Council Meetings - Regular Meeting

We have an approved agenda. It's been a little bit since we've met, so it's nice to be back with you all. We have uh a full agenda. Um Elden and Mike will be presenting to us. I'm hoping that we can let me rephrase that. At 5:' we have a hard stop. I'm going to ask the council to go into close session to discuss purchase, exchange, or lease of property. So kind of adjust your time and judgment uh accordingly. First item on the agenda is a discussion regarding a presentation and feedback from the council regarding internal accessory dwelling units. Community development director Elden Gable will present to the council on this item. Elden.

Thank you, Mayor Council. I brought my award-winning smile with me today here. I know Mike's got his on here in the in the future as well. Um We saw a sign in uh our uh downtown trip. So that's that's where that came from. In the packet there, I provided some examples of IADUs um to kind of give you an idea of what we're discussing here. I like those because this one here, the IADU cannot be accessed from within the main residence. This other IADU does have an option to be accessed from the internal component. So, just some interconnectivity. A lot of different scenarios of who would be able to rent and live in these. Um, college students, mother-in-law apartments, just kind of all of the above. um of the changes here. We'll scroll down here. So, the majority of the changes are clerical definition oriented such as replacing the word dwelling to residents just to avoid confusion when speaking about internal accessory dwelling units. Two of the major uh proposed changes are to remove the 6,000 square foot requirement which is stated right here. The proposed property location for an internal accessory dwelling unit shall be a residential zoned lot that is a minimum of 6,000 square ft. proposing to remove that with the requirement that the IADU

fall under the umbrella of the main residence and meet setback requirements. There was one other that I didn't mention in the packet um that the owner of the property must reside in the primary residence or the internal accessory dwelling unit. Currently, as written, it requires them to live in the primary dwelling. So, just giving them the option to live in either unit. And lastly is incorporating some verbiage to restrict nightly rentals, which matches the verbiage from the detached accessory dwelling units. I'm happy to answer any question they have on that.

They're an approved vacation rental. What if they are in an approved vacation rental? Parts of the deed restriction. You're saying they can't be vacation rental, but what if they're already in a zone that approves it and they use one of these? Then they they would be able to nightly rental out. Says they can't do it. So I'm just saying, do we need a clarification unless in a approved nightly rental? Well, it's an overlay zone for this zone that allows that use. Um, I I would say we don't need clarification on that. Um, I'm happy to look to THAAD for advice on that.

Just saying that if they try to do an IAU and then they're in a vacation rental already approved overlay zone, but then the code says they can't do it. I'm just And usually we go with the stricter code. Do we have any of those? I don't know that we have any internal accessory dwelling units that are inlay zone. And so I think that it's an interesting question that the council member raises. Um, I agree with you. In theory, we could unless unless we we adopt the policy of enforcing this so that we don't allow IADUs in nightly rental overlays, which to me makes probably the most sense. We allow them when you don't already have the overlay of a nightly rental. But if you have the overlay of a nightly rental, then the IADU is disqualified because of the overlay that's already on it. But thoughts from council members? I mean, that's Let's talk this through and see see if people feel strongly about it.

Some people have the overlay zone, but they're not using it as a nightly rental. They just have the ability to do that. Councilman Coats is asking is do we just do we just put a thing that says unless they're already covered in the nightly rental zone? Incorporates. Yeah, I can work on that and and throw something small that just basically says unless unless rental already because if you had a nightly rent had to you could rent out the IU to two different people tech IDU

what I like about this or nightly rental on both. No, but I'm saying if it's in a that's my point is if you're in a vacation rental and you do this, you could just rent out both unless you want to restrict that. I'm just throwing it out there. What I like about this is just providing clarity one way or another. So, I think it's good conversation to have. Councilman Henderson, I was just going to say I agree. Just for clarification, maybe put in there this this paragraph doesn't apply if it's in a highly ran zone.

Yeah, that's kind of the whole purpose for items tonight is clean clarifying definition. Any other questions on the internal Texas code changes? If not, we'll move into the agricultural um modifying regulations. These haven't been updated for quite some time. Changes have been made to the residential agriculture and the R1. feel like these are a little outdated and just trying to bring some consistency with within the three zones, the AD, the RA, and the R1. So, I'd like to propose new verbiage to read uh looking to the sideyard that setbacks for garages and other accessory buildings and structures shall maintain a three-foot setback from property lines.

Are we still on internal accessory drawing units? We are not. I have moved on. So we so we're going to move now to item three which is detached structures. Next item on the agenda. Go ahead.

Thank you mayor. Proposing verbiage here that we maintain a three-foot setback from property lines and shall not be taller than 20 ft. Corner lot shall maintain the required front yard setback for both street frontages. Additional height may be acquired by moving the structure into the lot. And this came from a recent change to the detached accessory dwelling units allowing that to go to 25. I felt like if if those units are going to go to 25, this should mirror that. Um so that they can additional height may be acquired by moving the structure in, but in no case shall the detached structure be taller than the main residence or 25 ft whichever is greater. So even if they have a single family residence, um they can go taller than that roof line, just not taller than 25 feet. And then the provisions of subsection D shall be met for encroachment into the sideyard setback. That same verbiage is being proposed in the rear yard. And then some clarification definitionoriented changes here. Um that provisions for detached accessory buildings to encroach into the side or rear yard setback. Um the following criteria shall be met. So Elden, just so make sure we're understanding correctly that what you're looking for is consistency among the the A zone, the R1 zone, and the RA zone.

Correct. Yes. This is the lease. There are a handful of properties that fall within here. Um so it doesn't properties would would be needing to meet this requirement but you're you're correct just bringing consistency within the three council.

So Elden uh I just want to clarify one one one statement here where the the secondary structure cannot be taller than the primary structure. Although we see around our city a lot of examples of outbuildings that are taller. Um, I would just wouldn't want that to be so restrictive that it would smaller lot that they couldn't do something with it. So, would you kind of share with me what you're thinking with that?

Yeah. The the current code um there's a blurb in there to restrict that the accessory structures cannot be taller than the existing residence, whatever that may be, or 20 ft. So, I'm proposing that we expand that and allow more height. If if they have a slab on grade home that's 22 foot tall to the ridge, the proposed ordinance would allow them to exceed that main residence and go to 25 ft tall. So, we're we're trying to expand that height and and give them more uh room to build. So really what we're doing is then adding flexibility to that.

Correct. Further input for Elden on on these proposed edits.

No, but I would like to just while Elden's here I mean this is great. I appreciate you being proactive on kind of uh I'm not we're not loosening our standards, but we're we're giving people some options, you know, uh giving people a little more leeway to, you know, build what they want and have the freedom to do some things on their property without restrictions, you know, to a to a certain degree. So, I appreciate you being proactive, Elden. I think this is exactly what this council we like this stuff. So, thank you for for doing it. So, anything else on this topic, Elden Council? If not, uh the next item is supplementary and qualifying regulations. Elden Gibb.

So, this this pertains um to the RA zone. the the RA and R1 zone are very similar in how they read. Um, you know, I feel like if we were to go through one of them, it would apply to the other. So, we'll we'll dig in here. Um, the the most significant changes here are removing the 10-ft separation requirement from the Currently, our code states that if if you want to go up to 3 ft on the property line, you have to be 10 foot away from the main residence. We're proposing to remove that. Um secondly is current code prohibits detached structures from being taller than the main residence. Just as we previously discussed in the A, we're proposing changes allow detached structures to be 25 feet tall and no taller than the existing existing residence or whichever is greater. And this is in line and and kind of came from the the detached accessory dwelling unit code change. Proposed changes also include removing the requirement that the detached structure be set back 10 ft from the front corner of the main residence in the given yard. in the given sideyard. This would allow detached structures closer to the front property line while of course maintaining setback requirements for that given zone. And lastly, proposed changes in regards to the sideyard area only in the residential agricultural zone include removing the limitation that the structure be a maximum of 50% of the square footage of the main residence.

This was re removed a few years ago in the R1 zone and proposing to remove it out of this zone as well. Elden, my question is on the shade structure, the 30%. Know we've talked about this before, but I would I don't know. I just feel like if they want to add shade, let them add shade. We live in southern Utah. Like even if they have yard, I don't know. I just like we have these small lots and then they want to cover their whole back porch with a shade structure. I don't see a problem in that as long as they're within their setback. I just feel like why are we dictating the 30%. I mean, it's shade is key around here. So, especially in the backyard, what do we care if they shade their whole backyard if long as they keep to the safety of the building code? Mike, you want to address that, too? Councilman makes a good point, but since we have our building official here, can't let you get too comfortable.

Yeah. So, the building code does address all conditions. Um, detached garage next to single family dwellings. So, the state's adopted the construction code and it addresses whatever you want to put on your property um for fire safety. So, um basically you could put any structure on any property and we can we could protect that structure and the neighboring property and the primary dwelling. But our code requires us to be 30% of the landscaped area up to Yeah.

Up to along any other accessory structures located in the rear yard shall not cover more than 30%. It used to be 25. And I know I know I used to go back and forth with Drew on this because I talked to him about it and he just it's kind of how everyone felt was they still wanted people to have yards. I think your yard can be whatever it is. if it's shaded with fire pits or whatever or all concrete. I mean, I don't know why we care if it's 30% or not in the rear yard. We we do allow that. I'll make sure we're talking about the same thing. We've got

envelope, which is setback requirements for that lot. You can fill that up however you may. You're just talking along the accessory structure because it says shade structures along any with any other accessory structure located in the rear yard shall not cover more than 30% of the rear yard. Why do we why do we care? Are you just proposing that we just strike? I'm I'm trying to

because I don't necessarily have a problem striking it either. I I'm just trying to understand what our reasoning for it is because in the past I could understand why we did that because you just reasoning for it before because we had to cuz I think when it channel your inner Drew he'd say well I didn't want to use his name but it was a Drew thing. I know it was that's it's something it's something about keeping open space and keeping space between neighbors and just but I don't know that I necessarily care either way either, but it's just and I'm just thinking at these 6,000 square foot lots, right? Smaller the lot, the more your shade is necessary, right?

It's just it might be 70% of your yard if you're under a 6,000 square foot lot, but if you had an acre, it might be 10%. It just Yeah, it doesn't apply the same. So, it just But you might be the same shade structure. So, that's why I just question. And I don't want someone to be like, "Well, I want to shade my whole back porch cuz I literally have only 10 ft to my back fence. As long as I stay 3 ft away and it's 70% of my yard, why does it matter?" But I think staff's saying that they think it should be adjusted. What number do you want?

Yeah, they're saying upward. I don't I don't know. I'm just asking the question. Should we strike it? Should we up it? Like, I'm just throwing it out there because I think 30 is too small based on what I've seen people do with their shape structures. We c we don't have a problem with with this

the last two years I I have never had to go to bath. We changed this ordinance and the awning company. Uh this is dialed that there's no over this ordinance on a lot. There's there's a a buildable envelope in your rear view that 10 foot setback that your house cannot encroach into this 30% area is only meant to to rule. The the other thing I think we need to consider

is it F addresses shade structures but also other accessory structures. Do we need to define the difference between those? You probably if we're looking to go that way the upper section. So F is just a subsection to number two there. Okay, let's define it. One story attached accessides may be located in the rear yard feet at the furthest projection of the river to meet the following criteria. So this is F is a subsection of this this master but two less to be it's essentially the same thing

but they're saying it's only one story attached accessory shade structures open on three sides. It's not saying accessory structures. Yeah because what does it say on F there? I don't have it on my iPad. F said the shade structure along with any other accessory structures located in the rear yard shall not cover more than 30%. Yeah. Any other accessory I'm just kind of wondering what where that comes into play. The any other accessory structures. Moved on. We're on the A which uh is you know with with in the A we don't dig into the 30 the the tiered structure the RA zone. Yeah. Modified regulations. RA on

which calls out 30% yard area. Yeah. Do structures require a permit building permit if if they're proposed with property line. Yes. correct attached to the building. They have to be right. Yeah.

I'm a proponent for open space in um you know neighbors window and open um between structures as the code's written. haven't had a problem with it. Um, I mean, that's why we're here tonight to discuss it. Yeah,

I think previously one place where I'm a little bit confused is we've had this conversation I I know before, you know, a couple years ago maybe and and I know previously the backyard was defined as the back of the structure, you know, regardless of what the setbacks were. I mean, I know that's how it was defined before because we had this conversation. So like for instance, if you have a halfacre lot, you only build a 1500 square foot house. Well, before when we had this discussion before, the backyard was defined as anything behind the house, regardless of the setbacks in the backyard. So that's kind of new. So if if that 30% only applies to what is between the setback and the lot line, then I think we should define that cuz that's a little different than the conversation we had, you know, year and a half ago or whenever we had talked about shade structures. I can't remember. So but I agree with you. I like the definition of, you know, you got your buildable area within the setbacks. I like the idea of being able to build basically whatever you want there, you know, as long as it's up to code and stuff. And then I guess the next conversation is setbacks in between the setbacks and the line. What do we do? 30%.

You know, so I would say maybe clarify what the backyard is, you know, somewhere. No note taken. Yeah, that's a great comment. Any thoughts percentage? I still read this and I again lean on THAAD, but I still read this as two separate things. I understand that we're under two, but the shade structure along with any other accessory structures can only be 30% of the rear yard. That I I read that as that's the aggregate of the shade structure and any other structure. But I would lean on a more trained mind to interpret that.

Uh staff's currently been interpreting it. Sheds, garages, verticals. Back says three open three sides. Then under subsection two, it says open on three sides. So then I wouldn't consider a shed as part of that. That's the shade structure. I think the shade structure is defined by the open on three sides and then the other one is and any other accessory structures. Well, do you need attach accessory structures, comma, shade structures?

Yeah, I'm just trying to understand what if that's one shade structure, if that's a shade structure plus something else. That's what I'm not certain. So you're you're working with which is the old code and we're trying to get number two is meant to define staff. It was a council code meant to define for the rear yard area subsection F ising that within that rear yard area more than 30% should be any other accessory structure which what would any other accessory structure be any of the other building listed shed shed

shed she shed he shed woodshed had a full pavilion, you know. Yeah. A a u you build a veranda with a fireplace. Yeah. Just just any of the other type of stuff that people do in has a structure to it. Okay. So, I think the part where us who talk about it all the time as well as the public who don't talk about it nearly as much is recognizing what the rear yard area really is. It's not everything behind the front door area is this space your yard

or this spot line. That's really the spot we're talking about. So, so Thaad could go build outside of that. I have a lot of room in my backyard that is outside of that. So, I could build whatever I wanted as long as setbacks on all sides. But once you're in the rear yard area, which is really this area within the setback. Why don't we call it something different? Instead of rear yard, say rear yard setback areas. Give us your ideas. That's

I gave you that's an idea. I'm just saying because when I read rear yard, it's everything from my back porch over to my fence line. Has nothing to do with setbacks. There's no explanation on setbacks here. Well, I would just say it's everything back there in

my mind. Even if you have, say you have 15 feet and if you have a 10-ft setback, then I could build in five per your code, but it doesn't say that anywhere. So then does someone limit them to 30% when really it would be like maybe it's 40% with that extra 5T from the back porch out to the setback or why are we I say why are we complicating it? Just do from the house. they can do. I mean, this is in the RA1 code, right? I'm just wondering about other codes, too. Because the RA zone, I mean, that's a big lot, right? Acre and larger.

Maybe it doesn't matter on this one, but I'm asking more for the R six zone. I don't know. This one probably doesn't matter because it's such a big This is what 30% is going to be plenty. It's plenty. So, that's a good point. How big is an RA? What's the minimum? I think of the smallest. 30% is probably plenty. But again, I'm just thinking the small ones is what that's where the where the percentage gets really restrictive and inconsistent proportionately, saying our R six or R 10,000.

We'll get into that in just a minute. All right. Well, I only got up to RA. So, take away from this is define and larger. We should be okay with the 30%. That's what I'm hearing. Is that what council you're hearing?

I'm okay with it with the RA 30%. You know mayor there may not may be a distinction without a difference but if you consider DIY consider hiring is there anything to consider because if you don't have a permit people can just build they choose to or if you hire someone then it has to be permitted and has to follow the regulations. Like I said that may not be a difference there but I think trying to make those two as equable as we can would just be an interest of mine. Are you I mean wouldn't they both be required to meet the same standard and they should have a

that would be easiest to to navigate through just regardless building permit required. They didn't get the building permit. We do have the requirement you know anything under 200 square feet if it's just a structure no plumbing no electrical no permits required. So a lot of homeowners are able to do those smaller by themselves. They meet come under that 200 ft would be like the the footprint of the shade structure itself. Correct. All right. Let's look at the other zones. Elden,

with those sheds, do you still have to maintain the 3 ft little Say that again. for those small sheds that doesn't require a building permit. Do you still have to maintain those 3 ft setbacks? Absolutely. Yes. Setbacks and and height. Yeah. Ask another question, Elden. I remember before you could request a three-foot setback, but I remember having to go get a signature from every like power, water, you know, everybody in order to have the three-foot, I guess. don't have to do that any longer. That that request is rule out utilities.

Okay. Newer subdivisions not been putting those public utility easements on the side and rear yards. Okay. New developments do not require that request to to be So like up where I live, I' I'd probably still have to go get signed off. Correct. Older developments.

Okay. looking into the R1 zone here. Um, and I I propose, let's just read through this line by line here. Uh, we'll leave 10 minutes for uh the swimming and pool code to be addressed. So, this is in the R1 zone, sideyards, detached, and I'll just read uh what we're proposing the code to be. Detached garages and other accessory buildings and structures shall meet the following criteria. I'm proposing to remove the 10-ft separation just to clean that up. Uh where applicable, a building permit is obtained and proposing to reward this to read, setback shall maintain a 3-foot setback from property lines and shall not be taller than 20 ft. Additional height may be acquired by moving the structure into the lot. For each foot added to the setback beyond 3 ft, an additional foot may be granted to the height of the structure, but in no case be taller than 25 ft or whichever is greater. On corner lots, the required front yard setback will be maintained on both street frontages. Proposing to scratch the 10-ft set back from the front corner of the house and scratch the 50% requirement of the the living unit as well. Accessory buildings and structures located in the sideyard shall not cover more than 50% of the sideyard area. Provisions of subsection C shall be met for encroachment. Number two, one-story attached accessory shade structures open on three sides may be located in the sideyard area to

within 3 ft at the furthest projection of the side property line and shall meet the following criteria. A building permit is required for all attached accessory shade structures. Maybe I'll just read proposed changes or do we want to go through the whole code changes

removing the front yard setback 20 foot requirement because it does vary. I didn't want there to be any vagueness whatever the front yard setback is. So that that is all in the sideyard area. Any concerns? So they would be held to the 50% requirement in the sideyard. So we get into the rear yards now. looking to detached private garages and other accessory buildings and structures shall meet the following criteria. Where applicable, a building permit is obtained. And again, the same verbiage from up above. Setbacks. Maintain a 3-ft setback from property line no taller than 20 ft foot per foot as you come in off the property held to 25 foot. the provisions of subsection C shall be met. And then here's where we get into the percentages. Accessory buildings and structures, including detached shade structures located in the rear yard, shall not cover more area than the following. And I'm going to look into some verbiage to define that rear yard area uh tied to the buildable envelope or the the setback requirements. I'll I'll have something when we meet next time. And then number one story attached access may be located in the rear yard area to within at the first section. This is cut cutting in and out here. property line and shall meet the following criterion

C being met that is all of proposed changes might just add in 9-1-6 we already have definitions on code for yard, front yard, rear yard, and sideyard. The rear yard definition, a space on the same lot with which is located between the rear line of the building, rear lot line extending the full width of the lot. The depth of the rear yard is the minimum distance between the rear lot line and the rear line of the building. End quote. And so I think that's that's the definition that most of us don't remember when we hear the words rear yard, but it's not the entire backyard. It's just that space between the line and the last portion of the structure.

