[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.