[0:21] What time is it, Natalie?
[0:25] » He said eight hours difference.
[0:29] They're seven hours ahead of us.
[0:34] » A little early in the morning. In other
[0:36] words,
[0:39] >> Larry said it's 1:00 in the morning over
[0:41] there.
[0:43] >> We'll go ahead and get started with our
[0:45] budget work meeting. We appreciate you
[0:47] being here. We're a little late getting
[0:49] started, but we want to
[0:55] » Okay. And we want to excuse David who's
[0:58] not with us tonight and Larry who will
[1:00] be on Zoom um if he can make it. So
[1:04] we're going to turn the time tonight
[1:06] over to our city treasurer Cammy Moss
[1:09] and
[1:31] Okay, I'm good. There we go. Okay.
[1:36] Just want to make sure we're
[1:47] okay. Well, we'll make it work, right?
[1:51] Okay. So,
[1:55] um the purpose of this meeting is for
[1:58] you guys to give me direction as to
[2:03] what's important for you so that then I
[2:05] can devise the budget in such a way that
[2:08] it accommodates the things that are
[2:10] important to you as the council.
[2:14] Um, I've gone through like I did the
[2:18] previous year with Jared and we've said,
[2:20] "Okay, these are the projects that we
[2:21] find are important for the city or need
[2:24] to be done in various capacities
[2:29] um and discussed those things. And then
[2:32] we've also looked at um
[2:36] where the budget is at and tried to see
[2:40] if there was any places we needed to
[2:42] adjust. So tonight I thought we would
[2:44] start pro more so with um our enterprise
[2:48] funds more so the storm water and then
[2:51] maybe do garbage and sewer and then if
[2:54] we can talk about the roads. Um but
[2:58] first off
[3:00] uh I wanted to bring one thing to your
[3:04] for your um discussion that I needed to
[3:07] kind of get some direction on and that
[3:10] is um employees wages for this coming
[3:14] year. Um
[3:17] and this is this is something that
[3:20] drives a lot of the budget. So, I want
[3:21] to make sure that we
[3:24] I have a clear understanding of what the
[3:27] council's intentions are with that. Um,
[3:31] of course, this is our wish list. I'll
[3:34] put it together, see how close we come,
[3:36] and then from there, we start cutting
[3:40] and adding and manipulating. Okay? But
[3:43] this gives me a good basis to start to
[3:46] give you something that is meaningful.
[3:49] So, um, currently I've got the current
[3:53] wages, benefits, and then, um, the total
[3:58] on here for each department and such.
[4:01] And then we looked on the workforce
[4:04] service website. Uh, cost of living is
[4:07] 2.6.
[4:09] Um, with the 2.6,
[4:13] we just rounded it up to three for cost
[4:16] of living. We could definitely do 2.6,
[4:19] But for simplicity, we did a 3% cost of
[4:22] living is what we figured. And with
[4:25] that, it does increase the over the
[4:29] overall budget for the city with wages
[4:32] by 66,000.
[4:35] Then we kind of ran a couple other just
[4:37] thought processes. And if anybody wants
[4:39] me to do something different, please
[4:41] feel free to say this is what this point
[4:44] of the meeting is, is to get direction.
[4:48] But I ran a scenario that if um there
[4:52] was 3% and 2%
[4:56] um
[4:58] merit for everybody, it would then cost
[5:01] us another 20. If we went 3% and then 4%
[5:07] for anybody that was making under 25 and
[5:10] 2% for the rest of the employees, it
[5:12] would be 26 more than just the cost of
[5:15] living. And then we did um 3% plus 6%
[5:21] for anybody under 25 and 4% for anybody
[5:24] under 30 and 2% for the rest and it'd be
[5:28] 36 more than just the cost of living.
[5:32] Is there
[5:33] what what's your thoughts? What are you
[5:36] guys wanting to see? Of course, how you
[5:39] administer it is a different thing, but
[5:44] what what type of
[5:46] How do you want to address employees
[5:49] this year?
[5:51] >> What?
[5:52] >> Go ahead.
[5:52] >> I was just going to say cost of living,
[5:54] you know, I think that just out of the
[5:56] gate, I think that's kind of a given
[5:57] anymore.
[5:59] >> Okay.
[5:59] >> So,
[6:00] >> and at 3% I don't see a problem. That's
[6:03] usually what it's been.
[6:04] >> Yeah. I mean, some people are saying
[6:06] two, but like I said, it was 2.6 on the
[6:09] state um website. I just went with
[6:12] three.
[6:14] >> Yeah.
[6:16] So are we thinking just the 3% or do we
[6:19] want to give employees and again this
[6:22] the merit is meant to budget that you
[6:26] can give the employees more but it does
[6:29] not mean that they get it. It's up to
[6:32] you guys to know how to manage it.
[6:35] >> Um,
[6:37] and how to determine who gets what or if
[6:40] they're done something to, you know,
[6:43] merit that merit increase.
[6:45] >> So, what are what are we looking at with
[6:48] the employees? I I haven't talked to a
[6:50] lot of them. What's their thoughts on
[6:52] stuff? Do I guess my question kind of is
[6:55] are we in any danger of somebody walking
[6:58] because they need more money
[7:01] >> that we need
[7:02] >> with the cost of living and the 2% for
[7:06] everybody. You're looking about a dollar
[7:08] an hour per person.
[7:09] >> Oh wow.
[7:10] >> At least um not very much more than that
[7:13] for your lower end employees.
[7:16] What I was trying to find was, you know,
[7:18] at what point did the lower end
[7:20] employees at least get a dollar an hour
[7:22] a piece? Now, some of your higher end
[7:24] would be more like $2 an hour, but your
[7:28] lower end employees, and that's why I
[7:30] kind of ran these other ones saying,
[7:32] "Okay, maybe those lower end guys need a
[7:35] little bit more, you know, and there's
[7:38] nothing saying we couldn't do 2% for
[7:40] everybody under 25 or under 30, you
[7:43] know, but um I basically was looking for
[7:47] what would give those lowerend guys or
[7:51] and gals employ at least a $1 raise and
[7:55] that's that gave everybody pretty close
[7:58] to a $1 raise at least
[7:59] >> which actually minimum
[8:01] >> in today's economy doesn't mean
[8:05] >> so we have really great hardworking
[8:08] employees that do a lot of jobs you know
[8:12] if we had
[8:14] more money and we had a bigger staff but
[8:16] we have employees that are doing
[8:19] multiple jobs because they have to So,
[8:22] I'm always in favor if we can of giving
[8:24] our employees raises. We have some of
[8:27] our employees that have been here for
[8:28] quite some time and are still making
[8:32] not very good comparative
[8:35] and that's always a concern with
[8:37] municipalities because everyone
[8:39] struggles. But people do leave if they
[8:42] can get a job where they make more
[8:44] money.
[8:46] >> Well, we may not be able to match, you
[8:48] know, what they can get going somewhere
[8:49] else, but man, I would sure like to if
[8:51] there's, you know, if there's a way to
[8:54] keep somebody that's already trained and
[8:56] rocking and rolling. I mean, I think if
[8:58] we're going to have a budget item that
[9:01] we need to deal with,
[9:04] employees are the most important. I I
[9:05] mean, I know we need equipment, stuff
[9:07] like that, but if we don't have somebody
[9:09] knows how to run it, doesn't matter what
[9:10] equipment we have. If
[9:12] >> we don't have, you know,
[9:14] decent equipment, then it's not going to
[9:16] matter. And and people in the office
[9:19] that know what they're doing is
[9:21] very valuable as far as I'm concerned
[9:23] >> because I have to ask a lot of dumb
[9:25] questions and they can usually answer
[9:26] them.
[9:28] >> Yeah.
[9:29] >> Well, and I know Jared's worked with
[9:31] them. You know, we had a couple that are
[9:32] working on their CDL license. You know,
[9:35] there's there we're really trying to get
[9:37] them trained. So, we want to get them
[9:40] trained and then we want the job to be
[9:41] worth it so they stay.
[9:44] >> I agree.
[9:45] >> So, did we end up paying for that that
[9:47] training for their CDL? the city paid
[9:49] for that.
[9:50] >> Yes, that was last year. Gave them.
[9:52] >> Yeah. And as part of the budget, I would
[9:55] foresee that we would decrease the
[9:57] training a little bit this year because,
[10:01] >> you know, we they've done that training
[10:04] and then I in my brain, and again, this
[10:08] is not my decision.
[10:09] >> You know, you're decreasing your
[10:11] training amount for maybe you're
[10:13] training some newer guys, so you don't
[10:16] need as much.
[10:17] >> So maybe helps make up the difference a
[10:20] little bit. I don't know. But that's in my brain what happens.
[10:24] >> Have we got a lot of training we need to
[10:25] do?
[10:27] >> I mean the CDL is a onetime fee,
[10:29] >> right? Not per se that is going to be
[10:31] costing. I mean a lot of the training we
[10:34] need to do is in house. So I think we
[10:36] could I agree with Cammy. We could
[10:38] reduce our expense budget for that. I
[10:41] mean, there's some training we can do
[10:44] that we send the classes that they
[10:45] charge, but I think we'd be safe to trim
[10:47] that a little bit.
[10:50] A lot of like the technical stuff, the
[10:52] sewer, we're not going to go to a class
[10:53] and learn how to operate that system.
[10:55] They're going to learn by doing it.
[10:57] >> Because unfortunately, we have a rare
[10:59] system.
[11:00] >> And that that's one of those things
[11:02] where employer retention is key because
[11:05] it's literally going to take you a few
[11:07] years before you're valable. operating
[11:10] that. And if you don't like it one day
[11:15] and you look at another city and they're
[11:16] $3 an hour more, you're gone. You're
[11:20] gone.
[11:20] >> And we did lose two employees this last
[11:23] year. One to another city and one to
[11:26] private.
[11:28] Well, private is going to be really hard
[11:31] to compete with today's economy,
[11:33] >> you know, and I mean the benefits are
[11:35] wonderful and the URS is amazing, but at
[11:38] the end of the day, does that put bread
[11:39] on the table,
[11:41] >> you know, and that's that's the question
[11:44] a lot of these young kids are asking.
[11:46] >> Correct me if I'm wrong. Actually, to
[11:48] one of our new planning commission
[11:49] members is quite helpful with the sewer,
[11:53] didn't you? Was there one of the guys on
[11:54] the planning commission?
[11:55] >> Oh, Nate. Nate knows a lot about the
[11:59] gravity sewer especially. Yeah, he's
[12:02] >> much on the on the vacuum but
[12:05] >> we we're one of only like a few in the
[12:07] nation, right? Of the
[12:09] >> not in the nation there's quite a few
[12:12] around here like Florida has a lot but
[12:14] >> okay
[12:16] Western Mississippi. Yeah.
[12:17] >> Okay.
[12:20] >> We're special. Okay.
[12:23] And that that's not the only I if you
[12:25] look at the like hourly wage some of our
[12:27] lower end guys I mean they really can go
[12:30] anywhere. I get McDonald's a lot there's
[12:34] a note in the window there to start for
[12:36] $20 an hour and we're what's our lower
[12:38] end guys making
[12:39] >> around 20 22
[12:41] >> yeah we I think we maybe have a couple
[12:43] that are
[12:44] >> Have we had them for a while? I'm not
[12:46] really sure how long we've had it for
[12:47] >> some of them. Yeah. Yeah.
[12:50] >> Yeah.
[12:52] sense to try and keep them.
[12:55] >> Yeah, that's what I think.
[12:57] >> I don't want to do all the talking.
[13:00] >> So, my question is, do we have an
[13:01] increased revenue stream somewhere
[13:04] that's going to
[13:05] >> offset this?
[13:06] >> Not necessarily.
[13:08] >> So, we're going to have to rob Peter to
[13:10] pay Paul basically.
[13:11] >> How much do we have in training this
[13:12] year?
[13:13] >> Um
[13:15] overall, but let's look.
[13:19] Well, so for fiscal year
[13:22] 26 you're meaning
[13:24] >> um
[13:25] >> or 25
[13:27] >> both actually.
[13:29] >> Yeah. So okay so training
[13:32] >> just 4,000
[13:33] >> 4,000 for that one because you got to
[13:36] remember we got all these department
[13:39] >> so I kind of have to add them up.
[13:42] There's 10,000 there.
[14:01] » Yeah, just under 15 so far.
[14:03] >> Yeah.
[14:04] And then you know we have also ensu some
[14:07] training
[14:10] right there.
[14:12] or 35
[14:13] >> 35 so that's 18
[14:16] >> which I guess if we trimmed all of that pretty much does that
[14:24] >> so 66
[14:29] » but you know I mean I'm not saying
[14:31] that's what we have to do I'm just
[14:34] throwing the ideas out like I said this
[14:36] is your budget not mine and that's why I
[14:39] want to know what's important to you
[14:42] and maybe we talk about where our
[14:43] capital projects are and what projects
[14:45] we're going to fund and then come back
[14:47] to this. Do you want to go that route
[14:50] so you can give me better direction on
[14:51] it?
[14:52] >> Well, there'd be a lot more money tied
[14:53] up in capital projects for sure where we
[14:55] might be able to peel a little off
[14:57] unless I'm missing my
[14:58] >> possibly. Yeah.
[15:01] >> Sorry.
[15:06] Well, I think our our employees, just
[15:08] like you said, are really one of our
[15:09] most essential assets.
[15:12] >> And we really do get them when we start
[15:14] to train them and we think, "Oh, good.
[15:16] They're going to be here." And I, you
[15:18] know, I certainly understand if they can
[15:20] go to another city and make more money,
[15:21] but then we're starting over with
[15:23] someone. And so it would, I think
[15:27] whatever we could do would be really
[15:29] >> okay with option C.
[15:33] The one I highlighted.
[15:34] >> No, the next one.
[15:35] >> Oh, the next one.
[15:38] >> 92,000.
[15:41] >> Three.
[15:42] >> You know, I can't read that option. See?
[15:44] Clear to the left.
[15:45] >> Oh, sorry. Yeah. So, let me make that
[15:48] wider. Sorry. So, it'd be 3%. This was
[15:52] the the like to me the what we would
[15:56] dream of is basically 3% for everybody,
[16:00] 6% Sorry, just the one above.
[16:03] >> Oh, okay. The one above.
[16:05] >> So, this would be 4% for anybody under
[16:08] $25 an hour and 2% for the rest of the
[16:11] employees.
[16:12] >> Yeah, like I said, administering it,
[16:15] that's your choice on how to administer
[16:17] it. And I definitely would encourage
[16:18] coming up with some type of a, you know,
[16:20] system or if you're going to trust it,
[16:23] you know, the department head to make
[16:24] that decision. You know, that's
[16:26] something you have to decide. I just
[16:27] need to know what to put in the budget
[16:30] that would, you know, know worst case
[16:31] scenario.
[16:33] >> So,
[16:34] >> I I personally I think the cost of
[16:37] living obviously I think that's probably
[16:39] hit us more lately than with the
[16:41] inflation than it ever has before. I
[16:44] think everybody's
[16:46] understands that. And then the other
[16:48] part I like performancedriven merit like
[16:51] give them a goal or two to meet. We've
[16:53] done some of that this year and it's
[16:55] worked well.