Can you read that one more time? Let me my head around that. Rear yard. quote, "A space on the same lot with a building which is located between the rear line of the building and the rear lot line extending the full width of the lot. The depth of the rear yard is the minimum distance between the rear lot line and the rear line of the building. And so basically you get the piece of the portion of the building that extends most close to the rear lot line and you draw two linear straight lot line one of the rear building that space between those but that's but that's not the setback because sometimes you're not to the setback.

I don't know what I'm talking about though right so that needs misspoke. Oh, what was previously discussed a year and a half ago is truth. Okay. Yeah. I misspoke. Do we want to change?

I mean, so so so what what Thad said I remembered from before. So if you've got a halfacre lot and you build a 1,200 foot house, then the back of your house, the back of your house to the setback line might be 30 ft. And then from your setback line to the lot line or 3 ft beyond the lot line might be, you know, if it's a 10-ft setback, it's seven additional feet. define whether the backyard is from the allowable buildable area which is the rear set.

I think it's already defined. You just said it. It's defined from the end of your structure. So, we need to I think we need to leave it how we have it defined. But look at the percentages and decide how we want the percentage of that because if anyone says rear, it's like it doesn't matter if your house is on the set back line or not. Your rear is your rear yard of everything back there from the closest uh lot or part of your structure to your property line. That's your rear yard. That's what it said, right?

Yeah. I I would say the definition the code would read that definition and then setback is a separate separate uh regulation. And so the rear yard is essentially a space where we've traditionally said you can't build out all of it. Elden's changes tonight are keeping some of the concepts of rear yard restrictions, but proposing that we we we liberalize them to allow more construction in them than we used to. The the portion of the yard that's beyond the rear yard, um you can build whatever you want. The city doesn't have a code that restricts. If you imagine it's a square law and you got the rear yard and the sideyard and then there's still space within that house on it, you can still fill that as much as you want. There's no restriction there. It's just when you start pushing into the rear yard or the sideyard that these estlish

I'm not sure I'm following that because if if we're assigning a percentage to the backyard if there's two houses side by side on a halfacre lot one is 1,200 square feet the other one is 4,000 square footprint Then if we if we assign a a percentage, then the guy that built the 1,200 ft house doesn't have the freedom to fill up his allowable building space. He he does under current definition. The backyard starts at the back of the house and goes all the way to your rear property line.

It's now you're restricting them to 30%. We should be discussing percentage. So you're restricting him to 30%. If he has more open space, he gets less area than his neighbor who has less because he built his original structure so far.

Not necessarily. 30% of a usually much more space. So well, all I'm saying is say they're identical and this guy builds his here and this guy's here and we have all this 30% of this area. It's it's different from this and they should be identical is all we're saying. neighbors rear yard is a different definition. Their construction in their rear yard does not have any bearing on the neighbors rear yard allocations.

What determines each lot's rear yard opportunities is shape and size of the house and where they locate it in relation. That's that's mostly what determines what is able to happen, right? So, so one guy is able to use more of his yard than the other guy by code. That's just how it works out here.

No, no, that's not what I'm saying. So, I think you're thinking this is talking about setbacks and and you're right. If we let somebody build close to the property line and establish a line, a setback rule for the neighbor might apply. But this isn't setbacks. This is just imaginary envelopes that we define as rear yards and sideyards which are defined by the last spot they put their building

lot line to the rear or to the side of that. And so you want to maximize your lot. You'll place your house in a way that gives you maximum opportunity. Now I've always understood it to be that if you got a big backyard and a small house 30% of that is massive. You could put a ton of stuff on a big lot, right? My concern isn't the big ones. It's this R16 because it says 30% and I'm telling you, they put I see them all over town. They put shade structures basically within 3 ft of their back fence and it just covers the whole back because they can't do much else with it. So, they want to shade it all.

I just don't want to limit and I don't mind. I think they look good. Like I don't it doesn't bug me because they're already tight density. So, if it's 30, I'm just saying that's the thing that I'm struggling with is if they want to put 30%. It just seems kind of small because then they could only do a small little shade structure when maybe they wanted to shade across the whole back of their house. That's all I'm saying is how do we accomplish that? The R115s and the R12s, they probably are fine at 30% or maybe you bump it a little. I don't know. To accomplish that where you want it% of the rear yard. question is, is there a percentage that makes it more equitable?

Hard to make it equitable between lots that have very different characteristics, right? And so, so I don't know. I don't know how to make it equitable you for you as a body, the question is what's in the best interest of the city and the citizens that inhabit it, right? What what's in the best interest of the public people that live here? What makes it equitable is how Elden defined it when he misspoke. That makes it equitable because he said you can build anything you want inside envelope which is the setbacks but then the 30% applies to outside the setbacks. That's what makes it equitable. So if if I was going to be a geometry teacher, you know, math teacher, and I if I had my old overhead projector from school and was able to do two examples side by side, one was a,200 square foot footprint, one was a 4,000 square ft footprint on the same size lot. And if we calculated how many total square foot of structure somebody could do doing it by this, the guy that originally did the 4,000 square ft footprint would be free to build so much more square footage than the guy that originally did the 12,200 foot.

It would be less actually because he has less rear yard to work from. The 4,000 yard would because say he only had he only had 1,000 square feet left. he can only do, you know, 300. Let's say he went all the way to the setbacks, then he could use an additional 30% inside the setbacks, but the 1200 ft guy can only use 30% of the whole remaining amount of the yard in the back. Technically would be more yardage because it's bigger square footage of area. What if we just let you build within the setbacks, whatever size you want? Is that what you're saying? thing. That's what I'm

shade within the within the rear the side and rear setbacks. Well, I'm I'm fine with that for the smaller the smaller densities, the zones, but the bigger ones make sense at 30 because you don't want So, if you take your two lots, Councilman Henderson, and imagine them without a building, setback laws should be identical per the two lots. What gets challenging is we then add a layer of rear yard and sideyard definitions which entirely correlate to where you put your house and what size it is. And and so the reason that exists is because historically we've tried to have

allowing all of those to be filled with structures. And I think the reason was a historical policy that want to let people build everything right up to the lines because that does have some impact on neighbors if we let them fill all the space right up to their line with something. So the question is do you like that percentage? Do you want to higher? Do you want to lower? And how do you want it in the different as we've met on on our meetings to discuss this and work it through? there still is a a commitment to the principle of what you do in your backyard can impact the neighbors on the other sides of it and the city should have some some regulation so that neighbors from just the rooftop right up to the which which I agree with. I'm just that's why I'm not opposed to having a percentage. It's just I think the R16 should be of the rear yard.

I have 050 % at least council feel okay about that. So for R16 and R18 it's 50 and then I question

go ahead council. When someone comes in for a building permit and they are, you know, they're placing their their house on their lot, is there anything in the paperwork that will give them the information of what they would be entitled to depending on the house that they build or is that way too far in the weeds? I'm just asking is there information that they could get when they get their building permit to know the differences between what they could get if they built this house or that house in relation to what Councilman's talking about?

Yeah, we we vet through that when we sit down and and look at their site plan. Um we don't have a a onestop document for that as every application's unique in their own way. U we we do the best to be proactive out the gate and in those initial meetings though. But if you were to tell them that this is the you know the 50% say that we go ahead with that and they know that on the front side of building their house that this would be what what they were entitled to. Oh yeah. You're talking about

this guy. This poor guy.

So So he he can do shade, shed, or whatever he wants inside of the rear and side lines. So he can still do whatever he wants inside of those lines. So he couldn't afford let's let's say let's say that the bank wouldn't loan him any more money for a bigger house. So he got as much house as he could get loan that spot between your two rectangles that's inside both the rear and side. He can still do whatever he wants next year when he wins the lottery there, which includes more structure or shade structures and sheds and pools with zero limitation. But the minute his lottery money starts to go into the rear yard or the sideyard, he's got the same percentage that his neighbor has, which is 30% of wherever his backline is. So he is he is locked into whatever he designs on that pad, but there's there's a portion of that pad that he didn't build that his neighbor did that he still has zero regulation as to percentages as to what he puts into there. Does that Does that make sense? Hold your picture up and I'll

So he could all correct. Yeah. All the rest of that is without regulation. So there no 30% that applies to any of that yet. But wherever his boundary lines go is where the 30% would would. So, what what I'm hearing, council, is that on the R16 that you're talking to staff about bringing this back when it comes for your vote at a 50% of the rear yard, which we have a better clear more clear understanding of that now. Are you wanting to look at any changes on the or on the R16 and R18? 50 and 50 on the R110. Are you thinking

well it would be 50 and you'd need to increase the 50% that's on the on the combined side. So you're thinking like 50 and 60 or 50 and 70. Oh 50 and 70 is fine with me. Uh for R16 R18. What what would you like staff to do on R110? Same thing. Yeah, it's good. Anything on the larger lots? I think they're okay with 30. 12 is pretty big lot. I don't know. I'd probably change that to 52. Okay. When you bring that back to the council for a vote, unless there hear any objections.

But can we separate R112 and I mean R15 and R130? Cuz above R130, maybe we Do you want to just drop the R12 in with the R110? I'm thinking R115, too. But I don't know. What do you guys think? So, let's move R112 and R115 up to the R110 and be the same code. And then everything below would keep it at 30 for those bigger lots and those Okay. R130 or 140 would then be the 30%. Yeah. And the others 50 and 70. And usually on those bigger lots, that's it's plenty of space. The difference between Yeah.

Elden, we'll give you the last word before we bring Mike up. What's going to get even more exciting when we talk about swimming pool safety requirements 50% of the rear yard except correct? Okay. And then drop an R12 and R15 into there too with the 68 and 10. Gotcha. two items. I'll take two minutes

before we move on to building official mic here proposing that we repeal two areas of code as we're addressing them in these sections. uh we have a limits them to 25% of the rear yard which we haven't been following since we this code makes sense to this and and abide by what we're discussing right now that percentage and then also the maximum height of accessory buildings was addressed in these codes I thanks Elden that's all I have

good job council and then the final item Before we move before I'll call for a motion to go into close session is swimming pool safety requirements building official Mike Hock.

So the building department is requesting to review and receive recommendations of the Washington city pool fence ordinance. Pool contractors have requested that our city be uniform with the state construction code and other surrounding local communities. Pool covers are the safest way to keep young children from entering a pool unser unsupervised and they help with energy efficiency and water conservation. Nationally recognized building codes have been developed with an understanding that either a fence designed in accordance with the standards as stated in staff report or a UL listed cover is sufficient in an effort for uniformity and having an obligation to enforce a minimum building code. The building department supports the recommended changes.

Can you just define those clearly? Was I don't see it in it's not in our packet. If you could just kind of define those changes. So um specifically you would delete the whole chapter and just reference the state construction code. So what what the state legislature has approved is what will our city ordinance will reflect. So what changes from what we have been doing to what they require? So we're requiring both the pool cover and the fence. So on new construction

on new on new constructed pools. So the code has an option of either or um by so if you do the pool cover, you still have to have a fence. If you don't do the pool cover, you still have to have a fence. So, we're we're making them do twice twice when there's a pool cover. That's what we're doing now. Yeah. Yeah. Right now, if you do a pool cover, you still have to do the fence. And you're proposing that if they have the pool cover per the state code, that's all we do. That's all we require. And I believe typically people are still going to do the fence for privacy.

Yeah. But it the open view lots is where I found that people don't typically want to do that. But those usually um away from the public way and that matches our neighbors. Correct. Yes. I've had that complaint by people saying why do you require both?

Yes. I do think we need to make a distinction though. I had a pool in in July. if you don't open it up and let the water breathe, it is so hot when you get in it that um it would be very uncomfortable. So there's are times when safety matter think hey let's we need to keep it open so we can use it by using leaving it open without a fence that could create a problem. I'm just going to state that because in my family our fence was the safeguard because the can the cover was open most days and then closed at nights. our our code as it currently stands, also the international code which the state has adopted. Neither of those apply to what you do after you've been permitted and inspected. So this this code applies to when the building department comes and inspects your pool. They're going to make sure you have a pool cover if that's what the requirement is, but they don't come back and make sure you have it on in July. Does that make sense? And so whether you use the pool cover or whether you close the gate on the fence is something that we don't regulate yet.

What do you think council want to follow the state code on this and amend the ordinance?

All right. I've run into this more times than I care it where, you know, we put a rated cover in and then I had to put a rod iron f my personal house had to put a rot iron fence over the top which I didn't want but you know 15 grand later I put the rod iron fence on top. Um I had another one where the handle was in the wrong spot and so I had to tear gates off and have gates recut and done to move a handle. had another one where I had to go an eight foot section. I had to put an extra course of blocks across the top to ma maintain the height. Um, let's see. Sounds like he needs to read code. Sounds like

I mean this would be where you cut measure. It's not. The problem is our code was way more strict than the other adjated cover your your protective you know your protection for the pool or for the you know I think your point gets your point gets to the gist and and it's not the state code it's the international pool and spa code. Oh that's right okay

that the state has adopted. So we've always been international building code and international plumbing code and then the state had their own wonky kind of Utah plus international pool and spa. They still do to just a few definitions, but then we the city had our own little addition to that. This proposal is we're going to repeal everything and become uniform with the Utah state pool and spa code as the states uh adopted it. And so there's there's one or two definitions that they've made unique to us is about the only Utah centric thing there. The rest of it should be standards that are uniform across the board. Yeah. Again, I'm looking for nods here. Can our code also require a taller fence? Didn't it require 6oot fence and the code?

Correct. You okay with that coming back? I I begged Drew to make this change years ago, so I'm glad that it's finally coming forward. So, thanks, Mike. Thank you. Well done. Um, last item on this agenda is close session. I'll call for a motion to go to close session to discuss purchase, exchange, or lease of property. Have a motion by Councilman Bell. Second. Second by Councilman Coats. All in favor? I

I heard that as a unanimous vote. Five to zero.

Today is Wednesday, March 25th, 2026. We are at Washington City Hall in the council chambers for our regular meeting. Our meetings are streamed live and archived at washingtoncity.org/meings. We appreciate our relationship with the interfaith council and all they do to lift our community and it's my pleasure to invite Sharon Shores of the Universal Life Church Ministries to start our meeting. Good to see you again, Sharon. Welcome back.

Same here. So, for those that don't know about the interfaith council, we do at least 150 prayers every year across the various cities and we're probably going to change our logo to rather than St. George interfaith council, we're going to add down below it's serving all of Washington County because we just added leads and I think hurricane is interested in having us pray in. So, we started something over here, didn't we?

Yes, sure did. So one of for those that don't know what the interfaith council do we meet once a month and there's about 20 different faiths. So we have bahigh Quaker Episcopelian church uh church of Jesus Christ of latter-day saints Methodist we even have Quaker believe it or not and Muslim and of course the Jewish community also. So, we also sponsor the crop walk every year in November that helps raid raise food uh money for food for not only our local area but also internationally. We also host prayer over the city every first uh January 1st of every year and we also now host a harmony concert which we just had last weekend you know. So, all right with that let us pray. Heavenly Father, we gather today in a spirit of reflection and shared purpose, mindful of the significant responsibilities held within this chamber and within each and every one of us, even as citizens in this community. May all approach this work with an unwavering integrity, kindness, respect, ensuring that honesty, and transparency guide every action and word. We we know that these leaders have a deep love for our community and this is the foundation of every decision that they make. Always prioritizing the well-being and the future of those that they serve. We recognize that our strengths lies in our diversity. May we honor the unique perspectives and lived experiences of every resident, fostering an environment of respect where all voices are heard and valued. We honor the work that our electric elected officials do as they work to create a stronger community. Let us all build bridges of understanding and belonging. We ask your blessing on each of these leaders, their families, and all participants present tonight. We also ask your blessing for all the first responders, police officers,

firefighters who work diligently to keep our community safe. Together, let us move forward with an honor and a commitment to the Conor common good. We ask all of this in the name of your son, Christ Jesus. And all of his children said, "Amen." Amen. Thank you. We really appreciate you. I've asked uh Councilman Kurt Ivy to lead us in the pledge of allegiance. You please rise and repeat after me.

Ready? I aliance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all

council before I call for a motion to approve the agenda I will make note that we do not have need to go to close session that said I'll I'll call for a motion to approve the agenda as outlined. Have a motion by Councilman Belliston. Second. Second by Councilman Coats. All in favor? I.

Any opposed? The agenda is approved unanimously. We'll move on to announcements. The first um part of that section is uh it will be my um opportunity at this time to read a mayoral proclamation to declare April as child abuse prevention month. Um are you here for this item? Would you come and introduce yourself and talk a little bit about the inspiration and our coordination on this proclamation? introduce yourself and your organization.

Thank you so much. Um, my name is Geraldine Pedrosa. Gerald Dean Pedrosa and I'm with Prevent Child Abuse Utah. Okay. We are very grateful for this recognition and for your commitment to raise awareness about child abuse prevention. Our important mission, well, very important mission is to make sure that the families that are in the community that we can serve them with tools, with confidence, and with all the resources that they need to make sure that they can thrive and they can raise their children in a happy and healthy environment.

Um, so we have, let's say, we are like an umbrella, right? So, we have the educational team that they go through all the schools in Utah creating awareness and um making sure that the kiddos know, you know, how to have more tools to protect themselves and to make sure that the schools and the families are more aware of what we need to do in c certain cases. And um the other part of the organization are the home visiting programs. We have four amazing programs to make sure that the firsttime moms through a 9-year-old, they have all the the tools that they need to raise their children. And um we just work hard. We're very passionate about and we believe what we do and we we really um we're grateful for your support. Uh and we're going to keep doing this. I love it.

We've been doing that in northern Utah for more than 20 years and we've been in southern Utah and in central for two years now. So we're serving Washington County and Iron County right now. Wonderful. Your passion is evident.

You have an audience here and that will watch this later throughout the community. What is your message to them, you know, from the heart about preventing child abuse? from the heart. We need to join our forces, make sure that we are together on this, that we never forget about how important our children are, and we have to join forces to make sure that we are supporting and we are protecting our kids. Um, the more we are aware of child abuse prevention, the more things we are going to be able to do. And this is a very important matter. We have no idea how important this is and how how much good we can do being together and making sure that the commitment that we are um doing today with this proclamation it keeps moving on on time and we keep we don't never forget this. So, thank you so much and um we are going to keep doing the best that we do, all that we can do to support our children.

Oh, you you're wonderful. And I I know my council, we've got moms and teachers and dads and builders and I mean, amazing group here. Um I I know this council cares. I mean, what what would you have them be the messages that they share with the community and and what can they do to support?

