[0:04] instead.
[0:18] » Yes.
[0:46] I put on Here's the one I use.
[1:00] Security
[1:29] to
[1:42] Sorry.
[1:53] And then
[2:02] it's clear.
[2:25] to be
[2:46] another cookie.
[3:01] Yep.
[3:47] I hadn't seen Unless
[3:52] » he
[3:55] was I don't see him here tonight.
[4:00] » My bad.
[4:03] » He's gonna be so happy on Wednesday.
[4:12] Okay, we are back in an open session and
[4:14] the time is 7:10 7:09 p.m. Um, we will
[4:18] start with a pledge of allegiance. If
[4:20] you would please stand.
[4:29] I pledge algiance to the flag of the
[4:32] United States of America and to the
[4:35] republic for which it stands. One nation
[4:39] under God, indivisible, with liberty and
[4:42] justice for all.
[4:53] » Thank you all very much for being here.
[4:55] I just want to put in one small plug. On
[4:58] Friday morning at 9:00 a.m., the city
[5:00] will be placing flags at the cemetery on those headstones of those who have
[5:06] served our country. And we are um very
[5:09] open to having volunteers come and help
[5:10] place those flags. There'll be maps and
[5:13] the flags and you can place those. Um it actually is a very humbling
[5:18] experience. So, if anybody is available
[5:20] Friday at 9:00 am, we would greatly
[5:22] appreciate your help.
[5:24] Um we will start our meeting
[5:27] um with public comment. Um the floor is
[5:30] open to the public to bring their
[5:32] concerns to the council.
[5:39] » Uh good evening mayor, council members.
[5:41] My name is Kevin Casey, concerned
[5:43] citizen. I want to speak directly to the
[5:45] process being used around this budget
[5:47] and proposed property tax increase. The
[5:49] issue is not just the budget and tax
[5:51] increase. The issue is how this process
[5:53] is being manipulated. Gransville City's
[5:55] own website says regular city council
[5:57] meetings are normally held on the first
[5:58] and third Wednesdays at 7 p.m. unless
[6:00] otherwise noticed. May 20th was the
[6:02] normal third Wednesday meeting date.
[6:04] Instead, this meeting was rescheduled to
[6:06] tonight. The Utah public notice website
[6:09] shows the rescheduled meeting notice,
[6:11] agenda, council packet, and property tax
[6:13] impact materials were not posted until
[6:15] after 7 p.m. on Friday, May 15th. So
[6:18] residents were given a Friday night
[6:20] posting, a weekend review window, and
[6:22] then a Monday evening meeting on a major
[6:25] budget and property tax issue that may
[6:27] satisfy the bare minimum legal notice
[6:29] requirement, but minimum legal notice is
[6:31] not the same thing as meaningful public
[6:33] notice. This bureaucratic statutory
[6:36] gainsmanship at its finest, and the
[6:38] substance is just as troubling. The
[6:40] agenda says the FY27 budget discussion
[6:43] is a discussion item only with no action
[6:45] and no public comment during that item.
[6:47] But immediately after that, the agenda
[6:49] includes presentation of the proposed
[6:50] property tax impact schedule and
[6:52] consideration of resolution 202637
[6:55] declaring the city's intent to consider
[6:56] increasing property tax revenue above
[6:58] the certified tax rate for fiscal year
[7:00] 27. But the FY27 tenative budget already
[7:04] appears to include the proposed property
[7:06] tax increase. The FY26 approved budget
[7:09] shows a current property tax revenue at
[7:11] about 2.08 million. The FY27 tentative
[7:15] budget shows current property tax
[7:16] revenue at about 3.83. That is roughly
[7:19] an 84% increase already sitting in the
[7:22] revenue column before the residents have
[7:24] had the final truth and taxation
[7:26] hearing. Coincidence? So residents are
[7:29] not being handed a clean public
[7:30] question. They're being handed a budget
[7:32] already built around the answer the city
[7:34] hall wants. The bureaucracy baked it in.
[7:37] The council is expected to move the
[7:39] machinery forward. the taxpayers are
[7:41] expected to fund it. That's backwards. A
[7:45] responsible budget would start with the
[7:46] certified tax rate. It would show
[7:48] residents what the city can afford with
[7:49] the money it already receives. Then, if
[7:51] the city wants more, it should justify
[7:54] every additional dollar separately.
[7:56] Instead, this budget starts with the
[7:58] appetite and then ask us, the taxpayers,
[8:00] to feed it. I'm asking the council not
[8:02] to reward this process or this behavior.
[8:05] Do not move this forward as though
[8:06] Friday night posting, a weekend notice,
[8:08] a no comment budget discussion, and an
[8:11] already inflated revenue column are
[8:13] enough for a major property tax
[8:14] increase. Slow it down. Show the
[8:17] certified tax rate version of the
[8:18] budget. Show the version with the
[8:20] proposed tax increase. Show exactly what
[8:23] was cut, what was frozen, what was
[8:25] reduced, and what was rejected before
[8:27] asking residents for more money. Because
[8:29] this is not just about whether the city
[8:31] can legally notice a meeting. It's about
[8:33] whether residents are being given a
[8:35] meaningful chance to understand,
[8:36] question, and challenge the budget
[8:38] before the machinery is already in
[8:40] motion. Minimum compliance is not
[8:43] transparency, and residents should not
[8:45] be treated like an afterthought in a
[8:47] process they're being asked to fund.
[8:49] Thank you.
[8:51] >> Thank you. Any additional public
[8:54] comments?
[9:04] Please state your name.
[9:06] >> I'm Michelle Marriott. I would just like
[9:08] to read the letter that I emailed y'all
[9:11] earlier today.
[9:13] Um,
[9:15] this letter is to express concerns
[9:17] regarding the resoning and general plan
[9:18] amendments for the parcels for that
[9:21] Wellington subdivision, which I don't
[9:23] know the agenda numbers on them.
[9:25] Um,
[9:27] we're concerned about this and other
[9:29] properties looking to be changed to
[9:31] higher density zoning. Growth is
[9:33] inevitable, but it must be approached
[9:34] thoughtfully and responsibly to preserve
[9:36] the livability, infrastructure, and the
[9:38] values of the people that live in our
[9:39] town. The council has already approved
[9:42] many highdensity lots and homes.
[9:44] Expanding beyond these limits places
[9:46] unnecessary strain on services such as
[9:48] roads, schools, emergency services, and
[9:50] most importantly, water. Many of the
[9:52] residents here are already feeling the
[9:54] impact of rapid growth beyond what we
[9:56] feel is reasonable. Slowing down the
[9:58] growth is not opposing growth
[9:59] altogether, but we do not feel like we
[10:01] need to double the size of these
[10:02] subdivisions by changing the existing
[10:04] zoning. At the planning and zoning
[10:06] meeting regarding these same items, the
[10:08] developer proposed a subdivision of the
[10:10] proposed subdivision got up and
[10:12] explained why doubling the density of
[10:14] the current zoning made sense for
[10:15] affordability. He explained that the
[10:17] quarteracre lot saves an average of
[10:18] $80,000 on each home, making it more
[10:21] attainable to people. But we'd like to
[10:23] point out that a $750,000 home is not
[10:25] affordable housing. So, we do not need
[10:28] to use that kind of verbiage. We would
[10:30] also like to bring to the council's
[10:31] attention that saving $80,000 is where
[10:33] the developers are at. They could bring
[10:35] the square footage of each home down by
[10:37] 500 square feet at a very conservative
[10:39] $150 a square foot would save that same
[10:42] $80,000 and give each homeo home
[10:44] homeowner at halfacre of land instead.
[10:47] People aren't moving to Grantsville to
[10:48] be crammed into tiny lots. They're
[10:50] coming out here for a slower pace,
[10:51] neighbors who care, and a little space
[10:53] to stretch out. If you talk to people
[10:55] who have recently moved here, that's why
[10:56] they came, not because it's affordable,
[10:58] because we've moved way past being
[10:59] affordable with all the development
[11:01] that's already been allowed.
[11:03] Now we can discuss water needed for
[11:04] these homes. I don't know how there's
[11:06] enough water shares of grants for
[11:08] irrigation to support this kind of
[11:09] growth, not to mention drinking water.
[11:12] Does every home in these developments
[11:13] need one share of irrigation water? And
[11:15] how many shares of the green spaces
[11:17] need? If you listen to the residents of
[11:19] Gransville City and not to the
[11:20] developers who don't even live here, you
[11:22] will hear that most of us do not want
[11:24] these highdensity housing developments.
[11:26] We can make our community nice with
[11:27] bigger lots and smaller houses. We owe
[11:29] nothing to these developers who just
[11:30] want to sell the most homes and move on
[11:32] to the next development. Let's try not
[11:34] to turn Grantsville into daybreak. Those
[11:36] who of us who currently live here do not
[11:39] want to live in a busy city. We like the
[11:40] rural fill of our town. We're not
[11:42] against growth, but we're against
[11:44] growing too big too fast. This is not
[11:46] resisting change altogether. It's
[11:47] ensuring that our growth is aligned with
[11:49] both infrastructure and the desires of
[11:51] our community. There is no reason we
[11:52] need to double our population in a brief
[11:54] time instead of making conscious
[11:56] decisions about our future. The council
[11:58] has already approved highdensity areas
[12:00] in and the res more highdensity areas
[12:03] than the residents are comfortable with,
[12:05] but they slid by because we've all been
[12:07] asleep. We assume that the council had
[12:09] our best interest in mind when they made
[12:11] these decisions
[12:12] and how we feel as a community. But now
[12:15] we can see where we're headed and we're
[12:16] concerned and we're awake. We're
[12:18] respectfully urging the council to
[12:20] adhere to the existing general plan and
[12:22] zoning, reconsider or limit highdensity
[12:25] housing proposals, evaluate the current
[12:27] and future infrastructure capacity
[12:29] before approving additional development,
[12:31] and prioritize policies that protect and
[12:32] preserve the rural character of our
[12:34] community. Thank you. And it was signed
[12:36] by I put this on on Monday morning cuz
[12:40] it was for the first time this was
[12:42] planned and we had 200 and some odd
[12:44] signatures in like 48 hours. So, people
[12:48] are concerned. They They're tired of the
[12:50] high density stuff.
[12:52] >> Thank you.
[12:54] >> Any other comments?
[12:59] » Hello.
[13:00] >> Hi. Good to see you all. Appreciate the
[13:03] time. I know there's a lot of important
[13:05] things going on. And just
[13:06] >> state your name though, just for the
[13:07] record.
[13:08] >> My name is Grant Sonata, public health
[13:10] director for Tula County. And appreciate
[13:12] working with Britney Skinner on our
[13:14] board of health. which I had presented
[13:16] about a survey opportunity and something
[13:19] that Utah State University's Dr.
[13:21] Courtney Flint has led for a number of
[13:23] years and encouraged cities and towns in
[13:25] our county to consider participating in
[13:27] the survey. It's something that uh they
[13:30] say, you know, the way they describe it
[13:31] is can help um residents uh kind of
[13:34] inform the planning process around
[13:36] health issues and make those decisions.
[13:39] And it's it's a survey that takes about
[13:41] 10 minutes. And the reason a few reasons
[13:44] I was impressed with it is it not only
[13:46] has people rate um what their personal
[13:48] well-being is, their emotional
[13:50] well-being is but also a variety of
[13:52] other topics that so they can we can see
[13:55] what is it that's not only um
[13:57] influencing well-being but what aspects
[13:59] of those well-being are most important
[14:01] to our uh citizens. So for example,
[14:04] Draper they rated uh living standards
[14:07] being high but also that being important
[14:10] to them at the same time. uh local
[14:12] environmental quality they rate it as
[14:14] low and very important compared to
[14:17] something like cultural opportunities as
[14:19] low but not as important. So it can it's
[14:22] again if you can take a look at those
[14:24] how the the the rating for that
[14:27] well-being versus how important it is
[14:29] overall for the community can really
[14:30] help us decide you know from a health department perspective which of
[14:35] our programs should we really emphasize
[14:37] or maybe seek more funding for and then
[14:39] as a council you can decide what local
[14:42] activities events um community things
[14:45] are really most important to the
[14:46] community and should be priorities now
[14:48] versus later. Other things are really
[14:50] helpful too. It has shown that
[14:52] recreation uh has is associated with
[14:55] higher levels of community connection.
[14:57] uh you might know
[14:59] um because of the previous surgeon
[15:01] general has highlighted we have an
[15:03] epidemic of disconnection and loneliness
[15:06] and so community events walking biking a
[15:09] whole list of things have been related
[15:12] to that community connection. Generally
[15:15] we know that but it's nice to also
[15:17] document it too right to quantify that.
[15:19] Um so they ask questions as well about
[15:22] like I said well-being domains uh
[15:24] recreation travel barriers, population
[15:27] economic growth perceptions. Um those
[15:29] are rating based. They rate um on a
[15:32] scale but then also ask some open-ended
[15:34] questions and they we've they've noted
[15:36] that usually 60 to 70% of responses have
[15:39] those things like what can be done to
[15:41] improve support or opportunities for
[15:42] individuals with disabilities in our
[15:44] city? Um, are there any aspects of the
[15:47] local economy you'd like to see change
[15:48] the next five years? Um, any aspects of
[15:51] local environmental quality um that you
[15:53] feel pose a significant threat to
[15:54] well-being? Again, these are things
[15:56] where we might see the rating here or
[15:58] there, but then what is that? So,
[15:59] Draper, it ended up being related to
[16:02] dust from some of the gravel pits. And
[16:04] so, um, it's something that each
[16:07] community can say, oh, what is it that's
[16:09] really influencing high low ratings? And
[16:12] again, how can we prioritize our limited
[16:14] resources to help benefit physical and
[16:17] emotional well-being of our communities?
[16:19] Um, I do have some flyers for that. It
[16:21] is spec uh one version is specific to
[16:24] Grantsville and we have four other
[16:27] cities and towns in Tela County that
[16:29] have signed up as well and we have
[16:30] distinct but overlapping surveys for
[16:32] each one. So, you'll get a distinct
[16:34] report for yours. Dr. Flynn's um able to
[16:37] come and give a formal presentation to
[16:38] you. When that's done, it will close uh
[16:41] first week of June. So, we just have
[16:43] that this little window to participate.
[16:45] So,
[16:45] >> okay.
[16:46] >> I have some copies for you.
[16:47] >> This is available. Would you just state
[16:49] for the public where they would find
[16:51] this?
[16:52] >> So, we'll have this posted uh tomorrow
[16:54] on our website, health.tilla.gov.
[16:59] And uh if you can hear this real quick,
[17:02] tinyurl.comgrantsville2026
[17:06] that's on the recording. I do have again
[17:08] have those flyers too.
[17:10] >> Also on our Facebook and share
[17:13] >> and I think we're putting on our website
[17:14] too where we Yes, I think we too
[17:17] >> on Grantsville City.
[17:18] >> Dr. Flint did give you kudos. You're the
[17:20] last to sign up but now you have the
[17:22] highest number of responses about 76 as
[17:24] of uh two hours ago.
[17:25] >> Wow.
[17:27] >> Yeah. Minimum goal was about 50 to have
[17:29] a really robust report but again of
[17:31] course the more the marrier the better
[17:32] the report. Um, and yeah, it uh that was
[17:36] about that's some highlights again. So,
[17:38] thanks again everyone for your support.
[17:40] >> Appreciate it.
[17:49] » Hi, I'm Joanne Jacobs and
[17:53] I work in real estate a lot. I talk to a
[17:56] lot of government people.
[17:58] They have a typically an attitude that
[18:03] citizens are kind of whining and
[18:05] complaining and kicking about things
[18:07] like this in private.
[18:11] But
[18:13] please consider this. You have a time in
[18:17] history where our incomes for a lot of
[18:20] people are barely covering the
[18:23] necessities of life. and to go and
[18:25] double the freaking taxes on people's
[18:30] homes, the place they need to raise
[18:32] their family safely, the place where
[18:35] their children sleep at night. To just
[18:37] price them out of being able to be in
[18:39] home ownership with taxes this high.
[18:43] This is insane. I can't even imagine
[18:47] most people being able to afford this
[18:49] type of tax hike on their property. I
[18:52] mean, please, seriously, think about
[18:55] this. A lot of people are barely getting
[18:58] by.
[19:01] Thank you.
[19:04] Additional comments.
[19:07] » I'm Mara Spencer. I sent a letter in, so
[19:10] I'm not going to reread it. um in
[19:12] opposition to the Wellstone subdivision.
[19:14] Um I think most of you were here when we
[19:17] put the uh the master plan into effect
[19:20] and how long it took us to do the master
[19:22] plan. When we did that, it took months
[19:25] and a lot of money um to do that. And
[19:28] there was a reason that anything south
[19:30] of Derby Street was a halfacre. There's
[19:33] a reason for that. the streets. We don't
[19:37] have the streets that are available to
[19:39] take in another 400 homes or however
[19:42] many on 140 acres. We don't have the
[19:45] sewer and the water as she stated is a
[19:48] real concern. We water shares when we
[19:51] came out long time ago it was $200,000
[19:54] or 200,000 um per share that we have
[19:58] 200,000 gallons per share. This year
[20:01] it's 50,000. So, you take that and they
[20:04] say, "Yes, we have water shares." That's
[20:06] great, but a water share is only as good
[20:09] as the water that we have. And right
[20:11] now, this year, we may make it, but I
[20:13] don't know about next year if we don't
[20:14] get any. So, I would like you to
[20:16] consider that. And again, the time and
[20:19] effort and the money that was put into
[20:21] the master plan was pretty amazing. So,
[20:24] that's it. Thank you. Thank you.
