
HIGHLAND CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
Tuesday, July 21, 2026
Approved August 18, 2026
Highland City Council Chambers, 5400 West Civic Center Drive, Highland Utah 84003
6:00 PM REGULAR SESSION
Call to Order: Mayor Brittney P. Bills
Invocation: Council Member Kim Rodela
Pledge of Allegiance: Council Member Doug Cortney
Respect Statement: Mayor Brittney P. Bills
The meeting was called to order by Mayor Brittney P. Bills as a regular session at 6:04 pm. The meeting agenda
was posted on the Utah State Public Meeting Website at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. The prayer was
offered by Council Member Kim Rodela and those in attendance were led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Council
Member Doug Cortney. The Respect Statement was read by Mayor Brittney P. Bills.
PRESIDING: Mayor Brittney P. Bills
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Ron Campbell Present
Doug Cortney Present
Liz Rice Present
Kim Rodela Present via Zoom (arrived at 6:34 pm)
Scott L. Smith Present
CITY STAFF PRESENT: City Administrator Erin Wells, Assistant City Administrator/Community
Development Director Jay Baughman, City Attorney/Planning & Zoning Administrator Rob Patterson, City
Recorder Stephannie Cottle, City Engineer/Public Works Director Chris Trusty, Police Chief Brian Gwilliam,
Fire Chief Brian Patten, Deputy Fire Chief Jake Beck, Civic Events Coordinator Brooke Boyd
OTHERS PRESENT: Jon Hart, Frank Tusieseina, Trent Thayn, Wes Warren, Debra Maughan
1. UNSCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES
Anyone may share information with the City Council. If your comments require a response, staff or an
Elected Official will contact you. Please limit your comments to three minutes per person. Please state
your name.
Wes Warren addressed the Council on two topics. Regarding e-bikes, Mr. Warren shared his experience as a Class
2 e-bike owner and expressed support for allowing Class 1 and 2 e-bikes on trails and parks as a reasonable
approach. On the subject of Flock cameras, Mr. Warren stated his opposition, citing significant privacy concerns
and his view that the drawbacks to civil liberties outweigh any public safety benefits.
Frank Tusieseina spoke about the condition of Highland Glen Park. He expressed concern about the accumulation
of trash and the general deterioration of the park, noting that he and his wife regularly clean up during their
Highland City Council APPROVED Minutes ~ July 21, 2026 Page 1 of 9
morning walks. Mr. Tusieseina, who has a personal history with the park including helping to build the volleyball
court, offered to volunteer his time and resources to organize a comprehensive community effort to improve and
maintain the park. He proposed forming a volunteer group to work alongside city staff, raise funds through events
such as a Highland Luau, and install signage to encourage responsible use. He requested the Council's support
for such an initiative. Mayor Bills indicated she would follow up with Mr. Tusieseina directly.
2. PRESENTATIONS
Items in this section are formal presentations by invited organizations or individuals. If further discussion
is needed, it will be brought to the City Council on a future agenda.
a. Fling Preview & Final Plans
Brooke Boyd and Emma Van Dyke will preview the upcoming Fling schedule with City Council and
discuss parade plans for the City Council.
Civic Events Coordinator Brooke Boyd presented the final plans for the upcoming Highland Fling. Ms. Boyd
reviewed the Saturday event site map, noting that all food and non-food vendor spaces were fully sold out. She
highlighted the participation of the America250 celebration, which will include eight U.S. Colonial booths, a
Passport to America activity, a 15-minute patriotic music and speech presentation, and a reenactment signing of
the Declaration of Independence. Branding for the event was designed by Kelly Campbell, establishing a
consistent red, white, and blue Americana theme. A completed emergency and contingency plan was made
available to Council members. Ms. Boyd noted that a final planning committee meeting was scheduled for the
following Monday and reminded Council members to complete their shirt order form and the Sign Up Genius
participation form for event coverage.
Council Member Campbell noted that Central Bank, as the Diamond Sponsor, donated $4,000, and expressed
hope that Alta Bank might step up to a higher sponsorship tier in the future. Council Member Rice provided
additional detail on the America250 colonial village, which was to include a working replica printing press, a
pilgrim sailor, a rope maker, a basket maker, a fiber arts demonstration, and a potter, among others.
3. ACTION ITEMS
Items in this section are to be acted upon individually by the City Council. A report will be given on
these items.
a. ACTION: Right of Way Permit Security and Enforcement Amendments Municipal Code Update
(Legislative)
Rob Patterson, City Attorney/Planning & Zoning Administrator
The City Council will consider amendments to the security/bonding requirement for right of way
permits, particularly removing the one-year warranty period for non-excavation permits.
