[22:10] Good evening. We do have a member of the
[22:12] Minister Alliance with us this evening.
[22:13] You are correct.
[22:15] >> Ray,
[22:15] >> you're Ray Gurnie.
[22:16] >> Yeah, Ray Gurnie. You're here to pray
[22:18] for us, right?
[22:19] >> I am.
[22:20] >> Okay. Ray, would you please come forward
[22:21] to the microphone? Thank you.
[22:27] Heavenly Father, as we come before your
[22:28] holy throne of grace tonight, we ask for
[22:31] your watch care over the city of Oak
[22:34] Grove. I bet there's a lot of decisions
[22:36] need to be made tonight. I pray they'll
[22:37] come out the best. And also want to
[22:40] mention our day of voting tomorrow. I
[22:43] pray that people will get out and vote
[22:46] their heart. And I I pray it'll be for
[22:49] the good of of everywhere we go in this
[22:53] country. We ask for your protection over
[22:56] us and all those who uh serve us in so
[22:58] many ways.
[23:01] Be with everyone here tonight. We thank
[23:02] you for them coming and and dedicate
[23:05] their time to whatever it is they're
[23:06] going to do tonight. In Jesus name I
[23:08] pray. Amen.
[23:10] >> Amen. Amen.
[23:11] >> Please join me for the pledge of
[23:12] allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the
[23:15] flag of the United States of America and
[23:18] to the republic for which it stands. One
[23:21] nation under God,
[23:23] >> indivisible, with liberty and justice for
[23:26] all.
[23:35] » I call the August 3rd, 2026 board of
[23:38] aldermen meeting to order. City clerk,
[23:40] would you please call the role?
[23:44] >> Tracy Newcomer,
[23:45] >> here.
[23:46] >> Kelly Neto.
[23:48] >> Rachel Kilmer,
[23:49] >> here. Shane Shawaker,
[23:52] >> Pam Pope
[23:52] >> here,
[23:53] >> Bart Easter
[23:54] >> here,
[23:54] >> and Mayor Dana Webb
[23:56] >> here. Thank you. The next item on the
[23:58] agenda is new business deletions or
[24:00] continuences.
[24:02] And the first item we have is public
[24:04] comments. City clerk, do we have any
[24:07] public comments?
[24:08] >> There are none.
[24:08] >> Thank you. The next item on the agenda
[24:11] is a consent agenda. These items are
[24:13] considered on the consent agenda so that
[24:16] members of the board of aldermen by
[24:17] unanimous consent can designate routine
[24:20] items to be approved by one motion.
[24:23] Tonight we have approval of the July
[24:25] 20th, 2026 board of alderman meeting
[24:28] minutes and expenditures through July
[24:31] 29th, 2026.
[24:34] >> I make a motion we approve the consent
[24:36] agenda.
[24:37] >> I'll second.
[24:38] >> We have a motion and a second to approve
[24:40] the consent agenda. Any discussion?
[24:45] If not, all in favor say I.
[24:47] >> I.
[24:48] >> Opposed. Motion passes.
[24:51] The next item on the agenda is
[24:53] unfinished business. Tonight, we do not
[24:55] have any unfinished business. So, we
[24:57] will move on to the next item, which is
[24:59] new business. Under new business, the
[25:02] first item is discussion, consideration,
[25:04] and possible action of bill number 26-16
[25:08] regarding an ordinance amending the
[25:10] annual budget. Matt,
[25:12] >> yes, [snorts] thank you, mayor. This
[25:14] budge amendment is requested to increase
[25:16] the pump and motor maintenance budget
[25:17] within the wastewater fund. Uh this year
[25:19] the utility has experienced higher than
[25:21] typical number of pump rebuilds and
[25:24] replacements due to several contributing
[25:26] factors that included a wet spring uh
[25:29] which caused the system to increase in
[25:31] flow requiring pumps to operate more
[25:32] frequently and for longer durations than
[25:35] may be normal. Additionally, several
[25:37] pumps um had reached the end of their
[25:39] expected service life requiring repair
[25:41] and replacement. This included several
[25:43] older pumps at the main lift station
[25:45] which were originally installed in 2012.
