didn't know they were going to ask for 43 lots so to me he was lied to so i asked we continued on a conversation he says i was thinking when i signed the proposal, he hasn't signed the final papers yet, that the land would stay zoned, R18, for 8,000 square feet lots minimum. So I want the Roy City here, our neighbors, to know that you guys, everybody went behind his back. He signed thinking it was going to be maybe 15, 18 homes. You're asking for 43? And then I read you're thinking about 31. That is still too many homes. Do you think if that many homes are in there and one house happens to catch on fire, guaranteed the next home, the next home, the home behind, the home in front will probably burn too. So I'm asking to consider leaving it zoned the way it is with maybe 18 homes, like the gentleman that owns part of that parcel is thinking and what he was told and not lied to.

Hi, my name's Yvette Torres, and I live in Roy. First thing, talking about how crowded Roy is, I have a good friend, he bought his family home, 79 years old, he was raised in that house, it's over there by Kent Supermarket Plaza, and he's like, I'm out of here. I've loved Roy, I've lived here my whole life, but I can't take this anymore. I can't take how busy it is, how horrible it is to get to and from my house, He goes, I'm selling the home I love that I was raised in and I'm moving to Milad. He goes, because it's horrible. Secondly, my husband went to the Air Force Academy. He went to flight school to become a helicopter pilot and he had to spend one year at fort rucker alabama to learn how to fly helicopters then he had to go and learn to fly the helicopters that he flew which were hueys right now a captain in the air force with all his compensation that's housing medical and his pay makes a hundred and fifty thousand dollars 140 excuse me and you know When you're a pilot like that, you don't know how many friends. It was a day job. You're going out to fly, and you came home in a body bag. And I looked at all the salaries that some of you guys got, and I told my husband, my God, you were in the wrong business. I said, because I don't know, many of you have a very, very high chance of returning home at night. But our husbands didn't. And we knew it. But in today's pay, they only, with all their compensation, $140,000 to go and fight for, you know, your lives. And you guys feel justified for the income you're making with your compensation, which is way higher than these men who can return home in a body bag. At a daily, just my husband flew out to Dugway, flew out, and we knew. And three of our pilots went home that night in a body bag. So this is things that amaze me of how money corrupts people and people think, you know, I'm worth it, they justify it, and make excuses of why they deserve it. And it's really sad. And that's why now, you know, I understand. You've ever heard, you know, it's easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven because money corrupts.

Hi, my name is Mark Meyer. I live in Roy. I've lived in Roy for six years. I've loved it. It's been great. I was not able to attend the last meeting that we had, but I did watch every minute of it on YouTube from my hotel in Kentucky when I was on business. I noticed a few things. There was overwhelming support for the development of 26-4, the ordinance 26-4, but not for 43 houses. As I've talked to my neighbors, everyone... except for just a couple, have expressed, we need to develop this land, it should be developed. But I'm proposing that it should be done in the right way and under the right considerations. Let's see. You all here have been elected to represent us. Our voices have been clear. We are also listening to what you do. As a city council, you have a lot of hard calls to make, and I don't feel like this is one of them. I feel like not everybody's gonna have their way all the time, but there is some happy middle ground that can be had. So I would implore us to look for that. I would hope that we can keep this zoned as it is, that we can fit a reasonable sized homes in this lot, instead of 43 single family homes. on smaller lots in this area. I would hope that we could look and make sure that we have traffic and emergency vehicle studies done, that we consider wetland and watershed, and that we evaluate storm water and drainage. and we make sure that what we are building will sustain into the future. These aren't nice to haves, these are necessary for the people who will live in Roy. As we have heard tonight, there are gonna be issues if those things are not addressed with the development and the taxpayers in Roy will be the ones ending up paying for this. We're gonna have to pay for repairs or issues that come up unless these studies are done, unless these things are addressed. I really appreciate each of you here. I'm also a public servant employed for the state of Utah. And I know that it's a thankless job a lot of the time. But there is a certain level of consideration and happy ground that can be found when we work together and accomplish great things together. Appreciate your time. Thank you. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Andrew Wilco. I've spoken with you guys a couple times over email and as well as last time we had a town council meeting. I guess my issues are gonna be directly at Matt for this week. You responded to me saying that participation as a coach is not an entitlement as past registration or involvement. However, equal opportunity is a requirement, and I am entitled to that. Under Utah State Code, which is signed by the legislative branch, as well as the governor, is law, and the Utah Roy City is governed by that. A volunteer is an individual who donates time and pay without compensation. A volunteer is also considered a government employee in which they receive government, they receive liability protection and they also facilitate without any liability for damages arising in their service. Once a volunteer becomes a government employee or an agent of the government, they are held to a certain standard and that standard that I can see right now is the Equal Opportunity Office HR Department of Royce City. they are violating those statutes or those procedures in which you embrace diversity and are committed to an inclusive workplace, that you're always looking for individuals who are passionate and making a difference for serving the community with integrity and dedication, and fostering a productive, inclusive, and positive work environment. Nepotism does not encompass any of those values. I have asked you twice, where are the policies or procedures for Royce City Recreation on how you select coaches, and I have received nothing. If there are policies and procedures in place, there are public tax pay documents that I am entitled to receive. I haven't received any of them. The only thing I can find is the equal opportunity policies for Royce City. Based on this, nepotism does not foster any type of inclusive environment, doesn't support any type of team cohesion, or foster any way of having volunteer retention. If I volunteered in the past, which I've talked with Diane and Janelle, thank you very much for responding to my emails and at least giving me your attention. When I volunteered, the city has asked for volunteers because they didn't have enough people, and I volunteered. And under that precedent, because you don't have enough volunteers, when I continue to volunteer, and then you talk about retention for volunteers, something doesn't make sense. You want to accommodate a family who employs nepotism versus a father who supports the city and will take anybody else who wants to help with their kids. It makes zero sense at all. In no way does the Utah State Code, where it defines who a government agency or a government employee is, or how Royce City Recreation has supported itself, in any way ethical. Currently, right now, when I drive by the park, this coach is having a practice with the baseball team. My son was not invited. I didn't get an email, and I'll be talking to the city tomorrow about why my son was excluded from a volunteer baseball practice. That is unethical as well. All right, Janelle and Diane, thank you for your response to my emails.

My name is Gretchen Parker. I'm here to discuss all the extension of the High Density Housing Ordinance 26-2 and 26-4. And reading on the Roy Facebook page recently, it was mentioned that our city planner is not even from Roy. So my opinion is Mr. Parkinson wouldn't care. if we were to put a city dump on 5600 right by the elementary, because he doesn't live here. These are citizens that live here. And we're telling you, this is ridiculous to put this many homes. The traffic alone is ridiculous. Trying to get around Roy is 15, 20 minutes. If there's a serious, like if there was an earthquake, we'd all be done because we can't get out of here. If there's a wildfire, we're done because there's no way of getting out of here. You keep adding and adding and not thinking. This area does not sound like it's zoned very well for 43 homes. Why can't you just keep it to 15 to 18? And if you think these expensive luxury homes people are going to buy, people in Roy don't make that kind of money. This isn't Park City. This is Roy. A lot of people work on base. or they work at IRS. They are not making that kind of money to afford $500,000 homes. So let's reconsider and make it reasonable 15 to 18 homes make sense. And let's just try saying no. I'm a mom. I raise kids. I don't have a problem saying no to a toddler or a teenager that's having a fit. So if these developers are going to have a fit and have a meltdown, I'm happy to tell them no. I know how to say no. And I think maybe all of you need to stand up and stretch because you all look like you're about to fall asleep. And I know it's probably been a long day for you, but this is concerning for your citizens and try to think about what they want.

Thank you.

Cindy Winnem, this may be refreshing. Last week, after most everybody left, Glenda and I stayed behind when they did the Mountain America presentation, and Steve said he had to tell them, no, they could not put a building on the corner of 19 and 56 because it didn't face the right way. Their front of the building doesn't have a front door. It's all glass, and it was going to face 1900. I bank at Mountain America in Clinton on 1800, and the building's the same. It's all glass in the front. You drive around to the back, you park, and you go into their front doors in the back. And I thought to myself, well, if you were to go on 5600, turn in by Ocean Mart, thank you, Glenda, and go to the back of the building where Wells Fargo was, That's where their front door is. That is the most convenient way to get out of your car and walk in. Well, Steve said last week he told them, no, because that is the code. I understand the code. But I sat and watched a wonderful councilwoman, Diane, who argued for a family, who broke the rules, who built an addition to their home, too far towards the neighbor, too far out front, broke the code, and were told they had to tear it down, and an entire code for the entire city was changed for that one family. Should we not also make sure the code allows Mountain America to build a building that would be, we want businesses here in Roy. And I sat and listened to him tell Mountain America no. My head's been spinning for a week. I'm baffled by it. Please do what you can to make the code fit so that they can put their building like it is in Clinton. It works beautifully. I drive in the back. I walk into the front door, which is in the back, and I'm right there facing the tellers. It works beautifully, and it's a beautiful building. Last thing. I talked to Steve about the lights, the 20 lights that shine in my window from just the one building on Rail Runner. And I was told that a residential building cannot have a commercial building shine their lights into them, but that the apartments were residential and there's no code for residential shining in residential. The Lowe Corporation owns those 290, 290, I've heard three different numbers tonight, 290 apartments that you told me were 290. That is a business. Somebody owns all those. Some manager runs it. So that business needs to lower their lumens or put a hood on their lights and save my neighbor who says to me, I can't sleep anymore. I've got lights coming through my bedroom window. So that is something that we need to address is that is a business. So a business, a commercial is shining lights in all of our bedroom windows because the back of our houses face the walking track. Well, they're literally on the walking track. Thank you.

My name is Jeff Fulmer. I would just like to share a few pieces of information from Royce City's five-year strategic plan. It was put into place in 2023 that I found very interesting. The mission statement for Royce City is as follows. Royce City exists to enhance the quality of life for our community through planning, leadership, citizen involvement, and quality services. Under the section titled, The Primary Directive of Roy, the answer is the question, what is the role of Roy's government, also meaning you, the city council, and the lives of its citizens? Here are just a few things that I found. The government's role in Roy is, quote, to maximize our citizens' investment in supporting programs, initiatives, and ideas that will translate in an opportunity for them to live in an exceptional quality of life. Another role of the government in ROY is to determine what drives the resource engine or the economy. And again, I quote, we believe that as we can lift our citizens' quality of life, we will have demonstrated our competency and trustworthiness. Citizen trust, meanwhile, is generated at the intersection of competency and trustworthiness. As our citizens' trust increases, they're more likely to continue to invest in the services that we provide. As they do so, we are empowered to continue lifting our level of service, which results in greater trust, and so the process repeats itself. Public trust drives Roy's resource engine. Further down in that same section, it reads, all programs, initiatives, and energy must therefore be focused on achieving the primary directive and mission statement. All metrics and outcomes should support this. The strategic plan's role in fulfilling the mission statement begins by defining what citizens believe is essential to quality of life. And just to finish, on page three of the city plan, it says the main reason for Roy's continued success is its dedicated community. The people here care about the city's well-being and image and want Roy to be seen in the way they see it. A wonderful place full of history, small and comfortable, friendly and accommodating, but most of all, home. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Melissa Barton. I am also concerned with the 43 homes. My house, my backyard is where that field is. And I just wanted to echo what all of my neighbors, those I know and those I don't, who have said that they don't, they're not for it, I'm not for it at all. It's too many homes in a small space. And I didn't come prepared to speak tonight, but I did want my husband and my votes to be heard for, to be against it, because as all of the people have said, it will increase the traffic, it will increase, it's just too many, it's too many homes. And I'm looking at my house which we have our starter home that we've lived in for 27 years. I've lived in Roy my entire life. And they say that it's going to have two cars per every home. And in my family, we have three drivers, about to be four drivers, which it's not just two cars. That's now four cars. So if every home has what my family has, It's not just two cars, it's more than that. And I would ask that you consider that. And I would also, I don't know how this works, but I would beg of you to, if construction, whenever construction starts, please get somebody on pest control because it's a field and I do not enjoy mice or rats or snakes or any of the other things that are gonna come with that. So just please consider all of that. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Jan Rushton. I live at 4973 West, 4950 South. I live right next to the lot where we're looking at 43 homes possibly being built. And I'm so grateful for the opportunity to be able to share my perspective And I'm grateful to know that you guys are listening and taking in all of our perspectives. My husband and I moved from out of state here seven years, or seven months ago. We could have lived anywhere in Weber County, but we chose Roy because of its country, small town feel. I'm not against building and growth. In fact, my first husband was an urban neighborhood planner, and my second husband is a plumber who specializes in new construction. I understand that growth has to happen, but laying out a new neighborhood that fits into the present community is so important. Throwing 43 small cramped homes into a small constantly flooded plot just doesn't make sense. I have a few questions. At the last meeting, the builder mentioned that construction companies would buy lots and build the homes. How will the HOA work in this situation? Is there a plan in place if the HOA fails? Who will make sure the HOA community doesn't fall into disrepair? I know that HOA communities have failed in other cities and states, and no one has been there to pick up the pieces. I'm sure there is a solution already in place, but for my personal reassurance, I would love to understand how it would work if the HOA fails to make sure the community doesn't fall apart and become an eyesore. We love our home. We purchased it for $532,000 in October of 2025. And with a good down payment, we pay a little below $3,000 per month in mortgage, insurance, and property tax. This is more than we wanted to spend, but the size was right, the neighborhood was amazing, and we decided it was worth the sacrifice to make the payment every month. I can assure you that while my husband and I are able to afford our mortgage, my husband is a plumber and I'm a teacher, in no way would I say it's affordable. The builder labeled the 43 homes he wants to build as similar to Highgate Cove, which are between $450,000 and $500,000, plus the HOA fee. I would not label that to be affordable housing. A few weeks ago, I think I should get, six minutes, but here's my second topic. A few weeks ago, I was shocked when I was notified that on top of our monthly mortgage payment, along with the property tax that we already pay, we would possibly need to pay more than 55% on our property taxes because Roy needs more money. My first thought was, why do we need to pay the money? I am a good citizen and I pay my bills, but why? Will there be an audit to make sure our money is being used smartly and fairly? The citizens of Roy are already just making it month to month. I WILL FIGURE OUT HOW TO PAY MORE PROPERTY TAXES, BUT HOW CAN I KNOW THAT MY MONEY IS BEING TAKEN CARE OF AND THAT IT'S BEING USED HONESTLY? THANK YOU.