City Attorney/Planning & Zoning Administrator Rob Patterson presented proposed amendments to the municipal
code governing right-of-way permits. Mr. Patterson explained that the current code requires a $2,500 cash
security held for one year after any right-of-way work is completed. Staff had received feedback from multiple
residents questioning the necessity of holding this bond for a full year when the work performed did not involve
excavation or cutting of the road surface—such as a simple curb cut for a new driveway. The primary proposed
change would allow the city to return the $2,500 security deposit to the permit holder shortly after inspection and
approval for non-excavation permits, rather than after the full one-year warranty period.
Responsive to a question from Council Member Campbell, Mr. Patterson clarified that the term "bond" was being
replaced with "security" to avoid confusion with surety bonds or other financial instruments, and that the security
amount itself would remain at $2,500 for non-excavation work. He also noted that staff is separately reviewing
whether the $2,500 amount is sufficient for excavation permits. Additional amendments clarified enforcement
language and notice procedures.
Highland City Council APPROVED Minutes ~ July 21, 2026 Page 2 of 9
Council members asked several questions about the permit process. Mr. Patterson walked through a typical
driveway permit scenario, explaining how city streets staff meet with residents on-site to confirm appropriate
placement, including distance from corners (30 feet) and fire hydrants (3 feet), and maximum driveway widths.
Council Member Rice sought clarification from Mr. Patterson regarding whether replacing an existing driveway
that touches the public right-of-way necessitates a permit. She highlighted that numerous residents were not
aware of this requirement and inquired how the $2,500 bond applies to these situations. Mr. Patterson explained
that if a resident decides to replace a driveway and it involves the public right-of-way, either by touching or
crossing it, a permit is required. Addressing the bond issue, he noted that the $2,500 serves as a security deposit
to ensure compliance with city standards and rectify any damages to city property during the work. He added
that if non-excavation work incidentally causes damage requiring excavation to repair, the permit would convert
and the security would be retained for the full year.
Council Member Liz Rice MOVED that City Council adopt the proposed amendments to the municipal code
dealing with the right of way permit as written.
Council Member Doug Cortney SECONDED the motion.
The vote was recorded as follows:
Council Member Ron Campbell Yes
Council Member Doug Cortney Yes
Council Member Liz Rice Yes
Council Member Kim Rodela Yes
Council Member Scott L. Smith Yes
The motion carried 5:0
4. DISCUSSION ITEMS
Items in this section are for discussion, and include supplementary information in the packet. No final
action will be taken.
b. Community Wildfire Preparedness Plan (CWPP) General City Management
Jake Beck
The City Council will review the City's CWPP prepared by the Fire Department.
Deputy Fire Chief Jake Beck presented an overview of the City's updated Community Wildfire Preparedness
Plan (CWPP). Deputy Chief Beck explained that the CWPP serves as Highland's roadmap for meeting its
obligations under Utah's Cooperative Wildfire System (CWS), which functions as a financial and resource-
sharing insurance policy between local jurisdictions and state and federal partners in the event of a large
catastrophic wildfire. By fulfilling CWS obligations through planning, prevention, mitigation, preparedness, and
response, the city ensures that state and federal resources will be available to assist in managing and funding
major wildfire events. Deputy Chief Beck noted that the plan was developed with the assistance of a consultant
funded by a grant, given its complexity. It identifies Highland's wildfire risk areas, prioritizes mitigation projects,
and strengthens coordination between Highland City, Lone Peak Fire District, and federal and state partners.
The plan also positions the city to pursue additional grant funding for mitigation projects. Deputy Chief Beck
emphasized that the CWPP is intended to be a living, working document rather than a static reference.
Council Member Campbell inquired about the status of Highland's general emergency preparedness plan, and
City Administrator Erin Wells confirmed that staff was in the process of updating that plan and linking it to the
CWPP.
Highland City Council APPROVED Minutes ~ July 21, 2026 Page 3 of 9
Council Member Smith inquired about how the CWPP would facilitate coordination with state and federal
partners in the event of a large wildfire. Deputy Fire Chief Beck explained that Highland City's would qualify
for federal and state aid under Utah's Cooperative Wildfire System (CWS) for major wildfires.
The Mayor and Council Members thanked Deputy Chief Beck for his work on the document.
a. E-bike Rules & City Code General City Management
Rob Patterson, City Attorney/Planning & Zoning Administrator
The City Council will consider current city and state regulations regarding e-bikes and give direction
on any changes desired to be implemented.
City Attorney/Planning & Zoning Administrator Patterson presented an overview of current state law and city
code as it relates to electric bikes and solicited Council direction on how Highland's municipal code should be
updated. He outlined the three state-defined e-bike classifications: Class 1 (pedal assist, cannot operate solely on
motor, motor stops assistance above 20 MPH), Class 2 (has pedals but can operate solely on motor, motor does
not help/function above 20 MPH), and Class 3 (pedal assist, cannot operate solely on motor, motor stops
assistance above 28 MPH). He also described motor-assisted scooters, high-power electric devices (capable of
exceeding 20 mph on motor power alone), and e-motorcycles. Under current state law, e-bikes are generally
allowed wherever bicycles are permitted unless a city designates otherwise, and Highland's existing code—which
broadly prohibits motor-driven vehicles in parks and trails—is now outdated. Mr. Patterson summarized how
neighboring cities handle e-bike regulations, noting a lack of regional consensus. Options presented to the Council
ranged from a full prohibition on all electric devices to allowing all classes except high-power devices.