[25:48] They experienced failures this year
[25:49] requiring immediate repairs and
[25:50] replacements to maintain a reliable
[25:53] wastewater surface to the main plant.
[25:55] Those pumps that were repaired u move
[25:58] the waste from the main lift to the
[26:00] plant. The next agenda item tonight is
[26:02] items addressed to replace two high flow
[26:05] or peak capacity pumps at the main lift
[26:06] station that uh pushes flow from the
[26:08] main lift to the equalization basin for
[26:11] high flow events. Those pumps were
[26:13] originally installed in 2017
[26:16] and reached the point where they had
[26:17] failed either needing rebuild or
[26:18] replacement. And at this point, um it's
[26:21] a better value to purchase new than it
[26:23] is to rebuild those motors. In total,
[26:27] this budget line item um pump and motor
[26:30] maintenance supports the wastewater
[26:32] system, which includes eight total lift
[26:34] stations and 21 various pumps of
[26:37] different makes and models. Uh, so with
[26:39] that, I'd be happy to answer any
[26:40] questions the board may have. Uh, the
[26:42] requested budget amendment is to
[26:43] increase the budget from 45,000 to
[26:46] 135,000. Thank you.
[26:48] >> Thank you, Matt. Does the board have any
[26:50] questions for Matt?
[26:54] » How does this affect our overall budget?
[26:56] I mean, we've got the money or how tight
[26:59] are we?
[27:00] >> Yeah, we we'll be fine. We have healthy
[27:02] fund balances. Last year, we added to
[27:04] fund balance in the wastewater fund. Um,
[27:06] so as these pumps go, um, you know, some
[27:08] years are better than others. Just
[27:10] depends on when they were put in
[27:12] service, when the lift station was added
[27:13] with growth. Um, you know, over the last
[27:16] few years, we've averaged about 40,000
[27:18] in repairs. Uh, back in 2022, we we had
[27:21] 95,000 in repairs. So, this does kind of
[27:24] eb and flow with time,
[27:25] >> but we will be fine with our budget um
[27:28] in reserves.
[27:32] » So, they're two separate
[27:35] uh ordinances or or discussions and it's
[27:38] hard to answer one without having
[27:40] questions on the second. Is that fair?
[27:42] >> That's fair. Yeah, sure.
[27:44] >> So, can I ask questions on the on the second? Um
[27:49] >> you mean can you ask questions now
[27:50] regarding to the second agenda item
[27:53] >> because we're you're asking us to
[27:54] approve the the fund transfer?
[27:56] >> I'm asking you to we're the ordinance is
[27:59] asking you to amend the budget. Yes.
[28:02] But
[28:05] >> you can ask questions regarding the the pump the pumps.
[28:09] >> Okay. Yes,
[28:10] >> that's that's point is because Okay, so
[28:15] there's a pretty big difference in the bids. Um and
[28:21] you chose the lowest obviously or or we
[28:25] need to go with the lowest bid. Um, and
[28:29] I was just curious because I didn't see
[28:30] in here. I see that that the the one the
[28:33] horsepower, the RPMs, everything that
[28:35] we're going with or or if we vote to go
[28:38] with it. Um, but I didn't see what the
[28:40] other pumps were as far as their
[28:43] capacity. Were there any difference in
[28:45] that?
[28:47] >> Uh, no. Two of the quotes, the low bid
[28:50] was 33,000, the mid bid was 45,000. Uh,
[28:53] both of those included uh pump
[28:55] specifications. So the low bid is is
[28:58] going to is a sulcer pump. The mid bid
[29:00] was a homoma pump. And those pumps uh
[29:02] meet the requirements uh that we put out
[29:04] with our bid. So
[29:05] >> and they're both 20 horsepower.
[29:07] >> They Yeah. So they'll they'll they meet
[29:09] the the
[29:11] >> Okay.
[29:11] >> Total gallons, the the head head flow,
[29:14] everything else. Uh I will say that
[29:16] fluid and FTC have bid uh on our stuff
[29:19] before. We've purchased pumps from both
[29:20] those companies before. Uh Rand
[29:22] Construction, which was the high bid of
[29:24] 111,000 was new. Uh, and they also did
[29:27] not include specifications of their
[29:29] pumps.