[20:25] >> Thank you.
[20:36] Well, I'm definitely not a public
[20:37] speaker. My name is Jeremy Ben Dixon.
[20:39] And first of all, I just want to thank
[20:41] y'all for doing this often times.
[20:43] Thankless job. You only hear from us
[20:45] when we're mad or frustrated. And um I
[20:48] think a lot of the citizens are feeling
[20:50] that way right now. Speak for myself. I
[20:52] am. Um, I wanted to thank you guys for
[20:55] taking into consideration the inspector
[20:58] for the water treatment plant, sewer
[20:59] treatment plant, and going with the one
[21:01] that was approximately $90,000 cheaper
[21:04] that scored almost identical.
[21:07] Personally, those are the reasons why I
[21:09] hired you guys, why I voted for you guys
[21:11] to be in here, is to look out for the
[21:13] best interest of us. We want, you know,
[21:16] we want a good quality inspector, but we
[21:18] want to be responsible with the money um
[21:21] so that we're not in these bindings. And
[21:23] thank you for doing that. Um as I
[21:25] listened to that that night, I see no
[21:27] reason why we wouldn't do that. So,
[21:29] thank you for bringing that up and
[21:30] making that happen. Um
[21:35] 84% for a tax increase. Um I know you're
[21:38] going to hear it over and over again,
[21:39] just get beat down, but that's pretty
[21:42] ridiculous. I know there's been some
[21:43] proposals of a 5% over 5 years. It's a
[21:46] lot more reasonable. Um, obviously we
[21:50] got to the point where we are by not
[21:51] increasing taxes, I think, for
[21:53] approximately 17 years, which we
[21:55] probably do need to do some increases,
[21:57] but I think we need to consider that
[21:58] before we're doing all the spending of
[22:01] such 20 million for a park than in my
[22:03] opinion would have been better off spent
[22:04] on our water treatment plant, reduce the
[22:06] prices of that. That now is going to
[22:08] require additional workers to maintain
[22:11] and keep that up. Um, everybody has to
[22:13] use the restroom. A lot of us don't use
[22:16] the parks. They're nice, but not a
[22:18] necessity. Um, this one too, I know it's
[22:23] going to be a thorn in our side for a
[22:26] long time. The 500,000 for Soulbergs.
[22:28] I'm you know, I don't know exactly. I
[22:30] know you guys were on the board or in
[22:33] office when that decision was made. 100%
[22:36] disagree with it. the prices and
[22:38] everything goes on the citizens to cover
[22:40] those impacts. And I don't know about
[22:42] you guys, but I'm pretty sure they make
[22:44] a lot more money than I do a year. Um,
[22:48] I'm just going to ask you to, you know,
[22:50] put the brakes on spending. And I mean,
[22:53] for my own my own bills, if I overspend,
[22:55] I don't go to work and say, "Hey, I need
[22:57] a raise. Give me more money. I've
[22:59] overspent. I need you to pay me more."
[23:02] You're going to say, "You're crazy." And
[23:03] I think if we look at our budget similar
[23:06] to the way we do ours at home, we could
[23:08] be a little bit better off. And you
[23:10] know, if the city employees are putting
[23:12] forth these budgets that are kind of
[23:13] crazy and overrated,
[23:15] you know, this is where I hope that you
[23:17] guys will step in and and do some of
[23:18] these considerations to cut the
[23:20] spending, get things under control, take
[23:23] care of our needs, and then we can start
[23:25] going after wants after that. Thanks.
[23:28] >> Thank you.
[23:31] Anyone
[23:40] online that would like to make a
[23:41] comment?
[23:42] >> We do have Lisa.
[23:43] >> Okay.
[23:46] >> Hi. Can you hear me?
[23:48] >> Yes.
[23:49] >> Okay. Um Lisa Lingwell and I live on 189
[23:53] East um Elizabeth Cove. So, my backyard
[23:57] actually
[23:59] co coincides with Quirk and Pear where
[24:02] the new Willing Stone Wellington um
[24:05] subdivision is going. And I just want to
[24:09] first of all, I want to reiterate
[24:11] everything that everyone has said about
[24:13] the tax hike. I don't know how anybody
[24:16] is okay with this and and how you as a council thinks that as a community
[24:25] we can all pay these extra fees that are
[24:28] so ridiculous and
[24:31] um second of all as far as the
[24:33] Wellington community goes I don't
[24:36] understand why this would even be
[24:38] considered when you know the developer
[24:41] could have gone and boughten a community
[24:44] or a development area where it didn't
[24:47] have half acre lots, where it had a
[24:50] third to a/4 acre lots because I know
[24:52] that there's there's those areas out
[24:55] there. And so I'm really begging you to
[24:58] not because this will directly impact
[25:01] the
[25:02] traffic on Quirk and the um
[25:06] infrastructure is just not there. water
[25:09] is not there. And I just want to really
[25:12] strongly
[25:15] let you know how against this we as a
[25:18] community and I've heard it from
[25:19] everyone around that we are about about
[25:22] changing the zoning on this and um that
[25:27] that's pretty much everything I have to
[25:28] say.
[25:30] >> Thank you.
[25:34] » Additional online comments, Alicia?
[25:37] Nobody yet. Do you want to remind them?
[25:40] >> Yes. If you are online and you would
[25:41] like to make a comment, please raise
[25:43] your hand.
[25:54] » Anybody else here in the audience that
[25:56] would like to speak?
[25:59] Hello. Been a while. Michael Panik.
[26:03] So, I've been out of the scene. trying
[26:05] to venture out doing my own thing for a
[26:07] while. But I remember the last time I
[26:09] was in this
[26:11] uh building, this council room with the
[26:16] budget and all the other stuff going on.
[26:18] I really ask you council to let take a
[26:21] look on what's on the books right now
[26:24] and what kind of promises have been
[26:26] offered to developers and what have you
[26:30] coming in because I know for a fact this
[26:33] city has been stuck with over five to$6
[26:36] million worth of deficit over promises
[26:39] and stuff that the developers were
[26:42] supposed to pay for. Prime example, the
[26:45] three and a half million dollar water
[26:46] tank going in up on uh Northstar
[26:51] back in
[26:53] I think it was 2122
[26:55] the past mayor and Ivory Development had
[26:58] an agreement where if they couldn't pass
[27:00] life safe health safety that they were
[27:03] supposed to be paying for that tank. I
[27:05] don't think anybody ever did any
[27:07] research. I brought it up one night and
[27:10] I did the research. I had all the record
[27:12] and everything else. Well, a week later
[27:14] it was passed there. Again, Scenic
[27:16] Slopes. I know that's very true, dear to
[27:19] your heart, Heidi.
[27:21] >> But we got stuck with that as a city
[27:23] because we was not holding these
[27:25] developers accountable either through
[27:28] the impact fees or through the promises
[27:31] or the watchdog groups of watching when
[27:35] one land gets sell sold from one
[27:37] developer to another. You know exactly
[27:40] what happened with that. You look you
[27:42] look at the past history. Everybody with
[27:44] the exception of a few have been here
[27:46] for over two years and know the history
[27:50] on what's been happening with the
[27:52] developers and the city. I don't think
[27:54] it's fair that the city coming in and
[27:56] asking for more rates on taxes when it's
[28:00] our own stupidity
[28:02] for being,
[28:04] you got know what I'm trying to say, by
[28:07] these developers.
[28:09] They sell out. Somebody else comes
[28:11] through. We're
[28:14] underst staffed there for a while. We
[28:16] didn't have a city manager. We didn't
[28:17] have a city attorney. And we got
[28:19] railroad.
[28:22] That's please I guess that's all I'm
[28:25] asking is please have the due diligence
[28:28] and say wait we're we're being we're
[28:31] being screwed by these developers. I I
[28:34] know right and you guys know exactly
[28:36] what I'm talking about. There's 5 to7
[28:39] million that could have been in this
[28:42] city's budget but we got stuff paying
[28:44] for and now we've got to ask for a rate
[28:46] increase. I don't think that's fair. So,
[28:49] please look at what is back there
[28:53] and what these developers are doing to
[28:55] us, waving impact fees.
[28:58] That's It's not fair to It's not fair to
[29:00] us residents. Thank you.
[29:03] >> Thank you. Anyone else?
[29:14] » My name is Britney Cobell. um resident
[29:18] living here 12 years. Um seeing mom
[29:23] um all these
[29:26] tax increases and
[29:29] bills that keep going up and groceries
[29:32] going up and gas going up and all the
[29:34] things. Um it makes it real hard to live
[29:39] day by day. Um
[29:41] I'm on a fixed income. I have two jobs,
[29:45] two kids.
[29:47] I've got a house to take care of, and I
[29:49] do it all by myself. And I've done
[29:53] everything that I can to help relieve
[29:57] the pressure of these bills.
[30:00] And on Friday, when I saw this come out
[30:02] about the tax increase,
[30:06] I about had a heart attack. Like, what
[30:09] am I going to do? I can't afford that.
[30:13] Most people with my same income in the
[30:17] same situation, the same type of house,
[30:19] they they can't afford it either.
[30:22] Just having conversations with neighbors
[30:25] and friends in the community,
[30:29] it's it's not feasible for anybody. I
[30:32] understand that we're growing
[30:35] and that definitely needs to be
[30:37] controlled. Changing zoning from quarter
[30:41] half acres to quarter acres acres is
[30:43] just just dumb. Don't do it. We can't
[30:47] afford it as a city. Just as everybody
[30:50] else has said, it's just
[30:53] we can't live like this. Things have to
[30:55] be better. We need more information. We
[30:57] need to be considered more. And it's
[31:00] just not like that gentleman said, it's
[31:03] not fair. It's not fair to us who live
[31:05] and break our backs day in and day out.
[31:08] I don't make money like you guys. My
[31:10] jobs are quite my job is quite similar,
[31:13] but I don't make that money. I can't
[31:15] just go and ask for it. I don't have an
[31:18] education aside from a high school
[31:21] diploma. I've taken online courses and
[31:24] done night schools. I don't have a
[31:26] diploma in a college. I can't ask for
[31:30] over a h 100,000. I'm not going to get
[31:32] it.
[31:34] So, it's just not fair. So, I'm asking,
[31:37] please, just as everyone else has asked,
[31:39] consider us little people that are
[31:42] stuck.
[31:43] Don't tax us out of our homes.
[31:48] Thank you. Thank you.
[31:55] Any additional comments?
[31:58] Anyone else online? We do have Rick.
[32:01] Okay.
[32:03] >> Hello, Rick Berser here. Um, can you
[32:06] hear me? You good?
[32:08] >> Yes.
[32:08] >> Perfect. Hey, um, I don't know what the
[32:11] statistics are for every one person that
[32:14] writes in 20 people or something. Wanted
[32:18] to but didn't or something like that. I
[32:20] mean, I don't know, right? I'm no expert
[32:22] on that. But I want you to think about
[32:24] all the people who showed up tonight,
[32:26] all the people who showed up to speak
[32:28] and how many people wished they had.
[32:31] Okay? Then I want you to think about our
[32:35] general plan and the process that we
[32:38] went through in the land use part of it
[32:41] in particular.
[32:44] There were hundreds of people who showed
[32:46] up and participated in the land use
[32:48] plan. um try to picture not just them
[32:53] but all the other people that wished
[32:55] they could have made it to those
[32:57] meetings standing in that room right
[32:59] now. I mean it's it should almost be
[33:03] intimidating to you and it's something
[33:05] that a lot of people are very passionate
[33:07] about and I hope that you really
[33:10] consider before changing our general
[33:12] plan. Thank you.
[33:15] >> Thank you.
[33:17] Anyone else? Alicia,
[33:22] anyone else in the audience.
[33:26] All right, we will close the public
[33:28] comment
[33:32] and move on to item number three, the
[33:34] approval of the minutes from the May
[33:36] 1st, 2026 city council special work
[33:38] meeting.
[33:42] » You can do all three of these together.
[33:43] >> Okay. And we'll add approval of minutes
[33:46] from the May 6, 2026 regular city
[33:48] council meeting and approval of minutes
[33:51] from the May 11th, 2026 city council
[33:53] special work meeting. Does anybody have
[33:55] any concerns or questions on those
[33:57] minutes?
[34:03] Mayor, I make a motion we move to
[34:05] approve the minutes from the May 1st,
[34:07] 2026 city council special work meeting
[34:10] and the May 6, 2026 regular city council
[34:14] meeting and the May 11th, 2026 city
[34:18] council special work meeting.
[34:20] >> We have a motion by Council Member
[34:21] Thomas. Is there a second?
[34:23] >> I'll second the motion.
[34:24] >> A second by Council Member Skinner. All
[34:26] in favor? I
[34:27] >> I
[34:30] >> Okay, our next item D is the approval of
[34:32] the bills.
[34:37] » Any comments or questions on the bills?
[34:43] Need a motion.
[34:48] May I motion that we approve the bills
[34:49] as presented to us um through the agent?
[34:52] >> Uh we have a motion by council member
[34:55] Skinner to approve the bills. Is there a
[34:56] second?
[34:57] >> I second it.
[34:58] >> Second by council member Williams. All
[34:59] in favor?
[35:00] >> I.
[35:02] >> Thank you. We will move on to item
[35:06] number four,
[35:13] which is a council appeal decision
[35:15] consideration of resolution 2026-15
[35:19] approving a driveway deviation for
[35:21] property located at 175 North Hatchet
[35:24] Ranch Drive. Um, and this will be
[35:26] presented by Barry Bunderson, our city
[35:28] engineer.
[35:34] Good evening. Um, I'm hoping that you
[35:37] have read some of the minutes, but
[35:39] because this is a project that I or or a
[35:42] application that I haven't uh been super
[35:44] involved with, but I've reviewed briefly
[35:46] and um so in a nutshell, there a
[35:51] driveway and a and a half a culde-sac
[35:53] was widened out without a permit. Um now
[35:56] I was noticed and violation
[35:58] notifications have been sent out and the
[36:00] uh homeowner there has met with um city
[36:03] staff and talked about some of the um
[36:07] things that were requesting and to be
[36:10] done. Um there's violations just in the driveway width in proximity to a
[36:16] fire hydrant. And this is all done
[36:18] without permit, without review, without
[36:21] oversight from the city and and just
[36:22] protecting the overall public and and
[36:25] meeting our design standards. So, um
[36:30] I don't know if you have any specific
[36:31] questions that we should get into about
[36:33] this or or any thoughts that can help
[36:36] with
[36:38] >> Yeah, I I have a I have one question. I
[36:41] know we've had more than one of these
[36:43] recently. Um,
[36:47] what what are we do? We
[36:51] I'm trying to think of a more of a
[36:52] proactive approach. Do we have anything
[36:54] out there that states obviously curb
[36:56] shouldn't be cut without approval? Um,
[37:02] it seems like I'm I'm just trying to get
[37:04] on the preventative side of, you know,
[37:06] providing proper notice to, you know,
[37:09] and then obviously like those that are
[37:11] those curb cut companies that are coming
[37:12] in, they should be working off of a
[37:15] permit if they're working
[37:16] >> Yeah.
[37:17] >> inside the city and not just going and
[37:18] cutting a city product and making it
[37:21] whatever they feel they want it to be.
[37:23] I'm just trying to think
[37:25] >> Yeah.
[37:26] out in front.
[37:27] >> I think
[37:29] >> um getting information out to the public
[37:31] is the cheapest form of of dealing with
[37:35] these kinds of things. And so I mean we
[37:37] can get with the other staff members and
[37:38] just see if we can you know post notices
[37:41] on our website and and um I don't know
[37:45] if there's anything when you know with
[37:47] the building process that could catch it
[37:49] up front but when somebody sells a home
[37:51] now it's just kind of lost in in the
[37:54] depth of paperwork or you know public
[37:57] information. But um I don't know. It
[38:00] it's it is a a good option to kind of
[38:04] help educate people, both contractors
[38:06] and homeowners, about whose
[38:08] infrastructure these are. They're
[38:09] collectively the public's and that
[38:11] they're put in place in certain
[38:13] conditions for the general public's
[38:16] welfare and being and and safety. And so
[38:19] when they go against some of those
[38:21] design standards, it's can be
[38:23] problematic.
[38:25] So, um I yeah, we can we can work on
[38:29] some solutions to be more proactive
[38:30] about noticing residents of I mean it's
[38:35] in the code, but some people don't even
[38:37] know where to find that.
[38:38] >> So,
[38:39] >> as far as the fire hydrant here, is that
[38:40] is this going to be a problem for for
[38:42] first responders getting to the house?
[38:44] >> Yeah. So, so typically, you know, you're
[38:46] not supposed to park within 15 feet of a
[38:48] hydrant. And so I think part of the
[38:49] consideration is that the curb and
[38:51] gutter would be replaced,
[38:53] >> you know, so that it can't be accessed
[38:55] and be maybe parked on or problematic
[38:56] within that 15t dimension.
[38:59] >> Okay. So that that would cover that.
[39:01] >> Yeah. And that would put it pretty close
[39:02] to where in this photo you can see the
[39:04] edge of their of their driveway that
[39:06] goes to their garage. It would be in
[39:08] that close proximity to that kind of
[39:11] line. So, we're asking that they remove
[39:15] what's been cut and install new curbon
[39:17] gutter to that point with, you know, the
[39:19] appropriate apron kind of flares.
[39:22] >> Okay.
[39:22] >> Which makes sense
[39:25] >> because it does appear that they've cut
[39:27] right through the red
[39:30] >> paint. Definitely.
