[2:50] See?

[4:06] I didn't see it on there. Not on there.

[4:11] [clears throat]

[4:16] » Are you ready, Alicia?

[4:18] >> Welcome everybody. We will call this

[4:20] meeting to order. This is a regular

[4:22] meeting and public hearing of the

[4:24] Grantsville City Council. For the

[4:26] record, today's date is May 6th, 2026,

[4:29] and the time is 7 p.m. This meeting is

[4:32] being held at the Grantsville City

[4:33] Chambers located at 429 East Main

[4:37] Street, Grantsville, Utah. as well as uh

[4:39] by Zoom. I am Mayor Mayor Heidi Hammond

[4:42] and I will conduct a roll call. Council

[4:44] member Thomas

[4:45] >> here.

[4:46] >> Williams

[4:47] >> here.

[4:47] >> Butler

[4:48] >> here.

[4:49] >> Dalton

[4:49] >> here.

[4:50] >> Skinner

[4:50] >> here.

[4:52] >> Thank you. Next, I've asked Les Peterson

[4:54] to lead us in the pledge of allegiance.

[5:00] » When the command is given, I would ask

[5:02] you to render the proper respect for our

[5:04] flag. After which I'll ask you to follow

[5:07] me on the pledge of allegiance.

[5:10] President armed.

[5:13] I aliance to the flag of the United

[5:16] States of America and to the republic

[5:19] for which it stands. One nation under

[5:22] God, indivisible with liberty and

[5:26] justice for all.

[5:30] [clears throat]

[5:32] Thank you, Les.

[5:41] » All right. Um, I just want to make a

[5:44] statement to everybody who is here. The

[5:46] item number seven and eight

[5:51] um has been requested to be tabled. So,

[5:54] we will not be taking public comment on

[5:56] those items. It will be moved to the May

[5:58] 20th meeting. Uh but we will open

[6:03] um the time up for agenda item number

[6:05] one which is public comment. And for the

[6:08] record, there was one p public comment

[6:10] received from Christa McFarland and that

[6:13] is will be included in the meeting

[6:15] packet that's available online. Uh the

[6:18] floor is open to the public to bring

[6:20] their concerns to the council.

[6:26] And if you're on Zoom and would like to

[6:28] make a comment, please raise your hand.

[6:31] You'll be directed as to your turn. So,

[6:33] if there's anybody that would like to

[6:35] make a public comment, this is your time

[6:37] to please come forward.

[6:46] I might as well start it off.

[6:47] >> You should. Yes. I'm Dian Al.

[6:50] Um I don't know what's on the agenda for

[6:53] tonight if it was at the um how we were

[6:58] going to do low income uh budgeting for

[7:02] the sewer target.

[7:03] >> Yes, we're going to be discussing that.

[7:04] Yes.

[7:05] >> So that's what I wanted to comment

[7:06] about.

[7:06] >> Okay. Um

[7:09] so I know a lot of a lot of

[7:13] organizations, cities, um the phone

[7:16] company, other companies do something

[7:19] where they take a fee from the bill to

[7:22] go towards local income um and I don't know what your proposal

[7:29] is for our city, but to me it feels like

[7:33] that's taking from the bridge and giving

[7:36] to the courting the rich and giving to

[7:37] the poor Robin do where we don't really

[7:40] have a say in where that money is going

[7:43] to and if we're going to help these

[7:46] people or not. I know it's a really

[7:48] humane thing to do and to help those

[7:51] that need help, but you're not giving me

[7:54] a say in that. You're just taking my

[7:56] money and deciding what you're going to

[7:58] do with it. So my idea is if you would

[8:03] at least ask us for a donation to go

[8:06] towards um contributing to those that

[8:09] can afford the sewer bill and instead of

[8:12] just taking uh money that from our bill

[8:16] and putting in to that cost. So that's

[8:20] what I want to bring up with you

[8:21] tonight.

[8:21] >> Thank you.

[8:26] Is there anyone else that would like to

[8:28] make a public comment?

[8:32] » Anyone online?

[8:34] >> We do have Lisa.

[8:35] >> Okay.

[8:38] >> Um, yeah. Can you hear me?

[8:40] >> Yes.

[8:40] >> Could you please state your full name

[8:41] for the record, please?

[8:43] >> Lisa Lingual. I'm at 189 East Elizabeth

[8:46] Cove.

[8:48] >> Thank you.

[8:50] >> Okay. Um, so since we're talking about

[8:53] the um,

[8:56] sewer and our expenses and how you guys

[9:01] are going to raise our taxes

[9:02] significantly. Now, um I recently sent

[9:07] every one of you an email

[9:10] regarding this and a couple of other

[9:12] things. And I just want to stay say that

[9:16] I didn't get a reply from any of you

[9:18] except one person,

[9:22] which he never did follow up with me

[9:23] either, but I just want to say how

[9:26] discouraging that is to me as a citizen.

[9:31] That's all. Thank you.

[9:35] Anyone else online? Alicia?

[9:38] >> Yes. Can I Ray?

[9:39] >> Okay.

[9:41] Can you hear me?

[9:43] >> Yes.

[9:44] >> Okay. Uh, my name's Kenner Ray RV

[9:48] and I just want to um comment on the the

[9:53] raise of taxes and I know that the city

[9:56] is in a pinch in a lot of different

[9:58] ways. Um, but our water and sewer has

[10:02] just gone up a lot and it's going to go

[10:04] up again and now our taxes are going to

[10:07] go up. Um, and I'm not happy myself and you know we'll

[10:15] find a way to pay it. But some of these

[10:18] seniors on fixed incomes, um this is

[10:22] going to be very

[10:23] painful for them if property taxes

[10:28] um go up even more. And you can bet that

[10:31] they're going to go up from the school

[10:33] district

[10:34] and um just seems like everything gas is

[10:38] going up, groceries is going up,

[10:40] everything's going up except income.

[10:43] And so I just ask that you be mindful,

[10:48] uh, be very prudent

[10:51] with your spending and, um,

[10:56] take the least amount possible.

[11:00] That's it.

[11:01] >> Thanks, Kennery.

[11:05] Anyone else online? Alicia,

[11:10] no.

[11:13] Anyone else here in the room would like

[11:15] to make a comment?

[11:18] Seeing none. All right, we will close

[11:21] that item and move on to item number

[11:24] two,

[11:26] summary action items. Item number two is

[11:28] the approval of minutes from the April

[11:30] 1st, 2026 city council regular meeting.

[11:34] We have any corrections that need to be

[11:35] made to that or concerns?

[11:41] Mayor, I make a motion we move to

[11:42] approve minutes from the April 1st, 2026

[11:45] city council regular meeting.

[11:47] >> We have a motion by council member

[11:48] Thomas. Is there a second?

[11:50] >> Second.

[11:50] by council member Butler. All in

[11:52] favor?

[11:53] >> I.

[11:54] >> Thank you.

[11:57] >> Item B, approval of minutes from the

[11:59] April 14th, 2026 city council and

[12:01] planning commission work meeting. Do we

[12:04] have any concerns or corrections with those minutes?

[12:12] I get a motion.

[12:14] >> Mayor, I'll make a motion we approve the

[12:15] minutes from the April 14, 2026 city

[12:18] council and planning commission work

[12:20] meeting.

[12:20] >> We have a motion by council member

[12:23] Dalton. Is there a second?

[12:24] >> I'll second a motion.

[12:25] >> A second by council member Skinner. All

[12:27] in favor?

[12:28] >> I.

[12:30] Right.

[12:32] >> Item C, approval of minutes from the

[12:34] April 15, 2026 city council regular

[12:37] meeting.

[12:41] Any discussion needed for those items?

[12:45] >> Mayor, I make a motion we approve the

[12:46] minutes from the April 15, 2026 city

[12:50] council regular meeting.

[12:51] >> We have a motion by council member

[12:53] Williams. Is there a second?

[12:54] >> Second that.

[12:55] >> Second by council member Butler. All in

[12:57] favor? I.

[13:00] >> Item D, approval of bills. Does anybody

[13:03] have any questions or comments on the

[13:05] bills?

[13:09] Mayor, I make the motion that we approve

[13:11] the bills as presented.

[13:13] >> Have a motion by Council Member Butler.

[13:14] Is there a second?

[13:16] >> I'll second.

[13:17] >> Second by Council Member Dalton. All in

[13:19] favor?

[13:19] >> I.

[13:21] >> Thank you. All right. Moving on to item

[13:24] number three, the introduction of

[13:25] Officer John Pitman and administration

[13:28] of the oath of office. And that'll be

[13:30] presented by Chief Sager.

[13:38] Mayor, council, thank you for letting us

[13:40] take the time to introduce Officer

[13:42] Fitman. Uh, Officer Pitman is over 20

[13:45] year veteran in law enforcement. He

[13:47] retired from West Valley as a sergeant

[13:48] serving many roles. Uh, riot squad,

[13:51] traffic patrol, major case. I mean, he's

[13:55] seen in almost everything. So, he's a

[13:57] great addition. And not only experience,

[13:59] we don't we don't just want experience.

[14:00] We want the right person for

[14:01] Grantsville. And I think he's a great

[14:03] fit. So, we're very fortunate to have

[14:05] you and I'd like to if you want to just

[14:07] introduce yourself a little bit more if

[14:10] you have anything.

[14:10] >> Absolutely. I've lived in Grantsville

[14:12] for 10 years and I love the community. I

[14:15] was thrilled to move here 10 years ago

[14:16] and I'm thrilled with the certain

[14:17] community that I live in that my

[14:20] family's grown up in and that my family

[14:21] currently lives. So, I I'm absolutely

[14:25] ecstatic that I I have this opportunity

[14:27] and this opportunity to to serve others

[14:29] here. Well, thank you. I do appreciate

[14:31] it.

[14:32] >> Thank you. Minister here for you.

[14:37] There's your hand. [clears throat]

[14:39] >> I state your name.

[14:40] >> I, John Pitman.

[14:41] >> as a law enforcement officer,

[14:44] >> do solemnly swear that I will support,

[14:46] obey, and defend the Constitution of the

[14:49] United States.

[14:50] >> I solemnly swear that I will support,

[14:52] obey, and defend the Constitution of the

[14:54] United States

[14:55] >> and the Constitution of this state.

[14:58] >> And that I will discharge the duties of

[15:00] my office with fidelity. and I will

[15:02] discharge the duties of my office with

[15:05] >> sir. Now we're gonna ask your lovely

[15:07] wife to pay his bench.

[15:10] [laughter]

[15:13] » Watch it, chief.

[15:14] >> The second time

[15:15] >> it's intent

[15:17] button here. Get in there.

[15:20] >> You're good. You can stand.

[15:23] You're good. Don't worry about it.

[15:24] You're fine. [laughter]

[15:26] forgot myself.

[15:31] » I was betting she would [laughter]

[15:34] >> that comes later.

[15:36] >> Thank you.

[15:44] and welcome.

[15:47] We're we're grateful to have you. So,

[15:49] thank you very much.

[15:59] Yes, the police officers. You're welcome

[16:01] to stay for this fun, exciting night,

[16:03] but you're also welcome to leave.

[16:05] >> Family

[16:07] game.

[16:07] >> That's right.

[16:11] [laughter]

[16:14] » You're trying to sneak out. [laughter]

[16:17] >> Will anyone notice? [snorts]

[16:19] >> Yeah. Thank you guys.

[16:21] >> Thank you.

[16:23] >> Thanks, man.

[16:25] >> Thanks. Thank you, everyone. And thanks,

[16:26] Chief. Appreciate it. Um, all right.

[16:30] Item number four, consideration of

[16:32] resolution 2026 27 approving the 2026

[16:36] 2027 dispatch agreement.

[16:44] » Is that going to be presented by you?

[16:47] >> All right.

[16:48] >> Yeah. So every year annually we go

[16:51] through the sheriff provides our

[16:53] dispatch and uh this year I believe it

[16:55] went down 3% about 3% but this is for

[16:59] all the uh emergency calls keeping

[17:02] officer say to rotation etc

[17:07] [clears throat] question.

[17:09] >> No chief I appreciate you bringing that

[17:11] up. I the question I had was just how

[17:13] did it reflect to last year's cost and

[17:15] you mentioned 3%.

[17:16] >> Last year was about 163,000. This one I

[17:18] believe was 158.

[17:20] >> Okay.

[17:20] >> So I think it's about little under 3%.

[17:25] >> Prices never go down. So how did that

[17:27] happen? [laughter]

[17:30] >> We'll take it. Okay.

[17:37] » Anyone like to make a motion? Mayor, I

[17:40] motion that we approve resolution number

[17:42] 2026-27

[17:44] approving the 202627 dispatch agreement.

[17:46] >> We have a motion by council member

[17:48] Skinner. Is there a second?

[17:49] >> Second.

[17:50] by council member Butler. All in

[17:52] favor?

[17:53] >> I.

[17:55] >> All right. Thank you. Thanks, Chief.

[17:57] >> Thank you.

[17:58] >> Item number five, consideration of

[18:00] resolution 2026-29

[18:02] approving the advance order of 100th

[18:05] anniversary badges and patches for the

[18:07] Grantsville Fire Department. presented

[18:09] by Chief Remick.

[18:10] >> Yes,

[18:11] >> Mr. Mayor, house members, thanks for

[18:14] giving me the opportunity to talk. So,

[18:16] we're requesting that uh the funds be

[18:18] allocated from 2027 point budget for the

[18:22] purchase of the 100 year anniversary

[18:23] badges and shirt patches for apartment.

[18:27] Um this will not be charged until we

[18:29] receive them, but it takes six to eight

[18:31] months for the badges to come in.

[18:33] January is

[18:36] total cost is

[18:38] $6,700.

[18:42] » This is a once in a lifetime milestone

[18:43] for our department. These personalized

[18:45] items will serve as a lasting symbol of

[18:48] pride and dedication of every member.

[18:50] Given extended production timeline for

[18:52] timely approval on this expenditure

[18:55] would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

[18:58] >> So this will come out of your budget for

[19:00] next year, correct? It just has to be

[19:02] approved now so that you have them in

[19:04] time for January.

[19:05] >> We just want to be able to know if we

[19:06] can extend the funds now because we

[19:08] don't know what our budget is,

[19:09] >> right?

[19:11] >> Do you have one?

[19:13] >> Do you do you have a batch?

[19:14] >> Show us a batch.

[19:20] » Here's the shirt patches. So, this one

[19:22] will be replaced

[19:24] here.

[19:27] This is

[19:36] a lot of milestones this year. I can't

[19:37] believe it's 100 years that

[19:40] >> it's been 100 years.

[19:50] » Anyone have any questions?

[19:53] >> Mayor, I make a motion. We move to

[19:55] approve resolution 202629

[19:58] uh approving the advance order for the

[20:00] 100year anniversary badges and patches

[20:03] for the Grantsville Fire Department.

[20:04] >> Second.

[20:05] >> We have a motion by council member

[20:07] Thomas and a second by council member

[20:09] Butler. All in favor?

[20:10] >> I

[20:13] thank you.

[20:16] >> All right. The next item is a discussion

[20:18] of a utility assistance program uh

[20:21] presented by council member Dalton.

[20:22] Thank you for your efforts in getting

[20:24] this information.

[20:25] >> Yeah. Um I made a little slideshow. Do

[20:27] you want me to just put that up on the

[20:28] screen or

[20:29] >> Sure.

[20:30] >> It's like a fourth grader did it, so

[20:32] [laughter] just bear with me.

[20:35] And I know that it's been a while since

[20:38] Jolene's been here with so [laughter]

[20:59] um

[21:05] So, it says the sewer utility says, but

[21:08] we could take this cover all of the

[21:10] utilities. Um,

[21:14] is it showing?

[21:15] >> No.

[21:18] » Oh, I have to drag your screen over.

[21:20] >> Yeah,

[21:21] >> drag it over. And let me stop sharing

[21:24] too.

[21:37] [clears throat]

[21:51] show on my screen. Can you guys see it?

[21:54] >> We can see it on our screen.

[21:54] >> I can see it on our screen. Yeah.

[21:56] >> Um,

[22:01] Mike, can you like drag your screen?

[22:03] Well, how do how is there drag it over

[22:06] to the second the screen on the podium?

[22:11] It's not

[22:13] >> there. There you go.

[22:22] » So, utility assistance obviously just

[22:25] increased the rates. I said I looked

[22:27] into couple different options. So, um

[22:30] it's quick. So why we need the program

[22:34] critical wastewater infrastructure

[22:36] upgrades by rate increase increases.

[22:38] This impacts fixed income house

[22:40] households the most. Our goal is to keep

[22:42] sewer affordable to those households. Um

[22:46] talked to a bunch of a couple different

[22:48] municipalities and they do a few

[22:50] different ways. We can choose all of

[22:52] them or just one way. But um here's a

[22:55] couple different options. So the monthly

[22:57] bill credits directly apply to the

[22:59] account. So, we don't give any customers

[23:01] money. They It goes straight to their

[23:02] account. Um, target targets low income

[23:05] and hardship households. And then some

[23:08] of the cities I talked to, they put a

[23:10] cap of $75,000 on it. We can adjust it

[23:13] to what we think would work. Then it's

[23:15] administered by the utilities and

[23:17] finance.

[23:18] year later review by the city council

[23:21] and then the applicants must reapply

[23:23] every year so it doesn't automatically

[23:24] carry over changes and once they're in a

[23:28] better situation they can pay for us and

[23:31] then with the application automatic

[23:34] approval for citizens that we're on

[23:36] staff free to reduce launch or any other

[23:38] programs that um that we know that

[23:42] they've already been through qualified

[23:44] [clears throat]

[23:45] eligibility eligibility

[23:47] >> sorry We're trying.

[23:49] >> So eligibility, you got to be granted

[23:51] resident with an active act active sewer

[23:54] or utility account. It's your primary

[23:56] residence and your 80% or less of the

[24:00] AMI or qualifying assistance program.

[24:03] And then another one city had a

[24:04] temporary hardship cases for loss of a

[24:07] job, medical, anything like that. So

[24:11] just putting all the options up there.

[24:13] This isn't 100% accurate, but this is

[24:16] kind of a a guide of what the table

[24:18] would look like, who would qualify for

[24:20] what um to be able to get this

[24:22] assistance. And like I said, it could be

[24:24] whole utility assistance or just

[24:26] specific to sewer. Depends on how we

[24:29] want to go about it. Um there's three

[24:32] different tiers. There's if you're

[24:34] between 50, if you're the 50% or less,

[24:38] you're tier one. And that it's a 60%

[24:40] build credit. So you're not getting 100%

[24:43] of your bill wiped out. Still are

[24:45] putting in in some, but you're getting a

[24:47] 60% credit. That can be adjusted to. And

[24:50] then the next tier is between 51 and 80,

[24:52] and that's 40%

[24:54] um credit. And then a hardship, you can

[24:56] get up to 20%.

[24:59] Um estimated households with our income

[25:02] grants, there'd be 71 households on the

[25:05] tier one. Uh 92 on the tier two, and

[25:08] then hardship 41. Um that's just kind of

[25:11] rough numbers with um with what our

[25:14] income here is in Grantsville.

[25:17] And then the funding plan be a sewer

[25:19] enterprise fund or

[25:21] util util utility. Some of the way it's funded to is about voluntary

[25:27] roundup. So you know you go to Walmart

[25:29] or whatever and they ask if you want to

[25:30] round up your bill to the nearest dollar

[25:32] to or St. Dudes or something like that.

[25:34] give our citizens the option to

[25:36] round [clears throat] up and then that

[25:37] money would be put into this fund to

[25:40] help pay for it. Um there are grant

[25:42] opportunities

[25:44] and then if we did it that's only uh

[25:47] 1.45% of the sewer fund

[25:51] if we did it at the

[25:54] 75,000. So the application process um

[25:57] it's a simple onepage form I put 10 to

[26:00] 14 day approval but that just depends on

[26:03] what we've got here. uh credits apply

[26:05] directly to the account annual

[26:07] certification and then must apply during

[26:10] certain time periods for tier tier one

[26:11] and two. So a lot of the city said they

[26:13] have an open application from like

[26:15] January 1 to March 1st and then that'll

[26:18] apply for that that fiscal year. Um and

[26:22] then the tier three can apply any time.

[26:25] if you lose your job. But we put a cap,

[26:28] some cities will put a cap on on two to

[26:30] three months just to help you get back

[26:31] on your feet and they can apply it at

[26:34] any time, but it's two to three month

[26:36] cap as all um accountability annual

[26:39] report to the council, track households

[26:42] served, track fund used, and then yearly

[26:45] review and then just this helps protect

[26:48] the vulnerable residents. um targeted in

[26:51] CAP program fiscal response

[26:54] responsibility and supports rate

[26:55] increase acceptance.

[26:58] Um so over the over a year if you're on

[27:01] tier one it's about a $500 savings. um

[27:04] tier two about 350 for the year

[27:10] and then um

[27:12] that's what the sewer that's what what

[27:15] we're proposing you know 7577 without it

[27:18] tier one would go to like 30 bucks uh

[27:22] and then tier two would be 45

[27:26] that was just on

[27:30] your eligibility for the hardship so the

[27:32] annual cost with the households I put

[27:35] about $28,000

[27:38] for the tier one about 26 to 27 for tier

[27:41] two and then the hardships would be just

[27:43] under $10,000.

[27:46] Um so that those numbers the the cost

[27:50] would approximately be around 65,000.

[27:53] you put a cap of 75 that gives us a

[27:55] little leeway in case there's a little

[27:57] more or whatever, but so we have a

[28:00] little extra just put [clears throat]

[28:01] and different things like that that come

[28:02] into the city.

[28:05] And then another way that one city does

[28:08] it is they put a $1 side on everybody's

[28:11] bill. I know that's saying you're taking

[28:13] your money, but I mean you're paying it.

