[0:26] certain motions
[0:31] speak to you and speak to my colleagues.
[3:29] No, [laughter] we're talking about names
[3:32] to use like when you order take out or
[3:33] whatever.
[3:35] >> What's your name?
[3:37] >> I used to use Joe Montana.
[3:41] » Are we ready?
[3:43] [laughter]
[4:12] We're ready. All right. Welcome
[4:15] everybody. This is a regular meeting and
[4:17] public hearing of the Grantsville City
[4:19] Council. For the record, today's date is
[4:21] March 25th, 2026, and the time is 7 p.m.
[4:25] This meeting is being held at the
[4:27] Grantsville Grantsville City Council
[4:29] Chambers located at 429 East Main Street
[4:32] in Grantsville, Utah, as well as
[4:34] electronically via Zoom. I am Maya Mayor
[4:38] Heidi Hammond, and I will conduct a roll
[4:40] call. Council member Butler,
[4:42] >> present. Dalton
[4:44] >> present.
[4:44] >> Skinner
[4:45] >> here.
[4:45] >> Thomas
[4:46] >> here.
[4:47] >> Williams
[4:47] >> here.
[4:48] >> All members are here and present. And
[4:50] next I have asked Les Peterson to uh
[4:54] lead us in the pledge of allegiance.
[4:55] Thank you Les for being here.
[4:58] [clears throat]
[4:58] >> When the command is given to render the
[5:01] proper salute to our flag present arms.
[5:05] Please follow me in the pledge of
[5:06] allegiance. I pledge algiance to the
[5:09] flag of the United States of America and
[5:13] to the republic for which it stands. One
[5:16] nation under God, indivisible, with
[5:20] liberty and justice for all.
[5:22] >> You may be seated. [clears throat]
[5:24] >> Thank you very much.
[5:33] Uh before we start our meeting tonight,
[5:35] um you may have all heard of a tragedy
[5:38] that has happened near our city. Uh two individuals lost their lives um
[5:45] on at an accident on Parachute Lane and
[5:48] Mid Valley Highway. So we're going to
[5:49] start today with just a small moment of
[5:51] silence for them.
[6:15] Thank you.
[6:19] We wish our condolences to their
[6:21] families and associates.
[6:24] Um, our first item of a business tonight
[6:26] is public comment. If anyone would like
[6:29] to make a comment, please come forward.
[6:31] The floor is open to the public this
[6:34] time.
[6:36] And if you're on Zoom, if you will
[6:37] please raise your hand,
[6:45] anyone online, Alicia?
[6:48] >> Okay. All right. I don't see any public
[6:50] comment tonight, so we will close that
[6:52] agenda item.
[6:56] Next, we have our summary action items.
[6:58] Um,
[7:00] item A is approval of minutes from the
[7:02] February 18th, 2026 city council regular
[7:05] meeting.
[7:11] There's no discussion needed. If someone
[7:13] would like to make a motion.
[7:17] >> Mayor, I make a motion we approve the
[7:19] minutes from the February 18th, 2026
[7:21] city council regular meeting.
[7:24] >> We have a motion by Council Member
[7:25] Thomas. Is there a second?
[7:27] >> I'll second. Second by council member
[7:29] Dalton. All in favor?
[7:31] >> I I you. Next is item B, approval of the
[7:37] minutes from the March 4th, 2026 city
[7:39] council regular meeting. [snorts]
[7:42] >> Mayor make a motion we approve the
[7:43] minutes for from the March 4th meeting.
[7:46] >> Thank you. Is there council member
[7:48] Butler has made a motion. Is there a
[7:50] second?
[7:50] >> I'll second the motion.
[7:52] >> Second by council member Skinner. All in
[7:54] favor? I
[7:55] >> I
[7:56] >> Okay, thank you. And last C um item C is
[8:01] approval of the bills. Does anybody have
[8:03] any questions or comments or concerns on
[8:05] the bills?
[8:06] >> I had a question um about uh just some
[8:09] payments for the firefighter stipen that
[8:13] we approved in our last meeting.
[8:15] >> Um I just wondering I know that we have
[8:18] quite a contingent of volunteer
[8:20] firefighters and we approved that in the
[8:22] last meeting. Um I saw maybe a little
[8:25] more than a dozen of those um stipens
[8:28] that were paid out in accordance with what we had approved. Just
[8:33] wondering how many more of those are are
[8:35] there going to be um or is that or is
[8:39] that it for the year?
[8:40] >> That's it for the year.
[8:41] >> Okay.
[8:43] >> Thank you.
[8:44] >> For next year hopefully more.
[8:47] >> So that all was um driven by
[8:49] participation then. Right.
[8:50] >> Okay. There's a a few of them that
[8:52] didn't meet the criteria this year to
[8:55] get the stipen. So hopefully this
[8:57] incentivizes them to get that next year.
[9:01] >> Thanks Chief Remick for that update on
[9:03] that. Any other concerns on the bills?
[9:12] » Make a motion we approve the bills as
[9:14] presented.
[9:15] >> We have a motion by council member
[9:17] Butler. Is there a second?
[9:18] >> I can second it. Second by council
[9:20] member Williams. All in favor?
[9:23] >> I.
[9:24] >> Thank you.
[9:27] Um, moving on to item number three, a
[9:30] proclamation declaring April 24th, 2026
[9:34] as Arbor Day in Grantsville City.
[9:47] Um, so this is an official proclamation
[9:50] that will be signed. I'm not going to
[9:51] read all of the item, but in 1872, the
[9:54] Nebraska Board of Agriculture
[9:56] established a special day to be set
[9:58] aside for the planting of trees. And
[10:01] this holiday is called Arbor Day and was
[10:03] first observed with the planting of more
[10:05] than a million trees in Nebraska. And
[10:07] Arbor Day is now observed throughout the
[10:09] nation and the world.
[10:11] Um, we have a wonderful tree program in
[10:15] Grantsville. The applications for that
[10:17] are due this Friday. So, if anybody is
[10:20] interested in purchasing trees, the
[10:22] applications are due in two days. So, I,
[10:26] Heidi Hammond, mayor of the city of
[10:28] Grantsville, do hereby proclaim April
[10:30] 24th, 2026 as Arbor Day in the city of
[10:34] Grantsville. And I urge all citizens to
[10:36] celebrate Arbor Day and to support
[10:37] efforts to protect our trees and
[10:40] woodlands. I urge all citizens to plant
[10:42] trees to gladden the heart and promote
[10:44] the well-being of this and future
[10:46] generations.
[10:48] So that I think will take care of that.
[10:51] Uh we will be celebrating with the
[10:53] students at the elementary schools on
[10:55] April 12th. Um
[10:58] but Arbor Day is on the 24th. So we'll
[11:01] look forward to all the trees coming in
[11:03] for the tree application. So that is
[11:06] great
[11:09] and we will move forward with that item.
[11:14] number four is a discussion and
[11:16] direction from the council regarding the
[11:18] sewer right study.
[11:20] And Aspen, are you the one talking with
[11:23] us about that or is
[11:24] >> we have Robert here. Is Robert on?
[11:27] Robert is here. [laughter]
[11:35] Hello, Robert.
[11:36] >> Hi.
[11:37] >> So, yeah, Robert with Enzy Engineering.
[11:40] Mike, did you send out the email to city
[11:42] council?
[11:43] >> I did. Yeah, they have it, but we
[11:44] probably should see if we can pull.
[11:47] Okay, let me get that
[11:53] » PDF you you sent out with the map
[11:57] >> or the result the notes that
[12:00] >> Yes, it would be the email that lists
[12:02] all the the stuff with that and we just
[12:04] received that today because the bid for
[12:06] the sewer treatment plant came in today
[12:08] and then um Robert Relle um updated the
[12:12] numbers for the rates based on that
[12:14] those numbers and then Yesterday, Alex
[12:18] had reached out to a lender that uh is
[12:20] possibly going to uh provide the bonding
[12:24] for this and gave us a kind of a general
[12:26] idea of what the rates are going to be.
[12:28] And um Robert's going to cover that, but
[12:30] they're saying the rates are now
[12:31] increasing due to the fact that there's
[12:33] the war over there in Iran that's uh
[12:37] creating some issues here and it's
[12:38] increasing the rates. So, Zans is
[12:41] advocating that we um take that into
[12:44] account while the longer we wait the
[12:47] rates might increase further. So, I
[12:50] think the rates that he was saying are
[12:51] pretty close to uh the 5% right now.
[12:56] >> I think um Robert has those pulled up so
[12:59] I'll let you take that.
[13:00] >> Okay. Yeah. So, since last time we met,
[13:03] you know, we've talked to two different
[13:05] developments.
[13:07] So, we talked to Northstar and then
[13:10] Desireette and we've got this
[13:13] upsize cost on the See if I can get it
[13:17] pulled up.
[13:18] >> All right. Do you mind sharing your
[13:19] screen on Zoom
[13:22] >> or
[13:23] >> Oh, so I got to log into Zoom.
[13:25] >> Yeah. Oh, there it goes. Oh,
[13:29] >> sorry.
[13:42] Okay, so that first bullet item you we
[13:46] talked to Desired who's constructing
[13:49] this Mac Canyon collector and then the
[13:51] West Bank interceptor which is from
[13:53] basically this orange line if you can
[13:55] see my cursor there to the northwest
[13:58] lift station.
[14:00] And when we talked to Northstar, their intent is just to pay their impact
[14:05] fees and and their sewer flow goes
[14:10] through the West Street collector that
[14:12] connects here. So what we've done is
[14:14] we've got this upsize for and we've got
[14:17] two different segments for the Westbake
[14:19] interceptor. So we've added that cost
[14:23] into the impact fees and the sewer race
[14:26] study. That was point number one.
[14:36] And once I made a note here that once we
[14:38] get their engineers cost, which will be
[14:40] on contractor's bids, we'll update that.
[14:44] And to Michael's point, this was an
[14:46] email sent by Zans yesterday on just the
[14:49] various updated, you know, 20 year, 25
[14:52] year, 30-year uh interest rates.
[14:57] And so what we've updated was we've
[14:59] updated with the 30-year loan at the
[15:01] 5.052%
[15:03] interest rate and then to maintain a
[15:08] positive impact fee uh fund balance
[15:12] and uh you know meet our metrics that
[15:15] we've discussed previously you know the
[15:16] 1.25%
[15:18] debt service coverage ratio and then the
[15:21] 180 uh days cash on hand. We can reduce
[15:25] the private bond amount a little bit,
[15:26] not as much as previously because we've
[15:28] added that West Bank interceptor upsize
[15:31] cost, but what we're using in the
[15:34] calculation is the 28.4 million.
[15:41] And then with the the bid opening today,
[15:43] the the cost is 43,700,000.
[15:48] We've maintained the construction
[15:50] contingency.
[15:51] Uh we've got out of that comes the
[15:54] million-doll engineering loan which has
[15:56] already been paid and then we've got
[15:59] kind of these ancillary fees you know
[16:01] the 2.4 4 million for the design and
[16:04] construction management. The uh funding
[16:07] work that Jones Deil did in
[16:08] environmental
[16:10] inbridge gas service just extension of a
[16:13] gas line out to the treatment plant and
[16:16] then Rocky Mountain Power their their
[16:18] service uh out to the plant as well.
[16:24] And so updating that with, you know,
[16:26] everything that we previously
[16:27] calculated, the current impact fee for a
[16:29] 3/4 inch meter, which is essentially
[16:31] single families, uh, $5,950.
[16:36] And then it does go up slightly based
[16:39] on, you know, the increase in the the
[16:44] wastewater treatment plant and the
[16:46] additional West Bank, you know, upsize
[16:48] costs. And so what what we've done and
[16:51] we presented here ultimately what we're
[16:53] trying to get is
[16:56] kind of an average at least in this next
[16:58] fiscal year 79.25
[17:01] monthly sewer rate. Uh so we kept the base fee and then the usage fee and
[17:11] we've got a couple different options.
[17:13] We've got a, you know, lower rate, you
[17:15] know, at $40
[17:21] and then
[17:23] kind of a medium uh base rate. And
[17:26] really what this is reflecting is kind
[17:28] of a similar
[17:30] uh basically usage fee as as commercial
[17:35] and then a higher base rate at $65,
[17:40] but a lower usage fee.
[17:43] So, we just kind of tried to present a
[17:45] couple different options. Those can be
[17:47] tweaked a little bit here and there, but
[17:49] I mean ultimately you've got to pay, you
[17:52] know, for the wastewater treatment
[17:54] plant.
[18:05] » And you can see with all of these, we're
[18:06] trying to yeah meet the 1.25 25 debt
[18:09] service coverage ratio and then the 180
[18:11] days cash on hand
[18:26] any questions
[18:31] what did we decide let's see the average
[18:33] usage of water from the months of
[18:37] November to December 5,36.
[18:40] >> Right.
[18:41] Y
[18:43] >> So if that were the case,
[18:46] this last option, the low base rate
[18:48] option, which is $40
[18:51] um
[18:52] >> a month starting in 2027.
[18:56] So if you know a household's at that
[18:58] average, so that's 7954.
[19:02] >> Still 70 bucks. Yeah.
[19:04] >> Yeah. So 75
[19:09] if they're average. If they're average.
[19:11] Yeah.
[19:11] >> Yeah. But it does tell people who are
[19:12] lower. Sorry.
[19:13] >> What's that?
[19:13] >> I was saying it does help people who
[19:14] don't.
[19:15] >> Yeah. Some that are lower. And then this
[19:17] is the max. And this is based on, you
[19:19] know, the meter data that we've had for
[19:21] last I think it I think it I mentioned
[19:22] it there, but
[19:26] yeah, it was November 2019 to 2025.
[19:40] So you'll see fluctuations in trailer,
[19:42] right? Just because with the different
[19:45] base rates and usage rates just because
[19:47] trailer has a larger range of of uh
[19:52] usage
[19:53] than single family.
[20:00] I have a question which is just like a
[20:02] generic I mean we've talked about this a
[20:04] lot of like why don't we raise the
[20:05] developers impact fees. So I have a
[20:07] question of if we were to do that
[20:09] perspectively that doesn't change the
[20:11] amount we need to get on a loan here
[20:12] right there's no like if we say hey
[20:14] we're going to raise impact fees for
[20:15] developers in the future that doesn't
[20:17] make us have less of a loan that we need
[20:19] to take right now. They they kind of end
[20:21] up going hand inand, right? Because
[20:23] we're projecting in the next 10 years
[20:24] like how many impact these are going to
[20:26] be coming in based on a growth rate
[20:28] which we try to be a little bit more
[20:30] conservative just so you know you don't
[20:34] not have enough money to pay you know
[20:37] >> but that's just based on a fixed rate
[20:38] that we have right now. So like what I
[20:40] guess my question what I'm asking is if
[20:41] we were to raise those say hey in the
[20:42] future we're going to raise these impact
[20:44] fees for developer. I know there's only
[20:45] a certain amount we can go right there's
[20:47] not like we can't say hey you're going
[20:48] to give this cost essentially all to you
[20:50] but if we were to do that say hey
[20:52] >> I mean we already have a projected
[20:54] amount that we think it is but if we
[20:55] were to raise those put a little bit
[20:56] more on that I guess the problem with
[20:58] that is that we don't know. Yeah, we
[21:00] just don't know.
[21:00] >> We don't know and then we risk that not
[21:03] having that amount
[21:04] >> like we discussed. I mean, we look at
[21:05] impact fees annually and and we can
[21:07] definitely look at tour rates annually
[21:09] and adjust those accordingly.
[21:12] >> But but this number is taking into
[21:13] account those impact fees that we're
[21:14] expecting in the mix.
[21:15] >> Yes. Yeah.
[21:16] >> With the estimated growth rate
[21:19] >> of what we have currently. Well, we were
[21:21] at around 2% this year and then I think
[21:24] um we're showing something similar for
[21:26] the next year then increase
[21:28] >> three and a half if I remember correctly
[21:30] and then and then kind of leveling off
[21:31] at four.
[21:33] >> And so if that like is higher actually
[21:35] then we just pay the loan back faster.
[21:36] Is that how then we can pay?
[21:37] >> Yeah, you'd collect more impact fees.
[21:39] >> Collect more impact fees.
[21:40] >> Yeah.
[21:40] >> And then
[21:41] >> and you could potentially use it to pay
[21:43] off the the loan faster
[21:44] >> or we could look at the rates again. I
[21:46] mean we're going to look at
[21:47] >> or or Yeah. not raise the rates as much.
[21:48] like there's yeah there's things to
[21:50] consider there.
[21:51] >> Okay.
[21:51] >> Yeah. And those show up here as you know
[21:53] other revenues in this in this
[21:56] spreadsheet.
[22:00] » We started um a discussion I don't know
[22:03] that we finished about if we switch to
[22:05] this usage um
[22:09] billing
[22:11] way I guess is it is it is there more
[22:15] cost to the city to do that? Yeah,
[22:18] Michael, have you talked about
[22:20] >> I guess looking at that and talking with
[22:23] staff, we are currently doing that with
[22:25] our businesses. So, we do have it
[22:27] already programmed in our system. It
[22:29] will just take the time to integrate
[22:30] that for all the other 4,000 residential
[22:33] side of things. So,
[22:35] >> okay,
[22:35] >> we have staff already trained on how to
[22:37] do it for the 150 businesses that we
[22:39] have. We just have to upscale that. And
[22:42] again, we do want to look at getting the
[22:45] uh our meters upgraded to the AMI system
[22:48] and purchasing those towers. We did
[22:50] finally get the cost of those towers.
[22:52] We're going to need three to four and
[22:54] those are about $18,000 for the
[22:56] equipment. And then depending on the
[22:58] location where we can put those, if we
[23:00] already have a tower, like at the public
[23:02] works building, we will utilize that
[23:04] tower. will just be the cost of that equipment installation. If we have
[23:08] to put in a like a power pole to act as
[23:11] a tower in another location, that'll be
[23:13] the cost of the installation of that
[23:15] power pole plus that equipment.
[23:17] >> So, who's paying for that equ how are we
[23:19] paying for that equipment?
[23:20] >> That will be coming out of the water
[23:22] fund because it'll be also collected on
[23:24] the water data and then also that's what
[23:27] we'll use to calculate the sewer for
[23:29] those months of uh November to March.
[23:32] >> Yeah. winter usage.
[23:35] >> And so that will help us get that daily
[23:37] um calculation because we we already
[23:41] have all the meters which is really
[23:42] helpful for our city is we've been
[23:44] purchasing meters that can read all the
[23:46] data daily. We just don't haven't put in
[23:49] the towers in place to collect that data
[23:50] daily. And so we're going to look at
[23:53] implementing that right now
[23:55] >> to help get that in place. And so we're pretty much there and can
[23:59] implement this usage fee pretty quickly.
