All right, should we call a meeting to order? You guys ready? Recording is on. Let's start off with the Wasatch Front Regional Council. Do we have anybody here from that? Yeah, yeah. For Andrew? Well, yeah. Can I see them now? Okay, so Wasatch Front Regional Council has asked us to make some updates to the land use map. Yeah. that they have and propose any updates that we have. So the land use plan looks at centers and districts that concentrate populations within the city. And they look at it on a regional scale so that they can get statistics and future statistics on population and jobs so that they can then use that to formulate their travel demand model and their transportation master plan for the region. And they've got a new district called the Retail District. We're also looking at adding in the stationary plans on the plans. So this is the current model. We've had them add the Kimball's area since that would be a stationary plan. We've got some larger areas west of I-15 that they've just kind of designated as employment districts. So we've got a few modifications that we're going to send to them that we want to just get your buy-in on. So the first part is breaking up those areas on the west side of the freeway, but then also adding in those retail districts that is the new district for us to account for. So this is looking at Bangor, I-15, and 138, adding in a retail district where the Harman's is, an employment district, the office south of Harmons and 138th is taking out the office and kind of industrial uses north of the prison property between Bangor and the prison property out of what they've designated as an urban center for the prison property and letting them know that that's not part of the prison development between Bangor and 123rd It's been designated as just an employment center, so breaking out the retail district, that IKEA living spaces area, and then the industrial district over by Coca-Cola. And then between 123rd and 114th, adding in the retail district of Smith, Cole, those shopping areas. County for Dade Dairy as well. And then west of the freeway, breaking up that employment center for the industrial areas, the price realty, industrial business areas, and then the retail district, which is the Carmel and Toyota and stuff like that. So this is Wausau's front master plan. So for transportation? Yeah, so we'll look more at transportation. The end goal is for them to be able to see where jobs the population are traveling to so that they can look at transportation. I don't know if you guys have any thoughts, questions, changes that you would like to see before we get your fine before we send these to them. Anybody got any issues? What about a little further? is, that kind of thing, that is shown as a city center because there is a track station plan there eventually. And that does include the existing office uses in that neighborhood plus future residential . Anybody else? So just to find Sorry, probably have to repeat yourself. What defines a city center versus like an employment district? Yeah, so I've got it right here for you. So an employment district, predominantly commercial office areas, about 15 acres or more, where you're going to see jobs during the week. And they're not envisioned for drastic changes, that kind of thing. where the centers are looking more at overall walkability. So like a neighborhood center would be one to three stories, got a small, you know, our town center area, and that kind of goes up to, you know, a metro center, which is solid. So it goes up in intensity. So the prison property is marked as an urban center because they will have some significant entities that can go in. So the space can be... some point soon launch the state housing plan. It's gonna be statewide. They're trying to tie this all together so they can get a clear picture of where transit would make sense, that kind of thing. So I think they're just trying to get in line with what's coming. And then are they gonna designate a certain amount of housing by those different centers? Not based on this plan. Obviously, the state will have their housing plan and we'll see what happens. actually comes out of that. But this is going to be more data driven for Wasatch Front's transportation plan. Where are the people, where are the jobs? Where do we have to get to? Yeah, where do roads need to be? What road improvements are physically needed? Is everyone all right? Is that fine? Yep. Yep. OK. That's four that are good. OK. Well, we will proceed with that. 7D, storm drain fund. Said two quick things. So apropos, baking habits of summer, spring, and winter, every valuable weather is of mother nature. Yeah, Tasha, it snowed here today. So I hope you love it where you are. Yeah, I'm not sure you really want me to turn the camera on. I don't. OK, yeah. It's cold. OK, the first one is the Storm Break Fund. So it's an enterprise fund. You guys had approved $250,000 in storm grant funds for the reconstruction of the culvert on Long Peak Parkway. The project's costing less than what we had anticipated. Wait, what? So we still have $218,000 in stormwater funds that we would like to... When we presented you guys the street maintenance project for this summer, this road is included on here, but the majority of it is storm drain related. So there's a storm drain pipe that runs from here straight into the culvert. The road is lower than the high water, so the creek backs up into the road. It blows up all of our pavement. So we want to take this storm drain further down. So we're just asking for a change in scope to allow us to move that money from that project to help do this project. That would be amazing if we could find use of money. Yeah. All right. Any issues? How soon do you think you can do that project? We were hoping we would do it before runoff, but probably not. It's a lot. It ended up, we thought we'd be able to tie it in, but the county's supposed to get rid of these low flow pipes eventually. They know that's the biggest bang for the buck project on this creek, but my guess is it'll take them five years, so we have to chase it further down than we were hoping. Yeah, that'd be a huge improvement. Yeah, we're ready to put the ball in again and pump the road and water road to detention base. It's going to be winter from there. The next subject is, we've discussed this a little bit in the past year, the private streets for our garbage and recycling pickup. It's problematic. So the issues we have with garbage and recycling services on private streets is access issues. Turnaround areas are frequently blocked with parked cars, construction, or they're privately plowed, and their plower hasn't come, so we can't get in there. When we don't have a turnaround, we end up going a long ways in, and then we have to back up, or the guys are often threading the needle So as a result, we have higher rates of accidents, our liability goes up. There's a lot of private property, like I think we discussed one a year or two ago, that was off of 13th East, that they built a new house inside, but we realized we actually don't have the easements to travel across all the properties we go to pick up trash on, so we can be held liable for breaking the driveway or ruining. So we've always talked about let's get out of the business So we have two solutions. We've reached out. We can go out to a private hauler at one company, Express Interest. So we would still handle the delivery of the cans for going and picking up cans. And the billing would go through the city, but it would go at the rate through the private hauler, which is approximately maybe $3 to $6 more than what we're earning right now per month per house. When you say pick up the cans, do you mean deliver cans for them to use? Yeah, we'll drop off... But the hauler will go in and access those private roads. And get permission from all of them. And then not pick it up when they block it. Yep. So, I mean, we probably will still get missed pick-up calls, but then we'll transfer to whoever will drive the hauler. Or the other solution is, we still provide services, but we tell them, you can use our rate, but you have to wheel your cans out to the right of way. It's a public right of way. A public right of way. So if I'm on that private lane, it might be worth the $3 to $6 a month. I think most people would probably pay that rather than wheel it out in the snow. Because some of those lanes are long. Is that your preferred solution? To go with the private hauler? Yeah. I mean, I didn't have a chance to get all of our data on the