Council Meetings - Regular Meeting

I'll call for a motion to approve the agenda.

So moved.

I have a motion by Councilman Henderson.

Second.

Second by Councilman Belliston. All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? The agenda is approved unanimously on a vote of four to zero. Our first item of business this evening is a wildland urban interface report given by Fire Chief Matt Evans. Chief, we're ready for you.

Awesome. Well, thanks. We'll try to keep this as short as you'd like. This is another one of those that honestly, the state hasn't given us any choice. Two sessions ago, they passed House Bill 48 that requires cities to adopt the WUI code. So the WUI code is really the wildland urban interface. It requires different building pieces. So in a sense, it would require you to build more fire resistant from an exterior standpoint. With that code, it asks the cities to adopt a map and identify their high risk areas. Um, as a piece of that, the state has done the same thing. This is really bounced back and forth. Um, this, uh, sort of took effect on January 1st, but then the state changed everything. And, and to be quite honest, the state still hasn't, uh, come out with the plan. And, and it, uh, it really is in their court as well. Uh, we decided as we chatted that we might as well go ahead and, and get it adopted and identify what we want to, um, as we're able to identify those high risk areas in the city ourselves. Now, the state has its own map, and it has identified some large swaths in the city. And I can show you that, hopefully. Oh, somebody's there.

As you're pulling that out, it's kind of interesting, the areas that they're deciding. Like, how do they decide that? Because they're not even...

some make sense and some make no sense so you can see this map and and i wanted to show you a couple pieces to it the red area is what the state has identified as their high risk area we don't have any ability to change that at this point in time they they tell us that come come august they'll open a portal and allow us to submit we plan and we've started putting the information together We plan to submit to, honestly, to remove everything that we have that they list as high risk. We don't believe any of that is true interface. You can see that that actually incorporates all of Long Valley, which would mean they would have to build all those homes to that code, all that kind of stuff. What this does do, though, is in the statute, it does say that insurances have to follow the state map. And then it also does kick these property owners into the state system where they can, they don't automatically get it, but it gives them an opportunity to have an assessment of their property. They haven't figured that system out yet either. They're going to, we have the ability to do that, but they are going to require, if we want to do it, to go through their training program, which we've told them we'd be happy to do. And then we'll be able to to offer that to our residents. Again, this really only affects structures in that area. And there's only a few little pieces where you hit that have that, and Long Valley's definitely the big piece.

Can you like zoom in on maybe like that one up in the north, in the Green Springs area, is that?

So you can see Long Valley here, and then you can see across the hill. The interesting piece about this is this really doesn't affect much. Most of this is open land. If there's nothing there, it only affects it if there's a structure. And then the other pieces, you can see up along Telegraph. Again, there's not much structure-wise. Most of what it actually hits of ours is golf course. You have a little piece here in I-15. And then this, I believe, actually is probably a pump house up at the tanks. But again, and this is something that myself and the mayor have been dealing with for years and years and years. And I believe this is the state's swing of the bat to try to help. residents of the state, because insurances are simply just saying, well, according to the federal map, if you look at the federal map, Washington County is high risk. It's red through the whole thing. And so we've had residents in the middle of town that have had their insurance canceled, and they said, well, you're at a high risk, so we're going to drop it. We've tried, we've submitted letters and, you know, they're not where, you know, structure fire wise, we're an ISO rating of a two. There's only one step higher and all those things. And honestly, as the mayor can say, it hasn't helped.

They've basically done what they wanted to anyway. Well, and I appreciate this, Chief. I think, and this, is this the bill, Councilman Ivey, that Representative Snyder, Casey Snyder ran last session or two?

SB 48, I think it was. Was it this year or the year before?

It might have been. It seems like it was the year before, wasn't it?

It was two sessions ago, and then they ran another one, 41 this session, and they moved to change the code. So they updated it from the 06 code to the 2024 code. with House Bill 41 in this last session?

Well, the challenge has been just practically for homeowners within Washington County and certainly Washington City is that each of these insurance carriers are using their own proprietary models and maps. And so they and they don't share that data outside, not even with, you know, the the agents. So it's kind of this hit and miss. People are buying homes and looking to build homes and then they'll go in to, you know, get their insurance and the map will come back to just it'll come back as ineligible fire line. But in some cases, literally the house next door or the house across the street. And so I think there was enough disruption in the market that a lot of this feedback came back up from residents, citizens saying, we need this fixed. So I think this is a step in the right direction. But like we were talking about before the meeting too, I don't know how many insurance companies are actually going to follow this state statute and line up with with, you know, the state and municipalities models because they think their data is the best data. But they, it's weird as I understand they take into account not only the wildland interface but also things like slope, wind, temperature, And some of them you just look at it just leaves you scratching your head because they're not boots on the ground. So I think it seems like it'll take a while to get this fully figured out.

Yeah, I agree. And great points. And that actually is what's kind of slowed it up. We haven't seen many cities actually adopt this yet because everybody's still waiting. The state program that was supposed to be, then they pushed it back to because it was supposed to start January 1st. Like, we can't, this was a bigger deal than we thought it was and a lot heavier lift. And so it's really pushed everything back even farther. Then, of course, in the last session, then they changed the code to, and that, the 24 code takes effect on July 1st. And so they've changed all that in the middle of it. They still don't have a system to even go out and assess the properties. They're not sure how they're going to do that statewide because the bill gave that requirement to the state.

But the bill also, Chief, the thing that the problem was in committee before it even voted on the first time was that they put a pretty heavy hammer on the cities didn't sign on to it that they would not be reimbursed for fires within that jurisdiction. And that's what's caused a problem because people at a lot of municipal levels didn't know the impacts or the cost of this and what it would really mean. Like, how much is it really going to cost us? And so I think if they had been a little more gentle in saying, we're going to bring this along, we'll help you, but not punish you because you're not ready to make the decision. That was big in the conversations. And I think they worked on that in the revision this last year in 41, right?

Yeah, they did. And I, I think that's where some of that came from. And, uh, and, and we, uh, really appreciated councilman's Ivy's, uh, helping representation up there in those meetings. It, it it's, it's definitely been a moving target and I, I think it's still a moving target, um, essentially. And, uh, the, the other piece I wanna show you is everyone is handling it a little differently. So they, so that's the other person, obviously, uh, the mayor's been extremely helpful councilman Ivy, uh, during both sessions. And then Dale was great enough to take the state's map and the county's map and continue to impose those on our city map so that it makes it easier to see. Because if you pull up the state maps, it doesn't look like this. So this is Dale's help as well. What you can see though, as you see right here, you look and you see the blue. The blue is county. And so you'll notice that And Washington City right here, it is identified on a county map as a high risk zone. The county chose to identify anything that's unincorporated as a high risk. Now, this won't have an effect because it's a field currently, of course, and that's most of the area, but that's the flip side. We don't believe that we... Everybody's at risk of course everybody has some risk of fire But we don't believe that we have true wildland urban interface area that presents a huge problem so our proposal is to adopt the code and And we simply just put it in the fire code And it would do the same thing that the international fire code does it simply just adopts and updates with whatever the state adopts and so as the state adopts the new fire code our city code changes and And it would be the same thing with the WUI code. It's in the same chapter of the code. And then we proposed the map. And basically, our map doesn't identify anything in the city that is high risk of a wildland fire. And so essentially, the code won't have any effect unless that changes and we change the map and bring some other area into it.

Council questions for Chief Evans. Just one follow. This doesn't apply to Washington. I remember in the discussion as well, there was talk about like if you have a home in like in some parts of Enterprise or Pine Valley or in the mountains, they talked about thinning the trees around that. But I don't see that in part of the rules. Did that not make it onto the newest?

So that's part of the plan. So essentially, as a property owner, So that's the pieces that the state doesn't know how they're going to do it yet. So if you are in an identified high risk area on the state map, you're going to get assessed a fee. And that fee is going to be based on your assessment. But you have to, as a property owner, you have to request it. Somebody will come out and then essentially in that system, you'll get pointed. And then if you do the recommendations and you thin it out, you know, you create the defensible space, all the things, and it reduces your points and it will reduce your fee. And in that piece, it requires every county to assess that fee. And then that money goes back to the state and into a wildland fund.

Thank you. I have one other question. So let's say an insurance carrier doesn't, after July 1, doesn't honor the new map. Is there an enforceability on the state statute? And what does that look like?

That's what I've said all along is I think it's a great idea, and I think that they were really trying to help, but how are they going to make the insurance companies do that? I think hopefully as the state really gets the system up and running, that it will ultimately shift the insurance companies to saying, well, this is realistic.

So is there an enforcement element to the bill? I don't see how they can enforce it. Because really that's what we're trying to do is give opportunity for residents who are what feels like being arbitrarily singled out and not able to get preferred home insurance. We're trying to help them find a path forward that doesn't give them a scaled down policy at a really high premium. For sure.

Well, and we hope that even if, uh, the, so let's say the insurance company does that, the map doesn't show them as that, uh, and then they call and, and we're able to go to give them an assessment and then give them something they can send in that, uh, that, you know, that certified through the state that shows, you know, really what their risk level is and that maybe that will, will help in the process. It hasn't at this point. Um, but, uh, but I think that is kind of hitting on where, Again, where this is coming from is just I think they're trying something else to try to help and see if we can get them to come along.

So one of the secondary conversations from this bill that we heard in an interim session was that they kind of forgot about the part where we don't write one bill for everybody because there's some cities that has no wildfire problems here. but others that do, are they expected to foot all of that or should some of all the cities put into a fund? It really raised a lot of questions. Not a ton of answers really that I remember. So anyway, thank you.

Anything else? So council, this is on our agenda tonight as an action item. Unless there's any concerns, Keep that on the agenda for tonight. Thanks, Chief. Thank you. Next item of business is a presentation and discussion with regards to an inland port. Economic Development Director Rusty Hughes will present to the council. And I see Danny Stewart with the Utah Inland Port Authority here as well. Welcome. Take it away, Rusty.

Thank you, Mayor and Council. Sorry about that. Let me just get connected here.

And then we'll look to stop at the latest about the top of the hour because we do have you to go to closed session.

is the quietest this group has ever been. Really proud of us.

