It is now 6 o'clock. So let's get underway. We're going to have our first item. Our fire chief, Mr. Clint Smith, is going to give us a presentation by Parker Hanson, one of his firefighters, on the relevance of even this session, wildland mitigation. We are already doing and have been doing since you've been here. But now the legislature is going to mandate it. It's good to be ahead of the curve. You can hit the ball. All right. So again, we were already planning on giving you this presentation as far as a good wrap up on the fuels crew mitigation work that we do on an annual basis. And then we had the California event. And obviously now we're in the middle of a legislative session, which is pretty much the burn everything mentality up there. So Mike had asked that we kind of leave this and wrap it into kind of a full discussion of not only what we're doing really on an annual basis with the fuels mitigation crew and the work that we're doing there, kind of the forward look of how we continue to support this effort and the importance of this effort moving forward. So I'm going to let Parker start by running through really kind of a season wrap-up on the fuels crew, go through the work that they've completed this year, and then I'll take it and finish it up. But we'll try and keep you moving through this so we don't take too much time. You can just give me the nod, Parker, and I'll give you some slides to give all your attention to these. Well, yeah, this year, the fuels crew, we had a five-person crew, six including myself. We had a very productive, successful season. So here is just a project report for our HMGD grant. This is a report of all the acreage that was completed up in the Suncrest area. So here you can see there's all the dates, the project areas. And then the next slide, there's a map that shows each of the areas. And then the description of worker form and the acreage. Just to go through this really quick, you can see that we're doing chainsaw work. So that's feet on the ground, boots on the ground, going in and cutting the brush. And then there's also skid steer fitting. We're lucky enough to have a skid steer where we can do the same kind of work, but production rates are a lot faster with that machine. Yeah, area one, we just expanded a little bit. Area three, with a combination of skids here and chainsaw work. And then you can see, I noted here, that we mulched 68 piles. We've been doing pile burns. And the reason why we create those piles is because the areas that we're working in are inaccessible to machinery. So the only way to get rid of that vegetation is in burn. But yeah, with that skids here, sometimes we can get in there and mulch the piles. Area five, you can see we were there for about a month. With only the skids here, we completed five acres. And I actually went back through and counted the days that we were on the project. It was only eight days during that month. It's the busiest month, the Draper days and whatnot before the July. So with eight days, we completed five acres. Pretty notable. Moving forward, we kind of just go through it. Area nine was also very productive. We're lucky enough to utilize the state DNR fire fuel in the state lands. They have a chipper, a brush chipper that they loaned us. So just utilizing that machinery really allows us to increase our production. One thing I'll just mention here is that, again, that graph there, even after that table there, even though some of those are small, remember those are areas that have pretty steep terrain. So the work really has to be done on foot and by hand in some of those areas. They do a tremendous amount of work in there, and I think everyone probably had the chance to see them up as you were going up and down traversaries this year, working up in that area. But again, in those areas where the slope is not quite as steep and we're able to get in there with equipment, we can substantially... overall Asian GP project area. So right here would be a four-way intersection at the top of Suncrest. Traverse Ridge Road coming down to Suncrest Drive. And Potato Hill would be about right here. So most of the work has been on the west side of the hill. You can see the red highlighted area. That's where the skid steer work was performed. All of the yellow areas, that's chainsaw work, along with the pink. The pink are just solid fuel parts. where all the brush was cleared entirely. Yeah, each product area. And then here's a zoomed in map. So yeah, there's Potato Hill, Big Turn, Dormant Traverse Ridge Road. This is a map of all the burned piles along the hill. So you can see the red ones are piles that are unburned, so waiting to be burned. The blue ones are ones that we were able to reach, Chip, and then Black. This was only at like 17 last year, but this last fall, this winter, we were able to burn over 100 piles. So very productive. Just another note on that. Obviously, once we get into the later season, after they've completed the mitigation work throughout the year, certainly we don't want to burn any of those piles when it's still dry and the temperatures are hot out there. So we always wait, obviously, until really early winter when it And then there are a lot of mitigating factors that we have to take into consideration before they can actually burn those piles off. And most of that has to do with a clearing index, you know, what the weather is like outside and what the inversion is like, whether we're going to impact significantly the health by burning those and keeping that smoke held down. So when you look at what the weather does, how much snow on the ground or how wet the piles are, a lot of times our days, burn day, a couple different burn days scheduled this year that we had to postpone because the clarion index, even though it was projected to be okay, all of a sudden closed on us or we got too much moisture in those piles where they weren't able to burn readily and be productive in the work that was completed that day. Again, significant improvement. Before we updated this slide today, there was about 100, or excuse me, about 260 piles that were showing as unburned. So again, a very productive Thanks to the fact that we have really kind of mild temperatures and really late snowfall coming in this year. Yeah, some other notable projects that we can think of this year were the chipping days. Chipping days this year were completed up in the Suncrest area. And we saw a huge improvement last year as far as community participation. And this is a project that's really starting to gain a lot of traction with the citizens. They're really picking up on it and wanting to participate. I think there's been a lot of awareness