[24:01] Right now, is it just radio read? Are
[24:03] you just going around?
[24:04] >> Yeah, we do the radio read, but all all
[24:05] of our meters that we purchased
[24:07] >> can can do that and can be backwards
[24:09] compatible to collect that once we put
[24:12] in the towers.
[24:13] >> Okay.
[24:13] >> And so, like I said, we need three to
[24:15] four towers,
[24:15] >> right,
[24:16] >> to do that. So, we're going to try to
[24:17] take pieces of that and see what we can
[24:19] in our water budget to purchase those at
[24:22] a time. and we have put a purchase
[24:25] request in for one right now on the
[24:28] public works building because we found
[24:29] that we have a budget in there for that
[24:31] and the next budget season we'll try to
[24:33] purchase the other two or three that we
[24:35] >> So with those towers is it pre up like a
[24:38] staff member to not have to go out there
[24:39] and physically
[24:41] rear or direct
[24:44] >> I I just have a question and I'm not
[24:47] trying to be pessimistic but why are we worried about monitoring
[24:54] those usage fees when we're collecting
[24:55] them anyways and we're we're gathering
[24:58] the data from November to March from the
[25:01] previous year to charge individuals for
[25:05] the next coming year.
[25:07] >> We only collect it once a month.
[25:09] >> Yeah, exactly.
[25:09] >> So if we miss So so you're collecting
[25:12] them once a month, correct? You get an
[25:13] average of November through March.
[25:15] >> Y
[25:15] >> and then that's what it's based off of.
[25:17] >> Yes.
[25:18] >> So I mean you're collecting that data
[25:20] anyways. Why do we need to do it in real
[25:21] time on a daily basis?
[25:23] >> Uh it makes it more accurate and you
[25:24] have a better
[25:25] >> but we don't have to. If we don't need
[25:26] to if we want to.
[25:27] >> Yeah, I get the whole accuracy thing.
[25:29] But if we're doing it and we're looking
[25:31] behind and we're we're charging them for
[25:34] the current year, then
[25:36] >> it's a it's a twofold thing as well
[25:37] because it benefits this but also
[25:39] benefits your water thing as well
[25:41] because it can
[25:41] >> I understand that part.
[25:42] >> It can help track whether you have like
[25:44] outages or [clears throat] your your
[25:46] broken lines in your house and things
[25:48] like that. So that's the other benefit
[25:49] is like a twofold benefit that we get
[25:52] the more notice to our residents when
[25:54] there is broken lines or things like
[25:56] that on their property and can respond
[25:59] quite quickly because right now if we
[26:00] know it we're months out before we
[26:02] notice that there's issues in their
[26:04] lives.
[26:05] >> You could have a move in move out
[26:06] situation
[26:08] where you're collecting data on somebody
[26:09] that moved out of the home and that data
[26:12] is being used on that piece of property.
[26:14] Correct.
[26:14] >> For a new tenant.
[26:15] >> Good. if not not talking permanent
[26:18] residence but
[26:20] >> absolutely
[26:33] obviously we're not making any decisions
[26:35] on this tonight. This is just a
[26:37] discussion. But do we have any other
[26:40] comments tonight?
[26:42] >> When when will it be like I know we're
[26:43] kind of
[26:44] >> It will be on the agenda next Wednesday.
[26:46] Okay. Um I'm just with the interest
[26:48] rates going up, I think we're kind of I
[26:50] mean I know that kind of makes you
[26:51] nervous with what everything
[26:52] >> we just couldn't notice it because we
[26:54] didn't open them until today.
[26:55] >> We just got them
[26:56] >> and so it had to have the proper
[26:58] noticing. So
[26:59] >> what we're looking for is whether or if we want to use that usage rate or do
[27:04] we want to keep what our current base
[27:05] rate is right now? And if we do want to
[27:07] use a usage rate, do you want to use one
[27:09] of the proposed options here to have
[27:12] that presented next time or is there
[27:14] another variation that you want Robert
[27:16] to?
[27:16] >> Yeah, because what we can do is we can
[27:18] update the the actual study and then
[27:21] have that for the next meeting.
[27:23] >> So you can approve the rates at that
[27:25] point as well. What we're we're hoping
[27:27] to do is next time we'll approve the
[27:29] contract bid and then because the next
[27:33] week is notice the bond for the the
[27:35] state in order to give the state 15 or
[27:38] $16 million we had to notice that one
[27:41] and so that's what that notice is about
[27:42] for next week to comply with the state
[27:44] requirements. So, it also like the the rate um study on there and see and
[27:51] have that all approved and that way
[27:53] we're ready to go then to go secure that
[27:56] private bond.
[27:58] >> So, this 28.4 that we have here that
[28:00] that's excluding the 16. Right.
[28:02] >> Correct.
[28:02] >> Or right.
[28:04] >> Yep.
[28:05] >> And the 28.4's got has these contingency
[28:11] line and the cost for those other
[28:14] >> Yeah. It's got the contingency and it
[28:15] plus all the other
[28:19] » um the up size of that additional line
[28:21] included in this. Where is that in this?
[28:24] >> Yeah, I should have pasted that.
[28:26] >> Is that in survey design CM?
[28:28] >> No, that that upsize cost. It's uh let
[28:31] me get to it spreadsheet.
[28:34] >> Is that included in the 28.4 or
[28:37] excluded?
[28:38] >> It's included in all the calculations,
[28:39] but yeah, it's it's basically right
[28:42] here. And then here's kind of the
[28:44] percentages that would be
[28:45] >> I just wanted to make sure we weren't
[28:46] missing it.
[28:47] >> Yeah. Yeah, we got it in there.
[28:49] >> Contingency.
[28:57] And then we did, like I mentioned, we
[28:58] did update it based on this interest
[29:00] rate that Zans sent us yesterday.
[29:04] So we updated the private bond amount
[29:12] I like the low base rate option.
[29:16] >> I feel that's fairest too.
[29:18] >> A lot of citizens have asked for for
[29:21] that. I think
[29:26] » you want.
[29:26] >> So for the for the average home, if I
[29:28] could just interject, for the average
[29:30] home, the low base rate with the 5,000
[29:34] gallons used on average for those five
[29:37] months, $77
[29:40] month for the medium 7775
[29:45] and for the high 78.45.
[29:47] >> So it doesn't change.
[29:48] >> So it doesn't matter.
[29:49] >> Yeah.
[29:49] It's going to be
[29:50] >> smoking is all that is. Albeit the
[29:53] single woman
[29:54] >> who's a widow
[29:56] >> who doesn't use hardly any water at all.
[30:00] >> Um maybe a thousand gallons a month, it
[30:02] does affect her.
[30:03] >> Yeah. Even less than that.
[30:05] >> Yeah. She Yeah. I mean
[30:07] >> or somebody who goes out of town for a
[30:08] month and is winter visitor whatever.
[30:10] >> 50.
[30:11] >> Exactly.
[30:12] >> Yeah. They would make quite less than
[30:14] that.
[30:14] >> Yeah. I mean, it does it it's almost,
[30:16] you know, $80 a year, you know, if it's
[30:20] somebody that a lower amount. Yeah. For
[30:24] a single family resident.
[30:26] >> $80 a year or $80 a month
[30:27] >> a year.
[30:28] totally different savings.
[30:31] >> Savings. Yeah.
[30:33] >> I just think that's the only way we can
[30:34] I mean, yeah, we could say everybody
[30:35] gets paid charges the same, but then,
[30:37] you know, at least this is a little bit
[30:39] Some people are going to pay more, some
[30:40] people are going to pay a little bit
[30:41] less. Everybody's actually probably
[30:42] going to pay pretty close to the average
[30:43] of what it is anyway. So, it probably
[30:45] was this close to that number anyways.
[30:47] But, I mean, I don't want to tell like,
[30:48] hey, we're giving you a low base rate,
[30:50] but then really it's actually higher
[30:51] than something, you know, this is what
[30:53] we need, though. We're not going any
[30:54] higher than what we actually need. We're
[30:56] not going to say, oh, we'll give you
[30:57] this low base rate, but then actually it
[30:58] looks like smoking mirrors. That's we
[31:01] don't want to do that. This is just what
[31:02] we need though to cover these costs.
[31:04] >> Yeah. I mean, you you need to hit
[31:05] because the city's mostly single family
[31:07] resident residential, you'll need to hit
[31:10] that average and and it's about I mean,
[31:13] you can see it kind of changes a little
[31:14] bit, but it's like we're trying to hit
[31:16] is 79.25.
[31:18] Yeah, somewhere in there.
[31:21] Here's a uh a what if question because
[31:24] we're going to have lots of what if
[31:25] questions, but what do you do to the
[31:28] farmer in Grantsville who brings home
[31:31] his cows, his 100 head of cows, and he
[31:34] waters them during the winter months and
[31:37] he uses 20,000 gallons a month, but it's
[31:40] not flowing to the sewer treatment
[31:42] plant. How do you how do you measure
[31:45] that? How how do you um I mean, how
[31:48] would we go about something like that?
[31:50] some really good question exemption
[31:53] because you're going to have a a few
[31:55] [clears throat] individuals that are are
[31:56] going to have that that you know
[31:58] obviously been around a long time.
[32:00] >> I think you could put them on a base
[32:01] rate fee like if they were a new move in
[32:03] and then they'd have to come to council
[32:05] or have to come to a staff and we could
[32:07] make some agreement to do that and they
[32:09] would pay the difference in the like
[32:10] what the water overall fee would be then
[32:14] set their base rate for the rest of the
[32:15] year at that set base rate that we have
[32:18] and metrics of. So I think that might
[32:20] solve that problem
[32:22] >> because don't kid yourself. I mean it's
[32:24] just one example but you're going to
[32:26] >> you're you're going to have individuals
[32:28] that are having example like that.
[32:30] >> Same thing with an accidental that like
[32:31] we don't the meter freezes and it's our
[32:33] side or different things like that.
[32:36] >> Yeah.
[32:39] >> Is the I'm I'm wondering I understand
[32:42] the fairness issue and and I like that.
[32:46] I'm wondering though, is is this going
[32:48] to be an administrative nightmare when
[32:50] you have all these different scenarios
[32:53] or somebody's leaking or somebody's got
[32:56] the person who brought the cows in and
[32:59] they're watering them and they had no
[33:01] idea that they needed to come and talk
[33:04] to this like then we're going to be
[33:06] going backwards in trying to solve all
[33:08] this. It sounds to me like it's going to
[33:10] take a lot of staff time or has the
[33:13] potential.
[33:14] I guess Christie, how does that handle?
[33:16] Like when they're only watering cows,
[33:19] they don't have a sewer bill.
[33:21] >> Well, they do.
[33:22] >> Well, if they do, if it's at the house at the house.
[33:26] >> Yeah.
[33:27] >> It just depends if those is that a far
[33:29] out exception or is that going to be the
[33:31] majority and then Yeah, that would have
[33:33] definitely not going to be the majority.
[33:35] But I think that there's a lot of people
[33:37] in town who have horses, who have those
[33:39] like this isn't going to be like three
[33:41] people. This is going to be several households that have
[33:47] these different
[33:50] I mean it it wouldn't have to be your
[33:52] horse or it could be all kinds of
[33:54] different livestock that you would have
[33:56] water usage but not sewer usage. So I
[34:00] don't I'm just throwing that out. I
[34:02] don't
[34:02] >> I think the only then it's like then the
[34:04] everybody gets the same rate without the
[34:05] base. It's just you know we go back to
[34:07] the other one. That's the only way to
[34:08] say, "Hey, everybody just pays the
[34:09] same." Right. That would take care of
[34:11] that problem of
[34:12] >> But then there's the equality for the
[34:13] women,
[34:14] >> right? Exactly. Right. Or Yeah.
[34:17] >> But is it really saving? Are we saving
[34:19] them that much money? Yeah. I mean, I
[34:21] don't know.
[34:22] >> I mean, some people want to fix them
[34:23] income.
[34:23] >> Yeah, it is.
[34:24] >> It could make it could make all the
[34:26] difference.
[34:26] >> Yeah. I think you're talking 50 versus
[34:29] 80.
[34:30] >> But I also think maybe that's why
[34:31] getting the towers would be more helpful
[34:33] because we can monitor that, right, a
[34:34] little bit better to say, "Oh, wait. Why
[34:36] is this person using so much water? What
[34:38] is going on? Is there a leak? Are they
[34:40] watering something? Maybe we need to
[34:41] notify them. Hey, you're using a lot of
[34:43] water. What's happening?
[34:44] >> It would give us that ability to do
[34:46] that. You do that.
[34:47] >> We do that. You do that already. Oh,
[34:49] okay.
[34:50] >> So, maybe not on a quick scale. It's
[34:52] delayed
[34:53] >> because you only have
[34:54] >> Is it delayed about a month? Is that
[34:55] right? Yeah. Okay.
[35:00] » Um I do have a question. So, just
[35:04] educate me. Why did we go with a 30-year
[35:06] term instead of the 25 or 20? And how
[35:09] would that affect rates if we switched
[35:11] it to one of a 20 or 25 year?
[35:15] >> The rates would go up because then
[35:16] you're not
[35:17] >> got to pay it off faster.
[35:18] >> You got to pay it off faster.
[35:19] >> So your payments higher.
[35:21] >> Yeah. Because then uh let's see here.
[35:24] >> Kind of right in here. Your your debt
[35:27] service, right? That goes up. That's
[35:29] more. So then your rates go up more.
[35:32] like a half a million dollars.
[35:42] » I guess I have an educational question,
[35:44] too. So, we've talked about even tonight
[35:48] raising the impact fees, and I know it
[35:50] can only be at a certain percentage.
[35:52] Where are we? Are we close to that
[35:54] certain percentage or are we well below
[35:58] that? Where are we? Well, so we've we've
[36:01] increased it about about $200 and it's
[36:05] and really it's it's based a lot of it's
[36:07] based on for sewer the what the capacity
[36:10] is of that line, what's remaining, you
[36:12] know, what's what basically in the
[36:15] 10-year planning period, what what those
[36:18] the new development coming in, what
[36:19] they're going to use of that capacity.
[36:22] So, you will, you know, as long as
[36:23] there's capacity in that line, you will
[36:25] have buying in the future for like the
[36:27] treatment plant, right? You got about a
[36:29] million gallons per day on average going
[36:31] into existing. So there's twothirds of
[36:34] the treatment plant that you can't pay
[36:36] for it all right away with impact fees
[36:38] just because you're not going to have
[36:38] that growth in the next 10 years. But as
[36:40] long as there's capacity and buy in, you
[36:43] can pay, you know, you can pay use
[36:44] impact fees to pay for that.
[36:48] >> And when we say impact fees, that's can
[36:49] we only increase it for the sewer part
[36:51] for the developers? Maybe I'm do I
[36:53] because that's what you were saying.
[36:54] It's impact fees for the developers.
[36:55] that because they're buying into the
[36:57] sewer. So, we're saying, "Hey, we're
[36:58] going to raise your rates for this."
[36:59] >> Yeah. They're basically they're they're
[37:01] either building either the developers
[37:04] building it, the city's building it, but
[37:06] they're building projects. And then if
[37:07] there's any excess capacity in the any
[37:09] existing projects like sewer lines or
[37:11] any of that, then they pay for their
[37:13] proportionate share of those projects.
[37:18] » Yes. And this the sewer impact fee.
[37:21] >> Yeah.
[37:21] >> Not the water or anything else.
[37:23] >> Yeah. say we can't raise everything on
[37:24] them and say you're going to pay a lot
[37:26] more because we want the money. We can
[37:28] only do it in specifically.
[37:30] >> Yeah, we're limited on kind of how how
[37:32] we can raise it. We've got to look at a
[37:34] bunch of different things.
[37:35] >> Yeah.
[37:36] >> When was the last increase? Was it last?
[37:38] >> Sure.
[37:39] >> Last July, August,
[37:42] >> like the rate increase
[37:44] >> rate increase and the impact last July,
[37:47] >> right? July or August.
[37:49] >> And that's when this one would go would
[37:51] take effect.
[37:51] >> Yeah. will be in July.
[37:56] » Just another educational question. The
[37:59] weird thing about talking about
[38:00] upgrading the Vegas Street sewer line is
[38:03] that's probably one of our newer lines.
[38:06] I mean,
[38:07] >> uh, let's see. Or the the north, let me
[38:09] get it open.
[38:11] >> I would think that when the Walmart was
[38:13] put in, I mean, I remember that line
[38:16] going in. So, are we saying that that's
[38:18] already not big enough or outdated? So
[38:21] it's not it's so this West Bank will
[38:25] remove some capacity on it because the
[38:27] West Street collector that was going to
[38:28] Northwest interceptor and Hulie Street
[38:31] will be off of it. So there'll be some,
[38:34] you know, additional buy in on the north
[38:35] the existing Northwest interceptor.
[38:38] So there is some capacity in it, but not
[38:41] enough capacity for all the units that
[38:45] are going up up here, right? Like
[38:46] there's just not not enough at all.
[38:50] >> Okay.
[38:52] So there still is some buyin cost for
[38:54] that Northwest interceptor.
[38:57] So the upsizing is that there we will
[39:02] have pioneering agreements and that will
[39:03] come before council here not too soon
[39:05] for those areas up there. And anything
[39:08] that's above and beyond what they have
[39:09] to pay for that the city believes we
[39:11] need to upsize is that would be the
[39:13] city's portion proportional share of
[39:14] that upsized cost. And so like if we
[39:18] want to upsize it to accommodate all of
[39:20] the houses below in ivory home and every
[39:23] other smaller developer, that's why we
[39:26] want to upsize it while it's there so we
[39:27] don't have to do it later and it's more
[39:29] expensive. And so that's why when we
[39:32] have these opportunities to do these
[39:33] pioneer agreements, sometimes it is
[39:35] really beneficial for the city to take
[39:37] advantage of that.
[39:47] Remind me what size the developers are
[39:52] required to put in and what are we
[39:53] upsizing to.
[39:56] So it's a it's a 36 inch and their
[40:01] capacity we we've calculated is about a
[40:04] quarter of that.
[40:06] So yeah, I I I don't have that. I can
[40:09] give you the size it would have been,
[40:11] but I don't have that handy right now.
[40:14] Yeah,
[40:16] >> I think
[40:21] I heard you said Northstar was just
[40:24] going to pay through pay for it through
[40:25] their impact fees, but it was
[40:27] Desireette. What did they say? I didn't
[40:29] catch that.
[40:31] >> The Desireette development. So yeah, the
[40:33] Desert Development's essentially paying
[40:35] for the construction of Matt Canyon
[40:37] Collector and this whole West Street or
[40:39] West Bank interceptor,
[40:41] >> but not the upsize.