[28:15] We're just putting that into the fund.

[28:17] That's what they do. So everybody that

[28:18] pays that's they take $1 and put it into

[28:21] this this fund here. Um with the

[28:25] optional customer build these are just

[28:27] different again just the same thing.

[28:29] Like I said a fourth grader made this

[28:31] for me so remember some of the same

[28:33] things. So if you set aside a dollar a

[28:35] month um in our sewer thing I think we

[28:39] had [clears throat] the projection of

[28:41] like 5100 households. So give or take um

[28:46] you see all the numbers there. It's good

[28:48] cost about $546 a month and the annual

[28:53] 65520 but we put a cap of 75 that gives

[28:56] us a little wiggle room there and then

[29:00] round up the grants go in and then push

[29:03] recommendations and look at it more we

[29:05] can do it for just sewer or overall the

[29:07] whole utility. um put a cap at the 75

[29:11] for the first year to see how that goes.

[29:13] I put launch fiscal year 2027. I was

[29:15] talking to Michael earlier. That might

[29:17] be a little fast. So, we could put push

[29:20] that into 2028. But

[29:24] whatever we decided there, but that's

[29:27] just kind of a little what I found by

[29:30] talking to other cities, what they do to

[29:31] help out their utility bills.

[29:36] Have any questions? Is this something

[29:38] our current staff could do? Do we think

[29:40] we would need more staff to implement

[29:41] this?

[29:41] >> I haven't talked to any of them yet. I

[29:43] just put this together. If it was

[29:45] something that we wanted to look at

[29:46] further, then we could

[29:47] >> we could talk to

[29:48] >> I just didn't want to put the cart

[29:49] before the horse and do all this stuff.

[29:52] >> So,

[29:56] I question.

[29:58] >> Did she ask a question? Is that okay?

[30:00] >> Is that

[30:06] pass? Oh, okay. You can address it with

[30:09] any of us after though. Thank you.

[30:15] » Um, there's not any questions. I don't

[30:16] know if you guys I can look into it even

[30:19] further, get with staff, see what's

[30:21] feasible, what's not, if it's even

[30:23] something that you can do, what that

[30:27] cost might look like, things like that,

[30:29] or there's no desire and just can't do.

[30:33] Well, I I I definitely there there's a

[30:35] desire to do it and I like what you've

[30:37] done here, albeit it's it's in its

[30:39] infancy, right? And so I think we we

[30:42] continue to to push it forward. I think

[30:44] there's some other ways in which we can

[30:46] um come up with that that dollar amount.

[30:49] Um we'll just need a little bit of time

[30:52] to pass and then I think we can make

[30:53] some decisions to allocate some monies

[30:57] um to to this program. I think it will

[30:59] help those 100 plus households that that

[31:03] are really going to be able to to

[31:04] utilize it and will need it. So, I like

[31:08] what you've done here. I think it's

[31:09] great. So, I guess should look a little

[31:11] bit more into it.

[31:13] >> Anybody else want to give the same

[31:14] direction or different direction?

[31:18] >> I think I think it's a good idea. I like

[31:20] it. I mean, I know there are a lot of

[31:21] people that said they would have

[31:22] hardship. So I think if we could do

[31:23] something um what do we do if we come on

[31:26] the 75 and we that's just capped and so

[31:29] >> it's capped. It's first come first

[31:31] serve. Some cities do have like a if

[31:34] you're over a certain age they get

[31:36] higher priority than other people. I

[31:38] mean there's endless ways to do it. It's

[31:40] just

[31:41] >> um some do just first come first serve.

[31:43] Like you're you know you're the first

[31:45] one with your application. You're at the

[31:46] top of the the list. So

[31:50] yeah I know I'm Yeah. I I know this was

[31:53] a concern of all and I and I think that was one of

[31:57] the main reasons why we pushed to to do

[32:00] a base fee in our in in the utility to

[32:05] allow for those that use those that are

[32:08] fixed that are on a fixed income and use

[32:10] less than it's proportionate to their

[32:13] use. Um and this is just kind of another

[32:17] step on on that. I think there's

[32:19] probably there's a lot of unanswered

[32:20] questions I you know as far as where it

[32:22] would come from a budget standpoint and the what'ss and why I those are all

[32:28] the questions that I have. Um

[32:31] and I you know we had a the citizen

[32:34] speak on it tonight specifically and you

[32:37] know um being really cautious to how we

[32:40] use dollars in a budget and allocate

[32:43] those is is a concern I have. So

[32:48] » um would you guys want to just do it for

[32:52] the sewer or would you want it to be

[32:54] like a whole utility

[32:57] thing?

[32:59] >> I think just for the sewer right now. I

[33:00] mean that's is where we have our main

[33:01] concern right now because I think

[33:03] everything else has been pretty fixed

[33:04] and the sewer is going to go up a lot.

[33:05] It's kind of my thought is so this could

[33:07] help because I think everybody else I

[33:09] mean the budget this is not in their

[33:10] budget the sewer. So I think this is

[33:12] something that will help with that. And

[33:14] I'd like to I mean you put grants in

[33:15] here. I think that's something we should

[33:16] look into too. I mean because maybe

[33:18] that's something that could help cover

[33:19] this. I know um Alexis is working on

[33:22] that. But

[33:24] >> well I know we went through that whole

[33:26] process but the sewer the sewer rates

[33:28] are not closed in my mind. I mean they

[33:30] are closed on paper but I meaning I

[33:33] still feel like that's one area we have

[33:35] to try to find to address and we've got

[33:38] some avenues to do that. I know. But um

[33:41] yeah, whether those are grants or some

[33:43] other I for some that one is just not

[33:45] closed in my mind that we solved we

[33:47] solved it. I know we we voted on it to

[33:50] move it along, but it's not closed in my

[33:52] mind. So yeah, I think appreciate you

[33:55] putting this together.

[33:59] » I'll start reaching out to staff kind of

[34:00] getting some more information and

[34:02] letting you guys know what I find out.

[34:04] Okay.

[34:05] >> Thanks very Thank you.

[34:14] want me to table seven and eight?

[34:15] >> Yes, please.

[34:16] >> Mayor, I make a motion we move to table

[34:19] agenda items number seven and number

[34:21] eight regarding the Wellstone

[34:23] subdivision until the May 20th, 2026

[34:26] city council meeting.

[34:27] >> We have a motion by council member

[34:29] Thomas to table items seven and eight.

[34:31] Is there a second?

[34:32] >> Second.

[34:33] by council member Williams. All

[34:35] in favor? I

[34:37] >> I

[34:38] >> All right, [laughter] we will discuss

[34:40] those items on May 20th. Thank you.

[34:43] Item number nine is a public hearing

[34:46] item, consideration of resolution

[34:48] 2026-30

[34:49] approving a plat amendment to the Moody

[34:52] Acres Subdivision located at

[34:54] approximately 415 South Worththington

[34:57] Street. And we're going to have the

[34:59] presentation first and then after the

[35:02] presentation if you have comments uh

[35:04] please come come forth and bring those

[35:06] to our attention.

[35:07] >> Will you go to the PL the

[35:10] [clears throat] plat?

[35:11] >> Yes. So, this is just a minor amendment.

[35:14] Um, really a lot line adjustment, but

[35:17] because this was already a

[35:18] [clears throat]

[35:19] platted lot 2 was already platted, um,

[35:24] we did a plat amendment. Um, and then it

[35:27] so we're amending Moody Acres, but they

[35:29] called it the Williams U minor

[35:31] subdivision. And so, it just is that the

[35:35] You should have another Yeah, that one.

[35:38] [clears throat] So, if you zoom in where

[35:40] the circle is right there, we're just

[35:42] adjusting that lot. Um, lot one now um

[35:46] is just shrinking. We're aligning um the

[35:49] future road on lot two uh to meet up.

[35:53] So, if that is ever subdivided, we have

[35:54] that um inner uh access.

[36:00] >> So, lot one is is shrinking then.

[36:02] >> Yes.

[36:04] >> From 3/4 to a half approximately. Y

[36:07] Okay.

[36:08] And that's to make room for a road if we

[36:10] need it in that sort of thing.

[36:11] >> Uh it was to align the properties

[36:14] they're they're selling um lot one. And

[36:16] so it was just to um finalize and align

[36:19] everything. So

[36:27] » and this went through commission. Um

[36:30] well I was able to listen to that. You

[36:32] remember the vote vote on that? It

[36:33] >> was unanimous. It was unanimous.

[36:34] >> Unanimous. Okay.

[36:40] So, if this wasn't in if lot 2 wasn't a

[36:42] part of a subdivision, then this could

[36:44] have just been processed as a boundary

[36:46] line adjustment. Um, but because there

[36:48] are notes and other things on a plat, we

[36:50] wanted to save those.

[36:55] » Anybody have any questions for

[36:56] >> Mike? I had a question regarding minor

[36:58] subdivisions. How remind me, how many

[37:01] lots you have? Um, up to four.

[37:03] >> Up to four. Okay, that's

[37:08] [clears throat]

[37:21] » Thank you. Um, we will now open it up to

[37:24] uh public hearing. If anyone has any

[37:26] items they'd like to discuss with the

[37:28] council, this is your moment on this

[37:30] item.

[37:32] Anyone

[37:36] online, Alicia?

[37:39] All right, I'm seeing no items for the public hearing.

[37:47] Uh, would anybody like to make a motion

[37:49] or is there any further discussion that

[37:51] needs to take place?

[37:54] Mayor, I make a motion we approve

[37:57] resolution 2026-30 approving the plat

[38:00] amendment to the Moody Acres subdivision

[38:02] located approximately 415 South

[38:04] Warthington Street.

[38:06] >> We have a motion by Council Member

[38:08] Butler. Is there a second?

[38:09] >> I'll second the motion.

[38:10] >> Second by Council Member Skinner. All in

[38:12] favor?

[38:14] >> All right.

[38:15] Thank you.

[38:18] >> Thanks you guys.

[38:19] >> Thank you. Um item number 10 is also a

[38:23] public hearing item. Um it's a

[38:25] consideration of approving amendments to

[38:27] the capital facilities plan impact fee

[38:29] facilities plan and impact fee analysis.

[38:32] This will be presented by Robert Rousell

[38:34] of Enzyme Engineering and we will have

[38:36] the presentation first and then we will

[38:39] um ask for any public comment before the

[38:42] item is discussed with the council.

[38:48] Are you

[38:49] >> what?

[38:49] >> They're going to share.

[38:50] >> Yeah, I'll share.

[38:54] [clears throat]

[39:02] » You need to log into Zoom. You got it.

[39:04] >> Oh, okay. Cool. So, yeah, I'm Robert

[39:07] with Enzy Engineering. I'm presenting

[39:09] the 2026 amendments to the CFP. So, cap

[39:12] facility plan, impact fee facility

[39:14] plans, and impact PE analysis. This

[39:16] includes everything that you see there,

[39:18] drinking water, public safety, parks,

[39:20] wastewater, water rights acquisition,

[39:23] and storm drainage. It does not include

[39:24] transportation. We're holding off on

[39:26] transportation until the updates are

[39:28] done to the transportation master plan.

[39:34] So, we do this annually. We did do some

[39:37] amendments for parks and transportation

[39:39] in January 2026.

[39:42] Uh and then uh what impact fees do is

[39:45] they help fund expansion of public

[39:47] facilities necessary to accommodate new

[39:49] growth. We meet with city staff in

[39:52] December and then

[39:55] get all the information compiled in

[39:57] January, February, meet again typically

[40:00] in March and [clears throat] go over the

[40:02] draft, get input. Then we have the work

[40:04] session that you all attended uh you

[40:07] know with planning commission and then

[40:09] we have the meeting with planning

[40:11] commission which is also public hearing

[40:13] and then city council. Uh the process it

[40:16] takes 90 days before the amended impact

[40:19] fees are approved before they go into

[40:21] effect and any developer funded projects

[40:24] which we've got kind of throughout this

[40:25] document that we know are strictly

[40:27] developer funded projects are not impact

[40:29] eligible.

[40:31] Uh, I will mention, and you'll see it,

[40:32] we did update the demographics to

[40:34] coincide with the 2026 sewer rate study.

[40:38] We looked back at previous growth rates

[40:40] and kind of reduced to something that's

[40:42] a little bit more realistic. So, we've

[40:44] got the 3 and a.5% in years 2026, 2027,

[40:49] and then a 4% growth rate from 2028 to

[40:52] 2035.

[40:54] And we do briefly look at this annually

[40:56] to see if we're kind of on pace. If we

[40:57] see a higher growth rate, then we can

[40:59] make adjustments.

[41:01] Um I've kind of listed there

[41:03] historically at least over the last 26

[41:05] years it has been between four and a

[41:06] half to 5% annual growth rate on

[41:09] average. The uh you know the 10% during

[41:12] the co years that kind of created a a

[41:14] little bit of a spike there and brought

[41:16] that average a little bit up.

[41:19] What we do is we determine our capital

[41:21] improvement projects with staff you know

[41:22] in December. We get input kind of

[41:25] throughout the process and then we you

[41:27] know update our demographics and look at

[41:29] the level of service and see if we need

[41:31] to adjust them for each item.

[41:34] Impact fees also include non- capital

[41:38] improvement project costs which are like

[41:40] interest expense on bonds, existing

[41:43] capital assets, professional expenses

[41:45] and future debt service.

[41:49] So this demographics just shows you that

[41:51] growth rate, you know, the three and a

[41:53] half percent the next couple years, the

[41:54] 4%, you know, moving forward. What we do

[41:57] is we only look in kind of the 10-year

[41:59] planning period because with impact

[42:00] fees, you got to if you collect them,

[42:02] you got to expend them in six years. Uh

[42:06] or you got to have a reason why you're

[42:07] holding on. Like for example, if you're

[42:09] holding on to impact fees for wastewater

[42:12] treatment plant.

[42:16] So the service connections we get that

[42:18] from meter data and what we do here is

[42:21] we take the meter data for a single

[42:23] family uh unit and and an ERC is

[42:27] equivalent residential connection and

[42:29] you can see you know ERC per unit for

[42:31] single family is one and we look at the

[42:34] what the water usage is for the

[42:36] different types of service connections.

[42:38] So we got multi-unit trailer,

[42:40] commercial, church, school,

[42:41] construction, water, and that's where we

[42:43] adjust, you know, the ERC per unit to

[42:46] get the total ERC's for for Grantsville

[42:52] planning sub areas. This this just kind

[42:55] of helps us determine where you know

[42:57] future growth's going to occur and

[42:59] projects and uh with you know city staff

[43:04] and development coming in we got a

[43:06] pretty good idea of where uh you know

[43:08] certain growth is going to occur and

[43:09] where projects are going to be needed.

[43:12] This just shows you the projections in

[43:14] the next 10 years of uh population

[43:16] growth and then ERC's based on the

[43:18] different service connection types. But

[43:21] one thing that we did do this year that

[43:22] we've we we got building permit

[43:25] information from the building

[43:27] department, we did adjust the commercial

[43:29] growth rate because it's not quite as

[43:31] high. It's about a quarter of what the

[43:33] residential growth rate is. So that has

[43:36] been factored in

[43:41] drinking water level of service. We we

[43:43] do look at this three years we're

[43:45] required to with the division drinking

[43:47] water uh because they they set the

[43:51] city's minimum drinking water standards.

[43:53] So that's been looked at. It's we

[43:56] haven't changed it. It was is pretty

[43:58] similar to what it has been for the last

[44:00] six years.

[44:06] Capital improvement projects. These

[44:07] aren't all If you go in the actual

[44:09] document, you'll see all of them that

[44:10] are listed. A lot of them are are

[44:12] replacement. So this are these are like

[44:14] impact B eligible projects and then we

[44:17] list the ones that are that would be

[44:18] impact B eligible but are being paid for

[44:22] you know 100% by developer. So that's

[44:24] what's shown in here and the ones that

[44:25] are shown with like the proportionate

[44:27] share of of zero are those developer

[44:30] ones. the Northstar tank. That's one

[44:33] that the city's, you know, constructing

[44:35] building impacts previously were

[44:37] collected for it, but we're, you know,

[44:40] it's it's basically

[44:43] getting the city up to capacity on

[44:44] storage. So, that's why that's a zero um

[44:47] right now. But impact fees were

[44:49] previously collected for it when there

[44:50] was, you know, excess capacity and and

[44:55] the project would have provided capacity

[44:57] for future development.

[45:02] It's kind of hard to see. I mean, I can

[45:04] zoom in if you if you want. Um, but the

[45:07] uh this just shows kind of all the

[45:09] projects and maybe I will just kind of

[45:11] try to zoom in to there just throughout

[45:14] the city.

[45:16] The

[45:18] two projects that are being constructed

[45:20] right now, you've got the Northstar

[45:21] tank, 2 million gallon tank here, and

[45:24] then you've got the Bates Well that's in

[45:26] this Well, I guess it's right there. And

[45:29] uh then additional development, you

[45:33] know, in kind of the West Bank area and

[45:36] then on the southeast, you know, side of

[45:39] the city. And then a lot of the projects

[45:41] that are in the city here are are

[45:44] replacements of just smaller water lines

[45:46] that are old and don't meet the uh

[45:48] minimum requirement of at least a 8 in

[45:50] diameter water line.

[45:57] So with with water uh the impact fees

[46:01] changed slightly. They've gone up a

[46:03] little bit and that's just because

[46:04] there's been you know we decreased that

[46:07] you know the growth rate in that 10 year

[46:09] and so there's basically a higher impact

[46:12] fee for each you know ERC or in this

[46:16] instance we calculate based on the

[46:18] connection size.

[46:22] Most of the projects in water didn't

[46:24] change. I think we we adjusted some of

[46:25] the years, so it fluctuated a little

[46:27] bit, but they stayed pretty much the

[46:29] same. Public safety level of service,

[46:32] we, you know, we met with the fire

[46:34] department, police department. The what

[46:37] we have for level of service there, we

[46:39] haven't really changed, kept it the

[46:41] same.

[46:43] Capital improvement projects. So, one of

[46:45] I will point out one of the one of the

[46:48] items that we had in here originally,

[46:51] took it out, but then we put it back in

[46:54] was uh the just capital improvement

[46:55] projects for a future satellite fire

[46:57] station and then the aerial truck

[46:59] replacement. We're showing those costs.

[47:02] We don't we don't have at least a time

[47:05] frame of when that future satellite fire

[47:07] station will be constructed. So, it's

[47:10] not actually in the impact fee

[47:11] calculation. And then that aerial truck

[47:13] replacement because it is a is a

[47:15] replacement we can't charge impact fees

[47:18] but we did show it at least in the

[47:19] capital improvement projects table. That

[47:22] was just a comment we had in planning

[47:23] commission

[47:25] impact fee eligible costs. We've got the

[47:27] animal control shelter and that is

[47:30] assuming you know 50% of it will be

[47:33] shared with a a local entity. Um we

[47:37] didn't really define that. And then

[47:39] we've got the Justice Center Police

[47:42] expansion.

[47:46] This just shows you approximately where

[47:48] we think some of these satellite fire

[47:50] stations will go. I'll kind of zoom in a

[47:53] little bit there.

[47:56] And yeah, those are subject to change

[47:58] depending on, you know, how how it's

[48:01] negotiated with, you know, developers

[48:03] potentially and where they're actually

[48:04] needed.

[48:10] And then public safety, those have

[48:13] decreased a little bit because we have

[48:15] pulled out that future satellite fire

[48:17] station. We were previously, you know,

[48:20] factoring that in. One of the big

[48:22] changes that I mentioned when we had the

[48:24] work session is we did change how

[48:26] non-residential was is calculated and I

[48:29] guess you know how single family and

[48:31] multi-unit is factored. We were basing

[48:34] it based on like an average building

[48:35] size.

[48:37] Uh but what what we've done is we've now

[48:40] based it based on calls per unit and we

[48:42] got the from the police department we've

[48:44] got the CAD calls just the total you

[48:47] know calls per unit uh for single family

[48:49] multif family and non-residential and

[48:52] that's how we're basing it now. So, for

[48:54] example, and I I there's some examples

[48:58] in the actual writeup, but for example,

[49:00] now if you had like a really large

[49:02] commercial building like a warehouse,

[49:04] it's technically one unit. So, it would

[49:06] be charged just that, you know, that

[49:08] $3,000, you know, $7010. But if you had

[49:12] like a strip mall and you had 10 units

[49:14] in there, then they would be charged,

[49:15] you know, that per each unit.

[49:21] And I guess as you can see there like

[49:25] single family there's not quite as many

[49:27] calls and there's you know almost almost

[49:30] two calls per unit for multif family and

[49:32] then two and a half for non-residential

[49:37] level service for parks. This has stayed

[49:40] for you know four acres for per 1000

[49:43] population for quite a time now. We've

[49:44] kind of left that the same.

[49:48] Uh the only updates that we've done

[49:50] really on parks is we've kind of

[49:52] rearranged some of the uh construction

[49:54] years just to keep a a positive impact

[49:58] fee balance. We do have one year which

[50:00] is fine that goes negative but but we've uh kind of rearranged them a

[50:04] little bit to adjust for that. And we

[50:06] have updated you know the sink slopes

[50:08] that first phase with the pump track and

[50:11] site improvements to reflect the actual

[50:13] bid price that the city received.

[50:18] This shows you kind of where all the the

[50:20] parks are located throughout the city.

[50:23] Um,

[50:26] and then existing impact fees varied a

[50:29] little bit. Uh, went went a little bit

[50:31] down just because we did have to kind of

[50:33] balance out where projects were just to

[50:35] keep that impact fee balance positive

[50:38] >> for for most years except for for one of

[50:40] the years.