My name is Stacy Crabtree. The other day I was sitting with my children in our backyard. Sorry, I've been at school all day long. My voice is gone. And they said, okay, mom, show us what the development would look like behind our house. So I showed them the little map and they said, I don't feel comfortable playing in our own backyard, having four houses face our backyard. They didn't want to be somebody just spying on them the whole time and having these tall houses built around them. I'm all for the development. Bring in more houses. I love my neighbors. They are my family. But make it the same as what is around us. We have a beautiful lot. We love our home. We developed, we added on to our home so that we didn't have to move. So that we could stay where we are because we love our cul-de-sac and we love being where we're at. But Like my husband said, we had to stay within our codes. We had to stay within those zoning measurements. We did it. We stayed in there. We stayed where we needed to. But why are the developers, those codes don't matter to them? Or they don't, they're not there. for them to follow. They can come in and make whatever changes they would like. I think we need to hold those developers to that same standard as what you hold all of us residents to. We cannot come in and just change whatever we want. We have to stay within what you and what has been set for years. So I hope that you will take that and think about that as us as residents. We cannot just change whatever we want to make it work for us. We have to live within what we have been zoned. So please take that in consideration.

Thank you.

Good evening, my name is Jennifer Toledo. I live on 2700 West. I am gonna be talking about the 26.2 and 26.3 as well. This would definitely cause a lot of issues. I've had this issue with my previous residence in Yuma, Arizona. We owned five acres, we had lots of animals, and we had a little small subdivision built up right along our house or property. We lost chickens, we've lost new animals, We've had lots of complaints towards the animals. Even though our barn structures and our pig pens were there before this residence went up, we were forced to sell our animals because of the complaints. And this is something that would definitely impact us on this street because every one of us, we have skinny acres. And unfortunately, some of our neighbors also have two acres, which, you know, we all have animals. And like Dawn was up here earlier, saying they like to crow. We have turkeys and stuff. They're loud. And this is an issue that's just going to keep coming about. I'm a mother. I go to school full time. I work full time on Hill Air Force Base. I jog at like 10, 11 o'clock at night, sometimes even 1 in the morning. My normal trail was from 4800 South all the way to 4th South and back. And I run that, and it was fine up until the development of these townhouses that was built where the old peach trees and groves and all that were. My husband's coworker used to commute walking to the front runner to go to work in Salt Lake City. She was attacked. And once I started jogging there at night, you know, it was fine, it was great, it was awesome, peach trees, peach groves. And since the development of, there has been a group of males that just kind of hang out there at night during that time frame, so my husband told me, you're gonna change your route, you're gonna just stay around the yard, and I hate jogging just around the block. So this is going to cause a huge issue for all of us. And I have children too, and for them to even play video games or watch TV, they're required to run two miles. That is our family rule. So they run around the block. And so having this whole subdivision come up, it's going to cause issues, especially with them, and safety. The whole area we've already been talked about, it's congested already. And it's just going to cause more issues. That's all I have to say about this. I'm completely against it. Thanks.

Thank you. Any more comments?

My name is Kevin Homer, and I live here in Roy. I'm going to do something a little different. I'm going to talk, share a couple of thoughts about the discussion items one and two. Related to the first one, which is the water restriction plan, I do believe that if there is something going wrong, we should all talk about it. But I also believe if there's something going right, we should also talk about that. Having reviewed this plan that was produced by Michelle Howard and the other members of the staff that helped her on it, I think it's a very good plan. There are a lot of good things about it. There might be a couple of tweaks that need to be made for it, but as the discussion happens, I think you've got something very, very good to start with on that one. The other has to do with discussion item number two, which is Mr. Saxton's proposal for an 18% property tax increase as opposed to a 55% property tax increase. I don't know that I have ever, ever seen that a tax that has been placed on people where it was ever rescinded. This 55% goes on, if it's put on, and I know we've got four members of the council that prefer that instead of an 18% rate, that rate will never come down. I like what Mr. Saxton has proposed, and I think it deserves a lot of good discussion. I do want to add something to that. Instead of a tax that we would all have to live with in perpetuity, I would suggest that we think about getting a bond specifically for employee compensation. That's what a majority of this tax increase would be for, is to adjust the compensation rates for our staff here in the city. If we have a bond, we have a one-time amount of money that certainly could be more than we absolutely need, but it gives the people of this city a chance to voluntarily take upon them this debt. instead of it being forced on us by a vote of just the council. The second benefit would be that it has a finite time. It would not be like a tax that we would have to pay forever and ever and ever because no tax has ever been removed. But with a bond, we would have a certain amount of money that we could fix this problem that has been caused by years and years of not really compensating our employees correctly. So just as an option, maybe think about a bond instead of a permanent tax.

Thank you.

Okay, now we have some action items that Brody is gonna lead us in.

Mayor, council, good evening. I believe that the applicant on 26-2 and 26-3 is here. We'll do most of their presentation. They did create a handout that they gave to staff earlier today. I believe that's being passed around, and then we'll make that part of the record as well. But this is a request from the property owner and the applicant. To adjust the general plan as well as the zoning map, essentially changing it from RE20 to R3 zoning. Appropriate public hearing was held in Planning Commission. Your staff report details who spoke and what. I believe the comments were very similar to the public comments tonight on this issue. Planning Commission did... debate this and have discussion on it, and they did forward a negative recommendation to this. That being said, where this is an applicant who bring it, I would turn the time over to, I believe it's Monica, unless the council has questions for me beforehand. All right.

Okay. Any questions? Okay, Monica.

I'm just waiting for the.

Thank you. Thank you.

