We'd like to welcome everyone here
today.
Zip it.
Welcome everyone. If you want to stay in
the council chambers, you need to stop
talking.
Okay. All right. We'd like to welcome
everyone. I'm Melissa Clark. I'm filling
in as mayor prom today. Mayor Gray is on
line with us um until about 5:30, but
he's asked me to conduct because I'm
here in person. Um this is the work
session for July 21st, 2026 and it is 4
pm and we are going to start with our
discussion and information items. Our
first item on our discussion agenda is
an overview of Best Friends Animal
Society programs. And this was a request
brought by Council Member Huish and
Council Member Whiting. And I'd like to
give Council Member Whiting just a quick
second to talk about why he asked to
have this on the agenda.
Well, I think there's a numerous reasons
and I'm grateful that that you're here.
This is awesome and we're excited to
hear from you and I don't want to take
too much time explaining it, but I love
cats and uh I love animals and
apparently council member Huish is on
board with enough of that as well, but
there's I think there's some awesome
tools that they can provide to the city
to improve the way we we care for
animals in our community. So,
awesome. Um, so we'll invite Kate Hall
and Bailey Tolton from Best Friends
Animal Society to come up to the
microphone and present to us.
Okay, awesome. Can you guys hear me?
Okay. Okay. Um, we're gonna kind of tag
team this, so I'm going to start the
first half and then I'll turn it over to
Bailey. Um, but my name is Kate Hall. I
am a campaign strategist with Best
Friends. Um, and thank you so much for
having us here today. We're super
excited. Um, thanks to Council Member
Whiting and Huish for allowing us to be
here. Um, and we met with them
previously to discuss some of this. So,
we're just super excited. Um, in your
packets, you should have received two
documents from us, I believe. Um, the
first one is an ordinance review. Um, we
do this quite frequently throughout the
state of Utah and throughout the
country. Um, this was requested to just
see how your city ordinance is doing. if
there's anything you can do better with
pets, anything you can do better with
community cats, things like that. Um,
and the one thing that we found that we
would recommend is to update to accept
the community cat act. Um, that was a
law that went into effect, I think it
was 2011. Um, the legislature passed,
but it's an opt-in, so cities have to
add it to their ordinances. Um, recently
Cedar City and Salt Lake have added
those. And so the language that you see
before you is language that we've copied
from Cedar City. Um so our legal team
drafted that. Um it should be
applicable. You can put that right in
your ordinance um if you want to. Um so
that is the first document and I'm happy
to answer any questions. I'm not I don't
have a legal background so I'd be happy
to pass on any questions that I don't
have the answers to to our legal team
and get back to you. Um the second
document that you have in front of you
is this Utah County resources. Um it
just has four different ways that we're
offering to partner with cities in Utah
County. One being the ordinance review.
So you've already done that which is
great. Um the second option is to put
some information on your website. Um
American Fork, the city of American Fork
has done that. Um and so I'd be happy to
share that link with you guys. Um you
can also just Google American Fork
Animal Control and it should pop up. Um,
but they've added some resources.
They've added a phone number for us and
it's actually decreasing the workload on
their animal control um because we're
responding to more of the complaints
about cats um that city members might
have and they're able to prioritize
those higher priority um asks from the
community. So um that's one thing.
Another is to do community canvasing.
So, if there's areas in your city that
you know you have a big colony of cats
and you know that you have some
neighbors that are great and they love
the cats and then some neighbors that
might not love the cats. Um, we can do
outreach and we provide free deterrence
for people who don't want the cats in
their yard. They work very well. Um, we
can set them up. They're free. Um, and
then we can also provide resources for
the people who do like the cats. So, we
have a a clinic here in Oram actually
that does spay and neuters for just a
dollar. So, we offer those services to
community members. Um, and then the last
thing that we offer to partner is the
community cat program. So, that's doing
an entire pilot program. Um, it includes
a lot of these other options as well.
And I'm going to let Bailey kind of talk
more about that because she's the
community cat expert. So,
hi everyone. So, my name is Bailey
Tilton and I actually live in Eagle
Mountain um in city center. I've lived
here since 2020. I love our city. Um,
it's been a great place to raise my
kids. I do work, uh, for Best Friends as
the community cat program coordinator.
So, um, I'm not sure if you know this,
Utah County is the only county in the
whole state of Utah that is still
euthanizing healthy animals in our
shelters. Eagle Mountains animals go to
one of those shelters and
um those
not only are we paying for these animals
to go to the shelter, but a lot of them
don't have great outcomes. Uh Eagle
Mountain with us becoming so big and so
many people moving in, we've seen um an
increase in how many cats from our city
have entered that shelter. Um, Cedar
City is similar in size to us and they
have started a community cat program. I
did try and get data from them um,
regarding how it's going and was unable
to do that. But I did find a study that
was published in New Mexico or yeah,
Albuquerque, New Mexico at their shelter
and when they started their community
cat program, it reduced the cat intake
by 37%.
Um, feline euthanasia decreased by 84%
by having this program and the live
release rate was 47.1%
meaning almost 48% more cats left that
shelter alive.
Um, why this matters to me and why I
think it should matter to Eagle
Mountain. Um, we all want our tax
dollars to be spent wisely. I know you
guys know that and I know the citizens
know that as well.
Um, I think this is a great opportunity
for us to be proactive with our growing
city. I think it is a
great opportunity to use our money to
have our animal services money to help
animals be reunited with their owners
versus us paying for them to be killed
in our shelter.
Um, the cats that are killed in our
shelters, I
they don't deserve it. I think the root
problem is people being irresponsible
pet owners. I don't think it's fair that
these cats have to die simply because we
are letting our unfixed pets outside.
So, with that being said, I hope Eagle
Mountain will consider learning about
how this program has helped other
communities.
And I think we have a great opportunity
not only to save lives, but to use our
tax dollars more efficiently.
And I think this is a great way for
Eagle Mountain to show that we are
compassionate and we are forward
thinking as a community.
Thanks.
Thank you. Um, does council have any
questions for our
council member?
I have a few. Council member Clark, can
you just maybe really quickly remind me
one, is there a cost of the program for
the city to participate in in what
you're doing? Just what what does that
structure look like? What what's the ask
of the city? I obviously I think it is a
problem. I have a couple situations in
my own neighborhood and I imagine
everyone does in their neighborhoods.
Um, how many do you know how many cats
are going to the are being euthanized
from our city that are going I guess
going to that one particular shelter?
And then maybe just walk us through the
quickly through the process of you have
a cat, it gets spayed and is just put
back in place to where it was before. Is
there a way that you mark those cats so
you know if they've been spayed so you
don't have kind of re just maybe walk us
through uh cost and then process? Yeah.
So, I can do the cost piece and then
I'll let Bailey Yeah. Um, so the cost
would be free to the city. We're
offering these as just good faith and um
and free program. Um, like I said, it's
a pilot program. Um, and so we have
we've made a couple proposals. The last
one we put together was from American
Fork. We haven't officially signed
anything with them yet, so it's not
currently in place. Um, but what we
agreed to with them was a one-year pilot
to see how much it would decrease the
workload on animal control officers. Um,
see if it would decrease the intake on
the shelter and what percentage. And
then we would re-evaluate in a year and
see if that program is worth their time,
if they want to continue it. Um, we
offered a few years ago to do this with
Probo and they wanted to do a three-year
program. Um, so it kind of just depends
on what you guys are are wanting to do.
Um, but Eventually, when we've done this
in other areas, um after we do it for a
number of years, it actually decreases
the problem enough to where we're not
putting in any more resources and the uh
the animal control officers are able to
take over the program fully without any
increase to the budget because the cat
population has decreased so much. So,
they're not having to spend as much
resources. So, I hope that makes sense.
[laughter]
Yeah. And then as far as how many have
entered the shelter, I know in May of
this year we it took 14 cats. Um last I
checked from our grandma requests it was
14 cats specifically from Eagle
Mountain. We do offer $1 spayneuter to
the community and we have seen an
increase in those from Eagle Mountain
showing up to get the community cats
fixed. I don't have an exact number on
how many are from Eagle Mountain, but we
do have that data um that we can send
you. And then as far as how we know
they're fixed, when they go to the
spayneuter clinic, we ear tipped their
left ear, I believe. Um and that ear tip
indicates that they have been spayed
neutered and we also vaccinate as well
during that time. So yeah, all of that
would be free to the city if we do a
community cat program. Um, and I believe
we also have resources to pick up the
animals and transport
um, as well to the SP clinic.
Okay. Is there any catch? Anything I'm
not missing here?
I I don't think so. Um, yeah, we it
would be a customizable plan. So, we
would love to sit down with any animal
control officers or anyone involved um,
and get an idea of what their specific
issues, what their specific needs are.
Um, we are offering these services
because Utah County has a really high
cat population. And like Bailey said,
this county is the only county in the
state that is still killing healthy,
treatable animals. And so we we aren't
offering these services in a lot of
other counties. Um, most of the other
counties are running similar programs
through their own shelters. Um, and so
there's no catch. We're just offering to
help um decrease the community cat
population. So, thank you.
Thank you.
Any other questions?
I have one.
Go ahead, Council Member.
Yeah. So, can you just help me
understand how you guys are funded? I
mean, who's funding you? You guys are
here working. It's a job. Obviously,
you're collecting a paycheck. So, how
are you funded?