Reach out reach out to Preventual Abuse Utah so we can um have all the families that we can serve refer to us the families that they know that they're in need or they're like not only in need but they would use the the our services, right? We go to the families with tools, with support, with um so many um resources to just share with them and make make sure that they're okay and that they're thriving, which is so so they can be aware and refer them for that resource.

Exactly. It's absolutely free. Yes. Exactly. Just make sure that we have these home visiting programs in southern Utah. Well, in central and you know, but this is we are we are here to serve. We are here open ears, open hearts and as soon as you know of people or communities that needs us, please reach out to Preventual Abuse Utah.

Wonderful. So, it was perfectly said. Thank you. So, at this time, it will be uh my honor to uh declare April 2026 as child abuse prevention month in Washington. And I'm going to read uh and sign a proclamation to that effect. Whereas children are our most valuable resource and will shape the future of Washington City, Utah. And whereas childhood trauma, including abuse and neglect, is a serious issue affecting all segments of our community. And addressing it requires the collective effort and involvement of all. And whereas childhood trauma can have long-term psychological, emotional, and physical effects resulting in lasting consequences for victims. And whereas protective factors are conditions that reduce risk and promote the social, emotional, and developmental well-being of children. And whereas effective child abuse prevention efforts depend upon strong partnerships among child welfare professionals, educators, health care professionals, community and faith-based organizations, businesses, law enforcement agencies, and families. And whereas communities must make every effort to support programs and activities that strengthen children and families. And whereas we recognize the importance of working together to raise awareness of child abuse and to promote the well-being of children and families in safe, stable, and nurturing environments. And whereas prevention remains the most

effective means of protecting children and supporting families. Now therefore, we recommmit to ensuring that every child grows up in a safe, nurturing environment that is free from abuse and neglect. I, Mayor Crest Staley and the city council of Washington City, do hereby proclaim the month of April 2026 as child abuse prevention month in Washington City, Utah, and urge our citizens to join in preventing child abuse and providing ongoing support for survivors.

Thank you so much. Thank you so much. Preventing is the key. Thank you. A few

A few reminders, council, um in case Councilman Ivy has forgotten, Saturday, March 28th from noon to 400 pm will be the ribbon cutting for the Washington Wills Park. He hasn't forgotten about that. I I promise you and none of this council has forgotten. So, we encourage you to be there on Saturday. There will be um music and food trucks and professional skaters and bike riders and giveaways. It will be a wonderful event for a a remarkable uh community asset in the Washington Wills Park. Also on Saturday, April 4th, as we uh celebrate Easter at 9:50 a.m. here at Veterans Park, will be the annual Lions Club Easter egg hunt. And honestly, it's just pandemonium. So many kids, they they blow the whistle and the kids just run and and they get more candy than they could possibly eat. Uh any other announcements that I may have missed, council? We'll move on to the next item on the agenda. At this point, I'm asking if there are any declarations of abstensions and conflicts.

Mayor, I'm going to step down for uh item 7A. Duly noted. Anything else, council? Seeing none, we'll move on to the consent agenda, which consists of the approval of minutes from the city council meeting of 22526 and the board audit report from February 2026. Any clarifications? If not, I'm happy to entertain a motion to approve. Mayor, I can make that motion to approve the consent agenda as outlined. I have a motion by Councilman Ivy, a second by Councilman Coats. All in favor? I.

Any opposed? The consent agenda is approved unanimously. We have three public hearings. Um, if you're here for a public hearing tonight, can you just raise your hand so I can kind of gauge? Okay, we'll move on to item 5A. And I and before we get into any of the public hearings, I will make note that uh we uh did not receive any electronic uh public comment on any of these items in this particular section. So item 7 uh 5A is a public hearing and consideration to approve an ordinance for easement abandonment EV-26-02 located at Lion's Head Subdivision lots 164 and 165. Assistant public works Director John Hinky will present on this item. You're already there.

I'm already here. Take it away, John. council. Uh yes, we have uh folks who purchased lots 164 and 165 up in Lion's Head uh with the intent to combine that into a single lot um and do some additional improvements. Um as part of that, they've asked to vacate the the rear yard utility easements between the two lots. Um we're we're good with that. We don't have any utilities in there. So, we would recommend approval for vacating the utility easements. Okay. Any questions for John? Thanks, John. Thank you, sir.

Is the applicant here? Does the applicant want to say anything? No need. At this time, I'm going to open the public hearing on this item. Anyone who would like to speak uh to this easement abatement application, this is your opportunity. Seeing none, I am going to close the public hearing and turn to the council for further discussion andor a motion. I'll make a motion that we approve item 5A for the uh abandonment of the EV2 or code EV26-2. I have a motion by Councilman Coats. Is there a second? Second by Councilman Ivy. Let's go. Roll call beginning with Council Member Belliston, Henderson, Coats, Ivy, Caspersonson.

That is approved five to zero. Next item is item 5B. This is public a public hearing and consideration to approve height waiver HW-26-01 for a church located at Wat's Edgeway and Groves Parkway. Community Development Director Elden Gibb will present. Thank you, Mayor, Council. Here on the screen is the location the church is going in and pull up the other exhibit here. The steeple is closest to Groves Parkway as you can see there. And this is what it will look like. The applicant is asking to extend beyond the maximum 45 ft height requirement to a proposed 69 ft tall. And that's for the steeple. The main portion of the church is shown at 29'1 in. Um that concludes staff report. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have at this time.

Questions for the community development director? Is the applicant or the applicant's representative here? Uh at this time I'm going to open the public hearing. Anyone wishing to speak to this height waiver application now is your opportunity. Seeing none s seeing none I will close the public hearing and turn to the council for further discussion and or a motion. I'll make a motion to approve the height waiver HW26-01 for a church located at Waters Edgeway and Groves Parkway. I have a motion by Councilwoman Caspersonson. Is there a second? Second. Second by Councilman Bellison. We'll go roll call beginning with Council Member Henderson. Hi. Coats.

Hey. Ivy. Caspersonson. Bellaston. That is approved on a vote of 4 to one. Mayor, may I uh have a moment? Go ahead. Reason why I voted nay is because the master developer hasn't finished the landscaping on Washington Fields Road.

Duly noted. We appreciate you, Councilman Coats. Item 5C. This is a continuation of public hear of a public hearing for the emergency services sales and use tax. We were going to continue that to uh March 11th, but we didn't have a quorum. So, we renoticed and continued and opened up that public hearing for today, March 25th. Uh Jeremy Red will present on this item. Mr. I don't know if I have a lot more to add, mayor, as far as the uh the public hearing. Just allow people to make any comments that they have on the new proposals or anything from last time.

Wonderful. Thank you, Jeremy. Uh that said, I will open up um the floor for um a public hearing for anyone who would like to speak uh regarding uh the emergency service services sales and use tax that uh that has been discussed and is on the agenda uh for this evening. And if you'll just remember to state your name and try to keep your comments to around two to three minutes, uh succinct and well spoken is best. Seeing none, I'm going to uh close the public hearing on uh item 5C. And um thank you for anyone who was here for that particular item. Uh there is not a vote on that until a later item tonight. We're going to move to section six. We have a number of uh resolutions. Item 6A is consideration to approve a resolution imposing an emergency services sales and use tax subject to voter approval and submitting the question to the voters at the November 2026 general election. City manager J uh Jeremy Red will present to the council on this item.

Thanks, Mayor. Uh we had a month ago we had a really robust public hearing and a lot of discussion amongst the council. So this resolution is my attempt to take the direction I believe that at least some council members were were interested in going and and put a 1% EMS sales and use tax resolution forward for your consideration. And then B is kind of goes along with it, but it's a policy intent. So my recommendation would be that if you pass A, you also pass B or if you don't pass them, you don't pass either one. But B is the policy intent behind the resolution A so that uh voters understand exactly where the city sits uh if they pass the sales tax or if they don't. And Jeremy on that as you present to the council um that there was in the discussion there was uh interest in having that drafted talking about putting that to the voters. There's also another component of that as I recall. Is that on is that on item 6B or is that part of the 6A?

So I I mean I can run through 6A really quickly, but what 6A will do is is add the 1% sales tax to the ballot to allow voters to vote for that. And if they do, then uh the city council desires has expressed its intent that if the the voters approve the tax, the city will pursue a reduction in the city's portion of property tax by 50%. Okay? So that's that's sort of the trade-off. If they'll pass the sales tax, which allows everyone to help with the burden, then we'll we'll reduce the property tax by 50% which is a tax just off our resident. Is that on 6A? That's on 6A and it's also in 6B both the policy resolution as well.

So the I'll just I'll read I think it's important the ballot proposition. This is this is what that's what I'd like you to read as the ballot proposition.

Here's here's the wording. Shall Washington city impose a 1% emergency sales service sales and use tax on taxable sales within the city to fund emergency services such as fire protection, ambulance service, and emergency medical response. If approved, the city council's expressed its intent to reduce the city portion of property taxes by approximately 50% subject to truth and taxation requirements and then yes or no. So that's essentially what you're doing is putting that language on the ballot for the voters to decide. Would they like to essentially trade a a sales tax increase for a property tax decrease? And it's important to note that the I understand the the intent of the council on sending this to the voters. The council would have the authority to um enact a 33% but anything above that when this does say up to um I will make note that it that that sales tax is not applicable to food fuel and pharmaceuticals.

Just want to make that clarification. Councilman Bellson. Um Jeremy should because the the law is drafted to that says up to and we haven't really had good discussion on um you know how much we're going to actually you know what we're forecasting to use the money for or or haven't put like a you know identified what we as a as a city want to pursue, right? um should we say up to the 1% emergency sales and use tax in the ballot initiative because that's what the law reads. The reason I I wouldn't recommend that is because you're tying it to a sales tax decrease. So if they

you you want to tell the voters exactly what they're voting for. What are you putting in and what are you taking out? If you leave it ambiguous, then we have a problem with people saying I don't know what I didn't know what I was voting for this. You know, if you say it's up to but we'll figure it out later. then that that causes concern. Same same issue. Um I had the edit brought up where we say we'll reduce the city's portion of property taxes by approximately 50%. We can also remove that approximately just by 50%. So percent sales tax 50% property tax decrease. That's what you're voting for and that's what we would stick to. Apologize. I thought you go ahead council.

So that could be another option as well where we could identify what that percentage is. I'm not I'm not really comfortable with reducing property taxes. Property tax is the financial foundation of the city. Sales tax is an important supplement, but not as reliable in my in my opinion. I I wonder if there isn't value in allowing us to have time to work through the general bud city budget, be able to talk with department heads and let take a close deep dive into the budget before we make a decision on this where I agree with what councilman said. We haven't had a real meaningful in-depth discussion and I don't feel comfortable voting on anything tonight because of that. Now, so I would I I will definitely want it to go to our citizens, but I don't want it tied to a reduction in property tax where they may not understand exactly what that means, which is on a $500,000 house, half of the city's portion of that is around $230. That means that instead of 230 they would pay 115. We need to understand that it's not a direct relationship between the two. So my my question is this. I know that we've this is a big lift for all of us. It's it's a hard thing. Um we do recognize that we have to do something safety. Whether it's this year or not, I don't know because like I said, I don't feel like we've had the discussion yet. But where I would like to to look is take the time and I want to be redundant, but I want to be clear that we take some time. We have We have um some workshops where we can ask questions and we can look at data and we can prepare for our next year's budget before we make a decision on this because I need to know first of all that we need it. Now I have to have a better idea of how much we need if we do approve it. But again, I don't want to be redundant, but I think property tax um property taxes for the foundation. I think it it would be precarious if we

tried to adjust that. But that is just my my uh my thoughts thus far. To answer your question, you have until August to get it on the ballot. So, as long as you pass a resolution before August, then you can put it on the ballot. That's the timing. That's uh further discussion and comment. This is the opportunity to discuss this.

So, yeah, I just like to say this. I mean, if we have an opportunity to allow the public to weigh in and and make the decision on, you know, whether or not it gets approved. I mean we can always do the.33 but um I don't see a problem with reducing the compelled tax and going more towards that consumerbased tax you know know under understanding and knowing that there's there is a little bit of a windfall in there and knowing that we do have other obligations in the city with respect to we have an underserved area south of town. If we if we just did the 33% that keeps us treading water, but it doesn't give us the opportunity to look at uh you know fire station down in you know south of the fields. It doesn't look give us the opportunity to find the funds for the fire station on uh Washington Dam Road that we all know needs to be reworked. It was it was a um it was never meant to be a full-time fire station. It was a volunteer fire station when it was built and you know, certainly ambulatory services in our community, I think, is important. We're already showing up um to to any medical calls anyway. And then we turn around and when Gold Cross shows up, they get to charge the insurance. If we're showing up, why not look at expanding ambulatory services in our community all while providing a tax cut to our residents? Because at the end of the day, that's what this really is, is it is an opportunity to cut taxes from our residents and shift the burden to the to the tourist and the non-residents.

Jeremy, what percentage of the U of sales taxes on this would be paid for by non-residents? Well, we don't have exact numbers, but all of our data somewhere between 80 to 85% at our at our largest sales tax producer. So, it varies by location. And what what percentage of our current uh total property tax and sales tax revenue approximately is going towards public safety, fire and police services? We're about 88% right now of our of our sales.

So almost nine out of out of every $10 is going towards towards public safety. How many firefighter in the in the preliminary budget that you've got right now? How many new fire and or police positions are are we able to allocate with where we are? So, I put together a new budget based on what we have and there are not there are no new fire, police or any other positions in the budget. Jeremy, can you talk a little bit about uh the effective rate of property tax? Effective rate, meaning as the value goes up, the rate goes down. Okay. Doesn't keep up with inflation.

Yeah. Property tax is is set to be rate neutral. So, uh, we collect about $5 million in property tax. And the way that that's set up is we will always collect $5 million. So, if if property values go up, the rate goes down. So, we collect $5 million. It's it's not there's no inflationary component to property tax. So we're losing buying power with as councilman Ivy correctly said property tax is a stable portion but currently about onethird of our general fund budget or is it less than that now? Well it's about a third of the taxes that we collect a third of the property and combined property million in sales tax $5 million in property tax. So it's onethird of the total. Okay. I just want to make sure that some of those things are clear. Yeah.

Councilman Bell, do you have more to say on this? I know Councilman Coats has some or at least did does.

Well, I'll I'll state my position. I the last meeting was, you know, I I had a lot of public comment and I appreciate the public comment. One gentleman I can see tonight told us we failed to if we have to increase taxes and I took that to heart. I started thinking where did I fail? Where did I fail? I think where I failed is we didn't act soon enough in our problem is how I look at it. I didn't realize we were in this I knew it was creeping but I didn't understand that we were that far behind on our fire and police if it keeps I mean it just because I mean I've been here six and a half years and it keeps coming a little bit more a little bit more a little bit more and again I mentioned we bought three fire trucks in since I've been on council I don't think they bought three firet trucks in the 30 years prior to that right

CARES Act money

it's I understand that some of that money came from that but some of it came from our budget too Okay. So, I'm just saying there's a lot of things and EMS has cost way more has cost way more now than it ever has before. I don't think I think we failed in the fact that we didn't increase our impact fee on the fire. If we have that big of a need, they should be paying for that the new development, right? So, I think we failed on that aspect. So, I'm think I'm just refle this is me reflecting on the comment because it it hit hard. I'm like, yeah, where did I fail? Where did I fail in acting? And I felt like I failed in that. Not having enough information, not paying attention to it. And I'll admit I didn't. I thought it was little by little I asked the questions but felt we're okay. And to come to find out this year that we really could could use it, I'm like, "Hey, we have to act. Now's the time to act if we're not going to act." I am concerned about getting rid of the 50% property tax because it is. But I also think if we want to take it to the voters, I'm for taking it to the voters. But we need the.33. Let and let the voters decide on if we want to go a better level of service for our community. That's kind of where I'm landing.

Can I address maybe a couple of concerns with that? Yeah.

First off, Representative Representative Elison recognizes that the the firing and public safety is is becoming more and more difficult for us to foot the bill for, right? And so that's why he wrote wrote this bill. But of the tools that we have to um to raise the revenues that we need, they hit our citizens first, right? Even impact fees. It may not be our citizen today, but somebody who's paying impact fees when they build a house is going to be our citizens built. So all of those uh tools are hitting our citizens first. And this this allows us to hit the tourists and the the people that aren't our citizens first.

Disagreeing with you. I 100% agree with you. I agree that I'm for doing the.33 now because it really it it helps now with what we need to help with our fire and and it does affect all the tourists and everybody that comes in. It doesn't affect our fuel. It doesn't affect our food. It doesn't affect those things. it and it's only for fire. It's not like we're saying it's a sales tax and then we're going to go spend money on a trail or a park or something that's not it's earmarked for emergency services. You think the.33 is enough?

Do I think it's enough? I think it gives us a good shot. Do I think it's 100% enough? No. I I it probably doesn't. But then we that's where I say give it to the voters. Say, okay, we need.3 to sustain to get caught up after that. Let that be let that be decided on the voters if they want better level of service.

Well, I agree with but the So, here's why here's why I like this is because it does two things. One is it gives our people a net tax cut, right? And it allows our voters to make the call, right? Not just us imposing a tax on them. And um you know it gives it gives them something in return. It's not just an increase, right? You know how often are we just increasing taxes or increasing costs on our voters? This is an opportunity to reduce some of their burden and reduce some of their load right now. Do do we need the full one? Maybe not. But if they vote the one in, am I going to look at ways to benefit the community by adding a fire station next year versus in 10 years or 15 years? Absolutely. Because we know there's a current need today and and it's a it's a twofer, right? So

So what do what happens if it gets voted down? Say the voters say we don't want it.

I I I then I have no problems doing the 33 if the voters don't want want to do it. But but if the voters allow us to go past the.33 up to the 1% then we can give them something in return. But shift that burden to the tourists that are causing a lot of the problems and and again we already know that there's identified needs within our community and the voter gets a twofer. It's not just they get a property tax cut which helps ease their burden but if we're if we're able to move forward with the fire station in in the areas or the upgrades on the fire station or the ambulatory services then it changes the ISO rating it also allows them to reduce their their uh insurance on their home right so they it's not just a straight tax cut it's a twofer for our residents right and if there's a way to reduce our residents costs while increasing our level of service to our residents and allowing them the the choice instead of just imposing it on them. I think that's a win-winwin for

But what happens if sales tax goes down? Then we go change then we go it's property tax. This none of this is no one ever wants to do this. Wants to raise taxes. No one ever wants to do that. Exactly. You said you just said you'll you'll do the 33 anyways. So why not do it now and then put it out to the voters for the 1%. Because I think it I think it kills the conversation with anybody to say, "Hey, I just raised your taxes. Hey, please vote to raise it more." Right. Let the voter raise all Let the voter make the choice. And and and you're saying you're going to raise it either way.

I'm saying we have a revenue problem. And if they choose to to raise the taxes, then then I want to be able to give them an opportunity to reduce their cost and reduce their their uh their their load on their their home, which is a compelled tax. That's the one tax they can't get away from, right? That's the one tax that that people will never own their home because their home gets taxed. I I agree and disagree because we all still have to get home, right?

We have to pay for our streets to get to our homes. So, there has to be some tax, right? We have fuels. We have those. I'm just saying I I agree with you because it's frustrating that you can't own your home. I'm with you. Property tax sucks. I just But it helps pay for schools. It helps pay for those things. Those things help, right? Most of the property tax doesn't go to Washington City. Like Kurt Councilman Ivy said, 230 bucks was his, right, for the year. Well, like on an average home on Oh, an average. Sorry, I missed that. He got a pretty nice home.