[29:29] >> Okay. So, we don't even know what they
[29:31] were thinking. Okay. All right. Thank
[29:32] you. That I I was having a hard time
[29:34] voting on one without
[29:36] >> asking about the other.
[29:38] >> Thank you.
[29:38] Any other questions for Matt?
[29:45] » This is an ordinance.
[29:47] >> I move for first and second reading by
[29:48] title only of bill number 26-16.
[29:53] » Second. We have a motion and a second
[29:55] for the first and second reading of the
[29:57] proposed ordinance by title only. Any
[30:00] discussion?
[30:02] If not, all in favor say I.
[30:05] >> I.
[30:05] >> Opposed.
[30:07] City clerk, would you please read the
[30:08] full title of the bill two times?
[30:11] >> An ordinance amending the annual budget
[30:13] for the fiscal year beginning on January
[30:15] 1, 2026 and ending on December 31, 2026.
[30:21] an ordinance amending the annual budget
[30:23] for the fiscal year beginning January 1,
[30:25] 2026 and ending on December 31, 2026.
[30:31] >> I move for adoption of bill number
[30:33] 26-16.
[30:36] >> Second.
[30:37] >> We have a motion and a second for the
[30:39] adoption of bill number 26-16
[30:42] to ordinance.
[30:43] Any discussion?
[30:47] If not, city clerk, would you please
[30:48] call the role? Tracy Newcomer,
[30:50] >> yes.
[30:51] >> Rachel Kilmer,
[30:52] >> yes.
[30:53] >> Pam Pope,
[30:54] >> yes.
[30:54] >> And Bart Easter,
[30:55] >> yes.
[30:56] >> The motion is approved and ordinance
[30:58] number 2169
[31:00] is adopted.
[31:04] » The next item on the agenda is
[31:06] discussion, consideration, and possible
[31:07] action regarding and installing two peak
[31:10] flow pumps for the main lift station.
[31:13] Matt?
[31:14] >> Yes. Thank you, mayor. Um these bids
[31:16] were advertised on July 13th for the
[31:18] replacement of two peak flow pumps at
[31:20] the main lift station. Bids were opened
[31:22] on July 28th. We did receive three bids
[31:25] u which are shown on the attached bid
[31:27] tab. Um we had fluid equipment ran
[31:30] construction and FTC equipment. Those
[31:32] bids ranged from 33,275
[31:35] to 111
[31:37] uh777.
[31:39] The two lower bids were much closer in
[31:42] um numbers. 33,000 and 45,000. Rand
[31:45] construction was the high bid at 111.
[31:48] The low bid was submitted by FTC. Their
[31:50] proposal includes two new sulcer peak
[31:53] flow pumps and installation. We already
[31:56] have one sulcer peak pump uh in
[31:58] operation at the main lift station. So
[31:59] using the same manufacturer and pump uh
[32:02] will make maintenance easier as well as
[32:04] for interoperability.
[32:06] These pumps come with a three-year
[32:08] warranty that covers uh both parts and
[32:10] labor followed by additional two years.
[32:12] Uh the fourth year would be 75% parts
[32:15] and labor and the fifth year is 50%
[32:16] parts and labor. The current lead time
[32:18] is about 10 weeks once we um once the
[32:20] pumps are delivered. Installation would
[32:22] then be scheduled. Staff does recommend
[32:25] approving the bid from FTC in the amount
[32:26] of 33,275.
[32:30] With that, be happy to answer any
[32:31] questions the board may have.
[32:33] >> Thank you, Matt. Does the board have any
[32:35] questions about the peak flow pumps?
[32:38] >> What's the anticipated lifespan of a
[32:39] pump?
[32:41] >> Yeah.
[32:41] >> Is it hard to say just depending on the
[32:43] usage?
[32:44] >> It it it really is. Um
[32:46] we have some that are pushing 15 years.