lately with the LA fires and just other fires that have occurred. People are definitely concerned about what they can do to protect their homes. Here you can see this is all brush that this homeowner cut out that they put on their driveway. So what we do is we coordinate the date where if they cut all the brush and take it to the curb, we'll come and pick it up and dispose of it for them. So it's a very good project. Last year, we only had one shipping day. And if I remember right, there's probably an estimated total hours of under 50 hours. So you can see this here. We estimated 224 hours of participation. And I'm just going to say that's very underestimated. Because that's what we estimated based off of looking at the piles. But I've talked to a lot of the homeowners. And some of them are reporting that they spent 50 hours in sales. So I know that number's a lot higher and there's a lot of people who are wanting us to come to their homes and assist with this project. We'll talk a little bit more about how those hours come into play a little bit later in the presentation with our community. Go ahead. Yeah, so that's definitely not in the recommended. Yeah, just some other projects. So you saw in that first report, there was like 23 and a half acres that we paid through for the grant. Aside from that, we cleared other areas that were outside of the grant area. We did an acre and a half, kind of up by peak view, behind a bunch of homes where the citizens were concerned. Also along here, we did another acre and a half. Go back that, go back that. OK, you're good. media event that was hosted, Forest Service, PNR, and then local departments, local agencies. Fire prevention night, just really we interacted with the public a lot this year, and I believe, I truly believe that we helped people kind of raise that awareness for wildfire mitigation and prevention. Yeah. Yeah. We also assist the department with patrols and other projects that were being held with the city. One of the ones that was kind of, and Scott can probably comment on this, they replaced a lot of the guard railing of Traverse Ridge this year. And it was being done and there was a lot of cutting and grinding and things to do during the hot months, which there was concern about. So we were able to have our people go up if they were replacing those guardrails to make sure that we have some mitigation right on site in case there was something that sparked off, you know, and all that dry brush that was up there. So we've been able to really diversify and use outside of obviously all the things that we want to do mitigation-wise in how the field screw really interacts with the city and they've been a huge asset to us. So we're going to jump in now into talking about some of the programs that we currently participate in. So one of the many, several years ago, and I can't remember how long ago now, the state came up with a program that they call the Community Wildfire Protection Program, or as we refer to it, the CWPP. What this program does is if you become a participating agency in this, then what it says is they're going to come in and what this whole table here is, the state's going to come in and basically assess an amount of work or participation that you need to do in terms of wildfire mitigation each year. And by doing so, then should we have a larger scale incident where we exceed our own capabilities with resources to fight some type of a urban interfacial wildfire within our area, we can delegate that responsibility to the state. The state will come in and help manage it, and they will also pick up the cost of all of those mitigations. So it's hugely beneficial for us to participate in this. And you can see in the use of historical data in terms of how they come up with our participation costs. Which this is the one that we just received. And we have agreed to, Mike has signed this agreement again for this year. And we have agreed to work to this level. So our participation amount this year is just shy of $56,000. And we can do that through a couple of different ways. But again, I'll just call the note here. You look at fire costs. I go over here to the real fire suppression costs. And you can see that we've been very fortunate. But I think that that's from being very proactive in the work that we're doing, too. And you can see that we've had really many costs. Even this in 2020 at $136,000, that was the last, what I will say, the more significant one. And it was up by the flight park. That was where this one was. We called in some airdrops, we called in a few other things because it was in close proximity to some residential structures to help really wrap around that quickly. But at $136,000 that the state paid that we did not have to, that is still very low in terms of some of these larger fires that take place out there. And you can see, again, over the last three years as they look back over our historical data, we haven't had anything that we've had to call in and request state support. $55,587 participation, which we will have over this next year. This is how it broke down. You can do a quarter of that, you can do through equipment that you purchase in wildlife firefighting coverage. We purchased a new Type 6, which is the smaller vehicle a couple of years ago. We can use that as part of the write-off over a couple of years. So we've got that piece already covered for this upcoming year, and then we have three-quarters of that has to be done through And that's where those hours Parker identified in terms of the participation hours for community chipping events. We can take that, those hours, times that by an hourly rate, what the state assigns to that and help that money that goes then towards that mitigation piece and meeting that cost. So again, we get a lot of value out of this, especially should we be unfortunate enough to have an incident where we need to So this is one of the significant programs that we've been participating in for a long time. The HMGP grant, Parker talked about that. This was awarded to the city in 2023. It had a total funding of about half a million dollars. 