[16:56] >> Don't just give it to them. So hold off
[16:58] the 4% until you come up with
[17:01] >> Yeah. Give them a couple of goals and
[17:02] once they meet it, then we go ahead and
[17:04] reward them for what they've done.
[17:06] >> Yeah. Because we've talked about doing
[17:08] evaluations, but it's hard to say here's
[17:10] your evaluation, but
[17:11] >> thank you,
[17:13] >> you know, if there's nothing to go along
[17:15] with it. So it'd be good to have
[17:17] something.
[17:18] >> Okay. So this the orange one is what our
[17:20] goal that we're thinking is if we can
[17:23] make it work. This is all if. Okay. But
[17:26] this is giving me an idea what your goal
[17:29] are as a council. Okay.
[17:32] So, I'll anything in orange I'm
[17:35] going I'm doing tonight because I'm
[17:37] wearing orange, right? That's how I'm
[17:39] going to remember. So, okay. Um so,
[17:44] let's let's go to our storm water
[17:46] because that's just not going to be a
[17:49] whole big huge I don't think. Um the
[17:53] storm water one. We have this big
[17:56] project and that number is wrong. Sorry,
[17:59] I didn't update that one.
[18:01] >> Um,
[18:05] we have this big project over in which
[18:08] subdivision?
[18:08] >> It's on 5900 around the Bend
[18:11] >> Green Landing where they have offered
[18:15] the developers offered to help with some
[18:17] of it. We pushed it down the road last
[18:20] year.
[18:23] I From what Jared says, we're going to
[18:25] lose out on it if we don't
[18:27] >> for their last phase currently. So, if
[18:31] we want to tie
[18:33] >> That's tie this to that phase, this is
[18:38] the year we need to get it done.
[18:40] >> And what like amounts does that?
[18:43] >> So, he's offered to do the labor and I
[18:45] think he gave us gave us or offered to
[18:48] give us I'm not sure if we've collected
[18:49] it yet. 20,000. ring a bell
[18:53] >> in cash and then we buy the parts and he
[18:56] lays it and does the labor. So
[19:00] >> boxes, pipe, gravel, we pretty much
[19:03] everything besides laying it and then
[19:05] equipment to lay it he's going to do
[19:07] which is significant. I would off the
[19:11] cuff think that might double or not
[19:13] quite double if that was just a
[19:15] municipal project out for bit. So he's donating a significant amount to
[19:20] the project.
[19:22] >> Will he uh provide the manpower to take
[19:25] care of the road? You know, flag
[19:26] flagmen. Will he take care of that too?
[19:30] >> We really haven't drilled that down. Um
[19:33] the exact that that's kind of what he
[19:35] committed to a previous council in a
[19:38] nutshell. We haven't drilled it down to
[19:40] all the nuts and bolts.
[19:43] >> And I think we did have some ARP funds,
[19:46] didn't we? So that Let me let me jump
[19:48] over to that storm water and maybe this
[19:50] will help with that discussion. Okay,
[19:52] >> so I took a real rough stab at what you
[19:57] know I thought maybe we could think
[20:00] about.
[20:01] >> Um and again I'm not the elected person
[20:04] so you guys tell me where you want to
[20:06] go. But um just a second. I'm trying to
[20:10] get it so it will freeze this and I
[20:12] can't do it with the
[20:15] Okay, there we go. Okay. So, if we
[20:27] increased our rates from $6 to $8, which
[20:31] is $2 more, we used the 165 that we have
[20:36] left of
[20:38] it's
[20:39] money that was originally given to us
[20:42] with ARPA, but we have to be careful how
[20:44] we say that because we've spent it with
[20:47] how we got reimbured. So, it's kind of
[20:49] that rainy day we set aside. Okay. Um,
[20:53] and then I figured about 32 with
[20:55] interest based on this year's interest.
[20:59] We kind of talked about me and Jared
[21:01] about what expenses Jared felt would be
[21:04] good there. And then this is with the
[21:06] other scenario, the one that I had in
[21:08] yellow on the wages. If we did that, we
[21:12] would be negative 623
[21:16] on our funds. So, we would have to use
[21:19] 623,000
[21:20] of fund balance,
[21:22] which we have that we have 6865
[21:26] as of the end of fiscal 25.
[21:29] Then if I count for the income from 26
[21:31] like we budgeted, the expenses like we
[21:34] budgeted for 26, then that would be our
[21:37] beginning fund balance for fiscal year
[21:40] um our ending fund balance for fiscal
[21:42] year 26. So we would have 81,000 kind of
[21:47] sitting there that we could draw. We
[21:49] wouldn't go negative, but we would only
[21:51] have $188,000
[21:54] in that fund balance. That means this
[21:57] would be the only we have from that fund
[22:01] until we get that built back up and it's
[22:03] going to take a while to build that back
[22:05] up.
[22:06] Um, again, that's
[22:10] >> we we know we have other needs. I think
[22:12] I prepared probably been a year or two
[22:15] ago a list of like 13
[22:18] >> storm drain related projects that could
[22:20] fail at any time. Um, I guess the what
[22:24] makes this maybe more urgent is the
[22:27] participation
[22:28] what we're going to get from the private
[22:30] side.
[22:31] >> Remind us what this project does for us.
[22:33] What does this accomplish?
[22:34] >> So, it it's really regional. All the
[22:37] water on 5900 and kind of that corner of
[22:40] town goes down 5900 and then turns west
[22:44] and goes out to the south fork of the
[22:46] Weber River. And it's really und sized
[22:50] when we like in the drought right now
[22:52] it's not a big deal but when we get a
[22:54] regular winter and it's running off
[22:57] sometimes that'll run over capacity for
[23:00] two or three weeks.
[23:01] >> Where does it go?
[23:04] >> Oh that's where it goes.
[23:06] >> Where does it go to right now?
[23:07] >> Out to the south of the river. So it
[23:11] goes clear to the end of 59 and then it turns west and
[23:16] goes across the north boundary of that
[23:19] bird's property.
[23:22] >> This is one of that deal where when you
[23:25] put a detention pond in it never dry up
[23:28] and it was kind of an agreement that if
[23:30] he laid this pipe then he wouldn't have
[23:33] to put the detention pond in. So the
[23:35] storm drain would be fed into this pipe.
[23:39] >> So he was able to
[23:41] So, this increases the capacity for
[23:45] >> and it's
[23:47] not all this development's fault, but we
[23:50] the at the time the council wasn't real
[23:53] comfortable with adding to that until it
[23:55] was taken care of. So, I think it's
[23:57] probably
[24:00] his share and maybe even some to for
[24:02] what he's doing because it does serve
[24:04] way more than his property.
[24:09] Yeah, this is clear to the I call it the
[24:12] burnt church. I'm not sure what off that
[24:14] is, but all of that drainage.
[24:17] >> So, it comes from the burnt church
[24:19] north. Okay. Doesn't that ditch that
[24:21] drain ditch because I had cows at the
[24:24] end of that year ago. Doesn't that go
[24:26] clear out into the old bell
[24:29] that drain ditch?
[24:30] >> Um, so there there's another key there.
[24:33] There's a water ride off the end of that
[24:35] for Dean Murray. That used to be who
[24:38] done that?
[24:41] >> Yeah.
[24:42] >> So, there is a ditch that goes that
[24:43] that's his ours right now goes on an
[24:46] angle from 3800
[24:50] across that private property over to
[24:53] that north boundary and goes west. We're
[24:55] going to make it a straight. We've made
[24:57] an agreement with that fellow that we
[25:00] will move it to his boundary.
[25:03] >> So the new subdivision by the church,
[25:05] the M church, so their storm water will
[25:08] go into this project.
[25:10] >> It historically has. We've actually
[25:13] worked with them and we're going to take
[25:15] that storm drain back to the Slooh
[25:17] because the Slooh is so deep right close
[25:19] to them. Okay.
[25:20] >> Rather than have to work out some kind
[25:21] of piping or maintenance agreement all
[25:24] the way to the end of 59.
[25:27] work
[25:28] south to this and only going to take it
[25:30] about a quarter month.
[25:32] >> Yeah.
[25:33] >> The one thing that we were hoping to do
[25:36] as well though and this might be also
[25:39] helpful to think of but we have this um
[25:42] impact fee study that's going.
[25:46] We are getting word that it probably
[25:48] won't be done by the end of fiscal year
[25:50] 26. So we may have to shift it. But I'm
[25:53] not going to budget for it because if
[25:55] anything we're shifting from one year to
[25:57] the next and we've already budgeted it
[25:59] in the previous year. So, we maybe
[26:01] think, okay, well, we're adding to fund
[26:03] balance previous year. We're going to
[26:04] use fund balance, you know, why why um
[26:09] budget for it in two years, you know, um
[26:12] if we're not spending it. So that being
[26:15] said, you know, if once we get our
[26:18] impact fee,
[26:20] maybe some of these projects that are
[26:24] increasing capacity, we can use that
[26:26] for.
[26:28] I almost wonder if we couldn't determine
[26:31] how much the increased capacity is on
[26:34] this project
[26:36] and as soon as the impact fee is done,
[26:39] we pre-spend impact fees for that.
[26:42] reimburse that fund,
[26:44] >> but I don't have that study yet to know,
[26:48] you know, so maybe we try and really
[26:50] push this impact fee to get done first.
[26:55] And if they can get it done by the end
[26:56] of the year, then we can pre-spend some
[26:59] impact fees.
[27:01] True. We still don't want to go
[27:02] negative, but we have another revenue
[27:04] source. Do you see my thought?
[27:06] >> So the 120 we haven't spent this year,
[27:08] nor what do we spend this year? You're
[27:09] thinking 27.
[27:11] >> I So, I'm leaving it in this year's
[27:14] budget, but if they don't have the
[27:18] project done, then we would have to
[27:21] amend the budget and put it here. But my
[27:24] thought is if you didn't spend it here,
[27:26] you're adding to fund balance for 120.
[27:29] So, you take 120 away from fund balance
[27:31] the following year. If that makes sense.
[27:34] So, you add it to the pot. Now, you're
[27:35] taking it the next year. So, I didn't
[27:37] want to use this year's revenue when we
[27:39] already used last year's revenue for
[27:42] that project. I see what my thought was.
[27:44] Does that make sense? Hopefully,
[27:46] >> Jared. And here's those that list. I
[27:48] don't know if these have changed or
[27:50] they're still there.
[27:51] >> They're still there. There's probably
[27:53] more.
[27:54] >> As I say, I don't think they
[27:56] >> One thing just kind of to keep in mind
[27:58] that we've changed the last couple of
[28:00] years. So storm I want you to recognize
[28:03] the difference between storm drain and
[28:05] storm water. So the storm drain is the
[28:08] utility out there the pipes that that
[28:10] actually drain whatever we're draining.
[28:13] The storm water is the program and the
[28:16] clean water act and the administering
[28:19] that that we just got audited on with
[28:21] the state that that so they're two
[28:23] separate things and we've kind of
[28:25] combined them. Historically, we've
[28:27] funded storm drain from the general fund
[28:30] in the streets department. And now we've
[28:33] separated that out and use
[28:37] fund both of them with storm water,
[28:39] which we can do. And it's probably a
[28:42] better view of what we're really doing.
[28:44] >> But that's kind of the difference
[28:46] between the last few years budgets and
[28:49] this one.
[28:50] >> And in the past, we had them all in the
[28:53] utility fund, which we broke out. So,
[28:56] Yes, you're exactly right. And there's
[28:58] nothing saying that we can't use some
[29:00] general fund money to fund storm water
[29:04] projects if we need to. It's the vice
[29:06] versa that gets fun and interesting. But
[29:11] if you can use general fund things to
[29:13] fund enterprise funds. So we could if we
[29:16] needed to look at some of that, but you
[29:21] know um and I kind of looked around. I
[29:24] didn't necessarily call a bunch of
[29:26] cities, but I know quite a few cities
[29:29] are around $8, if not more for the fee.
[29:35] So, really changing from six to eight is
[29:37] not unheard of. We're not going to, you
[29:41] know, be the highest one in the town or
[29:44] in the not town, but in the state by
[29:47] going
[29:47] >> So, if you two bucks a month, that's $24
[29:51] a year basically.
[29:53] >> That's essentially
[29:58] $30.
[29:59] >> Wow.
[30:03] » We We do need to have get some because
[30:05] we have no idea when any of these are
[30:06] going to fit because Jared gave us this
[30:09] list two years ago
[30:11] >> and we haven't fixed any of them.
[30:16] » Yeah. a lot of I I think this storm
[30:19] drain something that never really had
[30:21] its own funding source and its own
[30:24] backing financially and so it got
[30:26] neglected but a lot of the pipes we work
[30:29] on that fail or you know the neighbors
[30:32] will come out oh they put that in in
[30:34] 1950 or so I mean they're old
[30:36] >> that's being generous
[30:39] >> so yeah we're
[30:41] >> and you think about it it's just like a
[30:43] water system or a sewer system all the
[30:45] piping it takes just as much piping for
[30:48] storm drain as it does for any other
[30:50] utility. So
[30:52] >> to not have a funding source doesn't
[30:54] make a lot of common sense.
[30:56] >> How many attachments do we have to the
[31:00] or how many residents that are victim of
[31:02] the storm?
[31:03] >> Um so I have 2902
[31:06] yeah connections
[31:08] >> and then I figured $88 fee that would be
[31:10] our monthly income. So
[31:13] >> you already did that. I was just
[31:16] Did we account for any of the audit? We
[31:18] still have some audit expenses. Have we
[31:21] accounted for any of them in here? As
[31:23] far as the
[31:24] >> I think that was somewhat to do with
[31:27] some of these increases. Um engineering
[31:31] we increased.
[31:32] >> What did we decide on that?
[31:34] >> I think our expense was the
[31:37] >> we were kind of up in the air when you
[31:39] left that day.
[31:40] >> Yeah.
[31:40] >> As to what direction
[31:41] >> and I know Larry had council member
[31:44] Rapto had talked about But I think it
[31:46] ended up being a lot bigger of a
[31:48] project.
[31:52] » We got him. We got him the golf cart
[31:54] ready and the GPS unit. He's done quite
[31:57] a bit.
[31:57] >> Really?
[31:58] >> Yes.
[31:59] >> Like I would even volunteer some hours
[32:02] if you needed somebody else to help.
[32:05] >> Yeah. I I think we're going to get data
[32:07] collected.
[32:07] >> Well, that's what we're doing.
[32:09] >> We were looking at like 70 $80,000 to
[32:11] have JV do it.
[32:13] >> Yeah. It was a lot. They'll still
[32:15] compile it. They just won't have an
[32:17] employee out here shooting all the
[32:20] points. We're going to
[32:21] >> Yeah, Larry's done the math on it and he
[32:22] basically has 64 miles of drive because
[32:25] you got to do both sides of the road,
[32:27] >> yada yada. But I will tell you that is
[32:30] probably to our advantage that he got
[32:33] involved because Jub was actually
[32:37] their guy was going to monitor
[32:38] irrigation ditches and stuff like that
[32:40] because he didn't know what was
[32:42] irrigation ditches and what were storm
[32:45] water ditches. He was telling Larry the
[32:47] one day because they went around and
[32:48] looked at some of the stuff and the
[32:49] guy's like, "Well, you got to do this
[32:51] one." Larry's like, "No, that's
[32:52] irrigation ditch." Like, you know, kind
[32:54] of like maybe on yours down here in 5900
[32:56] on that side of the road. You know,
[32:58] that's not the ditch that we needed
[33:00] done, but they were going to do it and
[33:02] have bills back for it. So, even just
[33:04] having Larry ride around with him
[33:06] >> saved us some hassles down the road
[33:08] because they frankly didn't know what
[33:11] was what.