Let's see, I didn't do a very good job with the microphone last time. So if you can't hear me or if I'm talking too loud, let me know. You're fine. Okay. All right. Good evening, members of the council and my fellow Roy neighbors. My name is Monica Laws and I am 58 years old and a mother of three. I have lived in Weber County my entire life, but Roy is my hometown. It is where my heart is and tonight I want to share why this proposal matters to my family and our community. Tonight, I will walk you through seven sections that tell a complete story. We start with our family's deep roots in Roy, then we move into what we are proposing for our property on 4800 South. From there, we cover location, water saving, housing needs, economic benefit, and traffic and safety. Please save questions and comments until the end. Before I talk about zoning and numbers, I want to talk about who we are and how we got here. Our family is not an unknown developer from out of town, we are your neighbors. This is personal for us and I hope you see it that way too. Roy is a beautiful place to live. Growing up, I remember swimming at the Roy pool, walking to Skaggs for a 25-cent ice cream, and watching movies at the Roy Theater. I went to Roy Junior High and graduated from Roy High, competing in... graduated from Roy High. My kids Rayleigh and Cheyenne in Canyon went to Midland, Sandridge, and Roy High, competing in sports across the street at the Roy West Park. Every year we look forward to Roy Days. One of our family traditions is scones at B's on the weekends. This community has been the backdrop of our family life. In my lifetime, Roy has grown from about 12,000 residents to 39,000 proud citizens. Some things change and some things stay the same. Like Skaggs becoming an ELS fitness. And like our burger bar, which luckily hasn't changed. One challenge facing Roy now is housing for the next generations. We hope more families will have the chance to live on the corner of 2700 just like we did. That is why we decided to be a part of growing Roy. Our family has owned the property for 20 years, and I have loved every moment. But life moves on. My mother passed away, my father is getting older, and I have been facing my own health challenges. Maintaining these pastures gets harder every year, especially with the water restrictions. After much prayer and thought, we decided that instead of fighting the changes in our city, we wanted to be a part of the right kind of change. When we started researching what sailing would look like, we knew one thing. We did not want to hand this property to someone who does not understand our town. That is why we took on the rezoning application ourselves. No matter the outcome, we are grateful for the chance to learn more about Roy and participate in its civic processes. Taking this on as a family has brought us even closer together. Now that you know our story, let me share what we are proposing. This is not about squeezing in as much as possible. It is about building something thoughtful that fits our neighborhood and helps Roy grow the right way. We have done our best to bring a proposal that is legally, financially, and scientifically sound. We are applying to rezone our property to R3 so we can build multifamily homes that fit the character of the neighborhood. By replacing our thirsty pastures with water-wise landscaping, we will reduce water usage on this corner. We want to help Roy meet its housing goals without disrupting what makes our community special. This is just one example of a development plan that would fit within Roy's existing height guidelines with units that feel like they belong there. Everything will comply fully with Roy's city laws, ordinances, and building codes. We are willing to explore voluntary development agreements. We are also keeping the DRNGW rail trail beautiful. Less than 2% trail footage frontage would be visually affected. Our property is also two houses up from the trail, protecting green space views from trail goers. Let me show you why this specific corner is ideal for this kind of development. The location speaks for itself. Our property sits on one of the most connected spots in Roy. We are less than a mile from the front runner station. Midland Elementary, Sanders Junior High, and Roy High are all within walking distance. Roy Park is directly across the street, and the Aquatic Center is a half a mile away. Groceries, I-15, Hill Air Force Base, and more, everything a family needs is within reach. Imagine families living here who can walk across the street to Roy West Park or a half a mile to the Aquatic Center. They can watch the Roy Days fireworks from their own front porches, just like my family has done for two decades. This is not just a development. It is an extension of the recreation hub Roy has already built. We like to call this location a 15-minute neighborhood. This is exactly where thoughtful density belongs. We are less than three miles from Hiller Force Base and right next to the front runner trucks. We watch that train go by every day. When people can live, work, and commute without needing extra cars, that is good for traffic, good for the environment, and good for Roy. It also means more money spent at our local businesses right here in town. Now let me talk about the water because this is one of our strongest arguments for this project. Our projections use conservative estimates from Utah State University, so you can be confident in the baseline savings we are about to present. Watering our pastures is getting harder every year. It used to be lush and green, now we are just trying to keep everything from dying. Utah is facing a real water crisis. We have all seen what is happening with the Great Salt Lake. Transitioning this property from thirsty grass to drought tolerant landscaping aligns with what the state is asking us to do. After Utah's warmest winter and lowest snowpack on record, keeping two acres of pasture is not sustainable. According to Utah State University, that much grass drains 1.6 million gallons a year. Weber Basin and Roy Water districts are cutting water by 20% and delaying secondary water. By rezoning for townhomes with smart xeroscaping, we step up to help. USU water experts confirm that switching from pasture to drip irrigated xeroscaping cuts outdoor water use by 75%. Approving this rezone saves Roy over a million gallons of water every year and gives our town the starter multifamily homes we need. Here are the real numbers. We have a chance to protect 1.2 million gallons of outdoor water use. Yes, indoor water usage goes up with more households, but modern water, excuse me, But modern water saving features keep total consumption well below what our pastures use today. From a city standpoint, this rezoning is a clear net win for Roy's water future. As a side note to water infrastructure, existing sewer and utility lines on 4800 South and 2700 West can easily handle ten units. This slide walks through the math behind the 1.6 million gallons. Step one, USU extension says pasture grass in northern Utah requires 30 to 36 inches of irrigation per growing season. We conservatively used 30 inches, which equals 2.5 feet. One acre foot equals 325,851 gallons. Step two, two acres times 2.5 feet times 325,851 equals 1,629,255 gallons. Factor in house footprints and add back indoor use for two households. about 120,000 gallons a year. The total sits right at 1.6 million. Step three, USU Center for Water Efficient Landscaping confirms switching from pasture to subsurface drip zero scaping delivers a 75% reduction in outdoor water use. Now outdoor usage, new outdoor usage drops to 400,000 gallons, saving 1.2 million gallons every year. Math is hard to read. Now I want to talk about the people, the real families who need this kind of housing in Roy. This is not about buildings, it is about our neighbors. I'm gonna tell you a story about a previous Roy resident. It's my daughter's friend, Amber Jones. While talking to Rayleigh Bass, they brought up the idea of building townhomes on their family property at the corner of 2700 and 4800 in Roy. I know the property well since it's not far from our family home, and I agreed with Rayleigh that it would be a great idea. This location is ideal for additional homes, given its proximity to the school's public transportation and community walking path. I can see how new town homes would benefit not only families like ours, but also others in the area who are facing similar housing challenges. During COVID, a few of our adult children moved back home, which quickly made things crowded. We encouraged them to consider moving out, but housing costs and limited availability made it impossible for them to afford their own place. The only solution was for my husband and me to move out as we were the only ones who could manage it financially. We ended up moving into an apartment at the property where my husband worked as maintenance and eventually relocated to Clearfield when we couldn't find long-term housing in Roy. It would have been wonderful to have the option of moving into a townhome close to where our kids are and family were living. Having more affordable and accessible housing options would have made a significant difference for us and for others in our similar situation. I understand that change in Roy can be challenging, especially with everything happening in the city. However, as someone who has loved living in Roy most of my life, I believe having more housing options would have been fantastic. Expanding townhome availability could help keep families together and support the community as it grows, making Roy an even better place for everyone to live. When we talk about R3 zoning, it is easy to get caught up in the buildings and the density, but this is really about the people who will live here. Owning land is the American dream, and townhomes built on that property provide a crucial stepping stone for families to build wealth and equity. These homes are for our kids and our grandkids who are being priced out of ROY. We should not be losing young families because we lack housing options, nor leaving citizens trapped in an endless cycle of renting with no path to ownership. The financial wall is real. Single family entry in ROY requires a median income of $108,000 a year and $23,000 in upfront cash. That prices out teachers, airmen, and young families. The townhome bridge lowers the qualifying income from $7,200,000 and drops upfront cash to $14.5. This property could serve as a vital wealth-building stepping stone, enabling families to build equity right here in Roy rather than paying rent to landlords. That is the difference between generational wealth and staying stuck. I know the unspoken question, what happens to my home value? Let's look at the data. The Gardner Policy Institute at the University of Utah studied every new multifamily project in Salt Lake County from 2010 to 2018. Homes within a half a mile appreciated at 10% per year versus 8.6 farther away. That is a 1.4 premium. Your home is worth more, not less. When quality housing goes in nearby, MIT Center for Real Estate called the fear of value loss misplaced. The Urban Institute found a statistically significant increase Not a single U.S. study has found the gentle density hurts values. Roy's own track record confirms this. In Midland Square in 2018, Orchards at 19th that same year, Abington Heights in 2021, all multifamily rezones all successful. Almost 90% of Roy townhome communities already border single family homes. The precedent is set and the neighbors are fine. This proposal works hand in hand with state and city legislation. House Bill 462 gave us a clear message. We need housing affordability and diverse options. The station area plan calls for multi-family homes and mixed housing near transit. While our property is just outside the half mile guideline, We sit right on the walking trail and provide a natural transition between higher density areas and standard homes. As of 2026, Utah is still prioritizing exactly this kind of missing middle housing. What's at risk for Roy if we do not meet moderate income housing requirements? We lose access to vital state funds. Roy's City Zone General Plan supports this too. The plan directs that the city to guide rezone applications toward higher density options, to approve rezones that align with the plan, and to consider neighborhood fit, even when the proposal does not perfectly match the land use map. Our application specifically fits within considering neighbor fit as a pro and this project greatly outweighs the cons. Approving this rezone directly fulfills the state's moderate income housing strategies. meets a House Bill 462 requirements proactively and aligns with the Roy's own general plan. As the quote says on your screen, growth is inevitable and desirable, but destruction of our community character is not. That is exactly our approach. Beyond the housing and the numbers, the project makes strong financial sense for Roy. Let me show you the numbers. Let's talk dollars and cents because this project is a genuine financial win for Roy. Multifamily development generates significantly more tax revenue per acre than a single-family home on that same land. That extra revenue goes directly back into our community, funding Weber School District, maintaining roads, and supporting police and fire. More homes on this two-acre lot means more money working for Roy. But here is the bigger picture. Housing drives business growth. We all want better restaurants, shops, and services. But those businesses need customers who live nearby. Adding 10 townhomes builds that local customer base, which is exactly what attracts commercial investment along our corridors. This project puts more tax revenue into Roy's budget today and helps create the conditions for businesses we want tomorrow. The housing math. Under standard Fannie Mae lending rules, a family makes $7,200,000 a year, can afford about $2,000 a month for housing. Factoring in taxes and insurance, that covers $320,000 townhome. The tax math. Utah primary residents gets a 45% tax exemption, making the effective property tax rate about 0.63%. Ten townhomes valued at $320,000 each, $3.2 million total, generate $20,160 in property taxes every year. City planners measure land efficiency by revenue per acre. Dividing the new tax revenue by the current agricultural baseline proves this project generates nearly seven times more revenue for Roy on the same exact footprint. That is enough to help maintain a neighborhood park, outfit a police cruiser, And because schools receive the largest share of property tax, this rezoning also generates income for Weber County Schools, for Weber School District. As a note on schools and infrastructure, 10 townhomes add about five to eight kids to a district with capacity. And that extra tax revenue covers the marginal service costs. We have covered character, economics, and water. Now let us talk about the question I know is on everybody's mind, traffic and safety. Our parcel sits on a corner lot where two minor arterials meet, 4800 South and 2700 West. That means residents enter and exit on two separate roads, not one. There is no cut through traffic, no bottleneck on any neighborhood street. Let me put the numbers in perspective. The ITE trip generation manual shows that low-rise townhomes generate about 7.32 trips per day per unit. Ten units equal roughly 73 additional cars on a corridor that already carries 13,000 vehicles a day. That is a 0.56% increase, which in traffic engineering rounds to zero. Two recent improvements strengthen the case. Roy installed a traffic signal at 2700 West and 4800 South, giving residents safe, controlled turns in every direction. On top of that, the 5600 South corridor is on track for fall completion and is already pulling regional traffic off of 4800 South, making our streets quieter than they have been in years. keep in mind that this corner's infrastructure was originally built for commercial volumes the roads utilities and emergency responses response capacity can handle 10 townhomes with room to spare on the pedestrian safety side royce city's own general plan flags this corridor for active safety upgrades and the city has already secured weber county local transportation funds to widen path build sidewalks, and improve crosswalks on 4800 South. This rezone does not conflict with neighborhood safety, it aligns with it. Every piece of data points in the same direction. This project fits Roy, fits this corner, and fits right now. Roy is growing whether we act or not. The question is whether we shape that growth or let it happen to us. Tonight the data has shown that this single two acre corner can serve over a million gallons of water, generate essential city revenue, and create the housing our community needs. My three kids grew up on these streets and I want other families to call Roy home too. One request, please evaluate this project on its own merits. I understand the frustration around large scale developments like the Box Elder Data Center, but this is 10 town homes on a corner lot for local families, teachers, first responders, and seniors who want to stay in Roy. Different scale, different purpose. I ask for a fair hearing based on tonight's data. I know that we just came from the planning commission, so if the council needs more time, we are happy to table this for a future meeting. We would rather you feel fully informed than rushed. We voluntarily offered conditions, landscaping buffer, architectural standards, heights limits. These facts give you something concrete to point to when your constituents ask you why you voted yes. Working with our family as a partner in this rezone gives the city more control, not less control. I respectfully ask the council to approve the R3 rezone at 2700 West and 4800 South. so we can build a vibrant Roy together. Thank you.

So, Council, do you have any questions for the applicant or for staff?

You've done a lot of research, appreciate those numbers. A lot of research. Yes, excellent presentation. Thank you. I was wondering as you've done some of that research, have you by chance done any possible site plan type things on how ingress and egress would go or how is that possibly worked? I have not worked on the site plan.

Okay. We are just at this stage right now.

Okay. All right.

Any other questions? Yes.

A few. The traffic studies that go into when land is developed help me to understand staff, are done by the owner or the developer of the property, is that correct? Is that a responsibility? And when are those done in this process, at what point? Oh, it could be before, okay. Before any construction occurs, that would be assumed to have happened.

And so, it could be done before the zoning change is what your summary is?

Correct.

But until, I'm not completely sure, but until there was a plan to build with, you know, the specifics of it, anyway, then that would be kind of hard to say for the traffic study when you don't know what's going to actually be built on the property. But whatever does get built on the property will have to be go through Roy's City and the development plan would have to be adopted by Roy's City. That makes sense. Yeah.

Yeah. Why would you study traffic that you don't know what it's going to be? It doesn't have a plan. So, right. You know, that would be done before groundbreaking. Right. Absolutely. Yeah.

Right. So any other questions? Do I have a motion?

Wait, I still have some more questions. Yes, please. Can you tell us why you chose R3?

Because me and my daughter knew very little about selling a house. This is the first house we've ever owned. And so we started doing some research. And when I first spoke with Steve Parkinson on the phone, he suggested that R3, because directly north of us, R3 is already zoned over there.

Yeah, okay, I see that. So R3, can I clarify as well, what potential housing options are in an R3 zone? Is it any attached housing, any multifamily? Yes, okay.

R3 gives the greatest, not the greatest, but one of the more flexible options. So it could be everything essentially from apartments, townhomes, condos, or single-family, smaller single-family homes.

When you say single-family homes, is there like a, it would still just be like 12 units per, but it could be a single-family home. Could be. 12 units per acre. Yes.

and there are higher density or higher density zoning than r3 like the r4 i believe is has a lot denser housing okay so when just in your presentation and in your notes as well um you mentioned starter homes you mentioned town homes and those to me are words that mean home ownership and so where the r3 zone allows um apartments just by nature the zone um those aren't Those aren't home ownership options that I'm hearing, but you mentioned townhomes several times. And so I'm wondering, is that like, again, you don't have to disclose it, but if you...

we want somebody to respect it and respect the area and what everybody in the neighborhood is concerned about. I don't wanna be driving by there and see on the property that we worked 20 years and took care of and to see a bunch of apartments. The vision that me and my daughter have are town homes that are like the town homes in the presentation.

Yeah, which I saw, yeah, yeah. It was a good presentation, by the way. It was really well organized, and I was able to follow everything you were trying to say, and I appreciate your time you put into it. So this is not a development agreement, but such a thing would occur later, a development agreement.

No, I mean, this is for a rezone.

Right, right, but if this were to go through, what would be in the future, or would it just be we would not see this again?

Correct, application for permitted uses. If it's not a permitted use and it's something that requires a legislative decision, that would come to you. But if you rezone it, there's those permitted uses within that zone that would not come before the council.

Sure, because they are already acceptable within the zone that we would have changed it to. Correct. Okay. So where the R3 zone is a little more flexible and allows for a variety of, you know, attached housing and whatnot, a variety of densities, if you will, And you're mentioning townhomes, but that's not something we can count on just changing the zone right now Like that's not something we can be promised but I I think I need a little clarification as well because I know that in in an instance where a city puts up money in order to further a development that there's some kind of agreement that's made upon and That if we're not vested then we would have no more say so can you explain that process a little bit more?

Dave Kuntz, So I mean part of that is like a development agreement and development agreement is something that you could grant certain rights and then control it in a more limited fashion, rather than a reason, like said if it's a reason.

have all those permitted uses of development agreements you're going to have it tied to specific things that you are stating in the agreement that are approved for that area or for that property okay okay um i guess um i'm leaning towards i like my understanding about just really quick i know about the water my understanding was that housing by far uses far less water than agriculture And and that seems to be what you've seen as well. I've heard some that have felt like they that they have researched others. I'm going to look more into that, but that's just something that I feel like what I what I know of it does align with what you've what you've shown. The housing concerns, of course, that we're facing, right? I mean, that's not a big secret. Housing shortages. I bought a house in this market, so I know what the deal is there. And I am seeing some compromise here where we see opportunities to home ownership or pathways to home ownership with townhome-type structures or even small single-family homes. It sounds like that might even be flexible still. But my concern is that leaving this rezone here doesn't give us the flexibility. It gives more the flexibility. It kind of deflects that flexibility and deflects our authority. Does that make sense? And I'm not trying to say I don't trust you, but plans change. They can change. That's the idea of why you build a binding development agreement so that everybody knows what's going to happen and they have a plan to plan on in the future. And this rezone doesn't seem to hold anybody to that. And so that's just a preliminary concern. I would be interested to hear what the rest of the council has to say because I think I've said enough for now. But any other thoughts?

I was going to say that because that zone does open it up to other things that That is worrisome to me. I didn't know if you had considered another zone or if you or if that was the main one that you've looked at.