accidents and how much we paid, but that's the highest. So here's a stupid question. How is their liability different than ours? The cars should get the one truck with the bikes on it. But just the Draper bikes were more than that. The bikes alone were like dead red each. They were all like S-works. Just to give an overview, this is all the private streets in the city. All the pink are already being We don't have issues with Draper Heights, but I think it's just cleaner if we do that. That's 73% of the private streets are already serviced by us. So an example where we've done this already is this Diamond Ridge. We agreed when they first constructed that we would pick up like I said it they gave us a All of our fees for the garbage will start going up probably next year for sure. Transportation is more expensive, but I think it will cost us less operationally. But all the fees are going to be rising by $2 a year. So you're going to haul it all the way down? When does the transfer station open? They'll probably start opening it Will individuals on those private lanes have the option each to either bring it out to our... It's not all or nothing for a private lane, is it? Or is it by individual? I think it should be. I think it would be easier to do all for all. Yeah, that's true. Yeah, but I'm just wondering, those residents, some of them might be like, I'm so close, I'd rather just... Yeah, there may be a few, like... See, this one, Remco up here, that one's problematic. bring it out to the right of way, our trucks have to stop on Traverse Road and then speed again is hard. But right now we're driving on the private, super expensive driveways. I think we did get our plan was to give them the option. So as long as we can implement that plan, we'll give them an option. The only problem would be if say, half the people on this private street want to wheel their I just don't see that happening. I don't either. Honestly, I don't think it's going to be an issue. I think there's going to be very few that will say, no, I'm going to haul it all the way out to the public right away. So my question would be that if they do the private, it isn't increasing costs. If they roll it out, is the price the same with no increase? They would stay at the city rate if that's what we choose to do. Okay. And we're going to let them pick? three to $6 more a month at max. Okay, about it. It seems a little piecemeal. Yeah. I kind of feel like we should just make a decision one way or the other. Because I could see some neighborhood. I say just go private hauler. That's it. That's your option. Well, my concern is right now we're not consistent. We're providing services to some private streets where others were not. This way it makes it consistent that we just don't provide it to any private street. We're saying that across the board. So whether they have a private community public right away. It really doesn't matter to us per se. The only thing that it would I think everyone has the right to not use our service. Everyone's allowed to just collect their own trash and take it to the landfill. I don't know if anyone does that, but you don't have to sign up for good city garbage. You guys good with just going private hauler? No option? So we'll go. Yeah, I think it's cleaner. Talking about garbage. We'll put out an RFP, and then we'll come back. I think Tasha said that. OK, good. Yeah, that's OK. All right. Then the, oh, Joyce, the update of. So that takes away the option of people going to the end of the state. Our only option is to go to the five-collar? Yes. That's what we're saying. No beach mill, all the same. Yeah, then you don't have random trash cans all down the street. Okay, the next item is the update on ethics and the OPMA training. Tracy. All right. Everybody, I know you've been waiting for this. This is so exciting. This is the 2025 legislative session update. And it is just to give you a sense of the scale. This year, they introduced 959 bills to the record from 2024, where they had 934. So we exceeded that. 134 bills in the prior nine-year average, super active. Tons of substitutes and amendments adopted, and then 582 bills So this is nine fewer than 2024, but this is the second highest number of bills passed ever in the history of the legislature. Good thing they're small government. Yeah, for sure. And just to give you a sense of sort of the different branches of government's perspective on this. So we just did the results of the constitutional review period by the governor, which just ended over this weekend. outright vetoed six of these bills. The one that's most critical to you would be HB 350, the electric agency modification. That was essentially vetoed because it used the phraseology game of chance in that one. And so because of issues with that one, that one got vetoed. And then raised serious concerns with HB 77, which is the flag display amendment. Didn't sign it. It's still become a law. So that's kind of the result of that. Now here was a very polite side eye by Governor Cox. And you said that one final trend that's troubled me in recent years, I'm worried about the additional burden this places on the public, state, and local governments and others to understand and effectively implement all these new laws. Rather than focusing on serving the people of our state, I'm worried they are focusing on implementing another year's worth of legislation. And this letter marks that. So just laughing. Because we are. Because we are. We struggle to try to implement and change our code. Yeah, if they weren't small government, they'd be serious. Most of these bills have either taken effect, or they'll take effect in about 30 days, 35 days. Makes sense. Yep. So coming up, and then sort of less magnanimously, the judicial branch has made some commentary on some of the bills. Now, with the caveat that there was bills targeted at the judiciary branch this year. Our Chief Justice says, I view it as a broad attack on the independence of the judiciary. And then we've got comments from Peterson, she's a great judge by the way, I've been in front of her a couple of times, clearly part of the suite of bills that are trying to take aim at judicial independence and put it under legislative control, it's retribution, it's obviously retribution. So this is unusual to see comments like this coming from the judiciary. You would expect to see this more from the executive branch than you would from our actual judges, especially Supreme Court justices. So that's just something to sort of be aware of in terms of their context. If they're viewing some of this activist legislature as it starting to infringe on their authority. All right, so there's 582 bills. This is the situation. We cannot cover all 582. We won't even try. The Utah City and Towns actually tracked 279 that they thought would impact different cities and municipalities. And we internally tracked 104. We won't even go over all 104 that we have. So I wanted to cover what actually matters to the city council. And so you've got the usual suspects. You've got the open meetings law, grandma, and ethics. We'll go over those really briefly so that we make sure we cover those in your training. And then, and beyond, we've got general government bills, a lot of housing affordability and attainability bills, land use, and some zoning amendments too. And so if there's anything that comes up that you want to discuss in more detail with me afterwards, we don't have to go into super-run for detail on a lot of these bills. sort of a high-level overview just to give you a taste of all the different things that are really going to probably impact the city council and that we should probably be aware of. Okay, so open and public meetings, that. So there was only a hint of a whisper of one change and it only affects cities of the first and second class and because we have not yet achieved that, we are done with open and public meetings. Okay. Consider yourself trained. Yes. Just keep it open. There you go. Okay, so then with regard to grandma, we have two bills that you should be aware of that are changes to grandma this year. And these were generally fairly unpopular, at least this one was, and was sort of referenced or referred to by the media as government supersede bills. So this is SB 277 by Senator McKell. This basically creates a government records office within the Division of Archives and Records. And it replaces the State Records Committee, which I think was in existence for about 30 years. So very longstanding, gets replaced with an ALJ that's appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Senate. So again, you're seeing a little more control of the legislature. Now the impact depends on the interpretation and the implementation. Local governments like it. I think generally at the city attorney conference that I went to, there was one for risk management, but last week, Most of the city attorneys were actually in favor of this because it's still like an ALJ has the training to really interpret the law a little bit more uniformly and consistently and with all the nuances. But the media and the press really dislike it. And so you probably saw a lot of articles where they really had a lot of disdain for it. And there was a lot of hand-reading over this particular one. But for the most part, I think local governments actually All right, and then there's also AT-69 from Representative, I'm not sure how you say your last name. Anyway, this one, to the extent you need to be aware of it, it prohibits a government officer or employee from accessing or using government records or information in a manner that is not related to a duty that you have as a city council member or mayor or as an employee. And so it prohibits you from accessing or using records or information in a primarily personal purpose. But if you could access that information in the same manner as the public, we're still out. So it makes that a minor if this is violated. And it really has a lot to do with voter and election information. So that's really what it is. Remember the Utah County court, was it, was accessing voter records? I can't remember what he was doing, but that really got it ripped. So you didn't vote. Yeah. Really. Yeah. So I think it allows... Okay, so then with regard to ethics, this is the closest we get. The Municipal Officers and Employees Ethics Act, HB 64 by Representative Dunnigan. Now this essentially replaces requirements for bonds in relation to the performance of your duties, and it replaces it with requirements basically to insure the city for active misfeasance and malfeasance on the part of its elected officials. And so that premium is going to be paid for municipal funds. Five or six years ago, there was a bunch of grammar requests that were going around to get everybody's bonds. And cities prior to that had stopped getting bonds and had been purchasing insurance, which really wasn't what the code said. And so there's an intermediate bill and then this bill. And what we do as a city is provide you with that insurance against misfeasance, malfeasance, errors, and omissions. A question, though. So this crime insurance is required for municipal officers. What about state elected officials? That's a good question. Perry. I think there's a similar requirement. There might be, and it's a deal that's under municipal office employee that it wouldn't necessarily touch up. I mean, it would seem. Right. Would it be used? Yeah. No. No? Okay. Okay. We have a couple of general government bills. Who initiates the split? So, yeah, I'm not actually quite certain on how that can change. Is there a concern that there's going to be a push for new counties to be created? No, it's encouraging new counties to be created, not a concern. All the more government. Southern. Southern Southern County, yeah. We do cities have to, I mean, it's pure motor or is it cities that start to do it? And then we also have HB 249, Nuclear Power Amendment. This creates a nuclear energy consortium and units Utah Energy Council, establishes a process for designating energy development zones, and then this is something they did add in later, must consult with local governments for property tax distribution, and that also creates It's about data centers, I think. This is coming up with power for data centers. But this will also get wrapped into whatever becomes the Beehive Development Agency. That ever so clever name that was conceived of. Well, do you think next session that'll get more clarified? Oh, there's going to be more beehiving, yes. There will be busy beehive, yes. Okay, so gravel operators, would you like to just give yourself a round of applause and we can skip right past this one. You guys can contract it right out of it. So this is... Watch your clock. All right, okay, so... I can't talk to the Meijer family right now. We've had a separation of ways again. All right, so this is the Labor Union Amendment since age 1867, again, ran by Representative Tischer. So this amends provisions governing public employees, public safety, and fire. You probably saw a lot about this in the news. The city cannot recognize a labor organization as a bargaining agent or public employee any longer. All collective bargaining agreements that expire after May 7 cannot be renewed. City money or property cannot be used to assist a union or union are some first amendment exceptions. But what that means for Draper is that Draper did cannot sponsor the fire union . And so that has, we have had to do some modifications to change that. Yeah, so the fine sponsor can't provide the park? We can't further aid or assist a labor union in any way with city money or city property. So can we charge them to use the park? We're just taking them out of it. Yeah, making it a city fire. They can't be part of it. of our fire department. Just the fire department? Yeah, just the fire department. Oh. So we have a lot of things. Yes. Hey, very unpopular. So just checking today, the governor's office said they got 10,000 people in opposition to this bill. And right now, there is 130,000 signatures on the petition that was raised by this weekend to qualify for a ballot referendum. So the 140,000 are needed in the deadline. So it is very likely that this is going to get enough signatures. So expect to see some potential changes on that. All right, so we'll go through these real fast. Municipal election amendments, HB 109. There are some rules about dismissing or appointing a new city manager between the period of an election and new county members taking office. So just keep that in mind. not Kane and Mike Barker as your outgoing, like that can't be your last name. This is the Vineyardville. If you want to put a city to it. Legislation by anecdote in its clearest form. Okay, we've got- By dumb anecdote. For the record. Okay. Governmental accounting amendments, this one's really, really simple. HB 139 requires a state auditor to develop a form, and it now requires our city CFO, John Pike, and include the form in the annual financial report. So we will be complying with it. All right. So what affects you, city council members and elected? Financial and conflict of interest disclosures by candidate amendment. If you are familiar, you just had to do this in January, HB 504. Basically said you've got to file one of these as a declaration of candidacy. Midterm vacancy candidates now have to comply with the same rules. And then disclosure statements will be posted on websites. So just be aware of that. and are also available to the public upon the request for inspection. And then this one is the council to notify the reporter when they can do it. So just know that it goes through Nicole. Okay, and then elected official publicity amendment, HB 551, run by Representative Kyle, prohibits a public official from making an expenditure from public funds on a billboard or mass communication that includes the candidate's face if it's displayed or mailed days before the date of the caucus or convention or election in which he will be elected. So, FYI, that one is no. Okay, local building authority amendment, HB 552, prohibits the local building authority from project previously rejected by the voters. So if it gets voted down, you can't turn around and undo what they want. So the no. All right. Community development modification by Senator Colmore. So this one's interesting. You might want to keep this one in mind. It authorizes a community investment agency, which you have, to pay all or any portion of the agency's housing allocation to a nonprofit housing fund for youth and existing individuals and families within the community I know you've indicated that that's of interest for you in terms of like promoting that through our community investment agency. And so it's just something to keep in mind. All right, special district modifications. Also run by Senator Comer, SB 314. City councils can appoint a member of the council as an alternate housing affordability bills. These are the top three. I don't know if everybody will be able to go into all the detail on these, but definitely be aware of this. So we've got SB 