[33:13] >> Interesting.
[33:15] Good to know.
[33:17] >> So,
[33:19] I kind of think
[33:21] >> then we're at the
[33:22] >> pretty simple. It's pretty simple.
[33:25] >> Um, so we're kind of saying yes on the
[33:28] 880. We want to budget for that. That's
[33:31] a priority to the council.
[33:33] >> Is that number one priority?
[33:35] >> Like I said, the biggest thing there is
[33:37] if we pass on that, I think we're going
[33:40] to probably lose our commitment or at
[33:42] least it's going to be to get it and and
[33:45] that price doubles in the future
[33:47] roughly. Not quite, but
[33:50] >> And do you think you could maybe push
[33:52] Jub to get this one done? And like I
[33:54] said, we could pre-spend impact fees.
[33:56] Give us another
[33:57] >> I can ask him. I have no idea.
[33:59] >> It's not designed yet.
[34:00] >> Oh, it's designed. She's talking about
[34:02] the impact fee study.
[34:04] >> The impact fee study. Yeah.
[34:05] >> So J
[34:07] part and then they'll send it to Cody
[34:09] for the financial and I don't know how
[34:11] long that takes. I I can talk to Taylor
[34:14] and see what timeline we're looking at
[34:16] >> because, you know, if we could get
[34:18] charging that fee for some of these
[34:21] projects out there that are getting
[34:23] developed,
[34:25] we can use it for their
[34:26] >> So, I I do have a curiosity question on
[34:28] Dale. You mentioned that he got an extra
[34:30] lot because he didn't have to put in the
[34:32] retention.
[34:33] >> Retention.
[34:34] >> Okay. Are we getting any how much bang
[34:37] for our buck are we getting back out of
[34:39] that?
[34:39] >> Well, that's where he's going to lay all
[34:41] the pipe. Okay. Yeah. So, that's going
[34:43] to take care of And
[34:45] >> are you good with that? Cuz you've been
[34:47] involved.
[34:47] >> Yeah. I I think we felt real good.
[34:50] >> Okay.
[34:50] >> We honestly couldn't get the couldn't
[34:52] get the detention basing to work there.
[34:55] >> Yeah.
[34:55] >> And we're like then Tracy kind of came
[34:58] Tracy Allen came up with the idea, why
[35:00] don't we have you improve some
[35:02] downstream to handle it that you don't
[35:05] need detention? And he's like, yeah,
[35:07] that'll work. So,
[35:09] >> I have not been involved in
[35:12] And it's good to know that the reason it
[35:14] wouldn't work because it was never dry.
[35:18] » Yeah.
[35:18] >> But deep enough for all the homes to
[35:21] drain into that.
[35:22] >> It was full of water.
[35:23] >> It was
[35:25] sense.
[35:26] >> Yeah. That's why I just have to yield to
[35:27] you if you're involved in the other
[35:29] component there, not to get off on a
[35:31] tangent. So there's land drain in there
[35:33] to drain those homes and it has to have
[35:36] this system in to find the outfall for
[35:39] it. And so before we have a wet year, it
[35:42] would be good to get that done or them
[35:44] homes and they might have some risk
[35:46] >> and then we are responsible, right?
[35:53] » And he's applied for phase two. We're in
[35:55] phase two right now.
[35:57] >> So
[36:00] » yeah, it's kind of
[36:02] >> Yeah. Well, I think it's
[36:04] >> off for quite a few years.
[36:05] >> You guys are more versed on. So, how do
[36:08] you feel about going from the six to the
[36:10] eight then?
[36:12] >> How do you
[36:13] >> It's necessary.
[36:14] >> Yeah, I can see how there's no
[36:17] about that. That doesn't make
[36:19] >> it. Yeah.
[36:20] >> And we know it's not like a band-aid
[36:22] that we can pull some money out of
[36:24] savings and then we're done. We know
[36:25] we've got projects lined up that need
[36:28] funding.
[36:29] >> Yeah. And we're already pulling as much
[36:31] as I would dare even let you pull out of
[36:33] savings, you know, because you're only
[36:36] sitting 88 after that, you know, so
[36:39] roughly 200
[36:40] >> after we do this. It's not a whole lot
[36:42] of money,
[36:43] >> even though we'd like to think it is,
[36:45] but it's not when you're talking
[36:48] >> business or cities.
[36:50] >> So,
[36:51] >> yeah. So, really, if we could get that
[36:54] additional revenue source, that would
[36:56] before we improve anything else that,
[37:00] you know, any of it would help
[37:02] >> that revenue source
[37:04] >> for that impact.
[37:07] Okay. So, that's that one. Then, um I'm
[37:11] going to just jump to garbage real
[37:13] quick. And that's not one of your
[37:14] printouts because it doesn't really have
[37:16] any capital plans, but I'll just kind of
[37:20] give you a lowown what I know so far
[37:22] with garbage. And then we'll jump into
[37:24] the big bag one is the sewer, of course.
[37:28] So, um right now our garbage fee for
[37:32] regular can is $13.50.
[37:35] Um, for a second can it's $9. For a
[37:39] recycling can it's $750.
[37:42] Um, we are told that we're going to have
[37:45] a 5% increase in these services. Our um
[37:50] garbage contract fee, our recycling fee,
[37:54] and our tipping fee. And then
[37:57] >> 5% each one.
[37:59] >> So Okay.
[38:00] >> Yeah. So about 15%.
[38:02] >> And we're not sure yet on tipping, but
[38:04] we thought we build it in because we
[38:07] don't know. It'll all depend on what
[38:08] happens with the waste.
[38:11] >> Yeah. And that might
[38:12] >> if they shut it down or not.
[38:14] >> Yeah. So 5% might be conservative, but
[38:18] you know, a budget is not a written
[38:19] document that we have written in stone.
[38:21] We have to manipulate it throughout the
[38:24] year. If something drastic like that
[38:26] happened and it went up or if it went
[38:28] down, I'm not opposed to going down on
[38:30] things by all means. So with that, I
[38:34] kind of ran some numbers and right now
[38:38] what I'm looking at is possibly
[38:41] increasing. This is this year. This is
[38:44] what I'm thinking about. And then this
[38:46] is the amount of the increase and the
[38:48] percentage wise. So I was thinking from
[38:52] for can we'd go to 625.
[38:55] Second can or 1625. Second can would be
[38:59] 1175.
[39:01] Recycling would go to 1050. So that
[39:05] gives your regular garbages a 275
[39:08] increase and your recycling a $3
[39:10] increase.
[39:12] >> So the food's only 15%. Why are we doing
[39:15] 20 30 40?
[39:17] >> Um well so also we have
[39:24] increased.
[39:25] Oh, another thing. Yeah, we'll get to
[39:29] that just
[39:31] don't forget. Let me forget to talk
[39:33] about the paper thing.
[39:34] >> Um, a little bit of wages.
[39:39] So,
[39:43] this formula is just 5% increase from
[39:46] there.
[39:47] 5% increase there, 5% there.
[39:52] And it does end up closer to those
[39:55] percentages.
[39:57] >> Do you want to talk about the paperless
[39:59] or not? Right now
[40:00] >> in just one second. That was the thing I thought of like we'll come back to
[40:05] that. So
[40:10] I'm not sure why it equates that, but
[40:12] this is the number of cans we build
[40:15] for each one
[40:18] of the services.
[40:21] And that's the percentage of the total.
[40:28] But that's what I
[40:30] >> So is the second one. 2900 is who has
[40:33] two cans.
[40:34] >> Two or more counts.
[40:36] >> Okay. There more there than regular.
[40:39] >> Yeah.
[40:39] >> Cuz some people have three, some people
[40:41] have four, five.
[40:43] >> So the people that have two aren't in
[40:45] the regular category.
[40:47] >> No, they're in the regular, too. These
[40:48] are the number of cans. So the number of
[40:51] first cans is 1406. The number of second
[40:55] cans. No.
[40:56] >> How do we have more second?
[41:00] >> Right.
[41:00] >> But do you say second, third, fourth,
[41:02] and fifth? So it could be
[41:05] >> Yeah, that's the amount of
[41:06] >> 2900 must not be in regular. They must
[41:09] just be who has two or more.
[41:11] >> Yeah, I think you're right. I think
[41:13] that's where my problem is. I think
[41:15] you're 100% correct.
[41:17] >> So second would be like
[41:23] Yeah, because
[41:27] well the first counts would be
[41:30] >> more than that You have 2900
[41:33] more.
[41:34] >> I think those numbers are just
[41:36] flip-flops.
[41:37] >> Yeah, first one, 1400.
[41:40] >> The second one would make a lot more
[41:41] sense.
[41:44] » Let me look at this. It's going to be
[41:47] about the same. Yeah. 29. I was going to
[41:49] say it's going to be about the same as
[41:51] the storm water. So, yeah, I think
[41:53] you're exactly right.
[41:55] Okay, let's fix that real quick.
[42:01] Good catch.
[42:04] >> See, don't hire me.
[42:08] >> 15 doesn't count to 20,
[42:12] » which then if we do that,
[42:15] we're over. Yeah.
[42:19] I'm impressed you can do this on the
[42:20] fly.
[42:21] >> It's amazing.
[42:25] » I worked on balancing my checkbook
[42:30] city budget here.
[42:35] I hate it when you do odd numbers other
[42:38] than like you know 1550
[42:45] to $2
[42:47] >> and that's 15%
[42:49] $2.
[42:50] >> Yeah, 15% is the $2.
[42:54] And then this one would be
[42:57] more like
[43:12] Yeah, that makes me a lot better. Yeah.
[43:16] So, with that trying to hit there, you
[43:20] could probably even do this additional
[43:23] to 1050.
[43:26] Yeah, that's better.
[43:28] So the the first can would be $2 more.
[43:31] Additional can would be 150 or recycling
[43:34] would be 125 more.
[43:36] >> So just for kids and giggles first can
[43:39] 15 bucks.
[43:40] >> Okay.
[43:41] >> And the second can 11.
[43:43] >> Okay.
[43:45] Or deficit 4,000
[43:47] >> deficit of
[43:48] >> 4,000.
[43:50] So, we could even do
[43:53] uh
[43:54] >> so do the second count
[43:55] >> 1125
[43:56] >> 1150. Yeah. 25
[43:58] >> or deficit $200, which I don't have
[44:00] heartburn with at all. You deficit, you
[44:04] know, $200.
[44:06] >> We're just trying the idea of the g the
[44:09] uh garbage fund is to come as close to
[44:11] zero as possible,
[44:13] >> you know, cover itself.
[44:16] >> Yep. Exactly.
[44:18] So, you know, and we do have a little
[44:20] bit of fun balance there,
[44:23] but it's not a ton. And but we're okay,
[44:26] you know, by not having a large balance
[44:28] there.
[44:30] So,
[44:32] that would give us a little bit better.
[44:34] The additional can though, that would
[44:36] still be a 225 increase. Would we rather
[44:39] see more like a 1525
[44:42] and then an 11 there?
[44:45] >> I would
[44:47] need a second four can more because
[44:50] they're using creating more.
[44:53] >> It's a usage fee, right?
[44:55] >> Yeah. But the idea is that the garbage
[44:57] truck has to it costs X amount for the
[45:00] garbage truck to be there
[45:02] >> and adding one more can is not that much
[45:05] more work.
[45:09] I I agree. But that's how they bill us.
[45:12] >> Like if you have 10 people living in
[45:14] your house, then you should pay for it.
[45:17] >> Versus the people have two people living
[45:18] in their house that are local.
[45:22] >> Yeah. That wouldn't be crazy if they
[45:24] were the same price, honestly. So, yeah.
[45:26] >> Well, that's what I was thinking, too.
[45:27] Why aren't they just the same price?
[45:30] >> 15 bucks for each kid.
[45:34] » I don't know. That's just the way. Well,
[45:35] if we if we kept them the same price, if
[45:38] we upped the second can to be the same
[45:41] price as the first can.
[45:45] » Well, you'd have to up it a little bit
[45:46] more. So, like 14 and 14 maybe.
[45:53] Yeah, like 14 and 14.
[45:58] >> Gives us 11,000 positive.
[46:02] >> Or if you even
[46:08] They charge us about half for additional
[46:10] cans of what the first is. And I think
[46:11] it is because they say there's just
[46:13] stopping one time.
[46:14] >> Yeah. They don't have to drive. They're
[46:16] just there. So they do charge.
[46:18] >> So this is our bill. It's about half for the second can is what the first
[46:23] one.
[46:23] >> Here's our bill for February. This is
[46:26] how much was recycling. This is how much
[46:28] was the first can. And here was the rest
[46:30] of the cans.
[46:33] According to the bail,
[46:36] >> how many people do we have recycling?
[46:40] >> You have
[46:42] 1585.
[46:44] >> Surprised
[46:47] had a lot recently too, especially after
[46:50] last budget. A lot of people cancel. I'm
[46:52] sure it will go down again.
[46:55] So go back to
[46:58] the first
[47:03] 25.
[47:11] » Yeah, you're canceling.
[47:14] That's the first one that goes.
[47:19] » I've already discussed canceling this
[47:21] third can.
[47:27] The fifth can
[47:29] have five cans in their driveway. It's
[47:31] like what?
[47:33] >> Yeah.
[47:33] >> They must have a business.
[47:34] >> I know who it is. Yeah.
[47:36] >> Nobody can generate. You can't buy that
[47:38] many pizzas. Okay.
[47:43] » So,
[47:43] >> when you get up there, three cans. I
[47:46] mean, I at my house, I have a dumpster
[47:48] and it's not any more than three cans.
[47:51] I'd probably 10 in there.
[47:56] » I'm just missing Dave and Ray next door
[48:01] neighbors and share one.
[48:03] >> I Well, Dave and Ray, Dave's custom
[48:06] hauling was next door for many years. I
[48:10] miss them
[48:12] in many ways.
[48:14] >> That's for certain. We're getting a 15%
[48:16] increase, you know.
[48:18] Uh for sure that one and for sure that
[48:20] one.
[48:21] >> This one is our best guess.
[48:23] >> Tipping may may go down. You know, we
[48:25] were paying 50 and they said about 49,
[48:28] but then it didn't.
[48:30] >> Has it ever actually gone down?
[48:34] » That's that's kind of my point.
[48:37] >> Things just don't go down.
[48:39] >> No. And if it went up again, so
[48:42] >> let's admit the budget and let's give a
[48:45] decrease. I'm not opposed to it.
[48:47] >> Yeah. But if by some miracle it went
[48:50] down, let's just
[48:52] >> amend and change. But it's not I don't
[48:54] think it's happening.
[48:55] >> Okay.
[48:55] >> I'm not holding my
[48:56] >> Let's be realistic.
[48:59] >> Sounds good to me.
