[{"_1":2,"_105":-5,"_106":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,85,95],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":59,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":65,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6540005,"mediaKeyId","3517522-a8b33027ac9b4289dd5714324be234ff","parentId",3517522,"title","Council tables zone‑change request for Highway‑side development overlay after access, density and orchard questions","audioSeconds",3020,"startMs",1830000,"endMs",4850000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3517522-a8b33027ac9b4289dd5714324be234ff&start=1830&end=4850","thumbnailUrl","https://d352y6ypj4mjo3.cloudfront.net/AudioPlaceholder.png","articleUrl","/articles/6540005/Utah/Council-tables-zonechange-request-for-Highwayside-development-overlay-after-access-density-and-orchard-questions","mediaUrl","author","Perry City Council","date","2025-05-22T19:00:00Z","article","Perry — Perry City Council on May 22 took no final action on a developer’s request to adopt a development‑overlay zoning district for roughly 23 acres on the east side of Highway 89, instead tabling the request and asking the applicant to refine the proposal and return to planning commission for further review.

Staff presentation: City planning staff described the site and existing zoning mix — neighborhood commercial, half‑acre residential and environmentally sensitive land that extends upslope past a canal. The staff presentation described utilities and access constraints: “we do have a water line to the property; however, it’s undersized at 6 inches,” a planning staffer said, and the sewer main is across the highway so any connection would require a bore under the road.

Initial and revised concepts: The applicant’s initial concept showed 44 single‑family lots and 24 multifamily units. After planning‑commission review and neighbor conversations, the developer submitted a revised concept that reduces single‑family lots to 34 and increases townhome units to 31 while proposing to preserve about 10.25 acres of orchard along the highway in perpetuity. Staff noted planning commission recommended denial of the original application, calling that submittal “raw” and not demonstrating sufficient public benefit to justify higher density.

Concerns raised by the council and commission: Council members and planning commissioners flagged several issues: (1) access and fire‑code compliance — the city code allows no more than 30 units on a single access street and generally requires full city street construction rather than partial “half‑street” improvements; (2) utility upgrades — the east‑side water main would need upsizing and associated off‑site investment; (3) the long‑term maintenance and ownership of the proposed orchard — councilors repeatedly asked whether the city, a conservation easement or a private farmer would be responsible for upkeep; and (4) the small spring/pond and environmentally sensitive slopes above the canal, which will require additional study.

Developer response: Pat Burns, the applicant, said the team has met several times with the adjacent property owner and that neighbor’s family may join the development, which could allow more complete access and roadwork. Burns said the orchard concept is already attractive to local farmers and that the team could negotiate a permanent easement, city ownership with lease, or other arrangements so the orchard is farmed and preserved.

Council action: After extended discussion the council decided to table the application so the developer can refine the concept to address access, fire‑code and infrastructure issues and so planning commission can review the updated submittal. One council member noted the planning commission had seen only the initial submittal and not the developer’s revised concept; staff confirmed that the revised plan arrived after the commission’s hearing. Planning staff emphasized that approval of a development agreement would be a legislative action and that council is not obligated to approve the overlay if the public benefit is not demonstrated.

Why it matters: The parcel sits adjacent to a previously approved 60‑acre development on the west side of Highway 89. Council members said the new concept could provide a mix of housing types and preserved orchard open space if infrastructure and access can be resolved. If reworked to match city standards, the development could add needed housing; if left unresolved, it risks setting a precedent for density increases without clear community benefit.

Ending: The item is tabled; staff will work with the applicant to revise plans and, if appropriate, re‑notice the land and return the revised application to planning commission and then, if warranted, to council for a legislative decision.","mediaType","Audio","parentTitle","Perry City Council Meeting - CCM 05222025 Recording Zoom","oneSentenceSummary","Perry — Perry City Council on May 22 took no final action on a developer’s request to adopt a development‑overlay zoning district for roughly 23 acres on the east side of Highway 89, instead tabling the request and asking the applicant to refine the proposal and return to planning commission for further review.","taxTitle","Perry, Box Elder County, Utah","taxId",68994,"location","Utah","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":50,"_51":82,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":83,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":84,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6540009,"Perry opens public hearing on FY2025–26 budget; staff proposes 25% water rate increase",1002,524000,1526000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3517522-a8b33027ac9b4289dd5714324be234ff&start=524&end=1526","/articles/6540009/Utah/Perry-opens-public-hearing-on-FY202526-budget-staff-proposes-25-water-rate-increase","Perry — City staff opened a public hearing May 22 on the proposed Perry City fiscal year 2025–26 budget, presenting general fund projections, enterprise fund changes and capital projects ahead of final adoption deadlines this summer. The proposal does not include an overall property tax increase but would raise the municipal water user rate by 25 percent.