Home. K. 230 bucks. That's $23,000 of of retail sales. It's not fuel, not pharmacy, and not grocery. That's $23,000 of buying TVs or stuff in our community to break even with that. And yeah, but what if it stops? What if we're in a down economy and it stops?

First off, there is a little bit of a windfall in the 1%. I'll face it, there is a little bit of a windfall. So if you do have a little bit of reduction then then you're a able to weather that but you can still come back and say hey folks you know we have to these things we have to keep the level of uh public safety going. When was last year? How many people did we hire for the fire department? None. What about the year prior to that? Three. Three. And and in the last three years, how many people has our city grown? We we add about 2,300 residents a year on average. Okay. So, we got three people three years ago

about a city the size none last year and none this year. We have to do something. And I I think we can all agree that with that. But if we allow the voter the opportunity to make the choice, give them something in return. And and I again, what's the number? Is it 25% of the property tax? Is it is it I mean quite frankly we could shift the whole thing and cut all their property tax but I'm with you. I think the residents ought to have at least you know some skin in the game but let's let's take some of their burden away and shift it to the tourists. I think shift as much to the tourists as we can.

Great. This is a way to shift more burden to the tourist than we would normally. My point is need to do it now and do so I'm going to tell you my proposal. I'm fine with the 50% reduction if we do the.33 now if it gets voted in up to 1%. But we have to do the.33 now and the remainder will be voted on. Oh, how's it a six-month gamble? You said you're going to do it anyways. We need it now. Move forward. I want the one I I want it to pass so that my residents can get a tax cut. Right. I do too. And so I just think residents decide they wanted

the conversation if you're if you're taxing more and then saying, "Hey, do it again."

I get your point, but I think I think it's better to do it the other way. But Councilman Henderson, Councilwoman Caspersonson,

I'll be quick. I already mentioned this last time that I'd rather go through the budget and, you know, look at what the different options are because like Councilman Bellson was saying, like we don't even know how this is all going to be budgeted. And so I'd rather go through the budget process and look at the different options, see what it would look like for 1% or a different the different percentages, what the property tax could look like. And then I also feel like when I watched the when St. George went through their safe St. George when they were doing that council voted no. They they made changes to their budget where they made adjustments. They made cuts. They um one of the things that I was thinking about is using more of our wrap tax funding to rather than having like you know $700,000 plus building for the baseball um field like have more money go towards maintaining our parks that we already have rather and then just doing like a shade structure like changing the way that we're spending the money that we have to to save more and not just adding more costs. to the city, too. So, I think it'd be good to go through the the budget and then look at different options as we go through the budget.

I might get myself in trouble here, but after our last meeting, I pointed out Washington City's as the second largest city in the county, our our percentage of residents versus our percentage of sales tax revenue. And I pointed out that St. George's excess sales tax revenue is greater than our total. and they didn't like that very much. Um, my only point is um, and I agree with you when you talk about any way we can cut expensive, but that's been the Washington way for a long time because we're 17% of the population but only 13% of the tax revenue. St. George is the last time I looked at is 51% of the population, 67% of the sales tax revenue. So when we say trains running out of track, it it is. And I'm not disagreeing that we should be creative in how we use RAP money and how and I'm not disagreeing that it's every right for this council to look everywhere in the budget. But I'm saying when we're not hiring, we don't have the funds to hire new police officers or firefighters. We haven't didn't hire firefighters last year. We have needs for additional stations and apparatus. It's just really really hard to get there without it. But I'm not disagreeing. I just don't know that the math will ever add up without something because of the property tax as inflation has boomed in this kind of postcoid environment and our property taxes it the the the purchasing power for the city with property tax as our stable revenue is just eroding consistently. So I'm not trying to push back on you because I agree 100% but I'm just trying to add some additional context to

Yeah, I'm I I think that's good. I think we're all just from sitting here, it seems like everyone is on a different page. I mean, you haven't had a chance to express your So, we might need to go have more time on this anyways because it doesn't I don't know. We'll see. Can I Yeah, let's go. Let's go here with Councilman Ivy and then Councilman Henderson. I think it's important that if we're in city council, we need to address this after you know what's been said. Um Jeremy, has has our response rates or our level of service diminished? police or or fire departments the last year or two.

Right now, as far as our response numbers, we're we have not seen that happen, but that will, like I said, we're adding 2500 new residents a year. So, we're adding essentially a city the size of Enterprise to our city every year. And over time, what you end up seeing is um your priority one calls will still get the quick quick response times, but your priority two, your proactive type policing, those those types of things. If we can't add more more police and firefighters, then those non-priority calls start to take more time.

But within this year, since we, you know, there's several components to this and we're having various conversations, our citizens can know and have confidence that our level of service and our response times are as good as what they've been and that they can continue to expect that. That's correct. Future. In the immediate future. Yes. Yes. But but again, I like I like the word that the mayor used. We're running out of track. You know, we're running out of track. So, that's a that's a good way to put it. It's it's better to be proactive with it than wait until people are in here because there have been problems and and and we saw them coming.

And Councilman Cash is absolutely right. Like a lot of us are we're really grappling with an issue and trying to and it might it's probably a combination of a number of approaches, right? because we just it's like I said last meeting math the math just makes it difficult to reconcile. Councilman Henderson.

Sure. Thanks, Mayor. I'll just tell you just a few of things that I've been thinking about. Um first of all, I appreciate everybody's input because I agree with all of it to a degree, you know, and um but here's kind of what I'm thinking. Number one, we've all seen the trajectory on the charts. Um the percentage of our general fund that's going to public safety is is just too much. It's way out of balance. Is it 89%? You said, "Okay, and that's just too much. It'll be 90 and 91 and 92." And um it should really be around 75 is what it should be because the truth is there's other things that are being starved out that need to be paid with our general fund if we're paying all of it or you know the vast majority of it to um public safety. For instance, just a couple of months ago, we had the uh public works in here talking about the roads and the need to uh you know, refinish the roads in Washington and that we're falling drastically behind in the the needed schedule to maintain the roads. Well, that comes out of our um general fund. And so if we're spending all of our money in our general fund on public safety, all of the other things get starved out over time. And then what happens is it exponentially costs more because we haven't been maintaining our roads and things like that. So it's just not sustainable um on the trae trajectory that it's going right now. Um I agree with uh Councilwoman Caspersonson. We've got to be very very careful with how we're spending our money. And I agree with the

mayor. That's the Washington way. We've always been very careful. We've always, you know, tried to get as much bang for our buck as possible and I know that we need to continue doing that. Um, I agree with Councilman Ivy that we really need to, you know, Jeremy, we we've got to probably have more details on the budget, right, as we move forward. Um, one of my concerns is if if we wait, um, there's a certain amount of public outreach that we need to do and public education that we need to do on this proposal, right? I agree with Councilman Belliston. U, my first choice is to put this out to the voters to let the voters decide. As I said before, I can I despise property taxes. out of all of the taxes, property taxes is the most despicable, as I said last time. And the reason is the government has a lean on your house for the rest of your life. And so you never actually have your house paid for because the government essentially has a lean on it. Can take it any time that you get sick and can't afford to pay your taxes. So, anytime that we can move away from property taxes, I'm for it 100%. Right. I know property tax is more stable, but as Councilman uh Belliston said, there's a windfall on this. I mean, if if we're able to to get the 1%, 85% of that tax increase is going to come from somebody other than Washington residents. And that's going to allow us to cut our portion of property tax by 50% which I think is a beautiful thing. But again, it's going to take some

public outreach. It's going to take some advertising so that our citizens can grasp that idea that actually when all is said and done, this is going to be a tax decrease for our residents, right? And so that's why with all of those things in mind, um I'm in favor of passing this resolution tonight to to put the 1% to the voters, including the 50% reduction in our portion of the property taxes. I'd like to do it sooner rather than later. I'd like to do it tonight because I can see that it's very important to have six, seven, eight months of public outreach to make sure our voters understand and can can make a decision that's best for them. So, I'm in favor of it for tonight, Mayor.

Thank you, Councilman Coats. I already said what say something different. I can tell you other the other cities are watching our meeting tonight. They told me they were going to they're interested because they're all looking at the same thing. So if we're going to wait, they'll probably do it. Hurricane already has done it through their fire district. And if you look at Hurricane side, their fire district is an additional fee. We don't charge that now. We're asking for a small percentage instead of a fire district. we have our f we're covering a lot more and they're they're bigger they have other issues right I'm just the time is now

your your point is that it's coming either way from everyone around us but our other comparable and I appreciate what uh Councilman Henderson sorry what Councilman Hendren Henderson is saying but either way it's taxes either way if you take away property tax they t you some tax you somewhere else to pay for it I I agree with Yeah, I don't like property taxes and if we paid for it a different way, I'm fine with it. I just think time's now for the.33. It's all about the rest of it going to 1% and that's just my and reduce the 50%. If we pass it now,

the.33 resolution start that now. And then if they decide to go above 33, we would reduce it.

So you're So your preference would be because that's item 6C. You're you're what you're saying is I'll vote for the 33 if we can pass the 33 so that we know we have something because the 6B is saying that if this p if this if the voters don't pass it that the resolution says that this council will pass it but you're saying rather than resolution you're saying pass them both six items 6 A and 6 C 6A puts the 1% to the voters. 6C would would pass the 33 tonight.

Not going to vote for the other one without this one. Whatever order you choose to do it, but six 6B basically says that that we're raising it the 33. And you know, to Councilwoman Caspersonson's point, the St. George City, you know, they had some struggle with their, you know, a couple years ago. They cut their other departments, but they have a shortfall now, too, which is why they're looking at the same the same uh, you know,.33 to to one, but their truth in they had a truth in taxation on a property tax. They wanted to increase property tax at the time

that they were looking at doing increase on property tax, which only hits their residents, right? So now I, you know, I can tell you that the conversations are being had to look at doing this because they have the same problem and they've cut their other departments like we've been cutting in the past too, right? I I mean again 6B basically says that we have to raise that that 33 and we're agreeing to do it. What's the question is do we want that 33 to kick in tomorrow or do we want to allow the voters the opportunity and and in November. And again, I understand where you're going. I I think something needs to happen. I just think it really hurts. I I think it re makes it really difficult to ask people, "Hey, we're hitting you anyway."

Well, that's what you basically said. That's why if you're going to do it anyways, might as well do it now. That's how I'm

Mayor. Can I just make a comment since we brought in uh 6B to this So, the way 6B is written right now, I will not vote for it. I won't vote yes on 6B as it's written right now. If we revise some of the language, I will it on on policy intent if tax is not approved. I don't agree with this. It says the voters, if the voters do not approve the proposed 1% emergency services sales and use tax, the city council will implement an emergency service sales tax and use tax of.33%. I will not vote for that because I think that's getting the card out beyond the horse. If we change that language and it says the city council will consider an emergency service sales and use tax of.33%, I will vote for that. But I'm not going to vote. It's two different things. I'm not going to vote for that tonight because it's a I don't want to do that. It goes along with what Councilman Belliston says. Poisoning the pot. If we if we vote for the 33 tonight, it poisons the pot for the election. And that's what you were expressing. So that that's why I don't want to that's why I don't like the 6B. I don't like the language of it. So I would vote for 6B if we can change the language to we will consider a.33, but I won't vote for it if it says we will implement a.33. I mean that's it's two different things. So

I will just recognize this is just policy intent. So nothing in 6B is locks you into you still have to make other votes later on. But it's it kind of does though with the link. It lets people know what your intent is. So if your intent is not to do that, then yes, take that link. So my intent is to consider it. So because it does lock in with this language, my my intent was to try to make it clear for everybody what what your intent is. So let's make it clear.

You know, um I've heard it said before that city managers have to be chameleons. They also need to be mind readaders. Get inside our heads. So here's kind of where where I see us at, and this is kind of a mayor's duty as the councils grapple with hard decisions. Um, two council members are wanting to dig a little bit more into the they see the need but looking to dig a little bit more into the budget. I've got two council members who um are are comfortable sending it to the voters um basically as written. I've got one council member who says I think that's that could work, but I see the need now and I'd like the to I think the 33 is is now. And so that's that um we go back to that four-letter word which is math. We're not quite there. Um for math is the reason I don't like taxes any more than anybody. And I wouldn't mind a property tax reduction. Um, if I were casting a vote tonight, I would cast a vote in favor of a let letting the voters decide on a 1% uh tax adjustment for emergency services, sales, and use, coupled with a commitment to reduce the city's portion of property tax by 50%. To me, I think that's if I were a council member with a vote, that would be my vote tonight.

Mayor, I um I've over the last few weeks, talked to a lot of residents, talked to a lot of people. I have yet to have anybody tell me that that doesn't make sense to me. Um you know, our residents and I I look, we have to do something there. the the the give and take that the staff has been doing for the last you know the last decade there's no more give and take right the shortfall is there so something has to happen the the question and and I understand Councilman Coat you know that he understands the the need that's there versus waiting until

and let me interject too if this hadn't been brought brought up the other night. I would also cast my vote for the 33% now because Councilman Coats is also absolutely right. Right. So, I would I would vote for either of those options and I and I and I respect exactly what this side of the council is doing.

This is this is a lot of really intelligent and strong opinions here. Well, mayor, if I can if I can finish my thought, I just the the I see a lot of value in in letting the voter, you know, weigh in and and finding a way to to provide them some benefit in the process. And, you know, I think we can all agree that maybe the full 1% isn't needed to cover today's needs, but we do have tomorrow's needs, and we need to be looking at those. and we haven't really had a a good conversation about it because of it hasn't been an option. And even with this going on the ballot, it's not an option. It's a discussion point that we can have between now and November and and until until the until the ballots come in. Um because, you know, we need to have that time to be able to have the conversation with staff. We don't have to go the full one if we choose not to as a as a council, but we do need to have plenty of time to talk about do we want to redo the fire station on on Dam Road? Do we want to add a fire station down there off of 3650? Do we do we need some upgrades there at the fire station in on Buenov Vista? Do we want to move fire station have land over in Sienna Hills? That's where probably the biggest need is right now is the Sienna Hills where we have property that and and south toward Stoie Farms.

We have a need that the 33 doesn't address in every corner of our city. And and I what scares me about adding the tax today versus allowing the voter to decide and and giving them an opportunity to to weigh in and get a tax cut for it. Mind you, well, still get the tax cut. If if you're saying it's a tax cut, I'm saying it's a tax neutral because you're cutting it off the property, but then they're spending more money on the other things and being taxed even more. I still think it's a tax increase. I think that's a good point to bring up because we keep saying it's just going to be paid by the visitors, but

our residents, much of it is, but we're going to be paying for the addition, too. So, I just want to make that and I think all these questions that you have are really great points that you're bringing up which I think if we had those discussions through our with through the budget talks then we could present this to the residents and say here this is our all the needs. This is what we're this is what we've been talking about. These are some of the costs associated and then you're you're saying we don't even know if we want to go up to the 1%. Well, let's get those numbers. Let's talk as a council and figure out what the needs are. Present a budget. present present the needs to the residents so they can be educated as well as they're making that vote whether they want to do the 1% or not.

And I not I hope I don't mean to cut you off if you had I was finished. I just it's like Councilman Henderson said, we need as much time to be able to discuss this with certainly amongst ourselves but with the voters between now and November because you know we just get the more we push it down the road the more we get behind the power curve conversation trying to push it. I'm trying to say do the 33 and then you have the vote to go put it to the voters for the remainder. That's what I'm saying. Let me just confuse everybody just a little bit more. But

nothing that we're doing tonight short of putting the.3 in immediately will affect this budget that goes into effect for this budget year starting in July. So really we're talking about what are we going to do next budget year and what are our needs for next budget year. That's really what we're talking about here unless you put the.33 in right now because we're I have a budget ready to pass out to you, but it doesn't include any new. So, so we're going to get a little bit further behind, but what we're really doing is we're looking ahead and saying what do we what do we need to do and how are we going to do this? But we haven't put all that time into it because the 1% just came up. I mean, that was just an idea that was floated a month ago. So, that wasn't something we But I think my point is, okay, say a year if we wait, is it two two budget cycles away?

Yeah. Jeremy, when you were working on the the budget papers, what does our revenue look like? Does it look like it's within the gains that we've made? See, I this is another reason why I think we there's a lot of information we don't have.

Yeah. I mean, our our revenue is consistent with our revenue increases that we've had in the past. And every every growing city runs into this. And I think we've all seen that life cycle in every city that you've that you've seen that gets to our size because we know that residents don't pay for themselves. We all understand that every resident costs the city money and if we didn't have sales tax, if we didn't have those businesses providing sales tax, we couldn't make our budgets work. And so, but those businesses don't come until you have enough residents to support them. So, the residential always comes first and the needs are always greater and and the more residents we add every year that that becomes more and more of a crisis until you finally have enough people that you get those big boxes and you get those those retail sales that help ease that that burden. And so that's right where we're at right now. And and the question is how far how far can we go and how are we going to take care of our needs until that comes through. And we have a lot of exciting things coming. I think that the city has done a really good job of of maintaining commercial places and and encouraging businesses to come here. And there a lot of exciting things on the horizon, but they're going to take a few years. So how do we how do we bridge the gap? How do we get there? That's I think I think everybody understands that part of it. It's just differ on which method to use to get there, but everybody understands think has to be done.

Council, as you've heard me say before, at this time I'll turn to you for further discussion and or a motion. So, mayor, I'll make a motion. Um, and I hope this motion doesn't fail, right? Because the other motions will fail. Um, so, mayor, I'll make a motion that we approve a resolution imposing an emergency services sales and use tax subject to voter approval and submitting the question to the voters of the November 2026 general election. and and I I understand all the council members concerns with it. I think everybody has, you know, I have heard from every person on this council that has said that they value the will of the voter, right? And I think it's important to let the voters weigh in first. We know there's a need. We know that things need to be done. We know that we have a shortfall and I think it's important to put it in their hands first. And if if it if it doesn't pass at the ballot, I get it, right? I get it. We have to make a hard decision in the absence of the voter. But today, let's let's let them them weigh in first and give them an opportunity to to reduce some of their burden on their residents in the process. And it is u the amount of money that we receive from our residents versus what we would be cutting. It is a net tax cut on our people, on our residents, and the people that we were elected to represent.

Council, you have heard a motion to approve item 6A as written on the agenda with uh the justification for the motion. Is there a second?

Mayor, I'll second it. Can I make a comment? So, I just like to say, you know, for the general public that's watching, this really is this the u this really is a healthy discussion and this is a healthy city council. We have five different, you know, I mean, Councilman Bellistan and I are really close on the same page on this, but we've got five different opinions here, five different people that are expressing their opinions. And to me, that's a healthy council that we feel comfortable to, you know, share our opinions and our beliefs with each other. So, I appreciate all these people, but I'll second this. Mayor,

thank you, Councilman Henderson. Well said. We've got a motion in a second. This is a resolution, so we'll go roll call vote beginning with council member Ivy. We need more information. Nay. Caspersonson. Name. Belliston. I Henderson I Coats nay.