262, housing affordability modification. Senator Fillmore also did SB 181. This is really on a high-level basis. So under SB 262, the city can use home ownership promotion zone funds for water extraction, street lighting, or environmental remediation costs. And SB 181, there were some changes to the Olin Walker Housing Loan Fund. But then there's also some changes to the definitions and parking garage and design standards as well. This is probably a little bit more applicable to our planning commission, but just FYI, they're trying to implement some changes. And the league worked close on this. We all worked on this and got this how we could. And then we also have HB 37, which creates a residential density overlay zoning option and more requirements for moderate income housing. So these are the kind of bills that capture most of the housing affordability issues that they wanted to address. The top four land use bills. Now HB 368, which was run by Representative White, is a huge one. This one was really big. It made some major changes. So for example, intended to approve processes for like identical floor plans. It's going to allow builders and developers to submit a floor plan. And then if they do identical ones, they have to get it, the city has to approve it within like five days. So it shortens that timeframe. And it just kind of deals with all these different issues. Again, planning commission, community development are really going to be impacted by this specifically, but just FYI, this is supposed to address some of the processes to get development So we also have SB 340. This one's interesting. This one basically allows protected people to build tunnels underneath easements. And so there's a process if you are a protected person and you had a credible threat in the past four years, then you can go through a confidential process with the city, with the human development department, and you can maybe build a tunnel to help you get a bunker. A bunker, yes. Again, legislation by one very wealthy person. This is all in the Park City Act. That's his bill. We've also got SB 23 by Senator Harper just clarifies developable area and affordable housing. It doesn't change the minimum density requirement of 30 units to the acre. It does clarify housing. This has to do with short-term rentals. So essentially what it's saying is that there's no land use preemption. It affirms the city's business licensing authority. It restricts cities from regulating the listing sites themselves, like Airbnb or VRBO, but it does create formal and non-binding takedown request process. So essentially this is a short-term rental regulation that has been more defined for local rental. So that's nice and that's something that we are planning to address as we move forward. Okay, so miscellaneous housing and land bills. This one, HB 58, basically says building officials must have qualifications. These are some of the details of what those qualifications need to be. It actually requires home inspectors to now be licensed. And so there's a change that's kind of affecting the trade there, too. I know that that's been encouraged for a long time. So that is, we need to get all building officials qualified, essentially, and not onto the city. All right. All right, then we have SB 179 by Senator Musselman. This requires local governments ordinance governing how they will evaluate new and unlisted business uses. Again, this will probably impact the Planning Commission more than it will City Council. And it must include a time frame for determining whether it shall be allowed or denied. I'm going to invoke the allusion to the Simpsons analogy here that Spencer mentioned to the Planning Commission. Do you want to tell them what that is? Sure. So if we have a novel business, it's not covered under use tables for all of our commercial uses. And somebody comes in and says, I don't know what zone I fit in, but I want to have the business. We have to kind of find a way to fit them into the zone. The Simpsons analogy came when Bart and Homer decided that they were just going to go steal grease from the grease traps of all of the local fast food restaurants in Springfield Elementary. So I use that as the example before the Planning Commission to say, well, we're going to have to come up with a process to shoehorn them into this zone, or we're going to have to list it as a prohibited type of business. Could we call it the Simpson zone? Well, no, because we have to put them in a zone that we already have. So the only way that we can say no outright is if we have a list of prohibited types of businesses. and they fall within that prohibited list. So if they fall on the prohibited list, we could say no. If they're new business and they're trying to come to Draper and we don't have them on the prohibited list, then we have to find a way to make it work for them. We'll create a grease trap in the prohibited list. If you want to create a grease trap. Well, what it does is it incentivizes us to prohibit as many things as we can think of. Otherwise, this is almost like a conditional experiment. My suggestion is that we take this to the Planning Commission. They're more suited to figure out what goes where. Because otherwise, if we don't have a process, it goes to you. And I don't know that you would want to hear this on city council on a regular basis. Thank you. We've got changes coming there. So these are bills that failed One that will be back, as mentioned, SB 337. Sorry, I think that's . And this is the one that created the agency that allows impact projects that don't require local government consent. And this was, substitute two, was circled in the Senate with no votes, but definitely expect this in the new interim. Mayor, do you have any further comments? Yeah. Not yet. Roberts is working on that. That's the big one, I think, that is most likely to... Well, this ADU one, I killed this one this year. Oh, okay. So, yeah, this one was on detached ADUs by right within all counties. So, saying that they... Saying that detached ADUs... should be allowed by right. Agitating, right? So, again, I think the biggest one was just to be aware of was 337, but we've got a couple others that could kind of come back from the dead potentially. And so, this one is not too concerning. I'm already dealing with that one. That's 152, 171, and then The original started at 4,000 square feet. They got it up to 6,000. But I think you're going to see some agitating around that. He thinks that the solution to all things housing is just letting it use and go everywhere. It's got to fix it all. Wow. No real basis for thinking that it's going to fix it. Well, and also, this one, HB90, would have allowed housing to be commercialized, too. So it would definitely create an attempt to deal with All right, so questions, comments on any of this? Obviously, if you have some real concerns and want to go into more detail, feel free to come in and talk to me in December, and we can kind of go over that. But I wanted to give you kind of a high-level overview of just some of the things that will be impacting you as a city council, and then just some changes to be aware of and coming down. So, any questions? You just need to find a tunnel contractor. There's a whole process that you have to go through for a credible threat. And it looks like it's a lot. Incredible. I want to start with credible. Can't be your wife. Sure. Before hitting the bunker. That's hilarious. That's hilarious. Thank you. All right. There you go. Covered it. All right. That gets us to. council manager issues. Does anybody have anything they want to bring up? I have something that I don't really want to bring it up but I probably need to discuss it. I met with one of the residents at the end of Canyon Creek Lane. I think Kelly and David have gone there. I don't even know what we can do about it. We've got people that are coming from a public street onto their lane and feel that it needs to be restricted, that it's trespassing. It's basically just be a good neighbor. But I don't know. I think Chief Iney met with them before, and he kind of instructed them that if you have people that are parking there or coming through, then take pictures of their car. It's posted that it's a private lane. But there's no way to drive a car from one end to the other. You can't. It's just people on bikes are walking. And people parking on one side to get to something on the other. I don't know what you do about it. They could put up a big fence. A wall. I did ask. them, I said, why, if you have this much