Police Chief Brian Gwilliam shared that the department's primary enforcement challenges involve e-motorcycles
and high-powered devices, particularly when operated by minors, and cautioned against setting speed limits as a
regulatory tool, as they are difficult to enforce and easy to contest. He shared a recent serious injury accident
involving a minor on an e-motorcycle as an illustration of the public safety stakes. Chief Gwilliam recommended
focusing regulations on device classifications rather than speed.
Council Members shared their views; Council Member Rodela made it clear that her children ride Class 2 e-bikes
and strongly advocated for the allowance of Class 1 and 2 e-bikes on trails and sidewalks. She emphasized that
these should be consistent with regular bicycle speeds, while she was against the idea of allowing Class 3 e-bikes
on trails. Her viewpoint centered on the utility and accessibility of e-bikes for children, stressing the need for
safe trails and sidewalks. Council Member Rodela also raised a concern about road use, stating her preference
that children refrain from riding on roads and adhere to trails for safety.
Council Member Cortney echoed support for permitting Class 1 and 2 e-bikes, suggesting they be allowed
wherever bicycles are currently permitted. He cautioned against setting speed limits due to the practical
enforcement difficulties, especially since many devices do not have speedometers, making it challenging for
users to gauge speed accurately.
Council Member Campbell conveyed his support for Class 1 and 2 e-bikes as well, noting his own experience
with e-bikes and how existing gaps in the bike lane network limit safe travel. He highlighted the need for
regulations that reflect the reality of local infrastructure and support e-bike use.
Council Members Smith and Rice expressed safety concerns related to younger riders and devices with higher
speeds. Council Member Smith recounted a story involving a patient who was injured by a young child on a fast-
moving e-bike, underscoring the potential dangers. Council Member Rice also pointed out the high speeds she
had observed, noting that some e-bikes were traveling at up to 35 mph on trails, which raised serious safety
issues. Additionally, Council Member Rice commented on neighboring cities' e-bike regulations, emphasizing
the challenge posed by inconsistencies given that some cities' trails connect with Highland's. She highlighted
Highland City Council APPROVED Minutes ~ July 21, 2026 Page 4 of 9
difficulties in regulating differently than surrounding cities and pointed out the potential enforcement challenges
for the police when usage guidelines vary between cities.
After considerable discussion, the Council reached a tentative consensus on e-bike regulations: permitting Class
1 and 2 e-bikes on trails, sidewalks, and roads, while prohibiting Class 3 e-bikes from trails. They decided to
follow existing state law age tiers rather than creating separate age requirements for the city, which they found
unnecessary. The discussion ended with instruction for Mr. Patterson and Chief Gwilliam to draft an ordinance
consistent with the council's direction. Mr. Patterson remarked that e-bikes could also serve as an important
accessibility tool for adults recovering from health issues, enabling them to get out and about with the help of
electric assistance. He indicated that addressing this need can provide significant benefits beyond the traditional
users of e-bikes. The council emphasized the importance of including a strong public education component to
ensure that the community understands and complies with the new regulations.
5. COMMUNICATION ITEMS
Items in this section are for notification and update. No final action will be taken.
a. Flock Camera Terms of Service Changes
Brian Gwilliam, Police Chief
Chief Gwilliam provided the Council with an update on Flock Safety license plate reader cameras in response to
resident inquiries and recent attention to changes in the company's terms of service. He noted that Highland City
currently has access to six cameras, with Lone Peak Police Department also having access to six cameras in Alpine.
Chief Gwilliam explained that data captured by city-owned cameras belongs to Highland City, is purged after 30
days if not attached to a case and is accessible only to authorized law enforcement personnel with a documented,
legitimate law enforcement purpose. Each access is logged with a date, time, and case number, and a transparency
portal on the Lone Peak Police website shows the total number of searches conducted in the last 30 days—27 at the
time of the meeting. Chief Gwilliam stated that while the terms of service language was updated in February 2026,
his review indicated no material change in how data ownership or permissible use is defined. He shared that the
cameras have been used to solve crimes including a sexual assault, construction burglaries, bicycle thefts, and
package thefts. He also noted that camera angles were corrected early on to ensure they capture only roadway and
license plate data, not private property.
Council members expressed general trust in the department's use of the cameras, while raising some questions about
what happens to data once it leaves local control and potentially leaves the state. Council Member Cortney noted
that after reviewing the terms of service changes, he did not find material changes from the original agreement.