Um, as an organization, um, we have a
number of donors. It's a national
organization. Um, we're based in Canab,
actually. Um, so that's where our
headquarters is. We actually have the
largest animal sanctuary in the entire
country. So, if you get a chance to go
down there, highly recommend it. Um, but
we have a number of donors. We also
partner with a lot of rescues and so a
lot of our money goes out to the
rescues. Um, we have a ton of grant
programs that we provide them. Um, but
it's mostly donors. It's community
members that just want to help out in
their own communities. Um, some people
will have specific things that they want
the donations to go to, like Utah
specific projects. Other people will
just say, "Here's 20 bucks. Do with it
what you need." Um, so most of it is
donations. were a nonprofit 501c3.
Um, with other communities that have
used the program or a similar program
and they transitioned from a kill
shelter to a no kill shelter, what has
that process been like and have you guys
played any role in assisting those
communities to know what they should be
doing and how to implement that?
Yeah, so we have a lot of different
programs. Um, like I said, we're a
nationwide um, organization. Um, and
we've played hand in a lot of shelters.
Um, going from no kill to or going from
not yet no kill to no kill. Um, and for
those not aware of that term, um, no
kill is just language that we use in
shelter world. Um, and it means that
shelters are hitting a 90% save rate. So
90% of the animals that are going in
there are having live positive outcomes.
um we recognize that some animals are
going to be sick and they need to be
euthanized and they're suffering or
there are unfortunately dangerous
animals that we don't want back into the
to the community. So that's what that
10% buffer kind of accounts for. Um and
so we just recently we helped two
states. Montana recently just became an
entire nokill state. Um and I think
Idaho as well. Um and we've played a
role in a number of Utah shelters. I
think when we started in Utah about a
third of the shelters were no kill and
now we're up to all but two and there's
59 in shelters throughout the state. Um
and how that process works is we work
with each individual shelter to assess
their needs. So sometimes they need
veterinary assistance and so we have an
inbed program. We will send veterinary
assistants or actual veterinarians into
a shelter to provide training um to help
kind of with that workload. and then
ease them off of it and get them going.
Um, we also provide grant programs. So,
if it's an issue of funding, which I
know a lot of municipal shelters have
not enough funding, um, and so we
provide grant programs. So, just things
like that based off of what individual
shelters need.
Awesome. Thank you. Any other questions
before we um, is there any direction or
thoughts that council would like to
convey to staff? I I'm supportive of
this, but I So would we bring this back
up in the legislative portion of our
scheduled or our policy meeting?
I think we can
to make a motion then
because I I'm supportive.
Same.
Awesome. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you so much.
Um we'll invite Kiara P and Elizabeth
Mcnanny. Just a clarification, the last
one. You mean at a future meeting
because it's not on the agenda.
Legislative priorities.
Oh, legislative priorities. Okay. Yep.
All right. As they're making their way
up, they're going to talk to us about
our program year 2026, community
development block grant funding
priorities and project planning. So,
ladies,
sweet. Thank you guys. Um,
okay. We thought this might happen. So,
we have a quick little backup detour.
I'm going to let Elizabeth introduce.
She's gonna be presenting and then I
will
Okay.
I'm Elizabeth Mcnanny. I work with
resource consultants and I've been
working with the city of Eagle Mountain
for the last few months and kind of
transitioning helping to transition the
CDBG program back inhouse. My background
is I've worked with HUD programs for
probably 15 years. is I've worked with
federal programs kind of all across the
board, everything from federal highways
to USDA as well as HUD and Treasury for
about 20 years. And I am excited to be
here. Thank you, council, for having me
here today.
Yay.
Okay, we can just go right past the
front page. Do I Do I have a clicker?
Does this work?
Okay.
All right. We'll talk about just the
overview of entitlement funds. It'll be
a quick overview and an overview of
what's in the annual action plan, kind
of next steps because you'll be seeing
me again in just a couple of weeks. And
I'd welcome any feedback.
So, Eagle Mountain is an entitlement
community and to be an entitlement
community, you must have 50,000 people
as a city and not also be involved with
an urban county. So, there are cities
that have the access to entitlement
funds, but they choose to still run
their funds under an urban county. So
Eagle Mountain has been an entitlement
city for two years. We have just started
the third year and we'll talk about that
as we go through this.
So CDBG is a formula process and there
is a YouTube video about how HUD
determines the annual allocation. It is
super riveting if anyone is interested.
[laughter]
So this really targets these funds
target housing and community development
activities
really aimed at households that earn 80%
or below of the area median income and
HUDs are HUD funds are received directly
rather than through the state as an
entitlement community.
So, just to kind of give you a baseline
for what the 80% means, you can see
here, these are the updated numbers.
They came out last month. A single
member household can earn up to $66,750
and qualify as 80% area median income.
So anything below that is eligible for
any household below that is eligible to
receive funding through CDBG with
certain caveats.
So the CDBG program the primary
objectives are to develop viable urban
communities primarily for low and
moderate income persons through decent
housing and a suitable living
environment and expanded economic
opportunities. A lot of times that's
talking about housing, public services
and the built environment.
There are national objectives. Every
activity that is undertaken must meet a
national objective. The most common one
is benefit to LMI households. The next
one prevent and eliminate slum or blight
is very restricted with very specific
caveats that must you know things that
must be met before that can be used. And
the third one is address an urgent need.
You would never use that one unless HUD
tells you you can.
It's typically a natural disaster.
So the core principles are again to bene
benefit LMI persons and communities and
community participation
and leveraging and partners. You'll see
in the next couple of slides there's not
enough money in the CDBG program for
Eagle Mountain City to solve anyone
challenge that you might face. But it's
about strategic and targeted investment.
things that are eligible, housing,
[snorts]
rehabilitation,
um economic development,
public services. Here's kind of a list
of public services. This is definitely
not exhaustive. There's a much longer
list, but these are some. you have
supported subsistence payments, meaning
um utility assistance as well as food
pantry services within Eagle Mountain
City through CDBG previously, public
facilities and neighborhood
improvements. You have also worked with
the senior center with um upgrades
there, things that are ineligible,
fundraising,
normal expenses of the government,
income payments. We can't write checks
to anyone.
Buildings or portions thereof used for
the general conduct of government.
Typically, the purchase of equipment is
disallowed.
maintenance and repairs. So, the
difference is if you have a park in an
eligible area and the service area is
eligible, you could do upgrades, but you
can't mow the lawn. So, that's kind of
the difference there.
Activities
affecting multifamily structures or
public facilities, including
infrastructure,
must guarantee that 51%
of the beneficiaries are low to moderate
income. And activities related to single
family housing developments must serve
100% low to moderate income because it's
looked at household by household. And
many jurisdictions require that their
public services primar at least 100% or
close to 100% LMI clients. So food
pantries and you know the utility
payments and things like that. And no
project is really eligible if it doesn't
meet that 51%
income benefit.
So for 2026 program year 2026 which
started July 1, the CDBG award is
$246,979.
Of that planning and administration can
only use up to 20%. There's also a cap
on public services. So public services
are capped at 15% of your entitlement
award. So that seems it it's low. A lot
of communities would like to use more on
direct services, but HUD to this date
has not made that possible. There are
some changes hopefully coming down the
line that may may change that in the
future.
You right now have an opportunity over
the next year uh because you have a
significant amount of prior year
resources. you have a bucket of funding
that's about $220,000
that has not been allocated and has not
been spent. So that increases the amount
you have available over the next program
year. Priory year resources
unfortunately do not increase your
public service cap and they do not
increase your administrative cap. So
your public service funding available
for program year 2026 is about 36,000
and administration and planning is about
49.
So you can see there you have a little
over 380,000 available for other
activities.
And in a five-year consolidated plan,
basically you have the overall plan, the
five-year plan, and then every year you
have to have an action plan that drills
down a little bit deeper for HUD to tell
them your priority projects for that
year. So, we are in year three and you
will see me in a couple of weeks with a
proposal for the third year annual
action plan.
Here are some of the components. You've
got, of course, your executive summary
and lead organization expected
resources. You'll see exactly what we
just went through on the previous slide
about resources,
annual goals and objectives and
projects.
You'll also in the plan there's some
sections for housing and non-housing
needs. This is not like a housing needs
assessment. This is very prescriptive.
It's HUD speak.
So you start with needs which are only
in the consolidated plan and then you
have goals in your consolidated plan
that flow down to each of your annual
action plans. So you could have four or
five goals and only three might be
captured in any individual action plan.
They don't all have to flow down. And
then you have projects. Those are these
are the buckets. You have projects in
your annual action plan, housing, public
infrastructure, public services, things
like that. And then the activities are
really a function on the other side. It
is the reporting side of ITIS, the
discrete activities that you're
undertaking.
This is kind of a flow way to look at
this. Create a suitable living
environment might be a need. Public
facilities and public infrastructure
improvements may be a goal. Public
infrastructure improvements to benefit
LMI Eagle Mountain City residents could
be a project. And ADA upgrades in X area
of Eagle Mountain City could actually be
the activity.
and ADA upgrades you can do pretty much
anywhere as long as they're not
specifically targeted to kids um because
kids are not a presumed benefit for um
for HUD but adults with disabilities are
so ADA upgrades are really fantastic
ways to increase access for members of
your community to important places.