[40:43] >> Yeah, they not the upsize. Yep.
[40:56] » Back to the rates. I think that the
[40:58] heartburn that um I have [clears throat]
[41:01] um as a council member and as a citizen
[41:04] is is that the impact fee goes up 4.1%
[41:08] for 3/4 inch and the the uh the the rate
[41:12] for
[41:13] >> right
[41:14] >> for um for a for individual homeowner if
[41:18] they use 5,000 gallons
[41:20] um goes up 43%.
[41:23] That's pretty discouraging.
[41:30] » [clears throat]
[41:47] » Anyone have anything else they'd like to
[41:49] discuss on this item tonight?
[41:52] >> Yep. So why are and we're not increasing
[41:56] non-residential at all in any of these?
[41:59] >> It's going up at the same percentage.
[42:01] >> Oh, it is.
[42:02] >> Yes. 47%.
[42:07] » Is your annual increase is that is that
[42:09] for the non-residential or for the
[42:12] residential?
[42:12] >> For both. Yeah.
[42:15] >> Yeah. Essentially, this does go up
[42:17] 47.85%, right? But you're there wasn't a
[42:20] usage fee. So it it it goes up from, you
[42:24] know, on average for a single family
[42:25] residential, you know, goes up that 47%.
[42:29] >> Yeah, that's what I figured.
[42:31] >> Yeah.
[42:32] >> And I guess that's that brings up a
[42:33] great question because if we look at the
[42:34] non-residential, they're almost at $100.
[42:37] And do we want to adjust that to have a
[42:39] higher usage fee and a lower base rate
[42:41] fee as well?
[42:53] Yeah, this is what nonmet residential
[42:55] just on average based on the winter
[42:57] months would use kind of high or low
[43:02] average high.
[43:12] » That would be our like churches, school
[43:15] businesses. And so we want to make sure
[43:17] we don't overcharge our business.
[43:19] because we want to be yes accommodating
[43:21] to that because hopefully in the future
[43:23] we get more businesses that will help
[43:24] offset the residents costs
[43:28] [clears throat]
[43:28] >> and non-residential as a reminder it was
[43:31] not I mean the city's just well you
[43:33] mentioned the 150 there's just not that
[43:37] >> or something like
[43:40] between two and three
[43:41] >> but it's not going to be like that
[43:42] forever though that's the thing
[43:44] [clears throat] but we're not deciding
[43:45] that tonight like hopefully in a year
[43:47] you can readjust it So that's the
[43:49] question is
[43:50] >> this is going to impact your your
[43:52] businesses and so they are going to that
[43:55] the 150 that are there right now they're
[43:58] going to be paying this. So, do we want
[43:59] to adjust it for them as well at this
[44:01] point? Keep them on that higher rate
[44:03] until we adjust it next year or the year
[44:05] after. [clears throat] I think that that
[44:06] definitely should be a point of
[44:10] consideration.
[44:13] And then whatever direction you want us
[44:14] to come back with on the rates for to
[44:16] present next next week, I think is what
[44:19] we're we're looking for. Right.
[44:24] So, sorry Michael, but were you
[44:25] suggesting go a lower base rate for the
[44:27] non-residential? Is that what you were
[44:29] saying?
[44:30] >> And then the higher usage.
[44:31] >> I mean, it's the smok and mirror kind
[44:32] of. But it does.
[44:34] >> We're trying to come up with the same
[44:36] number just using different math.
[44:39] >> It's common core math,
[44:40] >> right? [laughter]
[44:45] » But we don't want to scare businesses
[44:46] away. So maybe we want to do the smoking
[44:47] mirror for them a little bit.
[44:50] Well, I think it's I mean if we're doing
[44:52] the same for residents, I think it makes
[44:53] the same I mean this the percentage is
[44:55] the same for both. Correct. Yeah. So
[44:57] >> I agree.
[44:58] >> Seems fair.
[45:03] » We don't have very many small businesses
[45:05] in town. I'd like to make sure that
[45:07] we're not hurting them any more than
[45:08] we're hurting everybody else.
[45:09] >> My thing is they're only the like 3%
[45:11] right now. So I almost said that it's
[45:14] not going to be much if you keep it the
[45:15] same right now or pretty similar to the
[45:17] residential side. But we can relook at
[45:19] this once we get more into we're going
[45:21] to look at this every year, right?
[45:23] >> Yeah.
[45:25] >> So, it just seems like I mean it seems
[45:27] like we've heard from the widow. Seems
[45:29] like we're saving the widow six bucks.
[45:33] In turn, we're charging the Hammond $6
[45:35] [laughter] more.
[45:39] And and so just
[45:41] we just haven't really heard from the
[45:43] city what's best for the city. And so,
[45:45] if I'm reading it right, we we really
[45:47] don't care. or we can do it either way.
[45:49] >> Yeah, because ultimately on on average
[45:51] we're just trying to kind of those
[45:53] average
[45:54] >> I think from what R was saying the
[45:55] numbers were really like we're talking
[45:57] dollars here. It's not like somebody
[45:59] >> big of a deal.
[46:00] >> Yeah,
[46:01] >> I think with Yeah, because for the city
[46:04] we we have to pay the bill so that we
[46:06] don't get fined by the state. I think
[46:08] where we're at and so
[46:09] >> we prefer to have it as low as possible
[46:11] for all the residents and our businesses
[46:13] and we're hoping to again I mean find
[46:16] other alternatives. We're going to go
[46:17] back to try to apply for the state
[46:18] because this proposed bonding will allow
[46:22] us to to callable any time so that we
[46:25] can go and try to get that refinanced or
[46:27] get extra funding for that. So that is
[46:29] going to be our our task at at the staff
[46:32] level is try to go after that extra
[46:34] funding. So if you do approve it next
[46:37] week and we go forward, we're still
[46:39] going to go after all the different
[46:40] funding. We talked to the state and the
[46:42] four uh house bill 492 is available.
[46:45] they have hundred million dollars in
[46:47] that one and we're going to go try and
[46:49] at least apply for it to try and get um
[46:52] difference. They did say that that is a
[46:54] lower interest rate. It's more of about
[46:55] a two right now and so if we can secure
[46:59] that that would save us millions in in
[47:01] the long run. So we are going to go try
[47:03] with this option with the the callable
[47:06] any time in this thing. I think staff
[47:08] would recommend that we do proceedings
[47:10] with this option right now is is the
[47:12] best we've seen and that we do be tasked
[47:15] to go and try to find other alternatives
[47:17] to reduce that in the future and then
[47:19] review this every year. [clears throat]
[47:21] >> That when we met with the state
[47:22] yesterday regarding that um the
[47:26] application for that is due on May 6th
[47:28] and they hope to have
[47:30] um awards on that by midsummer. So that
[47:36] would be soon like we could readjust
[47:38] hopefully sooner than next year.
[47:40] >> And then that one and then we'll also
[47:41] try to reapply for the um the place we
[47:44] got the $16 million will go after that
[47:47] one as well.
[47:48] >> That um so these rates would
[47:53] start in July of this year, right? For
[47:55] 2027,
[47:56] >> correct?
[47:58] So between now and then if things did
[48:00] change we can readress this obviously
[48:02] and
[48:04] >> could yeah
[48:04] >> yeah depending upon you know what we
[48:07] could get from the state in terms of
[48:09] >> and then you know next year you
[48:11] >> for a lesser amount that's correct
[48:13] >> and next year you may not need to raise
[48:15] it as much right yeah
[48:19] » as far as the rates concerned do we look
[48:22] at multiple vendors for that or do we
[48:24] kind of lock in with one vendor you Um
[48:27] I'm curious. I mean we we chose Zans in
[48:30] this situation
[48:31] >> but Zans actually was through a diff he
[48:35] found us the loan through a different
[48:37] company altogether
[48:39] like a broker right now.
[48:40] >> So he goes out looks at the market and
[48:42] you have this
[48:43] >> and I think with all these terms because
[48:45] they're getting the callable any time
[48:47] and this low rate and then it's like a
[48:50] set amount for that time period. He's
[48:52] saying that that's really good because
[48:54] going out on the market you may not you
[48:55] may get a lower rate but not callable
[48:57] anytime but you can't go refinance. So
[48:59] this kind of meets all your criteria
[49:01] right now
[49:06] » and you can refinance a bond if rates go
[49:09] down. We could refinance and save that
[49:11] way too.
[49:12] >> Yes. With this one because any time
[49:14] absolutely
[49:15] >> yeah that would be important.
[49:18] >> Mhm. But for that you typically play a
[49:20] little bit of a higher interest rate to
[49:22] kind of cover that
[49:24] >> usually. But that's why we're saying
[49:25] this one they've given us a decent rate
[49:27] right now before the rates go up. And so
[49:29] if we can act on that and start the
[49:31] process obviously between now and when
[49:34] we actually get all the paperwork in
[49:36] order and do that. There's going to be a
[49:38] difference between what it is. And so
[49:41] again, if we can get funding in the
[49:43] meantime, we'll offset that by that or
[49:46] wait until we get all the funding rolled
[49:48] in together and then refinance it all at
[49:49] that point. I mean, we're definitely
[49:51] going to look at this and try the best
[49:53] we can to reduce this as much as
[49:54] possible.
[50:00] » Okay. Anything else we want to discuss
[50:03] on the sewer rate study?
[50:04] >> So, I guess are we going to go with the
[50:06] low base rate? Actually, do we want to
[50:09] go with the usage fee? I'm assuming then
[50:10] and not just the back to the flat fee as
[50:14] a consensus.
[50:16] >> That would be my and I think we lose use
[50:18] the low base rate option.
[50:20] >> Okay.
[50:23] >> As well or anything? I I wouldn't I'd
[50:25] hesitate to go lower than that, but
[50:27] >> And you want to adjust the the
[50:29] residential non-residential
[50:32] to not be so high on that base? the base
[50:37] [clears throat] because right now as is
[50:39] going to be a $100 where the residential
[50:41] base on the low rate would be 55.
[50:45] >> Do you want it to I mean we'll it won't
[50:46] do you want it exactly comparable or do
[50:49] you want it obviously a little higher
[50:50] for the commercial and we can have
[50:52] Robert adjust that so it's more
[50:53] practical that lower rate.
[50:55] >> I think it needs to be more practical.
[50:57] Okay.
[50:58] >> So
[51:00] I mean with that average usage with what
[51:03] you have there I mean that's It's a $170
[51:06] water bill for that average
[51:10] business, right?
[51:15] So,
[51:18] all right. Then we'll we'll look at the
[51:20] low rate and make some adjustments and
[51:21] bring that to council next week. Thank
[51:24] you.
[51:26] >> Okay. Thank you, Robert, for all your
[51:28] efforts on this and Aspen today, the
[51:32] opening of the bids, and hopefully by
[51:35] next Wednesday, we're ready to move
[51:36] forward. I know this is a big investment for the city, but it
[51:42] has to be done. So, um, we'll close item
[51:45] number four and move on to number five,
[51:47] which is a public hearing item, a
[51:50] consideration of resolution 2026-15
[51:53] approving a land swap between
[51:55] Grantsville City and Dave and Teresa
[51:57] Reed.
[52:00] [clears throat]
[52:10] Mayor Hammond, council members, my name
[52:12] is Susan Johnson. Um I live at 291 North
[52:15] Koulie Street. I've been a a volunteer
[52:18] with the Clark Historic Farm Group for
[52:20] 13 years since we started. And I'm here
[52:22] to make a statement on behalf of the
[52:24] executive board and the advisory board
[52:26] of the Clark Historic Farm about the
[52:28] land in question. We feel that this land
[52:31] is a view corridor to a very important
[52:35] historic and cultural site. Well,
[52:37] several of them from the ancient past.
[52:39] Stansbury Island, Lake and Lake
[52:41] Bonavville to the establishment of
[52:43] Grantsville farming in the salt plant
[52:46] and also to modern times families
[52:49] recreating together um and Clark Farm
[52:52] events with the natural views of Desert
[52:55] Peak, the Clark Farm in Stansbury
[52:57] Island. There is a tremendous
[52:59] opportunity to create a natural park,
[53:01] walking paths, benches, interpretive
[53:04] signing, signage, and open areas where
[53:07] people can connect to the past, present,
[53:10] and future Grantsville.
[53:12] This park would anchor and enhance the
[53:14] work that has already been done at the
[53:16] Clark Farm, making a more significant
[53:18] impact to preserve the feel of
[53:20] Grantsville among all the new growth.
[53:23] Um, personally,
[53:25] a personal aside, um, I'm not native to
[53:28] Grantsville. We moved here, but we've
[53:30] lived here for almost 19 years now and,
[53:33] uh, have been fairly heavily involved in
[53:35] community events, and we've seen it
[53:36] change in the in the last 19 years since
[53:38] we've been here. And, uh, I mean,
[53:41] sometimes it's a little bit nostalgic to
[53:43] look back in 19 years ago to the
[53:46] Grantsfeld that was here and uh, and see
[53:49] how it's changed. But honestly, the
[53:51] Gross has brought a lot of really great
[53:52] people to Grantsville. But it's very
[53:55] important, I think, to preserve what
[53:57] there is left of the um history of
[54:01] Grantsville. That's one of the things
[54:02] that our group is dedicated to
[54:05] preserving. And um this area is this land this this land that we're
[54:11] talking about is adjacent to our
[54:13] property, the Clark Farm, and it's
[54:15] already owned by the city. I mean, I
[54:17] think it would be such a an amazing
[54:19] opportunity for the city with a
[54:20] relatively small investment and could
[54:23] impact potentially in the future tens of
[54:26] thousands of people. So, I would urge
[54:28] you to take that under consideration
[54:30] when you make your decision. Thank you
[54:33] very much. Thank you. Anybody else that
[54:36] would like to make a comment regarding
[54:37] this um item or anyone online?
[54:53] see any other items. Is there somebody
[54:55] from the city staff that will be um
[54:58] presenting this item or are we just
[55:00] ready for a discussion?
[55:01] >> I can present if there's any other
[55:03] questions.
[55:03] >> Does anyone have any additional
[55:05] questions? I know we've talked about
[55:06] this before. [clears throat]
[55:09] So, I guess it's time for a discussion.
[55:11] And
[55:13] >> are we voting on this tonight?
[55:15] >> Uh, yes.
[55:17] >> I do.
[55:18] >> Are we? Yes.
[55:20] >> I don't know. [laughter]
[55:21] >> It is on the agenda unless you want to
[55:23] for
[55:23] >> Well, it is.
[55:24] >> There was a public comment I think that
[55:25] we got in the email that somebody said
[55:26] they didn't have enough time
[55:29] that we received that they wanted more
[55:30] time to look to redo this. Am I wrong?
[55:32] >> Yes, it has been noticed for 14 days.
[55:34] Okay. So,
[55:37] >> so we're allowed to make a decision.
[55:39] >> Sorry.
[55:39] >> We can make a decision.
[55:41] >> Absolutely.
[55:42] >> If we choose to. Okay.
[55:44] >> Because there there has been some
[55:45] concern that this is the historic Clark
[55:48] Farm and that if you look from the
[55:50] historic Clark Farm down the the pathway
[55:53] that this back portion creates that view
[55:56] of that past historic Clark Farm. if we
[56:00] get rid of that or swap this portion
[56:03] that that deal will be obscured with a
[56:06] development or other things like that
[56:07] that's put on there. And so I I do want
[56:10] to point out that that they we met with
[56:11] them on site and walked through and
[56:13] looked at their concerns and we want to
[56:15] make council aware that that would be a
[56:17] factor that would be giving up is that
[56:19] view would be shortened to the backside
[56:21] of that property. And then the adjoining
[56:24] piece is not directly in line of the
[56:26] view of where the Clark Farm
[56:28] historically has been.
[56:31] Um, and that's uh I sure I'm not
[56:35] addressing it to what they their
[56:37] expectation is, but that is in a
[56:39] nutshell what their concerns are.
[56:42] >> Um, I did go view the property as well,
[56:45] which is I'm I'm more of a visual, so
[56:47] this lot of maps, not super helpful to
[56:49] me, but driving it, what my concern is, you know, the Reed property does
[56:53] have a lot of I don't know if it's a
[56:54] business or whatever these things are.
[56:56] There's a lot of vehicles, trailers,
[56:57] whatever. If that were to move, they
[56:59] were to move that closer. I don't know.
[57:00] Again, I don't know if it's a business,
[57:02] but if that were to be closer to the
[57:03] Clark Farm and that's what the back is
[57:05] of the Clark Farm or a development or
[57:06] something, it does your I mean, and I
[57:09] know that sometimes just development is,
[57:10] you know, the Clark Farm only has a
[57:11] certain area, but I would be concerned
[57:14] about that like, you know, being at
[57:15] event and that's what you're seeing is
[57:17] in your backyard is trailers and trucks
[57:19] and I don't know. I on the other hand, I
[57:22] don't know, you know, I get the point of
[57:24] leaving it as just a city park. I don't
[57:26] know that that's our best use of the
[57:28] land. Um, but I totally I mean I get
[57:30] what they're saying too. Maybe you know
[57:31] that view is is pretty it's nice. It's
[57:34] you know it keeps the farm feel more in
[57:37] place. I just don't know for the city if
[57:39] having it a park is the best option. But
[57:41] I do have concerns if that moves there.
[57:43] We are taking away that that view and it
[57:45] does again I don't know what the
[57:47] intentions are but that could I see how
[57:50] that could not be good for them and
[57:51] their business. I guess
[57:58] those are just my thoughts,
[57:59] >> right?
[58:00] >> It was when when I it was it's very
[58:02] [clears throat]
[58:02] there's a lot of the deep dips in this
[58:05] land
[58:06] >> was
[58:07] >> a ride.
[58:09] >> So I don't know what we you know we
[58:10] talked about last time that the land we
[58:13] would be getting is in better shape
[58:14] essentially right than I don't know. Is
[58:17] it
[58:18] >> correct? [clears throat] It's flatter.
[58:19] >> It's flatter. I guess I didn't go see
[58:21] the other side too well, but I
[58:23] >> mean it all slopes, but it is flat.
[58:25] >> Yeah,
[58:26] >> flat's relative, right?
[58:27] >> I I think Yeah, flat's relative.
[58:30] [laughter]
[58:31] >> I think
[58:32] >> we are on Earth globe. So,
[58:34] >> the the concern I have and I just um you
[58:37] know, we and I vocalized it, you know,
[58:40] when we when this came up for discussion
[58:43] early on is that it isn't a acreage for
[58:47] acreage. Um I know
[58:50] when we're talking about a roadway um or
[58:53] a potential roadway that would be done
[58:55] later
[58:58] um that those would align better um
[59:02] meaning the acreage would align better.