400,000 of that was basically funds directly to the city through the grant program. We get that funding back after we basically spend it and then we apply to the grant for reimbursement. This grant had a 25% match, so it was $1,000 of our own free money that was required in the award of this grant. It has a three-year match performance period, which we are now at the end of. This has provided funding for five seasonal employees. It provided the initial full-time funding for Parker's position, and then obviously we got some equipment out of it, most of which is that skid serve that has been talked about that is a significant tool in our And again, we are at the end of this one, so we are preparing to close this grant out completely. We've expended basically all the funds out of it. And we have now met, through the work that the fields crew has done, met our obligations for that grant. So we'll be going through the closeout period here probably early spring this year and closing that grant out. So this one will come to a close. We are looking at other grant opportunities that are out there. We've had the BRIC grant that we've applied for. We weren't successful again in that one. We've applied for a couple years in a row, and that's for the building resilient communities, infrastructure and communities. The one that we're waiting to hear back on right now is the Louis Prevention, Preparedness, and Mitigation under the PPPM funded grant. This is done on an annual basis, so we have submitted for this upcoming season. We have submitted specifically to install a field break in the Mercer Hollow area of the Suncrest. Amount requested of $120,000. This particular grant doesn't require any match or participation from the city. And we're awaiting the notifications. We anticipate those hopefully late March from the state. This will be one that we continue to look at year after year as another It looks as though this has about four million in grant to allocate this year. We've really built some very strong relationships with the state in terms of with their people, the work that we're doing, and working with them on grant projects and grant submissions. So we've taken a lot of input that they've given us and direction they've given us in how to try and be successful in these grants. As part of, obviously, our program, we do our deployments each year. So this is kind of a wrap-up of our deployments this year, or at least thus far this fiscal year. You never know if it's going to change again with the way the season has been. But we started off early this year with our first one up into Oregon in July. And then you can see they march out. We've spent a lot of time in California this year. Each of these deployments, with the exception of these first two, this deployment was basically combined. So it was about a week in Oregon, and then we automatically moved to California for about a week there. And then this is another full two weeks, another full two weeks. We spent about 12 days on the Yellow Lake fire here in the state, and then obviously the most recent, just a few weeks ago, another full two weeks in California on these EMACs. EMAC, again, is Emergency Management Assistance Compact, something we participate in where a state can directly request resources from another state. And there are different funding mechanisms on how we're reimbursed. All total, though, right now we're anticipating after we've deducted all of our expenses for over fuel, all of those other things we're anticipating once we get reimbursed for each of these deployments through this last year of about $385,000 in revenue coming in, which is one of our busiest years in quite a while in terms of that. And again, we could get another request at any time. We just never know what's going to happen with the weather. That is certainly one of the revenue sources that we to sustain the field program as well. So this is the last slide for you guys. Obviously, I will just touch on the fact the mayor already mentioned it. We do have a couple of ruling bills that are moving through the legislative process right now. There's HB 48. I actually testified on that bill this morning. It was out of committee this morning. That bill is a very robust bill that talks about Many things that affect us really intimately here. One is the map that identifies the WUI area. The current map in the state is pretty inaccurate. It right now has about 350,000 homes across the state that it shows is within the WUI area through some work with state lands. We believe that once that map gets refined, there's only about 77,000 homes that are truly in the high-risk area of the Bowie across the state. We have some of ours in our own community right now that are down, you know, as you come out of Corner Canyon area, Steeplechase area, and South Fork and those areas, well, really without sight now, it's still shown today as high-risk in the Bowie area. So this legislation helps to clear that up a little bit, and then it really addresses mitigation, what the responsibility is to the homeowners that do choose to live in the high-risk area. There is contemplated a small nominal fee that's assessed to them every year with some responsibility put on them for their own mitigation efforts. It does require the adoption across the entire state of some form of the WUI code, which we already have here, which helps to harden those structures with certain building materials when they are built in the WUI area. And then it also addresses the insurance compliance And the fact that, obviously, we're well aware that we have some of our residents right now that are just being dropped by their insurance carrier, again, because they have been perceived to be in a high-risk area. Some of them truly are in what would probably be considered a high-risk area, but some of them are not. And this helps to identify the course of action and put some responsibility on the insurance company to allow them to do the mitigation. Go ahead, Mike. good and bad for us, obviously, because sometimes their data is inaccurate and sometimes our data is inaccurate. And so what we're really trying to do is be very collaborative with them in this and actually get to where we have maps that are updated frequently and include the mitigation work that we're doing and that's reflected in the maps to help, again, let the insurance company know that from a city's perspective, from a homeowner's perspective, they're working proactively to help mitigate So again, 48 passed out of committee this morning. The staff I named was, I can't remember if it's HBRSB, I can't remember, but 307 was that one, which also really has to do with more of the work and the funding of the money and how those, some of those mitigation funds, there's multiple mitigation funds, that one really talks about combining them under Forestry Fire State. moving specifically tied to this that we are advocating for quite honestly because there's things that will significantly improve things for our residents here. So moving forward, future needs, obviously we're gonna continue to participate in the CWPP program. That brings great value to the city. Again, an insurance policy for us should we have some type of an incident that requires a lot of