So outline of possible projects,
rehabilitation and preservation of
housing,
home buyer assistance,
support for affordable housing
development, HUD, it's a housing and
urban development program, but you
cannot build housing with CDBG dollars.
neighborhood improvements, again, ADA
upgrades,
park upgrades in eligible service areas.
So, you really have to look at where the
park is and then you have your service
area and is that 51% LMI.
And then public facility improvements.
Senior centers are are definitely pretty
easy because the beneficiaries are
presumed benefit for HUD. And no project
is typically eligible if it doesn't meet
at least the 51% LMI benefit.
So the next steps again I'll be back
here in front of you in a couple of
weeks to do a presentation and hopefully
adoption of the annual action plan and
we can't submit to HUD until that
happens and
I would happily stand with Kiara for any
questions. All right council what
questions do you have?
So I have a question about the
rehabilitation and preservation. Are
there guidelines with how that can be
utilized to rehabilitate or preserve
existing home?
So it would be typically if you're
running a housing rehab project or
activity um as long as the homeowner is
low to moderate income and it really is
identifying and addressing a deficiency
in that home.
So replacing roofs Yes,
main sewer lines, exterior siding,
things of that nature.
Yes.
Health and safety issues primarily and
ADA upgrades again are easy to do or an
lowhanging fruit for our aging
population. I am included in that
bucket. So, [laughter]
what about the the absence of
landscaping? Maybe their property's gone
completely back to dirt. Is that
included?
Not really. Okay. That that typically
just want to know where the boundaries
are. Yeah, it really is about addressing
deficiencies in the property. And if
you're running more of a
beautifification
program that's outside of the scope
typically of CDBG,
I I got a handful I'm going to lay on
you. Excuse [clears throat] me. We had a
conversation earlier before the before
the meeting started. One of the things I
wanted to suggest, and I know that these
these ladies have agreed to look into it
to the council, is whether or not
there's an opportunity to use some of
the CBDG funds to support the purchase
of water shares for um affordable
housing. We're going to look at an
affordable housing project that we're
talking about perhaps using that as a
tool. And so, these ladies are at least
going to look into that. And I would
recommend that if that's feasible and
there not too many streams attached that
we at least consider it. Um I'm
intrigued by the ADA and one of the
things in my mind that comes into play
especially with 381 382,000
is how much of that could be used on ADA
improvements in the city and I would
defer that perhaps to David to our
traffic uh engineer and see if we can't
identify some areas in the city where we
could use that. I certainly think the
the intersection on uh uh Ranch's
Parkway and SR73,
although I know that's some state
property, maybe that doesn't work. But I
really would like to see some areas in
the city where we might be able to use
those resources. And then an additional
question is can we can we can we utilize
those funds for trail connectivity
between some some intersections where
it's non-existent
um to help?
I'm sure there's going to be some some
guidelines we have to use.
It would it depend on the area and the
service area that you're connecting.
Would it benefit primarily low and
moderate income?
Well, so I think that maybe that's where
it would be really beneficial to us,
Kiara, if we knew that in this area we
probably would meet that 51% threshold
and in this area we won't and maybe we
could target that a little more
specifically.
The challenge with that is it's not just
this area is LMI, it's that the service
area of what your improvement is who are
you serving with your improvement? So
then you have to look at that and that
has to be primarily low mod income. So
it's not just in an eligible area.
So can you help us identify some areas
that might qualify because I because for
me that's an impossible task. I don't
know where we should even be thinking.
Yeah, I think for trails specifically
that one is a little tough just because
of the overall demographic and the
population of Eagle Mountains income is
is quite high. Um, and so to say, you
know, we we can we'll get creative no
matter what we do. Um, but we do just
have to consider the overall I guess
group when we do stuff like that. And
that's why kind of like senior like more
specific targeted demographics are
easier to get away. intersection
improvements that would change something
from an area that's not ADA compliant to
an area that becomes ADA compliant would
be eligible to use some of these funds
for that. I want to plant that seed
that yes
and then uh the water we talked about 88
and then my next one you led right into
it is the senior building expansion. I
think we should be considering that
being the senior liaison and the only
senior on the council. Um recognizing
that they're stretched to the limit even
with the improvements that we've made
because of our growth pattern. So I I I
don't know what that looks like, but
that's an area where I think we ought to
at least consider spending some of the
resources.
Yeah, we'll definitely get with their
team. That's one of the not easiest, but
kind of straightforward paths that we've
seen with this. So
what about widening a sidewalk?
because we have some that are really
really narrow that would allow for
wheelchair access that fall under I mean
because I know intersections are pretty
clear but if we have a sidewalk in an
area that is in in that particular LMI
to make it accessible and safe for
wheelchair use or even for walker use
for that matter. Does that fall within
those same guidelines or is that
you got you got to get pretty creative
to try to prove that. Is that what the
issue is? Okay. We need to get into the
weeds a little further,
but the ADA portion about it is what
makes it easier to get into the weeds.
Some of those Yeah. Yep.
Yep. Thanks.
Just just kind of bouncing off of these
these two comments, you know, the local
park I live by for many many years there
was a a a pavilion, but from the
sidewalk to the pavilion, there was no
connect connection for a wheelchair. we
had someone in our neighborhood, we
would carry her wheelchair up to the
pavilion anytime as and and that's been
resolved. So, I just wonder in some of
our neighborhoods, maybe Zack Hilton or
or others might know where some of those
areas are that we can make those easy
connections.
One of the things I'm thinking, Council
Member Huish, is is even if we just
dedicate a a prepoundonderance of this
to intersection improvements, then it
lightens the burden on the city to
perhaps make those connections or those
widenings that might need to happen.
those intersections. So, it just
Anyway, I'll leave it there.
And the one caveat with that is looking
at if something is already budgeted. So,
if it's in the budget, you can't
supplant. If you're already planning to
do something, you can't supplant it with
federal funds.
What about like on a long-term planning
like a five-year plan or something like
that?
We haven't like allocated funds in that
fiscal year. You mentioned that you'll
be coming back in August with some sort
of proposal for us. What are you basing
that proposal on? Just the feedback
you've heard today or feedback at
previous meetings. What will that
consist of?
So feedback from today also meetings
with stakeholders, some of your
nonprofits and you know what the needs
are in the community. But definitely
we'll take what we're hearing today and
incorporate that for sure. And we have
incorporated some like we're thinking
about some feedback that um Steve
Mumford has helped us gather from the
community services board. So they did
provide some good feedback and we
don't live in Eagle Mountain. So we rely
so heavily on that feedback just you
know what are the needs, what things do
you guys see and then we take it and get
creative and try to bring something that
works. One thing that I'd like to
encourage my fellow council members to
consider supporting and I hope that it
makes it back in the proposal are some
of these principal pantries and like our
library food pantry and then the pantry
that's at Rockwell. It's got a teen
center associated with it. All of those
things serve individuals who are on the
LMI
eligibility and I love that we've put a
lot of resources into our senior center,
but I also think we need to look to some
of those younger members of that LMI
elig eligibility and make sure we're
taking care of them as well.
Mayor Pro Tim Clark, I I would just say
this. I agree with that 100%. I I don't
think that we should shy away from the
15 and 20% buckets that we've been
talking about. I think we should
absolutely continue the utility billing
assistance.
I think that we should we we should do
all of what you just suggested, but we
bump up against limits and
and what I'm seeing is that that fund
grows. We don't want it to carry over
year to year.
No,
we we we want to put it to work.
So So the food would hit the 15% limit,
right? That's part of the 15%.
Yeah, I I I agree. I think we need to
max those out and then and then use the
remainder.
And those ones are fairly
straightforward to max out. Same with
our admin. It's the it's the additional
funds that right now you guys see it
rolled over. Um that starts to create
other issues for us and we don't want to
we don't want that. So if we can just
get the money out, we have a couple
pockets that we mentioned ADA senior.
There's a certain areas that it's easy
to say, "Hey, these are project areas."
And we can just get creative on how that
fits Eagle Mountains.
Are you only able to come to us once a
year? If you see that we got extra, can
you come back to us and say, "Hey, we
got another 150,000." We can say, "Well,
let's spend it here then."
Yeah, we can.
I think we need to be proactive with
that. So, if you see that, I think all
of us are in agreement. It shouldn't be
sitting somewhere. Let's spend it.
In a little less than a month from now,
we're going to have UTA on demand and
still no viable bus route. But could we
use some of those funds to help purchase
passes for lower income people? Could we
have passes at city hall that if you
could prove that you're LMI, you could
come and get some of those things to
help with transportation?
So that would bump up against the 15%
and so far and this year you did have an
application process. This was before I
was working with Eagle Mountain City.
and you received
three applications. I don't know if you
guys recall, they came and presented.
Um, yeah. So, those and those are and
they're looking to be able to obviously
utilize public service dollars. So,
Right. Right.
Awesome. Thank you. Any other questions
before we have them sit down?
Thank you. Thank you guys.
All right. We'll invite Beth Fuches up.