[39:37] We have ordinances about from a property
[39:39] line. There needs to be a certain
[39:40] distance 10 feet from the property line
[39:42] for for any driveway. And so that's a
[39:45] consideration. But I think the kind of
[39:47] the governing
[39:49] criteria is the is the fire hydrant
[39:52] distance.
[39:59] » Mayor, if I may, I don't know if you can
[40:00] hear me. All right.
[40:01] >> Yes. Thank you, Bill.
[40:03] >> Uh just really quick, there was a
[40:04] question about uh getting information
[40:06] out there. We are working with um
[40:09] I think it's Alicia that puts out the
[40:11] newsletter, but with with whoever puts
[40:13] out the newsletter to get a a a code
[40:16] enforcement corner or something like
[40:18] that so that we address some of these
[40:21] topics uh on a more regular basis and uh
[40:24] try to be more proactive that way about
[40:26] getting word out and and like Barry
[40:29] pointed out, many people may not even
[40:30] know where to go to find the code and
[40:33] it's it's not necessarily easy reading
[40:36] even if you did find it. So, um the idea
[40:39] would be to put staff contact
[40:41] information there as well as a link to
[40:42] the code itself so that people could
[40:44] have that and then uh highlight a
[40:47] certain section of the code like this
[40:48] where we're seeing uh compliance
[40:50] questions or concerns.
[40:56] » Okay. Thank you, Bill. I think that'll
[40:58] be a great addition to the newsletter
[41:01] and a great way to get some information
[41:04] out to our residents.
[41:14] So, I think one thing to point out is
[41:16] there's been notices sent out certified
[41:19] mail, right? And there just hasn't been
[41:21] any action on a resolution for for what
[41:26] should be done here. So,
[41:28] um,
[41:30] >> yeah,
[41:31] >> I feel like they should replace that
[41:33] curb back to at least the straight point
[41:36] where their where their driveway is. I
[41:38] know that that's probably wider than
[41:41] what we would typically allow. Um, but
[41:44] it would make sense to me that that the start of that flare, if that's lined
[41:47] up with that, um, right hand side as
[41:51] you're looking at it, the side of the
[41:53] driveway,
[41:54] >> that'll replace probably
[41:56] >> 10 or 10 or 12 feet of
[42:02] >> of curb. This one
[42:04] >> like it is right now is completely
[42:05] unacceptable.
[42:07] So,
[42:10] >> yeah.
[42:11] needs to be replaced and and moved back.
[42:15] >> Um, and this is information on a site
[42:17] plan. I think that the actual cut of the
[42:19] curb and gutter is approximately 22 ft.
[42:22] The driveway is larger than that close
[42:24] to the 30 foot that we would is our
[42:27] maximum per ordinance. And so both the
[42:30] 15t and the 30t are matching up close to
[42:33] that line. And so I think that would be
[42:36] >> that would match everything else that
[42:37] we're kind of hoping to get. So,
[42:40] get everywhere else, not just here.
[42:45] » Have they pulled a permit to do any sort
[42:47] of
[42:49] detached ADU
[42:51] onto the the side of that property
[42:53] there? Is that I mean, it seems like to
[42:55] me that's their intent.
[42:57] >> I'm not aware of any permit permit
[42:59] myself, but I would say that this isn't
[43:02] for that necessarily. This is just for
[43:04] access to uh the sideyard and and we
[43:07] don't require permits for flat work.
[43:10] >> So if you wanted to pour an extension to
[43:11] his driveway or a parking pad for an RV
[43:15] or something like that, we wouldn't
[43:16] necessarily require a permit for that.
[43:27] Any
[43:41] other comments on this?
[43:44] >> So just so I can clarify what we're saying they can they have to
[43:48] replace the curb and gutter to that to
[43:49] the standard the city standards
[43:51] >> so
[43:52] >> potentially by the act. So they they've
[43:55] asked for a variance to what we're
[43:57] saying they need to do. And so I think
[43:59] it's coming to you and you guys have the
[44:01] latitude, if I'm not misspeaking, to
[44:03] decide what is in the best interest of the public and the residents that are
[44:10] in this neighborhood. But as staff,
[44:13] we're saying there are these background
[44:15] sort of considerations from fire
[44:17] department, public safety, and and just,
[44:20] you know, consistency of of practice in
[44:22] our city. And so consider those as you
[44:26] need and ask questions. But what we're
[44:29] recommending is that they go
[44:30] >> asking a lot of questions, but the
[44:31] deviant is as they want to keep it as is
[44:32] and not correct. I just want to make
[44:34] sure I understand
[44:35] >> that. Like to me that's too close to the
[44:37] fire hydrant and so that's a safety
[44:38] issue.
[44:52] Mayor, I make a motion that we deny
[44:54] resolution 2026-15
[44:57] um as presented and instruct the
[44:59] homeowner to replace the curb back to
[45:02] the really the line of their existing
[45:05] driveway and that the the cut. The
[45:09] bottom of the cut starts at that and
[45:11] then can flare to the right there. Just
[45:15] to place that what is about 12 ft of
[45:18] curb essentially. That's that's my
[45:21] motion. I think Barry could work with
[45:23] him on that. You understand what I'm
[45:24] saying, right?
[45:24] >> Yep. Definitely.
[45:26] >> Okay. We have a motion by Council Member
[45:27] Butler. Is there a second?
[45:29] >> I'll second the motion.
[45:31] >> Second by Council Member Skinner. All in
[45:33] favor? I
[45:35] >> Okay,
[45:37] Q.
[45:40] >> Item number five, discussion and council
[45:42] direction of the town homes on Willow
[45:45] sidewalks.
[45:47] >> So, I'll stay here for this one. I have
[45:50] been texting with
[45:52] >> GTM Sean Holy. Um, there's
[45:54] miscommunication with the move of of the
[45:56] meeting and anyway, he's not able to
[45:59] join us, but he said to go ahead. I
[46:01] don't know if that's information that
[46:02] needs to be is pertinent here, but I can
[46:05] show you my text if you want.
[46:09] » Um, and you don't have anything to
[46:12] present. I can get a laptop if we we've
[46:15] talked about this before. Do we need to
[46:17] bring up any
[46:19] documents or or anything else?
[46:23] >> I I don't think so. I've walked up and
[46:25] down that road like 15 times in the last
[46:27] couple weeks. So,
[46:28] >> yeah, I've driven it. I I already know
[46:30] what I want to do. I think it needs to
[46:32] be widened. I don't I don't think
[46:34] there's any gap in my mind.
[46:37] >> Okay. Um my my thoughts are I mean
[46:40] obviously to keep the area
[46:43] uh in front of the uh town homes as
[46:46] drawn
[46:47] would be my recommendation. Uh to keep
[46:50] the road at its intended width for
[46:54] future. Um, and then in front of those
[46:58] homes and I met with all three of those
[47:00] homeowners. And so hopefully, this is
[47:02] what I told them I would present and and
[47:05] had conversations with them
[47:06] specifically, but uh that we we make up
[47:11] the width uh by reducing the park strip
[47:17] uh somewhere between a foot and reducing
[47:20] the sidewalk the sidewalk in that area
[47:23] to a foot as well. so that we don't
[47:26] encroach upon those existing homes on
[47:29] the north side on the south side excuse
[47:31] me of that of that development along
[47:34] with that um
[47:36] >> you mean the west
[47:37] >> the south so the three homes
[47:40] >> south of the town home project I think
[47:41] you
[47:43] >> on the west side of the street because
[47:45] they have existing yards there's also
[47:47] existing infrastructure
[47:50] >> that if we go to the plan
[47:53] >> we're going to we're going to be going
[47:54] right through a CT that's not the right
[47:58] transformer transformer box. I'm looking
[48:01] at him because he's an electrician. So,
[48:04] um so that that we would make it up in
[48:08] the sidewalk and the park strip in that
[48:10] location. And then in that area, if they
[48:12] would agree to it, we would do a roll
[48:14] curb and the modified curb as was
[48:18] presented in the last meeting and do the
[48:20] modified curb up to the subdivision and
[48:23] then go high back through the
[48:25] subdivision as it's drawn. And so holies
[48:30] wouldn't change at all. So, it would
[48:33] just be modification to to help those
[48:36] homeowners deal with height and and deal
[48:40] with uh impacts to their to their
[48:44] landscape and and infrastructure that
[48:46] they already have in. That's that's my
[48:48] recommendation.
[48:49] >> Can I just restate what I think I heard
[48:52] you say? So, park strip width would go
[48:55] from three and a half in front of these
[48:57] three homes from three and 1/2 ft down
[48:59] to one and a half. one and a half.
[49:01] >> Okay. And then the back of the sidewalk
[49:04] would shrink towards the middle of the
[49:06] street by 1 ft. So it would be now a 4ft
[49:08] wide sidewalk. Correct.
[49:09] >> Okay. And you know this is your
[49:12] >> sort of call. I would say that Ashtto
[49:15] guidelines for park strip um recommends
[49:19] a two-ft minimum and then if they get
[49:23] close to the back of curb then they
[49:24] recommend a wider sidewalk. So anyway,
[49:27] if there's any wiggle to get within
[49:29] Ashtto
[49:31] two feet that sort of aligns. If not,
[49:34] then
[49:35] >> I I would agree with that.
[49:37] >> Okay.
[49:37] >> The the I mean, we have a 4ft sidewalk
[49:40] on the other side, right? So sidewalk
[49:43] width, I I do understand the nature of
[49:46] what we have there. We have a we have a
[49:49] school that's close by, but I also think
[49:51] maintaining the width of that roadway as
[49:54] it was originally intended, we need to
[49:56] try to maintain.
[49:57] >> Okay.
[49:58] >> For future. And then if I may, with a mountable curb, um potentially
[50:06] the increase of an errant driver, um
[50:10] that bump is going to be felt, but maybe
[50:12] not as abruptly or even deterrent with
[50:16] more of a straight edge from somebody
[50:18] that's on a sidewalk that, you know,
[50:21] could be walking to school or whatever.
[50:23] We're narrowing up that width, that sort
[50:25] of buff buffering by narrowing the park
[50:29] strip. And by doing more of a mountable
[50:32] curb, it reduces to some level, you
[50:35] know, that alert that, hey, I'm getting
[50:38] off the road.
[50:40] >> And then other drainage things. But just
[50:42] so it's all what what the implications
[50:45] mean and and then
[50:46] >> would that just be for those three homes
[50:47] that Jake, is that what you're those
[50:48] three homes that are to the
[50:50] >> to the to the to the south? to the south
[50:52] of
[50:53] >> the three existing homes.
[50:54] >> Okay.
[50:56] >> So, that that curb has a 2 inch
[50:59] >> or is it three inches or what's that
[51:01] modified curb?
[51:02] >> Um, yeah, it's a 2 in.
[51:04] >> 2 in.
[51:05] >> From from the front part closest to the
[51:08] middle of the road concrete to the back,
[51:10] it's like 2 in.
[51:11] >> And the concern I had, obviously that
[51:14] concern, I appreciate you bringing it
[51:15] up. The other concern was is water
[51:18] intrusion,
[51:19] you know, and and I I did have that
[51:21] conversation with all three residents.
[51:24] Um, you know, that if if we went that
[51:27] direction, we would we would want to
[51:30] hold harmless or I you know, I don't I
[51:33] don't foresee that being an issue in
[51:34] that location due to it being at the top
[51:38] of the roadway.
[51:39] >> Um, but
[51:42] and then forgive me if I'm overdoing it
[51:44] here. I don't want to. But um so the
[51:47] difference like you said, we got like a
[51:49] 2 in height from the front of the curb
[51:51] to the back on a on a modified and it's
[51:54] 4 in on a standard curb and gutter cuz
[51:57] there's a depression in between, right?
[52:00] And so just so the residents know what
[52:02] you're trading is 2 in height for that roll curve
[52:09] with some help from width.
[52:12] And do you want to drive over the road
[52:15] for the rest of the time that you live
[52:17] there?
[52:28] » Anyone else have any thoughts?
[52:30] >> I feel like I've walked that a million
[52:32] times, too. I got my steps in for the
[52:34] year, but I'm with with Jake on this on it. Um, I would just add too after
[52:39] talking to homeowners that um, some of
[52:42] them have existing I mean wider
[52:44] driveways than what we've what's in
[52:47] there. Um, and those were in there you
[52:49] know a long time ago. Um, I would
[52:51] suggest that we that's where the curb
[52:54] comes up. We let them keep their
[52:56] driveways what they have even the
[52:58] extended ones um, and go that route. So
[53:02] like the Ericson's could keep their
[53:03] little side piece and the I think the
[53:06] Eans have it as well too. So I would
[53:07] just add that. But I agree. I'm with
[53:10] Jake after walking on all of it. And I'm
[53:13] with Yeah. 100% what what Jake just
[53:15] suggested.
[53:19] » Jeff. Amen.
[53:21] >> Thank you.
[53:25] » All right. Somebody want to make a
[53:27] motion?
[53:28] >> It's just a discussion. Oh, just it is
[53:30] just a discussion. It's direction.
[53:32] You're directed.
[53:34] >> Okay.
[53:34] >> All right.
[53:35] >> I I believe I understand. If I may
[53:38] >> just recap one more time, please.
[53:39] >> Yes, please.
[53:40] >> So, instead of a highback curbon gutter,
[53:42] we'll go to a road gutter. Keep it where
[53:43] it is in front of these three homes.
[53:46] Shrink the park strip to 2 feet and
[53:48] shrink the sidewalk to four feet. And
[53:51] then that will leave the extra against
[53:54] the homes. And then when we hit the hit
[53:57] that new parcel, everything is highback
[54:02] >> the widened roadway.
[54:03] >> Okay.
[54:04] >> Sidewalk sidewalk width widened as well.
[54:08] >> Okay. Everything
[54:10] >> let them match the their existing
[54:12] driveways.
[54:12] >> Yep.
[54:13] >> Right.
[54:13] >> Well,
[54:14] >> because it's a role that there's no
[54:16] definition of the width there. So,
[54:18] >> that's right.
[54:19] And then if we can just make sure that
[54:21] the um the general contractor works with
[54:24] those homeowners
[54:27] to when he's going to do that, when he's
[54:29] going to be impacting in front of their
[54:31] homes so that they can plan accordingly,
[54:33] I think would be
[54:34] >> something that if we could just request
[54:36] him to do. Yeah, we'd appreciate it.
[54:37] >> We'll definitely remind him. I think
[54:38] he's good for that. He he has an
[54:40] interest in helping that go smoothly.
[54:44] So, thank you. Okay.
[54:46] >> All right. Thank you, Burr.
[54:50] All right. Item number six,
[54:52] consideration of ordinance 2026-21
[54:55] amending the fee schedule to add code
[54:57] enforcement fees related to nuisance
[55:00] abatement, civil citations, and
[55:02] administrative costs.
[55:08] » Good evening.
[55:10] Um, Tyson Barker, city attorney. just uh
[55:13] on this item for the code enforcement
[55:17] uh fees and related to nuisance
[55:19] abatement, civil citations,
[55:21] administrative costs, we have um in our
[55:24] in both our land use and MUN code, we've
[55:26] got some fees that are kind of
[55:28] interspersed throughout the the body of of those of those codes. And what
[55:32] we'd like to do is kind of a larger
[55:34] project than what item uh item number
[55:38] six would would allow. So, my
[55:40] recommendation on this is is to table
[55:42] this item and then we'll come back with
[55:44] a more robust um uh more generalized
[55:48] language in our union code pointing
[55:51] citizens to a a a very detailed fee
[55:54] schedule so that it's easy to find, easy
[55:56] to easy to interpret. Um there's no more
[55:59] hunting for for fees within the the
[56:01] large the larger text. It it may take a
[56:04] couple of meetings until we get to that
[56:05] point. It's kind of a large project, but
[56:07] this is sort of a a a small fix to a
[56:10] larger problem. And I think that we
[56:12] could probably accomplish more with with
[56:13] a with a table on this.
[56:18] » Would somebody like to table this item?
[56:20] >> Mayor, I make a motion we table
[56:22] ordinance 2026-21.
[56:24] I'll second.
[56:25] >> All right. We have a motion by council
[56:26] member Butler and a second by council
[56:28] member Dalton. All in favor?
[56:30] >> I.
[56:31] >> Okay. We will table that item. Moving on
[56:34] to number item number seven. Item number
[56:36] seven is a public hearing item. Um it is
[56:40] the consideration of ordinance 2026-9
[56:44] approving a general plan amendment for
[56:47] the Wellstone subdivision. So the way
[56:49] this will work is I know some of you
[56:50] have already commented on this but we
[56:52] will have a presentation and a
[56:54] discussion and then we will open it back
[56:56] up for comments if you feel they are
[56:59] needed and then we will um continue on
[57:03] with a motion. So it appears that Barry
[57:07] will be presenting this as well. Is that
[57:09] correct?
[57:11] >> I'm here and and available for comments.
[57:14] >> Just kidding. Barry got saved.
[57:18] All right. So, Bill will present this.