[49:02] >> Okay. Sounds good. Okay. So, one thing
[49:04] about that, we talked about having
[49:06] people go to paperless bills because we
[49:09] pay $20,000 a year by the time we buy
[49:12] the bills and we mail them.
[49:15] So, we thought if people would want to
[49:17] opt in and do paperless, then you know,
[49:19] if they want to have still a paper bill,
[49:21] they would pay a dollar admin fee for
[49:24] the paper bill, which a lot of cities
[49:26] do, which would cover that, but
[49:28] everybody wouldn't have to if they
[49:29] would.
[49:31] >> You want to make it mandatory, just make
[49:32] it available, basically.
[49:33] >> Well, you make I think the idea was make
[49:36] it make it paperless, but you can opt
[49:38] in, but it's going to cost you $1 if you
[49:41] want it m. Yeah, we're going to charge a
[49:43] dollar
[49:45] >> per month to mail it to you.
[49:47] >> So, there's some cities, I just throw
[49:49] this out there, that have gone to
[49:50] billing every other month as well
[49:52] instead of doing it every other month.
[49:58] » Well, we got thinking about because we
[50:00] received new bills and so we were going
[50:02] through them and they aren't the same
[50:03] size and it's just been a disaster. So,
[50:06] now they've had to I guess they came and
[50:07] took the wrong because they weren't cut.
[50:10] I mean, you were really aware of this,
[50:12] Ryan, because then when they printed
[50:13] them, they didn't line up.
[50:15] >> So, I said, "Goodness." And then when I
[50:16] was we were adding up how much we
[50:18] thought for $20,000 a year, would we
[50:21] want to spend that money somewhere else
[50:22] than having that disaster with it? Yeah.
[50:27] And I mean, by doing that, we're
[50:29] definitely not having to increase our
[50:31] fees as much, which mean I'd rather not
[50:33] have a paper get less bill.
[50:37] >> I think you'd also have that initial to
[50:40] mail out a mail to everybody.
[50:41] >> There's food in there. So that's what
[50:44] we're doing.
[50:53] » Yeah,
[50:55] >> that's your included newslet.
[51:04] » Okay, we'll go that route then. Sounds
[51:07] like that's
[51:08] >> where where did we end up? Were we in
[51:10] are we in the positive or were we a
[51:11] little in the hole?
[51:12] >> We are 200 in the which is a we
[51:18] >> So how long are you going to get people
[51:20] to opt
[51:22] out in or out?
[51:25] >> Well, how many bills did they take back?
[51:27] We bought bills for the year
[51:30] >> and so we thought if they give us a
[51:31] credit for the bills, which I don't know
[51:33] that they're going to, but if they'll
[51:35] give us a credit, When we run out of
[51:37] those bills, then we don't keep ordering
[51:39] a whole year's worth.
[51:41] >> So, the ones you got speculatory, how
[51:43] long they last?
[51:45] >> We We bought a year's worth, but
[51:47] probably a half, maybe. How much do you
[51:49] think were wrong that we had to send
[51:51] back?
[51:51] >> Probably half.
[51:52] >> Well, they kind of give you credit for
[51:53] them, don't they? They messed them up.
[51:55] >> They said they'll fix the issue. Either
[51:57] they'll send us new to get us through
[51:59] the year or they'll get us a credit.
[52:01] >> I would think they don't have a lot of
[52:05] Yeah,
[52:07] >> but we it takes quite a bit of time to
[52:08] do them.
[52:09] >> I'm sure there's quite a few people
[52:11] that'll opt in. I mean, my dad don't
[52:13] even have a doesn't text and doesn't
[52:15] have an email. So,
[52:19] >> almost I hate to say punish.
[52:22] What's the better word for punish?
[52:27] » The older generation like your dad
[52:29] because they don't have a computer.
[52:32] >> This guy right here.
[52:34] doesn't do paperless.
[52:36] >> I I do paperless, though.
[52:38] >> Yeah.
[52:39] >> Well, yeah, but you're
[52:40] >> I mean, I guess they're not getting
[52:42] punished. They're just paying for what
[52:44] they're receiving.
[52:45] >> They're receiving a bill and a stamp and
[52:47] whatever's involved there.
[52:49] >> So, would you rather pay a dollar more
[52:51] for your garbage can or would you rather
[52:54] pay a dollar for your paper?
[52:56] >> I would say put in the garbage. That's
[52:58] kind of a hidden fee.
[53:02] » And then go to
[53:06] or do the paper to
[53:10] >> that isn't a bad idea on every other
[53:12] month.
[53:13] >> I know we talked about it when you first
[53:15] got it.
[53:16] >> We can do both 50%
[53:18] >> but if people then they pay every other
[53:20] month and they have higher bills then
[53:22] will we have more delinquent because
[53:24] then instead of getting a $75 bill
[53:27] they're going to get a $150 bill and
[53:29] then they'll say we don't have the money
[53:31] to pay
[53:33] still
[53:34] Yeah, I think they could still have the
[53:36] notifications that their bill like
[53:38] Monica would still upload the bills and
[53:40] it would email them saying your bills
[53:42] here, but we would only pay for them
[53:45] >> every so they'd still get notified.
[53:51] » So, do I mess you guys up when I pay my
[53:53] names all the time?
[53:55] >> No.
[53:55] >> Okay.
[53:56] >> I hear writing a check every month. So I
[53:58] just shoot over two or three hund bucks
[54:00] at a time.
[54:03] >> There's a lot of people that
[54:03] >> pay you paper bill every month because
[54:07] you do.
[54:08] >> Yeah.
[54:09] >> And we have, you know, the auditors have
[54:11] gotten used to it now that we have
[54:13] sometimes have a credit balance.
[54:19] » It just is what it is. We're special.
[54:21] >> I got a better idea.
[54:23] >> Let's do what all the other cities do,
[54:26] >> which is
[54:26] >> combine the water, the irrigation, and
[54:29] the city bill all into one bill. And the
[54:32] garbage and the sewer.
[54:34] >> Well, we could just add uh power into
[54:36] that, too.
[54:37] >> And the power and the gas.
[54:40] >> Dream.
[54:42] >> Your dream. And
[54:45] >> do it.
[54:46] >> I'm just saying every other city is all
[54:48] included in one.
[54:50] >> I wish. But yeah,
[54:51] >> not here.
[54:52] >> Never happened with those two.
[54:55] Yeah,
[54:56] we can drink.
[54:59] >> So, wait.
[55:00] >> I've already asked.
[55:04] » Great idea, Ryan. We love it.
[55:07] >> We'll put you in charge of spearheading
[55:09] that one. Okay.
[55:11] Says bridge, not cross.
[55:13] >> Okay. So, we're all good with that then.
[55:16] And do we want to move ahead or have
[55:18] further discussion with the paper bill?
[55:20] Maybe. Maybe just have further
[55:22] discussion and deciding
[55:26] Yeah, we can move on and then see we can
[55:27] see what we get with the bills too. If
[55:29] we get a credit then that be a good time
[55:31] to change.
[55:31] >> Yeah.
[55:32] >> Just pl
[55:34] that way.
[55:35] >> Okay. Now for
[55:39] this one. Morgan's big side. I love it.
[55:44] Okay. So, this is what we had budgeted
[55:48] this past year. The ones that are
[55:51] highlighted. I don't know if you can see
[55:52] the highlighted on your
[55:54] >> printouts. Um, but those are the ones
[55:56] Jared says are done.
[55:59] >> Um, and then of course we've got fiscal
[56:02] year 27.
[56:04] Um,
[56:06] and we've got to do the BOF filters. It
[56:08] sounds like this million dollar force
[56:12] main along West Haven.
[56:14] Does everybody know what that is? If
[56:16] not, I'll have Jared explain.
[56:20] >> Okay.
[56:22] Yeah. So, historically when we ran the
[56:25] sewer on the east part of town and even
[56:28] Lake View, um the force man comes up and
[56:31] then we dump into West Haven's trunk
[56:34] line and West Haven
[56:37] transports the sewage over to where it
[56:39] goes into Central Weaver. And we at the
[56:43] time years ago agreed on a wheeling fee
[56:45] and a maximum capacity.
[56:50] And over the years, you know, we got to
[56:53] that capacity. I know our previous
[56:56] engineer Tracy
[56:58] uh asked West Havens, previous engineer,
[57:02] Steve, several times, do we need to
[57:04] upgrade this? Do we? And he said, no,
[57:06] there's plenty of capacity. And so on
[57:08] and so forth. Anyway, we're over
[57:10] capacity and now they are leaning
[57:14] towards us getting out of their line and
[57:17] having our own. Um, so these some of the
[57:21] new projects we're considering in East
[57:23] Toer really before we add those
[57:26] connections
[57:28] to that sewer force main, we should have
[57:32] at least a plan. I don't think they're
[57:34] going to give us permission to keep
[57:36] adding connections to that. So we've
[57:40] designed to go put our own force man in
[57:42] from where we dump into
[57:47] West Havens over to 4,000 where we have
[57:50] an existing force man for the vacuum
[57:52] sewer.
[57:54] Now that force man is planned for future
[57:57] capacity of the vacuum but it's way out
[58:01] there you know 20 30 years of build out
[58:03] in those
[58:05] um the force mains operate better if
[58:07] they have more flow um reduces our H2S
[58:11] gases and different problems with sludge
[58:14] buildup. So our plan now is to go over
[58:17] connect at 4,000 and utilize that and
[58:20] then that'll in that 20 30 year period
[58:22] before build out knowing we'll have to
[58:25] build more force main an additional one
[58:27] from 4,000 to Austin Ranch where we dump
[58:31] in to central.
[58:33] >> So what are we paying a um a year now to
[58:37] West Haven
[58:38] >> about 36,000
[58:43] » so it's always capacity issue, not that
[58:46] something was
[58:48] wearing out. Is that See, at first I
[58:51] thought there was a problem with the
[58:52] pipe.
[58:53] >> They've had some problems where they've
[58:55] done some lining and whatnot, but I I
[58:59] it's not full at all. I mean, I think
[59:01] they kind of want their system for them
[59:03] and
[59:04] >> us to do our own thing. But
[59:07] >> basically, we're getting kicked out.
[59:08] >> Well, they said our sewage is causing
[59:10] problems, particularly with their
[59:12] manholes, which they're having to line
[59:15] and there that's quite an expense and
[59:18] we're not paying we we don't help cover
[59:20] any of those expenses. We originally
[59:23] signed on for 300 homes and went up to
[59:26] 600. Now we're we're over 900 homes. I'm
[59:30] not trying to be facitious, but is our
[59:32] sewage more costic than their sewage?
[59:35] >> Ours.
[59:36] >> Okay. I'm just kind of helping with
[59:38] that.
[59:38] >> I know.
[59:40] >> Well, I've heard the argument that it's
[59:42] our back in the system, but it doesn't
[59:44] even go through that line. So, it's
[59:46] >> Yeah,
[59:46] >> I I don't think
[59:49] myself that it's I think it's just a
[59:51] sewer problem, not our problem. But
[59:54] >> it's their line, I guess. It's their
[59:55] line.
[59:57] Yeah.
[1:00:01] So, so how
[1:00:04] I know this is a ways out, but how's the
[1:00:08] freeway project going to affect all
[1:00:10] these lines? I mean, you know what I
[1:00:13] mean? You got the intersection on 4,000.
[1:00:17] You got new pipe in the ground. Then
[1:00:19] they come in and say, "Oh, well, we're
[1:00:20] going to do all this up anyway and put a
[1:00:22] freeway in here or just cover it all up
[1:00:25] and how you get to it after that." Yeah,
[1:00:27] I think they'll rer out. We don't know
[1:00:29] exactly. They're not to that level of
[1:00:32] planning yet. We're still at the
[1:00:35] >> Yeah, here's where we think the road
[1:00:37] will be, but that is going to be a
[1:00:39] challenge. But I think you'll take care
[1:00:41] of that if they're impacted.
[1:00:44] >> That's why I said that is so how much
[1:00:46] skin in the game does Utah do give us
[1:00:50] where they're going to impact it in the
[1:00:52] future anyway?
[1:00:53] >> And I don't know if they will or not.
[1:00:55] They may be on that east side and we
[1:00:58] might be still
[1:01:00] right there.
[1:01:00] >> They don't have the environmental study
[1:01:02] done yet. So, they don't know by
[1:01:04] October. They will. So, then we'll know
[1:01:08] where this where it's going to go. But I
[1:01:10] was just looking at numbers. Back in
[1:01:11] March of 2024, we had 976 homes in
[1:01:17] there. So, I'm assuming we're over a
[1:01:18] thousand homes now.
[1:01:21] >> And we were only supposed to be how many
[1:01:23] to start with?
[1:01:24] >> 300. But then they do an agreement for
[1:01:26] 600, but they never agreed to
[1:01:30] >> thousand. No.
[1:01:35] So I'm Ryan has raised a valid question
[1:01:38] here to me.
[1:01:40] >> Can how will they be patient enough with
[1:01:43] us to bless a little time to see if
[1:01:48] >> they would contribute or something into
[1:01:50] this rather than have to tear ours up
[1:01:52] and put
[1:01:54] >> but the point is if they we tear ours up
[1:01:55] we don't pay you do pays. But yeah, if
[1:01:59] we put new in and they tear up.
[1:02:01] >> Yeah. If we could
[1:02:03] >> just buy a little time. Yeah.
[1:02:05] >> You know, it's like when we were going
[1:02:06] to high school, the 4,800, they'd tear
[1:02:09] it up and repave it and then two years
[1:02:10] later they tear it up and repave it and
[1:02:12] it's like that makes me crazy.
[1:02:17] >> Again,
[1:02:18] >> Oh, thank you.
[1:02:21] » No, I just that you know,
[1:02:23] >> we'll know in October there's not
[1:02:25] funding to fund it clear to 4,000. So if we take Rob Vander with a box of
[1:02:30] donuts or something, would they be a
[1:02:32] little patient with us? And
[1:02:36] » they're not real happy. I can tell you
[1:02:38] right now. And along 51 especially, you
[1:02:41] get over there, what would the address
[1:02:43] be about halfway through the blocks?
[1:02:44] It's it's pretty bad. They get
[1:02:46] complaints all the time for the smell
[1:02:48] from the the manholes. And they're
[1:02:51] replacing I can't remember now how many
[1:02:53] J
[1:02:54] smell when we put the new one in.
[1:02:57] Well, that'll be theirs and it's not us
[1:02:59] and it'll be
[1:03:01] >> I know, but I'm just like we're putting
[1:03:02] a new line down.
[1:03:03] >> Well, we take out a thousand homes. It
[1:03:05] could make a difference.
[1:03:06] >> We won't have any manholes in our
[1:03:08] forest.
[1:03:09] >> Their spell smells different than our
[1:03:14] It's about It's a valid question to ask.
[1:03:16] I just think maybe the timing of SR 177,
[1:03:20] we could be looking at a few years of
[1:03:22] patience. Do we want to I don't know if
[1:03:25] they'd let us add any capacity in those
[1:03:28] few years. So any projects we're
[1:03:30] thinking of really on that whole system
[1:03:33] may be on hold. I'm not saying they are.
[1:03:35] I'm these are considerations. So I'm not
[1:03:40] about calling Mayor Vanderwood and just
[1:03:42] having a chat with him or maybe you
[1:03:43] already have.