She's going to talk to us about the
wildland urban interface standards. And
as you guys remember, this is bringing
this back to kind of address a lot since
she's seeking some feedback from
Apologize for the delay, but we got it
worked about. Okay, so we have discussed
this before. When we were doing our WOOI
map, we Brad and I spoke with the fire
officials and talked to them about ways
we could make our city safer for fire
hazards, particularly wildfires.
and we ca ca I came and spoke with the
council before and there were some
concerns with um some of the things that
were presented and so I've gone back to
the diet board have a few other
suggestions to see if it's something we
want to do or we don't want to go in
that direction sorry it's not advancing
There we go. Okay. So, that was the
background. And I did also want to let
you know that HB215
that was passed by the state does have
some changes to WOOI standards that
we're not allowed to um prohibit
residents from clearing vegetation if
they're within the WOOI boundaries. So I
will be bringing that back to the
council, but I wanted to see if we were
going to do anything else to see if we
bring them back together or if I'll just
bring that one back. So after our
discussion, I got thinking and want I'm
a visual person. I wanted to see what
this would look like, what the impact
would be on the residents. And I know
one of the concerns was having standards
that would limit certain residents being
able to fully utilize their land where
if they live somewhere else, they would
be able to do different things. And so
as I looked at that, I looked at some of
our larger lots, particularly those with
that already had a
5 foot rear setback
because that would then allow them to
have 30 feet of defensible space for
their property. And so as I got looking
at that, another thing that comes into
play with that is accessory dwelling
units because our current code requires
that those meet the setback standards
for the primary dwelling unit. So in
that that would prohibit from putting an
ADU in an extremely hazardous area where
where they would be exposed to a fire
and that's already in code. And so I
took kind of a standard lot with the
minimum frontage for a halfacre property
and then one some of these areas are in
more challenging areas so you could have
some oddly shaped lots. So I kind of did
the two extremes to put them together.
And if you look, the orange areas are
where someone would be able to place an
accessory dwelling unit or any accessory
structure and have it 30 feet away from
and be able to have that 30 ft of
defensible space. We also talked about
though that really where it's 30 feet of
defensible space, not necessarily a 30
foot setback that we're concerned with.
I also looked at the opposite. So, what
if instead it was 30 feet spacing
between structures? And so, these are
that that's what that this would look
like. And as I was looking at this, I
realized most people aren't going to
build a huge accessory structure in the
middle of their backyard. You're going
to probably put it closer to the home or
closer to the rear of the lot. And so on
a larger lot, I think where people would
naturally place those structures would
allow them to have 30 ft of defensible
space. So we could, if you wanted,
instead of looking at a setback
standard, look at a minimum lot
standard. And if they had the we would
be looking instead of mandating
something, facilitating it. make sure
that lots in those areas were large
enough that they would be able to easily
enjoy the use of their property and
still be able to provide 30 ft of
defensible space or the other
recommendations by the state when they
come in.
And if we were to move forward with
this, that would kind of take care of
rear lots. We would need to decide it.
There could be whole developments that
wouldn't have a sideyard that would be
impacted, but if it did, how would we
want to address protecting those? We
wouldn't necessarily need to accommodate
it all on the property. We could do it
with like a trail or a road or something
so that there is still 30 feet of space
between the home and the an improved
wildlands.
And I also wanted to just clarify, I'm
just I was talking about having This
only applied to boundary lots and the
what I brought before only apply to
those adjacent to wildlands, not
property that's against unbuilt areas.
However, the state will be coming in and
assessing and charging fees
for all properties within the WOOI. So,
we if we did something, we need to
decide, do we just want it to be there?
Would we want it to just be
along wherever there isn't development?
Because if it's against an area that
isn't developed, not could be developed,
but we don't know when you have that
kind of interimm hazard. And for
example, what happened in Roy yesterday,
even if it's not a wildland, you can
have fastmoving fires come in. So, we
need to think about and consider things
like that.
And it council member Wood brought up
and recommended last time that we had
these discussions of informing residents
that they're in the WOOI that let them
know and I think that's an excellent
idea because they may choose to place an
accessory structure in a different
location with that knowledge or choose a
different material type or things like
that and they'll understand and can
maybe when they're putting in their
landscaping take into account some of
those state recommendations.
instead of having to change things
later.
And so I just also put in the WOI map to
remind us where these areas are. And
again, some of these areas could fall
out of the WOOI, especially as they're
being developed, but they're probably
going to be certain properties that are
always going to have that wildfire lit
risk, especially if they're near washes
or hillsides, things like that.
And these I just put in for reference if
we needed them. And so those were kind
of my thoughts based on our previous
discussion.
How does the council want to proceed? Do
we just want to move with state
requirements or do you want to consider
any additional standards?
Can I just ask a question on the
unplanned
buildable area? Is that a requirement of
the state or is the requirement just up
against unbuildable wildlands?
So it's just where we've defined it on
our map. Okay. That was just to kind of
illustrate
different situations we could run into
because some of those WOI areas are
going to be surrounded by developed
land. Some will have undeveloped lands
but they that aren't in the WOOI.
So, it's just different things to
consider.
I'm I'm wondering if it would make sense
whoever owns that land to have a 30 foot
defensible space
instead of putting that on the property
owners.
Oh, like so there'd be a buffer built
into the development around edges.
Yeah, that'd be my preference.
Could we give like open space credit or
something like that with that?
What do you do when it's a government
agency or if it's a different
municipality?
Because a lot of times you're talking
about the area around the outside
like Silver Lake, Saratoga,
you could have that right up against BLM
land. You could have that against county
land.
So there's some challenges. I agree. I
think the responsibility needs to be
shared both with those who have
structures on their land and those that
don't.
Yeah. Any
other thoughts from council? Council
member, right?
Council member White.
So what so what if you have two wooi
lots back up against each other? Seems
like you could have 15 feet on one side
and 15 feet on another side of
defensible space. And would that would
that work?
You have two woo lots backed up. I mean,
how would you get two wooi lots backed
up?
So don't that wouldn't work. That
wouldn't be
I'm just curious how would that become
the requirement because it's really the
border, right?
So it's the wooi area but I guess as you
develop it that worry area sort of
decreases
but
but your buildings are there like if if
you are on that boundary lot you put in
your 30 foot setback that building's
there. I guess that's a risk you take
buying that property.
Beth I'm I'm I mean I'm I want to share
a couple thoughts. I'm I'm a little
confused. I'm gonna and that's easy to
do with me. Um it seems to me that the
halfacre standards that we already have
create a 35 foot um backyard setback. So
I don't see that as an issue. The issue
is really the sideyard is is that what
I'm hearing you say and then perhaps
uh whether or not we require halfacre
lots or larger on the periphery. I think
that's really the question that we are
looking at.
I feel a little ambiguous about this
because it's do we do we do we impose
additional standards on something that
we're not required to for safety. That's
the first question that perhaps we need
to address as a council and speak to.
The other issue too is that we know it's
going to change. I mean the reality of
it is you impose something on somebody
that is a very temporary nature.
That that's the concern I have is that
because it's just what council member
Whiting said. What happens when you get
two back to back? What happens when we
annex
and it changes? Um, so I just it's a
moving target.
Uh, that's why I I I think it I
understand the purpose of it. We're
trying to mitigate fire spreading and
and I think everybody's on board with
that. I think we've demonstrated that,
but we got to be careful with
legislation that has a moving target on
it that can change. And we're putting an
an
a burden on a homeowner to do something
that is a temporary thing that they are
going to have the I mean they're going
to be reimbursed when it gets built up
against them. The answer is no. Right?
So they're going to have to make this
investment into that until the developer
behind them decides to complete theirs.
And once that's done, they're no longer
in WOOI. So I just things like that I I
I have some consternation about because
it's
I don't I don't love imposing inrict
restrictions that cost money that are
temporary. We know it's going to
eventually change, but I also think
there needs to be something in place
that at very minimum they should be
required to clear it, but they should be
able to build something on their land
also. Like I don't know. I just I'm
struggling with this one.
Beth, you had something? Yeah. I just
wanted to clarify that's why I was
looked more at the lot size because
there wouldn't be any additional
requirements on those residents than any
other resident who owned a halfacre lot.
They the 35 foot setback's already in
place. It just allows them to be able to
to put in to clear the land if they
wanted to. And then also the side, if we
had it through a road or a trail, then
it's the developer who's putting that
in. They would have the normal 15 foot
garage size setback as other residents.
So that was more the direction. So it it
shouldn't change anything. They they
wanted a halfacre lot, they'd buy a
halfacre lot and have the same rights as
anybody else in the city who had that.
Could could we consider I mean my
thought process is is could we just
consider as part of a development
application that the veloper make an
assessment about the WOOI and that we
require that to be reviewed as part of
any new development that comes forward
because I think at that point in time
you can look at each individual piece on
its merits and
understanding that it's it may change it
may not change I don't know I'm just
throwing out some spitballing here
regardless of what we do I think staff
should be sure to inform the council
that we're dealing with a WOOI area now
some of these areas already have
vestings and entit
Some do not, but I think it would be
worth working with the developers of
those properties to try to
make them safe. And I'm not saying these
are the best and the only ways. I just
think it's something that we have an
opportunity, most other cities don't, to
take these into consideration as we're
approving development. And so just being
conscientious of them, trying to find
ways to make sure that our residents are
safe.
I I I mean I do like the idea of spacing
the buildings apart [clears throat]
having that 30 foot setback between the
primary residence and a barn or to me
that makes sense. I have no issues with
that.