[50:45] Wastewater. Uh, same thing here. We look

[50:48] at level service for wastewater. It's

[50:51] really hasn't changed. It's, you know,

[50:52] the 150 gallons per day per ERC for

[50:54] average daily flow. And the peaking

[50:57] factors are all pretty similar to what

[50:58] they have been for the last six years.

[51:02] Uh, capital improvement project lists.

[51:04] There's some developer constructed only

[51:06] projects and then there's some where

[51:07] there's some upsize like the Westbank

[51:09] interceptor. But we've looked at the

[51:11] upsize of what they would have had to

[51:13] put in versus what you know will be

[51:16] upsized and uh that's what the costs are

[51:20] that are shown there. The big one on

[51:22] this one obviously is the proposed

[51:24] wastewater treatment facility.

[51:28] And as I mentioned before, the proposed

[51:31] wastewater treatment facility about a

[51:33] third of its how how it's going to be

[51:35] constructed now the capacity is going to

[51:37] be existing and then 2/3 will be for

[51:40] future development. That 12.8% is the in

[51:44] the 10-year planning period what's new

[51:46] development. So in the future past, you

[51:49] know, as it keeps going, as long as

[51:51] there's that capacity, there'll be like

[51:53] a it'll turn into a buying cost once

[51:55] this is built.

[51:57] So there will be impact fees, you know,

[51:59] carrying on in the future as long as

[52:02] there's capacity in the treatment plant

[52:04] or excess capacity.

[52:06] Uh wastewater, this just shows what's

[52:09] proposed. A lot of there's some

[52:11] improvements, you know, along SR 112.

[52:14] I'll kind of zoom in there.

[52:16] The majority is, you know, going to the

[52:18] treatment plant and then just getting

[52:20] sewer out to kind of that West Bank

[52:23] area, you know, Matt Canyon Road and out

[52:25] by the Walmart distribution center.

[52:33] Wastewater impact fees have gone up uh

[52:35] you know slightly. What we did with the

[52:38] race is you know we we really looked at

[52:41] quite a few projects that were

[52:43] previously listed. There was a few that

[52:45] we were able to push out farther which

[52:48] kept the rates you know as low as we

[52:50] could get them and then it also you know

[52:54] impacted the impact fees a little bit as

[52:56] well.

[53:00] Water rights acquisition. So this is

[53:02] pretty similar as to what what we

[53:05] presented previously. Uh one of the

[53:07] comments from planning commission was

[53:09] just to look at the uh market rate, the

[53:11] cost per acre foot. Uh it was 29,000 per

[53:16] acre foot and it kind of ranges on from

[53:20] 29 to 35 to 40 depending on what

[53:24] somebody will pay for it. But we did

[53:25] increase it uh since planning commission

[53:28] we did increase it to 30,000

[53:31] and we'll we'll look at that annually to try to increase it. So yeah, that's

[53:36] where that shows up. It just it goes up

[53:38] because of that the the for that cost

[53:42] per acre foot. None of the water right

[53:45] quantities, those didn't really change.

[53:47] We we did look at those and they've been

[53:49] pretty similar

[53:51] to the last, you know, for the last six

[53:53] years.

[53:56] Storm drainage, you know, the city

[53:58] doesn't doesn't charge any uh storm

[54:00] drainage. So, I've just kind of shown in

[54:03] what we've shown in the uh cap

[54:04] facilities plan portion of it. There's

[54:06] really not an impact fee facilities plan

[54:08] or impact v analysis, but we do have the

[54:10] capital facilities plan portion of it.

[54:12] We show the you know the city's design

[54:14] requirements for storm drainage.

[54:17] And then uh this is from like the West

[54:22] Bank study, the various wersheds for the

[54:25] city

[54:27] and then some of the projects that have

[54:28] been constructed like the the Clark

[54:30] Street storm drain improvements project.

[54:33] It's kind of tilted there, but this is

[54:35] out of the West Bank study just the

[54:37] various projects that that are proposed

[54:40] in that. Um the the reason why city

[54:44] doesn't charge impact fees at least

[54:45] right now is just a lot of the

[54:46] improvements are constructed by the

[54:48] developers

[54:49] as they're building their you know their

[54:52] developments and there's not not really

[54:54] any regional infrastructure. Now impact

[54:57] fees could be charged in the future if the city is constructing some of that

[55:00] regional infrastructure and then you

[55:02] know developers are would then have to

[55:04] pay impact fees

[55:08] and yeah I've kind of listed that here.

[55:10] Yeah, I I won't go over that again.

[55:13] Impact fee comparisons and impact fee

[55:16] comparisons are uh pretty tough, you

[55:20] know, to do. Bill mentioned a good one

[55:23] last time in the planning commission

[55:24] meeting like like Riverton, for example,

[55:26] they don't they don't uh they don't

[55:30] charge impact fees because they've got a

[55:31] lot of commercial and they they've got

[55:33] kind of that commercial tax base.

[55:35] What we did try to do is we and we kind

[55:37] of noted it here. You know, we've noted

[55:39] the similar populations to Grantsville.

[55:41] You know, Tmont, Mapleton, Heber, North

[55:44] Logan. Now, the kind of the dynamics are

[55:46] a little different, right? So Hebrew's

[55:48] got a lot of commercial but we've tried

[55:50] to show you know what let's see the uh

[55:54] propos is in blue zisting is in green

[55:57] and kind of where like with retail like

[56:00] a 5,000 foot building industrial a

[56:03] million square foot building kind of

[56:04] where Gransville falls with impact fees

[56:09] you can see with residential

[56:12] pretty close to being in the middle

[56:14] there. So that's town home, a single

[56:16] family resident on a halfacre lot and

[56:19] then a apartment on a you know a

[56:22] thousand square foot apartment.

[56:23] [clears throat]

[56:28] Okay. Yeah. And that's that's all I

[56:30] have. And

[56:32] does it go to public hearing next? Yes.

[56:34] Okay. All right. Thank you.

[56:35] >> Thank you, Robert.

[56:38] We will now hold a public hearing on on

[56:41] this item. If anyone would like to make

[56:43] a comment, now is your opportunity. And

[56:47] if you're online and would like to make

[56:48] a comment, please raise your hand.

[56:57] » Anything online, Alicia?

[57:00] >> All right, we will close the public

[57:02] hearing for item number 10. Is I now

[57:07] turn this over to a discussion with the

[57:09] council. Um,

[57:12] any comments, questions, or concerns.

[57:24] » I'll just say it seems like we've spent

[57:26] a lot of time on this um especially

[57:29] between planning and zoning and and then

[57:32] uh and then our work meeting that we

[57:34] had. Robert's put in a lot of time and

[57:36] effort to this and and I mean really I

[57:40] think you know what the citizens are

[57:43] asking for us to do is is to you know

[57:46] make sure that those that are developing

[57:49] in our in our in our town and our city

[57:50] are paying their fair share or in other

[57:54] words as it shows on there the maximum

[57:56] amount that they can that we could

[57:57] charge for the impact fees and that's

[57:59] what this represents.

[58:01] >> Yes, that's correct.

[58:04] albeit some of them were a little bit

[58:06] less, but the majority of them did

[58:07] increase slightly and and over the two

[58:10] years that that I've been here, they've increased um every year that

[58:14] we've we've um reviewed this and voted

[58:17] it into effect. So,

[58:20] anyhow, that's my thoughts.

[58:26] Anyone else have any comments, concerns?

[58:33] Um yeah, I just I echo that uh

[58:37] in the sense that

[58:39] we have a lot of information here. It's

[58:42] 300 and something pages um and we've

[58:44] seen it before going through. Um I did

[58:48] have a a couple of questions uh really

[58:51] regarding

[58:53] um like wells well levels and and then

[58:56] our water consumption. And I was just

[58:59] wanting to make sure I was reading those

[59:00] tables correctly. Um

[59:04] and and and Robert, I don't know if I

[59:07] put you on the spot um to kind of go

[59:10] through to go through those. Obviously,

[59:12] water is of concern, ensuring we have

[59:15] enough water. Um I spent a lot of time

[59:18] in the wells and the tanks and

[59:22] um just ensuring that we can provide the

[59:25] services that we need to provide um in

[59:28] all aspects. But I I had a question

[59:30] regarding one of the tables specifically

[59:33] uh 3.6

[59:35] um and how I was reading that is that a

[59:38] deficit in gallons?

[59:44] » Yes, currently.

[59:45] >> Okay. So that's not factoring in the 2

[59:47] million gallon tank. The 2 million tank

[59:49] is not quite yet constructed

[59:51] >> which is just about finished.

[59:52] >> About finished. Yes. Correct.

[59:54] >> So once that comes into play then that

[59:56] changes that equation pretty

[59:58] >> substantially.

[59:59] >> And you know the Desireette development

[1:00:01] they'll be doing a tank and a well too.

[1:00:03] So that'll that'll help

[1:00:05] >> tie into that.

[1:00:06] >> Yeah. And and same thing on the sources

[1:00:08] there. That 3.5 is shown as a deficit

[1:00:10] now. But that baits well is being

[1:00:13] drilled. That one's probably a little

[1:00:14] farther out, right? Because they still

[1:00:15] got to build the building and do all the

[1:00:17] electrical. And

[1:00:18] >> yeah,

[1:00:19] >> the other question that came to my mind

[1:00:20] when I was going through that is like

[1:00:23] >> I'm I'm assuming we capture this

[1:00:25] information on all of our wells, like

[1:00:27] our static well level, like when we

[1:00:29] start to pump and all of those things.

[1:00:30] And

[1:00:32] >> um it would be nice to be able to access

[1:00:34] that information as well, just to

[1:00:37] >> just just so we have an understanding.

[1:00:39] It was interesting to see how much a

[1:00:41] well cost in 1977

[1:00:43] versus what one costs now to drill. So

[1:00:46] anyway, thank you for all that. No

[1:00:49] problem.

[1:00:49] >> That was very informative. All 300 and

[1:00:51] something pages. [laughter]

[1:00:53] >> Is the banks well is it drilled yet?

[1:00:56] >> Yes.

[1:00:57] >> How what was the depth? That question

[1:00:59] came up last night.

[1:01:00] >> 705

[1:01:01] >> 75 ft

[1:01:02] >> and it's under development right now.

[1:01:04] >> Yeah.

[1:01:05] >> So they're developing it right now.

[1:01:07] >> But but the wells drilled, right?

[1:01:11] working on the screening and the dual

[1:01:13] swab right now.

[1:01:15] >> So, yeah, the basically the casing's in.

[1:01:16] They should have done the Yeah, the

[1:01:19] surface seal. They're just developing

[1:01:21] it, kind of swabbing it, cleaning it.

[1:01:24] Yep.

[1:01:24] >> Right.

[1:01:25] >> Been very fortunate to have good water

[1:01:27] in [clears throat] Gransville. Yeah.

[1:01:29] Like I

[1:01:31] >> I've been in areas that don't have good

[1:01:32] water, so [laughter]

[1:01:34] at least in the short term period, and

[1:01:36] they're not fun places to stay. Exactly.

[1:01:38] >> Great water. I think

[1:01:39] >> Yeah.

[1:01:39] >> So,

[1:01:40] >> we're fortunate. [clears throat]

[1:01:42] >> In North Dakota, their water smells like

[1:01:44] gasoline. So, just saying

[1:01:48] >> you get the you get you get the oil in the water. [laughter]

[1:01:53] >> Robert, I got a quick question for you.

[1:01:55] This just is more of I want to make sure

[1:01:57] you understand this clearly. You said

[1:02:00] >> that impact fees can be applied to

[1:02:02] twothirds of the new sewer plant. So,

[1:02:04] that's for the the growth, right?

[1:02:07] Correct. So the the proportion share

[1:02:10] that's shown there is like in the next

[1:02:11] 10 years the projected ERC's in the next

[1:02:14] 10 years. So that's that's in the next

[1:02:16] 10 years. But as long as there's excess

[1:02:18] capacity in the future. So once it's

[1:02:19] built it'll be a buyin cost as long as

[1:02:22] it has excess capacity and you can

[1:02:24] continue charging impact fees for it.

[1:02:26] >> And then that buyin cost goes to help

[1:02:28] pay back the bonds or I guess it's

[1:02:30] probably up to us but

[1:02:32] >> yeah it's part of it, right? like

[1:02:34] >> we can use that money to pay the bond

[1:02:36] down or back.

[1:02:38] >> So as long as you have per the law like

[1:02:40] as long as you have excess capacity and

[1:02:42] something. So so like there's excess

[1:02:44] capacity in in the water system, you

[1:02:47] know, port portions of it, right? Like

[1:02:49] the distribution system, some of the

[1:02:51] sewer collection lines have excess

[1:02:53] capacity and that's that's all factored

[1:02:55] in.

[1:02:57] >> Okay. Thanks. Y I've got a question and

[1:02:59] maybe even Christie can answer this too.

[1:03:02] We've I know in uh planning commission

[1:03:04] we've discussed on the um the drainage

[1:03:09] the basins and storm water that if we

[1:03:12] reach a certain classification of city

[1:03:14] then we start having to be in charge of

[1:03:17] the basins. Is that right?

[1:03:19] >> I think did we have that discussion? I

[1:03:21] think he's talking about MS4. Yeah.

[1:03:24] >> Yeah. Does that have anything to do with

[1:03:25] the the

[1:03:27] >> It would be more on once once you're

[1:03:30] doing that, it's either you're either

[1:03:31] having it's more of a maintenance thing.

[1:03:33] Uh you you could end up charging like a

[1:03:36] storm water user fee.

[1:03:39] >> Okay. I mean, that's where that would

[1:03:40] probably factor in. I mean, you can

[1:03:41] correct Christie, but yeah.

[1:03:44] >> Yeah.

[1:03:44] >> No, I I I'm glad you asked that question

[1:03:46] because I the thought crossed my mind.

[1:03:48] At what point in time do do we as a city

[1:03:51] decide storm is in you know a different

[1:03:54] approach to storm or if there's a

[1:03:55] different approach in your professional

[1:03:57] opinion based on our size and other

[1:04:00] cities that you've worked with similar

[1:04:01] to us at what point do they take that on

[1:04:03] or do some of them never take it on and

[1:04:05] have format that we're doing

[1:04:07] >> and I guess yeah Bill you could probably

[1:04:09] correct me if I'm wrong but once and I

[1:04:12] think isn't the threshold 50,000 for an

[1:04:14] MS4 I can't remember exactly But it it's

[1:04:18] based on like the US Census Bureau like

[1:04:21] once they define kind of probably the

[1:04:23] Tilla Valley as like a certain can't

[1:04:26] remember like a regional can't remember

[1:04:28] the exact definition but once they kind

[1:04:29] of define that as like a regional area

[1:04:32] then then you'll fall into that and that

[1:04:35] would be a I mean some some places do

[1:04:39] try to get ahead of that. I think

[1:04:41] Heers's Heber is kind of one that I know

[1:04:43] of that's trying to get ahead of that

[1:04:44] knowing that ultimately they're going to

[1:04:46] become an MS4

[1:04:47] >> putting their infrastructure in certain

[1:04:49] areas.

[1:04:50] >> Yeah. So, they're kind of

[1:04:52] plan, you know, if the development can't

[1:04:54] pay for, you know, a debris basin or

[1:04:57] something like that. They they're trying

[1:04:58] to push that. Um they're a lot of their

[1:05:01] code and requirements kind of gearing

[1:05:03] themselves towards an MS4 eventually.

[1:05:07] So,

[1:05:07] >> okay.

[1:05:08] >> I mean, it's it's really up to the city,

[1:05:10] you know, if you want to get out of it.

[1:05:12] I mean, it is coming eventually at some

[1:05:14] point. So,

[1:05:16] >> Oh, thank you.

[1:05:17] >> I would mention for storm water, I mean,

[1:05:21] there is the West Bank, you know, master

[1:05:22] plan that looked at storm water kind of

[1:05:24] in that area, but, uh, if you're looking

[1:05:26] at kind of this citywide, it would be

[1:05:28] good at some point to do a storm drain

[1:05:30] master plan.

[1:05:38] rule says 100,000, but I mean we don't

[1:05:41] need to take that to the bank.

[1:05:43] [laughter]

[1:05:44] >> I'm pretty confident it's good to

[1:05:45] >> Yeah, I think I think there's a

[1:05:47] distinction there. There's a

[1:05:49] >> Yeah, there's Yeah, exactly. There's a

[1:05:50] small MS4, so it'd be a small M4.

[1:05:52] >> Yeah.

[1:05:54] >> Interesting.

[1:05:56] >> And then you hit on this. I appreciate

[1:05:58] it. As far as future growth and that

[1:05:59] projection, I know originally we were

[1:06:01] looking at lower percentages and it

[1:06:03] looks like I

[1:06:04] >> I know that's a

[1:06:08] » right. Yeah.

[1:06:08] >> Crystal ball approach to Yes. There's

[1:06:11] science behind it obviously. Um yeah, we

[1:06:14] look at you know Census Bureau data. We

[1:06:16] look at Kim Garner Institute. We look at

[1:06:18] building past building permits. We look

[1:06:20] at a bunch of different things but and

[1:06:23] that's just it it is just kind of a well

[1:06:26] what's best best guess approach try to

[1:06:29] be a little bit more conservative

[1:06:30] because after co when I think it was in

[1:06:32] 22 22 when we did the first amendment

[1:06:36] after about six years if I remember

[1:06:39] right it was like oh wow it's going to

[1:06:42] really grow because of covid right and

[1:06:44] then we we kind of did the opposite

[1:06:45] approach where we thought it was going

[1:06:46] to grow a lot more than it actually did

[1:06:48] and and then you don't have the money

[1:06:50] then to actually do the project. So it's better to be a little bit more

[1:06:54] conservative.

[1:06:55] >> Yeah. And I appreciate that approach. I

[1:06:58] >> and being able to adjust year to year as

[1:07:02] we as we look at that that is a concern

[1:07:04] having getting on the one side of the

[1:07:07] equ you know too far on the one side of

[1:07:09] the equation where we we haven't

[1:07:11] captured what we should capture. So

[1:07:13] >> yeah, and that's the problem if you

[1:07:15] don't amend them manually is you may

[1:07:17] miss out on projects that you need to

[1:07:20] include because that has happened in the

[1:07:22] past with Grantsville. Yeah. But there's

[1:07:26] been some projects that that were in

[1:07:28] there but weren't previously part of

[1:07:31] Grantsville City and then weren't able to collect impact bees and

[1:07:35] use impact bees for a project.

[1:07:39] Any

[1:07:45] other questions for Robert?

[1:07:51] » Good. Thank you so much.

[1:07:53] >> Thank you,

[1:08:03] » Mayor. I I make a a motion and move to

[1:08:06] approve the amendments to the capital

[1:08:08] facilities plan impact fee facilities

[1:08:10] plan and the impact fee analysis as

[1:08:13] presented.

[1:08:15] >> Okay, we have a motion by council member

[1:08:16] Butler. Is there a second?

[1:08:19] >> I'll second the motion.

[1:08:20] >> Second by council member Skinner. All in

[1:08:22] favor?

[1:08:23] >> I.

[1:08:25] >> Right.

[1:08:30] All right. Moving on to item number 11.

[1:08:33] This is also a public hearing item.

[1:08:37] The consideration of ordinance 2026-18

[1:08:40] approving amendments to the Grantsville

[1:08:42] City Land Use and Management Code,

[1:08:44] chapters 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 14, 15, 16, 20,

[1:08:48] and 21. And we're going to have a

[1:08:51] presentation first and then you're will

[1:08:54] be have the opportunity to make a

[1:08:57] comment um on that and then we will

[1:08:59] discuss it. But it looks like we have

[1:09:01] Bill here to talk about it.

[1:09:03] >> It's me.

[1:09:04] >> Yay.

[1:09:04] >> Hello and welcome to spring again.

[1:09:06] Spring 2.0. I love the weather. It's uh

[1:09:10] >> I didn't see a cloud in the sky walking

[1:09:11] in and I there's something about my soul

[1:09:14] that I just love that. So [laughter]

[1:09:17] >> um we have quite a few changes. Uh this

[1:09:20] is one of those things those uh agenda

[1:09:22] items that becomes like sausage making

[1:09:24] and um it's not glorious. It's not

[1:09:29] exciting like a capital facilities plan,

[1:09:33] but [laughter]

[1:09:33] uh this is uh this is important work.

[1:09:36] It's it's a lot most of these changes

[1:09:39] that you've seen are are relatively

[1:09:40] minor. They're tweaks that help us to um

[1:09:43] clarify points within the code and um

[1:09:46] bring the code more into compliance both

[1:09:48] with itself as well as with state code

[1:09:50] and uh help provide clarity for

[1:09:53] developers and property owners who want

[1:09:55] to do things with their property. So, um

[1:09:58] I don't know if you want to go through

[1:10:00] each specific item or we could just open

[1:10:03] it up to if you have questions after

[1:10:04] having gone through this beautiful 166

[1:10:08] page I think it was 166 pages of this

[1:10:12] agenda item.

[1:10:13] >> Um but so my preference would be if you

[1:10:17] just have specific questions then I

[1:10:19] won't have to go through every item

[1:10:22] um one at a time but we can

[1:10:24] >> is everybody okay with that approach?

[1:10:26] [clears throat] Yeah, I I will just add

[1:10:29] when the planning commission

[1:10:32] um I bet this was discussed and

[1:10:34] presented to them and different

[1:10:36] iterations

[1:10:38] at least a half a dozen times.

[1:10:39] >> Yep.

[1:10:40] >> Over the last six months. So,

[1:10:42] >> we're getting that sausage recipe just

[1:10:44] right. [laughter]

[1:10:45] >> Derek, do you remember going through

[1:10:47] some of these?