resources and cost in order to fight that fire. Obviously we're always looking have this discussion about looking at some ground writing support to help us secure some of these funds that are out there. Go ahead, Hunter. We're about to enter a contract with a grant writing specialist. We've got support from all our departments. We're temporarily piggybacking it back to you. of those programs at Capitol Hill. And just to give you a perspective, we're actually advocating for them to increase the funding of both of those programs to $405 million for each of those, respectively, say for NAFG. But last year, there were applications or grant applications for that money for 14 times more money than was actually available from across the country. So that tells you the need that exists there. Obviously, we want to continue to training of our people, wages when necessary if we don't have any other revenue streams to continue to support fields through program. But I want to have Parker just touch on a minute here about equipment. Again, we had to borrow some equipment from our partner this year to complete some of the work, but we do believe that there's value in us looking into purchasing some of this equipment to have in the house so that it's always available in our disposal. immense value in the equipment that we can use. Some of the things that we looked at getting or would like to have to reduce our production rates on efficiency would be a little cash truck that has a tow-behind chipper just for the chipping days, mainly for that purpose. The program would be way more efficient. We could move a lot faster and get more work done. And then just also looking at getting some different attachments to that skid steer that we so that we can improve access to difficult to reach areas. So again, we think that there's ways that we can enhance the program through reinvesting some of that money. Really, the main ask is this, is this, that we ensure, regardless of what revenue streams are available for us, that we find a way to continue to fund and support the fields reduction program. Again, I think we're gonna continue to see more and more pressure put on each entity make sure that they are doing this in their areas so that we don't end up in a situation like unfortunately we saw happen in California. Again, I think we've tried to be very proactive and do work from our inception to make sure that we're addressing this need, but we also recognize that we have a lot more area to go. And the thing about fields reduction is you can do it in one area and a few years later you're going to have to go back and do it again. So it's we can continue to support this on the forum and on the forum itself. That's the end of our presentation. Hopefully it provides some good information. Any questions we can answer for you. Justice, go ahead. You talked about that the residents who live in the Glee area, that they are charged like a fee or something for that. And if the state comes back and you redo the map, there are significantly less number of houses. Will we then have a So the fee that I spoke about, and I apologize if I misspoke, is contemplated as part of the legislation that's moving through this year. So there's currently not a fee assessed. So what we want to make sure that we do as part of this legislation is correctly identify the homes that should be assessed a fee, so that we're not doing those that really aren't truly in a high-risk area. And again, those funds will then be collected, and there's language in the bill that really puts the responsibility So we would have to work with Salton County because it puts it on the counties basically to put those programs in place. The money then goes to the state's mitigation fund. And then I believe it will help support other grant opportunities for mitigation. But all of this is meant to help obviously reduce the risk to the state. But today, there's no one that's being assessed that fee. That's contemplated as part of this legislation moving through the session. Any other questions we can answer? Excellent. Thank you. Appreciate it. All right. Next, we have Mr. Parker, boundary adjustment at Highland City. Good job. Thank you, Parker. Thank you. Good work. request from Highland City to adjust our common boundary in the southeast corner of the city. Just to orient you here, looking at the Utah County assessor's parcel map to Suncrest Drive. This parcel is owned by AJB, Alpine Joint Ventures. And this is the Currently, Highland has an attention basin and a trailhead in this area. Let me zoom in. Back in 2022, they executed a land swap with AJV, which Highland obtained this narrow parcel here. received this parcel here. It's on the backside of these homes. At the time, the parties contemplated that they would request this boundary adjustment. So the Highland City parcel is actually in Draper. The common boundary follows the backside of this This is actually Draper over here. So Highland owns this narrow parcel in Draper. And AJB owns all their property in Draper, except this long, narrow parcel is in Highland. And so Highland's requested that we jog that property, or excuse me, the boundary between our two cities so that their property will be within their corporate limits and AJB's property will be consolidated with this property after April. So like I said, they did this property swap about three years ago. There's currently other discussions regarding the development of Blue Bison and we're working with Island on those issues. So they've just asked that we consider that. So I'm kind of priming the pump, if you will. The next step, if you want to go forward, is to put on a resolution that we can't I have a question on that. It was my understanding. I didn't know that it actually either purchased the property. I never said it was just a . No, it was a property swap. So they own that narrow parcel. OK. So I was saying, I am OK with this. It makes sense to me. But my problem is, this is really just getting used to irk me because they're paying no money in. They help zero with trail maintenance or paying for the ranger. And yet their entire city wants access and expects access. But they don't support our trail system. They've never supported the trail system. I don't know if anybody else can comment on that because that kind of predates my involvement in this. I can tell you going forward. The development plans would be that they would have access through Alpine Hollow. I understand that they're going to have access. It would be really nice if the surrounding neighboring cities that love our trail system so much were actually partners with us in making these trail systems happen. Because they're