I can't remember who brought it up but
somebody said something about requiring
halfacre lots on the periphery. Is that
something that we want to pursue and
have be a part of this conversation or
I'm thinking we have so few I mean we
have there's areas right that we almost
need to look at this as each development
application comes through
okay
that's what I'm thinking
right anybody else have any thoughts
they want to share
well I mean I mean if you just take an
example of the Horizon development right
it has entitlements on it I mean some of
those lots are going to be bigger there
is some open space that is at least
being considered there and and obviously
there's changes that are occurring there
right there's at least contemplation but
but that's kind of an island in the city
and at what point does that no longer
become an island and do we really impose
those standards on an island? Those are
the questions that are going through my
mind and
I don't know that one sizefits all. Um
and and and maybe
maybe the contemplation should be
against those those lands that are BLM
or others. I mean maybe that's where the
contemplation should start. I don't
know.
So what I'm hearing is that it's a
unique situation every single time. So,
we really probably should be adding a
review of this to every development
process and ask staff to alert us so
that we can have the discussion when we
have the factors unique to that area. Is
there anything else we want to instruct
staff to work on?
I I like council member Wood's
suggestion about a plat notation and
disclosure requirements so you know
buyers know that they're in a Wii area.
All right, it sounds like Did you get
the feedback you needed from us?
Yes. So, I'll bring back the state
requirements and the plat notation.
Okay. And if there's a way for us to
make it a required step in our design
review process or whatever because I we
still want to know if it's an issue and
we want to make sure it's part of what
we're doing. So,
I'm gonna ask a question of David. Do
you mind? Do you mind if he comes up so
I can ask him a question?
David, do you?
Absolutely. Go ahead.
Nice shoes, David. Love your shoes.
Yeah, just in thinking about this, I
mean, I understand all of the reasons
that we're trying to mitigate some of
these things, but it feels like we're
putting a huge amount of u onus on small
lot property owners, which generally
speaking are not the ones that are
spreading the fire. It's usually on
large lots.
Have you heard anything up from the
state from any of the fire organizations
where they're talking about creating
defensible spaces on some of these large
pieces of land whether they belong to
the
an individual property owner or to the
state or to the federal government? Are
you aware of anything where they're
talking about that or if they're in the
WOOI area, they're required for those
whether whatever the size of the lot may
be. So those larger lots are required
for those 30 feet if they're in a
designated uh WOOI area. It just depends
on what city they're in and they would
designate those areas.
Okay, that's good to know because I
don't think that was clear to us. How
are we notifying them? Because basically
when we started with the map, you get an
area that they would define by the
definition in a WOOI area, but there
were plenty of areas in our city map
that were wasn't actually the topography
wasn't dangerous. It was u prior to
development that they were marked as
that. So there was a few areas in our
own map that we changed out of that from
that was initially red flagged as in the
WOOI area and that's up to the
individual cities to go through those um
maps and make those changes.
So it's not just specific to home
homeowners, it's to actual just land
owners.
Yeah. Okay.
And so we can and you go through and you
have to make your argument obviously as
to why it should be exempt from there.
and we went through that in in a few
quite a few areas.
Thanks for the clarity.
Yeah.
Anything else?
All right, we're moving on to our next
item. Uh Rob Hobbs will be presenting a
discussion item, proposed private
purchase of.13
acres of the ranch's golf course.
Mr. Hobs.
Thank you, Mayor Pro Tim. Council staff
was approached by Miss Brie Folsam,
owner of property at 3544
East Royal Doornock Drive with the
request to purchase adjoining or budding
land, some 1.13 acres of golf course
ground
uh that they have an interest in.
The golf course is willing to sell the
ground
as indicated by an email which I insert
in your packet. And so the question is,
is the council agreeable with this land
transaction? If so, then we will
instruct the applicant per se to go
ahead and apply for reszone as well as
plat amendment, a minor one at that.
Sorry.
While he's pulling that up, does anyone
have any initial thoughts that they want
to share?
Well, the initial question I have is I
mean, I know this is this borders
Ranch's Parkway. Is that land in any way
contemplated in an expansion? And it's
probably far enough off, but I just want
to ask the question.
I Where's Mr. Salazar?
So, I think you were a part of some of
the conversations that we had um with
this particular piece of land and the
rideway acquisition for Ranches Parkway.
Based off of the image of like the
overhead map, is any of this in risk of
us needing to acquire it for our road
widening projects?
For the widening, no. I think we talked
about using it for some public works
access or utility access in this area.
Okay. Any
other details from staff?
Not at this time.
Okay.
Council, what other questions and
insights do you have?
So, would we need to retain some kind of
easement to access that property in the
future? [clears throat]
That was the only question I had.
Was that question for Brad Hickman or
Marcus?
So right now it's a golf course
property. So it's subject to that
agreement um which does allow us to have
certain uh rights of access for public
utilities and so on. Um if it were sold
to a private party um we could as part
of uh the reason that they're asking our
permission is because there's the
reversionary or there's the uh clause in
the agree in the in the contract, right?
And um
and so the um
we could condition kind of releasing our
interest in the property on them uh
granting an easement.
Okay.
I think we should do that. Yeah.
So for sure go after some sort of
easement. Council member I think
yeah I want to raise another concern. I
mean recognizing that it is part of this
this agreement and and not not everyone
will probably agree with me. My concern
really is um allowing this to be sold uh
without having something in place that
indicates where those resources go
knowing that there's some some debt that
exists. Um I'll probably leave it at
that and it may be something that we
need to discuss in another setting, but
I want at least the council to to have
some
contemplation about that.
Any other thoughts from anybody else?
When a when a uh I mean in a similar
circumstance like this, uh if you sell a
piece of your land and you have a
mortgage on it, the [clears throat]
mortgage company's going to want some of
that money to come pay off some of that
debt.
Yeah. or just even if there's if there's
a lean against any of the property, even
if it's not in the rears, but even if
you have a lean against the property,
the mortgage company's going to require
to sell a part of it that part of their
balance comes gets reduced as well.
And and maybe that's something that
we're going to need to to have a
discussion about outside of this
setting.
Okay. Any other comments from staff? Any
other comments from council? All right,
let's move on. Our next item is going to
be also introduced by Rob Hobbs. Um, and
it is a discussion item about the
Triumph subdivision. Now, this is later
in our agenda as well as a possible
action, but we also have the applicant
here. Would you like to start?
Council, the planning commission
advanced this to your uh bench with a
positive recommendation upon having
reviewed the matter. This is a
combination of master development plan
and amendment
uh an agreement amendment.
The triumph subdivision was entitled few
years ago and at that time was uh given
a foothill residential setting and
zoning. The applicant is interested in
as you can see by this exhibit
creating at least four areas that would
be for affordable housing.
The city has already dealt with
affordable housing uh comments in past
especially by staff promoting the idea.
The applicant has a few asks as detailed
in the staff report to make the project
uh quote unquote affordable
and they are here as you already
indicated to explain what they would
like to do. But essentially what you
have are open air tandem parking spaces
with private roads built to a city u
structural profile but not with a full
rideway width etc that the city's uh
schematics require. And then you have a
select set they had three samples shown
to the commission of possible house
designs that would work for each of the
lots. We would have reduced lot sizes
and expectedly setbacks as well.
And that would make it uh for them
pencil out better. They think
that'll be an introductory comment. Any
questions?
Any questions, council? All right. Can
we invite the applicant to come up and
field some questions?
Please introduce yourself.
Are we on? There we go. Scott Hazard,
thanks for your time today. What
questions can I answer for you?
What questions do we have for this
applicant?
I'll jump in. I got a lot of different
notes, but
okay. So, uh, oh man, I got a few
questions. I like I love the affordable
housing purchase price cap because that
sort of solves one of the issues I was
contemplating a few days ago is that if
you have a family size of eight, they
could their 80% of what they could buy,
the purchase price would be much
different than family size of one, then
someone could buy in as a family size is
one and then turn around and flip it to
a family size of eight and make a
profit. But I so I'd like to
introduction of the cap. Um based on the
numbers we just saw from the um CDBG
presentation,
uh it looked like the 80% AMI of a two
household was 76,300.
If you do a multiplier of 3.25, that
puts you at a purchase price just under
310.
So that Sounds good. I mean, is that
that's sort of what you're anticipating?
That's at 80 AMI. AMI. We will not be
below 310. So our our starting homes
will be probably more like 325 329.
Okay. So that multiplier So that
multiplier I think caps where you would
have be. So in other words, that
multiplier would be below. We would need
to increase that multiplier in order to
to go to 325 because otherwise our
current multiplier is hitting us at
309968 for a max purchase price.
You're talking about for the deed
restriction.
So the the the multiplier uh sets in
after the first sale.
After the first sale.
Yeah. And the intent is exactly what you
just described where we didn't want to
just let an equity grab happen because
as developers we're leaving a ton of
money on the table to make this work.
Um and we're obviously there's also a
lot that the city's contributing to try
to make this work at least that I'm
asking you to. So we didn't we didn't
want gen one of buyer to just benefit
and then take a take a bunch of money
and bail. So so we've created that
restriction um as a multiplier so that
purchase price will always scale uh with
AMI.
So it's we felt it was better um and
we're open to feedback. uh we felt it
was better than putting a 3% or three
and a half percent or 4% annual cap uh
to the purchase price because it allows
them to grow equity as income increases
on the average within the state. Uh and
it's always tied the idea is to service
that population and so equity gain is
basically just tied to income.
Yeah. Yeah. I I love this idea. I mean,
we all know that the median income has
not kept up with the median home price
in Utah. This attempts to solve that
problem. It's deed. So, there there's,
like you said, you can't buy the
property and then flip it a year later
to a higher price. It's always just
going to fall to median income, which is
going to help. I think I'm just thinking
of a lot of young starter families
trying to get into a home. It's
innovative.