[1:03:44] >> I know we can't do any commercial
[1:03:46] development along 5500 and dump into
[1:03:49] here.
[1:03:50] >> Okay. They're just not going to go that
[1:03:51] way.
[1:03:53] Which the interesting thing about that
[1:03:54] is commercial isn't going to generate
[1:03:56] any sewage. Houses generate tons more
[1:03:59] sewage than commercial.
[1:04:07] » I just
[1:04:10] cly I guess that you're still
[1:04:12] considering different funding options
[1:04:14] for some other sewer infrastructure in
[1:04:17] that area. This probably could be added
[1:04:19] to that if you ended up doing one of
[1:04:21] those.
[1:04:22] >> Yeah. that project and make the lift
[1:04:24] station in the forest main one project
[1:04:27] >> which would help a lot. Maybe do you
[1:04:30] care if I jump over to the um
[1:04:32] >> jump?
[1:04:34] >> How high? No,
[1:04:36] >> I wanted to real quick air condition
[1:04:42] that one. So, the air conditioning,
[1:04:44] we're meeting next Wednesday with the
[1:04:46] HVAC engineer. Um, that I kind of
[1:04:51] explained to you when we say that face
[1:04:54] value, people think it's for employees
[1:04:56] to be comfortable and it's it's not. Um,
[1:05:01] we're a little bit more dire on that.
[1:05:03] Now, the north station, uh, the AC unit
[1:05:06] that we do have that's supposedly a
[1:05:09] third of what we need went out. So, we
[1:05:12] got it mandated and repaired,
[1:05:15] >> but the day it went out.
[1:05:17] >> Two days ago, our room temperature in
[1:05:21] there was 93°
[1:05:23] with just the ambient outside being 70.
[1:05:26] When we as the temperature goes up, that
[1:05:29] will cause equipment failure and our
[1:05:31] sewer station will shut itself down. So,
[1:05:34] it's pretty urgent on that.
[1:05:36] >> So, is that the right number still,
[1:05:38] Jared?
[1:05:38] >> I have no idea. We're meeting with Keith
[1:05:40] uh Wednesday.
[1:05:42] >> Okay.
[1:05:43] >> We'll get that nailed down as quick as
[1:05:45] we can. But
[1:05:46] >> is that just for us coming from multiple
[1:05:49] places?
[1:05:50] >> There's three of them.
[1:05:51] >> Okay. I just love that.
[1:05:53] >> Oh, it might exceed that
[1:05:56] >> just for air conditioning.
[1:05:58] >> I mean, we need like I mean, it's huge.
[1:06:01] Like
[1:06:03] they they do it in tons of air
[1:06:05] conditioning and
[1:06:06] >> it's not like your
[1:06:09] I understand that.
[1:06:10] >> But the the problem we kind of have, we
[1:06:12] got the ambient everybody has at your
[1:06:15] house, but then we've got equipment in
[1:06:16] there generating heat.
[1:06:18] >> Well, we added our other vacuum pump.
[1:06:21] Now we've got 25% more heat being
[1:06:24] created. It's like running my tractor
[1:06:26] inside the garage and then you'd have to
[1:06:28] cool the garage or something.
[1:06:30] >> So, we've uh
[1:06:31] >> that's a lot.
[1:06:32] >> Yeah. Well, we we'll know more after
[1:06:34] Wednesday or so, but that's just
[1:06:36] something that's fairly urgent.
[1:06:39] You fairly comfortable with that figure
[1:06:41] being usable or no?
[1:06:45] » Yeah, just a good guess.
[1:06:47] >> So, what I've got right now and please
[1:06:51] think about things and you know, we're
[1:06:53] definitely going to have to have, you
[1:06:55] know, another meeting of course, but
[1:06:58] think about if you know Jared has gone
[1:07:01] through and he said, "This is kind of
[1:07:03] how we're going to have to fix this
[1:07:04] sewer system because we've let it go."
[1:07:07] so long um that it's starting to be a
[1:07:11] problem. So, with this five-year plan
[1:07:15] that we've kind of put together and
[1:07:17] trying to stay on top of things, if I
[1:07:20] take and look at the sewer department,
[1:07:24] um so
[1:07:27] um first off, the central Weber sewer
[1:07:30] district, they are saying probably a 6%
[1:07:34] increase is what we keep hearing.
[1:07:36] Whatever they charge, we turn around and
[1:07:39] charge our residents and then push it
[1:07:42] right back out to them. So the charge
[1:07:46] there matches the fee there that we have
[1:07:49] to pay. So it's in out. We're not making
[1:07:51] money off of that. So the part that I
[1:07:54] look at is this is the one that is, you
[1:07:56] know, helping us to make the repairs and
[1:08:00] do the things that we need to with our
[1:08:01] sewer system. Um,
[1:08:05] so with that being said, um, this is
[1:08:10] what I'm anticipating the sewer charge.
[1:08:14] We do have some impact fee. I'm hoping
[1:08:16] that will go up once we get that impact
[1:08:18] fee study done, but again, we're waiting
[1:08:20] on that. Um, so once the impact fee
[1:08:24] study is done, we might have some more
[1:08:26] revenue there. But with everything
[1:08:30] and plugging in the numbers this year, I
[1:08:34] would anticipate that will be a negative
[1:08:36] 1.7
[1:08:39] if we spend everything that we need to.
[1:08:41] Now, my next question is, okay, what
[1:08:44] cash is going out? Well, we have to
[1:08:46] budget because it's an enterprise fund
[1:08:48] for that depreciation number. So, if I
[1:08:51] take that out, we're looking at a 102 or
[1:08:54] 1.2 to cash flow down.
[1:08:59] So, I came over here and I did this last
[1:09:02] year and uh there it is. I did it again
[1:09:06] this year. So, I said, "Okay, at the end
[1:09:08] of 26, I would anticipate that our fund
[1:09:12] balance is going to be 2.8."
[1:09:15] And if I project that out based upon our
[1:09:18] expenses for this year, we would use it
[1:09:20] down to 1.4.
[1:09:23] Then, in 28 if we do what's planned we
[1:09:27] would be 1.5
[1:09:30] and that's I also account for a 5%
[1:09:34] expense increase which is probably low
[1:09:37] honestly but that's what I account for
[1:09:42] and I go down and run the whole scenario
[1:09:45] and then I came back up and said okay if
[1:09:48] I did a set amount of increase every
[1:09:50] year
[1:09:52] for our bills where would we So this
[1:09:54] year we're at $70.80
[1:09:57] or8
[1:09:58] for our um sewer fee. If we did a 6%
[1:10:04] increase for Hoers or 6.25% for Hopper's
[1:10:07] portion, it would cause that portion of
[1:10:10] the bill to go up to 51.94,
[1:10:14] which I'm like that's pretty close to
[1:10:16] what they're charging. If we did that
[1:10:19] for the next five years, we would still
[1:10:22] be deficit 300 500,000.
[1:10:25] We'd still be using 500,000 fund
[1:10:28] balance. We'd be about 2 million fund
[1:10:31] balance at the end of that.
[1:10:35] So,
[1:10:36] >> what are you comfortable with that $88
[1:10:38] bill? Right.
[1:10:39] >> Yeah. And at the end, you're looking at
[1:10:41] an $88 bill.
[1:10:45] >> Yeah. We've got a system that has a
[1:10:47] problem and I've accounted for, you
[1:10:50] know, the loan payments and everything,
[1:10:52] but I don't see how we fix the system
[1:10:55] and get the repairs that we need done
[1:10:59] without at least a 6% increase every
[1:11:01] year. 6.25.
[1:11:03] >> I don't want to mislead you that all
[1:11:05] those repairs are all we're going to
[1:11:06] need in that time frame. Everything's
[1:11:08] getting older and more hours up.
[1:11:10] >> Yeah,
[1:11:11] >> you're relatively conservative
[1:11:14] >> and we need to budget every year for
[1:11:16] that because that was part of the
[1:11:17] problem before. We never really budgeted
[1:11:19] ahead. So, we need to say, okay, if
[1:11:20] we're going to need a pump, we need to
[1:11:22] be budgeting that every year. So, when
[1:11:24] it comes time for the pump, we have the
[1:11:26] money.
[1:11:26] >> But there's a couple of options. You
[1:11:29] know, if we do end up with
[1:11:31] >> possibly doing a CRA, we could include
[1:11:34] that force main in it. We have written
[1:11:38] you know, this grant, but that really
[1:11:39] can't pay for maintenance. Even our um
[1:11:42] impact fees only pay for new builds.
[1:11:45] That's not
[1:11:45] >> It can pay for enforcement though.
[1:11:48] >> Yeah. Yeah. It could pay for the
[1:11:49] >> if we get that study done, then maybe
[1:11:51] that would be some source of revenue.
[1:11:54] >> But even at that, I think, you know, a
[1:11:56] 6.25% increase is what we're going to
[1:11:59] have to do this year
[1:12:01] >> to even stay on track.
[1:12:04] And then next year, we will more about
[1:12:07] the you know different op other funding
[1:12:10] options but right now I think that's
[1:12:13] where we're sitting.
[1:12:15] >> Does that include a million dollars?
[1:12:19] >> Yeah.
[1:12:19] >> So if you did get some then we would be
[1:12:23] positive 500 at the end of five years as
[1:12:27] opposed to negative
[1:12:28] >> have to increase it as much the next two
[1:12:31] three four five years.
[1:12:32] >> Absolutely. Yeah. And one thing that I
[1:12:35] think general public is would rather
[1:12:37] have is a small increase
[1:12:39] >> every year than a massive one every four
[1:12:42] years.
[1:12:43] >> Exactly. And that was our thought with
[1:12:45] doing this is to see what at the end of
[1:12:48] five years could we do just a steady
[1:12:50] increase small increases instead of a
[1:12:53] >> Yeah. We can always cut it back if we
[1:12:55] don't need it.
[1:12:56] >> Oh yeah. You know we say
[1:12:58] >> if we have a surplus
[1:13:00] >> sweet we'll we'll reduce rates. I don't
[1:13:02] care. But that's probably
[1:13:04] And the sewer district finance committee
[1:13:06] met today actually. So we'll know at our
[1:13:09] next meeting what their exact percentage
[1:13:11] is going up.
[1:13:12] >> Who's who?
[1:13:12] >> The sewer.
[1:13:13] >> Oh.
[1:13:14] >> Yeah.
[1:13:14] >> They told us last year to plan about 6%.
[1:13:17] >> So you'll know exactly after.
[1:13:19] >> Yeah. But then we'll know exactly what's
[1:13:21] going But I mean that none of that we
[1:13:23] don't touch that. We
[1:13:24] >> No, I know. That's just the past.
[1:13:27] >> We yell at, but it's nothing we can do
[1:13:29] about it.
[1:13:29] >> Yep. Nothing we can do about that. And
[1:13:32] unfortunately, we have a system that is
[1:13:34] expensive to maintain and
[1:13:37] >> it is what it is.
[1:13:39] >> And our loan on it is not anywhere near
[1:13:42] being paid off. So
[1:13:44] >> 65.
[1:13:47] >> It's not not a real debate for this
[1:13:50] budgeting, but we could
[1:13:53] look at I mean I think we want to stop
[1:13:56] the bleeding on the vacuum. We could
[1:13:58] look at some areas of that that we could
[1:14:00] possibly serve with future lift stations
[1:14:02] instead of expanding the vacuum. I think
[1:14:06] the infill where we've already got it
[1:14:08] and it's just the infill we're kind of
[1:14:10] stuck with it, but we can see about
[1:14:13] reducing those areas on the outskirts of
[1:14:16] them and putting them in a more
[1:14:18] maintainable type system.
[1:14:23] » So, so are you guys kind of on board
[1:14:26] with my thought that gonna have to look
[1:14:28] at about a six
[1:14:30] >> six and a quarter.
[1:14:32] >> I mean the million bucks is the elephant
[1:14:34] in the room. I think we don't know if
[1:14:36] we're going to get a grant help pay for
[1:14:37] that or if we need to raise all this
[1:14:40] amount now to pay for that now.
[1:14:43] >> I mean it's like it's kind of unknown
[1:14:45] how that's going to be funed right now.
[1:14:47] >> Yeah. So I think right now we kind of
[1:14:49] almost have to fund for the worse. But
[1:14:52] then next year maybe we're only looking
[1:14:53] at a 3% increase. Fantastic. Then let's
[1:14:56] deal with that, you know,
[1:14:59] >> but don't quote me on it.
[1:15:01] >> Yeah. If we get some money back from
[1:15:04] another source so we can reduce it.
[1:15:06] >> Hallelujah.
[1:15:07] >> So So that pays for a trunk line. How
[1:15:10] far down00
[1:15:13] million?
[1:15:14] >> So it just be from 4,000 back to
[1:15:17] Courtney. I call it
[1:15:20] >> where the hump is over.
[1:15:23] So, it's only a little over half mile
[1:15:25] probably.
[1:15:26] >> Probably a quarter mile.
[1:15:28] >> Yeah.
[1:15:32] » And that's like I say that's using
[1:15:34] capacity and something we know we
[1:15:36] already need way out there. So, we will
[1:15:39] longterm have to plan
[1:15:42] >> another. So, West Haven's line goes from
[1:15:45] 4,000. Doesn't it go all the way to 4825
[1:15:48] South?
[1:15:48] >> It goes all the way to Rosen Ranch.
[1:15:50] >> No, going south.
[1:15:53] It it go right there. It kind of curves,
[1:15:55] I think, and goes east along. There's
[1:15:58] like a bluff there.
[1:15:59] >> It follows the bluff.
[1:16:00] >> Mhm.
[1:16:00] >> I think it stays up on that.
[1:16:02] >> So, where does where do their houses
[1:16:03] that is still along 5100 on that side?
[1:16:06] There's like I don't know eight.
[1:16:08] >> Like where does our line start and hook
[1:16:10] into West Havens? Coming from the south
[1:16:13] on 5100 West
[1:16:15] >> coming from this. Where does it start?
[1:16:18] >> Where does it hook into West Haven?
[1:16:19] Right at Courtney's home.
[1:16:22] >> So if we can pull up a mapish.
[1:16:26] >> Yeah.
[1:16:27] Yeah.
[1:16:34] » Where does West Haven's sewage go for
[1:16:38] the houses that are in West Haven on
[1:16:39] that side of the road? Just curiosity.
[1:16:42] >> Same place. It goes into their gravity
[1:16:44] line and goes out to Rosson Ranch and
[1:16:46] where their line actually just turns
[1:16:47] into Central Weavers.
[1:16:49] >> Okay.
[1:16:50] >> And then that's where we tie in our
[1:16:51] other force mains is out there.
[1:16:54] >> So they want us to run one side by side
[1:16:58] to theirs from 4,400 to 4,000.
[1:17:01] >> Yeah.
[1:17:02] >> Which is that
[1:17:06] interesting.
[1:17:09] and they're strongly encouraging we do
[1:17:11] that basically
[1:17:13] >> telling they're telling us to
[1:17:16] >> they're telling us to get out.
[1:17:18] >> Well, I think I think when they
[1:17:19] originally and it was probably Lake View
[1:17:22] subdivision maybe was one of the first
[1:17:24] one anyway. It never was intended. I
[1:17:26] don't think for us to have as many.