heartburn, why don't you just build a fence? Taking part in Mexico? I'm sorry. What part of it is? But I did say I would bring it up to discuss, and I don't. Part of it is it's a private street. So they don't want anyone even parking on their street or driving on their street. And what's created an issue is the very last lot on the public on the private side, on the south side, was purchased by the resident that lives on the public side. Are you following me? Yeah. And so what they then did on their public side, they removed part of the fence so that you can access the private lane by coming across the property of the lot that they purchased. But their case is, well, that's still part of this lane, so there shouldn't be access provided. But it's just, they're kind of petty. Sounds like a very civil issue. It is. Anything else? No, that's it. Make sure I did my duty. Marcia? Tasha? No, I don't have anything. Mr. Green is not on. He's out in the mud somewhere. Anybody from staff have anything to bring up at this juncture? We're going to be posting. There's an AMBER alert going out on the 3rd of the month at 4 or 4.30. It's a test. Oh, okay. It's going out nationwide. See, that's minority report level right there. If you know... Tell us about our officer who won that award. Yeah, so thank you. Detective Bryce Oakland. I've been with the department a few years. I'm here from EPA police. He's in our sex crimes unit, SVU. He deals with sensitive crimes against children. And he was nominated for Officer of the Year for his investigation of an ongoing case. I have to be guarded with what all I just wrote. But very sensitive case. abuse of a couple of our most precious citizens, children, who are going to suffer permanent paralysis because of the abuse. Had he not investigated to the extent he did, it was really a doctor's word against the parents that this is abuse. Drafted on a hunch, drafted a subpoena or a baby cam that was in the bedroom but not subscribed to. And so a lot of detectives were dismissive of the original content. Believing there may be, he drafted a subpoena days before the evidence was going to be purged by the company. He got the damning evidence that showed some, it's pretty perfect. It's an ongoing case, but he, And he got the award for officer of the year. Very impressive. And the mic came down for us. It was very impactful for the department. Congratulations. That's awesome. All right. We've got a break then between now and the session. An unprecedented break. All right, ladies and gentlemen, welcome to our city council meeting this evening. I'm Mayor Walker. I'd like to call this meeting to order. We're going to start off with the Pledge of Allegiance. It will be administered by our police chief, Mr. Rich Ferguson. Go ahead, Chief. Thank you, Chief. Chief, stay right up here because our next item on the agenda is a recognition of one of our police officers, one of our detectives, Bryce Oakland. He was recently recognized by the Utah Chiefs of Police Association as the Officer of the Year. So, Chief Ferguson, give us the story. Thank you, Mayor, Council. Pleasure to be with you tonight and to recognize one of our own, Bryce Oakland, who is part of our SVU, Special Victims Unit, and detectives. He was recognized by the Utah Chiefs of Police Association last Tuesday night in St. George at our banquet for Detective of the Year for a large police agency, which we are considered now with over 50 police officers. A couple things about Detective Oakland. He was recognized for his tenacity and his investigative skills. When he gets a case against children, our most precious citizens, he takes it so serious that he just unturns every rock and looks under everything to try to find justice for these victims who otherwise may go completely unrepresentative. He makes us proud. We're happy to have him, and it's an honor to recognize him tonight. We want to get a picture after. Do you have somewhere to go? Okay, we shouldn't be too long. We can do it. We can do it now if you want. Yeah, why don't we come up? We'll come down and get a picture with you. Now he can get back out there and investigate some more crimes. Keep him to work. Now, folks, in case you, you know, we live in a very safe community by and large. I mean, if you were to look at communities across the state, Draper's a safe, you know, community. But we do have significant, sometimes major crimes. And the one he investigated, although the case is ongoing, it's a heinous crime against the children. And his work, literally his... initiative his own gut hunch is what broke the case so he was very deserving of the award being a good police officer and just looking at something and saying maybe and it turned out and so tremendous amazing work we have good police officers so chief again but we're well served in our community for sure next item on our agenda is number four it's general public comment is there anyone here that would like to make a general public comment to the council You might be here for an item that's set for a public hearing, but is it general, sir? Okay, come on up. While you're coming up, I'll give you the rules. If you haven't been here before, state your name and address. I'll start the time. The time's over there to my right, your left. You get three minutes. You don't have to use them all, but you can. Go ahead and make your comment. If you want to give the card, you can give it to our city recorder. Go ahead. My name is Stuart Harmon. I reside at 794 West Osborne Fox Way. That is in the northwesternmost neighborhood of the city, just west of 7th West. I wanted to address Sports City. You may or may not have heard this last weekend was kind of the crux of an incident that is getting to be a little bit too much. Sports City monopolizes the streets in that northwestern section, and it's becoming dangerous for residents, for kids. On Saturday, they were parked on both sides of 7th West. They were parked on both sides of just about every street in Fox Landing. They filled the church parking lot. They filled the dirt lot to the west of Sports City. And I mean, my wife was traveling on 7th West and had to stop because there was a lady parked on 7th West, her tires were over the white line so she was into the lane of travel. She then proceeded to get out and then open the back door and my wife was sitting there waiting for her to get finished because she couldn't pass and she sat there for about three minutes while this lady proceeded to get kids out of the car into the middle of the lane of travel. In that section there are no sidewalks, there's no curb and gutter. Now, we did have police officers, thank you, who came and were issuing tickets or citations to people because it was egregious. So that's, I guess, one issue. One is that we need the city's help to do or force Sports City to do something because it's becoming terrible. Every single weekend, this is an issue. Saturday, they had... And if you've been inside Sports City, you know they have these big indoor soccer fields. But then they had a jiu-jitsu competition going on in the middle of that. So they had hundreds of people there for soccer, for jiu-jitsu, all these things. Another related issue is 7th West. 7th West, as you know, a good portion of it does not have curb and gutter or sidewalk on either side of the road. And this is an area where we have school bus stops along there for our elementary kids, for our junior high kids. It's unsafe. The neighborhood has gotten to a point where it's no longer farmland. It's no longer agricultural. It needs to be made safe for our kids. We have kids who walk up there for school buses. We have kids who walk home from church. Kids who walk to other neighborhoods to play with their friends. for the kids in Fox Landing, they're now going to be going over to Jensen Farms, to the new city park that is being put in, which is awesome, by the way. Thank you. But it needs to be made safe for kids commuting in that area. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Anyone else like to make a general public comment? All right, seeing no... FURTHER GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT, WE'LL MOVE ON FROM ITEM 4 AND GO TO OUR CONSENT ITEMS. ITEM 5 STARTS, ITEM 5A IS APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 18, 2025 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES. ITEM 5B IS APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 2514. I WILL NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT COUNCIL MEMBER GREEN IS EXCUSED FOR MILITARY DUTY TONIGHT. COUNCILWOMAN LOWERY IS ON THE LINE AND ABLE TO PARTICIPATE ONLINE. ITEM B IS APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 2514, RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CONSOLIDATED FEE SCHEDULE OF DRAPER CITY. Council members. Mr. Mayor. Ms. Vaudrey. Move we approve consent items 5A, 5B. Motion by Ms. Vaudrey to approve consent items 5A and B. Is there a second? I'll second. Second by Ms. Johnson. Any further discussion on those items? I've seen Ms. Vaudrey. How do you vote? Yes. Ms. Johnson. Yes. Mr. Lowry. Yes. Ms. Lowry. Tasha. Yeah. All right, items approved four to zero. Item number six is next. This is item for council consideration. First item is 6A. It is a public hearing. It's ordinance number 1640 and 1641, ordinances of Draper City amending a master area plan and amending the text of the Land Use and Development Code of Draper City Municipal Code section 9-14-110, exhibit 9-14-1 regarding the Veranda West master plan area We'll have a staff report by Mr. Todd Taylor. Go ahead. Oh, he's asked to have it continued. Is that still? That's correct. Okay. Well, council members, is there a motion to continue this item to the next? Does he want the next meeting? Undetermined. So is there a motion to continue it for a time uncertain? So moved. Motion by Ms. Foddery to continue. Second? I'll second. Seconded by Mr. Lowry. Any further discussion? Ms. Foddery, how do you vote? Yes. Ms. Lowry? Yes. Ms. Johnson? Yes. Ms. Lowry? Tasha? Yes. All right. The item is continued indefinitely by a vote of four to zero. That takes us to item 6B. It's also a public hearing. We're in 1642. Is this part of that? No, it's separate? Okay. As an order to submit the text of this Title VII and Title IX of the Draper City Municipal Code relating to tree maintenance. And we'll have Todd Taylor. Go ahead, Todd. Thank you. So these items were brought to us as issues that were identified with our current code. The first was brought by code enforcement, and so we were proposing to add text to Chapter 7-13 that would clarify that property owners need to remove any dead, decayed, diseased, or hazardous trees. within their property or budding park strip that pose a hazard to property or persons. That wasn't clearly spelled out previously. And then the second amendment is something that comes up in our traffic committee and so we're proposing to modify the text in chapter 9-27 which deals with visual obstructions. So this would add text that the city engineer can deem a tree to be unsafe as to the visibility within the public right of way. And if the city engineer does so, the tree can be removed by either the property owner or the city without requiring a replacement tree to be planted. And then one other small change is that we increased the height of trimming branches from seven feet to nine feet above the elevation of the curb. That concludes my presentation, and I'm available if you have any questions. This is city-initiated change? That's correct. Okay. All right, this is a public hearing. Is there anyone from the public that would like to address the council on Item 6B, which is Ordinance 1642? All right, seeing no takers, we'll close the public hearing and bring it back to the council. Go ahead, council members. Mr. Mayor, I make a motion we approve Ordinance 1642. I motion by Mr. Lowry to approve Ordinance 1642. Is there a second? I'll second. Second by Ms. Johnson. Any further discussion? Seeing none, Mr. Lowry, how do you vote? Yes. Ms. Johnson? Yes. Ms. Vaudrey? Yes. Ms. Lowry? Yes. It's not working. Yes. It is working, yes. Yes. Item is approved 4-0. Okay, next item is item 6C. This is also a public hearing. It is ordinance 1643 and ordinance 1644. It's an ordinance amending the official land use map of Draper City for approximately 0.86 acres of property from residential hillside low density to residential low medium density and an ordinance amending the official zoning map of Draper City for approximately 0.86 acres from A5 agricultural to RA2 residential single family the property located approximately 2020 east pioneer road within draper city otherwise known as the thai wadsworth land use zoning map amendments well the staff report by jennifer jastrzemski jennifer go ahead great thank you yeah so uh property is on the southeast corner of pioneer and highland drive it's a little under an acre in size used to be owned by the city of riverton and had a water tank on the property. That water tank has since been removed and the property has been sold. So it is currently within our residential hillside low density land use designation, which is typically acre, half acre property. We usually see this up on the mountain versus down in the valley, but it is a low density residential designation. The property is currently zoned to A5, which is an agricultural five-acre lot zoning. So the proposal tonight is to rezone it to RE2, which is a half-acre lot zoning, which is on three sides of the property, is that half-acre zoning designation. The property, like I said, is a little under a half-acre. I think it's... so it would come into compliance with the minimum lot size under that RE2 zone, where right now is non-conforming to that five-acre size standard in the A5. We don't have any development plans in right now, but the property in this zoning would only allow one single-family home on the property. Planning Commission forwarded a positive recommendation last month. And then I've got some images of the property here, and happy to answer any questions. Any questions for Jennifer? Is it applicant here? Yeah. Okay. All right. Anything else, Jennifer? All right. We can do it one of two ways. We can see if there's public comment, or do you want to talk first? We'll see if there's any public comment. It might change your talking. This is a public hearing. It's ordinance number 1643 and 1644. Is there anyone from the public that would like to address the council on this item? All right, seeing no public comment, we'll close the public comment period. Certainly welcome to address the council if you want. Come on up. Give us your name and address. Hi, Wadsworth 2066 East, Plano Road, Draper, Utah. I purchased this lot, I don't know, eight years ago almost, and it was owned by Riverton, so it's been kind of a holdover as far as the zoning designation. It was an A5, and everything around there is A2, A3, and I purchased it to one day give to my kids, and so I figured it's time to get it rezoned, and it's consistent with everything that's around there. It'd be a one acre or a .85 acre single family house. So I think it would be consistent with the rest of the neighborhood. It shouldn't have any detrimental impacts to the city. So I recommend that we're asked for your approval on this. Well, we certainly don't want Riverton owning parcels of land in Draper. So, you know, thank you for that. I mean, we've got to give you that for sure. Anyway, thank you. Anything else? No. All right. Thank you, sir. All right, council members. Mr. Mayor. Go ahead. I move we adopt ordinance number 1643 and 1644. All right, the motion is to adopt ordinance 1643 and 1644 by Ms. Vaudrey. Is there a second? I'll second that, Mayor. All right, second by Ms. Lowry. Is there any further discussion? I think it looks consistent with the rest of the neighborhood and seems like it works there. Anyone else? I agree. I think it's good to get this zone so it can be used. And now to Riverton's hands. All right, Ms. Vaudrey, how do you vote? Yes. Ms. Lowry? Yes. Ms. Lowry? Yes. Ms. Johnson? Yes. Items approved unanimously, four to zero. Next item is also a public hearing. It's Ordinance Number 6D. It's Ordinance 1645. It's an ordinance approving the Farmers' Residence Development Agreement for approximately .32 acres of property located at approximately 902 East 12650 South within Draper City. Staff report again by Jennifer Distremchi. Go ahead, Jennifer. Great, thank you. So this property is just south of the historic park on 12650 and 9th East. It is within our neighborhood commercial land use designation, even though the property has historically been residentially used. It is in our RA1 one-acre lot zoning. The property does only have... .3 acres is about 13,000 square feet in size. It is a legal non-conforming parcel. The house was the previous house that used to be on the property is built in 1907. So the parcel definitely predates the city and any zoning that we have put on it. So like I said, it is on a corner of 9th East and 12650 South. And I kind of want to take a moment on the aerial here. Kind of