This is the first zoning that we're considering and we just believe that it's, that with everything with the housing bill and the station area plan and the Roy City plan and where it states in the general plan to promote higher density zonings, I just think that all of that falls into a specific place. And maybe somebody might build more town homes or build apartments, but that just means that the property tax money that you would get would be even more. And it would mean that even more people are going to spend money in the businesses around the town.

thank you and also i wanted to say thank you for such a good presentation thank you i think to answer a little bit of alexis's question that secondary water and culinary water are treated a bit differently because of their uses and culinary water is reused in the system because it goes through treatment and then it gets put back into the system where secondary water can evaporate or It does eventually maybe go into the ground and get into our system, but it takes a lot longer and things. So that's kind of the difference there I think that people are talking about.

So then what does that say about the water usage? Does it or does it not decrease residential versus agriculture?

Yeah, so if we're talking secondary water, it will, like housing, especially smart, landscaping and water usage will decrease secondary water significantly. And that's what we're worried about most in our state right now is the secondary water. And so I learned a lot about it at our conference. I went to a couple of classes and it was very beneficial. And that is the huge main concern is the secondary water.

Any other comments or questions?

I know I have a couple of things I would like to research a little further, and so your offer to be comfortable with tabling, and I actually could use a little more time studying that. I don't know if anybody else has that kind of thought process, but I know for me that would be helpful.

don't know just you know especially the ingress egress that type of stuff just to kind of consider some of those details I think I'd be okay with that I don't want a motion yet though because I have one more question maybe oh is there a zone that's like that like designates townhomes I don't know, like a specific townhome zone. No, Roy doesn't have one.

Not specific.

I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT I'M NOT ANTI-APARTMENT ANYWHERE, THAT KIND OF THING. WHAT I HESITATE ON IS THAT THE ZONE IS SO FLEXIBLE THAT ONCE AFTER WE APPROVE IT, WE DON'T SEE IT AGAIN. AND I JUST LIKE TO BE PART OF THAT. I THINK THE AUTHORITY TO BE PART OF THAT AND WE KIND OF GIVE THAT UP. SO I WOULD BE OKAY TO TABLE IT. I WON'T MOTION IT. I'LL LET ANYONE ELSE IF THERE'S MORE DISCUSSION.

I'm curious what Jason's thoughts are and Brian's.

It's always difficult to give an opinion on something. But I came from Planning Commission. I do believe in they've done their due diligence in this case. So I'm fine if any of the council wants to table the issue. But for me, it's a no. I'm going with the Planning Commission's recommendation. So whatever the rest of the council would like to decide, that's up to them. But that's where I sit on the issue.

Did you have thoughts on it, Brian? Oh, I've got lots of thoughts.

Okay. I look at that many units going in there, and I can't help but not think that I would not want to be its neighbor. And so, as a result, I'm gonna rely on the Planning Commission and accept their negative recommendation. I mean, you're doubling the number, roughly, at least. That's a lot for anybody to live next to. I'd hate it if it moved in next to me. So I'd say let's not table it. Let's not waste any more minutes, and let's vote. That's my opinion.

So we have a motion and then we can do a roll call vote.

Well, I was just going to say that I also don't like the... I don't like the idea of changing the zoning right there. Or yeah, the zoning. And because I don't think it fits in the general plan and it's, I don't really mind, like I have several town homes next to our neighborhood and they've been really great neighbors. So that's not so much it for me as much as I do think that the general plan does talk about unique neighborhoods and things like that. and I do appreciate that in our general plan. I know that I feel like my neighborhood's unique because of the people and it sounds like a lot of people here feel that way as well. In fact, I really appreciate yourself and several others being respectful about their comments and not doing personal attacks on you or others because I think that that's, you know, what makes Roy great is the people respecting each other and things and so I do appreciate that you've been that way and several others have been that way as well. So I did want to throw that in before we voted just to say thank you to everyone for that. Yeah.

And I just wanted to mention, I think one of the big concerns that maybe hasn't been brought up as much is property owner rights. And I think that is a really important thing. It's funny how When it's your property, you want that right. And as soon as it's your neighbor's property, you still want that right for there. And so that's what concerns me a little bit because I believe that we should maximize your opportunity to have that right to do what you want with your property. I don't feel comfortable quite yet with that decision because I've got a few more things that I've been trying to research. And so for me, I would prefer to table it so I could vote confidently one way or the other with that. But I just feel that the general plan is certainly part of it. We talk about it, that area. Me personally... You know, I've been in the middle of having someone take away my property owner rights and it was actually the opposite way. So I'm very sensitive to that. And I just think, for me, a little more research needs to be done because we need to, at least for me, I need to feel absolutely confident if I'm taking away those rights from you. that I need to be confident. Or if I'm going to give you that opportunity, I need to feel confident about that. So my motion, if no one else has a comment, would be I move that we table this so we can just get a little more detail. That would be my motion.

So do we need three council members to?

Yeah, you would need a second on any motions made.

OK. So do we have a second to table it? Yes, I'll second. OK. So we do roll call vote?

Yes.

Aye.

Council Member Holbert?

Nay.

Council Member Spahr?

Nay.

Council Member Saxton?

Nay.

Council Member Wilson?

Aye.

So that motion dies.

Right. So we have no motions on the floor, and I can continue discussing. Mayor, please.

So we can, yeah.

So I guess we got to vote now at some point because we have not tabled it.

Make a motion that we disapprove, we vote no, we deny the application for the zoning request.

And before we have a second, is it still possible for Alexis to ask her questions? So if you have further questions, you're still willing to do that?

You can still discuss, yes.

Can I also ask real fast? So she could come back with another plan or something at some point. So this doesn't mean that.

Tabling the issue prolongs it. Right. If there was a dial, she could go right back to work with a different plan.

I just wish we had something to suggest in lieu, but I mean that's I mean coming back. I hope you do come back I do because it's unfortunate I can't take more time to to work this over and I have taken time already I've driven by and I've talked to some neighbors and I've talked to you and I've viewed the property and I hope that there can be some agreement that strikes a compromise because there's a lot of needs in this and I hope that we can come to something.

Thank you. So the consideration, the ordinance 26.2 is now.

So there's a motion to deny, there's no second.

Right. Second. Okay, then we do a roll call vote.

AYE.

AYE. AYE. AYE.

And as you know, the only reason I would be voting this way is because I feel that I needed more information because I don't feel I could go either way. So at this point in time, you know, this at least allows you maybe an option to bring it back or something like that. So I'll agree with the denial, but you understand why. And it's not necessarily what I wanted to do at this time.

Thank you. I appreciate that.

Okay. Thank you, Monica.

Okay. Thank you.

So now on Consideration Ordinance 26-3.

I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DENY THE CONSIDERATION OF 26-3.

DO I HAVE A SECOND? I THINK WE NEED A ROLL CALL VOTE.

COUNCILMEMBER WILSON.

SO WE'RE DENYING THIS. THE MOTION IS TO DENY. SO I'M GOING TO SAY I AGREE WITH DENIAL. OKAY. COUNCILMEMBER SAXTON.

AYE. COUNCILMEMBER JACKSON.

AYE.

COUNCILMEMBER SPARR. AYE.

COUNCILMEMBER HOLBERT.

Okay so now Brody you're going to talk about consideration ordinance of 26-4.

Thank you again, Mayor, City Council. This is Ordinance 26-4. This is a proposed development agreement with Stewardland regarding a project located approximately 3925 West and 4965 South. Currently, the parcel is zoned R18. This was brought to Planning Commission, a public hearing was held, public comments were taken. The request in this development agreement is to essentially approve around a 43 lot subdivision on that acreage. The Planning Commission, again, held the hearing, had public comment, received comment. After quite a bit of back and forth and debate, ultimately a negative recommendation was forwarded to city council. Again, the applicant is here and would address the council. So unless there's initial questions for me, we'll submit it to him and then have discussion.

Okay, no questions, council? Nope? Okay. Okay.

Brad Brown, thank you for your time. While I don't love being on this end, I do love seeing communities that care. And while it technically is like a small percentage, this is a good turnout. You don't always see people that care this much. And it goes to show what a special community that is, or this is. I know there's two sides of this. I know, and you guys are the ones tasked with trying to make the decision. I heard a lot of comments about, this is not affordable. And we had some discussion at Planning Commission. I wish I had a magic bullet to make it We call it attainable. It's as close as we can get, and we hope we're moving in that direction. And I know there's concerns about how many. And I know that there's a lot of reasons that we're thrown out there. And a lot of those reasons would be the same or with negligible difference if it was 43 or 40 or 20. I was really trying to listen to everybody and hear what they say. And a lot of the reasons we can mitigate, we can manage between planning staff and city engineers and the traffic and the water and the utilities and all those things will have to be done right. There's standards for that and I'm confident we can do that. But I think what I... You know, the underlying message that I heard was Roy is special and what we have here, we don't want to lose. And I totally understand that. And I wouldn't want to either. And our hope is not to change that. We hope we can add to that. And we hope to be good partners with the city and make something that is special and maintains those neighborhoods and has the same thing that everybody raved about living there. We hope a few more people can have that. So we're here, we're excited to be in Roy. I don't live in Roy, I just live in Riverdale, right across the border, but it feels like a continuation, still feels like home, and I don't want to do anything to disrupt what you guys have going on, but we hope we can contribute to that. So happy to answer any questions if you have any right now.

Councillor, do you have any questions?

Yes, if you don't mind, I've heard that, and whether you can answer this question or not, but my understanding is that your goal is around four, and I'm going to maybe preface this, that goal for this attainable option would be around $400,000 a unit is my understanding. And so with that being said, we know that that may, that's still difficult, but certainly when you talk about standards, the standards in the Roy area would be 430, I think they say for median, and anywhere else it's like 570,000 in Utah. And so if by chance we are really trying to make homes that we can invite people in, and we can invite our children, our neighbors, And we want to keep it at 8,000 square foot lots. Can you give me just a ballpark what that would cost? Because I'm sure you can do it. It just means that the cost would be significantly different. And I'm just asking if you can do some sort of a ballpark difference what that would be.

Ballpark, you know, don't quote me on this, but typically we're a land development company. You know, we will put in improvements and then sell the lots to builders. And our rule of thumb is, you know, these lots as we have them would be worth about $100,000. And so the final price is usually four times that. So it would be about $400,000. If you go up to an $8,000, that gets into a lot that would be worth around $130,000. So it would probably end up in the $550,000, $600,000 range. 650, you know, I forgot that. I wouldn't want you to come after me.

Sure, sure. Yeah, 650. So that definitely isn't attainable for people.

Right.

And I was just wondering, so for affordable, basically it could be done. It's just that it would just really put it out of reach for people to come to this area is kind of what I hear you saying in regards to that because of the median income.

Yeah, and I think there's, I think it was Ty Chase that mentioned, there's availability, you know, and eventually there's probably going to be somebody who will find those. But if our goal is to make something that people can get into, you know, That's our goal in trying to have these smaller ones. It's something that we can make pencil, we can afford to do, and we are passionate about trying to move that needle on attainability.

Now, I'll just share some comments I received for some people that have purchased homes in the Highgate Cove. I'm not sure exactly what that's called, but the similar area. They were so grateful that they could, you know, It wasn't exactly their dream to begin with, but they certainly didn't want to buy a townhome. They were so grateful to have a home they could that was attainable, which I believe is probably the more correct word. And even though the side yards were closed, they still had their own little piece. and they weren't just part of a townhome. And so that in of itself I think is a really nice perk and benefit because it isn't something that's being offered. People that want a single family home really don't have options in Roy. I know of no other options right now of something especially attainable if you're talking probably more like 600,000, 550 to 650 if we just average it at 600,000. So, I was just going to share those comments. They were so grateful to have that as an option. And sadly, you know, development is occurring and things are costing a lot more. And I really liked how you mentioned ROYA is special and it allows people to come and participate in some of that special and still do it in an achievable way to have a little bit of that single family home goal and dream that they might have. And maybe this question is for Brody. You know, there was a question why developers get a different code instead of following that, you know, 8000, the R-1-8. Could you just maybe review that a little bit and share that?

Sure. So... What essentially is occurring, not only with Mr. Brown, but the presentation before us, is there is a set of rules. There's a zoning ordinance that applies to land throughout Roy and specific to the projects that are mentioned here tonight. What essentially happens is that the applicants or the property owner come in and say, this is our idea. This is what we would like to do. This is the changing that we're asking for. And that's essentially why they're here. um you know someone who has their you know once once the reality is once a residential family home is built you don't really have a reason for a development agreement or a zoning change however you certainly could like any person who lives in roy who wants to come in and say i have this piece of property and i don't think the zone fits they can make an application and go through the process to change it just like Mr. Brown did. So it's really just persons who own property are asking for a change, either the zoning code or, in this one, a specific development agreement or a contract with the city to say, on my property, this is what I would like to do, and it's up. This is the process we go for to make that change. So every owner that anybody that has property or property interest in Roy can go through that same process and request a change to a zone, a change to an ordinance or a specific development agreement to allow, you know, some sort of use. They would just go through the process exactly like the applicants have here tonight.