I hope it's worth the wait. Okay. Okay. OSBT, Karen Hollweg, i'm going to i'm going to start a little bit just to introduce Danny Stewart and give you a little bit of background on on what staff has been working on. OSBT, Karen Hollweg, And then i'll i'll provide a context for why we're we have this in the work session and we're also asking the Council to. consider the resolution tonight. I did have an opportunity to meet with I think everyone at least one on one or a little bit of a discussion and then try to provide as much material in your packet to get you up to speed on this so that you're ready to make a decision tonight. But if you have any questions, please let me know. And I've also invited Danny Stewart. He works for the Utah Inland Port. We've actually worked together for quite some time back when he was the economic development director in Cedar City. And he helped to kick off the port in Iron County. So he has experience both on a municipal, local level, county level with this, and then he took the position at the state. So he can tell you from both perspectives if you have any questions about it. So before I start with what a Utah Inland Port project areas, I'll let Danny start with, with, with what the Utah Inland Port is. And David, I think I've sent the It's in the packet, his presentation.

Oh, maybe not. Okay, let's do that.

I can try that, but I don't know if it'll let me.

You should be able to plug into the HDMI cable. You just have to swap to it. Is he plugged in? Or do you want to use the file you sent me rusty? work. So hopefully, just usually we just have that dongle plug right into his computer.

That is a lot of technology.

Alternatively, you can email me it. I'll bring it up on my side. Yeah, that's why we usually test these freehand. I can send my guys over, or we can email it. Just depends on if this computer will be compatible with it. And it is. There we go. That looks correct. Well, it was. Where'd it go?

That's the thing I worry most about. Traveling is relying on technology. We were up there for just a second, and now we're back off again.

yeah let's go ahead and unplug that dongle and plug it back in one more time okay there we go it could be resolution size too um however if you want to email me real quick i'm happy to Or if you have your own doggle.

Okay, we're on the screen. Well, thank you, Rusty. Thanks, Mayor, Council, everyone here. I appreciate the opportunity to be with you today. So I got about what the Inland Port Authority is and what we do. I've been with the Port Authority. It will be three years this September. As Rusty mentioned, I was economic development director for Cedar City and Iron County prior to that. The Utah Island Port Authority was created by the Utah State Legislature back in 2018, and it was focused on 16,000 acres just northwest of the Salt Lake International Airport. And it covered several jurisdictions up there, including Salt Lake City, Unincorporated County, and other communities. The legislature created the Port Authority in the first place to really focus development the transportation logistics there with an international airport with two major interstate highways and rail coming into the area with intermodal happening. So it was something that had been talked about for a long, long time. And the Port Authority was created and given a set of financial tools by the state legislature to allow them to operate very similarly to a redevelopment agency. Salt Lake City was so thrilled that it immediately went to a lawsuit which dragged out for several years until both parties figured out what they were going to do and how they were going to work together. I'm happy to say since then Salt Lake City and the Port Authority are very good partners and some amazing things have happened up there. But in creating the Port Authority, these items that you see on the screen are the main objectives. Number one is to support regional economics. Number two to enhance logistics, as I mentioned, number three being based on the shores of the Great Salt Lake, the environmental integrity has been a part that plays out in all of our project areas. And finally, to be transparent and compliant in all things that we do. We have since 2018, and it took about three years to kind of figure out what it was that the port was doing and a change of the board structure and a change of executive directors. Our executive director, Ben Hart, was appointed by the state legislature in 2022. He came from the governor's office of economic development, and he looked at this tool set and said, these tools work perfectly in the Northwest quadrant and throughout the state if communities would like to partner with us. So that's what we've done since 2022. We've created 15 project areas. You can see where they're represented on this state map here. The first one off of the Wasatch Front was just north of you, Iron Springs project area. And we've been very busy working with communities all over the state since then creating these project areas. So I'll explain what a project area is and how it works. This represents the number of cities and counties, the counties in green and the cities highlighted. on the map that have entered into resolutions for the creation of project areas. Many of our project areas cross over multiple jurisdictions, whether it be multiple municipalities, counties, et cetera. The first thing to clear up, our name is confusing, Utah Inland Port Authority. We are not creating 15 intermodal hubs, and that's a lot of, misunderstanding is it's not all about just bringing containers in from the seaports and processing them. It's something we're working to do to make more efficient. We have two transload facilities in Salt Lake City, one owned by Union Pacific and one owned by BNSF. The port as an entity doesn't own properties, doesn't build developments. We just have the tool set to work with Our community partners and with private development to be able to make things happen. So we may see one or two of these As the port authority develops, but we focus more on our economic development tools which are shown here. Number one, the tax differential or more commonly known as tax increment. be able to use at TIFF financing to help with the development of whatever the economic development goals are with our partner communities. If we go back here, my direct supervisor says we have 15 project areas. If you've seen one of them, you've seen one of them. They are all very different and they're all built around the economic development goals that that community leads. In Iron County, we have focused heavily on the rail connectivity and trans-loading and developing manufacturing spaces that need connection to the rail. In Mineral Mountains in Beaver County, they've focused heavily on energy development and mining. The Agri-Park in Juab County is serving the six county association of governments to help develop processing for the producers in the central part of the state. So they're all very different using using these tools. The tax differential is the first thing and we'll get more into depth on that. The second tool that we have is an authority infrastructure bank. set up very similar to the infrastructure bank that you dot has in place. These are state funds that can be loaned at a very competitive rate for infrastructure development either with our community partners or with private developers. Those are generally gap financing smaller type loans or shorter type terms. But we generally have terms that are about a half a percent above the state's bonding rate. So that's been very, very appealing and very useful. We can, we don't do this often, but with some of the smaller communities that don't have this experience, we can sponsor public infrastructure districts. And also these tools are stackable with other incentives that are offered through the state of Utah, through the federal government or elsewhere. So that's basically what we have to work with. Here's what we do not have. Gratefully, we are not a land use authority. We can't do anything with permitting or zoning. That all lies with our community partners. The other thing we can't do is move tax differential outside of the project area where it was generated. So that's been a bit of a misunderstanding. As a community might say, we don't want to work with the Port Authority and have them take funding from our community. That's really not the case. We keep that funding here. We work with our community partners to deploy that whichever way the community would like. Tax differential. I think you're more familiar with this than many communities. Our terms that are written statutorily are the ability to capture tax differential for 75 percent of new differential for 25 years or up to 25 years. We use this illustration to show the existing tax base before development. Once that valuation goes up and the property taxes increase, the taxing entities will capture 25% of that new increment. And we have the, we work with our community partners to deploy the other 75%. The bullet points up there on the top left hand are main purpose, main reasons we use tax differential. Number one, for funding regional public infrastructure. Number two, to create recruitment incentives if we have competitive recruitment efforts against other states and other communities. The other thing that we can do is pledge this funding to support the AIB loan or bonding through PID or however that might be. So that, in a nutshell, is what we do. Again, going back to the property tax differential remaining in the project area, by statute, the Port Authority retains 5% for administrative fees. That can be used within the project area as well. If that needs to be admin to help the community, then that is how that's used, or the Port, or working between the two. The other I've divided up kind of loosely as I described the majority is for investment into the project area and infrastructure and the possibility to use some of that for recruitment. But this kind of goes back to that again for those communities that haven't done much in. In tax increment financing this breaks down how a million dollars of new property tax would be dispersed. Say it's. exactly a million dollars. The first two hundred fifty thousand would flow through to the taxing entities. The remaining amount the seven hundred fifty thousand would be used in the project area investment up to 20 percent of the tax burden can be used for a business incentive. That's usually based on their capital investment the admin fee and then the bulk of that again to go to public infrastructure. But are there any questions about what I've explained so far?

Well, I think that one of the biggest misconceptions for the Inland Port that I think has worked on this over the years is that the city doesn't have authority, that the money doesn't stay here and those type of things that I think were fundamentally important from the start to make them successful. But over time, I think those have been identified because it would be really hard for me to vote for something that we wouldn't have control over. Right, and I wouldn't blame you. We wouldn't want to do that either. Yeah, I couldn't do that, but in my first look at this type years ago, you know, it was a little bit suspect, but now I think that a lot of those issues have been spelled out, and it certainly brings definite benefits to communities, and I'm intrigued, too, with you doing the one in Iron Springs. That's probably the closest one to what we are down here, and having that experience, that's reassuring. because you know our economy, you know our towns, you know how it works here. That's important. Yeah, thank you.

And what we've done so far with the Iron Springs project area is we've used the AIB loan to help fund the building out to transload facilities. So we have the rail sink transload facility. They borrowed about $10 million from that fund. and Savage Services borrowed an amount as well to build out their transload facility we're still pretty new we started the one up the road in 2023 we've had some construction since then so this last year we triggered our first parcel it's about five acres for a 30 000 square foot manufacturing company so that was triggered for tax year 26 we'll be able to capture that in tax year 27. Once that's triggered, we'll work with the community to put together a tax sharing agreement on how that's deployed. County is currently looking at upgrading their wastewater treatment system out there in that area.

Would you speak just a little bit about, in the document here, it says a primary infrastructure priority associated with the project is the future purgatory road and bridge because, oh, you're doing that one? Okay. Yeah. Yeah, we want to identify what it is that the community needs. I just got excited about it. I just wanted to hear. That sounds.

Yeah. Yeah. We're not going to read through this whole slide. These are just some of the examples of some of the things that have happened in project areas since then. As I mentioned, we've got transloaned facilities. We've done some recruitment in different project areas. We've partnered to do lots of different things. And I'm happy to discuss these sorts of things with you at any time. Anyway, that's the basics. Do you want to carry on from there?

I'll cover the specifics.

Sure. We'll swap back. Thanks, Danny. Well done. Thank you. And I'll stay here. If you have any other questions, just let me know.

Thank you Danny I appreciate you, given the overview of kind of the concept around this and then I won't go over this again, except to point out that and just to clarify. What we're talking about does not create any new tax or tax increase or tax increase in rates so we're not we're not doing that with this tool and.

Rusty, is it fair to say that the council is relatively familiar with this process because of our Southwest Logistics Center project? Very similar concept here with the TIF.