The motion is the motion is not approved. The vote of two to three. I'll turn it back to the council for further discussion on this particular item. Councilman Coats. Um you want to talk to the council about where you think we should go? Do you have a I don't know if there's a point. Are we at are we at a full impass or I I know that you're ready for the 33 today. I guess what I'm looking for is just judging where everyone is. Can I make a comment? Go ahead.

Um if the if the resolution for 6A failed, the resolution for 6B is is probably not something that the council even wants to discuss. It's it's tied in with A. Yeah. So tightly that I don't know. Yeah. We'll we'll skip over that. But we but but then you have 6 C which is the original 33. So we do have the 6C. So I think um because 6A was not denied. Uh we're going to stay on this item. Okay. Sorry. I get what you're saying.

I'm wonder if you have anything else. Uh I just I don't know. I think we might be at an impass. I don't like it. I don't know what to do, but I mean I'm willing to make a motion. See what happens. Can I ask a question? Yeah, always ask a question. Councilman, I Yes, you may. I You don't need permission.

Two questions, right? I mean, I understand that the wanting to look into the budget and whatever else. I I don't I think the blood's been squeezed out of that turnup, right? But, you know, we can we can still look at that. The question I would have for Jeremy is um what do we need to do to bring the issue back up because it's going to have to come back up. I mean I you know I'm not I don't think it makes sense to just you know vote to raise taxes um in the 33 um because I think it's just treading water. Well 6A has not been denied. It just hasn't been approved. So we're still here. Oh so we're still on 6A?

Yeah we're still on 6A. It hasn't been denied. It just hasn't been approved. Oh, so we're sitting here for a minute. That's why I'm turn motion to approve it. I'm I'm as I'm sitting here with with my dear friend Councilman Coats curious to see what kind of emotion he may throw. Wow. So So my question I don't know, my dear friend, I will make attempt at emotion, but there's 6 A, 6B, and 6 C, and they're all intertwined. Correct. So, I just don't want to make And I intentionally did not run them concurrently. Well, you did because it's 6 A, B, and C. So, they're all concurrently somewhat, but we'll get on to 6B. I don't know why they're not just one or 6C.

One one or the other option why it's not one, but it's not, but because they I mean, they're different, but not.

All right. All right. All right. Make your motion. I'll make a motion that we approve item 6A with the changes of implementing the.33 sales tax today because it's only for emergency services and then put the remainder of 1% out to the vote of the public with the 50% reduction of truth uh of the property taxes. That's my motion. Can I clarif that if that's what you're doing, you're essentially wanting to pass exceed and you're also wanting to pass 6A which is

the 1% on the ballot with a 50% tax. But that would be from 33 or 33.4 up to 1%. So, um, what I'm going to do is I'm going to for right now run 6A and 6C concurrently. Item 6 C is consideration to approve a resolution imposing the emergency services sales and use tax in the amount of.33%. We're going to run items 6A and 6C concurrently, which is consistent with Councilman Coats's motion. Will you restate your motion?

I'll make a motion that we approve 6A and 6 C. Uh first 6 C being that we implement the.33% sales tax for only EMS services use and item 6A for the remaining 1% with to the voters with a 50% reduction to their property tax of Washington city's property tax. Second that. Have a motion by Councilman Coats, a second by Councilman Belliston. We'll go roll call vote beginning with council member Caspersonson.

Bellaston. Although I think it hurts our messaging in November, there's no way I'm not going to support the public safety of our community. So I'm an I. Henderson. Hi. Coats. Hi, Ivy. Yes.

Um item 6A, which is to add a ballot initiative for a 1% emergency services sales use tax coupled with a 50% property tax reduction on the city's portion is approved. along with uh 33% emergency services sales and use tax um at uh now and both of those are approved on a vote of 3-2. Um making uh 6B irrelevant. We'll move on to item 6D. Uh before we do, I'll just again thank this council for um tackling the tough issues and doing your very best at it. Uh 6D. This is consideration to approve a resolution authorizing and approving the amended and restated power pooling agreement with the Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems for the pool project authorizing execution and delivery thereof and related matters. I'm uh happy to see you, Rick. And I'm also happy to as our power director, Rick Hansen, I'm also uh happy to see our assistant power director, Scott Hughes, uh as your wingman tonight. I think Councilman Ivy's coming back. I know he was receiving an award tonight, so I'm not sure if he just stepped out for a minute or if he stepped out to go

to that event. Either way, left. You're up.

Thank you, council. It's good to to be able to be here tonight. Um, so this this item is to uh approve an amended pooling agreement with Utah or Uamps where we get our wholesale power through. It's an old agreement that's 30 40 years old that's uh being updated to reflect the extended day ahead market that's coming up in May. Um, and so this is one of those items we can do as little or as much as you want to do. Uh, you had a lot of easy reading, you know, 30 40 pages that was in your packet. Uh, a lot of the U amps presentations. Um, I will say the power board, um, Scott presented to the power board on, uh, March 3rd and they've spent probably three to four meetings going over it. um and uh approved uh or recommended to the council that they approve it. Uh so with that, I'd guess look for your direction.

Just say um like we spent a lot of time on the power board with the power board. They did a great job. Just high level what this is is just updating the agreement that we had in the past with some new accommodations, right? Like maybe just high level what Okay, maybe I'll just real quickly If I can share the screen, uh, David, I'll just bring up the briefing document. And while Rick's doing that, the power board dove deep into this agreement and and worked well with Scott and Rick and and really vetted it for us. So, I'm really appreciative of the Power Board and what they do to to get these things right when they have the experience

on these.

David, can you help me out there? It shows that it's Mary. Oh, there it goes. So, I I think the main things uh are here on the briefing document and again we can do as much or little is it brings the pooling agreement into the it's called extended day ahead market uh or EDAM um that will be coming up. Um and so it allows gives U AMP some uh authorization to make purchases for the various members um instead of up to particularly day of or two days ahead. And then there are also some formal um annual purchase plans and load forecasts that some of it's been done historically but it's not as formal as uh what we'll need going into this new EDAM market. Uh and then the other and it's really been going on this way. Uh members that cause costs, they'll track it and you get to pay the part of the bill that you cause to to flow through. So um is that high level enough or more?

I understand it all. I've been in lots of meetings with you. So I'd ask these council members and and Scott and I were talking earlier that you know really we've been in our UAMPs meetings for probably about a year and a half dealing with this and coming to this point. So it's uh it's trying to shove a graduate course down into a twominute presentation and it's kind of a challenge.

Well and I appreciate that and like I said Councilman Coats does a great job with that assignment as leaison to the power board. Um we're all we might not be graduate level on this council but we're definitely somewhere on our balorate uh just having dealt with the municipal power uh utility. Um this is great. This is this is exactly the kind of work we expect. Um before we talk about that you you made note just recently that with this warm weather we peaked pretty we had a record peak in March. Can you just speak to that just a little bit and then we'll circle back on this agreement?

Yeah, sure. Uh, last Friday, and I haven't looked today, we were on track to exceed the Friday load, but last Friday, uh, we hit 29 megawws. Our historical peak for March was 21. So, we were about 40% over. Uh, that's higher than even any April load that we've ever had. Of course, it's driven by the record heat. Um, our load correlates very closely to the heat. So, at least it's not affecting our water supply. Yeah. Did I actually keep a straight face from

Yeah, I'm sure Blake would love you here to say love to hear you say that. So, but yeah, it's it's been a a crazy few days and like I say at 4:00 we were about two megawatt watts ahead of the Friday pace, too. So, it could have exceeded it. I'm not sure. You ready for a motion, Mayor? Yeah. Thank you, Rick. Is that everything you want to present? Yeah, like I say, we've got tons of slides if you want to see them. If not, you're not going to hurt our feelings either if you don't want us.

Um, thank you. I think I think we'll jump into a motion on this one. Council, I'll turn to you for further discussion and or a motion. Mayor, I'll make a motion we approve item 6D for consideration to approve a resolution authorizing and approving the amended and restated power pooling agreement with Utah Associated Municipal Power Systems for the pooling pool projects authorizing, executing, and delivering thereof and related matters. You've heard the motion by Councilman Coats. Is there a second? Second by Councilman Ivy. We'll go roll call beginning with Council Member Casperson. Ivy. Coats. Hi. Henderson. Bellis. That is approved unanimously. Five to zero. Before we move on, I just want to brag a little bit about our power department.

Do it. Um, so that's not the right I'm looking for. So Scott informed us that we won an APA safety a diamond level award for safety with our power group. So Scott, come tell us about that real quick. You you got all dressed up and Kane, you got to get your moment at the mic.

And we we're we feel so fortunate to have you and your expertise and your work ethic. Tell us about this award. Yeah. So, each year we submit a application to um you know, you answer all the questions about any injuries that you've had, any lost time, accidents, anything like that. Um and the highest level that you can get is diamond. We qualified for the diamond. So, that we're really proud of that. And I apologize, Craig. We just found out after the um last power board meeting, we also got a first place with the IPSA for safety award. Also, I don't know why you're apologizing about that. I just continue also to note and I should have told you this when we got here earlier but I I forgot but

yeah it's really great. Um the guys are doing a great job. It it it's across the board. I mean all the way into the office staff but especially the guys that are out there really put their lines on the on their lives on the line that they're really um at risk a higher risk of injury and and and death. And so we're really proud of them. It's a good thing that they all do their do their part and and work safe. So, we love that. Uh, another update. Will you give us just a quick update on the Grapevine substation? Yeah. Or Rick is Rick, that might be your wheelhouse. Either of you probably, unless you want this guy to keep getting a little FaceTime with the council.

Um, on the substation, you'll probably start seeing more steel go up than currently it's up there now. Uh all the below grade stuff is done. Uh along the parkway, all the transmission poles are set except one by the horse uh park, so we only have to get in there once. We're working with the developer of the Hampton Inn there at exit 13 to finalize some grading issues there. Then you'll see those other poles going in. So, uh we're trying to do as much in-house as possible. We're hoping from here on out it will be pretty much in-house. Uh we'll save some money. Uh, and the crews take extra pride in their workmanship, too. So, it'll be a little bit of a slow go. Uh, but, uh, in the end, I think it'll really pay off.

So, substation transmission lines, and we're doing some rebuilds. Yeah, we we of lines. We completed the water the well line up in the habitat area uh outside of the habitat. It's still the old line. as the development at Cente goes in, it'll kind of nibble that away. U and so obviously we'll keep maintaining it, but u so that's been the two major projects so far. And then the AMI we crossed a little over uh 1900 meters. Those are real time smart meters now on the system. So and we're you can track it on the app.

We're working on getting the app going. That's the next step to have about two years. But right now, we we can we can track the use. Yeah. Keep up the good work. Thank you, gentlemen. That's right. Thank you. Okay. Thad, you've got the next two items. Item 6E is consideration to approve a resolution for C Coral Canyon Area 5 supplemental terms agreement. And I'm going to have you just move right into six uh 6F at the same time, which is consideration to approve a resolution for a land lease agreement with Barco Holdings LLC. We'll vote on them separately. Go ahead, Dad.

Thank you, Mayor and Council. Um supplemental terms agreement. This is a conversation that's really been going since last year's legislative session. So, I think all of you have heard about it and heard about the concepts and the terms. in general general speaking for the members of the public and those that are watching this is an agreement a three-way agreement between Sitla uh Sitla's developer and Washington city to develop a undeveloped area of Washington city that's serviced by telegraph road and countryway and other important traffic corridors um and to develop it with the end result being a housing project where Sitla and the co developer uh agree to cap the the amount of profits they take and so that they're agreeing to to to to limit their profits to 6%. The city also is agreeing to limit some of the developer improvement exactions that we would typically require um all of which would flow into the concepts of the development. The agreement today has terms around that. Um the terms include things such as 80% or more of the units at any time must be owner occupied units. The units built and constructed must be single family uh standalone housing units. Um there would be a short-term rental restriction on all of these units so that they would not be qualified for for nightly rentals or vacation rental uses. Um, if they were to be rented, uh, there would be a restriction on the term. In other words, the term must be long-term, one year or more. Um, just checking my list here to make sure I've I've rattled them all off.

Can I ask ahead? Go ahead. Can I ask a question? Absolutely. Some of the developments have a cap on how many can be rentals. Is there anything like that in that agreement? Correct. on this one. In paragraph 3, A, the requirement is that 80% must be owner occupied. Um, is that what you're asking? Yeah. And so, and I like that. So, at a maximum, 20% could be rented. Right on. And it's kind of a a running percentage, meaning a house that's maybe rented today could go into ownership and a different house could go into rental. Just flux and flex with the market. Okay. Yeah, it requires 80% owner owner occup occupation.

Thank you. Yep. Who tracks that? That's the challenge with these type of things. Uh there's an agreement that establishes the term. Um the HOA is obligated by this agreement to adopt CCNRs that will establish these standards. And so the city, I think, will monitor it, but in theory, it's the developer as they're selling. They're going to need to find out what the users are going to be doing. and and to what extent as well as then the HOA that'll have uh conditions and restrictions that relate to that. There will also be a deed restriction in the in the deeded uh uh title record. There will also be reference to these things. So,

is there is there a double-bladed sword that sharpened and ready to chop all these trees down that become challenges? Not yet. So, um, is there anything in the that says that the developer can't sell or has to sell to owners? Let me let me let me uh this is where I'm going with this. If I wanted to go buy one as a rental unit, right, to be a rent a renter, would they can they sell it to me or does it have to be an owner occupied type of a thing to where it gets then rented when they move up or it gets sold at a later date to somebody that would rent it?

I'll just read for you. Paragraph 3. The quote, the developer agrees that it will record via deed restriction to be recorded against area 5 concurrent with the plat recording that subdivides area 5 and via the declaration of CCNR's the following terms applicable to any residential lot in area 5. Number one, number of 3A, the percentage of owner occupied lots in area must be at least 80% at any time. So that's a deed restriction that's that's recorded concurrent with the plat as well as a covenant in the CCNRs. 3B. Any lot that is not owner occupied may not be rented for an initial term less than one year. So if you were to show up and say I want to buy a rental term a rental um the the the developer is who's under contract here must tell you you can only rent it for a year or longer, right? So that's what you would receive at the front. They would also need to do an audit and make sure they hadn't already sold 21% to other buyers just like you. Well, so I guess I guess where I'm going with that is I mean we're backing off on basically what we would require, right? Because we want this to be an affordable price driven, you know, project. Our goal with that is to is that those are uh that we're selling to owners and young families or people that need an opportunity, not some investor because I'd hate for 20% of them to get sold immediately to investors. And then what about that guy that needs to move, you know, move up and and wants to keep the house so that who knows, maybe he's got a kid coming up down the road, but he wants to rent it for a period of time. You know, I I just I'm fine if that guy gets it as a rental. I just don't want investor buyers coming in to get them as rentals. So, can we put a provision in there that says at least on the initial need to be sold sold to owner occupied tenants?

We can put whatever you want in there. Yeah. Has have they agreed to that? Not yet. Have had we discussed that term? Not yet. But I'm happy to take it back to him if that's Well, I know I had that conversation with one of the representatives of Sitland and he said, "For sure." That's what that that's the goal. So, it it didn't sound to me like it would be an issue from his perspective. I'd like to request that. Okay. Mayor, would it be okay if I made a comment on this? Go ahead, Councilman. Yes.

So, just some some background and mayor, you'll remember this as well as of you, Councilman Co. This is a this is something that Washington City's been working on for a long time to be able to utilize sit land for affordable housing. Something that we've talked a lot about. We've initiated conversations through our city and staff and to my knowledge this is the first parcel or piece of sit land that was used for affordable housing component and agreement that was made between all the parties to take less to keep that a true affordable housing piece. So, you know, I just want to share my my uh appreciation for our staff and for everyone that worked on that. It was important. I know with Steve Walrip, that's the the house housing uh adviser to the to the governor and with Sitla, you know, we've I think we've charted new ground and I think it's something that will only get bigger and stronger as we move forward as we identify other parcels that can be used for affordable housing. But just a just that comment mayor before this moved on. So

it's important uh point to make and you have been we've been heavily involved in that

that what's the thing that question that came up in my mind is what stops if everyone's taking less and then someone buys a house and then sells it a year later and make all that money back and bring it up. How to no stop in this agreement for that. So, this agreement, so the hardest part of it was defining the word affordable. Um, and so it pegs to a state statute that establishes the first-time home buyer program that includes a a purchase incentive to buyers up to $20,000. That program limits applicants to a purchase price of $450,000. And so we're using the word affordable, but that probably isn't the price that a lot of people in this area would find affordable, but it's affordable compared to the mansions in the in the fields, right? And so so you you kind of figure out what affordable means based on your viewpoint of the market and and the cost of things. And so the obligation is for the developer to sell it to somebody at that price or lower. And then if that person chooses to sell it later, um there's no price restriction on anybody else in subsequent market transactions.

But that isn't there a time component in that? I thought they had to live in the house for a certain amount of time. Not in this contract. The challenge is The challenge is we don't know who the buyers are and we're not able to put them under contract at this time. I I don't think that anyone's anticipating that these are going to be worth 800,000 and they're going to sell them for 450. I think that they're they're going to build a product that gives them their profit, but but they'll basically be market rate at that point. I don't think there's I don't think you're going to have a ton of equity day one. And so I think that point

these concepts that you're asking about are included in the first-time home buyer assistance program. So that program has terms like this that say if you sell it before you the the notes reach maturity. There's a schedule of which to which degree you have to share the the uh the equity that you've earned with the first-time home buyer ownership program. And so there are some of those but it's not in this contract. It's in the funding uh mechanism that the states. But is this contract requiring them to use that or is that just an option? No, that's how we defined the word affordable is we went to the state home buyer assistance program and looked at what they thought the cap was and so that's what we defined the cap. They don't have to use it. They could they could just they could pay cash if they had them any homeowner.

Yeah. I mean obviously the idea is to try to limit rentals. So carving out the option for you know landlords to buy up front. I think I think that's important to do what do what you can. Um the other thing that's a concern is if you know it would be important I think not to let one individual come up and buy multiple units you know buy bulk. I mean if this is intended for primarily you know firsttime home buyers or you know a reasonable home buyer for a roof over their head. I would hate to see somebody come in and buy you know 10 or 20 of the 212 units buy them all up you know. I just

So those are families that were going to move in there. Well, I'm just saying that that I wouldn't want somebody to come in and buy 10 or 20 of these and then flip them or buy 10 or 20 of these and then rent them out. I mean, we I don't know how you you you put that into a contract, but we know what the intent is. They know what the intent is, but but if they're sitting there and then nobody's buying them, it would become tempting to sell them to a renter or to I mean a lot of people back in you remember the when we boomed in the past, people would just buy things and flip them. I mean, they barely get them in a contract and and that's why I don't want people to carve that profit out and just, you know, flip over the good thing is our economy is not that way right now. Not saying it won't be in the future, but

you know, I don't know how I see what you're saying. Memorialize that. I believe the owner occupied units provision requires that they sell 80% to owner occupiers. Okay. Right. But I there's nothing that says that person can't turn around and sell it next year. I just sometimes I get surprised what people will do to just try to make a quick buck. I think there's a lot of risk to this contract for those things. This contract, you know, the city's given up substantial exactions and and there's a lot of that that in good faith. We don't have the developer Cole Cole West working in really good faith and Trust Lands Administration. This is a good collaboration. I I think they're not it's not on them, right? It's just the next buyer.