[59:05] I I the way the ordinance is written
[59:10] uh where that would be decided
[59:12] or that would be tied to a future
[59:15] product for the city. I don't know that
[59:17] I like that in my opinion. I don't like
[59:20] to if we're going to do an agreement,
[59:22] it'd be nice if it was clean and cut and not something that would be hinged
[59:28] on something that could get transferred
[59:30] to another owner or to another owner or
[59:32] to another owner. And maybe that you
[59:34] know, I'm just saying maybe not happen,
[59:36] but that would just be something to
[59:37] think about in my opinion. So,
[59:43] » Rat, Derek, uh, Jeff, do you have
[59:46] opinions on this?
[59:47] >> Yeah, I have a question about the, um,
[59:50] the easement access on the norththeast
[59:53] side and whether or not that access is
[59:56] truly owned by Grantsville City or not.
[1:00:00] So, I had a question about that. I I I
[1:00:05] too went to the side and drove around
[1:00:07] there and saw that there was an access
[1:00:09] on the north end which I didn't know
[1:00:11] that that that existed. So if you scroll
[1:00:14] up a little bit
[1:00:17] >> on the right hand side or the east side
[1:00:20] >> right right there next to
[1:00:23] >> Cliff Gardener. Is that where you're
[1:00:24] referring to
[1:00:26] and [clears throat]
[1:00:29] >> it doesn't show on the map there but
[1:00:31] there's definitely an access road.
[1:00:32] There's there's been an easement cut in
[1:00:35] there. I just was curious
[1:00:38] um as to whether or not that is
[1:00:40] Grantsville City's access to that parcel
[1:00:44] and if that access would continue and if
[1:00:47] um if the Reeds are expecting that
[1:00:50] access as well. Maybe
[1:00:55] » I believe there is an access. I think
[1:00:57] from what Shelby was saying and what she
[1:00:59] was researching it was a horse trail.
[1:01:01] So, I don't know if it's a full-blown
[1:01:03] road access. We'd have to look into that
[1:01:06] further. I believe the Reeds uh we as a
[1:01:10] city would want them to connect that
[1:01:11] those roads to make a cohesive
[1:01:13] development. And I'm assuming that I
[1:01:15] believe the Reed's intention, they're
[1:01:17] here and they can speak for themselves
[1:01:18] on that is that they want to sell the
[1:01:20] property to developer and we work the
[1:01:22] developer [clears throat] getting that
[1:01:23] access. But I think in transferring the
[1:01:26] land, we would want to make sure that would be
[1:01:30] written in there that that would be an
[1:01:32] access point.
[1:01:33] >> So in the property description, it in
[1:01:36] our property description that's it lists
[1:01:39] that access in
[1:01:40] >> as a trail as a horse trail
[1:01:42] >> as a trail. Yeah.
[1:01:43] >> Okay.
[1:01:45] >> And I believe Shelby was saying there is
[1:01:47] a distance for an access point. If we
[1:01:49] need to, then there is that land
[1:01:51] available. We could look at that. But
[1:01:54] there is right now an axis, but it's not
[1:01:56] like very large.
[1:01:59] >> So that war street could potentially be
[1:02:01] >> come straight down,
[1:02:02] >> extended through. Correct.
[1:02:03] >> Mhm.
[1:02:04] >> Either way.
[1:02:06] >> whether we do this or whether we don't.
[1:02:07] >> Correct.
[1:02:09] You [clears throat] can see that uh
[1:02:10] Cliff Gardner, I mean, he's got his
[1:02:12] fence moved all the way over. I mean, I
[1:02:15] don't I mean, his boundary line is not
[1:02:17] where his fence line is.
[1:02:20] So
[1:02:25] that's what I saw there was just just
[1:02:26] the access
[1:02:28] and if this is not the right time
[1:02:30] council can we can hold off on doing
[1:02:32] this and wait [clears throat]
[1:02:48] me again how we acquired This parcel,
[1:02:51] this particular parcel I guess Shelby
[1:02:53] was the one who presented. Zoom would
[1:02:55] remember.
[1:02:55] >> I do not. Do you remember, Bill?
[1:02:58] >> This particular parcel is part of the
[1:03:00] Clark Farm.
[1:03:01] >> Well, how did Brownsville City obtain
[1:03:04] this piece of property?
[1:03:08] » They purchased it from Joe Cage.
[1:03:10] >> Okay.
[1:03:12] >> He's the one that built the subdivision
[1:03:13] down there. He bought the Clark farm
[1:03:15] from the Clark, one of the Clark's
[1:03:18] nieces. who inherited it. She sold it to
[1:03:21] Joe Cage.
[1:03:23] >> She also sold all of the Davenport and
[1:03:26] Northwell property that they owned to
[1:03:27] Joe Cage.
[1:03:29] >> I'm curious if this um property was
[1:03:33] deed over to us due to open space for
[1:03:37] the development that
[1:03:40] this Palamino Ranch, right?
[1:03:46] » I don't know the answer to that, Rick. I
[1:03:48] mean, that would make sense. I mean, did
[1:03:51] we did we think of that in the early
[1:03:52] 2000s
[1:03:54] >> um when these were being built?
[1:03:56] >> I I don't know the answer to that
[1:03:58] question, but it would make sense to me
[1:03:59] that that's how we
[1:04:02] inherited the land essentially was
[1:04:07] it was due to to open space and that was
[1:04:09] the intent behind it. So,
[1:04:24] Yeah, if that's the case, we would need
[1:04:26] that information or at least I would
[1:04:28] before I'll vote. So,
[1:04:31] >> okay. So, then I recommend that we table
[1:04:34] this until we get that information,
[1:04:35] bring it back on the agenda,
[1:04:38] >> unless someone feels otherwise.
[1:04:40] >> I don't.
[1:04:43] Anybody else have any comments before we
[1:04:46] >> any other concerns or questions you want
[1:04:47] us to bring back?
[1:04:49] >> I think just specifically the history of
[1:04:51] it because if it was if if there was an
[1:04:55] agreement based on open space and we're
[1:04:57] selling it or breaking that agreement
[1:04:59] from prior councils. So
[1:05:01] >> there there's a lot of big lots down
[1:05:03] there with all those homes. I they're
[1:05:05] all one acre, some are halfacre parcels,
[1:05:08] but majority of them are acre plus. And
[1:05:11] I mean there really isn't a there isn't
[1:05:14] a park no
[1:05:15] >> anywhere near there. And I'm just
[1:05:17] curious if that was the intent behind
[1:05:19] there. And
[1:05:20] >> and if we move that up to the south up
[1:05:24] the up the up the slope or the slight
[1:05:27] hill to the south are we taking that
[1:05:30] away from what its intended use would
[1:05:32] have been or for those citizens.
[1:05:36] Has everyone had a chance to go down
[1:05:37] there? You said you went and you went,
[1:05:39] Derek, you went. You live there?
[1:05:41] >> I live there. [laughter]
[1:05:43] >> You walked out in your basement.
[1:05:45] >> Just go for a little walkabout.
[1:05:47] >> We do every free night.
[1:05:50] >> So we walk up through the cemetery. So
[1:05:52] yeah,
[1:05:52] >> there were actually quite a few people
[1:05:54] walking when I went when we went
[1:05:56] >> on that on that parcel of ground. Huh?
[1:06:00] >> Around the cemetery and on that access
[1:06:02] road.
[1:06:03] >> Interesting. On Rafal Lane then going
[1:06:06] down. I've been down there several times
[1:06:08] and I think only one time has there not
[1:06:11] been at least one person walking if not
[1:06:15] multiple on those trails. So
[1:06:18] >> we need more trails. [laughter]
[1:06:20] >> There will be always more trails.
[1:06:22] [clears throat] There there was no one
[1:06:23] there when I went though. But that was
[1:06:26] middle of the day. So I'm sure people
[1:06:29] have to work. But I when I drove down
[1:06:32] around there, like I just saw a lot of
[1:06:34] potential what the city could do with
[1:06:36] it. It's not the best terrain, but just
[1:06:38] the natural feel of like the pathways
[1:06:40] that are already there and the curvature
[1:06:44] like you could put, you know, ponds in
[1:06:46] just there's a lot of stuff that the
[1:06:47] city could do with that. And
[1:06:51] I just I it would be really hard for me
[1:06:54] to want to do the swap after going down
[1:06:58] there and seeing what it it really is
[1:07:00] looks like down there.
[1:07:01] >> Yes.
[1:07:04] >> Got it with you.
[1:07:09] » Yes.
[1:07:09] >> But but I would like to know what the
[1:07:10] intention was.
[1:07:11] >> Yeah. we can look at the history and see
[1:07:14] how we acquired that parcel,
[1:07:16] specifically that parcel, and if it was
[1:07:19] due to the the development
[1:07:22] um surrounding it to the east and to the
[1:07:24] north. Um I think it would be good
[1:07:27] information for us to have.
[1:07:29] >> I'll get that council.
[1:07:31] >> I'll make a motion we table um item
[1:07:34] number five, which is resolution
[1:07:37] 2026-15.
[1:07:39] >> I'll second. We have a a motion to table
[1:07:43] by council member Butler and a second by
[1:07:45] council member Dalton. All in favor?
[1:07:48] >> I I
[1:07:49] >> Okay, we will table item number five.
[1:07:54] Number six, discussion regarding an
[1:07:57] interlocal agreement between Twilla
[1:07:58] County School District and Grantsville
[1:08:00] City.
[1:08:02] Should have a paper there.
[1:08:14] As you all know, um
[1:08:19] the school district has been using the
[1:08:21] city's park for
[1:08:23] the eternity of Grantsville. So, um it
[1:08:28] yesterday I was there at the at the
[1:08:30] fields. There were baseball games going
[1:08:33] on, softball games going on, soccer game
[1:08:37] and tennis, and there was a volleyball
[1:08:38] game in the gym. So, you can imagine
[1:08:42] what the parking situation and the
[1:08:44] traffic situation was on Cherry Street.
[1:08:47] All of those were school uses.
[1:08:49] Obviously, they can use the gym in for
[1:08:51] the volleyball game. That's nothing to
[1:08:53] do with us, but
[1:08:55] we've got to figure out
[1:08:59] some a new agreement. This is just the
[1:09:02] traffic is just not safe and the usage
[1:09:06] for the fields. I think when I was
[1:09:09] growing up here, this worked out just
[1:09:11] fine. But 30 years later, it's a
[1:09:15] different Grantsville than it was then.
[1:09:16] And the number of residents there are
[1:09:19] three. How many did they did they tell
[1:09:22] us with the Grantsville baseball? Did
[1:09:24] anybody remember the number they shared
[1:09:26] with us? I believe 350
[1:09:30] kids.
[1:09:31] >> Little League.
[1:09:32] >> Yeah. Signed up for Little League.
[1:09:33] Something right around there.
[1:09:34] >> 50 48 or 50
[1:09:36] >> 52. 52 for the older
[1:09:38] >> for the older division that want to use
[1:09:40] the
[1:09:41] >> the high school builds.
[1:09:43] >> Yeah. So, 52 kids signed up for uh
[1:09:46] baseball that are between the ages of 12
[1:09:48] and 15 and they do not have a field to
[1:09:53] use because the high school is using the
[1:09:55] field. I understand the need for the
[1:09:58] high school to use the field. There's
[1:09:59] not another option.
[1:10:01] So, how do we move forward with this
[1:10:05] agreement? They are waiting for us to
[1:10:07] return the agreement to them.
[1:10:10] So,
[1:10:12] >> so the discussion was is that this this
[1:10:15] uh agreement would be in we don't have a
[1:10:18] current agreement in place.
[1:10:20] >> This agreement was drafted by the
[1:10:21] district.
[1:10:23] >> Um
[1:10:25] and so the the goal was one to get an
[1:10:28] agreement in place for the current year
[1:10:30] and then determine as a council or as a
[1:10:34] city what we want to do for subsequent
[1:10:38] years. Um
[1:10:40] Heidi mentioned that this has become
[1:10:42] increasingly more difficult with
[1:10:46] just no playing space obviously and so
[1:10:50] um
[1:10:52] the conversations were had you know what
[1:10:54] are you know from from the district
[1:10:56] level what what specifically does what is Grantsville asking and so
[1:11:03] um what was discussed is they could
[1:11:06] continue to use the fields for this year
[1:11:07] but next year they'll have to find
[1:11:09] another place to play.
[1:11:12] So, um and that that goes for the soccer area, it goes for the
[1:11:20] softball area and for the baseball area.
[1:11:22] Now, all of that obviously is up for
[1:11:28] discussion. It's just, you know, it's
[1:11:31] been a shared
[1:11:35] success.
[1:11:37] I guess you could call it a success
[1:11:38] because it has been. Um it's pretty
[1:11:41] amazing the programs we've been able to come out of Grantsville um both, you
[1:11:48] know, with the limited space that they
[1:11:51] have to play. So, but what's become more
[1:11:55] increasingly harder to manage is the
[1:11:58] fact that it is a city facility and
[1:12:01] everyone wants to use it and not
[1:12:03] everyone can use it when the school
[1:12:05] district is using it. So, and it's just
[1:12:09] become more of a conflict.
[1:12:15] So are are by with this are we just
[1:12:17] saying hey you can use ours and we can
[1:12:19] use yours because it's saying that we're
[1:12:21] going to have access to the their school
[1:12:22] as well.
[1:12:23] >> Just a little just a little more
[1:12:24] background on that. So the little league
[1:12:26] football program for Grantsville has
[1:12:28] used the back practice field
[1:12:30] >> um for forever
[1:12:32] >> and 12 or 13 years 14 years as long as
[1:12:35] it's been a little league.
[1:12:36] >> Yes. And so this year they are planning
[1:12:39] to take because there is such limited
[1:12:41] parking in the high school parking lot,
[1:12:43] they are taking the portables out of the
[1:12:46] parking lot and they are moving um kind
[1:12:50] of more of a permanent pod system. It
[1:12:52] will be eight or 10 classrooms onto the
[1:12:55] practice field of the high school. So
[1:12:57] just um just behind the high school onto
[1:12:59] the practice field. So, they have now
[1:13:02] um informed the Little League football
[1:13:04] that they will no longer be able to use
[1:13:07] um that area. And so, now they're
[1:13:10] without without somewhere to play, which
[1:13:13] is a problem we've still got to solve.
[1:13:15] >> Actually, I did speak with Are they
[1:13:16] going to go with Desireette Peak?
[1:13:18] >> They are. They did secure the Desireette
[1:13:20] Peak for next year,
[1:13:21] >> but his
[1:13:22] >> So, they'll have to go off and on with
[1:13:24] Desireette Peak.
[1:13:24] >> Yeah. They only get four games is what
[1:13:27] but but they have
[1:13:28] >> worked it out where they can go there
[1:13:30] for next year and make it work. But
[1:13:33] they're
[1:13:34] >> I mean obviously I think they would love
[1:13:35] a place in Grantsville to be able to do
[1:13:38] that. So something that the current
[1:13:42] president and I had a discussion about.
[1:13:43] So
[1:13:44] >> Okay. Anyway,
[1:13:47] » but but I guess what I'm saying like
[1:13:49] what I'm reading here like we can use,
[1:13:51] you know, this the gym and stuff or the
[1:13:53] socialable in our stuff and then, you
[1:13:54] know, we're letting them use the cherry
[1:13:56] the parks for that.
[1:13:57] >> Yeah, for the socialable they pay for it
[1:13:59] specifically. Um
[1:14:00] >> the city does or is the city does?
[1:14:02] >> The city sponsored event.
[1:14:04] >> Oh, they Yeah, there it comes out of
[1:14:06] their comes out of their little Miss
[1:14:09] Grants.
[1:14:09] >> So Miss Grantsville and Little Miss
[1:14:11] Grantsville are the only things they are
[1:14:12] not charging for. Is that correct?
[1:14:15] >> I believe that's the one in here and
[1:14:16] that's the that's the only sponsored
[1:14:18] city sponsored event. So
[1:14:20] >> it said something about police training
[1:14:22] too.
[1:14:22] >> But yes, we don't have a inter
[1:14:24] interlocal agreement with the school. We
[1:14:26] never have as a city and so we felt that
[1:14:29] was important to actually get something
[1:14:30] in writing to kind of sort out liability
[1:14:33] and different things like that.
[1:14:34] >> Okay. So but um I know like do we have
[1:14:38] the right of first refusal on these
[1:14:39] fields? Like if it or we just saying hey
[1:14:41] you right now the baseball fields are
[1:14:43] taken over by them right that's what
[1:14:44] we're saying
[1:14:45] >> I think the district refusal so we don't
[1:14:49] love this language this is what they
[1:14:51] this is what this is what they proposed
[1:14:53] to us
[1:14:53] >> okay
[1:14:54] >> and so we're asking for for [laughter]
[1:14:56] council's input on what you would like
[1:14:58] to see and how long you want this to be
[1:15:01] do you want this to be a year and then
[1:15:02] say your offer failed or whatever that
[1:15:05] we're going to have a separate agreement
[1:15:06] later how does the council fill and want
[1:15:09] that relationship together.
[1:15:10] >> I feel like this needs to be very
[1:15:11] temporary just to get something on books
[1:15:13] right now so we have that on paper, but
[1:15:15] I feel like we need to do something more
[1:15:17] permanent, you know,
[1:15:20] >> like a plan.
[1:15:20] [laughter]
[1:15:22] >> Wow. It's just Yeah, we need a plan. I
[1:15:25] mean, like I I think right now we have a
[1:15:27] problem.
[1:15:27] >> Staff is in agreement.
[1:15:29] I'm just saying I think right now we do
[1:15:31] need to get something figured out
[1:15:32] because right now it's a problem
[1:15:34] >> and so we need something but I think it
[1:15:35] needs to be temporary until we can get
[1:15:37] an actual plan
[1:15:38] >> because I think how it's written is how
[1:15:40] they've it's kind of how it's been in
[1:15:42] the past and so if you want to make any
[1:15:44] changes to how it's been we can make
[1:15:47] some red lines and that's kind of what
[1:15:49] the discussion is is what do you want to
[1:15:50] see in that okay it's a year what do you
[1:15:52] want to see right now and then what do
[1:15:55] we not want to to do in the future after
[1:15:59] I so I have a question might be for
[1:16:00] Christy too. We can help. I know in the
[1:16:03] past the high school teams really
[1:16:06] maintained those fields for a while or
[1:16:07] did a lot of work on them. Is that still
[1:16:09] true or is the city are we mowing it
[1:16:11] doing everything? I know the coaches
[1:16:13] >> during season.
[1:16:14] >> Okay.
[1:16:15] >> Both teams.
[1:16:18] >> Yeah. So currently the district is
[1:16:22] mowing and taking care of the fields
[1:16:25] variation in parts of the fields.