expensive. I mean, I think we had actually told them before. commit some level of financial assistance to paying for the range or maintaining the trails. I mean, we've got a meeting this Thursday with their mayor and public works and such to talk about some of these issues. Certainly bring that issue up. I mean, I agree with what Green is saying. I think it's a problem. We're burying the entire financial burden. Unless they can come to the table and talk about how they're going to contribute. Isn't that what you're saying, Tasha? like they want access to the entire trail system, but they're bringing nothing to the table. Like help pay for the ranger. Provide your own ranger. Help with some of the maintenance. Have trail work days. All right. Well, Thursday the meeting will be more lively. To be sure. All right. And that takes us to council. Anything else on that? That takes us to council manager. Who would like to go first? I can report about our kindness initiative that the engagement committee did. They had 10 people who came, and they passed out the little, I don't have one, but little cards that said, you matter. They were at Cal Ranch, North Main Street, Draper Library, and Draper City Park. And we had one comment. Red. I don't have anything right now. I can give you a little update on the legislative sausage making situation, if you'd like. So as it goes every year, there's always stuff afoot that you don't feel like you understand where or when. But it's moving, interestingly enough, this year. So there are a couple of big, we took The league took a league army no position on three bills today at the LPC. One was HB465, that's the right number, right? That is the bill where, it's Casey Snyder's bill, and it's a bill to essentially take over or give the Department of Public Safety the ability to force cities of the first class that have homeless shelters to enter into a contract with the Department of Public Safety to provide oversight and law enforcement, and primarily to create this rapid response team that would do, we're not really sure what, but the Department of Public Safety would, the cities of the first class with the homeless shelters, and cities that are not of the first class but that have a homeless shelter, would be affected by this rapid response team. So like, they would force Salt Lake City, St. George, Sandy I think fits the first class, West Valley, West Jordan, South Jordan's almost there. So there's a bunch of cities that wouldn't affect us, but we took the position of no and opposed because in order to force really the city they're most after is Salt Lake City. But in order to force compliance, they wanna tie B and C road money to compliance. So if the city of the first class were to say no, we won't make a contract with DPS, we don't want to do your joint rapid response task force, then they would take the BNC road money away from the city, which we don't think is a good precedent to set or should be a negotiating tool because at the end of the day, we fix the roads, they don't. The next item was, that's one of the sticking points, the other one was forcing local law enforcement to work with the state law enforcement by mandate as opposed to what we all are already doing, which is working together, like our South Valley team's working together, some of those things. What was the third one? Yeah, it was the rapid response team. It's very vague as to who would be in command, who would be in charge, all the things that bother the police chiefs. They're all in there, everything. The Police Chiefs Association is opposed to it. We took a position of no on it, so that's one. The next bill that we took a position of no on is a gravel bill, shocker. And the gravel bill, although Mike and I might say there are some good negotiating points that were made that are pretty good. But the overall issue for the cities is, This ability to do unfettered expansions and parcels next to, or maybe not exactly next to, but in the same area. One of the cities, Eagle Mountain and Springs, they have a similar situation to us, but they have a longer run potential for gravel expansion. So they have a big gravel pit that could go from here to the California border, collectively, except for maybe Dougway would get in the way. Maybe. But, so we took a no position on that bill as well. And then, what was the other no? Oh yes, we took a no on that one because they want to give the legislative auditor the ability to come in, audit a city or a political entity, and then essentially void the attorney client privilege. So like, we were in a lawsuit with some organization or some developer over something. and we've been having our close meeting discussions about strategy or if we should proceed or what tack we should take, that the auditor, as part of the audit process, could gather this data, could acquire that attorney-client privileged information, and broadcast it to whoever in the hell they wanted to broadcast it to. Is that pretty clear? Yeah. Yeah. And so we took a hard no on that. So those were the three League Army no's we're going to ask you to reach out to our representatives about. The other issue that's up there is there's a broadband bill that we're not, we haven't taken a position on yet. There is the gravel bill. Oh, I'm sorry, yeah, the gravel bill, which we're still in a pending, they're still negotiated. The gravel bill, it's probably going to be a no all the way through, but that we've been negotiating a lot on this as part of this stuff because there's a lot of stuff in there. There is talk of a land use bill to rule them all that has not yet come out yet, but is afoot. And so stay tuned for that. It'll be rather rapid when it reaches the press and gets to our, for us to look at. I don't know what it means. There's been talk of redoing GOEO, redoing all of the state land authorities, wrapping them into one land authority to rule them all. This is what happens at this time of the legislative session, all this stuff that's ready to hit. So I've spent a fair amount of time up there, a lot more than I thought I would. It seems like I'm up there at least once a day. Tomorrow, Cameron and I are meeting with Speaker Schultz. And then on Thursday, we're meeting with President Adams to kind of get into where we are on some of all these issues. So far, land use has not been terrible. We negotiated with Reverend Dunnigan a couple of land use bills that we supported. And Senator Fillmore took all the language we got out of those bills that we supported and put it all in another bill that he ran today that takes all the language we negotiated out for two weeks and tried to bring it back in an end ground, which