Like no one's in good faith. Everyone agrees to it. All the parties between the developer, the city, and and Sitla. I'm just saying it's the problem isn't going to be those three. It's going to be the next person that none of us can control. Yeah. But at least the first buyer should at least hit the intent. 80% right? Isn't that the intent 80%? It has to be 80%'s in perpetuity, too. That's forever in this in this. So, those sellers are going to be limited by these provisions. But, but nothing says they can't sell on harvest profits and sell to the next first-time home buyer.

It's similar. I I used to I used to have a condo and and in the condo complex, you could only have something like that. 80% had to be owner occupied. And so, when you go to sell it, the HOA checks to see, you know, how many they have. And if if you If you don't have that, you get in line and the next person that ends up owner occupied, it creates a spot that you can sell it. It is a limitation. So, people need to know that when they buy these houses that they may not be able to sell it to an investor. They may not be able to sell it to somebody who I just don't want the initial sales to be to investors. Somebody somebody could come and buy 20%. An investor could buy. Will the first 40 be investors?

Can I can I weigh in without having some sort of an owner occupant provision for the first sale? potentially. That's what I'm saying. Nobody that is an owner occupant that comes in and buys will ever have the opportunity to rent their house because if an investor came in and bought 20% of the units, right? So, Dad, would you rather have it tabled to add that provision in or would you rather just have a condition of the mo a motion that said to approve that said that that the condition is that we add that provision in that or all initial sales are to owner occupant. Either one's fine with me.

So then I make that I don't know that sit and the other parties will agree to it. I'll try and go get it to them from I don't I don't know that co will agree to that. I mean, we then we don't agree to their agreement. We'll be a limitation on how they can sell the homes and we we pushed hard to get to 80%. So, if you're saying they have to be 100%, I don't know that they'll agree to

I just would have a hard time if if if we set this up as an opportunity for people to get in, you know, as affordable as possible, but then they don't have the opportunity to rent their own house because some investor group came in. I I just I I think it needs to have that provision. So, so I agree with you, but I'm wondering if we look at it as because one of the thing is is say they're they're 200 homes, right? 212. Well, just doing easy math, not hard math. Do easy math.

200 homesish. And you take uh 20% of that, right? That's 40 homes, right? First phase is 40 homes. What if the in like what if we do it per phase? Like, and it doesn't have to just as you add units. It's still 8020, but you can't sell 20%. You can't sell more than 20% to non-owner occupied per phase per phase or and and it's not held to just that phase. I was just trying to think of a way that yeah, you have to sell 80% to of what you're currently building because they might build phase one and two and then just not do anything for a while and then they're like, well, those are investments and it hasn't worked.

That's still I still I still see your problem. doesn't address the issue of the guy that that buys the house and then can't rent his place and he and he actually was trying to play by the rules and I get it and maybe he just needs to buy a different like move up right or laterally whatever helps them get in gets them going then they laterally move or up and goof to the next place and they can do it. The whole purpose of the whole project is to help families. It's not to help in so in that motion. Dad, wouldn't a deed restriction be the proper way to have handled this originally or no? Or just help me understand.

The contract mentions a deed restriction, but it doesn't mention some of the things that are being discussed such as a restriction on when you can sell it or for how much, right? Um, this type of a concept is risky if you want to guarantee things forever. If you want to guarantee it forever, go have your government or the federal government own it and then they can control rent and treat it like subsidized housing.

But if where it's a market product, it's getting sold to families through a state first-time home buyer assistance program, we don't have long tentacles beyond that. And so if you need long-term guarantees, this probably isn't the right agreement for you. We need to go see if we can get other terms. But yeah, this one this one was trying to get product sold that's a single family home to families that qualify for the state's assistance first. They will place families that need those homes in them and they'll appreciate it. They'll be there. They'll enjoy it. I'm also certain we'll have investors that take advantage of it because that's it's a big business around here, right? And so,

so there's lots of places we can do this. We're we I'm sorry, not lots of places we can do this. If if someone's that concerned about it, they can buy somewhere else. But if they're not concerned about the owner occupied and renting later, this is a good option for them. It's kind of where I'm at now. So, who who does check the 80% rule? The developer has that obligation. And is there any teeth if they get out of balance? Uh the city would have to come to them and say there's a contract. You're out of balance. We're demanding you to get in balance. So we'd have to we'd have to become proactive in enforcing that against the

developer would do it as construction is going and then the HOA would take that over after it's built out.

And that gets harder especially when the HOA is run by the occupants. They could in theory choose to amend their CCNRs that don't say anything that the developer contract said I had to say and then they'd be in conflict with the city and we'd go through that that around too. And so this isn't imperfect for for long-term security as to what happens here. If you want a project that comes in at a price that's and again I I'm not going to pretend that it's a low price. Our market values are still pretty high at 400,000 or more. um but still qualifies for a first-time home buyer assistance program from the state, which will get them about $20,000 of incentive if they if they qualify for the full benefit. This is an opportunity for that. But I

I think the 8020 is great for long-term protection. I I also think it's a great idea to to try to work out where the initial sale is to somebody that has to stay in there for a year or something and and it's an owner occupy for a year, but then at that point it it's market, you know, it goes to market and the good thing, you know, it's not like the prices are going to get jacked up to a million dollars because the size of the home, the location, the density, all that will will keep the price, the market will keep the price down comparatively to everything else, you know, in the area. So, it's a good project, great project, but I agree.

Yeah, this, you know, if we could initially somehow get it just owner occupied for the first year, a few tweaks in this subsidized housing, right? This is market housing. Uh there's been agreements from the city, so we're going to help it be a little lesser priced by not requiring the same road exactions we knew normally would, right? Sitla and their developer have agreed to reduce their typical profit. And so it's not going to be priced out of market. This is going to be at market, but it's going to be just a little better at market. You wrote the contract. Is there anything else you can think of that we could do based on the feedback you've had from the council? Well, I can try to do all this stuff. I wrote it, but I

Do you think And you've also done the negotiation, the development. I mean, is there anything that we can do to just try to help either either ease into it or just try to help? I think I think honestly Cole West is they like I've talked to them a few years ago about this idea. I think they genuinely want this to be firsttime home buyer buyer and, you know, modest income needs-based. I'm just I mean, but if a house is sitting there and somebody's a cash buyer, I mean, it's hard to say no. They're in the business of selling the houses they build. Yeah. They don't they don't want to have any on the market still. When they're done building, they want to be able to move on the next one. So, the negotiations with them haven't been the easiest thing.

And so, I don't know what they're going to say to these things. I'm happy to take them back to them. Um, it's just it's a tough contract. We're trying to accomplish a big thing that's that's kind of unique in this market and and so I I'm happy to go and try and add more to it. Council, you feel anybody feel strongly that anything else needs to be added to it or you feel like we approve it and move forward? I mean, it's a good project either way with the price point. It's not perfect.

I feel really comfortable with that explanation because I I can see what he's saying. We're we're trying to do the best we can and provide a product that's needed and we do it in good faith and we hope that that's that's worse than lands. I'm I'm comfortable with it. Mayor myself,

Councilman Bell, what what was your proposal again? just that uh that just that we add a provision in it that the at least the first time initial sale is owner occupied and then that way the the people that do come in and and buy it as owner occupied have some ability to rent their house if they need to. Again, I'd hate the investors to come in and buy up all those slots to where now they don't have an opportunity and they're the ones that were doing the right thing. Right. So, so what you're saying is you want 100% of the homes to be owner occupied, but remove the 80%. No, keep the 80% restriction, but I I want at least the initial sales to be owner occupied

because that's the that's the target market, right? That's why we backed off on the we we 80% but I don't think they do. You remember our discussion? I don't remember if they were willing past 80%. So, the developer to any buyer for any lot must be to an owner occupier is what you're saying. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Cuz if you get if you get 20% of them, the investors come in, then those then those owner occupants don't have the opportunity. They they can't they're deed restricted from being able to rent their home. Even if they're going, let's say they let's say they came in take decide we're going to go up north for a year to go chase money for our family. We got to rent it for a year and then we're going to come back to St. George. Well, they would have that person would have to sell their home if an investor came in.

Come back to Washington. Yeah, that's what I meant. In my head, I said that. In my head, I said that. Yeah. No, you're right. That there is that effect here of at some point because it's not a fair playing field. Like the institutional investor has cash, has resources. This first-time home buyer, they're scrimping. They're they're saving. Quite frankly, I don't think you're going to see a lot of they're trying to get approved. You may see some seniors come in maybe, whatever. But you know what? somebody came here and wanted to take a mission, you know, go on a mission for a year or two years, they they would have to sell their house in this scenario like this if we don't put that provision in there. So, may I just leave it vacant? Yeah. Sell it or leave it vacant.

Or leave it vacant. Yeah. Mayor, I'm happy to make motion. I like it. All right. Uh, mayor, I make a motion that we approve a res a resolution for Coral Canyon Area 5 supplemental terms agreement with the addition of a firsttime owner occupant uh, provision in it for the initial sale. Have a motion by Councilman Coats, a second by Councilwoman Caspersonson. Uh, excuse me. We have a motion by Councilman Bell. Now we're even. Now we're even here. Council Belliston, second by Councilwoman Casterson. Uh, it is a resolution. Did I start with you last time? I don't remember. We'll start with Council Member Coats.

I'm going to ask a clarifying question. Oh my goodness. Start with I know you should have started with him, Dad. Yeah. What happens if they don't agree to this? You come back to us even though we approve this. So, say this is the proposal and they're like, "Yeah, we're not doing it." If they don't agree to it, doesn't get signed, your your approval doesn't really have any meaning. If they don't sign the contract, right? So, but we approve we approve their development already. Well, you've got a problem because we've they've got a pre-plat. Yeah. Now, the pre-plat was approved with the condition that the council would approve a contract. And so, you're if you denied it tonight, that might change their negotiating position. Rather we table it

and then you go back to it and have the conversation. I don't care. But I'm not I just want they're partners, right? And they're not here to defend. I want to have the discussion or have our staff discuss our because it's the first time we're seeing a representative from Sitla or Co West here this evening. I don't see anybody here tonight. And I would make a substitute motion, but apparently you can't do that after a second. So I guess I have to move on. Sorry, Councilman. I'm I'm going to say nay because I want a table. Council member Henderson. I Belliston Caspersonson. Hi, Ivy. Hi. That's a four to one. No, it's too late for for this project.

Four to one on item six. I just didn't want them to deny it. I'm not trying to win it. I'm trying. Item 6F, uh, carry on. This is on the Barco Holdings LLC land lease agreement resolution.

I'll turn your attention to the packet. If you pull up the lease document, there's two exhibits that I think I want to start the conversation with. This agreement didn't start out as a lease agreement. It started out as uh public works had brought to my office a concern about just just stuff, you know, trailers, um different items on there that that had some concern. Some of them had some oils or fuels in them. And so it first started out as a hey, let's figure out what's going on here and find out who who will clean this up. Well, to Barco's credit and also council member Belliston had some role in the relationship there. Uh we we we shifted that from you know enforcement letters of clean up your stuff and quit being messy to this lease which is the proposal is Barco will lease the land that's reflected there in the exhibits uh for a lease payment of $4,000 per year for up to 10 years. Uh the city has an out to it if there if the city ever decides that they need to put a public road there. They have the ability to to give notice and terminate the lease for a future public road. Otherwise, we would let it last its term. You'll notice in the exhibit images there, it's a piece of land that was was dedicated to the city in a developer plat. Um underneath it is the canal um a a co culinary water transmission line for the city of St. George and power. And so there's they couldn't do anything with it and sewer and sewer. And so and so there wasn't much the developer could do with it because of all the easements that were in there. And so essentially it got it got dedicated to the city with a developer plat. And so we own it now. This concept will clean it up. Barco will control it with fencing. We'll give city access to the east and west side gates. They'll improve it with road base

and grading so that it's a more functional surface and and unit. Um, and they also, again, there's terms in there that if if we need it for a public road before this lease is over, we can we can go take it back. Public works doesn't foresee the city having any other need for it. So, this doesn't appear to conflict with plans that that are foreseen at this time for anything in that area. And so, what other questions might you have on this? You brought up the hazardous waste that was on there. That actually wasn't them that put that there. somebody else put it there, but they did go clean that up and cleaned clean of those. I hadn't concluded that it was hazardous, but yeah, there were some some containers that had some liquids and

we were trying to make sure we knew who put them there and and I never reached the conclusion that it was theirs. Um, but yeah, we were we're getting ready to send out the letters when when you kind of helped get it into a lease lease agreement cleanup concept, which was a nice it's a lot easier to do than, you know, send letters and make threats. So, they're not interested in purchasing that. It hasn't been offered for purchase at this point. I don't know that it would be wise for us to sell it with all everything that's underneath it. I think that as far as a utility corridor, we we have an interest in keeping keeping the city involved there. Okay. Right now, it's a pretty proficient or prolific weed generator.

Yeah. So, you know, if they're going to go and and clean it up and road base it and maintain it, um it would be beneficial and it won't obviously won't cost us. They went ahead and cleaned up all the the the trailers and equipment. Um that I don't believe they've roadbased it or kind of finished it out like the agreement says yet. I think they're waiting to see if a contract gets approved before they make that expense, but they've already cleaned it up and so what you see in the picture on there is no longer there today. It's Were they using it before?

Uh, their lot is the only lot that has access has legal vehicular access to it and so some of the trailers had the Barcode logo on them. So, we believe that it was a it was a you know unhitched unhitch hitch up. Yeah. So, we believe that some of the use was theirs because trailers had their name on it. Um, and we we also view that as reasonable. The city had never gone and taken possession of it once it was dedicated to them. And so we we think this is something that just kind of floundered for a year or two since the plat and we we caught wind of it and got a pretty good solution here. There's some erosion that's coming off of that that they're going to clean up as well.

Yeah. So there was a residential subdivision to the south and then the traditional use to the north and then this kind of canal way in the middle that hasn't as you know the canal company doesn't spend a lot of time on the surface. of their ement either. And so, um, it could be a spot where there's a future trail someday. It could be a spot that the city has a road there. Um, for now, the proposal is get at least to an entity that's going to take take good care of it underneath a a lease agreement and uh give us access and and control of it if if we decide that that's necessary.

Thanks, for any questions on this item? If not, I'll call for a motion. Mayor, I can make a motion to approve a resolution for a land lease agreement with Barco Holdings. Have a motion by Councilman Ivy. Second. Second by Councilman Henderson. Roll call vote beginning with Council Member Henderson. I Caspersonson. Ivy. I coats.

That passes 5 to zero. Um it is just about 8:00. We've been going strong since 4:00. We're going to take a fiveinut break and then we're going to reconvene and we have eight land use ordinances. Craig, hang with us, buddy. Okay, Brandy, hang with us. I'm going to try to keep this moving a little faster on we're going to do a negative split for you runners out there. We're going to go faster on the back half than we were on the first. We'll take five. We'll be start back up about 805.

Okay, we're back. We will start as as people trickle back in. We'll move on to item 7A. This is consideration to approve an ordinance for zone change Z-26-01 from C2 to DM downtown mixed use located at 127 East Telegraph Street. Community Development Director Elden Gibb will present. Mr. Gibb. Thank you, Mayor Council. The proposal includes a twostory building which is 34'2 in tall with a total square footage of 4,848. Both floors will be professional office space. The proposal includes 19 parking spaces. We'll pull up the site plan here which meets the minimum requirement for the proposed use as shown on the plan. The front setback is 5 ft from the property line. This is an allowed setback in the downtown mixeduse zone and it promotes walkability and improves the aesthetics of the site by accommodating parking behind and to the rear of the building. rather than from streets view. The exterior building, we'll pull up the front building here. You can see what it looks like. Consists of stucco, rock, and metal, creating a modern feel that utilizes clean lines, geometric shapes, and a mix of contrasting materials. The proposal includes a placeholder for a mural to be located on the west side of the building. Before I show this mural, the owner uh after the planning

commission sent over a few photos of of what they propose or see here, and it it will be quite different from from as shown here. It will not be Bob Ross. Huh. Uh it I'm not for it now, Elder. That's the only thing I liked about Bob Ross on the side of the building. stated this is a placeholder. Uh was really recently up in the Boise area and we looked at some some murals on buildings and and how it brings the building to life and and draws the community in. So I'm really excited about this mural portion of it. That's funny.

Site utilizes one-way vehicular traffic as shown here. Ingress will be made from telegraph and egress will be made onto 100 east. The property owner has also obtained an access agreement with the property owner to the west to accommodate this traffic. The surrounding zoning is C2 to the north and east, residential to the south, and AP to the west. The planning commission reviewed this request and unanimously recommended approval based on the findings and conditions stated in the report with the recommendation that there be some sort of city involvement or oversight regarding the exterior mural. That concludes staff report. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Questions for Elden? Any need to hear from the applicant? We hear from him enough. Just kidding. That was a joke. I'm happy to entertain uh a motion if there's no further discussion. Since I made the joke, I'll make a motion to ordinance for zone change from C2 to Diggrush. And is that um as recommended by the planning commission? Did you want some oversight on the mural?

Did you want did you want to be the one approving the the mural? I'll say your name for the record.

My name is Troy Belliston. Um well, two things. One is the the access offgraph. People can go back onto telegraph too, right? So, it's it's dual access on telegraph and then one way out the backside. But, um I've done a lot of landscaping plans and I've never found a landscaper that sticks to it. You can tell you can tell a painter to paint a wall, but you can't tell a painter to paint a mural. And sometimes the artists that that come in, they kind of it's a it's a living organism when they come in to actually do the painting. So I I don't want to try to tie that one down. I'd like to leave that one.

What if What if we ask you just to bring it forward to us in a work session just to give us an idea of general idea? That that's fine. That'd be great. But the intent is to do something that that's patriotic that meets with, you know, Washington. George Washington. I actually provided him a a graphic of George Washington as Bob painting a painting. You showed that to me. It's what's got me nervous tonight. No, no, no, no. That was just to be a placeholder, right? All right. just bring it back to a workshop meeting. With that, I um comfortable with that, Councilwoman Caspersonson, that he brings that back that mayor.

Motion by Councilwoman Caspersonson to approve. Second by Councilman Coats. We'll go roll call beginning with Council Member Henderson. Hi, Coats. Ivy, I. Caspersonson, I.

That is approved unanimously. Four to zero. Moving along to item 7B. This is consideration to approve an ordinance for zone change Z-26-02 to update the Ala PCD site plan located at Washington Fields Road and Groves Parkway. Elden Gibb uh will present to the council on this item. The applicant is requesting approval to amend the site plan zoning map by adding evaporation pond as a zoning designation and relocating open space so that the open space acreage remains the same and the changes are as follows. adding one acre of evaporation pond to the commercial zoning designation which is located at the very north end of the development that's adjacent to Washington Fields Road circled there on red and then also reallocating.5 acres of low density to open space in pod 17 and another.5 acres to me of medium density to open space in pod 8. The planning commission did review this and unanimously recommended approval based on the findings and conditions stated in staff report and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Council questions for staff on this item. Questions for the applicant on this item? Does the applicant want to talk? I don't blame you, Brandy. Good to see you, Mike. Happy to entertain a motion on this item.