Yes, yes. And we can go over. I did provide in your packets a side-by-side comparison of CRA, which the council and mayor are familiar with. We've done these. There are some nuanced differences that I think give us some advantages, but I'll get right into kind of the why and the specifics for Washington City and really for Washington County. And doing it this way. So as Danny alluded to, this is these are usually a regional and we do have a regional infrastructure project that's pretty critical for three jurisdictions, Washington County, Washington City, and Hurricane and the this council has already received and received a recent update from the Dixie MPO and I just checked with Myron Lee he said the price tag is coming in right now at about 70 million dollars for a major infrastructure project so this is a great example multi-jurisdictional benefit regional infrastructure project and um and then where I'm this is why it matters matters um regionally and this is how we fit and check the boxes with Utah and one port This is the area that we're looking at. And just to kind of orient yourself here, you can see I've put on the municipal boundary layer. So you've got Hurricane. The clear area is Washington County unincorporated, but it's, of course, within our annexation plan or Hurricane Cities. That's kind of where we meet up. You have the existing landfill to the top of the screen there. And then you have Washington City. You'll also note that we have the dotted line, which is country way in blue underneath that layer phases one and two of Sunrise Valley. So those are already fully that's a fully approved industrial park in phase one and phase two. And those have been sold. But not all buildings have gone vertical. So there's still some increment to be captured there. So in addition to having a pretty solid tax base, that would be frozen in 2025 tax base. And then anything after that would be part of the increment that's captured that could go towards the build out of this infrastructure project. Now, you'll also see that these future phases, this is a concept only. It was actually just checked with the developer and the engineer. It's been submitted to the city. So it's under staff review right now. And they do plan to build out these future phases. It's already in line with our general plan and the zoning is in place. So you will see this come through us plats. Now there is some responsibility on the developer for the build out of this portion of purgatory road. And we've had a few discussions with the developer on that, but there's still the remaining Porsche, the portion, which is the heavy lift of purgatory bridge or the bridge across the river here, and then the connection into hurricane city. So this is where I'm proposing a project.

Can I just jump in just to kind of connect some of the dots there too? One of the things with Purgatory Road and the essential part of the bridge, you know, keeping this industrial traffic out of the neighborhoods, but it also, if we're talking about moving product, this connects SR7 and SR9, which I think is really important if we're moving, you know, goods and raw and finished materials.

That's a great point. I'll go over some of the other benefits as well. But yeah, that's exactly, this is why this has been identified as a priority infrastructure project, but it comes with a hefty price tag. So Utah Inland Port provides a portion of that funding through the tax differential, but they also can help us with the capital stack. So they're a great entity to work with to pull together other funding sources for this regional project. I do apologize for bringing this quickly. I know I had mentioned that before. The reason why we're doing that, I want to be really explicit about that, is that this last legislative session, the state has decided that they would add a 5% fee Um, additional fee. So there's a 5% admin fee that, that Danny spoke about. And I, I think it's reasonable. We usually charge an admin fee of somewhere between three and 6% is, is usually what I see those at when we start a CRA and that's for all the reporting and everything. And we will get a return on that. And there's also some flexibility about how that admin fee is, is used within our community. But there is a deadline. So they pass something so that there's an additional fund that will go to the state that none of the other existing port areas are subject to, but they will be after September. So if the council decides to adopt this resolution tonight, it doesn't create the plan and budget. We get started on the plan and budget, and then it still has to go through the Utah Inland Port to their meeting in June, and then they'll meet again in August. and they'd actually like to meet, they'll be down South. And so the board would actually like to meet and I would like to love to offer to host them here at the city, one of our facilities for that meeting. Should they choose to, should we choose to move forward with this tonight? Oh, I'm sorry. Mayor, you had mentioned some of the benefits. The this this slide touches on some of those things. So we have industrial demand is continuing. It's obviously planned, zoned and moving forward. We have this need for this regional regional road for a multitude of reasons. One is the heavy truck traffic, Mayor, that you mentioned too. We already have some neighborhoods that are experiencing some of the materials moving out and we'll have to alleviate that at some time. And this is the best plan to do that. We also have all the landfill trucks that go through our downtown through Telegraph. And so at least a portion of those would be able to use this new route. So it really reduces the impact on neighborhoods. Um, so next steps, next steps would be that the council considers this resolution. If you decide to pass it now, um, then we would start in the plan and budget. And I'll tell you, because of the timeframe, we've already got started on it. I have a shared document with the Utah and import team. And so we're working through that plan and budget. I would also recommend that we put together an MOU it's optional, but I would recommend that we put together MOU to detail some of the things, um, such as. One is annexation. If there are additional areas that want to be annexed in, I would think that it would have to go to the council, the respective council.

And Rusty, just to be clear about that, it doesn't have to be contiguous. It can be other parts of the city that could be brought in, right?

Correct. And this is where it's different from a CRA. A CRA is initiated by a municipality, and it stays within one municipality generally. Utah and the poor areas is for regional infrastructure, and it can be regional. So Washington City is, quite frankly, we're the only city that's ready to move forward right now on this. We've put in a lot of work and a lot of diligence in researching this and identifying an area where it's a good fit. And if we establish this area that I'm proposing in Washington City, then that opens the port for the county. So other cities would then be able to annex in. So for example, let's take a scenario where we establish a port and we identify this tax differential to help fund Purgatory Road and then Sarah Silver, Say the county and hurricane says, well, you, you have this tax differential. So you should pay for more of the road. Well, we can say, well, since we establish this tool. Sarah Silver, You can you can actually create utilize this tool. Now you can create your own tax area hurricane and you can use your increment towards your portion of the bridge and the and the road that is a regional benefit. If we don't do this, then that tool is not available to anyone. And we would have to maybe do CRA areas and then try to coordinate all of that. So it makes it, the reason why I think this tool is better is because of where we're proposing that it be and that it has a regional benefit.

And Rusty, let me just inject right there. So in this, using this model, we would not need to go to taxing partners and get their approval.

Correct. That's another way that it's different from a CRA. Normally with a CRA, Mayor, you know this because you did all the legwork on it. So you went and met with all of the taxing entities, and we put together interlocal agreements to negotiate that increment, what portion they would give up for how long. That's already set for the Utah import by statute. So the other taxing entities, they participate at 75% for 20 years. And they still retain that 25%. They'll still go of the differential.

Rusty, real quick. You probably said this earlier, but you can incorporate non-contiguous areas, right? Correct. So St. George could say, hey, we've got an area over here. Hurricane could say, we've got an area over here. And they all have the opportunity because we've done it.

Only if we do this. If we don't do this, they don't have that opportunity. Or if they did, I guess it's incorrect technically to say that. If they did, they would have that opportunity, but the timing is such that Washington counties in the port area would be the only one in the state that is charged that additional 5% that takes effect in September.

Well, that was my next question. Right now, no other cities are actually pursuing it.

Correct correct and I don't know that they're ready or they've identified something so if we add later they those parcels in the county someone decides they want to annex into Washington city. They want to go into the port or is that area then has to do the 5% additional or they're under the same rules that we already have a port established they're under the rules that we've established.

Yeah, that's correct. That just comes back to the new legislation which takes place in September of this year. And we hate to come in and rush anyone into anything, but this is the one thing that makes a consideration really important to consider is that extra percentage that goes to the state. We'd rather not lose that.

Do you think there'll be any pushback from that or is that a done deal?

It's done. It's already written into how that's being...

I know, but sometimes if they're like, well, we're not getting any new applications, we're not receiving any money, maybe we need to change our thinking. Do you think there has been any talk with the legislature about that?

Potentially. This doesn't apply uniquely to the Inland Port Authority. This applies to other similar authorities such as MITA and other groups. If they do other project areas, areas of economic significance or agencies in the state that are similar to the port, So it's not just unique to us. It's any of those agencies that work with tax increment. It will come from those groups.

What was the state's justification in applying an additional 5% tax?

Not really sure. I think it's just an opportunity to another source of revenue.

To fund the West Wing of the Capitol.

Ballroom. Right. Oh, one other thing. I'm sorry to interrupt. Just to make clear, if Washington City were to establish this with this particular area and say in the future you wanted to add your own parcels into that, then you would have the jurisdiction over those. If Hurricane or the county or St. George wanted to amend properties into the project area, the differential stays with the entity, the community where that is located. Along with permitting and zoning and all.

So there are other communities would be able to use this port essentially for their own benefit.

Right. So the port would be created so that the county could utilize the tools without that 5 percent. But you wouldn't have to share differential from your development with any other community within the project area.

They run independently.

Right. I mean if there were instances where it made sense to do that. then those things could be worked out through legal agreements.

But for the most part, like in this area we're talking about, it might make sense to certainly to write cooperate.

That makes sense.

But I think what one of the things that came up in a in a discussion was St. George is looking at expanding their regional airport. And so one of the questions that came up from some of these meetings of staff with the Utah Airport city staff from their respective cities, we invited Hurricane and St. George because it is regional. And that's where the development's happening in Washington County. Um, we invited them. We've met with, we also have representatives from the county at some of these meetings where we're just exploring this tool and how it works. One of the questions that came up from St. George was. Well, this airport is regional benefit. So we wanna utilize the increment near the airport. We're not proposing this, but say we had a port area near the airport that encompass both St. George and Washington City. They said, could we use all of the increment for the airport? And they said, no, only if Washington city would like to participate. So you have to work it out with them. So that, that, I think that's important that when we look at regional infrastructure projects that benefit early or, or things that are regional benefit that, that power still stays local to negotiate what, how that's apportioned and if that's apportioned.

So can we reimburse ourselves for infrastructure that has already been installed? Say we implemented that in the airport area, could we refund re fund ourselves for all the money we spent for the road out there.

That's certainly a discussion we could have. We're still defining how these tools can work. I don't think we've set up what's that reasonable timeline and what works for a community to be able to reimburse for public infrastructure, but it's certainly part of the discussion that we could have in our agreements.

And I think, too, we need to see some development, some buildings going vertical to create that property tax.

Yeah.

But if we can go back in arrears, like Councilman Singh, that's because that was part of the strategy this council enacted with opening up ARA was to extend the road and the utilities down there when we defined the CRA and kind of created this on our own. So this council knows the kind of work it takes.