City finance staff said the general fund revenues for FY2026 are projected at $6,608,109 and that the proposed budget is balanced against planned expenses and planned transfers. “This plan here does not include a tax increase,” a city staff member summarized during the presentation. The package includes street projects, transfers to debt service for the city hall bond payment and restricted-fund spending for road and park impact fees.

The water enterprise would be the most notable change in the draft budget. Staff proposed a 25 percent water rate increase that would move the standard water charge to roughly $26.74, to be phased over multiple years. “Includes a rate increase of 25% to water,” the presenter said. The water fund shows operating revenue of about $680,858 and operating expenses of roughly $767,662, producing an operating-level loss before factoring depreciation and non-operating revenue. When depreciation and impact fees are included, staff projects net positive cash available for system repairs and improvements.

Sewer and garbage funds: Sewer operating revenue is projected at $1,483,279 with planned routine annual sewer-rate increases of 2 percent. Staff said that with the planned rate the sewer fund’s debt coverage ratio would meet bond requirements. The garbage fund will not see a rate increase in FY2026, staff recommended, because projected revenues exceed operating expenses; that fund is largely driven by the city’s contract with Republic Services. The storm‑drain fund shows a modest operating gap that staff will monitor and adjust if losses persist.

Capital projects and restricted funds: The draft general‑fund projects list includes more than $3.5 million in street projects, including work tied to the 1200 West/1200 West North project and trailway improvements, some of which are supported by a nearly $1.9 million grant. Other planned spending includes landscaping at City Hall and the event center, a Mountain View Bike Park (with 70 percent grant support for the identified work), and capital contributions for the gun range and public‑works facility. The budget shows a projected unrestricted fund balance of about 23 percent of general‑fund expenditures (above the 5 percent minimum and below the 35 percent cap described by staff).

Redevelopment Agency: Staff also reviewed the Perry City RDA budget. Revenues for the RDA are shown as the property‑tax and sales‑tax increments from Point Perry and are projected at roughly $229,008. Staff said RDA receipts are being used to reimburse the city for approximately $1.3 million in bond payments made when a developer defaulted; that loan is expected to be repaid by fiscal year 2027.

Public hearing and next steps: The council opened and then, after no in‑chamber speakers, closed the public hearing for the city and the RDA budgets. Staff noted state deadlines: a tax rate must be passed within the statutory schedule (property tax rates are due mid‑June) and final budget adoption must occur before June 30 unless the council elects to pursue truth‑in‑taxation procedures (which extend the deadline). Staff advised council members that certified county tax rates were expected from the state tax commission in early June and that council would reconvene to consider the certified rate on June 12.

Quotations and context: During the presentation staff emphasized planning tradeoffs for enterprise funds: “This plan here does not include a tax increase,” a staff member said, and later explained the proposed water increase as necessary to stop multi‑year operating losses and to provide cash for capital improvements. The council discussed options and requested additional detail to be circulated before the next meeting.

Ending: The council did not adopt the final budget at the May 22 meeting; staff will return with any updates, certified tax information and any requested clarifications for council action at a later meeting ahead of the June 30 deadline.","City staff presented the proposed FY2025–26 budget and enterprise fund plans at a May 22 public hearing. The package would not raise the overall tax rate but includes a proposed 25% increase to the water user rate, a 2% sewer increase, no garbage rate increase and planned capital projects funded partly from restricted funds and fund balance.",{"_33":86,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":87,"_41":88,"_43":89,"_45":90,"_47":91,"_49":50,"_51":92,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":93,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":94,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6539996,"Council approves moderate‑income housing update, names employment appeal authority and sets tax hearing date",296,6283000,6579000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3517522-a8b33027ac9b4289dd5714324be234ff&start=6283&end=6579","/articles/6539996/Utah/Council-approves-moderateincome-housing-update-names-employment-appeal-authority-and-sets-tax-hearing-date","Perry — The Perry City Council voted on several administrative resolutions May 22, approving the city’s annual moderate‑income housing update, naming outside counsel as the city’s employment‑appeal authority and setting a tentative date for a property‑tax public hearing.

Moderate‑income housing update (Resolution 2025‑08): The council unanimously adopted the city’s annual update to its moderate‑income housing report, which selects state‑required strategies and records recent infrastructure and regulatory actions. The motion passed on a roll‑call vote of the council (Young, Osler, Wright and Tueller voting yes). The staff presentation noted the state may request additional timeline specificity after its review.

Employment appeal authority appointment (Resolution — appeal authority): The council also approved a resolution naming David C. Richards of Christensen Jenson (Christensen & Jensen) as the city’s employment‑appeal authority to hear personnel discipline and separation appeals. Staff told council the appointment is intended to provide an independent, legally experienced hearing officer on a per‑use basis; the firm’s proposed charge to the city is $400 per hour plus travel. Council voted unanimously on the appointment.

