July 28, 2026 Minutes

CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF RICHFIELD

City Council of Richfield City, Tuesday, July 28, 2026, commencing at 7:00 p.m. The agenda shall be as follows: ( The agenda may be accelerated, or line items may be discussed in any order.)

1. OPENING REMARKS -Councilmember Thomas provided the opening remarks.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Councilmember Arrington led the pledge of allegiance.
3. ROLL CALL – Present: Brayden Gardner, Kevin Arrington, Kip Hansen, Andrew Chappell, Kendrick Thomas, Mayor Bryan Burrows (Not voting), Michele Jolley (Not voting).
   Excused: Rob Jenson (not voting).
   Also, in attendance, Trent Lloyd, Dustin Carr, Marlo Adams, Thomas Adams, Bruce Summers, Carson DeMille, Russ Brightwell, Michael Snow and David Anderson.
4. MINUTES APPROVED – Consider a motion to approve the minutes of the meeting held on July 14, 2026. Motion: Approve the minutes of the meeting held on July 14, 2026, Action: Approve, Moved by Brayden Gardner, Seconded by Kip Hansen.
   Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 5).
   Yes: Andrew Chappell, Brayden Gardner, Kendrick Thomas, Kevin Arrington, Kip Hansen.
5. CONFLICT OF INTEREST – No declarations noted.
6. BUSINESS
   a. Liz Greer to discuss the upcoming demolition derby and consider a donation or sponsorship for the event.

b. Consider approving a request to rezone the property located at 290 West 100 North from MD (manufacturing) to RM-11 (multi-family housing). The correct address is actually 555 E 200 North for the rezone.
Councilmember Hansen said a good discussion was had concerning this rezone during the last meeting, and there is no reason not to grant the rezone. Motion: Approve the rezone of the property located at 555 E 200 North from MD (manufacturing) to RM-11 (multi-family housing). Action: Approve, Moved by Kip Hansen, Seconded by Kendrick Thomas. Motion passed unanimously. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 5). Yes: Andrew Chappell, Brayden Gardner, Kendrick Thomas, Kevin Arrington, Kip Hansen.

c. Consider the sale of lot 6-36B-13 for the purchase price of $75,000 for 1 acre and any deed restrictions the Council wants to include.
Mayor Burrows said there was a fair amount of discussion about the road to the east of the property, but not requiring it to be developed at this time. City Administrator Jolley asked if that is condition that could be added to the sale – that the new owner agree to participate in the road development when the adjoining property owners do the same.
Mayor Burrows asked if the new owner is ready to start building. Administrator Jolley said they are. She said one discussion in the past has been to require the property to revert to the City if it is not developed within a certain time frame. Councilmember Gardner said where the road is not in, and may not ever go in, there really isn’t a reason for the City to take it back.
Motion: With the condition that they agree to participate in the development of the road when the adjoining property owners do the same, approve the sale of the lot 6-36B-13 for the purchase price of $75,000 for 1 acre, Action: Approve, Moved by Kip Hansen, Seconded by Kevin Arrington. Motion passed unanimously. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 5). Yes: Andrew Chappell, Brayden Gardner, Kendrick Thomas, Kevin Arrington, Kip Hansen.

d. Consider approving an Impact Fee Deferral Agreement for the Axiom Development, allowing them to apply for a building permit before impact fees are paid. The project will be located at approximately 1150 South 500 West, parcel 1-7A-123, and will include a building with eight 2-bedroom condos and twenty 1-bedroom condos deed restricted to be owner-occupied for 5 years.
Councilmember Hansen stated that he is not in favor of any deferral and does not want to set a precedent. He believes that they should have some skin in the game.
Zoning Administrator David Anderson said the deferral is being requested due to the project being funded through the Utah Housing Authority, which is requiring a building permit to be in hand before funding. However, other developers are required to pay impact fees upfront before the City approves the zoning permit, which tells the county this is a project is eligible for a building permit. It prevents collection issues. They are asking the City to reorder the steps of operation for this project. He had City Attorney Eric Johnson review the drafted agreement that is before the council.
Councilmember Hansen said he can guarantee that is not how other places do things, and there is no reason to defer the impact fees. The impacts start prior to what many assume. There are also advantages to the City having it in its coffers rather than a promissory note.
Mayor Burrows stated this project is part of the Governor’s affordable housing project. He said he indicated to Steve Waldrip, from the Utah Housing Corporation, this didn’t appear to be the project that fits in Richfield City, and that he didn’t share in the excitement for the project. Waldrip said he would look at some other options for funding including the Inland Port and that he would get back with the City. Mayor Burrows expressed skepticism of the affordability due to the cost per square foot for condos, which may be difficult to obtain financing for. The Axiom would be deed restricted to being owner occupied for five years.
Councilmember Chappell asked to clarify that they are actually requesting two things – first a deferment, second a reduction. They are being treated as separate issues. He also asked how this agreement would be enforced.