Well, and my thought was, yeah, we did it down on the end on ARA. and the LA development that's potential future industrial. So why shouldn't we be getting some of that tax revenue to help fund all that money that we put out in the first place to get clear down there?

That's a good point, and that would be, I think that area would check the boxes. I always want to get at least, I always want to have a discussion with the landowners, which we did in this case too. So Plum and the landowners for this area are aware of this and supportive of it. It's neutral for them. Neutral in that it doesn't increase taxes. It doesn't add any extra tax. It just allocates where the taxes that they'll pay or the property owners will pay where those go. And it goes to an infrastructure project that benefits them. So we could explore that. However, I do want to note that you would not be able to do a Utah Inland Port area over the existing CRA. It's one or the other. That makes sense. But the additional lands could certainly be considered. And we did put quite a bit. I mean, there was some distance in that road to get from where it was down to the ARRA project. So same thing with Purgatory Road.

I see Blake nodding his head back there. He knows every inch of that road and everything that's underneath it.

You know, one thing that's interesting in the way that statutes written, you saw that map that is being contemplated right now, and that's the the industrial part very specifically. But the differential can be used for any public infrastructure that supports the nexus of that project area. So you don't need to go out and draw in road boundaries or utility rights of way into the project area. It just has to have a nexus that feeds back to where the project area boundaries are.

So can I ask a question, Rusty? Sure. So if this overlay is over a project that's kind of already been started and maybe there's a building or two that's already built and maybe some under construction, so if there's a building that's half built, does that fall under this or is it only You know, projects that pull a permit and then move forward after this is approved.

So the way it works is you have you have a trigger year and you can do it the year prior. So if we set basically anything that was assessed in 2025, that property tax amount is frozen for 2025. And then anything that's mid bill that's not completed and hasn't been assessed yet at a new tax tax differential would would be part of the increment. So the existing buildings that are fully built out or and and remember land improvements, this isn't raw ground. So the land improvement, all the horizontal infrastructures and in at least phases one and two. But as those buildings build, that creates increment. So this is why I like this area, because we have a strong base already. And then we have so much that we have a potential for more increment in this area. So I think it's a good balance. It's very conservative. And I'm just proposing the project area be, if you'll note in your packets, that red area. I learned after designating that area that the developer's coming in with this future phase. So I would propose that that future phase in green be annexed in as soon and quickly so that we can capture the increment for that.

Is that green area in the county right now?

It is not. What's being shown is only what's in Washington City.

So why do you want to wait on that one? Why don't you do it now?

We could do that. We could make an amendment and add it now. The only reason is because I had to prepare these for council last week, and this happened literally between submitting it and then learning that the developer just submitted it to staff.

I think council makes a good point here on See if that can happen tonight, Rusty. It sounds like that's kind of the appetite. If not, just bring it back as soon as you can. What other slides do you have before we field any more questions?

Just one, and I'm going to put Danny on the spot with this one. The proposed name for this area would be the Greater Washington area, Utah-Limport area. plays a little bit into greater Zion, which is what we're known for in this area. It's Washington City initiating it. And they all have these icons, as you can see. And this icon was actually the cotton ball icon was created by one of our staff members. And And I think it really speaks to the history of the area. You know, the cotton mission started in Washington City. It was one of the first established industries for and the catalyst for growing this this community into what it is. And when I say community, I don't just mean Washington City. I mean, the larger area.

So Washington, we call that larger area Dixie.

Right. So Washington City was a was an important part of of establishing the area. And, you know, we kind of led out there at that time. Our city was established in 1857 and then cotton cotton industry started in 1861. So I think it's appropriate that since Washington City is leading out on this, that we insist that we use the cotton ball as our icon and that we call it the greater Washington area.

Thoughts, council, on that?

I thought we should call it landfill area.

Spoken as a true chair of that board.

Greater landfill area. That'll get businesses. No, I think it's great. It's a good presentation. And I'm glad that we've been down this road before. So I do have questions for the council.

I have two questions, two hesitations. One is, are we going to make our county reps that give us CRAs in other areas mad because we went down this road? It's just kind of a thought I've had. OK, because it takes them out of the equation. We just get it, right?

Did you say county reps?

Well, whoever, the CRA, the school board and the other ones, right? Whatever those are from the CRA.

We asked those questions of the Utah last couple of weeks, Troy, but.

No, I'm just I'm what I'm bringing up is does it make future applications for CRS harder or do we just have to commit to this going down this road and it makes it easier for us in the future? Because if we can go anywhere within the city, it's just a question, right? Like, are we going to make the other entities that have to approve these for as far as CRAs and those upset that we went down this road.

I think that's a politically savvy question, and it was one that you and city manager Red come up with the same questions, but it was something that we discussed with the Utah import, but I'll let Dan.

Yeah, no, that's come up before. It's not unique to this meeting because in every case, the school districts are the ones who receive the greatest cut of that property tax differential. Um, we aren't bound to this, but we would love to sit down with the school district. The discussion that we've had with, with all of the school districts that we work with is if we were to recruit along with our community partner, a project that put a real strain on the school district, then we would like to negotiate. So some of that differential could be again, utilized by the. school district. There's a lot of flexibility once that's been captured. One thing that wasn't mentioned here is the trigger dates. Say we trigger and as Rusty said, I think we would want to trigger to capture all of tax year 27 would be the first we could capture because you've already got some things moving right now that we wouldn't want to lose out on. But then say phase two didn't have building start for another three years or four years. We don't want that those parcels to lose out On the full power of this triggering so we trigger parcels separately, so it would extend that 25 year period, based on the parcels that are being developed. But yeah we're happy to have those discussions with the other taxing entities, I can tell you that Washington county is supportive of this. Even before iron county Commissioners signed on to the iron springs project area Washington county. adopted a resolution to support the Iron Springs project area. So they've been very much involved with us. And that was before.

That's because that's their money when it comes to Washington County money. It's different situation.

Sure. But I think they would look for if there's unincorporated county areas that makes sense to include here, they would move.

I worry about the mosquito abatement district personally.

But so correct me if I'm wrong. This is targeted more for industrial. in manufacturing warehouse, whereas a CRA can pretty much be just about anything.

yes yes however I will say that when we did negotiate the CRA and had well not the negotiation but the some of the pre-meetings with with staff and the people that keep the books so like this respective city manager for the for the school district they they did have some criteria one is that they didn't want any residential because that adds to the cost side of their budget they also didn't want to do retail um and that you know they they They also have a planning horizon that's about 10 years. But what we found is that a state agency talking to another state agency, it's a little bit different conversation. So that was kind of the feedback that we received from Ben Hart, that they generally have a good, the community is receptive, especially if it's, the other criteria they had is we want places for our graduates to be able to work where they can get high paying jobs.

Those are I think they would be supportive, but that will be a conversation that they'll have on our behalf yeah we're really focused on the industrial manufacturing distribution generally higher wage type projects so. we're not going to be working on. mixed use.

But it's a great point that the councilman brings up and what I hear you saying and what I've observed as well is these types of uses align with what the school district's appetite is for CRA. So excellent presentation. Any last words you'd like to share with us, Rusty? We'll see you again tonight. This is an action item on the regular meeting. Anything else that you or Dan would like to say before we go to our closed session?

I'll just I'll just know one more thing. The advantage of working with the Utah import is that that extends my office. I'm one person. I'm the economic development director for Washington City. I'm very focused on. I'm very passionate about it. But it really leverages these partnerships through go out or go ahead, whatever. They're going to decide that. I think they're going again. Utah Inland Port, it really extends our reach. They help with marketing. I think that's why the icon and the map and everything, they have a great presence. And so this industrial park is going to move forward, whether we do a Utah Inland Port area or not. But what ends up being established and what businesses we bring into that park, this may mean all the difference when we have that extended help. So that's another reason why I'm in favor of this or I'm recommending it. Thank you.

Fantastic. Thank you, Rusty. Thank you, Danny. Great job. Council, at this time, I'm going to turn to you. This is no surprise. We do need to go to closed session to discuss character or professional competence of an individual. If we have time, we will also discuss an item that involves purchase, exchange, release of property, and or pending a potential litigation. I'll call for a motion to that end. So moved. I have a motion by Councilman Coats.

Second.

Second by Councilman Belliston. We'll go roll call beginning with Councilmember Belliston.

Aye.

Henderson. Aye. Coates. Aye. Ivey. Aye. Casperson. Aye. We will move into closed session. Thank you.

SO WE WILL RECONVENE FOR OUR REGULAR MEETING.

TODAY IS JUNE 10, 2026. WE ARE IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT WASHINGTON CITY HALL. OUR MEETINGS ARE STREAMED LIVE AND ARCHIVED AT WASHINGTONCITY.ORG SLASH MEETINGS. AND IT IS MY PLEASURE TO INVITE Father Joel S. Mirano from the Interfaith Council, who was also the chaplain for Intermountain Health and a part of the Interfaith Council to start off our meeting the right way. Father Joel.

Thank you. I love this town. I love everything about this town. I live here. I love my neighbors, the Henrys. I'm an Episcopal priest who goes to a ward. That's how much I love Washington. I'm a little jealous of the man bun and the beard in front of me, but I'll confess that to God before I pray and give forgiveness. Let us pray. Heavenly Father, we give you thanks for this beautiful day and for the opportunity for leaders to emerge from our community and take the reins to lead, to love, to care,

and to serve.

I ask special protection over them and a blessing for them as they do so with compassion and openness. I bless you'll be with our leaders here in the community. As a former firefighter, I pray for our law enforcement, our fire, and our EMS personnel. I thank you for when I call the city hall, I get a warm voice. If I'm having problems with water or trash, I get help. I'm so happy to be part of this community. So bless this community, God, and let us be a blessing to others. In Christ's name, amen. Amen. Thank you, Father.

Councilman Belliston, would you lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance? I will note that we do not have need to go to closed session this evening. That said, I will call for a motion to approve the agenda as outlined.

Mayor, I can make that motion for our June 10th regular meeting. You've heard the motion by Councilman Ivey.