[1:17:28] Well, it wasn't.
[1:17:30] >> You go back and look at the agreements
[1:17:31] and it never was.
[1:17:33] >> It kind of depends who you ask. Steve
[1:17:36] Anderson's who designed it. He doesn't
[1:17:38] work there anymore. He told Malcolm and
[1:17:40] I the other day he planned on a th000 ft
[1:17:42] of hooper going into it all the time,
[1:17:44] but it's their line and they don't want
[1:17:47] us in there. So
[1:17:48] >> it's basically 4,300 south is where it
[1:17:51] ties in.
[1:17:52] >> So we would say the 36,000 a year
[1:17:55] >> 36,000. Yeah. That So we said if we
[1:17:57] would have planned ahead and charged
[1:17:59] those, you know,
[1:18:02] 900 homes, if we would have been
[1:18:03] charging them an impact fee of,000, we
[1:18:07] had the money, but we didn't.
[1:18:08] >> You got to study to charge a fee.
[1:18:10] >> Yeah. And the state auditor
[1:18:13] >> I know
[1:18:13] >> I'm betting JUB is getting hit really
[1:18:15] hard with impact fees right now because
[1:18:17] the state auditor has got thumb down on
[1:18:20] those.
[1:18:21] >> You got to have one.
[1:18:22] >> You don't have any control over.
[1:18:24] >> Yeah.
[1:18:25] Awesome. Um so just a little FYI.
[1:18:30] So this was this is our rates last year
[1:18:33] what we increased and then this is what
[1:18:35] we increased this year. So you know with
[1:18:39] the sewer we're looking you know a
[1:18:41] little bit higher increase but not too
[1:18:45] terribly much more. Um and then with
[1:18:49] your garbage we went up $252.
[1:18:53] So now we've kind of done those
[1:18:55] increases. So if you had one garb of
[1:18:58] each garbage can last year you went up
[1:19:00] $10.58. This year you'd go up $11.33.
[1:19:05] So you know go to the grocery store you
[1:19:09] spend that on
[1:19:10] >> inflation has gone up more than what
[1:19:12] we're bumping this. So it's like
[1:19:16] this stuff goes up because everything
[1:19:18] has gone up.
[1:19:19] >> Yeah. Unfortunately, you know people
[1:19:22] with fixed incomes it is hard.
[1:19:24] >> When does it stop?
[1:19:27] And is there justification? That's what
[1:19:28] I asked. They always say it's that much.
[1:19:30] Well,
[1:19:31] >> why
[1:19:32] >> is it just standard now? Everything's a
[1:19:34] CPI of 3%. Well, is it really?
[1:19:37] >> Because gas has gone up, but it had gone
[1:19:39] down. So, we're still not as high as we
[1:19:41] were. But then they still So,
[1:19:44] >> fuel's always been that way, but now
[1:19:46] everything's that way.
[1:19:50] » So, I think that's, you know, where
[1:19:53] we're at with those
[1:19:55] that those fees. Um, so it is 6:45. Do
[1:20:00] we want to look at capital projects for
[1:20:02] the general fund and just kind of
[1:20:04] quickly scan them real brief?
[1:20:07] >> Can we do that?
[1:20:08] >> Yep, we can do that
[1:20:09] >> in 10 minutes.
[1:20:10] >> Uh, we'll do what we can.
[1:20:11] >> There you go.
[1:20:12] >> I can talk real fast. Follow along.
[1:20:15] >> Jump quickly.
[1:20:18] >> So, here's your capital projects. Um, we
[1:20:22] have for this next year coming up, we've
[1:20:25] got a tilt gooseeneck for the parks. Uh,
[1:20:29] bleachers that was supposed to be this
[1:20:32] year. They have ordered them, but they
[1:20:34] will not be until next year. So, we've
[1:20:36] kind of had to shift that. Um, we know
[1:20:38] that's a given. The pickle ball
[1:20:40] sprinklers we've had to shift to next
[1:20:43] year.
[1:20:44] Um the metal building for the trackco
[1:20:48] just basically a metal cover shed so we
[1:20:53] can keep the track in better shape. Um
[1:20:56] the plow truck we have a truck bed that
[1:20:59] the salt has ate through. We need a new
[1:21:01] salt bed um according what Jared said
[1:21:05] and I believe it because they the salt
[1:21:07] does eat. Um, and then we have been told
[1:21:10] that we're going to have an $89,000 fee
[1:21:13] for our irrigation line to be connected
[1:21:16] into the cemetery if we want to water
[1:21:18] our cemetery.
[1:21:20] So, those are the capital projects that
[1:21:22] we know we pretty much are going to
[1:21:24] have.
[1:21:26] Um, which is 433,000.
[1:21:30] And then we've looked at our class C
[1:21:34] roads. Um, we probably need to do this
[1:21:39] 5100
[1:21:40] project that has got postponed till next
[1:21:42] year. And then also the um 5500 south to
[1:21:48] 5100 south on 5500 west is this next
[1:21:54] year as well.
[1:22:01] » Yeah. So, the one the one that goes from
[1:22:04] 5,500 south to the Davis County border
[1:22:08] is probably going to be fiscal year 27.
[1:22:11] I think the one going from 51 south to
[1:22:13] 55 isn't until fiscal year 28. I think
[1:22:17] so.
[1:22:18] >> That's going to be a grant as well.
[1:22:19] >> That's a grant. Yeah. Yeah. We received
[1:22:22] both way money and from regional
[1:22:25] council. I I could look I just barely I
[1:22:28] barely saw that. You're fine. You're
[1:22:30] just fine.
[1:22:32] Okay.
[1:22:34] I did pull up to these numbers.
[1:22:36] So, we did So, these were the grants we
[1:22:38] received that we had applied for. So, we
[1:22:41] did receive full funding for we called
[1:22:44] it an ADA sidewalk. That's the sidewalk
[1:22:46] down at the main park. So, there's
[1:22:49] wheelchair access now if you came in on
[1:22:51] the east that would go to the pavilion,
[1:22:53] to the bathrooms, to the military
[1:22:56] marker, even we're hoping maybe to the
[1:22:57] rodeo grounds. We received 30,000
[1:23:01] for that. Um the total as we wrote the
[1:23:05] grant was 60,158,
[1:23:07] but most of that was our employees doing
[1:23:10] some of the work. So we may have some
[1:23:12] cost in that that we thought could do
[1:23:15] park impact fees. Um and would that be
[1:23:18] those next year?
[1:23:19] >> Yeah, we're hoping we get it done by
[1:23:21] tomato days would be good if we could.
[1:23:23] And then the other grant we received
[1:23:25] full funding for was for the baseball
[1:23:27] softball field upgrade which was 26,430
[1:23:32] which is what we received and that was
[1:23:34] pretty much for the lights to change
[1:23:36] those lights you know the old H hallogen
[1:23:38] to the LED lights. Um we did our portion
[1:23:42] was going to be some labor again and
[1:23:45] some they call it diamond dust. new dirt
[1:23:49] to fill in and that was $15,914
[1:23:53] which also could be park impact fees. We
[1:23:57] didn't get any of the grants for hover
[1:23:59] tomato days. None of our but I did just
[1:24:01] apply we could apply for three easy
[1:24:04] grants. So if we get those those would
[1:24:05] all be for tomato days and that would be
[1:24:07] 10,500 but those were due today. I
[1:24:10] turned them in on Monday. So we don't
[1:24:11] know
[1:24:12] >> what do we spend on tomatoes?
[1:24:14] >> Well, we budget a h 100,000
[1:24:18] but we also budget that much for it to
[1:24:20] bring in as well. The idea of tomato
[1:24:23] days is hopefully that it would pay for
[1:24:25] itself.
[1:24:27] So
[1:24:29] last year I think we figured we had
[1:24:31] about 40,000 above.
[1:24:33] >> Yeah, we would have excess. We usually
[1:24:36] >> but we also had a $50,000 grant.
[1:24:39] >> Yeah. Last year. Yeah. So, we're kind of
[1:24:42] holding that. We're going to I don't
[1:24:45] want to say reserve it, but we're going
[1:24:47] to put it as its own
[1:24:49] >> kind of line item in the fund balance so
[1:24:52] we can track
[1:24:53] that. We're not, you know, going deficit
[1:24:56] with tomato days.
[1:24:58] >> The goal to break even
[1:25:01] up one year, next year we might be down
[1:25:03] a little.
[1:25:04] >> Yeah. Just needs to be covering it.
[1:25:06] >> Yeah. We have great sponsors and we
[1:25:09] don't for a lot of our events and that's
[1:25:12] due to our
[1:25:12] >> sponsor.
[1:25:15] Didn't we get a grant for that as well
[1:25:19] >> parking lot?
[1:25:22] >> Yeah, it was
[1:25:24] um so the bleachers.
[1:25:27] >> Oh yeah, that that should have
[1:25:33] 15,000
[1:25:34] that we got for that. Didn't we was it
[1:25:37] full?
[1:25:38] >> I didn't pull up those numbers. I think
[1:25:40] you're right.
[1:25:44] » We may not plant the grass this year,
[1:25:45] though. If there's no water,
[1:25:47] >> this probably wouldn't be a great year.
[1:25:48] >> Yeah, you know, we were talking is there
[1:25:50] any way to do some more zero scaping or
[1:25:52] I don't know, but more rocks.
[1:25:54] >> Is there something else we can
[1:25:56] >> question, what about putting in
[1:25:57] artificial turf instead of laying grass?
[1:26:00] >> Has anybody researched what that would
[1:26:02] cost? We did uh actually on a sewer
[1:26:05] station. Um it was more money to put in
[1:26:08] obviously you get out of the
[1:26:10] maintenance.
[1:26:11] >> The biggest kind of factor that we
[1:26:13] decided maybe not was the how long it
[1:26:15] lasted.
[1:26:16] >> Okay. And I've had that concern, but I
[1:26:19] just heard a company talk the other day
[1:26:21] that puts it in gives you a 25-year
[1:26:23] guarantee
[1:26:24] >> on artificial turf.
[1:26:25] >> That's what I read too.
[1:26:26] >> If you've got a 25-y year guarantee and
[1:26:28] you don't got to water it, love it,
[1:26:30] maintain it, do anything to it, you can
[1:26:33] You could spend some more on it and you
[1:26:35] would come out way for a hit.
[1:26:37] >> It's a It's a good thing to look at.
[1:26:40] >> The school where Cindy works put in and
[1:26:42] they love it.
[1:26:43] >> Okay. The kids are out there even Well,
[1:26:45] not this year. We had no snow, but when
[1:26:47] there was snow, it was always And the
[1:26:49] kids, you'd see them out there laying on
[1:26:50] it
[1:26:51] >> all the time.
[1:26:51] >> Yeah.
[1:26:52] >> They love it.
[1:26:53] >> And we may have another $89,000
[1:26:56] connection fee for out here. We don't
[1:26:58] know. That's something. It's another
[1:27:00] discussion.
[1:27:01] >> We We got to look into that. Get
[1:27:03] artificial turf because I think that
[1:27:05] might pay for itself in 10 years and you
[1:27:08] wouldn't have to worry about it again.
[1:27:10] >> We need to research that.
[1:27:11] >> Yeah.
[1:27:13] >> No, there is.
[1:27:15] >> We could do some zerocaping in front
[1:27:17] with some rocks if ever we, you know, we
[1:27:19] talked about doing like a small family
[1:27:21] pavilion maybe sometime even a small
[1:27:24] restroom.
[1:27:26] >> And we kind of I think the thought
[1:27:27] process was to put enough turf around it
[1:27:30] to keep the blowing onto the court. But
[1:27:33] >> we had a plan at one time to expand all
[1:27:36] that. So, I wouldn't want to spend tons
[1:27:38] of money if we do plan on expanding and
[1:27:41] then go tear it out.
[1:27:42] >> Expanding the
[1:27:45] courts.
[1:27:46] >> Yeah, the original plan has another
[1:27:48] phase that puts that many more.
[1:27:50] >> Do we need more?
[1:27:52] I mean, they get used when they get
[1:27:54] used, but
[1:27:55] >> maybe when we have more busy people.
[1:27:59] >> Well, and that's a discussion, too. Do
[1:28:00] we do more pickle ball or do we do
[1:28:02] something else? I don't know. Those are
[1:28:05] maybe ask for donations for more pickle
[1:28:08] ball. It's amazing
[1:28:10] people are willing to donate for pickle
[1:28:12] ball.
[1:28:12] >> I just hear so many people that don't
[1:28:14] play pickle ball complaining about
[1:28:15] pickle ball. It's like, yeah, but it
[1:28:17] does get used. You don't either very
[1:28:18] often in the morning.
[1:28:20] >> Do we want to hear him talk about the
[1:28:21] sheriff contract? Hurry in. Just real
[1:28:23] quick,
[1:28:24] >> the sheriff contract.
[1:28:26] >> I I sent this to all of you, didn't I?
[1:28:28] Didn't Did you all receive this on the
[1:28:30] sheriff contract?
[1:28:32] >> We may be having a meeting coming up.
[1:28:34] They haven't decided for sure, but if we
[1:28:36] do, you'll all be invited to go to that.
[1:28:39] We fared fairly well. Some of the other
[1:28:43] cities not so good. So, I I actually
[1:28:48] >> percentage issue we've had for so many
[1:28:50] years. Yeah, we've been I was happy to
[1:28:53] see.
[1:28:54] >> Yeah. So, I I was actually pleasantly
[1:28:56] surprised when they passed this out
[1:28:59] >> at 6040.
[1:29:02] We got less of an increase.
[1:29:03] >> Yeah.
[1:29:04] We ours, in fact, they said, you
[1:29:06] know, that it actually our came in less
[1:29:09] than what they actually build us. And
[1:29:11] so, it really didn't end up being Oh,
[1:29:13] yeah.
[1:29:15] >> less have less crime. It should
[1:29:17] >> less cost.
[1:29:18] >> Yeah. and they take care of less
[1:29:21] animals.
[1:29:22] That's animal control.
[1:29:24] >> So 12%
[1:29:27] and the next lowest was
[1:29:28] >> Huntsville.
[1:29:31] >> And that's it. So we're second for an
[1:29:33] increase. But look at some of them.
[1:29:37] >> Poor West Haven got the hit.
[1:29:40] >> Well,
[1:29:40] >> so did Washington Terrace and they have
[1:29:42] less employees or less residents than we
[1:29:45] do.
[1:29:47] I got three kids that work off of that
[1:29:50] call center in there for law
[1:29:53] enforcement. It's West gets bombed
[1:29:56] >> with calls.
[1:29:58] >> They should be paying for it.
[1:30:02] >> So,
[1:30:03] um, we did have, you know, 50,000
[1:30:06] increase with that and they're
[1:30:08] estimating 50,000 every year going
[1:30:11] forward. So, at least. So, you know,
[1:30:16] >> it's something that we need to think
[1:30:20] about. I'm not saying that we want to um
[1:30:24] jump into anything, but definitely we
[1:30:27] need to start having discussion about
[1:30:29] how that funding is going to be
[1:30:33] funded with that 50,000
[1:30:36] increase every year. Are we
[1:30:40] going to do truth and taxation to fund
[1:30:44] that? How are we going to fund $50,000
[1:30:47] more in police services every year?