[1:16:28] >> Yeah, just the fields themselves.
[1:16:29] >> Just the fields.
[1:16:30] themselves.
[1:16:31] >> Yep. Just the big field, softball field,
[1:16:35] and inside the soccer field. So
[1:16:38] >> no, at the start of the year, the
[1:16:39] softball team and the baseball team and
[1:16:41] they did it this year again because I
[1:16:43] was I have a kid on the team. No, they
[1:16:45] fertilize ariate
[1:16:48] during season
[1:16:49] >> and then we take it on
[1:16:51] >> and those we probably want to insert a
[1:16:53] map with this to kind of define those
[1:16:55] areas a little bit better.
[1:16:57] >> Yeah. So, there's some service that
[1:16:59] starts out the gate, the teams provide
[1:17:01] some service, they try to get it ready
[1:17:03] and
[1:17:04] um that took place. But yeah, the the
[1:17:07] overall
[1:17:09] the that is one thing that they are
[1:17:11] currently doing. you know, they're
[1:17:13] fertilizing it and
[1:17:15] I mean, we're watering it with our water
[1:17:17] and
[1:17:19] everything. So, I So, it's really just
[1:17:21] fertilizing and mowing essentially,
[1:17:23] >> right? Because we're still months
[1:17:25] >> for three months. Yeah.
[1:17:26] >> Did you have a question there?
[1:17:28] >> Well, I think the the thing that causes
[1:17:31] all heartburn is 2A, right?
[1:17:33] >> And just this whole district shall have
[1:17:35] first right of refusal. And I understand
[1:17:38] for games that are scheduled and for for
[1:17:41] practices.
[1:17:42] Um, but I think both Eric and
[1:17:44] [clears throat] I can attest to the
[1:17:47] struggle between
[1:17:49] um really practices ending and them
[1:17:52] lingering, especially on the softball
[1:17:55] field and then baseball teams trying to to get in a practice or to start a
[1:18:00] game even as games start on on those
[1:18:04] dates. And I think we've worked really
[1:18:07] well together, at least the the those
[1:18:10] bodies that govern um the uh the
[1:18:13] baseball league, the little league
[1:18:14] baseball league um in the past in
[1:18:16] coordinating games to not be on nights
[1:18:19] when they're going to have games and go
[1:18:20] late. Um but [clears throat]
[1:18:24] just to to have a to have a coach and I love our softball coach, but to
[1:18:30] have a coach tell you, "No, you can't
[1:18:31] get on my field until this time right
[1:18:34] here." and you know we've you know given
[1:18:38] them plenty of time. They they started
[1:18:39] at 2:45 or whatever
[1:18:42] >> and [snorts] we can't get on that field
[1:18:44] until 5:15. So it has been a struggle in
[1:18:46] the past. Um it's I mean what was that
[1:18:49] 10 years ago when we were involved?
[1:18:51] [clears throat]
[1:18:52] >> Yeah.
[1:18:52] >> So
[1:18:53] >> well baseball and softball season are
[1:18:54] super intense as far as scheduling as
[1:18:57] well. You know that
[1:18:58] >> we know what that schedule is going into
[1:19:00] from the perspective of little league. I
[1:19:02] guess just like the
[1:19:04] >> I understand, you know, superseded and
[1:19:07] first right of refusal.
[1:19:09] Um, but there's needs to be some sort of
[1:19:11] language in there that talks about
[1:19:14] collaboration. Um, or or something to
[1:19:16] that effect, I would think, to where
[1:19:20] it's not
[1:19:22] it just sounds like they're the the end
[1:19:24] all be all, the almighty
[1:19:26] um iron fist, so to speak, where it's
[1:19:29] our where it's, you know, it's our
[1:19:31] property. And I understand that it's
[1:19:33] their property as well, but I don't
[1:19:35] think we use their property as much as
[1:19:37] they use ours.
[1:19:39] >> No, we use it for Miss Grantsville and
[1:19:41] Little Miss Grantsville to not be paid.
[1:19:43] The other every other time
[1:19:45] >> you have to pay. Has to pay. So why
[1:19:47] that's sitting in there?
[1:19:48] >> So I guess you want us to write it more
[1:19:50] reflecting the that it's more of a
[1:19:52] Grantsville favorable contract.
[1:19:55] >> That the city park belongs to us. That's
[1:19:57] what we want it to
[1:19:58] >> I guess for the for right now. work. Is
[1:20:00] there a timeline you want this to last
[1:20:02] for a year and then all the other things
[1:20:04] kick into effect?
[1:20:05] >> I Yeah, I think it might be worth saying
[1:20:08] the comment that was made in the
[1:20:10] discussions is there's a high
[1:20:12] possibility they won't sign this
[1:20:14] agreement anyways. So, um
[1:20:18] >> they
[1:20:20] [laughter]
[1:20:21] we haven't we haven't put any comments
[1:20:22] in this so far yet.
[1:20:24] >> This was their draft. So, I just I'm just stating what was stated.
[1:20:29] So I think because I think it's just
[1:20:31] good to know. Um not saying I agree or
[1:20:34] disagree with
[1:20:37] my my opinions or anything like that.
[1:20:38] This is what they presented. I wanted to
[1:20:40] present it to you.
[1:20:42] >> I'm wondering why that comment was
[1:20:43] >> I think I mean I think historically
[1:20:45] there's just been a hey this this is
[1:20:47] >> this is how it's been done.
[1:20:48] >> Yeah. And
[1:20:49] >> they want to keep that way you know
[1:20:52] >> the handshake.
[1:20:56] » I'm trying to find the right words.
[1:20:58] [laughter]
[1:21:00] Um it was yeah this is just kind of how
[1:21:02] it's worked and now it's become more
[1:21:05] difficult meaning you know that we've
[1:21:07] become more difficult maybe as a city to
[1:21:10] >> and and I'm and I'm trying not to offend
[1:21:13] anybody or but I I I'm just stating kind
[1:21:15] of what was stated.
[1:21:17] >> Um
[1:21:19] >> and
[1:21:20] you know the the the hard part in this
[1:21:22] whole thing is that is that that
[1:21:25] actually didn't come from the city side
[1:21:27] originally. came from the district
[1:21:29] saying that, you know, we now the little
[1:21:31] league is the little league has created
[1:21:32] an issue for us and we need fields. We
[1:21:35] [clears throat] could use the park for
[1:21:36] fields, but we can't use the park for
[1:21:38] fields because there's soccer games
[1:21:40] going on on the on the on the fields.
[1:21:42] So, um, which creates the issue, which
[1:21:46] compounds the issue. So, it's it's
[1:21:47] pretty complex, but I think I think the
[1:21:50] and you my opinion is that we we ought
[1:21:53] to go through this and if there are
[1:21:55] things that we don't agree with, we we
[1:21:56] can redline them and present it back. I
[1:21:58] think the ear the quicker we get an
[1:21:59] agreement in place, the better off.
[1:22:01] There isn't really anything that that
[1:22:03] specifies. I I mean I was asking
[1:22:05] questions if so if if you know we have a
[1:22:09] baseball player that breaks his ankle in
[1:22:12] a hole water hole is he going to come
[1:22:14] after the city or is he going to go
[1:22:15] after the school district
[1:22:17] >> and after the city
[1:22:18] >> that's yeah because we own it
[1:22:20] >> right
[1:22:21] >> but we're but who's maintaining it? Is
[1:22:23] the school district maintaining it?
[1:22:24] Yeah. But is there agreement? No,
[1:22:25] there's not agreement. So none of those
[1:22:26] answers are great.
[1:22:28] >> Um and so I think we do need something
[1:22:31] in place and we should have had
[1:22:32] something in place. quite frankly, they
[1:22:34] should have pushed to have something in
[1:22:36] place. The school district should have
[1:22:37] pushed to have something in place. So,
[1:22:40] one, getting that in place, then two,
[1:22:42] deciding as a as a as a city, you know,
[1:22:44] what do we what do we want to do for
[1:22:47] next year? Um, you know, so it it is a
[1:22:51] little bizarre that like Miss Grant
[1:22:53] still gets to use the high school for
[1:22:55] free basically because the mayor knows
[1:22:57] to [snorts] say you're using my baseball
[1:22:58] fields. But they did charge a socialable
[1:23:01] original bill was between $10 to $12,000
[1:23:04] and that for one day that didn't include
[1:23:06] turning the air on
[1:23:09] >> you have to pay extra for air
[1:23:11] >> which they didn't do on Saturday.
[1:23:12] >> No, it was really hot.
[1:23:14] >> So I mean that's just but but in the
[1:23:17] school's defense we did get it lower. We
[1:23:19] negotiated. We did I don't even know
[1:23:21] what we did. We did something and we got
[1:23:24] it down to
[1:23:26] half that I think. But it's just
[1:23:29] bizarre,
[1:23:30] >> right? Another thing to point out is
[1:23:32] when the little league football was
[1:23:34] using the practice field for a games, I
[1:23:36] believe the charge was 575 to 600 a
[1:23:41] Saturday to use those [clears throat]
[1:23:42] facilities.
[1:23:44] So why then are they using the fields
[1:23:48] every single day at no charge? Now, I
[1:23:52] know part of that was because we were
[1:23:54] using the restrooms and the concession
[1:23:57] stand for the Little League football
[1:24:00] program and but I don't know that the
[1:24:03] 575, which is what I think the number
[1:24:06] was, is quite equating to paying to use
[1:24:10] that little facility for that amount of
[1:24:14] time. whereas all year long they're
[1:24:17] using those facilities at our park,
[1:24:19] three different fields, and not paying a
[1:24:22] penny. So,
[1:24:24] >> well, the other thing that that's
[1:24:26] happening, and I'm I'm really surprised
[1:24:29] that that White Chapel isn't just
[1:24:32] barricading off their parking lot like
[1:24:35] because it has become a permanent school
[1:24:37] parking lot
[1:24:39] >> and it's not fair to them either. So, so
[1:24:42] if you ask like what's their backup plan
[1:24:44] if they don't use our fields to send
[1:24:46] where would our high school
[1:24:47] >> the comment was made we have other
[1:24:49] facilities we we would we would take
[1:24:51] care of it. I don't know if that means
[1:24:53] they would go up to the junior high and
[1:24:55] you know would spend a couple hundred
[1:24:57] grand to make that a playable surface
[1:25:00] for the baseball team and then I don't
[1:25:02] know I don't know that on drink that's
[1:25:04] already [clears throat] a problem there
[1:25:06] >> I was just told that it wouldn't be an
[1:25:07] issue they would options
[1:25:09] >> yeah so I don't know if that means we
[1:25:11] would share we'd bus our kids to
[1:25:15] >> to Desireette Peak to share the field
[1:25:17] with them I don't you know in bowler
[1:25:19] share their facilities or if it meant
[1:25:21] you know we'd share it with Tilla.
[1:25:23] It the the hard thing is is with there's
[1:25:27] just has never been a plan. And that's
[1:25:30] the frustrating part I think more than
[1:25:32] anything is is there doesn't seem to be
[1:25:34] a plan. Um,
[1:25:38] and that if they were looking ahead and
[1:25:42] looking to purchase a new school, which
[1:25:44] I'm sure we're in the Q4, should be in
[1:25:47] the Q4. Um, they could at least just
[1:25:50] purchase the ground and they could put
[1:25:52] two fields in a in a restroom facility
[1:25:54] there and it would then they could build
[1:25:56] the rest of the structure later. At
[1:25:57] least at least our kids would have a
[1:25:59] place they could play on. So, and this
[1:26:02] affects this is I have I have two boys
[1:26:05] that have gone through that program and
[1:26:06] I have one that's there now. So, telling my son, hey, sorry, you're going
[1:26:09] to go you're going to go play in Tilla
[1:26:12] or whatever to that. So, anyway, but
[1:26:15] it's the right thing to do in my
[1:26:17] opinion.
[1:26:18] >> We are trying to [clears throat] focus
[1:26:20] on parks. We are building a park with
[1:26:22] small fields,
[1:26:23] >> right?
[1:26:24] >> And there's probably enough grass there
[1:26:25] to play football on, I think.
[1:26:29] Well, eventually when we get to the next
[1:26:31] phases there will be. Yes.
[1:26:35] >> But we're we're a little ways from that.
[1:26:37] >> I maybe Yeah, we are, I guess. Yeah.
[1:26:39] >> And that's hard because we have a park,
[1:26:40] but we can't use it for any of the like
[1:26:43] we can't put a can't put a little league
[1:26:45] football over there because schools
[1:26:47] using it.
[1:26:49] >> Those fields, the little league uses a
[1:26:51] small field, but like the larger field
[1:26:53] now has become an issue and softball
[1:26:55] fields could become more of an issue,
[1:26:56] too. Well, and in the fall you have the
[1:26:58] high school girls soccer team on the
[1:27:00] field, so you couldn't use that for
[1:27:02] >> for football.
[1:27:04] >> Yeah.
[1:27:05] >> For a little big football. Yeah.
[1:27:08] >> It's been a fight for a long time with
[1:27:10] no answers. But I mean, typically we've
[1:27:12] been a community that's just rivaled
[1:27:15] around our high school,
[1:27:17] >> right?
[1:27:17] >> We rally around that.
[1:27:19] >> We we've rallied around that.
[1:27:21] >> Well, and I made a comment that like
[1:27:22] it's our park. And I don't mean like
[1:27:24] that. I just want to clarify. I'm saying
[1:27:25] we can collaborate with them. I'm not
[1:27:26] opposed to that. I'm not saying like get
[1:27:28] off our park.
[1:27:29] >> I'm saying, but I feel like we're kind
[1:27:30] of they're kind of like, hey, this is
[1:27:32] what we're do. Maybe it's because this
[1:27:33] is the first draft and we need to come
[1:27:34] back with a draft. I think we could
[1:27:36] collaborate and I think that would be
[1:27:38] fine. I think I think the problem is too
[1:27:40] is we're just becoming bigger. We have
[1:27:41] bigger little league teams. We have
[1:27:43] bigger high schools. It's like, you
[1:27:45] know, now it's just become a problem
[1:27:46] where we need to get something on paper.
[1:27:48] And
[1:27:48] >> that's exactly the problem. It's not
[1:27:50] that we don't want to be collaborative
[1:27:51] and we don't want to work together and
[1:27:52] we don't want to cooperate. We just
[1:27:54] simply are running out of space for both
[1:27:56] entities to use the same the same place
[1:28:00] >> and we're deficient on parks already.
[1:28:02] >> Yes, we are.
[1:28:02] >> So,
[1:28:04] having one that we can't
[1:28:07] allow,
[1:28:09] you know, h having one that gets used
[1:28:12] most of the time also makes that
[1:28:16] compounded. So, are we voting on this or
[1:28:18] should can we just discuss so we can
[1:28:21] review it and maybe give some proposals
[1:28:23] of what we think should change?
[1:28:24] >> Yeah, you can email me those. Okay.
[1:28:26] >> We are going to try to um get back to
[1:28:28] them in the next couple weeks. Our goal.
[1:28:31] >> So, um the term on this agreement as
[1:28:34] it's written is five years.
[1:28:35] >> Yes, it is.
[1:28:35] >> Yeah.
[1:28:38] I think our understanding when we
[1:28:40] met with them would put this as a year
[1:28:42] and so this hasn't been updated since we
[1:28:44] talked to them.
[1:28:45] >> It's five years.
[1:28:46] >> Yeah. And if we wanted to ex extend a
[1:28:49] year or do another one for a year, we
[1:28:51] could do that, too. So,
[1:28:53] >> we we just get a lot of comments about
[1:28:56] the girls coming, but let's preserve who
[1:28:58] we are. Well, that is the socialable on
[1:29:01] Miss Grantsville and our high school,
[1:29:04] >> right?
[1:29:04] >> It's all a part of it.
[1:29:05] Preserving who we
[1:29:07] are is that's the probably biggest part
[1:29:10] of it. So,
[1:29:12] >> well, and I think what Jake said too,
[1:29:13] we'd like to keep the high school here.
[1:29:15] I mean, people don't want to drive to,
[1:29:16] right?
[1:29:16] >> We're not saying we don't nobody wants
[1:29:18] to drive to go see some, you know, their
[1:29:19] kids play at a different
[1:29:21] >> a different place. So,
[1:29:23] >> I really like my 22nd commute to
[1:29:26] [laughter]
[1:29:28] >> So, so they wrote this.
[1:29:29] >> Yeah.
[1:29:30] >> And they included that the social can
[1:29:32] use the facilities for free
[1:29:34] [clears throat]
[1:29:35] and then so I think use scheduling I
[1:29:38] think for the season, whatever the
[1:29:39] season is. I think we have to put a time
[1:29:41] just like we talked when we ran it like
[1:29:44] if We had an agreement like we got the
[1:29:46] field at 5, but they'd go to 5:15. We'd
[1:29:48] have games start right at 5:15 to try to
[1:29:51] get in two games before it got dark and
[1:29:54] they'd still be on there just dragging
[1:29:56] their feet and we'd have to be the
[1:29:58] second game would go short. We get two
[1:29:59] innings, three innings maybe. I think we
[1:30:02] put a time in there and then on
[1:30:04] >> like a time for each team like you want
[1:30:06] it
[1:30:06] >> like the high school 2:45 to 4:45. You
[1:30:10] get it two hours a day during the season
[1:30:12] of February to wherever
[1:30:14] >> and then the city gets it after.
[1:30:18] >> But don't they
[1:30:20] maybe this has changed but they used to
[1:30:22] have their varsity games and then right
[1:30:24] after the JV game completely different
[1:30:27] on game day.
[1:30:28] >> We're just talking about practices.
[1:30:30] That's where the most contention
[1:30:32] happened was because you have two
[1:30:34] converging
[1:30:36] >> teams coming onto the field and then you
[1:30:39] have a high school team that is wanting
[1:30:43] to leave on their own time. So
[1:30:46] >> is this a problem? Like this baseball
[1:30:48] season starting right now, right?
[1:30:49] >> Oh, we're well into it. Joe, I think we
[1:30:51] should even do less than a year because
[1:30:52] we need, like I said, we need something
[1:30:53] tempered, but we need to sit down and
[1:30:55] because now we're going to be coming in
[1:30:56] the same spot next time and we're trying
[1:30:58] to come up with agreement when we're
[1:30:59] already like it's like, you know, we're
[1:31:01] trying to decide where a kid goes to
[1:31:02] school. We need to do that before
[1:31:03] enrollment starts. Like
[1:31:05] >> the end of the 206.