[32:49] >> Um others are are newer than that. It
[32:53] you know it really depends on it's such
[32:55] a costic environment that they operate
[32:56] in and you may be surprised the types of
[32:59] things that can make it through the
[33:01] system. Um, so you know, it might be
[33:03] operating fine. All a sudden a beach
[33:04] towel hits an impeller and wraps around
[33:07] and breaks it. Um,
[33:09] >> 8 years to 15 years is probably a
[33:12] reasonable range
[33:14] >> on the pumps.
[33:19] » Any other questions for Matt?
[33:26] I make a motion to approve the purchase
[33:29] and installation of two peak flow pumps
[33:31] for the main lift station from FTC
[33:33] Equipment in the amount of $33,275.
[33:37] » I'll second.
[33:38] >> We have a motion and a second to
[33:41] purchase two peak flow pumps for the
[33:44] main lift station. Any discussion?
[33:48] If not, all in favor say I. I.
[33:51] >> I. opposed.
[33:53] Motion passes. The next item on the
[33:56] agenda is discussion, consideration, and
[33:58] possible action regarding a resolution
[34:00] for the board of the city of Oak Grove
[34:03] establishing a one-year administrative
[34:05] delay for data centers. Matt,
[34:09] >> yes, thank you, mayor. So, at a previous
[34:11] board meeting, uh the board requested
[34:12] that staff bring back uh the topic of
[34:14] data centers for further discussion
[34:16] regarding potential updates to the
[34:17] unified development code to the UDC. Uh
[34:20] and while the city has not received any
[34:21] development inquiries regarding u AI or
[34:25] data centers um staff is recommending
[34:27] that we do a proactive approach to
[34:28] address this emerging land use um and
[34:31] allow adequate time to evaluate and
[34:33] amend the UDC as may be necessary. So
[34:36] under our code the the board may
[34:37] establish an administrative delay on
[34:39] certain applications for a period of up
[34:41] to one year. Uh the proposed resolution
[34:43] would establish one-year administrative
[34:45] delay on uh data center data center
[34:48] development including um you know the things associated with
[34:53] data centers including um utilities um
[34:56] site plans
[34:58] environmental reviews, generators, those
[35:00] types of things.
[35:02] So that would allow the time for staff
[35:04] to um develop proposed amendments to the
[35:07] UDC and then bring it through the
[35:09] process which would be public hearings,
[35:10] planning commission and then back to
[35:12] this board. Um our current UDC does not
[35:14] address data centers. So the resolution
[35:17] would allow us to put that delay in
[35:19] effect for 12 12 months which would be
[35:22] August 3rd of 2027. So with that I'd be
[35:25] happy to answer any questions the board
[35:26] may have.
[35:27] >> Thank you Matt. I do [snorts] think this
[35:29] is a good plan. it gives time to put
[35:32] something in place with lots of
[35:33] discussion. Um will will you be bringing
[35:36] something back slowly or you have a
[35:38] presentation at some point?
[35:41] >> Yeah, so probably the initial would be a
[35:44] presentation back to this board. Um and
[35:46] then for you guys then to make
[35:47] recommendations and have staff then make
[35:49] a report on those recommendations. You
[35:51] would like to see further evaluation
[35:53] discussion to the planning commission
[35:55] that would then start a public hearing
[35:57] process. Then the planning commission
[35:58] would discuss those, make
[36:00] recommendations back to this board, and
[36:01] then you guys would have another public
[36:02] hearing where you would make the final
[36:04] determination on what those amendments
[36:06] might be.
[36:07] >> Thank you.
[36:08] >> Does the board have any questions?
[36:10] >> Thank you for bringing this. I didn't
[36:11] even know this was an option. So, it
[36:12] makes me feel a lot better that we can
[36:13] really give our time and due diligence
[36:14] because it's completely new frontier
[36:16] obviously. Yes. So is it the one year
[36:19] means no one can even file an
[36:20] application for one year or if they file
[36:23] an application that year term they are
[36:24] not to receive an answer until the one
[36:26] year is up. Kind of splitting hairs
[36:28] there but just curious.
[36:33] » Oops. The way it works is the um not
[36:36] sure what's going on with that.