[1:10:48] >> Oh, yeah.

[1:10:49] >> Back in [laughter]

[1:10:50] November.

[1:10:50] >> It's been It's been a while. Yes.

[1:10:52] >> Yeah. It's been it's been a while in the

[1:10:54] making and there's been a lot of

[1:10:55] iterations and and really kudos to the

[1:10:57] planning and and and zoning uh

[1:10:59] commission for for their efforts that

[1:11:01] they put into this and and really diving

[1:11:03] in and and and making it what it needs

[1:11:05] to be and and both of you as well your

[1:11:08] teams. So there's a lot lot there. I've

[1:11:12] left those meetings and have dreams

[1:11:14] about this. [laughter]

[1:11:16] >> Is this a sideyard or

[1:11:18] >> dream? [laughter]

[1:11:21] >> This is it. And it is really exhausting

[1:11:23] work. Uh they we massage every phrase,

[1:11:27] every requirement, every stipulation in

[1:11:29] this document to make sure that it meets

[1:11:32] what we hope to uh have in our city. And

[1:11:35] so [laughter]

[1:11:36] um

[1:11:37] >> any errors in favor of the

[1:11:40] applicant,

[1:11:41] >> right? So, if there are errors, and we

[1:11:43] try to make sure there aren't any errors

[1:11:45] or inconsistencies,

[1:11:47] um they do they are interpreted and

[1:11:49] applied in favor of the applicant and

[1:11:51] the applicant's desires. And so,

[1:11:54] um again, a lot of these are are those

[1:11:57] kinds of cleanup items that will help to

[1:11:59] uh clarify what our intent is as well as

[1:12:02] uh put codify what uh we want to see on

[1:12:05] the ground.

[1:12:12] » [clears throat]

[1:12:15] » Okay,

[1:12:18] we public hearing and then we discuss

[1:12:21] it.

[1:12:22] >> Okay,

[1:12:23] >> I think we're good. Thanks. Okay,

[1:12:24] >> thanks, Phil.

[1:12:26] >> All right, we will now This will now

[1:12:27] become a public hearing. So, if you

[1:12:29] would like to make a comment on this

[1:12:30] item, this is your opportunity to do so.

[1:12:33] If you're online and would like to make

[1:12:35] an item or a comment on this item,

[1:12:37] please raise your hand.

[1:12:44] Anything online, Alicia?

[1:12:49] All right, I'm seeing no public comment.

[1:12:52] So, we will move into a council

[1:12:54] discussion

[1:12:55] on this item.

[1:13:07] did mention um just the planning and

[1:13:09] zoning commission reviewing this

[1:13:11] multiple times and in this latest

[1:13:13] iteration was um was passed recently. Um

[1:13:18] it was a unanimous um passing with the

[1:13:21] entire group.

[1:13:22] >> Um and

[1:13:25] anyways, just just wanted to make that

[1:13:27] noted. Yeah, there's been a lot of work

[1:13:29] and a lot of discussion that's gone into

[1:13:31] this over the last five or six months

[1:13:34] and a lot of work by the staff. So, we

[1:13:37] appreciate that.

[1:13:42] Yeah, I didn't have any other comments

[1:13:43] other than just thank the staff for the

[1:13:46] time and effort to put to clean up a lot

[1:13:48] of loose ends that we had and and

[1:13:52] incorrections. Um,

[1:13:56] you know, it's it's it's been a lot to

[1:13:58] get to this point. So,

[1:14:01] and I think this meeting why not have

[1:14:02] another 180 page document we throw in

[1:14:06] there. [laughter]

[1:14:09] >> Anyway, thank you for your efforts.

[1:14:12] >> The interesting thing about all this is is it perfect? No. I think we can all

[1:14:17] be back for sure.

[1:14:17] >> But I mean, it it is a step in the right

[1:14:20] direction. there's some things that are taken out and and clarified and

[1:14:25] you know as I've said before it's been

[1:14:26] thoroughly vetted um on multiple levels.

[1:14:30] So

[1:14:40] » I did have a question. I'm just trying

[1:14:42] to find it right here. Right here so I

[1:14:43] can reference it. let me know and I'll

[1:14:46] go to that page

[1:14:49] or if you need me to search anything.

[1:14:53] » It wasn't about the horses, was it?

[1:14:55] >> It's exactly where I'm going to

[1:14:57] [laughter]

[1:14:57] >> cuz the animals

[1:14:59] that word,

[1:15:01] >> huh?

[1:15:02] >> Are you thinking of chapter two?

[1:15:05] Um,

[1:15:07] >> that multiple.

[1:15:28] So just clarify the difference to me on

[1:15:31] the family food production because it

[1:15:33] looks like it's permitted and everything

[1:15:35] and then conditional. I think that's

[1:15:37] RM15.

[1:15:40] >> Keep

[1:15:42] [snorts] 58 I think on the thing.

[1:15:45] >> Oh, you're 58.

[1:15:46] >> My Yeah.

[1:15:48] >> What's your 58

[1:15:49] >> or Yeah. Or 57 on the document it says.

[1:15:52] >> Should we scroll down? Well, just on

[1:15:54] your main sheet just just so I can see

[1:15:57] if it's RM7 or

[1:15:59] >> Yeah, I'm trying to It pops like right

[1:16:01] as soon as I get to [clears throat]

[1:16:02] >> scroll up.

[1:16:03] >> Well, that's page. Okay.

[1:16:04] >> Yeah, right there.

[1:16:06] >> Are you talking about this red line

[1:16:08] that's right here

[1:16:10] on your screen?

[1:16:12] >> That was one thing I was going to

[1:16:15] >> see because it's it's conditional was

[1:16:18] crossed out in that one.

[1:16:20] >> Correct. So that's removing it from the

[1:16:22] RM7 zoning. [clears throat]

[1:16:24] >> Um, as we seen last night,

[1:16:28] >> not possible. [clears throat]

[1:16:29] >> Yeah, it's almost impossible to keep

[1:16:31] animals on halfacre lots, let alone

[1:16:34] 7,000 square foot lots. And so we're

[1:16:36] finding that yes, there are RM7

[1:16:40] lots or lots in the RM7 zoning that are

[1:16:43] a lot larger than 7,000 square feet, but

[1:16:46] now we're seeing to where they can keep

[1:16:49] 15 or 20 animals in the RM7 that's

[1:16:52] supposed to be higher density zoning

[1:16:55] with smaller lots. And then we're

[1:16:58] getting that negative feedback from

[1:16:59] those residents going, "Hey, this isn't

[1:17:01] what I moved here for because of this

[1:17:03] zoning." And so as these lots get

[1:17:06] smaller, they're not able to keep them

[1:17:08] in there because of the lot size

[1:17:11] restrictions. And so, as you can see,

[1:17:13] it's already been removed from the RM15

[1:17:15] and R18. So, we're just removing the RM7

[1:17:18] and following with that.

[1:17:26] » And that one's Ford.

[1:17:28] >> That is the RM7 that's crossed out.

[1:17:31] >> What's that? What does it say though up

[1:17:32] there on top? Do I just see if you

[1:17:35] scroll up a little bit? Says

[1:17:36] [clears throat] then six. Is that the

[1:17:37] family food production one?

[1:17:39] >> Yes. So, family food production um and

[1:17:43] keeping of large, medium, and small

[1:17:45] animals. The first large animal fully

[1:17:47] grown is 10,000 square feet of open

[1:17:50] area. And each additional large animal

[1:17:52] shall have an additional 2,000 square

[1:17:54] ft. Each mediumsized animal fully grown

[1:17:58] shall have a 1,000 square feet of open

[1:18:01] area not to exceed more than six medium

[1:18:05] animals per half acre.

[1:18:08] Um you know if you have 7,000 square

[1:18:11] feet and that's seven animals or if you

[1:18:13] have you know a half acre that's 21

[1:18:17] medium goats that you could have on

[1:18:19] there. Uh so then we go down to each

[1:18:22] smallsized animal shall have 100 square

[1:18:24] feet.

[1:18:26] Um

[1:18:28] >> so so that's my question. So it's you've

[1:18:31] crossed it out of conditional there. But

[1:18:33] if you scroll down to the raising of

[1:18:35] ducks and chickens,

[1:18:38] it's permitted in most zones. So if I

[1:18:41] just say this isn't for family food

[1:18:43] production.

[1:18:44] >> So as long as you only have six

[1:18:47] animals, you're fine. But that's for

[1:18:49] more than six.

[1:18:51] >> Yes. Anything more than six, they still

[1:18:53] have to meet the 100 square foot per

[1:18:56] chicken or duck or goose.

[1:18:59] >> So then they only need 600 square feet.

[1:19:01] I mean, yeah, you could have ducks or

[1:19:04] chickens on a 7,000 foot lot.

[1:19:09] » That was my other thing last night when

[1:19:11] we were talking about it. Like, do you

[1:19:12] really need a 100 foot buffer for a

[1:19:14] chicken?

[1:19:15] I mean, I can see it for large animals

[1:19:18] because you don't want them leaning on

[1:19:19] the fence or even medium. You don't want

[1:19:21] them ruining that for But you need a 100

[1:19:23] foot buffer for a chicken.

[1:19:26] >> Multiple chickens. Yeah.

[1:19:27] >> Yeah. [laughter]

[1:19:29] >> No, I've have smaller yard than this and

[1:19:32] I've had multiple chickens and they

[1:19:34] don't bother anybody unless you get a

[1:19:35] rooster.

[1:19:36] >> Unless you get a rooster.

[1:19:37] >> Yeah. Then that's a whole another

[1:19:38] conversation.

[1:19:39] >> Don't get me Don't get me started on

[1:19:41] >> But I'm with you, Derek. I you know I I

[1:19:42] feel like the 100 foot setback is a lot

[1:19:44] but it has been a part of our code for a

[1:19:47] really long time and

[1:19:54] » just add that to my list. [laughter]

[1:19:59] I think that was the only thing I just

[1:20:01] wanted that cleared

[1:20:03] up.

[1:20:14] Any other questions or concerns

[1:20:17] on item 11?

[1:20:24] If not, I would love a motion.

[1:20:30] >> Mayor, I make a motion. We move to

[1:20:32] approve ordinance 2026-18

[1:20:34] approving amendments to the Grantsville

[1:20:36] City Land Use and Management Codes

[1:20:38] chapters 46 7 8 9 14 15 16 20 and 21.

[1:20:44] >> We have a motion by Council Member

[1:20:46] Thomas. Is there a second?

[1:20:48] >> Second.

[1:20:48] by Council Member Butler. All in

[1:20:50] favor?

[1:20:52] >> I I

[1:20:53] >> Okay,

[1:20:57] moving on to item number 12.

[1:21:00] A presentation and consideration of

[1:21:03] resolution 2026-36

[1:21:06] documenting compliance with truth and

[1:21:08] taxation statement requirements under

[1:21:10] 59-2-919

[1:21:13] in anticipation of council's adoption of

[1:21:15] the tentative fiscal year 2027 budget

[1:21:18] and establishing a time and place of a

[1:21:20] public hearing to consider its adoption.

[1:21:24] And this will be

[1:21:26] presented by Aspen.

[1:21:29] >> All right. council. Okay, let's see. I

[1:21:33] am going to start by reading the

[1:21:36] statement of intent which is item A on

[1:21:38] the agenda of 12A and that will address

[1:21:42] B, C, DE, E, and G. And then I'll follow

[1:21:46] it up with the presentation of the

[1:21:47] proposed property tax impact schedule

[1:21:48] which is 12F and then we'll actually

[1:21:52] look at the tenative budget. So I'll

[1:21:56] start with the reading.

[1:21:59] Tonight I am presenting the tenative

[1:22:00] budget for grants city for fiscal year

[1:22:02] 2027. This tenative budget includes a

[1:22:05] proposal to levy an property tax rate

[1:22:07] that exceeds the certified tax rate. The

[1:22:10] approximate dollar amount of additional

[1:22:13] ad valorum property tax revenue

[1:22:15] generated by the proposed tax increase

[1:22:18] is 1,749,71.

[1:22:23] The approximate percentage increase in

[1:22:25] advorum property tax revenue generated

[1:22:27] by the property tax increase is 84%.

[1:22:32] The additional revenue generated by the

[1:22:34] proposed tax increase is intended

[1:22:37] to be used to fund the additional

[1:22:39] staffing requirements for parks and

[1:22:41] recreation to support the scenic slopes

[1:22:44] coming online as well as conduct a

[1:22:46] compensation study as well as allow us

[1:22:50] to function with a 3%

[1:22:53] um inflation increase without using fund

[1:22:57] balance which is our savings. A property

[1:23:00] tax impact schedule has been prepared

[1:23:02] and is being presented tonight. This

[1:23:04] schedule outlines the estimated impact

[1:23:06] of the proposed tax increase on various

[1:23:08] property values. The property tax impact

[1:23:11] schedule is available to the public and

[1:23:13] on our website at grantsvilleut.gov,

[1:23:17] the Utah public notice website, as well

[1:23:19] as in the city reporters office. If

[1:23:22] Gransville City proceeds with the

[1:23:23] proposed tax rate increase, Grantsville

[1:23:26] City will provide notice of and conduct

[1:23:28] a public hearing at a future meeting

[1:23:30] where members of the public will have an

[1:23:31] opportunity to provide comments on the

[1:23:33] proposed property tax increase. This

[1:23:36] concludes the required statements

[1:23:37] regarding the proposed tax increase

[1:23:39] included in the tenative budget.

[1:23:42] All right, on our screens we have the

[1:23:46] property tax impact schedule.

[1:23:52] Sorry, let me pull it up on my own so I

[1:23:53] can read it. Um, so

[1:23:57] um, as it states at the top, we are

[1:23:59] considering a property tax increase rate

[1:24:03] from which will increase our rate from

[1:24:06] 001368

[1:24:08] to 002517.

[1:24:10] This exceeds the certified tax rate and

[1:24:12] is estimated to generate an additional

[1:24:14] $1,749,71

[1:24:17] in property tax revenue.

[1:24:20] Um,

[1:24:22] as you go down, you can see it outlines

[1:24:24] what our current property tax rate is at

[1:24:26] the 1368, which currently generates

[1:24:31] $2,82,977

[1:24:34] in property tax revenue.

[1:24:36] Now this proposed revenue with the tax

[1:24:40] rate increase does not consider new

[1:24:42] growth. Um so there would be some there

[1:24:46] but without including new growth the

[1:24:48] estimated revenue is expected to be

[1:24:51] 3,832,678

[1:24:55] which is an increase of $1,749.

[1:24:59] Oh $49,000 excuse me $71.

[1:25:02] So, um, as stated, that results in

[1:25:05] approximately an 84% increase.

[1:25:08] Um, the average, uh, median sale price

[1:25:13] for Grantsville City Homes from the

[1:25:16] Tullet County Assessor's Office was

[1:25:18] reported to be $530,88.

[1:25:21] Um, at our estim at our current tax

[1:25:24] rate, they pay that $3984.

[1:25:29] That's annually.

[1:25:31] than this average home, right? So, with

[1:25:33] the proposed tax increase, that would

[1:25:35] increase it to $73383

[1:25:39] a year, which is approximately $334

[1:25:42] increase

[1:25:43] annually, which results in $27.92

[1:25:47] of a monthly increase for our on the

[1:25:50] average home.

[1:25:52] Um, with that, if we scroll down some,

[1:25:57] um, these are the affected departments.

[1:25:58] We I did split it out somewhat. Um

[1:26:03] the in our general fund in our general

[1:26:07] city hall budget for human resources,

[1:26:10] they are requesting $30,000 to conduct a

[1:26:13] pay and compensation study. Um we feel

[1:26:17] like that's important to be able to get

[1:26:18] our city on track with ensuring that we

[1:26:21] are paying accurate wages for all of our

[1:26:24] employees. and from what Michael and I

[1:26:26] and our HR director can find, we haven't

[1:26:28] had one done. So, we're recommending

[1:26:31] that. Um, also separately, we're

[1:26:33] recommending that parks and recreation

[1:26:35] have additional staff for Scenic Slopes.

[1:26:38] Um, and um, as it is coming getting

[1:26:43] completed this year, we will need

[1:26:45] additional staff to tend to the new

[1:26:48] park. And then overall all of our

[1:26:51] general fund departments

[1:26:54] um it would be to cover a 3% inflation

[1:26:57] increase on all budget lines for fiscal

[1:26:59] year 2027. So that 3% inflation increase

[1:27:03] on all budget lines from what was

[1:27:04] budgeted in 2026.

[1:27:07] Now there are some adjustments to that

[1:27:09] like earlier Chief Sager mentioned that

[1:27:13] we I already have it in the budget for

[1:27:14] the new rate for the dispatch fees which

[1:27:17] actually went down. So, there are some

[1:27:19] lines that won't show a true 3%

[1:27:22] increase, but generally speaking,

[1:27:24] there'll be a 3% increase on the budget

[1:27:27] lines that are presented, which all

[1:27:30] those added up together

[1:27:32] accounts for the additional 1.1

[1:27:34] $1,749,71.

[1:27:40] So with that

[1:27:43] we can look at

[1:27:46] the I have a slideshow presentation.

[1:27:52] Um is it showing yours right? Okay.

[1:27:56] Sorry. I would have it on mine so I just

[1:27:57] want to make sure.

[1:27:58] >> No you're good. Okay. So just go to the

[1:28:00] next one.

[1:28:02] >> Okay. So um just kind of going to go

[1:28:04] over a tenative budget statement which

[1:28:05] is again just reiterating for

[1:28:07] transparency that the tenative budget

[1:28:09] does currently include the proposed tax

[1:28:12] rate increase. Um we'll then go over

[1:28:14] some budget updates that we've done this

[1:28:16] year. We'll review the asks from

[1:28:18] departments that were um recommended by

[1:28:22] staff but are not included in the budget

[1:28:24] because we don't have um funds for that.

[1:28:29] and then um yeah, we'll just continue

[1:28:32] through for the actual budget.

[1:28:37] Okay, so

[1:28:39] just to be sure, as the tenative budget

[1:28:42] is presented tonight, it does already

[1:28:44] include the proposed property tax rate

[1:28:46] increase. That is an 84% increase,

[1:28:49] increasing our property tax rate from

[1:28:51] 001368

[1:28:53] to 002517,

[1:28:55] which results in approximately $1,749,71

[1:29:00] in additional property tax revenue for

[1:29:02] Grantsville City.

[1:29:05] So, some things that we have done this

[1:29:07] year um that we'll you'll notice is we

[1:29:12] have tried to reallocate some of like

[1:29:14] the line item names such as we had

[1:29:16] several we had a line item that was in

[1:29:18] several departments labeled CDs, books,

[1:29:20] and written materials. That's kind of

[1:29:22] just gone by the wayside. That's not

[1:29:24] something that we

[1:29:27] typically need to buy specifically for.

[1:29:30] So, we've kind of done away with that

[1:29:32] budget line and we've um put those funds

[1:29:35] that were budgeted in there into office

[1:29:38] supplies, something that would be make

[1:29:40] more sense. Um we did also um establish

[1:29:44] some things that standardized things

[1:29:46] across the board. There was several

[1:29:48] departments that had employee

[1:29:49] appreciation um but they were at various

[1:29:53] budget amounts. So, it wasn't clear how

[1:29:56] much who got how much for what reason.

[1:29:59] And so we did just standardize that at

[1:30:01] $150 per employee and then each

[1:30:05] department gets that for the number of

[1:30:06] employees that they have. So that got

[1:30:09] adjusted. Um and then we did just take

[1:30:12] things we did adjust some line items

[1:30:14] just to make them more accurate I

[1:30:17] suppose. So there was a lot of budget

[1:30:19] lines that had budget in them that

[1:30:21] wasn't actually getting spent. And so we

[1:30:23] did just take those down to better

[1:30:24] reflect actual spending that occurs um

[1:30:28] in those lines. So

[1:30:33] okay. So the 3%

[1:30:36] inflation did apply we did apply that in

[1:30:38] the tenative budget to current staff. So

[1:30:41] that would result in a 3% increase for

[1:30:44] staff wages. Um however, staff insurance

[1:30:48] as um our HR director presented on

[1:30:52] Friday um through PHP, our insurance has

[1:30:54] gone up 5%. So that budget line item

[1:30:58] does actually have a 5% increase just

[1:31:00] based on the increase that's required

[1:31:02] through PHP.

[1:31:03] So just so you're aware of that, that

[1:31:05] one will not follow the 3%.

[1:31:08] Okay. So these are some asks from the

[1:31:12] departments that we felt were important.