Yeah. that the the deed restriction was
probably our biggest challenge to bring
this back to you in a formal format to
ask for a vote uh because of those types
of challenges and then getting
appraisers and underwriters to sing out
of our song book so they could be Freddy
Fanny underwritten they can't be HUD
funded so we can't do an FHA VA loan
they won't allow the deed restriction uh
but there's been a lot of collaboration
and thought with many different parties
to try to get this to a point where we
can get loans on it we can get it funded
and our intent is that these are these
are designed to be attainable in
perpetuity. All other programs that I'm
aware of in the state cap at like 10
years and then it's free for all. Do
whatever you want. I'm like, why did we
spend all this time and effort for a
10-year program? Uh so tying it to the
AMI, I think should allow us to to run
in perpetuity. And then in the deed
restriction, we've empowered the council
uh to make modifications to that down
the road if it seems like it makes
sense. Uh, we've created some
restrictions there because we didn't
want you pestered with every little
everybody wants something. It has to be
a marketwide, industrywide impact, a
communitywide impact so that you're not
hearing requests from every individual
little owner to say, "Hey, make an
exception for me. Can you change this?"
Uh, because we recognize 10 or 15, 20,
30 years down the road, the dynamic
might be different. Maybe income doesn't
scale nearly as much as it needs to, and
there needs to be some concession. The
multiplier might need to change. Uh so
we've empire empowered the council to be
able to make those decisions.
Go for it.
Uh just one other I have a lot of
questions going for my head. The this
these these pods will be under an HOA.
Yes.
Is that correct?
Yes.
Same HOA as the properties outside of
the the whole
Yes. There'll be like a sub HOA that'll
handle just these attainable housing
clusters, but yes.
Okay. So, so here maybe this section
needs to be clarified because when I'm
looking at the affordable purchase price
cap sec one of the sections pertaining
to that says uh that the that that any
transfer shall be equal to the product
of the resale multiple and the the AMI
and it says any transfer. So I didn't
realize so when I'm reading that I was
thinking when you're selling it as well
because I I would assume that would be a
transfer unless that was defined
otherwise within the contract within
this language here. Colobby, do you have
a better response to that or Kaden?
So, you're saying for the initial sale?
So, so yeah, what Mr. Hazard is saying
is the initial sale would not be subject
to the resale multiplier, but I didn't
that wasn't clear to me in the in the
deed restriction language.
If if I understand your question, that
3.25 is a plug for the time being. When
we go to sell these homes in these
communities, we will set the multiplier
to equal the purchase price, if that
makes sense. So that when when I'm a new
buyer and I purchase the home, the
purchase price, if I take my area median
income, then and times it by the
multiplier and the deed restriction, it
will equal the purchase price that I
bought it for. So we will sell it at the
qualifying purchase price and then from
there ami will increase their purchase
price in the future.
So that multiplier is going to change
with every single contract.
No. So we plan to do it on a node per
node basis because of the cost of
construction. So when we build out phase
like the first node here, we'll have set
purchase prices for each floor plan
there. And we might have, you know,
three or four floor plans, but we intend
to build them all out at once and to get
some economies of scale there to further
contribute to the affordability aspect,
but so each node will have its separate
multiplier essentially.
Any other thoughts? Now, this is an item
that shows up later in the agenda for
possible action. Are there any details
of that item that we need to hammer out?
Yeah. So, I've got a few more questions.
So, the so the one of the asks is that
the city provide or purchase the water
necessary.
I would like I would like that
quantified in terms of like how much are
we asking and I think it would be coming
from RDA dollars.
How much is in our RDA to actually
provide? So that that's actually
something I wanted to make a note on.
It's a good question. I think that we
need to make it tied to available RDA
funds. So if that runs out at a future
date that we're not now taking that out
of our general fund to buy water for
these. So I think that that probably
needs to be some language that's put in
there that if the RDA funds are no
longer available. Uh and then the other
thing too is I just wanted to be clear
market water that is on the market that
we're not providing that from our own
stores.
Yeah. The the proposal has never been
for the city to provide water or to sell
water. That's never been the proposal.
In fact, I think it came from uh this
body.
I was the one who suggested it. I'll
take the blame.
Yeah. Uh the idea that maybe our DA
funds could be used to purchase this on
the open market. There's two variables
there that I think are important for us
to define or at least create a
methodology. Uh one is we need staff to
calculate what's our you know per acre
foot what's our quantity requirement for
these small houses on really small
yards. Uh my sense is it's probably
different than what's in the in the
existing table because it's a very
different product type uh minimal
outdoor irrigation very water-wise
landscaping and very small homes. So
that would be one factor that we would
need to determine. The other thing that
I think we should insert and I've had
this conversation with staff but didn't
know what number to put in is that there
probably needs to be a cap on a per acre
foot number. Um, you know, so I I don't
call my buddy Isaac and say, "Hey, sell
me some water at $65,000 an acre foot."
And then the city's on the hook to pay
for it. So, I think we ought to have a
methodology or insert a number,
something that's reasonably
representative of a market value that's
still um attainable where we could
actually acquire water at that number,
but that's reflective of a market rate.
What if we tied it to what our ability
to sell it, what the price if we were to
use our own stores, we would contribute
up to that amount of money and then the
responsibility for the remaining amount
would be up to the developer.
That would just add to the purchase
price. So, I mean, If you think about it
right now, right now
10% of the of the cost of the home.
So what do you think it's at right now?
31,000
for an acre foot of water. Just
Yeah, I've seen it sell for as as high
as 35. I've been 28 to 30 say 31 right
in the middle. I think right now it's
selling uh if we sell CDB
water, I think it's 21,000 22,000. So
yeah,
you're responsible for nine
$9,000 an acre foot.
You're not going to hit a full acre foot
for a house that size.
So I think it's reasonable, but that's
probably the only way you're going to be
able to follow that in a reasonable way.
Has to be tied to something that's
fixed.
Yeah,
that's an amount that is fixed.
The the only I I I think that that
creates some safety for the city. The
only challenge I see with that, Rich,
is, you know, water is becoming an
increasingly scarce resource. And if
water does jump to 40, 50, $60,000 an
acre foot, I can't deliver these.
There's just no way I can subsidize that
kind of money to make to hit these price
points and make it happen. Or we have to
add it into the price of the home and
then we thrown ourselves out of that
8090 AMI target, which is what we're
after.
I think the suggestion that I would make
would would be this, Scott. I mean,
recognizing that that there's some
variables that need to be worked out. I
think if we can put together just some
brackets that that that you're
comfortable with and the city becomes
comfortable with, that makes a lot of
sense to me. The other thing is, you
know, I think council member Wood makes
a good point is is subject to the fact
that there are available RDA dollars to
purchase the water, but I think we
should just look at it pod by pod. and
and I know that you you know with the
concept that you have in place you're
saying look I just want to trans I just
want to transfer this concept to the
next area to the next area with some
subtle perhaps subtle design changes I
don't know one of the things that I want
to make sure that we're really um
focused on you're saying that you might
have three or four different plans and
you've shown us some really beautiful
designs at least in my opinion that make
a lot of sense I think they're super
livable I think we need to have the
language in there that recognizes you're
going to put the refrigerator and the
stove and all those things that we've
talked about in there. I don't know that
that was in there. I didn't see it.
It probably is somewhere and I just
missed it.
Um, so those are a couple of the things
that I'd just like to see get changed,
but recognize that this first pot is
really an experiment
and and I don't look I think I I think
it needs to be said publicly that you're
being pretty generous in coming to the
table and trying to help us develop
this. I'm really grateful for that. And
we're trying to to to help you get over
some of those hurdles that you're facing
to be able to deliver a product that's
pretty unique. And my goal and our hope,
I think, is if we can't set a standard
by which the rest of the state can learn
something and uh and maybe we can
actually start to tackle the real
problem with affordable housing and get
our kids into single family homes.
Yeah. And that's my real goal, Brett.
This is [clears throat] not a one-off
thing for me. Uh, I I see Eagle Mountain
leading out with a product like this to
show the rest of the state on what can
happen when a willing city and a willing
developer can collaborate and come up
with some solutions. And I'm sure
there's plenty of warts we're going to
shave off of this first cluster and then
figure out how to do it better in the
next one. The purchase price inclusions
that you referenced are not included in
the amendment to the development
agreement and we can incorporate those.
I don't have any issue with that.
I just it it's funny when you're driving
through other cities and you see
$600,000 town homes as affordable
housing. I'm like that's this this
really is trying to solve the problem
and I'm excited about it. The other
thing I'm excited about is none of these
properties can be rented out. They will
all be primary owned.
Yeah.
Which is which is awesome.
The enforcement of that's going to be
challenging. Right now we're saddling
the HOA with that. They're kind of
acting as as Rob put in the staff report
as a de facto housing authority. Um, but
we'll do what we can as the city matures
and develops and maybe at some point
you've got a housing authority and we
can turn that element over to the city.
Uh, or confidence in our HOA Karens to
take care of that. [laughter]
So, so the HOA will take care of the
roads. [clears throat]
No. So the only the only public
infrastructure element we've asked the
city to handle are roads and utilities.