[57:20] >> So, um I think we're all aware of this
[57:23] in in general terms and so I won't go
[57:25] into into that kind of thing. Um I think
[57:28] it's important to realize that or or to
[57:30] remember that the planning commission
[57:32] discussed this item in a similar public
[57:34] hearing a few weeks ago and uh voted to
[57:37] recommend denial of this request as well
[57:40] as the next agenda item. Um I don't have
[57:43] much more to say than that. Honestly,
[57:45] this is uh I think a known question and
[57:50] a known item. So, I won't uh go into the
[57:52] details, but um the general plan
[57:55] currently says that uh this this area
[57:58] should remain um low density and uh
[58:01] that's the request that is being brought
[58:03] to you is to change that. Um
[58:07] I would say that uh changing a a a
[58:10] general plan is a very serious thing. Is
[58:14] something that should be very carefully
[58:15] considered and not just um done on a on
[58:19] a whim or because someone asks for such
[58:23] a thing. Uh the general plan reflects
[58:25] the will of the people as adopted by the
[58:28] city council. And after having gone
[58:31] through significant public comment and u
[58:34] other meetings where we took
[58:37] um comments and and other concerns and
[58:40] thoughts and ideas about this property
[58:41] and the the city in general. Um this is
[58:45] a reflection of that in the general plan
[58:48] itself. And so it shouldn't be done just
[58:51] uh just because it's it's the thing to
[58:54] do or or whatever. Uh this is u a very
[58:58] serious matter and it should be given
[59:01] weighty consideration. Um in fact uh in
[59:05] my career I've learned that there are
[59:06] really only two times when you should
[59:08] consider a a general plan amendment such
[59:10] as this. And it's uh if there was a
[59:13] mistake that was made either a clerical
[59:15] error or some other concern that that
[59:17] slipped through or if the um if the the
[59:24] morals and values and concerns of the
[59:26] community have changed significantly in
[59:29] the in interim period. meaning that uh
[59:32] something significant has changed in in
[59:35] the world or in the community that this
[59:38] is no longer a desirable future land
[59:41] use. Um
[59:43] that's for you to decide. This is a
[59:45] legislative item and so the
[59:47] consideration is is not so much some of
[59:50] the details about is there enough water
[59:52] or is there enough um transportation or
[59:56] is there uh sufficient um things like
[59:58] that. It's this is uh really you're
[1:00:01] asking two questions. Is this the right
[1:00:03] time for this kind of consideration or
[1:00:06] is this the right place? And this is for
[1:00:08] actually for both items for the future
[1:00:10] land use map amendment as well as for
[1:00:13] the zoning map change, the reason. And
[1:00:16] um those are the the two basic questions
[1:00:19] that really are are facing you tonight.
[1:00:22] Um is this the right time and is this
[1:00:24] the right place? And uh again that's the
[1:00:28] consideration that uh we would ask you
[1:00:30] to to make and you have the
[1:00:31] determination and recommendation from
[1:00:34] the planning commission. You've heard
[1:00:36] from the public and um you just uh I I
[1:00:40] know that the developer is in the room
[1:00:42] as well and would would uh like to have
[1:00:44] some opportunity to give comment as well
[1:00:47] perhaps after any future any further
[1:00:50] public hearing comments. But um with
[1:00:54] that, I think, uh I'm available for
[1:00:56] questions as well. Uh um just online. I
[1:00:58] know you can't see me, but I'm I'm
[1:00:59] thoroughly interested in this meeting
[1:01:01] and very much engaged. So, uh let me
[1:01:03] know if you have questions for me.
[1:01:06] >> Thank you, Bill. Um would we like to
[1:01:09] have the developer come and present his
[1:01:12] information or would we like to have a
[1:01:14] discussion first?
[1:01:17] is
[1:01:19] I think it makes sense to allow the
[1:01:20] developer at this point to have
[1:01:22] >> sure
[1:01:23] >> to be able to speak to this and then um
[1:01:25] we will discuss it. If there's any
[1:01:27] additional public comments, we will take
[1:01:29] those as well and we'll move in that
[1:01:33] direction.
[1:01:45] Uh good evening, mayor, uh members of
[1:01:47] the council. Uh appreciate your time and
[1:01:51] uh I al my name is Jason Harris. I'm a
[1:01:54] representative of Fieldstone Homes. And
[1:01:57] uh tonight, um we are asking the council
[1:02:00] to eval evaluate one specific request,
[1:02:02] right, the general plan amendment. Um
[1:02:05] and and subsequently in the next item,
[1:02:07] which would be the R112 zoning. And I'm
[1:02:10] going to kind of address both at the
[1:02:11] same time now just because one's going
[1:02:15] to lead to the other. Um but we
[1:02:17] certainly can have the discussion in
[1:02:18] both uh in both areas. Um although there
[1:02:21] are many reasons to approve this
[1:02:23] request, I'm I'm going to focus on three
[1:02:25] main data points. Um there there's lots
[1:02:28] of things we can cover, but data point
[1:02:30] number one, um the the request actually
[1:02:33] does align with the general plan. The
[1:02:36] general plan is uh has a couple of
[1:02:38] components to it. Um often we're
[1:02:40] referring to the general plan map when
[1:02:42] we when we're talking about um the the
[1:02:45] current designation, but there's a whole
[1:02:48] huge document of written information
[1:02:50] about uh how how planning should go
[1:02:54] related to the general plan. in that
[1:02:56] document. It actually does align uh this
[1:02:59] the uh the uh land use request here does
[1:03:03] align with the housing goals support for
[1:03:06] residential growth, the compat
[1:03:08] compatibility with the surrounding areas
[1:03:09] and infrastructure connectivity. Uh
[1:03:12] these areas of alignment were also
[1:03:13] pointed out by your planning commission
[1:03:15] chair and her remarks to the other
[1:03:16] commissioners and even some of the other
[1:03:18] commissioners talked about it. It was
[1:03:20] simply the map and uh in in in in all
[1:03:24] documents, right? um maps are typically
[1:03:27] exhibits too, right? Um don't always
[1:03:29] align with and and that is something
[1:03:32] that we're here to say we want you to
[1:03:34] consider that fact. Um the the general
[1:03:37] plan
[1:03:40] uh through this process, right? Um which
[1:03:43] this isn't willy-nilly, right? This is
[1:03:45] how we start a process is by making
[1:03:47] application and asking for your
[1:03:48] consideration. So um that's that's the
[1:03:52] first point and uh and I think if you've
[1:03:54] read through the general plan you'll
[1:03:55] find those those uh u data points. The
[1:03:58] second point I want to make is um around
[1:04:01] a driver cannot see the difference and here's what I mean in in around this
[1:04:07] the differences behind the house. So
[1:04:09] both the R121 and the R12 zones carry
[1:04:12] the same minimum lot frontage
[1:04:14] requirement.
[1:04:16] Okay. So, a resident who drives down a
[1:04:18] street on a halfacre lot and a street of
[1:04:20] uh those R112 zone, they can't tell the
[1:04:23] difference in the character of the
[1:04:24] subdivision. The same house fits on both
[1:04:26] types of lots. The extra size of the lot
[1:04:29] is located entirely in the rear yard,
[1:04:32] invisible from the street and invisible
[1:04:34] from the community.
[1:04:37] That that's important, right? Because a
[1:04:39] lot of a lot of folks have made comments
[1:04:41] about the the character and that this
[1:04:43] would change that, but it but it
[1:04:45] actually won't. it will look exactly the
[1:04:46] same. The third data point and related
[1:04:50] is that rear yards cost the buyer and
[1:04:54] I'm updating my number from last time we
[1:04:56] talked. I'll tell you what why. Um
[1:05:00] approximatelyund
[1:05:01] $100,470
[1:05:03] more. The difference be between a
[1:05:06] 12,000t lot and a 21,000 foot lot is
[1:05:09] approximately 9,000 square ft of
[1:05:10] additional rear yard in this case. and a
[1:05:14] buyer cannot see it from the street, but
[1:05:16] they can feel it in the price of their
[1:05:17] home. The added cost breaks down like
[1:05:20] this. Um, the extra landscaping of that
[1:05:24] 9,000 ft, right, um, adds up to about
[1:05:27] $40,500.
[1:05:29] The additional fencing along the along
[1:05:32] that back perimeter, uh, is about
[1:05:34] $9,860.
[1:05:37] and uh the additional uh square footage
[1:05:40] of land, that additional 9,000 ft of
[1:05:43] land would be about $34,110
[1:05:46] of additional cost. And then the one
[1:05:49] thing that I missed in my comments to
[1:05:51] the planning commission was the water um
[1:05:54] and the additional water acquisition
[1:05:57] required for the larger lot is an
[1:06:00] additional $16,000.
[1:06:02] So that all of those things right which
[1:06:05] are in the rear yard that can't be seen
[1:06:07] add a hundred a little over $100,000 in
[1:06:10] additional cost. And like many of the
[1:06:13] comments that have already been said
[1:06:14] that's meaningful.
[1:06:17] And so part of the consideration we're
[1:06:19] asking you here is to is to take into
[1:06:22] account uh what those added costs mean
[1:06:26] um not only uh in significance of adding
[1:06:29] more turf to irrigate um but also
[1:06:32] meaningful concerns which also have been
[1:06:33] brought up by the community about this
[1:06:35] being a desert community where water
[1:06:36] supply uh is a long-term constraint. So
[1:06:41] with that, the this the staff report um
[1:06:45] talks about highdensity single family.
[1:06:48] Um that is not what Fieldstone is asking
[1:06:51] for. Um and and we we tried to clarify
[1:06:55] that with the planning commission. I
[1:06:56] want to clarify it here with the
[1:06:57] council. Um we're we're asking for um
[1:07:02] the the medium density residential
[1:07:05] classification which aligns with the the
[1:07:08] zoning request that follows this um
[1:07:11] which is you know what we what really
[1:07:14] the R12 zone will yield is somewhere
[1:07:16] between 2.2 and 2.5 units per acre. Um
[1:07:19] and and we're very supportive of that.
[1:07:21] Um and uh so in closing, I think this is
[1:07:26] a straightforward request. Um and uh at
[1:07:31] the end of the day, these homes will be
[1:07:34] visually indistinguishable from the
[1:07:35] halfacre lots already prevalent in
[1:07:37] Grantsville. They will save the
[1:07:39] homeowner over $100,000 in the price of
[1:07:42] the home. And this subdivision will
[1:07:44] align with the goals of the general plan
[1:07:46] document. So, we request that you give
[1:07:50] us your approval um for this um master
[1:07:54] plan change. And um I'm I'm happy to
[1:07:58] answer any questions from you now. Um or
[1:08:02] I'm would love to come up and address
[1:08:04] any concerns that come up out of the uh
[1:08:06] the public comment.
[1:08:08] >> Does anybody have any questions for
[1:08:10] Jason at this time?
[1:08:16] Okay, thank you.
[1:08:17] >> Here. Thank you.
[1:08:30] Anybody want to start us off with their
[1:08:32] thoughts on this request?
[1:08:34] >> Do we need to do public comment first or
[1:08:36] we don't?
[1:08:37] >> I think we has here that we have the
[1:08:39] presentation in discussion and then we
[1:08:41] will
[1:08:47] Um, I'll just just say a couple of
[1:08:49] comments in regards to this um these parcels of of land. Um, so just
[1:08:58] this came before planning and zoning.
[1:09:00] This was what maybe month ago and um it
[1:09:04] was you know well represented by the
[1:09:07] public public comment um and the
[1:09:11] planning and zoning commission was it
[1:09:13] was was not unanimous to deny it. It was 32
[1:09:18] um and I just currently this is zoned
[1:09:24] halfacre.
[1:09:26] So, um, I would just if if anyone's
[1:09:29] going to get up and and and make any
[1:09:31] public comment, I would just like to
[1:09:34] know from the public if the developer or
[1:09:39] the developer that we've just talked to
[1:09:41] or any other developer came up and said,
[1:09:44] I want to put in 200 plus homes um, in
[1:09:48] this area. I mean, how would the public
[1:09:50] feel about that? Because as the stands
[1:09:52] right now, they could come in and do
[1:09:54] that fairly easily. And
[1:09:57] >> right, they're a loted that. Yes. With
[1:09:59] the present zoning,
[1:10:00] >> they could do that.
[1:10:01] >> So,
[1:10:03] you know, we we can see it right there
[1:10:04] on the board. Future school sites. Um,
[1:10:07] is that a for sure thing? No.
[1:10:11] um those of those individuals that have
[1:10:14] um been involved and listened to the
[1:10:18] planning and zoning. There was a lot of
[1:10:20] talk about potential high school going
[1:10:22] in in this area. Um
[1:10:26] which is a pretty big shift from where
[1:10:30] it is at currently. You know, about what
[1:10:32] a mile away, a mile and a half, right?
[1:10:34] If that.
[1:10:35] >> I'm not sure it's that far, but it might
[1:10:37] be
[1:10:38] >> maybe a mile if that.
[1:10:40] So, we'll definitely keep that in mind
[1:10:43] and that that isn't and that's all up to
[1:10:46] County School District as well. I mean,
[1:10:47] that's
[1:10:48] >> right. That is not our ability to decide
[1:10:51] that. And I I also want to just state
[1:10:53] this for the public if it's all right if
[1:10:54] I interrupt for one second. Correct.
[1:10:56] >> Perfectly fine.
[1:10:57] >> Um the the school site, I know there's
[1:11:00] been some concern. Well, why would we
[1:11:02] put another high school right by the
[1:11:03] present high school? That that's not the
[1:11:06] intent. The present high school,
[1:11:08] according to the school district, their
[1:11:10] intent is to make the present high
[1:11:12] school a junior high because the high
[1:11:14] school has outgrown, as you can all tell
[1:11:17] from all of the portables in the parking
[1:11:20] lot. So, we would not be putting a
[1:11:23] second high school in this area. Just
[1:11:25] want to make sure that everybody is
[1:11:26] clear on that or the school district
[1:11:28] wouldn't. Has nothing to do with our
[1:11:30] decision, but that is not their intent.
[1:11:33] Sorry, Rick. Go ahead.
[1:11:36] And just one last just word of
[1:11:38] encouragement. I would actually like to
[1:11:39] hear from the from the individuals who
[1:11:42] actually own these parcels of land and see what their thoughts are. I mean,
[1:11:46] if they could get up during public
[1:11:48] comment and just express if they'd like
[1:11:50] to just encourage them to do that as
[1:11:52] well. That's my thought.
[1:11:54] >> Okay.
[1:11:54] >> Because Fieldstone does not own these parcels of land.
[1:11:59] >> No,
[1:11:59] >> there are residents of Grantsville who
[1:12:01] own these parcels of land. So,
[1:12:03] >> right.
[1:12:04] Um, Jake, do you have any additional
[1:12:07] comments?
[1:12:08] >> I do not. I'll save mine for after.
[1:12:10] >> Okay, Derek, I'm gonna
[1:12:11] >> save mine for after.
[1:12:12] >> Britney,
[1:12:12] >> I just want to say I appreciate all the
[1:12:14] public comment. It's been really
[1:12:15] helpful. I was I'm not super familiar
[1:12:16] with that, but I was just down in that
[1:12:17] subdivision, but the public comment's
[1:12:19] been helpful, especially those who are
[1:12:20] part of the general plan. Um, so I think
[1:12:23] it's been I think it's clear what the
[1:12:25] community in that area wants to do. So,
[1:12:27] >> okay, Jeff, do you have anything you'd
[1:12:29] like to add?
[1:12:30] >> I don't.
[1:12:31] >> Okay. Um, at this point then we will
[1:12:34] turn this back over to um a public
[1:12:37] hearing item. And for the record, we
[1:12:39] have received letters from Frank
[1:12:41] Anderson, Scott Bridges, and Mara
[1:12:44] Spencer um that has been presented to
[1:12:47] the council. And so at this point, we
[1:12:49] will open this up to additional comment
[1:12:51] if anyone has anything new they'd like
[1:12:54] to add to this discussion.
[1:13:04] Michelle married again. So, for the
[1:13:07] record, I back onto this property. So,
[1:13:09] this directly impacts me and I agree
[1:13:12] these people that own this property,
[1:13:14] they should be able to sell it and make
[1:13:15] money and build. It's zoned for halfacre
[1:13:18] lots. I'm not against doing what it's
[1:13:20] zoned for. Halfacre lots, great, but
[1:13:23] like him saying that the yards, like I'm
[1:13:26] an architect, so I do this every day.
[1:13:29] Just because a half an acre to a quarter
[1:13:31] acre, unless they have the whole
[1:13:32] subdivision platted out, it that's not
[1:13:35] saying that your lot can't be this shape
[1:13:38] and there's 50 ft on the sides of them
[1:13:41] rather than, you know, 10 ft between
[1:13:44] these two guys. So that that doesn't
[1:13:46] hold true unless they have the
[1:13:47] subdivision platted out. Also, if you
[1:13:49] look at the subdivision on the corner of
[1:13:51] Willow and Pear versus the subdivision
[1:13:53] on Willow and Dery that are halfacre
[1:13:56] versus quarter acre, you can definitely
[1:13:57] tell a difference which ones are quarter
[1:13:58] acre and which ones are halfacre.
[1:14:00] They're ones cuz the ones on Willow back
[1:14:03] also back onto us. They're way bigger.
[1:14:05] Like we have way bigger spaces in
[1:14:07] between those houses. So, I'm just
[1:14:09] saying. Also, I just want to add in it
[1:14:11] has this subdivision and other
[1:14:13] subdivisions. We do need another school,
[1:14:16] but we're already getting taxed out. We
[1:14:18] keep adding more and more kids to this
[1:14:20] city, and I don't know how we're going
[1:14:22] to afford to put another school. The
[1:14:23] other school killed us last year. So,
[1:14:26] something
[1:14:27] >> What would your suggestion be then? I
[1:14:28] mean, if we've outgrown the school we
[1:14:30] have, what
[1:14:31] >> Well, no, I'm I agree. I agree. But we
[1:14:34] just keep adding more. So, doubling the
[1:14:36] kids coming in for this subdivision
[1:14:38] alone. Like, we just keep adding more
[1:14:40] and more kids and we don't have the
[1:14:42] infrastructure for it. We don't have the
[1:14:43] schools and we don't have the tax money
[1:14:45] obviously to keep building more schools.