[1:31:15] um like I had mentioned and it is

[1:31:16] highlighted for transparency but the

[1:31:18] parks and recreation staff for scenic

[1:31:19] slopes going online is recommended and

[1:31:21] included in the consideration for the

[1:31:23] property tax rate increase. However, we

[1:31:26] did feel like it was important to note

[1:31:27] that the police department is actually

[1:31:30] requesting

[1:31:31] um they did request to have an

[1:31:33] additional four officers come on this

[1:31:35] next fiscal year due to growth. Um the

[1:31:38] rule is to have 1.42 officers per 10,000

[1:31:41] people. We're actually already operating

[1:31:44] behind the curve on that. Um and so

[1:31:47] ideally, um the police department would

[1:31:49] have liked to have hired two additional

[1:31:51] officers in July and then another one in

[1:31:53] January and another one in March of next

[1:31:55] year. Um however, that ask is not

[1:31:59] included in the budget as it stands

[1:32:01] tonight. Um just thought that we wanted

[1:32:04] to bring up the ask. The fire department

[1:32:06] would also like an increase

[1:32:09] um for [clears throat] their siphon

[1:32:10] amount

[1:32:12] for the next one. Okay. Um this was some

[1:32:15] office equipment and other asks that

[1:32:17] were asked for across departments. Um

[1:32:20] the fire department as we addressed

[1:32:21] tonight with 6700. Since that was

[1:32:23] approved, I will include that in the

[1:32:25] budget for their badges. Um

[1:32:29] they did ask for 15,000 total to have

[1:32:32] that available for their 100redyear

[1:32:33] celebration. Um then we also have the

[1:32:36] planning um community development asked

[1:32:38] to have um a planning commission

[1:32:40] appreciation budget which we had

[1:32:42] budgeted for in at the same umund just

[1:32:47] at the same rate that our employee

[1:32:48] appreciation is in um finance and

[1:32:52] recorders office did request a new

[1:32:54] printer um that would be at least

[1:32:56] through less Olson and it's

[1:32:57] approximately $300 $36 a month which

[1:33:01] results in $3,672 for the year. um mayor

[1:33:04] and for the mayor's budget for rodeo was

[1:33:08] um as we did that this year, excuse me,

[1:33:11] it wasn't included in the budget last

[1:33:13] year. Um but to budget for that, we did

[1:33:16] request 25,000 just for the continuation

[1:33:18] of the rodeo. Um that would cover the

[1:33:20] stock contractor and the clown. Ideally,

[1:33:23] we would get sponsors as we have this

[1:33:24] year to cover that, but in the event we

[1:33:27] would at least be able to cover that

[1:33:29] portion of the rodeo. Um, and then also

[1:33:31] mayor and council training to be sure

[1:33:33] this budget line the amount doesn't

[1:33:35] change. It just changed from the city

[1:33:37] hall budget. It's all still in the

[1:33:39] general fund, but it moved from the city

[1:33:41] hall budget to the mayor's budget just

[1:33:43] for transparency and makes it more clear

[1:33:45] as mayor and council. You guys are

[1:33:48] obviously separate than the staff here

[1:33:50] at city hall. So, we just wanted to

[1:33:51] separate that line out. But, that's the

[1:33:52] amount that's been budgeted in previous.

[1:33:54] So, it didn't change. It just moved

[1:33:56] locations.

[1:33:58] Um and then it does include um as well

[1:34:01] the HR compensation study for $30,000

[1:34:04] which is included in the property tax

[1:34:06] rate increase. Um

[1:34:09] another thing that has been brought up

[1:34:11] um that's not included in the tenative

[1:34:13] budget but we wanted to bring up for

[1:34:15] conversation has been garbage bulk

[1:34:18] pickup days. Um

[1:34:21] garbage is funded in an enterprise fund

[1:34:23] so it's separate from the general fund

[1:34:25] so it's not impacted by property taxes.

[1:34:27] Um, but if that was something that we

[1:34:30] wanted to pursue, we would also need to

[1:34:32] look at garbage rates, the utility rates

[1:34:34] for garbage because this would be an

[1:34:36] additional service that's being

[1:34:37] provided. So, um, that's not included

[1:34:40] now, but upon your direction, we can

[1:34:43] follow what you need to there.

[1:34:46] Okay, next one. Um, these are

[1:34:51] capital projects and equipment. Um the

[1:34:54] fire department would like to begin

[1:34:56] saving for a new fire truck and just

[1:34:58] putting that on everyone's radar at

[1:34:59] $200,000 a year. Um you know with that

[1:35:03] we're looking at you know 10 years

[1:35:05] before we get 2 million. Um mayor would

[1:35:08] also like a city hall remodel which

[1:35:11] would allow for the council chambers to

[1:35:13] be flopped as well as revamp the front

[1:35:15] entrance to be more um effective for

[1:35:18] citizens coming and having the window

[1:35:21] actually available at the front. The

[1:35:24] library is um would like to have some

[1:35:26] roof repairs completed. Um it's been

[1:35:28] leaking and causing issues into their

[1:35:29] server room. Um the cemetery had grounds

[1:35:34] improvement in for 100,000 um to widen

[1:35:37] roads and complete a fencing project.

[1:35:40] And then the water ones and the sewer

[1:35:44] one that are included on here are

[1:35:46] separate from the general fund because

[1:35:48] they're their own fund, but they are

[1:35:50] included in the tenative budget. And

[1:35:51] that would be for the capital projects

[1:35:53] for the Apple Street and Hail Street

[1:35:55] water lines as well as the generator

[1:35:56] building. Um and then animal control is

[1:36:01] currently out at the wastewater

[1:36:02] treatment plant. Um with the different

[1:36:06] with the wastewater treatment plant

[1:36:08] that's being built, we will need to

[1:36:09] start looking at a new location and

[1:36:11] building for animal control in the

[1:36:13] coming years. Um it's not that far away.

[1:36:17] So, we need to start preparing for what

[1:36:20] we're going to do at that point. So,

[1:36:21] that was on there as a team.

[1:36:23] [sighs and gasps] And then, of course,

[1:36:24] our wastewater treatment plant. And then

[1:36:26] the next one, Alicia, thank you. Um,

[1:36:29] these were some equipment that the

[1:36:30] departments would like. Um, fire had the

[1:36:33] extrication tools on there at 90,000.

[1:36:35] Um, we are hoping to find grants to

[1:36:37] assist with that. So, Alexis is working

[1:36:39] closely with the fire department to try

[1:36:40] to find funding for that. Um, roads had

[1:36:44] just asked for an increase on their

[1:36:45] parts and equipment budget line. Um,

[1:36:48] parks and wreck had um a few different

[1:36:51] items. New park signs, autonomous mower,

[1:36:54] tra landscape trailer, tables and trash

[1:36:56] cans, and drinking fountains to supply

[1:36:59] and take care of our parks. And the

[1:37:03] cemetery had standing mower and a

[1:37:04] drivable dump trailer um aid

[1:37:07] [clears throat] there as well as a

[1:37:08] gopher smoker. And that is the official

[1:37:11] name.

[1:37:12] >> [laughter]

[1:37:13] >> And then water fund is asking for a

[1:37:15] generator for the well.

[1:37:17] >> Okay,

[1:37:19] >> that's the wrong price for a generator

[1:37:21] for the well,

[1:37:22] >> I think. Thank you, Christie.

[1:37:23] >> Zero.

[1:37:24] >> I think did I switch them though? Cuz on

[1:37:26] the one before that I had the N is

[1:37:28] 300,000.

[1:37:29] So I think I might have

[1:37:30] >> the building is probably 30,000 and the

[1:37:33] generator.

[1:37:34] >> Yeah. So I do think I had those

[1:37:35] switched. But

[1:37:37] um

[1:37:40] >> yeah, none of them were actually

[1:37:42] >> included.

[1:37:43] >> None of that. Yeah, except for the parks

[1:37:45] and wreck employee and the 30 uh 30,000

[1:37:49] compensation study, none of those were

[1:37:51] included in the tenative budget as it's

[1:37:53] presented.

[1:37:55] Um

[1:37:57] so let's see.

[1:38:00] >> I I'm I'm just curious the autonomous

[1:38:02] mower. I I just have a question about

[1:38:05] that. Yeah.

[1:38:06] >> And um so is that from one mower?

[1:38:09] >> Okay.

[1:38:10] >> And it just takes down from staff,

[1:38:12] right? Because like the mower can be set

[1:38:13] and go mow while the staff is on site

[1:38:16] doing other things. So you don't have to

[1:38:18] have an additional staff to mow, which

[1:38:20] could be cool.

[1:38:24] [laughter]

[1:38:25] >> Um okay. So I do want to give a little

[1:38:27] bit. Um can we switch to let me share?

[1:38:30] >> Yeah. Are you plugged in?

[1:38:32] >> Yes. Okay.

[1:38:36] So, I do want to give just a little bit

[1:38:38] further

[1:38:40] um explanation as to where we're at with

[1:38:44] the increase specifically. So,

[1:38:49] okay. So, in fiscal year 25,

[1:38:54] um they were still able to have a

[1:38:55] balanced budget with revenues and

[1:38:56] expenses. And you can see that here at

[1:38:59] the 12,400,000

[1:39:02] um that was the budget was budgeted and

[1:39:03] then I had their actuals posted bullets.

[1:39:05] So um in fiscal year 26 however so this

[1:39:10] fiscal year that we're currently in

[1:39:12] um the revenues did not meet the

[1:39:15] expenses. So that required to draw from

[1:39:18] fund balance for our general fund and

[1:39:20] >> that was because our growth did not our

[1:39:22] projected growth did not happen as we

[1:39:25] expected. Yeah, there's a few theories

[1:39:28] um that I have. It's hard to say. I

[1:39:30] wasn't here. Um but

[1:39:34] from what I can tell, the city probably

[1:39:36] was in in a tough spot with needing to

[1:39:40] start looking at pulling from fund

[1:39:41] balance prior to fiscal year 26.

[1:39:44] However, there were CO relief funds that

[1:39:46] came into play that then ran out. Um,

[1:39:50] and I think those COVID relief funds

[1:39:52] helped carry Grantsville City through

[1:39:55] like a couple extra years before they

[1:39:57] had to start pulling from the fund

[1:39:59] balance. Um,

[1:40:03] so for fiscal year 26, they pulled

[1:40:05] approximately 2.7 million from fund

[1:40:08] balance.

[1:40:10] Now if we

[1:40:13] come down to what's so this is what the

[1:40:15] is expected revenue for this upcoming

[1:40:18] fiscal year. So 13 257 that is without a

[1:40:24] property tax increase. So that would

[1:40:26] stay the same which our expenses

[1:40:30] with just the 3% inflation increase on

[1:40:33] the budget lines. No asks, just the 3%

[1:40:35] inflation increase puts us at 15,7,300,

[1:40:41] which

[1:40:43] is more um by approximately $1,749

[1:40:47] and $1,

[1:40:49] >> but less than last year.

[1:40:50] >> Yes. So it is less than last year. um

[1:40:54] with that part of that is because I

[1:40:59] have it in here and again you can

[1:41:01] address me otherwise if this is not

[1:41:03] accurate but it's my understanding that

[1:41:05] we will be receiving the water credit

[1:41:07] sale money at the end of this month and

[1:41:11] it will be in the water fund and it will

[1:41:13] be we'll go through the public process

[1:41:16] of transferring that into our capital

[1:41:19] projects fund. Now, the capital project

[1:41:22] fund only gets revenue from transfers

[1:41:24] in. So, last year, the general fund

[1:41:27] transferred

[1:41:28] 2,26,600

[1:41:31] into capital projects. Now, I took that

[1:41:35] out for fiscal year 27 because now we're

[1:41:38] going to have a substantial amount in

[1:41:40] there from the sale of the water credit.

[1:41:43] So, there's no reason for the general

[1:41:45] fund to be contributing to the property

[1:41:47] to the capital projects fund. So, I did

[1:41:50] take out um that $2 million because we

[1:41:54] don't

[1:41:56] need that. Now, if that's incorrect and

[1:41:59] you guys had a different intention for

[1:42:00] the $18 million and I've misunderstood,

[1:42:03] then we can I can receive further

[1:42:05] direction on what the intention of that

[1:42:07] 18 million is for. Um,

[1:42:11] so we did have that. I wonder if I could

[1:42:14] change it down here.

[1:42:16] Okay.

[1:42:18] So, um that is less which is good. Um

[1:42:22] however, I recognize that the 1.7

[1:42:25] million is concerning. So, right now in

[1:42:28] fund balance, we have approximately 2.5

[1:42:30] million. So, there is still fund balance

[1:42:32] in there. Um

[1:42:35] however I I caution pulling from it too

[1:42:39] heavily um for the reason that the

[1:42:43] longer we fund without an increase the f

[1:42:45] the bigger the span is going to be that

[1:42:47] we have to bridge the gap with an

[1:42:49] increase. So right now this increase at

[1:42:53] 84% it is a lot and it is steep. Um last

[1:42:57] year to make up that 2.7 it would have

[1:42:59] been 130% increase. Um

[1:43:02] so it

[1:43:05] we can talk for further direction if you

[1:43:09] want to pull

[1:43:11] um from the fund balance if you guys are

[1:43:14] wanting to redirect me on the usage of

[1:43:16] the $18 million. Um but as it or if

[1:43:20] we're wanting to you know cut budget

[1:43:23] lines um that's also obviously an

[1:43:26] option. We can put projects on hold. We

[1:43:28] can change different things but as it

[1:43:31] stands right now as grants city is

[1:43:33] operating that's the gap that we need to

[1:43:36] fund somehow. So the 84% increase again

[1:43:40] does come to about 27.92. So $27.92 a

[1:43:45] month for the average resident um with

[1:43:48] an with the average home value of

[1:43:50] 530,000.

[1:43:52] So,

[1:43:54] um

[1:43:57] beyond that, um on our other lines, um

[1:44:03] our enterprise funds are looking good.

[1:44:06] So, there's no need to there's no

[1:44:07] changes there. um as far as rates or

[1:44:12] increases though you guys will obviously

[1:44:14] I'll share this document with you so you

[1:44:15] can review it in detail but they didn't

[1:44:18] have um like we had mentioned the water

[1:44:22] line capital projects were included in

[1:44:24] this budget for water but the water

[1:44:27] fund's looking good the sewer fund and

[1:44:29] the garbage fund are both looking good

[1:44:30] unless I receive different direction for

[1:44:31] the bulk pickup for garbage then we can

[1:44:34] address that but it's primarily the

[1:44:37] largest thing tonight is just the

[1:44:39] general fund um being short. So getting

[1:44:44] direction on how we want to address that

[1:44:47] would be ideal. And then to be sure the

[1:44:52] amounts that are presented tonight at

[1:44:54] the increase um

[1:44:57] >> not committed

[1:44:58] >> we're not committed to that. You guys

[1:45:00] could say no I don't want 84 but let's

[1:45:02] do

[1:45:04] any other percent less than that and we

[1:45:06] can look at that. I would just need

[1:45:08] further direction on what other changes

[1:45:09] you would want to accommodate for the

[1:45:11] revenue deficiency.

[1:45:48] investment

[1:45:50] possibly to kind of delay.

[1:45:53] >> Yeah, let me pull that up.

[1:45:54] >> The big impact of this.

[1:45:56] >> So, with the increase in the water fund,

[1:46:00] with that large payment coming in, we do

[1:46:01] have the option if instructed. So, um,

[1:46:05] we could invest that. Um, right now we

[1:46:09] talked, Michael and I had a call with a

[1:46:11] bank last week and if we at the low end,

[1:46:14] they said that if we were to invest the

[1:46:16] full 18 million, we would be getting

[1:46:18] about 700,000 in interest income in over

[1:46:22] a year. Um, so that would, you know, if

[1:46:26] that was an option that we wanted to go,

[1:46:28] we would have that interest income

[1:46:29] coming in from the invested $18 million.

[1:46:31] It gets invested in like a tiered

[1:46:33] system. So it wouldn't all be locked up

[1:46:35] for like 5 years. It would be we could

[1:46:38] select how much we would want to be

[1:46:40] available to use in 1 month, 3 months, a

[1:46:43] year, etc. Like it it's not all invested

[1:46:47] for the next 5 years without being able

[1:46:49] to use. We can explore options for the

[1:46:51] investment of that if that would be

[1:46:53] something that you guys were wanting to

[1:46:55] pursue. Um, again,

[1:46:58] just a tenative budget of where things

[1:47:00] are at now. Um, it will change. The

[1:47:03] budget will change. I don't expect it to

[1:47:05] stay as it is presented tonight. But we

[1:47:08] do need to start having the

[1:47:09] conversations of what changes you guys

[1:47:12] want to see and what direction you want

[1:47:14] us to go in so that we can make it

[1:47:15] happen.

[1:47:22] [clears throat]

[1:47:27] » [clears throat]

[1:47:28] >> What departments have the biggest

[1:47:30] increases besides well obviously sewer

[1:47:33] you know that's going to be a big

[1:47:34] expense but what

[1:47:36] for from this 2026 to 2027 what are

[1:47:39] those increases look like?

[1:47:42] >> Um honestly a lot of them like like I

[1:47:45] had said right now in the budget it's

[1:47:47] just a 3% increase across the board. So,

[1:47:49] it's just operation and the 3% I put in

[1:47:51] there just based on inflation.

[1:47:54] So, it would just be increasing their

[1:47:56] operating expenses to keep up with

[1:47:59] inflation, but it doesn't include any

[1:48:01] asks any the water fund doesn't include

[1:48:04] those projects for the water lines on

[1:48:05] Apple and Hale. But otherwise, you know,

[1:48:07] the departments aren't getting new

[1:48:09] equipment, they're not getting new

[1:48:11] employees, they're not getting new asks.

[1:48:14] It's just operation. So right now that's

[1:48:17] how the budget stands. So obviously you

[1:48:20] could cut operating budget if that's

[1:48:23] something that you're wanting to pursue,

[1:48:24] but I would there's some things that

[1:48:26] like we can't you know we have an

[1:48:29] insanely high rocking mountain power

[1:48:30] bill and we can't do anything about

[1:48:33] that. So that like there's some

[1:48:34] operating expenses that we could look at

[1:48:37] if you'd like to cut um and we can have

[1:48:40] that discussion if you have specific

[1:48:42] ones in mind. Honestly, no department is

[1:48:44] the most expensive right now because all

[1:48:45] of them are only operating at a low

[1:48:49] level and all of them have lots of asks

[1:48:50] that none we've said no to all of them

[1:48:54] because strictly for being able to

[1:48:57] afford it. We were we can't afford

[1:49:00] if we don't change anything. So

[1:49:04] yeah.

[1:49:05] >> So you're saying the increase only goes

[1:49:07] to those certain things the 30,000 for

[1:49:09] the study.

[1:49:11] >> Yes. So

[1:49:12] parks [clears throat]

[1:49:14] >> person and then just a 3%

[1:49:16] >> overall just that

[1:49:17] >> and nothing else really changes besides

[1:49:19] 3%. So, police departments not getting

[1:49:21] any new officers.

[1:49:22] >> Correct.

[1:49:23] >> And you already said we're lower than

[1:49:25] the average for public safety.

[1:49:27] >> Correct.

[1:49:28] >> Because that would be an extra almost if

[1:49:30] you he wanted four officers that would

[1:49:33] be 400,000

[1:49:35] have to add that to this and that would

[1:49:37] increase the amount of taxes that you

[1:49:40] would have to have here. We didn't think

[1:49:43] that was because we don't even like this

[1:49:46] number especially after increasing the

[1:49:48] sewer rate right here. So we are where

[1:49:50] we are with this thing. So we can go

[1:49:52] slash and start really going after the

[1:49:55] departments. What kind of amenities do

[1:49:56] we don't want to provide for anymore? I

[1:49:59] mean like with the park we're building a

[1:50:01] brand new park and we don't hire a new

[1:50:03] person for that then it kind of defeats

[1:50:05] the purpose of building the park. We're

[1:50:07] not going to maintain it.

[1:50:10] So we are lower than last year by a

[1:50:12] million. So we have reduced that gap

[1:50:16] significantly from the 16 million that

[1:50:18] was last year's proposal to 15 million

[1:50:21] and we're still that 1.7 million

[1:50:25] difference right now.

[1:50:27] >> And so if we invest the money from the

[1:50:30] sewer uh credits the 18 million that

[1:50:33] hopefully we get that 700,000 down. So

[1:50:36] then it'll bring it down to about a

[1:50:37] million. That doesn't uh eliminate us

[1:50:40] this the council using that 18 million.

[1:50:43] It just delays it like for a year then

[1:50:46] maybe come up with plans on how we want

[1:50:48] to spend that. But in that year we could

[1:50:49] use that interest to offset what we're

[1:50:52] doing here and then decide how we want

[1:50:54] to adjust the taxes in the future and

[1:50:56] address these problems. So, we just

[1:50:57] passed the the capital facilities plan

[1:51:00] and there's a lot of expenses in that

[1:51:02] plan that are currently not budgeted

[1:51:05] unless we increase some other revenue

[1:51:07] coming into the city. We won't be able

[1:51:09] to meet our capital facilities plan

[1:51:11] future any upsizing or anything like

[1:51:13] that is not factored into

[1:51:16] even this year until we

[1:51:20] fix our deficit and actually bring some

[1:51:22] money in to help meet those upsizings.

[1:51:25] we're not going to be able to even do

[1:51:26] the capital facilities plan that the

[1:51:28] public and what we're wanting to do

[1:51:30] here.

[1:51:32] I think this is kind of an problem with

[1:51:35] like the sewer treatment plan itself is

[1:51:36] that you need a future plan for trans

[1:51:39] city budget going forward and start

[1:51:42] getting the funds available to that. No

[1:51:45] one loves rated taxes. They hate it. But

[1:51:48] the reality of it is unless we keep up

[1:51:50] with the inflation or with the projects,

[1:51:53] we're going to always be behind. We

[1:51:55] haven't raised taxes in over 17 years

[1:51:57] here, which is an extremely great amount

[1:52:00] of time. It also hurts the city

[1:52:02] significantly because it should have

[1:52:03] been incremental increases. If we'

[1:52:06] raised it 3% every year, we wouldn't

[1:52:08] have to increase it this drastically

[1:52:10] right now with that deficit. We can

[1:52:12] start going again. It's really about if

[1:52:15] we want to reduce it, which departments

[1:52:18] do we undersize, which amenities do we

[1:52:22] stop doing? We already have complaints

[1:52:23] on our different parks, the cemetery. Do

[1:52:27] I pull persons from there with our

[1:52:30] expanded growth in community

[1:52:32] development? We did expand that

[1:52:34] department, but it has addressed some of

[1:52:36] the issues that we've been dealing with

[1:52:38] in avoiding litigation on that. One of

[1:52:41] our biggest expenses is our lawsuits.

[1:52:43] That's $150,000 right there with the the

[1:52:48] annexations that we're dealing with.