[1:31:07] >> Yeah. Right. Like we say, okay, let's start talking about this before so
[1:31:11] we're not coming upon the season saying
[1:31:12] because right now I feel like we're kind
[1:31:14] of a little bit under pressure to figure
[1:31:16] this out. And so I'm like, let's let's
[1:31:18] sit down sooner or like keep ne
[1:31:20] negotiations going of like I we think we
[1:31:23] should do something. One, it would tell
[1:31:25] us it's kind of like a temporary
[1:31:26] agreement. We see how we like it. How is
[1:31:27] this working? What needs to be fixed? Do
[1:31:29] we need to adjust the times? Do we need
[1:31:31] to say, you know, what's not working?
[1:31:33] And then we can sit down and look at
[1:31:35] again. So every year they have a meeting
[1:31:39] with all of the coaches and the school
[1:31:42] district is there and Christie
[1:31:45] >> was there this year. So we have
[1:31:47] representatives from the city and
[1:31:50] they kind of collectively try to figure
[1:31:53] out how they're going to make it work.
[1:31:55] And so there's there's concessions that
[1:31:58] the coaches give to try to, you know, in
[1:32:01] that process. Um and and they have been
[1:32:06] really good. I will say like the the
[1:32:09] they want kids on the field, you know,
[1:32:11] as well. Um but they have, you know, a
[1:32:15] team to coach and no place to play. So,
[1:32:18] but it's been a it's been a really good
[1:32:20] shared
[1:32:22] working relationship with everyone. It
[1:32:24] just it's just like sharing some sooner
[1:32:27] later.
[1:32:27] >> But when you come out of those meetings,
[1:32:29] do we have an agreement? Is it like,
[1:32:30] "Hey, this is what we're going to do."
[1:32:31] No, it's we need an agreement.
[1:32:32] >> It's we [laughter] need an agreement.
[1:32:35] >> It's not working.
[1:32:39] >> The last Yeah. Every year it's the same
[1:32:41] discussion.
[1:32:42] >> Yeah. Like I said, I think it's good to
[1:32:44] be collaborative, but it sounds like
[1:32:44] we're doing a lot of talking, but not a
[1:32:46] lot of actual plan.
[1:32:48] >> Well, and the the high school coaches
[1:32:50] need to be commended because um
[1:32:54] they're put in a tricky situation as
[1:32:56] well. Any other school in the district?
[1:32:58] Uh you say the softball team lingering
[1:33:00] as an example you used Rhett. Uh any
[1:33:03] other team in the district um if they
[1:33:06] have a big game that week and things
[1:33:09] weren't looking great at practice, they
[1:33:11] can practice as long as they need to.
[1:33:14] They don't have the issue of hurt you
[1:33:16] got to be off by 4:45 because we got to
[1:33:18] fit in two more games tonight on this
[1:33:20] field. So, it's it's really quite
[1:33:24] impressive how long this has worked and
[1:33:27] the collaboration that has taken place
[1:33:29] all these years to make this work, but
[1:33:32] it just seems to be that every year it's
[1:33:34] getting just a little trickier. So,
[1:33:40] I guess I think at this point my
[1:33:43] suggestion is please make any comments
[1:33:46] or suggestions on these, email them over
[1:33:49] and
[1:33:51] this will obviously be another
[1:33:52] discussion item in the future.
[1:33:55] >> Christie, do you have anything you want
[1:33:56] to add on that like for the end of the
[1:33:58] week or week? That would be helpful
[1:34:01] because we would like to get it turned
[1:34:02] back to the district and keep that
[1:34:04] negotiated because I mean if we wait too
[1:34:06] long the season's going to be over,
[1:34:08] >> right?
[1:34:10] >> Essentially over that,
[1:34:12] >> right? I guess liability wise because we
[1:34:14] don't want anything happen
[1:34:17] [laughter]
[1:34:18] before we have something in place.
[1:34:22] >> I have one quick question Christy on
[1:34:24] paragraph F, the costs to F.
[1:34:28] The district shall pay the custodial and
[1:34:30] technical expenses incurred during city
[1:34:32] use of district.
[1:34:36] Sorry, I'm just reading this making sure
[1:34:38] I'm reading. Okay, so with the
[1:34:40] restrooms, they aren't the park
[1:34:42] restrooms. I'm sorry, I'm on the wrong
[1:34:45] paragraph, but are they paying anything
[1:34:48] to maintain the restroom at the park?
[1:34:51] >> No.
[1:34:51] Okay. So we use their they let us
[1:34:57] they pay the custodial expenses within
[1:35:00] two days of the year
[1:35:02] >> and then we pay all them for three
[1:35:04] months essentially. Is that right? Okay.
[1:35:09] >> So we want to see something like they'll
[1:35:11] pay during the three months they'll pay
[1:35:12] for the
[1:35:13] >> those facilities.
[1:35:17] And I get I get a text about every day
[1:35:20] about are the bathrooms going to be
[1:35:23] opened at the park? I don't know. Go
[1:35:25] check. [laughter]
[1:35:27] But it's it's a constant it's a constant
[1:35:30] question of what's it it's just time to
[1:35:34] be able to be on anyway. Anything else
[1:35:37] on this item? No. Okay. We're going to
[1:35:40] close item number six.
[1:35:44] Item number seven, consideration of
[1:35:47] resolution 2026-16
[1:35:49] amending the Grantsville City fee
[1:35:51] schedule regarding rodeo ground rental
[1:35:54] fees.
[1:35:56] >> Who is presenting this?
[1:35:58] >> It's your cows.
[1:36:00] >> It's the rodeo crop. [laughter]
[1:36:04] >> Um, okay. So, currently in the in our
[1:36:08] fee schedule, we have $100 rodeo rental
[1:36:12] fee.
[1:36:14] No one knows what that means. So, no
[1:36:17] none of no one's been charged. Um,
[1:36:20] [snorts] it's very vague. It is it $100
[1:36:24] to go ride for five minutes? Is it $100
[1:36:27] for the day? Is it There's no It's Yeah.
[1:36:32] So, basically, we haven't been
[1:36:33] collecting any fees for that. It's in
[1:36:35] it's been in our fee schedule, but we
[1:36:37] haven't been collecting it because no
[1:36:38] one knows how to charge it because it's
[1:36:40] big. So, um, we did some research on
[1:36:45] other local facilities in the county and
[1:36:48] outside of the county with other cities
[1:36:50] in the Salt Lake Valley and what they
[1:36:52] do. Um, and this is what's being
[1:36:54] proposed uh instead that would allow us
[1:36:58] to actually get some clarification and
[1:37:01] uh begin charging a fee and collecting
[1:37:04] it. Um there is a difference for
[1:37:06] resident and non-resident. So they would
[1:37:08] have to provide like proof of residency
[1:37:11] when they're booking. Um it does in um
[1:37:15] for things such as like the 4 that
[1:37:17] practices there. Um, we did put in a
[1:37:20] disclosure that like nonprofits, clubs,
[1:37:22] and other special circumstances would be
[1:37:24] encouraged to contact city hall um so
[1:37:27] that way we could get a contract in
[1:37:29] place for them for the year. Um, so
[1:37:31] that's something that they could
[1:37:32] contract um and negotiate with Michael
[1:37:35] just a different terms for their
[1:37:39] practices rather than having to charge
[1:37:41] $50 twice a week for their practices
[1:37:45] because we don't want it to become
[1:37:46] burdensome on the 4 club.
[1:37:55] So we're just looking at the part in
[1:37:56] green right here. That's the only thing
[1:37:57] we're talking about.
[1:37:58] >> Yeah.
[1:37:58] >> Okay.
[1:37:59] >> Yep. everything else the rest is just
[1:38:01] what our fee schedule for other things.
[1:38:04] >> So is that half a day for 4 hours? Is
[1:38:08] that for one person? Is that for 100
[1:38:10] people?
[1:38:11] >> That's just to reserve the space. So
[1:38:13] like if I wanted to reserve the space
[1:38:14] for 4 hours, I can use it for myself or
[1:38:17] I can invite all of you to come. I get
[1:38:19] to use it however I see
[1:38:21] >> it. It's not contingent. I we didn't put
[1:38:23] in there like what are you using it for?
[1:38:25] Mhm. So,
[1:38:29] » so if someone wanted to just host a
[1:38:31] fullblown
[1:38:33] rodeo all day long and I'm a resident,
[1:38:37] $100.
[1:38:39] >> I'll come to your rodeo, Red. [laughter]
[1:38:42] >> Sounds fun.
[1:38:44] >> Yeah.
[1:38:44] >> Yeehaw.
[1:38:46] >> We had a survey. A lot of people want
[1:38:48] that. So, if you want to put one on
[1:38:50] [laughter]
[1:38:51] the Facebook the Facebook comments were
[1:38:53] pretty
[1:38:55] Grantsville days rodeo. Yeah,
[1:38:57] >> I think we should.
[1:38:58] >> Yeah,
[1:39:00] >> I think this is good. I think we should
[1:39:02] try it like this and see how it works.
[1:39:03] And then if we get problems with people
[1:39:04] are like, I'm going to have a party on
[1:39:06] the rodeo grounds. We're going to have
[1:39:07] a, you know, Yeah, there's like, you
[1:39:10] know,
[1:39:10] >> I mean, to be sure, they could have been
[1:39:11] doing that for free [laughter] up until
[1:39:13] now. So,
[1:39:14] >> well, but we're right next to the PD, so
[1:39:16] probably that'll get shut down pretty
[1:39:18] quick. [laughter]
[1:39:19] >> Well, here's here's a concern I have. I
[1:39:21] didn't realize and until the last three
[1:39:24] months how much use there really is on
[1:39:26] the rodeo grounds each day. Um nearly
[1:39:30] every single day that I'm here, there
[1:39:32] are people back there just riding their
[1:39:35] horse and and I
[1:39:36] >> I hate the idea of saying you've got to
[1:39:39] pay $50.
[1:39:41] >> Yeah. So just clarify this is just to
[1:39:43] reserve the arena. So if it's not Thank
[1:39:46] you.
[1:39:46] >> If it's not reserved, it's free for open
[1:39:49] ride. If it's not reserved,
[1:39:51] >> it can be like your park. You reserve
[1:39:53] the park pavilion. Okay. But you can go
[1:39:56] use it. If it's reserved, if it's just
[1:39:58] available, right? You can do that. It's
[1:40:02] a reservation like a park.
[1:40:03] >> Got it.
[1:40:05] >> Yeah.
[1:40:06] >> That way you know you got
[1:40:07] >> Yes.
[1:40:08] >> Question I had was regarding the
[1:40:10] tractor.
[1:40:12] >> That's my question. [laughter]
[1:40:13] Okay.
[1:40:13] >> Some guys just wanted me to go drive a
[1:40:15] tractor. That's what
[1:40:16] >> That's right. Well,
[1:40:18] um I don't Yeah. What?
[1:40:22] >> Explain that maybe.
[1:40:23] >> So, if they need So, if they wanted to
[1:40:25] like if the 4 is doing their year end
[1:40:27] rodeo, like their show or whatever, and
[1:40:29] they want the arena dragged between
[1:40:31] events, they're going to need to use the
[1:40:34] tractor. So,
[1:40:36] >> this would they would need to have if if
[1:40:38] that's the case,
[1:40:39] >> is that is that how it's been done in
[1:40:41] the past?
[1:40:41] >> They've been using it
[1:40:43] >> willy-nilly. There's been no key to the
[1:40:45] tractor or anything like that. So we got
[1:40:47] here, we got a key installed so no one
[1:40:49] can just go start it and drive off.
[1:40:51] >> And so liability wise, they can't drive
[1:40:54] it unless they're a volunteer. So if
[1:40:56] they do want to use the tractor, they'll
[1:40:58] have to go through our volunteer
[1:40:59] process, get signed up to do that, be
[1:41:01] trained on it, and then they're able to
[1:41:03] use the tractor. Otherwise, they'll have
[1:41:04] to bring their own tractor or a rake.
[1:41:06] >> Okay.
[1:41:08] But like our like our team does like
[1:41:12] maintain the arena. So it's not like it
[1:41:14] never gets worked as is. So if they
[1:41:16] don't need it specifically like between
[1:41:18] barrel racers or something else, then
[1:41:22] they don't need to it won't be used, but
[1:41:24] it would just be the ground as it was
[1:41:26] last worked as is.
[1:41:28] >> Who who's training them and making sure
[1:41:31] they can drive the tractor? And two, are
[1:41:33] they signing anything that says if I
[1:41:36] drive this through the fence or the
[1:41:38] whatever that they're liable for it or
[1:41:40] >> there'll be a liability form through the
[1:41:41] insurance company. So that's something
[1:41:43] that we've talked to the Utah local
[1:41:45] government's trust with and that's who
[1:41:48] is our insurance. So it would be
[1:41:51] >> and that's part of the application form
[1:41:52] is that they'll provide liability.
[1:41:54] Again, if it's a full-blown event rodeo,
[1:41:57] they'll provide that liability for that.
[1:42:10] And remind me who does somebody contact
[1:42:12] to reserve this.
[1:42:14] >> Uh that would be Alicia's office.
[1:42:16] >> Okay. You, Alicia.
[1:42:17] >> No, [laughter]
[1:42:18] >> don't call Alicia.
[1:42:19] >> There's actually a form online. Okay.
[1:42:22] >> And then it goes to Gina.
[1:42:24] >> Okay.
[1:42:24] >> She she does them all.
[1:42:25] >> She does that. All right.
[1:42:27] >> But thanks for [laughter]
[1:42:31] So, I guess you feel like those fees are
[1:42:33] too low. Do you want to increase them?
[1:42:35] >> I'm not the biggest fan of the
[1:42:38] nonprofits just coming to negotiate
[1:42:40] because what if you like the 4 better
[1:42:42] than the you know the little writers
[1:42:45] club or whatever and they they talk and
[1:42:46] you gave one $25 that the mayor.
[1:42:50] [laughter]
[1:42:53] » We probably should have both just in
[1:42:54] case one of us are not available.
[1:42:56] Yes,
[1:42:58] >> I think.
[1:42:59] >> But no, I agree. If you want I mean if
[1:43:00] you don't want to put any leeway because
[1:43:03] the question is do you charge them per
[1:43:04] day and there's multiple days they do it
[1:43:07] and then it cost them too much and they
[1:43:08] can't do it. And so that's the idea is
[1:43:10] like do you just charge them one and
[1:43:12] then
[1:43:12] >> or charge them the whole thing and don't
[1:43:14] do it back and say but advertise
[1:43:16] Grantsville as at your event.
[1:43:18] [clears throat]
[1:43:20] >> Yeah. I mean it's not like a hard no for
[1:43:22] me. It's just I could see maybe someone thinks that
[1:43:27] >> I mean like nonprofit's going to use it
[1:43:29] to have it done.
[1:43:30] >> I don't know once it becomes more
[1:43:31] popular hope hopefully.
[1:43:34] >> I think right now I don't think anyone
[1:43:36] >> the only time I've been over there is to watch a 4 one and I was actually glad
[1:43:41] that they were
[1:43:43] >> using it. Yeah.
[1:43:44] >> So, um
[1:43:47] >> or unless you want to put like a because
[1:43:49] that's the question is if you lock it
[1:43:51] down for a longer period of time
[1:43:54] for a lower rate, how do you someone
[1:43:56] else could take it during the 4 time
[1:43:58] just to do their rodeo? So, how do you
[1:44:02] manage that? So, we're
[1:44:05] >> Yeah, somebody's going to have to
[1:44:06] >> So, that's why there's coordination on
[1:44:08] that.
[1:44:09] >> Coordinated.
[1:44:09] >> We're hoping for that event. We're just
[1:44:12] talking um if they did it for like what
[1:44:15] four days then it's just that amount of
[1:44:16] money and so that makes it impractable
[1:44:18] for them. Do we want to prevent them
[1:44:20] from doing that and giving us the power
[1:44:22] to negotiate that? That's again it's not
[1:44:25] going to be lifechanging for the city.
[1:44:26] >> Well, in the past have we not charged
[1:44:28] them anything before?
[1:44:29] >> Right.
[1:44:29] >> I think we should keep it the same.
[1:44:32] >> I mean like if we haven't charged them
[1:44:33] in the past I think we keep the
[1:44:34] nonprofits.
[1:44:37] >> But I think this looks good.
[1:44:38] >> Yeah. I think it's a good
[1:44:40] >> The only thing is just the use of the
[1:44:43] lights. That is something that I would
[1:44:45] think would be separate if someone
[1:44:47] wanted to utilize it at night.
[1:44:51] >> I mean, they just turn on they just turn
[1:44:53] on the lights. I mean, those are
[1:44:55] >> metal halli lamps. Those those
[1:44:59] suck the juice
[1:45:00] >> and then turning them on, you're going
[1:45:01] to have that initial cost per month fee
[1:45:04] or whatever for the power company. So
[1:45:07] they get pretty pricey when you turn on
[1:45:08] lights. So we can look at that as a a
[1:45:12] separate fee if you want to have that
[1:45:13] added
[1:45:14] >> right now. Would it include the lights
[1:45:17] >> as as is?
[1:45:18] >> I guess we don't know.
[1:45:19] >> Well, it be for free. If it was just
[1:45:22] show up, right?
[1:45:23] >> Yeah. Yeah. And unless all the lights
[1:45:26] are on one meter, it's going to be tough
[1:45:27] to would have to figure out which meters
[1:45:30] they're connected to and then I guess
[1:45:32] read them before they start or just do a
[1:45:34] flat usage fee.
[1:45:36] >> I think a flat light fee. Yeah.
[1:45:39] >> Is what you're going to have to
[1:45:39] [clears throat] do. And what would that
[1:45:40] be? $100 a night because you're probably
[1:45:43] going to spend more than that.
[1:45:44] >> Has it ever been used at night?
[1:45:46] >> Oh, yeah. [clears throat]
[1:45:48] To be sure though, if they're using it
[1:45:50] at night without reserved without a
[1:45:53] reservation and they turn the lights on,
[1:45:54] then I don't really know how we would
[1:45:56] >> Yeah.
[1:45:57] >> I mean, then they're still just using
[1:45:58] the lights for free.
[1:45:59] >> Yeah.
[1:46:00] >> I guess you lock us on period.
[1:46:04] >> If you want to use
[1:46:05] >> Maybe we could put quarters in like
[1:46:07] [laughter]
[1:46:09] >> the vacuums of the car wash.
[1:46:13] >> You're not going to want quarters.
[1:46:15] [laughter]
[1:46:16] dollar bills. $100 bills.
[1:46:20] >> Let's put a donation bucket next to it.
[1:46:23] [laughter]
[1:46:27] » Does um does the high school rodeo club
[1:46:29] use this facility?
[1:46:31] >> Do we want to put that in the last
[1:46:33] agreement we just talked about?
[1:46:36] >> I I don't know. That's why I asked. I
[1:46:37] don't know if they use it or if they go
[1:46:38] up to
[1:46:39] >> the high school. I kind of think they go
[1:46:41] to Desert at Peak, but I don't know that
[1:46:43] for sure.