Is there a second? Second. Second by Councilman Belliston. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? The agenda is approved unanimously. A few announcements. On June 19th, the city offices will be closed. That's a Friday in honor of Juneteenth. Is there anything else I may have missed between now and our next meeting, which is on June 24th? Seeing none, it is now my opportunity to share with you, with the community, a mayoral proclamation. Whereas the National Opinion Research Center and the Wall Street Journal found that a recent opinion poll of Americans showed support for traditional values such as faith, family and patriotism are declining, and whereas the principles of faith, family and patriotism have long been seen as crucial for the health of American society, And whereas societies that value faith, family, and patriotism have high rates of volunteerism in both religious and secular causes. And whereas research suggests that children raised in environments that encourage religious or spiritual engagement may experience lower rates of depression and substance abuse and benefit from stronger social, emotional, and behavioral well-being. And whereas extensive research indicates that children raised in stable, married, two-parent households are more likely to graduate from college and achieve economic self-sufficiency and less likely to experience poverty, depression, involvement in criminal activity, or teen parenthood. And whereas James Madison said to suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people is an imaginary idea. And whereas George Washington stated that of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. And whereas George Washington said in his first inaugural address, no people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand which conducts the affairs of men more than the people of the United States. And whereas the cultivation of virtues such as faith, devotion to family, service to community, and love of country contributes to human flourishing and healthy societies. Now, therefore, I, Cress Staley, Mayor of the City of Washington, Utah, along with the Washington City Council, declare June 2026 as Faith, Family, and Patriotism Month in the City of Washington, for the purpose of rededicating the community to the civic virtues of faith, family, and patriotism in witness whereof I have here into set my hand and cause to be affixed the seal of the city of Washington, Utah, this 10th day of June, 2026. Next item on the agenda. Any declarations of abstentions and conflicts for tonight's meeting? Seeing none, we'll move to the consent agenda consisting of approval of minutes from the city council meetings of 5-13-2026 THE BOARD AUDIT REPORT FROM MAY 2026 AND THE VACA REPORT SUBMITTED BY SHELLY CANDELARIA. IF THERE'S ANY CLARIFICATION ON THIS, I'M HAPPY TO PULL AN ITEM. OTHERWISE I'LL CALL FOR A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCILMAN BELLESTON. SECOND. SECOND BY COUNCILMAN COATS. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. The consent agenda is approved unanimously. Moving on to the next item, item 5A. This is consideration to confirm the appointment of a member to the planning commission. Councilman Henderson is doing a great job being the council liaison to that committee. Every report that I've had back from those involved is that Meryl Davis, who's been there for a year now, is doing a fantastic job. Council, it's my advice with your consent that we bring forward a motion with your approval to appoint Merrill Davis for another term on the Planning Commission.

Mayor, I'll make that motion. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we confirm the appointment of Merrill Davis as a member of the Planning Commission.

You've heard the motion by Councilman Henderson. Is there a second?

Second.

SECOND BY COUNCILMAN BELLESTON. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THAT IS APPROVED. HE IS APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY FOR ANOTHER TERM WITH A VOTE OF 5-0. WE DO HAVE A FEW PUBLIC HEARINGS AND JUST LOOKING OUT IN THE AUDIENCE, ARE ANY OF YOU HERE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARINGS THIS EVENING? I RAISE OF HAND, YES. OKAY. WONDERFUL. GREAT. I WILL JUST MAKE NOTE THAT THE COUNCIL DID NOT RECEIVE ANY ELECTRONIC COMMENTS SPECIFIC TO THE PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS FOR THIS EVENING'S MEETING. I WILL ALSO JUST MAKE NOTE THAT THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US AS THE ELECTED BODY TO LISTEN TO YOUR FEEDBACK. WE TYPICALLY DON'T ENGAGE BACK AND FORTH IN THAT PUBLIC COMMENT, AND ALSO MOST WELL-SPOKEN COMMENTS CAN BE DONE IN ABOUT TWO TO THREE MINUTES UNLESS WE NEED TO GET MORE DETAILED THAN THAT. ITEM 6A, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE AN ORDINANCE FOR EASEMENT ABANDONMENT LOCATED AT 191 WEST BRIDGER LANE. PUBLIC WORKS ASSISTANT DIRECTOR JOHN HINKEY who also has a great man bun. Ponytail, yes. I mean, I can't see the back of you right now.

Go ahead, John. Good evening, Mayor and Council. What we have tonight, we have two adjoining lots in two separate subdivisions. They're wanting to adjust their lot line between them. As part of that, we need to abandon the existing public utilities on their common lot line in order to help them come back with their plan amendments in the future.

Hey, John, let me read this other one too. We'll just run these items concurrently. Sure. Item 6B is a public hearing and consideration to approve an ordinance for an easement abandonment located at 2114 South Log Lane. That's the other backside.

Okay, carry on. So, John, I got a quick question. Yes, sir.

state changed the code that allowed like a simple lot line adjustments without having to go to a plat amendment this is just because we've had that seven and a half foot pue down the property line right yeah we'd have to we actually have to vacate the existing easements and there was actually the ones from the original plat and then somehow there was an additional one that was recorded separately and so we want to make sure that we vacate all of these in order to facilitate that lot line adjustment so we were requiring those pves

for a long time, but how long have we not been requiring them? Because it's been the last, how long? Two years is what Eldon and I are thinking. That's all. So anything prior to that, if somebody wants to adjust their lot line, they're going to have to come through this process, which is essentially almost just as onerous. Can we, like, in areas where we don't have need, I mean, because the power and utility easements, You know, they're typically along the front of the property and not down the sides and back.

Right. Typically, most of our, we have that 10-foot PUE. That's where generally most of all our utilities are at. Very seldom is there a need for those side.

Is there a way to write something into the ordinance or code that says we don't have to do this every time for every applicant that wants to tweak their lot line?

Yeah, if the council wanted to do that, I'm going to say this while Thad's gone, and he'll probably know. You could certainly write in that it could that could be done administratively if, say, public works and planning are approved of it or power, you know, just all the administrative approvals.

Nobody needs it. I think we should start heading down that way, especially on this type of stuff. There's no reason to do all these easements back in the day, but they just what they did. We'll put Eldon on it.

You just don't want to see my smiling face up here.

No, we want to see you, John. We just want to make a simpler process for the applicants because they're trying to make these lot lines simpler and they didn't change anything because you still have to come to a council.

Right, because you're the only ones that can actually vacate the existing easements.

But you could choose to give that authority to...

administratively to staff if it met certain criteria if it didn't they'd still come back before you you put it on your limited agenda of items that you look at to get with that i'm gonna have eldon start working on it right now make sure you put it under uh someone else's list besides mine and troy so it gets done no i'm just kidding put it under councilwoman casperson she's got a fast track on me i'll make a motion

Okay, we're going to hold that motion real quick. Thank you. Any other questions for John? We're going to open up that public hearing on item 6A, which is 191 West Bridger Lane, easement abandonment, and 6B, easement abandonment for 2114 South Log Lane. Anyone who would like to speak to these items, come forward and state your name and tell us what you'd like the council to take into consideration. And thank you for being here. It's great to have someone in the audience.

Yeah. My name is Kiana Barron. We live at 191 West Bridger Lane. And so we purchased the lot from our neighbors. They did all the work prior. It's been four years or more now. So I had a question. I'm like, I'm wondering, you said this has only happened since the last two years. You've needed to do this whole process?

No. Is that okay? I'm like, I probably understand you're wrong. The plats, we used to require a power and utility easement down the property. Down the front of the property down the size and across the back. Okay, and but we don't ever put utilities down the down the property lines Or very rarely does anything go down the property lines and across the back So anytime somebody wants to adjust something, okay, then we've got to go amend the platts, so to speak that administrative than anything.

Okay. Gotcha. Um, so what I'm wondering, I'm like, we were able to build on our lot and our neighbors were able to have a pool. They, they had permits pulled for that. We had permits pulled for our house and then they did like, uh, stuff to their house. I can't remember what it's called.

Help me.

Yeah, a whole remodel. And I'm like, and then they had their sewer line that came across and that's like in the amendment. And I'm wondering, we were under the impression our stuff was done like four years ago and we were just getting ready to build. So I'm like, now we had to spend like an additional $8,000 and we're wondering where it got missed along because I'm like, we have our stamps of approval from the city and everything from when we built. So I don't know if there's a way to like access how this got missed. So long ago. Does that make sense?

Great. So, John, you have that question. When we close a public hearing, I'm going to ask you to answer that one. Okay. Okay.

What else do you have for us?

That's all.

Mayor, can I just ask a clarifying question? Are you talking about the utilities that come to your house? That's how the additional charge was encouraged through those?

No, we had to have a surveyor come back out and redo all of it. So I'm like, yeah, we had to pay for the permits for the city for their sewer line that came across, which they told us was done years ago. Like, hey, can we do this? Sure. So we had to pay for the sewer line permit, their lot, easement, like the vacate, whatever, and ours. So we had to pay for that. I'm like, just with everything combined, we've already spent.

Are you wanting to build a pool back there or something?

No, no, we're building a shop. So I'm like, and it was approved before by the city. This was like where we wanted to have the shop and it was on our plans. And it just we couldn't afford it then and I'm like now we are getting ready to do the process it's just taken but you couldn't build it over the easement yes yeah because it was supposed to be done four years ago so so they've been a process to build over an easement and you can go get approvals from different utilities and whatnot

but on this one to vacate an easement has to come to this body. That's the, that's the issue, right?

Yes. I'm like, the only thing is I'm like, we purchased a lot from them. They're like, Hey, here's your half acre. We did all the stuff with the title company and it just wasn't done.

It was there. You could have bought a piece of property with, with the easement in place and it would have just kind of gone along with, with the property. Right. But when we're trying to, And that's why I brought it up to the city manager that let's write something to the ordinance that we don't have to have you go get an engineer to do this on every.

Yeah, that's sweet.

Or every resident staff to come back through the process you've had to go through.

Yeah, because it's been a nightmare.

Correct.

I love that. So I'm like, yeah, I wish it would have happened forever ago for us. Thank you. But anyway, thank you. Thanks.