[1:30:51] >> You create a new line item for law
[1:30:53] enforcement so people can see where it's
[1:30:55] going.
[1:30:55] >> Where it's going, you know, you create a
[1:30:57] TNT for law.
[1:31:00] >> I agree. I agree.
[1:31:01] >> We've had so many people that think that gets paid for out of the property
[1:31:06] taxes and it doesn't. a whole a whole
[1:31:09] different ball of wax.
[1:31:10] >> Yeah. And I I think the police
[1:31:12] department themselves should just put
[1:31:14] that as a line item, the county should
[1:31:17] charge that.
[1:31:18] >> Speaking there of police department.
[1:31:21] >> But no, but we talked about having a
[1:31:23] small property tax every year that
[1:31:24] rather than it being a huge one that if
[1:31:27] we really did say this small property
[1:31:29] tax sometime we're going to have to bite
[1:31:31] the bullet because we have never had a
[1:31:34] property tax increase. Well, especially
[1:31:36] an expense that large.
[1:31:37] >> Yeah.
[1:31:38] >> Typically, not not saying I'm a pro on
[1:31:41] this, but I have seen it and experience.
[1:31:45] Typically, if you can tie a property tax
[1:31:48] increase to law enforcement or uh fire,
[1:31:51] people are more understanding.
[1:31:54] Um just rough number about 16% increase
[1:31:58] is what we would need to get $50,000
[1:32:00] more that big of an increase because our
[1:32:03] property tax rate is so low.
[1:32:06] Um when I have seen property tax
[1:32:09] increases
[1:32:11] um happen the discussion for next year
[1:32:15] is done now.
[1:32:18] The educating the public is done now.
[1:32:22] The getting the out to the public,
[1:32:25] letting them know this is what causes
[1:32:27] this. This is what we're looking at.
[1:32:29] This is how much you're paying. This is
[1:32:31] how much you're paying for, you know,
[1:32:33] these services. Um, information, information. Get it out.
[1:32:39] You start now for next year. And people
[1:32:43] typically understand more and they're
[1:32:46] educated. And once the public's educated
[1:32:49] on it, it becomes a much easier
[1:32:51] conversation to have. and a much better
[1:32:54] conversation to have. It's less feeling
[1:32:56] oriented. There's still fillings, but
[1:32:58] it's more fact oriented, but my feelings
[1:33:02] have always been if you're going to do
[1:33:05] property tax increase, you start the
[1:33:07] conversation with the public now for
[1:33:10] next year and you start the conversation
[1:33:12] with your council now for next year. So,
[1:33:16] you said 16%. Is that going to be 16% a
[1:33:19] year or we would have to go up 16% to
[1:33:22] cover that increase? 16%
[1:33:26] to generate 50,000 more revenue.
[1:33:29] >> So the percentage would be per year
[1:33:31] because you're dealing with more to
[1:33:33] start with.
[1:33:34] >> Yeah.
[1:33:35] >> But you're so small right now.
[1:33:37] >> You're close. I mean, don't it's not a
[1:33:39] solidified answer yet.
[1:33:41] >> But I'm wondering,
[1:33:42] >> but that gives you an idea. And if you
[1:33:46] understand how property tax works,
[1:33:49] unless you in do truth and taxation,
[1:33:52] every single year, your property tax
[1:33:54] rate actually goes down every year. So
[1:33:57] you have to do truth and taxation to
[1:33:59] even maintain your property tax
[1:34:03] rate.
[1:34:04] >> Well, truth and taxation is you you tell
[1:34:06] the county we need this much money. You
[1:34:08] give them a dollar amount
[1:34:10] >> and they give you what your tax rate is
[1:34:13] going to be and that chang
[1:34:15] based on property values and whatnot.
[1:34:17] And so every year you say, "Well, we're
[1:34:19] going to need this much money." They
[1:34:21] say, "Okay, they'll figure it out and
[1:34:23] come back with a figure."
[1:34:24] >> Yep. Exactly. But right now, because you
[1:34:28] haven't told them you want more, they
[1:34:30] say, "You budgeted or you build for
[1:34:34] 300,000."
[1:34:36] It's not really that much. It's less.
[1:34:38] Truth, you know. Um, but you build for
[1:34:41] 300,000. You only collected 290. Guess
[1:34:44] what? We're only going to build that
[1:34:46] rate for 290 because that's all you
[1:34:47] collected
[1:34:50] minus new growth. You know, I mean, your
[1:34:52] new growth is your only thing that's
[1:34:55] causing you to get more money.
[1:34:57] >> One quick question. Is there any chance
[1:34:59] we can get a grant for the the hookup at
[1:35:02] the cemetery for the water thing that
[1:35:04] we're dealing with?
[1:35:06] >> I we could look I don't I don't know
[1:35:08] where exactly to look for that, but We
[1:35:11] got to talk to somebody about something
[1:35:12] like that.
[1:35:13] >> Okay. Well, thank you, Cammy.
[1:35:14] >> Do we want to talk about next meeting or
[1:35:17] >> Yes, real quick.
[1:35:19] >> So, so real quick. So, the first meeting
[1:35:23] in April is actually during spring break
[1:35:26] and we don't know if we're going to have
[1:35:27] any staff here to even do that meeting
[1:35:30] >> or council people So, we're thinking we
[1:35:33] probably need to cancel that meeting,
[1:35:34] but then we could c we could schedule a
[1:35:37] budget meeting perhaps the next week.
[1:35:40] And then we could still then have our
[1:35:42] regular meeting the third week, city
[1:35:44] council meeting, but maybe sometime
[1:35:46] during that second week have a budget
[1:35:47] meeting.
[1:35:48] >> I'm okay with that.
[1:35:51] >> On the 9th.
[1:35:52] >> Okay.
[1:35:53] >> I'll be I'll be going down to you for a
[1:35:56] training that week. So
[1:35:57] >> on the 9th,
[1:35:58] >> just that whole week, 6 through the
[1:36:00] 10th.
[1:36:02] >> We'll have someone else. Okay. Okay.
[1:36:04] Thank you. Well, then if that's okay,
[1:36:06] we'll just No, we won't have meeting on
[1:36:08] the
[1:36:09] >> I'm going to try and come up with actual
[1:36:11] printouts for you at that and the
[1:36:14] binders like D and some of you have um
[1:36:18] but that keep in mind I'll have draft
[1:36:21] across them. They're very draft but at
[1:36:24] least you'll have some numbers.
[1:36:25] >> We appreciate how you do
[1:36:27] >> trimmed out some of them that we don't
[1:36:29] have yet. You gave us
[1:36:30] >> and that's what I'm hoping with the
[1:36:31] draft and I'll try and get that to you
[1:36:33] sooner than But yeah, we're going up
[1:36:35] here. But I appreciate you being here
[1:36:37] both of you and Rob because then they
[1:36:39] might have questions. So this will be
[1:36:40] great.
[1:36:49] » Thank you for the direction.
[1:36:51] Thank you guys. Thank you.
[1:36:54] >> That helps me.
[1:36:55] >> You are amazing.
[1:36:57] >> Thank you.
[1:36:59] >> You call me.
[1:37:02] you'll come take care of those cows.
[1:37:05] >> Well, I sure appreciate you more than
[1:37:07] you know.
[1:37:09] >> We do it a lot.
[1:37:10] >> So, my husband was very thankful and so
[1:37:13] was I cuz I was in the middle of tax
[1:37:15] appointments and I'm like, I don't have
[1:37:16] time to buy homes.
[1:37:20] I'm like, just shoot the things. I don't
[1:37:21] have time to deal with
[1:37:32] Ryan, thank you for guiding.
[1:37:36] I don't know if you heard me. Thank you.
[1:37:39] >> I know. Right.
[1:37:41] >> They switches.
[1:37:42] >> You're here.
[1:37:44] >> Oh,
[1:37:46] >> there. Does that help?
[1:37:51] » Oh, he's not here. So, we're just
[1:38:08] Thank you for dinner.
[1:39:24] We would like to welcome you to our city
[1:39:26] council meeting for Hipper City. Today
[1:39:29] is Thursday, March 19th.
[1:39:32] We're going to call our meeting to
[1:39:34] order. We're going to have a pledge of
[1:39:35] allegiance by council member Hill and
[1:39:38] then we're going to have a reverence by
[1:39:39] council member Hancock.
[1:39:47] » Will you be with me? Ice
[1:39:50] to the flag of the United States of
[1:39:53] America and to the republic for which it
[1:39:56] stands. One nation under God,
[1:40:00] indivisible, with liberty and justice
[1:40:02] for all.
[1:40:09] » Our Father in heaven, as we come before
[1:40:11] you tonight, we would ask that the
[1:40:12] things that we discuss here this evening
[1:40:14] may be
[1:40:16] discussed thoroughly and with the spirit
[1:40:19] guiding the decisions that are made, if
[1:40:21] any are, and
[1:40:24] that we may do things that will make
[1:40:26] this better place for us to live in,
[1:40:30] better place for our residents to raise
[1:40:32] their children,
[1:40:34] and to maintain an atmosphere as best we
[1:40:37] can for what we enjoy. We thank you for
[1:40:39] the many blessings that was given to us.
[1:40:41] We ask you to continue to watch over,
[1:40:44] guide, and direct not only our city, but
[1:40:46] our country and the events that are
[1:40:48] unfolding worldwide.
[1:40:50] We ask that you
[1:40:52] keep thy hand close to us and guide us
[1:40:55] in the directions we should go. We ask
[1:40:57] these things in the name of Jesus
[1:40:58] Christ. Amen.
[1:41:01] >> Thank you. We want to excuse council
[1:41:04] members Rapalto and Craig who are not
[1:41:06] here with us tonight. So, as far as
[1:41:09] upcoming events, we just remind you to
[1:41:11] look at our monthly newsletter that's on
[1:41:13] our website. We have our Easter egg
[1:41:15] coming up and also the city cleanup. So,
[1:41:17] make sure you look at those events. So,
[1:41:20] first we have public comments. Is there
[1:41:22] anyone here that would like to make a
[1:41:24] public comment?
[1:41:28] Seeing no public comments, we will move
[1:41:30] on then to our first consent item, which
[1:41:32] is approval of the minutes dated March
[1:41:35] 5th, 2026.
[1:41:37] Is there any corrections on those
[1:41:40] minutes?
[1:41:44] Okay. If no one has any corrections, is
[1:41:46] there would like to make a motion to
[1:41:48] approve those.
[1:41:50] >> I'll make a motion
[1:41:51] >> to approve.
[1:41:53] >> Okay. The motion was made by council
[1:41:54] member Hill. Is there a second?
[1:41:57] >> I'll second that motion.
[1:41:59] >> Second was made by council member
[1:42:00] Hancock. Any discussion on the motion?
[1:42:04] All in favor?
[1:42:05] >> I.
[1:42:06] >> Any opposed? Okay. Motion carries. Okay.
[1:42:10] So the first thing we have then as an
[1:42:13] action item is the motion approval of
[1:42:15] our economic development policy. So we
[1:42:18] had already talked about this
[1:42:19] previously. I sent out the redlinined
[1:42:22] version. I didn't hear back from anybody
[1:42:25] with any corrections. We have both of
[1:42:28] our um writers rep and Cody deer here
[1:42:31] with us tonight. So do you have any
[1:42:34] questions on that or if not if we're
[1:42:36] ready to just approve that policy?
[1:42:43] I had a discussion with Brian the other
[1:42:44] day about just how we are potentially,
[1:42:49] you know, how does this tie us in down
[1:42:51] the road like if we adopt CRA and stuff
[1:42:55] from what I read it doesn't bind us to
[1:42:58] do anything in the future just just this
[1:43:01] particular instance if we it's a case by
[1:43:04] case basis correct correct answer this
[1:43:06] is just a framework for In the event
[1:43:09] that you decide that you want to create
[1:43:11] a CRA or you want to create some sort of
[1:43:13] financing incentive, this is the
[1:43:15] framework to help guide that. But you're
[1:43:17] not bound to do it by adopting it.
[1:43:19] >> It's not locking.
[1:43:20] >> Correct.
[1:43:22] >> Y
[1:43:23] >> and so that brings up my question is you
[1:43:26] know if you have a policy kind of
[1:43:33] um you're adopting something that you
[1:43:36] this is your framework to
[1:43:38] future, you know, I mean, I guess what
[1:43:41] I'm saying is I I think at least for
[1:43:45] city and a lot of the surrounding
[1:43:47] communities, this is an unproven
[1:43:50] uh policy with CRAS and TIS. You know,
[1:43:52] just just recently we've got far less
[1:43:55] using one or just applied for one. Um I
[1:43:59] think they're a little bit um unproven
[1:44:02] as far as we were counting goes. I know
[1:44:05] I reached out to Stephanie Russell and
[1:44:07] she sent me um kind of a framework for
[1:44:10] what we county uses and it's very
[1:44:14] conservative. You've probably seen it um
[1:44:17] you know
[1:44:19] very limits um using Cas and Tiff
[1:44:24] commercial development and not
[1:44:26] residential at all. Um it limits um
[1:44:32] the the time frame to 10 years. Um
[1:44:36] limits the the cap on the dollar amount
[1:44:40] and uh the tax increment 50%. And so,
[1:44:44] you know, that's that's quite a bit less
[1:44:47] than what we initially were proposed
[1:44:49] with the project we dealt with last
[1:44:51] year. And so,
[1:44:54] um that being said, I I think as a city,
[1:44:58] we could still use these
[1:45:01] um not policies, these tools, CRAAS and
[1:45:05] TIFFs without creating a polic
[1:45:07] if that makes sense. Like to me, if
[1:45:10] you're creating a policy, that means the
[1:45:12] entire council's agreed with it and
[1:45:14] we're ready to just use these tools, you
[1:45:16] know, today. Um, and I my whole fear is
[1:45:22] that it's an unproven
[1:45:25] tool,
[1:45:27] especially for city. You know, we don't
[1:45:29] know how it's going to work. None of us
[1:45:30] have been down this road before. We
[1:45:32] don't know the successes, the failures,
[1:45:35] all in between. We have no idea, you
[1:45:37] know, to adopt a policy that hasn't been
[1:45:39] proven for me is is iffy. So that that's
[1:45:45] where my pain is is I don't know how
[1:45:49] these tools are going to work. I'm not
[1:45:50] saying I'll never look at them and say,
[1:45:52] "Hey, there's a possibility to use." I'm
[1:45:55] just saying I hate to adopt a policy
[1:45:57] that ties me to it if I don't know how
[1:46:00] that's going to work for me.
[1:46:02] on a project in the future
[1:46:07] to answer that. Okay. So, fair point.
[1:46:10] Um, at least for Hooker, you know, a lot
[1:46:13] of I would say that the CRAAS and tax
[1:46:16] financing in Weber County is used by a
[1:46:20] lot of a lot of cities and some of them
[1:46:22] goes back since the 80s. So, for for a
[1:46:25] municipality,
[1:46:27] tax increment financing is the main tool
[1:46:30] that you would use.