[36:38] [laughter]
[36:38] The way it works is it delays it it
[36:41] directs staff to delay the acceptance or
[36:44] process processes of an application
[36:47] involving a data center. And the the
[36:50] concept and I went back and looked
[36:51] because it's been a while since we did
[36:53] this here, but we have done an
[36:56] administrative delay resolution seven
[36:58] times since I've been here. Okay. The
[37:00] last one was in 2013 had to do with
[37:04] solar panels while we were looking at
[37:06] regulations for solar panels. But
[37:09] >> um what the the concept is that
[37:11] [clears throat] we're going to adopt
[37:12] regulations
[37:14] and we want people that are going to be
[37:17] able to that want to do this type of use
[37:19] to do it in accordance with our
[37:21] regulations. So you don't want people
[37:23] running in the door trying to get ahead
[37:25] of our regulations. Now, arguably with a
[37:28] data center, um, we don't believe that
[37:30] that's an allowed use currently under
[37:32] the code anyway, but someone could
[37:35] attempt to argue otherwise. You know,
[37:37] how creative some people can get.
[37:39] >> Yes.
[37:39] >> So, I think um Matt's approach is is the
[37:42] right way to handle this. It does give
[37:44] us time to study it and for you all to
[37:47] study the options and and adopt
[37:50] regulations that fit the community. Mhm.
[37:53] >> And then if we adopt regulations before
[37:55] the one-year mark, does this still stay
[37:57] in place for the full year or does it
[37:59] expire upon adopting regulations?
[38:02] >> It typically expires once you've adopted
[38:04] resolution or um regulations. I think it
[38:07] says that at the end it stays in place
[38:11] until you've adopted regulations because
[38:13] at that point you don't need to delay it
[38:15] anymore.
[38:16] >> Sure. Right.
[38:16] >> I see that. Okay. [clears throat] Thank
[38:18] you.
[38:18] >> Thank you. So one year is the maximum
[38:20] time we could do this, right? Yes,
[38:23] >> typical
[38:24] >> although I think it does provide and we
[38:27] actually have this whole administrative
[38:28] delay processes in our code and I think
[38:31] it does allow for an extension of time
[38:34] if necessary. I don't think we
[38:37] anticipate that would be necessary but
[38:40] it does allow the board to extend for
[38:42] good reason.
[38:45] >> I believe the county has a moratorum
[38:47] right now too. Um I'm not sure how that
[38:50] works. If there's a mortorium
[38:54] that would also not have us be able to
[38:57] put it in a data station too, right? It
[38:59] protects us from that. Of course, I know
[39:01] they can always drop that. I'm just
[39:02] trying to understand the how that works.
[39:04] >> The county's regulations have no impact
[39:06] within the city.
[39:08] >> Okay. Okay. Thank I'm not I've lost
[39:11] track of what they're doing, but I know
[39:12] they had a moratorum or something, but
[39:15] >> they they don't have any authority
[39:17] jurisdiction over our land use
[39:19] regulations within the city,
[39:21] >> but they would on the land just outside
[39:23] of city limits.
[39:24] >> Yes.
[39:24] >> So, the uninorporated areas
[39:26] >> as we make our decisions, that's good a
[39:28] good thing to watch.
[39:29] >> Right. Thank you for the clarification
[39:30] because I assumed when they said they
[39:32] had a mortorium that included the whole
[39:33] county, but it's only for unincorporated
[39:35] areas. Right.
[39:36] >> Okay. Thank you.
[39:39] That's good. Thank you. I didn't know.
[39:41] >> Good discussion. Any other questions?
[39:49] » I need a motion. Nope.
[39:52] >> I make a motion to approve the
[39:54] resolution establishing a one-year
[39:56] administrative delay on the acceptance
[39:58] and processing of applications related
[40:00] to the establishment, construction,
[40:02] expansion, or development of data center
[40:04] facilities within the city of Oakrove.
[40:06] >> I'll second it. We have a motion and a
[40:08] second for a one-year administrative
[40:10] delay on the acceptance and processing
[40:13] of applications for data centers for the
[40:15] city of Oakrove. Any discussion?
[40:19] If not, all in favor say I.
[40:21] >> I. Opposed. Motion passes. The next item
[40:25] on the agenda is information reports.