[1:52:50] That could get rid that would help

[1:52:51] reduce the budget, but those are those

[1:52:53] expenses that we have to pay.

[1:53:11] So, you're going to email us this

[1:53:13] proposal. It's the department breakdown

[1:53:17] or itemization's going to be included.

[1:53:19] >> Yeah, it'll be the Yeah,

[1:53:21] >> it'll be the full

[1:53:22] >> Yeah. So, I think let's see. So, it'll

[1:53:25] be

[1:53:26] it includes

[1:53:31] it's 664 lines. So yeah, it includes a

[1:53:34] line item, every single budget line item

[1:53:36] for every single department and the

[1:53:38] budgeted amount for all of those lines.

[1:53:42] >> Okay. And we would recommend that if the

[1:53:44] council open to it to do a budget kind

[1:53:47] of retreat to go if we want to line item

[1:53:49] by line and address each one of those

[1:53:51] kind of resetting expectations what they

[1:53:53] want to do. It will require some time to

[1:53:56] do that with the council because this is

[1:53:58] your budget. This is what we want to do.

[1:54:00] We want to make it the best we can as

[1:54:02] staff and be sensitive to our residents

[1:54:05] and how we want to do that. So, if we

[1:54:07] want to go and address each line by

[1:54:09] line, I I think that might be beneficial

[1:54:11] to help assess where we're at and meet

[1:54:13] those needs and where there needs to be

[1:54:15] cuts. We want would like that direction

[1:54:17] from council on how that would work

[1:54:20] because this there is new council here.

[1:54:22] We have new staff and so it would be

[1:54:24] helpful to find that direction. Council

[1:54:26] really wants to go on this.

[1:54:29] I I like that approach. I I think we

[1:54:31] need to do that.

[1:54:33] >> I think so, too. I just I mean, I know

[1:54:35] you guys have gone through this, but

[1:54:36] like and I'm all for like making sure

[1:54:37] the park is maintained, but it's also at

[1:54:39] the risk of public safety or at the risk

[1:54:41] of other departments like So, I'm like I

[1:54:43] think we all I'd like to go through and

[1:54:44] see where this money is go. I'm not I

[1:54:46] and I know nobody wants to raise

[1:54:47] property taxes, but I also don't want to

[1:54:49] get it to the point where we've not done

[1:54:51] it for so long then suddenly our funds

[1:54:52] run out and now we have to increase it

[1:54:54] exponentially, even more than that. So,

[1:54:56] I I get that. But I also think we do

[1:54:58] need to sit down and then say I mean

[1:55:01] it's hard to tell every department no

[1:55:02] and then just be like just you and you get this which I understand

[1:55:05] we're gonna have to do that there's just

[1:55:07] no getting around it. Like everybody

[1:55:08] can't get what they want.

[1:55:09] >> So I get that. But I think that we

[1:55:11] collectively need to say okay maybe this

[1:55:14] line can't go out or Yeah.

[1:55:16] >> I just I'm not saying you guys didn't do

[1:55:18] a great job. I know this is we

[1:55:19] appreciate all the words your eyes.

[1:55:20] >> Yeah. No. And

[1:55:21] >> I'm not new obviously but I think

[1:55:23] there's Yeah. I'd like to look and see

[1:55:25] you.

[1:55:25] >> Yeah. And that's extremely valuable to

[1:55:27] get direction from you guys on what your

[1:55:28] priorities are um and what you know

[1:55:31] departments kind of may need an extra

[1:55:34] some departments we may need to say yes

[1:55:35] to while others we say no to. But

[1:55:37] getting that direction from you guys is

[1:55:39] valuable because I don't have the

[1:55:42] authority to make those kinds of

[1:55:43] decisions for you. So if we had an

[1:55:45] opportunity to all get on the same page

[1:55:47] and I can help make the budget what you

[1:55:49] guys want it to be. So that'd be

[1:55:51] valuable.

[1:55:53] But I guess tonight we wanted to because

[1:55:55] we have by the the the rules of the

[1:55:57] state now we have to set a number out

[1:56:00] there and we wanted to at least set that

[1:56:02] there we don't have a deficit so we can

[1:56:04] get out of that because we can come down

[1:56:06] from that once we have our budget

[1:56:08] meeting reduce that we just couldn't go

[1:56:10] higher than that. So we wanted to set it

[1:56:13] at very least for the council to have

[1:56:14] that option so that you have all your

[1:56:16] options [clears throat] before. So for

[1:56:19] clarity sake um the resolution we have

[1:56:21] before us tonight is really just to set

[1:56:23] that that upward upward end expectation

[1:56:28] and then work towards a a small number

[1:56:33] >> from there.

[1:56:34] >> No more than this but

[1:56:37] >> exactly

[1:56:38] >> pull up our sleeves and get to work.

[1:56:40] >> Yes. Not to exceed number.

[1:56:53] » Yeah, I think we need to go through it

[1:56:54] line by line.

[1:56:58] Yeah, I I agree. That's my sentiment as

[1:57:01] well. Just

[1:57:03] >> we are on like a somewhat tight timeline

[1:57:06] like we need it needs to be this month.

[1:57:09] So, um because we have to be presenting

[1:57:14] like final interim budgets in June, um

[1:57:18] and establishing like public hearing

[1:57:20] dates and things like that if a tax

[1:57:22] increase is pursued at any percentage.

[1:57:25] Um we will have to hold the public

[1:57:26] hearing and stuff in August

[1:57:27] [clears throat] and do all of that. So,

[1:57:29] we do kind of I'm all for getting

[1:57:31] together, but we just need to make sure

[1:57:32] that that's something that we're all

[1:57:33] able to commit to doing this month just

[1:57:36] for time sake.

[1:57:39] Okay.

[1:57:40] >> Do we need to set a date for a public

[1:57:41] hearing today? I know that it said on

[1:57:42] here that it says like set establishing

[1:57:46] a time and a place of a public hearing.

[1:57:47] Is that something to do today?

[1:57:49] >> I do have a date that's been approved by

[1:57:51] Tilla County as well as the state of

[1:57:52] Utah. Um

[1:57:56] just in anticipation of if it is uh we

[1:57:59] need to take it on the calendar, but if

[1:58:00] it's not pursued, then we don't need to

[1:58:01] hold one. So, I don't know if there's a

[1:58:03] point in disclosing

[1:58:04] >> the public hearing for the tenative

[1:58:06] budget.

[1:58:07] >> Okay. a final budget, but we still have

[1:58:09] to hold a public hearing prior to June

[1:58:10] 13th

[1:58:12] to adopt the tenative budget, right?

[1:58:15] >> The in the interim one.

[1:58:17] >> The interim.

[1:58:18] >> Yeah. So, if we if we pursue a property

[1:58:21] tax increase on in on June 13th, we'll

[1:58:24] adopt an interim budget that will

[1:58:26] operate on until the property tax

[1:58:28] increase would go through later in

[1:58:29] August because we don't do the truth and

[1:58:31] taxation public hearings for a tax

[1:58:33] increase until August, which is after

[1:58:35] our fiscal year begins. So, we would

[1:58:37] have to adopt an interimm budget. If we

[1:58:39] don't pursue an increase at all, we

[1:58:43] would just then adopt a final budget in

[1:58:45] June to operate on in fiscal year 26

[1:58:47] because nothing would be changing with

[1:58:49] property taxes. So,

[1:58:52] it's a confusing process. [laughter]

[1:58:55] So, if you have questions on that, let

[1:58:57] me know.

[1:59:10] Do we want to set a date now or do we

[1:59:13] want to tackle this and then wait till

[1:59:15] the end or what what what do we want to

[1:59:18] do in regards to a work meeting going

[1:59:20] through the the budget

[1:59:23] and

[1:59:28] [clears throat]

[1:59:29] slashing and moving and appropriating

[1:59:31] and adjusting.

[1:59:33] line items.

[1:59:40] » True. What's your suggestion?

[1:59:42] >> If we could set it now, maybe another we

[1:59:44] could do not like just maybe like next

[1:59:47] week or a week after kind of in in

[1:59:49] between our council meetings, set a

[1:59:51] special meeting to go over the budget

[1:59:53] type thing.

[1:59:55] >> How much notice does that require?

[1:59:58] >> 24 hours.

[1:59:58] >> Just 24 hours. Okay. this almost like a

[2:00:02] work session kind of thing.

[2:00:04] >> Okay.

[2:00:05] >> And we do have a council meeting on the

[2:00:08] day of graduation. I noticed as well.

[2:00:12] >> I'm gone the 19th for the 24th.

[2:00:24] » So the 13th.

[2:00:30] So that' be a week from today. I could

[2:00:32] do it.

[2:00:36] » My schedule is unknown on that day.

[2:00:41] >> It's true.

[2:00:43] >> Yeah. I don't know. I just don't have

[2:00:46] any way of knowing

[2:00:48] where my house will be.

[2:00:52] >> When does that end?

[2:00:53] >> It ends next Saturday.

[2:00:55] >> Next Saturday. Mhm.

[2:00:58] >> Friday again.

[2:01:01] >> But on the 15th.

[2:01:02] >> Oh, that that'll interfere with

[2:01:04] >> Oh, that you'll still won't know how

[2:01:05] long the 13th till he'll do what?

[2:01:07] >> 16th

[2:01:09] state.

[2:01:09] >> Yeah, the 11th. I could actually do that

[2:01:12] well to make that evening work. I know

[2:01:15] the game time for that day.

[2:01:21] » I could do that.

[2:01:23] >> I could do the 11th as well.

[2:01:26] Jeff,

[2:01:26] >> make it work. I can do these.

[2:01:28] >> Do six.

[2:01:31] >> Six. I see that, sir.

[2:01:33] >> 6 o'

[2:01:34] Grandma. [laughter]

[2:01:37] » Yeah, let's do it six o'clock.

[2:01:39] >> Six.

[2:01:40] >> So, Monday, May 11th at 6 o'clock.

[2:01:43] >> Okay, sounds good.

[2:01:45] >> With one request, Michael can't call it

[2:01:47] a retreat ever again. [laughter]

[2:01:49] >> You didn't have a good time.

[2:01:51] >> His retreats suck. enough for the

[2:01:54] record.

[2:01:54] >> Are we playing Jeopardy? [laughter] We

[2:01:56] love

[2:01:59] >> even though I lost.

[2:02:01] >> I'm not as fun as Alicia. I'm sorry.

[2:02:05] >> The 20th. Do we want to discuss the

[2:02:06] 20th?

[2:02:07] >> Yes. I talked to Mindy.

[2:02:09] >> Okay.

[2:02:10] >> I knew she was in charge really. So,

[2:02:12] >> about moving that. Is there graduation

[2:02:14] on that?

[2:02:15] >> Yeah, that's high school graduation

[2:02:16] date. I

[2:02:20] there's a possibility I would have an

[2:02:22] issue with the meeting that evening. So

[2:02:25] >> yeah, Jake and I both have a graduate

[2:02:26] that day. Um

[2:02:28] >> I'll be gone

[2:02:30] >> so we're going to be quum short anyways.

[2:02:34] >> Would it be best just to push that

[2:02:36] meeting to the 27th?

[2:02:38] >> I will be out on the 27th, but if

[2:02:39] everybody else is available, then

[2:02:41] >> I will also be gone on the 27th. This is

[2:02:43] hard.

[2:02:45] character you're going on the 19th,

[2:02:46] right? Through the 23rd.

[2:02:48] >> Yeah.

[2:02:48] >> What about the 18th

[2:02:51] >> or the 25th?

[2:02:52] >> The 25th is Memorial Day, though.

[2:02:54] >> Oh, that's right.

[2:02:55] >> Not that I have any but [laughter]

[2:02:58] >> 18th works. I'm out of here by 10:30. I

[2:03:01] got a red eye midnight. So, [laughter]

[2:03:04] >> that's just what you want to do. Go

[2:03:05] right to there. I could do the 18th.

[2:03:07] >> I could also do the 18th.

[2:03:11] » Sorry.

[2:03:12] >> And that's for them. a regular meeting

[2:03:16] >> replace the 20th

[2:03:18] >> graduation

[2:03:20] out of order but it's okay [laughter]

[2:03:22] >> we're getting stuff done

[2:03:24] >> well

[2:03:24] >> 7 o'clock

[2:03:25] >> yes

[2:03:27] >> if it goes long I'll just have to sneak

[2:03:28] out

[2:03:32] » right

[2:03:37] anything else

[2:03:39] >> no I think that's it

[2:03:41] >> that wasn't enough

[2:03:42] >> yeah I think I'm Uh, thank you. Um,

[2:03:45] yeah. Finished.

[2:03:52] » Thanks.

[2:03:53] >> Yeah.

[2:03:53] >> Did we say 6:00 on the 11th?

[2:03:55] >> Yeah.

[2:03:55] >> Yes.

[2:03:58] >> Then whatever they have to do with this

[2:04:00] resolution.

[2:04:02] >> Yeah. So this is going to be a little

[2:04:04] confusing [sighs]

[2:04:05] because

[2:04:07] so this resolution

[2:04:10] um the state has

[2:04:15] we have to state certain things um

[2:04:18] everything that was listed on the agenda

[2:04:19] and everything that has been stated. Um,

[2:04:22] so we thought it would be good to just

[2:04:26] put it in a resolution stating that she

[2:04:28] did that and you guys acknowledge that,

[2:04:31] which is what this is. Um,

[2:04:35] and then we can take off

[2:04:38] the public hearing schedule to adopt the

[2:04:41] tenative budget.

[2:04:53] So this is just a basically a

[2:04:56] confirmation that Aspen stated all of

[2:04:58] those things on the agenda and that we

[2:05:00] presented the property tax impact

[2:05:03] schedule during the this meeting.

[2:05:07] Um that's all that for this resolution

[2:05:10] is the next resolution. You don't have

[2:05:12] to pass it right now. Number 13, you

[2:05:15] don't have to pass it right now. um just

[2:05:17] because we don't know if we're going to

[2:05:18] go through a truth and taxation or not.

[2:05:21] So, we can wait on that one.

[2:05:41] » [laughter]

[2:05:43] >> I did put several motions up there for

[2:05:45] you guys

[2:05:47] >> on this motion. Do we have to say all

[2:05:48] the whole thing ABC? Like does all have

[2:05:51] to be

[2:05:51] >> No, it's No, there there was a separate

[2:05:54] paper

[2:05:55] >> packet separate motions. I make a motion

[2:05:59] to approve resolution 2026-36

[2:06:02] documenting compliance with the truth

[2:06:04] and taxation statement requirements

[2:06:06] under 59-2-919

[2:06:10] in anticipation of the council's

[2:06:12] adoption of the tenative fiscal year

[2:06:15] 2027 budget and establishing establishing a time and

[2:06:19] place of a public hearing to consider

[2:06:21] its adoption as June 3rd 2026 at 7 p.m.

[2:06:25] at Gransville City Hall located at 429

[2:06:27] East Main Street, Grantsville, Utah

[2:06:29] 84029, as well as electronically on via

[2:06:32] Zoom.

[2:06:34] >> I'll second.

[2:06:35] >> All right, we have a motion by Council

[2:06:36] Member Dalton and a second by Council

[2:06:38] Member Butler. All in favor?

[2:06:40] >> I I

[2:06:42] right.

[2:06:46] And

[2:06:47] >> so we can table 13 based on

[2:06:50] >> May I make a motion we move uh we table

[2:06:54] resolution 202637

[2:06:58] declaring the intent of Gransville city

[2:07:00] to consider an increase in property tax revenue

[2:07:04] above the certified tax rate for fiscal

[2:07:06] year 2027 pursuant to the requirements

[2:07:10] of Utah House Bill 236.

[2:07:13] publishing a property tax impact

[2:07:15] disclosure and establishing a time and

[2:07:19] place of truth of taxation public

[2:07:22] hearing based on

[2:07:25] >> stop right there.

[2:07:26] >> Yeah, because we haven't established it

[2:07:28] yet until we

[2:07:30] >> until we adopt that inter.

[2:07:33] >> Right. I was going to add I was going to

[2:07:35] add based on

[2:07:40] results following next week's next

[2:07:44] Monday's meeting

[2:07:46] to review the budget.

[2:07:47] >> Perfect. Council, is that accurate?

[2:07:51] >> We have a motion. Is there a second?

[2:07:52] >> I'll second the motion.

[2:07:54] >> A motion by council member Thomas and a

[2:07:56] second by council member Skinner. All in

[2:07:57] favor?

[2:07:58] >> I

[2:08:00] >> Thank you.

[2:08:04] Keep us in check.

[2:08:07] >> That one was a little weird. So,

[2:08:11] >> all right. Item number 14, a

[2:08:13] presentation of USA RV and parking

[2:08:16] storage site plan approved by the

[2:08:18] planning commission on April 20th, 2026.

[2:08:23] This is a presentation only. No motion.

[2:08:27] >> Are you doing it?

[2:08:29] >> Yes. Sorry. [laughter]

[2:08:33] » Um, we go down.

[2:08:34] >> Yeah.

[2:08:35] >> To the site plan,

[2:08:39] » right? Yeah, that'll work. Um so

[2:08:43] last year this came in front of

[2:08:45] [clears throat] planning commission and

[2:08:47] the city council. Um initially it was a

[2:08:50] complaint and they were out of

[2:08:52] compliance with their conditional use

[2:08:53] permit. It then went through planning

[2:08:56] commission and an appeal was made by the

[2:08:58] applicant which then brought it to city

[2:09:00] council's hands. Um there were

[2:09:03] discussions that the northern gate

[2:09:05] that's not showing on the site plan,

[2:09:07] which is near SR 138 and Old Lincoln

[2:09:09] Highway, um was not favored by council

[2:09:12] and it was requested that a second gate

[2:09:16] was added. So in the center where that

[2:09:19] dark area is where there was already an

[2:09:21] established gate, they are um they've

[2:09:24] cleared that out. They're graveling it

[2:09:26] and that's where the second access will

[2:09:28] be. um which a second access was

[2:09:31] requested and it was requested to have

[2:09:33] the site plan come back in front of um

[2:09:35] council for an update. So after we um

[2:09:40] went through the review, a vigorous

[2:09:42] review on this um it's now ready to be

[2:09:45] presented. So

[2:09:50] » So they're not expanding onto that extra

[2:09:52] area where they wanted to. They're just

[2:09:54] this is just the second entrance or are

[2:09:55] they expanding?

[2:09:56] >> They are. So where you see the grading

[2:09:58] lines um on the south eastish that's

[2:10:03] where they're expanding.

[2:10:05] >> So there is an access now onto one

[2:10:08] directly onto 138

[2:10:10] >> only.

[2:10:12] >> Okay.

[2:10:12] >> So here is the second access and then

[2:10:15] this is the expansion. Okay they've

[2:10:16] asked for. So, we're going to match the

[2:10:18] fencing, the blue chain link fencing

[2:10:21] around next to it. And then there will

[2:10:23] be a little access here.

[2:10:27] >> I'm not sure if you can hear me. Can can you guys hear me?

[2:10:32] >> Yes.

[2:10:33] >> Hi, everyone. This is Andre. Uh, you've

[2:10:36] been working with Trent for a while, but

[2:10:38] actually he's now in the hospital with

[2:10:40] his wife. They're just having a baby

[2:10:42] today in the next couple of hours. So he

[2:10:45] has asked me if I [laughter] if I can

[2:10:47] come and like cover for him. So

[2:10:49] obviously

[2:10:51] I said yes. Uh I uh I I own the business

[2:10:54] with with Trent but Trent runs the

[2:10:56] business. He lives there. Um anyway, but

[2:11:00] we've been working very digit like very

[2:11:02] diligently with uh with the with the CTO

[2:11:04] on this and yeah there is a gate there

[2:11:06] right now. So there are two gates on the

[2:11:08] property as of right now.

[2:11:17] We we we have a like it's a manual gate

[2:11:20] right now. Um like a 20 foot manual

[2:11:24] gate. We are getting installed an

[2:11:28] automated gate once we have the final

[2:11:31] approval and we can expand on this project. [clears throat]

[2:11:39] My camera is so ugly. Or I am ugly. I

[2:11:42] guess

[2:11:43] >> we [laughter]

[2:11:46] like so zoomed into my face. I'm like,

[2:11:48] get get away from me, [laughter]

[2:11:52] >> Shelby. Um, so they they were out of

[2:11:56] compliance. That's why they came to us.

[2:11:58] Have since then, have they stayed in

[2:12:00] compliance? And have we had any other

[2:12:02] issues come up with them?

[2:12:03] >> They have stayed in compliance. Um, we

[2:12:05] received a more of a comment or concern

[2:12:09] that they were having a I don't want to

[2:12:12] say a garage sale, but kind of a a

[2:12:13] garage sale. Um, but that is allowed um

[2:12:16] up to two times a year. And so we did

[2:12:19] work with them on a site plan for that.

[2:12:21] So,

[2:12:24] » and did those containers ever get moved

[2:12:26] that were on that? What did we do with

[2:12:29] that? the

[2:12:30] >> on this on the extension where they're

[2:12:32] trying to do the site plant.

[2:12:34] >> Containers are allowed on on the

[2:12:36] property. So

[2:12:38] >> remember what we decided on that part.

[2:12:39] >> So I mean they have

[2:12:41] >> they have moved them and they're grading

[2:12:43] them. They brought rock in um and

[2:12:45] material to um line the ditch um as well

[2:12:49] as bring in pipe there. So

[2:12:52] >> yeah, we're all just waiting on approval

[2:12:54] and we'll get to work.

[2:12:57] Was there a some type of line going

[2:13:06] through this property that we asked for

[2:13:08] an easement for?

[2:13:09] >> Yes. And so we have obtained that ement.