[1:46:32] if needed, right? And it's it's a proven
[1:46:34] tool for sure. The policy and again we
[1:46:37] tried to the goal of the policy isn't to
[1:46:40] tie you into doing anything. It's when
[1:46:43] you're approached by a developer when
[1:46:45] you're approached by a business or an
[1:46:48] entity that wants that needs to create
[1:46:53] tax increment, right? So maybe there's
[1:46:56] different obstacles in the way. So
[1:46:58] there's there's a lot of infrastru
[1:47:00] development that's going to happen in
[1:47:03] commercial development and other things
[1:47:05] that could make it so they can't just
[1:47:08] develop. They need some sort of public
[1:47:10] assistance and that's what this tool is
[1:47:12] made for and not the policy but the CRA
[1:47:15] tool. But what's good about the policy
[1:47:18] is it helps weed out maybe some projects
[1:47:22] that you wouldn't be interested in
[1:47:24] pursuing and it kind of helps guide
[1:47:26] developers where they do want to create
[1:47:29] a that you want to create a PID or
[1:47:32] something. There's a framework in place
[1:47:35] and there's procedures and a process in
[1:47:38] place that would just help you as a a
[1:47:42] body decide if you wanted to create a
[1:47:45] CRA or create a PID. It doesn't force
[1:47:47] you to do that. You still have that
[1:47:51] decision and you would still need to go
[1:47:52] through the different steps to do that.
[1:47:54] This is just more of a a way to kind of
[1:47:58] I would say guard your
[1:48:00] right? It's a way to help
[1:48:03] that initial step, but you still need to
[1:48:05] go through the whole process of of
[1:48:07] vetting projects and deciding if it's
[1:48:09] something that you would want to do. And
[1:48:12] I would say with the county and the
[1:48:14] school districts, they have a lot of
[1:48:16] those policies in place and they are
[1:48:18] more um strict and more stringent than
[1:48:21] the policy that you have in front of
[1:48:22] you. And that's we didn't really want to
[1:48:24] say, hey, you're limited to certain
[1:48:26] amount of years and a certain amount of
[1:48:27] percentage um because on a case by case
[1:48:31] basis, we want to look at those
[1:48:32] individually.
[1:48:34] So, but I get your your perspective of,
[1:48:38] you know, being worried that this will
[1:48:41] bind you as a board, but and as a
[1:48:43] council, but I don't I think we crafted
[1:48:45] it in a way that it should do that.
[1:48:49] And I think it's it's smart to have
[1:48:51] these. I think more cities would be
[1:48:53] good, right? Counties and school
[1:48:55] districts, like I mentioned, those
[1:48:56] taxing entities, they have a lot of
[1:48:58] policies and even a lot of your special
[1:49:00] service districts are having them.
[1:49:02] Cities don't really have them as
[1:49:05] frequent as those ones and I think it's
[1:49:07] a smart policy to have because it just
[1:49:09] protects you as a as a council.
[1:49:16] » Well, I would have that same concern
[1:49:18] that if we approve a policy that we're making a step forward as though
[1:49:24] we're agreeing to all this. And I don't
[1:49:26] know why we couldn't be selective with
[1:49:29] these, you know, whether it's a CRA, a
[1:49:32] P, a TIFF. I don't know why we couldn't
[1:49:34] be selective with those without having a
[1:49:37] policy in place.
[1:49:40] You know, why couldn't we just It just
[1:49:42] seems like a policy is almost setting a
[1:49:45] direction that
[1:49:48] maybe we would want to go. So, in my opinion, I don't think this is
[1:49:57] Hey, we're going to create CRAAS, we're
[1:49:59] going to create PIDs. It's just saying
[1:50:02] in the event that we decide we want to
[1:50:04] do that, right? And we included
[1:50:05] throughout the policy that you as a as a
[1:50:08] council and then if you if it is a CRA,
[1:50:10] a board, you can be selective. It's just
[1:50:14] saying, hey, these are the steps that
[1:50:16] we're going to require if we do decide
[1:50:19] to create a CRA or so. We'll use the
[1:50:23] example that you had, right? when you
[1:50:24] had the developer come in, you're like,
[1:50:26] "Hey, we want to do this." And then they
[1:50:28] gave you a feasibility study. They did
[1:50:31] all this stuff. This is now putting
[1:50:34] steps and tools in place that you as a
[1:50:37] council aren't are in charge of. You
[1:50:40] have control over.
[1:50:46] » So, we had already discussed in council
[1:50:48] before about doing the policy. We have
[1:50:51] already secured this company to do the
[1:50:53] polic. So, are there things in here you
[1:50:55] would like changed differently? Because
[1:50:58] when we discussed this before, we had
[1:51:00] already approved to do a policy and then
[1:51:03] they were have, you know, we're writing
[1:51:05] this up. They sent it to us and we were
[1:51:08] waiting to see if there were some things
[1:51:09] with the legislative session if there
[1:51:11] were things that they built that into
[1:51:14] that. So, this is something that we had
[1:51:16] already decided to do. So, is there
[1:51:18] things in here you would like to see
[1:51:20] them? No, that was the purpose of
[1:51:22] sending out that red line
[1:51:24] copy to you to see. And and it's not
[1:51:29] this doesn't have to be if you don't
[1:51:30] feel quite comfortable with this yet and
[1:51:33] there are things you would like to have
[1:51:34] them change. That's certainly something
[1:51:37] we could do. And like you said, it is
[1:51:39] really a flexible broad, but it is
[1:51:42] really good to have some kind of policy.
[1:51:44] And I know already it's been a
[1:51:46] beneficial even for our city planner as
[1:51:49] we've had developers will say, "Oh, we'd
[1:51:51] be interested in this." That he could
[1:51:53] actually say, "Well, here's a draft form
[1:51:56] of a policy." So, they can see because
[1:51:59] there's if it's not anything the city
[1:52:01] would ever consider, it won't it won't
[1:52:03] ever be in our policy. But again, it
[1:52:05] gives us that flexibility.
[1:52:10] » I I just received um an email from
[1:52:14] Stephanie today. Otherwise, I would have
[1:52:18] prepared to talk about this, but
[1:52:21] she she included some language that I
[1:52:23] think is worth looking at. Um,
[1:52:27] and um,
[1:52:30] I can certainly send it to everybody,
[1:52:32] you know, to look at look at it and see
[1:52:34] if it's even worth incorporating.
[1:52:37] Um, I think now that I've learned more
[1:52:41] about it in these last several weeks, I
[1:52:42] think it's definitely worth uh, putting
[1:52:45] in language that really restricts the
[1:52:49] CRAAS to commercial developments um
[1:52:52] instead of residential because we don't
[1:52:53] want to finance a developer project for
[1:52:55] residential development. Now that's not what a CRA in my mind is
[1:53:01] intended for. Um the other thing I read
[1:53:04] about CRA is that project is going to
[1:53:08] happen no matter what without a CRA or
[1:53:11] without a TIF or a bid and it's not
[1:53:15] invest in that project if they're going
[1:53:17] to build it anyway with private money
[1:53:20] that it's not smart to throw public
[1:53:22] money at it.
[1:53:23] >> And so, um, I think we need to probably
[1:53:26] emphasize that a little bit more as
[1:53:28] well, um, in this policy. I think
[1:53:31] Stephanie has has included language to
[1:53:34] those two things
[1:53:35] >> and that that's addressed in the policy,
[1:53:37] but we're definitely great with revising
[1:53:41] and adding some of that. we do have in
[1:53:43] there that they need to have some sort
[1:53:45] of but for right and again without the
[1:53:48] policy you don't have that in place with
[1:53:50] the policy you do say hey before we
[1:53:53] consider a CRA before you consider a bid
[1:53:56] we need to have above four analysis we
[1:53:58] need to have a feasibility study we need
[1:54:00] to see a cost benefit right and so those
[1:54:03] are in place and I do agree as a city as
[1:54:07] any tax entity you only want to
[1:54:09] participate in these if there is a for a
[1:54:12] true need. So yeah, if you want to add
[1:54:13] more language to that in here, we're
[1:54:16] great. And then the other thing I would
[1:54:17] just say is we do have eligible and
[1:54:21] priority business types in here where we
[1:54:24] prioritize
[1:54:25] businesses
[1:54:27] um agricultural act support or value
[1:54:30] added agricultural uses, light
[1:54:32] industrial and flex space uses,
[1:54:35] employment generating. So we do say
[1:54:36] really hey we want businesses and then
[1:54:38] we say lower priority discourage
[1:54:41] And we do mention housing and things
[1:54:43] there. So we do address that, but we
[1:54:46] could definitely
[1:54:48] >> Yeah. And what we try to do with these
[1:54:49] is we want to keep them we want to make
[1:54:52] sure that we do address those concerns,
[1:54:55] but we also if let's say that there's a
[1:54:58] use right now that maybe you don't want
[1:55:00] and then you say we're not going to
[1:55:02] allow this and then you have someone
[1:55:04] come in and they want to do something
[1:55:06] that you think's great, but now you have
[1:55:08] a policy that says we're not going to do
[1:55:10] it. We don't want to tie your hands in
[1:55:12] any way with this policy. We really just
[1:55:14] want to help you as a council make
[1:55:17] informed decisions that are beneficial
[1:55:20] for the residents and for the city.
[1:55:24] >> Would you feel comfortable, Council
[1:55:25] Member Hill, and tableabling this and
[1:55:27] then working a little bit more on the
[1:55:28] language?
[1:55:31] >> That's what I would suggest. Um, I'll
[1:55:33] just throw one thing out there that she
[1:55:35] included in hers was it's called a
[1:55:40] current allocation scoring system.
[1:55:42] >> I don't know if you've seen that in
[1:55:44] other ones before, but that might be
[1:55:47] beneficial to us as well to create a
[1:55:49] scoring system where we um place more
[1:55:53] emphasis on the things that work as a
[1:55:55] council.
[1:55:56] >> So anyway, I hate to throw this on you
[1:55:58] at the last minute. We already got this
[1:56:00] email today. I apologize, but I think it
[1:56:03] would be worthwhile to send this to
[1:56:06] everybody um even you guys and
[1:56:09] tweaking a little bit.
[1:56:13] >> Yeah. And that's great. So, our team,
[1:56:14] just, you know, I have a great
[1:56:15] relationship with Stephanie. I actually
[1:56:17] helped her draft their policy and I've
[1:56:19] helped Davis County draft theirs and a
[1:56:21] lot of the other entities. So, I'm great
[1:56:23] to even work with her and send her this
[1:56:25] and say, "Hey, what would you think
[1:56:26] could be some good things that we could
[1:56:28] add?"
[1:56:31] » Is everybody okay with that? And and I
[1:56:34] would also like Councilman Craig and to
[1:56:36] take a look at this as well, just all on
[1:56:39] the same page with it. That's okay.
[1:56:43] >> I think they probably reviewed it, but
[1:56:44] we haven't got much input back from yet
[1:56:47] because of the situation. So, but I
[1:56:50] think you pretty well answered my
[1:56:52] questions and you know good where you're
[1:56:54] going but I think maybe
[1:57:00] I'll make a motion to table
[1:57:02] of development policy
[1:57:05] some
[1:57:07] more information.
[1:57:10] >> The motion was made by council member
[1:57:12] Hill. Is there a second?
[1:57:13] >> I'll second.
[1:57:14] >> The second is made by council member
[1:57:16] Fowers. Any discussion on the motion?
[1:57:20] All in favor?
[1:57:21] >> I.
[1:57:22] >> Any opposed?
[1:57:25] Okay, that we'll table that. Okay, so
[1:57:29] the next thing we have is a business
[1:57:32] license.
[1:57:35] Thank you.
[1:57:47] Do you want to first if you want to come
[1:57:50] up? The business license is for the
[1:57:52] watering hole. Do you want to come up?
[1:57:54] We'll turn some time.
[1:57:57] >> Just state your name.
[1:57:59] >> Rachel Larson.
[1:58:01] Um so I have just starting a new
[1:58:06] business and it's called the water and
[1:58:08] hall.
[1:58:09] We've turned a few trailers, horse old
[1:58:12] horse trailers into soda bars and we go
[1:58:15] around to private events, birthdays,
[1:58:18] weddings, anniversaries, retirement
[1:58:20] parties. Um, and so we're just looking
[1:58:25] for a business license so we can get
[1:58:27] this thing off the ground and going.
[1:58:31] >> Is there any questions from the council?
[1:58:34] >> How big is your property? It's a half.
[1:58:39] >> Okay.
[1:58:39] >> And then I also have a friend that um
[1:58:42] lets me trail on her property and it's a
[1:58:46] half acre.
[1:58:48] >> But is it is just curiosity contiguous
[1:58:50] to yours?
[1:58:52] >> I'm sorry. What
[1:58:52] >> is it touch her property or is it close?
[1:58:56] >> It's just Yeah, it's just a block away.
[1:58:58] >> Okay.
[1:59:00] >> But you're not doing the traders from
[1:59:02] your home. You're taking me to a private
[1:59:04] event.
[1:59:06] >> Like Yeah. Like the copper nickel or um
[1:59:09] you know the bed bar. Yeah. Usually we
[1:59:13] don't do it at the house. We just store
[1:59:16] them there.
[1:59:25] » Drinks.
[1:59:26] >> It's drinks.
[1:59:27] >> Yes.
[1:59:31] It was drinks. I saw one of the pictures
[1:59:33] from Copper Nickel that they have set up
[1:59:36] their specialty.
[1:59:49] » We did not a little while ago. We just
[1:59:52] donated everything for um
[1:59:56] a fundraiser.
[1:59:58] a lot of funding for the community.
[2:00:02] » Curiosity, you said a few trailers. How
[2:00:05] many is a few in your estimation?
[2:00:08] >> Two.
[2:00:08] That's pretty.
[2:00:10] >> Yeah, just a few. I have one more, but
[2:00:13] until I get these two like both going a
[2:00:15] lot then,
[2:00:18] you know, but it's a friend's house and
[2:00:20] it needs new tires and everything. I
[2:00:22] mean,
[2:00:24] >> two two is not something I would have
[2:00:27] When you said a few, I was, you know,
[2:00:30] that's pretty general, but yeah, that's
[2:00:33] not a big deal.
[2:00:37] » Any other questions from council or
[2:00:40] Rachel?
[2:00:42] >> So, just to that point, you have a
[2:00:44] halfacre lot. You have two trailers.
[2:00:46] You're able to park those trailers on
[2:00:48] your lot, not on the street. Correct.
[2:00:53] » I'll make the motion to approve the
[2:00:55] business license for
[2:00:59] Okay. The motion was made by council
[2:01:01] member Hill. Is there a second?
[2:01:03] >> I'll second that motion.
[2:01:04] >> Second was made by council member
[2:01:06] Hancock. Any discussion on the motion?
[2:01:10] >> Okay. All in favor?
[2:01:12] >> I.
[2:01:13] >> Any opposed? Okay. Thank you.
[2:01:20] » Okay. That's all we have for our meeting
[2:01:22] tonight. So, with that, we'll have a
[2:01:25] motion to adjurnn.
[2:01:28] >> I'll make a motion to adjurnn.
[2:01:30] >> Second.
[2:01:31] >> Okay. Motion made by council member
[2:01:33] Fowers and seconded by council member H.
[2:01:35] All in favor.
[2:01:38] >> Okay. Thank you. Motion for the night.
[2:01:40] Thank you.