Anyone else that wants to? The public hearing is open for the easement abandonment for 191 West Bridger Lane and 2114 South Log Lane. Seeing no one else come forward, I will close the public hearing on both of those items, and I will turn to the council for further discussion and or a motion. Actually, John, you answer her question, then we'll do that.

All right. I may have to defer to Eldon.

You heard her question.

I can answer parts of it, and I'll let Eldon start with the lot lines.

Here's the piece of property here. We'll highlight this. This is where this... Um, lady lives, if I'm thinking correctly, one 90 west, she purchased this property to the east, which belongs or used to belong to this parcel here. If we click on the subdivision overlay, you can see we're involving two different subdivisions. So to formalize it and for the city to accept it, we have to run it through this public hearing public notice process. I think that's a great call to to make the easements a staff approval when there's no easements or utilities running through there that would help streamline this process. However, we have to formalize it and the city has to acknowledge this subdivision amendment is is what why we're here tonight.

Well, we because it's two different subdivisions have to do this one way or the other on this one. I mean, the easements could be vacated, but the actual, I mean, because the state gave authority to residences to be able to do simple lot line adjustments like this without having to come through plat amendments. Right. With the with the being a boundary. Well, that's why I'm asking, right, because two different subdivisions, two subdivisions.

But you still have to even with that process, I just went through it on a client of mine and we did that amendment through the state and it was still just legal. You didn't have to go through the city at all, but you just went through the county. You still have to hire a surveyor and do the work and then amend those partial boundaries to get that figured out.

Well, at least it saves us.

Yeah, I like where you're going.

There's an application on hold waiting for these easements to be approved. The next step is to formalize this lot line adjustment so she can build a detached structure.

And there was, as she mentioned, there was a little bit of a little outstanding item with this with utilities because the services that serve the 2114 South lot over and that would actually come across this other lot and stuff. And so the parcel that they're trading, the services actually come across that.

So you still need the easement?

Yeah, so they had to actually, as part of this, the surveyor had to go in and actually put an easement on there for their service lines and stuff crossing that property. So it was slightly complicated just because of where the service lines were coming from.

Thank you. Council, further discussion and or motion?

Mayor, I'll make a motion. We approve item 6A for the easement abandonment located at 190 West Bridger Lane. You want to run both?

We ran it both at the same time, yeah.

And I'll also make a motion that we approve item 6B, public hearing to consider the ordinance, the easement abandonment located 2114 South Log Lane.

I've heard the motion by Councilman Coates. Is there a second?

Second.

Second by Councilman Henderson.

Can I ask a quick question? So are both these adjacent properties in? Yes. Okay.

And then I read them both, and we opened the public hearing for both. So I think we're good. I have a motion by Councilman Coates, second by Councilman Henderson. We'll do roll call vote to approve this easement abandonment. We'll begin with voting with Councilmember Belliston.

Aye. Henderson. Aye. Coates. Aye. Ivey.

Aye.

Casterson. Aye.

Those are both approved unanimously, five to zero. We'll move on to item 7A, ordinances. This is consideration to approve an ordinance, zone change Z-26-11 from OS open space to RA, residential agricultural 1 1⁄2 acre lots located at 2335 East Washington Dam Road near the Virgin River. Community Development Director Eldon Gibb will present to the council on this particular item. Mr. Gibb.

Thank you, Mayor, Council. The requested change is from the current zoning open space to a proposed RA half. As shown in the exhibit, the zone change is to the outermost point of the flood zone. The remaining land that is in the flood zone and floodway will remain the open open space zoning designation. If the proposed land is developed, primary access will be from Washington Dam Road between 2275 East and 2359 East. The general plan land use is a state which supports the proposed zone change application and the surrounding zoning to this parcel is open space to the north, RA half to the east, RA one to the south and west and open space to the west. The purpose of this request is to develop the property a residential development with the minimum lot size being one half acre. The Planning Commission did review this request and unanimously recommended approval of Z-26-11. And that was based on the findings stated in the report. That concludes staff report. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have at this time.

I'll make note that the public hearing on these ordinances took place at the Planning Commission level council Any questions for staff on this item?

Ready for a motion.

If we're ready for a motion, Councilman Ivey.

Yes, I'd like to make a motion to approve an ordinance zone change Z-26-11 from open space to RA 1 half located at 2335 East Washington Dam Road, Virgin River.

You've heard the motion by Councilman Ivey. Is there a second?

Second.

Second by Councilman Belliston. We'll go roll call beginning with Councilmember Henderson. Aye. Coates. Aye. Ivey. Aye. Casperson. Aye. Belliston.

Aye.

That is approved. Item 7A unanimously 5-0. Next item 7B is another ordinance. This is consideration to approve an ordinance amending city code title 8-1-6, fire code to adopt the wildland urban interface. Council, we heard Chief Evans during the workshop session. Are there any additional questions or discussion that would, I can invite the chief to come back for it if you'd like. Seeing none, I'll turn to the council for further discussion and or a motion on this item.

I'll make a motion to approve an ordinance amending city code tile 8-1-6 fire code to adopt the wildland urban interface.

You've heard the motion by Councilman Casperson. Is there a second? Second. Second by Councilman Coates. We'll go roll call beginning with Councilmember Coates. Aye. Ivy. Aye. Casperson.

Aye.

Belliston. Aye. Henderson. Aye. Item 70 is approved unanimously 5-0. Next section on the agenda is resolutions. Item 88A is consideration to approve a resolution adopting the Washington City 2026-2027 fiscal year budget. As I understand, Brian Brown is out of town, so I'll turn to City Manager Jeremy Redd. Thank you, Mayor.

Brian is sad he's not here tonight. This is his favorite night of the year. Besides the night he gets to talk about the audit, this is exciting stuff for him.

One shining moment. He had a vacation planned.

And this item was supposed to come up last week, but because we canceled our meeting, it got pushed to this month. Adopting the budget is always exciting. Starts, you know, early in the year, January ish with the city council going through their priorities and and all the department heads. And we've gone through the process. We held a budget hearing on May 13th, produced the budget back in March. The tentative budget, we adopted that. This is the final step to adopt the budget. So my recommendation is to adopt the fiscal year 2026, 2027 budget in the total amount of $136,614,925, which I will note is about $2.5 million less than last year's budget. Thank you, Jeremy. Questions for the city manager? Yeah, just real quick. Statutorily, when does it have to be approved? It has to be approved before the end of June. Unless you're doing truth and taxation to raise taxes, then you have a couple of extra months to go through that process. But by statute, it has to be approved by the end of June.

I think the budget's gone down the last three years, hasn't it?

At least two of the last three that I remember. A lot of that is based on the projects we're doing kind of fluctuate up and down. But I think it's also good to note that the city is always looking for ways to be more efficient with our funds where we can.

And I think that's what's a compliment. My personal comment to our staff is that Mayor Staley says Washington way. We find ways to do things with less that yet we achieve the high watermarks that other cities do by spending more. For a lot of you that are listening at home and here, a lot of this work was done long before this meeting. We visited with department heads. We've listened. We've investigated. We've reached back out. And, you know, I just wanted to share just my compliments to the city. You know, I'm very proud of the fact that our staff honors the taxpayers' money and that they spend it with wisdom in a way that,

directly benefits them as being our residents and I think we do a good job of that so mayor it was a very good experience this year through the budget every department head was wonderful made time answered questions or got back to me Councilman Harvey I think it's fair to say that it's been out to the public in full for the last month exactly right for people to review before we even come to this point to to look at it right so I think six at least six weeks because

So it's been out there quite a while.

And we've had the public hearing. Really good points. Thank you, Councilman Ivey. I think this elected body would echo those sentiments and express our appreciation to the staff and the department heads and those boots on the ground that work really hard. Additional comments, discussion on this before we get this budget approved with weeks to spare. Head of the game, Rusty, as usual.

Mayor, I'm happy to make a motion if you're ready for one.

Yes, Councilman.

Mayor, I'll make a motion that we approve a resolution adopting the Washington City 2026-2027 fiscal year budget. In the amount of? In the amount of $136,614,925.

You've heard the motion by Councilman Meliston. Is there a second? Second. I have a second by Councilman Coates. Roll call vote, beginning with... Council member Ivey. Aye. Casperson. Aye. Belliston. Aye. Henderson. Aye. Coates. Aye. That is approved unanimously on a vote of five to zero. Really good work. Really good work on that budget. Just to build on your comments a little bit. I mean, even from halfway through the year, You know, with our retreat, we're identifying priorities. The departments are looking at capital projects. They're looking at the enterprise funds. It's just really appreciate that. I know that I heard some feedback from another individual, another elected individual that indicated that they felt like Washington City was the best managed and best run city in the county. And we didn't disagree one bit, did we, Jordan?

We didn't disagree.

Item 8B is consideration to approve a resolution authorizing the Washington City Public Safety and Firefighter Department's Tier 1 Contributory Retirement System. Jeremy Redd will present to the council.

Thank you, Mayor. This will look familiar because we have passed one of these pretty much every year since you've been sitting on the council. It formalizes the city's desire to pick up the contribution for the tier two public safety and firefighter employees. We did try to write it this year so that hopefully we don't have to do it again every year, but we'll see. URS usually just requires that we go through it and reiterate that we still plan to do that each year. So that's what it is.

Thank you. Tier two. But I'm telling you, the first line is darker than the second. Without my glasses, you know, it looked like tier one. But thank you, Jeremy. Tier two, contributory term racism. Any discussion on this? If not, I'm happy to call for a motion.

I've seen those glasses. Mayor, I'll make a motion. You just need to wear those at your next event.

My goodness. I'm just going to darken this up a little bit. So if I have to ever read it again, I'll know it's tier two.

Mayor, I'll make a motion to authorize Washington City Public Safety and Firefighter Department Tier 2 contributory retirement system.