Council Member Campbell expressed strong support for the program, noting the contrast between the controlled
Flock system and the 14 publicly accessible UDOT cameras in Highland visible to anyone online. Council members
suggested residents with concerns consult with the relevant state legislative representative who has been engaged
in related legislation.
b. Parking Regulations and Enforcement in Town Center
Rob Patterson, City Attorney/Planning & Zoning Administrator
Brian Gwilliam, Police Chief
Mr. Patterson briefed the Council on a resident complaint received regarding parking along Town Center
Boulevard, specifically the angled parking area in front of Toscana and adjacent businesses. He noted that the
current code is inconsistent—24-hour parking is signed on the east (business) side, no overnight parking is signed
near the splash pad, and the Toscana side has no signage at all—making meaningful enforcement difficult. Staff
sought Council direction on the regulatory intent before pursuing code clarification and improved signage.
Council members engaged in a detailed discussion on how to best address parking regulations and enforcement
in Town Center, particularly along Town Center Boulevard where concerns had been raised about parking
Highland City Council APPROVED Minutes ~ July 21, 2026 Page 5 of 9
management. Mr. Patterson highlighted that the city’s existing code is unevenly enforced across different
sections: the east side, designated for business parking, features signage permitting 24-hour parking, the splash
pad section prohibits overnight parking to keep spots available for park users, while the Toscana side lacks
signage entirely, complicating enforcement efforts. In response, Council Member Cortney proposed a zoning-
based approach, recommending the division of the area into three distinct parking zones. In this framework, the
splash pad would remain a zone with no overnight parking to ensure availability for park visitors. A separate
short-term parking zone would be developed near northwest businesses, thereby facilitating quicker turnover for
their patrons. Meanwhile, the street-front parking adjacent to Toscana could retain a 24-hour maximum parking
rule; this measure aims to curb long-term storage of vehicles, ensuring that parking remains accessible for both
residents and visitors.
Council Member Smith advised further outreach efforts to Toscana's Homeowners Association (HOA) to better
understand the dynamics, given suspicions that residents may heavily rely on street parking for extended
durations. He suggested evaluating if Toscana residents are primarily utilizing these spaces, potentially resulting
in insufficient availability for retail patrons and park users.
Council Member Rice remarked on the unique parking challenges faced by Highland households, where the
average residence may have around four vehicles. This observation raised the possibility that Toscana's internal
parking provisions might be inadequate to accommodate its residents, inevitably spilling over into public parking
spaces on the street. The conversation highlighted considerations for aligning regulations across city zones and
achieving consistent enforcement that balances the needs of residents, businesses, and park visitors, without
necessitating burdensome oversight by the police department.
Ultimately, Mayor Bills recommended allowing staff and the police department to take the lead on resolving
these operational issues while maintaining open lines of communication with the Council for future updates or
needs for additional regulatory direction.
c. Utah County Firework Show
Brittney Bills, Mayor
Mayor Bills informed the Council that in coordination with the State Forester, Highland City had maintained its
fireworks ban for the 24th of July holiday, consistent with surrounding communities including Eagle Mountain,
Lehi, Cedar Hills, Lindon, Alpine, American Fork, Orem, and Pleasant Grove. Saratoga Springs implemented a
targeted ban. Mayor Bills noted that a countywide fireworks show over Utah Lake was organized for the evening
of July 24th, with fireworks launched from barges. Highland City contributed $3,000 to the event. l
Council members expressed support for the contribution and the county show concept. Mayor Bills noted that a
recurring concern among mayors is ensuring this does not become a permanent default ban, and that conditions
should be reassessed annually. Council Member Cortney suggested exploring with state legislators the possibility
of establishing a later date in the year for fireworks when drought conditions may be less severe.
d. Orphan Parcel Sales Revenue Uses
Jay Baughman, Assistant City Administrator/Community Development Director
Assistant City Administrator/Community Development Director Jay Baughman presented a communication item
on how the city should use revenue generated from the sale of orphan parcels—small, unbuildable remnant city-
owned lots. Mr. Baughman noted that prior precedent includes using open space sale proceeds for the Canterbury
Circle tennis/pickleball court resurfacing and the parks maintenance building. He outlined two proposed use
categories: projects benefiting the neighborhood from which the parcel originated and fencing to delineate city
property boundaries and reduce encroachment issues.