[1:46:45] I'm wonder are we creating a problem
[1:46:46] here? like people like shoot now I got
[1:46:48] to pay because I want to reserve it or
[1:46:51] >> I think we don't know what we don't know
[1:46:53] and so like
[1:46:54] >> well it's free free right now and so we
[1:46:56] want to actually start having the
[1:46:57] ability to make it functional know what
[1:46:59] we're actually going to be charging for
[1:47:00] and if we do make that motion you can
[1:47:02] make the motion to include
[1:47:04] >> utility payment
[1:47:06] line in
[1:47:08] >> amount
[1:47:09] >> or I mean if you're I mean it's free now
[1:47:12] it's in our fee schedule to be at $100
[1:47:14] but if you're wanting to not do anything
[1:47:16] we could
[1:47:17] You could propose we just take it out,
[1:47:19] but I think we can't include it in our
[1:47:21] fee schedule as it is and just because
[1:47:23] there's nothing
[1:47:26] it's in there at $100, but we're not
[1:47:27] doing anything with it,
[1:47:28] >> right? No direction.
[1:47:29] >> No one knows how to charge either.
[1:47:32] >> But I also think it is beneficial for
[1:47:34] somebody to be able to reserve it and
[1:47:35] say like, "Oh, I hope I can go over
[1:47:36] there and have my, you know, I want to
[1:47:37] go do this thing." It would be nice for
[1:47:39] somebody to reserve it. I mean, they can
[1:47:40] do that now, but like you said, we just
[1:47:42] don't have any clarity. So I think this
[1:47:44] gives some clarity
[1:47:45] >> and we can
[1:47:46] >> but I do think we should charge for the
[1:47:48] lights too if it is going to cost us.
[1:47:50] >> Sure. Do um can I also do we want to
[1:47:55] specify like half day 4 hours because
[1:47:57] somebody could say oh I want it from
[1:48:01] 8 to noon and then somebody else could
[1:48:03] be like well my four hours started at 9
[1:48:06] and you know I mean I mean we do have a
[1:48:08] calendar but I don't know if we want to
[1:48:10] get into that. I don't know. Just a
[1:48:13] thought.
[1:48:14] >> I think Gina would have to deal with
[1:48:15] that
[1:48:16] >> when they apply would want the time and
[1:48:18] the and the the time or the date and
[1:48:21] time that they are going to do it. So
[1:48:23] that way there's no overlap.
[1:48:24] >> Yeah.
[1:48:30] No, it'd be nice to be able to get some
[1:48:33] dollars to put toward I mean there's
[1:48:35] been a lot of discussion of a rodeo and
[1:48:38] very positive discussion and you know
[1:48:40] there's
[1:48:41] >> the grounds are going to be in need of
[1:48:43] not that
[1:48:45] $50 is going to do much out there but
[1:48:48] >> I can bring it a lot.
[1:48:48] >> It's not a profit center really and
[1:48:50] quite frankly it shouldn't be in my
[1:48:52] opinion. I I
[1:48:54] it is a benefit to the residents and
[1:48:56] trying to find a balance there so they
[1:48:59] can use it and yeah anyway so I I think
[1:49:02] this is a a great move in the right
[1:49:05] direction. So do we want to put
[1:49:08] something in there? So, like if we do
[1:49:10] the rodeo, if Shelby does it, like since
[1:49:13] they're splitting ticket fees and stuff
[1:49:15] like that, do we put something like if
[1:49:17] it's like that, we wave this so you
[1:49:20] don't have to pay the daily thing
[1:49:21] because we're kind of working together
[1:49:23] or is that going to be a city sponsored
[1:49:25] rodeo?
[1:49:26] >> It would be a city sponsored.
[1:49:28] >> Okay.
[1:49:28] Never mind. Ignore what I said.
[1:49:32] >> I do think the utility I [clears throat]
[1:49:34] do think we need to address utilities
[1:49:35] because that obviously
[1:49:39] I probably if they ran the lights for an
[1:49:41] hour a year, $50 isn't going to cover
[1:49:43] the lights.
[1:49:44] >> Yeah.
[1:49:44] >> Do we do we know what the lights cost
[1:49:47] per hour?
[1:49:49] >> No. We could have we could have to
[1:49:51] figure Well, we'll have to figure that
[1:49:52] out. We could approve it as is and then
[1:49:55] bring that back with the um uh
[1:49:59] >> with that information. Okay. I think
[1:50:00] that's add that to as another line item.
[1:50:08] All right. If there is there any more
[1:50:10] discussion? If not, um, if someone would
[1:50:12] like to make a motion.
[1:50:18] » So, I make a motion we approve
[1:50:19] resolution 2026-16
[1:50:22] amending the grants city fee schedule
[1:50:25] regarding rodeo ground rental fees.
[1:50:28] >> Have a motion by council member Butler.
[1:50:30] Is there sorry, Williams? Is there a
[1:50:32] second?
[1:50:32] >> I'll second the motion.
[1:50:33] >> A second by council member Skinner. All
[1:50:35] in favor?
[1:50:36] >> I.
[1:50:38] >> Great. That passes. Thank you. Item
[1:50:41] number eight, consideration of
[1:50:42] resolution 2026-13
[1:50:45] adopting the 2026 municipal white
[1:50:48] wastewater planning program report.
[1:50:52] The city has to fill out this report
[1:50:54] every year and part of the report asks
[1:50:57] when it's been um approved by council.
[1:51:02] So, we've actually already submitted it
[1:51:05] saying that this is the date that you
[1:51:07] would approve it.
[1:51:11] goes through and asks general
[1:51:12] questions about
[1:51:14] um our fee schedule, about emergency
[1:51:17] plans, about your future planning,
[1:51:22] >> and this is required by the state.
[1:51:24] >> How many lines of sewer you have, miles,
[1:51:28] excuse me, do they know how many hours?
[1:51:30] We've talked about sewer in the last.
[1:51:33] [laughter]
[1:51:34] >> No, they don't.
[1:51:39] » I'm assuming that you've gone through
[1:51:41] this. Um, you probably assisted in
[1:51:44] filling it out, but it's it's accurate.
[1:51:46] I mean, I look through.
[1:51:48] >> So, Marcus, Aspen, and I
[1:51:51] >> all three of you.
[1:51:53] >> Okay.
[1:51:56] » As much as any discussion. No, this is
[1:52:00] just a report, right? This is just what
[1:52:02] we're saying. This is what we have.
[1:52:03] >> Yep.
[1:52:04] >> All right. Mayor, I move that we a
[1:52:06] motion that we approve resolution
[1:52:08] 2026-13
[1:52:10] adopting the 2026 municipal wastewater
[1:52:12] planning program and WPP reports.
[1:52:15] >> Thank you. All right. We have a a motion
[1:52:18] by Council Member Skinner and a second
[1:52:19] by Council Member Butler. All in favor?
[1:52:22] >> I.
[1:52:23] >> Thank you.
[1:52:26] Item number nine, consideration of
[1:52:28] resolution 2026-14
[1:52:30] approving a wildland fire management
[1:52:33] cooperative agreement.
[1:52:38] » That's you, Chief.
[1:52:39] >> Now, one's mine.
[1:52:42] >> All right. Good evening, Mayor, council
[1:52:44] members. For the record, my name is Fire
[1:52:46] Chief Jason Remick, and I'm here tonight
[1:52:48] to request approval for the 2026
[1:52:50] cooperative agreement between
[1:52:52] Grantsville City and the Utah Division
[1:52:54] of Forestry, Forestry, Fire, State Lands
[1:52:57] for Wildland Fire Protection. This
[1:53:00] agreement is the framework that allows
[1:53:02] our crews to pivot rapidly initial
[1:53:04] attack and wildland fires within our
[1:53:06] response area while also ensures we can
[1:53:08] quickly access the state resources
[1:53:11] up to and including incident management
[1:53:13] support and aviation when an incident
[1:53:15] grows beyond our local capacity.
[1:53:18] >> Um this is how we make money off the
[1:53:19] state when we go out on wildland fires.
[1:53:21] They pay us, they pay the fire
[1:53:23] department, they pay the city.
[1:53:25] >> Great.
[1:53:26] >> I think that's another thing we do every
[1:53:28] year, right? Yeah.
[1:53:30] >> Yeah.
[1:53:30] >> And this is a fiveyear agreement
[1:53:33] [clears throat]
[1:53:34] >> or fiveyear agreement.
[1:53:46] does I this question probably doesn't
[1:53:50] pertain to this agreement at all in any
[1:53:52] way, shape, or form, but I just had to
[1:53:54] clarify the discussion that's been had
[1:53:58] at the state level to
[1:54:01] change areas that are designated as fire
[1:54:03] zones.
[1:54:04] >> The wooi, that's totally different.
[1:54:07] >> I just wanted to make sure that wasn't
[1:54:08] okay. because I Anyway, yeah,
[1:54:11] >> totally different conversation.
[1:54:13] >> Okay. All right.
[1:54:13] >> Is this just a standard? Is there
[1:54:15] anything different in here that you guys
[1:54:16] >> No, this is the same thing. Just then we
[1:54:18] get paid back for when we go out on the
[1:54:21] state lines.
[1:54:22] >> And if we break a truck, they fix the
[1:54:25] truck.
[1:54:25] >> Okay.
[1:54:27] >> Does what they pay you increase over
[1:54:30] everything or does it kind of stay the
[1:54:31] same all?
[1:54:33] >> It's kind of
[1:54:35] went up and up a little bit. I mean,
[1:54:38] they pay pretty good when
[1:54:40] [clears throat] we go out on fires. So,
[1:54:44] our tender is what makes the money when
[1:54:46] we go park it out and they use it for
[1:54:49] weeks. And I got a feeling this year
[1:54:51] we're going to need it.
[1:54:52] >> Yeah. I mean, money is great, but I just
[1:54:54] rather not have any fires. So,
[1:54:56] >> I I agree. I would rather not have
[1:54:58] fires. Last year was very slow. So,
[1:55:00] >> we might not have any fires. There might
[1:55:01] not be anything to burn.
[1:55:04] >> Might all be dead. [laughter]
[1:55:07] just dirt.
[1:55:09] >> Is there anything in this agreement?
[1:55:10] You've I mean obviously gone through
[1:55:12] this go through it every year. Is there
[1:55:14] anything that has changed or anything we
[1:55:16] need to be aware of that's different or
[1:55:18] anything that concerns you?
[1:55:20] >> Not at this point. No. And obviously
[1:55:23] Michael and the attorney will be signing
[1:55:26] the agreement. I will not be.
[1:55:28] >> And we've reviewed it. We don't have any
[1:55:29] problem with it. Right. T
[1:55:30] >> correct.
[1:55:33] >> Mayor, I'll make a motion. We approve
[1:55:36] resolution 2026-14
[1:55:38] approving a wild wild land fire
[1:55:41] management cooperative agreement.
[1:55:43] >> Okay, we have a motion by council member
[1:55:45] uh Dalton. Do we have a second?
[1:55:47] >> Second.
[1:55:48] by council member Butler. All in
[1:55:50] favor?
[1:55:51] >> I.
[1:55:52] >> All right.
[1:55:53] >> Thank you.
[1:55:53] Thanks, Chief.
[1:55:56] Item number 10, consider consideration
[1:55:59] of a proposed revision update to the
[1:56:01] city's annexation policy plan. Thank
[1:56:04] you, Bill.
[1:56:05] >> Hello, everybody.
[1:56:06] >> Great meeting. Thank you very much. This
[1:56:09] is a proposal to update our
[1:56:13] Excuse me. Oh, that just got me. Um, our
[1:56:16] annexation policy plan. An annexation
[1:56:19] policy plan is not required, but it's
[1:56:21] recommended that cities have them. And
[1:56:23] if you're going to have them per state
[1:56:25] code, there are some requirements that
[1:56:26] we have to follow, including some
[1:56:28] noticing requirements that uh we just
[1:56:30] found out about. And so we'll bring this
[1:56:32] back to you in midappril
[1:56:34] u for an actual approval. But since it's
[1:56:37] on the agenda and it's a good idea to
[1:56:40] warm you guys up to what is in the
[1:56:42] document anyway um this is uh a good
[1:56:45] time to talk about it. Um but we just
[1:56:47] can't take any action on it tonight. So
[1:56:50] uh this item is uh a statement of
[1:56:54] policy. It's a a a what it's saying is
[1:56:58] in essence this is where we anticipate
[1:57:00] the city to grow out to in the next 20
[1:57:03] to 50 to 100 years. And really what it
[1:57:06] means is as a property develops anywhere
[1:57:09] within the annexation area, the city has
[1:57:12] the first bite of the apple, the first
[1:57:14] right of refusal on whether or not we
[1:57:16] accept an annexation petition into the
[1:57:19] city. Um this [clears throat] covers
[1:57:21] three main areas. Area A is on the
[1:57:24] northwest quadrant of the city that
[1:57:27] extends from the Broken Arrow uh area
[1:57:30] all the way north and includes Stanbury
[1:57:33] Island. Um area B and it's a little hard
[1:57:36] to read on that but that's this mostly
[1:57:38] the sixmile ranch area uh the area north
[1:57:41] and west of Mid Valley Highway. And then
[1:57:44] area C is the southwest quadrant of the
[1:57:47] city and it's mostly open space and
[1:57:51] would be anticipated to remain open
[1:57:53] space with large lot kind of
[1:57:55] development.
[1:57:56] And the reason why the city would want
[1:57:59] to entertain this kind of thing is is uh
[1:58:01] a couple of reasons actually. Um, as we
[1:58:05] look to the future and as areas continue
[1:58:07] to feel pressure to develop, uh, the
[1:58:10] city would want to have a say in how
[1:58:12] that develops and what that looks like.
[1:58:14] We would want to make sure that the
[1:58:16] infrastructure costs are being borne by
[1:58:18] developers, not by the city. We would
[1:58:20] want to make sure that th those that
[1:58:22] infrastructure as it goes in meets city
[1:58:24] standards as well.
[1:58:26] um it would uh we would apply things
[1:58:28] like zoning regulations and and other
[1:58:31] things out there in th those uh to be
[1:58:34] annexed areas. And so while this is not
[1:58:38] anything more firm than
[1:58:41] this is area that we anticipate annexing
[1:58:44] into the city if and when that time ever
[1:58:48] comes. Um, it still is our our, like I
[1:58:52] say, our bite of the apple to say this
[1:58:54] is where we anticipate annexing property
[1:58:57] into the city.
[1:59:02] One other thing I want to make clear,
[1:59:05] nowhere in here is the city on the hook
[1:59:07] for any kind of infrastructure
[1:59:09] development. We're not paying for roads,
[1:59:12] water, sewer, or any of those other
[1:59:14] kinds of connections. the developers as
[1:59:16] they annex into the city would have to
[1:59:18] hook on to at their cost our our
[1:59:21] existing system and pay impact fees
[1:59:24] um that would uh help offset the impact
[1:59:27] on our existing infrastructure. So um
[1:59:33] I just want to make that clear. This is
[1:59:34] not us saying we're going to go grab
[1:59:36] this land and pull it into the city
[1:59:38] without any kind of funding or or
[1:59:40] anything like that for infrastructure.
[1:59:49] So, is this for somebody that wants to
[1:59:51] annex into the city? They were saying
[1:59:52] here's the plan of if you want to do
[1:59:53] that, here's what you have to follow.
[1:59:55] That's kind of the way this is.
[1:59:56] >> Yes, that's exactly right. And which
[1:59:57] areas the city is designating as
[2:00:01] >> you we would entertain that. Yeah. So
[2:00:03] for example, there are some properties
[2:00:05] obviously uh that are either in Erdo or
[2:00:08] Tilla or you know maybe even that area
[2:00:11] between area A and C that we would not
[2:00:15] consider to be areas uh that we would
[2:00:17] annex into the city. Um but the areas A,
[2:00:21] B, and C are definitely areas we would
[2:00:23] consider if they could bring the
[2:00:26] infrastructure in with them. We would
[2:00:28] consider that.
[2:00:40] Does anyone have any questions on that
[2:00:41] or have anything they want to discuss
[2:00:43] regarding the annexation plan?
[2:00:47] >> Stbury Island seems like a far-fetched
[2:00:50] I don't know. I just
[2:00:53] that just seems like anything on the
[2:00:56] other side of I80. I I just I just don't
[2:00:59] know if that's something we need to look
[2:01:02] that far out into. If someone wants to
[2:01:05] create a city on Sansbury Island, then
[2:01:08] more power to them. I just And I'm not
[2:01:10] saying we'd annex that in. It would have
[2:01:12] to be a decision, right, at a at a
[2:01:15] different council at a different date.
[2:01:16] But
[2:01:18] >> I think what this does, if correct me if
[2:01:20] I'm wrong, Bill, it just means that we
[2:01:22] have the the first right to it,
[2:01:24] >> the first bite of the apple. You
[2:01:26] mentioned that. I get it.
[2:01:30] » I think what we would like to avoid, and
[2:01:32] this is just me speaking uh for myself,
[2:01:34] but [clears throat] what I think we
[2:01:35] would like to avoid is a situation like
[2:01:37] Eagle Mountain where they developed way
[2:01:41] out in the middle of nowhere to avoid
[2:01:42] the costs of coming into a city and they
[2:01:44] formed their own. And um now I mean
[2:01:49] you've seen what has happened out there.
[2:01:52] >> Um it's crazy.
[2:01:54] >> I was just out there. It was crazy. It's
[2:01:55] an it's it's not very well done. I'm
[2:01:58] just gonna Yeah. And we want to avoid
[2:02:01] that kind of thing. So, Stanberry
[2:02:04] Island, yes, probably not in our
[2:02:06] lifetime or my children or my
[2:02:08] grandchildren's lifetime would that ever
[2:02:10] develop. And the other thing is that I
[2:02:12] think it's about twothirds of the island
[2:02:14] is owned by the BLM anyway. So, it's highly unlikely that would ever
[2:02:18] develop. But there are other industrial
[2:02:21] type uses out there that one could see
[2:02:24] wanting to develop out on the island.
[2:02:26] Things like salt processing or or
[2:02:29] mineral mining or lithium. I know that's
[2:02:31] a big one, too. If that were to come out
[2:02:35] and they had enough horsepower to get
[2:02:37] our services out there or wanted to, you
[2:02:39] know, flom onto our ability to provide
[2:02:42] services,
[2:02:44] that could be something that we would
[2:02:45] want to consider at that point because
[2:02:47] that would be a very nice tax base kind
[2:02:50] of income revenue source for us and we'd
[2:02:53] want to consider that.