we're ultimately going to take no position on that. One of the things in his bill that we don't like is they want to make general plans essentially like a zoning plan. So if you adopt a general plan, you are committed to that general plan like zoning. And we are not in favor of that. So that's one of the issues. We've worked out a lot of parking and garage size and some of that stuff. I testified in favor of three bills and killed two last week. So three to two, we say it's partnership, not preemption. So we were partnering fairly well. The Salt Lake City thing is a pure preemption bill. I mean, it's literally, and I guess the theory is if they can do it to one of us, they can do it to all of us. The BNC road and everything is not cool. We don't want them making that a way that they go forward. And I said today, and I thought rather eloquently, maybe not, that community policing is what we do in our communities. It's why we have police departments, because our citizens want their department. They want someone that's responsive to them. They want a community police department. And we do it. We do that service for our communities. The state's not really a community police department. They don't do that. They do some special stuff that they do really well. They do highway patrol really well, but they're not local police departments. And so to me, like I always say, most of the time, our citizens, their real interface with the city might be with our police officers or our firefighters. Luckily, the state's not trying to take over the fire department yet. But they are the police department if you're in the city of the first class or if you have a homeless shelter. And they also want to take, this is odd, If the city were not to comply, the large capital city that might be downtown, they would be able to take the homeless mitigation money they get from all of us and give it to TPS to, I guess, arrest a lot of people that they can't hold in any jail space they don't have. So I mean, the bill's fraught with a lot of issues because no one knows what success looks like. When has it been successful? Is it everyone in jail? That's not going to happen. We don't have the jail space for any extra people. So there's some of those issues. Then the command and control issues are, you know, the rapid response team. The employees in your city, what's it deploying for, and who's in charge of it, and all that. And part of the issue is we work well together already, all of our police departments do, with each other. We also work well with the Department of Public Safety. In the one time in my career that we've been called on to assist the state government, or Salt Lake City, we all assisted Salt Lake City, all the agencies did, that pretty much were within earshot or could, in addition to the military. So, I mean, some of this stuff is, what's the outcome, what are the metrics. So having said that it's a hard no, it's also something I think should be negotiated. So we're always trying, as you know, as the league, to try and negotiate to make bad bills better. We either wanna stop really bad bills, or if we don't think we can stop them, we wanna make the bad ones bad. I will say that our former council member and local representative has done a fine job. for us up there, everything I've asked him to do. He has been Johnny on the spot for it. He's done some really good things. Senator Baldry texts me every day on a bill and says, what's the position on this? And she's been fantastic. I can text her back and say, I hate this one. She'll either say, I hate this one too, or tell me why. So it's been pretty good. And then we had a meeting, oddly enough, negotiate all the housing stuff. You know, I don't know if you guys, I think I've been, I don't think I'm in like a time warp, but I felt like over the last few years, we've kind of had the legislature with a giant club near our heads. Would you all agree that that's what it felt like? Oddly enough, there were a number of legislators that got us in a meeting last week that felt that too. And they wanted to start pushing back on some of these land use bills. And I was like, where have you been for years? But it's a select group of, It's an interesting group, but we did find a few bills to push back on today, and I informed a couple of the representatives. So anyway, there's a billboard bill that talks about moving billboards in the event of construction and widening. If you weren't aware, we're about to widen I-15 in a lot of spots, like bigger than ever, north particularly. So there are some billboards that might get impacted, but The bill started out with kind of an unfettered movement, but I think we're pretty close on that. Actually, I see the billboard groups, I see their point, their valuable piece of property that they aren't trying to move, but UDOT comes and condemns it. We, the taxpayer, either pays them for it or we find another place for it that fits within the law. So it's been working pretty good. I don't think there was any other one. Oh, the point. The reformulation of the point commission. There's a bill out that talks about making it. It's a Senate bill, Jerry Stevenson's bill. Did you find it? No, I can't remember the name of it. It takes the point commission and it takes it from 11 members to seven. Seven voting members. There might be some non-voting members. What I understand is the office of mayor of Draper City is a voting member. Going forward, the county mayor will have the voting spot going forward. At least that's the way it came out of the Senate committee. So that's good news for us. I think as far as working with the point from our engineering perspective, we've turned a really good corner with them as far as making sure things have been done right. Better working environment, would you say? So the point, we're having a POMSA meeting tomorrow morning at 7. I don't know if that's early morning agenda, but we think the Senate bill is going to move to the House and it should stay in the afternoon and keep it posted. We're working... with our lobbying team. We're having a meeting with them tomorrow morning on Zoom about water issues and infrastructure and money that we might be able to acquire. Anything else? We've had large attendance at LPC meetings, the biggest ever. came down last week for a joyous one. We've had 300 plus people in every LPC meeting this year. We use Slido, if you're unfamiliar. So they'll ask a question to get a position. Our position as the league is if we're above 63%, then that's a position we take. If it's fractured less than that, it's not a unified position. So we've been using Slido questions on different issues. Where are you here? How did