Highland City Council APPROVED Minutes ~ July 21, 2026 Page 6 of 9
Council members broadly supported directing a portion of proceeds back to the neighborhood of origin, with
several members—particularly Council Members Campbell and Rice—expressing a preference for earmarking
funds toward trail maintenance, which was identified as an area of significant resident concern. Council Member
Cortney noted a philosophical point that city property belongs to all residents but acknowledged the equitable
argument for neighborhood reinvestment given that the land originated from those neighborhoods. A general
consensus emerged around a roughly 50/50 split: approximately half directed toward neighborhood-specific
improvements and half toward broader trail maintenance or park capital needs. Mr. Baughman and Ms. Wells
noted that revenue from orphan parcel sales will be intermittent and is not expected to constitute a large or
consistent funding stream.
e. Annual Resident Survey
Jay Baughman, Assistant City Administrator/Community Development Director
Assistant City Administrator/Community Development Director Baughman presented an overview of the city's
annual resident survey, which staff uses to help prioritize budget allocations, and solicited input on potential
changes for the upcoming cycle. He noted that the survey includes recurring service satisfaction questions as
well as topic-related questions that vary by year. Past topics have included land use, library funding, and specific
amenities. He described a suggestion from one Council member to include "Goldilocks"-style questions asking
whether residents feel the city is allocating too much, too little, or the right amount of resources to specific service
areas. He also reviewed the Utah State University Well-Being Project as a potential supplement, but noted it is
issued in March (too late for budget purposes), covers topics the city cannot meaningfully influence, and could
contribute to survey fatigue.
Council members offered varied perspectives. Council Member Rice expressed general skepticism about survey
reliability and the potential for question wording leading to biased results, and opposed participation in the USU
Well-Being Project. Council Member Campbell expressed support for the customer service-oriented questions
and found them valuable for both staff and Council oversight. Council Member Smith suggested including
questions about specific parks and city services to gather actionable improvement feedback. Council Member
Cortney articulated a framework for survey utility: long-term trend tracking, public education opportunities, and
specific actionable data gathering—and expressed support for continuing the survey with the addition of resource
allocation questions. Mayor Bills expressed personal appreciation for the survey as a broader tool than anecdotal
feedback alone. No formal direction was taken, but consensus supported continuing the survey with refinements.
f. Annexation of Unincorporated County Parcels
Rob Patterson, City Attorney/Planning & Zoning Administrator
City Attorney/Planning & Zoning Administrator Patterson informed the Council that a recent state legislative
change requires Utah County to automatically annex unincorporated islands of fewer than 55 acres located
entirely within a city's boundaries into the surrounding city. Highland City has one such area—approximately
50 acres at the southwest corner of 6000 West and 10400 North, comprising the Buehler, Degelbeck, and
Gardner properties. The city has the option to opt out of the automatic annexation process, with the deadline
falling in 2027. Mr. Patterson indicated he would contact the property owners to ascertain their preferences and
return to the Council with a recommendation, noting he anticipated the owners would prefer to opt out given
that annexation into the city would increase their property tax burden.
g. Community Development Update (Current Projects)
Rob Patterson, City Attorney/Planning & Zoning Administrator
Mr. Patterson advised the Council that the Planning Commission would be reviewing two items at its upcoming
meeting: a consolidation of the city's sight triangle regulations (reducing multiple conflicting rules to a single
standard) and updated landscaping standards to address zero-scaping and Water Wise landscaping in connection
Highland City Council APPROVED Minutes ~ July 21, 2026 Page 7 of 9
with the city's rebate program. These items would come before the Council after Planning Commission review.
Mayor Bills recessed the meeting at 8:30 p.m.; the meeting reconvened at 8:40 p.m.
6. WORK SESSION
a. Detached Accessory Dwelling Units Development Code Update (Legislative)
Rob Patterson, City Attorney/Planning & Zoning Administrator
The City Council will hold a work session to discuss detached accessory dwelling units and related
regulations.
Mr. Patterson introduced the work session topic by summarizing state law requirements. Under Utah law, Highland
City must have a regulatory framework in place allowing detached accessory dwelling units (DADUs) by October 1,
2026. The law requires the city to allow DADUs on all residential lots of at least 11,000 square feet (approximately
0.25 acre), to allow conversion of existing accessory structures subject to adopted standards, and limits parking
requirements to one space for units under 650 square feet and two for units over that threshold. The city may not
impose specific design standards comparable to HOA-style requirements but may regulate height, setbacks, utilities,
and similar general development standards.
Planning Commission Chair Trent Thayn presented the commission's proposed framework, which he indicated had
been developed over several months. He explained that the commission's objectives in developing the standards were
threefold: providing a housing option for aging residents who wish to remain in Highland, creating a housing option
for adult children of Highland families, and satisfying the state's affordable housing mandate.
The commission's key recommendations were as follows: setbacks equivalent to those applicable to the primary
residence (rather than the more permissive accessory building setbacks); a prohibition on placement between the home
and the front property line; height not to exceed the height of the primary dwelling; and maximum livable square
footage of 1,250 square feet for lots under one acre and 1,500 square feet for lots over one acre. Mr. Thayn presented
visual examples demonstrating how the existing 5–7% accessory building coverage limits, combined with home
setbacks, would practically constrain DADU size—particularly on smaller lots, where the permitted envelope may be
insufficient to accommodate even the minimum threshold required by the state.