Deputy Clerk Anderson said the proposal would be for them to pay the impact fees as soon as they are funded and that the agreement wouldn’t allow them any encroachment permits or utility connections.
Councilmember Thomas asked for clarification on who is putting this project together. It is a private development group called Kairos Real Estate. It’s also been internally referred to as the Seegmiller project as some of the principals in it have the last name Seegmiller. He asked about the five-year deed restriction and how that would be enforced.
This is Richfield’s first time dealing with this type of deed restriction, Deputy Clerk Anderson stated. He said it is something other places have used to encourage the types of housing they want, but after the initial five years, the units could then be sold as rentals. It would be difficult to control someone who buys one, lives in it for a short time, and then sub-leases it.
Councilmember Hansen said there would need to be some kind of stipulation that made it possible to enforce.

Dustin Carr entered the meeting at 7:16 p.m. He represents Kairos Real Estate, which is the company that is behind the proposal. He stated that they are getting funding from the Utah Housing Corporation and the project is required to have a building permit prior to funding being released. He wants to start the review at the county level so that the building permit can be issued.

Councilmember Gardner asked if a commitment letter from the City would not be sufficient. He said generally a letter works.

Carr said the UHC won’t fund it until they have a building permit in hand.

Councilmember Chappell asked how much the impact fees are. They are $313,000. Councilmember Hansen asked about the approximate cost of the entire project. It is $6.775 million with funding from the Utah Housing Authority. Carr stated they have a commitment from the housing authority to fund and would like to get construction started prior to winter.

Councilmember Hansen asked if the plan is to have the impact fees be included in the UHC loan.
That is the plan, according to Carr. It is a loan, not a grant. It is not an attempt to avoid impact fees, but simply to reorder the processes. Out of 22 developers, they were the first to apply for this new program, and one of two that were deemed viable. In Salt Lake City, they have a project that meets the criteria to have its entire impact fee waived. Carr stated Kairos has projects in other cities, which found ways to help.
Mayor Burrows asked if the building permit is issued, and the funding secured, if the fee would be the first thing paid. Carr said yes, he anticipates within a few days.
Councilmember Gardner said he is not against it since an agreement has been drafted by the attorney. However, he is worried about the precedent it sets and if a letter would not be a better option.
Deputy Clerk Anderson said a letter has been issued, but it was deemed insufficient. He said he would like the City to communicate directly to the UHC about this issue.
Councilmember Hansen said Richfield is not an anomaly when it comes to this.

Carr asked what the concern is about allowing the deferment.
Councilmember Hansen said it sets an untenable precedent that could cause problems for the City.
Carr understands, but asked if anyone else has brought a new housing product that is deed restricted to be owner occupied to the City in the past. Councilmember Hansen said no, but also, who would enforce the five-year restriction?
Carr said it would be taken care of during the titling process. If someone were to rent from under the initial owner, that would be harder to police. There is a process for removing the restriction after five years. The other option would be for Kairos to go for a hard money loan, which could put the project in a position where it is no longer viable. The developer is only paid a flat fee for this project, and is not able to increase its profitability. This is about viability. The developer, contractors and subs are all reducing their profits for this project.