All of the surface landscape
improvements would be handled by the HOA
including irrigation. Uh but maintenance
of the utilities in the road and the
road itself uh would be uh would be the
city's responsibility. So snow removal,
crack seal, you know, asphalt repair,
all of that would be under the city like
you would any other road.
Okay. And then the other the other other
questions, but so parking because then
the roads are so narrow. I assume that
you're restricting parking
so it cannot be on the street.
Yes.
But I I didn't see that verbiage in the
CCNRs. There's a section on parking that
didn't seem clear to me. 11.6.
Maybe I wasn't reading it.
Yeah, we would add a note. We would add
a note to the amended plat for that. And
we've worked that out in DRC with the
fire chief. I didn't realize this, but a
red curb is unsufficient. You need
signage. So, we'll we'll we'll work on
that, but yes, no parking on the street
side other than the little razor strips
of parking that we've added for
additional overflow and visitor parking.
Just for reference, will you just once
again tell us a two-bedroom going to
sell it? What are you calculating it at?
Currently
in the low 300s. Um probably 330ish
um for for two bed, one and a half bath.
Uh the biggest plan, which is our
two-story plan, uh we priced out lasted
about 374.
And that includes all appliances. So
that's fridge, washer, and dryer
included. Includes all the window
coverings. Uh it includes all
landscapcaping front and back, and all
the fencing. So all of those things that
are really a first cost outlay for a new
home buyer when they buy a home, then
they realize, oh my goodness, I have all
these other expenses. The only thing
they really have to worry about is
furnishing the inside. Everything else
is covered in the in the purchase. My
last question, Scott, and and it's
really a compliment to you. Is there
anybody in the audience that knows
somebody that would benefit or purchase
one of these?
I I I just think this is I think this is
an amazing opportunity to try something
different. Thank you.
Oh, council member, did you have
I'm sure we're going to talk some more
about this. I'm not firm on how we deal
with the water, but I want I mean, you
know, I'm a work Let's talk about it.
Let's figure out something that is
scalable that doesn't require a lot of
oversight. Um, one of the things I was
when I was looking through the deed
restriction, I am concerned about the um
city being required to deal with all the
transfer stuff. I would love to see that
be a third party frankly um just because
that can things can change and sway and
whatever and if we want this to have
lasting it needs to be someone that is
actually
running this program maybe it's a 501c3
or something like that that is
responsible for doing this that doesn't
have skin in the game and I don't know
what that looks like but I really want
this to last I think you know that I'm
invested in in this uh working I I
believe that this is only the only
attainable housing product in the state.
Everything else that I have seen develop
uh is is something that is not really
producing the outcomes that we're
looking for for the individual that's
buying the house. Uh and I I'm proud of
it. I think we've put a lot of work into
this one. I want it to work, but I want
it to be something that's scalable that
we can do throughout the city. I hope
other people steal it and want to do it
uh in the rest of the state because I
think it's a good program.
Council member Wood, I'm just going to
make a quick suggestion. I mean, we
already have someone that's reviewing
all of our all of our loan applications
for those who are are seeking the
forgivable loan that comes out of those
RDA funds. I just think that the city
could help participate in reviewing that
at some point in time.
That's a great suggestion because it's
all of her underwriters that we've
vetted this through. So she she seemed
like the the perfect one to to manage
that pro that end of the process. And so
she's been included all along.
So I I think all the points and
questions I heard are very valid. It
looks like we've got a few things to
sort out to amend uh before we're ready
to go to a vote. Is that fair stand?
Fair state.
I think we can probably deal with most
of these things in a
in a motion.
In a motion, don't you think? I mean, so
I think when when we come back, we've
addressed most of the concerns. Um,
having an administrator do that. Marcus,
if you think that we need to have more
strong language than what we've talked
about, tell us now and we can give them
the ability to go and do that. But I
think I don't want to sit on this much
longer.
The prices of houses go up as we
continue to sit. So, just so you know,
my first phase of triumph is submitted
to staff for final plat does not include
this, but there's a slight adjustment
I'll need to make in the first phase to
accommodate this. And I'm hoping to
knock through this right away um so that
I could start delivering houses next
spring summer.
One Oh, sorry.
Hang on. I want to make sure Marcus
answers my question.
Um you know, I won't have any time
during this meeting to hammer out the
language. Um, but I'm sure we could
figure it out, watch the reporting, make
sure we accomp encompass everything
that's in there and work through it.
That's what the council wants to do.
Um,
one thing that's kind of a sticking
point for me and I'd love to, like you
said, workshop this, the water price. I
know that we have to find a target. we
have to find a fixed number, [snorts]
but I also don't want to automatically
basically
underfund the water by like $9,000 per
acre foot. So, I would ask that we look
at maybe what market is going for right
now and set the cap similar to that as
opposed to the central Utah water
project water because we all know that
no one's touching residential water at
that 21 or whatever price it is right
now for us.
Yeah, it was just a suggestion. I think
there's probably needs to be some sort
of a scale. Maybe even we create some
parameters based on, you know, sales
price or size of lot or whatever. I I
think that's one of those moving things
we got to get that part figured out, but
I'm open to suggestions for sure.
Yeah. As am I.
And and I'd still like because I I I
don't feel like we have the data on how
what how much money do we have in the
RDA funds? [clears throat]
How much money is going to be required?
Like I I don't have that data and based
on that I would like to see those
numbers.
Staff can staff
Evan you probably could shoot that from
the hip and just tell us.
Wasn't it 1.7 last year was what went
into the fund and that was with a
fraction.
Will you say that one more time and
we'll
Okay. So,
and how many shares would be required
for this project? I'd need staff to do a
calculation for me on that, but my
assessment is it would be on on a market
value per per acre foot. It's probably
somewhere in the 20 to $25,000 per unit
is
and how many units are contemplated?
There's 32 in this first phase and
they're all about they're they're all a
little smaller, a little bigger, but
so 30 32
um okay times 25,000.
So 800,000 per pod, but that but each
pod's different like some have more than
32 or less than 32 on these subsequent
pods. But tonight's tonight's discussion
would be inclusive of all the pods.
Correct.
Or or or are we only looking at one pod
with the agreement
right now? I mean my my my I would sort
of favor given how new this is to
approve pod by pod
just a or even pod one. Let's see how it
goes. Yeah, this is so good. We're
approving these other
other three.
Yes.
And and I think your your point is well
taken, Council Member Whiting. I think I
think that what I would probably suggest
is that we enter [snorts] into this
agreement for pod one recognizing and
perhaps entitling two, three, and four
for a similar or a like outcome, but
realizing that it's got to come back so
that we can tweak those details that are
going to pertain to each pod. Well, and
and and if we're going to if we're going
to consider using RDA funds for this, I
mean, that's that's a big chunk of money
we're doing. And and anyway, that's
that's where I think we got to sort of
consider this pod by pod. I
I think we all kind of are good with
that. So, could we instruct staff in the
motion that this applies to pod one and
then we'll come back for the rest of
them? I mean, what do we need to do to
get this across the finish line?
Are are you okay with pod one being
approved? Yeah. Yeah. I I just I want to
see this successful and I think this is
this is going to require collaboration
as we go. Um so, you know, my intent is
we get through pod pod one, I'm going to
come back to you even if it were already
vested and entitled, I'm going to come
back to you to return and report and say
this is what went well and these are
targets we totally missed and this is
how we're adjusting for the next phase.
So, I see this as an ongoing
collaborative effort and you're on the
journey with me regardless. I think
we're in in the saddle together. And if
the biggest issue really is just the
water right issue, you know, we we could
say, okay, generally we're looking at
these four clusters or those four pods,
but water rights will address on a phase
by phase to assess what's in your
budget. How much is a prevailing cost to
buy the water? Um, you know, maybe
that's something that we look at at a
phase by phase to see if there's funding
for it. And maybe we wait, maybe we
don't deliver that cluster in that
timing. and the timing uh you know runs
with the funding.
So one more thing to that though I think
it's important to remember even if it
had to add an additional $10,000 to it
because of the economy of whatever it is
at the time these are cheap.
I mean I think that's being lost on
people what this affordability is
actually creating that does not exist.
So, as we're haggling over $1,000 or
$10,000, recognize that they are not
buying an appliance package, they're not
doing any of their own um landscaping,
fencing. Those are tremendous costs that
people are going to have to do with any
other product. So, even if we get close,
we won.
Yeah, I agree. And and there may be
different ways to help with the offset
of the funding. water just seemed like
an element that we could address
directly because it's such a big
component, but like on the CDBG grant,
you know, I heard you ask the question
about can we buy water rights? Well,
maybe not, but can we buy all the common
area landscaping as part of the project
and the developer buys his own water
rights? Is there an offset where where
funding can be used and we classify it a
little bit differently so the funding
can be, you know, used where it can be
used? I I think we could have that
flexibility built in. That's an
excellent question and I I mean and I
I'm pretty sure council's aware of this,
but just for the benefit of of my two
new colleagues, I mean, those RDA funds
are replenishing year by year and
they're growing at a at an at a pace
that um we're going to have to find a
home for them to make sure that we're
successfully using them.
Yeah. I think to that point, if we don't
use it, the state's going to come and
say, "What's this money you have sitting
here?" and take it from us. So, I'd
rather put it to really great use. Are
there any other thoughts from council um
that you want to share before we move on
to the next item?
All right. Thanks, Mr. H.
Thank you.
All right. So, our next item on our uh
discussion agenda is city manager
information items. So, Mr.