[1:14:48] So,
[1:14:49] >> thank you.
[1:14:57] » Yeah, Kevin Casey. A couple of comments
[1:15:00] after listening to that. Uh, one, the
[1:15:02] straw man argument about less water use
[1:15:05] I find fairly uh humorous because that
[1:15:07] just means more people with more yards
[1:15:09] are still going to use the same amount
[1:15:10] of water. So the water savings argument
[1:15:12] I find uh just laughable on the surface.
[1:15:15] Uh the other issue that the city has
[1:15:17] been trapped in in the past is
[1:15:18] precedence. By allowing any developer to
[1:15:20] come in and change significant time
[1:15:23] investment uh from the city and the
[1:15:25] community in the past to come up with
[1:15:26] the master development, the city's been
[1:15:28] trapped in that game before by
[1:15:29] developers uh that allowing a shift now
[1:15:33] sets a precedence. What you think the
[1:15:35] next set of developers not going to come
[1:15:36] in and use that legally uh to say you've
[1:15:38] allowed it here. uh we we demand it here
[1:15:41] uh and then sue the city and then leave
[1:15:42] the taxpayers holding the bill. Once
[1:15:44] again, uh there is a history of that and
[1:15:46] precedence is important. We came up with
[1:15:48] the plan. It reflected uh the will of
[1:15:50] the people. Bill stated it. Unless
[1:15:52] there's a significant change to drive
[1:15:54] that uh without consulting the people,
[1:15:57] we should stick with the master plan the
[1:15:58] people approved and that the city spent
[1:16:00] significant time and money uh building.
[1:16:03] Thank you.
[1:16:03] >> Thank you.
[1:16:07] Any
[1:16:13] other comments?
[1:16:21] » Hi uh Rig and Marriott. Um I just had a
[1:16:24] couple of points just uh written down
[1:16:26] from again from the developers
[1:16:28] discussion. Um,
[1:16:31] one I I kind of agree with Bill's
[1:16:34] comments earlier that um general plan
[1:16:37] changes are uh drastic and uh that the
[1:16:43] two cases that he presented of whether u
[1:16:46] it's a clerical issue or a major change
[1:16:50] in like the moral character of the city
[1:16:53] or general character of the city. Um,
[1:16:57] neither of those have happened in my
[1:16:58] opinion. Um, and then the developer, I'm
[1:17:03] sorry, I don't remember your name. Uh,
[1:17:05] he pointed out that there are points in
[1:17:09] the general plan that the subdivision
[1:17:11] aligns with. Um, listed the points. I
[1:17:16] don't really see how those points are
[1:17:19] applicable. There's no real argument
[1:17:21] made to how it aligns. And so I I deem
[1:17:25] it as debatable, not a a definitive
[1:17:28] point. And then also um something that
[1:17:30] was brought up in the planning and
[1:17:32] zoning meeting was affordability um
[1:17:35] which was an argument that was left out
[1:17:37] um for this presentation. Um and the
[1:17:41] movement from half acre to um smaller
[1:17:44] lots is uh negligible in affordability
[1:17:48] is really what the discussion in my
[1:17:49] opinion came down to. um you move an
[1:17:53] expensive home to slightly less
[1:17:55] expensive, not from an expensive home to
[1:17:58] an affordable home. And that's that's
[1:18:00] all I got.
[1:18:01] >> Thank you.
[1:18:06] » Is there anyone else that would like to
[1:18:07] make a comment or is there anyone
[1:18:09] online? Alicia too. Okay.
[1:18:11] >> So, we have KW. You'll have to state
[1:18:14] your name for the record, please.
[1:18:19] » Yeah. Hi, my name is Katherine West from
[1:18:22] Grsville
[1:18:25] and uh can you guys hear me?
[1:18:27] >> Yes, thank you.
[1:18:28] >> Oh, okay. Perfect. Well, I'm asking the
[1:18:31] council to then after hearing all this,
[1:18:34] I respect you guys and I know you guys
[1:18:36] have a really hard decision to make, but
[1:18:39] just keep it in mind that you guys are
[1:18:42] here for the people. We voted for you
[1:18:45] guys to represent us. And I hope our
[1:18:49] comments and our concerns are being
[1:18:53] heard because in the next couple years
[1:18:56] maybe it's not going to be you guys or
[1:18:59] someone else. But I'm asking the council
[1:19:02] to deny this amendment. The proposed
[1:19:05] change increased lot sizes, but it does
[1:19:08] not change the actual character of the
[1:19:10] homes or the neighborhood. The only real
[1:19:13] difference from what I heard
[1:19:17] are hitting on the rear
[1:19:19] yards, higher land costs, higher fencing
[1:19:23] costs, and significantly higher water
[1:19:26] demand.
[1:19:27] We're talking about over 100,000
[1:19:31] in additional cost per lot.
[1:19:34] With the economy right now how it is
[1:19:36] already, um, a lot of people that can't
[1:19:40] afford that. A lot of people from Salt
[1:19:42] Lake, they're moving to Gransville
[1:19:44] because they found more affordable
[1:19:47] places here.
[1:19:49] But people they already living here,
[1:19:50] they cannot afford that
[1:19:53] additional
[1:19:57] we know at the end of the day all this
[1:20:00] cost.
[1:20:02] We don't see no benefits to the
[1:20:03] community.
[1:20:06] is already in a desert region where we
[1:20:08] live where water is already a limited
[1:20:11] and expensive resources. Increasing
[1:20:14] irrigation demands is not a minor issue.
[1:20:17] It is a long-term public concern. This
[1:20:20] proposal reduces affordability
[1:20:23] where
[1:20:26] our conservations
[1:20:28] is
[1:20:30] off the roof with every job that we have
[1:20:35] like someone else mentioned it. We can't
[1:20:37] get
[1:20:39] races,
[1:20:41] gases off the roof, and bringing more
[1:20:44] people into the community where houses
[1:20:46] that are so expensive or taxes be going
[1:20:49] up. At the end of the day, I we don't
[1:20:52] hear nothing for the community that will
[1:20:54] be beneficial for us. That's all. Thank
[1:20:57] you.
[1:20:59] >> Thank you. Is there a second online
[1:21:01] comment? We have Rick. Okay. Hello, Rick
[1:21:05] Bartchers again. Um, one of the things
[1:21:08] that I believe Councilman Butler uh was
[1:21:12] alluding to is what will happen to the
[1:21:15] land when you change the uh zoning on
[1:21:20] it. There's no agreement for that. Um,
[1:21:25] who whatever development, whatever land
[1:21:27] owner
[1:21:29] uh says they're going to do this or
[1:21:31] that, they can say, "Well, we changed
[1:21:32] our mind." then you're stuck with the
[1:21:35] quarter acre lots. Is that a big deal?
[1:21:38] Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but that is
[1:21:41] a very likely scenario.
[1:21:44] Um, as far as affordability in housing
[1:21:48] and how much it's going to save per
[1:21:50] home,
[1:21:52] I believe every member of the city
[1:21:54] council there knows exactly or has a
[1:21:59] fairly good idea of how many town homes
[1:22:01] are about to be built in Grantsville,
[1:22:05] how many smaller lots are already
[1:22:07] okayed, already ready to go. um as far
[1:22:11] as meeting the variable
[1:22:14] uh future housing choice, this would
[1:22:17] actually reduce it. I mean, the halfacre
[1:22:20] lots as an option are just disappearing
[1:22:22] right and left. Um if if if I have kids
[1:22:28] um and they want to play, I'm willing to
[1:22:30] pay for that extra yard. That's what I
[1:22:33] did. I got grandkids that come over and
[1:22:35] play in my yard. And you know, the
[1:22:37] difference between a quarter acre and a
[1:22:39] half acre, uh it's it's uh to say it's
[1:22:44] $40,000 extra for sod, I think, is kind
[1:22:47] of a stretch. I mean, that's some pretty
[1:22:49] pricey sod. And um so as far as the
[1:22:53] affordability issue goes, uh that's not even an argument. uh you know
[1:22:59] are we going to reduce
[1:23:01] every single land use area to provide
[1:23:06] affordable housing? I mean that seems to
[1:23:08] be the direction that the developers
[1:23:10] believe we should all go. Um
[1:23:14] one other issue that I would like to
[1:23:16] point out is the water. Now I I know a
[1:23:20] little bit about water. I know you guys
[1:23:21] know a little bit about water. Um, one
[1:23:23] thing I would like to point out is how
[1:23:26] many uh what what's the water allotment
[1:23:30] for the variable 52 acres of property?
[1:23:34] What what water is going with that? Does
[1:23:38] this document line that out? I mean, is
[1:23:41] it is it specified who's giving up what
[1:23:44] water? Because I mean, there's a lot of
[1:23:46] different land owners there. I know it's
[1:23:48] currently being irrigated, so I know
[1:23:50] water is there and available. Um, but
[1:23:54] what water lays with the uh donated
[1:23:58] land, I I don't believe that that was
[1:23:59] specified. So anyway, uh this is
[1:24:02] something that would be better addressed
[1:24:04] under a PUD.
[1:24:06] Um a change in the future land use plan
[1:24:12] or uh you know well just changing the
[1:24:16] future land use plan. That's all you're
[1:24:18] doing. You're not agreeing. They're not
[1:24:20] agreeing to really do anything. So, uh,
[1:24:23] except make more money. And that's all I
[1:24:25] got to say. Thanks.
[1:24:27] >> Thank you.
[1:24:34] » Uh, Joanne Jacobs again. Uh, one thing
[1:24:38] to maybe consider, not just with this
[1:24:40] development, but with the other ones
[1:24:41] that are going to come up in the future.
[1:24:43] I have a property on a main road coming
[1:24:45] into town and it is nonstop traffic from
[1:24:50] about 7 a.m. to about I don't know 1000
[1:24:54] p.m. probably just all all day long.
[1:24:57] It's just traffic all day. And um that
[1:25:03] in order to resolve that, that would re
[1:25:05] mean putting money into roads, which
[1:25:08] would mean raising taxes, which brings
[1:25:10] us back around to
[1:25:12] people being taxed out of their homes.
[1:25:14] So, you know, please think about that
[1:25:17] when you're considering things like
[1:25:19] this, too.
[1:25:20] >> Thank you. Anyone else online? Alicia,
[1:25:24] >> we do have Lisa.
[1:25:25] >> Okay.
[1:25:27] >> Hi. Can you hear me?
[1:25:29] >> Yes.
[1:25:30] Okay, Lisa Ling Walligan. Um, I find it
[1:25:35] kind of interesting how the developer
[1:25:39] has stated all these things of how it's
[1:25:42] going to cost this much and that much
[1:25:44] and particularly in the water
[1:25:47] um conversation
[1:25:49] because, you know, I I have one of the
[1:25:52] lots that's on the corner and so we have
[1:25:54] almost an acre and we've been very aware
[1:25:57] of the water consumption and so we have
[1:26:00] landscaped our property to be very um
[1:26:05] water friendly. Mostly we have a lot of
[1:26:08] gravel. We actually have the retention
[1:26:11] pond in our backyard. And so
[1:26:15] um people are aware of the water use.
[1:26:18] And so to double the amount of homes is
[1:26:22] going to double the amount of water
[1:26:24] versus on the halfacre lots where people
[1:26:27] I believe will be more responsible with
[1:26:30] their water um usage and
[1:26:35] um landscaping in order to make that be
[1:26:38] a more water friendly environment for
[1:26:41] their families and so that they have
[1:26:43] more play areas and more, you know, um
[1:26:46] maybe a chicken coupe or or gardening
[1:26:49] sheds or whatever. Um, even garden boxes
[1:26:53] or land where they can garden, whereas
[1:26:56] the smaller lots won't allow that kind
[1:26:59] of thing. Um, and I also just find it
[1:27:03] interesting that he talks about
[1:27:04] affordability and so forth, but it seems
[1:27:07] like to me that making these lots
[1:27:10] smaller, the only thing it's really
[1:27:12] accomplishing is more money for the
[1:27:14] developer.
[1:27:16] So, that's my two cents on that.
[1:27:20] >> Thank you, Lisa.
[1:27:28] Michael Danwick again resident the I
[1:27:32] guess just one simple question is this
[1:27:34] future site school site is it all part
[1:27:38] of this master whatever development are
[1:27:41] we are we horse swapping here is that
[1:27:43] what the proposal is
[1:27:45] >> taking the halfacre lots zoning we'll
[1:27:49] give you this 54 acre school site for
[1:27:52] the quarter acre lots is that part of
[1:27:54] this No,
[1:27:56] >> it's just looking just looking kind of
[1:28:00] >> not knowing the past history of this.
[1:28:02] I'm just asking if that's part of the agreement because obviously
[1:28:07] you know my history with 20 wells or the
[1:28:09] wells anytime the city gets caught horse
[1:28:12] swapping, we always get the very tail
[1:28:16] end of it. So
[1:28:18] >> this was this would be a negotiation
[1:28:20] with the school district, not the city.
[1:28:23] But the city now this would be part of
[1:28:26] the city if this is part of the horse
[1:28:28] trading to go from half acre to quarter
[1:28:31] acres in order to do the quarter acre
[1:28:33] will give up this 54 acres. I know for a
[1:28:36] fact right now
[1:28:40] that every time the city goes with
[1:28:43] developers,
[1:28:45] like I said before, really look at what
[1:28:48] we're getting in bed with cuz 20 Wells.
[1:28:53] Now we've got a promised park that was
[1:28:56] supposed to be developed now and it's
[1:28:58] still not developed. Scenic Slopes. So,
[1:29:02] if that's part of the deal, really think
[1:29:04] about it and ask the developer if that's
[1:29:07] part of the thing because a developer is
[1:29:08] not going to give up x amount of dollars
[1:29:11] if there's nothing to benefit from it.
[1:29:13] So, if there's horse trade involved,
[1:29:16] stay out from underneath the horse's
[1:29:17] tail because we usually get landed on.
[1:29:20] >> Thank you.
[1:29:29] » Any other comments?
[1:29:33] Yeah, it's Mark Spencer again. So, the
[1:29:36] future school site, we don't take that
[1:29:38] into any consideration. So, what we are
[1:29:40] doing is we're saying we're going to do
[1:29:42] quarteracre lots for that whole parcel,
[1:29:44] not just the 54. We're doing it for the
[1:29:46] whole parcel.
[1:29:47] >> And again, I'm going to go back to the
[1:29:48] water again because
[1:29:51] the half acre versus a quarter acre. And
[1:29:54] how we can't see that a quarter acre and
[1:29:57] a half acre are different. I I don't
[1:29:59] know how we can't see that. I live on an
[1:30:01] acre. The the development I'm in is on
[1:30:04] acres. I know the difference between an
[1:30:06] acre, a half acre, and a quarter acre
[1:30:08] very easily. And again, water, we can
[1:30:12] build a sewer. We can build certain
[1:30:14] things. A water share, you asked about,
[1:30:16] you know, how many shares were going
[1:30:17] with it. It doesn't matter. We, like I
[1:30:20] said, 200,000 gallons per share when we
[1:30:22] moved out here. It is now 50. It's a
[1:30:25] quarter of what we had. So, it's really
[1:30:28] expensive to water anything. People are
[1:30:31] being put on city water to water their
[1:30:33] yards right now. I don't think that's
[1:30:36] acceptable at this point either. So, as
[1:30:38] she was stating, we know in our yards
[1:30:40] how to landscape, but quarter acres is
[1:30:43] just doubling the water. That's it.
[1:30:46] Thank you.
[1:30:51] Anyone else?
[1:30:54] Anyone online? Alicia,
[1:30:57] >> no.
[1:30:58] >> Okay, we'll close the public hearing and
[1:31:00] return back to our discussion with the
[1:31:03] council.
[1:31:07] » And thank you all for your comments. Go
[1:31:10] ahead, Jason.
[1:31:13] Is is now the right time to address some
[1:31:15] of those things? It is. Is that okay?
[1:31:18] >> So, uh just just a couple of uh of
[1:31:21] things I think might just be helpful. um
[1:31:24] this the confusion around the school,
[1:31:26] right, that came up before that is
[1:31:28] that's not part of the request. Um the
[1:31:32] image got put in and should have been
[1:31:33] taken out. So we're we're we're not
[1:31:36] talking about the school here. Um as far
[1:31:38] as uh um commonly used quarter acre lot,
[1:31:42] we're also not talking about quarterly
[1:31:43] quarteracre lots. These are minimum of
[1:31:45] 12,000 foot lots, right? That's the
[1:31:47] minimum. So on on average, these will be
[1:31:50] third acre lots. Um and um when we talk
[1:31:54] about the significance of change that's
[1:31:56] happened um over time in our market and
[1:32:00] everybody's heard of COVID, right? Um
[1:32:02] that was a significant change. Our
[1:32:05] market changed completely during that
[1:32:07] time. Um and and costs have continued to
[1:32:10] rise since then in addition to uh um the
[1:32:14] price of homes, the price of land, and
[1:32:16] everything else. Um so it it this
[1:32:18] doesn't come without significant
[1:32:20] differences in from when the general
[1:32:22] plan was uh the map which was even
[1:32:25] earlier than the last amendment to the
[1:32:26] general plan was even created. So you
[1:32:28] are making um you are making decisions
[1:32:31] here based on what has happened over
[1:32:34] time and since the general plan map was
[1:32:36] updated. It is important and it is an
[1:32:38] important consideration to understand
[1:32:40] those uh those things which you all know
[1:32:43] and feel um everyone on this council as
[1:32:46] well as everyone in this audience in
[1:32:48] terms of uh costs and and how they
[1:32:51] continue to rise. And one of the ways we
[1:32:53] combat that is through addressing land
[1:32:56] use and addressing um how these um
[1:33:00] subdivisions uh plan out for now and for
[1:33:04] the future because the future is grim in
[1:33:07] terms of uh um housing affordability. So
[1:33:11] we do bring that up because it is
[1:33:13] important. Um, I shared with the uh the
[1:33:18] uh planning commission last time and I'm
[1:33:20] happy to share it here if if you'd like
[1:33:21] to see it, but the the difference in
[1:33:24] income versus uh the household income
[1:33:28] since 1980 to current versus the median
[1:33:32] home price from the same time till
[1:33:34] current, right? Um the the difference
[1:33:37] between those two has gone up nearly
[1:33:39] 700% over the other. Uh that is
[1:33:42] significant. and that we should not take
[1:33:44] that lightly and it can't be turned
[1:33:46] back. It is the new reality. So yeah, we
[1:33:50] are making uh big decisions here and
[1:33:53] there's lots of things to consider and
[1:33:55] those things are not little. So I I do
[1:33:58] want to just remind you of that. Um and
[1:34:01] uh because I I think everything that's
[1:34:03] said here is applicable, right, in terms
[1:34:05] of of cost and $100,000 in a home is not
[1:34:09] insignificant. It's very sign
[1:34:12] >> Jason. Yes.