And maybe I can just ask, we've had a lot of comments about people don't want their property taxes raised. And so one of the ways to lower that raise or to help deflect that would be to have more homes, more housetops. I guess that's my understanding. That would be correct, right? We'd be able to at least save some of that concern.

Yeah. And this is a, I'm painting with a broad brush here, but you maximize property tax per acre when you build more valuable buildings on those, right? The most valuable building that we could build would be on a commercial that's taxed 100% and six stories in the air. That would be the best usage of that acreage as far as property tax is concerned. I thought the last presenter did a really good job. It's pretty consistent with any project. When you talk about a single family home, versus townhomes or smaller single family homes where you get more homes per acre. It's consistent to see anywhere between a 500 and an 800% increase in property tax value when you do something like that. um that is consistent to many projects that we've looked at in many applicants so that i'm borrowing the the last presentation where um you know her facts are are consistent i'm not sure 100 i could do the math and let you know exactly what it is and we could do that on you know on this project um But you take an open space that has really the least amount of property tax value, and you added 43 times, let's call it 400. I'm not great with math. I mean, that's $16-plus million. So you've raised the property tax value of this, whatever 55% of $16 million is, right? So it would be a significant property tax increase to the city for projects like this.

And I guess another question I'm going to ask, if you don't mind, is we keep hearing the voices that we want more sit-down restaurants, we want more economic development, and some of the research I've been doing is that several places that we're talking about coming to Roy because we didn't have the appropriate number of rooftops, the appropriate median income, that those, it has nothing to do with what we want or what the city fathers or City staff want it all comes down to Two those are two of the key factors is median income and number of rooftops. There may be some other factors Maybe you can just talk about that and see if that seems to fit with what you're hearing in your department. I

No, that is consistent. And I want to say pick on, but it's not pick on, because I think he's done a great job for Royce City. But I'll use Councilmember Saxton, for example. Since I've been around Royce City, he's been passionate about new businesses and growth. And I can't tell you how many times Mr. Saxton and I have had phone calls about this business or talked about this business. And there's interest, and then it just doesn't work out for whatever reason. If it was up to what we wanted and how many phone calls Mr. Saxton or myself or anyone else involved with the city talk with businesses, I could make you a list a couple pages long of all the businesses that would be here just with Mr. Saxton's efforts. The reality is it is all meshed together, right? The big businesses, the type of things that people tell us that we're shooting for and the development that we go for, they are doing their research and the biggest ones they're looking at are rooftops and population based on a radius essentially of their proposed business. Many businesses then are looking at uh... median income of the surrounding area and people within the range that they're going to come to this restaurant uh... and then all the other demographics they're going to look at as well as you know traffic counts and peak flows and and all those things. So it is tied together, right? The things we want, the upgrades that we're looking for do come with development and basically the statistical analysis that those businesses do about the city of Roy.

Yeah, I asked you another question. And so you were talking about selling these lots. Would you sell them to like an individual person that could maybe build their own? Or would it have to be someone that is just, you know, going to do the whole bunch? Or would you do it in sections? How would that work for my own interest?

I mean, again, not 100% answer, but typically we'd sell to builders that would build multiple homes.

And one thing.

Mm-hmm.

I've kind of taken over the questions. There may be other people that have questions.

Any other questions, Council? There has been concern about the water or the water retention in the area, but do you have information on that or do we have information on that?

Yeah, it's what you call non-jurisdictional wetlands. There is some wetlands on the south side, and we've had a wetland engineer come inspect it, and they're going to do a delineation process for us. But the main concern with wetlands is if it's part of U.S. waterways, you know, if it's coming from one to another. This is not that. a low spot that maybe once upon a time was a canal that flowed through, but now retains water, whether it's below the water table or just a catch basin. That's one of the things that staff and city engineer would have to completely approve of, and we'd have to meet whatever state or city standards.

I think someone specifically asked about the HOA plan and some HOAs that fail. And again, you don't have an entire plan, but I don't know if you have any word on that.

I was thinking about that as I said that. As we put together a development, the city has said that they don't want these streets, so these would be private, which means there would be an HOA. Those CC&Rs for the HOA would have to be approved by Matt and everybody and make sure that there's safeguards in there. I've never seen or experienced an HOA failure, not to say that it doesn't happen, but I don't want it to happen. I don't want my name on something that ends up not being presentable.

Just to add to the HOA, I know that the state just, well, I guess it's been the last couple years, maybe last year, I don't know, but they have started a department, I guess, or someone that's over HOA issues, so if there are problems... they can be better resolved through that office and because there are I know that they don't necessarily fail, but sometimes there's a lot of HOA issues. So I just wanted to throw that in as a little bit of education.

So in regards to traffic, we heard a lot of concerns about traffic. Traffic studies will be done, or have they been done? Or will that possibly change or adjust your plans, I guess? Or maybe you can just address that.

Yeah, so that's definitely a consideration we have to take. And, you know, in a traffic study, like a traffic impact study is... a big, broad term that has, you know, a lot of components to it. And, you know, there's the issues that we're concerned about. Definitely we want engineer input, whether or not it has to be a full traffic study or an engineer memo or, you know, discussion. And I've discussed it with my engineer and with John Beauregard, the city engineer, as far as what those initial concerns are. But yeah, we fully intend to do whatever it takes to make that safe. And there's standards and, you know, you have a great staff that will hold us accountable for those.

Sorry, I have the squeaky mic. Someone did bring up fire concerns, and I know we have the fire marshal here as well, so that's helpful. My understanding, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, is that the higher densities an area or buildings are, then they have

additional fire codes to make them more safe i don't know if and we'll see if he corrects me but depending on the distance between buildings you don't want to get too close or we typically don't want to because there's uh you have to have fire rated materials and so there's standards there's you know safeguards in place for that as well but so one concern i do have um

just about any small plots in general, because we see this all over Roy, because I think it was, I don't know, in the 60s or whenever it was that we had certain areas built with smaller homes to accommodate lower income housing. And we have quite a few neighborhoods like that across Roy. It was a project that came in at the time, I think related to maybe because we had Hill here. I can't remember all the history behind it, but And my main concern as we've progressed through, you know, growth and all these things is that we can't – there's some that are so close that there's not room to get, like, vehicles in the back or whatever to store those things because we say, oh, you can park on the side of the house or whatever, but there's not room. Does that make sense? And so I'm concerned about – that in the future and I know sometimes you can offset it depending how much room there is to provide that maybe on one side of the home or something but I just I'm not sure if there's really a way around that with that small plots but I didn't know if that was something you'd taken into consideration or you're just trying to like help someone get a small enough plot so they can afford to buy a home.

That's exactly right. This is meant to be as attainable as possible. And we typically, if it's a little bit bigger, then we plan on space for an RV pad. This is typically not a space where, you know, if somebody is stretching to get into a $400,000 home, likely won't have an RV. And so that's just, you know, our kind of reasoning.

so on i guess to go along with that so someone could buy one of these plots though and build a smaller home on it to accommodate that or do they have to build i mean i'm just asking because you said that they're individual lots for sale and they can choose their own builder is that right or well if yeah if an individual had they could if we sell it to a builder the builder would would likely build it and then sell it you know okay i see what you're saying okay

So, but there's nothing prohibiting, you know, an RV pad or any specific building design, at least as far as we're concerned, you know, it has to meet code and, you know, whatever the city standards are.

I was just unclear.

And we would also have, you know, having an HOA, we would have CC&Rs that would, you know, at least make sure, when I said they can build whatever they want within reason, we want to make sure that reason is still within the character of the community and the city's okay with that. So the city will approve, you know, any restrictions like that.

Okay. Thanks. That answered my questions.

So just quite a bit of concern. I hear, I've heard a lot now of people, many people saying, you know, we're not opposed to developing. People say that a lot, though. And then they go, but. But people, in this case, I hear a lot of, you know, I see that this, you know, that the property owner owns this, which is zoned for a certain thing. It's not going to stay afield forever. That's the property owner's rights to do that because it's within the zone. So, but there have been some that have said, can you come down on the number of houses? And so, I realize it sounds like with trying to fit as many houses as you've proposed, sounds like to be an effort to increase the attainability, because if you have a smaller lot, then your purchase is smaller, and so if you have smaller of them, then more will be available and they'll be sold at a lower price than if they were on a larger lot. Am I understanding that intention, I guess, correctly?

Yeah.

Okay.

Oh, I did come up with another question. So I know that we're kind of towards the beginning of this, and that's kind of how the process works, right? The landowner or person working with them, developer, comes to the city and says, hey, I want to do something like this, and then the city says, Okay, you can present it and get it voted on and we go through the process this legal process that we go through and And I think that's important for citizens to know Because a lot of times they say well the city wants this or the city But that's not necessarily like we're trying to respect the property owners wants and and allow them to have that process but Where I was oh now I'm gonna lose my train of thought Shouldn't have shouldn't have went there. Oh and Nope, I'm going to have to come back to it. Sorry, I talk too much. Okay, give me a few seconds while someone else has something to say.

So I just wanted to echo a couple of comments from Planning Commission that I reviewed. And... A couple of them were... In fact, I was a little surprised that they all in the end voted against it because there was a lot of chatter over, like, oh, maybe, and it kind of fits, and, you know, it's a gradient. You know, you have this, you know, bigger lots, and it gets smaller, and then you have a pocket, and, like, it is a gradient. There's, like, you know, kind of a buffer there, and it made sense in some ways, and then the sentiment in the end that I observe and that I can summarize best I can is that we'll let city council deal with it, and, like, you'll get another chance to present, basically, is that... And I don't know, so I was surprised to see that there were no yay votes just because of the discussion that I was hearing. I was hearing some people saying, you know, a couple of them, I won't name them, but a couple that had said, this makes sense in the area, you know, because you have larger lots on the outside, they get smaller, and then you have like a pocket. And when I look at the map, I see that backyards face this development. It's like a cottage area, it's backyards. the neighbors face out away from it. And so when I look at it just from this bird's eye view, right, the map, I'm seeing that it seems to be self-contained in a way. And I'm wondering if we can come to some kind of a, Man, some kind of a compromise on the number of units. And that's because of the concerned residents or the concerned neighbors. And yet I say that, and I know that to reduce the number of units jacks up their prices, which decreases attainability. So... And I'm trying to meet several goals here, you know, I'm trying to meet several goals. And one of those things is, is a, is a, you know, owning home ownership. There's, there's several barriers to that right now. And that's something, you know, even when I, before I, you know, took office, I had people reaching out, you know, asking me during my campaign, what kind of a council member would be, how will you help us to, to attain housing, to obtain housing? And, and I, I know the struggles that are real in the housing market because I had to buy in it. And so I know, you know, what's affordable and what's not. And, You're right. They don't even call it affordable anymore. It's more attainable. That's the label that we're using. And so I know that to shrink the number of units is going to jack up their prices, and that's going to be more difficult for people to get in. Can we develop an agreement, right? So are we kind of agreeing on some plans moving forward? Is it in order to suggest that part of the development agreement is owner-occupied property, or is that the intention anyway? But is that a way we can officially agree on that?

That's the intention. I mean, I think I'm OK with that. But what it does is it clouds title and makes things messy. But we have no intention of trying to have a rental community here.

But explain what you mean, though, when you say it kind of clouds things.

Clouds title. So then you have a deed restriction on title that sometimes will make it hard for insurance or for financing or for other things. It's one more thing that kind of, you know, it's just a drop in the bucket, but adds more complication, more cost.

So now I remember my question. I went along with that. Where I was going with that is, so because we're at the beginning of the process, you may or may not know the answer to this. But I'm wondering, we know that you'll have to do some kind of water retention basin and things like that. So you would obviously lose some of those plots already just based on our codes and different things that you have to meet. And so I didn't know if you had any idea of generally how many plots it would maybe go down or not really at this stage?

So I was going to mention that with, you know, 43 is the high end and it's not going to end up 43 because of things like that. We have, you know, without having done the full geotechnical study and, you know, watershed analysis, we're guessing two lots we'd lose for that. And, you know, so So that's a strong possibility. And, you know, depending on getting the full design done, you know, there's likely something that might, you know, bump it down 41 or, you know, 40, 40 or 39 or something. But kind of that lot size is, you know, is what gets us to what we're shooting for with that, you know, that home size.

And that's about 400,000, is that what you're saying? It's five. It's almost five acres.

Oh, oh, oh, you're talking about, yeah. Between the three parcels.

Like 4.75 or something.

Oh, I see what you're saying, yeah. So one question I had, which actually was going to be that question too. So as part of that, I guess when you do the retention pond, you know, that's something that you could make into like a park area, right? Could it be like a twofer of sorts or more or something like that then?