Tax‑hearing date set (Resolution 2025‑10): The council set a tentative public hearing for property taxes — required by state statute when a jurisdiction leaves open the possibility of a tax change — for Aug. 14 at 7:15 p.m. Staff emphasized the item does not implement a tax increase; the hearing can be canceled if the council elects to adopt the certified tax rate without a hearing. That resolution passed 3–1 on roll call, with Council member Tueller voting no.

Why it matters: The moderate‑income housing update is an annual regulatory filing tied to the city’s general plan and state requirements. The appeal‑authority appointment establishes an independent hearing officer to help the city comply with state employment‑appeal requirements and to reduce legal risk when discipline or separations are contested. The tax‑hearing resolution preserves the council’s options while complying with statutory notice requirements.

Quotations and context: Staff described the appeal appointment as a low‑frequency, high‑value safeguard: the city will call the appeal authority as needed for hearings after internal due‑process steps are complete; “it would be $400 per hour and then travel,” staff said when summarizing the fee arrangement.

Ending: The council adopted the three administrative resolutions by roll call; staff will forward the moderate‑income housing report to the state for review, publish the appeal‑authority appointment and maintain the Aug. 14 tax‑hearing date unless the council cancels it after certified tax rates are received.","At the May 22 meeting the council approved three resolutions: the annual moderate‑income housing update (unanimous), an appointment of an independent employment appeal authority (unanimous) and a resolution setting a tentative tax‑hearing date (passed 3–1). The appeal authority will be paid on an as‑used basis at $400 per hour plus travel.",{"_33":96,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":97,"_41":98,"_43":99,"_45":100,"_47":101,"_49":50,"_51":102,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":103,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":104,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6540001,"City unveils data-driven street plan; software rates Perry roads at PCI 76 and maps 2025 projects",1749,6677000,8426000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3517522-a8b33027ac9b4289dd5714324be234ff&start=6677&end=8426","/articles/6540001/Utah/City-unveils-data-driven-street-plan-software-rates-Perry-roads-at-PCI-76-and-maps-2025-projects","Perry — City staff and a pavement consultant presented a new data‑driven street‑maintenance program May 22, using StreetScan imagery and StreetLogix modeling to prioritize repairs and set a multi‑year budget strategy.

A data baseline: Consultant Brandon Jones said the company’s high‑resolution StreetScan imagery produces a pavement‑condition index (PCI) for each road segment; Perry’s current network score, he said, is about 76 on a 0–100 scale. “Your overall index is a 76,” Jones told council members. The consultant said Perry maintains about 28 miles of roadway and that the software’s initial backlog estimate — the cost to fully treat every recommended segment — is in the neighborhood of $6.4 million.

How the model works: StreetLogix applies explicit decision rules (for example, when to apply a cape seal versus a mill and overlay or a full reconstruction) and projects how a road’s PCI will age over time if untreated. Jones emphasized that proactive maintenance costs far less than reconstructing failed pavement: “The cost to rebuild that road is about 10 times the price of just doing small maintenance treatments,” he said. The platform lets staff define local policy choices — prioritize collector streets, limit how frequently a given treatment may be applied, or avoid disruptive chip seals in sensitive neighborhoods — and then run thousands of budget scenarios to show which set of projects will most efficiently raise the citywide PCI.

Planned projects and budgeting: Staff said the city has grouped adjacent segments to make contractor bids practical and that the 2025 program is nearly bid‑ready; staff will roll remaining FY2025 project allocations into the FY2026 spending package so that the total out for bid equals roughly $1.7 million this coming season (staff said roughly $700,000 in this year’s appropriations will be carried forward). The consultant ran a 15‑year scenario assuming roughly $800,000 a year (with modest inflation) and showed the model holding Perry’s overall PCI in the mid‑70s over the long run if that level of investment continues.

Public interface and future scans: Staff said the plan is to publish a version of the map for public viewing and to rescan the network periodically so the model can be recalibrated. Jones recommended a rescan cadence of about three years initially to verify assumptions; if the approach tracks the real‑world outcomes, the interval can lengthen. City staff told the council they will start the bidding and will continue to refine the StreetLogix settings to align with local construction realities.

Ending: Council members asked questions about priorities and whether the software’s output could be posted for residents. Staff said they plan to provide a public view of planned work once the five‑year plan is finalized and that bids for the 2025 program will be issued this spring/summer.","Perry staff and consultant demonstrated StreetScan and StreetLogix tools that produced a pavement‑condition index (PCI) of about 76 for the city's 28 miles of roads, a maintenance backlog estimate near $6.4 million and a prioritized multi‑year plan; the package will be used to bid 2025 projects and to post a public‑facing map of planned work.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council tables zone‑change request for Highway‑side development overlay after access, density and orchard questions

Perry opens public hearing on FY2025–26 budget; staff proposes 25% water rate increase

Council approves moderate‑income housing update, names employment appeal authority and sets tax hearing date

City unveils data-driven street plan; software rates Perry roads at PCI 76 and maps 2025 projects