[1:34:13] >> Since you're on that point, um I think
[1:34:15] it's important for the council to hear
[1:34:17] too in this in the p in the planning and
[1:34:19] zoning meeting, you brought up the price
[1:34:21] points of what it would be for the
[1:34:23] halfacre lots and then what it would be
[1:34:25] if it got zoned to the 12,000 square
[1:34:28] foot acre lots. Could you kind of tell
[1:34:30] us what your those price points were?
[1:34:32] You had specific price points. I think
[1:34:34] you said I won't say you can tell us
[1:34:36] what you said for the halfacre then what
[1:34:38] these ones would be triep.
[1:34:39] >> Yeah. So, um, what was suggested, right,
[1:34:42] with zones in these in the area on those
[1:34:45] price points would be around $800,000.
[1:34:47] And what I said was that we can bring
[1:34:50] down the cost of that, right, through the the difference between the
[1:34:56] lot size of the rear yard. Um, what what
[1:34:59] we're really talking about is that
[1:35:01] difference in in terms of a percentage.
[1:35:03] So,
[1:35:05] it doesn't it doesn't matter where we're
[1:35:07] starting, right? in in terms of home
[1:35:10] price because these homes are expensive
[1:35:13] no matter what. What really matters is
[1:35:15] can we add value and and the answer is
[1:35:19] yes through the reduction in cost.
[1:35:22] >> Okay. I mean I know but you there you
[1:35:25] specifically said what your houses were
[1:35:27] going to be at at 12,000 at the 112 at
[1:35:30] that price point. So I think it's
[1:35:32] important for everyone to hear what what
[1:35:34] that number you said. I think it was
[1:35:36] correct me if I'm wrong. you said like
[1:35:38] in the 700,000 750
[1:35:41] >> I would say it's probably likely that is
[1:35:43] what I said I don't know the answer to
[1:35:44] that because what's what comes right
[1:35:47] later once we um get into the actual
[1:35:50] design right because the costs will
[1:35:52] change from here till then right um but
[1:35:55] that is kind of where those home prices
[1:35:57] are correct
[1:36:03] » is there anything else you'd like to
[1:36:04] >> No unless you have unless you have any
[1:36:06] specific questions I'd love to answer
[1:36:08] those for you.
[1:36:12] » I think we're good for a minute. Thank
[1:36:14] >> you.
[1:36:26] After hearing the public hearing items
[1:36:28] that were presented by the public, does
[1:36:31] anybody have any new
[1:36:34] thoughts or concerns?
[1:36:37] or would you like to state your opinion
[1:36:39] on this whole
[1:36:41] scenario?
[1:36:44] >> Um, I'll start. Um, so I was on planning
[1:36:49] commission for three years and that was
[1:36:53] one of my I'd say my biggest pet peeves
[1:36:55] was developers coming in knowing the
[1:36:58] land, the zoning that they got and they
[1:37:01] come in and ask for reszones. Um, they
[1:37:03] know what they're getting into. they they should plan the development
[1:37:07] around around that. Another issue,
[1:37:10] another thing is we're about ready to do
[1:37:12] a new general plan. We know those aren't
[1:37:14] cheap and I think that we should stick
[1:37:18] with the general plan and what what
[1:37:21] we've done, you know, for the last time
[1:37:23] if we want to wait and do the general
[1:37:24] plan and see what changes. I know there
[1:37:26] was some talk about the city center
[1:37:28] shifted so things could change but
[1:37:31] what's the point of a general plan if we
[1:37:34] just approve
[1:37:36] you know amendments to them all the
[1:37:38] time. Um we've held firm on a on a
[1:37:41] couple of them up on the the west side.
[1:37:44] Um they came in want smaller lots. We
[1:37:46] held firm with the halfacre lots. That's
[1:37:48] what it was zoned for. Um we had a big
[1:37:51] turnout like this. This is when I was on
[1:37:52] planning commission and uh listened to
[1:37:55] the citizens and and we stuck with our
[1:37:56] guns and we said that's the that's the
[1:37:59] zoning that we're we're going to allow.
[1:38:01] So I think that you need to I mean
[1:38:06] we know there's a shiny object that
[1:38:08] might happen but we can't look at that
[1:38:10] right now and I don't think we should
[1:38:11] change the zoning for this development.
[1:38:14] I think it needs to stay at halfacre and
[1:38:17] I mean what's the point? Are we going to
[1:38:18] spend all this money on a new new
[1:38:20] general plan and then just change it,
[1:38:22] you know, every time someone comes
[1:38:24] before us? I mean, if that's the case,
[1:38:27] then we shouldn't waste the money on a
[1:38:28] general plan.
[1:38:32] » Thank you, Derek. Anyone else have any
[1:38:35] they'd like to add?
[1:38:45] » Yeah, I've got a couple of comments. Um
[1:38:48] >> yeah, the general plan is the will of
[1:38:50] the people and and that is I remember
[1:38:55] very vividly when it's been some years
[1:38:58] when
[1:38:59] uh this area was specifically discussed
[1:39:02] and and and mainly because I had a home
[1:39:05] up in that area at the time and and
[1:39:08] there was a lot of discussion of higher
[1:39:11] density in that area at the time. And
[1:39:13] so,
[1:39:14] um, so this area was specifically laid
[1:39:17] out and the homes around this area was
[1:39:19] specifically laid out, um, with the, uh,
[1:39:24] with halfacre or or greater lot sizes.
[1:39:29] And so I in in the comments that were brought to that meeting
[1:39:34] specifically were that it, you know,
[1:39:36] maintain that look and feel. And so,
[1:39:40] um, I know the,
[1:39:43] uh, planning and zoning has a
[1:39:45] recommended denial of this. Um, based on that feel, there's homes on all sides
[1:39:52] of this or three sides of this property
[1:39:56] that meet the, uh,
[1:39:59] higher acreage. And so,
[1:40:03] uh, my feel is that, uh, we should
[1:40:06] follow the general plan amendment and follow the recommendation of our
[1:40:12] planning and zoning and the denial of
[1:40:14] this based on that.
[1:40:17] >> Thank you. Anyone else?
[1:40:24] » I just I feel the same way. Um, love the
[1:40:27] area. um got his son building across the
[1:40:32] street on a half an acre lot and uh
[1:40:36] hopefully making that happen. So I um
[1:40:42] I think I think it's an amazing area. I
[1:40:45] think it's an area that anyone would
[1:40:48] want to live in and uh
[1:40:51] real real part of our
[1:40:55] town. So, um,
[1:40:58] so yeah. Yeah, I would I'd feel the same
[1:41:01] way about keeping the general plan and
[1:41:04] following the planning and zonings
[1:41:05] council.
[1:41:08] >> Brad or Britney, anything?
[1:41:10] >> My thought was I mean, I know you said,
[1:41:12] you know, housing prices are grim, but I
[1:41:13] don't think that's because we're we're
[1:41:14] lacking town homes or other things. It's
[1:41:16] just because cost of living is
[1:41:17] increasing every time you step out the
[1:41:18] door. So, it's I agree. I think we
[1:41:20] should stick with the general plan in
[1:41:21] this area. We have other options for
[1:41:23] things that are coming in in town homes
[1:41:24] and smaller lots. I think like we said
[1:41:26] the general plan was approved and uh
[1:41:29] people who were there and you know were
[1:41:31] part of that are asking us to keep it
[1:41:33] the same. So, I think we should give it
[1:41:38] » my thoughts on this um since they since
[1:41:41] they proposed this has always gone to
[1:41:43] the west side of Grantsville as well um
[1:41:46] with the parcel that Derek was was
[1:41:48] talking about that we kind of held
[1:41:51] strong to the halfacre lots and and just
[1:41:53] the fill of that and
[1:41:56] there there's you and I drove up there
[1:41:58] and there's not much there
[1:42:00] >> and we both said that's what This feels
[1:42:03] like it feels like it needs to be a
[1:42:05] little bit more open.
[1:42:07] When we do the general plan amendment,
[1:42:09] this may change. We we may we may adjust
[1:42:13] it, but to me, the the halfacre lots and what we have currently is is is what
[1:42:19] it what it wants to be right now. So,
[1:42:23] that's my thought.
[1:42:24] >> Okay.
[1:42:27] Any other discussion?
[1:42:30] So, I'll make a motion that we deny
[1:42:33] ordinance 2026-9.
[1:42:36] Um,
[1:42:37] and don't change this general plan
[1:42:39] amendment for this Wellstone
[1:42:41] subdivision.
[1:42:42] >> Okay, we have a motion by Council Member
[1:42:44] Butler. Is there a second?
[1:42:45] >> I'll second.
[1:42:46] >> Second by Council Member Dalton. All in
[1:42:49] favor?
[1:42:53] » All right. Moving on to item number
[1:42:56] eight. I believe we still have to have
[1:43:00] the public hearing. Is that correct?
[1:43:05] » So, um
[1:43:08] I think we've had all the
[1:43:10] >> information presented. So, we'll open
[1:43:12] this back up to public comment.
[1:43:17] And is there anyone online?
[1:43:19] >> Oh, sorry.
[1:43:21] >> Any additional comments?
[1:43:25] Okay, we will close the public hearing.
[1:43:28] Is there any further discussion or would
[1:43:30] anyone like to make a motion?
[1:43:31] >> May, I'll make a motion we deny
[1:43:33] ordinance 2026-20
[1:43:36] approving the reszone of R121 to R112
[1:43:39] for Wellstone subdivision. Council
[1:43:41] second.
[1:43:41] >> We have a motion by council member
[1:43:43] Dalton and a second by council member
[1:43:45] Butler. All in favor?
[1:43:46] >> I.
[1:43:51] Okay, moving on to item number nine, the
[1:43:54] discussion of the fiscal year 27 budget.
[1:43:58] I would like to note this is a
[1:44:00] discussion item only. No action or
[1:44:02] public comment will be taken during this
[1:44:04] meeting at this time, but I also would
[1:44:07] like to add
[1:44:09] that the public hearing on the tentative
[1:44:11] budget will be held on June 3rd at 7
[1:44:14] p.m. here at the Grantsville City Hall.
[1:44:18] And we will turn
[1:44:20] this over to Aspen, our financial
[1:44:22] director for the city.
[1:45:15] as we
[1:45:17] have to
[1:45:30] Um, okay.
[1:45:34] So, as we dive in, I did want to address
[1:45:36] a few things. Um,
[1:45:39] just based on our meeting from last week
[1:45:43] that I did address this budget that you
[1:45:46] see up here. Um,
[1:45:49] it did come up that I had not budgeted
[1:45:54] for our rental property maintenance. So
[1:45:58] that has been added to the city hall
[1:45:59] line um at 3000. Just wanted to point
[1:46:04] that out. Um
[1:46:06] we did combine public work safety
[1:46:08] equipment to the garbage fund to make
[1:46:11] things easier for Christy and her team
[1:46:14] when they need to distribute that safety
[1:46:16] equipment. Um
[1:46:19] I had adjusted the judge's wages from my
[1:46:21] miscommunication with Judge Topham.
[1:46:24] Um, and water meter, the hydro water
[1:46:27] meter sales, um, they do go,
[1:46:31] um, I did confirm and just we do keep
[1:46:34] the deposit separate when they rent the
[1:46:36] hydrant meter, but as far as actual
[1:46:38] revenues that come from that, that does
[1:46:40] just come into our um, sale of
[1:46:45] water. So, um, this metered water sales
[1:46:48] line, that's just where it goes. So,
[1:46:50] those are some questions. Um some other
[1:46:53] questions u I know Rat you had asked me
[1:46:55] about how much public relief funds that
[1:46:57] we had received
[1:46:59] um between ARPA and the car's act um
[1:47:02] grants the city received approximately
[1:47:04] 3,328,92
[1:47:08] in relief funds. Um
[1:47:13] so
[1:47:15] that's follow up on that and then um
[1:47:21] I did speak with our CPA consultant
[1:47:25] about um the discussion of budgeting our
[1:47:28] road supervisor with our classy roads.
[1:47:32] Um it was recommended not to adjust it
[1:47:36] this year solely for the purpose of we
[1:47:39] don't have a history at this time. He
[1:47:41] did say next year it would be a
[1:47:43] potential once we have a history to show
[1:47:45] how much of those wages did end up
[1:47:48] coming and were able to be covered by
[1:47:50] classy road money that we could then
[1:47:53] budget based on an informed decision.
[1:47:55] But he said right now he would not
[1:47:58] recommend
[1:48:00] budgeting with that. So
[1:48:02] >> I have not made that change or his
[1:48:05] recommendation at this time. So right
[1:48:06] now nothing there has changed. Um
[1:48:12] » so yes and then we did discuss the
[1:48:15] difference between the polar rates
[1:48:17] Derek. Um, so if we were to, currently
[1:48:21] they're still in at the 3% across the
[1:48:23] board, but if we did take them out, it
[1:48:26] would if no one if we did no increases
[1:48:29] at all, it would be approximately
[1:48:32] 193,000
[1:48:34] in savings.
[1:48:35] >> Um, and if we only did savings,
[1:48:44] » um,
[1:48:46] if we only saved.
[1:48:52] » If we only did raises to hourly
[1:48:54] employees, um that would be
[1:48:56] approximately $57,2001
[1:48:59] in savings. So,
[1:49:00] >> what was that again?
[1:49:02] >> $57,21
[1:49:04] in savings. So, it would reduce the
[1:49:05] general fund budget by that. But
[1:49:09] that's how much it would be reduced by,
[1:49:10] right? That's not how much it would
[1:49:11] cost. That's
[1:49:15] so
[1:49:17] >> sorry I was coming up with the first
[1:49:18] number if we cut all color 193,000.
[1:49:25] So that would reduce this number. Now,
[1:49:28] um her conversation with um city manager
[1:49:35] and mayor, I have taken the um we don't
[1:49:39] have it yet anyway, but I did take the
[1:49:41] 18 million water credit money out of the
[1:49:45] budget currently, so it is not included.
[1:49:47] So, the capital fund projects fund um I
[1:49:53] did budget. So,
[1:49:55] um, we don't need to budget additional
[1:49:57] funding for scenic slopes because what's
[1:49:59] not used from this year will roll over.
[1:50:02] Um, so the only amount that will need to
[1:50:04] be budgeted for to be transferred from
[1:50:06] the general fund to the capital projects
[1:50:08] fund is enough to cover the bond payment
[1:50:11] from that $5 million bond, which is
[1:50:13] approximately 386,000.
[1:50:15] So I did add that into the general
[1:50:17] plants budget here with just a transfer
[1:50:19] to capital project fund um 186. So um
[1:50:25] that of course does impact the bottom
[1:50:28] line about savings anymore. But um again
[1:50:32] this is as it stands without pulling
[1:50:34] anything from fund balance. So we could
[1:50:40] look into that.
[1:50:41] >> What did we pull last year from fund
[1:50:43] balance?
[1:50:45] I think we talked about this.
[1:50:47] >> I know. I had it ready for you last
[1:50:48] time. I'm
[1:50:49] >> sorry. No, that's okay. That's okay. I
[1:50:51] know we talked about it.
[1:50:52] >> I want to say it was a little over two
[1:50:54] million.
[1:50:55] >> So, every year though, essentially, we
[1:50:57] pulled from fund balance or the or we
[1:50:59] got the the co relief funds where we
[1:51:01] didn't have to
[1:51:03] >> Yeah. Which is part of the fund balance,
[1:51:04] right?
[1:51:05] >> Yeah, I guess.
[1:51:06] >> Yeah. So, our our revenues were
[1:51:08] supplemented pretty significantly
[1:51:10] honestly by those co funds. I mean that
[1:51:12] 3.3 million is substantial. That's more
[1:51:16] than
[1:51:19] we're looking at here obviously.
[1:51:30] Um I'll look for that number. But just
[1:51:35] overall, I think the discussion today um
[1:51:38] is just trying to
[1:51:41] get a solid direction from you guys with
[1:51:44] what you want to see. Um as mayor
[1:51:46] mentioned, we are going to do the public
[1:51:48] hearing for adopt interim budget. Um and
[1:51:51] that would be a public hearing item on
[1:51:54] the agenda. And then um we are looking
[1:51:57] if we are going to proceed with any sort
[1:51:59] of tax increase we do have to um like
[1:52:03] set the date for that which we do have a
[1:52:05] hearing date um open for that. But
[1:52:09] ultimately just looking for like
[1:52:10] finalized direction from you guys so
[1:52:12] that I can have an inter budget ready
[1:52:15] because we do need to have that
[1:52:16] available for the public to review in
[1:52:19] order to have a public comment. Can you
[1:52:21] scroll to the bottom again to the final
[1:52:23] numbers
[1:52:30] » you're wanting to hear, Derek?