[2:13:11] Actually,

[2:13:13] it's kind of hard to see on this, but

[2:13:15] right here, um, this is where the water

[2:13:17] line is. There was already a reported

[2:13:19] easement on it. Um, and then they're

[2:13:22] just moving the fence 15 ft above the

[2:13:25] water line.

[2:13:26] >> Okay. I know that got brought up last

[2:13:28] time. So

[2:13:48] » mentioned the fence. What's the

[2:13:49] dimensions on the fence? The height?

[2:13:51] >> Six. Six feet.

[2:13:53] >> Six feet.

[2:13:54] >> It's a six. Uh, so currently it's a 6

[2:13:57] foot uh with uh with blue slats and the

[2:14:01] expansion will match it. Black chain

[2:14:04] link 6 foot with blue slats. Very

[2:14:08] beautiful. Probably the most beautiful

[2:14:09] fence on that part of town where we have

[2:14:11] only three neighbors anyway.

[2:14:14] >> Cedar post. So [laughter]

[2:14:17] they're all

[2:14:19] >> No, it's a six foot black chain link

[2:14:21] fence with with blue slat. Super cool.

[2:14:24] Super nice looking.

[2:14:35] Any

[2:14:46] other questions or concerns on this

[2:14:48] item?

[2:14:49] >> Oh, I know originally, you know,

[2:14:51] concerns of neighboring residents,

[2:14:53] obviously, ensuring everything's inside

[2:14:55] the fence. It's clean, it's neat, it's

[2:14:57] nice. Um,

[2:14:59] and following those

[2:15:03] recommendations is what I would expect.

[2:15:06] So,

[2:15:08] um, as long as we're addressing all of

[2:15:10] those in that format,

[2:15:16] are there any other concerns

[2:15:20] that we're not aware of that have been

[2:15:22] brought to staff that maybe we need to

[2:15:24] be up to speed on?

[2:15:26] >> Nope. area made sure you beat them up on

[2:15:28] the um

[2:15:31] uh drainage swell that runs through

[2:15:33] their property. And so yeah,

[2:15:36] >> we addressed the entry being able to

[2:15:38] access off the roads.

[2:15:40] >> Correct.

[2:15:41] >> Not not having some vehicle in the

[2:15:44] middle of the road trying to get out,

[2:15:46] etc.

[2:15:50] » I don't have any other concerns.

[2:15:55] All right.

[2:15:57] I'm good. I'm

[2:15:57] >> good. Good.

[2:16:00] >> So, mayor, I make a motion we approve

[2:16:04] >> just

[2:16:06] presentation. Yeah. Sorry.

[2:16:07] >> The planning commission's approved.

[2:16:09] >> Approved it. Yeah.

[2:16:10] >> They just wanted to let us know what

[2:16:11] they were doing.

[2:16:12] >> Okay.

[2:16:13] >> Perfect.

[2:16:14] >> Okay. Well, we'll close item number 14.

[2:16:17] >> Thank you.

[2:16:20] Item number 15, consideration of

[2:16:22] resolution 2026-33

[2:16:25] approving the selection and appointment

[2:16:27] of a wastewater treatment plant

[2:16:28] inspector. This will be presented by

[2:16:31] Christie.

[2:16:32] >> Yeah. And I told Aspen she can come

[2:16:35] help, but we had four um [laughter]

[2:16:40] we had four companies submit the RFP.

[2:16:44] None of them did it correctly.

[2:16:46] >> Oh. [laughter]

[2:16:48] So

[2:16:50] >> yeah, so unfortunately um

[2:16:54] Agnita item number 15 um they um when we

[2:17:00] had put out the bid, none of them

[2:17:01] responded correctly with their costs.

[2:17:05] Like you're supposed to include them

[2:17:06] separately. It was explicitly stated.

[2:17:08] Some did, some didn't. But then the

[2:17:10] people that did still didn't actually

[2:17:13] state on there that it was their best

[2:17:16] like

[2:17:17] they would not exceed cost which was

[2:17:20] also explicitly stated that they needed

[2:17:21] to include. So because of that we were

[2:17:26] we had to just consider them all anyway

[2:17:29] because none of them submitted properly.

[2:17:31] So then it would throw out all of them.

[2:17:33] >> So because none of them did it correctly

[2:17:35] we considered all of them still. Um, and

[2:17:40] so if you scroll down just a little,

[2:17:41] Alicia, I'm sorry, just where it gets

[2:17:43] these total points. So the top points

[2:17:45] are the technical points that the

[2:17:47] evaluation committee judges before they

[2:17:49] see cost ideally, which is why we ask

[2:17:52] that cost is submitted separately. So

[2:17:54] there's not a pre-notion or bias created

[2:17:58] on the cost already. Um so based on what

[2:18:02] was the technical scores um offer C was

[2:18:05] the highest scoring in the technical

[2:18:07] section and then um they al they were

[2:18:11] the

[2:18:13] third um so they got 10.86 of the cost

[2:18:16] points once we put all of their costs in

[2:18:18] there but overall offer C was still the

[2:18:20] highest scoring respondent

[2:18:23] with cost considered or without cost

[2:18:25] considered. So given that we considered

[2:18:28] all four of them still we felt confident

[2:18:31] that in awarding to offer C. So that's

[2:18:34] the recommendation of the evaluation

[2:18:36] committee is to award to offer C which

[2:18:38] is presented here. So

[2:18:41] >> so how quick do we need some an

[2:18:44] inspector in

[2:18:45] >> now?

[2:18:45] >> Immediat. Yeah.

[2:18:46] >> So we've started already and right now

[2:18:49] we're we're paying a company in the

[2:18:51] interim until

[2:18:53] we

[2:18:54] >> approve this. kind of makes me nervous

[2:18:56] if they can't pay attention to detail on

[2:18:57] a RFP then what how are they going to do

[2:19:00] on the inspecting a sewer treatment

[2:19:02] facility that's why I asked him

[2:19:04] >> that because if we could put it back out

[2:19:07] and have them do it correctly.

[2:19:09] >> So the hard part with putting it back

[2:19:10] out is per state statute if we resolicit

[2:19:14] and the public solicitation there has to

[2:19:17] be a significant change in the scope but

[2:19:20] we don't have a significant change the

[2:19:21] scope of the what we're asking for is

[2:19:23] the same. So

[2:19:25] >> some did it correctly, some didn't or?

[2:19:28] >> No, ultimately no one did.

[2:19:30] >> They just did it wrong in different.

[2:19:32] >> Yes.

[2:19:32] >> Was that due to the RFP in general? Was

[2:19:35] it not? Do you feel like it wasn't

[2:19:37] clear?

[2:19:38] >> And that's something that we also took

[2:19:39] into consideration like there could be

[2:19:42] issues with our solicitation if not a

[2:19:45] single one of the vendors did it

[2:19:47] correctly. So that was part of the

[2:19:49] reason we still continued all of them.

[2:19:51] We did read through it. We had Eric from

[2:19:53] Aqua read through it. Um, it seems clear

[2:19:57] to us, but evidently we're wrong.

[2:20:00] [laughter]

[2:20:01] So, we're looking into rewarding and

[2:20:03] adjusting what that needs to look like

[2:20:05] in solicitations moving forward to make

[2:20:07] sure that that

[2:20:09] is less of a

[2:20:11] question mark.

[2:20:12] >> I'm going to ask you a tough question.

[2:20:15] The company that we're currently using

[2:20:16] right now to fill in void, did that

[2:20:19] company um put in an offer on this? Yes.

[2:20:23] >> Is that by chance off or C? Just

[2:20:25] curious.

[2:20:26] >> I don't know. Can

[2:20:27] >> I ask that question? Guess I can ask

[2:20:29] whatever question I want.

[2:20:30] >> Can I answer that?

[2:20:31] >> Whether you get an answer, we'll see.

[2:20:34] >> Yes. Yes,

[2:20:35] >> it is.

[2:20:36] And I was going to I was going to

[2:20:39] ask is there a reason why offer we

[2:20:42] wouldn't just go with the low low number

[2:20:44] on

[2:20:46] >> this specifically

[2:20:48] >> with such a close total point.

[2:20:51] >> Oh,

[2:20:52] >> well technically they had quite a lower

[2:20:55] score.

[2:20:56] >> Okay.

[2:20:57] >> It was just their cost point that was

[2:20:58] high. So that's what's making them look

[2:21:01] competitive.

[2:21:02] >> In what areas would they fail?

[2:21:05] So they did not when we evaluated they

[2:21:08] did not appear to understand the scope

[2:21:10] of work. Okay. So

[2:21:12] >> sorry Alicia scroll back up. So the

[2:21:14] technical scores were on responsiveness,

[2:21:18] experience, project scope and

[2:21:19] understanding and qualifications. So our

[2:21:21] evaluation committee evaluated the

[2:21:23] responses that were submitted based on

[2:21:25] that. That is one reason why we do

[2:21:27] request for proposal rather than just um

[2:21:29] invitation for bid. Invitation for bid

[2:21:32] does tie us into going with the lowcost

[2:21:34] option only and you can't consider other

[2:21:37] factors. However, that sometimes means

[2:21:39] that we're sacrificing value. Um, and so

[2:21:43] RFPs allow us to go for an award to the

[2:21:46] best value for the city rather than just

[2:21:50] the lowcost option which sometimes ends

[2:21:53] up costing us more.

[2:21:59] Can you just scroll back down a little

[2:22:00] bit? I should jump on. Yeah, B and C are

[2:22:04] very close. I mean, in my mind, 87.24,

[2:22:09] 88.2,

[2:22:11] and B's

[2:22:13] less.

[2:22:16] So, is that is what I'm looking at is it

[2:22:19] a big difference? Is it not a big

[2:22:20] difference?

[2:22:21] >> No, you're you're correct. I think um

[2:22:23] Chrissy's point earlier was if we since

[2:22:25] none of them did the cost portion

[2:22:26] correctly, if we took consideration of

[2:22:29] the cost out of it, offer C was the

[2:22:31] highest scoreer at and they had a total

[2:22:34] of 77.33

[2:22:36] points. Um offer B scored lower at

[2:22:40] 70.67. So the reason that they get

[2:22:43] bumped up to the 87 overall points is

[2:22:46] just because they get a higher

[2:22:47] percentage of the cost

[2:22:49] >> points because they have the technical

[2:22:52] points that seven points. What are we

[2:22:53] look what what kind of difference is

[2:22:54] that? Is that going to be

[2:22:57] >> is that not that bad? This guy could do

[2:22:59] okay. [laughter]

[2:23:01] >> Well to me doesn't seem like a lot. I

[2:23:03] mean it's $100,000 we could save.

[2:23:05] >> So at that point we could argue that

[2:23:07] maybe we go with offer D who scored

[2:23:09] lower two at 75 points. But then we

[2:23:11] don't want to consider them because

[2:23:12] they're the most expensive. [laughter]

[2:23:13] >> Yeah.

[2:23:14] >> So that's another thing is if we're not

[2:23:16] awarding to the highest scoring

[2:23:17] respondent, we have to provide

[2:23:18] justification for why we've deviated

[2:23:22] from awarding to the highest scoring

[2:23:23] respondent. Um and the so

[2:23:29] the hard part to justify what I guess

[2:23:31] would be arguing that they scored lower

[2:23:33] in their technical response. So the

[2:23:34] evaluation committee overall felt like

[2:23:36] they were less qualified to do what we

[2:23:39] were asking for.

[2:23:42] >> Were either of the two of you any one of

[2:23:44] the three evaluators?

[2:23:47] >> I am not. So um

[2:23:49] >> yeah so myself and Marie in the finance

[2:23:52] office handle the solicitations and we

[2:23:54] take in on the questions and the posting

[2:23:57] and the communication with the vendors

[2:23:58] to prevent any bias that are created by

[2:24:01] members on the evaluation committee. So

[2:24:04] that allows our department heads and

[2:24:06] other staff members that are educated in

[2:24:10] their area to sit on the evaluation

[2:24:12] committee because that provides a higher

[2:24:14] value than them managing an RFP.

[2:24:22] I don't

[2:24:23] >> I mean I don't sit on these evaluator

[2:24:25] things but for one person to give a 30

[2:24:29] on a scope and understanding on offer B

[2:24:31] and then evaluator three gives an 18. I

[2:24:34] mean that's quite a jump.

[2:24:38] >> That's true. And then so you do have

[2:24:39] that span on offer A, B, and D. However,

[2:24:42] offer C, which is the recommended

[2:24:44] awarding, all of them scored high. So

[2:24:47] all the evaluators while they were kind

[2:24:49] of across the board in that area on the

[2:24:52] other respondents they were all on the

[2:24:54] same page with scoring offer C high

[2:25:01] which is the recommended awarded vendor.

[2:25:18] And also just to clarify the process

[2:25:20] some the evaluation committee receives

[2:25:23] the responses and fills out their score

[2:25:26] sheet for the technical portion on their

[2:25:29] own independently. They're not we don't

[2:25:31] get together and score them together.

[2:25:32] >> They're not influenced by somebody else

[2:25:34] >> and they're like we send out

[2:25:38] >> ideally. So we do our best to ensure

[2:25:42] that there the technical scores are

[2:25:44] independently scored prior to the when

[2:25:47] we come together on the meeting which

[2:25:48] did occur in this circumstance. Um we

[2:25:50] actually had to postpone it because not

[2:25:52] everyone was finished. So we did just so

[2:25:54] that way we would have everyone's

[2:25:55] technical scores prior to convening to

[2:25:58] discuss it together where a score could

[2:26:01] be swayed by another evaluator.

[2:26:17] I'm going to ask another hard question.

[2:26:20] Um, so

[2:26:22] tell me that the engineering firm that

[2:26:25] designed our wastewater treatment plant

[2:26:28] is not offer C.

[2:26:31] just because there there are there are

[2:26:34] certain engineering firms that that

[2:26:36] offer up these type of services. I just

[2:26:39] want to make sure there's that offer C

[2:26:41] because we don't know who that that is.

[2:26:42] I don't want to see a conflict of

[2:26:44] interest in those regards. So the

[2:26:48] engineering

[2:26:48] >> these are different f these are not an

[2:26:51] engineering firm. These are testing

[2:26:53] firms.

[2:26:53] >> Testing firms.

[2:26:54] >> Yeah. So they're not included in the

[2:26:55] design or the

[2:26:57] >> but no it's not the

[2:26:58] >> Yeah.

[2:26:59] >> Just want to make sure. Yeah, that's

[2:27:01] fair.

[2:27:19] So, it's maybe maybe it'd be beneficial

[2:27:22] to talk publicly uh regarding,

[2:27:26] you know, what what the inspector's job

[2:27:29] is, what time frame this associates

[2:27:32] with. um

[2:27:35] for the benefit of the public just kind

[2:27:37] of is this a year-long commitment for

[2:27:40] every. So this is a over a very general

[2:27:43] overlook but again

[2:27:45] >> this is for an inspector to be there

[2:27:47] from the beginning to the end of the

[2:27:48] project from soil sampling immediately

[2:27:51] right now to compaction to then also

[2:27:55] concrete um for hardness for strength in

[2:27:59] the rebar and the welding and all parts

[2:28:04] starting now till the end.

[2:28:08] And the cost of the inspector, is that

[2:28:09] in the budget for the plant?

[2:28:11] >> Yes, it's included in it.

[2:28:14] >> Yes.

[2:28:15] >> So again, because this is over 35,000

[2:28:20] per our procurement policy before we

[2:28:22] hire a firm to do this.

[2:28:25] We needed to go out to bid.

[2:28:27] >> So officer offer C fits within our

[2:28:29] budget that we have for the inspector

[2:28:33] >> for the wastewater treatment. What did

[2:28:36] we have budgeted in there for? What was

[2:28:38] the amount?

[2:28:38] >> We just I don't know where I have it

[2:28:42] broken down.

[2:28:51] What Robert sends us?

[2:29:11] While you're doing that, in the

[2:29:13] technical score portion in

[2:29:16] responsiveness,

[2:29:17] what was the the max score that you

[2:29:20] could give a particular offer? Was it 15

[2:29:23] or was it 30? What was the max score you

[2:29:26] could give in that first category?

[2:29:31] >> Um, let me double check. Sorry.

[2:29:33] >> Says 15.

[2:29:34] >> 15 is the max score.

[2:29:36] >> Yeah.

[2:29:39] » One of one of the issues. So for

[2:29:42] specifically special inspections and my

[2:29:45] history with special inspections, one of

[2:29:48] the issues that you have typically with

[2:29:50] those type of inspections is they vary

[2:29:52] on where the where the company is coming

[2:29:55] from, how long they are spending

[2:29:57] traveling because that's part of their

[2:29:59] inspection cost

[2:30:01] >> and um so those numbers can vary. The

[2:30:06] other component that becomes variable is

[2:30:09] if that inspector comes out specifically

[2:30:11] to look at one item when he has the

[2:30:13] opportunity to look at four and he just

[2:30:16] looks at ones and go then comes back and

[2:30:18] looks at another and goes back and looks

[2:30:19] at another. So there is an economy of

[2:30:22] scale that can be from a savings

[2:30:24] standpoint if they are inspecting

[2:30:26] multiple things at one point in time.

[2:30:28] Um, so I guess without really kind of

[2:30:31] digging through what what they were

[2:30:33] offering, how they were offering,

[2:30:36] um, I guess that would just be one of

[2:30:38] the things that I'd like to say like

[2:30:39] that we have a due diligence there to to be

[2:30:43] as efficient as possible so that those

[2:30:45] inspections aren't and it looks like

[2:30:47] this is an overall number. I don't know

[2:30:49] if this is an overall number and then

[2:30:50] all a sudden we get a change order

[2:30:52] because they're coming more frequently

[2:30:54] than they thought they were going to be

[2:30:55] or they're traveling farther than they

[2:30:57] thought they were going to be. I just

[2:30:58] want to wasn't sure how our RFP reads

[2:31:02] specifically to to protect us against a

[2:31:05] cost increase on these inspections.

[2:31:10] >> We did ask them to break it down for an

[2:31:12] hourly cost, but also for an estimated

[2:31:15] overall cost of what the whole project

[2:31:17] would be. It's

[2:31:18] >> a GMP max price. Okay.

[2:31:35] Like we're spending a lot of money on

[2:31:36] this sewer treatment plant. So we want

[2:31:38] to get somebody good obviously, but like

[2:31:40] I'm kind of between B and C because it's

[2:31:42] like save us a little bit. A and D to me

[2:31:45] kind of seems to obviously and the

[2:31:47] evaluating committee is recommending C.

[2:31:49] So I'm that that's stupid. we should

[2:31:51] choose.

[2:31:53] >> We obviously want somebody who knows

[2:31:54] what they're doing.

[2:31:56] >> So, we have to choose C unless there

[2:31:59] reason why we don't want to choose C and

[2:32:02] choose B instead. That's where we're at.

[2:32:05] Yeah. And what would be I wish Tyson was

[2:32:08] here, but what what would be the reason

[2:32:12] that we would beside that's what's so

[2:32:14] frustrating with government like

[2:32:17] [clears throat]

[2:32:17] >> saving $90,000.

[2:32:19] >> Yeah. Yeah. This is

[2:32:20] >> Is that a good enough reason?

[2:32:22] >> Yeah, that's a lot of money. And

[2:32:24] >> Tyson is online actually,

[2:32:26] >> especially just going through the

[2:32:28] budget. See,

[2:32:31] >> yeah, especially after the last item.

[2:32:34] >> Tyson, can you hear us?

[2:32:39] » I can't hear you. Yeah. So, can you tell

[2:32:42] us what would be some legal reasons or

[2:32:45] reasons how we could choose offer B to

[2:32:49] save $90,000 instead of offer C?

[2:33:09] What's the the the hangup again as far

[2:33:11] as why you are hesitant to do that?

[2:33:14] >> So, offer C, their cost is 266 almost

[2:33:18] $267,000.

[2:33:20] Offer B, which scored the next highest

[2:33:23] um is $175,000.

[2:33:26] So, 90 about $90,000 difference.

[2:33:31] And there's a seven point score

[2:33:33] difference

[2:33:36] » on technical.

[2:33:37] overall there's a one point

[2:33:40] that's less than a point less than a

[2:33:42] point on total. Yeah. Everything.

[2:33:48] » Council has broad discretion to uh make

[2:33:50] a determination on on their selection uh

[2:33:54] based on uh what they believe to be in

[2:33:56] the best interest of the of the city. Um

[2:33:59] and so that's that's a a prerogative

[2:34:02] that lies within your hands. Um the the

[2:34:07] criteria used to to to score these um

[2:34:11] you know was was pursuant to to state

[2:34:14] code. Um but um on on blind review um if council is is inclined to to make a

[2:34:24] determination um that one category of of uh of evaluation is is weightier than another then that that's within

[2:34:35] your realm.

[2:34:40] We would just have to state then likely

[2:34:42] on the record why we're making that

[2:34:43] choice if we

[2:34:45] >> right Tyson.

[2:34:46] >> Absolutely. Yes.

[2:34:51] » With some limited information and we

[2:34:54] don't know if offer B is based out of

[2:34:56] Hawaii. You know [laughter] I

[2:34:58] >> the thing is I like when I'm looking at

[2:35:00] like evaluator one gave tense all across

[2:35:03] to everybody you know under

[2:35:04] qualifications. If you go up, we go up

[2:35:07] one just a little bit more. Uh, sorry.

[2:35:09] Um, the same with evaluator one, project

[2:35:11] scope and understanding all 30s. So, I I just like I'm not pointing anybody

[2:35:16] out. I'm just saying so I mean seems

[2:35:18] like they're comparable

[2:35:19] to this evaluator.