Planning Commissioners Wesley Warren and Debra Maughan offered additional remarks. Mr. Warren noted the
commission's extensive deliberation over setbacks and expressed support for the final compromise, including a
provision allowing a reduced 20-foot rear setback for single-story structures. Ms. Maughan emphasized the
importance of maintaining meaningful setbacks to protect neighbors, particularly on quarter-acre lots where a DADU
could be uncomfortably close to adjacent properties.
Planning Commissioner Chris Howden highlighted several practical matters the commission had addressed: the lot
remains a single legal parcel with one owner; at least one dwelling must be owner-occupied; utilities are shared rather
than separately metered; and the commission's intent to defer to existing code where practical to avoid creating a
parallel set of DADU-specific rules.
Council members engaged in substantial discussion. The primary area of contention was maximum unit size. Council
Member Rice expressed concern that 1,250–1,500 square feet is too large for the character of Highland
neighborhoods, particularly on smaller lots, and advocated for a maximum of approximately 1,100 square feet on lots
under one acre. She also raised concerns about the cumulative impact on water use, off-street parking demand, fire
safety given the proximity of structures, and the risk of incremental steps toward lot subdivision. Council Member
Smith echoed concerns about size and cautioned that the code should not incentivize a de facto subdivision of
residential lots, while expressing support for the framework generally. Council Member Campbell expressed strong
support for the commission's work and its focus on senior housing options and noted that comparable DADU
ordinances in neighboring cities have seen very limited uptake—Pleasant Grove received only one application in the
Highland City Council APPROVED Minutes ~ July 21, 2026 Page 8 of 9
first 18 months. Council Member Cortney raised a question about whether establishing both a maximum livable
square footage and a maximum footprint could be a useful tool for addressing size concerns while permitting vertical
construction; several Council members found the idea worth further consideration. Council Member Rodela did not
offer comments during the work session.
The Council and staff reached agreement on a path forward. Rather than attempting to resolve all outstanding
questions in a single session, Mr. Patterson proposed addressing height and size as separate focused discussion items
at upcoming Council meetings, with the goal of adopting a final ordinance before the October 1, 2026 state deadline.
Mr. Patterson cautioned that failing to adopt an ordinance by that date could expose the city to a developer claiming
the right to build under state law minimums in the absence of local regulation. The Council concurred with this
approach, anticipating that final action could occur at the second September Council meeting.
7. CLOSED MEETING
The City Council may recess to convene in a closed meeting to discuss items, as provided by Utah Code
Annotated §52-4-205.
There was no closed meeting.
ADJOURNMENT
Council Member Scott L. Smith MOVED to adjourn the regular meeting and Council Member Ron Campbell
SECONDED the motion. All voted in favor and the motion passed unanimously.
The meeting adjourned at 9:50 pm.
I, Stephannie B. Cottle, City Recorder of Highland City, hereby certify that the foregoing minutes represent a
true, accurate and complete record of the meeting held on July 21, 2026. This document constitutes the official
minutes for the Highland City Council Meeting.
Stephannie B. Cottle, CMC, UCC
City Recorder
Highland City Council APPROVED Minutes ~ July 21, 2026 Page 9 of 9
Welcome to the Highland
City Council Meeting
July 21, 2026
Please Sign the Attendance Sheet
Scan for Agenda

6:00 PM REGULAR SESSION
Call to Order – Mayor Brittney P. Bills
Invocation – Council Member Kim Rodela
Pledge of Allegiance – Council Member Doug Cortney
Respect Statement – Mayor Brittney P. Bills
UNSCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES
HIGHLAND CITY IS COMMITTED TO CIVILITY AND RESPECT.
ALL ARE ASKED TO ACT AND SPEAK ACCORDINGLY.
Time set aside for the public to express their ideas and comments on
non-agenda items.
• Please state your name clearly.
• Limit your comments to three (3) minutes.
PRESENTATIONS
a. Fling Preview & Final Plans – Brooke Boyd and Emma
Van Dyke
HIGHLAND FLING |
SATURDAY SITE MAP

SPONSORS & IN-KIND DONATIONS
Sponsors
•Central Bank
•Tire Factory Point S
•Bish's RV
•WM
•Harris Orthodontics
•Altabank
•Chick-fil-A (AF & Lehi
Pointe)
•Crumbl (PG, AF & Lehi)
In-Kind Donors
•Crust Club
•IFA Country Store (AF)
•CAL Ranch
•Costa Vida
•Harmon's (Traverse
Mountain)
•Costco (Lehi)
SIGNAGE & BRANDING







EMERGENCY & CONTINGENCY PLAN
Emergency Action Plan Under Review
Coordination with:
o Sergeant Wagstaff
o Chief Patten
o Deputy Chief Beck
• Final review underway with Public Safety
partners
HIGHLAND FLING COMMITTEE MEETINGS
Highland Fling Committee
• Monthly planning meetings since
January
• Weekly meetings throughout July
• Final committee meeting:
• Monday
• 5:00–6:00 PM
• Meeting room behind Council Chambers
• Council members are welcome to
attend.