[40:28] Matt, do you have one?
[40:29] >> No. Thank you, mayor.
[40:30] >> Thank you. Chris or Jackson, do you have
[40:32] one?
[40:33] >> No report from me, mayor.
[40:34] >> Thank you. Same. Yeah. Thank you, Chief.
[40:37] Do you have one?
[40:37] >> Yes, if I may take just a minute of your
[40:39] time.
[40:39] >> Yes.
[40:40] >> Um, we hear so much about the negatives
[40:43] regarding uh technology and the use of
[40:46] law enforcement, big brother,
[40:47] government, and such, but we miss the positives that come from that as
[40:52] well because we get ran over by the
[40:54] negatives. November [clears throat] of
[40:56] 24,
[40:58] Oakrove officers stopped a vehicle
[41:00] because it pinged on our automated
[41:02] license plate readers. and in that
[41:04] vehicle and the reason for the stop was
[41:06] for a missing uh female from the state
[41:09] of Utah.
[41:10] >> She was recovered from that vehicle. She
[41:12] had been carried across several state
[41:14] lines and had been abused by her
[41:17] abductor who was a 32-year-old Mexican
[41:19] national. This past Thursday, July 30th,
[41:23] Eric Santana Garcia, or also known as
[41:25] Eric Katiano, was sentenced to 20 years
[41:28] in federal prison without parole and
[41:30] lifetime supervision for his
[41:32] transporting a minor across state lines
[41:34] with intent to engage in illegal sexual
[41:36] activity, plus three other charges. I
[41:39] think that's a that is a win-win. Um,
[41:42] the young lady was actually present at
[41:45] sentencing with her mother. And I think
[41:47] that speaks volumes for why this is
[41:49] important that we use technology to save
[41:52] those who are are being abused, being
[41:54] hurt, or those that are just running
[41:56] from the system um that need to be
[41:58] stopped. And when I got this notice that
[42:01] he had been convicted, uh, I just think
[42:03] that was a positive that needed to be
[42:05] passed on in in open form because there
[42:08] are positive uses for this this
[42:10] technology. So, just want to pass that
[42:12] on.
[42:13] >> Thank you for sharing, Chief. Really
[42:14] appreciate it.
[42:16] >> Kim,
[42:18] >> Scott,
[42:19] >> just want to remind everybody that next
[42:21] week will be the last full week for pool
[42:23] operations and we'll go to weekends
[42:24] only. So, it's all
[42:26] >> ready.
[42:26] >> Yeah.
[42:28] >> Rachel,
[42:28] >> no report. Bart,
[42:31] >> um, I just like to thank the chief for
[42:32] his report. I know I've heard lots of
[42:35] different things on the radio and
[42:36] everything else about you know lock
[42:39] cameras and everything else and I think
[42:41] to me most people are concerned when
[42:43] this third party doing it as long as we
[42:46] have good regulations of how things are
[42:49] used like the cameras and such. Um I
[42:52] think they're a positive thing and of
[42:54] course we just need regulations to make
[42:56] sure that they're done and carried out
[42:57] in the right way. So, um, I think I will
[43:01] say I think that the license plate
[43:03] readers on the vehicles are a good
[43:04] thing. So,
[43:06] >> that's it.
[43:07] >> Thank you, Bart. Tracy,
[43:08] >> no report.
[43:09] >> Thank you, Pam.
[43:10] >> Yeah, I just want to say thank you to
[43:12] the chief for giving us that update
[43:14] because that um was heartbreaking when
[43:16] it happened and it's wonderful to hear
[43:19] that there's been some sort of
[43:21] resolution. Thank you.
[43:22] >> I agree. Yes. Thanks again, Chief. Uh,
[43:25] the only report I have is tomorrow is
[43:26] voter day. So, please get out and vote.
[43:30] I'm looking for a motion to adjurnn.
[43:32] >> I make a motion we adjourn.
[43:34] >> Second.
[43:35] >> We have a motion and a second to
[43:37] adjurnn. Any discussion?
[43:39] >> If not, all in favor say I.
[43:42] >> I.
[43:42] >> Opposed? We are adjourned.