[2:35:23] » That the difference is the project scope

[2:35:26] and understanding between offer B

[2:35:30] >> and offer C. And that's the that's the

[2:35:33] glaring delta

[2:35:36] um between the two of them in the

[2:35:39] technical portion and and how they were

[2:35:42] scored. I mean that's the that's the

[2:35:44] [cough] difference. [clears throat]

[2:35:46] >> Yeah.

[2:35:46] >> Right here between the two had um and

[2:35:50] we'll need to pick on the evaluators but

[2:35:53] had those scores been a little bit

[2:35:54] differently this would be even closer to

[2:35:56] what it is and it's only 0.96

[2:35:59] um between the two. Right. Yeah,

[2:36:02] I think we're all thinking the same

[2:36:04] thing and we we understand your

[2:36:06] recommendation, Christie. Um,

[2:36:09] and

[2:36:11] with offer C, I did ask the question. I

[2:36:13] mean, they are there right now.

[2:36:15] [clears throat]

[2:36:16] They obviously, you know, we we we

[2:36:19] brought them on board because they

[2:36:20] understand the project scope and they're

[2:36:22] filling the gap.

[2:36:24] I guess how much how much cost have we

[2:36:27] incurred with offer C to date? And it

[2:36:32] may not be much at all. Um

[2:36:36] and and how much of those costs are

[2:36:37] wrapped up in that $266,000.

[2:36:40] It may be negligible because we're so

[2:36:42] early in the project, right?

[2:36:45] >> Five days.

[2:36:46] >> Yeah. Like we haven't received an

[2:36:48] invoice or anything. couple thousand,

[2:36:50] >> but obviously what we're what we're

[2:36:52] using for them right now, we're going to

[2:36:54] have to pay above and beyond $175,000

[2:36:57] if we choose offer B. So, correct.

[2:37:01] >> Correct.

[2:37:02] >> Sorry, what did you say? We're going to

[2:37:03] have to do what?

[2:37:04] >> Okay. So, offer C is on site right now,

[2:37:06] right?

[2:37:07] >> And we're paying them essentially on a

[2:37:08] TNM basis, right? Because we need

[2:37:10] someone on board, right?

[2:37:12] >> Yeah.

[2:37:13] >> But there's costs that are going to be

[2:37:15] incurred with offer C to date.

[2:37:19] If we choose offer B, the 175,000, we'll

[2:37:22] need to pay um the

[2:37:24] >> some additional cost

[2:37:26] >> to see because they're there right now.

[2:37:29] That's why I asked that question,

[2:37:30] >> right?

[2:37:30] >> So,

[2:37:31] >> but they're saying it wouldn't be that

[2:37:32] much.

[2:37:33] >> It's Yeah, but it is something.

[2:37:35] >> Yeah.

[2:37:36] >> So, just I mean I don't think it matters

[2:37:39] that much. I I'm not trying to look over

[2:37:40] like I mean the evaluators obviously

[2:37:42] know they know more than me on this

[2:37:44] >> but it just seems so close between B and

[2:37:46] C that saving $9,000 would be

[2:37:49] considerable

[2:37:51] that discretion to make that

[2:38:14] Did you find out how much we had in the

[2:38:16] budget?

[2:38:18] No, it doesn't explicitly state any for

[2:38:22] inspections specifically.

[2:38:23] >> This is above and beyond.

[2:38:27] >> It would be included. We do have $2

[2:38:28] million contingency or buffer

[2:38:31] that

[2:38:32] >> Yeah.

[2:38:32] It would be covered for sure, but

[2:38:35] it Yeah, there wasn't an explicit budget

[2:38:37] estimated from Aqua for the cost of

[2:38:41] special inspections.

[2:38:43] >> Okay.

[2:38:44] I just worry about service. I mean

[2:38:49] a good inspector. I don't want any

[2:38:51] anything held up.

[2:38:54] Is there a level of service that all of

[2:38:55] them aren't held to? We don't. This is

[2:38:59] so weird. We don't

[2:39:00] >> back to the evaluation. We had to make

[2:39:02] sure all of them had the certifications

[2:39:04] for this.

[2:39:05] >> Okay. So, they all have it

[2:39:07] >> according to their proposal.

[2:39:10] >> Okay.

[2:39:13] So all four offerers are are qualified

[2:39:16] to do the work.

[2:39:18] >> All four of them had

[2:39:21] >> certifications

[2:39:21] >> had certifications.

[2:39:23] >> Okay.

[2:39:38] I mean to me it's a no-brainer. I mean,

[2:39:40] you go up B. We're just getting ready to

[2:39:42] ask for a huge increase and all this

[2:39:44] money and we have a chance to save

[2:39:46] $90,000 and

[2:39:49] >> we're not going to.

[2:39:50] >> But also, that's not 90,000 we're going

[2:39:51] to be able to move to some general fund,

[2:39:53] right? I mean, just so we're clear, this

[2:39:54] is still I mean, I do think it's good.

[2:39:56] We should save money on the on the sewer

[2:39:57] treatment, but I just want to be clear.

[2:39:58] This is not like, oh, hey, we can take

[2:39:59] this 90,000 and move it to some place.

[2:40:02] >> No, that's correct.

[2:40:06] >> What?

[2:40:08] I know.

[2:40:11] >> But I think it's great to say.

[2:40:12] >> Yeah. I just said I think some people

[2:40:14] say, "Oh, we say 90,000. We can get

[2:40:16] something else from the way different

[2:40:18] ask." But we can't do that.

[2:40:20] >> I understand that.

[2:40:21] >> Clarification.

[2:40:22] >> If anything we can say here would be

[2:40:25] relatively low. We can get that interest

[2:40:28] rate to reduce that stuff

[2:40:32] >> or it may help with change orders. That

[2:40:34] may come. True. Very

[2:40:38] good.

[2:40:42] » With that, um, I'll make a motion.

[2:40:45] >> Before you do that,

[2:40:46] >> go ahead.

[2:40:46] >> Sorry, I had one last question. So, just

[2:40:49] for clarity, um, if if offer C is

[2:40:53] chosen, the cost that they've expended

[2:40:57] would be a portion, it would be it would

[2:41:00] not be in addition to what their

[2:41:01] estimate is. It would be included in

[2:41:03] their estimate. Is that accurate?

[2:41:07] So the last five days are included in

[2:41:09] their offer

[2:41:10] >> would be or would not

[2:41:12] >> or we're still going to have to pay them

[2:41:14] the contracted fee for this first week.

[2:41:16] >> That's unclear. I think it's unclear be

[2:41:19] asking for that.

[2:41:20] >> Yeah,

[2:41:21] >> I would think it would be part of what

[2:41:23] the over

[2:41:25] just asking them to do it right now. We

[2:41:28] needed somebody if they get the bid that

[2:41:30] would definitely push them that this is

[2:41:32] in that scope. Otherwise, we just pay it

[2:41:35] for the five days.

[2:41:36] >> Yeah. Not that that would be very much

[2:41:39] of a cost, but

[2:41:42] >> Okay. Thank you. Sorry, I took it.

[2:41:49] Make a motion that we um approve the

[2:41:52] resolution 2026-33

[2:41:55] approving the selection and appointment

[2:41:57] of the wastewater treatment plante

[2:41:59] inspector to offer B due to the fact

[2:42:03] that um the total points was negligible.

[2:42:08] It was less than one um point and the

[2:42:11] savings um was $90,000. And so that

[2:42:16] that's my reasoning why my motion.

[2:42:19] >> We have a motion by council member

[2:42:21] Butler. Is there a second?

[2:42:22] >> I'll second.

[2:42:23] >> Second by council member Dalton. All in

[2:42:26] favor?

[2:42:27] >> I.

[2:42:29] >> Okay.

[2:42:30] >> Thank you.

[2:42:30] Thank you.

[2:42:34] » Item number 16, consideration of

[2:42:36] resolution 2026-35

[2:42:39] authorizing the execution of an

[2:42:41] equipment lease purchase agreement for

[2:42:43] the acquisition of a vac truck and other

[2:42:46] related matters.

[2:42:50] » Yeah. So, you guys actually did approve

[2:42:53] for the purchase of the sewer department

[2:42:56] to purchase the back truck at the

[2:42:58] previous meeting. reason we're coming

[2:43:00] before you is we actually did change to

[2:43:04] um before it was presented to you to do

[2:43:07] the financing through the supplier. Um

[2:43:10] however, they actually had a really high

[2:43:13] rate to of like loan management. I bet.

[2:43:17] >> And so we did reach out to other options

[2:43:21] and Zans came in with a much more

[2:43:24] reasonable like loan management fee and

[2:43:28] then so it ultimately takes down the

[2:43:30] cost and a lower rate. So yeah, the rate

[2:43:33] is lower and then our management costs

[2:43:35] are down like 47,000.

[2:43:38] >> It was a huge difference. So, um, it's

[2:43:40] just coming before you again because we

[2:43:41] did change and we were approved to

[2:43:44] finance through the supplier, but now we

[2:43:45] would like to finance through Zans

[2:43:46] instead.

[2:43:48] >> So, that's why it's before you class

[2:43:50] funds before

[2:43:51] >> it's still funds.

[2:43:53] >> Sewer, sorry, sewer.

[2:43:54] >> Yeah. So, this is for the sewer for

[2:43:57] their back truck to get the financing

[2:43:59] >> that we approved at the last meeting.

[2:44:01] >> We're just making it cheaper that we can

[2:44:03] buy right now.

[2:44:04] >> Well, and and the amount's cheaper than

[2:44:06] what you had proposed previously. um

[2:44:08] upwards of more than $100,000 cheaper.

[2:44:12] >> No, the cost is still we've put down

[2:44:15] we'll put down a h 100,000 and this is

[2:44:17] the amount we're financing.

[2:44:18] >> Okay.

[2:44:19] >> So, it's still at the

[2:44:21] >> but it was still 47,000 less.

[2:44:24] >> Okay.

[2:44:24] >> Yeah.

[2:44:25] >> So, what's cheaper?

[2:44:26] >> It's cheaper because the financer wanted

[2:44:29] to charge us a $50,000 fee to go through

[2:44:32] them

[2:44:33] >> and Zans is charging us about a $3,000

[2:44:36] fee. Oh, that's a big difference.

[2:44:38] >> Yeah. So, we're saving $47,000.

[2:44:42] [laughter]

[2:44:43] >> Great.

[2:44:43] >> Plus the interest was less as well.

[2:44:47] >> So,

[2:44:47] >> plus the $90,000 we just saved.

[2:44:49] [laughter]

[2:44:50] >> Yeah. See, look at us.

[2:44:53] >> We're going to get this. We're on a roll

[2:44:55] this [laughter] budget slashing thing on

[2:44:57] the 11.

[2:44:59] Well, we'll get [clears throat] close or

[2:45:02] [laughter]

[2:45:03] we'll make some. Okay. Very good.

[2:45:06] Yeah, thank you for looking into that

[2:45:08] because typically it's never good to

[2:45:10] finance something through a supplier

[2:45:13] like that. Usually it's better to go

[2:45:14] through a entity like Zans. So yeah,

[2:45:17] it's great.

[2:45:19] >> All right. Can I get a motion?

[2:45:22] >> Yeah, mayor. I make a motion we approve

[2:45:24] resolution 2026 35 authorizing the

[2:45:27] execution of the equipment lease

[2:45:29] purchase agreement for the acquisition

[2:45:31] of the vac truck and other related

[2:45:33] matters as presented. We have a motion

[2:45:36] by council member Butler. Is there a

[2:45:37] second?

[2:45:39] >> I second.

[2:45:39] >> Second by council member Thomas. All in

[2:45:41] favor?

[2:45:42] >> I.

[2:45:43] >> Thank you.

[2:45:44] >> Right.

[2:45:48] Item 17, consideration of resolution

[2:45:51] 2026-28

[2:45:53] approving amendments to the Grantsville

[2:45:54] city fee schedule to increase the zoning

[2:45:57] plan checks and permit fees and adding

[2:46:00] rideway permit fees, sidewalk or

[2:46:02] driveway replacement fees, water or

[2:46:04] sewer connection fees, and asphalt

[2:46:06] repair fees to the zoning fees section.

[2:46:10] >> Um, yes. So, in the building department,

[2:46:13] and if you want to scroll through this,

[2:46:15] the zoning plan check fee was $25

[2:46:19] and

[2:46:21] with the communication and the plan

[2:46:23] check, that just doesn't even cover

[2:46:24] staff's time. Um, so that was increased

[2:46:27] from 25 to 100. Um, the plan check and

[2:46:31] the permit fee that matches um another

[2:46:35] permit um inspection fee as well.

[2:46:38] [sighs and gasps] And then we removed

[2:46:40] the um rightaway cut permits, sidewalk,

[2:46:45] and things like that out of the building

[2:46:46] department's fee schedule and moved it

[2:46:48] to the zoning fee schedule because the

[2:46:51] um inspectors are not the building

[2:46:55] inspectors, but the land use inspectors

[2:46:56] are the ones inspecting those rightaway

[2:46:59] permits. So, it made sense to have that

[2:47:01] funding under zoning as well as allow us

[2:47:04] to be able to charge those fees through

[2:47:06] um community and developments I work

[2:47:09] application. So,

[2:47:12] >> are the fees staying the same but

[2:47:14] they're just being transferred over?

[2:47:43] was just those two things.

[2:47:44] >> That's it.

[2:47:45] >> That's good. Anybody have questions?

[2:47:48] Let's do this.

[2:47:49] >> Go for it.

[2:47:50] >> All right. I make a motion [laughter]

[2:47:51] that we approve resolution um 2026-28

[2:47:54] approving amendments to the Grantsville

[2:47:56] city fee schedule to increase the zoning

[2:47:57] plan check and permit fees and adding

[2:47:59] rightway permit fees, sidewalk or

[2:48:02] driveway replacement fees, water or

[2:48:04] sewer connection fees, and asphalt

[2:48:05] repair fees to the zoning fee section.

[2:48:09] >> We have a motion by council member

[2:48:11] [snorts] Skinner. Is there a second?

[2:48:12] >> I'll second it.

[2:48:13] >> Second by council member Williams. All

[2:48:14] in favor?

[2:48:17] >> Right.

[2:48:19] make lots of money.

[2:48:20] >> Yeah. [laughter]

[2:48:24] » Item [snorts] 18, consideration of

[2:48:26] resolution 2026-32

[2:48:29] approving Rodeo Arena light and water

[2:48:31] fees in the Grantsville City fee

[2:48:33] schedule.

[2:48:35] And this is presented by Aspen as well.

[2:48:38] [laughter]

[2:48:38] >> I know you guys

[2:48:40] >> don't be getting comfy down there,

[2:48:41] Aspen.

[2:48:41] >> I know.

[2:48:43] >> Not tonight. Fine.

[2:48:44] >> I brought my Pepsi with me this time.

[2:48:46] So, [laughter]

[2:48:47] um, last time I had presented to you for

[2:48:51] the rodeo rental fee, um, there had been

[2:48:54] discussion about costs associated with

[2:48:56] the usage of the arena lights, the water

[2:48:58] over at the arena, and other things like

[2:49:00] that. So, um, I did do some

[2:49:04] research and I spoke with Christy and

[2:49:06] her team and just things that they

[2:49:07] thought would be reasonable rates to

[2:49:10] charge. Um, and so we are proposing that

[2:49:13] the usage of the arena lights will be

[2:49:16] $25 per hour. Again, they would only

[2:49:19] need that if the event went into the

[2:49:21] evening, the dark night hours. And then

[2:49:24] for the usage of the arena water, um,

[2:49:26] that would be $15 per reservation. So,

[2:49:29] if they are going to need to water the

[2:49:31] arena or use the water there, they would

[2:49:33] just let us know when they make the

[2:49:35] reservation and it would just be $15.

[2:49:37] It's a flat fee. It's not based on

[2:49:40] anything else. So um that's just a

[2:49:42] followup to our discussion previously

[2:49:46] and this is what is being recommended

[2:49:48] >> but that's per reservation right so the

[2:49:51] way I understood it when you presented

[2:49:53] it last time when we discussed it a

[2:49:55] reservation isn't always needed right

[2:49:58] it's there it's open

[2:49:59] >> correct

[2:49:59] >> but if you want it reserved for you

[2:50:02] >> to be able to utilize you need to make a

[2:50:04] reservation there's a fee tied to that

[2:50:06] >> and if they want to use the water it's

[2:50:08] there but with the arena lights if they

[2:50:10] want to use them at all, regardless of

[2:50:12] whether they made a reservation or not,

[2:50:15] will we be charging the $25 per hour?

[2:50:18] And how do we how do we go about that?

[2:50:20] >> Can we How do they turn the lights on?

[2:50:22] >> We can lock it. And so they can only

[2:50:24] turn them on if they have a reservation.

[2:50:25] >> Do we have a lock on this question?

[2:50:28] >> You need a key for it. Yes.

[2:50:30] >> There we go. So yes, the arena lights

[2:50:34] you would need to be using with a

[2:50:35] reservation. So if you're not don't have

[2:50:36] a reservation, you would not be able to

[2:50:38] turn them on.

[2:50:38] >> Metal Halli lights. So you can see the

[2:50:40] dial spin when you turn it on.

[2:50:43] >> Yeah,

[2:50:46] >> the old dinosaur

[2:50:49] style.

[2:50:54] » Do we

[2:50:54] >> We don't have the budget to put in LED

[2:50:56] lights yet. So

[2:50:58] >> once they warm up, they're really

[2:50:59] bright.

[2:51:02] >> Are they working good?

[2:51:02] >> Yeah. Yeah. I went um Monday night. I

[2:51:05] came in about 9:30. Turned them on. that

[2:51:08] takes about five minutes for them to

[2:51:10] really warm up and get bright. But they

[2:51:12] >> I would not want to be the person that

[2:51:14] climbs the pole to change those poles

[2:51:16] out.

[2:51:17] >> They only got bucket trucks.

[2:51:18] >> I know. [laughter]

[2:51:20] >> JG,

[2:51:24] » have we c I mean we captured everything?

[2:51:26] I guess the only question I had is we

[2:51:27] captured everything regarding I mean I

[2:51:29] know

[2:51:31] I I think this is excited for the rodeo

[2:51:35] to come back to Grantsville. It's going

[2:51:37] to be an awesome

[2:51:39] >> Yeah.

[2:51:40] >> opportunity. Is there any other areas

[2:51:42] that we feel like we need to capture

[2:51:44] within that space? And I guess

[2:51:47] >> have we a general question

[2:51:50] >> or we are we going to look into charting

[2:51:53] extra for the traffic.

[2:51:55] >> Do we open restrooms?

[2:51:58] >> Restrooms are always open. Okay.

[2:52:00] >> They're open right now.

[2:52:02] Um I I thought we were leaving it more

[2:52:05] as only city employees were using the

[2:52:08] tractors how we left it right now.

[2:52:10] >> Yeah, right now we don't um I would not

[2:52:13] recommend for like I had mentioned when

[2:52:15] we've discussed it previously that the

[2:52:17] usage of the tractor is just a liability

[2:52:19] issue on our part. So,

[2:52:21] >> I think

[2:52:21] >> and it does have rates in there for the

[2:52:23] uh like

[2:52:26] I don't want to say rental of an

[2:52:27] employee, but like to have an employee

[2:52:29] at your event in order to use the

[2:52:31] tractor to drag if necessary.

[2:52:34] >> So, that is already in the fee schedule

[2:52:35] though of of public works employee per

[2:52:38] hour.

[2:52:39] >> I not the if I may, we did just bring in

[2:52:43] 800 tons of sand to this arena. So, I

[2:52:47] would encourage

[2:52:50] um people renting the arena to

[2:52:54] um utilize having an employee there to

[2:52:57] work that sand because all they're doing

[2:52:59] is just compacting it and breaking it

[2:53:02] down and then we restart from ground

[2:53:05] zero again. Can we make that a

[2:53:07] requirement when it's rented for longer

[2:53:10] periods of time that it has someone that

[2:53:13] gets to come take care of it before and

[2:53:16] take care of it after

[2:53:17] >> reservation but that does

[2:53:18] >> in the reservation

[2:53:19] >> that does require um employees time and

[2:53:23] >> right

[2:53:24] >> you know usually on a weekend part of it

[2:53:26] I mean I hate to force someone to do

[2:53:28] something but it

[2:53:30] >> it would help make it bene beneficial

[2:53:32] for use for everyone I don't I don't I

[2:53:34] don't know how we do that though in in

[2:53:36] fee schedule. So without

[2:53:40] >> Christie is it is the tractor used on a

[2:53:42] regular basis

[2:53:45] >> that's our intent.

[2:53:46] >> Okay.

[2:53:47] >> No they without a reservation do it

[2:53:50] twice a week without any reservation.

[2:53:51] Okay.

[2:53:53] >> You don't always make it.

[2:53:56] >> Yeah.

[2:53:58] >> We'll have summer hires here in few

[2:54:00] weeks. That will help.

[2:54:07] Correct.

[2:54:09] >> I move to approve resolution 20 2026-32

[2:54:15] approving ROI Arena lights and water

[2:54:17] fees in Grantville city fee schedule.

[2:54:20] >> We have a motion by council member

[2:54:21] Williams. Is there a second?

[2:54:24] >> I'll second.

[2:54:25] >> Second by council member Dalton. All in

[2:54:27] favor? Hi.

[2:54:32] » Okay, we made it through that long

[2:54:34] agenda.

[2:54:35] >> Make a motion we

[2:54:37] [laughter]

[2:54:38] have a motion and a second. All in

[2:54:41] favor?

[2:54:46] » Yes.

[2:54:47] >> Thank you.

[2:54:48] >> I have a quick question.

[2:54:54] the job when we need it.

05/06/2026 Grantsville City Council Regular Meeting and Public Hearing

Transcript