America 250 Celebration at Highland Fling
After Mayor's Welcome and Achievement
Celebration, August 1:
• 15-minute patriotic music and speech vinette
• 8 US Colonial Booths
• Passport to America Activity
• Signing of the Declaration of Independence
COUNCIL SHIRT ORDER & FLING
PARTICIPATION SIGNUPS
Please submit your shirt size if you haven't already.
• The sizing form has been emailed to you already.
• We'll be placing the order tomorrow.
Please Fill out the form Highland Fling
Participation.
• This has also been sent to you by email.
RIGHT OF WAY PERMIT SECURITY
AND ENFORCEMENT AMENDMENTS
Municipal Code Update (Legislative)
Item 3a – Ordinance
Presented by – Rob Patterson, City Attorney/Planning & Zoning Administrator
Background
• 2024 – Council amended ROW permit requirements to
clarify when ROW permits are required and 1-year
warranty period
– Excavation permits – road cuts
– Non-excavation permits – curb cuts, utilities in parkway
– $250 application (excavation) or $50 application (non-
excavation)
– $250 inspection
– $2,500 security – held for one year
• Comparison - $4,000 bond for home builds, $2,500 bond for other
residential construction (separate from subdivision assurances)
Background
• Started using online platform Civic Review
• Had several residents doing curb cuts/driveway
approaches apply for non-excavation ROW permits
– Questioned why $2,500 security must be in place for 1
year when there was no real repair/restoration work
• Staff has reviewed the code and current procedures
and believes city could change process to help
residents without increasing city risk
Proposed Amendments
• Clarified language throughout
• Removed permittee right to request city do work
• Security must be cash deposit (not bond, LOC, etc.)
• Security for non-excavation work is refunded immediately
after work is complete rather than 1 year (keep 1 year
warranty period for excavations)
• Clarified notice/default provisions
• Additional enforcement options
– Add new conditions or require more security with permit
– Withhold/stop work on other permits by same contractor/owner
Staff Review
• Allowing cash security to be refunded faster
reduces impact to residents and avoids potential
issue of contractor paying bond, charging owner for
permit costs/ bond, and then contractor refunded
• No significant increase in risk with these projects
• Staff recommends adoption of amendments
• Staff is reviewing security amounts for future
• No public hearing required – municipal code
Motion to Approve
I move that City Council adopt the proposed
amendments to the municipal code.
E-BIKE RULES & CITY CODE
General City Management
Item 4a – Discussion
Presented by – Rob Patterson, City Attorney/Planning & Zoning Administrator
State Law
• E-bikes – must have pedals and be operable as a bike
without motor, pedal assist and motorized bikes
– 20/28 MPH limits
– Does not include e-motorcycles
• Class 1 E-Bike: pedal assist, cannot operate solely on
motor, motor stops assistance above 20 MPH
• Class 2 E-Bike: has pedals but can operate solely on motor, motor does help/function above 20 MPH
• Class 3 E-Bike: pedal assist, cannot operate solely on
motor, motor stops assistance above 28 MPH
State Law
• Motor assisted scooters – like class 2 bikes – can be
operated without motor, can be operated solely on
motor, limited to 20 MPH
• High power electric device – anything, including
modified e-bikes/scooters, that can exceed 20 MPH
using electric motor
• Electric motorcycle – no pedals, high-power motor
or otherwise can exceed 20 MPH
State Law
• E-bikes/scooters allowed on trails/sidewalks where
designated for bike use unless city adopts
regulations prohibitions
• State regulations generally apply to highways
– Under 8 – no e-bikes/motor assist scooters on highway
(includes sidewalks)
– 8-16 – future law will require adult supervision or
certificate/license, current law restricts class 3
– 16+ - allowed
– Helmets required
City Code
• Generally prohibits motor vehicles and motor-driven
cycles in parks/trails
• No specific regulations for road/sidewalk usage
• Staff recommends updating code to address
current state law definitions and regulations,
regardless of what is allowed
City Code Options – What and Where
• Regulate sidewalks/roads differently than
parks/trails?
• What to allow?