Yeah. Yeah, for sure. I mean, we want it to be a nice community as well. And so depending on the slope and the water table and what that looks like, you know, and if we like to put our stamp on it. So if we can, you know, whether it's in the detention or not, we like to have some kind of park or some something in there. So. And I've heard Brody say this before, but this is step one of many steps of the process. And we want it to be a good thing that we can be proud of, that the city can be glad they voted for.

Well, I very much respect your honor in that regard and working with us. I don't believe everyone is able to claim maybe that same position as you do, so I want you to know I do appreciate that.

Well, hopefully I can, you know, I hope that those don't come across as, you know, vain words and later you come back and say, hey, he said that. So...

Yeah, appreciate that. I also appreciate, I think that you've done good work. I think for this particular area, I would like to see the density go down some more. I do think that like I wouldn't rezone it that way. So I just don't know why I would do a agreement for that as well. So I just think, you know, if we could maybe work on that a little more, that's just my personal feelings on it. But I do really appreciate that you're trying to do single homes. I do. Because she's right. Diane's right. You can't find that as easily, especially new builds and Roy for single family homes as much anymore. Yeah. And I do appreciate that a lot of the community, like you said, you're trying to listen to them and that they are not against single family homes, obviously. They just maybe don't want that many as well. So I think that there's some good stuff to work with there. Yeah.

And you had mentioned the process. And, you know, we came in and I know that this has been a problem. spot for the city for a long time between the two right you know uh owners with differing opinions and um and we we got a shot at it right now and you know the city or this this parcel does have constraints it's constrained on four sides you know your access points are where they are there's you know there's there's things to deal with there's you know obviously making it work financially trying to get the the home prices down And so we came in and, you know, discussed it with the city and, you know, this was what, they kind of directed this tour, this matches, you know, with the goals of the city. And I know density always is scary, but as much as possible, I try to both build and then, you know, talk about how if we can divorce the density from the effects of density, you know, because like traffic I know is a concern, but traffic with 35 lots versus 43 lots, is not much of a difference but that makes a huge difference on the affordability end and and so you know we again we we kind of took uh our discussion with the with staff in the in the initial stages and and you know hopefully we can hit a a price point that makes sense and hits those goals and i and again i wish i had a solution where we could have two hundred thousand dollar homes yeah wouldn't that be nice so maybe maybe one day but well i

I like it for a lot of reasons. You know, if I'm looking at density, really, it sounds like it's a trade-off, density and attainability. It's a trade-off. So I have to pick what I prioritize. And I think, you know, giving up 10 homes and making it 33 instead of 43 is not a whole lot of change in the density. I don't know what you're going to notice, really, about a smaller, you know, a bit bigger lot, just a little bit bigger lot, just to take out 10 homes, but that attainability... shoots right through the roof you know when when you i guess the unattainability shoots right through the roof right the price goes right through the roof when you when you add a few more and so i think considering everything i think considering um the difference in tax revenue property tax revenue this would generate um the um the bringing rooftops and luring businesses commercial which is another thing that's that's another base of tax that we're going to need I think considering the housing crisis that we are in and the attainability problems there and the concerns there, I think this checks a lot of boxes for me, and I think I'd be willing to give a little more density in order to check those boxes. So if a motion's in order.

Yeah, do we have a motion to consider Ordinance 26-4?

I would motion to approve. Is it Ordinance 26-5, though? Is it 4? Oh, 26-4. Okay, I've turned a page on accident. I've turned the wrong page. Okay, so I motion to approve Ordinance 26-4. Do we have a second?

I'll second it.

Okay, we have a roll call vote.

nay council member wilson aye council member holbert nay council member jackson aye council member saxon nay

OK. I'm sorry about that. I think you had a great project that would help us in so many ways. We have people complaining about a lot of things. You brought solutions to those complaints. And I apologize that you weren't able to help us with those solutions. Thank you very much. Thank you for your efforts. Thank you very much.

I'd like to add, I'd love to see more ideas in that area. So come back.

If anybody knows the sellers and can give me some time, that would be great. Okay.

Okay. Brody, you got consideration. Ordinance 26-5.

Thank you, Mayor, City Council. Again, Ordinance 26-5. This is a request to annex just under four acres into Royce City with a zoning designation of SN Station North. This is approximately 2175 West, 3750 South. This is essentially next to the Hanson property that we've talked about extensively along the rail trail. There's kind of some slivers that, for reasons beyond most people's comprehension, were just never... They were part of Weber County up until today. Mr. Brown, as you all know, has been working on that property. for a long time now, and this is kind of one of the items to just make it clean as they start their project in there. This has gone through all the appropriate legal steps, the right applications, you'll notice in your packet. Ogden City has approved it as the entity that owns an airport nearby. The county's all on board. Really, it's a cleanup matter. If there's questions, I'm happy to answer them.

So any questions, council? Can I have a motion? Ordinance 26-5. So moved. I have a second.

Second.

I have a roll call vote.

Aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.

Aye. Aye.

Okay, so now Janelle, you're gonna propose 26-11.

Yes, so just a short history behind this. It was presented, well, I asked it as a discussion item, I don't know, it's been several months now, and to help address our issue when people come to the city and ask for, know traffic studies or different things done on their street or they just have they think people are going too fast on their street or too many or just so they want a stop sign or you know lots of different things uh and so i thought and i think this stemmed from what had been talked about before i came into office i know the council had talked a little bit about it before as well And so I just wanted to carry that on and with some, I got together with some staff and we worked through this and ultimately we decided it would be a lot easier to make it simple and straightforward so when the residents came in that they could just say, oh, this is what I need to do, these are the steps, they fill out the form, and then the process begins. And... So and I think that also if I know that some people might have a question of who looks over these When the application comes in like who looks at it and it would be I think we decided Correct me if I'm wrong Matt, but police fire possibly if it and brand or sorry Public Works and Was that it? Okay, yeah. So that's who would kind of look through it, and I think it could be a great way to help it so not every single thing has to come. I think it's confusing and frustrating to residents when they can't just have action taken. They have to come to a city council meeting. They may or may not have time to do that, and this just helps them have a more straightforward process on that. So any questions about it?

One of my concerns had been the collecting of data and I was just happy to hear that we now have a system that saves us a lot of time and manpower and expense for that. So, that concern of mine has been alleviated. And I like the flexibility so we can work with that.

Great work on this. Appreciate the time put into it.

I think it was a good thing for you to bring up.

Thanks to the staff that really helped because this is my first thing. I didn't really know what I was doing very much. I appreciated it.

So I have a consideration. Resolution 26-11, do I have a motion?

somebody say something can i motion on my own i move that we approve consideration resolution 26-11 resolution of the red city council adopting a traffic calming program do i have a second i'll second okay we have a roll call vote council member holbert aye council member spark aye council member saxton aye council member wilson aye council member jackson aye

OK, we'll move on to Resolution 2612. And Matt, you're doing that one.

Yes, I know this is the highlight of your night. So the parking and backing policy, also known as the back-in policy. This is something that's part of our trust safety program. They're requiring us to adopt a parking and backing policy. Traffic accidents or just accidents involving vehicles are one of the most common liabilities that municipalities face. So this is something that the trust has developed to help us be more safe as we're either backing or arriving, parking, whatever it be. Just general requirements when driving a city vehicle. Most notably is backing into a parking stall when you arrive somewhere. Try to avoid pulling in and then also just performing the circle of safety. Use a spotter when you're parking larger equipment and then also use of cones and high visibility vests. So any questions, concerns?

I think I had you answer all my questions, so it looks good to me.

It seems pretty straightforward. I know lots of organizations do this.

OK. Do we have a motion to approve 26-12?

I move that we adopt Resolution 26-12. Do I have a second? I'll second. OK.

It's a roll call vote. Council Member Wilson? Aye.

Aye. Council Member Jackson?

Aye.

Council Member Sexton?

Aye.

Council Member Spahr?

Aye. OK, so it's approved. So we have discussion item and Michelle about the 2026 parks restrictions plan.

Mayor and Council, thank you. It's a pleasure to be here with you today. I'll try to be quick. I'm here presenting the Parks and Recreation Department's watering plan for the 2026 irrigation season. A detailed plan was provided in the agenda packet, and I'll quickly give a brief summary. Essentially, the plan is divided into three sections. First, the turf section. Turf areas are categorized into three levels. Level one are priority areas, such as our athletic fields. Those spaces will be maintained to ensure player and user safety, not only for our recreation programs, but our community partners and citizens that utilize those spaces as well. Level two are non-program turf areas. These spaces will follow all water guidelines as identified by our secondary water provider. And then the third level are those spaces identified as non-functional turf areas and possibly considered for future conversion projects such as parking lot islands, mow strips, items like that. These areas will receive no irrigation in the 2026 watering season.

The second section of the plan is trees.

Trees in our system will be target watered to maintain tree health. And then I just wanna briefly say with all of this, I will note that this is a fluid plan, depending on future conditions, recommendations and guidelines from the council, as well as our secondary water provider. And additionally, we are establishing some adjusted maintenance practices, such as raising the height of our mowers, additional aerations throughout the season, discontinuing the water key access for park pavilion rentals, and potentially adjusting some of our mowing frequency to maybe an every other week frequency depending on the area. The third section of the plan is the Royce City splash pad. The packet outlines a couple different options for the council to consider, including no change of full closure or some reduction of hours within that. So I'll open the AREA UP FOR DISCUSSION OR ANY QUESTIONS, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER.

SO WHAT ARE THE HOURS RIGHT NOW ON THE SPLASH PAD? I KNOW ONE TIME IT WAS AT 9, THEN WE MADE IT 11.

SO CURRENTLY THE SPLASH PAD WOULD BE OPEN SEVEN DAYS A WEEK FROM 11 A.M. TO 8 P.M. OKAY. Okay, council.

How did you calculate the percentage reduction? Do you know how often it's used? Usage numbers play into that?

We calculated it based on the hours that it was available. It was available? Yeah. Okay.

i definitely think that having the splash pad open actually will help save water in the city because you know kids are going to be hot instead of using that water outside in their own yards they can have a place to come and still have it interactive so i believe that in the long run we accomplish a better goal and that water is you know we get it back you know eventually so I don't feel that full closure would be appropriate. I think that that would harm us, would work against our goal.

I think it would be prudent to reduce the hours on it. So I kind of asked about this before, but let me just have it again and maybe for those who might be interested as well. And that's that, do we get recommendation or like, you know, information or data or anything from Roy Water Conservancy. And at some point, if we approached a dangerous level of water, like they're not gonna let us run out, right, we would hear about it first. So at now, right now, does this all align with their recommendations?

Yeah, so I didn't have a conversation with them, and it's obviously a different government agency that dictates this, but essentially they said they want to see a reduction of 20%. So they did an analysis on every property in Roy and want to see a reduction of that. These guidelines, we also would have their system online to where we can see our water usage according to our acreage and we can pay close attention to that to make sure we're within that percentile of 80%.

Okay, so we, like you said, we can end this later if we get into some future. Yeah, so we follow the same rules residents do. Like, we are allotted so much water, and then they, and you can tell me if you understand this the same, but, so we're allotted so much water, and they ask us to follow certain restrictions so that it'll help residents. use that water the most wisely we can. But then they did say, you know, once we've used our allotment, then that water will be turned off. And I'm assuming the city follows that same rule, same with churches, every building and land parcel in Roy.

That's correct. Yeah, and we're, like Matt said, we're in close contact with Royce Secondary Water to monitor the city's, you know, our park usage and all of that. I will say that the splash pad is culinary water. It is not a recycled system. Right. So there is a difference there.

Yeah. Also, something I learned when I went to their meeting the other day is that every household, and I guess every building in Roy, everything in the Roy Water Conservatory does have a meter now, and so that's why they have the water portal available. So I don't know how complicated it is with the city, but do you have your own portal, or is it because you have so many different parcels, like how does that work?

We're still working with them to get our portion of that portal set up so that we can see the entire scope of our system. Okay. So they're trying to make it. They're working with us to get it up.

I was like, that'd be hard to like go look at every single one and try to, yeah, that would be nice if it could be in one spot. Yeah.

Okay. So I would recommend maybe having it open Monday through Saturday and maybe close on Sunday and then maybe have the hours be like 11 to 7. It opens when Memorial Day till Labor Day. Is that your hours, just like the Aquatic Center?

So it would be scheduled to open on Saturday.

yeah yeah well it's supposed to be good weather but i would because i know that water just goes down ends up in the great salt lake right that's what i was told yeah it does so because whatever's evaporated so like um 11 to 7 hours and then not on sunday just to reduce the time and reduce One day, I mean.

Could we whittle it down maybe 12 to 7 and then maybe put that extra time? I don't know how many people are out at 11. I don't know. When's our peak sun time, you know?

Well, it used to be 9 and then I know a lot of kids have parties over there. So usually 11, usually lunch at 12. But hey, whatever the council decides, whatever you think is best.

I'm just kind of exploring. I think it'd be wise. I know they have, I don't know, I haven't looked to see if North Park's doing this, their elementary, but they have the lunches over there and then a lot of the kids go over to the park, over to the splash pads. So I don't know if we could do it based more on when that major migration comes. And I don't know what those hours are without looking it up.