[1:52:31] >> Yeah, right there.
[1:52:31] >> Yeah. So, that 952
[1:52:36] that's we need to make that up. So, what percentage of property tax
[1:52:41] increases is that now? Where are we at
[1:52:44] with that? What what you've changed? You
[1:52:45] know,
[1:52:46] >> 60.
[1:52:46] >> Is it in the 60s?
[1:52:51] because initially it was nearly double
[1:52:53] that.
[1:52:54] >> Yeah, we're trying to get and that was
[1:52:56] the 84% and we needed to set it that day
[1:53:00] um so that we had that in place
[1:53:03] but obviously with our budget meeting
[1:53:06] that we had last week we've cut that in
[1:53:08] half.
[1:53:09] >> Yeah. And even when we were discussing
[1:53:11] last week, depending on the usage of the
[1:53:15] 18 million, it would I didn't have that
[1:53:18] transfer in of that $386,000,
[1:53:21] which significantly lowered that
[1:53:24] $952,000
[1:53:25] number. Um, but I did have to add that
[1:53:29] back in to consider not easy.
[1:53:33] >> So, it's potentially lower than the 60
[1:53:35] then.
[1:53:37] >> Yeah. So
[1:53:41] » and this is without pulling any fund
[1:53:43] balance which you recommend that we
[1:53:45] don't do but we have done
[1:53:48] >> over the last the course of the last
[1:53:50] five years at least
[1:53:52] >> supplemented with that those monies
[1:53:54] >> and there will be you indicated that
[1:53:56] there will be a fund balance from this
[1:53:59] last year's budget that will roll into
[1:54:02] that
[1:54:03] >> yes
[1:54:03] >> into that fund that we don't spend.
[1:54:05] >> Yeah. just because we never have 100%
[1:54:09] >> spending, right? So, we don't spend 100%
[1:54:11] of our budget every year. So, um but
[1:54:14] right now for that difference right
[1:54:16] there of that 952,000
[1:54:18] that's roughly a 46% increase.
[1:54:22] So, for the average home that would be
[1:54:25] which is the $530,000 value as a
[1:54:28] reminder would be a monthly increase of
[1:54:30] $1529
[1:54:32] a month.
[1:54:45] $180 a year.
[1:54:49] >> Um
[1:54:52] » for the average. For the average.
[1:54:54] >> Yes. Yes.
[1:55:07] That's a lot of money.
[1:55:10] >> Yeah, I I know I probably worth, you
[1:55:14] know, having a conversation. I know we
[1:55:15] went line by line and and went through
[1:55:17] this went through every department. I
[1:55:19] appreciate each member, each department
[1:55:21] head
[1:55:23] um
[1:55:25] essentially throwing out any requests
[1:55:27] that that that u you know whatever that
[1:55:31] is, an additional police officer,
[1:55:33] additional patrol car, uh
[1:55:36] a water truck. Um and so as we looked
[1:55:39] at, you know, whatever we were look what
[1:55:41] whatever those departments were looking
[1:55:43] at specifically, I appreciated them
[1:55:46] really
[1:55:50] sacrificing and and tightening the belt
[1:55:53] and trying to figure out ways that they
[1:55:55] could help
[1:55:57] make this look better. So anyway, I just
[1:56:00] wanted to state that publicly. I don't
[1:56:02] know how many spent four and a half
[1:56:04] hours going through budget numbers with
[1:56:06] us last time we did this several weeks
[1:56:09] ago. So anyway, I just wanted to comment
[1:56:11] on that.
[1:56:22] Can you tell me what the percentage was
[1:56:24] again, Alpens? Sorry.
[1:56:25] >> Um, it's 46. Down 40% where we started.
[1:56:31] >> I think that's good, but I think still
[1:56:33] get a little bit lower. I think we
[1:56:34] should do something maybe like we talked
[1:56:36] about before, maybe like a collaborative
[1:56:39] approach and pull a little bit from fund
[1:56:40] balance. Maybe we can see a little bit
[1:56:42] from the water credits income where we
[1:56:44] can maybe get that number down even a
[1:56:45] bit lower. I've already I've already
[1:56:47] said my I know this is difficult but I
[1:56:49] don't think we should do um I mean I
[1:56:52] think we should keep the increases for
[1:56:53] the staff. Every department has asked
[1:56:55] for more staff and we've told them no
[1:56:57] and they're already running late. I
[1:56:58] think if we say now we're not giving you
[1:56:59] raises and so no we're gonna have
[1:57:01] attrition we're gonna have people
[1:57:03] leaving. We're gonna have to train. Um,
[1:57:05] I mean the one thing I I said that I
[1:57:07] think we don't I think we do need public
[1:57:09] safety to be a priority. I just don't
[1:57:11] think you can say sorry we're you know
[1:57:13] you don't get that when we're already
[1:57:14] below what we should be per citizen um
[1:57:17] for public safety. That's just my
[1:57:19] opinion. Um but I think we're moving in
[1:57:22] the right directions and then we did
[1:57:23] this you know like you said every
[1:57:24] department had this cut significantly
[1:57:28] and I think that's good for the public
[1:57:29] to know that they pretty much nobody got
[1:57:31] what they wanted as far as
[1:57:34] They were told
[1:57:34] >> no pretty much no one.
[1:57:36] >> No one.
[1:57:36] like I mean I know they were
[1:57:38] asking for you know four officers and additional you know almost
[1:57:41] everywhere. And so everybody was told
[1:57:43] no. This isn't from what I'm seeing this
[1:57:45] is not like people asking for a lot. Um
[1:57:49] so but I think we could I think we can
[1:57:52] look make more like a collaborative
[1:57:53] approach of monies that we do have.
[1:57:55] Maybe I understand we don't want to use
[1:57:56] a lot of fund balance. We don't want to
[1:57:58] get in that habit like we have for the
[1:57:59] past few years. I also think though, you
[1:58:01] know, we haven't raised property taxes
[1:58:03] in
[1:58:05] 16 years or so since 2019.
[1:58:10] » We had two years that we raised them. I
[1:58:11] think it was in ' 08. No 09
[1:58:13] >> 0909 we had a 1% increase and we had we
[1:58:18] had two years.
[1:58:19] >> We decreased. Yeah. So we actually went
[1:58:21] below.
[1:58:21] >> And before that it was the last time
[1:58:23] recorded was 1997.
[1:58:26] >> 1981. It was as far back as I could go.
[1:58:28] Oh, 1981. Okay.
[1:58:30] >> So, 1997 to 2008, no increase. 2009, we
[1:58:35] had a 1% increase. 2010, we had a 3%
[1:58:38] increase. 2011, we went negative -10.
[1:58:41] 2012, we went -16.
[1:58:45] And then from 2013 to 2026, no increase.
[1:58:48] >> Right.
[1:58:49] >> I just want to make Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I
[1:58:52] was going to say the same thing just so everyone's clear though. Just
[1:58:55] because we we had an addition and a
[1:58:58] decrease doesn't mean that people didn't
[1:59:00] pay more property tax because
[1:59:02] >> the value of their home increased
[1:59:06] from the certified tax rate is what
[1:59:07] we're talking. We're not talking about
[1:59:09] and also Twilla County there's other
[1:59:11] places that raise their taxes. So
[1:59:12] >> the school district
[1:59:13] >> their school district like your taxes
[1:59:15] clearly go up. So
[1:59:16] >> our amount is
[1:59:18] >> minimal in your tax bill. Yes.
[1:59:20] >> Still something. It's nice. just
[1:59:22] >> I mean we're residents here too. None of
[1:59:24] us want to pay
[1:59:25] >> property taxes. No,
[1:59:27] >> we don't.
[1:59:28] >> Yes. Sorry. To just as a option just to
[1:59:31] kind of put it in perspective for
[1:59:32] everyone. So if we covered that So if I
[1:59:36] took out the I just took out our number.
[1:59:39] So if we took out the 386,000
[1:59:41] for to go to the to transfer the capital
[1:59:44] projects fund and let's say we pulled
[1:59:47] that from fund balance instead. um
[1:59:50] rather than doing increased that would
[1:59:52] mean we're off 566,000
[1:59:55] which to make that up would be a 28%
[1:59:58] increase which would be $9.31 a month
[2:00:02] for that's kind of
[2:00:06] just a potential kind of like hybrid
[2:00:11] plan I guess where we are using some
[2:00:12] from fund balance but not
[2:00:15] >> I feel like 386 fund balance would be a
[2:00:18] reasonable
[2:00:19] usage amount. That's not excessive, but
[2:00:22] it's, you know, still using what we have
[2:00:25] there available that probably most of
[2:00:28] would have rolled over from this year
[2:00:30] not spent. And then, um, also doing,
[2:00:35] you know, 28% is a lot better than 84%
[2:00:39] um, and might be a little bit more
[2:00:41] reasonable.
[2:00:42] >> And 28% was how much per year, did you
[2:00:44] say? Um, so per year it's $111, but the
[2:00:48] monthly increase would be $9.31.
[2:00:56] » So I was the one that goes no cola
[2:01:01] increase and I'm willing to negotiate on
[2:01:05] some things. Um, but I So I I I like
[2:01:09] what you did, what we were do, what you
[2:01:11] proposed, Britney, and I I'm, you know,
[2:01:15] cost of living. I I get it. It's a
[2:01:17] morale thing, too. There's training. I I
[2:01:20] get all that, but I I just I I would
[2:01:24] feel better. And I I know we're not
[2:01:26] banking on this because we haven't got
[2:01:27] the check yet, but I' like to cover that
[2:01:30] small amount that we have with the water
[2:01:33] fund and just increase stick to the 5%
[2:01:37] that I proposed this year and then a 5%
[2:01:40] increase for the next what five years
[2:01:43] and gradually increase the the property
[2:01:46] tax instead of a big jump all at once.
[2:01:48] So, you're saying do the 300 like she
[2:01:51] said from the capital funds and then
[2:01:52] that difference that you talked about um
[2:01:55] we could use that water credit
[2:01:58] >> that would be a minimal amount we were
[2:01:59] using from the water credit so it
[2:02:01] wouldn't be
[2:02:02] >> well it was 193,000 correct Alexa or
[2:02:06] >> sorry for the 193,000 would just be
[2:02:09] >> the cola
[2:02:10] >> yes save Wait are you saying take out
[2:02:12] the cola you
[2:02:13] >> no I'm saying
[2:02:14] >> well let's negotiate
[2:02:15] >> put the cola back in but use the water
[2:02:17] credit to
[2:02:19] >> make up the difference of the balance
[2:02:20] that we have and then just do a 5%
[2:02:23] >> increase
[2:02:23] >> 5% increase instead of a 24 or 60 or 80
[2:02:27] just a five and then we raise it 5% for
[2:02:31] five years then you we can re-evaluate
[2:02:33] it and see where we're at if we need to
[2:02:35] change things
[2:02:38] we have to address every year but I
[2:02:41] think 5% seems reasonable and then if we
[2:02:44] can do it then we look at where we're at
[2:02:46] the hard part with these water credits
[2:02:48] We obviously won't get that every year
[2:02:49] and we're going to want to do something
[2:02:50] with it. But I think what you're saying
[2:02:52] is that's a reasonable amount to make up
[2:02:54] the deficit so city doesn't have to we
[2:02:56] don't have to raise property taxes that
[2:02:58] much. So a 5% increase would um be
[2:03:01] approximately 104,000
[2:03:04] in additional revenue and cost a
[2:03:06] resident about a1 the average resident
[2:03:10] about $166 per month which equates to
[2:03:14] $19.94
[2:03:16] a year on the average home.
[2:03:19] >> Just so you guys know what that would be
[2:03:21] like.
[2:03:23] >> And then how much would we need to take
[2:03:24] from the water credits to make up
[2:03:27] what where we left at like 566.
[2:03:32] » Yeah. So, um plus that 386.
[2:03:36] >> So, 9 that would be from fund balance.
[2:03:39] The three fund balance.
[2:03:40] >> So, we're saying three get their 386
[2:03:41] will come from fund balance where
[2:03:42] they're saying the rest to make up we
[2:03:44] would take from the water credit.
[2:03:45] >> Yeah. So, you'd be making so we'd be
[2:03:48] pulling about
[2:03:50] >> so those two together would be 952,000.
[2:03:52] So, just shy. minus the 386 from the
[2:03:56] >> So depending on where you wanted to take
[2:03:58] those two amounts from. Yeah. Whether it
[2:04:00] be water credit money or balance, it
[2:04:01] would be roughly
[2:04:04] just shy of
[2:04:08] » you don't reflect any of the interest
[2:04:10] from that those dollars in here, do you?
[2:04:14] >> No. And I right now as it stands,
[2:04:17] there's the 18 um the water credit money
[2:04:19] is not considered at all. whether it's
[2:04:23] being spent, saved, or invested. I don't
[2:04:26] have it in here any
[2:04:27] >> but even if we just put in the savings
[2:04:28] account, you said we could receive a
[2:04:30] small interest off of that.
[2:04:31] >> Yeah.
[2:04:31] >> And it would still be liquid though if
[2:04:33] we if you
[2:04:36] said three and a half%
[2:04:38] >> which is about 600 5600 630
[2:04:44] >> only for six months though.
[2:04:45] >> Yeah. And then it reduces down to like
[2:04:48] roughly 2% which is not nothing on 18
[2:04:52] million, right?
[2:04:53] >> Yeah.
[2:04:57] » I'd like to just
[2:04:59] you guys Heidi and and Jake, you guys
[2:05:03] are the ones that had that vision or the
[2:05:07] guts to sell the water.
[2:05:10] Um,
[2:05:13] I just if you guys had any thoughts on
[2:05:17] uh I didn't vote for the solo water,
[2:05:20] I'd like you guys to say what your
[2:05:22] vision is for that money if that have
[2:05:25] you had any thoughts on
[2:05:28] or at least say are you fine investing
[2:05:30] that money? are you
[2:05:33] and we talked a lot of things but I I
[2:05:35] want you guys to say
[2:05:39] >> well
[2:05:39] >> what you what your vision is. um we we
[2:05:43] see a lot of uh grant opportunities that
[2:05:47] you have to have matching funds. And so
[2:05:50] my driving force was always to be able
[2:05:52] to leverage some of these higher dollar
[2:05:56] grant applications that we really don't
[2:05:59] have the funds or the monies to be able
[2:06:01] to to do the matching dollars and then
[2:06:04] to be able to make our the the amount of
[2:06:09] investment from the seller water credit
[2:06:12] essentially double the benefit for the
[2:06:15] community. So that was always my
[2:06:18] reasoning for for voting for it.
[2:06:20] >> So did So
[2:06:22] which is awesome. So you get a $2 million grant um for a park
[2:06:31] >> that requires a match. It cost us $2
[2:06:33] million. So we're doubling our money for
[2:06:36] free.
[2:06:37] >> But then we can't have
[2:06:38] >> Not for free, but Yeah.
[2:06:39] >> Well, yeah. Right. But we we can't have
[2:06:41] our money tied up when those
[2:06:43] opportunities come along. Correct.
[2:06:47] Yeah. Which it all depends on the
[2:06:49] flexibility how we reinvest it and how
[2:06:53] we let that money sit work for us and
[2:06:56] how we can do that.
[2:06:59] There are some we're not a we're not a
[2:07:01] business. We can't invest it in a sweeps
[2:07:04] account. Um, so I mean we we have to be
[2:07:07] cautious about how we do that and and um
[2:07:11] >> but that still allows us to improve our
[2:07:13] parks which is important
[2:07:16] >> and potentially
[2:07:17] >> well not even just parks. I mean there
[2:07:18] are so many other grant opportunities
[2:07:20] that are available if you have those
[2:07:22] matching dollars. Just right now we're
[2:07:24] waiting on um word from a a grant that
[2:07:27] we've applied for with UD do for
[2:07:28] replacing sidewalks on Main Street. And
[2:07:30] anybody that's walked
[2:07:33] several sections of the
[2:07:35] sidewalks on Main Street, either they
[2:07:37] don't even exist or
[2:07:40] um they're in disrepair and they need
[2:07:41] work and we just don't have the funds
[2:07:43] clearly from our budget to do that. But
[2:07:45] we put in for these um grants uh this
[2:07:48] one particularly with UD do for the
[2:07:50] sidewalks on Main Street and we have
[2:07:52] those funds available. Um those are
[2:07:55] improvements that we just simply don't
[2:07:56] have the budget to make um without
[2:07:58] having those matching dollars available.
[2:08:01] So, I'm I'm completely with Rat that was my intent was there's just so
[2:08:06] many different areas that we can hope to
[2:08:09] make improvements and doubling our th
[2:08:12] those funds are my greatest I that's my
[2:08:16] greatest interest.