1. Ban all e-bikes/motor scooters
2. Allow class 1 e-bikes – pedal assist, 20 MPH
3. Allow class 1-2 e-bikes and motor assist scooters –
operable with/without pedal assist, 20 MPH
4. Allow all but high-power electric vehicles (anything that
can be operated 20+ MPH on motor alone)
Other Cities
• Brief review of other cities, appears no consensus
• Provo – register, not allowed on sidewalks or trails
• Vineyard – 15 MPH limit, class 1 or 2 allowed on trails
• American Fork/Saratoga Springs – ban class 2-3, no
ebikes downtown (AF) e-bikes in lanes/road (SS)
• Pleasant Grove – allowed on sidewalks
• Other cities (Alpine, Cedar Hills, Lehi, Lindon, Eagle
Mountain) – defaulting to state law
COMMUNITY WILDFIRE PREPAREDNESS
PLAN
General City Management
Item 4b – Discussion
Presented by – Jake Beck, Deputy Fire Chief
FLOCK CAMERA TERMS OF SERVICE
CHANGES
Item 5a – Communication
Presented by – Brian Gwilliam, Police Chief
PARKING REGULATIONS AND
ENFORCEMENT IN TOWN CENTER
Item 5b – Communication
Presented by – Rob Patterson, City Attorney/Planning & Zoning Administrator
Brian Gwilliam, Police Chief
UTAH COUNTY FIREWORK SHOW
Item 5c – Communication
Presented by – Brittney P. Bills, Mayor
ORPHAN PARCEL SALES REVENUE USES
Item 5d – Communication
Presented by – Jay Baughman, Assistant City Administrator/Community
Development Director
Background
• Similar Funds have been used for projects that
benefit the neighborhood
– The tennis court in Canterbury Circle was resurfaced and
striped for tennis and pickleball
Proposed Uses
• Projects that benefit the neighborhood
• Fences to mark the boundary between city
property and private property where it is not readily
apparent
– This would help with encroachment issues throughout
the city
ANNUAL RESIDENT SURVEY
Item 5e – Communication
Presented by – Jay Baughman, Assistant City Administrator/Community
Development Director
Current Survey
• Survey is a tool intended to help with policy
decisions
• Staff uses it for funding prioritizations (budget)
• Some years we have themes for current topics:
– 2 years ago, we focused on land use for the General Plan
– Last year, we focused on Library funding
Proposed Changes & Alternatives
• Add additional questions that help determine if funding
and support allocations are too much, just right, or too
little
• Join with the USU Utah Wellbeing Project
– Online only
– Issued in March, which would be too late for budget
– Focus is on personal wellbeing; some categories are about
topics the city has no control over
– Limited in what we are able to ask specific to Highland
– We last participated in 2022, last discussed 8/19/2025
ANNEXATION OF UNINCORPORATED
COUNTY PARCELS
Item 5f – Communication
Presented by – Rob Patterson, City Attorney/Planning & Zoning Administrator
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT UPDATE
Item 5g – Communication
Presented by – Rob Patterson, City Attorney/Planning & Zoning Administrator
DETACHED ACCESSORY DWELLING
UNITS
Development Code Update (Legislative)
Item 6a – Work Session
Presented by – Rob Patterson, City Attorney/Planning & Zoning Administrator
State Law
• Must allow DADUs by Oct 1, 2026
• Must allow on all lots at least 11,000 SF
• Must allow conversion of accessory buildings to
DADUs subject to setbacks
• Cannot require more than 1 (<650 SF DADU) or
2 (650+ SF DADU) parking spaces
• Cannot have specific design standards
• CAN regulate height, setback, utilities
PC Proposed DADU Ordinance
• Setbacks – same as home setbacks
– Allow rear setback to be reduced to 20’ if 1 story/15’
– Cannot be between home and front property line
• Height – Not to exceed home height (up to 35’)
• Size – three restrictions, smaller controls
– Accessory building lot coverage limit (5% or 7%)
– DADU livable area size limit
• 1,250 SF for lots under 1 acre
• 1,500 SF for lots 1 acre or more
– Existing size home size
PC Proposed DADU Ordinance
• Certificate of occupancy and registration required
• Separate address (A/B) designation required
• Must use home utility systems – separate utility
connections and accounts not permitted
• City can restrict if insufficient capacity in utilities
• Require maximum parking spaces under state law
(1 if under 650 SF, 2 if 650+ SF)
• Design must be complementary to home
R-1-40
• 1 Acre/45,000 SF
• 10,000 SF home
• 5% accessory coverage
– ~2,200 SF allowed
– 1,500 SF DADU


R-1-40
• 3/4 Acre/30,000 SF
• 7,200 SF home
• 5% accessory coverage
– 1,500 SF allowed
– 1,250 SF DADU


R-1-20/30
• 1/2 Acre/20,000 SF
• 5000 SF home
• 7% accessory coverage
– 1,400 SF allowed
– 1,250 SF DADU


Open Space/PD
• 1/4 Acre/11,000 SF
• 2,800 SF home
• 5% accessory coverage
– 550 SF allowed
– 1,250 SF DADU


FUTURE MEETINGS
• July 27, Truth in Taxation Open House, 7:00 pm, City Hall
• July 28, Planning Commission Meeting, 7:00 pm, City Hall
• August 4, City Council Meeting, 6:00 pm, City Hall
• August 6, Truth in Taxation Open House, 7:00 pm, City Hall
• August 11, Truth in Taxation Hearing/Meeting, 6:00 pm, City Hall
• August 18, City Council Meeting, 6:00 pm, City Hall
• August 25, Planning Commission Meeting, 7:00 pm, City Hall