Councilmember Chappell said this could set up a precedent, but there would be a contract in place.
Deputy Clerk Anderson said it’s not a question of the county approving a building permit. The county will review the plan set to make sure it is up to code, but it’s not a situation where a permit could be outright denied.
Carr said something no one wants is for the Legislature to come in and mandate what happens. He cited red tape as the reason there is no affordable housing available. He said he is just asking for the red tape to be orange so that they can proceed forward. He said his group has invested all of their personal funds into this. Banks don’t care what the county or city have to say, they have their rules they follow.
Mayor Burrows said this is maybe a little different due to the government agencies being involved. Councilmember Gardner said he is well aware of the financing complexities, but that the City was able to help with some other projects with letters.

Motion: Table the current item and return to it after discussing the impact fee reduction, Action: Table, Moved by Kip Hansen, Seconded by Brayden Gardner.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 5).
Yes: Andrew Chappell, Brayden Gardner, Kendrick Thomas, Kevin Arrington, Kip Hansen.

e. Carr presented a slideshow. The design was originally an apartment complex, but that’s not what the market needs currently. These are designed for affordable home ownership. This is to bring the most affordable product in at just under market rate. Currently, all the options available are in the above $300,000 range and above. The target price range for proposed units will allow for people to purchase condos at a price less than what is currently available. The prices are derived from the costs of construction. Developers usually develop a product, then sell it for as much as possible. This project’s philosophy is to build it in a way to deliver the most affordable units possible, which means the developers, contractors and others will all reduce their margins. The state financing is not a grant, but a loan.
The current issue is that even building these at the lowest cost possible, there is still an appraisal shortfall of $300,000. The only way to make it viable is to reduce the cost by $300,000. The impact fees at $313,000 for the project, or $11,000 per unit, the proposal is to reduce the impact fees by $200,000. None of this would go back into the pockets of the developers, Carr stated.

Councilmember Hansen said the impacts are tangible, and highly regulated in how they are accessed and spent. All the City is trying to do with impact fees is prevent itself from getting behind, which either requires a reduction in services or shifting the burden to the taxpayers who have already paid their dues. This is a significant request at a 60 percent reduction, a precedent the City can’t set. The full $313,000 wouldn’t even cover the impacts incurred by this project.
Mayor Burrows said the impact fees are based on a study. The City can’t charge the impact fees based on $20,000 per acre foot of water, only on what it paid out during the study – less than $9,000. The City isn’t getting back what it will need in the future from even with the full impact fee. There is no way to charge for anticipatory costs. There was a reduction for a subsidized unit, which was about 20 percent. In this case that would have been about $60,000. The reduction given to the other project still has to be put back into it in the form of green space and other enhancements.
Carr said kids who grow up here still need a place to live. This project is entirely unique. The profit margin is the smallest it can be on this project, with the same amount of risk.
Councilmember Hansen said he’s not against people making a profit, but worries this precedent may sabotage the City in the future. Costs keep going up for the City, even when impact fees don’t increase. That goes for infrastructure, public safety, and even recreation. The requested amount is a lot to ask of a city Richfield’s size.

Carr asked Mayor Burrows about a state infrastructure program for housing and stated that an impact reduction fee may help the City secure more favorable consideration for that program in the future.
Mayor Burrows said he didn’t get that from the discussion with Steve Waldrip, but he can’t say that’s not the case.
Carr stated the state sees this as a way for Richfield to pitch in, which would be looked at favorably by state and influence its standing in the infrastructure credit program, Carr said.
Councilmember Hansen said any program like that is subject to the whims of the Legislature. He said the City has to be able to control its own destiny, and take care of its obligations to hold the line on impact fees due to the real impacts caused by a project.
Councilmember Arrington said in a few weeks, the council will be hosting a truth in taxation meeting. The optics of raising taxes by $500,000, while discounting impact fees $200,000 is not something that will sit well with the populace.
Councilmember Thomas said there are a couple of local developers who have built units and are having a hard time selling them. This could look like using the public’s money to favor one developer over another. He disfavors the idea of the City picking and choosing which developers benefit from reductions. Carr said other developers don’t have a price restriction on their products and that anything can sell at the right price.
Councilmember Hansen said the focus of the discussion should be on the impact fees, not on the prices of homes or even public private partnerships. The City has a moral obligation to collect the impact fees as its already falling behind.