I have a motion by Councilman Coase. Is there a second? Second. Second by Councilwoman Casperson. Still on resolution here. So we'll go roll call beginning with Councilmember, are you up, Ivy? Councilmember Casperson. BELLISTON, AYE. HENDERSON, AYE. COATES, AYE. IVEY, AYE. THAT'S APPROVED UNANIMOUS 5-0. ITEM 8C, THIS IS CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE CREATION OF A UTAH INLAND PORT AUTHORITY PROJECT AREA IN WASHINGTON CITY. WE HAD A GREAT PRESENTATION BY OUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR DURING THE WORKSHOP ALONG WITH DANNY STEWART FROM THE INLAND PORT. The name of this would be the Greater Washington Port, I guess, port? Not landfill, Councilman Coates, not landfill. Council, I'm happy to invite either or both of them up if you have further questions or that would lend to the discussion. Otherwise, I'm happy to turn to you for further discussion and or a motion on this.

If everyone's comfortable, I'm ready to make a motion.

I mean, it sounds like everyone's comfortable. Just that political reason I brought up in our work session. I'm just thinking about it as well. I think my only other question would be is even if we create this, does it automatically go into effect on everything going forward on those areas?

Rusty or Danny, whoever is most appropriate to answer that.

Council decides we decide not to do this in a year and nothing's really happened. Do we have the opportunity to just back out of this? I guess is my question.

So with the creation of the project area at this point, it's lines on a map. Nothing is really put into effect until we come back and decide whether or not to trigger parcels and begin to utilize those tax increment tools.

All right. that I feel comfortable moving forward right now as long as we have more discussion about it as we get closer to that triggering.

Like how we're going to use it and have the terms for it and everything.

Yeah. I appreciate that. That's a good question. You know, for me, it helps that it's all state statute so that we're not bouncing out of lines and not .

I feel like that there's not an increase in tax. There's not an additional tax. And then we can use it for infrastructure that's needed.

Yeah, that's a key point, Councilman, the infrastructure for the project itself. So those dollars go back into the project to bring those out of the ground. Well said. Further discussion on this? And I think if we're doing our jobs right, working with the other taxing entities, I think good coordination and communication can work through that. But your points are well taken, Councilman.

Councilmember Ivey. Mayor, make a motion to approve a resolution supporting the creation of a Utah Inland Port Authority project in Washington City.

You've heard the motion by Councilman Ivey to approve the Utah Inland Port Authority project area in Washington City. There's a second by Councilman Belliston. Let's go roll call beginning with Councilmember Casperson. Aye. Ivey.

Aye.

Coates. Aye. Henderson.

Aye. Belliston. Aye.

THAT'S APPROVED UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ITEM 8D, CONSIDERATION TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION OF FIRST AMENDMENT TO SITE PLAN AND SUPPLEMENTAL AGREEMENT ADDENDUM TO STOOKY FARM PCD.

THE APPLICANT IS ALAYA.

AND I'LL TURN TO STAFF FOR THEIR REPORT ON THIS BEFORE WE INVITE THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE TO COME FORWARD.

Thank you, Mayor. I'm going to do a poor imitation of our city attorney, but I'll read some of his language. And then you'll ask me what it means, because it's written in legalese. This amendment that Stuckey Farms PCD establishes a framework for the potential future exchange of the designated public park parcel. So essentially, if they are able to find a piece that is suitable to exchange where we're discussing that that's an option that they could make that request subject to the conditions and city approval. It also provides procedures for dedication of the fire station parcel and identifies an alternative location within the development if clear title to the originally designated parcel cannot be obtained within the timeframe. So if you remember that parcel had sort of a cloud over the title, I wouldn't say a cloud, but like a first right of refusal. And so they need to continue to clear that up. But essentially the trigger time has come for them to turn those parcels over to continue with the PCD. And in order to do that, they're happy to do that. But they wanted a few considerations. Maybe the council would look at those things, one of those being they need to clear that title. And if they can't, they have another piece that they would they would swap for us. And then the park piece, if they find a suitable piece to trade in the future, they they would like us to consider that.

So, Jeremy, my understanding is they've already transferred the property to us. I believe that's correct.

Yes.

OK. They wanted to do that so they could continue on with their their bill. Jeremy, what's the timeline for a fire station in that area? I know it's years out, but do we have just kind of an idea and does that line up with what the timeline is to clear this up?

Yeah, I don't have any concern about that. It gives 24 months and that should be plenty of time. We don't know. Even in the best case scenario, I don't see us being ready to do that within 24 months. So I think that's no problem. Same thing with really the piece that's designated for a park. We're working on our parks master plan right now, but I don't see that that's going to happen within the next two years. So staff doesn't have any concern with moving forward with this addendum.

Any additional questions for staff?

Would the applicant's representative? I have questions, but I'd like to hear from the applicant's rep first.

Mr. Anderson, come forward and just state your name and share what you'd like for us to know.

I'm Tim Anderson. I'm a lawyer with the Curtin McConkey and I represent Stuckey Farms. And it actually was so well stated by Councilman Redd that I really don't have much to add. You know, Thad usually does a really good job, but I think he's got a pretty good substitute. So I'd be glad to answer any questions, but it was very well stated.

I think Councilman Coates had a question.

I don't have any questions for him. It's more for the council and Mr. Brad. Sorry.

Can I have like an honorary law degree or something for doing this? They sell those online. I have a vacant office.

If you'll just stay close, Mr. Anderson, I'll let Councilman member Coates ask some questions and have some discussion.

So my question and it's I just don't understand why we're doing this agreement because in this document there's no lands that are been identified for a future park or future fire station. And I think we're always open to trading for land that's just as good. So I don't understand why we're even doing this agreement. The lands have been transferred to us. We're always open to different lands and we can discuss that when those lands get identified and we can discuss if this is better for us or in the future. I just don't understand why we're agreeing to this because then I feel like it takes more control away from the property that we've already agreed to when they got their approvals for their additional density and all that. So that's that's where I'm struggling is I just don't think we need this because we're when the lands have been identified, then come talk to us and we'll go that route then. That's just where I'm standing is I just feel like this is tying us tighter than we need to.

I think that's that's a reasonable question and probably a reasonable comment. I would say there's probably two reasons. Number one, it does give that 24 month time frame so the city wouldn't have to do this. Certainly we could we could say no, but it It gives them a little bit of assurance that we won't do anything within 24 months to give them time to do some things on their end. And then the second reason is just because simply they asked for an amendment and they wanted your consideration on whether you'd give them these assurances. And again, a lot of it is when we talk about they have to meet the specified conditions and city approval. So you're right.

could you know anybody could bring us property and ask us to trade or do things but i think the biggest thing is it it kind of holds us for 24 months well i'm going to say right now the first 24 months we just approved the budget and we have no budget to do anything with this anyway so there's a year yeah and within a year hopefully they have it identified and we start negotiating next year that's why i'm just like i just don't see the point in this i think it holds us more that we need to, but Tim may have some more insight that I don't have.

If I could just respond. I think the thing is that if they they really do have to go a considerable effort to acquire this additional property to substitute for the park. So the park now is owned by the city. The park land is owned by the city, but they sort of have the right to get it back if they can acquire the additional suitable land, which you understand could be suitable if they can get it. But it's not something they really want to go to an effort to get if it just isn't if they can't and so it's to it's a lot of effort a lot of expense they're willing to innovate bet on themselves they can do it within two years and if they can't then they don't succeed so that's really the main reason and I and I can understand that but I also am like we already agreed upon this less than a year ago and if they want to go

trade for some additional lands that's in the general area or buy additional lands and swap us, we'll always entertain it. But I don't, what I'm saying is within the next two years, I don't see us funding anything to build that park unless Stuckey or Alea decides that we meet our obligations to our original contract and they want us to start. I don't think we're gonna do that. I'm just struggling with one, I don't know where the location is that they're proposing. There's always additional costs to go with. Like, what if it's some weird land in the middle of nowhere? I don't know. Like, I don't know.

It just it has to be suitable to the city. If we can't acquire what the city would be interested in having, then that we don't survive that test either. So there's they have to do some pretty good work to get it to.

And I think that's their risk because it sounds to me like they want to move the park so that they can develop where the park is so they can get more development. So it's worth the investment if that's what they want to do to get that. And there can be discussions on preliminary locations with minimal costs if they can acquire those lands. I mean, there's going to be some cost no matter what they do if they want to transfer the land. I just don't see why this is in the benefit of the city. I don't see that this agreement works, but I'm me as a council member. I'm open to discussion to talk about that, but I don't think an agreement is necessary.

The other thing in the agreement that I think does really benefit the city, at least that part, is that we we now have title to a piece of property that has an issue with it. It has a right of first refusal on it. And so this also identifies they have 24 months to get that removed or else we will take this other piece in exchange.

But didn't we already have that in the agreement that they had to clear the title?

So they still need to do that anyways. Yeah, this puts a timeframe now on that. So the original agreement didn't have a timeframe for them to have to turn it over to us. It was when they got adjacent to it with development, which that time has now come. We essentially are giving them now two years to get that issue cleared up with the title. So now we have another piece that we've identified.

So correct me if I'm wrong, this was generated by THAAD to kind of get this going, right?

Well, that and Mr. Anderson and yeah, we we all worked on it. But what what initially happened is they got to the point where it was time for them in their PCD agreement to turn over that property was time to deed it to the city. And I think that that's when everybody looked at it and said, OK, well, we you know, there's some things that we'd like to look at here. One, we still have still have an issue on one piece. And number two, would you be willing to trade? So that's really and I look at it like we're not locking ourselves down. Do we need to? You could say no, and they could go out and do it on their own, but I think it's a good faith effort to work with a developer.

It probably doesn't harm the city by doing it. Councilman Coates, I mean, I don't see a whole lot of harm in doing it, and I can certainly see from their point of view they have some assurance that they can do it, especially knowing what I know about dealing with the state trust. And I've dealt with them too. I understand the difficulties, right?

I understand there's time. I'm just saying I don't think this is a benefit to the city. I think it only constricts the city more. But in good faith, they can go work on it. Let's work on the problem without an agreement between us. Let's just go work on that problem that they already agreed to. We've got a lot of agreements with them, and they haven't fulfilled some of them already. So it's kind of like I'm just struggling going into more agreements with them when it was hard to just get to where we are today.

I know I had a conversation with Thad. I can't remember exact specifics, but I know he felt that it was important to get this in place.