we get there? It's pretty effective. And it all depends on the quality of the question. But it's been working pretty well. We get a pretty good perspective on where the league membership is. But we'll stay tuned on the HB465, the Salt Lake City bill. I think there's room for something different to be put together. I think that's it. That's all. I'll keep you posted after tomorrow when the bills yet to hit the street may come out. Any questions? All right, we'll take a few minutes of a break. See you in a minute. Large crowd this evening. We have the free press and one visitor. Very good. All right, well. All right, well, I would like to call our meeting to order. We'll start off with our traditional Pledge of Allegiance, and this will be by our Fire Chief, Chief Smith. Go ahead, sir. Thank you, Chief. The next item on our agenda is an opportunity for general public comment. Is there anyone here that would like to make a general public comment to the council? Just for fun. All right. Well, thank you. I'm not seeing anyone that wants to make a general public comment. We'll close that item and move on to item number four, which is our consent items. Item 4A is approval... of the February 4th, 2025 City Council Meeting Minutes. 4B is approval of Resolution 2507. It's a resolution of the Draper City Council disposing of property seized as evidence in accordance with the Utah Code 7711A402. Item 4C is approval of Resolution 2508. It's a resolution reappointing Laura Baker to the Draper City Tree Committee. Item 4D is approval of Resolution 2509. It's a resolution appointing Christine Green as a Planning Commissioner Alternate. Is there a motion? Mr. Mayor, I'd like to move to approve the consent calendar. A motion to approve by Ms. Lowry. Is there a second? I'll second. Second by Ms. Vaudrey. Any further discussion? Ms. Lowry, how do you vote? Yes. Ms. Vaudrey? Yes. Mr. Green? Yes. Ms. Johnson? Yes. Mr. Lowry? Yes. All right. Those items are approved unanimously 5-0. That takes us to item number 5, which is... a oath of office for our brand-new, soon-to-be brand-new city recorder, Nicole Smedley. We'll have her sworn in by our outgoing and now retired city, I guess. Are you still? Until the night's over. Yes, indeed. All right. Okay, we would like to all go down and have a photo with Laura for her retirement. We got you, well I say we, Kelly got you this bag because we know that you're going to be a world traveler and this should fit in the overhead bin. You should be able to grab it in the event of a rollover landing and take it with you. But we'd like to get a photo with you and give you this bag that you will hopefully wear out in your travels and your life going forward. And I just want to say personally, you've been a tremendous recorder. You've stepped in and have done as good of a job as we could ever hope and better than you probably should have, and it's been amazing. You've done a great job running our elections and keeping us all straight, and we wish you the best in retirement. Should we go get a picture? And, of course, we would like to welcome Nicole as our brand-new, now, city recorder. Thank you. Glad to have you. Item number six. Item number six, the first item is a public hearing. It's ordinance number 1634. It's an ordinance of the Draper City Council approving a one-time incentive payment to the mayor in recognition of his service and extensive involvement in various boards and commissions during the 2024-2025 period. I don't know if I would go without standing, but, you know, yes. And so that's open for public comment. Is there anyone from the public that would like to address the council on that item? All right. Seeing none, I'll close the public hearing, bring it back to the council. Council, you'll notice in the packet, the ordinance itself does not have a – if, in fact, you – approve this ordinance, you'd need to decide what that one-time incentive payment would be. I know there's been a figure that was bandied around, but in publishing the agenda, we just left that blank for you to have that discussion and fill that in. All right, I move that we adopt the Maybe let me just... I was just going to make a motion and put a number in. Don't want me to create a record at all of... Sure. Yeah, if you don't mind, I will. So Mayor Walker has statutory duties under state law. He has duties under our city code. But beyond that, he stepped up over the last couple of years to... For instance, this year, he's the president of the Utah League of Cities and Towns. And having participated in meetings with him over the last few months, and I know that the time commitment that he's put in, as well as, I guess, contributing his political acumen and his understanding of how things get done has been a real benefit to Draper as... He's looked out for our interests, and you'll notice in the ordinance there's a list of probably 10 different boards and commissions that he currently serves on, giving Draper City its residents and its businesses a voice around those tables where important decisions are being made. And so if you pass this ordinance, it would be in recognition for that time that he spends making sure that Draper's interests are well protected. And he does so, I've observed over, well, I've known him for 10 years since I've been with the city. I guess to the detriment to some degree of his time spent with his family as well as, as you're probably all aware, he's self-employed as an attorney. And so every hour he's spent out there on behalf of Draper is one less hour that he has a chance to earn an income. And so... I think it's well warranted and let the council make their decision then. Can you speak to how this is handled by other cities? In specific, South Jordan does a similar incentive type of program. Can you address that? Yeah, so our human resources director, Melina Murray, had put together a spreadsheet of mayoral salaries around around the state. The data is not necessarily up to date, although it is, for the most part, very current. And South Jordan, for instance, Mayor Walker's salary is, base salary, if you will, is comparable to Mayor Ramsey in South Jordan, but she has an almost her salary based on incentives for attending all these meetings. And if you know Mayor Ramsey, you know that she's heavily involved in boards and commissions also. And just looking at the data that Melaina provided, it looks like some other mayors have additional compensation for participating in other boards and commissions. So I think this one-time incentive pay is It's well in line with what other cities do to compensate their mayors. Thank you. All right. It's weird calling for a motion on this. I do want to say