Mayor make a motion. Go ahead. Council I motion to approve ordinance change to update the landfields road. For the motion by councilman Ivy. Mayor, I want to make a substitute motion that we table this until they can get their landscaping finished on Washington Fields Road. I've got a substitute motion for item 6B 7B 7B to be tabled until the landscape the landscaping within the PCD is

just Washington Fields Road Washington Fields Road. Um I appreciate that. We've got a motion and a second. Um we are going to vote on this. Um, I would just like before as a courtesy before we go vote on this, I'm going to ask Brandy if she can just give feedback on the coun to the council on on this item or or Mike, whoever you want. Wait, Brandy Walker, civil science representing the applicant tonight. Mike and I actually had the conversation when we first got in tonight because we knew that this I was like, "Oh, we got easy without having to talk about landscape." But um, so well understood landscape's been the hot topic. I don't know if you've had opportunity to go out years. They've told me they're doing it. Still nothing.

I like your timeline of two years. Um, but if you go out there and look, so land efforts with landscaping has gone forward. So between the subdivisions of Crossroad and Lakeside where residents rely or reside, that big open space corridor has a trail system through it. Now it's been landscaping. Landscape's almost finished up. Lighting is going in. So that's where the landscape focus has been in between those two residential subdivisions in front of the evap pond location. There is existing landscape. So to say the Fields Road, we need a little bit more clarification to move down to where preserve is. That's the visionary project. I would say I'll just be specific.

Can you pull up a map, Elden? I mean, looking at your PCD map, basically from Stuki Farms Parkway all the way down to the Warner Valley Road hasn't been landscaped on the Okay, so west side west side 26 is not developed. Two is developed. Primrose is developed. I was going to work the other way. 26 is not developed. Primrose did their own landscape. That's theirs. They did their thing, but their landscape, so they own their property.

The frontage of Crossroads outside We can talk. We can Yeah, that's understood. That is a recorded subdivision and it is done. It's built. Visionary is in the process of building walls on six and homes. Homes will be the same on seven. So, we're not and they're still doing power. I'm not saying six and seven. I'll be very clear. I'm talking from Warner Valley Road north. Everything that's developed along the road needs to be landscaped. Okay. So, that's crossroads. Crossroads.

Primrose has landscape. medians down there that that that are just growing weeds. You I mean you look I'm happy to go down and meet and walk it if you like, but I feel the same way. I drove up by the other day and it was like what the heck. Yeah, it's our front door. Broken record, right? Totally understood. The the corridor, the one that I'm referring to that they're wrapping up right now is between 23 crossroad lakeside. So you can see how big that green gap is. That's what their focus has been right now. Do you know where I'm talking? We've been having the conversation for long enough that they could have addressed it. That's That needs to be done, but I'm talking the Parkway. Right. On the road. Yeah. On the road.

That's fine. If you want to make your motion just if you could be very specific on location. I can be specific. is on. I made my motion along Washington Fields Road of development areas that are already developed. Because anything going in six and seven that's being developed right now before they get building permit, aren't we requiring them to get the landscaping in Elden? I would ask

Elden, six, and seven. We're requiring the They're just not finished, right? Correct. They they're in process. Brandy spoke accurately in that that they're putting in block walls and moving in the direction to be able to provide the landscape. And we'd like to give a grace period. We understand, but this is way past the grace period. And it's that's just my point is I'm not moving forward with anything till that gets cleaned up. And I'm only one, right? The rest of you can vote. So our next meeting what's our what's our date? We're going to vote on this. Jeremy, what's the next meeting date? Do you see on there? Are you uh April? April uh 9th. 8th.

April 8th. Okay. Got a motion uh to table until landscaping is done along Washington. Washington Fields Road from along Washington roads along developed properties. Along developed property basically from Stoie down to Warner Valley Road. Whoops. Ask for a clarification on that because in my mind if a median's there it's developed including a median. Okay. because the medians go all the way down, right? And and I just don't want to be splitting hairs on, well, you know, developed or not undeveloped, whatever. If it's got medians, if it's got roadway, then it it ought to be kept clean.

Is is April 8th enough time for that to be done? Not Not even close. Okay. So, we'll just Can we table it to a uncertain date or do we need to have a specific date on this? I don't I don't support tables to uncertain dates. I think they're entitled to know when you're going to bring it up next. Yeah. I mean, on land use, we'd like to have a date. So, I'm guess I'm looking for you for a date. The the council's saying before we entitle this, we want the landscaping done. So, I'm looking back to you for a timeline to make sure that that that motion has a timeline. Mayor, you got a motion in a second. So, and I'm ready to vote. I just got to I just want to get that date down because I don't want to table it to a just a date uncertain.

May 13th. Ask another question at putting a lot on the line real quick because it's not just like let's go throw some trees in, let's go throw some shrubs in. This is the long delay. We have to pull water meters. That median wasn't planned for properly as far as making conduits getting out to it. So, we have to conduit go conduit to it, pull water meters to it. These guys are coming up with a better lighting plan and a better conducive landscape. We intend to pull a lot of that old landscape out that's in front of the evap pond because this isn't the same theme that's built. I mean, Primrose went in and put pine tree type trees way back in the day. So, we're the the we have an overall landscape plan. Maybe we should have brought it with us tonight. Conversation on May 13th. May 15th. That's the next I mean if if April 8th is

April 15th. Oh, I'm If April 8th is too early, then May 13th would be the first one. I mean, to say it needs to be installed, I mean, it's going to take us that long to No, no, I'm not. Okay, so I appreciate we're trying to press a point, right? Yeah, I get it. And they keep telling us it's happening and I we went through all the entitlements, everything, and nothing. Like literally nothing. And we've had time. We've had plenty of time. To say it's not happening isn't entirely true. The position that where it's very visible down the fields road. Agreed. They went in and did weed cleanup. There is not plants planted in their homes. They started the lake, the lagoon. They started all that stuff. Haven't maintained weed cleanup cuz I was just down there too. We have a motion

where the mayor where the conversation is continued. I request a conversation myself.

Have you a plan in place for the landscaping right now? Yes, they have a professional landscape architect on board that has taken the whole 300 acres that's land works and has done a master landscape plan that all the new phases coming on are obligated to follow and the master developer has their corridors that they're will be installing on their dime. So to make a conducive landscape plan that fits everything has taken time and you know not the fields road sat there for way longer than two years. That road's been out there sitting vacant. I mean crossroads recorded I don't even remember probably eight years ago.

Would this take cause an undue hardship on the company? Would it cost tell me what the issue that we're having with and I get this we we've been at this with you for years because I agree we need to get it done. We if we punt on the evap pond and contingent it on landscape, you have a developer of a surf park that is reliant on this location being approved. So he can proceed with his permitting unrelated to the landscape of the master developer. So it's really convoluting another individual who has no say in landscape and timing and install and any of that. We keep going through this with master developers. They punt it down the road. They punt it down the road. They punt it down the road. When do you want to come back before the council? The end of the road.

Would you want to come back in April or May? What I would like to propose is have bring let us bring you our landscape plan and we'll put together a schedule and a timeline because our focus hasn't been the fields road. Admittedly, it has been that beautiful corridor between two and three because we've had residents about that. So, when do you want to bring that back? Do you want to bring that back in April or May? Well, it depends on what you want to see. Well, I think I think the council is going to vote to table this and so I need a I need a date.

I got it. If we but if you're saying we have to have it installed, I would like to bring you guys a timeline, a plan, a schedule, something tangible you haven't seen. We haven't presented an actual plan. You've just heard us talk. You haven't seen an actual schedule in writing. Again, you've heard us talk. But the evap timeline is extremely important to us because of the unrelated projects associated to it. That has nothing to do with the landscape. So, it's if we if you're open to us presenting a schedule sooner rather than later, we could do that. But to say that I understand you're not going to get it done in a week. I'm not saying you are because that's not going to happen. The suggestion,

I know the developers been spending a lot of money on marketing to to market million half dollar lots. My suggestion is that he goes and buys a weed whacker and gives it to a guy and say, "Go clean up the weeds, right? And then whenever we come back, we can talk schedule and everything else at that point in time. And if the weeds are knocked down, it's going to be an easier conversation. What date do you want to come up with that plan? What were the options? You got April 8th. Uh, April, let's see if we do the math. Plus 14 is going to be 26. April 26th. We'll take the April 8th. Okay. Mo, are you you amend your motion to table to April 8th? I'm I'm happy to do that.

Thanks, Brandy. Thanks, Mike. We have a motion to table. April 8th. We're going to do a roll call vote beginning with council member Coats. I Ivy. Nay with an explanation. I don't see how the two are related and I don't think that was very fair tonight the way they were treated. Nay. Caspersonson. Nay. Belliston. I Henderson.

I'm going to vote nay. But, uh, I can't understand why you guys can't keep the weeds up. I just I don't get it. It's like just we just want that road to look nice, right? It reflects on us. It's like

So, so yeah, I mean I mean I don't want to I agree with Councilman U Ivy. It's like you can't hold up a several million dollar project on weeds or whatever. But I I I agree with these guys. I cannot Every time I drive down there, it's weeds everywhere. It's like this there's Roundup. You know, you could send somebody over there every other week, spray it with Roundup, and I don't think we'd have a problem because I mean, I understand it's a process to get the thing done. I understand you probably don't have water to some of those islands and stuff like that and it it's a process, but for crying out loud, get the flipping weeds under control because they never are. They're always, you know, that tall. Every time I drive by there, the weeds are out of control. It's I mean, it surprises me that you don't keep it up when we bring it up every time you guys come in here. So

the the motion to table failed on a vote of two to three. Councilwoman Caspersonson, I was just wondering, do we now go back to the original second on that on the original motion? So we've got a a motion by Councilman Ivy to approve a second by Councilwoman Caspersonson. We've got a commitment to come back to the council on April 8th with the schedule, but this is a motion and a second to approve. We'll start our voting. Mayor, I think we need to put that in the motion that they come back and put a date on it. You comfortable with that, Councilman Ivy? It's your motion. I will add April 8th and come back with their plan and end date. Thank you.

Okay. Uh, we've got the motion, the amended motion, and the second. We will vote again with council member Ivy. I, Caspersonson. Hi, Bellisonist. Henderson. I coats nay. That is approved on a vote of 3 to two uh with a an agenda item to come back on April 8th.

A a condition of approval to come back on April 8th and present your landscape plan. And I highly suggest you listen to what particular Councilman Henderson said because if him and Rachel drive it doesn't if it doesn't pass Rachel's eye test, we're all in trouble, right, Councilwoman Casperson?

This has been one of the more entertaining council meetings in my career. Thanks, guys. Item 7 C. This is consideration to approve an ordinance for zone change Z-26-03 from A20 to C2 located at 4090 South Washington Fields Road. Community Development Director Elden Gibb will present and the applicant Craig Hop Hopkinson got dinner at his money's worth tonight. Elden, go ahead.

The general plan land use designation is currently SECOM, which supports the proposed zone change application. The surrounding zoning to this parcel is C1 to the north with the performance fitness moving forward with the recent approval of their conditional use permit. R18 and C2 to the east and A20 to the south which is the existing Sandia farm greenhouse and PUDR to the west. The C2 request is for the purpose of developing the 9.49 acres into a commercial development intended to conveniently provide day-to-day commodities to the area residents. If this zone change is approved, the next step for the development would require the applicant to obtain conditional use permit approval, which will show site specific details for the commercial development. Staff has no concerns with the proposed zone change as outlined. On March 4th, the planning commission unanimously recommended approval of this request based on the findings stated in staff report. And I'm happy to answer any questions you may have at this time. Questions for Elden? Questions for the applicant? Further discussion or a motion? May

I'll make a motion that we approve item 7 CZ Z-26- 03 from A20 to C2 located at 490 South Washington Fields Road. Have a second. Motion by Councilman Coats, second by Councilman Belliston. Roll call vote beginning with council member Caspersonson. I Ellist. Henderson. Hi. Coats. Hi, Ivy. That is approved unanimously. Five to zero. You're welcome to stay, but you don't have to. Might be leftovers or something.

Item 70. This is consideration to approve an ordinance for zone change Z-26-04 from R18 and PUD to PUD and R18 located at Smith Creek Drive and Bear Trap Canyon Drive. Community Development Director Elden Gib Elden Gibb will explain the swap. Exactly what we're doing here is a swap make sense to help the existing developments um pan out and blend in with with what is currently there of this zone change are to change 1.08 08 acres R18 to PUD on the north or the top the most uh piece there circled in red and then change 0.54 acres of PUDR to R18 bottom piece there. Staff has no concerns with the zone change as outlined and the planning commission reviewed this and also recommended approval based on the find stated in staff report and I'm happy to answer any clarifying questions.

Questions for Elden on this item as the applicant or applicants representative here. I don't uh do do you need to hear from the applicant? Okay, I'm ready for uh further discussion or a motion on this one. Mr. Mayor, I can make a motion to approve an ordinance for zone change Z-26-04 from R18 and PUB to PUD and R18 located at Smith Creek Drive and Bear Trap Canyon Drive. Motion to approve by Councilman Ivy. Is our second? I'll second it. Um second by Councilwoman Caspersonson. We'll go a roll call vote beginning with Council Member Casperson. Hi, Ivy. Hi, Coats. Hi, Henderson. Hi, Bellaston.

Hi. She spoke sooner but softer. I didn't. That's okay. Uh item 7 A 7E. This is consideration to approve an ordinance for zone change Z-26-05 from R110 to be PUDC located at 400 West and Merryill Road. Elden Gibb will present to the council. Mr. Yep.

The surrounding zoning here is PUDR to the north, unincorporated land to the east, R115, and R110 to the south, and St. George City property to the west, which is commercial. The zone change request is for the purpose of developing the site into a commercial development. proposal shows a 15 foot landscape strip along the southern boundary, that green line there, and then also a 15 or a uh 10-ft asphalt trail adjacent to Merill Road, which is part of the larger master plan trail network. The development is broken down into two different use lists. I'll pull that up here. You can see the site plan. We've got a pink and a blue area. Both of those areas have different uses included in them. This number one encompasses 9.49 acres and is commercial type uses. and useless number two encompasses 1.96 acres and is administrative professional type uses. The applicant is asked to defer the site layout and design plan at this time and fully understands they will need to submit these plans and gain zoning approval prior to any work beginning on the project. Today's proposal is seeking approval to establish ingress egress to the site along with the following use list. And we'll dig in here. Use list number two. Item number one includes administrative, executive, professional, medical, and research offices. Line item number two, banking, and other financial institutions. And lastly, line item number three, mobile food vendor

with a limit of no more than three at any given time. And again, this use list is for this blue area to the right, the 1.96 acres. The second use list is commercialbased. And as you can see on the bottom here, the applicants identified a percentage scale here that 20% of the uses will be office, 30% will be restaurant, and 50% will be retail with a plus or minus 10% variable there. Use list number one is any permitted useless in number two. Uh line item number two is restaurants. Line item number three, retail, sale and/or rental of goods, merchandise conducted wholly within enclosed building and specific to inside sales only. Line item number four, one automobile vehicle lube service, and that's not to exceed.7 acres. Line item number five, recreation/entertainment facilities, not to include sexually oriented businesses. Line item number six is indoor technical schools, absolutely no auto mechanic related training. Line item number seven, re recept reception center and or wedding chapel. Light item number eight, auditoriums, conference rooms, museums, theaters, and libraries. Line item number nine is retail sales of goods and merchandise, which may include display outside an enclosed building. An example of these uses include artwork, beauty shop, bookstore, clothing, and florist. And lastly, line item number 10 is medical clinic. The planning commission reviewed this

request and unanimously recommended approval based on the findings and conditions stated in staff report. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have at this time. What questions do you have for Elden? Council Bell.

I got I got two. Why I mean I guess I don't understand why they'd have the split up into two different zones to where I mean the bank was I mean if it was all just blended then they could kind of do they could do the bank anywhere right I mean it's I guess I don't understand why they didn't why they did that and where the second one would be it's a bigger site it doesn't it makes sense to just go C2 on this one instead of the PUD because that big of a site could change four times five times you know however many times if it was if it was a single you you know, twoacre site, it it makes sense, right? But, uh, on a bigger one, you're going to have CUS that come in anyway.

I know they're going to have all their tenants laid out, be able to come in in one one shot for a PED for that. That's just see it, right? Yeah, great comments. Um in a general plan discussion was um create a buffer between existing residents um asurances there going the PUB route uh we would be involved with the look and feel not knowing if the up based off the size of the way to listen to the council Elden good job so my only comment if you're done council

I'm done I'm good just the automotive vehicle loop service. I just want to protect those residents that live on that edge that are existing that originally when they bought their homes, it was res general planned as um residential. And so I would just say that I don't know how that affects our plan. I don't if there's an applicant here to speak on it, but I'd like to see it at least 200 feet away from those residences along lot 69 to 65 area. But I don't know how that affects their plan. I just don't want to see I I wouldn't mind it against the road, but

kind of protect those residents that are were there existing when they bought and it was residential for that type of business. Are you the representative on this? I am. Okay. Um are you ready? You want to come up and introduce yourself and that might be a question you can address. If you'll just state your name, we should know you already but we don't. Uh Josh Morlocker representing Bush and Gudgel the engineer on the project. Good evening Josh. You heard the councilman's uh comment about the uh lube uh lube service and the and the distance from the existing residence is there. Is that is that a problem for the applicant to make that 200 feet away? I was fielding a question about where the police officer police department was when that was my

I didn't catch up on that. I did see that that was not fair. I mean your item finally comes up and somebody comes and and takes your ear. Go ahead, Councilman Coatson. It's been a long night. So, all I was saying is I'm trying to protect the residents from like a tire shop or like automotive and so I would not like to see it in the back 200 ft from the lot 65 to 69 of along Aurorilla Drive. You think that would your would your uh client have an issue with making sure that's not within 200 feet of a residential structure? the the lube oil service lube oil would effectively need to be in the northwest corner if if on the north somewhere on the north along the road somewhere along the road

I'm just saying I don't want it along the back of these houses uh I can I think I can confidently state that that the developer would have no no disagreement with that then then I would make of that in the approval that they'd have to stay minimum 200 feet away from those those residential lots along Aurela Drive. Okay, council got the applicants representative here. Any other questions for this engineer? Thank you. If you'll stay close in case we need you again. All right.

Um John, Councilman Coats has a question for you. I asked the mayor and he was like, "We should ask John." And I'm like, "Yeah, you should." But I'm but I run the meeting, so he he's going to do the asking.

So, John, just a question. And I know we've had a lot of discussion on the trail on the west side. It's St. George City property. That's where our boundaries. No, you guys are rebuilding that road. And maybe it's a question for Blake, not you. But is that trail our responsibility? St. George's responsibility? I can't remember. I don't think it's these guys' responsibility. I'm just trying to understand whose responsibility it is. I think it should be their responsibility. It it should be the developers responsibility for but I remember when we sat in that meeting with Mayor Randall and they were basically saying there was some weird agreement but it is St. George city property so I don't know if the I don't know

I wish I could remember you were there Councilman Ivy. Do you remember the trail? recall. I just remember the developer wasn't doing you remember Jeremy I would just ask maybe we asked the question when we get back to when we get back to plat let's have that answer okay yeah are you are we talking about that highlighted section right right there yes because it's the old roadway that got abandoned right and so their plan is to put a trail there and so my thought is are who's doing that Mr. Horlocker if you can do some research on that too development at all. It's that it's St. George property, but but I know they had talk trail as well. I thought they were going to do it too, but

yeah, that would be solely that that that POS development's responsibility, nothing with our with our property owner. I don't think it's I don't agree it's their responsibility, but I don't know. Yeah, it's it's a weird gray area that I know we've been butting heads on with them over the years on that piece of road slashtrail slash slash whatever else they want to think of. We did come to a good agreement. Blake, come in and share your wisdom. One question. John, can I ask a question real quick? It seems like I saw an access map on this and on 240 there was a ride out.