[2:02:55] So again, um the uh just to make another
[2:03:00] thing clear, the planning commission did
[2:03:02] review this map. This was their
[2:03:04] recommended map and the the policy plan
[2:03:06] as written and so they voted to make a
[2:03:09] recommendation for approval of the
[2:03:11] annexation policy plan. So,
[2:03:19] » Bill, just for education, really, this
[2:03:21] question has nothing to do with this,
[2:03:23] and I've just been pondering our earlier
[2:03:27] two or three times since I've been on
[2:03:28] the council, we have discussed paying an
[2:03:31] upcharge fee to increase the size of the
[2:03:33] line. Given the the growth that we know
[2:03:37] is happening, why wouldn't we just
[2:03:40] require the the upsized line, if that
[2:03:43] makes sense?
[2:03:44] >> Yeah. There's there's a there's a delta
[2:03:46] between what a developer requires for a
[2:03:49] development, say it's a 12-in water
[2:03:51] line, right? and the um what we can
[2:03:55] anticipate as a city with engineering
[2:03:57] and careful planning and and
[2:03:59] anticipating the zoning and everything
[2:04:00] else that's going on. Maybe we want a 15
[2:04:03] or an 18 inch line,
[2:04:05] >> right?
[2:04:05] >> We pay the difference.
[2:04:07] >> So if it's
[2:04:08] >> that's what I'm asking. Why are we doing
[2:04:10] that? Like
[2:04:11] >> well because it for for a couple
[2:04:14] reasons. It's much much much less
[2:04:16] expensive to pay for that 6 in
[2:04:18] difference in the in the waterline size.
[2:04:21] increase
[2:04:22] >> and and it's only one trench at one time
[2:04:25] and as opposed to having to go in again
[2:04:28] in the same vicinity and either put in a
[2:04:31] separate line or rip the road back out
[2:04:35] 10, 15, 20 years later and put in that
[2:04:38] 15 or 18inch line that we should have
[2:04:40] done when they first did it.
[2:04:42] >> A prime example is um Dorvy Home water
[2:04:44] line that goes up to our new million
[2:04:47] dollar tank,
[2:04:47] >> right?
[2:04:48] uh they only needed I think a 12 inch
[2:04:50] line and we upsized it to 16. We're only
[2:04:53] paying 100,000 for that and they're
[2:04:54] paying a couple million to put in the
[2:04:56] line.
[2:04:57] >> There's an efficiency.
[2:04:58] >> We can't require it.
[2:05:00] >> And so we pay the difference between
[2:05:02] that and then we get that extra
[2:05:04] >> capacity that we can comm
[2:05:09] [clears throat]
[2:05:10] >> but anyone that ties to that
[2:05:12] >> then they pay that's the impact fee that
[2:05:14] we can charge
[2:05:14] >> then we yeah
[2:05:16] >> we recoup those costs.
[2:05:17] >> So the Vegas straight line
[2:05:19] >> Yep.
[2:05:20] The city obviously didn't pay to upgrade
[2:05:22] that line when it was put in.
[2:05:25] >> We should have.
[2:05:26] >> Yeah.
[2:05:27] >> But it's it's hard to say.
[2:05:29] >> How do we plan better or
[2:05:34] is that does this help us?
[2:05:36] >> Well, without false modesty, that's why
[2:05:38] you hire a guy like me to come in and
[2:05:40] help. No, I'm being serious. If you hire
[2:05:42] a guy like me, I'm not saying me
[2:05:44] necessarily, whatever. but uh someone
[2:05:46] that can has the the experience and
[2:05:49] foresight to look forward and say, you
[2:05:51] know, guys, we're we're paying $3
[2:05:55] million to put in this sewer line. If we
[2:05:57] paid another $500,000, it would service
[2:06:01] not just this area, but every other area
[2:06:03] in the vicinity for the next 100 years.
[2:06:07] And that cost is only getting more
[2:06:09] expensive. And because the developer is
[2:06:11] doing it right now, he's paying the lion
[2:06:15] share of it and we're just paying a a
[2:06:17] very minor upsizing charge.
[2:06:19] >> Yeah. Which we we've done enough.
[2:06:21] >> Yeah.
[2:06:21] >> I like your answer. Good job.
[2:06:23] >> Yeah. Thanks. [clears throat]
[2:06:24] >> Perfect.
[2:06:26] >> So, we're not we're not approving this.
[2:06:28] >> We cannot. Right.
[2:06:29] >> No, but if you do have questions or
[2:06:30] thoughts or concerns, let me know. And
[2:06:32] if if I've missed something or I I
[2:06:35] misspelling or whatever, let me know,
[2:06:37] please. and and we'll make those
[2:06:38] adjustments as necessary. Um but uh we
[2:06:42] feel good about where this is going and um the planning commissioner
[2:06:46] recommends approval as well. So um
[2:06:48] that's where we're at with that.
[2:06:50] >> Perfect.
[2:06:51] >> Thank you.
[2:06:51] >> Yep.
[2:06:52] >> Any other items of discussion for that?
[2:06:54] Are we ready to move on?
[2:06:58] >> Okay.
[2:06:59] >> All right. We'll close item 10 and move
[2:07:01] to item 11. consideration of ordinance
[2:07:04] 2026-17
[2:07:06] approving amendments to chapter 2 of the
[2:07:08] Grantsville City Land Use and Management
[2:07:10] Code.
[2:07:12] >> So, if Shelby were here, and she's not,
[2:07:15] bless her, she's taking care of some
[2:07:17] family things and
[2:07:20] yeah, she that's wonderful. um she would
[2:07:23] go through this line by line and I'm
[2:07:26] prepared to do that if you'd like, but
[2:07:28] my style is more of to open it up to
[2:07:31] questions and or just give you a general
[2:07:33] overview of what's going on if you have
[2:07:35] uh any concerns or thoughts that way.
[2:07:40] >> Yeah, I think will you give us the
[2:07:41] overview and then we can ask questions.
[2:07:43] >> Okay, perfect. [laughter]
[2:07:44] So, uh, chapter two is our definitions
[2:07:47] chapter of the ordinance, and I think
[2:07:50] that's pretty obvious. Some of the
[2:07:51] things that were in there are better
[2:07:53] placed where they're closer to the uh,
[2:07:58] questions of concern. For example, most
[2:08:00] of the ones that are in red that you'll
[2:08:02] see that are deleted have to do with our
[2:08:04] sign ordinance, which is in chapter 20.
[2:08:06] So those got removed from
[2:08:09] u this chapter and they will be placed
[2:08:11] in chapter 20 when those changes are
[2:08:15] brought before you in a couple weeks.
[2:08:19] Um there are other things that were in
[2:08:21] here that needed a little bit of
[2:08:23] tweaking uh just in the name of
[2:08:25] clarification and um
[2:08:30] just yeah and so you'll you'll notice
[2:08:33] there are a few minor little tweaks here
[2:08:34] and there but then the larger ones are
[2:08:37] the are the big definitions in green
[2:08:40] that if you could go down I think it's
[2:08:41] there's like a conditional use permit
[2:08:43] definition.
[2:08:45] Um,
[2:08:49] » keep going.
[2:08:49] >> There's dozens of them.
[2:08:51] >> Keep going. So,
[2:08:53] >> yeah, there you go.
[2:08:56] >> So, there's community garden. We didn't
[2:08:58] have a definition for that, although
[2:09:00] that was a a use in one of our use
[2:09:02] tables. So, we wanted to define that
[2:09:04] concept plan. This is an interesting one
[2:09:06] because uh state code does not require a
[2:09:10] concept plan, but if a developer wants
[2:09:14] to, this is where it's defined as to
[2:09:16] what we're looking for. Um, and then
[2:09:19] conditional use permit. We kind of flesh
[2:09:20] that out here.
[2:09:24] We've got it separated out into
[2:09:25] conditional use and conditional use
[2:09:28] permit. So, those are are the what you
[2:09:31] see in green there is all new
[2:09:33] information.
[2:09:37] And there are several of them that are
[2:09:39] like that.
[2:09:54] So, this was um proposed through
[2:09:58] obviously planning and zoning and they
[2:10:00] vetted through this the last
[2:10:03] >> it's been several months really
[2:10:05] >> three meetings.
[2:10:06] >> Yeah.
[2:10:07] >> At least.
[2:10:07] >> And we're just talking definitions here.
[2:10:09] So, we're just defining these some of
[2:10:10] the correct terms. Any of the red ones
[2:10:12] that are outlined, we're taking those
[2:10:13] out and putting them in different
[2:10:14] chapters just so they fit with
[2:10:16] >> Yes, that's right. Okay. So we're not
[2:10:18] like taking them out completely. They're
[2:10:19] just going to be placed
[2:10:20] >> move to like I said most of them are
[2:10:22] going to chapter 20 which is our sign
[2:10:24] ordinance and all of the sign
[2:10:26] definitions didn't make sense here.
[2:10:27] Let's move it to chapter 20 where it's a
[2:10:29] little closer to the to the action as it
[2:10:32] were.
[2:10:33] >> Like we have electric awning sign is
[2:10:34] taken out percentage.
[2:10:36] >> Yeah,
[2:10:37] >> that makes sense.
[2:10:39] >> That looks like a lot of legal ease.
[2:10:42] >> This was approved unanimously by
[2:10:44] planning and zoning. Yep.
[2:10:49] Do we define the front yard?
[2:10:51] >> Kind of. It looks like it.
[2:10:54] >> You had to go there.
[2:10:55] >> Corner lot.
[2:10:55] I see the corner lot. I
[2:10:57] didn't see the front.
[2:10:58] >> Yeah. Corner lot. Um
[2:11:00] >> lots rather than yards.
[2:11:03] >> Um just one thing on number 96, family
[2:11:07] food production. I'm not going to get
[2:11:09] into what we talk what they all went
[2:11:10] into, but it says 96 and then it says
[2:11:12] 104 next to it. So, I don't know what um
[2:11:18] that was a mistake or keep going. 96.
[2:11:21] >> Go up.
[2:11:22] >> It's on page 51.
[2:11:24] >> Sorry.
[2:11:25] >> I can
[2:11:26] >> on my Oh, it's there on my
[2:11:27] >> Oh, the numbering
[2:11:28] >> page 51.
[2:11:30] >> You just had it. It go keep going down
[2:11:32] just a little bit. It's under family.
[2:11:35] [clears throat]
[2:11:35] >> There you go.
[2:11:36] >> There.
[2:11:37] >> I think the numbering is off. I think
[2:11:39] it's it was meant to be 96.
[2:11:42] >> Yeah. [snorts]
[2:11:45] that whole
[2:11:45] >> it's just 96 but it was prior to that it
[2:11:48] was 104
[2:11:49] >> so we just need to take up
[2:11:50] >> I I can change clerical things like that
[2:11:52] >> yeah those are dimminimous changes that
[2:11:54] don't affect the
[2:11:57] >> yeah
[2:12:06] is this just to give more clarification
[2:12:07] for like are we having issues with this
[2:12:09] is just put more things
[2:12:10] >> we do actually have a few somewhat
[2:12:13] significant issues with some of these
[2:12:15] definitions. Uh, a lot of what's driving
[2:12:17] this is um clarification for staff so
[2:12:21] that when someone comes in and says, "I
[2:12:22] want to do family food production."
[2:12:24] Well, what does that mean? Well, now we
[2:12:26] know. We can point directly to this. Um,
[2:12:28] and we can help guide residents and
[2:12:31] applicants to say, "This is what's
[2:12:32] allowed. This is how many chickens and
[2:12:34] geese and whatever else you get to
[2:12:36] have."
[2:12:37] >> Um, and we I think we even squeezed a
[2:12:41] horse in there, too. I think.
[2:12:44] >> Yeah.
[2:12:44] So,
[2:12:46] >> you get to have a horse for family food
[2:12:48] production. I don't know what that
[2:12:50] means. I'm just going to leave that to
[2:12:51] your imagination.
[2:12:53] Um
[2:12:53] >> Well, I can give you an example.
[2:12:55] >> Well, I know you can. [laughter]
[2:12:57] >> So,
[2:12:57] >> it it doesn't say that you're eating the
[2:13:00] horse. It just talks about
[2:13:02] >> Well, but you know, your son's going to
[2:13:04] Paris for a couple years, right? Maybe
[2:13:06] he'll have a hankering for it.
[2:13:07] [laughter]
[2:13:08] >> I don't know. Anyway,
[2:13:10] um again, the the idea was to help
[2:13:14] provide that clarity for applicants as
[2:13:16] well as uh staff to uh know exactly what
[2:13:20] is meant by family food production.
[2:13:24] Employee was another one. What does an
[2:13:26] employee mean?
[2:13:27] >> Home occupation is a very large one.
[2:13:29] >> A home occupation is a big one and uh it is of necessity a a big one. Um, a
[2:13:36] home occupation really should be
[2:13:38] something and the example I use for it
[2:13:40] is like the little old lady and my this
[2:13:43] is my sweet mother when I say it who has
[2:13:45] a quilting machine in her basement and
[2:13:48] she makes and sells them on Etsy or
[2:13:50] wherever and ships them all over the
[2:13:52] world. But the the UPS guy comes once a
[2:13:55] day and brings her fabric or whatever
[2:13:58] and then they take the quilts that she's
[2:14:01] already prepackaged and and hauls them
[2:14:03] away. And other than that one delivery a
[2:14:07] day, you would never know that there's a
[2:14:08] thriving million-dollar business going
[2:14:10] on in my sweet mother's basement. And
[2:14:12] there's not. She's She does do quilts,
[2:14:15] but she doesn't make a million.
[2:14:17] [clears throat and laughter] Um she
[2:14:18] could. She just Anyway,
[2:14:20] >> the Amazon guy would be the same. Yeah.
[2:14:22] >> What's that?
[2:14:23] >> The Amazon guy delivering would be the
[2:14:25] same amount of traffic.
[2:14:26] >> Yeah, exactly.
[2:14:27] >> So, is that is that is that on page 63?
[2:14:30] Is that micro? I know we we had a
[2:14:32] discussion.
[2:14:33] >> Yeah, that was that was one that we'd
[2:14:34] already approved. So, I'm not sure if it
[2:14:36] shows up in green again.
[2:14:38] >> Did we not have MDA?
[2:14:40] >> We we did not. And so, this helps again
[2:14:43] to define those terms and provide that
[2:14:46] clarity that we're looking for.
[2:14:49] It's a lot of work for our community
[2:14:51] development team to do.
[2:14:53] >> No, a lot of clean up. Appreciate it.
[2:14:55] >> And when he says team, what he really
[2:14:56] means is Shelby.
[2:14:58] >> And I better give credit where it's due.
[2:15:00] >> 179 MDA.
[2:15:03] >> That should have been corrected to say
[2:15:05] often between developer and the city,
[2:15:09] not landownerclient.
[2:15:13] » The MD is not it's not an agreement
[2:15:15] between the developer and the land
[2:15:17] owner.
[2:15:18] We can change that.
[2:15:22] » Yes,
[2:15:23] >> good one. Yeah, thank you.
[2:15:25] >> Oh, yeah.
[2:15:34] » Other questions?
[2:15:39] » I do want to shout out for Shelby for
[2:15:41] real. She is phenomenal. uh she's a huge
[2:15:44] asset for our department and for the
[2:15:46] city and I uh she's my right-hand person
[2:15:49] and I I we couldn't do what we need to
[2:15:52] do without her help and her expertise
[2:15:54] and she's awesome. So, thank you Shelby
[2:15:58] if you're listening.
[2:16:00] >> Thank you Shelby.
[2:16:09] » That's a big one right there.
[2:16:12] >> Overlay district. Y
[2:16:23] » do we feel like we've I guess this is a
[2:16:25] staff question. Do we feel like we've
[2:16:26] addressed everything?
[2:16:28] >> No, but we'll be back.
[2:16:30] >> This is a a constant I mean really it's
[2:16:33] a constant iterative process. you'll see
[2:16:36] when we're in front of you in a couple
[2:16:38] weeks with the big the big one. Um that
[2:16:41] it just it's it's always going to be a
[2:16:44] little something. And it's not just
[2:16:46] responding to deficiencies that we as
[2:16:49] staff note in the code, but state code
[2:16:51] changes every year, the regulations that
[2:16:53] we're required to deal with with case
[2:16:55] law coming out, um national Supreme
[2:16:58] Court decisions, and it's just it's a
[2:17:01] constant state of revision. And um in
[2:17:04] and on one hand that's just job security
[2:17:06] for me and Shelby, right? But on the
[2:17:08] other hand um it it is a constant
[2:17:11] revision to make sure that our code
[2:17:13] reflects the needs, desires, and goals
[2:17:17] of the city. And that's that's the
[2:17:20] importance of it.
[2:17:27] » Tyson,
[2:17:28] from a legal standpoint, are you good
[2:17:30] with this?
[2:17:32] Yes, we we've been through this several
[2:17:34] times. I was able to quickly note that
[2:17:36] one in the NBA. It's not the first time
[2:17:38] I saw that. That that's something that I
[2:17:40] they've been glaring for for a little
[2:17:41] while and um that there were not other
[2:17:44] issues like that that were um standing
[2:17:46] out. We we've gone through this several
[2:17:48] times.
[2:17:53] [clears throat]
[2:17:59] » Any other questions or Yes. Go ahead.
[2:18:03] >> Are we good?
[2:18:04] >> He was going to motion. [laughter]
[2:18:05] >> Get a motion. Yes.
[2:18:08] >> Mayor, make a motion. We move to uh move
[2:18:11] to approve ordinance 202617
[2:18:14] approving amendments to chapter 2 of the
[2:18:16] Grantsville City Land Use and Management
[2:18:18] Code.
[2:18:19] >> We have a motion by Council Member
[2:18:21] Thomas. Is there a second?
[2:18:22] >> I'll second the motion.
[2:18:23] >> And a second by Council Member Skinner.
[2:18:25] All in favor?
[2:18:26] >> I.
[2:18:28] >> All right. The motion passes. Thank you.
[2:18:30] to Shelby and all those others
[2:18:33] who were involved in that
[2:18:36] >> NBNZ.
[2:18:38] >> Yes.
[2:18:39] >> And planning and zoning because they
[2:18:41] have been through this extensively line
[2:18:43] by line. So, thank you for pointing that
[2:18:46] out. Um,
[2:18:49] we will now need a motion to move into a
[2:18:51] close session.
[2:18:53] >> Mayor, I'll make a motion we move in
[2:18:55] move into a close session.
[2:18:57] [clears throat]
[2:18:58] >> Is there a second?
[2:18:58] >> Second. Second motion by council member
[2:19:01] Dalton, a second by council member
[2:19:03] Butler. All in favor?
[2:19:07] >> Thank you all for your
[2:19:08] >> attendance.
[2:19:12] [laughter]
[2:19:21] Thank you.