[2:08:20] » I I appreciate the the question. Um my thought process behind that vote
[2:08:28] specifically was
[2:08:30] to protect the citizens um in an
[2:08:34] opportunity to find an investment to
[2:08:36] generate whatever we needed um whether
[2:08:39] that was water and I feel really
[2:08:42] strongly that if we could take those
[2:08:45] funds and turn them into additional
[2:08:48] water or resources for water um it
[2:08:51] protects us against the concern that we
[2:08:53] have. Infrastructure, sewer
[2:08:55] infrastructure was kind of the other
[2:08:56] component there. Um, and I know there
[2:09:01] was a lot of decision-m back and forth
[2:09:03] on trying to ensure that we protected
[2:09:09] uh ourselves against being able to to
[2:09:12] come out of the third portion of that
[2:09:15] and ensure that, you know, we weren't
[2:09:17] jeopardizing, you know, future water. um
[2:09:22] or ability for future water. But that's
[2:09:25] one of the areas that I feel like
[2:09:28] um it should it's it's an asset of the
[2:09:31] citizens and I really feel very strongly
[2:09:33] that it it needs to go into investment
[2:09:37] for the citizens uh for the benefit of
[2:09:40] our city whatever that is. Um I I would
[2:09:43] support
[2:09:45] um issuing some of some of that towards
[2:09:50] reducing the the percentage uh
[2:09:55] that that we're asking for an increase.
[2:09:58] I I would actually support that over
[2:10:00] pulling from from uh the the funds that
[2:10:04] we have there currently.
[2:10:07] um mainly because we're operating in a
[2:10:10] deficit and we should we should not um
[2:10:13] and so I would support pulling from that
[2:10:17] not pulling from the funds. Um it does
[2:10:22] it it does you know give us less to work
[2:10:25] with and we talked about you know some
[2:10:27] options there that to try to maximize
[2:10:29] it. The grants are one of those. Um
[2:10:33] there's there's other options. there are
[2:10:35] a lot of needs that the city has. Um it
[2:10:38] would be an opportunity to address
[2:10:40] whatever those are. And I've heard many
[2:10:44] um of those. Um you know, I one of the
[2:10:48] things that I ran specifically on was
[2:10:50] finding opportunities to to benefit our
[2:10:52] youth. Um those are parks. Um and I know
[2:10:57] there was some comments made about parks
[2:10:59] specifically. Um, we have looked at
[2:11:02] avenues to duplicate those dollars
[2:11:04] specifically for those parks and the
[2:11:06] Scenic Slopes Parks is is getting
[2:11:08] started on a grant on a on a $34 million
[2:11:12] grant and that's why it's it's moving
[2:11:15] forward. So, um, but I I do think
[2:11:21] we have to try to protect those things
[2:11:23] that that we don't have and parks is one
[2:11:25] of those things that we we don't have.
[2:11:27] So that was another in my mind is
[2:11:30] another avenue that we could look at you
[2:11:33] know without impacting directly the the
[2:11:37] citizens. So anyway
[2:11:41] that was that was my basis of vote
[2:11:46] >> and we really don't know what the future
[2:11:48] brings for us either. I mean, there
[2:11:50] could be economic opportunity that comes
[2:11:53] the city's way in which we can leverage
[2:11:56] and and and reinvest that money into the
[2:12:00] community to bring economic develop
[2:12:03] development in that could affect our
[2:12:05] community for decades down the road. So,
[2:12:09] I mean, that's certainly a possibility
[2:12:11] as well. So, having that is better than not having it. And we discussed and
[2:12:18] we discussed at nauseium the the reasons
[2:12:21] for and the reasons against. Right.
[2:12:23] >> Right. Right.
[2:12:24] >> And and I think um I think ultimately at
[2:12:29] the end of the day we we made a wise
[2:12:31] decision for the future of Grantsville.
[2:12:33] Um so
[2:12:40] that's my thought.
[2:12:47] So, this item is is just a discussion.
[2:12:49] Did you want to say I was just I maybe
[2:12:52] wanted to hear a little more of the
[2:12:53] council's feel on on not dipping into
[2:12:58] I I appreciate
[2:13:01] Derek and Britney and their their
[2:13:04] comments regarding the cola. I feel like
[2:13:09] um I feel that that's something that
[2:13:12] should go through um to those employees.
[2:13:17] And um so as far as on top of that, and
[2:13:22] my mind's going like nine directions
[2:13:24] right now, um I just wanted the
[2:13:27] council's thoughts as far as
[2:13:32] um using using credit funds for that
[2:13:35] specifically or dipping into our savings
[2:13:38] essentially to help offset an increase.
[2:13:48] I I think we use the water credits for
[2:13:51] it all. I mean, it's coming out either
[2:13:54] way, but I mean,
[2:13:56] >> if you want the general fund to look
[2:13:58] better, then just pull it from the water
[2:14:00] credits and I think that would be fine.
[2:14:03] And it if it helps us reduce this tax
[2:14:07] increase uh to help citizens and then
[2:14:09] what's left over we can use it to match
[2:14:11] it, you know, match grants potentially
[2:14:14] double the money.
[2:14:15] >> We still have plenty left.
[2:14:16] >> Yeah. I mean,
[2:14:17] >> so time being.
[2:14:19] >> Um so I I before that and I like that
[2:14:22] direction. I just I mean with with the
[2:14:25] sewer increase we just did I just feel
[2:14:26] like we've just been tax tax like
[2:14:29] everywhere and just I'm just tax
[2:14:32] exhausted and I just you know
[2:14:33] >> I think we all are.
[2:14:35] >> Yeah.
[2:14:35] >> But I also don't think we can put it off
[2:14:37] forever like oh no tax increase forever.
[2:14:39] So I think we do a minimal as much as
[2:14:42] you know minimal possible because we're
[2:14:44] not going to have this water credit
[2:14:45] funds going forward. I mean it will be
[2:14:48] spent. I mean, we're not all here saying
[2:14:50] like, let's spend it quickly, wisely,
[2:14:52] but we also have to account for the cost
[2:14:54] of things growing up. So, I think I do
[2:14:56] think we need some small increase. I'm
[2:14:57] okay whether we get this makeup from the
[2:15:00] I mean, I think Aston was saying that
[2:15:01] 368 was probably coming back into the
[2:15:03] general fund anyways. That's why I said,
[2:15:05] >> right, am I saying that?
[2:15:07] >> Yeah, whatever that that's I was like,
[2:15:08] if we're going to get that, then maybe
[2:15:09] we just take it. But I I think I agree
[2:15:11] with Derek. I don't think it really
[2:15:12] matters as long as we're making that
[2:15:14] difference up.
[2:15:15] >> I think in the end it comes from this
[2:15:18] just going into the
[2:15:20] >> if you think about it, right? It's just
[2:15:22] how how does it impact our residents, I
[2:15:24] think is the question.
[2:15:26] >> Um and and it impacts us all. So, you
[2:15:31] know, how do we how do we do that
[2:15:34] to ensure that we're balancing, you
[2:15:37] know, going forward and
[2:15:41] taking care of that side of it? um as
[2:15:44] well.
[2:15:45] >> Could you remind us again what the tax
[2:15:49] increase for to citizens was is proposed
[2:15:53] by now?
[2:15:54] >> Oh,
[2:15:54] >> or what? Maybe what what happened last
[2:15:56] year? Maybe that's what it was.
[2:15:59] >> I know I don't actually know if they
[2:16:01] proposed for an increase for this year.
[2:16:04] I know historically they they had to do
[2:16:06] a massive increase but a couple like
[2:16:08] probably like 10 years ago and it was
[2:16:10] about 86%.
[2:16:12] um they were in some boat and then one
[2:16:14] thing that they did after that was
[2:16:16] they've incrementally done like three to
[2:16:18] 5% increases since then aside from I
[2:16:21] think they skipped a couple years for co
[2:16:24] >> okay
[2:16:24] >> because they got co relief from
[2:16:26] >> and they didn't do an increase last year
[2:16:28] um I think everyone was hesitant due to
[2:16:31] the proposed increase from the school
[2:16:33] district but that one ended up not going
[2:16:34] through so um
[2:16:36] >> which I'm sure they will propose it
[2:16:38] again this year
[2:16:39] >> yeah but Um, if we did do the the 84%
[2:16:44] increase here puts Gran School City at a
[2:16:46] similar tax rate that Tilda is at
[2:16:50] because I think they're at like 0.002476
[2:16:54] or so and and the 86% rate or would have
[2:16:59] put us right up comparable to
[2:17:04] » Thank you.
[2:17:11] So, we're close, right? We're getting
[2:17:13] better.
[2:17:14] >> I think we're getting closer.
[2:17:15] >> Yeah, even from originally. Sorry, Jeff
[2:17:18] interrupted a little bit there, but I do
[2:17:20] just want to give, you know, to our
[2:17:25] staff just, you know, even going through
[2:17:29] and like with you guys last week, um,
[2:17:31] sitting through the we have even on our
[2:17:35] own, we did cut, you know, 582,000,
[2:17:39] you know, between the departments and
[2:17:41] meeting with you guys last week. So, I
[2:17:43] do appreciate the time that our staff,
[2:17:46] you guys have spent on this because I do
[2:17:47] feel like it's been progress in the
[2:17:50] right direction. So, we're we're getting
[2:17:54] closer.
[2:17:57] » No, thank you, Aspen, as well. I'm sure
[2:17:58] you're seeing these numbers in your
[2:18:00] sleep, so
[2:18:01] >> we all are.
[2:18:02] >> Appreciate it.
[2:18:08] » Okay, so this was just a discussion
[2:18:09] item. Is there anything else that you'd
[2:18:11] like to discuss before our June 3rd
[2:18:15] um tentative budget? I think we've given
[2:18:18] Aspen direction. Do you is there
[2:18:20] anything else you need from us, Aspen?
[2:18:22] So as far as I'm standing right now,
[2:18:25] we're looking I will bring the budget on
[2:18:28] for our June meeting proposed with a 5%
[2:18:32] increase and taking the additional
[2:18:35] 932,000 from now it'll say fund balance
[2:18:39] until we've actually received and made
[2:18:41] decisions on it.
[2:18:43] >> Well, we know by June 3rd that we should
[2:18:45] that
[2:18:46] >> payment should be received.
[2:18:47] >> Yeah, we don't want to spend our chicken
[2:18:48] count our chicken.
[2:18:49] >> Yeah, sure. I mean, if if that doesn't
[2:18:53] >> carry through, then it's going to come
[2:18:55] from fund balance of nine. So,
[2:18:58] >> budget and that meeting can be adjusted
[2:19:01] at your guys's direction. So, it's not
[2:19:03] like that's the one and done, but I do
[2:19:05] just need to have something
[2:19:07] >> available and you know, presented. So,
[2:19:11] that's that's correct. adopted.
[2:19:14] >> Okay.
[2:19:16] >> Any additional information we'd like to
[2:19:19] give Aspen or direction.
[2:19:24] » No. Okay. All right. We will close item
[2:19:27] number nine
[2:19:29] and move to item number 10. A
[2:19:31] presentation of the proposed property
[2:19:33] tax impact schedule.
[2:19:36] >> Oh yeah. Because we talked about the
[2:19:37] budget, we have to review again the
[2:19:42] property tax impact schedule. Um, as we
[2:19:45] >> hold on for just a second.
[2:19:46] >> Uh, Aspen, I need to make note that
[2:19:49] council member Dalton does need to leave
[2:19:51] and so he will be excused at this time.
[2:19:53] >> Okay.
[2:19:54] >> Travel safe.
[2:20:00] » Okay, you can go ahead.
[2:20:02] >> Okay. Um this will since we're moving
[2:20:04] forward with a new direction having an
[2:20:06] interim budget presented at our next
[2:20:08] meeting this will change
[2:20:11] to match what the interim budget will
[2:20:13] be. So um but currently this is how it
[2:20:16] stands. This is what the tender budget
[2:20:17] was presented as and this is what is as
[2:20:21] it stands right now which um grantsville
[2:20:23] city is considering a property tax
[2:20:24] increase from 001368
[2:20:27] to 02517 which exceeds the additional
[2:20:31] estimated, excuse me, certified tax rate
[2:20:33] and is estimated to generate an
[2:20:35] additional 1,749,71
[2:20:38] property tax revenue. Um, so our current
[2:20:42] rate is our 001368
[2:20:45] which generates 2,82,977,000
[2:20:50] in property tax revenue. Um, the new
[2:20:54] property tax rate opposed to 0.02517
[2:20:56] 2517 which parks only 84% increase which
[2:21:01] again generates that addition of
[2:21:03] million749,000.
[2:21:06] So
[2:21:08] there's that one
[2:21:10] and then so that's just a presentation.
[2:21:12] I just have to present this every time
[2:21:14] that we talk about the budget for
[2:21:16] >> Okay. So
[2:21:19] that's that.
[2:21:20] >> But as everyone can tell that's not
[2:21:23] where we're at.
[2:21:24] >> Correct. So this is the one that was
[2:21:26] presented with the tenative budget that
[2:21:28] was first presented at our first May 6th
[2:21:30] meeting. We've since had discussions
[2:21:33] amending and revising that. But so now
[2:21:36] when I present the interim budget at our
[2:21:38] first meeting in June, I'll have a new
[2:21:41] proposed property tax impact schedule
[2:21:43] with the revised amount that is
[2:21:44] reflective to what that interim budget
[2:21:46] shows. So yes, this at this point in
[2:21:50] time is extremely outdated, but
[2:21:53] >> but we have to do it.
[2:21:54] >> Yes.
[2:21:55] >> Truth and taxation.
[2:21:57] >> Yes.
[2:21:58] >> Do we have to pass the resolution today?
[2:22:00] Can we wait until we table this till the
[2:22:02] June 3rd meeting to so we know exactly
[2:22:04] what we're voting on?
[2:22:05] >> Yes. So I I put a
[2:22:08] >> Yes, that's
[2:22:10] we can table it until June 3rd. We just
[2:22:13] have to adopt our tenative budget.
[2:22:17] before we adopt the interim budget.
[2:22:20] >> Yes.
[2:22:21] >> So we need to figure out what we're
[2:22:22] gonna
[2:22:24] So it's we have to adopt the interim
[2:22:27] budget before June 30th.
[2:22:29] >> Okay.
[2:22:29] So we have to adopt the tenative
[2:22:32] budget whether you're going to give
[2:22:35] direction for us to follow the truth and
[2:22:37] taxation process or give direction for
[2:22:39] us to completely deny that and adopt a
[2:22:43] budget by June 30th. Does that make
[2:22:46] sense? So, it's two separate things,
[2:22:48] right?
[2:22:51] » Yeah. And then if we go through the
[2:22:52] truth on taxation process moving forward
[2:22:54] with the tax increase, we will have a
[2:22:58] we'll have a public hearing to adopt an
[2:23:00] interim budget and then we'll have
[2:23:02] another additional public hearing for
[2:23:04] truth and taxation specifically in
[2:23:06] August discussing just the property tax
[2:23:09] increase. Um, so that would be held in
[2:23:12] August and then decided on at that point
[2:23:16] >> and we have to have that note regardless
[2:23:18] of what the number is that we're
[2:23:19] increasing it. We're going to have to
[2:23:20] have that here.
[2:23:21] >> Any any increase that? Yes.
[2:23:24] >> So it'll just be interum until we get to
[2:23:25] the August.
[2:23:26] >> Correct. So that's why we would have to
[2:23:28] adopt an interim budget because our
[2:23:29] fiscal year begins July 1. So we have to
[2:23:32] have some budget to operate on
[2:23:35] >> we go through and then depending on what
[2:23:37] would then be decided in August we would
[2:23:40] then adopt a final budget before
[2:23:42] September 1st.
[2:23:48] » Sorry.
[2:23:51] » So So do we need to table item 11 then?
[2:23:56] Is that the
[2:23:59] best course of action?
[2:24:00] >> Up to you guys. Okay,
[2:24:02] I'll let somebody on the council make
[2:24:04] that decision then.
[2:24:07] >> Mayor, I move to table resolution
[2:24:09] 2026-37
[2:24:11] to the June 3rd city council meeting.
[2:24:14] >> We have a motion. Is there a second?
[2:24:16] >> I second.
[2:24:17] >> So motion by council member Butler, a
[2:24:19] second by council member Thomas. All in
[2:24:21] favor?
[2:24:22] >> I.
[2:24:23] >> Okay, we'll table item 11
[2:24:26] and need a motion to adjurnn.
[2:24:30] Do we want to do council reports?
[2:24:32] >> I thought I put it on the agenda.
[2:24:34] >> Agenda. So
[2:24:35] >> yeah,
[2:24:36] >> the only council report is just what
[2:24:38] said tonight the survey. Everybody,
[2:24:40] please do the survey because they are
[2:24:42] really on me to
[2:24:44] >> No, it's been it I think it's it'll be
[2:24:45] an easy survey. I'm really proud of
[2:24:47] Gransville for getting 74. They said
[2:24:48] >> that's awesome.
[2:24:49] >> They said it was like
[2:24:50] >> I was one of those. Sorry.
[2:24:52] >> Thank you. Thank you. I actually haven't
[2:24:54] done it yet, but they that they would
[2:24:56] like that information.
[2:24:58] I also think the public needs to know
[2:25:00] the reason we rescheduled this meeting.
[2:25:02] Wednesday is graduation.
[2:25:05] >> You have two members on this council
[2:25:07] that have kids graduating and we have
[2:25:09] one councilman that's flying out
[2:25:11] tonight. So
[2:25:12] >> we would had a quorum.
[2:25:13] >> We would have had a quorum. We had to
[2:25:14] reschedu the meeting. Also, Memorial Day
[2:25:16] is the next weekend. We didn't have any
[2:25:19] other days to do that. So please know
[2:25:22] that world.
[2:25:23] >> No other reason.
[2:25:24] >> Yep. Sorry. The only reason
[2:25:26] >> my daughter, blame it on my daughter.
[2:25:31] » And thank you all to the members of the
[2:25:32] public that are here. We appreciate it.
[2:25:36] >> Make a motion we second.
[2:25:39] >> All in favor? I
[2:25:41] can't remember if we done that. Yeah.