orient you and some of the particulars on this property. So 9th East is a private road. It does curve down to 126. Down here serves additional homes. This is a private dead end road. This section of 9th East, we don't know who owns it. We believe it's private. Between the property owner's title company and the city, we could not determine who actually owns the road. The road has about 20 to 21 feet of asphalt currently, and then there is a bit of unimproved dirt between the asphalt and the actual property that we're looking at. So the property owners are looking to build a home on the property. They have a proposed layout here that is part of the proposed development agreement. So they're asking for a couple things. So our setback standards for corner lots is we consider you have two front yards, one for each street, and then two rear yards opposite of the streets. So our code would say you have a 30-foot setback here, and then a 30 foot setback here. And setbacks are measured from property line, not the edge of asphalt on long private roads. And then 12 foot and 12 foot here would be your rear setbacks. So they're asking to have a 12 foot setback from their property line here along 9th East, still maintaining their 30 foot setback from the public 12650. south and then having their driveways connect into 9th East here. They are proposing to widen 9th East from that 21 feet to 24 feet in width. Our fire marshal has reviewed that and that will help with access to the rest of the private lane. So their driveway alignment would be towards 9th East. That front yard setback on the west would be reduced to the 12 feet but they would be able to construct their home. The driveways, in addition, our code requires driveways to be 20 feet deep, so these driveways would only be 12 foot deep on their property. However, because they are extending to the edge of asphalt, they'll be built at, I think, 27 and then 39 feet. What the city would get out of the agreement would first off be indemnification. They are requesting to access that private road and we don't know who owns that road. So they would indemnify the city if anything were to happen with that access. We would also get that private road widened to improve emergency access to the overall lane. um the development agreement also would prohibit adus on the property and so we would be getting one dwelling unit on that property which would reduce uh parking needs for the home and then because they would be getting their access off night these we would be preserving on street public parking across the street from that from the historic park um planning commission did forward a positive recommendation And here's some images of the property. So this is 12650 south here, and then that's 9th East going down. So this would be the asphalt on 9th East. So their property line is going to be further into the dirt there. And I'm happy to answer any questions that you guys have. Jen, what's the setback on 900 East then that we're agreeing to? I just want to make sure. It looks like we're agreeing to up to 12-foot setback. Yes. So it is an 18-foot reduction because our code would say it's a 30-foot setback minimum. So we're agreeing to a 12-foot setback. And the same on 126. They would comply and have a 30-foot setback from 126. Jen? Yes. So who owns the property between the private lane and the property line? So this is shown as part of the road. It's just not improved. So it's whoever owns the road owns that property. Correct. So is there any requirement to maintain that property by the homeowner or... Will it just be left? I'm trying to think of exactly what it talks. I know in the indemnification language, it does talk about the city not needing to maintain the road, but they would have to maintain their driveway access. So a question with that, with what Marcia's asking, who owns 12650? On the south end of 900 East, you know, when it bends back around. So down here, it's the individual property owners. So if we look at that parcel map, each property owner kind of owns a section of the road. So along that south portion, we can see who owns the road. It's just this north-south portion of 9th East that we don't know. So on that 12650 there, it's a private land. private road and it's maintained by the individual property owners, which is the same as 900 East right there. I believe they do maintain it. I've got a question. On the indemnification, what's the surety for the indemnification? Is it just indemnification or are we going to have a bond or a policy that's going to have to be renewed so we know we're covered in some type of liability claim? I think it would be the enforcement of the development agreement. It would be recorded against the property. Okay. Is that in a bankruptcy? How do we fare? Well, I mean, if there's a big claim and the property holder is indemnified and this goes bankrupt, how do we fare in that claim? If someone gets killed in that street my question on 900 east so yeah to mr barker's comment it runs with the land and so i believe when we did the indemnification language we made sure that you know that was the one concern for this city was that we don't know who owns this private road we've always considered it a private lane as opposed to public so we did need the homeowner to indemnify us um with regard to anything that comes up with regard to that lane if it were to be changed at a later point. Their attorney is here, Mr. Rampton, and he might be able to speak to some of the specifics on that as well because it was something that we negotiated pretty strenuously. But I do believe that we got to a point where both parties were pretty comfortable with it. Do you have any other comments on this, Jen? No. Okay. Okay, can I ask one more? I'm not an expert on it, but I was just wondering what happens in worst-case scenario, who pays? I have to make sure it's not us. If the homeowner were to go bankrupt, for example? Yeah, I guess, or I'm assuming, yeah, something like that. I guess maybe that's the worst case. Is it ever done by insurance policy? Like, is there ever an insurance policy that... backs up the indemnification i'm just asking we did not is that not a thing or is that i mean i i'm not familiar with with one but it's it wasn't even something that we we talked about that's it's an interesting idea for sure i mean my only issue is it's a road somebody gets hit in the road and killed i mean i'm a plaintiff's lawyer so i know what i'd be trying to do um so i just wonder how do we make sure we aren't on the hook financially but maybe we get that ferreted out somehow or I'll go pull up the specific language of the identification clause that we agreed on. It's been long enough since I've looked at it that I'm not super familiar with the details of it anymore. So I'll take a look at that real quick. I just had a question about the specific structure with the detached garage. Is that going to be a one-story garage, or is that going to be two stories to have potential space above? I want to say there's a storage room above. The garage does meet standards for building height for detached structures. Any other questions for Jen? Applicants here, I'm assuming. Folks, you can talk now, you can talk after, you can wait and see what the public comment is, however you want to do it. Do you want to address the council? That's great. All right, the request is by the applicants to hear public comment. This is a public hearing. Sorts number 1645 is renewed from the public. They'd like to address the council on this item. All right, seeing no public comment, we'll close the public comment period and bring it back to the council. Certainly welcome to address us. Give us your name and address if you would, sir. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Mayor and council members. I'm Vince Rampton, Parsons, Bailey, and Latimer, 201 South Main. It's a lake. appearing on behalf of Orrin and Kelsey Farmer in this matter. This came about after the house that is now illustrated up there had been designed and submitted for a building permit, and it was discovered that the section up there, which lies between the record boundary line and the existing roadway, there was some question of ownership, and it makes it look bigger there than it really is. I believe it's eight one-hundredths of an acre that's in dispute. But what you don't see on the building plan is that there's a line of trees flanking the extension of 900 East there out to very near the roadway, which I believe will establish ownership of the property within that line under simple use issues of boundary by acquiescence. So that's why we're pretty confident about the indemnification issue on that part of it. We will be widening the roadway a bit to the benefit of the city. As far as indemnification is concerned, I don't know if I don't know if Attorney Gunderson has been able to find that or not. I'm still looking. Okay, you can look for it. As my understanding, the indemnification runs to any issues of ownership that may arise. Now, to the Mayor's question on bankruptcy, I don't have an answer for that. I'm not a bankruptcy lawyer either. But the indemnification runs to the full extent of the agreement as proposed, and as far as ownership of the underlying roadway is concerned, we have certainly agreed to indemnify the city against any claims of ownership on that. We're pretty confident the city does not want ownership of it, so it was a pretty simple thing to do. But if the question of ownership arises in some other context, the agreement does provide for full indemnification by farmers and their successors and interests that are run with the property. And with that, if there are any questions, I'll answer them. Any questions for the applicant? I just have a question on if that becomes a debate on the ownership of 900 East and then it's determined that that ownership is not a part of this property and then they're not allowed access off 900 East, what happens? They would have to acquire access either by prescriptive use, depending on how long it is before the... challenge comes up or by acquisition, but it would be their responsibility to do that. Any other questions? Thank you. Thank you, sir. I don't know if I'm just making up some issue, but I mean, there's a road that nobody knows who owns it. I think it's a fair question, Mayor. I don't know if we're able to adequately address it or not. So this was a huge concern on the city's part was what happens with regard to the ownership of this private lane. And so the way that it's phrased in the development agreement that's relevant is that the developer further agrees to indemnify and defend the city from all claims related to the ownership of the road mentioned in previous sections and identified in our exhibit from any claims related to the setbacks. of this agreement and from any substantive and procedural claims against the city related to the approval of this agreement, provided that the master developer shall not be held liable for maintenance costs of the road in perpetuity should such road be declared a public road under governing law. So that's the language that we have in the Indentity Clause of this development agreement. And I think your concern about, you know, what happens if the homeowner potentially goes bankrupt is a fair one. We tried to protect the city in a way that we felt like we wouldn't be brought in at all, but we also wanted to have some flexibility with regard to what they could do with this particular lot as well. I think with the development agreement running with the land, somebody's going to own this property, whether it's the farmers or a bank. I'm just playing worst case scenario in a merit to your scenario. So whoever owns this would take it subject to that obligation under the development agreement. So I don't know that it's dischargeable in bankruptcy. My dumb question is, though, if someone gets killed in this road and we don't know who owns it, we get sued. I mean, we have a right to go collect against them, but it doesn't prevent us from getting sued is one of my questions. I mean, it doesn't prevent us from expending legal fees in defense of ourselves. I think the indemnification is to address, and correct me if I'm wrong, is to address us granting access to, for instance, for them to build those two driveways. If somebody came in subsequently and said, well, the city didn't have the right to authorize those, then the development agreement would provide for the city to be indemnified. If somebody were killed on that road, I don't know that, quite frankly, I don't know that it would be the homeowner's burden to defend us in that situation. I mean, I think we would, you know, be, we'd have to provide our own defense for something like that. But it's not our property. I mean, I'm trying to get us out of it. How do we... Right, right. So the identification really only is to ownership of the road and access, not to any tort that may occur, you know, on the roadway. Can we include that since it's not our property? Well, I suppose that that's another... term to negotiate. Well, another concern there, Mayor, that I have is about the maintenance of it. They are agreeing to maintain it, but not in perpetuity. You know what I'm trying to say. So I can see in 20 years from now or 30 years from now, there becoming a debate like we've had like up on Suncrest or something like that where it's like, okay, who's going to improve and take care of this road where based on this agreement. What we're pretty certain is it's not a city road. And so what the indemnification says is that if it is determined to be a city road by court-accompanied jurisdiction, the farmers wouldn't then have any maintenance. Nobody would have a maintenance obligation other than the city. And so the indemnification provision recognizes that fact. So currently the city has not been maintaining this road. I'm not trying to be a pain in the neck, but take a private neighborhood, Draper Heights. Someone gets killed in their street. It's their private road. We're not on the hook for it. How do we make sure we're not on the hook for that? It's not our road, not our property. I guess that's my question. I mean, I know legally they're going to indemnify us, but I'm going to talk about who's going to pay the damn money. If they don't have any money, who's paying that? I don't want to pay it, is what I'm saying. Does that make sense? Am I not making sense? If they were to not build this home, we would be in no better position than we are now. So if they weren't to build their home and somebody wanted to bring a claim against the city, we're still providing our own defense. And so the fact that they're building a home doesn't change our position as to liability. What we're saying in the indemnification is they're indemnifying us in somebody's assertion of a property right, not of a tort claim. So I guess to ask that question, Mayor, if that happened in Draper Heights... They could name us. And they didn't have the money to pay the claim, who would pay for it up there? It's not. But the fact that Draper Heights, somebody could still... to claim that the city has some obligation for that. You're saying the indemnification on the ownership interest is enough to get us out? I'm not saying that gets us out of a tort claim. I'm saying that the owner of this property would indemnify us on a property-related claim, not a tort claim, which is the same as any other. If a child gets hit on Draper Heights, up in Draper Heights, somebody could sue us for some cause of action, we wouldn't have any claim against the residents on that street to defend us, that type of thing. And so I see this as being the same situation. Anybody else have any other questions or issues? All right, this is... up for some type of decision. I do like that the development agreement does define what needs to be done here so that it can't just be adjusted or changed. So the setbacks off 12650 South would remain 30 feet. Right, Jen? Correct. So the front setback from... 126.50 on the north side will be the 30-foot minimum. Mr. Mayor, I'd like to make a motion that we approve Ordinance 1645. I motion by Mr. Lowry to approve Ordinance Item Number 6, Ordinance 1645. Is there a second? I'll second. Seconded by Ms. Faudrey. Any further discussion? I think it's nice to be able to get this lot developed. There are concerns of concessions that have been made, but it would be nice to get this developed and hope that the applicant will be able to get that ownership on 900 East resolved so it doesn't create any additional burden to them. Anyone else? All right, Mr. Lowry, how do you vote? Yes. Ms. Vaudrey? Yes. Ms. Johnson? Yes. Ms. Lowry? Yes. The item is approved unanimously 4-0. That takes us to item number seven, unless there's any other items or issues anyone has to bring up. Item seven is the motion for adjournment, if anyone was confused. I'll make a motion. Motion by Mr. Lowry to adjourn. Is there a second? I'll second. Second by Ms. Fowler. All in favor of adjourning, say aye. Aye. Are there any opposed? All right, we stand adjourned.