Councilmember Chappell asked if this is a negotiation, is it a $200,000 reduction or nothing? Or is there something where the City can offer some type of discount, but not the full amount?
Carr stated that the state was expecting a larger number than 20 percent.
Deputy Clerk Anderson said the impact fees charged for multifamily units is charged on a basis of 75 percent of an ERC [Equivalent Residential Connection], between $6,000 and $7,000. Generally, a home requires .91 acre feet of water, so doing the math, that would be approximately .675 acre feet of water per unit. That would mean this project would require approximately 19 acre feet of water. Even if the City charged $7,000 for each of the 28 units for the water impact fee, that’s still significantly less than going out on the open market to buy 19 acre feet of water.
Councilmember Gardner said the last water transaction he and the Mayor were involved in, the water was significantly more than $7,000, so the impact fees don’t even cover the City’s hard water cost. Mayor Burrows said even at $20,000 an acre foot, it would be shy of covering the costs of purchasing it.
Deputy Clerk Anderson said in the past, developments were required to provide the water. The impact fees were not created as a punitive measure against developments, but as a way to simplify the process and help developers. It’s easier for a developer to pay the impact fee than find water on the open market.

Mayor Burrows asked Carr what his impressions of the community are as he’s driven around. Carr said he saw a lot of older homes, and homes that are not achievable. Young people don’t have a place to buy. Mayor Burrows asked if Carr observed a lot of homes with a single Honda Civic in the driveway? He used the cars to illustrate that this project doesn’t fit the feel of the community. People who live in Richfield are often involved in agriculture, have trucks, trailers and other vehicles. This doesn’t seem to be what first time home buyers in this area want.
Carr said for twice the price, he can provide single family homes.
Mayor Burrows suggested to Steve Waldrip with the Utah Housing Corporation that if the City partnered with a developer, and the state brought in some infrastructure money, some single-family homes on smaller lots could be built at a more achievable price.
Carr said the goal of his group is to bring inexpensive homes to the area.
Michael Snow, resident, asked why the pricing structure couldn’t be adjusted for this project to make up for the amount needed. Carr stated it’s not about the costs, but the $300,000 shortfall in the building cost vs. appraisal value. Snow stated it’s priced at a deficit. If the average price goes up $10,000, there’s an additional $280,000 for the project.
Carr said cuts would still have to be made in order to meet the appraisal value. The value of each unit is determined by the cost at the breakeven point. They need to bring it down $300,000 in order to make it happen.
Mayor Burrows said the one-bedroom units in this cost some $281 a square foot, while the units shown for comparison are actually less expensive on a per square foot basis.

Councilmember Gardner said the City’s actual cost based on what the City paid. The City’s cost on 19 acre feet of water years ago was approximately $170,000. The impact fees do not cover those costs at their full rate. It puts the City in a huge deficit. It’s a request for a discount beyond what is already being given at far below actual costs.
Councilmember Chappell asked if there is something else the City could help with.
Carr said allowing the building permit to move forward is the only other thing that could help at this point. At that point the permit could move forward, the project is beyond a plan B.
Mayor Burrows asked how much of the material for the project will be purchased locally. He said local purchasing is a sales tax issue that could help. He said if they were to take away parks, police and fire from the impact fee, that would eliminate some $96,000. He doesn’t favor that. The water and sewer have the highest impacts.
Councilmember Hansen said he’d rather give all the impacts a discount rather than eliminate certain categories all together. Both water and sewer rates already have to be raised just to keep the enterprise funds functional.