Yeah. doing it as a ride in ride out. It technically qualifies for full movement according to our access management. And I Okay, because I'd prefer to not have a ride out into the neighborhood. I'd rather have them go out down the main road, you know. Yeah. No, agree. That that that access three actually qualifies for a full movement. Okay. So, yeah. All right.

Good question on that, though. So this is as I recall anyway is that because we were they were not putting the road there and we were um we moved the signal to Harvest because they wanted the signal to actually be at their entrance and we moved it over to Harvest and we agreed that we would then split that cost but the trail was going to be theirs. That's right. the trail would abut into that what's now a three-way light and that was to solve the problem of not having a way for kids from That's right. Cuz that was one of your initial concerns, Councilman. That reminded my memory. Thank you, Blake.

So, I'm pretty sure that it's was something they were planning on doing, whether they're doing that through the developer or St. George, the agreement we just talked about that I just signed, isn't it? That was specifically for the light, but that tied into it as as part of it. Okay. That's what we agreed to. That's what you agreed to. So, we're paying agreed to 33% and they would cover that. The rest the developer is doing $50,000 and then what's left we're splitting between St. George. Okay. At least they're helping. Yeah, that's good. Thanks, Blake.

Timely, valuable comments. Council, u I'm ready for a motion on this one. If someone's ready to make the motion. Mayor, I'll make the motion that we approve item 7E uh zone change Z-2605 from R110 to PUDC with the condition that within PUD number one that automobile vehicle loop service not to exceed 0.7 acres be located a minimum of 200 feet away from the lots along Ourela Drive. You've heard the motion by Councilman Coats. Is there a second? Second. Second by Councilman Belliston. We'll go roll call beginning with Council Member Ivy.

Hi. Coats. Hi. Henderson. Bellaston. Hi. Caspersonson. Hi.

That is approved. 5 to zero unanimously. Item 7F. This is consideration to approve an ordinance for general plan amendment G-26-01 for BU from B US2 medium high density MHD located approximately 965 south 100 east Gibb will present Mr. Here's the location here on the map. That star. I'll pull up the general plan. You can see it is currently business and proposing to go, excuse me, to medium high density for the purpose of developing the area into an attached town home development. The surrounding general plan use designations are PUDC to the north, open space to the east, business park to the south, and industrial to the west. Existing uses and zoning surrounding the site include PUDC to the north, which is the Jolly Storage Units. PUDC to the east, that includes the River Wash area, PUDC to the south, which is vacant land slated to be commercial, and then industrial to the west, which is Geneva Pipe and FM Medical. Staff has reviewed the requested change, visited the site, and reviewed long-term planning for this area. Staff does not feel comfortable with the proposed amendment as it creates conflict in land use adjacency compatibility with both existing and future uses. The shift from an employmentbased business park designation to residential creates an interface conflict. Operational requirements of the surrounding industrial uses and future businesses are highly likely to negatively impact the residential life,

safety, and quiet enjoyment of future residences that would come with this development. On March 18th, the planning commission reviewed this request and unanimously recommended denial as outlined above and due to the interface conflict of uses. That concludes staff report and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Council, any questions for Elden?

Well, maybe more of a statement than a question. um is if Elden, correct me if I'm wrong, but when they bought the property and when it was first discussed, when they first came in, they had a residential component to that PUB when it was brought in and submitted. Correct. That is correct. under their current entitlements, PUDC, there's an option in there to to bring residential in a mixeduse setting. Um, that was part of what they posed was residential component

and to this piece to the north, you know, number one, we have an affordable housing prog. This addresses some of that. Um it's not like we're putting a through street there. So it's the the traffic that's in there is a residential traffic that's going in there. Um it's not, you know, with the exception of the u the Geneva plant that's right there. It's not a heavy commercial use. The the um um storage facility next to it is very little, you know, commercial traffic that goes to and from that. And quite frankly, those people that are there would be would benefit that business significantly. I think um it's it's bifrocated from the other commercial properties that they do want to develop commercial and it gets them some some revenue coming in and some traction and be able to bring the commercial in earlier than they may necessarily, you know, want to. So, I don't really have a problem with it.

I'm wrong. I think our our concern as staff is residential might work there along with everything else that's planned, but it without bringing the rest of the planning, we risk creating a situation where we where we have problems down the road. I mean, you you that is going to be a main road going through there. It'll come from Main Street down to 100 East and and we have no commitment on when the road gets widened or how that happens. And so, I mean, they'd have to start widening. We're going to do a planned unit development. We're going to plan the whole thing, but now we're pulling out little pieces and planning just the residential. You could certainly get in a situation where those residents are impacted by around it, but we don't know what that's going to be yet. In

all fairness, back to the, you know, the PUD conversation on whether or not it ought to be C2 when it's a a bigger uh a bigger commercial because the a commercial is a living breathing thing. Every it's not like a house. You can you can sell lots because they're all pretty uniform and and they fit a lot of different, you know, residential types, right? But in commercial, it's so specific that every single tenant is a different is a completely different plan and and you can't plan all the components of a commercial district until you have all the components there to be able to plan it. And so that's why you get them peacemeal. And so I think the bigger ones, it's better to go C2. You know, I

that's exactly it. You don't know what's going to go on next to it. And that's I think that's staff's concern is that that then something comes that isn't compatible with the residential and and the residential's already done and built. So it's it's a planning issue more than anything. But it's up to the council to decide that you don't that's going in about it and move on the rest of that. I' I'd like to know when the rest of the road's going to be completed if we're adding hundreds of units of of it's a very narrow road and it's I think it's fair to say okay we going to do with the traffic that goes down to industrial. So, we're we're we're peace planning it as well as peace building it. I think that's fairest to ask that that they run the road all the way down to industrial and widen that that section since they have both portions of it.

I think that would be at the minimum something that you should ask. Yeah. Before I invite the applicant up, uh council further questions for for staff. Can I just ask one way? Go ahead. Okay. In the staff report, it states that likely to negatively impact the residential life, safety, and quiet enjoyment. Would you just elaborate on that just a little bit? I mean, it's pretty much self-explanatory, but is there something that that you wanted the council to note from that statement?

I just think in long-term planning, as manager Red stated, you know, we have a connection to I-15 that's going to uh create a T corridor here in in the future. Um, and you know that that's only going to increase. It's going to be a busy intersection based off the existing uses to the west. Uh, Geneva Rock is probably one of the heaviest industrial users in the city. Uh, right right across the street. Um and and just bringing residential units to that creates this interface conflict that that you typically wouldn't support in a land use setting.

Elden, I have a question for you. Um trying to think what on the on the on the exhibit that shows the site plan that says Washington Trust Farm Project. Do you see that one? I'm looking at the third page down. I think that was a supplementary um addition that the applicant asked to include. Oh, you might not have that. I Yeah, I hate to reference land use specific

That's a good point. Yeah, that's a good point. I forgot about that. I was just t just thinking about um that access road. So you see that meadow lane on um on the east side of the see the houses over there and there's that little the road that stops. I guess I'm just wondering if this did go forward would John would we act would that actually come forward or not or is that dead end dead ending right there because the the supplemental kind of showed that as a road and I I I just I didn't know that that was ever going to go through. Yeah, that's that that segment you're talking about is 840 south on that side as well.

There you go. Um in older master transportation plans, 840 had been slated to slide across and connect slide back up and connect with 840 south um over to the other side. It had been removed from master transportation plans with no plan to extend it across. And then as part of that, once that was taken out, that led to the um development of the uh storage units. Oh, that's right. With LJ storage. Yeah. And so then we'd have a Yeah. To go back to that, we'd have a major realignment. Oh, yeah. Okay. That's right. Okay. Good point. So,

and and again, we're at uh we're at a zone change anyway. Okay. Any additional questions for for staff? I do have just one other comment. Eva, granted Janita, when they have a truck that goes out of there, it's a heavy loaded truck, right? I'll give you that. They're one tenant. They're they're one building down there that's that kind of traffic. The other commercial isn't uh you know, heavy equipment type of traffic. And earlier tonight, we just we just had an approval on the project over there off of uh Country Way that a a huge amount of heavy equipment goes on and we were fine with that one, but we're not fine with this one because it's across the street of one tenant. Like guys, I mean, I see no pro I see no problem with allowing them to put some residential right there and addressing a need that they see that also helps them generate some funds to to do the rest of the commercial. Uh, I'll invite the applicant forward. Uh, looks like West Davis, welcome. Um, you talk just a little bit about the the safety, the logic behind the the location and the use and then also more specifically about the the road.

Sure. So, West Davis. Um, east side. What's that? On the east side.

On the east side. Yeah. So, when we made the proposal here 3, four, five years ago, that's the supplemental ones that you have there. Geneva was there. We knew the storage units were coming in. So when we had discussed this three or four years ago, it was all already there. And then we changed it from the more defined plan just to kind of the bubble plan to come through because we knew things would change over time. But all those things were there when we had talked about it and worked out all the acquisitions of the properties there. So it's not different. It's not a surprise. Those tenants were there then. We had this discussion back then about what our uses were. So we're very consistent. It changed a little bit because we did get rid of u that road along 840. Obviously that wasn't able to connect. Uh but otherwise the plan is very very similar, very consistent, but in 3 years, 5 years, 10 years, whenever that road comes all the way through and mainstream to lines, the uses that may be viable on the rest of the commercial are going to be very different. I think with some of the additional on-site improvements that might be required along 100 East, I don't know that we have a problem with any of those. So, let's let's talk about that for just a minute because the Main Street South is is moving forward in phases and it's likely that that would veer east, tie into 100 and then that would become, you know, a lot of traffic would dump onto that. So, are you feeling like if if the council gave you a zone change on this, you came back with with a plat that you would finish at least that east full width all the way down to industrial so that they had good access there.

I don't know if that would be a problem. I'd have to just confirm, but if you wanted to make the condition, we're happy to address that. I I I can't speak for my council, but I think that'd be an important part of it for them. Yeah. Yeah. And as far as traffic going in and out, I think cars are able to access that road much easier and less of a hassle than you have possibly big trucks coming in on the other side. I do take that road all the time and I don't very often see big trucks. I No. Um council, this your opportunity to speak to the applicant's representative. Wes, um is it the same owner? All that blue that blue. Uh no, you guys actually own some of it.

Okay. Oh, that's right. some of the south of the property on we own the triangular piece down on south of industrial further down Elden a little bit maybe south of industrial right there we own from the top all the way down to the bottom there and you guys everything on the lower half of that the line there the kind of the green line okay and these um town homes give us an idea of what maybe price point do you have any these standalone patio homes

so it's a detached town home. So, they're a little more clustered, high, have intend to have, excuse me, garages, but trying to make it in the affordable range, 300s, 400,000. Okay. Thank you. I wonder, and I've wondered this for a while, I wonder how long Geneva is going to stay. I mean, are they growing, do you think? Are they going to look for another bigger parcel somewhere else, do you think? Possible. Maybe. Yeah. Okay. You may say there's been a real estate sign out front

advertising it for lease. So, that's indicative that they may be reallocating some of their resources somewhere else. Yeah. I I'll just tell you where I'm at. I I like it. I I appreciate staff and them bring that they're doing their job. I I actually don't mind it right here. I do think it's critical though that you you you bring good commercial on the rest of it. Correct. And we'll be anything that happens on that parcel, we have to come back in so you guys will get a chance.

So that's just that's just kind of where I am. I know it's been a long night. We've been here for a long time, all of us. But I didn't when I prepped, I didn't think I was going to like it. And I looked at it again tonight and I'm like, you know what? I don't have a problem with it. And so that's where I am for what it's worth. Thank you, mayor. I'm ready to make a motion. Thanks, M. May. I'm ready to make a motion that we approve an ordinance for general plan amendment G-26- from Wait, do I got the right motion? Yeah. Uh, yeah. Okay. Yeah. F.

All right. that we approve an ordinance for general plan amendment G-26-01 from B US to MHD located approximately 965 South 100 East. You've heard the motion by Councilman Belliston. Is there a second? Do is there a condition that they'll improve 100 East all the way down to indust Can we do that on a general plan that? Yeah. Okay. You've heard the motion with the condition, the added condition. Is there a second? I'll second. Second by Councilman Coats. We'll go roll call vote beginning with Council Member Henderson.

Belliston. Caspersonson. Nay. Ivy. Coats. Leave it to me. It's your night. I'm an I. Item 7F is approved on a vote of 3 to two. Do it right, Wes. Bring us back a good plan. Get a plan to finish out the width of that road and bring us back some commercial. When you do that, you'll have Councilman Ivy and Councilman Castersonson's vote, too. Okay.

Bring some good commercial to make up for it. All right. Item 7G. This is consideration to approve an ordinance amending Washington city code title 10 chapter 3-3- C-2- lowercase V preliminary plat community development director Elden Gibb. During a pre-development meeting discussing this piece here, um we encountered a problem and uh the applicant was under the assumption that 15t landscape strip may be a little bit too wide for the city and is proposing a change here. Two examples of this landscape strip are just north of Whammers in the Desert Meadows subdivision on the right hand side of the screen. This landscape buffer is 15 ft, so meets current standards. The one on the left, Heritage Place subdivision, is a PUB, and they were approved with a 10-ft landscape strip on this north side here. So, it's a really good area to compare and contrast the difference between a 15 and a 10-ft landscape strip. Two other examples south of here.

So, Elden, is that 10 ft plus the sidewalk? Yes. Okay.

10 foot of raw landscaping. Here's an example of two other 10-ft landscape strips of of raw landscaping. I'll clarify that. Good point there. Um that's off of Hayfield Drive. The applicant is proposing just to change the verbiage from 15t to 10 foot. Um during the planning commission discussion, uh they had a healthy discussion, a lot of good input, um and was concerned about that. They recommended approval with the condition. um that the 15t landscape strip remain based off of uh the roadway widths of 85 ft and larger would remain a 15t landscape strip and then uh 66 foot and less change to a 10.

What's 2000 south? What is the width of 2000? Do you know the rightway width? I can pull that. 66. Okay. Thanks, John. That concludes staff report. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Questions for staff. Discussion amongst council. I think it's a good idea to I mean it costs money to landscape those and it costs money to maintain those and and I'd be in favor of anything we can do. I mean, I don't, you know, after I saw planning commission or after I was at planning commission the other day, you know, when I was driving by Whammers, I took a notice and it's like it's not really that big of a difference, but there's a big cost difference, you know, an ongoing maintenance cost. So, so I I'm I'm in favor of it. I think it's a good idea. Good change.

You want to make a motion, Councilman? what they proposed on a certain size of road changes that or you just want to do 10 across the board conflict. I don't know. I What does staff think? Like what do you conversation? They had some valid points and and I support their recommendation as well. So did the uh doing that. That's what I would say is the planning. That's what they're there for. That was good input. I like it. If it's what was the size and bigger foot and larger be 15 and less would be 10 foot. Sounds reasonable. Like it.

You want to take a sabot, Councilman Henderson? I'm going to make a motion that we approve an ordinance amending Washington City Code, Title 10, Chapter 3-3- C-2-DB. Right. I don't have my reading glasses on. Perfect. Preliminary plat. Mayor, I'm going to second that wonderful motion. Can I add to your motion that you follow the recommendation from planning commission on the size between 10 for less than 85 and 15 for 85 and larger on the rightway widths? Yes.

And yes. Okay. You've heard the motion by Councilman Henderson, the second by Councilman Ivy. We'll go roll call vote beginning with council member Coats. Hi. Henderson. Hi. Belliston. Hi. Caspersonson. Hi. Ivy. Hi.

That is approved unanimously. 5 to zero. The last ordinance is item 7H. At least the last ordinance for tonight. We've saved the best for last. The recorder is in the house. This is consideration to approve an ordinance amending Washington City Code Title 2, Chapter 1, Historic Preservation Commission, City Recorder Terra Pence. I'll make a motion to approve it. That's good. I'll second that. Mayor, you've heard the motion by Councilman Caspersonson, second by Councilman Coats. All in favor? I.

Any opposed? We love our city recorder. That is approved. 5 to zero. Uh, next item on the agenda is report of officers from assigned committees. If you don't have a report, we're happy not to hear it tonight. Have it. Not. Oh man, I have stuff to reply. Mayor, mayor.

Okay. Councilman Bellis and I got back last night late from the San Diego to check out that reuse water system. It was super informative. I appreciate the opportunity from the district to go down and learn a bunch. And it was it was it was a great experience. We went down with a lot of different other cities. Bunch of Hurricane, St. George, Leverkin, a whole bunch came down with us, Stokerville. And it was it was good to become more friends with those people as well as we work as a community down here in county. But it was a really good experience. All I can say is we're going to do it better than they did it. Yeah. But they have a one one thing. Sorry, I'll be quick.

We're okay. The average daily water that we use, the state requires 800 gallons per day. Okay? They're using 70 gallons per day in San Diego because they don't have outdoor irrigation. We have outdoor irrigation. So, it's huge difference. And that number just is like we asked, "What's your daily gallon?" They're like 70ish. I'm like 70 morning like

get my kids out the door kind of a thing. So, it's just different living down there, but they're going to end up using 50% of their water of reuse water by 2035. And that that's amazes me that they can get there to recycle that water and then I don't have any other thing else to report that matters tonight. Do one of you want to report on the other visits we made?

I'm happy to. So, I've beenounding our mayor to to go look at a couple of commercial projects, you know, as we anticipate what we're doing here downtown. Um, just to kind of get some to stand in the middle of of a couple of projects and get an idea of of size and scale and how they work. And so, we went and looked at three projects in Southern California. Uh, the following day went and looked at two projects in Boisee, Idaho. And uh I think the takeaway from all of those is that that at least I don't want to speak for my other council member or mayor, but I think that that everybody felt that we needed to view the the city's development as a community space and and how do we bring the community in to interact and and interact with each other and be part of that community space instead of just building some commercial buildings or building something, right? Um, and I think that to stand in those areas and see that and see how people interacted with each other was was uh was really important. And this was middle of the afternoon, run-of-the-mill day, you know, nothing special going on and and they were full. And I think that uh I think they were both positive um for their communities, for their respective communities. So that was my takeaway. Yeah, very well said. I agree. Councilman Henderson, what would you add?

I agree. I mean, it was pretty impressive and heartwarming to see these community spaces with these families, you know, uh just hanging out together and and doing their thing. And I'm I'm pretty sure that we saw the future quarterback for U USC or UCLA down there.

Probably a little eight-year-old kid that could throw a spiral a mile long. So it was pretty amazing. So well said, Councilman Ivy, Councilwoman Caspersonson, Wills Park on Saturday. City manager report. No close session. Who will make the motion to adjurnn? So made motion by Councilman Caspersonson, second by Councilman Bellison. All in favor?

We are adjourned. Thanks for hanging with us tonight, guys. I think that