Um, the one thing I just really wanted
to bring up is that we have an
anticipated July 30th meeting that's
joint with Saratoga Springs. I know that
the mayor of Saratoga Springs won't be
available that evening, but this was one
where we were going to talk about
connectivity of our two communities,
specifically all the different
connections that kind of follow the
Spring Lake neighborhood as well as the
uh um Lake Mountain Corridor connection.
And we anticipated having the church in
attendance because they own a lot of the
property there, having the school
district in attendance because they have
property there. Um, I just wanted to get
that on your horizon. See if that is uh
if there's any specific work that you
wanted or needed accomplished prior to
that meeting and how we can best support
you in that endeavor.
I will be flying back from Montana that
night, unfortunately, so I won't be
here. But
I think as long as we have good
representation,
I believe that's at six o'clock June
30th.
What day again?
July 30th.
All right.
I might I might defer just to David.
David, what do you think that we ought
to I mean, there are several connections
that we ought to be having a discussion
about. I'm just wondering if you can
bring some maps and
Scott and Mag and Avenue Consultants
will be in attendance as well.
Yeah. And I think this whole thing got
brought up because [snorts] we had the
[clears throat] Lake Mountain corridor
study kind of showing that really great
east west connection, you know, shorter
travel time and we put on the RTP draft.
Saratoga Springs didn't like that
revised layout. They like the original
one that kind of went farther south and
came back up. So that's what kind of
started this whole thing. We can talk
about some of the other connections as
well. Wild Blossom, also the connections
in the east, kind of making Wagstaff way
our primary.
Look, it's going to be one of those
really fun coordination meetings where
we listen to a variety of opinions and
we try to work to the middle. I mean, I
think that's really the goal is to hear
one another's concerns and to see what
we can do to amend and and and bend
without breaking um to produce the best
outcome. That's my hope.
The wax the wax tap way is a good one
too that 122 collector in spring run
area right now it tease into that
connection I think that'd be a good one
to also discuss hey can we realign that
portion so that is our main thoroughfare
in that region as well
any other thoughts
so just to clarify
the those that will be in attendance
will be MAG
the LDS church dot but nobody from
Saratoga Springs.
It's a joint council meeting with the
two council.
Oh, they are coming. Yes. Oh, good.
Okay. Awesome.
All right. Any other feedback for staff
then? Uh do you have any other
announcements for us?
Um I will be out of town uh tomorrow and
then of course um our offices uh it's
it's Pioneer Day. um will be closed on
Friday and so really Thursday is like
Friday and so just I'll make that
announcement in the next meeting.
Awesome. Thank you. All right, so let's
move on to our agenda review. We do have
quite a bit to discuss in close session.
So we're probably going to try to get
through what we absolutely have to and
then save the rest for during policy
session. So, one of the asks from our
recorder's office is that we um give
special attention to the motions
recorded in the minutes. Um and if
anybody needs more time, Mayor Gray
indicated that it would just be better
for us to pull the minutes from the
consent agenda if needed. Did anyone
have any issues or concerns about the
motions in the minutes? Well, I have a
so one comment on the minutes. The name
Jesse Call, Jesse's name was misspelled
in three locations. So, it's Jesi.
So, I just like that noted somehow. I
don't know if we needed to make that if
we could just state it here and it's
good. We just approve.
That one's probably good.
Anybody else have anything about the
minutes before we dig into the rest of
the consent agenda?
All right, moving on. Uh, bond release.
Bryley North Plat A out of warranty.
Does anybody have any questions about
that one?
Pacific Springs Phase A Plat 5 out of
warranty.
Okay. And we just talked about the
minutes. The next one is 12A. It's a
resolution um appointing a member
representative to the North Utah Valley
Animal Services Special Service District
Board. And that individual will be David
Yilberry. U replacing Finn Kofed. Does
anybody have any questions about that
item? All right. Next 12B. This is a
resolution approving the first amendment
to the stadium development agreement.
Does anybody have any questions about
that?
All right. Uh 12 C, a resolution of
Eagle Mountain City approving the first
amendment to the Bryley Town Homes phase
B development agreement. We have
questions about that. I know we had that
as an item last meeting. Uh the
applicant is here if you'd like to ask
questions or staff.
I had one brief question. So lots 207
through 210 had threetory varieties
built on that with the larger garages,
but those were not originally
contemplated in the count you needed for
40. Correct.
And
yes, please come to the microphone.
Introduce yourself. Uh Greg Wall with
Landex Development and uh we're the um
working with the developers for for the
towns at Brley Farms phase B plats one
or three and four. So those four lots
were in plat 2 and the language of the
development agreement contemplated lots
in plats three and four but um those had
not been built on yet by the prior
developer and the homebuilder element
homes had the opportunity to purchase
them and they did that so they could
have a model home ready by the time the
construction on the infrastructure for
lot or plats three and four were
completed. So yes, it's the exact same
model as the three stories with the 600
plus or 600 square foot minimum garages.
So you're basically asking for those
four to count toward the phase three
requirement
toward the 40 overall requirement.
40 overall requirement.
Does anybody have any issues with that
request?
Okay, I thank you. Have a seat. Um the
next one
is an ordinance. Um this one is
approving the Street Trails Master Plan.
We spoke at length about this at our
last meeting. Does anyone have any
thoughts or items on that? Okay. So, the
next item is a motion to reconsider. The
one of the applicants for that is
planning on being here
in the 7 o'clock meeting. So, can we
hold the review of this one off until
the next meeting? Great. Let's skip to
the next one. Um,
an ordinance of Eagle Mountain City
amending the Eagle Mountain Municipal
Code section 1620 for preliminary plats,
1625 for final plats, and 17100 for site
plan review.
And
I don't know who's assigned to this one.
It's not on there. Brandon Larson,
it's me.
Thank you.
Um, this is just a simple
administrative. Well, I shouldn't use
the word simple. You may not think it's
simple, but what I what we're trying to
do here is clean. It's another part of
our effort to try to clean up our our
development process. A while back, we
ran into an issue where we we realized
that we didn't have all the information
we needed to calculate some bond
numbers. And so what we're trying to do
is get get some of that get that
information
uh from the applicant at the front of
the application process. It it might
mean that an an applicant might have to
update their cost estimate
uh a little bit. They may they may have
to update it a couple of times through
the process, few times through the
process. But we feel like it's going to
be a benefit not only to the applicant
but to staff to the to be able to get an
idea of how much uh public improvements
are going to cost
and uh it's going to give the the
applicant I think a better it'll it'll
put them in a situation where they're
they are better taking more care to plan
for their uh public the uh construction
of their public improvements and paying
for them. So we we are proposing this uh
additional document for um preliminary
plat uh final plats and uh site plans.
There might be another one that I'm
forgetting but uh we we just think this
this information will be really helpful
and uh may help it so that we don't end
up at the uh
end up at the end of the development
process without a clear understanding
how of how much uh public improvements
are going to cost for development.
Thank you. Does anybody on council have
any questions or thoughts that they'd
like to voice?
I just I love the plain English summary
for SP 202. We need those on every
single thing we're reviewing. It's nice.
Yes. All right, let's move on to the
next one. This one is an ordinance
amending Utah Municipal Code 8.15.070
noise levels. And Mickey Mills is
presenting this one. Do you want to have
her come on up?
Why don't you come up?
We think that the HDMI cable. So, you're
either going to need to go over there.
I don't have a ton to to show. It's
really just a very short one line being
added to the code. Okay.
Go ahead, Council Member Wright.
Thank you. Hi, Mickey. I I just have a
question about red lines. I'm I'm I to
me it's just a little bit confusing and
I hope you'll help me walk through it a
little bit and it's in section D, the
hours of restriction exemptions.
Um I'll let you get there. It says one
parks the hours of noise restriction
with any park as defined in EM EMNC's
7.05030 5030 are as follows. 1000 p.m.
to 6:00 a.m. So, I'm interpreting that
to mean that uh you got to be quiet in
the park after 10:00 and and before 6
a.m. And then it says golf courses. The
hours of noise restriction for privately
owned golf courses for maintenance
activities are as follows. 5:30 a.m. to
10 p.m. Does that mean they can't mow
during the 5:30 to 10 p.m.
saying you can't restrict it during
that? That's what the bill says.
Yeah. an exemption.
Okay. So, they that's the time when
they're going to be able to do it.
Okay. I told you I was confused. So, I'm
glad that they clarified. Does that make
sense to everybody else? Just me having
a hard time.
Okay.
Okay. Any other questions, comments? All
right. Thank you. Um the last item
that is a regularly scheduled item is
discussion possible action for Triumph
and we already discussed that with the
applicant. Um so I think what would be
good is to
uh retire early to close session so we
can get through the list of things that
we need to do. Would someone like to
offer a motion? Pro Tim. Mayor Clark, I
move to adjourn to a close session for
the purpose of discussion of pending or
reasonably imminent litigate litigation,
the character, professional competence,
or physical or mental health of an
individual to purchase, lease, sale, or
exchange of real property, a proposed
development agreement, project proposal
or financing proposed related to the
development of land owned by the state
or political subdivision, andor the
deployment of security personnel,
devices, or systems pursuant to section
of the Utah code annotated.
Second.
All right, we have a motion from council
member Huish and a second from council
member Wood. Let's start the vote with
council member R.
Yes.
And I will vote as a council member.
Yes.
Thank you.
All right. Thank you.