One of the local reps for Suncor lives in the City, and provided a favorable bid due to that connection, according to Carr. He said anything is better than nothing when it comes to the impact fee.
Chief Trent Lloyd said the impacts are real, so if the money doesn’t come from the developer, it gets spread out to everyone else. These are costs to the City that would be attributable to this specific project.
Mayor Burrows explained the City is allowed to collect a certain amount on property tax. The City would get $1.5 million from property tax with the proposed property tax increase this year. That is with a $10 million total budget. Some of that goes to the police, and fire department. Richfield runs on a tight budget, with low water and sewer rates.
Carr said in Salt Lake City there is an ordinance that defines how much impact fees can be reduced for affordable housing. One of his group’s projects has qualified for a 100 percent reduction.
Councilmember Arrington said the $200,000 accounts for approximately 3 percent of the total project. If this is the buy-in the state is asking from the City, it could hurt the finances of a small town.
Mayor Burrows said according to what has been said during tonight’s meeting, it sounds like if the City doesn’t do this, the state won’t play ball with Richfield in the future. Which seems like a challenge.
Carr said maybe there is a way the reduction wouldn’t affect water and sewer, and he could explore the next options for reducing the costs. At that point the City could at least say it made its best effort. He said his group would help advocate for the City for getting infrastructure credits from the state if a reduction is approved.
Councilmember Gardner said he favors the deferral, but has reservations about the impact fee reduction and would recommend denying the discount. He said he is not familiar with the infrastructure credit program with the state.
Carr said the City denying the reduction in impact fees in this instance could result in the state not awarding the infrastructure credits in the future.
Councilmember Hansen expressed skepticism about being told by one state entity that giving a reduction would result in the reduction would being given back to the community by the state in infrastructure credits.
City Administrator Jolley said the infrastructure credits come with strings attached and have to be used in support of affordable housing projects.
Mayor Burrows said he didn’t have that understanding from Steve Waldrip. However, he said if the City were to get an infrastructure loan at 3.5 percent, and a loan to pursue something in affordable housing, it would be at 2 percent. It seems Carr is indicating that the state wouldn’t loan the money at the lower rate. That’s not fair to any other community. If the attitude is that if you don’t do this, you’re completely out, that seems unethical.
Deputy Clerk Anderson said he went back to Cove Junction Phase 2, they needed approximately one third of their impact fees reduced to qualify for the tax credit. The discussion with the state didn’t seem to commit to anything in his view.
Mayor Burrows said he would be willing to have another discussion with the state.
Carr said his group would advocate for the City with the state when it comes to infrastructure credits if it reduces the impact fees for this project.
Motion: Table the item until the August 11 meeting while investigating the situation with the infrastructure credits, Action: Table, Moved by Andrew Chappell, Seconded by Brayden Gardner.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 5).
Yes: Andrew Chappell, Brayden Gardner, Kendrick Thomas, Kevin Arrington, Kip Hansen.

Motion: Take item d off the table, Action: Remove from table Moved by Kip Hansen, Seconded by Brayden Gardner.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 5).
Yes: Andrew Chappell, Brayden Gardner, Kendrick Thomas, Kevin Arrington, Kip Hansen.

Motion: Approve the impact fee deferral agreement subject to the outcome of the impact fee reduction discussion, Action: Approve, Moved by Kendrick Thomas, Seconded by Brayden Gardner. Vote: Motion passed (summary: Yes = 4, No = 1, Abstain = 0).
Yes: Andrew Chappell, Brayden Gardner, Kendrick Thomas, Kip Hansen.
No: Kevin Arrington.

7. OTHER BUSINESS – Chief Lloyd reported more than 18,000 cell phones were present on Main Street for the 4th of July.

Carson DeMille said Redmond Re-Lyte would like to put up a shade structure in the new parking area for the bike trails west of town. They would like to use a portion of it to advertise their company and product. It would be something they paid for, in exchange for the advertising. Jones and DeMille may also contribute to the project to make it nicer. This would be for both bicyclists and ATV riders.
Councilmember Arrington said the City should consider a time frame for it, rather than in perpetuity. Perhaps after so many years, they could rebuy into it.
Mayor Burrows said it is a good idea.

ADJOURNMENT Motion: Adjourn the meeting, Action: Adjourn, Moved by Andrew Chappell, Seconded by Kevin Arrington.
Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yes = 5).
Yes: Andrew Chappell, Brayden Gardner, Kendrick Thomas, Kevin Arrington, Kip Hansen.