Yeah, I haven't seen the summer school lunch schedule yet. I don't know if it's out or not, but we could look into that.

Yeah, if we could correlate it with that, I think it would be helpful, because I do know a lot of kids go over there right after. It usually starts at 11.30. Yeah, I think it's 11, 11.30 usually. So 11 to 12, it takes 30 to 60 minutes for kids to get through, yeah.

11 to 7 sounds good. 11 to 7 sounds good, yeah.

Do you know what Riverdale, I think they cut theirs down to two or three days? I don't know.

I don't know specifically what days.

I was just saying if we did opposite days.

Our initial thought was if you were going to do a closure of one day, we would maybe recommend Monday. The Aquatic Center is open late on Mondays and it's family night. So that's just kind of something that we thought of that could be an option. Sure.

That would maybe be a good idea because I know when you close the Aquatic Center on Sunday, a lot of people said that was their only day off and the only time they had to enjoy with their family. So Monday, that would maybe be a good option because then you do have family night at the Aquatic Center on Mondays. Okay.

I like the 20% reduction in those hours that are there. Families need to be able to stay cool and not everybody's rich and has AC and sometimes you have humid days where the swamp cooler is not going to cover it. Families need to have options that don't cost them an arm and a leg to get to go splash around in some water.

Right. Because when my kids were little, we just turned on the sprinkler and they'd go down the slippery slide. But you can't run your sprinkler all day anymore. But we didn't have splash pads anyway. But also, Michelle, I just want to ask you a question. About our restrooms over there, are they functioning now? Because I know we've had some vandalism.

Yeah, the restrooms right next to the playground are currently closed because we're doing some repairs due to some vandalism in there.

And the ones at Roy West, are those still closed too?

Roy West is open.

Okay.

It's been a rough year already.

The citizens understand how many thousands of dollars we spend every year on graffiti and destroying of our restrooms. It's like, even though we have cameras, they know how to cover their faces, pull their hoods down, and destroy our bathrooms. So...

And they're doing it during the day. Yeah, we close. We go and lock them every day at 10 o'clock. Between 9 and 10, we're out there locking them all up. Yeah.

So I know we're kind of jumping all over, but I had three questions, if you could. Sure. So I'm just wondering, is there a reason that we... need to have the cemetery on the highest level? And is there an in-between maybe that we still keep it kind of green but not used? That's a great question.

Yeah, so the cemetery is going to be monitored very closely. Our concern with putting it directly into that middle tier and just following the recommendations is we do still have grave openings. all throughout the summer. And that's removing the turf, having the services and then putting everything back. And we don't want to necessarily lose the turf that's there when we're moving it back and forth. So that one's gonna be on a hybrid.

Okay, that's what I was wondering. To allow for the hill. Yeah. Hybrid-ish area.

We don't want to lose the grass because we're digging it up.

Right. Well, we also want to be respectful of the cemetery, obviously. Also, I know that you said in another meeting, or maybe I asked you this earlier, on an email, I don't know. But could you explain how we're gonna make sure the trees, because I know because of the restrictions on water, how we're gonna take care of the trees in the parks, especially the new ones. I know some people were concerned about them dying.

Yeah, so the plan with the trees is they will be monitored similar to the cemetery. They'll be monitored pretty closely. Some trees are in some turf areas. Those ones will be watered as needed. We can do targeted watering with deep soaks and then also some hand watering to help keep those trees alive because we don't want to lose any of our trees.

And someone asked me specifically about Memorial Park, if those will need additional water or because they were thinking maybe there's like some kind of... water basin under it or because of the water basin maybe they get enough water already or if you know about that specifically right now or not I don't know about that specifically okay but I'm assuming you'll kind of just keep an eye on them yeah okay yeah okay great I love that plan thank you

When it says restricted watering, is that the same for everything that's zoned yellow? The same usage?

Correct. Those will follow the recommendations. So the one day a week, two day a week, whatever it is. We also follow the hours that they tell us to do. So if you do see anything during the day, that's usually guys out doing system checks, making repairs, things like that.

and then the no water there it looks like a lot of like kind of little strip spots but also kind of larger areas in fact and i just wonder what the plan is after we don't water it and if the if the idea is like i mean because usually it's not like parks i don't think any of the parks are not watered they're basins and water yeah they're more of the basins and the water tanks so after this summer is there a plan to like flip the strips or replant in basins or like what's the plan after that?

They'd mostly be conversion projects going to xeriscape or xeriscape. Okay. Yeah, just depending on the area. Okay.

Yeah.

Okay, any more questions?

Okay, thanks, Michelle. Perfect, thanks, guys. Thank you. So, Brian, you're up.

In going over the budget, there was four different options. And they ranged from the 55% increase to a low of 30% increase. And in looking at that and based On the feedback I have personally received, 30 was not the magic number. And I felt like we could do better by simply going to 18. And the number 18 is based on the 8.9% that we owe on the March COLA of this year. And the other nine would be used to move the wage comparison figures forward, starting with public safety first. That would generate of about $450,000, almost half a million for that program. And I think that would give the city and the staff the confidence that we are continually moving that program forward. I would also recommend, since we're paying so much toward the wage comparison, that we push back the 2.8 to a 2.5 COLA for the employees. I mean, if they know we're coming to them And we have a two year cycle to do this without any penalty, then why aren't we using that to our advantage, instead of trying to As Diane would say, rip the Band-Aid off. I just think 55, it's not only going to hurt the public, but I think it's going to hurt some of your fringe businesses that are going to have to pay it too. I want you to know that if the 8.9 is the concern, and you guys want to drop to a single digit increase of 9%, that we still could use reserve funds for the 8.9. Anyway, it just seems, it seems to me, And I'm a senior and on a fixed income. But it just seems to me that 55 is almost, if not historic. And I just, I'm afraid of what it's going to do to us as well as drawing in new residents and drawing in new businesses. That's a number that we're gonna have to live with year after year after year. I do not know why we would be in such a hurry to get there.

And that's my feeling.

I know that all of you guys have your own opinions, but all I'm asking is that you consider mine. Before you vote for one to snuff it out, meaning that's why I'm putting it before you so you can look at it for a full month before we have to put a ceiling in place. That's all.

Right. Thank you, Brian. I know we started at 55%, but I don't think anybody on this council was going to vote for a 55%. And when you say, I mean, you have no idea, you say you've had losing friends and neighbor, you have no idea. I've had to have policemen go to people's houses on behalf of what's been said to me. So these guys, I've never seen them work harder in trying to bring that tax down. I mean, this lady right here, we know she's a doctor, but she has spent hours and hours and hours, and they're all doing the best to bring it down.

We're losing a demographic in our city with a 55%. We'll have that every year. The tax never goes away. Right. You're right. It never goes down.

And we're not proposing. That's what we accepted as the budget that was handed to us. And I understand that. So I don't know one person on this council that's going to vote a 55% tax increase.

Let me just say this. Last year, the ceiling was 28. Right. And this council rent the ceiling.

Right. Well, the old council did that.

Yeah, that council still. Right.

I wanted to thank you for bringing this up so early because it's something that I, I mean, Ann said it right, that I'm working so hard. this and and getting a lot of information I'm meeting with every department head and I am sitting down with line by line on their budget and I'm talking to about every single thing I've got I'm now carrying around a backpack to work full of papers with my iPad on my lunch break in between jobs trying to get this figured out and so I just thank you for bringing it up now you know because now we have some time to look into it And what I hear is that when you are, you know, prioritizing, you know, that you're looking straight at the tax increase and saying, here's the percentage increase, and that's the angle that you're coming from. I'm looking at it from a different angle. Not to say I'm not going to consider yours, but this is the angle that I'm looking at it. Instead of targeting a tax increase like the percentage, I'm looking to target a wage gap goal. That's because I'm looking at it to protect residents from a different angle. And I've seen the turnover that has occurred in the last five years, at least on paper. And then, of course, I've experienced some of it as well, and I've seen how that has interrupted services in some ways to a dangerous degree. And I've learned the value of each department and the hard work that they do and the hard work they put into it and the different things they're responsible for that make up the city of Roy. And so when I'm looking at this, I'm going to be targeting people You know a you know how close to average, are we reaching and that's where i'm going to be looking at say if if I if we you know sit as a Council and decide, we want to shoot for. average or 8% or 5% or 10% below that's where my focus will be because that's where I feel is is is is a good way to look at it. Shooting for a tax increase doesn't show me, just the percentage of increase doesn't show me what the goal is in employee retention. It only answers the question of, you know, the financial impact on residents and ignores the impact in the disruption of services. So I'm coming at it from just a little bit of a different angle in that I'm looking to set a goal on a tax increase rate increase based on my goals for employee retention, if that makes sense. And then to that end, it's to the end of mitigating disruption in services, which we've seen. And so I think the point was, you even asked, you know, what are we in such a hurry about I when I watched the Council last year try to bring this halfway there. There was there was still a lot of you know outcry over over it and just you know how can we bring it so high and then that failed and and. After that, we saw another exodus of people. And so my worry is that we are against the clock. What I see is that every month that we wait, a department head I talked to last week told me that he has two employees who are waiting on employment decisions with other entities based on what happens this year. That's just the one person I talk to, two right now. I know that it's a problem. And so my goal for this is to shoot for a wage correction that will aid in retention, and that's the angle I'm looking at it from, and whatever the tax rate need be in addition to cuts we consider, that's going to be the goal that I come at this from.

I wanted to thank Alexis especially because she's been really great at bringing every single – um city council are with her and all of us have went to at least one department meeting with her and went through some of those you know line by line through the budget and really got some great information from the department heads and so i really appreciate that i do think i appreciate brian bringing this up so that i think that we should consider all possibilities i also think that it's premature to make any decisions before we've even had work sessions and i'm hoping maybe that i could propose that we do some work sessions and maybe get some dates set up for that And I do think that we have to, like I said, we haven't even made a decision about fire, so it's hard to make a decision about taxes as a whole until we've made that decision, so.

I think we've had some really good points, and I really like the perspectives of how to angle this, how to do it. So maybe for Brian, because we've talked about this for a long time, I can ask you just a couple of questions in regards to that. So we already know that the turnover is high. and what this proposal would be would basically not adjust the wage, which then means cutting. And so maybe you can just propose what you were thinking of cutting or which positions, because we've really cut everything but positions. So what positions were you thinking of cutting?

Well, that's why I said we begin at public safety with cutting. the half a million.

You mean pay them or cut that from them?

No, we don't cut anybody. We work it through the wage system because we have percentage of what each person is down. So we go to that and the first one that we address is public safety because that's what the people... are calling for. So that's police and fire.

And then when we run out of that money, then no one else gets it, is what you're kind of thinking? Is that what you meant?

That year. But it doesn't mean in the second year we can't come back to that as well and keep the momentum. We didn't get in this mess overnight. I can guarantee you that. I was on the council. And the reason we didn't raise wages was because our sales tax revenues were around 8% and 9% growth. So we never had to. We looked silly raising taxes when sales tax covered it. That's what happened. And after COVID, we dipped. And the numbers were surprisingly low. And we thought, well, we'll get through this year. We'll get through this year. And yet we were losing ground. And I think that Fire Chief Williams, I think it was two weeks ago, said, we're in crisis mode. So let's deal with the crisis at hand and address it knowing and saying that you employees that aren't addressed will be. And we keep the momentum moving.

And so if sales tax doesn't rebound and we don't have that option, and we certainly know we've already promised so much general fund, we only can use that for a few years, what happens when we lose that momentum? And we kind of need... sewer and water and public safety is important, but everybody has an important level. So I guess I'm a little concerned about picking just one or two departments as opposed to choosing across the board and saying, okay, those that are this far below median Then we should elevate those opposed to just those people below.

And it could be done that way. But the point is, is you hit people up with a 55 across the board. You know, you know you're going to be hurting people. And I just don't want to be part of that. And I'm sorry I get picked on all the time about it. But yet other people say, hey, thank you. And that's the life of an elected official. But the bottom line is we're trying to help everybody. It isn't just 70% of the city population is our charge. Our charge is all of them.

And so I guess one of the things that Alexis brought up was we're trying to help everyone. And my concern is if we have lower experienced, which may or may not mean lower quality staff, lower experienced staff, we thereby aren't helping the entire city because of the problems that that brings with it. And she's brought some of those examples. So that's one of my concerns. And then let me go to if we keep all the positions, We know that really the only place to cut for anything substantial would be positions. Now, we've had some comment that previously our previous mayor had mentioned 11 positions. We should cut 11 positions. And so maybe just to address that as we're having this discussion, I just wanted to review those because Of those 11, five of those were firefighter positions. Three were police positions. And one was a public works, which is water, roads, and sewer. And we certainly hate to... You know, that's also a concern. In some ways, that's really a public safety as well. And then the other one was there was a big push for economic development to help with sales tax so we could help diminish that. And that position only takes... 5% of the general fund. The other position isn't even filled. So where do we go just, you know, to address the concerns that our people have discussed, you know, have brought that 11 positions up? I mean, where do we go to cut those? Because, you know, we have to cut something to make up enough money to get it because we can't really keep going from general funds. So I was just wondering what your ideas in regards to that would be.