it was not my idea, and obviously I didn't sign up to do all this stuff for money specifically, but I most definitely do appreciate it. There's a lot of time. I think I've had an opportunity over the last few years to – keep us in the conversation at a level that comes from being willing to put in that much time at the league. But it is nice to be able to, you know, give our citizens a very good seat at the table in a lot of the really key areas that matter, transit, the league, all these things. So I've enjoyed it. I like the work. But I do appreciate your willingness to recognize the time I'm spending at it. I do very much. You know, just the fact that you've been up on the Hill almost every single day this session speaks to the time that you're putting in. And I think we can't underestimate the value of your voice at the table. I mean, because of your work and your leadership, not just at the League of Cities and Towns, but I mean, you've been the president of COG numerous times. You've served on the UTA board. You're just highly valued and appreciated in a realm outside of Draper. And I think that is really... one of the reasons why we have this outsized influence, which works to our advantage when we are dealing with issues that affect our municipality. So I appreciate that, but I also recognize that is time away from your regular job, and it takes away what you can give to your clients, and that's a financial loss for you. And so I think this is something that we can do to be more fair and recognize this is how other cities deal with this. So I'm in support. Mr. Mayor, I think you're definitely deserving of it. I've seen you work tirelessly with legislators and beyond. I mean, that's how I met you, was on the Pete Suazo Utah Athletic Commission. That is indeed how I did in 2016. So I think you're definitely very deserving of this. So I'm going to make a motion unless anyone else wants to speak. I just want to add that there's a difference between going up there and being at the meeting and having the relationships, and that's what Mayor Walker has done is he's created these relationships, and that's why he's so effective at getting the things done that he's doing up there, and I think that's what really makes the difference. Everything that's been said is true. We appreciate you. We do appreciate you. Thank you. You're awesome. Thank you. And you're great for the city. All right, I'd like to make a motion that we adopt Ordinance 1634 and authorize a bonus payment, a one-time incentive payment of $10,000 to the mayor in recognition for his outstanding service. All right, is there a second? I'll second. I'll second. All right. Any further discussion? I'd just like to add on the record that I feel that this motion is more than due, and I fully support it also. Mayor, I appreciate the extra hours that you've spent every year that you've served in the office, and I'm very happy that we're recognizing you for the extra service. Well, thank you all. I appreciate it very much. Like I say, I love the work, but it does take time. It is very appreciative. I very much appreciate your at least certainly recognition. I know you all do, and I think you're an amazing group as well. We've accomplished a lot over the years. Thank you. Mr. Green, how do you vote? Yes. Ms. Fodder, how do you vote? Yes. Ms. Lowry? Yes. Ms. Johnson? Yes. Mr. Lowry? Yes. Items approved unanimously, five to zero. Item 6B is an action item, resolution 2510. It's a resolution adopting the capitalization threshold for Draper City. This is without a doubt going to be interesting. Go ahead, Mr. Bike. Some fascinating stuff coming your way. So we are bringing to you a... proposal to change our capitalization thresholds so currently we have a capitalization threshold of $5,000 so what does that mean it means that if there's an item that is more than $5,000 any item at this point we will come to you we are required to come to the council for approval to purchase that item and that that item would then be capitalized which means that we will not expense all of the asset in a single year, but we will take the useful life of that asset and extend the life and expense it over that lifetime. This standard was really set up in 1999 at $5,000 and so we're coming to you to say we really have looked at this and done some studies. We've looked at our financial statements and said where should we do this and how should we do this? And so we've looked at different categories of equipment and how that should be done and then at different thresholds. If you look at this being done in 1999 and you just look at pure inflationary costs, the change would be to almost $10,000, $9,950. What we've done is we've broken it down into eight different categories. These are the categories that are reported within our consolidated financial statements. And then we've established a threshold for each of those individual categories ranging from $10,000 to $20,000 to $50,000 for water tanks. We've done a lot of different study and analysis on this and feel like this will not have a significant impact. It's typically less than 1% of the assets that the city owns are with are going to fall within that changed dollar threshold and so we're bringing this to you to get your approval and to have you enact this so that we can move forward with these different thresholds what does that mean for you and for the city it means that we're going to save a little bit of time in going out and the city will save time in in capitalizing the assets, meaning within finance we're not going to have to do quite as many assets. We're going to save some of our time and resources to be able to do some other things. We won't be coming to you for budget amendments like we did last spring for $5,500 to get your approval to purchase a copy machine. That will fall under the threshold and we'll just assume that you have given us permission. Now everything, all purchases will still fall within budgetary guidelines and restrictions that you have established at the beginning of the year. So don't feel like it's really gonna be a big impact, but one that will do a little bit of time savings and cost savings for the city. So questions or comments? Okay. Any questions for John? resolutions or motion motion by Miss Lowry approves or second second second minus Friday any further discussion it's Larry how do you vote it's watery yes mr. green yes it's Johnson yeah mr. Lowry yeah I'm approved that takes us to item number seven motion to adjourn motion by mr. green your adjourn is there a second I'll second. We'll have a second by Ms. Johnson. All in favor of adjournment say aye. Aye. Are there any opposed? We stand adjourned.