So Mr. Anderson, I think that if the council passes this tonight, it may be a furtherance of that good faith effort that as the LA group looks for locations that they visit, communicate with our parks department. because there's obviously some pieces that are cheaper for us to develop as a city if they're flatter or if they have utilities near them. And so that good faith effort could be extended and conversations had that may bring us back some better options too by having a conversation beforehand.

Yeah. Relative to this agreement or just ongoing?

I'm just saying that with this agreement, two years, there may be another piece that pops up and they And then they can have those conversations because our park staff will bring a recommendation and just to have that conversation and talk about it.

I think there could. I think the main thing is they as pointed out, SITLA is not easy to deal with. It's going to be quite an undertaking. They're willing to do it if they see that this is an opportunity.

I'm OK. I'm OK with the agreement. I just I think that I just think that the city could leverage some of that conversation, too, as that goes forward, be kept in the loop and let our parks know what's

I THINK THAT GOOD ONGOING COMMUNICATION, PARTICULARLY BETWEEN THIS GROUP AND THE CITY, CAN BE IMPROVED, AND I THINK THAT'S ALSO A RESULT THAT WE'RE TRYING TO FIX WITH SOME OF THESE AGREEMENTS, AND I HOPE THAT YOU WILL SEE BETTER COOPERATION FROM MY CLIENT GOING FORWARD.

ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE? THANK YOU, MR. ANDERSON.

I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. GO AHEAD. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. WE APPROVE THE RESOLUTION FOR the amendment to the site plan and supplemental agreement for the Stuckey Farms PCD with the condition that future parks can't be within floodplains.

Council, you've heard Councilman's Councilman Coates motion with condition. Is there a second on this motion?

Second.

We've got a motion and a second. The motion is to approve with the condition that none of the lands being considered would be in the floodplain. So, Mayor, I want to clarify that that should be added to the agreement. That would be added to the agreement. We've got a motion and a second. We're going to go roll call vote on this beginning with Councilmember Ivey.

Thanks, Mayor.

Take the time you need. I'm a aye, Mayor.

Councilmember Coates? I'll be aye because that's what the staff has recommended. Henderson? Aye.

Elliston? Aye. Casperson? Aye. That is approved with the motion as stated unanimously 5-0. We'll move on to a report of officers from assigned committees, starting on my left with Council Member Bellston.

With Memorial Weekend, Mayor, there wasn't, everything seemed to get canceled, summer trips and all, so.

Councilman Henderson.

Thank you, Mayor. I did have a mosquito district meeting a few weeks ago, and it went well. It's the second-best-run government entity in the county. Washington City is the first, but they're a close second. Is the landfill somewhere on that list? I don't know. It's pretty good, too.

We'll take third. We're all right with that. No, Mayor, apparently we have to come to our meetings in the summer months, so I had two this week, or two last week. That power board, power board was pretty light. They just talked about the new power line going along Washington Parkway. Wires are pretty much all the way in up to almost to the trailhead. So there's a couple of wires from the pole across Parkway to the trailhead that still need to be done. And they're still working on the substation. So there is the power board, the UAMS power board meeting coming up in August too. I'm probably not going to go this year. I try to go every other year, but. We'll see if the wife wants to go, see if we can make it work. As far as the Washington County solid waste, we had our meeting on Monday. It was, again, a light meeting. But one of the things that came up is we are closing our CIB fund loan for the buildings. We finally are closing it out. We used about $800,000 less than we needed. So that was a good thing. So we return that money, and we don't get charged that money for that phase. The other thing that came up is there was, it was just more of a informational, is that there's a group from Central wanting to have more, because they have a transfer station up there, and they want a curbside. But up there, if you know in the rural areas, they have some tough roads to drive those big heavy trucks up, and so... went through a pretty good analysis and i was surprised at just the community that actually came out we did a poll at the transfer station and they the it was 90 voted to stay with the transfer station even though we couldn't physically do it they still did the poll to see what it seemed like there was a couple residents that wanted it but the majority did not want it so they're going to stay They have a couple places in the central that are curbside, but most because of the types of roads and everything, they have to use that transfer station, which is a manned transfer station that does get used pretty heavily up there.

That's pretty much it.

Thank you.

Councilman Ivey.

We did have a legislative policy meeting this last week, but nothing to report on that that would rise the level of sharing. In the MPO, there was discussion about the travel demand module updates and tools and Blake had already met and shared what we felt like our city needed with Horrocks and he was right on top of it got it done and and I was very proud of the fact that we'd already got in and got that done. The other update that I would share is regarding Merrill Road that is due to be paid next week and it's due to be open the end of June which is important we'd really like that open before school starts again get that construction wide, get that road widened up. Then the last thing I'd mention, Mayor, is this last week we had St. George area Chamber of Commerce sponsored a luncheon where the commissioner candidates all spoke and it was very informative and I appreciate the candidates taking a minute to visit and share their vision for the county and that it was really well attended and there was a lot of good information shared there. That's my report, Mayor.

Thank you, Councilman. Councilwoman Casperson.

And neither do I. We'll move along to City Manager report. Thank you, Mayor. I do have a couple of items tonight. If any of you have been in the IT hallway in the last five years, you've seen it's been full of old equipment. I mean, almost hard to get through. I want to really compliment our IT department. It used to be that that old equipment was worth something. And lately, it's really not worth much once you get it done and you have to do something with it. So they have recycled 2,100 pounds of e-waste, they call it. And if you go over there now, that has been taken away. And they give us credit for whatever they can scrap it for. And so kudos to David and his staff, who've done a good job getting that cleaned up. If you go over there, you'll notice. Second item, our contractor is still on track for the signal light at Harvest Lane and Merrill Road. That's the one that's in front of the Paseo project and in front of our elementary school. They're working on the installation right now. And cross your fingers if the steel arrives on time, then we would like to have it up and running before school begins in August, which will be a nice.

So that signal will be at Harvest and Merrill?

Harvest and Merrill, yes. And then. This is really the mayor's item, but I'll steal his thunder. The Washington County Water Conservancy District increased the incentive for grass removal beginning immediately and for projects completed before June of 2027. They've raised that to $3 per square foot for the first 1000 square feet and then $2, which was the current amount for the additional square footage. The intent being to encourage customers to remove more grass voluntarily as a drought measure. And they want to begin immediately. So they really only have a year to do it, guaranteed. Is that accurate? That's accurate. That's accurate. That's all I have, Mayor. Thank you.

Thank you, Jeremy. Also, maybe Blake or John can talk to this one. Councilman Ivey mentioned Merrill Road, the asphalt. You mentioned the traffic signal. Are we doing, is it storm drain or sewer that's coming down around 2000? And can you just give us a quick update on that? Because all three of those have got to come together.

Yeah, so on Merrill Road, we replaced the storm drain for that section. And then we also put in new parallel sewer. This parallel sewer goes up and connects to the one that we did on 2000. So once they get done paving, they'll turn the corner and they'll be putting the sewer in between Merrill Road and 2000 on 20 East. This will finally complete a project that we've been working on over about five years of sections of this. And so I'm really excited to finally have that and then it will go live. So can you talk just a little bit to timeline and amount of disruption still with tying those sewer lines together? So it's not so difficult tying them together because it's all one sewer line. So they just started at the bottom and they're working up. and then they'll connect at 2000. The disruption, they were able to take it out of, when they put it in, they brought, stubbed it out of 2000 so that it won't affect 2000. So it's basically 20 east along the side will be probably closed off. South from Merrill? Merrill to, from Merrill, or 2000, then south to Merrill. That will be, that will start having some closures as they move along. But Merrill, the east-west is going to open back up with the paving and then the light by the schools. Yes. MERRILL AND FIELDS ROAD WILL GET TO BE ACTUALLY REALLY UTILIZED BECAUSE WE ENDED UP CLOSING RIGHT WHEN WE GOT THE LIGHT UP. YEAH.

TIMELINE AGAIN ON THE HARVEST LANE AND MERRILL LIGHT. IS ST. GEORGE PUTTING THAT IN OR ARE WE DOING THAT CONSTRUCTION?

NO, IT'S US. IT'S A COMBINATION. WE'RE SHARING THE FUNDING. WE'RE SHARING THE FUNDING AND THEN WE'RE PUTTING THAT IN RIGHT NOW. IN ORDER TO SAVE ON TEARING UP NEW PAVING AND EVERYTHING, WE WERE ABLE TO GET THE BID IN to where the contractor that was awarded was Sunrock, who was already working on the St. George portion there, as well as the Merrill Road and Fields Road light. So they just mobilized, got it done. They said, can we just start now? And so we hurried that along, got that going. So weeks, a month? It will be close to school starting. It just really depends on the steel. We'll have everything done. But all of the underground will be stubbed and ready? Yeah, everything will be ready that way. We're just waiting for the steel. And we're hoping it's not as delayed as it was on the fields in Merrill. But if it is, what we'll do is we'll arrange for it to be installed. It can be installed in about two days. So we'll arrange for like a Friday afternoon when school's out and then do it on Saturday. So we'll do it minimally. minimal disruption. The nice thing about that is the bike trail that they're putting on along the edge of Paseo will come down and so it'll provide those people that are over in the 240 area a way to walk to school and have a traffic signal. Oh fantastic. So it's going to be really good for that.

Any other public works projects right now that the council could be updated on?

uh just we continue to do our seal coating um and that's going along well uh that's covering a lot of a lot of preventative maintenance um and getting a lot of kind of trying to catch up on some of those roads that we pushed off to be able to get 2000 done and uh and this merrill road project so we're we're getting some of those things done and uh just kind of try to wrap up this capital projects for this year and then we've got plenty for next year. A lot of signals this next year. So I think we have five signals on the docket and it's got four. No, I don't know.

Yeah, we know what he's talking about, and I'm kind of with him on that one. So anyway, grapple with that.

We've got a presentation. Got a presentation for the next meeting, so don't get ahead of us.

It's a very entertaining movie, so.

Thanks, Blake.

OK, thanks.

Anything else, Jeremy? We do not have need for closed session. So council, I will turn to you for a motion to adjourn. So moved.

Second.

Motion by Councilman Coates, second by Councilman Ellison. All in favor?

Aye.

We are adjourned with a unanimous vote. Have a nice rest of your evening.