I know we need... you can't allow the web station to go right you can't right people live down there you yourself witnessed an eight minute response you said we can't afford to do that so yeah we might you know we might have to tighten our belts maybe we

Yeah, I guess that's what I'm saying is what positions do we have? What are you thinking for tightening your belt? Because we've tightened our belt across the board pretty close. Anything that would be substantial besides cutting positions. So what are some of the other things you're thinking that would be a substantial enough cut, a substantial enough cut, that would actually make up the difference for the to allow our staff because you know where we're talking about hurting our our citizens You know we need to remember that we have to have staff to provide the services that were required to and if we don't have that staff we now are failing our obligation and when do we put all of this responsibility on the backs of the staff. Well, we know it's not happening, because they're not going to just keep staying at such a low wage, because they're not staying there. The turnover is very, very high. And they've had failed promises so far. I think the idea of momentum is nice, but we can't.

It's not enough.

It's kind of across the board. Every department has different pockets of low-wage median. And so for us just to pick one I think maybe doesn't work because it is across the board.

Well, that's why I appreciated the different – tax impact schedules because they were intended to show how you could bring people up equitably to at least the same percentage below average as you approach average. And so that's what I appreciated about seeing the various choices. And as Amber mentioned too, when she presented to it, she said, you're not married to just these four. Like we can look, we can shoot for way below 10 if that's what we choose to do. or we could shoot for something in between. And so all I'm saying is that when I look at the tax rate, I'm gonna be more focused on addressing the wage gap and letting the tax rate follow in conjunction with possible cuts. And so I'm actually, I'm having a data scientist friend actually work me up an app that's gonna give me a drop down for me to select like a multi-select of several services, many that have been mentioned, many that I've brainstormed as well. I'm trying to collect all of these and it will show me how close these cuts get us to the target. And so we can really see when push comes to shove what things we would actually have to cut in order to approach this. And so one thing that I think is really important to remember is that this and I kind of said this it this way in a in a work session and I think when when we have you know when they're well when it's not 915 and we have more people are here to hear I would like to repeat this but I understand this as we have been paying like a promotional rate for services, right? If I sign up for internet and it's $100 a month and they say, well, I'm going to give you a 55% discount for the first 12 months. And when your rate goes up to the full price at 100%, it would be 55%. And it would just be now to the full price of services. and so what we've been getting away with almost is paying this lowered price of services on the backs of employees and and i i don't see um ethics in that and i also see that it has impacted residents service i've seen it happen and and so we we talk about public safety and people have talked to me public safety many emails i've gotten have been public safety save the public safety and it just took a little bit of of explanation in what i learned about public works They also contribute to public safety. They're the ones that plow and scrape the roads. They're the ones that fill potholes. They're the ones that maintain the vehicles that are public safety vehicles. They maintain the vehicles. They maintain fire hydrants. And they do a lot of other things. I learned that there's one, maybe two certified people in Roy that can even give us functioning culinary water products. You don't pay them and we lose them? Like, I don't know. I never got the answer to that because I don't think I actually asked that question. But then what happens, you know? Sewer, when you flush it, it just doesn't disappear. Those are critical services. In some cases, they're considered essential services because they're required by law. And so when I look at... just targeting police or fire, many people go after them because that's what's visible. And public works may not be visible, but what I learned when I toured and spent two and a half hours in their office was that they do critical services for the residents of Roy. And they are among the most underpaid, for average, that we are seeing right now. And it's bounced across departments. It started in, maybe it started, I don't know if it started in police, but it was police at some point. They kind of brought up a little bit higher and now it was another department. And we have this competition even within the city just for it to be paid average. And we're not even proposing that we're paying this exorbitant amount. We're looking at market rates This is a market-driven wage consideration. This is not just arbitrary numbers pulled out of thin air. We wouldn't need a wage study just to tell us that we are underpaying people because they're leaving saying, I found a better rate in Brigham City for $5 more an hour. The best market study ever. Would a third-party wage study have been appropriate? I think absolutely. I think there were two things that if I had been on the wage study, what I would have said is that one problem, perhaps at this time with that, is time. And I've seen now it's been – we've been dragging this problem through for the last five years. Time is something we've run out of, and so – This is not like upfront. This isn't a full on salary survey. It was started about two years ago with a previous council to start gathering information about it and nothing ever kind of came of it. But when I look at it, I think, boy, I hope it's average at this point. Now it's two years old. Should we be so lucky that this is actually average? But this, I think, when backed up against time, we can't afford to lose more employees. For me, I focus on closing that wage gap, and I look at cuts to bring a balance. But when I look at the tax increase, I'm more focused on closing that wage gap and providing services that are interrupted to residents through retention of employees and not targeting solely on the impact of the tax increases.

And I love that you're working on the app because we kind of joked at some point.

It'd be really nice if you had a little scale you could just put stuff in.

It's been cool.

I've played with it already. I've put a few in there.

I've put in, just to put in there, I've put in fireworks, I've put in the complex, I've put in the aquatic center, and I've put in all of Roy Day's, and I think I just added some stuff from Parks and Rec. And so as I click on those, I click and see, okay, let's get rid of the fireworks, and it brings me .02% closer to it. But that's what I want to see. What are the things that we actually... have to commit to removing from our community in order to address this wage gap. And really, when you see that $2.8 million, that's not the entirely wages that we're trying to address there, but that's the lion's share of what this tax increase. And to be candid, I think it's embarrassing on the city that we're even this far behind, that we're even having this discussion. I said in my campaign, and I stand by it now, a better approach is an incremental approach. And then you can rehab. Right now, we're looking at a first aid situation. You can rehab this later. I mean, economic development is a years-long process. And do I want to do something with that? Yeah. And do I have plans to do with it? Yeah. But no one said it better than Janelle that we're stuck in that we feel like we got to get out of this first. Yeah. Because we have to apply this first aid before we can do any surgery and any rehab, get out of this rut, and then maybe we can move forward. But until we address this anchor that's dragging us along, I mean, there's just nothing more we could do.

Well, that's my concern as well, is that this has gone on for so long now that that's what's put us kind of in a... more crisis situation. And the employees have been promised things years and years. And it's like, well, we'll do your department this year and then another department next year, but that doesn't happen. And it is difficult because you can get a new council every two years. You could promise the world that you could have a whole new council in two years and not be able to fulfill that promise. So I think that... And I like that we're all digging in and working so hard on it. I think that's important. I think that we can work through some of these things in work sessions and really get down to the root of what we want to do. And I think that, you know, once we decide on fire, also that changes our numbers and different things. So we just have to – there's a lot to consider, and I think –

that we need more discussion on it so maybe just to follow up on that like you know certainly fire is going to make a difference but we still have to raise taxes enough to pay them because they're still going to be with us that period of time and then we still have to pay the you know the PTO and all of the benefits so at first I was thinking oh well if we if fire you know it's going to be a big difference in the tax increase but as we realize it really can't be a difference in the tax increase in future in the future it will be a difference with that and I don't know if there's a way to do this but there are some pretty amazing studies that have shown how CERTAIN SERVICES ACTUALLY SAVE MONEY. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, THERE HAVE BEEN SOME EXCELLENT DATA, PARKS AND REC PROGRAMS, ESPECIALLY LIKE A COMPLEX, EVERY DOLLAR THAT GOES INTO THAT SAVES THE COMMUNITY OF THE CITY $4 TO $5. and other Parks and Rec activities because of the court savings, because of fire and police savings. And I don't know if there's a way to do it. So just because we cut a certain amount from maybe Parks and Rec, the problem is we cut that $1, but now we have just added $4 to $5 expense on those additional expenses. department. So, I mean, I don't know if there's a way to kind of take the data, take the statistics to say how does that impact it across the way, because there's very good data in that regard. And then just in regards to, you know, letting people know. For example, we had concerns about the new trucks. Well, we've talked about this for a long time. When we buy new trucks, it saves us money. Now, we knew that wasn't going to look great but on the other hand we decided it was better to be responsible with citizen money than to have appearances be the important part and i think that's where a lot of this comes in you know we are able to buy fleet trucks great price we're able to sell them and either make a little money break it even and then it saves us a lot of money in regards to just repairs maintenance that sort of thing so all these little things add up but i definitely think that There are some numbers that we're going to have to use other data for because it's not as black and white as it seems. And for just example, the turnover. There's very good data that every time we lose a police officer, we're talking at probably... My data is... Now, you know, I didn't realize it this much, but we're probably about $150,000, and that if we lose a firefighter, it's about $200,000. I mean, I was hearing, you know, because of equipment for fire was maybe $15,000 and that, but when they start adding in all together the overtime for training, for all of the other equipment... I mean, that is absolutely amazing. Turnover cost us so much money. So we think maybe we're just adding a little bit to that median wage, but we are irresponsible if we don't do it, because we now have guaranteed ourselves a higher cost because of the turnover we are fostering, because of the turnover we are absolutely encouraging. When we don't have a proper wage, a fair wage, a decent wage, we are now fostering turnover, we're encouraging it, and we are now costing our citizens even more money. And I just want everyone, whoever is here or knows, I am a very frugal person. I am very happy to wash my... Plastic forks and reuse those. And the list goes on. And I am even more frugal when it comes to other people's money. I hear a lot of other sorts of comments, but let me just tell you, absolutely not. Frugality, it is more of a responsibility to me for other people's money. And so I just want to reassure everyone in that regard. And you have to look across the board with that. And I am very excited about this app. Thank you. Thank you very much. If we can add some of those things. I don't know if it's possible. That should be me.

Could I add to that, Diane, that when we don't have proper... amounts of people and we have so much turnover that means that more and more workers are having to do overtime as well which also costs taxpayers in the city money and I just don't think that's a responsible way to use the money is when we continue to I mean we're willingly letting that happen so

Yeah.

It's an open discussion. I'm glad we were able to break the seal on this one tonight. So this has turned into a work session. But yeah, I guess we've got to start, huh? But we've got to start somewhere with it. So that's fine. We'll have other work sessions, and we'll be collaborating with us more.

yeah we already talked about a work session so matt will get a hold of everybody and send something out yeah send something out that'd be great definitely need one so um anyway do you want matt you want to go with your city manager report

yeah i just have a couple of things um the parks and recreation department is going to be collecting flags that people want to donate to them to be retired the daughters of the american revolution is going to do a retirement a flag retirement ceremony on saturday june 13th from 5 p.m to 6 30 p.m at minnesota park and then just a friendly reminder that the aquatic center does open on saturday so that's it okay council anybody have any

I actually would just like to jump in and say I am so grateful for the people that have emailed us and have responded and have asked us questions because it allows us a different angle to research, to check into things. And I appreciate the council jumping in and giving those different opinions and ideas because you know it's that whole elephant story you know i'm i'm holding the leg and so i think the elephant looks like a tree trunk and you know when you get that perspective from so many people it really does open up the picture you get a better picture so thank you to the council and to the citizens one more question um i thought we talked about doing another fire open house at some point before we make that decision and so could you i guess do the same for that or

Yeah, I can send that out as well with that. Thank you.

Any other comments?

Okay, I just wanted to mention that the Memorial Day ceremony will be at 930 at the Royce City Cemetery. If you'd like to come over, and they put flags on all the veterans' graves. I've gone every year. My father is buried there, and it's really a great honor to be able to go and help them do that. What time is that? It's from 930 to 11, basically. Okay. memorial day so um also roy high graduated 473 kids today one of the chaston's son victor he graduated and i i know that a girl was filling out taking a test with a counselor five minutes before graduation so she could graduate so there was kids that definitely got it to the last minute graduating but it was a great It was really a great, I had a granddaughter that graduated and it was great to see these kids and so many of them came a long ways that really graduated by the skin of their teeth. Even in disagreement, I hope we remember that everyone in this room cares about our city. We may see different paths forward, but we all want a community that is safe, strong, and able to serve future generations. I want to thank everybody who came tonight and everybody that participated. It's hard sometimes to hear facts that people don't want to hear. This council has just been so great to get back with all the residents. Most people don't want to talk to you. They'd rather have a record on paper, I found, because I like to talk to people on the phone. but I just appreciate all the hard work that you have all done and our staff and all the hard work and I know we have a lot of sleepless nights and we're all, I'm on the mayor's diet, she's on the council diet. You just, it really eats at you and it's hard and I want you to know that We really are trying to do the best job we can to make this a great city to live in. I've lived here pretty much my whole life, and it's hard sometimes. But I just appreciate everybody coming tonight, and so I ask for an adjournment.

Motion to adjourn.

I have a second.

I'll second.

All in favor, say aye. Okay, have a good night, everybody.

Yeah, I'm like, what conversation is he talking about? I kind of figured that.